i fate and exposure assessment of - p2 infohouse · known physicbl and chemical properties and by...

I

FATE AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF

AQUEOUS AND TERPENE CLEANING SUBSTITUTES

FOR 1,1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE AND CFC-113

Sidney Abel, I11 Exposure Assessment Branch

Exposure Evaluation Division

November 19, 1990

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Introduction

Environmental Fate And Transport Aqueous Cleaners Terpene Based Cleaners

Fate In Air Fate In Water

Environmental Releases

Air Releases Water Releases Land Releases

Terpene Based Cleaners Air Releases Water Releases Land Releases

Aqueous Cleaners

Disposal Methods Data Gaps

Pase El

1

3 21

31

35

38 39

Exposure Analysis Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM) 4 0

Introduction Analysis And Results

Surface Water Concentrations 51 EXAMS I1 51 Drinking Water And Fish Ingestion Estimates 56

References 63

Appendix A - Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM) Data Appendix B - SIC Code-Based Surface Water Concentrations and

Drinking Water And Fish Ingestion Exposure To Surface Water Releases

.

Executive Sumnary

The Office of Air and Radiation has identified 20 aqueous cleaners and 8 terpene compounds as the most likely substitutes for the chlorinated solvents and chlorofluorocarbons. This report estimates the fate and exposure of these compounds with respect to the environment.

The fate of the aqueous cleaner compounds has been estimated based on the individual ions, compounds, or by category. Several of the compounds have limited data bases available to assess their fate in the environment. In these cases, estimates are based on known physicbl and chemical properties and by the behavior of similar compounds.

There is a limited data base available on the fate of terpene compounds in the environment. Their fate has been estimated based on structurally related analogs and known and estimated physical and chemical properties. It is estimated that the behavior of many of these compounds will be similar. Volatilization and sorption are estimated to be the principle fate mechanisms in aquatic ecosystems and in wastewater treatment. Wastewater treatability of terpenes should be at least 90 percent under typical treatment conditions as determined by a bench-scale study.

The principle release medium of concern for the aqueous and terpene cleaners will be water. Very little release to air on a per site basis or to land is expected. Water release estimates as high as 11.3 kg/site/day for the aqueous cleaner formulations and 6.5 kg/site/day for terpenes from electronic cleaning (printed circuit (PC) board cleaning and other equipment) using no treatment has been estimated. Releases to wastewater treatment is the most probable disposal method. However, release to a receiving stream may occur and is included in this analysis. There is a concern for the release of these compounds untreated to either point because of the high COD, BOD, and effects on aquatic organisms associated with terpenes and the volume and pH of various aqueous cleaner formulations and the effects of several of the constituents of the formulations on aquatic organisms.

The Health and Environmental Review Division (HERD) has developed a concentration of concern for each of the terpenes and many of the aqueous cleaners. For the terpenes, d-limonene was selected as the focus of the analysis because it is estimated to be the most widely used in terpene formulations. The Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM) was used to calculate a reasonable worst case estimate of the number of days per year the concentration of concern (COC) would be exceeded based on releases from a plant in various Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC). In all SICS evaluated the COC for d-limonene was exceeded at least 5 2 days per year based on 250 release days per year. For the aqueous cleaners, only triethanolamine exceeded the COC a significant number of days per year, 54. The level of treatment required to mitigate the exceedance of the COC ranged from 95 to 99 percent.

A search of the open literature and the data base STORET did not find any reference to ambient levels of terpenes in surface water. Estimated stream concentrations by simple dilution in various industrial categories ranged from <1 ppb to 167 ppb depending on the level of treatment.

Drinking water and fish ingestion estimates were calculated for the terpenes and drinking water estimates were performed for the aqueous cleaner formulations. Worst case exposures to terpenes in drinking water and by fish ingestion were estimated to be 3.16 mg/yr and 26.06 mg/yr respectively, in motor vehicle manufacturing. Worst case exposure to aqueous cleaner formulations was estimated to be 4 9 . 6 mg/yr in electronic component manufacturing. The results of these analyses are presented in Appendix B.

EXAMS I1 was used to estimate the concentration of the terpene in a river environment after taking into account various fate processes. Unlike PDM, EXAMS uses only one stream flow value (the annual average) for one stream to estimate the chemical concentration while accounting for fate processes.

The maximum steady-state stream concentration estimated is 6.1 ppb for d-limonene in PC board cleaning and warm immersion cleaning. At the maximum river length evaluated, 60 km (36 miles) the concentration was reduced by 80 percent. The maximum steady- state concentration in cold immersion cleaning is 2.8 ppb and less than 1 ppb at 40 km (25 miles) downstream.

E2

INTROBQCTION

On January 1, 1989, in response to a worldwide concern over the depletion of the Earth's stratospheric ozone layer, the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer was ratified. This depletion is primarily due to the release of free radicals of chlorine and bromine from various compounds containing these elements. They include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), some chlorinated solvents, and halons.

The Protocol requires a 50 percent reduction in the production and consumption of CFCs at 1986 levels by mid-1998 and a freeze on halons at 1986 levels beginning in 1992. In June 1990, the Protocol was amended to require a complete phaseout of fully halogenated CFCs, carbon tetrachloride, and halons (with an exemption for essential uses) by the year 2000. Methyl chloroform (MCF) will be phased out by 2005.

In October of 1988, the Chlorinated Solvents Coordination Committee (established in late 1 9 8 5 ) , identified terpene-based cleaners and aqueous cleaners as potential substitutes for CFCs (specifically CFC-113) and chlorinated solvents. The Office of Air and Radiation identified 8 terpene compounds and 20 aqueous cleaner compounds as the most likely substitutes for CFC-113 and chlorinated solvents, based on the expected volume of use. Since that time, other semi-aqueous cleaners, (terpineol and petroleum distillates) have been identified as emerging substitutes. The analysis of these chemical will be limited at this time, due to their recent identification. They are mentioned here to reinforce the dynamic nature of the development of the CFC substitutes.

Major uses of CFCs and chlorinated solvents are to clean printed circuit boards in the electronics industry; to clean specialized instruments such as computer disc drives; and to clean metal. Suitable substitutes f o r these compounds were identified by the Office of Air and Radiation, which used information obtained by letters under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act.

This document is intended to assess the fate of and

1

. .

enviro* -a1 exposure to these substitutes. It is based on readily lvailable information obtained from the published literat-;. and from office files. It should be noted that this is a preliminary assessment of the substitutes and is not intended to represent an assessment of all substitutes for the electronic and metal cleaning industry. The absence of an evaluation for other potential substitutes, not mentioned here, does not imply an endorsement of its use or environmental safety over those presented in this assessment.

2

ENVIROWNTAL FATE AND TRANSPORT

Aqueous Cleaners

The environmental fate of the aqueous cleaners in aquatic systems is similar for many of the potential compounds of the formulations. In an effort to avoid duplication, the compound will be addressed instead of the formulation. The first group of these compounds is known as the alkaline salts and includes the following compounds:

Alkalies - Sodium hydroxide Sodium carbonate Sodium tripolyphosphate Tetra-sodium pyrophosphate Tri-sodium phosphate Potassium hydroxide Tetra-potassium pyrophosphate Ammonium hydroxide

Silicates - Sodium orthosilicate Sodium metasilicate

Borates - Borax (sodium tetraborate, sodium metaborate)

These compounds, like most alkaline salts, are very soluble in water and tend to freely dissociate in aqueous systems under environmental conditions. Once the salt has dissolved, the anions and cations produced may participate in several reactions. Therefore, the fate of and transformations of the individual dissociated ions, rather than the compounds will be discussed. It should be noted that depending on environmental conditions, the associated species may also play an important role in the chemistry of the water.

The remaining compounds will be addressed either individually or as a category depending on their behavior in water. These compounds are as follows:

3

Ethanolamines - Monoethanolamine Diethanolamine Triethanolamine

Metal Chelating - Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) Agents EDTA - tetrasodium salt

Surfactants - Sodium xylene sulfonate Dodecanedioic acid (DDA) Sodium gluconate

Cellosolves - Diethylene glycol n-butyl ether (DGBE)

Table 1 gives the physical and chemical properties of the selected aqueous cleaners. Tables 2 and 3 show typical aqueous cleaner formulations for metal and electronic cleaning. These tables provide a basis for the environmental release estimates and exposures to follow.

Sodium

Sodium exist in natural systems in a single valence state of +l. The speciation of sodium in natural systems is not affected by the concentration of other ions but its concentration can affect other species in solution. In freshwater systems, the sodium ion complexes exist as only a small fraction of the total sodium present (<0.15%). However, in seawater, complexes of sodium sulfate represent 1-2 percent of the sodium content.6

Precipitation reactions do not remove significant amounts of sodium from the water column. However, ion exchange onto soil and sediment occurs rapidly and is the major mechanism of removal from solution. Removal by this method depends on several factors 7

4

Diethylene Glycol 162 -68 231 0.11 n-Butyl Ether 112-34-5

Ethanolamine 141-43-5

Diethanolamine 111-42-2

Triethanolamine 102-71-6

Sodium Xylene Sulfonate 1300-72-1

EDTA Tetrasodium Salt

64-02-8

61 11 172 16.9

105

149

208

380

28 269

21 360

NA

NA

NA

NA

0.577

1.5E-3

9.01E-4

9.593-14

I. 3334

9.8536

2.4931

8.03El

3.15E3

1.30E6

Log KO, 0.905

KO, 9.3" HLCb 4.93-1

Log KO, -1.3 nLcb i.4~-1

KO, 0.6'

Log K"' -1.46

KO, 0.4' HLC~ 3.23-9

Log KO, -1.15 HLCb 3.13-12

KO, 0.2'

HLCb 1.83-8

HLCb 5E-20 KO, 2'

5

Sodium Carbonat e 497-19-8

Sodium Orthosilicates 1344-09-8

Sodium Metasilicate 6834-92-0

Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2

Sodium Gluconate 527-07-1

Tetra Sodium Pyrophosphate 7722-88-5

Sodium Tripoly Phosphate 7758-29-4

106 NA NA NA

Variable depending on the Na,O:SiO,

284 40-48 700 NA

40 318 1390 NA

218 NA NA 4.13E-10

266 880 NA NA

368 NA NA NA

6

8.7034

soluble

miscible

4.9835

4.3035 HLCb 3E-16

2.90E4

1.3635

Borax 1303-96-4

Tetra Potassium Pyrophosphate 7320-34-5

Potassium Hydroxide 1310-58-3

Ammonium Hydroxide 1336-21-6

Dodecanedioic Acid

693-23-2

EDTA 60-00-4

Trisodium Phosphate 7601-54-9

201 742.5

384 180

56 360

35 -77

230 55.6

2 92 245

167 NA

NA 130 2.9334

300 NA soluble

1320 . NA 5.05E5

NA NA soluble

306 1.1573-4 37.9 Log K, 3.07 HLCb 9.33-7 KO, 590'

NA 1.823-8 2.58312 Log K, -5.01 HLCb 3E-21 K, 1E-3'

NA soluble

"Values are estimated using AUTOCHEM and/or QSAR. HLC-Henry's Law Coefficient - Atm.m.3/mole. Values estimated using equation 4-5 in Lyman et al. (22) and the water solubility values from QSAR. Sources: Weast, Handbook Of Chemistry and Physics, 63rd Edition.

Bennett, The Chemical Formulary, Volume XXI, 1979. 7

Table 2

Typical Aqueous Electronic Cleaning Formulation

Monoethanolamine (Di- and Tri-)

Diethylene Glycol n-Butyl Ether *

Non-ionic Surfactant

60

35

5

Source: PEI Associates, Inc., Occupational Exposure, Environmental Release, and Control Analysis of Aqueous Metal Cleaning Substitutes for l,l,l- Trichloroethane and CFC-113 Solvents for Cleaning of Electronic or Metal Objects, Revised Draft, September 20, 1990, U.S. EPA.

8

Table 3

Typical Metal Cleaning Formulations

Chemical % in Formulation Formulation 1: Powder Alkaline Cleaner .......................................

Sodium Carbonate 45 Trisodium Phosphate 15 Sodium Tripolyphosphate 2 0 Borax 17 Linear Alkyl Aryl Sulfonate 2 Non-ionic Surfactants 1

Formulation 2 : Liquid Alkaline Cleaner ____________________-------------------

Water Sodium Metasilicate Sodium Hydroxide Tetrasodium Pyrophosphate Trisodium Phosphate Alkyl Aryl Sulfonates Non-ionic Surfactants

30 33

7 5

2 2 2 1

Formulation 3: Non-Phosphate Alkaline Cleaners ...............................................

Sodium Carbonate 55 Sodium Metasilicate 35 EDTA 4 Linear Alkyl Sulfonates 3 Non-ionic Surfactants 3

Source: PEI Associates, Inc., Occupational Exposure, Environmental Release, and Control Analysis of Aqueous Metal Cleaning Substitutes for l,l,l-Trichloroethane and CFC-113 for Cleaning of Electronic or Metal Objects, Revised Draft, September 20, 1990, U.S. EPA.

9

% -

especially the charge and ion concentration of the sodium. Sodium is a weak ion exchanger and in the presence of more highly charged ions (e.g. Ca”, MgtZ) will not compete effectively for exchange

This holds true in soil-water systems as well. In sites. competition with cations of the same valence, sodium has less affinity for exchange sites because of its large hydrated ionic radii.

The ion concentration also influences the exchange capacity of sodium. Generally, in dilute solutions, sodium is a weak competitor, but as the concentration increases sodium becomes more competitive and removal from solution increases.‘

In soils and sediments at environmental pH‘s only the free ion is of importance. In systems with a high concentration of sodium ions the sediments and soils swell as the sodium cations exchange with less strongly hydrated ions. The swelling reduces the permeability of tHe soil and in some cases the sediments which reduces drainage . n

n

7

Potassium

Like sodium, potassium is an alkaline metal which exists in the +1 valence state. It forms fairly weak complexes with chlorine and hydroxyl ions, but the complexes do not exist in any appreciable amounts in these forms. Other complexes in both freshwater and seawater form to a lesser extent than do the sodium complexes (potassium sulfate 0.13% and 1% respectively) . 6 The free ion accounts for the balance of potassium.

In soil and sediment, the uncomplexed free ion is the dominant species at environmental pHs. Other dissolved complexes are of little importance.

Removal of potassium from solution occurs at the soil and sediment interface, by ion exchange. As with sodium, the amount is generally insignificant, but is greater for potassium than for sodium. The affinity for ion exchange sites is less than that for ions of higher valence but greater than that of sodium. As with sodium, the exchange quantities increase with increasing ion concentration.

10

6

1

n

1

Phosphate

Phosphates in the organic and inorganic form are the predominant forms of phosphorus in the environment and only orthophosphate (PO,-') and its protonated forms are likely to be of importance in the environment. Elemental phosphorus is extremely rare in the environment. It is extremely reactive and oxidizes rapidly in nature. However, because of its high toxicity and potential for bioaccumulation, concentration limits have been set for marine and estuarine systems.' The fully reduced form of phosphorus, phosphine (PH,) , has been found in polluted springs and the hypolimnion of lakes and marshes under highly reducing conditions.'

Phosphates exist at environmental pHs as a protonated orthophosphate (H,PO,-) . The pyrophosphates are of little environmental importapce because of their instability. They are

Orthophosphates and polyphosphates complex with metal ions. At pH 4-6, free H,PO,' is the dominant species, but at higher pH values complexation with calcium, magnesium and other cations and transition metals with high valences dominate. These metal phosphates are poorly soluble and precipitation is the most important means of removing phosphorus from solution.

In many water environments, complexation with iron (111) and cdlcium oxides in the sediment is the primary sink for phosphates. There the phosphates will remain unless the sediment becomes anaerobic, resulting in reducing and acidic conditions which convert insoluble iron phosphates and calcium phosphates to soluble forms.'

Phosphate added to soil is quickly sorbed and later precipitated into less soluble forms. Fixation of phosphates occurs at appreciable levels in all but coarse sandy soils. Organic phosphates are the principle form of phosphates in some soils. They are synthesized by both plant and microbial tissues. Unlike metal phosphates, organic phosphates are not lost to the system, rather they are released slowly by hydrolysis.'

6

rapidly hydrolyzed to the phosphate ion by microorganisms. 23

6

6

8

11

Silicates

Silicates are easily dissolved in water and exist in a number of forms. In natural water with a pH of <9, the dominant species is most probably silicic acid [Si(OH),]. Above pH 9 silica becomes ionized to form silicate ions. Dissolved silica increases with increasing pH.'

Silicon is an important nutrient in the ocean and less so in freshwater systems. The growth and decay of organisms is closely related to the concentration of silicon in the ocean. Silicon forms colloidal hydroxides at pH values found in seawater. These hydroxides are known to be potent scavengers of polyvalent elements.'

In soils, silicon is most mobile above a pH of 9.5.' However, in the pH range of most soils, silicon will remain as a silicate species in solution. Silicate ions compete with phosphate ions for exchange sites. Generally, the phosphate ion is more competitive than silicate for .those sites.' This will result in higher silica concentrations in the soil solution. In acidic soils, silicate ions, like phosphate, form insoluble precipitates with iron and aluminum oxides.

Ammonium

The ammonium ion will form an equilibrium in water with the ammonium hydroxide parent compound.25 Ammonium (NH,') is a usable form of nitrogen by plants and is not considered a pollutant at concentrations within the assimilative capacity of the system."

Ammonium can undergo oxidation to form nitrate and nitrite (nitrification) . These forms of nitrogen are considered the species of greatest concern in the environment along with ammonia.

The ammonium ion is far less toxic than its unprotonated species (NH,). The presence of this species is pH dependent in

6

12

6 water, soil and sediment systems. Nitrate shows little tendency to complex with aqueous

metals in natural waters. Nitrite will form complexes with the transition metals, but because its concentration in natural waters is very low such complexation is not likely to be significant.6

The concentration of N-containing species in natural waters is limited by biological reactions to consume it, rather than the solubil'ity of the species. N-containing species are unlikely to precipitate to an inactive form in the sediment like phosphates and potassium.25

The mobility of ammonium in soil and sediment tends to be slow because cation exchange sites will readily retain the ammonium ion. The nitrate species of nitrogen is mobile in the soil column and is generally associated with and limited to soil water movement. Providing soil biota uptake does not occur, migration of nitrates,to groundwater is expected.'

e

7

Borates (Borax)

Borates dissociate in'water to form the monoborate and polyborate ions at high concentrations. The principal species present depends on the pH of the aqueous system. The borate ions in solution form complexes with a variety of metals (Fe, Zn, Ni, Cu, etc.) . ' Borate ions are removed from solution by either adsorption onto sediments or dissolved solids. The extent to which this will occur depends on the concentration of the ion in solution, cation exchange capacity of the sediment, pH of the solution and many other properties of the water and sediment.'

In soils, adsorption is the principal mechanism of removal of borates from solution. Sorption is affected by pH, aluminum and iron oxides, clay content, salinity, and the surface area of the soil particles. Borate adsorption increases with increasing pH, increases with increasing concentration of aluminum and iron oxides, and fixation by clay particles may be responsible for irreversible boron or borate sorption.'

7

7

13

* -

Hydroxides

Hydroxide ions are considered fundamental to the chemistry of natural waters, that is, they are present in all water samples and are not considered pollutants except in concentrations far greater than found in nature. Their importance is due to how these ions determine the presence and form of other chemical species in water.

In aqueous systems the hydroxide ions complex with metal ions to form monomeric hydroxide complexes. The metal ions in these reactions act as acids releasing a hydrogen ion (H'). Depending on the concentration of these ions, the pH of the aquatic system may decrease or if sufficient buffering capacity exists, little or no effect may occur.25

In most aqueous systems many of the metal hydroxide complexes tend to precipitate out of solution. In most cases, the hydroxide metal COITT' ?ill remain in the sediment unless conditions change t, --LOW a return to solution.

6

Carbonates

As with the hydroxide ion, the carbonate ion plays an important role in the chemistry of water. The pH of the system is generally affected by the concentration of the carbonate ion in solution.

The carbonate species are highly soluble and tend to remain in solution. Exceptions exist for complexes with metal ions such as calcium and magnesium, which precipitate out of solution when the concentration of the ion exceeds equilibrium. In freshwater systems, approximately 99 percent of the carbonate exist as the free ion. In seawater much less exists as the free ion (70- 80%) and complexes with sodium (8-11%), magnesium (7-19%), calcium ( 3 - 7 % ) , and potassium (<0.4%) are much greater. 25

14

Ethanolamines

The ethanolamines (monoethanolamine, diethanolamine, and triethanolamine) are highly water soluble (pH dependent), with low to moderate vapor pressures and negative octanol-water partitioning coefficients. The fates of the compounds exhibit similar pathways and will be discussed as a group.

Ethanolamines contain a polar and nonpolar section of the molecule .ll Like soaps these compounds are good emulsifying agents. This feature of the molecule, along with its low vapor pressure, results in very little loss of the compound from water as a result of non-biological degradation."

One reaction of diethanolamines of importance is their reaction with nitrite to form N-nitrosodiethanolamine." This phenomenon has been reported in bench-scale experiments using both natural water under environmental conditions and sewage." The authors suggested that' a possible microbial or heat labile role was responsible for the 'formation of the nitrosamine. In this experiment it was also shown that the nitrosamine was readily metabolized, but persisted in,natural waters during the winter months. Up to this date, no N-nitrosodiethanolamine in natural waters or sewage has been reported in field experiments, in the available literature.

Microbial mineralization of the ethanolamines is the primary path of degradation. Because of their simple structures, these compounds are rapidly degraded to C02 in favorable environments. The presence of assimilating microorganisms and an ample microbial nutrient supply appear to be the most critical factors in the mineralization of these compounds.

For wastewater treatment, reports vary as to the effectiveness of removal (degradation) . The most recent studies suggest that ethanolamines are removed to varying degrees depending on the chemical species and degree of substitution. Monoethanolamine (MEA) and diethanolamine (DEA) were reported to be removed at an efficiency of 90-97 percent and triethanolamine (TEA) was much lower and more varied at 25-70 percent.

