vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 5
Surveillance and Analysis Division
536 South Clark Street
Chicaao, Illinois 60605
EPA-905/4-81-001
ASSESSMENT OF THE
REGION 5
WATER MONITORING
ACTIVITIES
-------
ASSESSMENT OF THE REGION V WATER
MONITORING ACTIVITIES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
JANUARY 1981
U-.1 environment.-! Protection Agency
R^ion V, Libisry
230 South Dc^rDorn Sireet
Chicago, Illinois C0004
-------
ABSTRACT
A review has been completed of the water monitoring activities within the
Region to determine the adequacy of existing monitoring activities to
meet program needs. Following a determination of program needs and an
identification of the programs and program objectives established to
satisfy those needs, an assessment was made of both the State and Federal
activities against the program objectives. Evolving issues, primarily
the need to develop monitoring capability for toxics and hazardous
materials were also reviewed. In addition, the changing direction in
resource utilization evident from strategy papers under development by
Headquarters have also been taken into consideration. From this assessment
and review, findings and recommendations were formulated which lead to a
monitoring management strategy which will result in the coordination of
d
resource utilization and the re-direction of monitoring resources needed
to ensure a meaningful data base for use by program managers during the
period 1981-1985. The findings, recommendations and strategy are described
in Chapters 1 and 2. The supporting information on program needs, monitoring
program objectives and the assessment of current programs are described in
the Appendices. The base year for the review was CY 1979.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT PAGE
CHAPTER 1 FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS 1
1. A MONITORING PERSPECTIVE 1
2. BASIC WATER MONITORING PROGRAM 2
a. Ambient 3
b Biological Monitoring 3
c. Effluent Monitoring 4
d. Intensive Surveys 5
e. Quality Assurance 5
f. Data Management, Interpretation and Reporting 6
3. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS 7
4. SUMMARY 7
CHAPTER 2 WATER MONITORING MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 8
INTRODUCTION 8
ISSUES: NEED FOR COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION OF
PROGRAM NEEDS ON THE REGIONAL LEVEL 8
NEED FOR COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION OF
PROGRAM NEEDS ON THE STATE LEVEL 10
NEED TO RE-DEFINE THE BASIC WATER
WATER MONITORING PROGRAM 10
SUMMARY 15
APPENDIX: A. PROGRAM NEEDS 21
1. WATER ENFORCEMENT 22
a. Compliance 22
b. Permits 22
2. WATER PLANNING 23
a. Waste Load Allocation, AST, AWT, Water
Quality Standard 23
b. Nonpoint Source (NPS) 24
-------
PAGE
c. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) 24
d. Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) 24
e. Clean Lakes 24
f. 305(b) Reports 24
g. Drinking Water 25
3. HEADQUARTERS 26
a. Priority Pollutant and Effluent Guidelines Programs 26
b. Hot Spot Studies 26
4. SOLID WASTE 26
a. Hazardous Waste Site Investigation 26
b. PCB Investigation 26
c. Radiation 27
d. FIFRA 27
5. GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE 27
6. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TRENDS 28
7. DRINKING WATER PROGRAM 28
8. DREDGE & FILL PROGRAM 28
9. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LAB-DULUTH (ERL-D) 29
10. LARGE LAKES RESEARCH STATION CROSSE ILE (LLRS) 29
APPENDIX: B. SYNOPISIS OF WATER MONITORING ACTIVITIES 30
1. BASIC WATER MONITORING PROGRAM 31
a. Introduction 31
b. Objectives 31
c. Program Description 31
1). Ambient Monitoring Program 31
a). Sample Collection and Analysis 33
b). Tissue Banking 34
2). Intensive Survey Program 34
a). Scope of Investigations 34
b). Intensive Survey Abstract 34
3). Effluent Monitoring Program 35
a). Basic Effluent Monitoring Program Specifications 35
b). Sample Collection and Handling 35
-------
4). Proposed Biological Monitoring Program 35
a). Station Selection 36
b). Parameter Coverage and Sampling Frequency 36
5). Quality Assurance 37
6). Data Interpretation and Reporting 37
a). Ambient Data 37
b). Effluent Data 37
c). Intensive Survey Data 37
2. GREAT LAKES PROGRAM 38
3. SECTION 208, AREAWIDE WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT 39
4. HEADQUARTERS PROGRAMS 39
a. Effluent Gudelines Activities 39
b. Hot Spot Studies 40
c. POTW/Toxics Project 40
5. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PROGRAM 40
6. RCRA PROGRAM 40
7. DRINKING WATER PROGRAM 41
8. DREDGE & FILL PROGRAM 41
9. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LAB-DULUTH (ERL-D) 41
10. LARGE LAKES RESEARCH STATION, GROSSE-ILE (LLRS) 4l
TABLE NO. 1. MINIMUM PARAMETER LISTING AND SAMPLING
FREQUENCY 32
2. TRACE ORGANIC AND METALS ANALYSIS FOR
FISH TISSUE AND SEDIMENT 32
3. PARAMETER LIST AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY 36
APPENDIX: C. ASSESSMENT OF REGION WATER MONITORING 42
1. BASIC WATER MONITORING PROGRAM, STATE ACTIVITIES 43
a. ILLINOIS 43
b. INDIANA 60
c. MICHIGAN 72
d. MINNESOTA 90
e. OHIO 101
f. WISCONSIN 119
-------
2. BASIC WATER MONITORING PROGRAM, FEDERAL ACTIVITIES 132
a. Effluent Monitoring 132
b. Data Interpretation and Reporting 133
3. GREAT LAKES PROGRAM 133
4. SECTION 208, AREAWIDE WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT 137
5. HEADQUARTERS PROGRAM 141
6. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PROGRAM 143
7. RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT PROGRAM (RCRA) 145
8. DRINKING WATER PROGRAM 146
9. DREDGE AND FILL ACTIVITIES 147
10. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - DULUTH (ERL-D) 147
11. LARGE LAKES RESEARCH STATION - GROSSE ILE (LLRS) 147
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Illinois-Basic Water Monitoring PAGE
Network, National Water Quality
Surveillance System and Corps
of Engineers Sampling Sites 45
2. Illinois-State Monitoring Network
and Water Intakes 45
3. Illinois-USGS Monitoring Networks 45
4. Indiana-Basic Water Monitoring
Network, USGS Water Quality
Monitoring and Water Intakes 60
5. Indiana-State Monthly Monitoring
Network and State Stations Sampled
Quarterly 61
6. Indiana-USGS Monitoring Networks 62
7. Michigan (Lower)-Basic Water Monitoring
Network, Pesticides Stations USGS, NASQAN
Stations USGS and Water Intakes 72
8. Michigan (Upper)-Basic Water Monitoring
Network, Pesticides Stations USGS, NASQAN
Stations USGS, Benchmark USGS and Water
Intakes 72
9. Michigan (Lower)-State Monitoring
Network and Detroit River Monitoring 74
10. Michigan (Upper)-State Monitoring
Network 74
11. Michigan (Lower) USGS Monitoring Networks 78
12. Michigan (Upper) USGS Monitoring
Network (Water Temperature Stations) 78
13. Minnesota-State Monitoring Network,
Basic Water Monitoring Network
and Water Intakes 90
14. Minnesota-USGS Monitoring Networks, National
Water Quality Surveillance System and Corps
of Engineers Sampling Sites 92
-------
PAGE
15. Ohio-Basic Water Monitoring Network
and USDA Sampling Sites 101
16. Ohio-State Monitoring Network and
Water Intakes 102
17. Ohio-USGS Monitoring Networks 103
18. Wisconsin-Basic Water Monitoring
Network, State Monitoring Network,
USGS Pesticides Sampling Sites
and Water Intakes 119
19. Wisconsin-USGS Monitoring Networks
and Corps of Engineers Sampling Sites 122
TABLE No. 1. NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS-ILLINOIS 44
2. MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED-ILLINOIS 46
3. NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS-INDIANA 60
4. MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED-INDIANA 63
5. NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS-MICHIGAN 72
6. MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED-MICHIGAN 80
7. NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS-MINNESOTA 90
8. MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED -MINNESOTA 93
9. NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS-OHIO 101
10. MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED-OHIO 104
11. NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITOR STATIONS-WISCONSIN 119
12. MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED-WISCONSIN 124
13. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BASIC WATER MONITORING
PROGRAM-STATE SUMMARY 132
-------
Chapter 1
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A MONITORING PERSPECTIVE
Environmental monitoring is an important step in the management and
protection of human health and welfare and natural resources. Ideally,
monitoring is the activity that "drives" the progression of events from
problem identification and assessment, through management decisions on
such issues as pollution abatement programs, and, ultimately, to the en-
forcement of environmental regulations. A succession of federal laws
and guidelines have attempted to relate the purpose of monitoring directly
to management goals. These have ranged from U.S. Bureau of the Budget
guidelines for the coordination of water data acquisition issued in
1964 to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL92-500) which introduced effluent standards to water quality manage-
ment programs and effluent monitoring to the activities of regulatory
agencies. The most recent guidelines for monitoring programs was the
Basic Water Monitoring Program (EPA440/9-76-025) issued in 1977.
The objectives of Water Monitoring Programs have been:
0 To provide data, information, or reports necessary to determine
compliance with permit terms and conditions,
0 To develop and maintain an understanding of water quality (causes
and effects of such quality of the waters) for the purpose of
supporting water pollution control activities in relation to the
achievement of national goals according to the Act,
0 To report on such quality and its causes and effects, and
0 To assess the effectiveness of the pollution control programs.
Until recently, however, subjective evaluations rather than scientific
principles have been the basis for the detailed design of most data
collection programs. Subjective judgement was adequate to meet the needs
of many programs in the past, but todays monitoring activities need to be
supported by sound scientific principles. The National Academy of Science,
in 1977, listed three major deficiencies in the overall environmental
monitoring program of EPA:
a. The inadequate use of scientific principles to design,
operate and evaluate monitoring programs.
b. The need to monitor in anticipation of and to detect new
environmental problems.
c. The fragmentation of monitoring among and within various
governmental agencies.
-------
These fundamental problems in monitoring produce inefficiency and less
information per unit of effort.
The ultimate purpose of a monitoring program is to fulfill the data and
information needs of various regulatory and planning agencies. To this
end, the following criteria must be stressed.
a. Monitoring must be an integrated part of an overall program—
not an end in itself.
b. Monitoring is an activity that "drives" the remainder of the
pollution control programs.
c. Feedback from management is necessary to establish monitoring
priorities.
Therefore, the Surveillance and Analysis Division completed a review of the
water monitoring activities in Region V. This review was considered
essential for several reasons.
a. Resource restrictions at Federal and State levels necessitates
a look at what is being done and what needs to be done to most
effectively and efficiently utilize resources.
b. Lack of coordination and the possibility of duplication of
monitoring necessitates a "hard" look so that the highest
priority needs can be satisfied within resource limitations.
c. A renewed emphasis on the human health aspects of water pollu-
tion control based on an awareness of the scope and potential
hazard posed by toxic wastes and their disposal.
d. A need to correct the deficiencies in the monitoring program
so that more scientific principles were applied and needs
were met.
The goal of the review was to develop a management strategy which provided
for monitoring activities that did not merely produce data but also provided
facts, findings, conclusions and recommendations from which program managers
could make decisions.
2. BASIC WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
The Basic Water Monitoring Program (EPA440/9-76-025) (BWMP) is a general
framework for organizing monitoring programs. None of it was ever tied
to program needs and in reality is nothing more than a basic concept paper.
The state by state assessment revealed that the BWMP is not being fully
implemented because of the individual program needs and resource con-
straints at the state level. The states have implemented portions of the
basic program and have modified others to meet their specific needs. The
following summarizes several major monitoring activities and offers recom-
mendations.
-------
a. Ambient
(1). Findings
The basic ambient monitoring program consisting of 1000 stations was
designed to evaluate water quality trends on a gross national basis and
to check compliance with water quality standards. The assessment looked
at states implementing this portion of the program and not the philosophy
underlying it. The usefulness of the information being produced by the
program is questionable. An Office of Water and Waste Management ambient
assessment contained in a February 8, 1980 memo fron the chairman of the
Committee on Monitoring and Information Management to the Adminiatrator,
USEPA showed that for the conventional pollutants, the only readily avail-
able, long term information on stream quality was dissolved oxygen. In
addition, EPA-HQ is currently proposing a revised strategy which addresses
water use issues.
The States have implemented the fixed national ambient network (185
stations in Region V) as described in the BWMP and, in addition, have many
of their own sites. Two critical shortfalls related to the reporting of
this information are incomplete data entry into STORET and the lack of an
evaluation of the adequacy of the network.
(2). Recommendations
0 The additional ambient monitoring performed by the States and others
should be re-evaluated as it could possibly be eliminated and the
resources directed elsewhere.
0 The apparent shift in emphasis from trend monitoring to water use
issues must be evaluated at the Federal and State level and the
implications for monitoring activities in Region V addressed. No
additional stations should be added at this time.
0 In light of these two, the fixed ambient network should be
re-evaluated to check the significance or insignificance of sites
located around major dischargers.
0 Data should be entered into STORET and an evaluation report prepared.
b. Biological Monitoring
(1) Findings
This portion of the monitoring program has suffered due to its "pilot/
proposed" status which has resulted in a lack of support. It also has
been considered as a totally separate monitoring program. In reality, it
should not be considered separate from the chemical and physical aspects
of a survey, but an integral part of a well-planned, balanced monitoring
thrust. Biological information, as well as chemical and physical data,
is needed at the fixed ambient stations, as parts of intensive surveys
and in effluent monitoring.
-------
(2). Recommendations
Biological monitoring should be integrated into all monitoring
activities as a parameter, just like the physical and chemical para-
meters we have historically looked at (i.e. the design of specific
monitoring activities should address the need for biological infor-
mation and be included where appropriate, just as we select physical
and chemical parameters).
c. Effluent Monitoring
(1). Findings
The assessment contained in Appendix C addressed achievement of numbers of
inspections and effluent monitoring activities. However, effluent monitor-
ing was not assessed in terms of adequacy, i.e. addressing major problems
areas. Experiences in the field have identified problems in self-monitor-
ing and, as a result, questions exist concerning the quality of discharge
monitoring reports (DMR) and the usefulness of annual inspections at all
major dischargers.
(2). Recommendations
0 Although EPA-HQ annual guidance and work load model are aimed at 100%
compliance inspections at all major dischargers, it is recommended
that rather than annual surveys at all majors, performance audit
inspections (PAls) and CSIs, CEIs, etc, be performed at problem
facilities based on a prioritized system. Criteria, such as the
following could be used:
1. Identify areas for intensive surveys (target areas) and
effluent monitoring from municipal management strategy.
2. New or re-occuring permit deadlines.
3. DMR and O&M problems identified by inspections and/or
compliance reviews.
4. Files research to see if previously identified problems were
corrected.
5. Verification of attaining final compliance with orders or
schedules.
0 Inspections at non-problem facilities, where problems are minor or
above criteria do not fit should be conducted inaccordance with the
Neutral Inspection Plan based on the Marshall v Barlow's, Inc. ruling.
0 Enforcement Division should distribute state submitted DMR violation
data on a quarterly basis for use by other programs (i.e., 201, 106,
etc.)
-------
0 Problems with Discharge Monitoring Reports and operation and mainten-
ance problems detected by compliance inspections should be followed-
up immediately.
d. Intensive Surveys
(1). Findings
Intensive surveys should provide program managers with information to
satisfy priority data needs such as development of waste load alloca-
tions, setting water quality standards, and toxics. The data should be
used for validation of segment classification and in the calibration and
verification of mathematical models. It is questionable from our per-
spective to what extent the information generated by the intensive surveys
at the State level has been used. Most of the states have conducted
intensive surveys and prepared technical reports, but less than 40% of
the total abstracts have been submitted. The intensive survey program
has also apparently been built around addressing single points. These
types of surveys are conducted by many entities and in light of dimin-
ishing resources should be well planned and designed to meet raulitiple
program needs.
(2). Recommendations
0 Develop a plan for intensive surveys to take into consideration
multiple needs.
0 The intensive survey program should be utilized to conduct multiple
source (point and non-point) studies and the data generated reported
so that program managers can utilize this information in the decision
making process.
0 The intensive survey efforts should incorporate toxicants and biolog-
ical parameters where applicable.
° Abstracts must be submitted.
e. Quality Assurance
(1). Findings
Although four of the six Region V states are making progress toward
approved quality assurance plans and programs, no Region V state cur-
rently has an approved quality assurance package. In addition, no Region
V (EPA) monitoring programs have approved quality control plans required
by the Region's quality assurance plan. The implication of this for
data users is that the data being generated is under scrutiny since it
is not clear that samples are collected, preserved and analyzed by ap-
proved methodology. An active quality assurance program is essential
for the water monitoring program.
-------
(2). Recommendations
0 Programs (State and Regional) agree to the time table to be developed
with QA Office and implement approved QA/QC plans.
f. Data Management, Interpretation and Reporting
(1). findings
Data is consistently not entered into STORET. Lack of resources and non-
acceptance of the system are implicated as causes for the non-use. STORET
has not been an integral part of monitoring activities related to report
preparation. For example, STORET has not been responsive to intensive
survey data entry. In addition, BIO-STORET has not been utilized and is
currently not functional. The absence of approved quality assurance pro-
grams raises questions about the accuracy, precision, representativeness
and comparability of any data generated, let alone entered in STORET. The
non-entry of data also implies that data is not available to be used at
the National level and in fact is only used by the generator which compro-
mises multiple program use.
There does not appear to be a clear and concise plan for Regional and
State data management and interpretation. There seems to be several
foci with no one overall plan for this important portion of the program.
The utilization of such a plan depends on a variety of factors. There
is a need to maintain effective communication between participants due
to the number of jurisdictions and agencies involved, their personnel,
diversity of opinions and scientific and technical disciplines and ex-
perience and expertise. Continuing fiscal support is a critical factor
for the long-term management of data storage and retrieval systems and,
most importantly, support for human resources for data interpretation
and reporting. The overall object of the data management and interpreta-
tion component of Regional water monitoring activities should be to
assure coherent, credible and timely reporting.
(2). Recommendations
0 Re-evaluate Regional and State data management activities and re-
develop and implement a plan for the management and interpretation
of data. This plan should be divided into three areas:
(a). Reporting - to supply a clear understanding of what is being
done, why it is being done, who is responsible and when it
will be completed. Three levels of reporting-compliance with
water quality standards, assessment of trends and changes and
determinations of cause-effect relationships may be needed to
achieve a clear understanding. This will be pursued further
with the states.
(b). Data Management - includes storage with all necessary identi-
fiers, verification cataloging and retrieval of data and infor-
mation. Access by others is critical for multi-program and
need use.
-------
(c). Data Interpretation - provides analystical procedures to be
followed to determine whether or not, and to what degree, the
objectives of the monitoring program are being met.
0 The data generated from DMRs, intensive surveys, compliance inspec-
tions and so forth should be incorporated into the data base. Accord-
ing to latest Headquarters guidance STORE! should be used by the
Region and states for a data repository (some states may have data
storage for this purpose and these should be identified.)
3. Management Considerations
a. Findings
The need for coordination and integration of program needs/request reoccurs
at the Federal, State and local level. Responsibility for monitoring is
fragmented and many demands are placed on the Federal and State water moni-
toring resources by many voices at the various levels (Federal to Federal,
Federal to State, State to State, State to local) requesting monitoring from
program managers, often in conflict with requests from other programs. The
satisfaction of multiple program needs in the same area without duplicating
resources is critical. The need for well-planned and coordinated monitoring
activities cannot be overemphasized. Federal and State managers must jointly
identify their needs and available resources and then negotiate and agree
upon the activities and management plan for achieving their goals.
b. Recommendations
0 Develop and implement a management strategy which is updated annually
to meet monitoring needs. This strategy should serve to guide and coor-
dinate regional monitoring plans. It also will describe how the States
are involved.
0 Monitoring activities are consolidated in appropriate units so that
conflicts of requests/resources can be avoided and activities more
uniformly controlled.
0 A "clearinghouse" for water monitoring activities should be
established, if for no other reason than to avoid the embarassment
of requesting a monitoring action from another Federal or State
manager and being told that "so and so from . . . has already re-
quested or is in the area."
