Northwest Technical Framework Indian Fisheries for Toxics Reduction Commission Assessment of Technologies
December 2014
Prepared by:
Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction
Assessment of Technologies
Prepared for: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 6730 Martin Way East, Olympia, WA
Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 550, Seattle, WA 98101
December 2014
Supported by: EPA
Photos on the cover courtesy of Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, https://www.flickr.com/photos/nwifc/. PRESENTED TO PREPARED BY
Northwest Indian Fisheries Tetra Tech, Inc. Commission 1420 Fifth Ave, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98101 Attn: Todd Bolster 6730 Martin Way East P +1-206-728-9655 Olympia, WA 98516-5540 F +1-206-728-9670 tetratech.com
Participating Authors:
Robert Plotnikoff, Project Manager/Technical Lead
Toni Pennington, PhD
Jessica Blizard, Aquatic Scientist
Marcus Bowersox, Toxicologist
Jerry Diamond, PhD Senior Toxicologist
Gene Welch, PhD, Technical Expert
Harry Gibbons, PhD, Quality Control Reviewer
Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Overall Goal ...... 1-1
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF TARGET TOXIC CHEMICALS ...... 2-1
2.1 Arsenic ...... 2-1
2.2 Mercury ...... 2-6
2.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Total) ...... 2-9
2.4 2,3,7,8-TCDD / 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ...... 2-13
3.0 LOADING SOURCES OF TARGET CHEMICALS TO PUGET SOUND ...... 3-15
3.1 Arsenic ...... 3-16
3.2 Benzo(a)Pyrene ...... 3-19
3.3 Mercury ...... 3-22
3.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Total) ...... 3-27
3.5 2,3,7,8-TCDD / 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin ...... 3-32
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS FOR TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGIES ...... 4-1
5.0 TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR POINT- AND NON-POINT SOURCES ...... 5-1
5.1 Definition of Pre-Treatment and Source ...... 5-2
5.2 Types of Stormwater Structural BMPs ...... 5-4
5.3 Summary of Costs for Stormwater BMPs ...... 5-5
5.4 Examples for Cost/Benefit of Source controls ...... 5-10
5.5 Pre-treatment Limits and Technologies by Constituent ...... 5-11
5.6 Examples for Cost/Benefit of Pre-treatment Controls ...... 5-17
5.7 Considerations for Treatment Technology Controls ...... 5-18
6.0 DATA GAPS AND FUTURE WORK ...... 6-1
December 2014 iii Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
7.0 REFERENCES ...... 7-5
8.0 GLOSSARY ...... 8-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - APPORTIONMENT FOR LOADING OF TARGET TOXIC CHEMICALS ...... A-1
APPENDIX B - WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINIATION SYSTEM PERMITS FOR TARGET TOXIC CHEMICALS ...... B-1
APPENDIX C - ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR TARGET TOXIC CHEMICALS ...... C-1
APPENDIX D - SELECT EXAMPLES OF COST/BENEFIT FOR SOURCE CONTROL OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN STORMWATER (STORMWATER SOURCES OF POLLUTION) ...... D-1
APPENDIX E - EXAMPLE OF COST/BENEFIT FOR PRE-TREATMENT CONTROL OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN WASTEWATER (POINT-SOURCES OF POLLUTION) ...... E-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Methods, sources, and treatment technologies as programelements...... 1-3 Figure 1-2 Steps used to develop an approach to reduction of toxics using best management practices...... 1-4 Figure 2-1 Sources and influence of arsenic in the environment.Benzo(a)Pyrene ...... 2-3 Figure 2-2 Sources and influence of Benzo(a)pyrene in the environment...... 2-5 Figure 2-3 Sources and influences of mercury in the environment...... 2-9 Figure 2-4 Sources and influence of PCBs in the environment...... 2-12 Figure 2-5 Sources and influence of TCDD in the environment...... 2-14 Figure 5-1 Origin of toxic chemicals and description of treatment strategies to reduce loading to Coastal and Puget Sound Basins...... 5-2
December 2014 iv Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Figure 6-1 Potential arsenic (As) processes in aquatic ecosystems...... 6-2 Figure 6-2 Potential mercury (Hg) processes in aquatic ecosystems...... 6-2 Figure 6-3 Potential PCB processes in aquatic ecosystems...... 6-3
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 National toxics rule human health criteria for the target toxic chemicals...... 1-1 Table 3-1 303(d) listings for Arsenic for WRIAs 1 through 23...... 3-17 Table 3-2 303(d) listings for BaP for WRIAs 1 through23...... 3-19 Table 3-3 303(d) listings for Mercury for WRIAs 1 through 23...... 3-22 Table 3-4 303(d) listings for PCB for WRIAs 1 through 23...... 3-27 Table 3-5 303(d) listings for TCDD for WRIAs 1 through 23...... 3-32 Table 5-1 Typical base capital construction costs for stormwater best management practices. 1 ...... 5-6 Table 5-2 Base costs of typical applications of stormwater best management practices. 1, 2 ...... 5-8 Table 5-3 Base costs for stormwater ponds and wetlands. 1 ...... 5-9 Table 5-4 Relative land consumption of stormwater best management practices. 1 ...... 5-10 Table 5-5 Summary of literature review of effective treatment technologies for toxics removal from wastewater and stormwater...... 5-13 Table 6-1 Comparison between existing Washington human health criteria and analytical detection limits for the target toxic chemicals...... 6-1
Table C-1 Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA-approval for arsenic...... C-1 Table C-2 Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA-approval for benzo(a)pyrene...... C-5 Table C-3 Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA-approval for mercury...... C-7 Table C-5 Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA-approval for polychlorinated biphenyls...... C-9 Table C-6 Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA-approval for 2,3,7,8-TCDD...... C-19
December 2014 v Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS
Acronyms/Abbreviations Definition
Ah aromatic hydrocarbon
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BaP Benzo(a)pyrene
BMP best management practice
CDDs chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
CSO combined sewer outfall
CWA Clean Water Act
Ecology Washington Department of Ecology
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
Hg Mercury
HHC human health criteria
HHWQC human health water quality criteria
μg/d micrograms per day
μg/kg/d micrograms per kilogram body weight per day
μg/L micrograms per liter
pg pictogram
MDL method detection limit
mg/day milligrams per day
mg/L milligrams per liter
MCECMZ maximum concentration at edge of chronic mixing zone
MTCA Model Toxics Control Act
ng Nanogram
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NTR National Toxic Rule
December 2014 vi Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Acronyms/Abbreviations Definition
PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
pg/L picograms per liter
POTW Publically Owned Treatment Works
ppm parts per million
PQL practical quantitation limit
SRP soluble reactive phosphorus
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin
TMDL total maximum daily load
WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
December 2014 vii Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Common toxic compounds have been repeatedly identified in western Washington rivers and streams (see 303d listings; Ecology) in various components of the environment at levels above or at critical thresholds that would harm aquatic life and pose a risk to humans through consumption of fish. The state of Washington water quality standards currently include 91 numeric human health criteria (HHC) than must be considered for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits (promulgated for the state by EPA in its National Toxics Rule (NTR) [40 CFR 131.36]). For the five target toxic constituents addressed in this document, current NTR criteria are identified in Table 1‐1.
Table 1-1 National toxics rule human health criteria for the target toxic chemicals.
Toxic Chemical 1 Existing Washington Human Health Criteria (HHC), National Toxic Rule (NTR), Criterion Water and Organisms (μg/L) 1
Arsenic (inorganic) 0.018
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0028
Mercury 0.14
Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.00017
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 0.000000013
Notes: 1. Based on fish consumption rate for one individual of 6.5 grams/day (g/d).
1.1 Purpose and Overall Goal
The goal of this document is to serve as an implementation manual for Tribal staff and other agency staff who develop and/or provide input on permits, certifications, and orders to guide facilities to reduce toxics in their discharge. This report focuses on five target toxics: arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (total) (PCBS), and 2,3,7,8‐TCDD / 2,3,7,8‐tetrachlorodibenzo‐p‐dioxin. Content of this report includes an analysis of three primary categories addressing important components of a toxics reduction effort in Puget Sound rivers and streams and lakes: 1) analytical methods for detecting toxics and use in NPDES Permits of point source facilities, 2) treatment technologies that have been identified and used for reduction of toxics in stormwater and other sources where toxics cycle among multiple media (e.g., surface water, sediment, and tissue in aquatic biota), and 3) identifying sources of select toxics and the
December 2014 1-1 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies effect on receptors through contact or ingestion of food (particularly when contaminated food or water is ingested by humans).
Figure 1‐1 describes the primary sections of this report and content in each of the sections. The primary sections support appropriate selection of treatment technologies for each of the select toxics and the portion of the aquatic ecosystem where the best opportunities exist for toxics removal. Several considerations for application of treatment technology selection are reviewed including removal efficiency and cost. Details for treatment technologies are based on national averages. Actual costs are based on current and regional rates in western Washington.
The approach for development of information in each of the primary sections (Figure 1‐2) was based on four elements; two are questions focused on the sources of toxics and two are elements focused on toxics reduction strategies. Figure 1‐2 describes a stepwise overall strategy for identifying additional actions that can be implemented, beyond permitting of point source dischargers that leads to increased reduction of toxics.
December 2014 1-2 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Figure 1-1 Methods, sources, and treatment technologies as programelements.
December 2014 1-3 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Figure 1-2 Steps used to develop an approach to reduction of toxics using best management practices.
December 2014 1-4 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF TARGET TOXIC CHEMICALS
The following section provides a description of the target chemicals discussed in this report. For each toxic chemical, a chemical definition has been developed, its associated health and relevant ecological impacts are described, and its primary sources are identified. See Appendix A for a table listing the apportionment of loading of each target toxic chemical. The apportionment of loading describes the percentage of a target toxic chemical that each source is releasing to the environment.
2.1 Arsenic
2.1.1 Chemical Definition Arsenic, a naturally occurring element, has properties of both a metal and a nonmetal. However, arsenic is generally referred to as a metal and is a solid, steel grey material in its elemental form. In its inorganic form, it is usually found in the environment combined with other elements, including sulfur, oxygen, or chlorine (ATSDR 2007). Inorganic arsenic compounds include arsenic acid, arsenic trioxide, and arsenic pentoxide. Arsenic can also combine with hydrogen and carbon, creating organic arsenic compounds (metalloids), such as arsanilic acid, arsenobetaine, and dimethylarsinic acid (EPA 2012b). Most inorganic and organic arsenic compounds are odorless, tasteless, white or colorless powders that do not evaporate (ATSDR 2007).
Naturally and man‐made inorganic arsenic can be found in soil, many kinds of weathered rock, results of smelting, combustion of fossil fuels, exposed mining waste, wood preservative facilities and ground water associated with mining (Ferguson and Gavis 1972; Smedley and Kinniburgh 2001; Wang and Mulligan 2006). Inorganic arsenic is especially associated with minerals and ores that contain copper or lead. Heating these types of ores in smelters will precipitate most of the arsenic as a fine dust which enters the atmosphere. Collection of arsenic by smelters as a compound called arsenic trioxide (As2O3) can be achieved. Arsenic is no longer produced in the United States. The arsenic used in the United States today is imported (ATSDR 2007). Of all arsenic produced about 90 percent is used as a wood preservative. Copper chromated arsenate (CCA) is the preservative used to make “pressure‐treated” wood. In 2003, the use of arsenic based wood preservatives was voluntarily transitioned to other non‐arsenic containing preservatives for certain residential uses, such as play structures, picnic tables, decks, fencing, and boardwalks. However, previously treated wood could still be used, and existing structures made with arsenic treated wood would not be affected. Arsenic treated wood products continue to be used in industrial applications. The exposure of people to arsenic through arsenic‐treated wood is not currently known.
December 2014 2-1 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Historically inorganic arsenic compounds were used as pesticides, primarily on cotton fields and in orchards, but inorganic arsenic based pesticides are no longer used in agriculture. However, organic arsenic compounds, namely cacodylic acid, disodium methylarsenate (DSMA), and monosodium methylarsenate (MSMA) are still used as pesticides, principally on cotton. Other uses of organic arsenic include, additives in animal feed and an additive to other metals to form metal mixtures or alloys with improved properties. Predominantly, arsenic in alloys is used in lead‐acid batteries for automobiles, as well as is in semiconductors and light‐emitting diodes (ATSDR 2007).
2.1.2 Health Effects For most of the population, uptake of arsenic through food is the major source of exposure. Among foods, the highest concentrations of arsenic are generally found in fish and shellfish, existing primarily as organic compounds. These organic arsenic compounds are essentially non‐ toxic, but EPA has classified inorganic arsenic as a human carcinogen. Human exposure to inorganic forms of arsenic may occur through drinking water. Further, elevated concentrations of inorganic arsenic may be present in soil because of natural mineral deposits or contamination from human activities, resulting in human exposure through dermal contact or ingestion. Additionally, inorganic arsenic released into the air from metal smelting processes or combustion of wood treated with arsenical wood preservative poses risks through inhalation (EPA 2012b).
Acute oral doses of 600 micrograms per kilogram body weight per day (µg/kg/d) or higher of inorganic arsenic has resulted in death in humans. Lower dose ingestions include effects to the gastrointestinal tract, central nervous system, cardiovascular system, liver, kidney, and blood. Short‐term inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic has resulted in effects to the central and peripheral nervous system. Acute inhalation of arsine, a gas consisting of arsenic and hydrogen, has resulted in mortality at a concentration of 25 to 50 parts per million (ppm) in air (EPA 2012b).
Chronic oral exposure to elevated levels of inorganic arsenic has resulted in gastrointestinal effects, anemia, peripheral neuropathy, skin lesions, hyperpigmentation, gangrene of the extremities, vascular lesions, and liver or kidney damage in humans. Elevated arsenic concentrations in drinking water (including drinking water from wells) have been associated with behavioral and neurocognitive effects in children. Ingestion of inorganic arsenic has also been linked to a form of skin cancer and an increased risk of bladder, liver, and lung cancer. Effects associated with the chronic inhalation of inorganic arsenic include: dermatitis, conjunctivitis, rhinitis, and pharyngitis, or irritation of the mucous membranes and skin. Additionally, inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic has been shown to be strongly associated with lung cancer (EPA 2012b).
Several studies have suggested reproductive and developmental effects caused by arsenic exposure; however, the studies are not definitive. Inorganic arsenic can cross the human placenta, exposing the fetus, and there is evidence that exposure to arsenic in the womb and during early childhood may increase young adult mortality. Women working or living in close
December 2014 2-2 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies proximity to metal smelters have shown elevated rates of spontaneous abortion or deliver children with lower than normal birth weights (EPA 2012b). Studies in animals show that large arsenic doses cause low birth weight, fetal malformations, fetal death, and illness in pregnant females (ATSDR 2007). Low‐levels of arsenic have been found in breast milk, and chronic exposure in children may result in lower IQ scores (EPA 2012b).
2.1.3 Sources and Influences in the Environment Arsenic occurs naturally in the Earth’s crust, as well as through deposition from anthropogenic sources and industrial processes (Bligh and Mollehuara 2012). Arsenic from deposition enters the water, sediment, soil, and air, and eventually accumulates throughout the food chain. Anthropogenic sources of arsenic include agricultural insecticides, larvicides, herbicides, and wood preservatives (Bligh and Mollehuara 2012). Almost 80 percent of arsenic produced by humans is released into the environment through pesticides (Bligh and Mollehuara 2012). Arsenic is found in soils at higher concentrations than the state Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) cleanup levels in residential areas near Tacoma, WA and was distributed from Asarco Tacoma Smelter emissions while in operation from 1890 to 1986 (Golding 2001). Figure 2‐1 illustrates the flow of arsenic through the environment.
Figure 2-1 Sources and influence of arsenic in the environment.Benzo(a)Pyrene
December 2014 2-3 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
2.1.4 Chemical Definition Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) is a member of a class of compounds known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which generally occur as complex mixtures and not as single compounds. PAHs are primarily by‐products of incomplete combustion. Combustion sources are numerous, including natural sources such as wildfires, as well as anthropogenic sources such as industrial processes, transportation, energy production and use, food preparation, smoking tobacco, and disposal activities such as open trash burning (Simick et al. 1999; Larsen and Baker 2003; EPA 2014a). Other sources include parking lot dust and runoff (Stein et al. 2006; Yang et al. 2010).
2.1.5 Human Health Impacts BaP causes skin disorders in humans and animals as well as abnormal developmental and reproductive effects, and it is a likely cause of cancer in humans (EPA 2007). In humans, BaP has been associated with chromosomal replication (DNA copying) errors and altered DNA in gametes, as well as the formation of BaP‐DNA adducts in fetal, child, and adult tissues. In adults, BaP exposure was associated with altered sperm morphology and decreased sperm numbers, as well as decreased egg numbers. At high levels of acute exposure in adults, BaP has been reported to be associated with immune system suppression and red blood cell damage, which can lead to anemia.
In experimental animal studies, BaP exposure during pregnancy resulted in an increased incidence of tumors in lung, liver, ovaries, and other organs in adult offspring. BaP exposure during pregnancy resulted in increased incidence of fetal death, abnormalities (e.g., exencephaly, or growth of the brain outside of the skull, and thoracoschisis, or cleft in the chest wall) in offspring at birth at doses ranging from 50 to 300 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg), impaired development of T lymphocytes, and decreased antibody responses. Reduced fertility during adulthood has been observed following BaP exposure during pregnancy. Formation of BaP‐DNA adducts has been detected in several species and in several tissues following BaP exposure during pregnancy (EPA 2007).
2.1.6 Ecological Impacts In terms of environmental fate, BaP when released to the air will be in a particulate form, which is removed by wet or dry deposition. Due to the wavelength of the chromophores within BaP, direct photolysis is thought to be a degradation method. When released to water, BaP is expected to adsorb to suspended solids and sediment due to its high KOC (organic carbon normalized sorption coefficient) values, but it also readily degrades. Bioconcentration studies in aquatic organisms indicate varying levels of bioconcentration potential from low to very high concentration (TOXNET 2010).
Direct effects on aquatic organisms from BaP exposure include various histological and skeletal abnormalities found in rainbow trout alevins reared in BaP, particularly skeletal malformations in the skull and vertebral column. The ecological significance of such abnormalities would include
December 2014 2-4 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies decreased feeding and growth and an inability to escape predation leading to reduced survival. Effects to larvae could include anemia, impaired ability to respond to environmental stress and disease, and possibly latent tumorigenesis (Irwin et al. 1997). Exposure of Coho salmon embryos to BaP significantly reduced successful emergence and impaired orientation to stream flow following emergence (Ostrander et al. 1988). Aromatic hydrocarbons as a group, including 36 compounds, were present in Puget Sound sediments associated with hepatic neoplasms (liver carcinomas) in English sole (Malins et al. 1984, 1987).
2.1.7 Sources and Influences in the Environment BaP occurs in the environment primarily through industrial combustion of fossil fuels. Through deposition, the chemical binds strongly to organic matter and is insoluble in water. It is estimated that BaP has a 2.3 year half‐life in water and a 15 year half‐life in soil (Hattemer‐Frey and Travis 1991). A large fraction (82%) of BaP emitted into the atmosphere is found in soil, 17 percent is found in sediment, and 1 percent is found in water (Hattemer‐Frey and Travis 1991). EPA estimated that a whole fish on average contains 92 µg/kg BaP and that the bioaccumulation of the chemical through the food chain is responsible for 97 percent of exposure to humans (Hattemer‐Frey and Travis 1991). High levels of PAH in near‐shore urban environments is mobilized through stormwater runoff. In a study conducted by NOAA and NMFS, fish embryos and larvae contaminated with PAH including pink salmon and herring develop cardiac abnormalities. PAH exposure in the early life stages decreases fish fitness and leads to smaller fish spawning returns (NMFS and NOAA, 2014 ). BaP is emitted into the atmosphere in the form of airborne particles and is sorbed to particulates before uptake by plants and through the food chain to other organisms (Hattemer‐Frey and Travis 1991). The steps of BaP magnification are described in Figure 2‐2.
Figure 2-2 Sources and influence of Benzo(a)pyrene in the environment.
December 2014 2-5 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
2.2 Mercury
2.2.1 Chemical Definition Mercury (Hg) is a naturally occurring element that is found in air, water, and soil. It exists in several forms: elemental or metallic mercury, inorganic mercury compounds, and organic mercury compounds. Elemental or metallic mercury is a shiny, silver‐white metal and is liquid at room temperature. If heated, it is a colorless, odorless gas (EPA 2014b). Sources of mercury include atmospheric deposition, erosion, urban discharges, agricultural materials, mining, combustion, and industrial discharges (Dvonch et al. 1999; Wang et al. 2004).
2.2.2 Human Health Effects Mercury exists in three chemical forms: methylmercury, elemental mercury, and other mercury compounds (both inorganic and organic). However, methylmercury is the most important form toxicologically, because it can be readily taken up across lipid membrane surfaces. Moreover, methylmercury can be bioconcentrated in fish tissues over a thousand times from water concentrations as low or lower than 1 micrograms per liter (µg/L) (Peakall and Lovett, 1972). Exposure to methyl mercury is usually through ingestion of fish and shellfish.
Minamata disease from eating fish with methylmercury from industrial sources discharged to Minamata Bay in Japan is a famous example of mercury poisoning (Harada 1995). Thousands of people suffered from methylmercury poisoning. In terms of determining risk from exposure to mercury, various factors need to be taken into account. These factors include the chemical form of mercury, the dose, the age of the person exposed, the route of exposure, and the overall health of the person exposed. High levels of mercury exposure can have impacts on the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system. The Minamata case was one of very high industrial waste discharge over a long period with several routes of exposure accounting for the extreme health concern. However, it has been demonstrated that high levels of methylmercury in the bloodstream of unborn babies and young children may harm the developing nervous system, making the child less able to think and learn. It is well known that pregnant women, infants, and children are most susceptible to the effects of mercury exposure. Exposure to methylmercury in the womb resulting from a mother’s ingestion of contaminated fish and shellfish can affect the brain and nervous system of a growing baby, which can lead to impaired cognitive function, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and spatial skills. Symptoms of methylmercury poisoning can include impairment of peripheral vision, disturbances in sensations, lack of coordination in movement, and impairment of speech, hearing, walking, and muscle weakness. At high levels of exposure, elemental mercury can cause various effects on the kidneys, respiratory effects, and death. High exposure to inorganic mercury can cause gastrointestinal, nervous system, and kidney damage. Symptoms of inorganic mercury exposure include skin rashes/dermatitis, mood swings, memory loss, mental disturbances, and muscle weakness (EPA 2014b).
December 2014 2-6 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
2.2.3 Ecological Effects Mercury enters surface waters as methylmercury, elemental mercury, or inorganic mercury, where it can exist in dissolved or particulate forms, which can undergo various transformations. The rate of transformation is determined by the balance of forward and reverse reactions related to local water characteristics. Methylmercury typically originates from bacterial reduction of inorganic mercury in sediment, often accompanied by low oxygen or anaerobic conditions. That is, the principal source of methylmercury is concentrated in fish. Recycling of methylmercury from sediment can last for decades after the principal source to a water body has ceased (Håkanson 1975). Mercury can also be present in surface waters in dissolved form, concentrated in the surface microlayer, attached to seston (organisms and non‐living matter swimming or floating in a water body), in the bottom sediments, and in resident biota. In general, methylmercury is the most bioavailable and toxic form although it typically makes up less than 20 percent of total mercury within the water column (Kudo et al. 1982; Parks et al. 1989; Bloom and Effler 1990; Watras et al. 1995). In terms of availability in sediment, various factors including organic carbon and sulfur content can influence mercury bioavailability (Tremblay et al. 1995). The form of mercury within a particular waterbody determines its bioavailability. Again, methylmercury, converted from other forms by bacteria in sediment and recycled to the overlying water available for uptake, is the most toxic form. Other forms of dissolved mercury are also available for uptake by aquatic plants, fish, and invertebrates. Mercury that concentrates in the surface microlayer is available to organisms that live or feed on the surface (e.g., neuston). Mercury attached to seston can be ingested by aquatic animals that feed on plankton and mercury accumulated in sediments may be available to benthic plants and animals.
Aquatic plants may take up mercury from air, water, or sediments (Crowder 1991; Ribeyre and Boudou 1994). In locations with mercury‐contaminated sediments, levels of mercury in aquatic macrophytes have been measured at 0.01 micrograms per gram (µg/g), indicating strong accumulation from sediments (Wells et al. 1980; Crowder et al. 1988). The primary route of exposure of mercury to aquatic animals is from direct contact with mercury‐contaminated sediments and water and ingestion of mercury‐contaminated food. Fish can absorb mercury through the gills, skin, and gastrointestinal tract (Wiener and Spry 1996). Contaminated fish then become a mercury source for piscivorous birds and mammals. Emergent aquatic insects represent another potential source of mercury to insectivorous birds and mammals (Dukerschein et al. 1992; Saouter et al. 1993). Mercury tends to occur at higher concentrations at higher trophic levels in aquatic systems (i.e., top predators), due to its bioaccumulating potential, mostly through recycling of methylmercury from sediments.
Mercury can have effects at the organism, population, community, and ecosystem level. Effects on individuals can be lethal or sublethal, including behavioral, reproductive, and developmental. Effects can be immediate, due to acute exposures, or may be manifested only after chronic exposure. The toxicity of mercury to fish varies depending on the fish’s characteristics (e.g., species, life stage, age, and size), environmental factors (e.g., temperature, salinity, dissolved
December 2014 2-7 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies oxygen, hardness, and presence of other chemicals), and the form of mercury available. Early life stages exhibit greater sensitivity (especially salmonids) than do later life stages. The effects of mercury on fish include death, reduced reproduction, impaired growth and development, behavioral abnormalities, altered blood chemistry, impaired osmoregulation, reduced feeding rates, reduced predatory success, and reduced respiration. Symptoms of acute mercury poisoning in fish include increased secretion of mucous, flaring of gill opercula, increased respiration rate, loss of equilibrium, and sluggishness. Signs of chronic mercury poisoning include emaciation, brain lesions, cataracts, inability to capture food, abnormal motor coordination, and various erratic behaviors (Weis and Weis 1989, 1995). Mercury levels that induce toxic effects in aquatic invertebrates vary, but acute levels can range from 2.2 to 2000 µg/L depending on form (EPA 1997a).
