United States
Environmental Protection Agency


# Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

April 2012

## U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (4303T) Engineering and Analysis Division

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

EPA-821-R-12-003Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



## Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment for the Final Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

The Airport Deicing Effluent Guidelines final rule and support documents were prepared by Office of Water staff.

The following contractors provided assistance in performing the analyses supporting the
conclusions detailed in this document:

Abt Associates, Inc. Eastern Research Group, Inc. Stratus Consulting, Inc.

Neither the United States Govern ment nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party’s use of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this document, or represents that its use by such a party would not infringe on privately owned rights. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement by EPA or recommendation for use.

iEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



## Contents

1 Introduction

.............................................................................................................................. ..... 1-1

1.1 Airport Deicing and Anti-icing Operations ..................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Airport Deicing and Anti-Icing Product Formulations .................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Airport Deicing Chemical Dispersion in the Environment ............................................................. 1-4

1.4 Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Operation Discharges ............................................. 1-5

2 Airport Deicing Product Components and Environmental Behavior ...................................... 2-1

2.1 Airport Deicing Product Components ............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components ..................................................... 2-1

2.2 Environmental Behaviors of Air port Deicing Product Components ............................................. 2-10

2.2.1 Environmental Behaviors ................................................................................................. 2-11

2.2.2 Detailed Airport Deicing Product Component Profiles .................................................... 2-18

3 Environmental Impact Potential under Current Airport Deicing Practices ........................... 3-1

3.1 Universe of In-scope Airports ......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges to the Environment .............................................................. 3-2

3.2.1 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge to the Environment.................. 3-2

3.2.2 Quantified Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge Estimates ................................................ 3-6

3.3 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Concentrations in Receiving Surface Waters ...... 3-11

3.4 Documented Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges ....................... 3-13

3.4.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Dissolved Oxygen, and Nutrient Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-15

3.4.2 Wildlife Impacts ............................................................................................................... 3-17

3.4.3 Human Health, Aesthetic, and Othe r Aquatic Resource Use Impacts ............................. 3-17

3.4.4 Permit Violations .............................................................................................................. 3-19

3.5 Potential Current Impacts to Impa ired Waters and Other Resources ............................................ 3-19

3.5.1 303(d)-Listed Waters Receiving Airport Deicing Discharges .......................................... 3-20

3.5.2 Airport Deicing Discharges Listed as TMDL Point Sources ........................................... 3-29

3.5.3 Resources Located Downstream from Airport Deicing Discharge Outfalls .................... 3-30

4 Benefits of Final Regulatory Options ........................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Final Regulatory Options ................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Airports Affected by the Final Regulatory Options ........................................................................ 4-2

iiEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### 4.3 Environmental Benefits Anticipat ed under Final Regulatory Options ............................................ 4-3

4.3.1 Airport Actions and Benefits under Final Regulatory Options .......................................... 4-4

4.4 Expected Ecological, Human Aquatic Res ource Use, and Human Health Benefits ....................... 4-9

4.4.1 Ecological Benefits ............................................................................................................. 4-9

4.4.2 Human Health Benefits ...................................................................................................... 4-9

4.4.3 Human Use of Aquatic Resource Benefits ....................................................................... 4-10

5 References

.............................................................................................................................. ........ 5-1

Appendix A : Detailed Characterizati on of Airport Deicing Products .............................................. A-1

Appendix B : Surveyed Airports within Scope for EPA’s Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations

.............................................................................................................................. ....... B-1

Appendix C : Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges .............................................. C-1

iiiEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



## Tables

Table 1-1: U.S. Commercial Airports - Nationa l Estimate of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing
Fluid Use/Purchase * ......................................................................................................................... 1-3

Table 1-2: U.S. Commercial Airports - Nationa l Estimate of Pavement Deicer Chemical Use ................ 1-3

Table 2-1: Comparison of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing Fluid Characteristics by Type ...................... 2-3

Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components ........................................................... 2-5

Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF Application Sites at Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule ............................................ 3-7

Table 3-2: Ammonia Discharge from Deicing Operat ions at Surveyed Airports within Scope of

the Final Rule

.............................................................................................................................. ..... 3-10

Table 3-3: Estimate of National Baseline COD Discharges from ADF Application Sites and Airfield Pavement Deicing by Airport Hub Size Category ............................................................. 3-11

Table 3-4: Estimate of National Baseline Ammonia Discharges from Airfield Payment Deicing by Airport Hub Size Category ......................................................................................................... 3-11

Table 3-5: Documented Environmental Impacts Associated with Airport Deicing Discharges .............. 3-14

Table 3-6: Airport Deicing System Improvements for In-scope Airports .............................................. 3-15

Table 3-7: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Fresh Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule ............................................... 3-21

Table 3-8: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Ma rine Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule ............................................... 3-22

Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final Rule ............................................................................................ 3-23

Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule .......................................................................................... 3-31

Table 4-1: Regulatory Options Evalua ted for the Airport Deicing Category ............................................ 4-1

Table 4-2: Surveyed Airports Affected by Final Regulatory Options ....................................................... 4-3

Table 4-3. Option 1 – Airport Load Reductions and Environmental Benefits ......................................... 4-5

Table 4-4. Option 2 – Airport Load Reductions and Environmental Benefits ......................................... 4-7

Table 4-5. Option 3 – Airport Load Reductions and Environmental Benefits ......................................... 4-8

Table 4-6: Annual Pollutant Discharge Reductions under Regulatory Options ........................................ 4-9

Table A-1: Surveyed U.S. Commercial Airports- Chemical Pavement Deicer Usage ............................. A-1

Table A-2: Chelating Agents .................................................................................................................... A-2

ivEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Table A-3: Freezing Point Depressants: Sugars ....................................................................................... A-3

Table A-4: Freezing Point Depressants: Acetates ..................................................................................... A-4

Table A-5: Freezing Point Depressants: Formates and Lactates .............................................................. A-5

Table A-6: Freezing Point Depressants: Other ......................................................................................... A-6

Table A-7: Freezing Point Depressants: Ethylene Glycols ....................................................................... A-7

Table A-8: Freezing Point Depressants: Propylene Glycols ..................................................................... A-9

Table A-9: Freezing Point Depressants: Urea and Metabolites .............................................................. A-10

Table A-10: Thickeners: Acrylic Acid Polymers ................................................................................... A-11

Table A-11: Thickeners: Natural Gums .................................................................................................. A-12

Table A-12: Thickeners: Other ............................................................................................................... A-13

Table A-13: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates ....................................................................................... A-14

Table A-14: Surfactants: Alkylbenzene Sulfonates ................................................................................ A-15

Table A-15: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates ....................................................................................... A-16

Table A-16: Surfactants: Alkylphenol Ethoxylates ................................................................................ A-17

Table A-17: Surfactant Breakdown Products: Alkylphenols .................................................................. A-18

Table A-18: Surfactants: Diamines ......................................................................................................... A-19

Table A-19: Surfactants: Polyethylene Oxide Monomer and Polymer ................................................... A-20

Table A-20: Surfactants: Other Nonionic Detergents ............................................................................. A-21

Table A-21: Corrosion Inhibitors a nd Flame Retardants: Tolyltriazoles ................................................ A-22

Table A-22: Corrosion Inhibitors and Flame Retardants: Other Triazoles ............................................. A-23

Table A-23: Corrosion Inhibitors: Alcohols ........................................................................................... A-24

Table A-24: Corrosion Inhibitors: Nitrite, Nitrate, and Silicate Salts ..................................................... A-25

Table A-25: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Inorganics ............................................................................... A-26

Table A-26: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Organics ................................................................................. A-27

Table A-27: Corrosion Inhibitors: Ethanolamines .................................................................................. A-28

Table A-28: pH Buffers, Phosphate-Based ............................................................................................. A-29

Table A-29: pH Reducers ....................................................................................................................... A-30

Table A-30: Antifoamers: Silicones ....................................................................................................... A-31

Table A-31: Antifoamers: Silicones and Other Substances .................................................................... A-32

Table A-32: Dyes

.............................................................................................................................. ...... A-33

Table A-33: Additional Dyes .................................................................................................................. A-34

Table A-34: Hydrophobic Agents ........................................................................................................... A-35

vEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Table A-35: Solvents

.............................................................................................................................. A-36

Table A-36: Solvents: Alcohols and Other Solvents .............................................................................. A-38

Table A-37: Plasticizers and Other Miscellaneous Substances .............................................................. A-40

Table A-38: Degradation Products ......................................................................................................... A-42

Table A-39: Emulsifiers and Other Miscellaneous Substances .............................................................. A-44

Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components .............................. A-46

Table A-41: Human Health Effects of Airport De icing Product Components as Reported in IRIS, EPA NRWQC, EPA Drinking Water MCLs, and RSEI ................................................................. A-49

Table A-42: Acetate

.............................................................................................................................. .. A-50

Table A-43: Alcohol Ethoxylates ........................................................................................................... A-51

Table A-44: Dyes

.............................................................................................................................. ...... A-52

Table A-45: Ethylene Glycol .................................................................................................................. A-53

Table A-46: Formate

.............................................................................................................................. . A-55

Table A-47: Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates ....................................................................... A-56

Table A-48: Polyacrylic Acid ................................................................................................................. A-58

Table A-49: Potassium ............................................................................................................................ A -59

Table A-50: Propylene Glycol ................................................................................................................ A-60

Table A-51: Sodium

.............................................................................................................................. .. A-61

Table A-52: Tolyltriazoles, Benzotriazoles, Methyl-substituted Benzotriazole ..................................... A-62

Table A-53: Urea and Ammonia ............................................................................................................. A-63

Table B-1: Surved Airports within Scope fo r EPA’s Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operations

.............................................................................................................................. ........... B-1

Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges ......................................................... C-1



## Figures

Figure 3-1: In-scope Airports for EPA’s Efflue nt Guideline Regulations for Airport Deicing Operations .................................................................................................................... ...................... 3-2

Figure 3-2: Initial Receiving Water Discharg e Flows at EPA Surveyed Airports ................................... 3-12

Figure 3-3. Initial Receiving Water Slop es at EPA Surveyed Airports ................................................... 3-13

viEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



## Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADF— Aircraft Deicing and Anti-icing Fluid
AMS —Aerospace Material Specification

atm —Atmospheres
BAF —Bioaccumulation Factor
BCF —Bioconcentration Factor
BOD —Biochemical or Biological Oxygen Demand
BOD 5 

### —Five Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
C —Celsius
CASRN —Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number
CBOD 5 

### —Five Day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand
cfs— Cubic Feet per Second
COD —Chemical Oxygen Demand
DO —Dissolved Oxygen
EPA —United States Environmental Protection Agency
EC
x 

### —Effective Concentration for x% of test organisms
ESRI —Environmental Systems Research Institute

g —Gram
GA/C —General Aviation and/or Cargo
GIS— Geographical Information System
GCV —Glycol Collection Vehicle
IARC —International Agency for Research on Cancer
IRIS —Integrated Risk Information System kg —Kilogram

K
oc 

### —Soil organic carbon adsorption coefficient

K
ow 

### —Octanol water partition coefficient

L— Liter
LC
x 

### —Lethal Concentration for x% of test organisms
LOEC —Lowest Observed Effect Concentration
LOAEL —Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level

m— Meter
MATC —Maximum Allowable Toxicant Concentration
MCL —Maximum Contaminant Level

mg— milligram

mm— millimeter
MSDS —Material Safety Data Sheet
NHD— National Hydrography Dataset
NOEC —No Observed Effect Concentration
NOAEL —No Observed Adverse Effect Level
NPDES— National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRWQC —National Recommended Water Quality Criteria
NWRA —National Wildlife Refuge Area
POTW —Publicly Owned Treatment Works
RfC— Reference Concentration
RfD —Reference Dose
RSEI —Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators model
SAE —Society for Automotive Engineers

viiEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

viii 

### SOFP —Snow or Freezing Precipitation

TMDL —Total Maximum Daily Load

μg— microgram
WATERs— Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results
WOE —Weight of Evidence
WTP —Willingness to PayEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Asse ssment for the Final 1. Introduction Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



## 1 Introduction

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating effluent limitation guidelines and new source performance standards for the Airport Deicing Point Source Category. The regulations address both the wastewater collection practices used by airports, and the treatment of those wastes. Airports in the scope of this regulation are defined as Primary Commercial Airports with greater than or equal to a 1,000 annual non-propelle r-driven aircraft departures. This document discusses environmental impacts associated with deicing operations at these ai rports and the environmental benefits EPA estimates would result from pollutant discharge reductions under the final regulatory options. This document presents information on the environmental impacts air port deicing discharges have caused in the past and on their potential to do so in the future. The fi nal regulatory options will reduce the frequency and severity of environmental impacts associated with ai rport deicing discharges. The regulatory options will primarily benefit surface waters, though soil and gr oundwater resources could benefit from pollutant discharge reductions, as well.

This introduction briefly describes the nature of airp ort deicing operations and their pollutant discharges and provides an overview of associated environm ental impacts. Additional information on the characteristics of airport deicing operations and their discharges is available in the Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Lim itation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2010). EPA’s final rule addresses only those deicing activities that take place on the airfield side of airports where aircraft are active. It does not address pollutant discharges from deicing activities airports undertake to clear snow a nd ice from parking lots, roads, sidewalks and other airport surfaces beyond the airfield.

Chapter 2 of this document provides information on the ch emical composition of ai rport deicing products used in the United States and discusses the potential for environmental impacts from various formulation ingredients. Chapter 3 provides information on known locations and levels of U.S. airport deicing operation discharges and associated environmental impacts. Chapter 4 discusses each of the final regulatory options in terms of the environmental be nefits EPA estimates would result from each option.



### 1.1 Airport Deicing and An ti-icing Operations

The purpose of airport deicing operations is to ensu re safe aircraft departures, landings, and travel on airport grounds. Frozen precipitation or frost on airc raft surfaces can compromise aircraft ability to obtain sufficient lift for departures or damage aircraft. Frozen precipitation on the airfield can cause loss of

aircraft control due to lack of traction between ai rcraft wheels and airfield surfaces. Frost and frozen precipitation must be addressed if aircraft ar e to function safely under winter conditions.

There are two types of snow and ice removal ope rations. Deicing operations remove snow and ice

accumulations from aircraft and airfield surfaces. Anti-icing operations prevent snow and ice from accumulating on aircraft and airfield surfaces, either before accumulation can take place or after a surface has been cleared by deicing operations. Both aircra ft and airfield surfaces undergo deicing and anti-icing operations. In this document, the phrase “airport deic ing operations” refers gene rally to all deicing and anti-icing operations that take place at airports.

Aircraft deicing removes snow and ice accumulations from aircraft surfaces. Aircraft deicing includes both “wet weather” and “dry weather” deicing. We t weather deicing takes place during or after weather

1-1Environmental Impact and Benefits Asse ssment for the Final 1. Introduction Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### events that coat aircraft surfaces with snow or ice. Dry-weather deicing takes place when ambient temperatures are low enough, typically below 55° F, to allow frost or ice formation on aircraft surfaces. During a typical aircraft deicing process, trained personnel spray specially formulated and heated deicing fluids on aircraft surfaces at high pressure in order to remove snow and ice. Depending on the aircraft, snow and ice accumulation levels, and weather cond itions, wet weather deicing of a single aircraft requires the use of a couple hundred to several thousa nd gallons of aircraft deicing fluid. Dry weather deicing requires less fluid than wet weather deic ing because of lower ice accumulations during dry

weather conditions.

Aircraft anti-icing takes place when weather conditions threaten to re-contaminate freshly deiced aircraft surfaces with new snow or ice. Aircraft anti-icing fl uids are specially formulated to temporarily prevent snow and ice accumulation on deiced aircraft surfaces, protecting aircraft until their departure from an airport. Anti-icing is typically necessary only during wet weather conditions. The process consists of the spraying of a thin layer of anti-icing fluid onto airc raft surfaces by trained personnel. Aircraft anti-icing

fluids are viscous and adhere to aircraft surfaces until take-off. The process requires a smaller volume of fluid than the aircraft deicing process.

Airfield pavement surfaces must also be cleared of snow and ice. Pavement deicing and anti-icing operations remove and prevent, respectively, snow and ice accumulations on airfield runways, taxiways, aprons, gate areas, and ramps. Airports use both mechanical and chemical means to clear airfield pavement. Most frequently, airports use mechanical m eans such as plows, blowers, and brooms to remove ice and snow (US EPA 2011). Because ice and snow can be difficult to remove by mechanical methods alone, many airports also apply li quid or solid chemical pavement deicers. Some of these deicers are applied prior to precipitation events as anti-icers in or der to prevent ice formation or ease later removal of snow and ice. Airports also frequently apply sand to increase airfield traction.

Deicing operations typically take place during the winter when low temperatures and freezing precipitation (e.g., snowfall, freezing rain, and ice) occur. Local climate conditions determine both the duration and intensity of deicing seasons at individu al airports. The deicing season can begin as early as September and continue through May in colder regi ons of the U.S. In general, however, December, January, and February are the peak deicing months for U.S. airports, and September and May have the lowest incidence of deicing activity. The majority of airports have a five month deicing season, though some airports have seasons as short as two months or as long as nine months.

The nature, frequency, and intensity of precipitation events also vary from airport to airport. Some airports rarely engage in deicing activities beyond ai rcraft frost removal, whereas other airports often cope with frequent and heavy snow or ice storms that necessitate both aircraft and pavement anti-icing and deicing. There can even be substantial variab ility among weeks or seasons at individual airports as weather patterns shift and affect the necessity for de icing activity. The nature and intensity of deicing activities and their associated polluta nt discharges therefore vary substantially both among airports and among deicing seasons at individual airports.



### 1.2 Airport Deicing and Anti -Icing Product Formulations

Airport deicing products include airc raft deicing fluids, aircraft anti- icing fluids, and airfield pavement deicers. The materials used for aircraft deicing and an ti-icing are specially formulated fluids with multiple chemical components. Pavements materials are typically simpler formulations and can be either solid or liquid in form.

1-2Environmental Impact and Benefits Asse ssment for the Final 1. Introduction Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Four aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluid (ADF) cate gories are available in the global market: Type I, Type II, Type III, and Type IV. T ype I and Type IV are the fluid categories most commonly used at the U.S. primary commercial airports addr essed by EPA’s final regulatory options.

Type I fluids are aircraft deicers, and Type IV fluids are aircraft anti-icers. By volume, both fluids consist primarily of a freezing point depressant, typically propy lene glycol or ethylene glycol, and water. The fluids also contain a relatively small volume, a pproximately 1-3%, of chemicals commonly known as “additives” which function as surfactants, corrosion inhibito rs, pH modifiers, flame retardants, defoamers, dyes, oils, antioxidants, and antimicrobials. Type IV fluids also contain thickeners to increase their viscosity and allow them to adhere to aircraft surfaces until take-off. ADFs function by lowering the temperature at which snow and ice are able to adhere to aircraft surfaces.

Based on data from responses to the EPA Airline Deicing Questionnaire (2006b) the most commonly used ADF at commercial U.S. airports is Type I propylene glycol deicing fluid, accounting for approximately 77% of ADF use or purchase. A recent trend in ADF use has been increasing use of propylene glycol-based ADFs instead of ethylene glycol-based ADFs. Table 1-1 presents EPA’s estimate of national ADF use based on information provided in survey responses for the 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005 deicing seasons. Because glycol levels vary among individual manufacturer’s ADF formulations, ADF quantities in Table 1-1 are normalized to represent 100% glycol levels.

Table 1-1: U.S. Commercial Airports - National Estimate of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing Fluid
Use/Purchase *

Chemical Average Total Airport
Use/Purchase (million gallons/year) Percentage of ADF
Use/Purchase Type I Propylene Glycol Aircraft Deicing Fluid 19.305 77.1 Type IV Propylene Glycol Aircraft Anti-Icing Fluid 2.856 11.4 Type I Ethylene Glycol Aircraft Deicing Fluid 2.575 10.3 Type IV Ethylene Glycol Aircraft Anti-Icing Fluid 0.306 1.2

Source: US EPA Airline Deic ing Questionnaire (2006b).

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



### Based on responses to the EPA Airport Deicing Qu estionnaire (2006c), the most commonly used pavement deicer on U.S. airfields is potassium acetat e. Potassium acetate represents about 80 percent of all airfield deicing chemical use. A recent trend in pa vement deicer use has been for U.S. airports to cease or decrease their use of urea due to water quality impact concerns. Table 1-2 lists the total estimated national average airfield chemical usage (based on data for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004, and 2004/2005 deicing seasons) for primary commercial airports in the U.S.

Table 1-2: U.S. Commercial Airports - National Estimate of Pavement Deicer Chemical Use

Pavement Deicer Chemical Estimated Total Airport Use (tons/year)
Potassium acetate 22,538
Airside urea 4,127 Propylene glycol-based fluids 3,883
Sodium acetate 3,100
Sodium formate 1,117 Ethylene glycol-based fluids 774 Source: US EPA Airport Deic ing Questionnaire (2006c).

1-3Environmental Impact and Benefits Asse ssment for the Final 1. Introduction Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Based on EPA’s national estimates of chemical or mate rial usage, approximately 70 percent of airports use chemical pavement deicers with the remaini ng 30 percent relying on sand application for airfield deicing/anti-icing (US EPA 2011). Additional informa tion on pavement deicer usage is provided in Table

A-1 in Appendix A

. The identity and environmental behavior of indi vidual ADF and pavement deicer components is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 2

.



### 1.3 Airport Deicing Chemical Di spersion in the Environment

Because aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluids (ADFs) and pavement deicers are typically used in very open and exposed outdoor environments, their dispersi on begins immediately after application. ADFs are typically applied to aircraft at specific airport locations. These locations vary by airport and can include gate areas, aprons, or deicing pads. ADFs are desi gned to drip and shear from aircraft surfaces after application in order to avoid compromising aircraft lift during take-off. Type I deicing fluids drip from aircraft relatively quickly. The majority of these fluids fall to the pavement at fluid application sites. The remainder drips or shears from aircraft as they travel on the airfield, primarily falling on pavement and other airfield surfaces. Type IV anti-icing fluids ar e designed to remain on aircraft surfaces for a longer period of time than Type I deicing fluids to protect aircraft surfaces from snow and ice accumulation until take-off. A relatively small amount of Type IV fluid falls to the pavement at application sites. Most Type IV fluid drips or shears from aircraft during taxiing or take-off, falling primarily on pavement or other airfield surfaces. A lesser quantity of ADF becomes ai rborne during application or aircraft taxiing and take-off and can be carried by wind to other parts of the airfield or beyond airport property lines.

Little quantified research is available on ADF dispersi on after application. EPA’s analysis of baseline pollutant loadings to the environment assumed that 75% of Type I fluids fall to the ground at applicationsites (Switzenbaum et al. 1999). Because Type IV fluids are designed to remain on the aircraft until takeoff, EPA assumed that only 10% of these fluids fall to the ground at the point of application (US EPA 2011). The remainder of the fluids disperses in areas beyond the application site.

Airports apply pavement deicers directly to the gr ound. Treated surfaces can include runways, taxiways, aprons, ramps, and gate areas. The extent of pa vement surface deicing varies with the nature of precipitation events.

Once on the ground, ADFs and pavement deicers can disperse in several ways. ADFs and pavement deicers on paved surfaces often flow into stormwater management systems. Many airfields also have vegetated or other pervious surfaces adjacent to paved areas. In these areas, ADFs and pavement can percolate through soil and eventually enter groundwater if present beneath the airport.

ADFs and pavement deicers in stormwater management systems can discharge to surface waters or, in some locations, enter stormwater collection and treatme nt systems. Airports most frequently collect and treat stormwater originating from ADF application s ites. Stormwater from these sites tends to contain higher percentages of deicing pollutants than other airport areas. These areas are also relatively limited in size and therefore provide an easier collection and treatment opportunity. Airports are less likely to collect and treat ADFs and pavement deicers dispersed in othe r parts of the airfield because of the larger surface areas and larger stormwater volumes involved, both of which increase collection and treatment complexity and expense. In addition, stormwater pollu tant concentrations tend to be lower in these areas, though total loadings can still be significant. ADFs an d pavement deicers dispersed in the airfield are more likely to discharge to surface waters or infiltrate pervious airfield surfaces.

1-4Environmental Impact and Benefits Asse ssment for the Final 1. Introduction Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Because of variability among individual airports in ADFs and pavement deicers usage levels, extent and configuration of paved and pervious areas, and st ormwater collection and treatment, there is great variability in the quantities of deicing activity pollutants that reach surface waters at individual airports.

The nature of ADF and pavement deicer dispersion in the environment is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3

.



### 1.4 Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Operation Discharges

EPA has identified a number of cases in which airport deicing operation discharges to the environment have affected water quality, aquatic ecosystems, and human use of aquatic resources. Identified impacts

include:

3⁄4 Reductions in dissolved oxyge n levels in water bodies receiving deicing stormwaters;

3⁄4 Increased nutrient concentrations in water bodies receiving deicing stormwaters;

3⁄4 Fish kills downstream of deicing stormwater outfalls;

3⁄4 Impacts to aquatic ecosystems downstream of deici ng stormwater outfalls, including reductions in organism abundance and diversity or elimination of the aquatic community;

3⁄4 Contamination of groundwater and surface drinking water resources;

3⁄4 Aesthetic impacts to surface waters, including foaming, noxious odors, and discoloration; and

3⁄4 Complaints of headaches and nausea by people exposed to deicing stormwater odors.

Of particular and well-known concern is the ox ygen demand exerted by ADF and pavement deicercontaminated stormwater. All of the primary ingredients in ADFs and pavement deicers exert oxygen demand as they decay. As airport deicing materials decay in surface waters, they consume oxygen

dissolved in the water column. If the level of disso lved oxygen becomes too low, aquatic organisms can be impaired or killed. Chronic lo w oxygen conditions can eventually change the biochemistry and overall community structure of aquatic ecosystems.

Discharges of raw or partially treated sewage from cities and towns were a common cause of low oxygen conditions in surface waters prior to implementati on of more stringent sewage treatment requirements under the Clean Water Act. The oxygen depletion pote ntial of airport deicing operation discharges is many times greater than that of raw sewage. For example, before application, Type I propylene glycolbased deicing fluid is generally diluted to a mixtur e containing approximately 50% propylene glycol. Pure propylene glycol has a BOD 5 

### concentration of approximately 1,000,000 mg/L. A typical diluted propylene-based deicing fluid could therefore have a BOD 5 

### concentration of approximately 500,000 mg/L. In comparison, raw sewage typically has a BOD 5 

### concentration of approximately 200 mg/L. The amount of fluid used to deice a single non-propelle r-driven aircraft depends on the nature of the precipitation event and the size of the aircraft but can range from a couple hundred to several thousand gallons. Therefore, deicing a single non-prope ller-driven aircraft can generate a BOD 5 

### load greater than that of one million gallons of raw sewage. A large hub airport often has several hundred flights each day. Pavement deicers applied to airfield pavement can also exert significant BOD. The BOD 5 

### generated from deicing activities at a large airport in a single day can therefore equal the BOD 5 

### associated with the raw sewage from more than one million people (or a large city) (US EPA 2008a).

In addition to oxygen demanding substances, airport deicing products also contain a number of additives. Some of these additives have toxic or other proper ties that could harm aquatic ecosystems. Other

1-5Environmental Impact and Benefits Asse ssment for the Final 1. Introduction Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

1-6 

### additives have not yet been publicly identified because of the proprietary nature of deicing material formulations and the limitations of currently availa ble research on deicing product formulations. Without information on the identity of these additives, it is impossible to determine the potential environmental impacts from these chemicals.

Many of the surface waters to which airports discharge deicing materials are small streams with limited absorption and dilution potential fo r processing large quantities of ox ygen demanding substances and other pollutants. EPA has evaluated the impairment status of a number of surface waters directly receiving airport deicing operation discharges and has f ound a large number of these waters to be listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (see Chapter 3 ). Many of these waters have the types of impairments that can be associated with airport deicing operation discharges (e.g., depressed dissolved oxygen levels). Other wate rs are stressed and impaired by other types of pollutants (e.g., PCBs, pathogens). The final regulatory options will reduce the intensity of discharges of airport deicing pollutants to a number of these surface waters and ha ve the potential to improve the health of these impaired aquatic resources.

Environmental impacts associated with airport deic ing discharges are discussed in more detail in Chapter 3

.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



## 2 Airport Deicing Product Components and Environmental Behavior

Airport deicing products include airc raft deicing fluids, aircraft anti- icing fluids, and airfield pavement deicers. Aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluids (ADFs) are used on aircraft. Pavement deicers are used on airport runways, taxiways, aprons, ramps and gate areas. Each type of airport deicing product is specially formulated for the purpose it serves.

This chapter provides information on the basic co mposition of airport deicing products and summarizes information EPA was able to gather through a revi ew of the literature available on the identity and quantity of specific chemicals used in airport deicing products ( Section 2.1 ). This chapter also provides an overview of the environmental behavior and poten tial environmental impacts associated with these chemicals ( Section 2.2 ). In addition to a broad review of the physical properties and fate and transport characteristics of approximately 99 chemicals that may be components or decay products of ADFs and airfield pavement deicers, more detailed discussions ar e provided for 12 chemical or chemical groups of potential environmental concern ( Section 2.2.2 ).



### 2.1 Airport Deicing Product Components

Many different types of aircraft deicing fluid, ai rcraft anti-icing fluid and airfield pavement deicer formulations are used at airports in the U.S. Ma nufacturers use a variety of freezing point depressants and additives to formulate their products. According to responses to EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c), the ADFs most widely used at U.S. airports consists of water, propylene glycol or ethylene glycol as a freezing point depressant, and a range of additives that differ by ADF manufacturer and specified fluid use. Pavement deicers typically consist of a chemical that serves as a freezing point depressant and, in many formulations, various add itives. The pavement deicer freezing point depressants most widely used at U.S. airports are potassium acetate, urea, sodium acetate, sodium formate, propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, or a mixture of ethylene or propylene glycol and urea (see Table 1-2 ).

Manufacturers are generally willing to identify the fr eezing point depressants comprising the bulk of their airport deicing product formulations, but the identity of product ad ditives and their concentration in product formulas is generally considered to be proprie tary. Research by parties outside the airport deicing product manufacturing community indicates that some airport deicing products additives have toxic or other properties potentially harmful to aquatic ecosy stems. Understanding the identity, quantity, and nature of chemicals present in airport deicing products is a useful step in characterizing the potential environmental risks associated with ADF and pave ment deicer discharges. This section summarizes information EPA was able to gather through a review of the literature currently available on the identity and quantity of chemicals used in airport deicing products. A recently released study contains significant additional information on airport deic ing products (Ferguson, et al. 2008).

2.1.1 Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components

To determine the chemical composition of ADFs and pavement deicers, EPA reviewed available data sources including Society for Automotive Engineer Ae rospace Material Specifications (SAE AMSs), deicing product Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), patent descriptions, peer -reviewed literature, other published reports, and data from EPA airport sampling events.

2-1Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior

2-2 

### EPA’s determination of the composition of ADFs and pavement deicers is incomplete, however, for several reasons. EPA relied on available data sources to identity components. These sources are limited because many airport deicing product ingredients are proprietary, and manufacturers do not, therefore, identify them in product labels, MS DSs, or other publicly available documents. Because a significant level of effort is required for an outside party to determine a deicing product’s composition, the peerreviewed literature on this subject is limited, partic ularly for chemicals present in formulations in low concentrations as are most airport deicing product additives. Even when the id entity of an additive is available, it is sometimes known only by its trade name , and publicly available information for many such

chemicals is limited or nonexistent.

In addition, although EPA endeavored to obtain cu rrent information on product formulations, it is possible given manufacturers’ ongoing product development that some co mponents listed in the literature are no longer in use. It is also possible that some co mponents listed in patents have never been used either because a patented product has never been brought to market or because a final product incorporates only some of a wide group of possible components listed in a patent.

Despite these limitations, the results of the literatu re review provide an indication of the types and quantities of chemicals typically used in airport deicing product formulations.

2.1.1.1 Standard Composition of Aircraft Deicing Fluids and Aircraft Anti-icing Fluids


### Four categories of aircraft deicing and anti-icing fl uids (ADFs) are currently manufactured for the global market: Type I, Type II, Type III, and Type IV. Of these four categories, Type I and Type IV are the two categories commonly used at U.S. commercial airports.

ADFs are developed and manufactured to industry st andards published in the U.S. by the Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE). SAE Aerospace Material Specifications (AMS) 1424 and 1428 are adopted on a voluntary basis by manufacturers and governme nts and include performance requirements for the three types of ADFs used in th e U.S. (Types I, II, and IV). 1 

### The Association for European Airlines and the International Standards Organization publish sim ilar standards, which are adopted voluntarily manufacturers and governments in Europe and throughout the world, respectively. by

Table 2-1 compares the characteristics and uses of the fluid categories.

1 Type III fluid is rarely used and intended only for sma ll aircraft. AMS 1424 applies to SAE Type I fluids, and AMS 1428 applies to SAE Type II, III, and IV fluids (Boeing 2008).Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior

Table 2-1: Comparison of Aircraft Deicing a nd Anti-Icing Fluid Characteristics by Type

Function Characteristics

Type I Aircraft Deicing
Fluid 3⁄4 Low viscosity

3⁄4 Provides short-term protection because flows quickly off aircraft surfaces after application

3⁄4 Typically dyed orange to aid in identification and application of a consistent layer on aircraft

3⁄4 Typically heated (130° - 180° F) an d applied as a high pressure spray to remove snow, ice, and frost

Type II Aircraft Anti-icing
Fluid 3⁄4 Contains a polymeric thickening agent to prevent immediate flow off aircraft surfaces and provide protection until aircraft take-off

3⁄4 Fluid remains in place until aircraft attains speed of approximately 100 knots, at which point flui d shears from aircraft

3⁄4 Typically colorless

3⁄4 Useful only for larger aircraft

3⁄4 Use of Type II fluids is diminishing in favor of Type IV fluids

Type IV Aircraft Anti-icing
Fluid 3⁄4 Contains a polymeric thickening agent to prevent immediate flow off aircraft surfaces and provide protection until aircraft take-off

3⁄4 Fluid remains in place until aircraft attains a certain speed, at which point fluid shears from aircraft

3⁄4 Typically dyed green to aid in identification and application of a consistent layer on aircraft

3⁄4 Provides longer-term protection than Type II fluids Sources: Corsi et al. (2007); Ritter (2001).



### Freezing point depressants comprise the majority of ADFs. One study in the literature states that a freezing point depressant, either ethyle ne glycol or propylene glycol, typically makes up 50% to 80% of ADF product as applied (Johnson et al. 2001). The rest of the product consists of water and various additives. These additives function as surfactants, corros ion inhibitors, thickeners , flame retardants, pH modifiers, defoamers, dyes, antimicrobials, oils, chelators, and antioxidants.

Surfactants help ADFs spread evenly across aircraft surfaces by lowering fluid surface tension. Thickeners are used in Type II, III, and IV fluids to increase fluid viscosity and allow them to maintain their protective position on aircraft surfaces until take-off

. A single formulation does not necessarily contain a diffe rent chemical for each additive function. Some formulations contain components that serve multiple functions. Other formulations need only contain a subset of additives because of beneficial interactions among component chemicals.

Three main classes of additives have been iden tified in the literature as widely used by ADF

manufacturers: the corrosion inhibitors/ flame retard ants benzotriazole (BT) and methyl-substituted benzotriazole (MeBT) (Cornell 2001; Pillard et al. 2001), the surfactant alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs) (Nieh 1992; Corsi et al. 2006), and the pH modi fier triethanolamine (Boluk et al. 1999).

Less information is available on the proportions in which the various components are present in ADF formulations. One study states that typical ADFs cons ist of 50% to 80% ethylene glycol or propylene glycol and 20% to 50% water (Breedveld et al. 2002) . A second study states that, in undiluted form, Type I deicing fluids consist of 88% pr opylene glycol or ethylene glycol, 0.5% to 0.6% methyl-substituted benzotriazole (MeBT) mixture, 1% to 2% proprie tary additives (corrosion inhibitors, buffer, and surfactants), and water (Cornell 2001). A third study states that ADFs contain 0.5% to 0.6% MeBT and
that the commercial mixture of MeBT is 45% 4- MeBT and 55% 5-MeBT (Pillard et al. 2001).

2-3Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior

2-4 

### A number of patents exist for ADFs based on freezing poi nt depressants other than ethylene glycol or propylene glycol (e.g., pentaerythritol, glycerol, sorb itol, xylitol and other chemicals) (Simmons et al. 2007). According to responses to EPA’s Airport De icing Questionnaire (2006c), ADFs based on these components are not used at major U.S. airports.

2.1.1.2 Standard Composition of Airfield Pavement Deicers


### Several basic types of pavement deicers are used at U.S. primary commercial airports. These deicers include formulations consisting primarily of potassium acetate, urea, sodium acetate, sodium formate, propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, or a mixture of propylene or ethy lene glycol and urea. These primary ingredients serve as freezing point depressants.

Pavement deicers are more simply formulated than ADFs and consist primarily of the primary freezing point depressant ingredient. Potassium acetate, sodium formate, and sodium acetate formulations are known to contain corrosion inhibitors, as well (Switzenbaum et al. 1999; Shi 2008; USDOT 2007) though the corrosions inhibitors’ chemical identity is not known.