4. SUMMARY
The overall objective of this review, in addition to communication, is the
development of a well-planned and coordinated water monitoring strategy
which integrates and provides for accommplishing mulitiple program needs.
Effective and efficient management of the limited water monitoring
resources can provide the data and information needed by program managers
and decision makers to fit together the pieces of the environmental puzzle.
-------
CHAPTER 2
WATER MONITORING MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
It is the intent in Region V to carry out a water monitoring program
which will provide program managers with a valid data base which is
responsive to their needs. For the immediate future, over the next four
to five years, the most pressing program needs are: 1) Assurance of the
protection of the public health through control of toxic and hazardous
sources of pollution; 2) Continued protection of the aquatic environment
through control of the more traditional pollutants; and 3) Provision of
documentation on the effectiveness of current EPA control programs in
terms of water quality. This strategy is intended to further build and
refine a data base for use in the important decisions on identification
and control of pollution for this type of pollution control program. An
update of the strategy should be approved yearly by the Water Media Task
Force (WMTF) as the controlling document for water monitoring activities.
Activities for the major issues identified in Chapter 1 are laid out
below. An implementation strategy to carry out these activities is
described in the summary beginning on page 15.
ISSUE: NEED FOR COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION OF PROGRAM NEEDS ON
THE REGIONAL LEVEL
This issue is the underlying concern throughout Chapter 1. In order to
achieve the most efficient use of resources, multiple programs needs
must be satisfied by well planned, coordinated monitoring activities.
This strategy outlines the actions that should be taken on the Regional
level and State level to address this problem.
DISCUSSION:
Many of Region V's programs have overlapping interests. For example,
permit compliance, water quality standards, and AST/AWT issues are issues
that frequently need to be addressed concurrently. Areas like the Twin
Cities, Detroit and Cleveland, to name a few, can be designated for
comprehensive monitoring programs and mutually beneficial pollution
control program based on a blend of monitoring activities arranged. Some
areas may be used to evaluate program effectiveness as well. Essential
to this "target" concept would be the concomitant reduction of broad
brush monitoring conducted under current programs like compliance
monitoring, O&M inspection programs, and the State and National ambient
monitoring programs.
ACTION #1:
a. Designate "target" areas for comprehensive water monitoring.
b. Collectively identify the environmental problems and determine
data needs and priorities program by program, then across pro-
grams, in the water media.
-------
c. Establish a blend of monitoring techniques and programs to
address the overall problem solution. For example, this
could include special DMR audits, O&M inspections, "before"
and "after" studies using biological monitoring, etc.
Some aspects of the "target" area approach have already been initiated.
This strategy supports the current activity of the WMTF to designate target
areas for comprehensive evaluation during the first half of FY '81.
ACTION #2:
a. Designate "targets" for other program needs annually, e.g.,
"hot spot"studies, compliance inspections at problem or
potential problem dischargers, AST/AWT project and river
segments under water quality standards review. Target areas
should correlate with funded State programs plans and yearly
schedules for implementation of the Great Lakes International
Surveillance Plan.
The objective is to reduce the amount of resources used in
non-critical areas and make these available for targeted
areas.
b. This action will be taken by the responsible program office
and included in the State Specific Guidance. Setting targets
for "hot spot" studies will require a special coordinating
effort becuase "hot spot" efforts are a part of the activities
of several different program offices and Headquarters. For
example, the Water Division is initiating activites in the
water quality standards program to incorporate criteria for
65 toxic substances on the basis of site-specific analysis
of toxic "hot spot" areas. The Environmental Emergency and
Investigations Branch of S&A Division conducts inspections
of hazardous waste sites under the RCRA program. The
Enforcement Division examines pretreatment needs related to
toxics and other materials. The Great Lakes Program Office
conducts fish, sediment,toxic transport and risk assessment
studies for toxics in the Great Lakes and its tributaries.
Because there is a diversity of programs dealing with toxic
hot spots, there needs to be a special strategy developed to
coordinate the targeting activity for hot spots mentioned
above. The strategy should specify how all the programs
mentioned above will be coordinated in order to first identify
hot spot areas, and secondly, to prioritize the areas.
DISCUSSION:
The variety of monitoring programs in the Region that are
described above and in Appendix B must be coordinated and
intergrated where possible to achieve more efficient use of
resources and allow better communications to states about our
existing monitoring needs. Currently, there is not a single
resource in the agency where programs must submit what monitoring
is being done in a specific area, by whom, and where the data
are stored.
-------
10
ACTION #3:
Establish a clearinghouse to provide coordination between
programs that are generating environmental data. The central
clearinghouse will be located in the Water Monitoring Section,
Technical Support Branch of S&A. One member from each Division
and GLNPO would be responsible for reporting their Division's
proposed monitoring activities to the clearinghouse on a
routine basis (e.g. effluent guideline studies, hot spot
studies, etc.) The clearinghouse would be responsible for
advising the program offices of ongoing monitoring programs
in the area. Any conflicts raised by the procedure would be
raised to the S&A Division Director and ultimately the Water
Media Task Force, if necessary.
ISSUE: NEED FOR COORDINATION AND INTERGRATION OF PROGRAM NEEDS ON THE
STATE LEVEL
There is a need to annually priortize activities for each State
in order to accomplish the most effective monitoring program
with very limited resources. This process was followed for the
State of Ohio in the FY'81 106 planning process. The following
action item outlines the activities necessary to accomplish
this task for the rest of the States:
ACTION #4:
a. Determine the level of resources available for each year.
b. Develop a list of proposed monitoring activities for each
program and estimate the resources necessary to carry out
the function. Transmit these to the State.
c. Negotiate activites to be conducted amongst all parties and
complete priortized lists for all states during the second
quarter of FY 81-85.
d. Transmit the negotiated agreements to the clearinghouse.
ISSUE: NEED TO RE-DEFINE THE BASIC WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
As stated in Chapter 1 and, synopsized in Appendix B, the Basic
Water Monitoring Program (EPA 440/9-76-025) is a general frame-
work for organizing monitoring programs and was not designed for
comprehensive monitoring around multifacted program needs.
Because of this, there is an inherent gap between what the moni-
toring program has been designed to do and Water Program needs.
Thus, satisfaction of the BWMP guidelines may not be satisfactory
when viewed by program managers against their program needs. In
response to this, some changes or a re-examination of the BWMP in
this light are outlined in the strategy. The components of the
BWMP are as follows: ambient monitoring, effluent monitoring,
intensive surveys, biological monitoring, quality assurance and
data interpretation and reporting. A strategy for each of
these components is described below.
-------
11
AMBIENT WATER MONITORING:
ACTION #5:
Evaluate the basic water monitoring network in light of the
proposed national strategy (OWWN/MDSD, May 14, 1980) which
has as its first goal to describe the quality of the Nation's
waters in terms of biological integrity and human health
factors.
Determine which water bodies/segments are important to
monitor to fulfill the Regional, National and International
needs. Evaluate the need to locate ambient stations around
major dischargers. Link ambient monitoring to areas import-
ant to maintaining biological integrity and human health.
Determine which projects of the control programs (construc-
tion grants, clean lakes, Rural Clean Water Program, etc.)
are to be evaluated. Define where "before" and "after"
studies will be conducted. These studies may consist of a
simple examination of self monitoring reports against ambient
monitoring information or more indepth analyses using inten-
sive surveys. Surveys for biological and human health
factors will need to be an integral part of some of these
studies so that ultimately, the Region can assess program
effectiveness in terms of water quality and redirect programs
as necessary.
Provide the states guidelines with criteria to make a thorough
evaluation of their own ambient network to eliminate any
stations that are not vital to the Federal/State networks.
The intent of this reevaluation is to reduce needs in this
activity in order to devote more time to intensive surveys
and toxic and biological monitoring. This activity can be
part of the SEA and/or State Specific Guidance for FY '82.
EFFLUENT MONITORING:
ACTION #6:
The Region and the States should concentrate compliance
monitoring on facilities that have problems or potential
problems or have known toxic or suspected toxic discharges.
A listing of these facilities will be prioritized for each
State and an implementation plan agreed upon annually by
the Region and the States to do compliance sampling and
evaluation at these areas first. Conduct overview inspec-
tions at remaining facilities inaccordance with the Neutral
Inspection plan based on the Marshall v Barlow's, Inc., 436
U.S. 307 (1978), decision. Steps to achieve this are given
below:
-------
12
Identify areas needing effluent monitoring. This could include the
following as a minimum:
1. Target areas identified by Water Media Task Force
2. Facilities having a new permit or reissuance need
3. Facilities about to enter the construction grants program ("Before1
study)
4. Facilities after the final stages of construction ("After"study)
5. Facilities that exhibit a problem as a result of O&M inspections,
or other source of detection (ie, violations detected in nearby
fixed stations.)
6. Facilities that require follow-up as a result of a "deficiency
notice" or similar requirements for remedial action
7. Facilities that need verification of attaining final compliance
with orders or schedules
8. Major municipal and industrial outfalls discharging directly to
the Great Lakes.
Develop criteria for prioritizing the items in "a" above. This should
include a ranking system based on status of noncompliance, status of
permit needs and status within the construction grants program where
appropriate.
Develop an agenda for conducting inspections at all remaining facilities
including facilities with less critical problems or complying facilities.
(This should be done using the criteria/procedures outlined in the Neutral
Inspection Plan.)
b. Develop a procedure for follow-up at facilities having problems as
identified during inspections.
c. In accordance with the FY'81 SEAs on the Laboratory Capability
issues, all States in Region V must develop full field and laboratory
capabilities for toxic monitoring and conduct studies in areas de-
signated as suspect of toxic pollution. A projection of laboratory
needs over the next three years was to be made. Following that, the
States and Region V were to develop an action plan to meet those needs.
-------
13
INTENSIVE SURVEYS:
An increased emphasis is being placed on intensive surveys to identify
toxics pollutants, conduct WLA's on water quality limited segments,
assess attainability of water quality standards and to assess the effec-
tiveness of water pollution control programs.
ACTION #7:
a. EPA should supply Region V States with guidelines by
which they can determine annually which target areas
(previously identified in the "Coordination and Integra-
tion" section of this Chapter) will be subjects of inten-
sive surveys and include these in the 106 State Specific
Guidance. Multiple source (point and nonpoint) studies
should be identified as appropriate in each target area.
Abstracts for each intensive survey conducted must be
submitted to EPA and the State Specific Guidance should
state this.
b. Determine which parameters are applicable for these areas
considering the inclusion of toxics monitoring and biological
monitoring.
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING:
ACTION #8
a. Biological monitoring should be conducted at designated
sites as identified in Action #5. The Region should
keep abreast of Headquarter's work to re-define/develop an
adequate basis for doing biological studies and of the
extensive application of the Hilsenhoffer Biological Index
within the State of Wisconsin and the Great Lakes Nearshore
Water Quality Index.
b. Implement biological monitoring as part of intensive
surveys especially where such surveys are conducted near
known or suspected toxic sources. Integrate biological
monitoring with activities in "hot spot" program.
c. Implement biological monitoring on programs designed to
measure program effectiveness in terms of water quality.
d. Evaluate the use of of bioassays and Ames testing in
effluent monitoring to determine the usefullness of the
information and their potential as "screening" tools for
further toxic analyses.
QUALITY ASSURANCE:
In order to standardise and improve the reliability of data generated in
water programs the following activities will be necessary:
-------
14
ACTION #9:
a. Develop States' Quality Assurance Programs and Regional
Offices' Quality Control Programs.
b. When an acceptable reporting mechanism is available for
precision and accuracy of the data, the states will
be required to submit this information as part of their
reporting requirement.
DATA INTERPRETATION AND REPORTING
DISCUSSION:
There are three major deficiencies in the current STORET reporting system.
These deficiencies relate to data reporting, data interpretation, and
delivery of data to program managers.
ACTION #10:
a. Reexamine the Regional data management system. Develop a plan to
improve the coordination between data collection and data uses
groups and to gain wider acceptance and participation in the system.
When the Regional Strategy has been implemented, there should be
more consensus on the benefits of the STORET system, and better
cooperation from the states in using the system. This system
should include the following:
0 Program managers need to define their expectations of STORET.
° A clear explanation of what is being done, how it is being done, who is
responsble and why reporting is important. Identify the need for adequate
resources to carry out data reporting requirements. Explore the possibility
of implementing a new electronic mechanism to expedite data transmission
into STORET.
° Criteria necessary to enter data into the system and a clear understanding
of how multiple programs can retrieve and use the data. Provide EPA staff
information on the use and limitations of the data systems.
0 An explanation of how the Region can utilize the information stored.
Description of how the Region will collate and reproduce the information
for program managers in order to determine if program objectives are
being met.
b. Develop a means of recording other pertinent information (for
example, HQ data pertinent to Region, 208, 314, compliance monitor-
ing data, etc. ) on water quality. Include cummulative data in
annual program analyses. Maintain a liason with a Headquarters
data systems (STORET/TOXET).
-------
15
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY
Major
Issues
&
Actions
Region V
Lead
Rationale Assigment
Schedule
ISSUE:
NEED FOR COORDINATION AND
INTEGRATION OF PROGRAM NEEDS
ON THE REGIONAL LEVEL
ACTION #1:
To achieve the most efficient
use of resources, multiple
needs of programs should be
satisfied by well planned,
coordinated monitoring studies,
(a) Designate "target" areas.
(b) Collectively identify the
environmental problems in
target areas.
(c) Establish a blend of
monitoring techniques
and programs to address the
overall solution.
Overlapping and common interests
in priority areas need to be
coordinated into a comprehensive
problem solving approach includ-
ing the monitoring activities.
Each program office needs to
participate in identifying major
environmental problems from its
particular perspective so that the
problem solving approach developed
can be truly comprehensive.
A good mix of monitoring techni-
ques is vital to understanding
the cause and effect relationships
in the environment.
WMTF
coordinator
(water)
Water
TSB
2nd
quarter
FY '81
2nd
quarter
FY '81
ACTION #2:
(a) Designate "targets" for
other program needs.
(e.g., AST/AWT studies,
WQS attainability studies,
etc. )
(b) Develop a strategy for
coordinating programs
dealing with "hot spots".
Identify hot spot areas,
prioritize these areas and
develop a scheme for handl-
ing these areas.
Scarce resources are forcing Responsible
programs to prioritize activi- program office
ties to address the worst
problems first to maximize the
return on the effort spent.
The multiplicity of programs WMTF-TSB
dealing with some aspect of
"hot spot" areas is not
coordinated such that the Region
has a mechanism to surface,
prioritize, and handle these problem
areas.
FY '81
ACTION #3:
Establish a clearinghouse
in S&A to provide coordina-
tion between programs.
There needs to be a single
location for cataloging and
coordinating monitoring
activities for the Region.
TSB
2nd-3rd
quarter
FY '81
-------
16
Major
Issue
&
Activities
SUMMARY
(continued)
Rational
Region V
Lead
Assigment
Schedule
ISSUE:
NEED FOR COORDINATION AND
INTEGRATION OF PROGRAM NEEDS
ON THE STATE LEVEL
ACTION #4:
(a) Determine level of resources
available.
(b) Develop list of proposed
monitoring activities;
estimate resources; transmit
to state.
(c) Negotiate activities
to be conducted; complete
prioritized lists.
(d) Transmit negotiated
activities to clearing-
house.
In order to accomplish the
most effective monitoring
program with very limited
resources it is necessary
to obtain a regional/state
consensus on what is environ-
mentally and programmatically
important to do each year.
Level of resources available Water
establishes the baseline against
which monitoring activities
can be priortized.
Regional offices need to propose Program
to the States what they feel can Offices
be done within existing resources.
State priorties for monitoring TSB
activities may not conside with
Federal priorities. There is a
need to negotiate what will be
done to the satisfaction of both
parties and finalize the list of
prioritized activities.
For purposes of maintaining TSB
coordination, all proposed
monitoring activities need
to be sent to the clearing-
house for review.
2nd-3rc
quartei
FY '81
2nd-3i
quarte
FY '8]
2nd-3i
quarte
FY '81
2nd-3r
quarte
FY '81
-------
17
SUMMARY
(continued)
Major
Issues
&
Actions
Rational
Region V
Lead
Assigment
Schedule
ISSUE:
NEED TO RE-DEFINE THE WATER
MONITORING PROGRAM
Ambient Water Monitoring:
ACTION #5:
The inability of current
monitoring activities to
address program needs has
caused a major reevaluation
of the water monitoring pro-
gram and to some extent a
redirection of some aspects.
(a) Evaluate the ambient network
against national strategy
and Regional needs.
(b) Determine which waterways
are important to monitor;
link to biological and
human health pathways.
(c) Determine which control
programs/projects will be
evaluated; define where
"before" & "after" studies
will be conducted.
(d) Provide guidance to states
to evaluate their amibent
network.
National direction has been TSB
initiated to redirect moni-
toring resources to better
define the environmental
conditions of the Nation's
water and to make decisions
about regulatory controls
to improve water quality.
Additionally the BWMP network
will be assessed against
Regional program needs.
Station locations may need TSB
to be adjusted in response to
program needs.
Trend monitoring around major Water/TSB
dischargers may necessitate
changes to the basic monitoring
program.
There is a need to reduce TSB
the amount of ambient
stations not vital to State
and Federal needs.
3rd-4th
quarter
FY '81
3rd-4th
quarter
FY '81
3rd
quarter
FY '81
2nd-4th
quarter
FY '81
-------
18
SUMMARY
(continued)
Major
Issues
&
Activities
Rational
Region V
Lead
Assigment
Schedule
Effluent Monitoring;
ACTION #6:
(a) Concentrate compliance
monitoring on problem
facilities; prioritize
annually.
(b) Develop a procedure
for follow-up at
facilities exhibiting
problems.
(c) States develop full field
and laboratory capabilities
for toxic monitoring.
Critical "toxic" areas
are identified in 106
State Specific Guidance.
Intensive Surveys:
ACTION #7:
(a) Region develops guide-
lines for States to
determine target areas
to receive intensive
surveys.
In order to concentrate
resources on critical
problems, the efforts to
monitor non-critical
facilities need to be
reduced.
The Region needs to use
the information generated
by DMR's, etc., to screen
problems and develop a
follow-up procedure to
correct the problems.
More emphasis is going
to identification and
control of toxic pollu-
tion. There needs to be
a capability developed in
in the States to handle
the drive to control these
substances.
ENF
TSB/ENF
CRL
The rationale for selec-
tion of sites for intensive
surveys must be done accord
ing to a ranking mechanism
set down by the State/Region.
Water/TSB
FY '81-8
2nd-3rd
quarter
FY '81
FY '82-8
FY '81
-------
19
Major
Issue
&
Activities
SUMMARY
(continued)
Rational
Region V
Lead
Assigment
Schedule
(b) Determine parameters
including biologic and
toxic factors.
Biological Monitoring:
ACTION #8:
(a) Conduct biological
monitoring at specified
sites.
Parameters mentioned need
to be based on scientific
needs.
TSB
FY'81
(b) Implement biological
monitoring as part of
surveys near toxic sources
(c) Implement biological
monitoring on surveys
designed to measure program
effectiveness.
(d) Evaluate the use of bioassays
and Ames Testing in effluent
monitoring.
Biological information
needs to be integrated
with monitoring for
physical and chemical
parameters and is needed
at ambient stations, as
part of intensive surveys,
and in effluent monitoring.
Same as above
Same as above
TSB/Water
TSB/ENF
Water/TSB
Need to determine the use-
fullness of bioassays and
Ames Testing as screening
tools for further toxic
analysis.
CRL
FY '82
FY '82
FY '82
FY '81
-------
20
SUMMARY
(continued)
Major
Issue
&
Activities
Rational
Region V
Lead
Assigment
Schedule
Quality Assurance;
ACTION #9:
(a) Develop quality assurance
programs; develop quality
control programs
(b) States report precision
and accuracy (P&A) inform-
ation with quarterly reports
when an accpetable system is
developed.
Data Interpretation
and Reporting:
ACTION #10:
(a) Reexamine the Regional data
management system and develop
a plan to gain wider accep-
tance and use of the system
for data reporting.
