Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0075-0053
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-09-09T04:00Z

6
­
_­
­
.
..
,..,
­
­
.
..,...
,
....
.
...
.
~
...
.
..
..
~~
.
,
.
.,
.
.
%
Removal
­
7.3590
1
The
results
show
that,
overall,
no
removal
of
molybdenum
occurs
in
the
PACT
system.
does
not
or
has
very
little
nt
system,
and
should
not
ample
point
were
collected
on
3/
13,3/
19,
and
to
contain
substantial
molybdenum
in
the
landfill
gory
wastewater
stream.

Other
EPA
Data
Indicating
Poor
Performance
of
Biological
Treatment
Systems
for
Molybdenum
Removal
\

In
addition
to
data
s
facilities,
EPA
has
ed
by
NORA
from
the
Clean
Harbors
Deer
Park
and
CIPF
that
indicates
poor
performance
by
biological
systems
in
The
EPA
Treatab
"
in
the
influent
were
7,

Removals
were
3
12,50,50,50,50,0,47,
>
41,
>
38,41
and
0%.
At
Additional
Treatment
Beyond
BAT
Technology
Introduction
A
survey
of
the
current
literature
on
molybdenum
removal
from
wastewater
indicates
that
of
physicalkhemical
treatment
procedures,
only
ferric
co­
precipitation
is
effective.
This
costly
process
goes
far
beyond
the
BAT
technology
and
was
not
included
in
the
assessment
of
the
cost
impact
analysis
of
the
CWT
industry.
Lime
or
lime­
alum
systems
do
not
significantly
remove
molybdenum.
Molybdenum,
usually
present
as
a
negatively
charged
ion
m
aqueous
solution,
is
actually
adsorbed
onto
precipitates
of
ferric
hydroxides
at
a
pH
of
6.0
or
lower.
Adsorption
of
molybdenum
is
less
effective
than
­
__
II__

S!
2003WOFL4Wolybdenum
Removal
in
the
Organic
Subcategory.
doc
t
Chapter
7
Pollutants
Selected
for
Regulation
Development
Dbcument
for
the
CWT
Point
Source
Category
Table
7­
4.
CWT
Pass­
Through
Analysis
Generic
P
O
W
Percent
Removals
Pollutant
`
CAS
NO.
%
Removal
Source
Group
A:
Metals
Barium
7440­
39­
3
55.15
50
POTW
­
2
XML
­
41­
7
61.23
­
43­
9
90.05
­
47­
3
80.33
­
48­
4
10.19
Mercury
­
02­
0
51.44
­
22­
4
88.28
­
24­
6
14.83
Thallium
Tin
7440­
3
1­
5
42.63
Titanium
7440­
32­
6
91.82
ValladiUIn
7440­
62­
2
8.28
Yttrium
7440­
65­
5
21.04
zinc
7440­
66­
6
79.14
Average
Group
Removal
55.95
Zirconium
7440­
1
7­
7
Pollutant
CAS
NO.
%
Removal
Source
Group
J:
Anilines
Aniline
62­
53­
3
93.41
RREL5­(
ALLww)
Carbazole
86­
74­
8
Average
Group
Removal
Average
Group
Removal
93.41
Group
CC:
n­
Paraffins
n­
Decane
124­
1
8­
5
9.00
RREL
5
­
(
ALL
ww)
n­
Docosane
629­
97­
0
88.00
RREL
5
­
(
ALL
wwj
n­
Dodecane
112­
40­
3
95.05
RREL
5
­
(
ALL
ww)
n­
Eicosane
112­
95­
8
92.40
RREL
5
­
(
ALL
ww)
n­
Hexacosane
630­
0
1­
3
Average
Group
Removal
n­
Hexadecane
544­
76­
3
Average
Group
Removal
n­
Octacosane
630­
02­
4
Average
Group
Removal
n­
Octadecane
593­
45­
3
Average
Group
Removal
n­
Tetracosane
646­
31­
1
Average
Group
Removal
n­
Tetradecane
629­
59­
4
Average
Group
Removal
_
_
Chapter
7
Pollutants
Selected
for
Regulation
Development
Document
for
the
CWT
Point
Source
Category
Pass­
Through
Analysis
Resultsfor
the
Organics
Subcategory
7.6.4.3
The
results
of
the
pass­
through
analysis
for
the
organics
subcategory
option
4
is
presented
in
Table
7­
8.
Several
metals
and
organic
pollutants
passed
through,
and
therefore
may
be
regulated
under
PSES
Table
7­
8.
Final
Pass­
Through
Results
For
Organics
Subcategory
Option
4
Pollutant
Parameter
Option
4
Removal
(%)
Median
FQTW
Removal
(%)
Pass­
Through
CLASSICALS
­

