&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Impact and Benefit
Assessment for the Final Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and Standards for
the Airport Deicing Category
April 2012

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
Engineering and Analysis Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821-R-12-003

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment for the Final Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
The Airport Deicing Effluent Guidelines final rule and support documents were prepared by Office
of Water staff.
The following contractors provided assistance in performing the analyses supporting the
conclusions detailed in this document:
Abt Associates, Inc.
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Neither the United States Government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or
their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for any third party's use of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus,
product, or process discussed in this document, or represents that its use by such a party would
not infringe on privately owned rights. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement by EPA or recommendation for use.

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Contents
1	Introduction	1-1
1.1	Airport Deicing and Anti-icing Operations	1-1
1.2	Airport Deicing and Anti-Icing Product Formulations	1-2
1.3	Airport Deicing Chemical Dispersion in the Environment	1-4
1.4	Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Operation Discharges	1-5
2	Airport Deicing Product Components and Environmental Behavior	2-1
2.1	Airport Deicing Product Components	2-1
2.1.1 Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components	2-1
2.2	Environmental Behaviors of Airport Deicing Product Components	2-10
2.2.1	Environmental Behaviors	2-11
2.2.2	Detailed Airport Deicing Product Component Profiles	2-18
3	Environmental Impact Potential under Current Airport Deicing Practices	3-1
3.1	Universe of In-scope Airports	3-1
3.2	Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges to the Environment	3-2
3.2.1	Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge to the Environment	3-2
3.2.2	Quantified Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge Estimates	3-6
3.3	Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Concentrations in Receiving Surface Waters	3-11
3.4	Documented Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges	3-13
3.4.1	Chemical Oxygen Demand, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Dissolved Oxygen, and
Nutrient Impacts	3-15
3.4.2	Wildlife Impacts	3-17
3.4.3	Human Health, Aesthetic, and Other Aquatic Resource Use Impacts	3-17
3.4.4	Permit Violations	3-19
3.5	Potential Current Impacts to Impaired Waters and Other Resources	3-19
3.5.1	303(d)-Listed Waters Receiving Airport Deicing Discharges	3-20
3.5.2	Airport Deicing Discharges Listed as TMDL Point Sources	3-29
3.5.3	Resources Located Downstream from Airport Deicing Discharge Outfalls	3-30
4	Benefits of Final Regulatory Options	4-1
4.1	Final Regulatory Options	4-1
4.2	Airports Affected by the Final Regulatory Options	4-2

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4.3	Environmental Benefits Anticipated under Final Regulatory Options	4-3
4.3.1 Airport Actions and Benefits under Final Regulatory Options	4-4
4.4	Expected Ecological, Human Aquatic Resource Use, and Human Health Benefits	4-9
4.4.1	Ecological Benefits	4-9
4.4.2	Human Health Benefits	4-9
4.4.3	Human Use of Aquatic Resource Benefits	4-10
5 References	5-1
Appendix A : Detailed Characterization of Airport Deicing Products	A-l
Appendix B : Surveyed Airports within Scope for EPA's Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing
Operations	B-l
Appendix C : Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges	C-l

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Tables
Table 1-1: U.S. Commercial Airports - National Estimate of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing
Fluid Use/Purchase *	1-3
Table 1-2: U.S. Commercial Airports - National Estimate of Pavement Deicer Chemical Use	1-3
Table 2-1: Comparison of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing Fluid Characteristics by Type	2-3
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components	2-5
Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF
Application Sites at Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule	3-7
Table 3-2: Ammonia Discharge from Deicing Operations at Surveyed Airports within Scope of
the Final Rule	3-10
Table 3-3: Estimate of National Baseline COD Discharges from ADF Application Sites and
Airfield Pavement Deicing by Airport Hub Size Category	3-11
Table 3-4: Estimate of National Baseline Ammonia Discharges from Airfield Payment Deicing
by Airport Hub Size Category	3-11
Table 3-5: Documented Environmental Impacts Associated with Airport Deicing Discharges	3-14
Table 3-6: Airport Deicing System Improvements for In-scope Airports	3-15
Table 3-7: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Fresh Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing
Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule	3-21
Table 3-8: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Marine Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing
Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule	3-22
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed
Airport within Scope of the Final Rule	3-23
Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed
Airports within Scope of the Final Rule	3-31
Table 4-1: Regulatory Options Evaluated for the Airport Deicing Category	4-1
Table 4-2: Surveyed Airports Affected by Final Regulatory Options	4-3
Table 4-3. Option 1 - Airport Load Reductions and Environmental Benefits	4-5
Table 4-4. Option 2 - Airport Load Reductions and Environmental Benefits	4-7
Table 4-5. Option 3 - Airport Load Reductions and Environmental Benefits	4-8
Table 4-6: Annual Pollutant Discharge Reductions under Regulatory Options	4-9
Table A-l: Surveyed U.S. Commercial Airports- Chemical Pavement Deicer Usage	A-l
Table A-2: Chelating Agents	A-2

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-3: Freezing Point Depressants: Sugars	A-3
Table A-4: Freezing Point Depressants: Acetates	A-4
Table A-5: Freezing Point Depressants: Formates and Lactates	A-5
Table A-6: Freezing Point Depressants: Other	A-6
Table A-7: Freezing Point Depressants: Ethylene Glycols	A-7
Table A-8: Freezing Point Depressants: Propylene Glycols	A-9
Table A-9: Freezing Point Depressants: Urea and Metabolites	A-10
Table A-10: Thickeners: Acrylic Acid Polymers	A-l 1
Table A-ll: Thickeners: Natural Gums	A-12
Table A-12: Thickeners: Other	A-13
Table A-13: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates	A-14
Table A-14: Surfactants: Alkylbenzene Sulfonates	A-15
Table A-15: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates	A-16
Table A-16: Surfactants: Alkylphenol Ethoxylates	A-17
Table A-17: Surfactant Breakdown Products: Alkylphenols	A-18
Table A-18: Surfactants: Diamines	A-19
Table A-19: Surfactants: Polyethylene Oxide Monomer and Polymer	A-20
Table A-20: Surfactants: Other Nonionic Detergents	A-21
Table A-21: Corrosion Inhibitors and Flame Retardants: Tolyltriazoles	A-22
Table A-22: Corrosion Inhibitors and Flame Retardants: Other Triazoles	A-23
Table A-23: Corrosion Inhibitors: Alcohols	A-24
Table A-24: Corrosion Inhibitors: Nitrite, Nitrate, and Silicate Salts	A-25
Table A-25: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Inorganics	A-26
Table A-26: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Organics	A-27
Table A-27: Corrosion Inhibitors: Ethanolamines	A-28
Table A-28: pH Buffers, Phosphate-Based	A-29
Table A-29: pH Reducers	A-30
Table A-30: Antifoamers: Silicones	A-31
Table A-31: Antifoamers: Silicones and Other Substances	A-32
Table A-32: Dyes	A-33
Table A-33: Additional Dyes	A-34
Table A-34: Hydrophobic Agents	A-35

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-35: Solvents	A-36
Table A-36: Solvents: Alcohols and Other Solvents	A-38
Table A-37: Plasticizers and Other Miscellaneous Substances	A-40
Table A-38: Degradation Products	A-42
Table A-39: Emulsifiers and Other Miscellaneous Substances	A-44
Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components	A-46
Table A-41: Human Health Effects of Airport Deicing Product Components as Reported in IRIS,
EPA NRWQC, EPA Drinking Water MCLs, and RSEI	A-49
Table A-42: Acetate	A-50
Table A-43: Alcohol Ethoxylates	A-51
Table A-44: Dyes	A-52
Table A-45: Ethylene Glycol	A-53
Table A-46: Formate	A-55
Table A-47: Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates	A-56
Table A-48: Polyacrylic Acid	A-58
Table A-49: Potassium	A-59
Table A-50: Propylene Glycol	A-60
Table A-51: Sodium	A-61
Table A-52: Tolyltriazoles, Benzotriazoles, Methyl-substituted Benzotriazole	A-62
Table A-53: Urea and Ammonia	A-63
Table B-l: Surved Airports within Scope for EPA's Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing
Operations	B-l
Table C-l: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges	C-l
Figure 3-1: In-scope Airports for EPA's Effluent Guideline Regulations for Airport Deicing
Operations	3-2
Figure 3-2: Initial Receiving Water Discharge Flows at EPA Surveyed Airports	3-12
Figure 3-3. Initial Receiving Water Slopes at EPA Surveyed Airports	3-13

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADF—Aircraft Deicing and Anti-icing Fluid
AMS—Aerospace Material Specification
atm—Atmospheres
BAF—Bioaccumulation Factor
BCF—Bioconcentration Factor
BOD—Biochemical or Biological Oxygen Demand
BODs—Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
C—Celsius
CASRN—Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
CBOD;—Five Day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
cfs—Cubic Feet per Second
COD—Chemical Oxygen Demand
DO—Dissolved Oxygen
EPA—United States Environmental Protection Agency
ECX—Effective Concentration for x% of test organisms
ESRI—Environmental Systems Research Institute
g—Gram
GA/C—General Aviation and/or Cargo
GIS—Geographical Information System
GCV—Glycol Collection Vehicle
IARC—International Agency for Research on Cancer
IRIS—Integrated Risk Information System
kg—Kilogram
Koc—Soil organic carbon adsorption coefficient
Kow—Octanol water partition coefficient
L—Liter
LCX—Lethal Concentration for x% of test organisms
LOEC—Lowest Observed Effect Concentration
LOAEL—Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
m—Meter
MATC—Maximum Allowable Toxicant Concentration
MCL—Maximum Contaminant Level
mg—milligram
mm—millimeter
MSDS—Material Safety Data Sheet
NHD—National Hydrography Dataset
NOEC—No Observed Effect Concentration
NOAEL—No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRWQC—National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
NWRA—National Wildlife Refuge Area
POTW—Publicly Owned Treatment Works
RfC—Reference Concentration
RfD—Reference Dose
RSEI—Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators model
SAE—Society for Automotive Engineers

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
SOFP—Snow or Freezing Precipitation
TMDL—Total Maximum Daily Load
jug—microgram
WATERs—Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results
WOE—Weight of Evidence
WTP—Willingness to Pay

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
1. Introduction
1 Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating effluent limitation guidelines
and new source performance standards for the Airport Deicing Point Source Category. The regulations
address both the wastewater collection practices used by airports, and the treatment of those wastes.
Airports in the scope of this regulation are defined as Primary Commercial Airports with greater than or
equal to a 1,000 annual non-propeller-driven aircraft departures. This document discusses environmental
impacts associated with deicing operations at these airports and the environmental benefits EPA estimates
would result from pollutant discharge reductions under the final regulatory options. This document
presents information on the environmental impacts airport deicing discharges have caused in the past and
on their potential to do so in the future. The final regulatory options will reduce the frequency and
severity of environmental impacts associated with airport deicing discharges. The regulatory options will
primarily benefit surface waters, though soil and groundwater resources could benefit from pollutant
discharge reductions, as well.
This introduction briefly describes the nature of airport deicing operations and their pollutant discharges
and provides an overview of associated environmental impacts. Additional information on the
characteristics of airport deicing operations and their discharges is available in the Technical
Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport
Deicing Category> (US EPA 2010). EPA's final rule addresses only those deicing activities that take place
on the airfield side of airports where aircraft are active. It does not address pollutant discharges from
deicing activities airports undertake to clear snow and ice from parking lots, roads, sidewalks and other
airport surfaces beyond the airfield.
Chapter 2 of this document provides information on the chemical composition of airport deicing products
used in the United States and discusses the potential for environmental impacts from various formulation
ingredients. Chapter 3 provides information on known locations and levels of U.S. airport deicing
operation discharges and associated environmental impacts. Chapter 4 discusses each of the final
regulatory options in terms of the environmental benefits EPA estimates would result from each option.
1.1 Airport Deicing and Anti-icing Operations
The purpose of airport deicing operations is to ensure safe aircraft departures, landings, and travel on
airport grounds. Frozen precipitation or frost on aircraft surfaces can compromise aircraft ability to obtain
sufficient lift for departures or damage aircraft. Frozen precipitation on the airfield can cause loss of
aircraft control due to lack of traction between aircraft wheels and airfield surfaces. Frost and frozen
precipitation must be addressed if aircraft are to function safely under winter conditions.
There are two types of snow and ice removal operations. Deicing operations remove snow and ice
accumulations from aircraft and airfield surfaces. Anti-icing operations prevent snow and ice from
accumulating on aircraft and airfield surfaces, either before accumulation can take place or after a surface
has been cleared by deicing operations. Both aircraft and airfield surfaces undergo deicing and anti-icing
operations. In this document, the phrase "airport deicing operations" refers generally to all deicing and
anti-icing operations that take place at airports.
Aircraft deicing removes snow and ice accumulations from aircraft surfaces. Aircraft deicing includes
both "wet weather" and "dry weather" deicing. Wet weather deicing takes place during or after weather
1-1

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
1. Introduction
events that coat aircraft surfaces with snow or ice. Dry-weather deicing takes place when ambient
temperatures are low enough, typically below 55° F, to allow frost or ice formation on aircraft surfaces.
During a typical aircraft deicing process, trained personnel spray specially formulated and heated deicing
fluids on aircraft surfaces at high pressure in order to remove snow and ice. Depending on the aircraft,
snow and ice accumulation levels, and weather conditions, wet weather deicing of a single aircraft
requires the use of a couple hundred to several thousand gallons of aircraft deicing fluid. Dry weather
deicing requires less fluid than wet weather deicing because of lower ice accumulations during dry
weather conditions.
Aircraft anti-icing takes place when weather conditions threaten to re-contaminate freshly deiced aircraft
surfaces with new snow or ice. Aircraft anti-icing fluids are specially formulated to temporarily prevent
snow and ice accumulation on deiced aircraft surfaces, protecting aircraft until their departure from an
airport. Anti-icing is typically necessary only during wet weather conditions. The process consists of the
spraying of a thin layer of anti-icing fluid onto aircraft surfaces by trained personnel. Aircraft anti-icing
fluids are viscous and adhere to aircraft surfaces until take-off. The process requires a smaller volume of
fluid than the aircraft deicing process.
Airfield pavement surfaces must also be cleared of snow and ice. Pavement deicing and anti-icing
operations remove and prevent, respectively, snow and ice accumulations on airfield runways, taxiways,
aprons, gate areas, and ramps. Airports use both mechanical and chemical means to clear airfield
pavement. Most frequently, airports use mechanical means such as plows, blowers, and brooms to remove
ice and snow (US EPA 2011). Because ice and snow can be difficult to remove by mechanical methods
alone, many airports also apply liquid or solid chemical pavement deicers. Some of these deicers are
applied prior to precipitation events as anti-icers in order to prevent ice formation or ease later removal of
snow and ice. Airports also frequently apply sand to increase airfield traction.
Deicing operations typically take place during the winter when low temperatures and freezing
precipitation (e.g., snowfall, freezing rain, and ice) occur. Local climate conditions determine both the
duration and intensity of deicing seasons at individual airports. The deicing season can begin as early as
September and continue through May in colder regions of the U.S. In general, however, December,
January, and February are the peak deicing months for U.S. airports, and September and May have the
lowest incidence of deicing activity. The majority of airports have a five month deicing season, though
some airports have seasons as short as two months or as long as nine months.
The nature, frequency, and intensity of precipitation events also vary from airport to airport. Some
airports rarely engage in deicing activities beyond aircraft frost removal, whereas other airports often
cope with frequent and heavy snow or ice storms that necessitate both aircraft and pavement anti-icing
and deicing. There can even be substantial variability among weeks or seasons at individual airports as
weather patterns shift and affect the necessity for deicing activity. The nature and intensity of deicing
activities and their associated pollutant discharges therefore vary substantially both among airports and
among deicing seasons at individual airports.
1.2 Airport Deicing and Anti-Icing Product Formulations
Airport deicing products include aircraft deicing fluids, aircraft anti-icing fluids, and airfield pavement
deicers. The materials used for aircraft deicing and anti-icing are specially formulated fluids with multiple
chemical components. Pavements materials are typically simpler formulations and can be either solid or
liquid in form.
1-2

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
1. Introduction
Four aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluid (ADF) categories are available in the global market: Type I,
Type II, Type III, and Type IV. Type I and Type IV are the fluid categories most commonly used at the
U.S. primary commercial airports addressed by EPA's final regulatory options.
Type I fluids are aircraft deicers, and Type IV fluids are aircraft anti-icers. By volume, both fluids consist
primarily of a freezing point depressant, typically propylene glycol or ethylene glycol, and water. The
fluids also contain a relatively small volume, approximately 1-3%, of chemicals commonly known as
"additives" which function as surfactants, corrosion inhibitors, pH modifiers, flame retardants, defoamers,
dyes, oils, antioxidants, and antimicrobials. Type IV fluids also contain thickeners to increase their
viscosity and allow them to adhere to aircraft surfaces until take-off. ADFs function by lowering the
temperature at which snow and ice are able to adhere to aircraft surfaces.
Based on data from responses to the EPA Airline Deicing Questionnaire (2006b) the most commonly
used ADF at commercial U.S. airports is Type I propylene glycol deicing fluid, accounting for
approximately 77% of ADF use or purchase. A recent trend in ADF use has been increasing use of
propylene glycol-based ADFs instead of ethylene glycol-based ADFs. Table 1-1 presents EPA's estimate
of national ADF use based on information provided in survey responses for the 2002-2003, 2003-2004,
and 2004-2005 deicing seasons. Because glycol levels vary among individual manufacturer's ADF
formulations, ADF quantities in Table 1-1 are normalized to represent 100% glycol levels.
Table 1-1: U.S. Commercial Airports - National Estimate of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing Fluid
Use/Purchase *

Average Total Airport

Use/Purchase
Percentage of ADF
Chemical (million gallons/year)
Use/Purchase
Type I Propylene Glycol Aircraft Deicing Fluid 19.305
77.1
Type IV Propylene Glycol Aircraft Anti-Icing Fluid 2.856
11.4
Type I Ethylene Glycol Aircraft Deicing Fluid 2.575
10.3
Type IV Ethylene Glycol Aircraft Anti-Icing Fluid 0.306
1.2
Source: US EPA Airline Deicing Questionnaire (2006b).

EPA used the ADF purchase information to represent usage, per airline industry recommendations.
See US EPA (2010) for additional details.

Based on responses to the EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c), the most commonly used
pavement deicer on U.S. airfields is potassium acetate. Potassium acetate represents about 80 percent of
all airfield deicing chemical use. A recent trend in pavement deicer use has been for U.S. airports to cease
or decrease their use of urea due to water quality impact concerns. Table 1-2 lists the total estimated
national average airfield chemical usage (based on data for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004, and 2004/2005
deicing seasons) for primary commercial airports in the U.S.
Table 1-2: U.S. Commercial Airports - National Estimate of Pavement Deicer Chemical Use
Pavement Deicer Chemical
Estimated Total Airport Use (tons/year)
Potassium acetate
22,538
Airside urea
4,127
Propylene glycol-based fluids
3,883
Sodium acetate
3,100
Sodium formate
1,117
Ethylene glycol-based fluids
774
Source: US EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c).
1-3

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
1. Introduction
Based on EPA's national estimates of chemical or material usage, approximately 70 percent of airports
use chemical pavement deicers with the remaining 30 percent relying on sand application for airfield
deicing/anti-icing (US EPA 2011). Additional information on pavement deicer usage is provided in Table
A-l in Appendix A.
The identity and environmental behavior of individual ADF and pavement deicer components is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.
1.3 Airport Deicing Chemical Dispersion in the Environment
Because aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluids (ADFs) and pavement deicers are typically used in very
open and exposed outdoor environments, their dispersion begins immediately after application. ADFs are
typically applied to aircraft at specific airport locations. These locations vary by airport and can include
gate areas, aprons, or deicing pads. ADFs are designed to drip and shear from aircraft surfaces after
application in order to avoid compromising aircraft lift during take-off. Type I deicing fluids drip from
aircraft relatively quickly. The majority of these fluids fall to the pavement at fluid application sites. The
remainder drips or shears from aircraft as they travel on the airfield, primarily falling on pavement and
other airfield surfaces. Type IV anti-icing fluids are designed to remain on aircraft surfaces for a longer
period of time than Type I deicing fluids to protect aircraft surfaces from snow and ice accumulation until
take-off. A relatively small amount of Type IV fluid falls to the pavement at application sites. Most Type
IV fluid drips or shears from aircraft during taxiing or take-off, falling primarily on pavement or other
airfield surfaces. A lesser quantity of ADF becomes airborne during application or aircraft taxiing and
take-off and can be carried by wind to other parts of the airfield or beyond airport property lines.
Little quantified research is available on ADF dispersion after application. EPA's analysis of baseline
pollutant loadings to the environment assumed that 75% of Type I fluids fall to the ground at application
sites (Switzenbaum et al. 1999). Because Type IV fluids are designed to remain on the aircraft until take-
off, EPA assumed that only 10% of these fluids fall to the ground at the point of application (US EPA
2011). The remainder of the fluids disperses in areas beyond the application site.
Airports apply pavement deicers directly to the ground. Treated surfaces can include runways, taxiways,
aprons, ramps, and gate areas. The extent of pavement surface deicing varies with the nature of
precipitation events.
Once on the ground, ADFs and pavement deicers can disperse in several ways. ADFs and pavement
deicers on paved surfaces often flow into stormwater management systems. Many airfields also have
vegetated or other pervious surfaces adjacent to paved areas. In these areas, ADFs and pavement can
percolate through soil and eventually enter groundwater if present beneath the airport.
ADFs and pavement deicers in stormwater management systems can discharge to surface waters or, in
some locations, enter stormwater collection and treatment systems. Airports most frequently collect and
treat stormwater originating from ADF application sites. Stormwater from these sites tends to contain
higher percentages of deicing pollutants than other airport areas. These areas are also relatively limited in
size and therefore provide an easier collection and treatment opportunity. Airports are less likely to collect
and treat ADFs and pavement deicers dispersed in other parts of the airfield because of the larger surface
areas and larger stormwater volumes involved, both of which increase collection and treatment
complexity and expense. In addition, stormwater pollutant concentrations tend to be lower in these areas,
though total loadings can still be significant. ADFs and pavement deicers dispersed in the airfield are
more likely to discharge to surface waters or infiltrate pervious airfield surfaces.
1-4

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
1. Introduction
Because of variability among individual airports in ADFs and pavement deicers usage levels, extent and
configuration of paved and pervious areas, and stormwater collection and treatment, there is great
variability in the quantities of deicing activity pollutants that reach surface waters at individual airports.
The nature of ADF and pavement deicer dispersion in the environment is discussed in more detail in
Chapter 3.
1.4 Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Operation Discharges
EPA has identified a number of cases in which airport deicing operation discharges to the environment
have affected water quality, aquatic ecosystems, and human use of aquatic resources. Identified impacts
include:
>	Reductions in dissolved oxygen levels in water bodies receiving deicing stormwaters;
>	Increased nutrient concentrations in water bodies receiving deicing stormwaters;
>	Fish kills downstream of deicing stormwater outfalls;
>	Impacts to aquatic ecosystems downstream of deicing stormwater outfalls, including reductions in
organism abundance and diversity or elimination of the aquatic community;
>	Contamination of groundwater and surface drinking water resources;
>	Aesthetic impacts to surface waters, including foaming, noxious odors, and discoloration; and
>	Complaints of headaches and nausea by people exposed to deicing stormwater odors.
Of particular and well-known concern is the oxygen demand exerted by ADF and pavement deicer-
contaminated stormwater. All of the primary ingredients in ADFs and pavement deicers exert oxygen
demand as they decay. As airport deicing materials decay in surface waters, they consume oxygen
dissolved in the water column. If the level of dissolved oxygen becomes too low, aquatic organisms can
be impaired or killed. Chronic low oxygen conditions can eventually change the biochemistry and overall
community structure of aquatic ecosystems.
Discharges of raw or partially treated sewage from cities and towns were a common cause of low oxygen
conditions in surface waters prior to implementation of more stringent sewage treatment requirements
under the Clean Water Act. The oxygen depletion potential of airport deicing operation discharges is
many times greater than that of raw sewage. For example, before application, Type I propylene glycol-
based deicing fluid is generally diluted to a mixture containing approximately 50% propylene glycol. Pure
propylene glycol has a BOD5 concentration of approximately 1,000,000 mg/L. A typical diluted
propylene-based deicing fluid could therefore have a BOD5 concentration of approximately 500,000
mg/L. In comparison, raw sewage typically has a BOD5 concentration of approximately 200 mg/L. The
amount of fluid used to deice a single non-propeller-driven aircraft depends on the nature of the
precipitation event and the size of the aircraft but can range from a couple hundred to several thousand
gallons. Therefore, deicing a single non-propeller-driven aircraft can generate a BOD5 load greater than
that of one million gallons of raw sewage. A large hub airport often has several hundred flights each day.
Pavement deicers applied to airfield pavement can also exert significant BOD. The BOD5 generated from
deicing activities at a large airport in a single day can therefore equal the BOD5 associated with the raw
sewage from more than one million people (or a large city) (US EPA 2008a).
In addition to oxygen demanding substances, airport deicing products also contain a number of additives.
Some of these additives have toxic or other properties that could harm aquatic ecosystems. Other
1-5

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
1. Introduction
additives have not yet been publicly identified because of the proprietary nature of deicing material
formulations and the limitations of currently available research on deicing product formulations. Without
information on the identity of these additives, it is impossible to determine the potential environmental
impacts from these chemicals.
Many of the surface waters to which airports discharge deicing materials are small streams with limited
absorption and dilution potential for processing large quantities of oxygen demanding substances and
other pollutants. EPA has evaluated the impairment status of a number of surface waters directly
receiving airport deicing operation discharges and has found a large number of these waters to be listed as
impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (see Chapter 3). Many of these waters have the
types of impairments that can be associated with airport deicing operation discharges (e.g., depressed
dissolved oxygen levels). Other waters are stressed and impaired by other types of pollutants (e.g., PCBs,
pathogens). The final regulatory options will reduce the intensity of discharges of airport deicing
pollutants to a number of these surface waters and have the potential to improve the health of these
impaired aquatic resources.
Environmental impacts associated with airport deicing discharges are discussed in more detail in
Chapter 3.
1-6

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
2 Airport Deicing Product Components and Environmental Behavior
Airport deicing products include aircraft deicing fluids, aircraft anti-icing fluids, and airfield pavement
deicers. Aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluids (ADFs) are used on aircraft. Pavement deicers are used on
airport runways, taxiways, aprons, ramps and gate areas. Each type of airport deicing product is specially
formulated for the purpose it serves.
This chapter provides information on the basic composition of airport deicing products and summarizes
information EPA was able to gather through a review of the literature available on the identity and
quantity of specific chemicals used in airport deicing products (Section 2.1). This chapter also provides an
overview of the environmental behavior and potential environmental impacts associated with these
chemicals (Section 2.2). In addition to a broad review of the physical properties and fate and transport
characteristics of approximately 99 chemicals that may be components or decay products of ADFs and
airfield pavement deicers, more detailed discussions are provided for 12 chemical or chemical groups of
potential environmental concern (Section 2.2.2).
2.1 Airport Deicing Product Components
Many different types of aircraft deicing fluid, aircraft anti-icing fluid and airfield pavement deicer
formulations are used at airports in the U.S. Manufacturers use a variety of freezing point depressants and
additives to formulate their products. According to responses to EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire
(2006c), the ADFs most widely used at U.S. airports consists of water, propylene glycol or ethylene
glycol as a freezing point depressant, and a range of additives that differ by ADF manufacturer and
specified fluid use. Pavement deicers typically consist of a chemical that serves as a freezing point
depressant and, in many formulations, various additives. The pavement deicer freezing point depressants
most widely used at U.S. airports are potassium acetate, urea, sodium acetate, sodium formate, propylene
glycol, ethylene glycol, or a mixture of ethylene or propylene glycol and urea (see Table 1-2).
Manufacturers are generally willing to identify the freezing point depressants comprising the bulk of their
airport deicing product formulations, but the identity of product additives and their concentration in
product formulas is generally considered to be proprietary. Research by parties outside the airport deicing
product manufacturing community indicates that some airport deicing products additives have toxic or
other properties potentially harmful to aquatic ecosystems. Understanding the identity, quantity, and
nature of chemicals present in airport deicing products is a useful step in characterizing the potential
environmental risks associated with ADF and pavement deicer discharges. This section summarizes
information EPA was able to gather through a review of the literature currently available on the identity
and quantity of chemicals used in airport deicing products. A recently released study contains significant
additional information on airport deicing products (Ferguson, et al. 2008).
2.1.1	Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
To determine the chemical composition of ADFs and pavement deicers, EPA reviewed available data
sources including Society for Automotive Engineer Aerospace Material Specifications (SAE AMSs),
deicing product Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), patent descriptions, peer-reviewed literature, other
published reports, and data from EPA airport sampling events.
2-1

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
EPA's determination of the composition of ADFs and pavement deicers is incomplete, however, for
several reasons. EPA relied on available data sources to identity components. These sources are limited
because many airport deicing product ingredients are proprietary, and manufacturers do not, therefore,
identify them in product labels, MSDSs, or other publicly available documents. Because a significant
level of effort is required for an outside party to determine a deicing product's composition, the peer-
reviewed literature on this subject is limited, particularly for chemicals present in formulations in low
concentrations as are most airport deicing product additives. Even when the identity of an additive is
available, it is sometimes known only by its trade name, and publicly available information for many such
chemicals is limited or nonexistent.
In addition, although EPA endeavored to obtain current information on product formulations, it is
possible given manufacturers' ongoing product development that some components listed in the literature
are no longer in use. It is also possible that some components listed in patents have never been used either
because a patented product has never been brought to market or because a final product incorporates only
some of a wide group of possible components listed in a patent.
Despite these limitations, the results of the literature review provide an indication of the types and
quantities of chemicals typically used in airport deicing product formulations.
2.1.1.1 Standard Composition of Aircraft Deicing Fluids and Aircraft Anti-icing Fluids
Four categories of aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluids (ADFs) are currently manufactured for the global
market: Type I, Type II, Type III, and Type IV. Of these four categories, Type I and Type IV are the two
categories commonly used at U.S. commercial airports.
ADFs are developed and manufactured to industry standards published in the U.S. by the Society for
Automotive Engineers (SAE). SAE Aerospace Material Specifications (AMS) 1424 and 1428 are adopted
on a voluntary basis by manufacturers and governments and include performance requirements for the
three types of ADFs used in the U.S. (Types I, II, and IV).1 The Association for European Airlines and
the International Standards Organization publish similar standards, which are adopted voluntarily by
manufacturers and governments in Europe and throughout the world, respectively. Table 2-1 compares
the characteristics and uses of the fluid categories.
Type III fluid is rarely used and intended only for small aircraft. AMS 1424 applies to SAE Type I fluids, and AMS 1428
applies to SAE Type II, III, and IV fluids (Boeing 2008).
2-2

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final	2. Airport Deicing Product Components
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category	and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-1: Comparison of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing Fluid Characteristics by Type

Function
Characteristics
Type I
Aircraft Deicing
Fluid
>	Low viscosity
>	Provides short-term protection because flows quickly off aircraft
surfaces after application
>	Typically dyed orange to aid in identification and application of a
consistent layer on aircraft
>	Typically heated (130° - 180° F) and applied as a high pressure spray
to remove snow, ice, and frost
Type II
Aircraft Anti-icing
Fluid
>	Contains a polymeric thickening agent to prevent immediate flow off
aircraft surfaces and provide protection until aircraft take-off
>	Fluid remains in place until aircraft attains speed of approximately 100
knots, at which point fluid shears from aircraft
>	Typically colorless
>	Useful only for larger aircraft
>	Use of Type If fluids is diminishing in favor of Type IV fluids
Type IV
Aircraft Anti-icing
Fluid
>	Contains a polymeric thickening agent to prevent immediate flow off
aircraft surfaces and provide protection until aircraft take-off
>	Fluid remains in place until aircraft attains a certain speed, at which
point fluid shears from aircraft
>	Typically dyed green to aid in identification and application of a
consistent layer on aircraft
>	Provides longer-term protection than Type If fluids
Sources: Corsi et al. (2007); Ritter (2001).
Freezing point depressants comprise the majority of ADFs. One study in the literature states that a
freezing point depressant, either ethylene glycol or propylene glycol, typically makes up 50% to 80% of
ADF product as applied (Johnson et al. 2001). The rest of the product consists of water and various
additives. These additives function as surfactants, corrosion inhibitors, thickeners, flame retardants, pH
modifiers, defoamers, dyes, antimicrobials, oils, chelators, and antioxidants.
Surfactants help ADFs spread evenly across aircraft surfaces by lowering fluid surface tension.
Thickeners are used in Type II, III, and IV fluids to increase fluid viscosity and allow them to maintain
their protective position on aircraft surfaces until take-off.
A single formulation does not necessarily contain a different chemical for each additive function. Some
formulations contain components that serve multiple functions. Other formulations need only contain a
subset of additives because of beneficial interactions among component chemicals.
Three main classes of additives have been identified in the literature as widely used by ADF
manufacturers: the corrosion inhibitors/ flame retardants benzotriazole (BT) and methyl-substituted
benzotriazole (MeBT) (Cornell 2001; Pillard et al. 2001), the surfactant alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs)
(Nieh 1992; Corsi et al. 2006), and the pH modifier triethanolamine (Boluk et al. 1999).
Less information is available on the proportions in which the various components are present in ADF
formulations. One study states that typical ADFs consist of 50% to 80% ethylene glycol or propylene
glycol and 20% to 50% water (Breedveld et al. 2002). A second study states that, in undiluted form, Type
I deicing fluids consist of 88% propylene glycol or ethylene glycol, 0.5% to 0.6% methyl-substituted
benzotriazole (MeBT) mixture, l%to 2% proprietary additives (corrosion inhibitors, buffer, and
surfactants), and water (Cornell 2001). A third study states that ADFs contain 0.5% to 0.6% MeBT and
that the commercial mixture of MeBT is 45% 4-MeBT and 55% 5-MeBT (Pillard et al. 2001).
2-3

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
A number of patents exist for ADFs based on freezing point depressants other than ethylene glycol or
propylene glycol (e.g., pentaerythritol, glycerol, sorbitol, xylitol and other chemicals) (Simmons et al.
2007). According to responses to EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c), ADFs based on these
components are not used at major U.S. airports.
2.1.1.2	Standard Composition of Airfield Pa vement Deicers
Several basic types of pavement deicers are used at U.S. primary commercial airports. These deicers
include formulations consisting primarily of potassium acetate, urea, sodium acetate, sodium formate,
propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, or a mixture of propylene or ethylene glycol and urea. These primary
ingredients serve as freezing point depressants.
Pavement deicers are more simply formulated than ADFs and consist primarily of the primary freezing
point depressant ingredient. Potassium acetate, sodium formate, and sodium acetate formulations are
known to contain corrosion inhibitors, as well (Switzenbaum et al. 1999; Shi 2008; USDOT 2007) though
the corrosions inhibitors' chemical identity is not known.
2.1.1.3	Detailed Listing of Potential Airport Deicing Product Components
Table 2-2 presents the chemicals for which EPA found some evidence of use in airport deicing product
formulations through its literature review. Many of the chemicals in the table below are presented and
discussed in Ferguson et al. 2008.
2-4

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
Source
Current
CASRN
Chemical Name
Characterization
Johnson et al. (2001)
U
1303-96-4
Borax
Conosion inhibitor
Johnson et al. (2001)
U
532-32-1
Sodium benzoate
Conosion inhibitor
Corsi et al. (2006)
u
29878-31-7
4-methyl- lH-benzotrizole
Conosion inhibitor
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993)
Y
-
Cobratec TT-50S, tolyltrizole solution
Conosion inhibitor
Huet al. (1998)
Y
110-65-6
Butyne-l,4diol
Conosion inhibitor
Hu et al. (1998)
Y
107-19-7
Propargyl alcohol
Conosion inhibitor
Hu et al. (1998)
Y
62-56-6
Thiourea
Conosion inhibitor
Boluk et al. (1999)
Y
-
Sandocorin 8132, sodium dodecylbenzene
sulfonate
Conosion inhibitor
Moles et al. (2003)
Y
7778-53-2
Potassium phosphate
Conosion inhibitor
Moles et al. (2003)
Y
10006-28-7
Potassium silicate
Conosion inhibitor
Moles et al. (2003)
Y
13870-28-5
Sodium silicate
Conosion inhibitor
Boluk et al. (1999); Hu et al. (1998);
Nieh (1992)
Y
-
Benzyltriazole
Conosion inhibitor
Boluk et al. (1999); Hu et al. (1998);
Moles et al. (2003); Nieh (1992)
Y
29385-43-1
Tolyltriazole
Conosion inhibitor
Johnson et al. (2001) and Hu et al.
(1998)
Y
7631-99-4
Sodium nitrate
Conosion inhibitor
Huet al. (1998)
Y
-
AF-9020, polydimethylsiloxane
Defoamer
Hu et al. (1998)
Y
-
DC 1520, silicone antifoam
Defoamer
Boluk et al. (1999)
Y
-
Foamban
Defoamer
Hu et al. (1998), Boluk et al. (1999);
Ma and Comeau (1990)
Y
-
Silicone antifoam2
Defoamer
Coffey et al. (1995)
Y
-
Eosin orange, tetrabromofluorescein
Dye
Chanet al. (1995)
Y
-
Malonyl green, C.I. Pigment Yellow 34
Dye
Lockyenn et al. (1998)
Y
-
Shilling green
Dye
Chan et al. (1995); Lockyenn et al.
(1998)
Y
-
FD&C Blue #1, alphazurine
Dye
Chan et al. (1995); Lockyenn et al.
(1998)
Y
-
FD&C Yellow #5, tartrazine
Dye
Johnson et al. (2001)
U
95-14-7
Benzotriazoles
Flame Retardant and Conosion Inhibitor
2-5

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
Source
Current
CASRN
Chemical Name
Characterization
Corsi et al. (2006)
Y
136-85-6
5 -Methyl- lH-Benzotriazole
Flame Retardant and Corrosion Inhibitor
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Bloom
(1986); Boluk et al' (1999); Hu et al.
(1998); Konig-Lumer et al. (1982);
Nieh (1992)
Y
57-55-6
1,2-Propylene glycol
Freezing point depressant
Back et al. (1999)
Y
608-66-2
Dulcitol
Freezing point depressant
Back et al. (1999)
Y
115-77-5
Pentaerythritol
Freezing point depressant
Boluk et al. (1999)
Y
25322-68-3
Polyethylene gylcol, mw from 62 to 106
Freezing point depressant
Sapienza et al. (2003)
Y
97-64-3
Ethyl lactate
Freezing point depressant
Sapienza (2003)
Y
147-85-3
Proline
Freezing point depressant
Sapienza (2003)
Y
72-17-3
Sodium lactate
Freezing point depressant
Sapienza (2003)
Y
54571-67-4
Sodium pyrrolidone carboxylate
Freezing point depressant
Lockyerrn et al. (1998); Westmark et
al. (2001)
Y
107-88-0
1,3-Butanediol
Freezing point depressant
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk et
al. (1999); Nieh (1992)
Y
25265-71-8
Dipropylene glycol
Freezing point depressant
Konig-Lumer et al. (1982); Lockyerm
et al. (1998)
Y
504-63-2
1,3-Propylene glycol
Freezing point depressant
Boluk et al. (1999); Westmark et al.
(2001)
Y
112-27-6
Triethylene glycol
Freezing point depressant
Back et al. (1999); Sapienza et al.
(2003)
Y
69-65-8
Mannitol
Freezing point depressant
Back et al. (1999); Simmons et al.
(2007)
Y
149-32-6
Erythritol
Freezing point depressant
Back et al. (1999); Boluk et al.
(1999); Westmark et al. (2001)
Y
56-81-5
Glycerol
Freezing point depressant
Back et al. (1999); Sapienza (2003);
Sapienza et al. (2003)
Y
50-70-4
Sorbitol
Freezing point depressant
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk et
al. (1999); Konig-Lumer et al. (1982);
Ma and Comeau (1990); Nieh (1992)
Y
111-46-6
Diethylene glycol
Freezing point depressant
Corsi et al. (2006)
Y
57-55-6
Propylene glycol
Freezing point depressant
2-6

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
Source
Current
CASRN
Chemical Name
Characterization
Corsi et al. (2006)
Y
107-21-1
Ethylene glycol
Freezing point depressant
Comfort (2000)
Y
127-08-2
Potassium Acetate
Freezing point depressant
US EPA (2000a)
Y
590-29-4
Potassium Formate
Freezing point depressant
Comfort (2000)
Y
127-09-3
(anhydrous)
Sodium Acetate
Freezing point depressant
Comfort (2000)
Y
141-53-7
Sodium Formate
Freezing point depressant
US EPA (2000a)
Y
57-13-6
Urea
Freezing pont depressant
Hu et al. (1998); Konig-Lumer et al.
(1982)
Y
-
Mineral oil
Oil used as hydrophobic agent
Ma and Comeau (1990)
Y
-
Dimethyl polysiloxane
Oil used as hydrophobic agent
Ma and Comeau (1990)
Y
-
White mineral oil (10 cSt)
Oil used as hydrophobic agent
Lockyenn et al. (1998)
Y
112-53-8
1-dodecanol
Oil used as hydrophobic agent
Nieh (1992)
Y
7558-79-4
Disodium phosphate
pH Modifier
Huet al. (1998)
Y
7758-11-4
Dipotassium phosphate
pH Modifier
Boluket al. (1999)
Y
111-42-2
Diethanolamine
pH Modifier
Boluk et al. (1999)
Y
141-43-5
Monoethanolamine
pH Modifier
Boluket al. (1999)
Y
102-71-6
Triethanolamine
pH Modifier
US EPA (2000a)
Y
1310-58-3
Potassium hydroxide
pH Modifier
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk et
al. (1999); Hu et al' (1998)
Y
1310-73-2
Sodium hydroxide
pH Modifier
Haslim (2004)
U
112-53-8
Dodecanol4
Surfactant/Defoaming agent
Corsi et al. (2003)
Y
-
Alcohol ethoxylates
Surfactant
Konig-Lumer et al. (1982)
Y
-
Sodium alkylbenzenesulfonate
Surfactant
Bloom (1986)
Y
-
Oleic acid diamine
Surfactant
Bloom (1986)
Y
-
Oleyl propylene diamine
Surfactant
Bloom (1986)
Y
-
Palmitic acid diamine
Surfactant
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993)
Y
-
Aliphatic alcohol ethoxylates
Surfactant
Boluket al. (1999)
Y
-
Siponate A-2466, sodium dodecylbenzene
Surfactant
Boluket al. (1999)
Y
-
Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate 3
Surfactant
2-7

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
Source
Current
CASRN
Chemical Name
Characterization
Boluketal. (1999)
Y
-
Tergitol TMN-10, branched secondary
alcohol ethoxylate
Surfactant
Westmark et al. (2001)
Y
-
Emerest 2660 (OEG-12 oleate)
Surfactant
Westmark et al. (2001)
Y
-
Emsorb 6900 (PEG-20 sorbitan oleate)
Surfactant
Corsi et al. (2003)
Y
-
Decyl alcohol ethoxylate
Surfactant
Corsi et al. (2003)
Y
-
Lauryl alcohol ethoxylate
Surfactant
Corsi et al. (2003)
Y
-
Lauryl alcohol phosophoric acid-ester
ethoxylate
Surfactant
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Nieh
(1992)
Y
-
Ethylene oxide / propylene oxide block
copolymers
Surfactant
Nieh (1992)
Y
-
Nonylphenol ethoxylate
Surfactant
Nieh (1992)
Y
-
Octylphenol ethoxylate
Surfactant
Corsi et al. (2007)
Y
-
Alkylphenol ethoxylates
Surfactant
Tye et al. (1987)
Y
9062-07-1
Iota-carrageenan
Thickening Agent
Tye et al. (1987)
Y
-
Kappa-carrageenan
Thickening Agent
Ma and Comeau (1990)
Y
9004-62-0
Hydroxyethylcellulose
Thickening Agent
Westmark et al. (2001)
Y
-
Welan gum
Thickening Agent
Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Nieh
(1992)
Y
-
Polyacrylic acid1
Thickening Agent
Konig-Lumer et al. (1982); Nieh
(1992)
Y
-
Cross-linked polyacrylic acid
Thickening Agent
Lockyenn et al. (1998); Ma and
Comeau (1990); Westmark et al.
(2001)
Y
-
Xanthan gum
Thickening Agent
Johnson et al. (2001)
U
123-91-1
Dioxane 5