The States need to complete
the approval process for their
QA plans. The Regional labs
and offices need to submit
quality control programs to
assure the quality of data
generated by them.
Currently there is no (P&A)
system that is acceptable;
however, when a mechanism
is defined that will allow the
transfer of this information
with data submittal, the States
should begin using it.
QAO
Program
Offices
FY '81
QAO
There is not 100% cooperation in
the current data management
system due in part to a lack of
resources and a lack of confi-
dence in the system.
TSB
FY '81
(b) Develop means of recording
other water quality informa-
tion.
Much data generated by the States, TSB
the Region and HQ are not recorded
in a data management system for
use by multiple programs.
FY '81
-------
21
APPENDIX A
PROGRAM NEEDS
-------
22
PROGRAM NEEDS
This chapter provides a synopsis of the Regional State and National
program requirements as they relate to monitoring needs provided primarily
through Section 106 program resources. Specific monitoring requirements
for each program are listed and a brief statement of the use
of this information by the programs office is given.
1. WATER ENFORCEMENT
The Enforcement Division Region V and its state counterparts have a
number of program activities which require monitoring data:
a. Compliance
Compliance by NPDES permittees with permit requirements must
be determined and effectiveness of State delegated programs
in this regard must be assessed. Monitoring activities which
support the compliance program include:
1) Compliance sampling inspections
2) Compliance evaluation inspections
3) Performance audit inspections
4) DMR quality assurance inspections
5) Review of self-monitoring data (and validation)
6) Pretreatment inspections
7) Special studies such as fish studies - these are special
needs designed to integrate fish tissue analysis data
into permit writing to better assess water quality limits
for selected industries and municipalities. This includes
sampling of fish population and/or long term biomagnification
studies of a given effluent or effluents on selected fish
species.
The data resulting from these activities are used to determine
compliance of individual permittees with permit requirements and,
when assessed on a broad basis, to measure effectiveness of
State/EPA programs in an attempt to document improvements in
point source discharges as a partial objective in attaining
improved water quality.
b. Permits
Permits must be written which are effective in meeting the goals
of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The permits must meet follow
effluent guidelines and if applicable more stringent water
quality standards requirements. New and emerging problems,
such as toxicants, subject to discharger controls need to be
addressed in renewed, revised or modified permits and appropriate
limitations and monitoring requirements specified. Monitoring
activities which support EPA/State permit writing programs include:
-------
23
1) Sampling inspections (especially toxics and biomonitoring)
2) Routine compliance activities discussed above
3) Intensive stream studies to identify load allocations
4) Headquarters effluent quidelines monitoring activities
5) Other special studies
The data resulting from these activities are used to assure that
permits address identified water quality problems and that permit-
tees are complying with discharge limitations. Routine compliance
activities assure new or emerging problems are identified by
analyses beyond the strict permit requirements.
2. WATER PLANNING
The 208 and Clean Lakes Programs, paragraphs 2.b. and e. respectively,
will not be fundable beginning in FY 1982. Other funding mechanisms will
have to be utilized if these programs are to be used in the future.
a. Waste Load Allocation, AST, AWT, Water Quality Standard
In the 201 and 208 program, Waste Load Allocations (WLA) are con-
ducted by the State to establish effluent limitations for treatment
more stringent than secondary and to support AST/AWT reviews by
EPA. Whether a WLA is conducted by "desk-top" calculations or by
using complex computerized mathematical models, some amount of
field data is required. This data need is generally satisfied by
intensive surveys conducted on at least two occasions, one survey
to calibrate and one to verify the model for more complex situations,
and less intensive surveys to establish background conditions,
re-oxygenation and chemical decay rates for simpler desk-top cal-
culations. The resultant WLA numbers are used to justify facility
designs and are placed in the NPDES permit.
Water Quality Standards (WQS) are the baseline against which WLAs
and AST/AWT reviews are conducted. There are two components
to water quality standards which must be defined by the States and
approved by EPA, these are water use classification and water
quality criteria. The attainability of the use classification will
receive more emphasis than in the past. Data requirements for the
WQS setting process include biological surveys and bioassays ambient
monitoring and intensive surveys. Information developed pursuant
to the data collection and analyses is used frequently to support
WQS in quasi-judicial hearings and in more formal enforcement
litigation.
-------
24
b. Nonpoint Source (NFS)
Nonpoint Source pollution is recognized as a major contributer
to impaired water quality and is being addressed in the 208
and Great Lakes 104 and 108 programs. Data needs for assess-
ment of NFS pollution studies include intensive surveys to es-
tablish cause and effect relationships, ambient monitoring for
trend analyses and special surveys for trend analyses on
waterways not covered by the ambient network. This information
is used for a variety of purposes. It is useful in establishing
average annual loads and as a basis for some regulatory and many
volunteer nonpoint source control programs.
c. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Combined sewer overflows are being assessed in many large Region V
metropolitan areas as part of the 201 and 208 programs and research
and development projects contracted by the Great Lakes National
Program Office. Water quality benefits of CSO abatement must be
identified and related to various levels of control and costs.
Monitoring is accomplished to provide an assessment of existing
impact and to provide data for computer simulations of various con-
trol systems.
d. Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Environmental impact statements generally cover assessments incorporating
existing monitoring data. However, the depth of analysis may require
intensive surveys, biological surveys, ambient data and special surveys
on toxics. The data supports the establishment of environmental trade
offs in the EIS and is subject to the public hearing process.
e. Clean Lakes
Section 314 of the CWA addresses the need to clean up our nations
lakes. The Clean Lakes Program has some specialized monitoring
needs. Remote sensing labs surveys and biological surveys are
examples of such data needs. The information from the monitoring
program is used to develop lake feasibility studies and lake re-
storation projects.
305(b) Reports
The State Water Quality Evaluations are required under Section 305
of the Clean Water Act. Water quality evaluations for these reports
need all forms of monitoring data. Ambient data from the Basic
Water Monitoring Program are very important to establish annual
aquatic response information. Toxic surveys are useful for estab-
lishing areas especially harmful to human health and the environment,
The 305(b) reports are used to inform Congress of the water quality
in the nation's waterways. With this information, Congress and
the public may better direct environmental programs and resources.
-------
25
g. Municipal O&M
Section 210 of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to determine the
efficiency of the operation and maintenance (O&M) of treatment
works constructed with federal grants. Data requirements to accomp-
lish this include routine O&M inspections and compliance evaluation
and sampling inspections. This information may be used to evaluate
the States' accomplishments in managing the construction grants pro-
grams under Section 205 of the Act. An important use has been for
support of enforcement actions. A potential use of this information
is to evaluate the data against intensive survey information in
order to detect water quality standards impact and violations.
h. Drinking Water
Programs for the protection of drinking water have been developed
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA). The primary areas of
program activity that require monitoring data are:
1). Compliance determination required by the National
Interim Primacy Water Regulations for public water systems.
This is done by Region V for public water systems not covered
by State primacy programs or cooperating State water supply
programs.
2). Investigation of suspected spills or contamination
affecting or likely to affect ground water sources of
drinking water. Monitoring requirements that support this
work are primarily for special case investigations. There
is a need, however, for a baseline monitoring inventory to
assess ground water quality.
3). Special problems or research need investigations aimed
at resolving specific question areas are conducted by both
Region V and Headquarters. These investigations require
special survey design and non-routine monitoring requirements.
4). Water system evaluations are done by Region V and the
States where systems develop water quality problems. Here
the data need will frequently be for routine parameters but
on a frequency greatly exceeding compliance sampling. The
purpose of the sampling is to define problem variability,
aid in finding the problem source and indicate problem
solutions.
-------
26
The data resulting from these activities is used to identify
compliance with the National Interim Primacy Drinking Water maximum
contaminant levels, identify and define water supply problems, and
provide technical assistance to communities that have drinking
water quality problems. In the future, a monitoring activity may be
necessary as part of the Underground Injection Control permit program.
HEADQUARTERS
a. Priority Pollutant and Effluent Guidelines Programs
These are Headquarters funded programs that are specific to the
EPA Consent Decree priority pollutant mandate, and include expo-
sure/ risk fate assessment dilution studies and effluent guide-
lines samples. Data gathered as a result of these surveys are
designed to track the fate and movement of toxic pollutants
through the environment in water, sediment, and fish. Such data
should provide useful information to Federal and state permit
programs as well as other enforcement and water quality manage-
ment needs.
b. Hot Spot Studies
These include studies of local area which have high concentrations
of toxic pollutants ("hot spots").
SOLID WASTE
a. Hazardous Waste Site Investigation
Areas where hazardous wastes migrate into groundwater, streams
and/or lakes from waste containment areas require intensive
surveys to be conducted, with follow-up short or long term
monitoring surveys. These surveys should include water, sediment
and biological sampling to assess water quality conditions from
the point of discharge and contamination to the zone of recovery.
This is a top priority need in Region V.
b. PCS Investigation
This program need is considered to be significant in Region V in
dealing with PC3 contamination in water, sediment and fish. The
program should concentrate on data collection during manufacturing,
marketing and disposal of PCB products.
Much of this need will be met through the Basic Water Monitoring
Program. The Priority Pollutant and Effluent Guidelines program
will also lend support. Special remedial and mitigation feasibil-
ity studies for sediment, plankton, benthos, periphyton and fish
contamination have been sponsored by EPA's Office of Marine
Activities , the Army Corps of Engineers, States, 208 agencies and
the Great Lakes National Program Office.
-------
27
c. Radiation
The need for a radiation ambient monitoring program is
considered to be minimal in terms of the Basis Water Monitoring
Program. Nuclear facilities that function under prescribed
operational procedures do not generally require a continuous
water monitoring program. Monitoring needs are more specific
to special studies in response to accidental spills or other
emergencies as determined on a case by case basis.
d. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Inspections (FIFRA)
The Regional monitoring programs related to FIFRA are accomplished
through Great Lakes 104 and 108 programs and through 208 nonpoint
source activities. Monitoring programs are needed at a level suf-
ficient to identify 1) temporal and spatial trends in concentrations
of pesticides; 2) the impact of persistent toxic substances on human
health and the quality and health of living acquatic systems and
3) the sources of persistent toxic substances including pesticides.
5. GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM OFFICE
The Boundary Waters Treaty (1909) between the U.S. and Great Britain
and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972 and 1978 require
the federal governments (and states/provinces) to take certain actions
to control boundary waters pollution. The actions include monitoring
activities or depend upon monitoring activities. General objectives
and specific objective are included. The revised (1978) agreement
emphasizes toxic substances.
Monitoring activities which support Great Lakes program needs include:
0 Whole lake fish monitoring for toxic substances
0 Harbor and river mouth fish monitoring for toxic substances
0 Sediment surveys for toxic substances in harbors
0 Water intake monitoring
0 Water intake verification studies
° Supplementary storm event tributary monitoring to improve estimates
of loadings to the lakes
0 Atmospheric loading network
Periodic intensive studies of each of the Great Lakes
0 Various special studies
These activities are conducted by GLNPO, other EPA programs, states,
universities and contractors. The data resulting from these activities
are used for input to Great Lakes Water Quality Reports and various special
reports of the committees and subcommittees of the IJC. They measure
effectiveness of remedial programs, identify the need for further programs,
define the quality of the lake ecosystem and identify new and emerg-
ing problems.
-------
28
6. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TRENDS
In order to assess effectiveness of the Clean Water Act to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters, it is necessary to construct and maintain an
environmental profile of these waters. It is further necessary to
maintain such profiles on a National, Regional, State and local
level so that trends may be established and actions taken on the
appropiate level, given the diversity and scope of the problem.
While most monitoring activities will provide data for environmental
quality trends or profiles, the following Basic Water Monitoring
Program activities directly support the needs:
0 Ambient raonitorings
0 Intensive surveys
0 Toxicant monitoring
Toxicant monitoring is especially needed as the current data base has
limited toxicants data. There is great concern that many pollutants
may cause direct health problems on a cumulative basis and yet there is
insufficient information about the occurrence of these materials in the
environment. The data from the monitoring activities will be used to
establish baseline profiles and subsequently used to measure progress
of remedial programs, or identify the need for additional remedial
programs.
7. DREDGE & FILL PROGRAM
Section 404 of the CWA requires the Secretary of Array to require
permits for dredge and fill operations in navigable waters. In the
past, certain harbor sediments have been found unsuitable for open
lake disposal and must be instead placed upland or in confined sites.
The Administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification of any
defined area if the discharge of materials will have an adverse
impact on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas,
wildlife or recreation areas. Monitoring of the bottom sediments
and waters is conducted to provide data upon which to base decisions.
8. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LAB-DULUTH (ERL-D)
The purpose of the Duluth Laboratoey is to develop and apply test
methods to evaluate how pollution affects the plants and animals
living in lakes, rivers and streams. While early efforts pioneered
research on the effects of pollution on (fresh water) aquatic life,
the current effort is moving towards an understanding of how pollu-
tion affects human health and well being. While much of the work is
of a "research" nature, many activities provide important water
monitoring data such as the analysis of various fish in the Great
Lakes for a broad scan of toxicants.
-------
29
9. LARGE LAKES RESEARCH STATION GROSSE-ILE (LLRS)
LLRS is an arm of ERL-D. Its mission is the study of large lakes
such as the Great Lakes. Initial activities were directed toward
modeling of eutrophication mechanisms, especially in Saginaw Bay.
Ephasis is now placed on the fate of toxicants in large lakes, with
Saginaw Bay as the focal point. Areas under sudy include atmos-
peric deposition of toxicants such as PCBs. Much of the effort is
int testing predictive models against "real" field data.
-------
30
APPENDIX B
SYNOPSIS OF WATER MONITORING ACTIVITIES
-------
31
SYNOPOSIS OF WATER MONITORING ACTIVTIES
1. BASIC WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
a. Introduction
The Basic Water Monitoring Program was developed as a tool to
bring about standardization in state monitoring programs to assess
ambient water quality.
b. Objectives
1) Stabilize state programs.
2) Improve the effectiveness of State and EPA programs
and reduce duplication of effort.
3) Ensure that fundamental data needs are met.
4) Makes the best use of existing resources and technology
c. Program Description
The basic program contains six major elements. These are the ambient
monitoring program, intensive survey program, effluent monitoring pro-
gram, proposed biological monitoring program, quality assurance and
data interpretation and reporting.
1) Ambient Monitoring Program
The ambient monitoring program is viewed as the core of the
basic program. The goal of the national program was to
establish a network of not less than 1000 stations selected
as a subset of the total network which existed in 1977. In
Region V, a total of 185 stations were selected to provide the
trend information needed nationally to assess the adequacy
of pollution control programs. At each station, minimum
parameter coverage and sampling frequency were established.
Those which apply to Region V are described below. These
include all parameters detailed in the program document
except those for estuaries and other salt water areas.
Station selection was to be in the following water use areas:
recreational, commercial or sports fishery and populated
areas. Representative sampling of these different water
areas was to be obtained regionally, including clean water
areas. The minimum parameter list and sampling frequency
are described in Table 1.
-------
32
TABLE 1
MINIMUM PARAMETER LIST AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Parameter (units) Sampling Frequency
RIVERS AND STREAMS
Temperature (°C) Monthly
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
pH (standard units) "
Conductivity (umhos/cm @ 25°C)
Fecal coliform (#/100 ml)
Total kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/1) Monthly
Nitrate + nitrite (mg/1)
Total phosphorus (mg/1)
Chemical oxygen demand (mg/1)
Total suspended solids (rag/1)
Representative fish tissue analysis (See Table 2) Annually
Flow (CFS) Monthly
LAKES AND IMPOUNDMENTS. INCLUDING THE GREAT LAKES
All of the above except chemical oxygen demand and flow. In addition,
the following parameter will be monitored.
Transparency, Secchi disc (meters) Seasonally
Fish tissue samples are to be analyzed for the parameters listed in
Appendix A. Where fish tissue analysis indicates a. high concentration of a
particular toxicant (s), sediment samples are to be collected for analysis.
TABLE 2
TRACE ORGANIC AND METALS ANALYSIS FOR FISH
TISSUE AND SEDIMENTS
PARAMETER TISSUE SEDIMENTS
PCBs (mg/kg/ug/g) (ug/kg)
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Total DDT
0,p DDE
p,p DDE
0,p ODD
p,p ODD
0,p DDT
p,p DDT
Chlordane
-------
33
TABLE 2 (Cont'd)
TRACE ORGANIC AND METAL ANALYSIS FOR FISH
TISSUE AND SEDIMENTS
PARAMETER TISSUE SEDIMENTS
cis isomer of chlordane (mg/kg/ug/g) (ug/kg)
trans isomer of chlordane
cis isoraer of nonachlor
trans isomer of nonachlor
Endrin
Methoxychlor
Hexachlorbenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclohexane
alpha BHC isomer
gamma isomer
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Lead
If, in addition to the fish tissue samples, the sediment samples also
reveal high concentrations, grab samples from the water column should
be collected and analyzed.
a). Sample Collection and Analysis
Rivers - one representative water sample should be collected
Lakes - in homogeneous lakes and impoundments, one representative
sample should be collected. If stratified, one sample should be
collected from each stratum.
Fish samples - representative fish samples (not to include migratory
fish) should be collected in the fall and analyzed according to
established documentation. Two replicate whole fish composite samples
of a bottom feeder and one whole fish composite sample of a predator
species should be collected at each station (particularlly those fish
which are commercially or recreationally important). Each composite
should include at least five fish of approximately the same size.
-------
34
b). Tissue Banking
After sample aliquots are analyzed for the parameters listed in
Table 2, the remainder of the tissue sample should be stored for
additonal analysis as described in the basic document.
The minimum sampling required in the basic program is intended to
provide trend data and to surface water quality problems. Any
detailed monitoring required to quantitate problems in lakes, im-
poundments and stream will be accomplished through intensive
surveys.
2). Intensive Survey Program
A program of intensive water quality investigations of high
priority streams, lakes and impoundments should be conducted to
address specific issues such as cause-effect relationships, waste
load allocations and water quality standards assessments. Other
uses of intensive surveys include evaluation of station siting,
facilitate interpretation of ambient station data and, most impor-
tantly, as a mechanism to improve resource management. As a goal,
an intensive survey to be conducted at least once within five years
on every river and lake where waste loads are allocated or signifi-
cant water quality changes are identified or considered probable.
Specific surveys are to be identified annually by the States in
cooperation with the Regional offices through annual revisions to
the five year plan for intensive surveys.
a) Scope of Investigations
Although specific details are unique to the individual survey and
governed by the objectives of the survey, certain features should be
common to all intensive surveys as follows.
1. Improve interpretation of existing data
2. Improve the use of mathematical models.
3. Account for the effects of all significant
point sources impacting the study area.
4. Include an assessment of the distribution
and accumulation of toxic substances.
5. Begin with an assessment of available data
6. Include an assessment of the attainment status
of the 1983"fishable-swimmable" water quality
goal.
b) Intensive Survey Abstract
For each intensive survey conducted, the state should prepare
an abstract describing the survey area and summary of the results
of the survey and forward a copy of the abstract to the Regional
office. The interpretation of intensive survey data should be
the basis for the Section 305 (b) Report.
-------
35
3). Effluent Monitoring Program
The effluent monitoring program is administered through the NPDES
permit program for discharge into navigable waters. In support of
the NPDES program, compliance monitoring data is collected. Specifi-
cally, compliance monitoring means measuring and analyzing pollutant
sources and reviewing reports and information obtained from dis-
charges.
Compliance review is the review of all written material relating to
the status of compliance with an NPDES permit. If a state does not
have NPDES authority, compliance review is the responsibility of
the Regional Office.
Compliance inspection includes all field related activities conducted
to determine the status of compliance with permit requirements. In
Region V, these inspections are conducted both by the States and the
Surveillance and Analysis Division and include evaluations (non-sam-
pling), sampling inspections and facility inspections.
a). Basic Effluent Monitoring Program Specifications
The goals of this program are the following. These goals are a
joint effort to be achieved by the States and the Regional
Office.
_1_. Sampling inspections annually at all existing major permit-
tees.
2. Evaluations completed annually at major permittees
that are under construction or have previously demonstrated
compliance.
3_. Examination of permitees quality control procedures.
