DOCSLIB.ORG

Technical Support Document for the 2008 Final Effluent Guidelines Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Technical Support Document for the 2008 Final Effluent Guidelines Plan Technical Support Document for the 2008 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan © 2008 The Omaha World-Herald. August 2008 EPA-821-R-08-015 Photograph of pills in a box, center top, is reprinted with permission from The Omaha World-Herald, copyright 2008. CONTENTS Page PART I: INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................I 1.0 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 EPA’s Clean Water Act Program ........................................................................1-1 1.2 Background on the Effluent Guidelines Program................................................1-1 1.3 What Are Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards?...............................1-2 1.3.1 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) — CWA Sections 301(b)(1)(A) and 304(b)(1).............................................1-3 1.3.2 Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) — CWA Sections 301(b)(2)(E) and 304(b)(4) .......................................................1-4 1.3.3 Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) — CWA Sections 301(b)(2)(A) and 304(b)(2).......................................................1-4 1.3.4 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) — CWA Section 306 .......1-4 1.3.5 Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) — CWA Section 307(b).......................................................................................................1-4 1.3.6 Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) — CWA Section 307(c) .......................................................................................................1-5 1.4 Success of EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Program..................................................1-5 1.5 What Are EPA’s Effluent Guidelines Planning and Review Requirements?......1-5 1.6 Background References .......................................................................................1-6 2.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE FINAL EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2006 AND PRELIMINARY EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PROGRAM PLAN FOR 2008 ............................2-1 3.0 THE EFFLUENT GUIDELINES PLANNING PROCESS .............................................................3-1 3.1 Goals of the ELG Planning Process.....................................................................3-1 3.2 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards ....3-1 3.2.1 Factors Considered in Review of Existing Effluent Guidelines and Pretreatment Standards ............................................................................3-1 3.2.2 Overview: Review of Existing Point Source Categories .........................3-5 3.3 Identification of New Categories of Direct Dischargers for Possible Effluent Guidelines Development......................................................................................3-7 3.4 Identification of New Categories of Indirect Dischargers for Possible Effluent Guidelines Development......................................................................................3-8 3.5 Stakeholder Involvement and Schedule...............................................................3-8 3.6 The Effluent Guidelines Planning Process References........................................3-9 4.0 METHODOLOGY, DATA SOURCES, AND LIMITATIONS .......................................................4-1 4.1 Data Sources and Limitations ..............................................................................4-1 4.1.1 SIC Codes ................................................................................................4-2 4.1.2 Toxic Weighting Factors..........................................................................4-3 4.1.3 Calculation of TWPE...............................................................................4-4 4.1.4 Data from TRI..........................................................................................4-4 4.1.5 Data from PCS .........................................................................................4-6 i CONTENTS (Continued) Page 4.2 Methodology Corrections Affecting Both Screening-Level Review Databases .4-9 4.3 Corrections to the TRIReleases2004 Database ....................................................4-9 4.4 Corrections to the PCSLoads2004 Database .......................................................4-9 4.5 Corrections to the TRIReleases2005 Database ....................................................4-9 4.5.1 TRIReleases2005: Categorization of Discharges ....................................4-9 4.5.2 TRIReleases2005: Pollutant Corrections...............................................4-11 4.5.3 TRIReleases2005: Data Quality Review ...............................................4-12 4.5.4 TRIReleases2005: Facility Reviews......................................................4-13 4.6 TRIReleases2004 and TRIReleases2005 Rankings and PCSLoads2004 Rankings ............................................................................................................4-13 4.7 Methodology, Data Sources, and Limitations References.................................4-17 PART II: RESULTS OF THE 2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES WITH EXISTING ELGS ...................................................................................................................................II 5.0 2008 ANNUAL REVIEW OF EXISTING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS AND RANKING OF POINT SOURCE CATEGORIES ............................................5-1 5.1 Summary of the