2.2.4 Sources and Influences in the Environment Mercury occurs in the environment through natural sources such as volcanic activity and weathering rock, anthropogenic releases from raw materials such as fossil fuels, during manufacturing processes, and re‐mobilization of mercury through sediment, soil, water, and waste (UNEP 2014). Once mercury enters the environment, it is deposited in soil, sediment, and water. It is extremely persistent and accumulates throughout the food chain over time. Mercury in the atmosphere can be transported long distances, even across continents, and has a residence time of around one year (UNEP 2014) Examples of anthropogenic sources of mercury to the environment are, energy production from fossil fuels, mining, cement production, manufacturing of products containing mercury, and waste incineration. Combustion of fossil fuels and incineration of waste contributes around 70 percent of atmospheric emissions (UNEP 2014). The flow of mercury through the environment is shown in Figure 2‐3.
December 2014 2-8 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Figure 2-3 Sources and influences of mercury in the environment.
2.3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Total)
2.3.1 Chemical Definition Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are synthetic organic chemicals composed of a biphenyl structure with various numbers of chlorine atoms replacing hydrogen atoms. There are 209 possible PCB congeners, each one of which is a single, unique well‐defined chemical compound in the PCB category. PCBs are good insulators because they are non‐flammable and chemically stable. They are either oily liquids or solids, odorless or mildly aromatic, colorless to light yellow, and tasteless. PCBs do not readily break down in the environment, are highly lipophilic (fat soluble), and are considered highly persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic.
PCBs are subject to multiple names. Specific PCBs are identified as a specific congener, such as 4,4'‐Dichlorobiphenyl. They can also be referred to by their homologs, which is a group of PCB
December 2014 2-9 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies congeners with the same number of chlorine atoms. For example, dichlorobiphenyls are PCB congeners having two chlorine atoms that are differently arranged in the molecule. Additionally, PCBs have been referred to as Aroclors. PCBs were generally manufactured as a mixture of various PCB congeners, through progressive chlorination of batches of biphenyls until a certain target percentage of chlorine was achieved. Therefore, all congeners can be expected to be present at some level in all mixtures. While PCBs were manufactured and sold under many names, the most commonly known trade name for PCB mixtures was Aroclor.
PCBs have been widely used in industrial and commercial products, such as, hydraulic fluids, plasticizers (paints, plastics, and rubber products), adhesives, fire retardants, dust reducing agents, pesticide extenders, inks, lubricants, cutting oils, heat transfer systems, and carbonless reproducing paper. PCBs were manufactured in the United States from 1929 until 1979 when their manufacture was banned. Although PCBs are no longer intentionally manufactured nor used in the United States, they still persist in the environment, current releases are due mainly to cycling in the environment (e.g., from soil to air to soil again or from sediment into surface water). PCBs are still inadvertently manufactured during the formation of pigments (Ecology Publication No. 14‐07‐005, February 2014). PCBs are also released from landfills, incineration of municipal refuse and sewage sludge, improper (or illegal) disposal of PCB materials such as waste transformer fluid, and improper disposal of PCB‐containing consumer products, such as old televisions, refrigerators, lighting fixtures, electrical devices, or appliances containing PCB capacitors made before 1977. Existing PCBs are legacy PCBs that have been re‐introduced into the environment and made bioavailable. Sources with the highest concentrations of PCBs are often wastewater treatment plant effluent or resuspension from sediment. Other sources of PCBs include sediment resuspension, non‐point sources, contaminated sites, atmospheric deposition (Du et al. 2008), stormwater, combined sewer outfalls (CSOs), and highway and bridge runoff (Serdar et al. 2011; Ecology 2012a, King County 2014b).
2.3.2 Health Effects The EPA regulates PCBs in drinking water by enforcing a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.5 µg/L. Therefore, humans are most likely to be exposed to PCBs through eating contaminated fish and shellfish. Fisheries, like salmon, in the Puget Sound and Coastal areas bioaccumulate PCBs from the marine and freshwater environments and are the principal food staple for Tribes in this region. A significant trend of increasing PCB body burden is associated with increased fish consumption (ATSDR 1990).
Serious health effects have been associated with both short and long‐term exposures to PCBs. Many agencies (e.g., EPA, The International Agency for Research on Cancer, The National Toxicology Program, and The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) have determined that PCBs are probable human carcinogens. Clear evidence has also been found that PCBs have significant toxic effects on the immune system, the reproductive system, the nervous system and the endocrine system of animals and humans (EPA 2013). Studies have revealed a
December 2014 2-10 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies number of serious effects on the immune system following exposures to PCBs, including a significant decrease in size of the thymus gland (which is critical to the immune system), reductions in the response of the immune system, and decreased resistance to viruses and other pathogens. Individuals with diseases of the immune system may be more susceptible to other illnesses, such as pneumonia, and immune system suppression is a possible mechanism for PCB‐ induced cancer. Animal studies evaluated by the EPA were not able to identify a level of PCB exposure that did not cause effects on the immune system.
Reproductive effects of PCB exposure include decreased birth weight and decreased gestational age in many species, as well as reduced conception and live birth rates of monkeys and reduced sperm counts in rats. Effects in monkeys were long‐lasting and observed long after dosing with PCBs ceased. Additionally, PCBs collect in milk fat, and infants can thereby be exposed by via breastfeeding.
Exposure to PCBs also has resulted in deficits in neurological development, including visual recognition, short‐term memory, and learning in newborn monkeys. Some of these studies were conducted using the types of PCBs most commonly found in human breast milk. Studies in humans suggest effects similar to those observed in monkeys exposed to PCBs, including learning deficits and changes in activity associated with exposures to PCBs.
The endocrine system can also be disrupted by PCBs through effects on thyroid hormone levels, which are critical for normal growth and development. It has been shown that PCBs decrease thyroid hormone levels in rodents, and that these decreases have resulted in developmental deficits in the animals, including deficits in hearing. Other observed health effects include skin and eye irritation, vision problems, spasms, high blood pressure, liver and kidney damage, and irritation of nose, throat, and gastrointestinal tract.
2.3.3 Ecological Effects PCBs in surface water are rapidly bioaccumulated by aquatic organisms through the aquatic food chain. Concentrations of PCBs in aquatic organisms may be 2,000 to more than a million times higher than the concentrations found in the surrounding water, with species at the top of the food chain having the highest concentrations (EPA 1999a). The types of PCBs that tend to bioaccumulate in fish and other animals, as well as bind to sediments, are the most carcinogenic components of PCB mixtures. As a result, people who ingest PCB‐contaminated fish or other animal products having contact with PCB‐contaminated sediment may be exposed to PCB mixtures that are even more toxic than the PCB mixtures released into the environment (EPA 2013). The difficulties in removing persistent PCBs have been described for the Hudson River (Brown et al. 1985) and the Great Lakes (Hileman 1988). In both cases, once PCB production from manufacturing facilities was discontinued, legacy sediments in the discharge waterbody were mobilized into the water column and bioaccumulated in fish tissue. Years of dredging and PCB removal was necessary to contain the toxic, and in the case of the Great Lakes, locally caught fish and shellfish are still contaminated with PCB.
December 2014 2-11 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
2.3.4 Sources and Influences in the Environment PCBs were used in the 1940s through the 1970s in heat transfer fluids for transformers and capacitors (EPA 1997b). In 1979 they were banned and listed in the top 10 percent of EPA’s toxic chemicals (EPA 1997b). PCBs may still be released through the burning of some waste in municipal and industrial incinerators. PCB concentrations of 500 ppm or greater are closely regulated, 50‐499 ppm have loose restrictions and concentrations less than 50 ppm are not regulated (EPA & TSCA, 2003). Fish consumption is considered the highest means of human exposure (EPA 1997b). PCBs accumulate in fat tissue of fish and animals and are extremely persistent in the environment. PCBs are also common in soil near hazardous waste sites and in some sealants (EPA 1997b). The flow of PCBs through the environment is shown in Figure 2‐4.
Figure 2-4 Sources and influence of PCBs in the environment.
December 2014 2-12 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
2.4 2,3,7,8-TCDD / 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2.4.1 Chemical Definition Chlorinated dibenzo‐p‐dioxins (CDDs) are a class of chlorinated hydrocarbons that differ in the number and placement of chlorine atoms around the basic structure (2 benzene rings joined by 2 oxygen atoms). There are eight homologs of CDDs, ranging from one to eight chlorine atoms, and 75 unique congeners. The compound 2,3,7,8‐Tetrachlorodibenzo‐p‐dioxin (2,3,7,8‐TCDD) is one of the most toxic congeners and has the greatest tendency to bioaccumulate. It is a colorless solid with no distinguishable odor. It has very low water solubility and low volatility.
TCDD is not intentionally produced by industry, but it is formed as an unintentional by‐product of incomplete combustion (e.g., incineration of municipal and chemical waste or exhaust from automobiles), the production of some chlorinated organic compounds, and the chlorine bleaching process in pulp and paper mills. The greatest unintentional production of 2,3,7,8‐TCDD occurs from waste incineration, metal production, and fossil‐fuel and wood combustion (NTP 2011).
2.4.2 Health Effects Exposure to 2,3,7,8‐TCDD has the potential to cause liver damage, hair and weight loss, atrophy of the thymus gland, suppression of the immune system, and chloracne (a severe acne‐like condition). While the results of reproductive studies in humans are inconclusive, a variety of reproductive effects, including reduced fertility and birth defects, have been observed in animals (EPA 2000).
Additionally, 2,3,7,8‐TCDD is a known human carcinogen. The mode of action of CDDs for carcinogenesis in humans involves events that stem from the initial binding of CDDs to the aryl or aromatic hydrocarbon (Ah) receptor, which is a ubiquitous protein in cells that acts as a signal transducer and activator for gene transcription. Of all CDDs, 2,3,7,8‐TCDD has the highest affinity for human forms of the Ah receptor. Through activation of the Ah receptor, 2,3,7,8‐TCDD causes many biological responses that contribute to carcinogenesis, including changes in gene expression, altered metabolism, altered cell growth and differentiation, and disruption of steroid‐ hormone and growth‐factor signal‐transduction pathways (NTP 2011).
2.4.3 Ecological Effects Some of the 2,3,7,8‐TCDD deposited in surface water can be broken down by sunlight and a very small portion will evaporate into the air. However, because 2,3,7,8‐TCDD is not very soluble it is expected to be found in sediments and attached to suspended material. As with many substances that are difficult to break down, concentrations often magnify at each step in the food chain. Although some fish accumulate 2,3,7,8‐TCDD directly through eating particles off the bottom, the food chain is the main route for bioaccumulation and magnification in larger fish.
December 2014 2-13 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
2.4.4 Sources and Influences in the Environment 2,3,7,8 TCDD originates from municipal, medical, and industrial waste incinerators or other sources of combustion (NTP 2011). Plants that produce chlorine, paper, or wood preservatives have the highest concentrations of TCDD (USDA 2001). TCDD is accumulated in the environment through deposition of airborne dioxins, which are transferred to plant, soil, stormwater, and water surfaces; these airborne dioxins settle in the sediment of lakes and rivers and are then taken up by small organisms. Concentrations are then readily biomagnified throughout the food chain and are stored in the fat tissue of animals and humans (USDA 2001).
In a 1997 study of TCDD concentrations in all food products, it was determined that freshwater fish had the highest levels of TCDD (USDA 2001). Average daily intake of a U.S. adult is 5 picograms (pg) per fish, and this concentration is much higher in populations such as the Great Lakes region, which consume higher amounts of fish than average. These residents consume 390 to 8,400 pg of TCDD per day (NTP 2011). TCDD is highly persistent in the environment.
Figure 2‐5 describes the flow of dioxin from combustion, automobiles, and wood burning into the atmosphere. Particulates are then deposited onto soil and water surfaces, taken up by plants, and consumed by animals and later humans.
Figure 2-5 Sources and influence of TCDD in the environment.
December 2014 2-14 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
3.0 LOADING SOURCES OF TARGET CHEMICALS TO PUGET SOUND
The contribution of toxic chemicals to the environment comes from the following loading categories: industrial and municipal wastewater, municipal stormwater, unregulated/non‐ permitted runoff, and geologic sources. 40 CFR Part 136 provides regulations and, therefore, constitutes approved methods for acute toxicity testing for use in the NPDES Permits Program to identify effluents and receiving waters containing toxic materials in acutely toxic concentrations. These methods are also suitable for determining the toxicity of specific compounds contained in discharges. The tests may be conducted in a central laboratory or on‐site, by the regulatory agency or the permittee (EPA 2012c).
According to Ecology's Permit and Reporting Information System (PARIS) water quality permit database there are 1,227 NPDES permitted dischargers in the state of Washington. Sources discharging the highest concentrations of the target toxic chemicals into Puget Sound include paper mills, oil refineries, heavy metal smelters/ recyclers, and wastewater treatment plants (Ecology 2014a). Specific facilities with NPDES permits in the Puget Sound area that are known to discharge target toxic chemicals discussed in this document are listed in Appendix B. This appendix also includes instances where effluent limits for NTR exist, threshold concentrations to assess reasonable potential to violate water quality standards (e.g., the maximum concentration at edge of chronic mixing zone [MCECMZ]), information about maximum and minimum concentrations of the toxic found in surface waters surrounding the point source, as well as technology and water quality based effluent limitations.
In Ecology’s PARIS database, 61 facilities are permitted to discharge arsenic with a maximum discharge concentration of 120 ug/L at a pulp and paper mill. Sixty‐one facilities are also permitted to discharge mercury, with the highest discharge concentration allocated to a WWTP of 24.2 ug/L. Ten facilities currently discharge Benzo(a)pyrene with max effluent concentrations of 1.9 ug/L from an aluminum smelter. Eight permits are currently allocated to facilities discharging PCBs. The maximum concentration of PCBs allowed in effluent is 0.066 ug/L from a steel mill. The highest tech based effluent limit of PCBs is 7.0 ug/L at a scrap metal recycling plant. Five facilities currently discharge 2,3,7,8‐TCDD with the highest technology‐ based effluent limit of 1.31 mg/day allocated to a pulp and paper mill.
A table of analytical methods for each target toxic chemical is provided in Appendix C. This table summarizes method name and number, the form of chemical measured, the method detection limit, quantitation limit, and status of EPA approval of the method for NPDES compliance for each target toxic chemical. The method detection limit (MDL) is the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero (40 CFR Section 136 Appendix B). The quantitation limit (QL)
December 2014 3-15 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies or practical quantitation limit (PQL) is a quantity set 2 to 10 times higher than the MDL. By raising the MDL by a factor of 2 to 10, a “safety factor” is developed to account for the quality of the instrument, skill of the analyst and nature of the samples. The PQL is the lowest level that can be reliably achieved during routine laboratory operating conditions. This table reflects the range of PQL at 2 to 10 times the MDL.
23The following sections summarize, by toxic chemical, existing information on toxics loadings to freshwater and Puget Sound. Each section includes the relative sources of loading by category, an evaluation of the largest likely sources of the pollutant, and an evaluation of which pollutants have the most likely significant impacts to human health and the environment. For each toxic chemical, the analytical method, detection limits for NPDES compliance, and quantitation limits are provided. Also included is a discussion of quantitation limits (reporting limits) of methods allowed for NPDES compliance on the numeric effluent limits implemented in NPDES permits. A total list of NPDES permittees and effluent limitations for the five listed target toxic chemicals in the Puget Sound can be found in Appendix B.
Waterbodies on the 2012 Ecology 303(d) list for impaired waters are summarized by toxic constituent for waterbodies within Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIAs) 1 through 23. For each toxic, the name of the waterbody is provided, the sample media, and listing identification. Only waterbodies impaired under listing category 2 or greater are presented.
3.1 Arsenic
3.1.1 Sources to Puget Sound and Coastal Basins Types of facilities in the Puget Sound region known to release arsenic primarily include pulp and paper mills and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) followed by chemical manufacturing and handling, power generation, oil refining, coal mining, shipyards, scrap metal processing, wood‐ waste landfills, metals mining and milling, and aluminum smelting.
The majority of arsenic loading to Puget Sound is from paper mills or wastewater treatment plants. According to the Ecology NPDES permit database, the highest maximum loading concentration of arsenic to Puget Sound is 120 µg/L and is discharged from a paper and packaging plant. The highest technology based effluent limitation concentration of arsenic is 111 µg/L and is discharged from a wood plant. Two waterbodies are listed for arsenic within WRIAs 1 through 19 on Ecology’s 2012 303(d) list (Table 3‐1). However, many former listings have been removed based on declaration of “natural” sources in Puget Sound drainages, but deposits from former wood treatment facilities are suspected of contributing legacy deposits of arsenic that elevate background concetrantions.
December 2014 3-16 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Table 3-1 303(d) listings for Arsenic for WRIAs 1 through 23.
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID Category Media
Portage Creek 5- 2 Water 14534 Stillaguamish
Silver Creek 1-Nooksack 2 Water 8634
Bellingham Bay 1-Nooksack 5 Sediment 501187 (Inner)
Bellingham Bay 1-Nooksack 4A Sediment 501241, 501379, 501403, (Inner) 501497, 501542, 608490, 609336, 611336, 611345, 618192, 619483
Budd Inlet 13-Deschutes 5 Sediment 600634, 601255
Commencemen 10- Puyallup- 4B Sediment 512320, 512464, 512511, t Bay White 601177, 601215, 601724, 602416, 6109501, 619001
Dalco Passage 12- 2 Rank 3 Sediment 604978, 613360 and East Chambers- Passage Clover
Dalco Passage 12- 5 Sediment 611303, 620984, 622926, and East Chambers- 623527, 624021, 625029 Passage Clover
Duwamish 9-Duwamish- 4B Sediment 507065 Waterway Green
Duwamish 9-Duwamish- 5 Sediment 611979, 625344, 625375 Waterway Green
Eagle Harbor 15- Kitsap 4B Sediment 504822, 505023, 505069, 606789, 622693, 623456
Elliott Bay 9-Duwamish- 4B Sediment 506499 Green
December 2014 3-17 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID Category Media
Hood Canal 15-Kitsap 5 Sediment 508052 (North)
Hood Canal 15-Kitsap 4B Sediment 616341, 621591 (North)
Liberty Bay 15-Kitsap 4B Sediment 511106, 511151, 511323, 511452, 607831, 610693, 614598
Padilla Bay, 3-Lower 5 Sediment 618658 Fridalgo Bay and Skagit- Guemes Samish Channel
Port Angeles 18-Elwha- 5 Sediment 615481, 625127 Harbor Dungeness
Port Gamble Bay 15-Kitsap 5 Sediment 508154, 508566, 616729
Sinclair Inlet 15- Kitsap 4B Sediment 507577, 507584, 507638, 507645, 507653, 507661, 507668, 507814, 507821, 507922, 507929, 507936, 508189, 605353, 610303, 614125, 615171, 617017, 619553
Thea Foss 10-Puyallup- 4B Sediment 603192, 603419 Waterway White
December 2014 3-18 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
3.1.2 Detection and Quantitation Limits EPA limits the amount of arsenic that can be released by industrial sources and has cancelled or restricted many uses of arsenic in pesticides. Additionally, EPA has limited drinking water concentration of arsenic to 0.01 parts per million (ATSDR 2007). The lowest detection limit for arsenic is 0.02 µg/L using Standard Method 3135 B‐2009, which is approved for NPDES but does not appear to be readily available by Washington state‐accredited labs. The next lowest detection limit is 0.06 µg/L using USGS I‐4020‐05, which is also approved for NPDES but also does not appear to be readily available by Washington state‐accredited labs. However, EPA Method 200.8 is approved for NPDES and readily available by Washington state‐accredited labs (detection limit is 0.5 µg/L, which is the lowest among EPA methods). Depending on method, quantitation limits for arsenic range from 0.04 to 530 µg/L for EPA approved methods for NPDES. Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA‐approval for arsenic is summarized in Appendix C.
3.2 Benzo(a)Pyrene
3.2.1 Sources to Puget Sound Types of facilities in the Puget Sound region known to release BaP include aluminum and chemical plants, oil refining, WWTPs, and Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) sites (hazardous material cleanup sites).
The majority of sources of BaP loading to Puget Sound include aluminum smelting plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, and wastewater treatment plants. According to the Ecology NPDES permit database, the highest maximum loading concentration of BaP found in surface waters surrounding the point source discharge is 1.9 µg/L from an aluminum smelter. One aluminum smelter also has the highest technology based effluent limitation of all NPDES permittees listed for BaP (0.098 µg/L daily maximum). The listed maximum concentration at the edge of the mixing zone is 0.04 µg/L. Fourteen waterbodies are listed for BaP within WRIAs 1 through 19 on Ecology’s 2012 303(d) list (Table 3‐2).
Table 3-2 303(d) listings for BaP for WRIAs 1 through23.
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Bellingham Bay 1-Nooksack 5 Tissue 63418
Budd Inlet 13-Deschutes 5 Tissue 64003, 64016, 64712, 63059
Dalco Passage 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 63085 and East Passage
December 2014 3-19 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Duwamish River 9-Duwamish- 5 Tissue 64040, 64128, 64172, Green 64216, 64261, 64309, 64355
Eagle Harbor 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 8718
Fever Creek 1-Nooksack 2 Water 12949
Hood Canal 17-Quilcene- 5 Tissue 63215 (North) Snow
Port Angeles 18-Elwha- 5 Tissue 63444, 64606 Harbor Dungeness
Port Townsend 17-Quilcene- 5 Tissue 63392 Snow
Possession Sound 6-Island 5 Tissue 63293
Possession Sound 7-Snohomish 5 Tissue 63241
Puget Sound 9-Duwamish- 5 Tissue 63111 Green
Puget Sound 8-Cedar- 5 Tissue 63163, 63189 Sammamish
Strait of Georgia 1-Nooksack 5 Tissue 63470
Bellingham Bay 1-Nooksack 2 Rank 3 Sediment 501091 (Inner)
Bellingham Bay 1-Nooksack 4A Sediment 501244, 501406, 501500, (Inner) 501545, 608491, 611346, 619484
Budd Inlet 13-Deschutes 5 Sediment 600635, 601256
Budd Inlet 13-Deschutes 4B Sediment 600865
Commencement 10-Puyallup- 4B Sediment 512323, 512467, 512514, Bay (Inner) White 601178, 601216, 601725, 602417, 610951, 619002
Duwamish 9-Duwamish- 4B Sediment 507068 Waterway Green
Duwamish 9-Duwamish- 5 Sediment 611980, 625345, 625376 Waterway Green
December 2014 3-20 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Eagle Harbor 15- Kitsap 4B Sediment 504825, 505026, 505072, 606790, 622694, 623457
Elliott Bay 9-Duwamish- 4B Sediment 506601 Green
Hood Canal 15-Kitsap 4B Sediment 621592 (North)
Liberty Bay 15-Kitsap 4B Sediment 51108, 51153, 511324, 511454, 607832, 614599
Port Angeles 18- Elwha- 5 Sediment 615482, 625128 Harbor Dungeness
Port Gamble Bay 15- Kitsap 5 Sediment 508157, 616730
Port Susan 6-Island 2 Rank 2 Sediment 614860
Puget Sound 8-Cedar- 2 Rank 2 Sediment 511660, 511842, 618878 (Central) Sammamish
Puget Sound 8-Cedar- 2 Rank 3 Sediment 611084 (Central) Sammamish
Sinclair Inlet 15-Kitsap 4B Sediment 604411, 605354, 610304, 614126, 615172, 616420, 619554, 620568, 621372, 623155, 624602, 625009
Thea Foss 10-Puyallup- 4B Sediment 603193, 603420 Waterway White
3.2.2 Detection and Quantitation Limits The lowest detection limit for BaP is 0.02 µg/L, which can be achieved by EPA Method 8310 (not approved for NPDES but readily available by Washington state‐accredited labs) or Standard Method 6440 B‐2000 (approved for NPDES but not readily available by Washington state‐ accredited labs). However, EPA Method 610 has only a slightly higher detection limit of 0.023 µg/L and is both NPDES approved and readily available by Washington state‐accredited labs. Depending on method, quantitation limits for BaP range from 0.04 to 100 µg/L for EPA approved methods for NPDES. Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA‐approval for BaP is summarized in Appendix C.
December 2014 3-21 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
3.3 Mercury
3.3.1 Sources to Puget Sound Types of facilities in the Puget Sound region known to release mercury include pulp and paper mills, oil refineries, metals mining and milling, WWTPs, scrap metal processing, cement plants, and power generation.
Mercury loading to Puget Sound is mainly attributed to wastewater treatment plants. Other sources include oil refineries and pulp and paper mills. According to the Ecology NPDES permit database, the highest maximum loading concentration of 24.2 µg/L comes from a wastewater treatment plant, as well as the maximum concentration at the edge of the chronic zone. The second highest maximum concentration of 4.5 µg/L comes from an oil refinery. Thirty seven waterbodies are listed for mercury within WRIAs 1 through 19 on Ecology’s 2012 303(d) list (Table 3‐3).
Table 3-3 303(d) listings for Mercury for WRIAs 1 through 23.