70.44
no
Total
Cyanide
33.46
METALS
Antimony
Cobalt
Copper
Silicon
Strontium
zinc
­­+­
Molybdenum
33.27
66.78
no
17.3
1
38.04
84.20
no
57.10­
88.28
no
4.71
59.51
79.14
no
60.51
10.19
Yes
18.93­
Yes
14.83
Yes
J
ORGANICS
96.60
no
83.75
no
2­
butanone
69.20
2­
propanone
68.57
'
2,3­
dichloroaniline
80.45
2,4,6­
trichIorophenol
45.16
Y2.44
Acetophenone
Aniline
92.88
Benzoic
Acid
94.29
n,
n­
Dimethyl
formamide
89.26
0­
Cresol
98.39
p­
Cresol
85.38
Pentachlorophenol
23.19
Phenol
87.08
Pyridine
61.69
41.00
Yes
28.00
Yes
80.50
Yes
84.75
Yes
52.50
Yes
71.67
Yes
95.34
no
93.4
1
no
35.92
no
95.25
no
95.40
no
­,.
...
r­__
....~.....
­
­
,
­
.
.
,
.
..,.
.
..
­
...
,
,

7­
24
Chapter
7
Pollutants
Selected
for
Regulation
Development
Document
for
the
CWT
Point
Source
Category
XIST
OF
POLLUTANTS
SELECTED
FOR
REGULA
TION
7.7
Direct
Dischargers
7.7.1
BODS
Molybdenum
BOD,
BOD,
Cobalt
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nickel
Pentachlorophenol
pylldine
Selenium
Selenium
Benzoic
Acid
Benzoic
Acid
p­
Creso14
o­
Cresol
Pyridine
p­
Cresol
2­
butanone
Phenol
Pyridine
2­
butanone
EPA
also
eliminated
those
pollutants
for
which
the
treatment
technology
forming
the
basis
of
the
option
is
not
a
standard
method
of
treatment.
For
example,
chemical
precipitation
systems
are
not
designed
to
remove
BOD,.
Table
7­
10
lists
these
pollutants
for
each
subcategory
and
option.

*
Analyses
for
these
pollutants
werenot
subject
to
the
quality
assurance/
quality
control
(
QNQC)
procedures
required
by
analytical
Method
1620.

3Toxic
weighting
factors
are
derived
fkorn
chronic
aquatic
life
criteria
and
human
health
criteria
established
for
the
consumption
of
fish.
Toxic
weighting
factors
can,
be
used
to
compare
the
toxicity
of
one
pollutant
relative
to
another
and
are
normalized
based
on
the
toxicity
of
copper.
TWFs
are
discussed
in
detail
in
the
Cost
Effectiveness
Analysis
Document.
­­~­­
­
ollutant
for
option
8
were
greater
than
50%.
However,
since
removals
for
this
pollutant
d
option)
were
less
than
50%,
for
consistency,
they
were
similarly
eliminated
for
option
8.
m
?
N
rl
*

0
m
m
rl
m
n
n
n
000
Y
o
?
m
r
l
s
o
w
m
r
l
*
m
P
P
P
000
m
N
rl
m
m
m
W
cy
0
N
?

