-------
4>EPA Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry - Final
Volume I
(EPA 821 -R-00-020)
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
J. Charles Fox
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Geoffrey H. Grubbs
Director, Office of Science and Technology
Sheila E. Frace
Director, Engineering and Analysis Division
Elwood H. Forsht
Chief, Chemicals and Metals Branch
Jan S. Matuszko
Project Manager
Timothy E. Connor
Project Engineer
William J. Wheeler
Project Economist
Maria D. Smith
Project Statistician
August 2000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
The Agency would like to acknowledge the contributions of Jan Matuszko, Elwood Forsht, Ronald
Jordan, Maria Smith, Richard Witt, Timothy Connor, Ahmar Siddiqui, Hugh Wise, and Beverly
Randolph to development of this technical document. In addition EPA acknowledges the contribution
of Science Applications International Corporation and Westat.
Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors,
or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for any third party's use of, or the results of such use of, any information, apparatus,
product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such a third party would not
infringe on privately owned rights.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume I:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary-1
Es. 1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available(BPT) Executive Summary-2
Es. 2 Best Conventional Poll utant Control Technology
(BCT) Executive Summary-2
Es. 3 Best A vailable Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT) Executive Summary-2
Es.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Executive Summary-3
Es. 5 Pretreatment Standards For Existing Sources
(PSES) Executive Summary-3
Es. 6 Pretreatment Standards For New Sources (PSNS) . . . Executive Summary-3
Chapter 1 BACKGROUND 1-1
1.0 Legal A uthority 1-1
1.1 Legislative Background 1-1
1.1.1 Clean Water Act 1-1
1.1.1.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
(BPT)- Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA 1-1
1.1.1.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) -
Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA 1-2
1.1.1.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) -
Sec. 304(b)(2) of the CWA 1-2
1.1.1.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) - Sec. 306 of the
CWA 1-2
1.1.1.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) - Sec.
307(b) of the CWA 1-3
1.1.1.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) -
Sec. 307(b) of the CWA 1-3
1.1.2 Section 304(m) Requirements and Litigation 1-3
1.1.3 The Land Disposal Restrictions Program: 1-4
1.1.3.1 Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) .. 1-4
1.1.3.2 Overlap Between LDR Standards and the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry Effluent Guidelines 1-5
l
-------
Table of Contents
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1.2 Centralized Waste Treatment Industry Effluent Guideline
Rulemaking History 1-5
1.2.1 January 27, 1995 Proposal 1-5
1.2.2 September 16, 1996 Notice of Data Availability 1-6
1.2.3 January 13, 1999 Supplemental Proposal 1-6
Chapter 2 DATA COLLECTION 2-1
2.1 Preliminary Data Summary 2-1
2.2 Clean WaterAct Section308 Questionnaires 2-2
2.2.1 Development of Questionnaires 2-2
2.2.2 Distribution of Questionnaires 2-3
2.3 Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits 2-3
2.3.1 Pre-1989 Sampling Program 2-3
2.3.2 1989-1997 Site Visits 2-4
2.3.3 Sampling Episodes 2-4
2.3.3.1 Facility Selection 2-4
2.3.3.2 Sampling Episodes 2-5
2.3.3.3 Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling . . 2-11
2.3.3.4 Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling 2-11
2.3.3.5 Organic-Bearing Waste Treatment and Recovery Sampling 2-12
2.3.4 1998 Characterization Sampling of Oil Treatment and Recovery
Facilities 2-12
2.4 Public Comments to the 1995 Proposal, the 1996 Notice of Data
A VAILABILITY, AND THE 1999 SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSAL 2-13
2.5 Additional Data Sources 2-14
2.5.1 Additional Databases 2-14
2.5.2 Laboratory Study on the Effect of Total Dissolved Solids on Metals
Precipitation 2-15
2.6 Public Participation 2-16
Chapter 3 SCOPE/APPLICABILITY OF THE FINAL REGULATION 3-1
3.1 Applicability 3-1
3.1.1 Manufacturing Facilities 3-1
3.1.2 Pipeline Transfers (Fixed Delivery Systems) 3-6
3.1.3 Product Stewardship 3-8
3.1.4 Federally-Owned Facilities 3-10
3.1.5 Marine Generated Wastes 3-11
3.1.6 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) 3-12
3.1. 7 Thermal Drying of POTWBiosolids 3-15
ii
-------
Table of Contents
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
3.1.8 Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners 3-15
3.1.9 Landfill Wastewaters 3-16
3.1.10 Incineration Activities 3-17
3.1.11 Solids, Soils, and Sludges 3-17
3.1.12 Scrap Metal Processors and Auto Salvage Operations 3-18
3.1.13 Transfer Stations 3-18
3.1.14 Stabilization 3-18
3.1.15 Waste, Wastewater, or Used Material Re-use 3-19
3.1.16 Recovery and Recycling Operations 3-19
3.1.17 Silver Recovery Operations from Used Photographic and X-Ray
Materials 3-20
3.1.18 High Temperature Metals Recovery 3-21
3.1.19 Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending 3-22
3.1.20 Re-refining 3-23
3.1.21 Used Oil Filter and Oily Absorbent Recycling 3-23
3.1.22 Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes 3-24
3.1.23 Food Processing Wastes 3-25
3.1.24 Sanitary Wastes and/or Chemical Toilet Wastes 3-25
3.1.25 Treatability, Research and Development, and Analytical Studies . 3-25
Chapter 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY 4-1
4.1 Industry Size 4-1
4.2 General Description 4-1
4.3 Water Use and Sources of Wastewater 4-4
4.4 Volume by Type of Discharge 4-5
4.5 Off-site Treatment Incentives and Comparable Treatment 4-6
Chapter 5 INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION 5-1
5.1 Methodology and Factors Considered as the Basis for
SUBCATEGORIZATION 5-1
5.2 Subcategories 5-2
5.3 Subcategory Descriptions 5-2
5.3.1 Metals Subcategory 5-2
5.3.2 Oils Subcategory 5-3
5.3.3 Organics Subcategory 5-3
5.4 Multiple WasteStream Subcategory 5-4
5.5 Other Regulatory Options Considered for the Oils Subcategory .... 5-5
iii
-------
Table of Contents Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
5.5.1 Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis of Revenue .... 5-5
5.5.2 Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis of Flow 5-6
5.5.3 Consideration of Regulatory Options on the Basis of the RCRA
Classification of the Waste Receipts 5-7
Chapter 6 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR THE CENTRALIZED WASTE
TREATMENT INDUSTRY 6-1
6.1 Methodology 6-1
6.2 Pollutants of Concern for the Metals Subcategory 6-27
6.3 Pollutants of Concern for the Oils Subcategory 6-27
6.4 Pollutants of Concern for the Organlcs Subcategory 6-28
Chapter 7 POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION 7-1
7.1 Treatment Chemicals 7-1
7.2 Non-conventional Bulk Parameters 7-1
7.3 Pollutants Not Detected at Treatable Levels 7-1
7.4 Pollutants Not Treated 7-5
7.5 Volatile Pollutants 7-5
7.6 Pollutants Selected for Pretreatment Standards and
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (Indlrect Dischargers) . . 7-13
7.6.1 Background 7-13
7.6.2 Determination of Percent Removals for Well-Operated POTWs .. 7-13
7.6.3 Methodology for Determining Treatment Technology Percent
Removals 7-20
7.6.4 Pass-Through Analysis Results 7-20
7.6.4.1 Pass-Through Analysis Results for the Metals Subcategory 7-20
7.6.4.2 Pass-Through Analysis Results for the Oils Subcategory . . 7-22
7.6.4.3 Pass-Through Analysis Results for the Organics
Subcategory 7-24
7.7 FlnalLlst of Pollutants Selected for Regulation 7-25
7.7.1 Direct Dischargers 7-25
7.7.2 Indirect Dischargers 7-31
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Chapter 8 WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 8-1
8.1 Technologies Currently in Use 8-1
8.2 Technology Descriptions 8-2
8.2.1 Best Management Practices 8-2
8.2.2 Physical/Chemical/Thermal Treatment 8-3
8.2.2.1 Equalization 8-3
8.2.2.2 Neutralization 8-5
8.2.2.3 Flocculation/Coagulation 8-5
8.2.2.4 Emulsion Breaking 8-8
8.2.2.5 Gravity Assisted Separation 8-10
1. Gra vity Oil/Water Separation 8-10
2. Clarification 8-10
3. Dissoived Air Fiotation 8-13
8.2.2.6 Chromium Reduction 8-15
8.2.2.7 Cyanide Destruction 8-16
8.2.2.8 Chemical Precipitation 8-19
8.2.2.9 Filtration 8-24
1. Sand Fiitration 8-24
2. Muitimedia Fiitration 8-25
3. Piate and Frame Pressure Fiitration 8-26
4. Membrane Fiitration 8-28
A. UlTRAFIITRATION 8-28
B. Reverse Osmosis 8-28
5. Lancy Fiitration 8-30
8.2.2.10 Carbon Adsorption 8-33
8.2.2.11 Ion Exchange 8-35
8.2.2.12 Electrolytic Recovery 8-36
8.2.2.13 Stripping 8-39
1. Air Stripping 8-39
8.2.2.14 Liquid Carbon Dioxide Extraction 8-41
8.2.3 Biological Treatment 8-41
8.2.3.1 Sequencing Batch Reactors 8-43
8.2.3.2 Attached Growth Biological Treatment Systems 8-45
1. Trickiing Fitters 8-45
2. Biotowers 8-47
8.2.3.3 Activated Sludge 8-47
8.2.4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal 8-51
8.2.4.1 Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration 8-52
8.2.4.2 Belt Pressure Filtration 8-54
8.2.4.3 Vacuum Filtration 8-54
8.2.4.4 Filter Cake Disposal 8-57
8.2.5 Zero or Alternate Discharge Treatment Options 8-57
8.3 References 8-59
v
-------
Table of Contents
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Chapter 9 REGULATORY OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND SELECTED FOR
BASIS OF REGULATION 9-1
9.1 Establishment of BPT 9-1
9.1.1 Technological Options Considered as the Basis for the Metals
Subcategory Limitations and Standards 9-2
9.1.1.1 Rationale for the Final Metals Subcategory BPT
Limitations 9-4
9.1.2 Technological Options Considered as the Basis for the Oils
Subcategory Limitations and Standards 9-6
9.1.2.1 Rationale for the Oils Subcategory BPT Limitations 9-8
9.1.3 Technological Options Considered as the Basis for the Organics
Subcategory Limitations and Standards 9-9
9.1.3.1 Rationale for the Organics Subcategory BPT Limitations . 9-10
9.1.4 Rationale for Multiple Wastestream Subcategory BPT Limitations 9-11
9.2 Best Conventional Technology (BCT) 9-12
9.3 Best Available Technology (BAT) 9-12
9.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 9-13
9.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) 9-14
9.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) 9-16
Chapter 10 DATA CONVENTIONS AND CALCULATIONS OF LIMITATIONS
AND STANDARDS 10-1
10.1 Facility Selection 10-1
10.1.1 Selection of Facilities for More than One Option 10-1
10.1.2 Data from a Facility for More than One Time Period 10-2
10.1.3 Data from a Facility for the Same Time Period 10-2
10.1.4 Different Treatment Trains at a Facility 10-3
10.2 Sample Point Selection 10-3
10.2.1 Effluent Sample Point 10-3
10.2.2 Influent Sample Point 10-3
10.2.3 Special Cases 10-3
10.3 Determination of Batch and Continuous Flow Systems 10-4
10.4 Data Selection 10-4
10.4.1 Data Exclusions and Substitutions 10-4
10.4.1.1 Operational Difficulties 10-5
10.4.1.2 Treatment Not Reflective ofBPT/BCT/BAT Treatment ... 10-5
VI
-------
Table of Contents
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
10.4.1.3 Exclusions to EPA Sampling Data Based Upon the
Availability of the Influent and Effluent 10-6
10.4.1.4 More Reliable Results Available 10-6
10.4.1.5 Data from the Facilities Which Accepted Waste from More
than One Subcategory 10-7
10.4.1.6 Data Collected by EPA and the Facility on the Same Day 10-8
10.4.1.7 Substitution Using the Baseline Values 10-8
10.4.1.8 Corrections to the Database and Changes in Data
Selections 10-9
10.4.2 Data Aggregation 10-10
10.4.2.1 Aggregation of Field Duplicates 10-11
10.4.2.2 Aggregation of Grab Samples and Multiple Daily Values 10-12
10.4.2.3 Aggregation of Data Across Streams ("Flow-
Weighting") 10-13
10.4.3 Data Editing Criteria 10-14
10.4.3.1 Long-Term Average Test 10-15
10.4.3.2 Percent Removal Test 10-15
10.4.3.3 Evaluation of Self-Monitoring Data 10-16
10.4.3.4 Examples of Applying Data Editing Criteria 10-17
10.5 Development of Long-term Averages 10-19
10.5.1 Estimation of Facility-Specific Long-Term Averages 10-20
10.5.2 Estimation of Pollutant-Specific Long-Term Averages 10-20
10.5.3 Baseline Values Substituted for Long-Term Averages 10-20
10.6 Development of Variability Factors 10-21
10.6.1 Basic Overview of the Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution . 10-21
10.6.2 Continuous and Discrete Portions of the Modified
Delta-Lognormal Distribution 10-24
10.6.3 Combining the Continuous and Discrete Portions of the Modified
Delta-Lognormal Distribution 10-24
10.6.4 Estimation Under the Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution . . 10-25
10.6.5 Estimation of Facility-Specific Variability Factors 10-27
10.6.5.1 Facility Data Set Requirements 10-27
10.6.5.2 Estimation of Facility-Specific Daily Variability Factors 10-28
10.6.5.3 Estimation of Facility-Specific Monthly Variability
Factors 10-29
10.6.5.4 Evaluation of Facility-Specific Variability Factors .... 10-33
10.6.6 Estimation of Pollutant-Specific Variability Factors 10-33
10.6.7 Cases when Pollutant-Specific Variability Factors Could Not Be
Calculated 10-34
10.6.7.1 Group-Level Variability Factors 10-35
10.6.7.2 Organics Variability Factors 10-35
10.7 Limitations 10-36
10.7.1 Steps Used to Derive Limitations 10-37
10.7.2 Example 10-39
10.8 Transfers of Limitations 10-40
vii
-------
Table of Contents
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
10.8.1 Transfer of Oil and Grease Limitation for Metals Subcategory
from Option 4 to Option 3 10-40
10.8.2 Transfer of Arsenic for Metals Subcategory from Option 1A to
Option 4 10-41
10.8.3 Transfer of Lead for Metals Subcategory from Option 4 to
Option 3 10-41
10.8.4 Transfers of Limitations from Other Rulemakings to CWT
Industry 10-42
10.8.4.1 Transfer of BOD5 and TSS for the Organics Subcategory 10-42
10.8.4.2 Transfer of TSS for Option 4 of the Metals Subcategory . 10-44
10.9 Limitations for the Muitipie Wastestream Subcategory 10-45
10.10 References 10-47
Chapter 11 COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES 11-1
11.1 Costs Deveiopment 11-1
11.1.1 Technology Costs 11-1
11.1.2 Option Costs 11-2
11.1.2.1 Land Requirements and Costs 11-3
11.1.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Costs 11-3
11.2 Physical/Chemical Wastewater Treatment Technology Costs 11-5
11.2.1 Chemical Precipitation 11-5
11.2.1.1 Selective Metals Precipitation - Metals Option 2 and 3 . . 11-5
11.2.1.2 Secondary Precipitation - Metals Option 2 and 3 11-7
11.2.1.3 Tertiary Precipitation andpH Adjustment - Metals
Option 3 11-8
11.2.1.4 Primary Chemical Precipitation - Metals Option 4 ... . 11-10
11.2.1.5 Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation for Metals Option 4 . . 11-12
11.2.2 Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration and Clarification 11-13
11.2.2.1 Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration Following Selective
Metals Precipitation 11-14
11.2.2.2 Clarification for Metals Options 2, 3, and 4 11-14
11.2.3 Equalization 11-17
11.2.4 Air Stripping 11-19
11.2.5 Multi-Media Filtration 11-20
11.2.6 Cyanide Destruction 11-21
11.2.7 Secondary Gravity Separation 11-22
11.2.8 Dissolved Air Flotation 11 -23
11.3 Biological Wastewater Treatment Technology Costs 11-26
11.3.1 Sequencing Batch Reactors 11 -26
11.4 Sludge Treatment and Disposal Costs 11-26
11.4.1 Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration - Sludge Stream 11-27
viii
-------
Table of Contents
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
11.4.2 Filter Cake Disposal 11-29
11.5 Additional Costs 11-30
11.5.1 Retrofit Costs 11-30
11.5.2 Monitoring Costs 11-31
11.5.3 Land Costs 11-32
11.6 References 11-42
11.7 Summary of Cost of Technology Options 11-43
11.7.1 BPT Costs 11-43
11.7.2 BCT/BAT Costs 11-43
11.7.3 PSES Costs 11-43
Chapter 12 POLLUTANT LOADING AND REMOVAL ESTIMATES 12-1
12.1 Introduction 12-1
12.2 Data Sources 12-1
12.3 Methodology Used to Develop Current Loadings Estimates 12-2
12.3.1 Current Loadings Estimates for the Metals Subcategory 12-2
12.3.1.1 Raw Loadings for the Metals Subcategory 12-6
12.3.1.2 Primary Precipitation with Solids-Liquid Separation
Loadings 12-7
12.3.1.3 Secondary Precipitation with Solids-Liquid Separation
Loadings 12-8
12.3.1.4 Technology Basis for the Option 4 Loadings 12-8
12.3.1.5 Selective Metals Precipitation (Option 3) Loadings 12-8
12.3.2 Current Loadings Estimates for the Oils Subcategory 12-9
12.3.2.1 Issues Associated with Oils Current Performance
Analyses 12-13
12.3.2.2 Estimation of Emulsion Breaking/Gravity Separation
loadings 12-22
12.3.3 Organics Subcategory Current Loadings 12-22
12.4 Methodology Used to Estimate Post-compliance Loadings 12-27
12.5 Methodology Used to Estimate Pollutant Removals 12-32
12.6 Pollutant Loadings and Removals 12-32
Chapter 13 NON-WATER QUALITY IMPACTS 13-1
13.1 AirPollution 13-1
13.2 Solid Waste 13-3
IX
-------
Table of Contents
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
13.3 Energy Requirements 13-5
13.4 Labor Requirements 13-5
Chapter 14 IMPLEMENTATION 14-1
14.1 Compiiance Dates 14-1
14.1.1 Existing Direct Dischargers 14-1
14.1.2 Existing Indirect Dischargers 14-1
14.1.1 New Direct or Indirect Dischargers 14-1
14.2 GeneraiAppiicabiiity 14-1
14.3 Appiicabie Waste Streams 14-1
14.4 Subcategory Descriptions 14-2
14.4.1 Metals Subcategory Description 14-3
14.4.2 Oils Subcategory Description 14-3
14.4.3 Organics Subcategory Description 14-3
14.4.4 Multiple Wastestream Subcategory Description 14-4
14.5 Faciiity Subcategorization Identification 14-4
14.6 On-site Generated Wastewater Subcategory Determination 14-8
14.7 Subcategory Determination in EPA Questionnaire Data Base 14-8
14.7.1 Wastes Classified in the Metals Subcategory - Questionnaire
Responses 14-8
14.7.2 Wastes Classified in the Oils Subcategory - Questionnaire
Responses 14-8
14.7.3 Wastes Classified in the Organics Subcategory - Questionnaire
Responses 14-8
14.8 Estabiishing Limitations and Standards for Faciiity Discharges . . . 14-18
14.8.1 Implementation for Facilities in Multiple CWT Subcategories .. 14-18
14.8.1.1 Comply with Limitations or Standards for Subcategory
A, B or C 14-19
14.8.1.2 Comply with Limitations or Standards for Subcategory D 14-20
14.8.1.2.1 EQUIVALENT TREATMENT
DETERMINATION FOR SUBCATEGORY
D 14-22
14.8.2 Implementation for Facilities with Cyanide Subset 14-24
14.8.3 CWT Facilities Also Covered By Another Point Source
Category 14-24
14.8.3.1 Direct Discharging Facilities 14-24
14.8.3.2 Indirect Discharging Facilities 14-26
x
-------
Table of Contents
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
14.8.3.3 Exceptions to Guidance Provided for CWT Facilities
Also Covered By Another Point Source Category 14-28
14.8.3.3.1 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
CLEANING (TEC) 14-28
14.8.3.3.2 LANDFILLS 14-28
Chapter 15 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND BASELINE VALUES 15-1
15.1 Introduction 15-1
15.2 Analytical results 15-1
15.3 Nominal Quantitation Limits 15-2
15.4 Baseline Values 15-3
15.5 Analytical Methods 15-5
15.5.1 Methods 1624, 1625, 1664 (Organics, HEM) 15-5
15.5.2 Method 413.1 (Oil and Grease) 15-5
15.5.3 Method 1620 15-5
15.5.4 Method 85.01 (ChlorinatedPhenolics) 15-6
15.5.5 Methods D4658 and 376.1 (Total Sulfide) 15-7
15.5.6 Methods 410.1, 410.2, and 410.4 (COD andD-COD) 15-7
15.5.7 Method 420.2 (Total Phenols) 15-8
15.5.8 Method218.4 and3500D (Hexavalent Chromium) 15-8
15.5.9 Methods 335.2 (Total Cyanide) 15-8
15.5.10Methods 335.1, 353.2, and353.3 (Nitrate/Nitrite) 15-9
15.5.11 Methods 350.1, 350.2, and350.3 (Ammonia as Nitrogen) 15-9
15.5.12 Remaining Methods 15-9
15.6 Analytical Method Development Efforts 15-9
LIST OF DEFINITIONS List of Definitions-1
LIST OF ACRONYMS List of Acronyms-1
INDEX Index-1
XI
-------
Table of Contents Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Volume TT:
Appendix A POLLUTANT GROUPING Appendix A-l
Appendix B DATA SELECTION Appendix B-l
Appendix C LISTING OF DAILY INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT
MEASUREMENTS Appendix C-l
Appendix D ATTACHMENTS TO CHAPTER 10 Appendix D-l
Appendix E LISTING OF POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN AND CAS
NUMBERS Appendix E-l
Xll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 1
Table 1-1 Technology Basis for 1995 BPT Effluent Limitations 1-6
Table 1-2 Technology Basis for 1999 Supplemental Proposal 1-8
Chapter 2
Table 2-1 Chemical Compounds Analyzed Under EPA Analytical Methods .... 2-7
Chapter 3
Table 3-1 Summary of the Frequency of the Types of Activities and
Dispositions Reported 3-9
Table 3-2 Summary of Frequency of Each Product Class Reported by
Facilities 3-9
Table 3-3 Examples of Regulated and Non-Regulated CWT Operations 3-27
Chapter 4
Table 4-1 Geographic Distribution of CWT Facilities (163-Facilities)-. . . 4-3
Table 4-2 Waste Form Codes Reported by CWT Facilities in 1989 4-3
Table 4-3 RCRA Codes Reported by Facilities in 1989 4-3
Table 4-4 Facility Discharge Options 4-6
Table 4-5 . Quantity of Wastewater Discharged (223 Facilities) 4-6
Chapter 6
Table 6-1 Pollutants of Concern for the Metals Subcategory 6-5
Table 6-2 Pollutants of Concern for the Oils Subcategory 6-7
Table 6-3 Pollutants of Concern for the Organics Subcategory . . . 6-10
Table 6-4 Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Metals
Subcategory 6-12
Table 6-5 Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Oils
Subcategory 6-17
Table 6-6 Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Organics
Subcategory 6-22
Chapter 7
Table 7-1 Pollutants of Concern Not Detected at Treatable Levels 7-4
Table 7-2 Volatile Pollutant Properties By Subcategory . : 7-7
Table 7-3 Non-Regulated Volatile Pollutants by Subcategory and Option 7-12
Table 7-4 CWT Pass-Through Analysis Generic POTW Percent Removals . . 7-17
Table 7-5 Final POTW Percent Removals 7-18
Table 7-6 Final Pass-Through Results For Metals Subcategory Option 4 7-21
Table 7-7 Final Pass-Through Results For Oils Subcategory Options 8 and 9 . . 7-22
List of Tables-1
-------
List of Tables
^evelo^men^Documen^o^^^CWTJPoint^ourc^Cate^oi^
Table 7-8 Final Pass-Through Results For Organics Subcategory Option 4 . . . 7-24
Table 7-9 Pollutants Eliminated Due to Non-Optimal Performance 7-25
Table 7-10 Pollutants Eliminated Since Technology Basis is Not Standard
Method of Treatment ' 7-26
Table 7-11 .Frequency of Detection of n-Paraffins in CWT Oils Subcategory
Wastes . 7-28
Table 7-12 Frequency of Detection of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons in CWT
Oils Subcategory Wastes . 7-29
Table 7-13 Frequency of Detection of Phthalates in CWT Oils Subcategory
Wastes 7-30
Table 7-14 Final List of Regulated Pollutants for Direct Discharging-CW-Ts . . t- 7-31
Table 7-15 Final List of Regulated Pollutants for Indirect Discharging CWT
Facilities 7-33
Chapter 8
Table 8-1 ,
Chapter 10
Table 10-1
Table 10-2
Table 10-3
Table 10-4
Table 10-5
Table 10-6
Table 10-7
Table 10-8
Table 10-9
Table 10-10
Chapter 11
Percent Treatment In-place by Subcategory and by Method of Wastewater
Disposal 8-2
Aggregation of Field Duplicates . 10-12
Aggregation of Grab Samples and Daily Values 10-13
Aggregation of Data Across Streams 10-14-
Metals Subcategory: Long-Term Averages Replaced by the
Baseline Values 10-21
Cases where Pollutant Variability Factors Could Not be
Calculated ' 10-35
Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors Corresponding to
Example for Hypothetical Group X 10-40
BODs and TSS Parameters for Organics Subcategory 10-44
TSS Parameters for Metal Finishing . 10-45
Options Corresponding to Multiple Wastestream Subcategory .... 10-4-5
BPT Limitations for Wastestreams from All Three Subcategories . 10-46
Table 11-1 Standard Capital Cost Algorithm 11-2
Table 11-2 Standard Operation and Maintenance Cost Factor Breakdown . . . . : 11-3
Table 11-3 CWT Treatment Technology Costing Index — A Guide to the
Costing Methodology Sections 11-4
Table 11-4 Cost Equations for Selective Metals Precipitation in Metals
Options 2 and 3 11-6
Table 11-5 Cost Equations for Secondary Chemical Precipitation in Metals
Options 2 and 3 . %..... 11-8
Table 11-6 Cost Equations for Tertiary Chemical Precipitation in Metals
Option3 11-9
Table 11-7 Cost Equations fox Primary Chemical Precipitation in Metals
Option 4 11-12
Table 11-8 Cost Equations for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation for Metals
Option 4 11-13
List of Tables-2
-------
^^^fTsMes^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Develo^men^Documen^^t^h^^WT^oint^ourc^Cate^or^
Table 11-9 Cost Equations for Clarification and Plate and Frame Liquid
Filtration in Metals Option 2,3,4 11-17
Table 11-10 Design Parameters Used for Equalization in CAPDET Program . . 11-18
Table 11-11 Summary of Cost Equations for Equalization • ... 11-19
Table 11-12 Cost Equations for Air Stripping 11-20
Table 11-13 Cost Equations for Multi-Media Filtration 11-21
Table 11-14 Cost Equations for Cyanide Destruction 11-22
Table 11-15 Cost Equations for Secondary Gravity Separation ... 11-23
Table 11-16A Estimate Holding Tank Capacities for DAF Systems 11-24
Table 11-16B Estimate Labor Requirements for DAF Systems 11-24
Table 11-17 Cost Equations for Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) in Oils Options
8 and 9 11-25
Table 11-18 Cost Equations for Sequencing Batch Reactors 11-26
Table 11-19 Cost Equations for Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration in Metals
Options 2, 3 and 4 11-28'
Table 11-20 Cost Equations for Filter Cake Disposal for Metals Options 2 and
3 . , 11-30
Table 11-21 Monitoring Frequency Requirements 11-31
Table 11-22 Analytical Cost Estimates 11^32
Table 11-23 State Land Costs for the CWT Industry Cost Exercise 11-33
Table 11-24 Cost of Implementing BPT Regulations [in 1997 dollars] 11-43
Table 11-25 Cost of Implementing PSES Regulations [in 1997 dollars] . 11-44
Chapter 12
Table 12-1 Metals Subcategory Pollutant-Concentration Profiles for Current
Loadings *. . 12-4
Table 12-2 Example of Metals Subcategory Influent Pollutant Concentration
Calculations 12-7
Table 12-3 , Treatment-in-Place Credit Applied to Oils Facilities 12-13
Table 12-4 Biphasic Sample Calculations (Summary of rules for combining
aqueous/organic phase cones.) 12-15
Table 12-5 Examples of Combining Aqueous and Organic Phases for Sample
32823 . 12-16
Table 12-6A Example of Substitution Methods for Non-Detected Measurements
of Hypothetical Pollutant X 12-18
Table 12-6B Difference in Oils Subcategory Loadings After Non-Detect
Replacement Using EPA Approach 12-19
Table 12-7 Long-Term Average Concentrations For Emulsion Breaking/Gravity
Separation Effluent . 12-20
Table 12-8 Organics Subcategory Baseline Long-Term Averages 12-25
Table 12-9 Long-Term Average Concentrations (ug/L) for All Pollutants of
Concern 12-28
Table 12-10 Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Reductions for the CWT
Metals Subcategory 12-33
Table 12-11 Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Reductions for the CWT Oils
Subcategory Subcategory 12-35
Table 12-12 Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Reductions for the CWT
Organics Subcategory 12-38
Table 12-13 Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Reductions for the Entire CWT
Industry 12-39
List of Tables-3
-------
List of Tables
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Chapter 13
Table 13-1 Projected Air Emissions at CWT Facilities . 13-3
Table 13-2 Projected Incremental Filter Cake Generation at CWT Facilities . . . 13-4
Table 13-3 National Volume of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Waste Sent to
Landfills .... 13-4
Table 13-4 Projected Energy Requirements.for CWT Facilities . ... 13-6
Table 13-5 Projected Labor Requirements for CWT Facilities 13-6
Chapter 14
Table 14-1 Waste Receipt Classification 14-5
Table 14-2 RCRA and Waste Form Codes Reported by Facilities in 1989 .... 14-10
Table 14-3 Waste Form Codes in the Metals Subcategory 14-16
Table 14-4 Waste Form Codes in the Oils Subcategory 14-16
Table 14-5 Waste Form Codes in the Organics Subcategory 14-17
Chapter 15
Table 15-1 Analytical Methods and Baseline Values 15-4
List of Tables-4
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Chapter 6
Figure 6-1 Pollutant of Concern Methodology . . 6-4
Chapter 7
Figure 7-1 Selection of Pollutants That May Be Regulated for Direct Discharges
for Each Subcategory 7-2
Figure 7-2 Selection of Pollutants to be Regulated for Indirect Discharges for
Each Subcategory . 7-3.
Figure 7-3 Determination of Volatile Pollutants for Oils Subcategory .'. 7-6
Chapter 8
Figure 8-1 Equalization System Diagram 8-4
Figure 8-2 Neutralization System Diagram 8-6
Figure 8-3 Clarification System Incorporating Coagulation and Flocculation 8-7
Figure 8-4 Emulsion Breaking System Diagram 8-9
Figure.8-5- Gravity Separation System Diagram . . '8-IT"
Figure 8-6 Clarification System Diagram 8-12
Figure 8-7 Dissolved Air Flotation System-Diagram. 8-14
Figure 8-8 Chromium Reduction System Diagram 8-17
Figure 8-9 Cyanide Destruction by Alkaline Chlorination 8-18
Figure .8-10 Chemical Precipitation System Diagram ;. 8-20
Figure 8-11 Calculated Solubilities of Metal Hydroxides 8-23
Figure 8-12 Multi-Media Filtration System Diagram 8-27
Figure 8-13 Ultrafiltration System Diagram 8-29
Figure 8-14 Reverse Osmosis System Diagram , 8-31
Figure 8-15 Lancy Filtration System Diagram 8-32
Figure 8-16 Carbon Adsorption System Diagram 8-34
Figure 8-17 Ion Exchange System Diagram 8-37
Figure 8-18 Electrolytic Recovery System Diagram 8-38
Figure 8-19 Air Stripping System Diagram 8-40
Figure 8-20 Liquid COz Extraction System Diagram 8-42
Figure 8-21 Sequencing Batch Reactor System Diagram 8-44
Figure 8-22 Trickling Filter System Diagram 8-46
Figure 8-23 Biotower System Diagram 8-48
Figure 8-24 Activated Sludge System Diagram 8-49
Figure 8-25 Plate and Frame Filter Press System Diagram 8-53
Figure 8-26 Belt Pressure Filtration System Diagram . 8-55
Figure 8-27 Vacuum Filtration System Diagram 8-56
Chapter 10
Figure 10-1 Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution 10-23
List of Figures-1
-------
List of Figures
Development Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
Chapter 11
Figure 11-i Metals Option 4 Model Facility Diagram 11-34
Figure 11-2 Treatment Diagram For Oils Option 9 Facility Improvements .... 11-38
Chapter 12
Figure 12-1 Calculation of Current Loadings for Oils Subcategory 12-11
Chapter 14
Figure 14-1 Waste Receipt Subcategory Classification Diagram 14-7
Figure 14-2 Facility Accepting Waste in All Three Subcategories With
Treatment in Each 14-19
Figure 14-3 Facility Accepting Waste in All Three Subcategories With
Treatment in Each and Combined Outfall 14-21
Figure 14-4 Facility Which Accepts Wastes in Multiple Subcategories and
Treats Separately 14-22
Figure 14-5 Categorical Manufacturing Facility Which Also Operates as a
CWT ! " 14-25
Figure 14-6 Facility that Commingles Wastestreams after Treatment - 14-26
Figure 14-7 Template of a CWT Waste Receipt/Acceptance Form 14-29
List of Figures-2
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This technical development document
describes the technical bases for the final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards, and New Source Performance
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment
(CWT) Industry Point Source Category. The
regulation (40 CFR Part 437) establishes
technology-based effluent limitations guidelines
and standards to reduce the discharge of
pollutants into waters of the United States and
into publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
by existing and new facilities that treat or recover
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial waste,
wastewater, or used material from off- site.
Although the numerical effluent limitations and
standards are based on specific processes or
treatment technologies to control pollutant
discharges, EPA does not require dischargers to
use these technologies. Individual facilities may
meet the numerical requirements using whatever
types of treatment technologies, process changes,
and waste management practices they choose.
The regulation controls discharges from the
treatment and recovery of metal-bearing waste
receipts, oily waste receipts, and organic waste
receipts. The wastewater flows covered by the
rule include both off-site and on-site generated
wastewater. This includes materials received
from off-site, solubilization water, used
oil/emulsion breaking wastewater, tanker
truck/drum/roll-off box washes, equipment
washes, air pollution control waters, laboratory-
derived wastewater, wastewater from on-site
industrial waste combustors and landfills, and
contaminated stormwater.
EPA developed different limitations and
standards for the CWT operations depending on
the type of waste received for treatment or
recovery. EPA established four subcategories
for the CWT industry:
Subcategory A: Facilities that treat or
recover metal from metal-bearing waste,
wastewater, or used material received from
off-site ("metals subcategory");
Subcategory B: Facilities that treat or
recover oil from oily waste, wastewater, or
used material received from off-site ("oils
subcategory");
Subcategory C: Facilities that treat or
recover organics from organic waste,
wastewater, or used material received from
off-site ("organics subcategory");
Subcategory D: Facilities that treat or
recover some combination of metal-bearing,
oily, and organic waste, wastewater, or used
material received from off-site ("multiple
wastestream subcategory").
The multiple wastestream subcategory simplifies
implementation of the rule and compliance
monitoring for CWT facilities that treat wastes
subject to more than one of Subcategories A, B,
and C. These facilities may elect to comply with
the provisions of the multiple wastestream
subcategory rather than the applicable provisions
of subcategories A, B, or C. However, these
facilities must certify that an equivalent treatment
system is installed and properly designed,
maintained, and operated.
Executive Summary-1
-------
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
ExecutiveSumma^^^^^^^^^^^^
Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently A vailable
(BPT) Es.l
The technology basis for the metals
treatment and recovery subcategory BPT
limitations is primary chemical precipitation,
liquid-solid separation, secondary chemical
precipitation, clarification, and sand filtration.
For facilities that accept concentrated cyanide,
metal-bearing wastestream, the rule is based on
in-plant cyanide removal prior to metals
treatment. The technology basis for in-plant
cyanide control is alkaline chlorination in a two-
step process.
The technology basis for the oils treatment
and recovery subcategory BPT limitations is
emulsion breaking/gravity separation, secondary
gravity separation and dissolved air flotation.
The technology basis for the organics
treatment and recovery subcategory BPT
limitations is equalization and biological treatment
(sequential batch reactor).
The BPT model technology long-term
averages and effluent limitations for the metals,
oils, and organics subcategories are listed in
Table 1. The model technology long-term
averages should be considered as design and
operating targets - presented for informational
purposes only. They are not effluent limitations
and do not appear in 40 CFR Part 437. The
long-term averages used in developing the
effluent limitations are values that plants should
design and operate to achieve on a consistent
average basis. Plants that do this and maintain
reasonable control over their operating and
treatment system variability should have no
difficulty in meeting the limitations. Plants that
operate above the long-term averages must
achieve good control of their treatment system
variability to meet the limitations.
The BPT limitations for the multiple
wastestream subcategory are subdivided into
four segments. Each segment applies to one of
the possible combinations of the first three
subcategories of wastestreams. The multiple
wastestream subcategory limitations were
derived by combining BPT pollutant limitations
from each possible combination of subcategories
and selecting the most stringent pollutant value
where they overlap1. Therefore, the technology
bases for the multiple wastestream subcategory
limitations reflect the technology basis for each
applicable subcategory as detailed above. These
limits may only apply to those facilities that
accept wastes in multiple subcategories and elect
to comply with the requirements of the multiple
wastestream subcategory.
The BPT multiple wastestream long-term
averages and limitations are listed in Table 2 for
mixtures of:
metal-bearing, oils, and organics waste
receipts,
metal-bearing and oils waste receipts,
metal-bearing and organics waste receipts,
and
oils and organics waste receipts.
Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology (BCT) Es.2
The BCT effluent limitations for the
conventional pollutant parameters (BOD5, O&G,
and TSS) are equivalent to the BPT limitations
listed in Tables 1 and 2 for all subcategories.
Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BA T) Es. 3
The BAT effluent limitations for the priority
and non-conventional pollutants are equivalent to
the BPT limitations listed in Tables 1 and 2 for
all subcategories.
' EPA selected the most stringent maximum
monthly average limitations and its corresponding
maximum daily limitation.
Executive Summary-2
-------
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) Es.4
For the oils and the organics subcategories,
NSPS standards for the conventional, priority,
and non-conventional pollutants are equivalent to
the BPT/BCT/BAT limitations.
For the metals subcategory, NSPS standards
are based on the recovery of metals for reuse
through selective metals chemical precipitation,
liquid-solid separation, secondary chemical
precipitation, liquid-solid separation, and tertiary
chemical precipitation and clarification. For in-
plant cyanide control of concentrated cyanide
wastes, the in-plant technology basis is alkaline
chlorination in a two-step process. The NSPS
long-term averages and standards for the metals,
oils, and organics subcategories are listed in
Table 3.
As was the case for BPT/BCT/BAT, the
NSPS standards for the multiple wastestream
subcategory are subdivided into four segments.
The technology basis for the NSPS standards for
the multiple wastestream subcategory reflect the
technology bases for the applicable
subcategories. The NSPS multiple wastestream
long-term standards are listed in Table 4.
Pretreatment Standards For Existing
Sources (PSES) Es. 5
PSES standards are established for those
BAT pollutants that are determined to pass
through or otherwise interfere with the
operations of publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs). For the metals and organics
subcategories the priority and non-conventional
pollutant PSES standards are based on the same
technology as the BPT/BAT limitations for those
pollutants that pass through POTWs.
For the oils subcategory, the technology
basis for PSES is emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, and dissolved air flotation. The
PSES long-term averages and standards for the
metals, oils, and organics subcategories are listed
in Table 5.
The PSES standards for the multiple
wastestream subcategory are also subdivided into
four segments. The technology basis for
pretreatment standards for the multiple
wastestream subcategory reflect the technology
bases for the applicable subcategories. The
PSES multiple wastestream long-term averages
and standards are listed in Table 6.
Pretreatment Standards For New
Sources (PSNS) Es. 6
For the metals and organics subcategories,
the technology bases for PSNS are equivalent to
PSES. For the oils subcategory, the technology
basis is equivalent to BPT/BAT. The PSNS
long-term averages and standards for those
pollutants that are determined to pass through
POTWs are listed in Table 7 for the metals, oils,
and organics subcategories .
The PSNS standards for the multiple
wastestream subcategory are subdivided into
four segments. The technology bases for the
multiple wastestream subcategory new source
standards reflect the technology bases for the
applicable subcategories. The PSNS multiple
wastestream long-term averages and standards
are listed in Table 8.
Executive Summary-3
-------
Table Executive Summary-1. CWT design targets and BPT limitations by subcategory (mg/L)
Metals - Subcategory A
Oils - Subcategory B
Organics - Subcategory C
CAS
Long-Term
Limitations
Long-Term
Limitations
Long-Term
Limitations
Pollutant Parameters
Registry
Number
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Conventional Parameters *
bod5
C-003
41.0
163.
53.0
Oil & Grease
C-007
34.3
205.
50.2
28.3
127.
38.0
TSS
C-009
16.8
60.0
31.0
25.5
74.1
30.6
45.0
216.
61.3
Metal Analytes
Antimony
7440-36-0
0.170
0.249
0.206
0.103
0.237
0.141
0.569
0.928
0.679
Arsenic
7440-38-2
0.0839
0.162
0.104
0.789
2.95
1.33
Barium
7440-39-3
0.221
0.427
0.281
Cadium
7440-43-9
0.0580
0.474
0.0962
0.00746
0.0172
0.0102
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.67
15.5
3.07
0.183
0.746
0.323
Cobalt
7440-48-4
0.115
0.192
0.124
7.42
56.4
18.8
Copper
7440-50-8
0.744
4.14
1.06
0.157
0.500
0.242
0.704
0.865
0.757
Cyanide (in-plant)
136
500
178
Lead
7439-92-1
0.177
1.32
0.283
0.0986
0.350
0.160
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
0.00309
0.0172
0.00647
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
1.54
3.50
2.09
0.943
1.01
0.965
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.16
3.95
1.45
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.280
1.64
0.408
Silver
7440-22-4
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
Tin
7440-31-5
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.107
0.335
0.165
Titanium
7440-32-6
0.0569
0.0947
0.0618
0.0217
0.0510
0.0299
Vanadium
7440-62-2
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
Zinc
7440-66-6
0.413
2.87
0.641
3.14
8.26
4.50
0.382
0.497
0.420
Organic Analytes
Acetone
67-64-1
2.06
30.2
7.97
Acetophenone
98-86-2
0.0359
0.114
0.0562
Aniline
62-53-3
0.0105
0.0333
0.0164
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
0.0629
0.215
0.101
Butanone
78-93-3
0.878
4.81
1.85
Butylbenzvl phthalate
85-68-7
0.0550
0.188
0.0887
Executive Summary-4
-------
Metals - Subcategory A
Oils
Subcategory B
Organics - Subcategory C
CAS
Long-Term
Limitations
Long-Term
Limitations
Long-Term
Limitations
Pollutant Parameters
Registry
Number
Average
Design
Targets
Monthly
Daily '
Average
Maximum
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Carbazole
86-74-8
0.151
0.598
0.276
o-Cresol
95-48-7
0.185
1.92
0.561
p-Cresol
106-44-5
0.0682
0.698
0.205
n-Decane
124-18-5
0.238
0.948
0.437
2,3-Dichloroani]iiie
608-27-5
0.0230
0.0731
0.0361
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
0.0173
0.0537
0.0268
n-Octadecane
593-45-3
0.203
0.589
0.302
Phenol
108-95-2
0.362
3.65
1.08
Pyridine
110-86-1
0.116
0.370
0.182
2.4.6-T richloroDhenol
88-06-2
0.0858
0.155
0.106
* - The promulgated performance bounds for pH are 6-9 in standard units.
Executive Summary-5
-------
Table Executive Summary-2. CWT design targets and BPT limitations for Subcategory D mixed wastestream combinations (mg/L)
Pollutant Parameters
CAS
Registry
Number
Metals, Oils, Organics (A, B, & C)
Long-Term Limitations
Average
Monthly
Design Daily
Average
Targets Maximum
Maximum
Long-Term Limitations
Average
Monthly
Design Daily
Average
Targets Maximum
Maximum
Metals, Organics (A & C)
Long-Term Limitations
Average
Monthly
Design Daily
Average
Targets Maximum
Maximum
Oils, Organics (B & C)
Long-Term Limitations
Average
Monthly
Design Daily
Average
Targets Maximum
Maximum
CONVENTIONAL PARAMETERS
*
bod5
C-003
41.0
163.
53.0
41.0
163.
53.0
41.0
163.
53.0
Oil & Grease
C-007
28.3
127.
38.0
28.3
127.
38.0
34.3
205.
50.2
28.3
127.
38.0
TSS
C-009
25.5
74.1
30.6
25.5
74.1
30.6
16.8
60.0
31.0
25.5
74.1
30.6
METAL ANALYTES
Antimony
7440-36-0
0.103
0.237
0.141
0.103
0.237
0.141
0.170
0.249
0.206
0.103
0.237
0.141
Arsenic
7440-38-2
0.0839
0.162
0.104
0.0839
0.162
0.104
0.0839
0.162
0.104
0.789
2.95
1.33
Barium
7440-39-3
0.221
0.427
0.281
0.221
0.427
0.281
0.221
0.427
0.281
Cadium
7440-43-9
0.00746
0.0172
0.0102
0.00746
0.0172
0.0102
0.0580
0.474
0.0962
0.00746
0.0172
0.0102
Chromium
7440-47-3
0.183
0.746
0.323
0.183
0.746
0.323
1.67
15.5
3.07
0.183
0.746
0.323
Cobalt
7440-48-4
0.115
0.192
0.124
0.115
0.192
0.124
0.115
0.192
0.124
7.42
56.4
18.8
Copper
7440-50-8
0.157
0.500
0.242
0.157
0.500
0.242
0.704
0.865
0.757
0.157
0.500
0.242
Cyanide (in-plant)
136
500
178
136
500
178
136
500
178
Lead
7439-92-1
0.0986
0.350
0.160
0.0986
0.350
0.160
0.177
1.32
0.283
0.0986
0.350
0.160
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
0.00309
0.0172
0.00647
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
0.943
1.01
0.965
1.54
3.50
2.09
0.943
1.01
0.965
0.943
1.01
0.965
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.16
3.95
1.45
1.16
3.95
1.45
1.16
3.95
1.45
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.280
1.64
0.408
0.280
1.64
0.408
0.280
1.64
0.408
Silver
7440-22-4
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
Tin
7440-31-5
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.107
0.335
0.165
Titanium
7440-32-6
0.0217
0.0510
0.0299
0.0217
0.0510
0.0299
0.0569
0.0947
0.0618
0.0217
0.0510
0.0299
Vanadium
7440-62-2
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
Zinc
7440-66-6
0.382
0.497
0.420
0.413
2.87
0.641
0.382
0.497
0.420
0.382
0.497
0.420
ORGANIC ANALYTES
Acetone
67-64-1
2.06
30.2
7.97
2.06
30.2
7.97
2.06
30.2
7.97
Acetophenone
98-86-2
0.0359
0.114
0.0562
0.0359
0.114
0.0562
0.0359
0.114
0.0562
Aniline
62-53-3
0.0105
0.0333
0.0164
0.0105
0.0333
0.0164
0.0105
0.0333
0.0164
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
0.0629
0.215
0.101
0.0629
0.215
0.101
0.0629
0.215
0.101
Butanone
78-93-3
0.878
4.81
1.85
0.878
4.81
1.85
0.878
4.81
1.85
Butylbenzyl phthalate
85-68-7
0.0550
0.188
0.0887
0.0550
0.188
0.0887
0.0550
0.188
0.0887
Carbazole
86-74-8
0.151
0.598
0.276
0.151
0.598
0.276
0.151
0.598
0.276
o-Cresol
95-48-7
0.185
1.92
0.561
0.185
1.92
0.561
0.185
1.92
0.561
Executive Summary-6
-------
Metals, Oils, Organics (A, B, & C)
Metals, Oils (A
-------
Table Executive Summary-3. CWT design targets and NSPS standards by subcategory (mg/L)
Metals - Subcategory A
Oils - Subcategory B
Organics - Subcategory C
CAS
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Pollutant Parameters
Registry
Number
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Conventional Parameters *
bod5
C-003
41.0
163.
53.0
Oil & Grease
C-007
34.3
205.
50.2
28.3
127.
38.0
TSS
C-009
9.25
29.6
11.3
25.5
74.1
30.6
45.0
216.
61.3
Metal Analytes
Antimony
7440-36-0
0.0213
0.111
0.0312
0.103
0.237
0.141
0.569
0.928
0.679
Arsenic
7440-38-2
0.0112
0.0993
0.0199
0.789
2.95
1.33
Barium
7440-39-3
0.221
0.427
0.281
Cadium
7440-43-9
0.0819
0.782
0.163
0.00746
0.0172
0.0102
Chromium
7440-47-3
0.0398
0.167
0.0522
0.183
0.746
0.323
Cobalt
7440-48-4
0.0574
0.182
0.0703
7.42
56.4
18.8
Copper
7440-50-8
0.169
0.659
0.216
0.157
0.500
0.242
0.704
0.865
0.757
Cyanide (in-plant)
136
500
178
Lead
7439-92-1
0.177
1.32
0.283
0.0986
0.350
0.160
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.000201
0.000641
0.000246
0.00309
0.0172
0.00647
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
1.54
3.50
2.09
0.943
1.01
0.965
Nickel
7440-02-0
0.255
0.794
0.309
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.0563
0.176
0.0698
Silver
7440-22-4
0.0100
0.0318
0.0122
Tin
7440-31-5
0.0300
0.0955
0.0367
0.107
0.335
0.165
Titanium
7440-32-6
0.00500
0.0159
0.00612
0.0217
0.0510
0.0299
Vanadium
7440-62-2
0.0500
0.0628
0.0518
Zinc
7440-66-6
0.206
0.657
0.252
3.14
8.26
4.50
0.382
0.497
0.420
Organic Analytes
Acetone
67-64-1
2.06
30.2
7.97
Acetophenone
98-86-2
0.0359
0.114
0.0562
Aniline
62-53-3
0.0105
0.0333
0.0164
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
0.0629
0.215
0.101
Butanone
78-93-3
0.878
4.81
1.85
Butylbenzvl phthalate
85-68-7
0.0550
0.188
0.0887
Executive Summary-8
-------
Metals - Subcategory A
Oils - Subcategory B
Organics - Subcategory C
CAS
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Pollutant Parameters
Registry
Number
Average
Design
Targets
Monthly
Daily '
Average
Maximum
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Carbazole
86-74-8
0.151
0.598
0.276
o-Cresol
95-48-7
0.185
1.92
0.561
p-Cresol
106-44-5
0.0682
0.698
0.205
n-Decane
124-18-5
0.238
0.948
0.437
2,3-Dichloroani]iiie
608-27-5
0.0230
0.0731
0.0361
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
0.0173
0.0537
0.0268
n-Octadecane
593-45-3
0.203
0.589
0.302
Phenol
108-95-2
0.362
3.65
1.08
Pyridine
110-86-1
0.116
0.370
0.182
2,4,6-T richloronhenol
88-06-2
0.0858
0.155
0.106
* - The promulgated performance bounds for pH are 6-9 in standard units.
Executive Summary-9
-------
Table Executive Summary-4. CWT design targets and NSPS standards for Subcategory D mixed wastestream combinations (mg/L)
Pollutant Parameters
CAS
Registry
Number
Metals, Oils, Organics (A, B, & C)
L°ng" Standards
Term
Average Monthly
Design l)ailv Average
Targets Maximum
Metals, Oils (A & B)
Long-Term Standards
Average
Daily M°ntWy
Maximum
Maximum
Metals, Organics (A & C)
Long-Term Standards
Average
Daily M°"thly
Maximum AWrage
Maximum
Oils, Organics (B & C)
Long-Term Standards
Average
Daily M°"thly
Targete Maximum Awra§e
Maximum
CONVENTIONALS PARAMETERS
*
bod5
C-003
41.0
163.
53.0
41.0
163.
53.0
41.0
163.
53.0
Oil & Grease
C-007
28.3
127.
38.0
28.3
127.
38.0
34.3
205.
50.2
28.3
127.
38.0
TSS
C-009
9.25
29.6
11.3
9.25
29.6
11.3
9.25
29.6
11.3
25.5
74.1
30.6
Metal Analytes
Antimony
7440-36-0
0.0213
0.111
0.0312
0.0213
0.111
0.0312
0.0213
0.111
0.0312
0.103
0.237
0.141
Arsenic
7440-38-2
0.0112
0.0993
0.0199
0.0112
0.0993
0.0199
0.0112
0.0993
0.0199
0.789
2.95
1.33
Barium
7440-39-3
0.221
0.427
0.281
0.221
0.427
0.281
0.221
0.427
0.281
Cadium
7440-43-9
0.00746
0.0172
0.0102
0.00746
0.0172
0.0102
0.0819
0.782
0.163
0.00746
0.0172
0.0102
Chromium
7440-47-3
0.0398
0.167
0.0522
0.0398
0.167
0.0522
0.0398
0.167
0.0522
0.183
0.746
0.323
Cobalt
7440-48-4
0.0574
0.182
0.0703
0.0574
0.182
0.0703
0.0574
0.182
0.0703
7.42
56.4
18.8
Copper
7440-50-8
0.169
0.659
0.216
0.169
0.659
0.216
0.169
0.659
0.216
0.157
0.500
0.242
Cyanide (in-plant)
136
500
178
500
178
500
178
Lead
7439-92-1
0.0986
0.350
0.160
0.0986
0.350
0.160
0.177
1.32
0.283
0.0986
0.350
0.160
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.000201
0.000641
0.000246
0.000201
0.000641
0.000246
0.000201
0.000641
0.000246
0.00309
0.0172
0.00647
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
0.943
1.01
0.965
1.54
3.50
2.09
0.943
1.01
0.965
0.943
1.01
0.965
Nickel
7440-02-0
0.255
0.794
0.309
0.255
0.794
0.309
0.255
0.794
0.309
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.0563
0.176
0.0698
0.0563
0.176
0.0698
0.0563
0.176
0.0698
Silver
7440-22-4
0.0100
0.0318
0.0122
0.0100
0.0318
0.0122
0.0100
0.0318
0.0122
Tin
7440-31-5
0.0300
0.0955
0.0367
0.0300
0.0955
0.0367
0.0300
0.0955
0.0367
0.107
0.335
0.165
Titanium
7440-32-6
0.00500
0.0159
0.00612
0.00500
0.0159
0.00612
0.00500
0.0159
0.00612
0.0217
0.0510
0.0299
Vanadium
7440-62-2
0.0500
0.0628
0.0518
0.0500
0.0628
0.0518
0.0500
0.0628
0.0518
Zinc
7440-66-6
0.206
0.657
0.252
0.206
0.657
0.252
0.206
0.657
0.252
0.382
0.497
0.420
Organic Analytes
Acetone
67-64-1
2.06
30.2
7.97
2.06
30.2
7.97
2.06
30.2
7.97
Acetophenone
98-86-2
0.0359
0.114
0.0562
0.0359
0.114
0.0562
0.0359
0.114
0.0562
Aniline
62-53-3
0.0105
0.0333
0.0164
0.0105
0.0333
0.0164
0.0105
0.0333
0.0164
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
0.0629
0.215
0.101
0.0629
0.215
0.101
0.0629
0.215
0.101
Butanone
78-93-3
0.878
4.81
1.85
0.878
4.81
1.85
0.878
4.81
1.85
Executive Summary-10
-------
Pollutant Parameters
CAS
Registry
Number
Metals, Oils, Organics (A, B, & C)
L°ng" Standards
Term
Average Monthly
Design l)ailv Average
Tnropts Maximum
lar§ets Maximum
Metals, Oils (A & B)
Long-Term Standards
Average
Daily M°ntWy
Targets Maximum Avem§e
Maximum
Metals, Organics (A & C)
Long-Term Standards
Average
Daily MO"thly
Targets Maximum Avem§e
Maximum
Oils, Organics (B & C)
Long-Term Standards
Average
Daily MOI,thlV
Targets Maximum Avem§e
Maximum
Butylbenzyl phthalate
85-68-7
0.0550
0.188
0.0887
0.0550
0.188
0.0887
0.0550
0.188
0.0887
Carbazole
86-74-8
0.151
0.598
0.276
0.151
0.598
0.276
0.151
0.598
0.276
o-Cresol
95-48-7
0.185
1.92
0.561
0.185
1.92
0.561
0.185
1.92
0.561
p-Cresol
106-44-5
0.0682
0.698
0.205
0.0682
0.698
0.205
0.0682
0.698
0.205
n-Decane
124-18-5
0.238
0.948
0.437
0.238
0.948
0.437
0.238
0.948
0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline
608-27-5
0.0230
0.0731
0.0361
0.0230
0.0731
0.0361
0.0230
0.0731
0.0361
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
0.0173
0.0537
0.0268
0.0173
0.0537
0.0268
0.0173
0.0537
0.0268
n-Octadecane
593-45-3
0.203
0.589
0.302
0.203
0.589
0.302
0.203
0.589
0.302
Phenol
108-95-2
0.362
3.65
1.08
0.362
3.65
1.08
0.362
3.65
1.08
Pyridine
110-86-1
0.116
0.370
0.182
0.116
0.370
0.182
0.116
0.370
0.182
2,4,6-T richlorophenol
88-06-2
0.0858
0.155
0.106
0.0858
0.155
0.106
0.0858
0.155
0.106
* - The promulgated performance bounds for pH are 6-9 in standard units.
Executive Summary-11
-------
Table Executive Summary-5. CWT design targets and PSES standards by subcategory (mg/L)
Metals - Subcategory A
Oils - Subcategory B
Organics - Subcategory C
CAS
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Pollutant Parameters
Registry
Number
Average
Design
Targets
Dally
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Monthly
Dally J
Average
Maximum
Maximum
Metal Analytes
Antimony
7440-36-0
0.170
0.249
0.206
0.103
0.237
0.141
Arsenic
7440-38-2
0.0839
0.162
0.104
Barium
7440-39-3
0.221
0.427
0.281
Cadium
7440-43-9
0.0580
0.474
0.0962
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.67
15.5
3.07
0.323
0.947
0.487
Cobalt
7440-48-4
0.115
0.192
0.124
7.42
56.4
18.8
Copper
7440-50-8
0.744
4.14
1.06
0.257
0.405
0.301
Cyanide (in-plant)
136
500
178
Lead
7439-92-1
0.177
1.32
0.283
0.149
0.222
0.172
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
1.54
3.50
2.09
0.943
1.01 0.965
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.16
3.95
1.45
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.280
1.64
0.408
Silver
7440-22-4
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
Tin
7440-31-5
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.107
0.249
0.146
Titanium
7440-32-6
0.0569
0.0947
0.0618
Vanadium
7440-62-2
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
Zinc
7440-66-6
0.413
2.87
0.641
3.45
6.95
4.46
Organic Analytes
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
0.116
0.267
0.158
Carbazole
86-74-8
0.151
0.392
0.233
o-Cresol
95-48-7
0.185
1.92 0.561
p-Cresol
106-44-5
0.0682
0.698 0.205
n-Decane
124-18-5
2.37
5.79
3.31
2,3-Dichloroaniline
608-27-5
0.0230
0.0731 0.0361
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
0.253
0.787
0.393
Executive Summary-12
-------
Metals - Subcategory A
Oils - Subcategory B
Organics - Subcategory C
CAS
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Pollutant Parameters
Registry
Number
Average
Design
Targets
Monthly
Daily J
Average
Maximum
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
n-Octadecane
593-45-3
0.793
1.22
0.925
2,4,6-T richlorophenol
88-06-2
0.0858
0.155
0.106
Executive Summary-13
-------
Table Executive Summary-6. CWT design targets and PSES standards for Subcategory D mixed wastestream combinations (mg/L)
Metals, Oils, Organics (A, B, & C)
Metals, Oils (A & B)
Metals, Organics (A & C)
Oils, Organics (B & C)
CAS
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Pollutant Parameters
Registry
Number
Average
Design
Targets
Dally
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Dally
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Metal Analytes
Antimony
7440-36-0
0.103
0.237
0.141
0.103
0.237
0.141
0.170
0.249
0.206
0.103
0.237
0.141
Arsenic
7440-38-2
0.0839
0.162
0.104
0.0839
0.162
0.104
0.0839
0.162
0.104
Barium
7440-39-3
0.221
0.427
0.281
0.221
0.427
0.281
0.221
0.427
0.281
Cadium
7440-43-9
0.0580
0.474
0.0962
0.0580
0.474
0.0962
0.0580
0.474
0.0962
Chromium
7440-47-3
0.323
0.947
0.487
0.323
0.947
0.487
1.67
15.5
3.07
0.323
0.947
0.487
Cobalt
7440-48-4
0.115
0.192
0.124
0.115
0.192
0.124
0.115
0.192
0.124
7.42
56.4
18.8
Copper
7440-50-8
0.257
0.405
0.301
0.257
0.405
0.301
0.744
4.14
1.06
0.257
0.405
0.301
Cyanide (in-plant)
136
500
178
136
500
178
136
500
178
Lead
7439-92-1
0.149
0.222
0.172
0.149
0.222
0.172
0.177
1.32
0.283
0.149
0.222
0.172
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
0.943
1.01
0.965
1.54
3.50
2.09
0.943
1.01
0.965
0.943
1.01
0.965
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.16
3.95
1.45
1.16
3.95
1.45
1.16
3.95
1.45
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.280
1.64
0.408
0.280
1.64
0.408
0.280
1.64
0.408
Silver
7440-22-4
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
Tin
7440-31-5
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.107
0.249
0.146
Titanium
7440-32-6
0.0569
0.0947
0.0618
0.0569
0.0947
0.0618
0.0569
0.0947
0.0618
Vanadium
7440-62-2
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
Zinc
7440-66-6
0.413
2.87
0.641
0.413
2.87
0.641
0.413
2.87
0.641
3.45
6.95
4.46
Organic Analytes
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate
117-81-7
0.116
0.267
0.158
0.116
0.267
0.158
0.116
0.267
0.158
Carbazole
86-74-8
0.151
0.392
0.233
0.151
0.392
0.233
0.151
0.392
0.233
o-Cresol
95-48-7
0.185
1.92
0.561
0.185
1.92
0.561
0.185
1.92
0.561
p-Cresol
106-44-5
0.0682
0.698
0.205
0.0682
0.698
0.205
0.0682
0.698
0.205
n-Decane
124-18-5
2.37
5.79
3.31
2.37
5.79
3.31
2.37
5.79
3.31
2,3-Dichloroaniline
608-27-5
0.0230
0.0731
0.0361
0.0230
0.0731
0.0361
0.0230
0.0731
0.0361
Executive Summary-14
-------
Pollutant Parameters
CAS
Registry
Number
Metals, Oils, Organics (A, B, & C)
Long-Term Standards
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Design Daily
Targets Maximum
Metals, Oils (A & B)
Long-Term Standards
Average
Design Daily
Targets Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Metals, Organics (A & C)
Long-Term Standards
Design Daily
Targets Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Oils, Organics (B & C)
Long-Term Standards
Design Daily
Targets Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Fluoranthene
n-Octadecane
^^(^^ichlorojiheno^
206-44-0
593-45-3
88-06-2
0.253 0.787 0.393
0.793 1.22 0.925
0.0858 0.155 0.106
0.253 0.787
0.793 1.22
0.393
0.925
0.0858
0.155
0.106
0.253 0.787 0.393
0.793 1.22 0.925
0.0858 0.155 0.106
Executive Summary-15
-------
Table Executive Summary-7. CWT design targets and PSNS standards by subcategory (mg/L)
Metals - Subcategory A
Oils - Subcategory B
Organics - Subcategory C
CAS
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term Standards
Pollutant Parameters
Registry
Number
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
^ . Monthly
Design Daily
Average
Targets Maximum
Maximum
Metal Analytes
Antimony
7440-36-0
0.170
0.249
0.206
0.103
0.237
0.141
Arsenic
7440-38-2
0.0839
0.162
0.104
Barium
7440-39-3
0.221
0.427
0.281
Cadium
7440-43-9
0.0580
0.474
0.0962
Chromium
7440-47-3
1.67
15.5
3.07
0.183
0.746
0.323
Cobalt
7440-48-4
0.115
0.192
0.124
7.42
56.4
18.8
Copper
7440-50-8
0.744
4.14
1.06
0.157
0.500
0.242
Cyanide (in-plant)
136
500
178
Lead
7439-92-1
0.177
1.32
0.283
0.0986
0.350
0.160
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
1.54
3.50
2.09
0.943 1.01 0.965
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.16
3.95
1.45
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.280
1.64
0.408
Silver
7440-22-4
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
Tin
7440-31-5
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.107
0.335
0.165
Titanium
7440-32-6
0.0569
0.0947
0.0618
Vanadium
7440-62-2
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
Zinc
7440-66-6
0.413
2.87
0.641
3.14
8.26
4.50
Organic Analytes
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
117-81-7
0.0629
0.215
0.101
Carbazole
86-74-8
0.151
0.598
0.276
o-Cresol
95-48-7
0.185 1.92 0.561
p-Cresol
106-44-5
0.0682 0.698 0.205
n-Decane
124-18-5
0.238
0.948
0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline
608-27-5
0.0230 0.0731 0.0361
Executive Summary-16
-------
Metals - Subcategory A
Oils - Subcategory B
Organics - Subcategory C
CAS
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Long-Term
Standards
Pollutant Parameters
Registry
Number
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Average
Design
Targets
Daily
Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
0.0173
0.0537
0.0268
n-Octadecane
593-45-3
0.203
0.589
0.302
2,4,6-T richlorophenol
88-06-2
0.0858
0.155
0.106
Executive Summary-17
-------
Table Executive Summary-8. CWT design targets and PSNS standards for Subcategory D mixed wastestream combinations (mg/L)
Pollutant Parameters
CAS
Registry
Number
Metals, Oils, Organics (A, B, & C)
Long-Term Standards
Average
^ . Monthly
Design Daily
Average
Targets Maximum
Maximum
Metals, Oils (A & B)
Long-Term Standards
Average
^ . Monthly
Design Daily
Average
Targets Maximum
Maximum
Metals, Organics (A & C)
Long-Term Standards
Average
^ . Monthly
Design Daily
Average
Targets Maximum
Maximum
Oils, Organics (B & C)
Long-Term Standards
Average
^ . Monthly
Design Daily
Average
Targets Maximum
Maximum
Metal Analytes
Antimony
7440-36-0
0.103
0.237
0.141
0.103
0.237
0.141
0.170
0.249
0.206
0.103
0.237
0.141
Arsenic
7440-38-2
0.0839
0.162
0.104
0.0839
0.162
0.104
0.0839
0.162
0.104
Barium
7440-39-3
0.221
0.427
0.281
0.221
0.427
0.281
0.221
0.427
0.281
Cadium
7440-43-9
0.0580
0.474
0.0962
0.0580
0.474
0.0962
0.0580
0.474
0.0962
Chromium
7440-47-3
0.183
0.746
0.323
0.183
0.746
0.323
1.67
15.5
3.07
0.183
0.746
0.323
Cobalt
7440-48-4
0.115
0.192
0.124
0.115
0.192
0.124
0.115
0.192
0.124
7.42
56.4
18.8
Copper
7440-50-8
0.157
0.500
0.242
0.157
0.500
0.242
0.744
4.14
1.06
0.157
0.500
0.242
Cyanide (in-plant)
136
500
178
136
500
178
136
500
178
Lead
7439-92-1
0.0986
0.350
0.160
0.0986
0.350
0.160
0.177
1.32
0.283
0.0986
0.350
0.160
Mercury
7439-97-6
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
0.000560
0.00234
0.000739
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
0.943
1.01
0.965
1.54
3.50
2.09
0.943
1.01
0.965
0.943
1.01
0.965
Nickel
7440-02-0
1.16
3.95
1.45
1.16
3.95
1.45
1.16
3.95
1.45
Selenium
7782-49-2
0.280
1.64
0.408
0.280
1.64
0.408
0.280
1.64
0.408
Silver
7440-22-4
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
0.0264
0.120
0.0351
Tin
7440-31-5
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.0898
0.409
0.120
0.107
0.335
0.165
Titanium
7440-32-6
0.0569
0.0947
0.0618
0.0569
0.0947
0.0618
0.0569
0.0947
0.0618
Vanadium
7440-62-2
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
0.0500
0.218
0.0662
Zinc
7440-66-6
0.413
2.87
0.641
0.413
2.87
0.641
0.413
2.87
0.641
3.14
8.26
4.50
Organic Analytes
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
117-81-7
0.0629
0.215
0.101
0.0629
0.215
0.101
0.0629
0.215
0.101
Carbazole
86-74-8
0.151
0.598
0.276
0.151
0.598
0.276
0.151
0.598
0.276
o-Cresol
95-48-7
0.185
1.92
0.561
0.185
1.92
0.561
0.185
1.92
0.561
p-Cresol
106-44-5
0.0682
0.698
0.205
0.0682
0.698
0.205
0.0682
0.698
0.205
n-Decane
124-18-5
0.238
0.948
0.437
0.238
0.948
0.437
0.238
0.948
0.437
2,3-Dichloroaniline
608-27-5
0.0230
0.0731
0.0361
0.0230
0.0731
0.0361
0.0230
0.0731
0.0361
Executive Summary-18
-------
Pollutant Parameters
CAS
Registry
Number
Metals, Oils, Organics (A, B, & C)
Long-Term Standards
Average
Design Daily
Targets Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Metals, Oils (A & B)
Long-Term Standards
Average
Design Daily
Targets Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Metals, Organics (A & C)
Long-Term Standards
Average
Design Daily
Targets Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Oils, Organics (B & C)
Long-Term Standards
Design Daily
Targets Maximum
Monthly
Average
Maximum
Fluoranthene 206-44-0
n-Octadecane 593-45-3
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88-06-2
0.0173 0.0537 0.0268
0.203 0.589 0.302
0.0858 0.155 0.106
0.0173 0.0537
0.203 0.589
0.0268
0.302
0.0858
0.155
0.106
0.0173 0.0537 0.0268
0.203 0.589 0.302
0.0858 0.155 0.106
Executive Summary-19
-------
Chapter
1
BACKGROUND
This chapter provides background
information on the development of this final
rule. The first sections detail the legislative
background while the later sections provide
information on the 1995 CWT proposal, 1996
CWT Notice of Data Availability, and the 1999
CWT supplemental proposal.
Legal A uthority 1.0
These regulations are proposed under the
authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308,
402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C.1311,1314,1316, 1317, 1318, 1342,and
1361.
Legislative Background 1.1
Clean Water Act 1.1.1
Congress adopted the Clean Water Act
(CWA) to "restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters" (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)).
To achieve this goal, the CWA prohibits the
discharge of pollutants into navigable waters
except in compliance with the statute. The Clean
Water Act confronts the problem of water
pollution on a number of different fronts. Its
primary reliance, however, is on establishing
restrictions on the types and amounts of
pollutants discharged from various industrial,
commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only
those sources that discharge effluent directly into
the nation's waters would not be sufficient to
achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the
CWA requires EPA to promulgate nationally
applicable pretreatment standards which restrict
pollutant discharges for those who discharge
wastewater indirectly through sewers flowing to
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs)
(Section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) &
(c)). National pretreatment standards are
established for those pollutants in wastewater
from indirect dischargers which may pass
through or interfere with POTW operations.
Generally, pretreatment standards are designed
to ensure that wastewater from direct and
indirect industrial dischargers are subject to
similar levels of treatment. In addition, POTWs
are required to implement local treatment limits
applicable to their industrial indirect dischargers
to satisfy any local requirements (40 CFR
403.5).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent
limitations in National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES") permits; indirect
dischargers must comply with pretreatment
standards. These limitations and standards are
established by regulation for categories of
industrial dischargers and are based on the
degree of control that can be achieved using
various levels of pollution control technology.
Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT) —
Sec 304(b)(1) of the CWA 1.1.1.1
In the guidelines, EPA defines BPT effluent
limits for conventional, priority,1 and non-
1 In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA
efforts emphasized the achievement of BPT
limitations for control of the "classical" pollutants
(for example, TSS, pH, BOD5). However, nothing
on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT
limitation to such pollutants. Following passage of
the Clean Water Act of 1977 with its requirement
for points sources to achieve best available
1-1
-------
Chagte^^ackgromid
Develo^men^ocumen^jm^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
conventional pollutants. In specifying BPT,
EPA looks at a number of factors. EPA first
considers the cost of achieving effluent
reductions in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits. The Agency also considers: the age of
the equipment and facilities, the processes
employed and any required process changes,
engineering aspects of the control technologies,
non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements), and such other
factors as the Agency deems appropriate (CWA
304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes
BPT effluent limitations based on the average of
the best performances of facilities within the
industry of various ages, sizes, processes or
other common characteristics. Where, however,
existing performance is uniformly inadequate,
EPA may require higher levels of control than
currently in place in an industrial category if the
Agency determines that the technology can be
practically applied.
Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT) — Sec. 304(b)(4)
of the CWA 1.1.1.2
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required
EPA to identify effluent reduction levels for
conventional pollutants associated with BCT
technology for discharges from existing industrial
point sources. In addition to other factors
specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA
requires that EPA establish BCT limitations after
consideration of a two part "cost-reasonableness"
test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51
FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as
conventional pollutants: biochemical oxygen
(continued on next page)
technology limitations to control discharges of
toxic pollutants, EPA shifted the focus of the
guidelines program to address the listed priority
pollutants. BPT guidelines continue to include
limitations to address all pollutants.
demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS),
fecal coliform, pH, and any additional pollutants
defined by the Administrator as conventional.
The Administrator designated oil and grease as
an additional conventional pollutant on July 30,
1979 (44 FR 44501).
Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT) —
Sec. 304(b)(2) of the CWA 1.1.1.3
In general, BAT effluent limitations
guidelines represent the best economically
achievable performance of plants in the industrial
subcategory or category. The factors considered
in assessing BAT include the cost of achieving
BAT effluent reductions, the age of equipment
and facilities involved, the process employed,
potential process changes, and non-water quality
environmental impacts, including energy
requirements. The Agency retains considerable
discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded
these factors. Unlike BPT limitations, BAT
limitations may be based on effluent reductions
attainable through changes in a facility's
processes and operations. As with BPT, where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate,
BAT may require a higher level of performance
than is currently being achieved based on
technology transferred from a different
subcategory or category. BAT may be based
upon process changes or internal controls, even
when these technologies are not common
industry practice.
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) - Sec. 306 of the CWA 1.1.1.4
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are
achievable based on the best available
demonstrated control technology. New facilities
have the opportunity to install the best and most
efficient production processes and wastewater
treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS
should represent the most stringent controls
attainable through the application of the best
1-2
-------
Chagte^^ackgromid
Develo^men^ocumen^jm^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
available control technology for all pollutants
(that is, conventional, nonconventional, and
priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA
is directed to take into consideration the cost of
achieving the effluent reduction and any non-
water quality environmental impacts and energy
requirements.
Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources(PSES) — Sec. 307(b) of the
CWA 1.1.1.5
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge
of pollutants that pass-through, interfere-with, or
are otherwise incompatible with the operation of
publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). The
CWA authorizes EPA to establish pretreatment
standards for pollutants that pass-through
POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or
sludge disposal methods at POTWs.
Pretreatment standards are technology-based and
analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations,
which set forth the framework for the
implementation of categorical pretreatment
standards, are found at 40 CFR Part 403. Those
regulations contain a definition of pass-through
that addresses localized rather than national
instances of pass-through and establish
pretreatment standards that apply to all
non-domestic dischargers. See 52 FR 1586,
January 14, 1987.
Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS) — Sec. 307(b) of
the CWA 1.1.1.6
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent
the discharges of pollutants that pass-through,
interfere-with, or are otherwise incompatible with
the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued
at the same time as NSPS. New indirect
dischargers have the opportunity to incorporate
into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same
factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in
promulgating NSPS.
Section 304(m) Requirements and
Litigation 1.1.2
Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the
Water Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to
establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising
existing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards ("effluent guidelines") and (2)
promulgating new effluent guidelines. On
January 2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent
Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that established
schedules for developing new and revised
effluent guidelines for several industry categories.
One of the industries for which the Agency
established a schedule was the Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry.
The Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) and Public Citizen, Inc. filed suit
against the Agency, alleging violation of Section
304(m) and other statutory authorities requiring
promulgation of effluent guidelines (NRDC et
al. v. Browner. Civ. No. 89-2980 (D.D.C.)).
Under the terms of a consent decree dated
January 31, 1992, which settled the litigation,
EPA agreed, among other things, to propose
effluent guidelines for the "Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry Category by April 31, 1994
and take final action on these effluent guidelines
by January 31, 1996. On February 4, 1997, the
court approved modifications to the Decree
which revised the deadline to August 1999 for
final action. EPA provided notice of these
modifications on February 26, 1997 at 62 FR
8726. Due to the need to examine issues raised
during the Small Business Advocacy Review
(SBAR) process, the court approved a
modification to the Decree that again extended
the deadline for final action to August, 2000.
1-3
-------
D^el^men^ocumen^o^h^C^^^oin^ourc^ute^r^
Chagte^^ackgromid
The Land Disposal
Restrictions Program: 1.1.3
Introduction to RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) 1.1.3.1
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
enacted on November 8, 1984, largely prohibit
the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes.
Once a hazardous waste is prohibited from land
disposal, the statute provides only two options
for legal land disposal: meet the treatment
standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or
dispose of the waste in a land disposal unit that
has been found to satisfy the statutory no
migration test. A no migration unit is one from
which there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents for as long as the waste remains
hazardous (RCRA Sections 3004 (d),(e),(g)(5)).
Under section 3004, the treatment standards
that EPA develops may be expressed as either
constituent concentration levels or as specific
methods of treatment. The criteria for these
standards is that they must substantially diminish
the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce
the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that short-term
and long-term threats to human health and the
environment are minimized (RCRA Section
3004(m)(l)). For purposes of the restrictions,
the RCRA program defines land disposal to
include any placement of hazardous waste in a
landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile,
injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome
formation, salt bed formation, or underground
mine or cave. Land disposal restrictions are
published in 40 CFR Part 268.
EPA has used hazardous waste treatability
data as the basis for land disposal restrictions
standards. First, EPA has identified Best
Demonstrated Available Treatment Technology
(BDAT) for each listed hazardous waste.
BDAT is that treatment technology that EPA
finds to be the most effective for a waste which
is also readily available to generators and
treaters. In some cases, EPA has designated, for
a particular waste stream, a treatment technology
which has been shown to successfully treat a
similar, but more difficult to treat, waste stream.
This ensured that the land disposal restrictions
standards for a listed waste stream were
achievable since they always reflected the actual
treatability of the waste itself or of a more
refractory waste.
As part of the Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDR), Universal Treatment Standards (UTS)
were promulgated as part of the RCRA phase
two final rule (July 27,1994). The UTS are a
series of concentrations for wastewaters and
non-wastewaters that provide a single treatment
standard for each constituent. Previously, the
LDR regulated constituents according to the
identity of the original waste; thus, several
numerical treatment standards might exist for
each constituent. The UTS simplified the
standards by having only one treatment standard
for each constituent in any waste residue.
The LDR treatment standards established
under RCRA may differ from the Clean Water
Act effluent guidelines proposed here today both
in their format and in the numerical values set for
each constituent. The differences result from the
use of different legal criteria for developing the
limits and resulting differences in the technical
and economic criteria and data sets used for
establishing the respective limits. The
differences in format of the LDR and effluent
guidelines is that LDR establishes a single daily
limit for each pollutant parameter whereas the
effluent guidelines establish monthly and daily
limits. Additionally, the effluent guidelines
provide for several types of discharge, including
new vs. existing sources, and indirect vs. direct
discharge.
The differences in numerical limits
established under the Clean Water Act may
differ, not only from LDR and UTS, but also
from point-source category to point-source
category (for example, Electroplating, 40 CFR
1-4
-------
Chagte^^ackgromid
Develo^men^ocumen^jm^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
Part 413; and Metal Finishing, 40 CFR Part
433). The effluent guidelines limitations and
standards are industry-specific, subcategory-
specific, and technology-based. The numerical
limits are typically based on different data sets
that reflect the performance of specific
wastewater management and treatment practices.
Differences in the limits reflect differences in the
statutory factors that the Administrator is
required to consider in developing technically and
economically achievable limitations and
standards ~ manufacturing products and
processes (which, for CWTs involves types of
waste received for treatment), raw materials,
wastewater characteristics, treatability, facility
size, geographic location, age of facility and
equipment, non-water quality environmental
impacts, and energy requirements. A
consequence of these differing approaches is that
similar waste streams can be regulated at
different levels.
Overlap Between LDR Standards and
the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry Effluent Guidelines 1.1.3.2
EPA's survey for this guideline identified no
facilities discharging wastewater effluent to land
disposal units. There is consequently no overlap
between the proposed regulations for the CWT
Industry and the Universal Treatment Standards.
Any CWT facility, however, discharging effluent
to a land disposal unit that meets these limitations
and standards would meet the Universal
Treatment Standards.
Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry Effluent Guideline
Rulemaking History 1.2
January 27,1995Proposal 1.2.1
On January 27, 1995 (60 FR 5464), EPA
proposed regulations to reduce discharges to
navigable waters of toxic, conventional, and non-
conventional pollutants in treated wastewater
from facilities defined in the proposal as
"centralized waste treatment facilities." As
proposed, these effluent limitations guidelines
and pretreatment standards would have applied
to "any facility that treats any hazardous or non-
hazardous industrial waste received from off-site
by tanker truck, trailer/roll-off bins, drums, barge
or other forms of shipment." Facilities which
received waste from off-site solely from via
pipeline were excluded from the proposed rule.
Facilities proposed for regulation included both
stand-alone waste treatment and recovery
facilities that treat waste received from off-site as
well as those facilities that treat on-site generated
process wastewater with wastes received from
off-site.
The Agency proposed limitations and
standards for an estimated 85 facilities in three
subcategories. The subcategories for the
centralized waste treatment (CWT) industry
were metal-bearing waste treatment and
recovery, oily waste treatment and recovery, and
organic waste treatment and recovery. EPA
based the BPT effluent limitations proposed in
1995 on the technologies listed in Table 1.1
below. EPA based BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES,
and PSNS on the same technologies as BPT.
1-5
-------
ChajDtei^^ackgromK^
^evelo^men^ocumen^jm^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
Table 1-1. Technology Basis for 1995 BPT Effluent Limitations
Proposed Name of
Subpart Subcategory
Technology Basis
A Metal-Bearing Selective Metals Precipitation, Pressure Filtration,
Waste Treatment and Secondary Precipitation, Solid-Liquid Separation, and
Recovery Tertiary Precipitation
B
C
Oily Waste
Treatment and
Recovery
Organic Waste
Treatment and
Recovery
For Metal-Bearing Waste Which Includes
Concentrated Cyanide Streams:
Pretreatment by Alkaline Chlorination
at Elevated Operating Conditions
Ultrafiltration or Ultrafiltration, Carbon Adsorption, and
Reverse Osmosis
Equalization, Air Stripping, Biological Treatment, and
Multimedia Filtration
September 16, 1996 Notice of Data
Availability 1.2.2
Based on comments received on the 1995
proposal and new information, EPA reexamined
its conclusions about the Oily Waste Treatment
and Recovery subcategory, or "oils
subcategory". (The 1995 proposal had defined
facilities in this subcategory as "facilities that
treat, and/or recover oil from oily waste received
from off-site.") Subsequently, in 1996 EPA
noticed the availability of the new data on this
subcategory. EPA explained that it had
underestimated the size of the oils subcategory,
and that the data used to develop the original
proposal may have mischaracterized this portion
of the CWT industry. EPA had based its original
estimates on the size of this segment of the
industry on information obtained from the 1991
Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. The
basis year for the questionnaire was 1989. Many
of the new oils facilities discussed in this notice
began operation after 1989. EPA concluded that
many of these facilities may have started up or
modified their existing operations in response to
requirements in EPA regulations, specifically, the
provisions of 40 CFR 279, promulgated on
September 10, 1992 (Standards for the
Management of Used Oil). These regulations
govern the handling of used oils under the Solid
Waste Disposal Act and CERCLA. EPA's 1996
notice discussed the additional facilities, provided
a revised description of the subcategory and
described how the 1995 proposal limitations and
standards, if promulgated, would have affected
such facilities. The notice, among other items,
also solicited comments on the use of dissolved
air flotation in this subcategory.
January 13, 1999 Supplemental
Proposal 1.2.3
On January 13, 1999 (64 FR 2280), EPA
published a supplemental proposal which
represented the Agency's second look at Clean
Water Act national effluent limitations and
standards for wastewater discharges from
centralized waste treatment facilities. The
supplemental proposal presented revised
limitations and standards based on the new
information obtained from comments to the 1996
1-6
-------
Chagte^^ackgromid
Develo^men^ocumen^o^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
Notice of Data Availability and additional field
sampling data. It also included changes to the
scope of the rule.
In the supplemental proposal, the Agency
proposed limitations and standards that EPA
estimated would apply to 206 facilities in three
subcategories. These subcategories were the
same as those proposed in 1995: metal-bearing
waste treatment and recovery, used/waste oil
treatment and recovery, and organic waste
treatment. EPA based the BPT effluent
limitations proposed in 1999 on different
technologies than those selected at the time of
the 1995 proposal. The technology basis for the
supplemental proposal are listed in Table 1.2
below.
Table 1-2. Technology Basis for 1999 Supplemental Proposal
Proposed
Subpart
Name of
Subcategory
Technology Basis
A
Metal-Bearing
Waste Treatment and
Recovery
Batch Precipitation, Liquid-Solid Separation, Secondary
Precipitation, Clarification, and Sand Filtration
For Metal-Bearing Waste Which Includes Concentrated
Cyanide Streams:
Alkaline Chlorination in a two step process
B
Used/Waste Oil
Treatment and
Recovery
Emulsion Breaking/Gravity Separation, Secondary Gravity
Separation and Dissolved Air Flotation
C
Organic Waste
Treatment
Equalization and Biological Treatment
For the metals subcategory, EPA proposed
limitations and standards for BCT, BAT, and
PSES based on the same technologies as BPT,
but based NSPS and PSNS on a different
technology: selective metals precipitation, liquid-
solid separation, secondary precipitation, liquid-
solid separation, tertiary precipitation, and
clarification.
For the oils subcategory, EPA proposed to
base BCT, BAT, NSPS, and PSNS on the same
technologies as BPT, but based PSES on a
different technology: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation and dissolved air flotation.
For the organics subcategory, EPA based
BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS on the
same technologies as BPT.
1-7
-------
Chapter
2
DATA COLLECTION
EPA gathered and evaluated technical and
economic data from various sources in the
course of developing the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the centralized waste
treatment industry. These data sources include
the following:
• EPA's Preliminary Data Summary for the
Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry;
• Responses to EPA's "1991 Waste
Treatment Industry Questionnaire";
• Responses to EPA's "Detailed Monitoring
Questionnaire";
• EPA's 1990 - 1997 sampling of selected
Centralized waste treatment facilities;
• EPA's 1998 characterization sampling of oil
treatment and recovery facilities;
• Public comments to EPA's 1995 Proposed
Rule;
• Public comments to EPA's 1996 Notice of
Data Availability;
• Public comments to EPA's 1999
Supplemental Proposal;
• Contact with members of the industry,
environmental groups, pretreatment
coordinators, Association of Municipal
Sewage Authorities (AMSA), regional, state,
and other government representatives; and
• Other literature data, commercial
publications, and EPA data bases.
EPA used data from these sources to profile
the industry with respect to the following:
wastes received for treatment and/or recovery;
treatment/recovery processes; geographical
distribution; and wastewater and solid waste
disposal practices. EPA then characterized the
wastewater generated by treatment/recovery
operations through an evaluation of water usage,
type of discharge or disposal, and the occurrence
of conventional, non-conventional, and priority
pollutants.
The remainder of this chapter details the
data sources utilized in the development of this
final rule.
Preliminary Data Summary 2.1
EPA began an effort to develop effluent
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards
for waste treatment operations in 1986. In this
initial study, EPA looked at a range of facilities,
including centralized waste treatment facilities,
landfills, and industrial waste combustors, that
received hazardous waste from off-site for
treatment, recovery, or disposal. The purpose of
the study was to characterize the hazardous
waste treatment industry, its operations, and
pollutant discharges into national waters. EPA
published the results of this study in the
Preliminary Data Summary for the Hazardous
Waste Treatment Industry in 1989 (EPA
440/1-89/100). During the same time period,
EPA conducted two similar, but separate, studies
of the solvent recycling industry and the used oil
reclamation and re-refining industry. In 1989,
EPA also published the results of these studies in
two reports entitled the Preliminary Data
Summary for the Solvent Recycling Industry
(EPA 440/1-89/102) and the Preliminary Data
Summary for Used Oil Reclamation and Re-
refining Industry (EPA 440/1-89/014).
Based on a thorough analysis of the data
presented in the Preliminary Data Summary for
the Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry, EPA
decided it should develop effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the centralized waste
treatment industry. EPA also decided to develop
standards for landfills and industrial waste
combustors which were promulgated in the
2-1
-------
Chagte^^at^ollection
Develo^men^ocumen^o^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
Federal Register on January 19, 2000 (65 FR
3007) and January 27, 2000 (65 FR 4360)
respectively. In addition to centralized waste
treatment facilities, EPA also studied fuel
blending operations and waste solidification/
stabilization facilities. As detailed and defined in
the applicability section of the preamble to this
final rule, EPA has decided not to promulgate
nationally applicable effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for fuel blending and
stabilization operations at this time.
Clean Water A ct Section 308
Questionnaires 2.2
Development of Questionnaires 2.2.1
A major source of information and data used
in developing the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for the CWT category is industry
responses to questionnaires distributed by EPA
under the authority of Section 308 of the CWA.
EPA developed two questionnaires, the 1991
Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire and the
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire, for this
study. The 1991 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire was designed to request 1989
technical, economic, and financial data from,
what EPA believed to be, a census of the
industry. The Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire
was designed to elicit daily analytical data from
a limited number of facilities which would be
chosen after receipt and review of the 1991
Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire
responses.
In order to minimize the burden to
centralized waste treatment facilities, EPA
designed the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire such that recipients could use
information reported in their 1989 Hazardous
Waste Biennial Report as well as any other
readily accessible data. The technical portion of
the questionnaire, Part A, specifically requested
information on the following:
• Treatment/recovery processes;
• Types and quantities of waste received for
treatment;
• The industrial waste management practices
used;
• Ancillary waste management operations;
• The quantity, treatment, and disposal of
wastewater generated during industrial waste
management;
• Summary analytical monitoring data;
• The degree of co-treatment (treatment of
CWT wastewater with wastewater from
other industrial operations at the facility);
• Cost of the waste treatment/recovery
processes; and
• The extent of wastewater recycling or reuse
at facilities.
Since the summary monitoring information
requested in the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire was not sufficient for
determination of limitations and industry
variability, EPA designed a follow-up
questionnaire, the Detailed Monitoring
Questionnaire (DMQ), to collect daily analytical
data from a limited number of facilities. EPA
requested all DMQ facilities to submit effluent
wastewater monitoring data in the form of
individual data points rather than monthly
aggregates, generally for the 1990 calendar year.
Some facilities were also requested to submit
monitoring data for intermediate waste treatment
points in an effort to obtain pollutant removal
information across specified treatment
technologies.
Since most CWT facilities do not have
analytical data for their wastewater treatment
system influent, EPA additionally requested
DMQ facilities to submit copies of their waste
receipts for a six week period. Waste receipts
are detailed logs of individual waste shipments
sent to a CWT for treatment. EPA selected a six
week period to minimize the burden to recipients
and to create a manageable database.
EPA sent draft questionnaires to industry
trade associations, treatment facilities that had
2-2
-------
Chagte^^at^ollection
Develo^men^ocumen^o^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
expressed interest, and environmental groups for
review and comment. EPA also conducted a
pre-test of the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire at nine centralized waste treatment
facilities to determine if the type of information
necessary would be received from the questions
posed as well as to determine if questions were
designed to minimize the burden to facilities.
EPA did not conduct a pre-test of the Detailed
Monitoring Questionnaire due to the project
schedule limitations.
Based on comments from the reviewers,
EPA determined the draft questionnaire required
minor adjustments in the technical section and
substantial revisions for both the economic and
financial sections. EPA anticipated extensive
comments, since this was EPA's first attempt at
requesting detailed information from a service
industry as opposed to a manufacturing-based
industry.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., EPA submitted the
questionnaire package (including the revised
1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire
and the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review, and published a notice in the Federal
Register to announce the questionnaire was
available for review and comment (55 FR
45161). EPA also redistributed the questionnaire
package to industry trade associations,
centralized waste treatment industry facilities,
and environmental groups that had provided
comments on the previous draft and to any
others who requested a copy of the questionnaire
package.
No additional comments were received and
OMB cleared the entire questionnaire package
for distribution on April 10, 1991.
Distribution of Questionnaires 2.2.2
In 1991, under the authority of Section 308
of the CWA, EPA sent the Waste Treatment
Industry Questionnaire to 455 facilities that the
Agency had identified as possible CWT facilities.
Because there is no specific centralized waste
treatment industry Standard Industrial Code
(SIC), identification of facilities was difficult.
EPA looked to directories of treatment facilities,
other Agency information sources, and even
telephone directories to identify the 455 facilities
which received the questionnaires. EPA
received responses from 413 facilities indicating
that 89 treated or recovered material from off-
site industrial waste in 1989. The remaining 324
facilities did not treat or recover materials from
industrial waste from off-site. Four of the 89
facilities only received waste via a pipeline (fixed
delivery system) from the original source of
wastewater generation.
EPA obtained additional information from
the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire recipients through follow-up phone
calls and written requests for clarification of
questionnaire responses.
After evaluation of the 1991 Waste
Treatment Industry Questionnaire responses,
EPA selected 20 in-scope facilities from the 1991
Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire mailing
list to complete the Detailed Monitoring
Questionnaire. These facilities were selected
based on: the types and quantities of wastes
received for treatment; the quantity of on-site
generated wastewater not resulting from
treatment or recovery of off-site generated
waste; the treatment/recovery technologies and
practices; and the facility's wastewater discharge
permit requirements. All 20 DMQ recipients
responded.
Wastewater Sampling and Site Visits 2.3
Pre-1989 Sampling Program 2.3.1
From 1986 to 1987, EPA conducted site
visits and sampled at twelve facilities to
characterize the waste streams and on-site
treatment technology performance at hazardous
waste incinerators, Subtitle C and D landfills, and
hazardous waste treatment facilities as part of the
2-3
-------
Chagte^^at^ollection
Develo^men^ocumen^jm^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
Hazardous Waste Treatment Industry Study. All
of the facilities in this sampling program had
multiple operations, such as incineration and
commercial wastewater treatment. The sampling
program did not focus on characterizing the
individual waste streams from individual
operations. Therefore, the data collected cannot
be used for the characterization of centralized
waste treatment wastewater, the assessment of
treatment performance, or the development of
limitations and standards. Information collected
in the study is presented in the Preliminary Data
Summary for the Hazardous Waste Treatment
Industry (EPA 440/1-89/100).
1989-1997 Site Visits 2.3.2
Between 1989 and 1993, EPA visited 27
centralized waste treatment facilities. The
purpose of these visits was to collect various
information about the operation of CWTs, and,
in most cases, to evaluate each facility as a
potential week-long sampling candidate. EPA
selected these facilities based on the information
gathered by EPA during the selection of the
Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire
recipients and the subsequent questionnaire
responses.
In late 1994, EPA visited an additional four
facilities which specialize in the treatment of bilge
waters and other dilute oily wastes. These
facilities were not in operation at the time the
questionnaire was mailed, but were identified by
EPA through contact with the industry and
AMSA. EPA visited these facilities to evaluate
them as potential sampling candidates and to
determine if CWT operations at facilities which
accept dilute oily wastes or used material were
significantly different than CWT operations at
facilities that accept concentrated oily wastes.
Following the 1995 proposal, EPA visited
nine centralized waste treatment facilities,
including eight additional oils facilities and one
metals facility which had also been visited prior
to the proposal. EPA selected these facilities
based on information obtained by EPA through
proposal public comments, industry contacts,
and EPA regional staff. In late 1997, EPA
visited two pipeline facilities identified prior to
the proposal (one via the questionnaire and the
second through review of the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) database
and follow-up phone calls) in order to
characterize operations at pipeline facilities.
During each facility site visit, EPA gathered
the following information:
• The process for accepting waste for
treatment or recovery;
• The types of waste accepted for treatment;
• Design and operating procedures for
treatment technologies;
• The location of potential sampling points;
• Site specific sampling requirements;
• Wastewater generated on-site and its
sources;
• Wastewater discharge option and limitations;
• Solid waste disposal practices;
• General facility management practices; and
• Other facility operations.
Site visit reports were prepared for all visits and
are located in the regulatory record for this
proposal.
Sampling Episodes 2.3.3
Facility Selection 2.3.3.1
EPA selected facilities to be sampled by
reviewing the information received during site
visits and assessing whether the wastewater
treatment system (1) was theoretically effective
in removing pollutants, (2) treated wastes
received from a variety of sources, (3) was
operated in such a way as to optimize the
performance of the treatment technologies, and
(4) applied waste management practices that
increased the effectiveness of the treatment unit.
EPA also evaluated whether the CWT
portion of each facility flow was adequate to
2-4
-------
D^el^men^ocumen^b^h^C^^^oin^ourc^ute^or^
Chagte^^at^ollection
assess the treatment system performance for the
centralized waste treatment waste stream. At
some facilities, the centralized waste treatment
operations were minor portions of the overall site
operation. In such cases, where the centralized
waste treatment waste stream is commingled
with non-centralized waste treatment streams
prior to treatment, characterization of this waste
stream and assessment of treatment performance
is difficult. Therefore, data from these
commingled systems could not be used to
establish effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the centralized waste treatment
industry.
Another important consideration in the
sampling facility selection process was the
commingling of wastes from more than one
centralized waste treatment subcategory. For
example, many facilities treated metal-bearing
and oily waste in the same treatment system. In
such cases, EPA did not select these facilities for
treatment technology sampling since EPA could
not determine whether a decrease in pollutant
concentrations in the commingled stream would
be due to an efficient treatment system or
dilution.
Using the criteria detailed above, EPA
selected 14 facilities to sample in order to collect
wastewater treatment efficiency data to be used
to establish effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the centralized waste treatment
industry. Twelve facilities were sampled prior
to the 1995 proposal and four facilities (two
additional and two resampled) were sampled
after the proposal.
Sampling Episodes 2.3.3.2
After EPA selected a facility to sample, EPA
prepared a draft sampling plan which described
the location of sample points, the analysis to be
performed at specified sample points, and the
procedures to be followed during the sampling
episode. Prior to sampling, EPA provided a
copy of the draft sampling plan to the facility for
review and comment to ensure EPA properly
described and understood facility operations. All
comments were incorporated into the final
sampling plan.
During the sampling episode, EPA collected
samples of influent, intermediate, and effluent
streams, preserved the samples, and sent them to
EP A-approved laboratories. Facilities were given
the option to split samples with EPA, but most
facilities declined. Sampling episodes were
generally conducted over a five-day period
during which EPA obtained 24-hour composite
samples for continuous systems and grab
samples for batch systems.
Following the sampling episode, EPA
prepared a draft sampling report that included
descriptions of the treatment/recovery processes,
samplingprocedures, and analytical results. EPA
provided draft reports to facilities for comment
and review. All corrections were incorporated
into the final report. Both final sampling plans
and reports for all episodes are located in the
regulatory record for this promulgated rule.
The specific constituents analyzed at each
episode and sampling point varied and depended
on the waste type being treated and the treatment
technology being evaluated. At the initial two
sampling episodes, the entire spectrum of
chemical compounds for which there are
EPA-approved analytical methods were analyzed
(more than 480 compounds). Table 2-1
provides a complete list of these pollutants (this
is a more complete and accurate list than in the
1999 Technical Development Document). After
a review of the initial analytical data, the number
of constituents analyzed was decreased by
omitting analyses for dioxins/furans,
pesticides/herbicides, methanol, ethanol, and
formaldehyde. Pesticides/herbicides were
analyzed on a limited basis depending on the
treatment chemicals used at facilities.
Dioxin/furan analysis was only performed on a
limited basis for solid/filter cake samples to
assess possible environmental impacts.
Data resulting from the influent samples
2-5
-------
Chagte^^at^ollection
Develo^men^ocumen^o^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
contributed to the characterization of this
industry, development of the list of pollutants of
concern, and development of raw waste
characteristics. EPA used the influent,
intermediate, and effluent points to analyze the
efficacy of treatment at the facilities and to
develop current discharge concentrations,
loadings, and treatment technology options for
the centralized waste treatment industry. Finally,
EPA used data collected from the effluent points
to calculate the long term averages (LTAs) for
each of the regulatory options. The use of this
data is discussed in detail in subsequent chapters.
2-6
-------
Ch^te^^^^ttectiOY^^^^^^^^^^evelo^men^ocumen^b^h^CWJ^oin^ourc^a^or^
Table 2-1. Chemical Compounds Analyzed Under EPA Analytical Methods
Pollutant
Cas Num
Pollutant
Cas Num
Pollutant
Cas Num
Classsical Wet Chemistry
Aldrin
309-00-2
Mevinphos
7786-34-7
Amenable cyanide
C-025
Alpha-BHC
319-84-6
Mirex
2385-85-5
Ammonia as nitrogen
7664-41-7
Alpha-chlordane
5103-71-9
Monocrotophos
6923-22-4
BOD
C-003
Azinphos ethyl
2642-71-9
Naled
300-76-5
BOD 5-day
C-002
Azinphos methyl
86-50-0
Nitrofen
1836-75-5
Chloride
16887-00-6
Beta-BHC
319-85-7
Parathion (Ethyl)
56-38-2
COD
C-004
Captafol
2425-06-1
PCB 1016
12674-11-2
DCOD
C-004D
Captan
133-06-2
PCB 1221
11104-28-2
Fluoride
16984-48-8
Carbophenothion
786-19-6
PCB 1232
11141-16-5
Hexane extractable material
C-036
Chlorfenvinphos
470-90-6
PCB 1242
53469-21-9
Hexavalent chromium
18540-29-9
Chlorobenzilate
510-15-6
PCB 1248
12672-29-6
Nitrate/nitrite
C-005
Chlorpyrifos
2921-88-2
PCB 1254
11097-69-1
pH
C-006
Coumaphos
56-72-4
PCB 1260
11096-82-5
Recoverable oil & grease
C-007
Dalapon
75-99-0
PCNB
82-68-8
SGT-HEM
C-037
DEF
78-48-8
Phorate
298-02-2
TDS
C-010
Delta-BHC
319-86-8
Phosmet
732-11-6
TOC
C-012
Demeton
8065-48-3
Phosphamidon
13171-21-6
Total cyanide
57-12-5
Diallate
2303-16-4
Phosphamidon E
297-99-4
Total phenols
C-020
Diazinon
333-41-5
Phosphamidon Z
23783-98-4
Total phosphorus
14265-44-2
Dicamba
1918-00-9
Ronnel
299-84-3
Total solids
C-008
Dichlofenthion
97-17-6
Sulfotep
3689-24-5
Total sulfide
18496-25-8
Dichlone
117-80-6
Sulprofos
35400-43-2
Total sulfide (iodometric)
18496-25-8
Dichlorprop
120-36-5
TEPP
107-49-3
TSS
C-009
Dichlorvos
62-73-7
Terbufos
13071-79-9
1613: Dioxins/furans
Dicrotophos
141-66-2
Tetrachlorvinphos
22248-79-9
2378-TCDD
1746-01-6
Dieldrin
60-57-1
Toxaphene
8001-35-2
2378-TCDF
51207-31-9
Dimethoate
60-51-5
Trichlorfon
52-68-6
12378-PECDD
40321-76-4
Dinoseb
88-85-7
Trichloronate
327-98-0
12378-PECDF
57117-41-6
Dioxathion
78-34-2
Tricresylphosphate
78-30-8
23478-PECDF
57117-31-4
Disulfoton
298-04-4
Trifluralin
1582-09-8
123478-HXCDD
39227-28-6
Endosulfan I
959-98-8
Trimethylphosphate
512-56-1
123678-HXCDD
57653-85-7
Endosulfan II
33213-65-9
1656: Pesticides/herbicides
123789-HXCDD
19408-74-3
Endosulfan sulfate
1031-07-8
(l,2)DB-(3)C-propane
92-12-8
123478-HXCDF
70648-26-9
Endrin
72-20-8
4,4'-DDD
72-54-8
123678-HXCDF
57117-44-9
Endrin aldehyde
7421-93-4
4,4-DDE
72-55-9
123789-HXCDF
72918-21-9
Endrin ketone
53494-70-5
4,4-DDT
50-29-3
234678-HXCDF
60851-34-5
EPN
2104-64-5
Acephate
30560-19-1
1234678-HPCDD
35822-46-9
Ethion
563-12-2
Alachlor
15972-60-8
1234678-HPCDF
67562-39-4
Ethoprop
13194-48-4
Aldrin
309-00-2
1234789-HPCDF
55673-89-7
Famphur
52-85-7
Alpha-BHC
319-84-6
OCDD
3268-87-9
Fensulfothion
115-90-2
Alpha-chlordane
5103-71-9
OCDF
39001-02-0
Fenthion
55-38-9
Atrazine
1912-24-9
Total HPCDD
37871-00-4
Gamma-BHC
58-89-9
Benzfluralin
1861-40-1
Total HPCDF
38998-75-3
Gamma-chlordane
5103-74-2
Beta-BHC
319-85-7
Total HXCDD
34465-46-8
Heptachlor
76-44-8
Bromacil
314-40-9
Total HXCDF
55684-94-1
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3
Bromoxynil octanoate
1689-99-2
Total PECDD
36088-22-9
HXMeth.phosphoramide
680-31-9
Butachlor
23184-66-9
Total PECDF
30402-15-4
Isodrin
465-73-6
Captafol
2425-06-1
Total TCDD
41903-57-5
Kepone
143-50-0
Captan
133-06-2
Total TCDF
55722-27-5
Leptophos
21609-90-5
Carbophenothion
786-19-6
1618: Pesticides/herbicides
Malathion
121-75-5
Chlorobenzilate
510-15-6
2,4,5-T
93-76-5
MCPA
94-74-6
Chloroneb
2675-77-6
2,4,5-TP
93-72-1
MCPP
7085-19-0
Chloropropylate
5836-10-2
2,4-D
94-75-7
Merphos
150-50-5
Chlorothalonil
1897-45-6
2,4-DB
94-82-6
Methoxychlor
72-43-5
Cis-permethrin
61949-76-6
4,4'-DDD
72-54-8
Methyl chlorpyrifos
5598-13-0
Dacthal (DCPA)
1861-32-1
4,4-DDE
72-55-9
Methyl parathion
298-00-0
Delta-BHC
319-86-8
4.4-DDT
50-29-3
Methvl trithion
953-17-3
Diallate A
2303-16-4A
2-7
-------
Ch^te^^^^ttectiOY^^^^^^^^^^evelo^men^ocumen^b^h^CWJ^oin^ourc^a^or^
Table 2-1. Chemical Compounds Analyzed Under EPA Analytical Methods (continued)
Pollutant
Cas Num
Pollutant
Cas Num
Pollutant
Cas Num
Diallate B
230-316-4B
3,5-dichlorophenol
591-35-5
Praseodymium
7440-10-0
Dichlone
117-80-6
3,6-dichlorocatechol
3938-16-7
Rhenium
7440-15-5
Dicofol
115-32-2
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
2668-24-8
Rhodium
7440-16-6
Dieldrin
60-57-1
4,5-dichlorocatechol
3428-24-8
Ruthenium
7440-18-8
Endosulfan I
959-98-8
4,5-dichloroguaiacol
2460-49-3
Samarium
7440-19-9
Endosulfan II
33213-65-9
4,6-dichloroguaiacol
16766-31-7
Scandium
7440-20-2
Endrin
72-20-8
4-chloroguaiacol
16766-30-6
Selenium
7782-49-2
Endrin aldehyde
7421-93-4
4-chlorophenol
106-48-9
Silicon
7440-21-3
Endrin ketone
53494-70-5
5,6-dichlorovanillin
18268-69-4
Silver
7440-22-4
Ethalfluralin
55283-68-6
5-chloroguaiacol
3743-23-5
Sodium
7440-23-5
Etridiazole
2593-15-9
6-chlorovanillin
18268-76-3
Strontium
7440-24-6
Fenarimol
60168-88-9
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
Sulfur
7704-34-9
Gamma-BHC
58-89-9
Tetrachlorocatechol
1198-55-6
Tantalum
7440-25-7
Gamma-chlordane
5103-74-2
Tetrachloroguaiacol
2539-17-5
Tellurium
13494-80-9
Heptachlor
76-44-8
Trichlorosyringol
2539-26-6
Terbium
7440-27-9
Heptachlor epoxide
1024-57-3
1620: Metals
Thallium
7440-28-0
Isodrin
465-73-6
Aluminum
7429-90-5
Thorium
7440-29-1
Isopropalin
33820-53-0
Antimony
7440-36-0
Thulium
7440-30-4
Kepone
143-50-0
Arsenic
7440-38-2
Tin
7440-31-5
Methoxychlor
72-43-5
Barium
7440-39-3
Titanium
7440-32-6
Metribuzin
21087-64-9
Beryllium
7440-41-7
Tungsten
7440-33-7
Mirex
2385-85-5
Bismuth
7440-69-9
Uranium
7440-61-1
Nitrofen
1836-75-5
Boron
7440-42-8
Vanadium
7440-62-2
Noflurazon
27314-13-2
Cadmium
7440-43-9
Ytterbium
7440-64-4
PCB 1016
12674-11-2
Calcium
7440-70-2
Yttrium
7440-65-5
PCB 1221
11104-28-2
Cerium
7440-45-1
Zinc
7440-66-6
PCB 1232
11141-16-5
Chromium
7440-47-3
Zirconium
7440-67-7
PCB 1242
53469-21-9
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1624: Volatile Organics
PCB 1248
12672-29-6
Copper
7440-50-8
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
630-20-6
PCB 1254
11097-69-1
Dysprosium
7429-91-6
1,1,1-trichloroethane
71-55-6
PCB 1260
11096-82-5
Erbium
7440-52-0
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
79-34-5
Pendamethalin
40487-42-1
Europium
7440-53-1
1,1,2-trichloroethane
79-00-5
PCNB
82-68-8
Gadolinium
7440-54-2
1,1-dichloroethane
75-34-3
Perthane
72-56-0
Gallium
7440-55-3
1,1-dichloroethene
75-35-4
Propachlor
1918-16-7
Germanium
7440-56-4
1,2,3-trichloropropane
96-18-4
Propanil
709-98-8
Gold
7440-57-5
1,2-dibromoethane
106-93-4
Propazine
139-40-2
Hafnium
7440-58-6
1,2-dichloroethane
107-06-2
Simazine
122-34-9
Holmium
7440-60-0
1,2-dichloropropane
78-87-5
Strobane
8001-50-1
Indium
7440-74-6
1,3-butadiene, 2-chloro-
126-99-8
Terbacil
5902-51-2
Iodine
7553-56-2
1,3-dichloropropane
142-28-9
Terbuthylazine
5915-41-3
Iridium
7439-88-5
1,4-dioxane
123-91-1
Toxaphene
8001-35-2
Iron
7439-89-6
2-butanone
78-93-3
Trans-permethrin
61949-77-7
Lanthanum
7439-91-0
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
110-75-8
Triadimefon
43121-43-3
Lead
7439-92-1
2-hexanone
591-78-6
Trifluralin
1582-09-8
Lithium
7439-93-2
2-propanone
67-64-1
85.01: Chlorinated Phenolics
Lutetium
7439-94-3
2-propen-l-ol
107-18-6
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
58-90-2
Magnesium
7439-95-4
2-propenal
107-02-8
2,3,6-trichlorophenol
933-75-5
Manganese
7439-96-5
2-propenenitrile, 2-methyl-
126-98-7
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
95-95-4
Mercury
7439-97-6
3-chloropropene
107-05-1
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
88-06-2
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
4-methyl-2-pentanone
108-10-1
2,4-dichlorophenol
120-83-2
Neodymium
7440-00-8
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1
2,6-dichlorophenol
87-65-0
Nickel
7440-02-0
Benzene
71-43-2
2-syringaldehyde
134-96-3
Niobium
7440-03-1
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
56961-20-7
Osmium
7440-04-2
Bromomethane
74-83-9
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
57057-83-7
Palladium
7440-05-3
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
60712-44-9
Phosphorus
7723-14-0
Chloroacetonitrile
107-14-2
3,4-dichlorophenol
95-77-2
Platinum
7440-06-4
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
2-8
-------
Ch^te^^^^ttectiOY^^^^^^^^^^evelo^men^ocumen^b^h^CWJ^oin^ourc^a^or^
Table 2-1. Chemical Compounds Analyzed Under EPA Analytical Methods (continued)
Pollutant
Cas Num
Pollutant
Cas Num
Pollutant
Cas Num
Chloroform
67-66-3
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
88-06-2
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
108-60-1
Chloromethane
74-87-3
2,4-dichlorophenol
120-83-2
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
Cis- 1,3-dichloropropene
10061-01-5
2,4-dimethylphenol
105-67-9
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
Crotonaldehyde
4170-30-3
2,4-dinitrophenol
51-28-5
Carbazole
86-74-8
Dibromochloromethane
124-48-1
2,4-dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
Chrysene
218-01-9
Dibromomethane
74-95-3
2,6-di-tert-butyl-p-benzoquinone
719-22-2
Crotoxyphos
7700-17-6
Diethyl ether
60-29-7
2,6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline
99-30-9
Di-n-butyl phthalate
84-74-2
Ethyl cyanide
107-12-0
2,6-dichlorophenol
87-65-0
Di-n-octyl phthalate
117-84-0
Ethyl methacrylate
97-63-2
2,6-dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
621-64-7
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
2-(methylthio)benzothiazole
615-22-5
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
Iodomethane
74-88-4
2-chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
Isobutyl alcohol
78-83-1
2-chlorophenol
95-57-8
Dibenzothiophene
132-65-0
M+P-xylene
179601-23-1
2-isopropylnaphthalene
2027-17-0
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
M-xylene
108-38-3
2-methylbenzothiazole
120-75-2
Dimethyl phthalate
131-11-3
Methyl methacrylate
80-62-6
2-methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
Dimethyl sulfone
67-71-0
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
2-nitroaniline
88-74-4
Diphenyl ether
101-84-8
O+P-xylene
136777-61-2
2-nitrophenol
88-75-5
Diphenylamine
122-39-4
O-xylene
95-47-6
2-phenylnaphthalene
612-94-2
Diphenyldisulfide
882-33-7
Tetrachloroethene
127-18-4
2-picoline
109-06-8
Ethane, pentachloro-
76-01-7
T atrachloromethane
56-23-5
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine
91-94-1
Ethyl methanesulfonate
62-50-0
Toluene
108-88-3
3,3'dimethoxybenzidine
119-90-4
Ethylenethiourea
96-45-7
Trans- 1,2-dichloroethene
156-60-5
3,6-dimethylphenanthrene
1576-67-6
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
Trans- 1,3-dichloropropene
10061-02-6
3-methylcholanthrene
56-49-5
Fluorene
86-73-7
Trans-l,4-dichloro-2-butene
110-57-6
3-nitroaniline
99-09-2
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
Tribromomethane
75-25-2
4,4'-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
101-14-4
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
4,5-methylene phenanthrene
203-64-5
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77-47-4
Trichlorofluoromethane
75-69-4
4-aminobiphenyl
92-67-1
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
Vinyl acetate
108-05-4
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
101-55-3
Hexachloropropene
1888-71-7
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
4-chloro-2-nitroaniline
89-63-4
Hexanoic acid
142-62-1
1625: Semwolatile Organics
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
59-50-7
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
193-39-5
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene
87-61-6
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
7005-72-3
Isophorone
78-59-1
1,2,3-trimethoxybenzene
634-36-6
4-nitrophenol
100-02-7
Isosafrole
120-58-1
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene
95-94-3
5-nitro-o-toluidine
99-55-8
Longifolene
475-20-7
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
7,12-dimethybenz(a)anthracene
57-97-6
Malachite green
569-64-2
l,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane
96-12-8
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
Mestranol
72-33-3
1,2-dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
Methapyrilene
91-80-5
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
122-66-7
Acetophenone
98-86-2
Methyl methanesulfonate
66-27-3
l,2:3,4-diepoxybutane
1464-53-5
Alpha-terpineol
98-55-5
N,N-dimethylformamide
68-12-2
1,3,5-trithiane
291-21-4
Aniline
62-53-3
N-decane
124-18-5
l,3-dichloro-2-propanol
96-23-1
Aniline, 2,4,5-trimethyl-
137-17-7
N-docosane
629-97-0
1,3-dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
Anthracene
120-12-7
N-dodecane
112-40-3
1,4-dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
Aramite
140-57-8
N-eicosane
112-95-8
1,4-dinitrobenzene
100-25-4
Benzanthrone
82-05-3
N-hexacosane
630-01-3
1,4-naphthoquinone
130-15-4
Benzenethiol
108-98-5
N-hexadecane
544-76-3
1,5-naphthalenediamine
2243-62-1
Benzidine
92-87-5
N-nitrosodi-n-butylamine
924-16-3
l-bromo-2-chlorobenzene
694-80-4
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
N-nitrosodiethylamine
55-18-5
l-bromo-3-chlorobenzene
108-37-2
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
N-nitrosodimethylamine
62-75-9
l-chloro-3-nitrobenzene
121-73-3
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
1 -methy lfluorene
1730-37-6
Benzo(ghi)perylene
191-24-2
N-nitrosomethylethylamine
10595-95-6
1 -methylphenanthrene
832-69-9
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
N-nitrosomethylphenylamine
614-00-6
1 -naphthy lamine
134-32-7
Benzoic Acid
65-85-0
N-nitrosomorpholine
59-89-2
1-phenylnaphthalene
605-02-7
Benzonitrile, 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxy-
1689-84-5
N-nitrosopiperidine
100-75-4
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
58-90-2
Benzyl alcohol
100-51-6
N-octacosane
630-02-4
2,3,6-trichlorophenol
933-75-5
Beta-naphthylamine
91-59-8
N-octadecane
593-45-3
2,3-benzofluorene
243-17-4
Biphenyl
92-52-4
N-tetracosane
646-31-1
2,3-dichloroaniline
608-27-5
Biphenyl, 4-nitro-
92-93-3
N-tetradecane
629-59-4
2,3-dichloronitrobenzene
3209-22-1
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
111-91-1
N-triacontane
638-68-6
2.4.5 -trichloronhenol
95-95-4
Bisf2-chloroethvn ether
111-44-4
Nanhthalene
91-20-3
2-9
-------
Ch^te^^^^ttectiOY^^^^^^^^^^evelo^men^ocumen^b^h^CWJ^oin^ourc^a^or^
Table 2-1. Chemical Compounds Analyzed Under EPA Analytical Methods (continued)
Pollutant
Cas Num
Pollutant
Cas Num
Pollutant
Cas Num
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
Triphenylene
217-59-4
O-anisidine
90-04-0
Phenol
108-95-2
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
20324-33-8
O-cresol
95-48-7
Phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro-
534-52-1
630.1: Pesticides/Herbicides
O-toluidine
95-53-4
Phenothiazine
92-84-2
Dithiocarbamate anion
4384-82-1
O-toluidine, 5-chloro-
95-79-4
Pronamide
23950-58-5
1648: Total Organic Halides
P-chloroaniline
106-47-8
Pyrene
129-00-0
Total Organic Halides (TOX)
C022
P-cresol
106-44-5
Pyridine
110-86-1
1650: Absorbable Organic Halves
P-cymene
99-87-6
Resorcinol
108-46-3
Adsorbable organic halides (AOX)
59473-04-0
P-dimethylaminoazobenzene
60-11-7
Safrole
94-59-7
8015: Ethanol/Methanol
P-nitroaniline
100-01-6
Squalene
7683-64-9
Ethanol
64-17-5
Pentachlorobenzene
608-93-5
Styrene
100-42-5
Methanol
67-56-1
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
Thianaphthene
95-15-8
Region 9: Formaldehyde
Pentamethylbenzene
700-12-9
Thioacetamide
62-55-5
Formaldehyde
50-00-0
Perylene
198-55-0
Thioxanthe-9-one
492-22-8
Phenacetin
62-44-2
Toluene, 2,4-diamino-
95-80-7
2-10
-------
Chagte^^at^ollection
Develo^men^ocumen^jm^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
Metal-Bearing Waste Treatment and
Recovery Sampling 2.3.3.3
Between 1989 and 1994, EPA conducted six
sampling episodes at facilities classified in the
metals subcategory. Two of these facilities were
re-sampled in 1996 following the proposal. Only
one of those facilities sampled discharged to a
surface water. The rest are indirect dischargers.
All of the facilities used metals precipitation
as a means for treatment, but each of the
systems was unique due to the treatment
chemicals used and the system configuration and
operation. Most facilities precipitated metals in
batches. One facility segregated waste shipments
into separate batches to optimize the precipitation
of specific metals, then commingled the treated
batches to precipitate additional metals. Another
facility had a continuous system for precipitation
in which the wastewater flowed through a series
of treatment chambers, each using a different
treatment chemical. EPA evaluated the
following treatment technologies: primary,
secondary, and tertiary precipitation, selective
metals precipitation, gravity separation, multi-
media filtration, clarification, liquid and sludge
filtration, and treatment technologies for cyanide
destruction.
EPA conducted sampling at metals facilities
after the 1995 proposal to determine what effect
total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations had
on the performance of metals precipitation
processes. This issue was raised in public
comments to the 1995 proposed rule. EPA
resampled two facilities which had been sampled
prior to the first proposal. The first facility
formed the technology basis for the 1995
proposed metals subcategory regulatory option
and the second was a facility with high levels of
TDS in the influent waste stream. EPA was
interested in obtaining additional data from the
proposal option facility since they had altered
their treatment systems from those previously
sampled and because EPA failed to collect TDS
information during the original sampling episode.
EPA was interested in collecting additional data
from the second facility because the facility has
high TDS values. EPA used data from both of
the post-proposal sampling episodes to develop
regulatory options considered for the re-proposal
and the final rule.
Oily Waste Treatment and Recovery
Sampling 2.3.3.4
Between 1989 and 1994, EPA conducted
four sampling episodes at oils subcategory
facilities. Two additional oils facilities were
sampled in 1996 following the proposal. All six
are indirect dischargers and performed an initial
gravity separation step with or without emulsion
breaking to remove oil from the wastewater. At
two facilities, however, the wastewater from the
separation step was commingled with other
non-oily wastewater prior to further treatment.
As such, EPA could only use data from these
facilities to characterize the waste streams after
emulsion breaking. The other four facilities
treated the wastewater from the initial separation
step without commingling with non-oils
subcategory wastewaters in systems specifically
designed to treat oily wastewater. EPA
evaluated the following treatment technologies
for this subcategory: gravity separation, emulsion
breaking, ultrafiltration, dissolved air flotation,
biological treatment, reverse osmosis, carbon
adsorption, and air stripping.
EPA conducted sampling at oils facilities in
late 1994 (just before the proposal) and again
after the proposal to address concerns raised at
the 1994 public meeting and in the proposal
public comments. Specifically, in regard to oils
wastewater treatment, the commenters stated
that (1) the facility which formed the technology
basis for EPA's 1995 proposed option did not
treat wastes which were representative of the
wastes treated by many other oils facilities, and
(2) EPA should evaluate dissolved air flotation as
a basis for the regulatory option. All three of the
facilities sampled between 1994 and 1996
2-11
-------
Chagte^^at^ollection
Develo^men^ocumen^jm^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
utilized dissolved air flotation and treated wastes
which were generally more dilute than those
treated by the 1995 proposal option facility.
EPA used data from both of the post-proposal
sampling episodes to develop regulatory options
considered for the 1999 supplemental proposal.
Data from the 1994 episode were not used to
develop a regulatory option due to non-optimal
performance and highly diluted influent streams;
however, EPA used data from this facility to
characterize the waste stream after emulsion
breaking.
Organic-Bearing Waste Treatment and
Recovery Sampling 2.3.3.5
EPA had difficulty identifying facilities that
could be used to characterize waste streams and
assess treatment technology performance in the
organics subcategory. A large portion of the
facilities, whose organic waste treatment
operations EPA evaluated, had other industrial
operations on-site. For these facilities, CWT
waste streams represented a minor component of
the overall facility flow.
Between 1989 and 1994, EPA did identify
and sample three facilities that treated a
significant volume of off-site generated organic
waste relative to non-CWT flows. None of
these facilities were direct discharging facilities.
EPA evaluated several treatment technologies,
including the following: air stripping, biological
treatment in a sequential batch reactor,
multi-media filtration, coagulation/flocculation,
carbon adsorption, and C02 extraction. EPA
chose not to use data from one of the three
facilities in calculating effluent levels achievable
with its in-place technologies because the facility
was experiencing operational difficulties with the
treatment system at the time of sampling. In
addition, after reviewing the facility's waste
receipts during the sampling episode, EPA
determined that the facility accepted both oils
subcategory and organics subcategory
wastestreams and commingled them for
treatment. EPA has also not used data from a
second facility in calculating effluent levels
achievable with its in-place technologies because,
after reviewing this facility's waste receipts
during the sampling episode, EPA determined
that this facility also accepted both oils
subcategory and organics subcategory
wastestreams and commingled them for
treatment.
1998 Characterization Sampling of Oil
Treatment and Recovery Facilities 2.3.4
EPA received many comments to the
original proposal concerning the size and
diversity of the oils treatment and recovery
subcategory. Many suggested that the
subcategory needed to be further subdivided in
an effort to better depict the industry. As a
result, in 1998, EPA conducted site visits at
eleven facilities which treat and/or recover non-
hazardous oils wastes, oily wastewater, or used
oil material from off-site. While the information
collected at these facilities was similar to
information collected during previous site visits,
these facilities were selected based on waste
receipts. The facilities represent a diverse mix of
facility size, treatment processes, and
geographical locations. EPA collected
wastewater samples of their waste receipts and
discharged effluent at 11 of these facilities.
These samples were one-time grabs and were
analyzed for metals, classicals, and semi-volatile
organic compounds. In the 1999 supplemental
proposal, EPA had not yet incorporated these
results (except for influent data from E5046) in
developing limitations. At a public hearing on
February 18, 1999, EPA described the relevant
sampling data, the constraints of evaluating this
data, and a comparison of data from hazardous
and non-hazardous waste streams. This data
showed that, while the mean and median values
of influent concentration of hazardous
wastestream data are greater than for non-
hazardous wastestreams for most pollutants
2-12
-------
Chagte^^at^ollection
Develo^men^ocumen^o^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
examined, the ranges of concentration for the
hazardous and non-hazardous wastestreams
overlap for most pollutants. In its presentation,
EPA indicated that it planned to re-examine the
oils subcategory in terms of pollutant loadings,
removals, limitations and standards, costs,
impacts, and benefits. EPA requested comment
on this issue, and extended the comment period
for this issue by 30 days after the public hearing.
EPA's presentation is included in the public
record for this rulemaking as DCN 28.1.1 (other
supporting information is in Section 28). These
data were incorporated into the final analyses
related to identifying pollutants of concern and
calculating pollutant reductions.
Public Comments to the 1995 Proposal,
the 1996 Notice of Da ta A vailability,
And the 1999 Supplemental Proposal 2.4
In addition to data obtained through the
Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, DMQ,
site visits and sampling episodes, commenters on
the January 27, 1995 proposal (60 FR 5464),
the September 16, 1996 Notice of Data
Availability (61 FR 48805), and the January 13,
1999 supplemental proposal (64 FR 2280)
provided data to EPA. In fact, much of EPA's
current characterization of the oily waste
treatment and recovery subcategory is based on
comments to the 1996 Notice of Data
Availability.
As described earlier, following the 1995
proposal, EPA revised its estimate of the number
of facilities in the oils subcategory and its
description of the oils subcategory. Using new
information provided by the industry during the
1995 proposal comment period in conjunction
with questionnaire responses and sampling data
used to develop the proposal, EPA
recharacterized this subcategory of the industry.
This recharacterization reflected new data on the
wastes treated by the subcategory, the
technology in-place, and the pollutants
discharged. As part of this recharacterization,
EPA developed individual profiles for each of the
newly identified oils facilities by modeling current
wastewater treatment performance and treated
effluent discharge flow rates. In addition,
assuming the same treatment technology options
identified at proposal, EPA recalculated the
projected costs of the proposed options under
consideration, expected pollutant reductions
associated with the options, and the projected
economic impacts. EPA presented its
recharacterization of the oils subcategory in the
September 1996 Notice of Data Availability (61
FR 48806).
At the time of the 1995 proposal, EPA
estimated there were 35 facilities in the oily
waste treatment and recovery subcategory.
Through comments received in response to the
proposed rule, and communication with the
industry, the National Oil Recyclers Association,
and EPA Regional staff, EPA identified an
additional 240 facilities that appeared to treat oily
wastes from off-site. While attempting to
confirm mailing addresses for each facility, EPA
discovered that 20 of these facilities were either
closed or could not be located. EPA then
revised its profile of the oily waste treatment and
recovery subcategory to include 220
newly-identified facilities. The information in the
Notice of Data Availability was based on these
220 additional facilities.
In lieu of sending questionnaires out to the
newly-identified oils facilities to collect technical
and economic information, EPA used data from
secondary sources to estimate facility
characteristics such as wastewater flow. For
most facilities, information about total facility
revenue and employment were available from
public sources (such as Dunn and Bradstreet).
EPA then used statistical procedures to match
the newly-identified facilities to similar facilities
that had provided responses to the 1991 Waste
Treatment Industry Questionnaire. This
matching enabled EPA to estimate the flow of
treated wastewater from each of the newly
identified facilities. Where EPA had actual
2-13
-------
Chagte^^at^ollection
Develo^men^ocumen^jm^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
estimates for facility characteristics from the
facility or public sources, EPA used the reported
values. The estimated facility characteristics
included the following:
• RCRA status;
• Waste volumes;
• Recovered oil volume;
• Wastewater volumes treated and discharged;
• Wastewater discharge option;
• Wastewater characteristics;
• Treatment technologies utilized; and
• Economic information.
EPA hoped to obtain information from each of
the newly identified facilities through comments
to the 1996 Notice of Data Availability. In order
to facilitate that effort, copies of the Notice and
the individual facility profile were mailed to each
of the 220 newly identified facilities. Of these,
EPA received comments and revised profiles
from 100. Therefore, 120 facilities did not
provide comments to the Notice or revised
facility profiles.
EPA determined the following about the list
of newly identified oils facilities:
• 50 facilities were within the scope of the
oily waste treatment and recovery
subcategory;
• 16 facilities were fuel blenders;
• 31 facilities were out of scope of the oily
waste treatment and recovery subcategory;
and
• 3 facilities were closed.
EPA polled 9 of the 120 non-commenting
facilities and determined that approximately half
are within the scope of the industry. As a result,
EPA estimates that half, or sixty, of the 120
non-commenting facilities are within the scope of
the oily waste treatment and recovery
subcategory. As to these sixty facilities that did
not comment, EPA does not necessarily have
facility specific information for them.
Finally, through comments to the Notice,
EPA also obtained facility specific information
on 19 facilities that EPA had not previously
identified as possible CWT oils subcategory
facilities.
Therefore, EPA's updated data base
includes facility-specific information for a total of
104 facilities that are within the scope of the oily
waste treatment and recovery subcategory. This
total included the 50 facilities for which EPA
prepared facility information sheets, 19 new
facilities identified through the Notice, and 35
facilities from the questionnaire data base. The
number of in-scope facilities from the
questionnaire data base changed from the time of
proposal due to other facility applicability issues,
as discussed in Section 3.1. Finally, as
described above, EPA estimated that the entire
population of oils subcategory facilities includes
an additional 60 facilities for which EPA does
not have facility specific information. This
brought the total estimate of oils facilities to 164.
Commenters also submitted data during the
1999 comment period. These data were of
varying nature and included data characterizing
influent and effluent wastestreams at facilities in
all subcategories. Most of these data were not
from the option technologies or were from mixed
wastestreams. However, one facility submitted
concentration data for three of its metal-bearing
wastestreams. The Agency has used this
submitted data to refine its understanding of
CWT wastes and to aid in calculation of
loadings, identification of pollutants of concern,
and development of final limitations and
standards.
Additional Data Sources 2.5
Additional Databases 2.5.1
Several other data sources were used in
developing effluent guidelines for the centralized
waste treatment industry. EPA used the data
included in the report entitled Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works
2-14
-------
D^el^men^ocumen^b^h^C^^^oin^ourc^ute^or^
Chagte^^at^ollection
(EPA 440/1-82/303, September 1982),
commonly referred to as the "50 POTW Study",
in determining those pollutants that would pass
through a POTW. EPA's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL),
formerly called the Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL), treatability data base was
used to supplement the information provided by
the 50 POTW Study. A description of
references is presented in Section 7.6.2.
Laboratory Study on the Effect of Total
Dissolved Solids on Metals
Precipitation 2.5.2
During the comment period for the 1995
proposal, EPA received comments which
asserted that high levels of total dissolved solids
(TDS) in CWT wastewaters may compromise a
CWT's ability to meet the proposed metal
subcategory limitations. The data indicated that
for some metal-contaminated wastewaters, as
TDS levels increased, the solubility of the metal
in wastewater also increased. As such, the
commenters claimed that metal-contaminated
wastewaters with high TDS could not be treated
to achieve the proposed limitations.
At the time of the original proposal, EPA had
no data on TDS levels in CWT wastewaters.
None of the facilities provided TDS data in their
response to the Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire or the Detailed Monitoring
Questionnaire. Additionally, during the sampling
episodes prior to the 1995 proposal, EPA did not
collect TDS data. As such, EPA lacked the data
to estimate TDS levels in wastewaters at the
CWT facility which formed the technology basis
for the 1995 proposed metals subcategory
limitations.
In order to address the comment, EPA (1)
collected additional information on TDS levels in
metals subcategory wastewaters; (2) conducted
additional sampling; (3) consulted literature
sources; and (4) conducted bench scale studies.
First, EPA needed to determine the range of
TDS levels in CWT metals subcategory
wastewaters. As such, EPA contacted the
metals subcategory Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire respondents to determine the level
of TDS in their wastewaters. Most CWT
facilities do not collect information on the level
of TDS in their wastewaters. Those facilities
that provided information indicated that TDS
levels in CWT metals subcategory wastewaters
range from 10,000 ppm to 100,000 ppm (1 - 10
percent).
Second, EPA resampled the facility which
formed the technology basis for the 1995
proposed metals subcategory limitations as well
as one other metals subcategory facility, in part,
to determine TDS levels in their wastewaters.
EPA found TDS levels of 17,000 to 81,000
mg/L.
Third, EPA consulted various literature
sources to obtain information about the effect of
TDS levels on chemical precipitation. EPA
found no data or information which related
directly to TDS effects on chemical precipitation.
Fourth, EPA conducted a laboratory study
designed to determine the effect of TDS levels
on chemical precipitation treatment performance.
In this study, EPA conducted a series of bench-
scale experiments on five metals: arsenic,
chromium, copper, nickel and titanium. These
metals were selected because (1) they are
commonly found in CWT metals subcategory
wastewaters, (2) their optimal precipitation is
carried out in a range of pH levels; and/or (3) the
data provided in the comments indicated that
TDS may have a negative effect on the
precipitation of these metals. The preliminary
statistical analyses of the data from these studies
show no consistent relationship among the five
metals, pH levels, TDS concentrations and
chemical precipitation effectiveness using
hydroxide or a combination of hydroxide and
sulfide. (DCN 23.32 describes the study and the
statistical analyses in further detail.)
Therefore, because none of these four
sources provided consistent and convincing
2-15
-------
Chagte^^at^ollection
Develo^men^ocumen^jm^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
evidence that TDS compromises a facility's
ability to meet the final metal subcategory
limitations, EPA has not incorporated the TDS
levels into the development of limitations on
metals discharges.
Public Participation 2.6
EPA has strived to encourage the
participation of all interested parties throughout
the development of the CWT guidelines and
standards. EPA has met with various industry
representatives including the Environmental
Technology Council (formerly the Hazardous
Waste Treatment Council), the National Solid
Waste Management Association (NSWMA), the
National Oil Recyclers Association (NORA), and
the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA).
EPA has also participated in industry meetings as
well as meetings with individual companies that
may be affected by this regulation. EPA also
met with environmental groups including
members of the Natural Resources Defense
Council. Finally, EPA has made a concerted
effort to consult with EPA regional staff,
pretreatment coordinators, and other state and
local entities that will be responsible for
implementing this regulation.
EPA sponsored two public meetings, one
prior to the original proposal on March 8, 1994
and one prior to this re-proposal on July 27,
1997. The purpose of the public meetings was
to share information about the content and status
of the proposed regulation. The public meetings
also gave interested parties an opportunity to
provide information and data on key issues.
On March 24, 1995 (following the original
proposal), July 29, 1997 (following the Notice of
Availability), and February 18, 1999 (following
the supplemental proposal), EPA sponsored
workshops and public meetings. The purpose of
the workshops was to provide information about
the proposed regulation and to present topics on
which EPA was soliciting comments. The public
meetings gave interested parties the opportunity
to present oral comments on the proposed
regulation.
Finally, as detailed in thcEconomicAnalysis
of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry (EPA 821-R-98-019) , on November 6,
1997, EPA convened a Small Business
Regulatory Flexibility Act (SBREFA) Review
Panel in preparing this final rule. The review
panel was composed of employees of the EPA
program office developing this proposal, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
within the Office of Management and Budget
and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). The panel met
over the course of two months and collected the
advice and recommendations of representatives
of small entities that may be affected by this rule
and reported their comments as well as the
Panel's findings on the following:
• The type and number of small entities that
would be subject to the proposal.
• Record keeping, reporting and other
compliance requirements that the proposal
would impose on small entities subject to the
proposal, if promulgated.
• Identification of relevant Federal rules that
may overlap or conflict with the proposed
rule.
• Description of significant regulatory
alternatives to the proposed rule which
accomplish the stated obj ectives of the CWA
and minimize any significant economic.
The small entity CWT population was
represented by members of the National Oil
Recyclers Association (NORA), the
Environmental Technology Council, and a law
firm representing a coalition of CWTs in
Michigan. EPA provided each of the small entity
representatives and panel members many
materials related to the development of this rule.
As such, the small entity representatives had the
opportunity to comment on many aspects of this
2-16
-------
Chagte^^at^ollection
Develo^men^ocumen^o^h^W^Poin^ourc^Me^or^
promulgated guideline in addition to those
specified above. All of the small entity
comments and the panel findings are detailed in
the "Final Report of the SBREFA Small
Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's
Planned Proposed Rule for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Waste
Treatment Industry" which is located in the
regulatory record accompanying this rule.
2-17
-------
Chapter
3
SCOPE/APPLICABILITY OF THE FINAL REGULATION
EPA received numerous comments on the
1995 proposal and 1996 Notice of Data
Availability concerning the applicability of this
rule to various operations. Consequently, EPA
devoted significant discussion in the 1999
supplemental proposal to applicability issues.
Again, in response, EPA received numerous
comments on applicability issues. Many
commenters were simply seeking clarification of
the coverage of this rule to a specific operation.
Table 3-3, located at the end of this chapter,
provides a general overview of the applicability
of the final rule on potentially-covered facilities
and is based on some of the issues raised during
the public comment periods. While many of
these issues were discussed in the 1999
supplemental proposal and, in most cases, the
final guideline retains the same approach as those
explained in the supplemental proposal, EPA
presents a detailed discussion of these issues in
Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.25.
Applicability 3.1
The universe of facilities which would be
potentially subject to this guideline, except where
noted otherwise, include the following. First,
EPA is establishing limitations and pretreatment
standards for stand-alone waste treatment and
recovery facilities receiving materials from off-
site -- classic "centralized waste treaters". These
facilities may treat either for recovery or disposal
or recycle hazardous or non-hazardous waste,
hazardous or non-hazardous wastewater, and/or
used material received from off-site. Second,
while EPA is generally not subjecting discharges
from waste treatment systems at facilities
primarily engaged in other industrial operations to
the scope of this rule, the rule will regulate at
least a portion of their wastewater in certain
circumstances. Thus, industrial facilities which
process their own, on-site generated, process
wastewater along with hazardous or non-
hazardous wastes, wastewaters, and/or used
material received from off-site may be subject to
this rule with respect to a portion of their
discharge unless certain conditions are met.
The wastewater flows covered by this rule
include some or all flows related to off-site waste
receipts and on-site CWT wastewater generated
as a result of CWT operations. The kinds of on-
site CWT wastewater generated at these facilities
include, for example, the following: solubilization
wastewater, emulsion breaking/gravity separation
wastewater, used oil processing wastewater,
treatment equipment washes, transport washes
(tanker truck, drum, and roll-off boxes),
laboratory-derived wastewater, air pollution
control wastewater, industrial waste combustor
wastewater from on-site industrial waste
combustors, landfill wastewater from on-site
landfills, and contaminated storm water. A
detailed discussion of CWT wastewaters is
provided in Chapter 4. In summary, all
wastewater discharges to a receiving stream or
the introduction of wastewater to a publicly
owned treatment works from a facility which this
regulation defines as a centralized waste
treatment facility are subject to the provisions of
this rule unless specifically excluded. The
following sections discuss the applicability of the
CWT rule to various wastewater discharges
associated with centralized waste treatment
operations.
Manufacturing Facilities 3.1.1
At the time of the original proposal, EPA
defined a centralized waste treatment facility as
any facility which received waste from off-site
3-1
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
for treatment or recovery on a commercial or
non-commercial basis. Non-commercial facilities
were defined as facilities that accept off-site
wastes from facilities under the same ownership.
Throughout the development of this rule,
EPA has contemplated that the rule would apply
to wastewater discharges from facilities that,
while primarily engaged in other industrial
operations, also may treat and/or treat for
recovery or recycle hazardous or non-hazardous
waste or wastewater and/or off-site wastes or
used materials. These facilities primarily treat
wastes generated as a result of their own on-site
manufacturing operations. Their wastewater
discharges are, by and large, already subject to
effluent guidelines and standards (some
treatment operations, however, may be located
at manufacturing facilities which are not subject
to effluent guidelines and standards). All of
these facilities also accept off-site generated
wastes for treatment. In some instances, a
facility under the same corporate ownership
generates these off-site wastes. The facility
treats these intra-company transfers on a non-
commercial basis. In other instances, the off-site
wastestreams originate from a company under a
different ownership ~ an inter-company transfer.
In some instances, the off-site wastes received at
these industrial facilities are generated by a
facility performing the same manufacturing
operations, while in other instances, the off-site
wastestreams are generated by facilities engaged
in entirely unrelated manufacturing operations.
Some receive a constant wastestream from only
a handful of customers and some receive a wide
variety of wastestreams from hundreds of
customers.
EPA received extensive comment concerning
how the CWT rule should apply to facilities that
provide waste treatment and/or recovery
operations for off-site generated wastes, but
whose primary business is something other than
waste treatment or recovery. In general,
commenters urged EPA to limit the scope of the
regulation in one of several ways. Commenters
suggested restricting the scope to any of the
following:
facilities whose sole purpose is the treatment
of off-site wastes and wastewaters; or
facilities which only accept off-site wastes
on a commercial basis; or
facilities which accept off-site wastes which
are not produced as a result of industrial
operations subject to the same effluent
guidelines and standards as the on-site
generated wastes or off-site wastes which
are not compatible with the on-site generated
wastes and the on-site wastewater treatment
system; or
manufacturing facilities which accept off-site
wastes in excess of a de minimis level.
EPA reexamined the database of facilities
which form the basis of the CWT rule. EPA's
database contains information on 17
manufacturing facilities which commingle waste
generated by on-site manufacturing activities for
treatment with waste generated off-site and one
manufacturing facility which does not commingle
waste generated by on-site manufacturing
activities for treatment with waste generate off-
site. Nine of these facilities treat waste on a non-
commercial basis only and nine treat waste on a
commercial basis. Of the eighteen facilities, eight
facilities only accept and treat off-site wastes
which are from the same categorical process as
the on-site generated waste streams. Ten of the
facilities, however, accept off-site wastes which
are not subject to the same categorical standards
as the on-site generated wastewater. The
percentage of off-site wastewaters being
commingled for treatment with on-site
wastewater varies from 0.06% to 80% with the
total volumes varying between 87,000 gallons
per year to 381 million gallons per year.
The guidelines, as proposed in 1995, would
have included both types of facilities within the
scope of this rule. EPA included these facilities
in the 1995 proposed CWT rule to ensure that all
wastes receive adequate treatment ~ even those
shipped between facilities already subject to
3-2
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
existing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards (EPA agrees that, for off-site wastes
which are generated by the same categorical
process as on-site generated wastes,
intracompany and intercompany transfers are a
viable and often preferable method to treat waste
streams efficiently at a reduced cost. EPA does
not want to discourage these management
practices. EPA is still concerned, however, that
the effluent limitations and categorical standards
currently in place may not ensure adequate
treatment in circumstances where the off-site
generated wastes are not from the same
categorical group as the on-site generated wastes.
It is not duplicative to include within the scope of
the CWT guideline, wastewater that results from
the treatment of off-site wastes not subject to the
guidelines and standards applicable to the
treatment of wastewater generated on-site.
Additionally, even though the primary business at
these facilities is not the treatment of off-site
wastes, EPA does not believe that the burden to
these facilities exceeds that of the facilities whose
primary business is the treatment of off-site
wastes. EPA has included these facilities in all of
its economic analyses).
In the supplemental proposal, EPA proposed
subjecting centralized waste treatment operations
at manufacturing facilities to the provisions of the
rule unless one of the following conditions was
met:
In the case of manufacturing facilities
subject to national effluent limitations
guidelines for existing sources, standards of
performance for new sources, or
pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources (national effluent guidelines and
standards), if the process or operation
generating the wastes received from off-site
for treatment is subject to the same national
effluent guidelines and standards as the
process or operation generating the on-site
wastes; or
In the case of manufacturing facilities not
subject to existing national effluent guidelines
and standards, if the process or operation
generatingthe waste received from off-site is
from the same industry (other than the waste
treatment industry) and of a similar nature to
the waste generated on-site.
After careful consideration of comments and
further review of its database, EPA continues to
regard this approach as appropriate, with some
modifications. EPA has concluded that many
manufacturing facilities, even though they are
engaged primarily in another business, are also
engaged in traditional CWT activities and,
therefore, should be subject to this rule. EPA
has been unable to establish any direct
correlation between the source of the off-site
waste (intra-company or inter-company) and the
similarity (or compatibility with) of the off-site
waste to the on-site generated wastes that would
support a blanket exclusion from this rule for
intra-company waste treatment. EPA further
concludes that all off-site wastewaters should be
treated effectively irrespective of their volume,
or their volume in relation to the volume of on-
site generated waste and, thus, has rejected any
exception for small volumes. As explained in the
1999 proposal, EPA's primary concern is that
the effluent guidelines and standards currently in
place for one industry may not ensure adequate
treatment for wastes generated at another
industry.
EPA has, however, concluded that there are
circumstances where an off-site waste will
receive adequate treatment at the treating facility
even though the off-site waste may be generated
by a manufacturing process that (if treated at the
generating location) would be subject to a
different set of effluent guidelines and standards
than the effluent guidelines and standards
applicable to the treating site. The record for this
rule provides information and data on such
facilities that support EPA's conclusion. An
example is a pesticide formulating and packaging
facility (PFPR), subject to 40 CFR 455 Subpart
C, which sends its wastewaters off-site for
treatment to a facility which manufactures the
3-3
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
pesticide active ingredients (the manufacturing
facility is subject to a separate set of effluent
guidelines and standards specific to pesticide
manufacturers, 40 CFR 455 Subpart A and B).
In this case, the same pollutants are likely to be
present in the off-site and on-site generated
wastewaters, even though the wastewaters are
subject to different regulations. Therefore, the
treating facility will need to use treatment
appropriate for efficient removal of these
pollutants. This situation would not be covered
by this rule.
As a second example, consider a petroleum
refinery that accepts off-site wastewaters. If the
petroleum refinery (SIC Code 2911) accepts
wastes generated off-site at petroleum
distribution terminals (SIC Code 4612, 4613,
5171, and 5172), then the former is subject to
effluent guidelines and standards for petroleum
refineries (40 CFR 419), but the latter is not
currently subject to any national effluent
guidelines. However, the wastewaters generated
at petroleum marketing terminals are based on
materials manufactured at the refineries, and
therefore would likely reflect the same pollutant
profile. This situation would not be covered by
this rule.
A third example involves clean-up activities
at manufacturing sites. As part of clean-up
operations at its facility, one commenter (called
facility A) noted that it accepts contaminated
groundwater from a different manufacturing
facility located next door (facility B). The
contaminated groundwater site (while not located
on facility A, the treating facility) was
contaminated by the manufacturing process at
the treating site (facility A) and not at the site
where located (facility B). Therefore, the
contaminated wastewater would be similar and
compatible with the on-site generated wastewater
at facility A. In this case, the CWT rule would
not apply.
EPA received information on each of the
examples provided in comment on the rule. The
comments detail instances in which the off-site
wastewaters, while not subject to the same
national effluent guidelines and standards as the
wastewater generated on-site, are similar to the
on-site generated manufacturing wastewaters and
compatible with the on-site treatment system. In
these cases, EPA concluded that the application
of the CWT rule may not result in increased
environmental protection, but simply add an
additional layer of complexity for the treating
facility and the permit writer.
Furthermore, EPA determined there are
other instances of off-site waste acceptance at
manufacturing facilities in which the off-site
wastes, while not from the same industrial
category, are similar to the on-site generated
manufacturing wastewaters and compatible with
the manufacturing wastewater treatment system.
Consequently, for purposes of this rule, EPA has
decided that, where the dischargers establishes
that the wastes being treated are of similar nature
and compatible with treatment of the on-site
wastes, the CWT limitations and standards will
not apply to the resulting discharge. EPA
concluded that, in those circumstances, the
permit writer should instead apply the limitations
applicable to the treatment of on-site wastewater
to wastewaters generated through treatment of
the off-site waste. Under the approach adopted
for the final rule, the permit writer will determine
whether the off-site generated waste accepted for
treatment and/or recovery at a manufacturing
facility (whether subject to national effluent
guidelines and standards or not) and commingled
for treatment in the on-site treatment system is
similar to the on-site generated wastes and
compatible with the on-site treatment system. If
it is, the discharge of the treated effluent should
be subject to the applicable on-site limitations (or
standards) even if the off-site wastes would be
subject to a different set of national effluent
guidelines and standards as the on-site generated
wastes (or no national effluent guidelines and
standards) if treated where generated. In the
event that the permit writer makes this
determination, the treating facility would be
subject to the on-site limits only and not subject
to the CWT guideline.
3-4
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
For this final rule, EPA has not rigidly
defined when a waste is of similar character and
the treatment of it is compatible with the
treatment of the on-site wastes, believing that
permit writers are in the best position to
determine this term. Permit writers should
compare the wastewaters at the manufacturing
facility to the off-site generated wastewaters
(constituents and concentrations) and the
appropriateness of the treatment system to the
off-site generated wastewaters on a case by case
basis. The final guideline commits the decision
that an off-site wastewater is similar and
compatible (and thus whether CWT limitations
or standards would apply) to the permit writer.
A treating facility must submit information
demonstrating to the permit writer that the off-
site waste is similar and compatible. EPA
cautions permit writers that the judgment of
"similar and compatible" should be made based
only on the development of a full record on this
issue. If the treating facility has not clearly
established that the off-site wastewaters are
similar to the on-site generated manufacturing
wastewaters and compatible with the treatment
system in the permit writer's best judgment, the
permit writer must apply the CWT limitations to
the treating facility.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that
centralized waste treatment operations at
manufacturing facilities will be subject to
provisions of the rule unless one of the following
conditions is met:
In the case of a facility subject to national
effluent limitation guidelines for existing
sources, standards of performance for new
sources, or pretreatment standards for new
and existing sources, if the facility
demonstrates that the wastes received from
off-site for treatment and/or recovery are
generated in a process or operation that
would be subject to the same national
effluent guidelines and standards as the
process or operation generating the on-site
wastes; or
• In the case of a facility subject to national
effluent guidelines and standards if the
facility demonstrates that the waste received
from off-site is similar in nature to the waste
generated on-site and compatible with the
on-site treatment system; or
• In the case of a facility not subject to
national effluent limitations and standards, if
the facility demonstrates that the waste
received from off-site is similar in nature to
the waste generated on-site and compatible
with the on-site treatment system.
EPA contemplates that this approach would
be implemented in the following manner. A
facility that is currently subject to national
effluent limitation guidelines or pretreatment
standards receives wastewater from off-site for
treatment. The wastewater is commingled for
treatment with manufacturing wastewater
generated on-site. If the off-site wastewater is
subject to the same limitations or standards as
the onsite wastewater (or would be if treated
where generated) or if the off-site wastewater is
similar to the onsite wastewater and compatible
with the treatment system, the CWT limitations
would not apply to the discharge associated with
the off-site wastewater flows. In that case,
another guideline or standard applies. If,
however, the off-site wastewater is not subject to
the same national limitation guidelines or
standards (or if none exist) and if the off-site
wastewater is not similar to the onsite
wastewater and compatible with the treatment
system, that portion of the discharge associated
with the off-site flow would be subject to CWT
requirements (of course, the portion of the
wastewater generated on-site remains subject to
applicable limitations and standards for the
facility). If the off-site and on-site wastewaters
are commingled prior to discharge, the permit
writer would use the '"combined wastestream
formula" or "building block approach" to
determine limitations for the commingled
wastestream (see Chapter 14).
Certain facilities that are subject to the CWT
3-5
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
regulations because they accept wastes whose
treatment is not compatible with the treatment of
wastes generated on-site may nevertheless be
subject to limitations and standards based on the
otherwise applicable provisions of 40 CFR
Subchapter N. Thus, the final regulations
provide for the permit writer or pretreatment
control authority to develop "alternative
limitations and standards" for certain facilities in
a narrow set of circumstances (see e.g., 40 CFR
437.10(b)). Under this approach, which EPA
discussed in the 1999 proposal, permit writers
could require manufacturing facilities that treat
off-site wastes to meet all otherwise-applicable
categorical limitations and standards for the
industries from which the waste was generated.
This approach would also determine limitations
or standards for any commingled on-site and off-
site wastewater using the "combined
wastestream formula" or "building block
approach." The permit writer would apply the
categorical limitations from the industries
generating the wastewater, rather than the CWT
limitations, to the off-site portion of the
commingled wastestream. The use of the
combined wastestream formula and building
block approaches for CWT wastes is discussed
further in Section XIV.F of the 1999 proposal
(64 FR 2342-2343). The permit writer (or
pretreatment control authority) may establish
alternative limitations and standards only when a
facility receives continuous flows of process
wastewaters with relatively consistent pollutant
profiles from no more than five customers.
EPA's information shows that, in practice, permit
writers are currently following this approach for
facilities that treat off-site waste for no more
than five facilities. This approach is not
appropriate for facilities that receive variable off-
site wastewaters or that service more than a
handful of customers.
After further consideration of the above
described alternative and careful consideration of
comments received on this alternative, EPA
determined that the permit writer (or local
pretreatment authority) should have the option in
a limited set of circumstances of applying the
applicable categorical limitations or standards to
the off-site wastestreams. This is the approach
described above. Thus, the final rule authorizes
permit writers(at their discretion) to subject the
wastewater associated with the treatment of the
off-site wastes to limitations and standards based
on the categorical limitations from the industries
generating the wastewater, rather than applying
the CWT limitations to the off-site portion of the
commingled wastestream. Consequently, the
applicability provisions of Subparts A, B, C and
D provide for such authority. See 40 CFR §§
437.10(b), 437.20(b), 437.30(b) & 437.40(b).
Pipeline Transfers
(Fixed Delivery Systems) 3.1.2
EPA did not propose to apply CWT
limitations and standards to facilities that receive
off-site wastes for treatment solely via an open
or enclosed conduit (for example, pipeline,
channels, ditches, trenches, etc.). EPA did not
propose to include pipeline facilities because,
based on information obtained by the Agency,
facilities that receive all their wastes through a
pipeline or trench (fixed delivery systems) from
the original source of waste generation receive
continuous flows of process wastewater with
relatively consistent pollutant profiles. These
wastewaters are traditional wastewaters from the
applicable industrial category that generally
remain constant from day to day in terms of the
concentration and type of pollutant parameters.
Unlike traditional CWT facilities, their customers
and wastewater sources do not change and are
limited by the physical and monetary constraints
associated with pipelines.
EPA has reevaluated the database for this
rule. EPA received questionnaire responses
from four centralized waste treatment facilities
which receive their waste streams solely via
pipeline. EPA also examined the database that
was developed for the organic chemicals,
plastics, and synthetic fibers (OCPSF) effluent
limitations guidelines to gather additional data on
3-6
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
OCPSF facilities which also have centralized
waste treatment operations. Based on the
OCPSF database, 16 additional facilities are
treating wastewater received solely via pipeline
from off-site for treatment. A review of the
CWT and OCPSF databases supplemented by
telephone calls to selected facilities reveals that
one facility no longer accepts wastes from off-
site, one facility is now operating as a POTW,
and 11 facilities only accept off-site wastes that
were generated by a facility within the same
category as on-site generated waste. (The latter
facilities, under the criteria explained above,
would no longer be within the scope of the
proposed rule because they are already subject
to existing effluent guidelines and standards.)
Therefore, EPA identified 7 facilities which
receive off-site wastes solely via pipeline which
may be subject to this rulemaking.
Of these seven facilities, one is a dedicated
treatment facility which is not located at a
manufacturing site. The other six pipeline
facilities are located at manufacturing facilities
which are already covered by an existing effluent
limitation guideline. All of the facilities are direct
dischargers and all receive waste receipts from
no more than five customers (many receive
waste receipts from three or fewer customers).
Since the 1995 proposal, EPA conducted site
visits at two of these pipeline facilities.
Information collected during these site visits
confirmed EPA's original conclusion that wastes
received by pipeline are more consistent in
strength and treatability than "typical" CWT
wastewaters. These wastewaters are traditional
wastewaters from the applicable industrial
category that generally remain relatively constant
from day to day in terms of the concentration
and type of pollutant parameters. Unlike
traditional CWTs, their customers and
wastewater sources do not change and are
limited by the physical and monetary constraints
associated with pipelines.
EPA has also reviewed the discharge permits
for each of these pipeline facilities. EPA found
that, in all cases, permit writers had carefully
applied the "building block approach" in
establishing the facility's discharge limitations.
Therefore, in all cases, the treating facility was
required to treat each of the piped wastewaters
to comply with otherwise applicable effluent
guidelines and standards.
EPA did not receive any information in
response to the 1999 proposed rule that has
convinced the Agency to change its treatment of
pipeline facilities for purposes of this rule.
Consequently, the scope of this final rule
excludes wastes that are piped to waste treatment
facilities. See 40 CFR § 437.1(b)(3). These
wastes will continue to be subject to otherwise
applicable effluent guidelines and standards. In
EPA's view, it is more appropriate for permit
writers to develop limitations for treatment
facilities that receive wastewater by pipeline on
an individual basis by applying the "combined
wastestream formula" or "building block"
approach.
There are two exceptions to this approach.
The first is for facilities that receive waste via
conduit (that is, pipeline, trenches, ditches, etc.)
from facilities that are acting merely as waste
collection or consolidation centers that are not
the original source of the waste. These
wastewaters are subject to the CWT rule. The
basis for EPA's exclusion of waste treatment
facilities receiving wastes by pipeline from the
scope of the rule was that such facilities did not
receive the same types of varying wastes as
CWT facilities receiving wastes by truck or
tanker. Pipeline facilities receive flows of wastes
with consistent pollutant profiles. Waste
consolidators, on the other hand, which send
their flows to a treatment facility via pipeline are
delivering wastes like those typically received by
CWT facilities in tanks or trucks. See 40 CFR §
437.1(b)(3). The second is for facilities that
serve as both CWT facilities and pipeline
facilities (i.e., receive waste from off-site via
pipeline as well as some other mode of
transportation such as trucks). If this type of
facility commingles the trucked and piped waste
prior to discharge, then both the trucked and
3-7
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
piped wastewaters at these facilities are subject
to the CWT rule. The basis for the pipeline
exclusion no longer applies because the addition
of hauled waste introduces variability in pollutant
concentrations and characteristics that are not
true for the piped wastes. See 40 CFR §
437.1(b)(3). However, if such a facility
discharges these wastewaters separately, then
only the trucked off-site wastewater is subject to
provisions of the CWT rule and the piped waste
subject to limitations and standards based on the
applicable 40 CFR Subchapter N limitations and
standards. POTWs are not considered CWTs
and are not subject to the limitations and
standards of this rule. However, as discussed
more fully in Section 3.1.6, POTWs should not
be receiving wastes from industrial users subject
to national effluent guidelines and standards
(either by pipeline or otherwise) that do not
comply with applicable pretreament standards.
Product Stewardsh ip 3.1.3
Many members of the manufacturing
community have adopted "product stewardship"
programs as an additional service for their
customers to promote recycling and reuse of
products and to reduce the potential for adverse
environmental impacts from chemical products.
Many commenters have defined "product
stewardship" in this way: "taking back spent,
used, or unused products, shipping and storage
containers with product residues, off-
specification products and waste materials from
use of products." Generally, whenever possible,
these manufacturing plants recover and reuse
materials in chemical processes at their facility.
Manufacturing companies that cannot reuse the
spent, used, or unused materials returned to
them treat these materials/wastewaters in their
wastewater treatment plant. With few
exceptions, all of the materials (which are not
reused in the manufacturing process) that are
treated in the on-site wastewater treatment
systems appear to have been produced in the
same effluent limitations guidelines point source
category as the on-site manufactured materials.
In industry's view, such materials are inherently
compatible with the treatment system. EPA
received no specific information on these product
stewardship activities in the responses to the 308
Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. EPA
obtained information on this program from
comment responses to the 1995 CWT proposal
and in discussions with industry since the 1995
proposal. As part of their comment to the 1995
proposal, the Chemical Manufacturer's
Association (CMA) provided results of a survey
of their members on product stewardship
activities. Based on these survey results, which
are shown in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2, the vast
majority of materials received under the product
stewardship programs are materials received for
product rework. A small amount is classified as
residual recycling and an even smaller amount is
classified as drum take backs. Of the materials
received, the vast majority is reused in the
manufacturing process. With few exceptions, all
of the materials (which are not reused in the
manufacturingprocess) that are treated in the on-
site wastewater treatment systems, appear to be
from the same categorical group as the on-site
manufactured materials.
3-8
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 3-1. Summary of the Frequency of the Types of Activities and Dispositions Reported
Item
Number
% of Total'
Activity
Drum Returns
3
5%
Residual Recycling
7
12%
Product Rework
50
86%
Other
2
3%
Disposition
Rework/Reuse
53
91%
On-site Wastewater Treatment
22
38%
Off-site Disposal
29
50%
'Based on information submitted by 33 CMA member facilities. Of these 33 members, 13 reported
information concerning more than one product type, or activity. Therefore, the percentage of the
total is based on 58 separate entries on the survey.
Table 3-2. Summary of Frequency of Each Product Class Reported by Facilities
Product Class
Number of Facilities
Percent of Totali
Polymers, Plastics, and Resins
17
52%
Organic Chemicals
6
18%
Solvents and Petroleum Products
3
9%
Inorganic Chemicals
4
12%
Pesticides
2
6%
Unspecified
4
12%
'Based on Responses from 33 CMA facilities.
In the proposal, EPA explained that it had
decided to apply the same approach to
wastewater generated from materials that are
taken back for recycle or re-use as is applied to
wastewater received from off-site by a
manufacturing facility (i.e., if the materials
received from off-site under the product
stewardship program would be subject to the
same limitations and standards for the same
categorical industry as the on-site generated
manufacturing wastes, the treating facility would
not be subject to CWT requirements). Because
EPA remained concerned that circumstances
exist in which used materials or waste products
may not be compatible with the otherwise
existing treatment system, EPA did not propose
a blanket exemption for product stewardship
activities from the scope of this rulemaking.
EPA proposed that those activities that
wastewater from the treatment of used products
or waste materials would be subject to the CWT
rule if it were not produced at facilities subject to
the same provisions of Subchapter N as
wastewater from the treatment of the other on-
site generated wastes.
EPA received numerous comments on its
proposed approach for treating product
stewardship activities. Many commenters
claimed that the proposed rule would deter
product stewardship activities, and that EPA
should not include any product stewardship
activities in the scope of the CWT rule. Some
commented that these materials are generally not
"treated", but re-used or recovered, and that for
that reason they were fundamentally different
from other wastes in the CWT industry. Others
3-9
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
commented that while EPA's intent seemed to
be appropriate, the language was much too
restrictive. For example, commenters noted that
when a product goes off-site to another
manufacturing facility which is subject to
different categorical standards, the product
(while it remains unchanged) would then be
subject to a different set of categorical standards.
If the manufacturing facilities which originally
produced the product took back the off-spec
product from its customer, the proposal, as
written, would require that the treating facility be
subject to CWT guidelines even though the off-
spec waste would clearly be the same as those
generated on-site.
EPA applauds the efforts of manufacturing
facilities to reduce pollution and the
environmental impacts of their products and does
not want to discourage these practices.
Consequently, EPA has decided that product
stewardship activities at a manufacturing facility
which involve taking back their unused products,
shipping and storage containers with product
residues, and off-spec products should not be
subject to provisions of the CWT rule.
EPA remains concerned, however, about the
treatment of spent, used, or waste materials
returned to the original manufacturer. EPA's
concern is that treatment of the spent, used, or
waste materials with the on-site wastewater may
not be compatible with the otherwise existing
treatment system. The fact that these materials
may be accepted for re-use or recycling rather
than "treatment" does not ensure that resulting
wastewaters would be inherently compatible with
the treatment system. EPA is unable to see how
such activities differ from waste recovery
operations that the Agency has concluded should
be subject to these guidelines. For example, a
facility manufactures industrial chemicals which
are then sent to a customer which uses these
chemicals in the manufacture of printed circuit
boards. The inorganic chemical manufacturer
accepts spent etchants (waste materials from use
of product) from its customer for recovery and
re-use of certain metals in their inorganic
chemical manufacturing process. (Note that
CWT facilities not located at manufacturing sites
also accept spent etchants). The recovery
process generates a wastewater. This
wastewater may contain many pollutants which
were not present in the wastewater generated in
manufacturing the inorganic chemical and which
may not be compatible with, or effectively
treated, in the treatment process at the inorganic
chemical manufacturing facility. The same may
be true if the accepting facility determined that
spent etchant could not be effectively reused and
recovered and directed the material to their
wastewater treatment system.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that product
stewardship activities that involve taking back
spent, used, or waste materials from use of
products should, as a general matter, be subject
to provisions of this rule unless any of the
exclusions established for manufacturing
facilities, as explained in Section 3.1.1, would
apply. Thus, those activities that involve used
products or waste materials that are not subject
to effluent guidelines or standards from the same
category as the on-site generated wastes or that
are not similar to the on-site generated
manufacturing wastes and compatible with the
treatment systems (as determined by the permit
writer) are subject to the rule. EPA does not
believe this approach will curtail product
stewardship activities, in general, but will ensure
that all wastes are treated effectively.
Federally-Owned Facilities 3.1.4
Throughout development of this rule, EPA's
database has included information on CWT
facilities owned by the federal government. It
has always been EPA's intention that federal
facilities which accept wastes, wastewater, or
used material from off-site for treatment and/or
recovery of materials would be subject to
provisions of this rule unless they meet the
conditions under which the rule would not apply,
e.g. treated off-site wastes subject to the same
40 CFR Subchapter N provisions as the federal
3-10
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
facility.
EPA's database contains information on 23
federally owned facilities that operate treatment
systems. EPA has determined that 15 of these
facilities are not subject to provisions of the
CWT rule because they do not accept off-site
wastes. Of the remaining facilities, 6 are not
subject to provisions of the CWT rule because
they perform CWT activities to which the rule
would not apply. Therefore, EPA has identified
1 federally-owned CWT facility that is subject to
this rule. EPA has included this facility in all of
its analyses.
Marine Generated Wastes 3.1.5
EPA received many comments on the
original proposal relating to marine generated
wastes. Since these wastes are often generated
while a ship is at sea and subsequently off-loaded
at port for treatment, the treatment site could
arguably be classified as a CWT due to its
acceptance of "off' site wastes. Commenters,
however, claimed that marine generated wastes
should not be subject to the CWT rule for the
following reasons:
• Unlike most CWT waste streams, bilge
and/or ballast water is generally dilute and
not toxic; and
• Most of the bilge water is generated while
the ship is docked. If only the small portion
of bilge water contained in the ship upon
docking is subject to regulation, it would be
expensive and inefficient to monitor only
that small portion for compliance with the
CWT rule.
EPA reexamined its database concerning
these wastes as well as additional data on the
characteristics of these types of wastes provided
through comments to the 1995 proposal. Based
on data provided by industry on bilge and ballast
water characteristics, bilge and ballast water can
vary greatly in terms of the breadth of analytes
and the concentration of the analytes from one
ship to another. In most instances, the analytes
and concentrations are similar to those found in
wastes typical of the oils subcategory. EPA
found that while some shipyards have specialized
treatment centers for bilge and/or ballast wastes,
some of these wastes are being treated at
traditional CWTs.
In the proposed rule (64 FR 2291), EPA
defined "marine waste" as waste generated as
part of the normal maintenance and operation of
a ship, boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal
or open waters. Such wastes may include ballast
water, bilge water, and other wastes generated as
part of routine ship operations. The proposal
further explained that EPA considered
wastewater off-loaded from a ship as being
generated on-site at the point where it is off-
loaded provided that the waste is generated as
part of the routine maintenance and operation of
the ship on which it originated while at sea. The
waste is not considered an off-site generated
waste (and thus subject to CWT requirements)
as long as it is treated and discharged at the ship
servicing facility where it is off-loaded.
