United States 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

Environmental Impact and Benefit 

Assessment for Proposed Effluent 

Limitation Guidelines and Standards for 

the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water (4303T) 

Engineering and Analysis Division 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

EPA-821-R-09-003 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Environmental Impact and Benefit Assessment for Proposed Effluent 

Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

The Airport Deicing Effluent Guidelines proposed rule and support documents were prepared by 

Office of Water staff. 

The following contractors provided assistance in performing the analyses supporting the 

conclusions detailed in this document: 

Abt Associates, Inc. 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Stratus Consulting, Inc. 

Neither the United States Government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or 

their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 

responsibility for any third party’s use of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, 

product, or process discussed in this document, or represents that its use by such a party would 

not infringe on privately owned rights. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not 

constitute endorsement by EPA or recommendation for use. 

July 2009 i 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Contents 

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1-1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.2 Environmental Behaviors of Airport Deicing Product Components.............................................2-10

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

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

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

3.1 Universe of Airports in Scope of Proposed Regulatory Options.....................................................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 ......3-13

3.4 Documented Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges.......................3-15

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

Nutrient Impacts...............................................................................................................3-17

3.4.2 Wildlife Impacts...............................................................................................................3-19

3.4.3 Human Health, Aesthetic, and Other Aquatic Resource Use Impacts .............................3-20

3.4.4 Permit Violations..............................................................................................................3-21

3.5 Potential Current Impacts to Impaired Waters and Other Resources............................................3-22

3.5.1 303(d)-Listed Waters Receiving Airport Deicing Discharges..........................................3-22

3.5.2 Airport Deicing Discharges Listed as TMDL Point Sources ...........................................3-32

3.5.3 Resources Located Downstream from Airport Deicing Discharge Outfalls....................3-33

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

4.1 Proposed Regulatory Options..........................................................................................................4-1

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

July 2009 ii 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

4.3 Environmental Benefits Anticipated under Proposed Regulatory Options.....................................4-4

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

4.4 Expected Ecological, Human Aquatic Resource Use, and Human Health Benefits .....................4-17

4.4.1 Ecological Benefits...........................................................................................................4-17

4.4.2 Human Health Benefits ....................................................................................................4-17

4.4.3 Human Use of Aquatic Resource Benefits.......................................................................4-18

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

Appendix A : Detailed Characterization of Airport Deicing Products..............................................A-1

Appendix B : Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of the Proposed Regulatory Options................... B-1

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

July 2009 iii 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Tables 

Table 1-1: U.S. Commercial Airports - National Estimate of Aircraft Deicing and Anti-Icing 

Fluid Use/Purchase * .........................................................................................................................1-3

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

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

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

Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF 

Application Sites at Surveyed Airports..............................................................................................3-8

Table 3-2: Ammonia Discharge from Deicing Operations at Surveyed Airports....................................3-12

Table 3-3: Estimate of National Baseline COD Discharges from ADF Application Sites and 

Airfield Pavement Deicing by Airport Hub Size Category .............................................................3-13

Table 3-4: Estimate of National Baseline Ammonia Discharges from Airfield Payment Deicing 

by Airport Hub Size Category .........................................................................................................3-13

Table 3-5: Documented Environmental Impacts Associated with Airport Deicing Discharges..............3-16

Table 3-6: Airport Deicing System Improvements.................................................................................3-17

Table 3-7: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Fresh Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing 

Discharges........................................................................................................................................3-23

Table 3-8: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Marine Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing 

Discharges........................................................................................................................................3-23

Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges.....................................3-25

Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges .........................................3-34

Table 4-1: Proposed Regulatory Options Evaluated for the Airport Deicing Category ............................4-2

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

Table 4-3: Proposed Option 1 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits.....................4-6

Table 4-4: Proposed Option 2 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits.....................4-8

Table 4-5: Proposed Option 3 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits...................4-11

Table 4-6: Proposed Option 4 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits...................4-14

Table 4-7: Annual Pollutant Discharge Reductions under Proposed Regulatory Options.......................4-17

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

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

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

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

July 2009 iv 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

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 and Flame Retardants: Tolyltriazoles................................................A-22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table A-32: Dyes....................................................................................................................................A-33

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

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

Table A-35: Solvents ..............................................................................................................................A-36

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

July 2009 v 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

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

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

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

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

Table A-41: Human Health Effects of Airport Deicing Product Components as Reported in IRIS, 

EPA NRWQC, EPA Drinking Water MCLs, and RSEI.................................................................A-49

Table A-42: Acetate................................................................................................................................A-50

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

Table A-44: Dyes....................................................................................................................................A-52

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

Table A-46: Formate...............................................................................................................................A-55

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

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

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

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

Table A-51: Sodium................................................................................................................................A-61

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

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

Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA’s Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport 

Deicing Operations........................................................................................................................... B-1

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

Figures 

Figure 3-1: Airports within Scope of Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing 

Operations..........................................................................................................................................3-2

Figure 3-2: Initial Receiving Water Discharge Flows at EPA Surveyed Airports...................................3-14

Figure 3-3. Initial Receiving Water Slopes at EPA Surveyed Airports...................................................3-15

July 2009 vi 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

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 

GRV—Glycol Recovery Vehicle 

IARC—International Agency for Research on Cancer 

IRIS—Integrated Risk Information System 

kg—Kilogram Koc—Soil organic carbon adsorption coefficient Kow—Octanol water partition coefficient 

L—Liter 

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 

July 2009 vii 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009 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 Pay 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 1. Introduction 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

1 Introduction 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing effluent limitation guidelines 

and standards for the Airport Deicing Category. The proposed regulations address primary commercial 

airports that conduct airfield or aircraft deicing operations and also have 1000 or more jet departures 

annually. This document discusses environmental impacts associated with deicing operations at these 

airports and the environmental benefits EPA estimates would result from pollutant discharge reductions 

under the proposed regulatory options. This document presents information on the environmental impacts 

airport deicing discharges have caused in the past and on their potential to do so in the future. The 

proposed regulatory options will reduce the frequency and severity of environmental impacts associated 

with airport deicing discharges. The regulatory options will primarily benefit surface waters, though soil 

and groundwater resources could benefit from pollutant discharge reductions, as well. 

This introduction briefly describes the nature of airport deicing operations and their pollutant discharges 

and provides an overview of associated environmental impacts. Additional information on the 

characteristics of airport deicing operations and their discharges is available in the Technical 

Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 

Deicing Category (US EPA 2009). EPA’s proposed rule addresses only those deicing activities that take 

place on the airfield side of airports where aircraft are active. It does not address pollutant discharges 

from deicing activities airports undertake to clear snow and ice from parking lots, roads, sidewalks and 

other airport surfaces beyond the airfield. 

Chapter 2 of this document provides information on the chemical composition of airport deicing products 

used in the United States and discusses the potential for environmental impacts from various formulation 

ingredients. Chapter 3 provides information on known locations and levels of U.S. airport deicing 

operation discharges and associated environmental impacts. Chapter 4 discusses each of the proposed 

regulatory options in terms of the environmental benefits EPA estimates would result from each option. 

1.1 Airport Deicing and Anti-icing Operations 

The purpose of airport deicing operations is to ensure safe aircraft departures, landings, and travel on 

airport grounds. Frozen precipitation or frost on aircraft surfaces can compromise aircraft ability to obtain 

sufficient lift for departures or damage aircraft. Frozen precipitation on the airfield can cause loss of 

aircraft control due to lack of traction between aircraft wheels and airfield surfaces. Frost and frozen 

precipitation must be addressed if aircraft are to function safely under winter conditions. 

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

accumulations from aircraft and airfield surfaces. Anti-icing operations prevent snow and ice from 

accumulating on aircraft and airfield surfaces, either before accumulation can take place or after a surface 

has been cleared by deicing operations. Both aircraft and airfield surfaces undergo deicing and anti-icing 

operations. In this document, the phrase “airport deicing operations” refers generally to all deicing and 

anti-icing operations that take place at airports. 

Aircraft deicing removes snow and ice accumulations from aircraft surfaces. Aircraft deicing includes 

both “wet weather” and “dry weather” deicing. Wet weather deicing takes place during or after weather 

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. 

July 2009 1-1 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 1. Introduction 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

During a typical aircraft deicing process, trained personnel spray specially formulated and heated deicing 

fluids on aircraft surfaces at high pressure in order to remove snow and ice. Depending on the aircraft, 

snow and ice accumulation levels, and weather conditions, wet weather deicing of a single aircraft 

requires the use of a couple hundred to several thousand gallons of aircraft deicing fluid. Dry weather 

deicing requires less fluid than wet weather deicing because of lower ice accumulations during dry 

weather conditions. 

Aircraft anti-icing takes place when weather conditions threaten to re-contaminate freshly deiced aircraft 

surfaces with new snow or ice. Aircraft anti-icing fluids are specially formulated to temporarily prevent 

snow and ice accumulation on deiced aircraft surfaces, protecting aircraft until their departure from an 

airport. Anti-icing is typically necessary only during wet weather conditions. The process consists of the 

spraying of a thin layer of anti-icing fluid onto aircraft surfaces by trained personnel. Aircraft anti-icing 

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

fluid than the aircraft deicing process. 

Airfield pavement surfaces must also be cleared of snow and ice. Pavement deicing and anti-icing 

operations remove and prevent, respectively, snow and ice accumulations on airfield runways, taxiways, 

aprons, gate areas, and ramps. Airports use both mechanical and chemical means to clear airfield 

pavement. Most frequently, airports use mechanical means such as plows, blowers, and brooms to remove 

ice and snow (US EPA 2009). Because ice and snow can be difficult to remove by mechanical methods 

alone, many airports also apply liquid or solid chemical pavement deicers. Some of these deicers are 

applied prior to precipitation events as anti-icers in order to prevent ice formation or ease later removal of 

snow and ice. Airports also frequently apply sand to increase airfield traction. 

Deicing operations typically take place during the winter when low temperatures and freezing 

precipitation (e.g., snowfall, freezing rain, and ice) occur. Local climate conditions determine both the 

duration and intensity of deicing seasons at individual airports. The deicing season can begin as early as 

September and continue through May in colder regions of the U.S. In general, however, December, 

January, and February are the peak deicing months for U.S. airports, and September and May have the 

lowest incidence of deicing activity. The majority of airports have a five month deicing season, though 

some airports have seasons as short as two months or as long as nine months. 

The nature, frequency, and intensity of precipitation events also vary from airport to airport. Some 

airports rarely engage in deicing activities beyond aircraft frost removal, whereas other airports often 

cope with frequent and heavy snow or ice storms that necessitate both aircraft and pavement anti-icing 

and deicing. There can even be substantial variability among weeks or seasons at individual airports as 

weather patterns shift and affect the necessity for deicing activity. The nature and intensity of deicing 

activities and their associated pollutant discharges therefore vary substantially both among airports and 

among deicing seasons at individual airports.

1.2 Airport Deicing and Anti-Icing Product Formulations 

Airport deicing products include aircraft deicing fluids, aircraft anti-icing fluids, and airfield pavement 

deicers. The materials used for aircraft deicing and anti-icing are specially formulated fluids with multiple 

chemical components. Pavements materials are typically simpler formulations and can be either solid or 

liquid in form. 

July 2009 1-2 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 1. Introduction 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Four aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluid (ADF) categories are available in the global market: Type I, 

Type II, Type III, and Type IV. Type I and Type IV are the fluid categories most commonly used at the 

U.S. primary commercial airports addressed by EPA’s proposed regulatory options. 

Type I fluids are aircraft deicers, and Type IV fluids are aircraft anti-icers. By volume, both fluids consist 

primarily of a freezing point depressant, typically propylene glycol or ethylene glycol, and water. The 

fluids also contain a relatively small volume, approximately 1-3%, of chemicals commonly known as 

“additives” which function as surfactants, corrosion inhibitors, pH modifiers, flame retardants, defoamers, 

dyes, oils, antioxidants, and antimicrobials. Type IV fluids also contain thickeners to increase their 

viscosity and allow them to adhere to aircraft surfaces until take-off. ADFs function by lowering the 

temperature at which snow and ice are able to adhere to aircraft surfaces. 

Based on data from responses to the EPA Airline Deicing Questionnaire (2006b) the most commonly 

used ADF at commercial U.S. airports is Type I propylene glycol deicing fluid, accounting for 

approximately 77% of ADF use or purchase. A recent trend in ADF use has been increasing use of 

propylene glycol-based ADFs instead of ethylene glycol-based ADFs. Table 1-1 presents EPA’s estimate 

of national ADF use based on information provided in survey responses for the 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 

and 2004-2005 deicing seasons. Because glycol levels vary among individual manufacturer’s ADF 

formulations, ADF quantities in Table 1-1 are normalized to represent 100% glycol levels. 

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

Use/Purchase * 

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 Deicing Questionnaire (2006b). *

EPA primarily relied on ADF purchase records to estimate annual ADF usage levels. See US EPA (2009) for additional details. 

Based on responses to the EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c), the most commonly used 

pavement deicer on U.S. airfields is potassium acetate. Potassium acetate comprises approximately 63% 

of pavement deicer use by weight. A recent trend in pavement deicer use has been for U.S. airports to 

cease or decrease their use of urea due to water quality impact concerns. Table 1-2 presents EPA’s 

estimate of national levels of pavement deicer use at commercial airports based on information provided 

in survey responses for the 2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005 deicing seasons. 

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 

Urea 4,127 

Propylene glycol-based fluids 3,883 

Sodium acetate 3,100 

Sodium formate 1,117 

Ethylene glycol-based fluids 774 

Source: US EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c). 

Of the 150 airports that responded to EPA’s 2006 Airport Deicing Questionnaire, ninety airports reported 

use of chemical pavement deicers, approximately thirty eight airports reported no airfield pavement 

July 2009 1-3 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 1. Introduction 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

deicing (including no sand use), and the remainder reported only sand use or unknown levels of chemical 

pavement deicer use (US EPA 2009). EPA estimates airports use, on average, more than 43,000 tons of 

sand annually in their airfields. Additional information on pavement deicer usage is provided in Table A-1

in Appendix A. 

The identity and environmental behavior of individual ADF and pavement deicer components is 

discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. 

1.3 Airport Deicing Chemical Dispersion in the Environment 

Because aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluids (ADFs) and pavement deicers are typically used in very 

open and exposed outdoor environments, their dispersion begins immediately after application. ADFs are 

typically applied to aircraft at specific airport locations. These locations vary by airport and can include 

gate areas, aprons, or deicing pads. ADFs are designed to drip and shear from aircraft surfaces after 

application in order to avoid compromising aircraft lift during take-off. Type I deicing fluids drip from 

aircraft relatively quickly. The majority of these fluids fall to the pavement at fluid application sites. The 

remainder drips or shears from aircraft as they travel on the airfield, primarily falling on pavement and 

other airfield surfaces. Type IV anti-icing fluids are designed to remain on aircraft surfaces for a longer 

period of time than Type I deicing fluids to protect aircraft surfaces from snow and ice accumulation until 

take-off. A relatively small amount of Type IV fluid falls to the pavement at application sites. Most Type 

IV fluid drips or shears from aircraft during taxiing or take-off, falling primarily on pavement or other 

airfield surfaces. A lesser quantity of ADF becomes airborne during application or aircraft taxiing and 

take-off and can be carried by wind to other parts of the airfield or beyond airport property lines. 

Little quantified research is available on ADF dispersion after application. EPA’s analysis of baseline 

pollutant loadings to the environment has assumed that 80% of Type I fluids fall to the ground at 

application sites (Switzenbaum et al. 1999). Because Type IV fluids are designed to remain on the aircraft 

until take-off, EPA has assumed that only 10% of these fluids fall to the ground at the point of application 

(US EPA 2009). The remainder of the fluids disperses in areas beyond the application site. 

Airports apply pavement deicers directly to the ground. Treated surfaces can include runways, taxiways, 

aprons, ramps, and gate areas. The extent of pavement surface deicing varies with the nature of 

precipitation events. 

Once on the ground, ADFs and pavement deicers can disperse in several ways. ADFs and pavement 

deicers on paved surfaces often flow into stormwater management systems. Many airfields also have 

vegetated or other pervious surfaces adjacent to paved areas. In these areas, ADFs and pavement can 

percolate through soil and eventually enter groundwater if present beneath the airport. 

ADFs and pavement deicers in stormwater management systems can discharge to surface waters or, in 

some locations, enter stormwater collection and treatment systems. Airports most frequently collect and 

treat stormwater originating from ADF application sites. Stormwater from these sites tends to contain 

higher percentages of deicing pollutants than other airport areas. These areas are also relatively limited in 

size and therefore provide an easier collection and treatment opportunity. Airports are less likely to collect 

and treat ADFs and pavement deicers dispersed in other parts of the airfield because of the larger surface 

areas and larger stormwater volumes involved, both of which increase collection and treatment 

complexity and expense. In addition, stormwater pollutant concentrations tend to be lower in these areas, 

though total loadings can still be significant. ADFs and pavement deicers dispersed in the airfield are 

more likely to discharge to surface waters or infiltrate pervious airfield surfaces. 

July 2009 1-4 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 stormwater collection and treatment, there is great 

variability in the quantities of deicing activity pollutants that reach surface waters at individual airports. 

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

Chapter 3. 

1.4 Environmental Impacts from Airport Deicing Operation Discharges 

EPA has identified a number of cases in which airport deicing operation discharges to the environment 

have affected water quality, aquatic ecosystems, and human use of aquatic resources. Identified impacts 

include: 

3⁄4 Reductions in dissolved oxygen 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 deicing 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 

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

Of particular and well-known concern is the oxygen demand exerted by ADF and pavement 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 dissolved oxygen becomes too low, aquatic organisms can 

be impaired or killed. Chronic low oxygen conditions can eventually change the biochemistry and overall 

community structure of aquatic ecosystems. 

Discharges of raw or partially treated sewage from cities and towns were a common cause of low oxygen 

conditions in surface waters prior to implementation of more stringent sewage treatment requirements 

under the Clean Water Act. The oxygen depletion potential of airport deicing operation discharges is 

many times greater than that of raw sewage. For example, before application, Type I propylene glycolbased deicing fluid is generally diluted to a mixture containing approximately 50% propylene glycol. Pure 

propylene glycol has a BOD5 concentration of approximately 1,000,000 mg/L. A typical diluted 

propylene-based deicing fluid could therefore have a BOD5 concentration of approximately 500,000 

mg/L. In comparison, raw sewage typically has a BOD5 concentration of approximately 200 mg/L. The 

amount of fluid used to deice a single jet 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 

jet can generate a BOD5 load greater than that of one million gallons of raw sewage. A large hub airport 

often has several hundred flights each day. Pavement deicers applied to airfield pavement can also exert 

significant BOD. The BOD5 generated from deicing activities at a large airport in a single day can 

therefore equal the BOD5 associated with the raw sewage from more than one million people (or a large 

city) (US EPA 2008a). 

In addition to oxygen demanding substances, airport deicing products also contain a number of additives. 

Some of these additives have toxic or other properties that could harm aquatic ecosystems. Other 

July 2009 1-5 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 1. Introduction 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009 1-6 

additives have not yet been publicly identified because of the proprietary nature of deicing material 

formulations and the limitations of currently available research on deicing product formulations. Without 

information on the identity of these additives, it is impossible to determine the potential environmental 

impacts from these chemicals. 

Many of the surface waters to which airports discharge deicing materials are small streams with limited 

absorption and dilution potential for processing large quantities of oxygen demanding substances and 

other pollutants. EPA has evaluated the impairment status of a number of surface waters directly 

receiving airport deicing operation discharges and has found a large number of these waters to be listed as 

impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (see Chapter 3). Many of these waters have the 

types of impairments that can be associated with airport deicing operation discharges (e.g., depressed 

dissolved oxygen levels). Other waters are stressed and impaired by other types of pollutants (e.g., PCBs, 

pathogens). The proposed regulatory options will reduce the intensity of discharges of airport deicing 

pollutants to a number of these surface waters and have the potential to improve the health of these 

impaired aquatic resources. 

Environmental impacts associated with airport deicing discharges are discussed in more detail in 

Chapter 3. 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

2 Airport Deicing Product Components and Environmental Behavior 

Airport deicing products include aircraft deicing fluids, aircraft anti-icing fluids, and airfield pavement 

deicers. Aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluids (ADFs) are used on aircraft. Pavement deicers are used on 

airport runways, taxiways, aprons, ramps and gate areas. Each type of airport deicing product is specially 

formulated for the purpose it serves. 

This chapter provides information on the basic composition of airport deicing products and summarizes 

information EPA was able to gather through a review of the literature available on the identity and 

quantity of specific chemicals used in airport deicing products (Section 2.1). This chapter also provides an 

overview of the environmental behavior and potential environmental impacts associated with these 

chemicals (Section 2.2). In addition to a broad review of the physical properties and fate and transport 

characteristics of approximately 99 chemicals that may be components or decay products of ADFs and 

airfield pavement deicers, more detailed discussions are provided for 12 chemical or chemical groups of 

potential environmental concern (Section 2.2.2). 

2.1 Airport Deicing Product Components 

Many different types of aircraft deicing fluid, aircraft anti-icing fluid and airfield pavement deicer 

formulations are used at airports in the U.S. Manufacturers use a variety of freezing point depressants and 

additives to formulate their products. According to responses to EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire 

(2006c), the ADFs most widely used at U.S. airports consists of water, propylene glycol or ethylene 

glycol as a freezing point depressant, and a range of additives that differ by ADF manufacturer and 

specified fluid use. Pavement deicers typically consist of a chemical that serves as a freezing point 

depressant and, in many formulations, various additives. The pavement deicer freezing point depressants 

most widely used at U.S. airports are potassium acetate, urea, sodium acetate, sodium formate, propylene 

glycol, ethylene glycol, or a mixture of ethylene or propylene glycol and urea (see Table 1-2). 

Manufacturers are generally willing to identify the freezing point depressants comprising the bulk of their 

airport deicing product formulations, but the identity of product additives and their concentration in 

product formulas is generally considered to be proprietary. Research by parties outside the airport deicing 

product manufacturing community indicates that some airport deicing products additives have toxic or 

other properties potentially harmful to aquatic ecosystems. Understanding the identity, quantity, and 

nature of chemicals present in airport deicing products is a useful step in characterizing the potential 

environmental risks associated with ADF and pavement deicer discharges. This section summarizes 

information EPA was able to gather through a review of the literature currently available on the identity 

and quantity of chemicals used in airport deicing products. A recently released study contains significant 

additional information on airport deicing products (Ferguson, et al. 2008). 

2.1.1 Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components 

To determine the chemical composition of ADFs and pavement deicers, EPA reviewed available data 

sources including Society for Automotive Engineer Aerospace Material Specifications (SAE AMSs), 

deicing product Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), patent descriptions, peer-reviewed literature, other 

published reports, and data from EPA airport sampling events. 

July 2009 2-1 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

July 2009 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, MSDSs, or other publicly available documents. Because a significant 

level of effort is required for an outside party to determine a deicing product’s composition, the peerreviewed literature on this subject is limited, particularly for chemicals present in formulations in low 

concentrations as are most airport deicing product additives. Even when the identity of an additive is 

available, it is sometimes known only by its trade name, and publicly available information for many such 

chemicals is limited or nonexistent. 

In addition, although EPA endeavored to obtain current information on product formulations, it is 

possible given manufacturers’ ongoing product development that some components listed in the literature 

are no longer in use. It is also possible that some components listed in patents have never been used either 

because a patented product has never been brought to market or because a final product incorporates only 

some of a wide group of possible components listed in a patent. 

Despite these limitations, the results of the literature review provide an indication of the types and 

quantities of chemicals typically used in airport deicing product formulations. 

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

Four categories of aircraft deicing and anti-icing fluids (ADFs) are currently manufactured for the global 

market: Type I, Type II, Type III, and Type IV. Of these four categories, Type I and Type IV are the two 

categories commonly used at U.S. commercial airports. 

ADFs are developed and manufactured to industry standards published in the U.S. by the Society for 

Automotive Engineers (SAE). SAE Aerospace Material Specifications (AMS) 1424 and 1428 are adopted 

on a voluntary basis by manufacturers and governments and include performance requirements for the 

three types of ADFs used in the U.S. (Types I, II, and IV).1

 The Association for European Airlines and 

the International Standards Organization publish similar standards, which are adopted voluntarily 

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 small 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 Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

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

Function Characteristics 

Type I Aircraft Deicing 

Fluid 

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) and 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 fluid 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 ethylene glycol or propylene glycol, typically makes up 50% to 80% of 

ADF product as applied (Johnson et al. 2001). The rest of the product consists of water and various 

additives. These additives function as surfactants, corrosion inhibitors, thickeners, flame retardants, pH 

modifiers, defoamers, dyes, antimicrobials, oils, chelators, and antioxidants. 

Surfactants help ADFs spread evenly across aircraft surfaces by lowering fluid surface tension. 

Thickeners are used in Type II, III, and IV fluids to increase fluid viscosity and allow them to maintain 

their protective position on aircraft surfaces until take-off. 

A single formulation does not necessarily contain a different chemical for each additive function. Some 

formulations contain components that serve multiple functions. Other formulations need only contain a 

subset of additives because of beneficial interactions among component chemicals. 

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

manufacturers: the corrosion inhibitors/ flame retardants benzotriazole (BT) and methyl-substituted 

benzotriazole (MeBT) (Cornell 2001; Pillard et al. 2001), the surfactant alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEOs) 

(Nieh 1992; Corsi et al. 2006), and the pH modifier triethanolamine (Boluk et al. 1999). 

Less information is available on the proportions in which the various components are present in ADF 

formulations. One study states that typical ADFs consist of 50% to 80% ethylene glycol or propylene 

glycol and 20% to 50% water (Breedveld et al. 2002). A second study states that, in undiluted form, Type 

I deicing fluids consist of 88% propylene glycol or ethylene glycol, 0.5% to 0.6% methyl-substituted 

benzotriazole (MeBT) mixture, 1% to 2% proprietary additives (corrosion inhibitors, buffer, and 

surfactants), and water (Cornell 2001). A third study states that ADFs contain 0.5% to 0.6% MeBT and 

that the commercial mixture of MeBT is 45% 4-MeBT and 55% 5-MeBT (Pillard et al. 2001). 

July 2009 2-3 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

July 2009 2-4 

A number of patents exist for ADFs based on freezing point depressants other than ethylene glycol or 

propylene glycol (e.g., pentaerythritol, glycerol, sorbitol, xylitol and other chemicals) (Simmons et al. 

2007). According to responses to EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c), ADFs based on these 

components are not used at major U.S. airports. 

2.1.1.2 Standard Composition of Airfield Pavement Deicers 

Several basic types of pavement deicers are used at U.S. primary airports. These deicers include 

formulations consisting primarily of potassium acetate, urea, sodium acetate, sodium formate, propylene 

glycol, ethylene glycol, or a mixture of propylene or ethylene glycol and urea. These primary ingredients 

serve as freezing point depressants. 

Pavement deicers are more simply formulated than ADFs and consist primarily of the primary freezing 

point depressant ingredient. Potassium acetate, sodium formate, and sodium acetate formulations are 

known to contain corrosion inhibitors, as well (Switzenbaum et al. 1999; Shi 2008; USDOT 2007) though 

the corrosions inhibitors’ chemical identity is not known. 

2.1.1.3 Detailed Listing of Potential Airport Deicing Product Components 

Table 2-2 presents the chemicals for which EPA found some evidence of use in airport deicing product 

formulations through its literature review. Many of the chemicals in the table below are presented and 

discussed in Ferguson et al. 2008. 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport D

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category a

Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components 

Source Current CASRN Chemical Name Cha

Johnson et al. (2001) U 1303-96-4 Borax Corrosion inhibJohnson et al. (2001) U 532-32-1 Sodium benzoate Corrosion inhibCorsi et al. (2006) U 29878-31-7 4-methyl-1H-benzotrizole Corrosion inhibAshrawi and Coffey (1993) Y - Cobratec TT-50S, tolyltrizole solution Corrosion inhibHu et al. (1998) Y 110-65-6 Butyne-1,4diol Corrosion inhibHu et al. (1998) Y 107-19-7 Propargyl alcohol Corrosion inhibHu et al. (1998) Y 62-56-6 Thiourea Corrosion inhibBoluk et al. (1999) Y - Sandocorin 8132, sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate Corrosion inhibMoles et al. (2003) Y 7778-53-2 Potassium phosphate Corrosion inhibMoles et al. (2003) Y 10006-28-7 Potassium silicate Corrosion inhibMoles et al. (2003) Y 13870-28-5 Sodium silicate Corrosion inhibBoluk et al. (1999); Hu et al. (1998); Nieh (1992) Y - Benzyltriazole Corrosion inhibBoluk et al. (1999); Hu et al. (1998); Moles et al. (2003); Nieh (1992) Y 29385-43-1 Tolyltriazole Corrosion inhibJohnson et al. (2001) and Hu et al. (1998) Y 7631-99-4 Sodium nitrate Corrosion inhibHu et al. (1998) Y - AF-9020, polydimethylsiloxane Defoamer Hu et al. (1998) Y - DC 1520, silicone antifoam Defoamer Boluk et al. (1999) Y - Foamban Defoamer Hu et al. (1998), Boluk et al. (1999); Ma and Comeau (1990) Y - Silicone antifoam 2 Defoamer Coffey et al. (1995) Y - Eosin orange, tetrabromofluorescein Dye Chan et al. (1995) Y - Malonyl green, C.I. Pigment Yellow 34 Dye Lockyerm et al. (1998) Y - Shilling green Dye Chan et al. (1995); Lockyerm et al. (1998) Y - FD&C Blue #1, alphazurine Dye Chan et al. (1995); Lockyerm et al. (1998) Y - FD&C Yellow #5, tartrazine Dye Johnson et al. (2001) U 95-14-7 Benzotriazoles Flame Retardan

July 2009 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport D

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category a

July 2009 

Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components 

Source Current CASRN Chemical Name Cha

Corsi et al. (2006) Y 136-85-6 5-Methyl-1H-Benzotriazole Flame RetardanAshrawi and Coffey (1993); Bloom (1986); Boluk et al. (1999); Hu et al. (1998); König-Lumer et al. (1982); Nieh (1992) 

Y 57-55-6 1,2-Propylene glycol Freezing point d

Back et al. (1999) Y 608-66-2 Dulcitol Freezing point dBack et al. (1999) Y 115-77-5 Pentaerythritol Freezing point dBoluk et al. (1999) Y 25322-68-3 Polyethylene gylcol, mw from 62 to 106 Freezing point dSapienza et al. (2003) Y 97-64-3 Ethyl lactate Freezing point dSapienza (2003) Y 147-85-3 Proline Freezing point dSapienza (2003) Y 72-17-3 Sodium lactate Freezing point dSapienza (2003) Y 54571-67-4 Sodium pyrrolidone carboxylate Freezing point dLockyerrn et al. (1998); Westmark et al. (2001) Y 107-88-0 1,3-Butanediol Freezing point dAshrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk et al. (1999); Nieh (1992) Y 25265-71-8 Dipropylene glycol Freezing point dKönig-Lumer et al. (1982); Lockyerm et al. (1998) Y 504-63-2 1,3-Propylene glycol Freezing point dBoluk et al. (1999); Westmark et al. (2001) Y 112-27-6 Triethylene glycol Freezing point dBack et al. (1999); Sapienza et al. (2003) Y 69-65-8 Mannitol Freezing point dBack et al. (1999); Simmons et al. (2007) Y 149-32-6 Erythritol Freezing point dBack et al. (1999); Boluk et al. (1999); Westmark et al. (2001) Y 56-81-5 Glycerol Freezing point dBack et al. (1999); Sapienza (2003); Sapienza et al. (2003) Y 50-70-4 Sorbitol Freezing point dAshrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk et al. (1999); König-Lumer et al. (1982); Ma and Comeau (1990); Nieh (1992) 

Y 111-46-6 Diethylene glycol Freezing point d

Corsi et al. (2006) Y 57-55-6 Propylene glycol Freezing point d
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport D

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category a

July 2009 

Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components 

Source Current CASRN Chemical Name Cha

Corsi et al. (2006) Y 107-21-1 Ethylene glycol Freezing point dComfort (2000) Y 127-08-2 Potassium Acetate Freezing point dUS EPA (2000a) Y 590-29-4 Potassium Formate Freezing point dComfort (2000) Y 127-09-3 (anhydrous) Sodium Acetate Freezing point dComfort (2000) Y 141-53-7 Sodium Formate Freezing point dUS EPA (2000a) Y 57-13-6 Urea Freezing pont dHu et al. (1998); König-Lumer et al. (1982) Y - Mineral oil Oil used as hydrMa and Comeau (1990) Y - Dimethyl polysiloxane Oil used as hydrMa and Comeau (1990) Y - White mineral oil (10 cSt) Oil used as hydrLockyerm et al. (1998) Y 112-53-8 1-dodecanol Oil used as hydrNieh (1992) Y 7558-79-4 Disodium phosphate pH Modifier Hu et al. (1998) Y 7758-11-4 Dipotassium phosphate pH Modifier Boluk et al. (1999) Y 111-42-2 Diethanolamine pH Modifier Boluk et al. (1999) Y 141-43-5 Monoethanolamine pH Modifier Boluk et al. (1999) Y 102-71-6 Triethanolamine pH Modifier US EPA (2000a) Y 1310-58-3 Potassium hydroxide pH Modifier Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Boluk et al. (1999); Hu et al. (1998) Y 1310-73-2 Sodium hydroxide pH Modifier Haslim (2004) U 112-53-8 Dodecanol 4 Surfactant/DefoCorsi et al. (2003) Y - Alcohol ethoxylates Surfactant König-Lumer et al. (1982) Y - Sodium alkylbenzenesulfonate Surfactant Bloom (1986) Y - Oleic acid diamine Surfactant Bloom (1986) Y - Oleyl propylene diamine Surfactant Bloom (1986) Y - Palmitic acid diamine Surfactant Ashrawi and Coffey (1993) Y - Aliphatic alcohol ethoxylates Surfactant Boluk et al. (1999) Y - Siponate A-2466, sodium dodecylbenzene Surfactant Boluk et al. (1999) Y - Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate 3 Surfactant 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport D

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category a

July 2009 

Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components 

Source Current CASRN Chemical Name Cha

Boluk et al. (1999) Y - Tergitol TMN-10, branched secondary alcohol ethoxylate Surfactant Westmark et al. (2001) Y - Emerest 2660 (OEG-12 oleate) Surfactant Westmark et al. (2001) Y - Emsorb 6900 (PEG-20 sorbitan oleate) Surfactant Corsi et al. (2003) Y - Decyl alcohol ethoxylate Surfactant Corsi et al. (2003) Y - Lauryl alcohol ethoxylate Surfactant Corsi et al. (2003) Y - Lauryl alcohol phosophoric acid-ester ethoxylate Surfactant Ashrawi and Coffey (1993); Nieh (1992) Y - Ethylene oxide / propylene oxide block copolymers Surfactant Nieh (1992) Y - Nonylphenol ethoxylate Surfactant Nieh (1992) Y - Octylphenol ethoxylate Surfactant Corsi et al. (2007) Y - Alkylphenol ethoxylates Surfactant Tye et al. (1987) Y 9062-07-1 Iota-carrageenan Thickening AgeTye et al. (1987) Y - Kappa-carrageenan Thickening AgeMa and Comeau (1990) Y 9004-62-0 Hydroxyethylcellulose Thickening AgeWestmark et al. (2001) Y - Welan gum Thickening AgeAshrawi and Coffey (1993); Nieh (1992) Y - Polyacrylic acid1 Thickening AgeKönig-Lumer et al. (1982); Nieh (1992) Y - Cross-linked polyacrylic acid Thickening AgeLockyerm et al. (1998); Ma and Comeau (1990); Westmark et al. (2001) 

Y - Xanthan gum Thickening Age

Johnson et al. (2001) U 123-91-1 Dioxane 5Johnson et al. (2001) U 75-07-0 Acetaldehyde Johnson et al. (2001) U 75-21-8 Ethylene oxide Johnson et al. (2001) U - Polyamines Johnson et al. (2001) U 37306-44-8 Triazoles US EPA (2000a) Y 117-81-7 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate US EPA (2000a) Y 84-74-2 Di-N-Butyl Phthalate 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport D

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category a

July 2009 

Table 2-2: Identification of Airport Deicing Product Components 

Source Current CASRN Chemical Name Cha

US EPA (2000a) Y 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene US EPA (2000a) Y - M- + P-Xylene US EPA (2000a) Y 112-40-3 N-Dodecane US EPA (2000a) Y 108-88-3 Toluene Corsi et al. (2006) Y 25154-52-3 Nonylphenol Corsi et al. (2006) Y - Octylphenol 1. Carbopol polyacrylic acid 1610, 1621, 1622, 672, and 934 were listed in the literature. 2. Silicone antifoam was listed in the literature as SAG 7133, SAG 1000, and Siltech E-2202. 3. Siponate DS and Siponate DDB-40 sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate were listed in the literature. 4. CASRN for this chemical is provided as that of 1-dodecanol. 5. CASRN for this chemical is provided as that of 1,4-Dioxane. U = Unknown if chemical is currently used in deicing formulas. Y = Chemical identified as currently used in deicing formulas as of the date of reference publication. Of the 111 identified ingredients, 61 (55%) were identified in sources that were published in 2000 or later. 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

2.2 Environmental Behaviors of Airport Deicing Product Components 

This section provides an overview of the characteristics of many of the potential airport deicing product 

components identified in Table 2-2. EPA’s review focused on characteristics that influence a component’s 

potential to disperse in and impact the environment. The ultimate behavior of ADFs and pavement deicers 

in the environment is a function of both chemical-specific factors and airport-specific hydrological, 

geochemical, biological, and climatic factors. This chapter presents chemical-specific information which 

is then considered in environmental context in Chapter 3. 

It is important to note that the individual components of ADFs and pavement deicers have varying fate 

and transport properties that cause deicing products to disaggregate into their individual components once 

they enter the natural environment. Fresh and concentrated wastestreams located closer to the point of 

ADF and pavement deicer application are more likely to reflect original product properties. Older and 

more dilute wastestreams further from the site of application have characteristics determined by the 

presence or absence of individual pollutants and the transformation and transport processes they have 

undergone. For this reason, it is important to consider the nature of individual product components in 

addition to the nature of the original product. 

The Society for Automotive Engineers (SAE) sets technical standards for aircraft deicing and anti-icing 

and fluids (ADFs). At this time, SAE requirements addressing ADF environmental impacts are limited. 

SAE AMS 1424 requires Type I fluids entering the market after August 2002 to have a mammalian 

toxicity (LC50) greater than 5,000 mg/L and a fluid aquatic toxicity (LC50 for several different aquatic 

organism species) greater than 4,000 mg/L (SAE 2007). Research has shown that even at levels less than 

4,000 mg/L, sub-lethal toxic effects will be exerted on aquatic organisms (Corsi et al. 2006). In addition, 

the toxicity standard does not apply to Type IV fluids, the more toxic of the two commonly used ADFs 

(Corsi et al. 2006). SAE also provides no guidance for ADF BOD or COD content. SAE has considered 

setting toxicity standards for additional fluids (US EPA 2000a) as well as a more stringent toxicity 

requirement for Type I fluids. 