Results from the 2007 Annual Review .....................................5-1 5.2 Results of the 2008 Screening-Level Review......................................................5-1 5.2.1 Facilities for Which EPA Is Currently Developing or Revising ELGs ...5-2 5.2.2 Categories for Which EPA Recently Promulgated or Revised ELGs .....5-2 5.2.3 Categories with One Facility Dominating the TWPE..............................5-3 5.2.4 Results of the 2008 Screening-Level Review..........................................5-5 5.3 Prioritization of Categories for the 2008 Annual Review ...................................5-5 5.3.1 Detailed Study of Existing ELGs...........................................................5-11 5.3.2 Preliminary Review ...............................................................................5-11 5.4 2008 Annual Review of Existing Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards and Ranking of Point Source Categories References........................5-13 6.0 CENTRALIZED WASTE TREATMENT (40 CFR PART 437) ..................................................6-1 6.1 CWT Category Background ................................................................................6-1 6.1.1 CWT Industry Profile ..............................................................................6-1 6.1.2 40 CFR Part 437.......................................................................................6-2 6.2 CWT Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews..........................6-3 6.3 CWT Category 2004 through 2008 Pollutants of Concern..................................6-4 6.4 CWT Category Pesticide Discharges...................................................................6-4 6.4.1 Pesticide Discharges for Vopak Logistics Services — Deer Park, TX ...6-8 6.4.2 Pesticides Discharges for DuPont Chambers Works — Deepwater, NJ .6-8 6.5 CWT Category Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Discharges..........................6-10 6.6 CWT Category Conclusions ..............................................................................6-11 6.7 CWT Category References ................................................................................6-12 ii CONTENTS (Continued) Page 7.0 ORGANIC CHEMICALS PLASTICS AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS (40 CFR PART 414).................7-1 7.1 OCPSF Category Background .............................................................................7-1 7.1.1 OCPSF Industry Profile ...........................................................................7-1 7.1.2 40 CFR Part 414.......................................................................................7-4 7.2 OCPSF Category 2004 Through 2008 Screening-Level Reviews.......................7-5 7.3 OCPSF Category 2004 Through 2008 Pollutants of Concern.............................7-5 7.4 OCPSF Category Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Discharges in TRI............................7-8 7.5 OCPSF Category Hexachlorobenzene Discharges in TRI and PCS..................7-12 7.6 OCPSF Category Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Discharges in TRI...........7-14 7.7 OCPSF Category Aluminum Discharges in PCS ..............................................7-15 7.8 OCPSF Category Benzidine Discharges in PCS ...............................................7-16 7.9 OCPSF Category Conclusions...........................................................................7-17 7.10 OCPSF Category References.............................................................................7-18 8.0 ORE MINING AND DRESSING (40 CFR PART 440).............................................................8-1 8.1 Ore Mining Category Background.......................................................................8-1 8.1.1 Ore Mining Industry Profile.....................................................................8-1 8.1.2 40 CFR Part 440.......................................................................................8-4 8.2 Ore Mining Category
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA
    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
    [Show full text]
  • Disinfection Byproducts in Chlorinated Drinking Water
    International Journal of Water and Wastewater Treatment SciO p Forschene n HUB for Sc i e n t i f i c R e s e a r c h ISSN 2381-5299 | Open Access RESEARCH ARTICLE Volume 4 - Issue 2 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.16966/2381-5299.156 Disinfection Byproducts in Chlorinated Drinking Water Malia Vester1, Hany F Sobhi2 and Mintesinot Jiru1* 1Department of Natural Sciences, Coppin State University, Maryland, USA 2Center for Organic Synthesis, Department of Natural Sciences, Coppin State University, Maryland, USA *Corresponding author: Mintesinot Jiru, Department of Natural Sciences, Coppin State University, Maryland, USA, Tel: 410-951-4139; E-mail: [email protected] Received: 07 Jul, 2018 | Accepted: 14 Nov, 2018 | Published: 20 Nov, 2018 Citation: Vester M, Sobhi HF, Jiru M (2018) Disinfection Byproducts in Chlorinated Drinking Water. Int J Water Wastewater Treat 4(2): dx.doi. org/10.16966/2381-5299.156 Copyright: © Vester M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Abstract Trihalomethanes (THMs) are disinfection byproducts formed through the reaction of chlorine and organic matter. There are four forms of Trihalomethanes: chloroform, bromoform, dibromochloromethane and bromodichloromethane. Studies have shown that chloroform, a principal disinfection byproduct, is carcinogenic in rodents. Although the presence of these hazardous materials are constantly being monitored by Water Treatment Plant and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), they continue to be present at an unpredictable levels and the full effects of these byproducts are not fully understood.
