United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Permits Division EN-336
Washington, DC 20460
March 1989
P
Water
Abstracts of
"Toxicity Reduction
Evaluations
-------
T!B!L1?ftr™TK yiWisKSKWR-KlKSP TW'IMTSI
yiKf,>it ? ::'i i m • it '•, t*:;,; i.: 'f;;! t; :-t',; I1 ii !I
•
^^^
ih;i" I ill' Mi I '''l,, , ,11"': I i I' 'l ' I l" '; V1,,, ii",1!!" i ' i ' jll ,'T I"!' |i:vii|i,|)lliT f li1'"11 iril'I1
MM •' 111 ,l ',! id, •; i.! ,jii i* i;,. t ' " '' - ,i i f ;l: t :' \\ Mil, i, iii t I, I if! j,
m^W ;.> w>. $^$$ 'W
I
^^^^^^ i ii ill
ii
i:^
: i ji i'1;:!
m i i
tor;.;:.;::,;.^.' .i;K.iii:;4' •'>.'.', V b'.*
iS :n ; a,; ti ss ;£ i^i i i;
!i!l,,!ii,i,!!,,!!!,!,! !!!! l!,,!,!,i,!!!,,,,!| I,,!,,,)!! I,,!!,!,!!!,,!!!!!!,!',,! n ,! I,!,!!!!,,,!
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The "abstracts of Toxicity Reduction Evaluations" provides
access to information contained in 23 TREs performed in 8 states,
The abstracts are intended to provide investigative and remedial
profiles of industrial and municipal efforts to reduce toxicity
in effluents. These profiles include information on industry
types, production and treatment unit processes, causes of
toxicity, permit limits and discharge conditions. The TRE
abstracts are intended to assist permit writers measure their
expectations when evaluating TRE plans and results when similar
to the abstracted case studies.
;The document begins with a summary of the statutory and
administrative context of whole effluent toxicity limitations in
permits. Chapter 1 also summarizes EPA's initiatives in helping
industries and municipalities meet these limits through TRE
guidance manuals. The second chapter presents the methodology
used to obtain TRE information from the Regions and States as
well as charts showing TRE activity and tables comparing State
TRE objectives. Chapter 3 presents the abstracts of the actual
TRE cases. The document ends with a bibliography of the
available TRE cases studies.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS Paqe
1. 0 INTRODUCTION ^ 1_
1.1 PURPOSE
1. 2 BACKGROUND ] ] [ r~:T
1. 3 TRE DOCUMENTS !!!!!!!!
1.4 FUTURE UPDATES TO TRE ABSTRACTS ............'.'.'.'. 1-4
2 .0 TRE ABSTRACT METHODOLOGY 2-1
3.0 TRE ABSTRACTS
CALIFORNIA
Chevron, USA,, Incorporated, Richmond Refinery;
Chevron Chemical Corporation, Richmond Plant; and
General Chemical Corporation, Richmond Works 3-1
Tosco Corporation Avon Oil Refinery 3_5
Union Oil Company of California .... * -> -,
DELAWARE
NVF Company. -,
FLORIDA J~y
Hollywood POTW Tin
MARYLAND 1U
Chemetals, Incorporated 3_1:L
W.D. Byron & Sons, Incorporated •. -, ->
NEVADA 3 12
Las Vegas POTW - , _
NEW JERSEY
CIBA-GEIGY Corporation -, -, ,
NORTH Carolina ' 14
American Tobacco Company. 3-16
Athol Manufacturing Company. '.'.'.'.. 3~18
Town of Columbus WWTP 3 tq
Croft Metals, Incorporated. '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 2~-2"L
City of Fayetteville Cross Creek WWTP ....... 3-23
Halstead Industries, Incorporated 3-24
City of High Point Eastside WWTP 3_27
Town of Jefferson WWTP 'm\\ 3_2g
Mt. Airy Wastewater Treatment Plant '.'. 3-31
New Minnette Textile Company \\ 3_32
Lithium Corporation of America 3_34
West Point Pepperell-Lumberton "* -?_7fi
VIRGINIA 3 36
Avtex Fibers, Incorporated.... 3_38
Virginia Chemical Company. .'.'.'..'.'... 3-40
4 . 0 BIBLIOGRAPHY.
-------
-------
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this document is to consolidate and abstract
available information on Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREs)
that have been performed over the last 3 years. Toxicity
reduction is required when municipal wastewater treatment plants
and industries fail to meet whole effluent toxicity limits or
biomonitoring requirements set in National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits. This document provides
accounts of TREs that have resulted in a demonstrated improvement
in whole effluent toxicity to protect water quality standards.
The accounts present information about the actual application of
TRE approaches to different industrial and municipal discharges.
1.2 BACKGROUND
One of the provisions set forth in the Clean Water (CWA) and
reiterated in the 1987 Water Quality Act Amendments states that:
The discharges of toxic chemicals in toxics amounts shall be
prohibited £WQA Sec. 101(a)(3)3.
.The CWA provides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and States with NPDES authority to regulate point source
discharges of wastewater so that they are free from toxics in
toxic amounts.
The EPA Office of Water's Policy for the Development of
Water Quality-Based Permit limits for Toxic Pollutants [49 FR
9016] published in March 1984 states:
Where there is a significant likelihood of toxic
effects to biota in the receiving water, EPA and the
States may impose permit limits on effluent toxicity
and may require an NPDES permittee to conduct a
toxicity reduction evaluation. Where toxic effects are
present but there is a significant likelihood that
compliance with technology-based requirements will
sufficiently mitigate these effects, EPA and the States
1-1
-------
may require chemical and toxicity testing after installation
— ? ?*Y re°Pen the *ermit *° incorporate" °n
llmitatlons if needed to meet water
EPA usis the NPDES permit program to control the discharge
of pollutants to surface waters of the U.S. Both the Clean Water
Act and the NPDES regulations provide the permit writer with
sufficient legal and regulatory authority to establish whole
effluent toxicity permit limits.
EPA has produced two guidance documents, the Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (EPA
440/485-032) and the Permit Writer's Guide to Water Qualitv-ba^H
Permitting for Toxic Pollutants (EPA 440-81-005), that can be
used by the permit writer to develop permit limits for a
particular point source discharger.
As more whole effluent toxicity limitations are written,
there is an increasing need by industries and municipalities to
reduce their whole effluent toxicity. Recognizing this need, EPA
has developed the Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) . To help
the discharger, or the consultant for the discharger, implement
the TRE, EPA has produced several additional documents.
1.3 TRE DOCUMENTS
ThG Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-based Permittin
for Toxic Pollutants (EPA 440/4-87-0051 addresses the entire
context of whole effluent toxicity limits. The Permit Writer's
Guide defines the TRE as: ~
*n* comnes toxicity testing and
analysis of the physical and chemical characteristics
cfu«?™ J*f toxicants to zero in on the toxicants
nSoi I e*fluen* toxicity. in most cases, the process
proceeds from simple assessments, that use the quickest,
most inexpensive methods (e.g. pre-chlorination
effluent toxicity testing and post-chlorination
toxicity testing) to more complex analyses (e.g.
etrluent fractionation and subsequent toxicity
testing/ chemical identification of fractions) .
1-2
-------
This guide then provides a five-page summary of the basic
elements of the TRE.
EPA has also developed two guidance documents which describe
protocols for conducting TREs. The first manual, Toxicity
Reduction Evaluation Protocol for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants (EPA 600/2-88/062), explains that the protocol is:
Designed to provide guidance to municipalities in preparing
TRE plans, evaluating the information generated during TREs
and developing the technical basis for the selection and
implementation of toxicity control methods. A TRE involves
an evaluation of the municipal WWTP performance; and
identification of the specific toxicants causing effluent
Itoxicity; a review of the pretreatment and local limits
programs; a characterization of the nature, variability and
sources of toxicity; and the evaluation, selection and
implementation of the toxicity control options.
The second TRE guidance document, Generalized Methodology
for Conducting Industrial Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (EPA
600/2-88/070) provides essentially the same systematic approach
as the municipal TRE document, except that it addresses
circumstances pertinent to industrial dischargers.
In addition, EPA has developed a manual that describes a
threeu phased approach for identifying the causative agents of
effluent toxicity (TIE),. Methods for Toxicity Identification
Evaluations-Phase I; Toxicity Characterization Procedures
(EPA/600/3-88/034) describes procedures for the characterization
of the physical/chemical characteristics of the toxicants in an
effluent sample, as well as the variability associated with the
type and concentration of compounds that cause effluent toxicity.
More specifically, the manual states that the first phase is
conducted to isolate and characterize the physical/chemical
properties of the effluent toxicant(s) using a series of
relatively simple, low cost analyses. In .effect, the Phase I
characterization involves systematically removing or rendering
inert specific groups of toxicants sharing similar physical/
.chemical characteristics (e.g., metals, nonpolar organics,
ammonia, chlorine) and measuring the toxicity of the treated
1-3
-------
aliquot of effluent sample. With this mechanism, the
xhvestigator can determine the type of compounds that may be
responsible for the toxicity. The Phase I studies also provides
information on the variability of the effluent toxicity.
Results of the Phase I characterization are utilized in
Phase II of the TIE (Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identifie
Evaluations: Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedure.