0
*
m
m
01
0
0
0
*
0
*
N
C
r
*
0
0
I
'
E
m
0
0
N
0
m
co,
i
nnn
8
P
grin
0
000
y
o
0
N
~
r
o
u)
mcym
UI
r
m
m
.
.

W
l4nl4
8
000
0
9
9
9
9
0
000­
0
o
o
c
o
o
o
o
w
o
m
r
o
m
o
o
N
m
r
u
r
r
m
w
N
rlrlr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
.
...
m
o
m
rlrlrl
PEP
F
000
0
F
FFP
F
FPg
nnnnn
nnnnb
0
000
0
o
o
c
P
l9PP
0
000
gnnnl4
00000
00000
.
I
.
.
.

r
l
m
m
w
o
m
c
o
m
r
l
*
m
m
m
m
m
0000
00000
0000
00000
B
u
1L
W
I
rrr­
rrrr­
r
r­
rrr
e
'
r
r
r
r
ria
m
m
m
m
mmmmoar
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
0000
00000
00000
o
o
o
o
c
I
38;;
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
o
d
o
l
n
m
m
m
u
;
­
4
F
I
CH
2222
22322
22223
2222:
I
I
0000
00000
00000
o
o
o
o
c
I
@
I
'

I
rid\
0000
m
m
m
m
v
)
00000
rlrldrlr
c)

­
4
I3
u
I
o
m
m
rlrlrlrl
rlrlrlrlrl
.
.
.
.
P'rrrr
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
rlrlrlrlrl
>
o
o
o
o
>
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
9
j
d
d
d
d
00
I
*
*
*
*
0
0
00
rlrl
..
00000
00000
rlrlrlrlrl
d
d
d
d
d
\
Chapter
7
Pollutants
Selected
for
Regulation
Development
Document
for
the
CWT
Point
Source
Category
Option
4
Option
3
(
NSPS)
Option
9
Option
4
Titanium
Vanadium
Butylbenzyl
phthalate
Carbazole
Fluoranthene
N­
decane
Indirect
Dischargers
7.7.2
Consideration
of
Indicator
Parameters
for
the
Oils
Subcategory
As
detailed
in
the
1999
proposal,
EPA
looked
at
various
ways
to
reduce
the
costs
of
this
rule
(
particularly
the
costs
to
small
businesses)
while
ensuring
proper
treatment
of
off­
site
wastes.
One
of
the
options
considered
by
EPA
and
discussed
in
the
1999
proposal
was
providing
an
alternative
compliance­
monitoring
regime
for
indirect
discharging
facilities
in
the
oils
subcategory.
Under
this
alternative
monitoring
approach,
facilities
couid
choose
to
(
1)
monitor
for
all
regulated
pollutants,
or
(
2)
monitor
for
the
conventional
parameters,
metal
parameters,
and
monitor
for
the
regulated
organic
pollutants
in
silica
gel
treated­
hexane
extractable
material
(
SGT­
HEM).
The
1999
proposal
further
noted
that
EPA
was
conducting
a
study
to
determine
which
organic
pollutants
are
measured
by
SGT­
HEM
and
HEM
and
solicited
comment
on
the
use
of
indicator
parameters.
Many
commenters
responded
to
EPA's
request
with
essentially
an
equivalent
number
opposing
and
favoring
the
use
of
indicator
parameters.
The
commenters
that
supported
its
use
cited
the
decreased
analytical
costs
and
the
wide
range
of
organic
compounds
that
can
be
measured
with
these
analyses.
Commenters
that
did
not
support
the
use
of
SGT­
HEM
or
HEM
as
indicator
pollutants
raised
a
number
of
concerns
including
the
following:

these
measurements
are
non­
specific
and
highly
subject
to
interferences;
­

ever
been
developed
between
HEM
(
or
e­
no
dfrect
ma
qu­
m~
if$~
a
Z6rj=
ela&­
jn
@
­­­

7­
3
1
T­
3
Y
SGT­
HEM)
and
specific
organic
pollutants;

been
made
that
measured
by
either
HEM
or
SGT­
HEM;
and
SGT­
HEM
does
not
measure
all
of
the
regulated
pollutants,
particularly
polyaromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAHs).