    [Show full text]
  • Teratogenicity and Embryotoxicity of Organophosphorus Compounds in Animal Models - a Short Review
    Mil. Med. Sci. Lett. (Voj. Zdrav. Listy) 2012, vol. 81(1), p. 16-26 ISSN 0372-7025 DOI: 10.31482/mmsl.2012.003 REVIEW ARTICLE TERATOGENICITY AND EMBRYOTOXICITY OF ORGANOPHOSPHORUS COMPOUNDS IN ANIMAL MODELS - A SHORT REVIEW Syed M Nurulain and M Shafiullah Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutic, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, UAE University, AlAin, UAE. P.O.Box 17666, Alain, UAE Received 9 th December 2011. Revised 12 th February 2012. Published 9 th March 2012. Summary Organophosphorus compounds (OPCs) are a wide group of compounds both structurally and functionally. Each OPC has a unique toxicological profile. The exposure to this type of poison is not limited only to certain occupationally exposed people but also to children, women, pregnant women; all have chances to be exposed to this poison. During the recent past years it has been reported in many poison epidemiological studies and case reports that exposure of OPCs during pregnancy caused malformed fetuses, neural tube defect (NTD) and shortening of pregnancy. The literature for animal models reveals inconclusive evidence. The generalized view is that they are neither teratogenic nor embryotoxic. But it is not true. There is a lack of systematic study and scarcity of reports on the topic. The present study was undertaken to investigate the teratogenicity induced by organophosphorus compounds in different animal models by literature review. Literature was searched by Toxicology Data NetWork (TOXNET), Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Database (DART), Toxicology Literature Online (TOXLINE), Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB), Pubmed Central, Entrez-Pubmed, Science Direct, Directory Of Open Access Journal (DOAJ), Google Scholar and International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS-INCHEM), Embase.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Biotechnology: Benefits of Transgenic Soybeans
    AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: BENEFITS OF TRANSGENIC SOYBEANS Leonard P. Gianessi Janet E. Carpenter April 2000 National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy 1616 P Street, NW, First Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 202-328-5048 Fax: 202-328-5133 [email protected] Preparation of this report was supported financially with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. U.S. Soybean Production 3. Soybean Products 4. Soybean Physiology 5. Soybeans – Agronomic Factors 6. Soybean Genetic Improvements A. Introduction B. Reproductive Process C. Artificial Cross Breeding D. Mutation Breeding E. Transgenic Plants 7. Weed Competition – Soybeans 8. Weed Control in Soybeans: 1940’s – 1950’s 9. Herbicides – An Overview 10. Herbicide Use in Soybeans: 1960’s – 1995 A. Introduction B. Historical Overview 1. The Early 1960’s 2. Soil Applied Herbicides 3. Postemergence Herbicides 4. Sulfonylurea/Imidazolinone Herbicides 5. Burndown Herbicides C. Summary of Usage: 1995 11. Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans A. Glyphosate – An Overview B. Performance of Roundup Ready Soybeans C. Herbicide Ratings D. Adoption Impacts: 1995 – 1998 1. Herbicide Costs 2. Soybean Yields 3. Returns 4. Other Aggregate Studies 5. Herbicide Treatments 6. Herbicide Use Amounts 7. Other Impacts 12. Summary and Conclusions 13. References Appendix 1: Soybean Processing – A Description 1. Introduction Soybeans and other crops have been improved genetically for many decades through traditional crop breeding – a technique that requires that species be sexually compatible. With the development of biotechnology methods, scientists have the ability to transfer single genes from one living organism into another, regardless of species or sexual compatibility. Varieties that are developed through the transfer of genes between species that are not sexually compatible are referred to as “transgenic.” Transgenic soybean plants have been developed with a gene from a soil bacteria that allows the use of an herbicide that would normally kill soybeans.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station