600/3-88/035) which provides the analytical techniques for
identification of the specific compounds responsible for the
effluent toxicity. Having determined in Phase I the physical/
chemical classes of compounds that are the causative agents of
the effluent toxicity, Phase II involves further analyses based
on these results to identify the specific chemicals causing the
toxxcxty. once the causative agents are identified and confirmed
(Phase III TIE) the discharger can take steps to reduce the
outflow of these causative compounds in the discharge.
Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations.
Phase III Toxicity Confirmation Procedure (EPA-600/3-88/036)
addresses the "confirmation phase" of the TRE. This phase is
conducted to assure the investigator that the toxicants
identified in Phase II are consistently the cause of effluent
toxicity. This step is essential to preclude any unnecessary
treatment or control methods that might result from insufficient
study of effluent toxicity.
The Phase I, n and III TIE manuals have been published and are
currently available from EPA. The "Technical Support Document"
(EPA 44-81-005) and "Permit Writer's Guide" (EPA 440/4-87-005)
are also available. The two general TRE protocols are in press.
1.4 FUTURE UPDATES TO TRE -ABSTRACTS
The Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE) abstracts in this
document were conducted prior to, or during the early stages of
development of guidance on TREs. For this reason, the approaches
utxlized in the TREs do not necessarily follow the EPA
recommended procedures described in the above TRE guidance
documents. However, these TREs do represent useful case studies
on reducing whole effluent toxicity.
1-4
-------
In the future EPA intends to update this document in order to
consolidate the information from additional States, as well as
TREs currently being conducted. In addition, as more TREs are
performed, 'refinements to the existing TRE guidance will emerge.
These new approaches will be reflected in the new TRE abstracts.
EPA's long term objectives are to develop a TRE PC Data Base.
Once there is a sufficient number and cross-section of abstracts
(relative to industry type, toxicants, treatment, geographical
areas, etc.), EPA intends to produce a TRE PC Data Base which
will not only contain the TRE abstracts, but include the ability
to retrieve and sort the TRE abstract(s) according to name or by
the use of key words.
1-5
-------
-------
2.0 TRE ABSTRACT METHODOLOGY
Between June and September 1988, EPA surveyed all of the
States and EPA Regions to determine the status of Toxicity
Reduction Evaluations for both industries and municipalities.
The objective was to find case examples of industries and
municipalities that had successfully conducted TREs to reduce
effluent toxicity.
•The method of survey involved preliminary telephone contact
with the State or Regional environmental regulatory personnel.
State and Regional contacts were identified through use of the
Office of Water's Program Survey— Biological Toxicity Testing in
the NPDES Permits Program. Each contact was asked: 1) whether
they knew of any industrial or municipal dischargers that had
effectively reduced whole effluent toxicity in the State, 2) if
the discharger had attempted to work within the conceptual
framework of the Phase I TRE Manual, .and 3) if so, was the
information documented and available.
In most cases, States either claimed that reductions in
whole effluent toxicity had been successfully accomplished, or
that implementation of the whole effluent toxicity limits in the
State,had not yet progressed to the point where TREs have been
completed. in the former case, State files and any available
documents on whole effluent toxicity were reviewed for
verification in California (San Francisco Bay Region), Delaware,
Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina and Virginia.
In some cases file reviews in these States allowed EPA to
determine both the specific technical elements of the TRE and the
history of the State program, including any permittee/State
correspondence that resulted in TRE implementation. Discussions
with State personnel were often critical in understanding both
the technical and the regulatory processes.
This method of survey was not the only approach used to
identify toxicity reduction case studies. The EPA Environmental
Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota, has conducted numerous
TIES and produced reports describing several of the evaluations.
These reports were used, in combination with other available
material, to identify additional case histories.
2-1
-------
Figure 1 identifies States where information was collected.
This information included incorporation of TREs as part of a
State's toxics control strategy, initial interactions between the
State and the discharger(s) to begin initiation of TRE(s), or
actual progress regarding specific TREs, both ongoing and
completed. State TRE objectives are presented in Table 1.
The information collected during the survey is presented in
Table 2. As a result of EPA's initial survey of the States and
Regions, 23 TRE case histories were selected and abstracted. The
resultant abstracts are presented in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 of
this document presents a reference bibliography.
2-2
-------
CO
I
O)
I
LU
CO
CO
I
o>
£L
2-3
-------
-------
TABLE 2. OUTLINE FOR TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATION REPORTS DATA COLLECTION
I. General Information
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
name
location (if possible lat./long.)
NPDES permit #
flow
SIC #(s)
industrial category(s)
pollutants controlled in NPDES permit and by effluent
limitations guidelines
whole effluent toxicity limits
types of processes and any additional significant
pollutants not listed in NPDES permit
types of controls/treatment
name of receiving water(s) and reach # (if available)
7Q10 (or low flow of receiving stream required by state)
instream waste concentration
o conditions indicating need for TRE (biomonitorinq or
screening test used)
o biomonitoring tests (species, frequency, type of test)
o TRE timetable/compliance schedule
o date of TRE abstract
o costs (where information is available and verifiable)
11• Causes of Final Effluent Toxicity
6 characterization results (e.g., volatility, solubility,
filterability, etc.) *
o type of chemical analyses and summary of results
III. Sources of Toxicity
6 summary of source investigation (IU, commercial)
o processes/treatments showing toxic waste streams
IV. Control of Toxic Pollutants
o
o
o
description of control options
toxicity reduction required to meet TRE objectives
summary of follow-up monitoring and compliance
V. Sources of Information for Abstract and Contact
2-4
-------
-------
TABLE 1
STATE TRE OBJECTIVES
STATE
REFERENCE
TOXECny TESTS
TOXICITY REDUCTION
OBJECTIVES
California
(San .Fransisco Bay
Region)
96-hr flow through effluent
test using three-spine
stickleback and either rainbow
trout or fathead minnows for
dischargers with flows > 1 MGD.
LC 50 must be passed
9 out of 10 times for
90% effluent.
Delaware
North Carolina
96-hr definitive test
with Daphnia magna.
LC 50 > 50%
Maryland
96-hr static renewal w/fathead
min. ; 48-hr static renewal
w/D. magna.
LC 50 > 100% or
LC 50 > 1WC
0.3
48-hr w/D. mac
no significant acute
mortality in 90%
effluent. No observ-
able inhibition of
reproduction.
New Jersey
96-hr Mysid shrimp test.
LC 50 must be passed
9 out of 10 times
for 90% effluent.
Virginia
'96-hr static or static
renewal w/Daphnia and
fathead minnows.
LC 50 > IWC
2-5
-------
-------
CALIFORNIA
3.0 TRE ABSTRACTS
Chevron. USA. Tncorpora-fcgH
ond Refinery; Chevron
and General Chemic
- —
(formerly Allied
Richmond
maSu?aCtu^°°?"f: <**™» USA opiates a Eetroleum^efinery.
JttcinLllaC LU TV*P! TITO I c; | iiil^>*T
-------
All dischargers (except cooling water dischargers) shall
determine compliance with the toxicity requirements using
flow-through effluent bioassays and the species
identified above (the three-spine stickleback and either
the rainbow trout or the fathead minnow) except for those
that discharge intermittently and discharge less than 1.0
mgd.
The Basin Plan also identified an implementation schedule for
industries to meet the whole effluent discharge limits. Consis-
tent with the Basin Plan, the
permit calls for 50-percent survival of test fish in standard
96-hour bioassays for dischargers with deepwater outfalls with
10:1 diffusers. The permit also requires that more than 50
percent of the test fish must survive in nine out of every ten
tests to be in compliance. The permit has effluent limitations
for BOD, TSS, TOC, oil and grease, phenolic compounds, ammonia,
sulfide, chromium (total and hexavalent), and settleable solids.
In addition, the oil refinery had chemical-specific limitations
for arsenic, cadmium, copper, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel,
selenium, silver, zinc, phenols, and PAHs.
In April 1987, bioassay results of the effluent indicated high
fish mortality. Samples were extracted with freon and were
analyzed with an infrared spectrometer (IR) and a gas chromato-
graph (GC) equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) and an
electron capture detector (BCD). The GC-ECD selectively detects
oxygenated carbonyl compounds, carbonyl, acids, and phthalates.
The effluent was found to have some of these dissolved organic
compounds. Chevron concluded that the dissolved orcranics seemed
to plav a major role in effluent toxicitv.
The Toxicity Reduction Evaluation conducted by the Chevron USA
Richmond Refinery was completed in March of 1988. The TRE was
triggered on July 1, 1987 when Chevron USA found that the
effluent could not meet the new effluent limitation for juvenile
rainbow trout of an LC50 of 100-percent effluent. The deadline
for compliance with the rainbow trout flow-through toxicity test
was October 1, 1987.
Chevron USA took the following immediate actions to reduce the
final whole effluent toxicity:
o Established an Environmental Operating Department
o Instituted an Operator Training Program
o Revised and updated Operating Standards
3-2
-------
5ioassay facility consisting of six
tankS tO perform weekly flow-through
Installed 30 process water sample stations
Instituted enhanced management and holding tanks for
better control of intermittent sources of pollutants.