^. Coordination, where practical, of sampling inspections as
part of intensive surveys.
b). Sample Collection and Handling
In those inspections where samples are being collected, particu-
larly those to be used as evidence, the integrity of the sample
must be guarded and thoroughly documented through chain-of-cus-
tody procedures. Information on these procedures is available
from the Quality Assurance Office, Surveillance and Analysis
Division.
4). Proposed Biological Monitoring Program
This program was included as a pilot. It is not a part of the
basic program; however, all States were encouraged to implement
this proposed program on a trial basis.
Biomonitoring is defined as "The determination of the effects on
aquatic life, including the accumulation of pollutants in tissue, in
receiving waters due to the discharge of pollutants." The objective
of this proposed program is to begin to define the relationship be-
tween chemical/physical monitoring at selected points and biological
monitoring in the areas surrounding those points.
-------
36
a). Station Selection
Wherever possible, biological stations should be located near
ambient monitoring stations. However, since a biological station
will often encompass broad areas, rather than points, within a
river or lake, it is advisable to avoid areas which have been
altered by structures. Once established, each biological moni-
toring station must be documented as follows.
_1_. Completed National Ambient Monitoring Description Form.
This form should also be used to describe special station
characteristics such as parametric fluctuations.
2. A state map depicting station location is also required.
b). Parameter Coverage and Sampling Frequency
The parameter list, sampling season, frequency and methods are
described in Table 3.
TABLE 3
PARAMETER LIST AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY
PARAMETERS PLANKTON
Counts
Species Identification
Biomass (ash-free water)
Chlorophyll a_ X
Toxic substances
HABITAT TYPES
Rivers
Lakes X
SAMPLING METHODS
Sampling season 6/15-9/15
frequency monthly
method grab
PERIPHYTON
X
X
X
X
6/15-9/15
annually
glass slides
floating
sampler
MACROINVERTEBRATES FISH
X
X
X
X
6/15-9/15
annually
Hester-Dendy
Multiplate
X
X
6/15-9
annual
No. replicate samples
-------
37
5) Quality Assurance
Agency policy and regulations requires participation by States in a
centrally managed quality assurance program includes all monitoring
and measurement activities. "Quality Assurance" (QA) is defined as
a States' total program for assuring the reliability of data it
produces. A QA program is a document presenting the policies, ob-
jectives, management structure, and general procedures which comprise
this total program. The QA program must describe how all data gen-
erated will be assessed for accuracy, precision, completeness, repre-
sentativeness, and comparability. The QA program must require that
monitoring data be accompanied by a calculation of precision and
accuracy to the data user. A statement on the completeness, repre-
sentativeness, and comparability should be provided the data user.
6) Data Interpretation and Reporting
Using the Section 305 (b) reporting process, states are responsible
for reporting information on the quality of their waters. This
includes current water quality relative to the 1983 goals, projected
water quality following implementation of point source controls, a
description of the nature and extent of nonpoint source problems and
an assessment of the economic and social costs and benefits of
achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act. Summaries of these
reports along with the national ambient data analysis will be used to
describe water quality on a national level to Congress.
Ambient and source data shall be made available for use nationally through
existing data storage and retrieval systems.
a). Ambient Data
EPA requires its offices and encourages the States to submit
their ambient data for storage in STORET. If a State does not
desire to use STORET, the ambient data should be submitted to
the Regional Office in a STORET compatible format on a quarter-
ly basis.
b). Effluent Data
The State should submit to the Regional Office on a quarterly
basis an abstract containing the following:
_!_. The number, name and date of each sampling inspection of a
major permitee.
2_. The number, name and date of each compliance evaluation in-
spection of a major permittee.
c). Intensive Survey Data
For each intensive survey conducted, the State should prepare an
abstract describing the survey area and summary of the results.
These abstracts should be forwarded to the Region Office upon
completion and are to be maintained in basin files by the
Region to serve as reference on the water quality and discharge
conditions in each basin.
-------
38
2. GREAT LAKES PROGRAM
The Great Lakes, their connecting channels and tributaries are a dynamic
and complex fresh water eco-system, largest in surface area in the world.
They serve a population of some 37 million in two countries, eight states
and one province. Because of its size and uniqueness, a separate Great
Lakes National Program Office has been developed for the management of
this resource. Water monitoring activities in the States, as well as
other Federal programs, support the Great Lakes strategy. A coordinated
Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan has been developed under the
sponsorship of the International Joint Commision to fulfill the require-
ments of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978. Data obtained
from the surveillance program will be interpreted to determine the state
of compliance with control requirements, evaluate the effectiveness of
remedial actions that have been taken, identify emerging problems, and
identify the need for special studies to improve the understanding of
phenomena and/or trends observed as a result of the surveillance programs.
The overall surveillance plan includes:
a. Open lake intensive survey.
Open lake intensive surveys are detailed assessments of ecological
conditions within the lakes performed on an average of once every
five years on each lake. These assessments are used to detect
trends in the lakes, detect emerging problems and to determine the
lakes response to existing remedial programs. Data from these
assessments are used, together with all loading data, to develop,
calibrate and verify mathematical simulations of the lakes' biolog-
ical response to remedial programs and to predict the effect of
various phosphorus management policy options.
b. Loadings.
Annual loadings of nutrients, metals and toxic substances to the
lakes are required as inputs to the mathematical simulations and
as a direct assessment of remedial programs designed to reduce
loadings. Loadings come from tributaries, direct point source
discharges, the atmosphere and non-point source discharges.
1. Atmospheric Deposition is determined annually by a
series of bulk and wet deposition samples located on
islands or on the shorelines of the lakes.
2. Tributary Storm Event Monitoring: The high flow monitor-
ing supplements the state monthly ambient monitoring and
provides a more accurate estimate of annual riverine
loadings to the lakes.
3. Tributary and Point Source Inputs (Phosphorus Management):
States conduct monthly monitoring on major tributaries and
selected major point source dischargers in order to provide
data for calculating annual loadings to the lakes. This
-------
38a
loading data, together with the open lake monitoring data,
is used to evaluate ongoing and alternative management
programs.
Minimum monthly parameters required for Great Lakes trib-
utaries (beyond the River and Stream parameter list shown
on page 32) are:
Flow (CFS) Chloride (mg/1) Dissolved reactive
Lead (ug/1) Sulfate (mg/1) silicate (mg/1)
Calcium (mg/1) PCB's (ug/1) Fish tissue contaminat
Sodium (mg/1) (using low level trend analysis where
detection) significant problems
are identified (annual)
4. Rivermouths, Embayments and Nearshore Studies
Intensive nearshore water quality studies have been
implemented in several areas to determine compliance
with State and IJC water quality programs.
Fish monitoring.
Monitoring fish for toxic substances provides information for
advising the public on fish consumption, effectiveness of remedial
actions to control toxicants, and to detect new toxic substances
accumulating in environment.
Sediment monitoring.
The sediment monitoring program is intended to find areas where
high concentrations of toxic substances may exist within sediment.
Such findings will also strongly indicate probable sources of
contamination to the water column and biota.
Water intake and annual lake monitoring.
This monitoring is used to provide a minimum of yearly
information on each lake, which information can then be
used to detect dramatic shortterm changes in water quality.
It is also used to place the results of intensive open lake
surveys in perspective.
Support to other Federal Programs.
Examples of these interests include industrial process
evaluation, enforcement case development and research,
especially as related to toxic contaminants. Monitoring
activities in support of these interests include.
1). O&M inspections of facilities located on tributaries
2). Fugitive emissions
3). Fish monitoring for priority pollutants
4). PCB evaluations
-------
39
3. SECTION 208. AREAWIDE WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT
For the purpose of encouraging and facilitating the development and
implementation of areawide waste treatment management plans, Section
208 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, authorizes the Administrator
to identify areas which have substantial water quality problems as
a result of urban industrial concentrations, or other factors, with
subsequent designation by State Governors of agencies and boundaries
of the '208' area. The 208 agencies could then receive grants for
management plans to solve the pollution problems. The Act required
the plans to include many specific items. Among these are identifi-
cation of sources of pollution from a variety of dischargers point,
nonpoint, mine-related, construction, salt water infusion, residual
wastes, land and subsurface disposal. Plans are to include alterna-
tives and be applicable to all wastes generated within the area
involved. The 1977 Amendments to PL 92-500 add certain requirements
with regard to discharge or placement of dredge and fill material in
the area. The process is cited in the law as a "continuing. . . plan-
ing process", thus subject to periodic review and update. 208 agen-
cies in Region V have been involved in a number of water monitoring
activities and continue to be so. These have included monitoring
activities similar to Federal and state efforts which are part of
the BWMP described earlier. A number of 208 agencies have established
water quality boards which may be expected to conduct or direct
routine water monitoring efforts for their own needs in the future.
Some agencies have or are conducting specialized studies such as the
West Michigan Shoreline RDC, Region 14 - Muskegon County Surface Toxics
Study and the proposed East Central Michigan Planning and Development
Region 7 study on toxics in the fish, sediment and water of the Pine
and Saginaw Rivers.
4. HEADQUARTERS PROGRAMS
Various sections of the Clean Water Act and judicial actions such as
the NRDC Consent Decree require the Administrator to conduct activi-
ties which are of a water monitoring nature, support water monitoring
or depend on the conduct of water monitoring by others. In order to
fully satisfy the CWA requirements, certain monitoring must of necessity
be conducted on a national scope, even though occurring within a
Region, State or local area. Among these programs are:
a. Effluent Guidel ines Activities - Section 304(b) of The Clean
Water Act requires the Administrator to publish requlations regard-
ing levels of treatment for various classes and categories of point
sources in two phases - best practicable control technology (BPT)
and best available control technology (BAT). Section 307 requires
the publication of toxic pullutant limitations. Judicial require-
ments, namely the NRDC Consent Judgment, require certain additional
-------
40
actions with regard to "priority pollutants". To accomplish
these tasks certain water monitoring programs have been instituted
including Fate, Exposure/Risk, Dilution, Effluent/ Process Monitor-
ing and local problem identification. These monitoring activites
are conducted by EPA, State or contractor sampling/analysis
efforts and are basically directed to toxics monitoring. Exposure/
Risk, Fate and Dilution Studies are required under Paragraph 12
of the EPA/NRDC Consent Decree. Exposure/Risk Studies evaluate
levels of priority pollutants in the environment which may affect
human health or aquatic life. Fate Studies determine fate of
priority pollutants once they have entered the environment.
Dilution Studies identify specific areas where BAT will not
result in attainment of water quality criteria for toxic pollu-
tants. Effluent/Process Monitoring determines priority pollutant
levels in plant effluents and process water to assist in develop-
ing BAT guidelines. Local problem identification investigations
determine the extent and sources of local contamination from
priority pollutants.
b. Hot Spot Studies-include identification, priorization and study
of local areas which have high concentrations of toxic pollu-
tants ("hot spots") in order to develop control strategies
required by paragraph 12 of the NRDC settlement agreement.
c. POTW/Toxics Project - designed to collect data on toxics in
POTW's to help develop a strategy for pretreatment for revision
of BPWTT by intensive sampling in a small number of representative
cities. There are 20-30 studies throughout the country.
5. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PROGRAM
Each State within Region V operates its own O&M Program. Although
the programs vary from state to state, certain elements are required
by EPA for reporting purposes. These are: construction grant com-
pliance inspections conducted and reported on Form 7500; O&M inspec-
tions conducted and reported on Form 7500; O&M inspections conducted
and not reported on Form 7500; follow-up inspections conducted; and
technical assistance provided. In addition, the States provide
review of O&M manuals prepared for treatment plants in their respec-
tive areas of jurisdiction. In those areas where the States cannot
meet their commitments due to lack of resources, the U.S. EPA has
been providing limited supplemental assistance. Also, the Corps of
Engineers has been conducting periodic inspections of plants during
construction for Federally funded projects.
6. RCRA PROGRAM
The RCRA Program is now being implemented in its various phases to
provide cradle to grave control of hazardous materials. Monitoring
activities include inspection of generators, transporters, storers,
treaters and disposers of hazardous wastes. Permits and manifest
systems will provide better tracking of the fate of toxic chemicals.
-------
41
7. DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires monitoring by public
water systems. Specialized analyses, including organics, are
required of the larger systems. Only treated water analyses are
required. However, the surveillance authorities (State and Federal)
and the public water systems frequently require raw water and other
data beyond the SDWA required monitoring. Such data taken from
ambient surface water intakes and ground waters may be used in defining
environmental quality.
8. DREDGE & FILL PROGRAM
Section 404 of the CWA requires the Secretary of Army to require
permits for dredge and fill operations in navigable waters. In the
past, certain harbor sediments have been found unsuitable for open
lake disposal and must be instead placed upland or in confined sites.
The Administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification of any
defined area if the discharge of materials will have an adverse
impact on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas,
wildlife or recreation areas. Monitoring of the bottom sediments
and waters is conducted to provide data upon which to base decisions.
9. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LAB-DULUTH (ERL-D)
The purpose of the Duluth Laboratory is to develop and apply test
methods to evaluate how pollution affects the plants and animals
living in lakes, rivers and streams. While early efforts pioneered
research on the effects of pollution on (fresh water) aquatic life,
the current effort is moving towards an understanding of how pollu-
tion affects human health and well being. While much of the work is
of a "research" nature, many activities provide important water
monitoring data such as the analysis of various fish in the Great
Lakes for a broad scan of toxicants.
10. LARGE LAKES RESEARCH STATION GROSSE-ILE (LLRS)
LLRS is an arm of ERL-D. Its mission is the study of large lakes
such as the Great Lakes. Initial activities were directed towards
modeling of eutrophication mechanisms, especially in Saginaw Bay.
Em«hasis is now placed on the fate of toxicants in large lakes, with
Saginaw Bay as the focal point. Areas under study include atmos-
pheric deoosifion of toxicants such as PCBs. Much of the effort is
in testing predictive models against "real" field data.
-------
42
APPENDIX C
ASSESSMENT OF REGION WATER MONITORING
-------
43
ASSESSMENT OF REGION WATER MONITORING ACTIVITIES
1. BASIC WATER MONITORING PROGRAM, STATE ACTIVITIES
Each of the six states comprising Region V and the Federal monitoring
entities located within the Region were evaluated with respect
to the basic program. The result of these evaluations are described in
succeeding paragraphs. The total monitoring effort in the Region, or
even in any of the states, is widespread and very complex. To describe
this effort, liberal use is made of tables and figures to detail the
ambient monitoring being done. For each state, the basic network is
displayed in a figure and tabulated by station listing. Figures are
used to describe all of the networks. The figures consist of base maps
of the states showing the principal streams and rivers, public water
supply intakes and all of the major dischargers in existance in 1979.
To display the various networks, overlays are used with the base maps.
Several networks may be displayed on one map. In this instance, the
different networks are keyed for clarity. On all maps, the major dis-
chargers are also keyed by type and number. The number of each discharger
is from a list of major dischargers described in the appendices. Each
state assessment begins with an overview which summarizes the findings
of the evaluation relative to the basic program. These findings are
also summarized in a Table 13 following this section.
a. ILLINOIS
1). Overview
In the State of Illinois there are three agencies involved in ambient
monitoring. They are the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA),
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE). While the coverage provided by these networks meets the explicit
intent of the Basic Monitoring Program. The intent of the basic program
is to provide a data base which is representative of national water
quality and trends. Within the coverage provided by these networks,
there is no duplication considering sampling parameters and frequency.
Illinois' basic program has minor deficiencies in the areas of quality
assurance and data interpretation and reporting.
2). Assessment of the State Monitoring Program
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency operates two fixed station
networks: the National Ambient Network, consisting of 41 stations, and
a State Monitoring Network consisting of 167 stations. Additionally,
the USGS operates three networks of stations, and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers operates a network. These networks are presented in Figures
1 thru 3. An evaluation of each of these networks is presented below.
In addition to the monitoring networks and the programs mentioned above,
the following programs are also evaluated: intensive surveys, effluent
monitoring and the proposed biological monitoring program.
-------
44
a). National Ambient Monitoring Network
The National Ambient Monitoring Network is comprised of 41 stations and
is operated by the IEPA. Parameter coverage and sampling frequency appear
to be in accordance with the requirements of the Basic Water Monitoring
Program; however, this is difficult to verify because a STORET retrieval
of 13 stations has revealed that not all data have been entered into the
STORET system. Additonally parameters are also analyzed as indicated in
Attachment 1. A listing of the stations is presented in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1
NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS - ILLINOIS
Location
Big Muddy River
Calumet - Sag Channel
Casey Fork
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
Desplaines River
Fox River
Fox River
Fox River
Green River
Illinois River
Illinois River
Illinois River
Illinois River
Kankakee River
Kankakee River
Kaskaskia River
Kaskaskia River
Kaskaskia River
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
La Moine River
Little Calumet River
Lusk Creek
Middle Fork Saline River
Mississippi River
Mississippi River
Mississippi River
North Fork Saline River
Ohio River
Rock River
Salt Creek
Sangamon River
Sangamon River
Sangamon River
South Fork Saline River
Vermillion River
Wabash River
Little Wabash River
West Branch Chicago River
Station Number
NI2
HOI
NJ07
GI02
GI5
DT35
DT38
DT46
PB04
DOS
D23
D30
D32
F01
F02
002
008
030
5A
5H
5J
DG01
HB42
AK02
ATB03
J83
K04
MO 4
ATF04
A06
P15
GL09
E25
E26
E28
ATH05
BP01
BO 7
C20
HCC07
-------
45
These stations are shown in Figure 1. Description forms have been
submitted for each designated station.
Illinois is one of the few states in the Region which has a toxics program
similar to that specified in the basic program. As part of the biological
program described in paragraph 3a (7), fish samples are collected at 38
of the 41 core stations and analyzed for the toxics listed in the basic
program.
(b) State Monitoring Network
The State Monitoring Network consists of 167 stations operated by the IEPA.
These are spread over the state so that most major river basins are covered.
According to the state, the parameter coverage and frequency of sampling
meet the requirements of the Basic Water Monitoring Program. Additional
parameters are also analyzed as indicated in Attachment 1. These stations
are shown in Figure 2. ORSANCO monitoring stations along the Ohio River are
supported in part by the State. An evaluation of this effort is not included
in the report.
(c) USGS Monitoring Networks
The USGS operates three networks in Illinois. These are the (1) National
Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN), consisting of 13 stations, (2)
a USGS ambient water quality monitoring network consisting of a total of
nine stations of which six stations have samples collected by USGS but
analyzed by the Illinois State Water Survey Laboratory, two stations are
on a special monitoring project in Fulton County, one station is on the
Little Calumet River at the Illinois-Indiana state line at Munster,
Indiana, where samples are collected by the USGS but analyzed by the
Indiana State Board of Health, and (3) two stations are National Water
Quality Surveillance System (NWQSS) stations located on the LaMoine River.
Some of the USGS stations also serve as National Ambient Monitoring
Stations (Core). According to information provided by the State, para-
meter coverage and frequency of sampling satisfy the requirements of the
Basic Water Monitoring Program. Additional parameters are also analyzed
as indicated in Attachment 1. These stations are shown in Figures 1
and 3.
(d) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monitoring Network
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates a network consisting of 14
stations in Illinois. Their monitoring network is designed primarily to
measure water quality flowing into and out of the reservoirs created by
the Corps for public uses. Whereas the parameter coverage and sampling
frequency do not necessarily conform to the Basic Water Monitoring Network,
this monitoring is done for special purposes and is not permanent. These
stations are shown in Figure 1.
-------
ILLINOIS
Figure 2 State Monitoring Network and Water
Intakes
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
A - Agricultural
Monitoring Stations:
• State Stations
A Water Intakes
10 0 10 20 30 40 Miles
-------
ILLINOIS
Figure 1 Basic Water Monitoring Network,
National Water Quality Surveillance System and
Corps of Engineers Sampling Sites
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
A - Agricultural
Monitoring Stations:
• Basic Water Monitoring Program
^National Water Quality Surveillance System
ACorps of Engineers
ID 0 10 20 30 40M.IOS
-------
ILLINOIS
Figure 3 USGS Monitoring Networks
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
A - Agricultural
Monitoring Stations:
*NASQAN Stations USGS
• USGS Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
10 0 10 20 30 40 Miles
-------
46
(e) Special Monitoring Agreements
The State has formal and informal agreements with agencies to obtain
water quality data within the state. In addition to the USGS, the state
has a formal agreement with the City of Chicago for collection of data
on Lake Michigan. Also, Metropolitan Sanitary District data for the
Chicago area are used by the State, although they do not have a formal
agreement with MSD.