43

13

13

It should be noted here that discharges of high

15

concentrations of DEA and TEA have resulted in dissolved oxygen depletion in surface waters. 13

Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid (EDTA)

The fate of EDTA and its salts in aqueous, sediment or soil environments is thought to be primarily dependent on microbial action. Under typical environmental conditions EDTA is relatively resistent to chemical degradation. However, EDTA is known to photodegrade. This process is not expected to be a major factor in most soil and water systems, since, except for the surfaces, little light is received.”.”

EDTA is a sequestering agent (chelator), that if present in water in the deprotonated form will complex with any free hydrated cation available.’ Both the complexed and uncomplexed form of EDTA will remain in the water solution until microbially degraded within the water column or at a waste treatment plant.‘

Partitioning of EDTA to the sediment is a complicated process that depends on the metal chelate formed, concentration of the free cation available, pH, and many other properties of the water. However, it is believed that partitioning to the sediment will be a minor process for the removal and degradation of EDTA.34

Microbial degradation of EDTA occurs fairly rapidly in aerobic aquatic systems (on the order of days). The pH of the system will affect the speciation of EDTA and its fate will be a function of this pH. In one study 60-90 percent of EDTA was degraded to C02 and various intermediates in 5 days under aerobic conditions.

Microbial degradation in soils and sediments occurs more slowly than in aqueous systems (on the order of weeks). As in aqueous systems degradation occurs by microbial action to CO, under aerobic conditions.” No degradation has been observed under anaerobic conditions. In one study of the degradation of EDTA in soil and sediments, 65-70 percent of EDTA was recovered as C02 after 45 week^.'^ The degradation of EDTA decreases with depth of soil and sediment and is seasonally affected.

I

16

Overall EDTA and its salts should be biodegradable in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems provided sufficient organic matter is present to support microbial growth and the residence time of EDTA is adequate.

Sodium Xylene Sulfonate

Sodium xylene sulfonate is a surfactant belonging to the group known as the linear alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS) . Rarely is this compound used as a surfactant alone, rather it is generally attached to a long chain (C,,-,,) alkyl carbon group. No data on the environmental fate of this specific compound was located in the available literature. However, it is suggested that the biodegradation of sodium xylene sulfonate may follow that of other benzene ring surfactants.

In natural rater the fate of the benzene ring in LAS compounds was experimentally determined by Larson and Payne They found that the samples of water taken above and below a sewage outfall from a waste water treatment plant that had LAS in its effluent showed different biodegradation rates. The rate of biodegradation, both primary and ultimate (mineralization), from samples obtained below the outfall were greater than samples taken above the outfall. The difference was attributed to the greater biomass concentration found below the outfall. It should be noted here that the LAS degraders are inhibited at concentrations of >20 mg/L LAS; however, at low concentration of LAS typically found in the environment, degradation occurs rapidly.

LAS were poorly sorbed to aquatic sediments in this experiment". These results lend support to the theory that soil adsorption coefficients of less than 1000 indicate low sorption potential for soils and sediments. However, as the concentration of the biomass increased and after the onset of mineralization of the benzene ring, sediment binding increased as measured by the amount of "c." This was attributed to the incorporation of LAS into the cellular constituents of the degrading organisms as measured by "C incorporation.

17

LAS can form precipitates with calcium (Ca"). That portion of LAS both sorbed to sediment matter and complexed with Ca" in the sediment would not be readily biodegradable since bottom sediments are in more anaerobic environments.

Biodegradation efficiency of LAS in wastewater treatment has been calculated to be approximately 80-90 percent. The estimated half-life of LAS was 0.23 days for primary degradation and for mineralization of the benzene ring, 0.13 days. The half life for degradation in water with a low biomass concentration (above a sewage outfall) was between 1.4 and 14 days."

Dodecanedioic Acid (DDA)

Limited information on the fate of DDA was found in the available literature. The fate of the compound is modeled based on physical properties estimated using AUTOCHEM and/or Q S A R and on the limited informatioh in the literature.

Dodecanedioic acid is a dicarboxylic acid that is soluble in water (pH dependent) and has an estimated octanol-water partition coefficient of 3.07. The soil sorption coefficient was estimated to be 590 (QSAR) . Values of less than 1000 suggest poor binding to organic matter in soils and sediments, and moderate to high mobility." It should be noted that other characteristics of the chemical such as the rate of microbial degradation, and how strongly it reacts with soil mineral constituents, will affect the soil sorption coefficient.

DDA has a very low Henry's Law Coefficient (9.33-7) which suggest that volatilization will of limited importance as a fate process. The calculated biological concentration factor (BCF) suggest that DDA will have low potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms.

The fate of DDA both chemically and biologically will be dependent on the pH of the system. DDA will undergo salt formation by substitution of the carboxyl hydrogen in the presence of strong bases (sodium or potassium hydroxide). Unlike the parent compound, the salt will be water soluble. These salts tend to

18

remain in solution and should' generally be removed by biodegradation in wastewater treatment. The efficiency of the treatment is estimated to be approximately 90 percent using the Toronto STP model .lo

The carbon-carbon chain of the compound will undergo microbial degradation. However, specific reference to this ten- carbon molecule was not found.

Sodium Gluconate

No pertinent information on the fate of sodium gluconate was located in a review of the available literature. The fate of the compound is estimated based on the chemical behavior of the dissociated ions.

Sodium gluconate is soluble in water and dissociates into sodium ions and gluconic acid ions. The fate o f sodium has been described. Gluconic acid is a monocarboxylic acid that is very soluble in water. The available information on the biodegradation of other carboxylic acids indicate that this compound will biodegrade in aquatic systems The rate of degradation is not known and may vary from the rates reported for other carboxylic acids.

In soils and sediments the carboxylic acid is expected to undergo microbial degradation leading t o the complete destruction of the acid to form C02 and water. Specific reference to gluconic acid is not made. However, other carboxylic acids with shorter and longer carbon chains have been demonstrated to undergo microbial degradation.'

Diethylene Glycol n-Butyl Ether (DGBE)

DGBE is a cellosolve additive that is miscible with water, has a low vapor pressure, an estimated log octanol-water partition coefficient of 0.905 (QSAR), and an estimated soil adsorption coefficient (KO=) of 9.3 ( Q S A R ) .

19

A review of the available literature provided little information on the fate and transport of DGBE in the atmosphere or aquatic media. Partitioning among the environmental compartments has been estimated based on the physical and chemical properties found in table 1.

The properties of DGBE would indicate that under equilibrium conditions, partitioning between the water and sediment will occur. However, because of DGBE‘s low KO,, very little is expected to partition to the sediment.

DGBE‘s low vapor pressure (0.17mmHg) will retards its entry into the atmosphere. Therefore, atmospheric loss from water or soil would be of limited importance as a fate process.

Under environmental conditions the hydrolysis of the

will undergo oxidative degradation at the surface of natural waters by free radicals whic$ may be rapid enough to play a role in its environmental fate. .

The adsorptive capacity of soils for DGBE could not be found in the available literature. Based on the soil adsorption coefficient estimate, DGBE is expected to be highly mobile in the soil column and sediment (KO= <loo).

In one study, the effluent from a waste treatment plant degraded 11% of DGBE introduced into the inoculum over a period of 5 days, indicating moderate biodegradability.” Other closely related glycol ether analogs have shown moderate biodegradability and would indicate that DGBE will also be moderatelybiodegradable. It has been reported that an enzyme specific to DGBE has been isolated, that first degrades the alcohol portion by oxidation followed by cleavage of the ether bond.” The estimated wastewater treatability of DGBE based on moderate biodegradability is 75 to 85 percent using the Toronto STP model.

This information, taken collectively, would indicate that DGBE should be fairly readily biodegradable in both water and soil environments with days to weeks required for ultimate degradation.

Bioconcentration of DGBE was calculated using log KO,, and estimated to be 3 . BCF values of less than 100 are generally considered to indicate a low potential to bioaccumulate. Though

ether linkage of DGBE is not expected to be significant. ’’ DGBE

18

2 0

calculation of the BCF value using log KO, has some uncertainty, the very low value coupled with DGBE's moderately high biodegradability and high water solubility, should indicate a low tendency for bioconcentration.2'

TerDene Based Cleaners

The environmental fate of terpenes in aquatic systems will be discussed as a group. Those terpenes which are likely to be used as substitutes are as follows:

d-limonene anethole dipentene . alpha terpinene alpha pinene gamma terpinene beta pinene terpinolene terpineol

Anethole is considered the least likely substitute, if at all, because of its value as a flavor and fragrance additive and the limited a~ai1ability.l~ Terpineol has recently been reported as a pot'ential major substitute.'g However, because of the timing of this information and the uncertainty of market penetration the assessment of this chemical will be somewhat limited at this time. Also reported in recent comments to this assessment is the availability of other semi-aqueous cleaners such as the petroleum distillates. Like terpineol, the petroleum distillates have a great deal of uncertainty concerning potential use and will not be discussed in this draft. The absence of a complete assessment of these potential substitutes (terpineol and petroleum distillates) does not constitute an endorsement of their use as safe and viable substitutes.

A review of the available literature contained only limited information on the fate and transport of the compounds listed. Table 4 lists the physical and chemical properties (measured and

estimated using AUTOCHEM and Q S A R ) and figure 1 shows the structures of the selected terpenes, upon which the fate and transport estimates will be based. With the exception of anethole and terpineol this group of terpenes exhibit similar properties, both measured and estimated. Because of this characteristic, the environmental fate of these compounds is expected to be similar.

Table 5 provides representative formulations for the electronic and metal cleaning industries using d-limonene as the representative terpene. It has been assumed that any of the terpenes may be substituted equally for d-limonene in the formulation.

Air

Terpenes will undergo rapid oxidation in the troposphere with an estimated half life of less than one hour for all except beta-pinene (3.6 hrs.j. It is thought that these terpenes will behave much like turpentine in the atmosphere. Therefore, the oxidation of the terpene will likely form a peroxide followed by the formation of a hard resin (particulate matter). These hard resins are commonly known as Aitken particles (aerosols formed from natural sources), of which the diameter is generally less than 0.2 microns." It is these aerosols that probably cause the blue haze often seen above heavy growths of vegetation. Due to the small size, it is expected that the life of these particles in the troposphere may be long depending on other fate processes and washout. However, the lifetime of the terpenes in the troposphere is short enough to prevent transport to the stratosphere.

The monoterpenes under investigation have been reported in the literature to be net consumers (in the troposphere) of ozone and nitrate radicals in the nighttime atmosphere and of ozone during the day.''"*'9~2' The nighttime reaction of terpenes with NO, radicals (in a clean atmosphere) leads to a very short halflife of

19

2 2

Table 4 Selected Physical and Chemical Properties of Terpenes

Dipentene 136 8.97 4.232 4.021 2.0 2.423-2 969 28 1-2/11] 138-86-3

Alfa Pinene 136 21.50 3.972 3.762' 4.7 6.56E-2 615 31 1.2/111 80-56-8

Beta Pinene 136 21.50 3.972 3.762 3.0 6.563-2 615 216 1.2/111 127-91-3

Anethole 148 136.54 3.314 3.104 0.3 1.593-4 184 55 5.7/164 104-46-1

Alfa Terpinene 136 5.63 4.412 4.021 0.9 3.853-2 1328 16 1.2/111 99-86-5

23

Table 4 (Cont.)

Compound Molecular Water LO9 LO9 Vapor Henry' s BCFd Atmospher. Volatil . CAS # Weight Solubil . d K,' K," Presse LawbSd Half Life' Half Life

(River/Lake) (mg/L) ("Hg) (min.) (hrs. )

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Gamma Terpinene 136 8 .97 4.232 4.021 1.2 2.423-2 969 28 1.2/111 99-85-4

Terpinolene 136 8.97 4.232 4.021 0.5 2.423-2 969 8 1.2/111 58 6- 62- 9

T e r p i n e o l 154 381.0 2.569 2.459 0.1 6.09E-5 53 31 16.3/185

"Estimated using CLOGP version 3.3. bAtmos. m3/mole. 'FAP (Fate of Atmospheric Pollutants-PCGEMS) dEstimated using AUTOCHEM-PCGEMS. 'Measured and experimental data from: Computer Aided Data Book On Vapor Pressures, Ohe, S., Tokyo, Japan, (1974).

Source : Structure Activity Relationships (SAR) . Verschueren, K., Handbook On Environmental Data On Organic Chemicals,

24

.

Table 4 (Cont.)

Source: Von Nostrand Reinhold C o . , New York, (1977). PCGEMS/AUTOCHEM. Kollig, H.P. and J.J. Ellington, Draft Paper: Fate Constants For Some Chlorofluorocarbon Substitutes, Em-Athens, Ga., U.S. EPA, ORD, 1990, (not in print).

Note: The evaluation techniques used in PCGEMS and QSqR may result in errors that vary from several percent to an order of magnitude and perhaps greater. A comparison of the results generated in PCGEMS with those of QSAR (Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships), and with hand calculations provided by Dr. Kollig of ERL-Athens were quite similar. This may indicate the use of equivalent computational programs between the estimation methods.

25

. -

p i p r o 1

Chemical struct ures of 9 selected Temenes

,

A d-Limonene

A a-Terpinene

\

Anethole

Terpinolene

\

A Dipentene

r-Terpinene 2 0

l o

Terpineol a-Pinene &Pinene

26

Table 5

Typical Terpene-Based Cleaning Formulations

Limonene (or other terpene) Surfactant (s )

Formulation 2 : Metal Cleaner ___--______-_________________ Water Limonene (or other terpene) Diethanolamine Petroleum Surfactant DGBE Non-ionic Surfactant

90 10

60 20

3 3 6 0

Source: PEI Associates, Inc., Occupational Exposure, Environmental Release, and Control Analysis of Terpene Metal Cleaning Substitutes for l,l,l- Trichloroethane and CFC-113, Revised Draft, September 19, 1990, U.S. EPA.

2 1

h

approximately 1-5 minutes for the pinenes, terpinenes, terpinolene, and d-limonene.”’ In polluted atmospheres, such as those in ozone non-attainment areas, the quantity and rate of consumption is greater than that found in less or non polluted areas.”’ This is due to the greater concentration of NO3 radicals available for reaction with the terpenes in polluted atmospheres.

With sufficient residence time during daylight hours, the formation of ozone (photoxidation) will occur as a result of the reaction of terpenes with OH radicals.’ However, the nighttime reactions of terpenes with nitrate radicals and the consumption of O3 by its reaction with terpenes during the day may outweight the reactions with hydroxyl radicals, resulting in a net consumption of ozone1’

It is important to note that the total flux (global emission) of terpenes (both anthropogenic and natural) is estimated at 4.8XlO” kg/yr of which only a fraction would be those identified in this assessment .2‘*41 Based on current substitution rates, the percentage of the total flux attributed to the conversion to terpenes is approximately percent (6.lXlO’ kg/yr) .

Water

The fate of terpenes in the aqueous environment has been estimated using physical/chemical properties generated by AUTOCHEM and Q S A R . It should be noted that these are estimates of the fate of the compounds as a group, and variations in their behavior both as a group and individually cannot be ruled out.

Based on the Henry‘s Law coefficient, the volatilization of the terpenes, except for anethole and terpineol, is expected to be moderate to high in flowing water and moderate in near static systems such as lakes. The volatility of terpenes has been noted in attempts to perform aquatic algae toxicity tests by the static method. In these tests, (96h LC,,), the concentration of the selected terpene rapidly approaches 0, supporting high volatility. In natural flowing waters the volatilization half-life is estimated to be 1.2 hours for all the terpenes of interest except anethole

2 0

( 5 . 7 hours) and terpineol (16.3 hours). In lakes, the estimated half-life of the terpenes is 111 hours except anethole (156 hours) and terpineol (185 hours). The level of suspended solids in the water will affect the level of volatilization. The higher the suspended solid concentration the longer the half-life. Anethole, and terpineol with a much lower Henry's Law coefficient, are expected to have low volatility in both systems. Again, this will depend on the level of suspended solids.

The Log 5. values listed in table 4 indicate that all the terpenes should sorb fairly strongly to soil and sediment (log KO, values >3) except terpineol, which should exhibit moderate to strong sorption potential (log KO, 2-3). Also, the low water solubility supports the idea that sorption to soil and sediment should be fairly strong with the exception of terpineol. However, because of the high volatility of the terpenes, this process may dominate over sorption, which reflects the uncertainty in other processes which affect sorption and can only be resolved by adequate fate testing.'

Abiotic hydrolysis of these compounds is not expected. Biodegradation (ultimate) is expected to require weeks under aerobic conditions and months or more under anaerobic conditions. Terpineol may be the exception, requiring biodegradation studies to resolve its ultimate fate. The level of uncertainty is expressed as high with respect to anaerobic degradation. The level of biodegradation expressed applies to all the terpenes under review. Testing for the removability in wastewater treatment has

Based on the volatility and sorption of terpenes, migration to groundwater is expectedto occur slowly. The presence of terpenes over time, in the groundwater would be due to their fairly low biodegradability aerobically and quite low biodegradability anaerobically.

In a wastewater treatment simulation model (Clark, et al.) all the terpenes, with the exception of anethole and terpineol, were estimated to be removed at an overall efficiency of approximately 90 percent.' The principle process of removal is expected to be volatilization and, to a lesser degree, sorption.'o'40

.been conducted for two of the terpenes (dipentene and anethole).

2 9

Biodegradation is expected to play only a minor role. Anethole will be removed from waste water mainly by sorption and only negligible amounts by volatilization. The efficiency of removal is estimated at 50-70 percent, with a high degree of uncertainty.” Terpineol was estimated to be removed almost completely by biodegradation at an efficiency of 80-90 percent.

In a bench-scale study conducted for the Exposure Assessment Branch by Versar, the removal rate of the terpenes dipentene and anethole were investigated in a simulated biological treatment system.

The results of the study show that at least 90 percent of the dipentene and 90 percent of the anethole were removed by the bench-scale activated sludge system. A separate control showed that dipentene was removed to below the analytical detection limit (at la8.t 90 percent removal) by air stripping alone. Therefore, the amount removed by biodegradation o r sorption, if any, could not be determined.

The control also showed that anethole could be removed to the extent of approximately 90 percent by air stripping alone. Therefore, in the biologically active system at least 0 percent of the anethole was removed by biodegradation and/or sorption onto waste sludge.

It is concluded that, for the purposes of exposure assessment, terpenes should be at least 90 percent removed under typical treatment conditions.

Bioconcentration factors (BCF) were estimated using AUTOCHEM and were presented in table 4 . These values indicate a reasonable possibility for bioaccumulation of terpenes, especially alpha terpinene. Terpineol, with a BCF of 53, is the only exception. It has been suggested that the BCFs calculated using AUTOCHEM may result is estimates of 2.5 to 4 times less than those estimated by a surrogate method.

30

The major impact of converting to aqueous and terpene cleaners will be the increased discharge to water. The wastewater discharged from an aqueous or terpene cleaning system will contain both the material cleaned from the parts and the chemicals contained in the cleaning formulation. The release of terpenes to air and water is strongly process related. Releases higher than those noted could be possible in a poorly run process and lower in an efficiently run process.lg With respect to aqueous cleaners, the concern is the potential magnitude of the volume of discharge and the pH, which may be a significant wastewater problem. The release of terpenes represent a different problem. Besides the volume of effluent, the terpenes impart a high BOD and COD on the system in which it is introduced. It also has a level of concern for toxicity which is much higher than many of the aqueous cleaners.

Estimates of solid and hazardous wastes generated by processes using aqueous and terpene cleaners, and the composition of those wastes could not be estimated. Solid waste data from current users of aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners would be useful supplements to this assessment.

The surface water releases presented in this section represent once-through (cleaner volume is used and discarded daily from all processes and operations) releases to wastewater treatment and receiving streams. With the exception of gravity separation, they

n e reflect any onsite controls or pollution prevention techniques which are available to the industry.

28

&iueous Cleaners

Air Release

Releases to the environment as a result of the

31

formulation of aqueous cleaners are’expected to be minimal. Air releases result predominantly from the formulation of liquid alkaline metal cleaners and alkaline electronic cleaners.” Estimates for the release to air fromthe formulation are presented in table 6.

The release to air during the use of aqueous cleaners is considered small as well. Releases are from the surfactants in both warm and cold immersion metal cleaning and from the ethanolamines, cellosolves, and surfactants in electronic (PC board) cleaning. The releases are presented in table 6. 27

Water Releases

The release to water from the formulation of aqueous cleaners is expected to be negligible. The process of formulating alkaline cleaners requires water, therefore, water used for cleanup would likely be incorporated into the next batch. Water releases would also result in a loss of product to the formulator, encouraging control of releases.

The releases to water from the use of aqueous cleaners are considered to be equal to that portion not lost to air.” Table 7 provides the estimated releases to water by compound or category for each use category and as a total.

Land Releases

No releases to land from the formulation of aqueous cleaners is expected. As described earlier any product left from a batch is simply incorporated into the next batch or released to the wastewater stream. The spent solution after use of aqueous cleaners may be filtered to remove suspended solids, metal particles, and some grease and oils. The filters would be disposed of as solid waste.27 The quantity of aqueous cleaner compounds and the waste products released to land was not reported.

3 2

Table 6

Estimated Total Release to Air of Aqueous Cleaning Compoundsa

Alkaline Salts Sodium Carbonate Sodium Metasilicate Sodium Hydroxide Sodium Tripolyphosphate Trisodium Phosphate Tetrasodium Pyrophosphate Borax

Additives

Surf act ants

EDTA Ethanolamine DGBE

A1 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2700

40

1690

'Based on typical formulations. Released during formulation, transfer, and use.

Source:' PEI Associates, Inc., Occupational EXpQSUre, Environmental Release, and Control Analysis of Aqueous Metal Cleaning Substitutes for l,l,l-Trichloroethane and CFC-113 for Cleaning of Electronic or Metal Objects, Revised Draft, September 20, 1990, U.S. EPA.