The next step involved identification of ma-Jnr source*
atic toxicitv
oried all pollutants used at
program (HAZCOMJ
Furthermore, a sta
.. ..-.* . , .,
ed for review of any new chemicals brouc
-- --- j --•••^w ^»"*** *«»*n A *•><•* A o J^JL WVAM.I.I. u» ww ^11 6 i SI. J_ T1GT*1
.ven the industry's knowledge of the refinery processes ' a
likely list of pollutant sources was developed. Then given
water flow determinations and pollutant concentration
m
concenraon mure-
ments, loadings of each pollutant from these sources were
determined. if the sum of the known loadings doesn't agree with
1^
Pru refinery that used .u?fSSSS.
Products that contained surfactants thought to be toxic such as
branched alkyl phenol ethoxylates (APES)! which Jre highly
to fish and degrade slowly, were banned t yom use
, substances, suchas
ethoxylate. Chevron also installed caustic
so that all of the caustic could be reused
linked to effluen?
Sti11 further' Chevron instituted several
pouan s«n ^^^thods, including segregation of major
pollutant sources, control of discharge rates to the effluent
system, pretreatment of some of the wlstestreams, and institution
of an extensive monitoring operation of principal pollutant
sources, separators, bioreactors, and final effluent! since the
primary sources of the dissolved organic material! believed to be
Wnew^ltC?Hif°r2^a crudes'" and they have a Sigh lolS-
n water, the refinery built a full-scale pilot unit to
^S°1V?d or?ai?i?s (Desalter Ef fluent Sou.L rUSS
The unit acidifies the desalter water, causing dissolved
organics to precipitate out of solution as oil droplets. The oil
is separated out and ^^^^ back to the crude fe^ unit
3-3
-------
Ammonia is also very highly controlled at the major plant
sources. Salinity is minimized by backing out salt water from
the effluent system and recycling streams with high conduc-
tivities.
Since Chevron implemented the actions discussed above, including
startup of the Desalter Effluent Source Control Unit, the
refinery has passed all of the flow-through -Juvenile rainbow
trout bioassavs. averaging 94-percent survival between October 1.
1987 and the time of its TRE report of March 3. 1988.
Sources:
1.
"Toxicity Reduction Evaluation/Environmental Hazard
Assessment on Chevron USA, Richmond Refinery
Effluent". March 1988.
Environmental Impact Report of Chevron USA Richmond
Refinery Deep Water Outfall Project. 1987.
Series of letters, memoranda, and reports in files
of San Francisco Bay Water Quality Board. Regional
Contact: Dr. Tom Mumley (415) 464-0579.
3-4
-------
6/13/88
Tosco Corporation Avon nil Refingr-y
9 TOSC° Corporation Av»n on
. located
/CT . Defines crude oil to aasoline and diesel
fittl (SIC Code: 2911) . The principal process units are diitil^
lation, "cracking," reforming, and alleviation. The plant
° Process wastPR, cooling tow^r blowdown r
, r
Orm water runoff, and pastes from^julfuric
H p ,
acid plant. Process waste treatment includes an API
TTni1"' aerated
' .
gq*cal contractor system (Powered Activated Carbon
« ere cvaed Carbo
fed system. This system is fed by four major process streams-
ammonia recovery unit effluent, foul water '
i0 fll1 100%).
After establishing Microtox as an appropriate surrogate for the
'0"" bioassay usin? 3-spine sticklebacks! series
Jer^Z^d f°r the ma9nitude and variability
o toxicity. The effluent was then frac-
tionated into organic (acidic, basic, and neutral) and inorganic
(cationic and anionic) fractions. Toxicity was found to be
associated with the organic fraction (primarily neutral bu? some
acidic orqamcB) . However, GC/MS analysis failed to identify
compounds in toxic concentrations, it was concluded that the
toxicity is caused by a synergistic combination of compounds.
Bench-top models were used to determine the level of toxics
?onna daji°n Resulting from the various treatment steps. It was
hS £L £ £ 6 ^nof9anic class of toxic constituents was reduced
by the treatment steps (total influent toxicity reduction was 85
KsTXant tfdeaXd^ "^SJ1 ^ acidi° °rga"ic compounds were
resistant to degradation. The sources of these neutral and
°r9fnic compounds were likely to be wastewaters produced
foul water strinnerg and the ammonia recovery unit-
3-5
-------
Source:
1.
Re?uction Evaluation at the TOSCO
n-AV°n Refinery* Martinez,
3-6
-------
9/7/88
Union Oil Company of California
Rod *PCAJ°05?53; Uni°n Oil ComPanY °f California, located in
Rodeo, Contra Costa County, operates a petroleum refHm*™ that
a
manufactures fuels and lubricants. Classified as a lube refinery
-------
to" SS
were constructed and
with a dose of powdered
installation of the PACT
Source:
plant units
found
even with the
1.
and reports in filPS
^
3-8
-------
6/21/88
NVF Company
NPDES * DE0000451: NVF Company owns Yorklvn and Marshall
Brothers Paper Mills, which both discharged into Red dav Creek
through a common outfall. The mills manufacture vulcanized
rioers. ~ •
The effective date of the most recent pem^t-. was March 8. ig«A.
Permit conditions (mg/1) were: BOD5, 73; TSS, 73; zinc, 0.25; and
surfactants, 0.5. pH was allowed to vary between 6 and 9 pH
units. Surfactants and BOD5 have repeatedly exceeded effluent
limits, and the zinc limit has occasionally been exceeded.
Groups of three 24-hour Daphnia maana acute toxicity screening
Jests were to be conducted, each separated by a 24-hour down
tline- If average survival of the three tests did not exceed 80
percent, and control survival exceeded 80 percent, a 96-hour
"definitive" test was to h^ r.»«H»^^ If an Lc could be
generated in less than 50-percent effluent, a plan was to be
submitted within 30 days to reduce effluent toxicitv.
In June 1984, EPA conducted three screening tests according to
permit conditions. Survivability was 52 percent. The definitive
test, conducted in August 1984, exhibited an LCKn of 1 percent.
The NVF_Company and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control (DNREC) studied the feasibility of
eliminating the discharge to Red Clay Creek bv diverting the
effluent to the New paBl-lo Pountv Sewer Sy«*.«»n.. ny n,^iLr 1Pg5
it was determined that, to divert the effluent, the NVF sewer '
discharge limit would have to be increased from 0.525 to i.o mgd
The county indicated that it would charge a one-time amortization
fee of $687,500. NVF reported to DNREC that diversion was not
possible because of the charge.
However since that time modifications of the plant have occurred
and negotiations between NVF and the New Castle County Sewer
System have resulted in the elimination of all process waste
treatment discharges to Red Clay Creek.
Source:
1.
Series of letters, memos, and reports in NVF permit
file of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Conservation, Dover Office. State
Contact: Richard Green: (302) '736-5732.
3-9
-------
-------
6/21/88
Hollywood
NPDES * FL0026255: A Toxicity Identification Evaluation was
conducted on the Hollywood POTW rsic M». 491521 <* f£?iS!L
DogJMount and his research team at EPA's Envi^n-
a s nvn
mental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota. The average
are " °f the POTW Was 18'3 *9d to the Atlantic £2Sn
Pre-TRE history, and plant characteristic"^
absract "*** available for incorporation into the
The tsjicity. of the initial sample, collected in August iQas was
~aovSer^ rjpidly, since the solid phase extraction column
removed effluent toxicity. This suggested that the toxic
fraction was at least, in part, one or more nonDolar oraanic
^?ants: There was a check for chlorine and EDTA chela taCle
metal toxicity, and no toxicity was found. This finding provided
further evidence that the nonpolar organic fraction may nave beln
MarST laJJ? resg0"sible for the toxicity. Samples collected on
S«f?*. ' 1987'.and January 5, 1988, were also characterized and
results were similar to the August 1986 results.
GC-MS an
_
^ revealed that diainon was Iargel
h o for the observed toxicity. Effluent toxicity was
then compared with diazinon concentrations to determine the
io« ^i? dia?in?n was responsible for effluent toxicity.
-loq plot of diazinon concent ra t i »n measured bv GC and
?50 was graphed and linear r^r^Sigg gn4lvSfg
reonH A2a^sis i^icated that diazinon was primarily
responsible for effluent toxicity. When all "toxic" fractions
a
was reported, though this toxicity was not quite as much
as actual whole effluent toxicity. This indicated sc£i toxic
cJY 5°th.the "toxic" and "nontoxic" fractions of the
chl°rfenvinphos would be especially likely to occur in
fract/"^1011;, The ^ded -toxicity of the nontoxic
fractions may have resulted from methanol toxicity (elutant)
°"r nnows exposed to whole effluent exhibited '
ii
effluent
Source:
exposed to some whole effluent samples.
^ mucV°re ^sistant to diazinSn toxicity
Qther toxic -compounds are also present in the
it
1. Mount, b.I.
Memorandum.
"Report on Hollywood POTW".
EPA. 2-25-88.
3-10
-------
-------
6/20/88
Chemetals . Incorporated
Chemetals' Incorporate, located in Baltimore,
' res manganese sulfntP, manganese dioviH0j and
manganese chloride. The single outfall at this facility dis-
charges both noncontact cooling water and process wastewater
S?™°£e*S wastewater/s treated, then placed in settling pAn^
before being discharged into Arundel Cove a tributary of Cm-fir"
Cjeek, which is classified for water contact recreation for fish
other aquatic life, and wildlife. The current NPDES permit
limits manganese, TSS, EH, chlorine, and the discharge of
floating solids or persistent foam from the outfall.