Therefore, EPA proposed not to include these
facilities as CWT facilities. The proposal further
clarified that if marine generated wastes are off-
loaded and subsequently sent to a CWT facility
at a separate location and commingled with other
covered wastewater, these facilities and their
wastestreams would be subject to provisions of
this rule.
After careful consideration of comments,
EPA has not modified its approach for marine
generated waste with one exception. For today's
rule, EPA defines marine waste as waste
generated as part of the normal maintenance and
operation of a ship, boat, or barge operating on
inland, coastal or open waters, or while berthed.
See 40 CFR § 437.1(c)(2). In response to
commenters' requests for clarification, EPA has
changed the definition to clarify that wastes
generated while ships are berthed are part of
normal maintenance and operational activities
and are thus "on-site." As a further point of
clarification, waste generated while a ship is
3-11
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
berthed is not an off-site generated waste so long
as it is treated and discharged at the ship
servicing facility where it is off-loaded. If,
however, marine generated wastes are off-loaded
and subsequently sent to a CWT facility at a
separate location and commingled with other
covered wastewater, these facilities and their
wastestreams are subject to provisions of this
rule.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) 3.1.6
Comments to the 1995 and 1999 CWT
proposals establish that large and small POTWs
accept a large volume of hauled wastes. A
special discharge survey conducted by the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA) indicates that 42.5 percent of POTW
respondents accept hauled industrial wastes.
This study was submitted as comment to the
1995 CWT proposal. Based on comments to the
1999 proposal, EPA believes this is likely an
underestimate of current activities.
A large quantity of the wastes trucked to
POTWs is septage and chemical toilet wastes.
EPA did not evaluate these wastes for regulation
and they are not subject to this rule. EPA would
expect that POTWs would adequately treat these
sanitary waste flows because EPA would expect
septage and chemical toilet wastes to closely
resemble sewage with respect to organic content.
POTWs also receive significant volumes of
trucked industrial and commercial wastes.
Examples of these include wastes subject to
pretreatment standards under 40 CFR subchapter
N, as well as wastes not subject to national
effluent guidelines and standards. These wastes
may include oil-water emulsions or mixtures,
coolants, tank cleaning water, bilge water,
restaurant grease trap wastes, groundwater
remediation water, contaminated storm water
run-off, interceptor wastewaters, and used
glycols. CWT facilities also treat many of these
wastes and discharges from these operations may
be subject to the final CWT limits.
EPA received numerous comments on how
the CWT rule should apply to POTWs.
Commenters were largely divided on the
applicability of the CWT rule to POTWs. All of
the POTWs that commented on the proposal
agreed that the CWT rule should not apply to
POTWs. They stated that under the CWA,
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards do
not apply to POTWs. Rather, as established by
the CWA, POTWs are subject to secondary
treatment and water quality standards. These
commenters further stated that POTWs generally
accept trucked wastes as a service to their
community to insure that these wastes receive
proper treatment. Commenting POTWs further
cited that trucked wastes comprise a de minimis
portion of the total volume of wastewater treated
at their facilities.
Non-POTW commenters were, on the other
hand, unanimous in stating that the CWT rule
should apply to POTWs. These commenters
asserted that POTWs and CWT facilities are
competing for many of the same wastestreams,
and therefore POTWs should be subject to the
same standards as CWT facilities. These
commenters stated that POTWs are actively
competing for wastestreams not subject to
national effluent guidelines and standards, and
cautioned that EPA should be concerned that this
hauled waste is being accepted with little or no
documentation regarding the source, little or no
monitoring of the shipments when they arrive,
and no pretreatment before mixing with the
normal POTW influent. They also expressed
concern that POTWs often do not have
equivalent treatment compared to CWT facilities
and that pollutant reductions are often due to
dilution rather than treatment. Finally, many
CWT facilities commented that by not including
POTWs in the scope of the CWT rule, EPA
might actually increase the discharge of
pollutants to the nation's waters since waste
generators will have an incentive to ship directly
to POTWs thus skipping what would have been
effective pretreatment at the CWT facility.
It is clear from reviewing the comments that
3-12
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
many commenters may misunderstand the
interaction between effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards, and they are
consequently confused about how this guideline
will affect POTW operations. The following
discussion is intended as clarification. Under the
CWA, all direct dischargers must comply with
technology-based effluent guidelines and any
more stringent limitations necessary to meet
State water quality standards. In the case of
certain pollutants and for certain categories and
classes of direct dischargers, EPA promulgates
guidelines that establish these technology-based
limitations. In the case of POTWs, the CWA
specifically identifies the technology ~ secondary
treatment ~ that is the basis for POTW effluent
limitations.
In addition, the CWA also requires EPA to
establish pretreatment standards for indirect
dischargers - those introducing wastewater to a
POTW either by pipe or sewer or by
transporting the waste by truck or rail to the
POTW. These standards are designed to
prevent the discharges of pollutants that pass-
through, interfere or are otherwise incompatible
with POTW operations. The standards are
technology-based and analogous to technology-
based effluent limitations applicable to direct
dischargers. Once EPA has established
pretreatment standards, no indirect discharger
may introduce wastewater to a POTW for which
there are pretreatment standards except in
compliance with the standard. The CWA
specifically prohibits the owner or operator of
any source from violating a pretreatment
standard (see section 307(d) of the CWA). This
prohibition applies whether the wastewater is
discharged through a sewer system or sent to a
POTW by truck or rail.
The CWA does authorize a POTW, in
limited circumstances, to revise pretreatment
standards for a discharger to take account of the
POTW's actual removal of a particular pollutant.
"Removal credits" may be available to a
discharger generally under the following
conditions. First, the granting of the removal
credit by the POTW must not cause a violation
of the POTWs permit limitations or conditions.
Second, the POTW's treatment of the pollutant
must not result in a sewage sludge that cannot be
use of disposed of in accordance with sewage
sludge regulations promulgated pursuant to
section 405 of the CWA (see section 307(b) of
the CWA).
EPA has promulgated regulations at 40 CFR
Part 403 (General Pretreatment Regulations for
Existing and New Sources of Pollution) that
establish pretreatment standards and
requirements that apply to any source
introducing pollutants from a non-domestic
source into a POTW. These standards include
a general prohibition on the introduction of any
pollutant that might pass through or interfere as
well as prohibitions on specific pollutants such as
those that may create a fire or explosion hazard
or corrosive structural damage. EPA has also
promulgated national effluent pretreatment
standards (like the pretreatment standards
promulgated here today) for specific industry
categories as separate regulations at 40 CFR
subchapter N.
The regulations at 40 CFR Part 403 also
require all POTWs with a design flow greater
than 5 MGD per day to develop a pretreatment
program. Moreover, EPA or a State may require
a POTW with a design flow that is less than or
equal to 5 MGD to develop a pretreatment
program if warranted by circumstances in order
to prevent pass through or interference (see 40
CFR 403.8(a)). These pretreatment programs
must require compliance with all applicable
pretreatment standards and requirements by
industrial users of the POTW (see 40 CFR
403.8(f)(ii)). Furthermore, each POTW
developing a pretreatment program must develop
and enforce specific local limits to implement the
general and specific prohibition against pass-
through and interference (see 40 CFR 403.5(c)).
Thus, any POTW subject to the requirement to
develop a pretreatment program that accepts
waste that does not comply with a general or
specific prohibition or with national effluent
3-13
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
pretreatment standards is in violation of the
regulations.
Consequently, following promulgation of this
rule, POTWs with pretreatment programs that
receive wastestreams both subject to and not
regulated by national effluent standards and
limitations must ensure the wastestreams do not
violate these requirements. In practice, with
respect to the wastestreams discussed by
commenters, this means that a POTW may not
accept untreated wastestreams subject to national
effluent guidelines and standards. These would
include wastestreams subject to pretreatment
standards in 40 CFR subchapter N (e.g.,
electroplatingwastes). Moreover, a POTW may
not accept certain other streams not subject to
national guidelines and standards such as oil-
water emulsions or mixtures if those streams
contain pollutants that would pass through or
interfere with POTW operation. Note that 40
CFR 403.5(b)(5) specifically prohibits the
introduction into a POTW of petroleum oil that
will cause pass-through or interference. Given
EPA's conclusion that oily wastewaters contain
pollutants that will pass through POTWs, it is
likely that many POTWs are accepting wastes
for treatment that contain pollutants that will pass
through.
EPA is concerned that wastestreams
accepted at POTWs, both those subject to and
those not regulated by national effluent guidelines
and standards, receive proper treatment. In
1999, EPA's Office of Wastewater Management
published the "Guidance Manual for the Control
of Wastes Hauled to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works" (EPA 833-B-98-003, September 1999).
This document again stresses that national
effluent pretreatment standards apply to waste
generated by national effluent guidelines and
standards (40 CFR parts 401 to 471), whether
the waste is introduced to the POTW through
the sewer system or hauled to the POTW.
Moreover, EPA regulations require that POTWs
must ensure pretreatment of wastes subject to
national effluent standards received at the
POTW regardless of the mode of transportation.
Similarly, because a POTW must ensure that
no user is introducing pollutants into the POTW
that would pass-through the POTW into the
receiving waters or interfere with the POTW
operation, EPA strongly recommends that each
POTW should document and monitor all hauled
wastestreams to ensure that necessary
pretreatment steps have been performed. The
guidance establishes a waste acceptance
procedure that clearly resembles that generally
performed at CWT facilities. Further, in the
case of wastestreams not subject to national
guidelines and standards, the POTW should also
monitor the hauled wastestreams to ensure that
pollutant reductions at the POTW will be
achieved through treatment and not dilution.
Based on the types of hauled wastewater
that commenters have indicated POTWs accept,
EPA shares the concern of many commenters
that pollutant reductions in these hauled
wastewaters at POTWs are largely due to
dilution. EPA reminds POTWs that wastewaters
that contain significant quantities of metal
pollutants, significant quantities of petroleum-
based oil and grease, or significant quantities of
non-biodegradable organic constituents should be
pretreated by the generating facility or an
appropriate treatment facility prior to acceptance
at the POTW. EPA further reminds POTWs
that this remains true regardless of whether or
not these wastewaters comprise a de minimis
portion of the total volume of the wastewaters
treated at their facility. EPA concluded that if
POTWs monitor hauled wastes appropriately
and additionally ensure that all hauled wastes not
subject to national effluent guidelines and
standards can be effectively treated with their
biological treatment systems then many of the
issues raised by non-POTW commenters will be
alleviated.
Finally, if a POTW chooses to establish a
pretreatment business as an addition to their
operation, they may, in given circumstances, be
subject to provisions of this rule. EPA is aware
of a POTW that plans to open a wastewater
treatment system to operate in conjunction with
3-14
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
its POTW operations. This facility would accept
wastewaters subject to national guidelines and
standards, treat them, and then discharge them to
the POTW's treatment plant. The acceptance by
a POTW of wastes subject to national effluent
guidelines and standards that do not comply with
pretreatment standards would seem to violate the
requirements noted previously unless the POTW
has revised the applicable standards to take
account of its removal of certain pollutants.
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR § 403.7 describe
the process for obtaining removal credits and
identifying the pollutants for which removal
credits may be available. Under the current
regulations, removal credits are only available for
a limited number of pollutants. The 1999 notice
described the removal credits program and when
and for what pollutants such credits might be
available at 64 FR 2339-10. EPA would note
that the new wastewater treatment system would
itself be a POTW (or part of the POTW) and,
thus, any wastewater introduced to it must meet
all applicable pretreatment standards. However,
because POTWs are already covered by the
technology requirements (i.e., secondary
treatment) specified in the CWA (40 CFR 133),
they are not considered CWT facilities and are
not within the scope of this rule.
Thermal Drying of POTW Biosolids 3.1.7
The thermal drying of POTW biosolids was
not a focus of EPA's initial regulatory effort to
develop this guideline. Consequently, EPA did
not target thermal dryers during its data
collection activities. However, commenters to
the 1999 proposal provided information on
thermal drying activities and requested EPA's
views as to whether such operations would be
subject to this rule. Thermal dryers accept off-
site generated POTW biosolids (sludges that
remain after wastewater treatment at a POTW)
and treat these biosolids with a variety of
technologies (e.g. rotary drum dryers) to form
pellets. These biosolids can then be land applied.
The thermal drying process generates two
primary wastewater streams: facility water wash
down and blowdown from wet scrubbers. These
wastewaters are discharged back to the POTW
that produced the biosolids.
Commenters to the 1999 proposal requested
that EPA not include these activities within the
scope of this rule for the following reasons:
• The POTW and the thermal dryer form a
closed loop system. POTWs are the sole
source of off-site waste received by thermal
dryers. All wastewaters generated from the
treatment of these biosolids are returned to
the generator (the POTW).
All storage and processing areas at these
facilities are enclosed. Therefore, this
material poses very little or no threat to
storm water.
Thermal drying activities bear little
resemblance to the other regulated activities.
Mandated testing parameters and other
requirements under the CWT rule have little
applicability to biosolids processing.
EPA agrees with commenters that thermal
drying of biosolids should not be subject to
provisions of the CWT rule. Because the only
source of off-site wastes received at these drying
facilities is biosolids produced at the POTW, the
wastewater being generated from thermal drying
of these biosolids should contain the same
pollutants being treated at the POTW. As a
result, the wastewater should be completely
compatible with the treatment system at the
POTW and should not cause any pass-through
or interference. Consequently, thermal drying of
POTW biosolids is not subject to provisions of
the CWT rule. See 40 CFR § 437.1(b)(4).
Transporters and/or Transportation
Equipment Cleaners 3.1.8
Facilities that treat wastewater that results
from cleaning tanker trucks, rail tank cars, or
barges may be subject to the provisions of this
rule if not subject to the Transportation
3-15
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Equipment Cleaning (TEC) Point Source
Category guidelines (40 CFR Part 442). Thus,
the CWT rule does not apply to discharges from
wastewater treatment at facilities engaged
exclusively in cleaning the interiors of
transportation equipment covered by the TEC
regulation. EPA promulgated these guidelines on
August 14, 2000 at 65 FR 49666. The TEC
regulation applies to facilities that solely accept
tanks which have been previously emptied or
that contain a small amount of product, called a
"heel," typically accounting for less than one
percent of the volume of the tank. A facility that
accepts for cleaning a tank truck, rail tank car, or
barge not "empty" for purposes of TEC may be
subject to the provisions established for the
CWT rule.
There are some facilities that are engaged in
traditional CWT activities and also engaged in
traditional TEC activities. If the wastewaters
from the two operations are commingled, under
the approach adopted for TEC, the commingled
wastewater flow from the transportation
equipment cleaning activities would be subject to
CWT limits. Therefore, a facility performing
transportation equipment cleaning as well as
other CWT services that commingles these
wastes is a CWT facility and all of the
wastewater discharges are subject to provisions
of this rule. If, however, a facility is performing
both operations and the wastestreams are not
commingled (that is, transportation equipment
cleaning process wastewater is treated in one
system and CWT wastes are treated in a second,
separate system), both the TEC rule and CWT
rule apply to the respective wastewaters. See 40
CFR § 437.1(b)(10).
As a further point of clarification, the CWT
rule does apply to transportation equipment
cleaning wastewater received from off-site.
Transportation equipment cleaning wastes
received from off-site that are treated at CWT
facilities along with other off-site wastes are
subject to provisions of this rule.
Landfill Wastewaters 3.1.9
EPA published effluent limitations guidelines
for Landfills (40 CFR Part 445) at 65 FR 3007
(January 19, 2000). There, EPA established
limits for facilities which operate landfills subject
to the provisions established in 40 CFR Parts
257, 258, 264, and 265. The final Landfills rule
limitations do not apply to wastewater associated
with landfills operated in conjunction with other
industrial or commercial operations in most
circumstances.
In the CWT industry, there are some
facilities that are engaged both in CWT activities
and in operating landfills. For the CWT final
rule, EPA's approach to facilities which treat
mixtures of CWT wastewater and landfill
wastewater is consistent with that established for
the landfill guideline. Therefore, a facility
performing landfill activities as well as other
CWT services that commingles the wastewater
is a CWT facility only, and all of the wastewater
discharges are subject to the provisions of this
rule. If a facility is performing both operations
and the wastestreams are not commingled (that
is, landfill wastewater is treated in one treatment
system and CWT wastewater is treated in a
second, separate, treatment system), the
provisions of the Landfill rule and CWT rule
apply to their respective wastewater.
Additionally, under the approach established
in the Landfills rulemaking, CWT facilities which
are dedicated to landfill wastewater only,
whether they are located at a landfill site or not,
are subject to the effluent limitations for
Landfills. These dedicated landfill CWT
facilities are not subject to provisions of the
CWT rulemaking.
As a further point of clarification, landfill
wastewater is not specifically excluded from
provisions of this rule. Landfill wastewater that
is treated at CWT facilities along with other
covered off-site wastestreams are subject to
provisions of this rule. Furthermore, a landfill
that commingles for treatment its own landfill
wastewater with other landfill wastewater only is
3-16
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
subject to the Landfill limits in the circumstances
described in Section 3.1.1 above.
Incineration Activities 3.1.10
In January 2000, EPA promulgated effluent
guidelines and pre treatment standards for
wastewater discharges from a limited segment of
the waste combustion industry at 65 FR 4360
(January 27, 2000). This regulation, codified at
40 CFR Part 444, applies to the discharge from
a "commercial hazardous waste combustor"
(CHWC). CHWCs are commercial incinerators
that treat or recover energy from hazardous
industrial waste.
There may be certain industrial facilities (for
whom EPA has established guidelines limitations
or standards in 40 CFR subpart N) which are
subject to the CWT regulation that also operate
incinerators or CHWCs. For the CWT final rule,
EPA has adopted the same approach it has
followed for other industrial facilities subject to
national limitations and standards. Where a
facility treats CHWC (or other incinerator
wastewater) with CWT wastewater, the permit
writer (or local control authority) would establish
discharge limitations (or pretreatment standards)
by using a flow-weighted combination of the
CHWC limitations/standards (or BP J incinerator
wastewater limitations/standards) and the CWT
limitations/standards. Thus, an organic chemical
facility with an on-site CHWC (or other
incinerator) that is also a CWT would be subject
to combined wastestream formula pretreatment
standards or building block limitations based on
all three 40 CFR subpart N regulations.
Additionally, a facility which only treats
CHWC wastewater (or other incinerator
wastewaters or waste that is similar in nature as
determined by the permitting authority, see
Section 3.1.1), whether located at a CHWC site
or not, would be subject not to the CWT
regulations but to the otherwise applicable
limitations or standards (either CHWC or, in the
case of non-CHWC incinerator wastewater,
limitations or standards developed by the permit
writer or local control authority). EPA notes,
however, that it has not identified any CWT
facilities that are dedicated to CHWC (or other
incineration) wastewaters only.
Further, incineration wastewaters are not
specifically excluded from provisions of this rule.
Incineration wastewaters received from off-site
that are treated at CWT facilities along with
other covered off-site wastestreams are subject
to CWT limitations and provisions of this rule.
Solids, Soils, and Sludges 3.1.11
EPA did not distinguish in its information
gathering efforts between those waste treatment
and recovery facilities treating aqueous waste
and those treating non-aqueous wastes or a
combination of both. Thus, EPA's 308 Waste
Treatment Industry Questionnaire and related
CWT Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (DMQ)
asked for information on CWT operations
without regard to the type of waste treated.
EPA's sampling program also included facilities
that accepted both aqueous and solid wastes for
treatment and/or recovery. In fact, the facility
that forms the technology basis for the metals
subcategory limitations treats both liquid and
solid wastes. A facility that accepts wastes from
off-site for treatment and/or recovery that
generates a wastewater is subject to the CWT
rule regardless of whether the wastes are
aqueous or non-aqueous. Therefore, wastewater
generated in the treatment of solids received
from off-site is subject to the CWT rule.
As a further point of clarification, the main
concern in the treatment or recycling of off-site
"solid wastes" is that pollutants contained in the
solid waste may be transferred to a process or
contact water resulting in a wastewater that may
require treatment. Examples of such
wastewaters include, but are not limited to the
following:
entrained water directly removed through
dewatering operations (for example, sludge
dewatering);
3-17
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
contact water added to wash or leach
contaminants from the waste material; and
storm water that comes in direct contact
with waste material which contain liquids.
The treatment or recovery of solids that remain
in solid form when contacted with water and
which do not leach any chemicals into the water
are not subject to this rule. Examples of
excluded solids recovery operations are the
recycling of aluminum cans, glass and plastic
bottles. As a further point of clarification, any
wastewater generated at a municipal recycling
center is not subject to provisions of this rule.
Scrap Metal Processors and Auto
Salvage Operations 3.1.12
During development of this regulation, EPA
did not examine facilities engaged in scrap metal
processing or auto salvage operations as part of
its study. EPA did not attempt to collect
information on these types of operations.
However, commenters to the 1999 proposal
provided some information on these activities.
Commenters noted that these operations often
generate contaminated wastewaters as a
secondary part of their operations. As described
by commenters, wastewater is often produced
when rainwater comes in contact with the scrap
metal and/or automobiles during collection and
storage. This rainwater then becomes
contaminated with oily residue from the scrap
metal and/or automobiles. Contaminated storm
water is the only wastewater resulting from these
operations.
Because contaminated storm water
generated from centralized scrap metal
processing or auto salvage operations would, as
the regulatory language is specified, be subject to
regulation, EPA considered whether it had a
basis for regulating wastewaters from these
operations. Other than the limited information
supplied by commenters, EPA has very little data
concerning these activities and the facilities that
conduct these activities. As a result, EPA
concluded that it should not include within the
scope of the guideline wastewaters generated
from centralized scrap metal processing or auto
salvage at this time. EPA would expect that
permit writers would develop limitations or local
limits to establish site-specific permit
requirements for any centralized scrap metal
processing or auto salvage operations generating
and discharging a contaminated stormwater.
Transfer Stations 3.1.13
During the initial stages of development of
this rule, EPA did not envision transfer stations
as part of the centralized waste treatment
industry. As such, EPA did not attempt to
collect information on the operation of transfer
stations. However, EPA received comment to
the 1999 proposal asking that EPA clarify its
coverage of these facilities by this rule.
EPA has very little information on the
operation of transfer stations. Based on
comments, while transfer stations could fall
within the definition of a CWT since they accept
off-site industrial wastes, they do not perform
any treatment or recovery of the off-site wastes.
Transfer stations simply facilitate the distribution
of wastes for disposal. Consequently, EPA has
concluded that transfer stations should not be
subject to provisions of the CWT rule.
Stabilization 3.1.14
As explained in the 1999 proposal, EPA
concluded that, by definition,
stabilization/solidification operations are "dry"
and do not produce any wastewater. As such,
EPA did not propose to include
stabilization/solidification processes in the CWT
rule. At that time, EPA also explained that it was
considering a subcategory for stabilization
operations with a zero discharge requirement,
and requested comment on this approach.
EPA received very little comment on
stabilization/solidification and no new data from
industry following the 1999 proposal. One
3-18
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
commenter suggested EPA require
stabilization/solidification operations to be zero
discharge. Another suggested EPA use the same
approach proposed for facilities handling used oil
filters. A third commented that EPA should not
promulgate a zero discharge requirement
because, in the event that a wastewater is
produced by stabilization/solidification
operations, the facility would not have the option
to treat the wastewater on-site.
EPA re-examined its database and concluded
that the while "solidification / stabilization"
processes do not themselves produce any
wastewater, there are often wastewaters
associated with these processes. The major
wastewater reported by questionnaire
respondents associated with
stabilization/solidification operations is equipment
wash down. Further, the database shows that
many of the wastes accepted from off-site for
stabilization/solidification are the same or similar
to wastes accepted for other covered CWT
operations.
Consequently, EPA is not promulgating a
subcategory for stabilization/solidification with a
zero discharge requirement. EPA agrees with
commenters that, in the event that there are
wastewaters produced by or associated with
these operations, facilities should have the option
of choosing whether to treat the wastes on-site or
through other means. If these operations
produce a wastewater, then the discharge of
wastewater from these facilities should be
subject to provisions of this rule. Therefore,
"dry" stabilization/solidification operations
themselves are not subject to provisions of the
CWT rule. However, wastewater discharges
from stabilization/solidification operations that
are performed on waste received from off site
are subject to provisions of this rule. This
approach is consistent with EPA's approach to
fuel blending operations and used oil filter
management.
Waste, Wastewater, or Used Material
Re-use 3.1.15
EPA recognizes that some facilities accept
wastewater from off-site for re-use rather than
treatment or recovery. The intent in accepting
these off-site "treated" wastewaters is to replace
potable water or more expensive pure water
obtained from wells, surface waters, etc.
Examples include, but are not limited to the
following:
the acceptance of wastewater from off-site
for use in place of potable water in industrial
processes;
the use of secondary POTW effluents as
non-contact cooling water; and
the use of storm water in place of potable
water at shared industrial facilities located in
industrial parks.
Likewise, EPA is also aware that some facilities
accept used materials such as spent pickle liquor
for re-use as a treatment chemical in place of
virgin treatment chemicals.
EPA applauds all pollution prevention
activities, especially those that allow treated
wastewater or spent chemicals to be re-used
rather than discharged. EPA does not define this
type of activity as treatment or recovery.
Therefore, the acceptance of off-site wastewater
or spent chemicals for re-use in the treatment
system or other industrial process is not a CWT
activity and is not subject to provisions of this
rule.
Recovery and Recycling Operations 3.1.16
Many CWT facilities perform recovery
activities that lead to recycling of materials either
at the recovering site or at another location. The
purpose of these activities is to recycle product
back into a use for which it was originally
intended, not the treatment and disposal of
wastewater streams. Examples of such activities
include but are not limited to the following: used
oil processing, used glycol recovery, fuel
3-19
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
blending, metals recovery, and re-refining.
Many commenters to both the 1995 proposal
and the 1999 proposal noted that these activities
should not be included under the scope of this
rule because they are not "treatment," but
"recovery" activities.
EPA applauds efforts to reduce pollution and
the ancillary adverse consequences to the
environment associated with product disposal
and does not want to discourage these practices.
However, EPA also recognizes that, while the
intent of these activities is not treatment of a
"wastewater" but rather recovery of a used or
waste material, wastewater is usually generated
from these recovery processes. Generally, the
facility performing the recovery activity also
performs on-site treatment of the resulting
wastewater. EPA wants to ensure that these
wastewaters receive appropriate treatment.
From the beginning of its data gathering
activities associated with the development of this
rule, EPA has included recycling and recovery
activities along with wastewater treatment
activities. In fact, EPA developed sections of the
308 Questionnaire to specifically target the
collection of information on metals, solids, oils,
and organics recovery activities. Many of the
facilities visited and sampled by EPA perform
recovery operations. Some of these facilities
refer to themselves as "recyclers" and not
"wastewater treatment facilities." EPA's
sampling data show that in many instances the
pollutants and concentrations of pollutants in
wastewaters generated from recycling/recovery
activities are very similar or more concentrated
than wastewaters accepted for "treatment" only.
In fact, many facilities that perform recovery
operations combine the wastewater generated
from the recovery operations with other off-site
wastewater received for treatment.
Consequently, EPA has concluded that recovery
operations are included in the scope of this rule.
Therefore, unless specifically stated elsewhere,
facilities that recycle and recover off-site waste,
wastewaters and/or used materials are considered
"centralized waste treatment facilities" and are
subject to provisions of this rule. However, if
metals recovery operations are subject to the
secondary metals provisions of 40 CFR 421, the
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source
Category, then the provisions of this part do not
apply. These secondary metals subcategories are
Subpart C (Secondary Aluminum Smelting
Subcategory), Subpart F (Secondary Copper
Subcategory), Subpart L (Secondary Silver
Subcategory), Subpart M (Secondary Lead
Subcategory), Subpart P (Primary and
Secondary Germanium and Gallium
Subcategory), Subpart Q (Secondary Indium
Subcategory), Subpart R (Secondary Mercury
Subcategory), Subpart T (Secondary
Molybdenum and Vanadium Subcategory),
Subpart V (Secondary Nickel Subcategory),
Subpart X (Secondary Precious Metals
Subcategory), Subpart Z (Secondary Tantalum
Subcategory), Subpart AA (Secondary Tin
Subcategory), Subpart AB (Primary and
Secondary Titanium Subcategory), Subpart AC
(Secondary Tungsten and Cobalt Subcategory),
and Subpart AD (secondary Uranium
Subcategory).
Silver Recovery Operations from Used
Photographic andX-Ray Materials 3.1.17
At the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA
proposed not to include electrolytic
plating/metallic replacement silver recovery
operations of used photographic and x-ray
materials within the scope of this rule. The
Agency based its conclusion on the fundamental
difference in technology used to recover silver at
facilities devoted exclusively to treatment of
photographic and x-ray wastes. However, for
off-site wastes that are treated/recovered at these
facilities through any other process and/or waste
generated at these facilities as a result of any
other centralized treatment/recovery process, the
Agency proposed that these wastewaters would
be subject to provisions of this rule.
The Agency received many comments to the
1999 proposal that supported EPA's decision to
3-20
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
not include electrolytic plating/metallic
replacement silver recovery operation of used
photographic and x-ray materials within the
scope of this rule. However, commenters
additionally noted that while many of these
facilities primarily use electrolytic plating
followed by metallic replacement in silver
recovery operations, there are other processes
that are also utilized. Commenters further noted
that new silver recovery technologies are
emerging and being studied and developed on a
regular basis. As such, commenters asked EPA
to not include silver recovery operations from
used photographic and x-ray materials regardless
of the method used to recover the silver.
EPA agrees with commenters that facilities
that are devoted exclusively to the centralized
recovery of silver from photographic and x-ray
wastes should not be covered by this rule,
regardless of the type of process used to recover
the silver. As such, facilities that exclusively
perform centralized silver recovery from used
photographic and x-ray wastes are not subject to
provisions of this rule. EPA would expect that,
as is the case now with wastewater discharges
associated with this operation, the control
authority would determine whether to apply the
provisions of 40 CFR 421, Subpart L (the
Secondary Silver Subcategory of the Nonferrous
Metals Manufacturing Regulation) or establish
BPJ, site-specific permit requirements.
There are some facilities, however, which
are engaged in traditional CWT activities and
also engaged in centralized silver recovery from
photographic and x-ray materials. If the
wastewaters from the two operations are
commingled, the commingled silver recovery
wastewater flow would be subject to CWT
limits. Therefore, a facility performing
centralized silver recovery from used
photographic and x-ray materials as well as some
other covered CWT services that commingles
these wastes are subject to provision of the
CWT rule. All of the wastewater discharges are
subject to provisions of this rule. If, however, a
facility is performing both operations and the
wastestreams are not commingled (that is, silver
recovery wastewater is treated in one system and
CWT wastes are treated in a second, separate
system), the permit writer should apply the
provision of 40 CFR 421, if applicable, or
continue to establish BPJ, site-specific permit
requirements for the discharge associated with
the silver recovery operations and apply the
CWT rule to the wastewaters associated with the
other covered CWT activities.
As a further point of clarification,
wastewater generated as a result of centralized
silver recovery operations are not specifically
excluded from provisions of this rule. Silver
recovery wastewaters that are treated at CWT
facilities with other covered off-site wastestreams
are subject to provisions of this rule.
High Temperature Metals Recovery 3.1.18
EPA is aware of three facilities in the U.S.
that recover metal using a "high temperature
metals recovery" process (HTMR). HTMR
facilities recycle metal-bearing materials in a
pyrometallurgical process that employs very high
temperature furnaces. These facilities do not use
the water-based precipitation/filtration
technologies to recover metals from wastewater
observed at metals subcategory facilities
throughout the CWT industry. At the time of
the proposal, EPA believed that all HTMR
processes were "dry" (i.e., did not produce a
wastewater). Consequently, in the 1999
proposal, EPA proposed not to include facilities
that perform high temperature metals recovery
(HTMR) within the coverage of this rule. EPA
further requested comment on whether EPA
should promulgate a zero discharge requirement
for facilities that utilize the HTMR process.
Based on comment to the proposal, EPA has
concluded that while most HTMR processes are
dry, one of the three known HTMR facilities
produces a wastewater (scrubber blowdown).
As such, EPA has concluded that a zero
discharge requirement for HTMR facilities is
inappropriate and has not included it in the final
3-21
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
CWT rule. However, upon further examination
of the comments and its database, EPA has
concluded that HTMR facilities that generate a
wastewater should be included within the scope
of the CWT rule. While the HTMR process is
different from other recycling technologies
studied by EPA for this rulemaking, EPA has
concluded that the wastewater produced from
HTMR operations contains many of the CWT
metals subcategory pollutants of concern and
that the concentration of these pollutants falls
solidly within the range of wastewaters in the
CWT metals subcategory. As such, while the
HTMR process may be different from water-
based precipitation technologies, the resulting
wastewaters are similar (see DCN 33.2.1).
Therefore, it is appropriate for EPA to establish
limits for HTMR wastewaters using the metals
subcategory technology basis and these limits will
be achievable. EPA has revised all of its analysis
to reflect the inclusion of these "non-dry"
HTMR facilities within the scope of the CWT
rule. However, if high temperature metals
recovery operations are subject to any of the
secondary metals provisions of 40 CFR 421, the
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing Point Source
Category, then the provisions of this part do not
apply. See Section 3.1.16 for a list of the
secondary metals subcategories.
Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending 3.1.19
The solvent recycling industry was studied
by the EPA in the 1980s. EPA published its
findings in the "Preliminary Data Summary for
the Solvent Recycling Industry" (EPA 440/1-
89/102) in September 1989 which describes this
industry and the processes utilized. This
document defines solvent recovery as "the
recycling of spent solvents that are not the
byproduct or waste product of a manufacturing
process or cleaning operation located on the
same site." Spent solvents are generally recycled
in two main operations. Traditional solvent
recovery involves pretreatment of the waste
stream (in some cases) and separation of the
solvent mixtures by specially constructed
distillation columns. In most cases, traditional
solvent recovery is performed at organic
chemical manufacturing facilities. As such,
wastewater discharges resulting from this process
are subject to effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the organic chemicals industry (40
CFR 414).
EPA is aware that there are a few facilities
which perform commercial solvent recovery
operations. Some perform solvent recovery of
spent or contaminated chemicals received from
pharmaceutical and other chemical
manufacturing companies. Some recycle spent
solvents generated by parts washers and other
cleaning devices operated by automotive shops,
dry cleaners, and other small businesses. These
commercial solvent recovery facilities, because
they are not located at an organic manufacturing
facility, are not directly subject to effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the
organic chemicals industry (40 CFR 414).
Based on comments to the 1999 CWT
proposal, EPA considered whether it should
regulate commercial solvent recovery facilities
under the provisions of this rule. EPA has
determined, however, not to include these
commercial solvent recovery operations within
the scope of this rule at this time. Throughout
the development of this rule, EPA has clearly
stated that traditional solvent recovery operations
would not be included within the scope of this
rule. In developing its database to support this
rule, while EPA did collect limited information
on these activities, EPA intentionally excluded
known solvent recoverers from its data collection
activities. As such, EPA has only limited data on
solvent recovery activities which are not already
subject to OCPSF. It did not obtain information
to characterize the wastewaters generated at such
operations. Thus, EPA has no basis for
determining whether or not such operations are
sufficiently similar to the organic waste
subcategory so that they may properly be
regulated as organic waste streams. Therefore,
wastewaters resulting from traditional solvent
3-22
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
recovery activities as defined above are not
subject to this effluent guidelines. For
wastewaters associated with traditional solvent
recovery activities located at organic chemical
manufacturing facilities, permit writers should
use OCPSF to establish discharge requirements.
For commercial traditional solvent recovery
activities (not located at an organic chemical
manufacturing site), permit writers should use
Best Professional Judgement or local limits to
establish site-specific permit requirements.
Fuel blending is the second main operation
which falls under the definition of solvent
recovery. Fuel blending is the process of mixing
wastes for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for
reuse. At the time of the 1995 proposal, fuel
blending operations were excluded from the
CWT rule since EPA believed the fuel blending
process was "dry" (that is, no wastewaters were
produced). Based on comments to the original
proposal and the Notice of Data Availability,
EPA has concluded that this is valid and that true
fuel blenders do not generate any process
wastewaters and are, therefore, zero dischargers.
EPA is concerned, however, that the term "fuel
blending" may be loosely applied to any process
where recovered hydrocarbons are combined as
a fuel product. Such operations occur at nearly
all used oil and fuel recovery facilities.
Therefore, "dry" fuel blending operations are
excluded from the CWT rule. In the event that
wastewater is generated at a CWT fuel blending
facility, the discharge of wastewaters associated
with these operations are subject to this rule.
Re-refining 3.1.20
When EPA initially proposed guidelines and
standards for CWT facilities, the regulations
would have limited discharges from used oil
reprocessors/reclaimers, but did not specifically
include or exclude discharges from used oil re-
refiners. During review of information received
on the proposal and assessment of the
information collected, the Agency, at one point,
considered limiting the scope of this regulation to
reprocessors/reclaimers only because it was not
clear whether re-refiners actually generated
wastewater. However, further data gathering
efforts have revealed that re-refiners may
generate wastewater and that the principal
sources of re-refining wastewaters are essentially
the same as for reprocessors/reclaimers.
Consequently, the re-refining wastewater is
included within the scope of this rule.
The used oil reclamation and re-refining
industry was studied by EPA in the 1980s. EPA
published the "Preliminary Data Summary for
the Used Oil Reclamation and Re-Refining
Industry" (EPA 440/1-89/014) in September
1989 which describes this industry and the
processes utilized. This document generally
characterizes the industry in terms of the types
of equipment used to process the used oil. Minor
processors (reclaimers) generally separate water
and solids from the used oil using simple settling
technology, primarily in-line filtering and gravity
settling with or without heat addition. Major
processors (reclaimers) generally use various
combinations of more sophisticated technology
including screen filtration, heated settling,
centrifugation, and light fraction distillation
primarily to remove water. Re-refiners generally
use the most sophisticated systems which
generally include, in addition to the previous
technologies, a vacuum distillation step to
separate the oil into different components.
The final rule applies to the process
wastewater discharges from used oil re-refining
operations. The principal sources of wastewater
include oil-water gravity separation (often
accompanied by chemical/thermal emulsion
breaking) and dehydration unit operations
(including light distillation and the first stage of
vacuum distillation). EPA has, to date, identified
two re-refining facilities.
Used Oil Filter and Oily Absorbent
Recycling 3.1.21
EPA did not obtain information on used oil
filter or oily-absorbent (oil soaked or
3-23
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
contaminated disposable rags, paper, or pads)
recycling through the Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire. However, in response to the
September 1996 Notice of Data Availability and
the 1999 proposal, EPA received comments
from facilities which recycle used oil filters and
oily absorbents. In addition, EPA also visited
several used oil reprocessors that recycle used oil
filters or oily absorbents as part of their
operations.
Used oil filter and oily absorbent recycling
processes range from simple crushing and
draining of entrained oil to more involved
processes where filters or absorbent materials are
shredded and the metal and filter material are
separated. Generally, the resulting used oil is
recycled, the separated metal product is sold to
a smelter, and the separated filter material is sold
as a solid fuel. Based on information collected
during EPA's site visits and comments to the
1999 proposal, wastewater may be generated
during all phases of the recycling activity
including collection activities, plant maintenance,
and air pollution control. EPA notes, however,
that based on its observations, many of these
activities are "dry" and do not produce
associated wastewaters. In fact, at the time of
the 1999 proposal, EPA believed these activities
were largely "dry" and requested comment on
whether EPA should promulgate a zero discharge
requirement for facilities performing used oil
filter recovery.
As detailed above, based on comment to the
proposal, EPA no longer believes that all used oil
filter and absorbent recycling activities are dry.
As such, EPA has concluded that a zero
discharge requirement for these activities is
inappropriate and has not included it in the final
CWT rule. However, upon further examination
of the comments and its database, EPA has
concluded that used oil filter and absorbent
recovery facilities which generate a wastewater
should be included within the scope of the CWT
rule. While EPA does not have data in its
database on the characteristics of these
wastewaters, these wastewaters are often
combined with other covered CWT wastewaters
for treatment. Further, since the material being
recovered is primarily used oil, EPA has every
reason to believe that any resulting wastewaters
will be similar (in terms of constituents and
concentration) to wastewaters generated from
used oil recovery. As such, EPA has concluded
that these operations should be regulated as are
other centralized used oil recovery activities.
Where information is available to EPA on these
operations, EPA has revised its analysis to reflect
the inclusion of these "non-dry" used oil filter
and absorbent facilities within the scope of the
CWT rule.
Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes 3.1.22
EPA received comments on coverage of
grease, sand, and oil interceptor wastes by the
CWT rule during the comment period for the
original proposal, the 1996 Notice of Data
Availability, and the 1999 proposal. Some of
these wastes are from non-industrial sources and
some are from industrial sources. Some are
treated at central locations designed to
exclusively treat grease trap/interceptor wastes
and some of these wastes are treated at
traditional CWT facilities with traditional CWT
wastes. Examples of the types of customers
which generate these grease trap/interceptor
wastes include, but are not limited to, the
following: auto and truck maintenance and repair
shops, auto body and parts shops, car washes,
gas stations, commercial bottling facilities, food
and produce distribution shops, restaurants, and
tire shops.
Throughout the development of this rule,
EPA has directed its efforts to CWT operations
that treat and/or recover off-site industrial
wastes. As such, grease/trap interceptor wastes
would not fall within the scope of this rule.
Grease trap/interceptor wastes are defined as
animal or vegetable fats/oils from grease traps or
interceptors generated by facilities engaged in
food service activities. Such facilities include,
but are not limited to, restaurants, cafeterias,
3-24
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
caterers, commercial bottling facilities, and food
and distribution shops. Excluded grease
trap/interceptor wastes should not contain any
hazardous chemicals or materials that would
prevent the fats/oils from being recovered and
recycled.
Wastewater discharges from the centralized
treatment of wastes produced from oil
interceptors, however, which are designed to
collect petroleum-based oils, sand, etc. from
industrial type processes, are a different case and
EPA has determined that this wastewater is
properly subject to this rule. Examples of
facilities that produce oil interceptor waste
include, but are not limited to, auto and truck
maintenance and repair shops; auto body and
parts shops; car washes; and gas stations. EPA
collected data on the types and concentrations of
pollutants in oil interceptor wastes through
comments and EPA sampling. The data show,
that like other CWT wastes, the concentration of
pollutants can vary greatly from one wastestream
to another. EPA' s sampling data show that these
materials can be very similar in nature and
concentration to other wastes covered by this
rule. Consequently, EPA has determined these
wastes should be included within the scope of
this rule.
Food Processing Wastes 3.1.23
During development of this rule, EPA did
not collect information from facilities engaged in
centralized waste treatment of food processing
wastes. As detailed in Section 3.1.22, EPA
envisioned that this rule would be limited to the
treatment and/or recovery of off-site industrial
wastes. While food processing may be an
"industrial" activity, these wastes do not contain
heavy metals, concentrated organics, or
petroleum based oils. In terms of contaminants
of concern, these wastes are similar to those
generated by cafeterias, restaurants, etc.
Consequently, the final guidelines will not apply
to animal and vegetable fats/oils wastewaters at
CWT facilities, specifically those generated by
food processors/manufacturers.
Sanitary Wastes and/or Chemical
Toilet Wastes 3.1.24
The CWT rule would regulate facilities
which treat, or recover materials from, off-site
industrial wastes and wastewaters. Sanitary
wastes such as chemical toilet wastes and
septage are not covered by the provisions of the
CWT rule. EPA expects that permit writers
would develop BPJ limitations or local limits to
establish site-specific permit requirements for
any commercial sanitary waste treatment facility.
Similarly, sanitary wastes or chemical toilet
wastes received from off-site and treated at an
industrial facility or a CWT facility are not
subject to the provisions of the CWT rule. If
these wastes are mixed with industrial wastes,
EPA would expect that, as is the case now with
ancillary sanitary waste flows mixed for
treatment at facilities subject to national effluent
guidelines and standards, the permit writer would
establish BPJ, site-specific permit requirements.
Treatability, Research and
Development, and Analytical Studies 3.1.25
During the initial stages of development of
this rule, EPA did not envision regulation of
facilities which accept off-site wastes for
treatability studies, research and development, or
chemical or physical analysis. As such, EPA did
not attempt to collect information on these
activities. However, EPA received comment to
its proposals asking that EPA clarify its coverage
of these activities by this rule.
EPA has very little information on these
activities. Based on comments, these activities,
arguably, would fall within the definition of
Centralized Waste Treatment since they accept
off-site wastes. The purpose of these activities
is not treatment or recovery, but rather the
evaluation of different treatment techniques.
Consequently, EPA has concluded that
treatability, research and development or
analytical activities should not be subject to
3-25
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
provisions of the CWT rule.
Permit writers and local authorities should
use their Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) and
local limits authority to establish limitations and
standards for these wastestreams. Under EPA's
regulations, permit writers or local control
authorities must include technology-based limits
either for any toxic pollutant which is or may be
discharged at a level greater than the level which
can be achieved by treatment requirements
appropriate to the permittee or for any pollutant
which may pass through or interfere with POTW
operations. (See 40 CFR §§ 122.44(e), 125.3.)
See also 40 CFR § 403.5. EPA would expect
that, in some cases, wastewater associated with
these activities might look very much like the
wastestreams regulated under this rule. In those
circumstances, permit writers (and local control
authorities) may want to consider the technical
development document developed for the CWT
guideline when the permit writer establishes case-
by-case limitations under NPDES regulations at
40 CFR § 125.3 or the control authority
establishes local limits under the General
Pretreatment Regulations at 40 CFR § 403.5.
EPA notes that if a CWT facility accepts
off-site wastes for treatability, research and
development, or analytical activities, and
commingles any resulting wastewaters with other
covered wastewaters prior to discharge, these
wastewaters would be subject to provisions of
this rule.
3-26
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 3-3. Examples of Regulated and Non-Regulated CWT Operations
Centralized Waste Treatment
Activity
Regulated by this rule
Not Regulated by this rule
For Further
Info See:
Those performed at federally
owned facilities
All federally owned CWT
operations
None
Section 3.1.4
POTWs
None
All
Section 3.1.6
Thermal drying of POTW
biosolids
None
All
Section 3.1.7
Sanitary wastes or toilet wastes
None
All
Section 3.1.24
Food processing wastes
None
All
Section 3.1.23
Manufacturing facilities
Those that accept off-site wastes
for treatment and/or recovery that
are not generated in a
manufacturing process subject to
the same limitations/standards as
on-site generated waste or that the
permit writer determines are not
similar to, and compatible with, the
on-site waste
All others
Section 3.1.1
Product stewardship
Those that accept waste materials
from use of their products that are
not similar to, and compatible with,
treatment of waste generated on-
site
Those that accept back their
unused products, shipping and
storage containers with product
residues, and off-specification
products
Section 3.1.3
Petroleum refineries (SIC Code
2911) and petroleum distribution
terminals (SIC Code 4612, 4613,
5171, 5172)
For off-site materials other than
those listed in the next column, see
discussion for manufacturing
facilities.
Those that receive and manage
off-site petroleum-containing
materials generated by petroleum
exploration, production,
transportation, refining and
marketing activities
Section 3.1.1
Pulp and paper off-site landfill
leachates
None
Those that receive off-site
leachates which are from
dedicated pulp and paper landfills
Section 3.1.1
Pipeline materials
Materials received via pipeline
from waste consolidators or
commingled with other covered
CWT wastewaters
All other piped materials
Section 3.1.2
Recycle/recovery activities
All unless specifically excluded
elsewhere
Section 3.1.16
Traditional solvent recovery
None
All
Section 3.1.19
Fuel blenders
Those that generate a wastewater
"Dry" operations
Section 3.1.19
Scrap metals recyclers
None
All
Section 3.1.12
Silver recovery
Only included where wastewater
generated from these activities is
commingled with other covered
waters
All others
Section 3.1.17
Used oil filters
Those that generate a wastewater
"Dry" operations
Section 3.1.21
3-27
-------
Chapter 3 Scope/Applicability Of The Final Regulation Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Centralized Waste Treatment
Activity
Regulated by this rule
Not Regulated by this rule
For Further
Info See:
HTMR
Those that generate a wastewater
"Dry" operations
Section 3.1.18
Used glycol recovery
All
None
Section 3.1.16
Re-refining
All
None
Section 3.1.20
Solids, soils, and sludges
Those activities which generate a
wastewater unless specifically
excluded elsewhere
"Dry" operations
Section 3.1.11
Stabilization/Solidification
Those that generate a wastewater
"Dry" operations
Section 3.1.14
Transfer stations and recycling
centers
None
All
Section 3.1.13
Incinerators
All others
Facilities which accept off-site
wastes exclusively for
incineration activities
Section 3.1.10
Transportation and/or
transportation equipment
cleaning
Only included where wastewater
generated from these activities is
commingled with other covered
waters
All others
Section 3.1.8
Landfills
Only included where wastewater
generated from these activities is
commingled with other covered
waters
All others
Section 3.1.9
Grease trap/interceptor wastes
Those which contain petroleum
based oils
Those which contain animal or
vegetable fats/oils
Section 3.1.22
Marine generated wastes
Only included where wastewater
generated from these activities is
commingled with other covered
waters
All others
Section 3.1.5
Waste, wastewater or used
material re-use
Those activities not listed in the
next column or excluded
elsewhere
Not covered if the wastewater is
accepted for use in place of
potable water or if materials are
accepted in place of virgin
treatment chemicals.
Section 3.1.15
Treatability, research and
development, or analytical
activities
Only included where wastewater
generated from these activities is
commingled with other covered
waters
All others
Section 3.1.25
3-28
-------
Chapter
4
DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY
The adoption of the increased pollution
control measures required by CWA and
RCRA requirements had a number of ancillary
effects, one of which has been the formation and
development of a waste treatment industry.
Several factors have contributed to the growth of
this industry. These include: (a) the manner in
which manufacturing facilities have elected to
comply with CWA and RCRA requirements; (b)
EPA's distinction for regulatory purposes
between on- and off-site treatment of wastewater
in the CWA guidelines program; and (c) the
RCRA 1992 used oil management requirements.
A manufacturing facility's options for
managing wastes include on-site treatment or
sending them off-site. Because a large number of
operations (both large and small) have chosen to
send their wastes off-site, specialized facilities
have developed whose sole commercial
operation is the handling of wastewater treatment
residuals and industrial process by-products.
Many promulgated effluent guidelines also
encouraged the creation of these central
treatment centers. Inconsistent treatment of
facilities which send their waste off-site to CWT
facilities in the guidelines program has resulted in
wastewater that is treated off-site being subject
to inconsistent standards. EPA acknowledges
that this may have created a loop-hole for
dischargers to avoid treating their wastewater to
standards comparable to categorical standards
before discharge. Additionally, RCRA
regulations, such as the 1992 used oil
management requirements (40 CFR 279)
significantly influenced the size and service
provided by this industry.
Industry Size 4.1
Based upon responses to EPA's data
gathering efforts, the Agency now estimates that
there are approximately 223 centralized waste
treatment facilities in 38 States. As shown below
in Table 4-1, the major concentration of
centralized waste treatment facilities is in EPA
Regions 4, 5, and 6, due to the proximity of the
industries generating the wastes undergoing
treatment. Changes in the estimate of the total
number of CWT facilities since the 1999
proposal reflect facilities that were included or
excluded because of scope changes or
clarification. EPA is aware that CWT facilities
have entered or left the centralized waste
treatment market. This is expected in a service
industry. Even so, EPA is comfortable that its
estimate of facilities is reasonable and has not
adjusted it, other than to account for scope
changes and clarifications.
As detailed in Chapter 2, while EPA
estimates there are 223 CWT facilities, EPA only
has facility-specific information for 163 of these
facilities. In preparing the final limitations and
standards, EPA conducted its analysis with the
known facility specific information and then used
the actual data to develop additional information
to represent the entire population. Unless
otherwise stated, information presented in this
document represents the entire population.
Table 4-1 provides an example where data is
only presented for the facilities for which EPA
has facility-specific information.
General Description 4.2
Centralized waste treatment facilities do not
fall into a single description and are as varied as
4-1
-------
Chapter 4 Description of the Industry Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
the wastes they accept. Some treat wastes from
a few generating facilities while others treat
wastes from hundreds of generators. Some treat
only certain types of waste while others accept
many wastes. Some treat non-hazardous wastes
exclusively while others treat hazardous and non-
hazardous wastes. Some primarily treat
concentrated wastes while others primarily treat
more dilute wastes. For some, their primary
business is the treatment of other company's
wastes while, for others, centralized waste
treatment is ancillary to their main business.
At the time of the original proposal, a few of
the facilities in the industry database solely
accepted wastes classified as non-hazardous
under RCRA. The remaining facilities accepted
either hazardous wastes only or a combination of
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. Now,
however, the vast majority of the oils facilities
accept non-hazardous materials only. As such,
EPA believes the market for centralized waste
treatment of non-hazardous materials has
increased during the 1990s.
EPA has detailed waste receipt information
for the facilities in the 1991 Waste Treatment
Industry Questionnaire data base. Of the 85
in-scope facilities from the Questionnaire data
base, 71 of them are RCRA-permitted treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). As
such, most of these facilities were able to use
information reported in the 1989 Biennial
Hazardous Waste Report to classify the waste
accepted for treatment by the appropriate Waste
Form and RCRA codes. The Waste Form and
RCRA codes reported by the questionnaire
respondents are listed in Table 4-2 and Table 4-
3, respectively. (Table 14-2 in Chapter 14 lists
these Waste Form and RCRA codes along with
their associated property and/or pollutants).
Some questionnaire respondents, especially those
that treat non-hazardous waste, did not report
the Waste Form Code information due to the
variety and complexity of their operations.
EPA does not have detailed RCRA code and
waste code information on waste receipts for the
facilities identified after the original proposal. It
is known that the majority of these facilities
accept non-hazardous wastes. Of the 78
post-proposal oily waste facilities for which EPA
has specific data, only 20 are RCRA-permitted
TSDFs.
Centralized waste treatment facilities service
a variety of customers. A CWT generally
receives a variety of wastes daily from dozens of
customers. Some customers routinely generate
a particular wastestream and are unable to
provide effective on-site treatment of that
particular wastestream. Some customers utilize
CWT facilities because they generate
wastestreams only sporadically (for example tank
removal, tank cleaning and remediation wastes)
and are unable to economically provide effective
on-site treatment of these wastes. Others, many
which are small businesses, utilize CWT facilities
as their primary source of wastewater treatment.
4-2
-------
Chapter 4 Description of the Industry Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table^4i_GeograŁhic^istabutionofCWT^acilities>^63^acilities2i
Region
State
#of
%of
Region
State
#of
%of
CWTs
CWTs
CWTs
CWTs
1
Connecticut
5
4.9
5
Illinois
7
25.8
Maine
1
Indiana
5
Massachusetts
1
Michigan
11
Rhode Island
1
Minnesota
2
2
New Jersey
7
6.8
Ohio
13
New York
4
Wisconsin
4
3
Delaware
1
9.8
6
Louisiana
5
12.9
Maryland
2
Oklahoma
2
Pennsylvania
7
Texas
14
Virginia
6
7
Iowa
1
2.5
4
Alabama
3
19.6
Kansas
2
Florida
9
Missouri
1
Georgia
3
8
Colorado
2
1.8
Kentucky
3
Montana
1
Mississippi
1
9
Arizona
1
9.8
North Carolina
3
California
13
South Carolina
2
Hawaii
1
Tennessee
8
Nevada
1
10
Oregon
2
6.1
Washington
8
Table 4-2. Waste Form Codes Reported by CWT Facilities in 19897
Waste Form Codes
B001
B106
B112
B119
B206
B219
B310
B501
B507
B515
B604
B101
B107
B113
B201
B207
B305
B312
B502
B508
B518
B605
B102
B108
B114
B202
B208
B306
B313
B504
B510
B519
B607
B103
B109
B115
B203
B209
B307
B315
B505
B511
B601
B608
B104
B110
B116
B204
B210
B308
B316
B506
B513
B603
B609
B105
Bill
B117
B205
B211
B309
B319
Table 14-2 in Chapter 14 lists Waste Form Codes and their associated properties.
Table 4-3. RCRA Codes Reported by Facilities in 19892
RCRA Codes
D001
D012
F009
K016
K063
P020
P069
U002
U052
U118
U161
D002
D017
F010
K031
K064
P022
P071
U003
U054
U122
U162
D003
D035
F011
K035
K086
P028
P074
U008
U057
U125
U188
D004
F001
F012
K044
K093
P029
P078
U009
U069
U134
U190
D005
F002
F019
K045
K094
P030
P087
U012
U080
U135
U205
D006
F003
F039
K048
K098
P040
P089
U013
U092
U139
U210
D007
F004
K001
K049
K103
P044
P098
U019
U098
U140
U213
D008
F005
K011
K050
K104
P048
PI 04
U020
U105
U150
U220
D009
F006
K013
K051
P011
P050
PI 06
U031
U106
U151
U226
D010
F007
K014
K052
P012
P063
P121
U044
U107
U154
U228
D011
F008
K015
K061
POO
P064
P123
U045
U113
U159
U239
Table 14-2 in Chapter 14 lists Waste Form Codes and their associated properties.
4-3
-------
Chapter 4 Description of the Industry Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Before a CWT accepts a waste for
treatment, the waste generally undergoes
rigorous screening for compatibility with other
wastes being treated at the facility. Waste
generators initially furnish the treatment facility
with a sample of the waste stream to be treated.
The sample is analyzed to characterize the level
of pollutants in the sample and bench-scale
treatability tests are performed to determine what
treatment is necessary to treat the waste stream.
After all analyses and tests are performed, the
treatment facility determines the cost for treating
the waste stream. If the waste generator accepts
the cost of treatment, shipments of the waste
stream to the treatment facility will begin.
Generally, for each truck load of waste received
for treatment, the treatment facility collects a
sample from the shipment and analyzes the
sample to determine if it is similar to the initial
sample tested. If the sample is similar, the
shipment of waste will be treated. If the sample
is not similar but falls within an allowable range
as determined by the treatment facility, the
treatment facility will reevaluate the estimated
cost of treatment for the shipment. Then, the
waste generator decides if the waste will remain
at the treatment facility for treatment. If the
sample is not similar and does not fall within an
allowable range, the treatment facility will decline
the shipment for treatment.
Treatment facilities and waste generators
complete extensive paperwork during the waste
acceptance process. Most of the paperwork is
required by Federal, State, and local regulations.
The amount of paperwork necessary for
accepting a waste stream emphasizes the
difficulty of operating centralized waste
treatment facilities.
Water Use and Sources of Wastewater 4.3
Approximately 2.0 billion gallons of
wastewater are generated annually at CWT
facilities. It is difficult to determine the quantity
of wastes attributable to different sources
because facilities generally mix the wastewater
prior to treatment. EPA has, as a general matter,
however, identified the sources described below
as contributing to wastewater discharges at CWT
operations that would be subject to the proposed
effluent limitations and standards.
Waste Receipts. Most off-site waste received by
CWT facilities is aqueous. These aqueous off-
site waste receipts comprise the largest portion of
the wastewater treated at CWT facilities.
Typical waste receipts for the metals subcategory
include but are not limited to the following:
spent electroplating baths and sludges, spent
anodizing solutions, metal finishing rinse water
and sludges, and chromate and cyanide wastes.
Types of waste accepted for treatment in the oils
subcategory include, but are not limited to, the
following: lubricants, used petroleum products,
used oils, oil spill clean-up, bilge water, tank
clean out, off-specification fuels, and
underground storage tank remediation waste.
Types of wastes accepted for treatment in the
organics subcategory include, but are not limited
to the following: landfill leachate, groundwater
clean-up, solvent-bearing waste, off-specification
organic products, still bottoms, used antifreeze,
and wastewater from chemical product
operations and paint washes.
Solubilization Water. A portion of the off-site
waste receipts is in a solid form. Water may be
added to the waste to render it treatable.
Used Oil Emulsion-Breaking Wastewater. The
wastewater generated as a result of the emulsion
breaking or gravity separation process used
during the processing of used oil constitutes a
major portion of the wastewater treated at oils
facilities. EPA estimates that, at a typical oils
facility, half of the wastewater treated is a result
of oil/water separation processes.
Tanker Truck/Drum/Roll-Off Box Washes.
Water is used to clean the equipment used for
4-4
-------
Chapter 4 Description of the Industry Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
transporting wastes. The amount of wastewater
generated was difficult to assess because the
wash water is normally added to the wastes or
used as solubilization water.
Equipment Washes. Water is used to clean
waste treatment equipment during unit shut
downs or in between batches of waste.
Air Pollution Control Scrubber Blow-Down.
Water or acidic or basic solution is used in air
emission control scrubbers to control fumes from
treatment tanks, storage tanks, and other
treatment equipment.
Laboratory-Derived Wastewater. Water is used
in on-site laboratories which characterize
incoming waste streams and monitor on-site
treatment performance.
Industrial Waste Combustor or Landfill
Wastewater from On-Site Landfills. Wastewater
is generated at some CWT facilities as a result of
on-site landfilling or incineration activities.
Contaminated Stormwater. This is stormwater
which comes in direct contact with the waste or
waste handling and treatment areas. If this
contaminated CWT stormwater is introduced to
the treatment system, its discharge is subject to
the promulgated limitations. The Agency is not
regulating under the CWT guideline non-contact
stormwater or contaminated stormwater not
introduced to the treatment system. Such flows
may, in certain circumstances, require permitting
under EPA's existing permitting program under
40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) and 40 CFR403. CWT
facilities that introduce non-contaminated
stormwater into their treatment system will need
to identify this as a source of non-CWT
wastewater in their treatment system in their
permit applications. This is necessary so that the
permit writer may take account of these flows in
developing permit limitations that reflect actual
treatment.
Volume by Type of Discharge 4. 4
In general, three basic options are available
for disposal of wastewater treatment effluent:
direct, indirect, and zero (or alternative)
discharge. Some facilities utilize more than one
option (for example, a portion of their
wastewater is discharged to a surface water and
a portion is evaporated). Direct dischargers are
facilities which discharge effluent directly to a
surface water. Indirect dischargers are facilities
which discharge effluent to a publicly-owned
treatment works (POTW). Zero or alternative
dischargers do not generate a wastewater or do
not discharge to a surface water or POTW. The
types of zero or alternative discharge identified in
the CWT industry are underground injection
control (UIC), off-site transfer for further
treatment or disposal, evaporation, and no
wastewater generation. Table 4-4 lists the
number of facilities utilizing each discharge
option.
Average facility wastewater discharge
information is presented in Table 4-5 for the
indirect and direct discharge options. The
proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the CWT industry do not apply to
facilities with a zero or alternative discharge.
4-5
-------
Chapter 4 Description of the Industry Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 4-4. Facility Discharge Options
Discharge Option
No. of Facilities with
Snecific Data
No. of Scaled-Up
Facilities
Direct
12
14
Indirect
105
148
Indirect and off-site transfer
1
1
Indirect and no wastewater generation
2
2
UIC
7
9
Off-site transfer
14
22
Evaporation
3
5
Off-site transfer and evaporation
1
1
Zero (not specified)
18
21
Total
163
223
Table 4-5. Quantity of Wastewater Discharged (223 Facilities)
Discharge Quantity of Wastewater Discharged (Million gallons/year)
Option
Total Average Minimum Maximum
Direct 535 38.2 0.078 225
Indirect 1,547 10.2 0.0013 177
Off-site Treatment Incentives and
Comparabie Treatment 4.5
As noted before, the adoption of the
increased pollution control measures required by
the CWA and RCRA regulation was a significant
factor in the formation and development of the
centralized waste treatment industry. Major
contributors to the growth of this industry
include EPA decisions about how to structure its
CWA effluent limitations guidelines program as
well as the manner in which manufacturing
facilities have elected to comply with CWA and
RCRA requirements.
The CWA requires the establishment of
limitations and standards for categories of point
sources that discharge into surface waters or
introduce pollutants into publicly owned
treatment works. At present, facilities that do
not discharge wastewater (or introduce pollutants
to POTWs) may not be subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR Subchapter N Parts
400 to 471. Such facilities include
manufacturing or service facilities that generate
no process wastewater, facilities that recycle all
contaminated waters, and facilities that use some
kind of alternative disposal technology or
practice (for example, deep well injection,
incineration, evaporation, surface impoundment,
land application, and transfer to a centralized
waste treatment facility).
Thus, for example, in implementing CWA
and RCRA requirements in the electroplating
industry, many facilities made process
modifications to conserve and recycle process
wastewater, to extend the lives of plating baths,
and to minimize the generation of wastewater
treatment sludges. As the volumes of
wastewater were reduced, it became
economically attractive to transfer electroplating
metal-bearing wastewater to off-site centralized
4-6
-------
Chapter 4 Description of the Industry Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
waste treatment facilities for treatment or metals
recovery rather than to invest in on-site
treatment systems. In the case of the organic
chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers (OCPSF)
industry, many facilities transferred selected
process residuals and small volumes of process
wastewater to off-site centralized waste
treatment facilities. When estimating the
engineering costs for the OCPSF industry to
comply with the OCPSF regulation, the Agency
assumed, based on economies of scale, in the
case of facilities with wastewater flows less than
500 gallons per day, such plants would use off-
site rather than on-site wastewater treatment.
The Agency believes that any wastes
transferred to an off-site CWT facility should be
treated to at least the same level as required for
the same wastes if treated on-site at the
manufacturing facility. In the absence of
appropriate regulations to ensure at least
comparable or adequate treatment, the CWT
facility may inadvertently offer an economic
incentive for increasing the pollutant load to the
environment. One of the Agency's primary
concerns is the potential for a discharger to
reduce its wastewater pollutant concentrations
through dilution rather than through appropriate
treatment. The final standard is designed to
ensure that wastes transferred to centralized
waste treatment facilities would be treated to the
same levels as on-site treatment or to adequate
levels.
This is illustrated by the information the
Agency obtained during the data gathering
activities for the 1995 proposal. EPA visited 27
centralized waste treatment facilities in an effort
to identify well-designed, well-operated candidate
treatment systems for sampling. Two of the
principal criteria for selecting plants for sampling
were based on whether the plant applied waste
management practices that increased the
effectiveness of the treatment system and
whether the treatment system was effective in
removing pollutants. This effort was
complicated by the level of dilution and co-
dilution of one type of waste with another. For
example, many facilities treated metal-bearing
and oily wastes in the same treatment system
and many facilities mixed non-CWT wastewater
with CWT wastewater. Mixing metal-bearing
with non-metal-bearing oily wastewater and
mixing CWT with non-CWT wastewater
provides a dilution effect which generally reduces
the efficiency of the wastewater treatment
system. Of the 27 plants visited, many were not
sampled because of the problems of assessing
CWT treatment efficiencies due to dilution of
one type of wastewater with another.
The final limitations would ensure, to the
extent possible, that metal-bearing wastes are
treated with metals control technology, that oily
wastes are treated with oils control technology,
and that organic wastes are treated with organics
control technology.
In developing the final guidelines, EPA noted
a wide variation in the size of CWT facilities and
the level of treatment provided by these facilities.
Often, pollutant removals were poor, and, in
some cases, significantly lower than would have
been required had the wastewaters been treated
at the site where generated. In particular, EPA's
survey indicated that some facilities were
employing only the most basic pollution control
equipment and, as a result, achieved low
pollutant removals relative to that easily obtained
through the use of other, readily available
pollutant control technology. Further, EPA had
difficulty in identifying more than a handful of
facilities throughout the CWT industry that were
achieving optimal removals.
4-7
-------
Chapter
5
INDUSTRY SUBCATEGORIZATION
Methodology and Factors
Considered As the Basis
For SUBCATEGORIZATION 5.1
The CWA requires EPA, in developing
effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards that represent the best
available technology economically achievable for
a particular industry category, to consider a
number of different factors. Among others,
these include the age of the equipment and
facilities in the category, manufacturing
processes employed, types of treatment
technology to reduce effluent discharges, and the
cost of effluent reductions (Section 304(b)(2)(b)
of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2)(B)). The
statute also authorizes EPA to take into account
other factors that the Agency deems appropriate.
One way in which the Agency has taken
some of these factors into account is by breaking
down categories of industries into separate
classes of similar characteristics. This recognizes
the major differences among companies within
an industry that may reflect, for example,
different manufacturing processes or other
factors. One result of subdividing an industry by
subcategories is to safeguard against overzealous
regulatory standards, increase the confidence that
the regulations are practicable, and diminish the
need to address variations between facilities
through a variance process (Weyerhaeuser Co. v.
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1978)).
The centralized waste treatment industry, as
previously explained, is not typical of many of
the industries regulated under the CWA because
it does not produce a product. Therefore, EPA
considered certain additional factors that
specifically apply to centralized waste treatment
operations in its evaluation of how to establish
appropriate limitations and standards and
whether further subcategorization was
warranted. Additionally, EPA did not consider
certain other factors typically appropriate when
subcategorizing manufacturing facilities as
relevant when evaluating this industry. The
factors EPA considered in the subcategorization
of the centralized waste treatment industry
include the following:
• Facility age;
• Facility size;
• Facility location;
• Non-water quality impacts;
• Treatment technologies and costs;
• RCRA classification;
• Type of wastes received for treatment; and
• Nature of wastewater generated.
EPA concluded that certain of these factors
did not support further subcategorization of this
industry. The Agency concluded that the age of
a facility is not a basis for subcategorization, as
many older facilities have unilaterally improved
or modified their treatment processes over time.
EPA also decided that facility size was not an
appropriate basis for subcategorizing. EPA
identified three parameters as relative measures
of facility size: number of employees, amount of
waste receipts accepted, and wastewater flow.
EPA found that CWTs of varying sizes generate
similar wastewaters and use similar treatment
technologies. Furthermore, wastes can be
treated to the same level regardless of the facility
size. Likewise, facility location is not a good
basis for subcategorization. Based on the data
collected, no consistent differences in wastewater
treatment technologies or performance exist
5-1
-------
Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
because of geographical location. EPA
recognizes, however, that geographic location
may have an effect on the market for CWT
services, the cost charged for these services, and
the value of recovered product. These issues are
addressed in the Economic Assessment
Document.
While non-water quality characteristics (solid
waste and air emission effects) are of concern to
EPA, these characteristics did not constitute a
basis for subcategorization. Environmental
impacts from solid waste disposal and from the
transport of potentially hazardous wastewater are
a result of individual facility practices and EPA
could not identify any common characteristics
particular to a given segment of the industry.
EPA did not use treatment costs as a basis for
subcategorization because costs will vary and are
dependent on the following waste stream
variables: flow rates, wastewater quality, and
pollutant loadings. Finally, EPA concluded that
the RCRA classification was not an appropriate
basis for subcategorization, as the type of waste
accepted for treatment appears to be more
important than whether the waste was classified
as hazardous or non-hazardous.
EPA identified only one factor of primary
significance for subcategorizing the centralized
waste treatment industry ~ the type of waste
received for treatment or recovery. This factor
encompasses many of the other
subcategorization factors. The type of treatment
processes used, nature of wastewater generated,
solids generated, and potential air emissions
directly correlate to the type of wastes received
for treatment or recovery. For the final
standards, EPA reviewed its earlier
subcategorization approach and decided to retain
it. It is still EPA's conclusion that the type of
waste received for treatment or recovery is the
only appropriate basis for subcategorization of
this industry.
Subcategories 5.2
Based on the type of wastes accepted for
treatment or recovery, EPA has determined that
there are four subcategories appropriate for the
centralized waste treatment industry:
• Subcategory A: Facilities that treat or recover
metal from metal-bearing waste, wastewater,
or used material received from off-site
(Metals Subcategory);
• Subcategory B: Facilities that treat or
recover oil from oily waste, wastewater, or
used material received from off-site (Oils
Subcategory); and
• Subcategory C: Facilities that treat or recover
organics from other organic waste,
wastewater, or used material received from
off-site (Organics Subcategory); and
• Subcategory D: Facilities that treat or recover
some combination of metal-bearing, oily, or
organic waste, wastewater, or used materials
received from off-site (Multiple Waste
Stream Subcategory).
Subcategory Descriptions 5.3
Metals Subcategory 5.3.1
The facilities in this subcategory are those
treating metal-bearing waste received from
off-site and/or recover metals from off-site
metal-bearing wastes. Currently, EPA has
identified 59 facilities in this subcategory.
Fifty-two facilities treat metal-bearing waste
exclusively, while another six facilities recover
metals from the wastes for sale in commerce or
for return to industrial processes. One facility
provides metal-bearing waste treatment in
addition to conducting a metals recovery
operation. The vast majority of these facilities
have RCRA permits to accept hazardous waste.
Types of wastes accepted for treatment include
spent electroplating baths and sludges, spent
anodizing solutions, metal finishing rinse water
and sludge, and chromate wastes.
5-2
-------
Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
The typical treatment process used for
metal-bearing waste is precipitation with lime or
caustic followed by filtration. The sludge
generated is then landfilled in a RCRA Subtitle C
or D landfill depending on its content. Most
facilities that recover metals do not generate a
sludge that requires disposal. Instead, the
sludges are sold for metal content. In addition to
treating metal bearing wastestreams, many
facilities in this subcategory also treat cyanide
wastestreams, many of which are
highly-concentrated and complex. Because the
presence of cyanide may interfere with the
chemical precipitation process, these facilities
generally pretreat to remove cyanide and then
commingle the pretreated cyanide wastewaters
with the other metal-containing wastewaters.
EPA estimates that nineteen of the metals
facilities also treat cyanide wastestreams.
Oils Subcategory 5.3.2
The facilities in this subcategory are those
that treat oily waste, wastewater, or used
material received from off-site and/or recover oil
from off-site oily materials. Currently, EPA
estimates that there are 164 facilities in this
subcategory. Among the types of waste
accepted for treatment are lubricants, used
petroleum products, used oils, oil spill clean-up,
bilge water, tank clean-out, off-specification
fuels, and underground storage tank remediation
waste. Many facilities in this subcategory only
provide treatment for oily wastewaters while
others pretreat the oily wastes for contaminants
such as water and then blend the resulting oil
residual to form a product, usually fuel. Most
facilities perform both types of operations. EPA
estimates that 53 of these facilities only treat oily
wastewaters and 36 facilities primarily recover oil
for re-use. The remaining 75 facilities both treat
oily waste and recover oil for re-use.
At the time of the original proposal, EPA
believed that 85 percent of oils facilities were
primarily accepting concentrated, difficult-
to-treat, stable, oil-water emulsions containing
more than 10 percent oil. However, during
post-proposal data collection, EPA learned that
many of the wastes treated for oil content at
these facilities were fairly dilute and consisted of
less than 10 percent oils. While some facilities
are accepting the more concentrated wastes, the
majority of facilities in this subcategory are
treating less concentrated wastes.
Further, at the time of the original proposal,
only three of the facilities included in the data
base for this subcategory were identified as
solely accepting wastes classified as
non-hazardous under RCRA. The remaining
facilities accepted either hazardous wastes alone
or a combination of hazardous and
non-hazardous wastes. In contrast, based on
more recent information, EPA has concluded
that the majority of facilities in this subcategory
only accept wastes that would be classified by
RCRA as non-hazardous.
The most widely-used treatment technology
in this subcategory is gravity separation and/or
emulsion breaking. One-third of this industry
only uses gravity separation and/or emulsion
breakingto treat oily wastestreams. One-third of
the industry also utilizes chemical precipitation
and one-quarter also utilizes dissolved air
flotation (DAF).
Organics Subcategory 5.3.3
The facilities in this subcategory are those
that treat organic waste received from off-site
and/or recover organics from off-site organic
wastes. EPA estimates that there are 25 facilities
in this subcategory. The majority of these
facilities have RCRA permits to accept
hazardous waste. Among the types of wastes
accepted at these facilities are landfill leachate,
groundwater cleanup, solvent-bearing waste, off-
specification organic products, still bottoms, used
antifreeze, and wastewater from chemical
product operations and paint washes.
All of the organics facilities which discharge
5-3
-------
Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
to a surface water use equalization and some
form of biological treatment to handle the
wastewater. The vast majority of organics
facilities which discharge to a POTW primarily
use equalization. One third of all the organics
facilities also use activated carbon adsorption.
Most of the facilities in the organics subcategory
have other industrial operations as well, and the
centralized waste treatment wastes are mixed
with these wastewaters prior to treatment. The
relatively constant make-up of on-site
wastewater can support the operation of
conventional, continuous biological treatment
processes, which otherwise could be upset by the
variability of the off-site waste receipts.
Multiple WasteStream Subcategory 5.4
EPA based the 1999 proposal on establishing
limitations and standards for three subcategories
of CWT facilities: facilities treating either metals,
oil, or organic wastes and wastewater. As
explained in the proposal, EPA was considering
developing mixed waste subcategory limitations
for facilities which treated wastes in more than
one subcategory. EPA indicated that such
limitations and standards would be established by
combining pollutant limitations from all three
subcategories, selecting the most stringent value
where they overlap.
EPA's consideration of this option
responded to comments to the 1995 proposal
and the 1996 Notice of Data Availability. The
primary reason some members of the waste
treatment industry favored development of a
multiple wastestream subcategory was to
simplify implementation for facilities treating
wastes covered by multiple subcategories. As
detailed in the 1999 proposal, EPA's primary
reason for not proposing (and adopting) this
option was its concern that facilities that accept
wastes in multiple subcategories need to provide
effective treatment of all waste receipts. This
concern was based on EPA's data that showed
such facilities did not currently have adequate
treatment-in-place. While these facilities meet
their permit limitations, EPA concluded that
compliance was likely achieved through co-
dilution of dissimilar wastes rather than
treatment. As a result, EPA determined that
adoption of multiple wastestream subcategory
limitations as described above could arguably
encourage ineffective treatment. EPA solicited
comments on ways to develop a multiple
wastestream subcategory which ensures
treatment rather than dilution. The vast majority
of comments on the 1999 proposal supported the
establishment of a multiple wastestream
subcategory for this rule, and re-iterated their
concerns about implementing the three-
subcategory scheme at multiple-subcategory
facilities. One commenter suggested a way to
implement a fourth subcategory while ensuring
treatment. This commenter suggested that EPA
follow the approach taken for the Pesticide
Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(PFPR) Point Source category (40 CFR Part
455). Under this approach, multiple wastestream
subcategory facilities would have the option of 1)
monitoring for compliance with the appropriate
subcategory limitations after each treatment step
or 2) monitoring for compliance with the multiple
wastestream subcategory limitations at a
combined discharge point and certifying that
equivalent treatment to that which would be
required for each subcategory waste separately is
installed and properly designed, maintained, and
operated. This option would eliminate the use of
the combined waste stream formula or building
block approach in calculating limits or standards
for multiple wastestream subcategory CWT
facilities (The combined waste stream formula
and the building block approach are discussed in
more detail in Chapter 14 of the this document).
Commenters suggested that an equivalent
treatment system could be defined as a
wastewater treatment system that is
demonstrated to achieve comparable removals to
the treatment system on which EPA based the
limitations and standards. Ways of
5-4
-------
Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
demonstrating equivalence might include data
from recognized sources of information on
pollution control, treatability tests, or self-
monitoring data showing comparable removals to
the applicable pollution control technology.
EPA has now concluded that the approaches
adopted in the PFPR rule address the concerns
identified earlier. EPA agrees with commenters
that developing appropriate limitations on a site-
specific basis for multiple wastestream facilities
presents many challenges and that the use of a
multiple wastestream subcategory would simplify
implementation of the rule. Moreover, the limits
applied to multiple wastestream treaters would be
a compilation of the most stringent limits from
each applicable subcategory and would generally
be similar to or stricter than the limits calculated
via the application of the combined waste stream
formula or building block approach. Most
significantly, the equivalent treatment
certification requirement would address EPA's
concerns that the wastes receive adequate
treatment.
Therefore, EPA has established a fourth
subcategory: the mixed waste subcategory.
Chapter 14 of this document details the manner
in which EPA envisions the mixed waste
subcategory will be implemented. Further, EPA
has prepared a guidance manual to aid permit
writers/control authorities as well as CWT
facilities in implementing the certification process
(available January 2001).
Other Regulatory Options
Considered for the Oils
Subcategory 5.5
Consideration of Regulatory Options
on the Basis of Revenue 5.5.1
As detailed in the 1999 proposal, among
other alternatives, EPA looked at whether it
should develop alternative regulatory
requirements for the oils subcategory facilities
based on revenue because of potential adverse
economic consequences to small businesses.
The SBAR Panel, convened by EPA, discussed
this option. Among the regulatory alternatives
discussed by the panel and detailed in the 1999
proposal was limiting the scope of the rule to
minimize impacts. Under this approach, EPA
would not establish national pretreatment
standards for indirect dischargers owned by small
companies with less than $6 million in annual
revenue. EPA did not propose to limit the scope
of the rule based on this approach but did
request comment on the issue.
Concerning the recommendation that EPA
establish alternative limitations and standards on
the basis of revenue, commenters largely
supported EPA's conclusion that this approach
should not be adopted. Commenters stated that
small businesses should be subject to the same
standards and requirements as other industrial
users in this category because of the following
reasons:
the limitations and standards are
economically achievable for small CWT
facilities;
the perception that small CWT facilities do
not have the potential to cause significant
impacts to the environment is not true;
the quantity and toxicity of pollutants present
are the only relevant factors for determining
impacts to receiving streams and POTWs
from CWT discharges;
the business size is irrelevant to the impact
of a facility's discharges;
a small facility can have as great an impact
on the environment as a large facility;
there would be no incentive to ensure wastes
are adequately treated at all CWT facilities;
small facilities could operate at a fraction of
the cost (since they would not have to meet
the limitations and standards) and capture
more market share leading to more wastes
going to the POTW untreated; and
large facilities could easily manipulate their
corporate structure to take advantage of
small business exemptions.
5-5
-------
Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
None of the commenters supported a small
business exclusion, but a few noted that EPA
should look at reducing monitoring requirements
for small businesses in order to reduce their costs
of compliance without compromising effective
treatment. None of the commenters provided
EPA with any other suggestions on ways to
mitigate small business concerns that EPA had
not already considered. After careful
consideration of the comments and its database,
EPA has decided that it should not limit the
scope of the CWT rule based on revenue.
Consideration of Regulatory Options
on the Basis of Flow 5.5.2
As detailed in the 1999 proposal, among
other alternatives, EPA looked at whether it
should develop alternative regulatory
requirements for the oils subcategory facilities
based on wastewater flow level because of
potential adverse economic consequences to
small businesses. The SBAR Panel, convened
by EPA, discussed this option. Among the
regulatory alternatives discussed by the panel and
detailed in the 1999 proposal was limiting the
scope of the rule to minimize impacts. Under
this approach, EPA would not establish national
pretreatment standards for indirect oils
dischargers with flows under 3.5 million gallons
per year, or alternately for non-hazardous oils
facilities with flows under either 3.5 or 7.5
MGY. The SBAR Panel noted, in particular,
that excluding indirect dischargers with flows of
less than 3.5 MGY would significantly reduce
the economic impact of the rule on small
businesses while reducing pollutant removals by
an estimated 6%. EPA did not propose to limit
the scope of the rule based on these approaches
but did request comment on the issue.
Concerning the recommendation that EPA
establish alternative limitations and standards on
the basis of flow, commenters largely supported
EPA's conclusion that this approach should not
be adopted. Commenters stated that low flow
facilities should be subject to the same standards
and requirements as other industrial users in this
category because of the following reasons:
the perception that small CWT facilities do
not have the potential to cause significant
impacts to the environment is not true;
the amount of pollutants in wastewater for a
CWT facility is not a function solely of the
volume of wastes that the facility receives;
the quantity of pollutants present and the
toxicity of the pollutants are the only
relevant factors for determining impacts to
receiving streams and POTWs from CWT
discharges;
a small facility can have as great an impact
on the environment as a large facility;
there would be no incentive to ensure wastes
are adequately treated at all CWT facilities;
and
small facilities could operate at a fraction of
the cost (since they would not have to meet
the limitations and standards) and capture
more market share leading to more wastes
going to the POTW untreated.
None of the commenters supported an exclusion
based on flow, but a few noted that EPA should
look at reducing monitoring requirements for
small businesses in order to reduce their costs of
compliance without compromising effective
treatment. None of the commenters provided
EPA with any other suggestions on ways to
mitigate small business concerns that EPA had
not already considered. After careful
consideration of the comments and its database,
EPA has decided that it should not limit the
scope of the CWT rule based on flow.
5-6
-------
Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Consideration of Regulatory Options
on the Basis of the RCRA
Classification of the Waste Receipts 5.5.3
As explained in the 1999 proposal, among
other alternatives, EPA was considering whether
it should develop limitations and standards for
two categories (rather than a single category) of
oils treatment facilities. The Small Business
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel for this rule,
convened by EPA in November 1997, discussed
this option. For a detailed summary of the
panel's findings and discussion, see the 1999
proposal and "Final Report of the SBREFA
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on
EPA's Planned Proposed Rule for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry" (DCN
21.5.1). Under this approach EPA would
establish different limitations and standards for
oils subcategory facilities depending on whether
they treat RCRA subtitle C hazardous wastes
(either exclusively or in combination with non-
hazardous wastes) or treat only non-hazardous
wastes.
At the time of the SBAR Panel, EPA had
collected certain information on facilities that
treat a mixture of hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes as well as facilities that treat non-
hazardous wastes only. The bulk of the data
was from RCRA facilities treating RCRA subtitle
C hazardous waste together with non-hazardous
waste. The data on wastestreams did not show
a significant difference in the types of pollutants
for the streams being treated at RCRA and at
non-RCRA permitted facilities or the treatability
of those pollutants. Although the data did
suggest that pollutant concentrations tended to be
somewhat higher in raw waste going to RCRA
permitted facilities, which in turn suggested that
treatment would be more cost-effective at such
facilities, the information EPA had collected
from non-RCRA permitted facilities was
insufficient to support the conclusion that EPA
should differentiate between oils facilities on the
basis of RCRA classification of the wastes
treated at the facility. Consequently, EPA did
not propose different regulatory requirements for
facilities based on distinctions between hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes.
EPA, following the SBAR panel, collected
wastewater samples at twelve other facilities that
treat only non-hazardous materials. EPA
collected the samples in order to broaden the
database with additional information on the
pollutant profiles of the wastes that are treated at
these facilities. While EPA included the
analytical results of the sampling efforts in the
Appendix of the technical development
document for the proposal, EPA had not, at the
time of the proposal, reviewed the data in detail
or compared the data to the earlier data it had
collected. As the proposal also explained, EPA
planned to review the data in detail and present
a preliminary assessment of its findings at a
public hearing during the comment period for the
proposal.
At a public hearing on February 18, 1999,
EPA described the relevant sampling data, the
constraints of evaluating this data, and a
comparison of data from hazardous and non-
hazardous waste streams. This data showed
that, while the mean and median values of
influent concentration of hazardous wastestream
data are greater than for non-hazardous
wastestreams for most pollutants examined, the
ranges of concentration for the hazardous and
non-hazardous wastestreams overlap for most
pollutants. In its presentation, EPA indicated
that it planned to re-examine the oils subcategory
in terms of pollutant loadings, removals,
limitations and standards, costs, impacts, and
benefits. EPA requested comment on this issue,
and extended the comment period for this issue
to 30 days after the public hearing. EPA's
presentation is included in the public record for
this rulemaking as DCN 28.1.1 (other supporting
information is in Section 28).
Five commenters provided specific input on
basing regulatory options for the oils subcategory
5-7
-------
Chapter 5 Industry Subcategorization
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
on the RCRA classification of the waste receipts.
Two commenters supported differentiation on
this basis. They asserted that there are
significant differences between facilities that
accept non-hazardous wastes and those that
accept a combination of hazardous and non-
hazardous waste in terms of pollutant loadings
and the number and type of pollutants, the types
of treatment methods employed, and price
structures. Three commenters opposed
differentiation based on RCRA classification.
These commenters do not believe that RCRA
classification is a critical distinction, but rather
believe that RCRA classification often has no
impact on the treatability of the waste or final
effluent quality. They commented that non-
hazardous waste receipts have approximately the
same constituents as hazardous waste receipts.
From an environmental perspective, they believe
that it is irrelevant whether the source of the
pollutants of concern is a hazardous or non-
hazardous facility.
EPA has reexamined this data using the
same standards it applied earlier in this
rulemaking for determining pollutants of concern
for this industry (see Chapter 6 of this
document). Based on this review, EPA
determined that the pollutants of concern for
non-hazardous facilities are largely the same as
those previously identified for the oils
subcategory (EPA had based its earlier
conclusion on data from facilities processing a
mix of hazardous and non-hazardous waste
receipts).
EPA also looked to see if the treatment
technologies at strictly non-hazardous facilities
differ from those at facilities that accept both
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. EPA's
database shows that the range of treatment
technologies employed at both types of facilities
is similar.
Essentially, the only operational difference
EPA has observed between hazardous and non-
hazardous oils treatment facilities is that
hazardous oils waste facilities treat wastes with
higher influent concentrations. EPA's data show
that the average pollutant concentrations in non-
hazardous wastes are lower than in hazardous
wastes. Consequently, pollutant loadings,
removals and treatment cost estimates will differ
to some extent depending on the RCRA
classification of the wastes that are treated. As
explained above, however, both types of facilities
treat for the same pollutants and the
concentration ranges of these pollutants overlap
at hazardous and non-hazardous operations. In
these circumstances, the characteristics of wastes
treated at hazardous operations do not require a
different treatment technology from that used at
non-hazardous operations. The choice of
treatment technology for a particular facility is a
function primarily of the effluent concentration
required, not of any inherent differences in the
wastes being treated. As a result, EPA
concluded that there is no basis in the chemistry
of the wastewaters being treated which
supported development of different limitations
and standards for hazardous and non-hazardous
oils facilities. Furthermore, after evaluating
treatment technology costs, EPA found that the
costs for RCRA permitted facilities were
equivalent to those for non-RCRA facilities,
although, as noted above, loadings reductions at
the non-RCRA permitted facilities will generally
be lower. Given these factors, EPA decided that
it should not develop different limitations and
standards for RCRA hazardous and non-
hazardous oils facilities. DCN 33.1.1 discusses
the determination in more detail. EPA notes,
however, that its estimates of loadings, removals,
and revenue generated from treating the different
types of wastes take account of differences in
the type of wastes treated.
5-8
-------
Chapter
6
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR THE
CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT INDUSTRY
As discussed previously, wastewater receipts
treated at centralized waste treatment
facilities may have significantly different
pollutants and pollutant loads depending on the
customer and the process generating the waste
receipt. In fact, at many CWT facilities, the
pollutants and pollutant loads may vary daily and
from batch to batch. As a result, it is difficult to
characterize "typical" CWT wastewaters. In
fact, one of the distinguishing characteristics of
CWT wastewaters (as compared to traditional
wastewaters subject to national effluent
guidelines and standards) is that there is always
the exception to the rule. For example, at one
facility, EPA analyzed samples of wastewater
received for treatment from a single facility that
were obtained during three different, non-
consecutive weeks. EPA found that the weekly
waste receipts varied from the most concentrated
(in terms of metal pollutants) to one of the least
concentrated (in terms of metal pollutants).
Methodology 6.1
EPA determined pollutants of concern for
the CWT industry by assessing EPA sampling
data and industry-supplied self-monitoring data.
Because, industry has provided very little
quantitative data on the concentrations of
pollutants entering their wastewater treatment
system, EPA was only able to use such data
from a single facility in the metals subcategory.
For the metals and organics subcategory,
EPA collected and analyzed samples of
wastewater to determine the pollutants of
concern at influent points to the wastewater
treatment systems. For the oils subcategory,
EPA collected samples following emulsion
breaking and/or gravity separation. The pollutant
concentrations at these points are lower than the
original waste receipt concentrations as a result
of the commingling of a variety of waste
streams, and, in the case of the oils subcategory,
as a result of pretreatment. In most cases, EPA
could not collect samples from individual waste
shipments because of physical constraints and
excessive analytical costs.
EPA used two different analytical methods
to analyze samples for oil and grease during the
development of this guideline. EPA analyzed
samples collected prior to the 1995 proposal
using Method 413.1. This method uses freon
and is being phased out. EPA analyzed oil and
grease samples collected after the 1995 proposal
usingthe newly promulgated EPA Method 1664.
Method 1664 is used to measure oil and grease
as hexane extractable material (HEM) and to
measure silica gel treated-hexane extractable
material (SGT-HEM). EPA believes that oil and
grease measurements from Method 413.1 and
Method 1664 are comparable and has used the
data interchangeably.
EPA collected influent sampling data over a
limited time span (generally one to five days).
The samples represent a snapshot of the receipts
accepted for treatment during the time the
samples were collected. Because waste receipts
may vary significantly from day to day, EPA can
not know if, in fact, the data are also
representative of waste receipts during any other
time period. If EPA had sampled at more
facilities or over longer periods of time, EPA
would expect to observe a wider range of flows,
6-1
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
pollutants, and pollutant concentrations in CWT
industry raw wastewater. This has complicated
the selection of pollutants of concern and
regulated pollutants, and the estimation of
current performance and removals associated
with this rulemaking. Historically, in developing
national effluent guidelines and standards, unlike
the case for CWT waste receipts, influent
wastestreams are generally consistent in strength
and nature.
To establish the pollutants of concern, EPA
reviewed the analytical data from influent
wastewater samples to determine the number of
times a pollutant was detected at treatable levels.
EPA set treatable levels at ten times the baseline
level1 to ensure that pollutants detected as only
trace amounts would not be selected. In the
results presented today, EPA modified the
baseline values used in the 1999 proposal to be
consistent with those presented in chapter 15 of
this document. However, EPA used all the
available relevant data in these analyses and has
provided opportunities for public comment.
After reviewing the comments, EPA has
concluded that it has adequately characterized
CWT flows, pollutants, and pollutant
concentrations.
For most organic pollutants, the baseline
value is 10 ug/L. Therefore, for most organic
parameters, EPA has defined treatable levels as
100 ug/L. For metals pollutants the baseline
values range from 0.2 ug/L to 1000 ug/L.
EPA obtained the initial pollutants of
concern listing for each subcategory by
establishing which parameters were detected at
treatable levels in at least 10 percent of the
influent wastewater samples. Ten percent was
used to account for the variability of CWT
wastewaters. As mentioned previously in
Section 2.3.3.2, after the initial two sampling
episodes EPA discontinued the analyses for
'This chapter in the 1998 Development
Document inaccurately refers to the baseline
value as the 'method detection limit.'
dioxins/furans, pesticides/herbicides, methanol,
ethanol, and formaldehyde. As a result these
parameters were not included in the pollutants of
concern analysis. EPA also excluded amenable
cyanide from the analyses because the detection
of total cyanide in a particular sample sometimes
determined whether the laboratory would
analyze for amenable cyanide in that sample.
Table B-l in Appendix B identifies the
episodes and sample points used in the pollutants
of concern analysis. For the organics
subcategory, the episodes and sample points are
the same as for the 1999 proposal. For the
metals subcategory, EPA made some changes in
the data selection after a thorough review of the
process diagrams for the sampled facilities and
the analyses performed on the wastewater
samples collected from particular sample points.
EPA also included self-monitoring data from one
facility. For the oils subcategory, EPA included
all of the sample points and episodes included in
the 1999 proposal. Also, EPA has included
samples from the characterization sampling
described in section 2.3.4.
The concentration values corresponding to
duplicate samples were averaged using the
methodology in Table 10-1.
For sample points with continuous flow
systems, EPA aggregated the data values
corresponding to multiple samples into a single
daily value usingthe methodology in Table 10-2.
For example, oil and grease samples are typically
collected four times a day and the laboratory
results are mathematically combined into a single
daily value for each day.
The references to 'sample' or 'samples' in
the remainder of this chapter refer to the
concentration values after averaging duplicates
and aggregating multiple daily values.
Figure 6-1 depicts the methodology EPA
used to select pollutants of concern for each
subcategory.
Tables 6-1 through 6-3 provide a listing of
the pollutants that were determined to be
pollutants of concern for each subcategory.
6-2
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
These tables list the pollutant name, CAS
number, the number of times the pollutant was
analyzed, the number of detects, the baseline
value, the number of detects at treatable levels,
and the minimum and maximum concentration
detected. Tables 6-4 through 6-6 provide a
listing of the pollutants that were not considered
to be pollutants of concern for each subcategory
and the reason they were not selected. While
EPA generally uses the parameters established as
pollutants of concern to estimate pollutant
loadings and pollutant removals, EPA only
selected some of these parameters for regulation.
The regulated pollutants are a subset of the
pollutants of concern and are discussed in
Chapter 7. Chapter 12 discusses pollutant
loading and removal estimates.
6-3
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Tata] list of pAtaate analyzed Per cadi
uiuttt at each EicjJng socaie
fir a Eihglc gukatt^ay ^
W =e th- pollutaut
fvo: it.fiif J at Miy
Yee
Yes
Was th; polluted
JettEttJ at icaoecfltrsiioii
¦» ID times ithadmc
\ vdut1? /
/^Waslh;^^
/pilllu.ai ibtfird at
caoEHifctiin- 1U txm the
valut it at ltast
Nv ID'.afthf /
n. taut-/
Pcllutai is hct a POC fir the
subatepy
Pdlutant is set a POC fir the
euhattjaty
Pdlulai is net a POC fa- the
sufeategiiy
PaiDutai is i POC for th? simst-:|aiy
Figure 6-1. Pollutant of Concern Methodology
6-4
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-1. Pollutants of Concern for the Metals Subcategory
# Times
Baseline
# Detects
Minimum
Maximum
Pollutant
Cas No.
Analyzed
#
>10xBV
Cone.
Cone.
Detects
value
Classicals or Conventionals
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
Ammonia as Nitrogen
7664-41-7
90
90
50.0
84
300
1,650,000
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
C-003
82
67
2,000.0
53
4,000
10,800,000
BOD 5-Day (carbonaceous)
C-002
6
6
2,000.0
6
336,000
3,030,000
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
C-004
89
88
5,000.0
87
48,000
85,500,000
Chloride
16887-00-6
25
25
1,000.0
25
262,000
62,000,000
D-Chemical Oxygen Demand
C-004D
4
4
5,000.0
4
2,700,000
11,000,000
Fluoride
16984-48-8
90
90
100.0
79
123
28,000,000
Hexavalent Chromium
18540-29-9
78
43
10.0
22
1
40,000,000
Nitrate/Nitrite
C-005
90
88
50.0
81
90
40,000,000
Oil & Grease
C-007
68
48
5,000.0
15
4,500
143,000
Total Cyanide
57-12-5
38
25
20.0
25
288
13,300,000
Total Dissolved Solids
C-010
30
30
10,000.0
30
12,700,000
223,000,000
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
C-012
90
87
1,000.0
85
6,600
19,300,000
Total Phenols
C-020
84
58
50.0
10
11
2,900
Total Phosphorus
14265-44-2
85
77
10.0
77
380
15,000,000
Total Sulfide
18496-25-8
84
28
1,000.0
15
80
1,100,000
Total Suspended Solids
C-009
95
95
4,000.0
91
10,000
237,000,000
Metals
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
Aluminum
7429-90-5
90
87
200.0
76
388
3,090,000
Antimony
7440-36-0
95
63
20.0
47
20
1,160,000
Arsenic
7440-38-2
95
69
10.0
50
17
1,220,000
Beryllium
7440-41-7
90
42
5.0
17
1
1,190
Boron
7440-42-8
90
89
100.0
87
441
1,420,000
Cadmium
7440-43-9
95
91
5.0
85
7
19,300,000
Calcium
7440-70-2
90
90
5,000.0
85
6,630
9,100,000
Chromium
7440-47-3
95
95
10.0
94
73
65,000,000
Cobalt
7440-48-4
90
77
50.0
56
15
10,900,000
Copper
7440-50-8
95
95
25.0
95
635
40,200,000
Gallium
7440-55-3
39
9
500.0
5
1,125
36,350
Indium
7440-74-6
39
21
1,000.0
11
800
61,200
Iodine
7553-56-2
38
10
1,000.0
10
23,800
537,000
Iridium
7439-88-5
39
13
1,000.0
11
400
253,000
Iron
7439-89-6
90
89
100.0
88
222
9,400,000
Lanthanum
7439-91-0
39
9
100.0
4
484
1,660
Lead
7439-92-1
95
90
50.0
83
136
4,390,000
Lithium
7439-93-2
39
20
100.0
12
103
795,000
Magnesium
7439-95-4
90
83
5,000.0
44
5,920
2,980,000
Manganese
7439-96-5
95
94
15.0
84
26
6,480,000
Mercury
7439-97-6
95
76
0.2
73
1
3,100
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
90
78
10.0
71
11
1,390,000
Nickel
7440-02-0
95
95
40.0
95
539
3,200,000
Osmium
7440-04-2
39
17
100.0
8
149
21,800
Phosphorus
7723-14-0
38
31
1,000.0
25
1,730
2,550,000
Potassium
7440-09-7
39
38
1,000.0
38
15,100
9,720,000
Selenium
7782-49-2
95
36
5.0
33
3
11,800
Silicon
7440-21-3
39
37
100.0
35
111
1,330,000
Silver
7440-22-4
95
76
10.0
60
4
130,000
744a-7^
22
22
^nnnn
cr-
oc
ZBA
6-5
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-1. Pollutants of Concern for the Metals Subcategory
# Times
Baseline
# Detects
Minimum
Maximum
Pollutant
Cas No.
Analyzed
#
>10xBV
Cone.
Cone.
Detects
value
Strontium
7440-24-6
39
17
100.0
13
202
16,300
Sulfur
7704-34-9
38
38
1,000.0
38
157,000
38,000,000
Tantalum
7440-25-7
39
7
500.0
4
1,270
20,000
Tellurium
13494-80-9
39
4
1,000.0
4
11,700
182,000
Thallium
7440-28-0
90
29
10.0
16
13
275,000
Tin
7440-31-5
95
83
30.0
77
55
15,100,000
Titanium
7440-32-6
95
82
5.0
75
9
7,500,000
Vanadium
7440-62-2
90
59
50.0
32
11
364,000
Yttrium
7440-65-5
90
59
5.0
39
2
900
Zinc
7440-66-6
95
94
20.0
92
166
21,400,000
Zirconium
7440-67-7
39
17
100.0
5
200
4,860
Organics
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
71-55-6
27
5
10.0
3
38
601
1,1 -Dichloroethene
75-35-4
27
5
10.0
5
142
3,735
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
27
5
10.0
5
404
83,352
2-Butanone
78-93-3
27
9
50.0
8
65
71,102
2-Propanone
67-64-1
27
25
50.0
16
52
488,102
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
108-10-1
27
7
50.0
5
73
9,295
Benzoic Acid
65-85-0
22
19
50.0
14
193
36,756
Benzyl Alcohol
100-51-6
22
5
10.0
4
13
7,929
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
117-81-7
22
7
10.0
6
18
1,063
Carbon Disulfide
75-15-0
27
9
10.0
7
11
2,396
Chloroform
67-66-3
27
5
10.0
5
161
731
Dibromochloromethane
124-48-1
27
3
10.0
3
105
723
Hexanoic Acid
142-62-1
22
7
10.0
6
99
1,256
m-Xylene
108-38-3
27
7
10.0
3
25
646
Methylene Chloride
75-09-2
27
16
10.0
8
11
734
n,n-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
22
12
10.0
8
11
583
Phenol
108-95-2
22
5
10.0
3
61
341
Pyridine
110-86-1
22
5
10.0
5
140
1,684
Toluene
108-88-3
27
9
10.0
5
47
1,977
6-6
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-2. Pollutants of Concern for the Oils Subcategory
# Times
Baseline
# Detects
Minimum
Maximum
Pollutant
Cas No.
Analyzed
#
value
>10 x BV
Cone.
Cone.
Classicals or Conventionals
(ug/l)
(ug/l)
(ug/l)
Ammonia as Nitrogen
7664-41-7
39
39
50.0
39
13,500
1,310,000
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
C-003
54
54
2,000.0
54
500,000
62,500,000
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
C-004
54
54
5,000.0
54
1,440,000
824,000,000
Chloride
16887-00-6
14
14
1,000.0
14
19,400
6,180,000
Fluoride
16984-48-8
39
38
100.0
34
115
330,000
Nitrate/Nitrite
C-005
39
37
50.0
32
130
103,000
Oil & Grease
C-007
54
54
5,000.0
53
37,500
180,000,000
SGT-HEM
C-037
25
25
5,000.0
22
17,500
40,100,000
Total Cyanide
57-12-5
18
12
20.0
5
22
980
Total Dissolved Solids
C-010
29
29
10,000.0
29
1,270,000
40,200,000
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
C-012
54
54
1,000.0
54
298,000
157,000,000
Total Phenols
C-020
39
39
50.0
38
42
185,000
Total Phosphorus
14265-44-2
39
39
10.0
39
650
19,000,000
Total Suspended Solids
C-009
54
53
4,000.0
51
34,000
59,600,000
Metals
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
Aluminum
7429-90-5
54
51
200.0
44
213
582,000
Antimony
7440-36-0
54
41
20.0
9
17
2,410
Arsenic
7440-38-2
54
51
10.0
33
6
9,170
Barium
7440-39-3
54
54
200.0
17
12
7,290
Boron
7440-42-8
54
54
100.0
54
1,050
1,710,000
Cadmium
7440-43-9
54
42
5.0
31
9
860
Calcium
7440-70-2
54
54
5,000.0
45
5,155
810,000
Chromium
7440-47-3
54
52
10.0
39
9
7,178
Cobalt
7440-48-4
54
42
50.0
25
9
116,000
Copper
7440-50-8
54
53
25.0
44
11
80,482
Germanium
7440-56-4
19
2
500.0
2
10,250
12,360
Iron
7439-89-6
54
54
100.0
52
494
630,000
Lead
7439-92-1
54
52
50.0
38
34
37,300
Lutetium
7439-94-3
19
3
100.0
3
1,165
1,315
Magnesium
7439-95-4
54
54
5,000.0
23
4,560
753,000
Manganese
7439-96-5
54
54
15.0
53
22
44,500
Mercury
7439-97-6
54
42
0.2
21
0
313
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
54
49
10.0
47
15
19,500
Nickel
7440-02-0
54
52
40.0
39
27
81,050
Phosphorus
7723-14-0
17
17
1,000.0
16
4,033
239,000
Potassium
7440-09-7
19
19
1,000.0
19
23,550
2,880,000
Selenium
7782-49-2
54
25
5.0
12
9
1,000
Silicon
7440-21-3
19
19
100.0
19
1,862
87,920
Silver
7440-22-4
54
32
10.0
6
8
7,740
Sodium
7440-23-5
54
53
5,000.0
52
12,400
11,200,000
Strontium
7440-24-6
19
13
100.0
8
128
3,470
Sulfur
7704-34-9
17
17
1,000.0
17
90,600
3,712,000
Tantalum
7440-25-7
19
3
500.0
2
1,474
15,190
Tin
7440-31-5
54
39
30.0
31
63
6,216
Titanium
7440-32-6
54
38
5.0
35
8
1,540
Zinc
7440-66-6
54
54
20.0
51
34
94,543
Organics
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
6-7
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-2. Pollutants of Concern for the Oils Subcategory
# Times
Baseline
# Detects
Minimum
Maximum
Pollutant
Cas No.
Analyzed
#
value
>10 x BV
Cone.
Cone.
1,1-Dichloroethene
75-35-4
28
7
10.0
6
li
1,968
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
39
8
10.0
8
359
18,899
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
39
4
10.0
4
171
4,186
1,2-Dichloroethane
107-06-2
28
12
10.0
10
14
713
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
39
7
10.0
7
454
2,334
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
28
3
10.0
3
189
1,323
1-Methylfluorene
1730-37-6
39
8
10.0
7
42
5,803
1 - Methylphenanthrene
832-69-9
39
11
10.0
9
92
7,111
2,3-Benzofluorene
243-17-4
39
6
10.0
6
162
2,755
2,4-Dimethylphenol
105-67-9
39
11
10.0
9
48
2,171
2-Butanone
78-93-3
28
26
50.0
24
57
178,748
2-Isopropylnaphthalene
2027-17-0
39
5
10.0
4
68
125,180
2- Methy lnaphthalene
91-57-6
39
28
10.0
25
80
46,108
2-Propanone
67-64-1
28
27
50.0
27
974
2,099,340
3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene
1576-67-6
39
5
10.0
5
114
2,762
4- Chi oro - 3 - Methy lpheno 1
59-50-7
38
20
10.0
20
101
83,825
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
108-10-1
28
22
50.0
15
199
20,489
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
39
8
10.0
7
65
13,418
Alpha-Terpineol
98-55-5
39
13
10.0
11
57
2,245
Aniline
62-53-3
39
5
10.0
5
142
367
Anthracene
120-12-7
39
12
10.0
9
27
18,951
Benzene
71-43-2
28
28
10.0
24
70
20,425
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
39
12
10.0
8
25
6,303
Benzoic Acid
65-85-0
39
30
50.0
30
598
163,050
Benzyl Alcohol
100-51-6
39
13
10.0
11
40
12,700
Biphenyl
92-52-4
39
18
10.0
14
36
10,171
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
117-81-7
39
18
10.0
13
33
838,450
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
85-68-7
39
7
10.0
6
64
49,069
Carbazole
86-74-8
39
6
20.0
4
81
1,459
Carbon Disulfide
75-15-0
28
14
10.0
6
10
2,335
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
28
11
10.0
6
12
326
Chloroform
67-66-3
28
12
10.0
12
160
1,828
Chrysene
218-01-9
39
12
10.0
10
39
8,879
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
39
7
10.0
6
32
13,786
Dibenzothiophene
132-65-0
39
10
10.0
9
38
5,448
Diethyl Phthalate
84-66-2
39
10
10.0
10
145
9,309
Diphenyl Ether
101-84-8
39
8
10.0
8
149
13,751
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
28
28
10.0
25
14
18,579
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
39
15
10.0
11
30
28,873
Fluorene
86-73-7
39
11
10.0
10
73
15,756
Hexanoic Acid
142-62-1
39
32
10.0
31
56
495,899
m+p Xylene
179601-23-1
5
5
10.0
5
838
1,660
m-Xylene
108-38-3
28
23
10.0
22
24
32,639
Methylene Chloride
75-09-2
28
25
10.0
16
13
10,524
n,n-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
39
7
10.0
6
83
803
n-Decane
124-18-5
39
29
10.0
27
62
579,220
n-Docosane
629-97-0
39
24
10.0
20
17
66,926
n-Dodecane
112-40-3
39
30
10.0
30
125
472,570
6-8
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-2. Pollutants of Concern for the Oils Subcategory
# Times
Baseline
# Detects
Minimum
Maximum
Pollutant
Cas No.
Analyzed
#
value
>10 x BV
Cone.
Cone.
n-Hexacosane
630-01-3
39
13
10.0
10
16
9,561
n-Hexadecane
544-76-3
39
33
10.0
33
159
1,367,970
n-Octacosane
630-02-4
39
4
10.0
4
101
22,733
n-Octadecane
593-45-3
39
32
10.0
29
47
901,920
n-Tetracosane
646-31-1
38
17
10.0
12
18
12,111
n-Tetradecane
629-59-4
39
33
10.0
31
78
2,560,460
Naphthalene
91-20-3
39
33
10.0
31
24
53,949
o+p Xylene
136777-61-2
28
23
10.0
18
14
16,584
o-Cresol
95-48-7
39
17
10.0
16
85
8,273
o-Toluidine
95-53-4
39
7
10.0
4
26
248
o-Xylene
95-47-6
5
5
10.0
5
561
1,141
p-Cresol
106-44-5
39
26
10.0
25
15
3,607
p-Cymene
99-87-6
39
10
10.0
10
232
6,601
Pentamethylbenzene
700-12-9
39
7
10.0
7
116
11,186
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
39
22
10.0
17
12
49,016
Phenol
108-95-2
39
36
10.0
36
375
48,640
Pyrene
129-00-0
39
16
10.0
14
11
22,763
Pyridine
110-86-1
39
10
10.0
6
14
1,280
Styrene
100-42-5
39
8
10.0
7
28
1,019
Tetrachloroethene
127-18-4
28
19
10.0
18
24
12,789
Toluene
108-88-3
28
28
10.0
26
51
99,209
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
28
15
10.0
10
18
7,125
6-9
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-3. Pollutants of Concern for the Organics Subcategory
# Times
Baseline
# Detects
Minimum
Maximum
Pollutant
Cas No.
Analyzed
#
value
>10 x BV
Cone.
Cone.
Classicals or Conventionals
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
Ammonia as Nitrogen
7664-41-7
5
5
50.0
5
83,000
2,400,000
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
C-003
5
5
2,000.0
5
790,000
7,550,000
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
C-004
5
5
5,000.0
5
1,400,000
11,000,000
D-Chemical Oxygen Demand
C-004D
5
5
5,000.0
5
1,200,000
9,900,000
Fluoride
16984-48-8
5
5
100.0
2
600
1,950
Nitrate/nitrite
C-005
5
4
50.0
4
100,000
340,000
Total Cyanide
57-12-5
5
5
20.0
5
760
7,800
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
C-012
5
5
1,000.0
5
510,000
3,750,000
Total Sulfide
18496-25-8
5
3
1,000.0
2
4,000
24,000
Total Suspended Solids
C-009
5
5
4,000.0
4
33,000
3,700,000
Metals
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
Aluminum
7429-90-5
5
5
200.0
4
148
7,660
Antimony
7440-36-0
5
4
20.0
3
146
1,540
Arsenic
7440-38-2
5
5
10.0
1
8
152
Barium
7440-39-3
5
5
200.0
2
1,030
136,000
Boron
7440-42-8
5
5
100.0
5
2,950
4,320
Calcium
7440-70-2
5
5
5,000.0
5
1,025,000
1,410,000
Chromium
7440-47-3
5
4
10.0
2
63
274
Cobalt
7440-48-4
5
4
50.0
3
253
731
Copper
7440-50-8
5
5
25.0
4
7
2,690
Iodine
7553-56-2
5
4
1,000.0
1
3,800
15,100
Iron
7439-89-6
5
5
100.0
5
2,360
6,430
Lead
7439-92-1
5
4
50.0
1
109
687
Lithium
7439-93-2
5
5
100.0
5
1,100
18,750
Manganese
7439-96-5
5
5
15.0
5
179
513
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
5
5
10.0
4
33
6,950
Nickel
7440-02-0
5
5
40.0
4
55
2,610
Phosphorus
7723-14-0
5
4
1,000.0
1
3,000
15,900
Potassium
7440-09-7
5
5
1,000.0
5
383,000
1,240,000
Silicon
7440-21-3
5
5
100.0
5
1,550
3,600
Sodium
7440-23-5
5
5
5,000.0
5
2,470,000
6,390,000
Strontium
7440-24-6
5
5
100.0
5
3,900
14,000
Sulfur
7704-34-9
5
5
1,000.0
5
12,800
1,990,000
Tin
7440-31-5
5
4
30.0
2
200
2,530
Titanium
7440-32-6
5
5
5.0
1
9
64
Zinc
7440-66-6
5
5
20.0
4
40
1,210
Organics
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
(ug/1)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
630-20-6
5
5
10.0
5
249
2,573
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
71-55-6
5
5
10.0
4
74
320
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
79-34-5
5
1
10.0
1
8,602
8,602
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79-00-5
5
5
10.0
5
776
6,781
1,1 -Dichloroethane
75-34-3
5
5
10.0
2
23
108
1,1 -Dichloroethene
75-35-4
5
5
10.0
5
112
461
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
96-18-4
5
5
10.0
4
100
839
1,2- Dibromo ethane
106-93-4
5
5
10.0
5
297
6,094
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
5
1
10.0
1
479
479
1,2-Dichloroethane
107-06-2
5
4
10.0
4
855
5,748
E1L
M-
m.
6-10
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-3. Pollutants of Concern for the Organics Subcategory
Pollutant
Cas No.
# Times
Analyzed
#
Baseline
value
# Detects
>10 x BV
Minimum
Cone.
Maximum
Cone.
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
58-90-2
5
5
20.0
5
1,189
5,397
2,3-Dichloroaniline
608-27-5
5
3
10.0
3
109
636
2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol
95-95-4
5
4
10.0
4
114
579
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
88-06-2
5
4
10.0
4
148
1,091
2,4-Dimethylphenol
105-67-9
5
1
10.0
1
683
683
2-Butanone
78-93-3
5
5
50.0
5
894
5,063
2-Propanone
67-64-1
5
5
50.0
5
1,215
12,435
3,4,5-Trichlorocatechol
56961-20-7
5
2
0.8
1
2
46
3,4,6-Trichloroguaiacol
60712-44-9
5
2
0.8
1
7
12
3,4-Dichlorophenol
95-77-2
5
4
0.8
4
71
470
3,5-Dichlorophenol
591-35-5
5
3
0.8
3
38
170
3,6-Dichlorocatechol
3938-16-7
5
1
0.8
1
12
12
4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol
2668-24-8
5
2
0.8
1
4
62
4,5-Dichloroguaiacol
2460-49-3
5
1
0.8
1
9
9
4- Chi oro - 3 - Methy lpheno 1
59-50-7
5
1
10.0
1
204
204
4-Chlorophenol
106-48-9
5
4
240.0
2
1,450
7,940
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
108-10-1
5
5
50.0
4
290
4,038
5-Chloroguaiacol
3743-23-5
5
1
160.0
1
2,350
2,350
6-Chlorovanillin
18268-76-3
5
1
0.8
1
38
38
Acetophenone
98-86-2
5
4
10.0
4
336
739
Aniline
62-53-3
5
2
10.0
2
178
392
Benzene
71-43-2
5
5
10.0
3
30
179
Benzoic Acid
65-85-0
5
2
50.0
2
5,649
15,760
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
5
5
10.0
1
26
197
Carbon Disulfide
75-15-0
5
4
10.0
1
14
1,147
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
5
4
10.0
1
70
101
Chloroform
67-66-3
5
4
10.0
4
5,224
32,301
Dimethyl Sulfone
67-71-0
5
3
10.0
3
315
892
Ethylenethiourea
96-45-7
5
2
20.0
2
8,306
9,655
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
5
2
10.0
1
75
101
Hexanoic Acid
142-62-1
5
3
10.0
3
1,111
4,963
Isophorone
78-59-1
5
2
10.0
1
60
141
m-Xylene
108-38-3
5
5
10.0
1
45
310
Methylene Chloride
75-09-2
5
4
10.0
4
2,596
87,256
n,n-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
5
3
10.0
2
23
225
o+p Xylene
136777-61-2
5
5
10.0
1
13
113
o-Cresol
95-48-7
5
4
10.0
4
7,162
14,313
p-Cresol
106-44-5
5
4
10.0
4
220
911
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
5
4
50.0
4
657
1,354
Phenol
108-95-2
5
4
10.0
4
483
9,491
Pyridine
110-86-1
5
5
10.0
4
29
444
Tetrachloroethene
127-18-4
5
4
10.0
4
2,235
19,496
T etrachloromethane
56-23-5
5
5
10.0
5
1,862
16,126
Toluene
108-88-3
5
5
10.0
5
148
2,053
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-60-5
5
5
10.0
5
1,171
5,147
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
5
4
10.0
4
3,551
23,649
6-11
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-4. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Metals Subcategory
Pollutant
Cas No.
Never
Detected
Detected
<10 x BY
Detected in <10%
of infuent samples
CLASSICALS ORCOWIM IOWI S
SGT-HEM
Metals
Barium
Bismuth
Cerium
Dysprosium
Erbium
Europium
Gadolinium
Germanium
Gold
Hafnium
Holmium
Lutetium
Neodymium
Niobium
Palladium
Platinum
Praseodymium
Rhenium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Samarium
Scandium
Terbium
Thorium
Thulium
Tungsten
Uranium
Ytterbium
ORGANICS
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2- T etrachl oroethane
1.1.2-Trichloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethane
1.2.3-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1.2.3- Trimethoxybenzene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1.2.4-Trichlorobenzene
1.2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
1,2- Dibromo ethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
l,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane
1.3.5-Trithiane
1.3-Butariiene. 2-Chloro
C-037
7440-39-3
7440-69-9
7440-45-1
7429-91-6
7440-52-0
7440-53-1
7440-54-2
7440-56-4
7440-57-5
7440-58-6
7440-60-0
7439-94-3
7440-00-8
7440-03-1
7440-05-3
7440-06-4
7440-10-0
7440-15-5
7440-16-6
7440-18-8
7440-19-9
7440-20-2
7440-27-9
7440-29-1
7440-30-4
7440-33-7
7440-61-1
7440-64-4
630-20-6
79-34-5
79-00-5
75-34-3
87-61-6
96-18-4
634-36-6
95-94-3
120-82-1
96-12-8
106-93-4
95-50-1
107-06-2
78-87-5
122-66-7
1464-53-5
291-21-4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6-12
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-4. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Metals Subcategory
Pollutant
Cas No.
Never
Detected
Detected
<10 x BY
Detected in <10%
of infuent samples
l,3-Dichloro-2-Propanol
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3 - Dichl oroprop ane
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4- Dinitrobenz ene
1.4-Naphthoquinone
1.5-Naphthalenediamine
l-Bromo-2-Chlorobenzene
l-Bromo-3-Chlorobenzene
l-Chloro-3-Nitrobenzene
1-Methylfluorene
1 - Methylphenanthrene
1 -Naphthy lamine
1-Phenylnaphthalene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
2,3-Benzofluorene
2,3-Dichloroaniline
2.3-Dichloronitrobenzene
2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2.4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2.6-Di-Tert-Butyl-P-Benzoquinone
2,6-Dichloro-4-Nitroaniline
2,6-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-(methylthio)benzothiazole
2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
2-Hexanone
2-Isopropylnaphthalene
2-Methylbenzothioazole
2- Methy lnaphthalene
2-Nitroaniline
2-Nitrophenol
2-Phenylnaphthalene
2-Picoline
2-Propen-l-Ol
2-Propenal
2-Propenenitrile, 2-Methyl-
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene
3 - Chi oroprop ene
3 - M ethy 1 cho 1 anthr ene
96-23-1
541-73-1
142-28-9
106-46-7
100-25-4
130-15-4
2243-62-1
694-80-4
108-37-2
121-73-3
1730-37-6
832-69-9
134-32-7
605-02-7
58-90-2
933-75-5
243-17-4
608-27-5
3209-22-1
95-95-4
88-06-2
120-83-2
105-67-9
51-28-5
121-14-2
719-22-2
99-30-9
87-65-0
606-20-2
615-22-5
110-75-8
91-58-7
95-57-8
591-78-6
2027-17-0
120-75-2
91-57-6
88-74-4
88-75-5
612-94-2
109-06-8
107-18-6
107-02-8
126-98-7
91-94-1
119-90-4
1576-67-6
107-05-1
56-49-5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
—
X
X
X
X
X
6-13
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-4. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Metals Subcategory
Never
Detected
Detected in <10%
Pollutant
Cas No.
Detected
<10 x BV
of infuent samples
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-Chloroaniline)
101-14-4
X
4,5-Methylene Phenanthrene
203-64-5
X
4-Aminobiphenyl
92-67-1
X
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
101-55-3
X
4-Chloro-2-Nitroaniline
89-63-4
X
4- Chi oro - 3 - Methy lpheno 1
59-50-7
X
4-Chlorophenylphenyl Ether
7005-72-3
X
4-Nitrophenol
100-02-7
X
5-Nitro-O-Toluidine
99-55-8
X
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
57-97-6
X
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
X
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
X
Acetophenone
98-86-2
X
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1
X
Alpha-Terpineol
98-55-5
X
Aniline
62-53-3
X
Aniline, 2,4,5-Trimethyl-
137-17-7
X
Anthracene
120-12-7
X
Aramite
140-57-8
X
Benzanthrone
82-05-3
X
Benzene
71-43-2
X
Benzenethiol
108-98-5
X
Benzidine
92-87-5
X
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
X
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
X
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
X
Benzo(ghi)perylene
191-24-2
X
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
X
Benzonitrile, 3,5-Dibromo-4-Hydroxy-
1689-84-5
X
Beta-Naphthylamine
91-59-8
X
Biphenyl
92-52-4
X
Biphenyl, 4-Nitro
92-93-3
X
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
111-91-1
X
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
111-44-4
X
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
108-60-1
X
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
X
Bromomethane
74-83-9
X
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
85-68-7
X
Carbazole
86-74-8
X
Chloroacetonitrile
107-14-2
X
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
X
Chloroethane
75-00-3
X
Chloromethane
74-87-3
X
Chrysene
218-01-9
X
Cis- 1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-01-5
X
Crotonaldehyde
4170-30-3
X
Crotoxyphos
7700-17-6
X
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
84-74-2
X
Di-N-Octyl Phthalate
117-84-0
X
i-iil.
6-14
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-4. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Metals Subcategory
Never Detected Detected in <10%
Pollutant CasNo. Detected <10xBV of infuent samples
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
X
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
X
Dibenzothiophene
132-65-0
X
Dibromomethane
74-95-3
X
Diethyl Ether
60-29-7
X
Diethyl Phthalate
84-66-2
X
Dimethyl Phthalate
131-11-3
X
Dimethyl Sulfone
67-71-0
X
Diphenyl Ether
101-84-8
X
Diphenylamine
122-39-4
X
Diphenyldisulfide
882-33-7
X
Ethane, Pentachloro-
76-01-7
X
Ethyl Cyanide
107-12-0
X
Ethyl Methacrylate
97-63-2
X
Ethyl Methanesulfonate
62-50-0
X
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
X
Ethylenethiourea
96-45-7
X
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
X
Fluorene
86-73-7
X
He xachl orob enzene
118-74-1
X
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
X
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77-47-4
X
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
X
Hexachloropropene
1888-71-7
X
Indeno(l,2,3-Cd)pyrene
193-39-5
X
Iodomethane
74-88-4
X
Isobutyl Alcohol
78-83-1
X
Isophorone
78-59-1
X
Isosafrole
120-58-1
X
Longifolene
475-20-7
X
Malachite Green
569-64-2
X
Mestranol
72-33-3
X
Methapyrilene
91-80-5
X
Methyl Methacrylate
80-62-6
X
Methyl Methanesulfonate
66-27-3
X
n-Decane
124-18-5
X
n-Docosane
629-97-0
X
n-Dodecane
112-40-3
X
n-Eicosane
112-95-8
X
n-Hexacosane
630-01-3
X
n-Hexadecane
544-76-3
X
n-Nitrosodi-n-Butylamine
924-16-3
X
n-Nitrosodiethylamine
55-18-5
X
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
62-75-9
X
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
X
n-Nitrosomethylethylamine
10595-95-6
X
n-Nitrosomethylphenylamine
614-00-6
X
n-Nitrosomorpholine
59-89-2
X
n-Nitrosopiperidine
100-75-4
X
mm
6-15
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-4. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Metals Subcategory
Never
Detected
Detected in <10%
Pollutant
Cas No.
Detected
<10 x BV
of infuent samples
n-Octadecane
593-45-3
X
n-Tetracosane
646-31-1
X
n-Tetradecane
629-59-4
X
n-Triacontane
638-68-6
X
Naphthalene
91-20-3
X
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
X
o+p Xylene
136777-61-2
X
o-Anisidine
90-04-0
X
o-Cresol
95-48-7
X
o-Toluidine
95-53-4
X
o-Toluidine, 5-Chloro-
95-79-4
X
p-Chloroaniline
106-47-8
X
p-Cresol
106-44-5
X
p-Cymene
99-87-6
X
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
60-11-7
X
p-Nitroaniline
100-01-6
X
Pentachlorobenzene
608-93-5
X
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
X
Pentamethylbenzene
700-12-9
X
Perylene
198-55-0
X
Phenacetin
62-44-2
X
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
X
Phenol, 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitro-
534-52-1
X
Phenothiazine
92-84-2
X
Pronamide
23950-58-5
X
Pyrene
129-00-0
X
Resorcinol
108-46-3
X
Safrole
94-59-7
X
Squalene
7683-64-9
X
Styrene
100-42-5
X
Tetrachloroethene
127-18-4
X
Tetrachloromethane
56-23-5
X
Thianaphthene
95-15-8
X
Thioacetamide
62-55-5
X
Thioxanthe-9-One
492-22-8
X
Toluene, 2,4-Diamino-
95-80-7
X
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-60-5
X
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-02-6
X
Trans- l,4-Dichloro-2-Butene
110-57-6
X
Tribromomethane
75-25-2
X
Trichlorofluoromethane
75-69-4
X
Triphenylene
217-59-4
X
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
20324-33-8
X
Vinyl Acetate
108-05-4
X
6-16
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-5. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Oils Subcategory
Pollutant
Cas No.
Never
Detected
Detected
<10 x BY
Detected in <10%
of infuent
samples
Classicals or Conventionals
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Sulfide
18540-29-9
18496-25-8
Beryllium
7440-41-7
Bismuth
7440-69-9
Cerium
7440-45-1
Dysprosium
7429-91-6
X
Erbium
7440-52-0
X
Europium
7440-53-1
X
Gadolinium
7440-54-2
X
Gallium
7440-55-3
X
Gold
7440-57-5
X
Hafnium
7440-58-6
X
Holmium
7440-60-0
X
Indium
7440-74-6
X
Iodine
7553-56-2
X
Iridium
7439-88-5
Lanthanum
7439-91-0
X
Lithium
7439-93-2
Neodymium
7440-00-8
X
Niobium
7440-03-1
X
Osmium
7440-04-2
X
Palladium
7440-05-3
X
Platinum
7440-06-4
Praseodymium
7440-10-0
X
Rhenium
7440-15-5
Rhodium
7440-16-6
X
Ruthenium
7440-18-8
X
Samarium
7440-19-9
X
Scandium
7440-20-2
X
Tellurium
13494-80-9
Terbium
7440-27-9
X
Thallium
7440-28-0
Thorium
7440-29-1
X
Thulium
7440-30-4
X
Tungsten
7440-33-7
Uranium
7440-61-1
X
Vanadium
7440-62-2
Ytterbium
7440-64-4
Yttrium
7440-65-5
Zirconium
7440-67-7
ORGANICS
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
630-20-6
X
1,1,2,2- T etrachl oroethane
79-34-5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
79-00-5
X
1,1-Dichloroethane
75-34-3
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
87-61-6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6-17
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-5. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Oils Subcategory
Never
Detected
Detected in <10%
Pollutant
Cas No.
Detected
<10 x BV
of infuent
samples
1,2,3-Trimethoxybenzene
634-36-6
X
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
95-94-3
X
l,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane
96-12-8
X
1,2- Dibromo ethane
106-93-4
X
1,2-Dichloropropane
78-87-5
X
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
122-66-7
X
l,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane
1464-53-5
X
1,3,5-Trithiane
291-21-4
X
1,3-Butadiene, 2-Chloro
126-99-8
X
l,3-Dichloro-2-Propanol
96-23-1
X
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
X
1,3 - Dichl oroprop ane
142-28-9
X
1,4- Dinitrobenz ene
100-25-4
X
1,4-Naphthoquinone
130-15-4
X
1,5-Naphthalenediamine
2243-62-1
X
l-Bromo-2-Chlorobenzene
694-80-4
X
l-Bromo-3-Chlorobenzene
108-37-2
X
l-Chloro-3-Nitrobenzene
121-73-3
X
1 -Naphthy lamine
134-32-7
X
1-Phenylnaphthalene
605-02-7
X
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
58-90-2
X
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
933-75-5
X
2,3-Dichloroaniline
608-27-5
X
2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene
3209-22-1
X
2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol
95-95-4
X
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
88-06-2
X
2,4-Dichlorophenol
120-83-2
X
2,4-Dinitrophenol
51-28-5
X
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
X
2,6-Di-Tert-Butyl-P-Benzoquinone
719-22-2
X
2,6-Dichloro-4-Nitroaniline
99-30-9
X
2,6-Dichlorophenol
87-65-0
X
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
X
2-(methylthio)benzothiazole
615-22-5
X
2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
110-75-8
X
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
X
2-Chlorophenol
95-57-8
X
2-Hexanone
591-78-6
X
2-Methylbenzothioazole
120-75-2
X
2-Nitroaniline
88-74-4
X
2-Nitrophenol
88-75-5
X
2-Phenylnaphthalene
612-94-2
X
2-Picoline
109-06-8
X
2-Propen-l-Ol
107-18-6
X
2-Propenal
107-02-8
X
2-Propenenitrile, 2-Methyl-
126-98-7
X
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
91-94-1
X
3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine
119-90-4
X
UL.
6-18
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-5. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Oils Subcategory
Never Detected Detected in <10%
Pollutant CasNo. Detected <10xBV ofinfuent
samples
3 - M ethy 1 cho 1 anthr ene
56-49-5
X
3-Nitroaniline
99-09-2
X
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-Chloroaniline)
101-14-4
X
4,5-Methylene Phenanthrene
203-64-5
X
4-Aminobiphenyl
92-67-1
X
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
101-55-3
X
4-Chloro-2-Nitroaniline
89-63-4
X
4-Chlorophenylphenyl Ether
7005-72-3
X
4-Nitrophenol
100-02-7
X
5-Nitro-o-Toluidine
99-55-8
X
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
57-97-6
X
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
X
Acetophenone
98-86-2
X
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1
X
Aniline, 2,4,5-Trimethyl-
137-17-7
X
Aramite
140-57-8
X
Benzanthrone
82-05-3
X
Benzenethiol
108-98-5
X
Benzidine
92-87-5
X
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
X
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
X
Benzo(ghi)perylene
191-24-2
X
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
X
Benzonitrile, 3,5-Dibromo-4-Hydroxy-
1689-84-5
X
Beta-Naphthylamine
91-59-8
X
Biphenyl, 4-Nitro
92-93-3
X
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
111-91-1
X
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
111-44-4
X
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
108-60-1
X
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
X
Bromomethane
74-83-9
X
Chloroacetonitrile
107-14-2
X
Chloroethane
75-00-3
X
Chloromethane
74-87-3
X
Cis- 1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-01-5
X
Crotonaldehyde
4170-30-3
X
Crotoxyphos
7700-17-6
X
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
84-74-2
X
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
117-84-0
X
Di-n-Propylnitrosamine
621-64-7
X
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
X
Dibromochloromethane
124-48-1
X
Dibromomethane
74-95-3
X
Diethyl Ether
60-29-7
X
Dimethyl Phthalate
131-11-3
X
Dimethyl Sulfone
67-71-0
X
Diphenylamine
122-39-4
X
Diphenyldisulfide
882-33-7
X
Mtlil
6-19
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-5. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Oils Subcategory
Never
Detected
Detected in <10%
Pollutant
Cas No.
Detected
<10 x BV
of infuent
samples
Ethyl Cyanide
107-12-0
X
Ethyl Methacrylate
97-63-2
X
Ethyl Methanesulfonate
62-50-0
X
Ethylenethiourea
96-45-7
X
He xachl orob enzene
118-74-1
X
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
X
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77-47-4
X
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
X
Hexachloropropene
1888-71-7
X
Indeno(l,2,3-Cd)pyrene
193-39-5
X
Iodomethane
74-88-4
X
Isobutyl Alcohol
78-83-1
X
Isophorone
78-59-1
X
Isosafrole
120-58-1
X
Longifolene
475-20-7
X
Malachite Green
569-64-2
X
Mestranol
72-33-3
X
Methapyrilene
91-80-5
X
Methyl Methacrylate
80-62-6
X
Methyl Methanesulfonate
66-27-3
X
n-Nitrosodi-n-Butylamine
924-16-3
X
n-Nitrosodiethylamine
55-18-5
X
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
62-75-9
X
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
X
n-Nitrosomethylethylamine
10595-95-6
X
n-Nitrosomethylphenylamine
614-00-6
X
n-Nitrosomorpholine
59-89-2
X
n-Nitrosopiperidine
100-75-4
X
n-Triacontane
638-68-6
X
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
X
o-Anisidine
90-04-0
X
o-Toluidine, 5-Chloro-
95-79-4
X
p-Chloroaniline
106-47-8
X
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
60-11-7
X
p-Nitroaniline
100-01-6
X
Pentachlorobenzene
608-93-5
X
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
X
Perylene
198-55-0
X
Phenacetin
62-44-2
X
Phenol, 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitro-
534-52-1
X
Phenothiazine
92-84-2
X
Pronamide
23950-58-5
X
Resorcinol
108-46-3
X
Safrole
94-59-7
X
Squalene
7683-64-9
X
Tetrachloromethane
56-23-5
X
Thianaphthene
95-15-8
X
Thioacetamide
62-55-5
X
497,7X8
6-20
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-5. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Oils Subcategory
Never
Detected
Detected in <10%
Pollutant
Cas No.
Detected
<10 x BV
of infuent
samples
Toluene, 2,4-Diamino-
95-80-7
X
Trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
156-60-5
X
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-02-6
X
Trans- l,4-Dichloro-2-Butene
110-57-6
X
Tribromomethane
75-25-2
X
Trichlorofluoromethane
75-69-4
X
Triphenylene
217-59-4
X
Vinyl Acetate
108-05-4
X
-iU
6-21
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-6. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Organics Subcategory
Never Detected Detected in <10%
Pollutant CasNo. Detected <10xBV of infuent samples
Classicals or Conventionals
Oil & Grease
C-007
X
Metals
Beryllium
7440-41-7
X
Bismuth
7440-69-9
X
Cadmium
7440-43-9
X
Cerium
7440-45-1
X
Dysprosium
7429-91-6
X
Erbium
7440-52-0
X
Europium
7440-53-1
X
Gadolinium
7440-54-2
X
Gallium
7440-55-3
X
Germanium
7440-56-4
X
Gold
7440-57-5
X
Hafnium
7440-58-6
X
Holmium
7440-60-0
X
Indium
7440-74-6
X
Iridium
7439-88-5
X
Lanthanum
7439-91-0
X
Lutetium
7439-94-3
X
Magnesium
7439-95-4
X
Mercury
7439-97-6
X
Neodymium
7440-00-8
X
Niobium
7440-03-1
X
Osmium
7440-04-2
X
Palladium
7440-05-3
X
Platinum
7440-06-4
X
Praseodymium
7440-10-0
X
Rhenium
7440-15-5
X
Rhodium
7440-16-6
X
Ruthenium
7440-18-8
X
Samarium
7440-19-9
X
Scandium
7440-20-2
X
Selenium
7782-49-2
X
Silver
7440-22-4
X
Tantalum
7440-25-7
X
Tellurium
13494-80-9
X
Terbium
7440-27-9
X
Thallium
7440-28-0
X
Thorium
7440-29-1
X
Thulium
7440-30-4
X
Tungsten
7440-33-7
X
Uranium
7440-61-1
X
Vanadium
7440-62-2
X
Ytterbium
7440-64-4
X
Yttrium
7440-65-5
X
Zirconium
7440-67-7
X
ORGANICS
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
87-61-6
X
6-22
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-6. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Organics Subcategory
Never Detected Detected in <10%
Pollutant CasNo. Detected <10xBV of infuent samples
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
95-94-3
X
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
X
1,2- Dibromo- 3 - Chloropropane
96-12-8
X
1,2-Dichloropropane
78-87-5
X
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
122-66-7
X
l,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane
1464-53-5
X
1,3,5-Trithiane
291-21-4
X
1,3-Butadiene, 2-Chloro
126-99-8
X
l,3-Dichloro-2-Propanol
96-23-1
X
1,3 - Dichlorob enz ene
541-73-1
X
1,4- Dichlorob enz ene
106-46-7
X
1,4-Dinitrobenzene
100-25-4
X
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
X
1,4-Naphthoquinone
130-15-4
X
1,5 -N aphthalenediamine
2243-62-1
X
l-Bromo-2-Chlorobenzene
694-80-4
X
l-Bromo-3-Chlorobenzene
108-37-2
X
l-Chloro-3-Nitrobenzene
121-73-3
X
1-Methylfluorene
1730-37-6
X
1 -Methylphenanthrene
832-69-9
X
1-Naphthylamine
134-32-7
X
1 -Phenylnaphthalene
605-02-7
X
2,3,6-Trichlorophenol
933-75-5
X
2,3-Benzofluorene
243-17-4
X
2,3-Dichloronitrobenzene
3209-22-1
X
2,4-Dichlorophenol
120-83-2
X
2,4-Dinitrophenol
51-28-5
X
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
X
2,6-Di-Tert-Butyl-P-Benzoquinone
719-22-2
X
2,6-Dichloro-4-Nitroaniline
99-30-9
X
2,6-Dichlorophenol
87-65-0
X
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
X
2-(Methylthio)Benzothiazole
615-22-5
X
2-Chloroethylvinyl Ether
110-75-8
X
2-Chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
X
2-Chlorophenol
95-57-8
X
2-Hexanone
591-78-6
X
2-Isopropylnaphthalene
2027-17-0
X
2-Methylbenzothioazole
120-75-2
X
2-Methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
X
2-Nitroaniline
88-74-4
X
2-Nitrophenol
88-75-5
X
2-Phenylnaphthalene
612-94-2
X
2-Picoline
109-06-8
X
2-Propen-l-Ol
107-18-6
X
2-Propenal
107-02-8
X
2-Propenenitrile, 2-Methyl-
126-98-7
X
2- Syringaldehyde
134-96-3
X
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
91-94-1
X
6-23
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-6. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Organics Subcategory
Never Detected Detected in <10%
Pollutant CasNo. Detected <10xBV of infuent samples
3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol
57057-83-7
X
3,5-Dichlorocatechol
13673-92-2
X
3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene
1576-67-6
X
3-Chloropropene
107-05-1
X
3-Methylcholanthrene
56-49-5
X
3-Nitroaniline
99-09-2
X
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-Chloroaniline)
101-14-4
X
4,5-Dichlorocatechol
3428-24-8
X
4,5-Methylene Phenanthrene
203-64-5
X
4,6-Dichloroguaiacol
16766-31-7
X
4-Aminobiphenyl
92-67-1
X
4-Bromophenyl Phenyl Ether
101-55-3
X
4-Chloro-2-Nitroaniline
89-63-4
X
4-Chloroguaiacol
16766-30-6
X
4-Chlorophenylphenyl Ether
7005-72-3
X
4-Nitrophenol
100-02-7
X
5,6-Dichlorovanillin
18268-69-4
X
5-Nitro-o-Toluidine
99-55-8
X
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
57-97-6
X
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
X
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
X
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1
X
Alpha-Terpineol
98-55-5
X
Aniline, 2,4,5-Trimethyl-
137-17-7
X
Anthracene
120-12-7
X
Aramite
140-57-8
X
Benzanthrone
82-05-3
X
Benzenethiol
108-98-5
X
Benzidine
92-87-5
X
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
X
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
X
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
X
Benzo(ghi)perylene
191-24-2
X
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
X
Benzonitrile, 3,5-Dibromo-4-Hydroxy-
1689-84-5
X
Benzyl Alcohol
100-51-6
X
Beta-Naphthylamine
91-59-8
X
Biphenyl
92-52-4
X
Biphenyl, 4-Nitro
92-93-3
X
Bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
111-91-1
X
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
111-44-4
X
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether
108-60-1
X
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
117-81-7
X
Bromomethane
74-83-9
X
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
85-68-7
X
Carbazole
86-74-8
X
Chloroacetonitrile
107-14-2
X
Chloroethane
75-00-3
X
Chloromethane
74-87-3
X
6-24
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-6. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Organics Subcategory
Never Detected Detected in <10%
Pollutant CasNo. Detected <10xBV of infuent samples
Cis- 1,3-Dichloropropene
10061-01-5
X
Crotonaldehyde
4170-30-3
X
Crotoxyphos
7700-17-6
X
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
84-74-2
X
Di-n-Octyl Phthalate
117-84-0
X
Di-n-Propylnitrosamine
621-64-7
X
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
X
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
X
Dibenzothiophene
132-65-0
X
Dibromochloromethane
124-48-1
X
Dibromomethane
74-95-3
X
Diethyl Ether
60-29-7
X
Diethyl Phthalate
84-66-2
X
Dimethyl Phthalate
131-11-3
X
Diphenyl Ether
101-84-8
X
Diphenylamine
122-39-4
X
Diphenyldisulfide
882-33-7
X
Ethane, Pentachloro-
76-01-7
X
Ethyl Cyanide
107-12-0
X
Ethyl Methacrylate
97-63-2
X
Ethyl Methanesulfonate
62-50-0
X
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
X
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
X
Fluorene
86-73-7
X
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
X
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
X
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77-47-4
X
Hexachloropropene
1888-71-7
X
Indeno(l,2,3-Cd)pyrene
193-39-5
X
Iodomethane
74-88-4
X
Isobutyl Alcohol
78-83-1
X
Isosafrole
120-58-1
X
Longifolene
475-20-7
X
Malachite Green
569-64-2
X
Mestranol
72-33-3
X
Methapyrilene
91-80-5
X
Methyl Methacrylate
80-62-6
X
Methyl Methanesulfonate
66-27-3
X
n-Decane
124-18-5
X
n-Docosane
629-97-0
X
n-Dodecane
112-40-3
X
n-Eicosane
112-95-8
X
n-Hexacosane
630-01-3
X
n-Hexadecane
544-76-3
X
n-Nitrosodi-n-Butylamine
924-16-3
X
n-Nitrosodiethylamine
55-18-5
X
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
62-75-9
X
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
X
n-Nitrosomethylethylamine
10595-95-6
X
6-25
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 6-6. Pollutants Not Selected as Pollutants of Concern for the Organics Subcategory
Never
Detected Detected in <10%
Pollutant
Cas No.
Detected
<10 x BV of infuent samples
n-Nitrosomorpholine
59-89-2
X
n-Nitrosopiperidine
100-75-4
X
n-Octacosane
630-02-4
X
n-Octadecane
593-45-3
X
n-Tetracosane
646-31-1
X
n-Tetradecane
629-59-4
X
n-Triacontane
638-68-6
X
Naphthalene
91-20-3
X
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
X
o-Anisidine
90-04-0
X
o-Toluidine
95-53-4
X
o-Toluidine, 5-Chloro-
95-79-4
X
p-Chloroaniline
106-47-8
X
p-Cymene
99-87-6
X
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
60-11-7
X
p-Nitroaniline
100-01-6
X
Pentachlorobenzene
608-93-5
X
Pentamethylbenzene
700-12-9
X
Perylene
198-55-0
X
Phenacetin
62-44-2
X
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
X
Phenol, 2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitro-
534-52-1
X
Phenothiazine
92-84-2
X
Pronamide
23950-58-5
X
Pyrene
129-00-0
X
Resorcinol
108-46-3
X
Safrole
94-59-7
X
Squalene
7683-64-9
X
Styrene
100-42-5
X
Tetrachlorocatechol
1198-55-6
X
Tetrachloroguaiacol
2539-17-5
X
Thianaphthene
95-15-8
X
Thioacetamide
62-55-5
X
Thioxanthe-9-One
492-22-8
X
Toluene, 2,4-Diamino-
95-80-7
X
Trans-l,3-Dichloropropene
10061-02-6
X
Trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-Butene
110-57-6
X
Tribromomethane
75-25-2
X
Trichlorofluoromethane
75-69-4
X
Trichlorosyringol
2539-26-6
X
Triphenylene
217-59-4
X
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
20324-33-8
X
6-26
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Pollutants of Concern for the
Metals Subcategory 6.2
Wastewaters treated at CWT facilities in the
metals subcategory contain a range of
conventional, toxic, and non-conventional
pollutants. EPA analyzed influent samples for
320 conventional, classical, metal, and organic
pollutants. EPA identified 78 pollutants of
concern, including 41 metals, 20 organics, and
17 classical and conventional pollutants as
presented in Table 6-1 and including pH. EPA
excluded 242 pollutants from further review
because they did not pass the pollutant of
concern criteria. Table 6-4 lists these pollutants,
including 167 pollutants that were never detected
at any sampling episode, 19 pollutants that were
detected at a concentration less than ten times
the baseline value, and 56 pollutants that were
present at treatable levels in less than ten percent
of the influent samples. EPA selected only 24
percent of the list of pollutants analyzed as
pollutants of concern, and as expected, the
greatest number of pollutants of concern in the
metals subcategory were found in the metals
group.
Facilities in the metals subcategory had the
highest occurrence and broadest range of metals
detected in their raw wastewater. The sampling
identified a total of 41 metals/semi-metals above
treatable levels, compared to 31 metals/semi-
metals in the oils subcategory, and 25 metals in
the organics subcategory. Maximum metals
concentrations in the metals subcategory were
generally at least an order of magnitude higher
than metals in the oils and organics
subcategories, and were often two to three
orders of magnitude greater. Wastewaters
contained significant concentrations of common
non-conventional metals such as aluminum, iron,
and tin. In addition, given the processes
generating these wastewaters, waste receipts in
this subcategory generally contained toxic heavy
metals. Toxic metals found in the highest
concentrations were cadmium, chromium,
cobalt, copper, nickel, and zinc.
EPA detected four conventional pollutants
(BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, and pH) and 13
classical pollutants above treatable levels in the
metals subcategory, including hexavalent
chromium, which was not found at treatable
levels in the oils subcategory (EPA did not obtain
any data on hexavalent chromium for the
organics subcategory).
Concentrations for total cyanide, chloride,
fluoride, nitrate/nitrite, TDS, TSS, and total
sulfide were significantly higher for metals
facilities than for facilities in the other
subcategories (EPA did not obtain any data on
chloride and TDS for the organics subcategory).
While sampling showed organic pollutants at
selected facilities in the metals subcategory, these
were not typically found in wastewaters resulting
from this subcategory. Many metals facilities
have placed acceptance restrictions on the
concentration of organic pollutants allowed in the
off-site wastestreams. Of the 233 organic
pollutants analyzed in the metals subcategory,
EPA only detected 20 in more than 10 percent of
the samples, as compared to 73 in the oils
subcategory and 58 in the organics subcategory.
However, of the organic compounds detected in
the metals subcategory, only one, specifically,
dibromochloromethane, was not detected in any
other subcategory. EPA sampling detected all
other organic pollutants in the metals subcategory
at relatively low concentrations, as compared to
the oils and organics subcategories.
Pollutants of Concern for the Oils
Subcategory 6.3
As detailed in Chapters 2 and 12, EPA does
not have data to characterize raw wastewater for
the oils subcategory. Therefore, EPA based its
influent wastewater characterization for this
subcategory on an evaluation of samples
obtained following the initial gravity
separation/emulsion breaking step. EPA
6-27
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
analyzed these samples for 321 conventional,
classical, metal, and organic pollutants. EPA
identified 118 pollutants of concern, including 73
organics, 31 metals/semi-metals, 13 classicals,
and four conventional pollutants, pH plus the
three presented in Table 6-2. EPA eliminated
202 pollutants after applying its criteria for
selecting pollutants of concern. Table 6-5 lists
these pollutants, including 145 pollutants that
were never detected at any sampling episode, 17
pollutants that were detected at a concentration
less than ten times the baseline value, and 40
pollutants that were present at treatable levels in
less than ten percent of the influent samples.
EPA selected slightly more than 30 percent of
the list of pollutants analyzed as pollutants of
concern, the majority of which were organic
pollutants.
Facilities in the oils subcategory had the
broadest spectrum of pollutants of concern in
their raw wastewater with 4 conventional
pollutants, 13 classical pollutants, and more than
100 organics and metals/semi-metals. As
expected, oil and grease concentrations in this
subcategory were significantly higher than for the
other subcategories, and varied greatly from one
facility to the next, ranging from 37.5 mg/L to
180,000 mg/L (see Table 6-2) after the first
stage of treatment. The concentrations of
ammonia, BOD5, COD, TOC, total phenols, and
total phosphorus were also higher for facilities in
the oils subcategory.
Wastewaters contained significant
concentrations of both non-conventional and
toxic metals such as aluminum, boron, cobalt,
iron, manganese, and zinc. EPA's sampling data
show most pollutant of concern metals were
detected at higher concentrations in the oils
subcategory than those found in the organics
subcategory, but at significantly lower
concentrations than those found in the metals
subcategory. Germanium and lutetium were the
only metals/semi-metals detected at a treatable
level in the oils subcategory but not in one or
both of the other two subcategories.
Of the 73 organic pollutants selected as
pollutants of concern in the oils subcategory, 43
were not present at treatable levels in the other
two subcategories. Twenty seven pollutants of
concern organics were common to both the oils
and organics subcategories, but more than half of
these organics were detected in oily wastewater
at concentrations one to three orders of
magnitude higher than those found in the
organics subcategory wastewaters. Organic
pollutants found in the highest concentrations
were straight chain hydrocarbons such as n-
decane and n-tetradecane, and aromatics such as
naphthalene and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
EPA also detected polyaromatic hydrocarbons,
such as fluoranthene in the wastewaters of oils
facilities.
In the 1999 proposal, EPA had identified
benzo(a)pyrene as a pollutant of concern for the
oils subcategory. After further evaluation of the
laboratory reports,2 EPA corrected some
reported amounts for benzo(a)pyrene. After
these corrections were made to the database,
benzo(a)pyrene failed to meet EPA's criteria to
be a pollutant of concern.
Pollutants of Concern for the
Organics Subcategory 6.4
Wastewaters treated at CWT facilities in the
organics subcategory contain a range of
conventional, toxic, and non-conventional
pollutants. EPA analyzed influent samples for
334 classical, metal, and organic pollutants. EPA
identified 93 pollutants of concern, including 58
organic pollutants, 25 metals/semi-metals, 8
classicals, and 3 conventional pollutants, pHplus
the two presented in Table 6-3. EPA excluded
240 pollutants because they did not pass the
pollutant of concern criteria. Table 6-6 presents
these pollutants, including 214 pollutants that
were never detected at any sampling episode,
2For more details, see DCN in the
record for this rule.
6-28
-------
Chapter 6 Pollutants of Concern for the CWT Industry
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
and 26 pollutants that were detected at a
concentration less than ten times the baseline
value. EPA determined that only 28 percent of
the list of pollutants analyzed were pollutants of
concern.
As expected, wastewaters contained
significant concentrations of organic parameters,
many of which were highly volatile. However,
although EPA analyzed wastewater samples in
the organics subcategory for a more extensive list
of organics than samples in the metals or oils
subcategories, EPA selected only 23 percent of
those organic pollutants analyzed as pollutants of
concern. EPA selected as pollutants of concern
a total of 58 organics in the influent samples
analyzed. Thirty one of these organics were
present in the organics subcategory but not in the
oils subcategory. EPA determined that the
remaining 27 organics were pollutants of concern
for both the organics and oils subcategories.
EPA's sampling detected only six of these
organic pollutants at higher concentrations at
organics facilities, specifically, chloroform,
methylene chloride, o-cresol, tetrachloroethene,
trichloroethene, and 1,2-dichloroethane. EPA
determined that only eight classical pollutants
were pollutants of concern for this subcategory,
and most of these were detected at lower
concentrations than those found in the metals
and oils subcategories.
The sampling detected a total of 25
metals/semi-metals above treatable levels, but
these were present at concentrations significantly
lower than in the metals subcategory. EPA's
assessment showed that only five pollutant of
concern metals/semi-metals (barium, calcium,
iodine, lithium, and strontium) were detected at
concentrations above those found in the oils
subcategory.
6-29
-------
Chapter
7
POLLUTANTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION
Chapter 6 details the pollutants of concern for
each subcategory and the methodology
used in selecting the pollutants. As expected for
the CWT industry, these pollutants of concern
lists contain a broad spectrum of pollutants.
EPA has, however, chosen not to regulate all of
these parameters. This chapter details the
pollutants of concern which were not selected for
regulation under each technology option selected
as the basis for the final limitations and standards
and provides a justification for eliminating these
pollutants (the technology options are detailed in
Chapter 9). Additionally, Figures 7-1 and 7-2
illustrate the procedures used to select the
regulated pollutants for direct and indirect
dischargers.
Treatment Chemicals 7.1
EPA excluded all pollutants which may serve
as treatment chemicals: aluminum, boron,
calcium, chloride, fluoride, iron, magnesium,
manganese, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, and
sulfur. EPA eliminated these pollutants because
regulation of these pollutants could interfere with
their beneficial use as wastewater treatment
additives.
Non-conventional Bulk Parameters 7.2
EPA excluded many non-conventional bulk
parameters such as total dissolved solids (TDS),
chemical oxygen demand (COD), organic carbon
(TOC), nitrate/nitrite, SGT-HEM, total phenols,
total phosphorus, and total sulfide. EPA
excluded these parameters because it is more
appropriate to target specific compounds of
interest rather than a parameter which measures
a variety of pollutants for this industry. The
specific pollutants which comprise the bulk
parameter may or may not be of concern to
EPA.
Pollutants Not Detected at
Treatable Levels 7.3
EPA eliminated pollutants that were present
below treatable concentrations in wastewater
influent to the treatment system(s) selected as
the basis for effluent limitations. EPA evaluated
the data at each sampling episode separately.
Section 10.4.3.1 describes this data editing
criteria in greater detail and provides an example.
Briefly, this procedure was nicknamed the "long-
term average test" and was performed as
follows. For a pollutant to be retained, the
pollutant first had to be detected at any level in
the influent samples at least 50 percent of the
time during any sampling episode. The pollutant
also had to be detected in the influent samples at
treatable levels (ten times the baseline value1) in
at least fifty percent of the samples; or b) the
mean of the influent samples for the entire
facility had to be greater than or equal to ten
times the baseline value. EPA added the second
condition to account for instances where a slug
of pollutant was treated during the sampling
episode. EPA added this condition since the
CWT industry's waste receipts vary daily and
EPA wanted to incorporate these variations in
the calculations of long term averages and
limitations. Pollutants excluded from regulation
for the selected subcategory options because
they were not detected at treatable levels are
presented in Table 7-1.
^ee Chapter 15 for a description of
baseline values.
7-1
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
traatodqfjacttvaty at
sttbxrlad EPT/RATfar.Hhm upou
vhich the affluent
bmlluUous
a rt&djkanl
OiettMe ai selectedBPTfac
upon vhich the
\tmttattons are
IrPOC a volatile
(t aeJUgirB 7-1
Htmct Ebchargpn
POC wtR not b* reflated far A i
subcategory
Tu
POCvriUnotbgTvgplatBdfirihi
cubcategpry
No
POCwtHnotberegdatedforik •
tubcdttgary
No
POO will not be regulated for tk i
aibeatagoiy
Yee
POCvrtlLyiot be regulated for th,
aiheatagary
Figure 7-1. Selection of Pollutants That May Be Regulated for Direct Discharges for Each Subcategory
7-2
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
RbgjTjfarf PrJhii/mtr
ferLtreet IMsekargtt
DoatPOC \
pan through aPOTWor
^ tnMbmaiar
hpoa
BODtTSS,pH,ar
^O&AGraese? ,
POCwtiL not be regdaiedfor
Aotubcatafffy
POCvSlnotbere^datadfor
the subcategory
POCxrtUberaedatadfir
hubvetLttehorgmt
Figure 7-2. Selection of Pollutants to be Regulated for Indirect Discharges for Each Subcategory
7-3
-------
Table 7-1. Pollutants of Concern Not Detected at Treatable Levels
Metals Ootion 3
Metals Ootion 4
Oils Ootion 8
Oils Ootion 9
Orcamcs Ootion 3/4
Oil and Grease 2
Arsenic 1
Germanium
Germanium
Arsenic
Total Cyanide
Beryllium
Lutetium
Lutetium
Barium
Gallium
Gallium
Silver
Silver
Iodine
Iodine
Indium
Tantalum
Tantalum
Lead
Iridium
Iodine
Aniline
Aniline
Titanium
Lithium
Lanthanum
Benzyl Alcohol
N-hexacosane
Bromodichloromethane
Strontium
Osmium
Diphenyl Ether
N-octacosane
Carbon Disulfide
Tantalum
Tantalum
N,n-dimethylformamide
O-toluidine
Chlorobenzene
Tellurium
Tellurium
N-hexacosane
1,4-dioxane
Hexachloroethane
Zirconium
Thallium
N-octacosane
2-isopropylnaphthalene
Isophorone
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
N-tetracosane
O+p Xylene
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
O-cresol
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Carbon Disulfide
O-toluidine
1,2-dichlorobenzene
Chloroform
Hexanoic Acid
1,4-dioxane
1,3-dichloropropane
Dibromochloromethane
M-xylene
2,3-benzofluorene
2,4-dimethylphenol
Hexanoic Acid
Methylene Chloride
2,4-dimethylphenol
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
M-xylene
Phenol
2-isopropylnaphthalene
3,6-dichlorocatechol
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
3,6-dimethylphenanthrene
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
Phenol
1,1, l-trichloroethane
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
4,5-dichloroguaiacol
Pyridine
1,1-dichloroethene
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
Toluene
1,4-dioxane
5-chloroguaiacol
Trichloroethene
4-methyl-2-pentanone
6-chlorovanillin
1,1, l-trichloroethane
1,1-dichloroethene
1,4-dioxane
2-butanone
2-propanone
1 While arsenic was not detected at treatable levels at the facility forming the basis of Metals Option 4, EPA is transferring data from single stage precipitation and regulating arsenic for
Metals Option 4.
2While oil and grease was not detected at treatable levels at the facility forming the basis of Metals Option 3, EPA is transferring data from Metals Option 4 regulating oil & grease for Metals
Option 3.
BOD5 (carbonaceous) and D-COD were also pollutants of concern for Metals Options 3 and 4. However, EPA does not have any data for these two pollutants at the sample points used
in determining if analytes were found at treatable levels.
7-4
-------
Pollutants Not Treated
7.4
EPA excluded all pollutants for which the
selected technology option was ineffective (i.e.,
pollutant concentrations remained the same or
increased across the treatment system). For the
organics subcategory, the selected treatment
technology did not effectively treat chromium,
lithium, nickel, and tin. For the oils subcategory,
phenol in option 8 and 2-propane in options 8
and 9 were not effectively treated. For the
metals subcategory, all pollutants of concern at
treatable levels were effectively treated.
Volatile Pollutants 7.5
EPA detected volatile organic pollutants in
the waste receipts of all three subcategories. For
this rule, EPA defines a volatile pollutant as a
pollutant which has a Henry's Law constant in
excess of 10"4 atm m3 mol"1. For each
subcategory, Table 7-2 lists the organic
pollutants (those analyzed using method 1624 or
1625) and ammonia with their Henry's Law
constant. For pollutants in the oils subcategory,
the solubility in water was reported in addition to
the Henry's Law constant to determine whether
volatile pollutants remained in the oil-phase or
volatilized from the aqueous phase. If no data
were available on the Henry's Law constant or
solubility for a particular pollutant, then the
pollutant was assigned an average pollutant group
value. Pollutant groups were developed by
combining pollutants with similar structures. If
no data were available for any pollutant in the
group, then all pollutants in the group were not
considered volatile. The assignment of pollutant
groups is discussed in more detail in Section
7.6.2.
7-5
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
POC List for Oils Subcategory
No
Is the pollutant organic ?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Does the
pollutant have a Plenty's Law
*. constant >10*
^(atm *ni)/mol
„ Is the pollutant's
solubility in water < 10 BV?
(*100 ug/L) ^
Phe pollutant is not volatile
Pollutant is in oily phase
and not volatile
Pollutant is not volatile
Pollutant is volatile
Figure 7-3. Determination of Volatile Pollutants for Oils Subcategory
7-6
-------
Table 7-2. Volatile Pollutant Properties By Subcategory
Organic Pollutant
CAS#
Method
Subcategory
Henry's Law Constant
atm * m3
mol
Solubility
(mg/L)
Solubility
Ref. and
Temp.
Pollutant
Group
Volatile ?
Volatile
for Oils?
Metals
Oils
Organics
1 -methy lfluorene
1730-37-6
1625
X
4.26E-03
1.81E+04
yes
yes
1 -methy lphenanthrene
832-64-9
1625
X
>E-04
1.21E+03
Group DD
yes
yes
1,1 -dichloroethane
75-34-3
1624
X
X
5.50E-03
yes
1,1 -dichloroethene
75-35-4
1624
X
X
1.90E-01
2.10E+02
25
yes
yes
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
71-55-6
1624
X
X
X
3.00E-02
4.40E+03
20
yes
yes
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
630-20-6
1624
X
3.00E-02
yes
1,1,2-trichloroethane
79-00-5
1624
X
1.20E-03
yes
1 ,2-dibromoethane
106-93-4
1624
X
2.00E-02
yes
1,2-dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
1625
X
1.94E-02
yes
yes
1 ^-dichloroethane
107-06-2
1624
X
X
9.14E-04
8.69E+03
20
yes
yes
1 ,2,3-trichloropropane
96-18-4
1624
X
2.10E-04
yes
1,2,4-trichorobenzene
120-82-1
1625
X
2.30E-03
1.90E+01
22
yes
yes
1,4-dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
1625
X
3.10E-03
7.90E+01
25
yes
yes
2-butanone
78-93-3
1624
X
X
X
2.70E-05
2.75E+05
no
no
2-methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
1625
X
7.98E-04
2.60E+01
25
yes
yes
2-propanone
67-64-1
1624
X
X
X
2.10E-05
no
no
2,3-benzofluorene
243-17-4
1625
X
>E-04
1.21E+03
Group DD
yes
yes
2,3-dichloroaniline
608-27-5
1625
X
10E-4
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
56961-20-7
1625
X
>E-04
yes
3,5-dichlorophenol
591-35-5
1625
X
>10E-4
1576-67-6
1625
_
>E-04
1.21E+03
7-7
-------
Table 7-2. Volatile Pollutant Properties By Subcategory
Organic Pollutant
CAS#
Method
Subcategory
Henry's Law Constant
atm * m3
mol
Solubility
(mg/L)
Solubility
Ref. and
Temp.
Pollutant
Group
Volatile ?
Volatile
for Oils?
Metals
Oils
Organics
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
59-50-7
1625
X
2.50E-06
3.85E+03
20
no
no
4-chlorophenol
106-48-9
1625
X
2.88E-03
yes
4-methyl-2-pentanone
108-10-1
1624
X
X
X
3.80E-04
1.91E+04
yes
yes
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
1625
X
9.10E-05
3.42E+00
25
no
no
Acetophenone
98-86-2
1625
X
E-04
1.00E+01
no
no
Dibenzothiophene
132-65-0
1625
X
4.40E-04
soluble
Group II
no
no
Dibromochloromethane
124-48-1
1624
X
>E-04
yes
Diethyl phthalate
132-65-0
1625
X
1.20E-06
8.96E+02
no
no
67-71-0
1625
x
>E-04
7-8
-------
Table 7-2. Volatile Pollutant Properties By Subcategory
Organic Pollutant
CAS#
Method
Subcategory
Elenry's Law Constant
atm * m3
mol
Solubility
(mg/L)
Solubility
Ref. and
Temp.
Pollutant
Group
Volatile ?
Volatile
for Oils?
Metals
Oils
Organics
Diphenyl ether
101-84-8
1625
X
6.60E-03
2.10E+01
25
yes
yes
Ethyl benzene
100-41-4
1624
X
6.60E-03
1.52E+02
20
yes
yes
Ethylenethiourea
96-45-7
1625
X
>E-04
Group I
no
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
1625
X
6.50E-06
2.65E-01
25
no
no
Fluorene
86-73-7
1625
X
6.40E-05
1.90E+00
25
no
no
Hexanoic Acid
142-62-1
1625
X
X
1.90E+00
1.10E+04
yes
yes
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
1624
X
X
2.30E-03
1.67E+04
25
yes
yes
m-Xylene
108-38-3
1624
X
X
1.10E-02
2.00E+02
yes
yes
m+p-Xylene
179601-23-1
1624
X
7.00E-03
9.80E+02
20
yes
yes
Naphthalene
91-20-3
1625
X
4.60E-04
3.00E+01
25
yes
yes
N-decane
124-18-5
1625
X
7.14E+00
9.00E-03
yes
no
n-Docosane
629-97-0
1625
X
>E-04
4.78E-03
Group CC
yes
no
n-Dodecane
112-40-3
1625
X
>E-04
4.78E-03
Group CC
yes
no
n-Eicosane
112-95-8
1625
X
>E-04
4.78E-03
Group CC
yes
no
n-Elexadecane
544-76-3
1625
X
>E-04
9.00E-04
25
yes
no
n-Octadecane
593-45-3
1625
X
>E-04
7.00E-03
25
yes
no
n-Tetracosane
646-31-1
1625
X
>E-04
4.78E-03
Group CC
yes
no
n-Tetradecane
629-59-4
1625
X
>E-04
2.20E-03
25
yes
no
n^i-Dimethylformamide
68-12-2
1625
X
X
X
E-04
3.40E+02
yes
yes
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
1625
X
2.80E-06
no
700-12-9
1625
_
>E-04
4.96E+02
7-9
-------
Table 7-2. Volatile Pollutant Properties By Subcategory
Organic Pollutant
CAS#
Method
Subcategory
Henry's Law Constant
atm * m3
mol
Solubility
(mg/L)
Solubility
Ref. and
Temp.
Pollutant
Group
Volatile ?
Volatile
for Oils?
Metals
Oils
Organics
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
1625
X
2.26E-04
8.16E-01
21
yes
yes
Phenol
108-95-2
1625
X
X
4.54E-07
8.00E+04
25
no
no
Pyrene
129-00-0
1625
X
5.10E-06
1.60E-01
26
no
no
Pyridine
110-86-1
1625
X
X
X
2.10E-06
3.88E+05
no
no
Styrene
100-42-5
1625
X
2.80E-03
3.00E+02
20
yes
yes
T etrachloroethene
127-18-4
1624
X
X
1.53E-03
1.50E+02
25
yes
yes
T etrachloromethane
56-23-5
1624
X
2.90E-02
yes
Toluene
108-88-3
1624
X
X
6.66E-03
5.15E+02
20
yes
yes
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
156-60-5
1624
X
5.30E-03
yes
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
1624
X
X
X
9.10E-03
1.10E+03
25
yes
yes
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
20324-33-8
1625
X
>E-04
Group GG
no
no
75-01-4
1624
x
2.80E-02
7-10
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
As shown in Table 7-2, volatile pollutants
were regularly detected at treatable levels in
waste receipts from CWT facilities, particularly
in the oils and organics subcategory. An "X" in
a subcategory column indicates that the analyte
was detected at treated levels and not previously
eliminated in sections 7.2 through 7.4. However,
treatment technologies currently used at many of
these facilities, while removing the pollutants
from the wastewater, do not "treat" the volatiles.
The volatile pollutants are simply transferred to
the air. For example, in the metals subcategory,
wastewater treatment technologies are generally
based on chemical precipitation, and the removal
of volatile pollutants from wastewater following
treatment with chemical precipitation is due to
volatilization. Some CWT facilities recognize
that volatilization may be occurring and have
installed air stripping systems equipped with
emissions control to effectively remove the
pollutants from both the water and the air.
EPA evaluated various wastewater treatment
technologies during the development of this rule.
These technologies were considered because of
their efficacy in removing pollutants from
wastewater. Since EPA is concerned about
removing pollutants from all environmental
media, EPA also evaluated wastewater treatment
trains for the oils and organics subcategories
which included air stripping with emissions
control.
EPA did not regulate any predominantly
volatile parameters. The non-regulated volatile
parameters for the metals, organics, and oils
subcategory options that were not already
excluded as detailed in Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3,
and 7.4 are presented in Table 7-3. Unlike the
metals and the organics subcategories, for the
oils subcategory, volatilization can not be
predicted using the Henry's Law constant only.