33

Table 7

Estimated Environmental Release to Water of Aqueous Cleaners"

Sodium Carbonate Sodium Metasilicate Sodium Hydroxide Sodium Tripolyphosphate Trisodium Phosphate Tetrasodium Pyrophosphate Borax (all) EDTA (all) Surfactants (all) Ethanolamines DGBE

47 32 4 9 17 2 8 2 5 0 0

367 250 26 74 135 19 62 15 43 0 0

"Based on typical formulation.

Sites Formulation 20 Cold Immersion 3076 Warm Immersion 2042 PC Board Cleaning 212

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 358 210

414 282 30 83 152 21 70 17 78 358 210

Source: PEI Associates, Inc., Occupational Exposure, Environmental Release, and Control Analysis of Aqueous Metal Cleaning Substitutes for l,l,l-Trichloroethane and CFC-113 for Cleaning of Electronic or Metal Objects, Revised Draft, September 20, 1990, U.S. EPA.

34

Land disposal of waste sludges from wastewater treatment processes is likely. These sludges may contain significant amounts of byproducts of the cleaning process. Characterization of this waste is currently being investigated and will be made available in future drafts along with any regulatory implications that may result from the generation of solid waste.

Terpene Based Cleaners

Air Releases

Environmental releases to air from the conversion to terpene- based cleaners are from the manufacture, formulation, and use of the products. Estimated total releases to the air are presented in table 8. Terpenes have been reported to contribute to ozone formation in the troposphere and are not exempt from regulation under the Clean Air Act (CAA). If terpenes are substituted for CFCs in ozone non-attainment ares (areas where the National Ambient kir 'Quality Standards are exceeded) , users may be required to

&provide, the Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) control level. The LAER has not been defined for terpene use in the electronic or metal cleaning industry. However, terpenes in general are net ozone consumers, especially in polluted atmospheres, and may in fact reduce tropospheric levels of ozone as well as NO, radicals .2.3,19,2% 29

Water Releases

Releases to water result from the use of terpene cleaners. Only negligible amounts are released during manufacture or formulation, since this is viewed as a loss of product to the company .*' The environmental releases to water are presented in table 9. These releases assume only once-through use with limited recycling or recovery of the cleaner and no loss due to fate processes (volatilization, sorption) prior to discharge. Loss due to fate processes prior to discharge can be expected, however,

35

Estimated Total TerpeRe Release to Air'

Release From Per Site Per Site (kg/yr) Gravity Separationb Release Release

(kg/yr) kg/site/day Gravity

Operation # of Sites Release to Air

Separation (kg/site/day) ...............................................................................................

Manufacture 35 3750 NA 0.30' NA

Electronic 1 35 NA 0.14' NA Metal 10 28 NA 0.11" NA

Electronic 176 35000 91 0.80' 5.2f Cold Immersion 769 32000 180 0. 17e 2.4f Warm Immersion 511 6100 260 0.05" 5.2f

Formulation

"Based on 8 hours operation per day 250 days per year, and 25 percent substitution rate for PC board cleaning and a 10 percent rate for metal cleaning.

is estimated that an equal amount would be recycled or sent off-site for disposal. 'Releases from vacuum distillation and transfer to drum or tank car, wastewater treatment and spills. "Release from closed lid formulation represents the typical value. 'Releases from evaporation and transfer. 'Releases from 50 percent of those sites using gravity separation allowing evaporation of terpene phase during gravity separation.

Source: PEI Associates, Inc., Occupational Exposure, Environmental Release, and Control Analysis of Terpene Metal Cleaning Substitutes for l,l,l-Trichloroethane and CFC-113, September 20, 1990, U . S . EPA.

36

Table 9

Estimated Total Terpene Release to Water

Operat ion # of Sites Sites Using No Treatment' Sites Using Gravity Separation' (E6 kg/yr) (kg/site/day) (E6 kg/yr) (kg/site/day)

......................................................................................... Manufacture 35 0' 0' . 0' 0' Formulation 11 0' 0' 0' 0' Electronic Cleaning 176 0.06 6.5 0.05 1.3 Cold Cleaning 769 0.1 3.0 0.09 0.6 Warm Cleaning 511 0.2 6.5 0.01 1.3 Total 0.36 0.25

"Based on 80 percent of the sites using gravity separation and 20 percent using no treatment. bBased on 250 days of operation per year for formulation and use and 350 for manufacture. 'Negligible quantities are released to water.

Source: PEI Associates, Inc., Occupational Exposure, Environmental Release, and Control Analysis of Terpene Metal Cleaning Substitutes for l,l,l-Trichloroethane and CFC- 113, September 20, 1990, U.S. EPA.

37

quant 1 . _ these is beyond the scope of this analysis.

Lan- Releases

The generation of solid waste from the use of terpenes is expected. The waste generated for a typical process could be as much as 25 kg per month.” The composition of the waste would include the terpene cleaning formulation and the contaminants from the product during cleaning. The waste generated may be disposed in a landfill or incinerated.

AS discussed in the aqueous cleaner releases to land, the characterization of waste sludges from wastewater treatment or still bottoms from separation processes is being investigated. This information along with any regulatory implications of the generated waste will be available in future drafts of this document.

Disposal Methods

Aqueous and terpene cleaners are expected to be discharged to either a municipal wastewater treatment works or to a receiving stream, depending on the wastewater characteristics of the user prior to conversion to aqueous and terpene cleaners. Many aqueous cleaning formulations are marketed as biodegradable. Generally, this refers only to the surfactant portion of the formulation, which has been reported as 90-99 percent biodegradable.

Depending on the particular facility (before conversion to aqueous or terpene cleaners), pretreatment of its effluent may o r may not be required prior to discharge to a privately owned wastewater treatment works (POTW) or release to a stream under a NPDES permit. Wastewater treatment works will require pretreatment of effluent from industrial facilities when the waste characteristics exceed levels the POTW can adequately treat in a effort to meet its mandated discharge limits. The BOD and COD are common, but not the only, parameters in determining the need for

38

pretreatment. Due to the above, it is possible that some facilities may

exceed effluent discharge limits applicable to the receiving waste water treatment plant or a receiving stream after converting to the CFC substitute. This concern centers around facilities that may convert to terpene based cleaners. Terpene cleaners have been reported to add as much as 2100 mg/L COD and 1000 mg/L BOD burden to the waste stream in a typical PC board cleaning facility.” For large facilities this may not be a problem, because in most cases they have processes in place that require pretreatment prior to discharging to a wastewater treatment plant or the total plant wastewater flow is large enough to sufficiently dilute the terpene to meet discharge standards.

The control of water discharges of both aqueous and terpene cleaners is, for the most part, attainable through proven technologies used in other industries. OiUwater separators, precipitators, coagulation, centrifugation, and other common technologies may substkntially reduce the fence-line discharge of both aqueous and terpene cleaners.

Available technology for terpene-based cleaning systems provide for a zero discharge option. The terpene-based cleaner along with the material cleaned is separated from the waste stream and disposed of as a hazardous waste (due to its flashpoint) by incineration. The remaining water is virtually deionized and is returned to the cleaning process. Future technology may provide a complete recycle system, eliminating the need for incineration. For the purpose of this exposure analysis, the assumption is made that the terpene cleaner will be discharged to the waste stream. -

%*. Relam9 estimates for water are based on the total discharge

of those industries that are expected to convert from CFCs to terpene and aqueous cleaners. The releases shown in Tables I and 8 would include large and small users of the substitutes. This method of release estimation will result in higher than expected

39

release estimates for small companies and smaller than expected estimates for larger companies. Site specific release data from existing users of aqueous and semi-aqueous cleaners would provide useful data in estimating the effects of releases from various industries and release scenarios.

Release estimates for several of the aqueous cleaners were not provided. The compounds of concern are: ammonium hydroxide; sodium gluconate; potassium hydroxide; tetrapotassium pyrophosphate; and dodecanedioic acid. Several of the compounds are potential direct substitutes for many of the compounds reviewed in this document.

EXPOSURE ANALYSIS

Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM)

Introduction

PDM is a screening level tool developed for the Exposure Evaluation Division (EED) to assist in exposure assessments. It is a PC based program that estimates the frequency a chemical, when discharged from an industrial facility, will exceed a concentration of concern in an ambient water body.

The input data required to generate the frequency of exceedance are:

- the number of days a chemical is released per

- amount of chemical discharged; - concentration of concern in the receiving stream year;

The model estimates the concentration of a particular chemical based on its loading and dilution (assumes complete

4 0

horizontal and vertical mixing) in a given body of water. Thus, the model takes stream flow data for a given reach to develop an estimate of the probability distribution of the daily stream flow values for that reach. This distribution and the chemical loading data are used to estimate the number of days per year a contaminant concentration level will be exceeded.

In the assessment that follows, the stream flow data that are used were retrieved from IFD and Gage files for specific industrial categories, according to their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. This method provides for a reasonable worst case analysis of all streamflows in the SIC category absent knowledge of the actual discharge point(s). The model is designed to report the average probability of exceedance of the 10 percent of those facilities within a SIC category, that would have the greatest likelihood of exceeding a concentration of concern. That is, if there are 100 facilities in a particular SIC group, the model reports the average probability of exceedance of the top 10 ranked facilities. TheGefore, the analysis is considered reasonable worst case. For a more indepth explanation of PDM, refer to Versar

PDM analysis was performed for all the terpenes. Analysis of the aqueous cleaners was performed on those substances which have release estimates available. Table 10 contains the COCs for the aqueous and terpene cleaners. d-limonene was selected as the” focus of this analysis because it is anticipated to be the most likely terpene used in the formulation of these cleaners. The COC for d-limonene was reported by the Health and Environmental Review Division (HERD) as 7ppb (7 ug/l) for aquatic organisms.” COCs for the other terpenes range from 3ppb for alpha pinene to 300ppb for dipentene. As of this date the COC is derived from measured data on acute toxicity to fish and daphnids. Data on the toxicity to algae may be available at a later date and may lower the COCs. At the request of HERD, analyses were performed at a lower COC and at higher COCs if exceedance approached 100 percent of discharge days.

Each of the three use operations was examined (PC board, warm immersion, and cold immersion cleaning). The SIC codes used in the analysis were as follows:

(1988) . 3 ’

41

. .

Table 19

Concentration of Concern (COC) for the Terpenes and Aqueous Cleaners"

Temene Alpha Pinene Beta Pinene d-Limonene Terpinolene Alpha Terpinene Anethole Dipentene

Aaueo us Ammonium Hydroxide Potassium Hydroxide Sodium Hydroxide Borax Sodium Silicate Sodium Metasilicate Sodium Carbonate Phosphate Gluconic Acid Dodecanedioic Acid FW

SW DGBE EDTA Sodium Xylene Sulfonate Monoethanolamine Diethanolamine Triethanolamine

3 5 I

12 20 70

300b

0 800 400 300

5000 100

1000

10000 60 20

10000 100

1000 90

7 0 0 200

0.1

'Provided by the Health and Environmental Review Division (HERD). bThe COC for dipentene was generated using a commercial grade product, unlike the other terpenes which were tested using a pure grade material. The impact, if any, on the measured COC is unknown.

'FW = fresh water and SW = Salt water.

42

- electronic components manufacture (3674,3679); - metal can manufacture (3411); - electroplating (3471) ; - metal finishing (3411-3462,3465-3471,3482-3599,

3613-3623,3629,3634-3636,3643-3651,3661-3671, 3673,3676-3678,3693-3694,3699,3711-3841,3873- 3999) ;

- 'motor vehicle manufacture (3711,3713) ; - large household appliance and parts

manufacture (3631-3633,3639,3431,3469) . To estimate the effectiveness of control technologies,

the exceedance of the COC was estimated using gravity separation before release of the terpene to a receiving stream, wastewater treatment without gravity separation, and gravity separation followed by wasterwater treatment. The estimated treatability by gravity separation is '80 percent and by wastewater treatment is 90 percent. The average'days of exceedance was estimated for each industrial grouping using the various release scenarios.

Analysis of the days of exceedance for terpenes released untreated into a receiving stream was performed to estimate the effects of no controls. However, due to the BOD and COD of terpene based cleaning formulations it is anticipated that discharge into a stream untreated may be prohibited under certain provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) or an approved state NPDES program. Thus, discharge to a municipal wastewater treatment works or use of an onsite control technology is likely. The results of the model run for controlled and uncontrolled releases (terpenes only) are presented in Appendix A.

Analysis And Results

Table 11 shows a summary of the results of PDM for a concentration of concern (COC) of 7ppb (7 ug/L) without gravity separation and with and without wastewater treatment. In all SICS that terpene based cleaners are expected to be used, the COC for d-limonene will be exceeded 52-178 days per year based on 250 days

43

Table 11

Days of Exceedance of the Concentration of Concern (COC)‘ for d-limonene by SIC Code and Operation

Without Gravity Separationb

Motor Vehicle Manufacture

Metal Finishing

Large Household Appliances and Parts Manufacture

Electroplating

Metal Can Manufacture

Electronic Component

Cold Immersion Cleaning Warm Immersion Cleaning

Cold Immersion Cleaning warm Immersion Cleaning




PC Board Cleaning

1 3 3 1 7 8

7 9 1 3 5

66 1 1 9

66 1 2 1

5 2 1 0 8

139

2 3 6 247

2 2 9 2 4 6

2 2 2 2 4 3

2 2 2 2 4 3

2 1 2 2 4 0

248

“Concentration Of Concern (COC) : 7ppb ( 7 ug/L) for d-limonene. Release without gravity separation represents approximately 20 percent of use sites. See table 9 f o r release estimates.

b

44

of o p e r a t i o n and 90 p e r c e n t t r e a t m e n t of t h e t e r p e n e . When t h e r e i s no treatment of t h e t e r p e n e and d i s c h a r g e i s d i r e c t l y t o a r e c e i v i n g s t ream, t h e COC w i l l be exceeded 212-248 days p e r yea r a t t h e p o i n t of d i s c h a r g e . Table l l a p r o v i d e s t h e exceedance of t h e COC when gravity separation i s used p r i o r t o t h e t e r p e n e r e l e a s e . Estimates suggest t h a t 80 p e r c e n t of t e r p e n e u s e s i tes w i l l employ t h i s c o n t r o l technology b e f o r e r e l e a s e , The e f f i c i e n c y of t h i s c o n t r o l technology i s e s t i m a t e d a t approximate ly 80 p e r c e n t . The exceedance of t h e COC w i t h wastewater t r e a t m e n t r anges from 3 t o 8 1 days based on 250 days of o p e r a t i o n p e r y e a r . Without wastewater t r e a t m e n t , t h e COC w i l l be exceeded from 1 0 1 t o 208 days p e r y e a r . Table 1 2 p r o v i d e s a summary of t h e days of exceedance f o r a l l t h e C O C s f o r t h e t e r p e n e s , a s a range , wi thout g r a v i t y s e p a r a t i o n , b e f o r e and a f t e r wastewater t r e a t m e n t . Table 12a p r o v i d e s t h e days of exceedance w i t h g r a v i t y s e p a r a t i o n b e f o r e r e l e a s e t o a POTW. Due t o t h e v o l a t i l i t y of t h e t e r p e n e s , t h e chemical l o a d i n g t o e i t h e r a wastewater t r e a t m e n t works o r a r e c e i v i n g s t r eam shou id be lower t h a n t h e q u a n t i t y r e l e a s e d from t h e s o u r c e w i t h i n t h e f a c i l i t y . However, q u a n t i f y i n g t h e l o s s between t h e i n - p l a n t r e l e a s e and t h e s t r eam d i s c h a r g e p o i n t , due t o v o l a t i l i t y , i s beyond t h e scope o f t h i s a n a l y s i s . Af t e r d i s c h a r g e t o t h e r e c e i v i n g s t ream, con t inued l o s s of t h e t e r p e n e due t o v o l a t i l i t y , s o r p t i o n , and o t h e r minor p r o c e s s e s should reduce t h e exceedance downstream.

Table 13 p r o v i d e s t h e PDM results f o r t h e aqueous cleaners a f t e r t r e a t m e n t , when t h e t r e a t m e n t e f f i c i e n c y i s known.

Better i n f o r m a t i o n concern ing t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of exceedance of t h e COC l e v e l cou ld be developed, i f , s i t e s p e c i f i c d i s c h a r g e i n f o r m a t i o n were a v a i l a b l e .

The l e v e l of treatment r e q u i r e d t o m i t i g a t e exceeding t h e COC 20 o r more days per y e a r w i l l r ange from 95 t o 99 p e r c e n t depending on t h e i n d u s t r i a l c a t e g o r y from which t h e t e r p e n e o r i g i n a t e s . T h i s l e v e l o f t r e a t m e n t may be ach ieved by a combinat ion of c o n t r o l t e c h n o l o g i e s mentioned i n t h i s d r a f t o r may r e q u i r e f u r t h e r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of t h e " r e a l world" t r e a t a b i l i t y of t h e t e r p e n e s .

4 5

* .

Table lla

Days of Exceedance of the Concentration of Concern (COC)" for d-limonene by SIC Code and Operation

With Gravity Separationb


Metal Finishing


Electroplating


Electronic Component Manufacture


Cold Immersion Cleaning warm Immersion Cleaning




PC Board Cleaning

42 1 7 4 8 1 208

1 4 1 2 9 35 185

9 113 2 6 1 7 2

9 2 7

3 15

40

1 1 4 1 7 4

1 0 1 1 6 2

1 8 9

'Concentration Of Concern (COC) : 7ppb (7 ug/L) for d-limonene. kelease after gravity separation represents approximately 8 0 percent of use sites. See table 9 for release estimates.

4 6

Table 12

Days of Exceedance of the Concentration of Concern (COC)' for All Terpenes by SIC Code and Operation

Without Gravity Separationb

Metal Finishing Cold Immersion Cleaning 1-140 Warm Immersion Cleaning 2-195

Large Household Cold Immersion Cleaning 0-125 Appliances and Warm Immersion Cleaning 1-182 Parts Manufacture

Electroplating Cold Immersion Cleaning 0-127 Warm Immersion Cleaning 1-185

Metal Can Cold Immersion Cleaning 0-114 Manufacture Warm Immersion Cleaning 0-173

Electronic P.C. Board Cleaning 5-199 Component Manufacture

'Concentration of Concern (COC) for the terpenes are listed in Table 10. Release without gravity separation represents approximately 20 percent of use sites.

b

4 1

. I .

Table 12a

-ays of Exceedance of the Concentration of Concern (COC)‘ for All Terpenes by SIC Code and Operation

With Gravity Separationb


Metal Finishing


Electroplating



Cold In ersion Cleaning Warm Immersion Cleaning





P.C. Board Cleaning

0-85 0-134

0-38 0-80

0-29 0-67

0-29 0-66

0-17 0-52

0-84

“Concentration of Concern (COC) for the terpenes are listed in Table 10. Release after gravity separation represents approximately 80 percent of use sites.

b

48

Table 13

Days of Exceeddnce of the COC' for Aqueous Cleaners by SIC Code and Operation

Chemical Motor Vehicle Metal Lg. Household Electroplating Metal Can Electronic Manufacture Finishing Appliances Manufacture Component Warmb/Coldc Warmb/Cold' Warmb/Cold' Warmb/Cold' Warmb/Coldc ________________________________________--------------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________________---------------------------------------------------------------

Sodium Carbonate 0 / 0.1 0.0 / 0.3 0 / 0.0 0 / 0.0 0 / 0.01 -

Metasilicate o / o o / o o / o o / o o / o - Sodium Silicate 0.3 /10.4 0.6 / 3.6 0 / 1.6 0 / 1.5 0 / 0.1 - Borax 0 / 0.0 0 / 0.1 o / o o / o o / o -

EDTA 0 / 0.0 0 / 0.0 o / o o / o o / o -

Sodium Xylene

Sodium

Sulfonate o / o o / o o / o o / o o / o 0.0'

Gluconic Acid o / o o / o o / o o / o o / o -

Acid - FWd 0 / 0.5 0 / 0.8 0 / 0.1 0 / 0.1 o / o 1.9'

Acid - SWd 0.1 / 9.8 0.4 / 3.4 0 / 1.5 0 / 1.4 0 / 0.1 7.1'

Dodecanedioic

Dodecanedioic

49

Table 13 (Continued)

Chemical Motor Vehicle Metal Lg. Household Electroplating Metal Can Electronic Manufacture Finishing Appliances Manufacture Cor Warmb/Cold' Warmb/Cold' Warmb/Coldc Warmb/Coldc Warmb/Coldc

_________________==_---------------------------------------------------------------------- _____--___------- ___I__________-_________________________-----------------------_----

Diethanolamine - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - 1.0

Monoethanolamine - / - - / - - / - - / - - / - 16.9'

Triethanolamine - / - - / - - / - - I - - / - 53.5'

'Concentration of concern (COC) for the aqueous cleaners-are provided in table 10. %arm immersion cleaning operation. 'Cold immersion cleaning operation. dFW = freshwater, SW = saltwater. 'Treatment efficiencies - (E = estimated, M = measured)

dodecanedioic acid 90% E sodium xylene sulfonate 80-90% E monoethanolamine 90% E diethanolamine 90-97% M triethanolamine 25-70% M

50

Surface Water Concentrations

The stream concentrations were estimated for the mean and low stream flows for the 50th and 10th percentile streams within each SIC. The method uses a simple stream dilution calculation using the release data provided in Table 9 and the stream flows retrieved from the IFD and Gage files. The mathematical formula may be found at the bottom of the model runs in Appendix B.

The results for each SIC and release scenario are presented in table 14. Results after wastewater treatment ranged from <1 ppb to 83 ppb depending on stream flow and industrial grouping. For releases after gravity separation, the stream concentrations ranged from <1 ppb to 167 ppb and after both gravity separation and wastewater treatment the concentration ranged from <1 ppb to 17

These results would indicate that the COC may be exceeded under certain, but not all, stream flow and release conditions. The results do not indicate the frequency at which the COC will be exceeded.

A search of the open literature and the data base STORET did not find any reference to ambient levels of terpenes in surface water. Data of this nature would assist this analysis in further characterizing the prevalence of terpenes in surface water from other sources.