Biological testing by the Maryland State Biomonitoring Laboratory
S?i« effluent toxicity. In March 1988, E.A. Engineering,
Science and Technology, Incorporated performed Phase 1 testina
using Daphnia magna and Menidia (Atlantic silverside) . The
addition of a chelating agent, EDTA, greatly reduced the toxicity
of the effluent, indicating that the metal content in the
wastewater is responsible for the toxicity. A filtration test
showed that the insoluble fraction contributes significantly to
the toxicity of the effluent.
Chemetals plans to conduct testing to determine the most effec-
tive way to upgrade its treatment system. Testing will include
aerating a sample of the effluent, and adding a flocculating
J?!nL ? e£hance Precipitation. The concentration of manganese,
the most abundant metal in the effluent, will be tested to
«! n3^*^ fffeftiveness °f treatment. If, after installation
of a modified treatment system, toxicity is not reduced to
acceptable levels, Chemetals will develop a system for chelating
Sources:
1. NPDES Permit. September 1985.
2. "Toxicity Reduction Evaluation of Chemetals, inc
Effluent Waste Stream". March 1988. Prepared by
E.A. Engineering, Science and Technology, inc.,
Sparks, Maryland.
3.
Letter from James Underwood, Chemetals on the
results of Chemetals TRE and its proposed Toxicity
Treatment Plant. May 10, 1988.
3-11
-------
-------
6/20/88
W.D. Bvron & Sons.
NPDES * MD0053431: W.D. Bvron & Sons. Tn^^^^ , iocated in
Willxamsport, Maryland, operates a cattle hide chrome tanning and
finishing facility (SIC Code: 3111) . Salt-packed hides are
washed and hair is removed chemically with lime and sulfide
Thi.s wastewater is pretreated by chemical oxidation (manganese
sulfate and aeration) , neutralization (carbon dioxide from fi,,0
ga§),; and settling prior to lagoon aeration. Hides are split and
delimed with ammonium sulfat-^r and enzymes are added to remove
protein degradation products and peptized fibers and to reduce
swelling. This bate process is followed by a pickle process
which exposes the hide to sulfuric acid and salt! Trivalent'
chromium is added to the pickle solution for tanning" These
wastewaters are treated by a lime and anionic poiy^r- precipita-
tion process and lagoon aeration. Finally, retannina adds many
chemicals in low concentrations, and fat liquor processes add oil
This wastewater is treated by primary clarification and lagoon
aeration .
The treatment systems discharge 0.5 mgd to the Conocochaegue
River (7Q10:33 mgd) above the confluence to the Potomac River
The permit's effluent guideline requirements included BOD, COD
TOC, TSS, NH3, chlorine, color, total chromium, surfactants, '
In January 1987, Byron submitted an application for permit
renewal. The Maryland Department of Environment tested this
effluent and found that it was acutely toxic to Daphnia maana and
Pimephales promelas . A TRE was required in the Special Condi-
tions section of the permit. Phase I of the TRE is complete
This investigation found that the toxicity is associated with
ammonia and moderately ao-M organic compounds believed to be
anionic or nonionic Surf*r<+*r,i-
-------
-------
6/21/88
Las Veaas POTW
wcond ATToxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE)
was conducted on the Las Veaas POTW (srr. code; 49s;n in r.ao '
Vegas, Nevada, by Don_Mgunt and his research team at EPA's
Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth, Minnesota. The
* ?™r J1^,?* fcSe POTW Was 25-9 m9d to the L** Vegas wash with
a 7Q10 of 0.12 mgd. Permit conditions, pre-TRE history and
were n°fc available
The whole effluent t.oxicities of the samples collar*^ between
September 1986 and Jun* 19R7 indicated that acute toxicitytC
v;;t°daghni* (48;h°^ LC50) and fathead minnows (96-hoSr lc°)
varied from greater th^r. inn r^~^ To to ^ ± th 10 5°;
the
0
effluent to^city was ch2?act«:nii; Sing solid
n °mn (SPEC) ' toxicity occurred consistently in
K -percent methanol fractions and, sporad-
in the 'Percent fraction. Therefore, the toxic
in part'
SPKC fractions revealed that
dichu n n ns reveae at dain^
dichlorvos were largely responsible for the observed toxicity in
these fractions. Dichlorvos concentrations varied most
WaS co*Pared to dia2inon concentrations
t0 Whi°h diazin°" was responsible for
\laq-log plot of diazinon concentration^
esonnlv whole effluent T,r50 was graphed and linear
regression analysis was conducted. Analysis indicated that -
diazinon was primarily T-ogp»n.Hble for a ****
1 -. ... , --
all toxic
When
" • •' -- -- — i—^**** -fc*^-^^. A.V>J_ ^^A.^Wt^SiiU L.VJAXC1UV Wl
fractions were combined, additional toxicitv was
toxicity was not quite as much asac?Sal
bv both J- This indicated some toxic contribution
by both the "toxic" and »'nontoxic» fractions of the effluent.
minnows exhibited some mortality when exposed to some
°fnd ^eH?fflUenf' -S^Ce they are much ^ore resistant to
and dichlorvos toxicity than Ceriodaphnia r this indi-
nOT"Pnnnrls were also likely to be present
in e
in the effluent
*
Propoxur and simazine, other pesticides were
toxic SoncenteSionZf
toxic concentra-
Source:
1.
Mount, D.I. "Las Vegas TIE"
3-24-87.
Memorandum. EPA.
3-13
-------
-------
CIBA-GEIGY Corporation
NPDES # NJ0004120: CIBA-GEIGY Corporation operates an
chemical facility that manufactures synthetic organic pq
organic dvestuffs and intermediates, and epoxv resins tsrr
2865 and 2815) . The plant is located in Toms River. New J
and discharges into the Atlantic Ocean. The outfall which
averages 4 to 5 mgd, consists of process wastes from 'dye and
epoxy resin production, miscellaneous end use products, sanitary
and storm sewers. The wastewater treatment plant included
equalization basins, a neutralization tank, and primary and
secondary clarifiers with an intermediate aeration basin phase
for oxygenation and bacterial action.
In May 1985, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec-
tion (NJDEP) issued a permit to CIBA-GEIGY that set whole
effluent toxicity limits for its 10-mile long underground
pipeline extending approximately two-thirds of a mile into the
ocean at a depth of 45 feet below the ocean surface. The
effluent is discharged through 50 discharge ports spaced over the
last 1,000 feet of pipe. The permit established an interim whole
effluent toxicity limit for the outfall of less than 50-percent
mortality of mysid shrimp exposed to 5-percent effluent for 96
hours and a final toxicity limit for the outfall of 50-percent
effluent. By July 1, 1986, the permit required CIBA-GEIGY to
conduct a toxicity reduction study and to submit a plan for how
the plant would met the interim and final whole effluent limita-
tions.
By the effective date of the permit, CIBA-GEIGY had conducted
preliminary screening tests, prioritized and reduced identified
in-plant wastewater sources of contaminants, and conducted bench
scale end-of-pipe treatability tests. Since a wide variety of
potential contaminants enter the treatment plant, the key issue
was to determine the type of treatment that would work best under
many conditions and to reduce the likelihood that biological
treatment would be adversely affected by large doses of toxicity.
Bench scale end-of-pipe treatment options included powdered
activated carbon in activated sludge (PACT) , grandular activated
carbon (GAC) adsorption, ozonation in pretreatment , interstage
treatment, and post-treatment configurations, and anaerobic
pretreatment. PACT was determined to be the most technically
feasible alternative^bo meet both the interim and final toxin if.v
limitations in the 1985 ~ ~
Existing equalization tanks were replaced with larger, covered
tanks to equalize the concentrations of the contaminants before
they enter the biological treatment system. Aeration basin
biological action was also improved by addition of PACT, as
3-14
-------
indicated by the batch studies. Furthermore, in-plant management
practices that reduced the loss of toxic compounds to the
wastewater treatment plant were implemented.
CIBA-GEIGY currently meets interim toxicity limits and is
expected to meet final toxicitv limits.
Sources:
1. Huff, G., and S. Schexnailder. 1988. "Toxicity
Reduction at Toms River". Poll. Eng. 20:98-100.
2. Quarterly Reports of CIBA-GEIGY Corporation of the
Effluent Toxicity Reduction Program. .Inception
through June 1986.
3. Series of letters, memoranda, and reports in files
of New Jersey
3-15
-------
7/26/88
American Tobacco Company
washers water, softener
otfl T ?r€ViS ja° treatment of the plant wastewaterhe
outfall flows into the unnamed tributary to Wolf island Cr^v
wxth a 7010 now *1fw) := n nn ^ The permitted flow of the '
outfall is 0.065 mgd, and the resultant calculated inst?f am wast a
Cra10n (^C) = JLO°-00 Percent. The date of islSance of
?erittlt WaS December 1, 1985. Chemical-specific efflu-
™ , . emca-specfc
monitoring requirements in the permit were in place for
chromium and zinc, and limitations Listed lor con?en?Lna!s
North Carolina has whole effluent toxicity limits specific to
iu
d
the receiving water flow (expressed as a percentage) exceeds
1 percent, or a dilution of moo, the Ceriodaphnia Sii/Jaii
test must be passed. This test is conducted at oJe S?"^1
^ssing the test means that there is
he streawn °f ™P™*™^™ °^ significant mortlity at
the instream waste concentration. Typically, the effluent must
pass the chronic test quarterly on specified months
Ssed inYtK oblei".was identified prior to April 1987.
sed int . pr . ifl
toxicitv »? gPollncf t-ower^ was suspected of contributing to the
toxicity of the cooling water bleed-off.