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Big Soos Creek 9-Duwamish- 2 Water 13790 Green
Blue Canyon 1-Nooksack 2 Water 41863 Creek
Clover Creek 12-Chambers- 2 Water 9421 Clover
Colvos Passage 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 63637
Crisp Creek 9-Duwamish- 2 Water 13739 Green
Dalco Passage 15-Kitsap 2 Tissue 36323 and East Passage
Dungeness River 18-Elwha- 2 Water 42778 Dungeness
Dyes Inlet and 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 8699 Port Washington Narrows
Elwah River 18-Elwha- 2 Water 15505, 15515 Dungeness
December 2014 3-22 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Fauntleroy Creek 9-Duwamish- 2 Water 45380 Green
Fever Creek 1-Nooksack 2 Water 12951
Forbes Creek 8-Cedar- 2 Water 13539 Sammamish
Green River 9-Duwamish- 2 Water 8659 Green
Hat Slough 5-Stillaguamish 2 Water 14648
Hill (Mill) Creek 9-Duwamish- 2 Water 13818 Green
Howell Creek 8-Cedar- 5 Water 45386 Sammamish
Juanita Creek 8-Cedar- 2 Water 13523 Sammamish
Kelsey Creek 8-Cedar- 2 Water 13587 Sammamish
Leach Creek 12-Chambers- 5 Water 3745 Clover
Leland Lake 17-Quilcene- 5 Tissue 52606 Snow
Lewis Creek 8-Cedar- 2 Water 13636 Sammamish
Lyon Creek 8-Cedar- 2 Water 13463 Sammamish
May Creek 8-Cedar- 2 Water 13555 Sammamish
Newaukum 9-Duwamish- 2 Water 13768 Creek Green
Nooksack River 1-Nooksack 2 Water 10527, 45376, 42779
North Creek 8-Cedar- 2 Water 13431 Sammamish
Portage Creek 5-Stillaguamish 2 Water 14538
December 2014 3-23 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Puyallup River 10-Puyallup- 5 Water 10874, 35421 White
Samish(West 3-Lower Skagit- 2 Tissue 17367 Arm) Lake Samish
Sinclair Inlet 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 63694
Stillaguamish 5-Stillaguamish 2 Water 14628, 42808, 14608 River
Strait of Juan de 19-Lyre-Hoko 5 Tissue 63837 Fuca
Swamp Creek 8-Cedar- 2 Water 10778 Sammamish
Thornton Creek 8-Cedar- 2 Water 13603, 42590, 45379 Sammamish
Unnamed Creek 8-Cedar- 2 Water 45385 Sammamish
Washington 8-Cedar- 2 Water 12264, 12272 Lake Sammamish
Whatcom Lake 1-Nooksack 5 Tissue 15889, 15890, 15891, 15892, 15893, 15894, 15895
Black River 23- Upper 2 Water 8743 Chehalis
Chehalis River 22-Lower 5 Tissue 52594 Chehalis
Ozette Lake 20- Soleduck- 5 Tissue 52620 Hoh
Bellingham Bay 1-Nooksack 4A Sediment 501031, 501263, 501372, (Inner) 501384, 501425, 501518, 501564, 501578, 608500, 609023, 609344, 611341, 618197, 619495, 620270
Bellingham Bay 1-Nooksack 5 Sediment 501209 (Inner)
Budd Inlet 13-Deschutes 5 Sediment 600646, 601268
December 2014 3-24 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Commencement 10-Puyallup- 4B Sediment 512342, 512486, 512533, Bay White 601190, 601229, 601736, 602429, 610961, 619017
Dalco Passage 12- Chambers- 2 Rank 2 Sediment 620989, 625034 and East Passage Clover
Dalco Passage 12- Chambers- 2 Rank 3 Sediment 622929 and East Passage Clover
Duwamish 9-Duwamish- 5 Sediment 625386, 625358, 611991, Waterway Green 507037
Duwamish 9-Duwamish- 4B Sediment 507085 Waterway Green
Dyes Inlet and 15-Kitsap 2 Rank 2 Sediment 608697 Port Washington
Dyes Inlet and 15-Kitsap 2 Rank 2 Sediment 603846, 611827, 612679, Port Washington 618913 Narrows
Dyes Inlet and 15-Kitsap 5 Sediment 624986 Port Washington Narrows
Eagle Harbor 15- Kitsap 4B Sediment 504844, 505045, 505091, 606804, 622705, 623471
Eagle Harbor 15- Kitsap 2 Rank 3 Sediment 504961
Elliott Bay 9-Duwamish- 2 Rank 3 Sediment 506427, 506474 Green
Elliott Bay 9-Duwamish- 4B Sediment 506618 Green
Hood Canal 15- Kitsap 4B Sediment 616347, 621602 (North)
Liberty Bay 15-Kitsap 4B Sediment 511127, 511172, 511335, 511473, 607841, 610699, 614608
Padilla Bay, 3-Lower Skagit- 5 Sediment 618675 Fidalgo Bay, Samish Guesmes Channel
December 2014 3-25 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Port Angeles 18-Elwha- 2 Rank 3 Sediment 606499, 622969 Harbor Dungeness
Port Angeles 18-Elwha- 2 Rank 2 Sediment 623650 Harbor Dungeness
Port Angeles 18-Elwha- 5 Sediment 625140 Harbor Dungeness
Port Gamble Bay 15- Kitsap 5 Sediment 508588, 616740
Puget Sound 15-Kitsap 2 Rank 2 Sediment 623393 (Central)
Puget Sound (S- 9-Duwamish- 2 Rank 2 Sediment 508483 Central) and East Green Passage
Quartermaster 15-Kitsap 2 Rank 2 Sediment 617501 Harbor
Sinclair Inlet 15-Kitsap 4B Sediment 604415, 605366, 606454, 610312, 614136, 615780, 616428, 617022, 617262, 619568, 620577, 621380, 623164, 624606, 625017
Sinclair Inlet 15-Kitsap 2 Rank 2 Sediment 606624, 606985, 609664, 610216, 612939
Sinclair Inlet 15-Kitsap 2 Rank 3 Sediment 616624, 618366
Strait of Georgia 1-Nooksack 2 Rank 2 Sediment 603646
Strait of Juan de 18-Elwha- 2 Rank 2 Sediment 617801 Fuca (Central) Dungeness
Thea Foss 10-Puyallup- 4B Sediment 603432, 603207 Waterway White
Totten Inlet 14- Kennedy, 2 Rank 2 Sediment 602067 Goldsborough
December 2014 3-26 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
3.3.2 Detection and Quantitation Limits The lowest detection limit for mercury is 0.0002 µg/L using EPA Method 1631E, which is approved for NPDES and readily available by Washington state‐accredited labs. Depending on method, quantitation limits for mercury range from 0.0004 to 0.002 µg/L for EPA approved methods for NPDES. Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA‐approval for mercury is summarized in Appendix C.
3.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Total)
3.4.1 Sources to Puget Sound Types of facilities in the Puget Sound region known to release PCBs include WWTP and scrap metal processing. Loading sources of PCBs include wastewater treatment plants, steel mills, and scrap metal processors. According to the Ecology NPDES permit database, the highest maximum loading concentration of 0.066 µg/L comes from a steel mill, while the maximum chronic zone concentration of 0.02 µg/L is permitted by a scrap metal processor. The highest permitted technology based effluent limit of 7 µg/L also comes from a scrap metal processor. Of the 8 facilities listed in the NPDES permit database, 3 of those facilities are WWTPs. Sixty waterbodies are listed for elevated PCB concentrations within WRIAs 1 through 23 on Ecology’s 2012 303(d) list (Table 3‐4).
Table 3-4 303(d) listings for PCB for WRIAs 1 through 23.
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
American Lake 12-Chambers- 5 Tissue 42169 Clover
Balch and 12-Chambers- 5 Tissue 35829 Cormorant Clover Passages
Balch and 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 36340 Cormorant Passages
Ballinger Lake 8-Cedar- 5 Tissue 52646 Sammamish
Bellingham Bay 1-Nooksack 2 Tissue 63813
Budd Inlet 13-Deschutes 5 Tissue 8690, 63077
Budd Inlet 13-Deschutes 2 Tissue 63616
December 2014 3-27 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Calligan Lake 7-Snohomish 5 Tissue 43251
Carr Inlet 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 36343
Case Inlet and Dana 14-Kennedy- 2 and 5 Tissue 36023, 36024, 52934, Passage Goldsborough 64721
Case Inlet and Dana 15-Kitsap 2 and 5 Tissue 36342, 63632 Passage
Clear Creek 15-Kitsap 2 Tissue 17161
Colvos Passage 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 36346, 63638
Commencement 10-Puyallup- 5 Tissue 8671, 35738, 36178, Bay White 35739, 35828
Dalco Passage and 10-Puyallup- 2 and 5 Tissue 35740, 35741, 35742, East Passage White 35743
Dalco Passage and 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 36345, 63103 East Passage
Deschutes River 13-Deschutes 2 Tissue 35942
Duwamish River 9-Duwamish- 5 Tissue 14090, 63653, 8192, Green 33698
Eagle Harbor 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 8717
Elliot Bay 8-Cedar- 2 and 5 Tissue 63659, 63665, 63710, Sammamish 63717
Elwha River 18-Elwha- 2 and 5 Tissue and 7023, 8732 Dungeness Water
Green Lake 8-Cedar- 5 Tissue 17383 Sammamish
Green River 9-Duwamish- 2 Water 8652 Green
Hale Passage 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 36344
Haven Lake 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 52662
Henderson Bay 15-Kitsap 2 Tissue 36347
Kitsap Lake 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 42170
December 2014 3-28 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Leland Lake 17-Quilcene- 5 Tissue 52663 Snow
Long Lake 13-Deschutes 5 Tissue 52666
Mason Lake 14-Kennedy- 5 Tissue 52668 Goldsborough
Mcintosh Lake 13-Deschutes 5 Tissue 17431
Meridian Lake 9-Duwamish- 5 Tissue 52670 Green
Mountain Lake 2-San Juan 5 Tissue 52673
Nisqually Reach/ 15-Kitsap 2 Tissue 36341 Drayton Passage
Nisqually River 11-Nisqually 2 Tissue 35781
Offut Lake 13-Deschutes 5 Tissue 52676
Padden Lake 1-Nooksack 5 Tissue 17299
Port Angeles 18-Elwha- 5 Tissue 64617, 64637 Harbor Dungeness
Port Orchard, Agate 15-Kitsap 2 and 5 Tissue 63155, 63732 Passage, Rich Passage
Port Townsend 17-Quilcene- 5 Tissue 63410 Snow
Possession Sound 7-Snohomish 5 Tissue 63259, 63778
Puget Sound 9-Duwamish- 5 Tissue 36168, 63129 Green
Puget Sound 8-Cedar- 5 Tissue 52937, 63181, 63207 Sammamish
Puget Sound 15-Kitsap 5 Tissue 63614
Samish(West Arm) 3-Lower 5 Tissue 17366 Lake Skagit-Samish
Sammamish Lake 8-Cedar- 5 Tissue 52690 Sammamish
December 2014 3-29 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Sawyer Lake 8-Cedar- 5 Tissue 52691 Sammamish
Silver Lake 8-Cedar- 5 Tissue 52693 Sammamish
Sinclair Inlet 15-Kitsap 4B and 5 Tissue 8713, 63680, 63695
Skagit Bay and 3-Lower 2 Tissue 63780 Similk Bay Skagit-Samish
Skagit River 3-Lower 2 and 5 Tissue 14036, 35570 Skagit-Samish
Snohomish River 7-Snohomish 5 Tissue 52699
Squaxin, Peale, and 14-Kennedy- 5 Tissue 36025 Pickering Passages Goldsborough
Strait of Juan de 18-Elwha- 5 Tissue 64540, 64597 Fuca Dungeness
Strait of Juan de 19-Lyre-Hoko 5 Tissue 64657 Fuca
Summit Lake 14-Kennedy- 5 Tissue 52701 Goldsborough
Wallace River 7-Snohomish 2 Tissue 35575
Ward Lake 13-Deschutes 5 Tissue 7022
Washington Lake 8-Cedar- 2 and 5 Water and 12311,12312,12313, Sammamish Tissue 12314, 12315, 12316, 12317, 12318, 43482, 52703, 52704, 52705
Whatcom Lake 1-Nooksack 5 Tissue 14025, 52708
Black Lake 23- Upper 5 Tissue 52648 Chehalis
Chehalis River 23- Upper 5 Tissue 8741 Chehalis
Chehalis River 22- Lower 5 Tissue 52651 Chehalis
December 2014 3-30 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Queets River 21- Queets- 5 Tissue 52685 Quinault
Quinault River 21- Queets- 5 Tissue 52686 Quinault
Bellingham Bay 1-Nooksack 5 Sediment 501212 (Inner)
Bellingham Bay 1-Nooksack 4A Sediment 501266, 501427, 501521, (Inner) 501566
Commencement 10-Puyallup- 4B Sediment 512345, 512489, 512536, Bay White 601192, 601231, 602294, 602431, 610963, 619020
Duwamish 9-Duwamish- 4B Sediment 507088 Waterway Green
Eagle Harbor 15-Kitsap 4B Sediment 606806, 622707, 623473
Elliott Bay 9-Duwamish- 4B Sediment 506621 Green
Port Angeles 18-Elwha- 5 Sediment 615496, 625142 Harbor Dungeness
Port Gamble Bay 15-Kitsap 5 Sediment 616742
Puget Sound 9-Duwamish- 2 Rank 2 Sediment 506946 (Central) Green
Puget Sound 8-Cedar- 2 Rank 2 Sediment 617948 (Central) Sammamish
Sinclair Inlet 15-Kitsap 4B Sediment 508187, 508194, 604417, 605368, 606455, 614138, 616430, 619570, 620579, 623166, 624608, 625019
Thea Foss 10-Puyallup- 4B Sediment 603209, 603434 Waterway White
December 2014 3-31 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
3.4.2 Detection and Quantitation Limits Many detection limits for PCBs are unknown. The methods presented with detection limits (EPA Methods 505, 508.1, and 508A) are used by Washington state‐accredited labs for drinking water. EPA Methods 608 and 625 are used by Washington state‐accredited labs for non‐potable water and are approved for NPDES use. Depending on method, quantitation limits for PCBs range from 0.13 to 360 µg/L for EPA approved methods for NPDES. Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA‐approval for PCBs are summarized in Appendix C.
3.5 2,3,7,8-TCDD / 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
3.5.1 Sources to Puget Sound Types of facilities in the Puget Sound region known to release 2,3,7,8‐TCCD include pulp and paper mills and woodwaste landfills. All permitted sources of 2,3,7,8 TCDD can be attributed to pulp and paper mills and wood products. According to the Ecology NPDES permit database, the highest permitted technology based effluent limitation is 1.31 mg/day by a pulp and paper mill. Sixteen waterbodies are listed for BaP within WRIAs 1 through 19 on Ecology’s 2012 303(d) list (Table 3‐5).
Table 3-5 303(d) listings for TCDD for WRIAs 1 through 23.
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
American Lake 12-Chambers- 5 Tissue 42443 Clover
Ballinger Lake 8-Cedar- 5 Tissue 51543 Sammamish
Budd Inlet 14-Deschutes 5 Tissue 64000, 64012, 64013, 64711, 64011
Duwamish River 9-Duwamish-Green 5 Tissue 64297
Elliot Bay 8-Cedar- 5 Tissue 64390 Sammamish
Leland Lake 17-Quilcene-Snow 5 Tissue 51554
Long Lake 13-Deschutes 5 Tissue 51556
Meridian Lake 9-Duwamish-Green 5 Tissue 51560
December 2014 3-32 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Waterbody WRIA Listing Sample Listing ID(s) Category Media
Padilla Bay, Fidalgo 3-Lower Skagit- 5 Tissue 64460, 64461, 64463, Bay, and Guemes Samish 64464, 64467 Channel
Possession Sound 7-Snohomish 5 Tissue 64441, 64447
Sawyer Lake 9-Duwamish-Green 5 Tissue 51577
Snohomish River 7-Snohomish 5 Tissue 51584, 64445
Strait of Juan de 18-Elwha- 5 Tissue 64579 Fuca Dungeness
Strait of Juan de 19-Lyre-Hoko 5 Tissue 64639 Fuca
Washington Lake 8-Cedar- 5 Tissue 51591, 51592, 51593 Sammamish
Whatcom Lake 1-Nooksack 5 Tissue 51595
3.5.2 Detection and Quantitation Limits The lowest detection limit for 2,3,7,8‐TCDD is 10.00 picograms per liter (pg/L) using EPA Method 1613, which is approved for NPDES and readily available by Washington state‐accredited labs. Depending on method, quantitation limits for 2,3,7,8, TCDD Dioxin range from 20 to 100 pg/L for EPA approved methods for NPDES. Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA‐approval for 2,3,7,8‐TCDD is summarized in Appendix C.
December 2014 3-33 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
4.0 ASSUMPTIONS FOR TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Several types of land use settings were identified as potential sources for the select toxics examined in this report. The association between land use and source for toxics defines how transfer of pollutants to waters occurs and identifies where sequestration occurs and potential decision points on applicable treatment technology. The assumptions developed for this type of analysis uses the source type (i.e., industrial, municipal, or un‐regulated) to enable a prediction on persistence and severity throughout this portion of the landscape.
Each of the toxics examined in this report may be present and have a negative effect on aquatic life and human health criteria. The combination of source setting and migration of toxics, along with factors that control their mobilization and the frequency that they become mobile, determine potential for exposure to aquatic life. The construction of a pathways diagram for each toxic is a tool used as the basis for determining the likelihood of causing effects on receptors. Once a pathway for toxics movement in the aquatic environment is established, an effect on receptors can be determined, as well as the type of chemical conditions that facilitates exposure to aquatic life.
The mechanisms for transfer of toxics and the pathway for mobilization form basic assumptions about where aquatic life exposure might occur. Establishing these diagrams for each of the settings confirms that sources for the select toxics and exposure pathways exist.
Each of the toxics in this report is evaluated for their movement between media in the aquatic ecosystem, the factors that promote transfer, and the receptors as endpoints and potential threat to aquatic life. Depending on where in the ecosystem concentrations of these toxics are found, the potential for bioaccumulation in aquatic life and its threat as a human health risk from harvest and consumption can be determined.
Each of the toxics is unique from source of introduction into the aquatic environment, to the residence time in media where sequestered, and the receptor(s) affected by bioaccumulation. The behavior of toxics in the aquatic environment has an influential role as to where interception of the pollutants effectively occurs and how much of the pollutant can be removed using treatment technology(s).
Toxics in water that are treated by a BMP structure may originate from a municipal area (impervious surfaces), including runoff from storm events or from water application for domestic uses (e.g., street washing, car washing, and lawn care). Toxics may also be entrained in water that drains from industrial areas from site activities like truck washing, pavement washing, and storm
December 2014 4-1 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies event runoff. Installing appropriate BMPs reduce toxics in the surface water once treated, and estimates of reduction is based on results from previous studies as reported in Section 5.
Removal efficiency by BMPs (see Table 5‐5) assumes effectiveness at any range of concentration from influent water. Removal efficiencies by BMPs are expressed in either “%reduction” or by a “unit mass/unit time,” and these removal rates are assumed to be constant for all toxics concentration ranges in influent water to a BMP structure.
December 2014 4-2 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
5.0 TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR POINT- AND NON-POINT SOURCES
This section provides an assessment of individual treatment strategies to reduce loading of toxic chemicals to Puget Sound. . Figure 5‐1 identifies general categories of toxic chemicals sources and general pathways of loading to Puget Sound. Two pathways are represented including: 1) industrial and municipal wastewater, flowing to and through POTWs, and 2) urban/sub‐ urban/rural stormwater. The industrial and municipal wastewater sources are further evaluated for how toxics reduction can be accomplished using pre‐treatment limits and BMPs. In the case of stormwater sources of pollution, both source control and structural stormwater controls are reviewed using examples from one or more of urban, sub‐urban, and rural settings in the Puget Sound and Coastal areas.
The origin of toxic chemicals in Puget Sound and the Coastal areas are partitioned by two major categories: 1) runoff from impervious surfaces that are collected in a conveyance system that eventually reaches a POTW, and 2) land surface runoff from limited areas of impervious surface that can collect near the point of origin (Figure 5‐1; Source of Pollution). Sources of pollution that are conveyed to a POTW from industiral and municipal locations can be removed using pre‐ treatment BMPs. This is considered initial treatment to reduce the concentration of toxics entering the POTW with some inflow and infiltration BMPs. The goal of pre‐treatment is to limit or eliminate the need for further reduction of toxics by the POTW or to reduce concentrations so that existing technology in the POTW will discharge treated water below the target concentrations.
Sources of pollution from the point of origin in urban, sub‐urban, and rural areas release toxics through land surface runoff and can be retained near the point of origin using source controls. These best management practices (BMPs) retain runoff near the point of origin and remove toxics through infiltration and adsorption. This water can also be re‐used once clarified through one or more BMPs (a treatment train). Fate of this water is gradual release into a natural receiving stream, but with a reduced level of toxic concentration in treated water.
December 2014 5-1 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Figure 5-1 Origin of toxic chemicals and description of treatment strategies to reduce loading to Coastal and Puget Sound Basins.
5.1 Definition of Pre-Treatment and Source
5.1.1 Control Applications Treatment strategies for toxics are categorized based on point of interception from the source or entrainment in a pipe conveyance system. Two distinct strategies are described to intercept and remove toxics when mobilized from municipal and industrial locations and in urban, sub‐urban or rural areas. Toxics mobilized from industrial and municipal locations run off from impervious surfaces and are usually collected in a conveyance system. The conveyance systems that connect to sewer systems and reach POTWs is where pre‐treatment technology should be applied. Runoff from urban, sub‐urban, or rural areas are diffuse and require collection near the point of origin before reaching natural streams or lakes and is where source control technology should be applied. In locations where wastewater or stormwater is received, single BMPs may be effective in achieving toxics reduction concentrations exiting the BMP. In other cases, individual BMPs are not effective in removing enough of the toxic load and require multiple BMPs in tandem to reduce the load in a stepwise manner. Multiple BMPs treating stormwater or wastewater in tandem are also known as treatment trains. The following discussion provides greater detail for application of pre‐treatment technology for wastewater toxics and source control of stormwater toxics.
December 2014 5-2 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Pre‐treatment BMPs intercept toxic chemicals prior to entering the POTW where additional removal occurs. Pre‐treatment BMPS are used to remove toxic chemicals entrained and conveyed as point sources of pollutants. The intent of this BMP is to reduce the cost for POTW plant upgrade and to promote use of existing technology for pollutant removal that is both expedient and effective. Metals and the other toxic chemicals reviewed in this report may pass through POTWs in the absence of advanced secondary and tertiary treatments.
The flow charts in Figure 5‐1 include source control methods that reduce the load of toxic chemicals and prohibit them from reaching natural receiving waters via the waste stream. Some of the source controls retain water for a period of time to promote infiltration into the ground with sequestration of toxics in sediment or in the biotic community (usually aquatic plants).
Stormwater runoff moving through source controls can enter additional treatment controls before reaching receiving water. Source controls are BMPs effective in removing select toxics from stormwater inflows and applied near the point of origin of toxics. Multiple control facilities are called “treatment trains.” Detaining and stopping toxic chemicals near the source typically is the least expensive option, using infiltration and stormwater reclamation to replenish natural receiving water. Retention of stormwater and inflow to additional stormwater structural BMPs can be implemented should toxic chemical reduction be unachievable with a single structure prior to release into receiving water.
A variety of treatment technologies are available to reduce toxic chemicals and nutrients from stormwater prior to discharge to receiving water. Stormwater BMPs are commonly grouped as structural and non‐structural. Structural stormwater BMPs treat water at the point of generation or the point of discharge to the storm sewer system or receiving waters using engineered and constructed systems (EPA 1999b). Non‐structural stormwater BMPs are designed to prevent pollutants from entering runoff. This is accomplished through a range of pollution prevention efforts, including education, institutional, and management and development practices designed to limit inputs to runoff (EPA 1999b). Implementation of low impact development (LID) strategies is effective at lowering runoff volumes and limiting distance of toxics mobilization during storms. Further, pollution prevention methods have been outlined for residential, municipal, and industrial/commercial sites by the MNPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Authority) (http://stormwater.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/Pollution_prevention). The following summary of structural BMPs routinely used to treat stormwater runoff is summarized from EPA (1999b) and discussed below.
December 2014 5-3 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
5.2 Types of Stormwater Structural BMPs
Structural stormwater BMPs are commonly used to manage water on‐site throughout the Puget Sound region. Managing water on‐site prevents release of toxic pollutants into natural streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and other important waterbodies where aquatic life use, human contact, and human consumption are likely to occur. Since average annual rainfall in the Puget Sound can range from an estimated 20 inches to over 200 inches, depending on location, managing water influenced by human activity is equivalent to managing toxic chemical input to the Puget Sound drainage network. The implementation of the stormwater permitting program in western Washington is outlined in detail for municipalities and includes major industry requirements and expectations for managing stormwater pollutants (Ecology 2014b). Ecology maintains updated and detailed guidance for selection and design consideration of BMPs to manage stormwater on‐ site. The current Ecology stormwater guidance manual (Ecology 2012b) includes descriptions of several BMPs that would be effective for reduction of stormwater pollutants by using source control efforts for use in pre‐treatment pollution control.
5.2.1 Detention and Retention Basins Stormwater detention provides temporary storage of stormwater runoff for subsequent release, for example, detention basins, underground vaults, tanks or pipes, and deep tunnels (WEF/ASCE 1992). Detention basins are designed to temporarily impound intercepted stormwater to reduce the peak flow of storm discharges. The treatment efficiency of detention basins is typically limited to settling of suspended solids and associated contaminants. Conversely, retention provides temporary storage without subsequent discharge (WEF/ASCE 1992). Retention practices include actions that infiltrate or evaporate runoff, or that maintain a permanent pool until the next storm event. The primary mechanism of pollutant removal is sedimentation; however, aquatic plants or microorganisms may be added to increase filtration and biological update. Often, metals conveyed by stormwater and that reach detention or retention basins will settle from the water column resulting in substantially lower concentrations in overlying surface water (Jerry Creek and Susan Turner, King county’s Renton Facility Decant Data, personal communication, June 1999).
5.2.2 Constructed Wetland Constructed wetland systems are similar to detention and retention systems; however, a substantial portion of the water surface and/or wetland bottom include wetland plant species. Pre‐treatment is often needed to remove coarse sediment that can affect system performance. Additionally, stormwater runoff should not be routed directly to a constructed wetland without pre‐treatment. A number of mechanisms are involved in the removal of pollutants by wetlands, including sedimentation, filtration, volatilization, adsorption, absorption, microbial decomposition, and plant uptake.
December 2014 5-4 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
5.2.3 Infiltration Trench and Basins Infiltration systems capture a volume of runoff and allows for infiltration into the ground (EPA 1999b). As runoff infiltrates the ground, attached contaminants such as metals and contaminants are removed by filtration and dissolved constituents by adsorption. Infiltration approaches benefit by not only removing pollutants but also by reducing the volume of runoff discharged to receiving waters.