(3) Major Dischargers - Fixed Station Monitoring
In spite of the indicated coverage of the various monitoring networks, a
careful examination of Figures 1 thru 3, showing the locations of major
dischargers together with the locations of the monitoring stations,
reveals that 48 major dischargers are not being monitored by any network
station within a distance of 15 miles. Although there are no criteria
relating dischargers to downstream monitoring, the information is
considered relevant, particularly for those interested in modeling or
waste load allocation studies. These major dischargers are listed in
Table 2 below. A complete listing of all major dischargers in the
State of Illinois is presented in Attachment 2. Certain of the dischargers
to the Ohio River may have ORSANCO stations within 15 miles.
TABLE 2
MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED - ILLINOIS
Discharger
1. Mt. Carmel WWTP
2. Marathon Oil Co., Robinson
3. Mattoon WWTP
4. Charleston WWTP
5. Central Illinois Public Service, Coffen
6. Central Illinois Public Service, Grand Tower
7. Chester WWTP
8. Sauget WWTP
9. Metro East San. Dist., Cahokia
10. East St. Louis WWTP
11. Granite City WWTP
12. Granite City Steel Co., Granite City
13. Clark Oil & Refinery Corp., Hartford
14. Shell Oil Co., Wood River
15. Illinois Power Co., Wood River
16. Wood River WWTP
17. Laclede Steel Co., Alton
18. Alton Box Board Co., Alton
19. Alton WWTP
20. American Oil Co., Wood River
21. East Alton WWTP
20. Olin Corp., East ALton
23. Metro East San. Dist., Lansdowne
24. Stepan Chemical Co., Elwood
25. Western Illinois Power Co-op, Pike
-------
47
TABLE 2 (cont'd)
MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED - ILLINOIS
Discharger
26. Quincy WWTP
27. Illinois Power Co., Havana
28. Commonwealth Edison, Powerton
29. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Mapleton
30. Galesburg WWTP
31. Pontiac WWTP
32. Milan WWTP
33. Rock Island WWTP
34. Rock Island Southwest WWTP
35. Moline South WWTP
36. Moline North WWTP
37. East Moline WWTP
38. Commonwealth Edison, Quad Cities
39. Caterpillar Tractor Co., Joliet
40. GAF Corp., Joliet
41. Mobil Oil Corp., Joliet
42. SCM Corp. (Glidden Durkee Div.), Joliet
43. Commonwealth Edison, Joliet
44. Joliet East WWTP
45. Joliet West WWTP
46. Amoco Chemicals Corp., Joliet
47. N-Ren Corp., East Dubuque
48. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., Cordova
(4) Quality Assurance Program
The State of Illinois has not collated a total quality assurance
(QA) document with QA management responsibility identified for the
total monitoring effort. Therefore, data quality cannot be verified,
based on those QA principles required by the Agency in a centrally
managed QA program, even though the state has very good analytical
capability. The State is committed to finalizing a QA program that
will meet Agency requirements. Considerable progress was made in
FY '80. QA management responsibilities have been defined. QA
Officers have been identified with QA responsibilities that impact
data quality. The identified QA management is excellent and is in a
position to mandate operation change where required. QA management
documentation, laboratory methodology documentation, and field
sampling documentation is approximately 80% complete and scheduled
for completion by the end of the 2nd quarter of FY '81. Based on
the Director of the State Agency's commitment to QA, the State's
final program should prove to be acceptable in meeting the Agency's
QA requirements.
-------
48
(5) Intensive Survey Program
The State conducts an intensive survey program to supplement the baseline
water quality data provided by the ambient network. The monitoring included
water column, bottom sediment, diurnal assessments, macroinvertebrates, ef-
fluents and/or fish. During 1979, intensive surveys were conducted in lakes.
Survey abstracts were submitted for the 15 surveys completed. The abstracts
described the survey area and summarized the results. However, not all of the
abstracts included a statement explaining the objectives of the survey. The
abstracts did not include an assessment of the attainment status of the 1983
"fishable/swimmable" water quality goal.
A list of the 15 surveys completed during June- Sept. 1979 follows:
Cedar Lake in Lake County
Devils Kitchen Lake in Williamson County
Johnson Sauk Trail Lake in Stevenson Co.
Lake Egypt in Williamson/Johnson Co.
Lake Mattoon in Coles County
Lake Faykerville/Christenson CO.
Lincoln Trail Lake in Clark County
Long Lake in Lake County
Paradise Lake In Coles county
Pittsfield Lake in Pike county
Racoon Lake in Marion co.
Round Lake in Lake County
Shabbona Lake in Dekalb County
Stephen A. Forbes Lake in Marion Co.
Otter Laked in Macoupin Co.
(6) Effluent Monitoring Program
Illinois has 159 municipal, 2 agricultural, 2 federal and 84 non-municipal
major dischargers. Inspections planned and completed during Fy 79 were
as follows:
Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI)
Municipal
Non-Munici pal
Federal
Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI)
Municipal
Non-Municipal
Federal
Toxics
Municipal
Non-Municipal
Projected
82
0
0
190
0
0
Accomplished
75
35
0
76
53
0
0
0
-------
49
The State's compliance program is excellent. Commitments were made to
complete a sampling (CSI) or evaluation (CEI) at all major dischargers
during FY 79. The State exceeded their commitment for CSI surveys,
completeing 108 out of 82 committed. However, the state did not meet
their commitment for CEI surveys, completing only 129 against a commit-
ment of 190.
It should be noted that the results of compliance monitoring for FY 1979
(State and Federal) reveals 55% of municipal and 51% of non-municipal
major dischargers were in compliance with their permits.
Commitments were not made to complete any agricultural inspections, federal
inspections or toxic inspections. However, 7 CEI agricultural surveys
were conducted.
No commitments were made for CEIs or CSIs at any minor dischargers.
(7) Proposed Biological Monitoring Program
The proposed biological monitoring program, conducted as a part of the
National Ambient Monitoring Program, can be summarized as follows for FY
1979:
Activity Yes No
Fish samples all stations X
Macroinvertebrates at all stations X
Periphyton at all stations X
Plankton at all stations X
The fish samples were collected by the Illinois State Conser-
vation Department and analyzed by the State Department of
Public Health with assistance from the Illinois Department of
Agriculture. The macroinvertibrates were collected and analyzed
by IEPA. Samples were collected from 38 of the 41 core stations.
The biological work that was done was of acceptable quality.
(8) Data Interpretation and Reporting
Ambient Data
A STORET retrieval of 13 National Ambient Stations and 10 State ambient
stations completed during Spring 1980 and later retrievals for the CY 1979
Environmental Profile clearly shows that the state is not storing data at
all stations. That data stored does not meet the sampling frequency rate
nor the parameter coverage of the Basic Water Monitoring Program.
-------
50
Effluent Data
Upon completion of an inspection, the State submitted a report of each sampling
and evaluation inspection of a major permittee to the Enforcement Division.
Intensive Survey Data
Abstracts were submitted for FY 79.
Section 305 (b) Report
Utilizing the section 305 (b) reporting process, the state prepares, and
submits biennially, a report to the U.S. EPA describing the status of
the waters of the State. The latest report submitted was for the years
1978 - 79.
-------
Ambient Water Qualtly Monitoring Network
Water Column Parameters*
Universal Parameters: pH (00400). temperature (00011), electrical
conductivity (00094), dissolved oxygen (00300), total suspended sediment
(00530), total volatile suspended sediment (00505), total
armonia-nttrogen (00610), nitrite-nitrogen (00630), nitrate-nitrogen
(00630), chemical oxygen demand (00335). fecal conform (31616), and flow
(00061).
Special Basin Parameters:
Big Muddy River Basin: Copper (01042) and boron (01022).
Des Plalncs - Lake Michigan Basin (only in segments A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10,
A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, ind A-16): Boron (010??. copper (01042), and
cyanide (00720).
Fox River Basin: Total phosphorus (00665), dissolved phosphorus (00666)
total kjeldahl nitrogen (00625), copper (01042), and lead (01051).
Illinois River Basin: Copper (01042). mercury (71900), lead (01051), and
total iron (01045).
Kankakee P.iver Basin: Copper (01042).
Kaskaskia River Basin: No special parameters.
Mississippi River Basin: Copper (01042), lead (01051), and mercury
(71900).
Ohio River Basin: Cadmium (01027). chloride (00940), copper (01042). and
cyanide (00720).
Sangamon River Basin: Copper (01042) and total iron (01045).
Wabash River Basin: Chloride (00940), copper ((01042). le^d (01051), and
mercury (71900).
Sub-Networks with appropriate Parameters;
A. Agricultural Areas; No special parameters.
B. Silvicultural areas; No special parameters.
C. Urban areas; Chlorides (00940), lead (01051), oil and grease
(00552). and sulfate (00945).
D. Mlninaareas: Total acidity (00435), alkalinity (00410). total iron
ToT64b), manganese (010055). zinc (01092), mercury (71900). sulfete
(00945), and lead (01051).
E. Public Water Supply Sources; No special parameters.
'•B
F- j-ake (or lake like) Watersheds: Total Phosphorus (00665). total
kjeldahl nitrogen (OC6??)7 and dfs solved phosphorus (00666).
G. lake Michigan: Turbidity (00070), odor (00085), electrical
conductivUy (OCQ94), chemical oxygen demand (00335), pH (00400), total
monfiltrable residue (00530), filtrable residue (00515), organic nitrogen
(00605). ammonia nitrogen (00610). nitrite-nitrate nitrogen (00630).
total phosphate (00650), dissolved phosphate (00653). sodium (00929),
potassium (00937), chloride (00940). sulfate (00945), silica (00956),
Iron (01045). phenols (32730). asbestos (34225). plate count (31751),
total colifonr. (31504), fecal coliform (31615), fecal strep (31679).
funyi actlnomycetes (80150), plankton (60050), and kjeldahl nitrogen
(00625).
H. Special Morphologic Zone: No special parameters.
I. National Water Quajj^y Monitoring Network (CORE)
Ronthly: piHSoW); temper.ture (00011), electrical conductivity
(00094). dissolved oxygen (00300). total suspended sediment (00530),
nitrite-nitrate nitrogen (00030), total kjeldahl nitrogen (00625).
chemical oxyg?n demand (00335), fecal coliform (31616), total phosphorus
(00065), and flow (00061).
Annually: Arsenic (01002). cadmium (01027). chromium (01034). copper
(01042). mercury (71900), lead (01051), PCB's (39516), aldrin (39330).
dieldrln (39380). DDT (39370, 393?7. 39320, 39315. 30310, 39305. 39330),
chlordane (39350, 39065, 39068, 39071), endrin (39390), methoxychlor
(39480), hexachlorocyclohexane (39334, 39810), hexachlorobenzene (39700),
and pentachlorophend (39032).
J^ Biological Monitoring (Annually)
K. Fish Flesh Monitoring (Annually)
Sampling Agencies
1EPA - Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
USGS - United States Geological Survey
USGS-ISWS - Illinois State Water Survey
USGS-1BPH - Indiana Board Public Health
SI.CE - St. Louis District Corps of Engineers
Years of Record information obtained from the edited data Included in the
United States Geological Survey Publications:
Chemical Analyses of Surface Waters in Illinois. 1958-74. Vol. I, II, III.
Chemical Analyses of Surface Waters in Illinois. 1975-77. Vol. I, II, III.
Water Resources Data for Illinois. 1978. Vol. I. II.
-------
52
Revised March 1980
ILLINOIS
FY 1979 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
MUNICIPAL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
* 30.
* 31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
Name
Addi son North
Add is on South
Alton
Algonquin
Aurora
Harrington
Bartlett
Batavia
Belleville
Belvidere
Bensenville Plant No. 1
Benton
Bloomingdale (South)
Bloomington-Normal S.D.
Bloom" Township
Bolingbrook
Bourbonnais
Bradley
Cairo
Canton (West)
Carbondale (S.E.)
Carl invi lie
Carol Stream
Carpenters vi lie
Cary
Caseyville Township
Central i a
Charleston
Chester
Citizen Utility Co. -Pit. fl
Citizen Utility Co. -Pit. 12
Clinton S.D.
Collinsville
Crest Hill
Creve Coeur
Crystal Lake
Danville
Decatur
Deerfield
DeKalb
Dixon
Downers Grove
DuPage Co. Dept. Public
Works (Marlon Brook)
DuQuoi n
East Alton
Location
Addi son
Add is on
Alton
Algonquin
Aurora
Barrington
Bartlett
Batavia
Belleville
Belvidere
Bensenville
Benton
Bloomingdale
Bloomington
Bloom Township
Bolingbrook
Bourbonnais
Bradley
Cairo
Canton
Carbondale
Carl invi lie
Carol Stream
Carpenters vi lie
Cary
Caseyville Twp.
Centralia
Charleston
Chester
Addi son
Bolingbrook
Clinton
Collinsville
Crest Hill
Creve Coeur
Crystal Lake
Danville
Decatur
Deerfield
DeKalb
Dixon
Downers Grove
Darien
DuQuoi n
East Alton
Permit No. Expiration Date
IL 0033812
IL 0027367
11 u">27464
IL lj/3329
IL 0020818
IL 0021598
IL 0027618
IL 0022543
IL 0021873
IL 0027685
IL 0021849
IL 0022365
IL 0021130
IL 0027731
IL 0027723
IL 0032689
IL 0025275
IL 1027766
IL 0023825
IL 0027839
IL 0027898
IL 0022675
IL 0026352
IL 0027944
IL 0020516
IL 0021083
IL 0027979
IL 0021644
IL 0028045
IL 0032727
IL 0032735
IL 0023612
IL 0028215
IL 0021121
IL 0021237
IL 0028282
IL 0020788
IL 0028321
IL 0028347
IL 0023027
IL 0026450
IL 0028380
IL 0028495
IL 0028517
IL 0023094
5/31/82
6/30/79
2/28/81
4/30/84
6/30/81
11/30/81
6/01/79
8/31/83
5/01/83
9/30/82
12/31/81
12/31/81
12/06/78
7/01/82
7/31/82
7/31/79
12/31/83
5/31/82
7/31/81
9/30/79
2/28/81
12/31/81
8/31/81
8/31/81
12/31/83
12/30/83
7/31/81
7/31/81
7/31/81
6/01/79
12/31/79
8/31/82
1/31/79
12/31/81
8/31/81
12/31/81
6/30/82
1/31/81
12/31/81
12/31/81
12/31/81
1/01/82
7/31/79
4/30/81
8/31/81
ATTACHMENT 2-1
-------
53
Revised March 1980
ILLINOIS
MUNICIPAL (Cont.)
Name
46. East Moline
47. East Peoria
48. East Peoria 13
49. East St. Louis
50. Edwardsville
51. Effingham
52. Elgin - North
53. Elgin - South
54. Elmhurst
55. Flora
56. Freeport
57. Galesburg
58. Geneseo
59. Geneva
60. Glendale Heights
61. Glen Ellyn
62.- Godfrey Township - Main STP
63. Granite City
64. Hanover Park #1
65. Harrisburg
66. Herrin
67. Hinsdale (Burr Ridge)
68. Hinsdale (Oak Brook)
69. Homewood
70. Itasca
71. Jacksonville
72. Joliet (East)
73. Joliet (West)
74. Kankakee
75. Kewanee
76. Lake Co. Dept. of Public
Works
77. LaSalle
78. Lake County - Des Plaines
River Plant
79. Libertyville
80. Lincoln
81. Lisle
82. 'Litchfield
"83. Lockport
84. Lombard
85. Macomb
86. Marion
87. Marseilles
88. Mattoon
89. McHenry
Location
Eas't Moline
East Peoria
East Peoria
East St. Louis
Edwardsville
Effingham
Elgin
Elgin
Elmhurst
Flora
Freeport
Galesburg
Geneseo
Geneva
Glendale heights
Glen Ellyn
Godfrey Township
Granite City
Hanover Park
Harrisburg
Herrin
Burr Ridge
Oak Brook
Homewood
Itasca
Jacksonville
Joliet
Joliet
Kankakee
Kewanee
New Century Town
LaSalle
Lake County
Libertyville
Lincoln
Lisle
Litchfield
Lockport
Lombard
Macomb
Marion
Marseilles
Mattoon
McHenry
Permit No. Expiration Pat
IL 0028550
IL 0028576
IL 0046213
IL 0033472
IL 0026310
IL 0028622
IL 0028665
IL 0028657
IL 0028746
IL 0020273
IL 0023591
IL 0023141
IL 0021814
IL 0020087
IL 0028967
IL 0021547
IL 0036421
IL 0033481
IL 0034479
IL 0029149
IL 0029165
IL 0022586
IL 0022594
IL 0029211
IL 0025280
IL 0021661
IL 0022519
IL 0033553
IL 0021784
IL 0029343
IL 0022071
IL 0029424
IL 0022055
IL 0029530
IL 0029564
IL 0028452
IL 0020621
IL 0029611
IL 0022471
IL 0029688
IL 0029734
IL 0021059
IL 0029831
IL 0021067
12/30/83
3/01/79
3/31/79
6/30/83
9/30/81
9/30/81
9/30/82
6/30/84
9/30/79
9/30/81
12/31/80
1/31/82
8/31/81
5/31/82
9/01/79
11/01/79
9/01/80
9/30/83
5/31/84
3/31/82
10/31/81
4/30/84
6/01/79
1/31/82
6/30/79
11/30/81
6/01/82
7/31/82
10/01/79
11/30/81
6/01/79
12/31/79
11/30/81
6/01/79
2/01/81
6/01/79
5/31/82
3/31/82
2/28/82
11/30/82
4/30/82
5/31/82
11/30/82
12/31/83
ATTACHMENT 2-2
-------
54
Revised March 1980
ILLINOIS
Name
90. Ken dot a
91. Metropolis
92. Metro East S.D. (Cahokia)
93. Metro East S.O. (Landsdowne)
94. MSDGC Calumet
95. MSDGC John E. Egan
96. MSDGC Lemont
97. MSDGC North Side
98. MSDGC Hanover Park
99. MSDGC - West Southwest
TOO. MSDGC - O'Hare
101. Milan
102. Moline (South)
103. Moline (North)
104. Momence
105. Monmouth
106. Monticello
107. Morris
108. - Morton
109. Mount Cartnel
110. Mount Vernon
111. Mundelein
112. Murphysboro
113. Naperville (Springbrook)
114. North Shore Sanitary Dist.
(Clavey Road)
115. North Shore Sanitary Dist.
(Gurnee)
116. North Shore Sanitary Dist
(Waukegan)
117. O'Fallon
118. Olney
119. Ottawa
120. Paris (South)
* 121. Park Forest South
Utilities Co.
122. Pekin
123. Peoria - Greater Peoria S.D.
124. Peru
125. Pontiac
126. Princeton
127. Qulncy
128. Rantoul
129. Rochelle
Location
Mendota
Metropolis
Cahokia
Landsdowne
Cal umet
Schaumburg Twp.