Appendix A contains tables that summarize information on the physiochemical properties of many known 

and potential ADF and pavement deicer components and their potential decay products as cited in Table 

2-2. Except where otherwise noted, all of the information in the tables is from the U.S. National Library 

of Medicine’s Hazardous Substances Databank and ChemFinder databases, which compile data from a 

wide variety of sources. In some cases, the sub-citations within these databases are incomplete or not 

supplied and therefore cannot be reported here. Other information sources include deicing and chemicalspecific literature, as cited in the tables. For some physiochemical properties, information either does not 

exist or was not attainable from these sources; therefore a number of table entries are blank.

EPA collected information on components present in airport deicing products regardless of whether they 

were present in large and small proportions. Although some components (such as many deicing product 

additives) constitute a relatively small proportion of ADFs and pavement deicers, their properties may be 

such that they contribute disproportionately to toxic or other harmful effects to the environment 

associated with airport deicing discharges. 

Components are organized in functional groups in Table A-2 through Table A-39. For example, Table A-2

contains information for chelators, Table A-3 contains information for sugar-based freezing point 

depressants, and Table A-4 contains information for acetate-based freezing point depressants, etc. A 

number of the substances within a table share similar properties. Other substances may have very 

different or unknown properties. These attributes are noted in each table. Table A-40 presents available 

July 2009 2-10 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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 component has environmental impact potential. 

2.2.1 Environmental Behaviors 

EPA collected information on a wide variety of individual chemical environmental behaviors of potential 

interest in the context of discharges from airport deicing activities. Information was collected on traits of 

interest for assessing a chemical’s ability to disperse in the environment, its potential to impacts aquatic 

ecosystems and organisms, and its potential to impact human health and aquatic resource uses such as 

drinking water supply, recreation, and aesthetic enjoyment. 

Chemical-specific factors such as water solubility, affinity for solid surfaces and organic matter, 

volatility, degradation rates and products, and microbial acclimation needs influence environmental fate 

and transport of ADF and pavement deicer components. Some components have traits that elevate their 

potential for environmental impact in the aquatic environment. 

Chemical-specific factors alone do not determine potential for environmental impact. Hydrological, 

geochemical, biological, and climatic factors all influence fate and transport of ADFs and pavement 

deicers in the environment. Specific factors can include flow volumes and patterns in receiving waters, 

water and soil/aquifer chemistry, microbial community characteristics, aquatic biological community 

composition, amount and intensity of sunlight, quantity and type of precipitation, and air temperature 

range and seasonal distribution. 

Individual component traits must therefore be considered in concert with information about discharge 

quantities and the nature of the receiving environment in order to fully assess potential for environmental 

impact. The summary below presents the information EPA was able to gather on individual chemical 

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

2.2.1.1 Fate and Transport Behaviors 

After application of ADFs to aircraft or pavement deicers to airfield pavement, environmental fate and 

transport of the chemicals in these products depends on both physical processes and chemical-specific 

behaviors. 

Airport deicing product components enter the aquatic environment through a variety of physical 

pathways. Most deicing chemicals discharge to the aquatic environment through stormwater discharge to 

surface waters. A certain quantity of chemicals enters surface waters through groundwater discharge or 

aerial deposition. Some deicing wastewaters undergo treatment but can retain certain components 

unaffected by treatment. These components can enter the aquatic environment when treated wastewaters 

are discharged to surface waters. Once in surface water, components may travel to downstream surface 

waters. 

Airport deicing product components can also percolate into soil horizons. The components can 

accumulate, degrade, or move into groundwater. Components in groundwater can accumulate, degrade, or 

travel with groundwater flow. 

July 2009 2-11 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

During the physical transport of individual components, chemical-specific processes are underway, as 

well. To help assess environmental fate, transport, and impact potential from ADF and pavement deicer 

components on aquatic ecosystems and organisms, EPA gathered information on three characteristics: 

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 concern to aquatic receptors because they tend to enter 

the atmosphere before discharge to surface waters or to be removed quickly from the water column. Some 

volatile pollutants can be a concern to human health, however, if inhaled. 

EPA used the air/water partitioning coefficient H to estimate a chemical’s volatilization potential. H 

represents the ratio of a chemical’s aqueous phase concentration to its equilibrium partial pressure in the 

gas phase (at 25 degrees Celsius). Units are typically expressed as atm.m3/mole. 

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

A-40 in Appendix A. 

Adsorption 

Adsorption is a process whereby chemicals associate preferentially with organic carbon found in soils and 

sediments. Highly adsorptive compounds tend to accumulate in sediments. In aquatic ecosystems, such 

chemicals are more likely to be taken up by benthic invertebrates and to affect local food chains. Both 

accumulation in sediment and local food chain impacts make these chemicals more likely to affect 

predator organisms higher on the food chain, including human beings. 

EPA gathered information on the adsorption coefficient (Koc) to assess the potential of organic ADF and 

pavement deicer components to associate with sediment organic carbon. Koc represents the ratio of the 

target chemical adsorbed per unit weight of organic carbon in the soil or sediment to the concentration of 

that same chemical in solution at equilibrium. 

Metals in the aquatic environment typically concentrate in the sediment phase but do not bind to organic 

carbon (except nickel). EPA assumes that all metals show a high affinity for sediments independent of 

their negligible Koc values. 

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

A-40 in Appendix A. 

Biodegradation 

Biodegradation is a process whereby organic molecules are broken down by microbial metabolism. 

Biodegradation represents an important removal process in aquatic ecosystems. Compounds that are 

readily biodegraded generally represent lower intrinsic toxicity and accumulation hazards because they 

can be eliminated more rapidly from ecosystems. These compounds are therefore less likely to create 

long-term toxicity problems or to accumulate in sediments and organisms. Chemicals that biodegrade 

slowly or not at all can accumulate and linger for longer periods of time in sediments, and represent a 

greater hazard to aquatic receptors. 

July 2009 2-12 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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. Biodegradation half-life represents the number of days a 

compound takes to be degraded to half of its starting concentration under prescribed laboratory 

conditions. 

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

Table A-40 in Appendix A. 

2.2.1.2 Aquatic Organism and Community Impact Behaviors 

Aquatic organisms and communities are exposed to airport deicing product components when they enter 

surface waters. EPA gathered information on three chemical-specific behaviors relevant to examining 

airport deicing product components’ potential to directly impact aquatic organisms and communities: 

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 chronic aquatic toxicity. Acute toxicity assessments show 

the impact of a pollutant after a relatively short exposure duration, typically 48 and 96 hours for 

invertebrates and fish, respectively. The primary endpoint of concern is mortality, reported as the LC50. 

The LC50 represents the concentration lethal to 50% of test organisms for the given duration of the 

exposure. 

Chronic toxicity assessments indicate the impact of a pollutant after a longer-duration exposure, typically 

from one week to several months. The endpoints of concern are one or more sub-lethal responses, such as 

changes in reproduction or growth of the affected organisms. The results are reported in various ways, 

including EC5, EC10, or EC50 (i.e., the concentrations at which 5%, 10%, or 50% of test organisms show a 

significant sub-lethal response), NOEC (No Observed Effect Concentration), LOEC (Lowest Observed 

Effect Concentration), or MATC (Maximum Allowable Toxicant Concentration). MATC is defined as the 

highest level of a chemical acceptable in a water supply above which a specific effect occurs. 

The summary also contains information on National Recommended Water Quality Criteria set by EPA to 

protect aquatic organisms from acute and toxic effects. Acute and chronic aquatic toxicity data for several 

ADF and pavement deicer components are summarized in Table A-40 in Appendix A.

Bioconcentration Factors 

The bioconcentration factor (BCF) is a good indicator of the potential for a chemical dissolved in the 

water column to be absorbed by aquatic biota across external surface membranes such as gills. The BCF 

is expressed in units of liters per kilogram and is defined as follows: 

BCF = equilibrium chemical concentration in target organism (mg/kg, wet weight)

mean chemical concentration in surrounding water (μg/L) 

EPA examined BCF values because they can indicate chemicals with the ability to bioconcentrate in 

aquatic organisms and transfer up the food chain if they are not metabolized and excreted. Pollutant 

transfer up the food change can result in significant levels of pollutant exposure for predator organisms 

(including human beings) consuming contaminated fish, shellfish, or other aquatic organisms. 

July 2009 2-13 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

The bioaccumulation factor (BAF) is a better measure than the BCF of the potential for a chemical 

dissolved in the water column to be taken up by aquatic biota because it accounts for vertical 

accumulation of the chemical in the food chain, whereas the BCF does not. For this reason, BCFs 

underestimate risk to aquatic organisms. Because field-measured BAFs are not readily available for many 

chemicals, EPA instead collected BCFs for deicing product components. This information is summarized 

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

Chemical and Biological Oxygen Demand 

Oxygen demand, or the oxygen consumed by a substance when decaying in water, is reported as either 

biochemical or biological oxygen demand (BOD), carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD), 

or chemical oxygen demand (COD). BOD is a measure of the amount of oxygen consumed by the 

biological processes that break down organic matter in water. The greater the BOD level, the greater the 

degree of pollution (US EPA 2008f). CBOD is a test method that departs from customary methods for 

determining BOD in its use of a chemical inhibitor to block nitrification, thus preventing the nitrogenous, 

or second stage, BOD from being consumed. COD is a measure of the oxygen-consuming capacity of 

inorganic and organic matter present in water. COD is expressed as the amount of oxygen consumed in 

milligrams per liter (mg/l). Results do not necessarily correlate to BOD results because the chemical 

oxidant in the COD test may react with substances that bacteria do not metabolize (US EPA 2008f). 

EPA has developed aquatic life NRWQC for ambient DO that take into account life stages and 

temperature preferences of different types of fish. The 7-day mean DO concentration for early life stages 

is 9.5 mg/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 miles of impaired waters in the United States or about 

13% of total impaired miles (US EPA 2008b). 

A well-known example of ecological alteration due to high BOD levels is the anoxia that is an annual 

occurrence throughout the Chesapeake Bay. For several months every year, large areas of the bay are 

unfit for fish or shellfish (US EPA 1998b). A past example of BOD impact was the Delaware River in the 

vicinity of Philadelphia and Camden. Every summer for many years, this area experienced severe DO 

“blocks” due to excessive BOD input from point sources. The anoxic conditions prevented several 

anadromous fish species (e.g., Atlantic menhaden and shad) from migrating upstream to spawn. Since the 

early 1980s, however, conditions have improved to the point that these species are once again able to 

swim upstream in large numbers to reproduce (Delaware Estuary Program 1996). 

2.2.1.3 Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Impact Behaviors 

Human beings can be exposed to airport deicing product components through several aquatic resource 

pathways. Exposure occurs when a pollutant comes into contact with the human envelope―the lungs, 

gastrointestinal tract, or skin―resulting in inhalation, ingestion, or dermal absorption. Human beings also 

experience aesthetic impacts through sight, smell, and taste of aquatic resources affected by airport 

deicing discharges. 

Human beings come into contact with surface waters during recreational activities such as fishing, nature 

observation, boating, and swimming. Exposure can involve skin contact, fish consumption, or inhalation 

of volatile chemicals. People who live in communities near surface waters containing airport deicing 

discharges can also inhale chemicals that volatilize from surface waters. 

Drinking water is an additional exposure pathway. Many drinking water supply systems draw water from 

surface water sources. If a drinking water treatment process does not remove airport deicing product 

July 2009 2-14 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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 bathing. Airport deicing product components can also enter groundwater 

and be drawn into industrial, commercial, municipal, and residential wells. Some groundwater undergoes 

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

To help assess the potential for impacts to human health and aquatic resource use from ADF and 

pavement deicer components, EPA gathered available information on component toxicity, carcinogenic 

potential, and aesthetic impact potential. These traits are described in further detail below. 

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

1. Hazard Identification 

2. Exposure Assessment 

3. Dose-Response Analysis 

4. Risk Characterization. 

The amount of chemical human beings are exposed to through ingestion, inhalation, or dermal absorption 

is an important variable contributing to risk associated with that chemical. A dose-response function is 

used to fully characterize human health risk from a given chemical. This section summarizes information 

available on chemical-specific characteristics. Chapter 3 summarizes information available on the 

quantities of deicing chemicals airports discharge to the environment, the manner in which they disperse, 

and the potential for human exposure. 

Human Toxicity 

EPA examined human health toxicity data both for outcomes resulting in cancer and for outcomes other 

than cancer (e.g., increased liver weight or respiratory effects). EPA’s Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS) and other toxicity databases separate outcomes into these two types. The reasoning for this 

delineation is the assumption that there is no safe level of exposure to cancer-causing chemicals. Even a 

small exposure increases cancer risk to a certain extent. For chemicals that result in health effects other 

than cancer, there is thought to be a threshold level below which exposure is “safe.” 

Some chemicals are toxic at low doses. Other chemicals must be present at high levels to create a toxic 

effect. Some chemicals display hormesis and are beneficial at low doses, yet toxic at higher doses. 

Information on chemical toxicity is available in the toxicological and epidemiological literature. The 

discipline of toxicology utilizes laboratory studies on animals (in vivo) or cells (in vitro). Epidemiological 

studies examine human health outcomes in relation to chemical exposures on a day-to-day basis (time 

series studies) or over many years (cohort studies). Data on personal exposures to a chemical integrated 

over the population of interest and combined with chemical toxicity information are used to estimate 

human health risk from a chemical. Unfortunately, the toxicity of many chemicals either has not been 

studied or is not well understood. 

EPA located toxicity information for 12 chemicals and chemical categories listed as potential ADF and 

pavement deicer components. EPA reviewed the following information sources for this data:

July 2009 2-15 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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 articles and government reports 

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

EPA was able to locate information. 

Cancer Outcomes 

EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) use weight of evidence (WOE) 

classifications to qualitatively define carcinogens based on available data. The EPA defines six WOE 

guidelines, described below. IARC uses a similar scheme. 

Category Weight-of-Evidence: 

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 studies, coupled with no evidence or data in 

epidemiological studies. 

For chemicals with a sufficient WOE, quantitative measures have been set. Since there is thought to be no 

safe level of exposure for carcinogens, many databases report slope factors or unit risks for carcinogens. 

There may be an oral slope factor (corresponding to ingesting a chemical in food), a drinking water unit 

risk (corresponding to ingesting a chemical in drinking water), and an inhalation unit risk (corresponding 

to inhaling a chemical from the air). 

IRIS notes that the Oral Slope Factor represents the upper-bound (approximating a 95% confidence limit) 

estimate of the slope of the dose-response curve in the low-dose region for carcinogens. The units of the 

slope factor are usually expressed as the inverse of milligrams per kilogram-day (mg/kg-day)-1. The 

Inhalation Unit Risk is defined as the upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from 

continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1 gram per cubic meter (g/m3) in air. 

A number of assumptions are used to develop these values. For example, a person is assumed to weigh 70 

kilograms, drink 2 liters of water per day, and breathe air at a rate of 20 cubic meters per day continuously 

for 70 years. Other assumptions are made in regard to animal-to-human extrapolation as most 

toxicological studies are performed on animals rather than humans. Assumptions are also made about 

low-dose extrapolations since study animals are generally exposed to much higher levels of pollutants 

than humans are expected to encounter. 

July 2009 2-16 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

Non-cancer Outcomes 

For compounds resulting in health effects other than cancer, safe exposure thresholds are deemed to exist. 

IRIS has developed both reference doses (RfDs) and reference concentrations (RfCs), corresponding to 

ingestion and inhalation exposures. 

IRIS states: “...the RfDs and RfCs are estimates (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of 

magnitude) of daily exposure [RfD], or continuous inhalation exposure [RfC], to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious noncancer 

effects during a lifetime.” 

Because most toxicological studies are conducted on animals, animal-to-human and low-dose 

extrapolation assumptions are also a factor in determining RfCs and RfDs. Generally, a point of departure 

from a toxicological study is selected and divided by uncertainty factors to account for these issues. Care 

must be taken when comparing RfD or RfC values from IRIS to other reference levels, because other 

reference sources may not use the same uncertainty factors or may use none at all. 

Water Quality Guidelines 

EPA also examined two types of water quality standards for this analysis. National Recommended Water 

Quality Criteria (NRWQC), set by EPA, aim to protect the health of human beings who consume water 

and aquatic organisms or solely aquatic organisms from contaminated aquatic habitats. The criteria, 

expressed in micrograms per liter (μg/L), represent surface water pollutant concentrations that are likely 

to cause adverse health effects in human beings if exceeded. 

EPA also examined human health-based drinking water criteria. These criteria are usually presented as 

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and are also developed by EPA. MCLs for non-carcinogens 

represent chemical-specific concentrations (expressed in μg/L) below which adverse health effects are not 

expected in exposed populations. MCLs for carcinogens represent chemical-specific concentrations 

(expressed in μg/L) that generally are expected to result in less than one additional cancer case per million 

lifetime exposures if the level is not exceeded in drinking water supplies. 

Aesthetic Impacts 

Human beings experience aesthetic impacts to aquatic resources in a variety of ways including impacts to 

water’s visual appearance or its smell or taste. These impacts can affect human use or enjoyment of 

affected water and surrounding areas. 

Objectionable tastes, odors, colors, and foaming have been reported in surface waters containing airport 

deicing operation discharges. These effects are generated in at least two ways. First, certain deicing 

product components are inherently likely to cause these effects. For example, dyes can directly add color 

to water. Airport deicer components and their breakdown products (e.g., urea, ammonia, ethylene glycol, 

propylene glycol, polymers of acrylic acid, and ethanolamines, have characteristic and potentially 

unpleasant odors. Glycols have a distinctive sweet odor. Solvents such as ethylbenzene, toluene, and 

xylenes can also add objectionable odors to water and their volatility lowers the detection threshold of 

those odors. Information on taste is not as readily available as information for odor, but glycols are known 

to have a somewhat sweet flavor and many surfactants taste bitter. The causes of foaming are not clear. 

The second route by which ADFs and pavement deicers can cause adverse aesthetic impacts is through 

die-off of aquatic biota. Fish, macrophytes, and invertebrates can die when dissolved oxygen levels fall in 

or toxic substances enter surface water. Algae and heterotrophic microorganisms inhabiting the water 

column can die, as can the epilithon, the biotic layer covering the substrate of a stream or lake. This dead 

biomass can decay aerobically if the water recovers sufficient oxygen, or anaerobically in a process 

July 2009 2-17 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

known as putrefaction, which generates particularly foul odors. This decomposition process also releases 

proteins, polysaccharides, and other organic compounds which can provide building blocks for the 

generation of persistent foams in water. Under the resulting anoxic conditions, the reduction of iron and 

manganese ions to more soluble species can impart color to water (Zitomer 2001). 

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 more detailed analysis for one or more of the 

following reasons: the component is a well-known ingredient in airport deicing products; the component 

is released to the environment in significant quantities by airport deicing operations; or the component has 

environmental impact potential. Additional information on these components is summarized in Table 

A-42 through Table A-53 in Appendix A. 

2.2.2.1 Acetate 

Sodium acetate and potassium acetate are used as freezing point depressants in airfield pavement deicers 

and are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. The dissolution of these chemicals after 

application releases acetate (C2H3O2) into the environment in its ionic form. Acetate can impact aquatic 

environments through consumption of dissolved oxygen during degradation. This section and Table A-42

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

effects of acetate. 

Fate and Transport 

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

Acetate ions are soluble in water (US NLM 2008). The solubility of acetate from particular compounds, 

for example sodium acetate, depends on the solubility of those compounds. Sodium acetate has a 

solubility of 1,190 grams per liter at 0° C (US NLM 2008). 

The degree to which acetate ions adsorb or complex with soil or water constituents or remain dissolved in 

surface water or groundwater depends on site-specific factors. The rate of transport of acetate through soil 

will depend on a combination of the degradation rate and interactions with soils/sediments. Therefore, 

transport rates will be site-specific (US NLM 2008). 

Acetate is rapidly biodegraded under aerobic conditions in surface water, groundwater, and soil (US NLM 

2008). Acetate is also anaerobically biodegradable (US NLM 2008). Acetate in soil, derived from calcium 

magnesium acetate, was completely degraded within three to six days (D’Itri 1992). Since aerobic 

degradation is rapid, acetate plumes are rare, except possibly in anaerobic groundwater (Maest 2008). 

Formate can slow the breakdown of acetate in anaerobic environments (US NLM 2008). Acetate 

degradation produces bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and water(D’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 BOD5 of 0.58 g O2/g product (Fyve Star, Inc. 

2008). 

Ecological Effects 

Acetate anions decay through a process that consumes dissolved oxygen present in surface waters and 

groundwater. Chemicals that exert oxygen demand during the degradation process reduce the level of 

dissolved oxygen available for aquatic organisms, which require a certain level of dissolved oxygen to 

July 2009 2-18 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

function and survive. For additional information on the impacts of oxygen demand, see Sections 2.2.1.2, 

2.2.2.1, and 2.2.2.2. 

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects 

EPA’s literature search did not locate conclusive reports on the human health effects of acetate. Acetate 

may contribute to aesthetic impacts, however. Acetate decomposition consumes dissolved oxygen in 

surface waters. Low dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters can cause unpleasant odors and 

discoloration of water. 

2.2.2.2 Alcohol Ethoxylates 

Alcohol ethoxylates (CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)yOH) are a major class of non-ionic surfactants that are 

widely used in a variety of consumer and industrial products, including laundry detergents (HERA 2007). 

Their use in ADFs as a surfactant additive has been documented in the literature. Their use may, in part, 

be in response to concerns about potential environmental impacts associated with the use of nonylphenol 

ethoxylate surfactants. Surfactants typically compose less than 2% of ADFs by volume. This profile and 

Table A-41 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and 

human effects of alcohol ethoxylates. 

Fate and Transport 

Alcohol ethoxylates are a class of nonionic surfactants possessing alkyl chains with 12 to 18 carbons and 

ethoxylates with 0 to 18 units (Belanger et al. 2006). 

Sorption to organic carbon and solids in the water column and subsequent burial in sediments is an 

important removal process in aquatic systems. Rates of sorption vary by ethoxymer and increase with 

increasing number of ethoxylate units and attendant hydrophobicity (Belanger et al. 2006). In soil, 

sorption to solids and organic carbon is a significant partitioning process (Belanger et al. 2006), and can 

reduce the chemical’s rate of migration through the soil. Rates of sorption vary by ethoxymer, and 

increase with increasing hydrophobicity (Belanger et al. 2006). 

Anaerobic breakdown has been documented in laboratory experiments simulating wastewater treatment 

(Belanger et al. 2006). Aerobic degradation also occurs. Rates of biodegradation vary by compound, but 

extremely rapid biodegradation is expected for all ethoxymers (Belanger et al. 2006). Rapid degradation 

was observed in natural estuarine waters with an alkyl half-life of 2.1 days and an ethoxy half-life of 6.3 

days under environmental conditions (temperature unknown) (Vashon 1982). Linear and monobranched 

alcohol ethoxylates were completely biodegraded within 20 days and approximately 5% of the initial 

amount of multibranched alcohol ethoxylates remained after 30 days (Marcomini et al. 2000, as cited in 

Environment Canada 2002a). 

Alcohols and fatty alcohols are alcohol ethoxylates’ primary degradation products (Belanger et al. 2006). 

Anaerobic degradation also produces methane. The degradation intermediates of alcohol ethoxylates are 

less toxic than the parent compounds, and polyethylene glycol is the primary intermediate product 

(Environment Canada 2002a). Aerobic degradation occurs by stepwise removal of ethylene oxide units, 

and simultaneous degradation of the alkyl chain can also occur, proceeding to complete degradation into 

carbon dioxide and water (Environment Canada 2002). However, the following intermediate products are 

also expected, depending on the form of the parent compound (Environment Canada 2002): 

3⁄4 Parent Compound: Linear alcohol ethoxylates 

Intermediate Compounds: Linear fatty alcohol, carboxylic fatty acid, polyethylene glycol, 

monocarboxylated polyethylene glycol, and dicarboxylated polyethylene glycol. 

July 2009 2-19 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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 through soil and groundwater 

because of their physical properties as nonionic surfactants (Krogh et al. 2003). 

Ecological Effects 

Available information suggests that alcohol ethoxylates can have acute and chronic toxic effects on 

aquatic organisms. These effects vary by carbon chain length. Typical alcohol ethoxylate surfactant chain 

length ranges from 9 to 18 carbons and 3 to 8 ethoxylate groups. Toxicity generally declines as the 

number of ethoxylates increases (Campbell 2002). 

A summary of chronic toxicity data from 60 studies conducted between 1977 and 2004 on fish, aquatic 

invertebrates, and aquatic plant and algae species states that alcohol ethoxylates’ effects on aquatic 

species include reduced growth rates, impaired reproduction, and reduced survival of neonates, as well as 

acute mortality. Alcohol ethoxylates may cause diminished growth rates and reduced cell counts in algae 

species at concentrations as low as 0.03 mg/L (Belanger et al. 2006). 

The concentrations at which alcohol ethoxylates lead to acute mortality in aquatic species are similar to 

the concentrations at which nonylphenol ethoxylates lead to acute mortality. However, alcohol 

ethoxylates degrade more quickly in the aquatic environment to relatively non-toxic compounds, whereas 

nonylphenol ethoxylate degradation typically yields nonylphenol, which is toxic as well as persistent in 

the aquatic environment. 

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects 

Human beings have regular contact with alcohol ethoxylates through a variety of industrial and consumer 

products such as soaps, detergents, and other cleaning products (US EPA 2000b). Exposure to these 

chemicals can occur through ingestion, inhalation, or contact with the skin or eyes. Studies of acute 

toxicity show that volumes well above a reasonable intake level would have to occur to produce any toxic 

response. Moreover, no fatal case of poisoning with alcohol ethoxylates has ever been reported. Multiple 

studies investigating the acute toxicity of alcohol ethoxylates have shown that the use of these compounds 

is of low concern in terms of oral and dermal toxicity (HERA 2007). 

Clinical animal studies indicate these chemicals may produce gastrointestinal irritation such as ulcerations 

of the stomach, pilo-erection, diarrhea, and lethargy. Similarly, slight to severe irritation of the skin or eye 

was generated when undiluted alcohol ethoxylates were applied to the skin and eyes of rabbits and rats. 

The chemical shows no indication of being a genotoxin, carcinogen, or mutagen (HERA 2007). No 

information was available on levels at which these effects might occur, though toxicity is thought to be 

substantially lower than that of nonylphenol ethoxylates. Concentrations of alcohol ethoxylates in aquatic 

resources affected by airport deicing discharges are expected to be fairly low. 

July 2009 2-20 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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, transport, and partitioning behaviors depend on the specific 

dye in question. Most ADF dyes are expected to be at least somewhat water-soluble. Dyes reported as 

present in ADFs include: eosin orange (tetrabromofluorescein), FD&C Blue #1 (alphazurine), FD&C 

Yellow #5 (tartrazine), malonyl green (C.I. Pigment Yellow 34), and shilling green. 

EPA was unable to locate information on the fate and transport behavior of these dyes through its 

literature search. However, in general, dyes tend to absorb ultraviolet radiation and have the potential to 

form decay products more toxic than the original parent dye compound. 

Ecological Effects 

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

Tetrabromofluorescein, a red dye, is not considered to be toxic to aquatic organisms except in very high 

concentrations. Aquatic invertebrates may have a somewhat lower sensitivity threshold than fish. It is not 

likely to bioaccumulate (Environment Canada 2008a). 

No toxicity testing data is available for alphazurine, but some studies suggest that long-term degradation 

products of this dye may be of concern (ScienceLab 2005). 

Malonyl green uses C.I. Pigment Yellow 34 which is a substance listed as being of environmental 

concern in the European Union due to the potential for highly toxic effects from two of its constituents, 

lead chromate and lead sulfate. These substances are also considered to be persistent in the environment 

and potentially bioaccumulative (Environment Canada 2008b). 

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

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects 

EPA found limited information on human health effects of ADF dyes through its literature search. Dyes 

may contribute to discoloration of surface waters downstream of airport deicing discharge outfalls. 

2.2.2.4 Ethylene Glycol 

Ethylene glycol (C2H6O2) is well known as one of two freezing point depressants used in most Type I and 

Type IV ADFs. Most of the ADF currently applied at U.S. airports is based on the other main freezing 

point depressant, propylene glycol, but a sizeable fraction of current ADF usage continues to be based on 

ethylene glycol. These fluids are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. Before dilution for 

application, an ADF can consist of nearly 90% ethylene glycol. For this reason, large quantities of 

ethylene glycol are released to the environment during airport deicing activities. Ethylene glycol is also 

July 2009 2-21 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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 effects, and human effects of ethylene glycol. 

Fate and Transport 

This section summarizes the environmental fate and transport characteristics of ethylene glycol. As 

discussed in previous sections, deicing products containing ethylene glycol can enter surface waters, soil, 

and groundwater on or near airports. 

Volatilization of ethylene glycol from soil or water is not, in general, expected. However, ethylene glycol 

can be released into the atmosphere by spray application of ADFs to aircraft, particularly under windy 

conditions, and by shearing of ADFs from aircraft during taxiing and take-off. Ethylene glycol’s 

atmospheric half-life is 50 hours at 25° C (US NLM 2008). 

Ethylene glycol is freely soluble in water and is highly mobile in both surface water and groundwater (US 

NLM 2008). Tracer experiments appear to show that ethylene glycol moves through soil with 

groundwater. It adsorbs poorly to clay and sandy clay soils (US NLM 2008). 

Ethylene glycol undergoes rapid microbial degradation in both soil and water. It can be degraded both 

aerobically and anaerobically (Johnson et al. 2001). Photolysis and hydrolysis are expected to be 

insignificant degradation pathways. 

As with other glycols, unacclimated microbial communities in surface waters and soils often experience a 

lag of several days before degradation begins. Microbial communities acclimated to glycol inflows can 

begin degradation much sooner. Additives in ADFs, however, can significantly delay degradation 

(Johnson et al. 2001) as can low temperatures (US NLM 2008). Even though ethylene glycol itself may 

be completely degraded within a few days under optimal conditions, the full theoretical biological oxygen 

demand may not be observed for several weeks (US NLM 2008). 

Ethylene glycol degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with a reported CBOD5 of 0.4 to 0.7 g O2/g 

of ethylene glycol or 400 to 800 g O2 per liter of ethylene glycol (D’Itri 1992). 

In various field soils, 90% to 100% degradation of ethylene glycol was observed in 2 to 12 days (study 

temperatures unknown). Ethylene glycol in ADFs was completely degraded in soils along airport runways 

within 29 days at 8° C (US NLM 2008). Ethylene glycol in river water degraded completely in three days 

at 20° C and in 5 to 14 days at 8° C (US NLM 2008). Ethylene glycol should exhibit minimal partitioning 

to sediments or suspended particles in water. Given these behaviors, the distance ethylene glycol travels 

in surface water, groundwater, and soil will depend primarily on the balance between rates of transport 

and degradation (US NLM 2008). 

Anaerobic degradation can be complete, producing methane and carbon dioxide, or incomplete, 

producing ethanol and acetate (Johnson et al. 2001). When there is insufficient oxygen to allow complete 

aerobic degradation, anaerobic degradation occurs unless inhibited by ADF additives or high 

concentrations of metabolic byproducts. 

July 2009 2-22 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

Ecological Effects 

Ethylene glycol toxicity data for aquatic organisms is relatively limited in its scope and availability. 

However, available data indicates ethylene glycol may cause general chronic toxicity effects at high 

concentrations (>3400 mg/L), including slower growth and inhibited reproduction. It can also cause acute 

mortality. A study by Corsi et al. (2006) found that in certain Type I formulations, ethylene glycol 

contributed as much as 87% of the total toxic effect to the algae 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 formulation 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 aquatic life by consuming oxygen aquatic organisms 

need to survive (Corsi et al. 2001). Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are 

consumed when microbial populations decompose ethylene glycol. As described above, ethylene glycol 

degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with a reported CBOD5 of 0,4 to 0.7 g O2/g of ethylene 

glycol, or 400 to 800 g O2 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 habitat. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate 

bottom-feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community’s species profile, or alter 

critical food-web interactions. 

An example of dissolved oxygen impacts deriving from airport deicing operation discharges is the 

impairment of Gunpowder and Elijah Creeks in northern Kentucky. News reports have shown that 

discharges from Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, specifically ethylene glycol, are to 

blame for the creeks’ states, which were so degraded at the time of the reports that they did not support 

life (Kelly and Klepal 2004). 

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects 

Human exposure to ethylene glycol can occur through dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion, and eye 

contact (NIOSH 2005a). Exposure typically targets the eyes, skin, respiratory system, and central nervous 

system, and manifests through irritation to the eyes, skin, nose, and throat; nausea, vomiting, abdominal 

pain, lassitude (weakness, exhaustion); dizziness, stupor, convulsions, central nervous system depression; 

and skin sensitization (NIOSH 2005a). Effects can occur at concentrations as low as 2 mg/kg*day. 

Children and adults are expected to similarly express pollutant exposure symptoms (US HHS 2007a). 

No negative health effects have been reported in persons chronically exposed to ethylene glycol at natural 

levels found in the environment (US HHS 2007b), though available monitoring data indicate that ethylene 

glycol is typically found only near areas of release (e.g., production facilities and airports). Workers 

involved in airport deicing operations have produced urine samples containing ethylene glycol. Further 

research is still needed, however, to fully assess the cancer potential, developmental toxicity, and other 

human health impacts of this pollutant, particularly with respect to the general public (US HHS 2007b). 

Several articles have reported a strong sweet odor downstream from airport deicing outfalls which is 

believed to derive from ethylene and/or propylene glycol (e.g., Eddy 1997). Additionally, anoxic waters, 

July 2009 2-23 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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 

(CH2O2) into the environment in its ionic form. Formate can impact aquatic environments through 

consumption of dissolved oxygen during degradation. This section and Table A-46 of Appendix A

summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of formate. 

Fate and Transport 

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

Formate ions are very soluble in water though the solubility of formate in compounds depends on the 

solubility of those compounds (US NLM 2008). Sodium formate has a solubility of 972 g/L at 20° C (US 

NLM 2008). Depending on site-specific factors, formate ions may adsorb or complex with soil or water 

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

Formate is slowly hydrolyzed in water (US NLM 2008). It is subject to rapid aerobic degradation, and can 

be anaerobically degraded by methanogens (US NLM 2008). Researchers observed that the aerobic 

degradation rate appears to decrease sharply with decreasing temperatures (Hellsten et al. 2005). The 

aerobic degradation of formate produces carbon dioxide and bicarbonate (Hellsten et al. 2005). 

Formate has a slightly lower BOD and COD than acetate and a lower BOD and COD than ethylene and 

propylene glycol. Sodium formate granules in one formulated deicing product (Kilfrost CIM) are reported 

to have a COD of 0.3 g O2/g product. The product’s BOD was not reported (Reeves et al. 2005). 

Ecological Effects 

Formate anions decay through a process that consumes dissolved oxygen present in surface waters and 

groundwater. Chemicals that exert oxygen demand during the degradation process reduce the level of 

dissolved oxygen available for aquatic organisms, which require a certain level of dissolved oxygen to 

function and survive. For additional information on the impacts of oxygen demand, see Sections 2.2.1.2, 

2.2.2.1, and 2.2.2.2. 

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects 

EPA’s literature search did not locate conclusive reports on the human health effects of acetate. Formate 

may contribute to aesthetic impacts, however. Formate decomposition consumes dissolved oxygen in 

surface waters. Low dissolved oxygen levels in surface waters can cause unpleasant odors and 

discoloration of water. 

2.2.2.6 Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates 

The widespread use of nonylphenol ethoxylates (C9H19-C6H4O(CH2CH2O)nHa) as a surfactant additive in 

Type I and Type IV ADF formulations has been well documented in the literature. Nonylphenol is a 

common decay product of nonylphenol ethoxylates. Surfactants typically comprise less than 2% by 

volume of ADFs. There is currently uncertainty, however, over the extent to which manufacturers have 

recently modified ADF formulations to replace nonylphenol ethoxylates with other types of surfactants. 

Nonylphenol ethoxylates and nonylphenol can have toxic and estrogenic properties and persist in the 

environment. They can cause mortality and endocrine disruption in aquatic organisms. Some preliminary 

data suggest that nonylphenol may cause cancer and reproductive problems in human beings. 

July 2009 2-24 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

Nonylphenol ethoxylate and nonylphenol contamination has been detected in surface waters, 

groundwater, sediments, aquatic organisms, and wastewater discharges at or near airports using ADFs. 

This profile and Table A-47 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, 

ecological effects, and human effects of nonylphenol and its ethoxylates. 

Fate and Transport 

This section summarizes the environmental fate and transport characteristics of nonylphenol ethoxylates 

and nonylphenol. As discussed in previous sections, airport deicing products containing nonylphenol 

ethoxylates and nonylphenol can enter surface waters, soil, and groundwater on or near airports. 

Nonylphenol and its ethoxylates are a large class of alkylated phenols with varying physical properties; 

fate, transport, and partitioning behavior vary somewhat by ethoxymer. 

Nonylphenol has very low volatility. Its ethoxylates are also not expected to volatilize readily. However, 

nonylphenol ethoxylates can be released into the atmosphere by spray application of ADF to aircraft, 

particularly under windy conditions, and by shearing of ADF from aircraft during taxiing and take-off. 

Nonylphenol ethoxylates are expected to degrade rapidly in air (Environment Canada 2002). 

Nonylphenol ethoxylates are likely to partition to organic matter or minerals in soil, but this tendency 

varies by ethoxymer and degree of hydrophobicity. Migration of nonylphenol ethoxylates through the soil 

has been observed (Environment Canada 2002). In water, as in soil, nonylphenol ethoxylates may sorb to 

organic matter or particulates (Environment Canada 2002). The decay product nonylphenol is likely to 

partition to sediments and mineral particles in water and soil but can still leach through soils 

(Environment Canada 2002). 

Degradation of nonylphenol ethoxylates varies by ethoxymer and tends to produce some recalcitrant 

compounds with endocrine disrupting potential, including nonylphenol, nonylphenol monoethoxylate, 

nonylphenol diethoxylate, nonylphenoxyacetic acid, and nonylphenoxyethoxyacetic acid (Environment 

Canada 2002). Observed half-lives for nonylphenol ethoxylates in environmental media range from 3 to 

26 days under ideal aerobic conditions with an acclimated microbial community (Staples et al. 2001).For 

nonylphenol, a biphasic degradation profile has been observed in soils with relatively rapid initial 

degradation of 30-50% during the first several weeks and the remainder degrading with a half-life of 

approximately 90 days (Environment Canada 2002). Degradation rate also appears to be strongly 

dependent on the environmental medium. Half-lives of nonylphenol range from 2.4 hours to 0.74 d in 

water (US NLM 2008). The photolytic half-life of nonylphenol in the upper layer of surface water is 10-

15 hours but is much slower in deeper layers. In a sediment mesocosm, a half-life of 66 days was 

observed for nonylphenol (Environment Canada 2008a). 