5.2.4 Filtration Filtration systems use a combination of granular filtration media (e.g., sand, soil, organic material, carbon, or a membrane) to remove runoff constituents. The capacity of media filters can be increased by allowing additional water storage near the filter to pool and by preventing sediment and debris from entering the system. Additionally, only a portion of the runoff may be filtered while the remainder by‐passes the system. Media filters are applicable to small sites with high pollutant potential (i.e., parking lots, small developments, or industrialized areas) and areas where land availability or costs preclude the use of other BMPs. A variety of modifications to filtration systems have been designed on a site‐by‐site basis.
5.2.5 Bioretention Bioretention systems are a variation of a surface sand filter that instead uses a planted soil bed designed to mimic the functions of a natural forest ecosystem. Stormwater flows into the bioretention system and is allowed to slowly infiltrate the soil bed; then it is either allowed to infiltrate the surrounding soil or is collected in an under drain system and discharged to the stormwater system. The soil bed removes pollutants through various processes, including adsorption, filtration, volatilization, ion exchange, and decomposition.
5.2.6 Swales and Filter Strips Swales and filter strips use vegetation biofilters to convey and treat either shallow flow (swales) or sheetflow (filter strips) runoff. Sand filters are related to these types of treatment and pollution removal BMPs.
5.3 Summary of Costs for Stormwater BMPs
A detailed literature review by the EPA (1999b) examined various BMPs for the treatment of stormwater to urban streams using structural BMPs. This assessment included 1) estimated typical costs per cubic foot of treated water (Table 5‐1), 2) estimated typical costs per BMP (Table 5‐2), 3) equations for estimating costs based on basin volume (Table 5‐3), and 4) estimates of land consumption per BMP type (Table 5‐4). The estimated costs in EPA assessment reflect the base capital costs and do not include the costs for design, geotechnical testing, legal fees, land costs, or other unforeseeable expenses. EPA (1999b) reported costs as adjusted to the “twenty cities average” construction cost index, based on information from APWA (1992). Economies of
December 2014 5-5 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies scale are important considerations when attempting to estimate the costs of retention and detention basins and the total volume of the basin is generally a good predictor of cost (EPA 1999b). Costs reported in Table 5‐1 and Table 5‐2 have been converted to 2014 dollars using a conservative multiplier of 1.69 based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS).
Table 5-1 Typical base capital construction costs for stormwater best management practices. 1
Best Typical Notes Source Management Construction Practice (BMP) Cost2, 3, 4 ($/cf Type of treated stormwater)
Retention and 0.81-1.63 Cost range reflects economies of scale in Adapted Detention Basins designing this BMP. The lowest unit cost from Brown represents approximately 150,000 cubic and feet of storage, while the highest is Schueler approximately 15,000 cubic feet. Typically, (1997) dry detention basins are the least expensive design options among retention and detention practices.
Constructed 0.98-2.03 Although little data are available to assess Adapted Wetland the costs of wetlands, it is assumed that from Brown they are approximately 25% more and expensive (because of plant selection and Schueler sediment forebay requirements) than (1997) retention basins. Cost range reflects economies of scale when designing this BMP.
Infiltration 6.5 Represents typical costs for a 100-foot Adapted Trench long trench from SWRPC (1991)
Infiltration Basin 2.11 Represents typical costs for a 0.25-acre Adapted infiltration basin. from SWRPC (1991)
Sand Filter 4.88-9.75 The range in costs for sand filter Adapted construction is largely due to the different from Brown sand filter designs. Of the three most and common options available, perimeter Schueler sand filters are moderate in cost whereas (1997) surface sand filters and underground sand filters are the most expensive.
December 2014 5-6 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Best Typical Notes Source Management Construction Practice (BMP) Cost2, 3, 4 ($/cf Type of treated stormwater)
Bioretention 8.61 Bioretention is relatively constant in cost Adapted because it is usually designed as a from Brown constant fraction of the total drainage and area. Schueler (1997)
Grass Swale 0.81 Based on cost per square foot, and Adapted assuming 6 inches of storage in the filter. from SWRPC (1991)
Filter Strip 0.00-2.12 Based on cost per square foot, and Adapted assuming 6 inches of storage in the filter from SWRPC strip. The lowest cost assumes that the (1991) buffer uses existing vegetation, and the highest cost assumes that sod was used to establish the filter strip.
Notes: 1. From EPA 1999b. 2. Assumptions: base year for costs refer primarily to the costs of construction and does not reflect design, geotechnical testing, legal fees, land costs, and other unexpected or additional costs; all cost data from 1997. 3. Costs were converted from 1997 to 2014 dollars, using a conservative multiplier of 1.69 (based on the US Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS) composite index (EM-110-2- 1304, March 31, 2014). 4. To account for a regional bias in construction costs, costs were divided by 1.04 (EPA rainfall zone 7; APWA 1992).
December 2014 5-7 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Table 5-2 Base costs of typical applications of stormwater best management practices. 1, 2
Best Management Typical Cost Application Source Practice (BMP) Type ($/BMP) 3, 4
Retention Basin $162,500 50-Acre Residential Site Adapted from Brown (Impervious Cover = 35%) and Schueler (1997)
Wetland $203,125 50-Acre Residential Site Adapted from Brown (Impervious Cover = 35%) and Schueler (1997)
Infiltration Trench $73,125 5-Acre Commercial Site Adapted from (Impervious Cover = 65%) SWRPC (1991)
Sand Filter $56,875- 5-Acre Commercial Site Adapted from Brown $113,750 5, 6 (Impervious Cover = 65%) and Schueler (1997)
Bioretention $97,500 5-Acre Commercial Site Adapted from Brown (Impervious Cover = 65%) and Schueler (1997)
Grass Swale $5,687.50 5-Acre Residential Site Adapted from (Impervious Cover = 35%) SWRPC (1991)
Filter Strip $0-$14,625 6 5-Acre Residential Site Adapted from (Impervious Cover = 35%) SWRPC (1991)
Notes: 1. From EPA 1999b. 2. Base costs do not include land costs. 3. Costs were converted from 1997 to 2014 dollars, using a conservative multiplier of 1.69 (based on the US Army Corps of Engineers’ Civil Works Construction Cost Index System (CWCCIS) composite index (EM-110-2- 1304, March 31, 2014). 4. To account for a regional bias in construction costs, costs were divided by 1.04 (EPA rainfall zone 7; APWA 1992). 5. Total capital costs can typically be determined by increasing these costs by approximately 30 percent. 6. A range is given to account for design variations.
December 2014 5-8 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Table 5-3 Base costs for stormwater ponds and wetlands. 1
Best Management Cost Equation or Costs Included Source Practice (BMP) Estimate2 Construction E&S3 Control Type
Retention Basins 7.75V 0.75 X X Wiegand and Wetlands et al. 1986
18.5V 0.70 X Brown & Schueler Detention Basins 7.47V 0.78 X X 1997
Retention Basins 1.06V: 0.25 acre SWRPC 4 retention basin (23,000 1991 cubic feet)
0.43V: 1.0 retention basin (148,000 cubic feet)
0.33V: 3.0 acre retention basin (547,000 cubic feet)
0.31V: 5.0 acre retention basin (952,000 cubic feet)
Notes: 1. From EPA 1999b. 2. V refers to the total basin volume in cubic feet. 3. E&S = erosion and sediment. 4. Costs presented from SWRPC (1991) are “moderate” costs reported in that study.
December 2014 5-9 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Table 5-4 Relative land consumption of stormwater best management practices. 1
BMP Type Land Consumption (% Impervious Area) 2
Retention Basin 2 – 3%
Constructed Wetland 3 – 5%
Infiltration Trench 2 – 3%
Infiltration Basin 2 – 3%
Porous Pavement 0%
Sand Filters 0 – 3%
Bioretention 5%
Swales 10 – 20%
Filter Strips 100%
Notes: 1. From Claytor and Schueler 1996 (and reprinted in EPA 1999b). 2. Represents the amount of land needed as a percent of the impervious area that drains to the practice to achieve effective treatment.
5.4 Examples for Cost/Benefit of Source controls
Examples of source control strategies including cost and toxic chemical reduction can be found in Appendix D. One example using each of the structural BMPs is provided in Appendix D to demonstrate costs and removal efficiency for both the minimum and maximum concentrations typically encountered in decant surface water in Puget Sound. Costs and efficiencies are calculated using information from Table 5‐1 through Table 5‐5 in this section. Toxic chemicals originating from stormwater runoff sources are retained on‐site in order to sequester and then remove them from surface water that will eventually return to natural receiving waters. Appendix D shows an example of source control treatments that reduce each of the toxic chemicals entrained by influent stormwater and the structural BMP costs associated with building and maintaining removal efficiency. Source control and pollution prevention (e.g., LID or implement pollution prevention practices) of toxic chemical pollutants is intended as a first‐line of defense from mobilization into Puget Sound and Coastal waterbodies (to both fresh and marine water).
Sources of the target toxic chemicals are from urban, sub‐urban, and rural settings (Figure 5‐1). The mode of conveyance is primarily stormwater, but it can include wash water or other uses of water that entrains and mobilizes the target toxic chemicals to natural receiving water. The
December 2014 5-10 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies benefit of source control for target toxic chemicals is a lower cost in removal from the point of origination. The load reduction of toxic pollutants entering natural receiving water is cumulative for individual waterbodies, and coupled with reductions from wastewater treatment is advantageous using existing guidance and opportunity.
Mercury is commonly distributed by air deposition from sources identified in Section 2.3.4. It is entrained in stormwater runoff and transported to receiving water. Source concentrations of mercury (Section 2.3.4) can be at least 1 to 3 orders of magnitude higher than that of municipal or industrial secondary effluent (see Table 1‐1; HDR 2013). This difference in concentration underscores the importance of managing mercury close to potential sources or in areas where infiltration is minimized so that mercury does not reach receiving water without being treated by one or more structural BMPs. Costs for construction of a structural BMP for sequestration of mercury from stormwater was lowest for all treatments examined that remove the target toxic chemicals (Appendix D). Additional structural BMPs may be applied for removal of mercury from stormwater detention facilities.
Arsenic removal, in contrast to removal of mercury from source water, can meet local discharge limits with application of select structural BMPs (Appendix D). Meeting local discharge limits (i.e., 1,000 µg/L Daily Average Maximum; 4,000 µg/L Instantaneous Maximum) costs more for construction and maintenance of the BMP, but its results demonstrate the potential for reduction of toxic chemicals on‐site. In cases where arsenic is at a maximum concentration in decant water (Ecology 2005), the shallow marsh wetland will not achieve results for reduction below that of local discharge limits. Alternate methods reflect those described by Patel et al. (2012) where multiple plant species established in a constructed wetland could achieve complete removal over time (Section 5.5.1).
5.5 Pre-treatment Limits and Technologies by Constituent
5.5.1 Arsenic Literature found for pretreatment technologies of arsenic focused mainly on plant species optimal for arsenic uptake in constructed wetlands (Table 5‐5). For industrial sources of arsenic found in water, literature described uptake of arsenic by general species of aquatic plants to be 1.56 micrograms per day (µg/day) (Aksorn and Visoottiviseth 2004). Constructed wetlands combined with anaerobic bioreactors were found to remove 98 percent of arsenic in water (Mattes et al. 2004). Another less common way of removing arsenic in industrial wastewater is to use impregnated chitosan beads, which had a removal efficiency of 95 to 99 percent (Chen et al. 2008). Literature describing arsenic removal from municipal and stormwater sources focused mainly on specific types of plants that would optimize arsenic removal efficiency. Phragmites australis was mentioned in numerous articles as removing up to 99 percent of arsenic through plant uptake. This species is currently used often in Europe in constructed wetlands. Other plant
December 2014 5-11 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies species for arsenic removal include Spartina densiflora, Spartina maritima, and Typha orientalis, which remove around 42 to 2326 ppm of arsenic (Patel et al. 2012).
5.5.2 Benzo(a)Pyrene A variety of different literature sources were evaluated for information regarding the pretreatment of BaP (Table 5‐5). Pretreatment technologies for industrial sources of BaP, with their respective treatment removal efficiencies, consist of constructed wetlands with the plant Juncus subsecundus (Zhang et al. 2012), chemical precipitation (>90%) (Vogelsang et al. 2006), biological (MAD treatment) combined with metal leaching (>95%) (Zheng et al. 2007), and synthesized organobentonite (99.5%) (Wu and Zhu 2012).
Pretreatment technologies for municipal sources of BaP include secondary activated sludge treatment which removes 84 to 100 percent of BaP (Bergqvist et al. 2006). Studies for pretreatment technologies for BaP originating from stormwater include shallow design bioretention cells (87% removal) (Diblasi et al. 2008) and aspen wood fibers (Haung et al. 2006)
5.5.3 Mercury Pretreatment technologies for mercury that were evaluated could be used interchangeably for industrial, municipal, and stormwater sources (Table 5‐5). Most treatment technologies focused on specific types of plants and soil bacterium that could be used in constructed wetlands to optimize mercury uptake and removal. Specific organisms mentioned include: Pseudomonas putida, Spartina alterniflora, Juncus maritimus, Scirpus maritimus, Phragmites australis, Schoenoplectus sp., Typha latifolia, and peat. All plants have varying percentages of mercury removal. Other methods of mercury removal are mercury resistant microbes (Wagner‐Dobler 2003), various microorganisms (Wagner‐Dobler et al. 2000), and activated carbon from fertilizer waste (Mohan et al. 2001).
December 2014 5-12 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Table 5-5 Summary of literature review of effective treatment technologies for toxics removal from wastewater and stormwater.
Parameter Type of Wastewater Removal Technique Citation Removal Efficiency Maintenance Cost Other benefits
Arsenic Industrial Uptake by aquatic plants Aksorn and Visoottiviseth 2004 Up to 1.56 μg/day Occasional replanting of certain N/A May also take up other heavy species metals
Arsenic Industrial Anaerobic bioreactor and Mattes et al. 2004 98% Occasional maintenance N/A May also take up other heavy constructed wetland system (dredging), addition of microbes metals
Arsenic Industrial Constructed wetlands Lizama A. et al. 2011 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Arsenic Industrial Molybdate-impregnated chitosan Chen et al. 2008 As(V) 99% N/A N/A N/A beads As(III) 95%
Arsenic Industrial, Municipal, Phragmites australis horizontal Allende et al. 2014 Zeotite (99.9%) Limestone, Can trap Arsenic in inlet to Varies depending on media used Also removes Boron and Iron Stormwater flow wetland Cocopeat (99.8%) reduce maintenance
Arsenic Industrial, Municipal, Phragmites australis, microbial Arroyo et al. 2013 N/A N/A N/A N/A Stormwater diversity in constructed wetlands
Arsenic Industrial, Municipal, Sulphate-reducing bacteria Teclu et al. 2008 As (V) 77% N/A Low cost N/A Stormwater As (III) 55%
Arsenic Industrial, Municipal, Magnetic nanocrystalline barium Patel et al. 2012 75% N/A Low cost N/A Stormwater hexaferrite
Arsenic (and Industrial, Municipal, Spartina densiflora, Spartina Cambrollé et al 2008 42-2326 ppm N/A N/A N/A other metals) Stormwater maritima- Heavy metal uptake, phytostabilization, bioaccumulation
Arsenic (and Industrial, Municipal, Phragmites- Accumulation in Vymazal et al. 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A other metals) Stormwater plant parts
Arsenic (and Industrial, Municipal, Typha orientalis- tolerance Wang et al. 2011 N/A N/A N/A N/A other metals) Stormwater accumulation
Benzo(a)Pyrene Industrial Synthesized organobentonite Wu and Zhu 2012 99.5% N/A Low cost N/A
Benzo(a)Pyrene Municipal Conventional Secondary Bergqvist et al. 2006 84-100% N/A N/A N/A Treatment (activated sludge process)
Benzo(a)Pyrene Municipal, Industrial Chemical Precipitation Vogelsang et al. 2006 > 90% N/A N/A N/A
Benzo(a)Pyrene Stormwater Bioretention Cell- Shallow Design Diblasi et al. 2008 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon N/A Low cost Affiliation of PAH to Total (PAH) mass load reduction of Suspended Solids (TSS) 87%
Benzo(a)Pyrene Stormwater Aspen wood fibers with chemical Haung et al. 2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A alterations
December 2014 5-13 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Parameter Type of Wastewater Removal Technique Citation Removal Efficiency Maintenance Cost Other benefits
Benzo(a)Pyrene Industrial, Municipal, Juncus subsecundus- PAH Zhang et al. 2012 N/A N/A N/A N/A Stormwater degradation
Benzo(a)Pyrene Industrial, Municipal Biological (MAD treatment) and Zheng et al. 2007 >95% of 3-ring PAH removal. N/A N/A N/A metal leaching (METIX-BS) TW80 addition increased 4-ring removal rate
Mercury Industrial Pseudomonas putida- Bioreactor von Canstein et al. 1999 90-98% N/A N/A N/A
Mercury Industrial Mercury-resistant microbes Wagner-Döbler 2003 N/A Mercury and biomass are Total annual cost $120,000. Costs Closed cycle, mercury-brine backflushed from the bioreactor per removed kilogram of solution after regeneration can periodically every couple of mercury($760) be recycled into the mercury cell
months process. Applicable to a range of mercury containing wastewater.
Mercury Industrial Microorganisms Wagner-Döbler et al. 2000 97% retention N/A $17 for nutrients to feed the N/A 3 bacteria per 100 m of wastewater cleaned
Mercury Wastewater discharges Constructed wetland Nelson et al. 2006 80% (mean over 4 years; better Checking plant growth and Low cost High removal of copper, zinc, and and Stormwater removal as maturation of system maintaining free flow of water lead
Mercury Municipal, Industrial Activated Carbon from fertilizer Mohan et al. 2001 N/A N/A N/A N/A waste
Mercury Industrial, Municipal, Transgenic Spartina alterniflora- Czako et al. 2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A Stormwater converts ionic Hg into elementary Hg and volatilization from the plant
Mercury Industrial, Municipal, Juncus maritimus, Scirpus Marques et al. 2011 N/A N/A N/A N/A Stormwater maritimus- phytostabilization, phytoaccumulation
Mercury Industrial, Municipal, Phragmites australis- Anjum et al.; 2011 Root exhibited the highest N/A N/A N/A Stormwater accumulation in plant parts accumulation followed by rhizome
Mercury Industrial Wastewater Phragmites, Schoenoplectus, Dunbabin and Bowmer 1992 50% of influent metal load N/A N/A N/A Cyperus, Typha
Mercury Industrial Wastewater Typha latifolia, Phragmites Calheiros et al. 2009 High removal of organics from N/A N/A N/A australis- Uptake by plants and tannery wastewater, up to 88% of reedbed aeration Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5- day (BOD5).
Mercury Urban Runoff Phragmites Lee and Scholz 2007 Removal performance of planted N/A N/A N/A filters was more efficient and stable after the filters matured compared to that of unplanted filters
December 2014 5-14 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Parameter Type of Wastewater Removal Technique Citation Removal Efficiency Maintenance Cost Other benefits
Mercury, Industrial Peat Brown et al. 2000 Mercury, up to 90%, N/A Low cost Also removes other heavy metals
Polychlorinated Industrial, Municipal, Phragmites australis, Oryza sativa- Bonanno and Lo Giudice 2010 92-95 nanograms (ng) in roots N/A N/A N/A biphenyls (PCBs) Stormwater Accumulation in plant parts and and 60.5-78 ng in stem of reeds transformation by reductive halogenation
Polychlorinated Industrial, Municipal Biosorption by agricultural bi- Zolgharnein et al. 2011 Dependent on individual PCB N/A Low cost N/A biphenyls (PCBs) products and microorganisms properties
PCBs, Dioxin Industrial, Municipal Activated carbon, membrane Bolong et al. 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A processes (NF)
Dioxin Industrial Filtration through granulated Smirnov et al. 1996 90-95% N/A Inexpensive N/A sorbents
References: Aksorn, E. and P. Visoottiviseth. 2004. Selection of suitable emergent plants for removal of arsenic from arsenic contaminated water. Science Asia 30: 105-113. Allende, K. L., D.T. McCarthy, and T.D. Fletcher. 2014. The influence of media type on removal of arsenic, iron, and boron from acidic wastewater in horizontal flow wetland microcosms planted with Phragmites australis. Chemical Engineering Journal. 246: 217-228. Anjum, N.A., M. Válega, M. Pacheco, E. Fiqueira, A.C. Duarte, and E. Pereira. 2011. Salt marsh macrophyte Phragmites australis strategies assessment for its dominance in mercury-contaminated coastal lagoon (Ria de Aveiro, Portugal). Environmental Science and Pollution Research 19(7): 2879-2888. Arroyo, P., G. Ansola, and L.E.S. de Miera. 2013. Effects of substrate, vegetation, and flow on arsenic and zinc removal efficiency and microbial diversity in constructed wetlands. Ecological Engineering 51: 95-103 Bergqvist, P-A, L. Augulytė; and V. Jurjonienė. 2006. PAH and PCB removal efficiencies in Umea (Sweden) and Siauliai (Lithuania) municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 175(1-4): 291-303. Birch, G.F., C. Matthai, M.S. Fazeli, and J. Yul Suh. 2004. Efficiency of a constructed wetland in removing contaminants in stormwater. The Society of Wetland Scientists. 24(2): 459-466. Bolong, N., A.F. Ismail, M.R. Salim, and T. Matsuura. 2009. A review of the effects of emerging contaminants in wastewater and options for their removal. Desalination 239: 229-246. Bonanno, G., and R. Lo Giudice. 2010. Heavy metal bioaccumulation by the organs of Phragmites australis (common reed) and their potential use as contamination indicators. Ecological Indicators, 10, 639–645. Brown, P.A., S.A. Gill, S.J. Allen. 2000. Metal removal from wastewater using peat. Water Resources. Vol. 34(16): 3907-3916. Calheiros, C., A.O.S.S. Rangal, and P.M.L. Castro. 2009. Treatment of industrial wastewater with two-stage constructed wetlands planted with Typha latifolia and Phragmites australis. Bioresource Technology 100(13): 3205. Cambrollé, J., S. Redondo-Gómez, E. Mateos-Naranjo, and M.E. Figueroa. 2008. Comparison of the role of two Spartina species in terms of photostabilization and bioaccumulation of metals in the estuarine sediment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(12): 2037-2042. Chen, C.Y., T.H. Chang, J.T. Kuo, Y.F. Chen, and Y.C. Chung. 2008 Characteristics of molybdate-impregnated chitosan beads (MICB) in terms of arsenic removal from water and the application of a MICB- packed column to remove arsenic from wastewater. Bioresource Technology 99(16): 7487-7494. Czako, M., X. Feng, Y. He, D. Liang, and L. Marton. 2006. Transgenic Spartina alterniflora for phytoremediation. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 28(1/2): 95-102. Diblasi, C.J. H. Li, A.P. Davis, and U. Ghosh. 2008. Removal and fate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon pollutants in an urban stormwater bioretention facility. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43: 494-502. Dunbabin, J.S. and K.H. Bowmer. 1992. Potential use of constructed wetlands for treatment of industrial wastewaters containing metals. Science of the Total Environment 111(2-3): 151-168. Haung, L., T.B. Boving, and B. Xing. 2006. Sorption of PAHs by aspen wood fibers as affected by chemical alterations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40: 3279-3284. Healy, M and A.M. Cawley. 2002. Nutrient processing capacity of a constructed wetland in western Ireland. Journal of Environmental Quality 31(5): 1739. Lee, B-H. and M. Scholz. 2007. What is the role of Phragmites australis in experimental constructed wetland filters treating urban runoff? Ecological Engineering 29: 87-95. Lizama, A.K., T.D. Fletcher, and G. Sun. 2011. Removal processes for arsenic in constructed wetlands. Chemosphere 84: 1032-1043. Marques, B., A.I. Lillebø, E. Pereira, A.C. Duarte. 2011. Mercury cycling and sequestration in salt marshes sediments: an ecosystem service provided by Juncus maritimus and Scirpus maritimus. Environmental Pollution. 159, 1869-1876. Mattes, A., W.F. Duncan, and W.D. Gould. 2004. Biological removal of arsenic in a multi-stage engineered wetlands: treating a suite of heavy metals. British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium 2004. Available: http://nature-works.net/assets/pdf/Biological%20Removal%20of%20Arsenic.pdf. Mohan, D., V.K. Gupta, S.K. Srivastava, and S. Chander. 2001. Kinetics of mercury adsorption from wastewater activated carbon derived from fertilizer waste. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochemical and Engineering Aspects. 177(2-3): 169-181. Nelson, E.A., W.L. Specht, and A.S. Knox. 2006. Metal removal from wastewater discharges by a constructed treatment wetland. Engineering Life and Sciences 6(1): 26-30. Patel, H.A; J. Byun, and C.T. Yavuz. 2012. Arsenic removal by magnetic nanocrystalline barium hexaferrite. J. Nanopart. Res. 14: 881. Smirnov, A.D., A. Schecter, O. Päpke, and A.A. Beljak.1996. Conclusions from UFA, Russia, drinking water dioxin cleanup experiments involving different treatment technologies. Chemosphere 32(3): 479-489. Teclu, D., G. Tivchev, M. Laing, and M. Wallis. 2008. Bioremoval of arsenic species from contaminated waters by sulfate-reducing bacteria. Water Research 42: 4885-4893. Vogelsang, C., M. Grung, T.G. Jantsch, K.E. Tollefsen, and H. Liltved. 2006. Occurrence and removal of selected organic micropollutants at mechanical, chemical, and advanced wastewater treatment plants in Norway. Water Research 40: 3559-3570. von Canstein, H., Y. Li, K.N. Timmis, W-D. Deckwer, and I. Wagner-Dobler. 1999. Removal of mercury from chloralkai electrolysis wastewater by mercury resistant Pseudomonas putida strain. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65(12): 5279. Vymazal, J., L. Kröpfelová, J. Švehla, V. Chrastný, and J. Štíchová. 2009. Trace elements in growing in constructed wetlands for treatment of municipal wastewater. Ecological Engineering 35(2): 303-309. Vymazal, J., L. Kröpfelová, J. Švehla, and J. Němcová. 2011. Heavy metals in Phalaris arundinacea growing in a constructed wetland treating municipal sewage. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 91(7-8): 753-767.