Johnson et al. (2001)
U
75-07-0
Acetaldehyde

Johnson et al. (2001)
U
75-21-8
Ethylene oxide

Johnson et al. (2001)
U
-
Polyamines

Johnson et al. (2001)
U
37306-44-8
Triazoles

US EPA (2000a)
Y
117-81-7
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

US EPA (2000a)
Y
84-74-2
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate

2-8

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components
Source
Current
CASRN
Chemical Name
Characterization
US EPA (2000a)
Y
100-41-4
Ethylbenzene

US EPA (2000a)
Y
-
M- + P-Xylene

US EPA (2000a)
Y
112-40-3
N-Dodecane

US EPA (2000a)
Y
108-88-3
Toluene

Corsi et al. (2006)
Y
25154-52-3
Nonylphenol

Corsi et al. (2006)
Y
-
Octylphenol

1.	Carbopol polyacrylic acid 1610, 1621, 1622, 672, and 934 were listed in the literature.
2.	Silicone antifoam was listed in the literature as SAG 7133, SAG 1000, and Siltech E-2202.
3.	Siponate DS and Siponate DDB-40 sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate were listed in the literature.
4.	CASRN for this chemical is provided as that of 1-dodecanol.
5.	CASRN for this chemical is provided as that of 1,4-Dioxane.
U = Unknown if chemical is currently used in deicing formulas.
Y = Chemical identified as currently used in deicing formulas as of the date of reference publication.
Of the 111 identified ingredients, 61 (55%) were identified in sources that were published in 2000 or later.
2-9

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
2.2 Environmental Behaviors of Airport Deicing Product Components
This section provides an overview of the characteristics of many of the potential airport deicing product
components identified in Table 2-2. EPA's review focused on characteristics that influence a component's
potential to disperse in and impact the environment. The ultimate behavior of ADFs and pavement deicers
in the environment is a function of both chemical-specific factors and airport-specific hydrological,
geochemical, biological, and climatic factors. This chapter presents chemical-specific information which
is then considered in environmental context in Chapter 3.
It is important to note that the individual components of ADFs and pavement deicers have varying fate
and transport properties that cause deicing products to disaggregate into their individual components once
they enter the natural environment. Fresh and concentrated wastestreams located closer to the point of
ADF and pavement deicer application are more likely to reflect original product properties. Older and
more dilute wastestreams further from the site of application have characteristics determined by the
presence or absence of individual pollutants and the transformation and transport processes they have
undergone. For this reason, it is important to consider the nature of individual product components in
addition to the nature of the original product.
The Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) sets technical standards for aircraft deicing and anti-icing
and fluids (ADFs). At this time, SAE requirements addressing ADF environmental impacts are limited.
SAE AMS 1424 requires Type I fluids entering the market after August 2002 to have a mammalian
toxicity (LC50) greater than 5,000 mg/L and a fluid aquatic toxicity (LC50 for several different aquatic
organism species) greater than 4,000 mg/L (SAE 2007). Research has shown that even at levels less than
4,000 mg/L, sub-lethal toxic effects will be exerted on aquatic organisms (Corsi et al. 2006). In addition,
the toxicity standard does not apply to Type IV fluids, the more toxic of the two commonly used ADFs
(Corsi et al. 2006). SAE also provides no guidance for ADF BOD or COD content. SAE has considered
setting toxicity standards for additional fluids (US EPA 2000a) as well as a more stringent toxicity
requirement for Type I fluids.
Appendix A contains tables that summarize information on the physiochemical properties of many known
and potential ADF and pavement deicer components and their potential decay products as cited in Table
2-2. Except where otherwise noted, all of the information in the tables is from the U.S. National Library
of Medicine's Hazardous Substances Databank and ChemFinder databases, which compile data from a
wide variety of sources. In some cases, the sub-citations within these databases are incomplete or not
supplied and therefore cannot be reported here. Other information sources include deicing and chemical-
specific literature, as cited in the tables. For some physiochemical properties, information either does not
exist or was not attainable from these sources; therefore a number of table entries are blank.
EPA collected information on components present in airport deicing products regardless of whether they
were present in large and small proportions. Although some components (such as many deicing product
additives) constitute a relatively small proportion of ADFs and pavement deicers, their properties may be
such that they contribute disproportionately to toxic or other harmful effects to the environment
associated with airport deicing discharges.
Components are organized in functional groups in Table A-2 through Table A-39. For example, Table A-2
contains information for chelators, Table A-3 contains information for sugar-based freezing point
depressants, and Table A-4 contains information for acetate-based freezing point depressants, etc. A
number of the substances within a table share similar properties. Other substances may have very
different or unknown properties. These attributes are noted in each table. Table A-40 presents available
2-10

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
information on ecological toxicity values associated with potential components. Table A-41 presents
information on human health effects associated with potential components.
Characteristics of 12 of the 99 potential ADF and pavement deicer components are presented in greater
detail in Section 2.2 and in Table A-42 through Table A-53 in Appendix A. These 12 components or
component groups were chosen for a more detailed analysis for one or more of the following reasons: the
component is a well-known ingredient in airport deicing products; the component is released to the
environment in significant quantities; or the component has environmental impact potential.
2.2.1	Environmental Behaviors
EPA collected information on a wide variety of individual chemical environmental behaviors of potential
interest in the context of discharges from airport deicing activities. Information was collected on traits of
interest for assessing a chemical's ability to disperse in the environment, its potential to impacts aquatic
ecosystems and organisms, and its potential to impact human health and aquatic resource uses such as
drinking water supply, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment.
Chemical-specific factors such as water solubility, affinity for solid surfaces and organic matter,
volatility, degradation rates and products, and microbial acclimation needs influence environmental fate
and transport of ADF and pavement deicer components. Some components have traits that elevate their
potential for environmental impact in the aquatic environment.
Chemical-specific factors alone do not determine potential for environmental impact. Hydrological,
geochemical, biological, and climatic factors all influence fate and transport of ADFs and pavement
deicers in the environment. Specific factors can include flow volumes and patterns in receiving waters,
water and soil/aquifer chemistry, microbial community characteristics, aquatic biological community
composition, amount and intensity of sunlight, quantity and type of precipitation, and air temperature
range and seasonal distribution.
Individual component traits must therefore be considered in concert with information about discharge
quantities and the nature of the receiving environment in order to fully assess potential for environmental
impact. The summary below presents the information EPA was able to gather on individual chemical
traits. Chapter 3 discusses these traits in the context of the discharge environment.
2.2.1.1 Fate and Transport Beha viors
After application of ADFs to aircraft or pavement deicers to airfield pavement, environmental fate and
transport of the chemicals in these products depends on both physical processes and chemical-specific
behaviors.
Airport deicing product components enter the aquatic environment through a variety of physical
pathways. Most deicing chemicals discharge to the aquatic environment through stormwater discharge to
surface waters. A certain quantity of chemicals enters surface waters through groundwater discharge or
aerial deposition. Some deicing wastewaters undergo treatment but can retain certain components
unaffected by treatment. These components can enter the aquatic environment when treated wastewaters
are discharged to surface waters. Once in surface water, components may travel to downstream surface
waters.
Airport deicing product components can also percolate into soil horizons. The components can
accumulate, degrade, or move into groundwater. Components in groundwater can accumulate, degrade, or
travel with groundwater flow.
2-11

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
During the physical transport of individual components, chemical-specific processes are underway, as
well. To help assess environmental fate, transport, and impact potential from ADF and pavement deicer
components on aquatic ecosystems and organisms, EPA gathered information on three characteristics:
r Volatilization
>	Adsorption
>	Biodegradation
These traits are described in further detail below.
Volatilization
Volatilization is a process whereby chemicals dissolved in water escape into the air. Chemicals with
higher volatilization potential are typically of less concern to aquatic receptors because they tend to enter
the atmosphere before discharge to surface waters or to be removed quickly from the water column. Some
volatile pollutants can be a concern to human health, however, if inhaled.
EPA used the air/water partitioning coefficient H to estimate a chemical's volatilization potential. H
represents the ratio of a chemical's aqueous phase concentration to its equilibrium partial pressure in the
gas phase (at 25 degrees Celsius). Units are typically expressed as atm.m3/mole.
Volatilization data for individual deicing product components is summarized in Table A-2 through Table
A-40 in Appendix A.
Adsorption
Adsorption is a process whereby chemicals associate preferentially with organic carbon found in soils and
sediments. Highly adsorptive compounds tend to accumulate in sediments. In aquatic ecosystems, such
chemicals are more likely to be taken up by benthic invertebrates and to affect local food chains. Both
accumulation in sediment and local food chain impacts make these chemicals more likely to affect
predator organisms higher on the food chain, including human beings.
EPA gathered information on the adsorption coefficient (Koc) to assess the potential of organic ADF and
pavement deicer components to associate with sediment organic carbon. Koc represents the ratio of the
target chemical adsorbed per unit weight of organic carbon in the soil or sediment to the concentration of
that same chemical in solution at equilibrium.
Metals in the aquatic environment typically concentrate in the sediment phase but do not bind to organic
carbon (except nickel). EPA assumes that all metals show a high affinity for sediments independent of
their negligible Koc values.
Adsorption data for individual deicing product components is summarized in Table A-2 through Table
A-40 in Appendix A.
Biodegradation
Biodegradation is a process whereby organic molecules are broken down by microbial metabolism.
Biodegradation represents an important removal process in aquatic ecosystems. Compounds that are
readily biodegraded generally represent lower intrinsic toxicity and accumulation hazards because they
can be eliminated more rapidly from ecosystems. These compounds are therefore less likely to create
long-term toxicity problems or to accumulate in sediments and organisms. Chemicals that biodegrade
slowly or not at all can accumulate and linger for longer periods of time in sediments, and represent a
greater hazard to aquatic receptors.
2-12

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
EPA gathered information on biodegradation half-life to estimate the potential for an organic chemical to
biodegrade in the aquatic environment. Biodegradation half-life represents the number of days a
compound takes to be degraded to half of its starting concentration under prescribed laboratory
conditions.
Biodegradation data for individual deicing product components is summarized in Table A-2 through
Table A-40 in Appendix A.
2.2.1.2 A quatic Organism and Community impact Beha viors
Aquatic organisms and communities are exposed to airport deicing product components when they enter
surface waters. EPA gathered information on three chemical-specific behaviors relevant to examining
airport deicing product components' potential to directly impact aquatic organisms and communities:
>	Aquatic Toxicity
>	Bioconcentration Factors
>	Chemical and Biological Oxygen Demand
These traits are described in further detail below.
Aquatic Toxicity
EPA gathered information on both acute and chronic aquatic toxicity. Acute toxicity assessments show
the impact of a pollutant after a relatively short exposure duration, typically 48 and 96 hours for
invertebrates and fish, respectively. The primary endpoint of concern is mortality, reported as the LC50.
The LC50 represents the concentration lethal to 50% of test organisms for the given duration of the
exposure.
Chronic toxicity assessments indicate the impact of a pollutant after a longer-duration exposure, typically
from one week to several months. The endpoints of concern are one or more sub-lethal responses, such as
changes in reproduction or growth of the affected organisms. The results are reported in various ways,
including EC5, ECio, or EC50 (i.e., the concentrations at which 5%, 10%, or 50% of test organisms show a
significant sub-lethal response), NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration), LOEC (Lowest Observed
Effect Concentration), or MATC (Maximum Allowable Toxicant Concentration). MATC is defined as the
highest level of a chemical acceptable in a water supply above which a specific effect occurs.
The summary also contains information on National Recommended Water Quality Criteria set by EPA to
protect aquatic organisms from acute and toxic effects. Acute and chronic aquatic toxicity data for several
ADF and pavement deicer components are summarized in Table A-40 in Appendix A.
Bioconcentration Factors
The bioconcentration factor (BCF) is a good indicator of the potential for a chemical dissolved in the
water column to be absorbed by aquatic biota across external surface membranes such as gills. The BCF
is expressed in units of liters per kilogram and is defined as follows:
BCF = equilibrium chemical concentration in target organism (mg/kg. wet weight)
mean chemical concentration in surrounding water (|ig/L)
EPA examined BCF values because they can indicate chemicals with the ability to bioconcentrate in
aquatic organisms and transfer up the food chain if they are not metabolized and excreted. Pollutant
transfer up the food change can result in significant levels of pollutant exposure for predator organisms
(including human beings) consuming contaminated fish, shellfish, or other aquatic organisms.
2-13

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
The bioaccumulation factor (BAF) is a better measure than the BCF of the potential for a chemical
dissolved in the water column to be taken up by aquatic biota because it accounts for vertical
accumulation of the chemical in the food chain, whereas the BCF does not. For this reason, BCFs
underestimate risk to aquatic organisms. Because field-measured BAFs are not readily available for many
chemicals, EPA instead collected BCFs for deicing product components. This information is summarized
in Table A-2 through Table A-40 in Appendix A.
Chemical and Biological Oxygen Demand
Oxygen demand, or the oxygen consumed by a substance when decaying in water, is reported as either
biochemical or biological oxygen demand (BOD), carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD),
or chemical oxygen demand (COD). BOD is a measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the
biological processes that break down organic matter in water. The greater the BOD level, the greater the
degree of pollution (US EPA 2008f). CBOD is a test method that departs from customary methods for
determining BOD in its use of a chemical inhibitor to block nitrification, thus preventing the nitrogenous,
or second stage, BOD from being consumed. COD is a measure of the oxygen-consuming capacity of
inorganic and organic matter present in water. COD is expressed as the amount of oxygen consumed in
milligrams per liter (mg/1). Results do not necessarily correlate to BOD results because the chemical
oxidant in the COD test may react with substances that bacteria do not metabolize (US EPA 2008f).
EPA has developed aquatic life NRWQC for ambient DO that take into account life stages and
temperature preferences of different types of fish. The 7-day mean DO concentration for early life stages
is 9.5 mg/1 for cold water fish and 6.0 mg/1 for warm water fish. The 7-day mean minimum DO for older
life stages is 5.0 mg/1 for cold water fish and 4.0 mg/1 for warm water fish (US EPA 1986). Low dissolved
oxygen levels are the reason for the listing of 5,401 miles of impaired waters in the United States or about
13% of total impaired miles (US EPA 2008b).
A well-known example of ecological alteration due to high BOD levels is the anoxia that is an annual
occurrence throughout the Chesapeake Bay. For several months every year, large areas of the bay are
unfit for fish or shellfish (US EPA 1998b). A past example of BOD impact was the Delaware River in the
vicinity of Philadelphia and Camden. Every summer for many years, this area experienced severe DO
"blocks" due to excessive BOD input from point sources. The anoxic conditions prevented several
anadromous fish species (e.g., Atlantic menhaden and shad) from migrating upstream to spawn. Since the
early 1980s, however, conditions have improved to the point that these species are once again able to
swim upstream in large numbers to reproduce (Delaware Estuary Program 1996).
2.2.1.3 Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Impact Behaviors
Human beings can be exposed to airport deicing product components through several aquatic resource
pathways. Exposure occurs when a pollutant comes into contact with the human envelope—the lungs,
gastrointestinal tract, or skin—resulting in inhalation, ingestion, or dermal absorption. Human beings also
experience aesthetic impacts through sight, smell, and taste of aquatic resources affected by airport
deicing discharges.
Human beings come into contact with surface waters during recreational activities such as fishing, nature
observation, boating, and swimming. Exposure can involve skin contact, fish consumption, or inhalation
of volatile chemicals. People who live in communities near surface waters containing airport deicing
discharges can also inhale chemicals that volatilize from surface waters.
Drinking water is an additional exposure pathway. Many drinking water supply systems draw water from
surface water sources. If a drinking water treatment process does not remove airport deicing product
2-14

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
components from source water, human beings can be exposed to them through water ingestion or dermal
exposure and inhalation during bathing. Airport deicing product components can also enter groundwater
and be drawn into industrial, commercial, municipal, and residential wells. Some groundwater undergoes
treatment before use and some is used without treatment, particularly groundwater from residential wells.
To help assess the potential for impacts to human health and aquatic resource use from ADF and
pavement deicer components, EPA gathered available information on component toxicity, carcinogenic
potential, and aesthetic impact potential. These traits are described in further detail below.
The assessment of human health risk from a pollutant has four traditional steps:
1.	Hazard Identification
2.	Exposure Assessment
3.	Dose-Response Analysis
4.	Risk Characterization.
The amount of chemical human beings are exposed to through ingestion, inhalation, or dermal absorption
is an important variable contributing to risk associated with that chemical. A dose-response function is
used to fully characterize human health risk from a given chemical. This section summarizes information
available on chemical-specific characteristics. Chapter 3 summarizes information available on the
quantities of deicing chemicals airports discharge to the environment, the manner in which they disperse,
and the potential for human exposure.
Human Toxicity
EPA examined human health toxicity data both for outcomes resulting in cancer and for outcomes other
than cancer (e.g., increased liver weight or respiratory effects). EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) and other toxicity databases separate outcomes into these two types. The reasoning for this
delineation is the assumption that there is no safe level of exposure to cancer-causing chemicals. Even a
small exposure increases cancer risk to a certain extent. For chemicals that result in health effects other
than cancer, there is thought to be a threshold level below which exposure is "safe."
Some chemicals are toxic at low doses. Other chemicals must be present at high levels to create a toxic
effect. Some chemicals display hormesis and are beneficial at low doses, yet toxic at higher doses.
Information on chemical toxicity is available in the toxicological and epidemiological literature. The
discipline of toxicology utilizes laboratory studies on animals (in vivo) or cells (in vitro). Epidemiological
studies examine human health outcomes in relation to chemical exposures on a day-to-day basis (time
series studies) or over many years (cohort studies). Data on personal exposures to a chemical integrated
over the population of interest and combined with chemical toxicity information are used to estimate
human health risk from a chemical. Unfortunately, the toxicity of many chemicals either has not been
studied or is not well understood.
EPA located toxicity information for 12 chemicals and chemical categories listed as potential ADF and
pavement deicer components. EPA reviewed the following information sources for this data:
2-15

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
>	Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
>	Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model (RSEI)
>	National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC)
>	Maximum Contaminant Levels for Drinking Water (MCLs)
>	Peer-reviewed journal articles and government reports
Table A-41 in Appendix A summarizes the results for all 12 chemicals and chemical categories for which
EPA was able to locate information.
Cancer Outcomes
EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) use weight of evidence (WOE)
classifications to qualitatively define carcinogens based on available data. The EPA defines six WOE
guidelines, described below. IARC uses a similar scheme.
Category Weight-of-Evidence:
>	A. Sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies to support a causal relationship between
exposure to the agent and cancer.
>	B1. Limited evidence from epidemiological studies and sufficient animal data.
>	B2. Sufficient evidence from animal studies but inadequate or no evidence or no data from
epidemiological studies.
>	C. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and an absence of evidence or data in humans.
>	D. Inadequate human and animal evidence for carcinogenicity, or no data.
>	E. No evidence for carcinogenicity in at least two adequate animal tests in different species or in
both adequate epidemiological and animal studies, coupled with no evidence or data in
epidemiological studies.
For chemicals with a sufficient WOE, quantitative measures have been set. Since there is thought to be no
safe level of exposure for carcinogens, many databases report slope factors or unit risks for carcinogens.
There may be an oral slope factor (corresponding to ingesting a chemical in food), a drinking water unit
risk (corresponding to ingesting a chemical in drinking water), and an inhalation unit risk (corresponding
to inhaling a chemical from the air).
IRIS notes that the Oral Slope Factor represents the upper-bound (approximating a 95% confidence limit)
estimate of the slope of the dose-response curve in the low-dose region for carcinogens. The units of the
slope factor are usually expressed as the inverse of milligrams per kilogram-day (mg/kg-day)"1. The
Inhalation Unit Risk is defined as the upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from
continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 gram per cubic meter (g/m3) in air.
A number of assumptions are used to develop these values. For example, a person is assumed to weigh 70
kilograms, drink 2 liters of water per day, and breathe air at a rate of 20 cubic meters per day continuously
for 70 years. Other assumptions are made in regard to animal-to-human extrapolation as most
toxicological studies are performed on animals rather than humans. Assumptions are also made about
low-dose extrapolations since study animals are generally exposed to much higher levels of pollutants
than humans are expected to encounter.
2-16

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Non-cancer Outcomes
For compounds resulting in health effects other than cancer, safe exposure thresholds are deemed to exist.
IRIS has developed both reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs), corresponding to
ingestion and inhalation exposures.
IRIS states: ".. .the RfDs and RfCs are estimates (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of daily exposure [RfD], or continuous inhalation exposure [RfC], to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer
effects during a lifetime."
Because most toxicological studies are conducted on animals, animal-to-human and low-dose
extrapolation assumptions are also a factor in determining RfCs and RfDs. Generally, a point of departure
from a toxicological study is selected and divided by uncertainty factors to account for these issues. Care
must be taken when comparing RfD or RfC values from IRIS to other reference levels, because other
reference sources may not use the same uncertainty factors or may use none at all.
Water Quality Guidelines
EPA also examined two types of water quality standards for this analysis. National Recommended Water
Quality Criteria (NRWQC), set by EPA, aim to protect the health of human beings who consume water
and aquatic organisms or solely aquatic organisms from contaminated aquatic habitats. The criteria,
expressed in micrograms per liter (fig/L), represent surface water pollutant concentrations that are likely
to cause adverse health effects in human beings if exceeded.
EPA also examined human health-based drinking water criteria. These criteria are usually presented as
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and are also developed by EPA. MCLs for non-carcinogens
represent chemical-specific concentrations (expressed in |ig/L) below which adverse health effects are not
expected in exposed populations. MCLs for carcinogens represent chemical-specific concentrations
(expressed in |ig/L) that generally are expected to result in less than one additional cancer case per million
lifetime exposures if the level is not exceeded in drinking water supplies.
Aesthetic Impacts
Human beings experience aesthetic impacts to aquatic resources in a variety of ways including impacts to
water's visual appearance or its smell or taste. These impacts can affect human use or enjoyment of
affected water and surrounding areas.
Objectionable tastes, odors, colors, and foaming have been reported in surface waters containing airport
deicing operation discharges. These effects are generated in at least two ways. First, certain deicing
product components are inherently likely to cause these effects. For example, dyes can directly add color
to water. Airport deicer components and their breakdown products (e.g., urea, ammonia, ethylene glycol,
propylene glycol, polymers of acrylic acid, and ethanolamines, have characteristic and potentially
unpleasant odors. Glycols have a distinctive sweet odor. Solvents such as ethylbenzene, toluene, and
xylenes can also add objectionable odors to water and their volatility lowers the detection threshold of
those odors. Information on taste is not as readily available as information for odor, but glycols are known
to have a somewhat sweet flavor and many surfactants taste bitter. The causes of foaming are not clear.
The second route by which ADFs and pavement deicers can cause adverse aesthetic impacts is through
die-off of aquatic biota. Fish, macrophytes, and invertebrates can die when dissolved oxygen levels fall in
or toxic substances enter surface water. Algae and heterotrophic microorganisms inhabiting the water
column can die, as can the epilithon, the biotic layer covering the substrate of a stream or lake. This dead
biomass can decay aerobically if the water recovers sufficient oxygen, or anaerobically in a process
2-17

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
known as putrefaction, which generates particularly foul odors. This decomposition process also releases
proteins, polysaccharides, and other organic compounds which can provide building blocks for the
generation of persistent foams in water. Under the resulting anoxic conditions, the reduction of iron and
manganese ions to more soluble species can impart color to water (Zitomer 2001).
This section summarizes available information on 12 ADF and pavement deicer components or
component groups. These components were chosen for a more detailed analysis for one or more of the
following reasons: the component is a well-known ingredient in airport deicing products; the component
is released to the environment in significant quantities by airport deicing operations; or the component has
environmental impact potential. Additional information on these components is summarized in Table
A-42 through Table A-53 in Appendix A.
2.2.2.1 Acetate
Sodium acetate and potassium acetate are used as freezing point depressants in airfield pavement deicers
and are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. The dissolution of these chemicals after
application releases acetate (C2H302) into the environment in its ionic form. Acetate can impact aquatic
environments through consumption of dissolved oxygen during degradation. This section and Table A-42
of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human
effects of acetate.
Fate and Transport
Acetate is not expected to volatilize (US NLM 2008).
Acetate ions are soluble in water (US NLM 2008). The solubility of acetate from particular compounds,
for example sodium acetate, depends on the solubility of those compounds. Sodium acetate has a
solubility of 1,190 grams per liter at 0° C (US NLM 2008).
The degree to which acetate ions adsorb or complex with soil or water constituents or remain dissolved in
surface water or groundwater depends on site-specific factors. The rate of transport of acetate through soil
will depend on a combination of the degradation rate and interactions with soils/sediments. Therefore,
transport rates will be site-specific (US NLM 2008).
Acetate is rapidly biodegraded under aerobic conditions in surface water, groundwater, and soil (US NLM
2008). Acetate is also anaerobically biodegradable (US NLM 2008). Acetate in soil, derived from calcium
magnesium acetate, was completely degraded within three to six days (D'ltri 1992). Since aerobic
degradation is rapid, acetate plumes are rare, except possibly in anaerobic groundwater (Maest 2008).
Formate can slow the breakdown of acetate in anaerobic environments (US NLM 2008). Acetate
degradation produces bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and water (D'ltri 1992).
Acetate has a moderately high BOD falling between the BODs of urea and formate. Acetate's BOD and
COD are lower than those of propylene and ethylene glycol. One formulated pavement deicer product
consisting primarily of sodium acetate is reported to have a BOD5 of 0.58 g 02/g product (Fyve Star, Inc.
2008).
Ecological Effects
Acetate anions decay through a process that consumes dissolved oxygen present in surface waters and
groundwater. Chemicals that exert oxygen demand during the degradation process reduce the level of
dissolved oxygen available for aquatic organisms, which require a certain level of dissolved oxygen to
2.2.2
Detailed Airport Deicing Product Component Profiles
2-18

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
function and survive. For additional information on the impacts of oxygen demand, see Sections 2.2.1.2,
2.2.2.1, and 2.2.2.2.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
EPA's literature search did not locate conclusive reports on the human health effects of acetate. Acetate
may contribute to aesthetic impacts, however. Acetate decomposition consumes dissolved oxygen in
surface waters. Low dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters can cause unpleasant odors and
discoloration of water.
2.2.2.2 Alcohol Ethoxylates
Alcohol ethoxylates (CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)yOH) are a major class of non-ionic surfactants that are
widely used in a variety of consumer and industrial products, including laundry detergents (HERA 2007).
Their use in ADFs as a surfactant additive has been documented in the literature. Their use may, in part,
be in response to concerns about potential environmental impacts associated with the use of nonylphenol
ethoxylate surfactants. Surfactants typically compose less than 2% of ADFs by volume. This profile and
Table A-41 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and
human effects of alcohol ethoxylates.
Fate and Transport
Alcohol ethoxylates are a class of nonionic surfactants possessing alkyl chains with 12 to 18 carbons and
ethoxylates with 0 to 18 units (Belanger et al. 2006).
Sorption to organic carbon and solids in the water column and subsequent burial in sediments is an
important removal process in aquatic systems. Rates of sorption vary by ethoxymer and increase with
increasing number of ethoxylate units and attendant hydrophobicity (Belanger et al. 2006). In soil,
sorption to solids and organic carbon is a significant partitioning process (Belanger et al. 2006), and can
reduce the chemical's rate of migration through the soil. Rates of sorption vary by ethoxymer, and
increase with increasing hydrophobicity (Belanger et al. 2006).
Anaerobic breakdown has been documented in laboratory experiments simulating wastewater treatment
(Belanger et al. 2006). Aerobic degradation also occurs. Rates of biodegradation vary by compound, but
extremely rapid biodegradation is expected for all ethoxymers (Belanger et al. 2006). Rapid degradation
was observed in natural estuarine waters with an alkyl half-life of 2.1 days and an ethoxy half-life of 6.3
days under environmental conditions (temperature unknown) (Vashon 1982). Linear and monobranched
alcohol ethoxylates were completely biodegraded within 20 days and approximately 5% of the initial
amount of multibranched alcohol ethoxylates remained after 30 days (Marcomini et al. 2000, as cited in
Environment Canada 2002a).
Alcohols and fatty alcohols are alcohol ethoxylates' primary degradation products (Belanger et al. 2006).
Anaerobic degradation also produces methane. The degradation intermediates of alcohol ethoxylates are
less toxic than the parent compounds, and polyethylene glycol is the primary intermediate product
(Environment Canada 2002a). Aerobic degradation occurs by stepwise removal of ethylene oxide units,
and simultaneous degradation of the alkyl chain can also occur, proceeding to complete degradation into
carbon dioxide and water (Environment Canada 2002). However, the following intermediate products are
also expected, depending on the form of the parent compound (Environment Canada 2002):
> Parent Compound: Linear alcohol ethoxylates
Intermediate Compounds: Linear fatty alcohol, carboxylic fatty acid, polyethylene glycol,
monocarboxylated polyethylene glycol, and dicarboxylated polyethylene glycol.
2-19

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
>	Parent Compound: Monobranched alcohol ethoxylates
Intermediate Compounds: Carboxylated alcohol ethoxylates with a carboxylic group on the
alcohol chain, monocarboxylated polyethylene glycol, dicarboxylated polyethylene glycol,
carboxylated alcohol ethoxylates with a carboxylic group on the polyethoxylic chain, and
carboxylic fatty acid.
>	Parent Compound: Multibranched alcohol ethoxylates
Intermediate Compounds: Carboxylated alcohol ethoxylates with a carboxylic group on the
polyethoxylic chain and carboxylic fatty acid.
Alcohol ethoxylates can also increase the mobility of other substances through soil and groundwater
because of their physical properties as nonionic surfactants (Krogh et al. 2003).
Ecological Effects
Available information suggests that alcohol ethoxylates can have acute and chronic toxic effects on
aquatic organisms. These effects vary by carbon chain length. Typical alcohol ethoxylate surfactant chain
length ranges from 9 to 18 carbons and 3 to 8 ethoxylate groups. Toxicity generally declines as the
number of ethoxylates increases (Campbell 2002).
A summary of chronic toxicity data from 60 studies conducted between 1977 and 2004 on fish, aquatic
invertebrates, and aquatic plant and algae species states that alcohol ethoxylates' effects on aquatic
species include reduced growth rates, impaired reproduction, and reduced survival of neonates, as well as
acute mortality. Alcohol ethoxylates may cause diminished growth rates and reduced cell counts in algae
species at concentrations as low as 0.03 mg/L (Belanger et al. 2006).
The concentrations at which alcohol ethoxylates lead to acute mortality in aquatic species are similar to
the concentrations at which nonylphenol ethoxylates lead to acute mortality. However, alcohol
ethoxylates degrade more quickly in the aquatic environment to relatively non-toxic compounds, whereas
nonylphenol ethoxylate degradation typically yields nonylphenol, which is toxic as well as persistent in
the aquatic environment.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Human beings have regular contact with alcohol ethoxylates through a variety of industrial and consumer
products such as soaps, detergents, and other cleaning products (US EPA 2000b). Exposure to these
chemicals can occur through ingestion, inhalation, or contact with the skin or eyes. Studies of acute
toxicity show that volumes well above a reasonable intake level would have to occur to produce any toxic
response. Moreover, no fatal case of poisoning with alcohol ethoxylates has ever been reported. Multiple
studies investigating the acute toxicity of alcohol ethoxylates have shown that the use of these compounds
is of low concern in terms of oral and dermal toxicity (HERA 2007).
Clinical animal studies indicate these chemicals may produce gastrointestinal irritation such as ulcerations
of the stomach, pilo-erection, diarrhea, and lethargy. Similarly, slight to severe irritation of the skin or eye
was generated when undiluted alcohol ethoxylates were applied to the skin and eyes of rabbits and rats.
The chemical shows no indication of being a genotoxin, carcinogen, or mutagen (HERA 2007). No
information was available on levels at which these effects might occur, though toxicity is thought to be
substantially lower than that of nonylphenol ethoxylates. Concentrations of alcohol ethoxylates in aquatic
resources affected by airport deicing discharges are expected to be fairly low.
2-20

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
2.2.2.3	Dyes
Manufacturers add dye to ADFs to help ADF users track their presence on aircraft and airfield surfaces
and to help them to distinguish Type I from Type IV fluids. Numerous dyes are found in ADFs, including
alphazurine, tetrabromofluorescein, tartrazine, malonyl green, and shilling green dyes. Because of the
proprietary nature of ADF formulations, the identity of all ADF dyes in use is not known. Type I ADFs
are typically orange, and Type IV ADFs are typically green. Dyes and other ADF additives typically
compose less than 2% of ADF volume. While some ADF dyes have been found to be safe for human
consumption and are regularly used as food colorants, others may be detrimental to ecosystems or have
unknown impacts. This section and Table A-44 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate
and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of ADF dyes.
Fate and Transport
Dyes are a diverse group of substances. Fate, transport, and partitioning behaviors depend on the specific
dye in question. Most ADF dyes are expected to be at least somewhat water-soluble. Dyes reported as
present in ADFs include: eosin orange (tetrabromofluorescein), FD&C Blue #1 (alphazurine), FD&C
Yellow #5 (tartrazine), malonyl green (C.I. Pigment Yellow 34), and shilling green.
EPA was unable to locate information on the fate and transport behavior of these dyes through its
literature search. However, in general, dyes tend to absorb ultraviolet radiation and have the potential to
form decay products more toxic than the original parent dye compound.
Ecological Effects
The ecological effects of many ADF dyes have not been well documented.
Tetrabromofluorescein, a red dye, is not considered to be toxic to aquatic organisms except in very high
concentrations. Aquatic invertebrates may have a somewhat lower sensitivity threshold than fish. It is not
likely to bioaccumulate (Environment Canada 2008a).
No toxicity testing data is available for alphazurine, but some studies suggest that long-term degradation
products of this dye may be of concern (ScienceLab 2005).
Malonyl green uses C.I. Pigment Yellow 34 which is a substance listed as being of environmental
concern in the European Union due to the potential for highly toxic effects from two of its constituents,
lead chromate and lead sulfate. These substances are also considered to be persistent in the environment
and potentially bioaccumulative (Environment Canada 2008b).
EPA found no toxicity data for shilling green or tartrazine through its literature search.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
EPA found limited information on human health effects of ADF dyes through its literature search. Dyes
may contribute to discoloration of surface waters downstream of airport deicing discharge outfalls.
2.2.2.4	Ethylene Glycol
Ethylene glycol (C2H602) is well known as one of two freezing point depressants used in most Type I and
Type IV ADFs. Most of the ADF currently applied at U.S. airports is based on the other main freezing
point depressant, propylene glycol, but a sizeable fraction of current ADF usage continues to be based on
ethylene glycol. These fluids are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. Before dilution for
application, an ADF can consist of nearly 90% ethylene glycol. For this reason, large quantities of
ethylene glycol are released to the environment during airport deicing activities. Ethylene glycol is also
2-21

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
used in some airfield pavement deicer formulations. Ethylene glycol contamination has been detected in
surface waters, groundwater, sediments, and wastewater discharges at or near airports using ADFs.
When released to surface waters in large quantities, the chemical has the potential to consume large
quantities of dissolved oxygen from the water column, potentially affecting the ecosystem and human use
of aquatic resources. This profile and Table A-45 in Appendix A summarize available information on the
environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of ethylene glycol.
Fate and Transport
This section summarizes the environmental fate and transport characteristics of ethylene glycol. As
discussed in previous sections, deicing products containing ethylene glycol can enter surface waters, soil,
and groundwater on or near airports.
Volatilization of ethylene glycol from soil or water is not, in general, expected. However, ethylene glycol
can be released into the atmosphere by spray application of ADFs to aircraft, particularly under windy
conditions, and by shearing of ADFs from aircraft during taxiing and take-off. Ethylene glycol's
atmospheric half-life is 50 hours at 25° C (US NLM 2008).
Ethylene glycol is freely soluble in water and is highly mobile in both surface water and groundwater (US
NLM 2008). Tracer experiments appear to show that ethylene glycol moves through soil with
groundwater. It adsorbs poorly to clay and sandy clay soils (US NLM 2008).
Ethylene glycol undergoes rapid microbial degradation in both soil and water. It can be degraded both
aerobically and anaerobically (Johnson et al. 2001). Photolysis and hydrolysis are expected to be
insignificant degradation pathways.
As with other glycols, unacclimated microbial communities in surface waters and soils often experience a
lag of several days before degradation begins. Microbial communities acclimated to glycol inflows can
begin degradation much sooner. Additives in ADFs, however, can significantly delay degradation
(Johnson et al. 2001) as can low temperatures (US NLM 2008). Even though ethylene glycol itself may
be completely degraded within a few days under optimal conditions, the full theoretical biological oxygen
demand may not be observed for several weeks (US NLM 2008).
Ethylene glycol degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with a reported CBOD5 of 0.4 to 0.7 g 02/g
of ethylene glycol or 400 to 800 g 02 per liter of ethylene glycol (D'ltri 1992).
In various field soils, 90% to 100% degradation of ethylene glycol was observed in 2 to 12 days (study
temperatures unknown). Ethylene glycol in ADFs was completely degraded in soils along airport runways
within 29 days at 8° C (US NLM 2008). Ethylene glycol in river water degraded completely in three days
at 20° C and in 5 to 14 days at 8° C (US NLM 2008). Ethylene glycol should exhibit minimal partitioning
to sediments or suspended particles in water. Given these behaviors, the distance ethylene glycol travels
in surface water, groundwater, and soil will depend primarily on the balance between rates of transport
and degradation (US NLM 2008).
Anaerobic degradation can be complete, producing methane and carbon dioxide, or incomplete,
producing ethanol and acetate (Johnson et al. 2001). When there is insufficient oxygen to allow complete
aerobic degradation, anaerobic degradation occurs unless inhibited by ADF additives or high
concentrations of metabolic byproducts.
2-22

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Ecological Effects
Ethylene glycol toxicity data for aquatic organisms is relatively limited in its scope and availability.
However, available data indicates ethylene glycol may cause general chronic toxicity effects at high
concentrations (>3400 mg/L), including slower growth and inhibited reproduction. It can also cause acute
mortality. A study by Corsi et al. (2006) found that in certain Type I formulations, ethylene glycol
contributed as much as 87% of the total toxic effect to the algae Selencistrum capri cornu turn. However, it
contributed a much smaller percentage of the toxicity of the formulation to the fathead minnow (35%),
the daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia (47%), and Microtox testing (9%). It also contributed a much smaller
percentage of the toxicity of a Type IV formulation to all four of the aforementioned tests (ranging from
less than l%to 19%).
Ethylene glycol is known to exert high levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in
surface waters. This process can adversely affect aquatic life by consuming oxygen aquatic organisms
need to survive (Corsi et al. 2001). Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are
consumed when microbial populations decompose ethylene glycol. As described above, ethylene glycol
degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with a reported CBOD5 of 0,4 to 0.7 g 02/g of ethylene
glycol, or 400 to 800 g 02 per liter of ethylene glycol (D'ltri 1992).
Sufficient DO levels in surface waters are critical for the survival of fish, macroinvertebrates, and other
aquatic organisms. If oxygen concentrations drop below a minimum level, organisms emigrate, if able
and possible, to areas with higher oxygen levels or eventually die (US EPA 1993). This effect can
drastically reduce the amount of useable aquatic habitat. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate
bottom-feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community's species profile, or alter
critical food-web interactions.
An example of dissolved oxygen impacts deriving from airport deicing operation discharges is the
impairment of Gunpowder and Elijah Creeks in northern Kentucky. News reports have shown that
discharges from Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, specifically ethylene glycol, are to
blame for the creeks' states, which were so degraded at the time of the reports that they did not support
life (Kelly and Klepal 2004).
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Human exposure to ethylene glycol can occur through dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion, and eye
contact (NIOSH 2005a). Exposure typically targets the eyes, skin, respiratory system, and central nervous
system, and manifests through irritation to the eyes, skin, nose, and throat; nausea, vomiting, abdominal
pain, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion); dizziness, stupor, convulsions, central nervous system depression;
and skin sensitization (NIOSH 2005a). Effects can occur at concentrations as low as 2 mg/kg*day.
Children and adults are expected to similarly express pollutant exposure symptoms (US HHS 2007a).
No negative health effects have been reported in persons chronically exposed to ethylene glycol at natural
levels found in the environment (US HHS 2007b), though available monitoring data indicate that ethylene
glycol is typically found only near areas of release (e.g., production facilities and airports). Workers
involved in airport deicing operations have produced urine samples containing ethylene glycol. Further
research is still needed, however, to fully assess the cancer potential, developmental toxicity, and other
human health impacts of this pollutant, particularly with respect to the general public (US HHS 2007b).
Several articles have reported a strong sweet odor downstream from airport deicing outfalls which is
believed to derive from ethylene and/or propylene glycol (e.g., Eddy 1997). Additionally, anoxic waters,
2-23

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
which can result from the high BOD ethylene glycol exerts, typically produce a strong, unpleasant odor
(State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2001).
2.2.2.5	Formate
Sodium formate is used as a freezing point depressant in airfield pavement deicers and is used in large
quantities at a number of airports. The dissolution of sodium formate after application releases formate
(CH202) into the environment in its ionic form. Formate can impact aquatic environments through
consumption of dissolved oxygen during degradation. This section and Table A-46 of Appendix A
summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of formate.
Fate and Transport
Formate is not expected to volatilize (US NLM 2008).
Formate ions are very soluble in water though the solubility of formate in compounds depends on the
solubility of those compounds (US NLM 2008). Sodium formate has a solubility of 972 g/L at 20° C (US
NLM 2008). Depending on site-specific factors, formate ions may adsorb or complex with soil or water
constituents or remain dissolved in surface water or groundwater (US NLM 2008).
Formate is slowly hydrolyzed in water (US NLM 2008). It is subject to rapid aerobic degradation, and can
be anaerobically degraded by methanogens (US NLM 2008). Researchers observed that the aerobic
degradation rate appears to decrease sharply with decreasing temperatures (Hellsten et al. 2005). The
aerobic degradation of formate produces carbon dioxide and bicarbonate (Hellsten et al. 2005).
Formate has a slightly lower BOD and COD than acetate and a lower BOD and COD than ethylene and
propylene glycol. Sodium formate granules in one formulated deicing product (Kilfrost CIM) are reported
to have a COD of 0.3 g 02/g product. The product's BOD was not reported (Reeves et al. 2005).
Ecological Effects
Formate anions decay through a process that consumes dissolved oxygen present in surface waters and
groundwater. Chemicals that exert oxygen demand during the degradation process reduce the level of
dissolved oxygen available for aquatic organisms, which require a certain level of dissolved oxygen to
function and survive. For additional information on the impacts of oxygen demand, see Sections 2.2.1.2,
2.2.2.1, and 2.2.2.2.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
EPA's literature search did not locate conclusive reports on the human health effects of acetate. Formate
may contribute to aesthetic impacts, however. Formate decomposition consumes dissolved oxygen in
surface waters. Low dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters can cause unpleasant odors and
discoloration of water.
2.2.2.6	Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates
The widespread use of nonylphenol ethoxylates (C9Hi9-C6H40(CH2CH20)nHa) as a surfactant additive in
Type I and Type IV ADF formulations has been well documented in the literature. Nonylphenol is a
common decay product of nonylphenol ethoxylates. Surfactants typically comprise less than 2% by
volume of ADFs. There is currently uncertainty, however, over the extent to which manufacturers have
recently modified ADF formulations to replace nonylphenol ethoxylates with other types of surfactants.
Nonylphenol ethoxylates and nonylphenol can have toxic and estrogenic properties and persist in the
environment. They can cause mortality and endocrine disruption in aquatic organisms. Some preliminary
data suggest that nonylphenol may cause cancer and reproductive problems in human beings.
2-24