None
of
the
commenters
suggested
possible
alternative
indicator
parameters.
During
its
development
of
proposed
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
pretreatment
standards
for
the
industrial
laundries
point
source
category,
EPA
evaluated
the
sqitability
of
SGT­
HEM
and
HEM
as
indicator
parameters
for
that
rulemaking.
EPA
presented
the
results
of
its
study
in
a
Notice
of
Data
Availability
on
study,
EPA
attempted
to
identify
compounds
present
in
HEWSGT­
HEM
extracts
from
lndustnal
la
undry
wastewaters
usmg
gas
1
chromatography/
mass
spectroscopy
(
GCMS)
in
order
to
determine
which
pollutants
of
concern
might
be
components
of,
andtherefore
measured
by,
HEM
or
SGT­
HEM.
However,
EPA
was
I
December
23,
1998
(
63
FR
71054).
In
the
HEM.
EPA's
data
show
general
trends
of
increasing
concentrations
of
HEM
and
SGT­
HEM
with
increasing
concentrations
of
orgahic
pollutants.
However,
the
data
demonstrate
demonstrate
that
for
SGT­
HEM
or
HEM
cost
savings
that
can
be
achieved
in
some
instances
by
using
indicator
parameters,
EPA
has
rejected
this
alternative
monitoring
approach
for
CWT
wastewaters.

_
.

Final
List
of
Regulatory
Parameters
for
Indirect
Discharging
CWT
Facilities
As
detailed
in
Section
7.6,
a
l
l
pollutants
through
well­
operated
POTWs
are
regulated
for
indirect
dischargers.
Table
7­
15
shows
the
final
list
of
regulated
pollutants
for
indirect
dischargers
selected
by
EPA.

only
able
to
identify
approximately
two
percent
of
the
constituents
present
in
the
waste
stream.
Most
of
these
constituents
identified
were
alkanes.
In
general,
the
data
from
this
study
also
do
not
support
the
use
of
SGT­
HEM
as
an
appropriate
indicator
parameter
for
the
organic
pollutants
present
in
CWT
wastewaters
since
few
of
these
pollutants
were
identified
in
the
HEWSGT­
HEM
extract.
As
part
of
its
consideration
of
the
use
of
an
indicator
parameter
for
this
rule,
EPA
again
reviewed
the
data
from
the
industrial
laundries
study
as­­
well­
as
­
the
data
col­
lected­
here,
­
E
statistically
analyzed
the
relationship
between
seven
organic
pollutants
and
SGT­
HEM
or
_­

7­
32
Table
7­
15.
Final
List
of
Regulated
Pollutants
for
Indirect
Discharging
CWT
Facilities
Metals
Subcategory
Oils
Subcategory
Organics
Subcategory
Titanium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Molybdenum
Tin
zinc
Bis(
2­
ethylhexy1)
phthalate
Carbazole
Fluoranthene
N­
decane
N­
octadecane
Comments
by
NORA,
An
Association
of
Responsible
ecyclers,
On
the
Centralized
Waste
Treatment
Effluent
imitation
Guidelines
for
All
the
CWT
Subcategories
Are
Not
T
Technologies
CIPF,
Williamsport,
Maryland
The
molybdenum
limit
for
the
oily
and
organic
wastewater
subcategories
and
mixed
wastewater
subcategories
containing
either
oily
or
organic
wastewater
in
the
Centralized
Waste
Treatment
(
CWT)
Effluent
Limitation
Guideline
(
ELG)
cannot
be
achieved
using
ies.
NOR4
requests
that
EPA
eliminate
the
molybdenum
limit
from
subcategories.
To
confirm
the
ineffectiveness
of
BAT
technology
,
information
CIPF
CWT
facility
in
Williamsport,
Maryland
is
presented.

