MEMORANDUM

TO: Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

FROM: Dan-Tam Nguyen

DATE: September 30, 2015

SUBJECT: Pollutants of Concern Analysis Methodology for FGD Wastewater, 

Combustion Residual Leachate, and Gasification Wastewater 

ERG is providing technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD) for development of effluent 

limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the Steam Electric Power Generating Industry. 

This memorandum describes EPA’s methodology for identifying Pollutants of Concern (POCs)

in FGD wastewater, combustion residual leachate, and gasification wastewater.

1. INTRODUCTION

As part of the final rulemaking, ERG reviewed characterization data for untreated FGD 

wastewater (FGD purge), combustion residual leachate, and gasification wastewater to identify

which pollutants are present in these wastewaters at a sufficient concentration and frequency to 

be considered treatable. The pollutants that meet these criteria are identified as POCs. ERG 

identified POCs separately for each wastestream. Only pollutants identified as POCs are 

considered in EPA’s subsequent pollutant loadings and removals evaluations. This 

memorandum only discusses the POC analyses for FGD wastewater, combustion residual 

leachate and gasification wastewater; the POC analyses for fly ash and bottom ash transport 

water are discussed separately in Bottom Ash and Fly Ash Pollutants of Concern (POC) Analysis 

Methodology Memorandum (DCN SE04745).

2. POC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

For the proposed rulemaking, EPA conducted the POC analysis by comparing the 

untreated wastewater sample concentrations to the baseline values that were developed for the 

2000 Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) Industry Effluent Limitations Guidelines [U.S. EPA, 

2000; ERG, 2013]. In response to public comments, EPA conducted the analysis for the final 

rule by comparing sample concentrations to the sample-specific quantitation limit (QL). In the 

case of FGD wastewater, combustion residual leachate, and gasification wastewater, EPA only 

used data that included the associated QLs. The QL is often referred to in ELG support 

documents as the reporting limit. Use of the QL provides a more accurate representation of POCs 

in untreated wastewater for the following reasons:
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 2

 The QL is sample-specific and can vary for a given pollutant between samples. The QL

provides a direct comparison to the sample result because it accounts for analytical 

adjustments made in the determination of the sample result.

 The analytical methods used to determine the sample results and QLs are those used for 

the Steam Electric rulemaking (i.e., EPA Methods 200.7, 200.8 with collision cell, and 

1631E) and are capable of achieving QLs that are lower than the baseline values from 

CWT for many priority and nonconventional pollutants (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, 

chromium, selenium, magnesium, manganese). In contrast, for example, the CWT 

baseline values for metals were developed based on instrument detection limits for EPA 

Method 1620. 

EPA used the analytical data from the data sources described in Section 3 to identify

POCs in each of the wastestreams. EPA reviewed the sample results to identify POCs, which 

EPA defined as those pollutants detected at greater than or equal to 10 times the QL in at least 10 

percent of all untreated wastewater samples for each wastestream. Using 10 times the QL as a 

screening threshold ensures the untreated wastewater concentrations are high enough to quantify

the degree of pollutant removal resulting from treatment processes, such as chemical or 

biological treatment for FGD wastewater. 

3. DATA SOURCES USED IN THE POC ANALYSIS

EPA's data collection efforts produced data sets from EPA and/or industry-submitted data

sources. This section describes the data sources used in the POC analysis for each of the 

wastestreams. ERG’s data quality review procedures for the data collected and used by EPA are 

outlined in Development Memorandum for the Steam Electric Analytical Database for the Final 

Rule (DCN SE05876). The data are included in the Steam Electric Analytical Database for the 

Final Rule (DCN SE05359).