Henry's Law constants are established for
pollutants in an aqueous phase only. For other
non-aqueous single phase or two-phase systems
(such as oil-water), other volatilization constants
apply. Estimating these constants in oil-water
mixtures can lead to engineering calculations
which are generally based on empirical data.
EPA chose an approach which is depicted in
Figure 7-3 and discussed below. First, EPA
reviewed water solubility data to estimate
whether the organic pollutants would be
primarily in an oil phase or aqueous phase. For
pollutants which have a solubility less than ten
times the baseline value (the same edit used to
determine pollutants of concern and pollutants at
treatable levels), EPA assumed that the amount
of pollutants in the aqueous phase would be
negligible and that all of the pollutant would be
primarily in an oil phase. For pollutants which
have a solubility greater than ten times the
baseline value, EPA assumed that the amount of
pollutant in the oil phase would be negligible and
that all of the pollutant would be primarily in an
aqueous phase. For pollutants determined to be
in an aqueous phase, EPA then reviewed the
Henry's law constant in the same manner as the
other two subcategories. For pollutants
determined to be in an oil phase, EPA assumed
that volatilization would be negligible (regardless
of their volatility in the aqueous phase) and has
not categorized them as volatile pollutants.
Even though EPA has not regulated volatile
pollutants through this rulemaking, EPA
encourages all facilities which accept waste
receipts containing volatile pollutants to
incorporate air stripping with overhead recovery
into their wastewater treatment systems. EPA
also notes that CWT facilities determined to be
major sources of hazardous air pollutants are
subject to maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) as promulgated for off-site
waste and recovery operations on July 1, 1996
(61 FR 34140) as 40 CFR Part 63.
7-11
-------
Table 7-3. Non-Regulated Volatile Pollutants by Subcategory and Option
Metals Option 3
Metals Option 4
Organics Option 4
Oils Option 8
Oils Option 9
Ammonia-N
Carbon disulfide
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Ammonia-N
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
ryi-Dimethylformamide
Trichloroethene
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
1,1 ^-trichloroethane
1,1 -dichloroethane
1,1 -dichloroethene
1,2,3-trichloropropane
1,2-dibromoethane
1,2-dichloroethane
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
3.4-dichlorphenol
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
3.5-dichlorphenol
4-chlorophenol
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Ammonia-N
Benzene
Chloroform
Dimethyl sulfone
Ethylenethiourea
Hexanoic Acid
Methylene chloride
m-Xylene
T etrachloroethene
T etrachloromethane
Toluene
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
1 -methy lfluorene
1 -methy lphenanthrene
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
1,1 -dichloroethene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
2-methylnapthalene
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Ammonia-N
Benzene
Biphenyl
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiopene
Ethyl benzene
Hexanoic Acid
Methylene chloride
m-Xylene
m+p-Xylene
Naphthalene
o-Xylene
o+p-Xylene
p-Cymene
Pentamethylbenzene
Phenanthrene
Styrene
T etrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
1 -methy lfluorene
1 -methy lphenanthrene
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
1,1 -dichloroethene
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1.2-dichloroethane
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
2-methylnapthalene
2.3-benzofluorene
2.4-dimethylphenol
3,6-dimethy lphenanthrene
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Ammonia-N
Benzene
Benzyl alcohol
Biphenyl
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiopene
Diphenyl ether
Ethyl benzene
Hexanoic Acid
Methylene chloride
m-Xylene
m+p-Xylene
Naphthalene
o-Xylene
o+p-Xylene
p-Cymene
Pentamethylbenzene
Phenanthrene
Styrene
T etrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
7-12
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Pollutants Selected for
Pretreatment Standards and
Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (Indlrect Dischargers) 7.6
Backgroun d 7.6.1
Unlike direct dischargers whose wastewater
will receive no further treatment once it leaves
the facility, indirect dischargers send their
wastewater to POTWs for further treatment.
EPA establishes pretreatment standards for those
BAT pollutants that pass through POTWs.
Therefore, for indirect dischargers, before
establishing pretreatment standards, EPA
examines whether the pollutants discharged by
the industry "pass through" POTWs to waters of
the U.S. or interfere with POTW operations or
sludge disposal practices. Generally, to
determine if pollutants pass through POTWs,
EPA compares the percentage of the pollutant
removed by well-operated POTWs achieving
secondary treatment with the percentage of the
pollutant removed by facilities meeting BAT
effluent limitations. A pollutant is determined to
"pass through" POTWs when the median
percentage removed by well-operated POTWs is
less than the median percentage removed by
direct dischargers complying with BAT effluent
limitations. In this manner, EPA can ensure that
the combined treatment at indirect discharging
facilities and POTWs is at least equivalent to that
obtained through treatment by direct dischargers.
This approach to the definition of pass-
through satisfies two competing objectives set by
Congress: (1) that standards for indirect
dischargers be equivalent to standards for direct
dischargers, and (2) that the treatment capability
and performance of POTWs be recognized and
taken into account in regulating the discharge of
pollutants from indirect dischargers. Rather than
compare the mass or concentration of pollutants
discharged by POTWs with the mass or
concentration of pollutants discharged by BAT
facilities, EPA compares the percentage of the
pollutants removed by BAT facilities to the
POTW removals. EPA takes this approach
because a comparison of the mass or
concentration of pollutants in POTW effluents
with pollutants in BAT facility effluents would
not take into account the mass of pollutants
discharged to the POTW from other industrial
and non-industrial sources, nor the dilution of the
pollutants in the POTW to lower concentrations
from the addition of large amounts of other
industrial and non-industrial water.
In selecting the regulated pollutants under the
pretreatment standards, EPA starts with the toxic
and non-conventional pollutants regulated for
direct dischargers under BAT. For this analysis,
EPA does not include the four regulated BPT
conventional parameters, BOD5, total suspended
solids (TSS), oil and grease (measured as HEM),
and pH because POTWs are designed to treat
these parameters. Therefore, for this
rulemaking, EPA evaluated 31 pollutants for
metals option 4, 51 pollutants for oils option 9,
and 23 pollutants for Organics Option 4 for
PSES and PSNS regulation. The following
sections describe the methodology used in
determining median percent removals for the
BAT technologies, median percent removals for
"well-operated" POTWs, and the results of
EPA's pass-through analysis.
Determination of Percent Removals
for Well-Operated POTWs 7.6.2
The primary source of the POTW percent
removal data was the "Fate of Priority Pollutants
in Publicly Owned Treatment Works" (EPA
440/1-82/303, September 1982), commonly
referred to as the "50-POTW Study". However,
the 50-POTW Study did not contain data for all
pollutants for which the pass-through analysis
was required. Therefore, EPA obtained
additional data from EPA's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory's (NRMRL)
Treatability Database (formerly called the Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL)
7-13
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Treatability Database). These sources and their
uses are discussed below.
The 50-POTW Study presents data on the
performance of 50 well-operated POTWs that
employ secondary biological treatment in
removing pollutants.
At the time of the 50-POTW sampling
program, which spanned approximately 2 Vz
years (July 1978 to November 1980), EPA
collected samples at selected POTWs across the
U.S. The samples were subsequently analyzed
by either EPA or EPA-contract laboratories.
These samples were analyzed for 3 conventional,
16 non-conventional, and 126 priority toxic
pollutants using test procedures (analytical
methods) specified by the Agency or in use at
the laboratories. Laboratories typically reported
the analytical method used along with the test
results. However, for those cases in which the
laboratory specified no analytical method, EPA
was able to identify the method based on the
nature of the results and knowledge of the
methods available at the time.
Each laboratory reported results for the
pollutants for which it tested. If the laboratory
found a pollutant to be present, the laboratory
reported a result. If the laboratory found the
pollutant not to be present, the laboratory
reported either that the pollutant was "not
detected" or a value with a "less than" sign (<)
indicating that the pollutant was below that value.
The value reported along with the "less than"
sign was the lowest level to which the laboratory
believed it could reliably measure. EPA
subsequently established these lowest levels as
the minimum levels of quantitation (MLs). In
some instances, different laboratories reported
different MLs for the same pollutant using the
same analytical method.
Because of the variety of reporting protocols
among the 50-POTW Study laboratories (pages
27 to 30, 50-POTW Study), EPA reviewed the
percent removal calculations used in the pass-
through analysis for previous industry studies,
including those performed when developing the
CWT proposal and effluent guidelines for
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers Manufacturing, Landfills, and Commercial
Hazardous Waste Combustors. EPA found that,
for 11 parameters, different analytical minimum
levels were reported for different rulemaking
studies (9 of the 25 metals, cyanide, and one of
the 42 organics).
T o provide consistency for data analylsis and
establishment of removal efficiencies, EPA
reviewed the 50-POTW Study, standardized the
reported MLs for use in the CWT final rules and
other ruflemaking efforts.
In using the 50-POTW Study data to
estimate percent removals, EPA has established
data editing criteria for determining pollutant
percent removals. Some of the editing criteria
are based on differences between POTW and
industry BAT treatment system influent
concentrations. For many toxic pollutants,
POTW influent concentrations were much lower
than those of BAT treatment systems. For many
pollutants, particularly organic pollutants, the
effluent concentrations from both POTW and
BAT treatment systems, were below the level
that could be found or measured. As noted in
the 50-POTW Study, analytical laboratories
reported pollutant concentrations below the
analytical minimum level (ML), qualitatively, as
"not detected" or "trace," and reported a
measured value above this level. Subsequent
rulemaking studies such as the 1987 OCPSF
study used the analytical method ML established
in 40 CFR Part 136 for laboratory data reported
below the analytical ML. Use of the ML may
overestimate the effluent concentration and
underestimate the percent removal. Because the
data collected for evaluating POTW percent
removals included both effluent and influent
levels that were close to the analytical ML, EPA
devised hierarchal data editing criteria to exclude
data with low influent concentration levels,
thereby minimizing the possibility that low
POTW removals might simply reflect low
7-14
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
influent concentrations instead of being a true
measure of treatment effectiveness.
EPA has generally used hierarchic data
editing criteria for the pollutants in the 50-POTW
Study. For the final CWT rule, the editing
criteria include the following:
1) substitute the standardized pollutant-
specific analytical ML for values reported as
"not detected," "trace," "less than [followed
by a number]," or a number" less than the
standardized analytical ML,
2) retain pollutant influent and corresponding
effluent values if the average pollutant
influent level is greater than or equal to 10
times the pollutant ML (lOxML), and
3) if none of the average pollutant influent
concentrations are at least 10 times the ML,
then retain average influent values greater
than or equal to two times the ML (2xML)
along with the corresponding average
effluent values. (EPA used 2xML for the
final rule, instead of the 20 jj.g/1 criterion
used at proposal because it more accurately
reflects the pollutant-specific data than using
a fixed numerical cut-off. For the majority
of pollutants 2xML is 20 jj.g/1. Therefore,
this correction does not affect the percent
removal estimates for most organic
pollutants. However, it affects the metal
pollutants because their MLs range from 0.2
to 5,000 jj.g/1.)
EPA then calculates each POTW percent
removal for each pollutant based on its average
influent and its average effluent values. The
national POTW percent removal used for each
pollutant in the pass-through test is the median
value of all the POTW pollutant specific percent
removals.
Additionally, due to the large number of
pollutants of concern for the CWT industry,
EPA also used data from the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL)
Treatability Database to augment the POTW
database for the pollutants which the 50-POTW
Study did not cover. This database provides
information, by pollutant, on removals obtained
by various treatment technologies. The database
provides the user with the specific data source
and the industry from which the wastewater was
generated. For each pollutant of concern EPA
considered for this rule not found in the 50-
POTW database, EPA used data from the
NRMRL database, using only treatment
technologies representative of typical POTW
secondary treatment operations (activated sludge,
activated sludge with filtration, aerated lagoons).
EPA further edited these files to include
information pertaining only to domestic or
industrial wastewater. EPA used pilot-scale and
full-scale data only, and eliminated bench-scale
data and data from less reliable references.
EPA selected the final percent removal for
each pollutant based on a data hierarchy, which
was related to the quality of the data source.
The following data source hierarchy was used
for selecting a percent removal for a pollutant: 1)
if available, the median percent removal from the
50-POTW Study was chosen using all POTWs
data with influent levels greater than or equal to
10 times the pollutant ML, 2) if not available, the
median percent removal from the 50-POTW
Study was chosen using all POTWs data with
influent levels greater than 2 times the pollutant
ML, 3) if not available, the average percent
removal from the NRMRL Treatability Database
was chosen using only domestic wastewater, 4)
if not available, the average percent removal
from the NRMRL Treatability Database was
chosen using domestic and industrial wastewater,
and finally 5) a pollutant was assigned an average
group percent removal, or "generic" removal if
no other data was available. Pollutant groups
were developed by combining pollutants with
similar chemical structures (a complete list of
pollutants and pollutant groupings are available in
Appendix A). EPA calculated the average group
percent removal by using all pollutants in the
group with selected percent removals from either
7-15
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
the 50-POTW Study or the NRMRL Treatability
Database. EPA then averaged percent removals
together to determine the average group percent
removal. Pollutant groups and generic removals
used in the pass-through analysis are presented in
Table 7-4. Only groups A (metals), J (anilines),
and CC (n-paraffins) are presented in Table 7-4
since these are the only groups for which EPA
assigned an average group percent removal in its
pass-through analysis. The final POTW percent
removal assigned to each pollutant is presented in
Table 7-5, along with the source and data
hierarchy of each removal.
7-16
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 7-4. CWT Pass-Through Analysis Generic POTW Percent Removals
Pollutant
CAS NO.
% Removal
Source
Group A: Metals
Barium
7440-39-3
55.15
50 POTW - 2 X ML
Beryllium
7440-41-7
61.23
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
Cadmium
7440-43-9
90.05
50 POTW -10 X ML
Chromium
7440-47-3
80.33
50 POTW -10 X ML
Cobalt
7440-48-4
10.19
50 POTW - 2 X ML
Copper
7440-50-8
84.20
50 POTW -10 X ML
Iridium
7439-88-5
74.00
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Lead
7439-92-1
77.45
50 POTW -10 X ML
Lithium
7439-93-2
26.00
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Mercury
7439-97-6
90.16
50 POTW -10 X ML
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
18.93
50 POTW -10 X ML
Nickel
7440-02-0
51.44
50 POTW -10 X ML
Silver
7440-22-4
88.28
50 POTW -10 X ML
Strontium
7440-24-6
14.83
RREL 5 - (DOM WW)
Thallium
7440-28-0
53.80
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Tin
7440-31-5
42.63
50 POTW - 2 X ML
Titanium
7440-32-6
91.82
50 POTW -10 X ML
Vanadium
7440-62-2
8.28
50 POTW - 2 X ML
Yttrium
7440-65-5
21.04
50 POTW - 2 X ML
Zinc
7440-66-6
79.14
50 POTW -10 X ML
Zirconium
7440-17-7
Average Group Removal
Average Group Removal
55.95
Pollutant
CAS NO.
% Removal
Source
Group J: Anilines
Aniline
62-53-3
93.41
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Carbazole
86-74-8
Average Group Removal
Average Group Removal
93.41
Pollutant
CAS NO.
% Removal
Source
Group CC: n-Paraffins
n-Decane
124-18-5
9.00
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
n-Docosane
629-97-0
88.00
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
n-Dodecane
112-40-3
95.05
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
n-Eicosane
112-95-8
92.40
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
n-Hexacosane
630-01-3
Average Group Removal
n-Hexadecane
544-76-3
Average Group Removal
n-Octacosane
630-02-4
Average Group Removal
n-Octadecane
593-45-3
Average Group Removal
n-Tetracosane
646-31-1
Average Group Removal
n-Tetradecane
629-59-4
Average Group Removal
Average Grout) Removal
71.11
7-17
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 7-5. Final POTW Percent Removals
Pollutant
Metals Oils
Organics
CAS NO.
Percent
Removal
Source
Classical
Ammonia as N
X
X
X
766-41-7
38.94
50 POTW -10 X ML
Hexavalent Chromium
X
18540-29-9
5.68
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Total Cyanide
X
X
X
57-12-5
70.44
50 POTW -10 X ML
Metals
Antimony
X
X
X
7440-36-0
66.78
50 POTW - 2 X ML
Arsenic
X
7440-38-2
65.77
50 POTW - 2 X ML
Barium
X
7440-39-3
55.15
50 POTW - 2 X ML
Beryllium
X
7440-41-7
61.23
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Cadmium
X
X
7440-43-9
90.05
50 POTW -10 X ML
Chromium
X
X
7440-47-3
80.33
50 POTW -10 X ML
Cobalt
X
X
X
7440-48-4
10.19
50POTW - 2XML
Copper
X
X
X
7440-50-8
84.20
50 POTW -10 X ML
Iridium
X
7439-88-5
74.00
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Lanthanium
X
7439-91-0
54.44
Generic Removal-Group A
Lead
X
X
7439-92-1
77.45
50 POTW -10 X ML
Lithium
X
7439-93-2
26.00
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Mercury
X
X
7439-97-6
90.16
50 POTW -10 X ML
Molybdenum
X
X
X
7439-98-7
18.93
50 POTW -10 X ML
Nickel
X
X
7440-02-0
51.44
50 POTW -10 X ML
Osmium
X
7440-04-2
48.00
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Selenium
X
X
7782-49-2
34.33
RREL 5 - (DOM WW)
Silicon
X
X
X
7440-21-3
27.29
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Silver
X
7440-22-4
88.28
50 POTW -10 X ML
Strontium
X
X
X
7440-24-6
14.83
RREL 5 - (DOM WW)
Thallium
X
7440-28-0
53.80
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Tin
X
X
7440-31-5
42.63
50 POTW - 2 X ML
Titanium
X
X
7440-32-6
91.82
50 POTW -10 X ML
Vanadium
X
7440-62-2
8.28
50 POTW - 2 X ML
Yttrium
X
7440-65-5
21.04
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Zinc
X
X
X
7440-66-6
79.14
50 POTW -10 X ML
Zirconium
X
7440-67-7
54.44
Generic Removal-Group A
Organics
2-butanone
X
X
X
78-93-3
96.60
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
2-propanone
X
X
67-64-1
83.75
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
2,3 -dichloroaniline
X
608-27-5
41.00
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
X
88-06-2
28.00
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
4-chloro-3 -methylphenol
X
59-50-7
63.00
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
Acenaphthene
X
83-32-9
98.29
50 POTW -10 X ML
Acetophenone
X
98-86-2
95.34
RREL 5 - CALL WW)
7-18
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 7-5. Final POTW Percent Removals
Pollutant
Metals Oils
Organics
CAS NO.
Percent
Removal
Source
Alpha-terpineol
X
988-55-5
94.40
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
Aniline
X
62-53-3
93.41
RREL 5 - (ALL WW)
Anthracene
X
120-12-7
95.56
50 POTW -10 X ML
Benzo (a) anthracine
X
56-55-3
97.50
RREL 5 - (DOM WW)
Benzoic Acid
X
X
X
65-85-0
80.50
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
X
117-81-7
59.78
50 POTW -10 X ML
Butyl benzyl phthalate
X
85-68-7
94.33
50 POTW -10 X ML
Carbazole
X
86-74-8
62.00
Generic Removal-Group J
Chrysene
X
218-01-9
96.90
RREL 5 - (DOM WW)
Diethyl phthalate
X
84-66-2
59.73
50 POTW - 2X ML
Fluoranthene
X
206-44-0
42.46
50 POTW - 2X ML
Fluorene
X
86-73-7
69.85
50 POTW - 2X ML
n-Decane
X
124-18-5
9.00
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
n-Docosane
X
629-97-0
88.00
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
n-Dodecane
X
112-40-3
95.05
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
n-Eicosane
X
112-95-8
92.40
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
n-Hexadecane
X
544-76-3
71.11
Generic Removal-Group CC
n-Octadecane
X
593-45-3
71.11
Generic Removal-Group CC
n-Tetracosane
X
646-31-1
71.11
Generic Removal-Group CC
n-Tetradecane
X
629-59-4
71.11
Generic Removal-Group CC
n,n-Dimethylformamide
X
X
X
68-12-2
84.75
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
o-Cresol
X
X
95-48-7
52.50
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
p-Cresol
X
X
106-44-5
71.67
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
Pentachlorophenol
X
87-86-5
35.92
50 POTW - 2X ML
Phenol
X
X
108-95-2
95.25
50 POTW -10 X ML
Pyrene
X
129-00-0
83.90
RREL 5 - (DOM WW)
Pyridine
X
X
X
110-86-1
95.40
RREL 5 - (IND WW)
7-19
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Methodology for Determining
Treatment Technology Percent
Removals 7.6.3
EPA calculated treatment percent removals
for each subcategory BAT option with the data
used to determine the long-term averages.
Therefore, the data used to calculate BAT
treatment percent removals included the influent
and effluent data for pollutants that were
detected in the influent at treatable levels,
excluding data for pollutants which were not
treated by the technology, and excluding data
that were associated with process upsets. In one
sampling episode, EPA had only one effluent
measurement and multiple influent
measurements. In this one case, EPA kept only
the influent measurements from the same day as
the effluent measurement.
After the data were edited, EPA used the
following methodology to calculate percent
removal:
1) For each pollutant and each sampled
facility, EPA averaged the influent data
and effluent data to give an average
influent concentration and an average
effluent concentration, respectively.
2) EPA calculated percent removals for each
pollutant and each sampling episode from
the average influent and average effluent
concentrations using the following equation:
% Removal = (Ave Influent - Ave Effluent) x 100
Average Influent
3) EPA calculated the BAT median percent
removal for each pollutant for each option
from the facility-specific percent removals.
Section 10.4.3.2 discusses this in greater detail
and provides and example.
Pass-Through Analysis Results 7.6.4
The results of the Pass-Through Analysis are
presented in Tables 7-6 through 7-8 by
subcategory and treatment option.
Pass-Through Analysis Results for the
Metals Subcategory 7.6.4.1
For metals subcategory option 4, pass-
through results are presented in Table 7-6. All
non-conventional pollutants analyzed passed
through, and all metals passed through with the
exception of zirconium. However, for organic
pollutants analyzed, only benzoic acid passed
through. All pollutants that passed through may
be regulated under PSES and PSNS.
7-20
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 7-6. Final Pass-Through Results For Metals Subcategory Option 4
Pollutant Parameter Option 4 Removal (%) Median PQTW Removal (%) Pass-Through
Classicals
Hexavalent Chromium
98.01
5.68
yes
Total Cyanide
99.30
70.44
yes
Metals
Antimony
94.30
66.78
yes
Arsenic
91.74
65.77
yes
Cadmium
99.97
90.05
yes
Chromium
99.91
80.33
yes
Cobalt
98.47
10.19
yes
Copper
99.91
84.20
yes
Iridium
99.69
74.00
yes
Lead
99.95
77.45
yes
Lithium
66.83
26.00
yes
Mercury
98.38
90.16
yes
Molybdenum
26.40
18.93
yes
Nickel
99.59
51.44
yes
Selenium
57.54
34.33
yes
Silicon
98.58
27.29
yes
Silver
99.62
88.28
yes
Strontium
95.89
14.83
yes
Tin
99.94
42.63
yes
Titanium
99.84
91.82
yes
Vanadium
99.46
8.28
yes
Yttrium
95.39
21.04
yes
Zinc
99.93
79.14
yes
Zirconium
42.13
54.97
no
Organics
2-Butanone
74.72
96.60
no
2-Propanone
65.62
83.75
no
Benzoic Acid
82.99
80.50
yes
n,n-Dimethylformamide
54.81
84.75
no
Pyridine
48.49
95.40
no
7-21
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Pass-Through Analysis Results for the Oils Subcategory 7.6.4.2
The final pass-through analysis results for the oils subcategory options 8 and 9 are presented in
Table 7-7. Several metals and organic pollutants passed through, and therefore may be regulated under
PSES and PSNS.
Table 7-7. Final Pass-Through Results For Oils Subcategory Options 8 and 9
Pollutant Parameter
Option 8
Option 9
Median POTW
Pass-Thrc
Removal (%)
Removal (%)
Removal (%)
Classicals
Total Cyanide
64.38
64.38
70.44
no
Metals
Antimony
87.99
87.99
66.78
yes
Arsenic
57.64
57.64
65.77
no
Barium
91.91
91.91
55.15
yes
Cadmium
88.07
88.07
90.05
no
Chromium
80.54
86.24
80.33
yes
Cobalt
52.20
52.20
10.19
yes
Copper
91.09
90.02
84.20
yes
Lead
92.64
88.26
77.45
yes
Mercury
77.43
77.43
90.16
no
Molybdenum
53.73
53.73
18.93
yes
Nickel
41.24
41.24
51.44
no
Selenium
36.94
36.94
34.33
yes
Silicon
54.16
54.16
27.29
yes
Strontium
50.68
50.68
14.83
yes
Tin
90.77
90.77
42.63
yes
Titanium
89.99
89.99
91.82
no
Zinc
80.33
83.48
79.14
yes
Organics
2-Butanone
15.41
15.41
96.60
no
4-chloro-3 -methy lphenol *
-
27.48
63.00
no
Acenapthene
96.75
96.75
98.29
no
Alpha-terpineol
94.77
94.77
94.40
yes
Anthracene
97.07
96.67
95.56
yes
Benzo (a) anthracene
94.38
95.69
97.50
no
Benzoic acid
6.54
19.32
80.50
no
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
93.22
93.66
59.78
yes
Butyl benzyl phthalate
92.19
92.19
94.33
no
Carbazole
81.09
81.09
62.00
yes
Chrysene
96.93
97.22
96.90
yes
Diethyl phthalate
77.01
63.97
59.73
yes
Fluoranthene
96.24
95.21
42.46
ves
7-22
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Fluorene
95.32
92.86
69.85
yes
n-Decane
97.36
94.98
9.00
yes
n-Docosane
97.25
96.87
88.00
yes
n-Dodecane
94.14
96.50
95.05
no for 8/
yes for 9
n-Eicosane
95.88
95.54
92.40
yes
n-Hexadecane
97.38
96.53
71.11
yes
n-Octadecane
97.32
97.20
71.11
yes
n-Tetradecane
97.26
96.85
71.11
yes
o-cresol*
-
21.08
52.50
no
p-cresol*
-
34.88
71.67
no
Phenol
53.68
14.88
95.25
no
Pyrene
97.10
97.63
83.90
yes
Pyridine
21.45
21.45
95.40
no
* Not applicable for option 8
7-23
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Pass-Through Analysis Results for the Organics Subcategory 7.6.4.3
The results of the pass-through analysis for the organics subcategory option 4 is presented in Table
7-8. Several metals and organic pollutants passed through, and therefore may be regulated under PSES
and PSNS.
Table 7-8. Final Pass-Through Results For Organics Subcategory Option 4
Pollutant Parameter Option 4 Removal (%) Median POTW Removal (%) Pass-Through
Classicals
Total Cyanide
33.46
70.44
no
Metals
Antimony
33.27
66.78
no
Cobalt
17.31
10.19
yes
Copper
38.04
84.20
no
Molybdenum
57.10
18.93
yes
Silicon
4.71
88.28
no
Strontium
59.51
14.83
yes
Zinc
60.51
79.14
no
Organics
2-butanone
69.20
96.60
no
2-propanone
68.57
83.75
no
2,3 -dichloroaniline
80.45
41.00
yes
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
45.16
28.00
yes
Acetophenone
92.44
95.34
no
Aniline
92.88
93.41
no
Benzoic Acid
94.29
80.50
yes
n,n-Dimethylformamide
89.26
84.75
yes
o-Cresol
98.39
52.50
yes
p-Cresol
85.38
71.67
yes
Pentachlorophenol
23.19
35.92
no
Phenol
87.08
95.25
no
Pyridine
61.69
95.40
no
7-24
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Final List of Pollutants Selected for Regulation 7.7
Direct Dischargers 7.7.1
After EPA eliminated pollutants of concern which were treatment chemicals, non-conventional bulk
parameters, not detected at treatable levels, not treated, or volatile, EPA still had a lengthy list of
pollutants which could be regulated ~ particularly in the oils subcategory. EPA further eliminated
pollutants that were identified during screening, but not analyzed in a quantitative manner2. These
pollutants are indium, iridium, lanthanum, lithium, osmium, silicon, strontium, and zirconium. EPA
also eliminated pollutants that are not toxic as quantified by their toxic weighting factor (TWF)3. A
single pollutant, yttrium, has a TWF of zero and was, therefore, eliminated. EPA also eliminated
pollutants that were removed by the proposed treatment technologies, but whose removal was not
optimal. EPA eliminated pollutants that were removed by less than 30% with the proposed technology
options for the organics subcategory and by less than 50% with the proposed technology options for
the metals and oils subcategories. These pollutants are listed in Table 7-9.
Table 7-9. Pollutants Eliminated Due to Non-Optimal Performance
Metals Option 4
Metals Option 3
Oils Option 8
Oils Option 9
Organics Option 4
bod5
Molybdenum
bod5
bod5
Cobalt
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nickel
Pentachlorophenol
Pyridine
Selenium
Benzoic Acid
p-Cresol4
Pyridine
2-butanone
Selenium
Benzoic Acid
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Phenol
Pyridine
2-butanone
4-methyl-2-pentanone
EPA also eliminated those pollutants for which the treatment technology forming the basis of the
option is not a standard method of treatment. For example, chemical precipitation systems are not
designed to remove BOD5. Table 7-10 lists these pollutants for each subcategory and option.
2Analyses for these pollutants were not subject to the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures
required by analytical Method 1620.
3Toxic weighting factors are derived from chronic aquatic life criteria and human health criteria established
for the consumption of fish. Toxic weighting factors can be used to compare the toxicity of one pollutant relative to
another and are normalized based on the toxicity of copper. TWFs are discussed in detail in the Cost Effectiveness
Analysis Document.
4Removals for this pollutant for option 8 were greater than 50%. However, since removals for this pollutant
for option 9 (the BAT selected option) were less than 50%, for consistency, they were similarly eliminated for option
8.
7-25
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 7-10. Pollutants Eliminated Since Technology Basis is Not Standard Method of Treatment
Metals Option 4 Metals Option 3 Oils Option 8/9 Organics Option 3/4
BOD5 BOD5 Total Cyanide Total Cyanide
Boron n,n-Dimethylformamide
2-butanone
2-propanone
benzoic acid
n,n-Dimethylformamide
For the metals subcategory, 2 pollutants,
beryllium and thallium, remained for metals
option 3, but has been eliminated for metals
option 4. For consistency, EPA eliminated these
two pollutants. EPA also eliminated hexavalent
chromium because it has regulated total
chromium. EPA's final list of regulated
pollutants for direct dischargers in the metals
subcategory is based on these additional edits.
For the organics subcategory, EPA
eliminated benzoic acid because of its low and
highly variable recovery using EPA Methods 625
and 1625. EPA also eliminated n,n-
dimethylformamide because there is no approved
method for this pollutant. EPA's final list of
regulated pollutants for direct discharges in the
organics subcategory is based on these additional
edits.
For the oils subcategory, EPA eliminated
alpha terpineol. EPA only has data from a single
episode that passed its data editing criteria (see
Chapter 10) upon which to develop limits for
alpha terpineol. EPA subsequently eliminated
this data because the effluent samples also
contained high levels of phenol (alpha terpineol
measurements can be affected by high phenol
levels). Further, two pollutants, n-tetracosane
and n,n-dimethylformamide remained for one oil
option, but had been eliminated for the other.
For consistency, EPA eliminated these two
pollutants.
Also, for the organic pollutants in the oils
subcategory, EPA further reduced the number of
regulated pollutants as detailed in the following
paragraphs. EPA selected this approach based
on comments to the 1995 proposal. This
approach uses the same methodology as
proposed in 1999. However this analysis reflects
corrections to the CWT sampling analytical
database.
EPA organized the remaining organic
pollutants in the oils subcategory into pollutant
groups. As described in Section 7.6.2, pollutant
groups were developed by combining pollutants
of similar structures. The remaining list of
organic pollutants in the oils subcategory are in
four pollutant groups: n-paraffins, poly aromatic
hydrocarbons, phthalates, and anilines. EPA
reviewed the influent characterization data from
the oils subcategory facilities (including the
additional data collected at non-hazardous oils
facilities) to determine which pollutants in each
structural group are generally detected together.
If pollutants in a structural group are always
detected together, then EPA can establish some
(or one) pollutants in each group as indicator
pollutants. Since the effectiveness of the
treatment technologies which form the basis of
the proposed oils subcategory limitations is
similar for pollutants in each group, EPA can be
confident that regulation of the group indicator
pollutant(s) will ensure control of all the group
pollutants. This approach allows EPA to reduce
the list of regulated pollutants for the oils
subcategory substantially. Tables 7-11, 7-12,
and 7-13 summarize the data for each structural
group with more than one pollutant remaining.
In these tables, an "X" indicates the pollutant
was detected at the sampled facility while a
7-26
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
"blank" indicates the pollutant was not detected
at the sampled facility.
At the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA
selected n-decane and n-octadecane from the n-
paraffins group. Data for n-paraffins continue to
show that while n-decane is usually detected in
combination with other n-paraffins, it does not
respond to treatment in a similar manner as other
n-paraffins. Therefore, no other n-paraffins in
this group can be used as an indicator of n-
decane. At the time of the proposal, EPA
selected n-octadecane because the data showed
that it would be an appropriate indicator for the
remainder of the n-paraffins. With one
exception, this remains accurate. The one
exception is n-hexadecane. EPA analysis now
shows that n-octadecane was detected in 13 of
the facilities sampled and that n-hexadecane was
detected in these same 13 facilities and one
other. The additional detection represents a
single grab sample. In EPA's view, a single grab
sample does not warrant the regulation of an
additional or different pollutant. Consequently,
EPA continues to select n-octadecane along with
n-decane from the n-paraffins group.
At the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA's
data showed that either fluoranthene or pyrene
would be an appropriate indicator for the
polyaromatic hydrocarbon group and EPA
selected fluoranthene. With one exception, this
remains accurate. The one exception is pyrene.
EPA analysis now shows that fluroanthene was
detected in six of the facilities sampled and that
pyrene was detected in these same six facilities
and one other. The additional detection
represents a single grab sample. In EPA's view,
a single grab sample does not warrant the
regulation of a different pollutant. Consequently,
EPA continues to select fluroanthene from the
polyaromatic group.
At the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA's
data showed that bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and
butyl benzyl phthalate should be selected for the
phthalate group. This remains accurate.
Consequently, EPA selected both of these
compounds from the phthalate group.
Finally, carbazole is the only pollutant
remaining from the aniline group. Therefore,
EPA selected carbazole from the aniline group.
EPA's final list of regulated pollutants for
direct dischargers in the oils subcategory is based
on these additional edits/selections.
Table 7-14 shows the final list of pollutants
selected for regulation in all subcategories for
direct dischargers.
7-27
-------
Table^lLiFrec|uenc^ofDetectiorf>ofn-ParaffinsjnCWTiOils>Subcategoi^Wastes^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^_
Pollutant Facility
ABCDEFGHI JKLMNOPQR
Total Number of
Detects at Combined
Facilities
n-Decane
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
29/39
n-Docosane
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
24/39
n-Dodecane
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
30/39
n-Eicosane
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
32/39
n-Hexadecane
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
33/39
n-Octadecane
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
32/39
n-Tetradecane
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
33/39
X = Pollutant was detected at the sampled facility
"blank = Pollutant was not detected at the sampled facility
5For some facilities, the data represent daily composite samples collected over two to five days, while for other facilities the data represent grab samples
collected on one to five days.
7-28
-------
Table 7-12. Frequency of Detection6
of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons in CWT Oils
Subcategory Wastes
Pollutant
Facility
Total Number of
Detects at Combined
Facilities
A B
C D E
F
G
H
I J
KLMNOPQR
Acenaphthene
X
X
X
X
8/39
Anthracene
X
X
X
X
X
12/39
Benzo(a)anthracene
X
X
X
X
12/39
Chrysene
X
X
X
X
12/39
Fluoranthene
X
X
X
X
X
15/39
Fluorene
X
X
X
X
X
11/39
Pyrene
X
X
X
X
X
X X
16/39
X = Pollutant was detected at the sampled facility
"blank = Pollutant was not detected at the sampled facility
6For some facilities, the data represent composite samples collected over two to five days, while for other facilities the data represent grab samples
collected on one to five days.
7-29
-------
Table^lS^Freciuenc^ofDetectioi^ofPh&alatesjnCWT^Oils^Subcategoi^Wastes^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pollutant Facility Total Number of
Detects at Combined
ABCDE FGH I JKLMNOPQR Facilities
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate XXXXXX XX XX 18/39
Butylbenzylphthalate X XXX 7/39
Diethylphthalate XXX 10/39
X = Pollutant was detected at the sampled facility
"blank = Pollutant was not detected at the sampled facility
7For some facilities, the data represent composite samples collected over two to five days, while for other facilities the data represent grab samples
collected on one to five days.
7-30
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 7-14. Final List of Regulated Pollutants for Direct Discharging CWTs
Metals Subcategory
Metals Subcategory
Oils Subcategory
Organics Subcategory
Option 4
Option 3 (NSPS)
Option 9
Option 4
(BPT, BAT)
BPT, BAT, NSPS
BPT, BAT, NSPS
TSS
TSS
Oil and Grease
bod5
Oil and Grease
Oil and Grease
TSS
TSS
Antimony
Antimony
Antimony
Antimony
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Copper
Cadmium
Cadmium
Barium
Molybdenum
Chromium
Chromium
Cadmium
Zinc
Cobalt
Cobalt
Chromium
Acetophenone
Copper
Copper
Cobalt
Aniline
Lead
Lead
Copper
o-Cresol
Mercury
Mercury
Lead
p-Cresol
Nickel
Nickel
Mercury
pH
pH
pH
Molybdenum
Phenol
Selenium
Selenium
pH
Pyridine
Silver
Silver
Tin
2-butanone
Tin
Tin
Titanium
2-propanone
Titanium
Titanium
Zinc
2,3 -dichloroaniline
Total cyanide
Total cyanide
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Vanadium
Vanadium
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Zinc
Zinc
Carbazole
Fluoranthene
N-decane
N-octadecane
Indirect Dischargers 7.7.2
Consideration of Indicator Parameters for the
Oils Subcategory
As detailed in the 1999 proposal, EPA
looked at various ways to reduce the costs of this
rule (particularly the costs to small businesses)
while ensuring proper treatment of off-site
wastes. One of the options considered by EPA
and discussed in the 1999 proposal was
providing an alternative compliance-monitoring
regime for indirect discharging facilities in the oils
subcategory. Under this alternative monitoring
approach, facilities could choose to (1) monitor
for all regulated pollutants, or (2) monitor for the
conventional parameters, metal parameters, and
monitor for the regulated organic pollutants in
this subcategory using an indicator parameter
such as hexane extractable material (HEM) or
silica gel treated-hexane extractable material
(SGT-HEM). The 1999 proposal further noted
that EPA was conducting a study to determine
which organic pollutants are measured by SGT-
HEM and HEM and solicited comment on the
use of indicator parameters.
Many commenters responded to EPA's
request with essentially an equivalent number
opposing and favoring the use of indicator
parameters. The commenters that supported its
use cited the decreased analytical costs and the
wide range of organic compounds that can be
measured with these analyses. Commenters that
did not support the use of SGT-HEM or HEM
as indicator pollutants raised a number of
concerns including the following:
these measurements are non-specific and
highly subject to interferences;
no direct and quantified correlation has
ever been developed between HEM (or
7-31
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
SGT-HEM) and specific organic
pollutants;
there is no evidence that regulating HEM
or SGT-HEM would result in adequate
regulation of toxics;
the determination has not been made that
the organic pollutants of interest are
measured by either HEM or SGT-HEM;
and
SGT-HEM does not measure all of the
regulated pollutants, particularly
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
None of the commenters suggested possible
alternative indicator parameters.
During its development of proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards
for the industrial laundries point source category,
EPA evaluated the suitability of SGT-HEM and
HEM as indicator parameters for that
rulemaking. EPA presented the results of its
study in a Notice of Data Availability on
December 23, 1998 (63 FR 71054). In the
study, EPA attempted to identify compounds
present in HEM/SGT-HEM extracts from
industrial laundry wastewaters using gas
chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) in
order to determine which pollutants of concern
might be components of, and therefore measured
by, HEM or SGT-HEM. However, EPA was
only able to identify approximately two percent
of the constituents present in the waste stream.
Most of these constituents identified were
alkanes. In general, the data from this study
also do not support the use of SGT-HEM as an
appropriate indicator parameter for the organic
pollutants present in CWT wastewaters since
few of these pollutants were identified in the
HEM/SGT-HEM extract.
As part of its consideration of the use of an
indicator parameter for this rule, EPA again
reviewed the data from the industrial laundries
study as well as the data collected here. EPA
statistically analyzed the relationship between
seven organic pollutants and SGT-HEM or
HEM. EPA's data show general trends of
increasing concentrations of HEM and SGT-
HEM with increasing concentrations of organic
pollutants. However, the data demonstrate
substantial variability and, despite this general
trend, EPA noted that the non-detected values
for organics were associated with just about
every level of HEM and SGT-HEM and
conversely, that high levels of some organic
pollutants were associated with low levels of
HEM/SGT-HEM. As a result, EPA cannot
demonstrate that establishing a numerical limit
for SGT-HEM or HEM would provide
consistent control of the organic pollutants by the
model treatment technologies.
Therefore, while EPA is cognizant of the
cost savings that can be achieved in some
instances by using indicator parameters, EPA has
rejected this alternative monitoring approach for
CWT wastewaters.
Final List of Regulatory Parameters for
Indirect Discharging CWT Facilities
As detailed in Section 7.6, all pollutants
regulated for direct dischargers which pass-
through well-operated POTWs are regulated for
indirect dischargers. Table 7-15 shows the final
list of regulated pollutants for indirect dischargers
selected by EPA.
7-32
-------
Chapter 7 Pollutants Selected for Regulation
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 7-15. Final List of Regulated Pollutants for Indirect Discharging CWT Facilities
Metals Subcategory
Oils Subcategory
Organics Subcategory
Option 4
Option 8 (PSES)
Option 3
PSES/PSNS
Option 9 (PSNS)
PSES, PSNS
Antimony
Antimony
Molybdenum
Arsenic
Barium
o-Cresol
Cadmium
Chromium
p-Cresol
Chromium
Cobalt
2,3 -dichloroaniline
Cobalt
Copper
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
Copper
Lead
Lead
Molybdenum
Mercury
Tin
Nickel
Zinc
Selenium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Silver
Carbazole
Tin
Fluoranthene
Titanium
N-decane
Total cyanide
N-octadecane
Vanadium
Zinc
7-33
-------
Chapter
8
WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
This section discusses a number of
wastewater treatment technologies
considered by EPA for the development of these
guidelines and standards for the CWT Industry.
Many of these technologies are being used
currently at CWT facilities. This section also
reviews other technologies with potential
application in treating certain CWT pollutants of
concern.
Facilities in the CWT industry use a wide
variety of technologies for treating wastes
received for treatment or recovery operations
and wastewater generated on site. The
technologies are grouped into the following five
categories for this discussion:
• Best Management Practices, section 8.2.1;
• Physical/Chemical/Thermal Treatment,
section 8.2.2;
• Biological Treatment, section 8.2.3;
• Sludge Treatment and Disposal, section
8.2.4; and
• Zero Discharge Options, section 8.2.5.
The processes reviewed here include both
those that remove pollutant contaminants in
wastewater and those that destroy them. Using
a wastewater treatment technology that removes,
rather than destroys, a pollutant will produce a
treatment residual. In many instances, this
residual is in the form of a sludge, that, typically,
a CWT further treats on site in preparation for
disposal. Section 8.2.4 discusses technologies
for dewatering sludges to concentrate them prior
to disposal. In the case of other types of
treatment residuals, such as spent activated
carbon and filter media, CWT facilities generally
send those off site to a vendor facility for
management.
Technologies Currently in Use 8.1
EPA obtained information on the treatment
technologies in use in the CWT industry from
responses to the Waste Treatment Industry
(WTI) Questionnaire, site visits, public
comments to the original proposal and the 1996
Notice of Data Availability. As described in
Section 4, of the estimated 205 CWT facilities,
EPA has obtained detailed facility-specific
technology information for 116 of the direct and
indirect discharging CWT facilities. Although
EPA has facility-specific information for 145
facilities, only 116 of these facilities provided
technology information. The detail provided
regarding the technology information differs
depending on the source. Information for the 65
facilities that completed the WTI Questionnaire
was the most explicit because the questionnaire
contained a detailed checklist of wastewater
treatment technologies, many of which are
discussed in this section. Technology
information from other sources, however, is
much less descriptive.
Table 8-1 presents treatment technology
information by subcategory for the 116 indirect
and direct discharging CWT facilities for which
EPA has facility-specific treatment technology
information. The information in Table 8-1 has
not been scaled to represent the entire population
of CWT facilities. Responses to the WTI
Questionnaire provide the primary basis for the
technology information for the metals and the
organics subcategories. Comments to the 1996
Notice of Data Availability provide the primary
source of the technology information for the oils
subcategory. It should be noted that a number
of facilities commingle different subcategory
wastes for treatment. EPA has attributed these
8-1
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
treatment technologies to all appropriate
subcategories.
Table 8-1. Percent Treatment In-place by Subcategory and by Method of Wastewater Disposal
Metals Subcategory
Oils Subcategory
Organics Subcategory
Disposal Type
Direct
Indirect
Direct
Indirect
Direct
Indirect
Number of Facilities with
Treatment Technology Data
91
41i
31,2
80"
41
14i
Equalization4
78
68
100
65
75
71
Neutralization4
89
73
100
61
100
57
Flocculation4
44
51
100
48
75
57
Emulsion Breaking
11
29
33
56
25
50
Gravity-Assisted Separation
89
61
100
85
100
64
Skimming4
22
27
100
58
25
57
Plate/Tube Separation4
0
10
0
19
0
21
Dissolved Air Flotation
22
5
33
23
50
0
Chromium Reduction4
33
76
0
48
0
57
Cyanide Destruction4
33
46
100
23
25
29
Chemical Precipitation
78
88
0
34
25
64
Filtration
44
32
33
19
25
21
Sand Filtration4
11
15
0
16
0
21
Mutimedia Filtration4
11
5
0
0
0
7
Ultrafiltration
0
0
0
8
0
0
Reverse Osmosis4
11
0
0
3
0
0
Carbon Adsorption
22
12
67
18
0
21
Ion Exchange4
0
2
0
0
0
0
Air Stripping
0
7
0
11
0
0
Biological Treatment
56
2
100
11
100
7
Activated Sludge
33
0
100
0
100
0
Sequencing Batch
0
2
0
0
0
7
Reactors4
Vacuum Filtration4
11
17
100
6
25
7
Pressure Filtration4
67
61
100
39
75
36
'Sum does not add to 116 facilities. Some facilities treat wastes in multiple subcategories.
2Of the 3 direct discharging oils facilities for which EPA has facility-specific information, only one
completed the WTI Questionnaire.
3Of the 80 indirect discharging oils facilities for which EPA has facility-specific information, only 31
completed the WTI Questionnaire.
^Information lor these technologies for the oils subcategory is based on responses to the WTI Questionnaire
only.
Technology Descriptions 8.2
Best Management Practices 8.2.1
In addition to physical/chemical treatment
technologies, CWT facilities employ a number of
ancillary means to prevent or reduce the
discharge of pollutants. These efforts are termed
"best management practices. EPA believes that
CWT facilities should design best management
8-2
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
practices in the CWT industry with the following
objectives in mind:
• Maximize the amount of waste materials and
residuals that are recycled rather than
disposed as residuals, as wastewater, or as
waste material.
• Maximize recycling and reuse of
wastewaters generated on site.
• Minimize the introduction of uncontaminated
wastewaters into the treatment waste stream.
• Encourage waste generators to minimize the
mixing of different wastes.
• Segregate wastes for treatment particularly
where waste segregation would improve
treatment performance and maximize
opportunities for recycling.
Waste segregation is one of the most
important tools available for maximizing waste
recycling and improving treatment performance.
For example, separate treatment of wastes
containing different types of metals allows the
recovery of the individual metals from the
resultant sludges. Similarly, separate treatment
collection and treatment of waste oils will allow
recycling. Many oils subcategory facilities
currently practice waste oil recycling.
Physical/Chemical/Thermal Treatment 8.2.2
Equalization 8.2.2.1
General Description
The wastes received at many facilities in the
CWT industry vary considerably in both strength
and volume. Waste treatment facilities often
need to equalize wastes by holding wastestreams
in a tank for a certain period of time prior to
treatment in order to obtain a stable waste stream
which is easier to treat. CWT facilities
frequently use holding tanks to consolidate small
waste volumes and to minimize the variability of
incoming wastes prior to certain treatment
operations. The receiving or initial treatment
tanks of a facility often serve as equalization
tanks.
The equalization tank serves many
functions. Facilities use equalization tanks to
consolidate smaller volumes of wastes so that,
for batch treatment systems, full batch volumes
are available. For continuous treatment systems,
facilities equalize the waste volumes so that they
may introduce effluent to downstream processes
at a uniform rate and strength. This dampens
the effect of peak and minimum flows.
Introducing a waste stream with a more uniform
pollutant profile to the treatment system
facilitates control of the operation of downstream
treatment units, resulting in more predictable and
uniform treatment results. Equalization tanks are
usually equipped with agitators or aerators where
mixing of the wastewater is desired and to
prevent suspended solids from settling to the
bottom of the unit. An example of effective
equalization is the mixing of acid and alkaline
wastes. Figure 8-1 illustrates an equalization
system.
EPA does not consider the use of
equalization tanks for dilution as a legitemate
use. In this context, EPA defines dilution as the
mixing of more concentrated wastes with greater
volumes of less concentrated wastes in a manner
that reduces the concentration of pollutant in the
concentrated wastes to a level that enables the
facility to avoid treatment of the pollutant.
8-3
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Wastewater
Influent
~
Equalized
Equalization Tank Wastewater
Effluent
Figure 8-1. Equalization System Diagram
8-4
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Industry Practice
EPA found equalization being used at
facilities in all of the CWT subcategories. Of
the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning the use of equalization,
44 operate equalization systems. Of these,
approximately 44 percent emply unstirred tanks
and 56 percent use stirred or aerated tanks.
The combining of separate waste receipts
in large receiving tanks provides for effective
equalization even though it is not necessarily
recognized as such. Nearly every facility
visited by EPA performed equalization, either
in tanks specifically designed for that purpose
or in waste receiving tanks. Consequently,
EPA has concluded that equalization is
underreported in the data base.
Neutralization 8.2.2.2
General Description
Wastewaters treated at CWT facilities have
a wide range of pH values depending on the
types of wastes accepted. Untreated
wastewater may require neutralization to
eliminate either high or low pH values prior to
certain treatment systems, such as biological
treatment. Facilities often use neutralization
systems also in conjunction with certain
chemical treatment processes, such as chemical
precipitation, to adjust the pH of the
wastewater to optimize treatment efficiencies.
These facilities may add acids, such as sulfuric
acid or hydrochloric acid, to reduce pH, and
alkalies, such as sodium hydroxides, to raise
pH values. Many metals subcategory facilities
use waste acids and waste alkalies for pH
adjustment. Neutralization may be performed
in a holding tank, rapid mix tank, or an
equalization tank. Typically, facilities use
neutralization systems at the end of a treatment
system to control the pH of the discharge to
between 6 and 9 in order to meet NPDES and
POTW pretreatment limitations.
Figure 8-2 presents a flow diagram for a
typical neutralization system.
Industry Practice
EPA found neutralization systems in-place
at facilities identified in all of the CWT
subcategories. Of the 65 CWT facilities in
EPA's WTI Questionnaire data base that
provided information concerning the use of
neutralization, 45 operate neutralization
systems.
Flocculation/Coagulation 8.2.2.3
General Description
Flocculation is the stirring or agitation of
chemically-treated water to induce coagulation.
The terms coagulation and flocculation are
often used interchangeably. More specifically,
"coagulation" is the reduction of the net
electrical repulsive forces at particle surfaces
by addition of coagulating chemicals, whereas
"flocculation" is the agglomeration of the
destabilized particles by chemical joining and
bridging. Flocculation enhances sedimentation
or filtration treatment system performance by
increasing particle size resulting in increased
settling rates and filter capture rates.
Flocculation generally precedes
sedimentation and filtration processes and
usually consists of a rapid mix tank or in-line
mixer, and a flocculation tank. The waste
stream is initially mixed while a coagulant
and/or a coagulant aid is added. A rapid mix
tank is usually designed for a detention time of
15 seconds to several minutes. After mixing,
the coagulated wastewater flows to a
flocculation basin where slow mixing of the
waste occurs. The slow mixing allows the
particles to agglomerate into heavier, more
settleable/filterable solids. Either mechanical
paddle mixers or diffused air provides mixing.
Flocculation basins are typically designed for a
detention time of 15 to 60 minutes. Figure 8-3
presents a diagram of a clarification system
incorporating coagulation and flocculation.
8-5
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Wastewater
Influent
\r v
Neutralization Tank
acid
caustic
pH monitor/
control
Neutralized
Wastewater
Effluent
Figure 8-2. Neutralization System Diagram
8-6
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Coagulant
Clarifier
Influent
'no
Rapid Mix
Tank
Flocculating
Tank
Sludge
Figure 8-3. Clarification System Incorporating Coagulation and Flocculation
8-7
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
There are three different types of treatment
chemicals commonly used in
coagulation/flocculation processes: inorganic
electrolytes, natural organic polymers, and
synthetic polyelectrolytes. The selection of the
specific treatment chemical is highly dependent
upon the characteristics and chemical
properties of the contaminants. Many CWT
facilities use bench-scale jar tests to determine
the appropriate type and optimal dosage of
coagulant/flocculent for a given waste stream.
Industry Practice
Chemical treatment methods to enhance
the separation of pollutants from water as a
solid residual may include both chemical
precipitation and coagulation/flocculation.
Chemical precipitation is the conversion of
soluble pollutants such as metals into an
insoluble precipitate and is described
separately. Flocculation is often an integral
step in chemical precipitation, gravity
separation, and filtration. Of the 65 CWT
facilities in EPA's WTI Questionnaire data
base that provided information concerning the
use of coagulation/flocculation, 31 operate
coagulation/flocculation systems. However,
due to the integral nature of flocculation in
chemical precipitation and coagulation, and the
interchangeable use of the terminology, the use
of coagulation/flocculation at CWT facilities
may have been underreported.
Emulsion Breaking 8.2.2.4
General Description
One process used to treat emulsified
oil/water mixtures is emulsion breaking. An
emulsion, by definition, is either stable or
unstable. A stable emulsion is one where small
droplets of oil are dispersed within the water
and are prevented from coalescing by repulsive
electrical surface charges that are often a result
of the presence of emulsifying agents and/or
surfactants. In stable emulsions, coalescing
and settling of the dispersed oil droplets would
occur very slowly or not at all. Stable
emulsions are often intentionally formed by
chemical addition to stabilize the oil mixture for
a specific application. Some examples of stable
emulsified oils are metal-working coolants,
lubricants, and antioxidants. An unstable
emulsion, or dispersion, settles very rapidly and
does not require treatment to break the
emulsion.
Emulsion breaking is achieved through the
addition of chemicals and/or heat to the
emulsified oil/water mixture. The most
commonly-used method of emulsion breaking
is acid-cracking where sulfuric or hydrochloric
acid is added to the oil/water mixture until the
pH reaches 1 or 2. An alternative to acid-
cracking is chemical treatment using
emulsion-breaking chemicals such as
surfactants and coagulants. After addition of
the treatment chemical, the tank contents are
mixed. After the emulsion bond is broken, the
oil residue is allowed to float to the top of the
tank. At this point, heat (100 to 150° F) may
be applied to speed the separation process.
The oil is then skimmed by mechanical means,
or the water is decanted from the bottom of the
tank. The oil residue is then further processed
or disposed. A diagram of an emulsion
breaking system is presented in Figure 8-4.
Industry Practice
Emulsion breaking is a common process in
the CWT industry. Of the 116 CWT facilities
in EPA's WTI Questionnaire and NOA
comment data base that provided information
concerning the use of emulsion breaking, 49
operate emulsion breaking systems. Forty-six
of the 83 oils subcategory facilities in EPA's
data base use emulsion-breaking. As such,
EPA has concluded that emulsion breaking is
the baseline, current performance technology
for oils subcategory facilities that treat
emulsified oily wastes.
8-8
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Chamical
Addition
Waste
Influent
Oil
Residue
Sludge
Figure 8-4. Emulsion Breaking System Diagram
8-9
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Gravity Assisted Separation 8.2.2.5
1. Gra vity Oil/Water Separation
General Description
Like emulsion breaking, another in-place
treatment process used to remove oil and grease
and related pollutants from oil/water mixtures is
gravity separation. Unlike emulsion breaking,
gravity separation is only effective for the bulk
removal of free oil and grease. It is not effective
in the removal of emulsified or soluble oils.
Gravity separation is often used in conjunction
with emulsion breaking at CWT facilities.
Gravity separation may be performed using
specially designed tanks or it may occur within
storage tanks. During gravity oil/water
separation, the wastewater is held under
quiescent conditions long enough to allow the oil
droplets, which have a lower specific gravity
than water, to rise and form a layer on the
surface. Large droplets rise more readily than
smaller droplets. Once the oil has risen to the
surface of the wastewater, it must be removed.
This is done mechanically via skimmers, baffles,
plates, slotted pipes, or dip tubes. When
treatment or storage tanks serve as gravity
separators, the oil may be decanted off the
surface or, alternately, the separated water may
be drawn off the bottom until the oil layer
appears. The resulting oily residue from a
gravity separator must then be further processed
or disposed.
Because gravity separation is such a widely-
used technology, there is an abundance of
equipment configurations available. A very
common unit is the API (American Petroleum
Institute) separator, shown in Figure 8-5. This
unit uses an overflow and an underflow baffle to
skim the floating oil layer from the surface.
Another oil/water gravity separation process
utilizes parallel plates which shorten the
necessary retention time by shortening the
distance the oil droplets must travel before
separation occurs.
Industry Practice
Of the 116 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire and NOA comment data base that
provided information concerning the use of
oil/water gravity separation, 16 operate skimming
systems, seven operate coalescing plate or tube
separation systems, and 42 operate oil/water
gravity separation systems. Oil/water separation
is such an integral step at oils subcategory
facilities that every oils subcategory facility
visited by EPA performed gravity oil/water
separation, either in tanks specifically designed
for that purpose or in waste receiving or storage
tanks.
2. Clarification
General Description
Like oil/water separators, clarification
systems utilize gravity to provide continuous,
low-cost separation and removal of particulates,
flocculated impurities, and precipitates from
water. These systems typically follow
wastewater treatment processes which generate
suspended solids, such as chemical precipitation
and biological treatment.
In a clarifier, wastewater is allowed to flow
slowly and uniformly, permitting the solids more
dense than water to settle to the bottom. The
clarified wastewater is discharged by flowing
from the top of the clarifier over a weir. Solids
accumulate at the bottom of a clarifier and a
sludge must be periodically removed, dewatered
and disposed. Conventional clarifiers are
typically circular or rectangular tanks. Some
specialized types of clarifiers additionally
incorporate tubes, plates, or lamellar networks to
increase the settling area. A circular clarification
system is illustrated in Figure 8-6.
8-10
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Oil Retention
Baffle
Diffusion Device
(vertical baffle)
Oil
Skimmer
Oil
Retention
Baffle
Wastewater
Influent
J
Treated
Effluent
Scraper
Sludge
Hopper
Figure 8-5. Gravity Separation System Diagram
8-11
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Skimming Scraper
Effluent
Skimmingc Removal
hflUMlt
Figure 8-6. Clarification System Diagram
8-12
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning the use of clarification
systems, 39 operate settling systems and seven
operate coalescing plate or tube separation
systems. EPA did not obtain detailed enough
treatment technology information from the
Notice of Data Availability comments for the oils
subcategory facilities to determine the presence
or absence of clarification systems. In general,
oils subcategory facilities are more likely to
utilize gravity oil/water separation. However,
oils facilities that also utilize solids generation
processes such as chemical precipitation or
biological treatment as part of their waste
treatment train will likely utilize clarification
systems.
3. Dissolved Air Flotation
General Description
Flotation is the process of using fine bubbles
to induce suspended particles to rise to the
surface of a tank where they can be collected
and removed. Gas bubbles are introduced into
the wastewater and attach themselves to the
particles, thereby reducing their specific gravity
and causing them to float. Fine bubbles may be
generated by dispersing air mechanically, by
drawing them from the water using a vacuum, or
by forcing air into solution under elevated
pressure followed by pressure release. The
latter, called dissolved air flotation (DAF), is the
flotation process used most frequently by CWT
facilities and is the focus of the remaining
discussion.
DAF is commonly used to remove
suspended solids and dispersed oil and grease
from oily wastewater. It may effectively reduce
the sedimentation times of suspended particles
that have a specific gravity close to that of water.
Such particles may include both solids with
specific gravity slightly greater than water and
oil/grease particles with specific gravity slightly
less than water. Flotation processes are
particularly useful for inducing the removal of
oil-wet solids that may exhibit a combined
specific gravity nearly the same as water. Oil-
wet solids are difficult to remove from
wastewater using gravity sedimentation alone,
even when extended sedimentation times are
utilized. Figure 8-7 is a flow diagram of a DAF
system.
The major components of a conventional
DAF unit include a centrifugal pump, a retention
tank, an air compressor, and a flotation tank.
For small volume systems, the entire influent
wastewater stream is pressurized and contacted
with air in a retention tank for several minutes to
allow time for the air to dissolve. The
pressurized water that is nearly saturated with air
is then passed through a pressure reducing valve
and introduced into the flotation tank near the
bottom. In larger units, rather than pressurizing
the entire wastewater stream, a portion of the
flotation cell effluent is recycled through the
pressurizing pump and the retention tank. The
recycled flow is then mixed with the
unpressurized main stream just prior to entering
the flotation tank.
As soon as the pressure is released, the
supersaturated air begins to come out of solution
in the form of fine bubbles. The bubbles attach
to suspended particles and become enmeshed in
sludge floes, floating them to the surface. The
float is continuously swept from the tank surface
and is discharged over the end wall of the tank.
Sludge, if generated, may be collected from the
bottom of the tank. The mechanics of the
bubble-particle interaction include: (1)
attachment of the bubbles on the particle surface,
(2) collision between a bubble and a particle, (3)
agglomeration of individual particles or a floe
structure as the bubbles rise, and (4) absorption
of the bubbles into a floe structure as it forms.
As such, surface chemistry plays a critical role in
the effective performance of air flotation.
8-13
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Float Removal Device
Float
Float
Flotation
Tank
\J
Wastewater
Influent
(Saturated
with Air)
Treated
Effluent
Baffle
Sludge (If Produced)
Figure 8-7. Dissolved Air Flotation System Diagram
8-14
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Other operating variables which affect the
performance of DAF include the operating
pressure, recycle ratio, detention time, the
air/solids ratio, solids and hydraulic loading rates,
and the application of chemical aids.
The operating pressure of the retention tank
influences the size of the bubbles released. If the
bubbles are too large, they do not attach readily
to the suspended particles. If the bubbles are too
fine, they will disperse and break up fragile floe.
Wastewater treatment textbooks generally
recommend a bubble size of 100 micrometers.
The most practical way to establish the proper
rise rate is to conduct experiments at various air
pressures.
The air-to-solids ratio in the DAF unit
determines the effluent quality and solids
concentration in the float. This is because
adequate air bubbles are needed to float
suspended solids to the surface of the tank.
Partial flotation of solids will occur if inadequate
or excessive amounts of air bubbles are present.
Researchers have demonstrated that the
addition of chemicals to the water stream is an
effective means of increasing the efficiencies of
DAF treatment systems. The use of coagulants
can drastically increase the oil removal efficiency
of DAF units. Three types of chemicals are
generally utilized to improve the efficiency of air
flotation units used for treatment of produced
water; these chemicals are surface active agents,
coagulating agents, and polyelectrolytes. The
use of treatment chemicals may also enhance the
removal of metals in air flotation units. EPA's
collection of data from the CWT industry has
shown that many facilities use DAF systems to
remove metals from their waste streams.
Industry Practice
Of the 116 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire and NOA comment data base that
provided information concerning use of DAF, 21
operate DAF systems.
Chromium Reduction 8.2.2.6
General Description
Reduction is a chemical reaction in which
electrons are transferred from one chemical to
another. The main reduction application at
CWT facilities is the reduction of hexavalent
chromium to trivalent chromium, which is
subsequently precipitated from the wastewater in
conjunction with other metallic salts. A low pH
of 2 to 3 will promote chromium reduction
reactions. At pH levels above 5, the reduction
rate is slow. Oxidizing agents such as dissolved
oxygen and ferric iron interfere with the
reduction process by consuming the reducing
agent.
The use of strong reducing agents such as
sulfur dioxide, sodium bisulfite, sodium
metabi sulfite, and ferrous sulfate also
promotesshexavalent chromium reduction. The
two most commonly used reducing agents in the
CWT industry are sodium metabisulfite or
sodium bisulfite and gaseous sulfur dioxide. The
remaining discussion will focus on chromium
reduction using these agents only. Figure 8-8 is
a diagram of a chromium reduction system.
Chromium reduction using sodium
metabisulfite (Na2S205) and sodium bisulfite
(NaHS03) are essentially similar. The
mechanism for the reaction using sodium
bisulfite as the reducing agent is:
3NaHS03 + 3H2S04 + 2H2Cr04
- Cr2(S04)3 + 3NaHS04 + 5H20
The hexavalent chromium is reduced to
trivalent chromium using sodium metabisulfite,
with sulfuric acid used to lower the pH of the
solution. The amount of sodium metabisulfite
needed to reduce the hexavalent chromium is
reported as 3 parts of sodium bisulfite per part of
chromium, while the amount of sulfuric acid is 1
part per part of chromium. The theoretical
retention time is about 30 to 60 minutes.
A second process uses sulfur dioxide (S02)
as the reducing agent. The reaction mechanism
is as follows:
8-15
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
3S02 + 3H20 - 3H2S03
3H2S03 + 2H2Cr04 - Cr2(S04)3 + 5H20
The hexavalent chromium is reduced to
trivalent chromium using sulfur dioxide, with
sulfuric acid used to lower the pH of the
solution. The amount of sulfur dioxide needed
to reduce the hexavalent chromium is reported as
1.9 parts of sulfur dioxide per part of chromium,
while the amount of sulfuric acid is 1 part per
part of chromium. At a pH of 3, the theoretical
retention time is approximately 30 to 45 minutes.
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning the use of chromium
reduction, 35 operate chromium reduction
systems. All of the 35 facilities are in the metals
subcategory. At these 35 facilities, there are four
sulfur dioxide processes, 21 sodium bisulfite
processes, and two sodium metabisulfite
processes. The remaining systems use various
other reducing agents.
Cyanide Destruction 8.2.2.7
General Description
Electroplating and metal finishing operations
produce the major portion of cyanide-bearing
wastes accepted at CWT facilities. EPA
observed three separate cyanide destruction
techniques during site visits at CWT facilities.
The first two methods are alkaline chlorination
with gaseous chlorine and alkaline chlorination
with sodium hypochlorite. The third method is
a cyanide destruction process, details of which
the generator has claimed are confidential
business information (CBI). The two alkaline
chlorination procedures are discussed here.
Alkaline chlorination can destroy free
dissolved hydrogen cyanide and can oxidize all
simple and some complex inorganic cyanides. It,
however, cannot effectively oxidize stable iron,
copper, and nickel cyanide complexes. The
addition of heat to the alkaline chlorination
process can facilitate the more complete
destruction of total cyanides. The use of an
extended retention time can also improve overall
cyanide destruction. Figure 8-9 is a diagram of
an alkaline chlorination system.
In alkaline chlorination using gaseous
chlorine, the oxidation process is accomplished
by direct addition of chlorine (Cl2) as the oxidizer
and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to maintain pH
levels. The reaction mechanism is as follows:
NaCN + Cl2 + 2NaOH
- NaCNO + 2NaCl + H20
2NaCNO + 3C12 + 6NaOH
- 2NaHC03 + N2 + 6NaCl + 2H20
The destruction of the cyanide takes place in
two stages. The primary reaction is the partial
oxidation of the cyanide to cyanate at a pH
above 9. In the second stage, the pH is lowered
to a range of 8 to 8.5 for the oxidation of the
cyanate to nitrogen and carbon dioxide (as
sodium bicarbonate). Each part of cyanide
requires 2.73 parts of chlorine to convert it to
cyanate and an additional 4.1 parts of chlorine to
oxidize the cyanate to nitrogen and carbon
dioxide. At least 1.125 parts of sodium
hydroxide are required to control the pH with
each stage.
Alkaline chlorination can also be conducted
with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) as the
oxidizer. The oxidation of cyanide waste using
sodium hypochlorite is similar to the gaseous
chlorine process. The reaction mechanism is:
NaCN + NaOCl - NaCNO + NaCl
2NaCNO + 3NaOCl + H20
- 2NaHC03 + N2 + 3NaCl
In the first step, cyanide is oxidized to
cyanate with the pH maintained in the range of 9
to 11. The second step oxidizes cyanate to
carbon dioxide (as sodium bicarbonate) and
nitrogen at a controlled pH of 8.5. The amount
of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide
needed to perform the oxidation is 7.5 parts and
8 parts per part of cyanide, respectively.
8-16
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Sulfuric
Acid
~
pH Controller
Wastewater
Influent
lit
Treatment
Chemical
7
X"
11 11 11 11 11
i 11 11 11 111
Reaction Tank
O
Chemical Controller
-~Treated
Effluent
Figure 8-8.
Chromium Reduction System Diagram
8-17
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Caustic Feed
Hypochlorite or Chlorine Feed
Wastewater ) 1
Influent —
Acid Feed
Lh_
Treated
Effluent
First Stage
w M
T "
Second Stage
Figure 8.9 Cyanide Destruction by Alkaline Chlorination
8-18
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning the use of cyanide
destruction, 22 operate cyanide destruction
systems. All of the 22 facilities are in the metals
subcategory. Of these 22 facilities, one is a
thermal unit, one is the CBI unit, and the rest are
chemical reagent systems.
Chemical Precipitation 8.2.2.8
General Description
Many CWT facilities use chemical
precipitation to remove metal compounds from
wastewater. Chemical precipitation converts
soluble metallic ions and certain anions to
insoluble forms, which precipitate from solution.
Chemical precipitation is usually performed in
conjunction with coagulation/flocculation
processes which facilitate the agglomeration of
suspended and colloidal material. Most metals
are relatively insoluble as hydroxides, sulfides, or
carbonates. Coagulation/flocculation processes
are used in conjunction with precipitation to
facilitate removal by agglomeration of suspended
and colloidal materials. The precipitated metals
are subsequently removed from the wastewater
stream by liquid filtration or clarification (or
some other form of gravity-assisted separation).
Other treatment processes such as equalization,
or chemical oxidation or reduction (e.g.,
hexavalent chromium reduction) usually precede
the chemical precipitation process. Chemical
interactions, temperature, pH, solubility of waste
contaminants, and mixing effects all affect the
performance of the chemical precipitation
process.
Chemical precipitation is a two-step process.
At CWT facilities, it is typically performed in
batch operations. In the first step, precipitants
are mixed with the wastewater, typically by
mechanical means, such as mixers, allowing the
formation of the insoluble metal precipitants.
The detention time in this step of the process is
specific to the wastewater being treated, the
treatment chemicals used, and the desired
effluent quality. In the second step, the
precipitated metals are removed from the
wastewater, typically through filtration or
clarification. If clarification is used, a flocculent
is sometimes added to aid the settling process.
The resulting sludge from the clarifier or filter
must be further treated, disposed, or recycled. A
typical chemical precipitation system is shown in
Figure 8-10.
Various chemicals may be used as
precipitants. These include lime, sodium
hydroxide (caustic), soda ash, sodium sulfide,
and ferrous sulfate. Other chemicals used in the
precipitation process for pH adjustment and/or
coagulation include sulfuric and phosphoric acid,
ferric chloride, and polyelectrolytes. Often,
facilities use a combination of these chemicals.
CWT facilities generally use hydroxide
precipitation and/or sulfide precipitation.
Hydroxide precipitation is effective in removing
metals such as antimony, arsenic, chromium,
copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc. Sulfide
precipitation is used instead of, or in addition to,
hydroxide precipitation to remove specific metal
ions including lead, copper, silver, cadmium,
zinc, mercury, nickel, thallium, arsenic,
antimony, and vanadium. Both hydroxide and
sulfide precipitation are discussed in greater detail
below.
8-19
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Treatment Chemical
Wastewater
Influent
I
Chemical Controller
->- Treated
Effluent
Chemical Precipitation Tank
Figure 8-10. Chemical Precipitation System Diagram
8-20
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Hydroxide precipitation using lime or caustic
is the most commonly-used means of chemical
precipitation at CWT facilities. Of these, lime is
used more often than caustic. The reaction
mechanism for each of these is as follows:
+ Ca(OH)2 - M(OH)2J + Ca
M + 2NaOH - M(OH)2J + 2Na
The chief advantage of lime over caustic is
its lower cost. However, lime is more difficult to
handle and feed, as it must be slaked, slurried,
and mixed, and can plug the feed system lines.
Lime also produces a larger volume of sludge
than caustic, and the sludge is generally not
suitable for reclamation due to its homogeneous
nature.
Sulfide precipitation is the next most
commonly-used means of chemical precipitation
at CWT facilities. It is used to remove lead,
copper, silver, cadmium, zinc, mercury, nickel,
thallium, arsenic, antimony, and vanadium from
wastewaters. An advantage of the sulfide
process over the hydroxide process is that it can
reduce hexavalent chromium to the trivalent state
under the same process conditions required for
metals precipitation. The use of sulfides also
allows for the precipitation of metals when
chelating agents are present. The two most
common sulfide precipitation processes are the
soluble sulfide process and the insoluble sulfide
(Sulfex) process.
In the soluble sulfide process, either sodium
sulfide or sodium hydrosulfide, both highly
soluble, is added in high concentration either as
a liquid reagent or from rapid mix tanks using
solid reagents. This high concentration of
soluble sulfides results in rapid precipitation of
metals which then results in the generation of
fine precipitate particles and hydrated colloidal
particles. These fine particles do not settle or
filter well without the addition of coagulating and
flocculating agents to aid in the formation of
larger, fast-settling floe. The high concentration
of soluble sulfides may also lead to the
generation of highly toxic and odorous hydrogen
sulfide gas. To control this problem, the
treatment facility must carefully control the
dosage and/or the process vessels must be
enclosed and vacuum evacuated. The reaction
mechanism for soluble sulfide precipitation is as
follows:
+S-" - MSI
The basic principle governing the insoluble
sulfide process is that ferrous sulfide (FeS) will
disassociate into ferrous and sulfide ions, as
predicted by its solubility, producing a sulfide
concentration of approximately 2 mg/1 under
normal conditions. In the insoluble sulfide
process, a slurry of freshly prepared FeS
(prepared by reactive FeS04 andNaHS) is added
to the wastewater. As the sulfide ions are
consumed in precipitating the metal pollutants,
additional FeS will disassociate. This will
continue as long as other heavy metals with
lower equilibrium constants are present in
solution. Because most heavy metals have
sulfides that are less soluble than ferrous sulfate,
they will precipitate as metal sulfides. In
addition, if given enough time, any metal
hydroxides present will dissolve and precipitate
out as sulfides. If the operation is performed
under alkaline conditions, the released ferrous
ion will precipitate out as a hydroxide. The
following reactions occur when FeS is added to
a solution that contains dissolved metal and metal
hydroxide:
FeS - Fe++ + S~~
M++ +S-" - MSI
M(OH)2- M++ + 2(OH)~
Fe++ + 2(OH)" - Fe(OH)2i
One advantage of the insoluble sulfide
process over the soluble sulfide process is that
8-21
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
the insoluble sulfide process generates no
detectable H2S gas odor. This is because the
dissolved sulfide concentration is maintained at a
relatively low concentration. Disadvantages of
the insoluble sulfide process include considerably
higher than stoichiometric reagent consumption
and significantly higher sludge generation than
either the hydroxide or soluble sulfide process.
Wastewater treatment facilities often choose
to combine hydroxide precipitation and sulfide
precipitation for optimal metals removal. A
common configuration is a two-stage process in
which hydroxide precipitation is followed by
sulfide precipitation with each stage followed by
a separate solids removal step. This will produce
the high quality effluent of the sulfide
precipitation process while significantly reducing
the volume of sludge generated and the
consumption of sulfide reagent.
In addition to the type of treatment chemical
chosen, another important operational variable in
chemical precipitation is pH. Metal hydroxides
are amphoteric, meaning they can react
chemically as acids or bases. As such, their
solubilities increase toward both lower and higher
pH levels. Therefore, there is an optimum pH
for hydroxide precipitation for each metal, which
corresponds to its point of minimum solubility.
Figure 8-11 presents calculated solubilities of
metal hydroxides. For example, as demonstrated
in this figure, the optimum pH range where zinc
is the least soluble is between 8 and 10. The
solubility of metal sulfides is not as sensitive to
changes in pH as hydroxides and generally
decreases as pH increases. The typical operating
pH range for sulfide precipitation is between 7
and 9. Arsenic and antimony are exceptions to
this rule and require a pH below 7 for optimum
removal. As such, another advantage of sulfide
precipitation over hydroxide precipitation is that
most metals can be removed to extremely low
concentrations at a single pH.
For wastewater contaminated with a single
metal, selecting the optimum treatment chemical
and treatment pH for precipitation simply
requires the identification of the treatment
chemical/pH combination that produces the
lowest solubility of that metal. This is typically
done using a series of bench-scale treatability
tests. However, when wastewater is
contaminated with more than one metal, as is
often the case for wastewaters at CWT facilities,
selecting the optimum treatment chemical and
pH for a single-stage precipitation process
becomes more difficult and often involves a
tradeoff between optimal removal of two or
more metals. In general, for wastewater
contaminated with multiple metals, EPA has
concluded that a single-stage precipitation
process does not provide for adequate treatment.
In such cases, a series of chemical treatment
steps using different pH values and/or different
treatment chemicals may be more appropriate.
Each of these treatment steps needs to be
followed by a solids separation step in order to
prevent the resolubilization of metal precipitates
during the subsequent treatment step.
8-22
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Pb(OH)2
Cr(OH)3
Zn(OH)2
Cu(OH)2
Cd(OH)2
Ni(OH)2
0.0001
Figure 8-11. Calculated Solubilities of Metal Hydroxides
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
In order to take advantage of the effects of
pH and treatment chemical selection on metals
precipitation, a facility may hold its wastes and
segregate them by pollutant content for
treatment. This type of waste treatment
management, called selective metals
precipitation, may be adopted in order to
optimize the recovery of specific metal
pollutants. In instances where the segregated
wastes contain several metals, the pH of the
precipitation process may be adjusted so that the
desired metal for recovery is precipitated in
greater proportion than the other metals.
Multiple precipitation steps are then performed in
series on a single waste stream using different pH
values, resulting in different metals being
selectively precipitated into separate sludges.
The production of specific sludges containing
only the target metals makes the sludges more
suitable for reclamation. If the sludge is to be
sold to a smelter for re-use, then hydroxide
precipitation using only caustic should be
performed. The calcium compounds from lime
would interfere with the smelting process.
Selective precipitation is advantageous
because the metals may be reclaimed and re-
used rather than disposed as a sludge in a landfill
and because it allows for optimal removal of the
metals of concern. However, selective metals
precipitation does have additional costs such as
those associated with the extra tanks and
operating personnel required for waste
segregation.
Industry Practice
Of the 116 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire and NOA comment data base that
provided information concerning the use of
chemical precipitation, 57 operate chemical
precipitation systems. Fifty-one of these
facilities treat metals subcategory wastewaters.
As discussed previously, a single facility may use
several chemical precipitation steps, depending
upon the type of waste being treated. Of the 51
chemical precipitation systems at metals
subcategory facilities, 13 operate secondary
precipitation processes, four operate tertiary
precipitation processes, and one employs
selective chemical precipitation processes.
Filtration 8.2.2.9
Filtration is a method for separating solid
particles from a fluid through the use of a porous
medium. The driving force in filtration is a
pressure gradient caused by gravity, centrifugal
force, pressure, or a vacuum. CWT facilities use
filtration treatment processes to remove solids
from wastewaters after physical/chemical or
biological treatment, or as the primary source of
waste treatment. Filtration processes utilized in
the CWT industry include a broad range of
media and membrane separation technologies.
T o aid in removal, the filter medium may be
precoated with a filtration aid such as ground
cellulose or diatomaceous earth. Polymers are
sometimes injected into the filter feed piping
downstream of feed pumps to enhance
flocculation of smaller floes to improve solids
capture. The following sections discuss the
various types of filtration in use at CWT
facilities.
1. Sand Filtration
General Description
Sand filtration processes consist of either a
fixed or moving bed of media that traps and
removes suspended solids from water passing
through the media. There are two types of fixed
sand bed filters: pressure and gravity. Pressure
filters contain media in an enclosed, watertight
pressure vessel and require a feed pump to force
the water through the media. A gravity filter
operates on the basis of differential pressure of a
static head of water above the media, which
causes flow through the filter. Filter loading rates
for sand filters are typically between 2 to 6
gpm/sq-ft.
8-24
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Fixed media filters have influent and effluent
distribution systems consisting of pipes and
fittings. A stainless steel screen covered with
gravel generally serves as the tank bottom and
support for the sand. Dirty water enters the top
of the filter and travels downward.
Moving bed filters use an air lift pump and
draft tube to recirculate sand from the bottom to
the top of the filter vessel, which is usually open
at the top. Dirty water entering the filter at the
bottom must travel upward, countercurrently,
through the downward moving fluidized sand
bed. Particles are strained from the rising water
and carried downward with the sand. Due to the
difference in specific gravity, the lighter particles
are removed from the filter when the sand is
recycled through a separation box often located
at the top of the filter. The heavier sand falls
back into the filter, while the lighter particles are
washed over a weir to waste.
Both fixed media and moving bed filters
build up head loss over time. Head loss is a
measure of solids trapped in the filter. As the
filter becomes filled with trapped solids, the
efficiency of the filtration process falls off, and
the filter must be backwashed. Reversing the
flow will backwash filters so that the solids in the
media are dislodged and may exit the filter.
Sometimes air is dispersed into the sand bed to
scour the media.
Fixed bed filters may be automatically
backwashed when the differential pressure
exceeds a preset limit or when a timer starts the
backwash cycle. A supply of clean backwash
water is required. Backwash water and trapped
particles are commonly discharged to an
equalization tank upstream of the wastewater
treatment system's gravity separation system or
screen for removal. Moving bed filters are
continuously backwashed and have a constant
rate of effluent flow.
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning use of sand filtration,
eight operate sand filtration systems.
2. Multimedia Filtration
General Description
CWT facilities may use multimedia, or
granular bed, filtration to achieve supplemental
removal of residual suspended solids from the
effluent of chemical and biological treatment
processes. In granular bed filtration, the
wastewater stream is sent through a bed
containing two or more layers of different
granular materials. The solids are retained in the
voids between the media particles while the
wastewater passes through the bed. Typical
media used in granular bed filters include
anthracite coal, sand, and garnet.
A multimedia filter is designed so that the
finer, denser media is at the bottom and the
coarser, less dense media at the top. A common
arrangement is garnet at the bottom of the bed,
sand in the middle, and anthracite coal at the top.
Some mixing of these layers occurs and is
anticipated. During filtration, the removal of the
suspended solids is accomplished by a complex
process involving one or more mechanisms such
as straining, sedimentation, interception,
impaction, and adsorption. The medium size is
the principal characteristic that affects the
filtration operation. If the medium is too small,
much of the driving force will be wasted in
overcoming the frictional resistance of the filter
bed. If the medium is too large, small particles
will travel through the bed, preventing optimum
filtration.
By designing the filter bed so that pore size
decreases from the influent to the effluent side of
the bed, different size particles are filtered out at
different depths (larger particles first) of the filter
bed. This helps prevent the build up of a single
8-25
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
layer of solids at the bed surface which can
quickly increase the pressure drop over the bed
resulting in shorter filter runs and more frequent
backwash cycles. Thus, the advantage of
multimedia filtration over sand filtration is longer
filter runs and less frequent backwash cycles.
The flow pattern of multimedia filters is
usually top-to-bottom. Upflow filters, horizontal
filters, and biflow filters are also used. Figure 8-
12 is a top-to-bottom multimedia filter. The
classic multimedia filter operates by gravity.
However, pressure filters are occasionally used.
The complete filtration process involves two
phases: filtration and backwashing. As the filter
becomes filled with trapped solids, the efficiency
of the filtration process falls off. Head loss is a
measure of solids trapped in the filter. As the
head loss across the filter bed increases to a
limiting value, the end of the filter run is reached
and the filter must be backwashed to remove the
suspended solids in the bed. During
backwashing, the flow through the filter is
reversed so that the solids trapped in the media
are dislodged and can exit the filter. The bed
may also be agitated with air to aid in solids
removal. Backwash water and trapped particles
are commonly discharged to an equalization tank
upstream of the wastewater treatment system's
gravity separation system or screen for removal.
An important feature in filtration and
backwashing is the underdrain. The underdrain
is the support structure for the filtration bed.
The underdrain provides an area for the
accumulation of the filtered water without it
being clogged from the filtered solids or the
media particles. During backwash, the
underdrain provides even flow distribution over
the bed. This is important because the backwash
flowrate is set so that the filter bed expands but
the media is not carried out with the backwashed
solids. The media with different densities then
settle back down in somewhat discrete layers at
the end of the backwash step.
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning use of multimedia
filtration, four operate multimedia filtration
systems.
3. Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration
General Description
Another filtration system for the removal of
solids from waste streams is a plate and frame
pressure filtration systems. Although plate and
frame filter presses are more commonly used for
dewatering sludges, they are also used to remove
solids directly from wastewater streams. The
liquid stream plate and frame pressure filtration
system is identical to the system used for the
sludge stream (section 8.4.1) with the exception
of a lower solids level in the influent stream.
The same equipment is used for both
applications, with the difference being the sizing
of the sludge and liquid units. See section 8.4.1
for a detailed description of plate and frame
pressure filtration. No CWT facilities in EPA's
database use plate and frame filtration.
8-26
-------
Qiagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^3clmologies^^^^^^Deve/oŁw^^o««weH^b^/!^l^^o/H^oHr^^ategorv
Finer Media
Finest Media
Support
Wastewater Influent
Underdrain Chamber-
Backwash
i
Backwash
Treated Effluent
Figure 8-12. Multi-Media Filtration System Diagram
8-27
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
4. Membrane Filtration
General Description
Membrane filtration systems are processes
which employ semi-permeable membranes and
a pressure differential to remove solids in
wastestreams. Reverse osmosis and
ultrafiltration are two commonly-used membrane
filtration processes.
a. Ultrafiltration
General Description
CWT facilities commonly use ultrafiltration
(UF) for the treatment of metal-finishing
wastewater and oily wastes. It can remove
substances with molecular weights greater than
500, including suspended solids, oil and grease,
large organic molecules, and complexed heavy
metals. UF can be used when the solute
molecules are greater than ten times the size of
the solvent molecules, and are less than one-half
micron. In the CWT industry, UF is applied in
the treatment of oil/water emulsions. Oil/water
emulsions contain both soluble and insoluble oil.
Typically the insoluble oil is removed from the
emulsion by gravity separation assisted by
emulsion breaking. The soluble oil is then
removed by UF. Oily wastewater containing 0.1
to 10 percent oil can be effectively treated by
UF. Figure 8-13 shows a UF system.
In UF, a semi-permeable microporous
membrane performs the separation. Wastewater
is sent through membrane modules under
pressure. Water and low-molecular -weight
solutes (for example, salts and some surfactants)
pass through the membrane and are removed as
permeate. Emulsified oil and suspended solids
are rejected by the membrane and are removed
as concentrate. The concentrate is recirculated
through the membrane unit until the flow of
permeate drops. The permeate may either be
discharged or passed along to another treatment
unit. The concentrate is contained and held for
further treatment or disposal. An important
advantage of UF over reverse osmosis is that the
concentrate may be treated to remove the
concentrated solids and the separated water may
then be retreated through the UF system.
The primary design consideration in UF is
the membrane selection. A membrane pore size
is chosen based on the size of the contaminant
particles targeted for removal. Other design
parameters to be considered are the solids
concentration, viscosity, and temperature of the
feed stream, pressure differential, and the
membrane permeability and thickness. The rate
at which a membrane fouls is also an important
design consideration.
Industry Practice
Of the 116 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire and NOA comment data base that
provided information concerning use of
ultrafiltration, six operate ultrafiltration systems.
b. Reverse Osmosis
General Description
Reverse osmosis (RO) is a process for
separating dissolved solids from water. CWT
facilities commonly use RO in treating oily or
metal-bearing wastewater. RO is applicable
when the solute molecules are approximately the
same size as the solvent molecules. A
semi-permeable, microporous membrane and
pressure are used to perform the separation. RO
systems are typically used as polishing processes,
prior to final discharge of the treated wastewater.
Reverse osmosis systems have been
demonstrated to be effective in removing
dissolved metals.
8-28
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Permeate (Treated Effluent)
A A
Wastewater
Feed
Concentrate
Membrane Cross-section
Figure 8-13. Ultrafiltration System Diagram
8-29
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Osmosis is the diffusion of a solvent (such as
water) across a semi-permeable membrane from
a less concentrated solution into a more
concentrated solution. In the reverse osmosis
process, pressure greater than the normal
osmotic pressure is applied to the more
concentrated solution (the waste stream being
treated), forcing the purified water through the
membrane and into the less concentrated stream
which is called the permeate. The low-
molecular-weight solutes (for example, salts and
some surfactants) do not pass through the
membrane. They are referred to as concentrate.
The concentrate is recirculated through the
membrane unit until the flow of permeate drops.
The permeate can either be discharged or passed
along to another treatment unit. The concentrate
is contained and held for further treatment or
disposal. Figure 8-14 shows an RO system.
The performance of an RO system is
dependent upon the dissolved solids
concentration and temperature of the feed
stream, the applied pressure, and the type of
membrane selected. The key RO membrane
properties to be considered are: selectivity for
water over ions, permeation rate, and durability.
RO modules are available in various membrane
configurations, such as spiral-wound, tubular,
hollow-fiber, and plate and frame. In addition to
the membrane modules, other capital items
needed for an RO installation include pumps,
piping, instrumentation, and storage tanks. The
major operating cost is attributed to membrane
replacement. A major consideration for RO
systems is the disposal of the concentrate due to
its elevated concentrations of salts, metals, and
other dissolved solids.
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning use of reverse osmosis,
two operate reverse osmosis systems.
5. Lancy Filtration
General Description
The Lancy Sorption Filter System is a
patented method for the continuous recovery of
heavy metals. The Lancy sorption filtration
process may reduce metals not removed by
conventional waste treatment technologies to low
concentrations.
In the first stage of the Lancy filtration
process, a soluble sulfide is added to the
wastewater in a reaction tank, converting most of
the heavy metals to sulfides. From the sulfide
reaction tank, the solution is passed through the
sorption filter media. Precipitated metal sulfides
and other suspended solids are filtered out. Any
remaining soluble metals are absorbed by the
media. Excess soluble sulfides are also removed
from the waste stream.
The Lancy filtration process reportedly
reduces zinc, silver, copper, lead, and cadmium
to less than 0.05 mg/1 and mercury to less than 2
, ig/l. In addition to the effective removal of
heavy metals, the system has a high solids
filtration capacity and a fully automatic,
continuous operation. The system continuously
recycles and reuses the same filter media thereby
saving on operating costs. The system may be
installed with a choice of media discharge - slurry
or solid cake. Figure 8-15 illustrates the Lancy
Sorption Filtration System.
8-30
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Wastewater
Feed
Permeate (Treated Effluent)
AAA
Concentrate
Membrane Cross-section
Figure 8-14. Reverse Osmosis System Diagram
8-31
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
t*]
m
Recych
Sorption
Recycle
Figure 8-15. Lancy Filtration System Diagram
8-32
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning use of filtration systems,
only one operates the Lancy Sorption Filtration
System. This unit is used for polishing effluent
from a treatment sequence including chemical
precipitation, clarification, and sand filtration.
EPA obtained performance data for this system
during a sampling episode at one of the metals
subcategory facilities. The performance data
showed that some metals were reduced to the
target levels while the concentration of some
pollutants increased. This may not represent
optimal performance of the system, however,
because the facility reported that they were
experiencing operational problems throughout the
sampling episode.
Carbon Adsorption 8.2.2.10
General Description
Activated carbon adsorption is a
demonstrated wastewater treatment technology
that uses activated carbon to remove dissolved
organic pollutants from wastewater. The
activated carbon is made from many
carbonaceous sources including coal, coke, peat,
wood, and coconut shells. The carbon source
material is "activated" by treating it with an
oxidizing gas to form a highly porous structure
with a large internal surface area. CWT facilities
generally use granular forms of activated carbon
(GAC) in fixed bed columns to treat wastewater.
However, some use powdered activated carbon
(PAC) alone or in conjunction with biological
treatment. Figure 8-16 presents a diagram of a
fixed-bed GAC collumn.
In a fixed bed system, the wastewater enters
the top of the unit and is allowed to flow
downward through a bed of granular activated
carbon. As the wastewater comes into contact
with the activated carbon, the dissolved organic
compounds adsorb onto the surface of the
activated carbon. In the upper area of the bed,
the pollutants are rapidly adsorbed. As more
wastewater passes through the bed, this rapid
adsorption zone moves downward until it
reaches the bottom of the bed. At this point, all
of the available adsorption sites are filled and the
carbon is said to be exhausted. This condition
can be detected by an increase in the effluent
pollutant concentration, and is called
breakthrough.
GAC systems are usually comprised of
several beds operated in series. This design
allows the first bed to go to exhaustion, while the
other beds still have the capacity to treat to an
acceptable effluent quality. The carbon in the
first bed is replaced, and the second bed then
becomes the lead bed. The GAC system piping
is designed to allow switching of bed order.
After the carbon is exhausted, it can be
removed and regenerated. Usually heat or steam
is used to reverse the adsorption process. The
light organic compounds are volatilized and the
heavy organic compounds are pyrolyzed. Spent
carbon may also be regenerated by contacting it
with a solvent which dissolves the adsorbed
pollutants. Depending on system size and
economics, some facilities may choose to dispose
of the spent carbon instead of regenerating it.
For very large applications, an on-site
regeneration facility is more economical. For
smaller applications, such as in the CWT
industry, it is generally cost-effective to use a
vendor service to deliver regenerated carbon and
remove the spent carbon. These vendors
transport the spent carbon to their centralized
facilities for regeneration.
8-33
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Wastewater
Influent
Fresh
Carbon
Fill
Backwash
Collector/
Distributor
Spent
Carbon
Discharge
Oranuiar
Activated
Carbon
Backwash
treated
Effluent
Figure 8-16. Carbon Adsorption System Diagram
8-34
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
The carbon adsorption mechanism is
complicated and, although the attraction is
primarily physical, is a combination of physical,
chemical, and electrostatic interactions between
the activated carbon and the organic compound.
The key design parameter for activated carbon is
the adsorption capacity of the carbon. The
adsorption capacity is a measure of the mass of
contaminant adsorbed per unit mass of activated
carbon and is a function of the compound being
adsorbed, the type of carbon used, and the
process design and operating conditions. In
general, the adsorption capacity is inversely
proportional to the adsorbate solubility.
Nonpolar, high molecular weight organics with
low solubility are readily adsorbed. Polar, low
molecular weight organics with high solubilities
are more poorly adsorbed.
Competitive adsorption between compounds
has an effect on adsorption. The carbon may
preferentially adsorb one compound over
another. This competition could result in an
adsorbed compound being desorbed from the
carbon. This is most pronounced when carbon
adsorption is used to treat wastewater with highly
variable pollutant character and concentration.
Industry Practice
Of the 116 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire and NOA comment data base that
provided information concerning use of carbon
adsorption, 17 operate carbon adsorption
systems.
Ion Exchange 8.2.2.11
General Description
A common process employed to remove
heavy metals from relatively low-concentration
waste streams, such as electroplating wastewater,
is ion exchange. A key advantage of the ion
exchange process is that the metal contaminants
can be recovered and reused. Another
advantage is that ion exchange may be designed
to remove certain metals only, providing
effective removal of these metals from highly-
contaminated wastewater. A disadvantage is that
the resins may be fouled by some organic
substances.
In an ion exchange system, the wastewater
stream is passed through a bed of resin. The
resin contains bound groups of ionic charge on
its surface, which are exchanged for ions of the
same charge in the wastewater. Resins are
classified by type, either cationic or anionic. The
selection is dependent upon the wastewater
contaminant to be removed. A commonly-used
resin is polystyrene copolymerized with
divinylbenzene.
The ion exchange process involves four
steps: treatment, backwash, regeneration, and
rinse. During the treatment step, wastewater is
passed through the resin bed and ions are
exchanged until pollutant breakthrough occurs.
The resin is then backwashed to reclassify the
bed and to remove suspended solids. During the
regeneration step, the resin is contacted with
either an acidic or alkaline solution containing
high concentrations of the ion originally present
in the resin. This "reverses" the ion exchange
process and removes the metal ions from the
resin. The bed is then rinsed to remove residual
regenerating solution. The resulting
contaminated regenerating solution must be
further processed for reuse or disposal.
Depending upon system size and economics,
some facilities choose to remove the spent resin
and replace it with resin regenerated off-site
instead of regenerating the resin in-place.
Ion exchange equipment ranges from simple,
inexpensive systems such as domestic water
softeners, to large, continuous industrial
applications. The most commonly-encountered
industrial setup is a fixed-bed resin in a vertical
column, where the resin is regenerated in-place.
Figure 8-17 is a diagram of this type of system.
These systems may be designed so that the
regenerant flow is concurrent or countercurrent
8-35
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
to the treatment flow. A countercurrent design,
although more complex to operate, provides a
higher treatment efficiency. The beds may
contain a single type of resin for selective
treatment, or the beds may be mixed to provide
for more complete deionization of the waste
stream. Often, individual beds containing
different resins are arranged in series, which
makes regeneration easier than in the mixed bed
system.
Industry Practice
EPA is aware of only one CWT facility
using ion exchange.
Electrolytic Recovery 8.2.2.12
General Description
Another process for reclaiming metals from
wastewater is electrolytic recovery. It is a
common technology in the electroplating, mining,
and electronic industries. It is used for the
recovery of copper, zinc, silver, cadmium, gold,
and other heavy metals. Nickel is poorly
recovered due to its low standard potential.
The electrolytic recovery process uses an
oxidation and reduction reaction. Conductive
electrodes (anodes and cathodes) are immersed
in the metal-bearing wastewater, with an electric
potential applied to them. At the cathode, a
metal ion is reduced to its elemental form
(electron-consuming reaction). At the same
time, gases such as oxygen, hydrogen, or
nitrogen form at the anode (electron-producing
reaction). After the metal coating on the cathode
reaches a desired thickness, it may be removed
and recovered. The metal-stripped cathode can
then be used as the anode.
The equipment consists of an
electrochemical reactor with electrodes, a gas-
venting system, recirculation pumps, and a
power supply. Figure 8-18 ia a diagram of an
electrolytic recovery system. Electrochemical
reactors are typically designed to produce high
flow rates to increase the process efficiency.
A conventional electrolytic recovery system
is effective for the recovery of metals from
relatively high-concentration wastewater. A
specialized adaptation of electrolytic recovery,
called extended surface electrolysis, or ESE,
operates effectively at lower concentration levels.
The ESE system uses a spiral cell containing a
flow-through cathode which has a very open
structure and therefore a lower resistance to fluid
flow. This also provides a larger electrode
surface. ESE systems are often used for the
recovery of copper, lead, mercury, silver, and
gold.
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning use of electrolytic
recovery, three operate electrolytic recovery
systems.
8-36
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Wastewater
Influent
Regenerant
Solution
Resin
Distributor
Support
Used
Regenerant
*
Treated
Effluent
Figure 8-17. Ion Exchange System Diagram
8-37
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
+ 2a-->4ll
2{0H")^H 02+ 1/20
t
H,
t
—
i
1
+
1
—
i
i
+
-<—\^**
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
a
i
i
4
71
1
1
i
A
o
1
-a
1
o
i
TJ
A
S
1
1
1
o
c
<
1
1
1
&
0
i
i
i
c
<
2(0H->>
1
<-2(pH")
1
2(0H")—>
1
2(pH")
Deposited
Metal
Porous Insulating Separator
Figure 8-18. Electrolytic Recovery System Diagram
8-38
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Stripping 8.2.2.13
Stripping is a method for removing dissolved
volatile organic compounds from wastewater.
The removal is accomplished by passing air or
steam through the agitated waste stream. The
primary difference between air stripping and
steam stripping is that steam stripping is operated
at higher temperatures and the resultant off-gas
stream is usually condensed and recovered or
incinerated. The off-gas from air stripping
contains non-condenseable air which must be
either passed through an adsorption unit or
incinerated in order to prevent transfer of the
volatile pollutants to the environment. EPA is
not aware of any applications of steam stripping
technologies in the CWT industry.
1. Air Stripping
General Description
Air stripping is effective in removing
dissolved volatile organic compounds from
wastewater. The removal is accomplished by
passing high volumes of air through the agitated
wastewater stream. The process results in a
contaminated off-gas stream which, depending
upon air emissions standards, usually requires air
pollution control equipment. Stripping can
be performed in tanks or in spray or packed
towers. Treatment in packed towers is the most
efficient application. The packing typically
consists of plastic rings or saddles. The two
types of towers that are commonly used, cross-
flow and countercurrent, differ in design only in
the location of the air inlets. In the cross-flow
tower, the air is drawn through the sides for the
total height of the packing. The countercurrent
tower draws the entire air flow from the bottom.
Cross-flow towers have been found to be more
susceptible to scaling problems and are less
efficient than countercurrent towers. Figure 8-19
is a countercurrent air stripper.
The driving force of the air stripping mass-
transfer operation is the difference in
concentrations between the air and water
streams. Pollutants are transferred from the
more concentrated wastewater stream to the less
concentrated air stream until equilibrium is
reached. This equilibrium relationship is known
as Henry's Law. The strippability of a pollutant
is expressed as its Henry's Law Constant, which
is a function of both its volatility or vapor
pressure and solubility.
Air strippers are designed according to the
strippability of the pollutants to be removed. For
evaluation purposes, organic pollutants can be
divided into three general strippability ranges
(low, medium, and high) according to their
Henry's Law Constants. The low strippability
group (Henry's Law Constants of 10"4 [mg/m3
air]/[mg/m3 water] and lower) are not effectively
removed. Pollutants in the medium (10_1 to 10"4)
and high (10"1 and greater) groups are effectively
stripped. Pollutants with lower Henry's law
constants require greater column height, more
trays or packing material, greater temperature,
and more frequent cleaning than pollutants with
a higher strippability.
The air stripping process is adversely
affected by low temperatures. Air strippers
experience lower efficiencies at lower
temperatures, with the possibility of freezing
within the tower. For this reason, depending on
the location of the tower, it may be necessary to
preheat the wastewater and the air feed streams.
The column and packing materials must be
cleaned regularly to ensure that low effluent
levels are attained.
8-39
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Off-gas
Wastewater
Influent
Packing
Air
Support
Blower
Figure 8-19. Air Stripping System Diagram
8-40
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Air stripping has proved to be an effective
process in the removal of volatile pollutants from
wastewater. It is generally limited to influent
concentrations of less than 100 mg/1 organics.
Well-designed and operated systems can achieve
over 99 percent removals.
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning use of air stripping, 11
operate air stripping systems.
Liquid Carbon Dioxide Extraction 8.2.2.14
General Description
Liquid carbon dioxide (C02) extraction is a
process used to extract and recover organic
contaminants from aqueous waste streams. A
licensed, commercial application of this
technology is utilized in the CWT industry under
the name "Clean Extraction System" (CES).
The process may be effective in the removal of
organic substances such as hydrocarbons,
aldehydes and ketones, nitriles, halogenated
compounds, phenols, esters, and heterocyclics.
It is not effective in the removal of some
compounds which are very water-soluble, such
as ethylene glycol, and low molecular weight
alcohols. It may provide an alternative in the
treatment of waste streams which historically
have been incinerated.
In liquid carbon dioxide extraction, the waste
stream is fed into the top of a pressurized
extraction tower containing perforated plates,
where it is contacted with a countercurrent
stream of liquefied C02. The organic
contaminants in the waste stream are dissolved in
the C02; this extract is then sent to a separator,
where the C02 is redistilled. The distilled C02
vapor is compressed and reused. The
concentrated organics bottoms from the
separator can then be disposed or recovered.
The treated wastewater stream which exits the
extractor (raffmate) is pressure-reduced and may
be further treated for residual organics removal
if necessary to meet discharge standards. Figure
8-20 is a diagram of the CES is presented in.
Industry Practice
EPA is aware of only one facility using this
technology in the CWT industry. Pilot-scale
information submitted to EPA by the CWT
facility showed effective removal for a variety of
organic compounds. EPA sampled this
commercial CWT CES unit during this
rulemaking effort. Performance was not
optimal, however, as the facility reported
operational problems with the unit throughout the
sampling episode.
Biological Treatment 8.2.3
A portion of the CWT industry accepts
waste receipts that contain organic pollutants,
which are often amenable to biological
degradation. This subset of CWT facilities is
referred to as the organics subcategory. In
addition, a portion of the facilities in the oils
subcategory also use biological treatment to treat
wastewater separated from oily wastes.
Biological treatment systems use microbes
which consume, and thereby destroy, organic
compounds as a food source. The microbes use
the organic compounds as both a source of
carbon and as a source of energy. These
microbes may also need supplemental nutrients
for growth, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, if
the waste stream is deficient in these nutrients.
Aerobic microbes require oxygen to grow,
whereas anaerobic microbes will grow only in the
absence of oxygen. Facultative microbes are an
adaptive type of microbe that can grow with or
without oxygen.
8-41
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Extract
Vapor C02
Feed
Separator
Makeup
COj
Extractor
6
Compressor
I
Liquid CO,
"sT
I
Water
Organlcs
Figure 8-20. Liquid C02 Extraction System Diagram
8-42
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
The success of biological treatment is
dependent on many factors, such as the pH and
temperature of the wastewater, the nature of the
pollutants, the nutrient requirements of the
microbes, the presence of inhibiting pollutants,
and variations in the feed stream loading.
Certain compounds, such as heavy metals, may
be toxic to the microorganisms and must be
removed from the waste stream prior to
biological treatment. Load variations are a major
concern, especially in the CWT industry, where
waste receipts vary over time in both
concentration and volume.
There are several adaptations of biological
treatment. These adaptations differ in three
basic ways. First, a system may be aerobic,
anaerobic, or facultative. Second, the
microorganisms may either be attached to a
surface (as in a trickling filter), or be unattached
in a liquid suspension (as in an activated sludge
system). Third, the operation may be either
batch or continuous.
Of the 116 facilities in the WTI
Questionnaire and NOA comment data base that
responded to EPA's inquiry concerning the use
of biological treatment, 17 operate biological
treatment systems. There were no anaerobic
systems reported. Theses systems include
sequencing batch reactors, attached growth
systems (biotowers and trickling filters) and
activated sludge systems. With the exception of
trickling filters, EPA sampled at least one
application of each of the following biological
treatment technologies during the development of
these effluent guidelines.
Sequencing Batch Reactors 8.2.3.1
General Description
A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a
suspended growth system in which wastewater is
mixed with existing biological floe in an aeration
basin. SBRs are unique in that a single tank acts
as an equalization tank, an aeration tank, and a
clarifier. An SBR is operated on a batch basis
where the wastewater is mixed and aerated with
the biological floe for a specific period of time.
The contents of the basin are allowed to settle
and the supernatant is decanted. The batch
operation of an SBR makes it a useful biological
treatment option for the CWT industry, where
the wastewater volumes and characteristics are
often highly variable. Each batch can be treated
differently depending on waste characteristics.
Figure 8-21 shows an SBR.
The SBR has a four cycle process: fill,
react, settle, and decant. The fill cycle has two
phases. The first phase, called static fill,
introduces the wastewater to the system under
static conditions. This is an anaerobic period and
may enhance biological phosphorus uptake.
During the second phase of the fill cycle
wastewater is mechanically mixed to eliminate
the scum layer and prepare the microorganisms
to receive oxygen. In the second cycle, the react
cycle, aeration is performed. The react cycle is
a time-dependent process where wastewater is
continually mixed and aerated, allowing the
biological degradation process to occur. The
third cycle, called the settling cycle, provides
quiescent conditions throughout the tank and
may accommodate low settling rates by
increasing the settling time. During the last or
decant cycle, the treated wastewater is decanted
by subsurface withdrawal from below the scum
layer. This treated, clarified effluent may then
be further treated or discharged.
8-43
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
React
Settle
Decant
Figure 8-21. Sequencing Batch Reactor System Diagram
8-44
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
When the quantity of biomass in the SBR
exceeds that needed for operation, the excess
biomass is removed. The sludge that is removed
from the SBR may be reduced in volume by
thickening and dewatering using any of the
sludge treatment processes discussed in section
8.2.4. The dewatered sludge may be disposed in
a landfill or used as an agricultural fertilizer.
An SBR carries out all of the functions of a
conventional continuous flow activated sludge
process, such as equalization, biological
treatment, and sedimentation, in a time sequence
rather than a space sequence. Detention times
and loadings vary with each batch and are highly
dependent on the specific raw wastewater
loadings. Typically, an SBR operates with a
hydraulic detention time of 1 to 10 days and a
sludge retention time of 10 to 30 days. The
mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)
concentration is maintained at 3,500 to 10,000
mg/1. The overall control of the system may be
accomplished automatically by using level
sensors or timing devices. By using a single tank
to perform all of the required functions
associated with biological treatment, an SBR
reduces land requirements. It also provides for
greater operation flexibility for treating wastes
with viable characteristics by allowing the
capability to vary detention time and mode of
aeration in each stage. SBRs also may be used
to achieve complete nitrification/denitrification
and phosphorus removal.
Industry Practice
EPA is aware of only one CWT facility that
uses an SBR. This facility is in the organics
subcategory, and its SBR unit was sampled
during the development of these effluent
guidelines.
Attached Growth Biological
Treatment Systems 8.2.3.2
Another system used to biodegrade the
organic components of a wastewater is the
attached growth biological treatment system. In
these systems, the biomass adheres to the
surfaces of rigid supporting media. As
wastewater contacts the supporting medium, a
thin-film biological slime develops and coats the
surfaces. As this film (consisting primarily of
bacteria, protozoa, and fungi) grows, the slime
periodically breaks off the medium and is
replaced by new growth. This phenomenon of
losing the slime layer is called sloughing and is
primarily a function of organic and hydraulic
loadings on the system. The effluent from the
system is usually discharged to a clarifier to settle
and remove the agglomerated solids.
Attached growth biological systems are
appropriate for treating industrial wastewaters
amenable to aerobic biological treatment. When
used in conjunction with suitable pre- and post-
treatment processes, attached growth biological
systems remove suspended and colloidal
materials effectively. The two major types of
attached growth systems used at CWT facilities
are trickling filters and biotowers. This section
describes these processes.
1. Trickling Filters
General Description
Trickling filtration is an aerobic fixed-film
biological treatment process that consists of a
structure, packed with inert medium such as
rock, wood, or plastic. The wastewater is
distributed over the upper surface of the medium
by either a fixed spray nozzle system or a
rotating distribution system. The inert medium
develops a biological slime that absorbs and
biodegrades organic pollutants. Air flows
through the filter by convection, thereby
providing the oxygen needed to maintain aerobic
conditions. Figure 8-22 is a flow diagram of a
trickling filter.
8-45
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Filter Material
Distributer
Trickling
Wastewater
Filter Material
Underdrain
Figure 8-22. Trickling Filter System Diagram
8-46
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Trickling filters are classified as low-rate or
high-rate, depending on the organic loading.
Typical design organic loading values range from
5 to 25 pounds and 25 to 45 pounds BOD5 per
1,000 cubic feet per day for low-rate and high-
rate, respectively. A low-rate filter generally has
a media bed depth of 1.5 to 3 meters and does
not use recirculation. A high-rate filter may have
a bed depth from 1 to 9 meters and recirculates
a portion of the effluent for further treatment.
Industry Practice
EPA is aware of only one CWT facility that
uses a trickling filter. This facility is in the oils
subcategory.
2. Biotowers
General Description
A variation of a trickling filtration process is
the aerobic biotower. Biotowers may be
operated in a continuous or semi-continuous
manner and may be operated in an upflow or
downflow manner. In the downflow mode,
influent is pumped to the top of a tower, where
it flows by gravity through the tower. The tower
is packed with plastic or redwood media
containing the attached microbial growth.
Biological degradation occurs as the wastewater
passes over the media. Treated wastewater
collects in the bottom of the tower. If needed,
additional oxygen is provided via air blowers
countercurrent to the wastewater flow. In the
upflow mode, the wastewater stream is fed into
the bottom of the biotower and is passed up
through the packing along with diffused air
supplied by air blowers. The treated effluent
exits from the top of the biotower.
Variations of this treatment process involve
the inoculation of the raw influent with bacteria
and the addition of nutrients. Wastewater
collected in the biotowers is delivered to a
clarifier to separate the biological solids from the
treated effluent. A diagram of a biotower is
presented in Figure 8-23.
Industry Practice
EPA is aware of two biotowers in operation
in the CWT Industry. One system treats a waste
stream which is primarily composed of leachate
from an on-site landfill operation. The other
system treats high-TOC wastewater from a
metals recovery operation. EPA conducted
sampling at this facility during the development
of these effluent guidelines.
Activated Sludge 8.2.3.3
General description
The activated sludge process is a
continuous-flow, aerobic biological treatment
process that employs suspended-growth aerobic
microorganisms to biodegrade organic
contaminants. In this process, a suspension of
aerobic microorganisms is maintained by
mechanical mixing or turbulence induced by
diffused aerators in an aeration basin. This
suspension of microorganisms is called the mixed
liquor. Figure 8-24 is a diagram of a
conventional activated sludge system.
8-47
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Treated
Effluent
Packing
Inoculum
Nutrient
Solution
Support
Wastewater
Influent
Air
Figure 8-23. Biotower System Diagram
8-48
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Secondary
Clarification
Recycled Sludge
Aeration
Basin
Waste
Excess
Sludge
Figure 8-24. Activated Sludge System Diagram
8-49
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Influent is introduced into the aeration basin
and is allowed to mix with the contents. A series
of biochemical reactions is performed in the
aeration basin, degrading organics and generating
new biomass. Microorganisms oxidize the
soluble and suspended organic pollutants to
carbon dioxide and water using the available
supplied oxygen. These organisms also
agglomerate colloidal and particulate solids.
After a specific contact period in the aeration
basin, the mixture is passed to a settling tank, or
clarifier, where the microorganisms are separated
from the treated water. A major portion of the
settled solids in the clarifier is recycled back to
the aeration system to maintain the desired
concentration of microorganisms in the reactor.
The remainder of the settled solids is wasted and
sent to sludge handling facilities.
To ensure biological stabilization of organic
compounds in activated sludge systems,
adequate nutrient levels must be available to the
biomass. The primary nutrients are nitrogen and
phosphorus. Lack of these nutrients can impair
biological activity and result in reduced removal
efficiencies. Certain wastes may have low
concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus
relative to the oxygen demand. As a result,
nutrient supplements (e.g., phosphoric acid
addition for additional phosphorus) have been
used in activated sludge systems at CWT
facilities.
The effectiveness of the activated sludge
process is governed by several design and
operation variables. The key variables are
organic loading, sludge retention time, hydraulic
or aeration detention time, and oxygen
requirements. The organic loading is described
as the food-to-microorganism (F/M) ratio, or
kilograms of BOD5 applied daily to the system
per kilogram of mixed liquor suspended solids
(MLSS). The MLSS in the aeration tank is
determined by the rate and concentration of
activated sludge returned to the tank. The
organic loading (F/M ratio) affects the BOD5
removal, oxygen requirements, biomass
production, and the settleability of the biomass.
The sludge retention time (SRT) or sludge age is
a measure of the average retention time of solids
in the activated sludge system. The SRT affects
the degree of treatment and production of waste
sludge. A high SRT results in a high quantity of
solids in the system and therefore a higher degree
of treatment while also resulting in the
production of less waste sludge. The hydraulic
detention time determines the size of the aeration
tank and is calculated using the F/M ratio, SRT,
and MLSS. Oxygen requirements are based on
the amount required for biodegradation of
organic matter and the amount required for
endogenous respiration of the microorganisms.
The design parameters will vary with the type of
wastewater to be treated and are usually
determined in a treatability study.
Modifications of the activated sludge process
are common, as the process is extremely
versatile and can be adapted for a wide variety of
organically contaminated wastewaters. The
typical modification may include a variation of
one or more of the key design parameters,
including the F/M loading, aeration location and
type, sludge return, and contact basin
configuration. The modifications in practice
have been identified by the major characteristics
that distinguish the particular configuration. The
characteristic types and modifications are briefly
described as follows:
• Conventional The aeration tanks are long
and narrow, with plug flow (i.e., little
forward or backwards mixing).
• Complete Mix The aeration tanks are
shorter and wider, and the aerators,
diffusers, and entry points of the influent
and return sludge are arranged so that the
wastewater mixes completely.
8-50
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
• Tapered Aeration A modification of the
conventional process in which the diffusers
are arranged to supply more air to the
influent end of the tank, where the oxygen
demand is highest.
• Step Aeration A modification of the
conventional process in which the
wastewater is introduced to the aeration tank
at several points, lowering the peak oxygen
demand.
• High Rate Activated Sludge A modification
of conventional or tapered aeration in which
the aeration times are shorter, the pollutants
loadings are higher per unit mass of
microorganisms in the tank. The rate of
BOD5 removal for this process is higher than
that of conventional activated sludge
processes, but the total removals are lower.
• Pure Oxygen An activated sludge variation
in which pure oxygen instead of air is added
to the aeration tanks, the tanks are covered,
and the oxygen-containing off-gas is
recycled. Compared to normal air aeration,
pure oxygen aeration requires a smaller
aeration tank volume and treats high-strength
wastewaters and widely fluctuating organic
loadings more efficiently.
• Extended Aeration A variation of complete
mix in which low organic loadings and long
aeration times permit more complete
wastewater degradation and partial aerobic
digestion of the microorganisms.
• Contact Stabilization An activated sludge
modification using two aeration stages. In
the first, wastewater is aerated with the
return sludge in the contact tank for 30 to 90
minutes, allowing finely suspended colloidal
and dissolved organics to absorb to the
activated sludge. The solids are settled out
in a clarifier and then aerated in the sludge
aeration (stabilization) tank for 3 to 6 hours
before flowing into the first aeration tank.
• Oxidation Ditch Activated Sludge An
extended aeration process in which aeration
and mixing are provided by brush rotors
placed across a race-track-shaped basin.
Waste enters the ditch at one end, is aerated
by the rotors, and circulates.
Industry Practice
Because activated sludge systems are
sensitive to the loading and flow variations
typically found at CWT facilities, equalization is
often required prior to activated sludge
treatment. Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's
WTI Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning use of activated sludge,
four operate activated sludge systems.
Sludge Treatment and Disposal 8.2.4
Several of the waste treatment processes
used in the CWT industry generate a sludge.
These processes include chemical precipitation of
metals, clarification, filtration, and biological
treatment. Some oily waste treatment processes,
such as dissolved air flotation and centrifugation,
also produce sludges. These sludges typically
contain between one and five percent solids.
They require dewateringto concentrate them and
prepare them for transport and/or disposal.
Sludges are dewatered using pressure,
gravity, vacuum, or centrifugal force. There are
several widely-used, commercially-available
methods for sludge dewatering. Plate and frame
pressure filtration, belt pressure filtration, and
vacuum filtration are the primary methods used
for sludge dewatering at CWT facilities. A plate
and frame filter press can produce the driest filter
cake of these three systems, followed by the belt
press, and lastly, the vacuum filter. Each of
8-51
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
these sludge dewatering methods are discussed
below.
In some instances, depending upon the
nature of the sludge and the dewatering process
used, the sludge may first be stabilized,
conditioned, and/or thickened prior to
dewatering. Certain sludges require stabilization
(via chemical addition or biological digestion)
because they have an objectionable odor or are
a health threat. Sludges produced by the CWT
industry usually do not fall into this category.
Sludge conditioning is used to improve
dewaterability; it can be accomplished via the
addition of heat or chemicals. Sludge thickening,
or concentration, reduces the volume of sludge
to be dewatered and is accomplished by gravity
settling, flotation, or centrifugation.
Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration 8.2.4.1
General Description
Plate and frame pressure filtration systems is
a widely used method for the removal of solids
from waste streams. In the CWT industry, plate
and frame pressure filtration system are used for
filtering solids out of treated wastewater streams
and sludges. The same equipment is used for
both applications, with the difference being the
solids level in the influent stream and the sizing
of the sludge and liquid units. Figure 8-25 is a
plate and frame filter press.
A plate and frame filter press consists of a
number of recessed filter plates or trays
connected to a frame and pressed together
between a fixed end and a moving end. Each
plate is constructed with a drainage surface on
the depressed portion of the face. Filter cloth is
mounted on the face of each plate and then the
plates are pressed together. The sludge is
pumped under pressure into the chambers
between the plates of the assembly while water
passes through the media and drains to the
filtrate outlets. The solids are retained in the
cavities of the filter press between the cloth
surfaces and form a cake that ultimately fills the
chamber. At the end of the cycle when the
filtrate flow stops, the pressure is released and
the plates are separated. The filter cake drops
into a hopper below the press. The filter cake
may then be disposed in a landfill. The filter
cloth is washed before the next cycle begins.
The key advantage of plate and frame
pressure filtration is that it can produce a drier
filter cake than is possible with the other
methods of sludge dewatering. In a typical plate
and frame pressure filtration unit, the filter cake
may exhibit a dry solids content between 30 and
50 percent. It is well-suited for use in the CWT
industry as it is a batch process. However, its
batch operation results in greater operating labor
requirements.
8-52
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegor^
8-53
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning the use of pressure
filtration, 34 operate pressure filtration systems.
Of these 34 facilities, 25 operate plate and frame
pressure filtration systems, three operate belt
pressure filtration systems, and six did not
specify the type of pre sure filtration systems
utilized.
Belt Pressure Filtration 8.2.4.2
General Description
A belt pressure filtration system uses gravity
followed by mechanical compression and shear
force to produce a sludge filter cake. Belt filter
presses are continuous systems which are
commonly used to dewater biological treatment
sludge. Most belt filter installations are preceded
by a flocculation step, where polymer is added to
create a sludge which has the strength to
withstand being compressed between the belts
without being squeezed out. Figure 8-26 shows
a typical belt filter press.
Duringthe press operation, the sludge stream
is fed onto the first of two moving cloth filter
belts. The sludge is gravity-thickened as the
water drains through the belt. As the belt holding
the sludge advances, it approaches a second
moving belt. As the first and second belts move
closer together, the sludge is compressed
between them. The pressure is increased as the
two belts travel together over and under a series
of rollers. The turning of the belts around the
rollers shear the cake which furthers the
dewatering process. At the end of the roller
pass, the belts move apart and the cake drops
off. The feed belt is washed before the sludge
feed point. The dropped filter cake may then be
disposed.
The advantages of a belt filtration system are
its lower labor requirements and lower power
consumption. The disadvantages are that the
belt filter presses produce a poorer quality
filtrate, and require a relatively large volume of
belt wash water.
Typical belt filtration applications may
dewater an undigested activated sludge to a cake
containing 15 to 25 percent solids. Heat-treated,
digested sludges may be reduced to a cake of up
to 50 percent solids.
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning the use of pressure
filtration, 36 operate pressure filtration systems.
Of these 34 facilities, 25 operate plate and frame
pressure filtration systems, three operate belt
pressure filtration systems, and six did not
specify the type of pre sure filtration systems
utilized.
Vacuum Filtration 8.2.4.3
General Description
A commonly-used process for dewatering
sludge is rotary vacuum filtration. These filters
come in drum, coil, and belt configurations. The
filter medium may be made of cloth, coil springs,
or wire-mesh fabric. A typical application is a
rotary vacuum belt filter; a diagram of this
equipment is shown in Figure 8-27.
8-54
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Sludge
Influent
Spray Wash
Drainage Compression' Shear
Zone Zone Zone
Figure 8-26. Belt Pressure Filtration System Diagram
8-55
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Filter Cake
Discharge
Vacuum
Source
^Filter Media
Spray Wash
Sludge
Influent
Figure 8-27. Vacuum Filtration System Diagram
8-56
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
In a rotary vacuum belt filter, a continuous
belt of filter fabric is wound around a horizontal
rotating drum and rollers. The drum is
perforated and is connected to a vacuum. The
drum is partially immersed in a shallow tank
containing the sludge. As the drum rotates, the
vacuum which is applied to the inside of the
drum draws the sludge onto the filter fabric. The
water from the sludge passes through the filter
and into the drum, where it exits via a discharge
port. As the fabric leaves the drum and passes
over the roller, the vacuum is released. The
filter cake drops off of the belt as it turns around
the roller. The filter cake may then be disposed.
Vacuum filtration may reduce activated
sludge to a cake containing 12 to 20 percent
solids. Lime sludge may be reduced to a cake of
25 to 40 percent solids.
Because vacuum filtration systems are
relatively expensive to operate, they are usually
preceded by a thickening step which reduces the
volume of sludge to be dewatered. An
advantage of vacuum filtration is that it is a
continuous process and therefore requires less
operator attention.
Industry Practice
Of the 65 CWT facilities in EPA's WTI
Questionnaire data base that provided
information concerning the use of vacuum
filtration, eight operate vacuum filtration
systems.
Filter Cake Disposal 8.2.4.4
After a sludge is dewatered, the resultant
filter cake must be disposed. The most common
method of filter cake management used in the
CWT industry is transport to an off-site landfill
for disposal. Other disposal options are
incineration or land application. Land application
is usually restricted to biological treatment
residuals.
Zero or Alternate Discharge
Treatment Options 8.2.5
This section discusses zero discharge
wastewater treatment and disposal methods. In
this context, zero discharge refers to any
wastewater disposal method other than indirect
discharge to a POTW or direct discharge to a
surface water. A common zero discharge
method employed by CWT facilities that
generate small volumes of wastewater is
transportation of the wastewater to an off-site
disposal facility such as another CWT facility.
Other methods discussed below include deep
well disposal, evaporation, and solidification.
Deep well disposal consists of pumping the
wastewater into a disposal well, that discharges
the liquid into a deep aquifer. Normally, these
aquifers are thoroughly characterized to insure
that they are not hydrogeologically-connected to
a drinking water supply. The characterization
requires the confirmation of the existence of
impervious layers of rock above and below the
aquifer. Pretreatment of the wastewater using
filtration is often practiced to prevent the
plugging of the face of the receiving aquifer.
Traditionally used as a method of sludge
dewatering, evaporation (or solar evaporation)
also can involve the discharge and ultimate
storage of wastewater into a shallow, lined, on-
site basin or ditch. Because the system is open
to the atmosphere, the degree of evaporation is
greatly dependent upon climatic conditions. This
option is generally available only to those
facilities located in arid regions.
Solidification is a process in which materials,
such as fly ash, cement, and lime, are added to
the waste to produce a solid. Depending on both
the contaminant and binding material, the
solidified waste may be disposed of in a landfill
or incinerated.
8-57
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Industry Practice
EPA has information for 24 CWT facilities not
discharging directly to surface waters or POTWs
that employ zero and alternate discharge
methods. Of those 24 facilities, seven dispose of
wastewater by deep well injection, 13 transport
wastewater to an off-site commercial or intra-
company wastewater treatment facility, two
dispose of wastewater by evaporation, one
solidifies wastewater and landfills it on-site, and
one discharges wastewater to a privately-owned
treatment works.
8-58
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
References 8.3
Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 15th Edition, Washington DC.
Henricks, David, Inspectors Guide for Evaluation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants.
Culp/Wesncr/Culp. El Dorado Hills, CA, 1979.
Technical Practice Committee. Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants. MOP/11, Washington, DC,
1976.
Clark, Viesman, and Hasner, Water Supply and Pollution Control. Harper and Row Publishers, New
York, NY, 1977.
Environmental Engineering Division, Computer Assisted Procedure For the Design and Evaluation of
Wastewater Treatment Systems (CAPPED. U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS, 1981.
1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Osmonics, Historical Perspective of Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis Membrane Development.
Minnetonka, MN, 1984.
Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Cost Document. SAIC, 1987.
Effluent Guidelines Division. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines & Standards
for the Metal Finishing. Point Source Category. Office of Water Regulation & Standards, U.S. EPA,
Washington, DC, June 1983.
Effluent Guidelines Division, Development Document For Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Organic Chemicals. Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF). Volume II, Point Source
Category, EPA 440/1-87/009, Washington, DC, October 1987.
Engineering News Record (ENR). McGraw-Hill Co., New York, NY, March 30, 1992.
Comparative Statistics of Industrial and Office Real Estate Markets. Society of Industrial and Office
Realtors of the National Association of Realtors, Washington, DC, 1990.
Effluent Guidelines Division. Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines & Standards
for the Pesticides Industry. Point Source Category, EPA 440/1-85/079, Washington, DC, October,
1985.
Peters, M., and Timmerhaus, K.. Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. McGraw-Hill.
New York, NY, 1991.
Chemical Marketing Reporter. Schnell Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY, May 10, 1993.
Palmer, S.K., Breton, M.A., Nunno, T.J., Sullivan, D.M., and Supprenaut, N.F., Metal/Cvanide
Containing Wastes Treatment Technologies. Alliance Technical Corp., Bedford, MA, 1988.
8-59
-------
Chagtei^^Vastewtei^reataien^felmologies^^^^^^Deve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^Towj^oMrc^^itegory
Freeman, H.M., Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal. U.S. EPA,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1989.
Corbitt, Robert. Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New
York, NY, 1990.
Perry, H., Chemical Engineers Handbook. 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1973.
Development Document for BAT. Pretreatment Technology and New Source Performance
Technology for the Pesticide Chemical Industry. USEPA, April 1992.
Vestergaard, Clean Harbors Technology Corporation to SAIC - letter dated 10/13/93.
Brown and Root, Inc., "Determination of Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available to
Remove Oil and Gas," prepared for Sheen Technical Subcommittee, Offshore Operators Committee,
New Orleans, (March 1974).
Churchill, R.L., "A Critical Analysis of Flotation Performance," American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, 290-299, (1978).
Leech, C.A., "Oil Flotation Processes for Cleaning Oil Field Produced Water," Shell Offshore, Inc.,
Bakersfield, CA, (1987).
Luthy, R.C., "Removal of Emulsified Oil with Organic Coagulants and Dissolved Air Flotation," Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation. (1978), 331-346.
Lysyj, I., et al., "Effectiveness of Offshore Produced Water Treatment," API et al., Oil Spill
prevention, Behavior Control and Clean-up Conference (Atlanta, GA) Proceedings, (March 1981).
Pearson, S.C., "Factors Influencing Oil Removal Efficiency in Dissolved Air Flotation Units," 4th
Annual Industrial Pollution Conference, Houston, TX, (1976).
Viessman, W., And Hammer, M.J., Water Supply and Pollution Control. Harper Collins Publishers,
New York, NY, 1993.
Wyer, R.H., et al., "Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Technology for Offshore Oil Production
Facilities," Offshore Technology Conference, Dallas, TX, (1975).
Eckenfelder, Welsey, Industrial Pollution Control. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1989.
Joint Task Force, Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. MOP 8, Alexandria: Water
Environment Federation, 1991.
Tchobanoglous, George, Wastewater Engineering. 2nd Ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Landfills Point Source Category. USEPA, January, 1998.
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Industrial
Waste Combustors. USEPA. December 1997.
8-60
-------
Chapter
9
REGULATORY OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND
SELECTED FOR BASIS OF REGULATION
This section presents the technology options
considered by EPA as the basis for the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
the CWT industry. It also describes the
methodology for EPA's selection of the final
technology options. The limitations and
standards discussed in this section are Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available (BPT), Best Conventional Pollutant
Control Technology (BCT), Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT),
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS),
Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
(PSES), and Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS).
Establishment of BPT 9.1
Section 304(b)(1)(A) requires EPA to
identify effluent reductions attainable through the
application of "best practicable control
technology currently available for classes and
categories of point sources." EPA determines
BPT effluent levels based upon the average of
the best existing performance by facilities of
various sizes, ages, and unit processes within
each industrial category or subcategory.
However, in industrial categories where present
practices are uniformly inadequate, EPA may
determine that BPT requires higher levels of
control than any currently in place if the
technology to achieve those levels can be
practicably applied.
In addition, CWA Section 304(b)(1)(B)
requires a cost reasonableness assessment for
BPT limitations. In determining the BPT limits,
EPA must consider the total cost of treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reduction
benefits achieved.
In balancing costs against the benefits of
effluent reduction, EPA considers the volume
and nature of expected discharges after
application of BPT, the general environmental
effects of pollutants, and the cost and economic
impacts of the required level of pollution
control.
In assessing BPT for this industry, EPA
considered age, size, unit processes, other
engineering factors, and non-water quality
impacts pertinent to the facilities treating waste
in each subcategory. For all subcategories, no
basis could be found for identifying different
BPT limitations based on age, size, process, or
other engineering factors for the reasons
previously discussed. For a service industry
whose service is wastewater treatment, the
pertinent factors for establishing the limitations
are cost of treatment, the level of effluent
reductions obtainable, and non-water quality
effects.
EPA determined that, while some CWT
facilities are providing adequate treatment of all
wastestreams, wastewater treatment at some
CWT facilities is poor. EPA has determined
that facilities which mix different types of highly
concentrated CWT wastes with non-CWT
wastestreams or with storm water are not
providing BPT treatment. In addition, while
some CWT facilities pretreat subcategory
wastestreams for optimal removal prior to
commingling, some facilities mix wastes from
different subcategories without pretreatment.
This practice essentially dilutes the waste rather
than treats the waste. As such, the mass of
9-1
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
pollutants being discharged at some CWT
facilities is higher than that which can be
achieved, given the demonstrated removal
capacity of treatment systems that the Agency
reviewed. Many CWT facilities recognize that
commingling often leads only to dilution and have
encouraged their customers to segregate wastes
as much as possible. Waste minimization
techniques at most manufacturing facilities have
also led to increased waste stream segregation.
Comparison of EPA sampling data and CWT
industry-supplied monitoring information
establishes that, in the case of metal-bearing
wastestreams, virtually all the facilities are
discharging large amounts of heavy metals. As
measured by total suspended solids (TSS) levels
following treatment, TSS concentrations are
substantially higher than levels observed at
facilities in other industry categories employing
the very same treatment technology.
In the case of oil discharges, many facilities
are achieving low removal of oil and grease
relative to the performance required for other
point source categories. Many collect samples
infrequently to analyze for metal and organic
constituents in their discharge since these
parameters are not included in their discharge
permits. Further, facilities treating organic
wastes, while successfully removing organic
pollutants through biological treatment, fail to
remove metals associated with these organic
wastes.
The poor pollutant removal performance
observed for some direct discharging CWT
facilities is not unexpected. As pointed out
previously, some of these facilities are treating
highly concentrated wastes that, in many cases,
are process residuals and sludges from other
point source categories. EPA's review of permit
limitations for the direct dischargers show that, in
most cases, the dischargers are subject to "best
professional judgment" limitations which were
based primarily on guidelines for facilities treating
and discharging much more dilute wastestreams.
EPA has concluded that treatment performance
in the industry is often inadequate and that the
mass of pollutants being discharged is high,
given the demonstrated removal capability of
treatment option that the Agency has reviewed.
EPA's options to evaluate treatment
systems in place at direct discharging CWTs
were extremely limited since most of the
facilities in this industry are indirect dischargers.
This is particularly true of the metals and oils
facilities. Many indirect discharging CWTs are
not required to control discharges of
conventional pollutants because the receiving
POTWs are designed to achieve removal of
conventional pollutants and therefore, generally
do not monitor or optimize the performance of
their treatment systems for control of
conventional pollutants. Because BPT applies
to direct dischargers, the data used to establish
limitations and standards are normally collected
from such facilities. For this rule, EPA relied on
information and data from widely available
treatment technologies in use at CWT facilities
discharging indirectly ~ so called "technology
transfer." EPA concluded that certain
technologies in place at indirect discharging
CWT facilities are appropriate for use as the
basis for regulation of direct dischargers.
Technological Options Considered as
the Basis for the Metals Subcategory
Limitations and Standards 9.1.1
EPA has considered four technology options
in establishing BPT effluent level reductions for
the metals subcategory. All rely on chemical
precipitation to reduce the discharge of
pollutants from CWT facilities. The four
technology options are as follows:
Option 1: chemical precipitation, and
liquid solid separation;
Option 2: selective metals precipitation,
liquid-solid separation,
secondary precipitation, and
liquid-solid separation;
Option 3: selective metals precipitation,
secondary precipitation, liquid-
9-2
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
solid separation, tertiary
precipitation, and clarification;
and
Option 4: primary precipitation, liquid-
solid separation, secondary
precipitation, liquid solid
separation, and sand filtration.
As detailed in the 1995 proposal and the
1999 supplemental proposal, while single stage
chemical precipitation followed by liquid-solid
separation is widely used in this subcategory,
EPA dropped it from further consideration at the
time of the original proposal. EPA concluded
that single stage, chemical precipitation of mixed
disparate metal-bearing waste streams is not an
acceptable technology basis for BPT limitations.
The Agency also dropped the option 2
technology at the time of the 1999 proposal
because it estimated that the option 2 and option
3 technologies have nearly equivalent costs and
that pollutant removals are greater for option 3.
Therefore, EPA now considers two technology
options as the basis for the metals subcategory
limitations and standards. Each is explained in
detail below.
Metals Subcategory Option 31 - Selective
Metals Precipitation. Liquid-Solid
Separation. Secondary Precipitation.
Liquid-Solid Separation. Tertiary
PRECIPITATION. AND CLARIFICATION
The first treatment option (option 3) that
EPA evaluated is based on "selective metals
precipitation." "Selective metals precipitation" is
a specialized metals removal technology that
tailors precipitation conditions to the metal to be
removed. The extent to which a metal is
precipitated from a solution will vary with a
number of factors including pH, temperature, and
' The numbering of options reflects the
numbering for the 1999 proposal. Option 3 was
first considered for the 1995 proposal. Option 4 is
a technology EPA evaluated for the 1999 proposal.
treatment chemicals. Selective metals
precipitation adjusts these conditions
sequentially in order to provide maximum
precipitation of metals. Selective metals
precipitation requires segregation of incoming
wastestreams and careful characterization of the
metals content of the waste stream. Next, there
are multiple precipitations in batches at different
pH levels in order to achieve maximum removal
of specific metals. Selective metals precipitation
results in the formation of a metal-rich filter
cake. This treatment option requires numerous
treatment tanks and personnel to handle
incoming wastestreams, greater quantities of
treatment chemicals, and better control of the
precipitation steps. One of the benefits of this
technology, however, is that it results in a metal-
rich filter cake that facilities employing this
treatment have the option of selling as feed
material for metal reclamation. For metal
streams which contain concentrated cyanide
complexes, achievement of the BPT limitations
under this option would require alkaline
chlorination in a two step process prior to metals
treatment. These BPT cyanide limitations are
discussed in greater detail below.
Metals Subcategory Option 41 - Primary
PRECIPITATION. LlQUID-SOLID SEPARATION.
Secondary Precipitation, and Sand
Filtration
The second technology EPA evaluated as
the technology basis for limitations and
standards in the metals subcategory is option 4,
a two stage precipitation process. The first
stage of this technology is similar to the option
1 chemical precipitation technology considered
(and rejected) during the development of this
rule and is based on chemical precipitation,
followed by some form of solids separation and
sludge dewatering. In option 4, however, a
second precipitation step is also performed
followed by sand filtration. Under option 4, the
treater varies pH levels and treatment chemicals
in order to promote optimal removal of the wide
9-3
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
range of metal pollutants found in CWT metals
wastewaters. Since most CWT metal facilities
utilize single-stage chemical precipitation only,
generally limitations and standards based on
option 4 would require some facilities to more
carefully control their treatment steps, increase
quantities of treatment chemicals they use,
perform an additional precipitation step, and add
a clarification sand filtration step. Once again,
for metals which contain concentrated cyanide
complexes, like option 3, alkaline chlorination in
a two step process is also part of the option 4
treatment process.
Rationale for the Final Metals
Subcategory BPT Limitations 9.1.1.1
For the final CWT rule, EPA established
BPT limitations for the metals subcategory based
on the option 4 technology. The Agency
concluded that this treatment system represented
the best practicable technology currently available
and should be the basis for the BPT metals
limitations for the following reasons. First, the
option 4 technology is one that is readily
applicable to all facilities that are treating metal-
bearing waste streams. It is based on a
technology including two-stage chemical
precipitation that is currently used at
approximately 25 percent of the facilities in this
subcategory. Second, the adoption of this level
of control would represent a significant reduction
in pollutants discharged into the environment by
facilities in this subcategory. Option 4 would
annually remove approximately 4.1 million
pounds of TSS and metals now discharged to the
Nation's waters. Third, the Agency assessed the
total cost of water pollution controls likely to be
incurred for option 4 in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits and determined these costs
were reasonable - $0.40 per pound ($1997). In
the 1999 proposal, EPA explained why it rej ected
metals option 3 as the basis for BPT. See 64 FR
2280 at 2306.
The Agency used chemical precipitation
treatment technology performance data from the
Metal Finishing regulation (40 CFR Part 433) to
establish direct discharge limitations for TSS
because the facility from which the option 4
limitations were derived is an indirect discharger
and the treatment system is not necessarily
designed for optimum removal of conventional
parameters, due to the lack of stringent local
limits for these parameters. EPA has concluded
that the transfer of this data is appropriate given
the absence of adequate treatment technology
for this pollutant at the only otherwise well-
operated BPT CWT facility examined by EPA.
Based on a review of the data, EPA concluded
that similar wastes (in terms of TSS
concentrations) are being treated at both metal
finishing and centralized waste treatment
facilities, and that the use of the metal finishing
data to derive TSS limits for this subcategory is
warranted. Because the technology basis for the
transferred limitations includes clarification
rather than sand filtration, the Agency also
included a clarification step prior to sand
filtration (which the option 4 facility does not
have) in the technology basis for option 4 for
facilities subject to BPT. Therefore, because
the technology basis for CWT is based on
primary chemical precipitation, primary
clarification, secondary chemical precipitation,
secondary clarification, and sand filtration and
the technology basis for Metal Finishing is based
on primary precipitation and clarification only,
EPA concluded that CWT facilities will perform
similarly (or better) when treating TSS in wastes
in this subcategory.
BPT limitations established by option 4
(except TSS) are based on data from a single,
well-operated system. Generally, for purposes
of defining BPT effluent limitations, EPA looks
at the performance of the best treatment
technology and calculates limitations from some
level of average performance measured at
facilities that employ this "best" treatment
technology. In reviewing technologies currently
in use in this subcategory, however, EPA found
that facilities generally utilize a single stage
chemical precipitation step ~ a technology
9-4
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
which does not achieve adequate metals removals
for the waste streams observed at these
operations. EPA did identify facilities that utilize
additional metals wastewater treatment, generally
secondary chemical precipitation, but without the
final multimedia filtration step. Also, EPA found
that only the BPT model facility accepts a full
spectrum of waste, often with extremely high
metals concentrations and provides, therefore, a
suitable basis to determine the performance that
a well-designed and operated system can achieve
for a wide range of raw waste concentrations.
Consequently, EPA adopted BPT limitations
based on performance data from this facility. For
further discussion, see the 1999 proposal at 64
FR 2280-2357.
Cyanide Subset
Technologies evaluated
As discussed above, the presence of high
cyanide concentrations detrimentally affects the
performance of metal precipitation processes due
to the formation of metal-cyanide complexes.
Effective treatment of such wastes typically
involves a cyanide destruction step prior to any
metal precipitation steps. Consequently, in the
case of metal streams which contain concentrated
cyanide complexes, EPA concluded an additional
treatment step is required to destroy cyanide prior
to metals precipitation. During development of
this rule, EPA considered the following three
regulatory options for the destruction of cyanide.
Cyanide Subset Option 1 - Alkaline
Chlorination
The option 1 technology, alkaline
chlorination, is widely used for cyanide
destruction in this industry as well as in others.
For this subset, it represents current
performance. While this technology can
effectively treat non-complexed, dilute cyanide -
bearing wastestreams, it is often ineffective in
treating concentrated cyanide complexes.
Cyanide Subset Option 2 - Alkaline
Chlorination in a two step process
The cyanide option 2 technology is alkaline
chlorination in a two step process. In the first
step, cyanide is oxidized to cyanate in a pH
range of 9 to 11. The second step oxidizes
cyanate to carbon dioxide and nitrogen at a
controlled pH of 8.5. EPA's data demonstrate
that this technology is effective in treating
concentrated cyanide complexes.
Cyanide Subset Option 3 - Confidential
Cyanide Destruction
EPA evaluated a third technology which is
extremely effective in reducing cyanide
(including concentrated cyanide complexes).
Application of this technology resulted in
cyanide reductions of 99.8 percent for both
amenable and total cyanide. The option 3
technology is also claimed confidential
As detailed in the 1995 and 1999 proposals,
the cyanide option 3 technology is a proprietary
process that does not employ off-the-shelf
technology. Consequently, EPA dropped it
from further consideration since it is not publicly
available.
Rationale for final cyanide subset bpt
LIMITATIONS
EPA based the final BPT limitations on
cyanide option 2. This is the same technology
that was the basis for the 1999 proposed
limitations. There are several reasons supporting
the selection of limitations based on cyanide
option 2, as explained in detail in the 1999
proposal at 64 FR 2309. First, the facility
achieving cyanide option 2 removals accepts a
full spectrum of cyanide waste. Consequently,
the treatment used by the cyanide option 2
facility can be readily applied to all facilities in
the subset of this subcategory. Second,
adoption of this level of control would represent
a significant reduction in pollutants discharged
into the environment by facilities in this subset.
9-5
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
Finally, the Agency assessed the total cost for
cyanide option 2 in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits and determined these costs
were economically reasonable.
Technological Options Considered as
the Basis for the Oils Subcategory
Limitations and Standards
9.1.2
EPA has considered twelve technology
options in establishing BPT effluent reduction
levels for the oils subcategory during
development of this rule. The first four options
were evaluated at the time of the 1995 proposal
(60 FR 5478); the other eight options, following
the 1995 proposal. The twelve technology
options considered are as follows:
Option 1: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation;
Option 2: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation and ultrafiltration;
Option 3: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, ultrafiltration, carbon
adsorption, and reverse osmosis;
Option 4: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, ultrafiltration, carbon
adsorption, reverse osmosis, and
carbon adsorption;
Option 5: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, ultrafiltration, and
chemical precipitation;
Option 6: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, dissolved air flotation,
and gravity separation;
Option 7: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, secondary gravity
separation, dissolved air flotation,
and biological treatment;
Option 8: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation and dissolved air
flotation;
Option 8v: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, air stripping, and
dissolved air flotation;
Option 9: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, secondary gravity
separation, and dissolved air
flotation;
Option 9v: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, air stripping,
secondary gravity separation, and
dissolved air flotation; and
Option 10: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation and secondary gravity
separation.
As detailed in the 1995 proposal and 1999
supplemental proposal, while emulsion
breaking/gravity separation (option 1) is widely
used in this subcategory, the data EPA has
examined supports the Agency's concerns that
the performance of emulsion breaking and/or
gravity separation unit operations are inadequate
because they do not achieve acceptable pollutant
removals. For example, one of the facilities in
the oils subcategory that EPA sampled
discharged a biphasic sample (oil and water)
from the emulsion breaking/gravity separation
unit during an EPA sampling visit. When EPA
analyzed the sample, the biphasic liquid stream
had a relatively small organic phase percentage,
yet contained extremely high overall
concentrations of toxic pollutants, especially
priority, semi-volatile organics (such as
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, phthalates,
aromatic hydrocarbons, n-paraffins, and
phenols). Hence, the Agency concluded that
gravity separation systems without further
treatment provide inadequate removals.
Consequently, EPA dropped the oils option 1
technology from further consideration.
The Agency also dropped the option 4
technology (emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, ultrafiltration, carbon adsorption,
reverse osmosis, and carbon adsorption) from
consideration at the time of the original proposal
because EPA's analysis showed that some
pollutant concentrations actually increased
following the additional carbon adsorption.
At the time of the 1995 proposal, the
9-6
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
Agency co-proposed BPT limitations based on
emulsion breaking/gravity separation and
ultrafiltration as well as emulsion breaking/gravity
separation and ultrafiltration with added carbon
adsorption and reverse osmosis to remove metal
compounds found at significant levels in this
subcategory. Because the costs associated with
the latter option were four times higher than
ultrafiltration alone, EPA was concerned about its
impacts on facilities in this subcategory. After
the 1995 proposal, EPA collected additional
information on facilities in the oils subcategory
and revisited its conclusion about the size and
nature of the oils subcategory. EPA published a
Notice of Data Availability in 1996 describing the
new information and EPA's revised assessment
of the oils subcategory. Based on analyses
presented in the 1996 Notice, EPA determined it
should no longer consider emulsion
breaking/gravity separation and ultrafiltration with
added treatment steps (option 3) as the basis for
BPT limitations because the projected total costs
relative to effluent reductions benefit were not
economically reasonable.
Based on comments to the 1995 proposal
and the 1996 Notice of Data Availability, EPA
was strongly encouraged to look at alternate
technology options to emulsion breaking/gravity
filtration and ultrafiltration. This concern was
driven in large measure by the fact that many of
the facilities in the oils subcategory are classified
as "small businesses" and the economic cost of
installing and operating ultrafiltration technology
was quite high. Additionally, many commenters
stated that ultrafiltration is a sophisticated
technology which would be difficult to operate
and maintain with the majority of these
wastestreams. Commenters also noted that the
Agency had failed to consider non-water quality
impacts adequately ~ particularly those
associated with the disposal of the concentrated
filtrate from these operations. As a result, based
on comments to the original proposal, the 1996
Notice of Data Availability, and additional site
visits, EPA identified several other treatment
options that were efficient, produced tighter oil
and grease limits, and were less expensive. As
such, EPA did not consider emulsion
breaking/gravity separation and ultrafiltration
(option 2) as an appropriate technology for
limitations for the oils subcategory.
Following the 1995 proposal and the 1996
Notice of Data Availability, EPA preliminarily
considered options 5 - 9v in establishing BPT
effluent reduction levels for this subcategory.
However, EPA dropped options 5, 6, and 7
early in the process. EPA dropped option 5
since it relied on ultrafiltration which, as
described previously, the Agency determined
was inappropriate for this subcategory. The
Agency dropped option 6 since EPA is unaware
of any CWT facilities that currently use the
option 6 treatment technologies in the sequence
considered. Finally, EPA dropped option 7
because EPA's sampling data showed little
additional pollutant reduction associated with the
addition of the biological treatment system.
Followingthe SBREFA panel, at the request
of panel members, EPA also examined another
option, option 10, which is based on emulsion
breaking/gravity separation followed by a
second gravity separation step. At the time of
the 1999 proposal the Agency concluded it
should not propose BPT limitations based on
this technology because EPA's data show that
this technology alone did not adequately control
the metal pollutants of concern relative to other
widely available technologies.
Finally, as described in more detail in the
1999 proposal (See 64 FR 2311), the Agency
dropped option 8v and 9v from consideration
because the addition of air stripping with
overhead recovery or destruction would not
achieve any substantial additional removal of
volatile and semi-volaitel parameters from the
wastewater. The discharge limits would be the
same with or without the additional technology
basis of air stripping with overhead recovery.
Consequently, EPA now considers only two
technology options for the basis for establishing
the oils subcategory limitations and standards.
These are as follows:
9-7
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
Option 82: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation and dissolved air
flotation; and
Option 92: emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, secondary gravity
separation, and dissolved air
flotation
Each of these are discussed below.
Oils Subcategory Option 82 - Dissolved Air
Flotation
The technology basis for option 8 is
dissolved air flotation (DAF). DAF separates
solid or liquid particles from a liquid phase by
introducing air bubbles into the liquid phase. The
bubbles attach to the particles and rise to the top
of the mixture. Often chemicals are added to
increase the removal of metal constituents.
Generally, limitations and standards based on
option 8 would require facilities to more carefully
control their treatment systems and/or to install
and operate a DAF system. For oils streams with
significant concentrations of metals, option 8
would also require increased quantities of
treatment chemicals to enhance metals removals.
Oils Subcategory Option 92 - Secondary
Gravity Separation and Dissolved Air
Flotation
The technology basis for limitations based on
option 9 is secondary gravity separation and
DAF. Secondary gravity separation involves
using a series of tanks to separate the oil and
water and then skimming the oily component off.
The resulting water moves to the next step. The
gravity separation steps are then followed by
DAF. As mentioned previously, EPA concluded
2As noted above, EPA is no longer considering
oils Options 1-4 proposed in 1995. During
development of the 1999 proposal, EPA also
preliminarily considered seven other options
numbered 5 - 9v. EPA has chosen to focus its
attention on options 8 and 9.
all oils facilities currently utilize some form of
gravity separation, although most perform
primary gravity separation only. Generally,
limitations and standards based on option 9
would require facilities to more carefully control
their treatment systems, perform additional
gravity separation steps, and/or install and
operate a DAF system. For oils streams with
relatively high concentrations of metals, option
9 would also require the use of increased
quantities of treatment chemicals to enhance the
removal of metals.
Rationale for Oils Subcategory BPT
Limitations 9.1.2.1
The technology basis for the final BPT
limitations is oils option 9: emulsion
breaking/gravity separation, secondary gravity
separation and dissolved air flotation. This is
the same technology that was the basis for the
1999 proposed limitations. EPA notes that all
direct discharging oils facilities already have
treatment-in-place equivalent to secondary
gravity separation. Therefore, EPA can not
consider the option 8 technology as the basis for
BPT limitations in the oils subcategory.
EPA developed the final limitations for this
option using sampling data from facilities both
with and without the secondary gravity
separation step. EPA's data show that the
secondary gravity separation step may not
always be necessary to meet the final
limitations, depending on the level of treatment
in the initial gravity-separation/emulsion-
breaking step. EPA's data show there is a wide
range of pollutants being discharged from this
initial treatment step. EPA concluded that if
many of the facilities optimize treatment at this
level, the secondary gravity separation step may
not be required. However, EPA estimated the
costs to comply with the limitations with the
secondary gravity separation step included to
ensure this technology option's economic
achievability.
9-8
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
The Agency adopted BPT limitations for
the oils subcategory based on option 9, emulsion
breaking/gravity separation, secondary gravity
separation and dissolved air flotation for two
reasons. First, the adoption of this level of
control would represent a significant reduction in
pollutants discharged into the environment by
facilities in this subcategory. Second, the Agency
assessed the total costs of water pollution
controls likely to be incurred for this option in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits and
determined these costs were reasonable at
$0.63/lb ($1997). EPA believes it is important to
note that BPT limitations for conventional
parameters established by option 9 are based on
data from a single, well-operated, indirect-
discharging system. Generally, for purposes of
defining BPT effluent limitations, EPA looks at
the performance of the best treatment technology
and calculates limitations from some level of
average performance measured at facilities that
employ this "best" treatment technology. The
facilities sampled as the technology basis for this
subcategory, however, were not required to
optimize their oil and grease or TSS removals
because they discharge to POTWs. Current
POTW/local permit limitations for oil and grease
in this subcategory range from 100 mg/L to 2,000
mg/L and for TSS from 250 mg/L to 10,000
mg/L. Many have no oil and grease or TSS
limits at all. EPA concluded that only one of the
systems in this subcategory for which EPA has
data was designed to remove oil and grease and
TSS effectively. EPA concluded that the oil and
grease and TSS removals are uniformly
inadequate at the other facilities included in the
BPT limitations calculations for other parameters.
Consequently, EPA based the oil and grease and
TSS limitations on data from a single facility.
Technological Options Considered as
the Basis for the Organics Subcategory
Limitations and Standards 9.1.3
EPA has considered four technology options
in establishing limitations and standards for the
organics subcategory during development of this
rule. The four technology options are as
follows:
Option 1: equalization, air stripping with
emissions control, biological
treatment, and multimedia
filtration;
Option 2: equalization, air stripping with
emissions control, biological
treatment, multimedia filtration,
and carbon adsorption;
Option 3: equalization, air-stripping with
emissions control, and biological
treatment; and
Option 4: equalization and biological
treatment.
The 1999 proposal explained that the
Agency dropped option 2 from further
consideration because EPA's sampling data
showed that, following the carbon adsorption
step, specific pollutants of concern actually
increased. The 1999 proposal also explained
that EPA dropped option 1 from consideration
because the multimedia filtration step is
primarily included to protect the carbon
adsorption unit installed downstream from high
TSS levels. Since EPA rejected option 2 which
includes the carbon adsorption unit, EPA
similarly rejected the option which includes the
multimedia filtrations step.
Also, as described in more detail in the 1999
proposal (see 64 FR 2312), the Agency dropped
option 3 from consideration because the addition
of air stripping with overhead recovery or
destruction would not achieve any substantial
additional removal of volatile and semi-volatile
parameters from the wastewater. Effluent
limitations and standards based on option 3
treatment would be essentially the same as those
established by option 4.
Consequently, for the final CWT rule, EPA
considered only one technology basis, option 4,
for the development of limitations and standards
for the organics subcategory.
9-9
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
Rationale for Organics Subcategory
BPT Limitations 9.1.3.1
The technology basis for the final BPT
limitations is organics option 4: equalization and
biological treatment. Biological treatment for
this option is in the form of a sequential batch
reactor. This is the same technology that was
the basis for the 1999 proposed limitations. The
preamble to the proposal provided further
explanation of EPA's decision (64 FR 2311-12).
The Agency concluded that this treatment
system represented the best practicable
technology currently available and should be the
basis for the BPT organics limitations for several
reasons. The technology is already used at the
four direct discharging facilities that treat organic
wastes and results in the removal of 28,700 lbs
annually of conventional pollutants (at baseline).
Moreover, because the treatment is in place, the
cost of compliance with the limitations will
obviously be reasonable.
Unlike the other BPT limitations adopted in
the final CWT rule, the adoption of limitations
based on option 4 will not, in all probability,
result in any significant change in the quantity of
pollutants discharged into the environment by
facilities in this subcategory. As noted, EPA's
data suggests that all direct discharging facilities in
this subcategory currently employ equalization
and biological treatment systems, and EPA
assumed that all those facilities will be able to
meet the BPT limitations without additional
capital or operating costs. If any facilities were to
incur increased operating costs associated with
the limits, EPA concluded these increases are
negligible and has not quantified them. Many of
these facilities are not currently required to
monitor for organic parameters or are only
required to monitor a couple of times a year.
Thus, the estimated costs for complying with
BPT limitations for this subcategory are
associated with additional monitoring only. The
Agency determined the additional monitoring is
warranted, and will promote more effective and
consistent treatment at these facilities.
The selected BPT option is based on the
performance of a single indirect discharging
facility. While EPA identified four direct
discharging organics subcategory facilities that
utilize biological treatment, EPA did not use data
from these facilities to establish limitations
because they commingle organics subcategory
wastewaters with other CWT subcategory
wastewaters or wastewaters subject to other
national effluent guidelines and standards.
Many facilities that are treating wastes that will
be subject to effluent limitations for the Organic
Waste Subcategory also operate other industrial
processes that generate much larger amounts of
wastewater than the quantity of off-site
generated organic waste receipts. The off-site
generated organic waste receipts are directly
mixed with the wastewater from the other
industrial processes for treatment. Therefore,
identifying facilities to sample for limitations
development was difficult because the waste
received for treatment and treatment unit
effectiveness could not be properly
characterized for off-site generated waste. The
treatment system on which EPA based option 4
was one of the few facilities identified which
treated organic waste receipts separately from
other on-site industrial wastewater.
The Agency used biological treatment
performance data from the Thermosetting Resin
Subcategory of the OCPSF regulation to
establish direct discharge limitations for BOD5
and TSS because the facility from which
Option 4 limitations were derived is an indirect
discharger and the treatment system is not
operated to effectively remove conventional
pollutants. EPA has concluded that the transfer
of this data is appropriate given the absence of
adequate treatment technology for these
pollutants at the only otherwise well-operated
BPT CWT facility in this subcategory that the
Agency was able to evaluate. Moreover, EPA
concluded that the biological treatment systems
at CWT facilities will perform similarly to those
at OCPSF facilities. EPA based this conclusion
on its review of the NPDES permits for the four
9-10
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
direct discharging facilities in this subcategory.
Two of these facilities are located at
manufacturing facilities that commingle their
wastewater for treatment and are already subject
to OCPSF. The other two facilities have
conventional pollutant limits which are lower than
those adopted for the final CWT rule. EPA has
concluded that all of these facilities should be
able to comply with the transferred limitations
without incurring additional costs. Likewise,
EPA has not estimated any additional pollutant
removals associated with this data transfer.
Rationale for Multiple Wastestream
Subcategory BPT Limitations 9.1.4
EPA developed four sets of limitations for
each of the possible combinations of the three
subcategories of wastestreams: oils and metals,
oils and organics, metals and organics, and oils,
metals and organics. The multiple wastestream
subcategory limitations were derived by
combining BPT pollutant limitations from up to
all three subcategories selecting the most stringent
values where they overlap3. Therefore, the
technology basis for the multiple wastestream
subcategory limitations reflects the technology
basis for the applicable subcategories.
Multiple wastestream subcategory limitations
are only available to CWT facilities which accept
waste in multiple subcategories. These facilities
must certify as well as demonstrate that their
treatment system obtains equivalent removals to
those which are the basis for the separate
subcategory limits. The multiple wastestream
subcategory allows the facility to monitor for
compliance just prior to discharge rather than
directly following treatment of each
subcategory's waste stream. For multiple
subcategory facilities, this option simplifies
implementation and reduces monitoring costs.
EPA has, however, estimated additional burden
3EPA selected the most stringent maximum
monthly average limitations and its corresponding
maximum daily limitation.
associated with the certification process in
"National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) /Compliance
Assessment/Certification Information," ICR
(No. 1427.05), for direct dischargers and
"National Pretreatment Program (40 CFR part
403)," ICR (No. 0002.08), for indirect
dischargers.
EPA has determined these limitations are
also best practicable technology limitations for
facilities that operate in one or more CWT
categories for the following reasons. EPA has
concluded that, for multiple subcategory
facilities, the limitations adopted in this
subcategory in combination with the certification
process will provide pollutant removals equal to
or greater than those projected if the facility
elects to comply with the individual subcategory
limitations. Further, analysis shows that the
costs for multi-subcategory facilities to comply
with the multiple wastestream subcategory
limitations are generally equal to or less than the
costs associated with complying with each
applicable subcategory's limitations individually.
Because EPA determined that costs of
complying with the individual subcategory limits
are achievable and costs of complying with the
multiple subcategory limits are no greater, EPA
concluded that the multiple wastestream
subcategory limits are economically achievable.
9-11
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
Best Conventional Technology (BCT) 9.2
For the final CWT rule, EPA adopted BCT
limitations equivalent to BPT for all
subcategories. In deciding whether to adopt
different BCT limits, EPA considered whether
there are technologies that achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants than adopted
for BPT, and whether those technologies are
cost-reasonable under the standards established
by the CWA, and implemented through
regulation. EPA generally refers to the decision
criteria as the "BCT Cost Test." For all four
subcategories, EPA identified no technologies
that can achieve greater removals of conventional
pollutants than those that are the basis for BPT
that are also cost-reasonable under the BCT Cost
Test. Accordingly, EPA adopted BCT effluent
limitations equal to the BPT effluent limitations.
Best A vailable Technology (BA T) 9.3
EPA adopted BAT effluent limitations for all
subcategories of the CWT industry based on the
same technologies selected as the basis for BPT
for each subcategory. The BAT limitations are
the same as the BPT limitations for priority and
non-conventional pollutants. As described in the
BPT discussion, in general, the adoption of this
level of control will represent a significant
reduction in pollutants discharged into the
environment by facilities in this industry.
Additionally, EPA has evaluated the economic
impacts associated with compliance and found
the technologies to be economically achievable.
With the exception of the metals
subcategory, EPA has not identified any more
stringent treatment technology option different
from those evaluated for BPT that might
represent best available technology economically
achievable for this industry. For the metals
subcategory, EPA did consider as BAT
technology a treatment technology that it had
evaluated for the 1999 proposal, option 3, based
on the use of selective metals precipitation.
However, as detailed in the proposal (64 FR
2307-2308, 2312), there is little additional toxic
removal associated with option 3 while the costs
to the industry for are four times greater than
the cost of the BPT option, option 44.
EPA has concluded that it should not adopt
BAT limitations based on option 3 for several
reasons. First, the option 3 technology may not
be the best "available" technology for existing
metals subcategory facilities because physical
constraints may prevent its use at certain
facilities. Currently, only one facility in the
metals subcategory is employing selective metals
precipitation, which requires the separation and
holding of wastestreams in numerous treatment
tanks. EPA is aware that some facilities do not
have, and may not be able to obtain, sufficient
space to install the additional treatment tanks
that would be needed for selective metals
precipitation. Second, while the removals
associated with option 4 are not as great as
those calculated for option 3, achievement of
limitations based on the option 4 technology will
still represent a significant advance in removals
for the industry over those obtained from
conventional precipitation technology. Given
these factors, EPA has concluded it should
adopt BAT limitations based on the option 4
technology.
For the oils and organics subcategories, as
detailed in the proposal (64 FR 2312-2313),
EPA has evaluated treatment technologies for
BAT limitations, which theoretically should
provide greater removal of pollutants of
concern. For example, EPA identified an add-
on treatment technology to technologies
considered for BPT ~ carbon adsorption ~ that
should have further increased removals of
pollutants of concern. However, EPA's data
show increases rather than decreases in
concentrations of specific pollutants of concern.
EPA has found that the treatment performance
4 EPA's data show that option 3 would remove
approximately 6 % more additional toxic pound-
equivalents than option 4.
9-12
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
of activated carbon is sometimes unreliable due
to the competitive adsorption and desorption of
pollutants that have different affinities for
adsorption on activated carbon. Also, pH
changes of the wastewater going through the
carbon adsorption system may cause stable metal
complexes to dissolve and thus cause an increase
in some metal concentrations through the
adsorption system. Consequently, EPA did not
adopt BAT limitations based on this technology.
New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) 9.4
Under Section 306 of the Act, EPA must
propose and promulgate Federal standards of
performance for categories of new sources.
Section 306(e) provides that, after the effective
date of the standards of performance, the owner
or operator of a new source may not operate the
source in violation of any applicable standard of
performance. The statute defines "standard of
performance" as a standard for the control of the
discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest
degree of effluent reduction achievable through
application of the best available demonstrated
control technologies, processes, operating
methods or other alternatives, including, where
practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of
pollutants (see Section 306(a)(1) ofthe CWA, 33
U.S.C. § 1316(a)(1)). Congress envisioned that
new treatment systems could meet tighter
controls than existing sources because of the
opportunity to incorporate the most efficient
processes and treatment systems into plant design
(see general discussion of legislative history in
American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 526
F.2d 1027, 1057-59 (3rd Cir. 1975)). In
establishing these standards, Congress directed
EPA to consider the cost of achieving the effluent
reduction and any non-water quality
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
As the legislative history of the CWA makes
clear, consideration of cost in establishing new
source standards is given less weight than in
establishing BAT limitations because pollution
control alternatives are available to new sources
that would not be available to existing sources
(see Legis. Hist. (Sen. Muskie statement of
House-Senate Conference Report on 1972
Act)).
For the oils and the organics subcategory,
EPA promulgated NSPS that would control the
same conventional, priority, and non-
conventional pollutants as the BPT effluent
limitations. The technologies used to control
pollutants at existing facilities are fully applicable
to new facilities. Therefore, EPA promulgated
NSPS oils and organics subcategory limitations
that are identical to BPT/BCT/BAT.
For the metals subcategory, however, EPA
promulgated NSPS effluent limitations based on
a technology which is different from that that
used to establish BPT/BCT/BAT limitations.
EPA promulgated NSPS for the metals
subcategory based on the NSPS technology
proposed in 1999 ~ selective metals
precipitation, liquid-solid separation, secondary
precipitation, liquid-solid separation, and tertiary
precipitation and clarification. This technology
(option 3) provides the most stringent controls
attainable through the application of
demonstrated technology. EPA has concluded
that this technology is the best demonstrated
control technology for removing metals from the
metal waste streams typically treated in the
CWT industry. Additionally, EPA has
concluded that there is no barrier to entry for
new sources to install, operate, and maintain
treatment systems that will achieve discharge
levels associated with these option 3
technologies.
An additional critical factor in EPA's
decision is that new facilities will not face the
same constraints on using selective metals
precipitation that existing facilities may. Thus,
new facilities in configuring their operation will
have the opportunity to provide sufficient space
to operate the multiple tanks associated with the
option 3 technology.
EPA's determination to establish new
source limitations based on option 3 is also tied
9-13
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
to its conclusion that facilities using this
technology have the technical capability to
recover and reuse metals, whereas facilities
employing technologies to comply with option 4
limitations do not generally have the capability to
reuse the metals and will dispose of metal-bearing
sludges in landfills. EPA's analysis shows that in
the event that a new facility elects to recover and
re-use metals rather than simply treating the
wastes, the start-up costs for the option 3
technology may actually be less than the start-up
costs for the option 4 technology. This is
because of the significant reduction in RCRA
permitting costs associated with recycling
activities versus wastewater treatment activities.
Furthermore, EPA has examined the market for
re-use of metals and has concluded that these
markets exist. Consequently, EPA has concluded
that metals re-use with option 3 is viable. As
such, this technology selection promotes the
objectives of both the Clean Water Act and the
Pollution Prevention Act. While EPA has
concluded there is no barrier to entry associated
with the option 3 technology, EPA recognizes
that a CWT metals recycling facility will be
required to be somewhat more selective about the
waste receipts it accepts than a CWT treatment
facility. However, EPA's data show that the
vast majority of metal-bearing wastewaters
accepted at CWT facilities are not dilute. In
EPA's view, this is because generating facilities
elect to treat dilute metal-bearing wastestreams
on-site because of the ease in treating these
wastes and the costs associated with the transport
and treatment of these dilute wastes off-site.
Also, there is a large amount of capacity available
at existing CWT metals subcategory facilities.
Consequently, EPA has concluded that existing
CWT metals subcategory facilities already
provide adequate capacity for dilute metal-
bearing wastestreams in the event that the
frequency of dilute wastes being transferred off-
site for treatment increases. Finally, EPA notes
that new CWT metals subcategory facilities are
not required to install the option 3 technology or
to recover metals. However, EPA's economic
analyses show that new sources should carefully
consider recycling as an alternative to
wastewater treatment.