«« i American Tobacco Company submitted a plan of
action, prepared with the aid of the consulting firm Russell and
Axon to the Department of Natural Resources and c£mmuni?v
Development (DNRCD) . TO determine the cause of tS^SSSg water
toxicity, American Tobacco would conduct a series of s?atil
L^8 ^•controlling for chlorine sources on dif-
"make-up" cooling water samples, and TTO scans would be
° o11 °f1the samPles- ?he toxicant coS?S then be
o HI Russell and Axon also found and have repaired a
?esidials lfiak WhlCh WaS causin^
Pf°P°fed in early April, 1988 to
to Chemtreat CL-l4fi1
3-16
-------
tnone, a slow release chlorine doner) which the Company
considers as a nonbiocide additive. In subsequent
toxicity tests conducted in April and May
was observed xn 90-percent erriuent. Am.
passed its chronic limits through September, 1988
Source :
1.
Series of letters, memoranda, and reports in files
of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
3-17
-------
7/26/88
Athol Manufacturing Company
NPDES # NC0036846; Athol Manufacturing, located in Butner. North
gr^iisa produces various plastics products, particularly coated
fabrics that are not rubberized (SIC Code: ?.?.**\ . outfall #004
.. . ua 004
discharges the wastewater from the building floor drainage to an
unnamed tributary to Picture Cr^^k in the LUse R
which has a 7Q10 (low flowl = o.on r-.fg. The calculated instream
waste concentration (IWC) for outfall #004 = 100.00 t»a°«"? *
facility does not treai- i+« ^stewater-s . - P
The date of issuance of the latest permit was December 1 1985
Permit effluent monitoring requirements were set for chlorine 4nd
zinc. The permit was issued with requirements for chronic
toxicity testing annually on outfall #004. The permit chronic
limit is set at 99-percent effluent.
toxicity limits specific to the
wv,«r> <->, **i T~~ flow relati°nships for each discharge.
When the effluent is not substantially diluted by the receiving
stream low flow (7Q10), chronic limits are instituted. if the
instream waste concentration, which is the effluent flow divided
i ™™JCeiVlng.Jater fl°W Expressed as a percentage) , exceeds
1 percent, or a dilution of liioo. the Ceriodaphnia Pass/Fail
test must be passed. This test is conducted at one dilution of
effluent:—the IWC. Passing the test means that there is no
observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality at
™= £KS K3m WaS^S conc:entration. Typically, the effluent must
pass the chronic test quarterly on specified months.
In the case of Athol Manufacturing (004), the instream waste
concentration was determined to be 100.00 percent. Since the
effluent failed the pass/fail test, toxicity reduction was
necessary to bring the effluent into compliance with the permit
conditions. The incoming city water also failed the chronic
test, probably because of the high chlorine levels.
To overcome the toxicity Problem. Athol Manufacturi
January 1988 to close off outfall #004 and ti
it
:d
T T — ~~—~ ~•»•*• x^vj-^j.j. Trw* din-t uj.c J.L. irrco &ne GJ.C
loop cooling system that already serves the rest of the fa^Kol
While this approach does not strictly identify the toxic com-
ponents of the effluent, it does achieve effluent toxicity
reduction.
Source:
1.
Series of letters, memoranda, and reports in files
of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development. State Contact: Lee
Gable (919) 733-5083.
3-18
-------
-------
7/26/88
Town of
WWTP
NPDES # NC0021369: Wastewater treatment for Columbus WWTP (SIC
Code; 4952) , located in Polk County. North Carol inar includelTan
aeration lagoon, secondary clarifier, and effluent chlorination
facilities. The outfall flows into an unnamed tributary to Whitg
Oak Creek in the Broad River Basin, which has a 7O10 flow flow =
2-1 cfs) • The permitted flow of the outfall is 0.8 mgri r and the
resultant calculated instream waste concentration riWCl = 37.03
percent . The latest permit was issued on August 13, 1987.
Monthly monitoring requirements and effluent limits were set for
residual chlorine, phosphorus, and conventional pollutants.
North Carolina has whole effluent toxicity limits specific to the
effluent flow: dilution flow relationships for each discharge.
When the effluent is not substantially diluted by the receiving
stream low flow (7Q10) , chronic limits are instituted, if the
instream waste concentration, which is the effluent flow divided
by the receiving water flow (expressed as a percentage) , exceeds
1 percent, or a dilution of 1:100, the Ceriodanhnia Pass/Fail
test must be passed. This test is conducted at one dilution of
effluent; - the IWC. Passing the pass/fail chronic test means that
there is no observable inhibition of reproduction or significant
mortality at that instream waste concentration. Typically, the
effluent must pass the chronic test quarterly on specified
months .
Toxicity tests conducted in July, 1987 exhibited LC5Os of
74-percent effluent and 8-percent effluent for fathead minnows
and Daphnia pulexf respectively, and an NOEC of 2 -per cent
effluent for Ceriodaohnia dubia. Therefore, toxicity reduction
was necessary. North Carolina DNRCD established both a chronic
and an acute toxicitv limit for the Columbus WWTP. It was
suspected that the extreme acute toxicity of the undiluted
effluent could present a risk to aquatic life even if effluent
diluted to the IWC did not pose a chronic risk. Therefore, an
acute limit of 90-percent effluent was recommended (2/1/86).
Milliken and Company's Hatch Mills Plant wastewater represented
90 percent of the influent to the Columbus WWTP. The influent
acute toxicity to Daphnia maana was found to be less than 1
percent and was suspected to be responsible for treatment plant
whole effluent toxicity.
In May 1987, Burlington Research, Incorporated (BRI) presented a
proposal to identify, the toxic component of the Hatch Mills Plant
wastewater. To determine the toxic component of an effluent, BRI
removed different fractions of the whole effluent and tested the
3-19
-------
™ ° *6 remaxnxng fractions. When the whole effluent
toxxcxty IB sxgnxficantly reduced, the removed fraction is the
prxmary suspected cause of the toxicity.
ef:ra<;tion: whi?n removes nonpolar organics such as
solvents, sxgnificantly improved the toxicity char-
of Jhe Affluent. This suggested that the toxic
fractxon consxsted prxmarily of nonpolar organic
The next step was to screen the process chemicals used bv tha
^lant to identify those less biodegradable compounds that
r*S°nSible f°r Pa«-t*raugh toxicity. • Thetwo groups
compounds were (1) alky! phenyl ethoxylatel °APEs)
h y peny ethoxylate AP
nvT^ S 4. Lg50 Paphnxa EMlex; 12.5 mg/1) which have potentially
toxxc metabolites as well, and (2) benzvl trimethlv ammnn<
chlorxde (BTMAC) (48-hour LC50 DaphnHl^lijs ; 11.9 mq/lf
Strict
«-«- c rc
whxch xndxcated hxgh levels of APEs in the Hatch Mills
G2r *
linear regression analysis indicated a significant
ons between whole effluent toxicitv and both BTMAC a'nH
f1o^£or a11 but tw° of the nine months of the
e
results, further indicated that the Hatch Mills
or?anic. chemicals may have been responsible for
ent toxxcity, the two months when correlations
aFaren^lndicated that the effluent toxicity could also
™ e£ ?^ °ther comP°nents of the wastewater. Highly toxic
BTMAC metabolites or unidentified influent streams and/or
chemxcals were suspect. Furthermore, given the hiqhlv cationic
nature of the BTMAC component of the Hatch Mil? wa"!tewa?er
P~el during'those
Sources:
1.
2.
"Town of Columbus WWTP TRE Phase I Report"
Burlington Research, Inc.
1987.
Serxes of letters, memoranda, and reports in files
of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development. State Contact: Lee
Gable (919) 733-5083.
3-20
-------
7/26/88
Croft Metals.
NPDES * NC0035530: Croft Metals, located in Lumber Bridge.
Robeson County. North Carolina, produces nonferrous aluminum
extrusion inaot. vinvl plastics, in-iection nvlon mol
.ded parts
and aluminum building products (Secondary smelting, refining
nonferrous, SIC Code; 3341). Outfall #001 has a physical-
chemical wastewater treatment system consisting of a collection
sump, two batch treatment tanks, a sludae holding tank, and a
plate and frame filter for the sludge. Outfall #002 is an
extended aeration package type plant consisting of aeration
tanks, a settling tank, a sludge holding tank, a chlorine contact
chamber, and a post-aeration chamber. An industrial wastewater
treatment plant is being constructed for outfall #003.
The outfall flows into Big Marsh Swamp after mixing with the
Design Technologies outfall. Big Marsh Swamp has a 7O10 flow
flow) of 0.20 cfs and the resultant calculated instream waste
concentration nwci = 43.no percent. The latest permit, issued
on January 7, 1988, set chemical-specific limits for cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, silver, cyanide, and
conventional pollutants, and established monitoring requirements
for aluminum.
North Carolina has whole effluent toxicity limits specific to the
effluent flow: dilution flow relationships for each discharge.