2.1.1.3 Detailed Listing of Potential Airport Deicing Product Components



### Table 2-2 presents the chemicals for which EPA found some evidence of use in airport deicing product formulations through its literature review. Many of the chemicals in the table below are presented and discussed in Ferguson et al. 2008.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment forthe Final2. Airport Deicing Product ComponentsEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Categoryand Environmental BehaviorTable 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product ComponentsSourceCurrentCASRNChemical NameCharacterizationJohnson et al. (2001)U1303-96-4BoraxCorrosion inhibitorJohnson et al. (2001)U532-32-1Sodium benzoateCorrosion inhibitorCorsi et al. (2006)U29878-31-74-methyl-1H-benzotrizoleCorrosion inhibitorAshrawi and Coffey (1993)Y-Cobratec TT-50S, tolyltrizole solutionCorrosion inhibitorHu et al. (1998)Y110-65-6Butyne-1,4diolCorrosion inhibitorHu et al. (1998)Y107-19-7Propargyl alcoholCorrosion inhibitorHu et al. (1998)Y62-56-6ThioureaCorrosion inhibitorBoluk et al. (1999)Y-Sandocorin 8132, sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonateCorrosion inhibitorMoles et al. (2003)Y7778-53-2Potassium phosphateCorrosion inhibitorMoles et al. (2003)Y10006-28-7Potassium silicateCorrosion inhibitorMoles et al. (2003)Y13870-28-5Sodium silicateCorrosion inhibitorBoluk et al. (1999);Hu et al. (1998);Nieh (1992)Y-BenzyltriazoleCorrosioninhibitorBoluk et al. (1999);Hu et al. (1998);Moles et al. (2003); Nieh (1992)Y29385-43-1TolyltriazoleCorrosion inhibitorJohnson et al. (2001) and Hu et al.(1998)Y7631-99-4Sodium nitrateCorrosion inhibitorHu et al. (1998)Y-AF-9020, polydimethylsiloxaneDefoamerHu et al. (1998)Y-DC 1520, silicone antifoamDefoamerBoluk et al. (1999)Y-FoambanDefoamerHu et al. (1998), Boluk et al. (1999);Ma and Comeau (1990)Y-Siliconeantifoam2DefoamerCoffey et al. (1995)Y-Eosinorange, tetrabromofluoresceinDyeChan et al. (1995)Y-Malonylgreen, C.I. Pigment Yellow 34DyeLockyerm et al. (1998)Y-Shilling greenDyeChan et al. (1995); Lockyerm et al.(1998)Y-FD&C Blue #1, alphazurineDyeChan et al. (1995); Lockyerm et al.(1998)Y-FD&C Yellow #5, tartrazineDyeJohnson et al. (2001)U95-14-7BenzotriazolesFlame Retardant and Corrosion Inhibitor2-5Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment forthe Final2. Airport Deicing Product ComponentsEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Categoryand Environmental Behavior2-6Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product ComponentsSourceCurrentCASRNChemical NameCharacterizationCorsi et al. (2006)Y136-85-65-Methyl-1H-BenzotriazoleFlame Retardant and Corrosion InhibitorAshrawi and Coffey (1993); Bloom(1986); Boluk et al. (1999); Hu et al.(1998); König-Lumer et al. (1982);Nieh (1992)Y57-55-61,2-Propylene glycolFreezing point depressantBack et al. (1999)Y608-66-2DulcitolFreezing point depressantBack et al. (1999)Y115-77-5PentaerythritolFreezing point depressantBoluk et al. (1999)Y25322-68-3Polyethylene gylcol, mw from 62to 106Freezing point depressantSapienza et al. (2003)Y97-64-3Ethyl lactateFreezing point depressantSapienza (2003)Y147-85-3ProlineFreezing point depressantSapienza (2003)Y72-17-3SodiumlactateFreezing point depressantSapienza (2003)Y54571-67-4Sodium pyrrolidone carboxylateFreezing point depressantLockyerrn et al. (1998); Westmark etal. (2001)Y107-88-01,3-ButanediolFreezing point depressantAshrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk etal. (1999); Nieh (1992)Y25265-71-8Dipropylene glycolFreezing point depressantKönig-Lumer et al. (1982); Lockyermet al. (1998)Y504-63-21,3-Propylene glycolFreezing point depressantBoluk et al. (1999); Westmark et al.(2001)Y112-27-6Triethylene glycolFreezingpoint depressantBack et al. (1999); Sapienza et al.(2003)Y69-65-8MannitolFreezing point depressantBack et al. (1999); Simmons et al.(2007)Y149-32-6ErythritolFreezing point depressantBack et al. (1999); Boluk et al.(1999); Westmark et al. (2001)Y56-81-5GlycerolFreezing point depressantBack et al. (1999); Sapienza (2003);Sapienza et al. (2003)Y50-70-4SorbitolFreezing point depressantAshrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk etal. (1999); König-Lumer et al. (1982);Ma and Comeau (1990); Nieh (1992)Y111-46-6Diethylene glycolFreezing point depressantCorsi et al. (2006)Y57-55-6Propylene glycolFreezing point depressantEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment forthe Final2. Airport Deicing Product ComponentsEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Categoryand Environmental Behavior2-7Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product ComponentsSourceCurrentCASRNChemical NameCharacterizationCorsi et al. (2006)Y107-21-1Ethylene glycolFreezing point depressantComfort (2000)Y127-08-2Potassium AcetateFreezing point depressantUS EPA (2000a)Y590-29-4Potassium FormateFreezing point depressantComfort (2000)Y127-09-3(anhydrous)Sodium AcetateFreezing point depressantComfort (2000)Y141-53-7Sodium FormateFreezing point depressantUS EPA (2000a)Y57-13-6UreaFreezing pont depressantHu et al. (1998);König-Lumer et al.(1982)Y-Mineral oilOil used as hydrophobic agentMa and Comeau (1990)Y-Dimethyl polysiloxaneOil used as hydrophobic agentMa and Comeau (1990)Y-White mineral oil (10 cSt)Oil used as hydrophobic agentLockyerm et al. (1998)Y112-53-81-dodecanolOil used as hydrophobic agentNieh (1992)Y7558-79-4Disodium phosphatepH ModifierHu et al. (1998)Y7758-11-4Dipotassium phosphatepH ModifierBoluk et al. (1999)Y111-42-2DiethanolaminepH ModifierBoluk et al. (1999)Y141-43-5MonoethanolaminepH ModifierBoluk et al. (1999)Y102-71-6TriethanolaminepH ModifierUS EPA (2000a)Y1310-58-3Potassium hydroxidepH ModifierAshrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk etal. (1999); Hu et al. (1998)Y1310-73-2Sodium hydroxidepH ModifierHaslim (2004)U112-53-8Dodecanol4Surfactant/DefoamingagentCorsi et al. (2003)Y-Alcohol ethoxylatesSurfactantKönig-Lumer et al. (1982)Y-SodiumalkylbenzenesulfonateSurfactantBloom (1986)Y-Oleic acid diamineSurfactantBloom (1986)Y-Oleyl propylene diamineSurfactantBloom (1986)Y-Palmiticacid diamineSurfactantAshrawi and Coffey (1993)Y-Aliphatic alcohol ethoxylatesSurfactantBoluk et al. (1999)Y-Siponate A-2466, sodium dodecylbenzeneSurfactantBoluk et al. (1999)Y-Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate3SurfactantEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment forthe Final2. Airport Deicing Product ComponentsEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Categoryand Environmental Behavior2-8Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product ComponentsSourceCurrentCASRNChemical NameCharacterizationBoluk et al. (1999)Y-Tergitol TMN-10, branched secondaryalcohol ethoxylateSurfactantWestmark et al. (2001)Y-Emerest 2660 (OEG-12 oleate)SurfactantWestmark et al. (2001)Y-Emsorb 6900(PEG-20 sorbitan oleate)SurfactantCorsi et al. (2003)Y-Decylalcohol ethoxylateSurfactantCorsi et al. (2003)Y-Laurylalcohol ethoxylateSurfactantCorsi et al. (2003)Y-Lauryl alcohol phosophoric acid-esterethoxylateSurfactantAshrawi and Coffey (1993); Nieh(1992)Y-Ethylene oxide / propylene oxide blockcopolymersSurfactantNieh (1992)Y-Nonylphenol ethoxylateSurfactantNieh (1992)Y-Octylphenol ethoxylateSurfactantCorsi et al. (2007)Y-Alkylphenol ethoxylatesSurfactantTye et al. (1987)Y9062-07-1Iota-carrageenanThickening AgentTye et al. (1987)Y-Kappa-carrageenanThickeningAgentMa and Comeau (1990)Y9004-62-0HydroxyethylcelluloseThickening AgentWestmark et al. (2001)Y-Welan gumThickening AgentAshrawi and Coffey (1993); Nieh(1992)Y-Polyacrylicacid1ThickeningAgentKönig-Lumer et al. (1982); Nieh(1992)Y-Cross-linked polyacrylic acidThickening AgentLockyerm et al. (1998); Ma andComeau (1990); Westmark et al.(2001)Y-XanthangumThickeningAgentJohnson et al. (2001)U123-91-1Dioxane5Johnson et al. (2001)U75-07-0AcetaldehydeJohnson et al. (2001)U75-21-8Ethylene oxideJohnson et al. (2001)U-PolyaminesJohnson et al. (2001)U37306-44-8TriazolesUS EPA (2000a)Y117-81-7Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateUS EPA (2000a)Y84-74-2Di-N-Butyl PhthalateEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment forthe Final2. Airport Deicing Product ComponentsEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Categoryand Environmental Behavior2-9Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product ComponentsSourceCurrentCASRNChemical NameCharacterizationUS EPA (2000a)Y100-41-4EthylbenzeneUS EPA (2000a)Y-M- + P-XyleneUS EPA (2000a)Y112-40-3N-DodecaneUS EPA (2000a)Y108-88-3TolueneCorsi et al. (2006)Y25154-52-3NonylphenolCorsi et al. (2006)Y-Octylphenol1. Carbopol polyacrylic acid 1610, 1621, 1622, 672, and 934 were listed in the literature.2. Silicone antifoam was listed in the literature as SAG 7133, SAG 1000, and Siltech E-2202.3. Siponate DS and Siponate DDB-40 sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate were listed in the literature.4. CASRN for this chemical isprovided as that of 1-dodecanol.5. CASRN for this chemical is provided as that of 1,4-Dioxane.U = Unknown if chemical is currently used in deicing formulas.Y = Chemical identified as currently used in deicingformulas as of the date of reference publication.Of the 111 identified ingredients, 61 (55%) were identified in sources that were published in 2000 or later.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### 2.2 Environmental Behaviors of Airport Deicing Product Components

This section provides an overview of the characteristi cs of many of the potential airport deicing product components identified in Table 2-2 . EPA’s review focused on characteris tics that influence a component’s potential to disperse in and impact the environment. The ultimate behavior of ADFs and pavement deicers in the environment is a function of both chemical-specific factors and airport-specific hydrological, geochemical, biological, and climatic factors. This chapter presents chemical-specific information which

is then considered in environmental context in Chapter 3

. It is important to note that the individual compone nts of ADFs and pavement deicers have varying fate and transport properties that cause deicing products to disaggregate into their individual components once they enter the natural environment. Fresh and concen trated wastestreams located closer to the point of ADF and pavement deicer application are more likely to reflect original product properties. Older and more dilute wastestreams further from the site of application have characteristics determined by the presence or absence of individual pollutants and the transformation and transport processes they have undergone. For this reason, it is important to consider the nature of individual product components in addition to the nature of the original product.

The Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) sets techni cal standards for aircraft deicing and anti-icing and fluids (ADFs). At this time, SAE requirement s addressing ADF environmental impacts are limited. SAE AMS 1424 requires Type I fluids entering the market after August 2002 to have a mammalian toxicity (LC 50 

### ) greater than 5,000 mg/L and a fluid aquatic toxicity (LC 50 

### for several different aquatic organism species) greater than 4,000 mg/L (SAE 2007) . Research has shown that even at levels less than 4,000 mg/L, sub-lethal toxic effects will be exerted on aquatic organisms (Corsi et al. 2006). In addition, the toxicity standard does not apply to Type IV fl uids, the more toxic of the two commonly used ADFs (Corsi et al. 2006). SAE also provides no guidance fo r ADF BOD or COD content. SAE has considered setting toxicity standards for additional fluids (US EPA 2000a) as well as a more stringent toxicity requirement for Type I fluids.

Appendix A contains tables that summarize information on the physiochemical properties of many known and potential ADF and pavement deicer components and their potential decay products as cited in Table

2-2

. Except where otherwise noted, all of the informati on in the tables is from the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s Hazardous Substances Databank and ChemFinder databases, which compile data from a wide variety of sources. In some cases, the sub-cita tions within these databases are incomplete or notsupplied and therefore cannot be reported here. Other information sources include deicing and chemicalspecific literature, as cited in the tables. For some phys iochemical properties, information either does not exist or was not attainable from these sources; therefore a number of table entries are blank

. EPA collected information on components present in airport deicing products rega rdless of whether they were present in large and small proportions. Although some components (such as many deicing product additives) constitute a relatively small proportion of ADF s and pavement deicers, their properties may be such that they contribute disproportionately to toxic or other harmful effects to the environment associated with airport deicing discharges.

Components are organized in functional groups in Table A-2 through Table A-39

. For example, Table A-2 contains information for chelators, Table A-3 contains information for sugar-based freezing point depressants, and Table A-4 contains information for acetate-based freezing point depressants, etc. A number of the substances within a table share similar properties. Other substances may have very different or unknown properties. These attributes are noted in each table. Table A-40 presents available

2-10Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### information on ecological toxicity values associated with potential components. Table A-41 presents information on human health effects associated with potential components.

Characteristics of 12 of the 99 potential ADF and pavement deicer components are presented in greater

detail in Section 2.2 and in Table A-42 through Table A-53 in Appendix A . These 12 components or component groups were chosen for a more detailed analysis for one or more of the following reasons: the component is a well-known ingredient in airport deicing products; the component is released to the environment in significant quantities; or the co mponent has environmental impact potential.

2.2.1 Environmental Behaviors

EPA collected information on a wide variety of indi vidual chemical environmental behaviors of potential interest in the context of discharges from airport deic ing activities. Information was collected on traits of interest for assessing a chemical’s ab ility to disperse in the environment, its potential to impacts aquatic ecosystems and organisms, and its potential to impa ct human health and aquatic resource uses such as drinking water supply, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment.

Chemical-specific factors such as water solubility, affinity for solid surfaces and organic matter, volatility, degradation rates and pr oducts, and microbial acclimation n eeds influence environmental fate and transport of ADF and pavement deicer components. Some components have traits that elevate their potential for environmental impact in the aquatic environment.

Chemical-specific factors alone do not determine potential for environmental impact. Hydrological, geochemical, biological, and climatic factors all in fluence fate and transport of ADFs and pavement deicers in the environment. Specific factors can in clude flow volumes and patterns in receiving waters, water and soil/aquifer chemistry, microbial commun ity characteristics, aquatic biological community composition, amount and intensity of sunlight, quantit y and type of precipitation, and air temperature range and seasonal distribution.

Individual component traits must therefore be cons idered in concert with information about discharge quantities and the nature of the receiving environment in order to fully assess potential for environmental impact. The summary below presents the information EPA was able to gather on individual chemical

traits. Chapter 3 discusses these traits in the context of the discharge environment.

2.2.1.1 Fate and Transport Behaviors


### After application of ADFs to aircraft or pavement deicers to airfield pavement, environmental fate and transport of the chemicals in these products depe nds on both physical processes and chemical-specific

behaviors.

Airport deicing product components enter the aqua tic environment through a variety of physical pathways. Most deicing chemicals discharge to the a quatic environment through stormwater discharge to surface waters. A certain quantity of chemicals enters surface waters through groundwater discharge or aerial deposition. Some deicing wastewaters under go treatment but can retain certain components unaffected by treatment. These components can enter the aquatic environment when treated wastewaters are discharged to surface waters. Once in surface water, components may travel to downstream surface

waters.

Airport deicing product components can also percolate into soil horizons. The components can accumulate, degrade, or move into groundwater. Co mponents in groundwater can accumulate, degrade, or travel with groundwater flow.

2-11Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### During the physical transport of individual compone nts, chemical-specific processes are underway, as well. To help assess environmental fate, transport, and impact potential from ADF and pavement deicer components on aquatic ecosystems and organisms, EPA gathered information on three characteristics:

3⁄4 Volatilization

3⁄4 Adsorption

3⁄4 Biodegradation

These traits are described in further detail below.

Volatilization


### Volatilization is a process whereby chemicals dissolved in water escape into the air. Chemicals with higher volatilization potential are typically of less con cern to aquatic receptors because they tend to enter the atmosphere before discharge to surface waters or to be removed quickly from the water column. Some volatile pollutants can be a concern to human health, however, if inhaled.

EPA used the air/water partitioning coefficient H to estimate a chemical’s volatilization potential. H represents the ratio of a chemical’s aqueous phase concentration to its equilibrium partial pressure in the gas phase (at 25 degrees Celsius). Units are typically expressed as atm.m3/mole.

Volatilization data for individual deicin g product components is summarized in Table A-2 through Table

A-40 in Appendix A

.
Adsorption


### Adsorption is a process whereby chem icals associate preferentially with organic carbon found in soils and sediments. Highly adsorptive compounds tend to accumula te in sediments. In aquatic ecosystems, such chemicals are more likely to be taken up by benthic invertebrates and to affect local food chains. Both accumulation in sediment and local food chain impa cts make these chemicals more likely to affect predator organisms higher on the food chain, including human beings.

EPA gathered information on the adsorption coefficient (K
oc 

### ) to assess the potential of organic ADF and pavement deicer components to associate with sediment organic carbon. K
oc 

### represents the ratio of the target chemical adsorbed per unit weight of organic carbon in the soil or sediment to the concentration of that same chemical in solution at equilibrium.

Metals in the aquatic environment typically concentr ate in the sediment phase but do not bind to organic carbon (except nickel). EPA assumes that all metals s how a high affinity for sediments independent of their negligible K
oc 

### values.

Adsorption data for individual deici ng product components is summarized in Table A-2 through Table

A-40 in Appendix A

.
Biodegradation


### Biodegradation is a process whereby organic molecules are broken down by microbial metabolism. Biodegradation represents an important removal pr ocess in aquatic ecosystems. Compounds that are readily biodegraded generally represent lower intrin sic toxicity and accumulation hazards because they can be eliminated more rapidly from ecosystems. These compounds are therefore less likely to create long-term toxicity problems or to accumulate in sed iments and organisms. Chemicals that biodegrade slowly or not at all can accumulate and linger for longer periods of time in sediments, and represent a greater hazard to aquatic receptors.

2-12Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### EPA gathered information on biodegradation half-life to estimate the potential for an organic chemical to biodegrade in the aquatic environment. Biodegrad ation half-life represents the number of days a compound takes to be degraded to half of its starting concentration under prescribed laboratory

conditions.

Biodegradation data for individual deicing product components is summarized in Table A-2 through

Table A-40 in Appendix A

.

2.2.1.2 Aquatic Organism and Community Impact Behaviors


### Aquatic organisms and communities are exposed to ai rport deicing product components when they enter surface waters. EPA gathered information on three ch emical-specific behaviors relevant to examining airport deicing product components’ potential to directly impact aquatic organisms and communities:

3⁄4 Aquatic Toxicity

3⁄4 Bioconcentration Factors

3⁄4 Chemical and Biological Oxygen Demand

These traits are described in further detail below.

Aquatic Toxicity


### EPA gathered information on both acute and chroni c aquatic toxicity. Acute toxicity assessments show the impact of a pollutant after a relatively shor t exposure duration, typically 48 and 96 hours for invertebrates and fish, respectively. The primary e ndpoint of concern is mortality, reported as the LC 50



### . The LC 50 

### represents the concentration lethal to 50% of test organisms for the given duration of the

exposure.
Chronic toxicity assessments indicate the impact of a pollutant after a longer-duration exposure, typically from one week to several months. The endpoints of con cern are one or more sub-lethal responses, such as changes in reproduction or growth of the affected or ganisms. The results are reported in various ways, including EC 5 

### , EC 10 

### , or EC 50 

### (i.e., the concentrations at which 5% , 10%, or 50% of test organisms show a significant sub-lethal response), NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration), LOEC (Lowest Observed Effect Concentration), or MATC (Maximum Allowabl e Toxicant Concentration). MATC is defined as the highest level of a chemical acceptable in a water supply above which a specific effect occurs.

The summary also contains information on National Recommended Water Quality Criteria set by EPA to protect aquatic organisms from acute and toxic effects. Acute and chronic aquatic toxicity data for several ADF and pavement deicer components are summarized in Table A-40 in Appendix A.

Bioconcentration Factors


### The bioconcentration factor (BCF) is a good indicator of the potential for a ch emical dissolved in the water column to be absorbed by aquatic biota acro ss external surface membranes such as gills. The BCF is expressed in units of liters per kilogram and is defined as follows:

BCF = equilibrium chemical concentration in target organism (mg/kg, wet weight) mean chemical concentration in surrounding water ( μ g/L)

EPA examined BCF values because they can indicate chemicals with the abilit y to bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms and transfer up the food chain if they are not metabolized and excreted. Pollutant transfer up the food change can result in significant levels of pollutant exposure for predator organisms (including human beings) consumi ng contaminated fish, shellfish, or other aquatic organisms.

2-13Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### The bioaccumulation factor (BAF) is a better measur e than the BCF of the potential for a chemical dissolved in the water column to be taken up by aquatic biota because it accounts for vertical accumulation of the chemical in the food chain, whereas the BCF does not. For this reason, BCFs underestimate risk to aquatic organisms. Because field-measured BAFs are not readily available for many chemicals, EPA instead collected BCFs for deicing product components. This information is summarized

in Table A-2 through Table A-40 in Appendix A

.
Chemical and Biological Oxygen Demand


### Oxygen demand, or the oxygen consumed by a substan ce when decaying in water, is reported as either biochemical or biological oxygen demand (BOD), carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD), or chemical oxygen demand (COD). BOD is a measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the biological processes that break down organic matter in water. The greater the BOD level, the greater the degree of pollution (US EPA 2008f). CBOD is a test method that departs from customary methods for determining BOD in its use of a chemical inhibitor to block nitrification, thus preventing the nitrogenous, or second stage, BOD from being consumed. COD is a measure of the oxygen-consuming capacity of inorganic and organic matter present in water. COD is expressed as the amount of oxygen consumed in milligrams per liter (mg/l). Results do not necessarily correlate to BOD resu lts because the chemical oxidant in the COD test may react with substances that bacteria do not metabolize (US EPA 2008f).

EPA has developed aquatic life NRWQC for ambi ent DO that take into account life stages and temperature preferences of different types of fish. The 7-day mean DO concentration for early life stages is 9.5 mg/l for cold water fish and 6.0 mg/l for warm water fish. The 7-day mean minimum DO for older life stages is 5.0 mg/l for cold water fish and 4.0 mg/l for warm water fish (US EPA 1986). Low dissolved oxygen levels are the reason for the listing of 5,401 m iles of impaired waters in the United States or about 13% of total impaired miles (US EPA 2008b).

A well-known example of ecological alteration due to high BOD levels is the anoxia that is an annual occurrence throughout the Chesapeake Bay. For several months every year, large areas of the bay are unfit for fish or shellfish (US EPA 1998b). A past exam ple of BOD impact was the Delaware River in the vicinity of Philadelphia and Camden. Every summer for many years, this area experienced severe DO “blocks” due to excessive BOD input from point s ources. The anoxic conditions prevented several anadromous fish species (e.g., Atlantic menhaden and shad) from migrating upstream to spawn. Since the early 1980s, however, conditions have improved to th e point that these species are once again able to swim upstream in large numbers to reproduce (Delaware Estuary Program 1996).

2.2.1.3 Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Impact Behaviors


### Human beings can be exposed to airport deicing product components through several aquatic resource pathways. Exposure occurs when a pollutant comes into contact with the human envelope

― the lungs, gastrointestinal tract, or skin

― resulting in inhalation, ingestion, or dermal absorption. Human beings also experience aesthetic impacts through sight, smell, and taste of aquatic resources affected by airport deicing discharges.

Human beings come into contact with surface waters during recreational activities such as fishing, nature observation, boating, and swimming. Exposure can involve skin contact, fish consumption, or inhalation of volatile chemicals. People who live in communitie s near surface waters containing airport deicing discharges can also inhale chemical s that volatilize from surface waters.

Drinking water is an additional exposure pathway. Ma ny drinking water supply systems draw water from surface water sources. If a drinking water treatment process does not remove airport deicing product

2-14Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### components from source water, human beings can be exposed to them through water ingestion or dermal exposure and inhalation during bathi ng. Airport deicing product components can also enter groundwater and be drawn into industrial, commercial, municipa l, and residential wells. Some groundwater undergoes

treatment before use and some is used without treat ment, particularly groundwater from residential wells.

To help assess the potential for impacts to human health and aquatic resource use from ADF and pavement deicer components, EPA gathered availa ble information on component toxicity, carcinogenic potential, and aesthetic impact potential. These tr aits are described in further detail below.

The assessment of human health risk from a pollutant has four traditional steps:

1. Hazard Identification

2. Exposure Assessment

3. Dose-Response Analysis

4. Risk Characterization.

The amount of chemical human beings are exposed to through ingestion, inhalation, or dermal absorption is an important variable contributing to risk associ ated with that chemical. A dose-response function is used to fully characterize human health risk from a given chemical. This section summarizes information available on chemical-specific characteristics. Chapter 3 summarizes information available on the quantities of deicing chemicals airports discharge to the environment, the manner in which they disperse, and the potential for human exposure.

Human Toxicity


### EPA examined human health toxicity data both fo r outcomes resulting in cancer and for outcomes other than cancer (e.g., increased liver weight or respiratory effects). EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and other toxicity databases separate ou tcomes into these two types. The reasoning for this delineation is the assumption that there is no safe leve l of exposure to cancer-causing chemicals. Even a small exposure increases cancer risk to a certain extent . For chemicals that result in health effects other than cancer, there is thought to be a thre shold level below which exposure is “safe.”

Some chemicals are toxic at low doses. Other chemicals must be present at high levels to create a toxic effect. Some chemicals display hormesis and are be neficial at low doses, yet toxic at higher doses. Information on chemical toxicity is available in the toxicological and epidemiological literature. The discipline of toxicology utilizes laboratory studies on animals ( in vivo ) or cells ( in vitro ). Epidemiological

studies examine human health outcomes in relation to chemical exposures on a day-to-day basis (time series studies) or over many years (cohort studies). Data on personal exposures to a chemical integrated over the population of interest and combined with ch emical toxicity information are used to estimate human health risk from a chemical. Unfortunately, the toxicity of many chemicals either has not been

studied or is not well understood.

EPA located toxicity information for 12 chemicals and chemical categories listed as potential ADF and pavement deicer components. EPA reviewed th e following information sources for this data:

2-15Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### 3⁄4 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)

3⁄4 Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators Model (RSEI)

3⁄4 National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC)

3⁄4 Maximum Contaminant Levels for Drinking Water (MCLs)

3⁄4 Peer-reviewed journal artic les and government reports

Table A-41 in Appendix A summarizes the results for all 12 chemicals and chemical categories for which

EPA was able to locate information.

Cancer Outcomes 

### EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) use weight of evidence (WOE) classifications to qualitatively define carcinogens b ased on available data. The EPA defines six WOE guidelines, described below. IARC uses a similar scheme.

Category Weight-of-Evidence:

3⁄4 A. Sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies to support a causal relationship between exposure to the agent and cancer.

3⁄4 B1. Limited evidence from epidemiological studies and sufficient animal data.

3⁄4 B2. Sufficient evidence from animal studies but inadequate or no evidence or no data from epidemiological studies.

3⁄4 C. Limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and an absence of evidence or data in humans.

3⁄4 D. Inadequate human and animal evidence for carcinogenicity, or no data.

3⁄4 E. No evidence for carcinogenicity in at least two adequate animal tests in different species or in both adequate epidemiological and animal studi es, coupled with no evidence or data in epidemiological studies.

For chemicals with a sufficient WOE, quantitative measures have been set. Since there is thought to be no safe level of exposure for carcinogens, many databases report slope factors or unit risks for carcinogens. There may be an oral slope factor (corresponding to ingesting a chemical in food), a drinking water unit risk (corresponding to ingesting a chemical in drinki ng water), and an inhalation unit risk (corresponding to inhaling a chemical from the air).

IRIS notes that the Oral Slope Factor represents the upper-bound (approximating a 95% confidence limit) estimate of the slope of the dose-response curve in the low-dose region for carcinogens. The units of the slope factor are usually expressed as the inver se of milligrams per kilogram-day (mg/kg-day) -1 

### . The
Inhalation Unit Risk is defined as the upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a con centration of 1 gram per cubic meter (g/m 3) 

### in air.

A number of assumptions are used to develop these values. For example, a person is assumed to weigh 70 kilograms, drink 2 liters of water per day, and breathe air at a rate of 20 cubic meters per day continuously for 70 years. Other assumptions are made in regard to animal-to-human extrapolation as most toxicological studies are performed on animals rather than humans. Assumptions are also made about low-dose extrapolations since study animals are gene rally exposed to much higher levels of pollutants than humans are expected to encounter.

2-16Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior

Non-cancer Outcomes 

### For compounds resulting in health effects other than can cer, safe exposure thresholds are deemed to exist. IRIS has developed both reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs), corresponding to ingestion and inhalation exposures.

IRIS states: “...the RfDs and RfCs are estimates (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of daily exposure [RfD], or continuous inhalation exposure [RfC], to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer effects during a lifetime.”

Because most toxicological studies are conducted on animals, animal-to-human and low-dose extrapolation assumptions are also a factor in determ ining RfCs and RfDs. Generally, a point of departure from a toxicological study is selected and divided by uncertainty factors to account for these issues. Care must be taken when comparing RfD or RfC values fr om IRIS to other reference levels, because other reference sources may not use the same uncer tainty factors or may use none at all.

Water Quality Guidelines 

### EPA also examined two types of water quality standards for this analysis. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC), set by EPA, aim to protect the health of human beings who consume water and aquatic organisms or solely aquatic organisms from contaminated aquatic habitats. The criteria, expressed in micrograms per liter ( μ g/L), represent surface water pollutant concentrations that are likely

to cause adverse health effects in human beings if exceeded.

EPA also examined human health-based drinking wa ter criteria. These criteria are usually presented as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and are also developed by EPA. MCLs for non-carcinogens represent chemical-specific concentrations (expressed in μ g/L) below which adverse health effects are not expected in exposed populations. MCLs for carci nogens represent chemical-specific concentrations (expressed in μ g/L) that generally are expected to result in less than one additional cancer case per million lifetime exposures if the level is not exceeded in drinking water supplies.

Aesthetic Impacts


### Human beings experience aesthetic impacts to aquatic r esources in a variety of ways including impacts to water’s visual appearance or its smell or taste. These impacts can affect human use or enjoyment of affected water and surrounding areas.

Objectionable tastes, odors, colors, and foaming have been reported in surface waters containing airport deicing operation discharges. These effects are generate d in at least two ways. First, certain deicing product components are inherently likely to cause these e ffects. For example, dyes can directly add color to water. Airport deicer components and their breakdo wn products (e.g., urea, ammonia, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, polymers of acrylic acid, and et hanolamines, have characteristic and potentially unpleasant odors. Glycols have a distinctive sweet odor . Solvents such as ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes can also add objectionable odors to water a nd their volatility lowers the detection threshold of those odors. Information on taste is not as readily available as information for odor, but glycols are known to have a somewhat sweet flavor and many surfactan ts taste bitter. The causes of foaming are not clear.

The second route by which ADFs and pavement deicers can cause adverse aesthetic impacts is through die-off of aquatic biota. Fish, macrophytes, and invert ebrates can die when dissolved oxygen levels fall in or toxic substances enter surface water. Algae a nd heterotrophic microorgani sms inhabiting the water column can die, as can the epilithon, the biotic layer c overing the substrate of a stream or lake. This dead biomass can decay aerobically if the water recovers sufficient oxygen, or anaerobically in a process

2-17Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### known as putrefaction, which generates particularly f oul odors. This decomposition process also releases proteins, polysaccharides, and other organic com pounds which can provide building blocks for the generation of persistent foams in water. Under the resulting anoxic conditions, the reduction of iron and manganese ions to more soluble species can impart color to water (Zitomer 2001).

2.2.2 Detailed Airport Deicing Product Component Profiles

This section summarizes available information on 12 ADF and pavement deicer components or component groups. These components were chosen for a mo re detailed analysis for one or more of the following reasons: the component is a well-known ingred ient in airport deicing products; the component is released to the environment in significant quantiti es by airport deicing operations; or the component has environmental impact potential. Additional info rmation on these components is summarized in Table

A-42 through Table A-53 in Appendix A

.

2.2.2.1 Acetate


### Sodium acetate and potassium acetate are used as freezing point depressants in airfield pavement deicers and are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. The dissolution of these chemicals after application releases acetate (C 2 

### H 3 

### O 2 

### ) into the environment in its ionic form. Acetate can impact aquatic environments through consumption of dissolved oxygen during degradation. This section and Table A-42

of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate a nd transport, ecological effects, and human

effects of acetate.

Fate and Transport


### Acetate is not expected to volatilize (US NLM 2008).

Acetate ions are soluble in water (US NLM 2008). The solubility of acetate from particular compounds, for example sodium acetate, depends on the solubility of those compounds. Sodium acetate has a solubility of 1,190 grams per liter at 0 ° C (US NLM 2008).

The degree to which acetate ions adsorb or complex with soil or water constituents or remain dissolved in surface water or groundwater depends on site-specific factors. The rate of transport of acetate through soil will depend on a combination of the degradation rate and interactions with soils/sediments. Therefore, transport rates will be site-specific (US NLM 2008).

Acetate is rapidly biodegraded under aerobic condition s in surface water, groundwater, and soil (US NLM 2008). Acetate is also anaerobically biodegradable (U S NLM 2008). Acetate in soil, derived from calcium magnesium acetate, was completely degraded within three to six days (D’Itri 1992). Since aerobic degradation is rapid, acetate plumes are rare, ex cept possibly in anaerobic groundwater (Maest 2008).

Formate can slow the breakdown of acetate in anaerobic environments (US NLM 2008). Acetate degradation produces bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and water (D’Itri 1992).

Acetate has a moderately high BOD falling between the BODs of urea and formate. Acetate’s BOD and COD are lower than those of propylene and ethylene glycol. One formulated pavement deicer product consisting primarily of sodium acetate is reported to have a BOD 5 

### of 0.58 g O 2 

### /g product (Fyve Star, Inc. 2008).

Ecological Effects


### Acetate anions decay through a process that consum es dissolved oxygen present in surface waters and groundwater. Chemicals that exert oxygen demand during the degradation process reduce the level of dissolved oxygen available for aquatic organisms, wh ich require a certain level of dissolved oxygen to

2-18Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### function and survive. For additional information on th e impacts of oxygen demand, see Sections 2.2.1.2, 2.2.2.1, and 2.2.2.2.

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects


### EPA’s literature search did not locate conclusive reports on the human health effects of acetate. Acetate may contribute to aesthetic impacts, however. Acet ate decomposition consumes dissolved oxygen in surface waters. Low dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters can cause unpleasant odors and

discoloration of water.

2.2.2.2 Alcohol Ethoxylates


### Alcohol ethoxylates (CH 3 

### (CH 2 

### )

n 

### (OCH 2 

### CH 2 

### ) y 

### OH) are a major class of non- ionic surfactants that are widely used in a variety of consumer and industr ial products, including laundry detergents (HERA 2007).

Their use in ADFs as a surfactant a dditive has been documented in the lite rature. Their use may, in part, be in response to concerns about potential environmental impacts associated with the use of nonylphenol ethoxylate surfactants. Surfactants typically compose less than 2% of ADFs by volume. This profile and

Table A-41 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of alcohol ethoxylates.

Fate and Transport


### Alcohol ethoxylates are a class of nonionic surfactants possessing alkyl chains with 12 to 18 carbons and ethoxylates with 0 to 18 units (Belanger et al. 2006).

Sorption to organic carbon and solids in the water co lumn and subsequent burial in sediments is an important removal process in aquatic systems. Rate s of sorption vary by ethoxymer and increase with increasing number of ethoxylate units and attendant hydrophobicity (Belanger et al. 2006). In soil, sorption to solids and organic carbon is a significant partitioning process (Belanger et al. 2006), and can reduce the chemical’s rate of migration through th e soil. Rates of sorption vary by ethoxymer, and increase with increasing hydrophobicity (Belanger et al. 2006).

Anaerobic breakdown has been documented in laborator y experiments simulating wastewater treatment (Belanger et al. 2006). Aerobic degradation also occu rs. Rates of biodegradation vary by compound, but extremely rapid biodegradation is expected for all et hoxymers (Belanger et al. 2006). Rapid degradation was observed in natural estuarine waters with an alkyl half-life of 2.1 days and an ethoxy half-life of 6.3 days under environmental conditions (temperature unknown) (Vashon 1982). Linear and monobranched alcohol ethoxylates were completely biodegraded with in 20 days and approximately 5% of the initial amount of multibranched alcohol ethoxylates remained af ter 30 days (Marcomini et al. 2000, as cited in Environment Canada 2002a).

Alcohols and fatty alcohols are alcohol ethoxylates’ pr imary degradation products (Belanger et al. 2006). Anaerobic degradation also produces methane. The degr adation intermediates of alcohol ethoxylates are less toxic than the parent compounds, and polyethyle ne glycol is the primary intermediate product (Environment Canada 2002a). Aerobic degradation o ccurs by stepwise removal of ethylene oxide units, and simultaneous degradation of the alkyl chain can also occur, proceeding to complete degradation into carbon dioxide and water (Environment Canada 2002). Ho wever, the following intermediate products are also expected, depending on the form of the parent compound (Environment Canada 2002):

3⁄4 Parent Compound: Linear alcohol ethoxylates

Intermediate Compounds: Linear fatty alcohol, carboxylic fatty acid, polyethylene glycol, monocarboxylated polyethylene glycol, and dicarboxylated polyethylene glycol.

2-19Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### 3⁄4 Parent Compound: Monobranched alcohol ethoxylates

Intermediate Compounds: Carboxylated alcohol ethoxylates with a carboxylic group on the alcohol chain, monocarboxylated polyethylene glycol, dicarboxylated polyethylene glycol, carboxylated alcohol ethoxylates with a carboxylic group on the polyethoxylic chain, and carboxylic fatty acid.

3⁄4 Parent Compound: Multibranched alcohol ethoxylates

Intermediate Compounds: Carboxylated alcohol ethoxylates with a carboxylic group on the polyethoxylic chain and carboxylic fatty acid.

Alcohol ethoxylates can also increase the mobility of other substances thr ough soil and groundwater because of their physical properties as nonionic surfactants (Krogh et al. 2003).

Ecological Effects


### Available information suggests that alcohol ethoxy lates can have acute and chronic toxic effects on aquatic organisms. These effects vary by carbon chain length. Typical alcohol ethoxylate surfactant chain length ranges from 9 to 18 carbons and 3 to 8 ethoxy late groups. Toxicity generally declines as the number of ethoxylates increases (Campbell 2002).

A summary of chronic toxicity data from 60 studi es conducted between 1977 and 2004 on fish, aquatic invertebrates, and aquatic plant and algae species st ates that alcohol ethoxylates’ effects on aquatic species include reduced growth rates, impaired repr oduction, and reduced survival of neonates, as well as acute mortality. Alcohol ethoxylates may cause diminish ed growth rates and reduced cell counts in algae species at concentrations as low as 0.03 mg/L (Belanger et al. 2006).

The concentrations at which alcohol ethoxylates lead to acute mortality in aquatic species are similar to the concentrations at which nonylphenol ethoxylates lead to acute mortality. However, alcohol ethoxylates degrade more quickly in the aquatic environment to relatively non-toxic compounds, whereas nonylphenol ethoxylate degradation typically yields no nylphenol, which is toxic as well as persistent in the aquatic environment.

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects


### Human beings have regular contact with alcohol eth oxylates through a variety of industrial and consumer products such as soaps, detergents, and other cleaning products (US EPA 2000b). Exposure to these chemicals can occur through ingestion, inhalation, or contact with the skin or eyes. Studies of acute toxicity show that volumes well above a reasonable in take level would have to occur to produce any toxic response. Moreover, no fatal case of poisoning with al cohol ethoxylates has ever been reported. Multiple studies investigating the acute toxicity of alcohol et hoxylates have shown that the use of these compounds is of low concern in terms of oral and dermal toxicity (HERA 2007).

Clinical animal studies indicate these chemicals may pr oduce gastrointestinal irritation such as ulcerations of the stomach, pilo-erection, diarrhea, and lethargy. Simi larly, slight to severe irritation of the skin or eye was generated when undiluted alcohol ethoxylates were applied to the skin and eyes of rabbits and rats. The chemical shows no indication of being a genotoxin, carcinogen, or mutagen (HERA 2007). No information was available on levels at which these effects might occur, though toxicity is thought to be substantially lower than that of nonylphenol ethoxylat es. Concentrations of alcohol ethoxylates in aquatic resources affected by airport deicing discharges are expected to be fairly low.

2-20Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior

2.2.2.3 Dyes


### Manufacturers add dye to ADFs to help ADF users track their presence on aircraft and airfield surfaces and to help them to distinguish Type I from Type IV fluids. Numerous dyes are found in ADFs, including alphazurine, tetrabromofluorescein, tartrazine, malonyl green, and shilling green dyes. Because of the proprietary nature of ADF formulations, the identity of all ADF dyes in use is not known. Type I ADFs are typically orange, and Type IV ADFs are typically green. Dyes and other ADF additives typically compose less than 2% of ADF volume. While some ADF dyes have been found to be safe for human consumption and are regularly used as food colorants, others may be detrimental to ecosystems or have unknown impacts. This section and Table A-44 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of ADF dyes.

Fate and Transport


### Dyes are a diverse group of substances. Fate, trans port, and partitioning behaviors depend on the specific dye in question. Most ADF dyes are expected to be at least somewhat water-soluble. Dyes reported as present in ADFs include: eosin orange (tetrabromofluorescein), FD&C Blue #1 (alphazurine), FD&C Yellow #5 (tartrazine), malonyl green (C.I. Pigment Yellow 34), and shilling green.

EPA was unable to locate information on the fate and transport behavior of these dyes through its literature search. However, in general, dyes tend to ab sorb ultraviolet radiation and have the potential to form decay products more toxic than the original parent dye compound.

Ecological Effects


### The ecological effects of many ADF dyes have not been well documented.

Tetrabromofluorescein, a red dye, is not considered to be toxic to aquatic organisms except in very high concentrations. Aquatic invertebrates may have a somewh at lower sensitivity threshold than fish. It is not likely to bioaccumulate (Environment Canada 2008a).

No toxicity testing data is available for alphazurine , but some studies suggest that long-term degradation products of this dye may be of concern (ScienceLab 2005).

Malonyl green uses C.I. Pigment Yellow 34 which is a substance listed as being of environmental concern in the European Union due to the potential for highly toxic effects from two of its constituents,

lead chromate and lead sulfate. These substances are al so considered to be persistent in the environment and potentially bioaccumulative (Environment Canada 2008b).

EPA found no toxicity data for shilling green or tartrazine through its literature search.

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects



### EPA found limited information on human health effect s of ADF dyes through its literature search. Dyes may contribute to discoloration of surface waters downstream of airport deicing discharge outfalls.

2.2.2.4 Ethylene Glycol


### Ethylene glycol (C 2 

### H 6 

### O 2 

### ) is well known as one of two freezing point depressants used in most Type I and Type IV ADFs. Most of the ADF currently applied at U.S. airports is based on the other main freezing point depressant, propylene glycol, but a sizeable frac tion of current ADF usage continues to be based on ethylene glycol. These fluids are a pplied in large quantities at a number of airports. Before dilution for application, an ADF can consist of nearly 90% ethylene glycol. For this reason, large quantities of ethylene glycol are released to the environment during airport deicing activities. Ethylene glycol is also

2-21Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### used in some airfield pavement deicer formulations. Ethylene glycol contamination has been detected in surface waters, groundwater, sediments, and wastewater discharges at or near airports using ADFs.

When released to surface waters in large quantities, the chemical has the potential to consume large quantities of dissolved oxygen from the water column, potentially affecting the ecosystem and human use of aquatic resources. This profile and Table A-45 in Appendix A summarize available information on the environmental fate and transport, ecological e ffects, and human effects of ethylene glycol.

Fate and Transport



### This section summarizes the environmental fate and tr ansport characteristics of ethylene glycol. As discussed in previous sections, deicing products contai ning ethylene glycol can enter surface waters, soil, and groundwater on or near airports.

Volatilization of ethylene glycol from soil or water is not, in general, expected. However, ethylene glycol can be released into the atmosphere by spray appl ication of ADFs to aircraft, particularly under windy conditions, and by shearing of ADFs from aircraft during taxiing and take-off. Ethylene glycol’s atmospheric half-life is 50 hours at 25° C (US NLM 2008).

Ethylene glycol is freely soluble in water and is hi ghly mobile in both surface water and groundwater (US NLM 2008). Tracer experiments appear to show that ethylene glycol moves through soil with groundwater. It adsorbs poorly to clay and sandy clay soils (US NLM 2008).

Ethylene glycol undergoes rapid microbial degradation in both soil and water. It can be degraded both aerobically and anaerobically (Johnson et al. 2001). Photolysis and hydrolysis are expected to be insignificant degradation pathways.

As with other glycols, unacclimated microbial comm unities in surface waters and soils often experience a lag of several days before degradation begins. Micr obial communities acclimated to glycol inflows can begin degradation much sooner. Additives in ADF s, however, can significantly delay degradation (Johnson et al. 2001) as can low temperatures (US NL M 2008). Even though ethylene glycol itself may be completely degraded within a few days under optimal conditions, the full theoretical biological oxygen demand may not be observed for several weeks (US NLM 2008).

Ethylene glycol degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with a reported CBOD 5 

### of 0.4 to 0.7 g O 2 

### /g of ethylene glycol or 400 to 800 g O 2 

### per liter of ethylene glycol (D’Itri 1992).

In various field soils, 90% to 100% degradation of et hylene glycol was observed in 2 to 12 days (study temperatures unknown). Ethylene glycol in ADFs was completely degraded in soils along airport runways within 29 days at 8° C (US NLM 2008). Ethylene glycol in river water degraded completely in three days at 20° C and in 5 to 14 days at 8° C (US NLM 2008). Ethylene glycol should exhibit minimal partitioning to sediments or suspended particles in water. Given these behaviors, the distance ethylene glycol travels in surface water, groundwater, and soil will depend pr imarily on the balance between rates of transport and degradation (US NLM 2008).

Anaerobic degradation can be complete, produci ng methane and carbon dioxide, or incomplete, producing ethanol and acetate (Johnson et al. 2001). When there is insufficient oxygen to allow complete aerobic degradation, anaerobic degradation occurs unless inhibited by ADF additives or high concentrations of metabolic byproducts.

2-22Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior

Ecological Effects


### Ethylene glycol toxicity data for aquatic organism s is relatively limited in its scope and availability. However, available data indicates ethylene glycol may cause general chronic toxicity effects at high concentrations (>3400 mg/L), including slower growth and inhibited reproduction. It can also cause acute mortality. A study by Corsi et al. (2006) found that in certain Type I formulations, ethylene glycol contributed as much as 87% of the total toxic effect to the algae Selenastrum capricornutum . However, it contributed a much smaller percentage of the toxicity of the formulation to the fathead minnow (35%), the daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia (47%), and Microtox testing (9%). It also contributed a much smaller percentage of the toxicity of a Type IV formulati on to all four of the aforementioned tests (ranging from less than 1% to 19%).