Ecological Effects 

Nonylphenol ethoxylates are highly toxic to many aquatic species. Nonylphenol ethoxylates degrade 

quickly and are therefore chiefly of concern because of their acute effects. Nonylphenol, the primary 

degradation product of nonylphenol ethoxylates persists in water for substantially longer time periods 

than nonylphenol ethoxylates and is more likely to contribute to chronic, as well as acute, effects. It is one 

of the most prevalent contaminants in U.S. streams, both in terms of the number of streams affected and 

the concentrations found (US EPA 2005). 

The primary impacts of these chemicals on aquatic life are sublethal toxic effects, although at sufficient 

doses both can cause mortality. Nonylphenol ethoxylate toxicity has not been studied to the same extent 

as nonylphenol toxicity, but several types of adverse impacts have been noted. These impacts include 

acute mortality in some sensitive species at concentrations as low as 2.8 mg/L, reproduction impacts, 

July 2009 2-25 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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 detected in three of the other formulations tested, and 

was responsible for only a small fraction of toxicity in the remaining four. 

An EPA study of the effects of nonylphenol on aquatic life found that at concentrations as low as 0.01 

mg/L, impacts include reproduction impairment, reduced numbers of live offspring, diminished growth, 

and reduced offspring survival (US EPA 2005). Several other studies address estrogenic or other 

reproductive effects, including evidence suggesting increased vitellogenin concentrations in fish from 

chronic nonylphenol exposure and, at high concentrations, impacts on sex ratios and spawning habits. 

Nonylphenol has also been shown to inhibit growth and cellular counts in algae and to potentially 

bioaccumulate in some mollusk species. EPA has stated that the maximum acceptable one-hour average 

concentrations of nonylphenol in freshwater is 28 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 roughly 70 to 80% of typical daily doses (UNEP et al. 

2004). This pollutant primarily affects the upper respiratory system and kidneys. Exposure symptoms can 

include skin and eye irritation, tissue decay, swelling, mottled kidneys, lethargy, coughing, wheezing, 

shortness of breath, headache, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Data show that low concentrations of these 

chemicals act as mild irritants. High concentrations of nonylphenol and its ethoxylates may be extremely 

destructive to the upper respiratory tract, eyes, and skin (US EPA 2006a, Cox 1996), but human beings 

are unlikely to encounter such concentrations through exposure to aquatic resources contaminated by 

airport deicing products. The no observed adverse effect level is considered to be 10 mg/kg*day. 

Current evidence of this pollutant as a genotoxin or carcinogen is inconclusive, but data seem to suggest 

that nonylphenol ethoxylates cause breast cancer cells to increase in number. Nonylphenol has also 

demonstrated estrogenic behavior, causing an increase in breast tumor numbers and size, reproductive 

problems, and various hormonal disruptions (UNEP et al. 2004). 

2.2.2.7 Polyacrylic Acid 

Polyacrylic acid (C3H4O2)n is composed of a connected series of acrylic acid monomers. This chemical is 

used as a thickener in some Type IV ADFs to make them viscous enough to maintain their position on 

aircraft surfaces until aircraft take-off. Thickeners and other ADF additives typically make up less than 

2% of ADF volume. During degradation in the natural environment, polyacrylic acid can break down into 

its component monomers. Polyacrylic acid and acrylic acid monomers have been linked to human health 

problems, adverse impacts on aquatic life, and disruptions of aquatic community trophic webs. This 

section and Table A-48 in Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate and transport, ecological 

effects, and human effects of polyacrylic acid. 

Fate and Transport 

Polyacrylic acids comprise a family of polymers. They are usually marketed as mixtures of polymers by 

molecular weight. The behavior of these mixtures in the environment may vary somewhat, but overall 

they are fairly similar (US NLM 2008). 

July 2009 2-26 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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 soils, surface waters, and groundwater is high (US NLM 

2008). 

Biodegradability decreases with an increasing number of polymerized units and increasing formula 

molecular weight. Biodegradability drops off sharply between molecular weights 700 and 1,000, and for 

polymers with more than seven units (Larson et al. 1997). It appears that monomers and dimers of acrylic 

acid are completely biodegradable, but there is evidence that polymers of three to seven units are 

incompletely biodegraded (Larson et al. 1997). 

Non-polymerized (monomeric) acrylic acid biodegrades fairly quickly under both aerobic and anaerobic 

conditions. For example, it was 68% degraded within two weeks with an activated sludge inoculum. In a 

42-day anaerobic study with a sewage seed inoculum, 71% was degraded (US NLM 2008). 

It is possible for substances such as polyacrylic acids, which are slowly biodegradable, to accumulate in 

soils and to enhance the growth of microbial biomass in those soils. If microbial growth is high enough, 

the pores of the soil can become plugged with microbial biomass. This process can lead to plume 

spreading as new loadings of polyacrylic acid contaminated runoff are forced around regions of low 

permeability. 

Ecological Effects 

Acute toxicity impacts on numerous invertebrates and fish have been noted for acrylic acid, primarily in 

the form of mortality but also in the form of behavioral changes in the water flea (Daphnia magna). Some 

studies also note growth rate inhibition and biomass reductions in green and blue-green algae. These 

effects may occur at levels as low as 0.17 mg/L (IPCS 1997). 

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects 

Exposure to acrylic acid can occur through inhalation, ingestion, and skin or eye contact, and can cause a 

variety of ailments including irritation to the eyes, skin, and respiratory system; eye and skin burns; skin 

sensitization; and lung, liver, and kidney disease (as revealed through animal studies) (NIOSH 2005b). 

Currently there have been no reports of poisoning incidents in the general population. Most data indicate 

that this pollutant is of low to moderate acute toxicity by the oral route (NOAEL 140 mg/kg/day), and 

moderate acute toxicity by the inhalation (LOAEL 15 mg/m3

) or dermal route. It is unclear what 

concentration is non-irritant. Available reproduction studies indicate that acrylic acid is not teratogenic 

(i.e., does not cause birth defects) and has no effect on reproduction. The current data available are 

inconclusive regarding carcinogenic health hazards associated with acrylic acid exposure (US NLM 

2008). 

Acrylic acid monomers have a strong acrid odor, though no reports have linked this odor specifically to 

airport deicing discharges (BAMM 2006). 

2.2.2.8 Potassium 

Potassium acetate is used as a freezing point depressant in airfield pavement deicers and is applied in 

large quantities at a number of airports. The chemical is typically applied in liquid form and releases 

potassium into the surrounding environment in its ionic form. Following dissolution after application, 

solid forms of potassium acetate also releases potassium in its ionic form to the environment. Potassium 

can elevate measures of salinity, conductance, or total dissolved solids (TDS) in surface waters. It can 

impact aquatic environments and, at high levels, cause health problems in human beings. This section and 

July 2009 2-27 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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 insufficient water available to transport it through the 

soil horizon. Otherwise, it is transported easily through soil and can enter and travel with groundwater. 

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

to volatilize. 

Ecological Effects 

Most freshwater surface waters contain a small quantity of potassium. Fish require potassium for growth, 

reproduction, and survival. Freshwater fish actively assimilate potassium from food and water. Saltwater 

fish are generally at lower risk of potassium deficiency than freshwater fish because marine water 

contains higher levels of potassium then fresh water. High potassium loadings or long turnover times, 

however, can create surface water ion balance issues that can impact aquatic organism functioning and 

survival (Public Sector Consultants 1993). 

Exposure to high levels of potassium can cause osmoregulatory dysfunction in aquatic organisms. 

Freshwater fish tissues typically have higher potassium content than surrounding water. Under normal 

conditions, freshwater fish use their gills, circulatory system, and kidneys to work against this osmotic 

gradient in order to prevent the influx of excess water and the loss of potassium from their tissues. 

Specialized cells in fish gill epithelium use potassium and sodium ions to transport chloride into or out of 

fish tissue (Jobling 1996). In marine fish, chloride ions are pumped from fish against an osmotic gradient. 

This process helps to maintain optimal osmotic potential between the fish and its environment. 

The process moves potassium ions in the opposite direction in freshwater fish. The gill has mechanisms 

which actively work to re-import potassium into the blood on order to replace potassium lost through the 

gills. When external potassium levels exceed internal potassium levels, these osmoregulatory mechanisms 

can lead to rapid fish dehydration, ionoregulatory system imbalance, and impairment to fish functioning 

and survival. 

Exposure to excessive potassium concentrations can interfere with these essential osmoregulatory 

mechanisms in both freshwater and saltwater fish, requiring fish to expend more energy to maintain 

homeostasis or, if concentrations are high enough, cause death through ionic imbalance. 

In lakes, increased salt concentrations can also lead to increased density of water layers, leading to or 

exacerbating stratification during cold or still weather to the point that normal seasonal overturn does not 

occur (D’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. This element is an essential in preventing and treating 

high blood pressure, hypoglycemia, diabetes, kidney disease, obesity, and potentially paralysis. The 

absence of adequate potassium in the diet may lead to listlessness, fatigue, gas pains, constipation, 

July 2009 2-28 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

insomnia, and low blood sugar. Moreover, deficient individuals may have weak muscles and a slow, 

irregular pulse (IFIC 2005). 

This element is beneficial at lower levels but may have detrimental health impacts if consumed in excess. 

U.S. health guidelines advise that no more than 4,700 mg potassium be consumed each day (US HHS and 

DoA 2005). However, many humans do not consume enough potassium. Human beings may ingest 

potassium from airport deicing discharges through consumption of contaminated drinking water sources. 

2.2.2.9 Propylene Glycol 

Like ethylene glycol, propylene glycol (C3H8O2) is a well-known freezing point depressant used in many 

Type I and Type IV ADFs. These fluids are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. Most ADF 

in current use at U.S. airports is based on propylene glycol. Before dilution for application, an ADF can 

consist of nearly 90% propylene glycol. Propylene glycol is also used in some airfield pavement deicer 

formulations. For this reason, large quantities of propylene glycol can be released to the environment 

during airport deicing activities. Propylene glycol contamination has been detected in surface waters, 

groundwater, sediments, and wastewater discharges at or near airports using ADFs. 

Though more expensive than ethylene glycol, propylene glycol is considerably less toxic to human beings 

and other mammals. When released to surface waters in large quantities, however, it has the potential to 

consume large quantities of dissolved oxygen from the water column, potentially affecting the ecosystem 

and human use of aquatic resources. This profile and Table A-50 in Appendix A summarizes available 

information on the environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of propylene 

glycol. 

Fate and Transport 

This section summarizes the environmental fate and transport characteristics of propylene glycol. As 

discussed in previous sections, deicing products containing propylene glycol can enter surface waters, 

soil, and groundwater on or near airports. 

Volatilization of propylene glycol from soil or water is not, in general, expected (US NLM 2008). 

However, propylene glycol can be released into the atmosphere by spray application of ADF to aircraft, 

particularly under windy conditions, and by shearing of ADF from aircraft during taxiing and take-off. 

Propylene glycol’s atmospheric half-life is 32 hours at 25° C (US NLM 2008). 

Propylene glycol is freely soluble in water, and has very high mobility in soils, sediments, surface water, 

and groundwater (US NLM 2008). Estimates of log KOW 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 

KOW support the observations of Jaesche et al. (2006), who found negligible soil sorption in laboratory 

experiments. Propylene glycol should also exhibit minimal partitioning to sediments or suspended 

particles in water. Given these behaviors, the distance propylene glycol travels in surface water, 

groundwater, and soil will depend primarily on the balance between rates of transport and degradation. 

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

both aerobic and anaerobic conditions. For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of 

several days before glycol degradation begins. Microbial communities acclimated to glycol inflows can 

begin degradation much sooner. Additives in ADFs, however, can significantly delay degradation 

(Johnson et al. 2001). In microcosm experiments under aerobic conditions, degradation rates of up to 95 

milligrams of propylene glycol per day per kilogram of dry soil were observed by Klecka et al. (1993; as 

cited in Jaesche et al. 2006). Jaesche et al. (2006) found that in subsoil materials, the anaerobic 

July 2009 2-29 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

July 2009 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 glycol degrades first to propionaldehyde, then to 

propionate and 1-propanol. The final products are acetate, methane, and carbon dioxide (Jaesche et al. 

2006). 

Propylene glycol degradation requires a great deal of oxygen, with an estimated CBOD5 of 1 g O2/g of 

propylene glycol, or 1,000 g O2 per liter of propylene glycol (Mericas and Wagoner 1994; Safferman et 

al. 1998, all as cited in Johnson et al. 2001). 

Anaerobic degradation of propylene glycol can increase the efflux of terminal electron acceptors such as 

iron and manganese (hydr)oxides from soils (Jaesche et al. 2006). 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 toxicity of the formulation to the fathead minnow, the 

daphnid Ceriodaphnia dubia, and Microtox testing for both Type I and Type IV fluids (ranging from less 

than 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 aquatic life by consuming oxygen aquatic organisms 

need to survive (Corsi et al. 2001). Large quantities of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column are 

consumed when microbial populations decompose ethylene glycol. 

Sufficient DO levels in surface waters are critical for the survival of fish, macroinvertebrates, and other 

aquatic organisms. If oxygen concentrations drop below a minimum level, organisms emigrate, if able 

and possible, to areas with higher oxygen levels or eventually die (US EPA 1993). This effect can 

drastically reduce the amount of useable aquatic habitat. Reductions in DO levels can reduce or eliminate 

bottom-feeder populations, create conditions that favor a change in a community’s species profile, or alter 

critical food-web interactions. 

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects 

Unlike ethylene glycol, a cause of acute toxicity in human beings and other mammals, propylene glycol is 

generally considered to be safe and a rare cause of toxic effects. Human exposure to propylene glycol can 

occur through dermal contact, inhalation, ingestion, and eye contact 

 

2

 The paper explains that this may be caused either by uncertainty in calculating the relative toxicity factors, or by the 

possibility that the interactions of all chemicals in a deicing formulation may result in lower toxicity than propylene glycol 

alone. 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

Humans typically come in contact with propylene glycol through ingestion of food and medications and 

through dermal contact with cosmetics or topical medications. Background concentrations in foods range 

from < 0.001% in eggs and soups to about 15% in some seasonings and flavorings. No health effects have 

been reported in persons chronically exposed to propylene glycol at levels found in the environment. 

Some special-risk groups may be more sensitive at lower levels; these include neonates, infants and the 

elderly, or those with pre-existing skin or eye conditions or allergies (US HHS 2007b). 

Extensive topical application has been known to cause burns to the skin. The common use of propylene 

glycol in burn creams has been associated with hyperosmolality, lactic acidosis (the build-up of lactic acid 

in the body), intravascular hemolysis (the rupturing of blood vessels), central nervous system depression, 

seizures, coma, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and renal failure, although only in very high doses (US 

HHS 2007b). For example, one study found an LD50 in the rat of 30,000 mg/kg (US EPA 2000a). 

However, it is expected that this level of exposure through human contact with propylene glycolcontaminated aquatic resources would be very unlikely. 

Several news articles have reported strong sweet odors downstream from airport deicing outfalls which 

are believed to be linked to ethylene glycol and propylene glycol discharges (e.g., Hopey 1998). 

Additionally, anoxic waters, which can result from the high BOD propylene glycol exerts, typically 

produce a strong, unpleasant odor (State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 2001). 

2.2.2.10 Sodium 

Sodium acetate and sodium formate are used as freezing point depressants in airfield pavement deicers 

and are applied in large quantities at a number of airports. The dissolution of these chemicals after 

application releases sodium into the environment in its ionic form. Sodium can elevate measures of 

salinity, conductance, or total dissolved solids (TDS) in surface waters. It can impact aquatic 

environments and, at high levels, cause health problems in human beings. This section and Table A-51 of 

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

of sodium. 

Fate and Transport 

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

accumulate in areas where there is insufficient water available to transport it through the soil horizon. 

Otherwise, it is transported easily through soil and can enter and travel with groundwater. 

When sodium replaces calcium in soil through an anion exchange process, the structure of the soil can 

deteriorate, and aeration and water availability decrease (D’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 and persists in the environment. It is not expected to 

volatilize. 

Ecological Effects 

Most freshwater surface waters contain a small quantity of sodium. High sodium loadings or long 

turnover times, however, can create surface water ion balance issues that can impact aquatic organism 

functioning and survival (Public Sector Consultants 1993). 

Freshwater aquatic organisms are very sensitive to excess sodium in surface waters. Exposure to high 

levels of sodium can cause osmoregulatory dysfunction. Freshwater fish tissues typically have higher 

sodium content than surrounding water. Under normal conditions, freshwater fish use their gills, 

July 2009 2-31 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 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 gill surface. Specialized cells in fish gill epithelium 

use potassium and sodium ions to transport chloride into or out of fish tissue (Jobling 1996). In marine 

fish, chloride ions are pumped from fish against an osmotic gradient. This process helps to maintain 

optimal osmotic potential between the fish and its environment. 

In freshwater fish, the process moves ions in the opposite direction. The fish’s circulatory system moves 

excess water to the kidney where it is rapidly excreted. The gill has mechanisms which actively work to 

re-import sodium into the blood on order to replace sodium lost through the gills. When external sodium 

levels exceed internal sodium levels, these mechanisms can contribute to rapid fish dehydration, 

ionoregulatory system imbalance, and impairment to fish functioning and survival. 

Exposure to excessive potassium concentrations can interfere with these essential osmoregulatory 

mechanisms in both freshwater and saltwater fish, requiring fish to expend more energy to maintain 

homeostasis or, if concentrations are high enough, cause death through ionic imbalance. 

In lakes, increased salt concentrations can also lead to increased density of water layers, leading to or 

exacerbating stratification during cold or still weather to the point that normal seasonal overturn does not 

occur (D’Itri 1992). 

Both aquatic and terrestrial plants are susceptible to damage following exposure to excess sodium in 

surface water, soil, porewater, and groundwater. Sodium-induced plant damage occurs in several ways 

(Moran et al. 1992). First, increasing osmotic pressure of the surrounding water (for aquatic plants) or soil 

solution increases sodium migration into and water diffusion from the cells, causing dehydration. Second, 

sodium ion accumulation in plant tissues can reach toxic concentrations. This is often visible in leaf 

margins, as transpiration pulls water into the leaves. As water evaporates from leaves, sodium ions remain 

behind and accumulate to toxic levels (University of Illinois Extension 2008). Sodium inhibits many 

enzymes in plants and is particularly harmful when intracellular potassium is low relative to sodium, as 

discussed below (Zhu 2007). Third, sodium stress induces the production of abscisic acid, which causes 

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-competes potassium for uptake by plant roots, eventually 

leading to potassium deficiency. Sufficient potassium levels are critical for maintaining adequate cell 

turgor (fluid pressure), membrane potential, and enzymatic activity (Zhu 2007). 

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects 

Sodium is a necessary component of the human diet. While this element is vital in small amounts, 

excessive consumption may have adverse health effects. Health guidelines advise humans to consume 

2,300 mg (1 teaspoon) of sodium per day (US HHS and DoA 2005). At elevated levels, this element is 

known to cause high blood pressure and possibly calcium loss. Human beings may ingest sodium from 

airport deicing discharges through consumption of contaminated drinking water sources. 

2.2.2.11 Tolyltriazoles, Benzotriazoles, and Methyl-substituted Benzotriazoles 

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

because of concerns about ADF flammability in some aircraft electrical systems. The use of tolyltriazoles 

(C7H7N3), benzotriazoles, or methyl-substituted benzotriazoles as flame retardants and corrosion 

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

July 2009 2-32 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

and 5-methyl isomers of benzotriazole. Methyl-substituted benzotriazoles have a methyl group attached to 

the benzene ring. These chemicals, along with other ADF additives, typically comprise less than 2% of 

ADF volume. Studies have identified the presence of these chemicals in drainage ditches, groundwater, 

wells, and soils on or near airports where ADFs have been used. This profile and Table A-52 in Appendix 

A summarizes data on these chemicals’ environmental fate and transport, ecological effects, and human 

effects. 

Fate and Transport 

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

Benzotriazoles are highly polar and dissolve well in water (Weiss et al. 2006). All triazoles are expected 

to be highly mobile in surface water, groundwater, and soils (US NLM 2008, Breedveld et al. 2003). 

Methyltriazoles are known to be mobile in groundwater (US NLM 2008). However, triazoles may 

protonate in some environmental matrices, and the cationic form would be expected to bind to organic 

material and clays (US NLM 2008). Methylbenzotriazole was found to sorb to digested sludge (Gruden et 

al. 2001), and thus may be able to bind to organic carbon in soil. Sorption is not expected to be very 

significant in soils, however. Breedveld et al. (2003) found that benzotriazole showed very little sorption 

in various soil matrices, and only peat and compost with a high organic carbon content showed significant 

sorption. 

Photolysis is a potential route of degradation in environmental media with high exposure to light (US 

NLM 2008). 

Biodegradation of these compounds varies by isomer. 5-methylbenzotriazole is much more aerobically 

degradable than the 4-methylbenzotriazole isomer (Weiss and Reemtsma 2005). The same pattern was 

observed in bench-scale bioreactor experiments in which 5-methyltriazole was completely biodegraded 

within 17 days, but 4-methyltriazole was only 25% biodegraded after 28 days, and the remainder was 

recalcitrant to further degradation (Weiss et al. 2006). Furthermore, 5-methylbenzotriazole was found to 

be “unstable” in cooling towers (an aerobic environment), whereas 4-methylbenzotriazole was not 

degraded (Gruden et al. 2001). 

Another study found that methylbenzotriazole (isomer not specified) was not anaerobically digestible in 

lab experiments (Gruden et al. 2001). Anaerobic degradation was not observed for benzotriazole and its 

derivatives in lab reactor experiments (Tham and Kennedy 2005). Davis et al. (2000) have demonstrated 

that higher plants and white rot fungi can take up and degrade triazoles. No information was located on 

the degradation products of benzotriazoles. 

Weiss and Reemtsma (2005) found that both benzotriazole and 4-methylbenzotriazole survived bank 

filtration treatment although 5-methylbenzotriazole did not. Ozonation appears to be capable of almost 

completely removing benzotriazole and 4- and 5-methylbenzotriazole from wastewater and might also be 

able to remove them during drinking water treatment, where this technology is used (Weiss et al. 2006). 

One study found that up to 300 mg/l of benzotriazole only slightly inhibited the anaerobic degradation of 

glycols, that up to 20 mg/l of 5,6-dimethylbenzotriazole 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 detected in all wells sampled, 

July 2009 2-33 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

but 5-methyltriazole was not detected in any of the wells (Cancilla et al. 2003 and Cancilla et al. 1998). 

Breedveld et al. (1997) reported soil concentrations of up to 13 mg/kg in a drainage ditch and up to 1.1 

mg/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 may be responsible for the majority of total toxicity 

in some formulations (Corsi et al. 2006). Triazoles are several orders of magnitude more acutely toxic 

than glycols to multiple aquatic species, including the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and the water flea 

(Daphnia magna). The LC50 for the waterflea for tolyltriazole is 74 mg/L. Tolyltriazole is considered to 

be more toxic than other benzotriazoles. Though not likely to bioaccumulate, triazoles may persist in the 

aquatic environment due to their resistance to natural degradation (British Environment Agency 2000). 

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects 

EPA’s search of publicly available literature yielded no consistent or conclusive information on the 

impact of triazoles on human health or the aesthetic attributes of receiving waters. 

2.2.2.12 Urea (Ammonia) 

Urea (NH2CONH2) is used as a freezing point depressant in airfield pavement deicers and is applied in 

large quantities at a number of airports. It is typically used as a solid pavement deicer or in combination 

with ethylene or propylene glycol as a liquid pavement deicer. Urea is also a common fertilizer that 

enhances plant growth. Urea forms ammonia (NH3) during decay. Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms 

at low concentrations and can cause both organism mortality and reproduction impairment. Ammonia can 

further decay in aquatic environments into several nitrogen-containing compounds (e.g., nitrate) that can 

fertilize aquatic plants and foster biological overgrowths. Ammonia may cause minor to severe dermal or 

pulmonary irritation to human beings who come into contact with it. Urea and ammonia have been 

documented as contaminants in surface waters, groundwater, and soil in and near airports using urea as a 

pavement deicer. This section and Table A-53 of Appendix A summarize data on the environmental fate 

and transport, ecological effects, and human effects of formate. 

Fate and Transport 

Urea has a low vapor pressure and is not expected to volatilize readily from soil or water (US NLM 

2008). Ammonia, a by-product of urea degradation. is quite volatile. 

Urea has a solubility of 545 g/l, making it reasonably soluble (US NLM 2008). Urea is transported readily 

in surface water and its presence has been documented in groundwater at several airports using urea as a 

pavement deicer. This is despite the fact that urea’s soil infiltration is thought to be minimal except where 

the soil is sandy (D’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 short amount of time during snowmelt (D’Itri 1992). 

Urea biodegrades well under aerobic conditions and produces ammonia which eventually degrades to 

nitrate. The degradation rate is temperature dependent and is expected to be slow during winter. After 14 

days in river water at 8° C, degradation was almost nil (Evans and Patterson 1973 as cited in D’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 potential contributor to undesirable eutrophication of 

surface waters (D’Itri 1992). Urea’s BOD is approximately 1.8 g O2/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. 

July 2009 2-34 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 2. Airport Deicing Product Components 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category and Environmental Behavior 

July 2009 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 potentially toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms. 

Ecological Effects 

Urea is not particularly toxic to aquatic life. However, urea degrades to ammonia which is highly toxic to 

many aquatic organisms. EPA established a National Recommended Water Quality Criterion for 

ammonia in 1984 and last revised it in 1998. Because of ammonia’s unique properties, the criteria are 

dependent on pH, temperature, and organism life stage. Ammonia is most toxic in its un-ionized form 

which is more likely to exist at higher temperatures and pH levels. If salmonids are present, acute criteria 

range from 0.885 to 32.6 mg N/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, depending upon pH (US EPA 1998a). 

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

concentrations. Ammonia can also cause a host of chronic effects in aquatic organisms, including 

reproduction inhibition, diminished juvenile growth, and reduced embryo and neonate survival. Salmonid 

fish are particularly sensitive, and EPA’s ammonia standard is stricter for water bodies in which they are 

present. For example, one study determined an LC50 for the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) of 

0.068 mg/L (US EPA 1998a). Ammonia has been noted as a major cause of fish kills (US EPA 1991; 

USDA 1992). In addition, if surface water substrate sediments are enriched with nutrients, the 

concentrations of nitrites on the overlying water can be raised enough to cause nitrite poisoning or “brown 

blood disease” in fish (USDA 1992). 

Ammonia further decays in aquatic environments to nitrates. Nitrates function as a source of nitrogen 

nutrients. Surface water eutrophication due to excessive nutrient levels can produce ecological impacts 

such as nuisance algal blooms, death of underwater plants (due to reduced light penetration through turbid 

waters), reduced dissolved oxygen levels, and impaired aquatic organism populations. 

Human Health and Aquatic Resource Use Effects 

A person ingests an average of 0.36 mg/day of ammonia through drinking water sources (US HHS 2004). 

Ammonia begins to be noticeable to drinking water consumers at 35 ppm (taste) to 50 ppm (odor). Low 

levels of exposure may not cause any problems in healthy individuals but may harm sensitive individuals 

such as those with asthma. At higher concentrations, ammonia exposure may also cause skin burns to the 

exposed area. Children respond to ammonia exposure in much the same way as adults. No evidence has 

been found to suggest that low-level chronic ammonia exposure causes birth defects or other 

developmental problems. However, chronic exposure has been found to cause transient respiratory 

distress (US HHS 2004). 

Data for assessing the carcinogenic potential of ammonia are limited. At consumption levels of 200 

milligrams per day, ammonia may act as a cancer promoter. However, well-designed animal studies have 

not yet been conducted in order to better elucidate ammonia’s role as a potential carcinogen (US HHS 

2004). 

At high exposure levels, effects include irritation to the eyes, nose, and throat; dyspnea (breathing 

abnormalities), wheezing, and chest pain; pulmonary edema; pink frothy sputum; skin burns, and 

vesiculation (formation of blisters or vesicles) (NIOSH 2005c). Human exposure to such high levels 

through aquatic resources contaminated by airport deicing discharges is not expected. 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 proposed regulatory options. 

This chapter provides information on facilities within scope of the proposed 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 Airports in Scope of Proposed Regulatory Options 

In determining the scope of the proposed regulatory options, EPA aimed to capture those airports that 

perform the majority of deicing operations in the United States. EPA’s proposed 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 1,000 or more jet departures annually; and 

3⁄4 Conduct aircraft or airfield pavement deicing operations. 

EPA is focusing on primary commercial airports because they are more likely than general aviation and 

cargo airports to continue operations during inclement winter weather. Primary commercial airports have 

higher levels of jet activity. Jets are more likely than other types of aircraft to operate during inclement 

winter weather and therefore require aircraft and pavement deicing to function. 

EPA focused on primary commercial airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures because these 

airports are more likely to operate during inclement winter weather and conduct the majority of airport 

deicing operations. Although deicing takes place at some general aviation and cargo airports and primary 

commercial airports with fewer than 1,000 annual jet departures (see Table 3-1), EPA focused on an 

airport category that conducts the majority of airport deicing activity. 

EPA used airports’ responses to EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c) to identify a 

number of airports that conduct deicing operations. Because EPA did not survey every airport in the U.S., 

EPA assumes, for the purposes of this analysis, that airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures and 

one or more snow or freezing rain precipitation (SOFP) days per year (on average) conduct deicing 

operations and are in scope of the proposed regulatory options. These discussions of the universe of 

airports within scope of the proposed regulatory options are not official determinations of regulation 

applicability but rather EPA’s current best estimate of the universe of facilities affected by the proposed 

regulatory options. 

Table B-1 in Appendix B lists those airports EPA estimates are within scope of the proposed regulatory 

options. Table B-1 also lists facilities that are potentially within scope of the proposed regulatory options. 

July 2009 3-1 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

EPA assumes airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures and zero SOFP days per year (on average) 

are potentially in scope. These airports are located in areas of the country where deicing activity levels are 

typically low and may or may not take place at the airports in question. EPA has insufficient information 

at this time to determine the extent of deicing activity at these airports and has therefore designated these 

facilities as potentially within scope of the proposed regulatory options. Figure 3-1 presents a map of the 

in-scope airports listed in Appendix B. Airports potentially within scope of the proposed regulatory 

options are not illustrated in Figure 3-1. 

Figure 3-1: Airports within Scope of Proposed Regulatory Options 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 aircraft and pavement deicing 

and in their discharge environments. These variables are discussed in Section 3.2. 

3.2 Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharges to the Environment 

Airport deicing pollutant discharges to the environment vary widely among individual airports. Pollutant 

discharges can also vary widely from day to day at any individual airport. This variability is driven by 

individual airport deicing practices and environmental contexts and the weather-dependent nature of 

deicing activities and discharges. This section discusses a number of factors that influence airport deicing 

pollutant loads and also describes EPA’s quantified estimates of national and individual airport deicing 

pollutant discharges. 

3.2.1 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge to the Environment 

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

airports: 

July 2009 3-2 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 

3⁄4 Weather conditions 

3.2.1.1 Deicing Product Selection 

Deicing product choice is the first determinant of deicing pollutant loadings at an individual airport. A 

variety of ADF and pavement deicer formulations are available for purchase and use by airports and 

airlines. These formulations contain one or two of several freezing point depressants, which constitute 

most of the formulation, as well as a variety of chemical additives. The formulations chosen by an airport 

or airlines affect the chemicals that will discharge to the environment. For example, an airport that 

chooses a potassium acetate-based pavement deicer will discharge potassium, undegraded acetate, 

COD/BOD, and unidentified additives to the environment; whereas an airport that chooses a urea-based 

pavement deicer will discharge undegraded urea, ammonia, nitrates, and higher levels of BOD/COD to 

the environment. For additional information on the types and quantities of different chemicals found in 

ADF and airfield pavement deicer formulations, see Chapter 2. 

Multiple factors drive deicing product choice including airport climate, product performance, cost, 

availability, and compatibility with aircraft and airport infrastructure. Weather conditions also strongly 

influence the need for use of different types of airport deicing products. For example, during winter 

freezing precipitation events, the use of Type I ADF for aircraft deicing, Type IV ADF for aircraft antiicing and pavement deicers may all be necessary to maintain aircraft operations. Environmental release of 

chemicals from all three product types would therefore be expected under these conditions. During calm 

winter conditions, use of only Type I ADF to remove light layers of frost from aircraft may be necessary, 

and under these conditions releases of chemicals associated with Type IV ADF and pavement deicers 

would not be expected. 

3.2.1.2 Air Traffic Composition and Levels 

Airports vary widely in the types of aircraft using their facilities and in total number of aircraft departures 

during the winter deicing season. EPA has focused the scope of the rule on those airports that have higher 

levels of jet departures (1,000 or more annually). Jets are more likely than other types of aircraft (e.g., 

propeller-driven aircraft) to continue operating during inclement winter weather. Airports with larger 

numbers of jet departures are more likely to use ADF and pavement deicers to maintain operations and 

therefore are more likely to discharge deicing pollutants. 

The type of jet also makes a difference in the quantity of ADF released to the environment since larger 

jets require larger quantities of ADF than smaller jets for both deicing and anti-icing. 

In addition, all other factors being equal, airports with larger numbers of jet and other aircraft departures 

will use larger quantities of deicing products. 

3.2.1.3 Airport Deicing Pollutant Treatment and Collection Practices 

Airports vary widely in the nature of their deicing pollutant collection and treatment practices. A number 

of airports discharge some or all of their deicing pollutants to surface waters near airports. Some airports 

collect a 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 

July 2009 3-3 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

discharge stormwater containing deicing pollutants to soil and groundwater. Many airports have a 

combination of these discharge conditions. EPA’s Technical Development Document for the Proposed 

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2009) provides 

additional information on the collection and treatment systems found at individual airports. 

ADF and pavement deicer chemicals disperse widely during use. Type I and Type IV ADF drip and shear 

from aircraft during application, taxiing, and take-off. Airports apply pavement deicers to large expanses 

of airfield pavement found at many airports, including aprons, gate areas, taxiways, and runways. Due to 

this widespread product dispersion, large quantities of airport stormwater frequently contain some level of 

deicing pollutants. The large quantities and dispersed nature of contaminated stormwater make it difficult 

for airports to collect and treat more than a fraction of released deicing product. For this reason, most 

airports discharge the majority of their deicing pollutants to the environment. 

Deicing collection and treatment systems vary in design and effectiveness by airport. EPA’s Technical 

Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 

Deicing Category (US EPA 2009) describes collection and treatment technologies and their effectiveness 

in reducing deicing pollutant discharges in detail. EPA assessed three ADF stormwater collection 

technologies and one stormwater treatment technology for the purpose of constructing regulatory options. 

The assessed collection technologies include glycol recovery vehicles (GRVs), GRVs used in 

combination with “plug and pump” systems, and deicing pads. The assessed treatment technology is 

anaerobic fluidized bed (AFB) biological treatment. EPA’s Technical Development Document for the 

Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 2009) 

also discusses other approaches airports use to reduce discharge of deicing pollutants to surface waters. 

3.2.1.4 Airfield Design 

The configuration of airport grounds and infrastructure relative to surface waters, pervious surfaces, and 

groundwater also affect deicing pollutant dispersion in the environment. Influential airport design 

elements include: 

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 airport stormwater to a chosen destination quickly and 

without substantial volume loss during delivery. Other systems are designed or are in a condition such 

that substantial volumes of stormwater are lost prior to ultimate discharge. Pervious or partially pervious 

system elements such as unlined ditches and ponds and leaking stormwater pipes and storage units allow 

stormwater loss. Deicing pollutants in stormwater lost from collection and delivery systems typically 

enter the soil column where they degrade, accumulate, or eventually enter groundwater if present on 

airport grounds. Groundwater and the pollutants it contains may ultimately discharge to nearby surface 

waters or flow beyond airport property lines. In these situations, infiltration may slow and reduce 

pollutant discharges to surface waters, but not eliminate them. In other cases, pollutants in groundwater 

may degrade before they discharge to surface waters or cross airport property lines. 

July 2009 3-4 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

Deicing pollutants can also degrade during stormwater transport and storage. Degradation rates are slower 

under cold temperatures and increase as temperatures rise. Systems that discharge stormwater more 

slowly, particularly those that hold stormwater until later in the year when average temperatures rise, 

allow greater opportunity for degradation of deicing pollutants prior to discharge. The degradation 

process can remove some chemicals of concern in deicing discharges. In some cases, however, 

degradation can create new pollutants of concern or a volume of stormwater with very low dissolved 

oxygen levels, both of which can be of concern if discharged to surface waters in sufficient quantities. For 

additional information on airport deicing product degradation products, see Chapter 2. 

In general, the closer airport runways and taxiways are to surface waters, the greater the potential for 

deicing pollutants to enter those waters through stormwater flow, groundwater flow, or aerial deposition. 

Shorter distances reduce pollutant loss from stormwater transport systems, degradation, and soil retention. 

Shorter distances also make it more likely that ADF released to the air during taxiing and takeoff can be 

carried by the wind to surface waters. Some airport takeoff flight paths extend directly over surface 

waters and ADF shed during takeoff can fall directly into those surface waters. Conversely, greater 

distances increase opportunities for pollutant loss, retention, and degradation., 

As the imperviousness and slope of the airport grounds increase, the amount of stormwater runoff 

available to mobilize and carry deicing pollutants to surface waters tends to increase. Pervious areas on 

airfields can include areas of vegetation or bare soil as well as paved areas with cracked surfaces. 

Vegetation buffers between impervious areas where ADF and pavement deicers are initially released and 

surface waters can decrease the amount of stormwater and pollutants entering surface waters by providing 

an opportunity for stormwater infiltration and pollutant accumulation or degradation in the soil column. 

Pollutants associated with Type IV fluids and pavement deicers, in particular, are affected by overall 

airfield design because of their widespread dispersion in the airfield. A smaller proportion of Type I fluids 

are affected by overall airfield design because most are released to the environment close to ADF 

application sites. Type I ADF dispersion is therefore most influenced by the design of the particular 

portions of the airfield that contain and drain stormwater from ADF application sites. 

3.2.1.5 Weather Conditions 

Because the use of ADF and airfield pavement deicers is so weather-dependent, deicing pollutant 

discharges among individual airports vary widely with differences in climate and typical winter weather 

conditions. Deicing pollutant discharges can also vary widely from year-to-year and day-to-day at 

individual airports as winter weather conditions vary at airports on seasonal and daily bases. In addition to 

influencing choice of deicing product for application, as discussed above, weather conditions also 

influence the quantity of product applied and its dispersion in the environment. 

