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

-------

-------