Ethylene glycol is known to exert high levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in surface waters. This process can adversely affect a quatic life by consuming ox ygen aquatic organisms need to survive (Corsi et al. 2001). Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are consumed when microbial populations decompose ethylene glycol. As described above, ethylene glycol degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with a reported CBOD 5 

### of 0,4 to 0.7 g O 2 

### /g of ethylene glycol, or 400 to 800 g O 2 

### per liter of ethylene glycol (D’Itri 1992).

Sufficient DO levels in surface waters are critical for the survival of fish, macroinvertebrates, and other aquatic organisms. If oxygen concentrations drop below a minimum level, organisms emigrate, if able and possible, to areas with higher oxygen levels or eventually die (US EPA 1993). This effect can drastically reduce the amount of useable aquatic habita t. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate bottom-feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community’s species profile, or alter

critical food-web interactions.

An example of dissolved oxygen impacts deriving from airport deicing operation discharges is the impairment of Gunpowder and Elija h Creeks in northern Kentucky. Ne ws reports have shown that discharges from Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Interna tional Airport, specifically ethylene glycol, are to blame for the creeks’ states, which we re so degraded at the time of the reports that they did not support life (Kelly and Klepal 2004).

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects


### Human exposure to ethylene glycol can occur through dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion, and eye contact (NIOSH 2005a). Exposure typically targets the eyes, skin, respiratory system, and central nervous system, and manifests through irritation to the eyes, skin, nose, and throat; nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion); dizziness, stu por, convulsions, central nervous system depression; and skin sensitization (NIOSH 2005a). Effects can occur at concentrations as low as 2 mg/kg*day. Children and adults are expected to similarly express pollutant exposure symptoms (US HHS 2007a).

No negative health effects have been reported in persons chronically expo sed to ethylene glycol at natural levels found in the environment (US HHS 2007b), though available monitoring data indicate that ethylene glycol is typically found only near areas of rel ease (e.g., production facilities and airports). Workers involved in airport deicing operati ons have produced urine samples containing ethylene glycol. Further research is still needed, however, to fully assess the cancer potential, developmental toxicity, and other human health impacts of this pollutant, particularly with respect to the general public (US HHS 2007b).

Several articles have reported a strong sweet odor do wnstream from airport deicing outfalls which is believed to derive from ethylene and/or propylene gl ycol (e.g., Eddy 1997). Additionally, anoxic waters,

2-23Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### which can result from the high BOD ethylene glycol exerts, typically produce a strong, unpleasant odor (State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2001).

2.2.2.5 Formate


### Sodium formate is used as a freezing point depressant in airfield pavement deicers and is used in large quantities at a number of airports. The dissolution of sodium formate after application releases formate (CH 2 

### O 2 

### ) into the environment in its ionic form. Formate can impact aquatic environments through consumption of dissolved oxygen dur ing degradation. This section and Table A-46 of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of formate.

Fate and Transport


### Formate is not expected to volatilize (US NLM 2008).

Formate ions are very soluble in water though th e solubility of formate in compounds depends on the solubility of those compounds (US NLM 2008). Sodium formate has a solubility of 972 g/L at 20° C (US NLM 2008). Depending on site-specific factors, formate ions may adsorb or complex with soil or water

constituents or remain dissolved in su rface water or groundwater (US NLM 2008).

Formate is slowly hydrolyzed in water (US NLM 2008). It is subject to rapid aerobic degradation, and can be anaerobically degraded by methanogens (US NLM 2008). Researchers observed that the aerobic degradation rate appears to decrease sharply with decreasing temperatures (Hellsten et al. 2005). The aerobic degradation of formate produces carbon dioxide and bicarbonate (Hellsten et al. 2005).

Formate has a slightly lower BOD and COD than ac etate and a lower BOD and COD than ethylene and propylene glycol. Sodium formate granules in one formulated deicing product (Kilfrost CIM) are reported to have a COD of 0.3 g O 2 

### /g product. The product’s BOD was not reported (Reeves et al. 2005).

Ecological Effects


### Formate anions decay through a process that consum es dissolved oxygen present in surface waters and groundwater. Chemicals that exert oxygen demand during the degradation process reduce the level of dissolved oxygen available for aquatic organisms, wh ich require a certain level of dissolved oxygen to

function and survive. For additional information on th e impacts of oxygen demand, see Sections 2.2.1.2, 2.2.2.1, and 2.2.2.2.

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects


### EPA’s literature search did not locate conclusive reports on the human health effects of acetate. Formate may contribute to aesthetic impacts, however. Fo rmate decomposition consumes dissolved oxygen in surface waters. Low dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters can cause unpleasant odors and

discoloration of water.

2.2.2.6 Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates


### The widespread use of nonylphenol ethoxylates (C 9 

### H 19 

### -C 6 

### H 4 

### O(CH 2 

### CH 2 

### O)

n 

### H a 

### ) as a surfactant additive in Type I and Type IV ADF formulations has been well documented in the literature. Nonylphenol is a common decay product of nonylphenol ethoxylates. Su rfactants typically comprise less than 2% by volume of ADFs. There is currently uncertainty, how ever, over the extent to which manufacturers have recently modified ADF formulations to replace nonylphe nol ethoxylates with other types of surfactants.

Nonylphenol ethoxylates and nonylphenol can have toxic and estrogenic properties and persist in the environment. They can cause mortality and endocrine disruption in aquatic organisms. Some preliminary data suggest that nonylphenol may cause cancer and reproductive problems in human beings.

2-24Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### Nonylphenol ethoxylate and nonylphenol contamin ation has been detected in surface waters, groundwater, sediments, aquatic organisms, and wastew ater discharges at or near airports using ADFs. This profile and Table A-47 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effect s of nonylphenol and its ethoxylates.

Fate and Transport



### This section summarizes the environmental fate and tr ansport characteristics of nonylphenol ethoxylates and nonylphenol. As discussed in previous sections, airport deici ng products containing nonylphenol ethoxylates and nonylphenol can enter surface waters , soil, and groundwater on or near airports. Nonylphenol and its ethoxylates are a large class of alkylated phenols with varying physical properties; fate, transport, and partitioning behavior vary somewhat by ethoxymer.

Nonylphenol has very low volatility. Its ethoxylates ar e also not expected to volatilize readily. However, nonylphenol ethoxylates can be released into the atmo sphere by spray application of ADF to aircraft, particularly under windy conditions, and by shearing of ADF from aircraft during taxiing and take-off. Nonylphenol ethoxylates are expected to degrade rapidly in air (Environment Canada 2002).

Nonylphenol ethoxylates are likely to partition to orga nic matter or minerals in soil, but this tendency varies by ethoxymer and degree of hydrophobicity. Migration of nonylphenol ethoxylates through the soil has been observed (Environment Canada 2002). In water, as in soil, nonylphenol ethoxylates may sorb to organic matter or particulates (Environment Canada 2002). The decay product nonylphenol is likely to partition to sediments and mineral particles in water and soil but can still leach through soils (Environment Canada 2002).

Degradation of nonylphenol ethoxylates varies by et hoxymer and tends to produce some recalcitrant compounds with endocrine disrupting potential, in cluding nonylphenol, nonylphenol monoethoxylate, nonylphenol diethoxylate, nonylphenoxyacetic acid, and nonylphenoxyethoxyacetic acid (Environment Canada 2002). Observed half-lives for nonylphenol ethoxylates in environmental media range from 3 to 26 days under ideal aerobic conditions with an acclimated microbial community (Staples et al. 2001).For nonylphenol, a biphasic degradation profile has been observed in soils with relatively rapid initial degradation of 30-50% during the first several weeks and the remainder degrading with a half-life of approximately 90 days (Environment Canada 2002). De gradation rate also appears to be strongly dependent on the environmental medium. Half-lives of nonylphenol range from 2.4 hours to 0.74 d in water (US NLM 2008). The photolytic half-life of n onylphenol in the upper layer of surface water is 10- 15 hours but is much slower in deeper layers. In a sediment mesocosm, a half-life of 66 days was observed for nonylphenol (Environment Canada 2008a).

Ecological Effects


### Nonylphenol ethoxylates are highly toxic to many aquatic species. Nonylphenol ethoxylates degrade quickly and are therefore chiefly of concern because of their acute effects. Nonylphenol, the primary degradation product of nonylphenol ethoxylates persis ts in water for substantially longer time periods than nonylphenol ethoxylates and is more likely to contribute to chronic, as well as acute, effects. It is one of the most prevalent contaminants in U.S. streams, both in terms of the number of streams affected and the concentrations found (US EPA 2005).

The primary impacts of these chemicals on aquatic life are sublethal toxic effects, although at sufficient doses both can cause mortality. Nonylphenol ethoxylate t oxicity has not been studied to the same extent as nonylphenol toxicity, but several types of adverse impacts have been noted. These impacts include acute mortality in some sensitive species at concentrations as low as 2.8 mg/L, reproduction impacts,

2-25Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### diminished egg emergence in aquatic animals, and growth impairment in algae and aquatic animal species. Nonylphenol ethoxylates are not thought to bioaccumulate in any species (Environment Canada 2001). A study by Corsi et al. (2006) found that in certain Type I and Type IV deicing formulations, nonylphenol ethoxylates were responsible for 40 to 50 % of toxicity in one Type I and one Type IV formulation for several species. However, it was not det ected in three of the other formulations tested, and was responsible for only a small fraction of toxicity in the remaining four.

An EPA study of the effects of nonylphenol on aquatic life found that at concentrations as low as 0.01 mg/L, impacts include reproduction impairment, reduced numbers of live offspring, diminished growth, and reduced offspring survival (US EPA 2005). Se veral other studies address estrogenic or other reproductive effects, including evidence suggesting in creased vitellogenin concentrations in fish from chronic nonylphenol exposure and, at high concentra tions, impacts on sex ratios and spawning habits. Nonylphenol has also been shown to inhibit grow th and cellular counts in algae and to potentially bioaccumulate in some mollusk species. EPA has stated that the maximum acceptable one-hour average concentrations of nonylphenol in freshwater is 28 μg/L and 7.0 μg/L in saltwater. The maximum acceptable four-day average is 6.6 μg/L in freshwater and 1.7 μg/L in saltwater (US EPA 2005).

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects


### Human exposure to nonylphenol and its ethoxylates can occur through ingestion, inhalation, and absorption through the eyes or skin (US EPA 2006a). Fish consumption is the largest contributor to human exposure, and is estimated to account for rough ly 70 to 80% of typical daily doses (UNEP et al. 2004). This pollutant primarily affects the upper respiratory system and kidneys. Exposure symptoms can include skin and eye irritation, tissue decay, sw elling, mottled kidneys, lethargy, coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, headache, nausea, diarrhea, and vom iting. Data show that low concentrations of these chemicals act as mild irritants. High concentrations of nonylphenol and its ethoxylates may be extremely destructive to the upper respiratory tract, eyes, and skin (US EPA 2006a, Cox 1996), but human beings are unlikely to encounter such concentrations thro ugh exposure to aquatic resources contaminated by airport deicing products. The no observed adverse ef fect level is considered to be 10 mg/kg*day.

Current evidence of this pollutant as a genotoxin or ca rcinogen is inconclusive, but data seem to suggest that nonylphenol ethoxylates cause breast cancer ce lls to increase in number. Nonylphenol has also demonstrated estrogenic behavior, causing an increase in breast tumor numbers and size, reproductive problems, and various hormonal disruptions (UNEP et al. 2004).

2.2.2.7 Polyacrylic Acid


### Polyacrylic acid (C 3 

### H 4 

### O 2 

### )

n 

### is composed of a connected series of acrylic acid monomers. This chemical is used as a thickener in some Type IV ADFs to make them viscous enough to maintain their position on aircraft surfaces until aircraft take-off. Thickeners and other ADF additives typically make up less than 2% of ADF volume. During degradation in the natural environment, polyacrylic acid can break down into its component monomers. Polyacrylic acid and acrylic acid monomers have been linked to human health problems, adverse impacts on aquatic life, and disr uptions of aquatic community trophic webs. This

section and Table A-48 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmenta l fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of polyacrylic acid.

Fate and Transport


### Polyacrylic acids comprise a family of polymers. Th ey are usually marketed as mixtures of polymers by molecular weight. The behavior of these mixtures in the environment may vary somewhat, but overall they are fairly similar (US NLM 2008).

2-26Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### Polyacrylic acids are not expected to volatilize from water or moist soil (US NLM 2008). Slow volatilization from dry soil is possible (US NLM 2008). They are not expected to adsorb to soils or particulates, therefore potential for transport in so ils, surface waters, and groundwater is high (US NLM 2008).

Biodegradability decreases with an increasing numbe r of polymerized units and increasing formula molecular weight. Biodegradability drops off sharpl y between molecular weight s 700 and 1,000, and for polymers with more than seven units (Larson et al. 1997). It appears that monomers and dimers of acrylic acid are completely biodegradable, but there is ev idence that polymers of three to seven units are incompletely biodegraded (Larson et al. 1997).

Non-polymerized (monomeric) acrylic acid biodegrades fairly quickly under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. For example, it was 68% degraded within two weeks with an activated sludge inoculum. In a 42-day anaerobic study with a sewage seed inoculum, 71% was degraded (US NLM 2008).

It is possible for substances such as polyacrylic acids , which are slowly biodegradable, to accumulate in soils and to enhance the growth of microbial biomass in those soils. If microbial growth is high enough, the pores of the soil can become plugged with micr obial biomass. This process can lead to plume spreading as new loadings of polyacrylic acid contaminated runoff are forced around regions of low permeability.

Ecological Effects


### Acute toxicity impacts on numerous invertebrates and fi sh have been noted for acrylic acid, primarily in the form of mortality but also in the form of behavioral changes in the water flea ( Daphnia magna) . Some studies also note growth rate inhibition and bioma ss reductions in green and blue-green algae. These effects may occur at levels as low as 0.17 mg/L (IPCS 1997).

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects


### Exposure to acrylic acid can occur through inhalation, ingestion, and skin or eye contact, and can cause a variety of ailments including irritation to the eyes, sk in, and respiratory system; eye and skin burns; skin sensitization; and lung, liver, and kidney disease (as revealed through animal studies) (NIOSH 2005b).

Currently there have been no reports of poisoning in cidents in the general population. Most data indicate that this pollutant is of low to moderate acute toxicity by the oral route (NOAEL 140 mg/kg/day), and moderate acute toxicity by the inhalation (LOAEL 15 mg/m 3 

### ) or dermal route. It is unclear what concentration is non-irritant. Available reproduction st udies indicate that acrylic acid is not teratogenic (i.e., does not cause birth defects) and has no effect on reproduction. The current data available are inconclusive regarding carcinogenic health hazards associated with acrylic acid exposure (US NLM 2008).

Acrylic acid monomers have a strong acrid odor, though no reports have linked this odor specifically to airport deicing discharges (BAMM 2006).

2.2.2.8 Potassium


### Potassium acetate is used as a freezing point depressan t in airfield pavement deicers and is applied in large quantities at a number of airports. The chemical is typically applied in liquid form and releases potassium into the surrounding environment in its io nic form. Following dissolution after application, solid forms of potassium acetate also releases potassium in its ionic form to the environment. Potassium can elevate measures of salinity, co nductance, or total dissolved solids (TDS) in surface waters. It can impact aquatic environments and, at high levels, cau se health problems in human beings. This section and

2-27Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### Table A-49 of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of potassium.

Fate and Transport


### Ionic potassium is highly soluble and highly mobile in both surface water and groundwater. In soil, potassium can accumulate in areas where there is insuffi cient water available to transport it through the soil horizon. Otherwise, it is transported easily thro ugh soil and can enter and travel with groundwater.

As an elemental ion, potassium is not subject to decay and persists in the environm ent. It is not expected

to volatilize.

Ecological Effects


### Most freshwater surface waters contain a small quantity of potassium. Fish require potassium for growth, reproduction, and survival. Freshwater fish actively assimilate potassium from food and water. Saltwater fish are generally at lower risk of potassium defi ciency than freshwater fish because marine water contains higher levels of potassium then fresh wa ter. High potassium loadings or long turnover times, however, can create surface water ion balance issues that can impact aquatic organism functioning and survival (Public Sector Consultants 1993).

Exposure to high levels of potassium can cause os moregulatory dysfunction in aquatic organisms. Freshwater fish tissues typically have higher potassium content than surrounding water. Under normal conditions, freshwater fish use their gills, circulatory system, and kidneys to work against this osmotic gradient in order to prevent the influx of excess water and the loss of potassium from their tissues. Specialized cells in fish gill epithelium use potassium and sodium ions to transport chloride into or out of fish tissue (Jobling 1996). In marine fish, chloride i ons are pumped from fish against an osmotic gradient. This process helps to maintain optimal osmotic potential between the fish and its environment.

The process moves potassium ions in the opposite direction in freshwater fish. The gill has mechanisms which actively work to re-import potassium into the blood on order to replace potassium lost through the gills. When external potassium levels exceed intern al potassium levels, these osmoregulatory mechanisms can lead to rapid fish dehydration, ionoregulatory sy stem imbalance, and impair ment to fish functioning

and survival.

Exposure to excessive potassium concentrations can interfere with these essential osmoregulatory mechanisms in both freshwater and saltwater fish, re quiring fish to expend more energy to maintain homeostasis or, if concentrations are high e nough, cause death through ionic imbalance.

In lakes, increased salt concentrations can also lead to increased density of water layers, leading to or exacerbating stratification during cold or still weather to the point that normal seasonal overturn does not occur (D’Itri 1992).

Plants use potassium to regulate ion transport. Plants exposed to high concentrations of potassium suffer

adverse effects similar to those associated with potassium deficiencies by causing deficiencies in magnesium and calcium (Motavalli et al. 2008), which are essential for growth, reproduction, and

survival.

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects


### Potassium is an essential part of the human diet. Th is element is an essential in preventing and treating high blood pressure, hypoglycemia, diabetes, kidney disease, obesity, and potentially paralysis. The absence of adequate potassium in the diet may lead to listlessness, fatigue, gas pains, constipation,

2-28Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### insomnia, and low blood sugar. Moreover, deficien t individuals may have weak muscles and a slow, irregular pulse (IFIC 2005).

This element is beneficial at lower levels but may have detrimental health impacts if consumed in excess. U.S. health guidelines advise that no more than 4, 700 mg potassium be consumed each day (US HHS and DoA 2005). However, many humans do not consume enough potassium. Human beings may ingest potassium from airport deicing discharges through cons umption of contaminated drinking water sources.

2.2.2.9 Propylene Glycol


### Like ethylene glycol, propylene glycol (C 3 

### H 8 

### O 2 

### ) is a well-known freezing point depressant used in many Type I and Type IV ADFs. These fluids are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. Most ADF in current use at U.S. airports is based on propylen e glycol. Before dilution for application, an ADF can consist of nearly 90% propylene glycol. Propylene glycol is also used in some airfield pavement deicer formulations. For this reason, large quantities of propy lene glycol can be released to the environment during airport deicing activities. Propylene glycol contamination has been detected in surface waters, groundwater, sediments, and wastewater discharges at or near airports using ADFs.

Though more expensive than ethylene glycol, propylene glycol is considerably less toxic to human beings and other mammals. When released to surface waters in large quantities, however, it has the potential to consume large quantities of dissolved oxygen from the water column, potentially affecting the ecosystem and human use of aquatic resources. This profile and Table A-50 in Appendix A summarizes available information on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of propylene glycol.

Fate and Transport



### This section summarizes the environmental fate and tr ansport characteristics of propylene glycol. As discussed in previous sections, deicing products cont aining propylene glycol can enter surface waters, soil, and groundwater on or near airports.

Volatilization of propylene glycol from soil or wate r is not, in general, expected (US NLM 2008). However, propylene glycol can be released into the atmosphere by spray application of ADF to aircraft, particularly under windy conditions, and by shearing of ADF from aircraft during taxiing and take-off. Propylene glycol’s atmospheric half-life is 32 hours at 25° C (US NLM 2008).

Propylene glycol is freely soluble in water, and has very high mobility in soils, sediments, surface water, and groundwater (US NLM 2008). Estimates of log K OW 

### for propylene glycol are low, and range from – 0.92 (US NLM 2008) to –1.41 (French et al. 2001, as cited in Jaesche et al. 2006). These low estimates of

K OW 

### support the observations of Jaesche et al. (2006), w ho found negligible soil sorption in laboratory experiments. Propylene glycol should also exhibi t minimal partitioning to sediments or suspended particles in water. Given these behaviors, the di stance propylene glycol travels in surface water, groundwater, and soil will depend prim arily on the balance between rates of transport and degradation.

Propylene glycol undergoes rapid microbial degradation in both soil and water. It can biodegrade under

both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of several days before glycol degradation begins. Micr obial communities acclimated to glycol inflows can begin degradation much sooner. Additives in ADF s, however, can significantly delay degradation (Johnson et al. 2001). In microcosm experiments unde r aerobic conditions, degradation rates of up to 95 milligrams of propylene glycol per day per kilogram of dry soil were observed by Klecka et al. (1993; as cited in Jaesche et al. 2006). Jaesche et al. (2006) found that in subsoil materials, the anaerobic

2-29Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior

2-30 

### degradation of propylene glycol was very slow and was dependent on the import of microbiota from

surface soils.

Propylene glycol degradation is also temperature-dependent . In laboratory experiments with fieldcollected soils, propylene glycol was not observed to degrade anaerobically at 4o C, and degraded anaerobically at 20° C only in soil that was rich in organic matter (Jaesche et al. 2006).

During anaerobic wastewater treatment, propylene glyc ol degrades first to propionaldehyde, then to propionate and 1-propanol. The final products are acetate, methane, and carbon dioxide (Jaesche et al. 2006).

Propylene glycol degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with an estimated CBOD 5 

### of 1 g O 2 

### /g of propylene glycol, or 1,000 g O 2 

### per liter of propylene glycol (M ericas and Wagoner 1994; Safferman et al. 1998, all as cited in Johnson et al. 2001).

Anaerobic degradation of propylene glycol can increase the efflux of terminal electron acceptors such as iron and manganese (hydr)oxides from soils (Jaesche et al. 2006). Over time, continued input of propylene glycol can therefore lead to a reduction in soil’s redox potential, promoting anoxic conditions in the soil (Jaesche et al. 2006).

Ecological Effects


### Data on propylene glycol’s toxicity for aquatic organisms is relatively limited, though it is generally perceived as being relatively low. Available data indicate that propylene glycol may cause general chronic toxicity effects, including slower growth and inhibited reproduction, as well as acute mortality at concentrations greater than 5000 mg/L. A study by Corsi et al. (2006) found that in certain Type I formulations, propylene glycol had a greater toxic effect on its own than did the formulation. 2 

### However, it contributed a much smaller percentage of the toxi city of the formulation to the fathead minnow, the daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia , and Microtox testing for both Type I a nd Type IV fluids (ranging from less than 1% to 51%).

Propylene glycol is known to exert high levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) during degradation in surface waters. This process can adversely affect a quatic life by consuming ox ygen aquatic organisms need to survive (Corsi et al. 2001). Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are consumed when microbial populations decompose ethylene glycol.

Sufficient DO levels in surface waters are critical for the survival of fish, macroinvertebrates, and other aquatic organisms. If oxygen concentrations drop below a minimum level, organisms emigrate, if able and possible, to areas with higher oxygen levels or eventually die (US EPA 1993). This effect can drastically reduce the amount of useable aquatic habita t. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate bottom-feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community’s species profile, or alter

critical food-web interactions.

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects


### Unlike ethylene glycol, a cause of acute toxicity in human beings and other mamma ls, propylene glycol is generally considered to be safe and a rare cause of t oxic effects. Human exposure to propylene glycol can occur through dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion, and eye contact

2 The paper explains that this may be caused either by uncer tainty in calculating the relative toxicity factors, or by the possibility that the interactions of all chemicals in a deicing formulation may result in lower toxicity than propylene glycol
alone.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### Humans typically come in contact with propylene gl ycol through ingestion of food and medications and through dermal contact with cosmetics or topical me dications. Background concen trations in foods range from < 0.001% in eggs and soups to about 15% in some seasonings and fl avorings. No health effects have been reported in persons chronically exposed to propy lene glycol at levels found in the environment. Some special-risk groups may be more sensitive at lo wer levels; these include neonates, infants and the elderly, or those with pre-existing skin or eye conditions or allergies (US HHS 2007b).

Extensive topical application has been known to cau se burns to the skin. The common use of propylene glycol in burn creams has been associated with hyperosmolality, lactic aci dosis (the build-up of lactic acid in the body), intravascular hemolysi s (the rupturing of blood vessels), central nervous system depression, seizures, coma, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and renal failure, although only in very high doses (US HHS 2007b). For example, one study found an LD50 in the rat of 30,000 mg/kg (US EPA 2000a). However, it is expected that this level of expos ure through human contact with propylene glycolcontaminated aquatic resources would be very unlikely.

Several news articles have reporte d strong sweet odors downstream from airport deicing outfalls which are believed to be linked to ethy lene glycol and propylene glycol discharges (e.g., Hopey 1998). Additionally, anoxic waters, which can result from the high BOD propylene glycol exerts, typically produce a strong, unpleasant odor (State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2001).

2.2.2.10 Sodium


### Sodium acetate and sodium formate are used as freezing point depressants in airfield pavement deicers and are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. The dissolution of these chemicals after application releases sodium into the environment in its ionic form. Sodium can elevate measures of salinity, conductance, or total dissolved solids (TDS) in surface waters. It can impact aquatic environments and, at high levels, cause hea lth problems in human beings. This section and Table A-51 of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and tr ansport, ecological effects, and human effects
of sodium.

Fate and Transport


### Sodium is highly soluble and highly mobile in both surface water and groundwater. In soil, sodium can

accumulate in areas where there is insufficient water available to transport it through the soil horizon. Otherwise, it is transported easily through so il and can enter and travel with groundwater.

When sodium replaces calcium in soil through an anio n exchange process, the structure of the soil can deteriorate, and aeration and water availability decrease (D’Itri 1992). Poor soil structure due to high sodium levels can also increase the soil mobility of metals (Amrhein and Strong 1990, as cited in D’Itri 1992).

As an elemental ion, sodium is not subject to decay a nd persists in the environment. It is not expected to

volatilize.

Ecological Effects


### Most freshwater surface waters contain a small qua ntity of sodium. High sodium loadings or long turnover times, however, can create surface water ion ba lance issues that can impact aquatic organism functioning and survival (Public Sector Consultants 1993).

Freshwater aquatic organisms are very sensitive to excess sodium in surface waters. Exposure to high levels of sodium can cause osmoregulatory dysfunct ion. Freshwater fish tissues typically have higher sodium content than surrounding water. Under normal conditions, freshwater fish use their gills,

2-31Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### circulatory system, and kidneys to work against this osmotic gradient in order to prevent the influx of

excess water and the loss of sodium from their tissues.

Sodium loss and water influx takes place at the fish g ill surface. Specialized cells in fish gill epithelium use potassium and sodium ions to transport chloride in to or out of fish tissue (Jobling 1996). In marine fish, chloride ions are pumped from fish against an osmotic gradient. This process helps to maintain optimal osmotic potential between the fish and its environment.

In freshwater fish, the process moves ions in the oppos ite direction. The fish’s circulatory system moves excess water to the kidney where it is rapidly excreted . The gill has mechanisms which actively work to re-import sodium into the blood on order to replace s odium lost through the gills. When external sodium levels exceed internal sodium levels, these mechan isms can contribute to rapid fish dehydration, ionoregulatory system imbalance, and impairment to fish functioning and survival.

Exposure to excessive potassium concentrations can interfere with these essential osmoregulatory mechanisms in both freshwater and saltwater fish, re quiring fish to expend more energy to maintain homeostasis or, if concentrations are high e nough, cause death through ionic imbalance.

In lakes, increased salt concentrations can also lead to increased density of water layers, leading to or exacerbating stratification during cold or still weather to the point that normal seasonal overturn does not occur (D’Itri 1992).

Both aquatic and terrestrial plants are susceptible to damage following exposure to excess sodium in surface water, soil, porewater, and groundwater. Sodi um-induced plant damage occurs in several ways (Moran et al. 1992). First, increasing osmotic pressure of the surrounding water (for aquatic plants) or soil solution increases sodium migration into and water diffusion from the cells, causing dehydration. Second, sodium ion accumulation in plant tissues can reach toxic concentrations. This is often visible in leaf margins, as transpiration pulls water into the leaves. As water evaporates from leaves, sodium ions remain behind and accumulate to toxic levels (University of Illinois Extension 2008). Sodium inhibits many enzymes in plants and is particularly harmful when intracellular potassium is low relative to sodium, as discussed below (Zhu 2007). Third, sodium stress induces the production of abscisic acid, which causes stomata to close and reduces gas exchange and photosynthesis (Zhu 2007).

In addition, the mineral composition of the soil can become unbalanced, making plant nutrient absorption more difficult (Moran et al. 1992). Sodium out-compe tes potassium for uptake by plant roots, eventually leading to potassium deficiency. Sufficient potassium levels are critical for maintaining adequate cell turgor (fluid pressure), membrane potential, and enzymatic activity (Zhu 2007).

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects


### Sodium is a necessary component of the human diet. While this element is vital in small amounts, excessive consumption may have adverse health effects. Health guidelines advise humans to consume 2,300 mg (1 teaspoon) of sodium per day (US HHS and DoA 2005). At elevated levels, this element is known to cause high blood pressure and possibly calcium loss. Human beings may ingest sodium from airport deicing discharges through consumpti on of contaminated drinking water sources.

2.2.2.11 Tolyltriazoles, Benzotriazoles, and Methyl-substituted Benzotriazoles


### The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) requir es glycol-based ADFs to contain a fire suppressant

because of concerns about ADF flammab ility in some aircraft electrical systems. The use of tolyltriazoles (C 7 

### H 7 

### N 3 

### ), benzotriazoles, or methyl-substituted benz otriazoles as flame retardants and corrosion

inhibitors in ADFs has been documented in the literature . Tolyltriazole refers to a mixture of the 4-methyl

2-32Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### and 5-methyl isomers of benzotriazole. Methyl-substitut ed benzotriazoles have a me thyl group attached to the benzene ring. These chemicals, along with other ADF additives, typically comprise less than 2% of ADF volume. Studies have identified the presence of these chemicals in drainage ditches, groundwater, wells, and soils on or near airports where ADFs have been used. This profile and Table A-52 in Appendix

A summarizes data on these chemicals’ environmental fa te and transport, ecological effects, and human
effects.

Fate and Transport


### Volatilization of tolyltriazole is not expected (US NLM 2008).

Benzotriazoles are highly polar and dissolve well in wate r (Weiss et al. 2006). All triazoles are expected to be highly mobile in surface water, groundwat er, and soils (US NLM 2008, Breedveld et al. 2003). Methyltriazoles are known to be mobile in groundwater (US NLM 2008). However, triazoles may protonate in some environmental matrices, and the ca tionic form would be expected to bind to organic material and clays (US NLM 2008). Methylbenzotriazol e was found to sorb to digested sludge (Gruden et al. 2001), and thus may be able to bind to organic carbon in soil. Sorption is not expected to be very significant in soils, however. Breedveld et al. (2003) found that benzotriazole showed very little sorption in various soil matrices, and only peat and compos t with a high organic carbon content showed significant sorption.

Photolysis is a potential route of degradation in en vironmental media with high exposure to light (US NLM 2008).

Biodegradation of these compounds varies by isomer. 5- methylbenzotriazole is much more aerobically degradable than the 4-methylbenzotriazole isomer (Weiss and Reemtsma 2005). The same pattern was observed in bench-scale bioreactor experiments in wh ich 5-methyltriazole was completely biodegraded within 17 days, but 4-methyltriazole was only 25% biodegraded after 28 days, and the remainder was recalcitrant to further degradation (Weiss et al. 2006) . Furthermore, 5-methylbenzotriazole was found to be “unstable” in cooling towers (an aerobic environment), whereas 4-methylbenzotriazole was not degraded (Gruden et al. 2001).

Another study found that methylbenzotriazole (isome r not specified) was not anaerobically digestible in lab experiments (Gruden et al. 2001). Anaerobic degr adation was not observed for benzotriazole and its derivatives in lab reactor experiments (Tham and Kenne dy 2005). Davis et al. (2000) have demonstrated that higher plants and white rot fungi can take up an d degrade triazoles. No information was located on the degradation products of benzotriazoles.

Weiss and Reemtsma (2005) found that both benzotriazole and 4-me thylbenzotriazole survived bank filtration treatment although 5-methylbenzotriazole di d not. Ozonation appears to be capable of almost completely removing benzotriazole a nd 4- and 5-methylbenzotriazole fro m wastewater and might also be able to remove them during drinking water treatment , where this technology is used (Weiss et al. 2006).

One study found that up to 300 mg/l of benzotriazole onl y slightly inhibited the anaerobic degradation of glycols, that up to 20 mg/l of 5,6-dimethylbenzotriazo le did not inhibit their anaerobic degradation, and that 300 mg/l of 5-methylbenzotriazole was capable of severely inhibiting their anaerobic degradation (Johnson et al. 2001).

Benzotriazole and methylbenzotriazole have been detected in groundwater near an airport at levels greater than 100 mg/l. This concentration is high enough to be potentially toxic to microbiota, fish, and invertebrates (Cancilla et al. 1998). At two airports, 4-methyltriazole was detect ed in all wells sampled,

2-33Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior



### but 5-methyltriazole was not detected in any of th e wells (Cancilla et al. 2003 and Cancilla et al. 1998). Breedveld et al. (1997) reported soil concentrations of up to 13 mg/kg in a drainage ditch and up to 1.1 mg/l in groundwater at Oslo Airport one to two years after deicing was discontinued.

Ecological Effects


### Triazoles are a major contributor to ADF toxicity and ma y be responsible for the majority of total toxicity in some formulations (Corsi et al. 2006). Triazoles are several orders of magnitude more acutely toxic than glycols to multiple aquatic species, including the bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ) and the water flea ( Daphnia magna) . The LC 50 

### for the waterflea for tolyltriazole is 74 mg/L. Tolyltriazole is considered to be more toxic than other benzotriazoles. Though not li kely to bioaccumulate, triazoles may persist in the aquatic environment due to their resistance to natu ral degradation (British Environment Agency 2000).

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects


### EPA’s search of publicly available literature yielde d no consistent or conclusive information on the impact of triazoles on human health or the aesthetic attributes of receiving waters.

2.2.2.12 Urea (Ammonia)


### Urea (NH 2 

### CONH 2 

### ) is used as a freezing point depressant in ai rfield pavement deicers and is applied in large quantities at a number of airports. It is typically used as a solid pavement deicer or in combination with ethylene or propylene glycol as a liquid pavement deicer. Urea is also a common fertilizer that enhances plant growth. Urea forms ammonia (NH 3 

### ) during decay. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms at low concentrations and can cause both organism mortality and reproduction impairment. Ammonia can further decay in aquatic environments into several nitrogen-containing compounds (e.g., nitrate) that can fertilize aquatic plants and foster biological overgro wths. Ammonia may cause minor to severe dermal or pulmonary irritation to human beings who come in to contact with it. Urea and ammonia have been

documented as contaminants in surf ace waters, groundwater, and soil in and near airports using urea as a pavement deicer. This section and Table A-53 of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of formate.

Fate and Transport


### Urea has a low vapor pressure and is not expected to volatilize readily from soil or water (US NLM 2008). Ammonia, a by-product of urea degradation. is quite volatile.

Urea has a solubility of 545 g/l, making it reasonably soluble (US NLM 2008). Urea is transported readily in surface water and its presence has been documented in groundwater at several airports using urea as a pavement deicer. This is despite th e fact that urea’s soil infiltration is thought to be minimal except where the soil is sandy (D’Itri 1992). Transport Canada (1990) (as cited in D’Itri 1992) reported that between 64 and 100% of applied urea can reach surface waters via overland flow. Urea can also accumulate in snowbanks and be released as a large load in a s hort amount of time during snowmelt (D’Itri 1992).

Urea biodegrades well under aerobic conditions and pr oduces ammonia which eventually degrades to nitrate. The degradation rate is temperature dependent and is expected to be slow during winter. After 14 days in river water at 8° C, degradation was almost nil (Evans and Patterson 1973 as cited in D’Itri 1992). At 20 degrees Celsius, urea fully degraded to ammonia within 4 to 6 days (Cryotech 2008).

Urea contains 46% nitrogen by weight, making it a pote ntial contributor to undesirable eutrophication of surface waters (D’Itri 1992). Urea’s BOD is approximately 1.8 g O 2 

### /g urea (Cryotech 2008) and is much higher than that of acetate and formate-based pavement deicers, as well as higher than that of ethylene glycol or propylene glycol-based pavement deicers and ADFs.

2-34Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 2. Airport Deic ing Product Components Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airp ort Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior

2-35 

### Ammonia levels in runoff from airports have been commonly reported at levels between 2 and 15 mg/L and can be higher (D’Itri 1992). These levels are poten tially toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms.

Ecological Effects


### Urea is not particularly toxic to aquatic life. However, urea degrades to ammonia which is highly toxic to many aquatic organisms. EPA established a Na tional Recommended Water Quality Criterion for
ammonia in 1984 and last revised it in 1998. Because of ammonia’s unique properties, the criteria are dependent on pH, temperature, and organism life stage. Ammonia is most toxic in its un-ionized form which is more likely to exist at higher temperatures and pH levels. If salmonids are present, acute criteria range from 0.885 to 32.6 mg N/l, depending upon pH . If salmonids are not present, acute criteria range from 1.32 to 48.8 mg N/l. Chronic criteria, which do not vary according to salmonid presence or absence, range from 0.254 to 3.48 mg N/l, de pending upon pH (US EPA 1998a).

Ammonia is capable of causing acute mortality in many aquatic organisms, particularly at higher

concentrations. Ammonia can also cause a host of chronic effects in aquatic organisms, including reproduction inhibition, diminished juvenile growth, and reduced embryo and neonate survival. Salmonid fish are particularly sensitive, and EPA’s ammonia standard is stricter for water bodies in which they are present. For example, one study determined an LC 50 

### for the rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) of 0.068 mg/L (US EPA 1998a). Ammonia has been not ed as a major cause of fish kills (US EPA 1991; USDA 1992). In addition, if surface water substrat e sediments are enriched with nutrients, the concentrations of nitrites on the overlying water can be raised enough to cause nitrite poisoning or “brown blood disease” in fish (USDA 1992).

Ammonia further decays in aquatic environments to nitrates. Nitrates function as a source of nitrogen nutrients. Surface water eutrophication due to excessive nutrient levels can produce ecological impacts such as nuisance algal blooms, death of underwater plants (due to reduced light penetration through turbid waters), reduced dissolved oxygen levels, a nd impaired aquatic or ganism populations.

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects


### A person ingests an average of 0.36 mg/day of ammonia through drinking water sources (US HHS 2004). Ammonia begins to be noticeable to drinking wate r consumers at 35 ppm (taste) to 50 ppm (odor). Low levels of exposure may not cause any problems in hea lthy individuals but may ha rm sensitive individuals such as those with asthma. At higher concentrations , ammonia exposure may also cause skin burns to the exposed area. Children respond to ammonia exposure in much the same way as adults. No evidence has been found to suggest that low-level chroni c ammonia exposure causes birth defects or other developmental problems. However, chronic exposur e has been found to cau se transient respiratory distress (US HHS 2004).

Data for assessing the carcinogenic potential of amm onia are limited. At consumption levels of 200 milligrams per day, ammonia may act as a cancer prom oter. However, well-designed animal studies have not yet been conducted in order to better elucid ate ammonia’s role as a potential carcinogen (US HHS 2004).

At high exposure levels, effects include irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat; dyspnea (breathing abnormalities), wheezing, and chest pain; pulmonary edema; pink frothy sputum; skin burns, and vesiculation (formation of blisters or vesicles) (NIOSH 2005c). Human exposur e to such high levels through aquatic resources contaminated by airport deicing discharges is not expected.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



## 3 Environmental Impact Potential under Current Airport Deicing
Practices

This chapter summarizes the potential environmental impacts of airport deicing operation discharges

under current conditions and industry practices. Chapter 4 presents information on environmental improvements and benefits expected under each of EPA’s final regulatory options.

This chapter provides information on fac ilities within scope of the final rule (Section 3.1 ), discusses factors that influence airport deicing pollutant discharges to the environment and provides an overview of current airport deicing pollutant discharges (Section 3.2 ), discusses factors influencing pollutant

concentrations in surface waters (Section 3.3 ), summarizes documented environmental impacts from airport deicing activities (Section 3.4 ), and discusses potential impacts to impaired waters and other

resources (Section 3.5 ).



### 3.1 Universe of In-scope Airports

In determining the scope of the final regulatory opti ons, EPA aimed to capture those airports that perform the majority of deicing operations in the United States. EPA’s final regulatory options address airports with the following characteristics:

3⁄4 Classified by FAA as primary commercial airports;

3⁄4 Not categorized by FAA as general aviation or cargo airports;

3⁄4 Greater than or equal to 1,000 non-propelle r-driven aircraft departures annually; and

3⁄4 Conduct aircraft or airfield pavement deicing operations.

EPA focused on primary commercial airports with gr eater than or equal to 1,000 annual non-propellerdriven aircraft departures because these airports are more likely to operate during inclement winter weather and conduct the majority of airport deici ng operations. Although deicing takes place at somegeneral aviation and cargo airports and primary commercial airports with fewer than 1,000 annual nonpropeller-driven aircraft departures (see Table 3-1 ), EPA focused on an airport category that conducts the majority of airport deicing activity. Table B-1 in Appendix B lists the airports within scope of the final regulatory options. Figure 3-1 presents a map of the in-scope airports listed in Appendix B

.

3-1Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

Figure 3-1: In-scope Airports for EPA’s Effluent Guideline Regulations for Airport Deicing Operations



### As shown in Figure 3-1 , airports engaging in deicing activities are widely distributed throughout the U.S. These airports vary greatly, however, in the levels at which they conduct aircra ft and pavement deicing and in their discharge environments. These variables are discussed in Section 3.2.



### 3.2 Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges to the Environment

Airport deicing pollutant discharges to the environm ent vary widely among individual airports. Pollutant discharges can also vary widely from day to day at a ny individual airport. This variability is driven by individual airport deicing practices and environmental contexts and the weather-dependent nature of deicing activities and discharges. This section discusses a number of factors that influence airport deicing pollutant loads and also describes EPA’s quantified est imates of national and in dividual airport deicing pollutant discharges.

3.2.1 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge to the Environment

Several factors influence the nature and quantity of pollutant loadings to the environment at individual airports:

3-2Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### 3⁄4 Deicing product selection;

3⁄4 Air traffic composition and levels;

3⁄4 Airport treatment and collection practices;

3⁄4 Airfield design; and

3⁄4 Weather conditions.