3.1 FGD Wastewater

EPA evaluated sources of analytical data for untreated FGD wastewater, which are 

summarized in 
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 3

Table 3-1. Summary of Analytical Data for Untreated FGD Wastewater

. These data sources are further described in Development Memorandum for the Steam Electric 

Analytical Database for the Final Rule (DCN SE05876). Because the POC analysis compares 

the sample results to the QLs, ERG reviewed and excluded any sample results that did not 

include sample-specific QLs. 
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 4

Table 3-1. Summary of Analytical Data for Untreated FGD Wastewater

Data Source Plant Name

Total Number 

of Samples

Available

Number of 

Samples 

without QL 

(Excluded)

Number of 

Samples 

Included in 

POC Analysis

EPA Field 

Sampling

Program

Allen Steam Station 4 0 4

Belews Creek Steam Station 4 0 4

Dickerson Generating Station 4 0 4

Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station 4 0 4

Keystone Generation Station 4 0 4

Miami Fort Station 4 0 4

Pleasant Prairie Power Plant 4 0 4

Brindisi Power Plant (Italy) 2 0 0 a

Monfalcone Power Station (Italy) 1 0 0 a

EPA CWA 308 

Monitoring

Program

Allen Steam Station 4 0 4

Belews Creek Steam Station 4 0 4

Dickerson Generating Station 3 0 3

Hatfield’s Ferry Power Station 4 0 4

Iatan 4 0 4

Keystone Generating Station 4 0 4

Miami Fort Station 4 0 4

Pleasant Prairie Power Plant 4 0 4

EPA Data 

Request

Miami Fort Station 58 7 51

Keystone Generating Station 122 0 122

Allen Steam Station 127 See note b0

Belews Creek Steam Station 138 See note b0

Cliffside Steam Station 51 51 0

Mountaineer Plant 16 0 16

Steam Electric 

Public Comments 

on the Proposed 

Rulemaking

Pleasant Prairie Power Plant 159 0 159

North Carolina 

Data Request 

Roxboro Steam Plant 54 54 0

Duke Energy 

Data Request

Allen Steam Station 64 See note b0

Belews Creek Steam Station 73 See note b0

a – EPA samples from Brindisi and Monfalcone were not used in the POC analysis because they are not 

representative of plants operating within the United States. 

b – Only non-detect samples had reported sample QLs. EPA determined that excluding only the detected samples 

which did not include sample QLs would skew the results of the POC analysis; therefore, EPA excluded the entire

analytical data sets for these plants. 

In summary, EPA’s data set used to identify POCs in untreated FGD wastewater

included: 

 EPA Field Sampling Program. EPA included four samples of untreated FGD 

wastewater from seven steam electric power plants operating FGD wastewater 

treatment systems for a total of 28 samples. Sample results include 38 analytes, 

including priority, conventional, and nonconventional pollutants. 
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 5

 EPA CWA 308 Monitoring Program. EPA included data from eight plants that each

collected three- to four-day samples of untreated FGD wastewater. The data set 

included a total of 31 samples with sample results for 37 analytes, including priority, 

conventional, and nonconventional pollutants. 

 Steam Electric Public Comments on the Proposed Rulemaking. EPA included

analytical data for untreated FGD wastewater from one plant that submitted results 

for a total of 159 samples, including data for the priority pollutants arsenic, mercury, 

and selenium.

1

 EPA Data Request. EPA included analytical data for untreated FGD wastewater from 

three plants for a total of 189 samples, including results for the priority and 

nonconventional pollutants. 

3.2 Combustion Residual Leachate

As part of industry responses to the Questionnaire for the Steam Electric Power 

Generating Effluent Guidelines (Steam Electric Survey) (DCN SE05903), EPA received 

analytical data for 322 samples of combustion residual leachate (from landfill and impoundment 

leachate management units).

 

1 EPA also received data from Duke Energy and the Utility Water Act Group (UWAG) through public comments 

that overlapped with a subset of the data received through EPA’s data request. See Development Memorandum for 

the Steam Electric Analytical Database for the Final Rule (DCN SE05876) on EPA’s data source review and 

exclusion of duplicative data.
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 6

Table 3-2. Summary of Analytical Data for Combustion Residual Leachate

summarizes the plants that provided analytical data for this wastestream. Upon further review of 

the data, EPA excluded samples that represented retired combustion residual leachate 

management units (49 samples) because the data are not representative of the wastestream 

regulated by the final rule. Additionally, EPA excluded several samples where the sample QLs

were not available (31 samples).