When the effluent is not substantially diluted by the receiving
stream low flow (7Q10), chronic limits are instituted. if the
instream waste concentration, which is the effluent flow divided
by the receiving water flow (expressed as a percentage), exceeds
1 percent, or a dilution of 1:100, the Ceriodaphnia Pass/Fail
test must be passed. This test is conducted at one dilution of
effluent; the IWC. Passing the test means that there is no
observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality at
that instream waste concentration. Typically, the effluent must
pass the chronic test quarterly on specified months.
After identifying a whole effluent toxicity problem, it was
determined by Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development (DNRCD) that the Croft permit should be modified to
include chronic Pass/Fail toxicity testing. October 1987 test
results on the effluents from both Croft and DTI, an adjacent
facility discharging into the Croft wastewater treatment plant,
and on the combined effluent indicated failure in all cases.
Consequently, by December 1987, a closed loop system was proposed
by DTI for reusing a large percentage of DTI wastewater. Croft
3-21
-------
•^oc j.ii ^ne wasrevater treatment- ««•=+-«™ Toxicitv
have not yet
Source:
3-22
-------
7/26/88
City of Favetteville Cross Creek WWTP
NPDES # NC0023957: Fayetteville Cross Creek WWTP (SIC Code:
£952) is located in Cumberland County. North Carolina. Waste-
water treatment consists of spiral effluent screw pumps, grit
chambers, pure oxygen activated sludge process, clarifiers
tertiary sand filters, and post-chlorination. The outfall flows
into the Cape Fear River, which has a 7Q10 flow flow^ of 657 o
cfs. The permitted flow of the outfall is 22.00 mgd, and the
resultant calculated instream waste concentration CIWC^ =4.93
percent. The date of issuance of the latest permit was May 5,
1988. Chemical-specific monitoring requirements were set for'the
priority pollutants and additional monitoring for cadmium
chromium, nickel, lead, zinc, and cyanide.
North Carolina has whole effluent toxicity limits specific to the
effluent flow: dilution flow relationships for each discharge.
When the effluent is not substantially diluted by the receiving
stream low flow (7Q10), chronic limits are instituted. if the
instream waste concentration, which is the effluent flow divided
by the receiving water flow (expressed as a percentage), exceeds
1 percent, or a dilution of 1:100, the Ceriodaphnia Pass/Fail
test must be passed. This test is conducted at one dilution of
effluent; the IWC. Passing the test means that there is no
observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality at
that instream waste concentration. Typically, the effluent must
pass the chronic test quarterly on specified months.
In the case of Fayetteville Cross Creek WWTP, the instream waste
concentration was determined to be 4.93 percent. The permit
chronic limit was initially set for 4.9 percent, which the
effluent passed in July and September 1987. However, in December
1987, the chronic limit was lowered to 3.6-percent effluent, per
pending Judicial Order of Consent. In January 1988. Cross Creek
WWTP failed the chronic test at 4.0-percent diluti
.on.
— - —" —' -••••• *i» M. M -» • v j^t—*, ^»^j|t w \A±,±. M. i--i-wit • Xcac.
failure was attributed to continuous dosing of cationic polymers
to secondary clarifiers to control effluent suspended solids.
Addition of polymers to clarifiers were stopped in February. Th
quarterly chronic pass/fail tests conducted through January
were passed at 3.6-percent effluent.
1988
Source:
1.
Series of letters, memoranda, and reports in files
of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development. State Contact: Lee
Gable (919) 733-5083.
3-23
-------
-------
7/26/88
Halstead Industries,
Incorporated
NPDES * NC0035173: A facility of Halstead Industries, incor-
porated Halstead Metal Products is located in Pine Hall, Stokes
County North Carolina. The company rolls, draws, and extrudes
copper (SIC Code: 3351). Wastewater treatment consists of a bar
screen, aeration basin, dual clarjfier. dual r-at-.iir-n si
disinfection unit - ~
dc
chamber. The outfall flows
. oua ows
unnamed tributary to the Dan River-. which has a 7O10 flow
= °:g75 "f*- The permitted flow of the outfall is o 025
< he resultant calculated instream wagte eQn^n+™^™
was June 1, I9s
°f issuance of
latest permit
-ff-ii,*, <- *i nas1wh?le effluent toxicity limits specific to the
effluent flow: dilution flow relationships for each discharge.
When the effluent is not substantially diluted by the receiving
stream low flow (7Q10), chronic limits are instituted. If the
instream waste concentration, which is the effluent flow divided
i «2ie receivln
-------
» .•?*». of -ta ^
{-er concentrations, which have an impact:
be as low as .007 mq/1 —
*>* fifi ubia and
a ua and i z
concentrations in the effluent were below but close to LC
values for these two species. ciose to LC50
4 i , ' '
In addition, the effluent was determined to have high oil
°f
copper was reduced by 92.2
oun n
chlorine were the primary contributors to elrluSnt fSiciS? and
l^imingineering modifications were " "
levels
these coripounds s
technology at the Halstead Plant and to identify and
alternative treatment technologies to reduce the
d toxic components in the effluent Jr<-auce rne
3-25
-------
Sources:
1.
2.
"Halstead Metal Products TRE Phase III Report"
1987. Burlington Research, Incorporated.
Series of letters, memoranda, and reports in files
of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development. State Contact: Lee
Gable (919) 733-5083.
3-26
-------
-------
7/26/88
City of High Point Eastside WWTP
NPDES # NC002.4210; High Point Eastside WWTP (SIC Code: 43ss>V is
located in Guilford County, North Carolina. Wastewater treatment
consists of mechanical serening . arit removal, primary sedi-
mentation using clarif itars. trickling filters, activated slndrr^
secondary sedimentation,, sand filters, and flow measurement anri '
recording. The outfall flows into Richland Creek, whin.b h*c a
flow flow): - 1.00 Qfs. The permitted flow n-F the outfall ig
-
16.00 mqd, and the resultant calculated instream waste
tion (iwc) = 96.11 percent. The latest permit, issued on
September 1, 1987, set chemical-specific limitations for total
chromium, cadmium, lead,, and nickel, it also established
monitoring requirements for copper, zinc, and priority pol-
lutants, and additional monitoring for copper and zinc.
North Carolina has whole effluent toxicity limits specific to the
effluent flow: dilution flow relationships for each discharge
When the effluent is not substantially diluted by the receiving
stream low flow (7Q10) , chronic limits are instituted. If the
instream waste concentration, which is the effluent flow divided
by the receiving water flow (expressed as a percentage) , exceeds
1 percent, or a dilution of l:ioo> the Ceriodaohnia Pass/FaTT
test must be passed. This test is conducted at one dilution of
effluent; — the IWC. Passing the test means that there is no
observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality at
that instream waste concentration. Typically, the effluent must
pass the chronic test quarterly on specified months.
In the case of High Point Eastside WWTP, the instream waste
concentration was determined to be 96.11 percent. Therefore, the
chronic limit adopted into the permit of September 1, 1987 was
96 percent. As the WWTP effluent was consistently acutely toxic
to Daphnia pulex from 1985 to 1987 and failed the chronic
toxicity pass/ fail test, whole effluent toxicity reduction was
necessary.
Using the EPA Toxicity Characterization Bioassay Procedure,
Burlington Research, Incorporated (BRI) , attempted to determine
the chemical component responsible for the effluent toxicity.
Unfortunately, the baseline effluent sample (untreated, 100-per-
cent effluent) was not toxic relative to control water. However
it appeared that the "toxic" fraction might have been degradable
or volatile (and, therefore, most likely organic) , because the
test organisms exhibited a greater reproduction rate in the
degraded effluent samples than in the baseline samples. This
difference was not statistically significant.
3-27
-------
^
The city received
Sources :
X" Repo?t»f Hif88P°iS,t f*Bt;i
-------
7/26/88
Town of Jefferson WWTP
NPDES # NCOQ31709; Jefferson WWTP (SIC Code: 4953) is located
in Ashe County. North caT-nHna, which receives and treats both
domestic wastewater and process effluents f-rom three Industries
The outfall flows into Naked Creek, which has a 7Q10 riow "
2'8 s- Thf Permitted flow of the outfall i
65
.
resultant calculated instream waste concentration
percent . The latest permit was issued on July 1, 1987.
North Carolina has whole effluent toxicity limits specific to the
Slinks i?r di^ution flow relationships for each discharge?
When the effluent is not substantially diluted by the receiving
stream low flow (7Q10) , chronic limits are instituted. if the
instream waste concentration, which is the effluent flow divided
?y™L«;CeiVlng,^at??' fl°W
-------
Laboratory effluent toxicity reduction experiments were then
conducted to find an effective treatment for reduction of
effluent toxicity to a level that would meet the interim goal
established by the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development (DNRCD) for the plant of 50-percent mortality or less
Paphnia roagna exposed to 90-percent effluent. Extended bio-trea-
tment of both 13 and 25 hours effectively reduced effluent
toxicity to meet the interim goal. In a subsequent study, BRI
found that 13 hours of extended biological treatment also
rendered the effluent nonchronically toxic to test organisms at
effluent concentrations even considerably greater than the permit
limitation.
BRI speculates that alkyl phenols, and not metals (at least, as
individual compounds), were responsible for effluent toxicity
Volatile organic com pounds are suspected, given the extreme
variation in acute static LC50s during warm and cold periods of
the year.