3.2.1.1 Deicing Product Selection


### Deicing product choice is the first de terminant of deicing pollutant load ings at an individual airport. A variety of ADF and pavement deicer formulations are available for purchase and use by airports and

airlines. These formulations contain one or two of several freezing point depressants, which constitute most of the formulation, as well as a variety of chemic al additives. The formulations chosen by an airport or airlines affect the chemicals that will discharge to the environment. For example, an airport that chooses a potassium acetate-based pavement deicer will discharge potassium, undegraded acetate, COD/BOD, and unidentified additives to the envir onment; whereas an airport that chooses a urea-based pavement deicer will discharge undegraded urea, amm onia, nitrates, and higher levels of BOD/COD to the environment. For additional information on the types and quantities of different chemicals found in ADF and airfield pavement deicer formulations, see Chapter 2

. Multiple factors drive deicing product choice incl uding airport climate, product performance, cost, availability, and compatibility with aircraft and airport infrastructure. Weather conditions also strongly influence the need for use of different types of airport deicing products. For example, during winter freezing precipitation events, the use of Type I ADF for aircraft deicing, Type IV ADF for aircraft antiicing and pavement deicers may all be necessary to ma intain aircraft operations. Environmental release of chemicals from all three product types would theref ore be expected under these conditions. During calm winter conditions, use of only Type I ADF to remove light layers of frost from aircraft may be necessary, and under these conditions releases of chemicals associated with Type IV ADF and pavement deicers would not be expected.

3.2.1.2 Air Traffic Composition and Levels


### Airports vary widely in the types of aircraft using th eir facilities and in total number of aircraft departures during the winter deicing season. EPA has focused the sc ope of the rule on those airports that have higher levels of non-propeller-driven aircraft departures (1,000 or more annua lly). Non-propeller-driven aircraft are more likely than other types of aircraft (e.g., propeller-driven aircraft) to continue operating during inclement winter weather. Airports with larger num bers of non-propeller-driven aircraft departures are more likely to use ADF and pavement deicers to main tain operations and therefore are more likely to discharge deicing pollutants.

The type of non-propeller-driven aircraft also makes a difference in the quantity of ADF released to the environment since larger non-propeller-driven aircraftrequire larger quantities of ADF than smaller nonpropeller-driven aircraft for both deicing and anti-icing.

In addition, all other factors being equal, airports w ith larger numbers of non-pr opeller-driven aircraft and other aircraft departures will use larg er quantities of deicing products.

3.2.1.3 Airport Deicing Pollutant Treatment and Collection Practices


### Airports vary widely in the nature of their deicing pollutant collection and treatment practices. All airports discharge some or all of their deicing pollutants to surface waters near airports. Some airports collect a

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



### portion of their deicing wastewaters and either treat them on-site or send them off-site to a publically owned treatment works (POTW) or other facility for treatment and discharge. Other airports discharge stormwater containing deicing pollutants to soil a nd groundwater. Many airports have a combination of these discharge conditions. EPA’s Technical Development Document fo r the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2010) provides additional information on the collection and treatment systems found at individual airports.

ADF and pavement deicer chemicals disperse widely dur ing use. Type I and Type IV ADF drip and shear from aircraft during application, tax iing, and take-off. Airports apply pavement deicers to large expanses of airfield pavement found at many airports, including aprons, gate areas, taxiways, and runways. Due to this widespread product dispersion, large quantities of airport stormwater frequently contain some level of deicing pollutants. The large quantities and dispersed na ture of contaminated stormwater make it difficult for airports to collect and treat more than a fraction of released deicing product. For this reason, most airports discharge the majority of their deicing pollutants to the environment.

Deicing collection and treatment systems vary in design and effectiveness by airport. EPA’s Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Lim itation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2010) describes collection and treatment technologies and their effectiveness in reducing deicing pollutant discharges in deta il. For today’s final rule, EPA assessed two ADF stormwater collection technologies and one stormwater treatment technology for the purpose of constructing regulatory options for exsiting airports . The assessed collection technologies include glycol collection vehicles (GCVs) and GCVs used in combination with “plug and pump” systems. The assessed treatment technology is anaerobic fluid bed (AFB) biological treatment. EPA’s Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2010) also discusses other approaches airports use to reduce discharge of deicing pollutants to
surface waters.

3.2.1.4 Airfield Design


### The configuration of airport grounds and infrastructure relative to surface waters, pervious surfaces, and groundwater also affect deicing pollutant dispersi on in the environment. Influential airport design

elements include:

3⁄4 Stormwater infrastructure collection and delivery efficiency;

3⁄4 Runway and taxiway proximity to surface waters;

3⁄4 Airfield imperviousness;

3⁄4 Airfield slope; and

3⁄4 Amount of vegetation buffer between impervious areas and surface waters.

Stormwater collection and delivery systems at airports vary in their design delivery efficiency and condition. Some systems deliver large fractions of air port stormwater to a chosen destination quickly and without substantial volume loss during delivery. Other systems are designed or are in a condition such that substantial volumes of stormwater are lost prior to ultimate discharge. Pervi ous or partially pervious system elements such as unlined ditches and ponds and leaking stormwater pipes and storage units allow stormwater loss. Deicing pollutants in stormwater lost from collection and delivery systems typically enter the soil column where they degrade, accumulate , or eventually enter groundwater if present on airport grounds. Groundwater and the pollutants it co ntains may ultimately discharge to nearby surface waters or flow beyond airport property lines. In these situations, infiltration may slow and reduce

3-4Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### pollutant discharges to surface waters, but not elimin ate them. In other cases, pollutants in groundwater may degrade before they discharge to surf ace waters or cross airport property lines.

Deicing pollutants can also degrade during stormwater transport and storage. Degradation rates are slower under cold temperatures and increase as temperatures rise. Systems that discharge stormwater more slowly, particularly those that hold stormwater until later in the year when average temperatures rise, allow greater opportunity for degradation of deicin g pollutants prior to discharge. The degradation process can remove some chemicals of concern in deicing discharges. In some cases, however, degradation can create new pollutants of concern or a volume of stormwater with very low dissolved oxygen levels, both of which can be of concern if di scharged to surface waters in sufficient quantities. For additional information on airport deic ing product degradation products, see Chapter 2

. In general, the closer airport runways and taxiways are to surface waters, the greater the potential for deicing pollutants to enter those waters through st ormwater flow, groundwater flow, or aerial deposition. Shorter distances reduce pollutant loss from stormwater transport systems, degradation, and soil retention. Shorter distances also make it more likely that ADF re leased to the air during taxiing and takeoff can be carried by the wind to surface waters. Some airport takeoff flight paths extend directly over surface waters and ADF shed during takeoff can fall direc tly into those surface waters. Conversely, greater distances increase opportunities for pollutant loss, retention, and degradation.,

As the imperviousness and slope of the airport grounds increase, the amount of stormwater runoff available to mobilize and carry deicing pollutants to surface waters tends to increase. Pervious areas on airfields can include areas of vegetation or bare soil as well as paved areas with cracked surfaces. Vegetation buffers between impervious areas where ADF and pavement deicers are initially released and

surface waters can decrease the amount of stormwater and pollutants entering surface waters by providing an opportunity for stormwater infiltration and pollutant accumulation or degradation in the soil column.

Pollutants associated with Type IV fluids and pavement deicers, in particular, are affected by overall airfield design because of their widespread dispersion in the airfield. A smaller proportion of Type I fluids are affected by overall airfield design because most are released to the environment close to ADF application sites. Type I ADF dispersion is therefor e most influenced by the design of the particular portions of the airfield that contain and drain stormwater from ADF application sites.

3.2.1.5 Weather Conditions


### Because the use of ADF and airfield pavement deic ers is so weather-dependent, deicing pollutant discharges among individual airports vary widely with differences in climate and typical winter weather conditions. Deicing pollutant discharges can also va ry widely from year-to-year and day-to-day at individual airports as winter weather conditions vary at airports on seasonal and daily bases. In addition to influencing choice of deicing pro duct for application, as discussed above, weather conditions also influence the quantity of product applied a nd its dispersion in the environment.

Important factors influencing the quantity and di spersion of airport deicing products include:

3-5Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### 3⁄4 Precipitation type (e.g., freezing rain, sleet, snow, rain or a mixture);

3⁄4 Ground and air temperatures;

3⁄4 Precipitation event magnitude; and

3⁄4 Precipitation event timing.

Winter precipitation types range from rain to freezing rain, sleet, and snow. Some individual precipitation events contain two or more of these precipitation ty pes. Precipitation type affects both the quantity of deicing product used as well as its dispersion. For exampl e, freezing rain tends to coat aircraft with ice. Ice coatings tend to require greater quantities of Type I ADF to remove than loose, dry snow or light

frost.

Precipitation type and ground and air temperatures also affect pollutant dispersion. Precipitation that is liquid, such as rain, or that melts, such as snow on a warm ground surface, mobilizes deicing pollutants and moves them through stormwater transport systems to discharge more quickly than solid precipitation

that accumulates on airfield surfaces. After a snow ev ent, a significant quantity of ADF and pavement deicers can be trapped in plowed s nowbanks or snow storage units and will not enter stormwater transport systems or surface waters, soil, or groundwater until ground and air temperatures are high enough to allow the snow to melt. Rates and timing of snowme lt can vary widely among airports (e.g., Fairbanks

International in Alaska versus Dallas-Fort Worth In ternational in Texas) and among winter seasons or snow events at individual airports.

Ground and air temperatures are also important in their influence on rates of pollutant degradation since higher temperatures allow higher degradation rates.

Strong winds associated with some weather events can increase aerial deposition of ADF on the airfield and adjacent surface waters.

Another factor that influences deicing pollutant disch arge is precipitation event magnitude. In general, as precipitation quantity increases, use of greater quantiti es of ADF and pavement deicer is required. In addition, larger precipitation events tend to produce more stormwater. Larger quantities of stormwater tend to mobilize and discharge deicing pollutants more quickly than smaller quantities of stormwater. The timing of stormwater availability from a specific event will, however, be dependent on the type of precipitation and its melting rate, as discussed above. Because larger stormwater quantities move deicing pollutants more quickly, they may reduce the quantity of pollutants that infiltrate soil and other pervious airport surfaces.

Another important factor is the timing of precipitati on events. Precipitation events that take place during periods of high air traffic levels (e.g., holidays, morning rush times) require deicing operations for a greater number of aircraft and the use of greater quantities of deicing materials (see Aircraft Traffic Composition and Levels above).

3.2.2 Quantified Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge Estimates

EPA estimated seasonal pollutant discharges from airport deicing operations based on current airport practices and conditions. EPA had sufficient informati on to quantify a portion of the total discharge of chemical oxygen demand (COD) and ammonia from airport deicing operations. A more detailed description of EPA’s estimation methodolog y and results is available in the Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2010).

3-6Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### Table 3-1 presents facility-specific ADF application site and pavement deicer COD discharges for each airport within scope of the final rule.. EPA did not ha ve sufficient information to estimate facility-specific discharges from individual airports EPA did not survey. As discussed above, COD discharge levels in

Table 3-1 do not reflect COD discharges associated with Type I and Type IV ADF dispersed beyond ADF application sites.

Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF Application Sites at Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule

Airport Name Pavement Deicer COD Discharge

(pounds/year) ADF Application
Site COD Discharge (pounds/year) Airport Service Level Albany Intl 213,511 103,086 Small Hub Albuquerque Intl Sunport 2,617 491,959 Medium Hub Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field 36,366 85,963 Non-Hub

Austin Straubel International 117,358 355,646 Small Hub Austin-Bergstrom Intl 9,976 137,629 Medium Hub Baltimore-Washington Intl 866,733 1,289,506 Large Hub

Bethel 143,501 47,733 Non-Hub Birmingham Intl 0 47,717 Small Hub Bismarck Municipal 9,195 200,305 Non-Hub Bob Hope 0 0 Medium Hub Boeing Field/King County Intl 5,851 29,510 Non-Hub

Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Fld 631,466 272,543 Small Hub Bradley Intl 440,956 1,669,398 Medium Hub Buffalo Niagara Intl 913 1,718,928 Medium Hub

Central Wisconsin 299,374 416,170 Non-Hub Charlotte/Douglas Intl 381,832 1,308,047 Large Hub Cherry Capital 36,467 0 Non-Hub Chicago Midway Intl 797,303 0 Large Hub Chicago O'Hare Intl 8,248,121 8,204,552 Large Hub Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International 1,740,966 772,137 Large Hub City of Colorado Springs Municipal 128,158 433,971 Small Hub Cleveland-Hopkins Intl 1,532,252 3,480,467 Medium Hub

Dallas Love Field 125 213,039 Medium Hub

Dallas/Fort Worth International 10,373 557,682 Large Hub

Denver Intl 2,012,384 729,709 Large Hub

Des Moines Intl 289,289 460,483 Small Hub Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 1,056,284 0 Large Hub

El Paso Intl 0 0 Small Hub Eppley Airfield 171,538 1,058,801 Medium Hub Evansville Regional 16,585 192,217 Non-Hub

Fairbanks Intl 819,984 299,205 Small Hub Fort Wayne International 761,916 511,705 Non-Hub General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 1,589,955 9,147,072 Large Hub

General Mitchell International 742,538 898,664 Medium Hub George Bush Intercontinental Arpt/Houston 0 56,571 Large Hub

Gerald R. Ford International 38,863 563,544 Small Hub

Glacier Park Intl 710 367,815 Non-Hub

3-7Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

3-8 Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF Application Sites at Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule

Airport Name Pavement Deicer COD Discharge

(pounds/year) ADF Application
Site COD Discharge (pounds/year) Airport Service Level

Greater Rochester International 168,122 1,152,208 Small Hub Gulfport-Biloxi Intl 0 0 Small Hub

Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta Intl 179,433 1,382,287 Large Hub Helena Regional 0 0 Non-Hub Indianapolis Intl 768,086 2,728,125 Medium Hub

Jackson Hole 0 0 Non-Hub

Jacksonville Intl 0 0 Medium Hub James M Cox Dayton Intl 99,807 357,499 Small Hub John F Kennedy Intl 2,837,634 5,155,239 Large Hub John Wayne Airport-Orange County 0 0 Medium Hub

Juneau Intl 1,018,715 430,969 Small Hub Kansas City Intl 344,044 1,200,632 Medium Hub

Ketchikan Intl a a Non-Hub

La Guardia 1,383,792 4,216,728 Large Hub Lafayette Regional 0 14,201 Non-Hub

Lambert-St Louis Intl 2,921,256 1,154,584 Large Hub Long Island Mac Arthur 0 166,102 Small Hub Louis Armstrong New Orleans Intl 0 0 Medium Hub

Louisville Intl-Standiford Field 447,728 490,009 Medium Hub

Lovell Field 0 39,586 Non-Hub

Manchester 306,0048 1,715,962 Medium Hub

Mc Carran Intl 0 60,923 Large Hub Memphis Intl 334,157 1,946,410 Medium Hub Metropolitan Oakland Intl 0 0 Large Hub Minneapolis-St Paul Intl/Wold-Chamberlain 782,829 5,968,923 Large Hub Montgomery Rgnl (Dannelly Field) 0 2,214 Non-Hub

N ashville Intl 93,454 349,329 Medium Hub

N ewark Liberty Intl 1,520,336 10,762,687 Large Hub

N ome 22,429 28,231 Non-Hub

N orfolk Intl * 235,637 Medium Hub

N orman Y. Mineta San Jose International 0 0 Medium Hub

N orthwest Arkansas Regional 352,337 293,595 Small Hub

Ontario Intl 0 334 Medium Hub Outagamie County Regional 130,836 551,842 Non-Hub

Palm Beach Intl 0 0 Medium Hub
Pensacola Regional 0 0 Small Hub
Philadelphia Intl 1,362,130 1,436,522 Large Hub
Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl 0 0 Large Hub

Piedmont Triad International 228,269 655,787 Small Hub
Pittsburgh International 703,466 3,689,998 Large Hub

Port Columbus Intl 356,775 2,927,149 Medium Hub

Portland Intl 178,213 855,437 Medium HubEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

3-9 Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF Application Sites at Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule

Airport Name Pavement Deicer COD Discharge

(pounds/year) ADF Application
Site COD Discharge (pounds/year) Airport Service Level Raleigh-Durham Intl 134,976 977,382 Medium Hub
Ralph Wien Memorial 43,492 23,743 Non-Hub
Rapid City Regional 10,907 242,540 Non-Hub

Reno/Tahoe International 48,138 569,580 Medium Hub

Richmond Intl 174,098 339,643 Small Hub

Rickenbacker International 45,481 102,180 Non-Hub
Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field 62,222 314,124 Non-Hub

Rochester International * 197,799 Non-Hub
Ronald Reagan Washington National 371,666 1,229,789 Large Hub

Sacramento International 0 0 Medium Hub
Salt Lake City Intl 2,488,385 1,687,338 Large Hub

San Antonio Intl * 121,626 Medium Hub
San Diego Intl 0 0 Large Hub

San Francisco International 0 0 Large Hub

Seattle-Tacoma Intl 56,346 1,502,208 Large Hub
South Bend Regional 69,136 0 Small Hub

Southwest Florida Intl 0 0 Medium Hub
Spokane Intl 1,063,075 0 Small Hub

Stewart Intl 370,095 184,745 Non-Hub
Syracuse Hancock Intl 6,729 791,854 Small Hub
Tampa Intl 0 0 Large Hub
Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl 6,082,395 2,265,902 Medium Hub

Theodore Francis Green State 91,602 572,884 Medium Hub
Toledo Express 137,067 359,704 Non-Hub

Tucson Intl 0 17,873 Medium Hub
Washington Dulles International 1,810,018 5,686,802 Large Hub

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton Intl * 405,801 Non-Hub
Will Rogers World 30,291 472,260 Small Hub
William P Hobby 0 0 Medium Hub
Wilmington Intl 0 20,756 Non-Hub
Yeager 79,800 283,685 Non-Hub
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) loads were calculated from data provided in response to the EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c) and the EPA Airline Deic ing Questionnaire (2006b). * – The airport reported that the quantity of pavement deicer usage was unknown (US EPA 2006c). a) Ketchikan was sent an airport questionnaire but did not respond.



### EPA also estimated facility-specfic annual ammoni a discharges from urea pavement deicer use for airports within scope of the final rule ( Table 3-2 ). EPA does not have sufficient information to estimate facility-specific ammonia discharge levels at individual airports EPA did not survey.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

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

Airport Name Pavement Deicer Ammonia Discharge (pounds/year)
Austin Straubel Intl 25,387
Bethel 38,105
Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field 152,740 Bradley Intl 9,478
Central Wisconsin 69,856 Charlotte/Douglas Intl 84,821
Fairbanks Intl 187,883 Fort Wayne Intl 161,593 General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl 5,782
Glacier Park Intl 189
Juneau Intl 270,506
Manchester 20,844
N orthwest Arkansas Regional 10,186
Piedmont Triad Intl 52,441 Raleigh - Durham Intl 35,841 Ralph Wien Memorial 5,659
Reno/Tahoe Intl 6,330 Ronald Reagan Washington National 44,141 Salt Lake City Intl 634,519 South Bend Regional 18,358 Spokane Intl 281,824
Stewart Intl 85,905 Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl 1,423,212 Yeager 15,572



### EPA was able to create national estimates of COD and ammonia discharges from ADF application sites and pavement deicers. EPA estimated national COD loads from ADF application sites using discharge estimates for airports EPA surveyed in conjunction with airport weighting factors developed as part of the EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire sample frame . EPA estimated COD and ammonia loads from pavement deicer use using reported usage levels for airports EPA surveyed in conjunction with airport weighting factors. A more detailed description of EPA’s COD estimation methodology is available in the Technical Development Document for the Final Efflu ent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2011). Table 3-3 presents the estimate of current national COD loads from ADF application sites and pavement deicers by airport hub size category. COD discharges associated with ADF dispersed in areas beyond ADF app lication sites are not reflected by the figures in

Table 3-3

.

3-10Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

Table 3-3: Estimate of National Baseline COD Disc harges from ADF Application Sites and Airfield Pavement Deicing by Airport Hub Size Category

Airport Hub Size ADF Application Site COD Discharge (pounds/year) Pavement Deicer COD Discharge (pounds/year) Large 65,999,304 33,121,243
Medium 26,678,898 12,086,529
Small 9,255,083 7,161,186
N onhub 16,408,625 6,641,781 General Aviation/Cargo 2,268,284 1,309,591
Total 120,610,194 60,320,330



### EPA also calculated current, baseline national ammonia discharges associated with airport use of urea as a pavement deicer. These discharges are presented by airport hub size category in Table 3-4

.
Table 3-4: Estimate of National Baseline Ammoni a Discharges from Airfield Payment Deicing by Airport Hub Size Category

Airport Hub Size Ammonia Discharge (pounds/year) Large 769,263
Medium 1,495,705
Small 1,286,277
N onhub 852,775 General Aviation/Cargo NA
Total 4,404,020



### Other pollutants in addition to COD and ammonia di scharge from airport deicing operations. EPA has not quantified discharge levels of these other pollutants. Chapter 1 discusses current levels of airport deicing product usage in the U.S. Chapter 2 discusses the range of pollutants potentially present in ADF and pavement deicer products.



### 3.3 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Po llutant Concentrations in Receiving
Surface Waters

Pollutant concentrations in the environment, as well as total discharges, are of interest because of their influence on the manner in which some pollutant s impact the environment. As discussed in Chapter 2 , a number of pollutants have threshold levels a bove which impacts have been documented.

A number of factors influence airport deicing polluta nt concentrations in surface waters. An important factor is the total quantity of pollutants discharging to surface waters. Factors influencing total pollutant discharges from airports are discussed in Section 3.2

. ADFs and pavement deicers, as applied, contai n certain concentrations of chemicals (see Chapter 2 ). Before they enter surface waters, however, ADF and pavement deicers typically undergo dilution with precipitation and, in some cases, a certain amount of degradation. Pollutant concentrations in deicingcontaminated stormwater are typically lower, therefor e, than the concentrations found in airport deicing products as-applied.

When deicing pollutants enter surface waters, they are typically diluted further. Receiving water volume, waterbody flow rate, and wate rbody mixing dynamics influen ce dilution levels. Surface water characteristics such as vegetation, stream slope, presence of ice and snow cover, stream channel obstacles,

3-11Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### and tidal influences can significantly affect flow rate and mixing. High vegetation levels and low stream channel slopes tend to retard flow. Channel depr essions can slow low flows and significantly increase residence times of deicing pollutants in receiving streams. Snow pack and ice in streams can also alter flow either by altering stream channel characteristi cs. Snow pack and ice can create depressions in a channel that can reduce stream flow. They can also increase flow by filling in existing stream channel depressions and reducing resistance to flow. Stream channel obstacles such as woody debris, rocks, and falls can increase turbulence and mix pollutants with greater volumes of water. Tidal currents can also increase mixing and dilution.

Many of the surface waters that directly receive ai rport deicing pollutants are small, low-flow, and relatively low-slope streams. Figure 3-2 summarizes available flow rate data for surface waters directly receiving deicing discharges from airports EPA survey ed. According to available data, 62% of initial receiving waters have a flow rate of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) or less.

Figure 3-2: Initial Receiving Water Discharge Flows at EPA Surveyed Airports

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Unknown 0 0 to 1 1 to 5 5 to 10 10 to 20 20 to 40 40 to 80 80 to 160 160 to 1,000 1,000 to 10,000 Greater
than 10,000 Discharge Flow (cfs)Number of Waterbodies



### Figure 3-3 summarizes available slope data. According to available data, 75% of initial receiving waters have a slope of less than 1%.

3-12Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

Figure 3-3. Initial Receiving Water Slopes at EPA Surveyed Airports

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Less than 0.01% 0.01% to 1% Greater than 1% Unknown

Slope of the WaterbodyNumber of Waterbodies



### Low slope and flow streams are more likely to show impacts from deicing pollutant discharges because of the lower volume of water available for pollutant dilu tion and the potential for greater pollutant retention

time.

Rate of pollutant delivery versus rate of dilution is an important d ynamic. The frequency and timing of deicing and precipitation events during the winter season affect both rates. As described in Section 3.2.1

, precipitation quantity and type is an important determin ant of the quantity and rate at which pollutants are delivered to surface waters. Precipitation quantity and ty pe also affects the quantity of surface water flow available for dilution of discharged pollutants as we ll as the rate at which those pollutants travel downstream. High levels of rain or melted precip itation typically create higher surface water flow and move pollutants downstream more quickly. Numerous combinations of precipitation and deicing event frequency and intensity result in hi ghly variable deicing pollutant delivery to and dilution in receiving

surface waters.

Surface water degradation processes are another impor tant factor influencing waterbody pollutant concentrations. These depend heavily on temperature, residence time, oxygen availability, and the composition of the bacteria and vegetation community present in receiving surface waters.



### 3.4 Documented Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges

EPA searched publicly available literature for info rmation on airport deicing pollutant discharges and their connection to environmental impacts. Literatu res sources included the peer-reviewed literature, state
reports, newspapers, government agen cy reports, and a variety of orga nization publications. This section

describes the results of EPA’s literature search that was completed in December of 2007. EPA compiled

3-13Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### more than 90 individual documents describing environm ental impacts from airport deicing discharges. In some cases, deicing pollutant discharges have been de finitively linked to environmental impacts. In other cases, impact linkage to deicing pollutants is suggested , rather than definitive. Compiled articles describe a wide range of airport and discharge conditions.

Surface waters are often subject to multiple stressors (e.g., pollutants from airport activities other than deicing, other industrial discharges, invasive species). Determining the source(s) of a water’s impairment can be difficult and requires complex analyses that ha ve not yet been conducted and published. EPA has summarized suggested, as well as definitive, impact cases in this section because of the additional information they provide on potential environmental impacts from deicing pollutant discharges. Approximately half of the articles describe impact s with a definitive connection to airport deicing pollutant discharges.

The majority of the environmental impact documen tation focuses on impacts observed in surface waters directly receiving airport deicing pollutant discharg es. Wildlife impacts such as fish kills or other organism deaths are the most frequently described environmental impact. Table 3-5 summarizes the total number of studies EPA found on different types of environmental impacts and that were categorized as having either a definitive or suggested c onnection to airport deicing discharges.

Table 3-5: Documented Environmental Impacts Associated with Airport Deicing Discharges

Impact Connection to Airport Deicing Definitive Connection to Airport Deicing Suggested Total Number of
Studies COD, BOD, DO, Nutrients
COD or BOD 11 5 16
DO 10 10 20
N utrients 8 9 17 Wildlife Impacts Fish Kill 8 10 18 Other Organisms 25 20 45 Human Health Impacts Health 4 4 8 Drinking Water 1 7 8 Aesthetic Impacts
Foam 4 6 10 Odor 14 17 31
Color 11 9 20
Violations Permit Violations 17 10 27



### Though EPA’s literature search was extensive, it is unlikely that EPA located all available documentation of environmental impacts from airport deicing di scharges. There are probably environmental impacts from airport deicing discharges that have not yet b een documented and published because of the time and effort often required to detect, analyze, and docume nt environmental impacts from industrial discharges.

An additional limitation on EPA’s literature compilation is its ability to reflect current conditions at individual airports. Since the publication of artic les describing environmental impacts from certain airports, some of those airports have installed coll ection and treatment systems or otherwise changed their deicing practices in order to reduce deicing pollutant discharges. Table 3-6 summarizes a number of improvements airports have undertaken to reduce their environmental impact in recent years. A number of these efforts have improved conditions in receiving surface waters.

3-14Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

Table 3-6: Airport Deicing System Improvements for In-scope Airports

Airport Environmental Impacts Deicing System Improvements Date Improvement Implemented Baltimore/Washington International Airport Odor, foam and color issues, fish impacts, Clean Water Act
violation Deicing pads and drains By winter 1997-98

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport Anoxia, Sphaerotilus overgrowth, color and odor issues, “dead” stream, high BOD
and ammonia levels Discharge routing to POTW, recycling system 1994-2004

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport High ammonia levels, fish kills,
color and odor issues Deicing pads and basins By 2004

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport Odor and color issues, permit violations, fish kills Construct sewer line to route discharges to POTW By 2010

Des Moines International Airport Odor and color issues, state water quality standard violations Stormwater detention facility Long-term plan as
of 1998
General Mitchell International Airport Color issues, fish kills, high glycol and BOD levels Redesigned storm sewers Pre-2006

Louisville International Airport High ammonia and BOD levels, low DO levels, fish kills N o longer using urea Pre-2002

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport Low DO levels, odor and color issues, high BOD and glycol levels, permit violations Sewer system improvements and deicing pads 1998-2001

Port Columbus International Airport High nutrient levels, low DO levels, fish kills, aquatic species diversity loss N o longer using urea,
construction of containment system By 2002-2003

Source: Information gather ed during EPA’s literature search completed in December of 2007.



### Despite these limitations, the literature compilati on provides a diverse profile of the types of environmental impacts associated with airport deicin g discharges. As air traffic and deicing product usage levels continue to increase in the U.S. these types of impacts will either reappear at previously affected airports or newly appear at airports where they had not been previously detected, unless application, collection, and treatment practices change. Environm ental impacts from deicing discharges continue to persist at some level at many of the airports listed in Table 3-6

, despite the sometimes significant efforts

made to address them.

Sections 3.4.1 to 3.4.5 provide additional information on documented environmental impacts. For

additional information on individual articles EPA compiled during the literature review, see Table C-1 in Appendix C. Section 3.5 provides information on the potential current extent of environmental impacts from airport deicing discharges.

3.4.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Dissolved Oxygen, and Nutrient Impacts

3.4.1.1 Chemical Oxygen Demand and Biochemical Oxygen Demand


### The primary ingredients in ADFs and pavement deicers are organic compounds that serve as freezing point depressants. These organic compounds degrade af ter release to the environment, creating high chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels in surface waters. High

COD and BOD levels in surface waters can lead to hi gh levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) consumption as the organic matter degrades, potentially lowering DO concentrations below levels required for the health

3-15Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### and survival of aquatic organisms (see Section 2.2.1.2 ). EPA documented COD and BOD problems for 13 individual airports in 16 articles, 11 of which were classified as being definitively connected to airport deicing discharges. Many of the information sources were state government repor ts and published journal

articles.

In a newspaper article on impacts from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport’s deicing operations, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s water quality supervisor is quoted as stating that the airport’s deicing discharges represent the largest source of organic pollutants to the Minnesota River (Meersman 1993). During the course of the 1992-1993 deicing seas on, approximately 2,400 tons of glycol were discharged to the Minnesota River. State officials su spected that these discharg es lower DO levels in the

Minnesota River.

In 1998, the Kentucky Department of Environmenta l Protection determined that the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport was responsible for el evated glycol levels and BOD issues observed in surface waters receiving stormwater discharges from the airport. These problems continued to persist, even after the airport implemented remediation actions (Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection 1998).

3.4.1.2 Dissolved Oxygen


### As organic material, BOD, and COD levels increase in airport deicing discharges increases, the amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) required by surface water microorganisms to digest the material also increases. Biodegradation of organic material lowers DO levels in surface waters and can ultimately make them uninhabitable for aquatic li fe. EPA compiled 20 articles describing DO impacts from deicing activities at 13 airports. The impacts in 10 articles could be defini tively connected to airport deicing discharges. The articles describe low levels of DO and anoxia in receiving waters.

The Columbia Slough receives deicing pollutant dischar ges from Portland International Airport and is a well-documented case of deicing pollutants lowering DO le vels in a receiving water. In a technical report prepared for the City of Portland, the airport’s deicing discharges were documented as contributing 79% of all organic material discharging to the Columbia Slough (Wells 1997). Low DO levels clearly coincide with cold weather deicing activities. A separa te report written by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (1998) specifically states that the airport’s deicing pollutants have lowered DO in the Slough.

3.4.1.3 Nutrients


### The pavement deicer urea decays and forms ammonia in surface waters. High concentrations of ammonia can be toxic to many aquatic organisms and plants can use the nitrogen in ammonia to fuel extra growth.

Bacteria can also convert ammonia to other nitr ogen-containing compounds that plants can absorb as nutrients. Nitrogen in airport deicing discharges can encourage algal blooms and other biological overgrowths, followed by low DO levels or anoxia as the overgrowths die and decay. EPA found nutrient impact complaints in 17 articles, 8 of which EPA cl assified as definitively connected to airport deicing discharges. The 17 articles discuss 12 different airports. Most of the articles describe impacts from algal

blooms and elevated surface water levels of ammonia and nitrates.

Two articles describe nutrient enrichment in surf ace waters receiving deicing discharges from Port Columbus International Airport (State of Ohio E nvironmental Protection Agency 1998, State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2004). A third report, another Ohio Environmental Protection Agency publication, describes high ammonia and nitrate concen trations in receiving waters downstream of the

3-16Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### airport and the discharge of significant quantities of glycol (State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2003).

3.4.2 Wildlife Impacts

3.4.2.1 Fish Kills



### As described in Chapter 2

, ADFs and pavement deicers have toxi c components that can harm or kill aquatic organisms when discharged in sufficien t quantities to surface waters. As described in Section 3.4.1, ADFs and pavement deicers also contain high le vels of organic matter and nutrients that, during degradation in surface waters, can lower DO concentrati ons to harmful or uninhab itable levels for aquatic life. Either of these pathways can result in acute fi sh death events known as fish kills. Eighteen of the

articles documented in the literature review discussed fish kills. EPA classified impacts in 8 articles as definitively linked to airport deic ing discharges. The 18 articles discussed fish kills downstream of 13 different airports and included newspaper articles, journal articles, and state government reports.

For example, in May 2001 at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport a stormwater collection pond primarily containing stormwater contaminated with ethylene and propylene glycol from deicing activities breached and discharged to the Frank and Poet Drai n (Lochner 2006). Two days later, a fish kill was observed at the location where the Drain discharges to the Detroit River. EPA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the incident and charged the airport with violating the Clean Water Act after failing to report the discharge.

3.4.2.2 Other Organism Impacts


### In addition to fish kills, airport deicing discharges have been linked to the death of other types of aquatic organisms and have been implicated in the sickening or deaths of other wildlife and pets that have come in contact with contaminated surface waters. Of the 45 articles EPA compiled in this category, 25 are definitively connected to airport deicing discharg es. The 45 articles discuss 26 different airports. The following airports are discussed in 3 or more articles:

3⁄4 Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Inte rnational Airport (6 articles);

3⁄4 Baltimore/Washington International Airport (3 articles);

3⁄4 Denver International Airport (3 articles); and

3⁄4 General Mitchell International Airport (3 articles).

At Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Denver International Airport, and BuffaloNiagara International Airport waters receiving deic ing discharges are described as lifeless (Sierra Club 2004, Scanlon 1997, and Dawson 1994).

A number of studies conducted on the receiving wate rs located downstream from deicing outfalls at Baltimore/Washington International Airport report glycol concentrations high e nough to kill daphnids and minnows (Hartwell et al. 1993, Fisher et al. 1995, Pelton 1997a).

3.4.3 Human Health, Aesthetic, and Other Aquatic Resource Use Impacts

3.4.3.1 Human Health



### As discussed in Chapter 2

, some ADF and pavement deicer compon ents can be harmful to human beings exposed to sufficient quantities. Some people claim to have been sickened by strong chemical odors

3-17Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### associated with some deicing-contaminated stormwaters. Human health impacts are documented for 6 airports in 8 articles. The articles include newspa per articles and reports from organizations. Impacts range from headaches and nausea due to odors to claims of kidney and other health problems, especially in children. The Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare (1997), a nonprofit organization of citizens residing nearby Chicago O’Hare International Ai rport, documented vomiting and other illness due to fumes from airport deicing discharges on a number of separate occasions. Residents state that, at times, streams in residential neighborho ods receiving airport deicing discharges have unnatural colors and emit

odors that cause illness.

3.4.3.2 Drinking Water Contamination


### EPA compiled 8 articles that discuss drinking water impacts from 5 airports. One article definitively connected impacts to airport deicing discharges and the other articles are suggestive of a connection.

Three of the articles discussed drinking water contamination issues near Baltimore Washington International Airport but did not definitively connect these impacts to airport deicing discharges.

At Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, 10 days after an ADF spill into a major source of drinking water, consumers complained of a sickeni ngly sweet taste and smell in their drinking water. Testing of samples taken three days after the co mplaints started did not indicate deicing fluid contamination. However, sampling immediately follow ing the spill indicated that water flowing from the airport into the river that serves as the drinking water source contained 1,600 ppm of glycol.

3.4.3.3 Foam


### Deicing chemicals can form visible foam in surfa ce waters. EPA’s compiled 10 articles that describe foam in surface waters downstream of 7 airports. The articles include journal articles, newspaper articles, and reports from organizations. Four articles definitively connect the presence of foam to airport deicing discharges. Foam complaints frequently co-occur with odor and color complaints. High levels of glycols were also typically found in surface waters containing visible foam.

At Baltimore/Washington International Airport, levels of ethylene glycol as high as 4,800 mg/L were detected in the Muddy Bridge Branch where foam had been frequently sighted (McDowell 1997). In 1997, the airport applied nearly 200,000 gallons of AD F to planes and it is estimated that as much as 68% may have entered nearby creeks (Pelton 1998). This di scharge coincided with numerous complaints about pinkish foam present on downstream surface waters.

3.4.3.4 Odor


### Deicing-contaminated surface waters are frequently described as having a sickeningly sweet chemical smell. EPA compiled 31 articles describing complaints of odors from surface waters located downstream from airport deicing outfalls. Of the 31 articles, EPA classified 14 as describing a definitive connection between airport deicing discharges and odor. The 31 articles describe 16 different airports. Several airports are described in multiple articles:

3⁄4 Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Inte rnational Airport (5 articles);

3⁄4 Baltimore/Washington International Airport (4 articles); and

3⁄4 Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (3 articles).

Odor complaints are frequently associated with add itional impacts such as organism human health, and aesthetic impacts. For example, all articles descr ibing the odor complaints from Baltimore/Washington International Airport discharges also described visi ble foam, human illness complaints, and fish impacts

3-18Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### (McDowell 1997, Pelton 1997b, Pelt on 1998). At Cincinnati/Northern Ke ntucky International Airport, allegations of discharge violations involving Elijah Creek coincided with unpleasant odors, surface water discoloration, and pollutant concentrations high enou gh to harm aquatic life (Klepal 2004, Sierra Club 2004). Residents also complained about chemical smells and discolored water in Gunpowder Creek, which also receives airport deicing discharges. Glycol levels in Gunpowder Creek were found to be up to 3.5 times higher than allowed by the airport’s wastewater discharge permit (Kelly 2004).

3.4.3.5 Color


### Manufacturers add dye to ADFs to help ADF users track their presence on aircraft and airfield surfaces and to help them distinguish Type I from Type IV fluids. Sufficient levels of dye can discolor surface waters. In addition, as described above, degradation of organic material associated with airport deicing discharges can lower DO levels in surface waters. Under anoxic conditions, re duction of iron and manganese ions to more soluble species can color surface waters (Zitomer 2001)

EPA found 20 articles describing 11 airports with un natural colored surface waters downstream of airport deicing stormwater outfalls. EPA classified 11 of the articles as describing impacts definitively connected to airport deicing discharges. Five articles described impacts from Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport and 3 articles describe impact s from Baltimore/Washington International Airport. Color complaints frequently coincided with odor complaints.

At Des Moines International Airport, color and odor issues are discussed in documents describing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for receiving waters as well as in materials provided to local city council members (Iowa Department of Natural Re sources 2005, Flannery 1998). The TMDL document describes ethylene glycol concentrations of 65 to 120 mg /L and propylene glycol c oncentrations of 210 to 490 mg/L near the airport outfall to Yeader Creek. These high glycol concentrations coincided with a greenish color and sweet sewage odor in Yeader Cree k. Yeader Creek was determined to be severely polluted and in violation of Iowa Wa ter Quality Standards. Local residents who live near the creek have lodged complaints with the Iowa Department of Na tural Resources about the surface water’s discoloration

and odor.

3.4.4 Permit Violations

Permit violations were frequently described in ar ticles compiled by EPA. Permit violations provide additional information on large quantities of airport de icing pollutants discharging to surface waters. EPA compiled 27 articles that describe discharge permit viola tions at 12 different airports. Several airports, including Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, and Baltimore/Washington International Airport were discussed in multiple articles. Seventeen articles describe direct discharge violations. Other articles describe unspecified violations or administrative violations such as failure to report an unauthorized discharge.



### 3.5 Potential Current Impacts to Impa ired Waters and Other Resources

EPA evaluated the potential for airport deicing disch arges to impact surface waters listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as well as other aquatic resources located downstream of airport deicing stormwater outfalls. Listing of a surface water as impaired under Section 303(d) of the

Clean Water Act is an official determination that a waterbody is unable to serve one or more of its designated uses such as drinking water supply, recreat ion, wildlife habitat, etc. because of pollution or other modifications. It is an indicator of a stressed ecosystem.

3-19Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### EPA examined the listing status of surface waters receiving airport deicing discharges for two reasons. First, to determine the extent to which airport deic ing pollutants are being discharged to already stressed aquatic ecosystems and potentially contributing add itional stress. Second, to determine which listed waterbodies may be impaired as a direct resu lt of receiving airport deicing discharges.

EPA’s analysis used a geographical information system (GIS) analysis of surface waters to which airports directly discharge deicing pollutants. EPA used this information to identify 303(d)-listed waters and aquatic resources that could potentiall y be affected by deicing discharges. EPA also examined existing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) documents in order to identify airports that have officially been determined to be point sources contributing to surface water impairment.

3.5.1 303(d)-Listed Waters Receiving Airport Deicing Discharges

Based on airport outfall location information pr ovided in response to EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c), EPA indexed deicing outfall locations to the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Plus stream network. EPA used NHD Plus tools to determine surface waters within 10 miles downstream of airport outfalls. Once downstr eam waters were identified in NHD Plus, EPA

overlaid their location information with the 2002 national GIS coverage of 303(d)-listed waters ( http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/downloads.html#303d , accessed September 24, 2007) in order to determine whether any of the downstream waters ar e listed as impaired. EPA then linked identified impaired streams to EPA’s Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results (WATERs) database (http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/index.html , accessed September 24, 2007) in order to determine the nature of the impairment. Of the 93 airports for which EPA has sufficient outfall location information to conduct this analysis, 36 discharge di rectly to a freshwater waterbody that is listed as impaired. Table 3-7 summarizes the results of this analysis.

3-20Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

Table 3-7: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Fresh Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule

303(d) Impairment Category Number of Airports with Impairment Airport Deicing Pollutant Potentially Contributing to Impairment Algal Growth 1 Yes
Ammonia 5 Yes
Cause Unknown 4 Yes Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota 4 Yes
Chlorine 2
Dioxins 2 Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant Unspecified 1 Yes
Flow Alteration 4
Habitat Alteration 6 Mercury 2 Metals (Other Than Mercury) 4
N utrients 7 Yes
Oil And Grease 1 Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 12 Yes Pathogens 18
PCBs 6
Pesticides 6 pH 4 Salinity/TDS/Sulfates/Chlorides 2 Yes
Sediment 6 Temperature 2 Total Toxicity 4 Yes Toxic Organics 5 Yes Turbidity 5



### Of the 28 in-scope airports directly discharging to impaired freshwater waterbodies, 21 discharge to waterbodies impaired by pollutants associated w ith airport deicing discharges. Because EPA had sufficient information for only 93 airports to conduc t this analysis, additional airports could be discharging deicing pollutants to impaired waters.