Process
Description
At
the
CIPF
facility,
oily
wastewater
is
initially
treated
by
gravity
separation,
chemical
emulsion
breaking
with
heat,
secondary
gravity
separation,
and
dissolved
air
flotation
(
DAF).
This
treatment
technologv
is
Best
Available
Technolorn
(
BAT)
selected
by
EPA
for
oily
Wastewater.
A
block
diagram
of
the
CIPF
treatment
system
is
attached.

At
the
time
the
samples
summarized
below
were
collected,
CIPF
was
not
treating
any
fnetals
subcategory
wastewater.
The
treatment
system
designed
for
metals
removal
includes
two­
stage
pH
adjustment,
chemical
precipitation
and
a
lamella
separator.
BAT
treatment
would
require
two
passes
through
the
pH
adjustment
and
clarifier
(
primary
and
secondary
metals
removal).
The
technology
employed
at
CIPF
is
BAT,
except
for
the
lack
of
a
sand
filter.
Since
this
treatment
is
followed
by
biological
treatment,
the
capabilities
of
this
system
are
considered
to
be
equivalent
or
better
than
BAT.
.

When
metals
wastewaters
are
received,
the
introduction
point
varies
depending
on
the
oil
content
in
the
metals
wastewater.
Metals
wastewater
with
considerable
oil
may
be
introduced
with
the
oily
wastes
for
oil
removal
before
neutralization
and
generation
of
precipitates
that
would
make
oil
recovery
more
difficult.
Most
metals
wastewaters
are
added
at
the
first
stage
of
the
2­
stage
pH
adjustment
system.
1
During
the
data
collection
period
reported
below
(
Jan
2002
through
February
2003),
no
sludge
is
generated.
>

te
treatment
system
is
removing
all
but
a
trace
of
oil,
ich
is
its
design
function.
This
is
a
well­
operated
system.

Molybdenum
Removal
­
Metals
Wastewater
Treatment
No
metals
waste
and
the
metals
load
in
oily
wastewater
was
low
enough
was
sufficient
to
meet
permit
conditions.
The
pH
ion,
however
no
clarification
or
filtration
was
done
case,
there
is
no
limit
established
for
molybdenum
in
the
Molybdenum
Removal
in
BAT
Organic
Wastewater
Treatment
The
SBR
discharge
(
Table
1)
did
not
meet
CWT­
ELG
limits
for
molybdenum
in
organic
wastewater
(
1.01
mgL
daily
maximum
and
0.965
mg/
L
monthly
average)
or
for
the
mixture
of
oily
and
organic
wastewater
that
was
being
processed
during
the
test
period
est
result
was
2.24
mgL,
the
average
was
6.5
m
a
,
and
the
Any
removal
of
molybdenum
in
the
SBR
system
is
probably
accomplished
by
adsorption
into
the
biological
sludge
solids.
The
CWT
limit
for
mixed
organic
and
oils
wastewater
is
0.965
mgL
and
cannot
be
achieved
by
the
BAT
technology
for
mixed
oily
and
organic
wastewaters
or
for
oily
wastewaters
only.

Based
on
the
overall
data
in
Table
1,
the
SBR
may
be
removing
as
much
as
approximately
58%
of
the
molybdenum
in
the
SBR
influent.
'&
is
estimate
is
based
on
molybdenum
in
treated
oily
wastes
before
mixture
with
any
organic
wastes.

To
demonstrate
the
effectiveness
of
the
SBR
treatment
system,
laboratory
data
summaries
for
December
2002
through
February
2003
are
attached
(
Table
3).
In
December,
the
average
influent
BOD
was
3,454
mg/
L,
while
the
average
effluent
was
204
mg/
L.
This
system
was
designed
for
BOD,
TSS
and
Oil
and
Grease
removal
and
is
very
effective
in
its
design
function.
The
laboratory
data
summaries
indicate
good
incidental
removal
of
other
pollutants,
including
metals.
This
SBR
system
is
well
operated.