Lemont
North Side
Hanover Park
West Southwest
Des Plaines
Milan
Moline (South)
Moline
Momence
Monmouth
Monti cello
Morris
Morton
Mount Carmel
Mount Vernon
Mundelein
Murphysboro
Naperville
Clavey Road
Gurnee
Waukegan
O'Fallon
Olney
Ottawa
Paris
Park Forest South
Pekin
Peoria
Peru
Pontiac
Princeton
Quincy
Rantoul
Rochelle
Permit No. Expiration Date
IL 0023221
IL 0029874
IL 0028606
IL 0028592
IL 0028061
IL 0036340
IL 0028070
IL 0028088
IL 0036137
IL 0028053
IL 0047741
IL 0020214
IL 0029939
IL 0029947
IL 0022179
IL 0021253
IL 0029980
IL 0021113
IL 0030015
IL 0030023
IL 0027341
IL 0022501
IL 0023248
IL 0034061
IL 0030171
IL 0035092
IL 0030244
IL 0021636
IL 0048755
IL 0030384
IL 0021377
IL 0024473
IL 0034495
IL 0021288
IL 0030660
IL 0030457
IL 0020575
IL 0030503
IL 0022128
IL -0030741
1/31/81
3/31/82
6/30/83
6/30/83
6/30/82
9/30/79
2/28/82
2/28/82
2/28/82
2/28/82
6/30/79
3/31/81
11/30/82
11/30/81
12/31/79
6/30/82
3/31/82
11/30/81
3/31/82
3/31/82
5/31/82
7/01/79
5/06/81
10/31/83
12/01/81
10/01/79
12/01/81
3/31/81
5/31/82
5/31/82
3/31/82
12/31/79
11/30/82
5/31/82
11/30/82
8/31/78
4/30/82
3/31/81
6/01/82
1/15/83
ATTACHMENT 2-3
-------
55
Revised March 1980
ILLINOIS
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
Name
Rock Falls
Rockford
Rock Island
Rock Island (Southwest)
Romeoville
Romeoville 12
Resell e
Round Lake Sanitary 01 St.
Salem
Salt Creek Drainage Basin
Sauget
South Beloit
Springfield (Spring Creek)
Springfield (Sugar Creek)
Spring Valley
St. Charles
Sterl i ng
Streator
Sycamore (North)
Taylorville
Urbana-Champaign (N.E.)
Urbana-Champaign (S.W. )
West Chicago
West Frankfort
Wheaton
Wood Dale (Nort'h)
Wood Dale (South)
Woodridge
Wood River
Woodstock
Location
Rock Falls
Rockford
Rock Island
Rock Island
Romeoville
Romeoville
Resell e
Round Lake
Salem
Salt Creek
Sauget
South Beloit
Springfield
Springfield
Spring Valley
St. Charles
Sterling
Streator
Sycamore
Taylorville
Champaign
Champaign
West Chicago
West Frankfort
Wheaton
Wood Dale
Wood Dale
Woodridge
Wood River
Woodstock
Permit No. Expiration Dal
IL 0026514
IL 0027201
IL 0030783
IL 0036382
IL 0030805
IL 0048526
IL 0030813
IL 0030830
IL 0023264
IL 0030953
IL 0021407
IL 0021156
IL 0021989
IL 0021971
IL 0031216
IL 0022705
IL 0031259
IL 0022004
IL 0031291
IL 0031356
IL 0031500
IL 0031526
IL 0023469
IL 0031704
IL 0031739
IL 0020061
IL 0034274
IL 0031844
IL 0031852
IL 0031861
6/30/79
6/30/82
12/31/82
7/31/79
9/30/79
4/30/82
12/31/81
4/30/82
7/24/79
2/29/84
6/30/83
1/31/83
8/31/81
5/31/81
1/31/84
8/31/81
6/30/83
11/30/83
10/31/81
2/28/83
4/01/82
4/01/82
4/30/82
12/31/78
5/01/82
8/01/79
12/31/79
7/31/82
5/01/81
6/01/82
*Semi-Public Permits
ATTACHMENT 2-4
-------
56
Revised March 1980
ILLINOIS
FY 1979 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
AGRICULTURAL
Name
1. Gilt Edge Farms, Inc.
2. Longmeyer Feedlot
Location
Freeport County
Greene County
Permit No. Expiration Date
IL 0048909
IL 0034371
12/31/80
7/01/80
FEDERAL
1. Chanute Air Force Base
2. 'Scott Air Force Base
Champaign Co.
St. Clair Co.
IL 0027073
IL 0026859
9/21/79
6/30/83
ATTACHMENT 2-5
-------
57
Revised March 1980
ILLINOIS
POWER PLANTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.-
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Name
Central Illinois Light
Central Illinois Light
Central Illinois Light
Central Illinois Pub. Serv.
Central Illinois Pub. Serv.
Central Illinois Pub. Serv.
Central Illinois Pub. Serv.
Central Illinois Pub. Serv.
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Commonwealth Edison
Electric Energy
Illinois Power
Illinois Power
Illinois Power
Illinois Power
Illinois Power
Illinois Power
R.E.A. - So. 111. Power Co-op
Springfield, City of
Water, Light & Power
Western Illinois Power Co-op
Location
Edwards
Wallace
Duck Creek
Coffeen
Grand Tower
Hutsonville
Meredosia
Newton
Quad Cities
Fisk
Dresden
Byron
Collins
Braidwood
Crawford
Powerton
Ridge! and
Will County
Joliet
Kincaid
Waukegan
Zion
La Salle
Joppa
Clinton
Havana
Vermilion
Hennepin
Baldwin
Wood River
Williamson
Springfield
Pike
Permit No. Expiration Date
IL 0001970
IL 0001988
IL 0055620
IL 0000108
IL 0000124
IL 0004120
IL 0000116
IL 0049191
IL 0005037
IL 0002178
IL 0002224
IL 0048313
IL 0048143
IL 0048321
IL 0002186
IL 0002232
IL 0002194
IL 0002208
IL 0002216
IL 0002241
IL 0002259
IL 0002763
IL 0048151
IL 0004171
IL 0036919
IL 0001571
IL 0004057
IL 0001554
IL 0000043
IL 0000701
IL 0004316
IL 0024767
IL 0036765
8/31 /80
8/31/80
Never Issued
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
8/31/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
8/31/80
4/01/81
4/01/81
4/01/81
9/30/80
8/31/80
7/31/80
8/31/80
7/31/80
7/31/80
9/30/80
8/31/80
5/31/81
9/30/80
7/31/80
3/31/81
8/31/80
9/30/80
*
9/30/80
6/25/80
6/25/80
6/25/80
* Expired
ATTACHMENT 2-6
-------
58
ILLINOIS
Revised March 1980
FY 1980 LIST
OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
INDUSTRIAL
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19. '
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Name
Allied Chemical Corp.
Alton Box Board Co.
American Nickeloid Co.
American Oil Co.
Amoco Chemicals Corp.
Borden Chemical
Borg-Warner Corp.
Cams Chemical Co.
Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Caterpillar Tractor Co.
Celotex Corp.
Clark Oil & Refinery Corp.
CPC International, Inc.
Del Monte
Del Monte
Du Pont, E. I. & Co.
Envirodyne (Wise. Steel Div.)
GAF Corp.
GMC Foundry
Goodrich, B. F. Corp.
Granite City Steel Co.
Interlake, Inc.
Keystone Consolidated Ind.
Laclede Steel Co.
Lemont Mfg.
Marathon Oil
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co.
Mobil Oil Corp.
Mobil Chemical Co.
Modern Plating Corp.
N-Ren Corporation
Northern Illinois Gas. Co.
Northern Petrochemical Co.
Northwestern Steel 4 Wire Co.
Location
Metropolis
Alton
Peru
Wood River
Joliet
Illiopolis
Ottawa
La Salle
Mossville
Joliet
Mapleton
East Peoria
Wilmington
Hartford
Pekin
Rochelle
Mendota
Seneca
Chicago
Joliet
Danville
Henry
Granite City
Chicago
Bartonville
Alton
Lemont
Robinson
Cordova
Joliet
De Pue
Freeport
E. Dubuque
Morris
Morris
Sterling
Permit No. Expiration Date
IL 0004421
IL 0000213
IL 0001724
IL 0000035
IL 0001643
IL 0001350
IL 0001929
IL 0002623
IL 0001414
IL 0001732
IL 0001830
IL 0002291
IL 0003247
IL 0001244
IL 0001953
IL 0003417
IL 0003115
IL 0001767
IL 0001660
IL 0002933
IL 0004138
IL 0001392
IL 0000329
IL 0002101
IL 0002526
IL 0000612
IL 0001309
IL 0004073
IL 0003140
IL 0002861
IL 0032182
IL 0003298
IL 0003930
IL 0026662
IL 0002917
IL 0003794
5/31/80
3/31/81
2/28/81
9/30/80
3/31/81
8/31/81
*
3/31/81
10/01/80
6/30/81
6/30/81
*
3/31/81
9/30/80
*
5/31/84
8/31/82
*
*
7/31/82
9/30/80
6/30/82
6/30/80
*
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
3/31/81
9/30/80
3/31/81
7/31/82
6/30/80
9/30/82
5/31/80
9/30/80
Expired
ATTACHMENT 2-7
-------
59
ILLINOIS
INDUSTRIAL (Cont.)
Revised March 1980
Name
37. 01 in Corp.
38. Outboard Marine Corp.
39. Peterson/Puritan
40. Reichold Chemical
41. Republic Steel Corp.
42. SCM Corp.
(Glidden Durkee Div.)
43. Shell Oil Co.
44. Sparton Manufacturing Co..
-45. Stepan Chemical Co.
46. Texaco, Inc.
47. Texaco, Inc.
48. U.S. Industrial Chemical Co,
49. U.S. Steel Corp.
50. Union Oil Co.
51. Woodstock Die Casting Corp.
Location
East Alton
Waukegan
Danville
Morris
Chicago
Joliet
Wood River
Flora
Elwood
Lockport
Lawrenceville
Tuscola
Chicago
Lemont
Woodstock
Permit No. Expiration Date
IL 0000230
IL 0002267
IL 0004162
IL 0034622
IL 0002593
IL 0002038
IL 0000205
IL 0004588
IL 0002453
IL 0002305
IL 0004219
IL 0000141
IL 0002691
IL 0001589
IL 0033863
*
3/31 /80
*
3/31/81
9/30/80
*
9/30/80
6/30/81
3/31/81
9/30/80
9/30/80
3/31/81
9/30/80
9/30/80
6/30/81
Expired
ATTACHMENT 2-8
-------
60
b. INDIANA
(1) Overview
Two agencies in Indiana are involved in ambient monitoring: the Indiana
State Board of Health and the U.S. Geological Survey. The coverage
provided by these networks meets the explicit intent of the Basic Monitor-
ing Program. The program is intended to provide a data base which is
representative of national water quality and trends. Within the coverage
provided by these networks, there is no duplication considering sampling
parameters and frequency. Indiana's Basic Monitoring Program has minor
deficiencies in the areas of quality assurance, effluent monitoring
program and data interpretation and reporting. These deficiencies are
discussed in greater detail below.
(2) Assessement of the State Monitoring Program
The Indiana State Board of Health operates two fixed station networks in
the State of Indiana, the National Ambient Network consisting of 21
stations and a State monitoring network consisting of 76 stations.
Additionally, the USGS operates five networks of stations. An evaluation
of each of these networks is presented below. ORSANCO monitoring stations
along the Ohio River are supported in part by the State. An evaluation of
this effort is not included in this report.
In addition to the monitoring networks, the following programs are also
evaluated: quality assurance, intensive surveys, effluent monitoring,
proposed biological monitoring and data interpretation and reporting.
(a) National Ambient Monitoring Network
As displayed in Figure 4, the Indiana State Board of Health operates
a network of 21 National Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Stations.
These stations, listed below in Table 3, are evenly divided between the
land use classification of agricultural/rural and municipal/industrial.
TABLE 3
NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATION - INDIANA
Location Station No.
Burns Ditch-Midwest Steel Catwalk at Mouth BD-0
Indiana Harbor Canal-Youngstown Steel at Mouth IHC-0
Indianapolis Water Canal-Headwaters at Broad Ripple IWC-66
East Fork White River-Williams Bridge Below Bedford EW-77
Kankakee River-Shelby-S.R. 55 Bridge KR-65
Kankakee River-Kingbury Area-S.R.-105 Bridge KR-125
Lake Michigan-Michigan City Waterworks Intake LM-M
Lake Michigan-Whiting-Waterworks Intake LM-M
-------
MAMMON
Figure 4 Basic Water Monitoring Net-
10 o 10 20 30 40 Miles work' USGS Water Quality Monitoring
j j and Water Intakes
i LIXI rmn:
INDIANA
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
Monitoring Stations:
9 Basic Water Monitoring Program
^USGS Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring (Water temp, and
specific conductance)
jtWater Intakes
-------
61
TABLE 3 (Cont'd)
NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS - INDIANA
Location Station No.
Maumee River-Woodburn-S.R. 101 Bridge M-95
St. Joseph River-South Bend-Auten Road Bridge SJR-46
St. Joseph River-Bristol- County Road Bridge SJR-78
Trail Creek-Michigan City-Franklin Street Bridge TC-3
Wabash River-Breed Power Plant Below Terre Haute WB-175
Wabash River-Ft. Wayne Waterworks Intake WB-207
Wabash River-Cranville Bridge Below Lafayette WB-292
Wabash River-Lafayette-S.R. 26 Bridege WB-301
Wabash River-Geneva WB-452
White River-Petersburg-S.R. 61 Bridge WB-48
White River-Henderson Ford Bridge Below Indianapolis WR-205
White River-Winchester-U.S. 27 Bridge WR-250
The required frequency of sampling for the minimum parameter list is
being met. In addition to the minimum parameter list, the State also
analyzes many general chemistry and heavy metal parameters.
Description forms have been submitted for each designated station.
(b) State Monitoring Network
In addition to the basic network, the State of Indiana operates a larger
network of ambient or fixed stations within the state. During FY 1979, a
total of 76 stations were sampled for all or part of the year. This number
include the State network and National Water Quality Surveillance System
(NWQSS). Although the NWQSS program has been discontinued for FY 1980, the
two station pairs on Wildcat and Mill Creeks have been incorporated into
the basic network. These stations are shown in Figure 5.
The following tests are done at these stations: alkalinity, ammonia,
BOD, COD, chloride, cyanide, fluoride, hardness, iron, lead, manganese,
mercury, nitrate + nitrite - N, TKN, oil & grease, pH, phenol,
total phosphorus, potassium, sodium, suspended solids, total solids,
specific conductance, sulfate, TOG, calcium, magnesium, coliform-total
and coliform-fecal. USGS flow data are used for this program.
These Analyses are in accordance with the minimum parameter list for the
Basic Monitoring Program. In addition to the minimum parameter list, the
following toxic pollutants are also analyzed: arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, nickel, and zinc. The State may, for selected stream segments,
monitor for other toxic substances believed to be present. PCB monitoring
is done on a special project basis aimed at areas and materials (water,
sediments, sludge, fish, etc) known or suspected to contain PCBs.
-------
HAMMON
INDIANA
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
Monitoring Stations:
0Indiana State Stations Sampled
Monthly
_ Figure5 State Monthly Monitoring Net- . .. c. . c. .. ., . .
10 o 10 20 30 40 M,ies Work and State Stations Sampled ©Indiana State Stations Sampled
«.ummi^.-rJ=.-J^ ^^^ Quarterly. Quarterly
-------
62
As part of the State Ambient Monitoring Program, Lake Michigan public water
supply intakes have been sampled since 1957. In addition, the Indiana Fish
Sampling Program (carried out since 1971) supports lake pollution control
efforts. This has included PCB evaluations.
(c) U.S. Geological Survey
Activities of an on-going monitoring nature operated by USGS in the State
of Indiana are as follows: (1) National Stream Quality Accounting Network
(NASQAN) (2) Hydrologic Benchmark program (3) temperature and specific
conductance stations and (4) sediment stations. These networks are shown
in Figures 4 and 6.
1. NASQAN Program
The USGS operates four stations in the NASQAN network in the State of Indiana
At these stations, the following tests are done 12 times per year: water
temperature, specific conductance, instantaneous discharge, pH, dissolved
oxygen, fecal coliform, fecal streptococci, suspended sediment and other
common constituents including major nutrients. Also at these stations,
total organic carbon is run 8 times per year; phytoplankton is run 7 times
per year and trace elements, total recoverable silver and periphyton are
run 4 times per year. These analyses meet the requirements of the minimum
parameter list for the Basic Water Monitoring Program.
2. NASQAN Pesticides Subnetwork
In the NASQAN network, one station also serves as a NASQAN Pesticides
Subnetwork. Water samples are collected 4 times per year in November,
February, May and August. Bottom material samples are collected in
November and May. Sample containers and sample analyses are provided by
the EPA laboratory, NSTL Station, Mississippi.
3. Hydrologic Benchmark Water-Quality Program
There is one Hydrologic Benchmark station in Indiana. At this station, the
following tests are done monthly: instantaneous discharge, specific con-
ductance, water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, total coliform bacteria,
fecal coliform bacteria, fecal streptococci bacteria, suspended sediment,
and other common constituents. These analyses meet the requirements of the
Basic Water Monitoring Program.
4. Temperature and Specific Conductance Stations
The USGS operates 5 temperature and specific conductance stations in the
State of Indidana.
5. Sediment Stations
The USGS operates a network of 51 sediment stations. The breakdown is as
follows: Daily samples-7 stations; weekly samples-12 stations; monthly
samples-20 stations; during high flow periods-12 stations. The only
analysis performed at these stations is sediment concentration.
-------
HAMMONPM40
INDIANA
Figure 6 USGS Monitoring Networks
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
Monitoring Stations:
0USGS Sediment Stations
^-Benchmark USGS
^NASQAN Stations USGS
10 o ._|020_3q_4p M.ies NASQAN Pesticide Subnetwork
-------
63
(3) Major Dischargers - Fixed Station Monitoring
A review of Figures 4-6, showing the locations of major dischargers
together with the location of the monitoring stations, indicates that 38
major dischargers are not being monitored by any network station within
a distance of 15 miles. Although there are no criteria relating discharg-
ers to downstream monitoring, the information is considered relevant,
particularly for those interested in modeling or waste load allocation
studies. These major dischargers are listed in Table 4 below. A complete
listing of all major dischargers in the State of Indiana is presented in
the Attachment. Certain of the dischargers to the Ohio river may have
ORSANCO stations within 15 miles.
TABLE 4
MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED - INDIANA
Discharger
1. Indiana Farm Bureau Coop., Mt./ Vernon
2. Corydon WWTP
3. Clarksville North WWTP
4. Clarksville South WWTP
5. Jeffersonville WWTP
6. U.S. Army Ammunition Plant, Charlestown
7. Charlestown WWTP
8. Louisville Cement, Speed
9. Emge Packing Co, FT. Branch
10. Princeton WWTP
11. U.S. Naval Ammunition Depot, Crane
12. U.S. Naval Ammunition Depot, Crane WWTP
13. Scottsburg WWTP
14. U.S. Army, Jefferson Proving Grounds, Madison
15. North Vernon WWTP
16. Greensburg WWTP
17. Delta Faucet Co., Greensburg
18. Rushville WWTP
19. Duwell Metal Products, Inc., Morristown
20. Franklin WWTP
21. Greencastle WWTP
22. Greenfield WWTP
23. Dana Corp., Hagerstown
24. Lebanon WWTP
25. Tipton WWTP
26. Elwood WWTP
27. Alexandria WWTP
28. North Manchester WWTP
29. Laketon Asphalt Co., Laketon
30. Rochester WWTP
31. Loweel WWTPO
32. Plymouth WWTP
33. Bremen WWTP
34. Kendallville WWTP
35. Angola WWTP
36. South Bend WWTP
37. La Porte WWTP
38. Crown Point WWTP
-------
64
(4) Quality Assurance Program
The State of Indiana has not collated a total quality assurance
(QA) document with QA management responsibility identified for the
total monitoring effort. Management has not identified a QA element
or total 106 monitoring activity. The present limited structure is
too diffuse and ill defined for an effective QA program. No QA
function or line of authority has been defined. Therefore, data
quality cannot be verified, based on those QA principles required
by the Agency in a centrally managed QA program, even though the
State has good analytical capability.
Some progress was made in FY '81. Laboratory methodology documentation
and field sampling documentation is approximately 80% complete. No
commitment date for completion has been identified by the State.
The State has to identify the QA Coordinator, specify duties of the
QA Coordinator and the single level of management and location
where the QA program is to be place in the organizational structure.
(5) Intensive Survey Program
According to the State, 15 surveys were planned for FY 1979, but only 2
were actually completed. Those that were completed were:
Segment 47-Lower Sugar Creek, Montgomery and
Parke Counties, Indiana
Segment 16 on Cedar Creek in Lake County
The State has indicated that record high flow periods hampered completion
of the remainder of the planned surveys.