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

3⁄4 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 types. Precipitation type affects both the quantity of 

deicing product used as well as its dispersion. For example, freezing rain tends to coat aircraft with ice. 

July 2009 3-5 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

Ice coatings tend to require greater quantities of Type I ADF to remove than loose, dry snow or light 

frost. 

Precipitation type and ground and air temperatures also affect pollutant dispersion. Precipitation that is 

liquid, such as rain, or that melts, such as snow on a warm ground surface, mobilizes deicing pollutants 

and moves them through stormwater transport systems to discharge more quickly than solid precipitation 

that accumulates on airfield surfaces. After a snow event, a significant quantity of ADF and pavement 

deicers can be trapped in plowed snowbanks or snow storage units and will not enter stormwater transport 

systems or surface waters, soil, or groundwater until ground and air temperatures are high enough to 

allow the snow to melt. Rates and timing of snowmelt can vary widely among airports (e.g., Fairbanks 

International in Alaska versus Dallas-Fort Worth International in Texas) and among winter seasons or 

snow events at individual airports. 

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

higher temperatures allow higher degradation rates. 

Strong winds associated with some weather events can increase aerial deposition of ADF on the airfield 

and adjacent surface waters. 

Another factor that influences deicing pollutant discharge is precipitation event magnitude. In general, as 

precipitation quantity increases, use of greater quantities of ADF and pavement deicer is required. In 

addition, larger precipitation events tend to produce more stormwater. Larger quantities of stormwater 

tend to mobilize and discharge deicing pollutants more quickly than smaller quantities of stormwater. The 

timing of stormwater availability from a specific event will, however, be dependent on the type of 

precipitation and its melting rate, as discussed above. Because larger stormwater quantities move deicing 

pollutants more quickly, they may reduce the quantity of pollutants that infiltrate soil and other pervious 

airport surfaces. 

Another important factor is the timing of precipitation events. Precipitation events that take place during 

periods of high air traffic levels (e.g., holidays, morning rush times) require deicing operations for a 

greater number of aircraft and the use of greater quantities of deicing materials (see Aircraft Traffic 

Composition and Levels above). 

3.2.2 Quantified Airport Deicing Pollutant Discharge Estimates 

EPA estimated seasonal pollutant discharges from airport deicing operations based on current airport 

practices and conditions. EPA had sufficient information to quantify a portion of the total discharge of 

chemical oxygen demand (COD) and ammonia from airport deicing operations. A more detailed 

description of EPA’s estimation methodology and results is available in the Technical Development 

Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing 

Category (US EPA 2009). 

COD is a parameter well-suited to monitoring oxygen demand from ADF and pavement deicer 

discharges. Five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) is another parameter that can be used to 

monitor oxygen demand, but EPA selected COD for its analysis for the following reasons: 

July 2009 3-6 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

3⁄4 While both COD and BOD5 are good indicators of stormwater oxygen demand, COD also 

measures oxygen demand from all chemicals that can be oxidized and which may not be reflected 

in a measure of BOD5. 

3⁄4 COD analyses are simpler to conduct and can be measured in real time rather than the 5 days 

required for BOD5 analyses. 

3⁄4 BOD5 analyses reflect a specific set of conditions (i.e., oxygen demand at 20°C and over a 5 day 

period). Because most deicing discharges take place at temperatures lower than 20°C and remain 

in the environment for periods much longer than 5 days, COD is a better measure of the long term 

oxygen demand associated with the discharges. 

3⁄4 Active bacterial cultures are required for BOD5 analyses. Toxic ADF and pavement deicer 

additives can have a negative and variable impact on bacteria culture acclimation to deicing 

stormwaters, making the method less robust than COD analyses. 

EPA developed a pollutant discharge (“loading”) calculation methodology to estimate COD discharges to 

surface waters based on ADF and pavement deicer use at airports surveyed by EPA (2009). As described 

in Section 3.2.1, a number of airport-specific factors influence the discharge of deicing pollutants to 

surface waters. Typically, ADF is applied at specific airport locations such as gate areas, deicing pads, 

and aprons. Airports typically apply pavement deicing chemicals over a larger area and variety of 

locations, including runways, taxiways, aprons, and gate areas. For the purposes of this analysis, EPA 

assumed that pavement deicing chemicals could be present in discharges from almost every airport 

outfall, whereas the majority of ADF chemicals are present in the discharges from the smaller number of 

outfalls that drain ADF application sites. 

For the purposes of this analysis, EPA estimated the percentage of ADF and pavement deicers that can be 

carried by stormwater and potentially discharged to surface waters. Because pavement deicers are applied 

to large and varied expanses of the airfield, the amount of pavement deicers available for discharge to 

surface waters can range from nearly 100% from paved areas near outfall drains to nearly 0% for deicers 

that fall on grassy areas and infiltrate unfrozen soil. Estimating the percentage of pavement deicers 

discharged to surface waters at individual airports is difficult without performing a detailed study of each 

airport. Therefore, EPA assumed 100% of pavement deicers are available for discharge to surface waters 

in order to analyze the maximum possible amount of discharge. 

For ADF discharges, EPA chose to estimate only discharges from ADF application sites and did not 

estimate discharges associated with ADF dispersed in the airfield beyond ADF application sites. EPA 

may further examine airfield ADF discharge levels at a later date. 

EPA estimates that 80% of Type I fluid applied to aircraft falls to the pavement at ADF application sites 

and is available for discharge from those areas. The remaining 20% is dispersed in the airfield beyond 

ADF application sites due to tracking by aircraft tires, wind dispersion, and dripping and shearing from 

aircraft during taxiing and take-off (Switzenbaum et al. 1999). EPA estimates that 10% of Type IV antiicing fluid falls to the pavement at ADF application sites and is available for discharge from those areas. 

The remaining 90% is primarily dispersed in the airfield due to tracking by aircraft tires, wind dispersion, 

and dripping and shearing from aircraft, particularly during take-off. Some ADF can be carried by aircraft 

or wind beyond airport property lines. EPA multiplied the total amount of Type I and Type IV ADF 

applied at individual airports by the appropriate ADF application site percentage to determine the amount 

of each type of ADF available for discharge from ADF application sites. 

July 2009 3-7 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

EPA also calculated the annual volume of ADF-contaminated stormwater associated with ADF 

application sites by using the information described above in conjunction with 30 years (1971-2000) of 

precipitation data from the National Climate Data Center, airport site characteristic information from 

EPA’s airport survey, sampling data, published journal and other articles, and discharge information from 

EPA’s Permit Compliance System. It is important to note that not all airports report discharge information 

to their permitting authority, therefore available discharge data is limited. 

EPA then determined the percentage of ADF from ADF application sites that would be collected and 

treated at each airport. EPA estimated these percentages using information provided during to EPA during 

airport site visits and in responses to EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). If an airport 

did not provide EPA with a percentage estimate for their collection and treatment system, EPA reviewed 

the airport’s questionnaire responses as well as reported collection and treatment percentages for similar 

collection and treatment systems to determine a percentage estimate for the airport. 

EPA reduced the estimate of total COD load from ADF application sites at each airport by EPA’s 

percentage estimate of the airport’s current collection and treatment system effectiveness to estimate the 

amount of COD the airport discharges to surface waters from ADF application sites. These estimates 

represent the current, “baseline” amount of ADF discharged to the environment from ADF application 

sites over a single deicing season. 

To estimate COD discharges associated with pavement deicers, EPA first determined the type and 

quantity of pavement deicer product applied at individual airports using responses to EPA’s Airport 

Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). EPA then calculated the quantity of COD associated with the 

type and quantity of pavement deicer used at each airport. EPA assumed 100% of pavement deicers are 

available for discharge to surface waters. This assumption may overestimate the quantity of COD 

reaching surface waters because of losses at some airports to soil infiltration. EPA has insufficient 

information to estimate levels of soil infiltration at individual airports. 

Table 3-1 summarizes ADF application site and pavement deicer COD discharges EPA estimated for each 

airport that responded to EPA’s questionnaire. EPA did not have sufficient information to estimate 

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 

Airport Name 

Pavement Deicer 

COD Discharge 

(pounds/year) 

ADF Application 

Site COD 

Discharge 

(pounds/year) Airport Service Level 

Aberdeen Regional 12,472 0 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Airborne Airpark 1,210,057 2,331,713 General Aviation/Cargo 

Akron - Canton Regional 56,700 255,826 Small Hub 

Albany International 214,534 109,890 Small Hub 

Albuquerque International Sunport 2,617 524,227 Medium Hub 

Aniak 5,115 5,540 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field 38,268 91,601 Non-Hub 

Austin Straubel International 110,283 378,973 Small Hub 

Austin-Bergstrom International 9,976 146,656 Medium Hub 

Baltimore-Washington International 884,564 1,374,218 Large Hub 

Barnstable Muni-Boardman/Polando Field S 469,111 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

July 2009 3-8 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

July 2009 3-9 

Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF 

Application Sites at Surveyed Airports 

Airport Name 

Pavement Deicer 

COD Discharge 

(pounds/year) 

ADF Application 

Site COD 

Discharge 

(pounds/year) Airport Service Level 

Bert Mooney 0 0 Non-Hub 

Bethel 140,659 50,915 Non-Hub 

Birmingham International 0 50,847 Small Hub 

Bismarck Municipal 9,195 213,443 Non-Hub 

Bob Hope 0 0 Medium Hub 

Boeing Field/King County International 5,851 31,446 Non-Hub 

Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field 937,541 290,420 Small Hub 

Bradley International 460,060 1,778,704 Medium Hub 

Buffalo Niagara International 913 1,832,048 Medium Hub 

Central Wisconsin 215,733 443,467 Non-Hub 

Charlotte/Douglas International 558,864 1,392,605 Large Hub 

Cherry Capital 36,219 0 Non-Hub 

Chicago Midway International 718,880 0 Large Hub 

Chicago O'Hare International 10,365,065 8,733,878 Large Hub 

Chippewa Valley Regional 0 0 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International 1,515,928 822,345 Large Hub 

City of Colorado Springs Municipal 113,269 462,436 Small Hub 

Cleveland-Hopkins International 1,816,972 3,709,111 Medium Hub 

Cold Bay S 621,909 Non-Primary Commercial 

Service / <1,000 jet 

Craven County Regional 0 8,928 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Dallas Love Field 125 227,012 Medium Hub 

Dallas/Fort Worth International 10,373 593,712 Large Hub 

Deadhorse 50,848 0 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Denver International 1,911,606 777,648 Large Hub 

Des Moines International 176,265 490,533 Small Hub 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 1,010,803 0 Large Hub 

Duluth International 0 765,304 Non-Hub 

El Paso International 0 0 Small Hub 

Eppley Airfield 146,043 1,128,249 Medium Hub 

Evansville Regional 16,448 204,825 Non-Hub 

Fairbanks International 941,866 319,152 Small Hub 

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International 0 0 Large Hub 

Fort Wayne International 712,697 545,428 Non-Hub 

Fort Worth Alliance 2,991 6,898 General Aviation/Cargo 

General Edward Lawrence Logan International 1,359,382 9,740,474 Large Hub 

General Mitchell International 699,290 957,716 Medium Hub 

George Bush Intercontinental Airport/Houston 0 60,235 Large Hub 

Gerald R. Ford International 36,210 600,371 Small Hub 

Gillette-Campbell County * 0 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Glacier Park International 710 391,940 Non-Hub 

Greater Rochester International 170,234 1,228,022 Small Hub 

Greater Rockford 1,590,039 557,825 Non-Hub 

Gulfport-Biloxi International 0 0 Small Hub 

Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International 179,433 1,472,952 Large Hub 

Helena Regional 0 0 Non-Hub 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

July 2009 3-10 

Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF 

Application Sites at Surveyed Airports 

Airport Name 

Pavement Deicer 

COD Discharge 

(pounds/year) 

ADF Application 

Site COD 

Discharge 

(pounds/year) Airport Service Level 

Honolulu International 0 0 Large Hub 

Indianapolis International 824,663 2,907,633 Medium Hub 

Jackson Hole 0 0 Non-Hub 

Jacksonville International 0 0 Medium Hub 

James M Cox Dayton International 86,686 380,946 Small Hub 

John F Kennedy International 3,068,666 5,489,149 Large Hub 

John Wayne Airport-Orange County 0 0 Medium Hub 

Juneau International 1,082,651 459,700 Small Hub 

Kahului 0 0 Medium Hub 

Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International 2,730 88,053 Non-Hub 

Kansas City International 346,890 1,279,726 Medium Hub 

Kona International at Keahole 0 0 Small Hub 

La Guardia 1,315,424 4,487,109 Large Hub 

Lafayette Regional 0 15,133 Non-Hub 

Lambert-St Louis International 3,322,542 1,230,807 Large Hub 

Lanai 0 0 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Lewiston-Nez Perce County S 0 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Long Island Mac Arthur 0 176,997 Small Hub 

Los Angeles International 0 0 Large Hub 

Louis Armstrong New Orleans International 0 0 Medium Hub 

Louisville International-Standiford Field 439,328 522,149 Medium Hub 

Lovell Field 0 42,182 Non-Hub 

Luis Munoz Marin International 0 0 Medium Hub 

Manchester 229,469 1,828,125 Medium Hub 

Mc Carran International 0 64,919 Large Hub 

Memphis International 334,157 2,073,854 Medium Hub 

Metropolitan Oakland International 0 0 Large Hub 

Miami International 0 0 Large Hub 

Minneapolis-St Paul International/WoldChamberlain 681,924 6,362,897 Large Hub 

Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field) 0 2,359 Non-Hub 

Nashville International 93,454 372,242 Medium Hub 

Newark Liberty International 1,686,306 11,464,956 Large Hub 

Nome 22,429 30,113 Non-Hub 

Norfolk International * 251,092 Medium Hub 

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International 0 0 Medium Hub 

Northwest Arkansas Regional 397,847 312,852 Small Hub 

Ontario International 0 356 Medium Hub 

Orlando International 0 0 Large Hub 

Outagamie County Regional 130,836 588,037 Non-Hub 

Palm Beach International 0 0 Medium Hub 

Pensacola Regional 0 0 Small Hub 

Philadelphia International 1,701,450 1,530,580 Large Hub 

Phoenix Sky Harbor International 0 0 Large Hub 

Piedmont Triad International 243,299 698,801 Small Hub 

Pittsburgh International 906,866 3,931,605 Large Hub 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

July 2009 3-11 

Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF 

Application Sites at Surveyed Airports 

Airport Name 

Pavement Deicer 

COD Discharge 

(pounds/year) 

ADF Application 

Site COD 

Discharge 

(pounds/year) Airport Service Level 

Port Columbus International 313,879 3,120,055 Medium Hub 

Portland International 178,213 911,546 Medium Hub 

Raleigh-Durham International 190,387 1,041,489 Medium Hub 

Ralph Wien Memorial 43,866 25,326 Non-Hub 

Rapid City Regional 10,907 258,448 Non-Hub 

Redding Municipal * 7,035 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Reno/Tahoe International 30,378 606,939 Medium Hub 

Richmond International 151,669 361,921 Small Hub 

Rickenbacker International 44,335 108,882 Non-Hub 

Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field 75,056 334,727 Non-Hub 

Roberts Field S 0 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Rochester International * 210,773 Non-Hub 

Ronald Reagan Washington National 366,464 1,309,731 Large Hub 

Sacramento International 0 0 Medium Hub 

Sacramento Mather 0 11,932 General Aviation/Cargo 

Salt Lake City International 3,272,738 1,794,858 Large Hub 

San Antonio International * 129,604 Medium Hub 

San Diego International 0 0 Large Hub 

San Francisco International 0 0 Large Hub 

Santa Fe Municipal 0 0 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Santa Maria Pub/Capt G Allan Hancock Field 0 0 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Sarasota/Bradenton International 0 0 Small Hub 

Seattle-Tacoma International 56,346 1,600,739 Large Hub 

South Bend Regional 69,136 0 Small Hub 

Southwest Florida International 0 0 Medium Hub 

Spokane International 1,362,864 0 Small Hub 

St George Municipal 0 0 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Stewart International 370,095 196,863 Non-Hub 

Syracuse Hancock International 6,729 844,427 Small Hub 

Tampa International 0 0 Large Hub 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International 4,140,073 2,416,962 Medium Hub 

Theodore Francis Green State 80,620 610,460 Medium Hub 

Toledo Express 112,145 383,445 Non-Hub 

Trenton Mercer 7,625 54,836 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field 149,013 131,595 Non-Hub 

Tucson International 0 19,045 Medium Hub 

Tupelo Regional * 8,339 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Tweed-New Haven 199 50,074 Non-Hub 

Washington Dulles International 2,032,669 6,052,151 Large Hub 

Waterloo Municipal 12,787 79,504 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Wiley Post-Will Rogers Memorial 42,624 29,821 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International * 432,418 Non-Hub 

Will Rogers World 26,285 503,236 Small Hub 

William P Hobby 0 0 Medium Hub 

Williamson County Regional 0 0 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 

Williamsport Regional S 40,953 Non-Hub / <1,000 jet 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

July 2009 3-12 

Table 3-1: Partial Chemical Oxygen Demand Discharges from Pavement Deicers and ADF 

Application Sites at Surveyed Airports 

Airport Name 

Pavement Deicer 

COD Discharge 

(pounds/year) 

ADF Application 

Site COD 

Discharge 

(pounds/year) Airport Service Level 

Willow Run S 62,356 General Aviation/Cargo 

Wilmington International 0 22,118 Non-Hub 

Yeager 75,865 302,292 Non-Hub 

Chemical oxygen demand (COD) loads were calculated from data provided in response to the EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire 

(2006c) and the EPA Airline Deicing Questionnaire (2006b). 

<1,000 jet- Airport has less than 1,000 jet departures annually. 

S – The airport reported using only sand as a pavement deicer (US EPA 2006c). 

* – The airport reported that the quantity of pavement deicer usage was unknown (US EPA 2006c). 

EPA also estimated annual ammonia discharges from urea pavement deicer use at individual airports 

surveyed by EPA (Table 3-2). EPA does not have sufficient information to estimate ammonia discharge 

levels at individual airports EPA did not survey. 

Table 3-2: Ammonia Discharge from Deicing Operations at Surveyed Airports 

Airport Name 

Pavement Deicer Ammonia 

Discharge (pounds/year) 

Akron - Canton Regional 12,077 

Austin Straubel International 23,516 

Bethel 37,363 

Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field 229,654 

Bradley International 9,481 

Central Wisconsin 47,775 

Charlotte/Douglas International 131,873 

Fairbanks International 217,005 

Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International 151,694 

General Edward Lawrence Logan International 3,227 

Glacier Park International 189 

Greater Rockford 370,834 

Juneau International 287,579 

Manchester 12,737 

Northwest Arkansas Regional 15,285 

Piedmont Triad International 55,855 

Raleigh-Durham International 50,572 

Ralph Wien Memorial 5,661 

Reno/Tahoe International 4,097 

Ronald Reagan Washington National 35,476 

Salt Lake City International 830,662 

South Bend Regional 18,364 

Spokane International 361,550 

Stewart International 85,934 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International 945,803 

Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field 35,476 

Yeager 15,087 

EPA was able to create national estimates of COD and ammonia discharges from ADF application sites 

and pavement deicers. EPA estimated 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 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

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. The national estimate of COD loads associated with pavement deicer use is an underestimate 

because some airport survey respondents were unable to quantify their level of pavement deicer use, and 

EPA has insufficient information to estimate their use levels. 

Table 3-3 presents the estimate of current national COD loads from ADF application sites and pavement 

deicers by airport hub size category. COD discharges associated with ADF dispersed in areas beyond 

ADF application sites are not reflected by the figures in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: Estimate of National Baseline COD Discharges from ADF Application Sites and Airfield 

Pavement Deicing by Airport Hub Size Category 

Airport Hub Size 

ADF Application Site COD 

Discharge 

(pounds/year) 

Pavement Deicer COD 

Discharge 

(pounds/year) 

Large 70,287,571 36,926,292 

Medium 28,433,086 10,337,507 

Small 9,863,368 8,097,151 

Nonhub 17,382,976 6,232,568 

General Aviation/Cargo 2,412,898 1,213,047 

Total 128,379,900 62,806,565 

EPA also calculated current, baseline national ammonia discharges associated with airport use of urea as a 

pavement deicer. These discharges are presented by airport hub size category in Table 3-4. 

Table 3-4: Estimate of National Baseline Ammonia Discharges from Airfield Payment Deicing by 

Airport Hub Size Category 

Airport Hub Size 

Ammonia Discharge 

(pounds/year) 

Large 1,001,238 

Medium 1,022,690 

Small 1,577,948 

Nonhub 1,051,967 

General Aviation/Cargo NA 

Total 4,653,843 

Other pollutants in addition to COD and ammonia discharge from airport deicing operations. EPA has not 

quantified discharge levels of these other pollutants. Chapter 1 discusses current levels of airport deicing 

product usage in the U.S. Chapter 2 discusses the range of pollutants potentially present in ADF and 

pavement deicer products. 

3.3 Factors Influencing Airport Deicing Pollutant Concentrations in Receiving 

Surface Waters 

Pollutant concentrations in the environment, as well as total discharges, are of interest because of their 

influence on the manner in which some pollutants impact the environment. As discussed in Chapter 2, a 

number of pollutants have threshold levels above which impacts have been documented. 

A number of factors influence airport deicing pollutant concentrations in surface waters. An important 

factor is the total quantity of pollutants discharging to surface waters. Factors influencing total pollutant 

discharges from airports are discussed in Section 3.2. 

July 2009 3-13 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

ADFs and pavement deicers, as applied, contain certain concentrations of chemicals (see Chapter 2). 

Before they enter surface waters, however, ADF and pavement deicers typically undergo dilution with 

precipitation and, in some cases, a certain amount of degradation. Pollutant concentrations in deicingcontaminated stormwater are typically lower, therefore, than the concentrations found in airport deicing 

products as-applied. 

When deicing pollutants enter surface waters, they are typically diluted further. Receiving water volume, 

waterbody flow rate, and waterbody mixing dynamics influence dilution levels. Surface water 

characteristics such as vegetation, stream slope, presence of ice and snow cover, stream channel obstacles, 

and tidal influences can significantly affect flow rate and mixing. High vegetation levels and low stream 

channel slopes tend to retard flow. Channel depressions can slow low flows and significantly increase 

residence times of deicing pollutants in receiving streams. Snow pack and ice in streams can also alter 

flow either by altering stream channel characteristics. Snow pack and ice can create depressions in a 

channel that can reduce stream flow. They can also increase flow by filling in existing stream channel 

depressions and reducing resistance to flow. Stream channel obstacles such as woody debris, rocks, and 

falls can increase turbulence and mix pollutants with greater volumes of water. Tidal currents can also 

increase mixing and dilution. 

Many of the surface waters that directly receive airport deicing pollutants are small, low-flow, and 

relatively low-slope streams. Figure 3-2 summarizes available flow rate data for surface waters directly 

receiving deicing discharges from airports EPA surveyed. According to available data, 62% of initial 

receiving waters have a flow rate of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) or less. 

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

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

Discharge Flow (cfs) 10,000

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%. 

July 2009 3-14 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 Waterbody

Number 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 dilution and the potential for greater pollutant retention 

time. 

Rate of pollutant delivery versus rate of dilution is an important dynamic. 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 determinant of the quantity and rate at which pollutants are 

delivered to surface waters. Precipitation quantity and type also affects the quantity of surface water flow 

available for dilution of discharged pollutants as well as the rate at which those pollutants travel 

downstream. High levels of rain or melted precipitation typically create higher surface water flow and 

move pollutants downstream more quickly. Numerous combinations of precipitation and deicing event 

frequency and intensity result in highly variable deicing pollutant delivery to and dilution in receiving 

surface waters. 

Surface water degradation processes are another important 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 information on airport deicing pollutant discharges and 

their connection to environmental impacts. Literatures sources included the peer-reviewed literature, state 

reports, newspapers, government agency reports, and a variety of organization publications. This section 

describes the results of EPA’s literature search. EPA compiled more than 90 individual documents 

July 2009 3-15 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

describing environmental impacts from airport deicing discharges. In some cases, deicing pollutant 

discharges have been definitively linked to environmental impacts. In other cases, impact linkage to 

deicing pollutants is suggested, rather than definitive. Compiled articles describe a wide range of airport 

and discharge conditions. 

Surface waters are often subject to multiple stressors (e.g., pollutants from airport activities other than 

deicing, other industrial discharges, invasive species). Determining the source(s) of a water’s impairment 

can be difficult and requires complex analyses that have not yet been conducted and published. EPA has 

summarized suggested, as well as definitive, impact cases in this section because of the additional 

information they provide on potential environmental impacts from deicing pollutant discharges. 

Approximately half of the articles describe impacts with a definitive connection to airport deicing 

pollutant discharges. 

The majority of the environmental impact documentation focuses on impacts observed in surface waters 

directly receiving airport deicing pollutant discharges. Wildlife impacts such as fish kills or other 

organism deaths are the most frequently described environmental impact. Table 3-5 summarizes the total 

number of studies EPA found on different types of environmental impacts and that were categorized as 

having either a definitive or suggested connection to airport deicing discharges. 

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

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 

Nutrients 8 9 17 

Wildlife Impacts 

Fish Kill 8 10 18 

Other Organisms 25 20 45 

Human Health Impacts 

Health 4 4 8 

Drinking Water 1 7 8 

Aesthetic Impacts 

Foam 4 6 10 

Odor 14 17 31 

Color 11 9 20 

Violations 

Permit Violations 17 10 27 

Though EPA’s literature search was extensive, it is unlikely that EPA located all available documentation 

of environmental impacts from airport deicing discharges. There are probably environmental impacts 

from airport deicing discharges that have not yet been documented and published because of the time and 

effort often required to detect, analyze, and document environmental impacts from industrial discharges. 

An additional limitation on EPA’s literature compilation is its ability to reflect current conditions at 

individual airports. Since the publication of articles describing environmental impacts from certain 

airports, some of those airports have installed collection and treatment systems or otherwise changed their 

deicing practices in order to reduce deicing pollutant discharges. Table 3-6 summarizes a number of 

improvements airports have undertaken to reduce their environmental impact in recent years. A number 

of these efforts have improved conditions in receiving surface waters. 

July 2009 3-16 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

Table 3-6: Airport Deicing System Improvements 

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 

Dayton International Airport Contaminated drinking water, 

high ammonia levels, loss of fish 

community, thousands of 

organisms killed 

New deicing collection and 

treatment system constructed 

1996 

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 

No 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 

No longer using urea, 

construction of containment 

system 

By 2002-2003 

Despite these limitations, the literature compilation provides a diverse profile of the types of 

environmental impacts associated with airport deicing discharges. As air traffic and deicing product usage 

levels continue to increase in the U.S. these types of impacts will either reappear at previously affected 

airports or newly appear at airports where they had not been previously detected, unless application, 

collection, and treatment practices change. Environmental impacts from deicing discharges continue to 

persist at some level at many of the airports listed in Table 3-6, despite the sometimes significant efforts 

made to address them. 

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

additional information on individual articles EPA compiled during the literature review, see Table C-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 after release to the environment, creating high 

chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels in surface waters. High 

July 2009 3-17 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

COD and BOD levels in surface waters can lead to high levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) consumption as 

the organic matter degrades, potentially lowering DO concentrations below levels required for the health 

and survival of aquatic organisms (see Section 2.2.1.2). EPA documented COD and BOD problems for 13 

individual airports in 16 articles, 11 of which were classified as being definitively connected to airport 

deicing discharges. Many of the information sources were state government reports and published journal 

articles. 

In a newspaper article on impacts from Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport’s deicing operations, 

the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s water quality supervisor is quoted as stating that the airport’s 

deicing discharges represent the largest source of organic pollutants to the Minnesota River (Meersman 

1993). During the course of the 1992-1993 deicing season, approximately 2,400 tons of glycol were 

discharged to the Minnesota River. State officials suspected that these discharges lower DO levels in the 

Minnesota River. 

In 1998, the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection determined that the Cincinnati/Northern 

Kentucky International Airport was responsible for elevated glycol levels and BOD issues observed in 

surface waters receiving stormwater discharges from the airport. These problems continued to persist, 

even after the airport implemented remediation actions (Kentucky Department of Environmental 

Protection 1998). 

3.4.1.2 Dissolved Oxygen 

As organic material, BOD, and COD levels increase in airport deicing discharges increases, the amount of 

dissolved oxygen (DO) required by surface water microorganisms to digest the material also increases. 

Biodegradation of organic material lowers DO levels in surface waters and can ultimately make them 

uninhabitable for aquatic life. EPA compiled 20 articles describing DO impacts from deicing activities at 

13 airports. The impacts in 10 articles could be definitively connected to airport deicing discharges. The 

articles describe low levels of DO and anoxia in receiving waters. 

The Columbia Slough receives deicing pollutant discharges from Portland International Airport and is a 

well-documented case of deicing pollutants lowering DO levels in a receiving water. In a technical report 

prepared for the City of Portland, the airport’s deicing discharges were documented as contributing 79% 

of all organic material discharging to the Columbia Slough (Wells 1997). Low DO levels clearly coincide 

with cold weather deicing activities. A separate report written by the Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality (1998) specifically states that the airport’s deicing pollutants have lowered DO in 

the Slough. 

3.4.1.3 Nutrients 

The pavement deicer urea decays and forms ammonia in surface waters. High concentrations of ammonia 

can be toxic to many aquatic organisms and plants can use the nitrogen in ammonia to fuel extra growth. 

Bacteria can also convert ammonia to other nitrogen-containing compounds that plants can absorb as 

nutrients. Nitrogen in airport deicing discharges can encourage algal blooms and other biological 

overgrowths, followed by low DO levels or anoxia as the overgrowths die and decay. EPA found nutrient 

impact complaints in 17 articles, 8 of which EPA classified as definitively connected to airport deicing 

discharges. The 17 articles discuss 12 different airports. Most of the articles describe impacts from algal 

blooms and elevated surface water levels of ammonia and nitrates. 

Two articles describe nutrient enrichment in surface waters receiving deicing discharges from Port 

Columbus International Airport (State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1998, State of Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 2004). A third report, another Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

July 2009 3-18 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

publication, describes high ammonia and nitrate concentrations in receiving waters downstream of the 

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 toxic components that can harm or kill 

aquatic organisms when discharged in sufficient quantities to surface waters. As described in Section 

3.4.1, ADFs and pavement deicers also contain high levels of organic matter and nutrients that, during 

degradation in surface waters, can lower DO concentrations to harmful or uninhabitable levels for aquatic 

life. Either of these pathways can result in acute fish death events known as fish kills. Eighteen of the 

articles documented in the literature review discussed fish kills. EPA classified impacts in 8 articles as 

definitively linked to airport deicing discharges. The 18 articles discussed fish kills downstream of 13 

different airports and included newspaper articles, journal articles, and state government reports. 

At Airborne Airpark in Wilmington, Ohio, fish kills were specifically noted downstream of airport 

outfalls. In February of 1998, a fish kill of thousands of bass and bluegill, among other species, occurred 

in Lytle Creek downstream of the airport’s outfalls (Hannah 1998). 

At Dayton International Airport, an ADF spill in the winter of 1986 killed thousands of fish and other 

organisms in Mill Creek (State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 1995). 

At Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in May 2001, a stormwater collection pond primarily 

containing stormwater contaminated with ethylene and propylene glycol from deicing activities breached 

and discharged to the Frank and Poet Drain (Lochner 2006). Two days later, a fish kill was observed at 

the location where the Drain discharges to the Detroit River. EPA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

investigated the incident and charged the airport with violating the Clean Water Act after failing to report 

the discharge. 

3.4.2.2 Other Organism Impacts 

In addition to fish kills, airport deicing discharges have been linked to the death of other types of aquatic 

organisms and have been implicated in the sickening or deaths of other wildlife and pets that have come 

in contact with contaminated surface waters. Of the 45 articles EPA compiled in this category, 25 are 

definitively connected to airport deicing discharges. The 45 articles discuss 26 different airports. The 

following airports are discussed in 3 or more articles: 

3⁄4 Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International 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 deicing discharges are described as lifeless (Sierra Club 

2004, Scanlon 1997, and Dawson 1994). 

A number of studies conducted on the receiving waters located downstream from deicing outfalls at 

Baltimore/Washington International Airport report glycol concentrations high enough to kill daphnids and 

minnows (Hartwell et al. 1993, Fisher et al. 1995, Pelton 1997a). 

July 2009 3-19 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

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

3.4.3.1 Human Health 

As discussed in Chapter 2, some ADF and pavement deicer components can be harmful to human beings 

exposed to sufficient quantities. Some people claim to have been sickened by strong chemical odors 

associated with some deicing-contaminated stormwaters. Human health impacts are documented for 6 

airports in 8 articles. The articles include newspaper articles and reports from organizations. Impacts 

range from headaches and nausea due to odors to claims of kidney and other health problems, especially 

in children. The Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare (1997), a nonprofit organization of citizens 

residing nearby Chicago O’Hare International Airport, documented vomiting and other illness due to 

fumes from airport deicing discharges on a number of separate occasions. Residents state that, at times, 

streams in residential neighborhoods receiving airport deicing discharges have unnatural colors and emit 

odors that cause illness. 

3.4.3.2 Drinking Water Contamination 

EPA compiled 8 articles that discuss drinking water impacts from 5 airports. One article definitively 

connected impacts to airport deicing discharges and the other articles are suggestive of a connection. 

Three of the articles discussed drinking water contamination issues near Baltimore Washington 

International Airport but did not definitively connect these impacts to airport deicing discharges. 

At Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, 10 days after an ADF spill into a major source of 

drinking water, consumers complained of a sickeningly sweet taste and smell in their drinking water. 

Testing of samples taken three days after the complaints started did not indicate deicing fluid 

contamination. However, sampling immediately following the spill indicated that water flowing from the 

airport into the river that serves as the drinking water source contained 1,600 ppm of glycol. 

3.4.3.3 Foam 

Deicing chemicals can form visible foam in surface waters. EPA’s compiled 10 articles that describe 

foam in surface waters downstream of 7 airports. The articles include journal articles, newspaper articles, 

and reports from organizations. Four articles definitively connect the presence of foam to airport deicing 

discharges. Foam complaints frequently co-occur with odor and color complaints. High levels of glycols 

were also typically found in surface waters containing visible foam. 

At Baltimore/Washington International Airport, levels of ethylene glycol as high as 4,800 mg/L were 

detected in the Muddy Bridge Branch where foam had been frequently sighted (McDowell 1997). In 

1997, the airport applied nearly 200,000 gallons of ADF to planes and it is estimated that as much as 68% 

may have entered nearby creeks (Pelton 1998). This discharge coincided with numerous complaints about 

pinkish foam present on downstream surface waters. 

3.4.3.4 Odor 

Deicing-contaminated surface waters are frequently described as having a sickeningly sweet chemical 

smell. EPA compiled 31 articles describing complaints of odors from surface waters located downstream 

from airport deicing outfalls. Of the 31 articles, EPA classified 14 as describing a definitive connection 

between airport deicing discharges and odor. The 31 articles describe 16 different airports. Several 

airports are described in multiple articles: 

July 2009 3-20 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

3⁄4 Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International 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 additional impacts such as organism human health, and 

aesthetic impacts. For example, all articles describing the odor complaints from Baltimore/Washington 

International Airport discharges also described visible foam, human illness complaints, and fish impacts 

(McDowell 1997, Pelton 1997b, Pelton 1998). At Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, 

allegations of discharge violations involving Elijah Creek coincided with unpleasant odors, surface water 

discoloration, and pollutant concentrations high enough to harm aquatic life (Klepal 2004, Sierra Club 

2004). Residents also complained about chemical smells and discolored water in Gunpowder Creek, 

which also receives airport deicing discharges. Glycol levels in Gunpowder Creek were found to be up to 

3.5 times higher than allowed by the airport’s wastewater discharge permit (Kelly 2004). 

3.4.3.5 Color 

Manufacturers add dye to ADFs to help ADF users track their presence on aircraft and airfield surfaces 

and to help them distinguish Type I from Type IV fluids. Sufficient levels of dye can discolor surface 

waters. In addition, as described above, degradation of organic material associated with airport deicing 

discharges can lower DO levels in surface waters. Under anoxic conditions, reduction of iron and 

manganese ions to more soluble species can color surface waters (Zitomer 2001) 

EPA found 20 articles describing 11 airports with unnatural colored surface waters downstream of airport 

deicing 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 impacts from Baltimore/Washington International Airport. 

Color complaints frequently coincided with odor complaints. 

At Des Moines International Airport, color and odor issues are discussed in documents describing Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for receiving waters as well as in materials provided to local city 

council members (Iowa Department of Natural Resources 2005, Flannery 1998). The TMDL document 

describes ethylene glycol concentrations of 65 to 120 mg/L and propylene glycol concentrations of 210 to 

490 mg/L near the airport outfall to Yeader Creek. These high glycol concentrations coincided with a 

greenish color and sweet sewage odor in Yeader Creek. Yeader Creek was determined to be severely 

polluted and in violation of Iowa Water Quality Standards. Local residents who live near the creek have 

lodged complaints with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources about the surface water’s discoloration 

and odor. 

3.4.4 Permit Violations 

Permit violations were frequently described in articles compiled by EPA. Permit violations provide 

additional information on large quantities of airport deicing pollutants discharging to surface waters. EPA 

compiled 27 articles that describe discharge permit violations at 12 different airports. Several airports, 

including Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, 

and Baltimore/Washington International Airport were discussed in multiple articles. Seventeen articles 

describe direct discharge violations. Other articles describe unspecified violations or administrative 

violations such as failure to report an unauthorized discharge. 

July 2009 3-21 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

3.5 Potential Current Impacts to Impaired Waters and Other Resources 

EPA evaluated the potential for airport deicing discharges to impact surface waters listed as impaired 

under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as well as other aquatic resources located downstream of 

airport deicing stormwater outfalls. Listing of a surface water as impaired under Section 303(d) of the 

Clean Water Act is an official determination that a waterbody is unable to serve one or more of its 

designated uses such as drinking water supply, recreation, wildlife habitat, etc. because of pollution or 

other modifications. It is an indicator of a stressed ecosystem. 

EPA examined the listing status of surface waters receiving airport deicing discharges for two reasons. 

First, to determine the extent to which airport deicing pollutants are being discharged to already stressed 

aquatic ecosystems and potentially contributing additional stress. Second, to determine which listed 

waterbodies may be impaired as a direct result of receiving airport deicing discharges. 

EPA’s analysis used a geographical information system (GIS) analysis of surface waters to which airports 

directly discharge deicing pollutants. EPA used this information to identify 303(d)-listed waters and 

aquatic resources that could potentially be affected by deicing discharges. EPA also examined existing 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) documents in order to identify airports that have officially been 

determined to be point sources contributing to surface water impairment. 