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Nonylphenol ethoxylate and nonylphenol contamination has been detected in surface waters,
groundwater, sediments, aquatic organisms, and wastewater discharges at or near airports using ADFs.
This profile and Table A-47 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport,
ecological effects, and human effects of nonylphenol and its ethoxylates.
Fate and Transport
This section summarizes the environmental fate and transport characteristics of nonylphenol ethoxylates
and nonylphenol. As discussed in previous sections, airport deicing products containing nonylphenol
ethoxylates and nonylphenol can enter surface waters, soil, and groundwater on or near airports.
Nonylphenol and its ethoxylates are a large class of alkylated phenols with varying physical properties;
fate, transport, and partitioning behavior vary somewhat by ethoxymer.
Nonylphenol has very low volatility. Its ethoxylates are also not expected to volatilize readily. However,
nonylphenol ethoxylates can be released into the atmosphere by spray application of ADF to aircraft,
particularly under windy conditions, and by shearing of ADF from aircraft during taxiing and take-off.
Nonylphenol ethoxylates are expected to degrade rapidly in air (Environment Canada 2002).
Nonylphenol ethoxylates are likely to partition to organic matter or minerals in soil, but this tendency
varies by ethoxymer and degree of hydrophobicity. Migration of nonylphenol ethoxylates through the soil
has been observed (Environment Canada 2002). In water, as in soil, nonylphenol ethoxylates may sorb to
organic matter or particulates (Environment Canada 2002). The decay product nonylphenol is likely to
partition to sediments and mineral particles in water and soil but can still leach through soils
(Environment Canada 2002).
Degradation of nonylphenol ethoxylates varies by ethoxymer and tends to produce some recalcitrant
compounds with endocrine disrupting potential, including nonylphenol, nonylphenol monoethoxylate,
nonylphenol diethoxylate, nonylphenoxyacetic acid, and nonylphenoxyethoxyacetic acid (Environment
Canada 2002). Observed half-lives for nonylphenol ethoxylates in environmental media range from 3 to
26 days under ideal aerobic conditions with an acclimated microbial community (Staples et al. 2001).For
nonylphenol, a biphasic degradation profile has been observed in soils with relatively rapid initial
degradation of 30-50% during the first several weeks and the remainder degrading with a half-life of
approximately 90 days (Environment Canada 2002). Degradation rate also appears to be strongly
dependent on the environmental medium. Half-lives of nonylphenol range from 2.4 hours to 0.74 d in
water (US NLM 2008). The photolytic half-life of nonylphenol in the upper layer of surface water is 10-
15 hours but is much slower in deeper layers. In a sediment mesocosm, a half-life of 66 days was
observed for nonylphenol (Environment Canada 2008a).
Ecological Effects
Nonylphenol ethoxylates are highly toxic to many aquatic species. Nonylphenol ethoxylates degrade
quickly and are therefore chiefly of concern because of their acute effects. Nonylphenol, the primary
degradation product of nonylphenol ethoxylates persists in water for substantially longer time periods
than nonylphenol ethoxylates and is more likely to contribute to chronic, as well as acute, effects. It is one
of the most prevalent contaminants in U.S. streams, both in terms of the number of streams affected and
the concentrations found (US EPA 2005).
The primary impacts of these chemicals on aquatic life are sublethal toxic effects, although at sufficient
doses both can cause mortality. Nonylphenol ethoxylate toxicity has not been studied to the same extent
as nonylphenol toxicity, but several types of adverse impacts have been noted. These impacts include
acute mortality in some sensitive species at concentrations as low as 2.8 mg/L, reproduction impacts,
2-25

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
diminished egg emergence in aquatic animals, and growth impairment in algae and aquatic animal
species. Nonylphenol ethoxylates are not thought to bioaccumulate in any species (Environment Canada
2001). A study by Corsi et al. (2006) found that in certain Type I and Type IV deicing formulations,
nonylphenol ethoxylates were responsible for 40 to 50% of toxicity in one Type I and one Type IV
formulation for several species. However, it was not detected in three of the other formulations tested, and
was responsible for only a small fraction of toxicity in the remaining four.
An EPA study of the effects of nonylphenol on aquatic life found that at concentrations as low as 0.01
mg/L, impacts include reproduction impairment, reduced numbers of live offspring, diminished growth,
and reduced offspring survival (US EPA 2005). Several other studies address estrogenic or other
reproductive effects, including evidence suggesting increased vitellogenin concentrations in fish from
chronic nonylphenol exposure and, at high concentrations, impacts on sex ratios and spawning habits.
Nonylphenol has also been shown to inhibit growth and cellular counts in algae and to potentially
bioaccumulate in some mollusk species. EPA has stated that the maximum acceptable one-hour average
concentrations of nonylphenol in freshwater is 28 (ig/L and 7.0 (ig/L in saltwater. The maximum
acceptable four-day average is 6.6 (ig/L in freshwater and 1.7 (ig/L in saltwater (US EPA 2005).
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Human exposure to nonylphenol and its ethoxylates can occur through ingestion, inhalation, and
absorption through the eyes or skin (US EPA 2006a). Fish consumption is the largest contributor to
human exposure, and is estimated to account for roughly 70 to 80% of typical daily doses (UNEP et al.
2004). This pollutant primarily affects the upper respiratory system and kidneys. Exposure symptoms can
include skin and eye irritation, tissue decay, swelling, mottled kidneys, lethargy, coughing, wheezing,
shortness of breath, headache, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Data show that low concentrations of these
chemicals act as mild irritants. High concentrations of nonylphenol and its ethoxylates may be extremely
destructive to the upper respiratory tract, eyes, and skin (US EPA 2006a, Cox 1996), but human beings
are unlikely to encounter such concentrations through exposure to aquatic resources contaminated by
airport deicing products. The no observed adverse effect level is considered to be 10 mg/kg*day.
Current evidence of this pollutant as a genotoxin or carcinogen is inconclusive, but data seem to suggest
that nonylphenol ethoxylates cause breast cancer cells to increase in number. Nonylphenol has also
demonstrated estrogenic behavior, causing an increase in breast tumor numbers and size, reproductive
problems, and various hormonal disruptions (UNEP et al. 2004).
2.2.2.7 Polyacrylic A cid
Polyacrylic acid (CsFM^n is composed of a connected series of acrylic acid monomers. This chemical is
used as a thickener in some Type IV ADFs to make them viscous enough to maintain their position on
aircraft surfaces until aircraft take-off. Thickeners and other ADF additives typically make up less than
2% of ADF volume. During degradation in the natural environment, polyacrylic acid can break down into
its component monomers. Polyacrylic acid and acrylic acid monomers have been linked to human health
problems, adverse impacts on aquatic life, and disruptions of aquatic community trophic webs. This
section and Table A-48 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological
effects, and human effects of polyacrylic acid.
Fate and Transport
Polyacrylic acids comprise a family of polymers. They are usually marketed as mixtures of polymers by
molecular weight. The behavior of these mixtures in the environment may vary somewhat, but overall
they are fairly similar (US NLM 2008).
2-26

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Polyacrylic acids are not expected to volatilize from water or moist soil (US NLM 2008). Slow
volatilization from dry soil is possible (US NLM 2008). They are not expected to adsorb to soils or
particulates, therefore potential for transport in soils, surface waters, and groundwater is high (US NLM
2008).
Biodegradability decreases with an increasing number of polymerized units and increasing formula
molecular weight. Biodegradability drops off sharply between molecular weights 700 and 1,000, and for
polymers with more than seven units (Larson et al. 1997). It appears that monomers and dimers of acrylic
acid are completely biodegradable, but there is evidence that polymers of three to seven units are
incompletely biodegraded (Larson et al. 1997).
Non-polymerized (monomeric) acrylic acid biodegrades fairly quickly under both aerobic and anaerobic
conditions. For example, it was 68% degraded within two weeks with an activated sludge inoculum. In a
42-day anaerobic study with a sewage seed inoculum, 71% was degraded (US NLM 2008).
It is possible for substances such as polyacrylic acids, which are slowly biodegradable, to accumulate in
soils and to enhance the growth of microbial biomass in those soils. If microbial growth is high enough,
the pores of the soil can become plugged with microbial biomass. This process can lead to plume
spreading as new loadings of polyacrylic acid contaminated runoff are forced around regions of low
permeability.
Ecological Effects
Acute toxicity impacts on numerous invertebrates and fish have been noted for acrylic acid, primarily in
the form of mortality but also in the form of behavioral changes in the water flea (Daphnia magna). Some
studies also note growth rate inhibition and biomass reductions in green and blue-green algae. These
effects may occur at levels as low as 0.17 mg/L (IPCS 1997).
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Exposure to acrylic acid can occur through inhalation, ingestion, and skin or eye contact, and can cause a
variety of ailments including irritation to the eyes, skin, and respiratory system; eye and skin burns; skin
sensitization; and lung, liver, and kidney disease (as revealed through animal studies) (NIOSH 2005b).
Currently there have been no reports of poisoning incidents in the general population. Most data indicate
that this pollutant is of low to moderate acute toxicity by the oral route (NOAEL 140 mg/kg/day), and
moderate acute toxicity by the inhalation (LOAEL 15 mg/m3) or dermal route. It is unclear what
concentration is non-irritant. Available reproduction studies indicate that acrylic acid is not teratogenic
(i.e., does not cause birth defects) and has no effect on reproduction. The current data available are
inconclusive regarding carcinogenic health hazards associated with acrylic acid exposure (US NLM
2008).
Acrylic acid monomers have a strong acrid odor, though no reports have linked this odor specifically to
airport deicing discharges (BAMM 2006).
2.2.2.8 Potassium
Potassium acetate is used as a freezing point depressant in airfield pavement deicers and is applied in
large quantities at a number of airports. The chemical is typically applied in liquid form and releases
potassium into the surrounding environment in its ionic form. Following dissolution after application,
solid forms of potassium acetate also releases potassium in its ionic form to the environment. Potassium
can elevate measures of salinity, conductance, or total dissolved solids (TDS) in surface waters. It can
impact aquatic environments and, at high levels, cause health problems in human beings. This section and
2-27

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Table A-49 of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and
human effects of potassium.
Fate and Transport
Ionic potassium is highly soluble and highly mobile in both surface water and groundwater. In soil,
potassium can accumulate in areas where there is insufficient water available to transport it through the
soil horizon. Otherwise, it is transported easily through soil and can enter and travel with groundwater.
As an elemental ion, potassium is not subject to decay and persists in the environment. It is not expected
to volatilize.
Ecological Effects
Most freshwater surface waters contain a small quantity of potassium. Fish require potassium for growth,
reproduction, and survival. Freshwater fish actively assimilate potassium from food and water. Saltwater
fish are generally at lower risk of potassium deficiency than freshwater fish because marine water
contains higher levels of potassium then fresh water. High potassium loadings or long turnover times,
however, can create surface water ion balance issues that can impact aquatic organism functioning and
survival (Public Sector Consultants 1993).
Exposure to high levels of potassium can cause osmoregulatory dysfunction in aquatic organisms.
Freshwater fish tissues typically have higher potassium content than surrounding water. Under normal
conditions, freshwater fish use their gills, circulatory system, and kidneys to work against this osmotic
gradient in order to prevent the influx of excess water and the loss of potassium from their tissues.
Specialized cells in fish gill epithelium use potassium and sodium ions to transport chloride into or out of
fish tissue (Jobling 1996). In marine fish, chloride ions are pumped from fish against an osmotic gradient.
This process helps to maintain optimal osmotic potential between the fish and its environment.
The process moves potassium ions in the opposite direction in freshwater fish. The gill has mechanisms
which actively work to re-import potassium into the blood on order to replace potassium lost through the
gills. When external potassium levels exceed internal potassium levels, these osmoregulatory mechanisms
can lead to rapid fish dehydration, ionoregulatory system imbalance, and impairment to fish functioning
and survival.
Exposure to excessive potassium concentrations can interfere with these essential osmoregulatory
mechanisms in both freshwater and saltwater fish, requiring fish to expend more energy to maintain
homeostasis or, if concentrations are high enough, cause death through ionic imbalance.
In lakes, increased salt concentrations can also lead to increased density of water layers, leading to or
exacerbating stratification during cold or still weather to the point that normal seasonal overturn does not
occur (D'ltri 1992).
Plants use potassium to regulate ion transport. Plants exposed to high concentrations of potassium suffer
adverse effects similar to those associated with potassium deficiencies by causing deficiencies in
magnesium and calcium (Motavalli et al. 2008), which are essential for growth, reproduction, and
survival.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Potassium is an essential part of the human diet. This element is an essential in preventing and treating
high blood pressure, hypoglycemia, diabetes, kidney disease, obesity, and potentially paralysis. The
absence of adequate potassium in the diet may lead to listlessness, fatigue, gas pains, constipation,
2-28

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
insomnia, and low blood sugar. Moreover, deficient individuals may have weak muscles and a slow,
irregular pulse (IFIC 2005).
This element is beneficial at lower levels but may have detrimental health impacts if consumed in excess.
U.S. health guidelines advise that no more than 4,700 mg potassium be consumed each day (US HHS and
DoA 2005). However, many humans do not consume enough potassium. Human beings may ingest
potassium from airport deicing discharges through consumption of contaminated drinking water sources.
2.2.2.9 Propylene Glycol
Like ethylene glycol, propylene glycol (C3H802) is a well-known freezing point depressant used in many
Type I and Type IV ADFs. These fluids are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. Most ADF
in current use at U.S. airports is based on propylene glycol. Before dilution for application, an ADF can
consist of nearly 90% propylene glycol. Propylene glycol is also used in some airfield pavement deicer
formulations. For this reason, large quantities of propylene glycol can be released to the environment
during airport deicing activities. Propylene glycol contamination has been detected in surface waters,
groundwater, sediments, and wastewater discharges at or near airports using ADFs.
Though more expensive than ethylene glycol, propylene glycol is considerably less toxic to human beings
and other mammals. When released to surface waters in large quantities, however, it has the potential to
consume large quantities of dissolved oxygen from the water column, potentially affecting the ecosystem
and human use of aquatic resources. This profile and Table A-50 in Appendix A summarizes available
information on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of propylene
glycol.
Fate and Transport
This section summarizes the environmental fate and transport characteristics of propylene glycol. As
discussed in previous sections, deicing products containing propylene glycol can enter surface waters,
soil, and groundwater on or near airports.
Volatilization of propylene glycol from soil or water is not, in general, expected (US NLM 2008).
However, propylene glycol can be released into the atmosphere by spray application of ADF to aircraft,
particularly under windy conditions, and by shearing of ADF from aircraft during taxiing and take-off.
Propylene glycol's atmospheric half-life is 32 hours at 25° C (US NLM 2008).
Propylene glycol is freely soluble in water, and has very high mobility in soils, sediments, surface water,
and groundwater (US NLM 2008). Estimates of log K0w for propylene glycol are low, and range from -
0.92 (US NLM 2008) to -1.41 (French et al. 2001, as cited in Jaesche et al. 2006). These low estimates of
K0w support the observations of Jaesche et al. (2006), who found negligible soil sorption in laboratory
experiments. Propylene glycol should also exhibit minimal partitioning to sediments or suspended
particles in water. Given these behaviors, the distance propylene glycol travels in surface water,
groundwater, and soil will depend primarily on the balance between rates of transport and degradation.
Propylene glycol undergoes rapid microbial degradation in both soil and water. It can biodegrade under
both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of
several days before glycol degradation begins. Microbial communities acclimated to glycol inflows can
begin degradation much sooner. Additives in ADFs, however, can significantly delay degradation
(Johnson et al. 2001). In microcosm experiments under aerobic conditions, degradation rates of up to 95
milligrams of propylene glycol per day per kilogram of dry soil were observed by Klecka et al. (1993; as
cited in Jaesche et al. 2006). Jaesche et al. (2006) found that in subsoil materials, the anaerobic
2-29

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
degradation of propylene glycol was very slow and was dependent on the import of microbiota from
surface soils.
Propylene glycol degradation is also temperature-dependent. In laboratory experiments with field-
collected soils, propylene glycol was not observed to degrade anaerobically at 4° C, and degraded
anaerobically at 20° C only in soil that was rich in organic matter (Jaesche et al. 2006).
During anaerobic wastewater treatment, propylene glycol degrades first to propionaldehyde. then to
propionate and 1 -propanol. The final products are acetate, methane, and carbon dioxide (Jaesche et al.
2006).
Propylene glycol degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with an estimated CBOD5 of 1 g 02/g of
propylene glycol, or 1,000 g 02 per liter of propylene glycol (Mericas and Wagoner 1994; Safferman et
al. 1998, all as cited in Johnson et al. 2001).
Anaerobic degradation of propylene glycol can increase the efflux of terminal electron acceptors such as
iron and manganese (hydr)oxides from soils (Jaesche et al. 2006). Overtime, continued input of
propylene glycol can therefore lead to a reduction in soil's redox potential, promoting anoxic conditions
in the soil (Jaesche et al. 2006).
Ecological Effects
Data on propylene glycol's toxicity for aquatic organisms is relatively limited, though it is generally
perceived as being relatively low. Available data indicate that propylene glycol may cause general
chronic toxicity effects, including slower growth and inhibited reproduction, as well as acute mortality at
concentrations greater than 5000 mg/L. A study by Corsi et al. (2006) found that in certain Type I
formulations, propylene glycol had a greater toxic effect on its own than did the formulation.2 However, it
contributed a much smaller percentage of the toxicity of the formulation to the fathead minnow, the
daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Microtox testing for both Type I and Type IV fluids (ranging from less
than l%to 51%).
Propylene glycol is known to exert high levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in
surface waters. This process can adversely affect aquatic life by consuming oxygen aquatic organisms
need to survive (Corsi et al. 2001). Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are
consumed when microbial populations decompose ethylene glycol.
Sufficient DO levels in surface waters are critical for the survival of fish, macroinvertebrates, and other
aquatic organisms. If oxygen concentrations drop below a minimum level, organisms emigrate, if able
and possible, to areas with higher oxygen levels or eventually die (US EPA 1993). This effect can
drastically reduce the amount of useable aquatic habitat. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate
bottom-feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community's species profile, or alter
critical food-web interactions.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Unlike ethylene glycol, a cause of acute toxicity in human beings and other mammals, propylene glycol is
generally considered to be safe and a rare cause of toxic effects. Human exposure to propylene glycol can
occur through dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion, and eye contact
The paper explains that this may be caused either by uncertainty in calculating the relative toxicity factors, or by the
possibility that the interactions of all chemicals in a deicing formulation may result in lower toxicity than propylene glycol
alone.
2-30

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Humans typically come in contact with propylene glycol through ingestion of food and medications and
through dermal contact with cosmetics or topical medications. Background concentrations in foods range
from < 0.001% in eggs and soups to about 15% in some seasonings and flavorings. No health effects have
been reported in persons chronically exposed to propylene glycol at levels found in the environment.
Some special-risk groups may be more sensitive at lower levels; these include neonates, infants and the
elderly, or those with pre-existing skin or eye conditions or allergies (US HHS 2007b).
Extensive topical application has been known to cause burns to the skin. The common use of propylene
glycol in burn creams has been associated with hyperosmolality, lactic acidosis (the build-up of lactic acid
in the body), intravascular hemolysis (the rupturing of blood vessels), central nervous system depression,
seizures, coma, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and renal failure, although only in very high doses (US
HHS 2007b). For example, one study found an LD50 in the rat of 30,000 mg/kg (US EPA 2000a).
However, it is expected that this level of exposure through human contact with propylene glycol-
contaminated aquatic resources would be very unlikely.
Several news articles have reported strong sweet odors downstream from airport deicing outfalls which
are believed to be linked to ethylene glycol and propylene glycol discharges (e.g., Hopey 1998).
Additionally, anoxic waters, which can result from the high BOD propylene glycol exerts, typically
produce a strong, unpleasant odor (State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2001).
2.2.2.10 Sodium
Sodium acetate and sodium formate are used as freezing point depressants in airfield pavement deicers
and are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. The dissolution of these chemicals after
application releases sodium into the environment in its ionic form. Sodium can elevate measures of
salinity, conductance, or total dissolved solids (TDS) in surface waters. It can impact aquatic
environments and, at high levels, cause health problems in human beings. This section and Table A-51 of
Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects
of sodium.
Fate and Transport
Sodium is highly soluble and highly mobile in both surface water and groundwater. In soil, sodium can
accumulate in areas where there is insufficient water available to transport it through the soil horizon.
Otherwise, it is transported easily through soil and can enter and travel with groundwater.
When sodium replaces calcium in soil through an anion exchange process, the structure of the soil can
deteriorate, and aeration and water availability decrease (D'ltri 1992). Poor soil structure due to high
sodium levels can also increase the soil mobility of metals (Amrhein and Strong 1990, as cited in D'ltri
1992).
As an elemental ion, sodium is not subject to decay and persists in the environment. It is not expected to
volatilize.
Ecological Effects
Most freshwater surface waters contain a small quantity of sodium. High sodium loadings or long
turnover times, however, can create surface water ion balance issues that can impact aquatic organism
functioning and survival (Public Sector Consultants 1993).
Freshwater aquatic organisms are very sensitive to excess sodium in surface waters. Exposure to high
levels of sodium can cause osmoregulatory dysfunction. Freshwater fish tissues typically have higher
sodium content than surrounding water. Under normal conditions, freshwater fish use their gills,
2-31

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
circulatory system, and kidneys to work against this osmotic gradient in order to prevent the influx of
excess water and the loss of sodium from their tissues.
Sodium loss and water influx takes place at the fish gill surface. Specialized cells in fish gill epithelium
use potassium and sodium ions to transport chloride into or out of fish tissue (Jobling 1996). In marine
fish, chloride ions are pumped from fish against an osmotic gradient. This process helps to maintain
optimal osmotic potential between the fish and its environment.
In freshwater fish, the process moves ions in the opposite direction. The fish's circulatory system moves
excess water to the kidney where it is rapidly excreted. The gill has mechanisms which actively work to
re-import sodium into the blood on order to replace sodium lost through the gills. When external sodium
levels exceed internal sodium levels, these mechanisms can contribute to rapid fish dehydration,
ionoregulatory system imbalance, and impairment to fish functioning and survival.
Exposure to excessive potassium concentrations can interfere with these essential osmoregulatory
mechanisms in both freshwater and saltwater fish, requiring fish to expend more energy to maintain
homeostasis or, if concentrations are high enough, cause death through ionic imbalance.
In lakes, increased salt concentrations can also lead to increased density of water layers, leading to or
exacerbating stratification during cold or still weather to the point that normal seasonal overturn does not
occur (D'ltri 1992).
Both aquatic and terrestrial plants are susceptible to damage following exposure to excess sodium in
surface water, soil, porewater, and groundwater. Sodium-induced plant damage occurs in several ways
(Moran et al. 1992). First, increasing osmotic pressure of the surrounding water (for aquatic plants) or soil
solution increases sodium migration into and water diffusion from the cells, causing dehydration. Second,
sodium ion accumulation in plant tissues can reach toxic concentrations. This is often visible in leaf
margins, as transpiration pulls water into the leaves. As water evaporates from leaves, sodium ions remain
behind and accumulate to toxic levels (University of Illinois Extension 2008). Sodium inhibits many
enzymes in plants and is particularly harmful when intracellular potassium is low relative to sodium, as
discussed below (Zhu 2007). Third, sodium stress induces the production of abscisic acid, which causes
stomatato close and reduces gas exchange and photosynthesis (Zhu 2007).
In addition, the mineral composition of the soil can become unbalanced, making plant nutrient absorption
more difficult (Moran et al. 1992). Sodium out-competes potassium for uptake by plant roots, eventually
leading to potassium deficiency. Sufficient potassium levels are critical for maintaining adequate cell
turgor (fluid pressure), membrane potential, and enzymatic activity (Zhu 2007).
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
Sodium is a necessary component of the human diet. While this element is vital in small amounts,
excessive consumption may have adverse health effects. Health guidelines advise humans to consume
2,300 mg (1 teaspoon) of sodium per day (US HHS and DoA 2005). At elevated levels, this element is
known to cause high blood pressure and possibly calcium loss. Human beings may ingest sodium from
airport deicing discharges through consumption of contaminated drinking water sources.
2.2.2.11 Tolyltriazoles, Benzotriazoles, and Methyl-substituted Benzotriazoles
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) requires glycol-based ADFs to contain a fire suppressant
because of concerns about ADF flammability in some aircraft electrical systems. The use of tolyltriazoles
(C7H7N3), benzotriazoles, or methyl-substituted benzotriazoles as flame retardants and corrosion
inhibitors in ADFs has been documented in the literature. Tolyltriazole refers to a mixture of the 4-methyl
2-32

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
and 5-methyl isomers of benzotriazole. Methyl-substituted benzotriazoles have a methyl group attached to
the benzene ring. These chemicals, along with other ADF additives, typically comprise less than 2% of
ADF volume. Studies have identified the presence of these chemicals in drainage ditches, groundwater,
wells, and soils on or near airports where ADFs have been used. This profile and Table A-52 in Appendix
A summarizes data on these chemicals' environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human
effects.
Fate and Transport
Volatilization of tolyltriazole is not expected (US NLM 2008).
Benzotriazoles are highly polar and dissolve well in water (Weiss et al. 2006). All triazoles are expected
to be highly mobile in surface water, groundwater, and soils (US NLM 2008, Breedveld et al. 2003).
Methyltriazoles are known to be mobile in groundwater (US NLM 2008). However, triazoles may
protonate in some environmental matrices, and the cationic form would be expected to bind to organic
material and clays (US NLM 2008). Methylbenzotriazole was found to sorb to digested sludge (Gruden et
al. 2001), and thus may be able to bind to organic carbon in soil. Sorption is not expected to be very
significant in soils, however. Breedveld et al. (2003) found that benzotriazole showed very little sorption
in various soil matrices, and only peat and compost with a high organic carbon content showed significant
sorption.
Photolysis is a potential route of degradation in environmental media with high exposure to light (US
NLM 2008).
Biodegradation of these compounds varies by isomer. 5-methylbenzotriazole is much more aerobically
degradable than the 4-methylbenzotriazole isomer (Weiss and Reemtsma 2005). The same pattern was
observed in bench-scale bioreactor experiments in which 5-methyltriazole was completely biodegraded
within 17 days, but 4-methyltriazole was only 25% biodegraded after 28 days, and the remainder was
recalcitrant to further degradation (Weiss et al. 2006). Furthermore, 5-methylbenzotriazole was found to
be "unstable" in cooling towers (an aerobic environment), whereas 4-methylbenzotriazole was not
degraded (Gruden et al. 2001).
Another study found that methylbenzotriazole (isomer not specified) was not anaerobically digestible in
lab experiments (Gruden et al. 2001). Anaerobic degradation was not observed for benzotriazole and its
derivatives in lab reactor experiments (Tham and Kennedy 2005). Davis et al. (2000) have demonstrated
that higher plants and white rot fungi can take up and degrade triazoles. No information was located on
the degradation products of benzotriazoles.
Weiss and Reemtsma (2005) found that both benzotriazole and 4-methylbenzotriazole survived bank
filtration treatment although 5-methylbenzotriazole did not. Ozonation appears to be capable of almost
completely removing benzotriazole and 4- and 5-methylbenzotriazole from wastewater and might also be
able to remove them during drinking water treatment, where this technology is used (Weiss et al. 2006).
One study found that up to 300 mg/1 of benzotriazole only slightly inhibited the anaerobic degradation of
glycols, that up to 20 mg/1 of 5,6-dimethylbenzotriazole did not inhibit their anaerobic degradation, and
that 300 mg/1 of 5-methylbenzotriazole was capable of severely inhibiting their anaerobic degradation
(Johnson et al. 2001).
Benzotriazole and methylbenzotriazole have been detected in groundwater near an airport at levels greater
than 100 mg/1. This concentration is high enough to be potentially toxic to microbiota, fish, and
invertebrates (Cancilla et al. 1998). At two airports, 4-methyltriazole was detected in all wells sampled,
2-33

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
but 5-methyltriazole was not detected in any of the wells (Cancilla et al. 2003 and Cancilla et al. 1998).
Breedveld et al. (1997) reported soil concentrations of up to 13 mg/kg in a drainage ditch and up to 1.1
mg/1 in groundwater at Oslo Airport one to two years after deicing was discontinued.
Ecological Effects
Triazoles are a major contributor to ADF toxicity and may be responsible for the majority of total toxicity
in some formulations (Corsi et al. 2006). Triazoles are several orders of magnitude more acutely toxic
than glycols to multiple aquatic species, including the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and the water flea
(Daphnia magna). The LC50 for the waterflea for tolyltriazole is 74 mg/L. Tolyltriazole is considered to
be more toxic than other benzotriazoles. Though not likely to bioaccumulate, triazoles may persist in the
aquatic environment due to their resistance to natural degradation (British Environment Agency 2000).
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
EPA's search of publicly available literature yielded no consistent or conclusive information on the
impact of triazoles on human health or the aesthetic attributes of receiving waters.
2.2.2.12 Urea (Ammonia)
Urea (NH2CONH2) is used as a freezing point depressant in airfield pavement deicers and is applied in
large quantities at a number of airports. It is typically used as a solid pavement deicer or in combination
with ethylene or propylene glycol as a liquid pavement deicer. Urea is also a common fertilizer that
enhances plant growth. Urea forms ammonia (NH3) during decay. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms
at low concentrations and can cause both organism mortality and reproduction impairment. Ammonia can
further decay in aquatic environments into several nitrogen-containing compounds (e.g., nitrate) that can
fertilize aquatic plants and foster biological overgrowths. Ammonia may cause minor to severe dermal or
pulmonary irritation to human beings who come into contact with it. Urea and ammonia have been
documented as contaminants in surface waters, groundwater, and soil in and near airports using urea as a
pavement deicer. This section and Table A-53 of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate
and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of formate.
Fate and Transport
Urea has a low vapor pressure and is not expected to volatilize readily from soil or water (US NLM
2008). Ammonia, a by-product of urea degradation, is quite volatile.
Urea has a solubility of 545 g/l, making it reasonably soluble (US NLM 2008). Urea is transported readily
in surface water and its presence has been documented in groundwater at several airports using urea as a
pavement deicer. This is despite the fact that urea's soil infiltration is thought to be minimal except where
the soil is sandy (D'ltri 1992). Transport Canada (1990) (as cited in D'ltri 1992) reported that between 64
and 100% of applied urea can reach surface waters via overland flow. Urea can also accumulate in
snowbanks and be released as a large load in a short amount of time during snowmelt (D'ltri 1992).
Urea biodegrades well under aerobic conditions and produces ammonia which eventually degrades to
nitrate. The degradation rate is temperature dependent and is expected to be slow during winter. After 14
days in river water at 8° C, degradation was almost nil (Evans and Patterson 1973 as cited in D'ltri 1992).
At 20 degrees Celsius, urea fully degraded to ammonia within 4 to 6 days (Cryotech 2008).
Urea contains 46% nitrogen by weight, making it a potential contributor to undesirable eutrophication of
surface waters (D'ltri 1992). Urea's BOD is approximately 1.8 g 02/g urea (Cryotech 2008) and is much
higher than that of acetate and formate-based pavement deicers, as well as higher than that of ethylene
glycol or propylene glycol-based pavement deicers and ADFs.
2-34

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
2. Airport Deicing Product Components
and Environmental Behavior
Ammonia levels in runoff from airports have been commonly reported at levels between 2 and 15 mg/L
and can be higher (D'ltri 1992). These levels are potentially toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.
Ecological Effects
Urea is not particularly toxic to aquatic life. However, urea degrades to ammonia which is highly toxic to
many aquatic organisms. EPA established a National Recommended Water Quality Criterion for
ammonia in 1984 and last revised it in 1998. Because of ammonia's unique properties, the criteria are
dependent on pH, temperature, and organism life stage. Ammonia is most toxic in its un-ionized form
which is more likely to exist at higher temperatures and pH levels. If salmonids are present, acute criteria
range from 0.885 to 32.6 mg N/1, depending upon pH. If salmonids are not present, acute criteria range
from 1.32 to 48.8 mg N/1. Chronic criteria, which do not vary according to salmonid presence or absence,
range from 0.254 to 3.48 mg N/1, depending upon pH (US EPA 1998a).
Ammonia is capable of causing acute mortality in many aquatic organisms, particularly at higher
concentrations. Ammonia can also cause a host of chronic effects in aquatic organisms, including
reproduction inhibition, diminished juvenile growth, and reduced embryo and neonate survival. Salmonid
fish are particularly sensitive, and EPA's ammonia standard is stricter for water bodies in which they are
present. For example, one study determined an LC50 for the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) of
0.068 mg/L (US EPA 1998a). Ammonia has been noted as a major cause of fish kills (US EPA 1991;
USDA 1992). In addition, if surface water substrate sediments are enriched with nutrients, the
concentrations of nitrites on the overlying water can be raised enough to cause nitrite poisoning or "brown
blood disease" in fish (USDA 1992).
Ammonia further decays in aquatic environments to nitrates. Nitrates function as a source of nitrogen
nutrients. Surface water eutrophication due to excessive nutrient levels can produce ecological impacts
such as nuisance algal blooms, death of underwater plants (due to reduced light penetration through turbid
waters), reduced dissolved oxygen levels, and impaired aquatic organism populations.
Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects
A person ingests an average of 0.36 mg/day of ammonia through drinking water sources (US HHS 2004).
Ammonia begins to be noticeable to drinking water consumers at 35 ppm (taste) to 50 ppm (odor). Low
levels of exposure may not cause any problems in healthy individuals but may harm sensitive individuals
such as those with asthma. At higher concentrations, ammonia exposure may also cause skin burns to the
exposed area. Children respond to ammonia exposure in much the same way as adults. No evidence has
been found to suggest that low-level chronic ammonia exposure causes birth defects or other
developmental problems. However, chronic exposure has been found to cause transient respiratory
distress (US HHS 2004).
Data for assessing the carcinogenic potential of ammonia are limited. At consumption levels of 200
milligrams per day, ammonia may act as a cancer promoter. However, well-designed animal studies have
not yet been conducted in order to better elucidate ammonia's role as a potential carcinogen (US HHS
2004).
At high exposure levels, effects include irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat; dyspnea (breathing
abnormalities), wheezing, and chest pain; pulmonary edema; pink frothy sputum; skin burns, and
vesiculation (formation of blisters or vesicles) (NIOSH 2005c). Human exposure to such high levels
through aquatic resources contaminated by airport deicing discharges is not expected.
2-35

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
3 Environmental Impact Potential under Current Airport Deicing
Practices
This chapter summarizes the potential environmental impacts of airport deicing operation discharges
under current conditions and industry practices. Chapter 4 presents information on environmental
improvements and benefits expected under each of EPA's final regulatory options.
This chapter provides information on facilities within scope of the final rule (Section 3.1), discusses
factors that influence airport deicing pollutant discharges to the environment and provides an overview of
current airport deicing pollutant discharges (Section 3.2), discusses factors influencing pollutant
concentrations in surface waters (Section 3.3), summarizes documented environmental impacts from
airport deicing activities (Section 3.4), and discusses potential impacts to impaired waters and other
resources (Section 3.5).
3.1 Universe of In-scope Airports
In determining the scope of the final regulatory options, EPA aimed to capture those airports that perform
the majority of deicing operations in the United States. EPA's final regulatory options address airports
with the following characteristics:
>	Classified by FAA as primary commercial airports;
>	Not categorized by FAA as general aviation or cargo airports;
>	Greater than or equal to 1,000 non-propeller-driven aircraft departures annually; and
>	Conduct aircraft or airfield pavement deicing operations.
EPA focused on primary commercial airports with greater than or equal to 1,000 annual non-propeller-
driven aircraft departures because these airports are more likely to operate during inclement winter
weather and conduct the majority of airport deicing operations. Although deicing takes place at some
general aviation and cargo airports and primary commercial airports with fewer than 1,000 annual non-
propeller-driven aircraft departures (see Table 3-1), EPA focused on an airport category that conducts the
majority of airport deicing activity. Table B-l in Appendix B lists the airports within scope of the final
regulatory options. Figure 3-1 presents a map of the in-scope airports listed in Appendix B.
3-1

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Figure 3-1: In-scope Airports for EPA's Effluent Guideline Regulations for Airport Deicing
Operations
• •
500
# In-scope Airports
Miles
As shown in Figure 3-1, airports engaging in deicing activities are widely distributed throughout the U.S.
These airports vary greatly, however, in the levels at which they conduct aircraft and pavement deicing
and in their discharge environments. These variables are discussed in Section 3.2.
3.2 Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges to the Environment
Airport deicing pollutant discharges to the environment vary widely among individual airports. Pollutant
discharges can also vary widely from day to day at any individual airport. This variability is driven by
individual airport deicing practices and environmental contexts and the weather-dependent nature of
deicing activities and discharges. This section discusses a number of factors that influence airport deicing
pollutant loads and also describes EPA's quantified estimates of national and individual airport deicing
pollutant discharges.
3.2.1 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge to the Environment
Several factors influence the nature and quantity of pollutant loadings to the environment at individual
airports:
3-2

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
>	Deicing product selection;
>	Air traffic composition and levels;
>	Airport treatment and collection practices;
>	Airfield design; and
>	Weather conditions.
3.2.1.1	Deicing Product Selection
Deicing product choice is the first determinant of deicing pollutant loadings at an individual airport. A
variety of ADF and pavement deicer formulations are available for purchase and use by airports and
airlines. These formulations contain one or two of several freezing point depressants, which constitute
most of the formulation, as well as a variety of chemical additives. The formulations chosen by an airport
or airlines affect the chemicals that will discharge to the environment. For example, an airport that
chooses a potassium acetate-based pavement deicer will discharge potassium, undegraded acetate,
COD/BOD, and unidentified additives to the environment; whereas an airport that chooses a urea-based
pavement deicer will discharge undegraded urea, ammonia, nitrates, and higher levels of BOD/COD to
the environment. For additional information on the types and quantities of different chemicals found in
ADF and airfield pavement deicer formulations, see Chapter 2.
Multiple factors drive deicing product choice including airport climate, product performance, cost,
availability, and compatibility with aircraft and airport infrastructure. Weather conditions also strongly
influence the need for use of different types of airport deicing products. For example, during winter
freezing precipitation events, the use of Type I ADF for aircraft deicing, Type IV ADF for aircraft anti-
icing and pavement deicers may all be necessary to maintain aircraft operations. Environmental release of
chemicals from all three product types would therefore be expected under these conditions. During calm
winter conditions, use of only Type I ADF to remove light layers of frost from aircraft may be necessary,
and under these conditions releases of chemicals associated with Type IV ADF and pavement deicers
would not be expected.
3.2.1.2	Air Traffic Composition and Levels
Airports vary widely in the types of aircraft using their facilities and in total number of aircraft departures
during the winter deicing season. EPA has focused the scope of the rule on those airports that have higher
levels of non-propeller-driven aircraft departures (1,000 or more annually). Non-propeller-driven aircraft
are more likely than other types of aircraft (e.g., propeller-driven aircraft) to continue operating during
inclement winter weather. Airports with larger numbers of non-propeller-driven aircraft departures are
more likely to use ADF and pavement deicers to maintain operations and therefore are more likely to
discharge deicing pollutants.
The type of non-propeller-driven aircraft also makes a difference in the quantity of ADF released to the
environment since larger non-propeller-driven aircraft require larger quantities of ADF than smaller non-
propeller-driven aircraft for both deicing and anti-icing.
In addition, all other factors being equal, airports with larger numbers of non-propeller-driven aircraft and
other aircraft departures will use larger quantities of deicing products.
3.2.1.3	Airport Deicing Pollutant Treatment and Collection Practices
Airports vary widely in the nature of their deicing pollutant collection and treatment practices. All airports
discharge some or all of their deicing pollutants to surface waters near airports. Some airports collect a
3-3

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
portion of their deicing wastewaters and either treat them on-site or send them off-site to a publically
owned treatment works (POTW) or other facility for treatment and discharge. Other airports discharge
stormwater containing deicing pollutants to soil and groundwater. Many airports have a combination of
these discharge conditions. EPA's Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2010) provides additional
information on the collection and treatment systems found at individual airports.
ADF and pavement deicer chemicals disperse widely during use. Type I and Type IV ADF drip and shear
from aircraft during application, taxiing, and take-off. Airports apply pavement deicers to large expanses
of airfield pavement found at many airports, including aprons, gate areas, taxiways, and runways. Due to
this widespread product dispersion, large quantities of airport stormwater frequently contain some level of
deicing pollutants. The large quantities and dispersed nature of contaminated stormwater make it difficult
for airports to collect and treat more than a fraction of released deicing product. For this reason, most
airports discharge the majority of their deicing pollutants to the environment.
Deicing collection and treatment systems vary in design and effectiveness by airport. EPA's Technical
Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport
Deicing Category (US EPA 2010) describes collection and treatment technologies and their effectiveness
in reducing deicing pollutant discharges in detail. For today's final rule, EPA assessed two ADF
stormwater collection technologies and one stormwater treatment technology for the purpose of
constructing regulatory options for exsiting airports. The assessed collection technologies include glycol
collection vehicles (GCVs) and GCVs used in combination with "plug and pump" systems. The assessed
treatment technology is anaerobic fluid bed (AFB) biological treatment. EPA's Technical Development
Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
(US EPA 2010) also discusses other approaches airports use to reduce discharge of deicing pollutants to
surface waters.
3.2.1.4 Airfield Design
The configuration of airport grounds and infrastructure relative to surface waters, pervious surfaces, and
groundwater also affect deicing pollutant dispersion in the environment. Influential airport design
elements include:
>	Stormwater infrastructure collection and delivery efficiency;
>	Runway and taxiway proximity to surface waters;
>	Airfield imperviousness;
>	Airfield slope; and
>	Amount of vegetation buffer between impervious areas and surface waters.
Stormwater collection and delivery systems at airports vary in their design delivery efficiency and
condition. Some systems deliver large fractions of airport stormwater to a chosen destination quickly and
without substantial volume loss during delivery. Other systems are designed or are in a condition such
that substantial volumes of stormwater are lost prior to ultimate discharge. Pervious or partially pervious
system elements such as unlined ditches and ponds and leaking stormwater pipes and storage units allow
stormwater loss. Deicing pollutants in stormwater lost from collection and delivery systems typically
enter the soil column where they degrade, accumulate, or eventually enter groundwater if present on
airport grounds. Groundwater and the pollutants it contains may ultimately discharge to nearby surface
waters or flow beyond airport property lines. In these situations, infiltration may slow and reduce
3-4

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
pollutant discharges to surface waters, but not eliminate them. In other cases, pollutants in groundwater
may degrade before they discharge to surface waters or cross airport property lines.
Deicing pollutants can also degrade during stormwater transport and storage. Degradation rates are slower
under cold temperatures and increase as temperatures rise. Systems that discharge stormwater more
slowly, particularly those that hold stormwater until later in the year when average temperatures rise,
allow greater opportunity for degradation of deicing pollutants prior to discharge. The degradation
process can remove some chemicals of concern in deicing discharges. In some cases, however,
degradation can create new pollutants of concern or a volume of stormwater with very low dissolved
oxygen levels, both of which can be of concern if discharged to surface waters in sufficient quantities. For
additional information on airport deicing product degradation products, see Chapter 2.
In general, the closer airport runways and taxiways are to surface waters, the greater the potential for
deicing pollutants to enter those waters through stormwater flow, groundwater flow, or aerial deposition.
Shorter distances reduce pollutant loss from stormwater transport systems, degradation, and soil retention.
Shorter distances also make it more likely that ADF released to the air during taxiing and takeoff can be
carried by the wind to surface waters. Some airport takeoff flight paths extend directly over surface
waters and ADF shed during takeoff can fall directly into those surface waters. Conversely, greater
distances increase opportunities for pollutant loss, retention, and degradation.,
As the imperviousness and slope of the airport grounds increase, the amount of stormwater runoff
available to mobilize and carry deicing pollutants to surface waters tends to increase. Pervious areas on
airfields can include areas of vegetation or bare soil as well as paved areas with cracked surfaces.
Vegetation buffers between impervious areas where ADF and pavement deicers are initially released and
surface waters can decrease the amount of stormwater and pollutants entering surface waters by providing
an opportunity for stormwater infiltration and pollutant accumulation or degradation in the soil column.
Pollutants associated with Type IV fluids and pavement deicers, in particular, are affected by overall
airfield design because of their widespread dispersion in the airfield. A smaller proportion of Type I fluids
are affected by overall airfield design because most are released to the environment close to ADF
application sites. Type I ADF dispersion is therefore most influenced by the design of the particular
portions of the airfield that contain and drain stormwater from ADF application sites.
3.2.1.5 Weather Conditions
Because the use of ADF and airfield pavement deicers is so weather-dependent, deicing pollutant
discharges among individual airports vary widely with differences in climate and typical winter weather
conditions. Deicing pollutant discharges can also vary widely from year-to-year and day-to-day at
individual airports as winter weather conditions vary at airports on seasonal and daily bases. In addition to
influencing choice of deicing product for application, as discussed above, weather conditions also
influence the quantity of product applied and its dispersion in the environment.
Important factors influencing the quantity and dispersion of airport deicing products include:
3-5