Mixed
W
astestreams
The
mixed
subcategories
of
the
CWT­
ELG
are
designed
by
EPA
to
encourage
that
the
wastestreams
receive
full
BAT
treatment
or
equivalent
treatment
if
mixtures
of
wastes
are
treated.
EPA's
requirement
of
the
lowest
limit
in
any
subcategory
included
in
the
mix
is
designed
to
help
prevent
simple
dilution
of
one
waste
with
another
to
meet
limits.
EPA's
adoption
of
BAT
technology
equal
to
the
combination
of
BAT
technologies
for
each
priat
­_
at
S:\
2003WORA\
CIPFCommentsRevised.
doo
I
rganic
wastewaters,
specifically
municipal
landfill
leachate,
septic
tank
and
chemical
oilet
wastewater,
and
the
treated
oily
wastewater
are
mixed
in
an
equalization
tank
and
category
and
organic
subcategory
wastes.
The
oils,
waste
fuel
oils,
tank
bottoms,
coolants,
.
No
metals
subcategory
wastes
are
currently
wastes
frequently
require
pH
adj
metals
removal
to
meet
existing
Molybdenum
Removal
­

Compliance
and
quality
control
samples
are
collected
by
CIPF
from
the
DAF
effluent.
The
results
of
molybd
through
December
2002
influent)
was
15.4
m
a
.
maximum
and
2.09
seldom
met
these
li
The
average
molybdenum
concentration
in
the
influent
has
not
been
measured.
One
caustic
cleaner,
an
oily
w
has
been
sampled
and
analyzed
for
molybdenum
several
times.
The
average
enum
in
this
caustic
cleaner
is
38.7
mg/
L
and
other
oily
streams
contribute
This
system
was
designed
to
remove
oil.
The
attached
Table
2
contains
data
for
the
DAF
ily
Wastewater
Treatment
these
routine
samples
collected
fiom
January
Table
1).
The
average
DAF
effluent
(
or
SBR
LGlimits
for
oily
wastes
are
3.5
mg/
L
daily
age.
The
BAT
treatment
system
for
oily
wastes
y
oily
wastes.

~
c
rohibited
the
treatment
of
mixed
wastes,
has
selected
BAT
technologies
for
ategories,
and
the
BAT
technology
selected
by
EPA
should
be
capable
of
meeting
the
proposed
limits
for
the
mixed
waste
subcategories.

Separating
streams
by
subcategory
would
be
difficult,
inefficient,
and
could
actually
create
more
discharge
of
pollutants
at
this
site.
If
this
facility
elected
to
discharge
oily
and
an
increased
rganic
subcategory
wastewater
is
be
discharged
into
the
e
Summary
and
Conclusion
Although
this
facility
has
the
BAT
technology
for
organic
wastes,
and
for
oily
waste,
it
is
unable
to
remove
molybdenum
to
meet
the
proposed
limits
for
the
oils
or
for
mixtures
of
oils
and
organics.
Separate
treatment
of
the
oils
and
organic
subcategory
wastewaters
using
BAT
technology
would
actually
increase
pollutant
loading
to
the
environment.
NORA
requests
that
EPA
eliminate
the
molybdenum
limit
from
all
of
the
CWT­
ELG
subcategories.
A
Survey
of
Molybdenum
Removal
Methods:
CWT
Organic
Waste
Subcategory
mum
remova
Biological
Tread
NORA
is
submitting
additional
data
on
a
facility
with
advanced
biological
treatment
that
exceeds
BAT
technolo
contains
substantial
am0
technology
is
unable
to
co
organic
subcategory.
ng
solely
organic
subcategory
wastewater
that
achieve
the
CWT
limits
for
molybdenum
in
the
lybdenum.
This
advanced
biological
treatment
Description
of
Clean
Harbors,
Deer
Park
Treatment
System
The
Clean
Harbors
Deer
Park
Texas
landfill
facility
operates
a
biological
and
powdered
activated
carbon
wastewater
treatment
system.
This
system
uses
powdered
activated
carbon
in
an
aeration
tank
to
treat
landfill
leachate
from
the
on
site
landfills,
and
to
treat
groundwater,
storm
water,
and
iandfill
run­
on.
The
PACT
system
is
designed
to
handle
,
'
150
gpm
of
combined
leachate,
groundwater,
and
storm
water
flow.
Clean
Harbors
also
operates
an
incinerator
at
D
ark.
The
PACT
system
does
not
receive
wastewater
from
the
incineration
scrubb
stem.
Scrubber
waster
is
treated
in
a
separate
two­
step
metals
treatment
system.