In summary, EPA’s data set used to identify POCs in combustion residual leachate 

included data from 33 steam electric power plants with analytical results for 30 analytes from

246 samples (173 landfill leachate samples and 73 impoundment leachate samples).
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 7

Table 3-2. Summary of Analytical Data for Combustion Residual Leachate

Management 

Unit Plant Name

Total 

Number of 

Samples 

Available

Number of 

Samples from 

Retired 

Management 

Units 

(Excluded)

Number of 

Samples 

without QL 

(Excluded)

Number of 

Samples 

Included in 

POC 

Analysis

Landfill Gibson Generating Station 12 0 12 0

Albright Power Station 20 12 2 6

W. H. Sammis Plant 4 0 0 4

James River Power Station 4 0 4 0

Yorktown Power Station 4 0 0 4

Rivesville Power Station 4 0 0 4

Interstate Power and Light -

Sutherland Generating Station

4 4 NA 0

New Castle Power Plant 4 0 0 4

EME Homer City Generation 

L.P.

8 0 0 8

Conesville 8 0 3 a8

Danskammer Generating 

Station

4 0 0 4

Walter C Beckjord Station 8 4 0 4

Cayuga 4 0 4 0

Marshall Steam Station 4 0 0 4

Merom Generating Station 8 4 0 4

AES – Somerset 9 9 NA 0

Mountaineer Plant 4 0 0 4

Clover Power Station 4 4 NA 0

Plant Crist 10 0 0 10

General James M. Gavin 12 0 0 12

JH Campbell Power Plant 8 0 0 8

Walter Scott Jr. Energy Center 16 0 1

b

16

Pirkey 4 0 0 4

Harrison Power Station 24 0 0 24

Dunkirk Generating Plant 5 0 1

b

5

Hatfield's Ferry Power Station 8 0 0 8

John Sevier 4 0 0 4

Belews Creek Steam Station 8 0 0 8

RRI Energy Inc. Portland 

Generating Station

4 0 0 4

Mount Storm Power Station 12 4 0 12

Surface 

Impoundment

Rivesville Power Station 4 0 0 4

Cliffside Steam Station 12 8 0 4

Bruce Mansfield Plant 8 0 0 8

Ghent 4 0 0 4

Walter C Beckjord Station 4 0 0 4

Cayuga 4 0 4 0

General James M. Gavin 4 0 0 4

Philip Sporn 16 0 3 13

Big Sandy 8 0 0 8
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 8

Table 3-2. Summary of Analytical Data for Combustion Residual Leachate

Management 

Unit Plant Name

Total 

Number of 

Samples 

Available

Number of 

Samples from 

Retired 

Management 

Units 

(Excluded)

Number of 

Samples 

without QL 

(Excluded)

Number of 

Samples 

Included in 

POC 

Analysis

Surface 

Impoundment 

(continued)

Widows Creek 8 0 0 8

Buck Steam Station 4 0 0 4

Shawnee 4 0 0 4

Johnsonville 4 0 0 4

Belews Creek Steam Station 4 0 0 4

RRI Energy Inc. Portland 

Generating Station

2 0 2 0

Note: Samples from retired units are excluded from the POC analysis.

a – All samples contained QLs with the exception of three sample results for one pollutant. EPA excluded these 

sample results from the POC analysis.

b – All samples contained QLs with the exception of one sample result for one pollutant. EPA excluded this sample 

result from the POC analysis. 

3.3 Gasification Wastewater 

During EPA’s field sampling activities, EPA collected 20 gasification wastewater 

samples for 37 analytes from two plants: Polk Power Station and Wabash River Station. 

Gasification wastewater from these plants includes the following wastestreams: neutralized weak 

acid wastestream, vapor compression evaporator influent, compression evaporator influent, 

RCC® evaporator influent, sour water treatment influent, and steam stripper effluent. All 20 

samples included sample QLs and were included in the POC analysis for gasification 

wastewater. 

4. RESULTS OF POC ANALYSES

Using the methodology outlined in Section 2, EPA conducted separate POC analyses for 

each of the wastestreams. 