Because NHD Plus does not provide information on marine waters, airport outfalls discharging directly to

marine waters were not included in the GIS anal ysis described above. To assess whether any of the marine waters directly receiving airport deicing di scharges are listed as impaired, EPA used information on receiving waters designated as marine from respon ses to EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c) to search the WATERs database. Table 3-8 summarizes the results of this analysis.

3-21Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

3-22 Table 3-8: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Ma rine Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule

303(d) Impairment Category Number of Airports with Impairment Airport Deicing Pollutant Potentially Contributing to Impairment Aesthetically impaired waters 2 Yes
Dioxin 1 Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 2 Yes
Floatables 1 Mercury 1 Metals (Other Than Mercury) 1
N utrients 2 Yes Pathogens 5
PCBs 2
Pesticides 1 pH 1 Toxic Organics 3 Yes



### Of the 6 in-scope airports discharging to impaired marine waters, 5 discharge to waters impaired for pollutants associated with airport deicing discharges. Because EPA had sufficient information for only 93 airports to conduct this analysis, additional airports could be discharging deicing pollutants to impaired
marine waters.

Because states have not assessed all surface waters re ceiving deicing pollutant discharges from airports for impairment, additional waters beyond those described here could be impaired.

Several of the 303(d) impairment categories EPA iden tified during the analysis can derive from airport deicing pollutants. These categories include “aesthetically impaired waters,” “algal growth,” “ammonia,” “cause unknown,” “cause unknown-impaired biota,” “fish c onsumption advisory – pollutant unspecified,” “nutrients,” “organic enrichment/oxygen depletion,” “salinity/TDS/sulfates/chlorides,” “total toxicity,” and “toxic organics.” A 303(d) listing alone does not mean that airport deici ng discharges are the cause of the waterbody impairments. However, 26 of the 34 in-scope airports discharging to impaired waters are discharging to waters impaired in a manner potentially associated with airport deicing pollutants. Even if these airports are not the root cause of the identified impairment, they contribute additional loadings of those pollutants by which the surface waters are already impaired.

Table 3-9 provides additional information on airports disch arging directly to 303(d)-listed waters and associated impairments.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final3. Environmental Impact PotentialEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Categoryunder Current Practices1FW – FreshwaterMW – Marine water3-23Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport DeicingDischarges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final RuleAirport NameWaterbodyType1Waterbody NameParent Cause DescriptionPotentiallyLinked toAirportDeicingAustin Straubel InternationalFWDutchman CreekAmmoniaXAirportFWDutchmanCreekNutrientsXFWDutchmanCreekNutrients (Phosphorus)XFWDutchman CreekOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXFWDutchman CreekTotal ToxicityXAustin-Bergstrom InternationalFWColorado River Below Town LakePathogensFWOnion CreekOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXFWOnion CreekTotal Dissolved SolidsXFWOnionCreekPathogensBirmingham InternationalFWVillage CreekAmmoniaXFWVillageCreekNutrientsXFWVillage CreekOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXFWVillage CreekToxic OrganicsXFWVillage CreekFlow AlterationFWVillageCreekMetals(Other Than Mercury)FWVillageCreekpHFWVillageCreekSedimentFWVillageCreekTemperatureBoeing Field/King CountyInternationalFWDuwamish RiverpHBradley InternationalFWFarmington RiverPathogensFWStonyBrookCauseUnknownXCincinnati/Northern KentuckyFWElijahs CreekToxic OrganicsXInternationalFWElijahsCreekAmmoniaXFWElijahs CreekDissolved OxygenXFWGunpowderCreekAmmoniaXFWGunpowderCreekDissolved OxygenXEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final3. Environmental Impact PotentialEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Categoryunder Current Practices1FW – FreshwaterMW – Marine water3-24Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport DeicingDischarges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final RuleAirport NameWaterbodyType1Waterbody NameParent Cause DescriptionPotentiallyLinked toAirportDeicingCleveland-Hopkins InternationalFWRocky RiverAmmoniaXFWRockyRiverNutrientsXFWRocky RiverOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXFWRockyRiverChlorineFWRocky RiverFlow AlterationFWRocky RiverHabitat AlterationFWRockyRiverPathogensFWRockyRiverPCBsFWRockyRiverSedimentDes Moines InternationalFWYeader CreekSalinity/TDS/Sulfates/ChloridesXFWYeader CreekToxic OrganicsXFWEasterLakeNutrients (Phosphorus)XDetroit Metropolitan WayneCountyFWFrank And Poet DrainCause Unknown - Impaired BiotaXEppley AirfieldFWMissouri RiverPathogensFWMissouriRiverPCBsFWMissouriRiverPesticidesGeneral Edward LawrenceMWBoston Inner HarborToxic OrganicsXLogan InternationalMWBoston Inner HarborPathogensHartsfield - Jackson AtlantaInternationalFWFlint RiverPathogensIndianapolis InternationalFWEast Fork White Lick CreekCause Unknown - Impaired BiotaXFWEastForkWhiteLick CreekPathogensFWEast Fork White Lick CreekPCBsFWState DitchCause Unknown - Impaired BiotaXFWStateDitchPathogensJames M Cox DaytonFWStillwater RiverAmmoniaXInternationalFWStillwaterRiverNutrientsXFWStillwater RiverOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXFWStillwater RiverHabitat AlterationFWStillwaterRiverPathogensEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final3. Environmental Impact PotentialEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Categoryunder Current Practices1FW – FreshwaterMW – Marine water3-25Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport DeicingDischarges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final RuleAirport NameWaterbodyType1Waterbody NameParent Cause DescriptionPotentiallyLinked toAirportDeicingJohn F Kennedy InternationalMWBergen BasinAestheticsXMWBergen BasinDissolved OxygenXMWBergenBasinPathogensMWJamaicaBayNutrientsXMWJamaica BayDissolved OxygenXMWJamaicaBayPathogensMWThurston BasinDissolved OxygenXLa GuardiaMWBowery BayDissolved OxygenXMWBoweryBayPathogensMWBoweryBayPCBsMWFlushingBayAestheticsXMWFlushing BayDissolved OxygenXMWFlushingBayPCBsMWRikers Island ChannelDissolved OxygenXMWRikers Island ChannelPathogensMWRikers Island ChannelPCBsLafayette RegionalFWVermilion RiverNutrientsXFWVermilion RiverOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXFWVermilionRiverPathogensFWVermilionRiverPesticidesFWVermilionRiverTurbidityLouisville International-FWSouthern DitchOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXStandiford FieldFWSouthern DitchPathogensMinneapolis-St PaulFWMinnesota RiverOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXInternational/Wold-ChamberlainFWMinnesota RiverMercuryFWMinnesotaRiverPathogensFWMinnesotaRiverPCBsFWMinnesotaRiverTurbidityEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final3. Environmental Impact PotentialEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Categoryunder Current Practices1FW – FreshwaterMW – Marine water3-26Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport DeicingDischarges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final RuleAirport NameWaterbodyType1Waterbody NameParent Cause DescriptionPotentiallyLinked toAirportDeicingNewark Liberty InternationalMWElizabeth ChannelToxic OrganicsXMWElizabethChannelDioxinMWElizabethChannelFloatablesMWElizabethChannelMetalsMWElizabethChannelPathogensMWElizabethChannelPCBsMWNewark ChannelToxic OrganicsXMWNewark ChannelDioxinMWNewark ChannelFloatablesMWNewark ChannelMetalsMWNewark ChannelPathogensMWNewark ChannelPCBsNorman Y. Mineta San JoseInternationalFWLos Gatos CreekPesticidesOntario InternationalFWCucamonga CreekPathogensPhoenix Sky HarborFWSalt RiverPesticides (Chlordane)InternationalFWSalt RiverPesticides (DDT Metabolites)FWSalt RiverPesticides (Dieldrin)FWSalt RiverPesticides (Toxaphene)FWSaltRiverpHPiedmont Triad InternationalFWBrush CreekHabitat AlterationFWEast Fork Deep RiverHabitat AlterationFWEast Fork Deep RiverPathogensFWEast Fork Deep RiverTurbidityFWHorsepenCreekSedimentEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final3. Environmental Impact PotentialEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Categoryunder Current Practices1FW – FreshwaterMW – Marine water3-27Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport DeicingDischarges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final RuleAirport NameWaterbodyType1Waterbody NameParent Cause DescriptionPotentiallyLinked toAirportDeicingPort Columbus InternationalFWBig Walnut CreekAmmoniaXFWBig Walnut CreekCause UnknownXFWBigWalnutCreekNutrientsXFWBig Walnut CreekOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXFWBig Walnut CreekTotal ToxicityXFWBig Walnut CreekToxic OrganicsXFWBig Walnut CreekFlow AlterationFWBig Walnut CreekHabitat AlterationFWBig Walnut CreekMetals (Other Than Mercury) (Copper)FWBig Walnut CreekMetals (Other Than Mercury)FWBigWalnutCreekPathogensFWBigWalnutCreekSedimentFWBigWalnutCreekTemperatureFWBigWalnutCreekTurbidityPortland InternationalFWColumbia SloughAlgal GrowthXFWColumbiaSloughDioxinsFWColumbia SloughMetals (Other Than Mercury)FWColumbiaSloughNutrientsXFWColumbia SloughOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXFWColumbiaSloughPathogensFWColumbiaSloughPCBsFWColumbiaSloughPesticidesFWColumbiaSloughpHRickenbacker InternationalFWWalnut CreekCause UnknownXFWWalnut CreekFish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant UnspecifiedXFWWalnut CreekTotal ToxicityXFWWalnut CreekFlow AlterationFWWalnut CreekHabitat AlterationFWWalnutCreekPathogensFWWalnutCreekPCBsFWWalnutCreekSedimentEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final3. Environmental Impact PotentialEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Categoryunder Current Practices1FW – FreshwaterMW – Marine water3-28Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport DeicingDischarges from Surveyed Airport within Scope of the Final RuleAirport NameWaterbodyType1Waterbody NameParent Cause DescriptionPotentiallyLinked toAirportDeicingRonald Reagan WashingtonFWLower Anacostia RiverOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXNationalFWLower Anacostia RiverToxic Organics (Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate)XFWLower Anacostia RiverToxic Organics (Chrysene)XFWLower Anacostia RiverToxic OrganicsXFWLowerAnacostiaRiverChlorineFWLowerAnacostiaRiverDioxinsFWLowerAnacostiaRiverMercuryFWLower Anacostia RiverMetals (Other Than Mercury) (Selenium)FWLower Anacostia RiverMetals (Other Than Mercury)FWLower Anacostia RiverOil And GreaseFWLowerAnacostiaRiverPathogensFWLowerAnacostiaRiverTurbiditySan Antonio InternationalFWSalado CreekCause Unknown - Impaired BiotaXFWSalado CreekOrganic Enrichment/Oxygen DepletionXFWSaladoCreekPathogensFWSaladoCreekPesticidesSeattle-Tacoma InternationalMWPuget SoundNutrientsXMWPuget SoundToxic OrganicsXMWPugetSoundMercuryMWPugetSoundPathogensMWPugetSoundPesticidesMWPugetSoundpHTheodore Francis Green StateFWBuckeyeBrookCause Unknown - Impaired BiotaXFWBuckeyeBrookPathogensToledo ExpressFWSwan CreekTotal ToxicityXFWSwan CreekHabitat AlterationFWSwanCreekSedimentWilkes-Barre/ScrantonInternationalFWSpring BrookCause UnknownXEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### 3.5.2 Airport Deicing Discharges Listed as TMDL Point Sources

To identify TMDLs that list airport deicing disch arges as a point source contributing to a receiving waterbody’s impairment, EPA searched the online TMDL document database ( http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters/text_search.tmdl_search_form , accessed August 2, 2007). The EPA TMDL

document database tracks information on waters listed by states as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The database provides information such as the identity of the pollutant causing the impairment, the source of the impairment, and the status of TMDL development for the impaired water body.

To date, EPA has identified 4 TMDL documents officially listing airport deicing discharges as point sources contributing to surface water impairment:

3⁄4 Total Maximum Daily Load for Priority Or ganics Yeader, Creek, Polk County, Iowa;

3⁄4 Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients and Siltation, Easter Lake, Polk County, Iowa;

3⁄4 Impacts of Deicing Fluids on Elijahs and G unpowder Creeks, Boone County, Kentucky; and

3⁄4 Columbia Slough Total Maximum Daily Loads for Dissolved Oxygen.

The state of Iowa has listed Yeader Creek as impaired by excessive levels of “priority organics” (glycol compounds) and identified Des Moines International Ai rport as the primary source. The TMDL describes Yeader Creek as a small stream (2 to 3 cubic feet per second flow). Waters immediately downstream from airport deicing stormwater outfalls had a green ish color, a wastewater odor, and no fish or macroinvertebrates. In addition, exposed substr ate was an unusual rust-orange color and embedded substrate was an unusual black color, suggesti ng anaerobic conditions. The Yeader Creek TMDL

describes two additional locations downstream as havi ng pools of water the same nonalgal green color and with the “same odor of sewage a nd sweetener” as the waters immedi ately downstream of the airport deicing stormwater outfalls. The Yeader Creek TMDL established discharge limits for ethylene glycol and propylene glycol for airport deicing outdalls and set a benthic macroinvertebrate distribution target for the river to assess stream recovery.

The state of Iowa has listed Easter Lake as impa ired for nutrients (i.e., phosphorus) and sediment. Although the Des Moines International Airport was id entified as a contributing point sources for nutrient impairment, the airport’s stormwater phosphorus load (110 pounds per year) was considered to be minor in comparison to other potential phosphorus sources in the watershed and the airport was not assigned a waste load reduction goal. The TMDL analysis did not consider the Des Moines International Airport to be a significant source of sediment to Easter Lake.

Elijahs and Gunpower Creeks are located immedi ately downstream from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. Since the early 1990s the Kentucky Division of Water has documented low dissolved oxygen levels, evidence of ammonia toxicity, and extensive growth of Sphaerotilus bacteria in the creeks. In 1996, both streams were liste d on Kentucky’s 303(d) list of impaired waters and ranked as a high priority for TMDL development. The results of the TMDL analysis established discharge

limits for BOD 5 

### and ammonia and required the airport to develop a Best Management Practices plan and

a Groundwater Protection Plan.

The Columbia Slough, located downstream from the Por tland International Airport in Oregon, is listed as impaired for multiple water quality parameters in cluding bacteria, pH, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, temperature, lead, and several toxic organics. The TMDL identified a complex list of pollution sources

3-29Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices



### contributing to the Slough’s impairment including combined sewer overflows, landfill leachate, airport deicing discharges, urban and industr ial runoff, and other point sources in the watershed. Airport deicing discharges were identified as the primary pollution sour ce for wintertime dissolved oxygen violations in the Slough. The TMDL established a range of BOD wast e load allocations for airport deicing discharges to meet dissolved oxygen goals and also required th e airport to perform additional waterbody monitoring.

3.5.3 Resources Located Downstream from Airport Deicing Discharge Outfalls

As a screening-level assessment, EPA evaluated the pot ential for airport deicing discharges to affect the following resources:

3⁄4 Groundwater aquifers;

3⁄4 Drinking water intakes from surface water sources;

3⁄4 Federal lands;

3⁄4 National, state, and local parks; and

3⁄4 National Wildlife Refuge Areas (NWRAs).

EPA assessed the potential for airport deicing disch arges to affect groundwater aquifers based on information provided in responses to EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). Individual airports’ responses indicated whether or not airport grounds are located immediately above an aquifer, and whether or not the aquifer is a drinking water source. EPA assessed the remaining aquatic resources

listed above for those surface waters located within 10 miles downstream of airport deicing outfalls, using the same GIS-based methodology described in Section 3.5.1

. EPA overlaid the relevant NHD Plus stream segments over the following GIS coverages to dete rmine whether downstream surface waters intersect

with the GIS areas associated with each resource:

3⁄4 Drinking water intake point file from EPA’s Reach Address Database (RAD);

3⁄4 National atlas of the U.S. federal land boundaries;

3⁄4 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) U.S. Geographic Data Technology, Inc. (GDT) park landmarks (includes federal, state, and local parks in the U.S.); and

3⁄4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wildlife Refuge Area boundaries.

EPA analyzed aquatic resources within a distance of 10 miles downstream of airport deicing stormwater outfalls because, according to EPA’s literature comp ilation, many documented impacts have taken place within this distance. Impacts could occur at di stances beyond 10 miles downstream, but EPA has chosen 10 miles for this preliminary analysis.

Table 3-10 presents the results of the analysis for aquatic resources which could potentially be affected by airport deicing discharges. Because EPA has sufficien t information to conduct this analysis for only airports EPA surveyed, the table below is not a comple te list of airports discharging deicing pollutants to surface waters containing the resources listed above.

3-30Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule

Airport Name Airport City Airport
State Airport
Grounds
Above an Aquifer Within 10 Miles Downstream from Airport Deicing Outfall Drinking

Water
Intakes Federal
Lands Parks NWRAs Albany International Albany NY Yes Yes Albuquerque International Sunport Albuquerque NM DW

Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field Aspen CO Yes
Austin Straubel International Green Bay WI DW Austin-Bergstrom International Austin TX Yes Baltimore-Washington
International Baltimore MD DW Yes

Bethel Bethel AK Birmingham International Birmingham AL Yes Yes Bismarck Municipal Bismarck ND Boeing Field/King County
International Seattle WA Yes Yes

Bradley International Windsor Locks CT Yes Yes Buffalo Niagara International Buffalo NY Yes Yes
Central Wisconsin Mosinee WI Charlotte/Douglas International Charlotte NC Yes Yes Chicago O'Hare International Chicago IL Yes Yes Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International Covington KY Yes Yes

City of Colorado Springs Municipal Colorado Springs CO

Cleveland-Hopkins In ternational Cleveland OH Yes
Dallas Love Field Dallas TX DW Yes
Dallas/Fort Worth International Dallas-Fort Worth TX Yes
Denver International Denver CO Yes
Des Moines International Des Moines IA Yes Yes Yes Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Detroit MI Yes

Eppley Airfield Omaha NE DW Yes Evansville Regional Evansville IN
Fairbanks International Fairbanks AK DW Fort Wayne International Fort Wayne IN DW Yes
General Edward Lawrence Logan International Boston MA Yes

General Mitchell International Milwaukee WI Yes George Bush Intercontinental Airport/Houston Houston TX DW Yes

Gerald R. Ford International Grand Rapids MI
Glacier Park International Kalispell MT DW Yes
Greater Rochester Internationa l Rochester NY Yes Yes
Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta
International Atlanta GA Yes Yes

Indianapolis International Indianapolis IN Yes Yes James M Cox Dayton
International Dayton OH

John F Kennedy International N ew Yor k NY Yes Yes
Juneau International Juneau AK

3-31Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

3-32 Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule

Airport Name Airport City Airport
State Airport
Grounds
Above an Aquifer Within 10 Miles Downstream from Airport Deicing Outfall Drinking

Water
Intakes Federal
Lands Parks NWRAs Kansas City International Kansas City MO Yes
La Guardia N ew Yor k NY Lafayette Regional Lafayette LA DW
Lambert-St Louis International St Louis MO Yes Yes
Louisville InternationalStandiford Field Louisville KY

Lovell Field Chattanooga TN Yes Yes
Manchester Manchester NH Yes Yes Yes
Mc Carran International Las Vegas NV DW Yes Memphis International Memphis TN Yes Minneapolis-St Paul
International/Wold-Chamberlain Minneapolis MN Yes Yes Yes

Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field) Montgomery AL Yes

N ashville International N ashville TN Yes Yes
N ewark Liberty International N ewar k NJ Yes
N ome N ome AK Yes
N orfolk Inte r national N orfol k VA Yes
N orman Y. Mineta San Jose
International San Jose CA Yes Yes Yes

N orthwest Arkansas Regional Fayetteville/ Springdale AR Yes

Ontario International Ontario CA Outagamie County Regional Appleton WI DW Philadelphia International Philadelphia PA DW Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Phoenix AZ DW

Piedmont Triad International Greensboro NC DW Yes Yes Pittsburgh International Pittsburgh PA Yes
Port Columbus International Columbus OH Yes
Portland International Portland OR Yes Raleigh-Durham International Raleigh/Durham NC DW Yes Ralph Wien Memorial Kotzebue AK Yes Rapid City Regional Rapid City SD DW Redding Municipal Redding CA DW Yes
Reno/Tahoe International Reno NV DW
Rickenbacker International Columbus OH Yes Roanoke Regional/Woodrum
Field Roanoke VA Yes

Rochester International Ro chester MN DW Ronald Reagan Washington
N ational Washington DC Yes Yes Yes

Sacramento International Sacr amento CA DW Yes Yes Salt Lake City International Salt Lake City UT
San Antonio International San Antonio TX Yes
Seattle-Tacoma International Seattle WA DW Yes Syracuse Hancock International Syracuse NYEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 3. Environmental Impact Potential Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices

3-33 Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges from Surveyed Airports within Scope of the Final Rule

Airport Name Airport City Airport
State Airport
Grounds
Above an Aquifer Within 10 Miles Downstream from Airport Deicing Outfall Drinking

Water
Intakes Federal
Lands Parks NWRAs Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Anchorage AK Yes

Theodore Francis Green State Providence RI Yes Yes Toledo Express Toledo OH DW
Tucson International Tucson AZ Yes Washington Dulles International Washington DC DW Yes Yes Yes
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton
International Wilkes-Barre/
Scranton PA Yes

Will Rogers World Oklahoma City OK DW Wilmington International Wilmington NC DW Yeager Charleston WV Yes DW = Aquifer is known by airpor t to be used for drinking water.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessmen t for the Final 4. Benefits of Proposed

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options



## 4 Benefits of Final Regulatory Options

This chapter summarizes the final regulatory options EPA evaluated and the environmental benefits EPA anticipates will result from each option. The benefits of reduced airport deicing pollutant discharges may be classified in three broad categories: human hea lth, ecological and economic productivity benefits. EPA was not able to monetize benefits of the final regul atory options because of an imperfect understanding of the link between discharge reductions and benefit cate gories, and how society values some of the benefit

events.

This chapter presents a summary of EPA’s regulatory options (Section 4.1 ), a discussion of individual airports likely to be affected by the final op tions and associated pollutant discharge reductions (Sections

4.2 and 4.3 ) , and a qualitative assessment of expected ecol ogical and human health and aquatic resource use benefits from reduced deicing pollutant discharges (Section 4.4 ).



### 4.1 Final Regulatory Options

EPA evaluated two different collection and treatment scenarios for aircraft deicing operation discharges from ADF application sites:

3⁄4 20% collection and treatment scenario - uses glycol collection vehicles (GCVs) for deicing stormwater collection and anaerobic fluid bed (AFB ) treatment for deicing stormwater treatment;

3⁄4 40% collection and treatment scenario - uses GCVs in combination with plug-and-pump technology for deicing stormwater collection and AFB treatment for deicing stormwater

treatment.

A complete description of these collection and treatment methods is available in EPA’s Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Lim itation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2010).

EPA also evaluated methods for control of deicing pollutant discharges from the airfield beyond ADF application sites. One approach EPA evaluated is to eliminate the use of urea as a pavement deicer and replace it with other, less environmentally harmful products. Other, less harmful products (e.g., potassium acetate, sodium acetate, and sodium fo rmate) are available for substitution.

Table 4-1 provides a brief description of each of EPA’s final regulatory options.

Table 4-1: Regulatory Options Evaluated for the Airport Deicing Category

Option Option Description Number of Airports Subject to Option
1 40 percent ADF collection requirement for large and medium ADF users (based on plug and pump with GCVs); numeric COD limitations for direct discharges o f collected ADF (based on anaerobic treatment) 198

2 40 percent ADF collection requirement for the large ADF users (based on plug and pump with GCVs) and 20 percent ADF collection requirement for medium ADF users (based on GCVs); numeric COD limitations for direct discharges of collected ADF (based on anaerobic treatment) 198

3 Site-Specific Aircraft De icing Discharge Controls 198

4-1Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessmen t for the Final 4. Benefits of Proposed

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options



### A complete description of how EPA constructed these regulatory options is available in the Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Lim itation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2010).



### 4.2 Airports Affected by the Final Regulatory Options

EPA’s survey collected data, for use in evaluating th e airport deicing category, at all large and medium hub primary commercial airports, and a statistical subsample of small and nonhub primary commercial airports. To determine the airports within scope of the final regulatory options, EPA evaluated those airports for which survey information is available and then scaled up the resulting data using statistical weighting factors to represent conditions for the entir e category. For additional information on the use of survey data and associated statistical weighting factors, see EPA’s Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2010).

For each regulatory option, EPA determ ined which individual airports are likely to fall within scope of the option. EPA then determined wh ich surveyed airports are already in compliance with the option and which airports would likely need to take action to comply with the option.

For airports EPA surveyed, Table 4-2 summarizes which options would likely require an airport to take action to address deicing discharges. For example, Al buquerque International Su nport falls within scope of Option 1 but, based on EPA’s survey data, is belie ved to be already in compliance with both the 20%

ADF collection and treatment and the urea restricti on requirement. Therefore, for this airport under Option 1, EPA did not estimate additional technolog y requirements, compliance costs, or pollutant discharge reductions. Conversely, Charlotte-Douglas Inte rnational Airport falls within scope of Option 1 and, based on EPA’s survey information, is not be lieved to be in compliance with either the 20% ADF collection and treatment or the urea restriction require ment. For this airport, EPA evaluated GRV use and pavement deicer product substitution to reach compliance with Option 1’s requirements. EPA also calculated associated compliance costs and pollutant discharge reductions.

4-2Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessmen t for the Final 4. Benefits of Proposed

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options

Table 4-2: Surveyed Airports Affected by Final Regulatory Options Airport Name Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Albuquerque Intl Sunport X
Austin Straubel International X X X
Bethel X X X
Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Fld X X X Bradley Intl X X X
Central Wisconsin X X X Charlotte/Douglas Intl X X X Eppley Airfield X X
Fairbanks Intl X X X Fort Wayne International X X X General Edward Lawrence Logan Intl X X X
Glacier Park Intl X X X John F Kennedy Intl X X
Juneau Intl X X X
La Guardia X X
Manchester X X X Memphis Intl X X
N ewark Liberty Intl X X
N orthwest Arkansas Regional X X X
Piedmont Triad International X X X
Port Columbus Intl X X
Portland Intl X Raleigh-Durham Intl X X X Ralph Wien Memorial X X X
Reno/Tahoe International X X X Ronald Reagan Washington National X X X Salt Lake City Intl X X X
Seattle-Tacoma Intl X X South Bend Regional X X X Spokane Intl X X X
Stewart Intl X X X Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl X X X Yeager X X X



### Although EPA has insufficient information to dete rmine what would happen under each regulatory option at each airport that was not surveyed, EPA was able to use statistical techniques to estimate the level to which each regulatory option would require airport de icing operation changes fo r the airport population determined to be within scope of the rule.

EPA’s estimate of actions taken by individual airpor ts under each regulatory option is based on data from EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c) and other publicly available data sources. Although current conditions at some individual airports may have changed since the survey was conducted, the overall results of the analysis provide a useful estimate of the level of action required by each regulatory option.



### 4.3 Environmental Benefits Anticipated under Final Regulatory Options

EPA expects that environmental benefits associated with each final regulatory option will accrue to society in several broad categories, including improve d environmental quality, enhanced aquatic resource value for human use, reduced human health risks, and increased productivity in economic activities that are adversely affected by airport deicing polluta nts discharges. This section provides a qualitative and quantitative discussion of benefits associat ed with the final regulatory options.

4-3Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessmen t for the Final 4. Benefits of Proposed

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options

4-4 

### 4.3.1 Airport Actions and Benefits under Final Regulatory Options

In assessing potential benefits from reducing airport de icing pollutant discharges, EPA used information on deicing pollutant environmental be havior, pollutant effects on the aquatic environment, human use of aquatic resources, and human health ; deicing pollutant discharge le vels under current conditions and under each final regulatory option; and characteristi cs of surface and ground water resources potentially affected by deicing pollutant discharges.

Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 list the airports addressed by each re gulatory option along with the following

information:

3⁄4 EPA’s estimates of ammonia and COD discharge reductions associated with each airports ADF collection and treatment and pave ment deicer substitution actions;

3⁄4 Whether the airport discharges deicing pollutants directly to a water body listed as impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act;

3⁄4 Whether the airport property is above a groundwater aquifer and if that aquifer supplies drinking water (US EPA 2006c); and

3⁄4 Information on aquatic resources (drinking water inta kes, federal lands, and park lands) within 10 miles downstream of airport outfalls. 3

3 Source files include the drinking water intake point file fro m EPA's Reach Address Database (RAD); national atlas of the U.S. federal land boundaries; ESRI U.S. GDT park landmarks (includes U.S. nati onal, state, and local parks); and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife NWRA boundaries.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final4. Benefits of ProposedEffluent Guidelines and Standards for theAirport Deicing CategoryRegulatory Options1P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.2DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.4-5Table 4-3. Option 1 – Airport Load Reductions and Environmental BenefitsAirport NamePavementDeicerAmmonia(pounds)COD Discharge Reduction(pounds)303(d)ListedWaters atthe Outfall1Above anAquifer2Within 10 Miles Downstream of AirportOutfall(s)Aircraft DeicingFluidsPavementDeicersDrinkingWater IntakeFederalLandsPark LandsAlbuquerque Intl Sunport0119,9150DWAustin Straubel International25,387069,240PDWBethel38,1050103,927Boise Air Terminal/GowenField152,7400416,584DWBradley International9,478025,849PXXCentral Wisconsin69,8560190,526Charlotte/DouglasInternational84,821510,138231,340XXEppley Airfield0412,9330XDWXFairbanks International187,8830512,432DWFort Wayne International161,5930440,728DWXGeneral Edward LawrenceLogan International5,7823,567,35815,769PXGlacier Park International1890514DWXJohn F Kennedy International02,010,5430PXXJuneau International270,5060737,779La Guardia01,644,5240PManchester20,844669,22556,851XXXMemphis International0759,1000XXNewark Liberty International04,197,4480PXNorthwest Arkansas Regional10,186027,782XPiedmont Triad International52,441255,757143,028XDWXXPort Columbus International01,141,5880PXPortland Intl0208,5130XRaleigh-Durham International35,841381,17997,753DWXRalph Wien Memorial5,659015,435XReno/Tahoe International6,330138,83517,265DWRonald Reagan WashingtonNational44,1410120,391PXXXSalt Lake City International634,51901,730,588Seattle-Tacoma Intl0585,8610DWXSouth Bend Regional18,358050,070DWEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final4. Benefits of ProposedEffluent Guidelines and Standards for theAirport Deicing CategoryRegulatory Options1P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.2DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.4-6Table 4-3. Option 1 – Airport Load Reductions and Environmental BenefitsAirport NamePavementDeicerAmmonia(pounds)COD Discharge Reduction(pounds)303(d)ListedWaters atthe Outfall1Above anAquifer2Within 10 Miles Downstream of AirportOutfall(s)Aircraft DeicingFluidsPavementDeicersDrinkingWater IntakeFederalLandsPark LandsSpokane International281,8240768,648XStewart International85,9050234,299Ted Stevens AnchorageInternational1,423,21203,881,674XYeager15,572042,471XEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final4. Benefits of ProposedEffluent Guidelines and Standards for theAirport Deicing CategoryRegulatory Options1P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.2DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.4-7Table 4-4. Option 2 – Airport Load Reductions and Environmental BenefitsAirport NamePavementDeicerAmmonia(pounds)COD Discharge Reduction(pounds)303(d) ListedWaters at theOutfall1Above anAquifer2Within 10 Miles Downstream ofAirport Outfall(s)AircraftDeicing FluidsPavementDeicersDrinkingWaterIntakeFederalLandsParkLandsAustin Straubel International25,387069,240PDWBethel38,1050103,927Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field152,7400416,584DWBradley International9,478025,849PXXCentral Wisconsin69,8560190,526Charlotte/Douglas International84,821255,069231,340XXEppley Airfield0206,4660XDWXFairbanks International187,8830512,432DWFort Wayne International161,5930440,728DWXGeneral Edward Lawrence LoganInternational5,7821,783,67915,769PXGlacier Park International1890514DWXJohn F Kennedy International01,005,2720PXXJuneau International270,5060737,779La Guardia0822,2620PManchester20,844334,61356,851XXXMemphis International0379,5500XXNewark Liberty International02,098,7240PXNorthwest Arkansas Regional10,186027,782XPiedmont Triad International52,441127,879143,028XDWXXPort Columbus International570,7940PXRaleigh-Durham International35,841190,58997,753DWXRalph Wien Memorial5,659015,435XReno/Tahoe International6,330017,265DWRonald Reagan Washington National44,1410120,391PXXXSalt Lake City International634,51901,730,588Seattle-Tacoma Intl0292,9310DWXSouth Bend Regional18,358050,070DWSpokane International281,8240768,648XStewart International85,9050234,299Ted Stevens Anchorage International1,423,21203,881,674XYeager15,572042,471XEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final4. Benefits of ProposedEffluent Guidelines and Standards for theAirport Deicing CategoryRegulatory Options1P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing.2DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water.4-8Table 4-5. Option 3 – Airport Load Reductions and Environmental BenefitsAirport NamePavementDeicerAmmonia(pounds)PavementDeicers CODDischargeReduction(pounds)303(d) Listed Watersat the Outfall1Above anAquifer2Within 10 Miles Downstream ofAirport Outfall(s)DrinkingWaterIntakeFederalLandsParkLandsAustin Straubel International25,38769,240PDWBethel38,105103,927Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field152,740416,584DWBradley International9,47825,849PXXCentral Wisconsin69,856190,526Charlotte/Douglas International84,821231,340XXFairbanks International187,883512,432DWFort Wayne International161,593440,728DWXGeneral Edward Lawrence Logan International5,78215,769PXGlacier Park International189514DWXJuneau International270,506737,779Manchester20,84456,851XXXNorthwest Arkansas Regional10,18627,782XPiedmont Triad International52,441143,028XDWXXRaleigh-Durham International35,84197,753DWXRalph Wien Memorial5,65915,435XReno/Tahoe International6,33017,265DWRonald Reagan Washington National44,141120,391PXXXSalt Lake City International634,5191,730,588South Bend Regional18,35850,070DWSpokane International281,824768,648XStewart International85,905234,299Ted Stevens Anchorage International1,423,2123,881,674XYeager15,57242,471XEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessmen t for the Final 4. Benefits of the Final

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options



### Table 4-6 presents the total COD and ammonia dischar ge reductions associated with each of the regulatory options.

Table 4-6: Annual Pollutant Discharge Reductions under Regulatory Options

Regulatory Option ADF COD (million pounds) Pavement Deicer COD (million pounds) Pavement Deicer
Ammonia (million pounds) Option 1 16.6 12.0 4.4 Option 2 13.8 12.0 4.4 Option 3 0 12.0 4.4



### The totals for each regulatory option in Table 4-6 are greater than the sum of the reductions presented for individual airports in Table 4-3 and Table 4-4

. This is because the totals in Table 4-6 reflect discharge reductions associated with all airports in scope of the final re gulatory options, whereas Table 4-3 and

Table 4-4 present reductions associated only with airports EPA surveyed. EPA calculated the discharge reductions associated with these airports by using st atistical weighting factors associated with EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). For additional information on the calculation of discharge reductions associated with each regulatory option, see EPA’s Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2010).

Table 4-6 presents discharge reductions only for COD a nd ammonia. The final regulatory options will reduce discharges of other pollutants, as well (see Chapter 2 ), but EPA does not have sufficient information at this time to quantify those reductions.



### 4.4 Expected Ecological, Human Aquatic Resource Use, and Human Health
Benefits

The final regulatory options will reduce discharges of chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia from urea pavement deicers, and other airport deicing product chemicals from selected airports. EPA anticipates that these discharge reductions will improve receiving water characteristics, including pollutant levels, aesthetic problems, aquatic community health, and utility for hu man needs and health.

4.4.1 Ecological Benefits

Ecological benefits from the regulation include protec tion of fresh- and saltwater plants, invertebrates, fish, and amphibians, and other aqua tic organisms, as well as terrestrial wildlife and birds that prey on aquatic organisms exposed to airport deicing polluta nts. The final regulation will reduce the presence and discharge of various pollutants to aquatic ecosystem s currently under stress (e.g., 303(d) listed water bodies). The drop in pollutant discharges would help reestablish productive ecosystems in damaged waterways, protect resident species, including thr eatened and endangered species where present, and reduce the severity and frequency of fish kill events.

4.4.2 Human Health Benefits

As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, EPA identified several possible health risks and incidents of complaint by members of the public associated with certain ADF and pavement deicer components. To the extent current discharges contri bute to human health risk, reducing airport deicing

4-9Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessmen t for the Final 4. Benefits of the Final

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options



### pollutant discharges to the nation’s waterways will generate human health benefits by reducing risk of

non-cancer and cancer toxic effects from fish and water consumption and contact.

Human health benefits are typically analyzed by estim ating the change in the expected number of adverse human health events in the exposed population resu lting from a reduction in effluent discharges. EPA, however, did not quantify changes in human health risk resulting from the final regulatory options due to unavailability of dose-response functio ns for many chemicals of potentia l concern and the complexity of many chemical’s environmental behavior.

In concept, the value of these health effects to society is the monetary value that society is willing to pay to avoid the health effects, or the amount that so ciety would need to be compensated to accept increases in the number of adverse health events. Willingness to pay (WTP) values are generally considered to provide a fairly comprehensive measure of society’s valuation of the human and financial costs of illness

associated with the costs of health care, losses in income, and pain and suffering of affected individuals and of their family and friends. Another measure that is typically used in assessing human health benefits

is the cost of an illness. Cost of an illness is the di rect medical costs of treating a health condition (e.g., reproductive problems), and can be used to value changes in health risk from reduced exposure to pollutants such as ethylene glycol.

4.4.3 Human Use of Aquatic Resource Benefits

Improvements in ecosystems and habitats and enha nced aesthetic quality of surface waters enhance human use and enjoyment of these areas. In particul ar, reducing instances of objectionable odors, colors, and foaming that have been frequently reported in su rface waters affected by ADFs and pavement deicers is expected to enhance a broad range of recreational uses of the affected waterbodies, including swimming, boating, fishing, water skiing, and use of park lands adjacent to affected waterbodies. Improvements will also enhance quality of life for people who live near affected waterbodies. The regulation will also augment nonuse values (e.g., option, existence, and bequest values) of the affected

water resources.

EPA’s review of 45 surface water valuation studi es conducted between 1981 and 2002 demonstrates that society places a significant value on improving and/or protecting its water resources. Total WTP (including use and non-use values) for water quality improvements over the sample of 45 studies ranged from $8.72 to $525.91, with a mean value of $12 0.54 (US EPA 2008c). WTP values from published studies vary widely depending on the study (e.g ., methodology and sample size) and resource characteristics (e.g., water body characteristics, th e magnitude of water quality improvements, the geographic scope of improvement). For example, WTP for reducing nutrient pollution and eutrophication impacts estimated by Shrestha and Alavapati (2004) ranges from to $84.15 to $106.71 (2008$, annualized). A study by Lindsey (1994) found that WTP to meet nutrient pollution reduction goals in the Chesapeake Bay ranged from $34.90 to $106.78 (2008$) , depending upon the choice of outliers and protest bids excluded. Values for oil and toxic mate rials reductions were also available in the same review. A study by Phaneuf et al. (1998) found that WTP for a 20% reduction in toxins at fishery sites in North Carolina’s Tar-Pamlico basin ranges from $14.59 to $193.46 (2008$), depending upon the models utilized. Based on the evidence from the published literature, EPA estimates that nonmarket benefits from water quality improvements resulting from reduced deicing pollutant discharges are likely to be

substantial.

Reduced airport deicing discharges should improve groundwater and drinking water sources located under or near airports subject to regulation. Dri nking water contaminated by deicing pollutants may pose

4-10Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessmen t for the Final 4. Benefits of the Final

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options

4-11 

### health risks or have an unpleasant taste and odor which may cause concerns regarding potential adverse health effects. Protection of groundwater sources from contamination by airport deicing pollutants is of particular concern because households that use private wells usually do not treat or regularly test their drinking water for contamination.

The appropriate measure of the economic value of clean groundwater achieved through a ban on MTBE use in gasoline is option price. This measure is commonly used when uncer tainty is present in the analysis. Option price is defined as an individual’s maximum WTP to secure the option to use a resource or commodity in the future (Desvousges et al. 1987 and Freeman 2003). Option price is a measure of the total economic value an individual places on protec ting groundwater quality. Protecting groundwater quality provides a number of services to groundwater users, including avoi dance of higher drinking water costs (e.g., avoided treatment or replacement costs), elimination of potential health concerns associated with consumption of bad tasting water, general aesthetic enjoym ent derived from a clean environment, and any nonuse values associated w ith protecting groundwater quality (e.g., bequest value, existence value).

Based on the meta-analysis of groundwater valuati on studies, WTP values for protection of groundwater from contamination by pollutants other then nitrat es and pesticides (i.e., “Other” pollutants) range from $154.74 to $235.25 for residential wells. For small public water supply systems, household WTP values range from $78 to $122.03, and for public water supply systems, household WTP values range from $78 to $233.99 (2008$) (US EPA 2001). All are annual values.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



## 5 References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry . (Year unknown).Public Health Assessment Pease Air Force Base Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire.

Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. “O'Hare Found to be Major Water Polluter.” ARCO Flight

Tracks [4]. 1997. Arlington Heights, IL, Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. 8-21-2007.

Amrhein, C., J.E. Strong. 1990. “The Effect of De icing Salts on Trace Metal Mobility in Roadside Soils. Journal of Environmental Quality. 19: 765-772.

Ashrawi, S.S., and D.A. Coffey. 1993. Anti-icing compositions having alkylphenol ethoxylate nonionic surfactant and alkylaryl sulfonate hydrotrope. Te xaco Chemical Company (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,273,673.

Askari, Emilia. 1990. “State Probes Airport in Pollution Allegations.” Detroit Free Press . August 30.

Associated Press. 1992. “Cincinnati Airport Cited by State.” Cleveland Plain Dealer . June 8.

Associated Press. 1999. “De-icing Chemical Found in Westchester Reservoir.” New York Times

. November 14.