PPb

Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS-11)

In an attempt to quantify the loss of terpenes due to the various fate processes after release to an aquatic system (river), EXAMS I1 was performed. EXAMS I1 estimates the change in surface water concentration of organic chemicals after accounting for fate and persistence for a selected stream segment. It estimates the concentration (steady-state or time-varying) of a chemical in the

51

TABLE 1 4 STREAM CONCENTRATION (ug/L)

Terpene Cleaners Results after wastewater treatment only. (Results after gravity separation and WWT) . [Results after gravity separation only].

Flows %tile Plant Mean LOW.

Electronic Component Manuf. 5 0 0 . 6 ( 0 . 1 ) 11.21 6 . 6 ( 1 . 3 ) 113 .21 1 0 5 . 7 ( 1 . 1 ) 1 1 1 . 4 1 5 1 . 6 ( 1 0 . 3 ) [ l o 3 1

Warm Immersion Cleaning

Metal Can Manuf.

Electroplating

5 0 0 . 2 ( 0 . 1 ) L0.51 3 . 4 ( 0 . 7 ) L6.81 1 0 3 . 1 ( 0 . 6 ) L6.21 6 1 . 3 ( 1 2 . 3 ) 11231

5 0 O .g (O.2 ) 11.81 2 . 1 ( 0 . 4 ) [ 4 . 3 1 1 0 3 . 1 ( 0 . 6 ) L6.21 4 0 . 1 ( 8 . 1 ) L81.31

Lg. Household Appliance Manuf. 5 0 0 . 5 ( 0 . 1 ) 11.01 4 . 5 ( 0 . 9 ) L9.01 1 0 4 . 1 ( 0 . 8 ) L8.11 4 8 . 9 ( 9 . 8 ) L98.01

Metal Finishing

Motor Vehicle Manuf. 5 0 I U

50 0 . 7 ( 0 . 1 ) 11.31 3 . 8 ( 0 . 8 ) L7.61 1 0 4 . 1 ( 0 . 8 ) L8.21 5 0 . 8 ( 1 0 . 2 ) [ l o 2 1

Cold Immersion Cleaning

Metal Can Manuf.

Electroplating

5 0 1 0

5 0 1 0

Lg. Household Appliances Manuf. 5 0 10

Metal Finishing 5 0 1 0

Motor Vehicle Manuf. 5 0 10

‘low flow is the 7410 flow.

0 . 5 ( 0 . 1 ) 11.01 6 . 3 ( 1 . 3 ) L12.71

O.l(O.0) L0.21 1 . 4 ( 0 . 3 ) L2.81

0 . 4 ( 0 . 1 ) L0.81 1 . 4 ( 0 . 3 ) 12 .81

0 . 2 ( 0 . 0 ) L0.41 l . g ( O . 4 ) 13.81

0 . 3 ( 0 . 1 ) 10.61 l . g ( O . 4 ) 13.81

O . Z ( O . 1 ) 10.51 2 . 9 ( 0 . 6 ) 15.81

4 . 3 ( 0 . 9 ) L8.81 8 3 . 3 ( 1 6 . 7 ) 11671

1 . 6 ( 0 . 3 ) L3.11 2 8 . 3 ( 5 . 7 ) L56.61

l . O ( O . 2 ) L2.01 1 8 . 8 ( 3 . 8 ) 137.51

2 . 1 ( 0 . 4 ) 1 4 . 1 1 2 2 . 6 ( 4 . 5 ) 1 4 5 . 1 1

1 . 7 ( 0 . 4 ) L3.51 2 3 . 4 ( 4 . 7 ) 146.91

2 . 0 ( 0 . 4 ) 1 4 . 1 1 3 8 . 5 ( 7 . 7 ) L76.91

52

dissolved, sorbed, biosorbed, or sediment phases. EXAMS incorporates various fate, transport, and transformation processes, which include hydrolysis, biodegradation, photolysis, oxidation, reduction, adsorption, volatilization, and ion exchange.

The analysis was performed using a generic stream due to lack of site specific information. The selected generic stream used in EXAMS is the Black Warrior River in Alabama (Reach # 0316109014). A stream flow of approximately 100 million liters per day was selected by a group of experienced assessors, based on professional judgement, to represent a generic river environment. A search of the Canonical Environment Data Base (CEDB) in EXAMS was performed to match the selected flow with a stream that closely matched the flow while providing the most complete water quality data base. This data was then loaded into EXAMS as default environmental data for the most complete analysis of the exposure, fate, and persistence of a chemical discharged into an aquatic environment (river). As with PDM the chemical is assumed to thoroughly mix in the rater column.

The stream flow and geometric parameters for the Black Warrior River are as follows:

Mean stream flow 101.9 million liters

Mean sediment flow 102 kg/hr Reach length 5000 m Reach width 9.6 m Average water depth 0.66 m

per day(MLD)

A summary of the results for the terpene d-limonene at a chemical loading of 6.5 kg/day (untreated release) is presented in table 15. The maximum steady-state stream concentration (the state at which for every unit of terpene being added to the system a unit is being removed by fate processes or transport) of d- limonene in the water column ranges from 0.055 mg/L (55 ppb) to 0.061 mg/L (61 ppb) depending on the loading and length of stream (compartment) evaluated. The benthic sediments contained from 0.055 mg/L ( 5 5 ppb) to 0.061 mg/L (61 ppb) d-limonene.

53

Table 15

EXAMS I1 Results for d-limonene With a Chemical Loading of 6.5kg/day by Distance'

Steadv State Concentration

Water (dissolved) (mg/L) 0.061 0.061 0.055 0.055 0.055

Benthic Sediment (mg/L) 0.060 0.061 0.055 0.055 0.055 (dissolved in pore water)

Steadv State Accumulation

water Column (kg) 1.0 3.3 4.6 6.8 7.7 (%) 8.73 8.73 8.73 8.73 8-73

Benthic Sediment (kg) 10.9 34.4 47.7 70.8 80.2 ( 'B) 91.27 91.27 91.27 91.27 91.27

DisDosition

Volatilized (%)

Transported Via Other Pathwaysb

7

93

24

76

0.055

0.055

11.2 8.73

116.8 91.27

33

67

49

51

55 ao

45 20

54

Table 15 Continued.

'Release estimates represent no treatment (direct release to receiving stream) . Steady state concentrations and accumulations are maximums and will change by an order of magnitude if the terpene is treated before release. bTransported via other pathways indicates downstream transport of the chemical. 'Persistence represents the time it takes to remove 95 percent of the chemical after the

Source: EXAMS 11, U.S. EPA 1990. termination of the release.

55

The maximum steady-state accumulation of d-limonene in the river environment ranges from 11.9 kg to 128 kg depending on the length of the river (3-60 km). The percentage of the steady state accumulation is 0 . 1 3 percent in the water column and 91.27 percent in the benthic sediment regardless of river length. The principle fate process is volatilization. The percent removal of d-limonene by volatilization increases with distance downstream, ranging from 7 percent at 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) to 80 percent at 60 kilometers (36 miles) from the source. The remaining percentages are transported via other pathways. The amounts reported as transported via other pathways, refers to downstream transport of the terpene. The persistence of d-limonene is estimated at 8-10 months (cleanup of 95 percent of the loading) after termination of source.

Table 16 presents the maximum steady-state concentration for the three operations after treatment for six river lengths evaluated. The change'in surface water concentration with distance as a result of the various fate processes, was estimated at 80 percent after 60 km (36 miles)

Drinkina Water And Fish Inaestion Estimates

Drinking water exposure estimates were performed for the aqueous and terpene cleaners and fish ingestion estimates were performed for the terpenes only. The methodology was the same that is commonly employed to assess exposure to new chemicals in the premanufacture notification program. In both estimates, the stream concentration of the chemical is determined using the mean stream flow data for a SIC category (see previous discussion on surface water concentrations). For drinking water exposure the concentration is then multiplied by the mean daily intake of water (2 liters), the number of days per year the chemical is released, and a conversion factor to obtain units in mg/yr. For fish ingestion exposure, the stream concentration is multiplied by an estimated intake of fish of 16.9 grams per day, the number of days

56

0-

OW

Or'

00

.. O

O,

m-. mm

om

00

.. O

O,

0-

mm

om

00

.. OO,

m-

mm

om

00

.. O

Z

hl

rl-

Wd

ow

00

.. O

O,

rl-

Wd

ow

00

.. O

O,

cl

m-

mw

or-

00

00

.. -

m-

mm

om

00

00

.. -

0-

mm

om

00

00

.. -

4-

w

rl

ow

00

00

.. -

0-

wo

ow

00

00

.. -

cl \

tn C

.4

m

C

cl m

C

a, a,

rl E

V

-4

C 0 a a, v)

.4

01 U

u

c C

a,

- z

H

4J 8 5

m

m 3:

m-

mm

om

00

00

.. -

m-

mm

o

m

00

00

.. -

m-

mm

om

00

00

.. -

m-

mm

om

00

00

..

rl-

wrl

ow

00

00

.. -

rl-

w+

o

w

00

00

.. -

4 \

? 2 7 rl 0

V LI ffl

4J

s"

m-

mm

om

00

00

.. -

m-

m

m

om

00

00

.. -

m-

mm

om

00

00

.. -

m-

mm

om

00

00

.. -

rl-

wr

l o

w

00

00

.. -

0-

wo

ow

00

00

.. -

4

\

z 2 - 01 4J C

.4 a a, v)

0

-4

c

c, C ffl m

m-

NO

ON

00

00

.. -

m-

N

u7

o

w

00

00

.. -

m-

Nm

ON

00

.. O0,

m-

hlm

ON

00

00

.. -

OD-

NO

D

ON

00

00

.. -

a-

Nu

2

ON

00

00

.. -

- d

tn E

\

- 2 7 rl 0

V &

a, 4J

i!

m-

Nm

O

N

00

00

- m

-

NO

ON

00

a.

O0

,

m-

N

m

ON

00

.. 00,

OD-

NO

D

ON

oo

r-

00,

.. m

m-

N

OD

ON

00

.. 00,

4

\

v

? u) 4J C

.4 a a, v)

0

-4

c

c, C ffl

2 m

per year the chemical is released, the biological concentration factor (BCF), and a conversion factor to obtain units in mg/yr. It should be noted that if the surrogate method of calculating BCF values is used, then the exposure will be significantly higher than those shown in Appendix B or in table 18. The mathematical formulas are presented at the bottom of each model run in Appendix B. The stream flow data for all industrial categories shown on page 41 were used to calculate drinking water exposure. The environmental release data is summarized in table 17. In this analysis, it is assumed that the receiving stream is used as a source of drinking water at some point downstream from the discharge point of the terpene or aqueous cleaner.

The maximum drinking water exposure estimated is approximately 3 mg/yr for the 10th percentile flow in the S I C for Motor Vehicle Manufacture. The maximum exposure from fish ingestion is approximately 26 mg/yr for the same flow and SIC category. To place this in perspective, an ounce of orange juice contains approximatelp 4 mg of d-limonene and other beverages contain as much as 1 mg of d-limonene per ounce.

In each of the analyses, before and after treatment release data are used. The after treatment exposure estimates apply to terpenes only. As stated earlier, the treatment level for terpenes was estimated at 90 percent. In-stream loss of terpenes due to volatilization and other minor processes was not considered due to lack of site specific data. Due to the variability and uncertainty in the treatment efficiencies of the aqueous cleaner compounds within the fate section, exposure after treatment for the aqueous cleaner formulations could not be performed. The results for the terpenes after treatment and aqueous cleaners before treatment are summarized in table 18 and 19 respectively. Appendix B contains the model runs used to produce the tables.

5 8

Table 17

Summary of Release of Aqueous and Terpene Cleaners Prior to Treatment by Operation and Total from a Typical Site'

Terpene 6.5 3.0 6.5 16.0

Aqueous 11. 3b 1.3 0.3 12.9

'Based on 250 days operation per year. bNo alkaline salts are contained in aqueous PC board cleaner

- note: Release of terpenes from a site using gravity separation will result in lower estimates of release. See table 9.

59

Table 18 Human Exposure to Terpene Cleaners in Drinking

Water by Operation After Treatment


0.31 2.85 2.53 23.54

Warm Immersion Cleaninq


Electroplating


Metal Finishing


0.11

0.45

0.24

0.33

0.23

1.54

1.54

2.03

2.04

3.16

60

0.95

3.69

1.99

2.76

1.90

12.72

12.72

16.77

16.88

26.06

Table 18. Continued

Cold Immersion Cleaninq

Metal Can Manufacture 0.05

Electroplating 0.21

Large Household 0.11 Appliances and Parts Manufacture

Metal .Finishing


0.15

0.11

0.71 . 0 . 4 4

0.71 1.70

0.94 0.92

0.94

1.46

1.28

0.88

5.87

5.87

1.14

7.19

12.03

'50%tile indicates that 50% of those facilities within the SIC code will have exposure estimates lower than those reported. The lO%tile indicates that 90% of those facilities within the SIC code will have exposure estimates lower than those reported.

61

Table 19 Human Exposure to Aqueous Cleaners in Drinking

Water by Operation Before Treatment

Large Household Appliances and Parts Manufacture.

0.11 0.94

Metal Finishing 0.15 0.94

Motor Vehicle Manufacture 0.11 1.46

Cold Immersion Cleaninq

Metal Can Manufacture 0.23 3.08

Electroplating 0.89 3.08

Large Household Appliances And Parts Manufacture

0.48 4.06

Metal Finishing 0.67 4.09

Motor Vehicle Manufacture 0.46 6.31

'50th%tile indicates that 50% of those facilities within a SIC code will have exposure estimates lower than those reported. The lOth%tile indicates that 90% of those facilities within the SIC code will have exposure estimates lower than those reported.

62

REFERENCES

1) Alexander, M., Nonbiodegradable And Other Recalcitrant Molecules, Biotechnol. Bioeng. XV:611-647 (1973).

2 ) Atkinson, R., A.M. Winer, and 3.N. Pitts Jr., Gaseous Nitrate Radical: Possible Nighttime Atmosphere Sink For Biogenic Organic Compounds, Science 224:156-159 (1984).

3 ) Atkinson, R., S.M. Aschmann, A.M. Winer, and J.N. Pitts Jr., Kinetic And Atmospheric Implications Of The Gas- Phase Reactions Of NO' Radicals With A Series Of Monoterpenes And Related Organics At 294+/- 2K, Environ. Sci. Technol. 19(2) :159-163 (1985).

4) Belly, R.T.., J.J. Lauff, and L.T. Goodhue, Degradation Of EDTA By Microbial Populations From An Aerated Lagoon, Applied Microbio. 29(6) :787-794 (1975).

5) Bridie, A.L., C.J.M. Wolff, and M. Winter, BOD And COD Of Some Petrochemicals, Water Res. 13:627-630 (1979).

6 ) Bodek, I., W. Lyman, W.F. Ruhl, and D.H. Rosenblatt (eds.), Environmental Inorganic Chemistry: Properties, Processes and Estimation Methods, Pergamon Press, New York, 1988.

7) Bohn, H.L., B.L. McNeal and G.A. O'Conner, Soil Chemistry, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1979.

8) Brady, N.C., The Nature And Property Of Soils, 8th Edition, MacMillan, New York, 1974.

9) Brown, T.L., and H.E. LaMay (eds.), Chemistry: The Central Science, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1977.

63

10)

11)

12)

13)

14)

15)

16)

Clark, B., D. Mackay, L. Tasfi, G.L.H. Henry, S. Salenieks, A Model Of Organic Chemical Fate In A Biological Wastewater Treatment Plant, Institute For Environmental Studies, University Of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (1989).

Cram, D. J. , and G.S. Hammond (eds . ) , Organic Chemistry, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964.

Eaton, J.G., P.R. Parrish, and A.C. Hendricks (eds.), Aquatic Toxicology: Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium on Aquatic Toxicology, ASTM, 1980.

Gannon, J.E., M.C. Adams, and E.O. Bennett, Microbial Degradation Of Diethanolamine And Related Compounds, Microbios. 23:7-18 (1978).

Hand, V.C.,' and G.K. Williams, Structure Activity Relationships For Sorption Of Linear Alkylbenzenesulfonates, Environ. Sci. Technol., 21 (4) :370-373 (1978) . Hino, M. , Y. Murooka, and T. Harada, Enzymatic Degradation Of Ether-Alcohol Compounds, J. Ferment Technol., 59(5) :347-356 (1981).

HOV, O., J. Schjoldager, and B.M. Wathne, Measurement And Modeling Of The Concentrations Of Terpenes,In Coniferous Forest Air, J. Geophys. Res. 88(C15):10679- 10688 (1983).

Jenkins, L.J., B.J. Scheybeler, M.L. Smith, R. Baird, M.P. Lo, and R.T. Haug, Metal Removal And Recovery From Municipal Sludge, J. WPCF, 53 (1) :25-32 (1981) .

Kenaga, E.E., Predicted Bioconcentration And Soil Adsorption Coefficients Of Pesticides And Other Chemicals, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 4:26-38 (1980).

6 4

Keyser, G.E., Terpene Solvents From Forest Products, Telefax form G.E. Keyser of Union Camp Corp., Bush Boake Allan Division, Sept. 10, 1990, Paper to be presented in Singapore, Not In Print.

Larson, R.T., and A.G. Payne, Fate Of The Benzene Ring Of Linear Alkylbenzenesulfonates In Natural Waters, Applied Environ. Microbio., 41 (3) :621-627 (1981).

Locke, D., Note from Diana Locke, Health and Environmental Review Division (HERD), to Sidney Abel, Exposure Evaluation Division (EED), August 10, 1989.

Lyman, W.J., W.F. Reehl, and D.H. Rosenblatt (eds.), Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation Methods: Environmental Behavior of Organic Compounds, McGraw- Hill, New York 1982.

.. Manahan, S.E. (ed.) , Environmental Chemistry, Third Edition, Willard Grant Press, Boston, 1979.

Mooney, H.A., P.M. Vitovsek, and P.A. Matson Exchange Of Material Between Terrestrial Ecosystems And The Atmosphere, Science 238:926-932 (1987) . Morel, F.M.M., Principles of Aquatic Chemistry, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1983.

Norvell, W.A., and W.L. Lindsay, Reaction Of EDTA Complexes Of Fe, Zn, Mn, And Cu With Soils, Soil Sci. SOC. Am. Proc. 33:86-91 (1969).

6 - ' PEI Associates, Inc., Occupational Exposure, Environmental Release, and Control Analysis of Aqueous Metal Cleaning Substitutes For l,l,l-Trichloroethane and CFC-113 For Cleaning Of Electronic or Metal Objects, Revised Draft, September 20, 1990, Contract No. 6848- 0112.

65

28)

29)

30)

31)

33)

34)

35 )

36)

PEI Associates, Inc., Occupational Exposure, Environmental Release, and Control Analysis of Terpene Metal Cleaning Substitutes For 1, 1, 1-Trichloroethane and CFC-113, Revised Draft, September 19, 1990, Contract No. 68-DE-0112.

Riba, M.L., J.P. Tathy, N. Tsiropoulos, B. Monsarrat, and L. Torres, Diurnal Variation In The Concentration Of Alpha And Beta Pinene In The Landes Forest (France), Atmospheric Environ. 21 (1) :191-193 (1987) . Snoeyink, V.L., and D. Jenkins, Water Chemistry, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1980.

Swisher, R.D., The Chemistry Of Surfactant Biodegradation, J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 40:648-656 (1963).

Takada, H., and R. Ishiwatari, Linear Alkybenzenes In Urban Riverine Environments In Tokyo: Distribution, Source, and Behavior, Environ. Sci. Technol. 21(9): 875-883 (1987).

Tiedje, J., Microbial Degradation Of EDTA In Soils And Sediments, Applied Microbio. 30 ( 2 ) :327-329 (1975).

Tiedje, J., Influence Of Environmental Parameters On EDTA Biodegradation In Soils And Sediments, J. Environ. Qual., 6(1) :21-25 (1977).

Urano, K., and M. Saito, Adsorption Of Surfactants On Microbiologies, Chemosphere, 13 (2) :285-292 (1984) . Urano, K., M. Saito, and C. Murata, Adsorption Of Surfactants On Sediments, Chemosphere, 13 (2) :293-300 (1984).

66

37) Versar, Inc., 1988. Probablistic Dilution Model3 (PDM 3) Volumes 1 and 2, Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02- 4254.

38) Versar, Inc., 1990. Terpene Biological Treatability Study, Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-D9-0166.

39) Verschueren, K..HandboOk On Environmental Data On Organic Chemicals, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1977.

40) Wilson, D., and B. Hrutfiord, The Fate Of Terpentine In Aerated Lagoons, Pulp Paper Canada, 76(6):195-197 (1975).

41) Windholz, M., S. Budavari, R.F. Blumetti, E.S. Otterbein (eds.), The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs and Biologicals, Merck and Co., Inc., New Jersey, 1983.

42) Yokouchi, Y. and Y. Ambe, Aerosols Formed From The Chemical Reaction Of Monoterpenes And Ozone, Atmospheric Environ. 19(8) :1271-1276 (1985).

43) Yordy, J.R., and M. Alexander, Formation Of N-Nitroso- Diethanolamine From Diethanolamine In Lakewater And Sewage, J. Environ. Quality 10 (3) :266-270 (1981) .

67

APPENDIX A

Probabilistic Dilution Model (PDM) Data

Results for the release of d-limonene untreated and with treatment (90 percent) by SIC code in metal and electronic cleaning. COC for d-limonene is 7ppb.

Untreated Releases Cold Cleaning 3kg/site/day Warm Cleaning 6.5kg/site/day PC Board Cleaning G.Skg/site/day

Treated Releases (POTW) Cold Cleaning 0.3kg/site/day Warm Cleaning 0.65kg/site/day PC Board Cleaning 0.6Skg/site/day

PDM3 Results f o r Facility in Can (metal) Manuf. (3411)

Release ID#

Release Activlty: [ I M F G [ IPRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:

Receiving Stream Name:

Facility on Reach? [ ]yes I Ino

Discharge Type : [ ]direct [ ]indirect

NPDES Permit t :

Release Days/yr 250 Loading (kg/site/day) : 3.CO

Conc. o f Percent of Ea ys/year

1 . o o o o o 6 8 . 4 8 249.95 65.62 239.51 7 . O O O O O

1000.00000 0.38 1.40

1 . o o o o o 68.34 249.45

concern (ug/l) year exceeded exceeded ____________________------------------------------

100.00000 21.95 a o . 11

-- loading changed from 6.50 - -

7 .OOOOO 58.11 2 1 2 * 11 100 . o o o o o 8.93 3 2 . 5 8

1000.00000 0.03 0.13

_eL . .