December 2014 5-15 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Wagner-Döbler, I. 2003. Pilot plant for bioremediation of mercury-containing industrial wastewater. Appl. Microbial. Biotechnol. 62: 124-133. Wagner-Döbler, I., H. von Canstein, Y. Li, K.N. Timmis, and W-D. Deckwer. 2000. Removal of mercury from chemical wastewater by microorganisms in technical scale. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34: 4628-4634. Wang, F-Y., Z-H. Guo, X-F. Miao, and X-Y. Xiao. 2011. Tolerance and accumulation characteristics of Typha orientalis Presl for As, Cd and Pb in heavily contaminated soils. Journal of Agro-Environmental Science 2011-10. Wu, Z. and L. Zhu. 2012. Removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and phenols from coking wastewater by simultaneously synthesized organobentonite in a one-step process. Journal of Environmental Sciences 24(2): 248-253. Zhang, Z., Z. Rengel, H. Chang, K. Meney, L. Pantelic, and R. Tomanovic. 2012. Phytoremediation potential in Juncus subsecundus in soils contaminated with cadmium and poly nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Geoderma 175-176: 1-8. Zheng, X-J., J-F. Blais, G. Mercier, M. Bergeron, and P. Drogui. 2007. PAH removal from spiked municipal wastewater sewage sludge using biological, chemicals, and electrochemical treatments. Chemosphere 68: 1143-1152. Zolgharnein, J., A. Shahmoradi, and J. Ghasemi. 2011. Pesticides removal using conventional and low-cost adsorbents: A review. Clean-Soil, Air, Water 39: 1105-1119.
December 2014 5-16 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
5.5.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Total) PCBs for industrial and municipal wastewater and stormwater can be pretreated using constructed wetlands with plant species Phragmites australis and Oryza sativa which uptake 92 to 95 nanograms (ng) in their roots and 60.5 to 78 ng in their stems (Bonanno and Lo Giudice 2010) (Table 5‐5). PCBs in industrial and municipal wastewater can also be pretreated using biosorption by agricultural byproducts and microorganisms, as well as an activated carbon membrane process.
5.5.5 2,3,7,8-TCDD / 2,3,7,8 – Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxin Research on pretreatment technologies for 2,3,7,8, TCDD is limited, but current technologies include activated carbon membrane processes (Bolong et al. 2009) and filtration through granulated sorbents which removes 90 to 95 percent of TCDD (Smirnov et al. 1996) (Table 5‐5). These pretreatment technologies apply to industrial and municipal wastewater sources.
Release of dioxins into the aquatic environment are usually associated with pulp and paper industry processes (see Section 2.6.4). Several preventive controls are suggested on‐site through U.S. EPA’s “cluster rule” (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/pulppaper/cluster.cfm).
Several BMPs for on‐site use for pulp mills are suggested by this rule for maintaining and treating toxic chemicals while on site. In addition, a monitoring and assessment strategy should be developed so that on‐going mill activities resulting in release and cleanup of contaminants is successful. The monitoring and assessment strategy would be a component of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Ecology provides a guidance template for developing a SWPPP at the following web address: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/industrial/guidance.html.
5.6 Examples for Cost/Benefit of Pre-treatment Controls
Examples of pre‐treatment control strategies, including cost and toxic chemical reduction, is found in Appendix E. One example using each of the treatment technologies is provided in Appendix E to demonstrate costs and removal efficiency for both the minimum and maximum concentrations described in the Local Limit Development Guidance (EPA 2004). Costs and efficiencies are calculated using information from Table 5‐1 through Table 5‐5 in this section.
Select metals that are included in the target toxic chemical list are mercury and arsenic. The local discharge limits established by King County (2014a) describe total metals concentrations for both Daily Average Maximum and Instantaneous Maximum. Influent concentrations that are pre‐ treated using a constructed wetland with established aquatic plants (see Appendix E for toxics reduction) as described in Table 5‐5 can result in mercury concentrations similar to results achievable by the more expensive advanced treatment technology (MF/RO or MF/GAC)
December 2014 5-17 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies described by HDR (2013). More immediate and greater %removal can be achieved with pre‐ treatment controls with alternate but at greater cost with methods like pre‐treatment of influent water with microorganisms (Wagner‐Döbler et al. 2000) or Pseudomonas putida‐ Bioreactor technology (von Canstein et al. 1999).
Concentration range of arsenic in point source‐industrial influent can be reduced, before advanced treatment, to levels substantially lower in effluent from a pre‐treatment control (Appendix E). A substantial reduction of arsenic concentration is achievable by using constructed wetland technology reported in Table 5‐5. In cases where Arsenic concentration is in the lower range listed by the Local Limit Development Guidance (EPA 2004), the more stringent Human Health Water Quality Criteria (HHWQC)of 0.0000064 µg/L could be achievable (see HDR 2013; Table 5‐4). Concentrations in point‐source influent water can be six orders of magnitude higher according to the Local Limit Development Guidance (EPA 2004) with %reduction below current local discharge limits but still not achieving reductions required by the HHWQC based effluent quality. Some of the pre‐treatment controls used to remove Arsenic from influent water are effective at removing multiple metals and provides pollution cleanup efficiencies.
5.7 Considerations for Treatment Technology Controls
Influent water often contains multiple target toxic chemicals and so reduction and removal techniques should consider options that are effective for one or more of the target toxic constituents (refer to Table 5‐4). A select number of BMPs listed in Table 5‐4 can be used for removal of target toxics in both municipal and industrial settings. In some cases, effective removal of multiple target toxics has been described when using passive absorption by aquatic plants species.
Selection of BMPs for toxics reduction depends on several factors that should be considered as an integrated evaluation, including:
Physical setting from which toxics source(s) originate or are identified;
Landform surrounding the point of origination;
Geologic setting in which the area is located/land availability;
Climate pattern in the area;
Volume of water generated from the area (determines size and cost for construction of a BMP);
Initial concentration of the target toxic constituent influent to and effluent concentration projected from the treatment facility; and
December 2014 5-18 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Costs, including capital costs for installation and land, as well as costs for design, geotechnical testing, legal fees, and maintenance.
Concentrations of toxic chemicals generally have higher ranges at the source in contrast to effluent concentrations commonly found in effluent from POTWs. Both are sources for toxic chemical (e.g., on‐site sources and POTW effluent) discharge to surface water that deliver cumulative pollutant loads over time. The high concentration of toxic chemicals entering structural BMPs from runoff sources can be immediately reduced with significant pollutant load reduction over time. Treatment trains can be used to achieve results that meet or are less than local discharge limits usually reserved for POTWs. For example, reduction of total mercury if in the high range (21.9 µg/L; from Appendix D) is achievable if water is passed through appropriate structural BMPs a total of three times. With repeated treatment of the same batch of water, removal of mercury to a level at or below the local discharge limit concentration is expected to be less than what is currently required based on local discharge limits (King County 2014a).
Presence of arsenic in decant water at the concentration range reported in Appendix D can be treated using more costly methods (see Table 5‐5; anaerobic bioreactor and constructed wetland system), but the anaerobic bioreactor has the added benefit of removing multiple metals including mercury with a removal efficiency up to 98 percent. Tradeoffs for selecting more costly pollutant removal technology versus those using passive strategies (e.g., water retention and settling) include some of the factors listed above with consideration of the following:
Volume of inflow water and frequency of filling;
Available land for construction of the structural BMP;
On‐going resources to maintain a BMP and frequency required; and
Opportunity to develop treatment trains, where necessary.
Evaluation of toxics reduction using examples provided in Appendix D and Appendix E should be completed to determine the following:
Total reduction in effluent concentration from a structural BMP or Pre‐Treatment control;
Comparison of toxic concentration in effluent versus existing “local discharge limits” or “Human Health Criteria based Limits with no Mixing Zone”;
Use of a “treatment train” in order to achieve a reasonable reduction of toxic chemicals;
Cost/benefit of a single BMP versus a treatment train in order to achieve a reasonable reduction of toxic chemicals in effluent; and
December 2014 5-19 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Selection of one or more BMPs that can achieve reduction of multiple toxics that represents enhanced protection to receiving water.
The examples provide in Appendix D and Appendix E are summary examples for a range of toxic chemical concentrations that occur in Puget Sound water retention facilities and are designed to reduce these concentrations in effluent water. Selection of a Structural BMP or Pre‐Treatment Control (non‐point stormwater or point source control, respectively) will be based on toxic chemical concentration, affordability of construction costs, and availability of land to construct needed BMPs or controls. The following is the sequence for a selection process:
1. Determine Structural BMPs or Pre‐Treatment Controls effective for removal of one or more of the target toxic chemicals from Table 5‐5;
2. Calculate the cost of each Structural BMP or Pre‐Treatment Control from Table 5‐1 or Table 5‐2; and
3. Optimize the selection of removal strategy based on availability of construction funding.
December 2014 5-20 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
6.0 DATA GAPS AND FUTURE WORK
Efficacy of toxics control is evaluated based on where and in what media the target toxics have been identified in Western Washington waters (Section 3; 303(d) Listings). Detection of target toxics in surface water has been above detection and quantitation limits in order to appear on the 303(d) list as reported from the 2012 listing cycle by WDOEcology. In these cases, each listing is based on quantified concentrations that are both above the NTR Criterion and the lowest level of detection limit and quantitation limit as reported in Table 6‐1. For three of the five target toxic chemicals, the current analytical procedures have detection/quantification limits above the existing NTR criterion. Nevertheless, measurement of a target toxic chemical in just one of the media (e.g., surface water, sediment, or tissue) will not provide a complete evaluation of potential for bioaccumulation in higher order receptors like fish and humans. Further evidence for measuring potential health effects requires that multiple media be sampled at locaitons and under conditions which concentrations of the target toxic chemicals occur.
The strategy for determining target toxic chemical exposure pathways is implemented by reviewing existing environmental information at a site (i.e., point of discharge) where treated surface water is returned to a natural channel. Identifying location in the aquatic environment where toxics are likely to reside and be available for bioaccumulation is determined through use of pathways models for each of the target toxics (Figure 6‐1 through Figure 6‐3).
Table 6-1 Comparison between existing Washington human health criteria and analytical detection limits for the target toxic chemicals.
Target Toxic Chemical Existing Washington HHC, Detection Quantitation NTR Criterion Water and Limit2 Limit Range2 Organisms (μg/L)1
Arsenic (inorganic) 0.018 0.02 0.04-530
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0028 0.02 0.04-100
Mercury 0.14 0.0002 0.0004 –0.002
Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.00017 0.13 - 360
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo- 0.013 (pg/L) 10 (pg/L) 20 - 100 (pg/L) p-dioxin
Notes: 1. Based on fish consumption rate for one individual of 6.5 grams/day (g/d). 2. Detection Limit and Quantitation Limit ranges are identified from review of EPA Approved Methods in Appendix C (Analytical Methods for Target Toxic Chemicals).
December 2014 6-1 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Figure 6-1 Potential arsenic (As) processes in aquatic ecosystems.
Figure 6-2 Potential mercury (Hg) processes in aquatic ecosystems.
December 2014 6-2 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Figure 6-3 Potential PCB processes in aquatic ecosystems.
Selection of treatment technology must take into consideration media where target toxics are sequestered and the likelihood of mobilization from these points in the aquatic ecosystem. Several considerations for selection of appropriate treatment technology are listed in Section 5.1.7; andthese should be consulted in addition to the media (surface water, sediment, tissue) in which target toxics are entrained before final selection of and effective toxic treatment control is made. Often, target toxics co‐occur and can be removed by using single treatment technologies effective in removing multiple, chemically‐related constituents.
A data gap analysis locating and assembling existing data for a waterbody and identifying known conditions where target toxics may be sequestered is necessary in order to proceed in selection of effective treatment technology from the list in Table 5‐5. Another consideration is the source for target toxics as outlined in Figure 2‐1 through Figure 2‐4 and Appendix A (Apportionment of Loading for Target Toxic Chemicals). Known sources and locations of legacy target toxics require selection of different types of treatment technologies listed in Table 5‐1.
Point of interception of target toxics in the aquatic environment is determined by acquiring an adequate amount of monitoring data reporting on concentration of toxics in multiple media as outlined in the pathways diagrams (Figure 6‐1 through Figure 6‐3). The selection of a treatment technique (Table 5‐1) should consider the following in this order:
1. Setting characteristics (can site soil and geology accommodate efficient operation of the treatment technology);
December 2014 6-3 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
2. The receiving volume of water in the constructed treatment facility; and
3. Cost for construction of the treatment facility.
Selection of the appropriate treatment technology will be based on a combination of these factors but should not weigh cost as the primary determinant. Identification of target toxics concentrations in specific media are tantamount to selection of appropriate treatment technologies and monitoring information is the primary driver for decision‐making.
Dynamics of select target toxic chemicals are illustrated in Figure 6‐1 through Figure 6‐3. The pathways diagrams describe movement of target toxics and the form that is mobilized or sequestered by receptors. Mobilization or sequestration has specific water quality conditions under which each occurs (Figure 6‐3; Fate processes increasing bioavailability). Comparing monitoring results from multiple media in the natural environment informs on potential for bioavailability to higher receptors and the risk of ingestion and effect on humans following consumption of fish.
The initial step in determining appropriate treatment technology for reduction of target toxics is the availability of monitoring information that informs on the location of potentially bioaccumulative concentrations and how these toxics can be mobilized. Our assessment of potential for bioaccumulation in receptors that can harm humans is acquired through a well‐ planned monitoring program. “Well‐planned” means that adequate information for each of the target toxic chemicals is known from multiple media at a location(s) and that spatial scope is large enough to inform on movement of these chemicals in watersheds, within riverine ecosystems, and cycled in lakes. Analysis of data and the localized conditions that promote mobilization or entrainment of the target toxics is critical for advancing an effective toxics reduction program.
December 2014 6-4 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
7.0 REFERENCES
Aksorn, E. and P. Visoottiviseth. 2004. Selection of suitable emergent plants for removal of arsenic from arsenic contaminated water. Science Asia 30: 105‐113.
Allende, K. L., D.T. McCarthy, and T.D. Fletcher. 2014. The influence of media type on removal of arsenic, iron, and boron from acidic wastewater in horizontal flow wetland microcosms planted with Phragmites australis. Chemical Engineering Journal. 246: 217‐228
Anderson, J.J.B. 2013. Potential health concerns of dietary phosphorus: cancer, obesity, and hypertension. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1301: 1‐8.
Anjum, N.A., M. Válega, M. Pacheco, E. Fiqueira, A.C. Duarte, and E. Pereira. 2011. Salt marsh macrophyte Phragmites australis strategies assessment for its dominance in mercury‐ contaminated coastal lagoon (Ria de Aveiro, Portugal). Environmental Science and Pollution Research 19(7): 2879‐2888.
APWA (American Public Works Administration). 1992. A study of nationwide costs to implement municipal storm water best management practices. Rep., Southern California Chapter, Water Resource Committtee, APWA, Washington, D.C.
Arroyo, P., G. Ansola, and L.E.S. de Miera. 2013. Effects of substrate, vegetation, and flow on arsenic and zinc removal efficiency and microbial diversity in constructed wetlands. Ecological Engineering 51: 95‐103
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1990. Polychlorinated Biphenyl Toxicity. US Department of Health and Human Services. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. ATSDR Publication No. ATSDR‐HE‐CS‐2003‐0001.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2007. Toxicological profile for Arsenic. US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service. CAS#: 7440‐38‐2
AWB (Association of Washington Business). 2013. Treatment Technology Review and Assessment. Prepared by HDR, Bellevue, WA. 53p. + Appendices.
Bergqvist, P‐A, L. Augulytė; and V. Jurjonienė. 2006. PAH and PCB removal efficiencies in Umea (Sweden) and Siauliai (Lithuania) municipal wastewater treatment plants. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 175(1‐4): 291‐303.
Birch, G.F., C. Matthai, M.S. Fazeli, and J. Yul Suh. 2004. Efficiency of a constructed wetland in removing contaminants in stormwater. The Society of Wetland Scientists. 24(2): 459‐466.
December 2014 7-5 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Bligh, R. and R. Mollehuara. 2012. Arsenic‐ Sources, Pathways, and Treatment of Mining and Metallurgical Effluents. Outotec. Output SEAP. Available at: http://www.outotec.com/imagevaultfiles/id_552/cf_2/arsenic_‐_sources‐ _pathways_and_treatment_of_minin.pdf.
Bloom, N.S. and S.W. Effler. 1990. Seasonal variability in the mercury speciation of Onondaga Lake (New York). Water Air Soil Pollut. 53: 251‐265.
Bolong, N., A.F. Ismail, M.R. Salim, and T. Matsuura. 2009. A review of the effects of emerging contaminants in wastewater and options for their removal. Desalination 239: 229‐246.
Bonanno, G., and R. Lo Giudice. 2010. Heavy metal bioaccumulation by the organs of Phragmites australis (common reed) and their potential use as contamination indicators. Ecological Indicators, 10, 639–645.
Bowes, M.J., J.T. Smith, H.P. Jarvie, and C. Neal. 2008. Modelling of phosphorus inputs to rivers from diffuse and point sources. Science of the Total Environment 395(2‐3): 125‐138.
Brown, M.P., M.B. Werner, R. J. Sloan, and K.W. Simpson. 1985. Polychlorinated biphenyls in the Hudson River. Environ. Sci. Technol. 19: 656‐61.
Brown, P.A., S.A. Gill, S.J. Allen. 2000. Metal removal from wastewater using peat. Water Resources. Vol. 34(16): 3907‐3916.
Brown, W. and T. Schueler. 1997. The Economics of Storm Water BMPs in the Mid‐Atlantic Region. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.
Calheiros, C., A.O.S.S. Rangal, and P.M.L. Castro. 2009. Treatment of industrial wastewater with two‐stage constructed wetlands planted with Typha latifolia and Phragmites australis. Bioresource Technology 100(13): 3205.
Calvo, M.S. and J. Uribarri. 2013. Public health impact of dietary phosphorus excess on bone and cardiovascular health in the general population. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 98(1): 6‐15.
Cambrollé, J., S. Redondo‐Gómez, E. Mateos‐Naranjo, and M.E. Figueroa. 2008. Comparison of the role of two Spartina species in terms of photostabilization and bioaccumulation of metals in the estuarine sediment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56(12): 2037‐2042.
Chen, C.Y., T.H. Chang, J.T. Kuo, Y.F. Chen, and Y.C. Chung. 2008 Characteristics of molybdate‐ impregnated chitosan beads (MICB) in terms of arsenic removal from water and the application of a MICB‐ packed column to remove arsenic from wastewater. Bioresource Technology 99(16): 7487‐7494.
December 2014 7-6 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Claytor, R.A. and T.R. Schueler 1996. Design of Stormwater Filtering Systems. The Center for Watershed Protection, Silver Springs, MD.
Crowder, A. 1991. Acidification, metals and macrophytes. Environ. Pollut. 71: 171‐203.
Crowder, A.A., W. Dushenko, and J. Grieg. 1988. Metal contamination of wetland food chains in the Bay of Quinte, Ontario. Environment Ontario, Nov. 28‐29, 1988. Toronto, Canada, pp. 133‐ 153.
Czako, M., X. Feng, Y. He, D. Liang, and L. Marton. 2006. Transgenic Spartina alterniflora for phytoremediation. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 28(1/2): 95‐102.
Diblasi, C.J. H. Li, A.P. Davis, and U. Ghosh. 2008. Removal and fate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon pollutants in an urban stormwater bioretention facility. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43: 494‐502.
Du, S., T.J. Belton, and L.A. Rodenburg. 2008. Source apportionment of polychlorinated biphenyls in the tidal Delaware River. Eviron. Sci. Tech. 42: 4044‐4051.
Dukerschein, J.T., J.G. Wiener, R.G. Rada, and M.T. Steingraeber. 1992. Cadmium and mercury in emergent mayflies (Hexagenia bilineata) from the upper Mississippi River. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 23: 109‐116.
Dunbabin, J.S. and K.H. Bowmer. 1992. Potential use of constructed wetlands for treatment of industrial wastewaters containing metals. Science of the Total Environment 111(2‐3): 151‐168.
Dvonch, J.T., J.R. Graney, G.J. Keeler, and R.K. Stevens. 1999. Use of elemental tracers to source apportion mercury in south Florida precipitation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33: 4522‐4527.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington: Volume IV Source Control for BMPs (Table G.7). Publication No. 05‐10‐32 (Revised portion of Publication No. 91‐75). Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA. 149p.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2012a. Liberty Lake Source Trace Study: Regarding PCB, PBDE, metals, and dioxin/furan. A pilot project for Spokane Basin Source Tracing. Publication No. 10‐04‐027.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology. 2012b. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Publication No. 12‐10‐030. Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA. 1039p.
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2013. Phosphorus in products information. Available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/nonpoint/phosphorus/PhosphorusBan.html.
December 2014 7-7 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2014a. Permit and Reporting Information System (PARIS). Available by request from: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/permits/paris/paris.html.
Ecology (Washington Deartment of Ecology). 2014b. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington: Volume V Runoff Treatement BMPs. Ecology Publication No. 14‐10‐055. Washington Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA. 213p.
Edwards, A.C. and P.J.A. Withers. 2007. Linking phosphorus sources to impacts in different types of water body. Soil Use and Management 23 (Suppl. 1): 133‐143.
Edwards, A.C. and P.J.A. Withers. 2008. Transport and delivery of suspended solids, nitrogen and phosphorus from various sources to freshwaters in the UK. Journal of Hydrology 350: 144‐153.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997a. Mercury Study Report to Congress Volume VI: An Ecological Assessment for Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States. Office of Air. EPA‐452/R‐97‐008.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997b. Polychlorinated Biphenyls. CAS Number: 1336‐36‐3. Available at http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/wastemin/minimize/factshts/pcb‐ fs.pdf.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999a. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Update: Impact on Fish Advisories. EPA‐823‐F‐99‐019. Available at http://www.sustainourgreatlakes.org/Portals/0/pdf/Contaminants%20Files/PCB's_EPAFactshee t.pdf.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999b. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices. EPA‐821‐R‐99‐012. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/stormwater/.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Hazard Summary for 2,3,7,8‐ Tetrachlorodibenzo‐p‐Dioxin (2,3,7,8‐TCDD). Accessed on 6/25/14 at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/dioxin.html.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). 2003. Region 9. TSCA PCB listing.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Local Limits Development Guidance. Office of Wastewater Management. EPA Publication 833‐R‐04‐002A. July 2004.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Benzo(a)pyrene (BaP): TEACH Chemical Summary. Accessed on 6/25/14 at: http://www.epa.gov/teach/chem_summ/BaP_summary.pdf.
December 2014 7-8 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012a. Ag 101: Phosphorous. Accessed 6/25/14 at: http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/impactphosphorus.html.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012b. Arsenic Compounds Hazard Summary. Accessed on 6/23/14 at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/arsenic.html.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2012c. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms – Introduction. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/wet/disk2_intro.cfm.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. Health Effects of PCBs. Accessed on 06/20/14 at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/effects.htm.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014a. Benzo(a)Pyrene. Accessed on 6/25/14 at: http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/benzo.htm.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014b. Mercury: Basic Information. Accessed on 6/23/14 at: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/about.html.
Ferguson, J.F. and J. Gavis. 1972. A review of the arsenic cycle in natural waters. Water Research 6: 1259‐1274.
Göbel, P; Dierkes, C; and Coldewey, WG. 2007. Storm water runoff concentration matrix for urban areas. Containment Hydrology 91: 26‐42.
Golding, S. 2001. Survey of typical soils arsenic concentraitons in residential areas of the City of University Place. Ecology Publicaiton No. 01‐03‐008. Washington Department of Ecology, Environmental Assessment Program, Olympia, WA. 50p.
Håkanson, L. 1975. Mercury in Lake Vänern‐ present status and prognosis. Swedish Environ. Prot. Bd., NLU, Report No. 80, 121 pp.
Harada, M. 1995. Minamata disease: methyl mercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Crit Rev Toxicol. 25(1): 1‐24.
Hattemer‐Frey, H.A. and C.C. Travis. 1991. Benzo‐a‐pyrene: Environmental Partitioning and Human Exposure. Toxicology and Industrial Health 7(3): 141‐157.
Haung, L., T.B. Boving, and B. Xing. 2006. Sorption of PAHs by aspen wood fibers as affected by chemical alterations. Envion. Sci. Technol. 40: 3279‐3284.
HDR. 2013. Treatment Technology Review and Assessment. Prepared for Association of Washington Business, Association of Washington Cities, and Washington State Association of Counties. Prepared by HDR, Bellevue, WA. 53p. + Appendixes.
December 2014 7-9 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Healy, M and A.M. Cawley. 2002. Nutrient processing capacity of a constructed wetland in western Ireland. Journal of Environmental Quality 31(5): 1739.
Hileman, B. 1988. The Great Lakes cleanup effort. Chem. Eng. News, Am. Chem. Soc., Washington, DC, pp.22‐39.
Irwin, R.J., M. VanMouwerik, L. Stevens, M.D. Seese, and W. Basham. 1997. Environmental Contaminants Encyclopedia. National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, Colorado. Accessed on 6/24/14 at: http://www.nature.nps.gov/hazardssafety/toxic/benzoapy.pdf.
King County. 2014a. King County local discharge limits: heavy metals and cyanide. Available at: http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/wastewater/Industrial Waste/Limits/.
King County. 2014b. Modeling PCB Loadings Reduction Scenarios to the Lake Washington Watershed: Final Report. March 2014. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Science and Technology Support Section, Seattle, WA.
Kudo, A., H. Nagase, and Y. Ose. 1982. Proportion of methylmercury to the total amount of mercury in river waters in Canada and Japan. Water Res. 16: 1011‐1015.
Larsen, R.K., II, and J.E. Baker. 2003. Source apportionment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the urban atmosphere: a comparison of three methods. Envion. Sci. Tech. 37: 1873‐1881.
Lee, B‐H. and M. Scholz. 2007. What is the role of Phragmites australis in experimental constructed wetland filters treating urban runoff? Ecological Engineering 29: 87‐95.
Lenntech. 2014. Phosphorous. Accessed on 6/25/14 at: http://www.lenntech.com/periodic/elements/p.html.