Associated Press. 1996. “Panel Settl es De-Icing Suit with Homeowners.” Cleveland Plain Dealer . March

28.

Associated Press. 2006. “Portland Airport's De-Icing System Harms Fish.” USA Today . October 17.

Atlantic States Legal Foundation. 1999. Litigation Update. Atlan tic States Legal Foundation, Inc. Newsletter [Autumn 1999].

Ayres Ed. 2007. “Airports and cities: Can they coexist?” San Diego Earth Times . 2001. San Diego, CA.

November 29.

Back, D.D., J.A. Meyerand, and C. Ramos. 1999. “Composition and method for de-icing and anti-icing

surfaces.” Mainstream Engineering Corp . (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,993,684.

Basic Acrylic Monomer Manufacturers (BAMM). 200 6. Acrylic Acid: Background Information.

Available at: http://www.bamm.net/bamm_acrylic_acid_041806.pdf . Accessed December 8, 2008.

Belanger, S.E., P.B. Dorn, R. Toy, G. Boeije, S.J. Marshall, T. Wind, R. Van Compernolle, and D. Zeller. 2006. “Aquatic Risk Assessment of Alcohol Et hoxylates in North America and Europe.” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 64: 85–99.

Bennie, D.T., C.A. Sullivan, H.-B. Lee, T.E. Peart, and R.J. Maguire. 1997. “Occurrence of Alkylphenols and Alkylphenoldiethoxylates in Natural Waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin and the Upper
St. Lawrence River .” Sci. Tot. Env. 193: 263-275.

Bloom, S.H. 1986. Deicing compos itions. U.S. Patent 4,585,571.

Boeing Company (Boeing). 2008. Aero Magazine, No. 8. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_08/deice_textonly.html#industry.

Boluk, M.Y., M.S. Jarrell, B.J. Brymer, and G. Arch ambault. 1999. “Aircraft deicing fluid with improved anti-icing and ice adhesion control properties.” Union Carbide Chemical and Plastics Technology Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,968,407.

5-1Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Breedveld, G.D., G. Olstad, and P. Aagaard. 1997. “T reatment of Jet Fuel Contaminated Runoff Water by

Subsurface Infiltration.” Bioremediation Journal 1, 77–88.

Breedveld, G.D., R. Roseth, L. Hem, S. Sparrevik. 2002. Trizoles in the Terrestrial Environment . Report by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute for the Os lo International Airport, Statsbygg, and the Norwegian Airforce.

Breedveld, Gus D., Roger Roseth, Magnus Sparrevi k, Thomas Hartnik, and Lars J. Hem. 2003. “Persistence of the Deicing Additive Benz otriazole at an Abandoned Airport,” Water, Air, and Soil

Pollution: Focus 91-101.

British Environment Agency. 2000. Corrosion Inhibito rs: Priorities for Environmental Quality Standards Development. Research and Devel opment Technical Report P189.

California Aviation Association. 2003. New Hampsh ire “Airport Brook To Be Tested For Chemicals.” California Aviation Association . January 27.

Campbell, P.M. 2002. Alternatives to Nonylphenol Ethoxylates: Review of Toxicity, Biodegradation, & Technical-Economic Aspects. Prepared for Environment Canada by ToxEcology.

Cancilla, D.A., J. Martinez, and G.C. Van Aggelen. 1998. “Detection of Aircraft Deicing/Antiicing Fluid Additives in a Perched Water Monitoring Well at an International Airport.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 32:

3834-3835.

Cancilla, D.A., J.C. Baird, S.W. Geis, and S.R. Co rsi. 2003. “Studies of the Environmental Fate and Effect of Aircraft Deicing Fluids: Detection of 5-Methyl-1H-Benzotriazole in the Fathead Minnow.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry . 22(1): 134-40.

Chan, S.K., G.L. Hubred, and H.E. Todd. 1995. De icer/anti-icer compositions for aircraft. General Atomics International Services Corporati on (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,435,930.

Chemfate Database. 2008. Syracuse Research Corpora tion’s Chemfate Chemical Search. Available at: http://www.syrres.com/eSc/chemfate.htm . Accessed April 15, 2008.

Christiansen, L.B., M. Winther-Nielsen, and C. He lweg. 2002. Feminisation of Fish. The Effects of Estrogenic Compounds and Their Fate in Sewa ge Treatment Plants and Nature. Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Project No. 729.

Coffey, D.A., S.S. Ashrawi, and E.C. Nieh. 1995. “Aircraft wing de-icers with improved holdover times.” Texaco Chemical Company (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,386,968.

Comfort, G. 2000. Runway De-Icing Chemicals (No. TP13778). Ottawa, ON, Ca nada: Transport Canada.

Conetta, A., R. Bracchitta, and P. Sherrer, 1997, St orm Water Management and Control of Aircraft Deicing Runoff at Westchester County Airpor t: Environmental Regulation and Permitting.

Conservation Commission of Missouri. 2007. Platte River Watershed Beneficial Use Attainment.

Cornell, Jeffrey S. 2001. “The Envi ronmental Impact of 4(5)-Methylben zotriazole from Aircraft Deicing Operations.” Ph.D. Thesis directed by Mark T. Hernandez, University of Colorado, CO. May.

Corsi, S. R.; Booth, N. L.; Hall, D.W. 2001. “A ircraft and Runway Deicers at General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.” Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001, 20 , 1474-1482.

5-2Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Corsi, S. R., Harwell Glenn R, Geis, S., and Bergma n Daniel, 2006. “Impacts of Aircraft Deicer and AntiIcer Runoff on Receiving Waters From Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Texas, USA.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , v. 25, p. 2890-2900.

Corsi, S.R., D.H. Zitomer, J.A. Field, and D.A. Cancilla. 2003. “Nonylphe nol Ethoxylates and Other Additives in Aircraft Deicers, Antiicers, and Waters Receiving Airport Runoff.” Environmental Science & Technology 37(18): 4031-4037.

Corsi, Steven R., Steven W. Geis, Jorge E. Loyo-Ros ales, and Clifford P. Rice. 2006. “Aquatic Toxicity

of Nine Aircraft Deicer and Anti-Icer Formula tions and Relative Toxicity of Additive Package Ingredients Alkylphenol Ethoxylates and 4,5-Methyl-1H-Benzotriazoles,” Environmental Science and Technology. August.

Corsi, Steven, Steven Geis, Jorge Loyo-Rosales, and Clifford Rice. 2007. “Aircraft and Pavement Deicer and Anti-icer Forensics.” Powerpoint Presentation given at SETAC 2007.

Cowan, P.F. 1997. Water Pollution-Chicago International Airport. Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc., May 28.

Cox, C. 1996. “Nonylphenol and Related Chemicals.” Journal of Pesticide Reform. Spring.

Cryotech. 2008. De-Icing Products: Cr yotech NAAC. Website. Available at: http://www.cryotech.com/products/NAAC/environment.php. Accessed July 1 , 2008.

Dafforn, Erik. 2007. “Til Hill and Valley are Ringing.” Wabash University Magazine

. Davis, L.C., S. Castro-Diaz, D. Lupher, and L.E. Erickson. 2000. “Interaction of Benzotriazoles with Upland Plants.” Environmental and Pipeline Engineering 118-126. Abstract.

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

Delaware Estuary Program. 1996. Comprehensive Conservation and Mana gement Plan for the Delaware Estuary.

deMarban, Alex. 2007. Lake Mower Clears Paths for Floatplanes. Anchorage Daily News . August 13. Anchorage, AK.

Desvouges, William H., V. Kerry Smith, and Ann Fish er. 1987. Option Price Estimates for Water Quality Improvements: A Contingent Valuation Study for th e Monongahela River. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 14: 248-267.

Dickson, Louise. 2004. “Polluted creek killing fish : Reclamation Work Wasted as Second Major Kill Wipes Out Run.” Victoria Times Colonist . November 1.

D’Itri, F.M. 1992. Chemical Deicers and the Environment. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.

Eddy, Mark. 1997. “Airport Deicer Pollutes Creek.” Denver Post , April 22.

Egan, D'Arcy. 2001 “Rocky River fishing in danger as pollutants keep pouring in.” Cleveland Plain

Dealer . October 21.

Environment Canada. 2001. Priority Substances List Assessment Report: Nonylphenol and its Ethoxylates. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/hecssesc/pdf/pubs/contaminants/psl2-lsp2/ nonylphenol/nonylphenol-eng.pdf . Accessed June 24, 2008.

5-3Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Environment Canada. 2002a. “Alternatives to Nony lphenol Ethoxylates.” Review of Toxicity, Biodegradation, and Technical-Economic Aspects.

Environment Canada. 2002b. “Canadian Environmen tal Quality Guidelines for Nonylphenol and its Ethoxylates.” Cat. No. En1-34/4-2002E. Report.

Environment Canada. 2008a. “Exis ting Substances Evaluation: Draft Screening Assessment for the Challenge.” 15086-94-9. Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/ challenge/batch2/batch2_15086-94-9.cfm . Accessed June 24,

2008.

Environment Canada. 2008b. “Risk Management Sc ope for C.I. Pigment Yellow 34.” Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/ch allenge/batch2/batc h2_1344-37-2_rms_en.pdf . Accessed June 24, 2008.

Environmental News Service. 2005. “Minnesota Halts Jet Fuel Leaks, Spills at Twin Cities Airport.

“Environmental News Service. March 18.

Environmental News Service. 2007. Wayne County Airport Admits De-Icing Chemical Discharge. Environmental News Service. 6-14-2006. August 21.

Evans, W.E.D., and S. Patterson. 1973. “Biodegr adation of Urea in River Water under Controlled Laboratory Conditions.” Water Research . 7: 975-985. As cited in D’Itri, F.M. 1992. Chemical

Deicers and the Environment. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.

Farmington River Watershed Association. 2003. State of the Farmington River Watershed Report. 1-69. 2003. Simsbury, CT, Farmington River Wa tershed Association. November 29.

Ferguson, L., S.R. Corsi, S.W. Geis, G. Anderson, K. Joback, H. Gold, D. Mericas, D.A. Cancilla. 2008. ACRP Web-Only Document 3: Aircraft Deici ng and Airfield Anti-Icing Formulations: Aquatic Toxicity and Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Cont ractor’s Phase I Interim Report for Airport Cooperative Research Program Project 02-01.

Fisher, D. H., M.H. Knott, S.D. Turley, B.S. Turley, L.T. Yonkos, and G.P. Ziegler, 1995, “The Acute Whole Effluent Toxicity of Storm Water from an International Airport.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , v. 14, p. 1103-1111.

Flannery William. 1998. Status on Recovery of Aircra ft Deicing Fluid Operations at the Airport. CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION 98-052, FEBRUARY 16, 1998 AGENDA. February 16.

Freeman, A. Myrick. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, 2nd Edition. Resources for the Future. Washington, DC.

French, H.K., Zee, S.V.D., and Leijnse, A., 2001. Tr ansport and degradation of propylene glycol and potassium acetate in the unsaturated zone. J. Contam. Hydrol. 49, 23–48.

Fyve Star, Inc. 2008. Catalog. Website, available at: http://www.fyvestar.com/id25.html . Accessed June 30, 2008.

Gruden, C.L., S.M. Dow, and M.T. Hernandez. 2001. “Fate and Toxicity of Aircraft Deicing Fluid Additives Through Anaerobic Digestion.” Water Environment Research 73(1): 72-79.

Hamrick Dave. 2002. EPD: “We blew it.” The Citizen . February 13.

Hamrick, Dave. 2002. “Officials unanimous: Our water is safe.” The Citizen . February 13.

5-4Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Hannah, James. 1998.“De-Icing Chemicals for Planes Killing Creek, Professor Says.” Cleveland Plain

Dealer . June 7.

Hartwell, S. I., Jordahl, D. M., and Evans, J. W., 1995, “Toxicity of aircraft de-icer and anti-icer solutions to aquatic organisms.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , v. 14, p. 1375-1386.

Haslim, L.A. Environmentally friendly compositions having antiicing, deicing or graffiti prevention properties

. U.S. Patent Application No. 20040036054.

Hellsten, P.P., J.M. Salminen, K.S. Joergensen, a nd T.H. Nysten. 2005. “Use of Potassium Formate in Road Winter Deicing Can Reduce Groundwater Deterioration.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 39(13): 5095-

5100.

Hopey, Don. 1996. “Airport Gets Cr iticism for Disposal of De-Icer.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . October

28.

Hopey, Don. 1998. “Airport Ordered Agai n to Keep De-Icers Out of Streams.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

. January 31.

Hu, J.Z., J. Wakelin, and A. Wiesenfeld. 1998. Deic ing and anti-icing composition for aircraft. Octagon Process Inc. (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,817,252.

Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of European Household Cleaning Products (HERA). 2007. “Alcohol Ethoxylates.” May.

International Food Information Council (IFIC). 2005. “IFIC Review: Sodium in Food and Health.” January.

International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1997. Environmental Health Criteria 191: Acrylic

Acid. Available at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc191.htm . Accessed June 24, 2008.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Tota l Maximum Daily Load For Priority Organics Yeader Creek Polk County, Iowa. January 23.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2004. To tal Maximum Daily Loads For Nutrients and Siltation Easter Lake Polk County, Iowa.

Isobe, T., H. Nishiyama, A. Nakashima, and H. Takada. 2001. “Distribu tion and Behavior of Nonylphenol, Octylphenol, and Nonylphenol Mono ethoxylate in Tokyo Metropolitan Area: Their Association with Aquatic Particl es and Sedimentary Distributions.” Env. Sci. Technol . 35: 1041-1049.

Jaesche, P., K.U. Totsche, and I. Kogel-Knabner. 2006. “Transport and An aerobic Biodegradation of Propylene Glycol in Gravel-Rich Soil Materials . Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 85: 271-286.

Jobling, M. 1996. “Environmental Biology of Fishes.” Fish and Fisheries Series 16. Chapman and Hall,

London.

Johnson, J.J., N. Varney, and M.S. Switzenbaum. 2001. “Comparative Toxicity of Formulated Glycol Deicers and Pure Ethylene and Propylene Glycol .” Report. University of Massachusetts/Amherst, Water Resources Research Center. August.

Johnson, Steve. 2005. “Port Plans Study To Enhance Airport Deicing Storm Water Collection System.” September 26.

Kelly, B.R. and D. Klepal. 2004. “Silent Streams.” The Cincinnati Enquirer . March 7.

5-5Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Kentucky Department for Environmental Prot ection.2007. KPDES Permit # KY0082864. July 31.

Kentucky Department for Environmental Protec tion. 2007. KPDES Permit # KY0092185. December 31.

Kibbe, Cindy. 2006. “Planes, trains and automobiles: What are southern N.H.'s transportation options?” New Hampshire Business Review . April 14.

Klecka, G.M., C.L. Carpenter, and B.D. Landenberger. 1993. “Biodegradation of Aircraft Deicing Fluids in Soil at Low Temperatures .” Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 25(3): 280–295.

Klepal, Dan. 2004. “Airport pollution provokes ire: Residents fault state for going easy on de-icing

runoff.” The Cincinnati Enquirer . September 10.

König-Lumer, I., U. Schwenk, R. Salvador, and J. Kapfinger. 1982. Agent for de-icing and protecting against icing-up. Clariant GMBH (Assignee). U.S. Patent 4,358,389.

Koryak, M., L.J. Stafford, R.J. Reilly, R.H. Hoskin, and M.H. Haberman, 1998, “The Impact of Airport Deicing Runoff on Water Quality and Aquatic Life in a Pennsylvania Stream.” Journal of Freshwater Ecology , v. 13, p. 297-298.

Krogh, K.A., B. Halling-Sorensen, B.B. Mogensen, and K.V. Vejrup. 2003. “Environmental Properties and Effects of Nonionic Surfactant Adjuvants in Pesticides: a Review.” Abstract. Chemosphere 50(7):

871-901.

Kuehner, John C. 2001. ”Airport Ordered to Reduce Discharge”. The Plain Dealer. November 1.

Lange, Larry. 2003. “Sea-Tac blamed for fish deat hs: Airport denies group's claim that runoff kills

salmon.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer . April 14.

Larson, Catherine E. 2004. Lower Minnesota River Model Project Proposal to Develop an Advanced Water-Quality Model of the Minnesota River, Jord an to the mouth, and Conduct River Monitoring and Studies to Support the Model. 1-35. January 15.

Larson, R.J., E.A. Bookland, R.T. Williams, K.M. Yocom, D.A. Saucy, and M.B. Freeman. 1997. “Biodegradation of Acrylic Acid Polymers a nd Oligomers by Mixed Microbial Communities in Activated Sludge.” Journal of Polymers and the Environment 5(1):41-48.

Legislative Assembly of Ontario. 1989. Stormwater. Transcript of July 16, 1989 Meeting.

Leist, David, Scott Hankla, Kevin Flowers, Gretchen Bartley, Bob Beebe, Todd Giles, Eric Ratcliff, and Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. 1998. Impacts of Deicing Fluids on Elijahs and Gunpowder Creeks Boone County, Kentucky. Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection.

Lindsey, G. 1994. “Market Models, Protest Bids, and Outliers in Contingent Valuation.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management Vol 12: 121-129.

Lochner, Paul D. 2006. Wayne County Airport Author ity Pleads Guilty To Violation Of Clean Water Act. Department of Justice Press Release. June 8.

Lockyerm, R.T., J. Zuk, and A. Gaslim. 1998. Environmentally friendly anti-icing. U.S. Patent 5,772,912.

Ma, F., and D. Comeau. 1990. “Aircraft de-icing a nd anti-icing composition.” Union Carbide Chemical and Plastics Technology Corporation Lim ited (Assignee). U.S. Patent 4,954,279.

Maest, Ann. 2008. Personal communication, Dr. Ann Maest, Stratus Consulting Inc., June 28, 2008.

Mapes, Jeff. 1999. Leonard wades into water cleanup w ith Portland plans. The Oregonian. February 3.

5-6Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### McDowell, A. Scott. 1997. Sawmill Creek - Wate rshed "Restoration" Project. Allwood Community

Association Site Information. March 14.

Meersman, Tom. 1993. “FAA-Mandated Plane De-Icing Puts Minnesota River at Risk.” Minneapolis Star

Tribune . March 10.

Meersman, Tom. 1993. “New Rules for Airport De-Ic ers Amount of Chemicals Flushed into River Will
be Reduced.” Minneapolis Star Tribune . September 29.

Mericas, D., and B. Wagoner. 1994. “B alancing Safety and the Environment.” Water Environment and Technology 6(12): 38-43.

Meyerhoff, Richard, Nicole Rowan, Janet Kieler, Janell Barrilleaux, Rebecca Albrecht, and Susan Morea. 2005. “Development Of Site-Specific Dissolved Oxygen Standards In Surface Waters At Denver International Airport.” 1002-1026. Water Environment Federation.

Mikkelson, Stephen and Karnowski, Marni. 2004. Water Quality Violations to Cost Metropolitan Airports Commission $69,076. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Miller, Alan. 1991. “Deicing’s Fatal Effect Not Plain.” Columbus Dispatch. January 6.

Mills, Karen. 2001. Minneapolisairport saw big jump in runoff from de-icer into Minnesota River. California Aviation Association. May 19.

Moles, J.O., J.L. Maier, K.L. Johnson, and S.D. Royer. 2003. Aircraft runway deicing composition.

General Atomics International Services Cor poration (Assignee). U.S. Patent 6,596,189.

Moran, V.M., L.A. Abron, and L.W. Weinberger. 1 992. “A Comparison of Conventional and Alternative DeIcers.” Chapter 12 in: Chemical Deicers and the Environment. D’Itri, F.M., Editor. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.

Motavalli, P., T. Marler, F. Cruz, and J. McConnell. 2008. Website: Essential plant nutrients. Available

at: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Bota nicalSciences/PlantHormones/EssentialPlant/

EssentialPlant.htm

. Accessed: June 29, 2008. Adapted from: W.F. Bennett, Editor. 1993. Nutrient Deficiencies & Toxicities in Crop Plants, APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota.

National Institute for Occupational Safety a nd Health (NIOSH). 2005a. “Ethylene Glycol.” NIOSH
Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. September.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2005b. “Acrylic Acid.” NIOSH Pocket
Guide to Chemical Hazards. September.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2005c. “Ammonia.” NIOSH Pocket
Guide to Chemical Hazards. September.

New England Grassroots Environment Fund. 2003 Annual Report. Montpelier, VT.

Nieh, E.D. 1992. “Anti-icing compositions contai ning thickener blend having polyacrylic acid and copolymer of acrylic acid and hydrophobic vinyl monomer.” Texaco Chemical Company (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,118,435.

O'Conner, Robert and Kate Douglas. 1993. “Cleanin g Up After the Big Chill: Thousands of Rivers and Streams are Harmed by the De-Icing Chemicals That Keep Aircraft Flying Through the Winter. Now Airports Are Being Forced to Curb This Damaging Pollution.” New Scientist . January 16.

5-7Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. National Po llutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program Fact Sheet Regarding an NPDES Permit To Discharge to Waters of the State of Ohio for Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport. NPDES Permit # OH122068, Expiration October 31,

2006.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
2007. NPDES Permit #040124311.

Onondaga County Council on Environmental Hea lth. 2000. Beartrap Creek Reclamation.

Onondaga Lake Partnership. 2003. Izaak Walton League's Efforts Lead To Restored Beartrap Creek. Reflections 1[3]. 2003.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Columbia Slough Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) For: Chlorophyll a, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Phosphorus, Bacteria, DDE/DDT, PCBs, Pb, Dieldrin and 2,3,7,8 TCDD. 1-F-2.

Oviedo, C. J. Rodriguez. 2003. “EDTA: The Chelating Agent Under Environmental Scrutiny.” Quim.

Nova 26(6): 901-905.

Pelton, Tom. 1998. “BWI Violated Water Act, Group Cl aims; Environmentalists File Notice of Intent to Sue; De-Icing Chemicals at Issue; Airport Main tains it Has Tried to Keep Pollution Contained .”
Baltimore Sun . January 8.

Pelton, Tom. 1997a. “De-Icing Fluid Used at BWI Foul s Waters; MD.'s Pride in System Ignores Pollution Data From Other Agencies; BWI is 'Economic E ngine'; 11th-Hour Clearance Gives Airport Time, $1.6 Million for Drains.” Baltimore Sun . August 9.

Pelton, Tom. 1997b. “EPA Probing Allegation of BW I Runoff; Polluting Chemicals Seeping Into Creek, Environmentalists Say; Airport Cooperating; Public's Health Is Not In Danger, According to State.”

Baltimore Sun . April 23.

Peninsula Streams Society. 2006. Reay Watershed: 2003 Fish Kill.

Phaneuf, Daniel J., Catherine L. Kling, and Joseph A. Herriges. 1998. “Valuing Water Quality Improvements Using Revealed Preference Methods When Corner Solutions Are Present.” 80(5), Dec

2002.

Pillard, D. A., 1996. “Assessment of benthic macr oinvertebrate and fish communities in a stream receiving storm water runoff from a large airport.” Journal of Freshwater Ecology , v. 11, p. 51-59.

Pillard D., J. Cornell, D. Dufresne, and M. Hernandez. 2001. “Toxicity of Benzotriazole and Benzotriazole Derivatives to Three Aquatic Species.” Water Research 35(2):557-560.

Public Sector Consultants Inc. 1993. “The Use of Selected Deicing Materials on Michigan Roads: Environmental and Economic Impacts. Conducted for the Michigan Department of Transportation.”

Available at: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1 607,7-151-9622_1104 5-57246--,00.html . Accessed June 24, 2008.

Pytte, Alyson. 1991. “Chemicals Lace Airport Soil Finding Pollution is Easy; Who Pays for Cleanup is

the Problem.” Anchorage Daily News . September 8.

Redox Tech. 2008. Lactate. Available at: http://redox-tech.com/Lactate.htm . Accessed: March 19, 2008.

5-8Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Reeves, S.J., M.G. Evans, and M.H. Burtwell. 2005. UK Rail Safety and Standards Board Research Programme. Operations. Evaluation of Frost, I ce and Snow Precautions at Stations. Website.

Available at: http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/reports/research/ T532%20Evaluation%20 of%20frost,%20ice %20and%20snow%20precautions%20at%20stations.pdf . Accessed July 1, 2008.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Ma nagement. RIPDES Permit # RI0021598, Expiration January 1, 2010.

Richardson, D. C. 2006. “Cleveland Gets a New Pad.” Stormwater :7(7).

Ritter, Steve. 2001. “What’s that Stuff: Aircraft Deicers.” CENEAR 79(1): 30. Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/7901scit5.html . Accessed October 16, 2008.

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

Safferman, S.I., Ganesh S. Siruvalure, and Larry E. Foppe. 1998. “Deicing Fluid Treatment in Batch –

Loaded Aerobic Fluidized Bed Reactor.” Journal of Environmental Engineering 124(1): 11-15.

Sandler, Larry. 2006. “Environmental Group Challenges Airport's Wastewater Permit.” Milwaukee

Journal Sentinel. January 25.

Sapienza, R. 2003. Environmentally benign anti-icing or deicing fluids. METSS Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 6,544,434.

Sapienza, R., W. Ricks, and J. Sanders. 2003. Co rrosion inhibited runway deicing fluid. METSS Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 6,540,934.

Saporito, Jack. 2003. Comments from the Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. to the Federal Aviation Administration regarding the Draft FAA Fi ve-Year Strategic Plan "Flight Plan" 2004-2008 by Jack Saporito. Letter communication to Sharon Pinkerton and FAA. August 5.

Scanlon, Bill. 1997. “DIA Pollutes Creek / De-Icer Washing off Runways Kills Life in Stream That Flows Toward Barr Lake Bird Sanctuary”. Rocky Mountain News . April 22.

Schauer, N.L., D.P. Brown, and J.G. Ferry . 1982. “Kinetics of Formate Metabolism in Methanobacterium formicicum and Methanospirillum hungate.” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 44(3): 549–554.

ScienceLab. 2005. Material Safety Data Sheet: Patent blue MSDS. Available at: http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Patent_blue-9926409 . Accessed June 24, 2008.

Shi, X. 2008. Impact of Airport Pavement Deici ng Products on Aircraft and Airfield Infrastructure. Transportation Research Board, Airport Cooperative Research Program Report. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/on linepubs/acrp/acrp_syn_006.pdf . Accessed December 4, 2008.

Shrestha, R.K., and J.R.R. Alavapati. 2004. “Valuing Environmental Benefits of Silvopasture Practice: A Case Study of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed in Florida.” Ecological Economics Vol 49: 349-359.

Sierra Club. 2006. An Interview with Tim Guilfoile. In Your Town. Fort Thomas, Kentucky, Beech House Press, LLC. December 5.

Sierra Club. 2004. Sierra Club 2004 Annual Report. “Rescuing the River That Wouldn’t Freeze. 1-37. San Francisco, CA, The Sierra Club Foundation.

5-9Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Sills, R.D., and P.A. Blakeslee. 1992. “The Environm ental Impact of Deicers in Airport Stormwater

Runoff.” In: Chemical Deicers and the Environment. D’Itri, F.M. Editor. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.

Simmons, K.L., J.G. Frye, T.A. Werpy, W.D. Samuels, H.N. Conkle, and B.F. Monzyk. 2007. Biobased deicing/anti-icing fluids. U.S. Patent 7,169,321.

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). 2007. Deicing Fluid, Aircraft, SAE Type I. AMS1424. G-12f

Fluids Subcommittee.

Stahl, James R. and Thomas P. Simon. 1997. A Preliminary Appraisal Of The Biological Integrity Of The

East Fork White Lick Creek In The West Fork White River Watershed Using Fish Community Assessment. IDEM/32/03/013/1997, 1-19. December 12.

Staples, C.A., C.G. Naylor, J.B. Williams, and W.E. Gledhill. 2001. “Ultimate Biodegradation of Alkylphenol Ethoxylate Surfactants and Their Biodegradation Intermediates.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20(11): 2450–2455.

State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Pr otection. 2004. List of Connecticut Waterbodies Not Meeting Water Quality Sta ndards. i-C-9. April 8.

State of Maine Department of Environmental Protec tion. 2006 Integrated Wa ter Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. DEPLW0817.

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Biological and Water Quality Study of Lower Big

Walnut Creek and Walnut Creek Tributaries Rickenbacker Airport 1996. DSW/MAS 1997-12-10. April 3.

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Biological and Water Quality Study of Mason Run

1996. DSW/MAS 1996-12-6. 9-11-1998.

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Biological and Water Quality Study of Mill Creek, Dayton International Airport Miami and Montgom ery Counties, Ohio. MAS/1995-2-2, 1-31. 2-20-

1995.

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Big Walnut Creek Basin 2000. DSW/EAS 2003-11-10, i-203. November 26.

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Miami River Basin, 1998. MAS/1999-12-3. June 23.

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Stillwater River Basin, 1999, Darke, Miami a nd Montgomery Counties. OEPA Technical Report Number MAS/2001-12-8. Columbus, OH

State of Washington Department of Ecology. 2007. NPDES Permit # SO3004373. September 20.

Stewart, Bill. 1998. “Airport Juggl es Safety, Pollution Concerns.” The Oregonian . February 22.

Switzenbaum, Michael S., Veltman, Shawn, Schoenber g, Theodore, Durand, Carmen M., Mericas, Dean, and Wagoner, Bryan. 1999. Workshop: Best Manage ment Practices for Airport Deicing Stormwater. United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 173. July 29.

Taylor, Rob.1995. “Lawsuit Filed Over Stream Pollution From Sea-Tac Airport.” Seattle PostIntelligencer . August 15.

5-10Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### Tham, P.T., and K.J. Kennedy. 2005. “Fate of Tolyltriazoles and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates in Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactors.” Abstract. J. Envir. Engrg 131(6): 892-900.

Transport Canada. 1990. “The Environmental Imp act of Urea Use on Airport Runways.” Professional and Technical Services document, Ottawa, Ontario. TP10069.

Turnbull, D. A. and Bevan, J. R., 1995, “The Impact of Airport De-icing of a River: The Case of the Ouseburn, Newcastle Upon Tyne.” Environmental Pollution, v. 88, p. 321-332.

Tye, R.J., G.E. Lauterbach, and P.R. Standel. 1987. Aircraft anti-icing fluid containing carrageenan. FMC Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 4,698,172.

Uhlenbrock, Tom. 1995. “Up A Creek Runoff of De-Icer from Lamber Field Pits Airport Against U.S.” St. Louis Post Dispatch . February 5.

Umstead Coalition. RDU Airport Changes its Runway Deicing Chemical. 2007.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Inte rnational Labour Organization, and World Health Organization. 2004. “Integrated Risk Ass essment: Nonylphenol Case Study.” December.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. National Engineering Handbook Series, Part 651. 210-AWMFH, 4/92.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U S HHS). 2004. “Toxicological Profile for Ammonia.” Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. September.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US HHS). 2007a. “Draft Toxicological Profile for Ethylene Glycol.” Agency for Toxic Subs tances and Disease Registry. September 2007.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Servi ces (US HHS). 2007b. “Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM) Ethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol Toxicity.” Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. October 2007.

U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture (US HHS and DoA). 2005. “Sodium and Potassium.” Chapter 8, Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2007. Advisory Circular: Airport Winter Safety and Operations. AC 150/5200-30C. Available at: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/ resources/draft_advisory_circu lars/media/dra ft_150_5200_30c.pdf . Accessed December 4, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. EPA 440/5-86-

001. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/c riteria/library/goldbook.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1991. Nitrogen Action Plan. Draft (March). PM-221. 40 0/90/003. Nitrogen Work Group.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1993. The Report of the EPA/State Feedlot Workgroup. Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance. Washington, DC. September.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1998a. 1998 Update of Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Ammonia. Office of Water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards/nh3_rpt.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1998b. Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries. EPA

600-R-98-147.

5-11Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



### U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2000a . Preliminary Data Summary for Airport Deicing Operations. Office of Water. EPA-821-R-00-016. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/guide/airport/ airport.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2000b. Final Rule Removing Surfactant Alcohol Ethoxylates from the Glycol Ethers Category of Air Toxics. June.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2001. Economic Analysis of the Proposed TSCA Section 6 Rule for Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2005. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Criteria: Nonylphenol. Office of Water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nonylphenol/ final-doc.pdf

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006a. “IUCLID Data Set, Nonylphenol.” December.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Airline Deicing Questionnaire.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2006c. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Airport Deicing Questionnaire.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2007. Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI). Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/r sei/. Obtained internal version of underlying spreadsheet February 11, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008a. Memorandum to Administrative Record for Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standa rds for the Airport Deicing Category. Written by Ashley Allen, dated November 6, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008b. National Summary of Impaired Waters and

TMDL Information. EPA Office of Water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/ . Accessed December 8, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA ). 2008c. Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development Category.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008d. Current National Re commended Water Quality

Criteria. EPA Office of Water. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcrite ria.html. Accessed February 19, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008e. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris /index.cfm. Accessed February 19, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008f. NPDES Glossary. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. December. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/glossary.cfm#C

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2011. Technical Development Document for the Final Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category.

U.S. National Library of Medicine (US NLM). 2008. Toxicology Data Network (TOXNET). Accessed on June 19, 2008. http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/

.

5-12Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final 5. References Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

5-13 

### University of Illinois Extension. 2008. Salt Dama ge to Plant Material. Web page, available at: http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/state/newsdetail.cfm?NewsID=5427 . Accessed June 27, 2008.

Vashon, R.D. 1982. “Mineralization of Linear Alcohol Ethoxylates and Linear Alcohol Ethoxy Sulfates at

Trace Concentrations in Estuarine Water.” Abstract. ES&T 16(7): 433-436.

Veltman, S., T. Schoenberg, and M.S. Switzenbaum. 1998. “Potential for Anaerobic Treatment of Airport Deicing Fluids.” ASCE Proceeding. Proceedings of the 1998 ASCE Conference on Environmental Engineering.

Weiss, S., and T. Reemtsma. 2005. “Determination of Benzotriazole Corrosion Inhibitors from Aqueous Environmental Samples by Liquid Chromatogr aphy-Electrospray Ionization-Tandem Mass Spectrometry.” Anal. Chem. 77: 7415-7420.

Weiss, S., J. Jakobs, and T. Reemtsma. 2006. “Disch arge of Three Benzotriazole Corrosion Inhibitors with Municipal Wastewater and Improvements by Membrane Bioreactor Treatment and Ozonation.”

Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006(40): 7193-7199.

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

Westmark, C.S., K.G. Joback, and M. Temchenko. 20 01. Environmentally Friendly De-icer and Anti-icer Compositions. U.S. Patent 7,270,767.

Wohlforth, Charles. 1990. “Toxic Runoff Adds to Lake Hood Pollution.” Anchorage Daily News . May 4.

Worthington, Rogers. 1998. “Group Claims O' Hare fails to report on de-icing toxins.” Chicago Tribune

. January 9.

Zhu, J.K. 2007. “Plant Salt Stress.” Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Wiley DOI: 10.1002/9780470015902.a0001300.pub2. PDF. Available at: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~jkzhu/ articles/2007/ELS%20Zhu.pdf . Accessed June 27, 2008.

Zitomer, D.H. 2001. Waste Aircraft Deicing Fluid: Management and Conversion to Methane. Report. Prepared for Wisconsin Division of Energy. NCES. June.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category



## Appendix A : Detailed Characterization of Airport Deicing Products

Table A-1: Surveyed U.S. Commercial Air ports- Chemical Pavement Deicer Usage

Pavement Deicer
Chemical 2002/2003 Total
Surve y ed Airport Usage (tons/year) 2003/2004 Total
Surve y ed Airport Usage (tons/year) 2004/2005 Total Surveyed Airport Usage

(tons/year) Average Total Surveyed Airport Usage

(tons/year) 1 Percentage of
Chemical

Usage

Potassium acetate 22,803 20,267 20,029 21,185 65Propylene glycolbased fluids 3,317 4,147 2,884 3,089 9 Urea (airside) 3,015 3,804 4,031 3,620 11

Sodium acetate 2,815 3,195 2,663 2,888 9

Sodium formate 1,663 694 1,359 1,290 4Ethylene glycolbased fluids 1,038 465 691 731 2

1 Based on the 90 airports reporting airfield deicing chemical use. The 3 year average is not a straight average of the total an nual amounts; the average for each airport wa s evaluated and calculated separately. Source: EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire ( 2006c). For additional details, see EPA (2010).

A-1Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-2: Chelating Agents

Characteristics Ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) Diethylene triamine penta acetic acid (DTPA , DTAA)

CASRN 60-00-4 67-43-6

Formula C 10 H 16 N 2 O 8 C 14 H 23 N 3 O 10 Water solubility, g/L 1.0 4.8 Log K OW -3.86 -4.91 Log K OC 1.99Henry’s Law constant (atmm 3 /mole) 7.69x10 -16
Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 2x10 -12

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

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

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

Transport rate summary EDTA is highly mobile in soil, sediment,
and water. DTPA is expected to be highly mobile in soil, sediment, and water.

Mixture effects Both of these substances can incr ease the mobility of potentially toxic metals. They readily form complexes with metal ions, bringing them into the soluble phase in soils, sediments, and water. This property is being investigated and exploited for extracting and phytoremediating toxic metals. a

Additional notes Degradation of uncomplexed EDTA appears to be minimal; photolysis of metalcomplexed EDTA could be rapid in the presence of direct sunlight, and this may be the primary route of degradation. EDTA is commonly detected in surface water; it is not removed by standard wastewater or drinking water treatment processes, but may be degraded by UV treatment of drinking water. a Most characteristics of these compounds are expected to be similar.
Source: Oviedo and Rodriguez (2003). Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-2Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-3: Freezing Point Depressants: Sugars

Characteristics Dulcitol Mannitol Sorbitol

CASRN 608-66-2 69-65-8 50-70-4

Formula C 6 H 14 O 6 C6H14O6 C 6 H 14 O 6 Water solubility, g/L 31 Freely soluble up to 83%
Log K OW -2.2
Log K OC 0.30 Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 7.3x10 -13
Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 4.9x10 -9

Environmental partitioning summary Not expected to volatilize or to adsorb to soils or particulates.

Half-life

Degradation summary Biodegradation, the primary route of degradation, is expected to be very rapid. Hydrolysis and photolysis are not expected. Degradation products Carbon dioxide, water, and microbial biomass.

Transport rate summary All of these substances may be highly mobile in water and soil, but biodegradation is likely to limit the dist ance of transport in surface water, groundwater, and soil.

Mixture effects Degradation products CO 2 Additional notes Characteristics of these sugar al cohols are likely to be relatively similar.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-3Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-4: Freezing Point Depressants: Acetates

Characteristics Potassium acetate Sodium acetate

CASRN 127-08-2 127-09-3 (anhydrous)

Formula C 2 H 3 KO 2 C 2 H 3 NaO 2 Water solubility, g/L 1,190 at 0 ° C
Log K OW Log K OC -3.72 Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 7.08x10 -7

Environmental partitioning summary These substances are not expected to volatilize. They are quite soluble in water. Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb or complex with soil or water constituents, but may also remain dissolved in surface water and groundwate r. Acetate should be ra pidly biodegraded under
aerobic conditions in surface wa ter, groundwater, and soil.

Half-life Degradation summary

Degradation products The cations calcium, magnesium, potassi um, and sodium are liberated, and acetate degradation produ ces bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and water a

. Transport rate summary Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils/sediments. May be very site-specific.

Mixture effects Formate can decrease the brea kdown of acetate in anaerobic environments.

Additional notes
Source: D’Itri (1992). Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-4Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-5: Freezing Point Depressants: Formates and Lactates

Characteristics Potassium
formate Sodium
formate Ethyl lactate Sodium lactate

CASRN 590-29-4 141-53-7 97-64-3 72-17-3

Formula CH 2 O 2 .K CH 2 O 2 .Na C 5 H 10 O 3 C 3 H 6 O 3 .Na

Water solubility, g/L 3,310 at 18 °
C 972 at 20 °
C Miscible with water 1,000

Log K OW -0.18
Log K OC 1 Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 5.8x10 -7

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 3.75

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

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

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

Degradation products Release of potassium and sodium cations and microbial biomass.
Transport rate

summary Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils/sediments. May be very site-specific.

Mixture effects 60% ethyl lactate has a strong cosolvency effect and can increase the solubility of dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) compounds by orders of magnitude.

Additional notes
Redox Tech (2008) and US NLM (2008). Schauer et al. (1982) and Redox Tech (2008). Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-5Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-6: Freezing Point Depressants: Other

Characteristics Sodium pyrrolidone carboxylate Glycerol Isopropanol Proline Erythritol Pentaerythritol

CASRN 54571-67-4 56-81-5 67-63-0 147-85-3 149-32-6 115-77-5

Formula C 5 H 7 NO 3 .Na C 3 H 8 O 3 C 3 H 8 O C 5 H 9 NO 2 C 4 H 10 O 4 C 5 H 12 O 4 Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble 1000 1620 610 72.3

Log K OW -1.76 0.05 -2.54 -2.29 -1.69
Log K OC 1.4 Henry’s Law

constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 1.73x10 -8 8.10x10 -6 1.92x10 -9 4.1x10 -10

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 1.58X10 -4 45.4 3.77x10 -9 15.1

Environmental partitioning

summary Volatilizes more slowly
than water.
Should not
adsorb to soil or particulates. Volatilization is expected to be an important route of
removal from soil
and water. Should
not adsorb to soil or particulates. Readily forms complexes with metal ions; this is likely to retard its mobility in soils
and sediments.

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

Degradation

summary Rapid, both
aerobic and
anaerobic. Rapid, both aerobic
and anaerobic. 3 to 15 days lag
time before significant degradation begins. Degradation products

Transport rate

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

Mixture effects

Additional notes With the exception of the erythritols, these ch emicals are not expected to share similar properties.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-6Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-7: Freezing Point Depr essants: Ethylene Glycols

Characteristics Poly-ethylene

g l y col, molecular weight from 62
to 106 Ethylene glycol Diethylene glycol a Triethylene glycol

CASRN 25322-68-3 107-21-1 111-46-6 112-27-6

Formula (C 2 H 4 O).(H 2 O)n C 2 H 6 O 2 C 4 H 10 O 3 C 6 H 14 O 4 Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble Freely soluble Freely soluble Freely soluble
Log K OW -1.36 1.47 -1.98
Log K OC 1 (K OC ) 1 (K OC ) 1 Henry’s Law constant (atm-cu

m 3 /mole) 6.00x10 -8 2x10 -9 3.2x10 -11

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 0.092 1 1.32x10 -3

Environmental partitioning

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

Half-lives Atmospheric half-life: 50 h at 25o
C. Atmospheric halflife: 13 h.