PDM3 Results for Facility in Electroplating ( 3 4 7 1 )

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ IMFG 1 IPRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS;

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes [ In0


NPDES Permit # :

Release Days/yr 250 Loading (kg/site/day) : 3 . 3 0

Percent of Zays / year Conc. o f concern ( u g / l ) year exceeded exceeded ____________________--------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 8 . 4 9 2 4 9 . 9 9

1 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 . 6 0 5 . 8 3

7 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 . 4 6 2 4 2 . 5 8 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 . 6 8 9 3 . 7 2

-- loading changed from 6 .50 - - 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 68 .43 2 4 9 . 7 6 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 . 9 1 2 2 2 . 3 3

1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 . 6 6 4 6 . 2 0 :ooo.ooooo 0 . 4 0 1 . 4 4

PDM3 Results for Facility in Lge Hsehld Appl & Parts Manu€. (3631-33,39,3431,69#

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ IPRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS .. Facility Name ..

Facility Location: -- Receiving Stream Name:

Facility on Reach? [ ]yes I ]no


NPDES Permit # :

Release Days/yr 250 Loading (kg/site/day) : 3.00

c0r.c. of Percent o f Days/year concern ( u g / 1) year exceeded exceeded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. co000 68.49 245.59 7. O C O O O 66.66 243.32

i o o o . a o o o o 1.55 5.67

1.00000 68.41 2 4 5 . 7 1 7.00000 60.83 2 2 2 . 0 3

:co.ooo00 12.78 46.66 :o~0.00000 0.40 1.45

100 * 00000 25.63 93.53

-- load-ng changed f rom 6.50 --

PDM3 R e s u l t s f c ' a c i l i t y i n Metal F i n i s h i n g

Release I D #

Release A c t i v i t y : [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ I I N D USE [ ] C O W rJSE [ ICONS

F a c i l i t y N a m e

F a c i l i t y L o c a t i o n :

R e c e i v i n g S t r e a m Name:

F a c i l i t y on Reach? [ ]Yes [ 11-10

D i s c h a r g e Type : [ ]d i rec t [ ] i n d i r e c t

NPDES P e r m i t d :

Release D a y s / y r 250 L o a d i n g ( k g / s i t e / d a y ) : 3 . 0 0

c o n c . o f P e r c e n t o f D a y s / y e a r c o n c e r n ( u g / l i y e a r exceeded exceeded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 . 0 3 3 0 3 6 8 . 4 8 2 4 9 . 9 7 7 . 0 3 0 0 0 6 7 . 3 0 2 4 5 . 6 6

1 3 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 . 6 1 1 0 8 . 0 8 1 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 . 5 8 9 . 4 3 -- l o a d i n g c h a n g e d fr-? 6 . 5 0 --

1 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 8 . 4 5 2 4 9 . 8 3 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 . 8 4 2 2 9 . 3 8

:00.0C'co3 1 5 . 6 8 5 7 . 2 2 1ooo.oocoo 0 . 9 4 3 . 4 4

PDM3 Results for Facility in Motor Vehical Manuf.

3elease ID#

Release Activity: [ I M F G [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

(3711,37133

Facility Name _. Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ] y e s [ I n 0


NPDES Permit # :

Release Days/yr 250 Loading (kg/site/day) : 3 . 2 0

concern (ug/l) year exceeded exceeded Conc. of Percent of Cays/year

____________________-_------_-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 8 . 4 9 2 4 9 . 9 9 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 . 6 6 2 4 6 . 9 6

1 0 0 .00000 4 3 . 4 6 S 8 . 6 4 :ooo.ooooo 8 .54 3 1 . 1 7

1 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 8 . 4 6 2 4 9 . 8 8 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 . 7 4 2 3 6 . 3 1

-- loading changed from 6 .50 - -

. . . ~ ~ ~

100.00000 1~00.00000

3 0 . 2 7 2 . 6 7

119.49 9 . 7 5

PDM3 Results f o r Facility in Can (metal) Manuf. ( 3 4 1 1 )

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ IPRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Eacili t y Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes [ ] n o


NPDES Permit # :

..


Conc. of Percent of “ y s / year concern (ug/ 1) year exceeded exceeded ____________________--------- - - - -__--------- - - - - - -

1 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 . 7 4 2 2 3 . 0 0 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 . 5 1 1 2 7 . 7 3

1 0 0 . o o o o o 0 . 3 8 1 . 4 0

1 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 . 9 9 :33 .42 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 14 .17 5 1 . 7 3

1 0 0 . o o o o o 0.03 0.13

-- loading changed from 0.65 --

PDM3 Results f o r Facility in Electroplating (3471)

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ IPRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ lyes [ 11-10

Discharge Type : [ ]direct [ lindirect

NPDES Permit # :


C0r .c . o f Percent o f Days/year concern (ug/l) y e a r exceeded e x c ee de d ____________________-_---------_-------- - - - - - - - - - -

1.00000 64.53 235.54 7 . O O O O O 33.04 120.61

100 . o o o o o 1.60 5.83 -- loading changed from 0.65 - -

1.00000 56.24 205.29 7.00000 18.03 65.80

100.00000 0.40 1.44

PDM3 R e s u l t s f o r F a c i l i t y i n Lge Hsehld Appl & P a r t s Manuf. (3631-33,39,3431.,6E

Release I D #

Re lease A c t i v i t y : [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ] C O m UCE [ ICONS

F a c i l i t y N a m e

F a c i l i t y Loca t ion :

Rece iv ing S t r e a m Name:

F a c i l i t y on Reach? [ ]yes 1 Ino

Discharge T y p e : [ ]direct [ ] i n d i r e c t

..

NPDES P e r m i t K :

Release Days /yr 250 Loading ( k g / s i t e / d a y ) : 0 . 3 0

conce rn ( u g / 1 ) year exceeded sxceeded Conc. o f P e r c e n t o f C'ays/year

____________________-_-----_-----_---------------- 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 4 . 7 3 2 3 6 . 2 7 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 32.69 1 1 9 . 3 0

1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 . 5 5 5 . 6 7

1 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 . 8 5 2 0 3 . 8 5 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 . 2 2 6 6 . 4 3

1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 4 0 1 . 4 5

-- l o a d i n g changed from 0 . 6 5 --

P D M 3 Results for Facility in Metal Finishing

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ IPRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes [ ]no


NPDES Permit # :

Release Days/yr 250 Loading (kg/site/day) ! 0 . 3 0

Conc. o f Percent of Days/year concern (ug/l) year exceeded exceeded ____________________--_-----_------_--__-_--------

1 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 . 9 2 2 4 0 . 6 1 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 . 9 4 1 3 4 . 0 4

1 0 0 . o o o o o 2.50 9 . 4 3 - - loading changed from 0.65 --

1 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 . 5 3 2 1 3 . 6 4 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 21 .60 10.05

100.00000 0.94 3 . 4 4

PDM3 Results for Facility in Motor Vehical Manuf. ( 3 7 1 1 , 3 7 1 3 )

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ lyes [ In0


NPDES Permit # :


Conc. o f Percent of Days/year concern (ug/l) year exceeded exceeded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 . 6 8 2 4 3 . 3 8 J . 0 0 0 0 0

100.00000 1000.00000

4 8 . 7 7 ~. .

8 . 5 4 0 . 0 7

1 7 8 . 0 0 3 1 . 1 7

0 . 2 7 -- loading changed from 0 . 6 5 --

1 . o o o o o 6 2 . 0 9 2 2 6 . 6 1 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 . 5 2 1 3 3 . 3 1

1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 . 6 7 9 . 7 5

PDM3 Results f o r F a c i l i t y i n E l e c t r o n i c Components Manuf. (3674,3679)

Release I D #

Re lease A c t i v i t y : [ IMF'G [ ]PRO [ I I N D USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICON4

F a c i l i t y Name . :

F a c i l i t y Location:

Receiv ing Stream Name:

F a c i l i t y on Reach? [ ] y e s [ ] n o

Discharge Type : [ ] d i r e c t [ ] i n d i r e c t

NPDES P e r m i t # :

Release Days/yr 250 Loading (kg/ s i t e / d a y ) : 2 . 6 5

Conc. o f Percent o f Days / y e a r conce rn (ug/l) y e a r exceedec exceeded ____________________-- - - - - - - - - - - -_- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.00000 7.00000

100.00000 1000.00000

68.49 250.00 67.94 247.97 30.72 112.13 4.03 14.72

-- l o a d i n g changed from 6.30 - - 1.00000 66.87 244.09 7.00000 38.08 139.00

100.00000 4.03 14.72 100.00000 4.03 14.72

Results f o r the release of each terpene after wastewater treatment ( 9 0 percent) by SIC code. COCs are presented in table 10 (page 42).

Treated Releases Cold Cleaning 0.3kg/site/day Warm Cleaning 0.65kg/site/day PC Board Cleaning 0.65kg/site/day

PDM3 Results for Facility in Can (metal) Manuf. (3411)

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes l n o


NPDES Permit # :


conc . o f Percent of concern (ug/l) year exceeded

3.00000 47.31 5.00000 36.07 7.00000 29.51 12.00000 18.36 20.00000 9.97 70.00000 0.97 300.00000 0.01

3.00000 31.13 5.00000 20.34 7.00000 14.17

12.C0000 6.81 20.00000 2.77 '0.00000 0.11

3C3.03C00 0.00

____________________--------- -_--------


c a y s / year e x ceeded

172.67 134.56 107.73 67.01 36.40 3.53 0.04

--

PDF3 Results f o r Facility in Electronic Components Manuf. (3674,3679)

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ ] P R O [ I I N D USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name >

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? ]yes L In0


NPDES Permit # :

Release Days/yr 250 Loading (kg/site/day) : c . 55

Conc. of Percent of Days/year concern (ug/l) year exceeded e.<ceeded ____________________-------_-------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 . 5 5 1 3 9 . 1 1 5 . 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 . 9 6 164.10 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 . 0 8 139.00 L2.00000 27.13 39.01 20.00000 1 8 . 1 6 66.27 70.00000 5 . 6 4 20.59 300.00000 1 . 3 8 5.04

PDM3 Results f o r Facility in Electroplating (3471)

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ ] P R O [ IIND USE [ ]COMM USE [ ICON::

Facility Name ' J

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes 11-10


NPDES Permit I :

Release Days/yr 250 Loading (kg/site/dsy) : 0.30

3.00000 5.00000 7.00000

12.00000

50.73 185.15 40.37 L47.36 33.04 l20.61 22.17 80.93

20.00000 13.76 50.24 70.00000 2.80 10.23

3.00000 34.66 126.51

300.00000 0.20 0.74 -- leading changed from 0.65 - -

~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~

5.00000 7.00000

1 2 . o o o o o 20.00000 70 . o o o o o

3 0 0 .OOOOO

24.12 3 8 . 0 2 55. a 0 3'. 82

18.03 10.36 5.53 0.78 0.03

-1.19

:.I2 : . a 4

PDM3 Results for Facility in Lge Hsehld Appl & Parts Manuf. (3631-33,39,3431,69

Release ID#

Release Activity: 1 J M F G [ ] P R O [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes 1 I n 0


NPDES Permit # :


Conc. of Percent of 7 a y s I year concern (ug/l) year exceeded e xceeded ________________-___--------- - - - - - -_-_-------- - - - -

3.00000 49.94 182.30 5.00000 39.86 : 45 .51 7.00000 32.69 119.30

12 .00000 22.26 61.26 20.00000 13.91 5 0 . 7 8 70.00000 2.73 9.96 300 .00000 0.21 0.76

3 . O O O O O 34.26 -25.07 5.00000 24.13 5 3 . 0 9 7.00000 18.22 4 6 . 4 9 12.00000 10.42 7 3 . 3 4 2 3 . COG00 5 . 4 7 -3.36 70.00GOO 0.77 , . a 0

3C3 .0OGOO 0.03 3.13


PDM3 Resul t s for F a c i l i t y i n Metal F in ish ing

Release ID#

Release Ac t iv i ty : [ IMFG [ ] P R O [ I I N D USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS .. F a c i l i t y Name

F a c i l i t y Locat ion:


Discharge Type : [ ] d i r e c t [ ] i n d i r e c t

NPDES Permit # :

250 0.30

Release Days/yr Loading ( k g / s i t e / d a y ) :

--- Conc. o f Percent o f

concern (ug/l) year exceeded _ _ 53.52 3.00000 ~~ s . 00000

7.00000 12 . o o o o o 20.00000

43.85 36.94 25.99 16.92

. - 70 . O O O O O 4.12 300.00000

3.00000 l oad ing changed from

5.00000 7.00003 :2.00000 29 .0OGOO 70 .c0000

0 . 6 4 0.65 -

38.47 28.00 21.60 13.08 1.44 1.49

~ .. 3SC .20000 0 . 2 8

Days / y e a r exceeded

195.35 160.05 134.84

_____------

94. a7 61.74 15.02 2.33

140.41 i02.19 78.85 47.75 27.16 5.44 1.01

PDM3 Results for Facility in Motor Vehical Manuf. ( 3 7 1 1 , 3 7 1 3 )

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name .. Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes [ I n 0


NPDES Permit # :

Release Days/yr 2 5 0 Loading (kg/site/day) : 0.30

concern (ug/l) year exceeded exceeded conc. of Percent of Days/year

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 . 7 4 2 1 4 . 4 1 5 . 0 0 0 0 0 53.12 1 9 3 . 9 0 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 48 .77 1 7 8 . 0 0

1 2 . 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 . 5 1 1 4 7 . 8 5 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 . 6 8 115.62 7 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 . 5 3 4 5 . 7 2

300.00000 1.40 5 . 1 2 ~~~~

- - loading changed from 0.65 -- 3 . 0 0 0 0 0 4 9 . 7 8 i81.70 5 . 0 0 0 0 0 42 .18 1 5 3 . 9 7 7 . 00COO 36.52 1 3 3 . 3 1 12.c0000 ;3.00000 70 . 0 o c o o

3 C O . 00000

27 .12 9 8 . 9 8 1 8 . 9 4 5 3 . 1 4

4 . 8 6 1 1 . 7 5 0 . 2 3 0 . 8 2

.-

Results for the release of d-limonene with onsite gravity separation only and with gravity separation and wastewater treatment. Results by SIC code.

Untreated Releases (gravity separation only) Cold Cleaning O.Gkg/site/day Warm Cleaning 1.3kg/site/day PC Board Cleaning 1.3kg/site/day

Treated Releases (gravity separation to POTW) Cold Cleaning 0.06kg/site/day Warm Cleaning 0.13kg/site/day PC B o a r d Cleaning 0.13kg/site/day


Release ID#

Release Activity: '[- ]MFG [ ]PRO [ ]IND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ]CONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes In0


NPDES Permit #:


Conc. of Percent of Days/year concern (ug/l) year exceed@d exceeded ..................................................

1.00000 67.14 245.07 7.00000 44.32 161.77

100.00000 2.07 7.54 -- loading changed from 1.30 --

1.00000 61.87 225.84 7.00000 27.77 101.38

100.00000 0.31 1.12

PDM3 Results for Facility in Electroplating 3471)

Release ID# Release Activity: I IMFG [ ]PRO [ IND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes r In0

Jischarge Type : [ ]direct [ ]indirect

NPDES permit t :

Release Days, yr 250 Loading (kg/site/day) : 0.60

Conc. of Percent of Days/year concern ( u g / l ) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

67.54 246.51 1.00000 7.00000 47.77 174.36

100.00000 4.55 16.62

1.00000 63.97 233.47 7.00000 31.32 114.31

100.00000 1.40 5.10

loading changed from 1.30 --

PDM3 Results for Facility in Lge Hsehld Appl & Parts Manuf. (3631-33,39,3431,69

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ ] I N D USE [ ]COMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes r ]no


NPDES Permit # :


Conc. of Percent o f concern (ug/l) year exceeded

1.00000 67.66 7.00000 47.06

100.00000 4.48 -- loading changed from 1.30 -- 1.00000 64.14 7.00000 31.03

100.00000 1.36

....................................... Days/year exceeded .------- ---- 246.97

16.36

234.11 113.26

4.97

171.78

PDM3 Results for Facility in natal Finishing

Release I D #

Release Activity: [ JMFG [ ]PRO [ ] I N D USE [ ]COMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:




NPDES Permit # :

Release DayS/yr 2 50 Loading (kg/site/day) : 0.60

Conc. of Percent of Days/year concern ( u g / l ) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

1.00000 67.97 248.07 7.00'000 50.78 1 8 5 . 3 5

100.00000 6.27 22.80

1.00000 65.47 238.97 7.00000 35.29 128.81

100.00000 2.32 8 . 4 8

1000.00000 0.37 1.33 -- loading changed from 1.30 --

PDM3 Results for Facility in Motor Vehical Manuf. (3711,3713)

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ JMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes [ ]no


NPDES Permit #:


Percent of Days/year C o n c . of concern (ug/l) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

248.68 1.00000 68.13 7.00000 57.08 208.33

100.00000 16.90 61.68 1000.00000 0.43 1.58

1.00000 66.39 242.33 7.00000 47.64 173.87

100.00000 7.75 28.28


1000.00000 0.06 0.22

---- - - . . PDM3 Results for Facility in Electronic Components Manuf. (3674,3679)

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ JMFG [ ]PRO [ ]IND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Locat ion :


Facility on Reach? [ ]Yes I In0


NPDES Permit # :


Conc. of concern ( u g / l ) ------------------

1.00000 7.00000

100.00000 1000.00000

1.00000 7.00000

100.00000

-- loading changed

Percent of year exceeded

68.32 .....................

51.79 7.79 0.74

44.96 10.95 0.74

from 1.30 --

Days/ year exceeded

249.37 189.05

2.71

164.10 39.97 2.71

.-_---------

28.42

PDM3 Results f o r Facility in Can (metal) Manuf. (3411)

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ ]IND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:




NPDES Permit #:


Conc. of Percent of Days/ year concern ( u g / l ) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

36.87 134.56 1.00000 7.00000 4.13 15.07

1.00000 20.34 74.25 7.00000 0.80 2.90


PDM3 Results for Facility in Electroplating (3471)

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ JMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ]COMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:




NPDES Permit #:


Conc. of Percent of Days/ year concern (ug / l ) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

1.00000 40.37 147.36 7.00000 7.28 26.56 10.00000 4.55 16.62

1.00000 24.12 88.02 7.00000 2.48 9.05


PDM3 Results for Facility in Lqe Hsehld Appl 6 Parts Manuf. (3631-33,39,3431,69

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ]COMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes c In0


NPDES Pennit #:

Release Days/ yr 250 Loading (kg/site/day) : 0.06

Conc. of Percent of concern ( u g / l ) year exceeded

1.00000 39.06 7.00000 7.26 10.00000 4.40

1.00000 24.13 7.00000 2.41

_____________-__---_-------------------


Days/ year exceeded

145.51 26.49 16.36

88.09 0.00

.__---------

PDM3 Results f o r Facility in Metal Finishing

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ ]PRO I IIND USE I ICOMM USE [ ICONS

.. Fac i 1 i ty Name

Facility Location:




NPDES Permit I:


Conc. of Percent of Days/year concern (ug/ l ) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

1.00000 4 3 . 8 5 160 .05 7.00000 9.51 3 4 . 7 2 10.00000 6 . 2 7 22 .88

100.00000 0.31 1.33 -- loading changed from 0.13 -- 1.00000 2 8 . 0 0 1 0 2 . 1 9 7.00000 3.71 13.55

_I

PDM3 Results for Facility in Motor Vehical Manuf. (3711,3713)

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ JMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:




NPDES Permit t :


Conc. of Percent of Days/ year concern ( u g / l ) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

1.00000 53.12 193.90 7.00000 22.21 81.07

100.00000 0.43 1.58

1.00000 42.18 153.97 7.00000 11.57 42.24 10.00000 7.75 28.28

100.00000 0.06 0.22


Results for the release of each terpene after gravity separation and wastewater treatment. Results by SIC code.

Treated Releases (gravity separation to POTW) Cold Cleaning O.OGkg/site/day Warm Cleaning 0.13kg/site/day PC Board Cleaning 0.13kg/site/day


Release ID#

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ ]IND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name . . Facility Location:




NPDES Permit #:


Conc. of Percent of Days/year concern (ug/ l ) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

3.00000 14.36 52.40 5.00000 7.23 26.39 7.00000 4.13 15.07 12.00000 1.39 5.07 2 0.00000 0.38 1.40 70.00000 0.01 0.02

300.00000 0.00 0.00

3.00000 4.71 17.18 5.00000 1.74 6.36 7.00000 0.80 2.90

12. O O O O r J 0.18 0.66 20.00000 0.03 0.13 70.00000 0.00 0 . 0 0 300.00000 0.00 0 . 0 0


PDM3 Results for Facility in Electronic Components Manuf. (3674,3679)

Release I D #

Release Activity: [. ]MFG [ ]PRO [ ]IND USE [ ]COMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Locat ion :




NPDES Permit t :


concern (ug / l ) year exceeded exceeded conc. of Percent of Days/year

3 .OOOOO 22.97 83.85 5.00000 14.93 54.49

..................................................

7.00000 10.95 39.97 12.00000 6.53 23.85 20.00000 4.03 14.72 70.00000 1.16 4.23 300.00000 0.11 0.41

PDM3 Results for Facility in Electroplating (3471)

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ ]1ND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


Facility on Reach? [ ]yes I In0


NPDES permit # :


Conc. of Percent of Days/year concern (ug/ 1) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

3.00000 18.21 66.47

7.00000 7.28 26.56 12.00000 3.52 12.84 20.00000 1.60 5.83 70.00000 0.15 0.53

5.00000 10.83 39.53

300.00000 0.00 0.01 -- loading changed from 0.13 -- 3.00000 7.97 29.10 5.00000 4.07 14.86 7.00000 2.48 9.05

20.00000 0.40 1.44 70.00000 0.02 0.08

12.00000 1.02 3.73

300.00000 0.00 0.00

.