Abstracts were completed for the surveys performed and submitted to the
Water Monitoring Staff, Surveillance and Analysis Division. These
abstracts show that the surveys were conducted in accordance with the
requirement of the Basic Water monitoring Program.
(6) Effluent Monitoring Program
Indiana has 97 municipal, 6 federal and 65 non-municipal major dischargers.
Inspections planned and completed during FY 79 were as follows:
Projected Accomplished
Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI) 48
Municipal 36
Non-Municipal 28
Federal 0 1
-------
65
Projected Accomplished
Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI) 80
Municipal 43
Non-Municipal 18
Federal 0 0
Toxics 5
Municipal 0
Non-Municipal 0
As indicated, commitments were not made to -complete a sampling (CSI) or
evaluation (CEI) at all major dischargers during FY 1979. The State
exceeded their commitment for CSI surveys, completing 64 against 48
committed. However, they did not meet their commitment for CEI surveys
and toxics. Only 61 CEI surveys were completed against a commitment of
80. No toxic surveys were completed. Commitments were not made to
complete any federal inspections; however, one CSI was completed at a
major federal discharger.
It should be noted that the results of compliance monitoring for FY 79
(State and Federal) reveals 81% of municipal and 85% of non-municipals
were in compliance with their permits. The commitment and accomplishments
for inspections is adequate considering the State's staffing deficiencies.
Their performance in submitting the required NPDES compliance forms
after each inspection is satisfactory. The follow-up enforcement action
resulting from deficiency letters is considered good.
No commitments were made for CEIs or CSIs at any minor discharger.
(7) Proposed Biological Monitoring Program
The biological monitoring program for Indiana for FY 79 may be summarized
as follows:
National Ambient Monitoring Program for 1979 Yes No
Fish samples at all stations X
Macroinvertebrates at all stations X
Periphyton at all stations X
Plankton at all stations X
Indiana collected macroinvertebrate and fish samples at all 21 core
network stations, and plankton from 10 stations in 1979. Periphyton
were not collected.
-------
66
Fish samples are analyzed by the Indiana State Board of Health.
Parameter coverage is in conformance with the requirements of the
Basic Ambient Monitoring Program. The state did not complete all
of the proposed biological monitoring for FY 1979; however, the
biological work that was done was of acceptable quality.
(8) Data Interpretation and Reporting
Ambient Data
The State of Indiana submitted their ambient water quality data into the
STORET system. However, based on a sampling of the National Ambient
Stations, data were submitted on a 6-month basis rather than quarterly .
In addition, no toxic data have been entered into STORET.
Effluent Data
Upon completion of an inspection, the state submitted a report of each
sampling and evaluation inspection of a major discharger to Enforcement
Division.
Intensive Survey Data
Abstracts were submitted for the two intensive surveys completed in FY 1979.
Section 305 (b) Report
Utilizing the Section 305 (b) reporting process, the State completed and
submitted biennially to the USEPA a report describing the status of the
waters of the State. The latest report submitted was for the years 1978-79.
-------
67
INDIANA
FY 80 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
Name
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
-14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
^37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
ALCOA
Allegheny Ludlum Steel
American Maize
American Oil Gorpany
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bunge Corporation
Central Soya
C.F. Industries
Colgate Palmolive
Dana Corporation
Dana Corporation
Delta Faucet
E.I. du Pont de Nemours
Eli Lilly and Company
Eli Lilly and Company
Emge Packing
Energy Cooperative, Inc.
Extruded Alloys
General Electric
CMC-Central Foundry
CMC-Detroit Diesel Allison
Centner Packing Company
IMC Chemical
Indiana Farm Bureau Co-op.
Inland Container Corp.
Inland Steel Company
Laketon Asphalt
Lever Brothers
Louisville Cement
Mid-State Steel and Wire
Minnesota Mining & Mfg.
Morgan Packing Company
National Steel Corporation
Perm Dixie Steel
Olin Corporation
Pfizer and Company
Union Carbide
U.S. Steel Corporation
Vfeston Paper .Company
Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Inter Royal Corporation
Sheller Globe Corporation
Du-Well Metal Products
INDUSTRIAL
Location
Newburgh
New Castle
Haimiond
Whiting
Portage
Clymers
Decatur
Terre Haute
Clarksville
Fort Wayne
Hagerstown
Greensburg
East Chicago
Clinton
Lafayette
Fort1 Branch
East Chicago
Bedford
Mt. Vernon
Bedford
Indianapolis
South Bend
Terre Haute
Mount Vernon
Newport
East Chicago
Laketon
Hanrncnd
Speed
Crawfordsville
Hartford City
Austin
Portage
Kokomo
Covington
Terre Haute
Gary
Gary
Terre Haute
East Chicago
Michigan City
Union City
Morristown
Permit No.
IN 0001155
IN 0045284
IN 0000027
IN 0000108
IN 0000175
IN 0037958
IN 0000591
IN 0001546
IN 0003638
IN 0000388
IN 0001929
IN 0032352
IN 0000329
IN 0002852
IN 0002861
IN 0001686
IN 0000051
IN 0001066
IN 0002101
IN 0003573
IN 0001813
IN 0000884
IN 0003328
IN 0002470
IN 0036447
IN 0000094
IN 0001244
IN 0000264
IN 0002071
IN 0002445
IN 0002321
IN 0021911
IN 0000337
IN 0002909
IN 0001414
IN 0003581
IN 0000035
IN 0000281
IN 0003026
IN 0000205
IN 0032565
IN 0003107
IN 0109541
September 1979
Expiration Date
12/20/79
9/30/80
11/29/79
12/31/79
9/30/83
12/31/83
10/31/79
6/30/81
6/30/81
12/31/79
6/30/81
12/19/79
12/19/79
9/30/80
3/31/81
3/31/80
12/31/79
*
3/31/80
5/31/80
6/30/81
3/31/80
5/31/80
11/29/79
9/30/80
4/1/80
5/1/80
3/31/80
4/30/82
12/31/79
*
9/30/80
6/30/80
6/30/81
*
10/31/79
*
10/31/79
3/31/80
6/23/80
10/31/81
* Expiration date will be determined after the permit is issued.
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
68
POWER PLANTS
September 1979
Name
1. Commonwealth Edison
2. Hoosier Energy
3. Indianapolis Power and Light
4. Indianapolis Power and Light
5. Indianapolis Power and Light
6. Indiana-Kentucky Electric
7. Indiana-Michigan Electric
8. Indiana-Michigan Electric
9. Indiana-Michigan Electric
10. Logansport Electric
11. No. Indiana Public Service
12. No. Indiana Public Service
13. No. Indiana Public Service
14. No. Indiana Public Service
15. Peru Electric
16. Public Service of Indiana
17. Public Service of Indiana
18. Public Service of Indiana
). Public Service of Indiana
20. Public Service of Indiana
21. So. Indiana Gas & Electric
22. So. Indiana Gas 4 Electric
Location
State Line
Petersburg
Petersburg
Stout
Pritchard
Clifty Creek
Twin Branch
Tanners Creek
Breed
Logansport
Michigan City
Gary
Bailly
Wheatfield
Peru
Noblesville
Edwardsport
Cayuga
Gallagher
Wabash River
Newburgh
New Franklin
Permit No. Expiration Date
IN 0000221
IN 0004391
IN 0002887
IN 0004685
IN 0004693
IN 0001759
IN 0000493
IN 0002160
IN 0002178
IN 0041246
IN 0000116
IN 0000124
IN 0000132
IN 0053201
IN 0044130
IN 0002801
IN 0002780
IN 0002763
IN 0002798
IN 0002810
IN 0002259
IN 0052191
10/01/79
*
*
11/30/79
9/30/79
12/22/79
*
12/15/79
12/21/79
5/30/80
3/31/81
4/30/80
*
11/30/79
10/01/79
9/30/79
9/30/83
Dates will be determined following reissuance
1-2
-------
69
September 1979
INDIANA
FY I960 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
MUNICIPAL
Name
1. Alexandria
2. Anderson
3. Angola
4. Auburn
5. Bedford
6. Bloomington N
7. Bloomington S
8. Bluffton
9. Brazil
10. Bremen
11. Carmel N
12. Carmel Sv
13. Charlestown
14. Chesterton
15. Cl-arksville N
16. Clarksyille S
17. Columbia City
18. Columbus
19. Connersville
20. Corydon
21. Crawfordsvilie
22. Crown Point
23. Decatur
24. East Chicago
25. Elkhart
26. El wood
27. Evansville E
28. Evansville W
29. Fort Wayne
30. Frankfort
31. Franklin
32. Gary
33. Goshen
34. Greencastle
35. Greenfield
36. Greensburg
37. Greenwood S
38. Hartford City E
39. Hartford City W
40. Hammond
41. Hobart
Location
Alexandria
Anderson
Angola
Auburn
Bedford
Bloomington
Bloomington
Bluffton
Brazil
Bremen
Carmel
Carmel
Charlestown
Chesterton
Clarksville
Cl arks yi lie
Columbia City
Columbus
Connersville
Corydon
Crawfordsvilie
Crown Point
Decatur
East Chicago
Elkhart
El wood
Evansville
Evansville
Fort Wayne
Frankfort
Franklin
Gary
Goshen
Greencastle
Greenfield
Greensburg
Greenwood
Hartford City
Hartford City
Hammond
Hobart
Permit No.
0020044
0032476
0021296
0020672
0025623
0035726
0035718
0022411
0021211
0020427
0039284
0022497
0020508
IN 0022578
IN 0020621
0020613
0022624
0032573
0032336
0020893
0032964
0025763
0039314
0022829
0025674
0032719
0033073
0032956
0032191
0022934
0021181
IN 0022977
IN 0025755
0021032
0020109
0020133
0032204
0021610
0021628
0023060
0023086
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
Expiration Date
11/30/79
3/31/84
12/31/79
10/31/81
12/31/81
12/31/81
12/31/79
10/31/81
9/30/79
3/31/80
*
12/31/81
3/31/80
12/31/79
12/31/79
12/31/79
12/31/79
11/01/79
1/31/82
5/31/82
12/31/79
12/31/79
5/31/82
9/30/79
9/15/79
10/15/79
10/15/79
12/31/79
11/01/79
9/15/79
4/30/82
*
10/15/79
10/31/81
12/31/79
9/30/79
12/31/79
12/31/79
6/30/83
9/30/79
1-3
-------
70
INDIANA
FY 1980 List of Major Dischargers (Cont.)
MUNICIPAL
Name
42. Huntington
43. Indianapolis N
44. Indianapolis S
45. Jasper
46. Jeffersonville
47. Kendallville
48. Kokomo
49. Lafayette
50. La Porte
51. Lawrence
52. Lebanon
53. Logansport
54. Lowell
55. Madison
56.' Marion
57. Martinsvilie
58. Michigan City
59. Mishawaka
60. Mooresville
61. Mt. Vernon
62. Muncie Sanitary District
63. New Albany
64. New Haven
65. New Castle
66. Newburgh
67. Nobles viHe
68. North Vernon
69. North Manchester
70. Peru
71. Plymouth
72. Plainfield
73. Portage
74. Princeton
75. Portland
76. Richmond Sanitary District
77. Rochester
78. Rushville
79. Salem
80. Scottsburg
81. Schererville
82. Seymour
83. Shelbyville
84. South Bend
85. South Dearborn S. D.
Location
Huntington
Indianapolis
Indianapolis
Jasper
Jeffersonville
Kendallville
Kokomo
Lafayette
La Porte
Lawrence
Lebanon
Logansport~
Lowe!1
Madison
Marion
Martinsville
Michigan City
Mishawaka
Mooresville
Mt. Vernon
Muncie
New Albany
New Haven
New Castle
Newburgh
Noblesville
North Vernon
North Manchester
Peru
Plymouth
Plainfield
Portage
Princeton
Portland
R i chmond
Rochester
Rushville
Salem
Scottsburg
Schererville
Seymour
Shelbyville
South Bend
South Dearborn
Permit No.
IN 0023132
IN 0023183
IN 0031950
0020834
0023302
0020656
0032875
0032468
0025577
0023574
0020818
0023604
0023621
0025666
0025585
0020303
IN 0023752
IN 0025640
0023825
0035696
0025631
0023884
0020346
0023914
0023892
0020168
0020451
0020362
0032328
0020991
0021202
0024368
0024392
0020095
0025615
IN 0021661
IN 0021270
0021644
0020397
0024457
IN 0024473
IN 0032867
IN 0024520
IN 0024538
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
Expiration Da
11/30/81
12/31/79
12/31/79
*
11/30/79
*
12/31/81
9/30/79
9/15/79
3/31/82
10/31/81
4/30/82
1/01/80
*
2/28/82
3/31/82
10/15/79
1/31/82
3/31/80
12/31/79
11/30/79
9/30/79
3/31/82
11/30/79
12/31/79
11/30/79
*
12/31/79
10/15/79
1/31/82
3/31/82
3/31/82
12/31/79
*
11/30/79
1/31/82
11/30/82
*
3/31/82
6/30/80
12/31/81
1/31/82
9/30/79
10/31/79
1-4
-------
71
INDIANA
Name
86. Speedway
87. Tell City
88. Terre Haute
89. Tipton
90. Union City
91. Valparaiso
92. Vincennes
93. Wabash
94. Warsaw
95. Washington
96. West Lafayette
97. Winchester
FY 1980 List of Major Di
MUNICIPAL
Locatio'n
Speedway
Tell City
Terre Haute
Tipton
Union City
Valparaiso
Vincennes
Wabash
Warsaw
Washington
West Lafayette
Winchester
schargers (Cont.'
Permit No.
IN 0032972
IN 0021016
IN 0025607
IN 0021474
IN 0020982
IN 0024660
IN 0031020
IN 0024741
IN 0024805
IN 0025658
IN 0024821
IN 0021024
Expiration De
12/31/79
3/31/82
*
1/31/80
6/30/82
9/30/79
*
10/15/79
1/31/82
10/31/81
9/30/79
12/31/79
Name
1. U.S. Naval Ammunition
Depot
2. U.S. Army-Fort
Benjamin Harrison
3. U.S. Army Ammunition
Plant
4. U.S. Army, Jefferson
Proving Grounds
5. U.S. Air Force, Grissom
Air Force Base
6. U.S. Navy-Crane
Ammunition Depot
FEDERAL
Location
Crane
Indianapolis
Charlestown
Madison
Grissom
Crane STP
Permit No. Expiration Date
IN 0035157 *
IN 0033456 *
IN 0001163 *
IN 0024210 *
IN 0024902 11/22/79
IN 0021539 *
* Dates will be determined following reissuance.
1-5
-------
72
c. MICHIGAN
(1) Overview
There are two principal agencies in Michigan involved in ambient monitoring.
They are the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). The coverage provided by these networks meets
the explicit intent of the Basic Monitoring Program. The program is intend-
ed to provide a data base which is representative of national water quality
and trends. Considering sampling parameters and frequency, there is no
duplication in these networks. However, Michigan's program has minor defi-
iciencies with respect to the Basic Monitoring Program in regard to effluent
monitoring and quality assurance.
(2) Assessment of the State Monitoring Program
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources operates two fixed station
networks. One is the basic network consisting of 36 National Ambient
Monitoring Stations. The second is a State network consisting of six
continuous water quality monitoring programs which encompass approximately
135 different sampling stations in the upper and lower peninsulas. These
networks are presented in Figures 7 thru 10. As displayed, the networks
provide very broad coverage of the State's waters. An evaluation of each
of these networks, together with the USGS networks, is presented below.
In addition to the monitoring networks, the following programs are also
evaluated: intensive surveys, effluent monitoring, proposed biological
monitoring, quality assurance, and data interpretation and reporting.
(a) National Ambient Monitoring Network
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources operates a network of 36
National Ambient Water Quality Monitoring stations. These stations
are tabulated in Table 5 below and are described in Figures 7 and 8.
TABLE 5
NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS - MICHIGAN
Location Station No.
Pere Marquette River @ Reek Rd. 530028
Muskegon River at M-66 670055
Thunder Bay River @ Herron Rd. AT M-123 040049
Tahquamenon River 170007
Au Sable River at REA Road 350061
Ontonagon River at U.S. 45 Bridge 660007
Menominee River at Power Plant Spillway 550061
-------
MICHIGAN (Lower)
Figure 7 Basic Water Monitoring Network, Pesticides Stations USGS, NASQAN Stations USGS and Water Intakes.
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal IN ..
I - Industrial o
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
Monitoring Stations:
• Basic Water Monitoring Program
A Pesticdes USGS
^NASQAN Stations USGS
O Water Intakes
10 0 10 20 30 40 Miles
-------
MICHIGAN (Upper)
Figure 8 Basic Water Monitoring Network, Pesticides Stations USGS, NASQAN Stations USGS, Benchmark USGS
and Water Intakes
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
LAKE SUPERIOR
Monitoring Stations:
& Basic Water Monitoring Program
A Pesticides USGS
^NASQAN Stations USGS
^"Benchmark USGS
O Radiochemical Monitoring USGS
A Water intakes
10 0 10 20 30 40 Miles
-------
73
TABLE 5 (cont'd)
NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS - MICHIGAN
LOCATION
Manistee River at high Bridge RD.
Kalamazoo River at old US-31
St. Joseph River at C&O RR
Grand River at Mouth
Boardman River at Park Street
Pine River at M-134
Escanaba River at US-41
Carp River at Beside Power
Plant Road
Sturgeon River at U.S. - 41
Ontonagon River at Milwaukee
R.R. Bridge
Thunder Bay River at 9th street in
Alpena
Rifle River at Arenac State Rd.
Augres River at US23
Saginaw River at Midland Street
Van Etten Creek at M-107
Clinton River at Gratiot Ave
Grand River at Knapp Street
Rouge River at W. Jefferson
Grand River at Draper Road
Grand River at Maple Grove Road
Clinton River at M-59
Clinton River at Hamlin Road
Manistique River at Old
R.R. Ferry dock (mouth)
Flint River at Carpenter Road
Flint River at Elms Road
Grand River at Creyts Road
Grand River at Webster Road
Kalamazoo River at River Road
Kalamazoo River at D. Avenue
STATION NO
510017
030009
110039
700026
280013
490006
210030
520186
310006
660038
040067
060007
060033
090162
350062
500233
410050
820070
380226
380031
630529
630252
770003
250098
256633
230038
230028
390079
390058
These stations are sited in water use areas such as recreational areas,
populated areas, land use areas such as municipal/industrial and
agricultural/rural and also relatively clean water areas of concern.
Description forms have been submitted for each designated station.
Based on a STORET retrieval of 8 stations, Michigan meets the minimum
parameter and sampling frequency specifications of the "Basic Ambient
Water Monitoring Program" except for representative fish tissue analysis.
(b) State Monitoring Network
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources primary monitoring network
consists of 6 continuous Water Quality Monitoring Programs, as conducted
by the Comprehensive Studies Section of the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. The monitoring programs, which encompass approximately 135
different sampling stations in the Upper and Lower Peninsulas, are designed
to:
-------
74
Document water quality trends;
Determine the need for and develop new water quality standards;
Determine the extent of compliance with current water quality
standards;
Determine the effects of input from both point and non-point
sources;
Evaluate the effectiveness of pollution control programs;
Determine background water quality for streams which are minimally
affected by man's activities;
Determine material loadings to the Great Lakes; and
Locate the presence of toxic materials in the State's
river systems and document long-term trends.
The 6 continuous water quality monitoring programs are: (1) Detroit
River Monitoring Program, (2) Special Monitoring Program, (3) Natural/Back-
ground Areas Monitoring Program (4) Urban Areas Monitoring Program, (5)
Great Lakes Tributary Monitoring Program and (6) Toxic Materials Monitoring
Program. These networks are presented in Figures 9 and 10, Each of these
is evaluated below:
i. Detroit River Monitoring Program
The Detroit River Monitoring Program is designed to provide water quality
data and constituent loadings in the Detroit River as it flows between
Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie. These data are developed by conducting two
sampling cruises (runs) during each month from April through November.
One monthly run consists of 54 stations sampled at the surface across 10
ranges of the Detroit River from the head to the mouth. The second
monthly cruise consists of 20 stations. Ten of these stations are located
on the Detroit River mouth, range DT 3.9. The remaining 10 stations are
located on ranges DT 30.8 W and DT 30.7 E at the head of the Detroit River.