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

Based on airport outfall location information provided in response to EPA’s Airport Deicing 

Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c), EPA indexed deicing outfall locations to the National Hydrography 

Dataset (NHD) Plus stream network. EPA used NHD Plus tools to determine surface waters within 10 

miles downstream of airport outfalls. Once downstream waters were identified in NHD Plus, EPA 

overlaid their location information with the 2002 national GIS coverage of 303(d)-listed waters 

(http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/downloads.html#303d) in order to determine whether any of the 

downstream waters are listed as impaired. EPA then linked identified impaired streams to EPA’s 

Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results (WATERs) database in order to determine 

the nature of the impairment. Of the 93 airports for which EPA has sufficient outfall location information 

to conduct this analysis, 36 discharge directly to a freshwater waterbody that is listed as impaired. Table 

3-7 summarizes the results of this analysis. 

July 2009 3-22 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 

303(d) Impairment Category 

Number of 

Airports with 

Impairment 

Airport Deicing Pollutant 

Potentially Contributing to 

Impairment 

Algal Growth 1 Yes 

Ammonia 7 Yes 

Cause Unknown 6 Yes 

Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota 4 Yes 

Chlorine 2 

Dioxins 2 

Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant Unspecified 2 Yes 

Flow Alteration 6 

Habitat Alteration 8 

Mercury 3 

Metals (Other Than Mercury) 7 

Nutrients 8 Yes 

Oil And Grease 1 

Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 16 Yes 

Pathogens 20 

PCBs 8 

Pesticides 7 

pH 5 

Salinity/TDS/Sulfates/Chlorides 3 Yes 

Sediment 7 

Temperature 3 

Total Toxicity 6 Yes 

Toxic Organics 6 Yes 

Turbidity 5 

Of the 36 airports directly discharging to impaired freshwater waterbodies, 30 discharge to waterbodies 

impaired by pollutants associated with airport deicing discharges. Because EPA had sufficient 

information for only 93 airports to conduct this analysis, additional airports could be discharging deicing 

pollutants to impaired waters. 

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

marine waters were not included in the GIS analysis described above. To assess whether any of the 

marine waters directly receiving airport deicing discharges are listed as impaired, EPA used information 

on receiving marine waters from responses to EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c) to 

search the WATERs database. Table 3-8 summarizes the results of this analysis. 

Table 3-8: 303(d) Impairment Categories for Marine Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing 

Discharges 

303(d) Impairment Category 

Number of 

Airports with 

Impairment 

Airport Deicing Pollutant 

Potentially Contributing to 

Impairment 

Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 4 Yes 

Nutrients 3 Yes 

Aesthetically impaired waters 2 Yes 

Metals (Other Than Mercury) 4 

Of the 6 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 

July 2009 3-23 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

July 2009 3-24 

conduct this analysis, additional airports could be discharging deicing pollutants to impaired marine 

waters. 

Because states have not assessed all surface waters receiving deicing pollutant discharges from airports 

for impairment, additional waters beyond those described here could be impaired. 

Several of the 303(d) impairment categories EPA identified during the analysis can derive from airport 

deicing pollutants. These categories include “aesthetically impaired waters,” “algal growth,” “ammonia,” 

“cause unknown,” “cause unknown-impaired biota,” “fish consumption advisory – pollutant unspecified,” 

“nutrients,” “organic enrichment/oxygen depletion,” “salinity/TDS/sulfates/chlorides,” “total toxicity,” 

and “toxic organics.” A 303(d) listing alone does not mean that airport deicing discharges are the cause 

of the waterbody impairments. However, 35 of the 42 airports discharging to impaired waters are 

discharging to waters impaired in a manner potentially associated with airport deicing pollutants. Even if 

these airports are not the root cause of the identified impairment, they contribute additional loadings of 

those pollutants by which the surface waters are already impaired. 

Table 3-9 provides additional information on airports discharging directly to 303(d)-listed waters and 

associated impairments.
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Envi

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1FW – Freshwater 

MW – Marine water 

July 2009 Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name 

Waterbody

Type1 Waterbody Name Parent Cause Description 

Airborne Airpark FW Todd Fork Ammonia 

FW Todd Fork Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion FW Todd Fork Total Toxicity FW Todd Fork Flow Alteration FW Todd Fork Habitat Alteration 

Akron - Canton Regional FW Nimishillen Creek Ammonia 

FW Nimishillen Creek Cause Unknown 

FW Nimishillen Creek Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant Un

FW Nimishillen Creek Nutrients 

FW Nimishillen Creek Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion FW Nimishillen Creek Flow Alteration FW Nimishillen Creek Metals (Other Than Mercury) FW Nimishillen Creek Metals (Other Than Mercury) (Zinc) 

FW Nimishillen Creek Pathogens 

FW Nimishillen Creek PCBs FW Nimishillen Creek pH 

FW Nimishillen Creek Temperature 

FW Tuscarawas River Cause Unknown 

FW Tuscarawas River Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant Un

FW Tuscarawas River Nutrients 

FW Tuscarawas River Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 

FW Tuscarawas River Salinity/TDS/Sulfates/Chlorides 

FW Tuscarawas River Total Toxicity FW Tuscarawas River Toxic Organics FW Tuscarawas River Flow Alteration FW Tuscarawas River Habitat Alteration 

FW Tuscarawas River Pathogens FW Tuscarawas River PCBs 

FW Tuscarawas River Sediment 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Envi

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1FW – Freshwater 

MW – Marine water 

July 2009 Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name 

Waterbody

Type1 Waterbody Name Parent Cause Description 

Austin Straubel International FW Dutchman Creek Ammonia Airport FW Dutchman Creek Nutrients 

FW Dutchman Creek Nutrients (Phosphorus) 

FW Dutchman Creek Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion FW Dutchman Creek Total Toxicity 

Austin-Bergstrom International FW Colorado River Below Town Lake Pathogens 

FW Onion Creek Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion FW Onion Creek Total Dissolved Solids 

FW Onion Creek Pathogens 

Birmingham International FW Village Creek Ammonia 

FW Village Creek Nutrients 

FW Village Creek Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion FW Village Creek Toxic Organics FW Village Creek Flow Alteration 

FW Village Creek Metals (Other Than Mercury) 

FW Village Creek pH 

FW Village Creek Sediment FW Village Creek Temperature 

Boeing Field/King County International 

FW Duwamish River pH 

Bradley International FW Farmington River Pathogens 

FW Stony Brook Cause Unknown 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky FW Elijahs Creek Toxic Organics International FW Elijahs Creek Ammonia 

FW Elijahs Creek Dissolved Oxygen 

FW Gunpowder Creek Ammonia FW Gunpowder Creek Dissolved Oxygen 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Envi

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1FW – Freshwater 

MW – Marine water 

July 2009 Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name 

Waterbody

Type1 Waterbody Name Parent Cause Description 

Cleveland-Hopkins International FW Rocky River Ammonia 

FW Rocky River Nutrients 

FW Rocky River Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 

FW Rocky River Chlorine 

FW Rocky River Flow Alteration FW Rocky River Habitat Alteration 

FW Rocky River Pathogens 

FW Rocky River PCBs FW Rocky River Sediment 

Cold Bay MW Cold Bay Petroleum Products Des Moines International FW Yeader Creek Salinity/TDS/Sulfates/Chlorides 

FW Yeader Creek Toxic Organics FW Easter Lake Nutrients (Phosphorus) 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County 

FW Frank And Poet Drain Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota 

Eppley Airfield FW Missouri River Pathogens 

FW Missouri River PCBs FW Missouri River Pesticides 

General Edward Lawrence MW Boston Inner Harbor Toxic Organics Logan International MW Boston Inner Harbor Pathogens Greater Rockford FW Rock River Cause Unknown 

FW Rock River Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 

FW Rock River Mercury 

FW Rock River Metals (Other Than Mercury) 

FW Rock River Pathogens 

FW Rock River PCBs 

FW Rock River Pesticides 

Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International 

FW Flint River Pathogens 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Envi

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1FW – Freshwater 

MW – Marine water 

July 2009 Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name 

Waterbody

Type1 Waterbody Name Parent Cause Description 

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

FW East Fork White Lick Creek Pathogens 

FW East Fork White Lick Creek PCBs FW State Ditch Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota 

FW State Ditch Pathogens 

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

FW Stillwater River Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion FW Stillwater River Habitat Alteration 

FW Stillwater River Pathogens 

John F Kennedy International MW Bergen Basin Aesthetics 

MW Bergen Basin Dissolved Oxygen 

MW Bergen Basin Pathogens MW Jamaica Bay Nutrients 

MW Jamaica Bay Dissolved Oxygen 

MW Jamaica Bay Pathogens 

MW Thurston Basin Dissolved Oxygen 

La Guardia MW Bowery Bay Dissolved Oxygen 

MW Bowery Bay Pathogens 

MW Bowery Bay PCBs 

MW Flushing Bay Aesthetics 

MW Flushing Bay Dissolved Oxygen 

MW Flushing Bay PCBs 

MW Rikers Island Channel Dissolved Oxygen MW Rikers Island Channel Pathogens MW Rikers Island Channel PCBs 

Lafayette Regional FW Vermilion River Nutrients 

FW Vermilion River Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 

FW Vermilion River Pathogens FW Vermilion River Pesticides FW Vermilion River Turbidity 

Louisville International- FW Southern Ditch Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion Standiford Field FW Southern Ditch Pathogens 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Envi

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1FW – Freshwater 

MW – Marine water 

July 2009 Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name 

Waterbody

Type1 Waterbody Name Parent Cause Description 

Minneapolis-St Paul FW Minnesota River Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion International/Wold-Chamberlain FW Minnesota River Mercury 

FW Minnesota River Pathogens 

FW Minnesota River PCBs 

FW Minnesota River Turbidity 

Newark Liberty International MW Elizabeth Channel Toxic Organics 

MW Elizabeth Channel Dioxin 

MW Elizabeth Channel Floatables 

MW Elizabeth Channel Metals MW Elizabeth Channel Pathogens 

MW Elizabeth Channel PCBs 

MW Newark Channel Toxic Organics 

MW Newark Channel Dioxin 

MW Newark Channel Floatables MW Newark Channel Metals 

MW Newark Channel Pathogens MW Newark Channel PCBs 

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International 

FW Los Gatos Creek Pesticides 

Ontario International FW Cucamonga Creek Pathogens Phoenix Sky Harbor FW Salt River Pesticides (Chlordane) International FW Salt River Pesticides (DDT Metabolites) 

FW Salt River Pesticides (Dieldrin) FW Salt River Pesticides (Toxaphene) 

FW Salt River pH 

Piedmont Triad International FW Brush Creek Habitat Alteration 

FW East Fork Deep River Habitat Alteration FW East Fork Deep River Pathogens FW East Fork Deep River Turbidity 

FW Horsepen Creek Sediment 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Envi

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1FW – Freshwater 

MW – Marine water 

July 2009 Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name 

Waterbody

Type1 Waterbody Name Parent Cause Description 

Port Columbus International FW Big Walnut Creek Ammonia 

FW Big Walnut Creek Cause Unknown 

FW Big Walnut Creek Nutrients 

FW Big Walnut Creek Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion FW Big Walnut Creek Total Toxicity FW Big Walnut Creek Toxic Organics FW Big Walnut Creek Flow Alteration FW Big Walnut Creek Habitat Alteration FW Big Walnut Creek Metals (Other Than Mercury) (Copper) FW Big Walnut Creek Metals (Other Than Mercury) 

FW Big Walnut Creek Pathogens FW Big Walnut Creek Sediment 

FW Big Walnut Creek Temperature 

FW Big Walnut Creek Turbidity 

Portland International FW Columbia Slough Algal Growth 

FW Columbia Slough Dioxins 

FW Columbia Slough Metals (Other Than Mercury) 

FW Columbia Slough Nutrients 

FW Columbia Slough Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 

FW Columbia Slough Pathogens FW Columbia Slough PCBs FW Columbia Slough Pesticides 

FW Columbia Slough pH 

Rickenbacker International FW Walnut Creek Cause Unknown 

FW Walnut Creek Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant UnFW Walnut Creek Total Toxicity FW Walnut Creek Flow Alteration FW Walnut Creek Habitat Alteration 

FW Walnut Creek Pathogens FW Walnut Creek PCBs FW Walnut Creek Sediment 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Envi

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1FW – Freshwater 

MW – Marine water 

July 2009 Table 3-9: 303(d) Listed Waters Receiving Direct Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name 

Waterbody

Type1 Waterbody Name Parent Cause Description 

Ronald Reagan Washington FW Lower Anacostia River Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion National FW Lower Anacostia River Toxic Organics (Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthala

FW Lower Anacostia River Toxic Organics (Chrysene) 

FW Lower Anacostia River Toxic Organics 

FW Lower Anacostia River Chlorine 

FW Lower Anacostia River Dioxins FW Lower Anacostia River Mercury 

FW Lower Anacostia River Metals (Other Than Mercury) (Selenium) FW Lower Anacostia River Metals (Other Than Mercury) FW Lower Anacostia River Oil And Grease 

FW Lower Anacostia River Pathogens FW Lower Anacostia River Turbidity 

San Antonio International FW Salado Creek Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota 

FW Salado Creek Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 

FW Salado Creek Pathogens 

FW Salado Creek Pesticides 

Seattle-Tacoma International MW Puget Sound Nutrients 

MW Puget Sound Toxic Organics 

MW Puget Sound Mercury 

MW Puget Sound Pathogens 

MW Puget Sound Pesticides MW Puget Sound pH 

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

FW Buckeye Brook Pathogens 

Toledo Express FW Swan Creek Total Toxicity 

FW Swan Creek Habitat Alteration 

FW Swan Creek Sediment 

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International 

FW Spring Brook Cause Unknown 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 discharges 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 Organics 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 Gunpowder 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 Airport as the primary source. The TMDL describes 

Yeader Creek as a small stream (2 to 3 cubic feet per second flow). Waters immediately downstream from 

airport deicing stormwater outfalls had a greenish color, a wastewater odor, and no fish or 

macroinvertebrates. In addition, exposed substrate was an unusual rust-orange color and embedded 

substrate was an unusual black color, suggesting anaerobic conditions. The Yeader Creek TMDL 

describes two additional locations downstream as having pools of water the same nonalgal green color 

and with the “same odor of sewage and sweetener” as the waters immediately downstream of the airport 

deicing stormwater outfalls. The Yeader Creek TMDL established discharge limits for ethylene glycol 

and propylene glycol for airport deicing outdalls and set a benthic macroinvertebrate distribution target 

for the river to assess stream recovery. 

The state of Iowa has listed Easter Lake as impaired for nutrients (i.e., phosphorus) and sediment. 

Although the Des Moines International Airport was identified as a contributing point sources for nutrient 

impairment, the airport’s stormwater phosphorus load (110 pounds per year) was considered to be minor 

in comparison to other potential phosphorus sources in the watershed and the airport was not assigned a 

waste load reduction goal. The TMDL analysis did not consider the Des Moines International Airport to 

be a significant source of sediment to Easter Lake. 

Elijahs and Gunpower Creeks are located immediately downstream from the Cincinnati/Northern 

Kentucky International Airport. Since the early 1990s the Kentucky Division of Water has documented 

low dissolved oxygen levels, evidence of ammonia toxicity, and extensive growth of Sphaerotilus

bacteria in the creeks. In 1996, both streams were listed on Kentucky’s 303(d) list of impaired waters and 

ranked as a high priority for TMDL development. The results of the TMDL analysis established discharge 

limits for BOD5 and ammonia and required the airport to develop a Best Management Practices plan and 

a Groundwater Protection Plan. 

The Columbia Slough, located downstream from the Portland International Airport in Oregon, is listed as 

impaired for multiple water quality parameters including bacteria, pH, dissolved oxygen, phosphorus, 

temperature, lead, and several toxic organics. The TMDL identified a complex list of pollution sources 

July 2009 3-32 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 industrial runoff, and other point sources in the watershed. Airport deicing 

discharges were identified as the primary pollution source for wintertime dissolved oxygen violations in 

the Slough. The TMDL established a range of BOD waste load allocations for airport deicing discharges 

to meet dissolved oxygen goals and also required the airport to perform additional waterbody monitoring. 

3.5.3 Resources Located Downstream from Airport Deicing Discharge Outfalls 

As a screening-level assessment, EPA evaluated the potential for airport deicing discharges to affect the 

following resources: 

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 discharges to affect groundwater aquifers based on 

information provided in responses to EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). Individual 

airports’ responses indicated whether or not airport grounds are located immediately above an aquifer, 

and whether or not the aquifer is a drinking water source. EPA assessed the remaining aquatic resources 

listed above for those surface waters located within 10 miles downstream of airport deicing outfalls, using 

the same GIS-based methodology described in Section 3.5.1. EPA overlaid the relevant NHD Plus stream 

segments over the following GIS coverages to determine whether downstream surface waters intersect 

with the GIS areas associated with each resource: 

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 compilation, many documented impacts have taken place 

within this distance. Impacts could occur at distances beyond 10 miles downstream, but EPA has chosen 

10 miles for this preliminary analysis. 

Table 3-10 presents the results of the analysis for aquatic resources which could potentially be affected by 

airport deicing discharges. Because EPA has sufficient information to conduct this analysis for only 

airports EPA surveyed, the table below is not a complete list of airports discharging deicing pollutants to 

surface waters containing the resources listed above. 

July 2009 3-33 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 

Within 10 Miles Downstream from 

Airport Deicing Outfall 

Airport Name Airport City 

Airport 

State 

Airport 

Grounds 

Above an 

Aquifer 

Drinking 

Water 

Intakes 

Federal 

Lands Parks NWRAs

Aberdeen Regional Aberdeen SD 

Airborne Airpark Wilmington OH Yes Yes Yes 

Akron - Canton Regional Akron OH DW 

Albany International Albany NY Yes Yes 

Albuquerque International 

Sunport 

Albuquerque NM DW 

Aniak Aniak AK 

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 

Barnstable MuniBoardman/Polando Field Hyannis MA DW 

Bethel Bethel AK 

Birmingham International Birmingham AL Yes Yes 

Bismarck Municipal Bismarck ND 

Boeing Field/King County 

International 

Seattle WA Yes Yes 

Bradley International Windsor Locks CT Yes Yes 

Buffalo Niagara International Buffalo NY Yes Yes 

Central Wisconsin Mosinee WI 

Charlotte/Douglas International Charlotte NC Yes Yes 

Chicago O'Hare International Chicago IL Yes Yes 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky 

International 

Covington KY Yes Yes 

City of Colorado Springs 

Municipal 

Colorado Springs CO 

Cleveland-Hopkins International Cleveland OH Yes 

Cold Bay Cold Bay AK 

Craven County Regional New Bern NC DW 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 

Duluth International Duluth MN 

Eppley Airfield Omaha NE DW Yes 

Evansville Regional Evansville IN 

Fairbanks International Fairbanks AK DW 

Fort Wayne International Fort Wayne IN DW Yes 

Fort Worth Alliance Fort Worth TX Yes 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 

July 2009 3-34 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

July 2009 3-35 

Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges 

Within 10 Miles Downstream from 

Airport Deicing Outfall 

Airport Name Airport City 

Airport 

State 

Airport 

Grounds 

Above an 

Aquifer 

Drinking 

Water 

Intakes 

Federal 

Lands Parks NWRAs

Glacier Park International Kalispell MT DW Yes 

Greater Rochester International Rochester NY Yes Yes 

Greater Rockford Rockford IL DW 

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 New York NY Yes Yes 

Juneau International Juneau AK 

Kansas City International Kansas City MO Yes 

La Guardia New York NY 

Lafayette Regional Lafayette LA DW 

Lambert-St Louis International St Louis MO Yes Yes 

Louisville 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 

Nashville International Nashville TN Yes Yes 

Newark Liberty International Newark NJ Yes 

Nome Nome AK Yes 

Norfolk International Norfolk VA Yes 

Norman Y. Mineta San Jose 

International 

San Jose CA Yes Yes Yes 

Northwest Arkansas Regional Fayetteville/

Springdale 

AR Yes 

Ontario International Ontario CA 

Outagamie County Regional Appleton WI DW 

Philadelphia International Philadelphia PA DW 

Phoenix Sky Harbor 

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 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 3. Environmental Impact Potential 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category under Current Practices 

July 2009 3-36 

Table 3-10: Resources Potentially Impacted by Airport Deicing Discharges 

Within 10 Miles Downstream from 

Airport Deicing Outfall 

Airport Name Airport City 

Airport 

State 

Airport 

Grounds 

Above an 

Aquifer 

Drinking 

Water 

Intakes 

Federal 

Lands Parks NWRAs

Rochester International Rochester MN DW 

Ronald Reagan Washington 

National 

Washington DC Yes Yes Yes 

Sacramento International Sacramento CA DW Yes Yes 

Sacramento Mather Sacramento CA Yes 

Salt Lake City International Salt Lake City UT 

San Antonio International San Antonio TX Yes 

Seattle-Tacoma International Seattle WA DW Yes 

Syracuse Hancock International Syracuse NY 

Ted Stevens Anchorage 

International 

Anchorage AK Yes 

Theodore Francis Green State Providence RI Yes Yes 

Toledo Express Toledo OH DW 

Trenton Mercer Trenton NJ Yes Yes 

Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson 

Field 

Huntington WV Yes 

Tucson International Tucson AZ Yes 

Tupelo Regional Tupelo MS Yes 

Tweed-New Haven New Haven CT Yes Yes 

Washington Dulles International Washington DC DW Yes Yes Yes 

Waterloo Municipal Waterloo IA 

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton 

International 

Wilkes-Barre/

Scranton 

PA Yes 

Will Rogers World Oklahoma City OK DW 

Willow Run Detroit MI Yes 

Wilmington International Wilmington NC DW 

Yeager Charleston WV Yes 

DW = Aquifer is known by airport to be used for drinking water. 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options 

4 Benefits of Proposed Regulatory Options 

This chapter summarizes the proposed regulatory options EPA evaluated and the environmental benefits 

EPA anticipates will result from each option. The benefits of reduced airport deicing pollutant discharges 

may be classified in three broad categories: human health, ecological and economic productivity benefits. 

EPA was not able to monetize benefits of the proposed regulatory options because of an imperfect 

understanding of the link between discharge reductions and benefit categories, and how society values 

some of the benefit events. 

This chapter presents a summary of EPA’s regulatory options (Section 4.1), a discussion of individual 

airports likely to be affected by the proposed options and associated pollutant discharge reductions 

(Sections 4.2 and 4.3), and a qualitative assessment of expected ecological and human health and aquatic 

resource use benefits from reduced deicing pollutant discharges (Section 4.4). 

4.1 Proposed Regulatory Options 

EPA evaluated three different collection and treatment scenarios for aircraft deicing operation discharges 

from ADF application sites: 

3⁄4 20% collection and treatment scenario - uses glycol recovery vehicles (GRVs) for deicing 

stormwater collection and anaerobic fluidized bed (AFB) treatment for deicing stormwater 

treatment; 

3⁄4 40% collection and treatment scenario - uses GRVs in combination with plug-and-pump 

technology for deicing stormwater collection and AFB treatment for deicing stormwater 

treatment; and 

3⁄4 60% collection and treatment scenario - uses centralized deicing pads 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 Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 

Deicing Category (US EPA 2009). 

EPA also evaluated methods for control of deicing pollutant discharges from the airfield beyond ADF 

application sites. One approach EPA evaluated is to eliminate the use of urea as a pavement deicer and 

replace it with other, less environmentally harmful products. Other, less harmful products (e.g., potassium 

acetate, sodium acetate, and sodium formate) are available for substitution. 

Table 4-1 provides a brief description of each of EPA’s proposed regulatory options. 

July 2009 4-1 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options 

Table 4-1: Proposed Regulatory Options Evaluated for the Airport Deicing Category 

Proposed 

Option Option Description 

Number of Airports 

Subject to Option 

1 3⁄4 All primary commercial airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures that 

conduct deicing and are not a General Aviation/Cargo (GA/C) airport are in 

scope; 

3⁄4 Airports with 10,000 or more annual departures are required to collect and 

treat 20% of spent ADF to numeric limit. 

3⁄4 All in-scope airports must discontinue using urea pavement deicer.

110 

2 3⁄4 All primary commercial airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures that 

conduct deicing and are not a GA/C airport are in scope. 

3⁄4 Airports with 10,000 or more annual departures must collect and treat 40% of 

spent ADF to numeric limit. 

3⁄4 All in-scope airports must discontinue using urea pavement deicer. 

110 

3 3⁄4 All primary commercial airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures that 

conduct deicing and are not a GA/C airport are in scope. 

3⁄4 Airports with 10,000 or more annual departures must collect and treat 20% of 

spent ADF to numeric limit. Airports using 460,000 or more gallons of 

propylene glycol/ethylene glycol annually must to collect and treat 60% of 

spent ADF to numeric limit. 

3⁄4 All in-scope airports must discontinue using urea pavement deicer. 

110 

(14 airports subject to 

60% requirement, 96 

airports subject to 20% 

requirement) 

4 3⁄4 All primary commercial airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures that 

conduct deicing and are not a GA/C airport are in scope. 

3⁄4 Airports with 1,000 or more annual jet departures must collect and treat 20% 

of spent ADF to numeric limit. Airports using 460,000 or more gallons of 

propylene glycol / ethylene glycol annually must collect and treat 60% of 

spent ADF to numeric limit. 

3⁄4 All in-scope airports must discontinue using urea pavement deicer. 

218 

(14 airports subject to 

60% requirement, 204 

airports subject to 20% 

requirement) 

A complete description of how EPA constructed these regulatory options is available in the Technical 

Development Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport 

Deicing Category (US EPA 2009). 

4.2 Airports Affected by the Proposed Regulatory Options 

Although EPA surveyed many US airports, EPA has not identified all airports that may be affected by the 

proposed regulatory options. EPA’s survey collected data, for use in evaluating the airport deicing 

category, at all large and medium hub primary commercial airports, and a statistical subsample of small 

and nonhub primary commercial airports. 

To assess airports that may be impacted by the proposed regulatory options, EPA evaluated those airports 

for which survey information is available and then scaled up the resulting data using statistical weighting 

factors to represent conditions for the entire category. For additional information on the use of survey data 

and associated statistical weighting factors, see EPA’s Technical Development Document for the 

Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category (US EPA 

2009). 

For each proposed regulatory option, EPA determined which individual airports are likely to fall within 

scope of the option. EPA then determined which surveyed airports are already in compliance with the 

option and which airports would likely need to take action to comply with the option. 

For airports EPA surveyed, Table 4-2 summarizes which options would likely require an airport to take 

action to address deicing discharges. For example, Albuquerque International Sunport falls within scope 

July 2009 4-2 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options 

of Option 1 but, based on EPA’s survey data, is believed to be already in compliance with both the 20% 

ADF collection and treatment and the urea restriction requirement. Therefore, for this airport under 

Option 1, EPA did not estimate additional technology requirements, compliance costs, or pollutant 

discharge reductions. Conversely, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport falls within scope of Option 1 

and, based on EPA’s survey information, is not believed to be in compliance with either the 20% ADF 

collection and treatment or the urea restriction requirement. For this airport, EPA evaluated GRV use and 

pavement deicer product substitution to reach compliance with Option 1’s requirements. EPA also 

calculated associated compliance costs and pollutant discharge reductions. 

Table 4-2: Surveyed Airports Affected by Proposed Regulatory Options 

Airport Name Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 

Albuquerque International Sunport X 

Austin Straubel International X X X X 

Bethel X X X X 

Birmingham International X X X X 

Bismarck Municipal X 

Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field X X X X 

Bradley International X X X X 

Central Wisconsin X X X X 

Charlotte/Douglas International X X X X 

Chicago O'Hare International X X 

Cleveland-Hopkins International X X 

Eppley Airfield X X X X 

Evansville Regional X 

Fairbanks International X X X X 

Fort Wayne International X X X X 

General Edward Lawrence Logan International X X X X 

Glacier Park International X X X X 

John F Kennedy International X X X X 

Juneau International X X X X 

La Guardia X X X X 

Lafayette Regional X 

Lovell Field X 

Manchester X X X X 

Memphis International X X X X 

Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field) X 

Newark Liberty International X X X X 

Nome X X X X 

Norfolk International X 

Northwest Arkansas Regional X X X X 

Ontario International X X X X 

Outagamie County Regional X 

Piedmont Triad International X X X X 

Port Columbus International X X X X 

Portland International X 

Raleigh-Durham International X X X X 

Ralph Wien Memorial X X X X 

Rapid City Regional X 

Reno/Tahoe International X X X X 

Rickenbacker International X 

Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field X X X X 

Ronald Reagan Washington National X X X X 

Salt Lake City International X X X X 

San Antonio International X X X X 

July 2009 4-3 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options 

Table 4-2: Surveyed Airports Affected by Proposed Regulatory Options 

Airport Name Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 

South Bend Regional X X X X 

Spokane International X X X X 

Stewart International X X X X 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International X X X X 

Toledo Express X 

Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field X X X X 

Tucson International X 

Tweed-New Haven X 

Washington Dulles International X X 

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International X 

Will Rogers World X X X X 

Wilmington International X 

Yeager X X X X 

Although EPA has insufficient information to determine what would happen under each regulatory option 

at each airport that was not surveyed, EPA was able to use statistical techniques to estimate the level to 

which each regulatory option would require airport deicing operation changes for the airport population 

believed to be within scope of the rule. EPA estimates, based on the statistical weights assigned to 

airports it was able to survey, that the approximate number of airports taking action to reduce deicing 

pollutant discharges would be 60 airports under Option 1, 70 airports under Option 2, 65 airports under 

Option 3, and 110 airports under Option 4. 

EPA’s estimate of actions taken by individual airports under each regulatory option is based on data from 

EPA’s Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c) and other publicly available data sources. Although current 

conditions at some individual airports may have changed since the survey was conducted, the overall 

results of the analysis provide a useful estimate of the level of action required by each proposed 

regulatory option. 

4.3 Environmental Benefits Anticipated under Proposed Regulatory Options 

EPA expects that environmental benefits associated with each proposed regulatory option will accrue to 

society in several broad categories, including improved environmental quality, enhanced aquatic resource 

value for human use, reduced human health risks, and increased productivity in economic activities that 

are adversely affected by airport deicing pollutants discharges. This section provides a qualitative and 

quantitative discussion of benefits associated with the proposed regulatory options. 

4.3.1 Airport Actions and Benefits under Proposed Regulatory Options 

In assessing potential benefits from reducing airport deicing pollutant discharges, EPA used information 

on deicing pollutant environmental behavior, pollutant effects on the aquatic environment, human use of 

aquatic resources, and human health; deicing pollutant discharge levels under current conditions and 

under each proposed regulatory option; and characteristics of surface and ground water resources 

potentially affected by deicing pollutant discharges. 

Table 4-3 to Table 4-6 list the airports addressed by each proposed regulatory option along with the 

following information: 

July 2009 4-4 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options 

July 2009 4-5 

3⁄4 The technology EPA estimates each airport will install in order to comply with the option’s 

requirements (US EPA 2009); 

3⁄4 EPA’s estimates of ammonia and COD discharge reductions associated with each airports ADF 

collection and treatment and pavement 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 intakes, federal lands, and park lands) within 10 

miles downstream of airport outfalls.3

 

3

 Source files include the drinking water intake point file from EPA's Reach Address Database (RAD); national atlas of the 

U.S. federal land boundaries; ESRI U.S. GDT park landmarks (includes U.S. national, state, and local parks); and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife NWRA boundaries. 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 P = Impairment potentially linked to t deicing. 2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water. July 2009 

 airpor

Table 4-3: Proposed Option 1 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 

COD Discharge 

Reduction (pounds) Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice 

Airport Name 

Pavement 

Deicer 

Ammonia 

(pounds) 

Aircraft 

Deicing 

Fluids 

Pavement

Deicers GRV

Plug 

and 

Pump

Deicing 

Pad 

Anaerobic 

Fluidized 

Bed 

Hauling

off site 

Urea 

Reduction

303(d) 

Listed 

Waters 

at the 

Outfall1

Above an 

Aquifer2

Austin Straubel International 

23,516 0 64,116 X P DW 

Bethel 37,363 9,928 101,869 X X X Birmingham International 

9,915 0 X X P X 

Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field 

229,654 0 626,150 X DW 

Bradley International 9,481 0 25,849 X P X Central Wisconsin 47,775 0 130,259 X Charlotte/Douglas International 

131,873 271,558 359,551 X X X X 

Eppley Airfield 220,009 0 X X X DW Fairbanks International 

217,005 0 591,664 X DW 

Fort Wayne International 

151,694 109,086 413,592 X X X DW 

General Edward Lawrence Logan International 

3,227 1,899,392 8,798 X X X P X 

Glacier Park International 

189 0 514 X DW 

John F Kennedy International 

1,070,384 0 X X P 

Juneau International 287,579 89,641 784,083 X X X La Guardia 874,986 0 X X P Manchester 12,737 356,484 34,728 X X X X Memphis International 

404,401 0 X X X X 

Newark Liberty International 

2,235,666 0 X X P X 

Nome 5,872 0 X X X 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 P = Impairment poten ed to airpo t de2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water. July 2009 

tially link r icing. 

Table 4-3: Proposed Option 1 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 

COD Discharge 

Reduction (pounds) Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice 

Airport Name 

Pavement 

Deicer 

Ammonia 

(pounds) 

Aircraft 

Deicing 

Fluids 

Pavement

Deicers GRV

Plug 

and 

Pump

Deicing 

Pad 

Anaerobic 

Fluidized 

Bed 

Hauling

off site 

Urea 

Reduction

303(d) 

Listed 

Waters 

at the 

Outfall1

Above an 

Aquifer2

Northwest Arkansas Regional 

15,285 61,006 41,674 X X X X 

Ontario International 214 0 X X X Piedmont Triad International 

55,855 136,266 152,289 X X X X DW 

Port Columbus International 

608,411 0 X X P 

Raleigh-Durham International 

50,572 203,090 137,883 X X X DW 

Ralph Wien Memorial 

5,661 4,939 15,435 X X X X 

Reno/Tahoe International 

4,097 0 11,172 X DW 

Roanoke Regional/ Woodrum Field 

65,272 0 X X X 

Ronald Reagan Washington National 

35,476 0 96,724 X P X 

Salt Lake City International 

830,662 0 2,264,796 X 

San Antonio International 

25,273 0 X X P 

South Bend Regional 18,364 0 50,070 X DW Spokane International 

361,550 0 985,763 X X 

Stewart International 85,934 0 234,299 X Ted Stevens Anchorage International 

945,803 0 2,578,727 X X 

Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field 

35,476 0 96,724 X 

Will Rogers World 98,131 0 X X DW Yeager 15,087 0 41,133 X 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 P = Impairment poten ke rt d2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water. July 2009 

tially lin d to airpo eicing. 

Table 4-4: Proposed Option 2 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 

COD Discharge 

Reduction (pounds) Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice 

D

Airport Name 

Pavement 

Deicer 

Ammonia 

(pounds) 

Aircraft 

Deicing 

Fluids 

Pavement

Deicers GRV

Plug 

and 

Pump

Deicing

Pad 

Anaerobic 

Fluidized 

Bed 

Hauling

off site 

Urea 

Reduction

303(d) 

Listed 

Waters 

at the 

Outfall1

Above an 

Aquifer2

Dr

W

In

Albuquerque International Sunport 

127,780 0 X X DW 

Austin Straubel International 

23,516 0 64,116 X P DW 

Bethel 37,363 19,857 101,869 X X X Birmingham International 

19,830 0 X X P X 

Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Field 

229,654 0 626,150 X DW 

Bradley International 

9,481 0 25,849 X P X 

Central Wisconsin 47,775 0 130,259 X Charlotte/Douglas International 

131,873 543,116 359,551 X X X X 

Eppley Airfield 440,017 0 X X X DW Fairbanks International 

217,005 0 591,664 X DW 

Fort Wayne International 

151,694 218,171 413,592 X X X DW 

General Edward Lawrence Logan International 

3,227 3,798,785 8,798 X X X P X 

Glacier Park International 

189 0 514 X DW 

John F Kennedy International 

2,140,768 0 X X P 

Juneau International 

287,579 179,283 784,083 X X X 

La Guardia 1,749,972 0 X X P Manchester 12,737 712,969 34,728 X X X X 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing. 2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water. July 2009 

Table 4-4: Proposed Option 2 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 

COD Discharge 

Reduction (pounds) Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice 

D

Airport Name 

Pavement 

Deicer 

Ammonia 

(pounds) 

Aircraft 

Deicing 

Fluids 

Pavement

Deicers GRV

Plug 

and 

Pump

Deicing

Pad 

Anaerobic 

Fluidized 

Bed 

Hauling

off site 

Urea 

Reduction

303(d) 

Listed 

Waters 

at the 

Outfall1

Above an 

Aquifer2

Dr

W

In

Memphis International 

808,803 0 X X X X 

Newark Liberty International 

4,471,333 0 X X P X 

Nome 11,744 0 X X X Norfolk International 

61,204 0 X X X 

Northwest Arkansas Regional 

15,285 122,012 41,674 X X X X 

Ontario International 

214 0 X X X 

Piedmont Triad International 

55,855 272,532 152,289 X X X X DW 

Port Columbus International 

1,216,822 0 X X P 

Portland International 

222,189 0 X X X 

Raleigh-Durham International 

50,572 406,181 137,883 X X X DW 

Ralph Wien Memorial 

5,661 9,877 15,435 X X X X 

Reno/Tahoe International 

4,097 147,941 11,172 X X X DW 

Roanoke Regional/ Woodrum Field 

130,544 0 X X X 

Ronald Reagan Washington National 

35,476 0 96,724 X P X 

Salt Lake City International 

830,662 0 2,264,796 X 

San Antonio International 

50,545 0 X X P 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing. 2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water. July 2009 

Table 4-4: Proposed Option 2 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 

COD Discharge 

Reduction (pounds) Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice 

D

Airport Name 

Pavement 

Deicer 

Ammonia 

(pounds) 

Aircraft 

Deicing 

Fluids 

Pavement

Deicers GRV

Plug 

and 

Pump

Deicing

Pad 

Anaerobic 

Fluidized 

Bed 

Hauling

off site 

Urea 

Reduction

303(d) 

Listed 

Waters 

at the 

Outfall1

Above an 

Aquifer2

Dr

W

In

South Bend Regional 

18,364 0 50,070 X DW 

Spokane International 

361,550 0 985,763 X X 

Stewart International 

85,934 0 234,299 X 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International 

945,803 0 2,578,727 X X 

Toledo Express 93,465 0 X X P DW Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field 

35,476 0 96,724 X 

Tucson International 

4,642 0 X X X 

Will Rogers World 196,262 0 X X DW Yeager 15,087 0 41,133 X 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing. 2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water. July 2009 Table 4-5: Proposed Option 3 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 

COD Discharge 

Reduction (pounds) Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice 

D

Airport Name 

Pavement 

Deicer 

Ammonia 

(pounds) 

Aircraft 

Deicing 

Fluids 

Pavement 

Deicers GRV

Plug 

and 

Pump

Deicing

Pad 

Anaerobic 

Fluidized 

Bed 

Hauling

off site 

Urea 

Reduction

303(d) 

Listed 

Waters 

at the 

Outfall1

Above 

an 

Aquifer2

Dr

W

In

Austin Straubel International 

23,516 0 64,116 X P DW 

Bethel 37,363 9,928 101,869 X X X Birmingham International 

9,915 0 X X P X 

Boise Air Terminal/ Gowen Field 

229,654 0 626,150 X DW 

Bradley International 9,481 0 25,849 X P X Central Wisconsin 47,775 0 130,259 X Charlotte/Douglas International 

131,873 271,558 359,551 X X X X 

Chicago O'Hare International 

2,838,510 0 X X X 

Cleveland-Hopkins International 

1,236,370 0 X X P 

Eppley Airfield 220,009 0 X X X DW Fairbanks International 

217,005 0 591,664 X DW 

Fort Wayne International 

151,694 109,086 413,592 X X X DW 

General Edward Lawrence Logan International 

3,227 5,698,177 8,798 X X X P X 

Glacier Park International 

189 0 514 X DW 

John F Kennedy International 

3,211,152 0 X X P 

Juneau International 287,579 89,641 784,083 X X X La Guardia 2,624,959 0 X X P Manchester 12,737 356,484 34,728 X X X X Memphis International 

404,401 0 X X X X 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing. 2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water. July 2009 Table 4-5: Proposed Option 3 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 

COD Discharge 

Reduction (pounds) Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice 

D

Airport Name 

Pavement 

Deicer 

Ammonia 

(pounds) 

Aircraft 

Deicing 

Fluids 

Pavement 

Deicers GRV

Plug 

and 

Pump

Deicing

Pad 

Anaerobic 

Fluidized 

Bed 

Hauling

off site 

Urea 

Reduction

303(d) 

Listed 

Waters 

at the 

Outfall1

Above 

an 

Aquifer2

Dr

W

In

Newark Liberty International 

6,706,999 0 X X P X 

Nome 5,872 0 X X X Northwest Arkansas Regional 

15,285 61,006 41,674 X X X X 

Ontario International 214 0 X X X Piedmont Triad International 

55,855 136,266 152,289 X X X X DW 

Port Columbus International 

608,411 0 X X P 

Raleigh-Durham International 

50,572 203,090 137,883 X X X DW 

Ralph Wien Memorial 

5,661 4,939 15,435 X X X X 

Reno/Tahoe International 

4,097 0 11,172 X DW 

Roanoke Regional/ Woodrum Field 

65,272 0 X X X 

Ronald Reagan Washington National 

35,476 0 96,724 X P X 

Salt Lake City International 

830,662 0 2,264,796 X 

San Antonio International 

25,273 0 X X P 

South Bend Regional 18,364 0 50,070 X DW Spokane International 

361,550 0 985,763 X X 

Stewart International 85,934 0 234,299 X Ted Stevens Anchorage International 

945,803 0 2,578,727 X X 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing. 2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water. July 2009 Table 4-5: Proposed Option 3 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 

COD Discharge 

Reduction (pounds) Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice 

D

Airport Name 

Pavement 

Deicer 

Ammonia 

(pounds) 

Aircraft 

Deicing 

Fluids 

Pavement 

Deicers GRV

Plug 

and 

Pump

Deicing

Pad 

Anaerobic 

Fluidized 

Bed 

Hauling

off site 

Urea 

Reduction

303(d) 

Listed 

Waters 

at the 

Outfall1

Above 

an 

Aquifer2

Dr

W

In

Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field 

35,476 0 96,724 X 

Washington Dulles International 

1,966,949 0 X X DW 

Will Rogers World 98,131 0 X X DW Yeager 15,087 0 41,133 X 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 P = Impairment potentially lin rt deicin2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water. July 2009 

ked to airpo g. 