BRI recommended, among other items, reduction of alkyl phenol
ethoxylate use, equalization of wastewater influents, and
nutrient enhancement for aeration basin sludge. Any additional
effluent toxicity reduction studies were recommended to be
conducted after a new WWTP was on-line.
Sources:
"Town of Jefferson WWTP Two-phase TRE". 1987.
Burlington Research, Incorporated.
Series of letters, memoranda, and reports in files
of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development. State Contact: Lee
Gable (919) 733-5083.
3-30
-------
6/13/88
Mt. Airy Wasfcewater Treatment Plant
NPDES # NC0021121: Mt. Airv wastewater- treatment plant-. r in Mt
Airy, North Carolina, has a permitted flow of 4 mad and serves a
population of 7,500. The plant also serves 14 textile plants. -
which comprise 80 percent of the plant's total flow.The Ararat
River (30Q10 = 64 cfs; 7Q10 = 16 cfs) receives the Mt. Airy
discharge. As a result of an instream waste concentration riwci
greater then one percent flWC = 32 percent) and acute toxicity
found in the effluent (48-hour static acute toxicitv tests nginrr
Daphnia pulex - LC50 = 46 percent), Mt. Airy was required by
Administrative Order (March 1986) to perform a Toxicity Reduction
Evaluation.
Subsequent upstream and downstream benthic studies showed Mt
Airy to be the only source of toxicity in that part of the Ararat
river. Extensive chemical analysis provided a list of suspect
chemicals. Fractionation and mock effluent studies (48-hour
static acute toxicity test using Daphnia pulev^ showed the
toxicity to be caused by surfactants, alkvl phenols, free oils
and greases, copper, zinc, chloroform, dimethyl phthalate. anri
bis-2-ethvlhexvI phthalate. '
To abate effluent toxicity, Mt. Airy imposed a ban on the fol-
lowing substances: Chlorinated Hydrocarbons - Trichlorobenzene,
Ortho, Meta, and Perchlorotoluene, Chloriform, 1,1,1-Trichloro-
ethane, Dichlorobenzene, Perchloroethylene, and any chlorinated
^^f or a1:LPhatic molecules; Phthalate Compounds - Dimethyle
Phthalate, Bis-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate, and any other Phthalic
Ester Compounds, aromatic or aliphatic; and Alkvl Phenol Com-
pounds - Alky1 Phenol, Ethylene oxide sufactants, Styrene, Phenol
Ethoxylates, and Nikyl Phenols when R=1-18 carbon atoms. In
addition to the ban, Mt. Airy has adopted local limits on both
copper and zinc for nondomestic users.
Subsequent permit limits (permit reissuance April 1987) require
Mt. Airy to meet a chronic No Observed Effect Level CNOEIO Q-F T?
percent or greater. DMRs show toxicity to have been reduced but
not eliminated.
Source:
1.
"Toxicity Reduction Evaluation at the Mt. Airy
Wastewater Treatment Plant". Science Applications
International Corporation, McLean, VA. August
1987.
3-31
-------
-------
7/26/88
New Minnette Textile Company
. t New Minnette Textile Company in Grover.
Carolina, is a textile dveina and finishing plant fslc~Mi_
f5+lf,32^21' 2??lf and a**?) • Wastewater treatment consists of
extended aeration and sludge drying beds. The outfall flows into
lack Branch which has a 7O10 flowfiowl of o.a «*« JSOWS lnt°
permitted flow of the outfall is O.M^ ^ .„„ ^ reiSJtant
calculated instream waste concentration (IWC) = 78_Eercent The
wastewater is 5-percent domestic and 95-percent industrial'
industrial wastewater was used in the dyeing operation!
Car°lina has whole effluent toxicity limits specific to the
? fiS" dl^ution flow relationships for each discharge?
When the effluent is not substantially diluted by the receiving
stream low flow (7Q10) , chronic limit! are instituted. Ir
, sue. Ir th
instream waste concentration, which is the effluent flow divided
effu r
effluent; — the IWC.
test is conducted at one dilutio,. ^,
Passing the test means that there is no
t-h*<- <„«,*— Z—" of reproduction or significant mortality at
that instream waste concentration.
The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Communitv
Development (DNRCD) .submitted a toxicity study report duSSa
at concei?ratiSniCatin9 that thS effluent was chronically ?oxic
j • i . • j-ww GO j • iO pGiCGIit. f txTOXiCTil th.G lOW f lOW XWd
dilution for the effluent is 78 percent. Toxicity reduction was
necessary. Copper, zinc, chlorine, formaldehyde, aluminum
mercury, lead, and phenol levels were high. ^uminum,
1986' JuTlin
-------
tests, , snouid be
installed to
suPPressa« had been
Sources:
1.
2.
"Minnette Mills TRE Phase II Report" 1937
Burlington Research, Incorporated '
3-33
-------
7/26/88
Lithium Corporation of America
NPDES # NCOOQ5177; Lithium Corporation, located in Bessemer
SiiY, North Carolina, is a chemical manufacturing plant special-
xzinq in lithium carbonate production. The company has two
domestic water treatment facilities, one of which consists of
influent screening, aeration basin, clarifies, and an aer-a-Mrm
sludqe diqester. The other facility comprises an aeration~b^ n .
a clarifier, and a chlorine disinfection system. The discharge
from both domestic facilities flows along with process wastewater
to a polishing lagoon and is discharged through one outfall. The
outfall flows into an unnamed tributary to Abernathv creek which
has a 7Q10 riow flovi o^p.2o_gf5. The permitted flow Q~t-.h»
outfall is 0.615 mgd, and the resultant calculated instreamwaste
concentration (iuc\ = R?.X* r^^n-t- The most recent permit -
modifications, of June 2, 1988, set monitoring requirements for
copper and for conventional pollutants, and it established permit
limitations for selenium. .
When the effluent is not substantially diluted by the receiving
stream low flow (7Q10) , chronic limits are instituted. if the
instream waste concentration, which is the effluent flow divided
by the receiving water flow (expressed as a percentage) , exceeds
1 percent, or a dilution of inoo. the Ceriodaphnla Pass/FaTT
test must be passed. This test is conducted at one dilution of
effluent; — the IWC. Passing the test means that there is no
observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality at
that instream waste concentration. Typically, the effluent must
pass the chronic test quarterly on specified months.
°nsite toxicity test results reported in September
1987 indicated that 21 percent of the effluent was acutely toxic
(48 hour LC50) to Ceriodaphnia and that the No Observed Effect
Level (NOEL) was 1.0 percent effluent. The effluent was predicted
to be acutely toxic instream, under average flow conditions to
organisms with similar sensitivity to Ceriodaphnia dubia. AS the
IWC at the 7Q10 is 82.7 percent, toxicity reduction was neces-
sary. The effluent had high chlorine, levels (.05 to .09 mg/1) .
In February 1988, Lithium submitted a report. Toxicity tests
were performed on 17 in-plant samples found three wastestreams
more toxic than the pond effluent. The three wastestreams were
f rom hypochlonte scrubber. Lithium chloride condensate. and
metal washout. Chemical analyses of these wastestreams indicated
high levels of chloride, sulfate. lithium, sodium, and available
chlorine. The report stated that chlorine was not suspected as a
3-34
-------
fro the discharge wash water
and other solids are beina
the hypochlorite cScuiJwhich
otherwise, be dischargd to tS
of
pass/fail test fo3%effuent
Source:
of -
alre bein9 reduced
tal ourcuit- Chlorine
Lf0ces?.°d"ioatl°n to
W°Uld
»>°nitoring
1991 tO Ineet a =hronic
1.
3-35
-------
7/26/88
West Point Pepperell-Lumberton
West. Point PePPerell-Lumberton in Robeson
* x • na ' 1S a textile °Peyatinn specializing in
knit fabric finishing (SIC Code: 2259) . Wastewater treatment
for plant process waste-water (Outfall #001) consists of an
extended aeration process with a bar screen. an aeration
dual clanfiers operated in parallel, two 5-acre
. nd ? wire belt filter PM«.
<. . grn
This facility also has influent and effluent pumps and flow -
measurement, nutrient addition (ammonia) , and hydrogen peroxide
addition. The outfall flows into the I,umber_River, which has a
7010 flow flow) of 1?8 0 rfs. The permitted flow of "
is 2.50 mqd, and the resultant calculated instream waste con-
centration (IWC) =2.9 pm-renl-. The date of issuance of the
latest permit was July 1, 1988. Effluent limitations exist for
chromium, sulfide, and convent ionals, and monitoring requirements
are set for copper, zinc, nitrogen, phosphorus, and priority
pollutants. J
North Carolina has whole effluent toxicity limits specific to the
whfiUent fi°w: dilution flow relationships for each discharge.
When the effluent is not substantially diluted by the receiving
stream low flow (7Q10) , chronic limits are instituted, if the
instream waste concentration, which is the effluent flow divided
by the receiving water flow (expressed as a percentage) , exceeds
1 percent, or a dilution of 1;100. the Ceriodaphnia P -
test must be
This test is conducted at one dilution nf
effluent; — the IWC. Passing the test means that there is no -
observable inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality at
that instream waste concentration. Typically, the effluent must
pass the chronic test quarterly on specified months.