    ORTMAL DO ;10T REMOVE 7.9 m FILE Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station Oregon State University, Corvallis I FIELD APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES--AVOIDING DANGER TO FISH Erland T. Juntunen Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon and Logan A. Norris Pacific Northwest Forestry Sciences Laboratory and Range Experiment Station Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture Corvallis, Oregon April, 1972 Trade names are used in this publication solely to provide specific information. No endorsement of products is intended nor is criticism implieLl to products mentioned or omitted. Recommendations are not made concerning safe use of products nor is any guarantee or warranty of results or effects of the products intended or implied. ii Chemical weed and brush control with herbicides is an important land management practice in modern agriculture and forestry. In some cases, herbicides are applied directly to bodies of water for aquatic weed control. More commonly, herbicides are applied to lands adjacent to waterways for general weed and brush control. The responsible applicator will avoid damage to fishery resources by being fully aware of a particular herbicides potential hazard to fish. Herbicide applications should be considered hazardous to fish when there is the probability fish will be exposed to herbicide concen- trations which are harmful. This bulletin offers information that will aid in selecting the particular herbicides and formulations of least hazard to fish considering the toxicity of the herbicide and the poten- tial for its entry into streams, lakes, or ponds. Entry of Herbicides into the Aquatic Environment In aquatic weed control, the effective concentration of herbicide in the water depends on the rate of application, the rate of the spread of the chemical, the size and chemical composition of the body of water, the rate of degradation or adsorption of the chemical on sediments, and the rate of mixing of treated water with untreated water.
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Residue Method I for Agricultural Chemicals by LC-MS (Agricultural Products)
    Multi-residue Method I for Agricultural Chemicals by LC-MS (Agricultural Products) 1. Analytes See Table 2 or 3. 2. Instruments Liquid chromatograph-mass spectrometer (LC-MS) Liquid chromatograph-tandem mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS) 3. Reagents Use the reagents listed in Section 3 of the General Rules except for the following. 0.5 mol/L Phosphate buffer (pH 7.0): Weigh 52.7 g of dipotassium hydrogenphosphate (K2HPO4) and 30.2 g of potassium dihydrogenphosphate (KH2PO4), dissolve in about 500 mL of water, adjust the pH to 7.0 with 1 mol/L sodium hydroxide or 1 mol/L hydrochloric acid, and add water to make a 1 L solution. Reference standards of agricultural chemicals: Reference standards of known purities for each agricultural chemical. 4. Procedure 1) Extraction i) Grains, beans, nuts and seeds Add 20 mL of water to 10.0 g of sample and let stand for 15 minutes. Add 50 mL of acetonitrile, homogenize, and filter with suction. Add 20 mL of acetonitrile to the residue on the filter paper, homogenize, and filter with suction. Combine the resulting filtrates, and add acetonitrile to make exactly 100 mL. Take a 20 mL aliquot of the extract, add 10 g of sodium chloride and 20 mL of 0.5 mol/L phosphate buffer (pH 7.0), and shake for 10 minutes. Let stand, and discard the separated aqueous layer. Add 10 mL of acetonitrile to an octadecylsilanized silica gel cartridge (1,000 mg) and discard the effluent. Transfer the acetonitrile layer to the cartridge, elute with 2 mL of acetonitrile, collect the total eluates, dehydrate with anhydrous sodium sulfate, and filter out the anhydrous sodium sulfate.