Degradation

summary Very rapid degradation rates in soil, sediment, and water. Soils: 90 to 100% degradation of ethylene glycol was observed in various field soils in 2 to 12 days (temperatures not known); ethyleneglycol in aircraft deicing or antiicing fluid formulation wascompletely degraded in runwayside soils within 29 days at 8 ° C. Water: Hydrolysis and photolysis are not expected to be significant. Ethylene glycol in river water degraded completely in three days at 20o C and in 5 to 14 days at 8o C. Aerobic degradation of ethylene glycol may be essentially complete in less than one to four days under optimal conditions in water or treatment systems, but the impact o f the full theoretical biological oxygen demand may not be
observed for several weeks. Water: Diethylene glycol in aerobic
river water showed little degradation during winter. Soils: Triethylene glycol in aerobic
soil was completely degraded within 7 to 11 days.

Degradation lag
time For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of several days before glycol degradation begins.
Transport rate

summary Expected to have very high mobility in soil, sediment, and water.

Mixture effects Triazoles decrease the degradation rate of glyc ols. Low temperatures may also greatly decrease the degradation rates of glycols.

A-7Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

A-8 Table A-7: Freezing Point Depr essants: Ethylene Glycols

Characteristics Poly-ethylene

g l y col, molecular weight from 62
to 106 Ethylene glycol Diethylene glycol a Triethylene glycol

Additional notes Ethylene glycols are expected to share somewh at similar properties, except for polyethylene glycols. Formulated polyethylene glycol products contain different mixtures of polymers, and the properties of the products will vary based on the size and shape of the polymers they contain. All of these substances are expected to be rapidly degraded under aerobic and
anaerobic conditions.
a. Not currently used in the U.S.
Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-8: Freezing Point Depressants: Propylene Glycols

Characteristics Propylene glycol 1,3-Propylene glycol 1, 1'-oxybis-2-propanol (dipropylene glycol)

CASRN 57-55-6 504-63-2 25265-71-8

Formula C 3 H 8 O 2 C 6 H 14 O 3 Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble Freely soluble Freely soluble
Log K OW -0.92 -1.04 -1.486
Log K OC 0.90 1 (K OC ) Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 1.3x10 -8 1,74x10 -7 5.6x10 -9
Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 0.13 0.0441 0.032

Environmental partitioning summary Very high mobility in soils, sediments, and water. Not expected to volatilize readily.

Half-lives

Degradation summary Propylene glycol was not observed to degrade at 4o C, and only degraded at 20 C in soil that was rich in organic matter a

. Degradation lag time For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of several days before glycol degradation begins.
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes
Source: Jaesche et al. (2006). Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-9Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-9: Freezing Point Depressants: Urea and Metabolites

Characteristics Urea Ammonia

CASRN 57-13-6 7664-41-7

Formula CH 4 N 2 O H 3 N Water solubility, g/L 545 “31%”
Log K OW -2.11 0.23
Log K OC 0.903 Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 1.61x10 -5
Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 1.2x10 -5 7.51x10 3
Environmental partitioning summary

Half-lives Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-10Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-10: Thickeners: Acrylic Acid Polymers

Characteristics Carbomer Carbopol
672 Carbopol
934 Carbopol
1610 Carbopol
1621 Carbopol
1622 Polymer of acrylic
acid

CASRN Trade name Trade

name 9007-16-3 Trade name Trade

name Trade name 79-10-7

Formula polymer of acrylic acid polymer of acrylic
acid polymer of acrylic
acid polymer of acrylic acid polymer of acrylic
acid polymer of acrylic acid polymer of acrylic
acid

Water solubility, g/L 1x10 3

Log K OW 0.35
Log K OC 1.63 Henry’s Lawconstant (atmm 3 /mole) 3.2x10 -7

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 3.97

Environmental partitioning summary Not expected to volatilize from water or moist soil. Slow volatilization from dry soil is possible. Not expected to adsorb to soils or par ticulates; potential for transport in soil is high.

Half-lives

Degradation

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

. Degradation lag time
Transport rate

summary
Mixture effects

Additional notes May be contaminated by low-ppm levels of metals.
Source: Larson et al. (1997). Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-11Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-11: Thickeners: Natural Gums

Characteristics Kappa-carrageenan Iota-carrageenan Welan gum Xanthan gum

CASRN Mixture 9062-07-1 Mixture 11138-66-2

Formula Water solubility, g/L 10
Log K OW Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary

Half-lives Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes Naturally-derived high-molecula r-weight polysaccharide gums. Tend to be highly water soluble, and are expected to be biodegradable, although biodegradation information was
not available.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-12Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-12: Thickeners: Other

Characteristics Hydroxyethylcellulose

CASRN 9004-62-0

Formula C 2 -H 6 -O 2 .x-Unspecified Water solubility g/L Freely soluble

Log KOW Log KOC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary

Half-lives

Degradation

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

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-13Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-13: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates

Characteristics Decyl alcohol ethoxylate Lauryl alcohol ethoxylate Laur y l alcohol phosphoric acid - ester ethoxylate

CASRN 26183-52-8 Category
-

Formula CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)yOH a CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)yOH a CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)yOH a

Water solubility, g/L
Log K OW

Log K OC In general, log K d is a better predictor of behavior than Kow for these substances a . Log K d , as with the other physicochemical parameters, varies by ethoxymer. The formula below, as given by Belanger et al. (2006) permits the calculation of an estimated log K d

.

log Kd = 0.331 * (alkyl chain length) – 0.009 * (ethoxylate chain length) – 1.126 Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

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

Half-lives Degradation summary Aerobic degradation may be rapid. Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes
Source: Belanger et al. (2006). Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-14Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-14: Surfactants: Alkylbenzene Sulfonates

Characteristics Sodium alkylbenzene

sulfonate Siponate A2466, sodium dodecylbenze
ne sulfonate Siponate DDB40, sodium
dodec y lbenzene
sulfonate Siponate DS,
sodium dodecylbenzene
sulfonate Sandocorin 8132, sodium
dodec y lbenzene
sulfonate

CASRN 68411-30-3 Trade name Trade name Trade name Trade name

Formula Water solubility, g/L
Log K OW Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary

Half-lives Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-15Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-15: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates

Characteristics Alcohol ethoxylates Tergitol TMN-10, branched secondary

alcohol ethoxylate Aliphatic alcohol ethoxylates

CASRN Category Trade name Category

Formula Water solubility, g/L
Log K OW Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary

Half-lives Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-16Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-16: Surfactants: Alkylphenol Ethoxylates

Characteristics Alkylphenol ethoxylates Octylphenol ethoxylates Nonylphenol ethoxylates

CASRN Category Category Category

Formula C 9 H 19 - C 6 H 4 O(CH 2 CH 2 O)

n H a Water solubility, g/L All are highly soluble in water, but solubility varies by ethoxymer a

. Log K OW Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary Not expected to volatilize. Likely to partition to organic matter or minerals in soil, but this tendency varies by ethoxymer, and migration through the soil has been observed. In water, as in soil, may sorb to organic matter or particulates a

. Half-lives 3-26 d under ideal aerobic conditions with acclimated community b

Degradation summary Degradation varies by ethoxymer, an d tends to produce some recalcitrant compounds a

. Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects Surfactants can increase the solubility and transport of less soluble
substances.

Additional notes These are all categories; therefore, th e specific physical properties vary by ethoxymer. Alkylphenol ethoxylates are antifoaming agents c

. Degradation of these compounds can produce more persistent octyl- and nonylphenols.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time. a. Environment Canada (2002). b. Staples et al. (2001). c. Bennie et al. (1997).

A-17Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-17: Surfactant Breakdown Products: Alkylphenols

Characteristics Octylphenol Nonylphenol

CASRN Category 25154-52-3 (category)

Formula C 14 H 22 O Water solubility, g/L 5.43x10 -3a

Log K OW 4.12 b 4.1-4.7 a
Log K OC 4.01 to 4.65 b

Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 1.09x10 -4a

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 3.4x10 -5a

Environmental partitioning summary Unlikely to volatilize from soils. Likely to partition to sediments and soil minerals b

. Although volatility is low, can volatilize from water and result in high atmospheric concentrations. Unlikely to volatilize from soils. Likely to partition to sediments and mineral particles in water and soil, but can still leach through soils a

.

Half-lives 7-50 d in river water c

. 2.4 hours to 0.74 d in water. Photolytic halflife in upper layer of surface water is 10-15 hours; in deeper layers, it is much slower. In a sediment mesocosm, a half-life of 66 days
was observed a

.

Degradation summary Relatively rapid degradation in aerobic river

water c

. Highly recalcitrant to anaerobic degradation
in sediments c

. A biphasic degradation profile has been observed in soils, with relatively rapid initial degradation of 30-50% of applied nonylphenol degrading in the first several weeks, and the remainder degrading with a half-life of approximately 90 days a

. Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary Can leach through soils b

. Can leach through soils a

. Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time. a. Environment Canada (2002). b. Isobe et al. (2001). c. Christiansen et al. (2002).

A-18Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-18: Surfactants: Diamines

Characteristics Oleic acid diamine Oleyl propylene diamine Palmitic acid diamine

CASRN Category Category Category

Formula Water solubility, g/L
Log K OW Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary

Half-lives Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-19Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-19: Surfactants: Polyethylene Oxide Monomer and Polymer

Characteristics Ethylene oxide Ethylene oxide / propylene oxide block copolymers

CASRN 75-21-8 Category

Formula C 2 H 4 O Water solubility, g/L Miscible with water
Log K OW -0.3
Log K OC n/a Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 1.48X10-4

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 1314

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

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

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

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-20Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-20: Surfactants: Other Nonionic Detergents

Characteristics Emerest 2660 (OEG-12 oleate) (=Polyoxyethylene monoleate) Emsorb 6900 (peg-20 sorbitan oleate) (=glycol (polysorbate 80))

CASRN 9004-96-0 9005-65-6

Formula (C 2 H 4 O) mult-C 18 H 34 O 2 Water solubility, g/L Very soluble Highly soluble
Log K OW Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary

Half-lives Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-21Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-21: Corrosion Inhibitors and Flame Retardants: Tolyltriazoles

Characteristics Tolyltriazole Cobratec TT-50S, tolyltriazole solution

CASRN 29385-43-1 Trade name
Formula C 7 H 7 N 3 Water solubility, g/L
Log K OW Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary Mobile in groundwater.

Half-lives Degradation summary Unlikely to be readily degradable. Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

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

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-22Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-22: Corrosion Inhibitors and Flame Retardants: Other Triazoles

Characteristics Triazoles Benzyltriazole Benzotriazole 5-Methyl-1HBenzotriazole 4-methyl-1Hbenzotriazole

CASRN 37306-44-8 - 95-14-7 136-85-6 29878-31-7

Formula C 2 H 3 N 3 C 6 H 5 N 3 C 7 H 7 N 3 C 7 H 7 N 3 Water solubility, g/L 19.8
Log K OW 1.44
Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 3.17x10 -7

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 4.0x10 -2

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

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

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

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

Additional notes Benzotriazole and methylbenzotriazole have been detected in groundwater near an airport, at concentrations in excess of those known to be toxic to microbiota, fish, and
invertebrates. a

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time. a. Cancilla et al. (1998) b. Weiss and Reemtsma (2005).

A-23Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-23: Corrosion Inhibitors: Alcohols

Characteristics Propargyl alcohol

CASRN 107-19-7

Formula C 3 H 4 O Water solubility, g/L Miscible with water
Log K OW -0.38
Log K OCHenry’s Law constant (atmm 3 /mole) 1.1x10-6

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 15.6

Environmental partitioning

summary Should be highly mobile in soil, and volatilize readily from both moist and dry soils. In water, propargyl alcohol is not expected to adsorb to sediments or suspended solids. Volatili zation from the water’s surface is expected.

Half-lives The half-life of propargyl alcohol in an alkaline sandy silt loam (61.5% sand,31.1% silt, 7.4% clay, pH 7.8, 3.25% organic carbon) was 12.6 days. The halflife in an acidic sandy loam (68% sand, 23.4% silt, 8.6% clay, pH 4.8, 0.94% organic carbon) was 13 days. Modeled volatilization half-lives for a river and lake are 16 and 176 days, respectively. The modeled atmospheric half-life due to degradation by hydroxyl radicals is 37 hours.

Degradation summary Aerobic degradation in soils is expected, based on the results above, and is also likely in water. Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-24Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-24: Corrosion Inhibitors: Nitr ite, Nitrate, and Silicate Salts

Characteristics Sodium nitrate Sodium nitrite Sodium silicate Potassium
silicate

CASRN 7631-99-4 7632-00-0 13870-28-5 10006-28-7

Formula HNO 3 .Na HNO 2 .Na K 2 SiO 3

Water solubility, g/L 912 848 Almost insoluble in cold water; soluble in water with heat and pressure
Log K OW Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary Nitrite does not
volatilize from soil or

water. Nitrate does not
volatilize from soil

or water.

Half-lives

Degradation summary Aerobically degraded
to nitrate. Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-25Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-25: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Inorganics

Characteristics Potassium phosphate Borax

CASRN 7778-53-2 1303-96-4

Formula H 3 O 4 P.3K B 4 Na 2 O 7 .10H 2 O Water solubility, g/L 593
Log K OW Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg) Approximately zero.

Environmental partitioning summary Not expected to volatilize from soils or water.

Half-lives

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

Transport rate summary High mobility in soil with high rainfall; otherwise, sorbs to minerals
in soils.

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

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-26Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-26: Corrosion Inhibitors: Other Organics

Characteristics Sodium benzoate Phosphate esters Thiourea

CASRN 532-32-1 Category 62-56-6

Formula C 7 H 5 NaO 2 CH 4 N 2 S Water solubility, g/L 556
Log K OW -1.08
Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 1.98x10 -9

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 3.67x10 -9

Environmental partitioning summary Is not expected to adsorb to suspended solids and sediment in water. Not expected to volatilize from any medium.

Half-lives

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

Transport rate summary Expected to be highly mobile in
soils.

Mixture effects May delay degradation of other components of mixtures due to antimicrobial activity.

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

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-27Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-27: Corrosion Inhi bitors: Ethanolamines

Characteristics Monoethanolamine Diethanolamine Triethanolamine

CASRN 141-43-5 111-42-2 102-71-6

Formula C 2 H 7 NO C 4 H 11 NO 2 C 6 H 15 NO 3 Water solubility, g/L 1x10 3 Freely soluble Freely soluble
Log K OW -1.31 -1.43 -1
Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 3.25x10 -8 3.9x10 -11 7.1x10 -13

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 0.404 1.4x10 -4 3.59x10 -6

Environmental partitioning summary Expected to ionize under most environmenta l conditions (pH 5 to 9), which would favor adsorption to clays and organic matter. Not expected to volatilize from soils or water.

Half-lives Days to weeks

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

Degradation lag time 5 d 15 d

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

Mixture effects

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

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-28Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-28: pH Buffers, Phosphate-Based

Characteristics Dipotassium phosphate Disodium phosphate (Sodium hydrogen phosphate)

CASRN 7758-11-4 7558-79-4

Formula H 3 O 4 P.2K H 3 O 4 P.2Na Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble Freely soluble
Log K OW Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary

Half-lives Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-29Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-29: pH Reducers

Characteristics Potassium hydroxide Sodium hydroxide

CASRN 1310-58-3 1310-73-2

Formula HKO HNaO Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble Freely soluble
Log K OW Too low to be measured
Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary

Half-lives Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-30Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-30: Antifoamers: Silicones

Characteristics DC 1520, silicone
antifoam Foamban SAG 1000 SAG 7133

CASRN Trade name Category Trade name Trade name

Formula Water solubility, g/L
Log K OW Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg)

Environmental partitioning summary

Half-lives Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-31Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-31: Antifoamers: S ilicones and Other Substances

Characteristics Siltech E-2202 Dimethyl polysiloxane AF-9020, polydimeth ylsiloxane 1-dodecanol

CASRN Trade name 9016-00-6 63148-62-9 112-53-8

Formula (C 2 H 6 OSi)x- (C 2 H 6 OSi)n C 12 H 26 O Water solubility, g/L 0.004
Log K OW 5.13
Log K OC 1.5x10 +4 (Koc) Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 2.22x10 -5

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 8.48x10 -4

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

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

Degradation summary Does not degrade anaerobically.

Atmospheric degradation via hydroxyl
radicals.

No environmental hydrolysis. Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary Immobile in soil.

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-32Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-32: Dyes

Characteristics Eosin orange,
tetrabromofluorescein FD&C blue #1, alphazurine

CASRN 17372-87-1 3844-45-9

Formula C 20 H 8 Br 4 O 5 .2Na Water solubility, g/L
Log K OW 4.8
Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg) Environmental partitioning summary

Half-lives Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes May discolor receiving waters.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-33Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-33: Additional Dyes

Characteristics FD&C yellow #5,
tartrazine Malonyl green, C.I. Pigment Yellow 34 Shilling green

CASRN 1934-21-0 Trade name Trade name

Formula C 16 H 9 N 4 Na 3 O 9 S 2 Water solubility, g/L
Log K OW Log K OCHenry’s Law constant (atmm 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg) Environmental partitioning

summary
Half-lives Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-34Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-34: Hydrophobic Agents

Characteristics N-Dodecane a Mineral oil White mineral oil (10 cSt)

CASRN 112-40-3 a Mixture Mixture

Formula Water solubility, g/L Insoluble in water
Log K OW n/a
Log K OCHenry’s Law constant (atmm 3 /mole) Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 1.3x10 -1a
Environmental partitioning

summary

Half-lives 1.1 days in the atmosphere; degraded via gas-phase reaction with hydroxyl
radicals a Degradation summary Degradation lag time
Transport rate summary

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time. a. Chemfate database (2008).

A-35Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-35: Solvents

Characteristics Ethylbenzene Toluene M- and PXylene Trichloroethylene Methyl ethyl ketone

CASRN 100-41-4 108-88-
3 108-38-3 79-01-6 78-93-3

Formula C 8 H 10 C 7 H 8 C 8 H 10 C 2 HC l3 C 4 H 8 O Water solubility, g/L 0.0014 @ 15 degrees
C Insoluble in

water 1.280 353 @ 10 Deg C

Log K OW 3.15 3.15 2.61 0.29
Log K OC Henry’s Lawconstant (atmm 3 /mole) 7.88x10 -3 0.0069 9.85x10 -3 4.7x10 -5

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 9.6 8.84 69 91

Environmental partitioning

summary Volatilization from moist and dry soil surfaces is expected. In aquatic environments BTEX compounds will adsorb to suspended solids and
sediments and will volatilize from surface water. BTEX compounds will exist as vapors in the atmosphere. High mobility in soils and volatilization from both moist and dry soils are expected. In aquatic environments, these compounds do not adsorb to suspended solids and sediments. Volatilization is an important process. In the atmosphere, these compounds exist solely in the vapor phase.

Half-lives The atmospheric halflife is 55 hours.

Aquatic volatilization
half-life is estimated at
between 1.1 and 99
hours. The atmospheric
half-life of this compound is
about 27 hours.

Aquatic
volatilization
half-life is
estimated at
between 3 and
99 hours. The half-life for the
reaction with hydroxyl radicals in
air is estimated to be 7 days.

There is a wide rangeof degradation halflives under anaerobic
conditions. An approximate average half-life is 1 year. The half-life for the reaction with hydroxyl
radicals in air is estimated to be about 14 days.

Degradation

summary Biodegradation occurs
under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. Abiotic degradation is primarily photolytic.

Ethylbenzene was degraded in aerobic
conditions within 10- 16 days, and in
conditions of low initial oxygen, it was rapidly degraded in 21 days until the available oxygen was depleted. Biodegradation occurs
under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. Abiotic degradation is primarily photolytic. Trichloroethylene is not degraded aerobically. It is degraded anaerobically under methanogenic
conditions. Aerobic degradation is the main degradation pathway. Atmospheric degradation pathways include photodecomposition and degradation by reaction with hydroxyl radicals.

Degradation lag
time

A-36Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

A-37 Table A-35: Solvents

Characteristics Ethylbenzene Toluene M- and PXylene Trichloroethylene Methyl ethyl ketone Transport rate

summary Moderate to low mobility in soil.

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-36: Solvents: Alcohols and Other Solvents

Characteristics Acetone Methylene chloride 1.3-Butanediol Butyne-1,4-
diol Glycol
ethers

CASRN 67-64-1 75-09-2 107-88-0 110-65-6 110-80- 5, 111- 76-2,
107-98-2

Formula C 3 H 6 O CH 2 C l2 C 4 H 10 O 2 C 4 H 6 O 2
Water solubility, g/L Miscible in water 13 Miscible in water 3,740 Miscible
in water
Log K OW -0.24 1.25 -0.29 -0.93
Log K OC 0.114 Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 3.97x10 -5 3.25X10 -3x 2.30x10 -7 1.684x10 -11

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 231 435 0.06 5.56x10 -4

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

Half-lives An atmospheric
half-life of about 1.2 days at an atmospheric
concentration of
5x10 +5 hydroxyl radicals per cm 3 is
estimated. An atmospheric
half-life of
about 11
hours at an atmospheric
concentratio
n of 5x10 +5 hydroxyl radicals per

cm 3 is
estimated.

Degradation summary Volatilization is the primary mechanism for removal from aquatic environments.

Acetone degrades under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Methylene chloride biodegradation may occur in soils or contaminated aquifers under reducing
conditions.

Acetone undergoes photodegradation in the atmosphere, and not hydrolysis. Methylene chloride is not directly photooxidized; it does undergo hydrolysis in the atmosphere and
terrestrial environments. Aerobic biodegradation occurs. There is not enough data to
determine rates. Anaerobic degradation
information is not available. Abiotically degraded by hydrolysis in the atmosphere (via hydroxyl radicals). Aquatic hydrolysis is not expected for 1,3-butanediol and information was not found for butyne-1,4-
diol.

A-38Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

A-39 Table A-36: Solvents: Alcohols and Other Solvents

Characteristics Acetone Methylene chloride 1.3-Butanediol Butyne-1,4-
diol Glycol
ethers

Degradation lag time

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

Mixture effects

Additional notes

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-37: Plasticizers and Other Miscellaneous Substances

Characteristics Di-N-Butyl Phthalate Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Dioxane 3,5,5- Trimethylhexanoic
Acid

CASRN 84-74-2 117-81-7 123-91-1 3302-10-1

Formula C 16 H 22 O 4 C 24 H 38 O 4 C4H8O2 C 9 H 18 O 2
Water solubility, g/L 0.013 Less than 0.01% in

water Miscible with water

Log K OW 4.9 7.6 -0.27
Log K OC Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 4.5x10 -6 1.3x10 -7 4.8x10 -6

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 2.01x10 -5 7.23x10 -8 38.1

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

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

A-40Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

A-41 Table A-37: Plasticizers and Other Miscellaneous Substances

Characteristics Di-N-Butyl Phthalate Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate Dioxane 3,5,5- Trimethylhexanoic
Acid

Degradation summary Aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. Will hydrolyze in the environment. Degraded in the atmosphere by reaction with hydroxyl
radicals. Hydrolysis is not an important degradation pathway. Rapid biodegradation
will occur under
aerobic conditions in aquatic
environments.
Some b iodegradation may occur in soils. Degraded in the atmosphere by hydroxyl radicals. Considered
recalcitrant/
resistant to biodegradation. Degraded by hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere.

Degradation lag time

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

Mixture effects

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

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time. Chemfate Database (2008). Sills and Blakeslee (1992).Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix AEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing CategoryA-42Table A-38: Degradation ProductsCharacteristicsMethaneAcetaldehydeNitrousacidsEthanolNitrosaminesCASRN74-82-875-07-07782-77-664-17-5CategoryFormulaCH4C2H4OHNO2C2H6OR1N(-R2)-N=OWater solubility, g/L0.0221,000MiscibleLog KOW1.09-0.17-0.31Log KOCHenry’s Law constant(atm-m3/mole)0.666.67x10-55x10-6Vapor pressure (mmHg)4.66x10590259.3Environmentalpartitioning summaryVolatilization from moist soilsurfaces is an important process.Not expected to adsorb tosuspended solids and sediments.Volatilization from water surfacesis a dominant fate process inaqueous systems.Volatilization from moistsoil surfaces is expected tobe an important fateprocess; some volatilizationmay occur from dry soilsurfaces.Not expected to adsorb tosuspended solids andsediments. Volatilizationfrom water is expected.In the atmosphere, exists asa gas under ambientconditions.Volatilization from moist soilsurfaces is an important fateprocess; volatilization fromdry soil may occur.Volatilization occurs fromwater surfaces; ethanol doesnot adsorb to suspendedsolids and sediment. It isunlikely to be persistent inaquatic environments.Exists solely as a vapor in theatmosphere.Half-livesVolatilization half-lives for amodel river and model lake areboth 2 hours.The biodegradation half-life ofmethane was estimated to rangefrom 70 days to infinity.The half-life for the hydroxylradical reaction inair is estimatedto be about 6 years.Volatilization half-lives fora model river and modellake are 6.5 hrs and 5.3days, respectively.The half-life foratmospheric reaction withhydroxyl radicals isestimated to be 24 hrs.The half-life in theatmosphere due tophotolysis is reported as 8.4hours and 16 hours.Volatilization half-lives for amodel river and model lakeare 3 and 39 days,respectively.The half-life for the hydroxylradical reaction in air isestimated to be 5 days.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix AEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing CategoryA-43Table A-38: Degradation ProductsCharacteristicsMethaneAcetaldehydeNitrousacidsEthanolNitrosaminesDegradation summaryAerobic degradation is animportant mechanism in moistsoils.Rapidlybiodegrades in theenvironment under aerobicand anaerobic conditions.Degraded in the atmosphereby hydroxyl radicals andphotolysis.Aerobic and anaerobicbiodegradation are importantfate processes.Degraded in the atmosphereby photochemically-producedhydroxyl radicals.Degradation lag timeTransport ratesummaryHigh mobility in soil.Very highly mobile in soil.Very high mobility in soil.Mixture effectsAdditional notesBlank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix AEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing CategoryTable A-39: Emulsifiers and Other Miscellaneous SubstancesCharacteristicsPropanoic acidHexanoic acidButanoic acidPolyaminesChloroformCASRN79-09-4142-62-1107-92-6Category67-66-3FormulaC3H6O2C6H12O2C4H8O2CHCl3Water solubility, g/L1,00010.360.07.710Log KOW0.331.920.791.97Log KOCHenry’s Law constant (atmm3/mole)4.45x10-77.58x10-75.35x10-73.67x10-3Vapor pressure (mm Hg)3.530.04351.65197Environmental partitioningsummaryThese compounds exist as anions in the soil, making them highlymobile. They do not readily volatilize from most soils and mayvolatilize from dry soils (especially hexanoic acid and Butanoicacid).In aquatic environments these compounds will exist as anions andwill not adsorb to suspended solids and sediments. Volatilizationfrom water surfaces is not an important fate process.These compounds exist as vapors in the atmosphere.Volatilization from moist soilsurfaces is expected to be animportant fate process; volatilizationfrom dry soil surfaces may occur.Not expected to adsorb to suspendedsolids and sediment in water.Volatilization from water surfaceswill occur.Exists as a vapor in the atmosphereand is degraded by hydroxylradicals.Half-livesThe half-life for thehydroxyl radicalreaction in air isestimated to be 13days.Anaerobicdegradation ingroundwater occurswith a half life ofapproximately 21days.The half-life for thehydroxyl radicalreaction in air isestimated to be 3days.The half-life for thehydroxyl radicalreaction in air isestimated to be 7 days.Chloroform was found to have ahalf-life of 0.3 days when applied 1cm deep into soil and 1.4 days whenapplied 10 cm deep.Volatilization half-lives for a modelriver and model lake are 1.3 hrs and4.4 days, respectively.The half-life for the hydroxyl radicalreaction in air is estimated to be 151days.A-44Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix AEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing CategoryA-45Table A-39: Emulsifiers and Other Miscellaneous SubstancesCharacteristicsPropanoic acidHexanoic acidButanoic acidPolyaminesChloroformDegradation summaryThese compounds are readily biodegradable under both aerobic andanaerobic conditions. Anaerobicdegradation occurs withmethanogenesis.Atmospheric degradation occurs via reaction with photochemicallyproduced hydroxyl radicals.Chloroform is biodegradeableanaerobically by methanotrophicbacteria.Degradation lag timeTransport rate summaryVery high mobility in soil.Moderate mobility in soil. Poorlyretained by aquifer material.Mixture effectsAdditional notesBlank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components

CASRN Chemical Name Study Species Concentration Type Concentration (mg/L)

102-71-6 Triethanolam ine Fathead minnow LC 50 (96 hr) 11,800

107-19-7 Propargyl alcohol Fathead minnow LC 50 (96 hr) 1.53

107-21-1 Ethylene glycol Rainbow trout LC 50 (96 hr) >18,500

Fathead minnow NOEC (growth, 7 day) 15,380

WaterfleaCeriodaphnia dubia NOEC (reproduction, 7 day) 3,469

Green algae EC 50 (96 hr) 7,900

Duckweed LOEC (96 hr, frond growth) 10,000

110-65-6 Butyne-1,4-diol Fathead minnow LC 50 (96 hr) 53.6

111-42-2 Diethanolamine Fathead minnow LC 50 (96 hr) 4,710

111-46-6 Diethylene glycol Fathead minnow LC 50 (96 hr) 75,200

112-27-6 Triethylene glycol Fathead minnow LC 50 (96 hr) 77,400

112-53-8 1-dodecanol Algae LC 50 0.97

Fathead minnow LC 50 (96 hr) 1.01 Harpacticoid LC 50 0.9 Northern leopard frog - Rana pipiens LC 50 0.88

115-77-5 Pentaerythritol Waterflea-Daphnia

magna EC 50 (24 hr) 38,900

127-08-2 Potassium acetate Fathead minnow LC 50 >500

LC 50 (7 day) >1,500

Rainbow trout LC 50 (96 hr) >2,100

Waterflea LC 50 (48 hr) >3,000

127-09-3 Sodium acetate Fathead minnow LC 50 (48 hr) 2,750

LC 50 (120 hr) 13,330

Waterflea LC 50 (48 hr) 2,400

1310-58-3 Potassium hydroxide Guppy LC 50 (24 hr) 165

1310-73-2 Sodium hydroxide Western mosquitofish LC 50 (96 hr) 125

136-85-6 Tolyltriazole Bluegill LC 50 31

Waterflea LC 50 74 Microtox® (bacteria) EC 50 (5 min) 6 Microtox® (bacteria) EC 50 (15 min) 6

141-43-5 Monoethanolamine Rainbow trout LC 50 (96 hr) 150

141-53-7 Sodium formate Bluegill LC 50 (24 hr) 5,000

Waterflea EC 50 (24 hr) 4,800

EC 50 (48 hr) 4,400

EC 0 (24 hr) 3,300

EC 0 (48 hr) 3,200

Zebrafish LC 50 (96 hr) 100

A-46Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

A-47 Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components

CASRN Chemical Name Study Species Concentration Type Concentration (mg/L)

1934-21-0 FD&C Yellow #5 (constituents) Fish (species not specified) LC 50 (72 hr) >1,000

25265-71-8 Dipropylene glycol Goldfish LC 50 (24 hr) >5,000

25322-68-3 Polyethylene glycol, m.w.
from 62 to 106 Rainbow trout LC 50 (96 hr) >20,000

504-63-2 1,3-Propylene glycol Goldfish LC 50 (24 hr) >5,000

56-81-5 Glycerol Rainbow trout LC 50 (96 hr) 54

57-13-6 Urea Guppy LC 50 (96 hr) 17,500

Fish- Barilius barna LC 50 (96 hr) >9,100Mozambique tilapiaTilapia moassambica LC 50 (96 hr) 22,500

Carp LC 50 (48 hr) >10,000

Waterflea EC 50 (24 hr) >10,000 Mosquito LC 50 (4 hr) 60,000

Freshwater snail LC 50 (24 hr) 14,241-30,060

57-55-6 Propylene Glycol Fathead minnow LC 50 (96 hr) 55,770 NOEC (growth, 7 day) <11,530

Goldfish LC 50 5,000

Waterflea- Daphnia

magna LC 50 8,000

WaterfleaCeriodaphnia dubia NOEC (reproduction, 7 day) 13,020

62-56-6 Thiourea Waterflea- Daphnia

magna LC 50 (48 hr) 9

7558-79-4 Disodium phosphate (aka sodium hydrogen phosphate) Waterflea -Daphnia

magna LC 50 (48 hr) 3,580

7631-99-4 Sodium nitrate Rainbow trout LC 50 (96 hr) 1,658

7664-41-7 Ammonia Fathead minnow LC 50 (96 hr) 0.73-8.2

Goldfish LC 50 (24-96 hr) 2-2.5

Rainbow trout LC 50 (24 hr) 0.068-3.58

Waterflea LC 50 (48 hr) 187-189

Various EPA National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria Temp., life-stage, time-dependent.

7778-53-2 Potassium phosphate Western mosquitofish LC 50 (96 hr) 750

79-10-7 Acrylic acid Green algae EC 50 (96 hr) 0.17

EC 3 (7 day) 18

Waterflea EC 50 (24 hr, immobilization) 765

Rainbow trout NOEC (96 hr) 6.3

95-14-7 Benzotriazole Microtox ® (bacteria) EC 50 (5 min) 41

EC 50 (15 min) 42

97-64-3 Ethyl lactate Zebrafish LC 50 (96 hr) 320

(25154-52-3) Nonylphenol Fish LC 50 0.17-1.4

Invertebrates LC 50 0.17-1.4Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

A-48 Table A-40: Ecological Toxicity Values for Airport Deicing Product Components

CASRN Chemical Name Study Species Concentration Type Concentration (mg/L)

Waterflea- Daphnia

magna Life-Cycle Chronic Value 0.02262

Fathead minnow Early Life Stage Chronic
Value 0.01018

(Multiple) Nonylphenol ethoxylate Fathead minnow LC 50 3.75

Other fishes LC 50 4.7-29.2 Calanoid copepod LC 50 2.8 Polychaete worm LC 50 3.78

(Multiple) Octylphenol Fish LC 50 0.17-1.4

Invertebrates LC 50 0.02-3

(Multiple) Octylphenol ethoxylate Algae LC 50 0.027-2.5

Rainbow trout LC 50 7.2 Polychaete worm LC 50 7.1

(Multiple) Alcohol ethoxylates Bluegill EC 10 (C9-11EO6) 3.882 Fathead minnow (egg, j uvenile) NOEC (C9-11EO6, reproduction) 0.730

Green algae EC 10 (C12E2, growth) 0.030

Waterflea- Daphnia

magna EC 10 (C14-15EO7) 0.255

(Unknown) Sodium Ionic sodium can cause ion imbalance in aquatic organisms. (Unknown) Potassium Ionic potassium can cause ion imbalance in aquatic organisms. (Unknown) Xanthan Gum Rainbow trout LC 50 (96 hr) 420 (Unknown) Polyacrylic Acid Bluegill LC 50 (96 hr) 1,290
Sources: EPA (2000); Environment Canada (2008a); EPA ( 2005); Environment Canada (2001); IPCS (1997).Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix AEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing CategoryTable A-41: Human Health Effects of Airport Deicing Product Components as Reported in IRIS, EPA NRWQC, EPA Drinking WaterMCLs, and RSEICASRNPollutant NameEPA NRWQC ValuesEPA DrinkingWater MCLRfDRfCOral SlopeFactorInhalationUnit RiskDrinking Water SlopeFactorWater &Organism(μg/L)Organismonly(μg/L)(mg/L)(mg/kg/day)(mg/m3)(mg/kg-day)-1(μg/ m3)-1(μg/L)-1100-41-4Ethylbenzene5302,1000.70.11107-19-7Propargyl alcohol0.002107-21-1Ethylene glycol20.4108-88-3Toluene1,30015,00010.085111-42-2Diethanolamine0.00140.003117-81-7Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate1.22.20.0060.020.074x10-7123-91-1Dioxane0.130.0110.00773.1x10-762-56-6Thiourea175-07-0Acetaldehyde0.0090.002275-21-8Ethylene oxide0.030.2220.0887664-41-7Ammonia0.184-74-2Di-N-Butyl Phthalate2,0004,5000.1Sources: EPA (2006b); EPA (2007); EPA (2008d); EPA (2008e).A-49Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-42: Acetate
Fate and Transport

CASRN No CASRN

Formula C 2 H 3 O 2

Environmental partitioning summary Acetates are not expected to volatilize. They are quite soluble in water. Acetate should rapidly biodegrade under aerobic conditions in surface water, groundwater, and soil. Degradation products Acetate degradation produces bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and water.

Transport rate summary Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils/sediments. May be very site-specific.

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit

MCL

NOAEL

LOAEL Exposure Routes Target Organs Symptoms Ecological Effects COD (g per 100 lbs) 11,850-15,500 (in various compounds) In the aquatic environment, acetate may lower dissolved ox ygen levels as it derades because of its COD content. Acetate-containing pavement deicers, including potassium acetate and sodium acetate, may be toxic at sufficiently high concentrations. Specific toxicity values range from a 48-hour LC 50 of 2,400 mg/L for the waterflea to a 120-
hour LC 50 of 13,330 mg/L for the fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) (both for sodium acetate).

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-50Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-43: Alcohol Ethoxylates
Fate and Transport

CASRN 64-17-5

Formula CH 3 (CH 2 )

n (OCH 2 CH 2 ) y OH Log K OC In general, log K d is a better predictor of behavior than Kow for these
substances a . Log K d , as with the other physicochemical parameters, varies by ethoxymer. The formula below, as given by Belanger et al. (2006) permits the calculation of an estimated log K d

.

log Kd = 0.331 * (alkyl chain length) – 0.009 * (ethoxylate chain length) –
1.126 Environmental partitioning

summary Sorption may be important, and is likely to vary by ethoxymer.

Degradation summary Aerobic degradation may be rapid.

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit

MCL

NOAEL LD50 (rat) Exposure Routes Inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact Target Organs Eyes, skin, respiratory system, cen tral nervous system, liver, blood, reproductive system Symptoms Irritation to eyes, skin, nose; headache, drowsiness, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion), narcosis; cough; liver damage; anemia; reproductive effects, teratogenic effects, gastrointestinal irritation Ecological Effects Alcohol ethoxylates have toxicity levels similar to those of nonylphenol ethoxylates and octylphenol ethoxylates. Alcohol ethoxylate degradation by-products are less toxic and less persistent than those of nonylphenol ethoxylates and octylphenol ethoxylates. Alcohol ethoxylate toxicity values range from an EC 10 (duration unspecified) of 0.030 mg/L for growth effects in green algae to an EC 10 (duration unspecified) of 3.882 mg/L in the bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ).

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-51Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-44: Dyes
Fate and Transport Eosin orange, tetrabromofluorescein 17372-87-1 FD&C blue #1, alphazurine 3844-45-9 FD&C yellow #5, tartrazine 1934-21-0 Malonyl green, C.I. Pigment Yellow
34 Trade name Shilling green Trade name

See Table A-32 and Table A-33 in Appendix A

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit

MCL

NOAEL

LOAEL Exposure Routes Ingestion, inhalation, dermal contact Target Organs Bladder, stomach, kidneys, brain, mouth, esophagus, liver, gallbladder, bile duct, pancreas Symptoms Coughing, abdominal pain, pain and redness of the eyes, various cancers Ecological Effects Ecological toxicity information for many dyes used in deicing products is unavailable. Available data on dye toxicity indicates a wide variability in toxicity levels. The most toxic com ponent of FD&C Yellow #5 is toxic at concentrations of 200 mg/L to fish. Toxicity values for eosin orange range from 620 mg/L to 2,200 mg/L for fish. C.I. Pigment Yellow 34 may have high toxicity due to chromate and lead components, but no studies have yet quantified this toxicity level.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-52Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-45: Ethylene Glycol
Fate and Transport

CASRN 107-21-1

Formula C 2 H 6 O 2 Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble Log K OW -1.36 Log K OC 1 (K OC ) Henry’s Law constant (atm-m 3 /mole) 6.00x10 -8
Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 0.092 Environmental partitioning

summary Volatilization is not expected to be an important pathway for ethylene glycol. Very high mobility is expected for ethylene glycol in soil, sediment, and water. Experimentally determined adsorption of ethylene glycol to four soils (two clay, two sandy clay) ranged from 0-0.5%. Tracer experiments have shown that ethylene glycol moves through soil with water.

Half-lives Atmospheric half-life: 50 h at 25o C. Degradation summary Very rapid degradation rates in soil, sediment, and water. Soils: 90 to 100% degradation of ethylene glycol was observed in various field soils in 2-12 days (temperatures not known); ethylene glycol in aircraftdeicing or anti-icing fluid formulation was completely degraded in runwayside soils within 29 days at 8 ° C. Water: Hydrolysis and photolysis ar e not expected to be significant. Ethylene glycol in river water degraded completely in three days at 20o C and in 5 to 14 days at 8o C. Aerobic degradation of ethylene glycol may be essentially complete in less than one to four days under optimal conditions in water or treatment systems, but the impact of the full theoretical biological oxygen demand may not be observed for several weeks. Degradation lag time With unacclimated microbial communitie s there is often a lag of several days before glycol degradation begins. Transport rate summary Expected to have very high mobility in soil, sediment, and water.

Mixture effects Triazoles decrease the degradation rate of glycols. Low temperatures may also greatly decrease the degr adation rates of glycols.

Additional notes Ethylene glycols are expected to share somewhat similar properties, except for polyethylene glycols. Formulated polyethylene glycol products contain different mixtures of polymers, and the properties of the products will vary based on the size and shape of the po lymers they contain. All of these substances are expected to be rapidl y degraded under aerobic and anaerobic
conditions.

A-53Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

A-54 Table A-45: Ethylene Glycol

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit Ceiling 50 ppm

MCL

NOAEL

RfD 2 mg/kg*day Exposure Routes Inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact Target Organs Eyes, skin, respiratory syst em, central nervous system

Symptoms Irritation eyes, skin, nose, throat; nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion); dizziness, stupor, convulsions, central nervous system depression; skin sensitization Ecological Effects Ethylene glycol has high COD content and can depress dissolved oxygen levels in aquatic environments. Ethylene glycol is also acutely and chronically toxic to aquatic organisms at higher concentrations. Toxicity values range from a 7-day NOEC for reproductive effects of 3,469 mg/L in the waterflea ( Ceriodaphnia dubia) to a 96-hr LC 50 o f greater than 18,500 mg/L in the rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ).

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-46: Formate
Fate and Transport

CASRN No CASRN

Formula CH 2 O 2 Environmental partitioning summary Formates are not expected to volatilize. They are quite soluble in water, and may be expected to ionize freely. Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb or complex with soil or water constituents or remain dissolved
in surface water or groundwater. Degradation summary Formate is slowly hydrolyzed in wate r and can be anaerobically degraded by methanogens. Transport rate summary Depends on a combination of degradatio n rate and interaction with soil and sediments. May be very site-specific.