The Agency used performance data from
the CWT metals subcategory BAT limitations
data set to promulgate NSPS limitations for oil
and grease because the facility from which the
NSPS limitations were derived did not have oil
and grease in its influent at treatable levels
during EPA's sampling episodes. EPA has
concluded that transfer of this data is
appropriate given that the technology basis for
NSPS includes selective metals precipitation and
an additional precipitation step. As such, EPA
has every reason to conclude that facilities
employing the NSPS technology could achieve
the limitations, given the fact that the oil and
grease limitations are based on performance at
a facility employing fewer treatment steps.
As was the case for BPT/BAT, the
technology basis for the multiple wastestream
subcategory new source limitations reflects the
technology basis for the applicable
subcategories.
Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources (PSES) 9.5
Section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act
requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for pollutants that are not susceptible
to treatment by POTWs or which would
interfere with the operation of POTWs. EPA
looks at a number of factors in deciding whether
a pollutant is not susceptible to treatment at a
POTW or would interfere with POTW
operations ~ the predicate to establishment of
pretreatment standards. First, EPA assesses the
pollutant removals achieved by directly
discharging CWT facilities using BAT treatment.
Second, for CWT facilities that are indirect
dischargers, EPA estimates the quantity of
pollutants likely to be discharged to receiving
waters after POTW removals. Third, EPA
studies whether any of the pollutants introduced
to POTWs by CWT facilities interfere with or
9-14
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
are otherwise incompatible with POTW
operations. In some cases, EPA also looks at
the costs, other economic impacts, likely effluent
reduction benefits, and treatment systems
currently in-place at CWT facilities.
Among the factors EPA considers before
establishing pretreatment standards is whether the
pollutants discharged by an industry pass through
a POTW or interfere with the POTW operation
or sludge disposal practices. One of the tools
traditionally used by EPA in evaluating whether
pollutants pass through a POTW, is a comparison
of the percentage of a pollutant removed by
POTWs with the percentage of the pollutant
removed by discharging facilities applying BAT.
In most cases, EPA has concluded that a
pollutant passes through the POTW when the
median percentage removed nationwide by
representative POTWs (those meeting secondary
treatment requirements) is less than the median
percentage removed by facilities complying with
BAT effluent limitations guidelines for that
pollutant. For a full explanation of how EPA
performs its removal analysis, see Chapter 7.
For the metal and organics subcategories, the
Agency promulgated pretreatment standards for
existing sources (PSES) based on the same
technologies as adopted for BPT and BAT5.
EPA has determined that the technologies that
form the basis for PSES for this final rule are
economically achievable for both subcategories.
These standards will apply to existing facilities in
the metals and organics subcategories of the
CWT industry that introduce wastewater to
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs).
These standards will prevent pass-through of
pollutants from POTWs into receiving streams
and also help control contamination of POTW
sludge. The final CWT pretreatment standards
represent a national baseline for treatment of
5 For the metals subcategory, the technology
basis for PSES does not include the second
clarification step since this step was only included
to meet the transferred TSS limitations that apply to
direct dischargers only.
CWT wastewaters. Local authorities may
establish stricter limitations (based on site-
specific water quality concerns or other local
factors) where necessary.
For the oils subcategory, EPA proposed to
base PSES on option 8 even though option 9
(the BAT technology) achieved greater
removals. Option 8 is the same technology as
option 9, but does not include the secondary
gravity separation step. At that time, the
economic analysis showed that the additional
costs associated with option 9 resulted in higher
economic impacts for the subcategory. In
particular, EPA expressed concerns about the
economic impacts of the more expensive
technology for small businesses in the oils
subcategory. Furthermore, EPA estimated that
pollutant removals (in pound-equivalents) for
option 9 were only one percent higher than the
removals for option 8.
Following proposal, EPA finalized its
estimates of costs, loadings reductions, and
economic impacts, and then re-examined its
technology selection for PSES in the oils
subcategory. As part of this examination, EPA
carefully considered the impacts of both option
8 and option 9 and the differences between
them. EPA also looked at subsets of the oils
facilities, including the set of small businesses.
Based on an evaluation of all factors, EPA has
not changed the technology basis from the 1999
proposal and set PSES standards for the oils
subcategory based on option 8.
The Agency's economic analysis is
discussed in detail in Section X of the final
preamble and Chapter 5 of the final EA.
Briefly, in evaluating economic impacts, EPA
looks at a variety of impacts to facilities and
firms (in particular, small businesses). For this
industry, EPA determined that the most relevant
economic impacts are on CWT processes and
facilities. Waste industries such as the CWT
industry are difficult to model economically;
EPA's first attempts to model CWT operations
as part of a larger facility greatly overestimated
closures (see Section 7.2 of the 1995 EA and 64
9-15
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
FR 2326). EPA therefore decided to examine the
impacts on the CWT operations and, in
particular, the profitability of individual CWT
processes and facilities (note that a CWT
"facility" is all of the CWT processes at a given
facility and does not include the non-CWT
operations at a given facility).
EPA estimates that option 8 will cost $8.2
million per year while option 9 would cost $ 11.9
million per year. As discussed in Section X.H of
the final preamble, based on these costs EPA
projects 10 process closures (4.7 percent of
indirect oils processes) and 12 facility closures
(9.4 percent of indirect oils facilities) associated
with option 8. EPA projects 15 process closures
(7.0 percent of indirect oils processes) and 12
facility closures associated with option 9. The
incremental economic impact of option 9 relative
to option 8 for oils indirect dischargers is thus
five process closures. For small businesses,
however, EPA projects two process closures (2.1
percent of indirect oils processes owned by small
businesses) and eight facility closures (14.0
percent of indirect oils facilities owned by small
businesses) for option 8. EPA projects seven
process closures (7.4 percent of indirect oils
processes owned by small businesses) and eight
facility closures for option 9. Thus, small
businesses represent a significant share of facility
closures and all of the additional process closures
associated with moving from option 8 to option
9. However, EPA estimates lower additional
pollutant removals between option 8 and option
9 than estimated in 1999. For the final rule, EPA
estimates an incremental pollutant reduction of
only 2,644 pound-equivalents between option 8
and option 9, compared to 3,658 pound
equivalents estimated at the 1999 proposal (see
Section IV.J of the final preamble for a
discussion of changes in estimated pollutant
reductions). EPA has determined that achieving
these slight additional pound-equivalent removals
does not warrant imposition of the additional cost
and impacts of option 9. All of these reasons
support the selection of option 8 as the PSES
technology basis. Therefore, EPA promulgated
PSES standards for the oils subcategory
technology based on option 8
In determining economic achievability for
indirect dischargers in the oils subcategory, EPA
acknowledges that its estimates of the impacts
are not trivial (e.g., an almost 10% facility
closure rate). However, EPA has determined
that the standards are economically achievable
for the oils subcategory as a whole. EPA has
concluded that, in the circumstances of this
industry, the costs reflect appropriate levels for
PSES control for a number of reasons. First,
costs are high because a significant number of
facilities in the oils subcategory will require
major upgrades to their in-place treatment. The
information collected for this rulemaking shows
that many of the facilities with the larger impacts
have little effective treatment in place. Second,
this rule represents the first time EPA has
established limitations and standards for this
industry, so some economic impact may be
expected (American Iron and Steel Institute v.
EPA, 526 F.2d 1027,1052 (3rd Cir. 1975)).
As was the case for BPT/BAT, the
technology basis for pretreatment standards for
the multiple wastestream subcategory reflect the
technology bases for the applicable
subcategories.
Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS) 9.6
EPA established pretreatment standards for
new sources that are equal to NSPS for priority
and non-conventional pollutants for the oils and
organics subcategories. Since the pass-through
analysis remains unchanged, for these
subcategories, the Agency established PSNS for
the same priority and non-conventional
pollutants as were established for PSES. EPA
considered the cost of the PSNS technology for
new oils and organics facilities. EPA concluded
that such costs are not so great as to present a
barrier to entry, as demonstrated by the fact that
currently operating facilities are using these
technologies. The Agency considered energy
9-16
-------
Chagtei^n^g^atoi^Ogtiom^onsidCTe^m^electe^^^eve/ogOTew^ocMmew^b^/j^^f^ToOT^oMrc^^itegory
requirements and other non-water quality
environmental impacts and found no basis for
any different standards than the selected PSNS.
For the metals subcategory, however, EPA
established PSNS based on a different technology
than that proposed in 1999. At that time, EPA
proposed to base PSNS on the option 3
technology. For the final rule, however, EPA
based the pretreatment standards for new sources
on the option 4 technology. EPA concluded the
additional removals projected with the option 3
technology for indirect dischargers do not justify
the selection of option 3. This is because, unlike
in the case of direct dischargers, a significant
share of the additional pollutant removals
associated with option 3 for indirect dischargers
will occur at the POTW anyway.
As was the case for PSES, the technology
basis for the multiple wastestream subcategory
new source limitations reflects the technology
basis for the applicable subcategories.
9-17
-------
Chapter
10
DATA CONVENTIONS AND CALCULATIONS OF
LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS
This chapter describes the data selection, data
conventions, and statistical methodology
used by EPA in calculating the long-term
averages, variability factors, and limitations.
Effluent limitations and standards1 for each
subcategory are based on long-term average
effluent values and variability factors that
account for variation in treatment performance
within a particular treatment technology over
time. This chapter replaces the discussion of
how limitations were determined in the 1995
statistical support document2 and Chapter 10 of
the Development Document for the 1999
proposal.
Facility Selection 10.1
In determining the long-term averages and
limitations for each pollutant of concern and each
subcategory option, EPA first evaluated
information about individual facilities and the
analytical data from their treatment systems. As
a result of this evaluation, EPA selected only
those facilities that operated the model
technology to achieve adequate pollutant
removals for use in calculating subcategory long-
term averages and limitations. EPA used data
from the appropriate influent and effluent sample
points to develop the long-term averages,
'in the remainder of this chapter,
references to 'limitations' includes 'standards.'
2Statistical Support Document For
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines And
Standards For The Centralized Waste
Treatment Industry, EPA 821-R-95-005, January
1995.
variability factors, and limitations. Tables B-2
and B-3 of Appendix B identifies these facilities
and sampling points for the regulatory options.
Selection of Facilities for More than
One Option 10.1.1
EPA selected some facilities for more than
one subcategory option if the facility treated its
wastes using more than one of the model
technologies. For the oils subcategory, facilities
4814A and 4814B had the model technology for
option 8.3 The model technology for option 9 is
a combination of the option 8 model technology
and an additional pretreatment step of gravity
separation. The limitations for this option are
based on data from facilities 4813, 4814A,
4814B, and 651.4 Even though the technology
basis for option 9 is based on an additional
treatment step, EPA included the data from the
option 8 facilities to ensure that the limitations
were based on facilities which treat the full
3In the 1999 proposal, EPA included
facility 651 in this option. However, after the
proposal, EPA re-evaluated the technology at this
facility and determined that its technology was
more sophisticated than option 8 and thus, the data
from this facility were excluded from option 8.
4In the 1999 proposal, EPA referred to
facility 651 as facility 701. Similarly, EPA
referred to facility 650 as 700. However,
elsewhere in the CWT record, the identifiers 700
and 701 correspond to two other facilities. To
minimize the confusion, EPA is using the
identifiers 650 and 651 for the self-monitoring
data and retaining the identifiers 700 and 701 for
the other facilities.
10-1
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
breadth of pollutants and pollutant concentrations
found in oils subcategory wastes. Thus, EPA
selected these facilities to characterize both
model technologies for options 8 and 9.
Data from a Facility for More than
One Time Period 10.1.2
If the concentration data from a facility were
collected over two or more distinct time periods,
EPA analyzed the data from each time period
separately. In the documentation, EPA identifies
each time period with a distinct "facility"
identifier. For example, facilities 4378 and 4803
are actually one facility, but the corresponding
data are from two time periods. In effluent
guidelines for other industrial categories, EPA
has made similar assumptions for such data,
because data from different time periods
generally characterize different operating
conditions due to changes such as management,
personnel, and procedures.
Data from a Facility for the Same
Time Period 10.1.3
If EPA obtained the concentration data from
both an EPA sampling episode and self-
monitoring data for the same time period, EPA
combined the data from both sources into a
single data set for the statistical analyses.
This approach was consistent with EPA's
treatment of facility 651 in the 1999 proposal. In
this case, the facility provided effluent
measurements collected on four consecutive
days by the control authority and effluent
measurements collected once a month by the
facility. EPA, however, only collected influent
and effluent measurements on one day. EPA
excluded the effluent measurements from the
EPA sampling episode in its calculations because
the sample was collected as a grab sample rather
than as a composite sample of the continuous
flow system at that sample point (measurements
from continuous flow systems are generally
composite, rather than grab, samples).
However, EPA retained the influent
measurements because influent measurements
were otherwise unavailable and this information
was crucial for determining if the facility
accepted wastes containing the pollutants that
were measured in the effluent. EPA also used
this influent information in evaluating the
pollutant removals for facility 651 (in this
document, the EPA sampling data and the self-
monitoring data are collectively identified as
'facility 651'; the EPA sampling data also is
identified as 'E5046').
This approach was also used for the data for
option 4 of the metals subcategory in calculating
the long-term averages, variability factors, and
limitations. In the calculations for the 1999
proposal, EPA had used the data from EPA's
sampling episode 4798 and the facility-supplied
self-monitoring data (called facility 650) as if
they were collected at separate facilities. EPA
received comments suggesting that EPA should
combine the sampling episode and self-
monitoring data sets into a single data set for
limitations development. EPA also received
comments that the limitations could not be met
by the facilities with the model technologies. For
this option, EPA believes that the combined
dataset is more appropriate for limitations
development. The resulting values for the long-
term averages and limitations are generally
greater than the values used for the 1999
proposal. However, EPA notes that it continued
to use only sampling episode data in the data
editing criteria because this was the only source
of influent data. F or better comparisons between
influent and effluent data, EPA also used only
the effluent data from the sampling episode in
the percent removals part of the data editing
criteria (section 10.4.3.2) because the sampling
dates and analytical methods were identical for
both influent and effluent data.
10-2
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Different Treatment Trains at a
Facility 10.1.4
Although EPA collected all the data for
Episode 4814 during the same time period and
from the same facility, EPA has determined that
data from facility 4814 should be used to
characterize two separate facilities. Facility 4814
has two entirely separate treatment trains which
EPA sampled separately. Because the systems
were operated separately and treated different
wastes, EPA has treated the data as if they were
collected from two different facilities (EPA has
identified the systems as 4814A and 4814B).
This is also consistent with EPA's
conventions for the characterization sampling
used in developing the current loadings for the
oils subcategory (see section 12.3.2). In that
analysis, EPA considered treatment trains
separately for two of the facilities. The different
treatment trains were identified as 5053A,
5053B, 5054A, and 5054B.
Sample Point Selection 10.2
Effluent Sample Point 10.2.1
For each facility used in developing the
limitations, EPA selected the effluent sample
point representing wastewater discharged by the
model technology which was the basis for that
subcategory option. For example, the effluent
discharged from sample point SP12 at facility
1987 is the effluent resulting from the model
technology selected for option 4 of the organics
subcategory.
Influent Sample Point 10.2.2
Influent data were available for all EPA
sampling episodes. However, relevant influent
data were not available for any of the self-
monitoring effluent data except for Facility 651
(as explained in section 10.1.3). As detailed in
Chapter 12, for the metals and organics
subcategories, influent data represent pollutant
concentrations in "raw", untreated wastes. For
the oils subcategory, however, influent data
represent pollutant concentrations following
emulsion breaking/gravity separation. Therefore,
for each facility, EPA determined the relevant
influent sample point for the waste entering the
model technology selected as the basis for that
subcategory option.
In some cases, EPA estimated influent
pollutant concentrations by combining pollutant
measurements from two or more influent sample
points into a single flow-weighted value. For
example, in option 3 of the metals subcategory,
EPA collected influent samples at five points
(SP01, SP03, SP05, SP07, and SP10) during the
sampling episode at Facility 4803. EPA
calculated a single value from these five sampling
points representing the influent to the model
technology using the methodology described in
Section 10.4.3.3.
Special Cases 10.2.3
As detailed previously in Chapter 2, for
samples collected during EPA sampling episodes,
EPA did not analyze for the full spectrum of
pollutants at each sampling point. The specific
constituents analyzed at each episode and
sampling point varied and depended on the waste
type being treated and the treatment technology
being evaluated. For example, for the metals
subcategory, EPA did not generally analyze for
organic pollutants in effluent from chemical
precipitation and clarification. Therefore, in
some cases, for specific pollutants, EPA selected
a different sample point to represent influent to
and effluent from the model treatment
technology than the sample point selected for all
other pollutants. For example, for Episode 4803
in metals option 3, EPA selected sample point 15
to represent the effluent from the model
technology. Since EPA did not analyze the
wastewater collected at sample point 15 for oil
and grease/n-hexane extractable material (HEM),
silica gel treated n-hexane extractable material
(SGT-HEM), total cyanide, and organic
10-3
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
constituents, for these pollutants only, EPA
selected sample point 16 to represent the effluent
point for Episode 4803 of metals option 3. EPA
concluded that this is appropriate since the
treatment step between sample point 15 and
sample point 16 should not have affected the
levels of these pollutants in the wastewater.
Other such cases are identified in the tables in
Appendix B and in the CBI record (for the oils
subcategory).
Determination of Batch and
Continuous Fiow Systems 10.3
For each influent and effluent sample point
of interest, EPA determined whether wastewater
flows were 'continuous' or 'batch. ' These
designations are provided in the tables in
Appendix B.
At sample points associated with continuous
flow processes, EPA collected composite
samples for all analytes except for oil and grease
and HEM for which the analytical methods
specify grab samples. Also, if EPA field
composited samples of batches for each day at
a batch flow system, the statistical analyses used
the data as if they were from continuous flow
systems.
At sample points associated with batch flow
processes, EPA usually collected grab samples of
different batches.
For self-monitoring data, EPA assumed the
wastewater flow to be either continuous or batch
based on the type of discharge at the facility (i.e.,
continuous or batch discharge).
EPA made different assumptions in
analyzing the data depending on the two types of
flow processes. For each sample point
associated with a continuous flow process, EPA
aggregated all measurements within a day to
obtain one value for the day. This daily value
was then used in the calculations of long-term
averages, variability factors, and limitations. For
example, if samples were collected at the sample
point on four consecutive days, the long-term
average would be the arithmetic average of four
daily values. (Sections 10.4.2 and 10.5 discuss
data aggregation and calculation of long-term
averages, respectively.) In contrast, for each
sample point associated with a batch flow
process, EPA aggregated the measurements to
obtain one value for each batch. This batch
value was then used as if it were a daily value.
For example, if one sample was collected from
each of 20 batches treated on four consecutive
days (i.e., a total of 20 samples during a four day
period), the long-term average for the facility
would be the arithmetic average of the 20 batch
values.
For simplicity, the remainder of the chapter
refers to both types of aggregated values (i.e.,
daily and batch values) as 'daily values.' In
addition, references to 'sampling day' or 'day'
mean either a sampling day at a continuous flow
facility or a batch from a batch flow facility.
Data Seiection 10.4
After the 1999 proposal, EPA re-evaluated
the bases for the data exclusions and
assumptions used in calculating limitations. As a
result of its review of sampling episode reports,
EPA retained the same exclusions and
assumptions with some minor modifications.
EPA also performed a detailed review of the
analytical data. As a result, EPA's database was
corrected and the corrected version has been
placed in the record for this rulemaking.
The modifications to the data exclusions and
assumptions and the corrections to the database
are discussed in this section.
Data Exclusions and Substitutions 10.4.1
In some cases, EPA did not use all of the
data detailed in Appendix B to calculate long-
term averages, variability factors and limitations.
This section details these data exclusions and
substitutions. Other than the data exclusions and
substitutions described in this section and those
resulting from the data editing procedures
10-4
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
(described in section 10.4.3), EPA has used all
the data from the facilities and sample points
presented in Appendix B.
Operational Difficulties 10.4.1.1
EPA excluded data that were collected while
the facility was experiencing operational
difficulties. For the data used in calculating long-
term averages and limitations, this occurred
during sampling at episode 4814 only. During
the second day of sampling, 9/17/96, the facility
was required to shut-down and re-start the
operation of both of its DAF systems due to poor
performance and equipment failures. As such,
EPA excluded all data collected on 9/17/96
associated with sample point 09 at facility 4814A
and sample point 10 at facility 4814B.
Treatment Not Reflective of
BPT/BCT/BAT Treatment 10.4.1.2
EPA reviewed the effluent data used to
develop the limitations and excluded any facility
data set where the long-term average did not
reflect the performance expected by
BPT/BCT/BAT treatment. As a result of this
review, EPA excluded some of the metals and
conventionals data as representing less than
optimal treatment.
EPA continued to exclude the mercury
values from facility 602 in option 3 of the metals
subcategory (these were previously excluded for
the 1999 proposal). EPA excluded these values
because the smallest value was 1 ug/L when the
largest effluent value obtained during two
different EPA sampling episodes at that facility
was almost five times less at 0.21 ug/L.
EPA also continued to exclude nickel from
facility 6515 in option 9 of the oils subcategory
because it had one extremely large effluent value
of 25,000 ug/L. The facility indicated that the
waste receipts from a single source were
unexpectedly concentrated with nickel and the
facility did not optimize its treatment accordingly.
The facility no longer handles such highly
concentrated nickel wastes.
As a result of its review after the 1999
proposal, EPA excluded all of the metals data
from sampling episode 4813 because its
treatment system generally demonstrated poor
removals of metals. For most metals, the facility
had low levels in the influent and the data did not
even pass EPA's data editing criteria described in
section 10.4.3.1. For the remaining metals, the
facility generally demonstrated poor removals
with much lower influent and effluent levels than
the other facilities used as a basis for that option.
By removing these data, the limitations for two
analytes, copper and zinc, have higher values
than those in the 1999 proposal.
As explained in section 10.8, as a result of its
review after the 1999 proposal, EPA transferred
the limitations for lead for metals option 4 to
metals option 3. However, in the group
variability factor6 calculations, EPA retained
these data because they still represent the
5Although the Development Document
for 1999 proposal did not cite this exclusion,
EPA excluded these data in the 1999 proposal. In
any case, the data do not pass the LTA test
described in Section 10.4.3.1 and thus would not
have been included in any calculations for the
limitations, even if they had not been specifically
excluded.
6As explained later in this chapter, EPA
generally used pollutant variability factors rather
than group variability factors in calculating the
limitations. For a few pollutants, however,
pollutant variability factors could not be
calculated because the data were mostly non-
detects. In these cases, EPA used group
variability factors or the organics variability
factors instead.
10-5
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
variability expected by the model technologies
for option 3.
The remaining excluded facility data sets
were for conventional parameters (i.e., oil and
grease, BOD5, and TSS) and EPA also excluded
these for the 1999 proposal. In all cases, these
data sets were collected at facilities that are
indirect dischargers that are not required to
optimize performance of their system for
removal of these pollutants. In most cases, the
conventional pollutants are not limited by the
POTW and the facility is not required to monitor
for these pollutants. These exclusions were for
oil and grease (facilities 4813,4814A, and 4814B
for option § of the oils subcategory), BOD5
(facility 1987 for option 4 of the organics
subcategory), TSS (facility 1987 for option 4 of
the organics subcategory, and facilities 4798 and
700 for option 4 of the metals subcategory).
Similarly, in calculating long-term averages
for oils option 9, EPA excluded the TSS data for
facilities 4813, 4814A, and 4814B. However,
EPA used these data to calculate variability
factors for TSS for oils option 9 because EPA
concluded that the data reflected the overall
variability associated with the model technology
(Sections 10.5, 10.6, and 10.7 describe the
development of the long-term averages,
variability factors, and limitations, respectively).
Exclusions to EPA Sampling Data
Based Upon the Availability of the
Influent and Effluent 10.4.1.3
After the 1999 proposal, EPA reviewed its
assumptions based on the availability of influent
and effluent data. For the final CWT rule, EPA
has retained these same assumptions. This
section describes those assumptions.
For the data from the EPA sampling
episodes, EPA determined the availability of the
7EPA did not similarly exclude data for
facilities 4814A and 4814B from the option 8
calculations since EPA did not select this option
as the basis of the BPT/BCT limitations.
influent and effluent data for each sampling day.
Both influent and effluent levels are important in
evaluating whether the treatment system
efficiently removed the pollutants. In addition,
the pollutant levels in the influent indicate
whether the pollutants existed at treatable levels.
In most cases, both influent and effluent data
were available for a given day.
For the cases when effluent data were
unavailable for some days, but influent data were
available, EPA generally determined that the
influent data still provided useful information
about the pollutant levels and should be retained.
However, for the organic pollutants at facility
4378, the effluent data were only available for
one day while the influent data were available for
several days. In this case, EPA determined that
the percent removals for the facility should be
calculated by pairing the influent and effluent
levels for that single day. Otherwise, the percent
removals would be calculated using an average
over several days of influent compared to one
effluent value from a single day. However, all of
the influent data were used for the long-term
average test described in section 10.4.3.1. This
is because the test only considers influent data
and does not consider effluent values.
When effluent data were available but
influent data were unavailable, EPA determined
that the effluent data should be excluded from
further consideration. Without the influent data,
EPA could not evaluate the treatability of the
pollutants and the effectiveness of the treatment
system.
More Reliable Results Available 10.4.1.4
In some cases, EPA had analytical data
which represent a single facility (and time period)
that were analyzed by two different laboratories
or using two different analytical methods. For
several of these cases, EPA determined that one
analytical result was more reliable than the other
and excluded the less reliable result. This section
describes these cases.
10-6
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
In limited instances, facility 650 (used for
metals subcategory option 4) provided two
analytical results for the same date from different
laboratories. For the total cyanide effluent data
collected on 11/6/96, the analytical results from
the two laboratories differed considerably. This
facility considered the result generated by the
off-site laboratory to be more reliable than the
result generated by its on-site laboratory and
recommended that EPA use the off-site data
only. EPA agrees with this suggestion and has
used only the value from the off-site laboratory
in the final rule (this is the same assumption used
in the 1999 proposal).
Some chlorinated phenolics in episode 1987
(used for the organics subcategory8) were
analyzed by both Method 85.01 and Method
1625. Thus, for a given sample, EPA obtained
two results for each chlorinated phenolic. Of the
pollutants of concern for the organics
subcategory, these compounds were
pentachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol,
2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
Where two results were provided for the same
pollutant in a sample, EPA used the analytical
result from Method 1625 in the final rule and in
the 1999 proposal. This decision is based on the
knowledge that Method 1625 is an isotope
dilution GC/MS procedure, and therefore
produces more reliable results than Method
85.01.
After the 1999 proposal, EPA excluded the
remaining Method 85.01 data in calculating
variability factors used to develop the limitations.
As explained in Chapter 15, Method 85.01 was
only used to analyze samples from one CWT
sampling episode and has been replaced by
Method 1653. Because of some large
discrepancies between some of the values from
SEPA also used the data from E1987 for
the metals subcategory to determine pollutants of
concern and baseline loadings. However, none of
the chlorinated phenolics were pollutants of
concern for the metals subcategory.
Method 85.01 and Method 1625 (which also was
used to analyze some chlorinated phenolics),
EPA decided that it was more appropriate to
exclude all Method 85.01 data from any of the
calculations for limitations. This included
calculation of group variability factors as
described in section 10.6.7. However, when
Method 1625 data were not available for the
analyte, EPA retained the Method 85.01 data as
the best available information to calculate current
loadings for the organics subcategory as
described in section 12.3.3.
Data from Facilities Which Accepted
Waste from More than One
Subcategory 10.4.1.5
For the final rule, EPA also continued to
exclude data that were collected during time
periods when the facility treated wastes from
more than one CWT subcategory. For metals
option 4, EPA excluded the data for all analytes
when oil and grease values in the effluent were
greater than 143 mg/L. Such high values were
obtained in the effluent monitoring data provided
by the facility, but not in the data from EPA's
sampling episode at that facility. As is common
practice, the facility monitored its effluent and
not its influent. This meant that EPA was unable
to fully evaluate the cause of such high levels of
oil and grease in the effluent. However, EPA
concluded that these oil and grease levels
indicated the facility treated both oils and metals
subcategory wastes on those days and the data
were not representative of the metals wastes
alone. EPA concluded that the value of 143
mg/L indicated that the wastes were a
combination of oils and metals wastes because
143 mg/L was the highest value measured for oil
and grease in the influent samples collected at
any other metals subcategory facility. Because
such high levels are common in the oils
subcategory, EPA considers values of oil and
grease in the effluent above this level to indicate
that the facility was also treating oils subcategory
wastes. For the days when such high levels were
10-7
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
reported, EPA excluded the oil and grease data
and the data for other analytes from its
calculations for metals option 4.
Data Collected by EPA and the
Facility on the Same Day 10.4.1.6
After the 1999 proposal, EPA determined
that it was appropriate to combine the data from
the EPA sampling episodes and the facility's self-
monitoring data from the same time period (see
section 10.1.3) for metals option 4. EPA
generally retained both measurements for all
analytes where both the self-monitoring data and
the sampling episode data contained
measurements for the same day. In the
analyses, EPA arithmetically averaged the two
values to obtain a single daily value.
The only exception to this general rule was
for the oil and grease measurements. For this
analyte, EPA collected a series of grab samples
throughout each day while the facility collected
a single grab sample. Without referring to
detailed information about the facility's sample
collection on that day, EPA could not determine
if the grab sample should be combined with one
of EPA's grab samples from approximately the
same time period or whether the time periods
were substantially different. Furthermore, it is
also likely that the facility used a different
method than EPA in its laboratory analysis (EPA
used Method 1664 and, at that time, facilities
more commonly used Method 413.1).
Substitution Using the Baseline
Values 10.4.1.7
In determining the pollutants of concern
(Chapter 6), calculating the baseline loadings
(Chapter 12), and developing the pollutant long-
term averages and limitations, EPA compared
each laboratory-reported sample result to a
baseline value (defined in Chapter 15). For
certain pollutants, EPA substituted a larger value
than the measured value or sample-specific
detection limit. These pollutants were measured
by Methods 1624 and 1625 (organic pollutants)
and Method 1664 (n-hexane extractable material
(HEM) and silica gel treated n-hexane extractable
material (SGT-HEM)). For these pollutants,
EPA substituted the baseline value and assumed
that the measurement was non-detected when a
measured value or sample-specific detection limit
was reported with a value less than the baseline
value.9 For example, if the baseline value was
10 ug/1 and the laboratory reported a detected
value of 5 ug/1, EPA assumed that the
concentration was non-detected with a sample-
specific detection limit of 10 ug/1. This was
consistent with the procedure used in the 1999
proposal.
For consistency, when the oil and grease
values (measured by Method 413.1) for facility
651 were below the Method 1664 baseline value
of 5 mg/L, EPA considered the measurement to
be non-detected with a sample-specific detection
limit of 5 mg/L in the calculations for both the
1999 proposal and the final rule.
As explained in Chapters 15 and 12, in
determining the pollutants of concern and the
pollutant loadings, respectively, EPA used the
baseline value for semiquantitative analytes from
episode 1987. However, in calculating the long-
term averages and limitations, this substitution
was unnecessary because these data either had
reported measured values or sample-specific
detection limits.
Other than the exceptions in this subsection,
for all other pollutants at this and other episodes,
EPA used the reported measured value or
sample-specific detection limit in its calculations.
9For p-cresol, EPA used the baseline
value of 10 ug/L (which was based on the results
of one early study of the analytical method) in all
analyses except in calculating the limitations. In
calculating limitations, EPA used the value of 20
ug/L which is identified as the minimum level in
the final rule.
10-8
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Corrections to the Database and
Changes in Data Selections 10.4.1.8
After the 1999 proposal, EPA re-examined
its databases and corrected some errors.
Correcting two errors in the facility 602
database slightly changed the nickel and arsenic
long-term averages and limitations for option 3 of
the metals subcategory. For nickel, EPA
corrected one value of 1000 ug/L to 10 ug/L
(previously, it was the maximum value in the
data set; it is now the minimum value). EPA
also included one additional value for arsenic
which had previously been overlooked (this
value was close to the average value).
For the data collected during EPA sampling
episodes at some oils subcategory facilities, EPA
also corrected some of the semi-volatile values
measured by Method 1625. These values had
been over-adjusted for dilution during chemical
analysis at the laboratory. As a result of these
corrections, some measurements had lower
values than those used in the 1999 proposal. In
addition, some values were corrected to be
below detection and were then identified as
'non-detected' with sample-specific detection
limits equal to the baseline values from Method
1625. None of the effluent values changed that
were used in calculating the limitations. The
adjusted data were for concentrated samples
from non-effluent sample points (e.g., influent).
These adjusted data values were used to
determine the pollutants of concern, the industry
current loadings, and the influent levels used in
the data editing criteria which determined if the
data should be used in developing the limitations.
As a result of these changes, some analytes, such
as benzo(a)pyrene, which had been identified as
pollutants of concern in the 1999 proposal, were
no longer identified as pollutants of concern and
were not used in calculating the current loadings
or the group variability factors. Other than
changes to the pollutants of concern, EPA
cannot readily determine the impact of these
corrections to its current loadings for the oils
subcategory because EPA also made
methodology changes for these calculations as
described in Chapter 12. It is easier for EPA to
determine the effect of these data corrections on
the results of the data editing criteria. This can
be done by comparing the influent results in
Appendix C in this document to Appendix C in
the 1999 proposal Development Document. For
example, the daily influent value for
acenaphthene for facility 651 (which is the
influent from episode 5046) has changed from
366 ug/L to 238 ug/L.10 None of the corrections
to the data from Method 1625 changed the
selection of regulated analytes or the values of
the limitations and group variability factors.
In developing the pollutants of concern for
all three subcategories for the 1999 proposal,
EPA intended to select those pollutants that were
detected (at treatable levels) 10 percent of the
time. However, in reviewing the computer
programs prior to promulgating the final rule,
EPA determined that the programs selected those
analytes detected 50 percent of the time. For the
final rule, EPA has corrected its programs to 10
percent. This correction has little effect on the
final selection of pollutants of concern and no
effect on the choice of regulated pollutants.
However, it did change a few of the pollutants
used in developing group variability factors. One
such case is lithium in the oils subcategory which
was previously used in the group variability
factor calculations (for the metals group), but is
no longer a pollutant of concern and
consequently has been excluded from those
calculations. Changes to the pollutants of
concern are identified in DCN 36.1.1.
In its data editing criteria, EPA changed the
wastestream flows for the influent sample points
for facility 4803 in metals option 3. For the
10In the proposal Development
Document, Appendix C incorrectly identifies the
sampling date for facility 651 as 04/06/98. The
correct date is 03/03/98 which corresponds to the
influent from episode 5046.
10-9
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
1999 proposal, EPA used the average flow at
each sample point. For the final rule, EPA used
the flow corresponding to each sample point on
the day that it was sampled because this provides
more accurate estimates. As a result of this
change in the flows, for the final rule, selenium
passed the data editing criteria (previously it had
failed). Because EPA indicated its intention to
regulate selenium for the metals subcategory in
the 1999 proposal, the final rule regulates
selenium for option 3 (which is the basis for
NSPS). The change in the flows also changed
the analytes that passed the data editing criteria
and that subsequently were used for group
variability factor calculations for metals option 3.
These can be identified by comparing
Attachment 10-1 in Appendix E of the 1999
proposal Development Document to the
Appendix D in this document.
For the final rule, EPA also incorporated the
changes described in Chapter 7 in its selection of
analytes used to develop the group variability
factors and the analytes selected for regulation.
For example, in the metals subcategory, EPA
excluded maganese as a regulated analyte and
from the group variability factor calculations
because it is used as a treatment chemical and its
variability could be different than analytes treated
by the model technologies.
Data Aggregation 10.4.2
In some cases, EPA determined that two or
more samples had to be mathematically
aggregated to obtain a single value that could be
used in other calculations. In some cases, this
meant that field duplicates, grab samples, and/or
multiple daily observations were aggregated for
a single sample point or batch. In other cases,
data from multiple sample points were
aggregated to obtain a single value representing
the influent to the model technology (aggregating
over multiple sample points was not necessary
for effluent from the model technologies because
the effluent data for any one particular analyte
were all obtained from a single sample point at
each facility).
In all aggregation procedures, EPA
considered the censoring type associated with the
data. EPA considered measured values to be
detected. In statistical terms, the censoring type
for such data was 'non-censored' (NC).
Measurements reported as being less than some
sample-specific detection limit (e.g., <10 mg/L)
are censored and were considered to be non-
detected (ND). In the tables and data listings in
this document and the record for the rulemaking,
EPA has used the abbreviations NC and ND to
indicate the censoring types.11
The distinction between the two censoring
types is important because the procedure used to
determine the variability factors considers
censoring type explicitly. This estimation
procedure modeled the facility data sets using the
modified delta-lognormal distribution. In this
distribution, data are modeled as a mixture of
two distributions corresponding to different
process conditions. Because this industry treats
different types of waste from day to day, EPA
assumed that the process conditions leading to
non-detected values are generally different than
process conditions leading to the detected values
(for example, a facility may treat wastewater
with relatively high levels of organics and low
levels of metals and the next day treat wastes
that have high metals concentrations and non-
detectable levels of organics). Thus, EPA
concluded that the distinctions between detected
and non-detected measurements were important
in estimating the variability factors.
Because each aggregated data value entered
into the model as a single value, the censoring
11 In very few instances, some of the
laboratories reported numerical results for
specific pollutants detected in the samples as
"right-censored." Right-censored measurements
are those that were reported as being greater than
the highest calibration value of the analysis (e.g.,
>1000 ug/L). EPA used these values as though
they were non-censored.
10-10
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
type associated with that value was also
important. In many cases, a single aggregated
value was created from unaggregated data that
were all either detected or non-detected. In the
remaining cases with a mixture of detected and
non-detected unaggregated values, EPA
determined that the resulting aggregated value
should be considered to be detected because the
pollutant was measured at detectable levels.
This section describes each of the different
aggregation procedures. They are presented in
the order that the aggregation was performed.
That is, field duplicates were aggregated first,
grab and multiple samples second, and finally
multiple streams. For example, if EPA has four
pairs of data (i.e., four influent samples and four
duplicate influent samples), then EPA aggregated
each of the four pairs to obtain four values ~ one
for each pair of data. These four values were
then aggregated to obtain one daily value for the
influent stream at that particular sample point.
As a further example, suppose the same facility
had two additional streams entering into the
treatment system. Thus, the influent into the
treatment system would be characterized by the
combination of the pollutant levels at three
different sample points for the three streams. To
obtain one value to characterize the influent, the
pollutant levels at the three sample points would
be 'flow-weighted' by the wastewater flow at
each sample point. The following three sections
specify the procedures used to aggregate field
duplicates, grab samples (and daily values), and
multiple influent streams, respectively. These
aggregation procedures are the same as those
used in the 1999 proposal.
different sample numbers, and flagged as
duplicates for a single sample point at a facility.
Because the analytical data from each
duplicate pair characterize the same conditions at
that time at a single sampling point, EPA
aggregated the data to obtain one data value for
those conditions. The data value associated with
those conditions was the arithmetic average of
the duplicate pair.
In most cases, both duplicates in a pair had
the same censoring type. In these cases, the
censoring type of the aggregate was the same as
the duplicates. In the remaining cases, one
duplicate was a non-censored value and the other
duplicate was a non-detected value. In these
cases, EPA determined that the appropriate
censoring type of the aggregate was
'non-censored' because the pollutant had been
present in one sample (even if the other duplicate
had a zero value12, the pollutant still would have
been present if the samples had been physically
combined). Table 10-1 summarizes the
procedure for aggregating the analytical results
from the field duplicates. This aggregation step
for the duplicate pairs was the first step in the
aggregation procedures for both influent and
effluent measurements.
Aggregation of Field Duplicates
10.4.2.1
During the EPA sampling episodes, EPA
collected a small number of field duplicates.
Generally, ten percent of the number of samples
collected were duplicated. Field duplicates are
two samples collected for the same sampling
point at approximately the same time, assigned
12This is presented as a 'worst-case'
scenario. In practice, the laboratories cannot
measure 'zero' values. Rather they report that the
value is less than some level (see Chapter 15).
10-11
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 10-1. Aggregation of Field Duplicates
If the field duplicates are:
Censoring type of
average is:
Value of aggregate is:
Formulas for
aggregate value of
duplicates:
Both non-censored
NC
arithmetic average of
measured values
(NCj +NC2)/2
Both non-detected
ND
arithmetic average of
sample-specific detection
limits
(DLj + DL2)/2
One non-censored and
one non-detected
NC
arithmetic average of
measured value and sample-
specific detection limit
(NC + DL)/2
NC=non-censored(or detected) ND=non-detected DL=sample-specific detection limit
Aggregation of Grab Samples and
Multiple Daily Values 10.4.2.2
This section describes the aggregation of
grab samples and multiple daily values for
effluent sample points associated with continuous
flow facilities (defined in section 10.3).
During the EPA sampling episodes, EPA
collected two types of samples: grab and
composite. Typically, for a continuous flow
system, EPA collected composite samples;
however, for oil and grease, the method specifies
that grab samples must be used. For that
pollutant, EPA collected multiple (usually four)
grab samples during a sampling day at a sample
point associated with a continuous flow system.
To obtain one value characterizing the pollutant
levels at the sample point on a single day, EPA
mathematically aggregated the measurements
from the grab samples.
In the self-monitoring data, facilities
occasionally reported more than one value for a
single day. If the sample point was associated
with a continuous flow system, then EPA
mathematically aggregated the results to obtain
one daily value.
EPA used the same procedure for grab
samples and multiple daily values. The
procedure arithmetically averaged the
measurements to obtain a single value for the
day. When one or more measurements were
non-censored, EPA determined that the
appropriate censoring type of the aggregate was
'non-censored' because the pollutant was
present. Table 10-2 summarizes the procedure.
10-12
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 10-2. Aggregation of Grab Samples and Daily Values
If the grab or multiple
samples are:
Censoring type of Daily value is:
Daily Value is:
Formulas for Calculating
Daily Value:
All non-censored
NC arithmetic average of
measured values
i=l
All non-detected
ND arithmetic average of sample-
specific detection limits
ZDi/
Z=1
Mixture of non-censored
and non-detected values
(total number of
observations is n=k+m)
NC arithmetic average of
measured values and sample-
specific detection limits
E NC, + E DL,
n
NC=non-censored (or detected)
ND=non-detected
DL = sample -specific
detection limit
Aggregation of Data Across
Streams ("Flow-Weighting") 10.4.2.3
After field duplicates and grab samples were
aggregated, the data were further aggregated
across sample points. This step was necessary
when more than one sample point characterized
the wastestream of concern. For example, this
situation occurred for facility 4803 where five
different wastestreams entered into the treatment
process. EPA sampled each of these
wastestreams individually at sample points SPO1,
SP03, SP05, SP07, and SP10. In aggregating
values across sample points, if one or more of
the values were non-censored, then the
aggregated result was non-censored (because the
pollutant was present in at least one stream).
When all of the values were non-detected, then
the aggregated result was considered to be non-
detected. The procedure for aggregating data
across streams is summarized in Table 10-3.
The following example demonstrates the
procedure for hypothetical pollutant X at a
facility with three streams entering into the
treatment system on day 1 of the sampling
episode.
10-13
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Example of calculating an aggregated flow-weighted value:
Day
1
1
1
Sample Point
SP33
SP34
SP35
Flow (gal)
10,000
20,000
5,000
Concentration (ug/L)
10
50
100
Censoring
ND
NC
ND
Calculation to obtain aggregated, flow-weighted value:
(l0,000gal x 10ug IZ) + (20,000gal x 50ugIZ) + (5,000gal x 100ug IZ)
10,000 gar/ + 20,000 gal + 5,000 gal
= 45.7 ug / Z
Because one of the three values was non-censored, the aggregated value of 45.7 ug/L is non-censored.
Table 10-3. Aggregation of Data Across Streams
If the n observations are:
Censoring
type is:
Formulas for value of aggregate
All non-censored
All non-detected
Mixture of k non-censored and
m non-detected
(total number of observations is
n=k+m)
NC
ND
NC
n
Y NC- x
7=1
n
Y A°w'
7=1
n
Y DL' x
Y flow.
7=1
k m
Y NC' x + Z DL' x f[ow'
7=1
7=1
Y fk>w.
NC=non-censored(or detected) ND=non-detected
DL=sample-specific detection limit
Data Editing Criteria 10.4.3
After excluding some data (as detailed in
Section 10.4.1) and aggregating the data (section
10.4.2), EPA applied data editing criteria to
select facility data sets to be used in calculating
the long-term averages and limitations. These
criteria were specified by the 'long-term average
test' (or LTA test) and 'percent removals test.'
For each of the regulatory options and
pollutants of concern evaluated for long-term
10-14
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
averages and limitations, Attachment 10-1 in
Appendix D indicates whether the data from the
EPA sampling episodes failed the data editing
criteria, indicates when no data were available
for a pollutant at any of the facilities, or provides
the facility-specific long-term average (calculated
as described in section 10.5). Table 12-9
presents the results on an option-level basis. If
all of the facility data sets within an option failed
the tests, then the table indicates that the analyte
failed the tests. Otherwise, the table lists the
pollutant long-term average calculated using the
facility data sets that passed the tests (see section
10.5.2).
The criteria for the self-monitoring data
depended upon the results of the data editing
criteria for facility data sets from the EPA
sampling episodes.
These data editing criteria for the EPA
sampling episodes and the self-monitoring data
are described in the following sections. These
criteria are the same as used in the 1999
proposal. However, the following discussion
provides additional clarification and information.
Long-Term Average Test 10.4.3.1
EPA established the long-term average test
('LTA test') to ensure that the pollutants were
present in the influent at sufficient concentrations
to evaluate treatment effectiveness at the facility.
After the data aggregation described in section
10.4.2, EPA compared the daily values of the
influent and their long-term average to the
baseline values described in Chapter 15. The
influent had to pass a basic requirement and one
of the following two steps to pass the LTA test:
Basic Requirement: Fifty percent of the
influent measurements had to be detected at any
level.
If the data set passed this basic requirement,
the data set then had to pass one of the following
two conditions:
Step T. Fifty percent of the influent
measurements had to be detected at
concentration levels at treatable levels
which was any value equal to or greater
than ten times the baseline value for the
pollutant (the baseline values are listed
in Attachment 15-1); or
Step 2: The influent long-term average had to
be equal to or greater than ten times the
baseline value (Section 10.5 describes
the calculations for long-term averages).
If the data set failed the basic requirement,
then EPA automatically set Step 1 and Step 2 to
'fail.'
When the data set at a facility failed the
basic requirement or both steps, EPA excluded
the effluent data for the facility in calculating the
long-term averages, variability factors, and
limitations for the corresponding option in the
subcategory.
For example, at facility 1987, if the arsenic
data from influent sample point 07B failed any of
the editing criteria, then the effluent data at
sample point SP12 were excluded from
calculating the long-term averages and limitations
for option 4 of the organics subcategory.
In performing the LTA test, EPA used the
influent sample points identified in Table B-2 in
Appendix B. An example of the LTA test is
provided in section 10.4.3.4.
Percent Removal Test 10.4.3.2
If the influent data passed either step in the
LTA test, then EPA calculated the facility's
influent and effluent averages using the
aggregation steps previously described. This is a
deviation from the procedure used in the 1999
proposal where EPA did not aggregate batches,
grabs, or multiple daily values (other than
duplicates) as an interim step prior to obtaining
one overall value for the wastestream. This
procedure is now consistent with the calculations
for the influent averages used in LTA test (in
10-15
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
section 10.4.3.1) and the effluent long-term
averages used in the limitations (in section 10.7).
The percent removal test compared the
influent and effluent averages to determine if the
treatment associated with the effluent sample
point removed any of the pollutant. If the
removals were negative, then EPA excluded the
effluent data from developing the long-term
averages and limitations.
Percent removal =
Influent average - Effluent average
Influent average
In performing the percent removals test for
each facility, EPA used the influent and
corresponding effluent points identified in Tables
B-2 and B-3, respectively, in Appendix B.
Section 10.4.3.4 provides an example of the
percent removal test.
Evaluation of Self-Monitoring Data 10.4.3.3
EPA used self-monitoring data for effluent at
three facilities in developing the long-term
averages and limitations. These facilities were
602, 650, and 651. These facilities provided
concentration values for some of the pollutants
that EPA considered in developing the long-term
averages and limitations. However, the self-
monitoring data were for effluent only (i.e., no
influent data were provided). In its evaluation of
the data, EPA determined that influent data
provided critical evidence that the facility treated
wastes containing these pollutants. Thus, EPA
used influent data from its sampling episodes to
determine if the facility accepted wastes
containing these pollutants.
For facility 651, EPA collected influent
information during the same time period as the
effluent data provided by the facility. As
described in section 10.1, EPA used this influent
information with the facility 651 effluent data.
For facility 602, EPA considered the
pollutant levels in the influent at the EPA
sampling episodes. As explained in section 10.1,
different facility numbers may refer to the same
facility. For option 3 of the metals subcategory,
facilities 602, 4378, and 4803 are the same
facility (Facilities 4378 and 4803 were EPA
sampling episodes). If the influent data at facility
4378 or facility 4803 met the data editing criteria
(i.e., LTA test and percent removals test), then
EPA used the effluent data from facility 602 in
calculating the long-term averages and limitations
for the pollutant. If the influent data for the
pollutant at facility 4378 and facility 4803 did not
meet the criteria, then EPA excluded the data
from facility 602.
In a similar manner, facilities 4798 and 650
for option 4 of the metals subcategory were
linked. As described in section 10.1.3, EPA
used the data from the EPA sampling episode
4798 in the data editing criteria. In developing
the limitations, EPA used the combined data set
from the sampling episode 4798 and facility 650.
Thus, if the influent data for a pollutant at facility
4798 passed the LTA test and the influent and
effluent data passed the percent removals test,
then EPA used the effluent data from the
combined data set in calculating the long-term
averages and limitations for the pollutant. If the
data for the pollutant at facility 4798 did not
meet the criteria, then EPA excluded the
combined data set in calculating the long-term
averages and limitations for the pollutant.
10-16
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Examples of Applying Data Editing
Criteria 10.4.3.4
This section provides four examples of
applying the data editing criteria described in
sections 10.4.3.1 and 10.4.3.2. In the following
examples, there is a short summary of the
purpose of the example, followed by a listing of
the data. After the data, there is another short
summary that provides the results of the data
editing criteria demonstrated in the example.
In each of the data listings, the column
"Concentration value" lists the reported data
values prior to aggregating duplicates (if the data
is from a duplicate pair, then the phrase dup'
follows the concentration value and the matching
duplicate is listed either directly above or below
that value). The column "Influent daily value
(aggregated)" provides one value for each day
after aggregating any duplicate samples (Table
10-1 identifies the methodology for aggregating
duplicates). If the "Concentration value" column
is not provided, then none of the data were
duplicates. In these cases, the "Influent daily
value" is provided with the phrase "(aggregated)"
omitted from the column heading. Unless
specified in the example summary, the censoring
is indicated after the concentration and daily
values (NC=non-censored and ND=non-
detected).
EXAMPLE 1: This is an example of the LTA test (section 10.4.3.1) where the data meet the general
requirement, pass Step 1, but fail Step 2. Because the data pass Step 1, they pass the LTA test. This
example uses the n,n-dimethylformamide data from sampling episode 1987. The influent sample point
is 07B. The baseline value is 10 ug/L. So, the treatable level is any value equal to or greater than
10*10 ug/L=100 ug/L.
Date Sample was
Concentration
Influent daily value
Detected at
Detected at
Collected
value
(aggregated)
any level?
treatable levels?
(ug/L)
(ug/L)
16-Jul-90
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
No
No
17-Jul-90
no data
no data
n/a
n/a
18-Jul-90
34.2 (NC) - dup
23.35 (NC)
Yes
no
12.5 (ND) - dup
19-Jul-90
132.45 (NC)
132.45 (NC)
Yes
Yes
20-Jul-90
225.19 (NC)
225.19 (NC)
Yes
Yes
Basic Requirement is met: 3 of the 4 daily values were detected.
Step 1 passes: 2 of the 4 daily values were detected at treatable levels.
Step 2 fails: The influent long-term average is less than the treatable level of 100 ug/L. (The influent
long-term average is the arithmetic average of the four influent daily values and is equal to 97.75 ug/L
which is less than 100 ug/L.)
LTA Test passes: Data pass one of the steps, Step 1.
EXAMPLE 2: This is an example of the percent removal test (section 10.4.3.2) where the data have
passed the LTA Test. This example uses the n,n-dimethylformamide data from example 1. The
influent sample point is again sample point 07B and the effluent point is sample point 12 (which does
not have any duplicates, so the reported value for each sample is the same as the daily average). All
10-17
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
of the effluent data are non-detected (ND).
Date Sample was
Collected
Influent daily value
(aggregated)
Effluent daily value
(ug/L)
16-Jul-90
10 (ND)
10 (ND)
17-Jul-90
no data
10 (ND)
18-Jul-90
23.35 (NC)
12.5 (ND)
19-Jul-90
132.45 (NC)
10 (ND)
20-Jul-90
225.19 (NC)
10 (ND)
Averages:
The percent removal is then:
97.75-10.5
97.75
10.5
97.75
100 = 89.3%
Percent removals test passes: Data pass because the percent removal is greater than zero at 89.3%.
EXAMPLE 3: This is an example of flow-weighting to obtain one of the daily values that was used
in calculating the facility long-term average in Step 2 of the LTA test. As explained in section 10.4.2.3,
this step was necessary when more than one sample point characterized the wastestream of concern.
This example shows the flow-weighted calculations to obtain one of the daily values used to calculate
the facility long-term average (which is calculated as the arithmetic average of the four daily values for
the sampling episode). These aluminum data are from the influent sample points for episode 4803.
Of the five influent sample points selected from episode 4803 for the metals data, only sample points
05 and 10 have any data for aluminum on 6/13/96. Batch samples were collected at each of these
sampling points. The batches at each sample point are identified by the characters A, B, C, and D
immediately after the sample point (for example, batches 05B, 10C). All of the values were detected
(non-censored or 'NC').
Sample Point Influent daily value
and Batch (ug/L)
Column A
Abbrev.
Flow for
batch
(gal/day)
B
Flow
*Influent daily
value
A*B
total of flow*influent
daily values/
total flow at sample
point
C=ŁA*B/EB
Average Flow at
Sample Point
D=average(B)
E=C*D
05B
05C
1,910,000
1,180,000
18,000
18,000
34,380,000,000
21,240,000,000
totals sp05
36,000
55,620,000,000
1,545,000
18,000
27,810,000,000
10A
10B
10C
10D
164,000
160,000
169,000
144,000
3,850
5,775
3,850
5,775
631,400,000
924,000,000
650,650,000
831,600,000
totals splO
19,250
3,037,650,000
157,800
4,813
759,412,500
totals for day:
Daily average:
22,813 28,569,412,500
total E/total D=l,252,358 ug/L
10-18
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
EXAMPLE 4: This is an example where the facility influent long-term averages are different for the
LTA test and the percent removals test. This example uses the data from carbon disulfide at facility
4378 sample point 8 where all of the amounts were detected. As shown below, the influent average
for the LTA test is 1,709 and the influent average for the percent removals test is 1,664:
For the LTA test, the data are:
Date Sample Concentration Influent daily value
Number value (aggregated)
(ug/L) (ug/L)
05/11/1992
22415
2,395.75
2,395.75
05/12/1992
22439
317.64
317.64
05/13/1992
22481-dup
2,346.56
1,984.84
22494-dup
1,623.12
05/14/1992
22518
1,664.00
1,664.00
05/15/1992
22533
2,184.97
2,184.97
facility average: 1,709.44
For the percent removals test, only the data for 5/14/92 is retained as this is the only sampling day for
which effluent data is available (see section 10.4.1.3). So, the data for the other days is 'not applicable'
as shown below.
Date Sample Concentration Influent daily value
Number value (aggregated)
(ug/L) (ug/L)
05/11/1992 22415 NA NA
05/12/1992 22439 NA NA
05/13/1992 22481-dup NA NA
22494-dup NA
05/14/1992 22518 1,664.00 1,664.00
05/15/1992 22533 NA NA
facility average: 1,664.00
Development of Long-term Averages 10.5
In order to develop the limitations for the
CWT industry, it was necessary to calculate
long-term averages and variability factors. This
section discusses the calculation of long-term
averages by facility ("facility-specific") and by
option ("pollutant-specific").
For each pollutant of concern (see Chapter
6), EPA calculated long-term averages for each
regulatory option and each subcategory. The
long-term average represents the average
performance level that a facility with well-
designed and operated model technologies is
capable of achieving. These long-term averages
for each option and subcategory are listed in
Table 12-9.
EPA calculated the long-term average for
each pollutant for each facility by arithmetically
averaging the pollutant concentrations. The
pollutant long-term average for an option was the
median of the long-term averages from selected
facilities with the technology basis for the option.
The following two subsections describe the
estimation of the facility-specific and pollutant-
specific long-term averages. This procedure is
10-19
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
the same as that used for the 1999 proposal.
Estimation of Facility-Specific
Long-Term Averages 10.5.1
The facility-specific long-term average for
each pollutant for each facility is the arithmetic
average of the daily pollutant concentrations of
wastewater from the facility. EPA substituted
the sample-specific detection limit for each non-
detected measurement.
For example, for facility A, if the
concentration values for hypothetical pollutant X
are:
10 mg/1,
13 mg/1,
non-detect ("ND") with sample-specific
detection limit = 5 mg/1,
12 mg/1, and
15 mg/1
then the facility-specific long-term average is
calculated using the sample-specific detection
limit of 5 mg/1 for the non-detected
measurement. This facility-specific long-term
average is equal to the average of the five values:
(10 + 13 + 5 + 12 + 15)/5 mg/L = 11 mg/L.
Attachment 10-2 in Appendix D lists the
facility-specific long-term averages for the
regulated pollutants.
Estimation of Pollutant-Specific
Long-Term Averages 10.5.2
The pollutant-specific long-term average was
the median of the facility-specific long-term
averages from the facilities with the model
technologies for the option. The median is the
midpoint of the values ordered (i.e., ranked)
from smallest to largest. If there is an odd
number of values (with n=number of values),
then the value of the (n+l)/2 ordered observation
is the median. If there are an even number of
values, then the two values of the n/2 and
[(n/2)+l] ordered observations are arithmetically
averaged to obtain the median value.
For example, for subcategory Y option Z, if
the four (i.e., n=4) facility-specific long-term
averages for pollutant X are:
Facility Facility Long-term average
A 20 mg/1
B 9 mg/1
C 16 mg/1
D 10 mg/1
then the ordered values are:
Order Facility Facility Long-term average
1 B 9 mg/1
2D 10 mg/1
3 C 16 mg/1
4 A 20 mg/1
and the pollutant-specific long-term average for
option Z is the median of the ordered values
(i.e., the average of the 2nd and 3rd ordered
values):
(10+16)/2 mg/1 =13 mg/1.
The pollutant-specific long-term averages
were used in developing the limitations for each
pollutant within each regulatory option.
Attachment 10-3 in Appendix D lists the
pollutant-specific long-term averages for the
regulated pollutants.
Baseline Values Substituted for
Long-Term Averages 10.5.3
After calculating the pollutant-specific long-
term averages for the regulatory options, EPA
compared these values to the baseline values
provided in Chapter 15. EPA performed this
comparison in response to comments on the
1995 proposal. These comments stated that it
was not possible to measure to the low levels
required in that proposal. EPA agreed with such
10-20
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
comments and adjusted the pollutant-specific
long-term averages accordingly. If the pollutant-
specific long-term average was less than the
baseline value, EPA substituted the baseline
value for the pollutant-specific long-term
average. Table 10-4 identifies the pollutants
where this situation occurs for the regulated
analytes in the final rule. This situation occurred
only for metals pollutants in the metals
subcategory.
Table 10-4. Metals Subcategory: Long-Term
Averages Replaced by the Baseline Values
Option
Pollutant
Baseline
Pollutant-
Value
specific
(mg/L)
Long-Term
Average
(mg/L)
3
silver
10
4.5
tin
30
28.25
titanium
5
3.5
vanadium
50
11.0
4
vanadium
50
11.9
Development of Variability Factors 10.6
In developing the variability factors used in
calculating the limitations, EPA first developed
facility-specific variability factors using the
modified delta-lognormal distribution. Second,
EPA used these facility-specific variability
factors to develop the pollutant-specific
variability factors. Third, EPA used these
pollutant-specific variability factors to develop
the group-level variability factors (Appendix A
identifies the assignment of pollutants to groups).
Fourth, EPA used the group-level variability
factors to develop organic variability factors for
some pollutants in the oils and organics
subcategories.
In the 1999 proposal, EPA generally used
the group-level variability factors to calculate the
proposed limitations. EPA requested comment
on whether the pollutant-specific variability
factors or the group-level variability factors were
more appropriate for calculating the limitations.
EPA received several comments that stated the
pollutant-specific variability factors were more
appropriate as estimates for the corresponding
pollutants. In calculating the limitations for the
final rule, EPA has used the pollutant-specific
variability factors wherever possible. EPA even
relaxed its criteria for calculating facility-specific
variability factors to obtain more pollutant-
specific variability factors. For the remaining
pollutants where pollutant-specific variability
factors could not be calculated, EPA used either
the group-level variability factor or the organics
variability factors.
The following sections describe the modified
delta-lognormal distribution and the estimation of
the facility-specific, pollutant-specific, group-
level, and organics variability factors. Except as
noted, EPA has used the same statistical
methodology as in the 1999 proposal; however,
EPA has provided a different explanation which
simplifies the computations.
Basic Overview of the Modified
Delta-Lognormal Distribution 10.6.1
EPA selected the modified delta-lognormal
distribution to model pollutant effluent
concentrations from the CWT industry in
developing the variability factors. In this
industry, wastewater is generated from treating
wastes from different sources and industrial
processes. A typical effluent data set from a
facility in this industry consists of a mixture of
measured (detected) and non-detected values.
Within a data set, gaps between the values of
detected measurements and the sample-specific
detection limits associated with non-detected
measurements may indicate that different
pollutants were present in the different industrial
wastes treated by a facility. Non-detected
measurements may indicate that the pollutant is
not generated by a particular source or industrial
process. The modified delta-lognormal
10-21
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
distribution is appropriate for such data sets
because it models the data as a mixture of
measurements that follow a lognormal
distribution and non-detect measurements that
occur with a certain probability. The model also
allows for the possibility that non-detect
measurements occur at multiple sample-specific
detection limits. Because the data appeared to fit
the modified delta-lognormal model reasonably
well, EPA believes that this model is the most
appropriate model of those evaluated for the
CWT industry data.
The modified delta-lognormal distribution is
a modification of the 'delta distribution' originally
developed by Aitchison and Brown.13 While this
distribution was originally developed to model
economic data, other researchers have shown the
application to environmental data.14 The
resulting mixed distributional model, that
combines a continuous density portion with a
discrete-valued spike at zero, is also known as
the delta-lognormal distribution. The delta in the
name refers to the proportion of the overall
distribution contained in the discrete
distributional spike at zero, that is, the proportion
of zero amounts. The remaining non-zero, non-
censored (NC) amounts are grouped together
and fit to a lognormal distribution.
EPA modified this delta-lognormal
distribution to incorporate multiple detection
limits. In the modification of the delta portion,
the single spike located at zero is replaced by a
discrete distribution made up of multiple spikes.
Each spike in this modification is associated with
a distinct sample-specific detection limit
13Aitchison, J. and Brown, J.A.C. (1963)
The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge
University Press, pages 87-99.
14Owen, W.J. and T.A. DeRouen. 1980.
"Estimation of the Mean for Lognormal Data
Containing Zeroes and Left-Censored Values,
with Applications to the Measurement of Worker
Exposure to Air Contaminants." Biometrics,
36:707-719.
associated with non-detected (ND)
measurements in the database.15 A lognormal
density is used to represent the set of measured
values. This modification of the delta-lognormal
distribution is illustrated in Figure 10-1.
The following two subsections describe the
delta and lognormal portions of the modified
delta-lognormal distribution in further detail.
1 Previously, EPA had modified the
delta-lognormal model to account for non-
detected measurements by placing the
distributional "spike" at a single positive value,
usually equal to the nominal method detection
limit, rather than at zero. For further details, see
Kahn and Rubin, 1989. This adaptation was used
in developing limitations and standards for the
organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
(OCPSF) and pesticides manufacturing
rulemakings. EPA has used the current
modification in several, more recent,
rulemakings.
10-22
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Figure 10-1
Modified Delta -Lognormal Distribution
Censoring Type NC ND
10-23
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Continuous and Discrete Portions of the Modified Delta-Lognormal Distribution 10.6.2
The discrete portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution models the non-detected values
corresponding to the k reported sample-specific detection limits. In the model, 5 represents the
proportion of non-detected values and is the sum of smaller fractions, S;, each representing the
proportion of non-detected values associated with each distinct detection limit value. By letting D; equal
the value of the ith smallest distinct detection limit in the data set and the random variable XD represents
a randomly chosen non-detected measurement, the cumulative distribution function of the discrete
portion of the modified delta-lognormal model can be mathematically expressed as:
Pv(XD is the standard
normal distribution, and jJ and <7 are parameters of the distribution.
The expected value, E(XC), and the variance, Var(Xc), of the lognormal distribution can be
calculated as:
/¦(A",.) = e\p
< o^
^2,
Z /
(5)
Var (Xc ) = )]2 |exp(<7 2 ) -1) (6)
Combining the Continuous and Discrete Portions of the Modified Delta-Lognormal
Distribution 10.6.3
The continuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution is combined with the discrete
portion to model data sets that contain a mixture of non-detected and detected measurements. It is
possible to fit a wide variety of observed effluent data sets to the modified delta-lognormal distribution.
10-24
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Multiple detection limits for non-detect measurements are incorporated, as are measured ("detected")
values. The same basic framework can be used even if there are no non-detected values in the data
set (in this case, it is the same as the lognormal distribution). Thus, the modified delta-lognormal
distribution offers a large degree of flexibility in modeling effluent data.
The modified delta-lognormal random variable U can be expressed as a combination of three other
independent variables, that is,
U = I„XD+{l-Iu)Xc (7)
where XD represents a random non-detect from the discrete portion of the distribution, Xc represents
a random detected measurement from the continuous lognormal portion, and Iu is an indicator variable
signaling whether any particular random measurement, u, is non-detected or non-censored (that is, I u= 1
if u is non-detected; Iu=0 if u is non-censored). Using a weighted sum, the cumulative distribution
function from the discrete portion of the distribution (equation 1) can be combined with the function
from the continuous portion (equation 4) to obtain the overall cumulative probability distribution of the
modified delta-lognormal distribution as follows,
ln(c) - /I
Pr(f/
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
i nd
=d>)
n j=1 (13)
$ = ^L
n
where nd is the number of non-detected measurements, dp j = 1 lo nd, are the detection limits for the
non-detected measurements, n is the number of measurements (both detected and non-detected) and
I(...) is an indicator function equal to one if the phrase within the parentheses is true and zero
otherwise. The "hat" over the parameters indicates that they are estimated from the data.
The expected value and the variance of the lognormal portion of the modified delta-lognormal
distribution can be calculated from the data as:
Ł(¦?/>) = <14>
° i=l
Far(xI)) = j^Sl(Dl-E(xD))2 (15)
° 1=1
The parameters of the continuous portion of the modified delta-lognormal distribution, and a, are
estimated by
n„
~ ^ ln(*,-)
i=l nc
(16)
"
(f2 =
= ^ (ln(x')-^)*
i n-\
1=1 C
where x, is the ith detected measurement value and nc is the number of detected measurements. Note
that n = nd + nc.
The expected value and the variance of the lognormal portion of the modified delta-lognormal
distribution can be calculated from the data as:
E(Xc) = exp
/" ~ 9 \
- <7
/+T,
v z y
Var(Xc) = [e(Xc)] 2 (exp(<72)-l)
(17)
(18)
Finally, the expected value and variance of the modified delta-lognormal distribution can be
estimated using the following formulas:
Ł(f/) = 5Ł(xD) + (i-5)Ł(jrc)
(19)
10-26
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Var[U) = sita^X^+^X^) +(l-&)(far(Xc)+[E(Xctf) -[Ł¦(Ł/)]
(20)
The next section applies the modified delta-lognormal distribution to the data for estimating facility-
specific variability factors for the CWT industry. Equations 17 through 20 are particularly important
in the estimation of facility-specific variability factors described in the next section.
Estimation of Facility-Specific Variability Factors 10.6.5
This section applies the methodology described in the previous section to the estimation of facility-
specific variability factors for each pollutant. For each facility, EPA estimated the daily variability
factors by fitting a modified delta-lognormal distribution to the daily measurements for each pollutant.
In contrast, EPA estimated monthly variability factors by fitting a modified delta-lognormal distribution
to the monthly averages for the pollutant at the facility. EPA developed these averages using the same
number of measurements as the assumed monitoring frequency for the pollutant. EPA is assuming that
some pollutants such as organics will be monitored weekly (approximately four times a month) and
others will be monitored daily (approximately 20 times a month).16 Chapter 11 identifies these assumed
monitoring frequencies. The following sections describe the facility data set requirements EPA used
in estimating variability factors, and its estimation of facility-specific daily and monthly variability
factors used in developing the limitations. These facility-specific variability factors are listed in
Attachment 10-2 in Appendix D.
Facility Data Set Requirements 10.6.5.1
Estimates of the necessary parameters for the lognormal portion of the distribution can be
calculated with as few as two distinct detected values in a data set (in order to calculate the variance
of the modified delta-lognormal distribution, two distinct detected values are the minimum number that
can be used and still obtain an estimate of the variance for the distribution).
EPA used the facility data set for a pollutant if the data set contained three or more observations
with two or more distinct detected concentration values. This requirement was slightly less stringent
than the requirement in the 1999 proposal. EPA relaxed the requirement in order to calculate a few
additional pollutant-specific variability factors which was the preference stated in comments to the 1999
proposal. If EPA had not relaxed this requirement, it would have had to use more group-level
variability factors instead of pollutant-specific variability factors in developing the limitations for the
final rule.
Further, as in the 1999 proposal, each facility data set for a pollutant had to pass the data editing
criteria described in section 10.4.3.
In statistical terms, each measurement was assumed to be independently and identically distributed
from the other measurements of that pollutant in the facility data set.
1 Compliance with the monthly average limitations will be required in the final rulemaking regardless of
the number of samples analyzed and averaged.
10-27
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Estimation of Facility-Specific Daily Variability Factors
10.6.5.2
The facility-specific daily variability factor is a function of the expected value, and the 99th
percentile of the modified delta-lognormal distribution fit to the daily concentration values of the
pollutant in the wastewater from the facility. The expected value, was estimated using equation 19.
The 99th percentile of the modified delta-lognormal distribution fit to each data set was estimated
by using an iterative approach. First, the pollutant-specific detection limits were ordered from smallest
to largest. Next, the cumulative distribution function, p, for each detection limit was computed. The
general form, for a given value c, was:
P= X
r.D;0 .99, was determined and labeled as pr
If no such m existed, steps 3 and 4 were skipped and step 5 was computed instead.
Step 3 Computed p* = pj - 5r
Step 4 If p* < 0.99, then P99 = j).
else if p*^ 0.99, then
P99 = exp
fi +(J®
-l
0.99-Ł<5,:
/'=!
1-8
-i\
(22)
where O"1 is the inverse normal distribution function.
Step 5 If no such m exists such that pm > 0.99 (m=l,...,k), then
P99 = exp
fi +(J®
-l
0.99 -8
1-8
The facility-specific daily variability factor, VF1, was then calculated as:
P99
VF1 =
E(U)
(23)
(24)
10-28
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Estimation of Facility-Specific Monthly Variability Factors 10.6.5.3
EPA estimated the monthly variability factors by fitting a modified delta-lognormal distribution to
the monthly averages. EPA developed these averages using the same number of measurements as the
assumed monitoring frequency for the pollutant. EPA is assuming that some pollutants such as organics
will be monitored weekly (approximately four times a month) and others will be monitored daily
(approximately 20 times a month). Chapter 11 identifies these assumed monitoring frequencies.
Estimation of Facility-Specific 4-Day Variability Factors
Variability factors based on 4-day monthly averages were estimated for pollutants with the
monitoring frequency assumed to be weekly (approximately four times a month). In order to calculate
the 4-day variability factors (VF4), the assumption was made that the approximating distribution of
U 4, the sample mean for a random sample of four independent concentrations, was also derived from
the modified delta-lognormal distribution.1718 To obtain the expected value of the 4-day averages,
equation 19 is modified for the mean of the distribution of 4-day averages in equation 25:
E(U4) = 8AE{xA)D+(l-S^E{Xt)c (25)
where (x4 ) denotes the mean of the discrete portion of the distribution of the average of four
independent concentrations, (i.e., when all observations are non-detected values) and (^4)c denotes
the mean of the continuous lognormal portion (i.e., when any observations are detected).
First, it was assumed that the probability of detection (5) on each of the four days was independent
of the measurements on the other three days (as explained in section 10.6.5.1, daily measurements
were also assumed to be independent) and therefore, 54 = 54. Because the measurements are assumed
to be independent, the following relationships hold:
e(u4) = e(u)
~ /_ v Variu)
VarULl 4 J = —
'(('•IHi-ii.)
17This assumption appeared to be reasonable for the pulp and paper industry data that had percentages of
non-detected and detected measurements similar to the data sets for the CWT industry. This conclusion was based
on the results of a simulation of 7,000 4-day averages. A description of this simulation and the results are
provided in the record for the proposed rulemaking.
18As described in section 10.4, when non-detected measurements are aggregated with non-censored
measurements, EPA determined that the result should be considered non-censored.
10-29
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Substituting into equation 25 and solving for the expected value of the continuous portion of the
distribution gives:
E(U)-S4 E(Xd)
EI
c
1-8'
(27)
Using the relationship in equation 19 for the averages of 4 daily measurements and substituting terms
from equation 26 and solving for the variance of the continuous portion of UA gives:
Var(u)
+
M =
Ł([/)]'
1-5'
E(^)c
(28)
Using equations 17 and 18 and solving for the parameters of the lognormal distribution describing the
distribution of (X4) gives:
f \
Var{x4)(
6} = In
>c
{E(xt)cj
+ 1
and
(29)
^4
=K^)c)-f
In finding the estimated 95th percentile of the average of four observations, four non-detects, not
all at the same sample-specific detection limit, can generate an average that is not necessarily equal to
Dj, D2,..., or Dk. Consequently, more than k discrete points exist in the distribution of the 4-day
averages. For example, the average of four non-detects at k=2 detection limits, are at the following
discrete points with the associated probabilities:
/
Ł
1
A
<5/
2
(3Dl+D2)/4
4 8l82
3
(2 Dx +2D2)/4
68?8l
4
(D1+3D2)/4
4 8,81
5
d2
8}
When all four observations are non-detected values, and when k distinct non-detected values exist,
10-30
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
the multinomial distribution can be used to determine associated probabilities. That is,
k
Ł «,-A-
Pr
t/4= —
4!
ux\u2\...uk !
IK'
(30)
where u, is the number of non-detected measurements in the data set with the D, detection limit. The
number of possible discrete points, k*, for k= 1,2,3,4, and 5 are as follows:
k !l
1 1
2 5
3 15
4 35
5 70
To find the estimated 95th percentile of the distribution of the average of four observations, the
same basic steps (described in section 10.6.5.2) as for the 99th percentile of the distribution of daily
observations, were used with the following changes:
Step 1 Change P99 to P95, and 0.99 to 0.95.
Step 2 Change Dm to Dm*, the weighted averages of the sample-specific detection limits.
Step 3 Change •; to •
Step 4 Change k to k*, the number of possible discrete points based on k detection limits.
/"V /"V ys. 2
Step 5 Change the estimates of •. /i ,and
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
factors on the distribution of the averages of 20 measurements.19 If concentrations measured on
consecutive days were positively correlated, then the autocorrelation would have had an effect on the
estimate of the variance of the monthly average and thus on the 20-day variability factor. (The
estimate of the long-term average and the daily variability factor are generally only slightly affected by
autocorrelation.)
In EPA's view, autocorrelation in any significant amount is unlikely to be present in daily
measurements in wastewater from this industry. Thus, EPA has not incorporated autocorrelation into
its estimates of the 20-day variability factors. In many industries, measurements in final effluent are
likely to be similar from one day to the next because of the consistency from day-to-day in the
production processes and in final effluent discharges due to the hydraulic retention time of wastewater
in basins, holding ponds, and other components of wastewater treatment systems. Unlike these other
industries, where the industrial processes are expected to produce the same type of wastewater from
one day to the next, the wastewater from CWT industry is generated by treating wastes from different
sources and industrial processes. The wastes treated on a given day will often be different than the
waste treated on the following day. Because of this, autocorrelation would be expected to be absent
from measurements of wastewater from the CWT industry.
EPA concluded that a statistical evaluation of appropriate data sets would likely support its assertion
that autocorrelation is absent from daily measurements in the CWT industry. However, the monitoring
data that EPA received in response to its multiple requests were insufficient for the purpose of
evaluating the autocorrelation.20 To determine autocorrelation in the data, many measurements for
each pollutant would be required with values for every single day over an extended period of time.
Estimation of Facility-specific 20-day Variability Factors
Based upon the discussion on autocorrelation in the previous section, it was assumed that
consecutive daily measurements were independent of one another, and therefore
E(U20) = E(U) and (?a/-(u20) = ^^l (32)
where E(U} and Var(U) were calculated as shown in section 10.6.4 (see equations 19 and 20).
Finally, since • 2o is approximately normally distributed by the Central Limit Theorem, the estimate of
the 95th percentile of a 20-day mean and the corresponding facility-specific 20-day variability factor
(VF20) were approximated by
P9520 =i(t/20)+[
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
By using the substitutions in equation 32, equation 33 simplified to
P9520 =i(t/) + [®"1(0.95)]J^^r(t/)
(34)
Then, the estimate of the facility-specific 20-day variability factor, VF20, was calculated using:
P95
VF 20 = -
E(U)
because
e{u10) = e(u)
(35)
where • _1(0.95) is the 95th percentile of the inverse normal distribution.
Evaluation of Facility-Specific
Variability Factors
10.6.5.4
Estimates of the necessary parameters for
the lognormal portion of the distribution can be
calculated with as few as two distinct measured
values in a data set (in order to calculate the
variance); however, these estimates can be
unstable (as can estimates from larger data sets).
As stated in section 10.6.5.1, EPA used the
modified delta-lognormal distribution to develop
facility-specific variability factors for data sets
that had a three or more observations with two
or more distinct measured concentration values.
Some variance estimates produced
unexpected results such as a daily variability
factor with a value less than 1.0 which would
result in a limitation with a value less than the
long-term average. This was an indication that
the estimate of
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
the facility-specific daily variability factors for
that pollutant in the subcategory and option.
Likewise, the pollutant-specific monthly
variability factor was the mean of the facility-
specific monthly variability factors for that
pollutant in the subcategory and option. For
example, for oils option 8, the cobalt daily
variability factor was the mean of the cobalt daily
variability factors from facilities 4814A and
facility 4814B. A more detailed example of
estimating pollutant-specific monthly variability
factors is provided in section 10.7.2. Attachment
10-3 in Appendix D lists the pollutant-specific
variability factors.
In the 1999 proposal, EPA requested
comments on whether EPA should use pollutant-
specific variability factors or group-level
variability factors in calculating the limitations.
The comments recommended using the
pollutant-specific variability factors and this is
what EPA has used whenever possible in
developing the limitations and standards for the
final rule. The next section discusses the cases
where EPA was unable to calculate the pollutant-
specific variability factors and used the group
variability factors or the organics variability
factors.
Cases when Pollutant-Specific
Variability Factors Could Not Be
Calculated 10.6.7
After the pollutant-specific variability factors
were estimated as described in section 10.6.6,
EPA identified several pollutants for which
variability factors could not be calculated due to
the data restrictions that requiring a minimum of
three observations with a minimum of two
distinct detected values (that could be used to
calculate the variance). For example, if a
pollutant had all non-detected values in the
effluent, then it was not possible to calculate
pollutant-specific variability factors. Table 10-5
lists the pollutants for which EPA was unable to
calculate pollutant-specific variability factors.
Of these pollutants identified in Table 10-5,
EPA was able to calculate group variability
factors for pollutants in the metals, phenols,
phthalate, and chlorophenols groups. For the
remaining cases, EPA calculated organics
variability factors. The following two sections
describe the group-level variability factors and
the organics variability factors.
10-34
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 10-5. Cases where Pollutant Variability Factors Could Not be Calculated
Subcategory
Option
Pollutant
Variability Factors Used
Daily Monthly
Source of variability
factors
Metals
3
Antimony
5.208
1.469
Semi-metals group
Mercury
3.185
1.225
Metals group
Silver
Tin
Titanium
4
Vanadium
4.350
1.323
Metals group
8
Tin
2.329
1.369
Metals group
Oils
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
2.310
1.367
Phthalates group
Carbazole
2.586
1.536
Organics VFs
9
Tin
3.128
1.538
Metals group
Butylbenzyl phthalate
3.414
1.614
Phthalates group
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Carbazole
3.948
1.820
Organics VFs
Organics
4
Acetophenone
Aniline
2,3-dichloroaniline
3.175
1.566
Organics VFs
p-cresol
10.228
3.009
Phenols group
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1.811
1.242
Chlorophenols group
Group-Level Variability Factors 10.6.7.1
Appendix A identifies the pollutant groups
for all pollutants of concern except conventional
and classical pollutants. EPA assigned the
pollutants to groups containing pollutants that
had similar chemical structure (e.g., the metals
group consisted of metal pollutants).
There are two types of designations assigned
to the pollutants within each group. Some
pollutants were only used to estimate the current
loadings for Chapter 12. The remaining
pollutants were used for both the current
loadings and in calculating facility-specific
variability factors. Each type is identified with
different designations 'Load' and 'VF & Load'
in Appendix A. Although many pollutants are
identified as appropriate for calculating group
variability factors, EPA did not use group
variability factors from all groups. Attachment
10-4 in Appendix D identifies the groups and
interim calculations for the group variability
factors that EPA used for the final regulations.
For those pollutants for which EPA used
group variability factors, EPA concluded that the
variability of the pollutants in each group would
be similar because the chemical structure of
these pollutants is similar therefore the treatment
system would perform similarly. Thus, EPA
concluded that using group variability factors for
a particular pollutant is appropriate when the
pollutant-specific variability factors could not be
calculated for an option in a subcategory.
The group-level daily variability factor was
the median of the pollutant-specific daily
variability factors for the pollutants within the
group. Similarly for the monthly variability
factors, the group-level monthly variability factor
was the median of the pollutant-specific monthly
variability factors for the pollutants within the
group. These values are listed in Table 10-5.
Organics Variability Factors 10.6.7.2
For carbazole in the oils subcategory and
three organic pollutants (acetophenone, aniline,
and 2,3-dichloroaniline) in the organics
subcategory, each pollutant's structural group
10-35
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
either had only one pollutant of concern assigned
to it or only one pollutant of concern in the group
passed the data editing criteria (section 10.4.3).
Even when a pollutant in the group passed the
data editing criteria, the data restrictions (i.e.,
three or more observations with two or more
distinct detected values) meant that neither
pollutant-specific nor group-level variability
factors could be calculated for these pollutants.
Instead, EPA developed organics variability
factors using the group variability factors that
could be calculated for the following groups of
organic pollutants: aliphatic alcohols, amides,
aliphatic amines, anilines, chloroanilines,
chlorophenols, aromatic ketones, n-paraffins,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phenols,
phthalates, poly glycol monoethers, pyridines, and
aromatic sulfides. EPA used these groups
because they largely represent the non-volatile
pollutants considered for regulation in the final
rule. EPA excluded the volatile pollutant groups
because their removals are largely due to
volatilization rather than treatment.
The organics daily variability factor was the
median of the group-level daily variability factors
for the selected groups. Similarly for the
monthly variability factors, the organics monthly
variability factor was the median of the group-
level monthly variability factors for the selected
groups. These values are provided in Table
10-5. Attachment 10-4 in Appendix D identifies
the groups and interim calculations for the
organics variability factors.
In the 1999 proposal for those cases without
pollutant-specific and group-level variability
factors, EPA transferred variability factors using
other group-level variability factors in the option
for the subcategory. EPA calculated the
transferred variability factors as the median of
the group-level variability factors from all groups
except the metals, semi-metals, and non-metals
groups. This included conventional and classical
pollutants, each of which was considered as a
separate group in the 1999 proposal (but are
excluded from all groups in the final rule). In the
1995 proposal, EPA proposed using fraction-
level variability factors when group-level
variability factors were unavailable. Rather than
these two alternatives, EPA has determined that
its organics variability factors are more
appropriate for the organic pollutants and has
used them in calculating the limitations in the
final rule.
Limitations 10.7
The limitations and standards are the result
of multiplying the long-term averages by the
appropriate variability factors. The same basic
procedures apply to the calculation of all
limitations and standards for this industry,
regardless of whether the technology is BPT,
BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES or PSNS.
The limitations for pollutants for each option
are provided as 'daily maximums' and
'maximums for monthly averages.' Definitions
provided in 40 CFR 122.2 state that the daily
maximum limitation is the "highest allowable
'daily discharge"' and the maximum for monthly
average limitation (also referred to as the
"monthly average limitation") is the "highest
allowable average of 'daily discharges' over a
calendar month, calculated as the sum of all
'daily discharges' measured during a calendar
month divided by the number of 'daily
discharges' measured during that month." Daily
discharges are defined to be the "'discharge of a
pollutant' measured during a calendar day or any
24-hour period that reasonably represents the
calendar day for purposes of samplings."
EPA calculates the limitations based upon
percentiles chosen with the intention, on one
hand, to be high enough to accommodate
reasonably anticipated variability within control
of the facility and, on the other hand, to be low
enough to reflect a level of performance
consistent with the Clean Water Act requirement
that these effluent limitations be based on the
"best" technologies. The daily maximum
limitation is an estimate of the 99th percentile of
the distribution of the daily measurements. The
10-36
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
monthly average limitation is an estimate of the
95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly
averages of the daily measurements.
In establishing daily maximum limitations,
EPA's objective is to restrict the discharges on a
daily basis at a level that is achievable for a
facility that targets its treatment at the long-term
average. EPA acknowledges that variability
around the long-term average results from
normal operations. This variability means that
occasionally facilities may discharge at a level
that is greater than the long-term average. This
variability also means that facilities may
occasionally discharge at a level that is
considerably lower than the long-term average.
To allow for these possibly higher daily
discharges, EPA has established the daily
maximum limitation. A facility that discharges
consistently at a level near the daily maximum
limitation would not be operating its treatment to
achieve the long-term average which is part of
EPA's objective in establishing the daily
maximum limitations.
In establishing monthly average limitations,
EPA's objective is to provide an additional
restriction that supports EPA's objective of
having facilities target their average discharges to
achieve the long-term average. The monthly
average limitation requires continuous
dischargers to provide on-going control, on a
monthly basis, that complements controls
imposed by the daily maximum limitation. In
order to meet the monthly average limitation, a
facility must counterbalance a value near the
daily maximum limitation with one or more
values well below the daily maximum limitation.
To achieve compliance, these values must result
in a monthly average value at or below the
monthly average limitation.
In the first of two steps in estimating both
types of limitations, EPA determines an average
performance level (the "long-term average"
discussed in section 10.7) that a facility with
well-designed and operated model technologies
(which reflect the appropriate level of control) is
capable of achieving. This long-term average is
calculated from the data from the facilities using
the model technologies for the option. EPA
expects that all facilities subject to the limitations
will design and operate their treatment systems to
achieve the long-term average performance level
on a consistent basis because facilities with well-
designed and operated model technologies have
demonstrated that this can be done.
In the second step of developing a limitation,
EPA determines an allowance for the variation in
pollutant concentrations when processed through
extensive and well designed treatment systems.
This allowance for variance incorporates all
components of variability including shipping,
sampling, storage, and analytical variability. This
allowance is incorporated into the limitations
through the use of the variability factors
(discussed in section 10.6) which are calculated
from the data from the facilities using the model
technologies. If a facility operates its treatment
system to meet the relevant long-term average,
EPA expects the facility to be able to meet the
limitations. Variability factors assure that normal
fluctuations in a facility's treatment are
accounted for in the limitations. By accounting
for these reasonable excursions above the long-
term average, EPA's use of variability factors
results in limitations that are generally well above
the actual long-term averages.
The limitations are listed in Attachment 10-5
in Appendix D.
Steps Used to Derive Limitations 10.7.1
This section summarizes the steps used to
derive the limitations. These steps were used
separately for the daily maximum limitation and
the monthly average limitation. Depending on
the assumed monitoring frequency (see chapter
11) of the pollutant, either the 4-day variability
factor or the 20-day variability factor was used in
deriving the monthly average limitation.
For each regulated analyte in the option for
a subcategory, EPA performed the following
10-37
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
steps in calculating the limitations:
Step 1 EPA calculated the facility-specific long-
term averages and variability factors for
all facilities that had the model
technology for the option in the
subcategory. EPA calculated facility-
specific variability factors when the
facility had three or more observations
with two or more distinct detected
values (required to calculate the
variance). In addition, the facility data
set for the pollutant had to meet the data
editing criteria.
Step 2 EPA calculated the median of the
facility-specific long-term averages as
the pollutant long-term average.
Step 3 EPA calculated the mean of the facility-
specific variability factors from the
facilities with the model technology to
provide the pollutant-specific variability
factors for each pollutant.
Step 4 For the regulated pollutants for which
Steps 1 and 3 failed to provide
variability factors for that pollutant, EPA
calculated the group-level variability
factor using the median of the pollutant-
specific variability factors for the
pollutants within each group.
Step 5 For the organic pollutants for which
Steps 1, 3, and 4 failed to provide any
variability factors, EPA calculated the
organics variability factors as the median
of selected groups of organic pollutants.
Step 6 In most cases, EPA calculated the
limitation for a pollutant using the
product of the pollutant-specific long-
term average and the pollutant-specific
variability factor. If the pollutant-
specific variability factor could not be
estimated (because none of the facility -
10-38
specific variability factors could be
estimated), then EPA used the group-
level variability factor or the organics
variability factor.
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Example 10.7.2
This example illustrates the derivation of limitations using the steps described
above. In this example, four pollutants, A, B, C, and D all belong to hypothetical
group X. The facility-specific long-term averages and variability factors for the
pollutants are shown in Attachments 10-1 and 10-3, respectively (step 1). Table 10-6
shows the pollutant-specific long-term averages and variability factors calculated as
described in step 2. Then, using the procedure in step 3, the group-level variability
factor (see attachment 10-4 in Appendix D) is the median of the variability factors for
pollutants A, B, and C (D is excluded because facility-specific variability factors could
not be calculated for any of the facilities that provided data on pollutant D).
• The group-level daily variability factor for group X is 2.2 which is the median of
2.2 (pollutant A), 2.4 (pollutant B), and 2.1 (pollutant C).
• The group-level 4-day variability factor for group X is 1.4 which is the median of
1.5 (pollutant A), 1.4 (pollutant B), and 1.2 (pollutant C).
In this example, the limitations are calculated using the pollutant-specific long-term
averages, pollutant-specific variability factors, and the group-level variability factors
in the following way:
Daily maximum limitation for pollutants A, B, and C
= pollutant-specific long-term average * pollutant-specific daily variability factor
For pollutants A, B, and C, the daily maximum limitations are:
Pollutant A
Pollutant B
Pollutant C
15 mg/1 * 2.2 = 33 mg/L
14 mg/1 * 2.4 = 33.6 mg/L
22 mg/1 * 2.1 = 46.2 mg/L
Daily maximum limitation for pollutant D
: pollutant-specific long-term average * group-level daily variability factor
= 20 mg/1 * 2.2 = 44 mg/L
Monthly average limitation for pollutants A, B, and C
pollutant-specific long-term average * pollutant-specific 4-day variability factor
Pollutant A
Pollutant B
Pollutant C
15 mg/1 * 1.5 = 22.5 mg/L
14 mg/1 * 1.4 = 20 mg/L
22 mg/1 * 1.2 = 26.4 mg/L
Monthly average limitation for pollutant D
pollutant-specific long-term average * group-level 4-day variability factor
= 20 mg/1 * 1.4 = 28 mg/L
10-39
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 10-6. Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors Corresponding to Example for Hypothetical
Group X
Pollutant
Facility
Long-term
Average (mg/1)
Daily Variability
Factor
4-day Variability
Factor
A
A1
10
2.1
1.4
A2
12
2.3
1.5
A3
15
2.0
1.4
A4
20
1.8
1.3
A5
26
2.8
1.9
Pollutant-
15
2.2
1.5
specific
(median)
(mean)
(mean)
B
B1
17
2.7
1.7
B2
16
2.2
1.2
B3
10
2.3
1.3
B4
12
*
*
Pollutant-
14
2.4
1.4
specific
(median)
(mean)
(mean)
C
CI
22
1.9
1.1
C2
24
*
*
C3
12
2.3
1.3
Pollutant-
22
2.1
1.2
specific
(median)
(mean)
(mean)
D
D1
20
*
*
D2
22
*
*
D3
14
*
*
Pollutant-
20
*
*
specific
(median)
* could not be estimated (i.e., the data set did not contain three or more observations with
two or more distinct detected values.)
Transfers of Limitations 10.8
In some cases, EPA was either unable to
calculate a limitation using the available data for
an option or determined that the treatment
provided by facilities employing the option did
not represent the appropriate level of treatment
for the model technologies. In these cases, EPA
transferred limitations from another option or
from another industrial category. The following
sections describe each case where the limitations
were transferred.
Transfer of Oil and Grease Limitation
for Metals Subcategory from Option 4
to Option 3 10.8.1
Because of the relatively low levels of oil
and grease in the influent of the facilities with the
model technology for metals option 3, application
of the data editing criteria (described in section
10.4.3.1) resulted in excluding the oil and grease
effluent data from all facilities for this option.
Because the data for option 4 pass the data
editing criteria, this indicates that oil and grease
is present in the types of influent wastes in this
subcategory. Thus, EPA determined that this
parameter should be regulated for both options in
this subcategory.
EPA based the oil and grease limitations for
10-40
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
option 3 upon data from the option 4 model
technology. In effect, EPA has transferred the
oil and grease limitations from option 4 to option
3. EPA has concluded that transfer of these data
are appropriate given that the technology basis
for metals option 3 includes additional treatment
steps than the technology basis for metals option
4. As such, EPA has every reason to conclude
that facilities employing the option 3 technology
could achieve the limitations based on the option
4 technology. This is the same assumption used
for the 1999 proposal.
Transfer of Arsenic for Metals
Subcategory from Option 1A to
Option 4 10.8.2
Similarly, because of the relatively low levels
of arsenic in the influent of the facilities with the
model technology for metals option 4, application
of the data editing criteria (described in section
10.4.3.1) resulted in excluding the effluent data
from this option.
Because the data for option 1A pass the data
editing criteria, this indicates that arsenic is
present in the types of influent wastes in this
subcategory. In addition, the arsenic data for
option 3 pass the data editing criteria. Thus,
EPA determined that this parameter should be
regulated for both options in this subcategory.
However, option 3 is a more sophisticated
technology than option 4, so EPA chose to use
the data from option 1A to develop limitations
for option 4. In effect, EPA has transferred the
arsenic limitations from option 1A to option 4.
EPA has concluded that transfer of these data
are appropriate given that the technology basis
for metals option 4 includes additional treatment
steps and should provide better removals than
option 1A. As such, EPA expects that facilities
utilizing the option 4 technologies can achieve
arsenic effluent concentration levels at least as
low as the values from facilities using the option
1A technologies. Thus, EPA has transferred the
arsenic limitations from option 1A to option 4.
In the 1999 proposal, EPA transferred the
long-term average from arsenic from option 1A
and used the group-level variability factors from
option 4. Under the data restrictions for the
1999 proposal (which were more stringent than
those for the final rule), silicon was the only
pollutant in the semi-metals group for which
EPA could calculate variability factors to apply
to the arsenic limitations. The daily variability
factor for silicon was among the lowest
calculated for the 1999 proposal. After the
proposal, EPA determined that the arsenic
effluent values for option 4 have different
variability than those for silicon.21 Thus, EPA
also transferred the arsenic variability factors
from option 1A for the final rule. By transferring
both the long-term average and the variability
factors from option 1A to option 4, EPA has, in
effect, transferred the limitations.
Transfer of Lead for Metals
Subcategory from Option 4 to
Option 3 10.8.3
For option 3, EPA used the data from the
two sampling episodes and the self-monitoring
data to develop a daily maximum standard for
lead. Based upon these data, the daily maximum
standard would be 0.329 mg/L. However, all
four data values from the second sampling
episode were greater than this daily maximum
standard. In EPA's view, the data from this
second sampling episode should be less than the
daily maximum standard, because the facility's
permit required the facility to have more
carefully controlled lead discharges during the
second sampling episode than the time periods
corresponding to the self-monitoring data and the
first sampling episode. Therefore, EPA
concluded that facilities employing this
technology option may not be able to comply
with this daily maximum standard for lead. To
21 As detailed in Chapter 7, EPA analyzed
silicon using semi-quantitative methods. In
contrast, arsenic is analyzed quantitatively.
10-41
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
resolve this, EPA transferred the daily maximum
(1.32 mg/L) and monthly average standards
(0.283 mg/L) for lead from metals option 4.
These standards are based on less treatment
technology than the option 3 technology and
EPA expects an option 3 model facility to be able
to comply with these standards.
Transfers of Limitations from Other
Rulemakings to CWT Industry 10.8.4
In some cases, the model technology did not
optimally remove BOD5 and TSS for an option
in a subcategory. In EPA's view, this occurred
because the limitations are largely based on
indirect discharging facilities that are not required
to control or optimize their treatment systems for
the removal of conventional parameters. Thus,
EPA transferred the BPT/BCT/NSPS limitations
(for direct dischargers data) from effluent
guidelines from other industries with similar
wastewaters and treatment technologies. In one
case, EPA transferred the BPT/BCT TSS
limitations from the Metal Finishing rulemaking
to the metals subcategory BPT/BCT limitations
(option 4). In the other case, EPA transferred
the BPT/BCT BOD5 and TSS limitations from
the Organic Chemical, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers (OCPSF) rulemaking to the organics
subcategory BPT/BCT/NSPS limitations (option
4). EPA used different procedures from the one
discussed in section 10.7.1 to develop the
limitations for BOD5 and TSS for the organics
subcategory and TSS for option 4 in the metals
subcategory. The following sections describe
these different procedures.
Transfer of BOD5 and TSS for the
Organics Subcategory 10.8.4.1
EPA based the transferred limitations of
BOD5 and TSS for the organics subcategory on
biological treatment performance data used to
develop the limitations for the thermosetting
resins subcategory in the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) industry
rulemaking. As described in the final CWT
preamble, EPA determined that the transfer of
the data was warranted because facilities in the
organics subcategory treat wastes similar to
wastes treated by OCPSF facilities.
For the organics subcategory of the CWT
industry, the daily maximum limitations for
BOD5 and TSS were transferred directly from
the OCPSF rulemaking. No modifications were
required before transferring these daily maximum
limitations.
Some modifications of the OCPSF monthly
average limitations were required before the
values could be transferred to the CWT industry.
The OCPSF limitations for BOD5 and TSS were
based on assumptions of a monitoring frequency
of 30 days and the presence of autocorrelation in
the measurements. In the rulemaking for the
CWT industry, the monthly limitations for BOD5
and TSS were based on an assumed monitoring
frequency of 20 days and no autocorrelation (see
section 10.6.5.3.2 for a discussion of the absence
of autocorrelation in the CWT data). Therefore,
the following conversion steps were necessary to
convert the OCPSF 30-day variability factors to
20-day variability factors.
10-42
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
The following formula was used in the OCPSF rulemaking to calculate the 30-day variability
factors. This formula incorporates autocorrelation, •, between measurements on adjacent days (i.e.,
the lag-1 autocorrelation).
VF30 = 1 + 1.64 5
^ -lJ/3o(p,ff)
30
(36)
where the function JVl(* ,•) represents the additional variability attributable to autocorrelation, and is
given by
~ 29
/3o(P5<7)- 1 +
30 -1U=1
X(30-4^V-1
(37)
The above two formulas can be generalized to estimate n-day variability factors. These formulas are:
(38)
VF= 1 +1.645
e<7 -1] fn{p>o)
n> 2
n
where
fn(p,0)=\ +
n—1
n\ ea2 -11 k=\
'Yu^n~^)\eP ° ~^) n>2
(39)
For the limitations, the autocorrelation, •, has been assumed to be absent; thus, the value of • is set
equal to zero. Therefore, the value of^(0,») is equal to 1, and equation 38 becomes:
VF„ = 1 + 1.645"
e* -1
n> 2
(40)
n
Because all of the values were detected (i.e., there were no non-detected measurements) in the OCPSF
data base for BOD5 and TSS, the modified delta-lognormal distribution of these data is the same as the
lognormal distribution (i.e., the delta portion does not enter into the calculations because it is used to
model non-detect measurements). Therefore, an estimate of*2 was obtained from the daily variability
factor from the lognormal distribution by using the following equation:
VFl = e
crO_1(0.99)-—
(41)
where • _1(0.99) is the 99th percentile of the inverse normal distribution. (The value of • _1(0.99) is
2.326.) By solving this equation using maximum likelihood estimation for • and substituting it into
equation 40, an estimate of VFn may be obtained. Finally, the n-day limitation is calculated as:
VF
Limits = —(42)
E(X)
10-43
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
The expected value, E(X) can be estimated by solving for E(X) in the following equation for the daily
maximum limitation (which is the same for both the OCPSF, and the CWT industry):
Limit
l
to obtain
E(X) =
VFj_
E(X)
VFj
Limit i
(43)
(44)
Then, equation 40 (using the estimate of •2 from equation 41) and equation 44 can be substituted into
equation 42 to obtain:
f
Limiti
Limits
VFi
1 + 1.645-
\e* -1
n
(45)
In particular, for the monthly average limitation based on assuming daily monitoring (i.e.,
approximately 20 times a month), the limitation is
f
_ Limiti
Limit
20
VF,
1 + 1.645,
1^-1
20
(46)
Table 10-7 provides the values of the BOD5 and TSS limitations and other parameters for the
thermosetting resins subcategory from the OCPSF industry and the organics subcategory in the CWT
industry.
Table 10-7. BOD5 and TSS Parameters for Organics Subcategory
Parameter
OCPSF: Thermosetting
Resins Subcategory
Centralized Waste
Treatment:
Organics Subcategory
bod5
TSS
bod5
TSS
•
0.6971
0.8174
0.6971
0.8174
Long-Term Average (mg/1)
41
45
41
45
VF,
3.97
4.79
3.97
4.79
vf30
1.58
1.45
n/a
n/a
vf20
n/a
n/a
1.29
1.36
Daily Maximum Limitation (mg/1)
163
216
163
216
Monthly Average Limitation (mg/1)
61
67
53.0
61.3
Transfer of TSS for Option 4 of the
Metals Subcategory 10.8.2.2
For TSS for option 4 of the metals
subcategory, EPA transferred the limitations
directly from the Metal Finishing rulemaking (see
Table 10-8). EPA based the Metal Finishing
monthly average limitation for TSS upon an
assumed monitoring frequency of ten days per
month and the absence of autocorrelation in the
10-44
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
measurements. EPA has also assumed an
absence of autocorrelation in TSS for the CWT
industry. However, EPA assumed a monitoring
frequency of 20 measurements a month for TSS
for the CWT industry, rather than the ten
measurements assumed in the metal finishing
rulemaking. EPA determined that it was
unnecessary to adjust the monthly average
limitation from the metal finishing rulemaking for
the increase in monitoring frequency. This
adjustment would have resulted in a monthly
average limitation with a slightly lower value than
the value from the metal finishing rule (the
monitoring frequency does not effect the value
of long-term averages and daily maximum
limitations).
Table 10-8. TSS Parameters for Metal Finishing
Metal Finishing TSS Values
TSS (mg/L)
Long-Term Average (mg/1) 16.8
Daily variability factor 3.59
Monthly Variability Factor 1.85
Assumed monitoring frequency 10/month
Daily Maximum Limitation (mg/1) 60.0
Monthly Average Limitation (mg/1) 31.0
Limitations for the Muitipie
Wastestream Subcategory
10.9
As described in section IV.F and XIII.A.5,
after the 1999 proposal, EPA developed one
additional subcategory for the CWT industry.
This 'Multiple Wastestream Subcategory' applies
to facilities that treat wastes in more than one
subcategory and meet other requirements as
explained in Chapters 5 and 14.
For each type of limitation or standard (i.e.,
BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES, PSNS), EPA
developed four sets of limitations for each of the
possible combinations of the three subcategories
of wastestreams: oils and metals, oils and
organics, metals and organics, and oils, metals
and organics. Table 10-9 identifies the options
corresponding to each of these types of
limitations and standards.
Table 10-9. Options Corresponding to Multiple
Wastestream Subcategory
Metals
Oils
Organics
BPT
4
9
4
BCT
4
9
4
BAT
4
9
4
NSPS
3
9
4
PSES
4
8
4
PSNS
4
9
4
Some pollutants are only regulated in one of
the metals, oils, or organics subcategories. For
these pollutants, the limitations are directly
transferred to the multiple wastestream
subcategory. For other pollutants regulated by
more than one of the metals, oils, or organics
subcategories, the multiple wastestream
subcategory limitations were derived by selecting
the most stringent monthly average limitation and
its corresponding maximum daily limitation. In
almost all cases, the most stringent monthly
average limitation and the most stringent daily
maximum limitation were derived from the same
subcategory. Table 10-10 shows some BPT
limitations for all four subcategories for three of
the regulated pollutants.
Regardless of the source of the limitations,
facilities in the multiple wastestream subcategory
are expected to design and operate their
treatment systems in a manner that will ensure
compliance with the limitations. Facilities that
are designed and operated to achieve long-term
average effluent levels should be capable of
compliance the with limitations at all times.
10-45
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Table 10-10 BPT Limitations for Wastestreams from All Three Subcategories
BPT
Metals
Oils
Organics
Multiple
Values for
Option 4
Option 9
Option 4
Wastestream
Multiple
wastestream
subcategory
selected from:
Oil &
Long-Term Average
34.3
28.3
N/A
28.3
Oils option 9
Grease
(because the
Daily Maximum
205
127
N/A
127
monthly average
Limitation
limitation is the
Monthly Average
50.2
38.0
N/A
38.0
most stringent)
Limitation
Antimony
Long-Term Average
0.170
0.103
0.569
0.103
Oils option 9
Daily Maximum
0.249
0.237
0.928
0.237
Limitation
Monthly Average
0.206
0.141
0.679
0.141
Limitation
Pyridine
Long-Term Average
N/A
N/A
0.116
0.116
Organics 4
Daily Maximum
N/A
N/A
0.370
0.370
Limitation
Monthly Average
N/A
N/A
0.182
0.182
Limitation
N/A: not regulated for that subcategory
10-46
-------
Chapter 10 Data Conventions & Calculations of Limitations
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
References 10.10
Aitchison, J. and J.A.C. Brown. 1963. The Lognormal Distribution. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Barakat, R. 1976. "Sums of Independent Lognormally Distributed Random Variables." Journal of
the Optical Society of America, 66: 211-216.
Cohen, A. Clifford. 1976. Progressively Censored Sampling in the Three Parameter Log-Normal
Distribution. Technometrics, 18:99-103.
Crow, E.L. and Shimizu. 1988. Lognormal Distributions: Theory and Applications. Marcel Dekker,
Inc., New York.
Engineering and Analysis Division, EPA. "Comment Response Document (Volume VI)." Record
Section 30.11, DCN 14497 in the Pulp and Paper Phase I Rulemaking Docket.
Engineering and Analysis Division, EPA. "Statistical Support Document for the Pulp and Paper
Industry: Subpart B." November 1997, Record Section 22.5, DCN 14496 in the Pulp and Paper
Phase I Rulemaking Docket.
Fuller, W.A. 1976. Introduction to Statistical Time Series. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Kahn, H.D., and M.B. Rubin. 1989. "Use of Statistical Methods in Industrial Water Pollution Control
Regulations in the United States." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. Vol. 12:129-148.
Owen, W.J. and T.A. DeRouen. 1980. Estimation of the Mean for Lognormal Data Containing
Zeroes and Left-Censored Values, with Applications to the Measurement of Worker Exposure to
Air Contaminants. Biometrics, 36:707-719.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Effluent Guidelines Division. 1983. Development Document
for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Finishing Point Source Category:
Final. EPA 440/1-83/091. Pages A-l to A-7, A-ll, A-12, and VII-260 to VII-262.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Technology Division. 1987. Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Organic Chemicals. Plastics.
and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category. Volume I, Volume II. EPA 440/1-87/009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1993. Statistical Support Document for
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp. Paper, and Paperboard Point
Source Category. EPA-821-R-93-023.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1995. Statistical Support Document for
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry. EPA 821-R-95-005.
10-47
-------
Chapter
11
COST OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
This chapter explains what EPA has
estimated it will cost to comply with the
CWT effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. Section 11.1 provides a general
description of how EPA developed costs for the
different individual treatment technology and
regulatory option considered for this rule.
Sections 11.2 through 11.4 describe the
development of costs for each of the wastewater
and sludge treatment technologies evaluated.
Section 11.5 describes additional compliance
costs not related to a specific technology that a
facility may incur. These additional items are
retrofit costs, monitoring costs, RCRA permit
modification costs, and land costs.
In Section 11.6, EPA presents some
examples of capital and O&M cost calculations
for CWT facilities using this methodology.
Finally, Section 11.7 summarizes, by
subcategory, the total capital expenditures and
annual O&M costs for implementing the
regulation. Appendix D contains, by
subcategory, the facility-specific capital, O&M,
land, RCRA, and monitoring cost estimates for
each facility to comply with the limitations and
standards.
Costs Development 11.1
Technology Costs 11.1.1
EPA obtained cost information for the
technologies that it considered in developing the
limitations guidelines and standards from the
following sources:
• The data base developed from the
information provided in response to the 1991
Waste Treatment Industry (WTI)
Questionnaire (this contained some process
cost information, and EPA used this
wherever possible);
• Technical information developed for other
rulemaking such as the guidelines and
standards for the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
category, Metal Products and Machinery
(MP&M) category, and Industrial Laundries
industries category;
• Engineering literature;
• Data obtained in sampling at the CWT
model facilities; and
• Cost quotations obtained from vendors
(EPA used these extensively in estimating
the cost of the various technologies).
The total costs developed by EPA include
the following elements: capital costs of
investment in pollutant control equipment, annual
O&M costs, land requirement costs, sludge
disposal costs, monitoring costs, and retrofit
costs. Because 1989 is the base year for the
WTI Questionnaire, EPA scaled all of the costs
either up or down to 1989 dollars using the
Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction
Cost Index. EPA uses a 1989 base year to
facilitate comparison from guideline to guideline.
EPA based the capital costs for the
technologies primarily on cost quotations from
vendors. Table 11-1 lists the standard factors
used to estimate the capital costs. Equipment
costs typically include the cost of the treatment
unit and some ancillary equipment associated
with that technology. Other investment costs in
addition to the equipment cost include piping,
instrumentation and controls, pumps, installation,
engineering, delivery, and contingency.
EPA estimated certain design parameters for
costing purposes. One such parameter is the
11-1
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
flow rate used to size many of the treatment
technologies. EPA used the total daily flow in all
cases, unless specifically stated. The total daily
flow represents the annual flow divided by 260,
the standard number of operating days for a
CWT per year.
EPA derived the annual O&M costs for the
various systems from vendors' information or
from engineering literature, unless otherwise
stated. The annual O&M costs represent the
costs of maintenance, taxes and insurance, labor,
energy, treatment chemicals (if needed), and
residuals management (also if needed). Table
11-2 lists the standard factors EPA used to
estimate the O&M costs.
Sections 11.2 through 11.4 present cost
equations for capital costs, O&M costs, and land
requirements for each technology and option.
For most technologies, EPA also developed
capital cost upgrade and O&M cost upgrade
equations. EPA used these equations for
facilities which already have the treatment
technology forming the basis of the option (or
some portion of the treatment technology) in
place. EPA also presents the flow rate ranges
recommended for use in each equation. EPA is
confident the equations are representative of
costs for such facilities within these ranges.
Outside these ranges, the equations become
extrapolations. These equations, in EPA's
views, do not yield reliable results below the
recommended low flow rate.
Table 11-1. Standard Capital Cost Algorithm
Factor
Capital Cost
Equipment Cost
Technology-Specific Cost
Installation
25 to 55 percent of Equipment Cost
Piping
31 to 66 percent of Equipment Cost
Instrumentation and Controls
6 to 30 percent of Equipment Cost
Total Construction Cost
Equipment + Installation + Piping
+ Instrumentation and Controls
Engineering
15 percent of Total Construction Cost
Contingency
15 percent of Total Construction Cost
Total Indirect Cost
Engineering + Contingency
Total Capital Cost
Total Construction Cost + Total Indirect
Cost
Option Costs 11.1.2
EPA developed engineering costs for each of
the individual treatment technologies which EPA
considered in developing the CWT limitations
guidelines and standards. This chapter breaks
down these technology-specific costs into capital,
O&M, and land components. To estimate the
cost of any individual regulatory option EPA
considered for this guideline, it is necessary to
sum the costs of the individual treatment
technologies which make up that option. In a
few instances, an option consists of only one
treatment technology. In those instances, the
option cost is obviously equal to the technology
cost. Table 11-3 shows the CWT subcategory
technology options EPA considered. The table
lists the treatment technologies included in each
option, and indicates the subsections which
provide the corresponding cost information.
EPA generally calculated the capital and
O&M costs for each of the individual treatment
technologies using a flow rate range of 1 gallon
per day to five million gallons per day.
However, the flow rate ranges recommended
11-2
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
for use in the equations are in a smaller range.
Sections 11.2 to 11.4 present these ranges for
each cost equation.
Land Requirements and Costs
11.1.2.1
EPA calculated land requirements for each
piece of new equipment based on the equipment
dimensions. The land requirements include the
total area needed for the equipment plus
peripherals (pumps, controls, access areas, etc.).
Additionally, EPA included a 20-foot perimeter
around each unit. In the cases where adjacent
tanks or pieces of equipment were required, EPA
used a 20-foot perimeter for each piece of
equipment, and used the minimum area
requirements possible. The tables throughout
Sections 11.2 to 11.4 present the land
requirement equations for each technology. EPA
then multiplied the land requirements by the
corresponding land costs (as detailed in 11.5.4)
to obtain facility specific land cost estimates.
Table 11-2. Standard Operation and Maintenance Cost Factor Breakdown
Factor
O&M Cost (1989 $/year)
Maintenance
4 percent of Total Capital Cost
Taxes and Insurance
2 percent of Total Capital Cost
Labor
$30,300 to $31,200 per man-year
Electricity
$0.08 per kilowatt-hour
Chemicals:
Lime (Calcium Hydroxide)
$57 per ton
Polymer
$3.38 per pound
Sodium Hydroxide (100 percent solution)
$560 per ton
Sodium Hydroxide (50 percent solution)
$275 per ton
Sodium Hypochlorite
$0.64 per pound
Sulfide Acid
$80 per ton
Aries Tek Ltd Cationic Polymer
$1.34 per pound
Ferrous Sulfate
$0.09 per pound
Hydratcd Lime
$0.04 per pound
Sodium Sulfide
$0.30 per pound
Residuals Management
Technology-Specific Cost
Total O&M Cost
Maintenance + Taxes and Insurance + Labor
+ Electricity + Chemicals + Residuals
Operation and Maintenance Costs 11.1.2.2
EPA based O&M costs on estimated energy
usage, maintenance, labor, taxes and insurance,
and chemical usage cost. With the principal
exception of chemical usage and labor costs,
EPA calculated the O&M costs using a single
methodology. This methodology is relatively
consistent for each treatment technology, unless
specifically noted otherwise.
EPA's energy usage costs include electricity,
lighting, and controls. EPA estimated electricity
requirements at 0.5 Kwhr per 1,000 gallons of
wastewater treated. EPA assumed lighting and
controls to cost $1,000 per year and electricity
cost $0.08 per Kwhr. Manufacturers'
recommendations form the basis of these
estimates.
11-3
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
EPA based maintenance, taxes, and
insurance on a percentage of the total capital cost
as detailed in Table 11-2.
Chemical usage and labor requirements are
technology specific. These costs are detailed for
each specific technology according to the index
given in Table 11-3.
Table 11-3. CWT Treatment Technology Costing Index - A Guide to the Costing Methodology Sections
Subcategory/
Option
Treatment Technology
Section
Selective Metals Precipitation
11.2.1.1
Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration
11.2.2.1
Metals 2
Secondary Chemical Precipitation
Clarification
11.2.1.2
11.2.2.2
Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration
11.4.1
Filter Cake Disposal
11.4.2
Selective Metals Precipitation
11.2.1.1
Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration
11.2.2.1
Secondary Chemical Precipitation
11.2.1.2
Clarification
11.2.2.2
Metals 3
Tertiary Chemical Precipitation and pH Adjustment
11.2.1.3
Clarification
11.2.2.2
Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration
11.4.1
Filter Cake Disposal
11.4.2
Primary Chemical Precipitation
11.2.1.4
Clarification
11.2.2.2
Metals 4
Secondary (Sulfide) Chemical Precipitation
11.2.1.5
Secondary Clarification (for Direct Dischargers Only)
11.2.2.2
Multi-Media Filtration
11.2.5
Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration'
11.4.1
Metals - Cyanide Waste Pretreatment
Cyanide Destruction at Special Operating Conditions
11.2.6
Oils 8
Dissolved Air Flotation
11.2.8
Oils 8v
Dissolved Air Flotation
Air Stripping
11.2.8
11.2.4
Oils 9
Secondary Gravity Separation
11.2.7
Dissolved Air Flotation
11.2.8
Secondary Gravity Separation
11.2.7
Oils 9v
Dissolved Air Flotation
11.2.8
Air Stripping
11.2.4
Organics 4
Equalization
Sequencing Batch Reactor
11.2.3
11.3.1
Equalization
11.2.3
Organics 3
Sequencing Batch Reactor
Air Stripping
11.3.1
11.2.4
JMetals option 4 sludge filtration includes filter cake disposal.
11-4
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Physical/Chemical Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs 11.2
Chemical Precipitation 11.2.1
Wastewater treatment facilities widely use
chemical precipitation systems to remove
dissolved metals from wastewater. EPA
evaluated systems that utilize sulfide, lime, and
caustic as the precipitants because of their
common use in CWT chemical precipitation
systems and their effectiveness in removing
dissolved metals.
Selective Metals Precipitation
Metals Options 2 and 3
11.2.1.1
Among the technologies EPA evaluated for
treating metal-bearing wastestreams were
systems that "selectively" removed metals.
These are systems designed to address the fact
that different metals are more efficiently
removed at different pHs. These systems
perform a series of precipitations at different pHs
in order to maximize removals. The selective
metals precipitation equipment assumed by EPA
for costing purposes for Metals option 2 and
Metals option 3 consists of four mixed reaction
tanks, each sized for 25 percent of the total daily
flow, with pumps and treatment chemical feed
systems. EPA costed for four reaction tanks to
allow a facility to segregate its wastes into small
batches, thereby facilitating metals recovery and
avoiding interference with other incoming waste
receipts. EPA assumed that these four tanks
would provide adequate surge and equalization
capacity for a metals subcategory CWT. EPA
based costs on a four batch per day treatment
schedule (that is, the sum of four batch volumes
equals the facility's daily incoming waste
volume).
As shown in Table 11-3, plate and frame
liquid filtration follows selective metals
precipitation for Metals options 2 and 3. EPA
has not presented the costing discussion for plate
and frame liquid filtration in this section (consult
section 11.2.3.2). Likewise, Sections 11.4.1 and
11.4.2 discuss sludge filtration and filter cake
disposal.
Capital Costs
Because only one facility in the metals
subcategory has selective metals precipitation in-
place, EPA included selected metals precipitation
capital costs for all facilities (except one) for
Metals options 2 and 3.
EPA obtained the equipment capital cost
estimates for the selective metals precipitation
systems from vendor quotations. These costs
include the cost of the mixed reaction tanks with
pumps and treatment chemical feed systems.
The total construction cost estimates include
installation, piping and instrumentation, and
controls. The total capital cost includes
engineering and contingency at a percentage of
the total construction cost plus the total
construction cost (as explained in Table 11-1).
Table 11-4 at the end of this section presents the
equation for calculating selective metals
precipitation capital costs for Metals option 2 and
option 3.
Chemical Usage and Labor
Requirement Costs
EPA based the labor requirements for
selective metals precipitation on the model
facility's operation. EPA estimated the labor
cost at eight man-hours per batch (four treatment
tanks per batch, two hours per treatment tank
per batch).
EPA estimated selective metals precipitation
chemical costs based on stoichiometric, pH
adjustment, and buffer adjustment
requirements. For facilities with no form of
chemical precipitation in-place, EPA based the
stoichiometric requirements on the amount of
chemicals required to precipitate each of the
metal and semi-metal pollutants of concern from
the metals subcategory average raw influent
concentrations to current performance levels (see
Chapter 12 for a discussion of raw influent
11-5
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
concentrations and current loadings). The
chemicals used were caustic at 40 percent of the
required removals and lime at 60 percent of the
required removals (caustic at 40 percent and lime
at 60 percent add up to 100 percent of the
stoichiometric requirements.) These chemical
dosages reflect the operation of the selective
metals precipitation model facility. Selective
metals precipitation uses a relatively high
percentage of caustic because the sludge resulting
from caustic precipitation is amenable to metals
recovery. EPA estimated the pH adjustment and
buffer adjustment requirements to be 40 percent
of the stoichiometric requirement. EPA added
an excess of 10 percent to the pH and buffer
adjustment requirements, bringing the total to 50
percent. EPA included a 10 percent excess
because this is typical of the operation of the
CWT facilities visited and sampled by EPA.
EPA estimated selective metals
precipitation upgrade costs for facilities that
currently utilize some form of chemical
precipitation. Based on responses to the Waste
Treatment Industry Questionnaire, EPA assumed
that the in-place chemical precipitation systems
use a dosage ratio of 25% caustic and 75% lime
and achieve a reduction of pollutants from "raw"
to "current" levels. The selective metals
precipitation upgrade would require a change in
the existing dosage mix to 40% caustic and 60 %
lime. Therefore, the selective metals
precipitation upgrade for facilities with in-place
chemical precipitation is the increase in caustic
cost ( from 25 % to 40%) minus the lime credit
(to decrease from 75% to 60%).
Table 11-4 presents the O&M cost equation
for selective metals precipitation along with the
O&M upgrade cost equation for facilities with
primary and secondary chemical precipitation in-
place.
Table 11-4. Cost Equations for Selective Metals Precipitation in Metals Options 2 and 3
Description
Equation
Recommended Flow
Rate Range (MGD)
Capital cost
ln(Yl)= 14.461 4
¦ 0.5441n(X) + 0.0000047(ln(X))2
1.0 E -6 to 5.0
O&M cost for facilities without chem.
precipitation treatment in-place
ln(Y2) = 15.6402
+ 1.0011n(X) + 0.04857(ln(X))2
3.4 E -5 to 5.0
O&M upgrade cost for facilities with
precipitation in-place
ln(Y2) = 14.2545
+ 0.80661n(X) + 0.04214(ln(X))2
7.4 E -5 to 5.0
Land requirements
ln(Y3) = -0.575 +
0.4201n(X) + 0.025(ln(X))2
1.6 E-2 to 4.0
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
11-6
-------
Secondary Precipitation -
Metals Options 2 and 3 11.2.1.2
The secondary precipitation system in the
model technology for Metals option 2 and Metals
option 3 follows selective metals precipitation
and plate and frame liquid filtration. This
secondary chemical precipitation equipment
consists of a single mixed reaction tank with
pumps and a treatment chemical feed system,
which is sized for the full daily batch volume.
As shown in Table 11-3, clarification follows
secondary chemical precipitation for Metals
options 2 and 3. Section 11.2.2.2 discusses the
costing for clarification following secondary
precipitation. Sections 11.4.1 and 11.4.2 discuss
sludge filtration and the associated filter cake
disposal.
Many facilities in the metals subcategory
currently have chemical precipitation units in-
place. For these facilities, cost upgrades may be
appropriate. EPA used the following set of rules
to decide whether a facility's costs should be
based on a full cost equation or an upgrade
equation for the secondary chemical precipitation
step of metals options 2 and 3:
• Facilities with no chemical precipitation in-
place should use the full capital and O&M
costs;
• Facilities with primary chemical precipitation
in-place should assume no capital costs, no
land requirements, but an O&M upgrade
cost for the primary step; and
• Facilities with secondary chemical
precipitation currently in-place should
assume no capital costs, no land
requirements, and no O&M costs for the
secondary step.
Capital Costs
For facilities that have no chemical
precipitation in-place, EPA calculated capital cost
estimates for the secondary precipitation
treatment systems from vendor quotations.
EPA estimated the other components (i.e.,
piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the
total capital cost by applying the same factors
and additional costs as detailed for selective
metals precipitation (see Section 11.2.1.1 above).
Table 11-5 at the end of this section shows the
capital cost equation for secondary precipitation
in Metals option 2 and option 3.
For the facilities that have at least primary
chemical precipitation in-place, EPA assumed
that the capital cost for the secondary
precipitation treatment system would be zero.
The in-place primary chemical precipitation
systems would serve as secondary precipitation
systems after the installation of upstream
selective metals precipitation units.
Chemical Usage and Labor
Requirement Costs
EPA developed O&M cost estimates for the
secondary precipitation step of Metals option 2
and 3 for facilities with and without chemical
precipitation currently in-place. For facilities
with no chemical precipitation in-place, EPA
calculated the amount of lime required to
precipitate each of the metals and semi-metals
from the metals subcategory current
performance concentrations (achieved with the
previously explained selective metals
precipitation step) to the Metals option 2 long-
term average concentrations. EPA then added a
ten percent excess dosage factor and based the
chemical addition costs on the required amount
of lime only, which is based on the operation of
the model facility for this technology. EPA
assumed the labor cost to be two hours per
batch, based on recommendations from
manufacturers.
For facilities with chemical precipitation in-
place, EPA calculated an O&M upgrade cost. In
calculating the O&M upgrade cost, EPA
assumed that there would be no additional costs
associated with any of the components of the
annual O&M cost, except for increased chemical
costs.
11-7
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Because EPA already applied credit for
chemical costs for facilities with primary
precipitation in estimating the selective metals
precipitation chemical costs, the chemical
upgrade costs for facilities with primary
precipitation are identical to facilities with no
chemical precipitation in-place.
Because EPA assumed that facilities with
secondary precipitation would achieve the metals
option 2 long term average concentrations with
their current system and chemical additions (after
installing the selective metals precipitation
system), EPA assumed these facilities would not
incur any additional chemical costs. In turn,
EPA also assumed that facilities with secondary
precipitation units in-place would incur no O&M
upgrade costs.
Table 11-5. Cost Equations for Secondary Chemical Precipitation in Metals Options 2 and 3
Description
Equation
Recommended Flow
Rate Range (MGD)
Capital cost
In (Yl) = 13.829 + 0.5441n(X) + 0.00000496(ln(X))2
1.0 E -6 to 5.0
O&M cost for facilities with no
chemical precipitation in-place
In (Y2) = 11.6553 + 0.483481n(X) + 0.02485(ln(X))2
6.5 E -5 to 5.0
O&M upgrade cost for facilities with
primary precipitation in-place
In (Y2) = 9.97021 + 1.001621n(X) + 0.00037(ln(X))2
5.0 E -4 to 5.0
Land requirements
In (Y3) = -1.15 + 0.4491n(X) + 0.027(ln(X))2
4.0 E-3 to 1.0
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
Tertiary Precipitation andpH
Adjustment - Metals Option 3 11.2.1.3
The tertiary chemical precipitation step for
Metals option 3 follows the secondary
precipitation and clarification steps. This tertiary
precipitation system consists of a rapid mix
neutralization tank and a pH adjustment tank. In
this step, the wastewater is fed to the rapid mix
neutralization tank where lime slurry is added to
raise the pH to 11.0. Effluent from the
neutralization tank then flows to a clarifier for
solids removal. The clarifier overflow goes to a
pH adjustment tank where sulfuric acid is added
to achieve the desired final pH of 9.0. This
section explains the development of the cost
estimates for the rapid mix neutralization tank
and the pH adjustment tank. Sections 11.2.2.2,
11.4.1, and 11.4.2 discuss clarification, sludge
filtration, and associated filter cake disposal.
Capital Costs
EPA developed the capital cost estimates for
the rapid mix tank assuming continuous flow and
a 15-minute detention time, which is based on
the model facility's standard operation. The
equipment cost includes one tank, one agitator,
and one lime feed system.
EPA developed the capital cost estimates for
the pH adjustment tank assuming continuous
flow and a five-minute detention time, also based
on the model facility's operation. The
equipment cost includes one tank, one agitator,
and one sulfuric acid feed system.
EPA estimated the other components (i.e.,
piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the
total capital cost for both the rapid mix and pH
11-8
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
adjustment tank by applying the same factors
and additional costs as detailed for selective
metals precipitation (see Section 11.2.1.1 above).
Table 11-6 at the end of this section presents the
capital cost equations for the rapid mix and pH
adjustment tanks.
Chemical Usage and Labor
Requirement Costs
EPA did not assign O&M costs, and in turn,
chemical usage and labor requirement costs for
tertiary precipitation and pH adjustment to the
few facilities which have tertiary precipitation
(and pH adjustment) systems in-place. For those
facilities without tertiary precipitation (and pH
adjustment) in-place, EPA estimated the labor
requirements at one man-hour per day for the
the CWT Point Source Catesoi
rapid mix and pH adjustment tanks. EPA based
this estimate on the model facility's typical
operation.
EPA estimated chemical costs for the rapid
mix tank based on lime addition to achieve the
stoichiometric requirements of reducing the
metals in the wastewater from the Metals option
2 long-term averages to the Metals option 3 long-
term averages, with a 10 percent excess. EPA
estimated the chemical requirements for the pH
adjustment tank based on the addition of sulfuric
acid to lower the pH from 11.0 to 9.0, based on
the model facility's operation. Table 11-6 the
O&M cost equations for the rapid mix tank and
pH adjustment tank.
Table 11-6. Cost Equations for Tertiary Chemical Precipitation in Metals Option 3
Description
Equation
Recommended
Flow Rate Range
(MGD)
Capital cost for rapid mix tank
ln(Yl) = 12.318 + 0.5431n(X) - 0.000179(ln(X))2
1.0 E -5 to 5.0
Capital cost for pH adjustment tank
ln(Yl) = 11.721 + 0.5431n(X) + 0.000139(ln(X))2
1.0 E -5 to 5.0
O&M cost for rapid mix tank
ln(Y2) = 9.98761 + 0.375141n(X) + 0.02124(ln(X))2
1.6 E-4 to 5.0
O&M cost for pH adjustment tank
ln(Y2) = 9.71626 + 0.332751n(X) + 0.0196(ln(X))2
2.5 E-4 to 5.0
Land requirements for rapid mix tank
ln(Y3) = -2.330 + 0.3521n(X) + 0.019(ln(X))2
1.0 E -2 to 5.0
Land requirements for pH adjust, tank
ln(Y3) = -2.67 + 0.301n(X) + 0.033(ln(X))2
1.0 E-2 to 5.0
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
11-9
-------
Primary Chemical Precipitation -
Metals Option 4 11.2.1.4
The primary chemical precipitation system
equipment for the model technology for Metals
option 4 consists of a mixed reaction tank with
pumps, a treatment chemical feed system, and
an unmixed wastewater holding tank. EPA
designed the system to operate on a batch basis,
treating one batch per day, five days per week.
The average chemical precipitation batch
duration reported by respondents to the WTI
Questionnaire was four hours. Therefore, a one
batch per day treatment schedule should provide
sufficient time for the average facility to pump,
treat, and test its waste. EPA also included a
holding tank, equal to the daily waste volume, up
to a maximum size of 5,000 gallons (equivalent
to the average tank truck receipt volume
throughout the industry), to allow facilities
flexibility in managing waste receipts (the Metals
option 4 model facility utilizes a holding tank).
As shown in Table 11-3, clarification follows
primary chemical precipitation for metals option
4. The costing discussion for clarification
following primary precipitation in Metals option
4 is presented in section 11.2.2.2. Sections
11.4.1 and 11.4.2 discuss sludge filtration and
the associated filter cake disposal.
Capital Costs
EPA developed total capital cost estimates
for the Metals option 4 primary chemical
precipitation systems. For facilities with no
chemical precipitation units in-place, the
components of the chemical precipitation system
included a precipitation tank with a mixer,
pumps, and a feed system. In addition, EPA
included a holding tank equal to the size of the
precipitation tank, up to 5,000 gallons. EPA
obtained these cost estimates from
manufacturer's recommendations.
EPA estimated the other components (i.e.,
piping, instrumentation and controls, etc.) of the
total capital cost for both the rapid mix and pH
adjustment tank by applying the same factors
and additional costs as detailed for selective
metals precipitation (see Section 11.2.1.1 above).
For facilities that already have any chemical
precipitation (treatment in-place), EPA included
as capital expense only the cost of a holding
tank. Table 11-7 presents the capital cost
equations for primary chemical precipitation and
the holding tank only for Metals option 4.
Labor and Chemical Costs
EPA approximated the labor cost for primary
chemical precipitation in Metals option 4 at two
hours per batch, one batch per day. EPA based
this approach on the model facility's operation.
EPA estimated chemical costs based on
stoichiometric, pH adjustment, and buffer
adjustment requirements. For facilities with no
chemical precipitation in-place, EPA based the
stoichiometric requirements on the amount of
chemicals required to precipitate each of the
metal pollutants of concern from the metals
subcategory average raw influent concentrations
to Metals option 4 (Sample Point - 03)
concentrations. Metals option 4, Sample Point -
03 concentrations represent the sampled effluent
from primary chemical precipitation at the model
facility. The chemicals used were lime at 75
percent of the required removals and caustic at
25 percent of the required removals, which are
based on the option facility's operation. EPA
estimated the pH adjustment and buffer
adjustment requirements to be 50 percent of the
stoichiometric requirement, which includes a 10
percent excess of chemical dosage. Table 11-7
presents the O&M cost equation for primary
chemical precipitation in Metals option 4 for
facilities with no treatment in-place.
For facilities which already have chemical
precipitation treatment in-place, EPA estimated
an O&M upgrade cost. EPA assumed that
facilities with primary chemical precipitation in-
place have effluent concentrations exiting the
primary precipitation/solid-liquids separation
system equal to the metals subcategory primary
11-10
-------
precipitation current loadings. Similarly, EPA
assumed that facilities with secondary chemical
precipitation in place have effluent
concentrations exiting the secondary
precipitation/solid-liquids separation system equal
to metals subcategory secondary precipitation
current loadings (see chapter 12 for a detailed
discussion of metals subcategory primary and
secondary chemical precipitation current
loadings).
For the portion of the O&M upgrade
equation associated with energy, maintenance,
and labor, EPA calculated the percentage
difference between the primary precipitation
current loadings and Metals option 4 (Sample
Point - 03) concentrations. For facilities which
currently have primary precipitation systems this
difference is an increase of approximately two
percent. Therefore, EPA calculated the energy,
maintenance, and labor components of the O&M
upgrade cost for facilities with primary chemical
precipitation in-place at two percent of the O&M
cost for facilities with no chemical precipitation
in-place.
For the portion of the O&M upgrade
equation associated with energy, maintenance,
and labor, EPA calculated the percentage
difference between secondary precipitation
current loadings and Metals option 4 (Sample
Point - 03) concentrations. For secondary
precipitation systems, this difference is also an
increase of approximately two percent1.
Therefore, EPA calculated the energy,
maintenance, and labor components of the O&M
upgrade cost for facilities with secondary
chemical precipitation in-place at two percent of
the O&M cost for facilities with no chemical
precipitation in-place.
For the chemical cost portion of the O&M
upgrade, EPA also calculated upgrade costs
depending on whether the facility had primary
precipitation or secondary precipitation currently
in-place. For facilities with primary precipitation,
EPA calculated chemical upgrade costs based on
current-to-Metals option 4 (Sample Point - 03)
removals. Similarly for facilities with secondary
precipitation, EPA calculated chemical upgrade
costs based on secondary precipitation removals
to Metals option 4 (Sample Point - 03) removals.
In both cases, EPA did not include costs for pH
adjustment or buffering chemicals since these
chemicals should already be used in the in-place
treatment system. Finally, EPA included a 10
percent excess of chemical dosage to the
stoichiometric requirements of the precipitation
chemicals.
EPA then combined the energy, maintenance
and labor components of the O&M upgrade with
the chemical portion of the O&M upgrade to
develop two sets of O&M upgrade equations for
the primary chemical precipitation portion of
Metals option 4. Table 11-7 presents these cost
equations for Metals option 4 (primary chemical
precipitation O&M upgrade costs) for facilities
with primary and secondary treatment in place.
1 While pollutant concentrations resulting
from secondary chemical precipitation are
generally lower than those resulting from primary
chemical precipitation, the percentage increase
(when rounded) for primary and secondary
precipitation are the same.
11-11
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Table 11-7. Cost Equations for Primary Chemical Precipitation in Metals Option 4
Description
Equation
Recommended Flow
Rate Range (MGD)
Capital cost for primary precipitation and
no treatment in-place
ln(Yl)= 14.019 4
- 0.4811n(X) - 0.00307(ln(X))2
1.0 E-6 to 5.0
Capital cost for holding tank only - used
for facilities with chemical precipitation
currently in-place.
ln(Yl)= 10.671 -
0.0831n(X) - 0.032(ln(X))2
1.0 E -6 to 0.005
O&M cost for primary precipitation and
no treatment in-place
ln(Y2) = 15.3534
+ 1.087001n(X) + 0.04891(ln(X))2
1.7 E -5 to 5.0
O&M upgrade for facilities with primary
precipitation in-place
ln(Y2) = 11.6203
+ 1.059981n(X) + 0.04602(ln(X))2
2.0 E -5 to 5.0
O&M upgrade for facilities with
secondary precipitation in-place
ln(Y3) = 10.9500
+ 0.948211n(X) + 0.04306(ln(X))2
1.7 E -5 to 5.0
Land requirements
ln(Y3) =-1.019 +
0.2991n(X) + 0.015(ln(X))2
6.7 E-5 to 1.0
Land requirements (associated with
holding tank only)
ln(Y3) = -2.866 -
0.0231n(X) - 0.006(ln(X))2
1.0 E-5 to 0.5
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation
for Metals Option 4
11.2.1.5
The Metals option 4 secondary sulfide
precipitation system follows the primary metals
precipitation/clarification step. This equipment
consists of a mixed reaction tank with pumps and
a treatment chemical feed system, sized for the
full daily batch volume. For direct dischargers,
the overflow from secondary sulfide precipitation
would carry on to a clarifier and then multi-
media filtration. For indirect discharges, the
overflow would go immediately to the filtration
unit, without clarification. Section 11.2.2.2 of
this document discusses cost estimates for the
clarifier. Section 11.2.5 presents cost estimates
for multi-media filtration.
For costing purposes, EPA assumed that
facilities either have secondary precipitation
currently in-place and attributes no additional
capital and O&M costs to these facilities, or EPA
assumes that facilities do not have secondary
sulfide precipitation in-place and, consequently,
EPA developed costs for full O&M and capital
costs. Therefore, EPA has not developed
upgrade costs associated with secondary
precipitation in Metals option 4.
Capital Costs
EPA developed capital cost estimates for the
secondary sulfide precipitation systems in Metals
option 4 from vendor's quotes. EPA estimated
the other components (i.e., piping,
instrumentation, and controls, etc.) of the sulfide
precipitation system by applying the same
methodology, factors and additional costs as
outlined for the primary chemical precipitation
system for Metals option 4 (see Section 11.2.1.4
above). Table 11-8 at the end of this section
presents the capital cost equation for Metals
option 4 secondary sulfide precipitation.
11-12
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Labor and Chemical Costs
For facilities with no secondary precipitation
systems in-place, EPA estimated the labor
requirements at two hours per batch, one batch
per day. EPA based this estimate on standard
operation at the Metals option 4 model facility.
For secondary sulfide precipitation in Metals
option 4, EPA did not base the chemical cost
estimates on stoichiometric requirements.
Instead, EPA estimated the chemical costs based
on dosage rates for the addition of polymer and
ferrous sulfide obtained during the sampling of
the Metals option 4 model plant with BAT
performance. Table 11-8 presents the O&M
cost equation for the Metals option 4, secondary
sulfide precipitation.
Table 11-8. Cost Equations for Secondary (Sulfide) Precipitation for Metals Option 4
Description
Equation
Recommended Flow
Rate Range (MGD)
Capital cost for secondary precip. and no
treatment in-place
In (Yl)= 13.829
+ 0.5441n(X) + 0.00000496(ln(X))2
1.0 E -6 to 5.0
O&M cost for secondary precip. and no
treatment in-place
In (Y2) = 12.076
+ 0.634561n(X) + 0.03678(ln(X))2
1.8 E -4 to 5.0
Land requirements
ln(Y3) = -1.15 +
0.4491n(X) + 0.027(ln(X))2
2.5 E-4 to 1.0
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
Plate and Frame Liquid
Filtration and Clarification 11.2.2
Clarification systems provide continuous,
low-cost separation and removal of suspended
solids from water. Waste treatment facilities use
clarification to remove particulates, flocculated
impurities, and precipitants, often following
chemical precipitation. Similarly, waste
treatment facilities also use plate and frame
pressure systems to remove solids from waste
streams. As described in this section, these plate
and frame filtration systems serve the same
function as clarification and are used to remove
solids following chemical precipitation from
liquid wastestreams. The major difference
between clarification systems and plate and
frame liquid filtration systems is that the sludge
generated by clarification generally needs to be
processed further prior to landfilling, whereas,
the sludge generated by plate and frame liquid
filtration does not.
EPA costed facilities to include a plate and
frame liquid filtration system following selective
metals precipitation in Metals options 2 and 3.
The components of the plate and frame liquid
filtration system include: filter plates, filter cloth,
hydraulic pumps, control panel, connector pipes,
and a support platform. Since EPA costed all
metals facilities for selective metals precipitation
systems for metals options 2 and 3 (except the
one facility which already utilizes this
technology), EPA also costed all metals facilities
for plate and frame liquid filtration systems.
Consequently, EPA did not develop any upgrade
costs associated with the use of plate and frame
liquid filtration.
EPA also costed facilities to include a
clarifier following secondary precipitation for
Metals option 2 and following both secondary
11-13
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
and tertiary precipitation for Metals option 3.
For Metals option 4, EPA costed facilities to
include a clarifier following primary chemical
precipitation and following secondary
precipitation (for direct dischargers only). EPA
designed and costed a single clarification system
for all options and locations in the treatment
train. The components of this clarification
system include a clarification unit, flocculation
unit, pumps, motor, foundation, and accessories.
Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration
Following Selective Metals
Precipitation 11.2.2.1
Capital Costs
The plate and frame liquid filtration
equipment following the selective metals
precipitation step for the model technology in
Metals option 2 and 3 consists of two plate and
frame liquid filtration systems. EPA assumed
that each system would be used to process two
batches per day for a total of four batches. EPA
costed the plate and frame liquid filtration
systems in this manner to allow facilities to
segregate their wastes into smaller batches,
thereby facilitating selective metals recovery.
EPA sized each of the units to process a batch
consisting of 25 percent of the daily flow and
assumed that the influent to the plate and frame
filtration units would consist of 96 percent liquid
and four percent (40,000 mg/1) solids (based on
the model facility). EPA based the capital cost
equation for plate and frame liquid filtration for
Metals options 2 and 3 on information provided
by vendors. Table 11-9 lists this capital cost
equation.
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirements
EPA estimated that labor requirements for
plate and frame liquid filtration for Metals
options 2 and 3 would be 30 minutes per batch
per filter press (based on the metals options 2
and 3 model facility). There are no chemicals
associated with the operation of the plate and
frame filtration systems. EPA estimated the
remaining components of O&M using the factors
listed in Table 11-2. Table 11-9 lists the O&M
equation for plate and frame liquid filtration.
Even though the metal-rich sludge generated
from selective metals precipitation and plate and
frame liquid filtration may be recycled and re-
used, EPA additionally included costs associated
with disposal of these sludges in a landfill. The
discussion for filter cake disposal is presented
separately in Section 11.4.2. These disposal
costs are additional O&M costs which must be
added to the O&M costs calculated above to
obtain the total O&M costs associated with plate
and frame liquid filtration for Metals options 2
and 3.
Clarification for Metals Options
2,3, and 4 11.2.2.2
Capital Costs
EPA obtained the capital cost estimate for
clarification systems from vendors. EPA
designed the clarification system assuming an
influent total suspended solids (TSS)
concentration of 40,000 mg/L (four percent
solids) and an effluent TSS concentration of
200,000 mg/L (20 percent solids). In addition,
EPA assumed a design overflow rate of 600
gpd/ft2. EPA estimated the influent and effluent
TSS concentrations and overflow rate based on
the WTI Questionnaire response for
Questionnaire ID 105. The capital cost equation
for clarification is presented in Table 11-9 at the
end of this section. As detailed earlier, the same
capital cost equation is used for all of the
clarification systems for all of the metals options
regardless of its location in the treatment train.
EPA did not develop capital cost upgrades for
facilities which already have clarification systems
in-place. Therefore, facilities which currently
have clarifiers have no land or capital costs.
Chemical Usage and Labor Requirements
EPA estimated the labor requirements for
11-14
-------
the clarification systems for Metals options 2 and
3 following secondary precipitation and Metals
option 4 following primary and secondary (for
direct dischargers only) precipitation at three
hours per day for low-flow clarifiers and four to
six hours per day for high-flow clarifiers. Based
on manufacturers recommendations, EPA
selected the flow cut-off between high-flow and
low-flow systems to be 1000 gallons per day.
For the clarifier following tertiary precipitation in
Metals option 3 only, EPA estimated the labor
requirement at one hour per day (based on the
operation of the Metals option 3 model facility).
For all clarifiers for all metals options and
treatment train locations, EPA estimated a
polymer dosage rate of 2.0 mg per liter of
wastewater (for the flocculation step) based on
the MP&M industry cost model. EPA estimated
the remaining components of O&M using the
factors listed in Table 11-2. Table 11-9 lists the
two cost equations developed for clarification.
One equation is used for the clarifier following
the tertiary precipitation step of Metals option 3
and the other equation is used for all other
Metals options and locations in the treatment
train.
As shown in Table 11-3, sludge filtration
follows clarification for the secondary
precipitation step of Metals options 2 and 3 and
the primary and secondary (direct dischargers
only) of Metals option 4. Section 11.4.1 and
11.4.2 present the costing discussion and
equations for sludge filtration and the associated
filter cake disposal.
For facilities which already have clarification
systems or plate and frame liquid filtration
systems in-place for each option and location in
the treatment train, EPA estimated clarification
upgrade costs. EPA assumed that in-place
clarification systems and in-place plate and frame
liquid filtration systems are equivalent.
Therefore, if a facility has an in-place liquid
filtration system which can serve the same
purpose as a clarifier, EPA costed this facility for
an up-grade only and not a new clarification
system.
For the clarification step following secondary
precipitation in Metals options 2 and 3, in order
to quantify the O&M increase necessary for the
O&M upgrade, EPA compared the difference
between secondary precipitation current
performance concentrations and the Metals
option 2 long- term averages. EPA determined
facilities would need to increase their current
removals by 3 percent. Therefore, for in-place
clarification systems (or plate and frame liquid
filtration systems) which could serve as the
clarifier following secondary chemical
precipitation for Metals option 2 and 3, EPA
included an O&M cost upgrade of three percent
of the O&M costs for a brand new system
(except for taxes, insurance, and maintenance
which are a function of the capital cost). Table
11-9 lists the O&M upgrade equations for
clarification following secondary chemical
precipitation for Metals option 2 and 3 (one for
facilities which currently have a clarifier and one
for facilities which currently have a plate and
frame liquid filtration system).
For facilities which already have clarifiers or
plate and frame liquid filtration systems in-place
which could serve as the clarifier following the
tertiary chemical precipitation of Metals option 3,
EPA did not estimate any O&M upgrade costs.
EPA assumed the in-place technologies could
perform as well as (or better) than the
technology costed by EPA.
For facilities which already have clarifiers or
plate and frame liquid filtration systems in-place
which could serve as the clarifier following the
primary chemical precipitation of Metals option
4, EPA compared the difference between
primary precipitation current loadings and the
long-term averages for Metals option 4, Sample
Point - 03 (Sample Point - 03 follows primary
precipitation and clarification at the Metals option
4 model facility). EPA determined that facilities
would need to increase their removals by 2%.
Therefore, for in-place clarification systems (or
plate and frame liquid filtration systems) which
could serve as the clarifier following primary
chemical precipitation for Metals option 4, EPA
11-15
-------
included an O&M cost upgrade of two percent
of the O&M costs for a brand new system
(except for taxes, insurance, and maintenance
which are a function of the capital cost). Table
11-9 lists the O&M upgrade equations for
clarification following primary chemical
precipitation for Metals option 4 (one for
facilities which currently have a clarifier and one
for facilities which currently have a plate and
frame liquid filtration system).
EPA did not calculate an O&M upgrade
equation for the clarification step following
secondary chemical precipitation (direct
dischargers only) of Metals option 4. EPA
costed all direct discharging facilities for a new
clarification system following secondary chemical
precipitation for Metals option 4 since none of
the direct discharging metals facilities had
treatment in-place for this step.
11
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Table 11-9. Cost Equations for Clarification and Plate and Frame Liquid Filtration in Metals Option 2,3,4
Description
Equation
Recommended Flow
Rate Range (MGD)
Capital cost for plate and frame liquid filtration
- Metals Options 2 and 31
ln(Yl) = 14.024-
+- 0.8591n(X)-
t- 0.040(ln(X))2
1.0 E-6 to 1.0
Capital Cost for Clarification - Metals Options
2,3, and 4
ln(Yl)= 11.552 -
+- 0.4091n(X)-
t- 0.020(ln(X))2
4.0 E-5 to 1.0
O&M cost for plate and frame liquid filtration -
Metals Options 2 and 3i
ln(Y2)= 13.056-
+- 0.1931n(X)-
t- 0.00343(ln(X))2
1.0 E-6 to 1.0
O&M cost for Clarification - Metals Options
2,35, and 4
ln(Y2) = 10.673 -
+- 0.2381n(X)-
t- 0.013(ln(X))2
1.2 E -4 to 1.0
O&M cost for clarification - Metals Option 34
ln(Y2) = 10.294 -
+- 0.3621n(X)-
t- 0.019(ln(X))2
8.0 E -5 to 1.0
O&M upgrade for Clarification - Metals
Options 2 and 3 facilities which currently have
clarification in-place5
ln(Y2)= 7.166 +
0.2381n(X) +
0.013(ln(X))2
7.0 E-5 to 1.0
O&M upgrade for Clarification - Metals
Options 2 and 3 facilities which currently have
plate&frame liquid filtration in-place
ln(Y2) = 8.707 +
0.3331n(X) +
0.012(ln(X))2
1.0 E-6 to 1.0
O&M upgrade for Clarification -
Metals Option 46
ln(Y2) = 6.8135-
+- 0.33151n(X)
+ 0.0242(ln(X))2
1.2 E-3 to 1.0
O&M upgrade for plate and frame liquid
filtration - Metals Option 4
ln(Y2) = 12.0242
+ 1.176761n(X) + 0.05005(ln(X))2
1.0 E-6 to 1.0
Tand requirements for plate and frame liquid
filtration - Metals Options 2 and 3
ln(Y3)=-1.658 H
- 0.1851n(X) H
- 0.009(ln(X))2
1.0 E-6 to 1.0
Tand requirements for clarification
ln(Y3)=-1.773 H
- 0.5131n(X) H
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
this was the median equalization detention time
reported by respondents to the WTI
Questionnaire.
Table 11-10. Design Parameters Used for
Equalization in C APDET Program
Aerator mixing = 0.03 HP per 1,000 gallons;
Oxygen requirements = 15.0 mg/1 per hour;
Dissolved oxygen in basin = 2.0 mg/1;
Depth of basin = 6.0 feet; and
Detention time = 24 hours.
Land Requirements
EPA used the CAPDET program to develop
land requirements for the equalization systems.
EPA scaled up the requirements to represent the
total land required for the system plus peripherals
(pumps, controls, access areas, etc.). The land
requirement equation for equalization systems is
also presented in Table 11-11.
EPA did not calculate capital or O&M
upgrade equations for equalization. If a CWT
facility currently has an equalization tank in-
place, the facility received no costs associated
with equalization. EPA assumed that the
equalization tanks currently in-place at CWT
facilities would perform as well as (or better
than) the system costed by EPA.
Capital Costs
The CAPDET program calculates capital
costs which are "total project costs." These
"total project costs" include all of the items
previously listed in Table 11-1 as well as
miscellaneous nonconstruction costs, 201
planning costs, technical costs, land costs,
interest during construction, and laboratory costs.
Therefore, to obtain capital costs for the
equalization systems for this industry, EPA
calculated capital costs based on total project
costs minus: miscellaneous nonconstruction
costs, 201 planning costs, technical costs, land
costs, interest during construction, and laboratory
costs. Table 11-11 at the end of this section
presents the resulting capital cost equation for
equalization.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
EPA obtained O&M costs directly from the
initial year O&M costs produced by the
CAPDET program. Table 11-11 presents the
O&M cost equation for equalization systems.
11-18
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Table 11-11. Summary of Cost Equations for Equalization
Description
Equation
Recommended Flow
Rate Range (MGD)
Capital cost for equalization
ln(Yl)= 12.057 -
H 0.4331n(X) -
n 0.043(ln(X))2
6.6 E-3 to 5.0
O&M cost for equalization
ln(Y2)= 11.723-
H 0.3111n(X) -
n 0.019(ln(X))2
3.0 E-4 to 5.0
Land requirements
ln(Y3) = -0.912 4
o
s
-1-
- 0.011(ln(X))2
1.4 E -2 to 5.0
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
Air Stripping 11.2.4
Air stripping is an effective wastewater
treatment method for removing dissolved gases and
volatile compounds from wastewater streams. The
technology passes high volumes of air through an
agitated gas-water mixture. This promotes
volatilzation of compounds, and, preferably
capture in air pollution control systems.
The air stripping system costed by EPA
includes transfer pumps, control panels, blowers,
and ancillary equipment. EPA also included
catalytic oxidizers as part of the system for air
pollution control purposes.
If a CWT facility currently has an air stripping
system in-place, EPA did not assign the facility any
costs associated with air stripping. EPA assumed
that the air stripping systems currently in-place at
CWT facilities would perform as well as (or better
than) the system costed by EPA.
Capital Costs
EPA's air stripping system is designed to
remove pollutants with medium to high volatilities.
EPA used the pollutant 1,2-dichloroethane, which
has a Henry's Law Constant of 9.14 E -4
atm*L/mol, as the design basis with an influent
concentration of 4,000 jj.g/L and an effluent
concentration of 68 (ig/L. EPA based these
concentration on information collected on the
model facility's operation. EPA used the same
design basis for the air stripping systems costed for
the option 8v and 9v in the oils subcategory.
EPA obtained the equipment costs from vendor
quotations. Table 11-13 at the end of this section
presents the capital cost equation for air stripping
systems.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
For air stripping, O&M costs include electricity,
maintenance, labor, catalyst replacement, and taxes
and insurance. EPA obtained the O&M costs from
the same vendor which provided the capital cost
estimates.
EPA based the electricity usage for the air
strippers on the amount of horsepower needed to
operate the system and approximated the electricity
usage for the catalytic oxidizers at 50 percent of the
electricity used for the air strippers. EPA based
both the horsepower requirements and the
electricity requirements for the catalytic oxidizer on
vendor's recommendations. EPA estimated the
labor requirement for the air stripping system at
three hours per day, which is based on the model
facility's operation. EPA assumed that the catalyst
beds in the catalytic oxidizer would require
replacement every four years based on the rule of
thumb (provided by the vendor) that precious metal
catalysts have a lifetime of approximately four
years. EPA divided the costs for replacing the
spent catalysts by four to convert them to annual
costs. As is the standard used by EPA for this
industry, taxes and insurance were estimated at 2
percent of the total capital cost. Table 11-12
presents the resulting O&M cost equation for air
stripping systems.
11-19
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Table 11-12. Cost Equations for Air Stripping
Description
Equation
Recommended Flow
Rate Range(MGD)
Capital cost for air stripping
ln(Yl)= 12.899-
T
O
4^
00
as
K
n 0.031(ln(X))2
4.0 E-4 to 1.0
O&M cost for air stripping
ln(Y2) = 10.865 -
n 0.2981n(X) -
n 0.021(ln(X))2
8.5 E-4 to 1.0
Land requirements
ln(Y3) = -2.207 4
-0.5361n(X)4
- 0.042(ln(X))2
0.1 to 1.0
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
Multi-Media Filtration 11.2.5
Filtration is a proven technology for the
removal of residual suspended solids from
wastewater. The multimedia filtration system
costed by EPA for this industry is a system
which contains sand and anthracite coal,
supported by gravel.
EPA based the design for the model
multimedia filtration system on the TSS effluent
long- term average concentration for Metals
option 4 — 15 mg/L. EPA assumed that the
average influent TSS concentration to the
multimedia filtration system would range from 75
to 100 mg/L. EPA based the influent
concentration range on vendor's
recommendations on realistic TSS concentrations
resulting from wastewater treatment following
chemical precipitation and clarification.
EPA did not calculate capital or O&M
upgrade equations for multi-media filtration. If a
CWT facility currently has a multimedia filter in-
place, EPA assigned the facility no costs
associated with multi-media filtration. EPA
assumed that the multi-media filter currently in-
place at CWT facilities would perform as well as
(or better than) the system costed by EPA.
Capital Costs
EPA based the capital costs of multi-media
filters on vendor's recommendations. Table 11-
13 presents the resulting capital cost equation for
multi-media filtration systems.
Chemical Usage and Labor
Requirement Costs
EPA estimated the labor requirement for the
multi-media filtration system at four hours per
day, which is based on manufacturer's
recommendations. There are no chemicals
associated with the operation of a multimedia
filter. Table 11-13 presents the O&M cost
equation for the multi-media filtration system.
11-20
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Table 11-13. Cost Equations for Multi-Media Filtration
Description
Equation
Flow Rate
Range (MGD)
Capital cost for multi-media filtration
ln(Yl)= 12.0126 -
t- 0.480251n(X) -
H 0.04623(ln(X))2
5.7 E-3 to 1.0
O&M cost for multi-media filtration
ln(Y2)= 11.5039-
t- 0.724581n(X) -
H 0.09535(ln(X))2
2.3 E-2 to 1.0
Land requirements
ln(Y3) = -2.6569 4
-0.193711n(X)4
- 0.02496(ln(X))2
2.4 E-2 to 1.0
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
Cyan ide Destruction
11.2.6
Many CWTs achieved required cyanide
destruction by oxidation. These facilities
primarily use chlorine (in either the elemental or
hypochlorite form) as the oxidizing agent in this
process. Oxidation of cyanide with chlorine is
called alkaline chlorination.
The oxidation of cyanide waste using sodium
hypochlorite is a two step process. In the first
step, cyanide is oxidized to cyanate in the
presence of hypochlorite, and sodium hydroxide
is used to maintain a pH range of 9 to 11. The
second step oxidizes cyanate to carbon dioxide
and nitrogen at a controlled pH of 8.5. The
amounts of sodium hypochlorite and sodium
hydroxide needed to perform the oxidation are
8.5 parts and 8.0 parts per part of cyanide,
respectively. At these levels, the total reduction
occurs at a retention time of 16 to 20 hours.
The application of heat can facilitate the more
complete destruction of total cyanide.
The cyanide destruction system costed by
EPA includes a two-stage reactor with a
retention time of 16 hours, feed system and
controls, pumps, piping, and foundation. The
two-stage reactor includes a covered tank, mixer,
and containment tank. EPA designed the system
based on a total cyanide influent concentration of
4,633,710 (ig/L and an effluent concentration of
total cyanide of 135,661 (ig/L. EPA based these
influent and effluent concentrations on data
collected during EPA's sampling of cyanide
destruction systems.
Because the system used by the facility
which forms the basis of the cyanide limitations
and standards uses special operation conditions,
EPA assigned full capital and O&M costs to all
facilities which perform cyanide destruction.
Capital Costs
EPA obtained the capital costs curves for
cyanide destruction systems with special
operating conditions from vendor services. Table
11-14 presents the capital cost equation.
Chemical Usage And Labor
Requirement Costs
In estimating chemical usage and labor
requirements, EPA assumed the systems would
treat one batch per day. EPA based this
assumption on responses to the WTI
Questionnaire. Based on vendor's
recommendations, EPA estimated the labor
requirement for the cyanide destruction to be
three hours per day. EPA determined the amount
of sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide
required based on the stochiometric amounts to
maintain the proper pH and chlorine
concentrations to facilitate the cyanide
destruction as described earlier. Table 11-14
presents the O&M cost equation for cyanide
destruction.
11-21
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Table 11-14. Cost Equations for Cyanide Destruction
Description
Equation
Recommended Flow
Rate Range (MGD)
Capital cost for cyanide destruction
ln(Yl)= 13.977 -
n 0.5461n(X) -
H 0.0033(ln(X))2
1.0 E-6 to 1.0
O&M cost for cyanide destruction
ln(Y2) = 18.237-
n 1.3181n(X)"
H 0.04993(ln(X))2
1.0 E-5 to 1.0
Land requirements
ln(Y3) = -1.168 4
O
K
-i-
- 0.021(ln(X))2
1.0 E -4 to 1.0
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
Secon dary Gravity Separation 11.2.7
Primary gravity separation provides oil and
grease removal from oily wastewater. During
gravity separation, the wastewater is held in
tanks under quiescent conditions long enough to
allow the oil droplets to rise and form a layer on
the surface, where it is skimmed.
Secondary gravity separation systems
provide additional oil and grease removal for oily
wastewater. Oily wastewater, after primary
gravity separation/emulsion breaking, is pumped
into a series of skimming tanks where additional
oil and grease removal is obtained before the
wastewater enters the dissolved air flotation unit.
The secondary gravity separation equipment
discussed here consists of a series of three
skimming tanks in series. The ancillary
equipment for each tank consists of a mix tank
with pumps and skimming equipment.
In estimating capital and O&M cost
associated with secondary gravity separation,
EPA assumed that facilities either currently have
or do not have secondary gravity separation.
Therefore, EPA did not develop any secondary
gravity separation upgrade costs.
secondary gravity separation.
Chemical Usage and Labor
Requirement Costs
EPA estimated the labor requirement to
operate secondary gravity separation to be 3 to
9 hours per day depending on the size of the
system. EPA obtained this estimate from one of
the model facilities for Oils option 9. There are
no chemicals associated with the operation of the
secondary gravity separation system. Table 11-
15 presents the O&M Cost equation for the
secondary gravity separation system.
Capital Costs
EPA obtained the capital cost estimates for
the secondary gravity separation system from
vendor quotes. Table 11-15 at the end of this
section presents the capital cost equation for
11-22
-------
Table 11-15. Cost Equations for Secondary Gravity Separation
Description Equation Recommended Flow
Rate Range (MGD)
Capital cost for secondary gravity separation ln(Yl) = 14.3209 + 0.387741n(X) - 0.01793(ln(X))2 5.0 E -4 to 5.0
O&M cost for secondary gravity separation ln(Y2) = 12.0759 + 0.44011n(X) + 0.01544(ln(X))2 5.0 E -4 to 5.0
Land requirements ln(Y3) = -0.2869 + 0.313871n(X) + 0.01191(ln(X))2 1.0 E -6 to 1.0
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
Dissolved Air Flotation 11.2.8
Flotation is the process of inducing
suspended particles to rise to the surface of a
tank where they can be collected and removed.
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) is one of several
flotation techniques employed in the treatment of
oily wastewater. DAF is commonly used to
extract free and dispersed oil and grease from
oily wastewater.
Capital Costs
EPA developed capital cost estimates for
dissolved air flotation systems for the oils
subcategory options 8 and 9. EPA based the
capital cost estimates for the DAF units on
quotations from vendors. EPA assigned facilities
with DAF units currently in-place no capital
costs. For facilities with no DAF treatment in-
place, the DAF system consists of a feed unit, a
chemical addition mix tank, and a flotation tank.
EPA also included a sludge filtration/dewatering
unit. EPA developed capital cost estimates for a
series of flow rates ranging from 25 gpm (0.036
MGD) to 1000 gpm (1.44 MGD). EPA was
unable to obtain costs estimates for units with
flows below 25 gallons per minute since
manufacturers do not sell systems smaller than
those designed for flows below 25 gallons per
minute.
The current DAF system capital cost
estimates include a sludge filtration/dewatering
unit. For facilities which do not have a DAF unit
in-place, but have other treatment systems that
produce sludge (i.e. chemical precipitation and/or
biological treatment), EPA assumed that the
existing sludge filtration unit could accommodate
the additional sludge produced by the DAF unit.
For these facilities, EPA did not include sludge
filtration/dewatering costs in the capital cost
estimates. EPA refers to the capital cost equation
for these facilities as "modified" DAF costs.
Table 11-17 at the end of this section presents
the resulting total capital cost equations for the
DAF and "modified" DAF treatment systems.
Because the smallest design capacity for
DAF systems that EPA could obtain from
vendors is 25 gpm and since more than 75
percent of the oils subcategory facilities have
flow rates lower than 25 gpm, EPA assumed that
only facilities with flow rates above 20 gpm
would operate their DAF systems everyday (i.e.
five days per week). EPA assumed that the rest
of the facilities could hold their wastewater and
run their DAF systems from one to four days per
week depending on their flowrate. Facilities that
are not operating their DAF treatment systems
everyday would need to install a holding tank to
hold their wastewater until treatment. Therefore,
for facilities that do not currently have DAF
treatment in place and have flow rates less than
20 gallons per minute, EPA additionally included
costs for a holding tank. For these facilities, EPA
based capital costs on a combination of DAF
costs (or modified DAF costs) and holding tank
costs. Table 11-16A lists the capacity of the
11-23
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
holding tank costed for various flowrates.
Table 11-16A. Estimate Holding Tank Capacities
for DAF Systems
Flowrate (GPM)
Holding Tank Capacity (gallons)
<5
7,200
5-10
14,400
10-15
21,600
15-20
28,800
>20
none
Table 11-17 at the end of this section presents
the resulting capital cost equation for the holding
tank associated with the DAF and modified DAF
systems.
Chemical Usage And Labor
Requirement Costs
EPA estimated the labor requirements
associated with the model technology at four
hours per day for the small systems to eight
hours per day for the large systems, which is
based on the average of the Oils options 8 and 9
model facilities. EPA used the same labor
estimate for DAF and "modified" DAF systems.
As discussed in the capital cost section, EPA
has assumed that facilities with flow rates below
20 gpm will not operate the DAF daily.
Therefore, for these lower flow rate facilities,
EPA only included labor to operate the DAF (or
"modified" DAF) systems for the days the
system will be operational. Table 11-16B lists
the number of days per week EPA assumed
these lower flow facilities would operate their
DAF systems.
the CWT Point Source Catesoi
Table 11-16B. Estimate Labor Requirements for
DAF Systems
Flowrate
(GPM)
Labor Requirements (days/week)
<5
1
5-10
2
10-15
3
15-20
4
>20
5
As detailed earlier, however, EPA also
assumed that facilities with flow rates below 20
gpm, would also operate a holding tank.
Therefore, for facilities with flow rates below 20
gallons per minute, EPA included additional labor
to operate the holding tank.
EPA calculated chemical cost estimates for
DAF and "modified" DAF systems based on
additions of aluminum sulfate, caustic soda, and
polymer. EPA costed for facilities to add 550
mg/L alum, 335 mg/L polymer and 1680 mg/L
of NaOH. EPA also included costs for perlite
addition at 0.25 lbs per lb of dry solids for sludge
conditioning and sludge dewatering operations
(for DAF, but not "modified" DAF systems).
EPA based the chemical additions on
information gathered from literature, the
database for the Industrial Laundries Industry
guidelines and standards, and sampled facilities.
Finally, similar to the labor requirements
shown in table 11-16B, EPA based chemical
usage cost estimates for the DAF and modified
DAF systems assuming five days per week
operation for facilities with flowrates greater than
20 gpm and from one to four days per week for
facilities with flowrates of 5 to 20 gpm.
Table 11-17 at the end of this section
presents the four equations relating the various
types of O&M costs developed for DAF
treatment for facilities with no DAF treatment.
For facilities with DAF treatment in-place,
EPA estimated O&M upgrade costs. These
facilities would need to improve pollutant
11-24
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
removals from their current DAF current
performance concentrations to the Oils option 8
and option 9 long-term averages. As detailed in
Chapter 12, EPA does not have current
performance concentration data for the majority
of the oils facilities with DAF treatment in-place.
EPA does, however, have seven long-term
sampling data sets which represent effluent
concentrations from emulsion breaking/gravity
separation. While the pollutant concentrations in
wastewater exiting emulsion breaking/gravity
separation treatment are higher (in some cases,
considerably higher) than the pollutant
concentrations in wastewater exiting DAF
treatment, EPA has, nevertheless, used the
emulsion breaking/gravity separation long-term
sampling data sets to estimate DAF upgrade
costs. For each of the seven emulsion
breaking/gravity separation data sets, EPA
the CWT Point Source Categoi
calculated the percent difference between these
concentrations and the option 8 and option 9
long-term averages. The median of these seven
calculated percentages is 25 percent.
Therefore, EPA estimated the energy, labor,
and chemical cost components of the O&M
upgrade cost as 25 percent of the full O&M cost
of a new system. EPA assumed that
maintenance, and taxes and insurance would be
zero since they are functions of the capital cost
(that is, there is no capital cost for the upgrade).
EPA developed two separate O&M upgrade cost
equations for facilities which currently have DAF
treatment in place ~ one for facilities with
flowrates up to 20 gpm and one for facilities with
flow rates greater than 20 gpm. Table 11-17
presents the two equations representing O&M
upgrade costs for facilities with DAF treatment
in-place.