4.1 FGD Wastewater
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 9

Table 4-4. Pollutants of Concern for Combustion Residual Leachate

Pollutant Group Pollutant

Conventional Total Suspended Solids

Nonconventional Aluminum

Barium

Boron

Calcium

Chloride

Cobalt

Iron

Magnesium

Manganese

Molybdenum

Sodium

Sulfate

Total Dissolved Solids

Vanadium

Priority Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

4.2 Gasification Wastewater
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 10

Table 4-5. Pollutants of Concern Analysis for Gasification Wastewater

presents the results of EPA’s POC analysis and 
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 11

Table 4-6. Pollutants of Concern for Gasification Wastewater

lists the 34 POCs EPA identified for gasification wastewater.
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 12

Table 4-5. Pollutants of Concern Analysis for Gasification Wastewater

Pollutant Group Pollutant

Number

of 

Samples

Number

of ND 

Samples

Number of 

Samples 

≥10xQL

Percentage

of Samples 

≥10xQL

POC 

(≥10% 

Samples 

≥10xQL)

Conventional Biochemical Oxygen Demand 20 4 6 30 POC

Total Suspended Solids 20 12 2 10 POC

Nonconventional Aluminum 20 4 14 70 POC

Ammonia as Nitrogen 20 0 9 45 POC

Barium 20 6 7 35 POC

Boron 20 0 9 45 POC

Calcium 20 3 4 20 POC

Chemical Oxygen Demand 20 2 11 55 POC

Chloride 20 0 8 40 POC

Cobalt 20 18 2 10 POC

Iron 20 0 11 55 POC

Magnesium 20 4 7 35 POC

Manganese 20 0 11 55 POC

Molybdenum 20 7 5 25 POC

Nitrate/Nitrite as Nitrogen 20 13 4 20 POC

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl 20 0 14 70 POC

Total Phosphorus 40 0 4 10 POC

Sodium 20 0 8 40 POC

Sulfate 20 4 3 15 POC

Tin 20 18 0 0

Titanium 20 12 6 30 POC

Total Dissolved Solids 20 0 17 85 POC

Vanadium 20 1 18 90 POC

Priority Antimony 20 16 2 10 POC

Arsenic 20 7 6 30 POC

Beryllium 20 16 2 10 POC

Cadmium 20 18 2 10 POC

Chromium 20 14 0 0

Copper 20 13 3 15 POC

Total Cyanide 20 5 11 55 POC

Lead 20 12 4 20 POC

Mercury 20 4 7 35 POC

Nickel 20 0 2 10 POC

Selenium 20 0 14 70 POC

Silver 20 20 0 0

Thallium 20 8 9 45 POC

Zinc 20 3 3 15 POC
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 13

Table 4-6. Pollutants of Concern for Gasification Wastewater

Pollutant Group Pollutant

Conventional Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Total Suspended Solids

Nonconventional Aluminum

Ammonia as Nitrogen

Barium

Boron

Calcium

Chemical Oxygen Demand

Chloride

Cobalt

Iron

Magnesium

Manganese

Molybdenum

Nitrate Nitrite as N

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl

Total Phosphorus

Sodium

Sulfate

Titanium

Total Dissolved Solids

Vanadium

Priority Antimony

Arsenic

Beryllium

Cadmium

Copper

Total Cyanide

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

presents the number of samples analyzed for each pollutant in FGD wastewater, the number of 

sample results that were not detected above the sample QL, and the number and percentage of 

sample results that were detected at a concentration greater than or equal to ten times the samplespecific QL. EPA identified 31 POCs for FGD wastewater (listed in Error! Reference source 

not found.).