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
>	Precipitation type (e.g., freezing rain, sleet, snow, rain or a mixture);
>	Ground and air temperatures;
>	Precipitation event magnitude; and
>	Precipitation event timing.
Winter precipitation types range from rain to freezing rain, sleet, and snow. Some individual precipitation
events contain two or more of these precipitation types. Precipitation type affects both the quantity of
deicing product used as well as its dispersion. For example, freezing rain tends to coat aircraft with ice.
Ice coatings tend to require greater quantities of Type I ADF to remove than loose, dry snow or light
frost.
Precipitation type and ground and air temperatures also affect pollutant dispersion. Precipitation that is
liquid, such as rain, or that melts, such as snow on a warm ground surface, mobilizes deicing pollutants
and moves them through stormwater transport systems to discharge more quickly than solid precipitation
that accumulates on airfield surfaces. After a snow event, a significant quantity of ADF and pavement
deicers can be trapped in plowed snowbanks or snow storage units and will not enter stormwater transport
systems or surface waters, soil, or groundwater until ground and air temperatures are high enough to
allow the snow to melt. Rates and timing of snowmelt can vary widely among airports (e.g., Fairbanks
International in Alaska versus Dallas-Fort Worth International in Texas) and among winter seasons or
snow events at individual airports.
Ground and air temperatures are also important in their influence on rates of pollutant degradation since
higher temperatures allow higher degradation rates.
Strong winds associated with some weather events can increase aerial deposition of ADF on the airfield
and adjacent surface waters.
Another factor that influences deicing pollutant discharge is precipitation event magnitude. In general, as
precipitation quantity increases, use of greater quantities of ADF and pavement deicer is required. In
addition, larger precipitation events tend to produce more stormwater. Larger quantities of stormwater
tend to mobilize and discharge deicing pollutants more quickly than smaller quantities of stormwater. The
timing of stormwater availability from a specific event will, however, be dependent on the type of
precipitation and its melting rate, as discussed above. Because larger stormwater quantities move deicing
pollutants more quickly, they may reduce the quantity of pollutants that infiltrate soil and other pervious
airport surfaces.
Another important factor is the timing of precipitation events. Precipitation events that take place during
periods of high air traffic levels (e.g., holidays, morning rush times) require deicing operations for a
greater number of aircraft and the use of greater quantities of deicing materials (see Aircraft Traffic
Composition and Levels above).
3.2.2 Quantified A irport Deicing Pollutant Discharge Estimates
EPA estimated seasonal pollutant discharges from airport deicing operations based on current airport
practices and conditions. EPA had sufficient information to quantify a portion of the total discharge of
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and ammonia from airport deicing operations. A more detailed
description of EPA's estimation methodology and results is available in the Technical Development
Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
(US EPA 2010).
3-6

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-1 presents facility-specific ADF application site and pavement deicer COD discharges for each
airport within scope of the final rule.. EPA did not have sufficient information to estimate facility-specific
discharges from individual airports EPA did not survey. As discussed above, COD discharge levels in
Table 3-1 do not reflect COD discharges associated with Type I and Type IV ADF dispersed beyond
ADF application sites.
Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF
Application Sites at Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule


ADF Application


Pavement Deicer
Site COD


COD Discharge
Discharge

Airport Name
(pounds/year)
(pounds/year)
Airport Service Level
Albany Intl
213,511
103,086
Small Hub
Albuquerque Intl Sunport
2,617
491,959
Medium Hub
Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field
36,366
85,963
Non-Hub
Austin Straubel International
117,358
355,646
Small Hub
Austin-Bergstrom Intl
9,976
137,629
Medium Hub
Baltimore-Washington Intl
866,733
1,289,506
Large Hub
Bethel
143,501
47,733
Non-Hub
Birmingham Intl
0
47,717
Small Hub
Bismarck Municipal
9,195
200,305
Non-Hub
Bob Hope
0
0
Medium Hub
Boeing Field/King County Intl
5,851
29,510
Non-Hub
Boise Air Terminal/Go wen Fid
631,466
272,543
Small Hub
Bradley Intl
440,956
1,669,398
Medium Hub
Buffalo Niagara Intl
913
1,718,928
Medium Hub
Central Wisconsin
299,374
416,170
Non-Hub
Charlotte/Douglas Intl
381,832
1,308,047
Large Hub
Cherry Capital
36,467
0
Non-Hub
Chicago Midway Intl
797,303
0
Large Hub
Chicago O'Hare Intl
8,248,121
8,204,552
Large Hub
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International
1,740,966
772,137
Large Hub
City of Colorado Springs Municipal
128,158
433,971
Small Hub
Cleveland-Hopkins Intl
1,532,252
3,480,467
Medium Hub
Dallas Love Field
125
213,039
Medium Hub
Dallas/Fort Worth International
10,373
557,682
Large Hub
Denver Intl
2,012,384
729,709
Large Hub
Des Moines Intl
289,289
460,483
Small Hub
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County
1,056,284
0
Large Hub
El Paso Intl
0
0
Small Hub
Eppley Airfield
171,538
1,058,801
Medium Hub
Evansville Regional
16,585
192,217
Non-Hub
Fairbanks Intl
819,984
299,205
Small Hub
Fort Wayne International
761,916
511,705
Non-Hub
General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl
1,589,955
9,147,072
Large Hub
General Mitchell International
742,538
898,664
Medium Hub
George Bush Intercontinental Arpt/Houston
0
56,571
Large Hub
Gerald R. Ford International
38,863
563,544
Small Hub
Glacier Park Intl
710
367,815
Non-Hub
3-7

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF
Application Sites at Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule
Airport Name
Pavement Deicer
COD Discharge
(pounds/year)
ADF Application
Site COD
Discharge
(pounds/year)
Airport Service Level
Greater Rochester International
168,122
1,152,208
Small Hub
Gulfport-Biloxi Intl
0
0
Small Hub
Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta Intl
179,433
1,382,287
Large Hub
Helena Regional
0
0
Non-Hub
Indianapolis Intl
768,086
2,728,125
Medium Hub
Jackson Hole
0
0
Non-Hub
Jacksonville Intl
0
0
Medium Hub
James M Cox Dayton Intl
99,807
357,499
Small Hub
John F Kennedy Intl
2,837,634
5,155,239
Large Hub
John Wayne Airport-Orange County
0
0
Medium Hub
Juneau Intl
1,018,715
430,969
Small Hub
Kansas City Intl
344,044
1,200,632
Medium Hub
Ketchikan Intl
a
a
Non-Hub
La Guardia
1,383,792
4,216,728
Large Hub
Lafayette Regional
0
14,201
Non-Hub
Lambert-St Louis Intl
2,921,256
1,154,584
Large Hub
Long Island Mac Arthur
0
166,102
Small Hub
Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl
0
0
Medium Hub
Louisville Intl-Standiford Field
447,728
490,009
Medium Hub
Lovell Field
0
39,586
Non-Hub
Manchester
306,0048
1,715,962
Medium Hub
Mc Carran Intl
0
60,923
Large Hub
Memphis Intl
334,157
1,946,410
Medium Hub
Metropolitan Oakland Intl
0
0
Large Hub
Minneapolis-St Paul IntlAVold-Chamberlain
782,829
5,968,923
Large Hub
Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field)
0
2,214
Non-Hub
Nashville Intl
93,454
349,329
Medium Hub
Newark Liberty Intl
1,520,336
10,762,687
Large Hub
Nome
22,429
28,231
Non-Hub
Norfolk Intl
*
235,637
Medium Hub
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International
0
0
Medium Hub
Northwest Arkansas Regional
352,337
293,595
Small Hub
Ontario Intl
0
334
Medium Hub
Outagamie County Regional
130,836
551,842
Non-Hub
Palm Beach Intl
0
0
Medium Hub
Pensacola Regional
0
0
Small Hub
Philadelphia Intl
1,362,130
1,436,522
Large Hub
Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl
0
0
Large Hub
Piedmont Triad International
228,269
655,787
Small Hub
Pittsburgh International
703,466
3,689,998
Large Hub
Port Columbus Intl
356,775
2,927,149
Medium Hub
Portland Intl
178,213
855,437
Medium Hub
3-8

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF
Application Sites at Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule
Airport Name
Pavement Deicer
COD Discharge
(pounds/year)
ADF Application
Site COD
Discharge
(pounds/year)
Airport Service Level
Raleigh-Durham Intl
134,976
977,382
Medium Hub
Ralph Wien Memorial
43,492
23,743
Non-Hub
Rapid City Regional
10,907
242,540
Non-Hub
Reno/Tahoe International
48,138
569,580
Medium Hub
Richmond Intl
174,098
339,643
Small Hub
Rickenbacker International
45,481
102,180
Non-Hub
Roanoke RegionalAVoodrum Field
62,222
314,124
Non-Hub
Rochester International
*
197,799
Non-Hub
Ronald Reagan Washington National
371,666
1,229,789
Large Hub
Sacramento International
0
0
Medium Hub
Salt Lake City Intl
2,488,385
1,687,338
Large Hub
San Antonio Intl
*
121,626
Medium Hub
San Diego Intl
0
0
Large Hub
San Francisco International
0
0
Large Hub
Seattle-Tacoma Intl
56,346
1,502,208
Large Hub
South Bend Regional
69,136
0
Small Hub
Southwest Florida Intl
0
0
Medium Hub
Spokane Intl
1,063,075
0
Small Hub
Stewart Intl
370,095
184,745
Non-Hub
Syracuse Hancock Intl
6,729
791,854
Small Hub
Tampa Intl
0
0
Large Hub
Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl
6,082,395
2,265,902
Medium Hub
Theodore Francis Green State
91,602
572,884
Medium Hub
Toledo Express
137,067
359,704
Non-Hub
Tucson Intl
0
17,873
Medium Hub
Washington Dulles International
1,810,018
5,686,802
Large Hub
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Intl
*
405,801
Non-Hub
Will Rogers World
30,291
472,260
Small Hub
William P Hobby
0
0
Medium Hub
Wilmington Intl
0
20,756
Non-Hub
Yeager
79,800
283,685
Non-Hub
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) loads were calculated from data provided in response to the EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire
(2006c) and the EPA Airline Deicing Questionnaire (2006b).
* - The airport reported that the quantity of pavement deicer usage was unknown (US EPA 2006c).
a) Ketchikan was sent an airport questionnaire but did not respond.
EPA also estimated facility-specfic annual ammonia discharges from urea pavement deicer use for
airports within scope of the final rule (Table 3-2). EPA does not have sufficient information to estimate
facility-specific ammonia discharge levels at individual airports EPA did not survey.
3-9

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final	3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category	under Current Practices

Table 3-2: Ammonia Discharge from Deicing Operations at Surveyed Airports within Scope of the
Final Rule


Pavement Deicer Ammonia
Airport Name
Discharge (pounds/year)
Austin Straubel Intl
25,387
Bethel
38,105
Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field
152,740
Bradley Intl
9,478
Central Wisconsin
69,856
Charlotte/Douglas Intl
84,821
Fairbanks Intl
187,883
Fort Wayne Intl
161,593
General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl
5,782
Glacier Park Intl
189
Juneau Intl
270,506
Manchester
20,844
Northwest Arkansas Regional
10,186
Piedmont Triad Intl
52,441
Raleigh - Durham Intl
35,841
Ralph Wien Memorial
5,659
Reno/Tahoe Intl
6,330
Ronald Reagan Washington National
44,141
Salt Lake City Intl
634,519
South Bend Regional
18,358
Spokane Intl
281,824
Stewart Intl
85,905
Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl
1,423,212
Yeager
15,572
EPA was able to create national estimates of COD and ammonia discharges from ADF application sites
and pavement deicers. EPA estimated national COD loads from ADF application sites using discharge
estimates for airports EPA surveyed in conjunction with airport weighting factors developed as part of the
EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire sample frame. EPA estimated COD and ammonia loads from
pavement deicer use using reported usage levels for airports EPA surveyed in conjunction with airport
weighting factors. A more detailed description of EPA's COD estimation methodology is available in the
Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the
Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2011). Table 3-3 presents the estimate of current national COD loads
from ADF application sites and pavement deicers by airport hub size category. COD discharges
associated with ADF dispersed in areas beyond ADF application sites are not reflected by the figures in
Table 3-3.
3-10

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-3: Estimate of National Baseline COD Discharges from ADF Application Sites and Airfield
Pavement Deicing by Airport Hub Size Category
Airport Hub Size
ADF Application Site COD Pavement Deicer COD
Discharge Discharge
(pounds/year) (pounds/year)
Large
65,999,304 33,121,243
Medium
26,678,898 12,086,529
Small
9,255,083 7,161,186
Nonliub
16,408,625 6,641,781
General Aviation/Cargo
2,268,284 1,309,591
Total
120,610,194 60,320,330
EPA also calculated current, baseline national ammonia discharges associated with airport use of urea as a
pavement deicer. These discharges are presented by airport hub size category in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4: Estimate of National Baseline Ammonia Discharges from Airfield Payment Deicing by
Airport Hub Size Category
Airport Hub Size
Ammonia Discharge
(pounds/year)
Large
769,263
Medium
1,495,705
Small
1,286,277
Nonliub
852,775
General Aviation/Cargo
NA
Total
4,404,020
Other pollutants in addition to COD and ammonia discharge from airport deicing operations. EPA has not
quantified discharge levels of these other pollutants. Chapter 1 discusses current levels of airport deicing
product usage in the U.S. Chapter 2 discusses the range of pollutants potentially present in ADF and
pavement deicer products.
3.3 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Concentrations in Receiving
Surface Waters
Pollutant concentrations in the environment, as well as total discharges, are of interest because of their
influence on the manner in which some pollutants impact the environment. As discussed in Chapter 2, a
number of pollutants have threshold levels above which impacts have been documented.
A number of factors influence airport deicing pollutant concentrations in surface waters. An important
factor is the total quantity of pollutants discharging to surface waters. Factors influencing total pollutant
discharges from airports are discussed in Section 3.2.
ADFs and pavement deicers, as applied, contain certain concentrations of chemicals (see Chapter 2).
Before they enter surface waters, however, ADF and pavement deicers typically undergo dilution with
precipitation and, in some cases, a certain amount of degradation. Pollutant concentrations in deicing-
contaminated stormwater are typically lower, therefore, than the concentrations found in airport deicing
products as-applied.
When deicing pollutants enter surface waters, they are typically diluted further. Receiving water volume,
waterbody flow rate, and waterbody mixing dynamics influence dilution levels. Surface water
characteristics such as vegetation, stream slope, presence of ice and snow cover, stream channel obstacles,
3-11

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
and tidal influences can significantly affect flow rate and mixing. High vegetation levels and low stream
channel slopes tend to retard flow. Channel depressions can slow low flows and significantly increase
residence times of deicing pollutants in receiving streams. Snow pack and ice in streams can also alter
flow either by altering stream channel characteristics. Snow pack and ice can create depressions in a
channel that can reduce stream flow. They can also increase flow by filling in existing stream channel
depressions and reducing resistance to flow. Stream channel obstacles such as woody debris, rocks, and
falls can increase turbulence and mix pollutants with greater volumes of water. Tidal currents can also
increase mixing and dilution.
Many of the surface waters that directly receive airport deicing pollutants are small, low-flow, and
relatively low-slope streams. Figure 3-2 summarizes available flow rate data for surface waters directly
receiving deicing discharges from airports EPA surveyed. According to available data, 62% of initial
receiving waters have a flow rate of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) or less.
Figure 3-2: Initial Receiving Water Discharge Flows at EPA Surveyed Airports
70 	
60	——	
50
tn
v
T3
O
¦e 40
 30
E
20
10
0 —		1—		1			1			1—		1			1—		1			1—		1			1—		1—	—
Unknown 0	0to1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 40 40 to 80 80 to 160 160 to 1,000 to Greater
1,000 10,000 than
Discharge Flow (cfs)	10,000
Figure 3-3 summarizes available slope data. According to available data, 75% of initial receiving waters
have a slope of less than 1%.
3-12

-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Figure 3-3. Initial Receiving Water Slopes at EPA Surveyed Airports
140 t—
120
100
W
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
more than 90 individual documents describing environmental impacts from airport deicing discharges. In
some cases, deicing pollutant discharges have been definitively linked to environmental impacts. In other
cases, impact linkage to deicing pollutants is suggested, rather than definitive. Compiled articles describe
a wide range of airport and discharge conditions.
Surface waters are often subject to multiple stressors (e.g., pollutants from airport activities other than
deicing, other industrial discharges, invasive species). Determining the source(s) of a water's impairment
can be difficult and requires complex analyses that have not yet been conducted and published. EPA has
summarized suggested, as well as definitive, impact cases in this section because of the additional
information they provide on potential environmental impacts from deicing pollutant discharges.
Approximately half of the articles describe impacts with a definitive connection to airport deicing
pollutant discharges.
The majority of the environmental impact documentation focuses on impacts observed in surface waters
directly receiving airport deicing pollutant discharges. Wildlife impacts such as fish kills or other
organism deaths are the most frequently described environmental impact. Table 3-5 summarizes the total
number of studies EPA found on different types of environmental impacts and that were categorized as
having either a definitive or suggested connection to airport deicing discharges.
Table 3-5: Documented Environmental Impacts Associated with Airport Deicing Discharges

Connection to Airport
Connection to Airport
Total Number of
Impact
Deicing Definitive
Deicing Suggested
Studies
COD, BOD, DO, Nutrients



COD or BOD
11
5
16
DO
10
10
20
Nutrients
8
9
17
Wildlife Impacts
Fish Kill
8
10
18
Other Organisms
25
20
45
Human Health Impacts
Health
4
4
8
Drinking Water
1
7
8
Aesthetic Impacts
Foam
4
6
10
Odor
14
17
31
Color
11
9
20
Violations



Permit Violations
17
10
27
Though EPA's literature search was extensive, it is unlikely that EPA located all available documentation
of environmental impacts from airport deicing discharges. There are probably environmental impacts
from airport deicing discharges that have not yet been documented and published because of the time and
effort often required to detect, analyze, and document environmental impacts from industrial discharges.
An additional limitation on EPA's literature compilation is its ability to reflect current conditions at
individual airports. Since the publication of articles describing environmental impacts from certain
airports, some of those airports have installed collection and treatment systems or otherwise changed their
deicing practices in order to reduce deicing pollutant discharges. Table 3-6 summarizes a number of
improvements airports have undertaken to reduce their environmental impact in recent years. A number
of these efforts have improved conditions in receiving surface waters.
3-14
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-6: Airport Deicing System Improvements for In-scope Airports
Airport
Date
Improvement
Environmental Impacts Deicing System Improvements Implemented
Baltimore/Washington
International Airport
Odor, foam and color issues, fishDeicing pads and drains
impacts. Clean Water Act
violation
By winter 1997-98
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Anoxia, Sphaerotilus Discharge routing to POTW,
International Airport overgrowth, color and odor recycling system
issues, "dead" stream, high BOD
and ammonia levels
1994-2004
Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport
High ammonia levels, fish kills, Deicing pads and basins
color and odor issues
By 2004
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne
County Airport
Odor and color issues, pennit Construct sewer line to route
violations, fish kills discharges to POTW
By 2010
Des Moines International
Airport
Odor and color issues, state Stonnwater detention facility
water quality standard violations
Long-term plan as
of 1998
General Mitchell International Color issues, fish kills, high Redesigned storm sewers
Airport glycol and BOD levels
Pre-2006
Louisville International
Airport
High ammonia and BOD levels. No longer using urea
low DO levels, fish kills
Pre-2002
Minneapolis-St. Paul
International Airport
Low DO levels, odor and color Sewer system improvements
issues, high BOD and glycol and deicing pads
levels, pennit violations
1998-2001
Port Columbus International
Airport
High nutrient levels, low DO No longer using urea,
levels, fish kills, aquatic species construction of contaimnent
diversity loss svstem
By 2002-2003
Source: Information gathered during EPA's literature search completed in December of 2007.
Despite these limitations, the literature compilation provides a diverse profile of the types of
environmental impacts associated with airport deicing discharges. As air traffic and deicing product usage
levels continue to increase in the U.S. these types of impacts will either reappear at previously affected
airports or newly appear at airports where they had not been previously detected, unless application,
collection, and treatment practices change. Environmental impacts from deicing discharges continue to
persist at some level at many of the airports listed in Table 3-6, despite the sometimes significant efforts
made to address them.
Sections 3.4.1 to 3.4.5 provide additional information on documented environmental impacts. For
additional information on individual articles EPA compiled during the literature review, see Table C-l in
Appendix C. Section 3.5 provides information on the potential current extent of environmental impacts
from airport deicing discharges.
3.4.1	Chemical Oxygen Demand, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Dissolved
Oxygen, and Nutrient Impacts
3.4.1.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand and Biochemical Oxygen Demand
The primary ingredients in ADFs and pavement deicers are organic compounds that serve as freezing
point depressants. These organic compounds degrade after release to the environment, creating high
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels in surface waters. High
COD and BOD levels in surface waters can lead to high levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) consumption as
the organic matter degrades, potentially lowering DO concentrations below levels required for the health
3-15
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
and survival of aquatic organisms (see Section 2.2.1.2). EPA documented COD and BOD problems for 13
individual airports in 16 articles, 11 of which were classified as being definitively connected to airport
deicing discharges. Many of the information sources were state government reports and published journal
articles.
In a newspaper article on impacts from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport's deicing operations,
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's water quality supervisor is quoted as stating that the airport's
deicing discharges represent the largest source of organic pollutants to the Minnesota River (Meersman
1993). During the course of the 1992-1993 deicing season, approximately 2,400 tons of glycol were
discharged to the Minnesota River. State officials suspected that these discharges lower DO levels in the
Minnesota River.
In 1998, the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection determined that the Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International Airport was responsible for elevated glycol levels and BOD issues observed in
surface waters receiving stormwater discharges from the airport. These problems continued to persist,
even after the airport implemented remediation actions (Kentucky Department of Environmental
Protection 1998).
3.4.1.2	Dissolved Oxygen
As organic material, BOD, and COD levels increase in airport deicing discharges increases, the amount of
dissolved oxygen (DO) required by surface water microorganisms to digest the material also increases.
Biodegradation of organic material lowers DO levels in surface waters and can ultimately make them
uninhabitable for aquatic life. EPA compiled 20 articles describing DO impacts from deicing activities at
13 airports. The impacts in 10 articles could be definitively connected to airport deicing discharges. The
articles describe low levels of DO and anoxia in receiving waters.
The Columbia Slough receives deicing pollutant discharges from Portland International Airport and is a
well-documented case of deicing pollutants lowering DO levels in a receiving water. In a technical report
prepared for the City of Portland, the airport's deicing discharges were documented as contributing 79%
of all organic material discharging to the Columbia Slough (Wells 1997). Low DO levels clearly coincide
with cold weather deicing activities. A separate report written by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (1998) specifically states that the airport's deicing pollutants have lowered DO in
the Slough.
3.4.1.3	Nutrients
The pavement deicer urea decays and forms ammonia in surface waters. High concentrations of ammonia
can be toxic to many aquatic organisms and plants can use the nitrogen in ammonia to fuel extra growth.
Bacteria can also convert ammonia to other nitrogen-containing compounds that plants can absorb as
nutrients. Nitrogen in airport deicing discharges can encourage algal blooms and other biological
overgrowths, followed by low DO levels or anoxia as the overgrowths die and decay. EPA found nutrient
impact complaints in 17 articles, 8 of which EPA classified as definitively connected to airport deicing
discharges. The 17 articles discuss 12 different airports. Most of the articles describe impacts from algal
blooms and elevated surface water levels of ammonia and nitrates.
Two articles describe nutrient enrichment in surface waters receiving deicing discharges from Port
Columbus International Airport (State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1998, State of Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency 2004). A third report, another Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
publication, describes high ammonia and nitrate concentrations in receiving waters downstream of the
3-16
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
airport and the discharge of significant quantities of glycol (State of Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency 2003).
3.4.2.1	Fish Kills
As described in Chapter 2, ADFs and pavement deicers have toxic components that can harm or kill
aquatic organisms when discharged in sufficient quantities to surface waters. As described in Section
3.4.1, ADFs and pavement deicers also contain high levels of organic matter and nutrients that, during
degradation in surface waters, can lower DO concentrations to harmful or uninhabitable levels for aquatic
life. Either of these pathways can result in acute fish death events known as fish kills. Eighteen of the
articles documented in the literature review discussed fish kills. EPA classified impacts in 8 articles as
definitively linked to airport deicing discharges. The 18 articles discussed fish kills downstream of 13
different airports and included newspaper articles, journal articles, and state government reports.
For example, in May 2001 at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport a stormwater collection pond
primarily containing stormwater contaminated with ethylene and propylene glycol from deicing activities
breached and discharged to the Frank and Poet Drain (Lochner 2006). Two days later, a fish kill was
observed at the location where the Drain discharges to the Detroit River. EPA and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation investigated the incident and charged the airport with violating the Clean Water Act after
failing to report the discharge.
3.4.2.2	Other Organism Impacts
In addition to fish kills, airport deicing discharges have been linked to the death of other types of aquatic
organisms and have been implicated in the sickening or deaths of other wildlife and pets that have come
in contact with contaminated surface waters. Of the 45 articles EPA compiled in this category, 25 are
definitively connected to airport deicing discharges. The 45 articles discuss 26 different airports. The
following airports are discussed in 3 or more articles:
>	Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (6 articles);
>	Baltimore/Washington International Airport (3 articles);
>	Denver International Airport (3 articles); and
>	General Mitchell International Airport (3 articles).
At Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Denver International Airport, and Buffalo-
Niagara International Airport waters receiving deicing discharges are described as lifeless (Sierra Club
2004, Scanlon 1997, and Dawson 1994).
A number of studies conducted on the receiving waters located downstream from deicing outfalls at
Baltimore/Washington International Airport report glycol concentrations high enough to kill daphnids and
minnows (Hartwell et al. 1993, Fisher et al. 1995, Pelton 1997a).
3.4.3	Human Health, Aesthetic, and Other Aquatic Resource Use Impacts
3.4.3.1 Human Health
As discussed in Chapter 2, some ADF and pavement deicer components can be harmful to human beings
exposed to sufficient quantities. Some people claim to have been sickened by strong chemical odors
3.4.2
Wildlife Impacts
3-17
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
associated with some deicing-contaminated storm waters. Human health impacts are documented for 6
airports in 8 articles. The articles include newspaper articles and reports from organizations. Impacts
range from headaches and nausea due to odors to claims of kidney and other health problems, especially
in children. The Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare (1997), a nonprofit organization of citizens
residing nearby Chicago O'Hare International Airport, documented vomiting and other illness due to
fumes from airport deicing discharges on a number of separate occasions. Residents state that, at times,
streams in residential neighborhoods receiving airport deicing discharges have unnatural colors and emit
odors that cause illness.
3.4.3.2	Drinking Water Contamination
EPA compiled 8 articles that discuss drinking water impacts from 5 airports. One article definitively
connected impacts to airport deicing discharges and the other articles are suggestive of a connection.
Three of the articles discussed drinking water contamination issues near Baltimore Washington
International Airport but did not definitively connect these impacts to airport deicing discharges.
At Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, 10 days after an ADF spill into a major source of
drinking water, consumers complained of a sickeningly sweet taste and smell in their drinking water.
Testing of samples taken three days after the complaints started did not indicate deicing fluid
contamination. However, sampling immediately following the spill indicated that water flowing from the
airport into the river that serves as the drinking water source contained 1,600 ppm of glycol.
3.4.3.3	Foam
Deicing chemicals can form visible foam in surface waters. EPA's compiled 10 articles that describe
foam in surface waters downstream of 7 airports. The articles include journal articles, newspaper articles,
and reports from organizations. Four articles definitively connect the presence of foam to airport deicing
discharges. Foam complaints frequently co-occur with odor and color complaints. High levels of glycols
were also typically found in surface waters containing visible foam.
At Baltimore/Washington International Airport, levels of ethylene glycol as high as 4,800 mg/L were
detected in the Muddy Bridge Branch where foam had been frequently sighted (McDowell 1997). In
1997, the airport applied nearly 200,000 gallons of ADF to planes and it is estimated that as much as 68%
may have entered nearby creeks (Pelton 1998). This discharge coincided with numerous complaints about
pinkish foam present on downstream surface waters.
3.4.3.4	Odor
Deicing-contaminated surface waters are frequently described as having a sickeningly sweet chemical
smell. EPA compiled 31 articles describing complaints of odors from surface waters located downstream
from airport deicing outfalls. Of the 31 articles, EPA classified 14 as describing a definitive connection
between airport deicing discharges and odor. The 31 articles describe 16 different airports. Several
airports are described in multiple articles:
>	Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (5 articles);
>	Baltimore/Washington International Airport (4 articles); and
>	Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (3 articles).
Odor complaints are frequently associated with additional impacts such as organism human health, and
aesthetic impacts. For example, all articles describing the odor complaints from Baltimore/Washington
International Airport discharges also described visible foam, human illness complaints, and fish impacts
3-18
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
(McDowell 1997, Pelton 1997b, Pelton 1998). At Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport,
allegations of discharge violations involving Elijah Creek coincided with unpleasant odors, surface water
discoloration, and pollutant concentrations high enough to harm aquatic life (Klepal 2004, Sierra Club
2004). Residents also complained about chemical smells and discolored water in Gunpowder Creek,
which also receives airport deicing discharges. Glycol levels in Gunpowder Creek were found to be up to
3.5 times higher than allowed by the airport's wastewater discharge permit (Kelly 2004).
3.4.3.5 Color
Manufacturers add dye to ADFs to help ADF users track their presence on aircraft and airfield surfaces
and to help them distinguish Type I from Type IV fluids. Sufficient levels of dye can discolor surface
waters. In addition, as described above, degradation of organic material associated with airport deicing
discharges can lower DO levels in surface waters. Under anoxic conditions, reduction of iron and
manganese ions to more soluble species can color surface waters (Zitomer 2001)
EPA found 20 articles describing 11 airports with unnatural colored surface waters downstream of airport
deicing storm water outfalls. EPA classified 11 of the articles as describing impacts definitively connected
to airport deicing discharges. Five articles described impacts from Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International Airport and 3 articles describe impacts from Baltimore/Washington International Airport.
Color complaints frequently coincided with odor complaints.
At Des Moines International Airport, color and odor issues are discussed in documents describing Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for receiving waters as well as in materials provided to local city
council members (Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2005, Flannery 1998). The TMDL document
describes ethylene glycol concentrations of 65 to 120 mg/L and propylene glycol concentrations of 210 to
490 mg/L near the airport outfall to Yeader Creek. These high glycol concentrations coincided with a
greenish color and sweet sewage odor in Yeader Creek. Yeader Creek was determined to be severely
polluted and in violation of Iowa Water Quality Standards. Local residents who live near the creek have
lodged complaints with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources about the surface water's discoloration
and odor.
3.4.4	Permit Violations
Permit violations were frequently described in articles compiled by EPA. Permit violations provide
additional information on large quantities of airport deicing pollutants discharging to surface waters. EPA
compiled 27 articles that describe discharge permit violations at 12 different airports. Several airports,
including Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport,
and Baltimore/Washington International Airport were discussed in multiple articles. Seventeen articles
describe direct discharge violations. Other articles describe unspecified violations or administrative
violations such as failure to report an unauthorized discharge.
3.5 Potential Current Impacts to Impaired Waters and Other Resources
EPA evaluated the potential for airport deicing discharges to impact surface waters listed as impaired
under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as well as other aquatic resources located downstream of
airport deicing stormwater outfalls. Listing of a surface water as impaired under Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act is an official determination that a waterbody is unable to serve one or more of its
designated uses such as drinking water supply, recreation, wildlife habitat, etc. because of pollution or
other modifications. It is an indicator of a stressed ecosystem.
3-19
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
EPA examined the listing status of surface waters receiving airport deicing discharges for two reasons.
First, to determine the extent to which airport deicing pollutants are being discharged to already stressed
aquatic ecosystems and potentially contributing additional stress. Second, to determine which listed
waterbodies may be impaired as a direct result of receiving airport deicing discharges.
EPA's analysis used a geographical information system (GIS) analysis of surface waters to which airports
directly discharge deicing pollutants. EPA used this information to identify 303(d)-listed waters and
aquatic resources that could potentially be affected by deicing discharges. EPA also examined existing
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) documents in order to identify airports that have officially been
determined to be point sources contributing to surface water impairment.
3.5.1 303(d)-Listed Waters Receiving Airport Deicing Discharges
Based on airport outfall location information provided in response to EPA's Airport Deicing
Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c), EPA indexed deicing outfall locations to the National Hydrography
Dataset (NHD) Plus stream network. EPA used NHD Plus tools to determine surface waters within 10
miles downstream of airport outfalls. Once downstream waters were identified in NHD Plus, EPA
overlaid their location information with the 2002 national GIS coverage of 303(d)-listed waters
(http ://www.epa. gov/waters/data/downloads,html#3 03d. accessed September 24, 2007) in order to
determine whether any of the downstream waters are listed as impaired. EPA then linked identified
impaired streams to EPA's Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results (WATERs)
database (http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/index.html, accessed September 24, 2007) in order to
determine the nature of the impairment. Of the 93 airports for which EPA has sufficient outfall location
information to conduct this analysis, 36 discharge directly to a freshwater waterbody that is listed as
impaired. Table 3-7 summarizes the results of this analysis.
3-20
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-7: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Fresh Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing
Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule


Number of
Airport Deicing Pollutant

Airports with
Potentially Contributing to
303(d) Impairment Category
Impairment
Impairment
Algal Growth
1
Yes
Ammonia
5
Yes
Cause Unknown
4
Yes
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
4
Yes
Chlorine
2

Dioxins
2

Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant Unspecified
1
Yes
Flow Alteration
4

Habitat Alteration
6

Mercury
2

Metals (Other Than Mercury)
4

Nutrients
7
Yes
Oil And Grease
1

Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
12
Yes
Pathogens
18

PCBs
6

Pesticides
6

pH
4

Salinity /TDS/Sulfates/Chlorides
2
Yes
Sediment
6

Temperature
2

Total Toxicity
4
Yes
Toxic Organics
5
Yes
Turbidity
5

Of the 28 in-scope airports directly discharging to impaired freshwater waterbodies, 21 discharge to
waterbodies impaired by pollutants associated with airport deicing discharges. Because EPA had
sufficient information for only 93 airports to conduct this analysis, additional airports could be
discharging deicing pollutants to impaired waters.
Because NHD Plus does not provide information on marine waters, airport outfalls discharging directly to
marine waters were not included in the GIS analysis described above. To assess whether any of the
marine waters directly receiving airport deicing discharges are listed as impaired, EPA used information
on receiving waters designated as marine from responses to EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US
EPA 2006c) to search the WATERs database. Table 3-8 summarizes the results of this analysis.
3-21
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final	3. Environmental Impact Potential
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category	under Current Practices

Table 3-8: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Marine Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing
Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule


Number of
Airport Deicing Pollutant

Airports with
Potentially Contributing to
303(d) Impairment Category
Impairment
Impairment
Aesthetically impaired waters
2
Yes
Dioxin
1

Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
2
Yes
Floatables
1

Mercury
1

Metals (Other Than Mercury)
1

Nutrients
2
Yes
Pathogens
5

PCBs
2

Pesticides
1

pH
1

Toxic Organics
3
Yes
Of the 6 in-scope airports discharging to impaired marine waters, 5 discharge to waters impaired for
pollutants associated with airport deicing discharges. Because EPA had sufficient information for only 93
airports to conduct this analysis, additional airports could be discharging deicing pollutants to impaired
marine waters.
Because states have not assessed all surface waters receiving deicing pollutant discharges from airports
for impairment, additional waters beyond those described here could be impaired.
Several of the 303(d) impairment categories EPA identified during the analysis can derive from airport
deicing pollutants. These categories include "aesthetically impaired waters," "algal growth," "ammonia,"
"cause unknown," "cause unknown-impaired biota," "fish consumption advisory - pollutant unspecified,"
"nutrients," "organic enrichment/oxygen depletion," "salinity/TDS/sulfates/chlorides," "total toxicity,"
and "toxic organics." A 303(d) listing alone does not mean that airport deicing discharges are the cause
of the waterbody impairments. However, 26 of the 34 in-scope airports discharging to impaired waters are
discharging to waters impaired in a manner potentially associated with airport deicing pollutants. Even if
these airports are not the root cause of the identified impairment, they contribute additional loadings of
those pollutants by which the surface waters are already impaired.
Table 3-9 provides additional information on airports discharging directly to 303(d)-listed waters and
associated impairments.
3-22
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final Rule
Airport Name
Waterbody
Waterbody Name
Parent Cause Description
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
Austin Straubel International
FW
Dutchman Creek
Ammonia
X
Airport
FW
Dutchman Creek
Nutrients
X

FW
Dutclunan Creek
Nutrients (Phosphorus)
X

FW
Dutclunan Creek
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X

FW
Dutclunan Creek
Total Toxicity
X
Austin-Bergstrom International
FW
Colorado River Below Town Lake
Pathogens


FW
Onion Creek
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X

FW
Onion Creek
Total Dissolved Solids
X

FW
Onion Creek
Pathogens

Birmingham International
FW
Village Creek
Ammonia
X

FW
Village Creek
Nutrients
X

FW
Village Creek
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X

FW
Village Creek
Toxic Organics
X

FW
Village Creek
Flow Alteration


FW
Village Creek
Metals (Other Than Mercury)


FW
Village Creek
PH


FW
Village Creek
Sediment


FW
Village Creek
Temperature

Boeing Field/King County
International
FW
Duwamish River
PH

Bradley International
FW
Fannington River
Pathogens


FW
Stony Brook
Cause Unknown
X
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
FW
Elijahs Creek
Toxic Organics
X
International
FW
Elijahs Creek
Ammonia
X

FW
Elijahs Creek
Dissolved Oxygen
X

FW
Gunpowder Creek
Ammonia
X

FW
Gunpowder Creek
Dissolved Oxygen
X
1FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
3-23
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final Rule
Potentially
Linked to
Waterbody	Airport
Airport Name
Type1
Waterbody Name
Parent Cause Description
Deicing
Cleveland-Hopkins International
FW
Rocky River
Ammonia
X

FW
Rocky River
Nutrients
X

FW
Rocky River
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X

FW
Rocky River
Chlorine


FW
Rocky River
Flow Alteration


FW
Rocky River
Habitat Alteration


FW
Rocky River
Pathogens


FW
Rocky River
PCBs


FW
Rocky River
Sediment

Des Moines International
FW
Yeader Creek
Salinity/TD S/Sulfates/Chlorides
X

FW
Yeader Creek
Toxic Organics
X

FW
Easter Lake
Nutrients (Phosphorus)
X
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne
FW
Frank And Poet Drain
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
X
County




Eppley Airfield
FW
Missouri River
Pathogens


FW
Missouri River
PCBs


FW
Missouri River
Pesticides

General Edward Lawrence
MW
Boston Inner Harbor
Toxic Organics
X
Logan International
MW
Boston Inner Harbor
Pathogens

Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta
FW
Flint River
Pathogens

International




Indianapolis International
FW
East Fork White Lick Creek
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
X

FW
East Fork White Lick Creek
Pathogens


FW
East Fork White Lick Creek
PCBs


FW
State Ditch
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
X

FW
State Ditch
Pathogens

James M Cox Dayton
FW
Stillwater River
Ammonia
X
International
FW
Stillwater River
Nutrients
X

FW
Stillwater River
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X

FW
Stillwater River
Habitat Alteration


FW
Stillwater River
Pathogens

1FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
3-24
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final Rule
Airport Name
Waterbody
Waterbody Name
Parent Cause Description
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
John F Kennedy International
MW
Bergen Basin
Aesthetics
X

MW
Bergen Basin
Dissolved Oxygen
X

MW
Bergen Basin
Pathogens


MW
Jamaica Bay
Nutrients
X

MW
Jamaica Bay
Dissolved Oxygen
X

MW
Jamaica Bay
Pathogens


MW
Thurston Basin
Dissolved Oxygen
X
La Guardia
MW
Bowery Bay
Dissolved Oxygen
X

MW
Bowery Bay
Pathogens


MW
Bowery Bay
PCBs


MW
Flushing Bay
Aesthetics
X

MW
Flushing Bay
Dissolved Oxygen
X

MW
Flushing Bay
PCBs


MW
Rikers Island Channel
Dissolved Oxygen
X

MW
Rikers Island Channel
Pathogens


MW
Rikers Island Channel
PCBs

Lafayette Regional
FW
Vermilion River
Nutrients
X

FW
Vermilion River
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X

FW
Vermilion River
Pathogens


FW
Vermilion River
Pesticides


FW
Vermilion River
Turbidity

Louisville International-
FW
Southern Ditch
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X
Standiford Field
FW
Southern Ditch
Pathogens

Minneapolis-St Paul
FW
Minnesota River
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X
International/W old-Chamberlain
FW
Minnesota River
Mercury


FW
Minnesota River
Pathogens


FW
Minnesota River
PCBs


FW
Minnesota River
Turbidity

1FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
3-25
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final Rule
Airport Name
Waterbody
Waterbody Name
Parent Cause Description
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
Newark Liberty International
MW
Elizabeth Channel
Toxic Organics
X

MW
Elizabeth Channel
Dioxin


MW
Elizabeth Channel
Floatables


MW
Elizabeth Channel
Metals


MW
Elizabeth Channel
Pathogens


MW
Elizabeth Channel
PCBs


MW
Newark Channel
Toxic Organics
X

MW
Newark Channel
Dioxin


MW
Newark Channel
Floatables


MW
Newark Channel
Metals


MW
Newark Channel
Pathogens


MW
Newark Channel
PCBs

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose
FW
Los Gatos Creek
Pesticides

International




Ontario International
FW
Cucamonga Creek
Pathogens

Phoenix Sky Harbor
FW
Salt River
Pesticides (Chlordane)

International
FW
Salt River
Pesticides (DDT Metabolites)


FW
Salt River
Pesticides (Dieldrin)


FW
Salt River
Pesticides (Toxaphene)


FW
Salt River
PH

Piedmont Triad International
FW
Brush Creek
Habitat Alteration


FW
East Fork Deep River
Habitat Alteration


FW
East Fork Deep River
Pathogens


FW
East Fork Deep River
Turbidity


FW
Horsepen Creek
Sediment

1FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
3-26
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final Rule
Airport Name
Waterbody
Waterbody Name
Parent Cause Description
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
Port Columbus International
FW
Big Walnut Creek
Ammonia
X

FW
Big Walnut Creek
Cause Unknown
X

FW
Big Walnut Creek
Nutrients
X

FW
Big Walnut Creek
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X

FW
Big Walnut Creek
Total Toxicity
X

FW
Big Walnut Creek
Toxic Organics
X

FW
Big Walnut Creek
Flow Alteration


FW
Big Walnut Creek
Habitat Alteration


FW
Big Walnut Creek
Metals (Other Than Mercury) (Copper)


FW
Big Walnut Creek
Metals (Other Than Mercury)


FW
Big Walnut Creek
Pathogens


FW
Big Walnut Creek
Sediment


FW
Big Walnut Creek
Temperature


FW
Big Walnut Creek
Turbidity

Portland International
FW
Columbia Slough
Algal Growth
X

FW
Columbia Slough
Dioxins


FW
Columbia Slough
Metals (Other Than Mercury)


FW
Columbia Slough
Nutrients
X

FW
Columbia Slough
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X

FW
Columbia Slough
Pathogens


FW
Columbia Slough
PCBs


FW
Columbia Slough
Pesticides


FW
Columbia Slough
pH

Rickenbacker International
FW
Walnut Creek
Cause Unknown
X

FW
Walnut Creek
Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant Unspecified
X

FW
Walnut Creek
Total Toxicity
X

FW
Walnut Creek
Flow Alteration


FW
Walnut Creek
Habitat Alteration


FW
Walnut Creek
Pathogens


FW
Walnut Creek
PCBs


FW
Walnut Creek
Sediment

1FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
3-27
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final Rule
Airport Name
Waterbody
Waterbody Name
Parent Cause Description
Potentially
Linked to
Airport
Ronald Reagan Washington
FW
Lower Anacostia River
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X
National
FW
Lower Anacostia River
Toxic Organics (Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate)
X