Table 11-17. Cost Equations for Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) in Oils Options 8 and 9
Description
Equation
Recommended Flow
Rate Range (MGD)
Total capital cost for DAF
ln(Yl)= 13.9518 ¦
+- 0.294451n(X)
- 0.12049(ln(X))2
0.036 to 1.44
Total capital cost for modified DAF
ln(Yl)= 13.509 +
0.294451n(X) -
0.12049(ln(X))2
0.036 to 1.44
Holding tank capital cost for DAF and
modified DAFJ
ln(Yl) = 12.5122 -0.155001n(X) -0.5618(ln(X))2
5.0 E -4 to 0.05
O&M cost for DAF with flowrate above 20
gpm
O&M cost for modified DAF with flowrate
above 20 gpm
ln(Y2) = 14.5532 ¦
+- 0.964951n(X)
+ 0.01219(ln(X))2
0.036 to 1.44
ln(Y2) = 14.5396 ¦
+- 0.976291n(X)
+ 0.01451(ln(X))2
0.036 to 1.44
O&M cost for DAF with flowrate up to 20
gpm
O&M cost for modified DAF with flowrate
up to 20 gpm
ln(Y2) = 21.2446 ¦
+- 4.148231n(X)
+ 0.36585(ln(X))2
7.2 E -3 to 0.029
ln(Y2) = 21.2005 ¦
+- 4.074491n(X)
+ 0.34557(ln(X))2
7.2 E -3 to 0.029
O&M upgrade for DAF with flowrate below
20 gpm
ln(Y2) = 19.0459 ¦
+- 3.55881n(X) +
0.25553(ln(X))2
7.2 E -3 to 0.029
O&M upgrade for DAF with flowrate above
20 gpm
ln(Y2)= 13.1281 ¦
+- 0.997781n(X)
+
o
©
00
s
0.036 to 1.44
Land required for holding tankJ
ln(Y3) = -1.0661 -
H 0.100661n(X)-
0.00214(ln(X))2
5.0 E -4 to 0.05
Land required for DAF and modified DAF
ln(Y3) = -0.5107-
H 0.512171n(X) -
¦ 0.01892(ln(X))2
0.036 to 1.44
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
'Only facilities wilh flow rates below 20 gpm receive holding tank costs.
11-25
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Biological Wastewater
Treatment Technology Costs 11.3
Sequencing Batch Reactors 11.3.1
A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a
suspended growth system in which wastewater is
mixed with retained biological floe in an aeration
basin. SBR's are unique in that a single tank acts
as an equalization tank, an aeration tank, and a
clarifier.
The SBR system costed by EPA for the
model technology consists of a SBR tank,
sludge handling equipment, feed system and
controls, pumps, piping, blowers, and valves.
The design parameters that EPA used for the
SBR system were the average influent and
effluent BOD5, ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite
concentrations. The average influent
concentrations were 4800 mg/L, 995 mg/L, and
46 mg/L for BOD5, ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite,
respectively. The average effluent BOD5,
ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite concentrations used
were 1,600 mg/1, 615 mg/1, and 1.0 mg/1,
respectively. EPA obtained these concentrations
from the sampling data at the SBR model
facility. EPA assumed that all existing
biological treatment systems in-place at organics
subcategory facilities can meet the limitations of
this rule without incurring cost. This includes
facilities which utilize any form of biological
treatment ~ not just SBRs. Therefore, the costs
presented here only apply to facilities without
biological treatment in-place. EPA did not
develop SBR upgrade costs for either capital or
O&M.
Although biological treatment (SBR's)
systems can be used throughout the United
States, the design of the systems should vary due
to climate conditions. Plants in colder climates
should design their systems to account for lower
biodegradability rates during the colder seasons.
Therefore, EPA has taken these added costs into
account in its costing procedures (see Section 3.1
of the Detailed Costing Document).
Capital Costs
EPA estimated the capital costs for the SBR
systems using vendor quotes which include
installation costs. Table 11 -18 at the end of this
section presents the SBR capital cost equation.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
The O&M costs for the SBR system include
electricity, maintenance, labor, and taxes and
insurance. No chemicals are utilized in the SBR
system. EPA assumed the labor requirements
for the SBR system to be four hours per day and
based electricity costs on horsepower
requirements. EPA obtained the labor and
horsepower requirements from vendors. EPA
estimated maintenance, taxes, and insurance
using the factors detailed in Table 11-2. Table
11-18 presents the SBR O&M cost equation.
Table 11-18. Cost Equations for Sequencing Batch Reactors
Description
Equation
Recommended
Flow Rate
Range(MGD)
Capital cost for sequencing batch reactors
ln(Yl)= 15.707 4
- 0.5121n(X) + 0.0022(ln(X))2
1.0 E -7 to 1.0
O&M cost for sequencing batch reactors
ln(Y2)= 14.1015
+ 0.815671n(X) + 0.03932(ln(X))2
3.4 E-7 to 1.0
Land requirements
ln(Y3) =-0.531 +
0.9061n(X) + 0.072(ln(X))2
1.9 E-3 to 1.0
Yl= Capital Costs (1989$)
Y2 = Operation and Maintenance Costs (1989 $ /year)
Y3 = Land Requirement (Acres)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
11-26
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Sludge Treatment and Disposal
Costs 11.4
Plate and Frame Pressure Filtration —
Sludge Stream 11.4.1
Pressure filtration systems are used for the
removal of solids from waste streams. This
section details sludge stream filtration which is
used to treat the solids removed by the clarifiers
in the metals options.
The pressure filtration system costed by
EPA for sludge stream filtration consists of a
plate and frame filtration system. The
components of the plate and frame filtration
system include: filter plates, filter cloth, hydraulic
pumps, pneumatic booster pumps, control panel,
connector pipes, and a support platform. For
design purposes, EPA assumed the sludge stream
to consist of 80 percent liquid and 20 percent
(200,000 mg/1) solids. EPA additionally assumed
the sludge stream to be 20 percent of the total
volume of wastewater treated. EPA based these
design parameters on CWT Questionnaire 105.
In costing for sludge stream treatment, if a
facility does not have sludge filtration systems in-
place, EPA estimated capital costs to add a plate
and frame pressure filtration system to their on-
site treatment train2. If a facility's treatment train
includes more than one clarification step in its
treatment train (such as for Metals option 3),
EPA only costed the facility for a single plate and
frame filtration system. EPA assumed one plate
and frame filtration system could be used to
Ifa facility only had to be costed for a
plate and frame pressure filtration system to
process Ihe sludge produced during the tertiary
chemical precipitation and clarifications steps of
metals Option 3, EPA did not cost Ihe facility for
a plate and frame pressure filtration system.
Likewise, EPA assumed no Q&M costs
associated wilh Ihe treatment of sludge from Ihe
tertiaiy chemical precipitation and clarification
steps in Metals Option 3. EPA assumed that the
total suspended solids concentration at this point
is so low that sludge stream filtration is
unnecessary.
process the sludge from multiple clarifiers.
Likewise, if a facility already had a sludge
filtration system in-place, EPA assumed that the
in-place system would be sufficient and did not
estimate any sludge filtration capital costs for
these facilities.
Capital Costs
EPA developed the capital cost equation for
plate and frame sludge filtration by adding
installation, engineering, and contingency costs to
vendors' equipment cost estimates. EPA used
the same capital cost equation for the plate and
frame sludge filtration system for all of the
metals options. Table 11-19 presents the plate
and frame sludge filtration system capital cost
equation.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Metals Option 2 and 3
The operation and maintenance costs for
metals option 2 and 3 plate and frame sludge
filtration consist of labor, electricity,
maintenance, and taxes and insurance. EPA
approximated the labor requirements for the plate
and frame sludge filtration system to be thirty
minutes per batch based on the Metals option 2
and 3 model facility. Because no chemicals are
used with the plate and frame sludge filtration
units, EPA did not include costs for chemicals.
EPA estimated electricity, maintenance, and
taxes and insurance using the factors listed in
Table 11-2. Table 11-19 lists the resulting plate
and frame sludge filtration O&M cost equation.
For facilities which already have a sludge
filtration system in-place, EPA included plate and
frame filtration O&M upgrade costs. Since the
sludge generated from the secondary
precipitation and clarification steps in metals
option 2 and 3 is the sludge which requires
treatment for these options, these facilities would
be required to improve pollutant removals from
their secondary precipitation current performance
concentrations to the long term averages for
Metals options 2. Therefore, EPA calculated the
11-27
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
percent difference between secondary
precipitation current performance and the Metals
option 2 long-term averages. EPA determined
this percentage to be an increase of three
percent.
As such, for facilities which currently have
sludge filtration systems in place, for metals
option 2 and 3, EPA included an O&M upgrade
cost which is three percent of the O&M costs of
a new system (except for taxes and insurance,
which are a function of the capital cost). Table
11.19 presents the O&M upgrade cost equation
for sludge filtration in Metals option 2 and option
3.
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Metals Option 4
The operation and maintenance costs for
metals option 4 consists of labor, chemical
usage, electricity, maintenance, taxes, and
insurance, and filter cake disposal. The O&M
plate and frame sludge filtration costing
methodology for Metals option 4 is very similar
to the one discussed previously for Metals option
2 and 3. The primary differences in the
methodologies are the estimation of labor, the
inclusion of filter cake disposal, and the O&M
upgrade methodology.
EPA approximated the labor requirement for
Metals option 4 plate and frame sludge filtration
systems at 2 to 8 hours per day depending on the
size of the system. As was the case for metals
option 2 and 3, no chemicals are used in the
plate and frame sludge filtration units for metals
option 4, and EPA estimated electricity,
maintenance and taxes and insurance using the
factors listed in Table 11-2. EPA also included
filter cake disposal costs at $0.74 per gallon of
filter cake. A detailed discussion of the basis for
the filter cake disposal costs is presented in
Section 11.4.2. Table 11-19 presents the O&M
cost equation for sludge filtration for Metals
option 4.
Table 11-19. Cost Equations for Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration in Metals Options 2,3 and 4
Description
Equation
Recommended Flow
Rate Range (MGD)
Capital costs for plate and frame sludge
filtration
ln(Yl) = 14.827 -
n 1.0871n(X)H
- 0.0050(ln(X))2
2.0 E -5 to 1.0
O&M costs for sludge filtration for Metals
Option 2 and 31'3
ln(Y2) = 12.239 -
T
O
OJ
00
00
jr
_l_
h 0.016(ln(X))2
2.0 E -5 to 1.0
O&M costs for sludge filtration for Metals
Option 44
ln(Y2) = 15.9321
+ 1.1771n(X)
+ 0.04697(ln(X))2
1.0 E -5 to 1.0
O&M upgrade costs for sludge filtration for
Metals Option 2,3i"5
ln(Y2) = 8.499 +
0.3311n(X) +
0.013(ln(X))2
2.0 E-5 to 1.0
O&M upgrade cost for sludge filtration for
Metals Option 44
ln(Y2) = 12.014 -
n 1.178461n(X) + 0.050(ln(X))2
1.0 E-5 to 1.0
Land requirements for sludge filtration
ln(Y3) =-1.971 4
1
00
-------
For facilities which already have a sludge
filtration system in-place, EPA included sludge
stream filtration O&M upgrade costs. For
Metals option 4, EPA included these O&M
upgrade costs for processing the sludge generated
from the primary precipitation and clarification
steps3. These facilities would need to improve
pollutant removals from their primary
precipitation current performance concentrations
to Metals option 4 (Sample Point - 03)
concentrations. This sample point represents the
effluent from the liquid-solids separation unit
following primary chemical precipitation at the
Metals option 4 model facility. Therefore, EPA
calculated the percent difference between
primary precipitation current performance
concentrations and Metals option 4 (Sample
Point - 03) concentrations. EPA determined that
there was an increase of two percent.
As such, for facilities which currently have
sludge filtration systems in place, for metals
option 4, EPA included an O&M cost upgrade of
two percent of the total O&M costs (except for
taxes and insurance, which are a function of the
capital cost). Table 11-19 presents the O&M
upgrade cost equation for sludge filtration for
Metals option.
Filter Cake Disposal 11.4.2
The liquid stream and sludge stream pressure
filtration systems presented in Sections 11.2.3
and 11.4.1, respectively, generate a filter cake
residual. There is an annual O&M cost that is
associated with the disposal of this residual. This
cost must be added to the pressure filtration
equipment O&M costs to arrive at the total
O&M costs for pressure filtration operation4.
To determine the cost of transporting and
disposing filter cake to an off-site facility, EPA
performed an analysis on a subset of
questionnaire respondents in the WTI
Questionnaire response database. This subset
consists of metals subcategory facilities that are
direct and/or indirect dischargers and that
provided information on contract haul and
disposal cost to hazardous (Subtitle C) and non-
hazardous (Subtitle D) landfills. From this set of
responses, EPA tabulated two sets of costs ~
those reported for Subtitle C contract haul and
disposal and those reported for Subtitle D
contract haul and disposal, the reported costs for
both the Subtitle C and Subtitle D contract
haul/disposal. EPA then edited this information
by excluding data that was incomplete or that
was not separated by RCRA classification.
EPA used the reported costs information in
this data set to determine the median cost for
both the Subtitle C and Subtitle D disposal
options, and then calculated the weighted
average of these median costs. The average was
weighted to reflect the ratio of hazardous (67
percent) to nonhazardous (33 percent) waste
receipts at these Metals Subcategory facilities.
The final disposal cost is $0.74 per gallon of
filter cake.
EPA calculated a single disposal cost for
filter cake using both hazardous and non-
hazardous landfilling costs. Certain facilities will
incur costs, however, that, in reality, are higher
and others will incur costs that, in reality, are
lower. Thus, some low revenue metals
subcategory facilities that generate non-
hazardous sludge may show a higher economic
burden than is representative. On the other
hand, some low revenue metals subcategory
facilities that generate hazardous sludge may
3 EPA did not include O&M upgrade
costs for Ihe sludge generated from the secondary
precipitation and clarification step (direct
dischargers only).
4Note that these costs have already been
included in the O&M equation for plate and frame
sludge filtration for Metals Option 4.
11-29
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
show a lower economic burden than is
representative. EPA has concluded that in the
end, these over- and under estimates will balance
out to provide a representative cost across the
industry.
Table 11-20 presents the O&M cost
equation for filter cake disposal for Metals option
2 and option 3. Table 11-20 additionally
presents an O&M upgrade for filter cake
disposal resulting from Metals option 2 and
option 3 for facilities that already generate filter
cake as part of their operation.
This upgrade is 3 percent of the cost of the
O&M upgrade for facilities that do not already
generate filter cake as a part of their operation.
EPA used 3 percent because this was the same
percentage calculated for plate and frame sludge
filtration for these same options.
Table 11-20. Cost Equations for Filter Cake Disposal for Metals Options 2 and 3'
Description
Equation
Recommended Flow
Rate Range (GPM)
O&M cost for filter cake disposal
Z = 0.109169 -
H 7,695,499.8(X)
1.0 E-6 to 1.0
O&M upgrade for filter cake disposal
Z = 0.101186 -
H 230,879.8(X)
1.0 E-6 to 1.0
Z = Filter Cake Disposal Cost (1989 $ / year)
X = Flow Rate (million gallons per day)
iFilter cake disposal costs for Metals Option 4 are included in the sludge filtration equations.
Additional Costs 11.5
Retrofit Costs 11.5.1
EPA assigned costs to the CWT Industry on
both an option- and facility-specific basis. The
option-specific approach estimated compliance
cost for a sequence of individual treatment
technologies, corresponding to a particular
regulatory option, for a subset of facilities
defined as belonging to that regulatory
subcategory. Within the costing of a specific
regulatory option, EPA assigned treatment
technology costs on a facility-specific basis
depending upon the technologies determined to
be currently in-place at the facility.
Once EPA determined that a treatment
technology cost should be assigned to a particular
facility, EPA considered two scenarios. The first
was the installation of a new individual treatment
technology as a part of a new treatment train.
The full capital costs presented in Subsections
11.2 through 11.4 of this document apply to this
scenario. The second scenario was the
installation of a new individual treatment
technology which would have to be integrated
into an existing in-place treatment train. For
these facilities, EPA applied retrofit costs.
These retrofit costs cover such items as piping
and structural modifications which would be
required in an existing piece of equipment to
accommodate the installation of a new piece of
equipment prior to or within an existing treatment
train.
For all facilities which received retrofit costs,
EPA added a retrofit factor of 20 percent of the
total capital cost of the newly-installed or
upgraded treatment technology unit that would
need to be integrated into an existing treatment
train. These costs are in addition to the specific
treatment technology capital costs calculated with
the technology specific equations described in
earlier sections.
11-30
-------
Mon itoring Costs 11.5.2
CWT facilities that discharge process
wastewater directly to a receiving stream or
indirectly to a POTW will have monitoring costs.
EPA regulations require both direct discharge
with NPDES permits and indirect dischargers
subject to categorical pretreatment standards to
monitor their effluent.
EPA used the following generalizations to
estimate the CWT monitoring costs:
1. EPA included analytical cost for parameters
at each subcategory as follows:
• TSS, O&G, Cr+6, total CN, and full
metals analyses for the metals subcategory
direct dischargers, and Cr+6, total CN,
and full metals analyses for the metals
subcategory indirect dischargers;
• TSS, O&G, and full metals and semi-
volatiles analyses for the oils subcategory
option 8 and 9 direct dischargers, and full
metals, and semi-volatiles for oils
subcategory options 8 and 9 indirect
dischargers;
• TSS, O&G, and full metals, volatiles and
semi-volatiles analyses for the oils
subcategory direct dischargers, and full
metals, volatiles, and semi-volatiles for oils
subcategory option 8V and 9V indirect
dischargers;
• TSS, BOD5, O&G, 6 individual metals,
volatiles, and semi-volatiles analyses for
the organics subcategory option 3 direct
dischargers, and 6 individual metals,
volatiles, and semi-volatiles analyses for
the organics subcategory option 3 indirect
dischargers; and
• TSS, BOD5, O&G, 6 individual metals,
and semi-volatiles analyses for the
organics subcategory option 4 direct
dischargers, and 6 individual metals and
semi-volatiles analyses for the organics
subcategory option 4 indirect dischargers.
EPA notes that these analytical costs may be
overstated for the oils and the organics
subcategories because EPA's final list of
regulated pollutants for these subcategories do
not include all of the parameters included above.
2. The monitoring frequencies are listed in
Table 11-21 and are as follows:
Table 11-21. Monitoring Frequency Requirements
Monitoring Frequency (samples/manlh)
Parameter ————
Oils Subcategory Organics!
Conventionals*
20
20
20
Total Cyanide and Cr+6
20
-
-
Metals
20
4
4
Semi-Volatile Organics
-
4
4
Volatile Organics
-
4**
4**
*Conventional monitoring for direct dischargers only.
**VoMle organics monitoring for oils option 8V and 9V and organics option 3 only.
3. For facilities in multiple subcategories, EPA 4. EPA based the monitoring costs on the
applied full multiple, subcategory-specific number of outfalls through which process
monitoring costs. wastewater is discharged. EPA multiplied
11-31
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
the cost for a single outfall by the number of
outfalls to arrive at the total costs for a
facility. For facilities for which this
information is not available, EPA assumed a
single outfall per facility.
5. EPA did not base monitoring costs on flow
rate.
6. EPA did not include sample collection costs
(labor and equipment) and sample shipping
costs, and
7. The monitoring cost (based on frequency
and analytical methods) are incremental to
the monitoring currently being incurred by
the CWT Industry. EPA applied credit to
facilities for current monitoring-in-place
(MIP). For facilities where actual
monitoring frequencies are unknown, EPA
estimated monitoring frequencies based on
other subcategory facilities with known
monitoring frequencies.
Table 11-22 shows the cost of the analyses
needed to determine compliance for the CWT
pollutants. EPA obtained these costs from actual
quotes given by vendors and converted to 1989
dollars using the ENR's Construction Cost Index.
Table 11-22. Analytical Cost Estimates
Analyses
Cost
($1989)
bod5
$20
TSS
$10
Q&G
$32
Cr+6
$20
Total CN
$30
Metals:
$335
Total (27 Metals)
$335
Per Metal1
$35
Volatile Organics (method 1624)2
$285
Semi-volatile Organics (method
$615
1625)2
1 For 10 or more metals, use the full metals
analysis cost of $335.
2There is no incremental cost per compound for
methods 1624 and 1625 (although there may be a
slight savings if the entire scan does not have to
be reported). Use the full method cost, regardless
of the actual number of constituent parameters
required.
Land Costs
11.5.3
An important factor in the calculation of
treatment technology costs is the value of the
land needed for the installation of the technology.
To determine the amount of land required for
costing purposes, EPA calculated the land
requirements for each treatment technology for
the range of system sizes. EPA fit these land
requirements to a curve and calculated land
requirements, in acres, for every treatment
system costed. EPA then multiplied the
individual land requirements by the
corresponding state land cost estimates to obtain
facility-specific cost estimates.
EPA used different land cost estimates for
each state rather than a single nationwide average
since land costs may vary widely across the
country. To estimate land costs for each state,
EPA obtained average land costs for suburban
sites for each state from the 1990 Guide to
Industrial and Real Estate Office Markets
11-32
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
survey. EPA based these land costs on
"unimproved sites" since, according to the
survey, they are the most desirable.
The survey additionally provides land costs
broken down by size ranges. These are zero to
10 acres, 10 to 100 acres, and greater than 100
acres. Because CWT facilities fall into all three
size ranges (based on responses to the WTI
Questionnaire), EPA averaged the three size-
specific land costs for each state to arrive at the
final land costs for each state.
The survey did not provide land cost
estimates for Alaska, Idaho, Montana, North
Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah,
Vermont or West Virginia. For these states,
the CWT Point Source Catesoi
EPA used regional averages of land costs. EPA
determined the states comprising each region also
based on the aforementioned survey since the
survey categorizes the states by geographical
region (northeast, north central, south, and
west). In estimating the regional average costs
for the western region, EPA did not include
Hawaii since Hawaii's land cost is high and
would have skewed the regional average.
Table 11-23 lists the land cost per acre for
each state. As Table 11-23 indicates, the least
expensive state is Kansas with a land cost of
$7,042 per acre and the most expensive state is
Hawaii with a land cost of $1,089,000 per acre.
Table 11-23. State Land Costs for the CWT Industry Cost Exercise
State
Land Cost per Acre (1989 $)
State
Land Cost per Acre (1989 $)
Alabama
0.00
Nebraska
24,684
Alaska*
0.00
Nevada
36,300
Arizona
0.00
New Hampshire
52,998
Arkansas
0.00
New Jersey
89,443
California
0.00
New Mexico
26,929
Colorado
0.00
New York
110,013
Connecticut
0.00
Norlh Carolina
33,880
Delaware
0.00
North Dakota*
20,488
Florida
0.00
Ohio
14,578
Georgia
0.00
Oklahoma
24,321
Hawaii
1,089,000
Oregon
50,820
Idaho*
81,105
Pennsylvania
32,307
Illinois
36,300
Rhode Island*
59,822
Indiana
21,078
South Carolina
21,296
Iowa
8,954
South Dakota*
20,488
Kansas
7,042
Tennessee
20,873
Kentucky
29,040
Texas
47,674
Louisiana
56,628
Utah*
81,105
Maine
19,602
Vermont*
59,822
Maryland
112,530
Virginia
39,930
Massachusetts
59,895
Washington
63,670
Michigan
13,649
West Virginia*
47,345
Minnesota
21,054
Wisconsin
17,424
Mississippi
13,068
Wyoming*
81,105
Missouri
39,930
Washington DC
174,240
Montana*
81.105
* No data available for state, used regional average.
11-33
-------
Example 11-1:
Costing exercise for direct discharging metals subcategory facility with treatment in-place.
Example Facility Information:
Current Treatment In-Place:
Primary Chemical Precipitation + Clarification + Plate and Frame Sludge Filtration
Daily Flow = 0.12196 MGD (Million Gallons/Day)
[NOTE: Daily Flow = X in costing equations]
Treatment Upgrades To Be Costed:
Primary Chemical Precipitation Upgrade + Clarifier Upgrade + Sludge Filtration Upgrade
Full Treatment Technologies To Be Costed:
Secondary Chemical Precipitation + Secondary Clarification + Multimedia Filtration
Section 11.2.1.4 Section 11.2.2 Section 11.2.1.3
Clarifier
Secondary
Clarifier „
Section 11.2.2
Section 11.4.1.1
Section 11.2.6
Sludge
Filter
Multimedia
Filter
Secondary
Chemical
Precipitation
Primary
Chemical
Precipitation
Figure 11-1. Metals Option 4 Model Facility Diagram
11-34
-------
Example 11-1, continued:
Capital Costs:
• Primaiy chemical precipitation upgrade, from Table 11-7, Section 11.2.1.4.
The maximum size holding tank to be costed for a primary chemical prccip.
upgrade is 0.005 MGD. In addition, there is a 20% retrofit cost for the upgrade.
ln(Yl) = 10.671 - 0.083*ln(X) - 0.032*(ln(X))2
= 10.671 - 0.083*ln(0.005) - 0.032*(ln(0.005))2
= 10.212
.-. Y1 = $27,240.25 * 1.2 = $32,688.30 ~
• Clarification capital cost upgrade, following primaiy precipitation = $0.00 ~
• Sludge filtration capital cost upgrade = $0.00 ~
• Secondary chemical precipitation, full capital costs, from Table 11-8, Section 11.2.1.5
ln(Yl) = 13.829 + 0.544*ln(X) + 4.96E-6*(ln(X))2
= 12.68441
:. Y1 = $322,678.63 ~
• Clarification, following secondary chemical precipitation, from Table 11-9, Section
11.2.2.2
ln(Yl) = 11.552 + 0.409*ln(X) + 0.020*(ln(X))2
= 10.77998
:. Y1 =$48,049.17 ~
• Multi-media filtration capital costs, from Table 11-13, Section 11.2.5
ln(Yl) = 12.0126 + 0.48025*ln(X) + 0.04623*(ln(X))2
= 11.20679
:. Y1 = $73,628.54 ~
• Total capital cost (TCC)
TCC = X (Individual Capital Costs)
:. TCC = $477,045 ¦
11-35
-------
Example 11-1, continued:
Operation and Maintenance Costs:
• Primary chemical precipitation Q&M upgrade, from Table 11-7, Section 11.2.1.4
ln(Y2) = 11.6203 + 1,05998*ln(X) + 0.04602*(ln(X))2
= 11.6203 + 1.05998*ln(0.12196) + 0.04602*(ln(0.12196))2
= 9.59377
:. Y2 = $14,673.09 ~
• Clarification Q&M upgrade, following primary chemical precipitation, from Table 11-9,
Section 11.2.2
ln(Y2) = 6.81347 + 0.33149*ln(X) + 0.0242*(ln(X))2
= 6.22313
:. Y2 = $504.28 ~
• Sludge filtration Q&M upgrade, from Table 11-19, Section 11.4.1
ln(Y2) = 12.014 + 1.17846*ln(X) + 0.05026*(ln(X))2
= 9.75695
Y2 =$17,273.90 ~(which includes filter cake disposal costs)
• Secondary chemical precipitation Q&M costs, from Table 11-8, Section 11.2.1.5
ln(Y2) = 12.076 + 0.63456*ln(X) + 0.03678*(ln(X))2
= 10.9037
:. Y2 = $54,375.79 ~
• Clarification Q&M costs, following secondary chemical precipitation, from Table 11-9,
Section 11.2.2.2
ln(Y2) = 10.673 + 0.238*ln(X) + 0.013*(ln(X))2
= 10.22979
:. Y2 = $27,716.56 ~
• Multimedia Filtration O&M Costs, from Table 11-13, Section 11.2.5
ln(Y2) = 11.5039 + 0.72458*ln(X) + 0.09535*(ln(X))2
= 10.40146
:. Y2 = $32,907.65 ~
• Total Operation and Maintenance Cost (0&MTot)
0&MTo, = Ł (Individual 0& M Costs)
.-. 0&MXot = $147,453 ¦
11-36
-------
Example 11-1, continued:
Land Requirements:
• Primary chemical precipitation upgrade land requirement associated with capital cost
upgrade (Table 11-7, section 11.2.1.4). The maximum size holding tank to be costed for
a primary chemical precipitation upgrade is 0.005 MGD.
ln(Y3) = -2.866 - 0.0231n(X) - 0.006(ln(X))2
= -2.866 - 0.0231n(0.005) - 0.006(ln(0.005))2
= -2.913
Y3 = 0.054 acre ~
• Clarifier, following primary chemical precipitation, land requirement = 0.0 acre ~
• Sludge filtration unit land requirement = 0.0 acre ~
• Secondary chemical precipitation land requirement, from Table 11-8, Section 11.2.1.5
ln(Y3) =-1.15 + 0.449*ln(X) + 0.027*(ln(X))2
= -1.975
Y3 =0.139 acre ~
• Clarification, following secondary chemical precipitation, land requirement, from Table 11-
9, Section 11.2.2.2
ln(Y3) =-1.773 + 0.513*ln(X) + 0.046*(ln(X))2
= -2.6487
Y3 = 0.071 acre ~
• Multimedia filtration land requirement, from Table 11-13, Section 11.2.5
ln(Y3) = -2.6569 + 0.1937*ln(X) + 0.02496* (ln(X))2
= -2.95396
.-. Y3 =0.0521 acre ~
• Total land requirement (TLR)
TLR = V (Individual Land Requirement)
TLR =0.316 acre ¦
11-37
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
the CWT Point Source Catesoi
Example 11-2:
Costing exercise for a direct discharging oils subcategory facility with only emulsion
breaking/gravity separation in-place.
Example Facility Information:
Current Treatment In-Place:
Primary Emulsion Breaking/Gravity Separation
Daily Flow = 0.0081 MGD (Million Gallons/Day) [= 5.63 gpm]
[NOTE: Daily Flow = X in costing equations]
Treatment Upgrades To Be Costed:
None
Full Treatment Technologies To Be Costed:
Secondary Gravity Separation + Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)
Beaton 11.2.8
Secoodaiy
Section 11.2.9
Gravity
DccofoedAir
Flotation
Direst Duoharge
~
Figure 11-2. Treatment Diagram For Oils Option 9 Facility Improvements
11-38
-------
Example 11-2, continued:
Capital Costs:
• Secondary gravity separation, from Table 11-15, Section 11.2.7
ln(Yl) = 14.3209 + 0.38774*ln(X) - 0.01793*(ln(X))2
= 14.3209 - 0.38774*ln(0.0081) - 0.01793*(ln(0.0081))2
= 12.0377
Y1 = $169,014.42 ~
• Dissolved air flotation costs, from Table 11-17, Section 11.2.8
ln(Yl) = 13.9518 + 0.29445*ln(X) - 0.12049*(ln(X))2
= 11.6415
Y1 =$113,720.41 ~
• Holding tank for dissolved air flotation (flow < 20 gpm, hence holding tank is sized),
from Table 11-17, Section 11.2.8
ln(Yl) = 12.5122 - 0.15500*ln(X) - 0.05618*(ln(X))2
= 11.9557
Y1 = $155,700.75 ~
• Total capital cost (TCC)
TCC = X (Individual Capital Costs)
TCC = $438,436 ¦
11-39
-------
Example 11-2, continued:
Operation and Maintenance Costs:
• Secondary gravity separation, from Table 11-15, Section 11.2.7
ln(Y2) = 12.0759 + 0.4401*ln(X) + 0.01594*(ln(X))2
= 12.0759 + 0.4401*ln(0.0081) + 0.01594*(ln(0.0081))2
= 10.3261
Y2 = $30,519.46 ~
• Dissolved air flotation (flow < 20 gpm), from Table 11-17, Section 11.2.8
ln(Y2) = 21.2446 + 4.14823*ln(X) + 0.36585*(ln(X))2
= 9.7523
Y2 = $17,193.12 ~
• Total Operation and Maintenance Cost (0&MTot)
0&MTot = V (Individual 0& M Costs)
0&MTot =$47,713 ¦
11-40
-------
Example 11-2, continued:
Land Requirements:
• Secondary gravity separation, Table 11-15, Section 11.2.7
ln(Y3) = -0.2869 + 0.31387*ln(X) + 0.01191*(ln(X))2
= -0.2869 + 0.31387*ln(0.0081) + 0.01191*(ln(0.0081))2
= -1.5222
Y3 =0.218 acre ~
• Dissolved air flotation (sized at 25 gpm, the minimum available), from Table 11-17,
Section 11.2.8
ln(Y3) = -0.5107 + 0.51217*ln(X) - 0.01892*(ln(X))2
= -2.4224
Y3 = 0.089 acre ~
• Holding tank, from Table 11-17, Section 11.2.8
ln(Y3) = -1.5772 + 0.35955*ln(X) + 0.02013*(ln(X))2
= -1.5012
Y3 =0.223 acre ~
• Total land requirement (TLR)
TLR = V (Individual Land Requirement)
TLR = 0.53 acre ¦
11-41
-------
References 11.6
Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 15th Edition, Washington, DC.
Henricks, David, Inspectors Guide for Evaluation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants.
Culp/Wcsncr/Culp. El Dorado Hills, CA, 1979.
Technical Practice Committee, Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants. MOP/11, Washington, DC, 1976.
Clark, Viesman, and Hasner, Water Supply and Pollution Control Harper and Row Publishers, New York, NY,
1977.
1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire Respondents Data Base. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
Osmonics, Historical Perspective of Ultrafiltration and Reverse Osmosis Membrane Development.
Minnetonka, MN, 1984.
Organic Chemicals and Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) Cost Document. SAIC, 1987.
Effluent Guidelines Division, Development Document For Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Organic Chemicals. Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF). Volume II, Point Source Category, EPA
440/1-87/009, Washington, DC, October 1987.
Engineering News Record (ENR). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, March 30,1992.
Comparative Statistics of Industrial and Office Real Estate Markets. Society of Industrial and Office Realtors
of the National Association of Realtors, Washington, DC, 1990.
Peters, M., and Timmerhaus, K., Plant Design and Economics for Chemical Engineers. McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY, 1991.
Chemical Marketing Reporter. Schnell Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY, May 10,1993.
Palmer, S.K., Breton, M.A., Nunno, T.J., Sullivan, D.M., and Supprenaut, N.F., Metal/Cyanide Containing
Wastes Treatment Technologies. Alliance Technical Corporation, Bedford, MA, 1988.
Freeman, H.M., Standard Handbook of Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1989.
Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal
Products and Machinery Phase 1 Point Source Category. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 821-R-
95-021, April 1995.
Control and Treatment Technology for the Metal Finishing Industry. Sulfide Precipitation Summary Report
EPA 625/8-80-003, April 1980.
11-42
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
Summary of Cost of Technology
Options
11.7
This section summarizes the estimated
capital and annual O&M expenditures for CWT
facilities to achieve each of the effluent
limitations and standards. All cost estimates in
this section are expressed in terms of 1997
dollars.
BPT Costs
11.7.1
BPT costs apply to all CWT facilities that
discharge wastewater to surface waters (direct
dischargers). Table 11-24 summarizes, by
subcategory, the total capital expenditures and
annual O&M costs for implementing BPT.
Table 11-24. Cost of Implementing BPT Regulations [in 1997 dollars]
Number of
Total Capital
Subcategory
Facilities'
Costs
Annual O&M Costs
Metals Treatment and Recovery
9
4,069,600
3,103,200
Oils Treatment and Recovery
5
1,168,100
432,100
Organics Treatment
4
80,000
215,800
Multiple Wastestream Subcategory2
3
1,836,200
3,618,300
Combined Regulatory Option5
14
5,317,700
3,751,100
' There are 14 direct dischargers. Because some direct dischargers include operations in more than one
subcategory, Ihe sum of the facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds Ihe total number of
facilities.
2 This estimate assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with the
single Subcategory limitations.
3 This total assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with each
set of limitations separately.
EPA notes that this BPT cost summary does
not include the additional capital costs of the
second clarifier that may be associated with the
transferred TSS limitations for the metals
subcategory. EPA will re-visit its BPT costs
estimates for this subcategory prior to
promulgation.
BCT/BAT Costs 11.7.2
The Agency estimated that there would be
no incremental cost of compliance for
implementing BCT/BAT, because the technology
used to develop BCT/BAT limitations is identical
to BPT and the costs are included with BPT.
PSES Costs 11.7.3
The Agency estimated the cost for
implementing PSES applying the same
assumptions and methodology used to estimate
cost of implementing BPT. The major
difference is that the PSES costs are applied to
all CWT facilities that discharge wastewater to a
POTW (indirect dischargers). Table 11-25
summarizes, by subcategory, the capital
expenditures and annual O&M costs for
implementing PSES.
11-43
-------
Chapter 11 Cost of Treatment Technologies
the CWT Point Source Catesoi
Table 11-25. Cost of Implementing PSES Regulations [in 1997 dollars]
Subcategory
Number of
Facilities'
Total Capital
Costs
Annual Q&M Costs
Metals Treatment and Recovery
Oils Treatment and Recovery -
Organics Treatment
44
127
16
24
151
11,111,100
23,834,000
17,709,200
44,576,100
52,654,300
10,242,100
12,484,400
2,766,200
20,392,700
25,792,700
Mutliple Wastestream Subcategory2
Combined Regulatory Option'
1 There are 151 indirect dischargers. Because some indirect dischargers include operations in more than one
subcategory, the sum of the facilities with operations in any one subcategory exceeds the total number of
facilities.
2 This estimate assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with the
single Subcategory limitations.
3 This total assumes that all facilities that accept waste in multiple subcategories elect to comply with each
set of limitations separately.
11-44
-------
Chapter
12
POLLUTANT LOADING AND REMOVAL ESTIMATES
Introduction 12.1
This chapter presents annual pollutant loading
and removal estimates for the CWT
industry associated with each of the
subcategories and regulatory options considered
by EPA in developingthe effluent limitations and
pretreatment standards. EPA estimated the
pollutant loadings and removals from CWT
facilities to evaluate the effectiveness of different
treatment technologies and to evaluate how
costly these regulatory options were in terms of
pollutant removals. EPA also used this
information in analyzing potential benefits from
the removal of pollutants discharged to surface
waters directly or indirectly through publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs). EPA
estimated raw, current, and post-compliance
pollutant loadings and pollutant removals for the
industry using data collected from the industry
throughout development of the rule. This
assessment uses the following definitions for
raw, current, and post-compliance pollutant
loadings:
• Raw loadings ~ For the metals and organics
subcategory, raw loadings represent CWT
waste receipts, that is, typically untreated
wastewater as received from customers. For
the oils subcategory, raw loadings represent
the effluent from the initial processing of oil
bearing, CWT waste receipts, that is,
effluent from emulsion breaking and/or
gravity separation.
• Current loadings ~ These are the pollutant
loadings in CWT wastewater that are
currently being discharged to POTWs and
surface waters. These loadings account for
wastewater treatment currently in place at
CWT facilities.
• Post-compliance loadings ~ These are the
pollutant loadings in CWT wastewater that
would be discharged to POTWs and surface
waters upon compliance with the rule. EPA
calculated these loadings assuming that all
CWT facilities would achieve treatment at
least equivalent to that which may be
achieved by employing the technology
option selected as the basis of the limitations
or standards.
The following information is presented in
this chapter:
• Section 12.2 summarizes the data sources
used to estimate pollutant loadings and
removals;
• Section 12.3 discusses the methodology used
to estimate current loadings;
• Section 12.4 discusses the methodology used
to estimate post-compliance pollutant
loadings;
• Section 12.5 discusses the methodology used
to estimate pollutant removals;
• Section 12.6 presents the pollutant loadings
and removals for each regulatory option,
including current and post-compliance
pollutant loadings.
Data Sources 12.2
As previously explained in Chapter 2, EPA
primarily relied on four data sources to estimate
pollutant loadings and removals: industry
responses to the 1991 Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire, industry responses to the Detailed
12-1
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Monitoring Questionnaire, wastewater sampling
data collected by EPA, and data provided in
comments to the proposals. Chapter 2 of this
document discusses each of these data sources in
detail.
Methodology Used to Develop
Current Loadtngs Esttmates 12.3
EPA calculates current loadings for a specific
facility using the effluent flow rate of the facility
and the concentration of pollutants in its effluent
obtained from effluent monitoring data. EPA
does not have data for every facility in the
database to calculate current loadings. For some,
EPA has no effluent monitoring data, while for
others, EPA may have only limited monitoring
data for a few parameters. In some cases, EPA
has effluent monitoring data, but the data do not
represent CWT wastewaters only. As discussed
previously, most CWT facilities commingle
CWT wastewaters with non-CWT wastewaters
such as industrial wastestreams or stormwater
prior to monitoring for compliance. Most CWT
facilities with waste receipts in more than one
subcategory commingle CWT wastestreams prior
to monitoring for performance. Some facility
supplied data, therefore, is insufficient for
estimating current loadings.
When possible, EPA determined current
loadings for an individual facility based on
information reported by that facility. For most
CWT facilities, however, EPA had to estimate
current loadings. EPA's methodology differs
depending on the subcategory of CWT facilities
and individual facility characteristics. Factors
that EPA took into account in estimating current
loadings include: 1) the analytical data available
for the subcategory; 2) the characteristics of the
facilities in the subcategory; and 3) the facility's
treatment train. For facilities in multiple
subcategories, EPA estimated loadings for that
portion of the wastestream in each subcategory
and subsequently added them together. The
sections that follow discuss the current loadings
methodologies for each subcategory.
EPA refers to sample points at specific
episodes throughout this chapter. However,
diagrams of the sample facilities are not
provided. EPA refrained from including the
diagrams due to confidentiality concerns. All
facility diagrams are available in the record for
this rule, with those claimed confidential in the
CBI portion of the record.
Current Loadings Estimates for
the Metals Subcategory 12.3.1
EPA calculated current loadings for the
metals subcategory facilities by assigning
pollutant concentrations based on the type of
treatment currently in-place at each facility.
EPA assigned in-place treatment for this
subcategory in one of five classes:
1) raw, or no metals treatment;
2) primary precipitation with solids-liquid
separation;
3) primary precipitation with solids-liquid
separation plus secondary precipitation with
solids-liquid separation;
4) primary precipitation with solids-liquid
separation plus secondary precipitation with
solids-liquid separation followed by multi-
media filtration (EPA based the
BPT/BAT/PSES/PSNS limitations and
standards for this subcategory on this
technology); and
5) selective metals precipitation with solids-
liquid separation plus secondary precipitation
with solids-liquid separation plus tertiary
precipitation with solids-liquid separation
(EPA based the NSPS limitations and
standards on this technology).
Table 12.1 shows the current loadings estimates
for each classification and the following five
sections (12.3.1.1 through 12.3.1.5) detail the
estimation procedure for each classification.
EPA notes that, due to differences among
12-2
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
datasets used to calculate loading classes,
"common sense" reductions of some pollutants
with increasing technology are not always
displayed in Table 12.1.
12-3
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12.1 Metals Subcategory Pollutant Concentration Profiles for Current Loadings
Pollutant of Concern
Raw
Treatment
Primary
Precipitation
Secondary
Precipitation
BAT
Option Technology
Selective
Metals
Precipitation
Classical or Conventional Parameters (mg/L)
Ammonia as nitrogen
184.34
347.65
112.71
15.63
9.12
Biochem. oxygen demand
1,326.82
5,043.83
670.17
159.60
28.33
Chemical oxygen demand
10,889.83
12,696.25
2,362.67
1,333.33
198.56
Chloride
17,570.78
35,966.67
33,966.67
18,000.00
2,243.75
Fluoride
1,416.38
49.72
82.85
66.27
2.35
Hexavalent chromium
1,364.96
4.02
0.36
0.80
0.03
Nitrate/nitrite
3,243.72
3,102.17
974.93
531.67
12.61
Oil and grease
29.67
75.86
12.11
34.34
34.34
Total cyanide
8.00
1.29
3.64
0.17
N/AJ
Total dissolved solids
60,992.86
52,040.00
48,400.00
42,566.67
18,112.50
Total organic carbon
1,938.79
3,598.17
451.55
236.33
19.64
Total phenols
1.65
5.57
3.16
N/AJ
N/AJ
Total phosphorus
690.21
43.10
39.63
31.68
29.32
Total sulfide
58.17
29.21
17.57
N/AJ
24.95
Total suspended olids
31,587.34
494.85
673.81
16.80
9.25
Metal Parameters (ug/L)
Aluminum
362,855
28,264
27,628
856
73
Antimony
80,937
4,152
679
170
21
Arsenic
56,873
181
246
84
11
Beryllium
39
3
8
N/AJ
1
Boron
119,394
35,047
23,811
8,403
7,290
Cadmium
549,749
254
6,792
58
82
Calcium
1,132,699
4,163,233
308,935
20,000
407,167
Chromium
851,525
3,986
19,125
1,675
40
Cobalt
362,914
214
223
115
57
Copper
2,514,805
1,796
419
744
169
Gallium
5,045
2,473
2,600
N/AJ
N/AJ
Indium
11,839
3,820
5,250
N/AJ
500
Iodine
95,940
15,075
1,000
N/AJ
N/AJ
Iridium
51,823
4,554
5,250
500
N/AJ
Iron
1,210,265
16,076
11,533
5,752
387
Lanthanum
779
413
550
N/AJ
100
Lead
167,649
1,909
281
177
55
Lithium
67,827
35,757
2,495
1,927
N/AJ
Magnesium
209,520
6,107
5,035
N/AJ
753
Manganese
182,587
1,551
1,360
49
12
Mercury
276
21
2
1
0
Molybdenum
51,575
5,833
3,053
1,747
528
Nickel
430,971
20,083
1,668
1,161
255
Osmium
1,917
440
550
N/AJ
100
Phosphorus
347,146
36,543
1,152,950
27,529
544
Potassium
2,003,938
2,361,444
748,817
410,000
54,175
Selenium
561
277
577
280
56
Silicon
212,884
4,378
2,752
1,447
356
Silver
1,172
223
87
26
5
Sodium
21,329,820
16,662,444
18,921,667
15,100,000
5,776,250
12-4
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Pollutant of Concern
Raw
Treatment
Primary
Precipitation
Secondary
Precipitation
BAT
Option Technology
Selective
Metals
Precipitation
Strontium
4,818
5,759
1,831
100
N/AJ
Sulfur
10,754,912
1,802,233
2,203,333
1,214,000
2,820,000
Tantalum
4,924
2,000
2,750
N/AJ
N/AJ
Tellurium
16,939
4,000
5,500
N/AJ
N/AJ
Thallium
7,556
103
144
N/AJ
21
Tin
903,260
2,397
434
90
28
Titanium
532,387
152
51
57
4
Vanadium
30,258
45
83
12
11
Yttrium
144
30
43
5
4
Zinc
2,007,752
3,625
2,052
413
206
Zirconium
1,256
1,270
1,330
1,287
N/AJ
Organic Parameters (ug/L)
Benzoic acid
1,939
N/AJ
9,716
3,522
N/AJ
Benzyl alcohol
1,648
N/AJ
745
N/AJ
N/AJ
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
292
645
10
N/AJ
N/AJ
Carbon Disulfide
187
N/AJ
83
N/AJ
10
Chloroform
64
332
1,418
149
N/AJ
Dibromochloromethane
64
108
10
50
N/AJ
Hexanoic acid
215
N/AJ
23
N/AJ
N/AJ
M-xylene
64
N/AJ
10
N/AJ
N/AJ
Methylene chloride
264
165
23
N/AJ
N/AJ
N,n-dimethylformamide
131
N/AJ
76
68
N/AJ
Phenol
166
6,869
45
N/AJ
N/AJ
Pyridine
82
N/AJ
10
87
N/AJ
Toluene
166
420
10
N/AJ
N/AJ
Trichloroethene
114
108
10
442
N/AJ
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
64
135
10
N/AJ
N/AJ
1,1 -dichloroethene
64
170
10
N/AJ
N/AJ
1,4-dioxane
64
N/AJ
10
N/AJ
N/AJ
2-butanone
323
N/AJ
61
U72
N/AJ
2-propanone
3,712
N/AJ
246
13,081
N/AJ
4-methyl-2-pentanone 320 N/AJ 50 N/AJ N/AJ
^Concentration values for certain pollutants were not available for some classifications.
12-5
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Raw Loadings for the Metals
Subcategory 12.3.1.1
EPA classified metals subcategory facilities
with no chemical precipitation in the "raw" class
(even if they had other treatment in place, such
as activated carbon). EPA assigned the "raw"
current loadings estimates to three facilities in the
metals subcategory. EPA based its estimates for
raw wastewaters on data from 13 sample points
at six sampling episodes and one sample point
from data supplied by a facility in comments to
the 1999 proposal (refer to Table 12-2 for
sample episode and sample point identifiers).
The data from these episodes include
composite samples from continuous flow
systems and grab samples from batch flow
systems.
For non-detected measurements, EPAused
the sample-specific detection limit except for
certain analytes from the semi-quantitative
screen component of Method 1620 for episode
1987. In 1990, when these analyses were
performed, the laboratory's standard convention
to report non-quantitated results from semi-
quantitative analysis was to populate the
summary form with 'ND' rather than reporting
sample-specific limits. This was the case for
indium, iridium, lanthanum, osmium, tantalum,
and tellurium. With the exception of indium and
iridium, EPA used the analyte baseline value for
such non-detected results (see chapter 15 for
baseline values). For indium and iridium, where
the largest detected value was substantially less
than the baseline value, EPA used the largest
detected value for the non-detected
measurements at sample point 2 for episode
1987.
The data from 11 of the 13 sample points
from EPA sampling episodes are from batch
flow systems. During each day of sampling at
these 11 facilities, EPA collected grab samples
from one or more batches processed each day by
the batch flow systems (for some sample points,
EPA did not obtain samples on each day for
various reasons such as the treatment associated
with that sample point was not used that day).
After averaging the values from field duplicate
samples, EPA calculated a daily average for each
pollutant at each facility. For example, if EPA
collected grab samples of two batches during a
single day, EPA averaged the two results to
obtain the daily average.
Conversely, the data from the remaining
two sample points at EPA sampling episodes and
the industry effluent monitoring data for facility
652 were all obtained from continuous flow
systems. Except for field duplicates and oil and
grease/HEM, EPA obtained only one
measurement for each day (considered to be the
daily average) from a composite sample taken
from each continuous flow system. EPA
averaged values from duplicate field samples
before performing any other calculations.
Because oil and grease/HEM can only be
obtained as grab samples, EPA typically obtained
four samples each day and arithmetically
averaged the results to obtain one daily value for
that pollutant.
Once EPA obtained the daily averages for
each of the sample points, EPA calculated the
raw pollutant concentration as the average of the
daily averages at the 14 sample points (13
sample points from EPA sampling episode and
one sample point from industry supplied effluent
monitoring data).
As an illustrative example, Table 12-2
shows the data used to obtain the raw
wastewater estimation for aluminum: 362,855
ug/L. Table 12-2 shows that this estimation
comes from 38 daily averages (some from
continuous systems and some from batch
systems) from 91 analyses. Raw wastewater
estimations for other pollutants were calculated
in a similar manner.
12-6
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-2 Example of Metals Subcategory Influent Pollutant Concentration Calculations7
Sample Point
Raw Aluminum Daily Averages (ug/L)
# of measurements
Episode 4378-01
389,338
189,223
3,128
8,376
26 (5 are duplicate values)
Episode 4378-03
2,080,000
1,542,500
745,000
70,367
563,250
16 (2 are duplicate values)
Episode 4055-01
51,800
1,670,000
260,000
3
Episode 1987-01
839,000
792,000
859,000
3
Episode 1987-02
577,500
53,400
3 (1 is a duplicate value)
Episode 4393-01
3,730
29,400
2(1 is a non-detect value)
Episode 4382-07
84,400
139,000
171,000
145,000
330,000
6 (1 duplicate value)
Episode 4393-05
72,400
3,765
6,150
15,900
11,200
6 (1 is a duplicate and
non-detect value)
Episode 4803-01
723
1
Episode 4803-03
5,040
1
Episode 4803-05
97,800
1,545,000
3
Episode 4803-07
58,900
1
Episode 4803-10
66,925
101,466
159,250
47,575
20 (4 are duplicate values)
Facility 652-01
no data provided
JThe Raw Aluminum Concentration is 362,855 ug/L — the average of daily values in the table.
Primary Precipitation with Solids-
Liquid Separation Loadings 12.3.1.2
EPA estimated pollutant concentrations
resulting from primary precipitation and solids-
liquid separation using data from EPA sampling
episodes and industry supplied effluent
monitoring data. EPA used data from three
sampling episodes and effluent monitoring data
submitted by two facilities. These data were
used to represent the current loadings for 32 of
the metals subcategory facilities. The episodes
used are from the detailed monitoring
questionnaire 613 (industry supplied effluent
monitoring data), sample point 16; industry
effluent monitoring data supplied in comments to
the proposal for facility 652, sample point 2;
episode 4382, sample point 8; episode 1987,
sample point 3; and episode 4798, sample point
3.
For episode 4382, EPA excluded all data for
organics, oil and grease, BOD5, COD, TOC,
nitrate/nitrite, and ammonia as nitrogen because
they did not represent metals subcategory
wastewater exclusively. EPA also excluded data
for these analytes from this episode, but different
sample points, in calculating the raw loadings
(section 12.3.1.1) and the secondary
precipitation with solids-liquid separation loadings
(section 12.3.1.3).
For non-detected measurements, EPA used
the same assumptions as for the data described
in section 12.3.1.1. For indium and iridium,
where the largest detected value was
substantially less than the baseline value, EPA
used the largest detected value for the non-
detected measurements at sample point 3 for
episode 1987.
The facility supplied effluent monitoring data
from facility 613 was collected as grab samples
from batch flow systems. The facility collected
a single grab sample each day. This single value
was the daily average for the facility.
Conversely, for this treatment technology,
the data from the EPA sampling episodes and the
industry effluent monitoring data for facility 652
were all obtained from continuous flow systems.
Except for field duplicates and oil and
grease/HEM, EPA obtained only one
measurement for each day (considered to be the
daily average) from a composite sample taken
12-7
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
from each continuous flow system. EPA
averaged values from duplicate field samples
before performing any other calculations.
Because oil and grease/HEM can only be
obtained as grab samples, EPA typically obtained
four samples each day and arithmetically
averaged the results to obtain one daily value for
that pollutant.
After calculating daily averages, EPA then
calculated a facility average for each pollutant as
the arithmetic average of the daily averages at
that facility. These facility averages were then
arithmetically averaged to obtain the pollutant
concentration average. Table 12.1 shows these
pollutant average concentrations representing
primary precipitation for the relevant pollutants
of concern.
Secondary Precipitation with Solids-
Liquid Separation Loadings 12.3.1.3
EPA estimated current loadings for facilities
with secondary chemical precipitation using data
from three sampling points at three separate
episodes and industry supplied effluent
monitoring data from one facility. These are
episode 4393, sample point 13; episode 4382,
sample point 12; episode 4798, sample point 4;
and industry effluent monitoring data supplied in
comments to the 1995 proposal for facility 652,
sample point 3.
All of the data from this treatment
technology were obtained from continuous flow
systems. EPA used the sample-specific
detection limit for all non-detected
measurements. Except for field duplicates and
oil and grease/HEM, EPA obtained only one
measurement for each day from composite
samples taken from these continuous flow
systems. EPA averaged values from duplicate
field samples before performing any other
calculations. Because oil and grease/HEM can
only be obtained as grab samples, EPA typically
obtained four samples each day and
arithmetically averaged the results to obtain one
daily value for that pollutant.
After obtaining one value for each day, EPA
then calculated a facility average for each
pollutant as the arithmetic average of the daily
averages at that facility. These facility averages
were then arithmetically averaged to obtain the
pollutant concentration average. Table 12.1
shows these pollutant average concentrations
representing secondary precipitation with solids-
liquid separation for the relevant pollutants of
concern.
Technology Basis for the Option 4
Loadings 12.3.1.4
EPA used the long-term averages from
Metals Option 4 ~ batch primary precipitation
with solids-liquid separation plus secondary
precipitation with solids-liquid separation
followed by multi-media filtration ~ to represent
current loadings at three facilities in the metals
subcategory (Chapter 10 describes the method
for calculating these long-term averages for each
pollutant). The facility sampled by EPA that
employs the technology basis for the
BPT/BAT/PSES Option, obviously, is assigned
its current loadings. EPA modeled the loadings
for two facilities that utilize tertiary precipitation
with the BPT/BAT/PSES option current
loadings. EPA believes that facilities utilizing
tertiary precipitation will not need to alter their
systems to meet the limitations. By assigning
current loadings estimates based on the Option 4
technology basis to the tertiary systems, EPA
may have overestimated current loadings at these
two facilities. However, EPA does not estimate
any post-compliance pollutant reductions at these
facilities.
Selective Metals Precipitation
(Option 3) Loadings 12.3.1.5
Only one facility in the metals subcategory
utilizes selective metals precipitation. EPA
sampled this facility during development of this
rule. Therefore, the current loadings pollutant
12-8
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
concentrations for this facility are not estimates,
but measured data. Table 12.1 summarizes
these pollutant concentrations (Chapter 10
describes the method for calculating the pollutant
concentrations).
Current Loadings Estimates for the
Oils Subcategory 12.3.2
Based on questionnaire responses and site
visits, EPA found that all facilities which treat
oily wastewaters, for which EPA has data,
currently employ emulsion breaking and/or
gravity separation. If emulsions are present in
the incoming waste receipts, the facility first
makes use of emulsion breaking. If not, the
waste receipts generally bypass emulsion
breaking and the facility processes the waste
through a gravity separation step for gross
separation of the water and the oil phases. A
facility may often follow up these pretreatment
steps by other wastewater treatment technologies
or substitue them for dehydration operations.
Therefore, EPA believes that, at a minimum, it
may characterize current loadings for oils
subcategory discharges by analyzing samples
obtained from the effluent of emulsion
breaking/gravity separation.
At the time of the 1999 proposal, EPA used
seven data sets to represent effluent from
emulsion breaking/gravity separation systems.
EPA collected these seven data sets during long-
term EPA sampling episodes at various types of
oily waste facilities. Six of these seven data sets
represent facilities that treat oily wastewater and
recover/process used oil. One facility, that
primarily accepts bilge water, performs oily
wastewater treatment only. The annual volume
of treated oily wastewater discharged at these
facilities ranges from 174,000 gallons/year to 35
million gallons/year. Two of the data sets
represent facilities that only accept non-
hazardous wastes, while the other five data sets
represent facilities which are permitted by RCRA
to additionally accept hazardous wastes.
For each pollutant of concern, each of the
seven emulsion breaking/gravity separation long-
term sampling data sets contains the mean
concentration of the data collected over the
sampling episode (a duration of two to five
days). This mean includes measured (detected)
and non-detected values. The value substituted
for each non-detected measurement was either
1) the sample-specific detection limit or 2) the
average of the measured (detected) values across
all seven data sets. Section 12.3.2.1 discusses
EPA's representation of non-detect values for
this analysis. Section 12.3.2.1 further discusses
EPA's representation of the one biphasic sample.
For each episode and each pollutant, the table
presents the mean concentration of the data
collected over the sampling episode. Figure 12-1
shows the procedure EPA used to estimate the
mean concentration data over the seven sampling
episodes.
EPA has facility-specific information in its
database for 84 oils subcategory facilities. Of
these 84 facilities, EPA has long-term sampling
data for seven and grab sample data for 12
others which were part of the 1998
characterization sampling of oil treatment and
recovery facilities (see Chapter 2, section 3.4).
For the remainder of the facilities, EPA does not
have current loadings data. EPA does, however,
have facility-specific information on the volume
of wastewater being discharged and the
treatment train currently in use. EPA evaluated
several ways to associate the emulsion
breaking/gravity separation data sets to each of
the facilities for which EPA needed to estimate
current performance. EPA, therefore, reviewed
the data sets to determine if there was a
relationship between the concentration of
pollutants, and facility flow, but found no
evidence of relationship.
Consequently, for the 1999 proposal, EPA
randomly assigned one of the seven long-term
sampling data sets to each of the facilities that
required current loadings estimates. For facilities
12-9
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
which only employ emulsion breaking/gravity
separation, EPA estimated current loadings for
each pollutant using values in the randomly
assigned data set. For facilities which use
additional treatment after that step, EPA further
reduced the pollutant loadings for certain
pollutants (or all pollutants depending on the
technology) in the randomly assigned data set to
account for the additional treatment-in-place at
the facility.
After the 1999 proposal, EPA reevaluated its
methodology of randomly assigning data sets to
the oils subcategory facilities. EPA determined
that it would be more appropriate to assign the
same average concentration for each pollutant to
all facilities. In calculating these average
concentrations for a pollutant, EPA used the
seven data sets plus the data from the 11
facilities in the 1998 characterization sampling
effort. EPA collected, at a minimum, a single
grab sample from emulsion breaking/gravity
separation at each facility (for three facilities,
EPA collected duplicate field samples and these
values were averaged together before any other
calculations).
All but one of the EPA sampling episodes
were at facilities with continuous flow systems.
Except for field duplicates and oil and
grease/HEM, EPA obtained only one
measurement for each day from composite
samples taken from these continuous flow
systems. EPA averaged values from duplicate
field samples before performing any other
calculations. Because oil and grease/HEM can
only be obtained as grab samples, EPA typically
obtained four samples each day and
arithmetically averaged the results to obtain one
daily value for that pollutant. EPA calculated the
facility average as the arithmetic average of the
daily values.
For the one remaining facility that had a
batch system, EPA collected grab samples of
different batches. EPA averaged the values from
duplicate samples before performing any other
calculations. EPA then calculated the facility
average as the arithmetic average of the batches.
EPA calculated pollutant concentration
loadings using RCRA and non-RCRA facilities
separately. Each of the 18 facilities was assigned
to the RCRA or non-RCRA subset except for
one facility which was assigned to both
categories. This facility has a RCRA permit to
accept and treat RCRA waste, but treated
exclusively non-RCRA waste during EPA's
sampling. For each pollutant, EPA then
calculated an overall pollutant concentration
loading for the RCRA subset and another for the
non-RCRA subset.
Because the sample sizes of the 18 facilities
ranged from a single sample to 20 samples (for
the facility with the batch flow system), EPA
determined that a weighted average of the facility
averages using weights equal to the square root
of the sample size would be appropriate. As a
simplified, hypothetical example for pollutant X,
given two facilities and one had five samples
with a facility average of 20 mg/L and the other
facility had two samples with a facility average of
100 mg/L, the pollutant average (PA) would be
51 mg/L as shown in the following equation:
pA_^slL)+Ji(mmslL)__.lmglL
V5 + V2
Table 12-7 presents the pollutant concentration
loadings (labeled as long-term averages (LTA) in
the table) for both the RCRA and non-RCRA
subsets.
12-10
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Yes
Yes
treatment \
system batch ar
xcoritinususV''
Substitute the
MNC for the
non-detect
Fcr each pollutant,
examine the Jzta
from each sample
Gilcul ite pollutant
LTA for the Łacility
as mean of its batch
values
Examine the data
from the facilities
sampled by EPA
Use EPAmethodto
obtain one value for
e;ich pollutant
Calculate pollutant
LTA for the facility
as mean of its daily
values
Calculate
MNC — mean
of dfitected values
from all fscilitias
Compare each
s ampl e- spec Lfic
detection limit (T>L)
to MNC
Figure 12-1 Calculation of Current Loadings for Oils Subcategory
12-11
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
T REATMENT -IN-P LACE
As mentioned previously, there are many
configurations of treatment trains in this
subcategory. While EPA does not have sampling
data representing each of these treatment
configurations, EPA does have sampling data
representing each of the individual treatment
technologies currently in place at oily waste
facilities. While EPA collected all of the data at
CWT facilities, EPA collected some of the data
it used to develop treatment-in-place credits at
facilities in other CWT subcategories. For some
technologies, EPA has sampling data from a
single facility, while for others, EPA has
sampling data from multiple CWT facilities.
In order to estimate the current pollutant
reductions due to additional treatment-in-place at
oils facilities, for each technology, EPA compiled
and reviewed all CWT sampling data for which
EPA collected influent and effluent data. EPA
subjected the influent data to a similar screening
process as the one used in determining long-term
averages. For each episode, EPA retained
influent and effluent data for a specific pollutant
only if the pollutant was detected in the influent
at treatable levels (10 times the baseline value1)
at least 50 percent of the time. For each facility,
EPA then calculated an "average" percent
removal for metals (averaging the percent
removal for each metal), an "average" percent
removal for organics, and an "average" percent
removal for BOD5 TSS, and oil and grease.
EPA rounded the averages to the nearest 5
percent. When the "average" percent removal
for more than one third of the pollutants in a
compound class (i.e., metals, organics, BOD5
TSS, and oil and grease) was zero or less, EPA
set the "average" percent removal for the class
of compounds equal to zero. EPA recognizes
that treatment technologies are not equally
effective in reducing all metals and/or all organics
from wastewater, but believes this provides a
1 Defined in chapter 15.
reasonable estimate. The result is that, for some
pollutants, EPA believes it may have
underestimated the removals associated with the
additional treatment-in-place, while for other
pollutants, EPA may have overestimated the
removals.
Table 12-3 shows the percent removal
credited to each technology. For technologies
that EPA evaluated at more than one CWT
facility, the value for each class of compounds
represents the lowest value at the facilities. For
example, EPA sampled at two facilities that use
multimedia filtration. The average percent
removal of metal pollutants at facility 1 and
facility 2 is 60 percent and 30 percent,
respectively. Table 12-3 shows that EPA used
30 percent to estimate metals removal in
multimedia filtration systems. EPA believes that
using the lower percent removal of the "best"
performers provides a reasonable estimate of the
percent removals of these technologies for the
rest of the industry and may even overstate the
percent removals for some facilities that may not
be operating the treatment technologies
efficiently.
For some classes of compounds and some
technologies, EPA does not have empirical data
from the CWT industry to estimate percent
removals. For these cases, EPA assumed
percent removals based on engineering
judgement. EPA assumed that air stripping is
only effective for the removal of volatile and
semi-volatile organic pollutants. EPA also
assumed that chemical precipitation is ineffective
for the treatment of organic pollutants. Finally,
EPA assumed a 50 percent reduction in organic
CWT pollutants through carbon adsorption
treatment. EPA recognizes that carbon
adsorption, given the correct design and
operating conditions can achieve much higher
pollutant removals. However, for this industry,
EPA believes that the complex matrices,
variability in waste receipts, and high loadings
would compromise carbon adsorption
12-12
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
performance without regeneration or replacement
of the carbon beds based on breakthrough of a
range of organic pollutants.
In determining current loadings for facilities
with additional treatment-in-place, EPA then
reduced the current loadings concentrations
established for the facility with gravity
separation/emulsion breaking alone by the
appropriate percent removal as defined above.
For facilities with multiple treatment technologies
in their treatment train, EPA credited each of the
treatment technologies in the order that the
process occurs in their treatment train.
Table 12-3 Treatment-in-Place Credit Applied to Oils Facilities
Pollutant
Treatment Technology
Group
Chemical Carbon Air Stripping
PreciDitation Adsorotion
Ultra-
filtration
Biological Multi-media/Sand
Filtration
DAF
Secondary
SeDartion
bod5
0
0
0*
55
50
10
10
5
Oil and
45
45
0*
85
65
0
60
30
grease
TSS
85
0
0*
100
50
55
80
0
Metals
75
0
0*
75
15
30
50
0
Organics
0*
50*
70
85
75
0
40
50
* Value is based on engineering judgement.
Issues Associated with Oils Current
Performance Analyses 12.3.2.1
This section describes four issues associated
with estimating the current performance of the
oils subcategory. The first issue is the dilution
required in analyses of some highly concentrated
samples representing the baseline technology
(emulsion breaking/gravity separation). The
second issue is the appropriate procedure for
incorporating the concentrations of a biphasic
sample into the estimates of current
performance. The third issue is the
appropriateness of various substitution methods
for the non-detected measurements, especially of
diluted samples.
Dilution Of Samples During
Laboratory Analysis
Effluent from emulsion breaking/gravity
separation operations may be highly
concentrated, which may present difficulties in
analyzing such effluent. Consequently, in its
analysis of some samples, EPA needed to dilute
the samples in order to reduce matrix difficulties
(such as interference) to facilitate the detection
or quantitation of certain target compounds. For
some organic compounds, EPA also had to dilute
samples where a highly concentrated sample
could not be concentrated to the method-
specified final volume.
If EPA diluted a sample for analytical
purposes, EPA adjusted the particular pollutant
measurement to correct for the dilution. For
example, if a sample was diluted by 100 and the
measurement was 7.9 ug/L, the reported value
was adjusted to 790 ug/L (i.e., 7.9 ug/L* 100).
In general, the sample-specific detection limits
(DLs) for a pollutant were equal to or greater
than the baseline value described in Chapter 15.
Because wastes generated using the BAT
technologies will be less concentrated than
emulsion breaking/gravity separation operations,
in EPA's view, effluent samples collected to
demonstrate compliance with the final limitations
and standards will not require dilution and
therefore not result in effluent values with large
sample-specific DLs. Further, a laboratory can
12-13
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^
overcome potential analytical interferences using
procedures such as those suggested in the
Guidance on the Evaluation, Resolution, and
Documentation of Analytical Problems
Associated with Compliance Monitoring (EPA
821-B-93-001). Thus, in demonstrating
compliance, EPA would not allow dilution of a
sample to a sample-specific DL greater than the
limitation or standard.
Biphasic Samples
EPA used a number of different analytical
methods to determine the pollutant levels in the
effluent samples from facilities that employ
chemical emulsion breaking/gravity separation
for treating oily wastewater. Each method is
specific to a particular analyte or to structurally
similar chemical compounds such as volatile
organics (analyzed by Method 1624) and
semivolatile organics (analyzed by Method
1625). In developing the laboratory procedures
described in Method 1625, EPA included a
procedure for analyzing aqueous samples and
another procedure for analyzing biphasic
samples. Some effluent samples from emulsion
breaking/gravity separation were biphasic. That
is, each sample separated into two distinct layers,
an aqueous layer and an organic one. In these
instances, if the phases could not be mixed, EPA
analyzed each phase (or layer) separately. Thus,
each pollutant in a sample analyzed by Method
1625 had two analytical results, one for the
organic phase and the other for the aqueous
phase. There were three such samples in the oils
subcategory. Only sample number 32823
(episode 4814B), however, represents oily
wastes following emulsion breaking/gravity
separation. This sample is part of one of the
nineteen data sets representing emulsion
breaking/gravity separation used to calculate
pollutant concentration loadings for facilities
without concentration data. For this biphasic
sample, EPA combined the two concentration
values into a single value for each pollutant
analyzed using Method 1625. The discussion
Develo^men^Documen^b^h^CW^^oin^ourc^Cate^or^
; below describes the procedures for combining
the two concentration values and Table 12-4
summarizes these procedures. Table 12-5
provides examples of these procedures. DCN2
23.13 lists the combined values for the samples.
If the pollutant was detected in the organic
phase, EPA adjusted the analytical results to
account for the percent of the sample in each
phase. For sample 32823, 96 percent of the
sample volume was aqueous and the remaining
4 percent was organic. Thus, EPA multiplied the
aqueous value (detected value or sample-specific
DL) by 0.96 and the organic value by 0.04.
EPA then summed the two adjusted values to
obtain the total concentration value for the
pollutant in the sample.
If the pollutant was not detected in the
organic phase, EPA used several different
procedures depending on the pollutant and its
concentration in the aqueous phase. A factor
which complicated EPA's analysis was that
sample-specific DLs for pollutants in the organic
phase were 10003 times greater than the
minimum levels for Method 1625. When a
measurement result indicates that a pollutant is
not detected, then the reported sample-specific
DL is an upper bound for the actual
concentration of the pollutant in the sample.
When some sample-specific DLs for the organic
phase (which were 1000 times the minimum
level) were multiplied by 0.04, the adjusted non-
detected values were greater than the measured
amount in the aqueous phase. EPA concluded
that substituting the sample-specific DL for the
non-detected results in the organic phase in these
2 Items identified with document control
numbers (DCN) are located in the record to the
final rulemaking.
3 Because the volume of the organic phase
was small, the organic phase sample required
dilution (by 1000) for analysis. In contrast, the
aqueous phase had sufficient amount so that it was
not diluted.
12-14
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
circumstances might over-estimate the amount of
pollutant in the sample. Thus, EPA applied one
of the two alternative substitution procedures
described below for the sample-specific DLs
resulting from the organic phase.
First, if EPA did not detect the pollutant in
either phase, EPA considered the sample to be
non-detect at the sample-specific DL of the
aqueous phase. This value for the aqueous
phase was equal to the minimum level specified
in Method 1625.
Second, if the pollutant was detected in the
aqueous phase (and non-detected in the organic
phase), EPA used a procedure that compared the
non-detected organic values to the detected
aqueous value adjusted by a partition ratio (550).
EPA determined this partition ratio using the
average of the ratios of the detected organic
phase concentrations to the detected aqueous
phase concentrations for the pollutants that had
detected values in both phases. There were
twenty-two pollutants that were used to calculate
this value of 550. These pollutants are in four
structural groupings of organic pollutants:
chlorobenzenes, phenols, aromatic ethers, and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. The ratios
were similar in each of the structural groupings;
consequently, EPA determined that a single
value for the partition ratio was appropriate.
EPA then multiplied the aqueous phase
concentration value by this partition ratio of 550.
If this value was less than the sample-specific
DL of the pollutant in the organic phase, EPA
substituted this value for the organic phase
sample-specific DL. Otherwise, EPA used the
organic phase sample-specific DL. EPA then
multiplied the values for the aqueous and organic
phases by the relative volume amounts (0.96 and
0.04, respectively) and summed them to obtain
one value for the sample.
Table 12-4. Biphasic Sample Calculations (Summary of rules for combining aqueous/organic phase cones.)
Censoring types (i.e., detected or non-detected)
Method for obtaining
combined value
Aqueous phase
Organic phase
Combined result
(same as aqueous)
NC
NC
NC
0.96*AQ + 0.04*ORG
ND
NC
ND
0.96*AQ (use DL) + 0.04*ORG
ND
ND
ND
AQ (use DL)
NC
ND (DL>550*AQ)
NC
0.96*AQ + 0.04*(550*AQ)
ND fDL<=550*AO1
0.96 *AO + 0.04*ORG (use DL")
AQ = value for aqueous phase NC = non-censored (detected)
ORG = value for organic phase ND = non-detected DL = sample-specific detection limit
12-15
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-5. Examples of Combining Aqueous and Organic Phases for Sample 32823
Pollutant
Reported Cones. (ug/L)
Aqueous
Phase
Organic
Phase
Concentration
for Sample
(ug/L)
Calculation for Sample
Comment
Acenaphthene 668.6 319,400 13,418 (0.96*668.6 ug/L)
+ (0.04*319,400 ug/L)
4,5-methylene
phenanthrene f
ND (10)
163,500 ND (6,550)
(0.96*10 ug/L)
+ (0.04*163,500 ug/L)
Concentrations are
weighted by relative
¦ amounts of the sample
volume in each phase: 96%
aqueous and 4% organic
Aniline
ND (10)* ND (10,000) ND (10)
no calculation necessary
1-phenyl
-naphthalene J
10.49 ND (10,000)
240.9 (0.96*10.49 ug/L)
+(0.04*550*10.49 ug/L)
The sample-specific DL of
10,000 ug/L for the organic
phase is greater than 5570
ug/L (i.e., 550 times 10.49
ug/L)
Alpha-
terpineol
1,885.8 ND (10,000)
2,210 (1,885.8 ug/L*0.96)
+ (10,000 ug/L*0.04)
The sample-specific DL of
10,000 ug/L for the organic
phase is less than 1,037,190
(i.e., 550 times 1885.8 ug/L)
* ND=non-detected measurement. The sample-specific DL is provided in the parentheses.
¦f None of measurements of the pollutants of concern from this sample resulted in a non-detected measurement for the
aqueous phase with a detected measurement for the organic phase. This analyte is shown for demonstration purposes.
} None of measurements of the pollutants of concern from this sample resulted in a detected measurement for the aqueous
phase with a sample-specific DL for the organic phase that was greater than 550 times the measurement from the aqueous
phase. This analyte is shown for demonstration purposes.
Non-Detect Data In Complex Samples
EPA included values for measurements
reported as "non-detected" when it calculated the
mean for each pollutant of concern in the
emulsion breaking/gravity separation data sets.
In some instances, the measurements reported as
non-detected had sample-specific detection limits
that were well in excess of the pollutant's
baseline value (defined in section 15). The high
sample-specific detection limits occurred because
the samples contained many pollutants which
interfered with the analytical techniques. EPA
considered several approaches for handling these
sample-specific non-detected measurements
because, by definition, if a pollutant is 'not
detected', then the pollutant is either not present
at all (that is, the concentration is equal to zero)
or has a concentration value somewhere between
zero and the sample-specific detection limit
(DL).
EPA considered the following five
approaches to selecting a value to substitute for
non-detected measurements in emulsion
breaking/gravity separation samples:
1. Assume that the pollutant is not present in
the sample and substitute zero for the non-
detected measurement (that is, ND=0).
2. Assume that the pollutant is present in the
sample at a concentration equal to the
baseline value (BV) for analytical results as
defined in chapter 15 (that is, ND=BV)).
3. Assume that the pollutant is present at a
concentration equal to half the sample-
specific DL (that is, ND=DL/2). (In general,
the values of the sample-specific DLs are
equal to or greater than the values of the
baseline values used in the second
approach.)
4. Assume that the pollutant is present at a
concentration equal to the sample-specific
DL (that is, ND=DL). This is the
12-16
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
substitution approach that was used in the
1995 proposal, for the influent pollutant
loadings for the other two subcategories, and
for the final limitations and standards for all
three subcategories.
5. Assume that the pollutant is present at a
concentration equal to either the sample-
specific DL or the mean of the detected (or
non-censored) values (MNC) of the
pollutant.4 EPA used the lower of the two
values (that is, ND=minimum of DL or
MNC). For each pollutant, EPA calculated
two MNC values: one using the data from
the RCRA facilities; the other using data
from the non-RCRA facilities. EPA then
compared the sample-specific detection
limits to the appropriate MNC value
depending on whether the facility was
RCRA or non-RCRA.
EPA ultimately selected the approach
described in 5. The Agency concluded that
approach 5 provides the most realistic estimate
of current performance from these data sets.
Table 12-6A shows how EPA applied the
five substitution approaches to data for
hypothetical pollutant X for seven facilities
(which were the only ones used when EPA
evaluated these methods. For the finalrule, EPA
included the additional 12 characterization
facilities in these calculations and distinguished
between RCRA and non-RCRA facilities). The
example shows the types of calculations EPA
performed in comparing the five approaches for
the seven facilities. The example includes
facilities that treat wastes on a batch and
continuous basis. It also includes a mixture of
detected and non-detected measurements as well
as duplicate samples. For each facility, the table
lists the analytical results reported by the
laboratory for pollutant X. If the reported value
is non-detected, then this analytical result is
identified in the table as "ND" with the reported
sample-specific DL in the parenthesis. If the
value is detected, the analytical (measured) result
is shown in the table and is identical in all five
approaches because the substitutions apply only
to non-detected values. Finally, for seven
facilities, the table shows five long-term averages
for pollutant X ~ one for each of the five
substitution approaches.
4For each pollutant measured by Method
1625, EPA calculated the mean (or average) of
the detected (or non-censored) values (MNC)
using all detected values in the eleven data sets
except for the biphasic sample. The substitutions
were only applied to non-detected measurements
observed in aqueous samples because the non-
detected measurements in the biphasic sample
were evaluated separately as described in the
previous section. While EPA believes that
biphasic samples can result from some wastes in
this subcategory after processing through
emulsion breaking/gravity separation, EPA
believes that it is appropriate to use only detected
measurements from aqueous samples in
calculating the mean that will be compared to each
sample-specific DL in aqueous samples.
12-17
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-6A. Example of Substitution Methods for Non-Detected Measurements of Hypothetical Pollutant X
Facility
Sampling Day or
Reported
Approach 1
Approach 2
Approach 3
Approach 4
Approach 5
Batch Number
Values
ND=0
ND=BVf
ND=DL/2
ND=DL
ND=
(ug/L)
(BV=10 ug/L)
min(DL,MNC)
A**
Batch 1
99
99
99
99
99
99
Batch 1
95
95
95
95
95
95
Batch 2
ND (300)*
0
10
150
300
300
Batch 3
84
84
84
84
84
84
Batch 4
258
258
258
258
258
258
A: LTA
122
125
160
197
197
B
Day 1
ND (100)
0
10
50
100
100
Day 2
ND (1000)
0
10
500
1000
315
B: LTA
0
10
275
550
208
C
Day 1
57
57
57
57
57
57
Day 2
84
84
84
84
84
84
Day 3
26
26
26
26
26
26
C: LTA
56
56
56
56
56
D
Day 1
73
73
73
73
73
73
Day 2 (duplicate)ND (100)
0
10
50
100
100
Day 2 (duplicate) ND (10)
0
10
5
10
10
Day 3
62
62
62
62
62
62
D: LTA
45
48
54
63
63
E
Day 1
411
411
411
411
411
411
Day 2
257
257
257
257
257
257
Day 3
79
79
79
79
79
79
Day 4
ND (1000)
0
10
500
1000
315
Day 5
ND (220)
0
10
110
220
220
E: LTA
149
153
271
393
256
F
Day 1
ND (300)
0
10
150
300
300
Day 2
320
320
320
320
320
320
Day 3
44
44
44
44
44
44
Day 4
47
47
47
47
47
47
Day 5
180
180
180
180
180
180
F: LTA
118
120
148
178
178
G
Day 1
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
1234
Day 2
855
855
855
855
855
855
Day 3
661
661
661
661
661
661
Day 4
1377
1377
1377
1377
1377
1377
G: LTA
1032
1032
1032
1032
1032
MNC = 315 (MNC = mean of detected values from all seven facilities)
* ND=non-detected measurement. The sample-specific detection limit is provided in the parentheses,
¦f BV=baseline value for analytical results - see chapter 15
** The 7 data sets used in this table was expanded to include 19 total data sets for the final rule.
While Table 12-6A provides an example
using the five approaches, DCN 23.8 in the
record shows the results of the substitution
values under the first four approaches to the
actual seven concentration data sets from the
seven facilities with emulsion breaking/gravity
separation. DCN 23.21 shows the results of
using the fifth approach. After evaluating the
five approaches, EPA preferred Approach 5
because it tended to minimize the effect of
12-18
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
sample-specific large detection levels on the long-
term averages while providing reasonable
estimates of the actual concentrations.
Furthermore, EPA felt that Approach 5 was
superior to the other four approaches. In
particular, the first and second approaches
(substitutions of zero or the BV, respectively, for
non-detects) are poor choices because they are
likely to provide unrealistically low estimates of
the analyte concentrations in samples with high
sample-specific detection limits, especially when
all detected values are substantially greater than
zero and the BV. In addition, the third and
fourth approaches (substitution of the sample-
specific DL or DL/2, respectively) are poor
choices because the substitutions could exceed
the detected values in some cases, and thus,
possibly could over estimate the concentrations
in non-detected measurements. EPA's analyses
also show that there is little or no difference in
the averages between using the sample-specific
DL or half the sample-specific DL for many of
the facility/analyte data sets. Thus, EPA has
followed the approach outlined in 5 above
because it concluded that this approach provides
reasonable estimates of the actual concentrations
because the substituted values are neither
unrealistically low nor exceed the greatest
detected value.
Table 12-7 shows the option long-term
averages for each pollutant for the RCRA and
non-RCRA facilities separately. For each
pollutant in each subset (RCRA and non-RCRA),
the table provides a long-term average without
any replacements and another long-term average
where sample-specific detection limits greater
than the MNC value have been replaced with the
MNC value. DCN XXX provides the facility
long-term averages that were used to calculate
these pollutant long-term averages.
Table 12-6B shows the relative effects (at
the time of the 1999 proposal) of EPA's
preferred approach in comparison to Approach 1
on the estimates of priority, conventional, and
non-priority pollutant concentrations for baseline
loadings and the total removals changes for toxic
weighted pollutants. In comparison to Approach
1 (EPA's original method), EPA's preferred (or
'replaced') approach (that is, Approach 5) had
little noticeable effect on the baseline loadings for
the oils subcategory. In other words, the current
loadings are approximately the same using either
approach. There is, however, a significant
decrease in toxic pound-equivalent removals with
EPA's preferred approach. Hence, overall toxic
pound-equivalent removal estimates using EPA's
preferred approach decreased by approximately
34% from those calculated using its original
approach (that is, substituting the sample-specific
detection limit for all non-detected
measurements). The cost effectiveness
document provides more information on toxic
pound-equivalent removals.
Table 12-6B. Difference in Oils Subcategory Loadings After Non-Detect Replacement Using EPA Approach*
Priority Metals & Non-Priority Metals & Conventional Pollutant Current Pound-Equivalent
Organics Current Loading Organics Current Loading Loading Net Removals
(percent change) (percent change) (percent change) (percent change)
-5 +1 0 -34
* Data is from a comparison performed for 1999 proposal. Final estimates may vary slightly.
12-19
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-7. Long-Term Average Concentrations For Emulsion Breaking/Gravity Separation Effluent
LTA for RCRA Facilities
LTA for Non-RCRA Facilities
Pollutant
CAS Number
Without
With
Without
With
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
Classical or Conventional Parameters (mg/L)
Ammonia as nitrogen
7664-41-7
135.37
135.37
111.02
111.02
Biochem. oxygen demand
C-003
7,826.66
7,826.66
14,160.55
14,160.55
Chemical oxygen demand
C-004
44,683.32
44,683.32
75,458.21
75,458.21
Chloride
16887-00-6
2,635.01
2,635.01
31.91
31.91
Fluoride
1698448-8
69.73
69.73
26.85
26.85
Nitrate/nitrite
C-005
25.69
25.69
6.90
6.90
Oil and grease
C-007
18,690.42
18,690.42
6,130.09
6,130.09
SGT-HEM
C-037
1,442.70
1,442.70
3,467.85
3,467.85
Total cyanide
57-12-5
0.24
0.24
0.02
0.02
Total dissolved solids
C-010
16,363.93
16,363.93
11,124.49
11,124.49
Total organic carbon
C-012
6,243.59
6,243.59
15,661.45
15,661.45
Total phenols
C-020
14.63
14.63
40.85
40.85
Total phosphorus
1426544-2
1,264.87
1,264.87
3,724.63
3,724.63
Total suspended solids
C-009
6,531.56
6,531.56
5,167.65
5,167.65
Metal Parameters (ug/L)
Aluminum
7429-90-5
36,941
36,941
49,641
49,641
Antimony
7440-36-0
978
243
774
261
Arsenic
7440-38-2
1,328
1,328
102
80
Barium
7440-39-3
2,491
2,491
664
664
Boron
7440-42-8
156,850
156,850
122,998
122,998
Cadmium
7440-43-9
175
161
43
27
Calcium
7440-70-2
224,357
224,357
183,129
183,129
Chromium
7440-47-3
2,023
2,023
218
218
Cobalt
7440-484
6,074
6,074
2,077
2,077
Copper
7440-50-8
10,697
10,697
837
837
Germanium
7440-564
12,845
4,349
20,888
20,888
Iron
7439-89-6
219,497
219,497
56,564
56,564
Lead
7439-92-1
6,085
6,085
975
975
Lutetium
7439-94-3
2,385
589
4,178
4,178
Magnesium
7439-954
75,066
75,066
131,463
131,463
Manganese
7439-96-5
8,237
8,237
2,758
2,758
Mercury
7439-97-6
7
7
20
20
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
2,725
2,725
4,640
4,640
Nickel
7440-02-0
20,512
20,512
1,228
1,180
Phosphorus
7723-14-0
81,096
81,096
22,987
22,987
Potassium
7440-09-7
670,251
670,251
660,839
660,839
Selenium
7782-49-2
123
112
30
18
Silicon
7440-21-3
41,939
41,939
15,861
15,861
Silver
7440-224
563
503
52
8
Sodium
7440-23-5
2,808,044
2,808,044
2,376,236
2,376,236
Strontium
7440-24-6
3,408
1,654
4,181
114
Sulfur
7704-34-9
2,048,228
2,048,228
151,420
151,420
Tantalum
7440-25-7
12,923
4,349
20,888
20,888
Tin
7440-31-5
1,672
1,264
494
151
Titanium
7440-32-6
353
353
71
59
Zinc
7440-66-6
30,887
30,887
14,488
14,488
Organic Parameters (ug/L)
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
2,109
1,364
325
83
Alpha-terpineol
98-55-5
1,739
1,031
476
304
Aniline
62-53-3
1.209
201
334
108
12-20
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
LTA for RCRA Facilities
LTA for Non-RCRA Facilities
Pollutant
CAS Number
Without
With
Without
With
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
Anthracene
120-12-7
2,348
1,591
370
182
Benzene
71-43-2
4,572
4,572
520
520
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
1,563
551
363
167
Benzoic acid
65-85-0
15,419
14,689
15,851
15,851
Benzyl alcohol
100-51-6
1,276
334
1,354
1,329
Biphenyl
92-52-4
1,788
889
1,158
1,158
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
117-81-7
51,495
51,495
1,472
1,472
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
4,886
4,886
2,370
2,370
Carbazole
86-74-8
2,500
552
629
109
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
371
257
240
240
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
283
126
10
10
Chloroform
67-66-3
558
482
10
10
Chrysene
218-01-9
1,708
710
401
252
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
2,060
1,263
319
66
Dibenzothiophene
132-65-0
1,513
544
416
282
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
2,228
1,658
355
206
Diphenyl ether
101-84-8
1,205
122
1,590
1,590
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
4,964
4,964
403
403
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
3,138
2,433
335
96
Fluorene
86-73-7
2,257
1,513
366
154
Hexanoic acid
142-62-1
5,295
5,254
54,805
54,805
m+p xylene
179601-23-1
1,043
1,043
m-xylene
108-38-3
7,008
7,008
432
432
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
2,965
2,965
133
133
ryi-dimethylformamide
68-12-2
1,229
407
343
104
n-decane
124-18-5
71,555
71,555
1,969
1,969
n-docosane
629-97-0
2,434
1,712
4,789
4,789
n-dodecane
112-40-3
58,682
58,682
11,095
11,095
n-eicosane
112-95-8
28,807
28,807
1,626
1,588
n-hexacosane
630-01-3
1,892
1,288
557
427
n-hexadecane
544-76-3
106,817
106,817
85,199
85,199
n-octacosane
630-02-4
2,036
1,995
316
94
n-octadecane
593-45-3
66,771
66,771
6,854
6,854
n-tetracosane
646-31-1
2,174
1,771
546
529
n-tetradecane
629-59-4
194,564
194,564
50,390
50,390
Naphthalene
91-20-3
11,560
11,560
3,065
3,065
o+p xylene
136777-61-2
4,660
4,660
494
494
o-cresol
95-48-7
1,695
1,091
1,357
1,327
o-toluidine
95-53-4
1,211
158
322
67
o-xylene
95-47-6
700
700
p-cresol
106-44-5
1,145
939
1,018
1,018
p-cymene
99-87-6
1,536
824
878
878
Pentamethylbenzene
700-12-9
2,303
1,717
309
309
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
5,654
5,241
937
937
Phenol
108-95-2
6,406
6,345
16,610
16,610
Pyrene
129-00-0
2,719
1,994
1,512
1,512
Pyridine
110-86-1
1,371
483
313
34
Styrene
100-42-5
1,299
329
377
190
T etrachloroethene
127-18-4
2,238
2,238
1,779
1,779
Toluene
108-88-3
22,758
22,758
1,952
1,952
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
876
876
22
22
Tripropyleneglycol
methyl ether
20324-33-8
44,553
43,295
5,008
4,785
1.1.1 -trichloroethane
71-55-6
2.078
2.078
54
54
12-21
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
LTA for RCRA Facilities
LTA for Non-RCRA Facilities
Pollutant
CAS Number
Without
With
Without
With
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
Replacement
1,1 -dichloroethene
75-35-4
370
275
10
10
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
3,283
2,921
309
309
1,2-dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
1,438
389
309
309
1,2-dichloroethane
107-06-2
352
215
10
10
1,4-dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
1,503
762
309
309
1,4-dioxane
123-91-1
349
312
32
32
1 -methy lfluorene
1730-37-6
1,529
553
370
220
1 -methy lphenanthrene
832-69-9
1,557
666
597
561
2,3-benzofluorene
243-17-4
1,218
1,218
415
301
2,4-dimethylphenol
105-67-9
1,266
314
482
369
2-butanone
78-93-3
17,599
17,599
1,081
1,081
2-isopropylnaphthalene
2027-17-0
8,649
8,649
414
296
2-methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
6,955
6,605
2,013
2,013
2-propanone
67-64-1
158,534
158,534
8,453
8,453
3,6-dimethylphenanthrene
1576-67-6
1,194
1,194
418
309
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
59-50-7
12,407
12,407
1,245
1,245
4-methvl-2-pentanone
108-10-1
6,496
6,496
642
642
Estimation of Emulsion Breaking/
Gravity Separation Loadings 12.3.2.2
For the 1999 proposal, EPA randomly
assigned one of the seven emulsion
breaking/gravity separation data sets to each oils
facility for which EPA needed to estimate
current performance; however, the SBREFA
Panel raised the concern that this approach may
not have resulted in a representative assignment
of loadings. For the final rule, EPA has
developed another procedure to obtain average
concentrations using all seven data sets and the
characterization sampling described in Chapter 2.
The following explains EPA's final
procedure. To obtain estimates of current
pollutant loadings associated with emulsion
breaking/gravity separation, EPA developed
estimates of the pollutant loadings at each of the
84 facilities identified as having wastestreams in
the oils subcategory. To obtain estimates of
pollutant loadings, EPA needed concentration
and flow information for all facilities. EPA had
flow information from all facilities, but had
varied data on pollutant concentrations from only
nineteen facilities where EPA had sampled the
emulsion breaking/gravity separation operations.
Section 12.3.2.1 describes these nineteen
concentration data sets. For each facility in
EPA's oils subcategory database, EPA assigned
either the RCRA or non-RCRA long-term
average to the facility depending on its RCRA
status. Then, EPA estimated each facility's
pollutant loadings as the product of the total oils
wastewater flow at the facility and the pollutant
concentrations in its assigned data set.
Organics Subcategory Current
Loadings 12.3.3
EPA had limited available data from the
organics subcategory and very little data which
represent organic subcategory CWT wastewater
only. The vast majority of organic facilities
commingle large quantities of non-CWT
wastewater prior to the point of discharge.
Therefore, EPA estimated current loadings based
on the treatment technologies in place except for
the two facilities for which EPA has analytical
data representing organic subcategory
wastewater only.
Based on a review of technologies currently
used at organic subcategory facilities, EPA
placed in-place treatment for this subcategory in
12-22
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
one of five classes:
1) raw;
2) filtration only;
3) carbon adsorption;
4) biological treatment; and
5) biological treatment and multimedia
filtration.
The discussion below describes the
methodology EPA used to estimate current
loadings for each classification. Table 12-8 lists
the current performance estimates for each
classification. This table does not include current
loadings estimates for all pollutants of concern in
the organics subcategory.
EPA used the first classification ("raw") for
seven organic subcategory facilities with no
reported treatment in place for the reduction of
organic constituents. EPA based its current
loadings estimate for "raw wastewater" on EPA
sampling data at two organic facilities. These
were Episode 1987, sample points 07A and 07B
and Episode 4472, sample point 01. Because the
data at Episode 4472 represents both organic and
oils subcategory wastes, the raw loadings for
metals pollutants were based upon the Episode
1987 data alone5.
For each episode and sample point, EPA
collected one composite sample for the entire
day. In addition, EPA collected a few field
duplicates that were also composite samples that
correspond to the pollutants of concern. EPA
then averaged duplicate samples before
performing any other calculations so that there
was only one daily average for each day for each
pollutant of concern.
For each pollutant of concern and each
facility, EPA calculated a long-term average as
the arithmetic average of the daily averages.
This mean includes measured (detected) and
5 EPA's data show that the concentration of
metal pollutants in oils subcategory wastes are generally
greater than in organics subcategory wastes.
non-detected values. For non-detected values,
EPA used the sample-specific detection limit.
For two cases where the resulted were reported
as non-detected, EPA used the baseline value for
the pollutant (described in section 15) because
the laboratory did not report the sample-specific
detection limits. These two cases were for
iodine and phosphorus at episode 1987.
Once EPA had calculated the long-term
average for each facility and each pollutant of
concern, EPA then calculated the mean (that is,
arithmetic average) of the long-term averages
from the two facilities for each pollutant of
concern to estimate the "raw" current loadings
concentrations reported in Table 12-8.
EPA classified in the second category
("filtration only") three organic subcategory
facilities which only had multi-media or sand
filtration as the on-site treatment technology for
the organic waste stream. For these facilities,
EPA adjusted the "raw wastewater"
concentrations to account for 55 percent removal
ofTSS, 30 percent removal of metal parameters,
10 percent removal of BOD5, and no removal of
other classical or organic pollutants. EPA
estimated the percent reductions for facilities in
this group using the procedure previously
described in Section 12.3.2.
EPA placed in the third category two organic
subcategory facilities with carbon adsorption
(usually preceded by sand or multi-media
filtration). EPA adjusted the "raw wastewater"
concentrations to account for 50 percent removal
of organic pollutants, and no removal of all other
pollutants. Again, EPA also estimated the
percent removals for facilities in this category
using the procedure previously described in
Section 12.3.2.
EPA based the current loadings
concentrations for the fourth and fifth
classification on EPA sampling data collected at
Episode 1987. EPA calculated the current
loadings estimates for each pollutant of concern
using a similar procedure to that described above
12-23
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
for the "raw" organics subcategory current
performance.
EPA based the percent removals for five
organic subcategory facilities in the fourth
classification (biological treatment) on analytical
data collected at sample point 12 at episode
1987. For the classicals, conventionals, and
metals pollutants, if the long-term average at
sample point 12 was greater than the value at
sample point 7 at episode 1987, EPA used the
value of sample point 7. This is because the
treatment technology was ineffective for these
specific pollutants.
For the two organic subcategory facilities in
the fifth classification (biological treatment and
multimedia filtration) EPA based removals on
analytical data collected at sample point 14 for
conventionals, classicals, and metals. EPA based
the removals for organics on the data collected at
sample point 12 because EPA did not analyze
any samples for organics from sample point 14.
This is because no additional organics removals
were expected between the two treatment steps.
12-24
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-8: Organics Subcategory Baseline Long-Term Averages
Pollutant
Raw
Filtration
Only
Carbon
Adsorption
Biological
Treatment
Biological
Treatment and
Multimedia
Filtration
Classical or Conventional Parameters (mg/L)
Ammonia as nitrogen
5,680
5,680
5,680
1,060
616.0
Biochem. oxygen demand
24,224
21,802
24,224
2,440
1,564.0
Chemical oxygen demand
75,730
75,730
75,730
3,560
2,940.0
Fluoride
7
7
7
8
2.3
Nitrate/nitrite
93
93
93
2
0.2
Total cyanide
3
3
3
2
2.1
Total organic carbon
31,804
31,804
31,804
1,006
968.0
Total sulfide
4
4
4
3
1.8
Total suspended solids
1,319
725
1,319
480
399.2
Metal Parameters (ug/L)
Aluminum
4,808
1,442
4,808
2,474
291.0
Antimony
687
206
687
569
92.0
Arsenic
74
22
74
74
80.0
Barium
28,343
8,503
28,343
2,766
1,120.0
Boron
3,490
1,047
3,490
3,490
3,090.0
Calcium
1,249,000
374,700
1,249,000
286,000
641,000.0
Chromium
109
33
109
109
54.0
Cobalt
425
128
425
425
170.0
Copper
910
273
910
704
171.0
Iodine
6,270
1,881
6,270
6,270
5,800.0
Iron
3,833
1,150
3,833
3,833
2,040.0
Lead
340
102
340
314
66.0
Lithium
9,730
2,919
9,730
9,730
9,400.0
Manganese
292
88
292
227
360.0
Molybdenum
1,765
529
1,765
943
253.0
Nickel
1,632
490
1,632
1,632
1,850.0
Phosphorus
5,740
1,722
5,740
5,740
1,700.0
Potassium
973,600
292,080
973,600
973,600
971,000.0
Silicon
2,590
777
2,590
2,590
1,600.0
Sodium
4,459,000
1,337,700
4,459,000
4,459,000
5,310,000.0
Strontium
6,870
2,061
6,870
2,060
6,000.0
Sulfur
1,283,960
385,188
1,283,960
1,283,960
563,000.0
Tin
670
201
670
670
789.0
Titanium
27
8
27
27
19.0
Zinc
781
234
781
382
127.0
Organic Parameters (ug/L)
Acetophenone
1,481
1,481
741
36
35.9
Aniline
1,350
1,350
675
11
10.5
Benzene
2,765
2,765
1,382
10
10.0
Benzoic acid
9,914
9,914
4,957
320
320.0
Bromodichloromethane
542
542
271
10
10.0
Carbon disulfide
626
626
313
16
16.5
Chlorobenzene
535
535
267
10
10.0
Chloroform
7,039
7,039
3,519
73
72.6
Dimethyl sulfone
1,449
1,449
724
158
157.7
Ethylenethiourea
4,383
4,383
2,192
4,400
4,400.2
Hexachloroethane
1,311
1,311
656
11
10.5
Hexanoic acid
2,051
2,051
1,026
64
64.0
IsoDhorone
2.006
2.006
1.003
14
13.9
12-25
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Pollutant
Raw
Filtration
Only
Carbon
Adsorption
Biological
Treatment
Biological
Treatment and
Multimedia
Filtration
M-xylene
1,197
1,197
599
10
10.0
Methylene chloride
1,958,967
1,958,967
979,483
204
204.5
N,n-dimethylformamide
34,838
34,838
17,419
11
10.5
O+p xylene
705
705
352
10
10.0
O-cresol
6,195
6,195
3,098
185
184.8
P-cresol
3,322
3,322
1,661
66
66.2
Pentachlorophenol
6,870
6,870
3,435
791
791.1
Phenol
6,616
6,616
3,308
362
362.0
Pyridine
3,853
3,853
1,927
116
116.5
T etrachloroethene
3,955
3,955
1,978
112
112.1
T etrachloromethane
3,087
3,087
1,544
14
14.4
Toluene
746,077
746,077
373,039
10
10.0
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1,597
1,597
799
22
21.5
Trichloroethene
6,439
6,439
3,220
69
69.4
Vinyl chloride
775
775
388
10
10.0
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
939
939
469
10
10.0
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
1,429
1,429
714
10
10.0
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
1,364
1,364
682
10
10.0
1,1 ^-trichloroethane
1,731
1,731
865
13
13.3
1,1 -dichloroethane
538
538
269
10
10.0
1,1 -dichloroethene
610
610
305
10
10.0
1,2,3-trichloropropane
644
644
322
10
10.0
1,2-dibromoethane
2,406
2,406
1,203
10
10.1
1,2-dichlorobenzene
2,237
2,237
1,118
15
15.1
1,2-dichloroethane
4,478
4,478
2,239
10
10.0
1,3-dichloropropane
533
533
266
10
10.0
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
3,728
3,728
1,864
629
629.0
2,3-dichloroaniline
1,401
1,401
701
23
23.0
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
1,411
1,411
706
97
96.8
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
1,462
1,462
731
86
85.8
2,4-dimethylphenol
1,402
1,402
701
11
10.5
2-butanone
59,796
59,796
29,898
878
878.1
2-propanone
6,848,786
6,848,786
3,424,393
2,061
2,061.3
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
10
10
5
1
0.8
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
4
4
2
1
0.8
3,4-dichlorophenol
144
144
72
30
30.4
3,5-dichlorophenol
69
69
35
1
0.8
3,6-dichlorocatechol
3
3
2
1
0.8
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
14
14
7
1
0.8
4,5-dichloroguaiacol
2
2
1
13
12.9
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
1,342
1,342
671
64
64.0
4-chlorophenol
3,770
3,770
1,885
243
242.5
4-methyl-2-pentanone
3,312
3,312
1,656
146
146.2
5-chloroguaiacol
598
598
299
1,595
1,595.0
6-chlorovanillin
8
8
4
1
0.8
12-26
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Methodology Used to Estimate
Post-compliance Loadings 12.4
Post-compliance pollutant loadings for each
regulatory option represent the total industry
wastewater pollutant loadings after
implementation of the rule. For each option,
EPA determined an average performance level
(the "long-term average") that a facility with well
designed and operated model technologies
(which reflect the appropriate level of control) is
capable of achieving. In most cases, EPA
calculated these long-term averages using data
from CWT facilities operating model
technologies. For a few parameters, EPA
determined that CWT performance was
uniformly inadequate and transferred effluent
long-term averages from other sources.
To estimate post-compliance pollutant
loadings for each facility for a particular option,
EPA used the long-term average concentrations,
the facility's annual wastewater discharge flow,
and a conversation factor in the following
equation:
Postcompliance long - term average concentration (mg / L) *
Facility annual dischargeflow (L / yr)* —
453,600mg
= Facility postcompliance annual loading (lbs / yr)
EPA expects that all facilities subject to the
effluent limitations and standards will design and
operate their treatment systems to achieve the
long-term average performance level on a
consistent basis because facilities with well-
designed and operated model technologies have
demonstrated that this can be done. Further,
EPA has accounted for potential treatment
system variability in pollutant removal through
the use of variability factors. The variability
factors used to calculate the limitations and
standards were determined from data for the
same facilities employing the treatment
technology forming the basis for the rule.
Consequently, EPA has concluded that the
standards and limitations take into account the
level of treatment variation well within the
capability of an individual CWT facility to
control. If a facility is designed and operated to
achieve the long-term average on a consistent
basis, and if the facility maintains adequate
control of treatment variation, the allowance for
variability provided in the limitations is sufficient.
Table 12-9 presents the long-term averages
for the selected option for each subcategory.
The pollutants for which data is presented in
Table 12-9 represent the pollutants of concern at
treatable levels at the facilities which form the
basis of the options. The pollutants selected for
regulation are a much smaller subset.
12-27
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-9. Long-Term Average Concentrations (ug/L) for All Pollutants of Concern
Metals
Metals Option 4
OAs
Oils Option 9
Organics
Option 3
BPT/BAT/
Option 8
BPT/BAT/
Option 4
Pollutant of Concern
NSPS
PSES/PSNS
PSES
NSPS/PSNS
ALL
Ammonia as nitrogen
9.12
15.63
184.38
97.22
1,060.00
Biochem. oxygen demand
28.33
159.60
7,621.25
7,621.25
41.00
Chemical oxygen demand
198.56
1,333.33
17,745.83
20,490.00
3,560.00
Chloride
2,243.75
18,000.00
1,568.75
1,568.75
Fluoride
2.35
66.27
36.25
36.25
Failed tests
Hexavalent chromium
0.03
0.80
Nitrate/nitrite
12.61
531.67
46.21
20.75
2.28
Oil and Grease
Failed tests
34.34
No data
28.33
SGT-HEM
142.80
42.53
Total cyanide
Failed tests
0.17
0.11
0.11
2.18
Total dissolved Solids
18,112.50
42,566.67
Failed tests
Failed tests
Total organic Carbon
19.64
236.33
3,433.75
5,578.88
1,006.00
Total phenols
Failed tests
Failed tests
17.84
20.16
Total phosphorus
29.32
31.68
37.03
31.36
Total sulfide
24.95
Failed tests
2.80
Total suspended solids
9.25
16.80
No data
25.50
45.00
Aluminum
72.50
856.33
14,072.50
14,072.50
2,474.00
Antimony
21.25
170.00
103.06
103.06
569.40
Arsenic
11.15
Failed tests1
789.33
789.33
Failed tests
Barium
220.50
220.50
Failed tests
Beryllium
1.00
Failed tests
Boron
7,290.00
8,403.33
22,462.50
22,462.50
Failed tests
Cadmium
81.93
58.03
7.46
7.46
Calcium
407,166.67
20,000.00
172,787.50
172,787.50
286,000.00
Chromium
39.75
1,674.50
323.40
183.13
Failed tests
Cobalt
57.42
114.50
7,417.04
7,417.04
437.20
Copper
169.03
744.16
256.66
156.75
703.60
Gallium
Failed tests
Failed tests
Germanium
Failed tests
Failed tests
Indium
500.00
Failed tests
Iodine
Failed tests
Failed tests
Failed tests
Iridium
Failed tests
500.00
Iron
387.21
5,752.34
53,366.67
53,366.67
3,948.00
Lanthanum
100.00
Failed tests
Lead
55.11
176.75
148.70
98.58
Failed tests
Lithium
Failed tests
1,926.67
Failed tests
Lutetium
Failed tests
Failed tests
Magnesium
752.54
Failed tests
62,900.00
62,900.00
Manganese
11.62
48.70
5,406.46
5,406.46
227.00
Mercury
0.20
0.56
3.09
3.09
Molybdenum
527.69
1,746.67
1,542.75
1,542.75
942.80
Nickel
254.84
1,161.49
1,473.92
1,473.92
Failed tests
Osmium
100.00
Failed tests
Phosphorus
544.00
27,529.03
44,962.08
44,962.08
Failed tests
Potassium
54,175.00
410,000.00
411,750.00
411,750.00
Failed tests
Selenium
56.25
279.80
107.49
107.49
Silicon
355.75
1,446.67
19,000.00
19,000.00
2,680.00
12-28
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Metals
Metals Option 4
OAs
Oils Option 9
Organics
Option 3
BPT/BAT/
Option 8
BPT/BAT/
Option 4
Pollutant of Concern
NSPS
PSES/PSNS
PSES
NSPS/PSNS
ALL
Silver
4.50
26.44
Failed tests
Failed tests
Sodium
5,776,250.00
15,100,000
Failed tests
Failed tests
Failed tests
Strontium
Failed tests
100.00
774.63
774.63
2,060.00
Sulfur
2,820,000.00
1,214,000.00
Failed tests
Failed tests
1,370,000.00
Tantalum
Failed tests
Failed tests
Failed tests
Failed tests
Tellurium
Failed tests
Failed tests
Thallium
20.79
Failed tests
Tin
28.25
89.77
106.97
106.97
Failed tests
Titanium
3.50
56.87
21.73
21.73
Failed tests
Vanadium
11.00
11.93
Yttrium
3.50
5.00
Zinc
206.22
413.27
3,448.54
3,138.75
381.80
Zirconium
Failed tests
1,286.67
Acenaphthene
137.27
137.27
Acetophenone
35.87
Alpha-terpineol
48.33
48.33
Aniline
Failed tests
Failed tests
10.50
Anthracene
164.27
90.71
Benzene
1,058.81
1,058.81
10.00
Benzo(a)anthracene
106.76
59.71
Benzoic acid
Failed tests
3,521.67
25,581.42
37,349.63
320.00
Benzyl alcohol
Failed tests
Failed tests
Failed tests
80.65
Biphenyl
76.21
135.71
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Failed tests
Failed tests
115.74
62.87
Bromodichloromethane
Failed tests
Butyl benzyl phthalate
54.98
54.98
Carbazole
151.45
151.45
Carbon disulfide
10.00
Failed tests
28.11
28.11
Failed tests
Chlorobenzene
87.48
87.48
Failed tests
Chloroform
Failed tests
148.61
379.09
379.09
72.62
Chrysene
79.43
48.48
Dibenzofuran
135.25
135.25
Dibenzothiophene
95.76
59.44
Dibromochloromethane
Failed tests
50.45
Diethyl phthalate
759.14
365.93
Dimethyl sulfone
157.70
Diphenyl ether
Failed tests
981.54
Ethylbenzene
971.29
423.30
Ethylenethiourea
4,400.23
Fluoranthene
253.37
17.29
Fluorene
243.11
129.60
Hexachloroethane
Failed tests
Hexanoic acid
Failed tests
Failed tests
9,253.62
9,253.62
64.00
Isophorone
Failed tests
M+p xylene
422.95
422.95
M-xylene
Failed tests
Failed tests
1,520.33
940.96
10.00
Methylene chloride
Failed tests
Failed tests
4,242.03
4,242.03
204.48
N,n-dimethylformamide
Failed tests
68.13
Failed tests
Failed tests
10.50
N-decane
2,369.97
238.16
12-29
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Metals
Metals Option 4
OAs
Oils Option 9
Organics
Option 3
BPT/BAT/
Option 8
BPT/BAT/
Option 4
Pollutant of Concern
NSPS
PSES/PSNS
PSES
NSPS/PSNS
ALL
N-docosane
75.33
20.77
N-dodecane
3,834.84
233.80
N-eicosane
615.76
51.76
N-hexacosane
Failed tests
Failed tests
N-hexadecane
1,386.70
2,551.36
N-octacosane
Failed tests
Failed tests
N-octadecane
792.62
202.66
N-tetracosane
Failed tests
Failed tests
N-tetradecane
1,820.50
3,303.90
Naphthalene
1,014.23
248.73
O+p xylene
1,873.00
1,218.53
Failed tests
O-cresol
Failed tests
1,769.86
184.78
O-toluidine
Failed tests
Failed tests
O-xylene
268.52
268.52
P-cresol
630.49
956.84
66.24
P-cymene
55.59
55.59
Pentachlorophenol
791.15
Pentamethylbenzene
48.33
48.33
Phenanthrene
649.72
81.76
Phenol
Failed tests
Failed tests
Failed tests
30,681.00
362.03
Pyrene
131.77
58.00
Pyridine
Failed tests
86.97
624.78
624.78
116.46
Styrene
56.99
56.99
T etrachloroethene
475.45
475.45
112.09
T etrachloromethane
14.44
Toluene
Failed tests
Failed tests
6,104.68
3,613.18
10.00
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
21.51
Trichloroethene
Failed tests
441.63
669.61
669.61
69.42
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
478.50
478.50
Vinyl chloride
10.00
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
10.00
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
Failed tests
Failed tests
162.78
162.78
10.00
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Failed tests
1,1 ^-trichloroethane
13.30
1,1 -dichloroethane
10.00
1,1 -dichloroethene
Failed tests
Failed tests
219.48
219.48
10.00
1,2,3-trichloropropane
10.00
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
117.45
117.45
1,2-dibromoethane
10.14
1,2-dichlorobenzene
48.33
48.33
Failed tests
1,2-dichloroethane
272.57
272.57
10.00
1,3-dichloropropane
Failed tests
1,4-dichlorobenzene
87.35
87.35
1,4-dioxane
Failed tests
Failed tests
Failed tests
Failed tests
1 -methy lfluorene
48.33
33.65
1 -methy lphenanthrene
76.32
54.47
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
628.96
2,3-benzofluorene
Failed tests
54.98
23-dichloroaniline
23.04
12-30
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Metals
Metals Option 4
OAs
Oils Option 9
Organics
Option 3
BPT/BAT/
Option 8
BPT/BAT/
Option 4
Pollutant of Concern
NSPS
PSES/PSNS
PSES
NSPS/PSNS
ALL
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
96.76
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
85.76
2,4-dimethylphenol
Failed tests
Failed tests
Failed tests
2-butanone
Failed tests
1,272.48
11,390.45
11,390.45
878.12
2-isopropylnaphthalene
Failed tests
Failed tests
2-methylnaphthalene
1,540.02
160.58
2-propanone
Failed tests
13,081.47
Failed tests
Failed tests
2,061.28
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
0.80
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
Failed tests
3,4-dichlorophenol
30.40
3,5-dichlorophenol
0.80
3,6-dichlorocatechol
Failed tests
3,6-dimethylphenanthrene
Failed tests
52.33
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
Failed tests
4,5-dichloroguaiacol
Failed tests
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
Failed tests
655.39
Failed tests
4-chlorophenol
242.50
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Failed tests
Failed tests
7,848.00
6,624.87
146.16
5-chloroguaiacol
Failed tests
6-chlorovanillin
Failed test
'As explained in section 10, EPA used the long-term average from metals option 1A for arsenic even though the option 4 data
failed the test.
A blank entry indicates the analyte is not a pollutant of concern for the subcategory.
12-31
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Methodology Used to Estimate
Pollutant Removals 12.5
For each regulatory option, the difference
between baseline loadings and post-compliance
loadings represent the pollutant removals. For
direct discharging CWT facilities, this represents
removals of pollutants being discharged to
surface waters. For indirect dischargers, this
represents removals of pollutants being
discharged to POTWs less the removals
achieved by POTWs. EPA calculated the
pollutant removals for each facility using the
following equation:
Baseline Loadings- Postcompliance Loadings
= Pollutant Removals
EPA used the following methodology to
estimate pollutant removals:
1) If the post-compliance loading of a pollutant
was higher than the baseline loading, EPA
set the removal to zero;
2) If EPA did not identify a particular pollutant
in the wastewater of a facility at baseline and
that pollutant was present at baseline in the
wastewater of a facility used as the basis for
determining limitations and standards
associated with one of the regulatory
options, EPA set the removal to zero.);
3) If EPA did not calculate a long-term average
for a pollutant for a technology option (i.e.,
the post-compliance loading for the pollutant
could not be calculated), EPA set the
removal to zero; and
4) For indirect dischargers, EPA additionally
reduced the pollutant removal estimate by
the POTW removal percentage. Therefore,
the pollutant removal estimates for indirect
dischargers only account for pollutant
removals over and above the POTW
removals.
Pollutant Loadings and Removals 12.6
EPA estimated annual baseline and post-
compliance loadings for each of the
subcategories and the respective regulatory
options using the methodology described in
Sections 12.3 through 12.5 of this document.
For the oils subcategory, EPA extrapolated the
facility-specific loadings and removals from the
84 in-scope discharging facilities to provide
estimates of an estimated total population of 141
discharging oils facilities. Facilities with no
wastewater discharge ("zero dischargers") have
no pollutant loadings or removals.
Tables 12-10through 12-13 present the total
baseline and post-compliance loadings and the
pollutant removals for the facilities in each
subcategory.
12-32
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-10. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Reductions for the CWT Metals Subcategory7
Pollutant of Concern
Current Wastewater Pollutant
Loading
(lb/vr)
Direct Indirect
Dischargers Dischargers
Post-Compliance
Pollutant Loading
(lb/vr)
Direct
Dischargers
Indireci
Dischargers
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(lb/yr)
Direct Indirect
Dischargers Dischargers
Conventional or Classical Parameters
Ammonia as N
991,937
N/A
60,504
N/A
931,432
N/A
bod5
13,300,815
N/A
576,413
N/A
12,724,402
N/A
COD
35,051,565
N/A
4,791,127
N/A
30,260,438
N/A
Cyanide, total
6,213
497
539
58
5,674
440
HEM (oil & grease)2
224,690
N/A
121,568
N/A
103,122
N/A
Hexavalent chromium
169,960
15,789
2,425
2,841
167,535
12,948
Nitrate/nitrite
8,966,661
N/A
1,867,927
N/A
7,098,734
N/A
Phenols, total
17,313
4,760
2,917
660
14,397
4,099
Phosphorus, total
242,069
171,842
129,555
127,905
112,514
43,937
Sulfide, total (Iod.)
111,051
2,690
111,051
2,690
0
0
TDS
191,398,163
190,280,123
160,479,788
158,109,561
30,918,375
32,170,561
TOC
9,580,389
3,693,856
839,288
283,579
8,741,101
3,410,277
TSS
5,533,906
N/A
64,680
N/A
5,469,226
N/A
Metal or Semi-metal Parameters
Aluminum
137,478
9,521
3,042
299
134,436
9,223
Antimony
20,399
4,839
608
228
19,791
4,611
Arsenic
7,330
297
507
194
6,823
102
Beryllium
20
6
20
6
0
0
Boron
127,035
100,693
34,055
25,900
92,981
74,793
Cadmium
71,235
546
240
23
70,995
523
Calcium
11,008,982
13,016,845
82,743
73,852
10,926,239
12,942,993
Chloride
123,304,754
106,487,827
64,350,877
54,743,908
58,953,877
51,743,920
Chromium
126,679
4,925
5,883
1,330
120,796
3,596
Cobalt
43,211
1,444
437
415
42,773
1,029
Copper
299,047
1,838
2,419
449
296,628
1,389
Fluoride
365,007
103,061
192,226
97,935
172,781
5,126
Iridium
22,404
4,731
2,069
525
20,336
4,207
Iron
192,066
11,439
20,370
4,183
171,696
7,256
Lead
24,634
1,571
654
161
23,980
1,411
Lithium
100,202
90,690
7,971
5,756
92,231
84,933
Magnesium
44,670
20,253
44,670
20,253
0
0
Manganese
26,434
4,068
178
127
26,256
3,941
Mercury
86
7
2
0.2
84
7
Molybdenum
23,596
17,528
6,447
5,717
17,148
11,811
Nickel
101,936
33,817
4,226
2,201
97,710
31,616
Phosphorus
1,166,861
215,032
96,649
33,988
1,070,211
181,044
Potassium
6,805,699
5,095,340
1,468,873
1,001,254
5,336,826
4,094,086
Selenium
1,307
833
1,008
736
300
98
Silicon
38,467
12,245
5,288
4,247
33,179
7,998
Silver
772
94
95
13
677
82
Sodium
64,553,546
66,330,106
56,513,563
59,324,636
8,039,983
7,005,470
Strontium
16,574
17,380
414
344
16,160
17,036
Sulfur
9,513,625
6,341,910
5,022,530
4,199,022
4,491,095
2,142,889
Tin
111,997
5,861
332
208
111,665
5,653
Titanium
62,688
136
195
19
62,493
117
Vanadium
3,733
238
49
44
3,684
194
Yttrium
131
97
20
16
112
81
Zinc
245,781
3,655
1,577
348
244,204
3,307
Zirconium
5,317
2,324
5,278
2,314
39
10
Organic Parameters
Benzoic acid
16.016
2.331
10.455
1.729
5.562
602
12-33
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-10. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Reductions for the CWT Metals Subcategory7
Current Wastewater Pollutant
Post-Compliance
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Loading
Pollutant Loading
Reductions
Pollutant of Concern
(lb/yr)
(lb/yr)
(lb/yr)
Direct
Indirect
Direct
ndireci
Direct
Indirect
Dischargers Dischargers
Dischargers Dischargers
Dischargers Dischargers
Butanone
1,592
40
1,592
40
0
0
Carbon disulfide
561
132
561
132
0
0
Dibromochloromethane
316
69
172
34
144
36
Methylene chloride
462
261
462
261
0
0
N,n-mtrosomorpholine
240
50
240
50
0
0
N,n-dimethylformamide
453
75
282
42
171
33
Pyridine
278
14
278
14
0
0
Toluene
1,072
54
1,072
54
0
0
Trichloroethylene
572
58
572
58
0
0
1,1-dichlroethene
438
143
438
143
0
0
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
352
44
352
44
0
0
2-ProDanone
18.231
2.393
18.231
2.393
0
0
JA11 loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect dischargers.
2HEM - Hexane Extractable Material
12-34
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-11. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Reductions for the CWT Oils Subcategory7
Current Wastewater Pollutant
Post-Compliance
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Loading
Pollutant Loading
Reductions
Pollutant of Concern
db/vr)
db/vr)
db/vr)
Direct Indireci
Direct Indirec
Direct Indirect
Dischargers Dischargers
Dischargers Discharger:
Dischargers Dischargers
Conventional or Classical Parameters
Ammonia as Nitrogen
11,783
499,382
11,783
499,382
0
0
bod5
1,502,944
N/A
1,411,602
N/A
91,343
N/A
COD
8,008,834
N/A
4,032,459
N/A
3,976,375
N/A
Cyanide, Total
3
137
3
84
0
54
HEM (and O&G)2
206,539
N/A
5,574
N/A
200,965
N/A
Nitrate/Nitrite
732
N/A
732
N/A
0
N/A
Phenols, Total
924
32,528
924
22,118
0
10,410
Phosphorus, Total
547,900
14,017,083
6,171
309,268
541,729
13,707,815
SGT-HEM
116,841
N/A
8,370
N/A
108,472
N/A
TDS
1,180,709
N/A
1,180,709
N/A
0
N/A
TOC
1,662,244
N/A
1,097,930
N/A
564,314
N/A
TSS
428,553
N/A
96,593
N/A
331,960
N/A
Metal or Semi-metal Parameters
Aluminum
7,302
19,032
2,714
8,729
4,589
10,303
Antimony
38
412
19
234
19
178
Arsenic
12
845
12
589
0
256
Barium
98
2,814
42
754
56
2,061
Boron
18,093
499,752
14,479
372,148
3,615
127,604
Cadmium
4
35
1
6
3
30
Chromium
32
800
32
301
0
500
Cobalt
306
15,055
306
15,055
0
0
Copper
123
3,239
22
325
101
2,914
Germanium
3,073
37,018
3,073
37,018
0
0
Iron
8,321
98,443
4,275
55,072
4,046
43,371
Lead
143
2,989
19
280
124
2,709
Magnesium
19,339
468,308
11,369
342,703
7,970
125,605
Manganese
406
14,539
406
12,004
0
2,534
Mercury
3
7
1
2
2
5
Molybdenum
683
15,709
291
8,521
392
7,188
Nickel
174
18,430
174
3,785
0
14,645
Phosphorus
3,381
63,798
3,381
48,447
0
15,351
Selenium
3
161
3
157
0
4
Silicon
2,333
87,686
2,333
64,452
0
23,234
Silver
1
101
1
101
0
0
Strontium
17
2,658
17
1,616
0
1,042
Sulfur
22,274
3,338,602
22,274
3,338,602
0
0
Tin
22
1,486
19
397
3
1,089
Titanium
9
64
4
14
5
50
Zinc
2,131
20,399
399
5,666
1,732
14,734
Organic Parameters
Acenapthene
2
38
2
11
0
27
Alpha-terpinol
7
133
7
117
0
16
Aniline
2
40
2
40
0
0
Anthracene
4
126
4
43
0
83
Benzene
12
427
12
221
0
206
Benzo(a)anthracene
4
32
4
17
0
15
Benzoic Acid
358
13.156
358
13.156
0
0
12-35
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-11. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Reductions for the CWT Oils Subcategory7
Current Wastewater Pollutant
Post-Compliance
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Loading
Pollutant Loading
Reductions
Pollutant of Concern
db/vr)
db/vr)
db/vr)
Direct Indireci
Direct Indirec
Direct Indirect
Dischargers Dischargers
Dischargers Discharger:
Dischargers Dischargers
Benzyl alcohol
30
958
16
958
14
0
Biphenyl
26
173
26
24
1
150
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
33
31,747
12
388
21
31,360
Butyl benzyl phthalate
54
793
11
26
43
767
Carbazole
2
425
2
260
0
165
Carbon disulfide
5
171
5
37
0
135
Chlorobenzene
0
8
0
6
0
1
Chloroform
0
193
0
167
0
26
Chrysene
6
55
6
19
0
36
Di-n-butyl phthalate
0
9
0
9
0
0
Dibenzofuran
1
45
1
13
0
32
Dibenzothiopene
6
247
6
105
0
141
Diethyl phthalate
5
1,209
5
841
0
369
Diphenyl ether
36
106
36
106
0
0
Ehtylbenzene
9
520
9
230
0
290
Fluoranthene
2
2,189
2
581
0
1,608
Fluorene
3
796
3
331
0
465
Hexanoic acid
1,239
26,763
1,239
8,878
0
17,885
O+p-xylene
11
2,835
11
1,830
0
1,005
N-decane
45
99,608
45
11,667
0
87,941
N-docosane
108
1,972
4
75
104
1,897
N-dodecane
251
5,811
46
1,421
205
4,390
N-eicosane
36
3,525
10
342
26
3,183
N-hexacosane
10
899
10
899
0
0
N-hexadecane
1,926
116,435
502
3,343
1,424
113,092
N-octadecane
155
33,731
40
1,894
115
31,837
N-tetracosane
12
1,187
12
1,187
0
0
N-tetradecane
1,139
123,887
650
4,393
489
119,494
N,n-dimethylformamide
2
116
2
116
0
0
Naphthalene
69
1,364
49
406
20
958
O-cresol
30
2,588
30
2,588
0
0
M-xylene
10
563
10
255
0
308
P-cresol
23
1,226
23
966
0
260
P-cymene
20
8
11
1
9
7
Pentamethylbenzene
7
297
7
35
0
262
Phenanthrene
21
528
16
209
5
319
Phenol
376
2,735
376
2,735
0
0
Pyrene
34
1,174
11
176
23
999
Pyridine
1
37
1
37
0
0
Styrene
4
65
4
27
0
39
T etrachloroethy lene
40
1,297
40
546
0
751
Toluene
44
1,477
44
787
0
690
Trichloroethene
0
175
0
149
0
26
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
108
36,509
93
1,888
16
34,620
1 -methy lfluorene
5
223
5
60
0
163
1 -methy lphenanthrene
13
402
11
95
2
307
1,1 -dichloroethene
0
128
0
128
0
1
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
1
303
1
61
0
242
1.2-dichloroethane
0
37
0
17
0
21
12-36
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-11. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Reductions for the CWT Oils Subcategory7
Current Wastewater Pollutant
Post-Compliance
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Loading
Pollutant Loading
Reductions
Pollutant of Concern
db/vr)
db/vr)
db/vr)
Direct
Indireci
Direct Indirec
Direct
Indirect
Dischargers
Dischargers
Dischargers Discharger:
Dischargers Dischargers
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
7
435
7
58
0
377
1,4-dichlorobenzene
7
956
7
319
0
637
1,4-dioxane
1
296
1
296
0
0
2,3-benzofluorene
7
239
7
239
0
0
2,4-dimethylphenol
8
747
8
747
0
0
2-methylnaphthalene
46
11,115
32
6,500
14
4,615
2-phenylnaphthalene
3
317
3
317
0
0
2-propanone
191
41,345
191
41,345
0
0
3,6-dimethy lphenanthrene
7
407
7
407
0
0
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
28
7,996
28
7,996
0
0
4-methvl-2-Dentanone
15
1.369
15
1369
0
0
JA11 loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect dischargers.
2HEM - Hexane Extractable Material
12-37
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-12. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Reductions for the CWT Qrganics Subcategory7
Current Wastewater Pollutant
Post-Compliance
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Loading
Pollutant Loading
Reductions
Pollutant of Concern
(lb/yr)
(lb/yr)
(lb/yr)
Direct
Indirect
Direct
Indirec
Direct Indirect
Dischargers
Dischargers
Dischargers
Dischargers
Dischargers Dischargers
Conventional or Classical Parameters
Ammonia as N
138,389
1,076,771
138,389
582,889
0 493,881
bod5
318,555
833,340
318,555
488,569
0 344,770
COD
464,777
4,396,709
464,777
2,033,935
0 2,362,774
Cyanide
285
308
285
278
0 31
TOC
131,339
2,934,599
131,339
1,332,109
0 1,602,490
TSS
62,667
42,088
62,667
26,739
0 15,350
Metal or Semi-metal Parameters
Aluminum
323
312
323
277
0 35
Antimony
74
57
74
50
0 7
Calcium
37,339
276,063
37,339
121,864
0 154,199
Cobalt
57
92
57
92
0 0
Copper
92
40
92
35
0 6
Iron
515
457
515
457
0 0
Manganese
30
143
30
136
0 7
Molybdenum
123
381
123
264
0 117
Silicon
350
724
350
724
0 0
Strontium
269
1,835
269
1,118
0 717
Sulfur
178,861
356,145
178,861
356,145
0 0
Zinc
50
50
50
35
0 15
Organic Parameters
Acetophenone
5
20
5
9
0 12
Benzene
1
120
1
95
0 25
Chloroform
9
942
9
618
0 324
Hexanoic acid
8
99
8
44
0 56
Methylene chloride
27
262,279
27
105,492
0 156,788
M-xylene
1
637
1
565
0 72
O-cresol
24
863
24
363
0 500
Pentachlorophenol
103
1,758
103
841
0 917
Phenol
47
92
47
40
0 52
Pyridine
15
52
15
22
0 30
P-cresol
9
277
9
115
0 161
T etrachloroethene
15
407
15
304
0 104
T etrachloromethane
2
289
2
224
0 65
Toluene
1
8,377
1
3,387
0 4,990
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
3
570
3
490
0 80
Trichloroethene
9
443
9
297
0 147
Vinyl chloride
1
114
1
105
0 9
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
1
796
1
723
0 73
1,1,1-trichloro ethane
1
182
1
159
0 24
1,1,2-trichloroethane
2
879
2
747
0 132
1,1 -dichloroethene
1
412
1
386
0 26
1,2,3-trichloropropane
1
1,596
1
1,490
0 105
1,2-dibromoethane
1
1,821
1
1,473
0 348
1,2-dichloroethane
1
307
1
221
0 86
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
82
739
82
375
0 364
2,3-dichloroaniline
3
252
3
109
0 143
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
13
302
13
136
0 166
2-butanone
115
1,011
115
661
0 351
2-propanone
269
362,747
269
167,960
0 194,787
4-methvl-2-Dentanone
19
1.022
19
955
0 67
JA11 loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect dischargers.
12-38
-------
Chagtei^^Pollutan^^adin^jn^miora^stimate^^^Deve/oŁme«^o««we«^b)^/!^^^^oi«^o!«^^|ategory
Table 12-13. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Reductions for the Entire CWT Industry7
Pollutant of Concern2
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(lb/yr)
Direct Indirect
Dischargers Dischargers
Post-Compliance
Pollutant Loading
(lb/yr)
Direct Indirec
Dischargers Discharger:
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(lb/yr)
Direct Indirect
Dischargers Dischargers
Conventionals 21,578,700 N/A 2,657,700
Priority Metals 901,300 99,800 18,000
Non-Conventional Metals3 1,018,500 1,565,400 171,900
Priority Organics 3,900 326,700 3,700
Non-Conventional
Organics 44,200 915,100 35,900
N/A 18,921,000
17,100 883,300
992,000 846,500
122,700 100
295,200
8,300
N/A
82,700
573,300
204,000
619,900
JA11 loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect dischargers.
2Note the following are not included: cyanide, total phosphorus, total phenols, TOC, COD, TDS, Ammonia as N, and other
nonconventional classical parameters
3Does not include calcium, chloride, fluoride, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, and sulfur
12-39
-------
Chapter
13
NON-WATER QUALITY IMPACTS
Sections 304(b) and 306 of the Clean Water
Act provide that non-water quality
environmental impacts are among the factors
EPA must consider in establishing effluent
limitations guidelines and standards. These
impacts are the environmental consequences not
directly associated with wastewater that may be
associated with the regulatory options
considered. For this rule, EPA evaluated the
potential effect of the selected options on air
emissions, solid waste generation, and energy
consumption.
This section quantifies the non-water quality
impacts associated with the options considered
for the final rule. Cost estimates for the impacts,
and the methods used to estimate these costs, are
discussed in Chapter 11 of this document. In all
cases, the costs associated with non-water
quality impacts were included in EPA's cost
estimates used in the economic evaluation of the
promulgated limitations and standards.
Am Pollution 13.1
CWT facilities receive and produce
wastewaters that contain significant
concentrations of organic compounds, some of
which are listed in Title 3 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. These
wastewaters often pass through a series of
collection and treatment units. These units are
open to the atmosphere and allow wastewater
containing organic compounds to contact
ambient air. Atmospheric exposure of the
organic-containing wastewater may result in
significant water-to-air transfers of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs).
The primary sources of VOCs in the CWT
industry are the wastes treated in the oils and the
organics subcategory. In general, CWT facilities
have not installed air or wastewater treatment
technologies designed to control the release of
VOCs to the atmosphere. Additionally, most
CWT facilities do not employ best management
practices designed to control VOC emissions
(such as covering their treatment tanks).
Therefore, as soon as these VOC-containing oil
and organic subcategory wastewaters contact
ambient air, volatilization will begin to occur.
Thus, volatilization of VOCs and HAPs from
wastewater may begin immediately on receipt, as
the wastewater enters the CWT facility, or as the
wastewater is discharged from the process unit.
Emissions can also occur from wastewater
collection units such as process drains, manholes,
trenches, sumps, junction boxes, and from
wastewater treatment units such as screens,
settling basins, equalization basins, biological
aeration basins, dissolved air flotation systems,
chemical precipitation systems, air or steam
strippers lacking air emission control devices, and
any other units where the wastewater is in
contact with the air. In some cases, volatilization
will begin at the facility and continue as the
wastewaters are discharged to the local river or
POTW.
As discussed in 1999 proposal, EPA
considered including air stripping in the
technology basis for the final limitations and
standards, but rejected it because it would not
have resulted in significantly different limitations.
Because this rule would not allow any less
stringent control of VOCs than is currently in
place at most CWT facilities, EPA does not
13-1
-------
Chagtei^^Noi^Watei^ualit^mgact^^^Deve/ogjeM^oa«Me«^b^/2^W^^o/«^SbMrc^Wegory
project any net increase in air emissions from
volatilization of organic pollutants due to the
Agency's final action. As such, no adverse air
impacts are expected to occur as a result of these
regulations.
Table 13-1 provides information on
incremental VOC emissions resulting from
implementation of the proposed rule at CWT oils
and organics facilities. EPA has not provided
information for the metals subcategory, but
concluded these emissions would be negligible.
For this analysis, EPA defined a volatile pollutant
as described in Chapter 7 and calculated volatile
pollutant baseline and post-compliance loadings
and reductions as described in Chapter 12. EPA
additionally assumed that 80% of the volatile
pollutant reduction would be due to volatilization.
EPA selected 80% based on an assessment of
information developed during the development of
OCPSF guidelines (see pages 275-285 of the
October 1987 "Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the OCPSF Point Source Category (EPA
440/1-87/009)). In EPA's view, the information
presented in Table 13-1 represents a "worst-
case" scenario in terms of incremental volatile air
emissions, since the analysis assumes no
volatilization of pollutants at baseline. As
explained earlier, EPA found that the majority of
these pollutants are already being volatilized in
the absence of additional treatment technologies.
Table 13-1 also shows that, for this worst-
case scenario, the sum of the annual VOC air
emissions at CWT facilities would not exceed
400 tons of HAPs. Under the Clean Air Act,
major sources of pollution by HAPs are defined
as having either: (1) a total emission of 25
tons/year or higher for the total HAPs from all
emission points at a facility; or (2) an emission of
10 tons/year or higher from all emission points at
a facility. Based on these criteria, incremental air
emissions from this worst-case scenario analysis
of the final BPT/BAT/PSES organics
subcategory options would cause three facilities
to be classified as major sources. For the oils
and metals subcategories, EPA does not project
any major sources due to incremental removals.
Since EPA concluded that the three organics
subcategory CWT facilities classified as major
sources would be classified as such in the
absence of the implementation of the final rule,
EPA has determined that air emission impacts
from the selected options are acceptable.
Although this rule is not based on technology
that uses air stripping with emissions control to
abate the release of volatile pollutants, EPA
encourages all facilities which accept waste
containing volatile pollutants to incorporate air
stripping with overhead recovery or destruction
into their wastewater treatment systems.
Additionally, EPA also notes that CWT sources
of hazardous air pollutants are subject to
maximum achievable control technology
(MACT) as promulgated for off-site waste and
recovery operations on July 1, 1996 (61 FR
34140) as 40 CFRPart63.
Finally, EPA notes that the increased energy
requirements discussed in Section 13.3 may
result in increased emissions of combustion
byproducts associated with energy production.
Given the relatively small projected increases in
energy use, however, EPA does not anticipate
that this effect would be significant.
13-2
-------
Chagtei^^Noi^Watei^ualit^mgact^^^Deve/ogjeM^oa«Me«^b^/2^W^^o/«^SbMrc^Wegory
Table 13-1. Projected Air Emissions at CWT Facilities
Subcategory
VOCs Emitted
(tons/yr)
Priority VOCs
Emitted
(tons/yr)
Number of
Projected MACT*
Facilities
Major Constituents
Oils
69
32
0
Toluene
Organics
329
323
3
Methylene Chloride
and Toluene
MACT requires 25 tons of volatile emissions for a facility to be a major source or 10 tons of a
single pollutant at a single facility.
Solid Waste 13.2
Solid waste will be generated due to a
number of the treatment technologies selected as
the basis for this rule. These wastes include
sludge from biological treatment systems,
chemical precipitation and clarification systems,
and gravity separation and dissolved air flotation
systems. EPA estimated costs for off-site
disposal in Subtitle C and D landfills of the solid
wastes generated due to the implementation of
the technologies selected as the basis of the final
CWT limitations and standards. These costs
were included in the economic evaluation of the
selected technologies.
T o estimate the incremental sludge generated
from the selected options, EPA subtracted the
volume of sludge currently being generated by
the CWT facilities from the estimated volume of
sludge that would be generated after
implementation of the options. EPA calculated
the volume of sludge currently being generated
by CWT facilities for all sludge-generating
technologies currently being operated at CWT
facilities. EPA then calculated the volume of
sludge that would be generated by CWT facilities
after implementation of the final rule. Table 13-
2 presents the estimated increase in volumes of
filter cake generated by CWT facilities that
would result from implementation of the
promulgated limitations and standards.
The precipitation and subsequent separation
processes selected as the technology basis for the
metals subcategory will produce a metal-rich
filter cake. In most instances, the resulting filter
cake will require disposal in Subtitle C and D
landfills. EPA estimates that the annual increase
in filter cake generated by the metals subcategory
facilities will be 3.7 million gallons. In evaluating
the economic impact of sludge disposal, EPA
assumed that all of the sludge generated would
be disposed in a landfill. This assumption does
not take into consideration the fact that an
undetermined portion of the generated filter cake
may be recovered in secondary metals
manufacturing processes rather than being
disposed in a landfill.
The dissolved air flotation system and
additional gravity separation step selected as the
technology basis for the oils subcategory will
produce a metal-rich filter press cake that
requires disposal. This filter cake may be either
disposed in Subtitle C and D landfills or in some
cases through incineration. EPA estimates that
the annual increase in filter cake generated by the
oils subcategory facilities will be 22.7 million
gallons. These estimates are based on
implementation of option 8 technology for
indirect dischargers (PSES) and option 9 for
direct dischargers (BPT/BAT). EPA applied a
scale-up factor to include the estimated volume
of filter cake generated by the NOA non-
respondents. In evaluating the economic impact
of sludge disposal, EPA assumed that all of the
sludge generated would be disposed in a landfill.
Finally, the biological treatment selected as
the technology basis for the organics subcategory
will produce a filter cake that consists primarily
13-3
-------
Chagtei^^Noi^Watei^ualit^mgact^^^Deve/ogjeM^oa«Me«^b^/2^W^^o/«^SbMrc^Wegory
of biosolids and requires disposal. This filter
cake can be disposed by a variety of means
including disposal at Subtitle C and Subtitle D
landfills, incineration, composting, and land
application. However, contaminants contained in
the sludges may limit the use of composting and
land application. EPA estimates that the annual
increase in filter cake generated by the organics
subcategory facilities will be 4.3 million gallons.
In evaluating the economic impact of sludge
disposal, EPA assumed that all of the sludge
generated would be disposed in a landfill.
Table 13-3 presents the percentage of the
national volume of hazardous and non-hazardous
waste sent to landfills represented by the increase
for each regulatory option. The information
presented in this table represents the tonnage of
waste accepted by landfills in 1992 and was
based on information collected during the
Table 13-2. Projected Incremental Filter Cake Generation at CWT Facilities
CWT
Subcategory
Filter Cake Generated (million gal/yr)
Option
Indirect
Hazardous
Direct Total
Non-Hazardous
Indirect Direct
Total
Metals
4
0.80
1.68 2.48
0.40
0.83
1.23
Oils
8
9
10.04
10.04
0 0
12.28
0.36
12.28
0.36
Organics
4
2.89
0 2.89
1.42
0
1.42
Total
-
13.73
1.68 15.41
14.1
1.19
15.29
Table 13-3. National Volume of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Waste Sent to Landfills
CWT
Subcategory
Option
Percentage of Annual Tonnage of Waste
Disposed in National Landfills
Hazardous
Non-hazardous
Metals
4
0.032
0.004
Oils
8
9
0.093
0
0.028
0.001
Organics
4
0.024
0.003
Total
0.149
0.036
13-4
development of the proposed Landfills Point
Source Category (see pages 3-32 of the January
1998 "Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Landfills Point Source Category" (EPA-
821-R-97-022)). EPA has concluded that the
disposal of these filter cakes and/or sludges will
not have an adverse effect on the environment or
result in the release of pollutants in the filter cake
to other media. EPA made this conclusion for
two reasons. First, EPA estimates that the
additional solid wastes disposed in landfills as a
result of this regulation will be less than 0.19% of
the annual tonnage of waste currently disposed in
landfills. Second, the disposal of these wastes
into controlled Subtitle C and D landfills is
strictly regulated by the RCRA program.
-------
Chagtei^^Noi^Watei^ualit^mgact^^^Deve/ogjeM^oa«Me«^b^/2^W^^o/«^SbMrc^Wegory
Energy Requirements 13.3
EPA estimates that the attainment of BPT,
BCT, BAT, and PSES will increase energy
consumption by a small increment over present
industry use. With the exception of the oils
subcategory, the projected increase in energy
consumption is primarily due to the incorporation
of components such as power pumps, mixers,
blowers, and controls. For the metals
subcategory, EPA projects an increased energy
usage of 3.5 million kilowatt hours per year and,
for the organics subcategory, an increased energy
usage of 0.5 million-kilowatt hours peryear. For
the oils subcategory, however, the main energy
requirement in today's rule is for the operation of
dissolved air flotation units. Dissolved air
flotation units require air sparging to help
separate the waste stream. For the oils
subcategory, EPA projects an increased energy
usage of 3.4 million kilowatt hours per year.
Overall, an increase of 7.5 million kilowatt-hours
peryear would be required for today's regulation
which equates to 4210 barrels of oil per day. In
1996, the United States consumed 18.3 million
barrels of oil per day.
Labor Requirements 13.4
The installation of new wastewater treatment
equipment along with improvements in the
operation of existing equipment for compliance
with the proposed limitations and standards
would result in increased operating labor
requirements for CWT facilities. It is estimated
that compliance with the CWT regulations would
result in industry-wide employment gains. Table
13-5 presents the estimated increase in labor
requirements for the CWT industry.
13-5
-------
Chajrtei^^Noi^Water
^^^^w^act^^^Develo^nen^ocumen^bt^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^oi^
Table 13-4. Projected Energy Requirements for CWT Facilities
Energy Usage (kwh/yr)
CWT Subcategory
Option
Indirect
Dischargers
Direct
Dischargers
Total
Metals
4
1,805,369
1,551,195
3,356,564
Cyanide Waste
Pretreatment
2
129,000
18,046
147,046
Oils
8
9
3,336,584
137,061
3,336,584
137,061
Organics
4
505,175
24,069
529,244
Total
-
5,776,128
1,730,371
7,506,499
Table 13-5. Projected Labor Requirements for CWT Facilities
Operating Labor Requirements
CWT
Subcategory
Option
Indirect Dischargers
(Hours/yr) (Men/yr)
Direct Dischargers
(Hours/yr) (Men/yr)
Total
(Hours/yr) (Men/yr)
Metals
4
85,448
42.7
27,105
13.6
112,553
56.3
Cyanide
Waste
Pretreatment
2
16,425
8.2
2,190
1.1
18,615
9.3
Oils
8
9
57,825
25.9
2,496
1.2
57,825
2,496
25.9
1.2
Organics
4
29,042
14.5
936
0.5
29,978
15
Total
-
188,740
91.3
32,727
16.4
221,467
107.7
13-6
-------
Chapter
14
IMPLEMENTATION
Effluent limitations and pretreatment
standards act as a primary mechanism to
control the discharges of pollutants to waters of
the United States. These limitations and
standards are applied to individual facilities
through NPDES permits and through POTW
pretreatment programs.
Implementation of a regulation is a critical
step in the regulatory process. If a regulation is
not effectively implemented, the removals and
environmental benefits estimated for the
regulation may not be achieved. Likewise,
ineffective implementation could hinder the
facility's operations without achieving the
estimated environmental benefits. In discussions
with permit writers and control authorities, many
stated that close communication with CWT
facilities is important for effective
implementation of discharge requirements.
Permit writers and control authorities need to
have a thorough understanding of a CWT
facility's operations to effectively implement this
rule. Likewise, CWT facilities must maintain
close communication with the waste generators
in order to accurately characterize and treat the
incoming waste streams.
This chapter provides direction to permit
writers, control authorities, and CWT facilities to
aid in the implementation of this rule. Interested
parties should also consult the Small Entity
Compliance Guide for the Final Effluent
Limitations. Guidelines. Pretreatment Standards
and New Source Performance Standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment Industry.
Based on local site-specific factors, the
permit writer or control authority may establish
limitations and standards for pollutants not
covered by this regulation and may require more
stringent limits or standards for covered
pollutants.
Compliance Dates 14.1
Existing Direct Disch argers 14.1.1
New and reissued Federal and State NPDES
permits to direct dischargers must immediately
include the CWT effluent limitations (BAT) if
applicable.
Existing Indirect Dischargers 14.1.2
Existing indirect dischargers (discharge to a
POTWs) must comply with the applicable CWT
pretreatment standards (PSES) no later than
three years after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register.
New Direct or Indirect Dischargers 14.1.3
New direct or indirect discharging sources
must comply with applicable limitations or
standards on the date the new sources begin
operations. New direct dischargers must comply
with NSPS while new indirect sources must
comply with PSNS. New direct and indirect
sources are those that began CWT construction
after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register.
General Applicability 14.2
Chapter 3 details the applicability of the
CWT rule to various operations. Permit writers
and control authorities should closely examine all
CWT operations to determine if they should be
subject to provisions of this rule.
Applicable Waste Streams 14.3
Chapter 5 describes the sources of
wastewater for the CWT industry, which include
the following:
14-1
-------
ChajJtei^^Jmjjlementation
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
Off-site-generated wastewater:
• Waste receipts via tanker truck,
trailer/roll-off bins, and drums.
On-site-generated wastewater:
• Equipment/area washdown
• Water separated from recovered/recycled
materials
• Contact/wash water from recovery and
treatment operations
• Transport container washdown
• Solubilization water
• Laboratory-derived wastewater
• Air pollution control wastewater
• Landfill wastewater from on-site landfills
• Contaminated stormwater.
These waste streams are classified as
process wastewaters and are, thus, subject to the
appropriate subcategory discharge standards.
Uncontaminated stormwater should not be mixed
with waste receipts prior to complete treatment
of the waste receipts since this arrangement may
allow discharge standards to be met by dilution
rather than proper treatment. Only
contaminated stormwater (i.e. stormwater which
comes in direct contact with waste receipts or
waste handling and treatment areas) should be
classified as a process wastewater. During site
visits at CWT facilities, EPA observed many
circumstances in which uncontaminated
stormwater was commingled with the CWT
wastewaters prior to treatment or was added
after treatment prior to effluent discharge
monitoring. EPA believes that permit writers
and control authorities should be responsible for
determining which stormwater sources warrant
designation as process wastewater. Additionally,
permit writers and control authorities should
require facilities to monitor and meet their CWT
discharge requirements following wastewater
treatment and prior to combining these treated
CWT wastewaters with non-process
wastewaters. If a permit writer or control
authority allows a facility to combine treated
CWT wastewaters with non-process wastewaters
prior to compliance monitoring, the permit writer
or control authority should ensure that the non-
contaminated stormwater dilution flow is
factored into the facility's discharge
requirements.
EPA has also observed situations where
stormwater, contaminated and uncontaminated,
was recycled as process water (e.g., as
solubilization water for solid wastes to render the
wastes treatable). In these instances, dilution is
not the major source of pollutant reductions
(treatment). Rather, this leads to reduced
wastewater discharges. Permit writers and
control authorities should investigate
opportunities for use of such alternatives and
encourage such practices wherever feasible.
Subcategory descriptions 14.4
One of the most important aspects of
implementation is the determination of which
subcategory's limitations are applicable to a
facility's operation(s). As detailed in Chapter 5,
EPA established a subcategorization scheme
based on the character of the wastes being
treated and the treatment technologies utilized.
The subcategories are as follows:
Subcategory A: Metals Subcategory:
Facilities which treat or recover metal from
metal-bearing waste, wastewater, or used
material received from offsite;
Subcategory B: Oils Subcategory:
Facilities which treat or recover oil from oily
waste, wastewater, or used material received
from offsite;
Subcategory C: Organics Subcategory:
Facilities which treat or recover
organics from organic waste,
wastewater, or used material received
from offsite; and
14-2
-------
ChajJtei^^Jmjjlementation
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
Subcategory D: Multiple Wastestream
Subcategory:
Facilities which treat or recover some
combination of metal-bearing, oily, or
organic waste, wastewater, or used
material received from off-site.
The subcategory determination is based
primarily on the type of process generating the
waste, the characteristics of the waste, and the
type of treatment technologies which would be
effective in treating the wastes. It is important to
note that a wide range of pollutants were
detected in all four subcategories. That is,
organic constituents were detected in metal
subcategory wastewater and vice versa. The
following sections provide a summary description
of the wastes in each of the four subcategories;
a more detailed presentation is in Chapter 5.
Metals Subcategory Description 14.4.1
Waste receipts classified in the metals
subcategory include, but are not limited to the
following: spent electroplating baths and
sludges, spent anodizing solutions, air pollution
control water and sludges, incineration
wastewaters, waste liquid mercury, metal
finishing rinse water and sludges, chromate
wastes, cyanide-containing wastes, and waste
acids and bases. The primary concern with
metals subcategory waste streams is the
concentration of metal constituents, and some
form of chemical precipitation with solid-liquid
separation is essential. These raw waste
streams generally contain few organic
constituents and have low oil and grease levels.
The range of oil and grease levels in metal
subcategory wastestreams sampled by EPA was
5 mg/L (the minimum analytical detection limit)
to 143 mg/L. The average oil and grease level
measured at metals facilities by EPA was 39
mg/L. As expected, metal concentrations in
wastes from this subcategory were generally high
in comparison to other subcategories. In general,
wastes that contain significant quantities of
inorganics and/or metals should be classified in
the metals subcategory.
Oil Subcategory Description 14.4.2
Waste receipts classified in the oils
subcategory include, but are not limited to the
following: lubricants, used petroleum products,
used oils, oil spill clean-up, interceptor wastes,
bilge water, tank cleanout, off-specification fuels,
and underground storage tank remediation waste.
Based on EPA's sampling data, oil and grease
concentrations in these streams following
emulsion breaking and/or gravity separation
range from 38 mg/L to 180,000 mg/L. The
facility average value is 5,976 mg/L. Based on
information provided by industry, oil and grease
content in these waste receipts prior to emulsion
breaking and/or gravity separation varies
between 0.1% and 99.6% (1,000 mg/L to
996,000 mg/L). Additionally, as measured after
emulsion breaking and/or gravity separation,
these oily wastewaters generally contain a broad
range of organic and metal constituents.
Therefore, while the primary concern is often a
reduction in oil and grease levels, oils
subcategory wastewaters also require treatment
for metal constituents and organic constituents.
In general, wastes that do not contain a
recoverable quantity of oil should not be
classified as being in the oils subcategory. The
only exception to this would be wastes
contaminated with gasoline or other hydrocarbon
fuels.
Organics Subcategory Description 14.4.3
Waste receipts classified in the organics
subcategory include, but are not limited to, the
following: landfill leachate, contaminated
groundwater clean-up, solvent-bearing waste,
off-specification organic product, still bottoms,
wastewater from adhesives and epoxies, and
wastewater from chemical product operations
14-3
-------
ChajJtei^^Jmjjlementation
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
and paint washes. These wastes generally
contain a wide variety and concentration of
organic compounds, low concentrations of metal
compounds (as compared to waste receipts in the
metals subcategory), and low concentrations of
oil and grease. The concentration of oil and
grease in organic subcategory samples measured
by EPA ranged from 2mg/L to 42 mg/L, with an
average value of 22 mg/L. The primary concern
for organic wastestreams is the reduction in
organic constituents, which generally requires
some form of biological treatment. In general,
wastes that do not contain significant quantities
of inorganics, metals, or recoverable quantities of
oil or fuel should be classified as belonging to the
organics subcategory.
Multiple Wastestream Subcategory
Description 14.4.4
Waste receipts in the multiple wastestream
subcategory can all be classified in one of the
first three subcategories. This subcategory may
apply to a CWT facility which accepts waste
receipts from more than a single subcategory
listed above. For example, a CWT multiple
wastestream subcategory facility may accept
electroplatingbaths and sludges and used oils and
oily wastewater. The multiple wastestream
subcategory determination can only be made
after the metals, oils, and organics subcategory
classifications have been completed.
Facility Subcategorization
Identification 14.5
procedures. EPA discourages permit writers and
control authorities from requiring additional
monitoring or paperwork solely for the purpose
of subcategory determinations, unless a CWT
facility's waste acceptance procedures are
inadequate. EPA believes that if CWT facilities
follow EPA's recommendations, they should
easily be able to classify their wastes. Permit
writers and control authorities would only need
to satisfy themselves that the facility made a
good-faith effort to determine the category of
wastes treated. In most cases, as detailed below,
EPA believes the subcategory determination can
be made on the type of waste receipt, e.g.,
metal-bearing sludge, waste oil, landfill leachate.
Certainly, in EPA's estimation, all CWT facilities
should, at a minimum, collect adequate
information from the generator on the type of
waste receipt since this is the minimum
information required by CWT facilities to
effectively treat off-site wastes.
To determine an existing facility's
subcategory classification(s), the facility should
review data for a period of one year on its
incoming wastes (collected at the point where the
shipment is received at the facility and recorded
on forms similar to the template of a waste
acceptance form shown as Figure 14-7 at the end
of this chapter). For a one year period. the
facility should first use Table 14-1 to classify
each of its waste receipts into Subcategory A,
B. or C.
EPA believes that the paperwork and
analyses currently performed at CWT facilities
as part of their waste acceptance procedures (as
outlined in Chapter 4) provide CWT facilities
with sufficient information to make a
subcategory determination. EPA based its
recommended subcategorization determination
procedure on information generally obtained
during these waste acceptance and confirmation
14-4
-------
Gi^te^^Jiw^lemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^Develo^men^ocumen^bt^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
Table 14-1. Waste Receipt Classification
Metals Subcategory spent electroplating baths and/or sludges
metal finishing rinse water and sludges
chromate wastes
air pollution control blow down water and sludges
spent anodizing solutions
incineration wastewaters
waste liquid mercury
cyanide-containing wastes (> 136 mg/L)
waste acids and bases with or without metals
cleaning, rinsing, and surface preparation solutions from
electroplating or phosphating operations
vibratory deburring wastewater
alkaline and acid solutions used to clean metal parts or equipment
Oils Subcategory used oils
oil-water emulsions or mixtures
lubricants
coolants
contaminated groundwater clean-up from petroleum sources
used petroleum products
oil spill clean-up
bilge water
rinse/wash waters from petroleum sources
interceptor wastes
off-specification fuels
underground storage remediation waste
tank clean-out from petroleum or oily sources
non-contact used glycols
aqueous and oil mixtures from parts cleaning operations
wastewater from oil bearing paint washes
Organics Subcategory landfill leachate
contaminated groundwater clean-up from non-petroleum sources
solvent-bearing wastes
off-specification organic product
still bottoms
byproduct waste glycol
wastewater from paint washes
wastewater from adhesives and/or epoxies formulation
wastewater from organic chemical product operations
tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum sources
If the CWT facility receives the wastes
listed in Table 14-1, the subcategory
determination is made solely from this
information. If, however, the wastes are
unknown or not listed above, EPA recommends
that the facility use the following hierarchy to
characterize the wastes it is treating and identify
the appropriate regulatory subcategory:
1). If the waste receipt contains oil and
grease at or in excess of 100 mg/L, the
waste receipt should be classified in the
oils subcategory;
14-5
-------
ChajJtei^^Jmjjlementation
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
2). If the waste receipt contains oil and
grease <100 mg/L, and has any of the
pollutants listed below in concentrations
in excess of the values listed below, the
waste receipt should be classified in the
metals subcategory.
cadmium 0.2 mg/L
chromium 8.9 mg/L
copper 4.9 mg/L
nickel 37.5 mg/L
3). If the waste receipt contains oil and
grease <100 mg/L, and does not have
concentrations of cadmium, chromium,
copper, or nickel above any of the
values listed above, the waste receipt
should be classified in the organics
subcategory.
This process is also illustrated in Figure 14-1.
Members of the CWT industry have
expressed concern that wastes may be received
from the generator as a "mixed waste", i.e., a
single waste receipt may be classified in more
than one subcategory. Based on the information
collected during the development of this rule,
using the subcategorization procedure
recommended in this section, EPA is able to
classify each waste receipt identified by the
industry into the appropriate subcategory.
Therefore, EPA believes that these "mixed waste
receipt" concerns have been addressed in the
current subcategorization procedure.
Once the facility's subcategory determination
has been made based on a year of waste receipt
information, EPA recommends that the facility
should not be required to repeat this
determination process unnecessarily. However,
if a CWT facility alters its operation to accept
wastes from another subcategory (or no longer
accepts waste from a subcategory), the facility
should notify the appropriate permit writer or
control authority and the subcategory
determination should be reevaluated. EPA notes
that current regulations require notification to the
permitting or control authority when significant
changes occur. EPA also recommends that the
subcategory determination be re-evaluated
whenever the permit or pretreament agreement
(or control mechanism) is re-issued, though this
would not necessarily require complete
characterization of a subsequent year's waste
receipts if there is no indication that the make-up
of the facility's receipts had significantly
changed.
For new CWT facilities, the facility should
estimate the percentage of waste receipts
expected in each subcategory. Alternatively, the
facility could compare the treatment technologies
being installed to the selected treatment
technologies for each subcategory. After the
initial year of operation, the permit writer or
control authority should reassess the facility's
subcategory determination and follow the
procedures outlined for existing facilities.
14-6
-------
ChajJtei^^Jmjjlementation
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
Yes
No
Yes
Consult Table 14-1 far
sabcategortzatten
The vasts receipt bin the
mauds subcategory
Is die waste receipt tistad
in Table 14-1?
Ihe waste receipt is in die
orgmtcs subcategory
The waste receipt is nfte
ads subcategory
Does ike receipt contain
ad and pease at or tn
excess oflOOmgfl?
Does it have any of the
foUowtngmatah tn
concentrations axceedtnt
Cadmtum: Q2 mg/L?
Chromium: &.9mg/L?
Copper: 4.9 ng/L?
Nbkd: 37.5me/1?
Figure 14-1. Waste Receipt Subcategory Classification Diagram
14-7
-------
ChajJtei^^Jmjjlementation
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
On-site Generated Wastewater
Subcategory Determination 14.6
Section 14.5 describes the subcategory
determination for off-site waste receipts. For
other on-site generated wastewater sources, such
as those described in Section 14.3, wastewater
generated in support of, or as the result of,
activities associated with each subcategory
should be classified in that subcategory. For
facilities that are classified in a single
subcategory, the facility should generally classify
on-site wastewater in that subcategory. For
facilities that are classified in more than one
subcategory, however, the facility should
apportion the on-site generated wastewater to the
appropriate subcategory. Certain waste streams
may be associated with more than one
subcategory, such as stormwater, equipment/area
washdown, air pollution control wastewater, etc.
For these wastewater sources, the volume
generated should be apportioned to each
associated subcategory. For example, for
contaminated stormwater, the volume can be
apportioned based on the proportion of the
surface area associated with operations in each
subcategory. Equipment/area washdown may be
assigned to a subcategory based on the volume
of waste treated in each subcategory.
Alternatively, control authorities may assign the
on-site wastestreams to a subcategory based on
the appropriateness of the selected subcategory
treatment technologies. EPA notes that this is
only necessary for multiple subcategory
facilities which elect not to comply with
Subcategory D limitations or standards.
Subcategory Determinationm EPA
Questionnaire Data Base 14.7
In order to estimate the quantities of
wastewater being discharged and current
pollutant loads, pollutant reductions, post
compliance costs, and environmental benefits for
each subcategory, EPA developed a
methodology to classify waste streams for CWT
facilities in the EPA Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire database into each of the
subcategories. Using the RCRA and Waste Form
Codes listed in Table 14-2, EPA developed rules
for making subcategory assignments of the waste
receipts reported in the 308 Questionnaires.
The rules rely primarily on Waste Form Codes
(where available) plus RCRA wastes codes.
Wastes Classified in the Metals
Subcategory - Questionnaire
Responses 14.7.1
The wastes that EPA classified in the metals
subcategory include the following:
• All wastes reported in Section G, Metals
Recovery, of the 308 Questionnaire; and
• All wastes with Waste Form Codes and
RCRA codes meeting the criteria specified in
Table 14-3.
Wastes Classified in The Oils
Subcategory - Questionnaire
Responses 14.7.2
The wastes EPA classified in the oils
subcategory include the following:
• All wastes reported in Section E, Waste Oil
Recovery, of the 308 Questionnaire;
• All wastes reported in Section H, Fuel
Blending Operations, of the 308
Questionnaire that generate a wastewater as
a result of the fuel blending operations; and
• All wastes with Waste Form Codes and
RCRA codes meeting the criteria in Table
14-4.
Wastes Classified in the Organics
Subcategory - Questionnaire
Responses 14.7.3
The wastes EPA classified in the organics
subcategory include the following:
14-8
-------
Gi^te^^Jiw^lemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^Develo^men^ocumen^bt^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
• All wastes with Waste Form Codes and
RCRA codes meeting the criteria specified in
Table 14-5.
14-9
-------
Gi^te^^Jiw^lemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^Develo^men^ocumen^bt^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
Table 14-2. RCRA and Waste Form Codes Reported by Facilities in 1989
RCRA Codes
D001 Ignitable Waste
D002 Corrosive Waste
D003 Reactive Waste
D004 Arsenic
D005 Barium
D006 Cadmium
D007 Chromium
D008 Lead
D009 Mercury
DO 10 Selenium
DO 11 Silver
DO 12 Endrin(l,2,3,4,10,10-hexachlorc-l,7-epoxy-l,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydro-l,4-endo-5,8-dimeth-ano-
napthalene)
D017 2,4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,5-trichlorophenixypropionic acid)
D035 Methyl ethyl ketone
F001 The following spent halogenated solvents used in degreasing: tetrachloroethylene; trichloroethane;
carbon tetrachloride and chlorinated fluorocarbons and all spent solvent mixtures/blends used in
degreasing containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more (by volume) of one or more of the
above halogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F002, F004, and F005; and still bottoms from the
recovery of these spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures
F002 The following spent halogenated solvents: tetrachloroethylene; 1,1,1-trichloroethane; chlorobenzene;
l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2- trifluoroethane; ortho-dichlorobenzene; trichloroethane; all spent solvent
mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more (by volume) of one or more of the
above halogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F001, F004, and F005; and still bottoms from the
recovery of these spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures
F003 The following spent nonhalogenated solvents: xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether,
methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, and methanol; all spent solvent mixtures/blends
containing, before use, one or more of the above nonhalogenated solvents, and a total of 10 percent or
more (by volume) of one or more of those solvents listed in F001, F002, F004, and F005-1 and still
bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures.