PDM3 Results for Facility in Lge Hsehld Appl h Parts Manuf. (3631-33,39,3431,69

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE I ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:




NPDES Permit # :


Conc. of Percent of Da ys/year concern (ug/ 1) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

3.00000 18.40 67.16 5.00000 10.90 39.80 7.00000 7.26 26.49 12.00000 3.44 12.56 20.00000 1.55 5.67 70.00000 0.15 0.55

300.00000 0.00 0.01

3.00000 7.97 29.10 5.00000 4.00 14.59 7.00000 2.41 8 . 8 0

12.00000 1.00 3.66 20.00000 0.40 1.45 70.00000 0.02 0 . 0 8

300.00000 0.00 0.00


PDM3 Results f o r Facility in Metal Finishing

Release I D #

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ ]IND USE [ ]COMM USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:




NPDES Permit #:


Conc. of Percent of Days/year concern (ug/l) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

3.00000 2 1 . 8 0 7 9 . 5 8 5.00000 1 3 . 6 1 4 9 . 6 9 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 9 . 5 1 3 4 . 7 2

1 2 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 . 0 0 1 8 . 2 6

7 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 5 4 1 . 9 6 300.00000 0 .09 0 . 3 3

3 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 . 3 3 3 7 . 6 9 5.00000 5 . 6 8 2 0 . 7 5 7.00000 3 . 7 1 1 3 . 5 5

1 2 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 . 8 2 6 . 6 6 20.00000 0 . 9 4 3 . 4 4 70.00000 0 . 2 3 0 . 8 5

300.C3000 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 6

20.00000 2 . 5 8 9 . 4 3


" _ -- -1

PDM3 Results for Facility in Motor Vehical Manuf.

Release ID#

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ I C O m USE [ ICONS

Facility Name

Facility Location:


(3711,3713)



NPDES Permit I :


Conc. of Percent of Da ys/year concern ( u g / l ) year exceeded exceeded ..................................................

3.00000 36.71 134.00 5.00000 27-79 101.43 7.00000 22.21 81.07 12.00000 14.46 52.76 20.00000 8.54 31.17 70.00000 1.00 3.66

300.00000 0.02 0.09 -- loading changed from 0.13 -- 3.00000 23.40 05.40 5.00000 15.80 57.69 7.00000 11.57 42.24 12.00000 6.09 22.22 20.00000 2.67 9.75 70.00000 0.15 0.56

300.00000 0.00 0.01

A P P E N D I X B

SIC Code-Based Surface Water Concentrations, Drinking Water Exposure, And Fish Ingestion Estimates

To Surface Water Releases

Results For Terpene Cleaners Without Wastewater Treatment Or Gravity Separation (All Operations)

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IME'G [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS US;

Release Activity SIC Code ( s ) : 3674, 3679

Release Description: Electronic Components Manufacture

Release (kg/site/day) : 6.5 6.5

Release days/yr: 250 (before treatment ) (after treatment)

- % !'ILE

STREAMFLOW (MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR:i mean low I mean low I water fish

I I I I

I PLANT I TYPE I I

A1 1

A1 1

A1 1

Direct

Direct

Direct

50

10

98.4 I 6.13 66.061 3.07

12.6 I 57.02 515.871 28.51

NA I NA NA I NA

I I

1 I

25.32 1060

114 235.42

NA NA - 50

10 I

I - I

5 0 I I

I Indirect I

I Indirect I

I Indirect I

I 1

1 0 I I I -

I

I I I / (streamfloi

FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream conc) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/d.. bRINKING WATER AXP = (mean stream co c) k

X (release days7yr) X *Where STREAM CONC = (release after treatment

X (release days/yr) X (1Ok-6) Remarks : Release of terpene cleaner. without treatment.

BCF value 969 Release estimates are for P.C. board cleaning.

S I C CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

ZID==l=ii=====l===PP=E==Il====-==============~================================:

R e l e a s e I D # :

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y : [ J M F G [ ]PRO [ I IND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS U:!

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y S I C C o d e ( s ) : 3411

R e l e a s e Description: C a n (metal) Manufacture

R e l e a s e ( k g / s i t e / d a y ) : 6.5 6.5

R e l e a s e d a y s / y r : 250 (before t reatment) (after t reatment)

PLANT I % TYPE ITILE

A l l I I

A l l I I

A l l I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

Indirect I I

Indirect I I

Indirect I

50

1 0

- 50

1 0

STREAME'LOW IMLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR: mean low I mean l o w I w a t e r f i s h

I I I I

2839 191 1 2.29 34.03; 1.14 I I

9.45

211 10.6 I 30.81 613.211 15.40 I I

I NA NA I NA NA I NA

I I I I I

I I

127.19

NA

I (streamf l o i i *Where STREAM CONC = release a f t e r treatment X ( 000 1 /

s R I ~ I N G WATER k i p = ( m e a n stream co c) k ( 2 1 S ~ y j X ( r e l e a s e days?yr) X ( 0

FISH INGESTION EXP = ( m e a n stream co c ) X ( B C i X (16.9 g f i s h / d < < X ( r e l ease days?yr) X (1Ok-6)

I I

R e m a r k s : R e l e a s e of t e r p e n e c l e a n e r . Without treatment. BCF value 969 R e l e a s e estimates a re f o r warm immersion cleaning.

------=======----- ---=-----------------------=---=- -_---- -----I=--- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-- -I=================:

1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.1854 MLD

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES - -- - ---- 1===========r-----I=--------===---------------==------------------. -------- _______________ _______-___-_-_---. Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS US;

Release Activity SIC Code (s) :

Release Description: Electroplating


Release days/yr: 250

3471

(before treatment ) (after treatment)

I PLANT I TYPE

I

A1 1

A1 1

A1 1

Direct

Direct

Direct I I

IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I (Indirect1

- % lILE

50

1 0

-

50

1 0

STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MGIYR)) mean low I mean low 1 water fish

I I I I

727

2 1 1

NA

I I

50 I I

10 I I I

-

- I

306 I 8.94 21.241 4.41 I I

30.81 406.251 15.40 16 I I I

NA I NA NA I NA I I

I

I

36.92

127 .19

NA

/ ( s t r e a m f l o a

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9 g f:sb./dii

I

bRINKING WATER EXP = (mean stream co c ) X (release days7yr)

I *Where STREAM CONC = (release after treatment

4 (release days 3 yr) X (10k-6) Remarks : Release of terpene cleaner. Without treatment.

BCF value 969 Release estimates are for warm immersion cleaning.

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC &

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS U:!

HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

Release Activity SIC Code (s) : 3631-3633, 3639, 3431, 3469

Release Description: Large Household Appliances and Parts Manufacture


Release days/yr: 250 (before treatment) (after treatment)

PLANT TYPE

A1 1

A1 1

A1 1

Direct

Direct

Direct I

I Indirect I I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

- % PILE -

50

10

- 50

10

-

STREAMFLOW (MLD) I STREAM CONC,. (UGIL) /HUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR: mean low I mean low 1 water fish

I

1349

160

NA

I 50 I

I 10 I

I I - I

I

145 I 4.82 44.83 I

13.3 I 40.63 488.72 t

NA I NA NA ' I

I I I I I

2.41

20.31

19.89

167 .73

NA NA

I I / ( s t r e a m f l o b i

q f:sh/d<<

I

Remarks : Release of terpene cleaner. Without treatment. BCF value 969 Release estimates are for warm immersion cleaning.

=----------------------=pt========l================~=================..==== 1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.1854 M L D

Release Act iv i ty S I C Code(s): 3 4 x x - 3 9 x x

Release Description: Metal Finishing

Release (kg/s i te /day) : 6.5 6.5

Release days/yr: 250 (before treatment) ( a f t e r treatment)

I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UGIL) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MGIYR)~ 1 TYPE ITILE I mean l o w I mean low I water f i s h I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

A l l I I

A l l I I

A l l I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

Direct I

172 I 6 . 6 9 31.791 3.35 I I

12.8 1 40 .88 507.811 20.44

27.64

168.79

50 I 97 1 I

10 I 1 5 9 I I NA I

- I I

I NA 1 NA NA NA NA

50 I I

10 I I I I

- I Indi rec t I I Indi rec t I I I nd i rec t

5 0 I I

10 I I I -

I I *Where” CONC = ( r e l ease a f t e r t rea tment ) X (1000 I / (streamflor;

b R I N K I N G WATER EXP = (mean stream co c) X (21/da

FISH INGESTION EXP = (rr,ean stream co c) X (BCF X (16 .9 g f l s h / d c c I X ( r e l ease days3yr) X (O.OO?

X ( r e l e a s e days3yr ) X (10k-6) Remarks : Release of terpene c,eaner. Without treatment.

BCF value 969 Release estimates are f o r wa:!n immersion cleaning.

=====------=======-------=======,~===================================== 1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD 3.1854 MLD

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC L HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS UI

Release Activity SIC Code (s) : 3711, 3713

Release Description: Motor Vehicle Manufacture

Release (kg/site/day): 6.5 6.5


iUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YFi water fish

% I STREAMF'LOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) rILE I mean low I mean low

I I

I I

I PLANT I TYPE I I

A1 1

A1 1

A 1 1

Direct

Direct

Direct

I I I I I I I I I I I I

150 I 4.61 43.33 I

2.30 19.03

260.56

NA

50 I 1410 I

10 I 103 I I NA I

50 I I

10 I I

-

7.8 1 63.11 833.33 31.55 I

NA I NA NA NA

I I

- I

IIndirectl I I I Indirect I I I IIndirectl

50 I I

10 I I I -

I I (streamflo'

FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream co C) X g flsh/dl

I *Where STREAM CONC = (release afcer treatment

bRINKING WATER EXP = (mean stream co c) k x (release daysr)yr) X creiease days3yr)


..............................................................................

R e l e a s e ID#:

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y : [ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ I I N D USE [ ] C O W USE [ ICONS Us;

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y S I C C o d e (s) :

R e l e a s e Descr ip t ion : C a n (metal) Manufacture

3 4 1 1

R e l e a s e ( k g / s i t e / d a y ) : 3 3 (before t reatment) ( a f t e r t reatment)

R e l e a s e d a y s / y r : 250

STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR); mean low I mean l o w I water f i s h

I I I I

T- PILE -

50

10

-

5 0

10

I PLANT I TYPE I I

A 1 1

A1 1

A 1 1

Direct

Direct

Direct

191 I 1 . 0 6 15.711 0 . 5 3 I I

1 0 . 6 I 1 4 . 2 2 2 8 3 . 0 2 1 7 .11 I I

4.36 I I I I I I I I I I I I

2839

5 8 . 7 0 2 1 1

NA NA NA NA I NA NP I

I I I n d i r e c t l I I / Ind i rec t1 I I I I n d i r e c t l

5 0 I I

10 I I I -

I I I - Is ' . : "3- 5 "Where STREAM CONC = (release a f t e r treatment X ( 00 1 /

6RINKING WATER AXP = (mean stream co c) F I S H INGESTION EXP = (mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16. 3 i : . 3 - . l d <

(2ljdaOl x ( re lease d a y s 7 y r ) X (0.0Oy x ( re lease days7yr) X (1Ok-6)

R e m a r k s : R e l e a s e of terpene c leaner . Without treatment. - BCF value 9 6 9 - R e l e a s e estimates are f o r cold immersion c leaning -

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS US



3471

Release (kg/site/day) : 3 3 (before treatment) (after treatment)


I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW (MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR J TYPE ITILE 1 mean low I mean low I water fish I I I I I I I I I I

306 1 4.13 9.801 2.06 I I

17.04 I All I I I I All I I I

5 0 I 727 I

7.11 5 8 . 7 0 14.22 187.50 16 I I

10 I 211 I

NA NA All I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

Direct I I Indirect I I Indirect I I Indirect

- SO

10

- 50

10

I I I I

I

/ (.9:!*4-:ZE I I

*Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment X ( 0 h (-1td:')I ~RINKING WATER P = mean stream conc) FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.3 4 ! . j - d c

4 (release days/yr) X (0.OOT X (release days3yr) X (10k-6)

Remarks : Release of terpene cleaner. Without treatment. - BCF value 969 - Release estimates are f o r cold immersion cleaning -

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES ..........................................................................

Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ JMF'G [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS US;





PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR)) TYPE

A1 1

A1 1

A1 1

Direct

Direct

Direct

/Indirect1 I I I Indirect I I I IIndirectl

'ILE I mean low I mean low 1 water fish - 50

10

- 5 0

10

-

1349

160

NA

I 50 I

I 10 I

I I -

145 1 2 . 2 2 20.691 1.11 I I

I I 13.3 1 18.75 225.561 9.38

NA NA I NA NA I I I

I I

9.18

77.42

NA

I I I I / (streamfloh

6RINKING WATER EXP = (mean stream conc) k ?21:EO)] FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/ds

*Where STREAM CONC = (release afcer treatment X (release days/yr) X (0.0Oy x (release days7yr) X (10k-6)

Remarks : Release of terpene cieaner. Without treatment. BCF value 969 Release estimates are for C C : ~ Lmersion cleaning

..

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC 6 HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES _-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -I=====tD=P--I====P====IIE=i:

Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ IPRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS U:!

Release Activity SIC Code (s) : 34xx - 39xx Release Description: Metal Finishing



I PLANT I % 1 STREAME'LOW (MLD) I STREAM CONC,. (UG/L) I HUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR: I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish

I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

All I I

All I I

All I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

IIndirectl I I !Indirect1 I I IIndirectl

I 50 I 97 1

I 10 I 159

I I NA I

- 50 I

I 10 I

I I I

- 50 I

I 10 I

I I -

1 7 2 I 3.09 17.441 1.54 I I

I I 12.8 1 18.87 234.381 9.43

I

12.76

77.90

NA

I I I I / (streamfloi

g fish/d..

Remarks : Release of terpene cleaner. Without treatment. BCF value 969 Release estimates are for c o : 3 :,nmersion cleaning

----------------2--------================================~=============:

1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.1854 MLD

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES ----------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS U S





I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE*(MG/YR:: I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I I I I I I I I I I

8.70 All I I

All I I

All I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

Direct I I


150 1 2.13 20.001 1.06 I I

50 I 1410 I

120.26

NA

7.8 I 29.13 384.62 I 14.56 I I

10 I 103 I

NA I NA NA I NA I

I NA I

50 I I

10 I I

-

I I

- IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

50 I I

10 I

- I I I I 1 I

*Where STREAM CONC = (release a f - , e r treatment) X (1000 ] / (streamflosi 6RINKING WATER AXP = (mean stream co c) X (21/da FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream conc) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/d<<

I X (release days3yr) X [O .OO] l X (release days/yr) X (1Ok-6)

Remarks : Release of terpene cieaner. Without treatment. BCF value 969 Release estimates are for cc.3 :,mersion cleaning

Results For Terpene Cleaners With Gravity Separation And No Wastewater Treatment (All Operations)

INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page-of-

Case Number ( s ) :

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release ID#:

Release Activity: [ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ ]IND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS U::





I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR: 1 TYPE ITILE 1 mean low I mean low I water fish I I I I

I I I I I I

I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I [Indirect1 I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

50 i 1060 I

10 I 114 I I NA - I

50 I 543 I

1 0 I 127 I I NA - I

I 50 I 1272

10 I 114 I I NA - I

98.4 1 1.23 13.211 0.61 I I

12.6

NA

31.3

4.25

11.40 103.17

NA NA

2.39 41.53

10.24 305.88 I

5.70

NA

1.20

5.12

NA I NA NA i NA

123 , 1.02 10.571 0.51

17.1 11.40 76.021 5.70

NA NA NA I NA

I

I

I

I

5.06

47.08

NA

9.88

42.26

NA

4.22

47.08

NA I I I

*Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment) X (1000 1 / (streamflo,, bRINKING WATER P = (Fear . stream COnC) X (21/da FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream conc) X (BCF X (16.9 g flsh/d

X 1re:ease days/yr) X (0.OOY X irelease days/yr) X (1Ok-6)

A i

Remarks : Release of terpene ;~;th gravity separation and without WWT

INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page-o f-

Case Number (s) :

113 1 .52 I 11 .50 855.26

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE I ICONS U':

Release Activity SIC Code (SI :

Release Description: Can (metal) Manufacture



3411

(before treatment) (after treatment)

I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW (MLD) 1 STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish

I I I I I I I

I I I

5.75 47.50

I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I [Indirect1 I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

50 I 2839 191 I 0.46 6.811 0.23 1.89 I I I

211 10.6 I 6.16 122.64 I 3.08 25.44 1 0 I I 1 I

NA NAI NA NA I NA NA I - 1 I

597 14.1 I 2.18 8 8 . 4 4 1 1.09 8.99 I

50 I

10

- 50

10

NA NA I NA NA 1

3498 530 0.37 2.45

211 10.6 6.16 122.64 I

NA NA

0.19 1.53

3.08 2 5 . 4 4

NA NA NA NA i NA NA I - I

/ (streamfloe

FISH INGESTION EXP = (me3n stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/dcc (release days7yr) X

I I I *Where STREAM CONC = (release after treatment

bRINKING WATER kXP = Jmean stream co c) k X (release days7yr) X (1Ok-6)

Remarks : Release of terpene ' x i t h gravity separation and without WWT BCF 969 Release is from warm immers::?. cleaning

_. INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page-of-,

Case Number ( s ) :





I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR); I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean 1 ow 1 water fish I I I I I

I I I I I I All I 50 I 1349 145 I 0.96 8.971 0.48 3.98

I I I I I

I I I I I I All I 10 I 160 13.3 I 8.13 97.741 4.06 33.55

NA NA I NA NA I NA NA I All I - I I I I I

9 . c 4 I I Directl 50 I 594 53.8 I 2.19 24.161 1.09

I I I I I Directl 10 I 155 1.98 I 8.39 656.571 4.19 34.63 I

I I I I I % A I Directl -

I I I I I : 4 5

I NA NA I NA NA I NA

IIndirectl 50 I 2179 213 I 0.60 6.101 0.30

3 : , , I I I I I IIndirectl 10 I 171 17.6 1 7.60 73.861 3.80 I I I I I

__

- NA NA 1 NA NA I NA ‘ S A \Indirect1 - I - I I I I I

*Where STREAM CONC = (release after treatment / ( S : : - d - ! . C h 6RINKING WATER LXP = (mean stream COnC) FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream COnC) X (BCF X (16.; ; ’ . i c

X (release days/yr) 4 (release days/yr) X (1Ok-6)

Release of terpene w i t h gravity separation and wi::.-: d C . Remarks : - BCF 969 Release of terpene is from warm immersion cleaning.


Case Number (s) :


==================--==Il=E=========l====l=======Il=E============-===========:

Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG 1 ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS U:



Release days/yr: 250 (before treatment (after treatment)

I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish

I I I I I I I

I I I

I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Indirect I I I I Indirect I I I IIndirectl

50 I 97 1 I

10 I 159 I I NA I

-

50 I 702 I

1 0 I 109 I I NA I

- 50 I 1136

I 1 0 I 176

I I NA - I

172 1 I

12.8 I I

NA I I

51.7 I I

2.08 I I

NA I I

266 1

17.1 I 1

NA I

1.34 7.561 0.67 I

8.18 101.561 4.09 I

NA NA I NA I

1.85 25.151 0.93 I

11.93 625.00; 5.96 I

NA NA i NA I

1.14 4.891 0.57 I

7.39 73.451 3.69 I

NA NAI NA

5 . 5 3

3 3 . 7 6

NA

7 . 5 5

4 9 . 2 4

S A

- I I ( 3 : :- 3 - f.0

, - d

I *Where STREAM CONC = releas: after treatment X (1 0 1 /

I ~RINKING WATER P = mean stream conc) k (21/:ao\ A i FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co C) X (BCF X (16. 3 i '

i (release days/yr) X (0.007 4 (release days 3 yr) X (lOk-6)

Remarks : Release of terpene w i t h gravity separation and w i t ? . : . ' aUT. -

INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page-of-.

Case Number (s) :

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release ID#:

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS U:i




Release days/yr: 250 (before treatment 1 (after treatment)

- % 'ILE

IUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR water fish

STREAMFLOW (MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) mean low I mean low

I I

PLANT TYPE

A1 1

A1 1

A1 1

50

10

- 50

10

- 5 0

10

-

0.49

6.31

NA

4.06 0.98 8.78 148 1 I

7.8 I

1322

103 12.62 166.67 52.11 I

NA I I

NA NA NA NA

Direct I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

8.47

95.85

NA

2.05 33.68 1.03

11.61

NA

634 38.6 I I

56 1.44 I 23.21 902.78

NA NA NA

2202

NA 1 I

223 I I

IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I /Indirect1

0.59 5.83 0.30

5.75

2.44

33.2 I 47.50 11.50 39.lt 113 I I

NA I NA NAI NA I

NA NA I I

*Where STRE& CONC = (release after treatment / (streamflol bRINKING WATER EXP = Jmean stream co c)

(release days3yr) FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream conc) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/d

Remarks : Release of terpene with gravity separation and without WWT.

X (release days/yr) X (10 -6)

BCF 969 Release of terpene is from warm immersion cleaning.

-__----____-________------------.-~=====----------_---_----------====== _------------_____________________ 1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.7854 MLD


Case Number (s) :

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC h HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

PPlli1III===========t=P3=====================================-==============~:

Release ID#:

Release Activity: [ IME'G [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS U::

Release Activity SIC Code(s): 3471




I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR[ I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I I I I I

I I I I I All I 50 I 727 306 1 1.79 4.251 0.89 7.38 I

I I I I All I 10 I 211 16 I 6.16 81.251 3.08 25.44

I I

I I I I NA NA I NA NA I NA NA

I I I All I -

I I I I I Directl 50 I 543 39.7 1 2.39 32.751 1.20 9. 8 8 I

I I I I I 47.92 I Directl 10 I 112 2.13 I 11.61 610.331 5.80

I I I I I I Directl - I NA NA 1 NA NA I NA NA

~~

I I I I I IIndirectl 50 I 727 356 1 1.79 3.651 0.89 I I I I I

7.38

!Indirect1 10 I 223 18.9 1 5.83 68.781 2.91 24.07

IIndirectl - I NA NA I NA NA I NA NA I I I I I

I I I I ( s t reamf 1011 *Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment X ( 00 1 /

~RINKING WATER E$ = p e a n stream co c) k (21jia FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9 g flsh/d.