    [Show full text]
  • Delayed Fluorescence Imaging of Photosynthesis Inhibitor and Heavy Metal Induced Stress in Potato
    Cent. Eur. J. Biol. • 7(3) • 2012 • 531-541 DOI: 10.2478/s11535-012-0038-z Central European Journal of Biology Delayed fluorescence imaging of photosynthesis inhibitor and heavy metal induced stress in potato Research Article Jaka Razinger1,*, Luka Drinovec2, Maja Berden-Zrimec3 1Agricultural Institute of Slovenia, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia 2Aerosol d.o.o., 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia 3Institute of Physical Biology, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Received 09 November 2011; Accepted 13 March 2012 Abstract: Early chemical-induced stress in Solanum tuberosum leaves was visualized using delayed fluorescence (DF) imaging. The ability to detect spatially heterogeneous responses of plant leaves exposed to several toxicants using delayed fluorescence was compared to prompt fluorescence (PF) imaging and the standard maximum fluorescence yield of PSII measurements (Fv/Fm). The toxicants used in the study were two photosynthesis inhibitors (herbicides), 100 μM methyl viologen (MV) and 140 μM diuron (DCMU), and two heavy metals, 100 μM cadmium and 100 μM copper. The exposure times were 5 and 72 h. Significant photosynthesis-inhibitor effects were already visualized after 5 h. In addition, a significant reduction in the DF/PF index was measured in DCMU- and MV-treated leaves after 5 h. In contrast, only DCMU-treated leaves exhibited a significant decrease in Fv/Fm after 5 h. All treatments resulted in a significant decrease in the DF/PF parameter after 72 h of exposure, when only MV and Cd treatment resulted in visible symptoms. Our study highlights the power of delayed fluorescence imaging. Abundant quantifiable spatial information was obtained with the instrumental setup. Delayed fluorescence imaging has been confirmed as a very responsive and useful technique for detecting stress induced by photosynthesis inhibitors or heavy metals.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicological Profile for Bromodichloromethane
    BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 89 CHAPTER 5. POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE 5.1 OVERVIEW Bromodichloromethane has been identified in at least 238 of the 1,854 hazardous waste sites that have been proposed for inclusion on the EPA National Priorities List (NPL) (ATSDR 2017). However, the number of sites in which bromodichloromethane has been evaluated is not known. The number of sites in each state is shown in Figure 5-1. Of these sites, 233 are located within the United States, 2 are located in the Virgin Islands, and 3 are located in Puerto Rico (not shown). Figure 5-1. Number of NPL Sites with Bromodichloromethane Contamination • The most likely route of exposure for the general public to bromodichloromethane is through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact of chlorinated drinking water. • A median bromodichloromethane intake of 2.8–4.2 µg/day from drinking water has been estimated; inhalation and dermal exposure would add to this daily intake. BROMODICHLOROMETHANE 90 5. POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE • Bromodichloromethane is formed as a byproduct of water disinfection methods using chlorination. This is the primary source of bromodichloromethane in the environment. • Its principal use is as a chemical intermediate for organic synthesis and as a chemical reagent. • Volatilization is an important fate process. Bromodichloromethane evaporates from sources and enters the environment as a gas, which is slowly broken down in air. Residual bromodichloromethane may be broken down slowly by bacteria. • In the atmosphere, bromodichloromethane is thought to undergo slow degradation through oxidative pathways, with a half-life of about 2–3 months. 5.2 PRODUCTION, IMPORT/EXPORT, USE, AND DISPOSAL 5.2.1 Production The principal anthropogenic source of bromodichloromethane is its unintentional formation as a byproduct during the chlorination of water containing organic materials and bromide.
    [Show full text]
  • Measurements on Stationary Source Emissions and Assessing Impact on Ambient Air Quality Around Two Indian Refineries