Table 4-1. Pollutants of Concern Analysis for FGD Wastewater

Pollutant Group Pollutant

Number

of 

Samples

Number

of ND 

Samples

Number of 

Samples 

≥10xQL

Percentage

of Samples 

≥10xQL

POC 

(≥10% 

Samples 

≥10xQL)

Conventional Biochemical Oxygen Demand 59 33 0 0 

Total Suspended Solids 59 0 59 100 POC
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 14

Table 4-1. Pollutants of Concern Analysis for FGD Wastewater

Pollutant Group Pollutant

Number

of 

Samples

Number

of ND 

Samples

Number of 

Samples 

≥10xQL

Percentage

of Samples 

≥10xQL

POC 

(≥10% 

Samples 

≥10xQL)

Nonconventional Aluminum 59 0 59 100 POC

Ammonia as Nitrogen 72 11 9 12.5 POC

Barium 59 0 58 98.3 POC

Boron 59 0 47 79.7 POC

Calcium 59 0 59 100 POC

Chemical Oxygen Demand 59 1 0 0 

Chloride 59 0 22 37.3 POC

Cobalt 59 0 16 27.1 POC

Hexavalent Chromium 27 27 0 0 

Iron 59 0 59 100 POC

Magnesium 59 0 59 100 POC

Manganese 59 0 59 100 POC

Molybdenum 59 7 8 13.6 POC

Nitrate/Nitrite as Nitrogen 75 1 74 98.7 POC

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl 59 2 0 0 

Sodium 59 0 33 55.9 POC

Sulfate 59 0 0 0 

Tin 59 59 0 0 

Titanium 59 0 58 98.3 POC

Total Dissolved Solids 59 0 58 98.3 POC

Total Phosphorus 59 17 15 25.4 POC

Vanadium 59 0 52 88.1 POC

Priority Antimony 59 7 25 42.4 POC

Arsenic 221 8 119 53.8 POC

Beryllium 59 4 10 16.9 POC

Cadmium 59 6 20 33.9 POC

Chromium 59 0 55 93.2 POC

Copper 59 0 55 93.2 POC

Lead 59 0 54 91.5 POC

Mercury 456 9 271 59.4 POC

Nickel 59 0 59 100 POC

Selenium 98 0 97 99.0 POC

Silver 59 47 1 1.69

Thallium 59 9 9 15.3 POC

Total Cyanide 59 14 11 18.6 POC

Zinc 59 0 50 84.7 POC
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 15

Table 4-2. Pollutants of Concern for FGD Wastewater

Pollutant Group Pollutant

Conventional Total Suspended Solids

Nonconventional Aluminum

Ammonia as Nitrogen

Barium

Boron

Calcium

Chloride

Cobalt

Iron

Magnesium

Manganese

Molybdenum

Nitrate/Nitrite as Nitrogen

Sodium

Titanium

Total Dissolved Solids

Total Phosphorus

Vanadium

Priority Antimony

Arsenic

Beryllium

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Total Cyanide

Zinc

4.3 Combustion Residual Leachate
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 16

Table 4-3. Pollutants of Concern Analysis for Combustion Residual Leachate

presents the results of EPA’s POC analysis and
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 17

Table 4-4. Pollutants of Concern for Combustion Residual Leachate

lists the 25 POCs EPA identified for combustion residual leachate.
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 18

Table 4-3. Pollutants of Concern Analysis for Combustion Residual Leachate

Pollutant Group Pollutant

Number

of 

Samples

Number

of ND 

Samples

Number of 

Samples 

≥10xQL

Percentage

of Samples 

≥10xQL

POC 

(≥10% 

Samples 

≥10xQL)