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit

MCL

NOAEL

LOAEL Exposure Routes Target Organs Symptoms Ecological Effects COD (g per 100 lbs) 4,300 (in sodium formate) Formates may impact the aquatic environment due to thei r COD content. Formate-containing compounds used as pavement deicers, including sodium formate and potassium formate, can be toxic at sufficient concentrations. Known toxicity values range from a 96-hr LC 50 of 100 mg/L for zebrafish ( Danio rerio ) to a 24-hr LC 50 of 5,000 mg/L for bluegill ( Lepomis macrochirus ).

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-55Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-47: Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates
Fate and Transport Nonylphenol Nonylphenol Ethoxylates

CASRN 25154-52-3 9016-45-9

Formula C 9 H 19 -C 6 H 4 O(CH 2 CH 2 O)

n H a Water solubility, g/L 5.43x10 -3 All are highly soluble in water, but solubility varies by ethoxymer. Log K OW 4.1-4.7Henry’s Law constant (atmm 3 /mole) 1.09x10 -4

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 3.4x10 -5
Environmental partitioning

summary Not expected to volatilize. Likely to partition to organic matter or minerals in soil, but this tendency varies by ethoxymer, and migration through the soil has been observed. In water, as in soil, may sorb to organic matter or particulates. Although volatility is low, can
volatilize from water and result in high atmospheric concentrations. Unlikely to volatilize from soils. Likely to partition to sediments and mineral particles in water and soil but can still leach through soils.

Half-lives 3-26 days under ideal aerobic
conditions with acc limated microbial community 2.4 hours to 0.74 days in water. Photolytic half-life in upper layer of surface water is 10-15 hours; in deeper layers, it is much slower. In a sediment mesocosm, a half-life of 66 days was observed. a Degradation summary A biphasic degradation profile has been observed in soils, with relatively rapid initial degradation of 30-50% of applied nonylphenol degrading in the first several weeks, and the remainder degrading with a half-life of approximately 90 days a

. Degradation varies by ethoxymer, and tends to produce some recalcitrant compounds

Transport rate summary Can leach through soils.

Mixture effects Surfactants can increase the solubility and transport of less soluble
substances.

Additional notes Specific physical properties vary by ethoxymer.

A-56Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

A-57 Table A-47: Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit

MCL

NOAEL 10 mg/kg*day

LOAEL 50 mg/kg*day Exposure Routes Inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact Target Organs Upper respiratory system, kidneys, skin, eyes, digestive system Symptoms Skin and eye irritation, tissue decay, swelling, mottled kidneys, lethargy, coughing, wheezing, shor tness of breath, headach e, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, sore throat, burning sensation, shortness of breath, labored breathing, abdominal pain, shock, collapse Ecological Effects Nonylphenol ethoxylates are moderately toxic to aquatic life, but do not persist for long periods of time in water. Available acute toxicity data indicate harmful effects to aquatic life in a range of 2.8 mg/L (LC 50 , duration unknown for a calanoid copepod) to 29.2 mg/L for an unspecified species of fish. Nonylphenol, a degradation product of nonylphenol ethoxylates, is more toxic to aquatic organisms than nonylphenol ethoxylates. It persists in the aquatic environment and potentially bioaccumulates in aquatic organisms. Toxicity values range from an “early life stage chronic value” for adverse impacts established by Environment Canada of 0.01 mg/L to an LC 50 value from a study of unspecifi ed fish species of 1.4 mg/L.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-48: Polyacrylic Acid
Fate and Transport

CASRN 79-10-7 Water solubility, g/L 1x10 3
Log K OW 0.35 Log K OC 1.63Henry’s Law constant (atmm 3 /mole) 3.2x10 -7
Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 3.97 Environmental partitioning

summary Not expected to volatilize from water or moist soil. Slow volatilization from dry soil is possible. Not expected to adso rb to soils or particulates; potential for transport in soil is high. Degradation

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

Additional notes May be contaminated by low-ppm levels of metals.

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit TWA 2 ppm (6 mg/m 3 ) [skin]

MCL

NOAEL 140mg/kg/day

LOAEL 15 mg/m 3
Exposure Routes Inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact Target Organs Eyes, skin, respiratory system

Symptoms Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; ey e, skin burns; skin sensitization; in animals: lung, liver, kidney injury Ecological Effects Acrylic acid toxicity values range from a 96-hour EC 50 of 0.17 mg/L for green algae to a 24-hour EC 50 for
immobilization effects in the waterflea of 765 mg/L. A 7-day EC3 for chronic effects in green algae was measured as 0.17 mg/L.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-58Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-49: Potassium
Fate and Transport

CASRN No CASRN

Environmental partitioning summary Potassium is present in the airport pavement deicers potassium acetate and potassium formate. These materials are not expected to volatilize. These materials are quite soluble in water an d can be expected to ionize freely. Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb or complex
with soil or water constituents or re main dissolved in surface water or groundwater. Degradation products Potassium is liberated from potassium acetate and potassium formate through
ionization. Transport rate summary Depends on a combination of degradatio n rate and interaction with soils and sediments. May be very site-specific.

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit 4,700 mg/day

MCL

NOAEL

LOAEL Exposure Routes Ingestion Target Organs Circulatory system, kidneys, central nervous system

Symptoms Listlessness, fatigue, gas pains, constipation, insomnia, low blood sugar, weak muscles and a slow, irregular pulse Ecological Effects Potassium can affect aquatic ecosystems by creating ion imbalances in surface waters and aquatic organisms.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-59Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-50: Propylene Glycol
Fate and Transport

CASRN 57-55-6

Formula C 3 H 8 O 2 Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble Log K OW -0.92 Log K OC 0.90Henry’s Law constant (atmm 3 /mole) 1.3x10 -8
Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 0.13 Environmental partitioning

summary Very high mobility in soils, sediments, and water. Not expected to volatilize readily. Degradation summary Propylene glycol was not observed to degrade at 4oC and only degraded at 20oC in soil that was rich in organic matter. Degradation lag time For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of several days before glycol degradation begins.

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit

MCL

NOAEL LD50 (rat) 30,000 mg/kg Exposure Routes Ingestion, injection Target Organs Skin, water balance, circ ulatory system, kidneys Symptoms Hyperosmolality, lactic acidosis (the build-up of lactic acid in the body), intravascular hemolysis (the rupturing of blood vessels), central nervous system depression, seizures, coma, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and renal failure (all as associat ed with burn creams). Ecological Effects Propylene glycol has a high COD content and can depress dissolved oxygen levels in aquatic environments. Propylene glycol exhibits acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic life only at higher concentrations. Toxicity values range from an LC 50 (time unknown) of 5,000 mg/L in goldfish ( Carassius gibelio ) to a 96-hr LC 50 of 55,770 mg/L in fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ).

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-60Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-51: Sodium
Fate and Transport

CASRN No CASRN

Environmental partitioning summary Sodium is present in the airport pavement deicers sodium acetate and sodium formate. These materials are not expected to volatilize. These materials arequite soluble in water and can be expected to ionize freely. Depending on sitespecific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb or complex with soil or water
constituents or remain dissolved in surface wa ter or groundwater. Degradation products Sodium is liberated from sodium acetate and sodium formate through
ionization. Transport rate summary Depends on a combination of degradatio n rate and interaction with soils and sediments. May be very site-specific.

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit 2,300 mg/day

MCL

NOAEL

LOAEL Exposure Routes Ingestion, possibly inhalation Target Organs Circulatory system, mineral balances Symptoms High blood pressure, loss of calcium Ecological Effects Sodium can affect aquatic ecosystems by creating ion imbalances in surface waters and aquatic organisms.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-61Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

Table A-52: Tolyltriazoles, Benzotriazoles, Methyl-substituted Benzotriazole
Fate and Transport

CASRN No CASRN

Formula C 7 H 7 N 3 (tolyltriazole) Environmental partitioning

summary Mobile in groundwater. Degradation summary Unlikely to be readily degradable.

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

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit

MCL

NOAEL LD50 (rat) 600-675 mg/kg Exposure Routes Target Organs Symptoms Ecological Effects Tolyltriazole, a methylated benzotriazole used in aircraft deicing fluid formulations, exhibits moderate acute toxicity in aquatic organisms. Toxicity values range from a 5-minute Microtox® assay value of 6 mg/L for effects on microbial organisms to an LC 50 (duration unspecified) of 74 mg/L in the waterflea. Other benzotriazoles have not been studied as thoroughly as tolyltriazole. Microtox® studies with 5- and 15-minute durations have established values of 41 and 42 mg/L, respectively, for effects on microbial organisms.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.

A-62Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the Final Appendix A Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category

A-63 Table A-53: Urea and Ammonia
Fate and Transport

Urea Ammonia

CASRN 57-13-6 7664-41-7

Formula CH 4 N 2 O H 3 N Water solubility, g/L 545 “31%” Log K OW -2.11 0.23 Log K OC 0.903Henry’s Law constant (atmm 3 /mole) 1.61x10 -5

Human Health Effects Exposure Limit TWA 25 ppm (18 mg/m 3 ) ST 35 ppm (27 mg/m 3 )

MCL

NOAEL

LOAEL Exposure Routes Inhalation, ingestion (solution), skin and/or eye contact (solution/liquid) Target Organs Eyes, skin, respiratory system

Symptoms Irritation to eyes, nose, throat; dyspn ea (breathing difficulty), wheezing, chest pain; pulmonary edema; pink frothy sputum; skin burns, vesiculation; liquid:
frostbite Ecological Effects Ammonia is a common by-product of urea degradation and is highly toxic to some aquatic organisms. EPA has established National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for ammonia which vary with pH, temperature, and aquatic organism life stage. LC 50 values for ammonia range from a 24-hr value for rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) of 0.068 mg/L to a 48-hr LC 50 for the waterflea of 189 mg/L.

Blank cells indicate information not r eadily available to EPA at this time.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix BEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing CategoryAppendix B: Surveyed Airports within Scope for EPA’s Regulatory Options for Airport DeicingOperationsTable B-1: Surved Airports within Scope for EPA’s Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing OperationsAirport NameAirport CityAirportStateService LevelConfirmedDeicingOperations1Annual Nonpropeller-drivenaircraftDepartures2SOFPDays3Albany InternationalAlbanyNYSmall HubY25,15636Albuquerque International SunportAlbuquerqueNMMedium HubY40,9693Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy FieldAspenCONon-HubY2,49553.5Austin Straubel InternationalGreen BayWISmall HubY9,70631Austin-Bergstrom InternationalAustinTXMedium HubY49,6014Baltimore-Washington InternationalBaltimoreMDLarge HubY114,67312BethelBethelAKNon-HubY1,28755Birmingham InternationalBirminghamALSmall HubY29,5101.5Bismarck MuniBismarckNDNon-HubY3,13936Bob HopeBurbankCAMedium HubY30,4110Boeing Field/King County InternationalSeattleWANon-HubY3,2044Boise Air Terminal/Gowen FldBoiseIDSmall HubY20,88816Bradley InternationalWindsor LocksCTMedium HubY46,87831Buffalo Niagara InternationalBuffaloNYMedium HubY36,42948.5Central WisconsinMosineeWINon-HubY2,78136Charlotte/Douglas InternationalCharlotteNCLarge HubY183,7225.5Cherry CapitalTraverse CityMINon-HubY5,36968.5Chicago Midway InternationalChicagoILLarge HubY93,12326Chicago O'Hare InternationalChicagoILLarge HubY475,98826Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky InternationalCovingtonKYLarge HubY236,65017City of Colorado Springs MunicipalColorado SpringsCOSmall HubY19,52616Cleveland-Hopkins InternationalClevelandOHMedium HubY104,13636Dallas Love FieldDallasTXMedium HubY44,0238Dallas/Fort Worth InternationalDallas-Fort WorthTXLarge HubY345,0298Denver InternationalDenverCOLarge HubY222,92226Des Moines InternationalDes MoinesIASmall HubY21,87131Detroit Metropolitan Wayne CountyDetroitMILarge HubY224,32831El Paso InternationalEl PasoTXSmall HubY26,2008Eppley AirfieldOmahaNEMedium HubY31,17526B-1Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix BEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing CategoryB-2Table B-1: Surved Airports within Scope for EPA’s Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing OperationsAirport NameAirport CityAirportStateService LevelConfirmedDeicingOperations1Annual Nonpropeller-drivenaircraftDepartures2SOFPDays3Evansville RegionalEvansvilleINNon-HubY7,40412Fairbanks InternationalFairbanksAKSmall HubY6,09489Fort Wayne InternationalFort WayneINNon-HubY13,10931General Edward Lawrence Logan InternationalBostonMALarge HubY162,63526General Mitchell InternationalMilwaukeeWIMedium HubY66,79831George Bush Intercontinental Arpt/HoustonHoustonTXLarge HubY244,3594Gerald R. Ford InternationalGrand RapidsMISmall HubY20,85448.5Glacier Park InternationalKalispellMTNon-HubY3,82036Greater Rochester InternationalRochesterNYSmall HubY29,12943.5Gulfport-Biloxi InternationalGulfportMSSmall HubY6,8054Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta InternationalAtlantaGALarge HubY454,8321.5Helena RegionalHelenaMTNon-HubY2,83914.5Indianapolis InternationalIndianapolisINMedium HubY76,35121Jackson HoleJacksonWYNon-HubY1,68749.5Jacksonville InternationalJacksonvilleFLMedium HubY36,8491.5James M Cox Dayton InternationalDaytonOHSmall HubY34,02426John F Kennedy InternationalNew YorkNYLargeHubY162,80912John Wayne Airport-Orange CountySanta AnaCAMedium HubY49,8070Juneau InternationalJuneauAKSmall HubY5,03521Kansas City InternationalKansas CityMOMedium HubY73,75827KetchikanKetchikanAKNon-Hub42,81555La GuardiaNew YorkNYLargeHubY166,49612Lafayette RegionalLafayetteLANon-HubY4,2054Lambert-St Louis InternationalSt LouisMOLarge HubY106,57217Long Island Mac ArthurIslipNYSmall HubY12,21016Louis Armstrong New Orleans InternationalNew OrleansLAMedium HubY59,0634Louisville International-Standiford FieldLouisvilleKYMedium HubY64,78012Lovell FieldChattanoogaTNNon-HubY6,1561.5ManchesterManchesterNHMediumHubY31,19536Mc Carran InternationalLas VegasNVLarge HubY187,3650Memphis InternationalMemphisTNMedium HubY152,6988Metropolitan Oakland InternationalOaklandCALarge HubY85,9640Minneapolis-St Paul International/Wold-ChamberlainMinneapolisMNLarge HubY219,29341Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field)MontgomeryALNon-HubY4,2660Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix BEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing CategoryB-3Table B-1: Surved Airports within Scope for EPA’s Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing OperationsAirport NameAirport CityAirportStateService LevelConfirmedDeicingOperations1Annual Nonpropeller-drivenaircraftDepartures2SOFPDays3Nashville InternationalNashvilleTNMediumHubY74,1895.5Newark Liberty InternationalNewarkNJLargeHubY207,69816NomeNomeAKNon-HubY1,32455Norfolk InternationalNorfolkVAMediumHubY32,9575.5Norman Y. Mineta San Jose InternationalSan JoseCAMedium HubY64,1010Northwest Arkansas RegionalFayetteville/SpringdaleARSmall HubY16,78314.5Ontario InternationalOntarioCAMedium HubY43,3640Outagamie County RegionalAppletonWINon-HubY8,84236Palm Beach InternationalWest Palm BeachFLMedium HubY31,1690Pensacola RegionalPensacolaFLSmall HubY14,1641.5Philadelphia InternationalPhiladelphiaPALarge HubY205,12812Phoenix Sky Harbor InternationalPhoenixAZLarge HubY220,2000Piedmont Triad InternationalGreensboroNCSmall HubY34,00114.5Pittsburgh InternationalPittsburghPALarge HubY89,33731Port Columbus InternationalColumbusOHMedium HubY57,35826Portland InternationalPortlandORMedium HubY61,2384Raleigh-Durham InternationalRaleigh/DurhamNCMedium HubY83,2769.5Ralph Wien MemorialKotzebueAKNon-HubY1,27455Rapid City RegionalRapid CitySDNon-HubY3,65921Reno/Tahoe InternationalRenoNVMedium HubY31,3789.5Richmond InternationalRichmondVASmall HubY33,08912Rickenbacker InternationalColumbusOHNon-HubY2,33026Roanoke Regional/Woodrum FieldRoanokeVANon-HubY7,24516Rochester InternationalRochesterMNNon-HubY4,99046Ronald Reagan Washington NationalWashingtonDCLarge HubY130,87912Sacramento InternationalSacramentoCAMedium HubY51,5150Salt Lake City InternationalSalt Lake CityUTLarge HubY140,56614.5San Antonio InternationalSan AntonioTXMedium HubY46,1814San Diego InternationalSan DiegoCALarge HubY80,1080San Francisco InternationalSan FranciscoCALarge HubY137,3280Seattle-Tacoma InternationalSeattleWALarge HubY114,6071.5South Bend RegionalSouth BendINSmall HubY8,56248.5Southwest Florida InternationalFort MyersFLMedium HubY32,0000Spokane InternationalSpokaneWASmall HubY16,03431Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix BEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing CategoryB-4Table B-1: Surved Airports within Scope for EPA’s Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing OperationsAirport NameAirport CityAirportStateService LevelConfirmedDeicingOperations1Annual Nonpropeller-drivenaircraftDepartures2SOFPDays3Stewart InternationalNewburghNYNon-HubY6,31426Syracuse Hancock InternationalSyracuseNYSmall HubY23,60943.5Tampa InternationalTampaFLLarge HubY85,1660Ted Stevens Anchorage InternationalAnchorageAKMedium HubY61,03555Theodore Francis Green StateProvidenceRIMedium HubY37,60621Toledo ExpressToledoOHNon-HubY10,55936Tucson InternationalTucsonAZMedium HubY26,6660Washington Dulles InternationalWashingtonDCLarge HubY225,55217Wilkes-Barre/Scranton InternationalWilkes-Barre/ScrantonPANon-HubY4,78926Will Rogers WorldOklahoma CityOKSmall HubY29,66414.5William P HobbyHoustonTXMedium HubY57,4484Wilmington InternationalWilmingtonNCNon-HubY6,3304YeagerCharlestonWVNon-HubY8,003161Y =Airport stated in response to EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (EPA 2006c) that itconducts deicing operations.2 “Annual non-propeller-driven aircraft departures” derived from data from Federal Aviation Administration for the 2004/2005 winter deicing season3Snow or Freezing Precipitation (SOFP) days data is based on National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration data from 1971 –1990.4Ketchikan was sent an airport questionnaire but did not respond.Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-1Appendix C: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesTable C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrients 1 Wildlife Impac ts 2 Human Health Impac ts 3 Aest hetic Impac ts 4 Permit Viola tions Other 5Airborne Airpark1998Hannah, James. 1998. De-Icing Chemicals for PlanesKilling Creek, Professor Says. Cleveland Plain Dealer,June 7.Lytle CreekF,OHOdXAirborne Airpark2000State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2000.Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little MiamiRiver Basin, 1998. OEPA Technical Report NumberMAS/1999-12-3. Columbus, OH.Lytle Creek, Little MiamiRiver, Cowan Creek,Indian RunDOSBaltimore WashingtonInternational Airport1993Hartwell, S.I., D.M. Jordahl, E.B. May. 1993. Toxicity ofAircraft De-Icer and Anti-Icer Solutions to AquaticOrganisms. Chesapeake BayResearch and MonitoringDivision. CBRM-TX-93-1Sawmill Creek, MuddyBridge BranchOCoBaltimore WashingtonInternational Airport1997McDowell, A. Scott. 1997. Hayes, Seay, Mattern andMattern. Letter communication to Stephen Debreceny.Patapsco AquiferD,B,NDWBaltimore WashingtonInternational Airport1995Fisher, D.J., M.H. Knott, S.D. Turley, B.S. Turley, L.T.Yonkos and G.P. Ziegler. 1995. The Acute WholeEffluent Toxicity of Storm Water from an InternationalAirport. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 14(6):1103-1111.Kitten Branch of StonyRun, Muddy BridgeBranch of Sawmill CreekB,NOCoBaltimore WashingtonInternational Airport1997Pelton, Tom. 1997. EPA Probing Allegation of BWIRunoff; Polluting Chemicals Seeping Into Creek,Environmentalists Say; Airport Cooperating; Public'sHealth Is Not In Danger, According to State. BaltimoreSun, April 23.Sawmill CreekFo,OdXEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-2Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrients 1 Wildlife Impac ts 2 Human Health Impacts 3 Aest hetic Impac ts 4 Permit Viola tions Other 5Baltimore WashingtonInternational Airport1997Pelton, Tom. 1997. De-Icing Fluid Used at BWI FoulsWaters; MD.'s Pride in System Ignores Pollution DataFrom Other Agencies; BWI is 'Economic Engine'; 11thHour Clearance Gives Airport Time, $1.6 Million forDrains. Baltimore Sun, August 9.Sawmill CreekOFo,O,CoXBaltimore WashingtonInternational Airport1997McDowell, A.S. 1997. Sawmill Creek - Watershed"Restoration" Project. Allwood Community AssociationSite Inspection, March.Sawmill CreekDW,HFo,OdBaltimore WashingtonInternational Airport1998Pelton, Tom. 1998. BWI Violated Water Act, GroupClaims; Environmentalists File Notice of Intent to Sue;De-Icing Chemicals at Issue; Airport Maintains it HasTried to Keep Pollution Contained. Baltimore Sun,January 8.Kitten Branch of StonyRun, Muddy BridgeBranch of Sawmill CreekFo,OdXBaltimore WashingtonInternational Airport2001Ayres, E. 2001. Airports and cities: Can they coexist? SanDiego Earth Times, September.unnamed aquiferDWBangor InternationalAirport2003New England Grassroots Environment Fund. 2003.Annual Report. Montpelier, Vermont.Birch StreamHBangor InternationalAirport2006State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection.2006. 2006 Integrated Water QualityMonitoring and Assessment Report. ReportDEPLW0817.Birch StreamBOBradley InternationalAirport2003Farmington River Watershed Association. 2003. State ofthe Farmington River Watershed Report. August.Rainbow Brook, SeymourHollowBrookDBradley InternationalAirport2004State of Connecticut Department of EnvironmentalProtection. 2004. List of Connecticut waterbodies notmeeting water quality standards.Rainbow Brook, SeymourHollow BrookDOBuffalo NiagaraInternational Airport1994Dawson, Dick. 1994. Contaminant Testing Sought atEllicott Creek Amherst Councilwoman Fears Runoff ofDe-Icer Fluids from Airport. Buffalo News, May 11.Ellicott CreekOFo,O,CoEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-3Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrients 1 Wildlife Impac ts 2 Human Health Impac ts 3 Aest hetic Impac ts 4 Permit Violations Other 5Chicago O'HareInternational Airport1997Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. 1997.O'Hare Found to be Major Water Polluter. ARCO FlightTracks, May.Des Planes River, groundwater, Bensenville Ditch,Willow Creek, CrystalCreekF,OHFo,O,CoGChicago O'HareInternational Airport1997Cowan, P.F. 1997. Water Pollution-Chicago InternationalAirport. Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc.,May 28.Des Planes River,Bensenville Ditch, WillowCreek, Crystal CreekF,OHOd,CoChicago O'HareInternational Airport1998Worthington, R. 1998. Group Claims O'Hare Fails toReport on De-Icing Toxins. Chicago Tribune, January 9.unnamed receiving watersCincinnati/NorthernKentucky InternationalAirport1992Associated Press. 1992. Cincinnati Airport Cited by State.Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 8.Elijah CreekOOd,CoXCincinnati/NorthernKentucky InternationalAirport2003Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. 2003.Comments from the Alliance of Residents ConcerningO’Hare, Inc. to the Federal Aviation Administrationregarding the Draft FAA Five-Year Strategic Plan "FlightPlan" 2004-2008 by Jack Saporito. August 5.Gunpowder Creek,Elijah's CreekOOd,CoXCincinnati/NorthernKentucky InternationalAirport2004Kelly, B.R. and D. Klepal. 2004. Silent Streams. TheCincinnati Enquirer, March 7.Gunpowder and ElijahCreeksOOd,CoXCincinnati/NorthernKentucky InternationalAirport2004Sierra Club. 2004. Water Sentinels: Rescuing the riverthat wouldn’t freeze. Annual Report.Gunpowder Creek,Elijah's CreekOOd,CoCincinnati/NorthernKentucky InternationalAirport2004Klepal, Dan. 2004. Airport Pollution Provokes Ire:Residents fault state for going easy on de-icing runoff.The Cincinnati Enquirer, September 10.Gunpowder and ElijahCreeksDOd,CoCincinnati/NorthernKentucky InternationalAirport2004KPDES Permit # KY0082864. Kentucky Department forEnvironmental Protection. Expiration: July 31, 2007.Elijahs Creek, GunpowderCreekEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-4Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrients 1 Wildlife Impac ts 2 Human Health Impacts 3 Aesthetic Impacts 4

Permit Violations Other 5Cincinnati/NorthernKentucky InternationalAirport2006Sierra Club. 2006. An Interview with Tim Guilfoile.August.Gunpowder CreekOCincinnati/NorthernKentucky InternationalAirportImpacts of Deicing Fluids on Elijahs and GunpowderCreeks, Boone County, Kentucky. Kentucky Departmentfor Environmental Protection.Elijahs Creek, GunpowderCreekD,B,NOXCleveland HopkinsInternational Airport2001NPDES Permit # OH0122068. Ohio EnvironmentalProtection Agency. Expiration: October 31, 2006.Rocky River, Abrams andSilver CreekOXGCleveland HopkinsInternational Airport1991Miller, Alan. 1991. De-Icing's Fatal Effect Not Plain.Columbus Dispatch, January 6.Rocky RiverCleveland HopkinsInternational Airport2001Kuehner, John C. 2001. Airport ordered to reducedischarge. The Plain Dealer, November 1.Rocky River, AbramCreek, Silver CreekFOd,CoXCleveland HopkinsInternational Airport2001Egan, D'arcy. 2001. Rocky River fishing in danger aspollutants keep pouring in. The Plain Dealer, October 21.Rocky River, Lake ErieOOdCleveland HopkinsInternational Airport2006Richardson, David C. 2006. Deicing by Design:Cleveland Gets a New Pad. Stormwater. 7(7).Abrams Creek, RockyRiverFOdXDallas/Fort WorthInternational Airport2006Corsi, S.R., G.R. Harwell, S.W. Geis, and D. Bergman.2006. Impacts of aircraft deicer and anti-icerrunoff onreceiving waters from Dallas/Fort Worth InternationalAirport, Texas, U.S.A. Environ Toxicol Chem.25(11):2890-2900Trigg Lake and Big BearCreekODenver InternationalAirport1997Scanlon, Bill. 1997. DIA Pollutes Creek / De-IcerWashing off Runways Kills Life in Stream That FlowsToward Barr Lake Bird Sanctuary. Rocky MountainNews, April 22.Third Creek, Barr LakeOOdSDenver InternationalAirport1997Eddy, Mark. 1997. Airport Deicer Pollutes Creek. DenverPost, April 22.Third Creek, Barr LakeDOOd,CoDenver InternationalAirport1997Dafforn, Erik. 1997. 'Til Hill and Valley are Ringing.Wabash Magazine. Summer.unnamed creekDenver InternationalAirport2001Ayres, E. 2001. Airports and cities: Can they coexist? SanDiego Earth Times, September.Barr LakeOEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-5Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrie nts 1 Wildlife Impacts 2 Human Health Impacts 3 Aesthetic Impacts 4

Permit Violations Other 5Denver InternationalAirport2005Meyerhoff, R., N. Rowan, J. Kieler, J. Barrilleaux, R.Albrecht, and S. Morea. 2005. Development of SiteSpecific Dissolved Oxygen Standards in Surface Watersat Denver International Airport. TMDL 2005 SpecialtyConference. Water Environment Federation.Second, Third and BoxElder CreeksDSDes Moines InternationalAirport1998Flannery, William. 1998. Status on Recovery of AircraftDeicing Fluid Operations at the Airport. City CouncilCommunication 98-052. February 16.Yeader CreekOd,CoXDes Moines InternationalAirport2004Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2004. TotalMaximum Daily Loads For Nutrients and Siltation: EasterLake, Polk County, Iowa.Easter LakeNDes Moines InternationalAirport2005Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2005. TotalMaximum Daily Load For Priority Organics: YeaderCreek, Polk County, Iowa.Yeader CreekBOFo,O,CoXSDetroit MetropolitanWayne County Airport1990Askari, Emilia. 1990. State Probes Airport in PollutionAllegations. Detroit FreePress, August 30.Detroit RiverDetroit MetropolitanWayne County Airport2001Environmental News Service. 2006. Wayne CountyAirport Admits De-Icing Chemical Discharge. June 14.Detroit RiverDOd,CoXDetroit MetropolitanWayne County Airport2006Lochner, Paul. 2006. Wayne County Airport AuthorityPleads Guilty to Violation of Clean Water Act.Department of Justice Press Release. June 8.Frank and Poet DrainFOd,CoXGeneral MitchellInternational Airport2001Corsi, S.R., N.L. Booth, and D.W. Hall. 2001. Aircraftand Runway Deicers at General Mitchell InternationalAirport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 1. BiochemicalOxygen Demand and Dissolved Oxygen in ReceivingStreams. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 20(7):1474-1482Wilson Park Creek,Kinnickinnic RiverBOGeneral MitchellInternational Airport2001Corsi, S.R., D.W. Hall, and S.W. Geis. 2001. Aircraft andRunway Deicers at General Mitchell InternationalAirport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 2. Toxicity ofAircraft and Runway Deicers. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.20(7):1483-1490.Wilson Park Creek,Kinnickinnic RiverNOEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-6Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrients 1 Wildlife Impac ts 2 Human Health Impacts 3 Aesthetic Impacts 4

Permit Violations Other 5General MitchellInternational Airport2003Cancilla, D.A., J.C. Baird,S.W. Geis, and S.R. Corsi.2003. Studies of the Environmental Fate and Effect ofAircraft Deicing Fluids: Detection of 5-methyl-1Hbenzotraizole in the fathead minnow (Pimephalespromelas). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22(1):134-140Wilson Park Creek,Kinnickinnic RiverF,OGeneral MitchellInternational Airport2006Sandler, Larry. 2006. Environmental group challengesairport's wastewater permit: Mitchell discharges too muchdeicing fluid into creek, it says. Milwaukee JournalSentinel, January 25.Wilson CreekCoHartsfield-Jackson AtlantaInternational Airport2002Hamrick, Dave. 2002. Officials unanimous: Our water issafe. The Citizen, February 13.Flint RiverH,DWOdHartsfield-Jackson AtlantaInternational Airport2002Hamrick, Dave. 2002. EPD: 'We blew it': State agencytook 4 days to respond to calls that deicing fluid had beenspilled into the Flint River; airport manager promises newprocedures will prevent future spills. The Citizen,February 13.Flint RiverDWIndianapolis InternationalAirport1997Stahl, J.R., T.P. Simon, and E.O. Edberg. 1997. APreliminary Appraisal of theBiological Integrity of theEast Fork White Lick Creek in the West Fork WhiteRiver Watershed Using Fish Community Assessment.IDEM/32/03/013/1997. December 12.White Lick CreekOJames M. Cox DaytonInternational Airport1991Miller, Alan. 1991. De-Icing's Fatal Effect Not Plain.Columbus Dispatch, January 6.Mill CreekFJames M. Cox DaytonInternational Airport1995State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1995.Biological and Water Quality Study of Mill Creek:Dayton International Airport, Miami and MontgomeryCounties, Ohio. OEPA Technical Report MAS/1995-2-2.Columbus, OH.Mill CreekB,NF,OJames M. Cox DaytonInternational Airport1998Associated Press. 1998. Panel Settles De-Icing Suit withHomeowners. Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 28.Mill CreekDWGEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-7Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrie nts 1 Wildlife Impac ts 2 Human Health Impacts 3 Aesthetic Impacts 4

Permit Violations Other 5James M. Cox DaytonInternational Airport2001State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2001.Biological and Water Quality Study of the StillwaterRiver Basin, 1999, Darke, Miami and MontgomeryCounties. OEPA Technical Report Number MAS/2001-12-8. Columbus, OHMill CreekB,NOKansas City InternationalAirport2007Missouri Department of Conservation. 2007. Platte RiverWatershed: Water Quality and Use.<mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/platte/watqual/>Todd CreekFLambert-St. LouisInternational Airport1995Uhlenbrock, Tom. 1995. Up A Creek Runoff of De-Icerfrom Lamber Field Pits Airport Against U.S. St. LouisPost Dispatch, February 5.Coldwater CreekOdLouisville International -Standiford Field2002KPDES Permit # KY0092185. Kentucky Department forEnvironmental Protection. Expiration: December 31,2007.Northern Ditch, FernCreekD,NFManchester Airport2003CAA News Channel. 2003. New Hampshire Brook to beTested for Chemicals. The Union Leader and NewHampshire Sunday News, January 27.Little Cohas BrookFo,OdManchester Airport2006Kibbe, Cindy. Planes, trains and automobiles:What are southern N.H.’s transportation options? NHBRDaily, April 14.Merrimack RiverOdMinneapolis/St. PaulInternational Airport2004Larson, Catherine. 2004. Lower Minnesota River ModelProject Proposal. Proposal to Develop an AdvancedWater-Quality Model of the Minnesota River, Jordan tothe mouth, and Conduct River Monitoring and Studies toSupport the Model. January 15.Minnesota RiverBXMinneapolis/St. PaulInternational Airport2004Mikkelson, Stephen. 2004. Water Quality Violations toCost Metropolitan Airports Commission $69,076.Minnesota Pollution Control Agency News Release.November 2.Lower Minnesota RiverDXEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-8Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrients 1 Wildlife Impacts 2 Human Health Impacts 3 Aest hetic Impac ts 4 Permit Viola tions Other 5Minneapolis/St. PaulInternational Airport2005Environmental News Service. 2005. Minnesota Halts JetFuel Leaks, Spills at Twin Cities Airport. EnvironmentalNews System. March 18.Minnesota River, SnellingLake, Mother LakeOd,CoXMinneapolis/St. PaulInternational Airport1993Meersman, Tom. 1993. New Rules for Airport De-IcersAmount of Chemicals Flushed into River Will beReduced. Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 29.Minnesota RiverD,BMinneapolis/St. PaulInternational Airport1993Meersman, Tom. 1993. FAA-Mandated Plane De-IcingPuts Minnesota River at Risk. Minneapolis Star Tribune,March 10.Minnesota RiverMinneapolis/St. PaulInternational Airport2001Mills, Karren. 2001. Minneapolis airport saw big jump inrunoff from de-icer into Minnesota River. CAA NewsChannel, May 19.Minnesota RiverXNewcastle InternationalAirport1995Turnbull, D.A. and J.R. Bevan. 1995. The Impact ofAirport De-Icing on a River: The case of the Ouseburn,Newcastle Upon Tyne. Environ. Pollut. 88:321-332.Ouseburn RiverB,NOSPease Air Force Base1999Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1999.Public Health Assessment: Pease Air Force Base,Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire.Department of Health and Human Services. September30.groundwaterNDWGPittsburgh InternationalAirport1996Hopey, Don. 1996. Airport Gets Criticism for Disposal ofDe-Icer. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 28.McClarens, Enlow andMontour RunsNFHOdXPittsburgh InternationalAirport1998Hopey, Don. 1998. Airport Ordered Again to Keep DeIcers Out of Streams. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 31.McClarens, Enlow andMontour RunsFHOdXPittsburgh InternationalAirport1998Koryak, M. L.J. Stafford, R.J. Reilly, R.H. Hoskin andM.H. Haberman. 1998. The Impact of Airport DeicingRunoff on Water Quality and Aquatic Life in aPennsylvania Stream. J. Freshwater Ecol. 13(3): 287-298.Montour Run andtributariesB,NOEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-9Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrie nts 1 Wildlife Impac ts 2 Human Health Impacts 3 Aesthetic Impacts 4

Permit Violations Other 5Port ColumbusInternational Airport1998State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1998.Biological and Water Quality Study of Mason Run, 1996,Franklin County, Columbus, Ohio. OEPA TechnicalReport MAS/1996-12-6. Columbus, OH.Mason Run, Turkey Run,Big Walnut CreekD,NF,OPort ColumbusInternational Airport2003State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: Divisionof Surface Water. Biologicaland Water Quality Study ofBig Walnut Creek Basin. 2003. OEPA Technical ReportDSW/EAS 2003-11-10. Columbus, OH.Big Walnut Creek, AlumCreek and BlacklickCreek watershedsD,B,NPort ColumbusInternational Airport2004NPDES Permit # OH0124311. Ohio EnvironmentalProtection Agency. Expiration: July 31, 2007.Big Walnut Creek, MasonRunNOPortland InternationalAirport1997Wells, Scott. 1997. The Columbia Slough. Prepared forthe City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services.Technical Report EWR-2-97. (March)Columbia SloughD,BPortland InternationalAirport1998Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1998.Columbia Slough Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)For:Chlorophyll a, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Phosphorus,Bacteria, DDE/DDT, PCBs, Pb, Dieldrin and 2,3,7,8TCDDColumbia SloughDOPortland InternationalAirport,1998Stewart, Bill. 1998. Airport Juggles Safety, PollutionConcerns. The Oregonian, February 2Columbia SloughDPortland InternationalAirport2005Johnson, Steve. 2005. Port Plans study to EnhanceAirport Deicing Storm Water Collection System. Port ofPortland News Release, September 26.Columbia RiverXPortland InternationalAirport2006Associated Press. 2006. Portland airport's de-icing systemharms fish. USA Today, October 17.Columbia RiverOXRaleigh-DurhamInternational Airport2000RDU Airport Changes its Runway Deicing Chemical.2000. The Umstead CoalitionNewsletter, November 29.Big Lake, Sycamore LakeNEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-10Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrients 1 Wildlife Impac ts 2 Human Health Impacts 3 Aesthetic Impacts 4

Permit Violations Other 5RickenbackerInternational Airport1996State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: Divisionof Surface Water. 1996. Biological and Water QualityStudy of Lower Big Walnut Creek and Walnut CreekTributaries. Prepared for State of Ohio EnvironmentalProtection Agency: Division of Emergency and RemedialResponse, Columbus, OH.Walnut Creek, Big WalnutCreek and tributariesOSeattle-TacomaInternational Airport1993Roberts, C.R. 1993. Airport Antifreeze May Be TotingChill of Death to Miller Creek. Tacoma News Tribune,January 26.Miller CreekOSeattle-TacomaInternational Airport1995Taylor, Rob. 1995. Lawsuit Filed Over Stream PollutionFrom Sea-Tac Airport. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August15.Des Moines Creek, MillerCreek, Puget SoundXSeattle-TacomaInternational Airport2003Lange, Larry. 2003. Sea-Tac blamed for fish deaths.Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 14.Miller Creek, Puget SoundFXSpokane International2002NPDES Permit # SO3004373. State of WashingtonDepartment of Ecology. Expiration: September 20, 2007.unnamed aquiferGStapleton InternationalAirport1996Pillard, D.A. Assessment of Benthic Macroinvertebrateand Fish Communities ina Stream Receiving StormWater Runoff from a Large Airport. J. Freshwater Ecol.11(1):51-59.Sand CreekOStockholm ArlandaAirport1993O'Conner, R. and Douglas, K.1993 Cleaning up after thebig chill: Thousands of rivers and streams are harmed bythe de-icing chemicals that keep aircraft flying throughthe winter. Now airports arebeing forced to curb thisdamaging pollution. New Scientunnamed receiving watersDSyracuse HancockInternational Airport1999Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. 1999. LitigationUpdate. Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc.Newsletter.Bear Trap Creek, LeyCreekXSyracuse HancockInternational Airport2000Beartrap Creek Reclamation Project Description.GL2000-045Beartrap CreekOEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-11Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrients 1 Wildlife Impac ts 2 Human Health Impacts 3 Aesthetic Impacts 4

Permit Violations Other 5Syracuse HancockInternational Airport2003Onondaga Lake Partnership. 2003. Izaak Walton League'sEfforts Lead to Restored Beartrap Creek. Reflections.1(3): 6.BeartrapCreekOTed Stevens AnchorageInternational Airport1990Wohlforth, Charles. 1990. Toxic Runoff Adds to LakeHood Pollution. Anchorage Daily News, May 4.Lake HoodOTed Stevens AnchorageInternational Airport1991Pytte, Alyson. 1991. Chemicals Lace Airport Soil FindingPollution is Easy; Who Pays for Cleanup is the Problem.Anchorage Daily News, September 8.Lake HoodNOdGTed Stevens AnchorageInternational Airport2007deMarban, Alex. 2007. Lake mower clears paths forfloatplanes. Anchorage Daily News, August 13.Lake HoodOCoTheodore Francis GreenState Airport2004RIPDES Permit # RI0021598. Rhode Island Departmentof Environmental Management. Expiration January 1,2010.unnamed tributaries ofWarwick Pond andBuckeye Brook, andTuscatucket BrookDOFo,OdToronto PearsonInternational Airport1989Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Storm Water. Transcriptof the July 6, 1989 meeting.Etobicoke Creek, MimicoCreek, Lake OntarioBOXSUnknown internationalNorth American airport1998Cancilla, D.A., J. Martinez, and G.C. van Aggelen. 1998.Detection of Aircraft Deicing/Antiicing Fluid Additivesin a Perched Water Monitoring Well at an InternationalAirport. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32: 3834-3835.unnamed wellOGVictoria InternationalAirport2003Reay Watershed: 2003 Fish Kill.<www.peninsulastreams.org/watersheds/reay.shtml>.Reay CreekFVictoria InternationalAirport2004Dickson, Louise. 2004. Polluted creek killing fish:Reclamation work wasted as second major kill wipes outrun. Times Colonist. November 1.North Saanich CreekFWestchester CountyAirport1997Conetta, A., R. Bracchitta, and P. Sherrer. 1997. StormWater Management and Control of Aircraft DeicingRunoff at Westchester County Airport. EnvironmentalRegulation and Permitting.Rye Lake, Blind BrookBEnvironmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for the FinalAppendix CEffluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category1B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients4Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color2F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts5G = Groundwater; S = Sediment3H = Human Health; DW = Drinking WaterC-12Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing DischargesAirport NameArticleYearArticleWaterbody Name BOD, DO, Nutrie nts 1 Wildlife Impacts 2 Human Health Impacts 3 Aesthetic Impac ts 4

Permit Violations Other 5Westchester CountyAirport1999Switzenbaum, M.S., S. Veltman, T. Schoenberg, C.M.Durand, D. Mericas and B. Wagoner. 1999. BestManagement Practices for Airport Deicing Stormwater.Publication No. 173.Blind BrookDFFoWestchester CountyAirport1999Associated Press. 1999. De-icing Chemical Found inWestchester Reservoir. New York Times, January 14.Kensico ReservoirDW