Lizama, A.K., T.D. Fletcher, and G. Sun. 2011. Removal processes for arsenic in constructed wetlands. Chemosphere 84: 1032‐1043.
Mainstone, C. P. and W. Parr. 2002. Phosphorus in rivers – ecology and management. The Science of the Total Environment 282‐283: 25‐47.
Malins, D., B. McCain, D. Brown, S. Chan, M. Myers, J. Landahl, P. Prohaska, A. Friedman, L. Rhodes, D. Burrows, W. Gronlund, and H. Hodgins. 1984. Chemical pollutants in sediments and diseases of bottom‐dwelling fish in Puget Sound, Washington. Env. Sci. Technol. 18: 705‐713.
Malins, D.C., M.M. Krahn, D.G. Burrows, and W.D. MacLeod Jr. 1987. Determination of individual metabolites of aromatic compounds in hydrolyzed bile of English sole (Parophrys vetulus) from polluted sites in Puget Sound, Washington. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 16(5), 511‐522.
December 2014 7-10 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Marques, B., A.I. Lillebø, E. Pereira, A.C. Duarte. 2011. Mercury cycling and sequestration in salt marshes sediments: an ecosystem service provided by Juncus maritimus and Scirpus maritimus. Environmental Pollution. 159, 1869‐1876.
Mattes, A., W.F. Duncan, and W.D. Gould. 2004. Biological removal of arsenic in a multi‐stage engineered wetlands: treating a suite of heavy metals. British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium 2004. Available at: http://nature‐works.net/assets/pdf/Biological%20Removal%20of%20Arsenic.pdf.
Mohan, D., V.K. Gupta, S.K. Srivastava, and S. Chander. 2001. Kinetics of mercury adsorption from wastewater activated carbon derived from fertilizer waste. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochemical and Engineering Aspects. 177(2‐3): 169‐181.
Mylavarapu, R. 2008. Impact of Phosphorous on Water Quality. Soil and Water Science Department, University of Florida. Accessed on 6/25/14 at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss490.
Nelson, E.A., W.L. Specht, and A.S. Knox. 2006. Metal removal from wastewater discharges by a constructed treatment wetland. Engineering Life and Sciences 6(1): 26‐30.
NMFS and NOAA. March 2014. How oil affects fish populations: 25 years of research since Exxon Valdez. Accessed on 1/22/2015 at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2014/03/3_24_14exxon_valdez.html.
NSTEPS (Nutrient Scientific Technical Exchange Partnership and Support). 2014. Water Quality Methods: Phosphorous. Accessed on 6/25/14 at: http://n‐steps.tetratech‐ffx.com/statisticalTool‐ waterMethod.cfm.
NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2011. Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program. 499 pp. Accessed on 6/24/14 at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/profiles/tetrachlorodibenzodioxin.pdf.
Nürnberg, G.K. 1996. Trophic state of clear and colored, soft‐and hardwater lakes with special consideration of nutrients, anoxia, phytoplankton and fish. Lake Reserv. Manage. 12: 432‐47.
ODEQ (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). 2011. Table 40: Human Health Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants, Effective October 17, 2011. Available at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/toxics.htm.
Ostrander, G., M. Landolt, and R. Kocan. 1988. The ontogeny of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) behavior following embryonic exposure to benzo (a) pyrene. Aquatic Toxicology 13: 325‐ 346.
December 2014 7-11 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Parks, J.W., A. Lutz, and J.A. Sutton. 1989. Water column methylmercury in the Wabigoon/English River‐Lake system: Factors controlling concentrations, speciation, and net production. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46: 2184‐2202.
Patel, H.A; J. Byun, and C.T. Yavuz. 2012. Arsenic removal by magnetic nanocrystalline barium hexaferrite. J. Nanopart. Res. 14: 881.
Peakall, D.B. and R. J. Lovett.1972. Mercury: its occurrence and effects in the ecosystem. Bioscience 22: 20‐25.
Ribeyre, R. and A. Boudou. 1994. Experimental study of inorganic and methylmercury bioaccumulation of four species of freshwater rooted macrophytes from water and sediment contamination sources. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 28: 270‐286.
Saouter, E., L. Hare, P.G.C. Campbell, A. Boudou, and F. Ribeyre. 1993. Mercury accumulation in the burrowing mayfly (Hexagenia rigida) (ephemeroptera) exposed to CH HgCl or HgCl in water and sediment. 3 2 Water Res. 27: 1041‐1048.
Schindler, D.W. 2012. The dilemma of controlling cultural eutrophication of lakes. Proc. Royal Soc. B, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1032.
Serdar, D., B. Lubliner, A. Johnson, and D. Norton. 2011. Spokane River PCB Source Assessment 2003‐2007. Toxics Study Unit, Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Simcik, M.F., S.J. Eisenreich, and P.J. Lioy. 1999. Source apportionment and source/sink relationships of PAHs in the coastal atmosphere of Chicago and Lake Michigan. Atmospheric Environment 33: 5071‐5079.
Smedley, P.L. and D. G. Kinniburgh. 2001. A review of the source, behavior and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Applied Geochemistry 17: 517‐568.
Smirnov, A.D., A. Schecter, O. Päpke, and A.A. Beljak.1996. Conclusions from UFA, Russia, drinking water dioxin cleanup experiments involving different treatment technologies. Chemosphere 32(3): 479‐489.
Stein, E.D., L.L. Tiefenthaler, and K. Schiff. 2006. Watershed‐based sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban storm water. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25(2): 373‐385.
SWRPC (Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission). 1991. Costs of Urban Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Measures. Waukesha, WI.
Teclu, D., G. Tivchev, M. Laing, and M. Wallis. 2008. Bioremoval of arsenic species from contaminated waters by sulfate‐reducing bacteria. Water Research 42: 4885‐4893.
December 2014 7-12 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
TOXNET. 2010. Benzo(a)Pyrene CASRN: 50‐32‐8. Accessed on 6/25/14 at: http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi‐bin/sis/search2/f?./temp/~XPGAIQ:3.
Tremblay, A., M. Lucotte, and D. Rowan. 1995. Different factors related to mercury concentration in sediments and zooplankton of 73 Canadian lakes. Water Air Soil Pollut. 80: 961‐970.
UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program). 2014. Chemicals. Global Mercury Assessment. Inter‐Organization Program for the Sound Management of Chemicals. Accessed 7/9/14 at: http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury/Report/frontpage.htm.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2001. Dioxins in the Food Chain. Available at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergingissues/downloads/dioxins.pdf.
Vogelsang, C., M. Grung, T.G. Jantsch, K.E. Tollefsen, and H. Liltved. 2006. Occurrence and removal of selected organic micropollutants at mechanical, chemical, and advanced wastewater treatment plants in Norway. Water Research 40: 3559‐3570. von Canstein, H., Y. Li, K.N. Timmis, W‐D. Deckwer, and I. Wagner‐Dobler. 1999. Removal of mercury from chloralkai electrolysis wastewater by mercury resistant Pseudomonas putida strain. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 65(12): 5279.
Vymazal, J., L. Kröpfelová, J. Švehla, V. Chrastný, and J. Štíchová. 2009. Trace elements in growing in constructed wetlands for treatment of municipal wastewater. Ecological Engineering 35(2): 303‐309.
Vymazal, J., L. Kröpfelová, J. Švehla, and J. Němcová. 2011. Heavy metals in Phalaris arundinacea growing in a constructed wetland treating municipal sewage. International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry 91(7‐8): 753‐767.
Wagner‐Döbler, I. 2003. Pilot plant for bioremediation of mercury‐containing industrial wastewater. Appl. Microbial. Biotechnol. 62: 124‐133.
Wagner‐Döbler, I., H. von Canstein, Y. Li, K.N. Timmis, and W‐D. Deckwer. 2000. Removal of mercury from chemical wastewater by microorganisms in technical scale. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34: 4628‐4634.
Wang, F‐Y., Z‐H. Guo, X‐F. Miao, and X‐Y. Xiao. 2011. Tolerance and accumulation characteristics of Typha orientalis Presl for As, Cd and Pb in heavily contaminated soils. Journal of Agro‐ Environmental Science 2011‐10.
Wang, Q., D. Kim, D.D. Dionysiou, G.A. Sorial, and D. Timberlake. 2004. Sources and remediation for mercury contamination in aquatic systems – a literature review. Environmental Pollution 131: 323‐336.
December 2014 7-13 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Wang, S. and C.N. Mulligan. 2006. Occurrence of arsenic contamination in Canada: sources, behavior and distribution. Science of the Total Environment 366: 701‐721.
Watras, C.J., K.A. Morrison, J. Host, and N.S. Bloom. 1995. Concentration of mercury species in relationship to other site‐specific factors in the surface waters of northern Wisconsin lakes. Limnol. Oceanogr.40: 556‐565.
WEF/ASCE (Water Environment Federation and American Society of Civil Engineers). 1992. Design and Construction of Urban Storm Water Management Systems. WEF Manual of Practice No. FD‐ 20. ASCE Manuals and Reports of Engineering Practice No. 77. Alexandria, VA and New York, NY.
Weis, J.S. and P. Weis. 1989. Tolerance and stress in a polluted environment. BioScience 39: 89‐ 95.
Weis, J.S. and P. Weis. 1995. Effects of embryonic exposure to methylmercury on larval prey‐ capture ability in the mummichog, Fundulus heteroclitus. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 14: 153‐156.
Welch, E. and J. Jacoby. 2004. Pollutant Effects in Freshwater. Applied Limnology. Taylor and Francis. New York, 3rd ed.
Wells, J.R., P.B. Kaufman, and J.D. Jones. 1980. Heavy metal contents in some macrophytes from Saginaw Bay (Lake Huron, USA). Aquat. Bot. 9: 185‐193.
Wiegand, C., T. Schueler, W. Chittenden, and D. Jellick. 1986. Cost Urban Runoff Controls. Pp. 366‐380. In: Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation Conference. Urban Water Resources. ASCE. Henniker, NH. June 23‐27, 1986.
Wiener, J.G. and D.J. Spry. 1996. Toxicological significance of mercury in freshwater fish. In: Environmental Contaminants in Wildlife: Interpreting Tissue Concentrations. W.N. Beyer, G.H. Heinz and A.W. Redman‐ Norwood (Eds.), Special Publication of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 297‐339.
Wu, Z. and L. Zhu. 2012. Removal of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and phenols from coking wastewater by simultaneously synthesized organobentonite in a one‐step process. Journal of Environmental Sciences 24(2): 248‐253.
Yang, Y., P.C. Van Metre, B.J. Mahler, J.T. Wilson, B. Ligouis, M.D.M. Razzaque, D.J. Schaeffer, and C. J. Werth. 2010. Influence of coal‐tar sealcoat and other carbonaceous materials on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon loading in an urban watershed. Envion. Sci. Tech. 44: 1217‐1223.
Zhang, Z., Z. Rengel, H. Chang, K. Meney, L. Pantelic, and R. Tomanovic. 2012. Phytoremediation potential in Juncus subsecundus in soils contaminated with cadmium and poly nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Geoderma 175‐176: 1‐8.
December 2014 7-14 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Zheng, X‐J., J‐F. Blais, G. Mercier, M. Bergeron, and P. Drogui. 2007. PAH removal from spiked municipal wastewater sewage sludge using biological, chemicals, and electrochemical treatments. Chemosphere 68: 1143‐1152.
Zolgharnein, J., A. Shahmoradi, and J. Ghasemi. 2011. Pesticides removal using conventional and low‐cost adsorbents: A review. Clean‐Soil, Air, Water 39: 1105‐1119.
December 2014 7-15 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
8.0 GLOSSARY
Technical Terms Definition
absorption Assimilation by molecular or chemical action.
adsorption The process by which molecules of a substance, such as a gas or a liquid, connect on a surface of another substance.
Anthropogenic Caused or influenced by humans.
baseline Collection of environmental samples that establish a background condition. monitoring
bioaccumulate Substances or toxins that build up within tissues of organisms.
Bioavailable The extent to which a toxin is absorbed or becomes available at the site of physiological activity.
Bioavailability See Bioavailable
Biomagnification The increasing concentration of a toxic chemical in tissues of organisms at successively higher levels in a food chain.
carcinogenesis The development of cancer cells from normal ones.
Coagulation To cause transformation of a liquid into a soft, semi-solid or solid mass.
Congeners A member of the same class or group (i.e., related PCB-type chemical forms)
critical thresholds A concentration of a toxic chemical beyond which can have chronic or acute effects to an organism.
decomposition Breakdown or decay of organic materials.
Degradation Wearing or breaking down to a lower level.
detection limits Minimum concentration of a toxic chemical that can be detected in a sample.
Emaciation To make or become extremely thin.
Emergent Occurring as a consequence unexpectedly.
Endocrine Referring to the endocrine gland and secretion of hormones.
Eutrophication Nutrient- rich waters that promote growth of plant life and algae blooms.
filter strips
filtration The process of passing a liquid through a filter in order to remove solid particles.
December 2014 8-1 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Technical Terms Definition
gill opercula A boney structure covering the gills of a fish (e.g., pre-opercle, inter-opercle, sub- opercle).
Homologs A chemical having similar structure or characteristics.
Hormones Any of various internally secreted compounds formed in endocrine glands that affect the functions of specifically receptive organs or tissues when transported to them through the bloodstream.
Hypoxic Deficiency of oxygen in the environment which affects concentrations reaching conditions body tissues.
ion exchange A reversible chemical reaction between an insoluble solid and a solution during which ions may be interchanged.
microbial Breakdown in to simpler parts of organic material with rate of decay a function of decomposition the bacterial community.
Microlayer A thin zone or layer of organic material at the interface between water and solid.
Mucous A thin layer of translucent organic material produced by salivary glands.
Nitrogen fixation Conversion of atmospheric nitrogen into compounds such as ammonia or nitrogen oxides.
Osmoregulation A set of physicochemical and physiological processes that maintain osmotic pressure of the intercellular fluids.
Pathways Mobilization/movement of toxic chemicals between media and factors that promote transfer of the toxic chemicals.
phosphate ion A nutrient that is usually a limiting factor for plant and algae growth in freshwater environments.
Piscivorous Feeding on fishes.
plant uptake Absorption or diffusion of toxic chemicals into the vascular system of plants.
pollution Reduction of a pollutant by either stopping it at the source or through a structure abatement intended to lower the concentration of a toxic chemical.
quantitation A concentration level beyond which laboratory analysis will consistently detect a limits toxic chemical when it is present.
sand filter Sand and organic filters direct stormwater runoff through a sand bed to remove floatables, particulate metals, and pollutants.
seston Organisms and non-living matter swimming or floating in a water body.
sheetflow A stormwater runoff condition where the flow is shallow and fairly uniform.
December 2014 8-2 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Technical Terms Definition
Swales A swale is a low tract of land, especially one that is moist or marshy. Artificial swales are often designed to manage water runoff, filter pollutants, and increase rainwater infiltration.
Toxic A toxic chemical or other substance. Acting as or having the effect of a poison.
toxic pollutant Accumulation of toxics in quantities that present potential for bioaccumulation in problems aquatic organisms and cause health effects.
vegetation Vegetative biofilters include filter strips, grassed waterways and natural biofilters grasslands used to protect water resources from pollutants originating from stormwater runoff.
volatilization To evaporate or cause to evaporate.
water quality Regulatory benchmarks based on water quality criteria. Regulatory tools are used goals to promote compliance with water quality criteria in aquatic environments.
December 2014 8-3 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
APPENDIX A - APPORTIONMENT FOR LOADING OF TARGET TOXIC CHEMICALS
Toxic Source of Toxic Apportionment of Citation Loading
Arsenic Weathered rock, Industrial – 42,700 metric Ferguson and smelting, combustion of tons produced in 1961- Gavis 1972 fossil fuels, exposed 1970 waste from mining
Arsenic Erosion of arsenic Major sources of arsenic Wang and containing rocks, gold in Canada is attributed to Mulligan 2006 mine operations, wood natural enrichments, preservative facilities mining, wood preservation, coal-fired thermal, and power generation.
Arsenic Arsenic in groundwater Found in sulfide mining Smedley and and mineralized areas Kinniburgh 2001
Benzo(a)pyrene Vehicles, coal, industrial Benzo(a)pyrene ratio of Simcik et al. atmospheric particles: 1999 vehicles 0.3-0.78, exhaust 0.3-0.4, coal 0.9-6.6, diesel 0.46-0.81, coke oven 5.1, incinerator 0.14-0.6, oil burning power plant >2, petroleum refinery 0.65- 1.7
Benzo(a)pyrene Vehicles, coal, oil, wood Atmospheric Larsen and contribution: Vehicles Baker 2003 16-26%, coal 28-36%, oil 15-23%, wood 23-35%
December 2014 A-1 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Source of Toxic Apportionment of Citation Loading
Benzo(a)pyrene Coal-tar pitch, sealed Coal-tar pitch is 99% of Yang et al. 2010 parking lot dust, polycyclic aromatic unsealed parking lot hydrocarbons (PAH) in dust, commercial area sealed parking lot dust, soil, streambed 92% in unsealed parking sediment, surficial lake lot dust, 88% in sediment commercial area soil, 71% in streambed sediment, 84% in surficial lake sediment
Benzo(a)pyrene Sources of PAH in Aerial deposition and Stein et al. 2006 stormwater wash-off of combustion by-products in urbanized environments. Runoff from industrial and highway sites had higher concentrations than residential runoff. Strong pyrogenic sources indicative of combusted fossil fuels. Runoff in residential areas had a greater contribution from atmospheric deposition.
Benzo(a)pyrene Urban stormwater runoff Service roads show Göbel et al. and metals highest PAH 2007 concentrations
Dioxin Point sources, yard Pesticides .043 Toxicity Connor et al. burning, vehicle Equivalent Quantity/yr 2005 emissions (TEQ/yr), diesel 0.63 TEQ/yr, paper products 0.1 TEQ/yr, PCP treated wood > 1 TEQ/yr, PVC products 0.1 TEQ/yr, Refining 0.07 TEQ/yr, Wood burning 0.83 TEQ/yr
December 2014 A-2 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Source of Toxic Apportionment of Citation Loading
Dioxin Runoff, deposition, Industrial and municipal Rifai et al. 2013 permitted effluent effluent, runoff, and discharges atmospheric deposition contribute less than 5% of the total load to the system; 2,3,7,8-TCDD was dominated by sediment loads. Sediment load was major source of dioxin to channel
Mercury Atmospheric deposition, Atmospheric deposition- Wang et al. erosion, urban 12% global emissions, 2004 discharges, agricultural Industrial sources- US materials, mining, 97% of total mercury combustion and emissions (coal industrial discharges combustion 50%). Municipal waste incineration 30%.
Mercury Municipal waste Municipal waste Dvonch et al. incineration, oil incineration and oil 1999 combustion, local combustion 71 ± 8%, 73 anthropogenic sources, ± 6% local (local urban point anthropogenic sources sources)
Polychlorinated Sediment resuspension, Sediment resuspension Du et al. 2008 biphenyls non-point sources, point 50%, nonpoint sources sources (wastewater 13%, point effluents), contaminated sources(including sites, atmospheric wastewater effluent) 9%, deposition contaminated sites 5%, atmospheric deposition 3%
Polychlorinated Stormwater (municipal), Municipal stormwater King County biphenyls atmospheric deposition, flow 67%, atmospheric 2014 combined sewer outfalls deposition and rivers (CSOs) and highway 14%, CSOs and highway bridge runoff, bridge runoff <3%.
December 2014 A-3 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Source of Toxic Apportionment of Citation Loading
Polychlorinated Spokane River National City of Spokane Serdar et al. biphenyls Pollutant Discharge Stormwater 44%, 2011 Elimination System municipal and industrial (NPDES) permitted, discharges 20%, Little municipal and industrial Spokane River 6%, discharges to ground or Polychlorinated biphenyl sewer, stormwater loading from Idaho at the discharge and CSOs state line 30%. See Appendix B for full list of NPDES permits
Polychlorinated Wastewater(old and new Polychlorinated biphenyl Ecology 2012 biphenyls and residential and mixed amounts were similar in Dioxin use), stormwater, wastewater and sediment, stormwater, higher in residential wastewater than in mixed industrial wastewater, higher in old residential wastewater than new residential; Dioxin higher in stormwater than wastewater, highest concentration in new residential stormwater
References: Connor, M. D. Yee, J. Davis, and C. Werme. 2005. Dioxins in San Francisco Bay: Conceptual model/impairment assessment. Prepared by Clean Estuary Partnership. Du, S., T.J. Belton, and L.A. Rodenburg. 2008. Source apportionment of polychlorinated biphenyls in the tidal Delaware River. Eviron. Sci. Tech. 42: 4044-4051. Dvonch, J.T., J.R. Graney, G.J. Keeler, and R.K. Stevens. 1999. Use of elemental tracers to source apportion mercury in south Florida precipitation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33: 4522-4527. Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2012a. Liberty Lake Source Trace Study: Regarding PCB, PBDE, metals, and dioxin/furan. A pilot project for Spokane Basin Source Tracing. Publication No. 10-04-027. Ferguson, J.F. and J. Gavis. 1972. A review of the arsenic cycle in natural waters. Water Research 6: 1259-1274. Göbel, P., C. Dierkes, and W.G. Coldewey. 2007. Storm water runoff concentration matrix for urban areas. Containment Hydrology 91: 26-42. King County. 2014. Modeling PCB Loadings Reduction Scenarios to the Lake Washington Watershed: Final Report. March 2014. Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Water and Land Resources Division, Science and Technology Support Section, Seattle, WA. Larsen, R.K., II, and J.E. Baker. 2003. Source apportionment of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the urban atmosphere: a comparison of three methods. Envion. Sci. Tech. 37: 1873-1881. Rifai, H.S., D. Lakshmanan, and M.P. Suarez. 2013. Mass balance modeling to elucidate historical and continuing sources of dioxin into an urban estuary. Chemosphere 93: 480-486. Serdar, D., B. Lubliner, A. Johnson, and D. Norton. 2011. Spokane River PCB Source Assessment 2003-2007. Toxics Study Unit, Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Simcik, M.F., S.J. Eisenreich, and P.J. Lioy. 1999. Source apportionment and source/sink relationships of PAHs in the coastal
December 2014 A-4 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
atmosphere of Chicago and Lake Michigan. Atmospheric Environment 33: 5071-5079. Smedley, P.L. and D. G. Kinniburgh. 2001. A review of the source, behavior and distribution of arsenic in natural waters. Applied Geochemistry 17: 517-568. Stein, E.D., L.L. Tiefenthaler, and K. Schiff. 2006. Watershed-based sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban storm water. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25(2): 373-385. Wang, S. and C.N. Mulligan. 2006. Occurrence of arsenic contamination in Canada: sources, behavior and distribution. Science of the Total Environment 366: 701-721. Wang, Q., D. Kim, D.D. Dionysiou, G.A. Sorial, and D. Timberlake. 2004. Sources and remediation for mercury contamination in aquatic systems – a literature review. Environmental Pollution 131: 323-336. Yang, Y., P.C. Van Metre, B.J. Mahler, J.T. Wilson, B. Ligouis, M.D.M. Razzaque, D.J. Schaeffer, and C. J. Werth. 2010. Influence of coal-tar sealcoat and other carbonaceous materials on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon loading in an urban watershed. Envion. Sci. Tech. 44: 1217-1223.
December 2014 A-5 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
APPENDIX B - WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINIATION SYSTEM PERMITS FOR TARGET TOXIC CHEMICALS
Target Toxic Permit Holder 1 Permit Number Permit Type Facility Type Toxic in Final Concentration Concentration MCECMZ Water Quality- Tech-based Chemical Effluent to Average or Maximum or (μg/l) based effluent effluent limits Surface Water? Median 95th Percentile limits (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l)
Arsenic Longview Fibre WA0000078 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A 120 1.0521 N/A N/A Paper and Packaging - Longview - Pulp and Paper Mill
Arsenic Georgia Pacific WA0000256 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Consumer Products LLC - Camas - Pulp and Paper Mill
Arsenic Emerald Kalama WA0000281 Industrial chemical plant x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Chemical LLC - Kalama - Chemical Plant
Arsenic Simpson Tacoma WA0000850 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A 9 0.445 N/A N/A Kraft Company LLC - Tacoma - Pulp and Paper Mill
Arsenic Port Townsend WA0000922 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Paper Corporation - Port Townsend - Pulp and Paper Mill
Arsenic TECK COMINCO WA0001317 Industrial NPDES IP metals, mining, and x N/A 9.958 0.096 N/A N/A milling
Arsenic Translata Centralia WA0001546 Industrial NPDES IP electric power x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Generation LLC generation
Arsenic US Oil & Refining - WA0001783 Industrial oil refinery x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Tacoma - Oil Refinery
Arsenic Intalco - Ferndale - WA0002950 Industrial aluminum smelter x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Aluminum Smelter
December 2014 B-1 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Target Toxic Permit Holder 1 Permit Number Permit Type Facility Type Toxic in Final Concentration Concentration MCECMZ Water Quality- Tech-based Chemical Effluent to Average or Maximum or (μg/l) based effluent effluent limits Surface Water? Median 95th Percentile limits (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l)
Arsenic Harbor Paper LLC - WA0003077 Industrial paper mill N/A N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Hoquiam - Pulp and Paper Mill
Arsenic Burlington WWTP WA0020150 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Anacortes WWTP WA0020257 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Stanwood STP WA0020290 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Port Orchard WWTP WA0020346 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP - MBR x 1.16 1.2 nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Richland POTW WA0020419 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Alderwood STP WA0020826 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Bainbridge Island WA0020907 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A WWTP
Arsenic Midway Sewer WA0020958 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x nr 1 nr N/A N/A District WWTP
Arsenic Oroville POTW WA0022390 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x 0.86 1.13 nr 10 N/A
Arsenic Ferndale STP WA0022454 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Marysville STP WA0022497 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x nr 2 nr N/A N/A
Arsenic King County Vashon WA0022527 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A WWTP
Arsenic Lakota WWTP WA0022624 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Redondo WWTP WA0023451 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x 1.61 2.39 nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Messenger House WA0023469 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x nr 2.2 nr N/A N/A Care Center WWTP
Arsenic Yakima POTW WA0024023 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Lynwood STP WA0024031 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Ellensburg POTW WA0024341 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Vancouver West STP WA0024350 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x 3 25 N/A N/A N/A
Arsenic Everett STP WA0024490 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
December 2014 B-2 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Target Toxic Permit Holder 1 Permit Number Permit Type Facility Type Toxic in Final Concentration Concentration MCECMZ Water Quality- Tech-based Chemical Effluent to Average or Maximum or (μg/l) based effluent effluent limits Surface Water? Median 95th Percentile limits (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l)
Arsenic Everett STP WA0024490 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic King County West WA0029181 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Point WWTP
Arsenic King County West WA0029181 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Point WWTP
Arsenic King County West WA0029181 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Point WWTP
Arsenic Bremerton STP WA0029289 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Bremerton STP WA0029289 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic North Bend STP WA0029351 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x nr 6.79 nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Duvall STP WA0029513 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Snohomish STP WA0029548 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic King County South WA0029581 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A WWTP
Arsenic Kitsap County Sewer WA0030317 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A District 7 WWTP
Arsenic Pacific Coast Coal WA0030830 Industrial NPDES IP coal mine x nr 50 nr N/A N/A Co.