Table 4-6: Proposed Option 4 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 

COD Discharge 

Reduction (pounds) Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice 

Airport Name 

Pavement 

Deicer 

Ammonia 

(pounds) 

Aircraft 

Deicing 

Fluids 

Pavement 

Deicers GRV

Plug and 

Pump 

Deicing 

Pad 

Anaerobic 

Fluidized 

Bed 

Hauling

off site 

Urea 

Reduction

303(d) 

Listed 

Waters 

at the 

Outfall1

Above an 

Aquifer2

D

Austin Straubel International 

23,516 0 64,116 X P DW 

Bethel 37,363 9,928 101,869 X X X Birmingham International 

9,915 0 X X P X 

Bismarck Municipal 41,621 0 X X Boise Air Terminal/ Gowen Field 

229,654 0 626,150 X DW 

Bradley International 

9,481 0 25,849 X P X 

Central Wisconsin 47,775 86,476 130,259 X X X Charlotte/Douglas International 

131,873 271,558 359,551 X X X X 

Chicago O'Hare International 

2,838,510 0 X X X 

Cleveland-Hopkins International 

1,236,370 0 X X P 

Eppley Airfield 220,009 0 X X X DW Evansville Regional 39,941 0 X X Fairbanks International 

217,005 0 591,664 X DW 

Fort Wayne International 

151,694 109,086 413,592 X X X DW 

General Edward Lawrence Logan International 

3,227 5,698,177 8,798 X X X P X 

Glacier Park International 

189 76,428 514 X X X DW 

John F Kennedy International 

3,211,152 0 X X P 

Juneau International 287,579 89,641 784,083 X X X La Guardia 2,624,959 0 X X P 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing. 2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water. July 2009 

Table 4-6: Proposed Option 4 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 

COD Discharge 

Reduction (pounds) Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice 

Airport Name 

Pavement 

Deicer 

Ammonia 

(pounds) 

Aircraft 

Deicing 

Fluids 

Pavement 

Deicers GRV

Plug and 

Pump 

Deicing 

Pad 

Anaerobic 

Fluidized 

Bed 

Hauling

off site 

Urea 

Reduction

303(d) 

Listed 

Waters 

at the 

Outfall1

Above an 

Aquifer2

D

Lafayette Regional 9,080 0 X X P DW Lovell Field 25,309 0 X X X X Manchester 12,737 356,484 34,728 X X X X Memphis International 

404,401 0 X X X X 

Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field) 

460 0 X X X 

Newark Liberty International 

6,706,999 0 X X P X 

Nome 5,872 0 X X X Northwest Arkansas 

Regional 

15,285 61,006 41,674 X X X X 

Ontario International 

214 0 X X X 

Outagamie County Regional 

114,667 0 X X DW 

Piedmont Triad International 55,855 

136,266 152,289 X X X X DW 

Port Columbus International 

608,411 0 X X P 

Raleigh-Durham International 

50,572 203,090 137,883 X X X DW 

Ralph Wien Memorial 

5,661 4,939 15,435 X X X X 

Rapid City Regional 50,397 0 X X DW Reno/Tahoe International 

4,097 0 11,172 X DW 

Rickenbacker International 

21,232 0 X X P X 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 P = Impairment potentially linked to airport deicing. 2 DW = Airport located above an aquifer used for drinking water. July 2009 

Table 4-6: Proposed Option 4 – Airport Compliance Actions and Environmental Benefits 

COD Discharge 

Reduction (pounds) Estimated Compliance Technology or Practice 

Airport Name 

Pavement 

Deicer 

Ammonia 

(pounds) 

Aircraft 

Deicing 

Fluids 

Pavement 

Deicers GRV

Plug and 

Pump 

Deicing 

Pad 

Anaerobic 

Fluidized 

Bed 

Hauling

off site 

Urea 

Reduction

303(d) 

Listed 

Waters 

at the 

Outfall1

Above an 

Aquifer2

D

Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field 

65,272 0 X X X 

Ronald Reagan Washington National 

35,476 0 96,724 X P X 

Salt Lake City International 

830,662 0 2,264,796 X 

San Antonio International 

25,273 0 X X P 

South Bend Regional 

18,364 0 50,070 X DW 

Spokane International 

361,550 0 985,763 X X 

Stewart International 

85,934 0 234,299 X 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International 

945,803 0 2,578,727 X X 

Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field 

35,476 25,661 96,724 X X X 

Tweed-New Haven 9,764 0 X X X Washington Dulles International 

1,966,949 0 X X DW 

WilkesBarre/Scranton International 

84,322 0 X X P X 

Will Rogers World 98,131 0 X X DW Wilmington International 

4,313 0 X X DW 

Yeager 15,087 0 41,133 X 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options 

Table 4-7 presents the total COD and ammonia discharge reductions associated with each of the proposed 

regulatory options. 

Table 4-7: Annual Pollutant Discharge Reductions under Proposed Regulatory Options 

Proposed Regulatory 

Option 

ADF COD 

(million pounds) 

Pavement Deicer COD 

(million pounds) 

Pavement Deicer 

Ammonia 

(million pounds) 

Option 1 9.0 12.7 4.7 

Option 2 18.8 12.7 4.7 

Option 3 27.2 12.7 4.7 

Option 4 29.3 12.7 4.7 

The totals for each regulatory option in Table 4-7 are greater than the sum of the reductions presented for 

individual airports in Table 4-3 to Table 4-6. This is because the totals in Table 4-7 reflect discharge 

reductions associated with all airports in scope of the proposed regulatory options, whereas Table 4-3 to 

Table 4-6 present reductions associated only with airports EPA surveyed. EPA calculated the discharge 

reductions associated with these airports by using statistical weighting factors associated with EPA’s 

Airport Deicing Questionnaire (US EPA 2006c). For additional information on the calculation of 

discharge reductions associated with each proposed regulatory option, see EPA’s Technical Development 

Document for the Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing 

Category (US EPA 2009). 

Table 4-7 presents discharge reductions only for COD and ammonia. The proposed 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 proposed regulatory options will reduce discharges of chemical oxygen demand (COD), ammonia 

from urea pavement deicers, and other airport deicing product chemicals from selected airports. EPA 

anticipates that these discharge reductions will improve receiving water characteristics, including 

pollutant levels, aesthetic problems, aquatic community health, and utility for human needs and health. 

4.4.1 Ecological Benefits 

Ecological benefits from the regulation include protection of fresh- and saltwater plants, invertebrates, 

fish, and amphibians, and other aquatic organisms, as well as terrestrial wildlife and birds that prey on 

aquatic organisms exposed to airport deicing pollutants. The proposed regulation will reduce the presence 

and discharge of various pollutants to aquatic ecosystems currently under stress (e.g., 303(d) listed water 

bodies). The drop in pollutant discharges would help reestablish productive ecosystems in damaged 

waterways, protect resident species, including threatened and endangered species where present, and 

reduce the severity and frequency of fish kill events. 

4.4.2 Human Health Benefits 

As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of this document, EPA identified several possible health risks and 

incidents of complaint by members of the public associated with certain ADF and pavement deicer 

components. To the extent current discharges contribute to human health risk, reducing airport deicing 

July 2009 4-17 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed 

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 estimating the change in the expected number of adverse 

human health events in the exposed population resulting from a reduction in effluent discharges. EPA, 

however, did not quantify changes in human health risk resulting from the proposed regulatory options 

due to unavailability of dose-response functions for many chemicals of potential concern and the 

complexity of many chemical’s environmental behavior. 

In concept, the value of these health effects to society is the monetary value that society is willing to pay 

to avoid the health effects, or the amount that society would need to be compensated to accept increases 

in the number of adverse health events. Willingness to pay (WTP) values are generally considered to 

provide a fairly comprehensive measure of society’s valuation of the human and financial costs of illness 

associated with the costs of health care, losses in income, and pain and suffering of affected individuals 

and of their family and friends. Another measure that is typically used in assessing human health benefits 

is the cost of an illness. Cost of an illness is the direct medical costs of treating a health condition (e.g., 

reproductive problems), and can be used to value changes in health risk from reduced exposure to 

pollutants such as ethylene glycol. 

4.4.3 Human Use of Aquatic Resource Benefits 

Improvements in ecosystems and habitats and enhanced aesthetic quality of surface waters enhance 

human use and enjoyment of these areas. In particular, reducing instances of objectionable odors, colors, 

and foaming that have been frequently reported in surface waters affected by ADFs and pavement deicers 

is expected to enhance a broad range of recreational uses of the affected waterbodies, including 

swimming, boating, fishing, water skiing, and use of park lands adjacent to affected waterbodies. 

Improvements will also enhance quality of life for people who live near affected waterbodies. The 

regulation will also augment nonuse values (e.g., option, existence, and bequest values) of the affected 

water resources. 

EPA’s review of 45 surface water valuation studies conducted between 1981 and 2002 demonstrates that 

society places a significant value on improving and/or protecting its water resources. Total WTP 

(including use and non-use values) for water quality improvements over the sample of 45 studies ranged 

from $8.72 to $525.91, with a mean value of $120.54 (US EPA 2008c). WTP values from published 

studies vary widely depending on the study (e.g., methodology and sample size) and resource 

characteristics (e.g., water body characteristics, the magnitude of water quality improvements, the 

geographic scope of improvement). For example, WTP for reducing nutrient pollution and eutrophication 

impacts estimated by Shrestha and Alavapati (2004) ranges from to $84.15 to $106.71 (2008$, 

annualized). A study by Lindsey (1994) found that WTP to meet nutrient pollution reduction goals in the 

Chesapeake Bay ranged from $34.90 to $106.78 (2008$), depending upon the choice of outliers and 

protest bids excluded. Values for oil and toxic materials reductions were also available in the same 

review. A study by Phaneuf et al. (1998) found that WTP for a 20% reduction in toxins at fishery sites in 

North Carolina’s Tar-Pamlico basin ranges from $14.59 to $193.46 (2008$), depending upon the models 

utilized. Based on the evidence from the published literature, EPA estimates that nonmarket benefits from 

water quality improvements resulting from reduced deicing pollutant discharges are likely to be 

substantial. 

Reduced airport deicing discharges should improve groundwater and drinking water sources located 

under or near airports subject to regulation. Drinking water contaminated by deicing pollutants may pose 

July 2009 4-18 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 4. Benefits of Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Regulatory Options 

July 2009 4-19 

health risks or have an unpleasant taste and odor which may cause concerns regarding potential adverse 

health effects. Protection of groundwater sources from contamination by airport deicing pollutants is of 

particular concern because households that use private wells usually do not treat or regularly test their 

drinking water for contamination. 

The appropriate measure of the economic value of clean groundwater achieved through a ban on MTBE 

use in gasoline is option price. This measure is commonly used when uncertainty is present in the 

analysis. Option price is defined as an individual’s maximum WTP to secure the option to use a resource 

or commodity in the future (Desvousges et al. 1987 and Freeman 2003). Option price is a measure of the 

total economic value an individual places on protecting groundwater quality. Protecting groundwater 

quality provides a number of services to groundwater users, including avoidance of higher drinking water 

costs (e.g., avoided treatment or replacement costs), elimination of potential health concerns associated 

with consumption of bad tasting water, general aesthetic enjoyment derived from a clean environment, 

and any nonuse values associated with protecting groundwater quality (e.g., bequest value, existence 

value). 

Based on the meta-analysis of groundwater valuation studies, WTP values for protection of groundwater 

from contamination by pollutants other then nitrates and pesticides (i.e., “Other” pollutants) range from 

$154.74 to $235.25 for residential wells. For small public water supply systems, household WTP values 

range from $78 to $122.03, and for public water supply systems, household WTP values range from $78 

to $233.99 (2008$) (US EPA 2001). All are annual values. 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 Deicing Salts on Trace Metal Mobility in Roadside Soils. 

Journal of Environmental Quality. 19: 765-772. 

Ashrawi, S.S., and D.A. Coffey. 1993. Anti-icing compositions having alkylphenol ethoxylate nonionic 

surfactant and alkylaryl sulfonate hydrotrope. Texaco Chemical Company (Assignee). U.S. Patent 

5,273,673. 

Askari, Emilia. 1990. “State Probes Airport in Pollution Allegations.” Detroit Free Press. August 30. 

Associated Press. 1992. “Cincinnati Airport Cited by State.” Cleveland Plain Dealer. June 8. 

Associated Press. 1999. “De-icing Chemical Found in Westchester Reservoir.” New York Times. 

November 14. 

Associated Press. 1996. “Panel Settles De-Icing Suit with Homeowners.” Cleveland Plain Dealer. March 

28. 

Associated Press. 2006. “Portland Airport's De-Icing System Harms Fish.” USA Today. October 17. 

Atlantic States Legal Foundation. 1999. Litigation Update. Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. 

Newsletter [Autumn 1999]. 

Ayres Ed. 2007. “Airports and cities: Can they coexist?” San Diego Earth Times. 2001. San Diego, CA. 

November 29. 

Back, D.D., J.A. Meyerand, and C. Ramos. 1999. “Composition and method for de-icing and anti-icing 

surfaces.” Mainstream Engineering Corp. (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,993,684. 

Basic Acrylic Monomer Manufacturers (BAMM). 2006. Acrylic Acid: Background Information. 

Available at: http://www.bamm.net/bamm_acrylic_acid_041806.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2008. 

Belanger, S.E., P.B. Dorn, R. Toy, G. Boeije, S.J. Marshall, T. Wind, R. Van Compernolle, and D. Zeller. 

2006. “Aquatic Risk Assessment of Alcohol Ethoxylates in North America and Europe.” 

Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 64: 85–99. 

Bennie, D.T., C.A. Sullivan, H.-B. Lee, T.E. Peart, and R.J. Maguire. 1997. “Occurrence of Alkylphenols 

and Alkylphenoldiethoxylates in Natural Waters of the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin and the Upper 

St. Lawrence River.” Sci. Tot. Env. 193: 263-275. 

Bloom, S.H. 1986. Deicing compositions. U.S. Patent 4,585,571. 

Boeing Company (Boeing). 2008. Aero Magazine, No. 8. 

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_08/deice_textonly.html#industry. 

Boluk, M.Y., M.S. Jarrell, B.J. Brymer, and G. Archambault. 1999. “Aircraft deicing fluid with improved 

anti-icing and ice adhesion control properties.” Union Carbide Chemical and Plastics Technology 

Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,968,407. 

July 2009 5-1 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Breedveld, G.D., G. Olstad, and P. Aagaard. 1997. “Treatment of Jet Fuel Contaminated Runoff Water by 

Subsurface Infiltration.” Bioremediation Journal 1, 77–88. 

Breedveld, G.D., R. Roseth, L. Hem, S. Sparrevik. 2002. Trizoles in the Terrestrial Environment. Report 

by the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute for the Oslo International Airport, Statsbygg, and the 

Norwegian Airforce. 

Breedveld, Gus D., Roger Roseth, Magnus Sparrevik, Thomas Hartnik, and Lars J. Hem. 2003. 

“Persistence of the Deicing Additive Benzotriazole at an Abandoned Airport,” Water, Air, and Soil 

Pollution: Focus 91-101. 

British Environment Agency. 2000. Corrosion Inhibitors: Priorities for Environmental Quality Standards 

Development. Research and Development Technical Report P189. 

California Aviation Association. 2003. New Hampshire “Airport Brook To Be Tested For Chemicals.” 

California Aviation Association. January 27. 

Campbell, P.M. 2002. Alternatives to Nonylphenol Ethoxylates: Review of Toxicity, Biodegradation, & 

Technical-Economic Aspects. Prepared for Environment Canada by ToxEcology. 

Cancilla, D.A., J. Martinez, and G.C. Van Aggelen. 1998. “Detection of Aircraft Deicing/Antiicing Fluid 

Additives in a Perched Water Monitoring Well at an International Airport.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 32: 

3834-3835. 

Cancilla, D.A., J.C. Baird, S.W. Geis, and S.R. Corsi. 2003. “Studies of the Environmental Fate and 

Effect of Aircraft Deicing Fluids: Detection of 5-Methyl-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. Deicer/anti-icer compositions for aircraft. General 

Atomics International Services Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,435,930. 

Chemfate Database. 2008. Syracuse Research Corporation’s Chemfate Chemical Search. Available at: 

http://www.syrres.com/eSc/chemfate.htm. Accessed April 15, 2008. 

Christiansen, L.B., M. Winther-Nielsen, and C. Helweg. 2002. Feminisation of Fish. The Effects of 

Estrogenic Compounds and Their Fate in Sewage Treatment Plants and Nature. Danish 

Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Project No. 729. 

Coffey, D.A., S.S. Ashrawi, and E.C. Nieh. 1995. “Aircraft wing de-icers with improved holdover times.” 

Texaco Chemical Company (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,386,968. 

Comfort, G. 2000. Runway De-Icing Chemicals (No. TP13778). Ottawa, ON, Canada: Transport Canada. 

Conetta, A., R. Bracchitta, and P. Sherrer, 1997, Storm Water Management and Control of Aircraft 

Deicing Runoff at Westchester County Airport: Environmental Regulation and Permitting. 

Conservation Commission of Missouri. 2007. Platte River Watershed Beneficial Use Attainment. 

Cornell, Jeffrey S. 2001. “The Environmental Impact of 4(5)-Methylbenzotriazole from Aircraft Deicing 

Operations.” Ph.D. Thesis directed by Mark T. Hernandez, University of Colorado, CO. May. 

Corsi, S. R.; Booth, N. L.; Hall, D.W. 2001. “Aircraft and Runway Deicers at General Mitchell 

International Airport, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.” Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2001, 20, 1474-1482. 

July 2009 5-2 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Corsi, S. R., Harwell Glenn R, Geis, S., and Bergman 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. “Nonylphenol Ethoxylates and Other 

Additives in Aircraft Deicers, Antiicers, and Waters Receiving Airport Runoff.” Environmental 

Science & Technology 37(18): 4031-4037. 

Corsi, Steven R., Steven W. Geis, Jorge E. Loyo-Rosales, and Clifford P. Rice. 2006. “Aquatic Toxicity 

of Nine Aircraft Deicer and Anti-Icer Formulations and Relative Toxicity of Additive Package 

Ingredients Alkylphenol Ethoxylates and 4,5-Methyl-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: Cryotech 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 Management Plan for the Delaware 

Estuary. 

deMarban, Alex. 2007. Lake Mower Clears Paths for Floatplanes. Anchorage Daily News. August 13. 

Anchorage, AK. 

Desvouges, William H., V. Kerry Smith, and Ann Fisher. 1987. Option Price Estimates for Water Quality 

Improvements: A Contingent Valuation Study for the Monongahela River. Journal of Environmental 

Economics and Management. 14: 248-267. 

Dickson, Louise. 2004. “Polluted creek killing fish: Reclamation Work Wasted as Second Major Kill 

Wipes Out Run.” Victoria Times Colonist. November 1. 

D’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. 

July 2009 5-3 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Environment Canada. 2002a. “Alternatives to Nonylphenol Ethoxylates.” Review of Toxicity, 

Biodegradation, and Technical-Economic Aspects. 

Environment Canada. 2002b. “Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines for Nonylphenol and its 

Ethoxylates.” Cat. No. En1-34/4-2002E. Report. 

Environment Canada. 2008a. “Existing Substances Evaluation: Draft Screening Assessment for the 

Challenge.” 15086-94-9. Available at: 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2_15086-94-9.cfm. Accessed June 24, 

2008. 

Environment Canada. 2008b. “Risk Management Scope for C.I. Pigment Yellow 34.” Available at: 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/substances/ese/eng/challenge/batch2/batch2_1344-37-2_rms_en.pdf. Accessed 

June 24, 2008. 

Environmental News Service. 2005. “Minnesota Halts Jet Fuel Leaks, Spills at Twin Cities Airport. 

“Environmental News Service. March 18. 

Environmental News Service. 2007. Wayne County Airport Admits De-Icing Chemical Discharge. 

Environmental News Service. 6-14-2006. August 21. 

Evans, W.E.D., and S. Patterson. 1973. “Biodegradation of Urea in River Water under Controlled 

Laboratory Conditions.” Water Research. 7: 975-985. As cited in D’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 Watershed Association. November 29. 

Ferguson, L., S.R. Corsi, S.W. Geis, G. Anderson, K. Joback, H. Gold, D. Mericas, D.A. Cancilla. 2008. 

ACRP Web-Only Document 3: Aircraft Deicing and Airfield Anti-Icing Formulations: Aquatic 

Toxicity and Biochemical Oxygen Demand. Contractor’s Phase I Interim Report for Airport 

Cooperative Research Program Project 02-01. 

Fisher, D. H., M.H. Knott, S.D. Turley, B.S. Turley, L.T. Yonkos, and G.P. Ziegler, 1995, “The Acute 

Whole Effluent Toxicity of Storm Water from an International Airport.” Environmental Toxicology 

and Chemistry, v. 14, p. 1103-1111. 

Flannery William. 1998. Status on Recovery of Aircraft Deicing Fluid Operations at the Airport. CITY 

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION 98-052, FEBRUARY 16, 1998 AGENDA. February 16. 

Freeman, A. Myrick. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, 2nd Edition. 

Resources for the Future. Washington, DC. 

French, H.K., Zee, S.V.D., and Leijnse, A., 2001. Transport and degradation of propylene glycol and 

potassium acetate in the unsaturated zone. J. Contam. Hydrol. 49, 23–48. 

Fyve Star, Inc. 2008. Catalog. Website, available at: http://www.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. 

July 2009 5-4 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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, and T.H. Nysten. 2005. “Use of Potassium Formate in 

Road Winter Deicing Can Reduce Groundwater Deterioration.” Environ. Sci. Technol. 39(13): 5095-

5100. 

Hopey, Don. 1996. “Airport Gets Criticism for Disposal of De-Icer.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. October 

28. 

Hopey, Don. 1998. “Airport Ordered Again to Keep De-Icers Out of Streams.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 

January 31. 

Hu, J.Z., J. Wakelin, and A. Wiesenfeld. 1998. Deicing and anti-icing composition for aircraft. Octagon 

Process Inc. (Assignee). U.S. Patent 5,817,252. 

Human and Environmental Risk Assessment on Ingredients of European Household Cleaning Products 

(HERA). 2007. “Alcohol Ethoxylates.” May. 

International Food Information Council (IFIC). 2005. “IFIC Review: Sodium in Food and Health.” 

January. 

International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS). 1997. Environmental Health Criteria 191: Acrylic 

Acid. Available at: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc191.htm. Accessed June 24, 2008. 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Total Maximum Daily Load For Priority Organics Yeader 

Creek Polk County, Iowa. January 23. 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Total Maximum Daily Loads For Nutrients and Siltation 

Easter Lake Polk County, Iowa. 

Isobe, T., H. Nishiyama, A. Nakashima, and H. Takada. 2001. “Distribution and Behavior of 

Nonylphenol, Octylphenol, and Nonylphenol Monoethoxylate in Tokyo Metropolitan Area: Their 

Association with Aquatic Particles and Sedimentary Distributions.” Env. Sci. Technol. 35: 1041-1049. 

Jaesche, P., K.U. Totsche, and I. Kogel-Knabner. 2006. “Transport and Anaerobic Biodegradation of 

Propylene Glycol in Gravel-Rich Soil Materials. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 85: 271-286. 

Jobling, M. 1996. “Environmental Biology of Fishes.” Fish and Fisheries Series 16. Chapman and Hall, 

London. 

Johnson, J.J., N. Varney, and M.S. Switzenbaum. 2001. “Comparative Toxicity of Formulated Glycol 

Deicers and Pure Ethylene and Propylene Glycol.” Report. University of Massachusetts/Amherst, 

Water Resources Research Center. August. 

Johnson, Steve. 2005. “Port Plans Study To Enhance Airport Deicing Storm Water Collection System.” 

September 26. 

Kelly, B.R. and D. Klepal. 2004. “Silent Streams.” The Cincinnati Enquirer. March 7. 

July 2009 5-5 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection.2007. KPDES Permit # KY0082864. July 31. 

Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection. 2007. KPDES Permit # KY0092185. December 31. 

Kibbe, Cindy. 2006. “Planes, trains and automobiles: What are southern N.H.'s transportation options?” 

New Hampshire Business Review. April 14. 

Klecka, G.M., C.L. Carpenter, and B.D. Landenberger. 1993. “Biodegradation of Aircraft Deicing Fluids 

in Soil at Low Temperatures.” Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 25(3): 280–295. 

Klepal, Dan. 2004. “Airport pollution provokes ire: Residents fault state for going easy on de-icing 

runoff.” The Cincinnati Enquirer. September 10. 

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 deaths: Airport denies group's claim that runoff kills 

salmon.” Seattle Post-Intelligencer. April 14. 

Larson, Catherine E. 2004. Lower Minnesota River Model Project Proposal to Develop an Advanced 

Water-Quality Model of the Minnesota River, Jordan to the mouth, and Conduct River Monitoring 

and Studies to Support the Model. 1-35. January 15. 

Larson, R.J., E.A. Bookland, R.T. Williams, K.M. Yocom, D.A. Saucy, and M.B. Freeman. 1997. 

“Biodegradation of Acrylic Acid Polymers and Oligomers by Mixed Microbial Communities in 

Activated Sludge.” Journal of Polymers and the Environment 5(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 Authority Pleads Guilty To Violation Of Clean Water Act. 

Department of Justice Press Release. June 8. 

Lockyerm, R.T., J. Zuk, and A. Gaslim. 1998. Environmentally friendly anti-icing. U.S. Patent 5,772,912. 

Ma, F., and D. Comeau. 1990. “Aircraft de-icing and anti-icing composition.” Union Carbide Chemical 

and Plastics Technology Corporation Limited (Assignee). U.S. Patent 4,954,279. 

Maest, Ann. 2008. Personal communication, Dr. Ann Maest, Stratus Consulting Inc., June 28, 2008. 

Mapes, Jeff. 1999. Leonard wades into water cleanup with Portland plans. The Oregonian. February 3. 

July 2009 5-6 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

McDowell, A. Scott. 1997. Sawmill Creek - Watershed "Restoration" Project. Allwood Community 

Association Site Information. March 14. 

Meersman, Tom. 1993. “FAA-Mandated Plane De-Icing Puts Minnesota River at Risk.” Minneapolis Star 

Tribune. March 10. 

Meersman, Tom. 1993. “New Rules for Airport De-Icers Amount of Chemicals Flushed into River Will 

be Reduced.” Minneapolis Star Tribune. September 29. 

Mericas, D., and B. Wagoner. 1994. “Balancing Safety and the Environment.” Water Environment and 

Technology 6(12): 38-43. 

Meyerhoff, Richard, Nicole Rowan, Janet Kieler, Janell Barrilleaux, Rebecca Albrecht, and Susan Morea. 

2005. “Development Of Site-Specific Dissolved Oxygen Standards In Surface Waters At Denver 

International Airport.” 1002-1026. Water Environment Federation. 

Mikkelson, Stephen and Karnowski, Marni. 2004. Water Quality Violations to Cost Metropolitan 

Airports Commission $69,076. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 

Miller, Alan. 1991. “Deicing’s Fatal Effect Not Plain.” Columbus Dispatch. January 6. 

Mills, Karen. 2001. Minneapolisairport saw big jump in runoff from de-icer into Minnesota River. 

California Aviation Association. May 19. 

Moles, J.O., J.L. Maier, K.L. Johnson, and S.D. Royer. 2003. Aircraft runway deicing composition. 

General Atomics International Services Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 6,596,189. 

Moran, V.M., L.A. Abron, and L.W. Weinberger. 1992. “A Comparison of Conventional and Alternative 

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/BotanicalSciences/PlantHormones/EssentialPlant/

EssentialPlant.htm. Accessed: June 29, 2008. Adapted from: W.F. Bennett, Editor. 1993. Nutrient 

Deficiencies & Toxicities in Crop Plants, APS Press, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2005a. “Ethylene Glycol.” NIOSH 

Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards. September. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2005b. “Acrylic Acid.” NIOSH Pocket 

Guide to Chemical Hazards. September. 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 2005c. “Ammonia.” NIOSH Pocket 

Guide to Chemical Hazards. September. 

New England Grassroots Environment Fund. 2003 Annual Report. Montpelier, VT. 

Nieh, E.D. 1992. “Anti-icing compositions containing thickener blend having polyacrylic acid and 

copolymer of acrylic acid and hydrophobic vinyl monomer.” Texaco Chemical Company (Assignee). 

U.S. Patent 5,118,435. 

O'Conner, Robert and Kate Douglas. 1993. “Cleaning Up After the Big Chill: Thousands of Rivers and 

Streams are Harmed by the De-Icing Chemicals That Keep Aircraft Flying Through the Winter. Now 

Airports Are Being Forced to Curb This Damaging Pollution.” New Scientist. January 16. 

July 2009 5-7 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

Permit Program Fact Sheet Regarding an NPDES Permit To Discharge to Waters of the State of Ohio 

for Cleveland-Hopkins International Airport. NPDES Permit # OH122068, Expiration October 31, 

2006. 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). 

2007. NPDES Permit #040124311. 

Onondaga County Council on Environmental Health. 2000. Beartrap Creek Reclamation. 

Onondaga Lake Partnership. 2003. Izaak Walton League's Efforts Lead To Restored Beartrap Creek. 

Reflections 1[3]. 2003. 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1998. Columbia Slough Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs) For: Chlorophyll a, Dissolved Oxygen, pH, Phosphorus, Bacteria, DDE/DDT, PCBs, Pb, 

Dieldrin and 2,3,7,8 TCDD. 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 Claims; Environmentalists File Notice of Intent to 

Sue; De-Icing Chemicals at Issue; Airport Maintains it Has Tried to Keep Pollution Contained.” 

Baltimore Sun. January 8. 

Pelton, Tom. 1997a. “De-Icing Fluid Used at BWI Fouls Waters; MD.'s Pride in System Ignores Pollution 

Data From Other Agencies; BWI is 'Economic Engine'; 11th-Hour Clearance Gives Airport Time, 

$1.6 Million for Drains.” Baltimore Sun. August 9. 

Pelton, Tom. 1997b. “EPA Probing Allegation of BWI Runoff; Polluting Chemicals Seeping Into Creek, 

Environmentalists Say; Airport Cooperating; Public's Health Is Not In Danger, According to State.” 

Baltimore Sun. April 23. 

Peninsula Streams Society. 2006. Reay Watershed: 2003 Fish Kill. 

Phaneuf, Daniel J., Catherine L. Kling, and Joseph A. Herriges. 1998. “Valuing Water Quality 

Improvements Using Revealed Preference Methods When Corner Solutions Are Present.” 80(5), Dec 

2002. 

Pillard, D. A., 1996. “Assessment of benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities in a stream 

receiving storm water runoff from a large airport.” Journal of Freshwater Ecology, v. 11, p. 51-59. 

Pillard D., J. Cornell, D. Dufresne, and M. Hernandez. 2001. “Toxicity of Benzotriazole and 

Benzotriazole Derivatives to Three Aquatic Species.” Water Research 35(2):557-560. 

Public Sector Consultants Inc. 1993. “The Use of Selected Deicing Materials on Michigan Roads: 

Environmental and Economic Impacts. Conducted for the Michigan Department of Transportation.” 

Available at: http://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,1607,7-151-9622_11045-57246--,00.html. Accessed 

June 24, 2008. 

Pytte, Alyson. 1991. “Chemicals Lace Airport Soil Finding Pollution is Easy; Who Pays for Cleanup is 

the Problem.” Anchorage Daily News. September 8. 

Redox Tech. 2008. Lactate. Available at: http://redox-tech.com/Lactate.htm. Accessed: March 19, 2008. 

July 2009 5-8 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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, Ice and Snow Precautions at Stations. Website. 

Available at: http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/reports/research/T532%20Evaluation%20of%20frost,%20ice

%20and%20snow%20precautions%20at%20stations.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2008. 

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. RIPDES Permit # RI0021598, Expiration 

January 1, 2010. 

Richardson, D. C. 2006. “Cleveland Gets a New Pad.” Stormwater: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. Corrosion inhibited runway deicing fluid. METSS 

Corporation (Assignee). U.S. Patent 6,540,934. 

Saporito, Jack. 2003. Comments from the Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. to the Federal 

Aviation Administration regarding the Draft FAA Five-Year Strategic Plan "Flight Plan" 2004-2008 

by Jack Saporito. Letter communication to Sharon Pinkerton and FAA. August 5. 

Scanlon, Bill. 1997. “DIA Pollutes Creek / De-Icer Washing off Runways Kills Life in Stream That 

Flows Toward Barr Lake Bird Sanctuary”. Rocky Mountain News. April 22. 

Schauer, N.L., D.P. Brown, and J.G. Ferry. 1982. “Kinetics of Formate Metabolism in Methanobacterium 

formicicum 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 Deicing Products on Aircraft and Airfield Infrastructure. 

Transportation Research Board, Airport Cooperative Research Program Report. Available at: 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/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. 

July 2009 5-9 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Sills, R.D., and P.A. Blakeslee. 1992. “The Environmental 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 Protection. 2004. List of Connecticut Waterbodies Not 

Meeting Water Quality Standards. i-C-9. April 8. 

State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and 

Assessment Report. DEPLW0817. 

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Biological and Water Quality Study of Lower Big 

Walnut Creek and Walnut Creek Tributaries Rickenbacker Airport 1996. DSW/MAS 1997-12-10. 

April 3. 

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Biological and Water Quality Study of Mason Run 

1996. DSW/MAS 1996-12-6. 9-11-1998. 

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. Biological and Water Quality Study of Mill Creek, 

Dayton International Airport Miami and Montgomery Counties, Ohio. MAS/1995-2-2, 1-31. 2-20-

1995. 

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Big 

Walnut Creek Basin 2000. DSW/EAS 2003-11-10, i-203. November 26. 

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little 

Miami River Basin, 1998. MAS/1999-12-3. June 23. 

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Biological and Water Quality Study of the 

Stillwater River Basin, 1999, Darke, Miami and Montgomery Counties. OEPA Technical Report 

Number MAS/2001-12-8. Columbus, OH 

State of Washington Department of Ecology. 2007. NPDES Permit # SO3004373. September 20. 

Stewart, Bill. 1998. “Airport Juggles Safety, Pollution Concerns.” The Oregonian. February 22. 

Switzenbaum, Michael S., Veltman, Shawn, Schoenberg, Theodore, Durand, Carmen M., Mericas, Dean, 

and Wagoner, Bryan. 1999. Workshop: Best Management Practices for Airport Deicing Stormwater. 

United States Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 173. July 29. 

Taylor, Rob.1995. “Lawsuit Filed Over Stream Pollution From Sea-Tac Airport.” Seattle PostIntelligencer. August 15. 

July 2009 5-10 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 Impact 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), International Labour Organization, and World Health 

Organization. 2004. “Integrated Risk Assessment: Nonylphenol Case Study.” December. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. 

National Engineering Handbook Series, Part 651. 210-AWMFH, 4/92. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US HHS). 2004. “Toxicological Profile for Ammonia.” 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. September. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US HHS). 2007a. “Draft Toxicological Profile for 

Ethylene Glycol.” Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. September 2007. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US HHS). 2007b. “Case Studies in Environmental 

Medicine (CSEM) Ethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol Toxicity.” Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry. October 2007. 