F004 The following spent nonhalogenated solvents: cresols, cresylic acid, and nitrobenzene; and the still
bottoms from the recovery of these solvents; all spent solvent mixtures/blends containing before use a
total of 10 percent or more (by volume) of one or more of the above nonhalogenated solvents or those
solvents listed in F001, F002, and F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and
spent solvent mixtures
F005 The following spent nonhalogenated solvents: toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide,
isobutanol, pyridine, benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-nitropropane; all spent solvent mixtures/blends
containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more (by volume) of one or more of the above
nonhalogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F001, F002, or F004; and still bottoms from the
recovery of these spent solvents and spent solvents mixtures
F006 Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following processes: (1)
sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum; (2) tin plating on carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis)
on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-aluminum plating on carbon steel: (5) cleaning/stripping
associated with tin, zinc, and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and milling of
aluminum
iF007^^SŁcn^cvanidcj)latmŁbath_solutionsJ>om_clcctroŁlatmŁOŁcratjons^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^_
14-10
-------
Gi^te^^Jiw^lemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^Develo^men^ocumen^bt^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
Table 14-2. RCRA and Waste Form Codes Reported by Facilities in 1989
F008 Plating bath residues from the bottom of plating baths from electroplating operations in which cyanides
are used in the process
F009 Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating operations in which cyanides are used in
the process
FO10 Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal heat treating operations in which cyanides are used
in the process
FO 11 Spent cyanide solutions from slat bath pot cleaning from metal heat treating operations
FO 12 Quenching waste water treatment sludges from metal heat treating operations in which cyanides are
used in the process
F019 Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum
F039 Multi-source leachate
K001 Bottom sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewater from wood preserving processes that use
creosote and/or pentachlorophenol
KO11 Bottom stream from the wastewater stripper in the production of acrylonitrile
KOI3 Bottom stream from the acetonitrile column in the production of acrylonitrile
KOI 4 Bottoms from the acetonitrile purification column in the production of acrylonitrile
KO 15 Still bottoms from the distillation of benzyl chloride
KO 16 Heavy ends or distillation residues from the production of carbon tetrachloride
K031 By-product salts generated in the production of MSMA and cacodylic acid
K035 Wastewater treatment sludges generated in the production of creosote
K044 Wastewater treatment sludges from the manufacturing and processing of explosives
K045 Spent carbon from the treatment of wastewater containing explosives K048 air flotation (DAF) float
from the petroleum refining industry K049 Slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining
industry
K050 Heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry
K051 API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry
K052 Tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining industry
K061 Emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces
K064 Acid plant blowdown slurry/sludge resulting from the thickening of blowdown slurry from primary
copper production
K086 Solvent washes and sludges, caustic washes and sludges, or water washes and sludges from cleaning tubs
and equipment used in the formulation of ink from pigments, driers, soaps, and stabilizers containing
chromium and lead
K093 Distillation light ends from the production of phthalic anhydride from ortho-xylene
K094 Distillation bottoms from the production of phthalic anhydride from ortho-xylene
K098 Untreated process wastewater from the production of toxaphene
K103 Process residues from aniline extraction from the production of aniline K104 Combined wastewater
streams generated from nitrobenzene/aniline production
P011 Arsenic pentoxide (t)
P012 Arsenic (III) oxide (t) Arsenic trioxide (t)
P 013 Barium cyanide
P020 Dinoseb, Phenol,2,4-dinitro-6-(l-methylpropyl)-
P022 Carbon bisulfide (t)
14-11
-------
Gi^te^^Jiw^lemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^Develo^men^ocumen^bt^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
Table 14-2. RCRA and Waste Form Codes Reported by Facilities in 1989
P028 Benzene, (chloromethyl)
-Benzyl chloride
P029 Copper cyanides
P030 Cyanides (soluble cyanide salts), not elsewhere specified (t)
P040 0,0-diethyl O-pyrazinyl phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl O-pyrazinyl ester
P044 Dimethoate (t)
Phosphorodithioic acid,
0,0-dimethyl S-[2-(methylamino)-2-oxoethyl]ester (t)
P048 2,4-dinitrophenol
Phenol,2,4-dinitro-
P050 Endosulfan
5 -norbornene-2,3 -dimethanol,
1,4,5,6,7,7-hexachloro,cyclic sulfite
P063 Hydrocyanic acid
Hydrogen cyanide
P064 Methyl isocyanate
Isocyanic acid, methyl ester
P069 2-methyllactonitrile
Propanenitrile,2-hydroxy-2-methyl-
P071 0,0-dimethyl O-p-nitrophenyl phosphorothioate
Methyl parathion
P074 Nickel (II) cyanide
Nickel cyanide
P078 Nitrogen (IV) oxide
Nitrogen dioxide
P087 Osmium tetroxide
Osmium oxide
P089 Parathion (t)
Phosphorothiotic acid,0,0-diethyl 0-(p-nitrophenyl) ester (t)
P098 Potassium cyanide
P104 Silver cyanide
P10 6 Sodium cyanide
P121 Zinc cyanide
P123 Toxaphene
Camphene,octachloro-
U002 2-propanone (i)
Acetone (i)
U003 Ethanenitrile (i,t)
Acetonitrile (i,t)
U008 2-propenoic acid (i)
14-12
-------
G\w^te^^m^emer^^or^^^^^^^^^^^eveloŁmenWocumen^bt^h^W^oin^ourc^ate^ot2
Table 14-2. RCRA and Waste Form Codes Reported by Facilities in 1989
U009
2-propenenitrile
Acrylonitrile
U012
Benzenamine (i,t)
Aniline (i,t)
U019
Benzene (i,t)
U020
Benzenesulfonyl chloride (c,r)
Benzenesulfonic acid chloride (c,r)
U031
1-butanol (i)
N-butyl alcohol (i)
U044
Methane, trichloro-
Chloroform
U045
Methane,chloro-(i,t)
Methyl chloride (i,t)
U052
Cresylic acid
Cresols
U057
Cyclohexanone (i)
U069
Dibutyl phthalate
1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester
U080
Methane, dichloro-
Methylene chloride
U092
Methanamine, N-methyl-(i)
Dimethylamine (i)
U098
Hydrazine, 1,1-dimethyl-
1,1 -dimethy lhy drazine
U105
2,4-dinotrotoluene
Benzene, l-methyl-2,4-dinitro-
U106
2,6-dinitrotoluene
Benzene, l-methyl-2,6-dinitro
U107
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1-2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-n-octyl ester
U113
2-propenoic acid, ethyl ester (i)
Ethyl aery late (i)
U118
2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, ethyl ester
Ethyl methacrylate
U122
Formaldehyde
Methylene oxide
U125
Furfural (i)
2-furancarboxaldehyde (i)
U134
Hydrogen fluoride (c,t)
Hydrofluoric acid (c,t)
U135
Sulfur hydride
Hydrogen sulfide
14-13
-------
G\^te^^n^lemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^^^Develo^menWocumen^bt^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
Table 14-2. RCRA and Waste Form Codes Reported by Facilities in 1989
U139
Ferric dextran
Iron dextran
U140
1 -propanol, 2-methyl- (i,t)
lsobutyl alcohol (i,t)
U150
Melphalan
Alanine, 3-[p-bis(2-chloroethyl)amino] phenyl-,L-
U151
Mercury
U154
Methanol (i)
Methyl alcohol (i)
U159
Methyl ethyl ketone (i,t)
2-butanone (i,t)
U161
4-methyl-2-pentanone (i)
Methyl isobutyl ketone (i)
U162
2-propenoic acid,2-methyl-,methyl ester (i,t)
Methyl methacrylate (i,t)
U188
Phenol
Benzene, hydroxy -
U190
Phthalic anhydride
1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid anhydride
U205
Selenium disulfide (r,t)
Sulfur selenide (r,t)
U210
T etrachloroethy lene
Ethene, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro
U213
Tetrahydrofuran (i)
Furan, tetrahydro- (i)
U220
Toluene
Benzene, methyl-
U226
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
Methylchloroform
U228
Trichloroethylene
Trichloroethene
U239
Xylene (i)
Benzene, dimethyl- (i,t)
Waste Form Codes
B001
Lab packs of old chemicals only
B101
Aqueous waste with low solvent
B102
Aqueous waste with low other toxic organics
B103
Spent acid with metals
B104
Spent acid without metals
B105
Acidic aqueous waste
B106
Caustic solution with metals but no cyanides
B107
Caustic solution with metals and cyanides
B108
Caustic solution with cyanides but no metals
14-14
-------
G\^te^^n^lemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^^^Develo^menWocumen^bt^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
Table 14-2. RCRA and Waste Form Codes Reported by Facilities in 1989
B109 Spent caustic
B110 Caustic aqueous waste
Bill Aqueous waste with reactive sulfides
B112 Aqueous waste with other reactives (e.g., explosives)
B113 Other aqueous waste with high dissolved solids
B114 Other aqueous waste with low dissolved solids
B115 Scrubber water
B116 Leachate
B117 Waste liquid mercury
B119 Other inorganic liquids
B201 Concentrated solvent-water solution
B202 Halogenated (e.g., chlorinated) solvent
B203 Nonhalogenated solvent
B204 Halogenated/Nonhalogenated solvent mixture
B205 Oil-water emulsion or mixture
B206 Waste oil
B207 Concentrated aqueous solution of other organics
B208 Concentrated phenolics
B209 Organic paint, ink, lacquer, or varnish
B210 Adhesive or epoxies
B211 Paint thinner or petroleum distillates
B219 Other organic liquids
B305 "Dry" lime or metal hydroxide solids chemically "fixed"
B306 "Dry" lime or metal hydroxide solids not "fixed"
B307 Metal scale, filings, or scrap
B308 Empty or crushed metal drums or containers
B309 Batteries or Battery parts, casings, cores
B310 Spent solid filters or adsorbents
B312 Metal-cyanides salts/chemicals
B313 Reactive cyanides salts/chemicals
B315 Other reactive salts/chemicals
B316 Other metal salts/chemicals
B319 Other waste inorganic solids
B5 01 Lime sludge without metals
B502 Lime sludge with metals/metal hydroxide sludge
B5 04 Other wastewater treatment sludge
B5 05 Untreated plating sludge without cyanides
B5 06 Untreated plating sludge with cyanides
B507 Other sludges with cyanides
B508 Sludge with reactive sulfides
B510 Degreasing sludge with metal scale or filings
B511 Air pollution control device sludge (e.g., fly ash, wet scrubber sludge)
B513 Sediment or lagoon dragout contaminated with inorganics only
14-15
-------
G\^te^^n^lemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^^^Develo^menWocumen^bt^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
Table 14-2. RCRA and Waste Form Codes Reported by Facilities in 1989
B519
Other inorganic sludges
B601
Still bottoms of halogenated (e.g., chlorinated) solvents or other organic liquids
B603
Oily sludge
B604
Organic paint or ink sludge
B605
Reactive or polymerized organics
B607
Biological treatment sludge
B608
Sewage or other untreated biological sludge
B609
Other organic sludges
Table 14-3. Waste Form Codes in the Metals Subcategory
All Inorganic
Waste Form Codes
Exceptions:*
Liquids
B101-B119
Waste Form Codes B116, and B101, B102, B119
when combined with RCRA Codes:
F001-F005 and other organic F, K, P, and U Codes
All Inorganic
Waste Form Codes
Exceptions:*
Solids
B301-B319
Waste Form Code B301
when combined with RCRA Codes:
F001-F005 and other organic F, K, P, and U Codes
All Inorganic
Waste Form Codes
Exceptions:*
Sludges
B501-B519
Waste Form Code B512
when combined with RCRA Codes:
F001-F005 and other organic F, K, P, and U Codes
These exceptions were classified as belonging in the organics subcategory
Table 14-4. Waste Form Codes in the Oils Subcategory
Organic Liquids
Waste Form Codes
Exceptions:
B205, B206
None
Organic Sludge
Waste Form Code
Exceptions:
B603
None
14-16
-------
G\^te^^n^lemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^^^Develo^menWocumen^bt^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
Table 14-5. Waste Form Codes in the Organics Subcategory
Organic Liquids
Waste Form Codes
B201-B204, B207-B219
Exceptions:
None
Organic Solids
Waste Form Codes
B401-B409
Exceptions:
None
Organic Sludges
Waste Form Codes
B601, B602, B604-B609
Exceptions:
None
Inorganic Liquids
Waste Form Codes
B101, B102, B116, B119
when combined with RCRA Codes:
F001-F005 and other organic F, K, P, and U
Codes
Inorganic Solids
Waste Form Code B301
when combined with RCRA Codes:
F001-F005 and other organic F, K, P, and U
Codes
Inorganic Sludges
Waste Form Code B512
when combined with RCRA Codes:
F001-F005 and other organic F, K, P, and U
Codes
For wastes that cannot be easily classified
into a subcategory, such as lab-packs, the
subcategory determination was based on other
information provided such as RCRA codes and
descriptive comments. Therefore, some
judgement is required in assigning some waste
receipts to a subcategory.
14-17
-------
Chagte^^mglementation
Develo^menWocumen^ot^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
Establishing Limitations and
Standards for Facility Discharges 14.8
In establishing limitations and standards for
CWT facilities, the permit writer or control
authority must ensure that the CWT facility has
an optimal waste management program. First,
the permit writer or control authority should
verify that the CWT facility is identifying and
segregating waste streams to the extent possible
since segregation of similar waste streams is the
first step in obtaining optimal mass removals of
pollutants from industrial wastes. Next, the
permit writer or control authority should verify
that the CWT facility is employing treatment
technologies designed and operated to optimally
treat all off-site waste receipts. For example,
biological treatment is inefficient for treating
concentrated metals waste streams like those
found in the metals subcategory or wastestreams
with oil and grease compositions and
concentrations like those found in the oils
subcategory. In fact, concentrated metals
streams and high levels of oil and grease
compromise the ability of biological treatment
systems to function. Likewise, emulsion
breaking/gravity separation, and/or dissolved air
flotation is typically insufficient for treating
concentrated metals wastewaters or wastewaters
containing organic pollutants which solubilize
readily in water. Finally, chemical precipitation
is insufficient for treating organic wastes and
waste streams with high oil and grease
concentrations.
Once the permit writer or control authority
has established that the CWT facility is
segregating its waste receipts and has appropriate
treatment technologies in place for all off-site
waste receipts, the permit writer or control
authority can then establish limitations or
standards which ensure that the CWT facility is
operating its treatment technologies optimally.
Available guidance in calculating NPDES
categorical limitations for direct discharge
facilities can be found in the U.S. EPA NPDES
Permit Writers' Manual (December 1996, EPA-
833-B-96-003). Sources of information used for
calculating Federal pretreatment standards for
indirect discharge facilities include 40 CFR Part
403.6, the Guidance Manual for the Use of
Production-Based Pretreatment Standards and
the Combined Waste Stream Formula
(September 1985), and EPA's Industrial User
Permitting Guidance Manual (September 1989).
The CWT limitations and standards for each
subcategory are listed in Tables 1 through 8 of
the Executive Summary at the beginning of this
document.
Implementation for Facilities in
Multiple CWT Subcategories 14.8.1
EPA estimates that many facilities in the
CWT industry accept wastes in two or more
subcategories (a combination of wastes in
Subcategory A, B or C). This situation is
different from the case in which metal-bearing
waste streams may include low-level organic
pollutants or that oily wastes may include low
level metal pollutants due to the origin of the
waste stream accepted for treatment.
For these multi-subcategory CWT facilities
which combine subcategory wastes prior to
discharge, guidance provided during development
of this rule required that control authorities
apply either the building block approach (see
Section 14.8.4.1) or the combined waste stream
formula (see Section 14.8.4.2) as appropriate to
develop combined limitations or standards.
As promulgated, however, neither the
building block approach nor the combined waste
stream formula apply in developing limitations or
standards for multi-subcategory CWT facilities.
Rather, multiple subcategory facilities may
comply with this rule in one of two ways: 1)
facilities may elect to comply with the limitations
or standards for each applicable subcategory
directly following treatment (before commingling
with different subcategory wastes); or 2) facilities
may certify equivalent treatment and comply
14-18
-------
Chagte^^mglementation
Develo^menWocumen^bt^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
with one of the four sets of limitations or
standards for the multiple wastestream
subcategory (Subcategory D). Each of these
options is discussed further below.
Comply with Limitations or Standards
for Subcategory A, B or C 14.8.1.1
If a CWT facility elects to comply with each
applicable subcategory's limitations or standards
individually, the permit writer or control
authority should establish compliance monitoring
for each applicable subcategory directly following
treatment of each subcategory's waste steam
(and apply the appropriate limitations or
standards at that point). As a further point of
clarification, the permit writer or control
authority should not allow CWT facilities to
commingle waste streams from different
subcategories prior to monitoring for compliance
with each subcategory's limitations or standards.
Example 14-1 illustrates this approach. EPA
notes that multiple subcategory facilities which
elect to comply with each applicable
subcategory's limits or standards individually do
not have to demonstrate equivalent treatment
(see Section 14.8.1.2).
Example 14-1
Facility A accepts wastes in all three CWT subcategories with separate subcategory
treatment systems and has elected to comply with each set ofpretreatment standards
separately. This facility treats 20,000 l/day of metal-bearing wastes, 10,000 l/day
of oily wastes, and 45,000, l/day of organic wastes and discharges to its local
POTW.
Metals Waste
20,000 L/day
\
f
Me
Treat
tals
ment
>
f
Sample
Point 1
Oils Waste
10,000 L/day
\
f
O
Trea
ils
tment
>
f
Sample
Point 2
Organics Waste
45,000 L/day
\
f
Organics
Treatment
>
f
Sample
Point 3
Figure 14-2. Facility Accepting Waste in All Three Subcategories With Treatment in Eacl
14-19
-------
Chagte^^mglementation
Develo^menWocumen^ot^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
For this example, the control authority establishes monitoring points 1, 2, and 3. The control
authority requires that the facility comply with the metals subcategory pretreatment standards
at Sample Point 1, the oils subcategory pretreatment standards at Sample Point 2, and the
organics subcategory pretreatment standards at Sample Point 3. Note that the specific analytes
requiring compliance monitoring vary at each sampling point since the pollutants regulated vary
among subcategories.
Comply with Limitations or Standards
for Subcategory D 14.8.1.2
If a multi-subcategory CWT facility elects to
comply with the limitations or standards for
Subcategory D, then the permit writer or control
authority establishes a single monitoring point
prior to discharge and applies the appropriate set
of limitations or standards from Subcategory D
(for example, if a CWT facility accepts wastes in
both the metals and oils subcategory, the permit
writer or control authority establishes limits or
standards for Subcategory D facilities which
commingle wastes from Subcategories A and B).
Examples 14-2 and 14-3 illustrate this approach.
EPA notes that under this approach, the permit
writer or control authority must allow a multi-
subcategory facility to commingle wastestreams
prior to discharge. Also, facilities which select
this compliance method must first establish
equivalent treatment as detailed in Section
14.8.1.2.1 below.
14-20
-------
G\^te^^n^lemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^^^Develo^menWocumen^bt^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
Example 14-2
Facility B accepts wastes in all three CWT subcategories with separate subcategory
treatment systems and has elected to comply with Subcategory D pretreatment standards
at a combined outfall. This facility treats 20,000 l/day of metal-bearing wastes, 10,000
l/day of oily wastes, and 45,000 l/day of organic wastes and discharges to its local
POTW.
Metals Waste
2Q0001/doy
Otis Waste
10> 000L/day
Discharge
75, OOO L/day
Orffmtes Waste
4St OOOUday
Metals
Treatment
Figure J4-3. Fbcthty Accepting Waste to AD. Three Subcategories With Treatment in Jlacl
And Conbtned OuJfaH
For this example, the control authority establishes a single monitoring point as indicated. The
control authority requires the facility to comply with Subcategory D pretreatment standards for
facilities which commingle wastes from Subcategory A, B, and C.
14-21
-------
Chagte^^mglementation
Develo^menWocumen^ot^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
Example 14-3: Facility Which Accepts Wastes in Multiple Subcategories and Treats the
Wastewater Sequentially
Facility C accepts waste in the oils and metals subcategory. The total volume of
wastewater discharged to the local POTW is 100,000 liters per day. The facility
segregates oils and metals waste receipts and first treats the oils waste receipts
using two stage emulsion breaking/gravity separation and dissolved air flotation
(see Figure 14-4). The facility then commingles this wastewater with metal
subcategory waste receipts and treats the combined wastestreams using primary and
secondary chemical precipitation and solid/liquid separation followed by
multimedia filtration.
Metals Watte
OtZr Waste
ait
\
f ^
Metals
Treatment
Discharge
Treatment
Ftgfirel4-4. Facthty Which Accepts Wastes tuMulOple Subcategories and Treats Separately
For this example, like example 14-2, the control authority establishes a single monitoring point.
This monitoring point follows the metals treatment. The control authority requires that the
facility comply with Subcategory D pretreatment standards for facilities which commingle
wastes from Subcategories A and B.
EQUIVALENT TREATMENT
DETERMINATION FOR
SUBCATEGORY D 14.8.1.2.1
Before amulti-subcategory CWT facility can
elect to comply with limitations or standards
from Subcategory D, it must first demonstrate
equivalent treatment for each applicable
wastestream. The CWT rule defines equivalent
treatment as "a wastewater treatment system that
achieves comparable pollutant removals to the
applicable treatment technology selected as the
basis for the limits and standards." The
following outlines the procedure for
demonstrating equivalent treatment.
14-22
First, facilities which desire this option must
submit an initial request to their permit writer or
control authority certifying that their treatment
train includes all applicable equivalent treatment
systems. This initial certification would include,
at a minimum, the applicable subcategories (i.e.,
metals, oils, organics), a listing of and
descriptions of the treatment technologies and
operating conditions used to treat wastes in each
subcategory, and the justification for making an
equivalent treatment determination. For
example, a facility which accepts metals
subcategory and oils subcategory wastewaters
could show that its treatment train includes two-
stage oil/water separation, two-stage chemical
-------
Chagte^^mglementation
Develo^menWocumen^ot^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
precipitation, and dissolved air flotation operated
in a similar manner to the model technology
costed by EPA. Since these are the treatment
technologies selected as the basis for this rule,
the equivalent treatment determination could be
established. However, EPA is not defining
"equivalent treatment" as specific treatment
technologies or the technology bases, but rather
as a "wastewater treatment system that is
demonstrated in literature, tractability tests, or
self-monitoring data to remove a similar level of
the appropriate pollutants as the applicable
treatment technology selected as the basis for the
applicable regulations." While EPA is leaving the
decision as to whether a particular treatment train
is "equivalent treatment" to the permit writer or
control authority's best professional judgement,
the Small Entity Compliance Guide for this rule
provides several examples of cases where EPA
believes equivalent treatment is demonstrated.
EPA notes that the requesting facility is
responsible for providing the permit writer or
control authority with enough information and/or
data to make the equivalent treatment
determination. This initial certification statement
must be signed by the responsible corporate
officer as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(1) or 40
CFR 122.22. If the permit writer or control
authority determines that equivalent treatment is
demonstrated, then the permit writer or control
authority will issue discharge requirements based
on one of the four subsets of limitations or
standards promulgated for the mixed waste
subcategory. If the facility has not demonstrated
equivalent treatment, then the permit writer or
control authority will not allow the CWT facility
to comply with limitations or standards from
Subcategory D. Rather, the permit writer or
control authority will issue discharge
requirements based on the appropriate limitations
or standards from Subcategory A, B or C and
require that these requirements be met prior to
commingling (See Section 14.8.1.1).
Once the facility has established equivalent
treatment, the facility shall submit an annual
certification statement which indicates that the
treatment technologies are being utilized in the
manner set forth in its original certification or a
justification to allow modification of the practices
listed in its initial certification. If the information
contained in the initial certification statement is
still applicable, a facility shall simply state that in
a letter to the permit writer or control authority,
and the letter shall constitute the periodic
statement. However, if the facility has modified
its treatment system in any way, it shall submit
the revised information in a manner similar to the
initial certification. Once again, the permit writer
or control authority will use BE/B.J. in reviewing
any modifications.
Finally, the facility shall be required to
maintain on-site compliance paperwork. The on-
site compliance paperwork should include
information from the initial and periodic
certifications, but must also include: (1) the
supporting documentation for any modifications
that have been made to the treatment system; (2)
a method for demonstrating that the treatment
system is well operated and maintained; and (3)
a discussion of the rationale for choosing the
method of demonstration. Proper operation and
maintenance of a system includes a qualified
person to operate the system, use of correct
treatment chemicals in appropriate quantities,
and operation of the system within the stated
design parameters. For example, a facility may
operate dissolved air flotation. The method for
demonstrating the dissolved air flotation system
is well operated can be as simple as maintaining
records on the temperature and pH, the
chemicals added (including quantity), the
duration of treatment, recycle ratio, and physical
characteristics of the wastewater before and after
dissolved air flotation. Alternatively, the facility
could monitor for selected parameters for the
purpose of demonstrating effective treatment.
This could include any pollutant or a
combination of pollutants. The implementation
manual for the CWT rule provides additional
examples.
14-23
-------
Chagte^^mglementation
Develo^menWocumen^ot^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
Permit writers and control authorities may
inspect the CWT facility at any time to confirm
that the listed practices are being employed, that
the treatment system is well operated and
maintained, and that the necessary paperwork
provides sufficient justification for any
modifications.
Implementation for Facilities with
Cyan ide Subset 14.8.2
Whenever a CWT facility accepts a waste
receipt that contains more than 136 mg/L of total
cyanide, the CWT facility must monitor for
cyanide when the wastewater exits the cyanide
destruction process rather than after mixing with
other process wastewater. Alternatively, the
facility may monitor for compliance after mixing
if the cyanide limitations are adjusted using the
"building block approach" or "combined waste
stream formula," assuming the cyanide
limitations do not fall below the minimum
analytical detection limit. For further information
on the "building block approach" or "combined
waste stream formula", see section 14.8.4.
CWT Facilities Also Covered By
Another Point Source Category 14.8.3
As detailed in Chapter 3, some
manufacturing facilities, which are subject to
existing effluent guidelines and standards, may
also be subject to provisions of this rule. In all
cases, these manufacturing facilities accept waste
from off-site for treatment and/or recovery
which are generated from a different categorical
process as the on-site generated wastes. EPA is
particularly concerned that these facilities
demonstrate compliance with all applicable
effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards ~
including this rule.
Direct Discharging Facilities 14.8.3.1
For determination of effluent limits where
there are multiple categories, the effluent
guidelines are applied using a flow-weighted
combination of the appropriate guideline for each
category(i.e., "the building block approach").
Where a facility treats a CWT wastestream and
process wastewater from other non-CWT
industrial operations, the effluent guidelines
would be applied by using a flow-weighted
combination of the BPT/BAT limitations for the
CWT and the other non-CWT industrial
operations to derive the appropriate limitations.
Example 14-4, on the next page, illustrates the
daily maximum limitations calculations for a
CWT facility which is also subject to another
effluent guideline.
14-24
-------
G\^3te^^nmlemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^^^DevelopmenWocumen^bt^h^W^Poin^ourc^ateeory
Example 14-4 Categorical Manufacturing Facility Which Also Operates as a CWT
Facility
Facility D is a manufacturing facility currently discharging wastewater to the local
river under the OCPSFpoint source category. Facility D also performs CWT operations
and accepts off-site metal-bearing wastes for treatment. Facility D commingles the on-site
wastewater and the off-site wastewater together for treatment in an activated sludge system.
The total volume of wastewater discharged at Facility D is 100,000 liters per day. The total
volume of wastewater contributed by the off-site wastewater is 10,000 liters per day.
f)*L-Siti fiCPSF
Wastes
m OC-QL/any
Ogtmics
Treatment
Txschwge
100,1)001/day
CWT
Metals Wastes
IQOOQL/ihsy
Figire 14-5. CategoricalManufacttirmgFiicitey Which Also Cerates as a CWT
Facility D will be required to monitor and demonstrate that it has complied with the CWT
metals BAT limitations. Since Facility D commingles the wastestreams and has no treatment
in place for the metals wastestreams, Facility D will be unable to demonstrate compliance with
the BAT limits through treatment rather than dilution. Therefore, Facility D can not
commingle the CWT metals wastestreams and on-site OCPSF wastestreams for treatment.
If Facility D chose to install metals treatment for the off-site wastewater and wanted to
commingle the effluent from the metals treatment and the biological treatment at a single
discharge point (See Figure 14-6 on the next page), the permit writer would use the building
block approach to determine the limitations. Using lead and chromium as examples, for the
metals subcategory, EPA has promulgated BAT monthly average limits of 3.07 mg/L for
chromium and 0.283 mg/L for lead. Since the OCPSF facility has no limits for chromium
and lead, the contribution for the OCPSF wastewaters would be zero. Therefore, the
chromium monthly average limit would be ( 0.1 x 3.07) + (0.9 x 0) = 0.307 mg/1 and the lead
monthly average limit would be (0.1 x 0.283) x (0.9 x 0) = 0.0283 mg/1. Since the monthly
average limit for lead is below the minimum analytical detection level (.050 mg/1), the facility
would be required to demonstrate compliance with the lead limit for the CWT metals
subcategory prior to commingling at the outfall. The monthly average and daily maximum
limitations for other pollutants would be calculated in a similar manner. Since EPA has not
proposed any BAT limits for organic pollutants under the metals subcategory of the CWT
point source category, the contribution for these pollutants would be zero.
14-25
-------
Chagte^^mglementation
Develo^menWocumen^bt^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
Off-Site
CWTMetals Wastes
10,000 L/day
On-Site OCPSF
Wastes
90,000 L/day
Metals
Treatment
Organics
Treatment
Discharge
100,000 L/day
Figure 14-6. Facility That Commingles Waste streams After Treatment
Indirect Discharging Facilities
14.8.3.2
For determination of pretreatment standards
where there are multiple categories, the
pretreatment standards are applied using the
"combined waste stream formula" as defined in
40 CFR § 403.6(e). The combined wastestream
formula (CWF) is based on three types of
wastestreams that can exist at an industrial
facility: regulated, unregulated, and dilute. As
defined (40 CFR 403), a regulated wastestream
is a wastestream from an industrial process that
is regulated by a categorical standard for
pollutant x. An unregulated wastestream is a
wastestream that is not covered by categorical
pretreatment standards and not classified as
dilute, or one that is not regulated for the
pollutant in question although it is regulated for
others. A dilute wastestream is defined to
include sanitary wastewater, noncontact cooling
water and boiler blowdown, and wastestreams
listed in Appendix D to 40 CFR 403.
Therefore, as described in 40 CFR 403, the
combined waste stream formula is
C„
• C1F1
i = 1
N
. /•;
where CT =
C, =
/•' =
Fd =
Ft =
Ft - Fd
Fr
(14-1)
the alternate concentration
limit for the combined
wastestream;
the categorical pretreatment
standard concentration limit
for a pollutant in the regulated
stream i;
the average daily flow of
stream i;
the average daily flow from
dilute wastestreams as defined
in 40 CFR 403; and
the total daily average flow
including regulated,
14-26
-------
G\^3te^^nmlemer^^oi^^^^^^^^^^^DevelopmenWocumen^bt^h^W^Poin^ourc^ateeory
unregulated, and dilution
wastestreams.
Using example 14-4 above, but assuming the
facility discharges to the local POTW, there are
no dilution flows. Therefore, the CWF equation
reduces in the following manner:
N
. /•;
c„
. , 1 F - 0
i = 1 w T
cT
• /¦;
N
. C F
I 1
i = 1
N
2 = 1
Frr
(14-2)
Using chromium and lead as examples again,
EPA has promulgated monthly average
pretreatment standards of 3.07 mg/L for
chromium and 0.283 mg/L for lead. Since the
OCPSF facility has no pretreatment standards
for chromium and lead, these wastestreams are
defined as "unregulated." Therefore, for this
example, the only regulated wastestream is the
oils subcategory flow and the chromium monthly
average limit would be (10,000 x 3.07)/10,000
= 3.07 mg/1 and the lead monthly average limit
would be (10,000 x 0.283)/10,000 = 0.283 mg/1.
The monthly average and daily maximum
pretreatment standards for other pollutants would
be calculated in a similar manner. Since EPA
has not proposed any pretreatment standards for
organic pollutants under the metals subcategory
of the CWT point source category, for organic
pollutants the CWT wastestreams would be
unregulated and would not effect the allowable
discharge concentration of organic pollutants as
required by OCPSF. For additional information
on the application of the combined waste stream
formula, see the Guidance Manual for the Use of
Production-Based Pretreatment Standards and
the Combined Waste Stream Formula.
However, as discussed on pages 3-2 to 3-3
of this guidance manual, unregulated streams are
presumed, for purposes of using the CWF, to
contain pollutants of concern at a significant
level. In effect, the CWF "gives credit" for
pollutants which might be present in the
unregulated wastestream. Rather than treating
the unregulated flow as dilution, which would
result in lowering the allowable concentration of
a pollutant, the CWF allows the pollutant to be
discharged in the unregulated wastestream at the
same concentration as the standard for the
regulated wastestream that is being discharged.
This is based on the assumption that if pollutants
are present in the unregulated wastestream, they
will be treated to the same level as in the
regulated wastestream. In some cases,
unregulated wastestreams may not actually
contain pollutants of concern at a significant
level. Even if this is the case, they are still
considered unregulated when applying the
formula. However, if the control authority is
concerned that an unregulated stream is actually
acting as dilution, a local or state control
authority can use its own legal authority to
establish a limit more stringent than would be
derived using the formula in the manner
prescribed by the Federal regulations.
Therefore, the control authority could apply its
best professional judgment to derive the same
chromium and lead limits as those derived in
Example 14-4 for the direct discharge example.
In the case of chromium the BPJ pretreatment
standard could be 0.307 mg/1 rather than the
CWF result of 3.07 mg/1. Similarly for lead, the
BPJ pretreatment standard could be 0.283 mg/1
rather than the CWF result of 0.283 mg/1.
14-27
-------
Chagte^^mglementation
Develo^menWocumen^ot^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
Exceptions to Guidance Provided for
CWT Facilities Also Covered By
Another Point Source Category 14.8.3.3
The only exceptions to the guidance
provided in sections 14.8.4.1 and 14.8.4.2 are
for facilities also subject to effluent guidelines
and preatreatment standards for Transportation
Equipment Cleaning (40 CFR 442) and effluent
guidelines for Landfills (40 CFR 445). The
application of the CWT rule to each of these
types of facilities is discussed below.
TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
CLEANING (TEC) 14.8.3.3.1
There are some facilities which are engaged
in both traditional CWT activities and traditional
TEC activities. If the wastewaters from the two
operations are commingled, under the approach
adopted for TEC, the commingled wastewater
flow from the transportation equipment cleaning
activities would be subject to CWT limits.
Therefore, a facility performing transportation
equipment cleaning as well as other CWT
services that commingles these wastes is a CWT
facility and all of the wastewater discharges are
subject to provisions of this rule. If, however, a
facility is performing both operations and the
waste streams are not commingled (that is,
transportation equipment cleaning process
wastewater is treated in one system and CWT
wastes are treated in a second, separate system),
both the TEC rule and CWT rule apply to the
respective wastewaters. If, however, the
wastewaters from the two separate treatment
systems are combined after treatment but prior
to discharge monitoring, discharge requirements
would be calculated by applying the "building
block approach" or the "combined waste stream
formula" as detailed in Sections 14.8.4.1 and
14.8.4.2.
LANDFILLS 14.8.3.3.2
In the CWT industry, there are some
facilities which are engaged both in CWT
activities and in operating landfills. For the CWT
final rule, EPA's approach to facilities which
treat mixtures of CWT wastewater and landfill
wastewater is consistent with that established for
the landfill guideline. Therefore, a facility
performing landfill activities, as well as other
CWT services, and commingles the wastewater
is a CWT facility only, and all of the wastewater
discharges are subject to the provisions of this
rule. If a facility is performing both operations
and the waste streams are not commingled (that
is, landfill wastewater is treated in one treatment
system and CWT wastewater is treated in a
second, separate treatment system), the
provisions of the Landfill rule and CWT rule
apply to its respective wastewaters. If, however,
the wastewaters from the two separate treatment
systems are combined after treatment, but prior
to discharge monitoring, discharge requirements
would be calculated by applying the "building
block approach" or the "combined waste stream
formula" as detailed in Sections 14.8.4.1 and
14.8.4.2.
14-28
-------
Chagte^^mglementation
Develo^menWocumen^ot^h^W^Poin^ourc^ate^or^
ANYFIRM
ANYTOWN, USA
(555) 555-1212
GENERATOR'S WASTE
MATERIAL PROFILE SHEET
NEW
AMENDMENT
PROFILE NUMBER
GENERATOR
BROKER(
DR SALESPERSON
Name
Name
Address
Address
Technical Contact
Phone
Contact | Phone
Shipping Contact
Phone
TRANSPORTER
Business Contact
Phone
Name
EPA ID#
Address
Contact
Phone
EPA ID#
WASTE DESCRIPTION
CHEMICAL & PHYSICAL STATE
Liquid
Multilayered
Odor
Semi-liquid
Bilayered
TSS
Solid
Single Phase
Color
PH
Flash Point
< 2
8-10
% Bottoms Sediment
2-4
_ 10-12
% Debris
4-6
_ *12
% Ash
—
6-8
_ N/A
Specific Gravity
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
(Describe process generating waste stream. Include a list of virgin materials and their Material Safety Data Sheets.)
CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS
METALS (PPM)
Petroleum Phase Aqueous Phase
Arsenic
Magnesium
Cadmium
Mercury
Chromium
Nickel
Copper
Tin
Lead
Zinc
OTHER CONSTITUENTS
SHIPPING INFORMATION
% Oil
RCRA Code
Shipping Method
Volume (gallons)
Figure 14-7. Template of a CWT Waste Receipt/Acceptance Form
14-29
-------
Chapter
15
ANALYTICAL METHODS AND BASELINE VALUES
Introduction 15.1
This chapter describes the analytical methods
that EPA used to analyze the samples
collected during EPA's data gathering efforts at
a number of facilities (these sampling efforts are
described in Chapter 2). It also discusses how
EPA treated the results of its sample analysis for
purposes of identifying pollutants of concern
(described in Chapter 6), determining the
loadings (Chapter 12), and calculating the
limitations and standards (Chapter 10).
EPA contracted with various laboratories to
analyze the samples. The laboratories analyzed
the samples using the methods identified in Table
15.1 and provided most of the results as liquid
concentrations (e.g., micrograms per liter
(ug/L)). In a few instances, the results were
provided as solids (e.g., milligrams per kilogram
(mg/Kg)). In those instances, EPA converted
the solids results into liquid concentration units
by using a conversion factor based upon the
percent of solids in the sample. In the rare cases
that the percent solids was not available, EPA
excluded the data from its analyses. None of
these excluded data were for the analytes
regulated by today's rule.
EPA compared each laboratory-reported (or
converted) analytical result for each pollutant to
a baseline value in order to determine whether to
use the value as reported by the laboratory. In
most cases, the baseline value was the "nominal
quantitation limit"1 stipulated for the specific
method used to measure a particular pollutant.
xIn other sections in this document and in
the preamble to the rulemaking, EPA sometimes
uses the term "minimum analytical detection
limit" when it refers to nominal quantitation limit
or the baseline value.
In general, the term "nominal quantitation limit"
is used here to describe the smallest quantity of
an analyte that can be measured reliably with a
particular analytical method. In some cases,
however, EPA used a value lower than the
nominal quantitation limit as the baseline value
because data demonstrated that reliable
measurements could be obtained at a lower level.
In a few instances, EPA has concluded that the
nominal quantitation limit for a specified method
was less than the level that laboratories could
reliably achieve. For those pollutants, EPA
modified the nominal quantitation limit upward
and used a higher value as the baseline value.
Sections 15.3 and 15.4 provide further
explanation of nominal quantitation limits and
baseline values. Table 15-1 sets forth the
analytical methods and baseline values used for
each pollutant in identifying pollutants of
concern, developing the loadings, and calculating
limitations and standards.
Analytical Results 15.2
The laboratories expressed the result of the
analysis either numerically or as "not
quantitated"2 for a pollutant in a sample. When
the result is expressed numerically, then the
pollutant was quantitated3 in the sample. For
example, for a hypothetical pollutant X, the
2Elsewhere in this document and in the
preamble to the rulemaking, EPA refers to
pollutants as "not detected" or "non-detected."
This chapter uses the term "not quantitated" or
"non-quantitated" rather than non-detected.
3Elsewhere in this document and in the
preamble to the rulemaking, EPA refers to
pollutants as "detected." This chapter uses the
term "quantitated" rather than detected.
15-1
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
result would be reported as "15 ug/L" when the
laboratory quantitated the amount of pollutant X
in the sample as being 15 ug/L. For the non-
quantitated results, for each sample, the
laboratories reported a "sample-specific
quantitation limit."4 For example, for the
hypothetical pollutant X, the result would be
reported as "<10 ug/L" when the laboratory
could not quantitate the amount of pollutant X in
the sample. That is, the analytical result
indicated a value less than the sample-specific
quantitation limit of 10 ug/L. The actual amount
of pollutant X in that sample is between zero
(i.e., the pollutant is not present) and 10 ug/L.
The sample-specific quantitation limit for a
particular pollutant is generally the smallest
quantity in the calibration range that may be
measured reliably in any given sample. If a
pollutant is reported as not quantitated in a
particular wastewater sample, this does not mean
that the pollutant is not present in the
wastewater, merely that analytical techniques
(whether because of instrument limitations,
pollutant interactions or other reasons) do not
permit its measurement at levels below the
sample-specific quantitation limit.
In a few instances, some of the laboratories
reported numerical results for specific pollutants
detected in the samples as "right-censored."
Right-censored measurements are those that
were reported as being greater than the highest
calibration value of the analysis (e.g., >1000
ug/L).
In its calculations, EPA generally substituted
the value of the reported sample-specific
quantitation limit for each non-quantitated result.
In a few cases when the sample-specific
quantitation limit was less than the baseline
value, EPA substituted the baseline value for the
4Elsewhere in this document and in the
preamble to the rulemaking, EPA refers to a
"sample-specific quantitation limit" as a "sample-
specific detection limit" or, more simply, as a
"detection limit."
non-quantitated result. In a few instances when
the quantitated value was below the baseline
value, EPA considered these values to be non-
quantitated in the statistical analyses and
substituted the baseline value for the measured
value. For the rare instances when the
laboratory reported a measurement as right-
censored, EPA used the highest calibration value
in its calculations.
Nominal Quantitation Limits 15.3
Protocols used for determination of nominal
quantitation limits in a particular method depend
on the definitions and conventions that EPA used
at the time the method was developed. The
nominal quantitation limits associated with the
methods addressed in the following sections fall
into three general categories. The first category
includes Methods 1624, 1625, and 1664, which
used the minimum level (ML) definition as the
lowest level at which the entire analytical system
must give a recognizable signal and an acceptable
calibration point for the analyte. The second
category pertains specifically to Method 1620,
and is explained in detail in section 15.5.3. The
third category pertains to the remainder of the
methods (i.e., the National Council for Air and
Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) Method
85.01 and the classical wet chemistry methods),
in which a variety of terms are used to describe
the lowest level at which measurement results
are quantitated. In some cases (especially with
the classical wet chemistry analytes) the methods
are older (1970s and 1980s) and different
concepts of quantitation apply. These methods
typically list a measurement range or lower limit
of measurement. The terms differ by method
and, as discussed in subsequent sections, the
levels presented are not always representative of
the lowest levels laboratories can achieve
currently. For those methods associated with a
calibration procedure, the laboratories
demonstrated through a low point calibration
standard that they were capable of reliable
15-2
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
quantitation at method-specified (or lower)
levels. In such cases these nominal quantitation
limits are operationally equivalent to the ML
(though not specifically identified as such in the
methods). In the case of titrimetric or
gravimetric methods, the laboratory adhered to
the established lower limit of the measurement
range published in the methods. Details of the
specific methods are presented in Section 15.5.
Baseline Values 15.4
Before using the data to identify pollutants of
concern, determine the loadings, and calculate
the limitations and standards; EPA compared
each analytical result (i.e., quantitated value or
sample-specific quantitation limit for a non-
quantitated value) to a baseline value for the
pollutant. For example, if a facility data set had
five values for oil and grease of which two were
non-quantitated with sample-specific quantitation
limits of 10 mg/L and the remaining three values
were quantitated with measurements of 20 mg/L,
25 mg/L, and 50 mg/L, then all five values (10
mg/L, 10 mg/L, 20 mg/L, 25 mg/L, and 50
mg/L) were compared to the baseline value of 5
mg/L for oil and grease. In most cases, the
detected values and sample-specific quantitation
limits were equal to or greater than the baseline
values.
In general, the baseline value was equal to
the nominal quantitation limit identified for the
method. For example, for total cyanide, the
baseline value was 0.02 mg/L which is the same
as the nominal quantitation limit of 0.02 mg/L for
total cyanide in Method 335.2.
EPA made several exceptions to this general
rule when EPA determined that the baseline
value should differ from the nominal quantitation
limit as specified in the method for a pollutant.
For example, EPA determined that the baseline
value for COD by Method 410.1 should be 5
mg/L rather than the nominal quantitation limit of
50 mg/L. (Section 15.5.6 explains this decision.)
EPA made exceptions to the general rule based
upon EPA's knowledge about the methods,
experiences with laboratories using those
methods, and the need for a single baseline value
for each pollutant. For example, EPA selected a
baseline value to be less than a nominal
quantitation limit when the laboratories
demonstrated through calibration or other quality
control (QC) data that reliable measurements of
the pollutant could be made at a lower level. For
these pollutants, the nominal quantitation limits
reported in the methods are overestimates of
what laboratories can reliably achieve and, the
baseline values were adjusted downwards.
Another example is when EPA selected baseline
values greater than the nominal quantitation
limits because the nominal quantitation limits
could not be reliably achieved. A third example
is when EPA selected a single baseline value
when the pollutant was measured by two or
more methods, each with a different nominal
quantitation limit.
The following section provides a brief
description of the analytical methods and
explains any differences between the nominal
quantitation limits and the baseline values.
15-3
-------
Chagt^^^^^Develo^men^ocumen^b^h^CW^^oin^ourc^Cate^or^
Table 15-1 Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Method
Analyte
CAS Number
Nominal
Quantitation
Value
Baseline Value
Unit
Assumption for Reported
Values * < Baseline Value
D4658
Total sulfide
18496-25-8
0.04
1.0
mg/L
used reported value
160.1
Total dissolved solids
C-010
10.0
10.0
mg/L
n/a
160.2
Total suspended solids
C-009
4.0
4.0
mg/L
n/a
1620
Metals compounds
*
used reported value
1624
Organic compounds
*
modified
1625
Organic compounds
*
modified
1664
HEM
C-036
5.0
5.0
mg/L
modified
1664
SGT-HEM
C-037
5.0
5.0
mg/L
modified
209F
Total solids
C-008
10.0
10.0
mg/L
n/a
218.4
Hexavalent chromium
18540-29-9
0.01
0.01
mg/L
used reported value
325.1
Chloride
16887-00-6
1.0
1.0
mg/L
n/a
325.3
Chloride
16887-00-6
1.0
1.0
mg/L
n/a
335.2
Total cyanide
57-12-5
0.02
0.02
mg/L
used reported value
340.1
Fluoride
16984-48-8
0.1
0.1
mg/L
n/a
340.2
Fluoride
16984-48-8
0.1
0.1
mg/L
n/a
350.1
Ammonia as nitrogen
7664-41-7
0.01
0.05
mg/L
n/a
350.2
Ammonia as nitrogen
7664-41-7
0.05
0.05
mg/L
n/a
350.3
Ammonia as nitrogen
7664-41-7
0.03
0.05
mg/L
n/a
3500D
Hexavalent chromium
18540-29-9
0.1
0.01
mg/L
n/a
353.1
Nitrate/nitrite
C-005
0.01
0.05
mg/L
used reported value
353.2
Nitrate/nitrite
C-005
0.05
0.05
mg/L
used reported value
353.3
Nitrate/nitrite
C-005
0.01
0.05
mg/L
used reported value
365.2
Total phosphorus
14265-44-2
0.01
0.01
mg/L
n/a
365.3
Total phosphorus
14265-44-2
0.01
0.01
mg/L
n/a
376.1
Total sulfide
18496-25-8
1.0
1.0
mg/L
used reported value
405.1
Carbonaceous BOD5
C-002
2.0
2.0
mg/L
n/a
405.1
BOD,
C-003
2.0
2.0
mg/L
used reported value
410.1
COD
C-004
50.0
5.0**
mg/L
n/a
410.1
D-COD
C-004D
50.0
5.0**
mg/L
n/a
410.2
COD
C-004
5.0
5.0**
mg/L
n/a
410.4
COD
C-004
3.0f
20.0
5.0
mg/L
n/a
413.1
Oil and grease
C-007
5.0
5.0
mg/L
used reported value
415.1
Total organic carbon
C-012
1.0
1.0
mg/L
n/a
420.2
Total phenols
C-020
0.01
0.05
mg/L
used reported value
5210
bod5
C-003
2.0
2.0
mg/L
n/a
85.01
Chlorinated phenolics
*
n/a
* If the entry in this column indicates that EPA 'used the reported value' for a particular analyte, then EPA used either the quantitated value or the sample-
specific quantitation limit reported by the laboratory. If the entry is 'n/a' then none of the data that EPA used in its analyses were reported below the
baseline value.
* The method analyzed a number of pollutants. Attachment 15-1 identifies all pollutants that EPA considered (see section 2) and their baseline values.
In general, the baseline values are equal to the nominal quantitation limits.
**The baseline value was adjusted to reflect the lowest nominal quantitation limit ofthetitrimetric procedures (i.e., 410.1 and 410.2). See Section 15.5.6
for a detailed explanation.
tMethod 410.4 lists two different quanitation limits that are dependent upon whether the automated or manual protocols are followed. The automated
method limit = 3 mg/L and the manual method limit = 20 mg/L.
15-4
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
Analytical Methods 15.5
Table 15-1 provides a summary of the
analytical methods, the associated pollutants
measured by the method, the nominal
quantitation levels, the baseline levels, and the
assumptions for values reported below the
baseline levels. Attachment 15-1 provides a
more complete list of the pollutants and their
baseline values. The following subsections
provide additional information supporting the
summary in Table 15-1.
Methods 1624, 1625, 1664
(Organics, HEM) 15.5.1
As stated earlier, Methods 1624 and 1625
for organic compounds, and Method 16645 for
«-hcxanc extractable material (HEM) and silica
gel treated ra-hexane extractable material (SGT-
HEM)6 use the minimum level concept for
quantitation of the pollutants measured by the
methods. The ML is defined as the lowest level
at which the entire analytical system must give a
recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration
point for the analyte. When an ML is published
in a method, the Agency has demonstrated that
the ML can be achieved in at least one well-
operated laboratory, and when that laboratory or
another laboratory uses that method, the
laboratory is required to demonstrate, through
calibration of the instrument or analytical system,
that it can make measurements at the ML. For
these methods, EPA used the minimum levels as
the baseline values.
If a quantitated value or sample-specific
quantitation limit was reported with a value less
than the ML specified in a method, EPA
substituted the value of the ML and assumed
that the measurement was non-quantitated7. For
example, if the ML was 10 ug/L and the
laboratory reported a quantitated value of 5 ug/L,
EPA assumed that the concentration was non-
quantitated with a sample-specific quantitation
limit of 10 ug/L.
Method 413.1 (Oil and Grease) 15.5.2
Method 413.1 was used in early sampling
episodes to measure pollutant concentrations of
oil and grease. Because this method requires
freon, an ozone depleting solvent, to perform the
analysis, EPA developed and recently
promulgated Method 1664 to replace the
procedures currently approved at 40 CFR 136.
The same nominal quantitation limit of 5 mg/L
applies to both methods for measuring oil and
grease and HEM.
Of the data used to identify the pollutants of
concern and calculate pollutant loadings, a few of
the quantitated values from Method 413.1 were
lower than the nominal quantitation limit. EPA
used the values as reported in its analyses.
(None of the sample-specific quantitation limits
were less than the nominal quantitation limit.)
Of the data used to develop the limitations,
none of the quantitated values and sample-
specific quantitation limits were less than the
nominal quantitation limit.
Method 1620 15.5.3
Method 1620, which measures the amounts
of specific metals in samples, uses the concept of
an instrument detection limit (IDL), which is
defined as "the smallest signal above background
5See final rulemaking at 64 Federal
Register 26315, May 14, 1999.
6SGT-HEM measures non-polar material
(i.e., n-hexane extractable material that is not
absorbed by silica gel). Method 1664 measures
both oil and grease and non-polar material.
7For p-cresol, EPA used 10 ug/L as the
ML in many of its data analyses. However, in
developing the limitations and standards for the
organics subcategory EPA used the correct ML of
20 ug/L.
15-5
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
noise that an instrument can detect reliably."8
IDLs are determined on a quarterly basis by each
analytical laboratory participating in the data
gathering efforts by EPA's Engineering and
Analysis Division (EAD) and are, therefore,
laboratory-specific and time-specific. Data
reporting practices for Method 1620 analysis
follow conventional metals reporting practices
used in other EPA programs, in which values are
reported at or above the IDL. Though Method
1620 does contain minimum levels (MLs), these
MLs pre-date EPA's recent refinement of the
minimum level concept. The ML values
associated with Method 1620 are based on a
consensus opinion reached between EPA and
laboratories during the 1980s regarding levels
that could be considered reliable quantitation
limits when using Method 1620. These limits do
not reflect advances in technology and
instrumentation since the 1980s. Consequently,
the IDLs were used as the baseline for reporting
purposes, with the general understanding that
reliable results can be produced at or above the
IDL.
The Method 1620 ML values were used as
the baseline values in the data screening, with the
exception of two analytes: boron and lead.
Based on laboratory feedback years ago, it was
determined that the boron ML of 10 ug/L
specified in Table 9 of Method 1620 could not
be reliably achieved. Consequently, for the
purposes of EAD's data gathering under the
metals contracts, the ML for boron was adjusted
to 100 ug/L. In the case of lead, which has an
ML of 5 ug/L associated with graphite furnace
atomic absorption (GFAA) spectroscopy
analysis, EAD determined that it was not
necessary to measure down to such low levels,
and that lead could be analyzed by inductively
coupled plasma atomic emission (ICP)
8Keith, L.H., W. Crummett, J. Deegan,
R.A. Libby, J.K. Taylor, G. Wentler (1983).
"Principles of Environmental Analysis,"
Analytical Chemistry, Volume 55, Page 2217.
spectroscopy instead. Consequently, the ML
requirement was adjusted to 50 ug/L.
In one sampling episode (1987), the
laboratory did not provide sample-specific limits9
for the 42-element semiquantitative screen
component of Method 1620. In 1990, when
these analyses were performed, the laboratory's
standard convention to report non-quantitated
results from semiquantitative analysis was to
populate the summary form with 'ND' rather
than reporting sample-specific limits. In
identifying pollutants of concern and determining
the loadings, EPA generally assumed that the
sample-specific limits were equal to the baseline
values for the pollutant (none of these pollutants
were regulated in this rule).
Though the baseline values were derived
from the MLs (or adjusted MLs) in Method
1620, EPA used the laboratory reported
quantitated values and sample-specific
quantitation limits (or substituted baseline
values), which captured concentrations down to
the IDLs, in identifying the pollutants of concern
and calculating the pollutant loadings and
limitations. If the long-term average for a
pollutant was less than the baseline value,
however, EPA substituted the baseline value for
the long-term average and re-calculated the
limitation using this revised long-term average
and the variability factor.
Method 85.01
(Chlorinated Phenolics) 15.5.4
NCASI Method 85.01 was used to analyze
some samples associated with the organics
subcategory for chlorinated phenolics. This gas
chromatography/electron capture detector
(GC/ECD) method predates EPA Method 1653
9These limits are lower threshold limits
(LTLs) and are based upon signal-to-noise ratio
for each element. As such, these are different
than the quantitation limits as defined in this
section.
15-6
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
for chlorinated phenolics determination, and was
only used for analysis of samples under one
CWT sampling episode (Episode 1987, collected
in 1990). Method 1653 is an isotope dilution gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)
method.
Some chlorinated phenolics in Episode 1987
were analyzed by both Method 85.01 and
Method 1625. Thus, for a given sample, there
were two results for a specific chlorinated
phenolic compound. Of the pollutants of
concern, these compounds were
pentachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6- tetrachlorophenol,
2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol.
Where two results were provided for the same
pollutant in a sample, EPA used the analytical
result from Method 1625. This decision is based
on the knowledge that Method 1625 is an isotope
dilution GC/MS procedure and, therefore,
produces more reliable results than Method
85.01.
For the remaining chlorinated phenolics
analytes that were determined by Method 85.01,
EPA used the laboratory-specific quantitation
limits as the baseline values. These laboratory-
specific quantitation limits were established by
the laboratory through its calibration procedures.
The quantitation limits reported were
representative of a low level calibration standard
concentration, thereby complying with the
minimum level definition of the lowest level at
which the entire analytical system gives a
recognizable signal and an acceptable calibration
point.
EPA used the data from Method 85.01 to
identify pollutants of concern and to determine
pollutant loadings. In all cases, the quantitated
values and sample-specific quantitation limits
were greater than or equal to the baseline value
associated with the pollutant.
EPA has not used the Method 85.01 results
in calculating any limitations or standards. EPA
is regulating one of the analytes measured by this
method; however, the data used to calculate the
limitations and standards were generated by
Method 1625.
Methods D4658 and 376.1
(Total Sulfide) 15.5.5
Total sulfide was analyzed by Methods
376.1 and D4658, each of which have different
nominal quantitation limits. Method 376.1 has a
nominal quantitation limit of 1 mg/L, while
Method D4658 has a nominal quantitation limit
of 0.04 mg/L. Rather than use two different
baseline values for the same pollutant, EPA used
the maximum of the two values (i.e., 1 mg/L) as
the baseline value.
In some cases, the reported quantitated value
or sample-specific quantitation limit was lower
than the nominal quantitation limits identified in
the method. EPA used these values as reported
in identifying the pollutants of concern and
calculating the pollutant loadings (EPA did not
regulate total sulfide in this rule).
Methods 410.1, 410.2, and 410.4
(COD and D-COD) 15.5.6
Methods 410.1,410.2, and 410.4 were used
to measure chemical oxygen demand (COD)
concentrations. In addition, Method 410.1 was
used to measure the dissolved chemical oxygen
demand (D-COD) concentrations in Episode
1987.
Methods 410.1 and 410.2 are titrimetric
procedures that follow identical analytical
protocols, with the exception of the
concentration level of the reagents used for the
titration. Method 410.1 is designed to measure
"mid-level" concentrations greater than 50 mg/L
for COD and D-COD. Method 410.2 is
designed to measure "low-level" concentrations
of these parameters in the range of 5-50 mg/L.
When one of the participating laboratories
analyzes a sample, they are required to measure
down to the lowest quantitation limit possible.
Consequently, if the laboratory analyzes a
sample using Method 410.1 and obtains a non-
15-7
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
quantitated result, it must reanalyze the sample
using Method 410.2. Therefore, the quantitation
limit reported for non-quantitations will be equal
to 5 mg/L, unless sample dilutions were required
because of matrix complexities. Method 410.4
is a colorimetric procedure with a measurement
range of 3-900 mg/L for automated procedures
and measurement range of 20-900 mg/L for
manual procedures.
For all COD data, EPA used the baseline
value of 5 mg/L that is associated with the lower
quantitation limit for the titrimetric procedures
because most of the data had been obtained by
the titrimetric procedures (i.e., Methods 410.1 or
410.2). Regardless of the method used to
analyze COD and D-COD, all quantitated values
and sample-specific quantitation limits used to
identify the pollutants of concern and calculate
the pollutant loadings were greater than the
nominal quantitation limit of 5 mg/L (EPA did
not regulate COD and D-COD in this rule).
Method 420.2 (Total Phenols) 15.5.7
Method 420.2 was used to analyze for total
phenols. The method reports two "working
ranges"; one with a lower range limit of 0.002
mg/L and the other with a lower range limit of
0.01 mg/L. In this case, EPA's experience with
the laboratories has indicated that some can meet
the lower limits of the method-specified range
and others cannot. Consequently, EPA
determined that the baseline value should be 0.05
mg/L, which reflects the quantitation limit that all
participating laboratories were capable of
achieving.
In some cases, the quantitated value or the
sample-specific quantitation limit was lower than
the baseline value of 0.05 mg/L. Because some
laboratories have demonstrated that they can
quantitate to lower levels, EPA used these values
as reported in identifying pollutants of concern
and calculating the pollutant loadings (EPA did
not regulate total phenols in this rule).
Method 218.4 and 3500D
(Hexavalent Chromium) 15.5.8
Hexavalent chromium was determined by
Methods 218.4 and 3500D. Because most of
the samples were analyzed using Method 218.4,
its baseline value of 0.01 mg/L was used for all
hexavalent chromium results. For some samples
analyzed by Method 218.4, the quantitated value
or sample-specific quantitation limit was lower
than the nominal quantitation limit identified in
the method. (None of the data used from
Method 3500D were less than the nominal
quantitation limit.) EPA used these values as
reported in identifying the pollutants of concern
and calculating the pollutant loadings. In
calculating the limitations and standards, none of
the quantitated values or sample-specific
quantitation limits were lower than the nominal
quantitation limit identified in the method (EPA
did not regulate hexavalent chromium in this
rule).
Method 335.2 (Total Cyanide) 15.5.9
Samples were analyzed for total cyanide
using Method 335.2. The nominal quantitation
limit and the baseline value were the same.
In some cases, the reported sample-specific
quantitation limit was lower than the baseline
value for the pollutant. (None of the quantitated
values was lower than the baseline value.)
Because some laboratories have demonstrated
that they can quantitate to lower levels, EPA
used these values as reported in identifying the
pollutants of concern and calculating the
pollutant loadings. None of the data used to
calculate the limitations were lower than the
baseline value.
15-8
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
Methods 353.1, 353.2, and 353.3
(Nitrate/Nitrite) 15.5.10
Nitrate/nitrite was determined by three EPA
methods, each of which list slightly different
nominal quantitation limits, which are expressed
in the methods as the lower limit of the
measurement range. Methods 353.1 and 353.2
are automated colorimetric procedures with
quantitation limits of 0.01 and 0.05 mg/L,
respectively. Method 353.3 is a cadmium
reduction, spectrophotometric procedure with a
nominal quantitation limit of 0.01 mg/L. Rather
than use two different baseline values for the
same pollutant, EPA used the maximum of the
two values (i.e., 0.05 mg/L) as the baseline.
In several instances, the reported quantitated
values or sample-specific quantitation limits were
below the 0.05 mg/L baseline value. Because the
laboratory demonstrated that it could quantitate
at lower levels, EPA used these values as
reported in identifying the pollutants of concern
and calculating the pollutant loadings (EPA did
not regulate nitrate/nitrite in this rule).
Methods 350.1, 350.2, and 350.3
(Ammonia as Nitrogen) 15.5.11
Ammonia as Nitrogen was measured by
three different procedures, each of which were
associated with a different nominal quantitation
limit. Method 350.1 is an automated
colorimetric procedure with a lower
measurement range limit of 0.01 mg/L. Method
350.2 utilizes either colorimetric, titrimetric, or
electrode procedures to measure ammonia, and
has a lower measurement range limit of (a) 0.05
mg/L for the colorimetric and electrode
procedures and (b) 0.01 mg/L for the titrimetric
procedure. Method 350.3 determines ammonia
potentiometrically using an ion selective
ammonia electrode and a pH meter and has a
lower measurement range limit of 0.03 mg/L.
Rather than use different baseline values for the
same pollutant, EPA used the maximum of the
values (i.e., 0.05 mg/L) as the baseline.
None of the quantitated values and sample-
specific quantitation limits used to identify the
pollutants of concern and calculate the pollutant
loadings were less than the baseline value (EPA
did not regulate ammonia as nitrogen in this
rule).
Remaining Methods 15.5.12
The previous subsections in section 15.5
identify many of the methods used to analyze the
wastewater samples. The remaining methods
were: 160.1 (total dissolved solids), 160.2 (total
suspended solids), 209F (total solids), 325.1 and
325.3 (chloride), 340.1 and 340.2 (fluoride),
365.2 and 365.3 (total phosphorus), 405.1 (5-
day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and
carbonaceous BOD5), 5210 (BOD5), and 415.1
(total organic carbon). For these methods, the
nominal quantitation limits and the baseline
values were equal. In addition, none of the
quantitated values were reported below the
nominal quantitation limits. For one sample, the
sample-specific quantitation limit for BOD5 was
less than the nominal quantitation limit. EPA
used this sample-specific quantitation limit in
identifying pollutants of concern and calculating
pollutant loadings for BOD5.
Of the pollutants measured by these
methods, EPA proposed limitations for total
suspended solids (TSS) and BOD5.
Analytical Method
Development Efforts 15.6
Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act
directs EPA to promulgate guidelines establishing
test procedures for the analysis of pollutants.
These test procedures (methods) are used to
determine the presence and concentration of
pollutants in wastewater, and are used for
compliance monitoring and for filing applications
for the NPDES program under 40 CFR 122.21,
122.41, 122.44 and 123.25, and for the
15-9
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
implementation of the pretreatment standards
under 40 CFR 403.10 and 403.12. EPA
publishes test procedures for the wastewater
program at 40 CFR 136.3. Currently approved
methods for metals and cyanide are included in
the table of approved inorganic test procedures at
40 CFR 136.3, Table I-B. Table I-C at 40 CFR
136.3 lists approved methods for measurement
of non-pesticide organic pollutants, and Table I-
D lists approved methods for the toxic pesticide
pollutants and for other pesticide pollutants.
Dischargers must use the test methods
promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136.3 or
incorporated by reference in the tables to
monitor pollutant discharges from the centralized
waste treatment (CWT) industry, unless
specified otherwise in part 437 or by the
permitting authority.
The final CWT rule amends 40 CFR Part
136, Appendix A, to specify the applicability of
certain methods for specific wastestreams. The
amendments accomplish several objectives,
which are outlined in the following paragraphs.
Briefly, the amendments clarify EPA's intent
regarding the applicability of Methods 625 and
1625 for some of the pollutant parameters in the
final rule for Centralized Waste Treatment
facilities and also for some of the pollutant
parameters in 40 CFR 445 (Landfills Point
Source Category).
The 1999 CWT proposal (at 64 FR 2297)
stated that 11 CWT semivolatile organic
pollutants and two CWT volatile organic
pollutants (2-butanone and 2-propanone) were
not listed in Table I-C at 40 CFR 136.3. Even
though these 13 analytes were not shown in
Table I-C, there were already approved test
methods for six of these 13, as follows. EPA
Method 1624 lists 2-butanone and 2-propanone,
provides performance data for these two
analytes, and is an approved method for these
two analytes. EPA Method 1625 lists four of the
11 CWT semivolatile organic pollutants with
relevant performance data and is an approved
method for these four analytes (alpha-terpineol,
carbazole, n-decane, and n-octadecane).
In the 1999 CWT proposal, EPA proposed
to expand the analyte list for the already-
approved methods and also to allow modified
versions of Methods 625 and 1625. The Docket
for the proposed rulemaking included the
proposed modifications to Methods 625 and
1625 regarding expansion of the analyte list. The
expanded list covered 17 pollutants in total,
including all of the proposed CWT semivolatile
organic pollutants. For 7 of those analytes,
performance data were not available for either
method and these data were not included in the
Docket at proposal. EPA also noted its plans for
further validation of the method modifications.
Since proposal, EPA has gathered
performance data on the additional seven CWT
analytes and additional analytes of interest for
other industry categories. In January 2000, EPA
amended Methods 625 and 1625 by adding the
performance data for the additional analytes.
The amendments consist of text, performance
data, and quality control (QC) acceptance criteria
for the additional analytes. This information will
allow a laboratory to practice the methods with
the additional analytes as an integral part. The
QC acceptance criteria for the additional analytes
were validated in single-laboratory studies. The
January 2000 amendments were part of the
rulemaking notice for the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the Landfills Point
Source Category (65 FR 3008, January 19,
2000). EPA's intent was to promulgate
amendments to Methods 625 and 1625 that
would allow the use of those methods for
specific pollutants regulated in 40 CFR Part 445
(i.e., Landfills) for purposes of that rule only.
Some of the pollutants had also been included in
the CWT proposal. Subsequent to the Landfills
promulgation, EPA received inquiries about the
scope and applicability of the amendments to the
test methods. In response to those inquiries,
EPA published a notice of data availability
(NODA) and request for comment on the data
collected for the additional analytes (see 65 FR
15-10
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
41391, July 5, 2000).
The NODA clarified EPA's intent regarding
the method amendments by explaining that the
amendments published on January 19, 2000 "...
are applicable only to the five regulated
pollutants in the Landfills rule when found in the
waste streams regulated under that rule" (65 FR
41392). The NODA also announced EPA's
plans to further amend the methods in the final
CWT rulemaking (i.e., this rulemaking) to
specify that the revisions to Methods 625 and
1625 apply to the pollutants promulgated in the
final CWT rule and only for the wastestreams
regulated in the final CWT rule. In the final
CWT amendments to 40 CFR Part 136,
Appendix A, EPA thus clarifies its intent
regarding the scope of method amendments.
Specifically, the amendments include additional
text to the Introduction section of the attachment
at the end of Methods 625 and 1625 and
footnotes to Tables in the attachment. The
amendments delineate the scope of Methods 625
and 1625 regarding compliance with monitoring
requirements for the wastestreams covered by 40
CFR Parts 437 and 445. In addition, EPA
deleted from the attachment to the methods
those analytes not covered by the Landfills and
CWT final rules.
15-11
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
Attachment 15-1 Analytical Methods and Baseline Values
Pollutant
CAS No.
Method
Baseline
Value
Unit
CLASSICALS OR CONVENTIONALS
Ammonia as nitrogen
7664-41-7
350.1
0.05
mg/L
350.2
0.05
mg/L
350.3
0.05
mg/L
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
C-003
405.1
2.00
mg/L
5210
2.00
mg/L
BOD 5-day (carbonaceous)
C-002
405.1
2.00
mg/L
Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
C-004
410.1
5.00
mg/L
410.2
5.00
mg/L
410.4
5.00
mg/L
410.4
5.00
mg/L
Chloride
16887-00-6
325.1
1.00
mg/L
325.3
1.00
mg/L
D-Chemical oxygen demand
C-004D
410.1
5.00
mg/L
Fluoride
16984-48-8
340.1
0.10
mg/L
340.2
0.10
mg/L
Hexane extractable material (HEM)
C-036
1664
5.00
mg/L
Hexavalent chromium
18540-29-9
218.4
0.01
mg/L
3500
0.01
mg/L
Nitrate/nitrite
C-005
353.1
0.05
mg/L
353.2
0.05
mg/L
353.3
0.05
mg/L
SGT-HEM
C-037
1664
5.00
mg/L
Total cyanide
57-12-5
335.2
0.02
mg/L
Total dissolved solids
C-010
160.1
10.00
mg/L
Total organic carbon (TOC)
C-012
415.1
1.00
mg/L
Total phenols
C-020
420.1
0.05
mg/L
420.2
0.05
mg/L
Total phosphorus
14265-44-2
365.2
0.01
mg/L
365.3
0.01
mg/L
Total recoverable oil and grease
C-007
413.1
5.00
mg/L
Total solids
C-008
209F
10.00
0/
/O
Total sulfide
18496-25-8
376.1
1.00
mg/L
D4658
1.00
mg/L
Total suspended solids
C-009
160.2
4.00
mg/L
METALS
Aluminum
7429-90-5
1620
200.00
ug/L
Antimony
7440-36-0
1620
20.00
ug/L
Arsenic
7440-38-2
1620
10.00
ug/L
Barium
7440-39-3
1620
200.00
ug/L
Beryllium
7440-41-7
1620
5.00
ug/L
Bismuth
7440-69-9
1620
100.00
ug/L
Boron
7440-42-8
1620
100.00
ug/L
Cadmium
7440-43-9
1620
5.00
ug/L
Calcium
7440-70-2
1620
5000.00
ug/L
Cerium
7440-45-1
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Chromium
7440-47-3
1620
10.00
ug/L
Cobalt
7440-48-4
1620
50.00
ug^L
15-12
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
Pollutant
CAS No.
Method
Baseline
Value
Unit
Copper
7440-50-8
1620
25.00
ug/L
Dysprosium
7429-91-6
1620
100.00
ug/L
Erbium
7440-52-0
1620
100.00
ug/L
Europium
7440-53-1
1620
100.00
ug/L
Gadolinium
7440-54-2
1620
500.00
ug/L
Gallium
7440-55-3
1620
500.00
ug/L
Germanium
7440-56-4
1620
500.00
ug/L
Gold
7440-57-5
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Hafnium
7440-58-6
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Holmium
7440-60-0
1620
500.00
ug/L
Indium
7440-74-6
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Iodine
7553-56-2
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Iridium
7439-88-5
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Iron
7439-89-6
1620
100.00
ug/L
Lanthanum
7439-91-0
1620
100.00
ug/L
Lead
7439-92-1
1620
50.00
ug/L
Lithium
7439-93-2
1620
100.00
ug/L
Lutetium
7439-94-3
1620
100.00
ug/L
Magnesium
7439-95-4
1620
5000.00
ug/L
Manganese
7439-96-5
1620
15.00
ug/L
Mercury
7439-97-6
1620
0.20
ug/L
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
1620
10.00
ug/L
Neodymium
7440-00-8
1620
500.00
ug/L
Nickel
7440-02-0
1620
40.00
ug/L
Niobium
7440-03-1
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Osmium
7440-04-2
1620
100.00
ug/L
Palladium
7440-05-3
1620
500.00
ug/L
Phosphorus
7723-14-0
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Platinum
7440-06-4
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Potassium
7440-09-7
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Praseodymium
7440-10-0
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Rhenium
7440-15-5
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Rhodium
7440-16-6
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Ruthenium
7440-18-8
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Samarium
7440-19-9
1620
500.00
ug/L
Scandium
7440-20-2
1620
100.00
ug/L
Selenium
7782-49-2
1620
5.00
ug/L
Silicon
7440-21-3
1620
100.00
ug/L
Silver
7440-22-4
1620
10.00
ug/L
Sodium
7440-23-5
1620
5000.00
ug/L
Strontium
7440-24-6
1620
100.00
ug/L
Sulfur
7704-34-9
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Tantalum
7440-25-7
1620
500.00
ug/L
Tellurium
13494-80-9
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Terbium
7440-27-9
1620
500.00
ug/L
Thallium
7440-28-0
1620
10.00
ug/L
Thorium
7440-29-1
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Thulium
7440-30-4
1620
500.00
ug/L
Tin
7440-31-5
1620
30.00
ug/L
Titanium
7440-32-6
1620
5.00
ugL
15-13
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
Pollutant
CAS No.
Method
Baseline
Value
Unit
Tungsten
7440-33-7
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Uranium
7440-61-1
1620
1000.00
ug/L
Vanadium
7440-62-2
1620
50.00
ug/L
Ytterbium
7440-64-4
1620
100.00
ug/L
Yttrium
7440-65-5
1620
5.00
ug/L
Zinc
7440-66-6
1620
20.00
ug/L
Zirconium
7440-67-7
1620
100.00
ug/L
ORGANICS
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
1625
10.00
ug/L
Acenaphthylene
208-96-8
1625
10.00
ug/L
Acetophenone
98-86-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
Acrylonitrile
107-13-1
1624
50.00
ug/L
Alpha-terpineol
98-55-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
Aniline
62-53-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
Aniline, 2,4,5-trimethyl-
137-17-7
1625
20.00
ug/L
Anthracene
120127
1625
10.00
ug/L
Aramite
140-57-8
1625
50.00
ug/L
Benzanthrone
82-05-3
1625
50.00
ug/L
Benzene
71-43-2
1624
10.00
ug/L
Benzenethiol
108-98-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
Benzidine
92-87-5
1625
50.00
ug/L
Benzo(a)anthracene
56-55-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
Benzo(a)pyrene
50-32-8
1625
10.00
ug/L
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
205-99-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
Benzo(ghi)perylene
191-24-2
1625
20.00
ug/L
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
207-08-9
1625
10.00
ug/L
Benzoic acid
65-85-0
1625
50.00
ug/L
Benzonitrile, 3,5 -dibromo-4-hy droxy-
1689-84-5
1625
50.00
ug/L
Benzyl alcohol
100-51-6
1625
10.00
ug/L
Beta-naphthylamine
91-59-8
1625
50.00
ug/L
Biphenyl
92-52-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
Biphenyl, 4-nitro
92-93-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
111-91-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
111-44-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
108-60-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
117-81-7
1625
10.00
ug/L
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
1624
10.00
ug/L
Bromomethane
74-83-9
1624
50.00
ug/L
Butyl benzyl phthalate
85-68-7
1625
10.00
ug/L
Carbazole
86-74-8
1625
20.00
ug/L
Carbon Disulfide
75-15-0
1624
10.00
ug/L
Chloroacetonitrile
107-14-2
1624
10.00
ug/L
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
1624
10.00
ug/L
Chloroethane
75-00-3
1624
50.00
ug/L
Chloroform
67-66-3
1624
10.00
ug/L
Chloromethane
74-87-3
1624
50.00
ug/L
Chrysene
218-01-9
1625
10.00
ug/L
Cis-1,3-dichloropropene
10061-01-5
1624
10.00
ug/L
Crotonaldehyde
4170-30-3
1624
50.00
ug/L
CrotoxvDhos
7700-17-6
1625
99.00
ug/L
15-14
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
Pollutant
CAS No.
Method
Baseline
Value
Unit
Di-n-butyl phthalate
84-74-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
Di-n-octyl phthalate
117-84-0
1625
10.00
ug/L
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
621-64-7
1625
20.00
ug/L
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
53-70-3
1625
20.00
ug/L
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
1625
10.00
ug/L
Dibenzothiophene
132-65-0
1625
10.00
ug/L
Dibromochloromethane
124-48-1
1624
10.00
ug/L
Dibromomethane
74-95-3
1624
10.00
ug/L
Diethyl ether
60-29-7
1624
50.00
ug/L
Diethyl phthalate
84-66-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
Dimethyl phthalate
131-11-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
Dimethyl sulfone
67-71-0
1625
10.00
ug/L
Diphenyl ether
101-84-8
1625
10.00
ug/L
Diphenylamine
122-39-4
1625
20.00
ug/L
Diphenyldisulfide
882-33-7
1625
20.00
ug/L
Ethane, pentachloro-
76-01-7
1625
20.00
ug/L
Ethyl cyanide
107-12-0
1624
10.00
ug/L
Ethyl methacrylate
97-63-2
1624
10.00
ug/L
Ethyl methanesulfonate
62-50-0
1625
20.00
ug/L
Ethylbenzene
100-41-4
1624
10.00
ug/L
Ethylenethiourea
96-45-7
1625
20.00
ug/L
Fluoranthene
206-44-0
1625
10.00
ug/L
Fluorene
86-73-7
1625
10.00
ug/L
Hexachlorobenzene
118-74-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
Hexachlorobutadiene
87-68-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
77-47-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
Hexachloroethane
67-72-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
Hexachloropropene
1888-71-7
1625
20.00
ug/L
Hexanoic acid
142-62-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
193-39-5
1625
20.00
ug/L
Iodomethane
74-88-4
1624
10.00
ug/L
Isobutyl alcohol
78-83-1
1624
10.00
ug/L
Isophorone
78-59-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
Isosafrole
120-58-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
Longifolene
475-20-7
1625
50.00
ug/L
m+p Xylene
179601-23-1
1624
10.00
ug/L
M-xylene
108-38-3
1624
10.00
ug/L
Malachite Green
569-64-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
Mestranol
72-33-3
1625
20.00
ug/L
Methapyrilene
91-80-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
Methyl methacrylate
80-62-6
1624
10.00
ug/L
Methyl methanesulfonate
66-27-3
1625
20.00
ug/L
Methylene chloride
75-09-2
1624
10.00
ug/L
n,n-dimethylformamide
68-12-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Decane
124-18-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Docosane
629-97-0
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Dodecane
112-40-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Eicosane
112-95-8
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Hexacosane
630-01-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Hexadecane
544-76-3
1625
10.00
ugL
15-15
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
Pollutant
CAS No.
Method
Baseline
Value
Unit
n-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine
924-16-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Nitrosodiethylamine
55-18-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Nitrosodimethylamine
62-75-9
1625
50.00
ug/L
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine
86-30-6
1625
20.00
ug/L
n-Nitrosomethylethylamine
10595-95-6
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Nitrosomethylphenylamine
614-00-6
1625
99.00
ug/L
n-Nitrosomorpholine
59-89-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Nitrosopiperidine
100-75-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Octacosane
630-02-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Octadecane
593-45-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Tetracosane
646-31-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Tetradecane
629-59-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
n-Triacontane
638-68-6
1625
10.00
ug/L
Naphthalene
91-20-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
Nitrobenzene
98-95-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
o+p Xylene
136777-61-2
1624
10.00
ug/L
o-Anisidine
90-04-0
1625
10.00
ug/L
o-Cresol
95-48-7
1625
10.00
ug/L
o-Toluidine
95-53-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
o-Toluidine, 5-chloro-
95-79-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
o-Xylene
95-47-6
1624
10.00
ug/L
p-Chloroaniline
106-47-8
1625
10.00
ug/L
p-Cresol
106-44-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
p-Cymene
99-87-6
1625
10.00
ug/L
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
60-11-7
1625
20.00
ug/L
p-Nitroaniline
100-01-6
1625
50.00
ug/L
Pentachlorobenzene
608-93-5
1625
20.00
ug/L
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
1625
50.00
ug/L
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
85.01
0.80
ug/L
Pentamethylbenzene
700-12-9
1625
10.00
ug/L
Perylene
198-55-0
1625
10.00
ug/L
Phenacetin
62-44-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
Phenanthrene
85-01-8
1625
10.00
ug/L
Phenol
108-95-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
Phenol, 2-methyl-4,6-dinitro-
534-52-1
1625
20.00
ug/L
Phenothiazine
92-84-2
1625
50.00
ug/L
Pronamide
23950-58-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
Pyrene
129-00-0
1625
10.00
ug/L
Pyridine
110-86-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
Resorcinol
108-46-3
1625
50.00
ug/L
Safrole
94-59-7
1625
10.00
ug/L
Squalene
7683-64-9
1625
99.00
ug/L
Styrene
100-42-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
T etrachlorocatechol
1198-55-6
85.01
0.80
ug/L
T etrachloroethene
127-18-4
1624
10.00
ug/L
Tetrachloroguaiacol
2539-17-5
85.01
0.80
ug/L
T etrachloromethane
56-23-5
1624
10.00
ug/L
Thianaphthene
95-15-8
1625
10.00
ug/L
Thioacetamide
62-55-5
1625
20.00
ug/L
Thioxanthe-9-one
492-22-8
1625
20.00
ug/L
15-16
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
Pollutant
CAS No.
Method
Baseline
Value
Unit
Toluene
108-88-3
1624
10.00
ug/L
Toluene, 2,4-diamino-
95-80-7
1625
99.00
ug/L
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
156-60-5
1624
10.00
ug/L
Trans-1,3 -dichloropropene
10061-02-6
1624
10.00
ug/L
Trans-1,4-dichloro-2-butene
110-57-6
1624
50.00
ug/L
Tribromomethane
75-25-2
1624
10.00
ug/L
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
1624
10.00
ug/L
T richlorofluoromethane
75-69-4
1624
10.00
ug/L
Trichlorosyringol
2539-26-6
85.01
0.80
ug/L
Triphenylene
217-59-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
20324-33-8
1625
99.00
ug/L
Vinyl acetate
108-05-4
1624
50.00
ug/L
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
630-20-6
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,1,1 -trichloroe thane
71-55-6
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
79-34-5
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,1,2-trichloroethane
79-00-5
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,1 -dichloroethane
75-34-3
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,1 -dichloroethene
75-35-4
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,2,3 -trichlorobenzene
87-61-6
1625
10.00
ug/L
1,2,3 -trichloropropane
96-18-4
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,2,3 -trimethoxybenzene
634-36-6
1625
10.00
ug/L
1,2,4,5 -tetrachlorobenzene
95-94-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
1,2-dibromo-3 -chloropropane
96-12-8
1625
20.00
ug/L
1,2-dibromoethane
106-93-4
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,2-dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
1,2-dichloroethane
107-06-2
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,2-dichloropropane
78-87-5
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,2-diphenylhydrazine
122-66-7
1625
20.00
ug/L
1,2:3,4-diepoxy butane
1464-53-5
1625
20.00
ug/L
1,3,5-trithiane
291-21-4
1625
50.00
ug/L
1,3-butadiene, 2-chloro
126-99-8
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,3 -dichloro-2-propanol
96-23-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
1,3 -dichlorobenzene
541-73-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
1,3-dichloropropane
142-28-9
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,4-dichlorobenzene
106-46-7
1625
10.00
ug/L
1,4-dinitrobenzene
100-25-4
1625
20.00
ug/L
1,4-dioxane
123-91-1
1624
10.00
ug/L
1,4-naphthoquinone
130-15-4
1625
99.00
ug/L
1,5 -naphthalenediamine
2243-62-1
1625
99.00
ug/L
1 -bromo-2-chlorobenzene
694-80-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
1 -bromo-3 -chlorobenzene
108-37-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
1 -chloro-3 -nitrobenzene
121-73-3
1625
50.00
ug/L
1 -methy lfluorene
1730-37-6
1625
10.00
ug/L
1 -methy lphenanthrene
832-69-9
1625
10.00
ug/L
1 -naphthy lamine
134-32-7
1625
10.00
ug/L
1 -phenvlnaphthalene
605-02-7
1625
10.00
ug/L
15-17
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
Pollutant
CAS No.
Method
Baseline
Value
Unit
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
58-90-2
1625
20.00
ug/L
85.01
0.80
ug/L
2,3,6 -trichlorophenol
933-75-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
85.01
0.80
ug/L
2,3-benzofluorene
243-17-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
2,3 -dichloroaniline
608-27-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
2,3-dichloronitrobenzene
3209-22-1
1625
50.00
ug/L
2,4,5 -trichlorophenol
95-95-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
85.01
0.80
ug/L
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
88-06-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
85.01
0.80
ug/L
2,4 -dichlorophenol
120-83-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
85.01
0.80
ug/L
2,4-dimethylphenol
105-67-9
1625
10.00
ug/L
2,4-dinitrophenol
51-28-5
1625
50.00
ug/L
2,4-dinitrotoluene
121-14-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
2,6-di-tert-butyl-p-benzoquinone
719-22-2
1625
99.00
ug/L
2,6 -dichloro -4 -nitroaniline
99-30-9
1625
99.00
ug/L
2,6-dichlorophenol
87-65-0
1625
10.00
ug/L
85.01
0.80
ug/L
2,6-dinitrotoluene
606-20-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
2-(methylthio)benzothiazole
615-22-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
2-butanone
78-93-3
1624
50.00
ug/L
2-chloroethylvinyl ether
110-75-8
1624
10.00
ug/L
2-chloronaphthalene
91-58-7
1625
10.00
ug/L
2-chlorophenol
95-57-8
1625
10.00
ug/L
2-hexanone
591-78-6
1624
50.00
ug/L
2-isopropylnaphthalene
2027-17-0
1625
10.00
ug/L
2-methylbenzothioazole
120-75-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
2-methylnaphthalene
91-57-6
1625
10.00
ug/L
2-nitroaniline
88-74-4
1625
10.00
ug/L
2-nitrophenol
88-75-5
1625
20.00
ug/L
2-phenylnaphthalene
612-94-2
1625
10.00
ug/L
2-picoline
109-06-8
1625
50.00
ug/L
2-propanone
67-64-1
1624
50.00
ug/L
2-propen-l-ol
107-18-6
1624
10.00
ug/L
2-propenal
107-02-8
1624
50.00
ug/L
2-propenenitrile, 2-methyl-
126-98-7
1624
10.00
ug/L
2-syringaldehyde
134-96-3
85.01
0.80
ug/L
3,3 '-dichlorobenzidine
91-94-1
1625
50.00
ug/L
3,3 '-dimethoxy benzidine
119-90-4
1625
50.00
ug/L
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
56961-20-7
85.01
0.80
ug/L
3,4,5 -trichloroguaiacol
57057-83-7
85.01
0.80
ug/L
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
60712-44-9
85.01
0.80
ug/L
3,4-dichlorophenol
95-77-2
85.01
0.80
ug/L
3,5 -dichlorocatechol
13673-92-2
85.01
0.80
ug/L
3,5-dichlorophenol
591-35-5
85.01
0.80
ug/L
3,6-dichlorocatechol
3938-16-7
85.01
0.80
ug/L
3,6-dimethylphenanthrene
1576-67-6
1625
10.00
ug/L
3-chloroDroDcne
107-05-1
1624
10.00
ug/L
15-18
-------
Chag^e^^^^welojmien^ocumen^bi^h^!J^^oin^ourc^!ategor^
Pollutant
CAS No.
Method
Baseline
Value
Unit
3 -methy lcholanthrene
56-49-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
3-nitroaniline
99-09-2
1625
20.00
ug/L
4,4'-methylenebis(2-chloroaniline)
101-14-4
1625
20.00
ug/L
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
2668-24-8
85.01
0.80
ug/L
4,5 -dichlorocatechol
3428-24-8
85.01
0.80
ug/L
4,5 -dichloroguaiacol
2460-49-3
85.01
0.80
ug/L
4,5-methylene phenanthrene
203-64-5
1625
10.00
ug/L
4,6-dichloroguaiacol
16766-31-7
85.01
0.80
ug/L
4-aminobiphenyl
92-67-1
1625
10.00
ug/L
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
101-55-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
4-chloro-2-nitroaniline
89-63-4
1625
20.00
ug/L
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
59-50-7
1625
10.00
ug/L
4-chloroguaiacol
16766-30-6
85.01
160.00
ug/L
4-chlorophenol
106-48-9
85.01
240.00
ug/L
4-chlorophenylphenyl ether
7005-72-3
1625
10.00
ug/L
4-methyl-2-pentanone
108-10-1
1624
50.00
ug/L
4-nitrophenol
100-02-7
1625
50.00
ug/L
5,6-dichloro vanillin
18268-69-4
85.01
0.80
ug/L
5-chloroguaiacol
3743-23-5
85.01
160.00
ug/L
5 -nitro-o-toluidine
99-55-8
1625
10.00
ug/L
6-chlorovanillin
18268-76-3
85.01
0.80
ug/L
7.12-dimcthvlbcn/(a)anthraccnc
57-97-6
1625
10.00
ug^L
15-19
-------
LIST OF DEFINITIONS
A
Administrator - The Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Agency - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Average Monthly Discharge Limitation - The highest allowable average of "daily discharges" over
a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during the calendar month
divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during the month.
B
BAT - The best available technology economically achievable, applicable to effluent limitations to be
achieved by July 1, 1984, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Sec. 304(b)(2)(B)
of the CWA.
BCT - The best conventional pollutant control technology, applicable to discharges of conventional
pollutants from existing industrial point sources, as defined by Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
BPT - The best practicable control technology currently available, applicable to effluent limitations to
be achieved by July 1, 1977, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Sec. 304(b)(1)
of the CWA.
c
Centralized Waste Treatment Facility - Any facility that treats and/or recovers or recycles any
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial waste, hazardous or non-hazardous industrial wastewater, and/or
used material from off-site. "CWT facility" includes both a facility that treats waste received from off-
site exclusively, as well as a facility that treats wastes generated on-site and waste received from off-
site. For example, an organic chemical manufacturing plant may, in certain circumstances, be a CWT
facility if it treats industrial wastes received from off-site as well as industrial waste generated at the
organic chemical manufacturing plant. CWT facilities include re-refiners and may be owned by the
federal government.
Centralized Waste Treatment Wastewater - Wastewater generated as a result of CWT activities.
CWT wastewater sources may include, but are not limited to the following: liquid waste receipts,
solubilization water, used oil emulsion-breaking wastewater, tanker truck/drum/roll-off box washes,
equipment washes, air pollution control scrubber blow-down, laboratory-derived wastewater, on-site
industrial waste combustor wastewaters, on-site landfill wastewaters, and contaminated storm water.
List of Definitions-1
-------
List of Definitions
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
Clean Water Act (CWA) - The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C.
Section 1251 el seq.). as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217), and the Water
Quality Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308 Questionnaire - A questionnaire sent to facilities under the
authority of Section 308 of the CWA, which requests information to be used in the development of
national effluent guidelines and standards.
Commercial Facility - A CWT facility that accepts off-site generated wastes, wastewaters, or used
material from other facilities not under the same ownership as this facility. Commercial operations are
usually made available for a fee or other remuneration.
Contaminated Storm Water - Storm water which comes in direct contact with the waste or waste
handling and treatment areas.
Conventional Pollutants - Constituents of wastewater as determined by Sec. 304(a)(4) of the CWA,
including, but not limited to, pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids,
oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
CWT - Centralized Waste Treatment.
D
Daily Discharge - The discharge of a pollutant measured during any calendar day or any 24-hour
period that reasonably represents a calendar day.
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (DMQ) - Questionnaires sent to collect monitoring data from
20 selected CWT facilities based on responses to the Section 308 Questionnaire.
Direct Discharger - A facility that discharges or may discharge treated or untreated wastewaters into
waters of the United States.
E
Effluent Limitation - Any restriction, including schedules of compliance, established by a State or the
Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other
constituents which are discharged from point sources into navigable waters, the waters of the
contiguous zone, or the ocean (CWA Sections 301(b) and 304(b)).
Existing Source - Any facility from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, the construction
of which is commenced before the publication of the proposed regulations prescribing a standard of
performance under Sec. 306 of the CWA.
List of Definitions-2
-------
List of Definitions
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
F
Facility - All contiguous property owned, operated, leased or under the control of the same person or
entity
Fuel Blending - The process of mixing waste, wastewater, or used material for the purpose of
regenerating a fuel for re-use.
H
Hazardous Waste - Any waste, including wastewater, defined as hazardous under RCRA, TSCA, or
any state law.
High Temperature Metals Recovery (HTMR) - A metals recovery process in which solid forms of
metal containing materials are processed with a heat-based pyrometallurgical technology to produce a
remelt alloy which can then be sold as feed material in the production of metals.
I
In-scope - Facilities and/or wastewaters that EPA proposes to be subject to this guideline.
Indirect Discharger - A facility that discharges or may discharge wastewaters into a publicly-owned
treatment works.
Instrument Detection Limit (IDL) - The smallest signal above background noise that an instrument
can detect reliably.
Intercompany Transfer - Transfer to facilities that treat and/or recycle/recover waste, wastewater,
and/or used material generated by off-site facilities not under the same corporate ownership. These
facilities are also referred to as "commercial" CWTs.
Intracompany Transfer - Transfer to facilities that treat and/or recycle/recover waste, wastewater,
and/or used material generated by off-site facilities under the same corporate ownership. These
facilities are also referred to as "non-commercial" CWTs.
L
LTA - Long-Term Average. For purposes of the effluent guidelines, average pollutant levels achieved
over a period of time by a facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs were used in developing
the limitations and standards in today's proposed regulation.
List of Definitions-3
-------
List of Definitions
M
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
Marine-generated Waste - Waste, wastewater, and/or used material generated as part of the normal
maintenance and operation of a ship, boat, or barge operating on inland, coastal, or open waters, or
while berthed.
Metal-bearing Wastes - Wastes and/or used materials that contain significant quantities of metal
pollutants, but not significant quantities of oil and grease (generally less than 100 mg/L), from
manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations. These wastes include, but are
not limited to, spent electroplating baths and sludges, metal finishing rinse water and sludges, chromate
wastes, air pollution control blow down water and sludges, spent anodizing solutions, incineration air
pollution control wastewaters, waste liquid mercury, cyanide containing wastes greater than 136 mg/L,
and waste acids and bases with or, in the case of acids and bases only, without metals.
Minimum Level - The lowest level at which the entire analytical system must give a recognizable
signals and an acceptable calibration point for the analyte.
Mixed Commercial/Non-commercial Facility - Facilities that treat and/or recycle/recover waste,
wastewater, and/or used material generated by off-site facilities both under the same corporate
ownership and different corporate ownership.
Multiple Wastestream CWT Facility - A CWT facility which accepts waste in more than one CWT
subcategory (metals, oils, or organics) and combines any portion of these different subcategory wastes
at any point prior to the compliance discharge sampling location.
N
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit - A permit to discharge
wastewater into waters of the United States issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
system, authorized by Section 402 of the CWA.
New Source - Any facility from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, the construction
of which is commenced after the proposal of regulations prescribing a standard of performance under
section 306 of the Act and 403.3(k).
Nominal Quantitation Limit - The smallest quantity of an analyte that can be measured reliably with
a particular analytical method.
Non-commercial Facility - Facilities that accept waste from off-site for treatment and/or recovery
from generating facilities under the same corporate ownership as the CWT facility.
Non-contaminated Stormwater - Storm water which does not come into direct contact with the waste
or waste handling and treatment areas.
List of Definitions-4
-------
List of Definitions
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
Non-conventional Pollutants - Pollutants that are neither conventional pollutants nor priority
pollutants listed at 40 CFR Section 401.
Non-detect Value - the analyte is below the level of detection that can be reliably measured by the
analytical method. This is also known, in statistical terms, as left-censoring.
Non-water Quality Environmental Impact - Deleterious aspects of control and treatment
technologies applicable to point source category wastes, including, but not limited to air pollution, noise,
radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy used.
NSPS - New Sources Performance Standards, applicable to industrial facilities whose construction is
begun after the publication of the proposed regulations, as defined by Sec. 306 of the CWA.
o
OCPSF - Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers manufacturing point source category (40
CFR Part 414).
Off-site - Outside the boundaries of a facility.
Oily Absorbent Recycling - The process of recycling oil-soaked or contaminated disposable rags,
paper, or pads for the purpose of regenerating a fuel for reuse.
Oily Wastes - Wastes and/or used materials that contain oil and grease (generally at or in excess of 100
mg/L) from manufacturing or processing facilities or other commercial operations. These wastes
include, but are not limited to, used oils, oil-water emulsions or mixtures, lubricants, coolants,
contaminated groundwater clean-up from petroleum sources, used petroleum products, oil spill clean-
up, bilge water, rinse/wash waters from petroleum sources, interceptor wastes, off-specification fuels,
underground storage remediation waste, and tank clean out from petroleum or oily sources.
Oligopoly - A market structure with few competitors, in which each producer is aware of his
competitors' actions and has a significant influence on market price and quantity.
On Site - The same or geographically contiguous property, which may be divided by a public or private
right-of-way, provided the entrance and exit between the properties is at a crossroads intersection, and
access is by crossing as opposed to going along the right-of-way. Non-contiguous properties owned
by the same company or locality but connected by a right-of-way, which it controls, and to which the
public does not have access, is also considered on-site property.
Organic-bearing Wastes - Wastes and/or used materials that contain organic pollutants, but not a
significant quantity of oil and grease (generally less than 100 mg/L) from manufacturing or processing
facilities or other commercial operations. These wastes include, but are not limited to, landfill leachate,
contaminated groundwater clean-up from non-petroleum sources, solvent-bearing wastes, off-
List of Definitions-5
-------
List of Definitions
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
specification organic product, still bottoms, waste byproduct glycols, wastewater from paint washes,
wastewater from adhesives and/or epoxies formulation, wastewater from chemical product operations,
and tank clean-out from organic, non-petroleum sources.
Outfall - The mouth of conduit drains and other conduits from which a facility effluent discharges into
receiving waters.
Out-of-scope - Out-of-scope facilities are facilities which only perform centralized waste treatment
activities which EPA has not determined to be subject to provisions of this guideline or facilities that
do not accept off-site waste for treatment.
P
Pipeline - "Pipeline" means an open or closed conduit used for the conveyance of material. A pipeline
includes a channel, pipe, tube, trench, ditch or fixed delivery system.
Pass Through - A pollutant is determined to "pass through" a POTW when the average percentage
removed by an efficiently operated POTW is less than the average percentage removed by the
industry's direct dischargers that are using well-defined, well-operated BAT technology.
Point Source - Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or may
be discharged.
Pollutants of Concern (POCs) - Pollutants commonly found in centralized waste treatment
wastewaters. For the purposes of this guideline, a POC is a pollutant that is detected at or above a
treatable level in influent wastewater samples from centralized waste treatment facilities. Additionally,
a CWT POC must be present in at least ten percent of the influent wastewater samples.
Priority Pollutant - One hundred twenty-six compounds that are a subset of the 65 toxic pollutants
and classes of pollutants outlined in Section 307 of the CWA. The priority pollutants are specified in
the NRDC settlement agreement (Natural Resources Defense Council et al v. Train, 8 E.R.C. 2120
[D.D.C. 1976], modified 12 E.R.C. 1833 [D.D.C. 1979]).
Product Stewardship - A manufacturer's treatment or recovery of its own unused products, shipping
and storage containers with product residues, off-specification products, and does not include spent or
used materials from use of its products.
PSES - Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the
CWA.
PSNS - Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) - Any device or system, owned by a state or
List of Deflnitions-6
-------
List of Definitions
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
municipality, used in the treatment (including recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature that is owned by a state or municipality. This includes sewers, pipes,
or other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW providing treatment (40 CFR 122.2).
R
RCRA - The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et
sea.), which regulates the generation, treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of solid and hazardous
wastes.
Re-refining - Distillation, hydrotreating, and/or other treatment employing acid, caustic, solvent, clay
and/or chemicals of used oil in order to produce high quality base stock for lubricants or other
petroleum products.
Recovery - The recycling or processing of a waste, wastewater, or used material such that the material,
or a portion thereof, may be reused or converted to a raw material, intermediate, or product.
s
SIC - Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). A numerical categorization system used by the U.S.
Department of Commerce to catalogue economic activity. SIC codes refer to the products, or group
of products, produced or distributed, or to services rendered by an operating establishment. SIC codes
are used to group establishments by the economic activities in which they are engaged. SIC codes often
denote a facility's primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. economic activities.
Sample-specific Quantitation Limit - The smallest quantity in the experimental calibration range that
may be measured reliably in any given sample
Small-business - Businesses with annual sales revenues less than $6 million. This is the Small
Business Administration definition of small business for SIC code 4953, Refuse Systems (13 CFR
Ch.l, § 121.601) which is being used to characterize the CWT industry.
Solidification - The addition of sorbents to convert liquid or semi-liquid waste to a solid by means of
adsorption, absorption or both. The process is usually accompanied by stabilization.
Solvent Recovery - Fuel blending operations and the recycling of spent solvents through separation
of solvent mixtures in distillation columns. Solvent recovery may require an additional, pretreatment
step prior to distillation.
Stabilization - A waste process that decreases the mobility of waste constituents by means of a
chemical reaction. For the purpose of this rule, chemical precipitation is not a technique for
stabilization.
List of Definitions-7
-------
List of Definitions
Develo^men^ocumen^ot^h^CW^Poin^ourc^Cate^or^
Subchapter N - Refers to Subchapter N of Chapter I of Title 40 of the Federal Regulations. This
includes, but is not limited to, the industrial categorical standards included in 40 CFR Parts 405 through
471.
T
Treatment - Any method, technique, or process designed to change the physical, chemical or biological
character or composition of any metal-bearing, oily, or organic waste so as to neutralize such wastes,
to render such wastes amenable to discharge or to recover energy or recover metal, oil, or organic
content from the wastes.
u
Used Oil Filter Recycling - The process of crushing and draining of used oil filters of entrained oil
and/or shredding and separation of used oil filters.
V
Variability Factor - Used in calculating a limitation (or standard) to allow for reasonable variation in
pollutant concentrations when processed through extensive and well designed treatment systems.
Variability factors assure that normal fluctuations in a facility's treatment are accounted for in the
limitations. By accounting for these reasonable excursions above the long-term average, EPA's use of
variability factors results in limitations that are generally well above the actual long-term averages.
w
Waste - Includes aqueous, non-aqueous, and solid waste, wastewater, and/or used material.
Waste Receipt - Wastes, wastewater or used material received for treatment and/or recovery. Waste
receipts can be liquids or solids.
z
Zero or Alternative Discharge - No discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States or to a
POTW. Also included in this definition are disposal of pollutants by way of evaporation, deep-well
injection, off-site transfer, and land application.
List of Definitions-8
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
A
AMSA: Association of Municipal Sewage
Authorities
API: American Petroleum Institute
B
BAT: Best Available Technology
(Economically Achievable)
BCT: Best Conventional (Pollutant Control)
Technology
BDAT: Best Demonstrated Available
(Treatment) Technology
BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand
BPJ: Best Professional Judgement —
BPT:
c
CBI:
Best Practicable (Control)
Technology (Currently Available)
Confidential Business Information
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
CMA: Chemical Manufacturers Association
COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand
CWA: Clean Water Act
CWT: Centralized Waste Treatment
D
DAF: Dissolved Air Flotation
DL: Detection Limit
DMQ: Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire
E
EAD: Engineering and Analysis Division
ELG: Effluent Limitations Guidelines
ENR: Engineering News Record
EPA: Environmental-Protection-Agency
F
F/M:.. Food-to-microorganism (ratio)
G
GAC: Granular Activated Carbon
GC/ECD: Gas Chromatography/Electron
Capture Detector
GFAA: Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorption
H
HAP: Hazardous Air Pollutant
HEM: Hexane-Extractable Material
HSWA: Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments
HTMR: High Temperature Metals Recovery
J
ICP:
Inductively Coupled Plasma (Atomic
Emission Spectroscopy)
IDL: Instrument Detection Limit
List of Acronyms-1
-------
List of Acronyms
LDR: Land Disposal Restriction
LTA: Long-term Average
M
' MACT: Maximum Achievable Control.. _
Technology
MADL: Minimum Analytical Detection Limit
MGD: Million Gallons per Day
MIP: Monitoring-in-place
ML: Minimum Level
MLSS: Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
MNC: Mean Non-censored (Value)
&
ND: Non-detected
NOA: Notice of (Data) Availability
NORA: National Oil Recyclers Association
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NRDC: Natural Resources Defense Council
NRMRL: National Risk Management
Research Laboratory; formerly
RREL
*NSPS: New Source Performance Standards
NSWMA: National Solid Waste Management
Association
o
O&M: Operation and Maintenance
Develo^men^Documen^^t^h^^W^^oin^ourc^Cate^orv^
OCPSF: Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and
Synthetic Fibers
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
P
PAC: Powdered Activated Carbon
POC: Pollutant of Concern
POTW: Publicly Owned Treatment Works
PSES: Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources
PSNS:' Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources
a
QC:
R
Quality Control
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
RO: Reverse Osmosis
RREL: Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory; now known as NRMRL
s
SBA:
SBR:
Small Business Administration
Sequencing Batch Reactor
SBREFA: Small Business Regulatory
Flexibility Act
SGT-HEM: Silica Gel-Treated Hexane-
Extractable Material
SIC: Standard Industrial Code
SRT: Sludge Retention Time
List of Acronyms-2
-------
List of Acronyms
Development Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
TDS: Total Dissolved Solids
TEC: Transportation Equipment Cleaning
TOC: Total Organic Carbon
TSDF: Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facility
TSS: Total Suspended Solids
TWF: Toxic Weighting Factor
u
UF: Ultrafiltration
UIC: Underground Injection-Control
UTS: Universal Treatment Standards
v
VOC: Volatile Organic Compound
w
WI1: Waste Treatment Industry
List of Acronyms-3
-------
INDEX
A
Activated Sludge: 7-15, 8-2, 8-43, 8-45, 8-47, 8-49, 8-50, 8-51, 8-54, 8-57, 14-25
Alternate Discharge Methods: 8-58
Analytical Costs: 6-1, 7-31, 11-31
Analytical Methods: 2-5, 6-1, 7-24,7-25,10-2, 10-4,10-6, 10-8, 11-32, 12-14,15-1 15-3 15-5
15-9 '
Applicability - Federally-Owned Facilities: 3-10
Food Processing Wastes: 3-25
Grease Trap/Interceptor Wastes: 3-24
High Temperature Metals Recovery: 3-21
Incineration Activities: 3-17
Landfill Wastewaters: 3-16
Manufacturing Facilities: 3-1
Marine Generated Wastes: 3-11 •
Pipeline Transfers (FixedDelivery Systems): 3-6*-
Product Stewardship: 3-8
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs): 3-12
Re-refining: 3-23
Recovery and Recycling Operations: 3-19
Sanitary Wastes and/or Chemical Toilet Wastes: 3-25
Scrap Metal Processors and Auto Salvage Operations: 3-18
Silver Recovery Operations from Used Photographic & X-Ray Materials: 3-20
Solids, Soils, and Sludges: 3-17
Solvent Recycling/Fuel Blending: 3-22
Stabilization: 3-18
Thermal Drying of POTWBiosolids: 3-15
Transfer Stations: 3-18
Transporters and/or Transportation Equipment Cleaners: 3-15
Treatability, Research and Development, and Analytical Studies: 3-25
Used Oil Filter and Oily Absorbent Recycling: 3-23
Waste, Wastewater, or Used Material Re-use: 3-19
Attached Growth Biological Treatment System: 8-45
B
BAT: Executive Summary-2, Executive Summary-3, 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-7, 7-13, 7-14, 7-20,7-25, 7-
27; 9-1, 9-12,9-13,9-14,9-15,9-16,10-5,10-36,10-45,11-13,11-43,12-2,12-4,12-5,12-
Index-1
-------
Index
D^elopn^ntDocumentJbrjh^CWT^oint^Soiirc^Cat^o^
8, 12-13, 12-28, 12-29, 12-30, 12-31, 13-2, 13-3, 13-5, 14-1, 14-24, 14-25
BCT: Executive Summary-2, Executive Summaiy-3,1-2,1-5,1-7,9-1,9-12,9-13,10-5,10-6, 10-
36,10-42,10-45,11-43,13-5
Belt Pressure Filtration: 8-51,8-54,8-55
Best Management Practices: 8-1, 8-2,13-1
Biological Treatment: Executive Summary-2, 1-6, 1-7, 2-11, 2-12, 3-14, 5-4, 7-14, 8-1, 8-2,
8-5, 8-10, 8-13,8-24, 8-25, 8-33, 8-41, 8-43, 8-45, 8-47,'8-51, 8-54, 8-
57, 9-2, 9-6,9-7, 9-9, 9-10,10-42,11-23,11-26, 12-23,12-24, 12-25,
12-26,13-3,14-4,14-16,14-18,14-25,14-27..
Biotowers: 8-43, 8-45, 8-47, 8-48
BOD: 2-7,6-5,11-32,15-4,15-12
Boron: 2-8,6-5, 6-7, 6-10, 6-28,7-1,7-26,12-4,12-20,12-25,-12-28,12-33,12-35, 15-6,15-12
BPT: Executive Summary-2, Executive Summary-3, Executive Summary-4, Executive Summary-
4, 1-1, 1-2,1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 7-13, 7-31, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4,.9-5, 9-6, 9-7, 9-8, 9-9, 9-10, 9-11,
9-12,9-13,9-14,9-15, 9-16,10-5, 10-6,10-36, 10-42,10-45, 10-46,11-43, 12-2,12-8, 12-
28, 12-29, 12-30, 12-31, 13-2, 13-3; 13-5", 14-24
c
Capital Costs: ll-l, 11-2,11-5,11-6,11-7, 11-8,11-9,11-10, 11-12,11-13, 11-14,11-17,11-18,
11-19,11-20,11-21,11-21,11-22,11-23,11-25,11-26,11-27,11-28,11-30,11-35,
11-39,11-43,11-44
Carbon Adsorption: 1-6,2-11,2-12,5-4, 8-2, 8-33,8-34, 8-35,9-6,9-7,9-9,9-12,9-13,12-12,
12-13,12-23,12-25,12-26
Chemical Precipitation: Executive Summary-2, Executive Summary-3,2-15,5-3,7-11,7-25, 8-2,
8-5, 8-8, 8-10, 8-13,8-19, 8-20, 8-21, 8-22, 8-24, 8-33, 8-51, 9-2,9-3,9-
4,9-5,9-6,10-3,11-4,11-5,11-6,11-7,11-8,11-9,11-10,11-11,11-12,
11-13,11-14,11-15,11-16,11-17,11-20,11-23,11-27,11-28,11-29,11-
34, 11-35, 11-36, 11-37, 12-6,12-8, 12-12, 12-13, 13-1, 13-3, 14-3, 14-
18, 14-22 ¦ .
Chromium Reduction: 8-2,8-15,8-16,8-17,8-19
Clarification: Executive Summary-2, Executive Summary-3,1-7,2-3,2-11,3-1,3-11,3-13,3-16,
Index-2
-------
Index
Develo^mentDocumen^br^h^CW^^otn^ourc^Cate^o^
3-17, 3-18, 3-21,4-1, 8-5, 8-7, 8-10, 8-12, 8-13, 8-19, 8-33, 8-51,9-3, 9-4, 9-13, 9-
15, 10-3,10-15,11-4,11-7,11-8,11-10,11-12,11-13,11-14,11-15,11-16, 11-17,
11-20, 11-27, 11-28, 11-29, 11-34,11-35, 11-37
Coagulation: 2-12, 8-5, 8-7, 8-8, 8-15, 8-19, 8-21
Conventional Pollutants: Executive Summary-2, Executive Summary-3, 1-2, 6-27, 6-28, 7-13,
7-20, 9-2, 9-10, 9-12, 9-16, 10-6
Cyanide: Executive Summary-2, Executive Summary-3, Executive Summary-4, Executive
Summary-6, Executive Simimary-8, Executive Summary-10, Executive Summary-12,
Executive Summary-14, Executive Summary-16, Executive Summary-18,1-6,1-7,2-7,
2-9,2-11,4-4, 5-3, 6-2, 6-5, 6-7, 6-10, 6-15, 6-20, 6-25, 6-27, 7-4, 7-14, 7-18, 7-21, 7-
22,7-24,7-26,7-3,1,7-33,8-16,9-3,9-4,9-5,.9-6,10.-3,10-7,10-31,11-21,11-31,12-4, .
12-20,12-25,12-28,12-33,12-35,12-38,12-39,13-6,14-3,.L4-5,L4-10,_L4-11,.1.4-12,.
14-14, 14-15, 14-24,15-3, 15-4, 15-8, 15-10, 15-12, 15-15
Cyanide Destruction: 2-11, 8-2, 8-16, 8-18, 8-19, 9-5, 11-4, 11-21,11-22, 14-24
D
Dissolved Air Flotation: Executive Summary-2, Executive Summary3,1-6,1-7, 2-11, 2-12, 5-3,
8-2, 8-13, 8-14, 8-51, 9-6, 9-8, 9-9, 11-4, 11-22, 11-23, 11-25, 11-38,
11-39, 11-40, 11-41, 13-1, 13-3, l'3-5, 14-18, 14-22, 14-23 ¦
as "DAF": 5-3, 8-13, 8-15, 9-8, 10-5, 11-23, 11-24, 11-25, 11-38, 12-13, 14-11
E
Electrolytic Recovery: 8-36, 8-38
Emulsion Breaking/Gravity Separation: Exceutive Summary-2, Executive Summary-3, 1-7,3-
1, 8-10, 9-6, 9-7, 9-8, 9-9, 10-3, 11-25, 11-38, 12-9,
12-10, 12-13, 12-14, 12-16, 12-17, 12-18, 12-20, 12-
-22, 14-18, 14-22
Equalization: Executive Summary-2,1-6,1-7,5-4,8-2,8-3,8-4,8-5,8-19,8-25,8-26,8-43, 8-45,
8-51,9-9,9-10,11-4,11-5,11-17,11-18,11-19,11-26,13-1
F
Filter Cake Disposal: 8-57,11-4,11-5,11-7,11-8,11-10,11-14,11-15,11-28,11-29,11-30,11-36
Index-3
-------
Index
Development Document for the CWT Point Source Category
Filtration- Belt Pressure Filtration: 8-51,8-54,8-55
Lancy Filtration: 8-30, 8-32
Liquid Filtration: 8-19, 11-4, 11-5, 11-7, 11-13, 11-14, 11-15, 11-16, 11-17
Membrane Filtration: 8-28
Multimedia Filtration: 1-6,2-11,8-25,8-26,9-5,9-9,11-12,11-20,11-34, 11-36,
11-37, 12-2, 12-12, 12-23, 12-24, 12-25, 12-26, 14-22
Plate and Frame Filtration: 8-26, 11-13, 11-14, 11-27
Reverse Osmosis: 1-6,2-11,8-2,8-28,8-30,8-31,9-6,9-7
Sand Filtration: Executive Summary-2,1-7, 8-2, 8-24,8-25, 8-26, 8-33,9-3,9-
4, 12-13, 12-23
Sludge Filtration: 2-11,11-4,11-5,11-7,11-8,11-10,11-15,11-23,11-27, 11-28, „
ll-29;-ll-30,'ll-34, 11-3.5, 11-36, 11-37
¦ Ultrafiltration: 1-6, 2-11, 8-2, 8-28, 8-29, 9-6, 9-7, 12-13
Vacuum Filtration: 8-2, 8-51, 8-54, 8-56, 8-57
Fixed Delivery Systems^ 2-3
Flocculation: 2-12, 8-2, 8-5, 8-7, 8-8, 8-10, 8-19, 8-21,-8-24, 8-54,11-13, 11-14,11-15
Flocculation/Coagulation: 8-5
a
Gravity Separation: see Emulsion Breaking/Gravity Separation
Secondary Gravity Separation: Executive Summary-2, 1-7, 9-6, 9-8, 9-9,
9-15, 11-4, 11-22, 11-23, 11-38, 11-39,
H_40, 11-41
H
Hexane Extractable Material: 2-7, 6-1, 7-31, 10-3, 10-7, 12-34, 12-37, 15-5, 15-12
as "HEM": 6-1, 7-13, 7-31, 7-32, 10-3, 10-4, 10-8, 12-6, 12-7, 12-8, 12-10,
12-20, 12-28,12-33, 12-34, 12-35, 12-37 15-4, 15-5, 15-12
I
Ion Exchange: 8-2, 8-35, 8-36, 8-37
Index-4
-------
Index
L
Land Costs: 11-1, 11-3, 11-18, 11-32, 11.-33
Land Disposal Regulations (as LDR): 1-4,1-5
Land Requirements: 11-1,11-3,11-6,11-8,11-9,11-12,11-13,11-17,11-18,11-19,11-20,11-
21,11-22,11-23,11-25,11-26,11-28,11-37,11-41'
Landfills: Executive Summary-1, 1-4,2-1,2-3, 3-1, 3-16, 3-17, 3-27, 3-28,4-4,4-5, 5-3, 7-14, 8-
24, 8-45, 8-47, 8-52, 8-57, 8-58, 9-14,11-14,11-29,13-3, 13-4, 14-2,14-3,14-4,14-5,
14-28,15-10,15-11
Liquid Carbon Dioxide Extraction: 8-41
Long-Term Average: Executive Summary-1, Executive Summary-5, Executive Summary-6,
Executive Summary-7, Executive Summaiy-8, Executive Summary-9,
Executive Summaiy-10, Executive Summaiy-11, Executive Summary-12,
Executive Summaryrl3; Executive Summary-14, Executive-Summary-1-5^
Executive Summary-16, Executive Summary-17, Executive Summary-18,
Executive Summary.-19,10-1,10-4,10-5,10-6,10-14,10-15,10-17,10-17,
10-18, 10-19, 10-20, 10-21, LO-32, 10-33, 10-37, 10-38, 10-39," 10-40, TO- "
" 41,10-44,10-45,10-46;ri-8,l 1-20,12-19,12-20,12-22,12-23,12-24,12-
27, 12-28, 12-31, 12-32, 15-6
as "LTA 2-6, 10-5, 10-14, 10-15, 10-16, 10-17, 10-18, 10-19, 12-10, 12-18, 12-20,
12-21, 12-22 -
M
i
Metals Subcategory: Executive Summary-1, Executive Summary-3,1-7,2-11,2-15,3-17,3-20,
3-21, 3-22, 4-4, 5-2, 6-1, 6-2,'6-5, 6-6, 6-12, 6-13, 6-14, 6-15, 6-16, 6-27,
6-28, 6-29, 7-5, 7-11, 7-20, 7-21, 7-26, 7-31, 7-33, 8-2, 8-5, 8-16, 8-19, 8-
24, 8-33,9-2, 9-3,9-4, 9-12, 9-13,9-14,9-15,9-17,10-2,10-3,10-5,10-6,
10-7, 10-9, 10-10, 10-16, 10-21, 10-31, 10-40, 10-41, 10-42, 10-44, 11-5,
11-7,11-10,11-11,11-29,11-31,11-34,11-43, 12-2,12-4,12-6,12-7, 12-
8,12-33,12-34,13-2,13-3,13-5,14-2,14-3,14-4,14-5,14-6,14-8,14-16,
14-18, 14-20, 14-22, 14-25, 14-27
Cyanide Subset of Metals Subcategory: 9-5, 14-24
Mixed Waste (Subcategory): 5-4, 5-5, 14-6, 14-23
Index-5
-------
Index
Development Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
Monitoring Frequency: 10-27,10-29, 10-32, 10-37, 10-42,10-44, 10-45, 11-31
Multiple Wastestream Subcategory: Executive Summaiy-1, Executive Summary-2, Executive
Summaiy-3, '5-4,5-5,9-11,9-14,9-16,9-17,10-45,10-46,
11-43,14-3,14-4,14-19
N
Neutralization: 8-2, 8-5, 8-6, 11-8
Non-detect: 10-20, 10-22,10-25, 10-43, 12-7, 12-9, 12-15, 12-16, 12-19
Non-detect Replacement: 12-19
o
Oil and Grease: 1-2, 3-14, 6-1, 6-2, 6-27, 6-28, 7-4, 7-13, 7-31, 8-10, 8-13, 8-28, 9-2, 9-7, 9-9,
9-14,10-3,10-4,10-6,10-7,10-8,10-12; 10-31,10-40,-10-41,11-22,1-1-23,12-
4, 12-6,12-7, 12-8, 12-10,12-12,12-13, 12-20, 12-28, 14-3, 14-4, 14-5, 14-6,
14-18, 15-3, 15-4, 15-5,15-12
Option -
Metals Option 2:
Metals Option 3:
Metals Option 4:
Oils Option 8:
Oils Option 8v:
Oils Option 9:
Oils Option 9v:
Organics Option 3:
Organics Option 4\
11-5, 11-7, 11-8, il-9, 11-13, 11-14, 11-15, 11-27, llr28, 1,1-30
7-4,7-12,7-25,7-26,9-4,10-3,10-4,10-5,10-9, 10-10, 10-40, 10-
41, 11-5, 11-7,11-8, 11-9, 11-14, 11-15, 11-17, 11-27, 12-28, 12-
29, 12-30, 12-31
7-4, 7-12, 7-13, 7-25,7-26, 10-5, 10-7,10-8,10-41, 10-42,10-46,
11-4, 11-10, 11-11,11-12, 11-13, 11-14, 11-15, 11-16, 11-17, 11-
20, 11-28, 11-29, 11-30, 11-34, 12-8, 12-28, 12-29, 12-30, 12-31
7-4, 7-12, 7-25, 7-26, 10-34, 11-25, 12-28, 12-29, 12-30, 12-31
9-6,9-7,11-4,11-19,11-31
7-12,7-13,7-25, 9-8,10-6,10-46,11-22,11-38, 12-28,12-29, 12-
30,12-31
9-6, 9-7, 9-8, 11-4, 11-19, ll-3i
7-4,7-26,11-31
7-12, 7-13, 7-25, 9-10, 10-46, 12-28, 12-29, 12-30, 12-31
Oils Subcategory: Executive Simmiary-1, Executive Summary-3,1-6,1-7,2-11,2-12,2.-13, 2-14,
3-11, 4-4, 5-2, 5-3, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7, 5-8, 6-1, 6-2, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-17, 6-18, 6-19,
6-20, 6-21, 6-27, 6-28, 6-29, 7-5, 7-6, 7-11,7-22, 7-25, 7-26, 7-27, 7-28, 7-29,
7-30,7-31,7-33, 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-8, 8-10, 8-13, 8-41, 8-47,9-6,9-7,9-8,9-9,9-
15,9-16,10-1,10-2,10-3,10-4,10-5,10-6,10-7,10-9,10-35,11-19,11-23,11-
31,11-38,12-1, 12-9, 12-10,12-11, 12-13,12-14,12-19, 12-22, 12-23, 12-32,
Index-6
-------
Index
12-35,12-36,12-37,13-3,13-5,14-2,14-3,14-5,14-8,14-16,14-18,14-20,4-
22, 14-27
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Gosts:
Organics Subcategory:
11-1, 11-2, 11-3, 11-6, 11-7, 11-8, 11-9, 11-10,
11-11, 11-12, 11-13, 11-14, 11-15, 11-16, 11-17,
11-18, 11-19, 11-20, 11-21, 11-22, 11-23, 11-24,
11-25, 11-26, 11-27, 11-28, 11-29, 11-30, 11-31,.
11-32, 11-36, 11-40, 11-43, 11-44
Executive Summary-1, 1-7, 2-12, 4-4, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 6-1, 6-2, 6-10, 6-
11,6-22,6-23,6-24,6-25,6-26,6-27,6-28,6-29,7-5,7-11,7-24,7-25,
7-26,7-31, 7-33, 8-2, 8-41, 8-45, 9-9, 9-10, 9-13,10-3, 10-6, 10-7, 10-
15, 10-33, 10-35, 10-42, 10-44, 11-26, 11-31, 12-1, 12-22, 12-23, 12-
24, 12-25, 12-38, 13-1, 13-2, 13-3, 13-4, 13-5, 14-2, 14-3, 14-4,14-5,
14-6, 14-8,14-16, 14-17, 14-20, 15-5, 15-6
Out-of-scope: 2-14
Pipeline: 1-5, 2-3, 2-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-27
POTW Removal:' 7-21,7-22, 7-24, 7-24, 12-32
Priority Pollutants: 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-14, 7-13
Publicly Owned Treatment Works: Executive Summary-1, Executive Summary-3, 1-1, 1-3,2-
14, 3-1, 3-12, 3-14,4-5,4-6, 7-13, 9-15, 12-1
as "POTW": Executive Summary-1, Executive Summary-3,1-1,1-3, 2-
15,3-7,3-8,3-12,3-13,3-14,3-15,3-19,3-26,3-27,4-5,
4-6,5-4,5-5,5-6,7-13,7-14,7-15,7-16,7-17,7-18,7-19,
7-21,7-22,7-24,7-32,8-5,8-57,8-58,9-2,9-9,9-14,9-15,
9-17,10-6,11-31,11-43,12-1,12-32,12-34,12-37,12-38,
12-39,13-1,14-1,14-19,14-21,14-22,14-27
R
RCRA:
1-4,2-14, 4-1,4-2,4-3,4-6, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-7, 5-8, 9-14,11-1, 11-29,12-9, 12-10, 12-
17,12-19,12-22,13-4,14-8,14-9,14-10,14-11,14-12,14-13,14-14,14-15,14-16,14-
17 '
Index-7
-------
Index
Development Document for the CWTPoint Source Category
S-
Sampling: 1-7,2-1,2-3,2-4,2-5,2-11,2-12,2-13,2-15,3-17, 3-20, 3-25,4-7, 5-7, 6-1, 6-2, 6-27,
6-28,6-29,7-1,7-14,7-20,7-26,8-33,8-41,8-47,9-2,9-6,9-7,9-8,9-9,9-14,10-1,10-
2,10-3,10-4,10-5,10-6,10-7,10-8,10-9,10-11,10-12,10-15,10-16,10-17,10-18,10-
19,10-37,10-41,11-1,11-13,11-21,11-25,11-26,12-2,12-6,12-7,12-8,12-9; 12-10,
12-12,12-18,12-22,12-23, 14-3, 14-20, 15-1,15-5, 15-6, 15-7
Scope: see Applicability
Sequencing Batch Reactors: 8-43,8-44,11-4,11-26
as "SBR8-43, 8-45vll-26-
Silica-gel-treated"Hexane Extractable Material: 6-1, 7-31
as "SGT-HEM": 2-7, 6-1, 7-1, 7-4, 7-31, 7-32, 10-3, 10-8, 12-
20, 12-28, 12-35, 15-4, 15-5, 15-12
Sludge Treatment and Disposal: 8-1, 8-51, 11-27
Stripping: 1-6,2-11,2-12,7-11,8-2,8-39, 8-40, 8-41,9-6,9-7,9-9,11-4,11-19,11-20; 12-12,12-
13, 13-1, 13-2,,14-10, 14-11
Air Stripping: 1-6, 2-11, 2-12, 7-4, 8-2, 8-39, 8-40, 8-41, 9-6, 9-7, 9-9, 11-4, 11-19,
11-20, 12-12, 12-13, 13-1, 13-2 •
X
Total DissoLved Solids: 2-11, 2-15, 6-5, 6-7, 7-1,12-4, 12-20, 12-28, 15-4, 15-9, 15-12
as "JDS": 2-7,2-11, 2-15,2-16, 6-27, 7-1, 12-33, 12-35., 12-39
Total Suspended Solids (as "TSS"): Executive Summary-2, Executive Summary-4, Executive
Summary-6, Executive Summary-8, Executive Summary-
10,1-1,1-2,2-7,6-27,7-13,7-31,9-2,9-4,9-9,9-10,9-15,
10-6,10-31,10-42,10-43,10-44,10-45,11-14,11-20,11-
31, 11-32, 11-43, 12-12, 12-13, 12-23, 12-33, 12-35, 12-
38, 15-9
Treatment-in-place: 5-4, 8-2,9-8, 9-16,11-6, 11-10,11-12, 11-13, 11-16,11-23, 11-24, 11-25,
11-26, 11-34, 11-38, 12-6, 12-10, 12-12, 12-13, 12-23, 14-25
Index-8
-------
Trickling Filters:
w^^l^^mmmmi^l^^slo^mentDocijment^or^ieiCWT^omtSowceCMe^orv
8-43, 8-45, 8-47
v
Variability Factor: 10-5, 10-9, 10-21,10-28,10-31,10-32,10-33,10-34,10-35, 10-36,10-37,
10-38, 10-39, 10-40, 10-41, 10-43, 10-45, 15-6
z
Zero Discharge: 3-18, 3-19, 3-21, 3-24, 8-1, 8-57
Index-9
-------
Appendix
A
POLLUTANT GROUPING
Definitions of Designations in each Subcategory Column:
Load = Data for this pollutant were used to calculate loadings described in Chapter 12.
VF = Data for this pollutant were used to calculate Group Variability Factors as described in Chapter 10.
If there is a blank entry for a pollutant, then it was not a pollutant of concern for the subcategory (see Chapter 6).
Group
Pollutant
Chemical Abstract Service
rCAS~l Number
Metals Subcategory:
Designation
Oils Subcategory:
Designation
Orgamcs Subcategory:
Designation
Alcohols, aliphatic
Alpha-terpineol
98-55-5
VF & Load
Alcohols, aromatic
Benzyl alcohol
100-51-6
Load
Load
Aliphatic carboxylic
Hexanoic acid
142-62-1
Load
Load
Load
Amides
nji-dimethylformamide
68-12-2
Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Amines, aliphatic
Ethylenethiourea
96-45-7
VF & Load
Aniline
62-53-3
VF & Load
VF & Load
Anilines
Carbazole
o-toluidine
86-74-8
95-53-4
VF & Load
VF & Load
Aromatic, carboxylic
Benzoic acid
65-85-0
Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Benzene
71-43-2
Load
Load
Ethylbenzene
100-414
Load
m+p-xylene
m-xylene
179601-23-1
108-38-3
Load
Load
Load
Load
Aromatics
o+p-xylene
o-xylene
p-cymene
Pentamethylbenzene
Styrene
136777-61-2
95-47-6
99-87-6
700-12-9
100-42-5
Load
Load
Load
Load
Load
Load
Toluene
108-88-3
Load
Load
Load
Bromoethanes
1,2-dibromoethane
106-934
Load
Bromomethanes
Dibromochloromethane
124-48-1
Load
Carbon disulfide
Carbon disulfide
75-15-0
Load
Load
Load
67-71-0
Appendix A-1
-------
Group
Pollutant
Chemical Abstract Service
rCAS^ Number
Metals Subcategory:
Designation
Oils Subcategory:
Designation
Orgamcs Subcategory:
Designation
Chloroanilines
2,3-dichloroaniline
608-27-5
VF & Load
Chlorobenzenes I
Chlorobenzene
108-90-7
Load
Load
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
120-82-1
Load
Chlorobenzenes II
1,2-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dichlorobenzene
95-50-1
106-46-7
Load
Load
Load
Chloroethanes I
1,1 -dichloroethane
75-34-3
Load
1,2-dichloroethane
107-06-2
Load
Load
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
630-20-6
Load
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
71-55-6
Load
Load
Load
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
79-34-5
Load
Chloroethanes II
1.1.2-trichloroethane
1.2.3-trichloropropane
1,3-dichloropropane
Hexachloroethane
79-00-5
96-18-4
142-28-9
67-72-1
Load
Load
Load
Load
Chloroethenes I
Vinyl chloride
75-01-4
Load
1,1 -dichloroethene
75-35-4
Load
Load
Load
Chloroethenes II
T etrachloroethene
127-184
Load
Load
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
156-60-5
Load
Trichloroethene
79-01-6
Load
Load
Load
Bromodichloromethane
75-27-4
Load
Chloromethanes
Chloroform
67-66-3
Load
Load
Load
Methylene chloride
T etrachloromethane
75-09-2
56-23-5
Load
Load
Load
Load
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
58-90-2
95-95-4
Load
Load
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
88-06-2
VF & Load
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
56961-20-7
Load
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
6071244-9
Load
Chlorophenols
3.4-dichlorophenol
3.5-dichlorophenol
3.6-dichlorocatechol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
4,5-dichloroguaiacol
4-chlorophenol
5-chloroguaiacol
6-Chlorovanillin
95-77-2
591-35-5
3938-16-7
2668-24-8
2460-49-3
106-48-9
3743-23-5
18268-76-3
Load
Load
Load
Load
Load
Load
Load
Load
Appendix A-2
-------
Group
Pollutant
Chemical Abstract Service
rCAS^ Number
Metals Subcategory:
Designation
Oils Subcategory:
Designation
Orgamcs Subcategory:
Designation
Chlorophenols (cont.)
Pentachlorophenol
87-86-5
VF & Load
Dioxanes
1,4-Dioxane
123-91-1
Load
VF & Load
Ethers, aromatic
Dibenzofuran
132-64-9
VF & Load
Diphenyl ether
101-84-8
VF & Load
Ketones, aliphatic I
2-Butanone
2-Propanone
78-93-3
67-64-1
Load
Load
Load
Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Ketones, aliphatic II
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Isophorone
108-10-1
78-59-1
Load
Load
Load
Load
Ketones, aromatic
Acetophenone
98-86-2
VF & Load
Aluminum
7429-90-5
Load
Load
Load
Barium
7440-39-3
VF & Load
VF & Load
Beryllium
7440-41-7
VF & Load
Cadmium
7440-43-9
VF & Load
VF & Load
Calcium
7440-70-2
Load
Load
Load
Chromium
7440-47-3
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Cobalt
7440-484
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Copper
7440-50-8
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Gallium
7440-55-3
Load
Indium
7440-74-6
Load
Iridium
7439-88-5
VF & Load
Iron
7439-89-6
Load
Load
Load
Lanthanum
7439-91-0
Load
Metals
Lead
7439-92-1
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Lithium
7439-93-2
VF & Load
VF & Load
Lutetium
7439-94-3
VF & Load
Magnesium
7439-954
Load
Load
Manganese
7439-96-5
Load
Load
Load
Mercury
7439-97-6
VF & Load
VF & Load
Molybdenum
7439-98-7
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Nickel
7440-02-0
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Osmium
7440-04-2
Load
Potassium
7440-09-7
Load
Load
Load
Silver
7440-224
VF & Load
VF & Load
Sodium
7440-23-5
Load
Load
Load
Strontium
7440-24-6
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Tantalum
7440-25-7
Load
Load
Appendix A-3
-------
Group
Pollutant
Chemical Abstract Service
Metals Subcategory:
Oils Subcategory:
Orgamcs Subcategory:
rCAS^ Number
Designation
Designation
Designation
Tellurium
13494-80-9
Load
Thallium
7440-28-0
VF & Load
Tin
7440-31-5
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Metals (cont.)
Titanium
7440-32-6
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Vanadium
Yttrium
7440-62-2
7440-65-5
VF & Load
VF & Load
Zinc
7440-66-6
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Zirconium
7440-67-7
VF & Load
n-Decane
124-18-5
VF & Load
n-Docosane
629-97-0
VF & Load
n-Dodecane
112-40-3
VF & Load
n-Eicosane
112-95-8
VF & Load
n-Paraffins
n-Hexacosane
630-01-3
VF & Load
n-Hexadecane
n-Octacosane
n-Octadecane
n-Tetracosane
n-Tetradecane
544-76-3
630-024
593-45-3
646-31-1
629-594
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Chloride
16887-00-6
Load
Load
Fluoride
1698448-8
Load
Load
Load
Non-metals
Iodine
7553-56-2
VF & Load
Load
Phosphorus
7723-14-0
Load
Load
Load
Selenium
7782-49-2
VF & Load
VF & Load
Sulfur
7704-34-9
Load
Load
Load
Ammonia as nitrogen
7664-41-7
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Biochemical oxygen demand
C-003
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
BOD 5-day (carbonaceous)
C-002
VF & Load
Chemical oxygen demand
C-004
Load
Load
Load
D-chemical oxygen demand
C-004D
Load
Load
None
Hexavalent chromium
18540-29-9
VF & Load
Nitrate/nitrite
C-005
Load
Load
Load
Oil and grease
C-007
VF & Load
VF & Load
SGT-HEM
C-037
VF & Load
Total cyanide
57-12-5
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Total dissolved solids
C-010
Load
Load
Total oreanic carbon
C-012
Load
Load
Load
Appendix A-4
-------
Group
Pollutant
Chemical Abstract Service
rCAS^ Number
Metals Subcategory:
Designation
Oils Subcategory:
Designation
Orgamcs Subcategory:
Designation
Total phenols
C-020
Load
Load
None (cont.)
Total phosphorus
Total sulfide
1426544-2
18496-25-8
Load
Load
Load
Load
Total suspended solids
C-009
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
1 -methy lfluorene
1730-37-6
Load
1 -methy lphenanthrene
832-69-9
Load
2,3-benzofluorene
243-174
Load
2-isopropylnaphthalene
2027-17-0
Load
2-methylnaphthalene
3,6-dimethy lphenanthrene
91-57-6
1576-67-6
Load
Load
Acenaphthene
83-32-9
VF & Load
PAHs
Anthracene
120-12-7
VF & Load
Benzo(a)anthracene
Biphenyl
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
56-55-3
92-52-4
218-01-9
206-44-0
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
129-00-0
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
2,4-dimethylphenol
105-67-9
VF & Load
VF & Load
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
59-50-7
VF & Load
VF & Load
Phenols
o-cresol
95-48-7
VF & Load
VF & Load
p-cresol
106-44-5
VF & Load
VF & Load
Phenol
108-95-2
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Phthalates
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
117-81-7
85-68-7
84-66-2
Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Polvalvcol Monoether
Tripropvlenealvcol methyl ether
20324-33-8
VF & Load
Pyridines
Pyridine
110-86-1
Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Antimony
7440-36-0
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Arsenic
7440-38-2
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Semi-metals
Boron
Germanium
7440-42-8
7440-564
Load
Load
VF & Load
Load
Silicon
7440-21-3
VF & Load
VF & Load
VF & Load
Sulfides. Aromatic
Dibenzothiophene
132-65-0
VF & Load
Appendix A-5
-------
As described in Chapter 10, the Organics Variability Factors are calculated using the Group
Variability Factors from the following groups:
Alcohols, aliphatic
Amides
Amines, aliphatic
Anilines
Chloroanilines
Chlorophenols
Ketones, aromatic
n-Paraffins
PAHs
Phenols
Phthalates
Polyglycol monoethers
Pyridines
Sulfides, aromatic
Appendix A-6
-------
Appendix
B
DATA SELECTION
Table^^^acilities^andSai^le^oints^sedto^etennine^ollutants^ofConcenifbrCha^te^
Subcategory1
Facility
Sample Point
Analytes2
Metals
1987
01, 02
All
4055
01, 02
All
4378
01, 03
06
08
All but total cyanide
and organics
total cyanide
organics
4382
0, 05
All
4393
01, 03, 05, 06, 08
All
4798
02
All
4803
01, 03, 05, 07, 10
12
All but those in sample
point 12
oil & grease, SGT-
HEM, total cyanide,
organics
652
01
All
Organics
1987
07A, 07B
All
1 The identification of the oils subcategory facilities are excluded from this table to protect confidential
business information. The identification of these facilities is contained in the CBI portion of the CWT
record (DCN 36.6.1).
2 See section 10.2.3 for an explanation for EPA's selection of analytes at these particular sample points.
Appendix B-l
-------
Tablc^^^aciHtic^in^amijIcJ^omts^sc^m^T^TcsUn^scctionJ^OA^j^
Subcategory
Option
Facility
Influent Sample
Point(s)
Analytes3
Process4
Metals
1A
1987
01,025
arsenic
Batch
4383
07
arsenic
Continuous
4798
02
arsenic
Continuous
3
4378
01,036
06
08
all except organics and total
cyanide
total cyanide
organics
Batch
Continuous
Batch
4803
01,03,05,07,10
12
all except those at sample
point 12
oil & grease, SGT-HEM, total
cyanide, organics
Batch
Continuous
4
4798
02
all
Continuous
Cyanide
subset
2
4055
02
total cyanide
Batch
Oils
8
4814A
07
all
Continuous
4814B
09
all
Continuous
9
4813
05
06
all but total cyanide
total cyanide
Continuous
Continuous
4814A
07
all
Continuous
4814B
09
all
Continuous
6512
01
Organics
4
1987
07B
all
Continuous
1 These influent data also were used in the percent removals test described in section 10.4.3.2.
2 The influent data for this facility were from EPA sampling episode 5046, sample point 01.
3 See section 10.2.3 for an explanation for EPA's selection of analytes at these particular sample points.
4 Section 10.3 of the development document describes the differences in data analyses for batch and
continuous flow processes. ('Continuous' indicates that the data were either from continuous flow
systems or the batches were composited in the field.)
5 On day 3, the flow for sample point 01 was 2,500 gallons, and 1,290 for sample point 02. (For each of
the other days, the flows were not required because EPA sampled only one of the two sample points.)
6 On each day, the flow for sample point 01 was 5,000 gallons, and 30,000 gallons for sample point 03.
7 The flows associated with these sample points are excluded from this appendix to protect confidential
business information. The flows are provided in the CBI portion of the CWT record (DCN 36.6.2).
Appendix B-2
-------
Table B-3 Facilities and Sample Points Used to Determine Limitations (Chapter 10)
Subcategory Option
Facility
Effluent Sample
Point
Analytes1
Process2
Metals 3
4378
09
all
Continuous
4803
15
all except those at
sample point 16
Continuous
16
oil & grease,
SGT-HEM, total
cyanide, organics
Continuous
602
01
all
Batch
4
4798
05
all
Continuous
Cyanide subset 2
4055
03
total cyanide
Batch
Oils 8
4814A
09
all
Continuous
4814B
10
all
Continuous
9
4813
07
all
Continuous
4814A
09
all
Continuous
4814B
10
all
Continuous
651
01
all
Continuous
Organics 4
1987
12
all
Continuous
1 See section 10.2.3 for an explanation for EPA's selection of analytes at these particular sample points.
Specific data exclusions are described in section 10.4.1. Also, the data must pass the tests described in
section 10.4.3.
2 Section 10.3 of the development document describes the differences in data analyses for batch and
continuous flow processes. ('Continuous' indicates that the data were either from continuous flow
systems or the batches were composited in the field.)
Appendix B-3
-------
12
Subcategory1
Option
Facility
Sample Points
Analytes4
Process6
Metals2
1C
1987
01, 02
all
Batch
4055
01
all
Batch
4378
01, 03
all except total cyanide,
organics
Batch
4382
07
all5
Continuous
4393
01
all
Batch
4803
01, 03, 05, 07,
10
all except oil & grease,
SGT-HEM, total cyanide,
organics
Batch
652
01
all
Batch
IE
1987
03
all
Continuous
4382
08
all5
Continuous
4798
03
all
Continuous
613
16
all
Batch
652
02
all
Continuous
IF
4382
12
all
Continuous
4393
13
all
Continuous
4798
04
all
Continuous
652
03
all
Continuous
Organics3
0
1987
07A, 07B
all
Continuous
4472
01
all except metals
Continuous
3
1987
12
all
Continuous
X
1987
12
14
organics
classicals and metals
Continuous
Continuous
1 The identification of the oils subcategory facilities and their RCRA/non-RCRA designations are
excluded from this table to protect confidential business information. The identification of these
facilities is contained in the CBI portion of the CWT record (DCN 36.6.1).
2 In Table 12-1, the column corresponding to option 1C is labeled 'raw treatment'; option IE is 'primary
precipitation'; option IF is 'secondary precipitation'; option 4 is 'BAT Option Technology'; and option 3
is 'Selective Metals precipitation.'
3 For Table 12-8, option 0 is the basis for the values in the columns 'Raw', 'Filtration Only,' 'Carbon
Adsorption,'; option 4 is the regulatory option and corresponds to the column 'Biological Treatment';
option X corresponds to the column 'Biological Treatment and Multimedia Filtration.' Section 12.3.3
explains the derivation of the values in each column.
4 See section 10.2.3 for an explanation for EPA's selection of analytes at these particular sample points.
5 EPA excluded organics, oil & grease, BOD5, COD, TOC, nitrate/nitrite, and ammonia as nitrogen from
episode 4382 in its analyses.
6 See Chapter 12 for assumptions made in using data from continuous and batch flow processes.
Appendix B-4
-------
Appendix
c
LISTING OF DAILY INFLUENT
AND EFFLUENT MEASUREMENTS
Column
Heading
Definition
Subcategory The subcategories are listed in the following order:
'METALS' = metals subcategory
'OILS' = oils subcategory
'ORGANICS' = organics subcategory
Option The options are listed in the following order:
Cyanide subset: options 1 and 2
Metals subcategory: options 1A (arsenic data only), 3, 4, cyanide 2(cyanide subset of the
metals subcategory)
Oils subcategory: options 8 and 9
Organics subcategory: option 4
Analyte Name Pollutant (or analyte) name.
Cas_No Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry number for the analyte.
Baseline value Baseline value described in Chapter 15 and used in LTA test (see section 10.4.3.1).
Fac. ID Identification number of the facility where the sample was collected. The identification numbers that
start with 'E' indicate that the data were obtained from the EPA sampling episodes. The identification
numbers that have only three digits (e.g., 602) indicate that the facility provided the data.
Sample Date Date that the sample was collected.
Effl Samp Pt Effluent Sample Point.
Effl Amount If 'Effl Meas type' is 'NC', this value is the measured (detected) pollutant concentration at the effluent
sample point. Otherwise, if 'Effl Meas type' is 'ND,' this value is the sample-specific detection limit
for the non-detected measurement.
Effl Meas type Identifies whether the 'Effl Amount' was detected (non-censored ('NC')) or non-detected ('ND').
Infl Samp Pt(s) Influent Sample Point(s). The data for multiple influent points are aggregated as described in section
10.4.2.3.
Infl Amount If 'Infl Meas type' is 'NC', this value is the measured (detected) pollutant concentration at the influent
sample point. Otherwise, if 'Infl Meas type' is 'ND', this value is the sample-specific detection limit
for the non-detected measurement, after any modifications specified in section 15.1.1.
Infl Meas type Identifies whether the 'Infl Amount' was detected (non-censored ('NC')) or non-detected ('ND').
The effluent long-term average calculated as described in Chapter 10.
Facility Effl
Mean
Facility Inf
Mean
The influent long-term average calculated as described in Chapter 10.
Appendix C - 1
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals Option=lA
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
03
20. 00
ND
01
920.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
03
121.50
NC
02
268.50
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
03
144.00
NC
01, 02
1, 271.84
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
03
114.00
NC
01
1,605.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
03
o
o
o
ND
83.90
1,016.33
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4382
08JUN92
12
o
o
o
ND
07
300.00
ND
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4382
09JUN92
12
90. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4382
10JUN92
12
60. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4382
11JUN92
12
60. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4382
12JUN92
12
300.00
ND
07
711.00
ND
114.00
382.20
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4798
23APR96
03
385.00
NC
02
84.10
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4798
24APR96
03
395.00
NC
02
68.45
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
03
391.00
NC
02
57.20
NC
390.33
69.92
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte
Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4378
11MAY92
09
14,500.00
NC
01, 03
364,221.00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4378
12MAY92
09
14,000.00
NC
01, 03
94,735.67
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4378
13MAY92
09
16,100.00
NC
01, 03
86,371.33
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4378
14MAY92
09
8,900.00
NC
01, 03
50,986.67
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4378
15MAY92
03
26, 325. 00
NC
13,375.00
124,527.93
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4803
11JUN96
15
380.00
NC
01,03,07,10
814.84
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4803
12JUN96
15
510.00
NC
05,10
198,060.47
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4803
13JUN96
15
320.00
NC
05,10
187,550.63
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4803
14JUN96
15
420.00
NC
10
656.25
NC
407.50
96,770.55
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
02JAN90
01
2,000.00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
03JAN90
01
10,000.00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
08JAN90
01
10,000.00
NC
Appendix C - 2
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte
Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
10JAN90
01
5
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
15JAN90
01
3
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
16 JAN 90
01
5
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
22JAN90
01
3
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
23JAN90
01
1
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
2 9JAN90
01
3
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
30JAN90
01
2
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
05FEB90
01
2
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
06FEB90
01
2
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
12FEB90
01
16
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
13FEB90
01
17
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
20FEB90
01
12
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
21FEB90
01
33
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
02MAR90
01
17
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
03MAR90
01
7
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
05MAR90
01
5
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
0 6MAR90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
12MAR90
01
2
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
14MAR90
01
2
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
19MAR90
01
5
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
22MAR90
01
9
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
27MAR90
01
7
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
2 8MAR90
01
7
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
03APR90
01
5
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
04APR90
01
3
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
10APR90
01
14
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
11APR90
01
8
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
18APR90
01
6
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
20APR90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
24APR90
01
22
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
27APR90
01
12
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
01MAY90
01
8
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
03MAY90
01
3
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
08MAY90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
10MAY90
01
2
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
15MAY90
01
11
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
16MAY90
01
7
000
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 3
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte
Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
22MAY90
01
7
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
24MAY90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
30MAY90
01
15
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
31MAY90
01
10
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
05JUN90
01
15
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
06JUN90
01
11
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
13JUN90
01
9
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
15JUN90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
19JUN90
01
11
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
20JUN90
01
9
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
2 6JUN90
01
11
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
28JUN90
01
23
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
25
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
0 7 JUL 9 0
01
18
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
7
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
11JUL 9 0
01
23
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
11
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
2 0 JUL 9 0
01
8
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
25JUL90
01
10
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
2 6 JUL 9 0
01
6
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
02AUG90
01
13
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
03AUG90
01
13
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
07AUG90
01
15
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
08AUG90
01
10
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
14AUG90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
15AUG90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
22AUG90
01
5
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
2 4AUG90
01
10
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
2 8AUG90
01
8
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
29AUG90
01
9
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
05SEP90
01
5
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
06SEP90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
11SEP90
01
8
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
12SEP90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
19SEP90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
21SEP90
01
3
000
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
25SEP90
01
11
000
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 4
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp Infl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt(s) (ug/1)
Type
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
26SEP90
01
9
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
030CT90
01
12
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
040CT90
01
6
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
10OCT90
01
8
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
11OCT90
01
9
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
16OCT90
01
21
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
17OCT90
01
15
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
23OCT90
01
15
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
25OCT90
01
7
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
27OCT90
01
6
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
300CT90
01
21
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
31OCT90
01
16
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
0 6NOV90
01
11
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
07NOV90
01
14
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
13NOV90
01
9
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
14NOV90
01
8
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
2 0NOV90
01
9
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
21NOV90
01
7
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
2 6NOV90
01
9
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
2 8NOV90
01
7
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
06DEC90
01
8
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
07DEC90
01
11
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
10DEC90
01
12
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
14DEC90
01
15
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
21DEC90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
22DEC90
01
4
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
27DEC90
01
5
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
28DEC90
01
7
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
602
31DEC90
01
15
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.00
4378
11MAY92
09
179
000
00
NC
01,03 528,375.00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.00
4378
12MAY92
09
150
000
00
NC
01,03 116,633.33
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.00
4378
13MAY92
09
97
500
00
NC
01,03 48,066.67
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.00
4378
14MAY92
09
68
000
00
NC
01,03 44,558.33
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.00
4378
15MAY92
03 38,000.00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.00
4803
11JUN96
15
4
500
00
NC
01,03,07,10 556,287.21
NC
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
3,122.64
123,625.00
155,126.67
Appendix C - 5
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean Infl Mean
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4803
12JUN96
15
5
000
00
NC
05,10
749,268.34
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4803
13JUN96
15
8
000
00
NC
05,10
477,957.26
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4803
14JUN96
15
6
000
00
NC
10
2, 164, 551.56
NC
5,875.00 987,016.09
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
02JAN90
01
24
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
03JAN90
01
75
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
08JAN90
01
68
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
10JAN90
01
25
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
15JAN90
01
44
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
16JAN90
01
46
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
22JAN90
01
37
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
23JAN90
01
30
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
2 9 JAN 90
01
33
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
30 JAN 90
01
18
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
05FEB90
01
11
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
06FEB90
01
9
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
12FEB90
01
20
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
13FEB90
01
25
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
20FEB90
01
30
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
21FEB90
01
50
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
02MAR90
01
11
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
03MAR90
01
17
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
05MAR90
01
9
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
0 6MAR90
01
5
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
12MAR90
01
10
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
14MAR90
01
7
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
19MAR90
01
10
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
22MAR90
01
20
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
27MAR90
01
21
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
2 8MAR90
01
14
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
03APR90
01
12
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
04APR90
01
10
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
10APR90
01
17
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
11APR90
01
15
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
18APR90
01
20
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
20APR90
01
18
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
24APR90
01
28
000
00
NC
Appendix C - 6
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
27APR90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
01MAY90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
03MAY90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
08MAY90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
10MAY90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
15MAY90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
16MAY90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
22MAY90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
24MAY90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
30MAY90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
31MAY90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
05JUN90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
06JUN90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
13JUN90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
15JUN90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
19JUN90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
20JUN90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
2 6JUN90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
28JUN90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
0 7 JUL 9 0
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
11JUL 9 0
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
2 0 JUL 9 0
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
25JUL90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
2 6 JUL 9 0
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
02AUG90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
03AUG90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
07AUG90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
08AUG90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
14AUG90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
15AUG90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
22AUG90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
2 4AUG90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
2 8AUG90
01
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
29AUG90
01
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
24,000
00
NC
14,000
00
NC
15,000
00
NC
13,000
00
NC
7, 000
00
NC
23,000
00
NC
18,000
00
NC
16,000
00
NC
7, 000
00
NC
30,000
00
NC
37,000
00
NC
48,000
00
NC
44,000
00
NC
41,000
00
NC
12,000
00
NC
53,000
00
NC
36,000
00
NC
12,000
00
NC
13,000
00
NC
2, 000
00
NC
2, 000
00
NC
5, 000
00
NC
3, 000
00
NC
28,000
00
NC
9, 000
00
NC
5, 000
00
NC
5, 000
00
NC
48,000
00
NC
31,000
00
NC
15,000
00
NC
14,000
00
NC
18,000
00
NC
17,000
00
NC
23,000
00
NC
32,000
00
NC
23,000
00
NC
15,000
00
NC
Appendix C - 7
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Typ
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
05SEP90
01
36
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
06SEP90
01
21
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
11SEP90
01
35
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
12SEP90
01
11
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
19SEP90
01
11
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
21SEP90
01
13
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
25SEP90
01
30
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
26SEP90
01
24
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
030CT90
01
38
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
040CT90
01
20
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
10OCT90
01
44
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
11OCT90
01
33
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
16OCT90
01
53
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
17OCT90
01
32
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
23OCT90
01
40
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
25OCT90
01
16
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
27OCT90
01
35
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
300CT90
01
68
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
31OCT90
01
44
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
0 6NOV90
01
20
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
07NOV90
01
19
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
13NOV90
01
15
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
14NOV90
01
14
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
2 0NOV90
01
102
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
21NOV90
01
92
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
2 6NOV90
01
36
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
2 8NOV90
01
25
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
06DEC90
01
32
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
07DEC90
01
46
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
10DEC90
01
48
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
14DEC90
01
6 6
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
21DEC90
01
90
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
22DEC90
01
95
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
27DEC90
01
53
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
28DEC90
01
49
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
602
31DEC90
01
50
000
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 8
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Facility Facility
Effl Mean Infl Mean
293,250.00 4,263,238.33
103,875.00 16,896,601.30
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
02JAN90
01
102
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
03JAN90
01
70
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
08JAN90
01
194
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
10JAN90
01
49
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
15JAN90
01
127
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
16JAN90
01
125
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
22JAN90
01
173
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
23JAN90
01
80
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
2 9JAN90
01
40
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
30JAN90
01
137
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
05FEB90
01
84
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
06FEB90
01
111
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
12FEB90
01
15
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
13FEB90
01
56
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
20FEB90
01
86
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
21FEB90
01
446
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
02MAR90
01
165
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
03MAR90
01
119
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
05MAR90
01
93
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
0 6MAR90
01
237
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
12MAR90
01
67
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
14MAR90
01
64
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
19MAR90
01
132
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
22MAR90
01
255
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
27MAR90
01
83
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
2 8MAR90
01
121
000
00
NC
Appendix C - 9
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5,000.
00
4378
11MAY92
09
290
000
00
NC
01, 03
5, 709, 075.00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5,000.
00
4378
12MAY92
09
413
000
00
NC
01, 03
4,750,566.67
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5,000.
00
4378
13MAY92
09
260
000
00
NC
01, 03
3,370,233.33
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5,000.
00
4378
14MAY92
09
210
000
00
NC
01, 03
5,173,066.67
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5,000.
00
4378
15MAY92
03
2,313,250.00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5,000.
00
4803
11JUN96
15
76
500
00
NC
01,03,07,10
13,479,267.51
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5,000.
00
4803
12JUN96
15
122
000
00
NC
05,10
8,374,628.56
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5,000.
00
4803
13JUN96
15
109
000
00
NC
05,10
22,696,356.16
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5,000.
00
4803
14JUN96
15
108
000
00
NC
10
23,036,152.95
NC
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
03APR90
01
12,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
04APR90
01
10,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
10APR90
01
152,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
11APR90
01
47,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
18APR90
01
47,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
20APR90
01
7, 000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
24APR90
01
196,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
27APR90
01
227,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
01MAY90
01
39,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
03MAY90
01
39,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
08MAY90
01
77,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
10MAY90
01
31,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
15MAY90
01
91,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
16MAY90
01
117,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
22MAY90
01
73,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
24MAY90
01
110,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
30MAY90
01
115,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
31MAY90
01
98,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
05JUN90
01
128,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
06JUN90
01
106,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
13JUN90
01
64,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
15JUN90
01
42,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
19JUN90
01
74,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
20JUN90
01
78,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
2 6JUN90
01
3, 000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
28JUN90
01
25, 000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
109,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
0 7 JUL 9 0
01
208,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
133,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
11JUL 9 0
01
371,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
157,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
2 0 JUL 9 0
01
61,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
25JUL90
01
68,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
2 6 JUL 9 0
01
133,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
02AUG90
01
211,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
03AUG90
01
143,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
07AUG90
01
100,000
00
NC
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 10
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
08AUG90
01
72
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
14AUG90
01
6 6
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
15AUG90
01
32
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
22AUG90
01
99
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
2 4AUG90
01
64
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
2 8AUG90
01
42
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
29AUG90
01
106
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
05SEP90
01
86
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
06SEP90
01
74
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
11SEP90
01
69
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
12SEP90
01
17
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
19SEP90
01
34
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
21SEP90
01
44
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
25SEP90
01
54
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
26SEP90
01
1
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
030CT90
01
82
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
040CT90
01
48
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
10OCT90
01
98
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
11OCT90
01
46
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
16OCT90
01
103
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
17OCT90
01
52
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
23OCT90
01
73
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
25OCT90
01
12
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
27OCT90
01
49
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
300CT90
01
137
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
31OCT90
01
93
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
0 6NOV90
01
167
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
07NOV90
01
174
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
13NOV90
01
122
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
14NOV90
01
129
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
2 0NOV90
01
216
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
21NOV90
01
148
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
2 6NOV90
01
119
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
2 8NOV90
01
90
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
06DEC90
01
126
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
07DEC90
01
377
000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
10DEC90
01
158
000
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 11
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
14DEC90
01
197,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
21DEC90
01
190,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
22DEC90
01
188,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
27DEC90
01
102,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
28DEC90
01
89,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
602
31DEC90
01
355,000
00
NC
108,801.89
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4378
11MAY92
09
2,600,000
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4378
12MAY92
09
3,540,000
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4378
13MAY92
09
3,490,000
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4378
14MAY92
09
3,650,000
00
NC
3,320,000.00
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4803
11JUN96
15
1,955,000
00
NC
01,03,07,
10
32,830,445.49
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4803
12JUN96
15
2,170,000
00
NC
05,10
5,517,939.22
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4803
13JUN96
15
2,510,000
00
NC
05,10
6,802,410.96
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4803
14JUN96
15
2,340,000
00
NC
10
18,021,923.52
NC
2,243,750.00
15,793,179.80
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4378
11MAY92
09
8, 640
00
NC
01, 03
13,487.25
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4378
12MAY92
09
10,200
00
NC
01, 03
6,553.67
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4378
13MAY92
09
8, 500
00
NC
01, 03
3,552.00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4378
14MAY92
09
10,000
00
NC
01, 03
17,123.17
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4378
15MAY92
03
5,147.50
NC
9,335.00
9,172 .72
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4803
11JUN96
15
1, 800
00
NC
01,03,07,
10
33,469.66
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4803
12JUN96
15
1, 800
00
NC
05,10
632,055.97
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4803
13JUN96
15
3, 000
00
NC
05,10
1,124,151.23
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4803
14JUN96
15
2, 800
00
NC
10
10,631.69
NC
2,350.00
450,077.14
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
10
00
4378
11MAY92
09
10
00
ND
01, 03
10.13
NC
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
10
00
4378
12MAY92
09
60
00
NC
01, 03
4,047.40
NC
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
10
00
4378
13MAY92
09
10
00
ND
01, 03
674.00
NC
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
10
00
4378
14MAY92
09
93
00
NC
01, 03
1,717.55
NC
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
10
00
4378
15MAY92
03
125.00
NC
43.25
1,314.82
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
10
00
4803
11JUN96
15
10
00
ND
01,03,07,
10
17.17
NC
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
10
00
4803
12JUN96
15
10
00
ND
05,10
25. 80
NC
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
10
00
4803
13JUN96
15
10
00
ND
o
Lf)
o
797.77
NC
Appendix C -
12
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-
9 10
00
4803
14JUN96
15
10. 00
ND
10
44.39
NC
10.00
221.28
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4378
11MAY92
09
1,300.00
NC
01, 03
87,632.75
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4378
12MAY92
09
1,190.00
NC
01, 03
558,827.67
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4378
13MAY92
09
17,600.00
NC
01, 03
51,555.67
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4378
14MAY92
09
42,700.00
NC
01, 03
230,243.33
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4378
15MAY92
03
51,400.00
NC
15,697.50
195,931.88
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4803
11JUN96
15
9,900.00
NC
01,03,07,10
1,478.14
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4803
12JUN96
15
9,600.00
NC
05,10
404,428.69
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4803
13JUN96
15
8,400.00
NC
05,10
229,159.45
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4803
14JUN96
15
10,200.00
NC
10
865.27
NC
9,525.00
158,982.89
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4378
11MAY92
09
5,000.00
ND
01, 03
6,495.00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4378
12MAY92
09
13,000.00
NC
01, 03
23,616.67
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4378
13MAY92
09
5,000.00
ND
01, 03
6,023.33
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4378
14MAY92
09
5,000.00
ND
01, 03
11,379.17
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4378
15MAY92
03
31,670.00
NC
7,000.00
15,836.83
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4803
11JUN96
16
7,250.00
NC
12
5,000.00
ND
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4803
12JUN96
16
5,000.00
ND
12
5,000.00
ND
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4803
13JUN96
16
5,333.33
NC
12
5, 833.33
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4803
14JUN96
16
5,000.00
ND
12
5,000.00
ND
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4803
15JUN96
16
5,000.00
ND
12
5,000.00
ND
5,516.67
5,166.67
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4378
11MAY92
09
20. 00
ND
06
10. 00
ND
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4378
12MAY92
09
10. 00
ND
06
10. 00
ND
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4378
13MAY92
09
10. 00
ND
06
10. 00
ND
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4378
14MAY92
09
10. 00
ND
06
10. 00
ND
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4378
15MAY92
06
10. 00
ND
12.50
10.00
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4803
11JUN96
12
10. 00
ND
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4803
12JUN96
12
10. 00
ND
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4803
13JUN96
12
10. 00
ND
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4803
14JUN96
12
10. 00
ND
10.00
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.
00
602
02JAN90
01
3. 00
NC
Appendix C - 13
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
03JAN90
01
14
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
08JAN90
01
2
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
10 JAN 90
01
8
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
15JAN90
01
40
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
16JAN90
01
2
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
22JAN90
01
4
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
23JAN90
01
5
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
2 9JAN90
01
9
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
30JAN90
01
3
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
05FEB90
01
8
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
06FEB90
01
2
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
12FEB90
01
4
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
13FEB90
01
3
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
20FEB90
01
40
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
21FEB90
01
160
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
02MAR90
01
60
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
03MAR90
01
530
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
05MAR90
01
460
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
0 6MAR90
01
130
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
12MAR90
01
10
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
14MAR90
01
590
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
19MAR90
01
10
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
22MAR90
01
130
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
27MAR90
01
50
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
2 8MAR90
01
50
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
03APR90
01
30
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
04APR90
01
10
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
10APR90
01
60
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
11APR90
01
60
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
18APR90
01
30
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
20APR90
01
30
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
24APR90
01
190
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
27APR90
01
90
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
01MAY90
01
70
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
03MAY90
01
40
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
08MAY90
01
30
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
10MAY90
01
60
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 14
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
15MAY90
01
20. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
16MAY90
01
20. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
22MAY90
01
20. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
24MAY90
01
160.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
30MAY90
01
20. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
31MAY90
01
20. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
05JUN90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
06JUN90
01
160.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
13JUN90
01
60. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
15JUN90
01
40. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
19JUN90
01
20. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
20JUN90
01
60. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
2 6JUN90
01
20. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
28JUN90
01
50. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
1. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
0 7 JUL 9 0
01
20. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
11JUL 9 0
01
50. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
70. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
2 0 JUL 9 0
01
20. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
25JUL90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
2 6 JUL 9 0
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
02AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
03AUG90
01
140.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
07AUG90
01
96. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
08AUG90
01
50. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
14AUG90
01
60. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
15AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
22AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
2 4AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
2 8AUG90
01
40. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
29AUG90
01
80. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
05SEP90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
06SEP90
01
60. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
11SEP90
01
50. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
12SEP90
01
20. 00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
19SEP90
01
40. 00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 15
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
21SEP90
01
1
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
25SEP90
01
1
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
26SEP90
01
10
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
030CT90
01
10
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
040CT90
01
40
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
10OCT90
01
30
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
11OCT90
01
30
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
16OCT90
01
30
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
17OCT90
01
70
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
23OCT90
01
70
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
25OCT90
01
50
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
27OCT90
01
30
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
300CT90
01
40
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
31OCT90
01
70
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
0 6NOV90
01
100
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
07NOV90
01
480
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
13NOV90
01
630
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
14NOV90
01
620
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
2 0NOV90
01
650
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
21NOV90
01
790
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
2 6NOV90
01
500
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
2 8NOV90
01
70
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
06DEC90
01
40
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
07DEC90
01
30
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
10DEC90
01
100
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
14DEC90
01
420
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
21DEC90
01
430
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
22DEC90
01
120
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
27DEC90
01
130
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
28DEC90
01
230
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
602
31DEC90
01
860
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000.00
4803
11JUN96
15
17,150,000
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000.00
4803
12JUN96
15
16,300,000
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000.00
4803
13JUN96
15
19,200,000
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000.00
4803
14JUN96
15
19,800,000
00
NC
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
01,03,07,10
05,10
05,10
10
89,289,498.11
33,923,164.11
43,173,424.66
134,478,505.21
NC
NC
NC
NC
18,112,500.00 75,216,148.02
Appendix C - 16
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4378
11MAY92
09
95,000
00
NC
01, 03
314,067.50
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4378
12MAY92
09
114,000
00
NC
01, 03
209,953.33
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4378
13MAY92
09
94,400
00
NC
01, 03
77,706.67
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4378
14MAY92
09
158,000
00
NC
01, 03
117,963.33
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4378
15MAY92
03
175, 125. 00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4803
11JUN96
15
10,000
00
ND
01,03,07,10
409,590.38
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4803
12JUN96
15
10,000
00
ND
05,10
406,143.66
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4803
13JUN96
15
10,000
00
ND
05,10
500,701.10
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4803
14JUN96
15
10,000
00
ND
10
577,484.36
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
02JAN90
01
15,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
03JAN90
01
72,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
08JAN90
01
56,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
10JAN90
01
28,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
15JAN90
01
29, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
16JAN90
01
36,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
22JAN90
01
32,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
23JAN90
01
28,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
2 9JAN90
01
30,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
30JAN90
01
34,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
05FEB90
01
22,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
06FEB90
01
22,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
12FEB90
01
18,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
13FEB90
01
20,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
20FEB90
01
40,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
21FEB90
01
50,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
02MAR90
01
11,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
03MAR90
01
7, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
05MAR90
01
6, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
0 6MAR90
01
7, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
12MAR90
01
13,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
14MAR90
01
8, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
19MAR90
01
14,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
22MAR90
01
29, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
27MAR90
01
20,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
2 8MAR90
01
20,000
00
NC
Facility
Effl Mean
115,350.00
10,000.00
Facility
Infl Mean
178,963.17
473,479.87
Appendix C - 17
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
03APR90
01
7, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
04APR90
01
7, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
10APR90
01
14,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
11APR90
01
11,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
18APR90
01
9, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
20APR90
01
9, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
24APR90
01
33,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
27APR90
01
24,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
01MAY90
01
11,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
03MAY90
01
6, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
08MAY90
01
7, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
10MAY90
01
8, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
15MAY90
01
15,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
16MAY90
01
11,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
22MAY90
01
11,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
24MAY90
01
19,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
30MAY90
01
24,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
31MAY90
01
23,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
05JUN90
01
57,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
06JUN90
01
50,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
13JUN90
01
13,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
15JUN90
01
10,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
19JUN90
01
15,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
20JUN90
01
13,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
2 6JUN90
01
10,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
28JUN90
01
17,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
17,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
0 7 JUL 9 0
01
14,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
11,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
11JUL 9 0
01
16,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
9, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
2 0 JUL 9 0
01
8, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
25JUL90
01
10,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
2 6 JUL 9 0
01
7, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
02AUG90
01
22,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
03AUG90
01
16,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
07AUG90
01
8, 000
00
NC
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 18
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
08AUG90
01
6, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
14AUG90
01
5, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
15AUG90
01
5, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
22AUG90
01
5, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
2 4AUG90
01
12,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
2 8AUG90
01
10,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
29AUG90
01
11,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
05SEP90
01
21,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
06SEP90
01
11,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
11SEP90
01
25, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
12SEP90
01
8, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
19SEP90
01
6, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
21SEP90
01
6, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
25SEP90
01
19,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
26SEP90
01
13,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
030CT90
01
25, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
040CT90
01
17,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
10OCT90
01
21,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
11OCT90
01
14,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
16OCT90
01
27,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
17OCT90
01
13,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
23OCT90
01
22,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
25OCT90
01
9, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
27OCT90
01
17,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
300CT90
01
44,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
31OCT90
01
30,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
0 6NOV90
01
30,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
07NOV90
01
45,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
13NOV90
01
24,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
14NOV90
01
27,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
2 0NOV90
01
27,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
21NOV90
01
19,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
2 6NOV90
01
13,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
2 8NOV90
01
9, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
06DEC90
01
18,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
07DEC90
01
34,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
602
10DEC90
01
24,000
00
NC
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 19
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl
Effl Amount
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Infl
Meas
Analyt
e Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1
000.00
602
14DEC90
01
37,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1
000.00
602
21DEC90
01
25, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1
000.00
602
22DEC90
01
29, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1
000.00
602
27DEC90
01
17,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1
000.00
602
28DEC90
01
12,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC
CARBON
(TOC)
C-012
1
000.00
602
31DEC90
01
51,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4378
11MAY92
09
10
00
ND
01, 03
84.08
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4378
12MAY92
09
10
00
ND
01, 03
82. 67
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4378
13MAY92
09
85
00
NC
01, 03
176.70
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4378
14MAY92
09
10
00
ND
01, 03
250.50
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4378
15MAY92
03
328.00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4803
11JUN96
15
50
00
ND
01,03,07,10
86.21
ND
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4803
12JUN96
15
50
00
ND
05,10
177.75
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4803
13JUN96
15
50
00
ND
05,10
400.73
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4803
14JUN96
15
50
00
ND
10
146.60
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
02JAN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
03JAN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
08JAN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
10JAN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
15JAN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
16JAN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
22JAN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
23JAN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
2 9JAN90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
30JAN90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
05FEB90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
06FEB90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
12FEB90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
13FEB90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
20FEB90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
21FEB90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
02MAR90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
03MAR90
01
5, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
05MAR90
01
2, 000
00
NC
Facility
Effl Mean
19,641.51
Facility
Infl Mean
28 .75
184.3S
Appendix C - 20
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyt
e Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
0 6MAR90
01
3, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
12MAR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
14MAR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
19MAR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
22MAR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
27MAR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
2 8MAR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
03APR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
04APR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
10APR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
11APR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
18APR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
20APR90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
24APR90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
27APR90
01
3, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
01MAY90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
03MAY90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
08MAY90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
10MAY90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
15MAY90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
16MAY90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
22MAY90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
24MAY90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
30MAY90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
31MAY90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
05JUN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
06JUN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
13JUN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
15JUN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
19JUN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
20JUN90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
2 6JUN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
28JUN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
0 7 JUL 9 0
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
11JUL 9 0
01
1, 000
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 21
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyt
e Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
2 0 JUL 9 0
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
25JUL90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
2 6 JUL 9 0
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
02AUG90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
03AUG90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
07AUG90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
08AUG90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
14AUG90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
15AUG90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
22AUG90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
2 4AUG90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
2 8AUG90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
29AUG90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
05SEP90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
06SEP90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
11SEP90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
12SEP90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
19SEP90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
21SEP90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
25SEP90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
26SEP90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
030CT90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
040CT90
01
4, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
10OCT90
01
3, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
11OCT90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
16OCT90
01
3, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
17OCT90
01
4, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
23OCT90
01
3, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
25OCT90
01
5, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
27OCT90
01
5, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
300CT90
01
5, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
31OCT90
01
5, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
0 6NOV90
01
4, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
07NOV90
01
4, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
13NOV90
01
5, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
602
14NOV90
01
4, 000
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 22
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyt
e Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
2 0NOV90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
21NOV90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
2 6NOV90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
2 8NOV90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
06DEC90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
07DEC90
01
3, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
10DEC90
01
7, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
14DEC90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
21DEC90
01
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
22DEC90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
27DEC90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
28DEC90
01
1, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
602
31DEC90
01
1, 000
00
NC
1,660.38
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4378
11MAY92
09
85,600
00
NC
01, 03
185,896.25
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4378
12MAY92
09
77,500
00
NC
01, 03
293,793.33
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4378
13MAY92
09
44,000
00
NC
01, 03
81,251.00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4378
14MAY92
09
25, 800
00
NC
01, 03
683,854.67
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4378
15MAY92
03
43,825.00
NC
58,225.00
257,724.05
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4803
11JUN96
15
415
00
NC
01,03,07,10
3,205.03
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4803
12JUN96
15
370
00
NC
05,10
2,181.87
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4803
13JUN96
15
380
00
NC
05,10
1,367.52
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4803
14JUN96
15
460
00
NC
10
467.03
NC
406.25
1,805.36
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
4378
11MAY92
09
84,300
00
NC
01, 03
882,816.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
4378
12MAY92
09
52,900
00
NC
01, 03
349,102.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
4378
13MAY92
09
48,000
00
NC
01, 03
58,346.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
4378
14MAY92
09
14,200
00
NC
01, 03
93,210.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
4378
15MAY92
03
83,212.50
NC
49,850.00
293,337.30
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
4803
11JUN96
15
14,500
00
NC
01,03,07,10
1,000.00
ND
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
4803
12JUN96
15
17,000
00
NC
05,10
1,000.00
ND
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
4803
13JUN96
15
10,000
00
NC
05,10
1,000.00
ND
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
4803
14JUN96
15
24,000
00
NC
10
1,000.00
ND
16,375.00
1,000.00
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1,000.