In view of a pending visit by North Carolina's mobile laboratory,
West Point Pepperell-Lumberton provided toxicity test results in
February 1986. They indicated that the effluent was acutely
toxic to fathead minnows (48-hour LC50) between 86- and 100-per-
CS£? ef£luent and acutely toxic to daphnia maana at 73.5-percent
effluent. Toxicity reduction was necessary, given that the
interim target level was LC50 responses at or above 90-percent
effluent.
West Point Pepperell-Lumberton ' s comparisons of influent to
effluent toxicity revealed that wastewater treatment was not
removing toxicity. Benthic macro invertebrate communitty analysis
indicated that the effluent had significant impacts downstream.
3-36
-------
It was not known whether those impacts were the result of
long-term chronic impacts or short-term slugs of acutely toxic
?fS?S! /S6 P1^1?1011 of Environmental Management confirmed the
findings of West Point Pepperell-Lumberton.
In August 1987, West Point Pepperell-Lumberton summarized its
£ S y "S**10? efforts. Extraction results led the company
a? SK?^ ZlnC/ * constituent of many of the chemicals Ssed
at the plant, was a primary cause of effluent toxicity.
facility planned to substitute zinc-based products with
™<=
success
West.point Pepperell-Lumberton has reported
meeting the interim acute toxicity target of LC*n >
Jhe
Source:
Series of letters, memoranda, and reports in files
of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development. State Contact: Lee
Gable (919) 733-5083.
3-37
-------
6/13/88
Avtex Fibers,
NPDES * VA0002208: Avetex Fibers.
. , iocated in Front
Royal, Virginia, produces rayon, using the viscose proc^.c; . and
(SIC
2823 and 2819)
of vnv . The manufacture
of polypropylene fibers produces no wastewater. The manufacture
of rayon involves the use of caustic SQd* . carbon
sulfuric acid, and zinc sulfate. Process waste treatment
includes neutralization, clarification, polishing b^-in* and
o£ bi;ioqica1. *™«tim.n1-. The treatment system discharges
of effluent into the South Fork of the Shenandoah Rivg?
= ! I4 mgd;.IWC = 8.8 percent). Additional waste streams
discharged from this facility include 1.7 mad from fly ash
retention basins and 2^_4 mgd of storm water /cool incr wa^r-.
Effluent guidelines limitations for the Organic Chemicals.
Plastics and Synthetic Fibers industry provide Best Practical
Technology (BPT) limitations for pH, BOD5 and TSS. The guide-
lines also provide Best Available Technology (BAT) limitations
tor a list of 63 toxic pollutants common to this industrial
Biological toxicity testing by the Virginia state Water Control
Board indicated toxicity. Fractionation studies (Phase I) ,
?^f°^ed Y the EPA Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth
(ERL-D) in January 1986 showed toxicity to be non-organic and
water soluble. A chelating agent (EDTA) added to 100-percent
effluent indicated the toxicant to be metal (s). Metals analysis
w™a^I concentrations of zinc over 1000 ug/1; all other metals
were less than detection limits.
Phase II confirmed zinc by showing a correlation between observed
toxicity and concentrations of Zn from the outfall samples. A
second toxicity test, using Ceriodaphnia and fathead minnows,
showed a higher LC50 in the more Zn-resistant fathead minnow!
Additional confirmation was achieved by spiking a set of samples
to equivalent concentrations of Zn and then testing the samples
on the more Zn-resistant fat minnow. The tests showed similar
results from all of the samples.
A definitive phase TTT was recommended but not performed by EPA
ERL— D . >
Additional effluent bioassays conducted by the Virginia State
Water Control Board, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, and EMPE, Incorporated, have produced results
inconsistent with EPA ERL-D. The Virginia State Water Control
Board has, therefore, required Avtex Fibers, Incorporated, to
3-38
-------
Sources:
3. NPDES Permit Fact Sheet. April 1988.
3-39
-------
6/21/88
Virginia Chemical. Company
m* ^0003387: Virginia Chemicals. Incorporated of
Portsmouth , Virginia , discharges into the Elizabeth THWy
SKlEJiS?^1* pr°du?es ^kyl amines by amination of alcohols
and alkylchlondes. Sodium bisulfite and sodium snUM+o are al~0
produced by reacting sulfur dioxide and water with sodium
carbonate and sodium hydroxide. Other operations include
formulation of sodium hvdrosulfite with sodium hydroxide and
sodium bisulfite, and the packaging nf the insect jel£ vgg».
and pyrethnns, into aerosol containers. Virginia Chemicals has
two IJC^Codjs^Ma for industrial organic chemiSaL anS 2^1 to?
industrial bulk inorganic chemicals. — •
Virginia Chemicals discharges an average flow of .7 ma* and
includes most if not all, of the contact wastewater discharge.
Waste treatment faci1i^iog -include extended aeration for t-wn
amines equipment waaf.ftw»i-or-s. steam stripping fnr-
_ _ wastewaters, and chemical addition
and settling for all plant wastewaters.
P,^or.t? the Permit expiration date of September 19,
the Virginia State Water Control Board, issued an NPDES
permit special condition to Virginia Chemicals. Among the
conditions, the 48-hour Mysid and the 96-hour Sheepshead minnow
SSSJc, SS1? n ^ *ere t0 be conducted °n the effluent ev2?y
months. Static Daphnia magna acute toxicity tests conducted in
botj January and May 1985 and fathead minnow results indicated
acute toxicity. The Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TR^wae
initiated on April 8, 1985. In August 1985, toxicity tests on
the fractions were conducted. ^B=»US» on
Using the 48-hour Daphnia magna acute toxicity test, the acid
base neutral organ in «nhfy.a,~nons were found ^0 hav; ^ qreat-..
toxicitv. resulting in LC50 responses at concentrations as low~a^
2.56 percent and .53 percent, respectively."~~
While the fractions responsible for the toxicity were identified
the sources of the toxic organic material also needed Jo be
!Sh?£?in2 ; Th^tW° influent streams, tested individually>
exhibited toxicity substantially lower than final effluent
toxicity. Furthermore, when they were combined at a ratio
representative of the final effluent, the "reconstituted" final
effluent was also less toxic than the actual effluent. These
results indicated the possibility of other sources of tr^T^TTw in
3-40
-------
taminants froi pw^TiscLr^}
organic fraction at
It was copcluded that
to be evaluated, within the
°
C) -*= pectr-
.7, , ,
' of ^7 ^"l W5? f°Und in the
Ug/1/ resPectively.
comPounds needed
butano-in
evauae, within the cid * K eee
dicailQMhM«^< ^ -^ ^°r^ n LlfiS .^ My ^fr^ butano-in .^
^-tHTIa
a marked decrease in th onlv
effluent, dichlorvoS. Y
result
component of the
,
3-41
-------
fraction was, in this instance, inorganic. Recent
_ test results indicate that, with the exception of a
5-ho K- I1" early 1988 when l°w temperatures killed the microbes in
the biological treatment system, the effluent has not been
acutely-toxic to Mysid shrimp and sheepshead minnows.
Sources:
1.
Series of letters, memoranda, and reports in
Virginia Chemical Company TRE file of State Control
Board, Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond Office.
State Contact: Richard Ayers: (804) 367-0384.
3-42
-------
-------
4.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY
U.S. EPA Environment^ po-mreh
. Donald
«"l«*l«" «•« *" Vegas POTW Effluent.
the
ITT Rayonier Toxicity Reduction Evaluation. October
CALIFORNIA, satl FRAMCTSCO BAY
*
1986.
ss?
^
DSA
ELAWARE ep. o .
Richard Greene, (302) 736-5732
MARYLANP Df.pt:. of th^ Knvi romnont - John Veil, (301) 225-5678
* W.D. Byron & Sons Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
Thompson' °"
* XCiy Reducti°n Evaluation of
, Inc. Effluent
-------
NEW JERSEY
*
Auction at
T, °f CIBA-GE*GY Corporation of the Effluent
Reduction Program. Inception through June 1986
MOLINA DePt. Of Natural PaarHir^aa
Steve Tedder, (919) 733-5083
* American Tobacco Company. Russell and Axon, Inc.
* Athol Manufacturing. NCDNRCD Files. January 1988.
* Clifton Precision.
* Sardine*"3 WWTP TRE PhaSe Z Rep0rt' 1987- Burlington
* Croft Metals. NCDNRCD Files. October 1987.
* Fayetteville, North Carolina Cross Creek WWTP. NCDNRCD Files.
* Gardner Mirror. NCDNRCD Files.
*
p Products TRE phase III Report. 1987. Bur-
Research, Incorporated.
City of High Point Eastside WWTP TRE Phase I Report 1988
Burlington Research, Incorporated. "sport. 1988.
Town of Jefferson WWTP Two-phase TRE
Research, Inc.
1987. Burlington
* Lithium Corporation. NCDNRCD Files. May 1988.
* £™?™E4.RSdUCJion Evaluati°n at the Mt. Airy Wastewater
Treatment Plant. SAIC/Burlington Research, inc. August 1987.
* pi™fctS Mi11S *** Phase IX ^port. 1987. Burlington
Research, Incorporated.
* West Point Pepperell-Lumberton. NCDNRCD Files. August 1987.
4-2
-------
- Richard Ayers, (804) 367-6418
I and II) prepared by EPA
St. Joe Paper Company TRE.
*Abstract completed.
4-3
-------
------- |