U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture (US HHS and DoA). 2005. “Sodium 

and Potassium.” Chapter 8, Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 2007. Advisory Circular: Airport Winter Safety and 

Operations. AC 150/5200-30C. Available at: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/

resources/draft_advisory_circulars/media/draft_150_5200_30c.pdf. Accessed December 4, 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. EPA 440/5-86-

001. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/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. 

July 2009 5-11 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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/rsei/. Obtained internal version of underlying 

spreadsheet February 11, 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008a. Memorandum to Administrative Record for 

Proposed Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category. Written by 

Ashley Allen, dated November 6, 2008.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008b. National Summary of Impaired Waters and 

TMDL Information. EPA Office of Water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/. Accessed 

December 8, 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008c. Environmental Impact and Benefits 

Assessment for Proposed Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Construction and Development 

Category. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008d. Current National Recommended Water Quality 

Criteria. EPA Office of Water. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/wqcriteria.html. Accessed February 19, 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008e. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 

Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm. Accessed February 19, 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008f. NPDES Glossary. National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System. December. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/glossary.cfm#C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. Technical Development Document for the 

Proposed 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/. 

July 2009 5-12 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 5. References 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009 5-13 

University of Illinois Extension. 2008. Salt Damage 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 Chromatography-Electrospray Ionization-Tandem Mass 

Spectrometry.” Anal. Chem. 77: 7415-7420. 

Weiss, S., J. Jakobs, and T. Reemtsma. 2006. “Discharge of Three Benzotriazole Corrosion Inhibitors 

with Municipal Wastewater and Improvements by Membrane Bioreactor Treatment and Ozonation.” 

Environ. Sci. Technol. 2006(40): 7193-7199. 

Wells, Scott. 1997. The Columbia Slough. Prepared for the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental 

Services. Technical Report EWR-2-97. (March) 

Westmark, C.S., K.G. Joback, and M. Temchenko. 2001. Environmentally Friendly De-icer and Anti-icer 

Compositions. U.S. Patent 7,270,767. 

Wohlforth, Charles. 1990. “Toxic Runoff Adds to Lake Hood Pollution.” Anchorage Daily News. May 4. 

Worthington, Rogers. 1998. “Group Claims O'Hare fails to report on de-icing toxins.” Chicago Tribune. 

January 9. 

Zhu, J.K. 2007. “Plant Salt Stress.” Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Wiley DOI: 

10.1002/9780470015902.a0001300.pub2. PDF. Available at: http://www.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 Proposed 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 Airports- Chemical Pavement Deicer Usage 

Pavement Deicer 

Chemical 

2002/2003 Total 

Surveyed Airport 

Usage (tons/year) 

2003/2004 Total 

Surveyed Airport 

Usage (tons/year)

2004/2005 Total 

Surveyed 

Airport Usage 

(tons/year) 

Average Total 

Surveyed 

Airport Usage 

(tons/year)1

Percentage of 

Chemical 

Usage 

Potassium acetate 22,804 20,267 20,029 21,292 64 

Propylene glycolbased fluids 3,317 4,147 2,884 3,870 12 

Urea (airside) 3,015 3,804 4,031 3,553 11 

Sodium acetate 2,815 3,195 2,663 3,072 9 

Sodium formate 1,663 696 1,359 1,064 3 

Ethylene glycolbased fluids 1,038 465 691 656 2 

1

 Based on the 90 airports reporting airfield deicing chemical use. The 3 year average is not a straight average of the total annual 

amounts; the average for each airport was evaluated and calculated separately. 

Source: EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (2006c). For additional details, see EPA (2009). 

July 2009 A-1 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C10H16N2O8 C14H23N3O10

Water solubility, g/L 1.0 4.8 

Log KOW -3.86 -4.91 

Log KOC 1.99 

Henry’s Law constant (atmm3

/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 increase the mobility of potentially toxic metals. They 

readily form complexes with metal ions, bringing them into the soluble phase in 

soils, sediments, and water. This property is being investigated and exploited for 

extracting and phytoremediating toxic metals.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 readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-2 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C6H14O6 C6H14O6 C6H14O6

Water solubility, g/L 31 Freely soluble up to 83% 

Log KOW -2.2 

Log KOC 0.30 

Henry’s Law constant (atm-m3/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 distance of transport in surface water, 

groundwater, and soil. 

Mixture effects 

Degradation products CO2

Additional notes Characteristics of these sugar alcohols are likely to be relatively similar. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-3 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C2H3KO2 C2H3NaO2

Water solubility, g/L 1,190 at 0° C 

Log KOW

Log KOC -3.72 

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/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 groundwater. Acetate should be rapidly biodegraded under 

aerobic conditions in surface water, groundwater, and soil. 

Half-life 

Degradation summary 

Degradation products The cations calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium are liberated, and 

acetate degradation produces bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, and watera

. 

Transport rate summary Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with 

soils/sediments. May be very site-specific. 

Mixture effects Formate can decrease the breakdown of acetate in anaerobic environments. 

Additional notes 

Source: D’Itri (1992). 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-4 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 CH2O2.K CH2O2.Na C5H10O3 C3H6O3.Na 

Water solubility, g/L 3,310 at 18°

C 

972 at 20°

C Miscible with water 1,000 

Log KOW -0.18 

Log KOC 1 

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/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-specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb 

or complex with soil or water constituents but may also remain dissolved in surface water 

and groundwater. 

Half-life In water: hydrolysis: 72 days at pH 7; 

7 days at pH 8. 

Degradation summary 

Formate is slowly 

hydrolyzed in water, and 

can be anaerobically 

degraded by 

methanogens. 

Hydrolysis to ethanol and lactate in 

surface waters may be an important 

degradation pathway. 

Degradation products Release of potassium and sodium cations and microbial biomass. 

Transport rate 

summary 

Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils/sediments. May be 

very site-specific. 

Mixture effects 60% ethyl lactate has a strong cosolvency effect and can increase the solubility of dense 

non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) compounds by orders of magnitude. 

Additional notes 

Redox Tech (2008) and US NLM (2008). 

Schauer et al. (1982) and Redox Tech (2008). 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-5 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C5H7NO3.Na C3H8O3 C3H8O C5H9NO2 C4H10O4 C5H12O4

Water solubility, 

g/L Freely soluble 1000 1620 610 72.3 

Log KOW -1.76 0.05 -2.54 -2.29 -1.69 

Log KOC 1.4 

Henry’s Law 

constant 

(atm-m3

/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 chemicals are not expected to share similar 

properties. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-6 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-7: Freezing Point Depressants: Ethylene Glycols 

Characteristics

Poly-ethylene 

glycol, molecular 

weight from 62 

to 106 Ethylene glycol Diethylene glycola

Triethylene 

glycol 

CASRN 25322-68-3 107-21-1 111-46-6 112-27-6 

Formula (C2H4O).(H2O)n C2H6O2 C4H10O3 C6H14O4

Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble Freely soluble Freely soluble Freely soluble 

Log KOW -1.36 1.47 -1.98 

Log KOC 1 (KOC) 1 (KOC) 1 

Henry’s Law 

constant (atm-cu 

m3

/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); ethylene 

glycol in aircraft deicing or antiicing fluid formulation was 

completely 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 of

the full theoretical biological 

oxygen demand may not be 

observed for several weeks. 

Water: Diethylene 

glycol in aerobic 

river water showed 

little degradation 

during winter. 

Soils: 

Triethylene 

glycol in aerobic 

soil was 

completely 

degraded within 

7 to 11 days. 

Degradation lag 

time 

For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of several days before glycol 

degradation begins. 

Transport rate 

summary Expected to have very high mobility in soil, sediment, and water. 

Mixture effects Triazoles decrease the degradation rate of glycols. Low temperatures may also greatly decrease 

the degradation rates of glycols. 

July 2009 A-7 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009 A-8 

Table A-7: Freezing Point Depressants: Ethylene Glycols 

Characteristics

Poly-ethylene 

glycol, molecular 

weight from 62 

to 106 Ethylene glycol Diethylene glycola

Triethylene 

glycol 

Additional notes 

Ethylene glycols are expected to share somewhat similar properties, except for polyethylene 

glycols. Formulated polyethylene glycol products contain different mixtures of polymers, and 

the properties of the products will vary based on the size and shape of the polymers they 

contain. All of these substances are expected to be rapidly degraded under aerobic and 

anaerobic conditions. 

a. Not currently used in the U.S. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C3H8O2 C6H14O3

Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble Freely soluble Freely soluble 

Log KOW -0.92 -1.04 -1.486 

Log KOC 0.90 1 (KOC) 

Henry’s Law constant (atm-m3/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 mattera

. 

Degradation lag time For unacclimated microbial communities, there is often a lag of several days 

before glycol degradation begins. 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Source: Jaesche et al. (2006). 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-9 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 CH4N2O H3N 

Water solubility, g/L 545 “31%” 

Log KOW -2.11 0.23 

Log KOC 0.903 

Henry’s Law constant (atm-m3/mole) 1.61x10-5

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 1.2x10-5 7.51x103

Environmental partitioning summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-10 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 1x103

Log KOW 0.35 

Log KOC 1.63 

Henry’s Law 

constant (atmm3

/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 particulates; 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 weeks using an activated sludge 

inoculum, and in a 42-day anaerobic screening study using a sewage seed inoculum, 71% of 

acrylic acid was degraded. 

However, biodegradability decreases with increasing number of polymerized units and 

increasing formula molecular weight, dropping off sharply between MWs 700 and 1,000, and 

for polymers with more than seven unitsa

. It appears that monomers and dimers of acrylic 

acid are completely biodegradable, but there are indications polymers of three to seven units 

are incompletely biodegradeda

. 

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 readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-11 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Naturally-derived high-molecular-weight polysaccharide gums. Tend to be highly water 

soluble, and are expected to be biodegradable, although biodegradation information was 

not available. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-12 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-12: Thickeners: Other 

Characteristics Hydroxyethylcellulose 

CASRN 9004-62-0 

Formula C2-H6-O2.x-Unspecified 

Water solubility 

 g/L Freely soluble 

Log KOW 

Log KOC 

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation 

summary 

Cellulose gums are generally slowly biodegraded. Reported values for the biological 

oxygen demand of two samples of 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 readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-13 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-13: Surfactants: Alcohol Ethoxylates 

Characteristics Decyl alcohol ethoxylate Lauryl alcohol ethoxylate 

Lauryl alcohol phosphoric acid 

- ester ethoxylate 

CASRN 26183-52-8 Category - 

Formula CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 

CH2)yOHa

CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 

CH2)yOHa CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)yOHa

Water solubility, g/L 

Log KOW

Log KOC

In general, log Kd is a better predictor of behavior than Kow for these substancesa

. Log Kd, 

as with the other physicochemical parameters, varies by ethoxymer. The formula below, as 

given by Belanger et al. (2006) permits the calculation of an estimated log Kd. 

log Kd = 0.331 * (alkyl chain length) – 0.009 * (ethoxylate chain length) – 1.126 

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary Sorption may be important, and is likely to vary by ethoxymer. 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary Aerobic degradation may be rapid. 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Source: Belanger et al. (2006). 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-14 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 

dodecylbenzene 

sulfonate 

Siponate DS, 

sodium 

dodecylbenzene 

sulfonate 

Sandocorin 

8132, sodium 

dodecylbenzene 

sulfonate 

CASRN 68411-30-3 Trade name Trade name Trade name Trade name 

Formula 

Water solubility, g/L 

Log KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm 

Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-15 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-16 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C9H19-

C6H4O(CH2CH2O)nHa

Water solubility, g/L All are highly soluble in water, but solubility varies by ethoxymera. 

Log KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant (atm-m3/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 

particulatesa

. 

Half-lives 3-26 d under ideal aerobic conditions with acclimated communityb

Degradation summary Degradation varies by ethoxymer, and tends to produce some recalcitrant 

compoundsa

. 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects Surfactants can increase the solubility and transport of less soluble 

substances. 

Additional notes 

These are all categories; therefore, the specific physical properties vary by 

ethoxymer. 

Alkylphenol ethoxylates are antifoaming agentsc

. 

Degradation of these compounds can produce more persistent octyl- and 

nonylphenols. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

a. Environment Canada (2002). 

b. Staples et al. (2001). 

c. Bennie et al. (1997). 

July 2009 A-17 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C14H22O 

Water solubility, g/L 5.43x10-3a

Log KOW 4.12b 4.1-4.7a

Log KOC 4.01 to 4.65b

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/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 mineralsb

. 

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 soilsa

. 

Half-lives 7-50 d in river waterc. 

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 observeda

. 

Degradation summary 

Relatively rapid degradation in aerobic river 

waterc

. 

Highly recalcitrant to anaerobic degradation 

in sedimentsc

. 

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 daysa

. 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary Can leach through soilsb. Can leach through soilsa. 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

a. Environment Canada (2002). 

b. Isobe et al. (2001). 

c. Christiansen et al. (2002). 

July 2009 A-18 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-19 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C2H4O 

Water solubility, g/L Miscible with water 

Log KOW -0.3 

Log KOC n/a 

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 1.48X10-4 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 1314 

Environmental 

partitioning summary 

Expected to volatilize rapidly from soil. It 

does not adsorb well to soil, and would be 

expected to leach readily. 

In water, volatilization will occur in hours 

to days. 

Half-lives 

Atmospheric half-life estimated at 211 

days. The volatilization half-lives of 

ethylene oxide in a model river and lake 

are 5.9 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. Expected to degrade by 

hydrolysis in groundwater. Products of 

degradation by hydrolysis are 

biodegradable (ethylene glycol and 

ethylene chlorohydrin). 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-20 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 (C2H4O) mult-C18H34O2

Water solubility, g/L Very soluble Highly soluble 

Log KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-21 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C7H7N3

Water solubility, g/L 

Log KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary Mobile in groundwater. 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary Unlikely to be readily degradable. 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects Even at very low concentrations, triazoles have been observed to sharply decrease the 

biodegradability of other components in mixtures. 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-22 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C2H3N3 C6H5N3 C7H7N3 C7H7N3

Water solubility, g/L 19.8 

Log KOW 1.44 

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/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 

bind to organic material 

and clays. 

Volatilization is not 

expected. 

Half-lives 

Half-life for 

atmospheric 

degradation by reaction 

with hydroxyl radicals 

is estimated at 16 days. 

May also be subject to 

direct photolysis. 

Degradation summary 

Persists in the 

environment; 

apparently not 

biodegradable. 

5-tolyltriazole is much better 

(aerobically) degradable than the 4-

tolyltriazole isomer (in river water 

samples).b

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects Even at very low concentrations, triazoles have been observed to sharply decrease the 

biodegradability of other components in mixtures. 

Additional notes 

Benzotriazole and methylbenzotriazole have been detected in groundwater near an airport, 

at concentrations in excess of those known to be toxic to microbiota, fish, and 

invertebrates.a

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

a. Cancilla et al. (1998) 

b. Weiss and Reemtsma (2005).

July 2009 A-23 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C3H4O 

Water solubility, g/L Miscible with water 

Log KOW -0.38 

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant (atmm3

/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. Volatilization from the water’s surface is expected. 

Half-lives 

The half-life of propargyl alcohol in an alkaline sandy silt loam (61.5% sand, 

31.1% silt, 7.4% clay, pH 7.8, 3.25% organic carbon) was 12.6 days. The 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 readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-24 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

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

Characteristics Sodium nitrate Sodium nitrite Sodium silicate 

Potassium 

silicate 

CASRN 7631-99-4 7632-00-0 13870-28-5 10006-28-7 

Formula HNO3.Na HNO2.Na K2SiO3

Water solubility, g/L 912 848 

Almost insoluble in cold 

water; soluble in water with 

heat and pressure 

Log KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary 

Nitrite does not 

volatilize from soil or 

water. 

Nitrate does not 

volatilize from soil 

or water. 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary Aerobically degraded 

to nitrate. 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-25 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 H3O4P.3K B4Na2O7.10H2O 

Water solubility, g/L 593 

Log KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) Approximately zero. 

Environmental 

partitioning summary Not expected to volatilize from soils or water. 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary Persists in soil for a year or more, depending on soil type and 

rainfall. 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary High mobility in soil with high rainfall; otherwise, sorbs to minerals 

in soils. 

Mixture effects 

Biostatic and antiseptic; biodegradation not reported. May inhibit 

degradation of other substances in mixtures due to antimicrobial 

activity. 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-26 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C7H5NaO2 CH4N2S 

Water solubility, g/L 556 

Log KOW -1.08 

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/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 readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-27 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-27: Corrosion Inhibitors: Ethanolamines 

Characteristics Monoethanolamine Diethanolamine Triethanolamine 

CASRN 141-43-5 111-42-2 102-71-6 

Formula C2H7NO C4H11NO2 C6H15NO3

Water solubility, g/L 1x103 Freely soluble Freely soluble 

Log KOW -1.31 -1.43 -1 

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/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 environmental conditions (pH 5 to 9), which would favor 

adsorption to clays and organic matter. Not expected to volatilize from soils or water. 

Half-lives Days to weeks 

Degradation summary 

Biodegradation may be 

an important pathway of 

degradation. 

Rapid biodegradation 

expected, following lag 

time. Aerobic degradation 

observed. 

Aerobic degradation observed. 

Degradation lag time 5 d 15 d 

Transport rate summary 

Binding to clays and organic matter should restrict mobility of ionized ethanolamines in 

soil. Unionized forms are predicted to be very mobile in soils. In water, they may be 

transported with particulates. 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes Degrades to nitrogen 

dioxide and ammonia. 

N-Nitrosodiethanolamine 

is a degradation product 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-28 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 H3O4P.2K H3O4P.2Na 

Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble Freely soluble 

Log KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-29 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 KOW Too low to be measured 

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-30 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental 

partitioning summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-31 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-31: Antifoamers: Silicones and Other Substances 

Characteristics Siltech E-2202 

Dimethyl 

polysiloxane

AF-9020, 

polydimeth

ylsiloxane 1-dodecanol 

CASRN Trade name 9016-00-6 63148-62-9 112-53-8 

Formula (C2H6OSi)x- (C2H6OSi)n C12H26O 

Water solubility, g/L 0.004 

Log KOW 5.13 

Log KOC 1.5x10+4 (Koc) 

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/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 readily available to EPA at this time. 

July 2009 A-32 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C20H8Br4O5.2Na 

Water solubility, g/L 

Log KOW 4.8 

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant (atm-m3/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental partitioning summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes May discolor receiving waters. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-33 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C16H9N4Na3O9S2

Water solubility, g/L 

Log KOW

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant (atmm3

/mole) 

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

Environmental partitioning 

summary 

Half-lives 

Degradation summary 

Degradation lag time 

Transport rate summary 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-34 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-34: Hydrophobic Agents 

Characteristics N-Dodecanea Mineral oil 

White mineral oil (10 

cSt) 

CASRN 112-40-3a Mixture Mixture 

Formula 

Water solubility, g/L Insoluble in water 

Log KOW n/a 

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant (atmm3

/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 readily available to EPA at this time.

a. Chemfate database (2008). 

July 2009 A-35 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C8H10 C7H8 C8H10 C2HCl3 C4H8O 

Water solubility, 

g/L 

0.0014 @ 15 degrees 

C 

 Insoluble in 

water 1.280 353 @ 10 Deg C 

Log KOW 3.15 3.15 2.61 0.29 

Log KOC

Henry’s Law 

constant (atmm3

/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 range 

of 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 

July 2009 A-36 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009 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 readily available to EPA at this time.
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C3H6O CH2Cl2 C4H10O2 C4H6O2

Water solubility, g/L Miscible in water 13 Miscible in water 3,740 Miscible 

in water 

Log KOW -0.24 1.25 -0.29 -0.93 

Log KOC 0.114 

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/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 cm3

 is 

estimated. 

An 

atmospheric 

half-life of 

about 11 

hours at an 

atmospheric

concentratio

n of 5x10+5

hydroxyl 

radicals per 

cm3

 is 

estimated. 

Degradation summary 

Volatilization is the primary mechanism for 

removal from aquatic 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. 

July 2009 A-38 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009 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 readily available to EPA at this time.
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C16H22O4 C24H38O4 C4H8O2 C9H18O2

Water solubility, g/L 0.013 Less than 0.01% in 

water Miscible with water 

Log KOW 4.9 7.6 -0.27 

Log KOC

Henry’s Law constant 

(atm-m3

/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 

be removed by wet and 

dry deposition. 

An aerobic biodegradation half-life of 60 

to 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. 

July 2009 A-40 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009 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 biodegradation 

may occur in soils. 

Degraded in the 

atmosphere by 

hydroxyl radicals. 

Considered 

recalcitrant/ 

resistant to 

biodegradation. 

Degraded by 

hydroxyl radicals in 

the atmosphere. 

Degradation lag time 

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

in soil. 

Mixture effects 

Additional notes 

A contaminant of 

technical grade 

ethylene glycol, and 

is an animal 

carcinogen 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

Chemfate Database (2008). 

Sills and Blakeslee (1992). 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category July 2009 

Table A-38: Degradation Products 

Characteristics Methane Acetaldehyde 

Nitrous 

acids Ethanol 

CASRN 74-82-8 75-07-0 7782-77-6 64-17-5 CateFormula CH4 C2H4O HNO2 C2H6O R1NWater solubility, g/L 0.022 1,000 Miscible Log KOW 1.09 -0.17 -0.31 Log KOCHenry’s Law constant (atm-m3/mole) 

0.66 6.67x10-5 5x10-6

Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 

4.66x105 902 59.3 

Environmental partitioning summary 

Volatilization from moist soil surfaces is an important process. Not expected to adsorb to suspended solids and sediments. Volatilization from water surfaces is a dominant fate process in aqueous systems. 

Volatilization from moist soil surfaces is expected to be an important fate 

process; some volatilization 

may occur from dry soil surfaces. Not expected to adsorb to suspended solids and sediments. Volatilization from water is expected. In the atmosphere, exists as a gas under ambient conditions. 

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

Half-lives Volatilization half-lives for a 

model river and model lake are both 2 hours. The biodegradation half-life of methane was estimated to range from 70 days to infinity. The half-life for the hydroxyl radical reaction in air is estimated to be about 6 years. 

Volatilization half-lives for a model river and model lake are 6.5 hrs and 5.3 days, respectively. The half-life for atmospheric reaction with hydroxyl radicals is estimated to be 24 hrs. The half-life in the atmosphere due to 

photolysis is reported as 8.4 

hours and 16 hours. 

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

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category July 2009 

Table A-38: Degradation Products 

Characteristics Methane Acetaldehyde 

Nitrous 

acids Ethanol 

Degradation summary Aerobic degradation is an 

important mechanism in moist soils. 

Rapidlybiodegrades in the environment under aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Degraded in the atmosphere by hydroxyl radicals and photolysis. 

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

hydroxyl radicals. 

Degradation lag time Transport rate summary 

High mobility in soil. Very highly mobile in soil. Very high mobility in soil. 

Mixture effects Additional notes Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-39: Emulsifiers and Other Miscellaneous Substances 

Characteristics Propanoic acid Hexanoic acid Butanoic acid Polyamines 

CASRN 79-09-4 142-62-1 107-92-6 Category 67-66-3 Formula C3H6O2 C6H12O2 C4H8O2 CHCl3Water solubility, g/L 1,000 10.3 60.0 7.710 Log KOW 0.33 1.92 0.79 1.97 Log KOCHenry’s Law constant (atmm3/mole) 4.45x10-7 7.58x10-7 5.35x10-7 3.67x10-3Vapor pressure (mm Hg) 3.53 0.0435 1.65 197 Environmental partitioning summary 

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

Volatilizatsurfaces is important ffrom dry soNot expectsolids and Volatilizatwill occur. Exists as a and is degrradicals. 

Half-lives The half-life for the 

hydroxyl radical reaction in air is estimated to be 13 days. Anaerobic degradation in groundwater occurs with a half life of approximately 21 days. 

The half-life for the hydroxyl radical reaction in air is estimated to be 3 days. 

The half-life for the hydroxyl radical reaction in air is estimated to be 7 days. 

Chloroform half-life of cm deep inapplied 10 Volatilizatriver and m4.4 days, reThe half-lireaction in days. 

July 2009 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category July 2009 

Table A-39: Emulsifiers and Other Miscellaneous Substances 

Characteristics Propanoic acid Hexanoic acid Butanoic acid Polyamines 

Degradation summary These compounds are readily biodegradable under both aerobic and 

anaerobic conditions. Anaerobic degradation occurs with methanogenesis. Atmospheric degradation occurs via reaction with photochemicallyproduced hydroxyl radicals. 

Chloroform anaerobicabacteria. 

Degradation lag time Transport rate summary Very high mobility in soil. Moderate m

retained by 

Mixture effects Additional notes Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time. 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 Triethanolamine Fathead minnow LC50 (96 hr) 11,800 

107-19-7 Propargyl alcohol Fathead minnow LC50 (96 hr) 1.53 

Rainbow trout LC50 (96 hr) >18,500 

Fathead minnow NOEC (growth, 7 day) 15,380 

WaterfleaCeriodaphnia dubia NOEC (reproduction, 7 day) 3,469 

Green algae EC50 (96 hr) 7,900 

107-21-1 Ethylene glycol 

Duckweed LOEC (96 hr, frond growth) 10,000 

110-65-6 Butyne-1,4-diol Fathead minnow LC50 (96 hr) 53.6 

111-42-2 Diethanolamine Fathead minnow LC50 (96 hr) 4,710 

111-46-6 Diethylene glycol Fathead minnow LC50 (96 hr) 75,200 

112-27-6 Triethylene glycol Fathead minnow LC50 (96 hr) 77,400 

Algae LC50 0.97 

Fathead minnow LC50 (96 hr) 1.01 

112-53-8 1-dodecanol Harpacticoid LC50 0.9 

Northern leopard frog -

Rana pipiens LC50 0.88 

115-77-5 Pentaerythritol Waterflea-Daphnia 

magna 

EC50 (24 hr) 38,900 

LC50 >500 Fathead minnow 

LC50 (7 day) >1,500 

Rainbow trout LC50 (96 hr) >2,100 

127-08-2 Potassium acetate 

Waterflea LC50 (48 hr) >3,000 

LC50 (48 hr) 2,750 Fathead minnow 127-09-3 Sodium acetate LC50 (120 hr) 13,330 

Waterflea LC50 (48 hr) 2,400 

1310-58-3 Potassium hydroxide Guppy LC50 (24 hr) 165 

1310-73-2 Sodium hydroxide Western mosquitofish LC50 (96 hr) 125 

Bluegill LC50 31 

Waterflea LC50 74 

Microtox® (bacteria) EC50 (5 min) 6 

136-85-6 Tolyltriazole 

Microtox® (bacteria) EC50 (15 min) 6 

141-43-5 Monoethanolamine Rainbow trout LC50 (96 hr) 150 

Bluegill LC50 (24 hr) 5,000 

EC50 (24 hr) 4,800 

EC50 (48 hr) 4,400 

EC0 (24 hr) 3,300 

Waterflea 

EC0 (48 hr) 3,200 

141-53-7 Sodium formate 

Zebrafish LC50 (96 hr) 100 

July 2009 A-46 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009 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) LC50 (72 hr) >1,000 

25265-71-8 Dipropylene glycol Goldfish LC50 (24 hr) >5,000 

25322-68-3 Polyethylene glycol, m.w. 

from 62 to 106 Rainbow trout LC50 (96 hr) >20,000 

504-63-2 1,3-Propylene glycol Goldfish LC50 (24 hr) >5,000 

56-81-5 Glycerol Rainbow trout LC50 (96 hr) 54 

Guppy LC50 (96 hr) 17,500 

Fish-Barilius barna LC50 (96 hr) >9,100 

Mozambique tilapiaTilapia moassambica LC50 (96 hr) 22,500 

Carp LC50 (48 hr) >10,000 

Waterflea EC50 (24 hr) >10,000 

Mosquito LC50 (4 hr) 60,000 

57-13-6 Urea 

Freshwater snail LC50 (24 hr) 14,241-30,060 

LC50 (96 hr) 55,770 Fathead minnow 

NOEC (growth, 7 day) <11,530 

Goldfish LC50 5,000 

Waterflea-Daphnia 

magna 

LC50 8,000 

57-55-6 Propylene Glycol 

WaterfleaCeriodaphnia dubia NOEC (reproduction, 7 day) 13,020 

62-56-6 Thiourea Waterflea-Daphnia 

magna

LC50 (48 hr) 9 

7558-79-4 

Disodium phosphate (aka 

sodium hydrogen 

phosphate) 

Waterflea-Daphnia 

magna

LC50 (48 hr) 3,580 

7631-99-4 Sodium nitrate Rainbow trout LC50 (96 hr) 1,658 

Fathead minnow LC50 (96 hr) 0.73-8.2 

Goldfish LC50 (24-96 hr) 2-2.5 

Rainbow trout LC50 (24 hr) 0.068-3.58 

Waterflea LC50 (48 hr) 187-189 7664-41-7 Ammonia 

Various 

EPA National 

Recommended Water 

Quality Criteria 

Temp., life-stage, 

time-dependent. 

7778-53-2 Potassium phosphate Western mosquitofish LC50 (96 hr) 750 

EC50 (96 hr) 0.17 Green algae EC3 (7 day) 18 

Waterflea EC50 (24 hr, immobilization) 765 

79-10-7 Acrylic acid 

Rainbow trout NOEC (96 hr) 6.3 

EC50 (5 min) 41 95-14-7 Benzotriazole Microtox ® (bacteria) EC50 (15 min) 42 

97-64-3 Ethyl lactate Zebrafish LC50 (96 hr) 320 

(25154-52-3) Nonylphenol Fish LC50 0.17-1.4 

Invertebrates LC50 0.17-1.4 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009 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 

Fathead minnow LC50 3.75 

Other fishes LC50 4.7-29.2 

Calanoid copepod LC50 2.8 (Multiple) Nonylphenol ethoxylate 

Polychaete worm LC50 3.78 

Fish LC50 0.17-1.4 (Multiple) Octylphenol Invertebrates LC50 0.02-3 

Algae LC50 0.027-2.5 

(Multiple) Octylphenol ethoxylate Rainbow trout LC50 7.2 

Polychaete worm LC50 7.1 

Bluegill EC10 (C9-11EO6) 3.882 

Fathead minnow (egg, 

juvenile) 

NOEC (C9-11EO6, 

reproduction) 0.730 

Green algae EC10 (C12E2, growth) 0.030 (Multiple) Alcohol ethoxylates 

Waterflea-Daphnia 

magna 

EC10 (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 LC50 (96 hr) 420 

(Unknown) Polyacrylic Acid Bluegill LC50 (96 hr) 1,290 

Sources: EPA (2000); Environment Canada (2008a); EPA (2005); Environment Canada (2001); IPCS (1997). 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-41: Human Health Effects of Airport Deicing Product Components as Reported in IRIS, EPA NRWQC, EPA MCLs, and RSEI 

EPA NRWQC Values

EPA Drinking 

Water MCL RfD RfC 

Oral Slope 

Factor 

Inhalation 

Unit Risk 

CASRN Pollutant Name 

Water & 

Organism 

(μg/L) 

Organism 

only 

(μg/L) (mg/L) 

(mg/kg/ 

day) (mg/m3) (mg/kg-day)-1 (μg/ m3) -1 

100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 530 2,100 0.7 0.1 1 107-19-7 Propargyl alcohol 0.002 107-21-1 Ethylene glycol 2 0.4 108-88-3 Toluene 1,300 15,000 1 0.08 5 111-42-2 Diethanolamine 0.0014 0.003 117-81-7 Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 1.2 2.2 0.006 0.02 0.07 4123-91-1 Dioxane 0.1 3 0.011 0.0077 62-56-6 Thiourea 1 75-07-0 Acetaldehyde 0.009 0.0022 75-21-8 Ethylene oxide 0.03 0.222 0.088 7664-41-7 Ammonia 0.1 84-74-2 Di-N-Butyl Phthalate 2,000 4,500 0.1 Sources: EPA (2006b); EPA (2007); EPA (2008d); EPA (2008e). 

July 2009 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-42: Acetate 

Fate and Transport 

CASRN No CASRN 

Formula C2H3O2

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 oxygen levels as it derades because of its COD content. 

Acetate-containing pavement deicers, including potassium acetate and sodium acetate, may be toxic at sufficiently 

high concentrations. Specific toxicity values range from a 48-hour LC50 of 2,400 mg/L for the waterflea to a 120-

hour LC50 of 13,330 mg/L for the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) (both for sodium acetate). 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-50 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-43: Alcohol Ethoxylates 

Fate and Transport 

CASRN 64-17-5 

Formula CH3(CH2)n(OCH2 CH2)yOH 

Log KOC In general, log Kd is a better predictor of behavior than Kow for these 

substancesa

. Log Kd, as with the other physicochemical parameters, varies by 

ethoxymer. The formula below, as given by Belanger et al. (2006) permits the 

calculation of an estimated log Kd. 

log Kd = 0.331 * (alkyl chain length) – 0.009 * (ethoxylate chain length) – 

1.126 

Environmental partitioning 

summary 

Sorption may be important, and is likely to vary by ethoxymer. 

Degradation summary Aerobic degradation may be rapid. 

Human Health Effects 

Exposure Limit 

MCL 

NOAEL 

LD50 (rat) 

Exposure Routes Inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact 

Target Organs Eyes, skin, respiratory system, central nervous system, liver, blood, 

reproductive system 

Symptoms Irritation to eyes, skin, nose; headache, drowsiness, lassitude (weakness, 

exhaustion), narcosis; cough; liver damage; anemia; reproductive effects, 

teratogenic effects, gastrointestinal irritation 

Ecological Effects 

Alcohol ethoxylates have toxicity levels similar to those of nonylphenol ethoxylates and octylphenol ethoxylates. 

Alcohol ethoxylate degradation by-products are less toxic and less persistent than those of nonylphenol ethoxylates 

and octylphenol ethoxylates. Alcohol ethoxylate toxicity values range from an EC10 (duration unspecified) of 0.030 

mg/L for growth effects in green algae to an EC10 (duration unspecified) of 3.882 mg/L in the bluegill (Lepomis 

macrochirus). 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-51 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 component of FD&C Yellow #5 is toxic at 

concentrations of 200 mg/L to fish. Toxicity values for eosin orange range from 620 mg/L to 2,200 mg/L for fish. 

C.I. Pigment Yellow 34 may have high toxicity due to chromate and lead components, but no studies have yet 

quantified this toxicity level. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-52 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-45: Ethylene Glycol 

Fate and Transport 

CASRN 107-21-1 

Formula C2H6O2

Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble 

Log KOW -1.36 

Log KOC 1 (KOC) 

Henry’s Law constant (atm-m3/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 aircraft 

deicing or anti-icing fluid formulation was completely 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 of the full theoretical 

biological oxygen demand may not be observed for several weeks. 

Degradation lag time With unacclimated microbial communities there is often a lag of several 

days before glycol degradation begins. 

Transport rate summary Expected to have very high mobility in soil, sediment, and water. 

Mixture effects Triazoles decrease the degradation rate of glycols. Low temperatures may 

also greatly decrease the degradation rates of glycols. 

Additional notes Ethylene glycols are expected to share somewhat similar properties, except 

for polyethylene glycols. Formulated polyethylene glycol products contain 

different mixtures of polymers, and the properties of the products will vary 

based on the size and shape of the polymers they contain. All of these 

substances are expected to be rapidly degraded under aerobic and anaerobic 

conditions. 

July 2009 A-53 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009 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 system, 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 LC50 of

greater than 18,500 mg/L in the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-46: Formate 

Fate and Transport 

CASRN No CASRN 

Formula CH2O2

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 water and can be anaerobically degraded by 

methanogens. 

Transport rate summary Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soil and 

sediments. May be very site-specific. 

Human Health Effects 

Exposure Limit 

MCL 

NOAEL 

LOAEL 

Exposure Routes 

Target Organs 

Symptoms 

Ecological Effects 

COD (g per 100 lbs) 4,300 (in sodium formate) 

Formates may impact the aquatic environment due to their COD content. Formate-containing compounds used as 

pavement deicers, including sodium formate and potassium formate, can be toxic at sufficient concentrations. 

Known toxicity values range from a 96-hr LC50 of 100 mg/L for zebrafish (Danio rerio) to a 24-hr LC50 of 5,000 

mg/L for bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-55 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C9H19-C6H4O(CH2CH2O)nHa

Water solubility, g/L 5.43x10-3 All are highly soluble in water, but 

solubility varies by ethoxymer. 

Log KOW 4.1-4.7 

Henry’s Law constant (atmm3

/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 acclimated microbial 

community 

2.4 hours to 0.74 days in water. 

Photolytic half-life in upper layer of 

surface water is 10-15 hours; in 

deeper layers, it is much slower. In a 

sediment mesocosm, a half-life of 66 

days was observed.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 daysa

. 

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. 

July 2009 A-56 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-47: Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates 

Human Health Effects 

Exposure Limit 

MCL 

NOAEL 10 mg/kg*day 

LOAEL 50 mg/kg*day 

Exposure Routes Inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact 

Target Organs Upper respiratory system, kidneys, skin, eyes, digestive system 

Symptoms Skin and eye irritation, tissue decay, swelling, mottled kidneys, lethargy, 

coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, headache, nausea, diarrhea, 

vomiting, sore throat, burning sensation, shortness of breath, labored 

breathing, abdominal pain, shock, collapse 

Ecological Effects 

Nonylphenol ethoxylates are moderately toxic to aquatic life, but do not persist for long periods of time in water. 

Available acute toxicity data indicate harmful effects to aquatic life in a range of 2.8 mg/L (LC50, duration unknown 

for a calanoid copepod) to 29.2 mg/L for an unspecified species of fish. 

Nonylphenol, a degradation product of nonylphenol ethoxylates, is more toxic to aquatic organisms than 

nonylphenol ethoxylates. It persists in the aquatic 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 LC50 value from a study of unspecified fish species of 1.4 mg/L. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-57 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 1x103

Log KOW 0.35 

Log KOC 1.63 

Henry’s Law constant (atmm3

/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 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 increasing number of polymerized units and 

increasing formula molecular weight, dropping off sharply between MWs 

700 and 1,000, and for polymers with more than seven units. It appears that 

monomers and dimers of acrylic acid are completely biodegradable, but there 

are indications polymers of three to seven units are incompletely 

biodegraded. 

Additional notes May be contaminated by low-ppm levels of metals. 