Arsenic Pacific Fisherman WA0031046 Industrial NPDES IP ship yard x 17.2 50 nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Seattle Iron & Metals WA0031968 Industrial NPDES IP scrap metal x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Corp. processor
Arsenic Ice Flow LLC DBA WA0032166 Industrial NPDES IP ship yard x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Nichols Brothers
Arsenic King County WA0032182 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Carnation WWTP
Arsenic King County WA0032182 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Carnation WWTP
Arsenic Bellingham Airport WA0032239 Industrial NPDES IP woodwaste landfill x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Woodwaste Landfill
December 2014 B-3 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Target Toxic Permit Holder 1 Permit Number Permit Type Facility Type Toxic in Final Concentration Concentration MCECMZ Water Quality- Tech-based Chemical Effluent to Average or Maximum or (μg/l) based effluent effluent limits Surface Water? Median 95th Percentile limits (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l)
Arsenic King County WA0032247 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Brightwater WWTP
Arsenic King County WA0032247 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Brightwater WWTP
Arsenic Aberdeen STP WA0037192 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Three Rivers WA0037788 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Regional Wastewater
Arsenic Pacific Functional WA0038679 Industrial petroleum product x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Fluids LLC - Tacoma storage, packaging, - Chemical Plant and distribution
Arsenic Translata Centralia WA0040215 Industrial NPDES IP landfill associated N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.4 Mining Landfill with coal-fired power plant
Arsenic East Bay WA0040231 Industrial NPDES IP development of a x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Development Port site under MTCA of Olympia
Arsenic Exterior Wood, Inc. WA0040711 Industrial NPDES IP wood preserver x N/A N/A nr N/A 111
Arsenic Clark County PUD WA0040932 Industrial NPDES IP electric power x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Lower River Rd generator
Arsenic Kennewick POTW WA0044784 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A
Arsenic Lehigh Cement Co WA0045586 Industrial NPDES IP closed cement Kiln x N/A N/A nr 5 N/A dust pile groundwater remediation
Arsenic Grandview POTW WA0052205 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 1.49 N/A N/A
Arsenic Grandview POTW WA0052205 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.02 N/A N/A
Arsenic (inorganic) Nippon Paper WA0002925 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A N/A 0.16 N/A N/A Industries USA CO - Port Angeles - Pulp and Paper Mill
December 2014 B-4 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Target Toxic Permit Holder 1 Permit Number Permit Type Facility Type Toxic in Final Concentration Concentration MCECMZ Water Quality- Tech-based Chemical Effluent to Average or Maximum or (μg/l) based effluent effluent limits Surface Water? Median 95th Percentile limits (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l)
Arsenic (inorganic) Nippon Paper WA0002925 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A N/A 0.04 N/A N/A Industries USA CO - Port Angeles - Pulp and Paper Mill
Arsenic (inorganic) Boise White Paper WA0003697 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A LLC - Wallula - Pulp and Paper Mill
Arsenic (inorganic) Miller Creek WWTP WA0022764 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x 1.05 1.31 0.0034 N/A N/A
Arsenic (inorganic) Salmon Creek WA0022772 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.0023 N/A N/A WWTP
Arsenic (inorganic) BP Cherry Point WA0022900 Industrial oil refinery x N/A N/A 0.04 N/A N/A Refinery - Blaine - Oil Refinery
Arsenic (inorganic) King County West WA0029181 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.06 N/A N/A Point WWTP
Arsenic (inorganic) North Bend STP WA0029351 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x nr 0.52 0.029 N/A N/A
Arsenic (inorganic) Entiat POTW WA0051276 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A 0.89 N/A N/A
Benzo(a)pyrene Millennium Bulk WA0000086 Industrial aluminum smelter x N/A 0.028 0.001290866 N/A N/A Terminals Longview LLC - Longview - Aluminum Smelt
Benzo(a)pyrene Emerald Kalama WA0000281 Industrial chemical plant N/A N/A N/A N/A yes Chemical LLC - Kalama - Chemical Plant
Benzo(a)pyrene Intalco - Ferndale - WA0002950 Industrial aluminum smelter x N/A 1.9 0.0168994 N/A See Note 2 Aluminum Smelter
Benzo(a)pyrene Phillips 66 - Ferndale WA0002984 Industrial oil refinery N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A - Oil Refinery
Benzo(a)pyrene BP Cherry Point WA0022900 Industrial oil refinery x N/A N/A 0.04 N/A N/A Refinery - Blaine - Oil Refinery
Benzo(a)pyrene BNSF Skykomish WA0032123 Industrial NPDES IP fueling station x N/A N/A nr 0.0028 N/A Remediation Site cleanup site
December 2014 B-5 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Target Toxic Permit Holder 1 Permit Number Permit Type Facility Type Toxic in Final Concentration Concentration MCECMZ Water Quality- Tech-based Chemical Effluent to Average or Maximum or (μg/l) based effluent effluent limits Surface Water? Median 95th Percentile limits (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l)
Benzo(a)pyrene King County WA0032182 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.00001 N/A N/A Carnation WWTP
Benzo(a)pyrene McFarland Cascade WA0037953 Industrial NPDES IP wood treater x N/A N/A 0.03 N/A N/A Pole & Lumber Co.
Benzo(a)pyrene East Bay WA0040231 Industrial NPDES IP development of a N/A N/A 0.02 0.031 N/A Development Port site under MTCA of Olympia
Benzo(a)pyrene Port of Ridgefield WA0041025 Industrial NPDES IP MTCA groundwater x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Lake River remediation
Mercury Longview Fibre WA0000078 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A 0.026 0.0002 N/A N/A Paper and Packaging - Longview - Pulp and Paper Mill
Mercury Georgia Pacific WA0000256 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A 0.0215 0.008 N/A N/A Consumer Products LLC - Camas - Pulp and Paper Mill
Mercury Tesoro Refining & WA0000761 Industrial oil refinery x N/A 0.2 0.0015 N/A N/A Marketing Company LLC - Anacortes - Oil Refinery
Mercury Simpson Tacoma WA0000850 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Kraft Company LLC - Tacoma - Pulp and Paper Mill
Mercury Port Townsend WA0000922 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A 0.0047 0.00076 N/A N/A Paper Corporation - Port Townsend - Pulp and Paper Mill
Mercury TECK COMINCO WA0001317 Industrial NPDES IP metals mining and x N/A 0.116 0.00111 N/A N/A milling
Mercury US Oil & Refining - WA0001783 Industrial oil refinery x N/A 4.5 0.063 N/A N/A Tacoma - Oil Refinery
December 2014 B-6 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Target Toxic Permit Holder 1 Permit Number Permit Type Facility Type Toxic in Final Concentration Concentration MCECMZ Water Quality- Tech-based Chemical Effluent to Average or Maximum or (μg/l) based effluent effluent limits Surface Water? Median 95th Percentile limits (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l)
Mercury Nippon Paper WA0002925 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A 0.03 0.00022 N/A N/A Industries USA CO - Port Angeles - Pulp and Paper Mill
Mercury Nippon Paper WA0002925 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A 0.0046 2.00E-05 N/A N/A Industries USA CO - Port Angeles - Pulp and Paper Mill
Mercury Shell Oil Products WA0002941 Industrial oil refinery x N/A 0.16 0.001778 N/A N/A US - Anacortes - Oil Refinery
Mercury Phillips 66 - Ferndale WA0002984 Industrial oil refinery x 0.026 N/A 0.000252 N/A N/A - Oil Refinery
Mercury Boise White Paper WA0003697 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A 0.208 0.002 N/A N/A LLC - Wallula - Pulp and Paper Mill
Mercury Port Orchard WWTP WA0020346 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP -MBR x 0.00322 0.00525 0.00002 N/A N/A
Mercury Richland POTW WA0020419 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.001 N/A N/A
Mercury Monroe STP WA0020486 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x 0.0054 0.01 0.0008 N/A N/A
Mercury Alderwood STP WA0020826 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.00002 N/A N/A
Mercury Bainbridge Island WA0020907 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.0044 N/A N/A WWTP
Mercury Midway Sewer WA0020958 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x nr 0.2 0.001 N/A N/A District WWTP
Mercury Snoqualmie WWTP WA0022403 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A 0.0031 0.0024 N/A N/A and Reclaim Facility
Mercury Marysville STP WA0022497 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x nr 0.0027 0.002 N/A N/A
Mercury Arlington STP WA0022560 Municipal NPDES IP water reclamation x N/A N/A 0.000042 N/A N/A facility
Mercury Lakota WWTP WA0022624 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.00002 N/A N/A
Mercury Miller Creek WWTP WA0022764 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x 0.0169 0.023 0.00004 N/A N/A
December 2014 B-7 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Target Toxic Permit Holder 1 Permit Number Permit Type Facility Type Toxic in Final Concentration Concentration MCECMZ Water Quality- Tech-based Chemical Effluent to Average or Maximum or (μg/l) based effluent effluent limits Surface Water? Median 95th Percentile limits (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l)
Mercury Salmon Creek WA0022772 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.0000087 N/A N/A WWTP
Mercury BP Cherry Point WA0022900 Industrial oil refinery x 0.024 N/A 0.000176 N/A N/A Refinery - Blaine - Oil Refinery
Mercury Sultan WWTP WA0023302 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A 0.1 0.00154 N/A N/A
Mercury Mukilteo Water and WA0023396 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x nr 0.0025 0.00009 N/A N/A Wastewater District WWTP S
Mercury Redondo WWTP WA0023451 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x 0.0314 0.0851 0.0004 N/A N/A
Mercury Messenger House WA0023469 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x nr 0.2 0.00034 N/A N/A Care Center WWTP
Mercury Sedro Woolley WA0023752 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.0024 N/A N/A WWTP
Mercury Gig Harbor STP WA0023957 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A 0.00995 4.30E-06 N/A N/A
Mercury Yakima POTW WA0024023 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A 0.0048 0.0036 N/A N/A
Mercury Lynwood STP WA0024031 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.00005 N/A N/A
Mercury Ellensburg POTW WA0024341 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.0018 N/A N/A
Mercury Vancouver West STP WA0024350 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x 0.007 0.01 N/A N/A N/A
Mercury Everett STP WA0024490 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A 0.02 0.001 N/A N/A
Mercury Everett STP WA0024490 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.03 N/A N/A
Mercury King County West WA0029181 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.01 N/A N/A Point WWTP
Mercury King County West WA0029181 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A 0.1 0.25 N/A N/A Point WWTP
Mercury King County West WA0029181 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x 0.00775 0.008 2.34848x10-5 N/A N/A Point WWTP
Mercury Bremerton STP WA0029289 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.00001 N/A N/A
Mercury North Bend STP WA0029351 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x nr 0.0159 0.00019 N/A N/A
December 2014 B-8 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Target Toxic Permit Holder 1 Permit Number Permit Type Facility Type Toxic in Final Concentration Concentration MCECMZ Water Quality- Tech-based Chemical Effluent to Average or Maximum or (μg/l) based effluent effluent limits Surface Water? Median 95th Percentile limits (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l)
Mercury Duvall STP WA0029513 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.000042 N/A N/A
Mercury Snohomish STP WA0029548 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.002 N/A N/A
Mercury King County South WA0029581 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x 0.025 N/A 0.00067796 N/A N/A WWTP
Mercury Kitsap County Sewer WA0030317 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.00008 N/A N/A District 7 WWTP
Mercury Kitsap County WA0030520 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.00005 N/A N/A Central Kitsap WWTP
Mercury Seattle Iron & Metals WA0031968 Industrial NPDES IP scrap metal x N/A N/A 0.05 1.5 N/A Corp. P processor
Mercury King County WA0032182 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.000001 N/A N/A Carnation WWTP
Mercury King County WA0032182 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.0005 N/A N/A Carnation WWTP
Mercury Ash Grove Cement WA0032221 Industrial NPDES IP cement plant x 0.2545 N/A N/A N/A N/A West Inc.
Mercury King County WA0032247 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.0008 N/A N/A Brightwater WWTP
Mercury King County WA0032247 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.0007 N/A N/A Brightwater WWTP
Mercury Puyallup STP WA0037168 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr 0.072 N/A
Mercury Three Rivers WA0037788 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Regional Wastewater
Mercury McNeil Island WA0040002 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x 11.2 24.2 0.00003 N/A N/A Special Commitment Center WWTP
Mercury Clark County PUD WA0040932 Industrial NPDES IP electric power x N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Lower River Rd. generator
December 2014 B-9 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Target Toxic Permit Holder 1 Permit Number Permit Type Facility Type Toxic in Final Concentration Concentration MCECMZ Water Quality- Tech-based Chemical Effluent to Average or Maximum or (μg/l) based effluent effluent limits Surface Water? Median 95th Percentile limits (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l)
Mercury Pacific Coast WA0040991 Industrial NPDES IP automobile x N/A N/A nr 4 N/A Shredding shredding
Mercury West Richland WA0051063 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A 0.05 0.012 N/A N/A POTW
Mercury Entiat POTW WA0051276 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A N/A 0.0049 N/A N/A
Mercury Grandview POTW WA0052205 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x N/A 0.00174 0.004 N/A N/A
PCBs Omak POTW WA0020940 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP nr nd nr 0.000042 N/A
PCBs Okanogan POTW WA0022365 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP x nr 0.00039 nr 0.00017 N/A
Polychlorinated Oroville POTW WA0022390 Municipal NPDES IP WWTP nr nd nr 0.000042 N/A biphenyls
Polychlorinated Nucor Steel Seattle WA0031305 Industrial NPDES IP steel mill x nd 0.066 0.01 N/A 0.05 biphenyls Inc.
Polychlorinated Seattle Iron & Metals WA0031968 Industrial NPDES IP scrap metal x N/A N/A nr N/A 0.25 biphenyls Corp. processor
Polychlorinated Seattle Iron & Metals WA0031968 Industrial NPDES IP scrap metal x N/A N/A nr 0.0089 N/A biphenyls Corp. processor
Polychlorinated Schnitzer Steel WA0040347 Industrial NPDES IP ferrous scrap metal N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.0 biphenyls recycler
Polychlorinated Pacific Coast WA0040991 Industrial NPDES IP automobile x N/A N/A 0.02 N/A 0.05 biphenyls Shredding shredding
2,3,7,8-TCDD Weyerhaeuser NR WA0000124 Industrial pulp and paper mill, x N/A N/A nr N/A 0.56 mg/day Company - wood products Longview - Pulp and Paper Mill
2,3,7,8-TCDD Georgia Pacific WA0000256 Industrial pulp and paper mill x N/A N/A nr N/A 1.31 mg/day Consumer Products LLC - Camas - Pulp and Paper Mill
2,3,7,8-TCDD COSMO Specialty WA0000809 Industrial pulp mill N/A N/A nr N/A 0.28 mg/day Fibers Inc. - Cosmopolis - Pulp Mill
December 2014 B-10 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Target Toxic Permit Holder 1 Permit Number Permit Type Facility Type Toxic in Final Concentration Concentration MCECMZ Water Quality- Tech-based Chemical Effluent to Average or Maximum or (μg/l) based effluent effluent limits Surface Water? Median 95th Percentile limits (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l) (μg/l)
2,3,7,8-TCDD Simpson Tacoma WA0000850 Industrial pulp and paper mill N/A N/A nr N/A N/A Kraft Company LLC - Tacoma - Pulp and Paper Mill
2,3,7,8-TCDD Boise White Paper WA0003697 Industrial pulp and paper mill ND < 0.499 pg/l N/A nr N/A 0.78 mg/day LLC - Wallula - Pulp and Paper Mill
2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQ MAP 2 LLC WA0031976 Industrial NPDES IP woodwaste landfill x 0.00000012 nr nr N/A N/A
Notes: 1. Source: Washington Department of Ecology. 2014. Permit and Reporting Information System (PARIS). Available by request from: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/permits/paris/paris.html. 2. Outfall 001 - 0.02/0.03/0.045 monthly average (tiered limits based on production); 0.043/0.065/0.098 daily maximum (tiered limits based on production); Outfall 001 (stormwater diversion) - 0.01 Daily Maximum. Acronyms/Abbreviations: IP = industrial permit MBR = Membrane Bioreactor MCECMZ = Maximum concentration at edge of chronic mixing zone (MCECMZ) (calculated values); MTCA = Model Toxics Control Act nd = not detected NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; nr = not reported WWTP = wastewater treatment plant; μg/l= micrograms per liter
December 2014 B-11 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
APPENDIX C - ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR TARGET TOXIC CHEMICALS
Table C-1 Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA-approval for arsenic.
Method Name and EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Number Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
AOAC 993.14 - Y Total See Note μg/L 1.6 - 2000 Y Trace Elements in 1 Waters and Wastewaters
ASTM D1976-07 - Y Total 53 μg/L 106 - 530 Y Elements in Water by ICP-AES
ASTM D2972-08 (A) Y Total See Note N/A N/A Y - Standard Test 1 Methods for Arsenic in Water
ASTM D2972-08 Y Total See Note N/A N/A Y (B)- Standard Test 1 Methods for Arsenic in Water
ASTM D2972-08 (C) Y Total See Note N/A N/A Y - Standard Test 1 Methods for Arsenic in Water
ASTM D5673-05 - Y Total 8 μg/L 16 - 80 Y Elements in Water by ICP-MS
EPA Method 200.5, Y Total 1.4 μg/L 2.8 - 14 Y Reb. 4.2 (2003) - Trace Elements in Water by AVICP- AES
EPA Method 200.7, Y Total 8 μg/L 16 - 80 Y Rev. 4.4 (1994) - Metals in Water by ICP-AES
December 2014 C-1 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Method Name and EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Number Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
EPA Method 200.8, Y Total 1.4 μg/L 2.8 - 14 Y Rev. 5.4 (1994) - Metals in Water by ICP/MS
EPA Method 200.9, Y Total 0.5 μg/L 1.0 - 5.0 Y Rev. 2.2 (1994) - Trace Elements in Water by GFAA
EPA Method 206.2 - Y Total 1 μg/L 2 - 10 N Arsenic by Graphite Furnace AA
EPA Method 206.3 - Y Total 2 μg/L 4 - 40 N Arsenic by Gaseous Hydride Generation and AA
EPA Method 206.4 - Y Total 10 μg/L 20 - 100 N Arsenic by Spectrophotometry
EPA Method 206.5 - Y Total N/A N/A N/A Y Sample Digestion for Arsenic
Standard Methods Y Total 1 μg/L 2 - 10 Y 3113 B-2004 - Metals in Water by GFAA
Standard Methods Y Total See Note N/A N/A Y 3114 B-2009 - 1 Arsenic and Selenium by Hydride Generation/Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
December 2014 C-2 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Method Name and EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Number Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
Standard Methods N N/A See Note N/A N/A N 3114 C-2009 - 1 Arsenic and Selenium by Hydride Generation/Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
Standard Methods Y Total 8 μg/L 16 - 80 Y 3120 B-1999 - Metals (total recoverable) in Water by ICP
Standard Methods Y Total 0.02 μg/L 0.04 - 0.2 Y 3125 B-2009 - Metals in Water by ICP/MS
Standard Methods Y Total 1 μg/L 2 - 10 Y 3500-As B-1997 - Arsenic by Silver Diethyldithiocarba mate
USGS I-2020-05 - N Total 0.06 μg/L 0.12 - 0.6 N Elements (filtered) in Water by cICP- MS
USGS I-2062 - N Total 1 μg/L 2 - 10 N Arsenic, dissolved, water, hydride_AA
USGS I-2063-98 - N Total 0.9 μg/L 1.8 - 9 N Arsenic in water by graphite furnace- atomic absorption spectrometry, dissolved
USGS I-2477-92 - N Total 0.07 μg/L 0.14 - 0.7 N Determination of metals in water by ICP-MS
December 2014 C-3 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Method Name and EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Number Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
USGS I-3060-85 - Y Total 5 μg/L 10 - 50 Y Arsenic (total), colorimetric, silver diethyldithiocarba mate
USGS I-3062-85 - Y Total 1 μg/L 2 - 10 Y Arsenic (total), atomic absorption spectrometric, hydride
USGS I-4020-05 - Y Total 0.06 μg/L 0.12 - 0.6 Y Elements (unfiltered) in water by cICP-MS
USGS I-4062 - N Total 1 μg/L 2 - 10 N Arsenic, total, water, hydride_AA
USGS I-4063-98 - Y Total 0.9 μg/L 1.8 - 9 Y Arsenic in water by graphite furnace- atomic absorption spectrometry, whole-water recoverable
USGS I-4472-97 - N Total 0.07 μg/L 0.14 - 0.7 N Metals in Water by Inductively Coupled Plasma/Mass Spectrometer, Whole-Water Recoverable
USGS I-7062 - N Total 1 μg/L 2 - 10 N Arsenic, suspended-total, water, hydride_AA
Notes: 1. The method is NPDES approved but was unable to be attained; therefore, the detection limit of the method is unknown. Acronyms/Abbreviations: NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; μg/l= micrograms per liter
December 2014 C-4 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Table C-2 Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA-approval for benzo(a)pyrene.
Method Name and EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Number Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
ASTM D4657-92 - Withdrawn 2005, no replacement Y Standard Test Method for Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Water
EPA Method 1625B - Y Total 10 μg/ 20 - 100 Y Semivolatiles – L Base/Neutrals, Acid Extractable, GC/MS
EPA Method 610 - Y Total 0.023 μg/ 0.046 - 0.23 Y PAHs by GC L
EPA Method 625 - Y Total 2.5 μg/ 5 - 25 Y Base/Neutral and L Acid Organics in Wastewater
EPA Method 8100 - Y Total N/A μg/ 10 μg/L N PAHs in Water and L Solid Samples by GC-FID
EPA Method 8270D - Y Total N/A N/A 10 μg/L N Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC/MS
EPA Method 8310 - Y Total 0.02 μg/ 0.04 - 0.2 N PAHs by HPLC Using L Ultraviolet and Fluorescence Detectors
MWI 70620 - PAH in N Total 1.00 μg/ 2 - 10 N water by L immunoassay
MWI A00157 - PAH N Total 0.70 μg/ 1.4 - 7 N in water by L immunoassay
December 2014 C-5 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
MWI A00201 - PAH Total 0.04 μg/ 0.08 - 0.4 N in water by L immunoassay
Standard Methods Y Total 2.5 μg/ 5 - 25 Y 6410B-2000 - L Extractable Semivolatile Organics by GC-MS
Standard Methods Y Total 0.02 μg/ 0.04 - 0.2 Y 6440 B-2000 - PAH’s L in Water by HPLC
USGS O-1433-01 - N Total 0.08 μg/ 0.16 - 0.8 N Wastewater L compounds in water by SPE and GC/MS
USGS O-3113 - PAHs N Total 1.00 μg/ 2 - 10 N L
USGS O-3116-87 - Y Total 10 μg/ 20 - 100 Y Base/neutral and L acid extractable compounds, gas chromatography/ma ss spectrometry in Open File Report 93– 125
USGS O-3118-83 - N Total 10 μg/ 20 - 100 N Base/Neutral L Extractable Compounds in Water by GC-MS
USGS O-4433-06 - N Total 0.06 μg/ 0.12 - 0.60 N Wastewater L Compounds in Water by CLLE and GC-MS
Acronyms/Abbreviations: NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; μg/l= micrograms per liter
December 2014 C-6 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Table C-3 Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA-approval for mercury.
Method Name and Number EPA Peer- Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Approved reviewed Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Method Measured Limit NPDES
AOAC 977.22 - Mercury in Water Y N/A Total N/A N/A See Note 1 Y
ASTM D3223-02 - Standard Test Y N/A Total N/A N/A See Note 1 Y Method for Total Mercury in Water
ASTM D6502 - Particulate and N N/A Total 1 μg/L 2 - 10 N Dissolved Matter by XRF
EPA Method 1631E - Mercury in Y N/A Total 0.0002 μg/L 0.0004 - Y water using CVAFS 0.002
EPA Method 200.7 - Metals in Y N/A Total 7 μg/L 14 - 70 N Water by ICP-AES
EPA Method 200.8 - Metals in Y N/A Total 0.2 μg/L 0.4 - 2.0 N Water by ICP/MS
EPA Method 245.1 - Mercury by Y N/A Total 0.2 μg/L 0.4 - 2.0 Y CVAA
EPA Method 245.2 - Mercury by Y N/A Total 0.2 μg/L 0.4 - 2.0 Y CVAA (Automated)
EPA Method 245.7 - Mercury in Y N/A Total 1.8 ng/L 3.6 - 18 Y water by cold-vapor atomic fluorescence spectrometry
Standard Methods 3112 B-2009 Y N/A Total N/A N/A See Note 1 Y - Metals by Cold-Vapor Atomic Absorption Spectrometry
USGS I-1462 - Mercury, N N/A Total 0.5 μg/L 1.0 - 5.0 N dissolved, CVFAA
USGS I-2462 - Mercury, N N/A Total 0.1 μg/L 0.2 - 1.0 N dissolved, CVFAA
USGS I-2464-01 - Organic plus N N/A Total 5 ng/L 10 - 50 N Inorganic Mercury in Filtered Natural Water by Cold-Vapor AFS
USGS I-3462-85 - Mercury, total Y N/A Total 0.5 μg/L 1.0 - 5.0 Y recoverable, CVFAA
December 2014 C-7 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Method Name and Number EPA Peer- Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Approved reviewed Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Method Measured Limit NPDES
USGS I-4464-01 - Organic plus Y N/A Total 5 ng/L 10 - 50 Y Inorganic Mercury in Unfiltered Natural Water by Cold-Vapor AFS
USGS I-7462 - Mercury, N N/A Total 0.5 μg/L 1.0 - 5.0 N suspended recoverable, CVFAA
Notes: 1. The method is NPDES approved but was unable to be attained; therefore, the detection limit of the method is unknown. Acronyms/Abbreviations: NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; μg/l= micrograms per liter
December 2014 C-8 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Table C-4 Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA-approval for polychlorinated biphenyls.