I

(release days7yr) X ( O . O O ] l X (release days 3 yr) X (1Ok-6)

Remarks : Release of terpene with gravity separation and w i t h o u t WWT. BCF 969 Release of terpene is from warm :mmersion cleaning.


Case Number ( s ) :



Release (kg/site/day) : 0.6 0.6 (before treatment) (after treatment)


I PLANT 1 % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YRi I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I I I I I I I I I I

1.87 I All 1 50 I 1322 148 1 0.45 4.051 0.23 I I

A1 1

A 1 1

Direct

Direct

I Direct I I Indirect I I Indirect I

10

- 50

10

- 50

10

IIndirectl -

103 7.8 I 5.83 76.921 2.91 24.05 I I

NA NA I NA NA NA NA I I

634 38.6 I 0.95 15.541 0.47 3.91 I I

56 1.44 I 10.71 416.67 I 5.36 44.24 I

NA NA I NA NA 1

2202 223 1 0.27 2.69

113 33.2 I 5.31 18.07 I

I

NA NA

0.14 1.13

2.65 21.92

NA NA 1 NA NA I NA NA I I I I

/ (streamflos

FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream conc) g f i s h / d l

I *Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment

4 (release days?yr) ~RINKING WATER hi P = mean stream co c)

X (release days/yr) Remarks : Release of terpene with gravity separation and without WWT.

BCF 969 Release of ternene is from cclld immersion cleanina


Case Number (s) :


E====0==0==E=====T=====I=l==P=l====================-=============================== Release ID#:

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS US



0.6 0.6 Release (kg/site/day) : (before treatment) (after treatment)


I STREAMFLOW (MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) I HUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR

I I TYPE ITILE 1 mean low I mean low I water fish I PLANT I %

I I I I

I I

I I I

I All I I

A 1 1

A1 1

Direct

Direct

1 Direct I I Indirect I 1 Indirect I I IIndirectl

10

- 50

10

- 50

10

I 971 172 I 0.62 3.491 0.31 50 I

I I I 159 12.8 I 3.77 46.871 1.89

I I NA NA NA

I NA NA I

I 702 51.7 I 0.85 11.611 0.43

I I 109 2.08

NA NA

1136 266

176 17.7

5.50 288.46 I 2.75 I

NA NA I NA I

0.53 2.261 0.26 I

3.41 33.901 1.70

2.55

15.58

NA

3.53

22.73

NA

2.18

14.08

NA I I

/ (streamflor;

g f i s h / d r :

I

Remarks : Release of terpene w i t h gravity separation and without WWT. BCF 969 Release of terpene is from c o l d immersion cleaning

.I

.. INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page-of-,

Case Number (s) :


=======-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release ID#:

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS US;







PLANT TYPE

A1 1

A1 1

A1 1

1 Directl 1 I I Directl I I I Directl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

% I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR)i PILE I mean low I mean low I water fish

I I

I I

I I

50 I 1349

1 0 I 160 I

I I NA I

- 50 I 594

10 I 155 I

I I NA - I

50 I 2179 I

10 I 171 I I NA -

145 I 0.44 4.141 0.22 I I

13.3 I 3.75 45.111 1.88 I I

NA NA I NA I

NA I I I

53.8 I 1.01 11.151 0.51

1.98 I 3.87 303.031 1.94 I I

I I

213 I 0.28 2.821 0.14 I I

17.6 I 3.51 34.091 1.75 I I

1.84

15.48

NA

4.17

15.98

NA

1.14

14.49

K A

I I I

*Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment) X (1000 ] / (streamflor I

&& = imean stream conc) X (21/da (release days/yr) X ( O . O O ] l

~RINKING WATER FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9 g f l s h l d i 4 (release daysr)yr) X (10k-6)

Remarks : Release of terpene with gravity separation and without ‘WT. BCF 969 Release of terpene is from c o l d immersion cleaning

Page of INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT - - I .

Case Number (s) :

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC h

=P1=3=1===I=====E==E============D===============-==~================


Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ JMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ JCOMM USE [ ICONS I!

Release Activity SIC Code ( 5 ) :


Release (kg/site/day) : 0.6 0 . 6


3411


I PLANT I % 1 STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR:. I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish

I I I I I I I I I I

I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Indirect I I I /Indirect1 I I IIndirectl

10

5 0

10

211

NA

597

113 I I NA - I

I

I I NA

5 0 I 3498

10 I 2 1 1

- I

1 9 1 I 0.21 3.141 0.11 0.87 I I

2.84 56.601 1 . 4 2 1 1 . 7 4 I

1 0 . 6

NA

14 .7

1 . 5 2

NA

NA NA I NA NA

1.01 40.821 0 .50 4 . 1 5 I

I 5 . 3 1 3 9 4 . 7 4 i 2 . 6 5 21.92

I NA =I NA NA

I 530 I 0 .17 1 .131 0 . 0 9 0 . 7 1

I I 1 0 . 6 I 2 .84 56 .601 1 .42 1 1 . 7 4

I I NA NA NA K A

I NA I

I I

/ ( s t r e a z f l o k *Where STREAM CONC = 6RINKING WATER FISH INGESTION g f : s h / d &

I I

Remarks : Release of terpene w i t h gravity separation and withou: 'WT. ~ ~

BCF 969-- Release of ternene is from cold immersion CleaninCI

".

_ . INITIAt REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page-o f-

Case Number (s) :


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ JCOMM USE [ JCONS US

Release Activity SIC Code (s) : 3471




I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE*(MG/YR: I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low 1 water fish

I I I I I I I I I I

I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

50 I 721 306 I 0.83 1.961 0.41 3.41 I I I

10 I 211 16 I 2 . a4 37.50i 1.42 11.74 I I

- 50

10

NA NA I NA NA I NA NA I I

543 39.7 1 1.10 15.111 0.55 4.56 I

I I 112 2.13 1 5.36 281.69 I 2.68 22.12

1 I NA

I I NA NA I NA NA I NA -

I I 727 356 I 0.83 1.691 0.41 3.41

I 50 I

1 I 223 18.9 I 2.69 31.751 1.35 11.11

I 10 I

I N A

I I NA NA NA NA I NA -

I I I I *Where STREAM CONC = (release after treatment) X (1000 ] / (streamfloTi I SRINKING WATER XP = mean stream conc) X (21/da

FISH INGESTION EXP = r , e a n stream conc) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/d 4 (release days/yr) X (0.001 4 (release days/yr) X (1Ok-6)

A Remarks : Release of terpene ii:ch gravity separation and without WWT.

BCF 969 Release of terpene is from r:.3 immersion cleaning

.. I .

“I

_.

R e s u l t s Fo r Terpene C leane r s With Wastewater Treatment And No G r a v i t y S e p a r a t i o n ( A l l O p e r a t i o n s )

I .

. _

..

..

Release (kg/site/day) : 6.5 0.65 (before treatment) (aft e r treatment )


I PLANT I % TYPE ITILE

A1 1

A1 1

All

Direct

Direct

Direct

Indirect

Indirect

Indirect

50

10

-

50

10

- 50

10

-

STREAMF'LOW(MLD) 1 STREAM CONC. (UG/L) \HUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR mean low I mean low I water fish

I I I I

1060

114

NA

98.4 I 0.61 I

12.6 I 5.70 I

NA I NA I

6.611 0.31 I

51.591 2.85 I

NA I NA

2.53

23.54

NA

I I I I *Where STREAM CONC = (release afcer treatment) X (1000 1 / (streamflo)

bRINXING WATER EXP = Jmea" stream conc) X (21/da FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9 g f i s h / d

I (release days/yr) X (0.OOf' X (release days3yr) X (IO&-6)

Remarks : Release of terpene cleaner. 90 percent treatment. BCF value 969 Release estimates are for P . Z . board cleaning.

..






I PLANT I % I STREAME'LOW (MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) I HUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR. 1 TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I I I I I I I I I I I All I 50 I 2839 191 I 0.23 3.401 0.11 0.95 I I I I I I All I 10 I 211 10.6 I 3.08 61.321 1.54 12.72 I I I I I I All I - I NA NA I NA NA I NA NA I I I I I I Directl 50 I I I I I I i I I Directl 10 I i I I I I I I I Directl - I I I I I I I I IIndirectl 50 I ~ I I I I I I IIndirectl 10 I 1 I I I I I

I I I IIndirectl - I I I I

*Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment / (streamflow

FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream Co C) X (BCF X (16.9 g fishldii X (release daysyyr)

SRINKING WATER hi P = (mean stream co c)

x (release daysl)yr) X (10k-6) Remarks : Release of terpene cleaner. 90 percent treatment.

BCF value 969 Release estimates are for w a r m inunersion cleaning.

.I

..


Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE ICONS U S





I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW (MLD) 1 STREAM CONC. (UG/L) I HUMAN EXPOSURE* (MGIYR:~ I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish

I I I I I I I I I


I All 1

I All I

I All I

Direct

Direct

Direct I

IIndirectl I I [Indirect1 I I IIndirectl I I

5 0 I 727 I

10 I 211 I I NA -

5 0

1 0

- I

50 I I

1 0 I I

306 I 0.89 2.121 0.45 I I

16 I 3.08 40.631 1.54 I I

I NA I NA NAI NA

I

3.69

12.72

NA

I - I I I

*Where STREAM CONC = (release afcer treatment / (streamflor; 6RINKING WATER EXP = p e a n stream conc) FISH INGESTION EXP = mean srream conc) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/&:

)tZij$:o/l (release days/yr) X (O.OO] l

4 (release days/yr) X (10 4 - 6 ) Remarks : Release of terpene cleaner. 90 percent treatment.

BCF value 969 Release estimates are for warm immersion cleaning.



I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I I I I I I I I I I

145 I 0.48 4.481 0.24 I I

1.99

16.77

I All I

I All I I I

50 I 1349 I

I 10 I 160 13.3 I 4.06 48.871 2.03

I I 1 I I All I NA NA I NA NA

I I NA I

50 I I

10 I I

- I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I IIndirectl I I lrndirectl I I IIndirectl

I

I 50 I

I 10 I

I

1

I

I I

- / (streamfloT,

I I

g fish/d.

Remarks : Release of terpene cleaner. 90 percent treatment. BCF value 969 Release estimates are for warm immersion cleaning.

L.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

R e l e a s e ID#:

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y : [ JMFG [ ]PRO [ I I N D USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS U E

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y S I C C o d e (s) : 3 4 x x - 3 9 x x

R e l e a s e Descr ip t ion : Metal F in i sh ing

R e l e a s e ( k g / s i t e / d a y ) : 6.5 0.65

R e l e a s e d a y s / y r : 250 (before treatment) (af ter treatment)

I PLANT I % I STREAMF'LOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR- I TYPE I T I L E I mean l o w I mean low I water f i s h I I I I

I I I I

I I

I All I I I I A l l I I I I All I I Direct I I Direct I I Direct I I Indirect I I Indirect I I Indirectl

50 I 97 1 1 7 2 I 0.67 3.781 0.33 2 .76

10 I 1 5 9 12.8 1 4 .09 50.781 2.04 16.88 I I I

I I I - 50

10

- 50

10

NA NA I NA NAI NA NA

I I I I I I I I

I

I I I - I I I

/ ( s t r e a a f l o i , bRINKING WATER LxP = imean stream co c) k F I S H INGESTION EXP = ( m e a n stream co c) X (BCF X ( 1 6 . 9 g fish/d,.

I I Where STREAM CONC = (release a f t e r treatment

( re lease days7yr) X (0.00'i x ( re lease daysIfyr) X (10 k -6)

R e m a r k s : R e l e a s e of terpene cleaner. 90 percent treatment. BCF value 969 R e l e a s e estimates are f o r warm immersion cleaning.

S I C CODE-BASED AQUATIC L HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

===l=I===L===l===l===I===l=L?====i====i==========-===========-=======-===

Release ID#:

Release A c t i v i t y : [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ I I N D USE [ ] C O W USE [ ICONS U:

Release A c t i v i t y SIC Code (s) : 3711, 3713

Release D e s c r i p t i o n : Motor Vehicle Manufacture

Release ( k g / s i t e / d a y ) : 6.5 0 .65

Release d a y s / y r : 250 ( b e f o r e t r e a t m e n t ) ( a f t e r treatment)

1 PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* ( M G / Y R ' I TYPE I T I L E I mean low I mean low I water f i s h I I I I I I I I I I


All I I

All I I

A 1 1

Direct

Direct

Direct

I I n d i r e c t I I I n d i r e c t I I I n d i r e c t

50 I 1410 I

I 10 I 103

- 5 0

10

- 5 0

10

-

NA

1 5 0 1 0.46 4.331 0 .23 I I

7.8 1 6.31 83.331 3.16 I I

NA I NA NA I NA

1.90

2 6 . 0 6

NA

1- I ( s t re aT f i ow *Where STRE& CONC = release a f t e r treatment X (1 00 1 /

6 R I N K I N G WATER P = mean stream co c) k (21/:a 1 4 (release d a y s 3 y r ) X CO.OO]l hi

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c) X (BCF X ( 1 6 . 9 g f:sh/d<< 4 ( re lease daysrfyr) X (1Ok-6)

I

Remarks: Release of terpene c l e a n e r . 90 percent treatment. BCF v a l u e 969 Release estimates a re f o r warm immersion cleaning.

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC L HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS U S



Release (kg/site/day) : 3 0.3


3411


I PLANT I % I STREAMF'LOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR)j I TYPE [TILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I I I

I I I I I I I


All I I

All I I

All I

Direct

Direct

Direct

I Indirect I I Indirect I I Indirect

50 I 2839

10 I 211 I

I I NA -

50

10

-

5 0 I

10 I I

191 I 0.11 1.571 0.05 I I

10.6 1 1.42 28.301 0.71 I I

NA I NA NA I

NA

I

0.44

5.81

NA

I I (s treamflow;

X (release days 7 yr) X ( FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9 g f l s h l d i i

X (release days7yr) X (10k-6)

I *Where STREAM CONC = (release after treatment X

6RINKING WATER EXP = (mean stream co c) .k (2

,

S I C CODE-BASED AQUATIC 6 HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

--_-_---__ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

R e l e a s e ID#:

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y : [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ I IND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS U2i

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y S I C C o d e (S) :

R e l e a s e Description: E l e c t r o p l a t i n g

R e l e a s e ( k g / s i t e / d a y ) : 3 0 . 3

3471

(before t reatment) ( a f t e r treatment) R e l e a s e d a y s / y r : 2 5 0

I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) iuMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR' w a t e r f i s h

STREAM CONC. (UG/L) mean l o w PILE I mean low I TYPE

I I

- 50 A 1 1

A 1 1

A 1 1

Direct

Direct

Direct

727 0.21 1.70 0 . 4 1 0.98 306

16

NA


0.71 5.87 10 1 . 4 2 18.75 2 1 1

NA NA NA NA NA - 50

10

I 50 I

I 10 I

I

I Indi rec t I I Ind i r ec t I I I n d i r e c t I

I

I - I

*Where STREAM CONC = ( re lease a f t e r treatmentk / ( s t r e a m f l o v bRINKING WATER ExP = p e a n stream co c) FISH INGESTION EXP = r rean stream co c) X (BCF X ( 1 6 . 9 g f l s h / d . ..

( r e l e a s e daysffyr) X ' ( r e l e a s e daysffyr) X (10 k -6)


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release ID#:

Release Activity: [ IME'G [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ]COW USE [ ICONS UI

Release Activity SIC Code(s): 3631-3633, 3639, 3431, 3469


Release (kg/site/day) : 3 0.3


I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YFi I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean 1 ow I water fish

I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I All I

I All I

I All I

I Direct I

I Direct I

I Direct I

I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

50 I 1349 I

10 I 160 I I NA -

50

10

-

50

10

-

145 I 0.22 2.071 0.11 I I

I I

I I

13.3 I 1.88 22.561 0.94

NA I NA NAI NA

I I I I I I 1 I I

I I

I

0 .92

7 . 7 4

NA

I I I I *Where STREAM CONC = (release after treatment X (1000 I / (3: : e a - T i z

6RINKING WATER LXP = (mean stream co c) k (21/pyl FISH INGESTION EXP = (mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9 i ' - d

x (release days7yr) X (0. 0 X (release days9yr) X (10 k -6)

Remarks : Release of terpene cleaner. 90 percent treatment. BCF value 969 Release estimates are for cold immersion cleaning

3 0.3 Release (kg/site/day) : (before treatment) (after treatment)


1 PLANT I % I TYPE ITILE I mean I I I I I

I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR low I mean low 1 water fish I I

I I

I All I

I All I

I All I

I Directl

I Directl

I Directl

(Indirect1

IIndirectl

IIndirectl

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I 0 . 3 1 1.741 0.15 97 1 172 1 50 I

1 . 8 9 23.441 0.94 I

12 .8 I I

1 5 9 1 0 I

NA I I

I I I

I

I

I NA NA I NA NA I -

50 I I I I

10 I I I I I I -

50

10

-

I

1 . 2 8

1 . 1 9

NA

-. Remarks : Release of terpene cleaner. 90 percent treatment.

-. BCF value 969 Release estimates are for cold immersion cleaning -.

-. __-__________-_------------_---=============================-.... . I =:

1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.7854 MLD

Release d a y s / y r : 250

~UMAN EXPOSURE* (MGIYR:; water f i s h

STREAM CONC. (UG/L) mean low

% I STREAMFLOW(MLD) r I L E I mean l o w

I I

PLANT TYPE

0 . 1 1 0.88 A 1 1

A1 1

A 1 1

Direct

Direct

Direct

0 . 2 1 2.00 1 5 0

7.8

NA

50 I 1 4 1 0 I

1 .46 2 . 9 1 38.46 12.03

NA

10 I 103 I

NA NA NA I NA - 50

10

- 50

1 0

I Indi rec t I I I n d i r e c t I I I n d i r e c t I I

*Where STREAM CONC = ( r e l e a s e a f t e r t r e a t m e n t X ( s t reamf 1 or; b R I N K I N G WATER ExP = p e a n stream conc) k ( 2 1 / 8 8 y l

FISH INGESTION EXP = (rrean s t r eam conc) X (BCF X (16.9 g f l s h / d t ? x ( r e l e a s e d a y s / y r ) X ( lo&-6) ( re!ease d a y s / y r ) X (0.

Remarks : Release of t e r p e n e c - e a n e r . 90 percent treatment. BCF value 969 Release estimates are f o r cz.? . -ners ion c leaning

===========------------================================================ 1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.7854 MLD

R e s u l t s For Terpene C leane r s With Grav i ty S e p a r a t i o n And Wastewater Treatment (All Opera t ions)

I N I T I A L REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page- of -.

C a s e Number ( s ) :

I I I

S I C CODE-BASED AQUATIC L HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R e l e a s e I D # :

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y : [ IMFG [ ]PRO 1 I I N D USE [ ICOMM USE I ICONS USE

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y S I C C o d e ( s ) : 3674, 3679

R e l e a s e Descr ipt ion: E l e c t r o n i c C o m p o n e n t s Manufacture

R e l e a s e (kg / s i t e /day ) : 1.3 0.13

R e l e a s e d a y s / y r : 250 (before treatment) (a f te r treatment)

I

PLANT I % TYPE I T I L E

A l l I I

A l l I I

A l l I

Direct

Direct

Direct

Indirect

Indirect

Indirect

50

10

- 50

10

-

50

10

1060

114

NA

543

127

NA

1272

114

NA I

STREAMFLOW (MLD) 1 STREAM CONC. (UG/L) mean l o w 1 mean low

I I

98.4 1 0.12 1.32 I

12.6 I 1.14 10.32

NA

31.3

4.25

NA

123

I NA NA

0.24 4.15

1.02 30.59

NA NA

0.10 1.06

17.1 I 1.14 7.60

NA I NA NA I

IUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) I1 water f i s h II

0.06

0.57

0.51

4.71

NA

0.12

0.51

NA

0.05

0.57

NA

0.99

4.23

NA

0.42

4.71

NA NA

li I I II II II I1 II II II I' I I I I I I I

u K m n i N b w K r h K hxp = mean scream co C I A ( L I I a

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream Co c) X ( CF X (16.9 g f i sh /day) 4 (release days?yr) X 40.80U 4 (release days3yr) X (1Ok-6)

R e m a r k s : R e l e a s e o f terpene w i t h gravi ty separation and WWT BCF 969 R e l e a s e o f terpene is from electronic cleaning.

INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page - of -. Case Number (s ) :


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS US11

Release Activity SIC Code ( s ) :


3411



I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW (MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) ' I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I I 1

I I I

I I I I

I All I I I I All I I . I I All I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I 1 Directl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

50 I 2839 191 I 0.05 0.681 0.02 I I I

10

-

50

10

-

50

10

211 10.6 I 0.62 12.261 0.31

NA NA I NA NA I NA I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

5 97 14.1 I 0.22 8.841 0.11

113 1.52 I 1.15 85.531 0.58

NA NA I NA NAI NA

3498 530 I 0.04 0.251 0.02

211 10.6 I 0.62 12.261 0.31 I I

I NA NA I NA NAI NA I I I

-

0.19

2.54

NA

0.90

4.75

NA

0.15

2.54

NA I

(streamflow) *Where STRFh CONC = release after treatment X' (1000 1 / I

I sRINKING WATER EL = FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9, g fish/day::

mean stream co c) k (21/da 4 (release daysftyr) X (0.OOY 4 (release days7yr) X (10 k -6)

Remarks : Release of terpene with gravity separation and WWT BCF 969 Release of terpene is from warm immersion cleaning.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.7854 MLD

. I

.. INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page-of-

Case Number (s ) :




I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW (MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) , , I TYPE /TILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I 1

I I I I I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I 1 Directl I I I Directl I I I Direct1 I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

50 I 727 306 I 0.18 I I

1 0 I 211 16 I 0.62 I I I NA NA I NA I I

- 50 I 543 39.7 I 0.24

I I 10 I 112 2.13 1 1.16

I I I NA NA I NA I I I I

- 50 I 727 356 I 0.18

10 I 223 18.9 I 0.58 I I I NA NA -

I 0.421

I 8.131

I NAI

I 3.271

I 61.031

I

NAI I

0.371 I

6.88 I I

0.09

0.31

NA

0.12

0.58

NA

0.09

0.29

NA

1 1 0.74 I I

II 2.54 II

I1 NA II

II 0.99 I1

II 4.79 II

II NA II

II 0.74 II

II

II 2.41 I1

NA II I 1


.”