    Open Access Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 73-87, June 2019 doi: https://doi.org/10.5572/ajae.2019.13.2.073 ISSN (Online) 2287-1160, ISSN (Print) 1976-6912 Research Article Measurements on Stationary Source Emissions and Assessing Impact on Ambient Air Quality around Two Indian Refineries Deepanjan Majumdar*, Anil Bhanarkar1), Ashok Gangadhar Gavane1), Chalapati Rao1) ABSTRACT Emissions of particulate matter (PM), SO2 and NO2 from stationary sources Kolkata Zonal Centre, CSIR-National and their concentration along with benzene and CO in ambient air around two Indian Environmental Engineering Research refineries were studied. Prediction of ground level concentration (GLC) of SO2, NO2 and Institute (CSIR-NEERI), i-8, Sector C, -3 EKDP, EM Bypass, Kolkata -700107, India PM was made by dispersion modeling. In Refinery 1, highest SO2 emission (646 mg Nm ) 1) Air Pollution Control Division, were detected in Sulphur Recovery Unit while NOx emissions ranged from 57.8 to 445.0 -3 CSIR-National Environmental mg Nm , respectively from various units. In Refinery 2, highest SO2 emission (935 mg Engineering Research Institute -3 Nm ) was observed from Utility Boiler while NO2 emissions ranged from 13 to 235 mg (CSIR-NEERI), Nehru Marg, -3 Nagpur - 440 020, India Nm . Above emissions were within the stipulated emission standards prescribed by Cen- tral Pollution Control Board of India. Further, ambient concentrations of the above in the *Corresponding author. vicinity of these refineries were below their prescribed national ambient air quality stan- Tel: +91-33-24421988 E-mail: [email protected] dards. Air quality in terms of air quality index (AQI) was moderate or good at the study sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Triazofos 60% LC
    Excel Crop Care Limited, India Material Safety Data Sheet Triazofos 60% LC 1. Chemical Product and Company Identification Product Name : Triazofos 60% LC Formula : C12 H16N3O3PS Molecuar Weight : 313.3 : O,O-diethyl O-(1-phenyl-1H-1,2,4-triazol-3-yl) phosphorothioate. Chemical Name Manufacturer : Excel Crop Care Limited 184 / 87, S. V. Road, Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai, (India). Pin code: 400 102 Contact no: +912266464200 Emergency Contact Details : +91 22 42522201 : +91 22 42522202 : +91 278 2212320 2. Composition/Information on Ingredients Component CAS No. % W/W content Triazofos 24017-47-8 60 minimum Xylene 1330-20-7 Q. S. 3. Hazard Identification Emergency Overview Appearance and odour : Pale yellow to dark brown clear liquid, with typical phosphate ester odour Warning Statements : Keep out of reach of children Potential Health Effects Likely Routs of Exposure : Skin contact, Inhalation and Ingestion Eye Contact :Unlikely to cause irritation to eye Skin contact : Not irritating to skin Ingestion :If swallowed, this substance is considered to be toxic and likely to Cause damages to internal organ Version: ECCL/MSDS/Triazo60LC/1 © Excel Crop Care Ltd Page 1 of 7 DoC: Sept 14, 2014 Private Document DoU: Sept 25, 2014 Issue Date: Oct 1, 2014 Excel Crop Care Limited, India Material Safety Data Sheet Triazofos 60% LC Inhalation : Repeated exposure may cause cholinesterase inhibition. Environmental Hazards : The product is an organophosphate insecticide 4. First aid measures and Antidote Emergency and First Aid Procedure – If in Eyes : Immediately flush with plenty of clean water for 15-20 minutes. Remove contact lenses if present after 5 minutes of washing.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for Different Binding Sites on the 33-Kda Protein for DCMU, Atrazine and QB
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Volume 167, number 2 FEBS 1259 February 1984 Evidence for different binding sites on the 33-kDa protein for DCMU, atrazine and QB Chantal Astier, Alain Boussac and Anne-Lise Etienne Laboratoire de PhotosynthPse, CNRS, BP I, 91190 Gifsur-Yvette, France Received 21 November 1983; revised version received 4 January 1984 Two DCMU-resistant strains of the cyanobacterium Synechocystis 6714 were used to analyse the binding sites of DCMU, atrazine and QB. DCMU’-11~was DCMU and atrazine resistant; it presented an impaired electron flow and its 33-kDa protein was weakly attached to the membrane. DCMU’-IIB, derived from the former, simultaneously regained atrazine sensitivity, normal electron flow and a tight linkage of the 33-kDa protein to the membrane. This mutant shows that loss of DCMU binding does not necessarily affect the binding of either atrazine or QB. The role of the 33-kDa protein is discussed. Cyanobacteria Mutant Herbicide Photosynthesis Photosystem ZZ 1. INTRODUCTION that a specific attack of lysine residues resulted also in a partial release of inhibition by SN58132, Electron transfer on the acceptor side of a DCMU-type inhibitor [17]. Photosystem II occurs through a primary acceptor Radioactivity labelling experiments were used to QA [l] (a particular plastoquinone of the general demonstrate a competition between DCMU and pool [2] closely associated with the chlorophyll atrazine [6,18-201. A similar competition was pro- center), a secondary acceptor Qn [3] bound to its posed in [l l] between DCMU and QB.
    [Show full text]