Human Health Effects 

Exposure Limit TWA 2 ppm (6 mg/m3

) [skin] 

MCL 

NOAEL 140mg/kg/day 

LOAEL 15 mg/m3

Exposure Routes Inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact 

Target Organs Eyes, skin, respiratory system 

Symptoms 

Irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; eye, skin burns; skin sensitization; in 

animals: lung, liver, kidney injury 

Ecological Effects 

Acrylic acid toxicity values range from a 96-hour EC50 of 0.17 mg/L for green algae to a 24-hour EC50 for 

immobilization effects in the waterflea of 765 mg/L. A 7-day EC3 for chronic effects in green algae was measured 

as 0.17 mg/L. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-58 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 and can be expected to ionize freely. 

Depending on site-specific factors, the inorganic ions may adsorb or complex 

with soil or water constituents or remain dissolved in surface water or 

groundwater. 

Degradation products Potassium is liberated from potassium acetate and potassium formate through 

ionization. 

Transport rate summary Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils and 

sediments. May be very site-specific. 

Human Health Effects 

Exposure Limit 4,700 mg/day 

MCL 

NOAEL 

LOAEL 

Exposure Routes Ingestion 

Target Organs Circulatory system, kidneys, central nervous system 

Symptoms 

Listlessness, fatigue, gas pains, constipation, insomnia, low blood sugar, 

weak muscles and a slow, irregular pulse 

Ecological Effects 

Potassium can affect aquatic ecosystems by creating ion imbalances in surface waters and aquatic organisms. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-59 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

Table A-50: Propylene Glycol 

Fate and Transport 

CASRN 57-55-6 

Formula C3H8O2

Water solubility, g/L Freely soluble 

Log KOW -0.92 

Log KOC 0.90 

Henry’s Law constant (atmm3

/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, circulatory system, kidneys 

Symptoms Hyperosmolality, lactic acidosis (the build-up of lactic acid in the body), 

intravascular hemolysis (the rupturing of blood vessels), central nervous 

system depression, seizures, coma, hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and 

renal failure (all as associated with burn creams). 

Ecological Effects 

Propylene glycol has a high COD content and can depress dissolved oxygen levels in aquatic environments. 

Propylene glycol exhibits acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic life only at higher concentrations. Toxicity values 

range from an LC50 (time unknown) of 5,000 mg/L in goldfish (Carassius gibelio) to a 96-hr LC50 of 55,770 mg/L 

in fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-60 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 are 

quite 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 water or groundwater. 

Degradation products Sodium is liberated from sodium acetate and sodium formate through 

ionization. 

Transport rate summary Depends on a combination of degradation rate and interaction with soils and 

sediments. May be very site-specific. 

Human Health Effects 

Exposure Limit 2,300 mg/day 

MCL 

NOAEL 

LOAEL 

Exposure Routes Ingestion, possibly inhalation 

Target Organs Circulatory system, mineral balances 

Symptoms High blood pressure, loss of calcium 

Ecological Effects 

Sodium can affect aquatic ecosystems by creating ion imbalances in surface waters and aquatic organisms. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-61 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 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 C7H7N3 (tolyltriazole) 

Environmental partitioning 

summary Mobile in groundwater. 

Degradation summary Unlikely to be readily degradable. 

Mixture effects Even at very low concentrations, triazoles have been observed to sharply 

decrease the biodegradability of other components in mixtures. 

Human Health Effects 

Exposure Limit 

MCL 

NOAEL 

LD50 (rat) 600-675 mg/kg 

Exposure Routes 

Target Organs 

Symptoms 

Ecological Effects 

Tolyltriazole, a methylated benzotriazole used in aircraft deicing fluid formulations, exhibits moderate acute 

toxicity in aquatic organisms. Toxicity values range from a 5-minute Microtox® assay value of 6 mg/L for effects 

on microbial organisms to an LC50 (duration unspecified) of 74 mg/L in the waterflea. 

Other benzotriazoles have not been studied as thoroughly as tolyltriazole. Microtox® studies with 5- and 15-minute 

durations have established values of 41 and 42 mg/L, respectively, for effects on microbial organisms. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.

July 2009 A-62 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed Appendix A 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 

July 2009 A-63 

Table A-53: Urea and Ammonia 

Fate and Transport 

Urea Ammonia 

CASRN 57-13-6 7664-41-7 

Formula CH4N2O H3N 

Water solubility, g/L 545 “31%” 

Log KOW -2.11 0.23 

Log KOC 0.903 

Henry’s Law constant (atmm3

/mole) 

1.61x10-5

Human Health Effects 

Exposure Limit TWA 25 ppm (18 mg/m3

) ST 35 ppm (27 mg/m3) 

MCL 

NOAEL 

LOAEL 

Exposure Routes Inhalation, ingestion (solution), skin and/or eye contact (solution/liquid) 

Target Organs Eyes, skin, respiratory system 

Symptoms 

Irritation to eyes, nose, throat; dyspnea (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. LC50 values for ammonia range from a 24-hr value for rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) of 0.068 mg/L to a 48-hr LC50 for the waterflea of 189 mg/L. 

Blank cells indicate information not readily available to EPA at this time.
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category Appendix B: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of the Proposed Regulatory OptioTable B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA’s Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operation

In Scope1 Airport Name Airport City 

Airport 

State Service Level

Confirmed 

Deicing 

Operations

X Abilene Regional Abilene TX Non-Hub X Abraham Lincoln Capital Springfield IL Non-Hub X Adams Field Little Rock AR Small Hub X Akron-Canton Regional Akron OH Small Hub Y X Albany International Albany NY Small Hub Y X Albuquerque International Sunport Albuquerque NM Medium Hub Y X Alexandria International Alexandria LA Non-Hub X Asheville Regional Asheville NC Non-Hub X Aspen-Pitkin Co/Sardy Field Aspen CO Non-Hub Y X Atlantic City International Atlantic City NJ Small Hub X Augusta Regional at Bush Field Augusta GA Non-Hub X Austin Straubel International Green Bay WI Small Hub Y X Austin-Bergstrom International Austin TX Medium Hub Y X Baltimore-Washington International Baltimore MD Large Hub Y X Bangor International Bangor ME Non-Hub X Baton Rouge Metropolitan/Ryan Field Baton Rouge LA Small Hub X Bert Mooney Butte MT Non-Hub Y X Bethel Bethel AK Non-Hub Y X Billings Logan International Billings MT Small Hub X Birmingham International Birmingham AL Small Hub Y X Bishop International Flint MI Small Hub X Bismarck Muni Bismarck ND Non-Hub Y X Blue Grass Lexington KY Small Hub X Bob Hope Burbank CA Medium Hub Y X Boeing Field/King County International Seattle WA Non-Hub Y X Boise Air Terminal/Gowen Fld Boise ID Small Hub Y X Bradley International Windsor Locks CT Medium Hub Y X Brownsville/South Padre Island International Brownsville TX Non-Hub X Brunswick Golden Isles Brunswick GA Non-Hub X Buffalo Niagara International Buffalo NY Medium Hub Y X Burlington International Burlington VT Small Hub 

July 2009 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category July 2009 Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA’s Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operation

In Scope1 Airport Name Airport City 

Airport 

State Service Level

Confirmed 

Deicing 

Operations

X Capital City Lansing MI Non-Hub X Central IL Regional Airport at BloomingtonNormal Bloomington/Normal IL Non-Hub X Central Wisconsin Mosinee WI Non-Hub Y X Charleston AFB/International Charleston SC Small Hub X Charlotte/Douglas International Charlotte NC Large Hub Y X Charlottesville-Albemarle Charlottesville VA Non-Hub X Cherry Capital Traverse City MI Non-Hub Y X Chicago Midway International Chicago IL Large Hub Y X Chicago O'Hare International Chicago IL Large Hub Y X Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Covington KY Large Hub Y X City of Colorado Springs Municipal Colorado Springs CO Small Hub Y X Cleveland-Hopkins International Cleveland OH Medium Hub Y X Columbia Metropolitan Columbia SC Small Hub X Corpus Christi International Corpus Christi TX Small Hub X Dallas Love Field Dallas TX Medium Hub Y X Dallas/Fort Worth International Dallas-Fort Worth TX Large Hub Y X Dane County Regional-Truax Field Madison WI Small Hub X Denver International Denver CO Large Hub Y X Des Moines International Des Moines IA Small Hub Y X Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Detroit MI Large Hub Y X Dothan Regional Dothan AL Non-Hub X Dubuque Regional Dubuque IA Non-Hub X Duluth International Duluth MN Non-Hub Y X Eagle County Regional Eagle CO Non-Hub X Eglin AFB Valparaiso FL Small Hub X El Paso International El Paso TX Small Hub Y X Elmira/Corning Regional Elmira/Corning NY Non-Hub X Eppley Airfield Omaha NE Medium Hub Y X Erie International/Tom Ridge Field Erie PA Non-Hub X Evansville Regional Evansville IN Non-Hub Y X Fairbanks International Fairbanks AK Small Hub Y X Fayetteville Regional/Grannis Field Fayetteville NC Non-Hub X Fort Smith Regional Fort Smith AR Non-Hub X Fort Wayne International Fort Wayne IN Non-Hub Y 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category July 2009 Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA’s Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operation

In Scope1 Airport Name Airport City 

Airport 

State Service Level

Confirmed 

Deicing 

Operations

X Gainesville Regional Gainesville FL Non-Hub X Gallatin Field Bozeman MT Non-Hub X General Edward Lawrence Logan InternationalBoston MA Large Hub Y X General Mitchell International Milwaukee WI Medium Hub Y X George Bush Intercontinental Arpt/Houston Houston TX Large Hub Y X Gerald R. Ford International Grand Rapids MI Small Hub Y X Glacier Park International Kalispell MT Non-Hub Y X Golden Triangle Regional Columbus/W Point/Starkvill MS Non-Hub X Grand Forks International Grand Forks ND Non-Hub X Great Falls International Great Falls MT Non-Hub X Greater Binghamton/Edwin A Link Field Binghamton NY Non-Hub X Greater Peoria Regional Peoria IL Non-Hub X Greater Rochester International Rochester NY Small Hub Y X Greater Rockford Rockford IL Non-Hub Y X Greenville Spartanburg International Greer SC Small Hub X Gulfport-Biloxi International Gulfport MS Small Hub Y X Harrisburg International Harrisburg PA Small Hub X Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta International Atlanta GA Large Hub Y X Hector International Fargo ND Non-Hub X Helena Regional Helena MT Non-Hub Y X Huntsville International-Carl T Jones Field Huntsville AL Small Hub X Idaho Falls Regional Idaho Falls ID Non-Hub X Indianapolis International Indianapolis IN Medium Hub Y X Jackson Hole Jackson WY Non-Hub Y X Jackson International Jackson MS Small Hub X Jacksonville International Jacksonville FL Medium Hub Y X James M Cox Dayton International Dayton OH Small Hub Y X Joe Foss Field Sioux Falls SD Non-Hub X John F Kennedy International New York NY Large Hub Y X John Wayne Airport-Orange County Santa Ana CA Medium Hub Y X Juneau International Juneau AK Small Hub Y X Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Kalamazoo MI Non-Hub Y X Kansas City International Kansas City MO Medium Hub Y X Key Field Meridian MS Non-Hub X La Crosse Muni La Crosse WI Non-Hub 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category July 2009 Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA’s Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operation

In Scope1 Airport Name Airport City 

Airport 

State Service Level

Confirmed 

Deicing 

Operations

X La Guardia New York NY Large Hub Y X Lafayette Regional Lafayette LA Non-Hub Y X Lake Charles Regional Lake Charles LA Non-Hub X Lambert-St Louis International St Louis MO Large Hub Y X Laredo International Laredo TX Non-Hub X Lehigh Valley International Allentown PA Small Hub X Lincoln Muni Lincoln NE Non-Hub X Long Island Mac Arthur Islip NY Small Hub Y X Louis Armstrong New Orleans International New Orleans LA Medium Hub Y X Louisville International-Standiford Field Louisville KY Medium Hub Y X Lovell Field Chattanooga TN Non-Hub Y X Lubbock International Lubbock TX Small Hub X Lynchburg Regional/Preston Glenn Field Lynchburg VA Non-Hub X Mahlon Sweet Field Eugene OR Non-Hub X Manchester Manchester NH Medium Hub Y X MBS International Saginaw MI Non-Hub X Mc Allen Miller International Mc Allen TX Non-Hub X Mc Carran International Las Vegas NV Large Hub Y X Mc Ghee Tyson Knoxville TN Small Hub X Memphis International Memphis TN Medium Hub Y X Metropolitan Oakland International Oakland CA Large Hub Y X Middle Georgia Regional Macon GA Non-Hub X Midland International Midland TX Small Hub X Minneapolis-St Paul International/WoldChamberlain Minneapolis MN Large Hub Y X Minot International Minot ND Non-Hub X Missoula International Missoula MT Non-Hub X Mobile Regional Mobile AL Non-Hub X Monroe Regional Monroe LA Non-Hub X Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field) Montgomery AL Non-Hub Y X Myrtle Beach International Myrtle Beach SC Small Hub X Nashville International Nashville TN Medium Hub Y X Natrona County International Casper WY Non-Hub X Newark Liberty International Newark NJ Large Hub Y X Newport News/Williamsburg International Newport News VA Small Hub 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category July 2009 Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA’s Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operation

In Scope1 Airport Name Airport City 

Airport 

State Service Level

Confirmed 

Deicing 

Operations

X Nome Nome AK Non-Hub Y X Norfolk International Norfolk VA Medium Hub Y X Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International San Jose CA Medium Hub Y X Northwest Arkansas Regional Fayetteville/Springdale AR Small Hub Y X Ontario International Ontario CA Medium Hub Y X Outagamie County Regional Appleton WI Non-Hub Y X Palm Beach International West Palm Beach FL Medium Hub Y X Panama City-Bay Co International Panama City FL Non-Hub X Pensacola Regional Pensacola FL Small Hub Y X Philadelphia International Philadelphia PA Large Hub Y X Phoenix Sky Harbor International Phoenix AZ Large Hub Y X Piedmont Triad International Greensboro NC Small Hub Y X Pittsburgh International Pittsburgh PA Large Hub Y X Port Columbus International Columbus OH Medium Hub Y X Portland International Portland OR Medium Hub Y X Portland International Jetport Portland ME Small Hub X Quad City International Moline IL Small Hub X Raleigh-Durham International Raleigh/Durham NC Medium Hub Y X Ralph Wien Memorial Kotzebue AK Non-Hub Y X Rapid City Regional Rapid City SD Non-Hub Y X Reno/Tahoe International Reno NV Medium Hub Y X Richmond International Richmond VA Small Hub Y X Rick Husband Amarillo International Amarillo TX Small Hub X Rickenbacker International Columbus OH Non-Hub Y X Roanoke Regional/Woodrum Field Roanoke VA Non-Hub Y X Rochester International Rochester MN Non-Hub Y X Rogue Valley International - Medford Medford OR Non-Hub X Ronald Reagan Washington National Washington DC Large Hub Y X Sacramento International Sacramento CA Medium Hub Y X Salt Lake City International Salt Lake City UT Large Hub Y X San Angelo Regional/Mathis Field San Angelo TX Non-Hub X San Antonio International San Antonio TX Medium Hub Y X San Diego International San Diego CA Large Hub Y X San Francisco International San Francisco CA Large Hub Y X Savannah/Hilton Head International Savannah GA Small Hub 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category July 2009 Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA’s Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operation

In Scope1 Airport Name Airport City 

Airport 

State Service Level

Confirmed 

Deicing 

Operations

X Seattle-Tacoma International Seattle WA Large Hub Y X Shreveport Regional Shreveport LA Non-Hub X Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Sitka AK Non-Hub X South Bend Regional South Bend IN Small Hub Y X Southeast Texas Regional Beaumont/Port Arthur TX Non-Hub X Southwest Florida International Fort Myers FL Medium Hub Y X Southwest Georgia Regional Albany GA Non-Hub X Spokane International Spokane WA Small Hub Y X Springfield-Branson Regional Springfield MO Non-Hub X Stewart International Newburgh NY Non-Hub Y X Syracuse Hancock International Syracuse NY Small Hub Y X Tallahassee Regional Tallahassee FL Small Hub X Tampa International Tampa FL Large Hub Y X Ted Stevens Anchorage International Anchorage AK Medium Hub Y X The Eastern Iowa Cedar Rapids IA Small Hub X Theodore Francis Green State Providence RI Medium Hub Y X Toledo Express Toledo OH Non-Hub Y X Tri-Cities Pasco WA Non-Hub X Tri-Cities Regional TN/VA Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport TN Non-Hub X Tri-State/Milton J. Ferguson Field Huntington WV Non-Hub Y X Tucson International Tucson AZ Medium Hub Y X Tulsa International Tulsa OK Small Hub X Tweed-New Haven New Haven CT Non-Hub Y X University of Illinois-Willard Champaign/Urbana IL Non-Hub X University Park State College PA Non-Hub X Valley International Harlingen TX Small Hub X Walker Field Grand Junction CO Non-Hub X Washington Dulles International Washington DC Large Hub Y X Westchester County White Plains NY Small Hub X Wichita Mid-Continent Wichita KS Small Hub X Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Wilkes-Barre/Scranton PA Non-Hub Y X Will Rogers World Oklahoma City OK Small Hub Y X William P Hobby Houston TX Medium Hub Y X Wilmington International Wilmington NC Non-Hub Y X Yampa Valley Hayden CO Non-Hub 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category July 2009 Table B-1: Airports Estimated to Be in Scope of EPA’s Proposed Regulatory Options for Airport Deicing Operation

In Scope1 Airport Name Airport City 

Airport 

State Service Level

Confirmed 

Deicing 

Operations

X Yeager Charleston WV Non-Hub Y 

P Cyril E King Charlotte Amalie VI Small Hub P Daytona Beach International Daytona Beach FL Non-Hub P Francisco C. Ada/Saipan International Saipan Island CQ Small Hub P Fresno Yosemite International Fresno CA Small Hub P Guam International Agana GU Small Hub P Hilo International Hilo HI Small Hub P Key West International Key West FL Non-Hub P Lihue Lihue HI Small Hub P Long Beach /Daugherty Field/ Long Beach CA Small Hub P Meadows Field Bakersfield CA Non-Hub P Melbourne International Melbourne FL Non-Hub P Monterey Peninsula Monterey CA Non-Hub P Orlando Sanford International Orlando FL Small Hub P Palm Springs International Palm Springs CA Small Hub P Rafael Hernandez Aguadilla PR Non-Hub P San Luis County Regional San Luis Obispo CA Non-Hub P Santa Barbara Muni Santa Barbara CA Small Hub P St Petersburg-Clearwater International St Petersburg-Clearwater FL Small Hub 

1 X = Airport is in scope; P= Airport is potentially in scope. 2 Y =Airport stated in response to EPA Airport Deicing Questionnaire (EPA 2006c) that it conducts deicing operations. 3 “Annual jet departures” derived from data from Federal Aviation Administration for the 2004/2005 winter deicing season 4 Snow or Freezing Precipitation (SOFP) days data is based on National Oceanic and Atomospheric Administration data from 1971 – 1990. 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Appendix C: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

Airborne Airpark 1998 Hannah, James. 1998. De-Icing Chemicals for Planes 

Killing Creek, Professor Says. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 

June 7. 

Lytle Creek F,O 

Airborne Airpark 2000 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. 

Biological and Water Quality Study of the Little Miami River Basin, 1998. OEPA Technical Report Number MAS/1999-12-3. Columbus, OH. 

Lytle Creek, Little Miami River, Cowan Creek, Indian Run 

D O 

Baltimore Washington International Airport 

1993 Hartwell, S.I., D.M. Jordahl, E.B. May. 1993. Toxicity of 

Aircraft De-Icer and Anti-Icer Solutions to Aquatic Organisms. Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division. CBRM-TX-93-1 

Sawmill Creek, Muddy Bridge Branch 

O 

Baltimore Washington International Airport 

1997 McDowell, A. Scott. 1997. Hayes, Seay, Mattern and 

Mattern. Letter communication to Stephen Debreceny. 

Patapsco Aquifer D,B,N 

Baltimore Washington International Airport 

1995 Fisher, D.J., 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. 14(6):1103-1111. 

Kitten Branch of Stony Run, Muddy Bridge Branch of Sawmill Creek 

B,N O 

Baltimore Washington International Airport 

1997 Pelton, Tom. 1997. EPA Probing Allegation of BWI 

Runoff; Polluting Chemicals Seeping Into Creek, Environmentalists Say; Airport Cooperating; Public's Health Is Not In Danger, According to State. Baltimore Sun, April 23. 

Sawmill Creek 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

Baltimore Washington International Airport 

1997 Pelton, Tom. 1997. De-Icing Fluid Used at BWI Fouls 

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

Sawmill Creek O 

Baltimore Washington International Airport 

1997 McDowell, A.S. 1997. Sawmill Creek - Watershed 

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

Sawmill Creek 

Baltimore Washington International Airport 

1998 Pelton, Tom. 1998. BWI Violated Water Act, Group 

Claims; Environmentalists File Notice of Intent to Sue; De-Icing Chemicals at Issue; Airport Maintains it Has Tried to Keep Pollution Contained. Baltimore Sun, January 8. 

Kitten Branch of Stony Run, Muddy Bridge Branch of Sawmill Creek 

Baltimore Washington International Airport 

2001 Ayres, E. 2001. Airports and cities: Can they coexist? San

Diego Earth Times, September. 

unnamed aquifer 

Bangor International Airport 

2003 New England Grassroots Environment Fund. 2003. 

Annual Report. Montpelier, Vermont. 

Birch Stream 

Bangor International Airport 

2006 State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 

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

Birch Stream B O 

Bradley International Airport 

2003 Farmington River Watershed Association. 2003. State of 

the Farmington River Watershed Report. August. 

Rainbow Brook, Seymour Hollow Brook 

D 

Bradley International Airport 

2004 State of Connecticut Department of Environmental 

Protection. 2004. List of Connecticut waterbodies not meeting water quality standards. 

Rainbow Brook, Seymour Hollow Brook 

D O 

Buffalo Niagara International Airport 

1994 Dawson, Dick. 1994. Contaminant Testing Sought at 

Ellicott Creek Amherst Councilwoman Fears Runoff of De-Icer Fluids from Airport. Buffalo News, May 11. 

Ellicott Creek O 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

Chicago O'Hare International Airport 

1997 Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. 1997. 

O'Hare Found to be Major Water Polluter. ARCO Flight Tracks, May. 

Des Planes River, ground water, Bensenville Ditch, Willow Creek, Crystal Creek 

F,O 

Chicago O'Hare International Airport 

1997 Cowan, P.F. 1997. Water Pollution-Chicago International 

Airport. Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc., May 28. 

Des Planes River, Bensenville Ditch, Willow Creek, Crystal Creek 

F,O 

Chicago O'Hare International Airport 

1998 Worthington, R. 1998. Group Claims O'Hare Fails to 

Report on De-Icing Toxins. Chicago Tribune, January 9. 

unnamed receiving waters

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 

1992 Associated Press. 1992. Cincinnati Airport Cited by State.

Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 8. 

Elijah Creek O 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 

2003 Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, Inc. 2003. 

Comments from the Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare, Inc. to the Federal Aviation Administration regarding the Draft FAA Five-Year Strategic Plan "Flight Plan" 2004-2008 by Jack Saporito. August 5. 

Gunpowder Creek, Elijah's Creek 

O 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 

2004 Kelly, B.R. and D. Klepal. 2004. Silent Streams. The 

Cincinnati Enquirer, March 7. 

Gunpowder and Elijah Creeks 

O 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 

2004 Sierra Club. 2004. Water Sentinels: Rescuing the river 

that wouldn’t freeze. Annual Report. 

Gunpowder Creek, Elijah's Creek 

O 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 

2004 Klepal, Dan. 2004. Airport Pollution Provokes Ire: 

Residents fault state for going easy on de-icing runoff. The Cincinnati Enquirer, September 10. 

Gunpowder and Elijah Creeks 

D 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 

2004 KPDES Permit # KY0082864. Kentucky Department for 

Environmental Protection. Expiration: July 31, 2007. 

Elijahs Creek, Gunpowder Creek 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 

2006 Sierra Club. 2006. An Interview with Tim Guilfoile. 

August. 

Gunpowder Creek O 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport 

Impacts of Deicing Fluids on Elijahs and Gunpowder Creeks, Boone County, Kentucky. Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection. 

Elijahs Creek, Gunpowder Creek 

D,B,N O 

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport 

2001 NPDES Permit # OH0122068. Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency. Expiration: October 31, 2006. 

Rocky River, Abrams and Silver Creek 

O 

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport 

1991 Miller, Alan. 1991. De-Icing's Fatal Effect Not Plain. 

Columbus Dispatch, January 6. 

Rocky River 

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport 

2001 Kuehner, John C. 2001. Airport ordered to reduce 

discharge. The Plain Dealer, November 1. 

Rocky River, Abram Creek, Silver Creek 

F 

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport 

2001 Egan, D'arcy. 2001. Rocky River fishing in danger as 

pollutants keep pouring in. The Plain Dealer, October 21.

Rocky River, Lake Erie O 

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport 

2006 Richardson, David C. 2006. Deicing by Design: 

Cleveland Gets a New Pad. Stormwater. 7(7). 

Abrams Creek, Rocky River 

F 

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport 

2006 Corsi, S.R., G.R. Harwell, S.W. Geis, and D. Bergman. 

2006. Impacts of aircraft deicer and anti-icer runoff on 

receiving waters from Dallas/Fort Worth International 

Airport, Texas, U.S.A. Environ Toxicol Chem. 25(11):2890-2900 

Trigg Lake and Big Bear Creek 

O 

Denver International Airport 

1997 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. 

Third Creek, Barr Lake O 

Denver International Airport 

1997 Eddy, Mark. 1997. Airport Deicer Pollutes Creek. Denver 

Post, April 22. 

Third Creek, Barr Lake D O 

Denver International Airport 

1997 Dafforn, Erik. 1997. 'Til Hill and Valley are Ringing. 

Wabash Magazine. Summer. 

unnamed creek 

Denver International Airport 

2001 Ayres, E. 2001. Airports and cities: Can they coexist? San

Diego Earth Times, September. 

Barr Lake O 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

Denver International Airport 

2005 Meyerhoff, R., N. Rowan, J. Kieler, J. Barrilleaux, R. 

Albrecht, and S. Morea. 2005. Development of SiteSpecific Dissolved Oxygen Standards in Surface Waters at Denver International Airport. TMDL 2005 Specialty Conference. Water Environment Federation. 

Second, Third and Box Elder Creeks 

D 

Des Moines International Airport 

1998 Flannery, William. 1998. Status on Recovery of Aircraft 

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

Yeader Creek 

Des Moines International Airport 

2004 Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Total 

Maximum Daily Loads For Nutrients and Siltation: Easter Lake, Polk County, Iowa. 

Easter Lake N 

Des Moines International Airport 

2005 Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Total 

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

Yeader Creek B O 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport 

1990 Askari, Emilia. 1990. State Probes Airport in Pollution 

Allegations. Detroit Free Press, August 30. 

Detroit River 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport 

2001 Environmental News Service. 2006. Wayne County 

Airport Admits De-Icing Chemical Discharge. June 14. 

Detroit River D 

Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport 

2006 Lochner, Paul. 2006. Wayne County Airport Authority 

Pleads Guilty to Violation of Clean Water Act. Department of Justice Press Release. June 8. 

Frank and Poet Drain F 

General Mitchell International Airport 

2001 Corsi, S.R., N.L. Booth, and D.W. Hall. 2001. Aircraft 

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

Wilson Park Creek, Kinnickinnic River 

B O 

General Mitchell International Airport 

2001 Corsi, S.R., D.W. Hall, and S.W. Geis. 2001. Aircraft and

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

Wilson Park Creek, Kinnickinnic River 

N O 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

General Mitchell International Airport 

2003 Cancilla, D.A., J.C. Baird, S.W. Geis, and S.R. Corsi. 

2003. Studies of the Environmental Fate and Effect of Aircraft Deicing Fluids: Detection of 5-methyl-1Hbenzotraizole in the fathead minnow (Pimephales 

promelas). Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22(1):134-140 

Wilson Park Creek, Kinnickinnic River 

F,O 

General Mitchell International Airport 

2006 Sandler, Larry. 2006. Environmental group challenges 

airport's wastewater permit: Mitchell discharges too much deicing fluid into creek, it says. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 25. 

Wilson Creek 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

2002 Hamrick, Dave. 2002. Officials unanimous: Our water is 

safe. The Citizen, February 13. 

Flint River 

Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport 

2002 Hamrick, Dave. 2002. EPD: 'We blew it': State agency 

took 4 days to respond to calls that deicing fluid had been spilled into the Flint River; airport manager promises new procedures will prevent future spills. The Citizen, February 13. 

Flint River 

Indianapolis International Airport 

1997 Stahl, J.R., T.P. Simon, and E.O. Edberg. 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. December 12. 

White Lick Creek O 

James M. Cox Dayton International Airport 

1991 Miller, Alan. 1991. De-Icing's Fatal Effect Not Plain. 

Columbus Dispatch, January 6. 

Mill Creek F 

James M. Cox Dayton International Airport 

1995 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. 

Biological and Water Quality Study of Mill Creek: Dayton International Airport, Miami and Montgomery Counties, Ohio. OEPA Technical Report MAS/1995-2-2. Columbus, OH. 

Mill Creek B,N F,O 

James M. Cox Dayton International Airport 

1998 Associated Press. 1998. Panel Settles De-Icing Suit with 

Homeowners. Cleveland Plain Dealer, March 28. 

Mill Creek 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

James M. Cox Dayton International Airport 

2001 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. 

Biological and Water Quality Study of the Stillwater River Basin, 1999, Darke, Miami and Montgomery Counties. OEPA Technical Report Number MAS/2001-12-8. Columbus, OH 

Mill Creek B,N O 

Kansas City International Airport 

2007 Missouri Department of Conservation. 2007. Platte River 

Watershed: Water Quality and Use. <mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/platte/watqual/> 

Todd Creek F 

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport 

1995 Uhlenbrock, Tom. 1995. Up A Creek Runoff of De-Icer 

from Lamber Field Pits Airport Against U.S. St. Louis Post Dispatch, February 5. 

Coldwater Creek 

Louisville International - Standiford Field 

2002 KPDES Permit # KY0092185. Kentucky Department for 

Environmental Protection. Expiration: December 31, 2007. 

Northern Ditch, Fern Creek 

D,N F 

Manchester Airport 2003 CAA News Channel. 2003. New Hampshire Brook to be 

Tested for Chemicals. The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News, January 27. 

Little Cohas Brook 

Manchester Airport 2006 Kibbe, Cindy. Planes, trains and automobiles: 

What are southern N.H.’s transportation options? NHBR Daily, April 14. 

Merrimack River 

Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 

2004 Larson, Catherine. 2004. Lower Minnesota River Model 

Project Proposal. Proposal to Develop an Advanced Water-Quality Model of the Minnesota River, Jordan to the mouth, and Conduct River Monitoring and Studies to Support the Model. January 15. 

Minnesota River B 

Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 

2004 Mikkelson, Stephen. 2004. Water Quality Violations to 

Cost Metropolitan Airports Commission $69,076. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency News Release. November 2. 

Lower Minnesota River D 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 

2005 Environmental News Service. 2005. Minnesota Halts Jet 

Fuel Leaks, Spills at Twin Cities Airport. Environmental News System. March 18. 

Minnesota River, Snelling Lake, Mother Lake 

Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 

1993 Meersman, Tom. 1993. New Rules for Airport De-Icers 

Amount of Chemicals Flushed into River Will be Reduced. Minneapolis Star Tribune, September 29. 

Minnesota River D,B 

Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 

1993 Meersman, Tom. 1993. FAA-Mandated Plane De-Icing 

Puts Minnesota River at Risk. Minneapolis Star Tribune, March 10. 

Minnesota River 

Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport 

2001 Mills, Karren. 2001. Minneapolis airport saw big jump in 

runoff from de-icer into Minnesota River. CAA News Channel, May 19. 

Minnesota River 

Newcastle International Airport 

1995 Turnbull, D.A. and J.R. Bevan. 1995. The Impact of 

Airport De-Icing on a River: The case of the Ouseburn, Newcastle Upon Tyne. Environ. Pollut. 88:321-332. 

Ouseburn River B,N O 

Pease Air Force Base 1999 Agency 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. September 30. 

groundwater N 

Pittsburgh International Airport 

1996 Hopey, Don. 1996. Airport Gets Criticism for Disposal of 

De-Icer. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 28. 

McClarens, Enlow and Montour Runs 

N F 

Pittsburgh International Airport 

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

Pittsburgh International Airport 

1998 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. J. Freshwater Ecol. 13(3): 287-298.

Montour Run and tributaries 

B,N O 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

Port Columbus International Airport 

1998 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. 

Biological and Water Quality Study of Mason Run, 1996, Franklin County, Columbus, Ohio. OEPA Technical Report MAS/1996-12-6. Columbus, OH. 

Mason Run, Turkey Run, Big Walnut Creek 

D,N F,O 

Port Columbus International Airport 

2003 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: Division

of Surface Water. Biological and Water Quality Study of Big Walnut Creek Basin. 2003. OEPA Technical Report DSW/EAS 2003-11-10. Columbus, OH. 

Big Walnut Creek, Alum Creek and Blacklick Creek watersheds 

D,B,N

Port Columbus International Airport 

2004 NPDES Permit # OH0124311. Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency. Expiration: July 31, 2007. 

Big Walnut Creek, Mason Run 

N O 

Portland International Airport 

1997 Wells, Scott. 1997. The Columbia Slough. Prepared for 

the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services. Technical Report EWR-2-97. (March) 

Columbia Slough D,B 

Portland International Airport 

1998 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 

Columbia Slough D O 

Portland International Airport, 

1998 Stewart, Bill. 1998. Airport Juggles Safety, Pollution 

Concerns. The Oregonian, February 2 

Columbia Slough D 

Portland International Airport 

2005 Johnson, Steve. 2005. Port Plans study to Enhance 

Airport Deicing Storm Water Collection System. Port of Portland News Release, September 26. 

Columbia River 

Portland International Airport 

2006 Associated Press. 2006. Portland airport's de-icing system

harms fish. USA Today, October 17. 

Columbia River O 

Raleigh-Durham International Airport 

2000 RDU Airport Changes its Runway Deicing Chemical. 

2000. The Umstead Coalition Newsletter, November 29. 

Big Lake, Sycamore Lake N 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

Rickenbacker International Airport 

1996 State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: Division

of Surface Water. 1996. Biological and Water Quality Study of Lower Big Walnut Creek and Walnut Creek Tributaries. Prepared for State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: Division of Emergency and Remedial Response, Columbus, OH. 

Walnut Creek, Big Walnut Creek and tributaries 

O 

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

1993 Roberts, C.R. 1993. Airport Antifreeze May Be Toting 

Chill of Death to Miller Creek. Tacoma News Tribune, January 26. 

Miller Creek O 

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

1995 Taylor, Rob. 1995. Lawsuit Filed Over Stream Pollution 

From Sea-Tac Airport. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 15. 

Des Moines Creek, Miller Creek, Puget Sound 

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport 

2003 Lange, Larry. 2003. Sea-Tac blamed for fish deaths. 

Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 14. 

Miller Creek, Puget Sound F 

Spokane International 2002 NPDES Permit # SO3004373. State of Washington 

Department of Ecology. Expiration: September 20, 2007. 

unnamed aquifer 

Stapleton International Airport 

1996 Pillard, D.A. Assessment of Benthic Macroinvertebrate 

and Fish Communities in a Stream Receiving Storm Water Runoff from a Large Airport. J. Freshwater Ecol. 11(1):51-59. 

Sand Creek O 

Stockholm Arlanda Airport 

1993 O'Conner, R. and Douglas, K. 1993 Cleaning up after the 

big chill: Thousands of rivers and streams are harmed by the de-icing chemicals that keep aircraft flying through the winter. Now airports are being forced to curb this damaging pollution. New Scient 

unnamed receiving waters D 

Syracuse Hancock International Airport 

1999 Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. 1999. Litigation 

Update. Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc. Newsletter. 

Bear Trap Creek, Ley Creek 

Syracuse Hancock International Airport 

2000 Beartrap Creek Reclamation Project Description. 

GL2000-045 

Beartrap Creek O 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

Syracuse Hancock International Airport 

2003 Onondaga Lake Partnership. 2003. Izaak Walton League's

Efforts Lead to Restored Beartrap Creek. Reflections. 1(3): 6. 

Beartrap Creek 

O 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

1990 Wohlforth, Charles. 1990. Toxic Runoff Adds to Lake 

Hood Pollution. Anchorage Daily News, May 4. 

Lake Hood O 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

1991 Pytte, Alyson. 1991. Chemicals Lace Airport Soil Finding

Pollution is Easy; Who Pays for Cleanup is the Problem. Anchorage Daily News, September 8. 

Lake Hood N 

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport 

2007 deMarban, Alex. 2007. Lake mower clears paths for 

floatplanes. Anchorage Daily News, August 13. 

Lake Hood O 

Theodore Francis Green State Airport 

2004 RIPDES Permit # RI0021598. Rhode Island Department 

of Environmental Management. Expiration January 1, 2010. 

unnamed tributaries of Warwick Pond and Buckeye Brook, and Tuscatucket Brook 

D O 

Toronto Pearson International Airport 

1989 Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Storm Water. Transcript

of the July 6, 1989 meeting. 

Etobicoke Creek, Mimico Creek, Lake Ontario 

B O 

Unknown international North American airport 

1998 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. 

unnamed well O 

Victoria International Airport 

2003 Reay Watershed: 2003 Fish Kill. 

<www.peninsulastreams.org/watersheds/reay.shtml>. 

Reay Creek F 

Victoria International Airport 

2004 Dickson, Louise. 2004. Polluted creek killing fish: 

Reclamation work wasted as second major kill wipes out run. Times Colonist. November 1. 

North Saanich Creek F 

Westchester County Airport 

1997 Conetta, A., R. Bracchitta, and P. Sherrer. 1997. Storm 

Water Management and Control of Aircraft Deicing Runoff at Westchester County Airport. Environmental Regulation and Permitting. 

Rye Lake, Blind Brook B 
Environmental Impact and Benefits Assessment for Proposed 

Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Airport Deicing Category 1 B = BOD; D = DO; N = Nutrients 4 Fo = Foam; Od = Odor; Co = Color 2 F = Fish Kill; O = Other Organism Impacts 5 G = Groundwater; S = Sediment 3 H = Human Health; DW = Drinking Water July 2009 Table C-1: Documented Impacts from Airport Deicing Discharges 

Airport Name

Article 

Year Article Waterbody Name 

BOD, DO, 

Nutrients

1

Wildlife 

Impacts

2

Westchester County Airport 

1999 Switzenbaum, M.S., S. Veltman, T. Schoenberg, C.M. 

Durand, D. Mericas and B. Wagoner. 1999. Best Management Practices for Airport Deicing Stormwater. Publication No. 173. 

Blind Brook D F 

Westchester County Airport 

1999 Associated Press. 1999. De-icing Chemical Found in 

Westchester Reservoir. New York Times, January 14. 

Kensico Reservoir