Case Number (s ) :


Release ID#:

Release Activity: [ IMFG I ]PRO I IIND USE I ICOMM USE [ ICONS USE

Release Activity SIC Code ( s ) : 34xx - 39xx Release Description: Metal Finishing



I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOWWLD) I STREAM CONC: (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) I1 I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I All I 50 I 971 172 I 0.13 0.761 0.07 0.55 II I I I I I II I All I 10 I 159 12.8 I 0.82 10.161 0.41 3.38 II I I I I I II I All I - I NA NA I NA NAI NA NA II I I I , I I I1 I Directl 50 I 702 51.7 I 0.19 2.511 0.09 0.76 II I I I I I II I Directl 10 I 109 2.08 I 1.19 62.501 0.60 4.92 II I I I I I II I Directl - I NA NA I NA NA I NA NA II I I I I I II IIndirectl 50 I 1136 266 I 0.11 0.491 0.06 0.47 I1 I I I I I I I IIndirectl 10 I 176 17.7 I 0.74 7.341 0.37 3.05 II I I I I I I I IIndirectl - I NA NA I NA NA I NA NA II I I I I I II

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c) X g fish/day))

/ (streamflow) bRINKING WATER P = mean stream conc) k d (release days/yr) X Ed

d (release dayslyr) X *Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment



Case Number ( s ) :

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES .......................................................................... _________----_______--_-----------------------_--------------------------- Release ID#:

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE 1 ICOMM USE [ ICONS USE

Release Activity SIC Code (s ) : 3631-3633, 3639, 3431, 3469




I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) I1 I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish II

I II I II

I I I I I I I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

I I 50 I 1349 145 I 0.10

I I

I I I NA NA I NA I I

50 I 594 53.0 I 0.22 I I

10 I 155 1.98 I 0.84 I I I NA NA I NA I I

50 I 2179 213 I 0.06 I I

10 I 171 17.6 I 0.76 I I I NA NA I NA I I

10 I 160 13.3 I 0.81

-

-

-

0.90; I

9.77 I I

NA I I

2.421 I

65.661 I

NA I I

0.611 I

7.391 I

NAI I

0.05

0.41

NA

0.11

0.42

NA

0.03

0.38

NA

0.40

3.35

NA

0.90

3.46

NA

0.25

3.14

NA

II II II II li H II I1 II II II I/ II II I I II II

I I II *mere STREAM CONC = (release after treatment X' (1000 I / (streamflow) I 6RINKING WATER EXP = imean stream co c) k (21/da

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream conc) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/day)i (release days7yr) X (0 .001

d (release days/yr) X (10 E: -6) Remarks : Release of terpene with gravity separation and WWT

BCF 969 Release of terpene is from warm immersion cleaning.

1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.7054 MLD I

INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page - of _.. Case Number ( s ) :

SIC CODE-EASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

Release ID#:

Release Activity: [ IMFG I IPRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS US;





I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW (MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) ]HUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR). I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish

I I I I I I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I IIndirectl I I !Indirect1 I I !Indirect1

50 I 1322 I

1 0 I 103 I I NA I

50 I 634 I

10 I 56 I

-

I NA I

-

50 I 2202 I

I 1 0 I 113

I NA -

148 I 0.10 0.881 0.05 I I

I I 7.8 I 1.26 16.671 0.63

38.6 I 0.21 0.10 I I

I I 1.44 I 2.32 90.281 1.16

223 I 0.06 0.581 0.03 I I

I I 33.2 1 1.15 3.921 0.58

0.41

5.21

NA

0.85

9.58

NA

0.24

4.75

NA I I I I I

*Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment X (1000 I / (streamflow) SRINKING WATER P = mean stream co c) k (21/da FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream conc) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/day))

4 (release days3yr) X (0.00T 4 (release days/yr) X (1Ok-6)

44


/ I

., INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page-of-

Case Number ( s ) :


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE 1 ICONS USE

Release Activity SIC Code(s): 3 4 1 1


Release (kg/site/day) : 0.6 0 .06

Release days/yr: 250 (before treatment) (after treafment)

I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) 11 I TYPE (TILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I1

I I I II I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I I Directl 1 I I Directl I I I Directl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

5 0 i 2839 I

I I NA I

I

I

1 0 I 2 1 1

- 5 0 I 5 9 7

1 0 I 1 1 3

I NA I

- 5 0 I 3498

I 1 0 I 2 1 1

I I NA I

-

I I 1 9 1 I 0.02 0.311 0 . 0 1 0.09

I I 10.6 I 0.28 5.661 0.14 1.17

I I NA I NA NAI NA NA

I I 14.7 I 0.10 4.081 0 .05 0.41

I 1 1.52 I 0.53 39.471 0.27 2.19

NA I NA NAI NA NA I I

I I 530 I 0.02 0 .11 i 0 . 0 1 0.07

1 0 . 6 I 0.28 5.661 0.14 1 .17 I I

I I NA I NA NAI NA NA

,

I I II II II II II II 11 I I II II II II II II Ii I! ,

I I I 1 1 ;

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c) X g fish/day)

/ (streamflow) bRINKING WATER &P = mean stream co c) k d (release days7yr)

d (release days3yr) *Where ST& CONC = release after treatment

Remarks : Release of terpene with gravity separation and with WWT BCF 969 Release of terpene is from cold immersion cleaning

Page of - .7 INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT

Case Number (s) :


Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS US11

Release Activity SIC Code (e.) : 3471




I PLANT I % I STREAMF'LOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I I I I I

I I I I I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I 1 Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I IIndirectl I I !Indirect1 t I IIndirectl

I

I

I

50 I 727

10 I 211

306 0.08 0.201 0.04 I I

0.34

I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 / I / I / I I I I I I I II II I1 I I II

16 I 0.28 3.751 0.14 1.17 I I

NA I NA I

- 50 I 543 39.7 I 0.11 1.511 0.06

I I 0.46

112 2.13 I 0.54 28.17 I

0.27

NA

0.04

0.13

2.21 10

- 50

10

NA NA NA I NA NA

356 1 0.08 0.17 I

127 0.34

1.11 I

18.9 i 0.27 3.17 I I

223 I

NA I NA NA i NA I NA - NA ,, I I I I I I1

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/day))

*Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment X (1000 I / (streamflow) bRINKING WATER & = imean stream co c) k (21/da

(release days3yr) X (0.001 4 (release days3yr) X (10k-6)

Remarks : Release of terpene with gravity separation and with WWT R r F afiq --- _I_

Release of terDene is from cold immersion cleanina

1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.7854 MLD #

Page -- of INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT

Case Number ( s ) :

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES ---- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS USE





I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I TYPE ITILE I mean low I I I

I I I I All I

I All I

I All I

I Direct I

I Direct I

I I Direct1 I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

50 1349 I

10 1 . 160 I I NA I

I

I I NA I

- 50 I 5 94

10 I 155

- 50 I 2179

I 10 I 171

I I NA - I

145

13.3

NA

53.8

1.98

STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE" (MG/YR) II mean low I water fish II

I 0.04 0.411 0.02 0.18

0.38 4.51

NA NA

0.10 1.12

0.39 30.30

0.19

NA

0.05

0.19

NA I NA NA 1 NA I I

I I 213 I 0.03 0.281 0.01

17.6 I 0.35 3.411 0.18 I I

NA I NA NA i NA

1.55

NA

0.42

1.60

NA

0.11

1.45

NA

II II II I I II II II I I II II II II II II I1 I' I

I I I I I *Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment X (1000 I / (streamflow) I bRINKING WATER EiP = mean stream co c) (21/da

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/day) 4 (release dayst)yr) X (0.0Oy 4 (release days3yr) X (1Ok-6)

INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page - of h-

Case Number ( s ) :

Release Activity SIC Code (s) : 3 4 x x - 3 9 x x




I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) I1 I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish II I I I I I I I I I I I I II I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I [Indirect1

5 0 I 9 7 1 I

I 1 0 I 1 5 9

I NA - I

I 5 0 I 702

1 0 I 1 0 9 I I NA I

-

1 7 2 i 0.06 0.351 0.03 0.26

12.8 I 0.38 4.691 0.19 1.56

NA NA I NA NA

51 .7 I 0.09 1 .161 0.04 0.35

2.27

NA I NA NA I NA NA

I I

I I

. I I

1 I

I I

I I

I I

I I

NA I

2.08 I 0 .55 28.851 0.28

2 6 6 I 0.05 0.231 0 .03 0.22

17.7 I 0.34 3.391 0.17 1 .41

NA I NA NAI NA NA

I1 II I1 II 11 II II 11 I1 II II II II I1 I1 II II

I I I I I II *Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment X ( 000 ] / (streamflow)

~RINKING WATER P = mean stream co c) .k (21jda I d (release days7yr) X CO.OOf: FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream conc) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/day)) d (release days/yr) X (1Ok-6)

Ad


INITIAL REVIEW: EXPOSURE REPORT Page-o f-

Case Number ( s ) :


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS USE




Release days/yr: 250 (before treatment) ( after treatment )

I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) II I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish II I I I I I II I I I I I II I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

50 I 1322 I

10 I 103 I I NA I

50 I 634 I

10 I 56 I

-

I NA -

148 1 0.05 0.41i 0.02 0.19 I I

7.8 I 0.58 7.691 0.29 2.41

NA I NA NAI NA NA I I

I I 38.6 I 0.09 1.551 0.05 0.39

I I 1.44 I 1.07 41.671 0.54 4.42

I I NA NA NA j NA NA

I I I

I I I 50 I 2202 223 I 0.03 0.271 0.01 0.11

10 I 113 I I NA -

33.2 I 0.53 1.81; 0.27 2.19 I I

NA I NA NA i NA NA

I I I1 I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I *Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment X (1000 1 / (streamflow) I bRINKING WATER &P = mean stream co c) (21/da

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/day) d (release days7yr) X (0.001 d (release days7yr) X (lo&-6)


1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.7854 MLD

Results For Aqueous Cleaner Formulations Without Gravity Separation Or Wastewater Treatment (All Operations)


------------------ ------------------E--- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ ]IND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS USE

Release Activity SIC Code(s): 3674, 3679



Release days/yr: - 250 (before treatment) (after treatment)

1 *Where-

TYPE TILE """

I 1 CONC = release after treatment x

~ i i i I

I All I All I

STREAMFLoW(MLD) mean low

i I

I I

Direct I Direct I Direct I

:ndirect I


i :ndirect I

:ndirect I I

50

10

- 50

10

- 50

10

-

1060

114

NA

I

98.4 I 10.66 114.84

99.12 896.83 I

12.6 I I

NA j NA NA I

I i I

iUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) water fish

5.33

49.56

NA

] / (streamflow)

(16.9 g fish/day

Remarks : Release of aqueous cleaner. Without treatment. No BCF value available for the aqueous cleaner formulations. Release estimates are for electronic cleaning only.


============o=============P=================-=========================-------

Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ ]MFG [ ]PRO [ ]IND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS USE:


Release Description: can (metal) Manufacture



PLANTll TYPE TILE STREAMFLOW (MLD) mean low


!" EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) water fish

50

10

- 50

10

- 50

10

-

2839 ~ i i j 191

10.6

NA

0.11 1.57

1.42 28.30

NA NA

0.05

0.71

NA

i All I

I 211

NA ~ i i i I I

I I I I

Direct I Direct I Direct I

:ndirect 1 :ndirect I :ndirect I

I- *Where STR€

~ R I N P after treatment X In stream conc) R I

'1000 3 / (streamflow) bdav 1

:elease da s/yk) X' In stream gone) x ( :elease days/yr) X

1'. 001) :F X (16.9 g fish/day) LO A -6) FISH INGESTION EXP = m i

Remarks : Release of aqueous cleaner. Without treatment. No BCF value available for the aqueous cleaner formulations. Release estimates are for heated cleaning only.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Release ID#:






STREAMFLoW(MLD) mean low 7 TYPE TILE


I

I I I I I I I I

All I All I All I Direct I

Direct I Direct I

tndirect I tndirect I tndirect I

I S RINK *Where STRE

50

10

- 50

10

- 50

10

-

727

211

NA

306 j 0.41 0.98 I

16 j 1.42 18.75

NA NA I

NA I 1

I

NMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) water fish

0.21

0.71

NA

] / (streamflow)

(16.9 g fish/day


u I l p u ~ I u p I I I P i E i E = ~ ~ I I L I I p r = = = = = ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.7854 MLD

SIC CODELBASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release ID#:


Release Activity SIC Code(s): 3631-3633, 3639, 3431, 3469




STREAMFLOW (MLD) mean low 7 TYPE TILE


~ i i I I I

I I I I I I

All I All I Direct I Direct I Direct I

tndirect I Cndirect I Cndirect I

I *Where STRE

~ R I N X

50

10

- 50

10

- 50

10

-

1349

160

NA

145 j 0.22 2.07

1.88 22.56

NA NA

I I I

13.3 I NA 1.

I I I I I I I I I I

I 4 CONC = release after treatment 1 JG WATER d4P = pea, stream conc) 1( (

mean stream z onc) X ( (release da s/yr) X

4 (release days/yr) X FISH INGESTION EXP =

KJMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) water fish

0.11

0.94

NA

3 / (streamflow)

(16.9 g fish/day)



========- -=E=DP=====s=============S====I=E=--------- ---------31===1=============

Release ID#:


Release Activity SIC Code(s): 34xx - 39xx




STREAMFLoW(MLD) mean low

~ i i 1 I I

I

All I All I Direct I

I


Direct I Direct I

Indirect I Indirect I Indirect I

I I I I

5 0

10

- 5 0

10

- 5 0

10

9 7 1

159

NA

172 j 0 . 3 1 1.74

1 .89 23.44 I

1 2 . 8 1 NA NA

I NA I

I

I

(release days/yr) X d (release days/yr) X

I CONC = release after treatment X JG WATER E L = imean stream conc) 4 (

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream conc) X (

CUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) water fish

0.15

0 .94

NA

] / (streamflow)

( 1 6 . 9 g fish/day)

Remarks: Release of aqueous cleaner. Without treatment. No BCF value available for the aqueous cleaner formulations. Release estimates are for heated cleaning only.


STREAMFLOW (MLD) STREAM CONC. (UG/L) mean low mean low

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ Release ID#:


Release Activity SIC Code(s): 3711, 3713




HUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) water fish

I All I I I i ~ i i i I I I All I I I I I I Directl

i Direct1 I I I Directl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

50

10

- 50

10

- 50

10

- I- ~RINII

*Where STRE I

1410 I I

150 j 0.21 2.001 0.11

1.46

NA

I I I

NA NAI I

NA I I I

2.91 38.461 7.8 I 103

NA

I I I CONC = release after treatment X 1000 ] / (streamflow) IG WATER kdP = mean stream conc) k (2f/da d (release days/ r) X g O . O O Y

FISH INGESTION EXP = d (release days/yr) X (10 -6) k mean stream con Y2 ) X ( CF X (16.9 g fish/day)

Remarks: Release of aqueous cleaner. Without treatment. No BCF value available for the aqueous cleaner fOrmUlatiOnS. Release estimates are for heated cleaning only.

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC & HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES ---_------__--____---------------====------------------------------------- ................................. Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE I ICOMM USE [ ICONS USE

Release Activity SIC Code ( s ) :



3411

(before treatment) (after treatment) Release days/yr: 250

PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) TYPE ITILE I mean low

I I

I I

All I I

All I I

All I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

IIndirectl I I IIndirectl I I IIndirectl

50 i 2839 I

I I NA I

50 I I

10 I I

10 I 211

-

50 I I

10 I I I - I

191

10.6

NA


0.46 6.81

6.16 122.64

NA NA

iUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) II water fish II

II II

0.23

3.08

NA

I I I

II I I II II II II II II I1 II I I II II I1 II II II

I I I I1

SRINKING WATER P = mean stream co c) FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c ) X g fish/day)

*Where ST& CONC = Apelease after treatmenti / (streamflow) 4 (release days3yr) X 4 (release days3yr)

Remarks : Release of aqueous cleaner. Without treatment. No BCF value available for the auueous formulations. Release estimates are for co ld immersion cleaninu

SIC CODE-BASED AQUATIC L HUMAN EXPOSURE TO SURFACE WATER RELEASES ____________________------------------------------------------------------ Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IME'G I ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS USE





IUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) I1 water fish II

II II

% I STREAMF'LOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) PILE I mean low I mean low

I PLANT I TYPE I I I

I

I

306 I 1.79 4.25

16 I 6.16 81.25

NA I NA NA

A1 1

A1 1

A1 1

II I1 II II II II II II II I 1 II II 11 II II II II

0.89

3.08

NA I


50 I 127 I

10 I 211 I I NA I

- I

Direct I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

50 I I I

10 I I

I I I

50 I I

10 I I

-

I Indirect I I I IIndirectl I I I Indirect I

I

I - I I I I I II

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c ) (16.9 g fish/day))

*Where STREAM CONC = release after treatment ] / (streamflow) mean stream co c) 4 (release daysqyr) ~RINKING WATER A4 P =

4 (release days7yr) Remarks : Release of aqueous cleaner. Without treatment.

No BCF value available for the aqueous formulations. Release estimates are for cold immersion cleaning

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CFS = 2.4465 MZD 1 MGD = 3.1854 MZD


Release ID#:

Release Activity:[ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS USE:

Release Activity SIC Code ( s ) : 3631-3633, 3639, 3431, 3469




I PLANT I ?i I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) I I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I I I I I I I I I I

All I I

All I I

All I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

Direct I I

50 I 1349 I

1 0 I 160 I I NA -

145 I 0.96 8.971 0.48

13.3 I 8.13 97.741 4.06

NA I NA NAI NA

I I

I I

50

10

I I I I I I I I I I I

-

50

10

Indirect I I

Indirect I I

Indirect I

I I I

I I I

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c ) X (BCF X (16.9 g fish/day)

*Where STRE 1 CONC = (release after treatment X (1000 I / (streamflow) bRINKING WATER BXP = mean stream co c) k (21/da 4 (release days3yr) X (0.007

d (release days7yr) X (10 k -6) Remarks : Release of aqueous cleaner. Without treatment.

No BCF value available for the aqueous formulations. Release estimates are for cold immersion cleaning

____________-____-______________________---------------------------------- ________________________________________---------------------------------- 1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.7854 MLD


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Release ID#:

Release Activity: [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ IIND USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS USE

Release Activity SIC Code (s) : 34xx - 39xx




I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW (MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) I TYPE ITILE I mean low I mean low I water fish I I I I I I I I I I All I I I I All I I I I All I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I Indirect I

I Indirect I

I Indirect I

I

I 50 I 971

10 I 159 I I NA I

-

50 I I

10 I I I - I

50 I I

10 I I I -

172 1 1.34 7.561 0.67 I I

12.8 I 8.18 101.561 4.09

NA I NA NA I NA I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

/ I I I / I / I

I I

I I 1 1

I I II

I I I I I1

FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c) X (16.9 g fish/day))

*Where STREAM CONC = (release after treatmenth J / (streamflow) sRINKING WATER ExP = imean stream co c)

4 (release days3yr) (release days3yr) X

Remarks : Release of aqueous cleaner. Without treatment. No BCF value available for the aqueous formulations. Release estimates are for cold immersion cleaning

____________________-----------------------------------------------------=~ __----------------- 1 CFS = 2.4465 MLD 1 MGD = 3.7854 MLD


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R e l e a s e I D # :

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y : [ IMFG [ ]PRO [ I I N D USE [ ICOMM USE [ ICONS USE:

R e l e a s e A c t i v i t y S I C Code (s) : 3711, 3 7 1 3

R e l e a s e Descr ipt ion: Motor V e h i c l e Manufacture

R e l e a s e ( k g / s i t e / d a y ) : 1.3 1 .3

R e l e a s e days/yr : 2 5 0 (before t r ea tmen t ) ( a f t e r treatment)

I PLANT I % I STREAMFLOW(MLD) I STREAM CONC. (UG/L) IHUMAN EXPOSURE* (MG/YR) I I TYPE ITILE I mean l o w I mean low I water f i s h I

I A l l I I I I A l l I I I I A l l I I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Directl I I I Indirect I I I I Indirect l I I I Indirect I

50 I 1 4 1 0 150 I 0.92 0 . 6 7 1 0 . 4 6 I I I

10 I 1 0 3 1.0 I 1 2 . 6 2 1 6 6 . 6 7 1 6 . 3 1 I I I I NA NA I NA NA I NA I I I

- 50 I I I

I I I 1 0 I I I

I I I I I I I I I

-

50 I I I I I I

10 I I I I I I I I I -

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I *Where STREAM CONC = release af ter treatment X ( 1 0 0 0 ] / (streamflow)

SRINKING WATER LdP = mean stream co c) k ( 2 1 / d a I d (release d a y s 7 y r ) X (0.001 FISH INGESTION EXP = mean stream co c ) X (BCF x ( 1 6 . 9 g f i s h / d a y ) d (release d a y s 7 y r ) X (10k-6)

1\ 7

i fate and exposure assessment of - p2 infohouse · known physicbl and chemical properties and by...

Documents