Wastewater
treated
in
the
PACT
system
consists
solely
of
organic
subcategory
wastewaters.
Dilution
with
storm
water
may
occur
in
the
event
of
rain
and
accumulation
of
surface
runoff
from
the
landfill.
The
landfill
leachate
is
defined
as
an
organic
subcategory
waste
in
the
CWT
ELG.

The
landfill
leachate
from
the
two
landfills
on
site
is
pumped
from
the
leachate
collection
system
to
intermediate
holding
tanks
at
the
landfill
locations.
The
leachate
is
then
pumped
from
the
ediate
tank(
s)
to
the
main
holding
tanks
that
feed
the
PACT
sy3e
removes
groundwater
contaminated
with
organics.
The
groundwater
is
extracted
by
well
pumps,
placed
in
intermediate
tanks,
and
then
transferred
by
pump
to
the
PACT
/
collected
and
pumped
directly
to
the
holding
tanks.
The
mixture
of
leachate,

tewater
contaminate
treatment
system
that
exceeds
the
BAT
technology.
In
ose
with
mixtures
of
slowly
degraded
(
refractory)
and
the
PACT
system
is
superior
to
SBR.
PACT
is
used
in
Sample
Collection.
and
Analysis
In
the
past,
the
biological
system
has
had
effluent
limitations
based
on
organic
constituents
and
so
r
the
PACT
and
applied
the
Centralized
Wastewater
ines
to
this
system,
based
on
the
biological
treatment
guidelines.
These
ines
include
a
standard
for
molybdenum.
The
facility
er
to
determine
if
there
is
molybdenum
in
the
system
and
es
contain
molybdenum.
Molybdenum
is
very
difficult
in
biological
systems.
In
order
to
demonstrate
that
this
C,
TSS,
various
organics).
However,
the
State
of
Texas
has
~

is
the
case,
samples
of
th
The
samples
collected
were
grab
samples
of
the
influent
to
the
system
as
it
flows
from
the
holding
tank
to
the
aeration
tank,
and
of
the
effluent
as
the
treated
water
exited
the
clarifier
(
after
solids
separation).
There
was
no
attempt
to
account
for
the
several
hours
of
ent
and
effluent
from
the
PACT
system
were
collected.

­
­­~

previous
tank.
Tanks
are
only
switched
every
3­
6
days,
so
this
is
normally
not
an
issue.
ected
directly
into
new
polyethylene
containers
and
transported
.
There
are
two
days
of
data
(
June
11
and
12)
when
the
molybdenum
a
tank
with
a
lower
concentration
of
molybdenum.
Thus,
the
influent
uent
grab
sample
went
down.
The
effluent
concentration
was
higher
as
the
d
not
been
in
the
system
long
enough
to
lower
the
reactor
ame
situation
in
reverse
can
be
seen
in
the
June
7
and
8
data
when
d
from
1.08
mg/
L
to
4.34
m
g
L
The
feed
tank
source
was
,