Conventional Total Suspended Solids 242 75 37 15.3 POC

Nonconventional Aluminum 242 48 90 37.2 POC

Barium 242 2 156 64.5 POC

Boron 242 4 207 85.5 POC

Calcium 242 1 234 96.7 POC

Chloride 242 2 182 75.2 POC

Cobalt 242 61 76 31.4 POC

Iron 242 35 104 43.0 POC

Magnesium 242 5 216 89.3 POC

Manganese 242 16 182 75.2 POC

Molybdenum 242 16 188 77.7 POC

Sodium 242 0 216 89.3 POC

Sulfate 242 1 203 83.9 POC

Tin 242 173 5 2.07

Titanium 242 118 11 4.55

Total Dissolved Solids 242 1 241 99.6 POC

Vanadium 242 100 49 20.2 POC

Priority Antimony 242 76 27 11.2 POC

Arsenic 242 28 130 53.7 POC

Beryllium 242 166 11 4.55

Cadmium 242 61 63 26.0 POC

Chromium 241 112 27 11.2 POC

Copper 242 82 29 12.0 POC

Lead 242 126 21 8.68

Mercury 238 37 85 35.7 POC

Nickel 242 52 80 33.1 POC

Selenium 242 24 79 32.6 POC

Silver 242 183 1 0.413

Thallium 242 93 26 10.7 POC

Zinc 242 69 68 28.1 POC
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 19

Table 4-4. Pollutants of Concern for Combustion Residual Leachate

Pollutant Group Pollutant

Conventional Total Suspended Solids

Nonconventional Aluminum

Barium

Boron

Calcium

Chloride

Cobalt

Iron

Magnesium

Manganese

Molybdenum

Sodium

Sulfate

Total Dissolved Solids

Vanadium

Priority Antimony

Arsenic

Cadmium

Chromium

Copper

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc

4.4 Gasification Wastewater
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 20

Table 4-5. Pollutants of Concern Analysis for Gasification Wastewater

presents the results of EPA’s POC analysis and 
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 21

Table 4-6. Pollutants of Concern for Gasification Wastewater

lists the 34 POCs EPA identified for gasification wastewater.
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 22

Table 4-5. Pollutants of Concern Analysis for Gasification Wastewater

Pollutant Group Pollutant

Number

of 

Samples

Number

of ND 

Samples

Number of 

Samples 

≥10xQL

Percentage

of Samples 

≥10xQL

POC 

(≥10% 

Samples 

≥10xQL)

Conventional Biochemical Oxygen Demand 20 4 6 30 POC

Total Suspended Solids 20 12 2 10 POC

Nonconventional Aluminum 20 4 14 70 POC

Ammonia as Nitrogen 20 0 9 45 POC

Barium 20 6 7 35 POC

Boron 20 0 9 45 POC

Calcium 20 3 4 20 POC

Chemical Oxygen Demand 20 2 11 55 POC

Chloride 20 0 8 40 POC

Cobalt 20 18 2 10 POC

Iron 20 0 11 55 POC

Magnesium 20 4 7 35 POC

Manganese 20 0 11 55 POC

Molybdenum 20 7 5 25 POC

Nitrate/Nitrite as Nitrogen 20 13 4 20 POC

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl 20 0 14 70 POC

Total Phosphorus 40 0 4 10 POC

Sodium 20 0 8 40 POC

Sulfate 20 4 3 15 POC

Tin 20 18 0 0

Titanium 20 12 6 30 POC

Total Dissolved Solids 20 0 17 85 POC

Vanadium 20 1 18 90 POC

Priority Antimony 20 16 2 10 POC

Arsenic 20 7 6 30 POC

Beryllium 20 16 2 10 POC

Cadmium 20 18 2 10 POC

Chromium 20 14 0 0

Copper 20 13 3 15 POC

Total Cyanide 20 5 11 55 POC

Lead 20 12 4 20 POC

Mercury 20 4 7 35 POC

Nickel 20 0 2 10 POC

Selenium 20 0 14 70 POC

Silver 20 20 0 0

Thallium 20 8 9 45 POC

Zinc 20 3 3 15 POC
Memorandum

September 30, 2015

Page 23

Table 4-6. Pollutants of Concern for Gasification Wastewater

Pollutant Group Pollutant

Conventional Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Total Suspended Solids

Nonconventional Aluminum

Ammonia as Nitrogen

Barium

Boron

Calcium

Chemical Oxygen Demand

Chloride

Cobalt

Iron

Magnesium

Manganese

Molybdenum

Nitrate Nitrite as N

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl

Total Phosphorus

Sodium

Sulfate

Titanium

Total Dissolved Solids

Vanadium

Priority Antimony

Arsenic

Beryllium

Cadmium

Copper

Total Cyanide

Lead

Mercury

Nickel

Selenium

Thallium

Zinc