FW
Lower Anacostia River
Toxic Organics (Chrysene)
X

FW
Lower Anacostia River
Toxic Organics
X

FW
Lower Anacostia River
Chlorine


FW
Lower Anacostia River
Dioxins


FW
Lower Anacostia River
Mercury


FW
Lower Anacostia River
Metals (Other Than Mercury) (Selenium)


FW
Lower Anacostia River
Metals (Other Than Mercury)


FW
Lower Anacostia River
Oil And Grease


FW
Lower Anacostia River
Pathogens


FW
Lower Anacostia River
Turbidity

San Antonio International
FW
Salado Creek
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
X

FW
Salado Creek
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
X

FW
Salado Creek
Pathogens


FW
Salado Creek
Pesticides

Seattle-Tacoma International
MW
Puget Sound
Nutrients
X

MW
Puget Sound
Toxic Organics
X

MW
Puget Sound
Mercury


MW
Puget Sound
Pathogens


MW
Puget Sound
Pesticides


MW
Puget Sound
pH

Theodore Francis Green State
FW
Buckeye Brook
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
X

FW
Buckeye Brook
Pathogens

Toledo Express
FW
Swan Creek
Total Toxicity
X

FW
Swan Creek
Habitat Alteration


FW
Swan Creek
Sediment

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton
FW
Spring Brook
Cause Unknown
X
International




1FW - Freshwater
MW - Marine water
3-28
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
3.5.2 Airport Deicing Discharges Listed as TMDL Point Sources
To identify TMDLs that list airport deicing discharges as a point source contributing to a receiving
w aterbody's impairment, EPA searched the online TMDL document database
(http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters/text search.tmdl search form, accessed August 2, 2007). The EPA TMDL
document database tracks information on waters listed by states as impaired under Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act. The database provides information such as the identity of the pollutant causing the
impairment, the source of the impairment, and the status of TMDL development for the impaired water
body.
To date, EPA has identified 4 TMDL documents officially listing airport deicing discharges as point
sources contributing to surface water impairment:
>	Total Maximum Daily Load for Priority Organics Yeader, Creek, Polk County, Iowa;
>	Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients and Siltation, Easter Lake, Polk County, Iowa;
>	Impacts of Deicing Fluids on Elijahs and Gunpowder Creeks, Boone County, Kentucky; and
>	Columbia Slough Total Maximum Daily Loads for Dissolved Oxygen.
The state of Iowa has listed Yeader Creek as impaired by excessive levels of "priority organics" (glycol
compounds) and identified Des Moines International Airport as the primary source. The TMDL describes
Yeader Creek as a small stream (2 to 3 cubic feet per second flow). Waters immediately downstream from
airport deicing stormwater outfalls had a greenish color, a wastewater odor, and no fish or
macroinvertebrates. In addition, exposed substrate was an unusual rust-orange color and embedded
substrate was an unusual black color, suggesting anaerobic conditions. The Yeader Creek TMDL
describes two additional locations downstream as having pools of water the same nonalgal green color
and with the "same odor of sewage and sweetener" as the waters immediately downstream of the airport
deicing stormwater outfalls. The Yeader Creek TMDL established discharge limits for ethylene glycol
and propylene glycol for airport deicing outdalls and set a benthic macroinvertebrate distribution target
for the river to assess stream recovery.
The state of Iowa has listed Easter Lake as impaired for nutrients (i.e., phosphorus) and sediment.
Although the Des Moines International Airport was identified as a contributing point sources for nutrient
impairment, the airport's stormwater phosphorus load (110 pounds per year) was considered to be minor
in comparison to other potential phosphorus sources in the watershed and the airport was not assigned a
waste load reduction goal. The TMDL analysis did not consider the Des Moines International Airport to
be a significant source of sediment to Easter Lake.
Elijahs and Gunpower Creeks are located immediately downstream from the Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International Airport. Since the early 1990s the Kentucky Division of Water has documented
low dissolved oxygen levels, evidence of ammonia toxicity, and extensive growth of Sphaerotihis
bacteria in the creeks. In 1996, both streams were listed on Kentucky's 303(d) list of impaired waters and
ranked as a high priority for TMDL development. The results of the TMDL analysis established discharge
limits for BOD5 and ammonia and required the airport to develop a Best Management Practices plan and
a Groundwater Protection Plan.
The Columbia Slough, located downstream from the Portland International Airport in Oregon, is listed as
impaired for multiple water quality parameters including bacteria, pH, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus,
temperature, lead, and several toxic organics. The TMDL identified a complex list of pollution sources
3-29
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
contributing to the Slough's impairment including combined sewer overflows, landfill leachate, airport
deicing discharges, urban and industrial runoff, and other point sources in the watershed. Airport deicing
discharges were identified as the primary pollution source for wintertime dissolved oxygen violations in
the Slough. The TMDL established a range of BOD waste load allocations for airport deicing discharges
to meet dissolved oxygen goals and also required the airport to perform additional waterbody monitoring.
3.5.3 Resources Located Downstream from Airport Deicing Discharge Outfalls
As a screening-level assessment, EPA evaluated the potential for airport deicing discharges to affect the
following resources:
>	Groundwater aquifers;
>	Drinking water intakes from surface water sources;
>	Federal lands;
>	National, state, and local parks; and
>	National Wildlife Refuge Areas (NWRAs).
EPA assessed the potential for airport deicing discharges to affect groundwater aquifers based on
information provided in responses to EPA"s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). Individual
airports" responses indicated whether or not airport grounds are located immediately above an aquifer,
and whether or not the aquifer is a drinking water source. EPA assessed the remaining aquatic resources
listed above for those surface waters located within 10 miles downstream of airport deicing outfalls, using
the same GIS-based methodology described in Section 3.5.1. EPA overlaid the relevant NHD Plus stream
segments over the following GIS coverages to determine whether downstream surface waters intersect
with the GIS areas associated with each resource:
>	Drinking water intake point file from EPA's Reach Address Database (RAD);
>	National atlas of the U.S. federal land boundaries;
>	Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) U.S. Geographic Data Technology, Inc. (GDT)
park landmarks (includes federal, state, and local parks in the U.S.); and
>	U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wildlife Refuge Area boundaries.
EPA analyzed aquatic resources within a distance of 10 miles downstream of airport deicing stormwater
outfalls because, according to EPA's literature compilation, many documented impacts have taken place
within this distance. Impacts could occur at distances beyond 10 miles downstream, but EPA has chosen
10 miles for this preliminary analysis.
Table 3-10 presents the results of the analysis for aquatic resources which could potentially be affected by
airport deicing discharges. Because EPA has sufficient information to conduct this analysis for only
airports EPA surveyed, the table below is not a complete list of airports discharging deicing pollutants to
surface waters containing the resources listed above.
3-30
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airports
within Scope of the Final Rule
Within 10 Miles Downstream from


Airport
Grounds
Above an
Drinking
Water
Federal

Airport Name
Airport City
State
Aquifer
Intakes
Lands
Parks NWRAs
Albany International
Albany
NY

Yes

Yes
Albuquerque International
Sunport
Albuquerque
NM
DW



Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field
Aspen
CO


Yes

Austin Straubel International
Green Bay
WI
DW



Austin-Bergstrom International Austin
TX
Yes



Baltimore-Washington
Baltimore
MD
DW


Yes
International






Bethel
Bethel
AK




Birmingham International
Birmingham
AL
Yes


Yes
Bismarck Municipal
Bismarck
ND




Boeing Field/King County
International
Seattle
WA
Yes


Yes
Bradley International
Windsor Locks
CT
Yes


Yes
Buffalo Niagara International
Buffalo
NY
Yes


Yes
Central Wisconsin
Mosinee
WI




Charlotte/Douglas International Charlotte
NC
Yes


Yes
Chicago O'Hare International
Chicago
IL
Yes


Yes
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International
Covington
KY
Yes


Yes
City of Colorado Springs
Municipal
Colorado Springs
CO




Cleveland-Hopkins International Cleveland
OH



Yes
Dallas Love Field
Dallas
TX
DW


Yes
Dallas/Fort Worth International
Dallas-Fort Worth
TX



Yes
Denver International
Denver
CO
Yes



Des Moines International
Des Moines
IA
Yes
Yes

Yes
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne
County
Detroit
MI



Yes
Eppley Airfield
Omaha
NE
DW
Yes


Evansville Regional
Evansville
IN




Fairbanks International
Fairbanks
AK
DW



Fort Wayne International
Fort Wayne
IN
DW
Yes


General Edward Lawrence
Boston
MA
Yes



Logan International






General Mitchell International
Milwaukee
WI



Yes
George Bush Intercontinental
Houston
TX
DW


Yes
Airport/Houston






Gerald R. Ford International
Grand Rapids
MI




Glacier Park International
Kalispell
MT
DW

Yes

Greater Rochester International
Rochester
NY
Yes


Yes
Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta
Atlanta
GA
Yes


Yes
International






Indianapolis International
Indianapolis
IN
Yes


Yes
James M Cox Dayton
International
Dayton
OH




John F Kennedy International
New York
NY


Yes
Yes
Juneau International
Juneau
AK




3-31
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airports
within Scope of the Final Rule




Within 10 Miles Downstream from



Airport
Airport Deicing Outfall


Airport
Grounds
Above an
Drinking
Water Federal
Airport Name
Airport City
State
Aquifer
Intakes Lands Parks NWRAs
Kansas City International
Kansas City
MO

Yes
La Guardia
New York
NY


Lafayette Regional
Lafayette
LA
DW

Lambert-St Louis International
St Louis
MO
Yes
Yes
Louisville International-
Louisville
KY


Standiford Field




Lovell Field
Chattanooga
TN
Yes
Yes
Manchester
Manchester
NH
Yes
Yes Yes
Mc Carran International
Las Vegas
NV
DW
Yes
Memphis International
Memphis
TN
Yes

Minneapolis-St Paul Minneapolis
International/Wold-Chamberlain
MN
Yes
Yes Yes
Montgomery Regional
(Dannelly Field)
Montgomery
AL
Yes

Nashville International
Nashville
TN

Yes Yes
Newark Liberty International
Newark
NJ
Yes

Nome
Nome
AK
Yes

Norfolk International
Norfolk
VA
Yes

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose
San Jose
CA

Yes Yes Yes
International




Northwest Arkansas Regional
Fayetteville/
Springdale
AR
Yes

Ontario International
Ontario
CA


Outagamie County Regional
Appleton
WI
DW

Philadelphia International
Philadelphia
PA
DW

Phoenix Sky Harbor
Phoenix
AZ
DW

International




Piedmont Triad International
Greensboro
NC
DW
Yes Yes
Pittsburgh International
Pittsburgh
PA

Yes
Port Columbus International
Columbus
OH

Yes
Portland International
Portland
OR
Yes

Raleigh-Durham International
Raleigh/Durham
NC
DW
Yes
Ralph Wien Memorial
Kotzebue
AK
Yes

Rapid City Regional
Rapid City
SD
DW

Redding Municipal
Redding
CA
DW
Yes
Reno/Tahoe International
Reno
NV
DW

Rickenbacker International
Columbus
OH
Yes

Roanoke Regional/Woodrum
Field
Roanoke
VA
Yes

Rochester International
Rochester
MN
DW

Ronald Reagan Washington
National
Washington
DC
Yes
Yes Yes
Sacramento International
Sacramento
CA
DW
Yes Yes
Salt Lake City International
Salt Lake City
UT


San Antonio International
San Antonio
TX

Yes
Seattle-Tacoma International
Seattle
WA
DW
Yes
Syracuse Hancock International Syracuse
NY


3-32
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
3. Environmental Impact Potential
under Current Practices
Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airports
within Scope of the Final Rule
Within 10 Miles Downstream from


Airport
Grounds
Above an
Drinking
Water
Federal

Airport Name
Airport City
State
Aquifer
Intakes
Lands
Parks NWRAs
Ted Stevens Anchorage
International
Anchorage
AK
Yes



Theodore Francis Green State
Providence
RI
Yes


Yes
Toledo Express
Toledo
OH
DW



Tucson International
Tucson
A Z
Yes



Washington Dulles International Washington
DC
DW
Yes
Yes
Yes
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton
Wilkes-Barre/
PA
Yes



International
Scranton





Will Rogers World
Oklahoma City
OK
DW



Wilmington International
Wilmington
NC
DW



Yeager
Charleston
wv

Yes


DW = Aquifer is known by airport to be used for drinking water.
3-33
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
4 Benefits of Final Regulatory Options
This chapter summarizes the final regulatory options EPA evaluated and the environmental benefits EPA
anticipates will result from each option. The benefits of reduced airport deicing pollutant discharges may
be classified in three broad categories: human health, ecological and economic productivity benefits. EPA
was not able to monetize benefits of the final regulatory options because of an imperfect understanding of
the link between discharge reductions and benefit categories, and how society values some of the benefit
events.
This chapter presents a summary of EPA" s regulatory options (Section 4.1), a discussion of individual
airports likely to be affected by the final options and associated pollutant discharge reductions (Sections
4.2 and 4.3), and a qualitative assessment of expected ecological and human health and aquatic resource
use benefits from reduced deicing pollutant discharges (Section 4.4).
4.1 Final Regulatory Options
EPA evaluated two different collection and treatment scenarios for aircraft deicing operation discharges
from ADF application sites:
>	20% collection and treatment scenario - uses glycol collection vehicles (GCVs) for deicing
stormwater collection and anaerobic fluid bed (AFB) treatment for deicing stormwater treatment;
>	40% collection and treatment scenario - uses GCVs in combination with plug-and-pump
technology for deicing stormwater collection and AFB treatment for deicing stormwater
treatment.
A complete description of these collection and treatment methods is available in EPA's Technical
Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport
Deicing Category (US EPA 2010).
EPA also evaluated methods for control of deicing pollutant discharges from the airfield beyond ADF
application sites. One approach EPA evaluated is to eliminate the use of urea as a pavement deicer and
replace it with other, less environmentally harmful products. Other, less harmful products (e.g., potassium
acetate, sodium acetate, and sodium formate) are available for substitution.
Table 4-1 provides a brief description of each of EPA's final regulatory options.
Table 4-1
: Regulatory Options Evaluated for the Airport Deicing Category

Option
Option Description
Number of Airports
Subject to Option
1
40 percent ADF collection requirement for large and medium ADF users (based
on plug and pump with GCVs); numeric COD limitations for direct discharges of
collected ADF (based on anaerobic treatment)
198
2
40 percent ADF collection requirement for the large ADF users (based on plug
and pump with GCVs) and 20 percent ADF collection requirement for medium
ADF users (based on GCVs); numeric COD limitations for direct discharges of
collected ADF (based on anaerobic treatment)
198
3
Site-Specific Aircraft Deicing Discharge Controls
198
4-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
A complete description of how EPA constructed these regulatory options is available in the Technical
Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport
Deicing Category (US EPA 2010).
4.2 Airports Affected by the Final Regulatory Options
EPA's survey collected data, for use in evaluating the airport deicing category, at all large and medium
hub primary commercial airports, and a statistical subsample of small and nonhub primary commercial
airports. To determine the airports within scope of the final regulatory options, EPA evaluated those
airports for which survey information is available and then scaled up the resulting data using statistical
weighting factors to represent conditions for the entire category. For additional information on the use of
survey data and associated statistical weighting factors, see EPA's Technical Development Document for
the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2010).
For each regulatory option, EPA determined which individual airports are likely to fall within scope of
the option. EPA then determined which surveyed airports are already in compliance with the option and
which airports would likely need to take action to comply with the option.
For airports EPA surveyed, Table 4-2 summarizes which options would likely require an airport to take
action to address deicing discharges. For example, Albuquerque International Sunport falls within scope
of Option 1 but, based on EPA's survey data, is believed to be already in compliance with both the 20%
ADF collection and treatment and the urea restriction requirement. Therefore, for this airport under
Option 1, EPA did not estimate additional technology requirements, compliance costs, or pollutant
discharge reductions. Conversely, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport falls within scope of Option 1
and, based on EPA's survey information, is not believed to be in compliance with either the 20% ADF
collection and treatment or the urea restriction requirement. For this airport, EPA evaluated GRV use and
pavement deicer product substitution to reach compliance with Option l's requirements. EPA also
calculated associated compliance costs and pollutant discharge reductions.
4-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-2: Surveyed Airports Affected by Final Regulatory Options
Airport Name
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Albuquerque Intl Sunport
X


Austin Straubel International
X
X
X
Bethel
X
X
X
Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Fid
X
X
X
Bradley Intl
X
X
X
Central Wisconsin
X
X
X
Charlotte/Douglas Intl
X
X
X
Eppley Airfield
X
X

Fairbanks fntl
X
X
X
Fort Wayne International
X
X
X
General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl
X
X
X
Glacier Park Intl
X
X
X
John F Kennedy fntl
X
X

Juneau fntl
X
X
X
La Guardia
X
X

Manchester
X
X
X
Memphis fntl
X
X

Newark Liberty fntl
X
X

Northwest Arkansas Regional
X
X
X
Piedmont Triad International
X
X
X
Port Columbus fntl
X
X

Portland fntl
X


Raleigh-Durham fntl
X
X
X
Ralph Wien Memorial
X
X
X
Reno/Tahoe fnternational
X
X
X
Ronald Reagan Washington National
X
X
X
Salt Lake City fntl
X
X
X
Seattle-Tacoma fntl
X
X

South Bend Regional
X
X
X
Spokane fntl
X
X
X
Stewart fntl
X
X
X
Ted Stevens Anchorage fntl
X
X
X
Yeager
X
X
X
Although EPA has insufficient information to determine what would happen under each regulatory option
at each airport that was not surveyed, EPA was able to use statistical techniques to estimate the level to
which each regulatory option would require airport deicing operation changes for the airport population
determined to be within scope of the rule.
EPA's estimate of actions taken by individual airports under each regulatory option is based on data from
EPA's Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c) and other publicly available data sources. Although current
conditions at some individual airports may have changed since the survey was conducted, the overall
results of the analysis provide a useful estimate of the level of action required by each regulatory option.
4.3 Environmental Benefits Anticipated under Final Regulatory Options
EPA expects that environmental benefits associated with each final regulatory option will accrue to
society in several broad categories, including improved environmental quality, enhanced aquatic resource
value for human use, reduced human health risks, and increased productivity in economic activities that
are adversely affected by airport deicing pollutants discharges. This section provides a qualitative and
quantitative discussion of benefits associated with the final regulatory options.
4-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
4.3.1	Airport Actions and Benefits under Final Regulatory Options
In assessing potential benefits from reducing airport deicing pollutant discharges, EPA used information
on deicing pollutant environmental behavior, pollutant effects on the aquatic environment, human use of
aquatic resources, and human health; deicing pollutant discharge levels under current conditions and
under each final regulatory option; and characteristics of surface and ground water resources potentially
affected by deicing pollutant discharges.
Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 list the airports addressed by each regulatory option along with the following
information:
>	EPA's estimates of ammonia and COD discharge reductions associated with each airports ADF
collection and treatment and pavement deicer substitution actions;
>	Whether the airport discharges deicing pollutants directly to a water body listed as impaired under
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act;
>	Whether the airport property is above a groundwater aquifer and if that aquifer supplies drinking
water (US EPA 2006c); and
>	Information on aquatic resources (drinking water intakes, federal lands, and park lands) within 10
miles downstream of airport outfalls.3
Source files include the drinking water intake point file from EPA's Reach Address Database (RAD); national atlas of the
U.S. federal land boundaries; ESRI U.S. GDT park landmarks (includes U.S. national, state, and local parks); and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife NWRA boundaries.
4-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-3. Option 1 - Airport Load Reductions and Environmental Benefits

Pavement
COD Discharge Reduction
303(d)

Within 10 Miles Downstream of Airport

Deicer

(pounds)
Listed

Outfall(s)

Ammonia
Aircraft Deicing Pavement
Waters at
Above an
Drinking Federal
Airport Name
(pounds)
Fluids
Deicers
the Outfall1
Aquifer2
Water Intake Lands Park Lands
Albuquerque Intl Sunport
0
119,915
0

DW

Austin Straubel International
25,387
0
69,240
P
DW

Bethel
38,105
0
103,927



Boise Air Terminal/Go wen
Field
152,740
0
416,584

DW

Bradley International
9,478
0
25,849
P
X
X
Central Wisconsin
69,856
0
190,526



Charlotte/Douglas
International
84,821
510,138
231,340

X
X
Eppley Airfield
0
412,933
0
X
DW
X
Fairbanks International
187,883
0
512,432

DW

Fort Wayne International
161,593
0
440,728

DW
X
General Edward Lawrence
5,782
3,567,358
15,769

X

Logan International


Glacier Park International
189
0
514

DW
X
John F Kennedy International
0
2,010,543
0
P

X X
Juneau International
270,506
0
737,779



La Guardia
0
1,644,524
0
P


Manchester
20,844
669,225
56,851

X
X X
Memphis International
0
759,100
0
X
X

Newark Liberty International
0
4,197,448
0
p
X

Northwest Arkansas Regional
10,186
0
27,782

X

Piedmont Triad International
52,441
255,757
143,028
X
DW
X X
Port Columbus International
0
1,141,588
0
p

X
Portland Intl
0
208,513
0

X

Raleigh-Durham International
35,841
381,179
97,753

DW
X
Ralph Wien Memorial
5,659
0
15,435

X

Reno/Tahoe International
6,330
138,835
17,265

DW

Ronald Reagan Washington
National
44,141
0
120,391
p
X
X X
Salt Lake City International
634,519
0
1,730,588



Seattle-Tacoma Intl
0
585,861
0

DW
X
South Bend Regional
18,358
0
50,070

DW

1	P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2	DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
4-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-3. Option 1 -
Airport Load Reductions and Environmental Benefits



Pavement
COD Discharge Reduction
303(d)

Within 10 Miles Downstream of Airport

Deicer

(pounds)
Listed

Outfall(s)

Ammonia
Aircraft Deicing Pavement
Waters at
Above an
Drinking Federal
Airport Name
(pounds)
Fluids
Deicers
the Outfall1
Aquifer2
Water Intake Lands Park Lands
Spokane International
281,824
0
768,648

X

Stewart International
85,905
0
234,299



Ted Stevens Anchorage
International
1,423,212
0
3,881,674

X

Yeager
15,572
0
42,471


X
1	P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2	DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
4-6
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-4. Option 2 - Airport Load Reductions and Environmental Benefits

Pavement
COD Discharge Reduction


Within 10 Miles Downstream of

Deicer
(pounds)
303(d) Listed

Airport Outfall(s)


Ammonia
Aircraft
Pavement
Waters at the
Above an
Drinking Water Federal
Park
Airport Name
(pounds)
Deicing Fluids
Deicers
Outfall1
Aquifer2
Intake Lands
Lands
Austin Straubel International
25,387
0
69,240
P
DW


Bethel
38,105
0
103,927




Boise Air Tenninal/Gowen Field
152,740
0
416,584

DW


Bradley International
9,478
0
25,849
P
X

X
Central Wisconsin
69,856
0
190,526




Charlotte/Douglas International
84,821
255,069
231,340

X

X
Eppley Airfield
0
206,466
0
X
DW
X

Fairbanks International
187,883
0
512,432

DW


Fort Wayne International
161,593
0
440,728

DW
X

General Edward Lawrence Logan
International
5,782
1,783,679
15,769
P
X


Glacier Park International
189
0
514

DW
X

John F Kennedy International
0
1,005,272
0
P

X
X
Juneau International
270,506
0
737,779




La Guardia
0
822,262
0
P



Manchester
20,844
334,613
56,851

X
X
X
Memphis International
0
379,550
0
X
X


Newark Liberty International
0
2,098,724
0
p
X


Northwest Arkansas Regional
10,186
0
27,782

X


Piedmont Triad International
52,441
127,879
143,028
X
DW
X
X
Port Columbus International

570,794
0
p


X
Raleigh-Durham International
35,841
190,589
97,753

DW

X
Ralph Wien Memorial
5,659
0
15,435

X


Reno/Tahoe International
6,330
0
17,265

DW


Ronald Reagan Washington National
44,141
0
120,391
p
X
X
X
Salt Lake City International
634,519
0
1,730,588




Seattle-Tacoma Intl
0
292,931
0

DW

X
South Bend Regional
18,358
0
50,070

DW


Spokane International
281,824
0
768,648

X


Stewart International
85,905
0
234,299




Ted Stevens Anchorage International
1,423,212
0
3,881,674

X


Yeager
15,572
0
42,471


X

1	P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2	DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
4-7
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of Proposed
Regulatory Options
Table 4-5. Option 3 - Airport Load Reductions and Environmental Benefits


Pavement


Within 10 Miles Downstream of

Pavement
Deicers COD


Airport Outfall(s)

Deicer
Ammonia
Discharge
Reduction
303(d) Listed Waters
Above an
Drinking Water Federal Park
Airport Name
(pounds)
(pounds)
at the Outfall1
Aquifer2
Intake Lands Lands
Austin Straubel International
25,387
69,240
P
DW

Bethel
38,105
103,927



Boise Air Tenninal/Gowen Field
152,740
416,584

DW

Bradley International
9,478
25,849
P
X
X
Central Wisconsin
69,856
190,526



Charlotte/Douglas International
84,821
231,340

X
X
Fairbanks International
187,883
512,432

DW

Fort Wayne International
161,593
440,728

DW
X
General Edward Lawrence Logan International
5,782
15,769
P
X

Glacier Park International
189
514

DW
X
Juneau International
270,506
737,779



Manchester
20,844
56,851

X
X X
Northwest Arkansas Regional
10,186
27,782

X

Piedmont Triad International
52,441
143,028
X
DW
X X
Raleigh-Durham International
35,841
97,753

DW
X
Ralph Wien Memorial
5,659
15,435

X

Reno/Tahoe International
6,330
17,265

DW

Ronald Reagan Washington National
44,141
120,391
P
X
X X
Salt Lake City International
634,519
1,730,588



South Bend Regional
18,358
50,070

DW

Spokane International
281,824
768,648

X

Stewart International
85,905
234,299



Ted Stevens Anchorage International
1,423,212
3,881,674

X

Yeager
15,572
42,471


X
1	P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.
2	DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.
4-8
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of the Final
Regulatory Options
Table 4-6 presents the total COD and ammonia discharge reductions associated with each of the
regulatory options.
Table 4-6: Annual Pollutant Discharge Reductions under Regulatory Options