00
602
02JAN90
01
10
00
NC
Appendix C - 23
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
03JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
08JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
10JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
15JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
16JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
22JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
23JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
2 9JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
30JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
05FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
06FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
12FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
13FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
20FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
21FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
02MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
03MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
05MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
0 6MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
12MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
14MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
19MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
22MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
27MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
2 8MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
03APR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
04APR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
10APR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
11APR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
18APR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
20APR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
24APR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
27APR90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
01MAY90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
03MAY90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
08MAY90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
10MAY90
01
100.00
NC
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 24
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
15MAY90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
16MAY90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
22MAY90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
24MAY90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
30MAY90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
31MAY90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
05JUN90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
06JUN90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
13JUN90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
15JUN90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
19JUN90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
20JUN90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
2 6JUN90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
28JUN90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
0 7 JUL 9 0
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
11JUL 9 0
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
2 0 JUL 9 0
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
25JUL90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
2 6 JUL 9 0
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
02AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
03AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
07AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
08AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
14AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
15AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
22AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
2 4AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
2 8AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
29AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
05SEP90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
06SEP90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
11SEP90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
12SEP90
01
100.00
NC
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1, 000
00
602
19SEP90
01
100.00
NC
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 25
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Analyte Name
Cas No
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
000
000
000
000
000
000
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
1, 000
4, 000
4, 000
4, 000
4, 000
4, 000
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
.00
602
21SEP90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
25SEP90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
26SEP90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
030CT90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
040CT90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
10OCT90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
11OCT90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
16OCT90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
17OCT90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
23OCT90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
25OCT90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
27OCT90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
300CT90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
31OCT90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
0 6NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
.00
602
07NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
.00
602
13NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
.00
602
14NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
.00
602
2 0NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
.00
602
21NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
.00
602
2 6NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
.00
602
2 8NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
.00
602
06DEC90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
07DEC90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
10DEC90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
14DEC90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
21DEC90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
22DEC90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
27DEC90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
28DEC90
01
100.00
NC
.00
602
31DEC90
01
100.00
NC
.00
4378
11MAY92
09
8,000.00
NC
.00
4378
12MAY92
09
18,000.00
NC
.00
4378
13MAY92
09
28,000.00
NC
.00
4378
14MAY92
09
37,000.00
NC
.00
4378
15MAY92
01, 03
01, 03
01, 03
01, 03
03
51,374,175.00 NC
4 3,300,96 6.67 NC
38,250,566.67 NC
46,183,150.00 NC
38,482,775.00 NC
22,750.00 43,518,326.67
Appendix C - 26
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4803
11JUN96
15
9
000
00
NC
01,03,07,10 54,066,245.45
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4803
12JUN96
15
10
000
00
NC
05,10 99,438,303.48
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4803
13JUN96
15
7
000
00
NC
05,10 124,832,109.59
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4803
14JUN96
15
11
000
00
NC
10 100,962,166.86
NC
9,250.00 94,824,706.35
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
02JAN90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
03JAN90
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
08JAN90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
10JAN90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
15JAN90
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
16JAN90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
22JAN90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
23JAN90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
2 9JAN90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
30JAN90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
05FEB90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
06FEB90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
12FEB90
01
7
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
13FEB90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
20FEB90
01
7
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
21FEB90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
02MAR90
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
03MAR90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
05MAR90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
0 6MAR90
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
12MAR90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
14MAR90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
19MAR90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
22MAR90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
27MAR90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
2 8MAR90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
03APR90
01
6
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
04APR90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
10APR90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
11APR90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
18APR90
01
2
000
00
NC
Appendix C - 27
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
20APR90
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
24APR90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
27APR90
01
9
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
01MAY90
01
5
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
03MAY90
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
08MAY90
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
10MAY90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
15MAY90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
16MAY90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
22MAY90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
24MAY90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
30MAY90
01
5
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
31MAY90
01
7
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
05JUN90
01
10
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
06JUN90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
13JUN90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
15JUN90
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
19JUN90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
20JUN90
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
2 6JUN90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
28JUN90
01
6
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
6
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
0 7 JUL 9 0
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
5
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
11JUL 9 0
01
7
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
2 0 JUL 9 0
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
25JUL90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
2 6 JUL 9 0
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
02AUG90
01
8
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
03AUG90
01
6
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
07AUG90
01
9
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
08AUG90
01
5
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
14AUG90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
15AUG90
01
7
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
22AUG90
01
11
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
2 4AUG90
01
8
000
00
NC
Appendix C - 28
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
2 8AUG90
01
11
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
29AUG90
01
6
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
05SEP90
01
12
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
06SEP90
01
9
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
11SEP90
01
6
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
12SEP90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
19SEP90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
21SEP90
01
7
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
25SEP90
01
7
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
26SEP90
01
5
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
030CT90
01
10
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
040CT90
01
13
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
10OCT90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
11OCT90
01
6
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
16OCT90
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
17OCT90
01
5
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
23OCT90
01
9
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
25OCT90
01
9
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
27OCT90
01
7
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
300CT90
01
9
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
31OCT90
01
3
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
0 6NOV90
01
9
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
07NOV90
01
9
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
13NOV90
01
7
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
14NOV90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
2 0NOV90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
21NOV90
01
5
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
2 6NOV90
01
6
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
2 8NOV90
01
4
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
06DEC90
01
2
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
07DEC90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
10DEC90
01
1
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
14DEC90
01
9
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
21DEC90
01
14
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
22DEC90
01
9
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
27DEC90
01
5
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
602
28DEC90
01
5
000
00
NC
Appendix C - 29
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4,000.00
602
31DEC90
01
5,000.00
NC
4,650.94
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
1,
741,867.60
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200.00
4378
12MAY92
09
99. 00
NC
01, 03
1,
271,844.57
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200.00
4378
13MAY92
09
128.50
NC
01, 03
596,625.60
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200.00
4378
14MAY92
09
77.00
NC
01, 03
57,968.58
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200.00
4378
15MAY92
03
563,250.00
NC
101.50
846,311.27
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200.00
4803
11JUN96
15
57.00
ND
01,03,07,
10
29,011.59
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200.00
4803
12JUN96
15
39. 00
ND
05,10
98,540.88
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200.00
4803
13JUN96
15
39. 00
ND
05,10
1,
252,357.81
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200.00
4803
14JUN96
15
39. 00
ND
10
48,410.78
NC
43.50
357,080.26
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
1, 418.29
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4378
12MAY92
09
20. 00
ND
01, 03
490.84
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4378
13MAY92
09
20. 00
ND
01, 03
25,850.50
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4378
14MAY92
09
20. 00
ND
01, 03
4,755.55
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4378
15MAY92
03
1,475.45
NC
20.00
6,798.13
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4803
11JUN96
15
30. 00
ND
01,03,07,
10
981.71
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4803
12JUN96
15
20. 00
ND
05,10
6,353.75
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4803
13JUN96
15
20. 00
ND
05,10
16,743.45
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4803
14JUN96
15
20. 00
ND
10
22,312.55
NC
22.50
11,597.87
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
976.63
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4378
12MAY92
09
10. 80
NC
01, 03
228.42
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4378
13MAY92
09
10. 00
ND
01, 03
5, 283.45
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4378
14MAY92
09
10. 00
ND
01, 03
13,866.45
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4378
15MAY92
03
188.68
NC
10.27
4,108.73
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4803
11JUN96
15
10. 00
ND
01,03,07,
10
388,069.09
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4803
12JUN96
15
20. 00
ND
05,10
63,866.76
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4803
13JUN96
15
20. 00
ND
05,10
77,005.15
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4803
14JUN96
15
20. 00
ND
10
195,078.22
NC
17.50
181,004.80
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
02JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
03JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
Appendix C - 30
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl
Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
08JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
10JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
15JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
16JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
22JAN90
01
20. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
23JAN90
01
30. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
2 9JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
30JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
05FEB90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
06FEB90
01
3. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
12FEB90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
13FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
20FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
21FEB90
01
3. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
02MAR90
01
2.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
03MAR90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
05MAR90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
0 6MAR90
01
3. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
12MAR90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
14MAR90
01
3. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
19MAR90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
27MAR90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
03APR90
01
2.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
10APR90
01
4.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
18APR90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
24APR90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
01MAY90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
08MAY90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
15MAY90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
22MAY90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
30MAY90
01
50. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
05JUN90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
13JUN90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
19JUN90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
2 6JUN90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
10. 00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 31
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
25JUL90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
02AUG90
01
20. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
07AUG90
01
o
o
o
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
14AUG90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
22AUG90
01
1. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
2 8AUG90
01
9. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
05SEP90
01
7.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
11SEP90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
19SEP90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
25SEP90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
030CT90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
100CT90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
16OCT90
01
60. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
23OCT90
01
60. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
27OCT90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
300CT90
01
50. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
31OCT90
01
50. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
0 6NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
13NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
2 0NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
2 6NOV90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
06DEC90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
10DEC90
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
21DEC90
01
20. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
27DEC90
01
30. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
602
31DEC90
01
20. 00
NC
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
11.15
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
120.97
NC
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4378
12MAY92
09
1. 00
ND
01, 03
39.74
NC
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4378
13MAY92
09
1. 00
ND
01, 03
80.46
NC
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4378
14MAY92
09
1. 00
ND
01, 03
29. 37
NC
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4378
15MAY92
03
109.25
NC
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4803
11JUN96
15
1. 00
ND
01,03,07,10
2.42
NC
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4803
12JUN96
15
1. 00
ND
05,10
9.23
ND
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4803
13JUN96
15
1. 00
ND
05,10
10. 00
ND
Appendix C - 32
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4803
14JUN96
15
1
00
ND
10
2.24
NC
1.00
5. 97
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
23,282.13
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4378
12MAY92
09
7, 580
00
NC
01, 03
39,090.67
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4378
13MAY92
09
7, 180
00
NC
01, 03
8,181.67
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4378
14MAY92
09
7, 110
00
NC
01, 03
11,508.08
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4378
15MAY92
03
25,612.50
NC
7,290.00
21,535.01
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4803
11JUN96
15
100,450
00
NC
01,03,07,10
3,177.28
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4803
12JUN96
15
125,000
00
NC
05,10
6 6,8 9 6.99
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4803
13JUN96
15
145,000
00
NC
05,10
40,002.30
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4803
14JUN96
15
136,000
00
NC
10
2,260.45
NC
126,612.50
28, 084 .26
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
104,898.64
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4378
12MAY92
09
221
00
NC
01, 03
57,036.55
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4378
13MAY92
09
12
00
NC
01, 03
125,681.78
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4378
14MAY92
09
12
80
NC
01, 03
197,887.57
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4378
15MAY92
03
502,925.00
NC
81.93
197,685.91
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4803
11JUN96
15
40
60
NC
01,03,07,10
5,599,438.27
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4803
12JUN96
15
5
00
ND
05,10
157,754.78
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4803
13JUN96
15
5
00
ND
05,10
194,085.21
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4803
14JUN96
15
5
00
ND
10
189,349.94
NC
13.90
1,535,157.05
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
02JAN90
01
50
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
03JAN90
01
100
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
08JAN90
01
540
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
10JAN90
01
140
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
15JAN90
01
10
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
16JAN90
01
40
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
22JAN90
01
180
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
23JAN90
01
60
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
2 9JAN90
01
50
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
30JAN90
01
70
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
05FEB90
01
40
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
06FEB90
01
30
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
12FEB90
01
20
00
NC
Appendix C - 33
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
13FEB90
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
20FEB90
01
900.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
21FEB90
01
1,000.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
02MAR90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
03MAR90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
05MAR90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
0 6MAR90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
12MAR90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
14MAR90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
19MAR90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
27MAR90
01
200.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
03APR90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
10APR90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
18APR90
01
60. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
24APR90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
01MAY90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
08MAY90
01
80. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
15MAY90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
22MAY90
01
80. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
30MAY90
01
60. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
05JUN90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
13JUN90
01
40. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
19JUN90
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
2 6JUN90
01
10. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
10. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
25JUL90
01
10. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
02AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
07AUG90
01
10. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
14AUG90
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
22AUG90
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
2 8AUG90
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
05SEP90
01
30. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
11SEP90
01
30. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
19SEP90
01
10. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
25SEP90
01
110.00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 34
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
030CT90
01
80. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
100CT90
01
140.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
16OCT90
01
230.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
23OCT90
01
180.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
27OCT90
01
140.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
300CT90
01
100.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
31OCT90
01
70. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
0 6NOV90
01
80. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
13NOV90
01
90. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
2 0NOV90
01
170.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
2 6NOV90
01
230.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
06DEC90
01
280.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
10DEC90
01
410.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
21DEC90
01
270.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
27DEC90
01
130.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
602
31DEC90
01
230.00
NC
125.00
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
487,867.50
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4378
12MAY92
09
153,000.00
NC
01, 03
471,190.00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4378
13MAY92
09
221,500.00
NC
01, 03
461,436.67
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4378
14MAY92
09
243,000.00
NC
01, 03
509,851.67
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4378
15MAY92
03
251,000.00
NC
205,833.33
436,269.17
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4803
11JUN96
15
513,000.00
NC
01,03,07,10
167,437.07
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4803
12JUN96
15
701,000.00
NC
05,10
1
347,075.70
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4803
13JUN96
15
629,000.00
NC
05,10
1
346,026.30
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4803
14JUN96
15
591,000.00
NC
10
154,804.75
NC
608,500.00
753,835.95
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
143,819.28
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4378
12MAY92
09
63. 50
NC
01, 03
76,228.03
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4378
13MAY92
09
28.00
NC
01, 03
1
235,186.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4378
14MAY92
09
19. 30
NC
01, 03
725,075.33
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4378
15MAY92
03
53,075.00
NC
36.93
446,676.73
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4803
11JUN96
15
44.40
NC
01,03,07,10
33,507.65
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4803
12JUN96
15
40. 60
NC
05,10
16,417.30
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4803
13JUN96
15
35. 30
NC
05,10
657,587.01
NC
Appendix C - 35
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4803
14JUN96
15
38
70
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
02JAN90
01
330
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
03JAN90
01
260
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
08JAN90
01
530
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
10JAN90
01
730
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
15JAN90
01
180
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
16JAN90
01
250
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
22JAN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
23JAN90
01
700
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
2 9JAN90
01
890
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
30JAN90
01
1, 000
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
05FEB90
01
560
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
06FEB90
01
300
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
12FEB90
01
880
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
13FEB90
01
1, 000
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
20FEB90
01
700
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
21FEB90
01
400
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
02MAR90
01
90
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
03MAR90
01
80
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
05MAR90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
0 6MAR90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
12MAR90
01
30
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
14MAR90
01
20
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
19MAR90
01
20
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
22MAR90
01
60
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
27MAR90
01
130
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
2 8MAR90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
03APR90
01
6
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
04APR90
01
7
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
10APR90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
11APR90
01
15
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
18APR90
01
10
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
20APR90
01
43
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
24APR90
01
190
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
27APR90
01
89
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
01MAY90
01
710
00
NC
Pt (s)
10
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
1,138.48 NC
Facility
Effl Mean
39.75
Facility
Infl Mean
177,162.61
Appendix C - 36
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
03MAY90
01
20
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
08MAY90
01
810
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
10MAY90
01
630
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
15MAY90
01
70
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
16MAY90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
22MAY90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
24MAY90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
30MAY90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
31MAY90
01
10
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
05JUN90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
06JUN90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
13JUN90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
15JUN90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
19JUN90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
20JUN90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
2 6JUN90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
28JUN90
01
250
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
20
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
0 7 JUL 9 0
01
20
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
11JUL 9 0
01
60
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
2 0 JUL 9 0
01
20
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
25JUL90
01
20
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
2 6 JUL 9 0
01
20
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
02AUG90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
03AUG90
01
30
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
07AUG90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
08AUG90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
14AUG90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
15AUG90
01
30
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
22AUG90
01
60
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
2 4AUG90
01
170
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
2 8AUG90
01
610
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
29AUG90
01
540
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
05SEP90
01
100
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
06SEP90
01
80
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 37
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Eff
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Mea
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Typ
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
11SEP90
01
60
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
12SEP90
01
70
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
19SEP90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
21SEP90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
25SEP90
01
80
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
26SEP90
01
70
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
030CT90
01
70
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
040CT90
01
70
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
10OCT90
01
60
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
11OCT90
01
60
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
16OCT90
01
80
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
17OCT90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
23OCT90
01
290
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
25OCT90
01
160
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
27OCT90
01
130
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
300CT90
01
70
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
31OCT90
01
80
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
0 6NOV90
01
80
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
07NOV90
01
340
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
13NOV90
01
70
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
14NOV90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
2 0NOV90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
21NOV90
01
40
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
2 6NOV90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
2 8NOV90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
06DEC90
01
30
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
07DEC90
01
60
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
10DEC90
01
70
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
14DEC90
01
110
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
21DEC90
01
170
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
22DEC90
01
160
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
27DEC90
01
50
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
28DEC90
01
30
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
602
31DEC90
01
440
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4378
11MAY92
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4378
12MAY92
09
159
00
NC
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
01, 03
01, 03
5, 622.54 NC
1,518.57 NC
Appendix C - 38
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
i—i
i-h
1—1
Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (S)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4378
13MAY92
09
97.05
NC
01, 03
4,168.29
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4378
14MAY92
09
51.70
NC
01, 03
25,427.19
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4378
15MAY92
03
68,767.75
NC
102.58
21,100.87
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4803
11JUN96
15
19. 00
NC
01, 03
o
-j
o
4,976,459.63
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4803
12JUN96
15
10. 00
ND
05,10
115,673.03
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4803
13JUN96
15
10. 00
ND
05,10
148,644.05
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4803
14JUN96
15
10. 00
ND
10
252,011.01
NC
12 .25
1,373,196.93
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
7,147,763.88
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4378
12MAY92
09
324.00
NC
01, 03
8,801,330.67
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4378
13MAY92
09
48. 90
NC
01, 03
892,986.67
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4378
14MAY92
09
59. 30
NC
01, 03
672,805.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4378
15MAY92
03
4,561,500.00
NC
144.07
4,415,277.24
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4803
11JUN96
15
202.00
NC
0")
o
o
o
-j
o
259,289.46
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4803
12JUN96
15
217.00
NC
05,10
32,532,916.40
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4803
13JUN96
15
176.00
NC
05,10
20,193,466.74
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4803
14JUN96
15
181.00
NC
10
758,434.59
NC
194.00
13,436,026.80
GALLIUM
7440-55-3
500.00
4803
11JUN96
15
200.00
ND
01, 03
o
-j
o
375.73
ND
GALLIUM
7440-55-3
500.00
4803
12JUN96
15
200.00
ND
05,10
1,846.38
ND
GALLIUM
7440-55-3
500.00
4803
13JUN96
15
200.00
ND
05,10
2,000.00
ND
GALLIUM
7440-55-3
500.00
4803
14JUN96
15
200.00
ND
10
259.44
ND
200.00
1,120.39
INDIUM
7440-74-6
1,000.00
4803
11JUN96
15
500.00
ND
0")
o
o
o
-j
o
35,364.75
NC
INDIUM
7440-74-6
1,000.00
4803
12JUN96
15
500.00
ND
05,10
6,158.76
NC
INDIUM
7440-74-6
1,000.00
4803
13JUN96
15
500.00
ND
05,10
7,605.34
NC
INDIUM
7440-74-6
1,000.00
4803
14JUN96
15
500.00
ND
10
3,121.03
NC
500.00
13,062.47
IODINE
7553-56-2
1,000.00
4803
11JUN96
15
500.00
ND
01, 03
o
-j
o
939.32
ND
IODINE
7553-56-2
1,000.00
4803
12JUN96
15
500.00
ND
05,10
4,615.94
ND
IODINE
7553-56-2
1,000.00
4803
13JUN96
15
500.00
ND
05,10
5,000.00
ND
IODINE
7553-56-2
1,000.00
4803
14JUN96
15
500.00
ND
10
648.61
ND
500.00
2,800.97
IRIDIUM
7439-88-5
1,000.00
4803
11JUN96
15
500.00
ND
01, 03
o
-j
o
939.32
ND
IRIDIUM
7439-88-5
1,000.00
4803
12JUN96
15
500.00
ND
o
Lf)
o
4,632.57
NC
Appendix C - 39
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
IRIDIUM
7439-88-5
1,000.00
4803
13JUN96
15
500.00
ND
05,10
5, 000.00
ND
IRIDIUM
7439-88-5
1,000.00
4803
14JUN96
15
500.00
ND
10
648.61
ND
500.00
2,805.12
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
686,601.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4378
12MAY92
09
351.00
NC
01, 03
1,
133,859.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4378
13MAY92
09
427.00
NC
01, 03
268,610.33
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4378
14MAY92
09
250.00
NC
01, 03
21,781.03
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4378
15MAY92
03
158,200.00
NC
342.67
453,810.27
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4803
11JUN96
15
503.00
NC
01,03,07,
10
700,442.06
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4803
12JUN96
15
341.00
NC
05,10
2,
020,024.58
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4803
13JUN96
15
428.00
NC
05,10
6,
025,969.86
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4803
14JUN96
15
455.00
NC
10
3,
349,026.65
NC
431.75
3,023,865.79
LANTHANUM
7439-91-0
100.00
4803
11JUN96
15
100.00
ND
01,03,07,
10
266.15
NC
LANTHANUM
7439-91-0
100.00
4803
12JUN96
15
100.00
ND
05,10
1,040.56
NC
LANTHANUM
7439-91-0
100.00
4803
13JUN96
15
100.00
ND
05,10
1,002.53
NC
LANTHANUM
7439-91-0
100.00
4803
14JUN96
15
100.00
ND
10
129.72
ND
100.00
609.74
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
322,441.63
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4378
12MAY92
09
50. 00
ND
01, 03
118,605.90
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4378
13MAY92
09
50. 00
ND
01, 03
248,482.03
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4378
14MAY92
09
50. 00
ND
01, 03
86,783.17
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4378
15MAY92
03
1,
119,877.50
NC
50.00
379,238.05
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4803
11JUN96
15
1,
,020.00
NC
01,03,07,
10
928,870.34
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4803
12JUN96
15
1
f 520.00
NC
05,10
134,640.09
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4803
13JUN96
15
1
f 310.00
NC
05,10
151,693.70
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4803
14JUN96
15
1
f 250.00
NC
10
36,679.08
NC
1,275.00
312,970.80
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
02JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
03JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
08JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
10JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
15JAN90
01
330.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
16JAN90
01
20. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
22JAN90
01
20. 00
NC
Appendix C - 40
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
23JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
2 9JAN90
01
20. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
30JAN90
01
430.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
05FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
06FEB90
01
350.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
12FEB90
01
20. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
13FEB90
01
1. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
20FEB90
01
1. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
21FEB90
01
1. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
02MAR90
01
20. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
03MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
05MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
0 6MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
12MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
14MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
19MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
27MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
03APR90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
10APR90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
18APR90
01
4.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
24APR90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
01MAY90
01
6. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
08MAY90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
15MAY90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
22MAY90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
30MAY90
01
20. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
05JUN90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
13JUN90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
19JUN90
01
160.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
2 6JUN90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
0 6 JUL 9 0
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
10 JUL 9 0
01
30. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
17 JUL 9 0
01
50. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
25JUL90
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
02AUG90
01
30. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
07AUG90
01
50. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
14AUG90
01
20. 00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 41
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
22AUG90
01
20. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
2 8AUG90
01
30. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
05SEP90
01
20. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
11SEP90
01
30. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
19SEP90
01
30. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
25SEP90
01
380.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
030CT90
01
60. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
100CT90
01
50. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
16OCT90
01
60. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
23OCT90
01
70. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
27OCT90
01
50. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
300CT90
01
40. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
31OCT90
01
50. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
0 6NOV90
01
240.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
13NOV90
01
40. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
2 0NOV90
01
20. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
2 6NOV90
01
30. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
06DEC90
01
30. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
10DEC90
01
70. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
21DEC90
01
480.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
27DEC90
01
20. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
602
31DEC90
01
30. 00
NC
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
4803
11JUN96
15
100.00
ND
01,03,07,10
205.14
NC
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
4803
12JUN96
15
100.00
ND
05,10
925.30
NC
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
4803
13JUN96
15
100.00
ND
05,10
1,000.00
ND
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
4803
14JUN96
15
100.00
ND
10
133.45
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
391,223.50
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4378
12MAY92
09
1,890.00
NC
01, 03
606,450.00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4378
13MAY92
09
1,110.00
NC
01, 03
318,795.67
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4378
14MAY92
09
1,180.00
NC
01, 03
736,375.25
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4378
15MAY92
03
1,324,500.00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4803
11JUN96
15
104.00
ND
01,03,07,10
28,277.07
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4803
12JUN96
15
120.00
NC
05,10
105,578.04
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4803
13JUN96
15
100.00
ND
05,10
1,121,997.81
NC
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
100.00
565.97
675,4 68.8 6
Appendix C - 42
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4803
14JUN96
15
123.00
NC
10
30,384.07
NC
111.75
321,559.24
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
40,137.14
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4378
12MAY92
09
7.70
NC
01, 03
16,075.90
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4378
13MAY92
09
18.75
NC
01, 03
9,988.70
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4378
14MAY92
09
8.40
NC
01, 03
90,830.38
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4378
15MAY92
03
181,092.50
NC
11.62
67,624.92
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
26-5
56-5
56-5
56-5
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
4803
4803
4803
4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
15
15
15
15
7.55
4.00
4. 90
5. 60
NC
NC
NC
NC
01,03,07,10
05,10
05,10
10
,916,581.40 NC
20,201.19 NC
190,869.64 NC
2,852.41 NC
5.51
782,626.16
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
02JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
03JAN90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
08JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
10JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
15JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
16JAN90
01
1. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
22JAN90
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
23JAN90
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
2 9JAN90
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
30JAN90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
05FEB90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
06FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
12FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
13FEB90
01
1. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
20FEB90
01
6. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
21FEB90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
02MAR90
01
60. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
03MAR90
01
70. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
05MAR90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
0 6MAR90
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
12MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
14MAR90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
19MAR90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
22MAR90
01
o
o
o
NC
Appendix C - 43
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
2 8MAR90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
04APR90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
11APR90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
20APR90
01
60. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
27APR90
01
80. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
03MAY90
01
110.00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
10MAY90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
16MAY90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
24MAY90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
31MAY90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
06JUN90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
15JUN90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
20JUN90
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
28JUN90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
0 7 JUL 9 0
01
120.00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
11JUL 9 0
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
2 0 JUL 9 0
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
2 6 JUL 9 0
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
03AUG90
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
08AUG90
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
15AUG90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
2 4AUG90
01
40. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
29AUG90
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
06SEP90
01
40. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
12SEP90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
21SEP90
01
50. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
26SEP90
01
50. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
040CT90
01
50. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
11OCT90
01
40. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
17OCT90
01
80. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
25OCT90
01
70. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
27OCT90
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
300CT90
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
31OCT90
01
50. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
07NOV90
01
30. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
14NOV90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
602
21NOV90
01
30. 00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 44
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
602
2 8NOV90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
602
07DEC90
01
10. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
602
14DEC90
01
650.00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
602
22DEC90
01
20. 00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
602
28DEC90
01
10. 00
NC
37.88
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0
20
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
135.64
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0
20
4378
12MAY92
09
0.20
ND
01, 03
15. 67
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0
20
4378
13MAY92
09
0.20
ND
01, 03
181.36
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0
20
4378
14MAY92
09
0.20
ND
01, 03
123.47
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0
20
4378
15MAY92
03
120.28
NC
0.20
115.28
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0
20
4803
11JUN96
15
0.20
ND
01,03,07,10
739.92
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0
20
4803
12JUN96
15
0.20
ND
05,10
223.14
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0
20
4803
13JUN96
15
0.20
ND
05,10
451.73
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0
20
4803
14JUN96
15
0.21
NC
10
35. 34
NC
0.20
362.53
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
6,148.43
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4378
12MAY92
09
484.00
NC
01, 03
954.93
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4378
13MAY92
09
589.00
NC
01, 03
935.12
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4378
14MAY92
09
592.00
NC
01, 03
226.67
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4378
15MAY92
03
159.23
NC
555.00
1,684.87
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4803
11JUN96
15
465.50
NC
01,03,07,10
1,471.89
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4803
12JUN96
15
504.00
NC
05,10
468.22
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4803
13JUN96
15
524.00
NC
05,10
126.43
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4803
14JUN96
15
508.00
NC
10
238.15
NC
500.38
576.17
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
557,939.48
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4378
12MAY92
09
1,940.00
NC
01, 03
469,559.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4378
13MAY92
09
1,045.00
NC
01, 03
125,036.67
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4378
14MAY92
09
764.00
NC
01, 03
291,207.67
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4378
15MAY92
03
893,525.00
NC
1,249.67
467,453.56
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4803
11JUN96
15
76.15
NC
01,03,07,10
128,615.51
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4803
12JUN96
15
55. 40
NC
05,10
373,900.20
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4803
13JUN96
15
64.50
NC
05,10
847,186.30
NC
Appendix C - 45
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Mea
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Typ
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4803
14JUN96
15
60
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
02JAN90
01
370
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
03JAN90
01
650
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
08JAN90
01
500
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
10JAN90
01
57 0
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
15JAN90
01
530
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
16JAN90
01
390
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
22JAN90
01
250
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
23JAN90
01
180
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
2 9JAN90
01
900
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
30JAN90
01
330
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
05FEB90
01
700
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
06FEB90
01
170
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
12FEB90
01
210
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
13FEB90
01
190
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
20FEB90
01
320
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
21FEB90
01
600
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
02MAR90
01
10
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
05MAR90
01
390
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
0 6MAR90
01
370
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
12MAR90
01
310
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
19MAR90
01
330
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
22MAR90
01
180
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
2 8MAR90
01
210
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
04APR90
01
120
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
11APR90
01
210
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
20APR90
01
90
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
27APR90
01
390
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
03MAY90
01
430
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
10MAY90
01
440
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
16MAY90
01
80
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
24MAY90
01
50
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
31MAY90
01
120
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
06JUN90
01
220
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
15JUN90
01
130
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
20JUN90
01
130
00
NC
Pt (s)
10
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
546,418.31 NC
Facility
Effl Mean
64.01
Facility
Infl Mean
474,030.08
Appendix C - 46
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Eff
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Mea
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Typ
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
28JUN90
01
70. 00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
0 7 JUL 9 0
01
400.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
11JUL 9 0
01
50. 00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
2 0 JUL 9 0
01
80. 00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
2 6 JUL 9 0
01
30. 00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
03AUG90
01
60. 00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
08AUG90
01
50. 00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
15AUG90
01
80. 00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
2 4AUG90
01
70. 00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
29AUG90
01
70. 00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
06SEP90
01
30. 00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
12SEP90
01
120.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
21SEP90
01
130.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
26SEP90
01
230.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
040CT90
01
350.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
11OCT90
01
200.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
17OCT90
01
160.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
23OCT90
01
180.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
25OCT90
01
160.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
27OCT90
01
160.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
31OCT90
01
180.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
07NOV90
01
120.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
14NOV90
01
110.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
21NOV90
01
690.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
2 8NOV90
01
570.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
10DEC90
01
280.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
21DEC90
01
120.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
27DEC90
01
170.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
602
31DEC90
01
320.00
NC
OSMIUM
7440-04-2
100
00
4803
11JUN96
15
100.00
ND
OSMIUM
7440-04-2
100
00
4803
12JUN96
15
100.00
ND
OSMIUM
7440-04-2
100
00
4803
13JUN96
15
100.00
ND
OSMIUM
7440-04-2
100
00
4803
14JUN96
15
100.00
ND
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4803
11JUN96
15
500.00
ND
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4803
12JUN96
15
500.00
ND
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
254.84
01,03,07,10
05,10
05,10
10
01,03,07,10
05,10
10,159.18 NC
1,069.14 NC
1,000.00 ND
12 9.72 ND
18,452.57 NC
2,063,635.84 NC
Appendix C - 47
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4803
13JUN96
15
534.00
NC
05,10
1,410,956.66
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4803
14JUN96
15
642.00
NC
10
36, 979. 49
NC
544.00
882,506.14
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4803
11JUN96
15
42,400.00
NC
01,03,07,10
494,068.57
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4803
12JUN96
15
49,700.00
NC
05,10
58,825.74
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4803
13JUN96
15
68,700.00
NC
05,10
110,071.78
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4803
14JUN96
15
55,900.00
NC
10
112,117.96
NC
54,175.00
193,771.01
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
58.48
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4378
12MAY92
09
193.00
NC
01, 03
29.21
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4378
13MAY92
09
175.00
NC
01, 03
62.71
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4378
14MAY92
09
261.00
NC
01, 03
53.79
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4378
15MAY92
03
350.00
NC
209.67
110.84
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4803
11JUN96
15
20. 00
ND
01,03,07,10
3,497.39
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4803
12JUN96
15
37.00
NC
05,10
55. 55
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4803
13JUN96
15
77. 90
NC
05,10
98.39
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4803
14JUN96
15
90.10
NC
10
316.69
NC
56.25
992.01
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
4803
11JUN96
15
100.00
ND
01,03,07,10
963.28
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
4803
12JUN96
15
486.00
NC
05,10
219,131.21
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
4803
13JUN96
15
406.00
NC
05,10
133,917.53
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
4803
14JUN96
15
431.00
NC
10
99,167.32
NC
355.75
113,294.84
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
2,098.10
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4378
12MAY92
09
4.00
ND
01, 03
312.94
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4378
13MAY92
09
4.00
ND
01, 03
1,220.87
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4378
14MAY92
09
4.00
ND
01, 03
775.95
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4378
15MAY92
03
369.60
NC
4.00
955.49
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4803
11JUN96
15
5. 00
ND
01,03,07,10
682.01
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4803
12JUN96
15
5. 00
ND
05,10
1,797.52
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4803
13JUN96
15
5. 00
ND
05,10
3,099.64
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4803
14JUN96
15
5. 00
ND
10
22.82
NC
5.00
1,400.50
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
1,909,825.00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4378
12MAY92
09
6,460,000.00
NC
01, 03
2,070,676.67
NC
Appendix C - 48
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4378
13MAY92
09
7,225,000
00
NC
01, 03
1,518,733.33
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4378
14MAY92
09
6,780,000
00
NC
01, 03
7,276,650.00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4378
15MAY92
03
5,605,250.00
NC
6,821,666.67
3,676,227.00
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4803
11JUN96
15
5,315,000
00
NC
01,03,07,10
31,572,267.44
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4803
12JUN96
15
5, 490, 000
00
NC
05,10
14,447,921.72
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4803
13JUN96
15
6,180,000
00
NC
05,10
14, 542, 657.53
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4803
14JUN96
15
6,120,000
00
NC
10
52,094,322.13
NC
5,776,250.00
28,164,292.21
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4803
11JUN96
15
759
00
NC
01,03,07,10
409.18
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4803
12JUN96
15
1, 010
00
NC
05,10
923.19
ND
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4803
13JUN96
15
928
00
NC
05,10
2,384.77
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4803
14JUN96
15
852
00
NC
10
129.72
ND
887.25
961.71
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4803
11JUN96
15
2,940,000
00
NC
01,03,07,10
5, 493, 189.12
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4803
12JUN96
15
2,430,000
00
NC
05,10
8,297,040.80
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4803
13JUN96
15
2,980,000
00
NC
05,10
8,992,136.99
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4803
14JUN96
15
2,930,000
00
NC
10
26,406,199.30
NC
2,820,000.00
12,297,141.55
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4803
11JUN96
15
500
00
ND
01,03,07,10
939.32
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4803
12JUN96
15
500
00
ND
05,10
4,615.94
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4803
13JUN96
15
500
00
ND
05,10
5,000.00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4803
14JUN96
15
500
00
ND
10
648.61
ND
500.00
2,800.97
TELLURIUM
13494-80-9
1, 000
00
4803
11JUN96
15
1, 000
00
ND
01,03,07,10
53,281.50
NC
TELLURIUM
13494-80-9
1, 000
00
4803
12JUN96
15
1, 000
00
ND
05,10
9,231.89
ND
TELLURIUM
13494-80-9
1, 000
00
4803
13JUN96
15
1, 000
00
ND
05,10
10,000.00
ND
TELLURIUM
13494-80-9
1, 000
00
4803
14JUN96
15
1, 000
00
ND
10
1,297.22
ND
1,000.00
18,452.65
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10
00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
800.12
NC
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10
00
4378
12MAY92
09
20
00
ND
01, 03
440.82
NC
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10
00
4378
13MAY92
09
24
80
NC
01, 03
297.87
NC
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10
00
4378
14MAY92
09
20
00
ND
01, 03
350.03
NC
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10
00
4378
15MAY92
03
922.50
NC
21.60
562.27
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10
00
4803
11JUN96
15
5
50
ND
01,03,07,10
78,582.76
NC
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10
00
4803
12JUN96
15
54
40
NC
05,10
297.51
NC
Appendix C - 49
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10.00
4803
13JUN96
15
10. 00
ND
05,10
57.05
NC
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10.00
4803
14JUN96
15
10. 00
ND
10
10. 00
ND
19.98
19,736.83
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
185,671.29
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4378
12MAY92
09
28.00
ND
01, 03
4,791.23
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4378
13MAY92
09
28.00
ND
01, 03
28,562.33
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4378
14MAY92
09
28.00
ND
01, 03
35,177.17
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4378
15MAY92
03
18,432.50
NC
28.00
54,526.90
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4803
11JUN96
15
30. 00
ND
01,03,07,10
9,612.80
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4803
12JUN96
15
28.00
ND
05,10
2,333.57
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4803
13JUN96
15
28.00
ND
05,10
9, 647 . 47
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4803
14JUN96
15
28.00
ND
10
46, 893. 11
NC
28.50
17,121.74
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
153,253.49
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4378
12MAY92
09
3. 00
ND
01, 03
36,329.07
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4378
13MAY92
09
3. 00
ND
01, 03
9,153.17
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4378
14MAY92
09
3. 00
ND
01, 03
2,398.13
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4378
15MAY92
03
633.50
NC
3.00
40,353.47
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4803
11JUN96
15
4.00
ND
01,03,07,10
377.65
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4803
12JUN96
15
4.00
ND
05,10
224.97
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4803
13JUN96
15
4.00
ND
05,10
552.79
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4803
14JUN96
15
4.00
ND
10
2,619.27
NC
4.00
943.67
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
1,629.75
NC
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4378
12MAY92
09
10. 80
NC
01, 03
434.48
NC
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4378
13MAY92
09
10. 00
ND
01, 03
511.73
NC
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4378
14MAY92
09
12.20
NC
01, 03
106.51
NC
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4378
15MAY92
03
92.00
NC
11.00
554.89
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4803
11JUN96
15
10. 00
ND
01,03,07,10
194.46
NC
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4803
12JUN96
15
10. 00
ND
05,10
1,038.25
NC
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4803
13JUN96
15
14.00
NC
05,10
35,981.02
NC
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4803
14JUN96
15
10. 00
ND
10
339.78
NC
11.00
9,388.38
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
51.10
NC
Appendix C - 50
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4378
12MAY92
09
2.00
ND
01, 03
32.27
NC
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4378
13MAY92
09
2.00
ND
01, 03
6 9. 57
NC
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4378
14MAY92
09
2.00
ND
01, 03
11.76
NC
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4378
15MAY92
03
54.55
NC
2.00
43.85
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4803
11JUN96
15
5. 00
ND
01,03,07,
10
21. 52
NC
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4803
12JUN96
15
5. 00
ND
05,10
603.91
NC
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4803
13JUN96
15
5. 00
ND
05,10
521.99
NC
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4803
14JUN96
15
5. 00
ND
10
73.74
NC
5.00
305.29
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4378
11MAY92
01, 03
6,189,432.48
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4378
12MAY92
09
97. 60
NC
01, 03
5,386,009.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4378
13MAY92
09
340.50
NC
01, 03
2,232,659.98
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4378
14MAY92
09
85.20
NC
01, 03
4,500,739.91
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4378
15MAY92
03
10,437,000.00
NC
174.43
5,749,168.27
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4803
11JUN96
15
175.00
NC
01,03,07,
10
5, 467, 931.25
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4803
12JUN96
15
318.00
NC
05,10
2,397,287.35
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4803
13JUN96
15
178.00
NC
05,10
1,854,369.86
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4803
14JUN96
15
281.00
NC
10
1,939,333.72
NC
238.00
2,914,730.54
ZIRCONIUM
7440-67-7
100.00
4803
11JUN96
15
100.00
ND
01,03,07,
10
188.00
NC
ZIRCONIUM
7440-67-7
100.00
4803
12JUN96
15
100.00
ND
05,10
927.41
NC
ZIRCONIUM
7440-67-7
100.00
4803
13JUN96
15
100.00
ND
05,10
1,000.00
ND
ZIRCONIUM
7440-67-7
100.00
4803
14JUN96
15
100.00
ND
10
268.03
NC
100.00
595.86
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4378
14MAY92
09
51. 83
NC
08
500.00
ND
51.83
500.00
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4803
11JUN96
16
162.00
NC
12
222.61
NC
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4803
12JUN96
16
232.39
NC
12
282.42
NC
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4803
13JUN96
16
340.86
NC
12
362.50
NC
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4803
14JUN96
16
115.26
NC
12
492.09
NC
212.63
339.90
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4378
14MAY92
09
10. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
10.00
100.00
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4803
11JUN96
16
24.16
NC
12
10. 00
ND
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4803
12JUN96
16
27. 96
NC
12
10. 00
ND
Appendix C - 51
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Analyte Name
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
100-51-6
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 117-81-7
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROFORM
PHTHALATE
PHTHALATE
PHTHALATE
PHTHALATE
117-81-7
117-81-7
117-81-7
117-81-7
75-15-0
75-15-0
75-15-0
75-15-0
75-15-0
67-66-3
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Subcategory=Metals Option=3
(continued)
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
13JUN96 16
14JUN96 16
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
2 9.18 NC 12
2 6.11 NC 12
10.00 ND 08
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
10.00 ND 08
12
12
12
12
Infl
Infl Amount Meas
(ug/1) Type
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
100.00 ND
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
1,664.00 NC
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
Facility Facility
Effl Mean Infl Mean
26.85 10.00
10.00 100.00
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 ND 08
10.00 ND
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
1,664.00
10.00
10.00
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
CHLOROFORM
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
67-66-3
67-66-3
67-66-3
67-66-3
124-48-1
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
16
16
16
16
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
10.00 4378 14MAY92
18.42 NC 08
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00
18.42
10.00
10.00
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
HEXANOIC ACID
124-48-1
124-48-1
124-48-1
124-48-1
142-62-1
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
16
16
16
16
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 ND 08
100.00 ND
10.00
10.00
10.00
100.00
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
142-62-1
142-62-1
142-62-1
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
16
16
16
16
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00
10.00
Appendix C - 52
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value Fac.
(ug/1) ID
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 ND 08
10.00 ND
10.00
10.00
M-XYLENE
M-XYLENE
M-XYLENE
M-XYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
108-38-3
108-38-3
108-38-3
108-38-3
75-09-2
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
16
16
16
16
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 ND 08
10.00 ND
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
75-09-2
75-09-2
75-09-2
75-09-2
68-12-2
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
16
16
16
16
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.00 4378 14MAY92
199.90 NC 08
121.01 NC
10.00
199.90
10.00
121.01
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
PHENOL
68-12-2
68-12-2
68-12-2
68-12-2
108-95-2
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
16
16
16
16
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
11. 82
11.12
2 5. 57
20. 81
NC
NC
NC
NC
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 ND 08
100.00 ND
10.00
10.00
17.33
100.00
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
PYRIDINE
108-95-2
108-95-2
108-95-2
108-95-2
110-86-1
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
16
16
16
16
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 ND 08
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
100.00 ND
10.00
10.00
10.00
100.00
PYRIDINE
PYRIDINE
PYRIDINE
PYRIDINE
TOLUENE
110-86-1
110-86-1
110-86-1
110-86-1
108-88-3
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
16
16
16
16
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 ND 08
10.00 ND
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Appendix C - 53
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value Fac.
(ug/1) ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
TOLUENE
TOLUENE
TOLUENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
108-88-3
108-88-3
108-88-3
108-88-3
79-01-6
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
16
16
16
16
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 ND 08
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLQROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
79-01-6
79-01-6
79-01-6
71-55-6
71-55-6
71-55-6
71-55-6
71-55-6
75-35-4
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
10.00 ND 08
12
12
12
12
15.28 NC
15.93 NC
12.27 NC
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 ND 08
10.00 ND
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
13.37
10.00
10.00
10.00
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,4-DIOXANE
1,4-DIOXANE
1,4-DIOXANE
1,4-DIOXANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE
2-BUTANONE
75-35-4
75-35-4
75-35-4
75-35-4
123-91-1
123-91-1
123-91-1
123-91-1
123-91-1
78-93-3
78-93-3
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
10.00 4378 14MAY92
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
10.00 4803
50.00 4378
50.00 4803
11JUN96
12JUN96
13JUN96
14JUN96
14MAY92
11JUN96
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
12
12
12
12
10.00 ND 08
ND
ND
ND
ND
12
12
12
12
50.00 ND 08
50.00 ND 12
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
50.00 ND
50.00 ND
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
50.00
Appendix C - 54
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=3
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4803
12JUN96
16
50. 00
ND
12
50. 00
ND
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4803
13JUN96
16
50. 00
ND
12
50. 00
ND
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4803
14JUN96
16
50. 00
ND
12
50. 00
ND
50.00
50.00
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4378
14MAY92
09
1,625.50
NC
08
50. 00
ND
1,625.50
50.00
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4803
11JUN96
16
162.61
NC
12
130.84
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4803
12JUN96
16
156.96
NC
12
135.19
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4803
13JUN96
16
123.94
NC
12
136.99
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4803
14JUN96
16
118.18
NC
12
92.53
NC
140.42
123.89
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4378
14MAY92
09
o
o
o
Lf)
ND
08
o
o
o
Lf)
ND
50.00
50.00
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4803
11JUN96
16
50. 00
ND
12
50. 00
ND
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4803
12JUN96
16
50. 00
ND
12
50. 00
ND
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4803
13JUN96
16
50. 00
ND
12
50. 00
ND
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4803
14JUN96
16
50. 00
ND
12
50. 00
ND
50.00
50.00
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4798
23APR96
05
16,900
00
NC
02
49,400.00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4798
24APR96
05
20,800
00
NC
02
29,200.00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
9, 190
00
NC
02
28,700.00
NC
15,630.00
35,766.67
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.00
4798
23APR96
05
120,000
00
NC
02
132,000.00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.00
4798
24APR96
05
204,000
00
NC
02
180,000.00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
174,000
00
NC
02
225,000.00
NC
166,000.00
179,000.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.00
650
08JAN96
01
110,000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.00
650
19DEC96
01
190,000
00
NC
150,000.00
Appendix C - 55
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4798
23APR96
05
880,000
00
NC
02
8,200,000.
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4798
24APR96
05
2,000,000
00
NC
02
4,400,000.
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
1,120,000
00
NC
02
3,200,000.
00
NC
1,333,333.33
5,266,666.67
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4798
23APR96
05
19,100,000
00
NC
02
39,900,000.
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4798
24APR96
05
20,900,000
00
NC
02
38,050,000.
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
14,000,000
00
NC
02
32,000,000.
00
NC
18,000,000.00
36,650,000.00
D-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-004D
5, 000
00
650
31JAN96
01
210,000
00
NC
210,000.00
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4798
23APR96
05
56,500
00
NC
02
510,000.
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4798
24APR96
05
84,500
00
NC
02
369,000.
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
57,800
00
NC
02
317,000.
00
NC
66,266.67
398,666.67
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
10
00
4798
23APR96
05
500
00
ND
02
24,000.
00
NC
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
10
00
4798
24APR96
05
820
00
NC
02
47,500.
00
NC
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
10
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
1, 080
00
NC
02
49,000.
00
NC
800.00
40,166.67
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4798
23APR96
05
321,000
00
NC
02
721,000.
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4798
24APR96
05
935,000
00
NC
02
856,000.
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
339,000
00
NC
02
925,000.
00
NC
531,666.67
834,000.00
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4798
23APR96
05
5, 125
00
NC
02
76, 625.
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4798
24APR96
05
11,886
67
NC
02
127,450.
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
5, 182
50
NC
02
87,100.
00
NC
7,398.06
97,058.33
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
0 9JAN96
01
5, 000
00
ND
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
12JAN96
01
5, 000
00
ND
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
12FEB96
01
23,000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
13FEB96
01
77,000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
14FEB96
01
18,000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
15FEB96
01
19,000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
19FEB96
01
8, 000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
07MAR96
01
12,000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
2 0MAR96
01
5, 000
00
ND
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
11APR96
01
36,000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
12APR96
01
28,000
00
NC
Appendix C - 56
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
30APR96
01
95
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
15MAY96
01
45
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
16MAY96
01
69
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
12JUN96
01
44
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
13JUN96
01
61
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
15JUL96
01
6
600
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
68
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
59
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
24
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
60
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
93
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
83
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
07AUG96
01
19
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
21AUG96
01
390
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
22AUG96
01
12
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
26AUG96
01
120
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
27AUG96
01
270
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
04SEP96
01
5
000
00
ND
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
05SEP96
01
25
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
23SEP96
01
1, 000
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
24SEP96
01
200
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
25SEP96
01
660
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
26SEP96
01
770
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
220CT96
01
26
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
230CT96
01
52
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
06NOV96
01
76
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
07NOV96
01
240
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
19NOV96
01
17
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
20NOV96
01
16
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
21NOV96
01
17
000
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
04DEC96
01
9
200
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
06DEC96
01
6
800
00
NC
OIL
&
GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
650
11DEC96
01
6
800
00
NC
110,940.91
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4798
23APR96
05
20
00
ND
02
6,120.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4798
24APR96
05
20
00
ND
02
2,575.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
20
00
ND
02
20. 00
ND
20.00
2,905.00
Appendix C - 57
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
0 9JAN96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
12 JAN 9 6
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
12FEB96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
13FEB96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
14FEB96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
15FEB96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
19FEB96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
21FEB96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
07MAR96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
14MAR96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
18MAR96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
11APR96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
12APR96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
24APR96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
2 5APR96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
30APR96
01
510.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
14MAY96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
15MAY96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
12JUN96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
13JUN96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
15JUL96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
400.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
320.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
290.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
910.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
430.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
04SEP96
01
210.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
05SEP96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
23SEP96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
24SEP96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
25SEP96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
26SEP96
01
10. 00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
220CT96
01
440.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
230CT96
01
440.00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
650
240CT96
01
880.00
NC
Appendix C - 58
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyt
e Name
Cas No (ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5 20.00
650
06NOV96
01
1, 300
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5 20.00
650
07NOV96
01
10
00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5 20.00
650
19NOV96
01
400
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5 20.00
650
20NOV96
01
10
00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5 20.00
650
21NOV96
01
10
00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5 20.00
650
04DEC96
01
10
00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5 20.00
650
06DEC96
01
10
00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5 20.00
650
11DEC96
01
10
00
ND
155.68
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010 10,000.00
4798
23APR96
05
42
700,000
00
NC
02
81,000,000.
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010 10,000.00
4798
24APR96
05
51
500,000
00
NC
02
76,900,000.
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010 10,000.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
33
500,000
00
NC
02
74,700,000.
00
NC
42,566,666.67
77,533,333.33
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012 1,000.00
4798
23APR96
05
280,000
00
NC
02
627,000.
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012 1,000.00
4798
24APR96
05
212,000
00
NC
02
1,107,500.
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012 1,000.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
217,000
00
NC
02
1,040,000.
00
NC
236,333.33
924,833.33
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020 50.00
4798
23APR96
05
39
00
NC
02
190.
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020 50.00
4798
24APR96
05
110
00
NC
02
210.
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020 50.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
94
00
NC
02
220.
00
NC
81.00
206.67
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020 50.00
650
04SEP96
01
110
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020 50.00
650
05SEP96
01
1, 300
00
NC
705.00
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
4798
23APR96
05
25, 000
00
NC
02
542,000.
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
4798
24APR96
05
33,200
00
NC
02
522,500.
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
19,100
00
NC
02
499,000.
00
NC
25,766.67
521,166.67
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
650
31JAN96
01
77,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
650
13FEB96
01
30,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
650
14FEB96
01
30,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
650
16FEB96
01
29, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
650
20FEB96
01
10,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
650
21FEB96
01
16,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
650
22FEB96
01
23,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
650
07MAR96
01
49,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2 10.00
650
08MAR96
01
340,000
00
NC
Appendix C - 59
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyt
e Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Typ
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
2 0MAR96
01
15,400
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
2 5APR96
01
30,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
2 6APR96
01
18,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
30APR96
01
23,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
13JUN96
01
19,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
14JUN96
01
14,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
16 JUL 9 6
01
54,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
47,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
48,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
51,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
33,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
37,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
14,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
41,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
31,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
22AUG96
01
16,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
23AUG96
01
2, 400
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
27AUG96
01
36,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
2 8AUG96
01
38,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
05SEP96
01
11,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
06SEP96
01
25, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
24SEP96
01
11,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
25SEP96
01
8, 400
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
26SEP96
01
7, 400
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
27SEP96
01
15,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
210CT96
01
11,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
220CT96
01
14,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
230CT96
01
17,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
07NOV96
01
23,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
08NOV96
01
19,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
20NOV96
01
8, 700
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
21NOV96
01
9, 200
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
22NOV96
01
8, 300
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
04DEC96
01
10,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
05DEC96
01
8, 600
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
06DEC96
01
8, 200
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
650
11DEC96
01
8, 900
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
30,336.96
Appendix C - 60
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value Fac.
Cas_No (ug/1) ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1
000
00
4798
23APR96
05
20
000
00
ND
02
20,000.00
ND
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1
000
00
4798
24APR96
05
20
000
00
ND
02
20,000.00
ND
TOTAL
SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1
000
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
20
000
00
ND
02
20,000.00
ND
20,000.00
20,000.00
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4798
23APR96
05
152
000
00
NC
02
36,000,000.00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4798
24APR96
05
224
000
00
NC
02
31,250,000.00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
124
000
00
NC
02
24,200,000.00
NC
166,666.67
30,483,333.33
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
08JAN96
01
18
400
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
11JAN96
01
4
800
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
30JAN96
01
20
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
31JAN96
01
180
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
12FEB96
01
24
400
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
13FEB96
01
29
600
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
15FEB96
01
34
400
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
19FEB96
01
156
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
20FEB96
01
48
800
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
21FEB96
01
63
600
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
0 6MAR96
01
22
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
07MAR96
01
42
800
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
19MAR96
01
46
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
2 6MAR96
01
37
200
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
11APR96
01
153
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
12APR96
01
56
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
23APR96
01
18
800
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
24APR96
01
26
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
2 5APR96
01
19
600
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
2 9APR96
01
49
600
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
13MAY96
01
18
800
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
14MAY96
01
25
200
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
12JUN96
01
11
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
13JUN96
01
12
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
15JUL96
01
38
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
70
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
81
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
64
000
00
NC
Appendix C - 61
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
58
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
48
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
210
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
70
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
124
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
05SEP96
01
69
600
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
23SEP96
01
43
200
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
24SEP96
01
15
600
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
25SEP96
01
36
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
26SEP96
01
24
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
220CT96
01
58
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
230CT96
01
83
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
240CT96
01
72
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
06NOV96
01
14
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
07NOV96
01
28
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
19NOV96
01
294
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
20NOV96
01
65
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
21NOV96
01
112
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
04DEC96
01
40
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
05DEC96
01
33
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
06DEC96
01
44
000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
650
11DEC96
01
74
000
00
NC
59,728.00
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4798
23APR96
05
568
00
NC
02
744,000.
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4798
24APR96
05
721
00
NC
02
462,000.
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
1
280
00
NC
02
442,000.
00
NC
856.33
549,333.33
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20
00
4798
23APR96
05
237
00
NC
02
3,400.
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20
00
4798
24APR96
05
243
00
NC
02
2,270.
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
30
00
ND
02
3,270.
00
NC
170.00
2,980.00
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10
00
4798
23APR96
05
110
00
NC
02
84.
10
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10
00
4798
24APR96
05
183
00
NC
02
68.
45
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
130
00
NC
02
57.
20
NC
141.00
69.92
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10
00
650
08JAN96
01
200
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10
00
650
11 JAN 9 6
01
250
00
NC
Appendix C - 62
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
30JAN96
01
70. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
31JAN96
01
300.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
12FEB96
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
13FEB96
01
280.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
15FEB96
01
500.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
19FEB96
01
200.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
20FEB96
01
10. 00
ND
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
21FEB96
01
230.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
0 6MAR96
01
210.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
07MAR96
01
10. 00
ND
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
18MAR96
01
30. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
19MAR96
01
210.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
2 6MAR96
01
20. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
11APR96
01
10. 00
ND
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
12APR96
01
120.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
23APR96
01
110.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
24APR96
01
310.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
2 5APR96
01
70. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
2 9APR96
01
260.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
13MAY96
01
10. 00
ND
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
14MAY96
01
480.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
12JUN96
01
100.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
13JUN96
01
220.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
15JUL96
01
190.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
150.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
130.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
380.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
160.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
130.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
130.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
04SEP96
01
70. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
05SEP96
01
70. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
23SEP96
01
260.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
24SEP96
01
60. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
25SEP96
01
10. 00
ND
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 63
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
26SEP96
01
10. 00
ND
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
220CT96
01
360.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
230CT96
01
440.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
240CT96
01
40. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
06NOV96
01
150.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
07NOV96
01
10. 00
ND
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
19NOV96
01
270.00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
20NOV96
01
10. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
21NOV96
01
60. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
04DEC96
01
30. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
05DEC96
01
20. 00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
06DEC96
01
10. 00
ND
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
650
11DEC96
01
20. 00
NC
142.88
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4798
23APR96
05
1. 00
ND
02
39. 50
NC
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4798
24APR96
05
1. 00
ND
02
35. 50
NC
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
5.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
1. 00
ND
02
33. 40
NC
1.00
36.13
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4798
23APR96
05
8,470.00
NC
02
20,100.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4798
24APR96
05
9,900.00
NC
02
18,250.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
6,840.00
NC
02
17,300.00
NC
8,403.33
18,550.00
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4798
23APR96
05
4.00
ND
02
112,000.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4798
24APR96
05
22.10
NC
02
80,050.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
63.10
NC
02
86,000.00
NC
29.73
92,683.33
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
08JAN96
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
11JAN96
01
60. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
30 JAN 9 6
01
40. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
31JAN96
01
63. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
12FEB96
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
13FEB96
01
10. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
15FEB96
01
10. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
19FEB96
01
90. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
20FEB96
01
70. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
21FEB96
01
70. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
0 6MAR96
01
20. 00
ND
Appendix C - 64
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
07MAR96
01
120.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
18MAR96
01
80. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
19MAR96
01
170.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
2 6MAR96
01
300.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
11APR96
01
500.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
12APR96
01
330.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
23APR96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
24APR96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
2 5APR96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
2 9APR96
01
60. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
13MAY96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
14MAY96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
12JUN96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
13JUN96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
15JUL96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
10. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
04SEP96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
05SEP96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
23SEP96
01
80. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
24SEP96
01
70. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
25SEP96
01
120.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
26SEP96
01
90. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
220CT96
01
60. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
230CT96
01
60. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
240CT96
01
10. 00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
06NOV96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
07NOV96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
19NOV96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
20NOV96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
21NOV96
01
20. 00
ND
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 65
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
04DEC96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
05DEC96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
06DEC96
01
20. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
650
11DEC96
01
o
o
o
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4798
23APR96
05
26,200.00
NC
02
905,000.00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4798
24APR96
05
15,000.00
NC
02
526,000.00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5,000.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
18,800.00
NC
02
494,000.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
211.00
NC
02
926,000.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
472.00
NC
02
661,500.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
1,300.00
NC
02
702,000.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
08JAN96
01
1,220.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
11JAN96
01
1,290.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
30JAN96
01
2,590.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
31JAN96
01
3,700.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
12FEB96
01
1,600.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
13FEB96
01
1,110.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
15FEB96
01
2,170.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
19FEB96
01
5, 710.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
20FEB96
01
4,090.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
21FEB96
01
3,330.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
0 6MAR96
01
1,160.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
07MAR96
01
1,540.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
18MAR96
01
730.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
19MAR96
01
1,390.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
2 6MAR96
01
1,680.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
11APR96
01
3,290.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
12APR96
01
1,240.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
23APR96
01
120.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
24APR96
01
330.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
2 5APR96
01
710.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
2 9APR96
01
4,120.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
13MAY96
01
120.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
14MAY96
01
110.00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
12JUN96
01
640.00
NC
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
20,000.00
661.00
641,666.67
763,166.67
Appendix C - 66
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
13JUN96
01
2, 150
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
15JUL96
01
180
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
140
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
70
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
70
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
190
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
140
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
220
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
910
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
2, 710
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
04SEP96
01
70
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
05SEP96
01
320
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
23SEP96
01
2, 990
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
24SEP96
01
1, 020
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
25SEP96
01
2, 460
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
26SEP96
01
2, 110
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
220CT96
01
240
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
230CT96
01
630
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
240CT96
01
320
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
06NOV96
01
230
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
07NOV96
01
1, 180
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
19NOV96
01
7, 980
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
20NOV96
01
1, 840
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
21NOV96
01
3, 400
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
04DEC96
01
2, 170
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
05DEC96
01
2, 150
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
06DEC96
01
2, 980
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
650
11DEC96
01
5, 190
00
NC
1,693.27
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4798
23APR96
05
86
50
NC
02
3,750.00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4798
24APR96
05
122
00
NC
02
7,930.00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
135
00
NC
02
10,700.00
NC
114.50
7,460.00
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4798
23APR96
05
458
00
NC
02
522,000.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4798
24APR96
05
306
00
NC
02
393,500.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
477
00
NC
02
458,000.00
NC
413.67
457,833.33
Appendix C - 67
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
08JAN96
01
160
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
11JAN96
01
170
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
30JAN96
01
660
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
31JAN96
01
810
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
12FEB96
01
350
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
13FEB96
01
200
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
15FEB96
01
300
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
19FEB96
01
1, 280
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
20FEB96
01
840
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
21FEB96
01
460
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
0 6MAR96
01
130
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
07MAR96
01
270
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
18MAR96
01
410
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
19MAR96
01
640
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
2 6MAR96
01
770
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
11APR96
01
2, 590
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
12APR96
01
2, 320
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
23APR96
01
220
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
24APR96
01
240
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
2 5APR96
01
330
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
2 9APR96
01
1, 280
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
13MAY96
01
110
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
14MAY96
01
100
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
12JUN96
01
240
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
13JUN96
01
210
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
15JUL96
01
830
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
1, 490
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
1, 770
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
1, 050
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
2, 270
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
1, 110
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
730
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
1, 930
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
2, 540
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
04SEP96
01
450
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
05SEP96
01
600
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
650
23SEP96
01
1, 660
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 68
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
24SEP96
01
57 0
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
25SEP96
01
1, 030
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
26SEP96
01
860
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
220CT96
01
530
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
230CT96
01
660
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
240CT96
01
1, 470
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
06NOV96
01
20
00
ND
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
07NOV96
01
90
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
19NOV96
01
20
00
ND
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
20NOV96
01
20
00
ND
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
21NOV96
01
370
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
04DEC96
01
280
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
05DEC96
01
250
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
06DEC96
01
280
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
650
11DEC96
01
990
00
NC
749.23
GALLIUM
7440-55-3
500
00
4798
23APR96
05
200
00
ND
02
1,440.
00
NC
GALLIUM
7440-55-3
500
00
4798
24APR96
05
200
00
ND
02
1,125.
00
NC
GALLIUM
7440-55-3
500
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
200
00
ND
02
1,240.
00
NC
200.00
1,268.33
INDIUM
7440-74-6
1, 000
00
4798
23APR96
05
500
00
ND
02
500.
00
ND
INDIUM
7440-74-6
1, 000
00
4798
24APR96
05
500
00
ND
02
500.
00
ND
INDIUM
7440-74-6
1, 000
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
500
00
ND
02
500.
00
ND
500.00
500.00
IODINE
7553-56-2
1, 000
00
4798
23APR96
05
1, 000
00
ND
02
1,000.
00
ND
IODINE
7553-56-2
1, 000
00
4798
24APR96
05
1, 000
00
ND
02
1,000.
00
ND
IODINE
7553-56-2
1, 000
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
1, 000
00
ND
02
1,000.
00
ND
1,000.00
1,000.00
IRIDIUM
7439-88-5
1, 000
00
4798
23APR96
05
500
00
ND
02
175,000.
00
NC
IRIDIUM
7439-88-5
1, 000
00
4798
24APR96
05
500
00
ND
02
143,500.
00
NC
IRIDIUM
7439-88-5
1, 000
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
500
00
ND
02
169,000.
00
NC
500.00
162,500.00
IRON
7439-89-6
100
00
4798
23APR96
05
4, 610
00
NC
02
4,970,000.
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100
00
4798
24APR96
05
5, 760
00
NC
02
3,385,000.
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
14,300
00
NC
02
3,510,000.
00
NC
8,223.33
3,955,000.00
IRON
7439-89-6
100.
00
650
08JAN96
01
2, 410
00
NC
Appendix C - 69
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
11JAN96
01
2, 630
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
30JAN96
01
8, 280
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
31JAN96
01
11,000
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
12FEB96
01
5, 760
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
13FEB96
01
4, 250
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
15FEB96
01
13,210
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
19FEB96
01
13,740
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
20FEB96
01
11,570
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
21FEB96
01
9, 110
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
0 6MAR96
01
2, 540
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
07MAR96
01
4, 780
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
18MAR96
01
4, 540
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
19MAR96
01
8, 380
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
2 6MAR96
01
10,020
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
11APR96
01
18,700
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
12APR96
01
11,910
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
23APR96
01
2, 440
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
24APR96
01
4, 980
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
2 5APR96
01
10,130
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
2 9APR96
01
19,840
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
13MAY96
01
2, 510
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
14MAY96
01
1, 360
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
12JUN96
01
3, 130
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
13JUN96
01
1, 760
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
15JUL96
01
2, 060
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
1, 920
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
1, 600
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
2, 080
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
6, 570
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
3, 450
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
2, 030
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
2, 480
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
6, 320
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
04SEP96
01
770
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
05SEP96
01
1, 800
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
23SEP96
01
1, 540
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
24SEP96
01
1, 220
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 70
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
25SEP96
01
1,290.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
26SEP96
01
1,660.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
220CT96
01
2,460.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
230CT96
01
2,890.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
240CT96
01
2,410.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
06NOV96
01
4,190.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
07NOV96
01
7,380.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
19NOV96
01
8,190.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
20NOV96
01
6,080.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
21NOV96
01
7,710.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
04DEC96
01
2,190.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
05DEC96
01
2,020.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
06DEC96
01
3,360.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
650
11DEC96
01
5,240.00
NC
LANTHANUM
7439-91-0
100.00
4798
23APR96
05
100.00
ND
02
100.00
ND
LANTHANUM
7439-91-0
100.00
4798
24APR96
05
100.00
ND
02
100.00
ND
LANTHANUM
7439-91-0
100.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
100.00
ND
02
100.00
ND
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4798
23APR96
05
43. 00
ND
02
144,000.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4798
24APR96
05
43. 00
ND
02
98,600.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
78.10
NC
02
109,000.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
08JAN96
01
140.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
11JAN96
01
130.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
30JAN96
01
220.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
31JAN96
01
190.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
12FEB96
01
180.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
13FEB96
01
90. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
15FEB96
01
50. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
19FEB96
01
360.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
20FEB96
01
300.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
21FEB96
01
120.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
0 6MAR96
01
10. 00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
07MAR96
01
320.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
18MAR96
01
380.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
19MAR96
01
210.00
NC
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
5,382.50
117,200.00
Appendix C - 71
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
2 6MAR96
01
390
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
11APR96
01
280
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
12APR96
01
430
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
23APR96
01
180
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
24APR96
01
150
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
2 5APR96
01
20
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
2 9APR96
01
280
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
13MAY96
01
190
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
14MAY96
01
40
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
12JUN96
01
70
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
13JUN96
01
250
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
15JUL96
01
10
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
80
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
150
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
10
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
10
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
40
00
ND
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
40
00
ND
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
90
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
250
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
04SEP96
01
30
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
05SEP96
01
10
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
23SEP96
01
150
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
24SEP96
01
220
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
25SEP96
01
270
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
26SEP96
01
220
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
220CT96
01
250
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
230CT96
01
250
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
240CT96
01
190
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
06NOV96
01
100
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
07NOV96
01
40
00
ND
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
19NOV96
01
190
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
20NOV96
01
40
00
ND
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
21NOV96
01
330
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
04DEC96
01
170
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
05DEC96
01
280
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
06DEC96
01
320
00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 72
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
650
11DEC96
01
580.00
NC
178.85
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
4798
23APR96
05
2,010.00
NC
02
7,250.
00
NC
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
4798
24APR96
05
2,370.00
NC
02
5,285.
00
NC
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
1,400.00
NC
02
4,890.
00
NC
1,926.67
5,808.33
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4798
23APR96
05
8,210.00
NC
02
53,300.
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4798
24APR96
05
4,000.00
NC
02
42,200.
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
5,050.00
NC
02
41,800.
00
NC
5,753.33
45,766.67
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4798
23APR96
05
49. 40
NC
02
48,300.
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4798
24APR96
05
37.50
NC
02
33,550.
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
59.20
NC
02
31,400.
00
NC
48 .70
37,750.00
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4798
23APR96
05
1. 63
NC
02
129.
00
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4798
24APR96
05
1. 60
NC
02
96.
70
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4798
2 5APR96
05
1.77
NC
02
82.
00
NC
1.67
102.57
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
08JAN96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
12JAN96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
31JAN96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
12FEB96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
13FEB96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
15FEB96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
19FEB96
01
0. 40
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
21FEB96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
22FEB96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
07MAR96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
08MAR96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
2 0MAR96
01
0. 60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
12APR96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
2 5APR96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
2 6APR96
01
0. 40
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
30APR96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
15MAY96
01
0.20
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
16MAY96
01
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
17MAY96
01
0. 30
NC
Appendix C - 73
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Eff
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Mea
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Typ
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
13JUN96
01
0
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
14JUN96
01
0
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
16 JUL 9 6
01
0
50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
0
80
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
0
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
0
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
0
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
0
80
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
0
80
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
0
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
31JUL 9 6
01
0
50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
01AUG96
01
0
50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
22AUG96
01
0
30
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
23AUG96
01
0
20
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
27AUG96
01
0
20
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
2 8AUG96
01
0
20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
05SEP96
01
0
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
06SEP96
01
0
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
24SEP96
01
0
80
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
25SEP96
01
0
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
26SEP96
01
0
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
27SEP96
01
0
80
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
210CT96
01
0
30
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
220CT96
01
0
20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
230CT96
01
0
50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
07NOV96
01
0
70
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
08NOV96
01
0
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
20NOV96
01
0
20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
21NOV96
01
0
20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
22NOV96
01
0
20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
04DEC96
01
2
50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
05DEC96
01
2
20
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
06DEC96
01
1
50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
650
11DEC96
01
0
70
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
1, 910
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
2, 040
00
NC
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
02
02
3,120.00 NC
2,040.00 NC
Appendix C - 74
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
1, 290
00
NC
02
1,960.00
NC
1,746.67
2,373.33
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4798
23APR96
05
1, 130
00
NC
02
317,000.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4798
24APR96
05
1, 150
00
NC
02
208,000.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
760
00
NC
02
218,000.00
NC
1,013.33
247,666.67
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
08JAN96
01
3, 300
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
11JAN96
01
1, 630
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
30JAN96
01
1, 770
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
31JAN96
01
1, 200
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
12FEB96
01
1, 830
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
13FEB96
01
1, 780
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
15FEB96
01
1, 500
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
19FEB96
01
860
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
20FEB96
01
1, 070
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
21FEB96
01
3, 140
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
0 6MAR96
01
350
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
07MAR96
01
2, 320
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
18MAR96
01
530
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
19MAR96
01
550
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
2 6MAR96
01
1, 210
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
11APR96
01
3, 030
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
12APR96
01
2, 660
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
23APR96
01
860
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
24APR96
01
980
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
2 5APR96
01
740
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
2 9APR96
01
670
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
13MAY96
01
2, 200
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
14MAY96
01
1, 240
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
12JUN96
01
850
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
13JUN96
01
780
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
15JUL96
01
630
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
610
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
670
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
590
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
550
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
680
00
NC
Appendix C - 75
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
340
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
760
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
590
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
04SEP96
01
580
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
05SEP96
01
710
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
23SEP96
01
640
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
24SEP96
01
800
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
25SEP96
01
1, 060
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
26SEP96
01
1, 030
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
220CT96
01
1, 520
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
230CT96
01
800
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
240CT96
01
2, 460
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
06NOV96
01
1, 340
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
07NOV96
01
720
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
19NOV96
01
690
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
20NOV96
01
650
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
21NOV96
01
920
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
04DEC96
01
440
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
05DEC96
01
370
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
06DEC96
01
52 0
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
650
11DEC96
01
890
00
NC
1,127.12
OSMIUM
7440-04-2
100
00
4798
23APR96
05
100
00
ND
02
149.00
NC
OSMIUM
7440-04-2
100
00
4798
24APR96
05
100
00
ND
02
181.00
NC
OSMIUM
7440-04-2
100
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
100
00
ND
02
239.00
NC
100.00
189.67
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4798
23APR96
05
25, 800
00
NC
02
822,000.00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4798
24APR96
05
28,600
00
NC
02
596,000.00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
18,200
00
NC
02
659,000.00
NC
24,200.00
692,333.33
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
12APR96
01
170,000
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
15MAY96
01
21,000
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
16MAY96
01
15,000
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
17MAY96
01
20,000
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
13JUN96
01
19,000
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
14JUN96
01
14,000
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
15JUL96
01
50,080
00
NC
Appendix C - 76
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
54,030
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
61,230
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
56,590
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
28,130
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
32,560
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
14,320
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
38,470
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
30,750
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
04SEP96
01
8, 550
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
05SEP96
01
20,660
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
23SEP96
01
9, 580
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
24SEP96
01
7, 480
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
25SEP96
01
7, 500
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
26SEP96
01
14,640
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
220CT96
01
7, 530
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
230CT96
01
11,580
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
240CT96
01
12,450
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
06NOV96
01
19,280
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
07NOV96
01
16,300
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
19NOV96
01
16,240
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
20NOV96
01
8, 780
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
21NOV96
01
11,150
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
04DEC96
01
9, 750
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
05DEC96
01
8, 700
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
06DEC96
01
8, 870
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
650
11DEC96
01
12,100
00
NC
25,342.42
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4798
23APR96
05
415,000
00
NC
02
876,000.00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4798
24APR96
05
505,000
00
NC
02
736,500.00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
310,000
00
NC
02
695,000.00
NC
410,000.00
769,166.67
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4798
23APR96
05
40
00
ND
02
297.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4798
24APR96
05
285
00
NC
02
155.50
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
4798
2 5APR96
05
20
00
ND
02
360.00
NC
115.00
270.83
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
650
15JUL96
01
280
00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5
00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
100
00
NC
Appendix C - 77
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Eff;
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Mea:
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
380.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
370.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
170.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
200.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
10. 00
ND
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
50. 00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
110.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
04SEP96
01
50. 00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
05SEP96
01
190.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
23SEP96
01
2,480.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
24SEP96
01
1,840.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
25SEP96
01
2,570.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
26SEP96
01
1,980.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
220CT96
01
1,650.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
230CT96
01
280.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
240CT96
01
500.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
06NOV96
01
720.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
07NOV96
01
130.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
19NOV96
01
10. 00
ND
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
20NOV96
01
210.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
21NOV96
01
530.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
04DEC96
01
160.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
05DEC96
01
170.00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
06DEC96
01
60. 00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
650
11DEC96
01
450.00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4798
23APR96
05
1,290.00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4798
24APR96
05
1,480.00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
1,570.00
NC
Pt (s)
02
02
02
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
134,000.00 NC
81,600.00 NC
89,700.00 NC
579.63
1,446.67
101,766.67
SILVER
SILVER
SILVER
7440-22-4
7440-22-4
7440-22-4
10.00 4798
10.00 4798
10.00 4798
23APR96
24APR96
2 5APR96
05
05
05
5.00 ND
12.70 NC
38.10 NC
02
02
02
5,760.00 NC
4,490.00 NC
4,370.00 NC
SILVER
SILVER
SILVER
7440-22-4
7440-22-4
7440-22-4
10.00 650
10.00 650
10.00 650
08JAN96
11JAN96
30JAN96
01
01
01
30.00 NC
50.00 NC
20.00 NC
Appendix C - 78
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
31JAN96
01
30. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
12FEB96
01
20. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
13FEB96
01
10. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
15FEB96
01
10. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
19FEB96
01
20. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
20FEB96
01
10. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
21FEB96
01
10. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
0 6MAR96
01
10. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
07MAR96
01
10. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
18MAR96
01
10. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
19MAR96
01
20. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
2 6MAR96
01
50. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
11APR96
01
10. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
12APR96
01
10. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
23APR96
01
10. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
24APR96
01
10. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
2 5APR96
01
30. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
2 9APR96
01
100.00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
13MAY96
01
100.00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
14MAY96
01
10. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
12JUN96
01
60. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
13JUN96
01
50. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
15JUL96
01
20. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
10. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
20. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
10. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
10. 00
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
04SEP96
01
20. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
05SEP96
01
20. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
23SEP96
01
20. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
24SEP96
01
20. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
25SEP96
01
20. 00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
650
26SEP96
01
20. 00
ND
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
Appendix C - 79
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
3aseline
Value
Fac.
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
650
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4798
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4798
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4798
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4798
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4798
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4798
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4798
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4798
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4798
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4798
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4798
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4798
TELLURIUM
13494-80-9
1, 000
00
4798
TELLURIUM
13494-80-9
1, 000
00
4798
TELLURIUM
13494-80-9
1, 000
00
4798
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10
00
4798
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10
00
4798
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
10
00
4798
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Effl
Infl
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
220CT96
01
20
00
NC
230CT96
01
10
00
NC
240CT96
01
20
00
ND
06NOV96
01
20
00
NC
07NOV96
01
20
00
NC
19NOV96
01
20
00
NC
20NOV96
01
70
00
NC
21NOV96
01
50
00
NC
04DEC96
01
20
00
ND
05DEC96
01
20
00
NC
06DEC96
01
40
00
NC
11DEC96
01
60
00
NC
25.77
23APR96
05
15,000,000
00
NC
02
30,600,000.
00
NC
24APR96
05
18,400,000
00
NC
02
30,700,000.
00
NC
2 5APR96
05
11,900,000
00
NC
02
28,100,000.
00
NC
15,100,000.00
29,800,000.00
23APR96
05
100
00
ND
02
2,200.
00
NC
24APR96
05
100
00
ND
02
2,305.
00
NC
2 5APR96
05
100
00
ND
02
2,800.
00
NC
100.00
2,435.00
23APR96
05
1,310,000
00
NC
02
1,880,000.
00
NC
24APR96
05
1,450,000
00
NC
02
1,720,000.
00
NC
2 5APR96
05
882,000
00
NC
02
1,720,000.
00
NC
1,214,000.00
1,773,333.33
23APR96
05
500
00
ND
02
1,600.
00
NC
24APR96
05
500
00
ND
02
1,270.
00
NC
2 5APR96
05
500
00
ND
02
1,370.
00
NC
500.00
1,413.33
23APR96
05
1, 000
00
ND
02
1,000.
00
ND
24APR96
05
1, 000
00
ND
02
1,000.
00
ND
2 5APR96
05
1, 000
00
ND
02
1,000.
00
ND
1,000.00
1,000.00
23APR96
05
10
00
ND
02
20.
00
ND
24APR96
05
20
00
ND
02
20.
00
ND
2 5APR96
05
10
00
ND
02
20.
00
ND
13.33
20.00
Appendix C - 80
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4798
23APR96
05
34.50
NC
02
171,000.
00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4798
24APR96
05
69. 80
NC
02
114,400.
00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
165.00
NC
02
146,000.
00
NC
89.77
143,800.00
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4798
23APR96
05
55. 50
NC
02
46,800.
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4798
24APR96
05
44.50
NC
02
30,650.
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
70. 60
NC
02
28,600.
00
NC
56.87
35,350.00
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4798
23APR96
05
17.80
NC
02
3,020.
00
NC
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4798
24APR96
05
9. 00
ND
02
1,825.
00
NC
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
50.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
9. 00
ND
02
1,800.
00
NC
11.93
2,215.00
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4798
23APR96
05
5. 00
ND
02
148.
00
NC
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4798
24APR96
05
5. 00
ND
02
88.
00
NC
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
5.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
5. 00
ND
02
89.
20
NC
5.00
108.40
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4798
23APR96
05
122.00
NC
02
680,000.
00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4798
24APR96
05
215.00
NC
02
575,500.
00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
1,050.00
NC
02
670,000.
00
NC
462.33
641,833.33
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
08JAN96
01
120.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
11JAN96
01
100.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
30JAN96
01
230.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
31JAN96
01
280.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
12FEB96
01
220.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
13FEB96
01
140.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
15FEB96
01
230.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
19FEB96
01
1,390.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
20FEB96
01
980.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
21FEB96
01
640.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
0 6MAR96
01
290.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
07MAR96
01
210.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
18MAR96
01
270.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
19MAR96
01
500.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
2 6MAR96
01
1,150.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
11APR96
01
2,950.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
12APR96
01
1,290.00
NC
Appendix C - 81
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl
Effl Amount
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
23APR96
01
50. 00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
24APR96
01
120.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
2 5APR96
01
350.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
2 9APR96
01
700.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
13MAY96
01
50. 00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
14MAY96
01
20. 00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
12JUN96
01
60. 00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
13JUN96
01
60. 00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
15JUL96
01
120.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
17 JUL 9 6
01
190.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
18 JUL 9 6
01
120.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
19 JUL 9 6
01
130.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
2 3 JUL 9 6
01
310.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
2 4 JUL 9 6
01
210.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
2 6 JUL 9 6
01
140.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
3 0 JUL 9 6
01
320.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
31JUL 9 6
01
650.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
04SEP96
01
20. 00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
05SEP96
01
150.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
23SEP96
01
280.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
24SEP96
01
150.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
25SEP96
01
230.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
26SEP96
01
160.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
220CT96
01
240.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
230CT96
01
330.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
240CT96
01
140.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
06NOV96
01
10. 00
ND
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
07NOV96
01
10. 00
ND
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
19NOV96
01
370.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
20NOV96
01
10. 00
ND
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
21NOV96
01
930.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
04DEC96
01
420.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
05DEC96
01
360.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
06DEC96
01
420.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
650
11DEC96
01
1,000.00
NC
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Pt (s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
ZIRCONIUM
7440-67-7
100.00 4798 23APR96
05
1,340.00 NC 02
4,860.00 NC
Appendix C - 82
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl
Effl Amount
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Infl
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
ZIRCONIUM
7440-67-7
100.00
4798
24APR96
05
1,550.00
NC
02
1,122.00
NC
ZIRCONIUM
7440-67-7
100.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
970.00
NC
02
688.00
NC
1,286.67
2,223.33
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4798
23APR96
05
451.56
NC
02
23,362.20
NC
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4798
24APR96
05
104.34
NC
02
18,454.45
NC
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
10,009.10
NC
02
20,299.10
NC
3,521.67
20,705.25
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
13. 33
NC
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
10.00
11.11
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
17.58
NC
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
10.00
12.53
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
10.00
10.00
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
181.26
NC
02
330.50
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
201.30
NC
02
599.90
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
263.50
NC
02
730.60
NC
215.35
553.67
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
650
0 9JAN96
01
390.00
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
650
11APR96
01
79. 00
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
650
12APR96
01
130.00
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
650
13JUN96
01
32.00
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
650
14JUN96
01
16. 00
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
650
04SEP96
01
63. 00
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
650
05SEP96
01
130.00
NC
120.00
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
124-48-1
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
22. 92
NC
02
104.69
NC
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
124-48-1
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
72. 64
NC
02
565.30
NC
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
124-48-1
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
210.60
NC
02
722.70
NC
102.05
464.23
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
124-48-1
10.00
650
11APR96
01
10. 00
ND
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
124-48-1
10.00
650
12APR96
01
25. 00
NC
Appendix C - 83
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
124-48-1
10.00
650
13JUN96
01
9. 00
NC
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
124-48-1
10.00
650
14JUN96
01
3. 00
NC
11.75
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
59.74
NC
02
98. 91
NC
26.58
39.64
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
32.43
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
12. 68
NC
02
28.89
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
24. 60
NC
10.89
28 . 64
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 98
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
14. 98
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
13. 69
NC
10.00
13.22
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
650
0 9JAN96
01
5. 00
ND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
650
11APR96
01
10. 00
ND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
650
12APR96
01
10. 00
ND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
650
13JUN96
01
1. 00
ND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
650
14JUN96
01
1. 00
ND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
650
04SEP96
01
1. 00
ND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
650
05SEP96
01
1. 00
ND
4.14
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
99. 34
NC
02
142.70
NC
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
47.42
NC
02
183.76
NC
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
57. 64
NC
02
125.84
NC
68.13
150.77
PHENOL
PHENOL
PHENOL
108-95-2
108-95-2
108-95-2
10.00 4798
10.00 4798
23APR96
24APR96
2 5APR96
05
05
05
12.40
10. 00
10. 00
NC
ND
ND
02
02
02
65.02 NC
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
PYRIDINE
PYRIDINE
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
110-86-1
110-86-1
10.00 4798
10.00 4798
10.00 4798
23APR96
24APR96
2 5APR96
05
05
05
117.44
78.40
65. 07
NC
NC
NC
02
02
02
175.43 NC
191.56 NC
139.53 NC
TOLUENE
TOLUENE
108-88-3
108-88-3
10.00 4798
10.00 4798
23APR96
24APR96
05
05
12.77
26.11
NC
NC
02
02
50.21 NC
80.33 NC
Appendix C - 84
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
16.27
NC
02
60. 00
NC
18.38
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
650
0 9JAN96
01
1. 00
ND
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
650
11APR96
01
32.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
650
12APR96
01
26. 00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
650
13JUN96
01
14.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
650
14JUN96
01
10. 00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
650
04SEP96
01
120.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
650
05SEP96
01
540.00
NC
106.14
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
118.60
NC
02
359.90
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
130.71
NC
02
122.20
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
53. 96
NC
02
185.80
NC
101.09
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
650
0 9JAN96
01
1. 00
ND
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
650
11APR96
01
10. 00
ND
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
650
12APR96
01
10. 00
ND
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
650
13JUN96
01
2.00
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
650
14JUN96
01
2.00
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
650
04SEP96
01
988.00
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
650
05SEP96
01
3,100.00
NC
587.57
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
10.00
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
650
0 9JAN96
01
1. 00
ND
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
650
11APR96
01
10. 00
ND
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
650
12APR96
01
10. 00
ND
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
650
13JUN96
01
1. 00
ND
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
650
14JUN96
01
1. 00
ND
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
650
04SEP96
01
3. 00
NC
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
650
05SEP96
01
10. 00
NC
5.14
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10. 00
ND
10.00
Facility
Infl Mean
63.51
222.63
10.00
10.00
Appendix C - 85
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Metals 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
1,1-DICHLGROETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
650
0 9JAN96
01
1. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
650
11APR96
01
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
650
12APR96
01
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
650
13JUN96
01
1. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
650
14JUN96
01
1. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
650
04SEP96
01
1. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
650
05SEP96
01
1. 00
ND
3.57
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4798
23APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10.
00
ND
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4798
24APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10.
00
ND
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
10. 00
ND
02
10.
00
ND
10.00
10.00
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4798
23APR96
05
57. 93
NC
02
1,620.
40
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4798
24APR96
05
1,918.70
NC
02
7,826.
30
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
1,840.80
NC
02
5,654.
40
NC
1,272.48
5,033.70
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4798
23APR96
05
1,721.40
NC
02
23,489.
00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4798
24APR96
05
20,248.00
NC
02
54,082.
50
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
17,275.00
NC
02
36,585.
00
NC
13,081.47
38,052.17
4-METHYL-2-PENTAN0NE
108-10-1
50.00
4798
23APR96
05
50. 00
ND
02
78.
99
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4798
24APR96
05
50. 00
ND
02
73.
47
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4798
2 5APR96
05
50. 00
ND
02
50.
00
ND
50.00
67.49
Subcategory=Metals Option=cyanide 2
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
4055
10JUN91
02
2,143,000.
00
NC
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
4055
11JUN91
03
136,833.33
NC
02
7,965,000.
00
NC
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
4055
12JUN91
02
8,400,000.
00
NC
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
4055
13JUN91
03
150.00
ND
02
1,940,000.
00
NC
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20.00
4055
14JUN91
03
270,000.00
NC
02
1,880,000.
00
NC
135,661.11
4,465,600.00
Appendix C - 86
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Baseline
Value
Fac.
Analyte
Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814A
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814A
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814A
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814A
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814A
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814B
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814B
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814B
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814B
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814A
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814A
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814A
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814A
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814A
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814B
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814B
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814B
BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814B
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
Effl
Infl
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
16SEP96
09
52
000
00
NC
07
45,000.
00
NC
17SEP96
07
44,000.
00
NC
18SEP96
09
107
000
00
NC
07
128,000.
00
NC
19SEP96
09
87
000
00
NC
07
188,000.
00
NC
20SEP96
09
65
000
00
NC
07
88,000.
00
NC
77,750.00
98,600.00
16SEP96
10
57
000
00
NC
08
20,000.
00
NC
17SEP96
08
23,500.
00
NC
18SEP96
10
660
000
00
NC
08
1,310,000.
00
NC
19SEP96
10
156
000
00
NC
08
175,000.
00
NC
291,000.00
382,125.00
16SEP96
09
4, 940
000
00
NC
07
7,920,000.
00
NC
17SEP96
07
5, 400, 000.
00
NC
18SEP96
09
6, 020
000
00
NC
07
9,330,000.
00
NC
19SEP96
09
4, 630
000
00
NC
07
8,230,000.
00
NC
20SEP96
09
8, 200
000
00
NC
07
3,820,000.
00
NC
5,947,500.00
6,940,000.00
16SEP96
10
5, 670
000
00
NC
08
6,500,000.
00
NC
17SEP96
08
3,570,000.
00
NC
18SEP96
10
9, 915
000
00
NC
08
13,200,000.
00
NC
19SEP96
10
12,300
000
00
NC
08
20,100,000.
00
NC
9,295,000.00
10,842,500.00
Appendix C - 87
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10,900
000
00
NC
07
26, 000
000.
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
25, 550
000.
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
11,700
000
00
NC
07
38,200
000.
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
13,400
000
00
NC
07
42,800
000.
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
10,900
000
00
NC
07
31,200
000.
00
NC
11,725,000.00
32,750,000.00
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
15,800
000
00
NC
08
31,300
000.
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
32,100
000.
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
20,200
000
00
NC
08
29, 600
000.
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
35,300
000
00
NC
08
81,500
000.
00
NC
23,766,666.67
43,625,000.00
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1, 780
000
00
NC
07
2, 250
000.
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 965
000.
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
1, 325
000
00
NC
07
965
000.
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1, 440
000
00
NC
07
2, 030
000.
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
1, 730
000
00
NC
07
2, 270
000.
00
NC
1,568,750.00
1,896,000.00
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
3, 600
000
00
NC
08
3, 120
000.
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2, 315
000.
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
5, 740
000
00
NC
08
6, 180
000.
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
3, 110
000
00
NC
08
2, 230
000.
00
NC
4,150,000.00
3,461,250.00
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
23
000
00
NC
07
264
000.
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
96
500.
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
60
000
00
NC
07
117
000.
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20
000
00
NC
07
81
000.
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
42
000
00
NC
07
87
000.
00
NC
36,250.00
129,100.00
Appendix C - 88
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
3aseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
FLUORIDE
16984-
48-8
100
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
21,000
00
NC
08
84,000
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-
48-8
100
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
17,500
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-
48-8
100
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
390,000
00
NC
08
330,000
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-
CO
CO
100
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
33,000
00
NC
08
66,000
00
NC
148,000.00
124,375.00
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
13,000
00
NC
07
21,000
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
29, 500
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
30,000
00
NC
07
58,000
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20,000
00
NC
07
48,000
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20,000
00
NC
07
25, 000
00
NC
20,750.00
36,300.00
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
99,000
00
NC
08
103,000
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
51,500
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
41,000
00
NC
08
103,000
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
75, 000
00
NC
08
58,000
00
NC
71,666.67
78,875.00
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
190,000
00
NC
07
3,364,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
2,182,500
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
147,916
67
NC
07
2,652,333
33
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
306,200
00
NC
07
9,274,400
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
263,200
00
NC
07
12,168,000
00
NC
226,829.17
5
,928,246.67
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
946,000
00
NC
08
3,080,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2,062,500
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
494,000
00
NC
08
2,650,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,027,000
00
NC
08
4,025,000
00
NC
822,333.33
2
,954,375.00
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
18,400
00
NC
07
1,070,600
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
921,500
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
61,166
67
NC
07
1, 175, 833
33
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
41,400
00
NC
07
3,723,000
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
47,000
00
NC
07
1,264,000
00
NC
41,991.67
1
,630,986.67
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
196,600
00
NC
08
1,075,000
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
882,750
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
218,000
00
NC
08
1,818,000
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
316,250
00
NC
08
1,153,000
00
NC
243,616.67
1
,232,187.50
Appendix C - 89
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Baseline
Value
Fac.
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-
5
20
00
4814A
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-
5
20
00
4814A
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-
5
20
00
4814A
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-
5
20
00
4814A
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-
5
20
00
4814B
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-
5
20
00
4814B
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-
5
20
00
4814B
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-
5
20
00
4814B
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814A
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814A
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814A
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814A
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814A
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814B
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814B
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814B
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814B
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814A
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814A
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814A
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814A
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814A
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814B
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814B
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814B
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814B
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814A
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814A
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814A
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814A
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814A
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Effl
Infl
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
16SEP96
09
10
00
ND
07
74
00
NC
17SEP96
07
467
00
NC
18SEP96
09
209
00
NC
07
380
00
NC
19SEP96
09
96
00
NC
07
258
00
NC
105.00
294.75
16SEP96
10
288
00
NC
08
474
00
NC
17SEP96
08
10
00
ND
18SEP96
10
245
00
NC
08
980
00
NC
19SEP96
10
620
00
NC
08
41
00
NC
384.33
376.25
16SEP96
09
19,800,000
00
NC
07
19,000
000
00
NC
17SEP96
07
8, 950
000
00
NC
18SEP96
09
12,650,000
00
NC
07
12,100
000
00
NC
19SEP96
09
11,500,000
00
NC
07
13,300
000
00
NC
20SEP96
09
12,400,000
00
NC
07
12,600
000
00
NC
14,087,500.00
13,190,000.00
16SEP96
10
18,700,000
00
NC
08
19,200
000
00
NC
17SEP96
08
12,450
000
00
NC
18SEP96
10
23,450,000
00
NC
08
32,700
000
00
NC
19SEP96
10
69,000,000
00
NC
08
15,300
000
00
NC
37,050,000.00
19,912,500.00
16SEP96
09
3,030,000
00
NC
07
4, 030
000
00
NC
17SEP96
07
3, 400
000
00
NC
18SEP96
09
3,885,000
00
NC
07
4, 960
000
00
NC
19SEP96
09
3,850,000
00
NC
07
4, 790
000
00
NC
20SEP96
09
2,970,000
00
NC
07
3, 910
000
00
NC
3,433,750.00
4,218,000.00
16SEP96
10
3,720,000
00
NC
08
3, 690
000
00
NC
17SEP96
08
3, 285
000
00
NC
18SEP96
10
5, 060, 000
00
NC
08
6, 580
000
00
NC
19SEP96
10
9, 260, 000
00
NC
08
3, 130
000
00
NC
6,013,333.33
4,171,250.00
16SEP96
09
15,000
00
NC
07
18
700
00
NC
17SEP96
07
13
900
00
NC
18SEP96
09
11,190
00
NC
07
18
600
00
NC
19SEP96
09
17,300
00
NC
07
20
500
00
NC
20SEP96
09
18,600
00
NC
07
71
700
00
NC
15,522.50
28,680.00
Appendix C - 90
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
3aseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TOTAL PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
13,600
00
NC
08
15,000
00
NC
TOTAL PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
18,750
00
NC
TOTAL PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
4, 380
00
NC
08
8, 200
00
NC
TOTAL PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
42,500
00
NC
08
89,500
00
NC
20,160.00
32,862.50
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
350
00
NC
07
650
00
NC
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
8, 000
00
NC
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
45
00
NC
07
13,000
00
NC
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
400
00
NC
07
6, 700
00
NC
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
170,000
00
NC
07
350,000
00
NC
42,698.75
75,670.00
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
70
00
NC
08
8, 100
00
NC
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
13,500
00
NC
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
89,500
00
NC
08
250,000
00
NC
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
4, 500
00
NC
08
3, 000
00
NC
31,356.67
68,650.00
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
765,000
00
NC
07
5, 210,000
00
NC
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3,470,000
00
NC
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
527,500
00
NC
07
5,660,000
00
NC
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
195,000
00
NC
07
8,480,000
00
NC
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
710,000
00
NC
07
7,700,000
00
NC
549,375.00
6,104,000.00
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
756,000
00
NC
08
5, 420, 000
00
NC
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
8,310,000
00
NC
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
695,000
00
NC
08
1,250,000
00
NC
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
375,000
00
NC
08
3,060,000
00
NC
608,666.67
4,510,000.00
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
21,000
00
NC
07
29, 200
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
20,550
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
18,000
00
NC
07
66,200
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
9, 770
00
NC
07
45,200
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
7, 52 0
00
NC
07
44,400
00
NC
14,072.50
41,110.00
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
20,600
00
NC
08
12,500
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
26, 200
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
41,000
00
NC
08
11,500
00
NC
Appendix C - 91
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
17,700.00
NC
08
22,600
00
NC
26,433.33
18,200.00
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
62. 60
NC
07
223
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 522
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
94.85
NC
07
1, 670
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
162.00
NC
07
857
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
92.80
NC
07
20
00
ND
103.06
858.40
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
32.10
NC
08
83
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
68
75
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
39. 65
NC
08
20
00
ND
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
152.00
NC
08
240
00
NC
74.58
102.94
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
2,590.00
NC
07
8, 830
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
8, 550
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
1,465.00
NC
07
9, 170
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
572.00
NC
07
1, 930
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
737.00
NC
07
1, 230
00
NC
1,341.00
5,942.00
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
402.00
NC
08
649
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
469
50
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
198.00
NC
08
248
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
113.00
NC
08
163
00
NC
237.67
382.38
BARIUM
7440393
200.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
136.00
NC
07
1, 720
00
NC
BARIUM
7440393
200.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 350
00
NC
BARIUM
7440393
200.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
234.00
NC
07
3, 620
00
NC
BARIUM
7440393
200.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
253.00
NC
07
4, 310
00
NC
BARIUM
7440393
200.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
259.00
NC
07
2, 630
00
NC
220.50
2,726.00
BARIUM
7440393
200.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
316.00
NC
08
1, 270
00
NC
BARIUM
7440393
200.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1, 180
00
NC
BARIUM
7440393
200.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
198.00
NC
08
474
00
NC
BARIUM
7440393
200.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
580.00
NC
08
4, 990
00
NC
364.67
1,978.50
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
20,100.00
NC
07
26, 800
00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
39,550
00
NC
Appendix C - 92
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
29, 550
00
NC
07
49,100
00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
22,200
00
NC
07
27,300
00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
18,000
00
NC
07
24,900
00
NC
22,462.50
33,530.00
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
95,000
00
NC
08
86,500
00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
24,100
00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
7, 415
00
NC
08
9, 670
00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
39,400
00
NC
08
34,600
00
NC
47,271.67
38,717.50
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
9
77
NC
07
68
20
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
53
05
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
9
40
NC
07
121
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
5
00
ND
07
96
50
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
5
15
NC
07
57
70
NC
7.33
79.29
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
8
90
NC
08
52
60
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
71
75
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
8
87
NC
08
25
50
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
5
00
ND
08
57
90
NC
7.59
51.94
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
204,000
00
NC
07
406,000
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
290,500
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
168,500
00
NC
07
242,000
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
194,000
00
NC
07
276,000
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
127,000
00
NC
07
346,000
00
NC
173,375.00
312,100.00
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
110,000
00
NC
08
162,000
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
126,500
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
71,600
00
NC
08
95,900
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
335,000
00
NC
08
409,000
00
NC
172,200.00
198,350.00
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
252
00
NC
07
3, 000
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 615
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
232
50
NC
07
3, 610
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
128
00
NC
07
2, 740
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
120
00
NC
07
1, 570
00
NC
183.13
2,507.00
Appendix C - 93
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
791.00
NC
08
2, 280
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1, 295
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
375.00
NC
08
913
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
225.00
NC
08
1, 380
00
NC
463.67
1,467.00
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1,040.00
NC
07
3, 240
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 825
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
1,330.00
NC
07
2, 880
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1,350.00
NC
07
1, 450
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
643.00
NC
07
1, 270
00
NC
1,090.75
2,133.00
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
2,520.00
NC
08
4, 030
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1, 845
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,210.00
NC
08
1, 740
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
37,500.00
NC
08
116,000
00
NC
13,743.33
30,903.75
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
68. 60
NC
07
1, 940
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
2, 240
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
99. 55
NC
07
3, 830
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
52.40
NC
07
4, 780
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
54.10
NC
07
3, 050
00
NC
68 .66
3,168.00
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
466.00
NC
08
2, 770
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2, 655
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
396.00
NC
08
1, 600
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
472.00
NC
08
4, 340
00
NC
444 . 67
2,841.25
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
500.00
ND
07
500
00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
500
00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
500.00
ND
07
500
00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
500.00
ND
07
500
00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
500.00
ND
07
500
00
ND
500.00
500.00
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
500.00
ND
08
500
00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
500
00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
500.00
ND
08
500
00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
500.00
ND
08
500
00
ND
500.00
500.00
Appendix C - 94
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
122,000.00
NC
07
630,000
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
256,500
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
123,000.00
NC
07
53,400
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
49,700.00
NC
07
249,000
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
39,100.00
NC
07
564,000
00
NC
83,450.00
350,580.00
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
53,900.00
NC
08
97,100
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
91,700
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
4,750.00
NC
08
23,700
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
11,200.00
NC
08
96,300
00
NC
23,283.33
77,200.00
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
53. 80
NC
07
1, 790
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
2, 270
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
46. 80
NC
07
2, 720
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
63. 90
NC
07
2, 710
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
74.40
NC
07
1, 680
00
NC
59.73
2,234.00
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
279.00
NC
08
1, 350
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2, 180
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
206.00
NC
08
737
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
228.00
NC
08
3, 630
00
NC
237.67
1,974.25
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
100.00
ND
07
100
00
ND
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
100
00
ND
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
100.00
ND
07
100
00
ND
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
100.00
ND
07
100
00
ND
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
100.00
ND
07
100
00
ND
100.00
100.00
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
100
00
ND
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
100
00
ND
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
100
00
ND
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
100
00
ND
100.00
100.00
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
51,500.00
NC
07
110,000
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
109,000
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
67,500.00
NC
07
78,800
00
NC
Appendix C - 95
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
76, 400
00
NC
07
96,600
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
56,200
00
NC
07
118,000
00
NC
62,900.00
102,480.00
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
53,500
00
NC
08
59,300
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
26, 150
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
19,550
00
NC
08
22,100
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5,000.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
142,000
00
NC
08
131,000
00
NC
71,683.33
59,637.50
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
5, 120
00
NC
07
13,800
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
6, 690
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
4, 345
00
NC
07
10,100
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
3, 400
00
NC
07
6, 140
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
2, 380
00
NC
07
9, 970
00
NC
3,811.25
9,340.00
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
2, 930
00
NC
08
3, 220
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1, 790
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1, 375
00
NC
08
2, 380
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
16,700
00
NC
08
44,500
00
NC
7,001.67
12,972.50
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814A
16SEP96
09
0
20
ND
07
0
39
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814A
17SEP96
07
0
53
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814A
18SEP96
09
4
00
ND
07
28
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814A
19SEP96
09
4
00
ND
07
10
00
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814A
20SEP96
09
4
00
ND
07
12
40
NC
3.05
10.38
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814B
16SEP96
10
0
97
NC
08
6
60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814B
17SEP96
08
2
64
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814B
18SEP96
10
4
00
ND
08
14
40
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814B
19SEP96
10
4
40
NC
08
55
60
NC
3.12
19.81
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
2, 200
00
NC
07
3, 680
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3, 920
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
1, 695
00
NC
07
4, 57 0
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1, 390
00
NC
07
2, 470
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
886
00
NC
07
2, 030
00
NC
1, 542 .75
3,334.00
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
645
00
NC
08
1,200.
00
NC
Appendix C - 96
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
617
50
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
277
00
NC
08
436
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
3, 970
00
NC
08
3, 370
00
NC
1,630.67
1,405.88
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1, 170
00
NC
07
2, 510
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 825
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
2, 025
00
NC
07
2, 590
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1, 150
00
NC
07
1, 790
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
621
00
NC
07
1, 560
00
NC
1,241.50
2,055.00
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
711
00
NC
08
1, 090
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
740
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
518
00
NC
08
851
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
3, 890
00
NC
08
9, 270
00
NC
1,706.33
2,987.75
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
4, 780
00
NC
07
40,000
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
35,350
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
6, 450
00
NC
07
63,800
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
6, 400
00
NC
07
40,700
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
105,000
00
NC
07
239,000
00
NC
30,657.50
83,770.00
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
13,700
00
NC
08
32,900
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
18,800
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
79, 400
00
NC
08
179,000
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
84,700
00
NC
08
45,400
00
NC
59,266.67
69,025.00
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
316,000
00
NC
07
562,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
612,500
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
475,000
00
NC
07
939,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
287,000
00
NC
07
379,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
866,000
00
NC
07
962,000
00
NC
486,000.00
690,900.00
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
167,000
00
NC
08
140,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
128,500
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
275,500
00
NC
08
452,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
570,000
00
NC
08
806,000
00
NC
337,500.00
381,625.00
Appendix C - 97
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
241.00
NC
07
460
00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
208
50
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
104.65
NC
07
81
20
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
30. 30
NC
07
6 6
70
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
54.00
NC
07
35
90
NC
107.49
170.46
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
255.00
NC
08
245
00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
6 6
60
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
927.00
NC
08
1, 000
00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
58.10
NC
08
73
50
NC
413.37
346.28
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
18,800.00
NC
07
63,700
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
51,150
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
23,500.00
NC
07
78,900
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
22,500.00
NC
07
41,000
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
19,800.00
NC
07
78,600
00
NC
21,150.00
62,670.00
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
13,600.00
NC
08
28,200
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
14,650
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
25,250.00
NC
08
56,800
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
11,700.00
NC
08
16,700
00
NC
16,850.00
29,087.50
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
5. 00
ND
07
17
90
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
10
60
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
5. 00
ND
07
31
50
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
5. 00
ND
07
25
20
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
5. 00
ND
07
11
50
NC
5.00
19.34
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
5. 48
NC
08
7
75
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20
10
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
5. 30
NC
08
8
85
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
5. 00
ND
08
15
60
NC
5.26
13.08
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5,000.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
3,700,000.00
NC
07
4,330,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5,000.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
2,245,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5,000.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
3,295,000.00
NC
07
2,270,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5,000.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
2,820,000.00
NC
07
3,150,000
00
NC
Appendix C - 98
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
2,980,000
00
NC
07
2,960,000
00
NC
3,198,750.00
2,991,000.00
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
5,280,000
00
NC
08
5,160,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
4,410,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
9,980,000
00
NC
08
11,100,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
4,700,000
00
NC
08
3,330,000
00
NC
6,653,333.33
6,000,000.00
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1, 150
00
NC
07
2, 450
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 405
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
672
00
NC
07
1, 360
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
853
00
NC
07
1, 580
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
57 4
00
NC
07
1, 750
00
NC
812.25
1,709.00
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
585
00
NC
08
996
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
755
50
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
306
00
NC
08
546
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1, 320
00
NC
08
3, 470
00
NC
737.00
1,441.88
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1,840,000
00
NC
07
2,260,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,150,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
1,765,000
00
NC
07
1,510,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1,940,000
00
NC
07
1,950,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
1,720,000
00
NC
07
2,140,000
00
NC
1,816,250.00
1,802,000.00
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,770,000
00
NC
08
2,180,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,775,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
3,450,000
00
NC
08
3,620,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
2,760,000
00
NC
08
2,050,000
00
NC
2,660,000.00
2,406,250.00
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
500
00
ND
07
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
500
00
ND
07
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
500
00
ND
07
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
500
00
ND
07
500
00
ND
500.00
500.00
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
500
00
ND
08
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
500
00
ND
Appendix C - 99
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
TIN
TIN
TIN
TIN
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ZINC
ACENAPHTHENE
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
500.00
ND
08
500.
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
500.00
ND
08
500.
00
ND
500.00
500.00
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
29. 00
ND
07
898 .
00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
874.
50
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
36.10
NC
07
2,160.
00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
29. 00
ND
07
2,100.
00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
29. 00
ND
07
712.
00
NC
30.78
1,348.90
7440-31-5
7440-31-5
7440-31-5
7440-31-5
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
4814B
4814B
4814B
4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10
10
10
2 9.00 ND
491.50
29. 00
NC
ND
08
08
08
08
7440-66-6
7440-66-6
7440-66-6
7440-66-6
7440-66-6
7440-66-6
7440-66-6
7440-66-6
7440-66-6
83-32-9
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814B
4814B
4814B
4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10
10
29
912
2, 680
910
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
14.70
NC
07
166
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
138
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
20. 05
NC
07
771
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
8.51
NC
07
745
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
11. 30
NC
07
315
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
23. 60
NC
08
143
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
136
50
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
45.75
NC
08
158
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
20.10
NC
08
271
00
NC
10.00 4814A 16SEP96
3,240.00
NC
07
33,300
00
NC
07
22,800
00
NC
4,535.00
NC
07
6, 020
00
NC
2,530.00
NC
07
28,600
00
NC
2,250.00
NC
07
36,400
00
NC
2,460.00
NC
08
12,900
00
NC
08
14,900
00
NC
4,495.00
NC
08
11,100
00
NC
4,320.00
NC
08
16,800
00
NC
o
o
o
ND
07
20
00
ND
00 ND
00 NC
00 NC
00 NC
183.17
1,132.75
29.82
177.13
25,424.00
13,925.00
Appendix C - 100
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
104.90
NC
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,640.13
NC
16.25
593.01
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
192.10
NC
08
13,417.86
NC
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
279.50
NC
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
731.95
NC
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
184.70
NC
08
2,472.36
NC
137.27
4,225.42
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
213.60
NC
07
20. 00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
842.95
NC
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
67.15
472.59
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
2,210.37
NC
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
983.50
NC
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
923.47
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
318.00
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
306.30
NC
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
204.08
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
83.20
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,288.00
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
378 .24
Appendix C - 101
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
170.40
NC
08
18,950.59
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
266.95
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
139.70
NC
08
731.37
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
182.72
NC
08
2,505.60
NC
164.27
5,613.63
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
480.90
NC
07
957.90
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,525.10
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
690.78
NC
07
1,400.83
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
401.63
NC
07
603.67
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
472.27
NC
07
778.35
NC
511.39
1,053.17
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1, 889.00
NC
08
2,349.00
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,840.30
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,292.53
NC
08
1,581.12
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,637.16
NC
08
3,478.20
NC
1,606.23
2,312.16
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
33. 64
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
88. 60
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
324.45
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
179.99
NC
08
6,303.36
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
137.05
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
249.09
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
105.30
NC
08
909.04
NC
106.76
1,899.64
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
13,316.00
NC
07
10,075.50
NC
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
11,490.35
NC
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
14,704.88
NC
07
20,474.22
NC
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
54,280.90
NC
07
81,574.40
NC
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20,023.91
NC
07
13,249.30
NC
25,581.42
27,372.75
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
6,732.30
NC
08
10,150.88
NC
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
3,514.25
NC
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
9,414.46
NC
08
5,860.34
NC
Appendix C - 102
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Analyte Name
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
50.00 4814B 19SEP96
10
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
22,759.32 NC 08
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
6,151.52 NC
Facility
Effl Mean
12,968.69
Facility
Infl Mean
6,419.25
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
100-51-6
100-51-6
100-51-6
100-51-6
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
10.00 ND
734.62
20. 00
470.82
NC
ND
NC
07
07
07
07
07
20.00 ND
502.20 NC
200.00 ND
1,000.00 ND
300.00 ND
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
100-51-6
100-51-6
100-51-6
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10
10
10.00 ND
35. 00
2,850.25
ND
NC
08
08
08
08
782.66 NC
20.00 ND
100.00 ND
400.00 ND
5 65.08
325.66
BIPHENYL
BIPHENYL
BIPHENYL
BIPHENYL
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
92-52-4
92-52-4
92-52-4
92-52-4
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
11.84 NC
15. 00
20. 00
20. 00
ND
ND
ND
07
07
07
07
07
240.10 NC
292.85 NC
298.12 NC
1,486.40 NC
300.00 ND
BIPHENYL
BIPHENYL
BIPHENYL
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
92-52-4
92-52-4
92-52-4
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10
10
149.80 NC
157.34
100.00
NC
ND
08
08
08
08
10,171.33 NC
349.05 NC
100.00 ND
400.00 ND
135.71 2,755.09
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
PHTHALATE
PHTHALATE
PHTHALATE
PHTHALATE
117-81-7
117-81-7
117-81-7
117-81-7
117-81-7
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
17.30 NC
15. 00
20. 00
20. 00
ND
ND
ND
07
07
07
07
07
388.90 NC
561.20 NC
200.00 ND
1,000.00 ND
300.00 ND
18.08 490.02
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 117-81-7 10.00 4814B 16SEP96
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 117-81-7 10.00 4814B 17SEP96
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 117-81-7 10.00 4814B 18SEP96
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 117-81-7 10.00 4814B 19SEP96
10
10
212.21 NC
35. 00
100.00
ND
ND
08
08
08
08
6,004.61 NC
325.00 NC
100.00 ND
400.00 ND
115.74 1,707.40
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
85-68-7
10.00 4814A 16SEP96
10.00 4814A 17SEP96
10.00 ND
07
07
117.60 NC
183.15 NC
Appendix C - 103
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Analyte Name
Cas No
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl
Infl Amount Meas Facility Facility
(ug/1) Type Effl Mean Infl Mean
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7 10.00 4814A 18SEP96 09
85-68-7 10.00 4814A 19SEP96 09
85-68-7 10.00 4814A 20SEP96 09
15.00 ND 07
20.00 ND 07
20.00 ND 07
200.00 ND
1,000.00 ND
300.00 ND
16.25
360.15
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
85-68-7
85-68-7
85-68-7
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10
10
10
2 9.93 NC
35. 00
100.00
ND
ND
08
08
08
08
2,123.75 NC
192.50 NC
100.00 ND
400.00 ND
CARBAZOLE
CARBAZOLE
CARBAZOLE
CARBAZOLE
CARBAZOLE
86-74-
86-74-
86-74-
86-74-
86-74-
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
20.00 ND
30. 00
40. 00
40. 00
ND
ND
ND
07
07
07
07
07
40.00 ND
140.00 ND
400.00 ND
2,000.00 ND
600.00 ND
32.50
636.00
CARBAZOLE
CARBAZOLE
CARBAZOLE
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
86-74-8
86-74-8
86-74-8
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
4814B
4814B
4814B
4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10
10
10
184.34 NC
70. 00
200.00
ND
ND
08
08
08
08
1,458.66 NC
378.60 NC
200.00 ND
1,165.52 NC
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
75-15-0
75-15-0
75-15-0
75-15-0
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
82.44 NC
10. 00
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
ND
07
07
07
07
07
137.16
143.99
10. 00
10. 00
2,335.20
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
28.11
527 .27
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
75-15-0
75-15-0
75-15-0
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
4814B
4814B
4814B
4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10
10
10
30.02 NC
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
08
08
08
08
22.30 NC
6 6.64 NC
10.00 ND
10.00 ND
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
108-90-7
108-90-7
108-90-7
108-90-7
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
51.10 NC
60. 00
43. 96
54.17
NC
NC
NC
07
07
07
07
07
89.11
237.85
254.68
91. 32
97.57
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Appendix C - 104
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
240.20
NC
08
191.22
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
326.30
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
61.20
NC
08
76. 80
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
6 6. 57
NC
08
200.00
NC
122 .66
198.58
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
186.00
NC
07
305.80
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
692.40
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
305.49
NC
07
592.56
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
140.80
NC
07
181.46
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
233.08
NC
07
336.18
NC
216.34
421.68
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
432.40
NC
08
522.10
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,027.45
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
556.64
NC
08
653.68
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
636.49
NC
08
1,827.80
NC
541.84
1,007.76
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
43.76
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
107.56
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
330.26
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
103.30
NC
08
8,879.30
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
123.65
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
402.74
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
938.68
NC
79.43
2,586.09
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
117.30
NC
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
327.46
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
191.70
NC
08
13,786.46
NC
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
286.70
NC
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
114.06
NC
08
715.45
NC
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
2,355.40
NC
135.25
4,286.00
Appendix C - 105
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
o
o
o
ND
07
20. 00
ND
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
318.00
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
152.29
NC
08
5,447.62
NC
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
127.90
NC
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
262.10
NC
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
811.88
NC
95.76
1,662.37
DIETHYL
PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
873.90
NC
07
3,162.00
NC
DIETHYL
PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3,534.00
NC
DIETHYL
PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
2,
. 250.46
NC
07
9,309.20
NC
DIETHYL
PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1,
. 320.87
NC
07
1,000.00
ND
DIETHYL
PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
1,
.198.65
NC
07
2,577.93
NC
1,410.97
3,916.63
DIETHYL
PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
186.90
NC
08
3,565.66
NC
DIETHYL
PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
145.25
NC
DIETHYL
PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
204.32
NC
DIETHYL
PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
107.30
1,078.81
DIPHENYL
ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
31. 60
NC
07
20. 00
ND
DIPHENYL
ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
149.30
NC
DIPHENYL
ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
DIPHENYL
ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
DIPHENYL
ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
21.65
333.86
DIPHENYL
ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
82.76
NC
08
10. 00
ND
DIPHENYL
ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
151.80
NC
DIPHENYL
ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
DIPHENYL
ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
72.59
165.45
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
253.00
NC
07
2,573.00
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,557.70
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00 4814A 18SEP96
367.63 NC 07
1,889.70 NC
Appendix C - 106
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
216.34
NC
07
1, 327.98
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
258.13
NC
07
577.23
NC
273.78
1,585.12
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
2,193.00
NC
08
4,979.00
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
3,947.00
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
956.42
NC
08
1,443.35
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,857.01
NC
08
18,015.10
NC
1,668.81
7,096.11
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
142.04
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
111.65
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
2,179.70
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
24.14
NC
07
1,689.09
NC
17 .29
864.50
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
293.30
NC
08
28,872.67
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
514.65
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
350.50
NC
08
1,678.15
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
824.56
NC
08
4,403.84
NC
489.45
8,867.33
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
118.30
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
165.05
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
356.67
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
269.40
NC
08
15,755.94
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
457.30
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
175.95
NC
08
808.15
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
283.99
NC
08
3,777.40
NC
243.11
5,199.70
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
7,069.50
NC
07
7,784.10
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
6,586.80
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
7,405.62
NC
07
8,402.72
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
13,425.82
NC
07
23,524.60
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
9,113.55
NC
07
8,646.20
NC
9,253.62
10,988.88
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
Appendix C - 107
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
HEXANGIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
10. 00
ND
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
10,801.52
NC
08
1,640.37
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
100.00
ND
3,637.17
440.09
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
419.10
NC
07
1,659.58
NC
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
298.36
NC
07
938.14
NC
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
551.38
NC
07
928.96
NC
422 . 95
1,175.56
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
890.14
NC
08
838.43
NC
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,092.16
NC
08
922.50
NC
991.15
880.46
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1,086.00
NC
07
6,353.00
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3,472.00
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
279.00
1,971.00
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
4,541.00
NC
08
13,342.00
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
8,218.50
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
1,520.33
5,395.13
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
3,343.00
NC
07
10. 00
ND
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
4,600.50
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
4,808.40
NC
07
10,524.10
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1,802.75
NC
07
3,492.90
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
3,055.80
NC
07
3,875.60
NC
3,2 52.4 9
4,500.62
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
4,575.00
NC
08
4,665.00
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
5,317.50
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
6,16 9.60
NC
08
7,576.60
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
4,950.10
NC
08
5,594.00
NC
5,231.57
5,788.28
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1,214.50
NC
07
20. 00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
802.75
NC
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
Appendix C - 108
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Analyte Name
N,N-DIMETHYLFGRMAMIDE
N,N-DIMETHYLFGRMAMIDE
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
68-12-2
68-12-2
68-12-2
68-12-2
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
10.00 4814A 20SEP96
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10
10
10
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
20.00 ND 07
10.00 ND
35. 00
100.00
ND
ND
08
08
08
08
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
300.00 ND
10.00 ND
20.00 ND
100.00 ND
400.00 ND
Facility
Effl Mean
317.38
Facility
Infl Mean
464.55
N-DECANE
N-DECANE
N-DECANE
N-DECANE
N-DECANE
N-DECANE
N-DECANE
N-DECANE
N-DECANE
124-18-5
124-18-5
124-18-5
124-18-5
124-18-5
124-18-5
124-18-5
124-18-5
124-18-5
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814B
4814B
4814B
4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10.00 ND
09
09
09
10
10
10
15. 00
20. 00
20. 00
ND
ND
ND
3,191.00 NC
3,834.95
7,145.10
NC
NC
07
07
07
07
07
08
08
08
08
3,203.00 NC
4,473.00 NC
4,762.20 NC
18,048.60 NC
300.00 ND
223,466.88 NC
8,556.00 NC
6,610.80 NC
137,756.00 NC
16.25
6,157.36
94,097.42
N-DOCOSANE
N-DOCOSANE
N-DOCOSANE
N-DOCOSANE
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
629-97-0
629-97-0
629-97-0
629-97-0
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
28.08 NC
15. 00
20. 00
20. 00
ND
ND
ND
07
07
07
07
07
639.20
500.15
1,924.00
1,000.00
300.00
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
N-DOCOSANE
N-DOCOSANE
N-DOCOSANE
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
629-97-0
629-97-0
629-97-0
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
4814B
4814B
4814B
4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10
10
10
40.25 NC
249.40
100.00
NC
ND
08
08
08
08
15,353.74 NC
761.55 NC
100.00 ND
400.00 ND
129
4,153.82
N-DODECANE
N-DODECANE
N-DODECANE
N-DODECANE
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
112-40-3
112-40-3
112-40-3
112-40-3
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
10.00 ND
15. 00
20. 00
20. 00
ND
ND
ND
07
07
07
07
07
20,000.00
5, 023.00
11,167.60
45,621.00
36,016.20
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
23,565.56
N-DODECANE
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
112-40-3
10.00
10.00
4814B
4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
1,731.00 NC
08
08
148,971.52 NC
5,308.50 NC
Appendix C - 109
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Analyte Name
N-DODECANE
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
112-40-3
Baseline
Value Fac.
(ug/1) ID
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
18SEP96
19SEP96
10
10
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
1,229.30 NC 08
20,000.00 NC 08
Infl
Infl Amount Meas Facility
(ug/1) Type Effl Mean
100.00 ND
108,578.00 NC
7,653.43
Facility
Infl Mean
65,739.51
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
89.72
NC
07
1, 870
60
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 557
60
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
3, 275
00
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
16,667
00
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
82.32
NC
07
300
00
ND
51.76
4,734
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
558.10
NC
08
36,688
64
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1, 914
80
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,226.17
NC
08
1, 608
50
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,755.00
NC
08
25, 822
00
NC
1,179.76
16,508
N-HEXACOSANE
N-HEXACOSANE
N-HEXACOSANE
N-HEXACOSANE
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
630-01-3
630-01-3
630-01-3
630-01-3
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
10.00 ND
15. 00
20. 00
20. 00
ND
ND
ND
07
07
07
07
07
20. 00
70. 00
200.00
,561.00
300.00
ND
ND
ND
NC
ND
16.25 2,030.20
N-HEXACOSANE
N-HEXACOSANE
N-HEXACOSANE
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
630-01-3
630-01-3
630-01-3
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10.00 ND
10
10
35. 00
100.00
ND
ND
08
08
08
08
10. 00
20. 00
100.00
400.00
ND
ND
ND
ND
48.33 132.50
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
200.56
NC
07
3,619.00
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3,448.00
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
6,456.60
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
176.56
NC
07
31,304.00
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
150.81
NC
07
10,355.10
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,830.80
NC
08
168,587.84
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
3,902.50
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
2,464.40
NC
08
4,428.60
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
3,617.80
NC
08
85,787.00
NC
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
135.73 11,036.54
2,637.67 65,676.49
Appendix C - 110
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
1,863.80
NC
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
650.76
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
132.50
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
88. 93
NC
07
2,351.00
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,889.70
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
96.70
NC
07
4,220.40
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
118.51
NC
07
16,544.00
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
151.41
NC
07
9, 528.30
NC
113.89
6,906.68
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,586.00
NC
08
100,760.32
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2,838.50
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,235.31
NC
08
3,033.20
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,592.76
NC
08
51,797.00
NC
1,471.36
39,607.26
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
31. 64
NC
07
20. 00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
21.66
318.00
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
6,359.14
NC
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
1,719.78
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
186.42
NC
07
6,660.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
7,125.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
202.07
NC
07
15,584.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
379.62
NC
07
70,206.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
580.27
NC
07
3,542.60
NC
337.09
20,623.52
Appendix C - 111
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,694.00
NC
08
208,249.60
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
5,247.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
3,243.10
NC
08
5, 423.50
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
4,974.60
NC
08
124,678.00
NC
3,303.90
85,899.53
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
205.50
NC
07
1,495.00
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,658.00
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
85.28
NC
07
2,180.84
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
74.06
NC
07
9,636.50
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
437.76
NC
07
18,090.30
NC
200.65
6,612.13
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,945.00
NC
08
49,077.12
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
3,094.50
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,658.76
NC
08
2,433.80
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1, 879.70
NC
08
47,308.00
NC
1,827.82
25,478.36
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
2,524.00
NC
07
11,470.00
NC
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
4,768.50
NC
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
638.50
3,253.70
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
5,599.00
NC
08
16,584.00
NC
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
10,662.00
NC
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
1,873.00
6,816.50
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
362.50
NC
07
281.22
NC
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
189.66
NC
07
200.00
ND
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
367.73
NC
07
1,000.00
ND
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
692.54
NC
07
300.00
ND
403.11
370.24
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
535.29
NC
08
854.41
NC
Appendix C - 112
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Analyte Name
O-CRESOL
G-TOLUIDINE
O-TOLUIDINE
O-TOLUIDINE
O-TOLUIDINE
O-TOLUIDINE
95-48-7
95-53-4
95-53-4
95-53-4
95-53-4
95-53-4
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
10.00 4814B 19SEP96 10
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
100.00 ND 08
311.10 NC
15. 00
20. 00
20. 00
ND
ND
ND
07
07
07
07
07
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
400.00 ND
20.00 ND
247.80 NC
200.00 ND
1,000.00 ND
300.00 ND
Facility
Effl Mean
215.10
Facility
Infl Mean
321.10
O-TOLUIDINE
O-TOLUIDINE
O-TOLUIDINE
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
95-53-4
95-53-4
95-53-4
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
10
10
10.00 ND
35. 00
100.00
ND
ND
08
08
08
08
10.00 ND
173.25 NC
100.00 ND
400.00 ND
48.33
170.81
O-XYLENE
O-XYLENE
O-XYLENE
95-47-6
95-47-6
95-47-6
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
18SEP96 09
19SEP96 09
20SEP96 09
272.49 NC 07
185.67 NC 07
347.40 NC 07
1,140.55 NC
561.31 NC
57 3.07 NC
268.52
758.31
O-XYLENE
O-XYLENE
95-47-6
95-47-6
10.00 4814B 18SEP96
10.00 4814B 19SEP96
10
10
632.94
696.38
NC 08
NC 08
602.89 NC
654.4 6 NC
P-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
106-44-5
106-44-5
106-44-5
106-44-5
106-44-5
106-44-5
106-44-5
106-44-5
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
246.00 NC
09
09
09
10
10
10
839.76
885.79
1,871.27
NC
NC
NC
399.40 NC
1,392.06
100.00
NC
ND
07
07
07
07
07
08
08
08
08
221.28
220.45
100.00
1,000.00
2,382.40
NC
NC
ND
ND
NC
2,119.84 NC
1,838.00 NC
1,386.46 NC
100.00 ND
5 60.71
784.83
P-CYMENE
P-CYMENE
P-CYMENE
P-CYMENE
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
99-87-6
99-87-6
99-87-6
99-87-6
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
10.00 ND
15. 00
20. 00
20. 00
ND
ND
ND
07
07
07
07
07
231.70
265.60
200.00
1,903.90
300.00
NC
NC
ND
NC
ND
Appendix C - 113
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
149.80
NC
08
939.23
NC
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
427.25
NC
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
4,452.12
NC
94 . 93
1,479.65
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
115.70
NC
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
136.65
NC
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
350.47
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
6,320.77
NC
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
237.95
NC
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
920.58
NC
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
5,126.04
NC
48.33
3,151.33
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
20.79
NC
07
338.70
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
405.75
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
430.82
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
26.22
NC
07
5, 213.30
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
167.56
NC
07
9,107.10
NC
57.3 9
3,099.13
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
799.90
NC
08
49,015.68
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,509.45
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,086.42
NC
08
1,234.10
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,839.82
NC
08
22,114.00
NC
1,242.05
18,468.31
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
2,613.00
NC
07
2,641.00
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3,700.50
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
6,382.90
NC
07
6,535.40
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
16,329.90
NC
07
20,000.00
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
18,717.70
NC
07
20,000.00
NC
11,010.88
10,575.38
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
2,483.00
NC
08
3,184.00
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
4,583.00
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
5,149.90
NC
08
11,806.60
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
42,594.00
NC
08
7,694.40
NC
16,742.30
6,817.00
Appendix C - 114
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/l)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
o
o
o
ND
07
158.65
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
113.35
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
27.12
NC
07
2,522.70
NC
18.03
798.94
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
228.10
NC
08
22,763.39
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
437.10
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
238.50
NC
08
1,137.25
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
269.94
NC
08
3,368.60
NC
245.51
6,926.59
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1,408.50
NC
07
838.20
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
558.50
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
760.99
NC
07
1,280.12
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
309.61
NC
07
1,000.00
ND
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
o
o
o
ND
07
300.00
ND
624.78
795.36
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,531.60
NC
08
953.92
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
248.65
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
653.81
NC
08
100.00
ND
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
761.80
425.64
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
o
o
o
ND
07
288.50
NC
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
552.20
NC
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
314.54
NC
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
491.05
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
158.20
NC
08
842.56
NC
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
432.20
NC
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
97 .73
443.69
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
140.16
NC
07
1,783.70
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
773.50
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
717.57
NC
07
1,750.76
NC
Appendix C - 115
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TETRACHLGROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
108.54
NC
07
1,119.53
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
155.10
NC
07
687.62
NC
280.34
1,223.02
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,037.60
NC
08
2,747.00
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2, 810.50
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
486.42
NC
08
764.33
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
487.68
NC
08
4,140.00
NC
670.57
2,615.46
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
3,111.00
NC
07
9,633.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
8,192.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
4,961.20
NC
07
14,831.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
2,622.60
NC
07
4,367.60
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
3,757.90
NC
07
10,013.50
NC
3,613.18
9,407.42
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
9,432.00
NC
08
17,007.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
18,412.50
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
8,245.15
NC
08
13,071.10
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
8,111.40
NC
08
41,507.00
NC
8,596.18
22,499.40
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
145.35
NC
07
428.20
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
511.90
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
270.79
NC
07
968.14
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
170.96
NC
07
490.89
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
191.29
NC
07
396.29
NC
194.60
559.08
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
454.90
NC
08
983.00
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
784.40
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,103.17
NC
08
1,533.16
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,875.83
NC
08
7,125.30
NC
1,144.63
2,606.47
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
8,054.90
NC
07
2,301.04
NC
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
6,382.55
NC
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
148.50
ND
07
1,980.00
ND
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
198.00
ND
07
9,900.00
ND
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
198.00
ND
07
2,970.00
ND
2,149.85
4,706.72
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
'xD
O
O
ND
08
5, 187.26
NC
Appendix C - 116
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL
ET
20324-33-
¦8
99.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,495.25
NC
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL
ET
20324-33-
¦8
99.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
346.50
ND
08
990.00
ND
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL
ET
20324-33-
¦8
99.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
990.00
ND
08
3,960.00
ND
478.50
2,908.13
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
105.69
NC
07
324.20
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
444.80
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
136.41
NC
07
544.84
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
73. 82
NC
07
146.84
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
113.26
NC
07
194.20
NC
107.30
330.98
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
192.50
NC
08
320.40
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
592.70
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
263.14
NC
08
356.34
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
199.17
NC
08
200.00
NC
218.27
367.36
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
73. 58
NC
07
274.96
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
54. 94
NC
07
101.34
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
98.13
NC
07
163.73
NC
59.16
112.01
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
10. 57
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
484.76
NC
08
754.45
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
644.65
NC
08
1,967.90
NC
379.80
685.73
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
187.09
NC
07
2,119.00
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
4,834.50
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
105.31
NC
07
8,155.60
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
18,899.10
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
207.90
NC
07
4,736.61
NC
130.07
7,748.96
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
179.50
NC
08
6,272.32
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
359.15
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
440.26
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
104.83
1, 867.93
Appendix C - 117
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Baseline
Value
Fac.
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
1,2-DICHL0R0BENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814A
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814A
1,2-DICHL0R0BENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814A
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814A
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814A
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814B
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814B
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814B
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814B
1,2-DICHLGROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814A
1,2-DICHL0R0ETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814A
1,2-DICHL0R0ETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814A
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814A
1,2-DICHL0R0ETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814A
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814B
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814B
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814B
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814B
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814A
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814A
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814A
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814A
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814A
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814B
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814B
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814B
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814B
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814A
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814A
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814A
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814A
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Effl Infl
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
16SEP96
09
29. 58
NC
07
180.70
NC
17SEP96
07
301.75
NC
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
21.15
396.49
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
4,185.62
NC
17SEP96
08
170.96
NC
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
1,214.14
16SEP96
09
161.60
NC
07
223.30
NC
17SEP96
07
376.71
NC
18SEP96
09
233.15
NC
07
349.54
NC
19SEP96
09
165.42
NC
07
147.33
NC
20SEP96
09
182.51
NC
07
279.70
NC
185.67
275.31
16SEP96
10
165.16
NC
08
137.04
NC
17SEP96
08
569.35
NC
18SEP96
10
566.13
NC
08
713.39
NC
19SEP96
10
347.10
NC
08
200.00
NC
359.46
404.95
16SEP96
09
83. 63
NC
07
622.70
NC
17SEP96
07
94 9.90
NC
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
2,333.60
NC
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,472.82
NC
34 .66
1,115.80
16SEP96
10
285.10
NC
08
1,261.98
NC
17SEP96
08
454.35
NC
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
786.40
NC
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
140.03
725.68
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
17SEP96
07
10. 00
ND
18SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
19SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
Appendix C - 118
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl
Effl Amount
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Infl
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
10.00
10.00
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
10. 00
ND
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
10.00
10.00
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
111.35
NC
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
326.27
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
5,802.82
NC
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
152.35
NC
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
877.72
NC
48.33
1,733.22
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
91.72
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
332.34
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
5,063.10
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
132.35
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
118.97
NC
08
454.15
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
1,783.32
NC
76.32
1,858.23
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
318.00
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
25. 41
NC
08
461.22
NC
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
Appendix C - 119
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value Fac.
(ug/1) ID
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl
Infl Amount Meas Facility Facility
(ug/1) Type Effl Mean Infl Mean
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
53.47
245.30
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
195.07
NC
07
20. 00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
76.15
NC
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
62.52
319.23
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
165.10
NC
08
565.63
NC
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
100.03
271.41
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
12,517.00
NC
07
9,409.50
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
10,014.75
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
14,239.75
NC
07
24,073.10
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
10,974.10
NC
07
7,922.42
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
7,830.93
NC
07
15,908.50
NC
11,390.45
13,465.65
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
18,821.00
NC
08
16,941.00
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
8,489.45
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
22,391.35
NC
08
29,965.20
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
32,832.90
NC
08
41,713.20
NC
24,681.75
24,277.21
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
o
o
o
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
318.00
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
o
o
o
ND
08
10. 00
ND
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
132.50
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
o
o
o
ND
07
245.78
NC
Appendix C - 120
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,517.95
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
3,262.32
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
242.06
NC
07
11,672.10
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
375.25
NC
07
10,554.18
NC
160.58
5,450.47
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
565.10
NC
08
46,108.35
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2,236.10
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
6,044.74
NC
08
3,768.78
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
2,148.52
NC
08
17,493.24
NC
2,919.45
17,401.62
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
78,550.00
NC
07
50. 00
ND
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
54,524.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
98,102.45
NC
07
128,750.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
91,761.70
NC
07
98,965.40
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
77,859.20
NC
07
100,000.00
NC
86,568.34
7 6,457.88
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
129,610.00
NC
08
69,310.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
50,852.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
235,806.00
NC
08
292,399.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
303,963.00
NC
08
306,491.00
NC
223,126.33
179,763.00
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
318.00
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
132.50
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
863.50
NC
07
1, 128.90
NC
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 030.05
NC
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
541.22
NC
07
100.00
ND
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
684.84
NC
07
1,000.00
ND
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
100.00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
547.39
851.79
Appendix C - 121
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=8
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
10. 00
ND
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
55. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
100.00
ND
55.00
32.50
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
8,828.00
NC
07
20,489.00
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
17,153.00
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
5,262.31
NC
07
10,142.92
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
7,026.06
NC
07
11,121.62
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
15,168.14
NC
07
18,383.03
NC
9,071.13
15,457.91
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
8,258.00
NC
08
9,404.60
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
15,807.50
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
6,316.73
NC
08
5,965.35
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
5, 299.88
NC
08
3,821.82
NC
6,624.87
8,749.82
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte
Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4813
04AUG96
07
133,000.00
NC
05
105,500.
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4813
05AUG96
07
4,210.00
NC
05
112,000.
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
111,000.00
NC
05
110,000.
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4813
07AUG96
07
85,900.00
NC
05
39,300.
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4813
08AUG96
07
152,000.00
NC
05
152,000.
00
NC
97,222.00
103,760.00
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
52,000.00
NC
07
45,000.
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
44,000.
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
107,000.00
NC
07
128,000.
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
87,000.00
NC
07
188,000.
00
NC
AMMONIA
AS
NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
65,000.00
NC
07
88,000.
00
NC
77,750.00
98,600.00
Appendix C - 122
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
57
000
00
NC
08
20,000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
23,500
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
660
000
00
NC
08
1,310,000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
156
000
00
NC
08
175,000
00
NC
291,000.00
382,125.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
13,500
000
00
NC
05
18,250,000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
18,500
000
00
NC
05
21,300,000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
22,700
000
00
NC
05
14,500,000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
10,200
000
00
NC
05
25,800,000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
8, 640
000
00
NC
05
9,980,000
00
NC
14,708,000.00
17,966,000.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
4, 940
000
00
NC
07
7,920,000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
5, 400, 000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
6, 020
000
00
NC
07
9,330,000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
4, 630
000
00
NC
07
8,230,000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
8, 200
000
00
NC
07
3,820,000
00
NC
5,947,500.00
6,940,000.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
5, 670
000
00
NC
08
6,500,000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
3,570,000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
9, 915
000
00
NC
08
13,200,000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
12,300
000
00
NC
08
20,100,000
00
NC
9,295,000.00
10,842,500.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
651
09JUL97
01
5, 500
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
00
651
03MAR98
01
11,950,000
00
NC
5,500,000.00
11,950,000.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
16,100
000
00
NC
05
23,150,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
25, 850
000
00
NC
05
29,200,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
22,300
000
00
NC
05
27,000,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
19,100
000
00
NC
05
32,100,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
19,100
000
00
NC
05
27,200,000
00
NC
20,490,000.00
27,730,000.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10,900
000
00
NC
07
26,000,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
25, 550, 000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
11,700
000
00
NC
07
38,200,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
13,400
000
00
NC
07
42,800,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
10,900
000
00
NC
07
31,200,000
00
NC
11,725,000.00
32,750,000.00
Appendix C - 123
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
15,800,000
00
NC
08
31,300,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
32,100,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
20,200,000
00
NC
08
29,600,000
00
NC
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
35,300,000
00
NC
08
81,500,000
00
NC
23,766,666.67
43,625,000.00
CHEMICAL
OXYGEN
DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
5, 000
00
651
03MAR98
01
63,600,000
00
NC
63,600,000.00
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
52,600
00
NC
05
27,050
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
69,150
00
NC
05
31,600
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
60,200
00
NC
05
19,400
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
55,500
00
NC
05
47,500
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
98,500
00
NC
05
34,000
00
NC
67,190.00
31,910.00
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1,780,000
00
NC
07
2,250,000
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,965,000
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
1,325,000
00
NC
07
965,000
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1,440,000
00
NC
07
2,030,000
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
1,730,000
00
NC
07
2,270,000
00
NC
1,568,750.00
1,896,000.00
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
3,600,000
00
NC
08
3,120,000
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2,315,000
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
5,740,000
00
NC
08
6,180,000
00
NC
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
1, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
3,110,000
00
NC
08
2,230,000
00
NC
4,150,000.00
3,461,250.00
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4813
04AUG96
07
100
00
ND
05
115
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4813
05AUG96
07
305
00
NC
05
100
00
ND
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
100
00
ND
05
500
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4813
07AUG96
07
450
00
NC
05
240
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4813
08AUG96
07
340
00
NC
05
170
00
NC
259.00
225.00
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
23,000
00
NC
07
264,000
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
96,500
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
60,000
00
NC
07
117,000
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20,000
00
NC
07
81,000
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
42,000
00
NC
07
87,000
00
NC
36,250.00
129,100.00
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100.
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
21,000
00
NC
08
84,000.
00
NC
Appendix C - 124
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
3aseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
FLUORIDE
16984-
48-8
100
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
17,500
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-
48-8
100
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
390,000
00
NC
08
330,000
00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-
48-8
100
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
33,000
00
NC
08
66,000
00
NC
148,000.00
124,375.00
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4813
04AUG96
07
690
00
NC
05
730
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4813
05AUG96
07
555
00
NC
05
2, 420
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
1, 000
00
NC
05
1, 370
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4813
07AUG96
07
590
00
NC
05
1, 620
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4813
08AUG96
07
680
00
NC
05
2, 270
00
NC
703.00
1,682.00
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
13,000
00
NC
07
21,000
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
29, 500
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
30,000
00
NC
07
58,000
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20,000
00
NC
07
48,000
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20,000
00
NC
07
25, 000
00
NC
20,750.00
36,300.00
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
99,000
00
NC
08
103,000
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
51,500
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
41,000
00
NC
08
103,000
00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
75, 000
00
NC
08
58,000
00
NC
71,666.67
78,875.00
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
222,450
00
NC
05
867,916
67
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
93,583
33
NC
05
679, 000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
71,883
33
NC
05
1,070,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
71,066
67
NC
05
3,902,166
67
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
213,000
00
NC
05
2,210,333
33
NC
134,396.67
1,745,883.33
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
190,000
00
NC
07
3,364,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
2,182,500
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
147,916
67
NC
07
2,652,333
33
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
306,200
00
NC
07
9,274,400
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
263,200
00
NC
07
12,168,000
00
NC
226,829.17
5,928,246.67
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
946,000
00
NC
08
3,080,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2,062,500
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
494,000
00
NC
08
2,650,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,027,000
00
NC
08
4,025,000
00
NC
822,333.33
2,954,375.00
Appendix C - 125
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
01JUL97
01
52,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
10JUL97
01
74,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
11JUL97
01
5, 000
00
ND
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
01AUG97
01
9, 900
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
01SEP97
01
74,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
01OCT97
01
5, 000
00
ND
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
01NOV97
01
12,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
01DEC97
01
19,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
02JAN98
01
28,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
01FEB98
01
22,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
01MAR98
01
19,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
03MAR98
01
1,375,000
00
NC
OIL & GREASE
C-007
5, 000
00
651
01APR98
01
20,000
00
NC
28,325.00
1,375,000.00
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
74,400
00
NC
05
525, 275
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
27,858
33
NC
05
354,066
67
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
28,100
00
NC
05
362,000
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
7, 633
33
NC
05
1,662,166
67
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
74,650
00
NC
05
1,341,666
67
NC
42,528.33
849,035.00
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
18,400
00
NC
07
1,070,600
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
921,500
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
61,166
67
NC
07
1, 175, 833
33
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
41,400
00
NC
07
3,723,000
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
47,000
00
NC
07
1,264,000
00
NC
41,991.67
1,630,986.67
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
196,600
00
NC
08
1,075,000
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
882,750
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
218,000
00
NC
08
1,818,000
00
NC
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
316,250
00
NC
08
1,153,000
00
NC
243,616.67
1,232,187.50
SGT-HEM
C-037
5, 000
00
651
03MAR98
01
215,000
00
NC
215,000.00
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-
5
20
00
4813
04AUG96
07
20
00
ND
06
20
00
ND
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-
5
20
00
4813
05AUG96
07
20
00
ND
06
20
00
ND
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-
5
20
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
20
00
ND
06
20
00
ND
Appendix C - 126
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4813
07AUG96
07
20
00
ND
06
20.
00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4813
08AUG96
07
20
00
ND
06
20.
00
ND
20.00
20.00
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10
00
ND
07
74.
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
467.
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
209
00
NC
07
380.
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
96
00
NC
07
258.
00
NC
105.00
294.75
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
288
00
NC
08
474.
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
10.
00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
245
00
NC
08
980.
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
620
00
NC
08
41.
00
NC
384.33
376.25
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
01JUL97
01
50
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
10JUL97
01
5
00
ND
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
11JUL97
01
10
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
01AUG97
01
50
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
01SEP97
01
180
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
01OCT97
01
50
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
01NOV97
01
50
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
01DEC97
01
210
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
02JAN98
01
140
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
01FEB98
01
170
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
01MAR98
01
50
00
NC
TOTAL
CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
00
651
01APR98
01
100
00
NC
88 .75
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
3,290,000
00
NC
05
1, 765
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
3,120,000
00
NC
05
2, 150
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
3,280,000
00
NC
05
1, 270
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
3,840,000
00
NC
05
2, 020
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
3,850,000
00
NC
05
1, 680
000.
00
NC
3,476,000.00
1,777,000.00
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
19,800,000
00
NC
07
19,000
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
8, 950
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
12,650,000
00
NC
07
12,100
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
11,500,000
00
NC
07
13,300
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
12,400,000
00
NC
07
12,600
000.
00
NC
14,087,500.00
13,190,000.00
Appendix C - 127
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
18,700,000.00
NC
08
19,200,000
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
12,450,000
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
23,450,000.00
NC
08
32,700,000
00
NC
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
69,000,000.00
NC
08
15,300,000
00
NC
37,050,000.00
19,912,500.00
TOTAL
DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
10,000
00
651
03MAR98
01
4,590,000
00
NC
4,590,000.00
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
5,650,000.00
NC
05
7,755,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
9,970,000.00
NC
05
10,600,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
7,430,000.00
NC
05
7,450,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
4,770,000.00
NC
05
157,000,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
10,800,000.00
NC
05
7,470,000
00
NC
7,724,000.00
38,055,000.00
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
3,030,000.00
NC
07
4,030,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3,400,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
3,885,000.00
NC
07
4,960,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
3,850,000.00
NC
07
4,790,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
2,970,000.00
NC
07
3,910,000
00
NC
3,433,750.00
4,218,000.00
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
3,720,000.00
NC
08
3,690,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
3,285,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
5,060,000.00
NC
08
6,580,000
00
NC
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
9,260,000.00
NC
08
3,130,000
00
NC
6,013,333.33
4,171,250.00
TOTAL
ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
00
651
03MAR98
01
6,705,000
00
NC
6,705,000.00
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4813
04AUG96
07
27,500.00
NC
05
22,300
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4813
05AUG96
07
47,500.00
NC
05
10,300
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
102,000.00
NC
05
185,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4813
07AUG96
07
1,780.00
NC
05
49,400
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4813
08AUG96
07
21,600.00
NC
05
27,300
00
NC
40,076.00
58,860.00
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
15,000.00
NC
07
18,700
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
13,900
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
11,190.00
NC
07
18,600
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
17,300.00
NC
07
20,500
00
NC
Appendix C - 128
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl
Effl Amount
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Infl
Meas
Facility
Analyt
e Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
18,600
00
NC
07
71,700
00
NC
15,522.50
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
13,600
00
NC
08
15,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
18,750
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
4, 380
00
NC
08
8, 200
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
42,500
00
NC
08
89,500
00
NC
20,160.00
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
01JUL97
01
3, 200
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
08JUL97
01
6, 800
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
09JUL97
01
6, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
01AUG97
01
800
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
01SEP97
01
3, 900
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
01OCT97
01
110
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
01NOV97
01
2, 800
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
01DEC97
01
2, 200
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
02 JAN 9 8
01
1, 900
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
01FEB98
01
3, 500
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
01MAR98
01
7, 200
00
NC
TOTAL
PHENOLS
C-020
50.00
651
01APR98
01
6, 600
00
NC
3,750.83
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
5, 970
00
NC
05
6, 015
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
2, 405
00
NC
05
2, 660
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
2, 400
00
NC
05
11,800
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
1, 870
00
NC
05
18,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
4, 140
00
NC
05
17,800
00
NC
3,357.00
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
350
00
NC
07
650
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
8, 000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
45
00
NC
07
13,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
400
00
NC
07
6, 700
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
170,000
00
NC
07
350,000
00
NC
42,698.75
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
70
00
NC
08
8, 100
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
13,500
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
89,500
00
NC
08
250,000
00
NC
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
4, 500
00
NC
08
3, 000
00
NC
31,356.67
Facility
Infl Mean
28,680.00
32,862.50
11,255.00
75,670.00
68,650.00
Appendix C - 129
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyt
e Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
350,000
00
NC
05
636
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
163,000
00
NC
05
172
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
240,000
00
NC
05
493
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
150,000
00
NC
05
1, 820
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
5, 230, 000
00
NC
05
1, 360
000.
00
NC
1,226,600.00
896,200.00
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
765,000
00
NC
07
5, 210
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3, 470
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
527,500
00
NC
07
5, 660
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
195,000
00
NC
07
8, 480
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
710,000
00
NC
07
7, 700
000.
00
NC
549,375.00
6,104,000.00
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
756,000
00
NC
08
5, 420
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
8, 310
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
695,000
00
NC
08
1, 250
000.
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
375,000
00
NC
08
3, 060
000.
00
NC
608,666.67
4,510,000.00
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
651
08JUL97
01
41,000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
651
09JUL97
01
10,000
00
NC
TOTAL
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4, 000
00
651
03MAR98
01
1, 515
000.
00
NC
25,500.00
1,515,000.00
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4813
04AUG96
07
44,300.00
NC
05
25, 000
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4813
05AUG96
07
18,700.00
NC
05
5, 250
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
42,900.00
NC
05
11,500
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4813
07AUG96
07
23,400.00
NC
05
13,900
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4813
08AUG96
07
154,000.00
NC
05
15,000
00
NC
56,660.00
14,130.00
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
21,000.00
NC
07
29, 200
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
20,550
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
18,000.00
NC
07
66,200
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
9,770.00
NC
07
45,200
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
7,520.00
NC
07
44,400
00
NC
14,072.50
41,110.00
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
20,600.00
NC
08
12,500
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
26, 200
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
41,000.00
NC
08
11,500
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
17,700.00
NC
08
22,600
00
NC
26,433.33
18,200.00
Appendix C - 130
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200.00
651
03MAR98
01
9, 400
00
NC
9,400.00
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4813
04AUG96
07
56. 80
NC
05
28
80
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4813
05AUG96
07
139.00
NC
05
206
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
223.00
NC
05
64
10
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4813
07AUG96
07
100.00
NC
05
94
50
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4813
08AUG96
07
78.20
NC
05
185
00
NC
119.40
115.68
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
62. 60
NC
07
223
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 522
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
94.85
NC
07
1, 670
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
162.00
NC
07
857
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
92.80
NC
07
20
00
ND
103.06
858.40
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
32.10
NC
08
83
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
68
75
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
39. 65
NC
08
20
00
ND
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
152.00
NC
08
240
00
NC
74.58
102.94
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20.00
651
03MAR98
01
46
95
NC
46.95
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
20. 00
ND
05
46
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
20. 00
ND
05
69
10
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
2.00
ND
05
58
60
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
2.00
ND
05
50
10
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
20. 00
ND
05
2
00
ND
12.80
45.16
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
2,590.00
NC
07
8, 830
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
8, 550
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
1,465.00
NC
07
9, 170
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
572.00
NC
07
1, 930
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
737.00
NC
07
1, 230
00
NC
1,341.00
5,942.00
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
402.00
NC
08
649
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
469
50
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
198.00
NC
08
248
00
NC
Appendix C - 131
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
113.00
NC
08
163.00
NC
237.67
382.38
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
83. 80
NC
83.80
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4813
04AUG96
07
27.50
NC
05
103.00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4813
05AUG96
07
42. 95
NC
05
67.10
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
35. 00
NC
05
127.00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4813
07AUG96
07
12. 90
NC
05
122.00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4813
08AUG96
07
37. 90
NC
05
158.00
NC
31.25
115.42
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
136.00
NC
07
1, 720.00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,350.00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
234.00
NC
07
3,620.00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
253.00
NC
07
4,310.00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
259.00
NC
07
2,630.00
NC
220.50
2,726.00
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
316.00
NC
08
1,270.00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,180.00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
198.00
NC
08
474.00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
580.00
NC
08
4,990.00
NC
364.67
1,978.50
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200.00
651
03MAR98
01
470.50
NC
470.50
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4813
04AUG96
07
9,200.00
NC
05
6,040.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4813
05AUG96
07
9,260.00
NC
05
9,790.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
9,050.00
NC
05
9,130.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4813
07AUG96
07
12,200.00
NC
05
9,710.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10,800.00
NC
05
9,670.00
NC
10,102.00
8,868.00
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
20,100.00
NC
07
26,800.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
39,550.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
29,550.00
NC
07
49,100.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
22,200.00
NC
07
27,300.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
18,000.00
NC
07
24,900.00
NC
22,462.50
33,530.00
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
95,000.00
NC
08
86,500.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
24,100.00
NC
Appendix C - 132
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
7, 415
00
NC
08
9,670.00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
39,400
00
NC
08
34,600.00
NC
47,271.67
38,717.50
BORON
7440-42-8
100.00
651
03MAR98
01
21,450.00
NC
21,450.00
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4813
04AUG96
07
5
00
ND
05
5. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4813
05AUG96
07
5
00
ND
05
5. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
5
00
ND
05
5. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4813
07AUG96
07
5
00
ND
05
5. 00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4813
08AUG96
07
5
00
ND
05
8. 60
NC
5.00
5.72
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
9
77
NC
07
68.20
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
53. 05
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
9
40
NC
07
121.00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
5
00
ND
07
96. 50
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
5
15
NC
07
57.70
NC
7.33
79.29
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
8
90
NC
08
52. 60
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
71.75
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
8
87
NC
08
25. 50
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
5
00
ND
08
57. 90
NC
7.59
51.94
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
01JUL97
01
4
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
08JUL97
01
1
00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
09JUL97
01
1
00
ND
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
01AUG97
01
4
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
01SEP97
01
4
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
01OCT97
01
7
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
01NOV97
01
4
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
01DEC97
01
4
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
02JAN98
01
4
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
01FEB98
01
4
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
01MAR98
01
4
00
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 80
NC
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
5.00
651
01APR98
01
4
00
NC
3.75
20.80
7440-70-2 5,000.00 4813 04AUG96
07
19,600
00 NC 05
27,700.00 NC
Appendix C - 133
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
30,100
00
NC
05
33,900
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
35,900
00
NC
05
32,500
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
20,500
00
NC
05
29, 500
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
17,900
00
NC
05
41,400
00
NC
24,800.00
33,000.00
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
204,000
00
NC
07
406,000
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
290,500
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
168,500
00
NC
07
242,000
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
194,000
00
NC
07
276,000
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
127,000
00
NC
07
346,000
00
NC
173,375.00
312,100.00
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
110,000
00
NC
08
162,000
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
126,500
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
71,600
00
NC
08
95,900
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
335,000
00
NC
08
409,000
00
NC
172,200.00
198,350.00
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
651
03MAR98
01
185,500
00
NC
185,500.00
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4813
04AUG96
07
8
70
NC
05
23
80
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4813
05AUG96
07
8
00
ND
05
9
20
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
8
00
ND
05
90
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4813
07AUG96
07
8
00
ND
05
59
50
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4813
08AUG96
07
8
00
ND
05
41
70
NC
8.14
44.84
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
252
00
NC
07
3, 000
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 615
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
232
50
NC
07
3, 610
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
128
00
NC
07
2, 740
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
120
00
NC
07
1, 570
00
NC
183.13
2,507.00
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
791
00
NC
08
2, 280
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1, 295
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
375
00
NC
08
913
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
225
00
NC
08
1, 380
00
NC
463.67
1,467.00
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
651
01JUL97
01
34
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
651
08JUL97
01
7
00
NC
Appendix C - 134
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
651
09JUL97
01
20. 00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
651
01AUG97
01
26. 00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
651
01SEP97
01
5. 00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
651
01OCT97
01
45. 00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
651
01NOV97
01
5. 00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
651
01DEC97
01
65. 00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
651
02JAN98
01
5. 00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
651
01FEB98
01
5. 00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
651
01MAR98
01
5. 00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
137.50
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10.00
651
01APR98
01
5. 00
NC
18 . 92
137.50
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
53. 80
NC
10.00
18 .76
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1,040.00
NC
07
3,240.00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,825.00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
1,330.00
NC
07
2,880.00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1,350.00
NC
07
1,450.00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
643.00
NC
07
1,270.00
NC
1,090.75
2,133.00
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
2,520.00
NC
08
4,030.00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,845.00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,210.00
NC
08
1,740.00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
37,500.00
NC
08
116,000.00
NC
13,743.33
30,903.75
COBALT
7440-48-4
50.00
651
03MAR98
01
48.55
NC
48.55
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4813
04AUG96
07
9. 50
NC
05
107.50
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4813
05AUG96
07
9. 35
NC
05
70.70
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
8.50
NC
05
112.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4813
07AUG96
07
26. 30
NC
05
1,750.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4813
08AUG96
07
57. 60
NC
05
2,740.00
NC
22 .25
956.04
Appendix C - 135
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/l)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
o
CO
NC
07
1,940.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
2,240.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
99. 55
NC
07
3,830.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
52.40
NC
07
4,780.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
54.10
NC
07
3,050.00
NC
68 .66
3,168.00
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
466.00
NC
08
2,770.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2,655.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
396.00
NC
08
1,600.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
472.00
NC
08
4,340.00
NC
444 . 67
2,841.25
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
01JUL97
01
96. 00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
08JUL97
01
70. 00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
09JUL97
01
80. 00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
01AUG97
01
70. 00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
01SEP97
01
130.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
01OCT97
01
220.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
01NOV97
01
170.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
01DEC97
01
25. 00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
02JAN98
01
20. 00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
01FEB98
01
520.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
01MAR98
01
440.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
03MAR98
01
1,570.00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25.00
651
01APR98
01
40. 00
NC
156.75
1,570.00
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4813
04AUG96
07
500.00
ND
05
500.00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4813
05AUG96
07
500.00
ND
05
500.00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
500.00
ND
05
500.00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4813
07AUG96
07
500.00
ND
05
500.00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4813
08AUG96
07
500.00
ND
05
500.00
ND
500.00
500.00
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
500.00
ND
07
500.00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
500.00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
500.00
ND
07
500.00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
500.00
ND
07
500.00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
500.00
ND
07
500.00
ND
500.00
500.00
Appendix C - 136
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
500
00
ND
08
500.00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
500.00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
500
00
ND
08
500.00
ND
GERMANIUM
7440-56-4
500.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
500
00
ND
08
500.00
ND
500.00
500.00
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4813
04AUG96
07
1, 950
00
NC
05
5,425.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4813
05AUG96
07
1, 640
00
NC
05
3,750.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
1, 890
00
NC
05
10,500.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4813
07AUG96
07
1, 620
00
NC
05
11,200.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4813
08AUG96
07
6, 950
00
NC
05
12,000.00
NC
2,810.00
8,575.00
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
122,000
00
NC
07
630,000.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
256,500.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
123,000
00
NC
07
53,400.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
49,700
00
NC
07
249,000.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
39,100
00
NC
07
564,000.00
NC
83,450.00
350,580.00
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
53,900
00
NC
08
97,100.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
91,700.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
4, 750
00
NC
08
23,700.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
11,200
00
NC
08
96,300.00
NC
23,283.33
77,200.00
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
651
03MAR98
01
138,000.00
NC
138,000.00
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4813
04AUG96
07
44
00
ND
05
142.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4813
05AUG96
07
302
00
NC
05
223.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
64
40
NC
05
154.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4813
07AUG96
07
44
00
ND
05
136.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4813
08AUG96
07
221
00
NC
05
233.00
NC
135.08
177.60
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
53
80
NC
07
1,790.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
2,270.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
46
80
NC
07
2,720.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
63
90
NC
07
2,710.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
74
40
NC
07
1,680.00
NC
59.73
2,234.00
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
279
00
NC
08
1,350.00
NC
Appendix C - 137
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
Analyte Name
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
7439-92-1
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2,180.00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
206.00
NC
08
737.00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
228.00
NC
08
3,630.00
NC
237.67
7439-92-1
50.00
651
01JUL97
01
270.00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
08JUL97
01
15. 00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
09JUL97
01
50. 00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
01AUG97
01
18.00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
01SEP97
01
98.00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
01OCT97
01
35. 00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
01NOV97
01
20. 00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
01DEC97
01
320.00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
02 JAN 9 8
01
97.00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
01FEB98
01
10. 00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
01MAR98
01
200.00
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
03MAR98
01
839.50
NC
7439-92-1
50.00
651
01APR98
01
50. 00
NC
98.58
Facility
Infl Mean
1,974.25
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4813
04AUG96
07
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4813
05AUG96
07
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4813
07AUG96
07
LUTETIUM
7439-94-3
100.00
4813
08AUG96
07
100.00
ND
05
100.00
ND
100.00
ND
05
100.00
ND
100.00
ND
05
100.00
ND
100.00
ND
05
100.00
ND
100.00
ND
05
100.00
ND
LUTETIUM
LUTETIUM
LUTETIUM
LUTETIUM
LUTETIUM
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
94-3
94-3
94-3
94-3
94-3
100.00 4814A
100.00 4814A
100.00 4814A
100.00 4814A
100.00 4814A
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
20SEP96
100.00 ND
100.00
100.00
100.00
ND
ND
ND
07
07
07
07
07
100.00 ND
100.00 ND
100.00 ND
100.00 ND
100.00 ND
100.00
100.00
LUTETIUM
LUTETIUM
LUTETIUM
LUTETIUM
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
94-3
94-3
94-3
94-3
100.00 4814B
100.00 4814B
100.00 4814B
100.00 4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
19SEP96
100.00 ND
10
10
100.00
100.00
ND
ND
08
08
08
08
100.00 ND
100.00 ND
100.00 ND
100.00 ND
MAGNESIUM
MAGNESIUM
7439-
7439-
95-4
95-4
5,000.00 4813
5,000.00 4813
04AUG96
05AUG96
07
07
5,050.00
5,055.00
NC
NC
05
05
6, 075.00 NC
4,910.00 NC
Appendix C - 138
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
4, 400
00
NC
05
6, 310
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
1, 790
00
NC
05
6, 890
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
4, 870
00
NC
05
7, 460
00
NC
4,233.00
6,329.00
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
51,500
00
NC
07
110,000
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
109,000
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
67,500
00
NC
07
78,800
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
76, 400
00
NC
07
96,600
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
56,200
00
NC
07
118,000
00
NC
62,900.00
102,480.00
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
53,500
00
NC
08
59,300
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
26, 150
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
19,550
00
NC
08
22,100
00
NC
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
142,000
00
NC
08
131,000
00
NC
71,683.33
59,637.50
MAGNESIUM
7439-95-4
5, 000
00
651
03MAR98
01
55,450
00
NC
55,450.00
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4813
04AUG96
07
650
00
NC
05
628
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4813
05AUG96
07
787
50
NC
05
535
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
547
00
NC
05
641
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4813
07AUG96
07
284
00
NC
05
673
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4813
08AUG96
07
1, 020
00
NC
05
1, 270
00
NC
657.70
749.40
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
5, 120
00
NC
07
13,800
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
6, 690
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
4, 345
00
NC
07
10,100
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
3, 400
00
NC
07
6, 140
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
2, 380
00
NC
07
9, 970
00
NC
3,811.25
9,340.00
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
2, 930
00
NC
08
3, 220
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1, 790
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1, 375
00
NC
08
2, 380
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
16,700
00
NC
08
44,500
00
NC
7,001.67
12,972.50
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15
00
651
03MAR98
01
5, 560
00
NC
5,560.00
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0
20
4813
04AUG96
07
0
20
ND
05
0
20
ND
Appendix C - 139
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4813
05AUG96
07
0.20
ND
05
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4813
0 6AUG96
07
0.20
ND
05
0.20
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4813
07AUG96
07
0.20
ND
05
0. 34
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4813
08AUG96
07
0.20
ND
05
0. 33
NC
0.20
0.25
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814A
16SEP96
09
0.20
ND
07
0. 39
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814A
17SEP96
07
0. 53
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814A
18SEP96
09
4.00
ND
07
28. 60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814A
19SEP96
09
4.00
ND
07
10. 00
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814A
20SEP96
09
4.00
ND
07
12.40
NC
3.05
10.38
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814B
16SEP96
10
0. 97
NC
08
6. 60
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814B
17SEP96
08
2. 64
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814B
18SEP96
10
4.00
ND
08
14.40
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
4814B
19SEP96
10
4.40
NC
08
55. 60
NC
3.12
19.81
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
01JUL97
01
0. 50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
08JUL97
01
0. 50
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
09JUL97
01
0. 50
ND
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
01AUG97
01
0. 50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
01SEP97
01
0. 50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
01OCT97
01
0. 50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
01NOV97
01
0. 50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
01DEC97
01
0. 50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
02JAN98
01
0. 50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
01FEB98
01
0. 50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
01MAR98
01
0. 50
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
03MAR98
01
0.73
NC
MERCURY
7439-97-6
0.20
651
01APR98
01
0. 50
NC
0.50
0.73
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
951.00
NC
05
454.00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
495.50
NC
05
806.00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
735.00
NC
05
598.00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
563.00
NC
05
504.00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
825.00
NC
05
775.00
NC
713.90
627.40
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
2,200.00
NC
07
3,680.00
NC
Appendix C - 140
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3, 920
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
1, 695
00
NC
07
4, 57 0
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1, 390
00
NC
07
2, 470
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
886
00
NC
07
2, 030
00
NC
1,542.75
3,334.00
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
645
00
NC
08
1, 200
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
617
50
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
277
00
NC
08
436
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
3, 970
00
NC
08
3, 370
00
NC
1,630.67
1,405.88
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10
00
651
03MAR98
01
902
50
NC
902.50
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
3, 550
00
NC
05
4, 033
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
3, 470
00
NC
05
10,200
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
4, 290
00
NC
05
29, 100
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
3, 030
00
NC
05
31,900
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
13,500
00
NC
05
39,700
00
NC
5,568.00
22,986.60
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
4, 780
00
NC
07
40,000
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
35,350
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
6, 450
00
NC
07
63,800
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
6, 400
00
NC
07
40,700
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
105,000
00
NC
07
239,000
00
NC
30,657.50
83,770.00
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
13,700
00
NC
08
32,900
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
18,800
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
79, 400
00
NC
08
179,000
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
84,700
00
NC
08
45,400
00
NC
59,266.67
69,025.00
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
39,000
00
NC
05
23,550
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
41,000
00
NC
05
38,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
44,200
00
NC
05
36,500
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
33,200
00
NC
05
29, 700
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
55,600
00
NC
05
43,700
00
NC
42,600.00
34,290.00
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
316,000
00
NC
07
562,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
612,500
00
NC
Appendix C - 141
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1,000.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
475,000.00
NC
07
939,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1,000.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
287,000.00
NC
07
379,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1,000.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
866,000.00
NC
07
962,000
00
NC
486,000.00
690,900.00
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1,000.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
167,000.00
NC
08
140,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1,000.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
128,500
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1,000.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
275,500.00
NC
08
452,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1,000.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
570,000.00
NC
08
806,000
00
NC
337,500.00
381,625.00
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4813
04AUG96
07
20. 00
ND
05
20
00
ND
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4813
05AUG96
07
20. 00
ND
05
20
00
ND
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
20. 00
ND
05
20
00
ND
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4813
07AUG96
07
20. 00
ND
05
20
00
ND
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4813
08AUG96
07
20. 00
ND
05
20
00
ND
20.00
20.00
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
241.00
NC
07
460
00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
208
50
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
104.65
NC
07
81
20
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
30. 30
NC
07
6 6
70
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
54.00
NC
07
35
90
NC
107.49
170.46
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
255.00
NC
08
245
00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
6 6
60
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
927.00
NC
08
1, 000
00
NC
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
58.10
NC
08
73
50
NC
413.37
346.28
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
5.00
651
03MAR98
01
21
70
NC
21.70
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4813
04AUG96
07
3,060.00
NC
05
4, 355
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4813
05AUG96
07
2,950.00
NC
05
4, 860
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
4,810.00
NC
05
6, 730
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4813
07AUG96
07
2,700.00
NC
05
7, 250
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4813
08AUG96
07
5,900.00
NC
05
7, 130
00
NC
3,884.00
6,065.00
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
18,800.00
NC
07
63,700
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
51,150
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
23,500.00
NC
07
78,900
00
NC
Appendix C - 142
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
22,500.00
NC
07
41,000
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
19,800.00
NC
07
78,600
00
NC
21,150.00
62,670.00
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
13,600.00
NC
08
28,200
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
14,650
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
25,250.00
NC
08
56,800
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
11,700.00
NC
08
16,700
00
NC
16,850.00
29,087.50
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4813
04AUG96
07
5. 00
ND
05
5
00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4813
05AUG96
07
5. 00
ND
05
5
00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
5. 00
ND
05
5
00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4813
07AUG96
07
5. 00
ND
05
5
00
ND
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4813
08AUG96
07
5. 00
ND
05
5
00
ND
5.00
5.00
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
5. 00
ND
07
17
90
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
10
60
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
5. 00
ND
07
31
50
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
5. 00
ND
07
25
20
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
5. 00
ND
07
11
50
NC
5.00
19.34
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
5. 48
NC
08
7
75
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20
10
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
5. 30
NC
08
8
85
NC
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
5. 00
ND
08
15
60
NC
5.26
13.08
SILVER
7440-22-4
10
00
651
03MAR98
01
8
00
ND
8.00
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
971,000.00
NC
05
448,500
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
980,500.00
NC
05
533,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
885,000.00
NC
05
253,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
853,000.00
NC
05
265,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
1,100,000.00
NC
05
219,000
00
NC
957,900.00
343,700.00
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
3,700,000.00
NC
07
4
330,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
2
245,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
3,295,000.00
NC
07
2
270,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
2,820,000.00
NC
07
3
150,000
00
NC
Appendix C - 143
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
2,980,000
00
NC
07
2,960,000
00
NC
3,198,750.00
2,991,000.00
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
5, 280, 000
00
NC
08
5,160,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
4,410,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
9,980,000
00
NC
08
11,100,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
4,700,000
00
NC
08
3,330,000
00
NC
6,653,333.33
6,000,000.00
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
651
03MAR98
01
555,500
00
NC
555,500.00
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4813
04AUG96
07
100
00
ND
05
100
00
ND
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4813
05AUG96
07
100
00
ND
05
100
00
ND
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
100
00
ND
05
100
00
ND
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4813
07AUG96
07
100
00
ND
05
100
00
ND
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4813
08AUG96
07
100
00
ND
05
128
00
NC
100.00
105.60
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1, 150
00
NC
07
2, 450
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 405
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
672
00
NC
07
1, 360
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
853
00
NC
07
1, 580
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
57 4
00
NC
07
1, 750
00
NC
812.25
1,709.00
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814B
16SEP96
10
585
00
NC
08
996
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814B
17SEP96
08
755
50
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814B
18SEP96
10
306
00
NC
08
546
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1, 320
00
NC
08
3, 470
00
NC
737.00
1,441.88
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4813
04AUG96
07
550,000
00
NC
05
226,500
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4813
05AUG96
07
368,000
00
NC
05
193,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
381,000
00
NC
05
120,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4813
07AUG96
07
336,000
00
NC
05
127,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4813
08AUG96
07
558,000
00
NC
05
90,600
00
NC
438,600.00
151,420.00
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1,840,000
00
NC
07
2,260,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,150,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814A
18SEP96
09
1,765,000
00
NC
07
1,510,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1,940,000
00
NC
07
1,950,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
4814A
20SEP96
09
1,720,000
00
NC
07
2,140,000
00
NC
1,816,250.00
1,802,000.00
Appendix C - 144
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl
Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl
Mean
Infl Mean
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1,000.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1, 770
, 000
00
NC
08
2,180,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1,000.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,775,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1,000.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
3, 450
, 000
00
NC
08
3,620,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1,000.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
2, 760
, 000
00
NC
08
2,050,000
00
NC
2, 660
000.00
2,406,250.00
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4813
04AUG96
07
500
00
ND
05
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4813
05AUG96
07
500
00
ND
05
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
500
00
ND
05
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4813
07AUG96
07
500
00
ND
05
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4813
08AUG96
07
500
00
ND
05
500
00
ND
500.00
500.00
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
500
00
ND
07
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
500
00
ND
07
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
500
00
ND
07
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
500
00
ND
07
500
00
ND
500.00
500.00
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
500
00
ND
08
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
500
00
ND
08
500
00
ND
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
500.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
500
00
ND
08
500
00
ND
500.00
500.00
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4813
04AUG96
07
28
00
ND
05
28
00
ND
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4813
05AUG96
07
28
00
ND
05
28
00
ND
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
28
00
ND
05
28
00
ND
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4813
07AUG96
07
28
00
ND
05
28
00
ND
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4813
08AUG96
07
28
00
ND
05
28
00
ND
28.00
28.00
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
29
00
ND
07
898
00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
874
50
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
36
10
NC
07
2, 160
00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
29
00
ND
07
2, 100
00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
29
00
ND
07
712
00
NC
30.78
1,348.90
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
29
00
ND
08
29
00
ND
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
912
00
NC
Appendix C - 145
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
491.50
NC
08
2, 680
00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
29. 00
ND
08
910
00
NC
183.17
1,132.75
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
651
03MAR98
01
128
00
NC
128.00
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4813
04AUG96
07
4.00
ND
05
4
00
ND
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4813
05AUG96
07
4.00
ND
05
4
00
ND
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
4.00
ND
05
4
00
ND
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4813
07AUG96
07
4.00
ND
05
4
00
ND
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4813
08AUG96
07
4.00
ND
05
28
80
NC
4.00
8 .96
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
14.70
NC
07
166
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
138
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
20. 05
NC
07
771
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
8.51
NC
07
745
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
11. 30
NC
07
315
00
NC
13.64
427.00
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
23. 60
NC
08
143
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
136
50
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
45.75
NC
08
158
00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
20.10
NC
08
271
00
NC
29.82
177.13
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
651
03MAR98
01
133
00
NC
133.00
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4813
04AUG96
07
319.00
NC
05
623
00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4813
05AUG96
07
528.50
NC
05
591
00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
325.00
NC
05
653
00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4813
07AUG96
07
159.00
NC
05
967
00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4813
08AUG96
07
694.00
NC
05
1, 850
00
NC
405.10
936.80
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
3,240.00
NC
07
33,300
00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
22,800
00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
4,535.00
NC
07
6, 020
00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
2,530.00
NC
07
28,600
00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
2,250.00
NC
07
36,400
00
NC
3,138.75
25,424.00
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
2,460.00
NC
08
12,900.