PACT
Influent
and
Effluent
Molybdenum
(
mg/
L)
Clean
Harbors
Deer
Park
Date
Influent
Effluent
6/
6/
03
1.38
6/
7/
03
1
.
I4
6/
8/
03
4.34
6/
9/
03
4.35
611
0103
5.51
6/
1
I
IO3
I
.48
611
2/
03
2.06
6/
23/
03
0.2
6/
24/
03
0.16
6/
25/
03
1.72
6/
26/
03
1.35
6/
27/
03
1.08
6/
28/
03
2.16
1.13
1.08
2.85
4.53
4.92
5.39
5.24
0.27
0.21
0.24
1.03
1.13
1.52
­
6/
29/
03
2.15
t.
68
Average
2.077143
2.23
J
%
Removal
­
7.3590
I
The
results
show
that,
overall,
no
removal
of
molybdenum
occurs
in
the
PACT
system.

m
one
sample
point
were
collected
on
3/
13,3/
19,
and
found
to
contain
substantial
molybdenum
in
the
landfill
ory
wastewater
stream.

dicating
Poor
Performance
of
Biological
Treatment
Systems
for
In
addition
to
data
s
facilities,
EPA
has
molybdenum
removal.
ed
by
NORA
from
the
Clean
Harbors
Deer
Park
and
CIPF
that
indicates
poor
performance
by
biological
systems
in
The
EPA
Treatability
Data
Base,
Version
6.0
(
1998)
has
data
for
13
activated
sludge
treatment
plants.
M
removals
at
facilities
receiving
0­
100
ug/
L
molybdenum
in
the
influent
,12,50,50,50,50,0,47,
>
41,
>
38,41
ando%.
At
influent
conce
­
1000
ug/
L,
the
performance
deteriorated
substantially.
Removals
were
33,0,0,
and
0%.
Apparently
at
very
low
concentration,
some
incidental
removal
occurs
in
some
but
not
all
facilities.
At
higher
concentration,
the
incidental
removal
mechanisms
are
overwhelmed
and
little
or
no
removal
occurs.

Physical
Chemical
Techniques
for
Molybdenum
Removal
Require
Additional
Treatment
Beyond
BAT
Technology
Introductioh
A
survey
of
the
current
literature
on
molybdenum
removal
from
wastewater
indicates
that
of
physical/
chemical
treatment
procedures,
only
ferric
co­
precipitation
is
effective.
This
costly
process
goes
far
beyond
the
BAT
technology
and
was
not
included
in
the
assessment
of
the
cost
impact
analysis
of
the
CWT
industry.
Lime
or
lime­
alum
systems
do
not
significantly
remove
molybdenum.
Molybdenum,
usually
present
as
a
negatively
charged
ion
in
aqueous
solution,
is
actually
adsorbed
onto
precipitates
of
ferric
hydroxides
at
a
pH
of
6.0
or
lower.
Adsorption
of
molybdenum
is
less
effective
than
adsorption
of
many
other
metals
and
reversible
at
higher
pH.
Other
metals,
particularly
cationic
species
in
aqueous
solution,
are
less
effectively
removed
at
the
optimum
pH
for
molybdenum
removal.
A
precipitation,
clarification,
iron
addition,
precipitation
at
higher
p
E
and
clarification
metals
and
mixed
ca
additional
andor
lower
regulatory
parameters
for
metals,
specially
at
.
facilities
that.
are­
treatin
,
and
are
therefore
subject
to
&
M
Wastewater
common
unit
operations
and
typical
concentrations
of
pollutants
in
those
organic
subcategory
wastewater
if
UP32
UP33
UP39
UP40
UP32R
UP33R
UP39R
UP40R
Painting
Spray
or
Brush
Painting
Immersion
Solvent
Degreasing
Stripping
Paint
Painting
Spray
or
Brush
Rinse
Stripping
Paint
Rinse
0,02
0.17
16.7
3.69
0.16
0.16
46.75
0.02