Pavement Deicer

ADF COD
Pavement Deicer COD
Ammonia
Regulatory Option
(million pounds)
(million pounds)
(million pounds)
Option 1
16.6
12.0
4.4
Option 2
13.8
12.0
4.4
Option 3
0
12.0
4.4
The totals for each regulatory option in Table 4-6 are greater than the sum of the reductions presented for
individual airports in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4. This is because the totals in Table 4-6 reflect discharge
reductions associated with all airports in scope of the final regulatory options, whereas Table 4-3 and
Table 4-4 present reductions associated only with airports EPA surveyed. EPA calculated the discharge
reductions associated with these airports by using statistical weighting factors associated with EPA's
Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). For additional information on the calculation of
discharge reductions associated with each regulatory option, see EPA's Technical Development
Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
(US EPA 2010).
Table 4-6 presents discharge reductions only for COD and ammonia. The final regulatory options will
reduce discharges of other pollutants, as well (see Chapter 2), but EPA does not have sufficient
information at this time to quantify those reductions.
4.4 Expected Ecological, Human Aquatic Resource Use, and Human Health
Benefits
The final regulatory options will reduce discharges of chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia from
urea pavement deicers, and other airport deicing product chemicals from selected airports. EPA
anticipates that these discharge reductions will improve receiving water characteristics, including
pollutant levels, aesthetic problems, aquatic community health, and utility for human needs and health.
4.4.1	Ecological Benefits
Ecological benefits from the regulation include protection of fresh- and saltwater plants, invertebrates,
fish, and amphibians, and other aquatic organisms, as well as terrestrial wildlife and birds that prey on
aquatic organisms exposed to airport deicing pollutants. The final regulation will reduce the presence and
discharge of various pollutants to aquatic ecosystems currently under stress (e.g., 303(d) listed water
bodies). The drop in pollutant discharges would help reestablish productive ecosystems in damaged
waterways, protect resident species, including threatened and endangered species where present, and
reduce the severity and frequency of fish kill events.
4.4.2	Human Health Benefits
As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, EPA identified several possible health risks and
incidents of complaint by members of the public associated with certain ADF and pavement deicer
components. To the extent current discharges contribute to human health risk, reducing airport deicing
4-9
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of the Final
Regulatory Options
pollutant discharges to the nation's waterways will generate human health benefits by reducing risk of
non-cancer and cancer toxic effects from fish and water consumption and contact.
Human health benefits are typically analyzed by estimating the change in the expected number of adverse
human health events in the exposed population resulting from a reduction in effluent discharges. EPA,
however, did not quantify changes in human health risk resulting from the final regulatory options due to
unavailability of dose-response functions for many chemicals of potential concern and the complexity of
many chemical's environmental behavior.
In concept, the value of these health effects to society is the monetary value that society is willing to pay
to avoid the health effects, or the amount that society would need to be compensated to accept increases
in the number of adverse health events. Willingness to pay (WTP) values are generally considered to
provide a fairly comprehensive measure of society's valuation of the human and financial costs of illness
associated with the costs of health care, losses in income, and pain and suffering of affected individuals
and of their family and friends. Another measure that is typically used in assessing human health benefits
is the cost of an illness. Cost of an illness is the direct medical costs of treating a health condition (e.g.,
reproductive problems), and can be used to value changes in health risk from reduced exposure to
pollutants such as ethylene glycol.
4.4.3	Human Use of Aquatic Resource Benefits
Improvements in ecosystems and habitats and enhanced aesthetic quality of surface waters enhance
human use and enjoyment of these areas. In particular, reducing instances of objectionable odors, colors,
and foaming that have been frequently reported in surface waters affected by ADFs and pavement deicers
is expected to enhance a broad range of recreational uses of the affected waterbodies, including
swimming, boating, fishing, water skiing, and use of park lands adjacent to affected waterbodies.
Improvements will also enhance quality of life for people who live near affected waterbodies. The
regulation will also augment nonuse values (e.g., option, existence, and bequest values) of the affected
water resources.
EPA's review of 45 surface water valuation studies conducted between 1981 and 2002 demonstrates that
society places a significant value on improving and/or protecting its water resources. Total WTP
(including use and non-use values) for water quality improvements over the sample of 45 studies ranged
from $8.72 to $525.91, with a mean value of $120.54 (US EPA 2008c). WTP values from published
studies vary widely depending on the study (e.g., methodology and sample size) and resource
characteristics (e.g., water body characteristics, the magnitude of water quality improvements, the
geographic scope of improvement). For example, WTP for reducing nutrient pollution and eutrophication
impacts estimated by Shrestha and Alavapati (2004) ranges from to $84.15 to $106.71 (2008$,
annualized). A study by Lindsey (1994) found that WTP to meet nutrient pollution reduction goals in the
Chesapeake Bay ranged from $34.90 to $106.78 (2008$), depending upon the choice of outliers and
protest bids excluded. Values for oil and toxic materials reductions were also available in the same
review. A study by Phaneuf et al. (1998) found that WTP for a 20% reduction in toxins at fishery sites in
North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico basin ranges from $14.59 to $193.46 (2008$), depending upon the models
utilized. Based on the evidence from the published literature, EPA estimates that nonmarket benefits from
water quality improvements resulting from reduced deicing pollutant discharges are likely to be
substantial.
Reduced airport deicing discharges should improve groundwater and drinking water sources located
under or near airports subject to regulation. Drinking water contaminated by deicing pollutants may pose
4-10
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
4. Benefits of the Final
Regulatory Options
health risks or have an unpleasant taste and odor which may cause concerns regarding potential adverse
health effects. Protection of groundwater sources from contamination by airport deicing pollutants is of
particular concern because households that use private wells usually do not treat or regularly test their
drinking water for contamination.
The appropriate measure of the economic value of clean groundwater achieved through a ban on MTBE
use in gasoline is option price. This measure is commonly used when uncertainty is present in the
analysis. Option price is defined as an individual's maximum WTP to secure the option to use a resource
or commodity in the future (Desvousges et al. 1987 and Freeman 2003). Option price is a measure of the
total economic value an individual places on protecting groundwater quality. Protecting groundwater
quality provides a number of services to groundwater users, including avoidance of higher drinking water
costs (e.g., avoided treatment or replacement costs), elimination of potential health concerns associated
with consumption of bad tasting water, general aesthetic enjoyment derived from a clean environment,
and any nonuse values associated with protecting groundwater quality (e.g., bequest value, existence
value).
Based on the meta-analysis of groundwater valuation studies, WTP values for protection of groundwater
from contamination by pollutants other then nitrates and pesticides (i.e., "Other" pollutants) range from
$154.74 to $235.25 for residential wells. For small public water supply systems, household WTP values
range from $78 to $122.03, and for public water supply systems, household WTP values range from $78
to $233.99 (2008$) (US EPA 2001). All are annual values.
4-11
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
5 References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (Year unknown).Public Health Assessment Pease Air
Force Base Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. "O'Hare Found to be Major Water Polluter." ARCO Flight
Tracks [4], 1997. Arlington Heights, IL, Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. 8-21-2007.
Amrhein, C., J.E. Strong. 1990. "The Effect of Deicing Salts on Trace Metal Mobility in Roadside Soils.
Journal of Environmental Quality. 19: 765-772.
Ashrawi, S.S., and D.A. Coffey. 1993. Anti-icing compositions having alkylphenol ethoxylate nonionic
surfactant and alkylaryl sulfonate hydrotrope. Texaco Chemical Company (Assignee). U.S. Patent
5,273,673.
Askari, Emilia. 1990. "State Probes Airport in Pollution Allegations/' Detroit Free Press. August 30.
Associated Press. 1992. "Cincinnati Airport Cited by State.'' Cleveland Plain Dealer. June 8.
Associated Press. 1999. "De-icing Chemical Found in Westchester Reservoir." New York Times.
November 14.
Associated Press. 1996. "Panel Settles De-Icing Suit with Homeowners." Cleveland Plain Dealer. March
28.
Associated Press. 2006. "Portland Airport's De-Icing System Harms Fish." USA Today. October 17.
Atlantic States Legal Foundation. 1999. Litigation Update. Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc.
Newsletter [Autumn 1999],
Ayres Ed. 2007. "Airports and cities: Can they coexist?" San Diego Earth Times. 2001. San Diego, CA.
November 29.
Back, D.D., J.A. Meyerand, and C. Ramos. 1999. "Composition and method for de-icing and anti-icing
surfaces."Mainstream Engineering Corp. (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,993,684.
Basic Acrylic Monomer Manufacturers (BAMM). 2006. Acrylic Acid: Background Information.
Available at: http://www.bamm.net/bamm acrylic acid 041806.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2008.
Belanger, S.E., P.B. Dorn, R. Toy, G. Boeije, S.J. Marshall, T. Wind, R. Van Compernolle, and D. Zeller.
2006. "Aquatic Risk Assessment of Alcohol Ethoxylates in North America and Europe."
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 64: 85-99.
Bennie, D.T., C.A. Sullivan, H.-B. Lee, T.E. Peart, and R.J. Maguire. 1997. "Occurrence of Alkylphenols
and Alkylphenoldiethoxylates in Natural Waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin and the Upper
St. Lawrence River. " Sci. Tot. Env. 193: 263-275.
Bloom, S.H. 1986. Deicing compositions. U.S. Patent 4,585,571.
Boeing Company (Boeing). 2008. Aero Magazine, No. 8.
http: //www .boeing. com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_0 8/deice_textonly ,html#industry.
Boluk, M.Y., M.S. Jarrell, B.J. Brymer, and G. Archambault. 1999. "Aircraft deicing fluid with improved
anti-icing and ice adhesion control properties." Union Carbide Chemical and Plastics Technology
Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,968,407.
5-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
Breedveld, G.D., G. Olstad, and P. Aagaard. 1997. "Treatment of Jet Fuel Contaminated Runoff Water by
Subsurface Infiltration " Bioremediation Journal 1, 77-88.
Breedveld, G.D., R. Roseth, L. Hem, S. Sparrevik. 2002. Trizoles in the Terrestrial Environment. Report
by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute for the Oslo International Airport, Statsbygg, and the
Norwegian Airforce.
Breedveld, Gus D., Roger Roseth, Magnus Sparrevik, Thomas Hartnik, and Lars J. Hem. 2003.
"Persistence of the Deicing Additive Benzotriazole at an Abandoned Airport," Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution: Focus 91-101.
British Environment Agency. 2000. Corrosion Inhibitors: Priorities for Environmental Quality Standards
Development. Research and Development Technical Report P189.
California Aviation Association. 2003. New Hampshire "Airport Brook To Be Tested For Chemicals."
California Aviation Association. January 27.
Campbell, P.M. 2002. Alternatives to Nonylphenol Ethoxylates: Review of Toxicity, Biodegradation, &
Technical-Economic Aspects. Prepared for Environment Canada by ToxEcology.
Cancilla, D.A., J. Martinez, and G.C. Van Aggelen. 1998. "Detection of Aircraft Deicing/Antiicing Fluid
Additives in a Perched Water Monitoring Well at an International Airport." Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:
3834-3835.
Cancilla, D.A., J.C. Baird, S.W. Geis, and S.R. Corsi. 2003. "Studies of the Environmental Fate and
Effect of Aircraft Deicing Fluids: Detection of 5-Methyl-lH-Benzotriazole in the Fathead Minnow."
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 22(1): 134-40.
Chan, S.K., G.L. Hubred, and H.E. Todd. 1995. Deicer/anti-icer compositions for aircraft. General
Atomics International Services Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,435,930.
Chemfate Database. 2008. Syracuse Research Corporation's Chemfate Chemical Search. Available at:
http://www.svrres.com/eSc/chemfate.htm. Accessed April 15, 2008.
Christiansen, L.B., M. Winther-Nielsen, and C. Helweg. 2002. Feminisation of Fish. The Effects of
Estrogenic Compounds and Their Fate in Sewage Treatment Plants and Nature. Danish
Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Project No. 729.
Coffey, D.A., S.S. Ashrawi, and E.C. Nieh. 1995. "Aircraft wing de-icers with improved holdover times."
Texaco Chemical Company (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,386,968.
Comfort, G. 2000. Runway De-Icing Chemicals (No. TP13778). Ottawa, ON, Canada: Transport Canada.
Conetta, A., R. Bracchitta, and P. Sherrer, 1997, Storm Water Management and Control of Aircraft
Deicing Runoff at Westchester County Airport: Environmental Regulation and Permitting.
Conservation Commission of Missouri. 2007. Platte River Watershed Beneficial Use Attainment.
Cornell, Jeffrey S. 2001. "The Environmental Impact of 4(5)-Methylbenzotriazole from Aircraft Deicing
Operations." Ph.D. Thesis directed by Mark T. Hernandez, University of Colorado, CO. May.
Corsi, S. R.; Booth, N. L.; Hall, D.W. 2001. "Aircraft and Runway Deicers at General Mitchell
International Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA."Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001,20, 1474-1482.
5-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
Corsi, S. R., Harwell Glenn R, Geis, S., and Bergman Daniel, 2006. "Impacts of Aircraft Deicer and Anti-
icer Runoff on Receiving Waters From Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, USA."
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 25, p. 2890-2900.
Corsi, S.R., D.H. Zitomer, J.A. Field, and D.A. Cancilla. 2003. "Nonylphenol Ethoxylates and Other
Additives in Aircraft Deicers, Antiicers, and Waters Receiving Airport Runoff." Environmental
Science & Technology 37(18): 4031-4037.
Corsi, Steven R., Steven W. Geis, Jorge E. Loyo-Rosales, and Clifford P. Rice. 2006. "Aquatic Toxicity
of Nine Aircraft Deicer and Anti-icer Formulations and Relative Toxicity of Additive Package
Ingredients Alkylphenol Ethoxylates and 4,5-Methyl-lH-Benzotriazoles," Environmental Science and
Technology. August.
Corsi, Steven, Steven Geis, Jorge Loyo-Rosales, and Clifford Rice. 2007. "Aircraft and Pavement Deicer
and Anti-icer Forensics." Powerpoint Presentation given at SETAC 2007.
Cowan, P.F. 1997. Water Pollution-Chicago International Airport. Alliance of Residents Concerning
O'Hare, Inc., May 28.
Cox, C. 1996. "Nonylphenol and Related Chemicals." Journal of Pesticide Reform. Spring.
Cryotech. 2008. De-Icing Products: Cryotech NAAC. Website. Available at:
http://www.crvotech.com/products/NAAC/environment.php. Accessed July 1. 2008.
Dafforn, Erik. 2007. "Til Hill and Valley are Ringing." Wabash University Magazine.
Davis, L.C., S. Castro-Diaz, D. Lupher, and L.E. Erickson. 2000. "Interaction of Benzotriazoles with
Upland Plants." Environmental and Pipeline Engineering 118-126. Abstract.
Dawson, Dick. 1994. "Contaminant Testing Sought at Ellicott Creek Amherst Councilwoman Fears
Runoff of De-icer Fluids from Airport." Buffalo News. May 11.
Delaware Estuary Program. 1996. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Delaware
Estuary.
deMarban, Alex. 2007. Lake Mower Clears Paths for Floatplanes. Anchorage Daily News. August 13.
Anchorage, AK.
Desvouges, William H., V. Kerry Smith, and Ann Fisher. 1987. Option Price Estimates for Water Quality
Improvements: A Contingent Valuation Study for the Monongahela River. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management. 14: 248-267.
Dickson, Louise. 2004. "Polluted creek killing fish: Reclamation Work Wasted as Second Major Kill
Wipes Out Run." Victoria Times Colonist. November 1.
D'ltri, F.M. 1992. Chemical Deicers and the Environment. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.
Eddy, Mark. 1997. "Airport Deicer Pollutes Creek." Denver Post, April 22.
Egan, DArcy. 2001 "Rocky River fishing in danger as pollutants keep pouring in." Cleveland Plain
Dealer. October 21.
Environment Canada. 2001. Priority Substances List Assessment Report: Nonylphenol and its
Ethoxylates. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt formats/hecs-
sesc/pdf/pubs/contaminants/psl2-lsp2/nonvlphenol/nonvlphenol-eng.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2008.
5-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
Environment Canada. 2002a. "Alternatives to Nonylphenol Ethoxylates." Review of Toxicity,
Biodegradation, and Technical-Economic Aspects.
Environment Canada. 2002b. "Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for Nonylphenol and its
Ethoxylates." Cat. No. Enl-34/4-2002E. Report.
Environment Canada. 2008a. "Existing Substances Evaluation: Draft Screening Assessment for the
Challenge." 15086-94-9. Available at:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2 15086-94-9.cfm. Accessed June 24,
2008.
Environment Canada. 2008b. "Risk Management Scope for C.I. Pigment Yellow 34." Available at:
http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2 1344-37-2 rms en.pdf. Accessed
June 24, 2008.
Environmental News Service. 2005. "Minnesota Halts Jet Fuel Leaks, Spills at Twin Cities Airport.
"Environmental News Service. March 18.
Environmental News Service. 2007. Wayne County Airport Admits De-Icing Chemical Discharge.
Environmental News Service. 6-14-2006. August 21.
Evans, W.E.D., and S. Patterson. 1973. "Biodegradation of Urea in River Water under Controlled
Laboratory Conditions." Water Research. 7: 975-985. As cited in D'ltri, F.M. 1992. Chemical
Deicers and the Environment. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.
Farmington River Watershed Association. 2003. State of the Farmington River Watershed Report. 1-69.
2003. Simsbury, CT, Farmington River Watershed Association. November 29.
Ferguson, L., S.R. Corsi, S.W. Geis, G. Anderson, K. Joback, H. Gold, D. Mericas, D.A. Cancilla. 2008.
ACRP Web-Only Document 3: Aircraft Deicing and Airfield Anti-Icing Formulations: Aquatic
Toxicity and Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Contractor's Phase I Interim Report for Airport
Cooperative Research Program Project 02-01.
Fisher, D. H., M.H. Knott, S.D. Turley, B.S. Turley, L.T. Yonkos, and G.P. Ziegler, 1995, "The Acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity of Storm Water from an International Airport." Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry, v. 14, p. 1103-1111.
Flannery William. 1998. Status on Recovery of Aircraft Deicing Fluid Operations at the Airport. CITY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION 98-052, FEBRUARY 16, 1998 AGENDA. February 16.
Freeman, A. Myrick. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, 2nd Edition.
Resources for the Future. Washington, DC.
French, H.K., Zee, S.V.D., and Leijnse, A., 2001. Transport and degradation of propylene glycol and
potassium acetate in the unsaturated zone. J. Contam. Hydrol. 49, 23-48.
Fyve Star, Inc. 2008. Catalog. Website, available at: http://www.fVvestar.com/id25.html. Accessed
June 30, 2008.
Gruden, C.L., S.M. Dow, and M.T. Hernandez. 2001. "Fate and Toxicity of Aircraft Deicing Fluid
Additives Through Anaerobic Digestion." Water Environment Research 73(1): 72-79.
Hamrick Dave. 2002. EPD: "We blew it." The Citizen. February 13.
Hamrick, Dave. 2002. "Officials unanimous: Our water is safe." The Citizen. February 13.
5-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
Hannah, James. 1998."De-Icing Chemicals for Planes Killing Creek, Professor Says." Cleveland Plain
Dealer. June 7.
Hartwell, S. I., Jordahl, D. M., and Evans, J. W., 1995, "Toxicity of aircraft de-icer and anti-icer solutions
to aquatic organisms." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, v. 14, p. 1375-1386.
Haslim, L.A. Environmentally friendly compositions having antiicing, deicing or graffiti prevention
properties. U.S. Patent Application No. 20040036054.
Hellsten, P.P., J.M. Salminen, K.S. Joergensen, and T.H. Nysten. 2005. "Use of Potassium Formate in
Road Winter Deicing Can Reduce Groundwater Deterioration." Environ. Sci. Technol. 39(13): 5095-
5100.
Hopey, Don. 1996. "Airport Gets Criticism for Disposal of De-icer." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. October
28.
Hopey, Don. 1998. "Airport Ordered Again to Keep De-icers Out of Streams." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
January 31.
Hu, J.Z., J. Wakelin, and A. Wiesenfeld. 1998. Deicing and anti-icing composition for aircraft. Octagon
Process Inc. (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,817,252.
Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of European Household Cleaning Products
(HERA). 2007. "Alcohol Ethoxylates." May.
International Food Information Council (IFIC). 2005. "IFIC Review: Sodium in Food and Health."
January.
International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1997. Environmental Health Criteria 191: Acrylic
Acid. Available at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc 191 .htm. Accessed June 24, 2008.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Total Maximum Daily Load For Priority Organics Yeader
Creek Polk County, Iowa. January 23.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Total Maximum Daily Loads For Nutrients and Siltation
Easter Lake Polk County, Iowa.
Isobe, T., H. Nishiyama, A. Nakashima, and H. Takada. 2001. "Distribution and Behavior of
Nonylphenol, Octylphenol, and Nonylphenol Monoethoxylate in Tokyo Metropolitan Area: Their
Association with Aquatic Particles and Sedimentary Distributions." Env. Sci. Technol. 35: 1041-1049.
Jaesche, P., K.U. Totsche, and I. Kogel-Knabner. 2006. "Transport and Anaerobic Biodegradation of
Propylene Glycol in Gravel-Rich Soil Materials. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 85: 271-286.
Jobling, M. 1996. "Environmental Biology of Fishes." Fish and Fisheries Series 16. Chapman and Hall,
London.
Johnson, J. J., N. Varney, and M.S. Switzenbaum. 2001. "Comparative Toxicity of Formulated Glycol
Deicers and Pure Ethylene and Propylene Glycol." Report. University of Massachusetts/Amherst,
Water Resources Research Center. August.
Johnson, Steve. 2005. "Port Plans Study To Enhance Airport Deicing Storm Water Collection System."
September 26.
Kelly, B.R. and D. Klepal. 2004. "Silent Streams." The Cincinnati Enquirer. March 7.
5-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection.2007. KPDES Permit# KY0082864. July 31.
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection. 2007. KPDES Permit # KY0092185. December 31.
Kibbe, Cindy. 2006. "Planes, trains and automobiles: What are southern N.H.'s transportation options?"
New Hampshire Business Review. April 14.
Klecka, G.M., C.L. Carpenter, and B.D. Landenberger. 1993. "Biodegradation of Aircraft Deicing Fluids
in Soil at Low Temperatures. " Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 25(3): 280-295.
Klepal, Dan. 2004. "Airport pollution provokes ire: Residents fault state for going easy on de-icing
runoff." The Cincinnati Enquirer. September 10.
Konig-Lumer, I., U. Schwenk, R. Salvador, and J. Kapfinger. 1982. Agent for de-icing and protecting
against icing-up. Clariant GMBH (Assignee). U.S. Patent 4,358,389.
Koryak, M., L.J. Stafford, R.J. Reilly, R.H. Hoskin, and M.H. Haberman, 1998, "The Impact of Airport
Deicing Runoff on Water Quality and Aquatic Life in a Pennsylvania Stream." Journal of Freshwater
Ecology, v. 13, p. 297-298.
Krogh, K.A., B. Halling-Sorensen, B.B. Mogensen, and K.V. Vejrup. 2003. "Environmental Properties
and Effects of Nonionic Surfactant Adjuvants in Pesticides: a Review." Abstract. Chemosphere 50(7):
871-901.
Kuehner, John C. 2001. "Airport Ordered to Reduce Discharge". The Plain Dealer. November 1.
Lange, Larry. 2003. "Sea-Tac blamed for fish deaths: Airport denies group's claim that runoff kills
salmon." Seattle Post-Intelligencer. April 14.
Larson, Catherine E. 2004. Lower Minnesota River Model Project Proposal to Develop an Advanced
Water-Quality Model of the Minnesota River, Jordan to the mouth, and Conduct River Monitoring
and Studies to Support the Model. 1-35. January 15.
Larson, R.J., E.A. Bookland, R.T. Williams, K.M. Yocom, D.A. Saucy, and M.B. Freeman. 1997.
"Biodegradation of Acrylic Acid Polymers and Oligomers by Mixed Microbial Communities in
Activated Sludge." Journal of Polymers and the Environment 5(l):41-48.
Legislative Assembly of Ontario. 1989. Stormwater. Transcript of July 16, 1989 Meeting.
Leist, David, Scott Hankla, Kevin Flowers, Gretchen Bartley, Bob Beebe, Todd Giles, Eric Ratcliff, and
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. 1998. Impacts of Deicing Fluids on Elijahs and
Gunpowder Creeks Boone County, Kentucky. Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection.
Lindsey, G. 1994. "Market Models, Protest Bids, and Outliers in Contingent Valuation." Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management Vol 12: 121-129.
Lochner, Paul D. 2006. Wayne County Airport Authority Pleads Guilty To Violation Of Clean Water Act.
Department of Justice Press Release. June 8.
Lockyerm, R.T., J. Zuk, and A. Gaslim. 1998. Environmentally friendly anti-icing. U.S. Patent 5,772,912.
Ma, F., and D. Comeau. 1990. "Aircraft de-icing and anti-icing composition." Union Carbide Chemical
and Plastics Technology Corporation Limited (Assignee). U.S. Patent 4,954,279.
Maest, Ann. 2008. Personal communication, Dr. Ann Maest, Stratus Consulting Inc., June 28, 2008.
Mapes, Jeff. 1999. Leonard wades into water cleanup with Portland plans. The Oregonian. February 3.
5-6
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
McDowell, A. Scott. 1997. Sawmill Creek - Watershed "Restoration" Project. Allwood Community
Association Site Information. March 14.
Meersman, Tom. 1993. "FAA-Mandated Plane De-Icing Puts Minnesota River at Risk "Minneapolis Star
Tribune. March 10.
Meersman, Tom. 1993. "New Rules for Airport De-icers Amount of Chemicals Flushed into River Will
be Reduced "Minneapolis Star Tribune. September 29.
Mericas, D., and B. Wagoner. 1994. "Balancing Safety and the Environment." Water Environment and
Technology 6(12): 38-43.
Meyerhoff, Richard, Nicole Rowan, Janet Kieler, Janell Barrilleaux, Rebecca Albrecht, and Susan Morea.
2005. "Development Of Site-Specific Dissolved Oxygen Standards In Surface Waters At Denver
International Airport." 1002-1026. Water Environment Federation.
Mikkelson, Stephen and Karnowski, Marni. 2004. Water Quality Violations to Cost Metropolitan
Airports Commission $69,076. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Miller, Alan. 1991. "Deicing's Fatal Effect Not Plain." Columbus Dispatch. January 6.
Mills, Karen. 2001. Minneapolisairport saw big jump in runoff from de-icer into Minnesota River.
California Aviation Association. May 19.
Moles, J.O., J.L. Maier, K.L. Johnson, and S.D. Royer. 2003. Aircraft runway deicing composition.
General Atomics International Services Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 6,596,189.
Moran, V.M., L.A. Abron, and L.W. Weinberger. 1992. "A Comparison of Conventional and Alternative
Delcers." Chapter 12 in: Chemical Deicers and the Environment. D'ltri, F.M., Editor. Lewis
Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.
Motavalli, P., T. Marler, F. Cruz, and J. McConnell. 2008. Website: Essential plant nutrients. Available
at: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/BotanicalSciences/PlantHormones/EssentialPlant/
EssentialPlant.htm. Accessed: June 29, 2008. Adapted from: W.F. Bennett, Editor. 1993. Nutrient
Deficiencies & Toxicities in Crop Plants, APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2005a. "Ethylene Glycol." NIOSH
Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. September.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2005b. "Acrylic Acid." NIOSH Pocket
Guide to Chemical Hazards. September.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2005c. "Ammonia." NIOSH Pocket
Guide to Chemical Hazards. September.
New England Grassroots Environment Fund. 2003 Annual Report. Montpelier, VT.
Nieh, E.D. 1992. "Anti-icing compositions containing thickener blend having polyacrylic acid and
copolymer of acrylic acid and hydrophobic vinyl monomer." Texaco Chemical Company (Assignee).
U.S. Patent 5,118,435.
O'Conner, Robert and Kate Douglas. 1993. "Cleaning Up After the Big Chill: Thousands of Rivers and
Streams are Harmed by the De-Icing Chemicals That Keep Aircraft Flying Through the Winter. Now
Airports Are Being Forced to Curb This Damaging Pollution." New Scientist. January 16.
5-7
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit Program Fact Sheet Regarding an NPDES Permit To Discharge to Waters of the State of Ohio
for Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport. NPDES Permit # OH122068, Expiration October 31,
2006.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
2007.	NPDES Permit #040124311.
Onondaga County Council on Environmental Health. 2000. Beartrap Creek Reclamation.
Onondaga Lake Partnership. 2003. Izaak Walton League's Efforts Lead To Restored Beartrap Creek.
Reflections 1 [3]. 2003.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Columbia Slough Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) For: Chlorophyll a, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Phosphorus, Bacteria, DDE/DDT, PCBs, Pb,
Dieldrin and 2,3,7,8 TCDD. l-F-2.
Oviedo, C. J. Rodriguez. 2003. "EDTA: The Chelating Agent Under Environmental Scrutiny." Quim.
Nova 26(6): 901-905.
Pelton, Tom. 1998. "BWI Violated Water Act, Group Claims; Environmentalists File Notice of Intent to
Sue; De-Icing Chemicals at Issue; Airport Maintains it Has Tried to Keep Pollution Contained. "
Baltimore Sun. January 8.
Pelton, Tom. 1997a. "De-Icing Fluid Used at BWI Fouls Waters; MD.'s Pride in System Ignores Pollution
Data From Other Agencies; BWI is 'Economic Engine'; 1 lth-Hour Clearance Gives Airport Time,
$1.6 Million for Drains." Baltimore Sun. August 9.
Pelton, Tom. 1997b. "EPA Probing Allegation of BWI Runoff; Polluting Chemicals Seeping Into Creek,
Environmentalists Say; Airport Cooperating; Public's Health Is Not In Danger, According to State."
Baltimore Sun. April 23.
Peninsula Streams Society. 2006. Reay Watershed: 2003 Fish Kill.
Phaneuf, Daniel J., Catherine L. Kling, and Joseph A. Herriges. 1998. "Valuing Water Quality
Improvements Using Revealed Preference Methods When Corner Solutions Are Present." 80(5), Dec
2002.
Pillard, D. A., 1996. "Assessment of benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities in a stream
receiving storm water runoff from a large airport." Journal of Freshwater Ecology, v. 11, p. 51-59.
Pillard D., J. Cornell, D. Dufresne, and M. Hernandez. 2001. "Toxicity of Benzotriazole and
Benzotriazole Derivatives to Three Aquatic Species." Water Research 35(2):557-560.
Public Sector Consultants Inc. 1993. "The Use of Selected Deicing Materials on Michigan Roads:
Environmental and Economic Impacts. Conducted for the Michigan Department of Transportation."
Available at: http://www.michigan.gOv/mdot/0.1607.7-151-9622 11045-57246--.00.html. Accessed
June 24, 2008.
Pytte, Alyson. 1991. "Chemicals Lace Airport Soil Finding Pollution is Easy; Who Pays for Cleanup is
the Problem." Anchorage Daily News. September 8.
Redox Tech. 2008. Lactate. Available at: htto://redox-tech.com/Lactate.htm. Accessed: March 19, 2008.
5-8
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
Reeves, S.J., M.G. Evans, and M.H. Burtwell. 2005. UK Rail Safety and Standards Board Research
Programme. Operations. Evaluation of Frost, Ice and Snow Precautions at Stations. Website.
Available at: http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/reports/research/T532%20Evaluation%20of%20frost.%20ice
%20and%20snow%20precautions%20at%20stations.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2008.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. RIPDES Permit # RI0021598, Expiration
January 1, 2010.
Richardson, D. C. 2006. "Cleveland Gets a New Pad." Stormwater.l{l).
Ritter, Steve. 2001. "What's that Stuff: Aircraft Deicers." CENEAR 79(1): 30. Available at:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/7901 scit5 .html. Accessed October 16, 2008.
Roberts, C. R. 1993. "Airport Antifreeze May Be Toting Chill of Death to Miller Creek." Tacoma News
Tribune. January 26.
Safferman, S.I., Ganesh S. Siruvalure, and Larry E. Foppe. 1998. "Deicing Fluid Treatment in Batch -
Loaded Aerobic Fluidized Bed Reactor." Journal of Environmental Engineering 124(1): 11-15.
Sandler, Larry. 2006. "Environmental Group Challenges Airport's Wastewater Permit." Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel. January 25.
Sapienza, R. 2003. Environmentally benign anti-icing or deicing fluids. METSS Corporation (Assignee).
U.S. Patent 6,544,434.
Sapienza, R., W. Ricks, and J. Sanders. 2003. Corrosion inhibited runway deicing fluid. METSS
Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 6,540,934.
Saporito, Jack. 2003. Comments from the Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. to the Federal
Aviation Administration regarding the Draft FAA Five-Year Strategic Plan "Flight Plan" 2004-2008
by Jack Saporito. Letter communication to Sharon Pinkerton and FAA. August 5.
Scanlon, Bill. 1997. "DIA Pollutes Creek / De-icer Washing off Runways Kills Life in Stream That
Flows Toward Barr Lake Bird Sanctuary". Rocky Mountain News. April 22.
Schauer, N.L., D.P. Brown, and J.G. Ferry. 1982. "Kinetics of Formate Metabolism in Methanobacterium
formicicum andMethanospirillum hungate. " Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 44(3): 549-554.
ScienceLab. 2005. Material Safety Data Sheet: Patent blue MSDS. Available at:
http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Patent blue-9926409. Accessed June 24, 2008.
Shi, X. 2008. Impact of Airport Pavement Deicing Products on Aircraft and Airfield Infrastructure.
Transportation Research Board, Airport Cooperative Research Program Report. Available at:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/acrp svn 006.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2008.
Shrestha, R.K., and J.R.R. Alavapati. 2004. "Valuing Environmental Benefits of Silvopasture Practice: A
Case Study of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed in Florida." Ecological Economics Vol 49: 349-359.
Sierra Club. 2006. An Interview with Tim Guilfoile. In Your Town. Fort Thomas, Kentucky, Beech House
Press, LLC. December 5.
Sierra Club. 2004. Sierra Club 2004 Annual Report. "Rescuing the River That Wouldn't Freeze. 1-37.
San Francisco, CA, The Sierra Club Foundation.
5-9
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
Sills, R.D., and P.A. Blakeslee. 1992. "The Environmental Impact of Deicers in Airport Stormwater
Runoff." In: Chemical Deicers and the Environment. D'ltri, F.M. Editor. Lewis Publishers, Inc.
Chelsea, MI.
Simmons, K.L., J.G. Frye, T.A. Werpy, W.D. Samuels, H.N. Conkle, and B.F. Monzyk. 2007. Biobased
deicing/anti-icing fluids. U.S. Patent 7,169,321.
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 2007. Deicing Fluid, Aircraft, SAE Type I. AMS1424. G-12f
Fluids Subcommittee.
Stahl, James R. and Thomas P. Simon. 1997. A Preliminary Appraisal Of The Biological Integrity Of The
East Fork White Lick Creek In The West Fork White River Watershed Using Fish Community
Assessment. IDEM/32/03/013/1997, 1-19. December 12.
Staples, C.A., C.G. Naylor, J.B. Williams, and W.E. Gledhill. 2001. "Ultimate Biodegradation of
Alkylphenol Ethoxylate Surfactants and Their Biodegradation Intermediates." Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 20(11): 2450-2455.
State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. List of Connecticut Waterbodies Not
Meeting Water Quality Standards. i-C-9. April 8.
State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment Report. DEPLW0817.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Biological and Water Quality Study of Lower Big
Walnut Creek and Walnut Creek Tributaries Rickenbacker Airport 1996. DSW/MAS 1997-12-10.
April 3.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Biological and Water Quality Study of Mason Run
1996. DSW/MAS 1996-12-6. 9-11-1998.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Biological and Water Quality Study of Mill Creek,
Dayton International Airport Miami and Montgomery Counties, Ohio. MAS/1995-2-2, 1-31. 2-20-
1995.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Big
Walnut Creek Basin 2000. DSW/EAS 2003-11-10, i-203. November 26.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little
Miami River Basin, 1998. MAS/1999-12-3. June 23.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Biological and Water Quality Study of the
Stillwater River Basin, 1999, Darke, Miami and Montgomery Counties. OEPA Technical Report
Number MAS/2001-12-8. Columbus, OH
State of Washington Department of Ecology. 2007. NPDES Permit # S03004373. September 20.
Stewart, Bill. 1998. "Airport Juggles Safety, Pollution Concerns." The Oregonian. February 22.
Switzenbaum, Michael S., Veltman, Shawn, Schoenberg, Theodore, Durand, Carmen M., Mericas, Dean,
and Wagoner, Bryan. 1999. Workshop: Best Management Practices for Airport Deicing Stormwater.
United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 173. July 29.
Taylor, Rob. 1995. "Lawsuit Filed Over Stream Pollution From Sea-Tac Airport." Seattle Post-
Intelligencer. August 15.
5-10
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
Tham, P.T., and K.J. Kennedy. 2005. "Fate of Tolyltriazoles and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates in Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactors." Abstract. J. Envir. Engrg 131(6): 892-900.
Transport Canada. 1990. "The Environmental Impact of Urea Use on Airport Runways." Professional
and Technical Services document, Ottawa, Ontario. TP 10069.
Turnbull, D. A. and Bevan, J. R., 1995, "The Impact of Airport De-icing of a River: The Case of the
Ouseburn, Newcastle Upon Tyne." Environmental Pollution, v. 88, p. 321-332.
Tye, R.J., G.E. Lauterbach, and P.R. Standel. 1987. Aircraft anti-icing fluid containing carrageenan. FMC
Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 4,698,172.
Uhlenbrock, Tom. 1995. "Up A Creek Runoff of De-icer from Lamber Field Pits Airport Against U.S."
St. Louis Post Dispatch. February 5.
Umstead Coalition. RDU Airport Changes its Runway Deicing Chemical. 2007.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), International Labour Organization, and World Health
Organization. 2004. "Integrated Risk Assessment: Nonylphenol Case Study." December.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.
National Engineering Handbook Series, Part 651. 210-AWMFH, 4/92.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US HHS). 2004. "Toxicological Profile for Ammonia."
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. September.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US HHS). 2007a. "Draft Toxicological Profile for
Ethylene Glycol." Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. September 2007.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US HHS). 2007b. "Case Studies in Environmental
Medicine (CSEM) Ethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol Toxicity." Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry. October 2007.
U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture (US HHS and DoA). 2005. "Sodium
and Potassium." Chapter 8, Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2007. Advisory Circular: Airport Winter Safety and
Operations. AC 150/5200-30C. Available at: http://www.faa.gov/airports airtraffic/airports/
resources/draft advisory circulars/media/draft 150 5200 30c.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. EPA 440/5-86-
001. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/goldbook.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1991. Nitrogen Action Plan. Draft (March). PM-221.
40 0/90/003. Nitrogen Work Group.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1993. The Report of the EPA/State Feedlot
Workgroup. Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance. Washington, DC. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1998a. 1998 Update of Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Ammonia. Office of Water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/nh3 rpt.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1998b. Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries. EPA
600-R-98-147.
5-11
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2000a. Preliminary Data Summary for Airport Deicing
Operations. Office of Water. EPA-821-R-00-016. Available at: http ://www.epa. gov/guidc/airport/
airport.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2000b. Final Rule Removing Surfactant Alcohol
Ethoxylates from the Glycol Ethers Category of Air Toxics. June.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2001. Economic Analysis of the Proposed TSCA
Section 6 Rule for Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2005. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Criteria:
Nonylphenol. Office of Water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nonvlphenol/
final-doc.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006a. "IUCLID Data Set, Nonylphenol." December.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Airline
Deicing Questionnaire.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Airport
Deicing Questionnaire.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2007. Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators
(RSEI). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/rsei/. Obtained internal version of underlying
spreadsheet February 11, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008a. Memorandum to Administrative Record for
Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category. Written by
Ashley Allen, dated November 6, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008b. National Summary of Impaired Waters and
TMDL Information. EPA Office of Water. Available at: http ://www.epa. gov/owow/tmdl/. Accessed
December 8, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008c. Environmental Impact and Benefits
Assessment for Proposed Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development
Category.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008d. Current National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria. EPA Office of Water. Available online at:
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html. Accessed February 19, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008e. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm. Accessed February 19, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008f. NPDES Glossary. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System. December. http://cfpub.epa.gOv/npdes/glossarv.cfm#C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2011. Technical Development Document for the Final
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category.
U.S. National Library of Medicine (US NLM). 2008. Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET). Accessed on
June 19, 2008. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/.
5-12
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
5. References
University of Illinois Extension. 2008. Salt Damage to Plant Material. Web page, available at:
htto://web.extension.uiuc.edu/state/newsdetail.cfm?NewsID=5427. Accessed June 27, 2008.
Vashon, R.D. 1982. "Mineralization of Linear Alcohol Ethoxylates and Linear Alcohol Ethoxy Sulfates at
Trace Concentrations in Estuarine Water." Abstract. ES&T 16(7): 433-436.
Veltman, S., T. Schoenberg, and M.S. Switzenbaum. 1998. "Potential for Anaerobic Treatment of Airport
Deicing Fluids." ASCE Proceeding. Proceedings of the 1998 ASCE Conference on Environmental
Engineering.
Weiss, S., and T. Reemtsma. 2005. "Determination of Benzotriazole Corrosion Inhibitors from Aqueous
Environmental Samples by Liquid Chromatography-Electrospray Ionization-Tandem Mass
Spectrometry." Anal. Chem. 77: 7415-7420.
Weiss, S., J. Jakobs, and T. Reemtsma. 2006. "Discharge of Three Benzotriazole Corrosion Inhibitors
with Municipal Wastewater and Improvements by Membrane Bioreactor Treatment and Ozonation."
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006(40): 7193-7199.
Wells, Scott. 1997. The Columbia Slough. Prepared for the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental
Services. Technical Report EWR-2-97. (March)
Westmark, C.S., K.G. Joback, and M. Temchenko. 2001. Environmentally Friendly De-icer and Anti-icer
Compositions. U.S. Patent 7,270,767.
Wohlforth, Charles. 1990. "Toxic Runoff Adds to Lake Hood Pollution." Anchorage Daily News. May 4.
Worthington, Rogers. 1998. "Group Claims O'Hare fails to report on de-icing toxins." Chicago Tribune.
January 9.
Zhu, J.K. 2007. "Plant Salt Stress." Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Wiley DOI:
10.1002/9780470015902.a0001300.pub2. PDF. Available at: http://www.facultv.ucr.edu/~ikzhu/
articles/2007/ELS%20Zhu.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2008.
Zitomer, D.H. 2001. Waste Aircraft Deicing Fluid: Management and Conversion to Methane. Report.
Prepared for Wisconsin Division of Energy. NCES. June.
5-13
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Appendix A: Detailed Characterization of Airport Deicing Products
Table A-1: Surveyed U.S. Commercial Airports- Chemical Pavement Deicer Usage
Pavement Deicer
Chemical
2002/2003 Total
Surveyed Airport
Usage (tons/year)
2003/2004 Total
Surveyed Airport
Usage (tons/year)
2004/2005 Total
Surveyed
Airport Usage
(tons/year)
Average Total
Surveyed
Airport Usage
(tons/year)
Percentage of
Chemical
Usage
Potassium acetate
22,803
20,267
20,029
21,185
65
Propylene glycol-
based fluids
3,317
4,147
2,884
3,089
9
Urea (airside)
3,015
3,804
4,031
3,620
11
Sodium acetate
2,815
3,195
2,663
2,888
9
Sodium formate
1,663
694
1,359
1,290
4
Ethylene glycol-
based fluids
1,038
465
691
731
2
1
Based on the 90 airports reporting airfield deicing chemical use. The 3 year average is not a straight average of the total annual
amounts; the average for each airport was evaluated and calculated separately.
Source: EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c). For additional details, see EPA (2010).	
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-2: Chelating Agents
Characteristics
Ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid
(EDTA)
Diethylene triamine penta acetic
acid (DTPA, DTAA)
CASRN
60-00-4
67-43-6
Formula
C | (,H i r,N :Ox
C14H23N3O10
Water solubility, g/L
1.0
4.8
Log K0w
-3.86
-4.91
Log Koc
1.99

Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
7.69xl0"16

Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
2xl0"12

Environmental
partitioning summary
Both volatilization and adsorption to soils
and particulates are expected to be
negligible.

Degradation summary
Both aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation
are negligible for un-complexed EDTA.
Photolysis of EDTA complexed with Fe(III)
is likely to be the primary route of
degradation, but only where exposed to
bright light. Otherwise, degradation appears
to be minimal.3
Relatively resistant to biodegradation,
especially where the microbial
community is unacclimated.
Degradation products


Half-life
In the upper layer of surface water directly
exposed to the sun, the half-life of
EDTA*Fe(III) was approximately 11
minutes.

Transport rate summary
EDTA is highly mobile in soil, sediment,
and water.
DTPA is expected to be highly mobile
in soil, sediment, and water.
Mixture effects
Both of these substances can increase the mobility of potentially toxic metals. They
readily form complexes with metal ions, bringing them into the soluble phase in
soils, sediments, and water. This property is being investigated and exploited for
extracting and phytoremediating toxic metals.3
Additional notes
Degradation of uncomplexed EDTA appears to be minimal; photolysis of metal-
complexed EDTA could be rapid in the presence of direct sunlight, and this may be
the primary route of degradation. EDTA is commonly detected in surface water; it is
not removed by standard wastewater or drinking water treatment processes, but may
be degraded by UV treatment of drinking water.3 Most characteristics of these
compounds are expected to be similar.
Source: Oviedo and Rodriguez (2003).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-3: Freezing Point Depressants: Sugars
Characteristics
Dulcitol
Mannitol
Sorbitol
CASRN
608-66-2
69-65-8
50-70-4
Formula
CgH^Og
C6H1406
CgH^Og
Water solubility, g/L
31

Freely soluble up to 83%
Log K0w


-2.2
Log Kqc


0.30
Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)


7.3xl0"13
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)


4.9xl0"9
Environmental
partitioning summary
Not expected to volatilize or to adsorb to soils or particulates.
Half-life

Degradation summary
Biodegradation, the primary route of degradation, is expected to be very
rapid. Hydrolysis and photolysis are not expected.
Degradation products
Carbon dioxide, water, and microbial biomass.
Transport rate summary
All of these substances may be highly mobile in water and soil, but
biodegradation is likely to limit the distance of transport in surface water,
groundwater, and soil.
Mixture effects

Degradation products
C02
Additional notes
Characteristics of these sugar alcohols are likely to be relatively similar.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-4: Freezing Point Depressants: Acetates
Characteristics
Potassium acetate
Sodium acetate
CASRN
127-08-2
127-09-3 (anhydrous)
Formula
C2H3KO2
C2H3Na02
Water solubility, g/L

1,190 at 0°C
Log K0w


Log Koc
-3.72

Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)


Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

7.08xl0"7
Environmental
partitioning summary
These substances are not expected to volatilize. They are quite soluble in
water. Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb or
complex with soil or water constituents, but may also remain dissolved in
surface water and groundwater. Acetate should be rapidly biodegraded under
aerobic conditions in surface water, groundwater, and soil.
Half-life

Degradation summary

Degradation products
The cations calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are liberated, and
acetate degradation produces bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and water3.
Transport rate summary
Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with
soils/sediments. May be very site-specific.
Mixture effects
Formate can decrease the breakdown of acetate in anaerobic environments.
Additional notes

Source: D'ltri (1992).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-5: Freezing Point Depressants: Formates and Lactates
Characteristics
Potassium
formate
Sodium
formate
Ethyl lactate
Sodium lactate
CASRN
590-29-4
141-53-7
97-64-3
72-17-3
Formula
ch2o2.k
CH202.Na
C5H10O3
C3H603.Na
Water solubility, g/L
3,310 at 18°
C
972 at 20°
C
Miscible with water
1,000
Log K0w


-0.18

Log Kqc


1

Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)


5.8xl0"7

Vapor pressure (mm
Hg)


3.75

Environmental
partitioning summary
These substances are not expected to volatilize. They are quite soluble in water, and may be
expected to ionize freely. Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb
or complex with soil or water constituents but may also remain dissolved in surface water
and groundwater.
Half-life


In water: hydrolysis: 72 days at pH 7;
7 days at pH 8.

Degradation summary
Formate is slowly
hydrolyzed in water, and
can be anaerobically
degraded by
methanogens.
Hydrolysis to ethanol and lactate in
surface waters may be an important
degradation pathway.

Degradation products
Release of potassium and sodium cations and microbial biomass.
Transport rate
summary
Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils/sediments. May be
very site-specific.
Mixture effects
60% ethyl lactate has a strong cosolvency effect and can increase the solubility of dense
non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) compounds by orders of magnitude.
Additional notes

Redox Tech (2008) and US NLM (2008).
Schauer et al. (1982) and Redox Tech (2008).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-6: Freezing Point Depressants: Other
Characteristics
Sodium
pyrrolidone
carboxylate
Glycerol
Isopropanol
Proline
Erythritol
Pentaerythritol
CASRN
54571-67-4
56-81-5
67-63-0
147-85-3
149-32-6
115-77-5
Formula
C5H7N03.Na
C3H8O3
c3h8o
C5H9NO2
C4H10O4
C5H12O4
Water solubility,
g/L

Freely soluble
1000
1620
610
72.3
Log Kqw

-1.76
0.05
-2.54
-2.29
-1.69
Log Koc


1.4



Henry's Law
constant
(atm-m3/mole)

1.73xl0"8
8.10xl0"6
1.92xl0"9

4.1x10
Vapor pressure
(mm Hg)

1.58X10"4
45.4
3.77xl0"9

15.1
Environmental
partitioning
summary

Volatilizes
more slowly
than water.
Should not
adsorb to soil
or particulates.
Volatilization is
expected to be an
important route of
removal from soil
and water. Should
not adsorb to soil
or particulates.


Readily forms
complexes with
metal ions; this is
likely to retard its
mobility in soils
and sediments.
Half-lives

Atmospheric
degradation: 33
hto 3.2 d.
Volatilization from
river: 57 h; from
lake: 29 d. Aerobic
degradation in
sludge: <1 d to 48
d.



Degradation
summary

Rapid, both
aerobic and
anaerobic.
Rapid, both aerobic
and anaerobic.


3 to 15 days lag
time before
significant
degradation begins.
Degradation
products





Transport rate
summary

Should move very rapidly through
soil and water, but range may be
limited by rapid degradation.



Mixture effects

Additional notes
With the exception of the erythritols, these chemicals are not expected to share similar
properties.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-6
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-7: Freezing Point Depressants: Ethylene Glycols
Characteristics
Poly-ethylene
glycol, molecular
weight from 62
to 106
Ethylene glycol
Diethylene glycol3
Triethylene
glycol
CASRN
25322-68-3
107-21-1
111-46-6
112-27-6
Formula
(C2H40).(H20)n
c2h6o2
C4H10O3
CgHjAt
Water solubility, g/L
Freely soluble
Freely soluble
Freely soluble
Freely soluble
Log Kqw

-1.36
1.47
-1.98
Log Koc

1 (Koc)
1 (Koc)
1
Henry's Law
constant (atm-cu
m3/mole)

6.00xl0"8
2xl0"9
3.2xl0"n
Vapor pressure (mm
Hg)

0.092
1
1.32xl0"3
Environmental
partitioning
summary
Volatilization is not expected to be an important pathway for these glycols. Very high mobility
is expected for all glycols in soil, sediment, and water. Experimentally determined adsorption
of ethylene glycol to four soils (two clay, two sandy clay) ranged from 0-0.5%. Tracer
experiments have shown that ethylene glycol moves through soil with water.
Half-lives

Atmospheric half-life: 50 h at 25°
C.
Atmospheric half-
life: 13 h.

Degradation
summary

Very rapid degradation rates in soil,
sediment, and water.
Soils: 90 to 100% degradation of
ethylene glycol was observed in
various field soils in 2 to 12 days
(temperatures not known); ethylene
glycol in aircraft deicing or anti-
icing fluid formulation was
completely degraded in runway-
side soils within 29 days at 8° C.
Water: Hydrolysis and photolysis
are not expected to be significant.
Ethylene glycol in river water
degraded completely in three days
at 20° C and in 5 to 14 days at 8° C.
Aerobic degradation of ethylene
glycol may be essentially complete
in less than one to four days under
optimal conditions in water or
treatment systems, but the impact of
the full theoretical biological
oxygen demand may not be
observed for several weeks.
Water: Diethylene
glycol in aerobic
river water showed
little degradation
during winter.
Soils:
Triethylene
glycol in aerobic
soil was
completely
degraded within
7 to 11 days.
Degradation lag
time
For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of several days before glycol
degradation begins.
Transport rate
summary
Expected to have very high mobility in soil, sediment, and water.
Mixture effects
Triazoles decrease the degradation rate of glycols. Low temperatures may also greatly decrease
the degradation rates of glycols.
A-7
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-7: Freezing Point Depressants: Ethylene Glycols
Characteristics
Poly-ethylene
glycol, molecular
weight from 62
to 106
Ethylene glycol
Diethylene glycol3
Triethylene
glycol
Additional notes
Ethylene glycols are expected to share somewhat similar properties, except for polyethylene
glycols. Formulated polyethylene glycol products contain different mixtures of polymers, and
the properties of the products will vary based on the size and shape of the polymers they
contain. All of these substances are expected to be rapidly degraded under aerobic and
anaerobic conditions.
a. Not currently used in the U.S.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-8
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-8: Freezing Point Depressants: Propylene Glycols
Characteristics
Propylene glycol
1,3-Propylene glycol
1, r-oxybis-2-propanol
(dipropylene glycol)
CASRN
57-55-6
504-63-2
25265-71-8
Formula
C3H8O2

C6H14O3
Water solubility, g/L
Freely soluble
Freely soluble
Freely soluble
Log Kqw
-0.92
-1.04
-1.486
Log Kqc
0.90

1 (Kqc)
Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)
1.3xl0"8
l,74xl0"7
5.6xl0"9
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
0.13
0.0441
0.032
Environmental partitioning summary
Very high mobility in soils, sediments, and water. Not expected to volatilize
readily.
Half-lives



Degradation summary
Propylene glycol was not observed to degrade at 4° C, and only degraded at
20 C in soil that was rich in organic matter"1.
Degradation lag time
For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of several days
before glycol degradation begins.
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Source: Jaesche et al. (2006).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-9
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-9: Freezing Point Depressants: Urea and Metabolites
Characteristics
Urea
Ammonia
CASRN
57-13-6
7664-41-7
Formula
ch4n2o
H3N
Water solubility, g/L
545
•'31%"
Log K0w
-2.11
0.23
Log Kqc
0.903

Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)

1.61xl0"5
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
1.2xl0"5
7.51xl03
Enviromnental partitioning summary


Half-lives


Degradation summary


Degradation lag time


Transport rate summary


Mixture effects


Additional notes


Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-10
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-10: Thickeners: Acrylic Acid Polymers
Characteristics
Carbomer
Carbopol
672
Carbopol
934
Carbopol
1610
Carbopol
1621
Carbopol
1622
Polymer of acrylic
acid
CASRN
Trade name
Trade
name
9007-16-3
Trade name
Trade
name
Trade name
79-10-7
Formula
polymer of
acrylic acid
polymer
of acrylic
acid
polymer
of acrylic
acid
polymer of
acrylic acid
polymer
of acrylic
acid
polymer of
acrylic acid
polymer of acrylic
acid
Water solubility, g/L






lxlO3
Log K0w






0.35
Log Koc






1.63
Henry's Law
constant (atm-
m3/mole)






3.2xl0"7
Vapor pressure (mm
Hg)






3.97
Environmental
partitioning summary
Not expected to volatilize from water or moist soil. Slow volatilization from dry soil is
possible. Not expected to adsorb to soils or particulates; potential for transport in soil is high.
Half-lives







Degradation
summary
Non-polymerized (monomelic) acrylic acid readily biodegrades both aerobically and
anaerobically; it reached 68% of its theoretical BOD in 2 weeks using an activated sludge
inoculum, and in a 42-day anaerobic screening study using a sewage seed inoculum, 71% of
acrylic acid was degraded.
However, biodegradability decreases with increasing number of polymerized units and
increasing formula molecular weight, dropping off sharply between MWs 700 and 1,000, and
for polymers with more than seven units3. It appears that monomers and dimers of acrylic
acid are completely biodegradable, but there are indications polymers of three to seven units
are incompletely biodcgraded'.
Degradation lag time







Transport rate
summary







Mixture effects







Additional notes
May be contaminated by low-ppm levels of metals.
Source: Larson etal. (1997).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-11
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-11: Thickeners: Natural Gums
Characteristics
Kappa-carrageenan
Iota-carrageenan
We Ian gum
Xanthan gum
CASRN
Mixture
9062-07-1
Mixture
11138-66-2
Formula




Water solubility, g/L
10



Log K0w




Log Kqc




Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)




Vapor pressure (mm Hg)




Environmental
partitioning summary




Half-lives




Degradation summary




Degradation lag time




Transport rate summary




Mixture effects




Additional notes
Naturally-derived high-molecular-weight polysaccharide gums. Tend to be highly water
soluble, and are expected to be biodegradable, although biodegradation information was
not available.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-12
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-12: Thickeners: Other
Characteristics
Hydroxyethylcellulose
CASRN
9004-62-0
Formula
C2-H6-02.x-Unspecified
Water solubility
g/L
Freely soluble
LogKOW

Log KOC

Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)

Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental
partitioning summary

Half-lives

Degradation
summary
Cellulose gums are generally slowly biodegraded. Reported values for the biological
oxygen demand of two samples of hydroxy ethyl cellulose are 7,000 & 18,000 ppm,
respectively, after 5 days of incubation.
Degradation lag time

Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-13
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-13: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates
Characteristics
Decyl alcohol ethoxylate
Lauryl alcohol ethoxylate
Lauryl alcohol phosphoric acid
- ester ethoxylate
CASRN
26183-52-8
Category
-
Formula
CH3 (CH2)n(OCH2
CH2)yOHa
CH3 (CH2)n(OCH2
CH2)yOHa
CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)yOHa
Water solubility, g/L



Log Kqw



Log Koc
In general, log Kd is a better predictor of behavior than Kow for these substances3. Log Kd,
as with the other physicochemical parameters, varies by ethoxymer. The formula below, as
given by Belanger et al. (2006) permits the calculation of an estimated log Kd.
logKd = 0.331 * (alkyl chain length) - 0.009 * (ethoxylate chain length) - 1.126
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)



Vapor pressure (mm Hg)



Environmental
partitioning summary
Sorption may be important, and is likely to vary by ethoxymer.
Half-lives



Degradation summary
Aerobic degradation may be rapid.
Degradation lag time



Transport rate summary



Mixture effects



Additional notes

Source: Belanger et al. (2006).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-14
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-14: Surfactants: Alkylbenzene Sulfonates
Characteristics
Sodium
alkylbenzene
sulfonate
Siponate A-
2466, sodium
dodecylbenze
ne sulfonate
Siponate DDB-
40, sodium
dodecylbenzene
sulfonate
Siponate DS,
sodium
dodecylbenzene
sulfonate
Sandocorin
8132, sodium
dodecylbenzene
sulfonate
CASRN
68411-30-3
Trade name
Trade name
Trade name
Trade name
Formula





Water solubility, g/L





Log Kqw





Log Koc





Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)





Vapor pressure (mm
Hg)





Environmental
partitioning summary





Half-lives





Degradation summary





Degradation lag time





Transport rate summary





Mixture effects





Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-15
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-15: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates
Characteristics
Alcohol ethoxylates
Tergitol TMN-10,
branched secondary
alcohol ethoxylate
Aliphatic alcohol ethoxylates
CASRN
Category
Trade name
Category
Formula



Water solubility, g/L



Log Kqw



Log Kqc



Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)



Vapor pressure (mm Hg)



Environmental
partitioning summary



Half-lives



Degradation summary



Degradation lag time



Transport rate summary



Mixture effects



Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-16
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-16: Surfactants: Alkylphenol Ethoxylates
Characteristics
Alkylphenol ethoxylates
Octylphenol
ethoxylates
Nonylphenol
ethoxylates
CASRN
Category
Category
Category
Formula


C9H19-
C6H40(CH2CH20)nHa
Water solubility, g/L
All are highly soluble in water, but solubility varies by ethoxymer'.
Log Kqw



Log Kqc



Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)



Vapor pressure (mm Hg)



Enviromnental partitioning summary
Not expected to volatilize. Likely to partition to organic matter or minerals
in soil, but this tendency varies by ethoxymer, and migration through the
soil has been observed. In water, as in soil, may sorb to organic matter or
particulates3.
Half-lives
3-26 d under ideal aerobic conditions with acclimated community13
Degradation summary
Degradation varies by ethoxymer, and tends to produce some recalcitrant
compounds3.
Degradation lag time



Transport rate summary



Mixture effects
Surfactants can increase the solubility and transport of less soluble
substances.
Additional notes
These are all categories; therefore, the specific physical properties vary by
ethoxymer.
Alkylphenol ethoxylates are antifoaming agents0.
Degradation of these compounds can produce more persistent octyl- and
nonylphenols.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
a.	Environment Canada (2002).
b.	Staples etal. (2001).
c.	Bennie et al. (1997).
A-17
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-17: Surfactant Breakdown Products: Alkylphenols
Characteristics
Octylphenol
Nonylphenol
CASRN
Category
25154-52-3
(category)
Formula
C14H22O

Water solubility, g/L

5.43xl0"3a
Log Kqw
4.12b
4.1-4.73
Log Kqc
4.01 to 4.65b

Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)

1.09xl0"4a
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

3.4xl0~5a
Environmental
partitioning summary
Unlikely to volatilize from soils. Likely to
partition to sediments and soil minerals'3.
Although volatility is low, can volatilize
from water and result in high atmospheric
concentrations. Unlikely to volatilize from
soils. Likely to partition to sediments and
mineral particles in water and soil, but can
still leach through soils3.
Half-lives
7-50 d in river water0.
2.4 hours to 0.74 d in water. Photolytic half-
life in upper layer of surface water is 10-15
hours; in deeper layers, it is much slower. In
a sediment mesocosm, a half-life of 66 days
was observed3.
Degradation summary
Relatively rapid degradation in aerobic river
water0.
Highly recalcitrant to anaerobic degradation
in sediments0.
A biphasic degradation profile has been
observed in soils, with relatively rapid initial
degradation of 30-50% of applied
nonylphenol degrading in the first several
weeks, and the remainder degrading with a
half-life of approximately 90 days3.
Degradation lag time


Transport rate summary
Can leach through soilsb.
Can leach through soils3.
Mixture effects


Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
a.	Environment Canada (2002).
b.	Isobe et al. (2001).
c.	Christiansen et al. (2002).
A-18
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-18: Surfactants: Diamines
Characteristics
Oleic acid diamine
Oleyl propylene diamine
Palmitic acid diamine
CASRN
Category
Category
Category
Formula



Water solubility, g/L



Log K0w



Log Kqc



Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)



Vapor pressure (mm Hg)



Environmental
partitioning summary



Half-lives



Degradation summary



Degradation lag time



Transport rate summary



Mixture effects



Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-19
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-19: Surfactants: Polyethylene Oxide Monomer and Polymer
Characteristics
Ethylene oxide
Ethylene oxide / propylene oxide block
copolymers
CASRN
75-21-8
Category
Formula
C2H40

Water solubility, g/L
Miscible with water

Log Kqw
-0.3

Log Kqc
n/a

Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
1.48X10-4

Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
1314

Environmental
partitioning summary
Expected to volatilize rapidly from soil. It
does not adsorb well to soil, and would be
expected to leach readily.
In water, volatilization will occur in hours
to days.