00
NC
Appendix C - 146
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl
Infl Amount Meas Facility Facility
(ug/1) Type Effl Mean Infl Mean
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
14,900.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
4,495.00
NC
08
11,100.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
4,320.00
NC
08
16,800.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
01JUL97
01
290.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
08JUL97
01
440.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
09JUL97
01
1,100.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
01AUG97
01
560.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
01SEP97
01
1,000.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
01OCT97
01
2,800.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
01NOV97
01
450.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
01DEC97
01
2,200.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
02 JAN 9 8
01
450.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
01FEB98
01
540.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
01MAR98
01
630.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
03MAR98
01
5,575.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
651
01APR98
01
590.00
NC
3,758.33
13,925.00
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHENE
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-
83-32-
83-32-
83-32-
83-32-
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
o
o
o
ND
05
o
o
o
ND
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
o
o
o
ND
07
20. 00
ND
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
104.90
NC
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,640.13
NC
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
192.10
NC
08
13,417.86
NC
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
279.50
NC
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
731.95
NC
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
184.70
NC
08
2,472.36
NC
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
237.90
NC
16.25
593.01
4,225.42
237.90
Appendix C - 147
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
135.80
NC
05
20. 00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
35.16
26.00
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
213.60
NC
07
20. 00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
842.95
NC
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
67.15
472.59
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
2,210.37
NC
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
983.50
NC
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
923.47
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
855.90
NC
855.90
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
137.03
NC
05
20. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
96. 05
NC
05
10. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
179.40
NC
05
20. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
594.60
NC
05
40. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
209.90
NC
05
40. 00
ND
243.40
26.00
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
318.00
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
306.30
NC
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
204.08
62-53-3
10.00 651
03MAR98
01
20.00 ND
20.00
Appendix C - 148
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
36.49
NC
05
400.50
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
109.73
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
1,444.80
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
19.26
NC
05
302.30
NC
17.15
459.47
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
83.20
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,288.00
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
378 .24
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
170.40
NC
08
18,950.59
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
266.95
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
139.70
NC
08
731.37
NC
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
182.72
NC
08
2,505.60
NC
164.27
5,613.63
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
64.70
NC
64 .70
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
789.80
NC
05
522.90
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
1,722.90
NC
05
914.00
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
1,425.10
NC
05
426.50
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
1,445.50
NC
05
597.80
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
1,389.10
NC
05
1,945.20
NC
1,354.48
881.28
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
480.90
NC
07
957.90
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,525.10
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
690.78
NC
07
1,400.83
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
401.63
NC
07
603.67
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
472.27
NC
07
778.35
NC
511.39
1,053.17
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,889.00
NC
08
2,349.00
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,840.30
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,292.53
NC
08
1,581.12
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,637.16
NC
08
3,478.20
NC
1,606.23
2,312.16
Appendix C - 149
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte
Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
651
10JUL97
01
200.00
NC
200.00
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
20. 80
NC
05
220.75
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
92. 90
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
793.50
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
565.10
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
12.50
NC
05
443.70
NC
12 .66
423.19
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
33. 64
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
88. 60
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
324.45
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
179.99
NC
08
6,303.36
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
137.05
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
249.09
NC
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
105.30
NC
08
909.04
NC
106.76
1,899.64
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
24.70
NC
24 .70
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4813
04AUG96
07
224.16
NC
05
7,491.00
NC
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4813
05AUG96
07
3,546.00
NC
05
15,902.00
NC
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
15,427.00
NC
05
98,398.00
NC
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4813
07AUG96
07
115,952.00
NC
05
76,798.00
NC
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4813
08AUG96
07
110,440.00
NC
05
163,050.00
NC
49,117.83
72,327.80
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
13,316.00
NC
07
10,075.50
NC
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
11,490.35
NC
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
14,704.88
NC
07
20,474.22
NC
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
54,280.90
NC
07
81,574.40
NC
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20,023.91
NC
07
13,249.30
NC
25,581.42
27,372.75
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
6,732.30
NC
08
10,150.88
NC
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
3,514.25
NC
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
9,414.46
NC
08
5,860.34
NC
BENZOIC
ACID
65-85-0
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
22,759.32
NC
08
6,151.52
NC
12,968.69
6,419.25
Appendix C - 150
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
651
03MAR98
01
100.00
ND
100.00
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
528.00
NC
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
126.65
NC
05
540.00
NC
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
246.60
NC
05
558.00
NC
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
80.65
341.20
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
502.20
NC
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
734.62
NC
07
200.00
ND
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
470.82
NC
07
300.00
ND
308.86
404.44
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
782.66
NC
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
2,850.25
NC
08
400.00
ND
965.08
325.66
BENZYL
ALCOHOL
100-51-6
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
1,137.20
NC
1,137.20
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
584.20
NC
05
5, 604.50
NC
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
576.95
NC
05
1,686.00
NC
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
234.20
NC
05
2,299.00
NC
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
112.70
NC
05
2,934.00
NC
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
361.90
NC
05
1,586.10
NC
373.99
2,821.92
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
11. 84
NC
07
240.10
NC
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
292.85
NC
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
298.12
NC
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1, 486. 40
NC
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.71
523.49
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
149.80
NC
08
10,171.33
NC
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
349.05
NC
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
157.34
NC
08
100.00
ND
Appendix C - 151
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl
Effl
Effl Amount Meas Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Infl
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl
Mean
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
135.71
2,
,755.09
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
889.70
NC
889.70
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
75. 06
NC
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
32.51
NC
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
69. 91
NC
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
403.50
NC
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
265.10
NC
10.00
169.22
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
17.30
NC
07
388.90
NC
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
561.20
NC
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,
000.00
ND
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
18.08
490.02
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
212.21
NC
08
6/
004.61
NC
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
325.00
NC
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
115.74
1,
,707.40
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
494.55
NC
494.55
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
10.00
26.00
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
117.60
NC
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
183.15
NC
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,
000.00
ND
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
360.15
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
29. 93
NC
08
2,
123.75
NC
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
192.50
NC
Appendix C - 152
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
54 . 98
704.06
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
63.79
NC
63.79
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4813
04AUG96
07
64.50
NC
05
136.65
NC
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4813
05AUG96
07
34.30
NC
05
81. 43
NC
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
47.51
NC
05
289.60
NC
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4813
07AUG96
07
40.77
NC
05
80. 00
ND
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4813
08AUG96
07
44.56
NC
05
80. 00
ND
46.33
133.54
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
40. 00
ND
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
140.00
ND
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
30. 00
ND
07
400.00
ND
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
40. 00
ND
07
2,000.00
ND
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
40. 00
ND
07
600.00
ND
32.50
636.00
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
184.34
NC
08
1,458.66
NC
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
378.60
NC
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
70. 00
ND
08
200.00
ND
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
200.00
ND
08
1,165.52
NC
151.45
800.69
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
20.00
651
03MAR98
01
40. 00
ND
40.00
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 46
NC
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
15. 49
NC
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
21.12
NC
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20.29
NC
10.00
15.47
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
82.44
NC
07
137.16
NC
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
143.99
NC
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
2,335.20
NC
28.11
527 .27
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
30. 02
NC
08
22.30
NC
Appendix C - 153
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
6 6.64
NC
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
16.67
27 .24
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
10.00
10.00
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
51.10
NC
07
89.11
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
237.85
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
60. 00
NC
07
254.68
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
43. 96
NC
07
91. 32
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
54.17
NC
07
97.57
NC
52.31
154.11
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
240.20
NC
08
191.22
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
326.30
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
61.20
NC
08
76. 80
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
6 6. 57
NC
08
200.00
NC
122.66
198.58
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
10.00
10.00
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
186.00
NC
07
305.80
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
692.40
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
305.49
NC
07
592.56
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
140.80
NC
07
181.46
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
233.08
NC
07
336.18
NC
216.34
421.68
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
432.40
NC
08
522.10
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,027.45
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
556.64
NC
08
653.68
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
636.49
NC
08
1,827.80
NC
541.84
1,007.76
Appendix C - 154
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
38. 92
NC
05
431.80
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
176.34
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
1,
. 634.50
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
837.60
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
18. 67
NC
05
425.70
NC
17.52
701.19
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
43.76
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
107.56
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,
.000.00
ND
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
330.26
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
103.30
NC
08
8,
. 879.30
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
123.65
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
402.74
NC
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
938.68
NC
79.43
2,586.09
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
38.73
NC
38 .73
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
10.00
26.00
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
117.30
NC
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,
.000.00
ND
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
327.46
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
191.70
NC
08
13,
. 786.46
NC
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
286.70
NC
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
114.06
NC
08
715.45
NC
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
2,
. 355.40
NC
135.25
4,286.00
Appendix C - 155
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
171.70
NC
171.70
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
55.16
NC
05
638.75
NC
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
213.10
NC
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
1,752.50
NC
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
811.90
NC
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
30. 39
NC
05
660.50
NC
23.11
815.35
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
o
o
o
ND
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
318.00
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
152.29
NC
08
5,447.62
NC
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
127.90
NC
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
262.10
NC
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
811.88
NC
95.76
1,662.37
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
38.35
NC
38.35
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
638.80
NC
05
575.75
NC
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
562.95
NC
05
10. 00
ND
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
145.40
NC
05
746.00
NC
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
366.00
NC
05
40. 00
ND
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
116.50
NC
05
459.60
NC
365.93
366.27
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
873.90
NC
07
3,162.00
NC
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3,534.00
NC
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
2,250.46
NC
07
9,309.20
NC
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1,320.87
NC
07
1,000.00
ND
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
1, 198.65
NC
07
2,577.93
NC
1,410.97
3,916.63
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
186.90
NC
08
3,565.66
NC
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
145.25
NC
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
204.32
NC
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
107.30
1,078.81
Appendix C - 156
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
1,
.217.50
NC
05
13,750.50
NC
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
1,
.675.60
NC
05
4,768.00
NC
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
671.70
NC
05
7,478.00
NC
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
424.20
NC
05
9, 481.00
NC
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
918.70
NC
05
10,671.00
NC
981.54
9,229.70
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
31. 60
NC
07
20. 00
ND
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
149.30
NC
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
21.65
333.86
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
82.76
NC
08
10. 00
ND
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
151.80
NC
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
72.59
165.45
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
450.10
NC
05
453.90
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
539.80
NC
05
1,131.70
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
433.10
NC
05
658.60
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
296.30
NC
05
701.70
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
397.20
NC
05
1,024.80
NC
423.30
794.14
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
253.00
NC
07
2,573.00
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,557.70
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
367.63
NC
07
1,889.70
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
216.34
NC
07
1,327.98
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
258.13
NC
07
577.23
NC
273.78
1,585.12
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
2,
.193.00
NC
08
4,979.00
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
3,947.00
NC
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
956.42
NC
08
1,443.35
NC
Appendix C - 157
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,857.01
NC
08
18,015.10
NC
1,668.81
7,096.11
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
10.00
651
10JUL97
01
120.00
NC
120.00
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
166.42
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
46. 87
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
436.90
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
330.00
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
63. 01
NC
10.00
208.64
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
142.04
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
111.65
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
2,179.70
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
24.14
NC
07
1,689.09
NC
17 .29
864.50
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
293.30
NC
08
28,872.67
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
514.65
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
350.50
NC
08
1,678.15
NC
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
824.56
NC
08
4,403.84
NC
489.45
8,867.33
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
40. 95
NC
40.95
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
31. 30
NC
05
263.80
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
11. 95
NC
05
72. 68
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
421.90
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
17.20
NC
05
40. 00
ND
16.09
167.68
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
118.30
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
165.05
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
356.67
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
269.40
NC
08
15,755.94
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
457.30
NC
Appendix C - 158
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
175.95
NC
08
808.15
NC
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
283.99
NC
08
3,777.40
NC
243.11
5,199.70
FLUORENE
86-73-7
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
487.20
NC
487.20
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
18,430.00
NC
05
13,952.50
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
16,998.00
NC
05
15,211.00
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
22,825.20
NC
05
71,609.00
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
71,993.00
NC
05
16,950.30
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
83,050.00
NC
05
90,080.00
NC
42,659.24
41,560.56
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
7,069.50
NC
07
7,784.10
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
6,586.80
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
7,405.62
NC
07
8,402.72
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
13,425.82
NC
07
23,524.60
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
9,113.55
NC
07
8,646.20
NC
9,253.62
10,988.88
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
10. 00
ND
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
10,801.52
NC
08
1,640.37
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
100.00
ND
3,637.17
440.09
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
33,215.05
NC
33,215.05
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
419.10
NC
07
1,659.58
NC
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
298.36
NC
07
938.14
NC
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
551.38
NC
07
928.96
NC
422.95
1,175.56
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
890.14
NC
08
838.43
NC
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,092.16
NC
08
922.50
NC
991.15
880.46
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
275.20
NC
05
275.26
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
532.34
NC
05
1,107.80
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
284.53
NC
05
477.36
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
235.32
NC
05
828.01
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
480.50
NC
05
1, 266.60
NC
361.58
791.01
Appendix C - 159
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1,086.00
NC
07
6,353.00
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3,472.00
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
279.00
1,971.00
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
4,541.00
NC
08
13,342.00
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
8,218.50
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
1,520.33
5,395.13
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
97. 97
NC
05
54.59
NC
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
100.02
NC
05
71.22
NC
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
78.47
NC
05
48.55
NC
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
58.52
NC
05
21.72
NC
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
71.14
NC
05
89. 33
NC
81.22
57.08
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
3,343.00
NC
07
10. 00
ND
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
4,600.50
NC
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
4,808.40
NC
07
10,524.10
NC
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
1,802.75
NC
07
3,492.90
NC
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
3,055.80
NC
07
3,875.60
NC
3,2 52.4 9
4,500.62
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
4,575.00
NC
08
4,665.00
NC
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
5,317.50
NC
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
6,16 9.60
NC
08
7,576.60
NC
METHYLENE
CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
4,950.10
NC
08
5,594.00
NC
5,231.57
5,788.28
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
29.28
NC
05
10. 00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
13.86
26.00
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1,214.50
NC
07
20. 00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
802.75
NC
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
Appendix C - 160
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
317.38
464.55
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
132.50
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
283.78
NC
283.78
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
767.90
NC
05
4,118.50
NC
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
2,158.00
NC
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
2,571.00
NC
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
392.90
NC
05
7,901.00
NC
238.16
3,351.70
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
3,203.00
NC
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
4,473.00
NC
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
4,762.20
NC
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
18,048.60
NC
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
6,157.36
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
3,191.00
NC
08
223,466.88
NC
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
8,556.00
NC
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
3,834.95
NC
08
6,610.80
NC
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
7,145.10
NC
08
137,756.00
NC
4,723.68
94,097.42
N-DECANE
124-18-5
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
4,325.00
NC
4,325.00
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
40. 32
NC
05
140.09
NC
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
28. 90
NC
05
103.05
NC
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
1,950.00
NC
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
179.30
NC
19.84
478.49
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
28.08
NC
07
639.20
NC
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
500.15
NC
Appendix C - 161
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
N-DOCGSANE
62 9-97-0
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
1,924.00
NC
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
20.77
872.67
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
40.25
NC
08
15,353.74
NC
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
761.55
NC
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
249.40
NC
08
100.00
ND
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
129.88
4,153.82
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
6,686.50
NC
6,686.50
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
13,430.00
NC
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
4,450.00
NC
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
5,397.00
NC
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
1,129.00
NC
05
10,064.00
NC
233.80
6,676.20
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20,000.00
NC
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
5,023.00
NC
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
11,167.60
NC
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
45,621.00
NC
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
36,016.20
NC
16.25
23,565.56
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,731.00
NC
08
148,971.52
NC
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
5,308.50
NC
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1, 229.30
NC
08
100.00
ND
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
20,000.00
NC
08
108,578.00
NC
7,653.43
65,739.51
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
18,194.00
NC
18,194.00
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
82. 97
NC
05
792.85
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
28. 98
NC
05
1,064.90
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
20.79
NC
05
1,656.70
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
83.46
NC
05
1,515.10
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
89.72
NC
07
1,870.60
NC
Appendix C - 162
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Analyte Name
Cas No
Baseline
Value Fac.
(ug/1) ID
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl
Infl Amount Meas Facility Facility
(ug/1) Type Effl Mean Infl Mean
N-EICOSANE
N-EICOSANE
N-EICOSANE
N-EICOSANE
N-EICOSANE
N-EICOSANE
N-EICOSANE
N-EICOSANE
112-95-
112-95-
112-95-
112-95-
112-95-
112-95-
112-95-
112-95-
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814A
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
17SEP96
18SEP96 09
19SEP96 09
20SEP96 09
16SEP96 10
17SEP96
18SEP96 10
19SEP96 10
15. 00
20. 00
82.32
ND
ND
NC
558.10 NC
1,226.17
1,755.00
NC
NC
07
07
07
07
08
08
08
08
1, 557
3, 275
16,667
300
36,688
1, 914
1, 608
25, 822
NC
NC
NC
ND
NC
NC
NC
NC
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
10.
00 651
03MAR98
01
10,159.
00 NC
10,159.
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
30
92
NC
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
28.22
NC
05
10
00
ND
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
22. 93
NC
05
20
00
ND
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40
00
ND
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
23.24
NC
05
40
00
ND
18.88
28.18
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20
00
ND
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70
00
ND
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200
00
ND
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
9, 561
00
NC
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300
00
ND
16.25
2,030.20
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10
00
ND
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20
00
ND
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100
00
ND
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400
00
ND
48.33
132.50
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
68
83
NC
68.83
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
4,422.00
NC
05
18,360
00
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
1,156.30
NC
05
38,260
00
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
1,928.50
NC
05
111,340
00
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40
00
ND
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
5,240.00
NC
05
200,000
00
NC
2,551.36
73,600.00
Appendix C - 163
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
200.56
NC
07
3,619.00
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3,448.00
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
6,456.60
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
176.56
NC
07
31,304.00
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
150.81
NC
07
10,355.10
NC
135.73
11,036.54
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,830.80
NC
08
168,587.84
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
3,902.50
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
2,464.40
NC
08
4,428.60
NC
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
3,617.80
NC
08
85,787.00
NC
2,637.67
65,676.49
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
32,335.00
NC
32,335.00
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
10.00
26.00
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
1,863.80
NC
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
650.76
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
132.50
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
481.70
NC
05
160.85
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
102.42
NC
05
1,593.90
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
91. 86
NC
05
5,440.00
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
14,707.00
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
327.30
NC
05
14,275.00
NC
202.66
7,235.35
Appendix C - 164
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
88. 93
NC
07
2,351.00
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,889.70
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
96.70
NC
07
4,220.40
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
118.51
NC
07
16,544.00
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
151.41
NC
07
9, 528.30
NC
113.89
6,906.68
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,586.00
NC
08
100,760.32
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2,838.50
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,235.31
NC
08
3,033.20
NC
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,592.76
NC
08
51,797.00
NC
1,471.36
39,607.26
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
24,408.50
NC
24,408.50
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
18.49
NC
05
154.85
NC
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
11.70
52 . 97
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
31. 64
NC
07
20. 00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
21.66
318.00
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
6,359.14
NC
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
1,719.78
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
1,523.05
NC
1,523.05
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
6,977.00
NC
05
57,590.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
1,477.60
NC
05
48,030.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
3,459.00
NC
05
122,910.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
162.60
NC
05
178,690.00
NC
Appendix C - 165
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
N-TETRADECANE
62 9-59-4
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
6,846.00
NC
05
193,130.00
NC
3,784.44
120,070.00
N-TETRADECANE
62 9-59-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
186.42
NC
07
6,660.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
7,125.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
202.07
NC
07
15,584.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
379.62
NC
07
70,206.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
580.27
NC
07
3,542.60
NC
337.09
20,623.52
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,694.00
NC
08
208,249.60
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
5,247.00
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
3,243.10
NC
08
5,423.50
NC
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
4,974.60
NC
08
124,678.00
NC
3,303.90
85,899.53
N-TETRADECANE
62 9-59-4
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
63,235.00
NC
63,235.00
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
194.60
NC
05
1,304.90
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
328.85
NC
05
302.80
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
232.00
NC
05
1,150.40
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
200.40
NC
05
2,481.00
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
287.80
NC
05
4,019.00
NC
248.73
1,851.62
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
205.50
NC
07
1,495.00
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,658.00
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
85.28
NC
07
2,180.84
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
74.06
NC
07
9,636.50
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
437.76
NC
07
18,090.30
NC
200.65
6,612.13
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,945.00
NC
08
49,077.12
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
3,094.50
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,658.76
NC
08
2,433.80
NC
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1, 879.70
NC
08
47,308.00
NC
1,827.82
25,478.36
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
4,638.00
NC
4,638.00
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
430.90
NC
05
437.18
NC
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
816.05
NC
05
1,540.10
NC
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
451.92
NC
05
69 9.60
NC
Appendix C - 166
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value Fac.
Cas_No (ug/1) ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl
Infl Amount Meas Facility Facility
(ug/1) Type Effl Mean Infl Mean
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
377.48
NC
05
899.98
NC
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
743.96
NC
05
1,862.40
NC
564.06
1,087.85
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
2,
524.00
NC
07
11,470.00
NC
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
4,768.50
NC
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
o
o
o
ND
07
10. 00
ND
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
638.50
3,253.70
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
5,
599.00
NC
08
16,584.00
NC
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
10,662.00
NC
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
1,873.00
6,816.50
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
225.79
NC
05
69 6.00
NC
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
358.91
NC
05
144.83
NC
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
1,
250.90
NC
05
8,273.00
NC
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
5,
341.00
NC
05
2,059.00
NC
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
1,
672.70
NC
05
40. 00
ND
1,769.86
2,242.57
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
362.50
NC
07
281.22
NC
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
189.66
NC
07
200.00
ND
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
367.73
NC
07
1,000.00
ND
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
692.54
NC
07
300.00
ND
403.11
370.24
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
o
o
o
ND
08
10. 00
ND
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
535.29
NC
08
854.41
NC
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
215.10
321.10
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
727.45
NC
727.45
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
O-TOLUIDINE
O-TOLUIDINE
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-
95-53-
95-53-
10.00
10.00
10.00
4813
4813
4813
05AUG96
0 6AUG96
07AUG96
07
07
07
84.85
116.60
10. 00
NC
NC
ND
05
05
05
10. 00
20. 00
40. 00
ND
ND
ND
Appendix C - 167
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
G-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
126.10
NC
05
40. 00
ND
69.51
26.00
G-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
311.10
NC
07
20. 00
ND
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
247.80
NC
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
91.53
353.56
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
173.25
NC
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
170.81
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
G-XYLENE
95-47-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
272.49
NC
07
1,140.55
NC
O-XYLENE
95-47-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
185.67
NC
07
561.31
NC
O-XYLENE
95-47-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
347.40
NC
07
573.07
NC
268.52
758.31
O-XYLENE
95-47-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
632.94
NC
08
602.89
NC
O-XYLENE
95-47-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
696.38
NC
08
654.46
NC
6 64.66
628.67
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
1,076.60
NC
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
1,874.45
NC
05
1, 296.00
NC
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
1,831.80
NC
05
1, 276.00
NC
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
1,506.30
NC
05
1,662.80
NC
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
1,193.40
NC
05
2,334.10
NC
1,283.19
1,529.10
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
246.00
NC
07
221.28
NC
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
220.45
NC
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
839.76
NC
07
100.00
ND
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
885.79
NC
07
1,000.00
ND
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
1,871.27
NC
07
2,382.40
NC
960.71
784.83
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
399.40
NC
08
2,119.84
NC
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,838.00
NC
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,392.06
NC
08
1,386.46
NC
Appendix C - 168
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
100.00
ND
630.49
1,361.08
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
1,588.37
NC
1,588.37
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
12.85
NC
05
40. 00
ND
10.57
26.00
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
231.70
NC
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
265.60
NC
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,903.90
NC
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
580.24
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
149.80
NC
08
939.23
NC
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
427.25
NC
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
4,452.12
NC
94 . 93
1,479.65
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
1,268.75
NC
1,268.75
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
10.00
26.00
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
115.70
NC
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
136.65
NC
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
350.47
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
6,320.77
NC
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
237.95
NC
Appendix C - 169
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
920.58
NC
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
5, 126.04
NC
48.33
3,151.33
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
175.49
NC
05
2,704.00
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
62. 96
NC
05
841.60
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
52. 93
NC
05
6,704.00
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
13. 52
NC
05
4,69 9.00
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
103.90
NC
05
3,828.00
NC
81.76
3,755.32
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
20.79
NC
07
338.70
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
405.75
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
430.82
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
26.22
NC
07
5, 213.30
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
167.56
NC
07
9,107.10
NC
57.3 9
3,099.13
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
799.90
NC
08
49,015.68
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
1,509.45
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
1,086.42
NC
08
1,234.10
NC
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
1,839.82
NC
08
22,114.00
NC
1,242.05
18,468.31
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
1,324.85
NC
1,324.85
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
30,170.00
NC
05
19,410.00
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
27,405.00
NC
05
41,850.00
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
32,270.00
NC
05
34,150.00
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
36,790.00
NC
05
36,180.00
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
26,770.00
NC
05
48,640.00
NC
30,681.00
36,046.00
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
2,613.00
NC
07
2,641.00
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
3,700.50
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
6,382.90
NC
07
6,535.40
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
16,329.90
NC
07
20,000.00
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
18,717.70
NC
07
20,000.00
NC
11,010.88
10,575.38
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
2,483.00
NC
08
3,184.00
NC
Appendix C - 170
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
4,583.00
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
5,149.90
NC
08
11,806.60
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
42,594.00
NC
08
7,694.40
NC
16,742.30
6,817.00
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
30,195.00
NC
30,195.00
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
107.81
NC
05
1,312.85
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
68. 95
NC
05
642.40
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
28.89
NC
05
4,275.00
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
3, 299.00
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
74.37
NC
05
2,711.00
NC
58.00
2,448.05
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
158.65
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
113.35
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
27.12
NC
07
2,522.70
NC
18.03
798.94
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
228.10
NC
08
22,763.39
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
437.10
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
238.50
NC
08
1,137.25
NC
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
269.94
NC
08
3,368.60
NC
245.51
6,926.59
PYRENE
12 9-00-0
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
129.24
NC
129.24
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
28.58
NC
05
77.45
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
98. 62
NC
05
13. 59
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
248.80
NC
05
40. 00
ND
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
79.20
38 .21
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
1,408.50
NC
07
838.20
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
558.50
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
760.99
NC
07
1,280.12
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
309.61
NC
07
1,000.00
ND
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
624 .78
795.36
Appendix C - 171
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
1,531.60
NC
08
953.92
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
248.65
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
653.81
NC
08
100.00
ND
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
761.80
425.64
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
52.17
NC
52.17
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
93. 34
NC
05
20. 00
ND
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
93. 06
NC
05
10. 00
ND
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
94.81
NC
05
40. 00
ND
60.24
26.00
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
288.50
NC
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
552.20
NC
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
314.54
NC
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
491.05
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
158.20
NC
08
842.56
NC
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
432.20
NC
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
97 .73
443.69
STYRENE
100-42-5
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
140.70
NC
140.70
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
22.09
NC
05
23. 54
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
15. 52
NC
05
117.71
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
13.52
34 .25
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
140.16
NC
07
1,783.70
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
773.50
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
717.57
NC
07
1,750.76
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
108.54
NC
07
1,119.53
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
155.10
NC
07
687.62
NC
280.34
1,223.02
Appendix C - 172
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value Fac.
(ug/1) ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl
Infl Amount Meas Facility Facility
(ug/1) Type Effl Mean Infl Mean
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-
127-18-
127-18-
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
10.00 4814B
16SEP96
17SEP96
18SEP96
10
1,037.60 NC
486.42 NC
08
08
08
2,747.00
2,810.50
764.33
NC
NC
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
487.68
NC
08
4,140.00
NC
670.57
2,615.46
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
2,018.00
NC
05
1,410.15
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
4,348.00
NC
05
3,802.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
3,500.00
NC
05
1,927.20
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
2,950.00
NC
05
3,624.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
3,383.00
NC
05
9,391.00
NC
3,239.80
4,030.87
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
3,111.00
NC
07
9,633.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
8,192.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
4,961.20
NC
07
14,831.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
2,622.60
NC
07
4,367.60
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
3,757.90
NC
07
10,013.50
NC
3,613.18
9,407.42
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
9,432.00
NC
08
17,007.00
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
18,412.50
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
8,245.15
NC
08
13,071.10
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
8,111.40
NC
08
41,507.00
NC
8,596.18
22,499.40
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
651
10JUL97
01
1,500.00
NC
1,500.00
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
10.00
10.00
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
145.35
NC
07
428.20
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
511.90
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
270.79
NC
07
968.14
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
170.96
NC
07
490.89
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
191.29
NC
07
396.29
NC
194.60
559.08
Appendix C - 173
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Baseline
Value
Fac.
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10
00
4814B
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10
00
4814B
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10
00
4814B
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10
00
4814B
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4813
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4813
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4813
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4813
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4813
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4814A
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4814A
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4814A
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4814A
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4814A
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4814B
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4814B
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4814B
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
4814B
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL
METHYL
ET
20324-33-8
99
00
651
1,1,1-TRICHLGROETHANE
71-55-6
10
00
4813
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10
00
4813
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10
00
4813
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10
00
4813
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10
00
4813
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10
00
4814A
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10
00
4814A
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10
00
4814A
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10
00
4814A
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10
00
4814A
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
10.
00
4814B
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Effl
Infl
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
16SEP96
10
454
90
NC
08
983.00
NC
17SEP96
08
784.40
NC
18SEP96
10
1, 103
17
NC
08
1,533.16
NC
19SEP96
10
1, 875
83
NC
08
7,125.30
NC
1,144.63
2,606.47
04AUG96
07
99
00
ND
05
198.00
ND
05AUG96
07
5, 499
50
NC
05
99. 00
ND
0 6AUG96
07
11,663
00
NC
05
198.00
ND
07AUG96
07
35, 270
00
NC
05
396.00
ND
08AUG96
07
103,984
00
NC
05
47,535.00
NC
31,303.10
9,685.20
16SEP96
09
8, 054
90
NC
07
2,301.04
NC
17SEP96
07
6,382.55
NC
18SEP96
09
148
50
ND
07
1,980.00
ND
19SEP96
09
198
00
ND
07
9,900.00
ND
20SEP96
09
198
00
ND
07
2,970.00
ND
2,149.85
4,706.72
16SEP96
10
99
00
ND
08
5, 187.26
NC
17SEP96
08
1,495.25
NC
18SEP96
10
346
50
ND
08
990.00
ND
19SEP96
10
990
00
ND
08
3,960.00
ND
478.50
2,908.13
03MAR98
01
6,428.70
NC
6, 428.70
04AUG96
07
33
76
NC
05
10.23
NC
05AUG96
07
24
78
NC
05
10. 00
ND
0 6AUG96
07
19
03
NC
05
10. 41
NC
07AUG96
07
10
00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
08AUG96
07
15
72
NC
05
10. 00
ND
20.66
10.13
16SEP96
09
105
69
NC
07
324.20
NC
17SEP96
07
444.80
NC
18SEP96
09
136
41
NC
07
544.84
NC
19SEP96
09
73
82
NC
07
146.84
NC
20SEP96
09
113
26
NC
07
194.20
NC
107.30
330.98
16SEP96
10
192
50
NC
08
320.40
NC
Appendix C - 174
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
1,1,1-TRICHLGROETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
592.70
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
263.14
NC
08
356.34
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
199.17
NC
08
200.00
NC
218.27
367.36
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
10.00
10.00
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
73. 58
NC
07
274.96
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
54. 94
NC
07
101.34
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
98.13
NC
07
163.73
NC
59.16
112.01
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
10. 57
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
484.76
NC
08
754.45
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
644.65
NC
08
1,967.90
NC
379.80
685.73
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
10.00
26.00
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
187.09
NC
07
2,119.00
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
4,834.50
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
105.31
NC
07
8,155.60
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
18,899.10
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
207.90
NC
07
4,736.61
NC
130.07
7,748.96
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
179.50
NC
08
6,272.32
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
359.15
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
440.26
NC
1,2,4-TRICHL0R0BENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
104.83
1,867.93
Appendix C - 175
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
1,2,4-TRICHLGROBENZENE
120-82-1
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
1,2-DICHL0R0BENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
1,2-DICHL0R0BENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
1,2-DICHL0R0BENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
1,2-DICHL0R0BENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
1,2-DICHL0R0BENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
10.00
26.00
1,2-DICHL0R0BENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
29. 58
NC
07
180.70
NC
1,2-DICHL0R0BENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
301.75
NC
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
1,2-DICHL0R0BENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
21.15
396.49
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
4,185.62
NC
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
170.96
NC
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
1,214.14
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
1,2-DICHL0R0ETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
1,2-DICHL0R0ETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
1,2-DICHL0R0ETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
10.00
10.00
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
161.60
NC
07
223.30
NC
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
376.71
NC
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
233.15
NC
07
349.54
NC
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
165.42
NC
07
147.33
NC
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
182.51
NC
07
279.70
NC
185.67
275.31
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
165.16
NC
08
137.04
NC
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
569.35
NC
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
566.13
NC
08
713.39
NC
Appendix C - 176
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Baseline
Value
Fac.
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
1,2-DICHL0R0ETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
4814B
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4813
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4813
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4813
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4813
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4813
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814A
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814A
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814A
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814A
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814A
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814B
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814B
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814B
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
4814B
1,4-DICHL0R0BENZENE
106-46-7
10.00
651
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4813
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4813
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4813
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4813
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4813
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814A
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814A
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814A
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814A
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814A
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814B
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814B
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814B
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
10.00
4814B
ouDL-ateyuiy W-L_l^ ujjiiui.
(continued)
Effl
Infl
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
19SEP96
10
347.10
NC
08
200.00
NC
359.46
404.95
04AUG96
07
o
o
o
ND
05
20. 00
ND
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
08AUG96
07
o
o
o
ND
05
o
o
o
ND
10.00
26.00
16SEP96
09
83. 63
NC
07
622.70
NC
17SEP96
07
94 9.90
NC
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
2,333.60
NC
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,472.82
NC
34 .66
1,115.80
16SEP96
10
285.10
NC
08
1,261.98
NC
17SEP96
08
454.35
NC
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
786.40
NC
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
140.03
725.68
03MAR98
01
o
o
o
ND
20.00
04AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
10.00
10.00
16SEP96
09
o
o
o
ND
07
10. 00
ND
17SEP96
07
10. 00
ND
18SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
19SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
20SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
10. 00
ND
10.00
10.00
16SEP96
10
o
o
o
ND
08
10. 00
ND
17SEP96
08
10. 00
ND
18SEP96
10
o
o
o
ND
08
10. 00
ND
19SEP96
10
o
o
o
ND
08
o
o
o
ND
10.00
10.00
Appendix C - 177
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
54.83
NC
05
136.41
NC
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
42.06
NC
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
1,066.00
NC
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
1,103.00
NC
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
18 . 97
477.49
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
111.35
NC
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
326.27
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
5,802.82
NC
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
152.35
NC
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
877.72
NC
48.33
1,733.22
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
123.11
NC
05
230.97
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
95. 91
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
7,111.00
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
1,247.00
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
1,805.10
NC
32 . 62
2,098.00
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
91.72
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
332.34
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
5,063.10
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
132.35
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
118.97
NC
08
454.15
NC
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
1,783.32
NC
76.32
1,858.23
Appendix C - 178
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
186.72
NC
186.72
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
227.76
NC
05
367.00
NC
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
17.13
NC
05
164.17
NC
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
608.00
NC
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
2,755.00
NC
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
161.80
NC
54 . 98
811.19
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
318.00
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
25. 41
NC
08
461.22
NC
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
53.47
245.30
2,3-BENZ0FLU0RENE
243-17-4
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
1,031.70
NC
05
1,310.95
NC
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
1,392.80
NC
05
807.50
NC
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
920.90
NC
05
2,171.00
NC
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
1,810.40
NC
05
1,415.00
NC
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
1,509.00
NC
05
40. 00
ND
1,332.96
1,148.89
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
195.07
NC
07
20. 00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
76.15
NC
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
62.52
319.23
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
165.10
NC
08
565.63
NC
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
100.03
271.41
Appendix C - 179
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas
Type
Facility
Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-
10.00 651
03MAR98
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4813
04AUG96
07
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4813
05AUG96
07
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4813
07AUG96
07
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4813
08AUG96
07
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
1,971.00
NC
05
1,677.50
NC
2,495.00
NC
05
2,045.50
NC
2,536.80
NC
05
1,958.90
NC
1,291.20
NC
05
568.00
NC
922.20
NC
05
752.11
NC
1,843.24
1,400.40
12,517.00
NC
07
9,409.50
NC
07
10,014.75
NC
14,239.75
NC
07
24,073.10
NC
10,974.10
NC
07
7,922.42
NC
7,830.93
NC
07
15,908.50
NC
11,390.45
13,465.65
18,821.00
NC
08
16,941.00
NC
08
8,489.45
NC
22,391.35
NC
08
29,965.20
NC
32,832.90
NC
08
41,713.20
NC
24,681.75
24,277.21
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
10. 00
ND
05
20. 00
ND
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
10. 00
ND
05
40. 00
ND
10.00
26.00
o
o
o
ND
07
20. 00
ND
07
70. 00
ND
o
o
Lf)
ND
07
200.00
ND
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
318.00
o
o
o
ND
08
o
o
o
ND
08
20. 00
ND
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
100.00 ND 08
400.00 ND
Appendix C - 180
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
2-IS0PR0PYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
204.82
NC
05
486.92
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
127.04
NC
05
147.66
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
129.70
NC
05
1,309.60
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
3,912.00
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
286.60
NC
05
1,997.80
NC
151.63
1,570.80
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
245.78
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1,517.95
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
3,262.32
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
242.06
NC
07
11,672.10
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
375.25
NC
07
10,554.18
NC
160.58
5,450.47
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
565.10
NC
08
46,108.35
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
2,236.10
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
6,044.74
NC
08
3,768.78
NC
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
2,148.52
NC
08
17,493.24
NC
2,919.45
17,401.62
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
3,259.30
NC
3,259.30
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4813
04AUG96
07
16,850.00
NC
05
9,921.90
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4813
05AUG96
07
19,953.00
NC
05
19,677.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
26,234.00
NC
05
22,446.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4813
07AUG96
07
21,557.00
NC
05
17,384.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4813
08AUG96
07
14,801.00
NC
05
8,999.70
NC
19,879.00
15,685.72
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
78,550.00
NC
07
50. 00
ND
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
54,524.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
98,102.45
NC
07
128,750.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
91,761.70
NC
07
98,965.40
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
77,859.20
NC
07
100,000.00
NC
86,568.34
7 6,457.88
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
129,610.00
NC
08
69,310.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
50,852.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
235,806.00
NC
08
292,399.00
NC
2-PR0PAN0NE
67-64-1
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
303,963.00
NC
08
306,491.00
NC
223,126.33
179,763.00
Appendix C - 181
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl Amount
(ug/1)
Infl
Meas Facility
Type Effl Mean
Facility
Infl Mean
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
215.49
NC
05
375.71
NC
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
16.16
NC
05
114.04
NC
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
506.00
NC
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
2,762.00
NC
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
428.30
NC
52.33
837.21
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
10. 00
ND
07
20. 00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
70. 00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
15. 00
ND
07
200.00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
20. 00
ND
07
300.00
ND
16.25
318.00
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
20. 00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
35. 00
ND
08
100.00
ND
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
400.00
ND
48.33
132.50
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67-6
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
20. 00
ND
20.00
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4813
04AUG96
07
596.90
NC
05
1,221.05
NC
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4813
05AUG96
07
1,029.65
NC
05
1,257.80
NC
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
1,308.40
NC
05
1,570.10
NC
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4813
07AUG96
07
332.00
NC
05
460.00
NC
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4813
08AUG96
07
10. 00
ND
05
10. 00
ND
655.39
903.79
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
863.50
NC
07
1, 128.90
NC
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
1, 030.05
NC
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
541.22
NC
07
100.00
ND
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
684.84
NC
07
1,000.00
ND
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
100.00
ND
07
1,000.00
ND
547.39
851.79
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
10. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
10. 00
ND
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
55. 00
ND
08
10. 00
ND
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
100.00
ND
08
100.00
ND
55.00
32.50
Appendix C - 182
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Oils 0ption=9
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
651
03MAR98
01
443.90
NC
443.90
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4813
04AUG96
07
586.08
NC
05
664.41
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4813
05AUG96
07
1,507.73
NC
05
1,228.42
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4813
0 6AUG96
07
889.57
NC
05
627.18
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4813
07AUG96
07
611.44
NC
05
430.83
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4813
08AUG96
07
1,181.47
NC
05
2,238.88
NC
955.26
1,037.94
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814A
16SEP96
09
8,828.00
NC
07
20,489.00
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814A
17SEP96
07
17,153.00
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814A
18SEP96
09
5,262.31
NC
07
10,142.92
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814A
19SEP96
09
7,026.06
NC
07
11,121.62
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814A
20SEP96
09
15,168.14
NC
07
18,383.03
NC
9,071.13
15,457.91
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814B
16SEP96
10
8,258.00
NC
08
9,404.60
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814B
17SEP96
08
15,807.50
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814B
18SEP96
10
6,316.73
NC
08
5,965.35
NC
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
4814B
19SEP96
10
5, 299.88
NC
08
3,821.82
NC
6,624.87
8,749.82
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
1, 100
000
00
NC
07B
1,900,000.00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
1, 100
000
00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
1, 100
000
00
NC
07B
2,400,000.00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
1, 000
000
00
NC
07B
880,000.00
NC
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
50.
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
1, 000
000
00
NC
07B
1,400,000.00
NC
1,060,000.00
1,645,000.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
5, 200
000
00
NC
07B
5, 800, 000.00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
400
000
00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
4, 000
000
00
NC
07B
7,550,000.00
NC
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2,000.
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
1, 100
000
00
NC
07B
4,100,000.00
NC
Appendix C - 183
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
2, 000
.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
1,500,000
. 00
NC
07B
6,000,000
. 00
NC
2,440,000.00
5,862,500.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
3,700,000
. 00
NC
07B
11,000,000
. 00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
3,400,000
. 00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
3,300,000
. 00
NC
07B
10,500,000
. 00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
3,200,000
. 00
NC
07B
6,500,000
. 00
NC
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
5, 000
.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
4,200,000
. 00
NC
07B
7,900,000
. 00
NC
3,560,000.00
8,975,000.00
D-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-004D
5,000.
00
1987
16JUL90
12
2,600,000.
00
NC
07B
9,900,000.
00
NC
D-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-004D
5,000.
00
1987
17JUL90
12
2,300,000.
00
NC
D-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-004D
5,000.
00
1987
18JUL90
12
2,700,000.
00
NC
07B
9,050,000.
00
NC
D-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-004D
5,000.
00
1987
19JUL90
12
2,900,000.
00
NC
07B
6,100,000.
00
NC
D-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-004D
5,000.
00
1987
20JUL90
12
3,500,000.
00
NC
07B
7,900,000.
00
NC
2,800,000.00
8,237,500.00
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
5, 300
. 00
NC
07B
740
. 00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
4, 700
. 00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
4, 300
. 00
NC
07B
1, 950
. 00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
4, 000
. 00
NC
07B
600
. 00
NC
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
100
.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
21,000
. 00
NC
07B
1, 600
. 00
NC
7,860.00
1,222.50
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
5, 500
. 00
NC
07B
100,000
. 00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
5, 300
. 00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
200
. 00
ND
07B
340,000
. 00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
200
. 00
ND
07B
160,000
. 00
NC
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
50
.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
200
. 00
ND
07B
320,000
. 00
NC
2,280.00
230,000.00
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
980
. 00
NC
07B
800
. 00
NC
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
890
. 00
NC
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
4, 300
. 00
NC
07B
3, 600
. 00
NC
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
3, 800
. 00
NC
07B
7, 800
. 00
NC
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
20
.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
910
. 00
NC
07B
880
. 00
NC
2,176.00
3,270.00
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
840,000
. 00
NC
07B
3,300,000
. 00
NC
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
750,000
. 00
NC
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
940,000
. 00
NC
07B
3,750,000
. 00
NC
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
1,200,000
. 00
NC
07B
2,100,000
. 00
NC
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1, 000
.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
1,300,000
. 00
NC
07B
2,800,000
. 00
NC
1,006,000.00
2,987,500.00
Appendix C - 184
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
3aseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TOTAL SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1
000
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
2, 000
00
NC
07B
4,000.
00
NC
TOTAL SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1
000
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
2, 000
00
NC
TOTAL SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1
000
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
1, 000
00
ND
07B
12,000.
00
NC
TOTAL SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1
000
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
4, 000
00
NC
07B
1,000.
00
ND
TOTAL SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1
000
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
5, 000
00
NC
07B
24,000.
00
NC
2,800.00
10,250.00
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
480,000
00
NC
07B
3,700,000.
00
NC
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
400,000
00
NC
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
700,000
00
NC
07B
680,000.
00
NC
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
480,000
00
NC
07B
580,000.
00
NC
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4
000
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
340,000
00
NC
07B
780,000.
00
NC
480,000.00
1,435,000.00
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
1, 700
00
NC
07B
7,660.
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
2, 060
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
2, 550
00
NC
07B
7,310.
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
2, 720
00
NC
07B
6,440.
00
NC
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
200
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
3, 340
00
NC
07B
2,480.
00
NC
2,474.00
5,972.50
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
550
00
NC
07B
337.
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
537
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
811
00
NC
07B
1,540.
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
475
00
NC
07B
146.
00
NC
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
20
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
474
00
NC
07B
1,390.
00
NC
569.40
853.25
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
166
00
NC
07B
47.
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
167
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
153
00
NC
07B
85.
00
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
187
90
NC
07B
77.
20
NC
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
10
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
151
40
NC
07B
151.
80
NC
165.06
90.25
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
2, 370
00
NC
07B
2,190.
00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
2, 150
00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
2, 510
00
NC
07B
1,335.
00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
3, 130
00
NC
07B
1,160.
00
NC
BARIUM
7440-39-3
200
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
3, 670
00
NC
07B
1,030.
00
NC
2,766.00
1, 428 .75
Appendix C - 185
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
3, 500
00
NC
07B
4,010.
00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
3, 990
00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
3, 630
00
NC
07B
3,100.
00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
3, 690
00
NC
07B
3,070.
00
NC
BORON
7440-42-8
100
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
3, 890
00
NC
07B
4,320.
00
NC
3,740.00
3,625.00
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
136,000
00
NC
07B
1,200,000.
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
160,000
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
270,000
00
NC
07B
1,025,000.
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
367,000
00
NC
07B
1, 220, 000.
00
NC
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
5, 000
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
497,000
00
NC
07B
1,390,000.
00
NC
286,000.00
1,208,750.00
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
172
00
NC
07B
274.
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
183
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
173
00
NC
07B
102.
50
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
172
00
NC
07B
63.
00
NC
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
10
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
192
00
NC
07B
95.
00
NC
178.40
133.63
COBALT
7440-48-4
50
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
461
00
NC
07B
593.
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
464
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
415
00
NC
07B
731.
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
412
00
NC
07B
253.
00
NC
COBALT
7440-48-4
50
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
434
00
NC
07B
538.
00
NC
437.20
528 .75
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
731
00
NC
07B
2,690.
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
795
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
683
00
NC
07B
438.
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
622
00
NC
07B
537.
00
NC
COPPER
7440-50-8
25
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
687
00
NC
07B
877.
00
NC
703.60
1,135.50
IODINE
7553-56-2
1, 000
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
15,500
00
NC
07B
6,600.
00
NC
IODINE
7553-56-2
1, 000
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
12,400
00
NC
IODINE
7553-56-2
1, 000
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
15,700
00
NC
07B
4,850.
00
NC
IODINE
7553-56-2
1, 000
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
8, 300
00
NC
07B
3,800.
00
NC
IODINE
7553-56-2
1, 000
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
8, 700
00
NC
07B
15,100.
00
NC
12,120.00
7,587.50
IRON
7439-89-6
100.
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
3, 790
00
NC
07B
6,430.
00
NC
Appendix C -
186
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
4, 100
00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
3, 860
00
NC
07B
3,405.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
3, 840
00
NC
07B
2,360.00
NC
IRON
7439-89-6
100.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
4, 150
00
NC
07B
3,770.00
NC
3,948.00
3,991.25
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
152
00
NC
07B
687.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
219
00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
404
00
NC
07B
108.50
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
350
00
NC
07B
461.00
NC
LEAD
7439-92-1
50.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
444
00
NC
07B
392.00
NC
313.80
412.13
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
25, 000
00
NC
07B
4,700.00
NC
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
23,800
00
NC
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
19,500
00
NC
07B
18,750.00
NC
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
26, 900
00
NC
07B
10,500.00
NC
LITHIUM
7439-93-2
100.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
25, 000
00
NC
07B
13,600.00
NC
24,040.00
11,887.50
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
242
00
NC
07B
226.00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
245
00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
218
00
NC
07B
190.00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
205
00
NC
07B
179.00
NC
MANGANESE
7439-96-5
15.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
225
00
NC
07B
353.00
NC
227.00
237.00
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
931
00
NC
07B
562.00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
989
00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
938
00
NC
07B
752.50
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
916
00
NC
07B
527.00
NC
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
940
00
NC
07B
6,950.00
NC
942.80
2,197.88
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
5, 980
00
NC
07B
2,460.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
6, 350
00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
5, 820
00
NC
07B
1,565.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
5, 390
00
NC
07B
1, 470.00
NC
NICKEL
7440-02-0
40.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
5, 470
00
NC
07B
2,610.00
NC
5,802.00
2,026.25
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1,000.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
6, 100
00
NC
07B
5,700.00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1,000.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
6, 200
00
NC
Appendix C - 187
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
6, 000
00
NC
07B
3,000.
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
7, 000
00
NC
07B
3,100.
00
NC
PHOSPHORUS
7723-14-0
1, 000
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
6, 900
00
NC
07B
15,900.
00
NC
6,440.00
6,925.00
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
1,760,000
00
NC
07B
1,180,000.
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
1,730,000
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
1,530,000
00
NC
07B
1,055,000.
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
1,740,000
00
NC
07B
1,010,000.
00
NC
POTASSIUM
7440-09-7
1, 000
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
1,730,000
00
NC
07B
1,240,000.
00
NC
1,698,000.00
1,121,250.00
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
2, 300
00
NC
07B
3,000.
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
2, 600
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
1, 800
00
NC
07B
1,550.
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
3, 300
00
NC
07B
3,100.
00
NC
SILICON
7440-21-3
100
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
3, 400
00
NC
07B
3,600.
00
NC
2,680.00
2,812.50
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
6,120,000
00
NC
07B
6,390,000.
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
6,130,000
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
5,570,000
00
NC
07B
5,855,000.
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
5,360,000
00
NC
07B
3,500,000.
00
NC
SODIUM
7440-23-5
5, 000
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
5,060,000
00
NC
07B
4,080,000.
00
NC
5,648,000.00
4,956,250.00
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
1, 600
00
NC
07B
3,900.
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
1, 500
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
1, 800
00
NC
07B
4,350.
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
2, 600
00
NC
07B
5,700.
00
NC
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
100
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
2, 800
00
NC
07B
6,400.
00
NC
2,060.00
5,087.50
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
1,420,000
00
NC
07B
1,990,000.
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
1,440,000
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
1,190,000
00
NC
07B
1,715,000.
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
1,440,000
00
NC
07B
972,000.
00
NC
SULFUR
7704-34-9
1, 000
00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
1,360,000
00
NC
07B
1,730,000.
00
NC
1,370,000.00
1,601,750.00
TIN
7440-31-5
30
00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
2, 150
00
NC
07B
2,530.
00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30
00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
1, 900
00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30
00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
1, 710
00
NC
07B
381.
00
NC
Appendix C - 188
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl
Effl Amount
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Infl
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
1,570.00
NC
07B
209.00
NC
TIN
7440-31-5
30.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
1,460.00
NC
07B
200.00
NC
1,758.00
830.00
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
62.00
NC
07B
64.00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
44.00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
39. 00
NC
07B
19. 50
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
47.00
NC
07B
20. 00
NC
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
5.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
34.00
NC
07B
22.00
NC
45.20
31.38
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
334.00
NC
07B
516.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
367.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
359.00
NC
07B
1,170.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
395.00
NC
07B
971.00
NC
ZINC
7440-66-6
20.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
454.00
NC
07B
1,210.00
NC
381.80
966.75
ACETOPHENONE
98-86-2
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
336.24
NC
ACETOPHENONE
98-86-2
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
ACETOPHENONE
98-86-2
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
12.50
ND
07B
738.57
NC
ACETOPHENONE
98-86-2
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
466.68
NC
ACETOPHENONE
98-86-2
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
136.86
NC
07B
357.47
NC
35.87
474.74
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
391.78
NC
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
12.50
ND
07B
177.73
NC
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
ANILINE
62-53-3
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
10.50
147.38
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
178.73
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
132.67
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
143.18
NC
BENZENE
71-43-2
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
9 6.64
NC
10.00
137.80
BENZOIC ACID
BENZOIC ACID
BENZOIC ACID
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
65-85-0
65-85-0
65-85-0
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
1987
1987
1987
1987
16 JUL 9 0
17 JUL 9 0
18 JUL 9 0
19 JUL 9 0
12
12
12
12
50. 00
500.00
500.00
50. 00
ND
ND
ND
ND
07B
07B
15,759.52 NC
5, 648.98 NC
500.00 ND
Appendix C - 189
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
50.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
500.00
ND
07B
500.00
ND
320.00
5,602.13
B ROMO DICHL0ROME THANE
75-27-4
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
26. 43
NC
B ROMO DICHL0ROME THANE
75-27-4
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
B ROMO DICHL0ROME THANE
75-27-4
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
72.85
NC
B ROMO DICHL0ROME THANE
75-27-4
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
75. 35
NC
B ROMO DICHL0ROME THANE
75-27-4
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
51.18
NC
10.00
56.45
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
21.28
NC
07B
10. 00
ND
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
56. 33
NC
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
23. 50
NC
07B
36. 03
NC
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
17. 62
NC
07B
13. 91
NC
16.48
29.07
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
101.18
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
70. 39
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
71. 09
NC
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
94. 63
NC
10.00
84.32
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
5,224.40
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
31.23
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
90. 48
NC
07B
10,621.05
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
114.83
NC
07B
9,751.60
NC
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
116.57
NC
07B
10. 00
ND
72 . 62
6,401.76
DIMETHYL SULFONE
67-71-0
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
DIMETHYL SULFONE
67-71-0
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
DIMETHYL SULFONE
67-71-0
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
217.11
NC
07B
314.82
NC
DIMETHYL SULFONE
67-71-0
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
393.84
NC
07B
355.76
NC
DIMETHYL SULFONE
67-71-0
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
157.55
NC
07B
891.53
NC
157.70
393.03
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
96-45-7
20.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
20. 00
ND
07B
20. 00
ND
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
96-45-7
20.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
21,916.17
NC
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
96-45-7
20.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
25. 00
ND
07B
9,654.59
NC
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
96-45-7
20.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
20. 00
ND
07B
8,306.27
NC
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
96-45-7
20.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
20. 00
ND
07B
20. 00
ND
4,400.23
4,500.21
Appendix C - 190
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp
Pt (ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
HEXACHLORGETHANE
67-72-1
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
101.30
NC
HEXACHLOROETHANE
67-72-1
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
HEXACHLOROETHANE
67-72-1
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
12.50
ND
07B
74.56
NC
HEXACHLOROETHANE
67-72-1
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
HEXACHLOROETHANE
67-72-1
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
10.50
48 .96
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
1,111.19
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
07B
100.00
ND
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
1,422.19
NC
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
07B
4,962.98
NC
64.00
1,899.09
ISOPHORONE
78-59-1
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
60. 36
NC
ISOPHORONE
78-59-1
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
ISOPHORONE
78-59-1
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
12.50
ND
07B
11.25
ND
ISOPHORONE
78-59-1
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
26. 93
NC
07B
10. 00
ND
ISOPHORONE
78-59-1
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
141.09
NC
13.89
55. 67
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
58.41
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
55. 58
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
92.88
NC
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
309.54
NC
10.00
129.10
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
46.15
NC
07B
33,112.60
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
73. 34
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
198.43
NC
07B
87,256.00
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
313.14
NC
07B
40,324.20
NC
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
391.33
NC
07B
10. 00
ND
204.48
40,175.70
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
12.50
ND
07B
23. 35
NC
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
132.45
NC
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
225.19
NC
10.50
97 .75
Appendix C - 191
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
G+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
13. 08
NC
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
24.09
NC
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
35. 68
NC
0+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
112.83
NC
10.00
46.42
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10,515.96
NC
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
177.07
NC
07B
7,161.95
NC
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
13,788.60
NC
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
716.84
NC
07B
14,313.17
NC
184 .78
11,444.92
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
21.21
NC
07B
406.33
NC
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
07B
275.01
NC
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
219.72
NC
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
07B
910.98
NC
66.24
453.01
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
87-86-5
50.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
69 9.63
NC
07B
657.11
NC
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
87-86-5
50.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
96 6.67
NC
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
87-86-5
50.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
597.42
NC
07B
1,205.07
NC
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
87-86-5
50.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
611.06
NC
07B
1,353.90
NC
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
87-86-5
50.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
1,080.97
NC
07B
904.18
NC
791.15
1,030.06
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
369.91
NC
07B
1,156.50
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
1,410.24
NC
07B
552.95
NC
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
PHENOL
108-95-2
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
9,491.00
NC
362.03
2,802.61
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
40. 35
NC
07B
444.39
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
151.52
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
118.39
NC
07B
131.74
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
166.93
NC
07B
276.73
NC
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
105.13
NC
07B
363.21
NC
116.46
304.02
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
2,234.50
NC
Appendix C - 192
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Value
Sample Effl
Effl Amount
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Infl
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
18.44
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
55.19
NC
07B
6,808.45
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
342.45
NC
07B
6,001.50
NC
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
134.37
NC
07B
10. 00
ND
112.09
3,763.61
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
56-23-5
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
1,917.34
NC
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
56-23-5
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
56-23-5
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
2,258.65
NC
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
56-23-5
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
32.18
NC
07B
3,222.10
NC
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
56-23-5
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
1,861.57
NC
14.44
2,314.91
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
147.65
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
181.83
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
186.40
NC
TOLUENE
108-88-3
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
2,053.04
NC
10.00
642 .23
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
156605
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
1,216.77
NC
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
156605
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 46
NC
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
156605
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
27. 61
NC
07B
1,818.02
NC
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
156605
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
28. 95
NC
07B
1,621.02
NC
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
156605
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
30. 56
NC
07B
1,170.94
NC
21.51
1,456.69
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
3,551.30
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
24.12
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
72.53
NC
07B
9,8 9 6.60
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
132.85
NC
07B
9,374.40
NC
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
107.61
NC
07B
10. 00
ND
69.42
5,708.07
VINYL
CHLORIDE
75-01-4
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
VINYL
CHLORIDE
75-01-4
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
VINYL
CHLORIDE
75-01-4
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
VINYL
CHLORIDE
75-01-4
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
VINYL
CHLORIDE
75-01-4
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
o
o
o
ND
07B
289.78 NC
485.
439.
309.
16 NC
54 NC
70 NC
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
630-20-6
630-20-6
10.00
10.00
1987
1987
16 JUL 9 0
17 JUL 9 0
12
12
10. 00
10. 00
ND
ND
249.38 NC
Appendix C - 193
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline
Effl
Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLQROETHANE
630-20-6
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
644.17
NC
1,1,1,2-TETRACHL0R0ETHANE
630-20-6
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
577.17
NC
1,1,1,2-TETRACHL0R0ETHANE
630-20-6
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
345.53
NC
10.00
454.06
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
320.26
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
191.22
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
199.24
NC
1,1,1-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
71-55-6
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
181.20
NC
10.00
222.98
1,1,2,2-TETRACHL0R0ETHANE
79-34-5
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
1,1,2,2-TETRACHL0R0ETHANE
79-34-5
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
1,1,2,2-TETRACHL0R0ETHANE
79-34-5
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
1,1,2,2-TETRACHL0R0ETHANE
79-34-5
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
1,1,2,2-TETRACHL0R0ETHANE
79-34-5
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
10.00
10.00
1,1,2-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
79-00-5
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
776.18
NC
1,1,2-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
79-00-5
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
1,1,2-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
79-00-5
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
12.03
NC
07B
1,858.74
NC
1,1,2-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
79-00-5
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
17. 64
NC
07B
1,747.42
NC
1,1,2-TRICHL0R0ETHANE
79-00-5
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
16. 80
NC
07B
1,143.33
NC
13.30
1,381.42
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHANE
75-34-3
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
105.50
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHANE
75-34-3
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHANE
75-34-3
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
69. 97
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHANE
75-34-3
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
72.58
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHANE
75-34-3
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
108.22
NC
10.00
89.07
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
188.11
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
177.86
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
156.58
NC
1,1-DICHL0R0ETHENE
75-35-4
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
111.98
NC
10.00
158.63
1,2,3-TRICHL0R0PR0PANE
96-18-4
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
99. 54
NC
1,2,3-TRICHL0R0PR0PANE
96-18-4
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
1,2,3-TRICHL0R0PR0PANE
96-18-4
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
139.61
NC
Appendix C - 194
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl
Infl Amount Meas
(ug/1) Type
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
96-18-4
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
220.08
NC
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
96-18-4
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
144.24
NC
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
106-93-4
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
3,081.42
NC
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
106-93-4
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
106-93-4
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
6,094.49
NC
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
106-93-4
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10.71
NC
07B
5,007.42
NC
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
106-93-4
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
4,575.48
NC
1,2-DICHLGROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
o
o
o
ND
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
13. 40
NC
07B
11.25
ND
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
31. 87
NC
07B
478.69
NC
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
o
o
o
ND
07B
1,393.91
NC
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
5,748.00
NC
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
5,690.00
NC
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
o
o
o
ND
07B
o
o
o
ND
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
142-28-9
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
o
o
o
ND
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
142-28-9
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
142-28-9
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
142-28-9
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
142-28-9
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
58-90-2
20.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
492.70
NC
07B
1,188.50
NC
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
58-90-2
20.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
566.19
NC
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
58-90-2
20.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
523.07
NC
07B
1,638.70
NC
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
58-90-2
20.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
306.00
NC
07B
1,734.32
NC
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
58-90-2
20.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
1,256.83
NC
07B
1,512.36
NC
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
608-27-5
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
o
o
o
ND
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
608-27-5
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
608-27-5
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
12.50
ND
07B
342.54
NC
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
608-27-5
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
o
o
o
ND
07B
o
o
o
ND
Facility Facility
Effl Mean Infl Mean
10.00 150.86
10.14 4,689.70
15.05 127.48
10.00 3,210.48
10.00 10.00
628.96 1,518.47
Appendix C - 195
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Analyte Name
Baseline
Value
(ug/1)
Fac.
ID
Sample Effl
Date Samp Pt
Effl Amount
(ug/1)
Effl
Meas Infl Samp
Type Pt(s)
Infl
Infl Amount Meas
(ug/1) Type
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
608-27-5
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
72. 68
NC
07B
108.83
NC
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
95-95-4
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
83. 47
NC
07B
100.00
ND
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
95-95-4
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
126.70
NC
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
95-95-4
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
07B
125.93
NC
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
95-95-4
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
73. 63
NC
07B
133.00
NC
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
95-95-4
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
07B
113.94
NC
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
88-06-2
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
59. 54
NC
07B
100.00
ND
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
88-06-2
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
88-06-2
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
07B
174.62
NC
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
88-06-2
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
69.27
NC
07B
202.99
NC
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
88-06-2
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
07B
147.98
NC
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
12.50
ND
07B
11.25
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
10. 00
ND
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
10.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
682.85
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
50. 00
ND
07B
2,775.60
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
280.45
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
940.05
NC
07B
1,730.75
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
1,478.24
NC
07B
1,834.52
NC
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
50.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
1,641.86
NC
07B
5,062.50
NC
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
50.00
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
74.22
NC
07B
7,800.40
NC
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
50.00
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
1,211.03
NC
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
50.00
1987
18 JUL 9 0
12
2,999.27
NC
07B
3,017.32
NC
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
50.00
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
50. 00
ND
07B
2,977.26
NC
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
50.00
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
5,971.90
NC
07B
12,435.40
NC
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
56961-20-7
0.80
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
0. 80
ND
07B
0. 80
ND
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
56961-20-7
0.80
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
0. 80
ND
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
56961-20-7
0.80
1987
18 JUL 9 0
07B
1.75
NC
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
56961-20-7
0.80
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
0. 80
ND
07B
0. 80
ND
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
56961-20-7
0.80
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
0. 80
ND
07B
46. 00
NC
Facility Facility
Effl Mean Infl Mean
23.04 117.84
96.76 118.22
85.76 156.40
10.50 178.52
878.12 2,850.84
2,061.28 6,557.60
0.80 12.34
Appendix C - 196
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Baseline Effl Infl
Value
Fac.
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
3,4,6-TRICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
60712-44-9
0
80
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
6.
70
NC
3,4,6-TRICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
60712-44-9
0
80
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
3,4,6-TRICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
60712-44-9
0
80
1987
18 JUL 9 0
07B
11.
90
NC
3,4,6-TRICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
60712-44-9
0
80
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
3,4,6-TRICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
60712-44-9
0
80
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
0.80
5.05
3,4-DICHL0R0PHEN0L
95-77-2
0
80
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
3,4-DICHL0R0PHEN0L
95-77-2
0
80
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
3,4-DICHL0R0PHEN0L
95-77-2
0
80
1987
18 JUL 9 0
07B
81.
00
NC
3,4-DICHL0R0PHEN0L
95-77-2
0
80
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
73
00
NC
07B
96.
00
NC
3,4-DICHL0R0PHEN0L
95-77-2
0
80
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
47
00
NC
07B
71.
00
NC
30.40
62 .20
3,5-DICHL0R0PHEN0L
591-35-5
0
80
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
170.
00
NC
3,5-DICHL0R0PHEN0L
591-35-5
0
80
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
3,5-DICHL0R0PHEN0L
591-35-5
0
80
1987
18 JUL 9 0
07B
135.
40
NC
3,5-DICHL0R0PHEN0L
591-35-5
0
80
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
3,5-DICHL0R0PHEN0L
591-35-5
0
80
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
0.80
76.75
3,6-DICHL0R0CATECH0L
3938-16-7
0
80
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
3,6-DICHL0R0CATECH0L
3938-16-7
0
80
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
3,6-DICHL0R0CATECH0L
3938-16-7
0
80
1987
18 JUL 9 0
07B
12.
40
NC
3,6-DICHL0R0CATECH0L
3938-16-7
0
80
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
3,6-DICHL0R0CATECH0L
3938-16-7
0
80
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
0.80
3.70
4,5,6-TRICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
2668-24-8
0
80
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
4,5,6-TRICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
2668-24-8
0
80
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
4,5,6-TRICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
2668-24-8
0
80
1987
18 JUL 9 0
07B
0.
80
ND
4,5,6-TRICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
2668-24-8
0
80
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
4,5,6-TRICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
2668-24-8
0
80
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
62.
00
NC
0.80
16.10
4,5-DICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
2460-49-3
0
80
1987
16 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
4,5-DICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
2460-49-3
0
80
1987
17 JUL 9 0
12
49
00
NC
4,5-DICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
2460-49-3
0
80
1987
18 JUL 9 0
07B
9.
05
NC
4,5-DICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
2460-49-3
0
80
1987
19 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
4,5-DICHL0R0GUAIAC0L
2460-49-3
0
80
1987
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
0
80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
12.85
2.86
Appendix C - 197
-------
Appendix C: Listing of Data used for the Percent Removal Test and Long Term Averages
Baseline
Value
Fac.
Analyte Name
Cas No
(ug/1)
ID
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
1987
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
1987
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
1987
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
1987
4-CHL0R0-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
10.00
1987
4-CHL0R0PHEN0L
106-48-9
240.00
1987
4-CHL0R0PHEN0L
106-48-9
240.00
1987
4-CHL0R0PHEN0L
106-48-9
240.00
1987
4-CHL0R0PHEN0L
106-48-9
240.00
1987
4-CHL0R0PHEN0L
106-48-9
240.00
1987
4-METHYL-2-PENTANQNE
108-10-1
50.00
1987
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
1987
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
1987
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
1987
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
50.00
1987
5-CHL0R0GUAIAC0L
3743-23-5
160.00
1987
5-CHL0R0GUAIAC0L
3743-23-5
160.00
1987
5-CHL0R0GUAIAC0L
3743-23-5
160.00
1987
5-CHL0R0GUAIAC0L
3743-23-5
160.00
1987
5-CHL0R0GUAIAC0L
3743-23-5
160.00
1987
6-CHL0R0VANILLIN
18268-76-3
0.80
1987
6-CHL0R0VANILLIN
18268-76-3
0.80
1987
6-CHL0R0VANILLIN
18268-76-3
0.80
1987
6-CHL0R0VANILLIN
18268-76-3
0.80
1987
6-CHL0R0VANILLIN
18268-76-3
0.80
1987
Subcategory=Organics 0ption=4
(continued)
Effl
Infl
Sample
Effl
Effl Amount
Meas
Infl Samp
Infl Amount
Meas
Facility
Facility
Date
Samp Pt
(ug/1)
Type
Pt (s)
(ug/1)
Type
Effl Mean
Infl Mean
16 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
100.
00
ND
17 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
18 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
07B
100.
00
ND
19 JUL 9 0
12
10. 00
ND
07B
204.
10
NC
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
100.00
ND
07B
100.
00
ND
64.00
126.02
16 JUL 9 0
12
240.00
ND
07B
1,460.
00
NC
17 JUL 9 0
12
240.00
ND
18 JUL 9 0
07B
1,450.
00
NC
19 JUL 9 0
12
240.00
ND
07B
7,940.
00
NC
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
250.00
NC
07B
7,760.
00
NC
242.50
4,652.50
16 JUL 9 0
12
50. 00
ND
07B
1,599.
69
NC
17 JUL 9 0
12
72.51
NC
18 JUL 9 0
12
178.34
NC
07B
893.
00
NC
19 JUL 9 0
12
191.90
NC
07B
1, 299.
98
NC
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
238.06
NC
07B
4,038.
21
NC
146.16
1,957.72
16 JUL 9 0
12
160.00
ND
07B
160.
00
ND
17 JUL 9 0
12
5,900.00
NC
18 JUL 9 0
07B
160.
00
ND
19 JUL 9 0
12
160.00
ND
07B
160.
00
ND
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
160.00
ND
07B
160.
00
ND
1,595.00
160.00
16 JUL 9 0
12
0. 80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
17 JUL 9 0
12
0. 80
ND
18 JUL 9 0
07B
0.
80
ND
19 JUL 9 0
12
0. 80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
2 0 JUL 9 0
12
0. 80
ND
07B
0.
80
ND
0.80
0.80
Appendix C - 198
-------
Appendix
D
ATTACHMENTS TO CHAPTER 10
This appendix presents Attachment 10-1 through 10-5 which supplement Chapter 10 - Data
Conventions and Calculation of Limitations and Standards. Attachment 10-1 presents the
results of data editing criteria. Attachment 10-2 provides facility-specific long-term averages
and variability factors. Attachment 10-3 lists pollutant-specific long-term averages and variability
factors. Attachment 10-4 presents the group variability factors, while Attachment 10-5 presents the
final limitations.
Appendix D-l
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Metals 0PTI0N=1A
Effluent
CAS Facility Sample
Pollutant Name Number ID Point Facility LTA
ARSENIC 7440-38-2 1987 03 83.90
ARSENIC 7440-38-2 4382 12 Failed Tests
ARSENIC 7440-38-2 4798 03 Failed Tests
Subcategory=Metals OPTION=3
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
4378
09
13,375.00
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
4803
15
407.50
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
602
01
9,122.64
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
4378
09
123,625.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
4803
15
5,875.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
602
01
28,330.19
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
4378
09
293,250.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
4803
15
103,875.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
(COD)
C-004
602
01
108,801.39
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
4803
15
2,243,750.00
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
4378
09
Failed Tests
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
4803
15
2,350.00
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
4378
09
43.25
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
4803
15
10. 00
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
4378
09
15,697.50
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
4803
15
9,525.00
OIL & GREASE
C-007
4378
09
Failed Tests
OIL & GREASE
C-007
4803
16
Failed Tests
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
4378
09
Failed Tests
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
602
01
Failed Tests
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
4803
15
18,112,500.00
Appendix D-2
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Pollutant Name
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL PHENOLS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL SULFIDE
TOTAL SULFIDE
TOTAL SULFIDE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
BERYLLIUM
BERYLLIUM
BORON
BORON
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
Subcategory=Metals OPTION=3
(continued)
Effluent
CAS Facility Sample
Number ID Point Facility LTA
C-012 4378
C-012 4803
C-012 602
C-020 4378
C-020 4803
C-020 602
14265-44-2 4378
14265-44-2 4803
18496-25-8 4378
18496-25-8 4803
18496-25-8 602
C-009 4378
C-009 4803
C-009 602
7429-90-5 4378
7429-90-5 4803
7440-36-0 4378
7440-36-0 4803
7440-38-2 4378
7440-38-2 4803
7440-38-2 602
7440-41-7 4378
7440-41-7 4803
7440-42-8 4378
7440-42-8 4803
7440-43-9 4378
7440-43-9 4803
7440-43-9 602
7440-70-2 4378
7440-70-2 4803
7440-47-3 4378
7440-47-3 4803
7440-47-3 602
09 115,350.00
15 10,000.00
01 19,641.51
09 Failed Tests
15 Failed Tests
01 Failed Tests
09 58,225.00
15 406.25
09 49,850.00
15 Failed Tests
01 55.85
09 22,750.00
15 9,250.00
01 4,650.94
09 101.50
15 43.50
09 20.00
15 22.50
09 10.27
15 17.50
01 11.15
09 1.00
15 Failed Tests
09 7,290.00
15 Failed Tests
09 81.93
15 13.90
01 125.00
09 205,833.33
15 608,500.00
09 36.93
15 39.75
01 179.62
Appendix D-3
-------
Pollutant Name
COBALT
COBALT
COPPER
COPPER
GALLIUM
INDIUM
IODINE
IRIDIUM
IRON
IRON
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LITHIUM
MAGNESIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
NICKEL
NICKEL
OSMIUM
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing
Subcategory=Metals OPTION=3
(continued)
CAS
Number
Facility
ID
Effluent
Sample
Point
Facility LTA
7440-48-4 4378
7440-48-4 4803
7440-50-8 4378
7440-50-8 4803
7440-55-3 4803
7440-74-6 4803
7553-56-2 4803
7439-88-5 4803
7439-89-6 4378
7439-89-6 4803
7439-91-0 4803
7439-92-1 4378
7439-92-1 4803
7439-92-1 602
7439-93-2 4803
7439-95-4 4378
7439-95-4 4803
7439-96-5 4378
7439-96-5 4803
7439-96-5 602
7439-97-6 4378
7439-97-6 4803
7439-98-7 4378
7439-98-7 4803
7440-02-0 4378
7440-02-0 4803
7440-02-0 602
7440-04-2 4803
7723-14-0 4803
7440-09-7 4803
7782-49-2 4378
7782-49-2 4803
7440-21-3 4803
09 102.58
15 12.25
09 144.07
15 194.00
15 Failed Tests
15 500.00
15 Failed Tests
15 Failed Tests
09 342.67
15 431.75
15 100.00
09 50.00
15 1,275.00
01 55.11
15 Failed Tests
09 1,393.33
15 111.75
09 11.62
15 5.51
01 37.88
09 0.20
15 0.20
09 555.00
15 500.38
09 1,249.67
15 64.01
01 254.84
15 100.00
15 544.00
15 54,175.00
09 Failed Tests
15 56.25
15 355.75
Appendix D-4
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Metals OPTION=3
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
SILVER
7440-22-4
4378
09
4 . 00
SILVER
7440-22-4
4803
15
5. 00
SODIUM
7440-23-5
4378
09
Failed Tests
SODIUM
7440-23-5
4803
15
5,776,250.00
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
4803
15
Failed Tests
SULFUR
7704-34-9
4803
15
2,820,000.00
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
4803
15
Failed Tests
TELLURIUM
13494-80-9
4803
15
Failed Tests
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
4378
09
21. 60
THALLIUM
7440-28-0
4803
15
19. 98
TIN
7440-31-5
4378
09
28 . 00
TIN
7440-31-5
4803
15
28 . 50
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
4378
09
3. 00
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
4803
15
4 . 00
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
4378
09
11. 00
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
4803
15
11. 00
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
4378
09
2 . 00
YTTRIUM
7440-65-5
4803
15
5. 00
ZINC
7440-66-6
4378
09
174.43
ZINC
7440-66-6
4803
15
238.00
ZIRCONIUM
7440-67-7
4803
15
Failed Tests
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
4378
09
Failed Tests
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
4803
16
Failed Tests
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
4378
09
Failed Tests
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
4803
16
Failed Tests
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
117-81-7
4378
09
Failed Tests
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
PHTHALATE
117-81-7
4803
16
Failed Tests
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
4378
09
10. 00
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
4803
16
Failed Tests
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
4378
09
Failed Tests
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
4803
16
Failed Tests
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
124-48-1
4378
09
Failed Tests
Appendix
D-5
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Pollutant Name
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
HEXANOIC ACID
HEXANOIC ACID
M-XYLENE
M-XYLENE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
PHENOL
PHENOL
PYRIDINE
PYRIDINE
TOLUENE
TOLUENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
1,4-DIOXANE
1,4-DIOXANE
2-BUTANONE
2-BUTANONE
2-PROPANONE
2-PROPANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
Subcategory=Metals OPTION=3
(continued)
Effluent
CAS Facility Sample
Number ID Point Facility LTA
124-48-1 4803
142-62-1 4378
142-62-1 4803
108-38-3 4378
108-38-3 4803
75-09-2 4378
75-09-2 4803
68-12-2 4378
68-12-2 4803
108-95-2 4378
108-95-2 4803
110-86-1 4378
110-86-1 4803
108-88-3 4378
108-88-3 4803
79-01-6 4378
79-01-6 4803
71-55-6 4378
71-55-6 4803
75-35-4 4378
75-35-4 4803
123-91-1 4378
123-91-1 4803
78-93-3 4378
78-93-3 4803
67-64-1 4378
67-64-1 4803
108-10-1 4378
108-10-1 4803
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
09 Failed Tests
16 Failed Tests
Appendix D-6
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Metals OPTION=4
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Fac
ility LTA
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
47 98
05
15,630.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
47 98
05
166,000.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
47 98
05
1,
333,333.33
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
47 98
05
18,
000,000.00
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
47 98
05
66,266.67
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
18540-29-9
47 98
05
800.00
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
47 98
05
531,666.67
OIL & GREASE
C-007
47 98
05
7,398.06
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
47 98
05
20. 00
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
47 98
05
42,
566,666.67
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
47 98
05
236,333.33
TOTAL PHENOLS
C-020
47 98
05
Fa
iled Tests
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
47 98
05
25,766.67
TOTAL SULFIDE
18496-25-8
47 98
05
Fa
iled Tests
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
47 98
05
166,666.67
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
47 98
05
856.33
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
47 98
05
170.00
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
47 98
05
Fa
iled Tests
BERYLLIUM
7440-41-7
47 98
05
Fa
iled Tests
BORON
7440-42-8
47 98
05
8,403.33
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
47 98
05
29.73
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
47 98
05
20,000.00
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
47 98
05
661.00
COBALT
7440-48-4
47 98
05
114.50
COPPER
7440-50-8
47 98
05
413.67
GALLIUM
7440-55-3
47 98
05
Fa
iled Tests
INDIUM
7440-74-6
47 98
05
Fa
iled Tests
IODINE
7553-56-2
47 98
05
Fa
iled Tests
IRIDIUM
7439-88-5
47 98
05
500.00
IRON
7439-89-6
47 98
05
8,223.33
Appendix D-7
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Metals OPTION=4
(continued)
Pollutant Name
CAS
Number
Facility
ID
Effluent
Sample
Point
Facility LTA
LANTHANUM
LEAD
LITHIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
OSMIUM
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILVER
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TELLURIUM
THALLIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
VANADIUM
YTTRIUM
ZINC
ZIRCONIUM
BENZOIC ACID
BENZYL ALCOHOL
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROFORM
PHTHALATE
7439-91-0
7439-92-1
7439-93-2
7439-95-4
7439-96-5
7439-97-6
7439-98-7
7440-02-0
7440-04-2
7723-14-0
7440-09-7
7782-49-2
7440-21-3
7440-22-4
7440-23-5
7440-24-6
7704-34-9
7440-25-7
13494-80-9
7440-28-0
7440-31-5
7440-32-6
7440-62-2
7440-65-5
7440-66-6
7440-67-7
65-85-0
100-51-6
117-81-7
75-15-0
67-66-3
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
47 98
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
Fail
Fail
Fail
2
41
15,10
1,21
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
Fail
ed Tests
54.70
1,926.67
ed Tests
48.70
1. 67
1,746.67
1,013.33
ed Tests
4,200.00
0,000.00
115.00
1,446.67
18 . 60
0,000.00
100.00
4,000.00
ed Tests
ed Tests
ed Tests
89.77
56. 87
11. 93
5. 00
462.33
1,286.67
3,521.67
ed Tests
ed Tests
ed Tests
215.35
Appendix D-8
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Metals OPTION=4
(continued)
Effluent
CAS Facility Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
124-48-1
47 98
05
102.05
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
47 98
05
Failed Tests
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
47 98
05
Failed Tests
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
47 98
05
Failed Tests
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
47 98
05
68 .13
PHENOL
108-95-2
47 98
05
Failed Tests
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
47 98
05
86. 97
TOLUENE
108-88-3
47 98
05
Failed Tests
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
47 98
05
101.09
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
47 98
05
Failed Tests
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
75-35-4
47 98
05
Failed Tests
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
47 98
05
Failed Tests
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
47 98
05
1,272.48
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
47 98
05
13,081.47
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
47 98
05
Failed Tests
Subcategory=Metals OPTION=cyanide 2
Effluent
CAS Facility Sample
Pollutant Name Number ID Point Facility LTA
TOTAL CYANIDE 57-12-5 4055 03 135,661.11
Appendix D-9
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=8
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
4814A
09
77,750.00
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
4814B
10
291,000.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
4814A
09
5,947,500.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
4814B
10
9,295,000.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
4814A
09
11,725,000.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
4814B
10
23,766,666.67
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
4814A
09
1,568,750.00
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
4814B
10
Failed Tests
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
4814A
09
36,250.00
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
4814B
10
Failed Tests
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
4814A
09
20,750.00
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
4814B
10
71,666.67
OIL & GREASE
C-007
4814A
09
226,829.17
OIL & GREASE
C-007
4814B
10
822,333.33
SGT-HEM
C-037
4814A
09
41,991.67
SGT-HEM
C-037
4814B
10
243,616.67
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
4814A
09
105.00
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
4814B
10
Failed Tests
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
4814A
09
Failed Tests
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
C-010
4814B
10
Failed Tests
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
4814A
09
3,433,750.00
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
4814B
10
Failed Tests
TOTAL PHENOLS
C-020
4814A
09
15,522.50
TOTAL PHENOLS
C-020
4814B
10
20,160.00
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
4814A
09
42,698.75
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
4814B
10
31,356.67
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4814A
09
549,375.00
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4814B
10
608,666.67
Appendix
D-10
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing
Pollutant Name
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=
(continued)
CAS
Number
Effluent
Facility Sample
ID Point
Facility LTA
ALUMINUM
ALUMINUM
ANTIMONY
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BARIUM
BORON
BORON
CADMIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COBALT
COPPER
COPPER
GERMANIUM
GERMANIUM
IRON
IRON
LEAD
LEAD
LUTETIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
7429-
7429-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
90-5
90-5
36-0
36-0
38-2
38-2
39-3
39-3
42-8
42-8
43-9
43-9
70-2
70-2
47-3
47-3
48-4
48-4
50-8
50-8
56-4
56-4
89-6
89-6
92-1
92-1
94-3
94-3
95-4
95-4
96-5
96-5
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
14,
Failed
Failed
1,
Failed
22,
Failed
173,
172,
1,
13,
Failed
Failed
83,
23,
Failed
Failed
62,
Failed
3,
7 ,
072.50
Tests
103.06
Tests
341.00
237.67
220.50
Tests
462.50
Tests
7 . 33
7 .59
375.00
200.00
183.13
463.67
090.75
743.33
6 8.66
444.67
Tests
Tests
450.00
283.33
59.73
237.67
Tests
Tests
900.00
Tests
811.25
001.67
Appendix D-11
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing
Pollutant Name
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=
(continued)
CAS
Number
Effluent
Facility Sample
ID Point
Facility LTA
MERCURY
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
NICKEL
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILICON
SILVER
SILVER
SODIUM
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
SULFUR
TANTALUM
TANTALUM
TIN
TIN
TITANIUM
TITANIUM
ZINC
ZINC
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7440-
7440-
7723-
7723-
7440-
7440-
7782-
7782-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7704-
7704-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
97-6
97-6
98-7
98-7
02-0
02-0
14-0
14-0
09-7
09-7
49-2
49-2
21-3
21-3
22-4
22-4
23-5
23-5
24-6
24-6
34-9
34-9
25-7
25-7
31-5
31-5
32-6
32-6
66-6
66-6
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
1,
Failed
1,
1,
30,
59,
486,
337,
Failed
21,
16,
Failed
Failed
Failed
Failed
Failed
Failed
Failed
Failed
3. 05
3.12
542.75
Tests
241.50
706.33
657.50
266.67
000.00
500.00
107.49
Tests
150.00
850.00
Tests
Tests
Tests
Tests
812.25
737.00
Tests
Tests
Tests
Tests
30.78
183.17
13. 64
29. 82
138.75
758.33
Appendix D-12
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=8
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
4814A
09
Failed Tests
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
4814B
10
137.27
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
4814A
09
Failed Tests
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
4814B
10
48 . 33
ANILINE
62-53-3
4814A
09
Failed Tests
ANILINE
62-53-3
4814B
10
Failed Tests
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
4814B
10
164.27
BENZENE
71-43-2
4814A
09
511.39
BENZENE
71-43-2
4814B
10
1,606.23
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
4814A
09
Failed Tests
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
4814B
10
106.76
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
4814A
09
25,581.42
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
4814B
10
Failed Tests
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
4814A
09
Failed Tests
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
4814B
10
Failed Tests
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
4814A
09
16.71
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
4814B
10
135.71
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
4814B
10
115.74
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
4814B
10
54 . 98
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
4814A
09
Failed Tests
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
4814B
10
151.45
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
4814A
09
28 .11
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
4814B
10
Failed Tests
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
4814A
09
52 . 31
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
4814B
10
122.66
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
4814A
09
216.34
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
4814B
10
541.84
Appendix D-13
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=8
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
4814A
09
Failed Tests
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
4814B
10
79.43
DIBENZOEURAN
132-64-9
4814A
09
Failed Tests
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
4814B
10
135.25
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
4814A
09
Failed Tests
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
4814B
10
95.76
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
4814A
09
1,410.97
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
4814B
10
107.30
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
4814A
09
Failed Tests
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
4814B
10
Failed Tests
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
4814A
09
273.78
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
4814B
10
1,668.81
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
4814A
09
17.29
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
4814B
10
489.45
FLUORENE
86-73-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
FLUORENE
86-73-7
4814B
10
243.11
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
4814A
09
9,253.62
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
4814B
10
Failed Tests
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
4814A
09
422.95
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
4814B
10
Failed Tests
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
4814A
09
Failed Tests
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
4814B
10
1,520.33
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
4814A
09
3,252.49
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
4814B
10
5,231.57
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
4814A
09
Failed Tests
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
4814B
10
Failed Tests
N-DECANE
124-18-5
4814A
09
16.25
N-DECANE
124-18-5
4814B
10
4,723.68
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
4814A
09
20.77
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
4814B
10
129.88
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
4814A
09
16.25
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
4814B
10
7,653.43
Appendix D-14
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=8
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Eacility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
4814A
09
51. 76
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
4814B
10
1,179.76
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
4814A
09
Failed Tests
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
4814B
10
Failed Tests
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
4814A
09
135.73
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
4814B
10
2,637.67
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
4814A
09
Failed Tests
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
4814B
10
Failed Tests
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
4814A
09
113.89
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
4814B
10
1,471.36
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
4814A
09
Failed Tests
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
4814B
10
Failed Tests
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
4814A
09
337.09
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
4814B
10
3,303.90
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
4814A
09
200.65
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
4814B
10
1,827.82
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
4814A
09
Failed Tests
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
4814B
10
1,873.00
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
4814B
10
Failed Tests
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
4814A
09
Failed Tests
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
4814B
10
Failed Tests
O-XYLENE
95-47-6
4814A
09
268.52
O-XYLENE
95-47-6
4814B
10
Failed Tests
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
4814A
09
Failed Tests
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
4814B
10
630.49
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
4814A
09
16.25
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
4814B
10
94 . 93
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
4814A
09
Failed Tests
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
4814B
10
48 . 33
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
4814A
09
57 .39
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
4814B
10
1,242.05
Appendix D-15
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=8
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
PHENOL
108-95-2
4814A
09
Failed Tests
PHENOL
108-95-2
4814B
10
Failed Tests
PYRENE
129-00-0
4814A
09
18 . 03
PYRENE
129-00-0
4814B
10
245.51
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
4814A
09
624.78
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
4814B
10
Failed Tests
STYRENE
100-42-5
4814A
09
16.25
STYRENE
100-42-5
4814B
10
97 .73
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
4814A
09
280.34
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
4814B
10
670.57
TOLUENE
108-88-3
4814A
09
3,613.18
TOLUENE
108-88-3
4814B
10
8,596.18
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
4814A
09
194.60
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
4814B
10
1,144.63
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL
ETHER
20324-33-8
4814A
09
Failed Tests
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL
ETHER
20324-33-8
4814B
10
478.50
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
4814A
09
107.30
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
4814B
10
218.27
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
75-35-4
4814A
09
59.16
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
75-35-4
4814B
10
379.80
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
120-82-1
4814A
09
130.07
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
120-82-1
4814B
10
104.83
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
4814A
09
Failed Tests
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
4814B
10
48 . 33
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
4814A
09
185.67
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
4814B
10
359.46
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
106-46-7
4814A
09
34 . 66
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
106-46-7
4814B
10
140.03
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
4814A
09
Failed Tests
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
4814B
10
Failed Tests
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
4814A
09
Failed Tests
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
4814B
10
48 . 33
Appendix
D-16
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Pollutant Name
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
2.3-BENZOFLUORENE
2.4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
2-BUTANONE
2-BUTANONE
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
2-PROPANONE
2-PROPANONE
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=8
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
832-69-9
4814A
09
Failed Tests
832-69-9
4814B
10
76.32
243-17-4
4814A
09
Failed Tests
243-17-4
4814B
10
Failed Tests
105-67-9
4814A
09
Failed Tests
105-67-9
4814B
10
Failed Tests
78-93-3
4814A
09
11,390.45
78-93-3
4814B
10
Failed Tests
2027-17-
0
4814A
09
Failed Tests
2027-17-
0
4814B
10
Failed Tests
91-57-6
4814A
09
160.58
91-57-6
4814B
10
2,919.45
67-64-1
4814A
09
Failed Tests
67-64-1
4814B
10
Failed Tests
1576-67-
6
4814A
09
Failed Tests
1576-67-
6
4814B
10
Failed Tests
59-50-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
59-50-7
4814B
10
Failed Tests
108-10-1
4814A
09
9,071.13
108-10-1
4814B
10
6,624.87
Appendix D-17
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=91
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
4813
07
97,222.00
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
4814A
09
77,750.00
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
4814B
10
291,000.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
4813
07
14,708,000.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
4814A
09
5,947,500.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
4814B
10
9,295,000.00
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
651
01
5,500,000.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND (
COD)
C-004
4813
07
20,490,000.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND (
COD)
C-004
4814A
09
11,725,000.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND
COD)
C-004
4814B
10
23,766,666.67
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
4813
07
Failed Tests
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
4814A
09
1,568,750.00
CHLORIDE
16887-00-6
4814B
10
Failed Tests
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
4813
07
Failed Tests
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
4814A
09
36,250.00
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
4814B
10
Failed Tests
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
4813
07
703.00
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
4814A
09
20,750.00
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
4814B
10
71,666.67
OIL & GREASE
C-007
651
01
28,325.00
SGT-HEM
C-037
4813
07
42,528.33
SGT-HEM
C-037
4814A
09
41,991.67
SGT-HEM
C-037
4814B
10
243,616.67
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
4813
07
Failed Tests
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
4814A
09
105.00
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
4814B
10
Failed Tests
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
651
01 No
Influent Data
TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
4813
07
Failed Tests
TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
4814A
09
Failed Tests
TOTAL DISSOLVED
SOLIDS
C-010
4814B
10
Failed Tests
ndix C for pollutants for which
facility 651 had
influent
measurements,
but no effluent
Appendix D-18
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=9
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Eacility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
4813
07
7,724,000.00
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
4814A
09
3,433,750.00
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
4814B
10
Failed Tests
TOTAL PHENOLS
C-020
4813
07
40,076.00
TOTAL PHENOLS
C-020
4814A
09
15,522.50
TOTAL PHENOLS
C-020
4814B
10
20,160.00
TOTAL PHENOLS
C-020
651
01 No
Influent Data
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
4813
07
3,357.00
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
4814A
09
42,698.75
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
14265-44-2
4814B
10
31,356.67
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4813
07
Failed Tests
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4814A
09
549,375.00
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4814B
10
608,666.67
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
651
01
25,500.00
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
4814A
09
14,072.50
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
4814B
10
Failed Tests
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
4814A
09
103.06
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
4814B
10
Failed Tests
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
4814A
09
1,341.00
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
4814B
10
237.67
BARIUM
7440-39-3
4814A
09
220.50
BARIUM
7440-39-3
4814B
10
Failed Tests
BORON
7440-42-8
4814A
09
22,462.50
BORON
7440-42-8
4814B
10
Failed Tests
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
4814A
09
7 . 33
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
4814B
10
7 .59
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
651
01
Failed Tests
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
4814A
09
173,375.00
CALCIUM
7440-70-2
4814B
10
172,200.00
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
4814A
09
183.13
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
4814B
10
463.67
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
651
01
18 . 92
Appendix D-19
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=9
(continued)
Pollutant Name
COBALT
COBALT
COPPER
COPPER
COPPER
GERMANIUM
GERMANIUM
IRON
IRON
LEAD
LEAD
LEAD
LUTETIUM
LUTETIUM
MAGNESIUM
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MANGANESE
MERCURY
MERCURY
MERCURY
MOLYBDENUM
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
NICKEL
PHOSPHORUS
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
POTASSIUM
SELENIUM
SELENIUM
SILICON
SILICON
CAS
Number
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7440-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7439-
7440-
7440-
7723-
7723-
7440-
7440-
7782-
7782-
7440-
7440-
48-4
48-4
50-8
50-8
50-8
56-4
56-4
89-6
89-6
92-1
92-1
92-1
94-3
94-3
95-4
95-4
96-5
96-5
97-6
97-6
97-6
98-7
98-7
02-0
02-0
14-0
14-0
09-7
09-7
49-2
49-2
21-3
21-3
Eacility
ID
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
651
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
651
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
651
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
4814A
4814B
Effluent
Sample
Point
09
10
09
10
01
09
10
09
10
09
10
01
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
01
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
09
10
Eacility LTA
1,
13,
Bailed
Bailed
83,
23,
Bailed
Bailed
62,
Bailed
3,
7 ,
Bailed
1,
Bailed
1,
1,
30,
59,
486,
337,
Bailed
21,
16,
090.75
743.33
6 8.66
444.67
156.75
Tests
Tests
450.00
283.33
59.73
237.67
98 . 58
Tests
Tests
900.00
Tests
811.25
001.67
3. 05
3.12
Tests
542.75
Tests
241.50
706.33
657.50
266.67
000.00
500.00
107.49
Tests
150.00
850.00
Appendix D-20
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=9
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
SILVER
7440-22-4
4814A
09
Failed Tests
SILVER
7440-22-4
4814B
10
Failed Tests
SODIUM
7440-23-5
4814A
09
Failed Tests
SODIUM
7440-23-5
4814B
10
Failed Tests
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
4814A
09
812.25
STRONTIUM
7440-24-6
4814B
10
737.00
SULFUR
7704-34-9
4814A
09
Failed Tests
SULFUR
7704-34-9
4814B
10
Failed Tests
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
TANTALUM
7440-25-7
4814B
10
Failed Tests
TIN
7440-31-5
4814A
09
30.78
TIN
7440-31-5
4814B
10
183.17
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
4814A
09
13. 64
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
4814B
10
29. 82
ZINC
7440-66-6
4814A
09
3,138.75
ZINC
7440-66-6
4814B
10
3,758.33
ZINC
7440-66-6
651
01
920.83
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
4813
07
Failed Tests
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
4814A
09
Failed Tests
ACENAPHTHENE
83-32-9
4814B
10
137.27
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
4813
07
Failed Tests
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
4814A
09
Failed Tests
ALPHA-TERPINEOL
98-55-5
4814B
10
48 . 33
ANILINE
62-53-3
4813
07
Failed Tests
ANILINE
62-53-3
4814A
09
Failed Tests
ANILINE
62-53-3
4814B
10
Failed Tests
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
4813
07
17 .15
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
ANTHRACENE
120-12-7
4814B
10
164.27
BENZENE
71-43-2
4813
07
Failed Tests
BENZENE
71-43-2
4814A
09
511.39
BENZENE
71-43-2
4814B
10
1,606.23
BENZENE
71-43-2
651
01 No
Influent Data
Appendix D-21
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=9
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
4813
07
12 . 66
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
4814A
09
Failed Tests
BENZO(A)ANTHRACENE
56-55-3
4814B
10
106.76
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
4813
07
49,117.83
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
4814A
09
25,581.42
BENZOIC ACID
65-85-0
4814B
10
Failed Tests
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
4813
07
80. 65
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
4814A
09
Failed Tests
BENZYL ALCOHOL
100-51-6
4814B
10
Failed Tests
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
4813
07
373.99
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
4814A
09
16.71
BIPHENYL
92-52-4
4814B
10
135.71
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
4813
07
10. 00
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
4814B
10
115.74
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
4813
07
Failed Tests
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
4814B
10
54 . 98
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
4813
07
Failed Tests
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
4814A
09
Failed Tests
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
4814B
10
151.45
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
4813
07
Failed Tests
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
4814A
09
28 .11
CARBON DISULFIDE
75-15-0
4814B
10
Failed Tests
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
4813
07
Failed Tests
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
4814A
09
52 . 31
CHLOROBENZENE
108-90-7
4814B
10
122.66
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
4813
07
Failed Tests
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
4814A
09
216.34
CHLOROFORM
67-66-3
4814B
10
541.84
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
4813
07
17 . 52
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
4814A
09
Failed Tests
CHRYSENE
218-01-9
4814B
10
79.43
Appendix D-22
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=9
(continued)
CAS
Facili"
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
4813
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
4814A
DIBENZOFURAN
132-64-9
4814B
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
4813
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
4814A
DIBENZOTHIOPHENE
132-65-0
4814B
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
4813
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
4814A
DIETHYL PHTHALATE
84-66-2
4814B
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
4813
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
4814A
DIPHENYL ETHER
101-84-8
4814B
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
4813
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
4814A
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
4814B
ETHYLBENZENE
100-41-4
651
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
4813
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
4814A
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
4814B
FLUORENE
86-73-7
4813
FLUORENE
86-73-7
4814A
FLUORENE
86-73-7
4814B
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
4813
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
4814A
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
4814B
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
4814A
M+P XYLENE
179601-23-1
4814B
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
4813
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
4814A
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
4814B
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
4813
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
4814A
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
4814B
Effluent
Sample
int
Facility LTA
07
Failed Tests
09
Failed Tests
10
135.25
07
23.11
09
Failed Tests
10
95.76
07
365.93
09
1,410.97
10
107.30
07
981.54
09
Failed Tests
10
Failed Tests
07
423.30
09
273.78
10
1,668.81
01
No Influent Data
07
10. 00
09
17.29
10
489.45
07
16.09
09
Failed Tests
10
243.11
07
Failed Tests
09
9,253.62
10
Failed Tests
09
422.95
10
Failed Tests
07
361.58
09
Failed Tests
10
1,520.33
07
Failed Tests
09
3,252.49
10
5,231.57
Appendix D-23
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=9
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
4813
07
Failed Tests
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
4814A
09
Failed Tests
N,N-DIMETHYLFORMAMIDE
68-12-2
4814B
10
Failed Tests
N-DECANE
124-18-5
4813
07
238.16
N-DECANE
124-18-5
4814A
09
16.25
N-DECANE
124-18-5
4814B
10
4,723.68
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
4813
07
19.84
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
4814A
09
20.77
N-DOCOSANE
629-97-0
4814B
10
129.88
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
4813
07
233.80
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
4814A
09
16.25
N-DODECANE
112-40-3
4814B
10
7,653.43
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
4813
07
45.24
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
4814A
09
51. 76
N-EICOSANE
112-95-8
4814B
10
1,179.76
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
4813
07
Failed Tests
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
4814A
09
Failed Tests
N-HEXACOSANE
630-01-3
4814B
10
Failed Tests
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
4813
07
2,551.36
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
4814A
09
135.73
N-HEXADECANE
544-76-3
4814B
10
2,637.67
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
4813
07
Failed Tests
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
4814A
09
Failed Tests
N-OCTACOSANE
630-02-4
4814B
10
Failed Tests
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
4813
07
202.66
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
4814A
09
113.89
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
4814B
10
1,471.36
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
4813
07
Failed Tests
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
4814A
09
Failed Tests
N-TETRACOSANE
646-31-1
4814B
10
Failed Tests
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
4813
07
3,784.44
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
4814A
09
337.09
N-TETRADECANE
629-59-4
4814B
10
3,303.90
Appendix D-24
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=9
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Eacility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
4813
07
248.73
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
4814A
09
200.65
NAPHTHALENE
91-20-3
4814B
10
1,827.82
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
4813
07
564.06
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
4814A
09
Failed Tests
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
4814B
10
1,873.00
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
4813
07
1,769.86
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
4814B
10
Failed Tests
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
4813
07
Failed Tests
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
4814A
09
Failed Tests
O-TOLUIDINE
95-53-4
4814B
10
Failed Tests
O-XYLENE
95-47-6
4814A
09
268.52
O-XYLENE
95-47-6
4814B
10
Failed Tests
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
4813
07
1,283.19
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
4814A
09
Failed Tests
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
4814B
10
630.49
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
4813
07
Failed Tests
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
4814A
09
16.25
P-CYMENE
99-87-6
4814B
10
94 . 93
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
4813
07
Failed Tests
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
4814A
09
Failed Tests
PENTAMETHYLBENZENE
700-12-9
4814B
10
48 . 33
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
4813
07
81.76
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
4814A
09
57 .39
PHENANTHRENE
85-01-8
4814B
10
1,242.05
PHENOL
108-95-2
4813
07
30,681.00
PHENOL
108-95-2
4814A
09
Failed Tests
PHENOL
108-95-2
4814B
10
Failed Tests
PYRENE
129-00-0
4813
07
58 . 00
PYRENE
129-00-0
4814A
09
18 . 03
PYRENE
129-00-0
4814B
10
245.51
Appendix D-25
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=9
(continued)
CAS Facility
Pollutant Name Number ID
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
4813
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
4814A
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
4814B
STYRENE
100-42-5
4813
STYRENE
100-42-5
4814A
STYRENE
100-42-5
4814B
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
4813
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
4814A
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
4814B
TOLUENE
108-88-3
4813
TOLUENE
108-88-3
4814A
TOLUENE
108-88-3
4814B
TOLUENE
108-88-3
651
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
4813
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
4814A
TRICHLOROETHENE
790-1-6
4814B
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL
ETHER
20324-33-
8
4813
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL
ETHER
20324-33-
8
4814A
TRIPROPYLENEGLYCOL METHYL
ETHER
20324-33-
8
4814B
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
4813
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
4814A
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
4814B
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
75-35-4
4813
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
75-35-4
4814A
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
75-35-4
4814B
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
120-82-1
4813
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
120-82-1
4814A
1,2,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE
120-82-1
4814B
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
4813
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
4814A
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
4814B
Effluent
Sample
Point Facility LTA
07
Failed Tests
09
624 . 78
10
Failed Tests
07
Failed Tests
09
16.25
10
97 .73
07
Failed Tests
09
280.34
10
670.57
07
3,239.80
09
3,613.18
10
8,596.18
01
No Influent Data
07
Failed Tests
09
194.60
10
1,144.63
07
Failed Tests
09
Failed Tests
10
478.50
07
Failed Tests
09
107.30
10
218.27
07
Failed Tests
09
59.16
10
379.80
07
Failed Tests
09
130.07
10
104.83
07
Failed Tests
09
Failed Tests
10
48 . 33
Appendix D-26
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=9
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
4813
07
Failed
Tests
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
4814A
09
185.67
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
4814B
10
359.46
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
106-46-7
4813
07
Failed
Tests
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
106-46-7
4814A
09
34 . 66
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
106-46-7
4814B
10
140.03
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
4813
07
Failed
Tests
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
4814A
09
Failed
Tests
1,4-DIOXANE
123-91-1
4814B
10
Failed
Tests
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
4813
07
18 . 97
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
4814A
09
Failed
Tests
1-METHYLFLUORENE
1730-37-6
4814B
10
48 . 33
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
4813
07
32 . 62
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
4814A
09
Failed
Tests
1-METHYLPHENANTHRENE
832-69-9
4814B
10
76.32
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
243-17-4
4813
07
54 . 98
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
243-17-4
4814A
09
Failed
Tests
2,3-BENZOFLUORENE
243-17-4
4814B
10
Failed
Tests
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
4813
07
Failed
Tests
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
4814A
09
Failed
Tests
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
4814B
10
Failed
Tests
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
4813
07
Failed
Tests
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
4814A
09
11,
390.45
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
4814B
10
Failed
Tests
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
4813
07
Failed
Tests
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
4814A
09
Failed
Tests
2-ISOPROPYLNAPHTHALENE
2027-17-0
4814B
10
Failed
Tests
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
4813
07
151.63
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
4814A
09
160.58
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
91-57-6
4814B
10
2,
919.45
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
4813
07
Failed
Tests
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
4814A
09
Failed
Tests
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
4814B
10
Failed
Tests
Appendix D-27
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Oils OPTION=9
(continued)
Effluent
CAS Facility Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67
- 6
4813
07
52 . 33
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67
- 6
4814A
09
Failed Tests
3,6-DIMETHYLPHENANTHRENE
1576-67
- 6
4814B
10
Failed Tests
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
4813
07
655.39
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
4814A
09
Failed Tests
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
4814B
10
Failed Tests
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-
1
4813
07
955.26
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-
1
4814A
09
9,071.13
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-
1
4814B
10
6,624.87
Subcategory=Organics OPTION=4
Effluent
CAS
Facility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
7664-41-7
1987
12
1,060,000.00
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004
1987
12
3,560,000.00
D-CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD)
C-004D
1987
12
2,800,000.00
FLUORIDE
16984-48-8
1987
12
Failed Tests
NITRATE/NITRITE
C-005
1987
12
2,280.00
TOTAL CYANIDE
57-12-5
1987
12
2,176.00
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (TOC)
C-012
1987
12
1,006,000.00
TOTAL SULFIDE
18496-25-8
1987
12
2,800.00
ALUMINUM
7429-90-5
1987
12
2,474.00
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
1987
12
569.40
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
1987
12
Failed Tests
BARIUM
7440-39-3
1987
12
Failed Tests
Appendix D-28
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing
Pollutant Name
Subcategory=Organics OPTION=4
(continued)
CAS
Number
Facility
ID
Effluent
Sample
Point
Facility LTA
BORON
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IODINE
IRON
LEAD
LITHIUM
MANGANESE
MOLYBDENUM
NICKEL
PHOSPHORUS
POTASSIUM
SILICON
SODIUM
STRONTIUM
SULFUR
TIN
TITANIUM
ZINC
ACETOPHENONE
ANILINE
BENZENE
BENZOIC ACID
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
CARBON DISULFIDE
CHLOROBENZENE
CHLOROFORM
DIMETHYL SULFONE
ETHYLENETHIOUREA
7440-42-8
7440-70-2
7440-47-3
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7553-56-2
7439-89-6
7439-92-1
7439-93-2
7439-96-5
7439-98-7
7440-02-0
7723-14-0
7440-09-7
7440-21-3
7440-23-5
7440-24-6
7704-34-9
7440-31-5
7440-32-6
7440-66-6
98-86-2
62-53-3
71-43-2
65-85-0
75-27-4
75-15-0
108-90-7
67-66-3
67-71-0
96-45-7
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Failed
286,
Failed
Failed
3,
Failed
Failed
Failed
Failed
Failed
2,
Failed
2,
1,370,
Failed
Failed
Failed
Failed
Failed
4,
Tests
000.00
Tests
437.20
703.60
Tests
948.00
Tests
Tests
227.00
942.80
Tests
Tests
Tests
680.00
Tests
060.00
000.00
Tests
Tests
381.80
35. 87
10.50
10. 00
320.00
Tests
Tests
Tests
72 . 62
157.70
400.23
Appendix D-29
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Organics OPTION=4
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Eacility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
HEXACHLOROETHANE
67-72-1
1987
12
Failed Tests
HEXANOIC ACID
142-62-1
1987
12
64 . 00
ISOPHORONE
78-59-1
1987
12
Failed Tests
M-XYLENE
108-38-3
1987
12
10. 00
METHYLENE CHLORIDE
75-09-2
1987
12
204.48
N,N-DIMETHYLEORMAMIDE
68-12-2
1987
12
10.50
O+P XYLENE
136777-61-2
1987
12
Failed Tests
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
1987
12
184.78
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
1987
12
66.24
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
87-86-5
1987
12
791.15
PHENOL
108-95-2
1987
12
362.03
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
1987
12
116.46
TETRACHLOROETHENE
127-18-4
1987
12
112.09
TETRACHLOROMETHANE
56-23-5
1987
12
14.44
TOLUENE
108-88-3
1987
12
10. 00
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHENE
156-60-5
1987
12
21. 51
TRICHLOROETHENE
79-01-6
1987
12
69.42
VINYL CHLORIDE
75-01-4
1987
12
10. 00
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
630-20-6
1987
12
10. 00
1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
71-55-6
1987
12
10. 00
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
79-34-5
1987
12
Failed Tests
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
79-00-5
1987
12
13.30
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE
75-34-3
1987
12
10. 00
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
75-35-4
1987
12
10. 00
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE
96-18-4
1987
12
10. 00
1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
106-93-4
1987
12
10.14
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
95-50-1
1987
12
Failed Tests
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE
107-06-2
1987
12
10. 00
1,3-DICHLOROPROPANE
142-28-9
1987
12
Failed Tests
2,3,4,6-TETRACHLOROPHENOL
58-90-2
1987
12
628.96
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
608-27-5
1987
12
23. 04
2,4,5-TRICHLOROPHENOL
95-95-4
1987
12
96.76
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
88-06-2
1987
12
85.76
Appendix D-30
-------
Attachment 10-1: Results (ug/L) of Data Editing Criteria
Subcategory=Organics OPTION=4
(continued)
Effluent
CAS
Eacility
Sample
Pollutant Name
Number
ID
Point
Facility LTA
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
105-67-9
1987
12
Failed Tests
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
1987
12
878.12
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
1987
12
2,061.28
3,4,5-TRICHLOROCATECHOL
56961-20-
7
1987
12
0.80
3,4,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
60712-44-
9
1987
12
Failed Tests
3,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
95-77-2
1987
12
30. 40
3,5-DICHLOROPHENOL
591-35-5
1987
12
0.80
3,6-DICHLOROCATECHOL
3938-16-7
1987
12
Failed Tests
4,5,6-TRICHLOROGUAIACOL
2668-24-8
1987
12
Failed Tests
4,5-DICHLOROGUAIACOL
2460-49-3
1987
12
Failed Tests
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
59-50-7
1987
12
Failed Tests
4-CHLOROPHENOL
106-48-9
1987
12
242.50
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
108-10-1
1987
12
146.16
5-CHLOROGUAIACOL
3743-23-5
1987
12
Failed Tests
6-CHLOROVANILLIN
18268-76-
3
1987
12
Failed Tests
Appendix D-31
-------
Attachment 10-2: Facility-Specific Long-Term Averages (ug/L) and Variability Factors
If the facility data set met the criteria1, the long-term average (ug/L) is listed
Subcategory=Metals Option=lA
Pollutant
ARSENIC
Pollutant
CAS
Number
7440-38-2
CAS
Number
Facility
ID
1987
Sample
Point(s)
03
No. of
Obs .
Subcategory=Metals Option=3
Facility
ID
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4378
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
4803
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
602
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
4378
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
4803
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
4378
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
4803
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
602
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
4378
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
4803
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
602
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
4378
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
4803
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
602
COBALT
7440-48-4
4378
COBALT
7440-48-4
4803
COPPER
7440-50-8
4378
COPPER
7440-50-8
4803
LEAD
7439-92-1
4378
LEAD
7439-92-1
4803
LEAD
7439-92-1
602
MERCURY
7439-97-6
4378
MERCURY
7439-97-6
4803
And EPA promulgated limitations and/or standards
Sample No. of
Point(s) Obs.
09
15
01
09
15
09
15
01
09
15
01
09
15
01
09
15
09
15
09
15
01
09
15
4
4
106
3
4
3
4
6 6
3
4
6 6
3
4
106
3
4
3
4
3
4
6 6
3
4
. of
All
Facility
1
Day
NDs
ND
LTA
(ug/L)
VF
2
No
83. 90
1
. 936
. of
All
Facility
1
Day
NDs
ND
LTA
(ug/L)
VF
0
No
22
750.00
3
788
0
No
9
250.00
1
544
0
No
4
650.94
4
278
3
Yes
20. 00
4
Yes
22 . 50
2
No
10.27
4
Yes
17 . 50
0
No
11.15
8
904
0
No
81. 93
12
018
3
No
13. 90
0
No
125.00
7
082
0
No
36. 93
3
427
0
No
39.75
1
244
0
No
179.62
7
945
0
No
102.58
3
163
3
No
12 . 25
0
No
144.07
6
549
0
No
194.00
1
248
3
Yes
50. 00
0
No
1
275.00
1
447
0
No
55.11
10
489
3
Yes
0.20
3
No
0.20
4 Day
VF
4 Day
VF
20 Day
VF
1. 235
20 Day
VF
276
072
316
782
421
567
247
035
661
225
514
036
061
041
Appendix D-32
-------
Attachment 10-2: Facility-Specific Long-Term Averages (ug/L) and Variability Factors
If the facility data set met the criteria, the long-term average (ug/L) is listed
Subcategory=Metals Option=3
(continued)
CAS
Facility
Sample
No. of
No. of
All
Facility
1 Day
4 Day
20 Day
Pollutant
Number
ID
Point(s)
Obs .
NDs
ND
LTA (ug/L)
VF
VF
VF
NICKEL
7440-02-0
4378
09
3
0
No
1,249.67
2 .693
1.185
NICKEL
7440-02-0
4803
15
4
0
No
64 . 01
1. 358
1. 050
NICKEL
7440-02-0
602
01
64
0
No
254.84
5.293
1. 401
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
4803
15
4
1
No
56.25
3.135
1.241
SILVER
7440-22-4
4378
09
3
3
Yes
4 . 00
SILVER
7440-22-4
4803
15
4
4
Yes
5. 00
TIN
7440-31-5
4378
09
3
3
Yes
28 . 00
TIN
7440-31-5
4803
15
4
4
Yes
28 . 50
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
4378
09
3
3
Yes
3. 00
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
4803
15
4
4
Yes
4 . 00
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
4378
09
3
1
No
11. 00
1. 257
1. 036
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
4803
15
4
3
No
11. 00
ZINC
7440-66-6
4378
09
3
0
No
174.43
4 .415
1. 327
ZINC
7440-66-6
4803
15
4
0
No
238.00
1. 954
1.116
Subcategory Metals
Opt i o n= 4
CAS
Facility
Sample
No. of
No. of
All
Facility
1 Day
4 Day
20 Day
Pollutant
Number
ID
Point(s)
Obs .
NDs
ND
LTA (ug/L)
VF
VF
VF
OIL & GREASE
C-007
6 9 9
05
40
4
No
34,339.85
5. 979
1. 462
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
6 9 9
05
3
1
No
170.00
1 . 467
1. 214
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
6 9 9
05
47
20
No
58 . 03
8 . 171
1. 657
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
6 9 9
05
47
0
No
1,674.50
9.258
1. 832
COBALT
7440-48-4
6 9 9
05
3
0
No
114.50
1 . 675
1. 087
COPPER
7440-50-8
6 9 9
05
47
3
No
744.16
5.566
1.428
LEAD
7439-92-1
6 9 9
05
47
3
No
176.75
7 .454
1. 603
MERCURY
7439-97-6
6 9 9
05
50
18
No
0.56
4 .173
1. 320
NICKEL
7440-02-0
6 9 9
05
47
0
No
1,161.49
3. 402
1.245
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
6 9 9
05
25
4
No
279.80
5. 868
1.457
SILVER
7440-22-4
6 9 9
05
47
13
No
26.44
4 . 527
1. 327
Appendix D-33
-------
Attachment 10-2: Facility-Specific Long-Term Averages (ug/L) and Variability Factors
If the facility data set met the criteria, the long-term average (ug/L) is listed
Subcategory=Metals Option=4
(continued)
CAS
Facility
Sample
No. of
No. of
All
Facility
1 Day
4 Day
Pollutant
Number
ID
Point(s)
Obs .
NDs
ND
LTA (ug/L)
VF
VF
TIN
7440-31-5
6 9 9
05
3
0
No
89.77
4 . 555
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
6 9 9
05
3
0
No
56. 87
1. 666
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
6 9 9
05
3
2
No
11. 93
ZINC
7440-66-6
6 9 9
05
47
2
No
413.27
6. 940
20 Day
VF
1. 339
1. 086
1. 552
Subcategory=Metals Option=cyanide 2
Pollutant
TOTAL CYANIDE
CAS Facility
Number ID
57-12-5
4055
Sample
Point(s)
03
No. of
Obs .
No. of
NDs
All
ND
No
Facility
LTA (ug/L)
136,130.00
1 Day
VF
3. 674
4 Day
VF
20 Day
VF
1. 305
Subcategory=Oils Option=
CAS
Facility
Sample
No. of
No. of
All
Facility
1 Day
4 Day
Pollutant
Number
ID
Point(s)
Obs .
NDs
ND
LTA
(ug/L)
VF
VF
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
4814A
09
4
0
No
103.06
2.298
1. 364
BARIUM
7440-39-3
4814A
09
4
0
No
220.50
1. 938
1. 275
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
4814A
09
4
0
No
183.13
2 . 291
1. 362
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
4814B
10
3
0
No
463.67
3.564
1. 652
COBALT
7440-48-4
4814A
09
4
0
No
1,
.090.75
2 .107
1. 317
COBALT
7440-48-4
4814B
10
3
0
No
13,
.743.33
13.089
3.764
COPPER
7440-50-8
4814A
09
4
0
No
6 8.66
1. 906
1.266
COPPER
7440-50-8
4814B
10
3
0
No
444.67
1. 250
1. 083
LEAD
7439-92-1
4814A
09
4
0
No
59.73
1. 567
1.176
LEAD
7439-92-1
4814B
10
3
0
No
237.67
1.415
1.133
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
4814A
09
4
0
No
1,
. 542.75
2 .269
1. 357
TIN
7440-31-5
4814A
09
4
3
No
30.78
TIN
7440-31-5
4814B
10
3
2
No
183.17
20 Day
VF
Appendix D-34
-------
Attachment 10-2: Facility-Specific Long-Term Averages (ug/L) and Variability Factors
If the facility data set met the criteria, the long-term average (ug/L) is listed
Subcategory=Oils Option=J
(continued)
CAS
Facility
Sample
No. of
No. of
All
Facility
1
Day
4
Day
Pollutant
Number
ID
Point(s)
Obs .
NDs
ND
LTA (ug/L)
VF
VF
ZINC
7440-66-6
4814A
09
4
0
No
3,138.75
1
. 960
1
280
ZINC
7440-66-6
4814B
10
3
0
No
3,758.33
2
. 070
1
308
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
4814B
10
3
2
No
115.74
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
4814B
10
3
2
No
151.45
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
4814A
09
4
3
No
17.29
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
4814B
10
3
0
No
489.45
3
.104
1
550
N-DECANE
124-18-5
4814A
09
4
4
Yes
16.25
N-DECANE
124-18-5
4814B
10
3
0
No
4,723.68
2
.444
1
398
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
4814A
09
4
0
No
113.89
1
. 688
1
209
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
4814B
10
3
0
No
1,471. 36
1
. 388
1
125
20 Day
VF
Subcategory=Oils Option=9
Pollutant
CAS
Number
Facility
ID
Sample
Point(s)
No. of
Obs .
No. of
NDs
All
ND
Facility
LTA (ug/L)
1 Day
VF
4 Day
VF
20 Day
VF
OIL & GREASE
C-007
651
01
12
2
No
28,325.00
4.476
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4814A
09
4
0
No
3.550
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
4814B
10
3
0
No
2 .264
TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
C-009
651
01
2
0
No
25,500.00
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
4814A
09
4
0
No
103.06
2.298
1
364
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
4814A
09
4
0
No
1,341.00
3. 882
1
722
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
4814B
10
3
0
No
237.67
3.587
1
657
BARIUM
7440-39-3
4814A
09
4
0
No
220.50
1. 938
1
275
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
4814A
09
4
1
No
7 . 33
2 . 308
1
362
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
4814B
10
3
1
No
7 .59
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
4814A
09
4
0
No
183.13
2 . 291
1
362
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
4814B
10
3
0
No
463.67
3.564
1
652
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
651
01
12
0
No
18 . 92
6.367
2
271
COBALT
7440-48-4
4814A
09
4
0
No
1,090.75
2 .107
1
317
COBALT
7440-48-4
4814B
10
3
0
No
13,743.33
13.089
3
764
Appendix D-35
-------
Attachment 10-2: Facility-Specific Long-Term Averages (ug/L) and Variability Factors
If the facility data set met the criteria, the long-term average (ug/L) is listed
Subcategory=Oils Option=9
(continued)
CAS
Facility
Sample
No. of
No. of
All
Facility
1 Day
4
Day
Pollutant
Number
ID
Point(s)
Obs .
NDs
ND
LTA (ug/L)
VF
VF
COPPER
7440-50-8
4814A
09
4
0
No
6 8.66
1. 906
1
266
COPPER
7440-50-8
4814B
10
3
0
No
444.67
1. 250
1
083
COPPER
7440-50-8
651
01
12
0
No
156.75
6. 412
2
281
LEAD
7439-92-1
4814A
09
4
0
No
59.73
1. 567
1
176
LEAD
7439-92-1
4814B
10
3
0
No
237.67
1.415
1
133
LEAD
7439-92-1
651
01
12
0
No
98 . 58
7 . 665
2
571
MERCURY
7439-97-6
4814A
09
4
4
Yes
3. 05
MERCURY
7439-97-6
4814B
10
3
1
No
3.12
5.574
2
095
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
4814A
09
4
0
No
1,542.75
2 .269
1
357
TIN
7440-31-5
4814A
09
4
3
No
30.78
TIN
7440-31-5
4814B
10
3
2
No
183.17
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
4814A
09
4
0
No
13. 64
2 .191
1
338
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
4814B
10
3
0
No
29. 82
2 . 507
1
413
ZINC
7440-66-6
4814A
09
4
0
No
3,138.75
1. 960
1
280
ZINC
7440-66-6
4814B
10
3
0
No
3,758.33
2 . 070
1
308
ZINC
7440-66-6
651
01
12
0
No
920.83
3. 864
1
718
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
4813
07
5
5
Yes
10. 00
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
4814B
10
3
2
No
115.74
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
4814B
10
3
2
No
54 . 98
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
4814B
10
3
2
No
151.45
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
4813
07
5
5
Yes
10. 00
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
4814A
09
4
3
No
17.29
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
4814B
10
3
0
No
489.45
3.104
1
550
N-DECANE
124-18-5
4813
07
5
3
No
238.16
5.521
2
275
N-DECANE
124-18-5
4814A
09
4
4
Yes
16.25
N-DECANE
124-18-5
4814B
10
3
0
No
4,723.68
2.444
1
398
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
4813
07
5
1
No
202.66
5. 642
2
136
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
4814A
09
4
0
No
113.89
1. 688
1
209
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
4814B
10
3
0
No
1,471. 36
1. 388
1
125
20 Day
VF
Appendix D-36
-------
Attachment 10-2: Facility-Specific Long-Term Averages (ug/L) and Variability Factors
If the facility data set met the criteria, the long-term average (ug/L) is listed
Subcategory=Organics Option=4
CAS
Facility
Sample
No. of
No. of
All
Facility
1
Day
4
Day
Pollutant
Number
ID
Point(s)
Obs .
NDs
ND
LTA
(ug/L)
VF
VF
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
1987
12
5
0
No
569
40
1
. 629
1
193
COPPER
7440-50-8
1987
12
5
0
No
703
60
1
. 230
1
077
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
1987
12
5
0
No
942
80
1
. 069
1
024
ZINC
7440-66-6
1987
12
5
0
No
381
80
1
. 302
1
099
ACETOPHENONE
98-86-2
1987
12
5
4
No
35
87
ANILINE
62-53-3
1987
12
5
5
Yes
10
50
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
1987
12
5
3
No
184
78
10
. 380
3
034
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
1987
12
5
4
No
68
24
PHENOL
108-95-2
1987
12
5
3
No
362
03
10
. 075
2
984
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
1987
12
5
0
No
116
46
3
. 175
1
566
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
608-27-5
1987
12
5
4
No
23
04
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
88-06-2
1987
12
5
3
No
85
76
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
1987
12
5
1
No
878
12
5
.478
2
103
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
1987
12
5
1
No
2
061
28
14
. 644
3
868
20 Day
VF
Appendix D-37
-------
ATTACHMENT 10-3: Pollutant Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors1
Subcategory=Metals Option=3
CAS
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Group
Number
LTA (ug/L)
1-day VF
4-day VF
20-day VF
OIL & GREASE
NONE
C-007
34,339.85
5. 9791
1.46202
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
NONE
C-009
9,250.00
3.2032
1. 22150
ANTIMONY
SEMI-METALS
7440-36-0
21. 25
5.2081
1.46947
ARSENIC
SEMI-METALS
7440-38-2
11.15
8.9037
1.78196
CADMIUM
METALS
7440-43-9
81. 93
9.5500
1. 99384
CHROMIUM
METALS
7440-47-3
39.75
4.2054
1.31427
COBALT
METALS
7440-48-4
57 .42
3.1627
1. 22466
COPPER
METALS
7440-50-8
169.03
3.8986
1.27493
LEAD
METALS
7439-92-1
176.75
7 .4539
1.60304
MERCURY
METALS
7439-97-6
0.20
3.1845
1. 22466
NICKEL
METALS
7440-02-0
254.84
3.1148
1.21179
SELENIUM
NON-METALS
7782-49-2
56.25
3.1352
1.24126
SILVER
METALS
7440-22-4
10. 00
3.1845
1. 22466
TIN
METALS
7440-31-5
30. 00
3.1845
1. 22466
TITANIUM
METALS
7440-32-6
5. 00
3.1845
1. 22466
VANADIUM
METALS
7440-62-2
50. 00
1. 2565
1.03618
ZINC
METALS
7440-66-6
206.22
3.1845
1. 22174
Subcategory=Metals Option=4
Pollutant
Group
CAS
Number
Pollutant
LTA (ug/L)
Pollutant
1-day VF
Pollutant
4-day VF
Pollutant
20-day VF
OIL & GREASE
NONE
C-007
34,339.85
5.9791
1
46202
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
NONE
C-009
16,800.00
3.5900
1
85000
ANTIMONY
SEMI-METALS
7440-36-0
170.00
1.4668
1
21431
ARSENIC
SEMI-METALS
7440-38-2
83. 90
1.9358
1
23472
CADMIUM
METALS
7440-43-9
58 . 03
8.1705
1
65724
CHROMIUM
METALS
7440-47-3
1,674.50
9.2583
1
83247
COBALT
METALS
7440-48-4
114.50
1.6746
1
08700
1 Some pollutant-specific long-term averages have been replaced by the baseline value (see Section 10.5.3 and Table 10-4)
Some pollutant-specific variability factors have been transferred as described in Section 10.6.7 and Table 10-5.
See Section 10.8 for transfers of limitations (the corresponding LTAs and VFs are listed in this Attachment).
Appendix D-38
-------
ant
- VF
50
¦ 04
i g 9
51
i59
¦ 84
77
¦ 05
¦ 27
74
ant
- VF
91
ant
' VF
ATTACHMENT 10-3: Pollutant Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors
Subcategory=Metals Option=4
(continued)
CAS
Pollutant
Pollutant
Group
Number
LTA
(ug/L)
1-day VF
METALS
7440-50-8
744.16
5.5659
METALS
7439-92-1
176.75
7 .4539
METALS
7439-97-6
0.56
4 .1728
METALS
7440-02-0
1,
.161.49
3. 4021
NON-METALS
7782-49-2
279.80
5. 8681
METALS
7440-22-4
26.44
4.5273
METALS
7440-31-5
89.77
4 . 5548
METALS
7440-32-6
56. 87
1. 6659
METALS
7440-62-2
50. 00
4 . 3501
METALS
7440-66-6
413.27
6.93 9 9
Pollutant
4-day VF
Subcategory=Metals Option=cyanide 2
Group
NONE
CAS
Number
57-12-5
Pollutant
LTA (ug/L)
136,130.00
Pollutant
1-day VF
3.6737
Pollutant
4-day VF
Subcategory=Oils Option=
CAS
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Group
Number
LTA (ug/L)
1-day VF
4-day VF
SEMI-METALS
7440-36-0
103.06
2 .2980
1. 36370
METALS
7440-39-3
220.50
1.9382
1.27470
METALS
7440-47-3
323.40
2.9275
1. 50697
METALS
7440-48-4
7,417.04
7.5981
2 . 54060
METALS
7440-50-8
256.66
1.5779
1.17459
METALS
7439-92-1
148.70
1.4912
1.15434
METALS
7439-98-7
1,542.75
2.2693
1. 35678
METALS
7440-31-5
106.97
2.3285
1. 36900
METALS
7440-66-6
3,448.54
2.0150
1.29409
Appendix D-39
-------
ATTACHMENT 10-3: Pollutant Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors
Subcategory=Oils Option=8
(continued)
CAS
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Group
Number
LTA (ug/L)
1-day VF
4-day VF
20-day VF
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
PHTHALATES
117-81-7
115.74
2 . 3105
1.36669
CARBAZOLE
ANILINES
86-74-8
151.45
2 . 5862
1. 53568
FLUORANTHENE
PAHS
206-44-0
253.37
3.1044
1.54997
N-DECANE
N-PARAFFINS
124-18-5
2,369.97
2.4438
1.39844
N-OCTADECANE
N-PARAFFINS
593-45-3
792.62
1.5381
1.16693
Subcategory=Oils Option=9
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Group
Number
LTA (ug/L)
1-day VF
4
-day VF
OIL & GREASE
NONE
C-007
28,325.00
4 .4758
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
NONE
C-009
25,500.00
2.9071
ANTIMONY
SEMI-METALS
7440-36-0
103.06
2.2980
1
36370
ARSENIC
SEMI-METALS
7440-38-2
789.33
3.7346
1
68936
BARIUM
METALS
7440-39-3
220.50
1.9382
1
27470
CADMIUM
METALS
7440-43-9
7.46
2.3077
1
36237
CHROMIUM
METALS
7440-47-3
183.13
4.0739
1
76166
COBALT
METALS
7440-48-4
7,417.04
7.5981
2
54060
COPPER
METALS
7440-50-8
156.75
3.1894
1
54354
LEAD
METALS
7439-92-1
98 . 58
3.5492
1
62648
MERCURY
METALS
7439-97-6
3.09
5.5737
2
09502
MOLYBDENUM
METALS
7439-98-7
1,542.75
2.2693
1
35678
TIN
METALS
7440-31-5
106.97
3.1283
1
53796
TITANIUM
METALS
7440-32-6
21.73
2.3493
1
37563
ZINC
METALS
7440-66-6
3,138.75
2.6312
1
43528
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
PHTHALATES
117-81-7
62 . 87
3.4144
1
61369
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
PHTHALATES
85-68-7
54 . 98
3.4144
1
61369
CARBAZOLE
ANILINES
86-74-8
151.45
3.9482
1
81970
FLUORANTHENE
PAHS
206-44-0
17.29
3.1044
1
54997
N-DECANE
N-PARAFFINS
124-18-5
238.16
3.9825
1
83663
N-OCTADECANE
N-PARAFFINS
593-45-3
202.66
2.9060
1
49004
Pollutant
20-day VF
1. 34310
1.20139
Appendix D-40
-------
ATTACHMENT 10-3: Pollutant Specific Long-Term Averages and Variability Factors
Subcategory=Organics Option=4
CAS
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Pollutant
Group
Number
LTA
(ug/L)
1-day VF
4-day VF
20-day VF
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
NONE
C-003
41
000.00
3. 9700
1.29
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
NONE
C-009
45
000.00
4.7900
1. 36
ANTIMONY
SEMI-METALS
7440-36-0
569.40
1. 6293
1.19317
COPPER
METALS
7440-50-8
703.60
1. 2301
1. 07654
MOLYBDENUM
METALS
7439-98-7
942.80
1.0688
1. 02385
ZINC
METALS
7440-66-6
381.80
1.3023
1.09891
ACETOPHENONE
KETONES, AROMATIC
98-86-2
35. 87
3.1750
1. 56576
ANILINE
ANILINES
62-53-3
10.50
3.1750
1. 56576
O-CRESOL
PHENOLS
95-48-7
184.78
10.3802
3.03447
P-CRESOL
PHENOLS
106-44-5
68 .24
10.2277
3.00900
PHENOL
PHENOLS
108-95-2
362.03
10.0752
2.98353
PYRIDINE
PYRIDINES
110-86-1
116.46
3.1750
1.56576
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
CHLOROANILINES
60-827-5
23. 04
3.1750
1.56576
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
CHLOROPHENOLS
88-06-2
85.76
1. 8108
1.24178
2-BUTANONE
KETONES, ALIPHATIC
I
78-93-3
878.12
5.4784
2.10346
2-PROPANONE
KETONES, ALIPHATIC
I
67-64-1
2
061.28
14.6440
3.86753
Appendix D-41
-------
Attachment 10-4 Calculation of Group and Organics Variability Factors
This attachment to Chapter 10 identifies the groups and interim calculations for the group variability factors that EPA used for the final limitations and
standards. The interim calculations identify the facility-specific and pollutant-specific variability factors that were used to calculate the group-level variability factors
and the organics variability factors (see Section 10.6.7).
If this attachment does not list a particular pollutant for an option, then the facility-specific variability factors could not be calculated due to data restrictions
(see section 10.6.5) or the pollutant was not a pollutant of concern for the subcategory (see Appendix A).
In calculating the organics variability factors, EPA used the group variability factors from the following groups: alcohols, aliphatic; amides; amines, aliphatic;
anilines; chloroanilines; chlorophenols; ketones, aromatic; n-paraffins; PAHs; phenols; phthalates; polyglycol monoethers; pyridines; and sulfides, aromatic. This
attachment provides the facility-specific, pollutant-specific, and group-level variability factors that were used to calculate the organics variability factors for the oils and
organics subcategories.
Tables in Attachment 10-4:
Metals Subcategory, Option 3
Table 10-4-1 Metals Option 3: Metals Group Variability Factors
Metals Subcategory, Option 4
Table 10-4-2 Metals Option 4: Metals Group Variability Factors
Oils Subcategory, Option 8
Table 10-4-3 Oils Option 8: Metals Group Variability Factors
Table 10-4-4 Oils Option 8: Phthalates Group Variability Factors
Table 10-4-5 Oils Option 8: Organics Variability Factors
Oils Subcategory, Option 9
Table 10-4-6 Oils Option 9: Metals Group Variability Factors
Table 10-4-7 Oils Option 9: Phthalates Group Variability Factors
Table 10-4-8 Oils Option 9: Organics Variability Factors
Organics Subcategory, Option 4
Table 10-4-9 Organics Option 4: Phenols Group Variability Factors
Table 10-4-10 Organics Option 4: Chlorophenols Group Variability Factors
Table 10-4-11 Organics Option 4: Organics Variability Factors
Appendix D-42
-------
Attachment 10-4
Metals Subcategory, Option 3
^ibl^^^^^MetaL^gtioi^^Metds^rouj^ariabili^^ictore
Pollutant
(Metals Group)
Facility
Facility-Specific
Variability Factors
Pollutant-Specific
Daily
Monthly
Daily
Monthly
Cadmium
4378
12.018
2.421
9.550
1.994
Cadmium
602
7.082
1.567
Chromium
4378
3.427
1.247
4.205
1.314
Chromium
4803
1.244
1.035
Chromium
602
7.945
1.661
Cobalt
4378
3.163
1.225
3.163
1.225
Copper
4378
6.549
1.514
3.899
1.275
Copper
4803
1.248
1.036
Lead
4803
1.447
1.061
5.968
1.551
Lead
602
10.489
2.041
Molybdenum
4378
1.298
1.042
1.210
1.031
Molybdenum
4803
1.12
1.02
Nickel
4378
2.693
1.185
3.115
1.212
Nickel
4803
1.358
1.050
Nickel
602
5.293
1.401
Vanadium
4378
1.257
1.036
1.257
1.036
Zinc
4378
4.415
1.327
3.185
1.222
Zinc
4803
1.954
1.116
Metals Group Variability Factors:
3.185
1.225
Appendix D-43
-------
Attachment 10-4
Metals Subcategory, Option 4
Pollutant (Metals Group)
Daily
Pollutant-Specific Variability Factors
Monthly
Cadmium
8.171
1.657
Chromium
9.258
1.832
Cobalt
1.675
1.087
Copper
5.566
1.428
Lead
7.454
1.603
Lithium
1.804
1.101
Mercury
4.173
1.320
Molybdenum
1.726
1.09
Nickel
3.402
1.245
Silver
4.527
1.327
Tin
4.555
1.339
Titanium
1.666
1.086
Zinc
6.940
1.552
Zirconium
1.700
1.09
Metals Group Variability Factors:
4.350
1.323
1 For this option, the facility-specific and pollutant-specific variability factors are the same as they are both derived from facility 699.
Appendix D-44
-------
Attachment 10-4
Oils Subcategory, Option 8
Pollutant Facility Variability Factors
(Metals Group)
Facility-Specific Pollutant-Specific
Daily Monthly Daily Monthly
Barium
4814A
1.938
1.275
1.938
1.275
Cadmium
4814A
2.308
1.362
2.308
1.362
Cadmium
4814B
deleted (see Section 10.6.5.4)
Chromium
4814A
2.291
1.362
2.928
1.507
Chromium
4814B
3.564
1.652
Cobalt
4814A
2.107
1.317
7.598
2.541
Cobalt
4814B
13.089
3.764
Copper
4814A
1.906
1.266
1.578
1.175
Copper
4814B
1.250
1.083
Lead
4814A
1.567
1.176
1.491
1.155
Lead
4814B
1.415
1.133
Mercury
4814B
5.574
2.10
5.574
2.095
Molybdenum
4814A
2.269
1.357
2.269
1.357
Nickel
4814A
2.737
1.467
4.829
1.933
Nickel
4814B
6.921
2.398
Strontium
4814A
1.932
1.273
3.068
1.533
Strontium
4814B
4.203
1.792
Titanium
4814A
2.191
1.338
2.349
1.376
Titanium
4814B
2.507
1.413
Zinc
4814A
1.960
1.280
2.015
1.294
Zinc
4814B
2.070
1.308
Metals Group Variability Factors:
2.329
1.369
Appendix D-45
-------
Attachment 10-4
^ibl^^^^^Oils^gtioi^^Mialates^Touj^ariabilit^Rictors
Pollutant
(Phthalates Group)
Facility
Facility-Specific
Variability Factors
Pollutant-Specific
Daily
Monthly
Daily
Monthly
Diethyl phthalate
4814A
2.310
1.367
2.310 1.367
Phthalates Group Variability Factors:
2.310 1.367
Group
Pollutant
Facility
Variability Factors
Facility-Specific
Pollutant-Specific
Group-Level
Daily
Monthly
Daily
Monthly
Daily Monthly
n-paraffins
n-decane
4814B
2.444
1.398
2.444
1.398
2.586 1.536
n-paraffins
n-docosane
4814B
8.811
2.852
8.811
2.852
n-paraffins
n-dodecane
4814B
10.825
3.316
10.825
3.316
n-paraffins
n-eicosane
4814A
1.880
1.573
2.586
1.583
n-paraffins
n-eicosane
4814B
3.292
1.592
n-paraffins
n-hexadecane
4814A
1.761
1.484
1.925
1.398
n-paraffins
n-hexadecane
4814B
2.088
1.312
n-paraffins
n-octadecane
4814A
1.688
1.209
1.538
1.167
n-paraffins
n-octadecane
4814B
1.388
1.125
n-paraffins
n-tetradecane
4814A
3.033
1.534
3.041
1.536
n-paraffins
n-tetradecane
4814B
3.049
1.537
Appendix D-46
-------
Group
Pollutant
Facility
Variability Factors
Facility-Specific
Pollutant-Specific
Group-Level
Daily
Monthly
Daily
Monthly
Dailv
Monthly
PAHS
Anthracene
4814B
1.369
1.119
1.369
1.119
2.311
1.369
PAHS
Benzo(a)anthracene
4814B
2.842
1.590
2.842
1.590
PAHS
Biphenyl
4814B
1.219
1.158
1.219
1.158
PAHS
Fluoranthene
4814B
3.104
1.550
3.104
1.550
PAHS
Fluorene
4814B
1.779
1.233
1.779
1.233
PAHS
Naphthalene
4814A
4.876
1.939
3.044
1.505
PAHS
Naphthalene
4814B
1.211
1.071
PAHS
Phenanthrene
4814A
8.269
2.676
5.354
2.037
PAHS
Phenanthrene
4814B
2.438
1.397
PAHS
Pyrene
4814B
1.220
1.073
1.220
1.073
Phenols
p-cresol
4814B
6.601
2.326
6.601
2.326
6.601
2.326
Phthalates
Diethyl phthalate
4814A
2.310
1.367
2.310
1.367
2.310
1.367
Pyridines
Pyridine
4814A
5.360
2.097
5.360
2.097
5.360
2.097
Organics Variability Factors:
2.586
1.536
Appendix D-47
-------
Attachment 10-4
Oils Subcategory, Option 9
^ibl^^^^^Oils^gtioi^^Metal^Touj^ariabilit^Rictore
Pollutant
(Metals Group)
Facility
Variability Factors
Facility-Specific
Pollutant-Specific
Daily
Monthly
Daily
Monthly
Barium
4814A
1.938
1.275
1.938
1.275
Cadmium
4814A
2.308
1.362
2.308
1.362
Cadmium
4814B
deleted (see Section 10.6.5.4)
Chromium
4814A
2.291
1.362
4.074
1.762
Chromium
4814B
3.564
1.652
Chromium
651
6.367
2.271
Cobalt
4814A
2.107
1.317
7.598
2.541
Cobalt
4814B
13.089
3.764
Copper
4814A
1.906
1.266
3.189
1.543
Copper
4814B
1.250
1.083
Copper
651
6.412
2.281
Lead
4814A
1.567
1.176
3.549
1.627
Lead
4814B
1.415
1.133
Lead
651
7.665
2.571
Mercury
4814B
5.574
2.095
5.574
2.095
Molybdenum
4814A
2.269
1.357
2.269
1.357
Nickel
4814A
2.737
1.467
4.829
1.933
Nickel
4814B
6.921
2.398
Strontium
4814A
1.932
1.273
3.068
1.533
Strontium
4814B
4.203
1.792
Appendix D-48
-------
Pollutant
(Metals Group)
Facility
Variability Factors
Facility-Specific
Daily Monthly
Daily
Pollutant-Specific
Monthly
Titanium
4814A
2.191 1.338
2.349
1.376
Titanium
4814B
2.507 1.413
Zinc
4814A
1.960 1.280
2.631
1.435
Zinc
4814B
2.070 1.308
Zinc
651
3.864 1.718
Metals Group Variability Factors:
3.128
1.538
Table 10-4-7 Oils Ontion 9:
Phthalates Gtoud Variability Factors
Pollutant
(Phthalates Group)
Facility
Variability Factors
Facility-Specific
Daily Monthly
Daily
Pollutant-Specific
Monthly
Diethyl phthalate
4813
4.518 1.861
3.414
1.614
Diethyl phthalate
4814A
2.310 1.367
Phthalates Group Variability Factors:
3.414
1.614
Appendix D-49
-------
Attachment 10-4
^ibl^^^^^OiL^gtioi^^igamcs^ariabilit^Rjctors
Group
Pollutant
Facility
Variability Factors
Facility-Specific
Pollutant-Specific
Group-Level
Daily
Monthly
Daily
Monthly
Daily Monthly
n-paraffins
n-decane
4813
5.521
2.275
3.983
1.837
3.983 1.837
n-paraffins
n-decane
4814B
2.444
1.398
n-paraffins
n-docosane
4813
2.703
1.580
5.757
2.216
n-paraffins
n-docosane
4814B
8.811
2.852
n-paraffins
n-dodecane
4814B
10.825
3.316
10.825
3.316
n-paraffins
n-eicosane
4813
4.630
1.912
3.267
1.692
n-paraffins
n-eicosane
4814A
1.880
1.573
n-paraffins
n-eicosane
4814B
3.292
1.592
n-paraffins
n-hexadecane
4813
4.772
1.976
2.874
1.591
n-paraffins
n-hexadecane
4814A
1.761
1.484
n-paraffins
n-hexadecane
4814B
2.088
1.312
n-paraffins
n-octadecane
4813
5.642
2.136
2.906
1.490
n-paraffins
n-octadecane
4814A
1.688
1.209
n-paraffins
n-octadecane
4814B
1.388
1.125
n-paraffins
n-tetradecane
4813
11.174
3.394
5.752
2.155
n-paraffins
n-tetradecane
4814A
3.033
1.534
n-paraffins
n-tetradecane
4814B
3.049
1.537
PAHS
Anthracene
4813
3.622
1.672
2.496
1.396
2.582 1.445
PAHS
Anthracene
4814B
1.369
1.119
PAHS
Benzo(a)anthracene
4813
2.535
1.379
2.688
1.484
PAHS
Benzo(a)anthracene
4814B
2.842
1.590
PAHS
Biphenyl
4813
3.932
1.733
2.576
1.445
PAHS
Biphenyl
4814B
1.219
1.158
PAHS
Chrysene
4813
4.068
1.758
4.068
1.758
PAHS
Fluoranthene
4814B
3.104
1.550
3.104
1.550
PAHS
Fluorene
4813
3.162
1.551
2.471
1.392
Appendix
D-50
-------
Group
Pollutant
Facility
Variability Factors
Facility-Specific
Pollutant-Specific
Group-Level
Daily
Monthly
Daily
Monthly
Dailv
Monthly
PAHS
Fluorene
4814B
1.779
1.233
PAHS
Naphthalene
4813
1.658
1.201
2.582
1.404
PAHS
Naphthalene
4814A
4.876
1.939
PAHS
Naphthalene
4814B
1.211
1.071
PAHS
Phenanthrene
4813
5.891
2.164
5.533
2.079
PAHS
Phenanthrene
4814A
8.269
2.676
PAHS
Phenanthrene
4814B
2.438
1.397
PAHS
Pyrene
4813
3.611
1.724
2.416
1.399
PAHS
Pyrene
4814B
1.220
1.073
Phenols
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
4813
4.066
1.843
4.066
1.843
4.172
1.878
Phenols
o-cresol
4813
8.508
2.770
8.508
2.770
Phenols
p-cresol
4813
1.954
1.499
4.278
1.913
Phenols
p-cresol
4814B
6.601
2.326
Phenols
Phenol
4813
1.340
1.110
1.340
1.110
Phthalates
Diethyl phthalate
4813
4.518
1.861
3.414
1.614
3.414
1.614
Phthalates
Diethyl phthalate
4814A
2.310
1.367
Pyridines
Pyridine
4814A
5.360
2.097
5.360
2.097
5.360
2.097
Sulfides, aromatic
Dibenzothiophene
4813
3.914
1.803
3.914
1.803
3.914
1.803
Organics Variability Factors:
3.948
1.820
Appendix D-51
-------
Attachment 10-4
Organics Subcategory, Option 4 (for this option, the facility-specific and pollutant-specific variability factors are the same as they are both derived from facility 1987)
Pollutant
(Phenols Group)
Daily
Pollutant-Specific Variability Factors
Monthly
o-cresol
phenol
10.380
10.075
3.034
2.984
Phenols Group Variability Factors:
10.228
3.009
Table 10-4-10 Oraanics Option 4: ChloroDhenols Gtoud Variability Factors
Pollutant
(Chlorophenols Group)
Daily
Pollutant-Specific Variability Factors
Monthly
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
deleted (see Section 10.6.5.4)
1.811
1.242
Chlorophenols Group Variability Factors:
1.811
1.242
Table 10-4-11 Oraanics Ontion 4: Oraanics Variability Factors
Group Pollutant
Pollutant-Specific
Daily
Variability Factors
Monthly Daily
Group-Level
Monthly
Chlorophenols pentachlorophenol
1.811
1.242
1.811
1.242
Phenols o-cresol
Phenols phenol
10.380
10.075
3.034
2.984
10.228
3.009
Pyridines pyridine
3.175
1.566
3.175
1.566
Organics Variability Factors:
3.175
1.566
Appendix D-52
-------
Attachment 10-5 Limitations
Subcategory=Metals Option=3 --
No. of
Fac. in
Pollutant
CAS NO
LTA
Group
OIL & GREASE
C-007
1
NONE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
3
NONE
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
2
SEMI-METALS
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
3
SEMI-METALS
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
3
METALS
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
3
METALS
COBALT
7440-48-4
2
METALS
COPPER
7440-50-8
2
METALS
LEAD
7439-92-1
1
METALS
MERCURY
7439-97-6
2
METALS
NICKEL
7440-02-0
3
METALS
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
1
NON-METALS
SILVER
7440-22-4
2
METALS
TIN
7440-31-5
2
METALS
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
2
METALS
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
2
METALS
ZINC
7440-66-6
2
METALS
Subcategory=Metals Option=4
Pollutant
OIL & GREASE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
ANTIMONY
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
LEAD
CAS_NO
C-007
C-009
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
No. of
Fac. in
LTA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Group
NONE
NONE
SEMI-METALS
SEMI-METALS
METALS
METALS
METALS
METALS
METALS
Appendix D-53
(ug/L)
Pollutant
Monthly
LTA
1-Day Limit
limit
34,300.
205,000.
50,200.
9,250.
29,600.
11,300.
21. 3
Ill.
31. 2
11. 2
99.3
19. 9
81. 9
782 .
163.
39.8
167 .
52 . 2
57 . 4
182 .
70.3
169.
659.
216.
177 .
1,320.
283.
0.201
0. 641
0.24
255.
7 94 .
309.
56.3
176.
69.8
10.0
31. 8
12 . 2
30. 0
95.5
36.7
5. 00
15. 9
6.12
50. 0
62 . 8
51. 8
206.
657 .
252 .
Pollutant Monthly
LTA
1-Day Limit
limit
34,300
205,000.
50,200.
16,800
60,000.
31,000.
170
24 9.
206.
83
9
162 .
104 .
58
0
474 .
96.
1, 670
15,500.
3,070.
115
192 .
124 .
744
4,140.
1,060.
177
1,320.
283.
-------
Attachment 10-5 Limitations (ug/L)
Subcategory=Metals Option=4
(continued)
No. of
Fac. in
Pollutant
Monthly
Pollutant
CAS NO
LTA
Group
LTA
1-Day Limit
limit
MERCURY
7439-97-6
1
METALS
0
560
2
34
0.739
NICKEL
7440-02-0
1
METALS
1,160
3, 950
1,450.
SELENIUM
7782-49-2
1
NON-METALS
280
1,640
408 .
SILVER
7440-22-4
1
METALS
26
4
120
35.1
TIN
7440-31-5
1
METALS
89
8
409
120.
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
1
METALS
56
9
94
7
61. 8
VANADIUM
7440-62-2
1
METALS
50
0
218
66.2
ZINC
7440-66-6
1
METALS
413
2,870
641.
Subcategory=Metals Option=cyanide 2
No. of
Fac. in Pollutant Monthly
Pollutant CAS_NO LTA Group LTA 1-Day Limit limit
TOTAL CYANIDE 57-12-5 1 NONE 136,000. 500,000. 178,000.
Subcategory=Oils Option=
Pollutant
ANTIMONY
BARIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
LEAD
MOLYBDENUM
TIN
CAS_NO
7440-36-0
7440-39-3
7440-47-3
7440-48-4
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-98-7
7440-31-5
No. of
Fac. in
LTA
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
Group
SEMI-METALS
METALS
METALS
METALS
METALS
METALS
METALS
METALS
Pollutant
LTA
103.
221.
323.
7,420.
257 .
149.
1,540.
107 .
1-Day Limit
237 .
427 .
947 .
56,400.
405.
222 .
3,500.
24 9.
Monthly
limit
141
281
487
18,800
301
172
2,090
146
Appendix D-54
-------
Attachment 10-5 Limitations (ug/L)
Subcategory=Oils Option=
(continued)
Pollutant
CAS NO
No. of
Fac. in
LTA
Group
Pollutant
LTA
1-Day Limit
Monthly
limit
ZINC 7440-66-e
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE 117-81-7
CARBAZOLE 86-74-8
FLUORANTHENE 206-44-0
N-DECANE 124-18-5
N-OCTADECANE 593-45-3
METALS
PHTHALATES
ANILINES
PAHS
N-PARAFFINS
N-PARAFFINS
3,450.
116.
151 .
253.
2,370.
793.
6,950.
267 .
392 .
787 .
5,790.
1,220.
4 , 460.
158 .
233.
393.
3,310.
925.
Subcategory=Oils Option=9
No. of
Fac. in Pollutant Monthly
Pollutant
CAS NO
LTA
Group
LTA
1-Day Limit
limit
OIL & GREASE
C-007
1
NONE
28,300.
127,000.
38,000.
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
1
NONE
25,500.
74,100.
30,600.
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
1
SEMI-METALS
103.
237 .
141.
ARSENIC
7440-38-2
2
SEMI-METALS
789.
2,950.
1,330.
BARIUM
7440-39-3
1
METALS
221.
427 .
281.
CADMIUM
7440-43-9
2
METALS
7.46
17 . 2
10.2
CHROMIUM
7440-47-3
3
METALS
183.
746.
323.
COBALT
7440-48-4
2
METALS
7,420.
56,400.
18,800.
COPPER
7440-50-8
3
METALS
157 .
500.
242 .
LEAD
7439-92-1
3
METALS
98 . 6
350.
160.
MERCURY
7439-97-6
2
METALS
3.09
17 . 2
6.47
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
1
METALS
1,540.
3,500.
2,090.
TIN
7440-31-5
2
METALS
107 .
335.
165.
TITANIUM
7440-32-6
2
METALS
21 . 7
51. 0
29. 9
ZINC
7440-66-6
3
METALS
3,140.
8,260.
4,500.
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL) PHTHALATE
117-81-7
2
PHTHALATES
62 . 9
215.
101.
BUTYL BENZYL PHTHALATE
85-68-7
1
PHTHALATES
55. 0
188 .
88 . 7
Appendix D-55
-------
Attachment 10-5 Limitations (ug/L)
Subcategory=Oils Option=9
(continued)
No. of
Fac. in
Pollutant
Monthly
Pollutant
CAS NO
LTA
Group
LTA
1-Day Limit
limit
CARBAZOLE
86-74-8
1
ANILINES
151
598 .
276.
FLUORANTHENE
206-44-0
3
PAHS
17
3
53.7
26.8
N-DECANE
124-18-5
3
N-PARAFFINS
238
948 .
437 .
N-OCTADECANE
593-45-3
3
N-PARAFFINS
203
589.
302 .
S ubc a t e g o ry
Organics Option 4
No. of
Fac. in
Pollutant
Monthly
Pollutant
CAS NO
LTA
Group
LTA
1-Day Limit
limit
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
C-003
NONE
41
000
163,000.
53,000.
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C-009
NONE
45
000
216,000.
61,300.
ANTIMONY
7440-36-0
1
SEMI-METALS
569
928 .
679.
COPPER
7440-50-8
1
METALS
704
865.
757 .
MOLYBDENUM
7439-98-7
1
METALS
943
1,010.
965.
ZINC
7440-66-6
1
METALS
382
4 97 .
420.
ACETOPHENONE
98-86-2
1
KETONES, AROMATIC
35
9
114 .
56.2
ANILINE
62-53-3
1
ANILINES
10
5
33.3
16.4
O-CRESOL
95-48-7
1
PHENOLS
185
1,920.
561.
P-CRESOL
106-44-5
1
PHENOLS
68
2
698 .
205.
PHENOL
108-95-2
1
PHENOLS
362
3,650.
1,080.
PYRIDINE
110-86-1
1
PYRIDINES
116
370.
182 .
2,3-DICHLOROANILINE
608-27-5
1
CHLOROANILINES
23
0
73.1
36.1
2,4,6-TRICHLOROPHENOL
88-06-2
1
CHLOROPHENOLS
85
8
155.
106.
2-BUTANONE
78-93-3
1
KETONES, ALIPHATIC I
878
4, 810.
1,850.
2-PROPANONE
67-64-1
1
KETONES, ALIPHATIC I
2
060
30,200.
7,970.
Appendix D-56
-------
Appendix
E
LISTING OF POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN AND
CAS NUMBERS
This listing provides the pollutant name associated with each Chemical Abstract Service (CAS)
number. In other appendices and attachments to this document and in the record for the
final rulemaking, the complete CAS number is provided with a truncated pollutant name.
This listing can be used to identify the untruncated pollutant name.
Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) Reeistrv Number
Pollutant
100-41-4
Ethylbenzene
100-42-5
Styrene
100-51-6
Benzyl alcohol
101-84-8
Diphenyl ether
105-67-9
2,4-dimethylphenol
106-44-5
p-cresol
106-46-7
1,4-dichlorobenzene
106-48-9
4-chlorophenol
106-93-4
1,2-dibromoethane
107-06-2
1,2-dichloroethane
108-10-1
4-methyl-2-pentanone
108-38-3
m-xylene
108-88-3
Toluene
108-90-7
Chlorobenzene
108-95-2
Phenol
110-86-1
Pyridine
112-40-3
n-dodecane
112-95-8
n-eicosane
117-81-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
120-12-7
Anthracene
120-82-1
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
123-91-1
1,4-dioxane
124-18-5
n-decane
124-48-1
Dibromochloromethane
127-18-4
T etrachloroethene
129-00-0
Pyrene
132-64-9
Dibenzofuran
132-65-0
Dibenzothiophene
13494-80-9
Tellurium
136777-61-2
o+p-xylene
142-28-9
1,3-dichloropropane
142-62-1
Hexanoic acid
14265-44-2
Total ohosohorus
Appendix E-1
-------
Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) Registry Number
Pollutant
156-60-5
Trans-1,2-dichloroethene
1576-67-6
3,6-dimethylphenanthrene
16887-00-6
Chloride
16984-48-8
Fluoride
1730-37-6
1 -methy lfluorene
179601-23-1
m+p-xylene
18268-76-3
6-chlorovanillin
18496-25-8
Total sulfide
18540-29-9
Hexavalent chromium
2027-17-0
2-isopropylnaphthalene
20324-33-8
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
206-44-0
Fluoranthene
218-01-9
Chrysene
243-17-4
2,3-benzofluorene
2460-49-3
4,5 -dichloroguaiacol
2668-24-8
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
3743-23-5
5-chloroguaiacol
3938-16-7
3,6-dichlorocatechol
544-76-3
n-hexadecane
56-23-5
T etrachloromethane
56-55-3
Benzo(a)anthracene
56961-20-7
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
57-12-5
Total cyanide
58-90-2
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
591-35-5
3,5-dichlorophenol
593-45-3
n-octadecane
59-50-7
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
60712-44-9
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
608-27-5
2,3 -dichloroaniline
62-53-3
Aniline
629-59-4
n-tetradecane
629-97-0
n-docosane
630-01-3
n-hexacosane
630-02-4
n-octacosane
630-20-6
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane
646-31-1
n-tetracosane
65-85-0
Benzoic acid
67-64-1
2-propanone
67-66-3
Chloroform
67-71-0
Dimethyl sulfone
67-72-1
Hexachloroethane
68-12-2
N,n-dimethylformamide
700-12-9
Pentamethylbenzene
71-43-2
Benzene
71-55-6
1,1,1 -trichloroe thane
7429-90-5
Aluminum
7439-88-5
Iridium
Appendix E-2
-------
Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) Registry Number
Pollutant
7439-89-6
Iron
7439-91-0
Lanthanum
7439-92-1
Lead
7439-93-2
Lithium
7439-94-3
Lutetium
7439-95-4
Magnesium
7439-96-5
Manganese
7439-97-6
Mercury
7439-98-7
Molybdenum
7440-02-0
Nickel
7440-04-2
Osmium
7440-09-7
Potassium
7440-21-3
Silicon
7440-22-4
Silver
7440-23-5
Sodium
7440-24-6
Strontium
7440-25-7
Tantalum
7440-28-0
Thallium
7440-31-5
Tin
7440-32-6
Titanium
7440-36-0
Antimony
7440-38-2
Arsenic
7440-39-3
Barium
7440-41-7
Beryllium
7440-42-8
Boron
7440-43-9
Cadmium
7440-47-3
Chromium
7440-48-4
Cobalt
7440-50-8
Copper
7440-55-3
Gallium
7440-56-4
Germanium
7440-62-2
Vanadium
7440-65-5
Yttrium
7440-66-6
Zinc
7440-67-7
Zirconium
7440-70-2
Calcium
7440-74-6
Indium
75-01-4
Vinyl chloride
75-09-2
Methylene chloride
75-15-0
Carbon disulfide
75-27-4
Bromodichloromethane
75-34-3
1,1 -dichloroethane
75-35-4
1,1 -dichloroethene
7553-56-2
Iodine
7664-41-7
Ammonia as nitrogen
7704-34-9
Sulfur
7723-14-0
Phosnhorus
Appendix E-3
-------
Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) Registry Number
Pollutant
7782-49-2
Selenium
78-59-1
Isophorone
78-93-3
2-butanone
79-00-5
1,1,2-trichloroethane
79-01-6
Trichloroethene
79-34-5
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
832-69-9
1 -methy lphenanthrene
83-32-9
Acenaphthene
84-66-2
Diethyl phthalate
85-01-8
Phenanthrene
85-68-7
Butyl benzyl phthalate
86-73-7
Fluorene
86-74-8
Carbazole
87-86-5
Pentachlorophenol
88-06-2
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
91-20-3
Naphthalene
91-57-6
2-methylnaphthalene
92-52-4
Biphenyl
95-47-6
o-xylene
95-48-7
o-cresol
95-50-1
1,2-dichlorobenzene
95-53-4
o-toluidine
95-77-2
3,4 -dichlorophenol
95-95-4
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
96-18-4
1,2,3 -trichloropropane
96-45-7
Ethylenethiourea
98-55-5
Alpha-terpineol
98-86-2
Acetophenone
99-87-6
p-cymene
C-002
BOD 5-day (carbonaceous)
C-003
Biochemical oxygen demand
C-004
Chemical oxygen demand
C-004D
D-chemical oxygen demand
C-005
Nitrate/nitrite
C-007
Total recoverable oil and grease
C-009
Total suspended solids
C-010
Total dissolved solids
C-012
Total organic carbon
C-020
Total phenols
C-037
SGT-HEM
Appendix E-4
------- |