Toxic Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Chemical Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
PCB-1016 ASTM D5175 - Standard Test N Total 0.5 μg/L 1.0 - 5.0 N Method for Organohalide Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Water by Microextraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1254 ASTM D5175 - Standard Test N Total 0.5 μg/L 1.0 - 5.0 N Method for Organohalide Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Water by Microextraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1016 EPA Method 505 - Analysis of Y Total 0.08 μg/L 0.16 - 0.8 N Organochlorine Pesticides and Commercial Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Products in Water by Microextraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1221 EPA Method 505 - Analysis of Y Total 15 μg/L 30 - 150 N Organochlorine Pesticides and Commercial Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Products in Water by Microextraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1232 EPA Method 505 - Analysis of Y Total 0.48 μg/L 0.96 - 4.8 N Organochlorine Pesticides and Commercial Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Products in Water by Microextraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1242 EPA Method 505 - Analysis of Y Total 0.31 μg/L 0.62 - 3.1 N Organochlorine Pesticides and Commercial Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Products in Water by Microextraction and Gas Chromatography
December 2014 C-9 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Chemical Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
PCB-1248 EPA Method 505 - Analysis of Y Total 0.1 μg/L 0.2 - 1.0 N Organochlorine Pesticides and Commercial Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Products in Water by Microextraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1254 EPA Method 505 - Analysis of Y Total 0.1 μg/L 0.2 - 1.0 N Organochlorine Pesticides and Commercial Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Products in Water by Microextraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1260 EPA Method 505 - Analysis of Y Total 0.19 μg/L 0.38 - 1.9 N Organochlorine Pesticides and Commercial Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Products in Water by Microextraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1016 EPA Method 508.1 - Y Total 0.03 μg/L 0.06 - 0.3 N Determination of Chlorinated Pesticides, Herbicides, and Organohalides by Liquid- Solid Extraction and Electron Capture Gas Chromatography
PCB-1221 EPA Method 508.1 - Y Total 0.04 μg/L 0.08 - 0.4 N Determination of Chlorinated Pesticides, Herbicides, and Organohalides by Liquid- Solid Extraction and Electron Capture Gas Chromatography
PCB-1232 EPA Method 508.1 - Y Total 0.03 μg/L 0.06 - 0.3 N Determination of Chlorinated Pesticides, Herbicides, and Organohalides by Liquid- Solid Extraction and Electron Capture Gas Chromatography
December 2014 C-10 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Chemical Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
PCB-1242 EPA Method 508.1 - Y Total 0.04 μg/L 0.08 - 0.4 N Determination of Chlorinated Pesticides, Herbicides, and Organohalides by Liquid- Solid Extraction and Electron Capture Gas Chromatography
PCB-1248 EPA Method 508.1 - Y Total 0.04 μg/L 0.08 - 0.4 N Determination of Chlorinated Pesticides, Herbicides, and Organohalides by Liquid- Solid Extraction and Electron Capture Gas Chromatography
PCB-1254 EPA Method 508.1 - Y Total 0.04 μg/L 0.08 - 0.4 N Determination of Chlorinated Pesticides, Herbicides, and Organohalides by Liquid- Solid Extraction and Electron Capture Gas Chromatography
PCB-1260 EPA Method 508.1 - Y Total 0.01 μg/L 0.02 - 0.1 N Determination of Chlorinated Pesticides, Herbicides, and Organohalides by Liquid- Solid Extraction and Electron Capture Gas Chromatography
PCB-1016 EPA Method 508A - Y Total N/A N/A N/A N Screening for Polychlorinated Biphenyls by Perchlorination and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1221 EPA Method 508A - Y Total 0.14 μg/L 0.28 - 1.4 N Screening for Polychlorinated Biphenyls by Perchlorination and Gas Chromatography
December 2014 C-11 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Chemical Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
PCB-1232 EPA Method 508A - Y Total 0.23 μg/L 0.46 - 2.3 N Screening for Polychlorinated Biphenyls by Perchlorination and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1242 EPA Method 508A - Y Total 0.21 μg/L 0.42 - 2.1 N Screening for Polychlorinated Biphenyls by Perchlorination and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1248 EPA Method 508A - Y Total 0.15 μg/L 0.3 - 1.5 N Screening for Polychlorinated Biphenyls by Perchlorination and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1254 EPA Method 508A - Y Total 0.14 μg/L 0.28 - 1.4 N Screening for Polychlorinated Biphenyls by Perchlorination and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1260 EPA Method 508A - Y Total 0.14 μg/L 0.28 - 1.4 N Screening for Polychlorinated Biphenyls by Perchlorination and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1016 EPA Method 608 - Y Total nd N/A N/A Y Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs via GC with Electron Capture Detector (ECD)
PCB-1221 EPA Method 608 - Y Total nd N/A N/A Y Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs via GC with Electron Capture Detector (ECD)
PCB-1232 EPA Method 608 - Y Total nd N/A N/A Y Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs via GC with Electron Capture Detector (ECD)
December 2014 C-12 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Chemical Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
PCB-1242 EPA Method 608 - Y Total 0.065 μg/L 0.13 - 0.65 Y Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs via GC with Electron Capture Detector (ECD)
PCB-1248 EPA Method 608 - Y Total nd N/A N/A Y Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs via GC with Electron Capture Detector (ECD)
PCB-1254 EPA Method 608 - Y Total nd N/A N/A Y Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs via GC with Electron Capture Detector (ECD)
PCB-1260 EPA Method 608 - Y Total nd N/A N/A Y Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs via GC with Electron Capture Detector (ECD)
PCB-1016 EPA Method 625 - Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y Base/Neutral and Acid Organics in Wastewater
PCB-1221 EPA Method 625 - Y Total 30 μg/L 60 - 300 Y Base/Neutral and Acid Organics in Wastewater
PCB-1232 EPA Method 625 - Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y Base/Neutral and Acid Organics in Wastewater
PCB-1242 EPA Method 625 - Y Total unknown N/A N/A Y Base/Neutral and Acid Organics in Wastewater
PCB-1248 EPA Method 625 - Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y Base/Neutral and Acid Organics in Wastewater
PCB-1254 EPA Method 625 - Y Total 36 μg/L 72 - 360 Y Base/Neutral and Acid Organics in Wastewater
December 2014 C-13 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Chemical Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
PCB-1260 EPA Method 625 - Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y Base/Neutral and Acid Organics in Wastewater
PCB-1016 EPA Method 8082A - Y Total N/A N/A N/A N Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography
PCB-1221 EPA Method 8082A - Y Total N/A N/A N/A N Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography
PCB-1232 EPA Method 8082A - Y Total N/A N/A N/A N Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography
PCB-1242 EPA Method 8082A - Y Total N/A N/A N/A N Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography
PCB-1248 EPA Method 8082A - Y Total N/A N/A N/A N Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography
PCB-1254 EPA Method 8082A - Y Total N/A N/A N/A N Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography
PCB-1260 EPA Method 8082A - Y Total N/A N/A N/A N Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) by Gas Chromatography
PCB-1016 Methods for Benzidine, Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y Chlorinated Organic Compounds, Pentachlorophenol and Pesticides in Water and Wastewater. September 1978. U.S. EPA.
December 2014 C-14 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Chemical Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
PCB-1221 Methods for Benzidine, Y Total unknown N/A N/A Y Chlorinated Organic Compounds, Pentachlorophenol and Pesticides in Water and Wastewater. September 1978. U.S. EPA.
PCB-1232 Methods for Benzidine, Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y Chlorinated Organic Compounds, Pentachlorophenol and Pesticides in Water and Wastewater. September 1978. U.S. EPA.
PCB-1242 Methods for Benzidine, Y Total unknown N/A N/A Y Chlorinated Organic Compounds, Pentachlorophenol and Pesticides in Water and Wastewater. September 1978. U.S. EPA.
PCB-1248 Methods for Benzidine, Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y Chlorinated Organic Compounds, Pentachlorophenol and Pesticides in Water and Wastewater. September 1978. U.S. EPA.
PCB-1254 Methods for Benzidine, Y Total unknown N/A N/A Y Chlorinated Organic Compounds, Pentachlorophenol and Pesticides in Water and Wastewater. September 1978. U.S. EPA.
PCB-1260 Methods for Benzidine, Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y Chlorinated Organic Compounds, Pentachlorophenol and Pesticides in Water and Wastewater. September 1978. U.S. EPA.
December 2014 C-15 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Chemical Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
PCB-1016 Organochlorine Pesticides Y Total N/A N/A N/A Y and PCBs in Wastewater Using EmporeTM Disk. Revised October 28, 1994. 3M Corporation.
PCB-1221 Organochlorine Pesticides Y Total N/A N/A N/A Y and PCBs in Wastewater Using EmporeTM Disk. Revised October 28, 1994. 3M Corporation.
PCB-1232 Organochlorine Pesticides Y Total N/A N/A N/A Y and PCBs in Wastewater Using EmporeTM Disk. Revised October 28, 1994. 3M Corporation.
PCB-1242 Organochlorine Pesticides Y Total N/A N/A N/A Y and PCBs in Wastewater Using EmporeTM Disk. Revised October 28, 1994. 3M Corporation.
PCB-1248 Organochlorine Pesticides Y Total N/A N/A N/A Y and PCBs in Wastewater Using EmporeTM Disk. Revised October 28, 1994. 3M Corporation.
PCB-1254 Organochlorine Pesticides Y Total 0.26 μg/L 0.52 - 2.6 Y and PCBs in Wastewater Using EmporeTM Disk. Revised October 28, 1994. 3M Corporation.
PCB-1260 Organochlorine Pesticides Y Total N/A N/A N/A Y and PCBs in Wastewater Using EmporeTM Disk. Revised October 28, 1994. 3M Corporation.
December 2014 C-16 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Chemical Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
PCB-1016 Standard Methods 6410 B– Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y 2000 - Extractable Base/Neutrals and Acids in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction Gas Chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Method
PCB-1221 Standard Methods 6410 B– Y Total 30 μg/L 60 - 300 Y 2000 - Extractable Base/Neutrals and Acids in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction Gas Chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Method
PCB-1232 Standard Methods 6410 B– Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y 2000 - Extractable Base/Neutrals and Acids in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction Gas Chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Method
PCB-1242 Standard Methods 6410 B– Y Total unknown N/A N/A Y 2000 - Extractable Base/Neutrals and Acids in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction Gas Chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Method
PCB-1248 Standard Methods 6410 B– Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y 2000 - Extractable Base/Neutrals and Acids in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction Gas Chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Method
PCB-1254 Standard Methods 6410 B– Y Total 36 μg/L 72 - 360 Y 2000 - Extractable Base/Neutrals and Acids in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction Gas Chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Method
December 2014 C-17 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Chemical Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
PCB-1260 Standard Methods 6410 B– Y Total unknownN/A N/A Y 2000 - Extractable Base/Neutrals and Acids in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction Gas Chromatographic/Mass Spectrometric Method
PCB-1016 Standard Methods 6630 C - N Total N/A N/A N/A N Organochlorine Pesticides in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1221 Standard Methods 6630 C - N Total N/A N/A N/A N Organochlorine Pesticides in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1232 Standard Methods 6630 C - N Total N/A N/A N/A N Organochlorine Pesticides in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1242 Standard Methods 6630 C - N Total 0.07 μg/L 0.14 - 0.7 N Organochlorine Pesticides in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1248 Standard Methods 6630 C - N Total N/A N/A N/A N Organochlorine Pesticides in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction and Gas Chromatography
PCB-1254 Standard Methods 6630 C - N Total N/A N/A N/A N Organochlorine Pesticides in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction and Gas Chromatography
December 2014 C-18 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Toxic Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Unit Quantitation Status of EPA Chemical Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
PCB-1260 Standard Methods 6630 C - N Total N/A N/A N/A N Organochlorine Pesticides in Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction and Gas Chromatography
Acronyms/Abbreviations: NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; μg/l= micrograms per liter
Table C-5 Detection and quantitation limits and status of EPA-approval for 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Method Name and Number EPA Form of Method Units Quantitation Status of EPA Approved Chemical Detection Limit Approval for Method Measured Limit NPDES
EPA Method 613 - 2,3,7,8- Y Total 0.002 μg/L 0.004 - 0.02 Y TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN
EPA Method 1613 - Tetra- Through Y Total 10 pg/L 20 - 100 Y Octa-Chlorinated Dioxins and Furans by Isotope Dilution HRGC/HRMS
Acronyms/Abbreviations: NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; pg/L = picograms per liter μg/l= micrograms per liter
December 2014 C-19 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
APPENDIX D - SELECT EXAMPLES OF COST/BENEFIT FOR SOURCE CONTROL OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN STORMWATER (STORMWATER SOURCES OF POLLUTION)
Parameter Scenario Source Source Type of BMP Construction % Concentration Concentration Assumptions Flow Concentration (see Cost of BMP Removal1 Removed (μg/L) out of BMP into BMP into BMP Table 5-1) (see (see (Source Conc. x (μg/L) (cfs) (μg/L) Table 5-1) Table 5-5) %Removal (Source Conc. minus Concentration Removed)
Mercury (Hg) Stormwater 1.5 0.5 Grass Swale $5,915 0.35 0.175 0.325 5 acre grass swale costs based on EPA (1999) with multiplier of 1.69 to convert to 2014 Runoff costs. % removal of metals 14-55%. Average of 35% was used. Inflow volume equals outflow volume. Assuming no infiltration. Source concentration is based on a range of typical catch basin decant values compared to surface water criteria (Ecology 2005). Source flow is based on average Puget Sound 2-year storm event of 0.6 inches accounting for 90% of the annual rainfall in Puget Sound or 0.3 cfs per acre in a 5 acre area.
Stormwater 1.5 21.9 Grass Swale $5,915 0.35 7.665 14.235 5 acre grass swale costs based on EPA (1999) with multiplier of 1.69 to convert to 2014 Runoff costs. % removal of metals 14-55%. Average of 35% was used. Inflow volume equals outflow volume. Assuming no infiltration. Source concentration is based on a range of typical catch basin decant values compared to surface water criteria (Ecology 2005). Source flow is based on average Puget Sound 2-year storm event of 0.6 inches accounting for 90% of the annual rainfall in Puget Sound or 0.3 cfs per acre in a 5 acre area.
Arsenic (As) Stormwater 15 100 Shallow $211,250 0.61 61 39 Assume 6 inch/ 12 inches in a foot vertical storage * 43,560 sq ft per acre. 50 acre Runoff Marsh residential site costs based on EPA (1999) with multiplier of 1.69 to convert to 2014 Wetland costs. % removal of metals 36-85%. Average of 61% was used. Inflow volume equals outflow volume. Assuming no infiltration. Source concentration is based on a range of typical catch basin decant values compared to surface water criteria (Ecology 2005). Source flow is based on average Puget Sound 2-year storm event of 0.6 inches accounting for 90% of the annual rainfall in Puget Sound or 0.3 cfs per acre in a 50 acre area.
Stormwater 15 43,000 Shallow $211,250 0.61 26,230 16,770 Assume 6 inch/ 12 inches in a foot vertical storage * 43,560 sq ft per acre. 50 acre Runoff Marsh residential site costs based on EPA (1999) with multiplier of 1.69 to convert to 2014 Wetland costs. % removal of metals 36-85%. Average of 61% was used. Inflow volume equals outflow volume. Assuming no infiltration. Source concentration is based on a range of typical catch basin decant values compared to surface water criteria (Ecology 2005). Source flow is based on average Puget Sound 2-year storm event of 0.6 inches accounting for 90% of the annual rainfall in Puget Sound or 0.3 cfs per acre in a 50 acre area.
December 2014 D-1 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Dioxin Stormwater 1.5 0.1617 Filter Strip $15,210 0.9 0.14553 0.01617 Source flow is based on average Puget Sound 2-year storm event of 0.6 inches Runoff accounting for 90% of the annual rainfall in Puget Sound or 0.3 cfs per acre in a 5 acre area. Removal costs based on EPA (1999) BMP costs multiplied by 1.69 to convert to 2014 costs. 90% removal is from filtration through granulated sorbents (Smirnov et al. 1996). Source concentration is taken from EPA (2001
Polychlorinated Stormwater 1.5 0.179 Infiltration $76,050 0.62 0.11098 0.06802 Source concentrations taken from Marsalek and Ng (1989). Max and min runoff biphenyls Runoff Trench concentrations for three Canadian cities. Inflow volume equals outflow volume. (PCBs) Assuming no infiltration. Source flow is based on average Puget Sound 2-year storm event of 0.6 inches accounting for 90% of the annual rainfall in Puget Sound or 0.3 cfs per acre in a 5 acre area.
Stormwater 1.5 0.0269 Infiltration $76,050 0.62 0.016678 0.010222 Source concentrations taken from Marsalek and Ng (1989). Max and min runoff Runoff Trench concentrations for three Canadian cities. Inflow volume equals outflow volume. Assuming no infiltration. Source flow is based on average Puget Sound 2-year storm event of 0.6 inches accounting for 90% of the annual rainfall in Puget Sound or 0.3 cfs per acre in a 5 acre area.
Benzo(a)pyrene Stormwater 1.5 9.1 Bioretention $101,400 0.87 7.917 1.183 Source concentrations taken from Marsalek and Ng (1989). Max and min runoff (BaP) Runoff Cell concentrations for three Canadian cities. 5 acre bioretention costs based on EPA (1999) with multiplier of 1.69 to convert to 2014 costs. Inflow volume equals outflow volume. Assuming no infiltration. Source flow is based on average Puget Sound 2-year storm event of 0.6 inches accounting for 90% of the annual rainfall in Puget Sound or 0.3 cfs per acre in a 5 acre area.
Note: 1. % Removal estimate is derived from current information on the U.S. EPA web site: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/ (Water: Best Management Practices; National Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices). Acronyms/Abbreviations: cfs = cubic feet per second μg/L = micrograms per liter References: Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington: Volume IV Source Control for BMPs (Table G.7). Publication No. 05-10-32 (Revised portion of Publication No. 91-75). Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program, Olympia, WA. 149p. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices. EPA-821-R-99-012. Available: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/stormwater/. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Dioxins in San Francisco Bay Questions and Answers for average stormwater runoff concentrations of dioxins. http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/dioxin/sfbay.html. Marsalek, J. and H.Y.F. Ng. 1989. Evaluation of pollution loadings from Urban Non-point Sources: Methodology and Applications. Journal of Great Lakes Research 15(3): 444-451. Smirnov, A.D., A. Schecter, O. Päpke, and A.A. Beljak.1996. Conclusions from UFA, Russia, drinking water dioxin cleanup experiments involving different treatment technologies. Chemosphere 32(3): 479-489.
December 2014 D-2 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
APPENDIX E - EXAMPLE OF COST/BENEFIT FOR PRE-TREATMENT CONTROL OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN WASTEWATER (POINT-SOURCES OF POLLUTION)
Parameter Scenario Source Source Pretreatment Construction Maintenance % Reduction Source Point Source Assumptions Flow Concentration BMPs Cost Cost (see Removal (μg/L) Effluent (MGD) (μg/L) (see Table 5-1) (see Table 5-5) (Source Conc. x Concentration Table 5-1) %Reduction) (Source Concentraiton minus Source Removal)
Mercury (Hg) Point 4.07 54 Phragmites, $211,250 $21,600 0.5 27 27 Wetland removal efficiency was taken from Dunababin and Source- Schoenoplectus, Bowmer (1992). Costs were calculated based on EPA (1999) using a Industrial Cyperus, Typha multiplier of 1.69 to convert to 2014 costs. Source concentrations Wetland are taken from Local Limit Development Guidance Appendices (EPA 2004). Flow is based on Puyallup WWTP average annual flow. Maintenance costs are based on one person mowing and hauling plants for 3 hours once a month for a 50 acre site plus equipment costs (Harry Gibbons, PhD Toxicology, personal communication, December 15, 2014).
Point 4.07 0.0001 Phragmites, $211,250 $21,600 0.5 0.00005 0.00005 Wetland removal efficiency was taken from Dunababin and Source- Schoenoplectus, Bowmer (1992). Costs were calculated based on EPA (1999) using a Industrial Cyperus, Typha multiplier of 1.69 to convert to 2014 costs. Source concentrations Wetland are taken from Local Limit Development Guidance Appendices (EPA 2004). Maintenance costs are based on one person mowing and hauling plants for 3 hours once a month for a 50 acre site plus equipment costs (Harry Gibbons, PhD Toxicology, personal communication, December 15, 2014).
Arsenic (As) Point 4.07 88 Phragmites $211,250 $21,600 0.99 87.12 0.88 Phragmites Wetland removal efficiency was taken from Allende et Source- australis al. (2014). Costs were calculated based on EPA (1999) using a Industrial Wetland multiplier of 1.69 to convert to 2014 costs. Source concentrations are taken from Local Limit Development Guidance Appendices (EPA 2004). Maintenance costs are based on one person mowing and hauling plants for 3 hours once a month for a 50 acre site plus equipment costs (Harry Gibbons, PhD Toxicology, personal communication, December 15, 2014).
Point 4.07 0.0004 Phragmites $211,250 $21,600 0.99 0.000396 0.000004 Phragmites Wetland removal efficiency was taken from Allende et Source- australis al. (2014). Costs were calculated based on EPA (1999) using a Industrial Wetland multiplier of 1.69 to convert to 2014 costs. Source concentrations are taken from Local Limit Development Guidance Appendices (EPA 2004). Maintenance costs are based on one person mowing and hauling plants for 3 hours once a month plus equipment costs (Harry Gibbons, PhD Toxicology, personal communication, December 15, 2014).
December 2014 E-1 Technical Framework for Toxics Reduction: Assessment of Technologies
Parameter Scenario Source Source Pretreatment Construction Maintenance % Reduction Source Point Source Assumptions Flow Concentration BMPs Cost Cost (see Removal (μg/L) Effluent (MGD) (μg/L) (see Table 5-1) (see Table 5-5) (Source Conc. x Concentration Table 5-1) %Reduction) (Source Concentraiton minus Source Removal)
Dioxin Point 4.07 0.011875 Filtration Cost Cost 0.92 0.010925 0.00095 Source concentration is based on EPA (1991), which states that Source- through estimate not estimate not Weyerhaeuser in Longview, WA discharges 1,026 tons of dioxin per Industrial granulated available available day. Concentration was calculated on a discharge per second basis. sorbents Average removal concentration was taken from Smirnov et al. (1996).
Polychlorinated Point 4.07 0.00039 Phragmites Cost $21,600 Up to 95 ng Interception of Removal Source concentration is based on Ecology (2013). Wetland removal biphenyls Source- australis, Oryza estimate in roots & 78 PCBs entering occurs with and halogenation removal efficiency is taken from Bonanno and Lo (PCBs) Municipal sativa not ng in stems the Pre- entrainment Giudice (2010). Maintenance costs are based on one person accumulation available Treatment BMP in BMP mowing and hauling plants for 3 hours once a month for a 50 acre in plant parts and retention. sediment & site plus equipment costs (Harry Gibbons, PhD Toxicology, personal and harvesting of communication, December 15, 2014). transformation vegetation. Note: Informaiton regarding removal efficiencies for PCBs using by reductive BMPs is scarce. This legacy pollutant should be contained in BMPs halogenation near known sources and removal by dredging of sediments and plant harvest.
Benzo(a)pyrene Point 4.07 0.04 Bioretention 60,000 $14,260 0.87 0.0348 0.0052 Source concentration is based on Ecology (2013). Bioretention cell (BaP) Source- cell, shallow removal efficiency was taken from Diblasi et al. (2008). Costs were Industrial design calculated based on EPA (1999) using a multiplier of 1.69 to convert to 2014 costs. Maintenance costs include one staff mowing and hauling plants for 5 acre area plus equipment costs and occasional dredging (Harry Gibbons, PhD Toxicology, personal communication, December 15, 2014).
Acronyms/Abbreviations: MGD = Million gallons per day WWTP = wastewater treatment plant μg/L = micrograms per liter References: Allende, K. L., D.T. McCarthy, and T.D. Fletcher. 2014. The influence of media type on removal of arsenic, iron, and boron from acidic wastewater in horizontal flow wetland microcosms planted with Phragmites australis. Chemical Engineering Journal. 246: 217-228. Bonanno, G., and R. Lo Giudice. 2010. Heavy metal bioaccumulation by the organs of Phragmites australis (common reed) and their potential use as contamination indicators. Ecological Indicators, 10, 639–645. Diblasi, C.J. H. Li, A.P. Davis, and U. Ghosh. 2008. Removal and fate of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon pollutants in an urban stormwater bioretention facility. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43: 494-502. Dunbabin, J.S. and K.H. Bowmer. 1992. Potential use of constructed wetlands for treatment of industrial wastewaters containing metals. Science of the Total Environment 111(2-3): 151-168. Ecology. 2013. Detected HHC Chemicals Spreadsheet. Comparison: Washington National Toxics Rule (NTR) versus Oregon Human Health Criteria. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Preliminary Data Summary of Urban Storm Water Best Management Practices. EPA-821-R-99-012. Available: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/stormwater/. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) to Limit Discharges of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) to the Columbia River Basin. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, WA. Smirnov, A.D., A. Schecter, O. Päpke, and A.A. Beljak.1996. Conclusions from UFA, Russia, drinking water dioxin cleanup experiments involving different treatment technologies. Chemosphere 32(3): 479-489.
December 2014 E-2