Half-lives
Atmospheric half-life estimated at 211
days. The volatilization half-lives of
ethylene oxide in a model river and lake
are 5.9 lir and 3.8 days, respectively. The
half-life for hydrolysis is 9-14 days. In a
river die-away test, the rate of degradation
was not significantly different than for
hydrolysis.

Degradation summary
Hydrolysis may also be an important
mechanism of removal from water.
Biodegradation appears to occur more
slowly than volatilization, but data are
extremely limited. Expected to degrade by
hydrolysis in groundwater. Products of
degradation by hydrolysis are
biodegradable (ethylene glycol and
ethylene chlorohydrin).

Degradation lag time


Transport rate summary


Mixture effects


Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-20
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-20: Surfactants: Other Nonionic Detergents
Characteristics
Emerest 2660 (OEG-12 oleate)
(=Polyoxyethylene monoleate)
Emsorb 6900 (peg-20 sorbitan oleate)
(=glycol (polysorbate 80))
CASRN
9004-96-0
9005-65-6
Formula
(C2H40) mult-C18H3402

Water solubility, g/L
Very soluble
Highly soluble
Log Kqw


Log Kqc


Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)


Vapor pressure (mm Hg)


Environmental
partitioning summary


Half-lives


Degradation summary


Degradation lag time


Transport rate summary


Mixture effects


Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-21
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-21: Corrosion Inhibitors and Flame Retardants: Tolyltriazoles
Characteristics
Tolyltriazole
Cobratec TT-50S, tolyltriazole solution
CASRN
29385-43-1
Trade name
Formula
c7h7n3

Water solubility, g/L


Log K0w


Log Kqc


Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)


Vapor pressure (mm Hg)


Environmental
partitioning summary
Mobile in groundwater.

Half-lives


Degradation summary
Unlikely to be readily degradable.
Degradation lag time


Transport rate summary


Mixture effects
Even at very low concentrations, triazoles have been observed to sharply decrease the
biodegradability of other components in mixtures.
Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-22
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-22: Corrosion Inhibitors and Flame Retardants: Other Triazoles
Characteristics
Triazoles
Benzyltriazole
Benzotriazole
5-Methyl-lH-
Benzotriazole
4-methyl-lH-
benzotriazole
CASRN
37306-44-8
-
95-14-7
136-85-6
29878-31-7
Formula
c2h3n3

CsHjNj
c7h7n3
c7h7n3
Water solubility, g/L


19.8


Log Kqw


1.44


Log Kqc





Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)


3.17xl0"7


Vapor pressure (mm Hg)


4.0xl0"2


Environmental
partitioning summary


Expected to be highly
mobile in soil. Also, it
may protonate in some
environmental
matrices, and the
cationic form should
bind to organic material
and clays.
Volatilization is not
expected.

Half-lives


Half-life for
atmospheric
degradation by reaction
with hydroxyl radicals
is estimated at 16 days.
May also be subject to
direct photolysis.


Degradation summary


Persists in the
environment;
apparently not
biodegradable.
5-tolyltriazole is much better
(aerobically) degradable than the 4-
tolyltriazole isomer (in river water
samples).b
Degradation lag time





Transport rate summary





Mixture effects
Even at very low concentrations, triazoles have been observed to sharply decrease the
biodegradability of other components in mixtures.
Additional notes
Benzotriazole and methylbenzotriazole have been detected in groundwater near an airport,
at concentrations in excess of those known to be toxic to microbiota, fish, and
invertebrates.3
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
a.	Cancilla et al. (1998)
b.	Weiss and Reemtsma (2005).
A-23
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-23: Corrosion Inhibitors: Alcohols
Characteristics
Propargyl alcohol
CASRN
107-19-7
Formula
C3H4O
Water solubility, g/L
Miscible with water
Log K0w
-0.38
Log Kqc

Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
1.1x10-6
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
15.6
Enviromnental partitioning
summary
Should be highly mobile in soil, and volatilize readily from both moist and dry
soils. In water, propargyl alcohol is not expected to adsorb to sediments or
suspended solids. Volatilization from the water's surface is expected.
Half-lives
The half-life of propargyl alcohol in an alkaline sandy silt loam (61.5% sand,
31.1% silt, 7.4% clay, pH 7.8, 3.25% organic carbon) was 12.6 days. The half-
life in an acidic sandy loam (68% sand, 23.4% silt, 8.6% clay, pH 4.8, 0.94%
organic carbon) was 13 days. Modeled volatilization half-lives for a river and
lake are 16 and 176 days, respectively. The modeled atmospheric half-life due to
degradation by hydroxyl radicals is 37 hours.
Degradation summary
Aerobic degradation in soils is expected, based on the results above, and is also
likely in water.
Degradation lag time

Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-24
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-24: Corrosion Inhibitors: Nitrite, Nitrate, and Silicate Salts
Characteristics
Sodium nitrate
Sodium nitrite
Sodium silicate
Potassium
silicate
CASRN
7631-99-4
7632-00-0
13870-28-5
10006-28-7
Formula
HN03.Na
HNCkNa

K2Si03
Water solubility, g/L
912
848
Almost insoluble in cold
water; soluble in water with
heat and pressure

Log Kqw




Log Koc




Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)




Vapor pressure (mm Hg)




Environmental
partitioning summary
Nitrite does not
volatilize from soil or
water.
Nitrate does not
volatilize from soil
or water.


Half-lives




Degradation summary
Aerobically degraded
to nitrate.



Degradation lag time




Transport rate summary




Mixture effects




Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-25
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-25: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Inorganics
Characteristics
Potassium
phosphate
Borax
CASRN
7778-53-2
1303-96-4
Formula
H304P.3K
B4Na207. M'I I t)
Water solubility, g/L

593
Log Kqw


Log Kqc


Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)


Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Approximately zero.
Environmental
partitioning summary

Not expected to volatilize from soils or water.
Half-lives


Degradation summary

Persists in soil for a year or more, depending on soil type and
rainfall.
Degradation lag time


Transport rate summary

High mobility in soil with high rainfall; otherwise, sorbs to minerals
in soils.
Mixture effects

Biostatic and antiseptic; biodegradation not reported. May inhibit
degradation of other substances in mixtures due to antimicrobial
activity.
Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-26
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-26: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Organics
Characteristics
Sodium benzoate
Phosphate esters
Thiourea
CASRN
532-32-1
Category
62-56-6
Formula
C7H5Na02

CH4N2S
Water solubility, g/L
556


Log K0w


-1.08
Log Kqc



Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)


1.98xl0"9
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
3.67xl0"9


Environmental
partitioning summary


Is not expected to adsorb to
suspended solids and sediment in
water. Not expected to volatilize
from any medium.
Half-lives



Degradation summary


Thiourea can degrade in soil by both
chemical and microbial degradation,
although high levels of thiourea may
suppress microbial activity for
extended periods of time. In one soil
degradation study, thiourea persisted
in excess of 15 weeks.
Degradation lag time



Transport rate summary


Expected to be highly mobile in
soils.
Mixture effects


May delay degradation of other
components of mixtures due to
antimicrobial activity.
Additional notes

((RO)3PO) Phosphoric
acids with alkyl or aryl
alcohols.

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-27
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-27: Corrosion Inhibitors: Ethanolamines
Characteristics
Monoethanolamine
Diethanolamine
T riethanolamine
CASRN
141-43-5
111-42-2
102-71-6
Formula
c2h7no
C4H„N02
c6h15no3
Water solubility, g/L
lxlO3
Freely soluble
Freely soluble
Log K0w
-1.31
-1.43
-1
Log Kqc



Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
3.25xl0"8
3.9x10"
7.1xl0"13
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
0.404
1.4xl0"4
3.59xl0~6
Environmental
partitioning summary
Expected to ionize under most enviromnental conditions (pH 5 to 9), which would favor
adsorption to clays and organic matter. Not expected to volatilize from soils or water.
Half-lives

Days to weeks

Degradation summary
Biodegradation may be
an important pathway of
degradation.
Rapid biodegradation
expected, following lag
time. Aerobic degradation
observed.
Aerobic degradation observed.
Degradation lag time
5 d

15 d
Transport rate summary
Binding to clays and organic matter should restrict mobility of ionized ethanolamines in
soil. Unionized forms are predicted to be very mobile in soils. In water, they may be
transported with particulates.
Mixture effects



Additional notes
Degrades to nitrogen
dioxide and ammonia.
N-Nitrosodiethanolamine
is a degradation product

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-28
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-28: pH Buffers, Phosphate-Based
Characteristics
Dipotassium phosphate
Disodium phosphate (Sodium hydrogen phosphate)
CASRN
7758-11-4
7558-79-4
Formula
H3O4P.2K
H304P.2Na
Water solubility, g/L
Freely soluble
Freely soluble
Log K0w


Log Kqc


Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)


Vapor pressure (mm Hg)


Environmental
partitioning summary


Half-lives


Degradation summary


Degradation lag time


Transport rate summary


Mixture effects


Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-29
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-29: pH Reducers
Characteristics
Potassium hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide
CASRN
1310-58-3
1310-73-2
Formula
HKO
HNaO
Water solubility, g/L
Freely soluble
Freely soluble
Log K0w

Too low to be measured
Log Kqc


Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)


Vapor pressure (mm Hg)


Environmental
partitioning summary


Half-lives


Degradation summary


Degradation lag time


Transport rate summary


Mixture effects


Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-30
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-30: Antifoamers: Silicones
Characteristics
DC 1520, silicone
antifoam
Foamban
SAG 1000
SAG 7133
CASRN
Trade name
Category
Trade name
Trade name
Formula




Water solubility, g/L




Log Kqw




Log Kqc




Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)




Vapor pressure (mm Hg)




Environmental
partitioning summary




Half-lives




Degradation summary



Degradation lag time




Transport rate summary




Mixture effects




Additional notes




Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-31
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-31: Antifoamers: Silicones and Other Substances
Characteristics
Siltech E-2202
Dimethyl
polysiloxane
AF-9020,
polydimeth
ylsiloxane
1-dodecanol
CASRN
Trade name
9016-00-6
63148-62-9
112-53-8
Formula

(C2H6OSi)x-
(C2H6OSi)n
C12H26O
Water solubility, g/L



0.004
Log Kqw



5.13
Log Kqc



1.5x10+4(Koc)
Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)



2.22xl0~5
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)



8.48xl0"4
Environmental
partitioning summary



Expected to have slight mobility in soil and
volatilize from wet soils; not expected to
volatilize from dry soils. Likely to adsorb to
suspended solids and sediment and volatilize
from water surfaces. Should exist as a vapor
in the atmosphere.
Half-lives



Vapor-phase 1-dodecanol is degraded in the
atmosphere by reaction with
photochemically-produced hydroxyl radicals;
the half-life for this reaction in air is
estimated to be 21 hours.
Degradation summary


Does not degrade anaerobically.
Atmospheric degradation via hydroxyl
radicals.
No enviromnental hydrolysis.
Degradation lag time




Transport rate summary



Immobile in soil.
Mixture effects




Additional notes




Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-32
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-32: Dyes
Characteristics
Eosin orange,
tetrabromofluorescein
FD&C blue #1, alphazurine
CASRN
17372-87-1
3844-45-9
Formula
C2,:H8Br405.2Na

Water solubility, g/L


Log Kqw
4.8

Log Kqc


Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole)


Vapor pressure (mm Hg)


Enviromnental partitioning summary


Half-lives


Degradation summary


Degradation lag time


Transport rate summary


Mixture effects


Additional notes
May discolor receiving waters.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-33
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-33: Additional Dyes
Characteristics
FD&C yellow #5,
tartrazine
Malonyl green, C.I.
Pigment Yellow 34
Shilling green
CASRN
1934-21-0
Trade name
Trade name
Formula
C I I \ :\a ;() S;


Water solubility, g/L



Log Kqw



Log Kqc



Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)



Vapor pressure (mm Hg)



Enviromnental partitioning
summary



Half-lives



Degradation summary



Degradation lag time



Transport rate summary



Mixture effects



Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-34
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-34: Hydrophobic Agents
Characteristics
N-Dodecanea
Mineral oil
White mineral oil (10
cSt)
CASRN
112-40-33
Mixture
Mixture
Formula



Water solubility, g/L

Insoluble in water

Log Kow

n/a

Log Koc



Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)



Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
1.3xl0"la


Enviromnental partitioning
summary



Half-lives
1.1 days in the atmosphere;
degraded via gas-phase
reaction with hydroxyl
radicalsa


Degradation summary


Degradation lag time



Transport rate summary



Mixture effects



Additional notes



Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
a. Chemfate database (2008).
A-35
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-35: Solvents
Characteristics
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
M-and P-
Xylene
T richloroethylene
Methyl ethyl ketone
CASRN
100-41-4
108-88-
3
108-38-3
79-01-6
78-93-3
Formula
n
00
K
o
c?h8
n
00
K
o
C2HCb
C4H80
Water solubility,
g/L
0.0014 (S. 15 degrees
C

Insoluble in
water
1.280
353 (S. 10 Deg C
Log Kqw
3.15

3.15
2.61
0.29
Log Koc





Henry's Law
constant (atm-
m3/mole)
7.88xl0~3

0.0069
9.85xl0~3
4.7xl0"5
Vapor pressure
(mm Hg)
9.6

8.84
69
91
Environmental
partitioning
summary
Volatilization from moist and dry soil surfaces
is expected. In aquatic environments BTEX
compounds will adsorb to suspended solids and
sediments and will volatilize from surface
water. BTEX compounds will exist as vapors in
the atmosphere.
High mobility in soils and volatilization from
both moist and dry soils are expected. In aquatic
enviromnents, these compounds do not adsorb to
suspended solids and sediments. Volatilization is
an important process. In the atmosphere, these
compounds exist solely in the vapor phase.
Half-lives
The atmospheric half-
life is 55 hours.
Aquatic volatilization
half-life is estimated at
between 1.1 and 99
hours.

The
atmospheric
half-life of this
compound is
about 27 hours.
Aquatic
volatilization
half-life is
estimated at
between 3 and
99 hours.
The half-life for the
reaction with
hydroxyl radicals in
air is estimated to be
7 days.
There is a wide range
of degradation half-
lives under anaerobic
conditions. An
approximate average
half-life is 1 year.
The half-life for the
reaction with hydroxyl
radicals in air is estimated
to be about 14 days.
Degradation
summary
Biodegradation occurs
under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions.
Abiotic degradation is
primarily photolytic.
Ethylbenzene was
degraded in aerobic
conditions within 10-
16 days, and in
conditions of low
initial oxygen, it was
rapidly degraded in 21
days until the available
oxygen was depleted.
Biodegradation occurs
under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions.
Abiotic degradation is
primarily photolytic.
Trichloroethylene is
not degraded
aerobically. It is
degraded
anaerobically under
methanogenic
conditions.
Aerobic degradation is the
main degradation pathway.
Atmospheric degradation
pathways include
photodecomposition and
degradation by reaction
with hydroxyl radicals.
Degradation lag
time





A-36
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-35: Solvents
Characteristics
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
M-and P-
Xylene
T richloroethylene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Transport rate
summary
Moderate to low mobility in soil.


Mixture effects





Additional notes





Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-37
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-36: Solvents: Alcohols and Other Solvents
Characteristics
Acetone
Methylene chloride
1.3-Butanediol
Butyne-1,4-
diol
Glycol
ethers
CASRN
67-64-1
75-09-2
107-88-0
110-65-6
110-80-
5, 111-
76-2,
107-98-2
Formula
c3h6o
ch2c12
c4h10o2
c4h6o2

Water solubility, g/L
Miscible in water
13
Miscible in water
3,740
Miscible
in water
Log K0w
-0.24
1.25
-0.29
-0.93

Log Koc


0.114


Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
3.97xl0"5
3.25X10"3x
2.30xl0"7
1.684xl0"n

Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
231
435
0.06
5.56xl0"4

Environmental
partitioning summary
Very high mobility in soil, volatilization
expected from moist or dry soil surfaces and
from water. These compounds exist in the
atmosphere solely as vapors.
In the atmosphere, degradation
will occur via hydroxyl radicals.
Biodegradation in soils and water
is likely. Volatilization from
moist soils and water is expected.
Biodegradation is likely to be an
important degradation pathway.

Half-lives


An atmospheric
half-life of about 1.2
days at an
atmospheric
concentration of
5xl0+5 hydroxyl
radicals per cm3 is
estimated.
An
atmospheric
half-life of
about 11
hours at an
atmospheric
concentratio
n of 5x10+5
hydroxyl
radicals per
cm3 is
estimated.

Degradation summary
Volatilization is the primary mechanism for
removal from aquatic enviromnents.
Acetone degrades under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. Methylene chloride
biodegradation may occur in soils or
contaminated aquifers under reducing
conditions.
Acetone undergoes photodegradation in the
atmosphere, and not hydrolysis. Methylene
chloride is not directly photooxidized; it does
undergo hydrolysis in the atmosphere and
terrestrial enviromnents.
Aerobic biodegradation occurs.
There is not enough data to
determine rates.
Anaerobic degradation
information is not available.
Abiotically degraded by
hydrolysis in the atmosphere (via
hydroxyl radicals). Aquatic
hydrolysis is not expected for
1,3-butanediol and information
was not found forbutyne-1,4-
diol.

A-38
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-36: Solvents: Alcohols and Other Solvents
Characteristics
Acetone
Methylene chloride
1.3-Butanediol
Butyne-1,4- Glycol
diol ethers
Degradation lag time



Transport rate summary
Highly mobile in soil.
Highly mobile in soil;
adsorbs strongly to
peat moss, less
strongly to clay,
slightly to dolomite
sandstone, and not at
all to sand.
Highly mobile in
soil.

Mixture effects




Additional notes




Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-39
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-37: Plasticizers and Other Miscellaneous Substances
Characteristics
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Dioxane
3,5,5-
T rimethylhexanoic
Acid
CASRN
84-74-2
117-81-7
123-91-1
3302-10-1
Formula
C16H22O4
C24H38O4
C4H802
C9H1SO2
Water solubility, g/L
0.013
Less than 0.01% in
water
Miscible with water

Log Kqw
4.9
7.6
-0.27

Log Koc




Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
4.5xl0~6
1.3xlO"7
4.8xl0"6

Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
2.01xl0"5
7.23xl0"8
38.1

Environmental
partitioning summary
Expected to volatilize
from moist soil
surfaces but not dry
soil surfaces. Will
adsorb to suspended
solids and sediment in
water and is expected
to volatilize from water
surfaces. It has a low
bioconcentration
potential. Exists as
both a vapor and
particulate in the
atmosphere.
Not expected to
volatilize from soil
surfaces. Expected to
adsorb to suspended
solids and sediments
in water and
volatilize from water
surfaces. Will exist
as both a vapor and
particulate in the
atmosphere.
Expected to
volatilize from
moist and possibly
dry soil surfaces.
Not expected to
adsorb to suspended
solids and
sediments. It is
expected to
volatilize from
water surfaces.
Exists solely as a
vapor in the
atmosphere.

Half-lives
The half-life for
hydroxyl radical
degradation in air is
estimated to be 42
hours. Particulates may
be removed by wet and
dry deposition.
An aerobic biodegra-
dation half-life of 60
to 70 hours is expec-
ted in groundwater.
The half-life for
hydroxyl radical
degradation in air is
estimated to be about
18 hours. Particulates
may be removed by
wet and dry
deposition.
Observed biological
half-lives for bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate
under aerobic condi-
tions are as follows:
pure culture
(Penicillium
lilacum), 30 days;
river water, 4.5
weeks; hydrosoil, 14
days; activated
sludge, 17 days; and
soil, 31 to 98 days.
The half-life for
hydroxyl radical
degradation in air is
estimated to be 35
hours.

A-40
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-37: Plasticizers and Other Miscellaneous Substances
Characteristics
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Dioxane
3,5,5-
T rimethylhexanoic
Acid
Degradation summary
Aerobic and anaerobic
biodegradation. Will
hydrolyze in the
enviromnent. Degraded
in the atmosphere by
reaction with hydroxyl
radicals.
Hydrolysis is not an
important
degradation pathway.
Rapid biodegradation
will occur under
aerobic conditions in
aquatic
enviromnents.
Some biodegradation
may occur in soils.
Degraded in the
atmosphere by
hydroxyl radicals.
Considered
recalcitrant/
resistant to
biodegradation.
Degraded by
hydroxyl radicals in
the atmosphere.

Degradation lag time




Transport rate summary
Low mobility in soil.
Immobile in soil.
Very high mobility
in soil.

Mixture effects




Additional notes


A contaminant of
technical grade
ethylene glycol, and
is an animal
carcinogen

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
Chemfate Database (2008).
Sills and Blakeslee (1992).
A-41
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-38: Degradation Products
Characteristics
Methane
Acet aldehyde
Nitrous
acids
Ethanol
Nitrosamines
CASRN
74-82-8
75-07-0
7782-77-6
64-17-5
Category
Formula
ch4
C2H40
HN02
c2h6o
R!N(-R2)-N=0
Water solubility, g/L
0.022
1,000

Miscible

Log Kqw
1.09
-0.17

-0.31

Log Kqc





Henry's Law constant
(atm-m3/mole)
0.66
6.67xl0"5

5xl0"6

Vapor pressure (mm
Hg)
4.66xl05
902

59.3

Environmental
partitioning summary
Volatilization from moist soil
surfaces is an important process.
Not expected to adsorb to
suspended solids and sediments.
Volatilization from water surfaces
is a dominant fate process in
aqueous systems.
Volatilization from moist
soil surfaces is expected to
be an important fate
process; some volatilization
may occur from dry soil
surfaces.
Not expected to adsorb to
suspended solids and
sediments. Volatilization
from water is expected.
In the atmosphere, exists as
a gas under ambient
conditions.

Volatilization from moist soil
surfaces is an important fate
process; volatilization from
dry soil may occur.
Volatilization occurs from
water surfaces; ethanol does
not adsorb to suspended
solids and sediment. It is
unlikely to be persistent in
aquatic enviromnents.
Exists solely as a vapor in the
atmosphere.

Half-lives
Volatilization half-lives for a
model river and model lake are
both 2 hours.
The biodegradation half-life of
methane was estimated to range
from 70 days to infinity.
The half-life for the hydroxyl
radical reaction in air is estimated
to be about 6 years.
Volatilization half-lives for
a model river and model
lake are 6.5 hrs and 5.3
days, respectively.
The half-life for
atmospheric reaction with
hydroxyl radicals is
estimated to be 24 hrs.
The half-life in the
atmosphere due to
photolysis is reported as 8.4
hours and 16 hours.

Volatilization half-lives for a
model river and model lake
are 3 and 39 days,
respectively.
The half-life for the hydroxyl
radical reaction in air is
estimated to be 5 days.

A-42
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-38: Degradation Products
Characteristics
Methane
Acet aldehyde
Nitrous
acids
Ethanol
Nitrosamines
Degradation summary
Aerobic degradation is an
important mechanism in moist
soils.
Rapidlybiodegrades in the
enviromnent under aerobic
and anaerobic conditions.
Degraded in the atmosphere
by hydroxyl radicals and
photolysis.

Aerobic and anaerobic
biodegradation are important
fate processes.
Degraded in the atmosphere
by photochemically-produced
hydroxyl radicals.

Degradation lag time





Transport rate
summary
High mobility in soil.
Very highly mobile in soil.

Very high mobility in soil.

Mixture effects





Additional notes





Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-43
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-39: Emulsifiers and Other Miscellaneous Substances
Characteristics
Propanoic acid
Hexanoic acid
Butanoic acid
Polyamines
Chloroform
CASRN
79-09-4
142-62-1
107-92-6
Category
67-66-3
Formula
C3H6O2
C6H12O2
C4H8O2

CHCb
Water solubility, g/L
1,000
10.3
60.0

7.710
Log K0w
0.33
1.92
0.79

1.97
Log Kqc





Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
4.45x10
7.58xl0"7
5.35xl0"7

3.67xl0"3
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
3.53
0.0435
1.65

197
Environmental partitioning
summary
These compounds exist as anions in the soil, making them highly
mobile. They do not readily volatilize from most soils and may
volatilize from dry soils (especially hexanoic acid and Butanoic
acid).
In aquatic enviromnents these compounds will exist as anions and
will not adsorb to suspended solids and sediments. Volatilization
from water surfaces is not an important fate process.
These compounds exist as vapors in the atmosphere.

Volatilization from moist soil
surfaces is expected to be an
important fate process; volatilization
from dry soil surfaces may occur.
Not expected to adsorb to suspended
solids and sediment in water.
Volatilization from water surfaces
will occur.
Exists as a vapor in the atmosphere
and is degraded by hydroxyl
radicals.
Half-lives
The half-life for the
hydroxyl radical
reaction in air is
estimated to be 13
days.
Anaerobic
degradation in
groundwater occurs
with a half life of
approximately 21
days.
The half-life for the
hydroxyl radical
reaction in air is
estimated to be 3
days.
The half-life for the
hydroxyl radical
reaction in air is
estimated to be 7 days.

Chloroform was found to have a
half-life of 0.3 days when applied 1
cm deep into soil and 1.4 days when
applied 10 cm deep.
Volatilization half-lives for a model
river and model lake are 1.3 lirs and
4.4 days, respectively.
The half-life for the hydroxyl radical
reaction in air is estimated to be 151
days.
A-44
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-39: Emulsifiers and Other Miscellaneous Substances
Characteristics
Propanoic acid
Hexanoic acid
Butanoic acid
Polyamines
Chloroform
Degradation summary
These compounds are readily biodegradable under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. Anaerobic degradation occurs with
methanogenesis.
Atmospheric degradation occurs via reaction with photochemically-
produced hydroxy 1 radicals.

Chloroform is biodegradeable
anaerobically by methanotrophic
bacteria.
Degradation lag time



Transport rate summary
Very high mobility in soil.

Moderate mobility in soil. Poorly
retained by aquifer material.
Mixture effects





Additional notes





Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-45
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components
CASRN
Chemical Name
Study Species
Concentration Type
Concentration
(mg/L)
102-71-6
Triethanolamine
Fathead minnow
LC50 (96 hr)
11,800
107-19-7
Propargyl alcohol
Fathead minnow
LC50 (96 hr)
1.53
107-21-1
Ethylene glycol
Rainbow trout
LC50 (96 hr)
>18,500
Fathead minnow
NOEC (growth, 7 day)
15,380
Waterflea-
Ceriodaphnia dubia
NOEC (reproduction, 7 day)
3,469
Green algae
EC50 (96 hr)
7,900
Duckweed
LOEC (96 hr, frond growth)
10,000
110-65-6
Butyne-l,4-diol
Fathead minnow
LC50 (96 hr)
53.6
111-42-2
Diethanolamine
Fathead minnow
LC50 (96 hr)
4,710
111-46-6
Diethylene glycol
Fathead minnow
LC50 (96 hr)
75,200
112-27-6
Triethylene glycol
Fathead minnow
LC50 (96 hr)
77,400
112-53-8
1-dodecanol
Algae
LC50
0.97
Fathead minnow
LC50 (96 hr)
1.01
Harpacticoid
LC50
0.9
Northern leopard frog -
Rana pipiens
LC50
0.88
115-77-5
Pentaerythritol
Waterflea-Daphnia
magna
EC50 (24 hr)
38,900
127-08-2
Potassium acetate
Fathead minnow
r
0
0
>500
LCs, (7 day)
>1,500
Rainbow trout
LC50 (96 hr)
>2,100
Waterflea
LC50 (48 hr)
>3,000
127-09-3
Sodium acetate
Fathead minnow
LC50 (48 hr)
2,750
LC50 (120 hr)
13,330
Waterflea
LC50 (48 hr)
2,400
1310-58-3
Potassium hydroxide
Guppy
LC50 (24 hr)
165
1310-73-2
Sodium hydroxide
Western mosquitofish
LC50 (96 hr)
125
136-85-6
Tolyltriazole
Bluegill
LC50
31
Waterflea
LC50
74
Microtox® (bacteria)
EC50 (5 min)
6
Microtox® (bacteria)
EC50 (15 min)
6
141-43-5
Monoethanolamine
Rainbow trout
LC50 (96 hr)
150
141-53-7
Sodium formate
Bluegill
LC50 (24 hr)
5,000
Waterflea
EC50 (24 hr)
4,800
EC50 (48 hr)
4,400
EC,;, (24 hr)
3,300
EC0 (48 hr)
3,200
Zebrafish
LC50 (96 hr)
100
A-46
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components
CASRN
Chemical Name
Study Species
Concentration Type
Concentration
(mg/L)
1934-21-0
FD&C Yellow #5
(constituents)
Fish (species not
specified)
LC50 (72 hr)
>1,000
25265-71-8
Dipropylene glycol
Goldfish
LC50 (24 hr)
>5,000
25322-68-3
Polyethylene glycol, m.w.
from 62 to 106
Rainbow trout
LC50 (96 hr)
>20,000
504-63-2
1.3 -Propylene glycol
Goldfish
LC50 (24 hr)
>5,000
56-81-5
Glycerol
Rainbow trout
LC50 (96 hr)
54
57-13-6
Urea
Guppy
LC50 (96 hr)
17,500
Fish-Barilius barna
LC50 (96 hr)
>9,100
Mozambique tilapia-
Tilapia moassambica
LC50 (96 hr)
22,500
Carp
LC50 (48 hr)
>10,000
Waterflea
EC50 (24 hr)
>10,000
Mosquito
LCso (4 hr)
60,000
Freshwater snail
LC50 (24 hr)
14,241-30,060
57-55-6
Propylene Glycol
Fathead minnow
LC50 (96 hr)
55,770
NOEC (growth, 7 day)
<11,530
Goldfish
LC50
5,000
Waterflea-Dtf/?/7/7/'tf
magna
LC50
8,000
Waterflea-
Ceriodaphnia dubia
NOEC (reproduction, 7 day)
13,020
62-56-6
Thiourea
Waterflea-Daphnia
magna
LC50 (48 hr)
9
7558-79-4
Disodium phosphate (aka
sodium hydrogen
phosphate)
Waterflea-Daphnia
magna
LC50 (48 hr)
3,580
7631-99-4
Sodium nitrate
Rainbow trout
LC50 (96 hr)
1,658
7664-41-7
Ammonia
Fathead minnow
LCso (96 hr)
0.73-8.2
Goldfish
LC50 (24-96 hr)
2-2.5
Rainbow trout
LC50 (24 hr)
0.068-3.58
Waterflea
LC50 (48 hr)
187-189
Various
EPA National
Recommended Water
Quality Criteria
Temp., life-stage,
time-dependent.
7778-53-2
Potassium phosphate
Western mosquitofish
LC50 (96 hr)
750
79-10-7
Acrylic acid
Green algae
EC50 (96 hr)
0.17
EC3 (7 day)
18
Waterflea
EC50 (24 hr, immobilization)
765
Rainbow trout
NOEC (96 hr)
6.3
95-14-7
Benzotriazole
Microtox ® (bacteria)
EC50 (5 min)
41
EC50 (15 min)
42
97-64-3
Ethyl lactate
Zebrafish
LC50 (96 hr)
320
(25154-52-3)
Nonylphenol
Fish
LC50
0.17-1.4
Invertebrates
LC50
0.17-1.4
A-47
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components
CASRN
Chemical Name
Study Species
Concentration Type
Concentration
(mg/L)


Waterflea-Dtf/?/7/7/'tf
magna
Life-Cycle Chronic Value
0.02262
Fathead minnow
Early Life Stage Chronic
Value
0.01018
(Multiple)
Nonylphenol ethoxylate
Fathead minnow
LC50
3.75
Other fishes
LC50
4.7-29.2
Calanoid copepod
LC50
2.8
Polychaete worm
LC50
3.78
(Multiple)
Octylphenol
Fish
LC50
0.17-1.4
Invertebrates
LC50
0.02-3
(Multiple)
Octylphenol ethoxylate
Algae
LC50
0.027-2.5
Rainbow trout
LC50
7.2
Polychaete worm
LC50
7.1
(Multiple)
Alcohol ethoxylates
Bluegill
EC10 (C9-11E06)
3.882
Fathead minnow (egg,
juvenile)
NOEC (C9-11E06,
reproduction)
0.730
Green algae
EC10 (C12E2, growth)
0.030
Waterflea-Dtf/?/7/7/'tf
magna
EC10 (C14-15E07)
0.255
(Unknown)
Sodium
Ionic sodium can cause ion imbalance in aquatic organisms.
(Unknown)
Potassium
Ionic potassium can cause ion imbalance in aquatic organisms.
(Unknown)
Xanthan Gum
Rainbow trout
LC50 (96 lir)
420
(Unknown)
Polyacrylic Acid
Bluegill
LC50 (96 lir)
1,290
Sources: EPA (2000); Environment Canada (2008a); EPA (2005); Environment Canada (2001); IPCS (1997).
A-48
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-41: Human Health Effects of Airport Deicing Product Components as Reported in IRIS, EPA NRWQC, EPA Drinking Water
MCLs, and RSEI
CASRN
Pollutant Name
EPA NRWQC Values
EPA Drinking
Water MCL
RID
RfC
Oral Slope
Factor
Inhalation
Unit Risk
Drinking Water Slope
Factor
Water &
Organism
(Hg/L)
Organism
only
(Hg/L)
(mg/L)
(mg/kg/
day)
(mg/m1)
(mg/kg-day)1
(Hg/ni3)1
(Hg/L)"1
100-41-4
Ethylbenzene
530
2,100
0.7
0.1
1



107-19-7
Propargyl alcohol



0.002




107-21-1
Ethylene glycol



2
0.4



108-88-3
Toluene
1,300
15,000
1
0.08
5



111-42-2
Diethanolamine



0.0014
0.003



117-81-7
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
1.2
2.2
0.006
0.02
0.07


4xl0"7
123-91-1
Dioxane



0.1
3
0.011
0.0077
3.1xlO"7
62-56-6
Thiourea





1


75-07-0
Acetaldehyde




0.009

0.0022

75-21-8
Ethylene oxide




0.03
0.222
0.088

7664-41-7
Ammonia




0.1



84-74-2
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
2,000
4,500

0.1




Sources: EPA (2006b); EPA (2007); EPA (20086); EPA (2008e).
A-49
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-42: Acetate
	Fate and Transport	
CASRN	No CASRN
Formula	C2H3O2
Acetates are not expected to volatilize. They are quite soluble in water.
Environmental	Acetate should rapidly biodegrade under aerobic conditions in surface water,
partitioning summary	groundwater, and soil.
Degradation products	Acetate degradation produces bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and water.	
Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with
Transport rate summary	soils/sediments. May be very site-specific.	
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL	
LOAEL	
Exposure Routes	
Target Organs	
Symptoms	
	Ecological Effects	
COD (g per 100 lbs)	11.850-15.500 (in various compounds)	
In the aquatic enviromnent, acetate may lower dissolved oxygen levels as it derades because of its COD content.
Acetate-containing pavement deicers, including potassium acetate and sodium acetate, may be toxic at sufficiently
high concentrations. Specific toxicity values range from a 48-hour LC50 of 2,400 mg/L for the waterflea to a 120-
hour LC50 of 13,330 mg/L for the fathead minnow (Pimephalespromelas) (both for sodium acetate).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-50
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-43: Alcohol Ethoxylates
Fate and Transport
CASRN
64-17-5
Formula
CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)yOH
Log Koc
In general, log Kd is a better predictor of behavior than Kow for these
substances3. Log Kd, as with the other physicochemical parameters, varies by
ethoxymer. The formula below, as given by Belanger et al. (2006) permits the
calculation of an estimated log Kd.
log Kd = 0.331 * (alkyl chain length) - 0.009 * (ethoxylate chain length) -
1.126
Environmental partitioning
summary
Sorption may be important, and is likely to vary by ethoxymer.
Degradation summary
Aerobic degradation may be rapid.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL
LD50 (rat)
Exposure Routes
Inhalation, ingestion skin and/or eye contact
Target Organs
Eyes, skin, respiratory system, central nervous system, liver, blood,
reproductive system
Symptoms
Irritation to eyes, skin, nose; headache, drowsiness, lassitude (weakness,
exhaustion), narcosis; cough; liver damage; anemia; reproductive effects,
teratogenic effects, gastrointestinal irritation
Ecological Effects
Alcohol ethoxylates have toxicity levels similar to those of nonylphenol ethoxylates and octylphenol ethoxylates.
Alcohol ethoxylate degradation by-products are less toxic and less persistent than those of nonylphenol ethoxylates
and octylphenol ethoxylates. Alcohol ethoxylate toxicity values range from an ECi0 (duration unspecified) of 0.030
mg/L for growth effects in green algae to an ECi0 (duration unspecified) of 3.882 mg/L in the bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-51
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-44: Dyes
Fate and Transport
Eosin orange, tetrabromofluorescein
17372-87-1
FD&C blue #1, alphazurine

3844-45-9
FD&C yellow #5, tartrazine

1934-21-0
Malonyl green, C.I. Pigment Yellow

34

Trade name
Shilling green

Trade name
See Table A-32 and Table A-33 in Appendix A
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Exposure Routes

Ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact
Target Organs

Bladder, stomach, kidneys, brain, mouth, esophagus, liver, gallbladder, bile


duct, pancreas
Symptoms

Coughing, abdominal pain, pain and redness of the eyes, various cancers
Ecological Effects
Ecological toxicity information for many dyes used in deicing products is unavailable. Available data on dye
toxicity indicates a wide variability in toxicity levels. The most toxic component of FD&C Yellow #5 is toxic at
concentrations of 200 mg/L to fish. Toxicity values for eosin orange range from 620 mg/L to 2,200 mg/L for fish.
C.I. Pigment Yellow 34 may have high toxicity due to chromate and lead components, but no studies have yet
quantified this toxicity level.	
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-52
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-45: Ethylene Glycol
Fate and Transport
CASRN
107-21-1
Formula
C2H6O2
Water solubility, g/L
Freely soluble
Log KoW
-1.36
Log Kqc
1 (Koc)
Henry's Law constant (atm-m3/mole) 6.00x108
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
0.092
Environmental partitioning
summary
Volatilization is not expected to be an important pathway for ethylene
glycol. Very high mobility is expected for ethylene glycol in soil, sediment,
and water. Experimentally determined adsorption of ethylene glycol to four
soils (two clay, two sandy clay) ranged from 0-0.5%. Tracer experiments
have shown that ethylene glycol moves through soil with water.
Half-lives
Atmospheric half-life: 50 h at 25° C.
Degradation summary
Very rapid degradation rates in soil, sediment, and water.
Soils: 90 to 100% degradation of ethylene glycol was observed in various
field soils in 2-12 days (temperatures not known); ethylene glycol in aircraft
deicing or anti-icing fluid formulation was completely degraded in runway-
side soils within 29 days at 8° C.
Water: Hydrolysis and photolysis are not expected to be significant.
Ethylene glycol in river water degraded completely in three days at 20° C
and in 5 to 14 days at 8° C. Aerobic degradation of ethylene glycol may be
essentially complete in less than one to four days under optimal conditions
in water or treatment systems, but the impact of the full theoretical
biological oxygen demand may not be observed for several weeks.
Degradation lag time
With unacclimated microbial communities there is often a lag of several
days before glycol degradation begins.
Transport rate summary
Expected to have very high mobility in soil, sediment, and water.
Mixture effects
Triazoles decrease the degradation rate of glycols. Low temperatures may
also greatly decrease the degradation rates of glycols.
Additional notes
Ethylene glycols are expected to share somewhat similar properties, except
for polyethylene glycols. Formulated polyethylene glycol products contain
different mixtures of polymers, and the properties of the products will vary
based on the size and shape of the polymers they contain. All of these
substances are expected to be rapidly degraded under aerobic and anaerobic
conditions.
A-5 3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-45: Ethylene Glycol
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit	Ceiling 50 ppm
MCL
NOAEL	
RfD	2 mg/kg*day	
Exposure Routes	Inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact	
Target Organs	Eyes, skin, respiratory system, central nervous system	
Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain,
lassitude (weakness, exhaustion); dizziness, stupor, convulsions, central
Symptoms	nervous system depression; skin sensitization	
	Ecological Effects	
Ethylene glycol has high COD content and can depress dissolved oxygen levels in aquatic environments. Ethylene
glycol is also acutely and chronically toxic to aquatic organisms at higher concentrations. Toxicity values range
from a 7-day NOEC for reproductive effects of 3,469 mg/L in the waterflea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) to a 96-hr LC50 of
greater than 18,500 mg/L in the rainbow trout (Oncorhvnchus mvkiss).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-54
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final	Appendix A
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Table A-46: Formate
	Fate and Transport	
CASRN	No CASRN
Formula	CH2O2
Environmental	Formates are not expected to volatilize. They are quite soluble in water, and may
partitioning summary	be expected to ionize freely. Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic
ions may adsorb or complex with soil or water constituents or remain dissolved
	in surface water or groundwater.	
Degradation summary	Formate is slowly hydrolyzed in water and can be anaerobically degraded by
	methanogens.	
Transport rate summary	Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soil and
	sediments. May be very site-specific.	
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL	
LOAEL	
Exposure Routes	
Target Organs	
Symptoms	
	Ecological Effects	
COD (g per 100 lbs)	4,300 (in sodium formate)	
Formates may impact the aquatic enviromnent due to their COD content. Formate-containing compounds used as
pavement deicers, including sodium formate and potassium formate, can be toxic at sufficient concentrations.
Known toxicity values range from a 96-hr LC50 of 100 mg/L for zebrafish (Dcmio rerio) to a 24-hr LC50 of 5,000
mg/L for bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-55
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-47: Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates
Fate and Transport

Nonylphenol
Nonylphenol Ethoxylates
CASRN
25154-52-3
9016-45-9
Formula

C9H19-C6H40(CH2CH20)nH3
Water solubility, g/L
5.43xl0"3
All are highly soluble in water, but
solubility varies by ethoxymer.
Log Kow
4.1-4.7

Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
1.09xl0"4

Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
3.4xl0"5

Environmental partitioning
summary
Not expected to volatilize. Likely to
partition to organic matter or minerals
in soil, but this tendency varies by
ethoxymer, and migration through the
soil has been observed. In water, as in
soil, may sorb to organic matter or
particulates.	
Although volatility is low, can
volatilize from water and result in
high atmospheric concentrations.
Unlikely to volatilize from soils.
Likely to partition to sediments and
mineral particles in water and soil but
can still leach through soils.	
Half-lives
3-26 days under ideal aerobic
conditions with acclimated microbial
community
2.4 hours to 0.74 days in water.
Photolytic half-life in upper layer of
surface water is 10-15 hours; in
deeper layers, it is much slower. In a
sediment mesocosm, a half-life of 66
days was observed.3	
Degradation summary
A biphasic degradation profile has
been observed in soils, with relatively
rapid initial degradation of 30-50% of
applied nonylphenol degrading in the
first several weeks, and the remainder
degrading with a half-life of
approximately 90 days3
Degradation varies by ethoxymer, and
tends to produce some recalcitrant
compounds
Transport rate summary
Can leach through soils.
Mixture effects
Surfactants can increase the solubility

and transport of less soluble

substances.
Additional notes
Specific physical properties vary by

ethoxymer.
A-56
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-47: Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL	10 mg/kg*day	
LOAEL	50 mg/kg*day
Exposure Routes	Inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact	
Target Organs	Upper respiratory system, kidneys, skin, eyes, digestive system	
Symptoms	Skin and eye irritation, tissue decay, swelling, mottled kidneys, lethargy,
coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, headache, nausea, diarrhea,
vomiting, sore throat, burning sensation, shortness of breath, labored
	breathing, abdominal pain, shock, collapse	
	Ecological Effects	
Nonylphenol ethoxylates are moderately toxic to aquatic life, but do not persist for long periods of time in water.
Available acute toxicity data indicate harmful effects to aquatic life in a range of 2.8 mg/L (LC50, duration unknown
for a calanoid copepod) to 29.2 mg/L for an unspecified species of fish.	
Nonylphenol, a degradation product of nonylphenol ethoxylates, is more toxic to aquatic organisms than
nonylphenol ethoxylates. It persists in the aquatic enviromnent and potentially bioaccumulates in aquatic organisms.
Toxicity values range from an "early life stage chronic value" for adverse impacts established by Enviromnent
Canada of 0.01 mg/L to an LC50 value from a study of unspecified fish species of 1.4 mg/L.	
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-57
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-48: Polyacrylic Acid
Fate and Transport
CASRN
79-10-7
Water solubility, g/L
lxlO3
Log Kow
0.35
Log KqC
1.63
Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
3.2xl0~7
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
3.97
Environmental partitioning
summary
Not expected to volatilize from water or moist soil. Slow volatilization from
dry soil is possible. Not expected to adsorb to soils or particulates; potential
for transport in soil is high.
Degradation
summary
Non-polymerized (monomelic) acrylic acid readily biodegrades both
aerobically and anaerobically; it reached 68% of its theoretical BOD in two
weeks using an activated sludge inoculum, and in a 42 day anaerobic
screening study using a sewage seed inoculum, 71% of acrylic acid was
degraded.
Biodegradability decreases with increasing number of polymerized units and
increasing formula molecular weight, dropping off sharply between MWs
700 and 1,000, and for polymers with more than seven units. It appears that
monomers and dimers of acrylic acid are completely biodegradable, but there
are indications polymers of three to seven units are incompletely
biodegraded.
Additional notes
May be contaminated by low-ppm levels of metals.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
TWA 2 ppm (6 mg/m3) [skin]
MCL
NOAEL
140mg/kg/day
LOAEL
15 mg/m3
Exposure Routes
Inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact
Target Organs
Eyes, skin, respiratory system
Symptoms
Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; eye, skin burns; skin sensitization; in
animals: lung, liver, kidney injury
Ecological Effects
Acrylic acid toxicity values range from a 96-hour EC50 of 0.17 mg/L for green algae to a 24-hour EC50 for
immobilization effects in the waterflea of 765 mg/L. A 7-day EC3 for chronic effects in green algae was measured
as 0.17 mg/L.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-5 8
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-49: Potassium
Fate and Transport
CASRN
No CASRN
Environmental
partitioning summary
Potassium is present in the airport pavement deicers potassium acetate and
potassium formate. These materials are not expected to volatilize. These
materials are quite soluble in water and can be expected to ionize freely.
Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb or complex
with soil or water constituents or remain dissolved in surface water or
groundwater.
Degradation products
Potassium is liberated from potassium acetate and potassium formate through
ionization.
Transport rate summary
Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils and
sediments. May be very site-specific.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
4,700 mg/day
MCL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Exposure Routes
Ingestion
Target Organs
Circulatory system, kidneys, central nervous system
Symptoms
Listlessness, fatigue, gas pains, constipation, insomnia, low blood sugar,
weak muscles and a slow, irregular pulse
Ecological Effects
Potassium can affect aquatic ecosystems by creating ion imbalances in surface waters and aquatic organisms.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-59
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-50: Propylene Glycol
Fate and Transport
CASRN
57-55-6
Formula
C3H8O2
Water solubility, g/L
Freely soluble
Log KoW
-0.92
Log Koc
0.90
Henry's Law constant (atm-
m3/mole)
1.3xl0"8
Vapor pressure (mm Hg)
0.13
Environmental partitioning
summary
Very high mobility in soils, sediments, and water. Not expected to volatilize
readily.
Degradation summary
Propylene glycol was not observed to degrade at 4°C and only degraded at
20°C in soil that was rich in organic matter.
Degradation lag time
For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of several days
before glycol degradation begins.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL
LD50 (rat)
30,000 mg/kg
Exposure Routes
Ingestion, injection
Target Organs
Skin water balance, circulatory system, kidneys
Symptoms
Hyperosmolality, lactic acidosis (the build-up of lactic acid in the body),
intravascular hemolysis (the rupturing of blood vessels), central nervous
system depression, seizures, coma, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and
renal failure (all as associated with burn creams).
Ecological Effects
Propylene glycol has a high COD content and can depress dissolved oxygen levels in aquatic environments.
Propylene glycol exhibits acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic life only at higher concentrations. Toxicity values
range from an LC50 (time unknown) of 5,000 mg/L in goldfish (Carassius gibelio) to a 96-hr LC50 of 55,770 mg/L
in fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas).
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-60
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-51: Sodium
Fate and Transport
CASRN
No CASRN
Environmental
Sodium is present in the airport pavement deicers sodium acetate and sodium
partitioning summary
formate. These materials are not expected to volatilize. These materials are
quite soluble in water and can be expected to ionize freely. Depending on site-
specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb or complex with soil or water
constituents or remain dissolved in surface water or groundwater.
Degradation products
Sodium is liberated from sodium acetate and sodium formate through
ionization.
Transport rate summary
Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils and
sediments. May be very site-specific.
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
2,300 mg/day
MCL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Exposure Routes
Ingestion, possibly inhalation
Target Organs
Circulatory system, mineral balances
Symptoms
High blood pressure, loss of calcium
Ecological Effects
Sodium can affect aquatic ecosystems by creating ion imbalances in surface waters and aquatic organisms.
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-61
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-52: Tolyltriazoles, Benzotriazoles, Methyl-substituted Benzotriazole
	Fate and Transport	
CASRN	No CASRN
Formula	C7H7N3 (tolyltriazole)	
Environmental partitioning
summary	Mobile in groundwater.	
Degradation summary	Unlikely to be readily degradable.	
Mixture effects	Even at very low concentrations, triazoles have been observed to sharply
	decrease the biodegradability of other components in mixtures.	
Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
MCL
NOAEL	
LD50 (rat)	600-675 mg/kg	
Exposure Routes	
Target Organs	
Symptoms	
	Ecological Effects	
Tolyltriazole, a methylated benzotriazole used in aircraft deicing fluid formulations, exhibits moderate acute
toxicity in aquatic organisms. Toxicity values range from a 5-minute Microtox® assay value of 6 mg/L for effects
on microbial organisms to an LC50 (duration unspecified) of 74 mg/L in the waterflea.	
Other benzotriazoles have not been studied as thoroughly as tolyltriazole. Microtox® studies with 5- and 15-minute
durations have established values of 41 and 42 mg/L. respectively, for effects on microbial organisms.	
Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-62
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix A
Table A-53: Urea and Ammonia
Fate and Transport
Urea
Ammonia
CASRN
57-13-6

7664-41-7
Formula
ch4n2o

H3N
Water solubility, g/L
545

"31%"
Log Kow
-2.11

0.23
Log Koc
0.903


Henry's Law constant (atm-


1.61xl0"5
m3/mole)



Human Health Effects
Exposure Limit
TWA 25 ppm (18 mg/m3) ST 35 ppm (27 mg/m3)
MCL
NOAEL
LOAEL
Exposure Routes
Inhalation, ingestion (solution), skin and/or eye contact (solution/liquid)
Target Organs
Eyes, skin, respiratory system


Irritation to eyes, nose, throat; dyspnea (breathing difficulty), wheezing, chest

pain; pulmonary edema; pink frothy sputum; skin burns, vesiculation; liquid:
Symptoms
frostbite


Ecological Effects
Ammonia is a common by-product of urea degradation and is highly toxic to some aquatic organisms. EPA has
established National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for ammonia which vary with pH, temperature, and
aquatic organism life stage. LC5i;
values for ammonia range from a 24-hr value for rainbow trout (Oncorhvnchus
mvkiss) of 0.068 mg/L to a 48-hr LC50 for the waterflea of 189 mg/L.

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
A-63
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix B
Appendix B: Surveyed Airports within Scope for EPA's Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing
Operations
Table B-1: Surved Airports within Scope for EPA's Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations
Annual Non-
Confirmed propeller-driven


Airport

Deicing
aircraft
SOFP
Airport Name
Airport City
State
Service Level
Operations1
Departures2
Days3
Albany International
Albany
NY
Small Hub
Y
25,156
36
Albuquerque International Sunport
Albuquerque
NM
Medium Hub
Y
40,969
3
Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field
Aspen
CO
Non-Hub
Y
2,495
53.5
Austin Straubel International
Green Bay
WI
Small Hub
Y
9,706
31
Austin-Bergstrom International
Austin
TX
Medium Hub
Y
49,601
4
Baltimore-Washington International
Baltimore
MD
Large Hub
Y
114,673
12
Bethel
Bethel
AK
Non-Hub
Y
1,287
55
Birmingham International
Birmingham
AL
Small Hub
Y
29,510
1.5
Bismarck Muni
Bismarck
ND
Non-Hub
Y
3,139
36
Bob Hope
Burbank
CA
Medium Hub
Y
30,411
0
Boeing Field/King County International
Seattle
WA
Non-Hub
Y
3,204
4
Boise Air Terminal/Go wen Fid
Boise
ID
Small Hub
Y
20,888
16
Bradley International
Windsor Locks
CT
Medium Hub
Y
46,878
31
Buffalo Niagara International
Buffalo
NY
Medium Hub
Y
36,429
48.5
Central Wisconsin
Mosinee
WI
Non-Hub
Y
2,781
36
Charlotte/Douglas International
Charlotte
NC
Large Hub
Y
183,722
5.5
Cherry Capital
Traverse City
MI
Non-Hub
Y
5,369
68.5
Chicago Midway International
Chicago
IL
Large Hub
Y
93,123
26
Chicago O'Hare International
Chicago
IL
Large Hub
Y
475,988
26
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International
Covington
KY
Large Hub
Y
236,650
17
City of Colorado Springs Municipal
Colorado Springs
CO
Small Hub
Y
19,526
16
Cleveland-Hopkins International
Cleveland
OH
Medium Hub
Y
104,136
36
Dallas Love Field
Dallas
TX
Medium Hub
Y
44,023
8
Dallas/Fort Worth International
Dallas-Fort Worth
TX
Large Hub
Y
345,029
8
Denver International
Denver
CO
Large Hub
Y
222,922
26
Des Moines International
Des Moines
IA
Small Hub
Y
21,871
31
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County
Detroit
MI
Large Hub
Y
224,328
31
El Paso International
El Paso
TX
Small Hub
Y
26,200
8
Eppley Airfield
Omaha
NE
Medium Hub
Y
31,175
26
B-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix B
Table B-1: Surved Airports within Scope for EPA's Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations





Annual Non-





Confirmed
propeller-driven

Airport Name
Airport City
Airport
State
Service Level
Deicing
Operations1
aircraft
Departures2
SOFP
Days3
Evansville Regional
Evansville
IN
Non-Hub
Y
7,404
12
Fairbanks International
Fairbanks
AK
Small Hub
Y
6,094
89
Fort Wayne International
Fort Wayne
IN
Non-Hub
Y
13,109
31
General Edward Lawrence Logan International
Boston
MA
Large Hub
Y
162,635
26
General Mitchell International
Milwaukee
WI
Medium Hub
Y
66,798
31
George Bush Intercontinental Arpt/Houston
Houston
TX
Large Hub
Y
244,359
4
Gerald R. Ford International
Grand Rapids
MI
Small Hub
Y
20,854
48.5
Glacier Park International
Kalispell
MT
Non-Hub
Y
3,820
36
Greater Rochester International
Rochester
NY
Small Hub
Y
29,129
43.5
Gulfport-Biloxi International
Gulfport
MS
Small Hub
Y
6,805
4
Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International
Atlanta
GA
Large Hub
Y
454,832
1.5
Helena Regional
Helena
MT
Non-Hub
Y
2,839
14.5
Indianapolis International
Indianapolis
IN
Medium Hub
Y
76,351
21
Jackson Hole
Jackson
WY
Non-Hub
Y
1,687
49.5
Jacksonville International
Jacksonville
FL
Medium Hub
Y
36,849
1.5
James M Cox Dayton International
Dayton
OH
Small Hub
Y
34,024
26
John F Kennedy International
New York
NY
Large Hub
Y
162,809
12
John Wayne Airport-Orange County
Santa Ana
CA
Medium Hub
Y
49,807
0
Juneau International
Juneau
AK
Small Hub
Y
5,035
21
Kansas City International
Kansas City
MO
Medium Hub
Y
73,758
27
Ketchikan
Ketchikan
AK
Non-Hub
4
2,815
55
La Guardia
New York
NY
Large Hub
Y
166,496
12
Lafayette Regional
Lafayette
LA
Non-Hub
Y
4,205
4
Lambert-St Louis International
St Louis
MO
Large Hub
Y
106,572
17
Long Island Mac Arthur
Islip
NY
Small Hub
Y
12,210
16
Louis Armstrong New Orleans International
New Orleans
LA
Medium Hub
Y
59,063
4
Louisville International-Standiford Field
Louisville
KY
Medium Hub
Y
64,780
12
Lovell Field
Chattanooga
TN
Non-Hub
Y
6,156
1.5
Manchester
Manchester
NH
Medium Hub
Y
31,195
36
Mc Carran International
Las Vegas
NV
Large Hub
Y
187,365
0
Memphis International
Memphis
TN
Medium Hub
Y
152,698
8
Metropolitan Oakland International
Oakland
CA
Large Hub
Y
85,964
0
Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-Chamberlain
Minneapolis
MN
Large Hub
Y
219,293
41
Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field)
Montgomery
AL
Non-Hub
Y
4,266
0

B-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix B
Table B-1: Surved Airports within Scope for EPA's Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations
Annual Non-
Confirmed propeller-driven


Airport

Deicing
aircraft
SOFP
Airport Name
Airport City
State
Service Level
Operations1
Departures2
Days3
Nashville International
Nashville
TN
Medium Hub
Y
74,189
5.5
Newark Liberty International
Newark
NJ
Large Hub
Y
207,698
16
Nome
Nome
AK
Non-Hub
Y
1,324
55
Norfolk International
Norfolk
VA
Medium Hub
Y
32,957
5.5
Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International
San Jose
CA
Medium Hub
Y
64,101
0
Northwest Arkansas Regional
Fayetteville/Springdale
AR
Small Hub
Y
16,783
14.5
Ontario International
Ontario
CA
Medium Hub
Y
43,364
0
Outagamie County Regional
Appleton
WI
Non-Hub
Y
8,842
36
Palm Beach International
West Palm Beach
FL
Medium Hub
Y
31,169
0
Pensacola Regional
Pensacola
FL
Small Hub
Y
14,164
1.5
Philadelphia International
Philadelphia
PA
Large Hub
Y
205,128
12
Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Phoenix
AZ
Large Hub
Y
220,200
0
Piedmont Triad International
Greensboro
NC
Small Hub
Y
34,001
14.5
Pittsburgh International
Pittsburgh
PA
Large Hub
Y
89,337
31
Port Columbus International
Columbus
OH
Medium Hub
Y
57,358
26
Portland International
Portland
OR
Medium Hub
Y
61,238
4
Raleigh-Durham International
Raleigh/Durham
NC
Medium Hub
Y
83,276
9.5
Ralph Wien Memorial
Kotzebue
AK
Non-Hub
Y
1,274
55
Rapid City Regional
Rapid City
SD
Non-Hub
Y
3,659
21
Reno/Tahoe International
Reno
NV
Medium Hub
Y
31,378
9.5
Richmond International
Riclunond
VA
Small Hub
Y
33,089
12
Rickenbacker International
Columbus
OH
Non-Hub
Y
2,330
26
Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field
Roanoke
VA
Non-Hub
Y
7,245
16
Rochester International
Rochester
MN
Non-Hub
Y
4,990
46
Ronald Reagan Washington National
Washington
DC
Large Hub
Y
130,879
12
Sacramento International
Sacramento
CA
Medium Hub
Y
51,515
0
Salt Lake City International
Salt Lake City
UT
Large Hub
Y
140,566
14.5
San Antonio International
San Antonio
TX
Medium Hub
Y
46,181
4
San Diego International
San Diego
CA
Large Hub
Y
80,108
0
San Francisco International
San Francisco
CA
Large Hub
Y
137,328
0
Seattle-Tacoma International
Seattle
WA
Large Hub
Y
114,607
1.5
South Bend Regional
South Bend
IN
Small Hub
Y
8,562
48.5
Southwest Florida International
Fort Myers
FL
Medium Hub
Y
32,000
0
Spokane International
Spokane
WA
Small Hub
Y
16,034
31
B-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix B
Table B-1: Surved Airports within Scope for EPA's Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations
Annual Non-
Confirmed propeller-driven
Airport Name
Airport City
Airport
State
Service Level
Deicing
Operations1
aircraft
Departures2
SOFP
Days3
Stewart International
Newburgh
NY
Non-Hub
Y
6,314
26
Syracuse Hancock International
Syracuse
NY
Small Hub
Y
23,609
43.5
Tampa International
Tampa
FL
Large Hub
Y
85,166
0
Ted Stevens Anchorage International
Anchorage
AK
Medium Hub
Y
61,035
55
Theodore Francis Green State
Providence
RI
Medium Hub
Y
37,606
21
Toledo Express
Toledo
OH
Non-Hub
Y
10,559
36
Tucson International
Tucson
A Z
Medium Hub
Y
26,666
0
Washington Dulles International
Washington
DC
Large Hub
Y
225,552
17
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton
PA
Non-Hub
Y
4,789
26
Will Rogers World
Oklahoma City
OK
Small Hub
Y
29,664
14.5
William P Hobby
Houston
TX
Medium Hub
Y
57,448
4
Wilmington International
Wilmington
NC
Non-Hub
Y
6,330
4
Yeager
Charleston
wv
Non-Hub
Y
8,003
16
T	
Y =Airport stated in response to EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (EPA 2006c) that it conducts deicing operations.
2	"
Annual non-propeller-driven aircraft departures" derived from data from Federal Aviation Administration for the 2004/2005 winter deicing season
3	Snow or Freezing Precipitation (SOFP) days data is based on National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration data from 1971 - 1990.
4Ketchikan was sent an airport questionnaire but did not respond.	
B-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Appendix C: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Article
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
ols
ogs2
p-c 3
O 3 S
3 1
a
o
a -2
a y
S S
s
o
+* -w .a
s r
-2
"o
a>
JS
Airborne Airpark
1998
Hannah, James. 1998. De-Icing Chemicals for Planes
Killing Creek, Professor Says. Cleveland Plain Dealer,
June 7.
Lytle Creek
NH f^H
HH
F,0
HH ->.H wr w
H Od X
Airborne Airpark
2000
State of Ohio Enviromnental Protection Agency. 2000.
Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Miami
River Basin, 1998. OEPA Technical Report Number
MAS/1999-12-3. Columbus, OH.
Lytle Creek, Little Miami
River, Cowan Creek,
Indian Run
D
O
s
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
1993
Hartwell, S.I., D.M. Jordahl, E.B. May. 1993. Toxicity of Sawmill Creek, Muddy
Aircraft De-icer and Anti-icer Solutions to Aquatic Bridge Branch
Organisms. Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring
Division. CBRM-TX-93-1'

O
Co
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
1997
McDowell, A. Scott. 1997. Hayes, Seay, Mattern and
Mattern. Letter communication to Stephen Debreceny.
Patapsco Aquifer
D,B,N

DW
1995 Fisher, D.J., M.H. Knott, S.D. Turley, B.S. Turley, L.T. Kitten Branch of Stony
Yonkos and G.P. Ziegler. 1995. The Acute Whole	Run, Muddy Bridge
Effluent Toxicity of Storm Water from an International Branch of Sawmill Creek
Airport. Enviromnental Toxicology and Chemistry. 14(6):
1103-1111.
B.N O
Co
Baltimore Washington
International Airport
1997 Pelton, Tom. 1997. EPA Probing Allegation of BWI
Runoff; Polluting Chemicals Seeping Into Creek,
Enviromnentalists Say; Airport Cooperating; Public's
Health Is Not In Danger, According to State. Baltimore
	Sun. April 23.	
Sawmill Creek
Fo.Od X
1	B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients	4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
2	F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts	5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
3	H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
C-1
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Article
Year
&
Article
Waterbody Name
c5
QJ
K.
c
&
s
s
-C
o -ts
a
c
o
O £
Q fi
-
O s s fl 5 fl u s 3 .S
Baltimore Washington
1997
Pelton, Tom. 1997. De-Icing Fluid Used at BWI Fouls
Sawmill Creek

O
Fo,0, X
International Airport

Waters; MD.'s Pride in System Ignores Pollution Data
From Other Agencies; BWI is 'Economic Engine'; 11th-
Hour Clearance Gives Airport Time, $1.6 Million for
Drains. Baltimore Sun, August 9.



Co
Baltimore Washington
1997
McDowell, A.S. 1997. Sawmill Creek - Watershed
Sawmill Creek


DW,HFo,Od
International Airport

"Restoration" Project. Allwood Community Association
Site Inspection, March.




Baltimore Washington
1998
Pelton, Tom. 1998. BWI Violated Water Act, Group
Kitten Branch of Stony


Fo,Od X
International Airport

Claims; Enviromnentalists File Notice of Intent to Sue;
De-Icing Chemicals at Issue; Airport Maintains it Has
Tried to Keep Pollution Contained. Baltimore Sun,
January 8.
Run, Muddy Bridge
Branch of Sawmill Creek



Baltimore Washington
International Airport
2001
Ayres, E. 2001. Airports and cities: Can they coexist? Sanunnamed aquifer
Diego Earth Times, September.


DW
Bangor International
Airport
2003
New England Grassroots Enviromnent Fund. 2003.
Annual Report. Montpelier, Vermont.
Birch Stream


H
Bangor International
2006
State of Maine Department of Enviromnental Protection. Birch Stream
B
O

Airport

2006. 2006 Integrated Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment Report. Report
DEPLW0817.




Bradley International
Airport
2003
Fannington River Watershed Association. 2003. State of Rainbow Brook, Seymour
the Fannington River Watershed Report. August. Hollow
Brook
D


Bradley International
Airport
2004
State of Connecticut Department of Enviromnental
Protection. 2004. List of Connecticut waterbodies not
meeting water quality standards.
Rainbow Brook, Seymour
Hollow Brook
D
O

Buffalo Niagara
International Airport
1994
Dawson, Dick. 1994. Contaminant Testing Sought at
Ellicott Creek Amherst Councilwoman Fears Runoff of
De-icer Fluids from Airport. Buffalo News, May 11.
Ellicott Creek

O
Fo,0,
Co
1	B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients	4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
2	F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts	5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
3	H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
C-2
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Article
Year
&
Article
Waterbody Name
c5
QJ
K.
c
&
s
s
-C
o -ts
a
c
o
O £
Q fi
-
Os-TcSc e ^ .2 **
hH B H ^ hH Ph ^ O
Cliicago O'Hare
International Airport
1997 Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. 1997.
O'Hare Found to be Major Water Polluter. ARCO Flight
Tracks, May.
Des Planes River, ground
water, Bensenville Ditch,
Willow Creek, Crystal
Creek
F,0 H Fo,0,
Co
Cliicago O'Hare
International Airport
1997 Cowan, P.F. 1997. Water Pollution-Chicago International
Airport. Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc.,
	May 28.	
Des Planes River,
Bensenville Ditch, Willow
Creek. Crystal Creek	
F,0 H Od,Co
Cliicago O'Hare
International Airport
1998 Wortliington R. 1998. Group Claims O'Hare Fails to
	Report on De-Icing Toxins. Cliicago Tribune. January 9.
unnamed receiving waters
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport	
1992 Associated Press. 1992. Cincinnati Airport Cited by State.Elijah Creek
Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 8.
O
Od,Co X
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
2003 Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. 2003.
Comments from the Alliance of Residents Concerning
O'Hare, Inc. to the Federal Aviation Administration
regarding the Draft FAA Five-Year Strategic Plan "Flight
Gunpowder Creek,
Elijah's Creek
O
Od,Co X
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
2004
Kelly, B.R. and D. Klepal. 2004. Silent Streams. The
Cincinnati Enquirer, March 7.
Gunpowder and Elijah O
Creeks
Od,Co X
Cincinnati/Northern
2004
Sierra Club. 2004. Water Sentinels: Rescuing the river
Gunpowder Creek, O
Od,Co
Kentucky International
Airport

that wouldn't freeze. Annual Report.
Elijah's Creek

Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
2004
Klepal, Dan. 2004. Airport Pollution Provokes Ire:
Residents fault state for going easy on de-icing runoff.
The Cincinnati Enquirer, September 10.
Gunpowder and Elijah D
Creeks
Od,Co
Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport
2004
KPDES Permit # KY0082864. Kentucky Department for Elijahs Creek, Gunpowder
Enviromnental Protection. Expiration: July 31, 2007. Creek

1	B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients	4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
2	F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts	5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
3	H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
C-3
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
© =
- 
JS
Cincinnati/Northern
2006
Sierra Club. 2006. An Interview with Tim Guilfoile.
Gunpowder Creek
O


Kentucky International
Airport

August.




Cincinnati/Northern
Kentucky International
Airport

Impacts of Deicing Fluids on Elijahs and Gunpowder Elijahs Creek, Gunpowder D,B,N
Creeks, Boone County, Kentucky. Kentucky Department Creek
for Enviromnental Protection.
O

X
Cleveland Hopkins
2001
NPDES Permit # OHO 122068. Ohio Enviromnental
Rocky River, Abrams and
O

X G
International Airport

Protection Agency. Expiration: October 31, 2006.
Silver Creek



Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport
1991
Miller, Alan. 1991. De-Icing's Fatal Effect Not Plain.
Columbus Dispatch, January 6.
Rocky River



Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport
2001
Kueliner, John C. 2001. Airport ordered to reduce
discharge. The Plain Dealer, November 1.
Rocky River, Abram
Creek, Silver Creek
F
Od,Co
X
Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport
2001
Egan, D'arcy. 2001. Rocky River fishing in danger as
pollutants keep pouring in. The Plain Dealer, October 21.
Rocky River, Lake Erie
O
Od

Cleveland Hopkins
International Airport
2006
Richardson, David C. 2006. Deicing by Design:
Cleveland Gets a New Pad. Stonnwater. 7(7).
Abrams Creek, Rocky
River
F
Od
X
Dallas/Fort Worth
2006
Corsi, S.R., G.R. Harwell, S.W. Geis, andD. Bergman.
Trigg Lake and Big Bear
O


International Airport

2006. Impacts of aircraft deicer and anti-icer runoff on
receiving waters from Dallas/Fort Worth International
Airport, Texas, U.S.A. Environ Toxicol Chem.
25(ll):2890-2900
Creek



Denver International
1997
Scanlon, Bill. 1997. DIA Pollutes Creek / De-icer
Third Creek, Barr Lake
O
Od
s
Airport

Washing off Runways Kills Life in Stream That Flows
Toward Barr Lake Bird Sanctuary. Rocky Mountain
News, April 22.




Denver International
1997
Eddy, Mark. 1997. Airport Deicer Pollutes Creek. Denver Third Creek, Barr Lake D
0
Od,Co

Airport

Post, April 22.




Denver International
1997
Dafforn, Erik. 1997. 'Til Hill and Valley are Ringing.
unnamed creek



Airport

Wabash Magazine. Summer.




Denver International
2001
Ayres, E. 2001. Airports and cities: Can they coexist? SanBarrLake
0


Airport

Diego Earth Times, September.




B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
! F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
! H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
1 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
C-4
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges

Article


O £
a e
- .a
o -
S "K
ZJ y.
2 a.
-C
QJ
n
s
a
S
se 'fl as
"S « "S
a te a
Q£
fi
- .2
5 13
V)
-
o
pC
Airport Name
Year
Article
Waterbody Name
o s
ffl Z
£ £
s
S JS
>
o
Denver International
2005
Meyerhoff, R., N. Rowan, J. Kieler, J. Barrilleaux, R.
Second, Third and Box
D




s
Airport

Albrecht, and S. Morea. 2005. Development of Site-
Specific Dissolved Oxygen Standards in Surface Waters
at Denver International Airport. TMDL 2005 Specialty
Conference. Water Enviromnent Federation.
Elder Creeks






Des Moines International
1998
Flannery, William. 1998. Status on Recovery of Aircraft
Yeader Creek



Od,Co
X

Airport

Deicing Fluid Operations at the Airport. City Council
Communication 98-052. February 16.







Des Moines International
2004
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Total
Easter Lake
N





Airport

Maximum Daily Loads For Nutrients and Siltation: Easter








Lake, Polk County, Iowa.







Des Moines International
2005
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Total
Yeader Creek
B
O

Fo,0,
X
s
Airport

Maximum Daily Load For Priority Organics: Yeader
Creek, Polk County, Iowa.




Co


Detroit Metropolitan
1990
Askari, Emilia. 1990. State Probes Airport in Pollution
Detroit River






Wayne County Airport

Allegations. Detroit Free Press, August 30.







Detroit Metropolitan
2001
Enviromnental News Service. 2006. Wayne County
Detroit River
D


Od,Co
X

Wayne County Airport

Airport Admits De-Icing Chemical Discharge. June 14.







Detroit Metropolitan
Wayne County Airport
2006
Lochner, Paul. 2006. Wayne County Airport Authority
Pleads Guilty to Violation of Clean Water Act.
Department of Justice Press Release. June 8.
Frank and Poet Drain

F

Od,Co
X

General Mitchell
2001
Corsi, S.R., N.L. Booth, andD.W. Hall. 2001. Aircraft
Wilson Park Creek,
B
O




International Airport

and Runway Deicers at General Mitchell International
Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 1. Biochemical
Oxygen Demand and Dissolved Oxygen in Receiving
Streams. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20(7): 1474-1482
Kinnickinnic River






General Mitchell
2001
Corsi, S.R., D.W. Hall, and S.W. Geis. 2001. Aircraft and Wilson Park Creek,
N
O




International Airport

Runway Deicers at General Mitchell International
Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Toxicity of
Aircraft and Runway Deicers. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
20(7): 1483-1490.
Kinnickinnic River






1	B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients	4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
2	F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts	5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
3	H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
C-5
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Article
Year Article Waterbody Name
BOD, DO,
Nutrients1
Wildlife
Impacts2
Human Health
Impacts3
Aesthetic
Impacts4
Permit
Violations
Other5
General Mitchell
International Airport
2003 Cancilla, D.A., J.C. Baird, S. W. Geis, and S.R. Corsi. Wilson Park Creek,
2003. Studies of the Environmental Fate and Effect of Kinnickinnic River
Aircraft Deicing Fluids: Detection of 5-methyl-lH-
benzotraizole in the fathead minnow (Pimephales
promelas). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22(1): 134-140

F,0




General Mitchell
International Airport
2006 Sandler, Larry. 2006. Enviromnental group challenges Wilson Creek
airport's wastewater permit: Mitchell discharges too much
deicing fluid into creek, it says. Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel, January 25.



Co


Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport
2002 Hamrick, Dave. 2002. Officials unanimous: Our water is Flint River
safe. The Citizen, February 13.


H,DW
Od


Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta 2002 Hamrick, Dave. 2002. EPD: 'We blew it': State agency Flint River	DW
International Airport	took 4 days to respond to calls that deicing fluid had been
spilled into the Flint River; airport manager promises new
procedures will prevent future spills. The Citizen,
	February 13.	
Indianapolis International 1997 Stahl, J.R., T.P. Simon, and E.O. Edberg. 1997. A	White Lick Creek	O
Airport	Preliminary Appraisal of the Biological Integrity of the
East Fork White Lick Creek in the West Fork White
River Watershed Using Fish Community Assessment.
	IDEM/32/03/013/1997. December 12. 	
James M. Cox Dayton 1991 Miller, Alan. 1991. De-Icing's Fatal Effect Not Plain. Mill Creek	F
International Airport	Columbus Dispatch. January 6.	
James M. Cox Dayton 1995 State of Ohio Enviromnental Protection Agency. 1995. Mill Creek	B,N F,0
International Airport	Biological and Water Quality Study of Mill Creek:
Dayton International Airport, Miami and Montgomery
Counties, Ohio. OEPA Technical Report MAS/1995-2-2.
	Columbus. OH.	
James M. Cox Dayton 1998 Associated Press. 1998. Panel Settles De-Icing Suit with Mill Creek DW G
International Airport	Homeowners. Cleveland Plain Dealer. March 28.	
1	B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients	4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
2	F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts	5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
3	H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
C-6
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Article
Year
&
Article
Waterbody Name
c5
QJ
K.
c
&
s
s
-C
o -ts
a
c
o
O £
Q c
-
O s s fl 5 fl u s 3 .S ^
James M. Cox Dayton
International Airport
2001
State of Ohio Enviromnental Protection Agency. 2001. Mill Creek
Biological and Water Quality Study of the Stillwater
River Basin, 1999, Darke, Miami and Montgomery
Counties. OEPA Technical Report Number MAS/2001-
12-8. Columbus, OH
B,N
O

Kansas City International
Airport
2007
Missouri Department of Conservation. 2007. Platte River Todd Creek
Watershed: Water Quality and Use.


F

Lambert-St. Louis
International Airport
1995
Uhlenbrock, Tom. 1995. Up A Creek Runoff of De-icer Coldwater Creek
from Lamber Field Pits Airport Against U.S. St. Louis
Post Dispatch, February 5.


Od
Louisville International -
Standiford Field
2002
KPDES Permit # KY0092185. Kentucky Department for Northern Ditch, Fern
Enviromnental Protection. Expiration: December 31, Creek
2007.
D,N
F

Manchester Airport
2003
CAA News Channel. 2003. New Hampshire Brook to be Little Cohas Brook
Tested for Chemicals. The Union Leader and New
Hampshire Sunday News, January 27.


Fo,Od
Manchester Airport
2006
Kibbe, Cindy. Planes, trains and automobiles: Merrimack River
What are southern N.H.'s transportation options? NHBR
Daily, April 14.


Od
Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
2004
Larson, Catherine. 2004. Lower Minnesota River Model Minnesota River
Project Proposal. Proposal to Develop an Advanced
Water-Quality Model of the Minnesota River, Jordan to
the mouth, and Conduct River Monitoring and Studies to
Support the Model. January 15.
B

X
Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
2004
Mikkelson, Stephen. 2004. Water Quality Violations to Lower Minnesota River
Cost Metropolitan Airports Commission $69,076.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency News Release.
November 2.
D

X
1	B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients	4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
2	F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts	5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
3	H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
C-7
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Article
Year
Article Waterbody Name
BOD, DO,
Nutrients1
Wildlife
Impacts2
Human Health
Impacts3
Aesthetic
Impacts4
Permit
Violations
Other5
Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
2005
Enviromnental News Service. 2005. Minnesota Halts Jet Minnesota River, Snelling
Fuel Leaks, Spills at Twin Cities Airport. Enviromnental Lake, Mother Lake
News System. March 18.



Od,Co
X

Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
1993
Meersman, Tom. 1993. New Rules for Airport De-icers Minnesota River
Amount of Chemicals Flushed into River Will be
Reduced. Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 29.
D,B





Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
1993
Meersman, Tom. 1993. FAA-Mandated Plane De-Icing Minnesota River
Puts Minnesota River at Risk. Minneapolis Star Tribune,
March 10.






Minneapolis/St. Paul
International Airport
2001
Mills, Karren. 2001. Minneapolis airport saw big jump in Minnesota River
runoff from de-icer into Minnesota River. CAA News
Channel, May 19.




X

Newcastle International
Airport
1995
Turnbull, D.A. and J.R. Bevan. 1995. The Impact of Ouseburn River
Airport De-Icing on a River: The case of the Ouseburn,
Newcastle UponTyne. Environ. Pollut. 88:321-332.
B,N
O



S
Pease Air Force Base
1999
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1999. groundwater
Public Health Assessment: Pease Air Force Base,
Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
Department of Health and Human Services. September
30.
N

DW


G
Pittsburgh International
Airport
1996
Hopey, Don. 1996. Airport Gets Criticism for Disposal ofMcClarens, Enlow and
De-icer. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 28. Montour Runs
N
F
H
Od
X

Pittsburgh International
Airport
1998
Hopey, Don. 1998. Airport Ordered Again to Keep De- McClarens, Enlow and
leers Out of Streams. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 31.Montour Runs

F
H
Od
X

Pittsburgh International
Airport
1998
Koryak, M. L.J. Stafford, R.J. Reilly, R.H. Hoskin and Montour Run and
M.H. Habennan. 1998. The Impact of Airport Deicing tributaries
Runoff on Water Quality and Aquatic Life in a
Pennsylvania Stream. J. Freshwater Ecol. 13(3): 287-298.
B,N
O




1	B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients	4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
2	F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts	5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
3	H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
C-8
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Article
Year
Article
Waterbody Name
O £
a e
- .a
o -
O 3
ZJ on
a
s s,
M


5®
rr fl

c
OA
ts
"8
O
"3 a -3
V)
S
&
ft
4-
ASA
a C o
-C

S
HH

S « r
HH o- >
o
Port Columbus
International Airport
1998
State of Ohio Enviromnental Protection Agency. 1998. Mason Run, Turkey Run,
Biological and Water Quality Study of Mason Run 1996, Big Walnut Creek
Franklin County, Columbus, Ohio. OEPA Technical
Report MAS/1996-12-6. Columbus, OH.
D,N F,0

Port Columbus
International Airport
2003
State of Ohio Enviromnental Protection Agency: DivisionBig Walnut Creek, Alum
of Surface Water. Biological and Water Quality Study of Creek and Blacklick
Big Walnut Creek Basin. 2003. OEPA Technical Report Creek watersheds
DSW/EAS 2003-11-10. Columbus, OH.
D,B,N

Port Columbus
International Airport
2004
NPDES Permit # OHO 124311. Ohio Enviromnental Big Walnut Creek, Mason
Protection Agency. Expiration: July 31, 2007. Run
N O

Portland International
Airport
1997
Wells, Scott. 1997. The Columbia Slough. Prepared for Columbia Slough
the City of Portland Bureau of Enviromnental Services.
Technical Report EWR-2-97. (March)
D,B

Portland International
Airport
1998
Oregon Department of Enviromnental Quality. 1998. Columbia Slough
Columbia Slough Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
For:
Chlorophyll a. Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Phosphorus,
Bacteria, DDE/DDT, PCBs, Pb, Dieldrin and 2,3,7,8
TCDD
D O





Portland International
Airport,
1998
Stewart, Bill. 1998. Airport Juggles Safety, Pollution Columbia Slough
Concerns. The Oregonian, February 2
D

Portland International
Airport
2005
Johnson, Steve. 2005. Port Plans study to Enhance Columbia River
Airport Deicing Storm Water Collection System. Port of
Portland News Release, September 26.

X
Portland International
Airport
2006
Associated Press. 2006. Portland airport's de-icing system Columbia River
harms fish. USA Today, October 17.
O
X
Raleigh-Durham
International Airport
2000
RDU Airport Changes its Runway Deicing Chemical. Big Lake, Sycamore Lake
2000. The Umstead Coalition
Newsletter, November 29.
N

1	B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients	4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
2	F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts	5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
3	H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
C-9
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Article
Year
Article Waterbody Name
BOD, DO,
Nutrients1
Wildlife
Impacts2
Human Health
Impacts
Aesthetic
Impacts4
Permit
Violations
Other5
Rickenbacker
International Airport
1996
State of Ohio Enviromnental Protection Agency: Division Walnut Creek, Big Walnut
of Surface Water. 1996. Biological and Water Quality Creek and tributaries
Study of Lower Big Walnut Creek and Walnut Creek
Tributaries. Prepared for State of Ohio Enviromnental
Protection Agency: Division of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Columbus, OH.


O




Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
1993
Roberts, C.R. 1993. Airport Antifreeze May Be Toting Miller Creek
Chill of Death to Miller Creek. Tacoma News Tribune,
January 26.


O




Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
1995
Taylor, Rob. 1995. Lawsuit Filed Over Stream Pollution Des Moines Creek, Miller
From Sea-Tac Airport. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August Creek, Puget Sound
15.





X

Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport
2003
Lange, Larry. 2003. Sea-Tac blamed for fish deaths. Miller Creek, Puget Sound
Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 14.


F


X

Spokane International
2002
NPDES Permit # S03004373. State of Washington unnamed aquifer
Department of Ecology. Expiration: September 20, 2007.






G
Stapleton International
Airport
1996
Pillard, D.A. Assessment of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sand Creek
and Fish Communities in a Stream Receiving Storm
Water Runoff from a Large Airport. J. Freshwater Ecol.
11(1):51-59.


O




Stockholm Arlanda
Airport
1993
O'Conner, R. and Douglas, K. 1993 Cleaning up after the unnamed receiving waters
big chill: Thousands of rivers and streams are harmed by
the de-icing chemicals that keep aircraft flying through
the winter. Now airports are being forced to curb this
damaging pollution. New Scient
D





Syracuse Hancock
International Airport
1999
Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. 1999. Litigation Bear Trap Creek, Ley
Update. Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. Creek
Newsletter.





X

Syracuse Hancock
International Airport
2000
Beartrap Creek Reclamation Project Description. Beartrap Creek
GL2000-045


O




1	B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients	4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
2	F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts	5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
3	H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
C-10
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Article
Year
&
Article
Waterbody Name
c5
QJ
K.
c
&
s
s
-C
o -ts
a
c
o
O £
Q fi
-
O s s fl 5 fl u s 3 .S
Syracuse Hancock
International Airport
2003
Onondaga Lake Partnership. 2003. Izaak Walton League'sBeartrap
Efforts Lead to Restored Beartrap Creek. Reflections. Creek
1(3): 6.

O

Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport
1990
Wohlforth, Charles. 1990. Toxic Runoff Adds to Lake Lake Hood
Hood Pollution. Anchorage Daily News, May 4.

O

Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport
1991
Pytte, Alyson. 1991. Chemicals Lace Airport Soil FindingLake Hood
Pollution is Easy; Who Pays for Cleanup is the Problem.
Anchorage Daily News, September 8.
N

Od G
Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport
2007
deMarban, Alex. 2007. Lake mower clears paths for Lake Hood
floatplanes. Anchorage Daily News, August 13.

O
Co
Theodore Francis Green
State Airport
2004
RIPDES Permit # RI0021598. Rhode Island Department unnamed tributaries of
of Environmental Management. Expiration January 1, Warwick Pond and
2010. Buckeye Brook, and
Tuscatucket Brook
D
O
Fo,Od
Toronto Pearson
International Airport
1989
Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Storm Water. TranscriptEtobicoke Creek, Mimico
of the July 6, 1989 meeting. Creek, Lake Ontario
B
O
X S
Unknown international
North American airport
1998
Cancilla, D.A., J. Martinez, and G.C. van Aggelen. 1998. unnamed well
Detection of Aircraft Deicing/Antiicing Fluid Additives
in a Perched Water Monitoring Well at an International
Airport. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32: 3834-3835.

O
G
Victoria International
Airport
2003
Reay Watershed: 2003 Fish Kill. Reay Creek
.

F

Victoria International
Airport
2004
Dickson, Louise. 2004. Polluted creek killing fish: North Saanich Creek
Reclamation work wasted as second major kill wipes out
run. Times Colonist. November 1.

F

Westchester County
Airport
1997
Conetta, A., R. Bracchitta, and P. Sherrer. 1997. Storm Rye Lake, Blind Brook
Water Management and Control of Aircraft Deicing
Runoff at Westchester County Airport. Enviromnental
Regulation and Permitting.
B


1	B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients	4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
2	F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts	5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
3	H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
C-11
-------
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final
Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category
Appendix C
Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges
Airport Name
Article
Year Article
Waterbody Name
BOD, DO,
Nutrients1
Wildlife
Impacts2
Human Health
Impacts3
Aesthetic
Impacts4
Permit
Violations
Other5
Westchester County
Airport
1999 Switzenbaum, M.S., S. Veltman, T. Schoenberg, C.M.
Durand, D. Mericas andB. Wagoner. 1999. Best
Management Practices for Airport Deicing Stonnwater.
Publication No. 173.
Blind Brook
D
F

Fo

Westchester County
Airport
1999 Associated Press. 1999. De-icing Chemical Found in
Westchester Reservoir. New York Times, January 14.
Kensico Reservoir


DW


1	B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients
2	F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts
3	H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water
4	Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color
5	G = Groundwater; S = Sediment
C-12
-------