Analytical data obtained along with river flow data are used to determine
the loading rates of various constituents at each location in the river.
Samples from all of these stations are analyzed for the parameters required
by the Basic Ambient Monitoring Program except representative fish tissue
analysis. In addition, a wide variety of heavy metals and toxic
organics are analyzed.
-------
MICHIGAN (Lower)
Figure 9 State Monitoring Network and Detroit River Monitoring.
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
Monitoring Stations:
STATE STATIONS (MDNR)
Great Lakes
Urban Areas
Natural Background Areas
Monitoring
Toxic Materials
Special Monitoring
Detroit River Monitoring
X
r?
LAI
'0 0 10 20 30 40 Miles
-------
MICHIGAN (Upper)
Figure 10. State Monitoring Network.
LAKE SUPERIOR
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
Monitoring Stations:
STATE STATIONS (MDNR)
• Great Lakes
A Natural Background Areas Monitoring
O Special Monitoring
10 0 10 20 30 40 Miles
-------
75
_2_. Special Monitoring Program
The Special Monitoring Program is composed of a number of small monitoring
projects, each with individual, precise objectives. The projects are
conducted in response to specific monitoring needs, usually on short term
basis. They are initiated upon request to the Comprehensive Studies
Section by various sections within the department or by outside agencies.
The monitoring projects included under the Special Monitoring Program
are: Enforcement Monitoring, Biology Monitoring, Monitoring for Intensive
River Studies, National Water Quality Surveillance System (NWQSS),
EPA/PLUARG (Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group), and
Muskegon County Lakes Project. Each of these projects is evaluated below:
_a. Enforcement Monitoring: Enforcement monitoring consists of 4 stations
in the vicinity of the Muskegon Waste Water Project. This program is
designed to evaluate the impact of the project upon water quality.
Each station is sampled monthly throughout the year for all of the
parameters required for the Basic Ambient Monitoring Program except
chemical oxygen demand, flow and representative fish tissue analysis.
In addition, a wide variety of heavy metals and toxic organics are
analyzed.
_b. Biology Monitoring: Monitoring requested by the Water Quality
Division, Biology Section, consists of 3 stations on the Platte
River. These sites are sampled monthly to determine what influence
the Platte River State Fish Hatchery has on river water quality.
Each station is sampled monthly throughout the year for all of the
parameters required for the Basic Ambient Monitoring Program except
chemical oxygen demand, flow and representative fish tissue analysis.
In additon, a wide variety of heavy metals are analyzed annually.
_c. Monitoring for Intensive River Studies: At the request of the
Intensive Rivers Studies Unit of the Comprehensive Studies Section,
stations are set up for a five-month period in the vicinity of various
dischargers to determine the impact of water quality upon receiving
waters. Each station is sampled monthly throughout the year for all
of the parameters required for the Basic Ambient Monitoring Program
except chemical oxygen demand, flow and representative fish tissue
analysis.
-------
76
d_. NWQSS: The National Water Quality Surveillance System (NWQSS)
monitoring is used in conjunction with other NWQSS stations across
the country to characterize water quality throughout the nation.
Two stations located on the Grand River, upstream and downstream of
Lansing provide Michigan's water quality data for this system. The
stations are sampled twice monthly throughout the year for all of
the parameters required for the Basic Ambient Monitoring Program
except representative fish tissue analysis. In additon, several
heavy metals and miscellaneous inorganics are analyzed.
e^. EPA/PLUARG Monitoring: As a followup to the PLUARG studies, EPA has
requested the State to include additional parameter coverage at
seven existing tributary monitoring stations. These stations are
sampled monthly for several heavy metals, and annually for total
alkalinity, hardness, sulfate, and fluoride.
_f. Muskegon County Lakes Project: The State is involved in a two year
coordinated study with Limo-Tech Inc. of Ann Arbor, to evaluate the
effects of Muskegon County wastewater diversion and spray irrigation
on White, Muskegon, and Mona Lakes in Muskegon County. The monitoring
component consists of a total of 10 stations located on the White
and Muskegon Rivers, Mosquito and Black Creeks, and at the outlet
channels of White, Muskegon and Mona Lakes. Each station is
sampled monthly for all of the parameters required for the Basic
Ambient Monitoring Program except chemical oxygen demand, flow, and
representative fish tissue analysis. Several other chemical para-
meters are being analyzed on an annual basis, including several
heavy metals.
3_. Natural/Background Areas Monitoring Program
Fifteen stations on upper and lower peninsula streams make up the
Natural/Background Monitoring Program. Data collected under this program
are compared to the water quality of streams in urban and industrial
areas. These sampling sites are located in areas relatively free from
human influence. Each station is sampled monthly throughout the year for
all of the parameters required for the Basic Ambient Monitoring Program
except flow and representative fish tissue analysis. In addition, 17
metal parameters are analyzed once per year. The mouth of the Ford and
Presque Isle Rivers are monitored biennially and will be sampled during
Water Year 1980 (WY80). The Manistique River upstream station along
with Sturgeon River, Delta County mouth station will be sampled during
odd-numbered years.
-------
77
—• Urban Areas Monitoring Program
The Urban Areas Monitoring Program is designed to document the effect of
Michigan's major urban centers on surface water quality. Samples are
collected upstream and downstream of 15 urban areas which comprise more
than two-thirds of the state's population. The Detroit River, which
includes 10 upstream and 10 downstream stations, is sampled by boat twice
monthly throughout the year for 20 different chemical, physical and
biological parameters. Fifteen additional metal parameters are sampled
once a year. Samples from upstream and downstream stations for a given
study area are collected on the same day to account for seasonal effects
of weather and stream flow. While the chemical parameters analyzed for this
program have not been reported to the USEPA, from the program description
given it is probable that the sampling program meets the requirements of
the Basic Ambient Monitoring Program except for toxics and biological
monitoring.
—' Greats Lakes Tributary Monitoring Program
The Tributary Monitoring Program documents seasonal and annual water
quality trends, as well as constituent loading rates, for 39 of Michigan's
Great Lakes Tributaries. These stations are located near the mouths of
the major rivers throughout the state. Of the 39 stations, six will be
sampled by the USGS as part of the NASQAN program and four will be sampled
on a biennial basis.
Of the four biennial stations, two are sampled during even-numbered years
and two during odd-years. The Ford River and the Presque Isle River will
be sampled during Water Year - 1980 (WY 80). The Montreal River and the
Sturgeon River, Delta County, will be sampled during Water Year-1981 (WY81).
Each station is sampled once a month throughout the year for all of the
parameters required for the Basic Ambient Monitoring Program except flow
and representative fish tissue analysis. In addition, 15 metal parameters,
along with cyanide and phenol, are analyzed once per year. In view of
the stated purpose of the program, it should be expanded to include
toxic organic analyses.
—' Toxic Materials Monitoring Program
The objective of the Toxic Materials Monitoring Program is to identify
the existence of and document long-term trends relating to toxic substances
in the water column and sediments of major river systems in Michigan.
Parameters to be monitored include pesticides, persistent organic substances
and heavy metals. The program has two sampling components: (I) water
column sampling for surveillance purposes and 2) water column and sediment
sampling for trends analysis.
-------
78
The toxic materials surveillance sampling program is conducted twice
annually during the summer months on major rivers throughout the State.
For FY 1979, samples were taken on 15 rivers at single stations at the
mouths of the rivers as they flowed into the Great Lakes. Samples were
taken of water only.
The toxic materials trends analysis program is conducted on rivers where
the existence of toxic materials has been established. For FY 1979,
samples were taken on 9 rivers at single sampling stations. Samples were
taken of the water and sediment.
To date, these data have not been entered into STORET.
(c) Great Lakes Nearshore Monitoring
MDNR has recently been awarded a grant for Great Lakes surveillance
activities for FY 1980. Key elements of the work plan are: Clinton R.
- Lake St. Clair nearshore studies, Thunder Bay, St. Ignace and Cheboygan
nearshore studies in Lake Huron, Great Lakes tributary loading - flow
analysis study, Great Lakes water intake verification analysis and Great
Lakes salmon residue monitoring programs. A long - term Great Lakes
nearshore monitoring strategy is to be developed by October, 1980. This
program is not presented in the Figures.
(d) U.S. Geological Survey
USGS sites in the State of Michigan at which water quality data are
collected on a routine repetitive basis have been separated into 7
categories. They are (1) NASQAN Program, (2) NASQAN Radiochemical
Subnetwork, (3) NASQAN Pesticides Subnetwork, (4) Hydrologic Benchmark
Water Quality Program, (5) Water Temperature Recording Stations, (6)
Water quality stations operated in cooperation with the Village of
Clarkston, and (7) Water quality stations operated in cooperation
with the Washtenaw County Planning Commission. See Figures 7, 8, 11
and 12.
There are several other programs to be operated by USGS for the
Michigan District. However, they cannot be evaluated because station
location, sampling methods, frequency of sampling and analytical
determinations are only tentative at this time.
Each of the USGS programs is described below.
-------
MICHIGAN (Lower)
Figure 11 USGS Monitoring Networks-
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
X'HEBOYGAN
Monitoring Stations:
A Washtenaw County Planning
Commission USGS
• Water Temperature USGS
^ Monitoring for Village of Clarkston USGS
10 0 10 20 30 40 Miles
ERIE
-------
MICHIGAN (Upper)
Figure 12' USGS Monitoring Network (Water Temperature Stations).
LAKE SUPERIOR
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
F - Federal
Monitoring Stations:
• Water Temperature USGS
10 0 10 20 30 40 Miles
-------
79
JL. NASQAN Program
The USGS operates 22 stations in the NASQAN network. One is operated as
a NASQAN Radiochemical Subnetwork station and 5 are operated as Pesticides
Subnetwork stations. At these stations the following tests are done 12
times per year: water temperature, specific conductance, fecal streptococci,
suspended sediment, and other common constituents including major nutrients.
Also at these stations, total organic carbon is run 8 times per year,
phytoplankton is run 7 times per year, and trace elements, total recoverable
silver and periphyton are run 4 times per year. These analyses include
the minimum parameter coverage required for the Basic Ambient Monitoring
Program, with the exception of fish tissue analysis.
Ł. NASQAN Radiochemical Subnetwork
Radiochemical samples are collected 2 times per year at high and
low flow periods.
b_. NASQAN Pesticides Subnetwork
Water samples are collected 4 times per year in November, February,
May and August. Bottom material samples are collected in November
and May. Sample containers and sample analyses are provided by
the EPA laboratory, NSTL station, Mississippi.
2_. Hydrologic Benchmark Water - Quality Program
There is one Hydrologic Benchmark Station in Michigan. This station is
located in Keweenaw County on Isle Royale. At this station the following
tests are done bimonthly: instantaneous discharge, specific conductance,
water temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, total coliform bacteria, fecal
coliform bacteria, fecal streptococci bacteria, suspended sediment, and
other common constituents. These analyses meet the minimum parameter
coverage required by the Basic Ambient Monitoring Program, with the
exception of fish tissue analysis.
3_. Water Temperature Recording Stations
The USGS operates 20 water - temperatures stations in cooperation with
various agencies. The water - temperature stations are distributed
throughout the state.
-------
80
.4- Water Quality Stations Operated In Cooperation with the Village
of Clarkston.
Four stations have been established on mill ponds at Clarkston, Michigan.
Each station will be sampled four times each year. Nutrients, chloride,
color, calcium, magnesium, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH,
turbidity, fecal streptococci, and fecal coliform will be measured.
$• Water - Quality Stations Operated in Cooperation with the Washtenaw
County Planning Commission
Eleven stations have been established in Washtenaw County. At these
stations the following tests are done bimonthly: instantaneous discharge,
specific conductance, water-temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, total
coliform bacteria, and fecal coliform bacteria. Common constituents, includ-
ing major nutrients, are also analyzed 2 times per year. Minor elements,
total organic carbon and pesticides are run once a year.
These parameters meet the requirements of the Basic Ambient Monitoring
Program with the exception of major nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
being run twice a year rather than monthly, and representative fish
tissue analysis and flow which are not analyzed.
(3) Major Dischargers - Fixed Station Network
A review of Figures 7 thru 12 shows that 47 major dischargers are
not being monitored by any network station within 15 miles. Although
there are no criteria relating dischargers to downstream monitoring, the
information is considered relevant, particularly for those interested
in modeling or waste load allocation studies. These major dischargers
are listed below in Table 6. A complete listing is presented in the
Attachment.
TABLE 6
MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED - MICHIGAN
Discharger
1. Northern Michigan Electric Coop. Advance Steam Plant, Boyne City
2. Cadillac WWTP
3. Mt. Pleasant WWTP
4. Big Rapids WWTP
5. Michigan Sugar Co., Caro
6. Stauffer Chemical, Weston
7. Adrian WWTP
-------
81
TABLE 6 (Cont'd)
MAJOR DISCHARGES NOT MONITORED - MICHIGAN
8. Tecurnseh WWTP
9. Hillsdale WWTP
10. Coldwater WWTP
11. Sturgis WWTP
12. Three Rivers WWTP
13. Essex International, Inc., Three Rivers
14. Hanna Mining Co., Groveland Mine, Pine Creek
15. Lear Siegler Ind., Plastics Div., Mendon
16. Dowagiac WWTP
17. Paw Paw Lake WWTP
18. Du-Wel Metal Products, Hartford
19. Watervliet Paper Co., Watervliet
20. Menasha Corp., Otsego
21. Mead Corp. , Otsego
22. Plainwell Paper Co., Plainwell
23. Ionia WWTP
24. Greenville WWTP
25. Federal - Mogul Corp., Greenville
26. Indiana Head Co., Extruded Metal Div., Belding
27. Mason WWTP
28. Federal - Mogul Corp., St. Johns
29. Huron Rouge Sewage Dist., Walled Lake
30. Ford Motor Co., Wixom
31. Michigan Seamless Tube, South Lyon
32. Hoover Universal, Inc., Die Casting Div., Fowlerville
33. Michigan Sugar Co., Croswell
34. Warren WWTP
35. Bedford Township WWTP, Erie
36. Chemetron Corp. , Holland
37. Holland Die Casting and Plating Co., Holland
38. Parke - Davis & Co., Holland
39. Holland WWTP
40. Marine City WWTP
41. Marquette WWTP
42. Manistique WWTP
43. Manistique Pulp & Paper, Manistique
44. Morton Salt, Marysville
45. Marysville WWTP
46. Diamond Crystal Salt, St. Clair
47. Detroit Edison Co., Marysville
(4) Intensive Survey Program
The primary objective of Michigans' intensive river studies is to develop
timely effluent limits for NPDES permit issuance. To do so, field work
and water quality data analysis, including water quality modeling is
done. FY 1979 field work has been completed on the following streams:
St. Joseph River below Hillsdale
Ogemaw Creek below West Branch
Raisin River below Tecumseh and Manchester
Bean Creek below Hudson
Montreal River below Ironwood
-------
82
Abstracts for the River Raisin below Tecumseh study and Bean Creek below
Hudson study were submitted to the Surveillance & Analysis Division. The
abstracts indicate that the stated objectives for the intensive surveys
were achieved. Michigan is one of the few states where intensive survey
data are entered into the STORE! system.
The intensive survey program has a minor deficiency in that abstracts were
submitted for only 2 of the 5 surveys completed.
(5) Effluent Monitoring Program
In the State of Michigan there are 206 major dischargers; 81 municipal, 2
federal and 123 non-municipal. Inspections planned and completed during
FY 79 were as follows.
Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI)
Municipal
Non-Municipal
Federal
Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI)
Municipal
Non-Municipal
Federal
Toxics
Municipal
Non-Municipal
Projected
100
0
62
0
Accomplished
39
58
1
6
39
0
0
0
Commitments were not made to complete a CSI or CEI at all major dis-
chargers. Output commitments for FY 1979, were to conduct 100 CSI and
62 CEI surveys. The State did essentially meet their commitment for CSI
surveys, completing 98 out of 100 committed. However, they did not meet
their commitment for CEI surveys, completing only 45 against a commitment
of 62. It should be noted that the results of compliance monitoring
(State and Federal) for FY 79 reveals 57% of municipal and 79 percent of
non-municipal major dischargers were in compliance with their permits.
No commitments were made to complete any federal inspections; however,
one CSI was conducted. No commitments were made for toxic surveys, nor
for inspections at any minor discharger.
The State effluent monitoring program is effective. However, they are
obviously reluctant to submit NPDES compliance forms. In instances where
violations were found, appropriate enforcement action was taken by the State.
-------
83
(6) Proposed Biological Monitoring Program
The State of Michigan did not participate in the Basic Water Monitoring
Program for biology in 1979. The last sampling that was done was 1973
through 1978. The data for this period were compiled in a report, and
is available through the MDNR.
Michigan is currently in the process of evaluating the biological monitoring
program to determine if it will be continued in the future. The general
consensus is that it will not be resumed in 1980.
(7) Quality Assurance Program
The State of Michigan has not collated a total quality assurance (QA)
document with QA management responsibility identified for the total
monitoring effort. Therefore, data quality cannot be verified by the
Agency in a centrally managed QA program. During FY 80 the State identified
a Quality Assurance committee to develop a quality assurance program. In
FY 80 this committee met on an infrequent basis to document the QA program.
A tremendous amount of effort is required for completion of this document.
All committee members perform other duties that have been given a higher
priority. Thus, the QA responsibility is addressed when things are "Slow
at the Office". Final documentation is approximately 40% complete. The
State has made no commitment on a time frame for completion of program
documentation for implementation.
(8) Data Interpretation & Reporting
Using the Section 305(b) reporting process, the State of Michigan has
submitted annually a report to the USEPA describing the quality of their
waters. The latest report submitted was for the year 1979.
Data Storage and Retrieval
Ambient Data
Except for fish analysis, the State of Michigan submitted their ambient
water quality data for storage into the STORET system. The data were
submitted quarterly.
Effluent Data
Upon completion of an inspection, the state did not submit a report of
each compliance sampling and compliance evaluation inspection of a major
permittee to the Enforcement Division.
Intensive Survey Data
Abstracts were not submitted for FY 1979 for all of the intensive surveys
completed. However, data are entered into STORET.
-------
84
MICHIGAN
September 1979
FY 1980 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
INDUSTRIAL
Name
1. Abitibi Corporation
2. Allied Paper Inc., Monarch Mill
3. Attwood Corp.
4. Auto Specialties Mfg.
5. BASF Wyandotte Co., North Works
6. BASF Wyandotte Co., South Works
7. Brown Co., Specialty Papers Div.
8. Chemetron Corp.
9. Chrysler Corp., Intrpl Div.
10. Chrysler-Trenton Engine
11. CWC Textron, Henry St. Complex
12. Diamond Crystal Salt
13. Dow Chemical Co.
14. Dow Chemical Co.
15. Dow Chemical Co.
16. Pundee Cement Co.
17. Dunn Paper Co.
18. Du-Wel Metal Products
19. E. I. DuPont deNemours & Co.
20. East Shore Chemical Co., Inc.
21. Empire Mining Co.
22. Essex International, Inc.
23. Federal - Mogul Corp.
24. Federal - Mogul Corp.
25. Firestone Steel Products
26. Fletcher Paper Co.
27. Ford Motor Co., Rouge Complex
28. Ford Motor Co.
29. Ford Motor Co.
30. Ford Motor Co.
31. French Paper Co.
32. General Motors- Chevrolet
33. General Motors Fischer Body,
Coldwater Rd
34. General Motors - Diesel Equip. Div
35. General Motors - Buick
36. General Motors, Chev. Metal Cast Pit
37. Goodyear Tires Rubber Co.
38. Great Lakes Steel 80" Mill
39. Great Lakes Steel - Ecorse
Rolling Mill
Location
Alpena
11 Kalamazoo
Lowe! 1
St. Joseph
cs Wyandotte
cs Wyandotte
iv. Parchment
Holland
Scio
Trenton
x Muskegon
St. Clair
Midland
Bay City
Ludington
Dundee
Port Huron
Hartford
Montague
Muskegon
Ishpeming
Three Rivers
Greenville
St. Johns
Riverview
Al pena
Dearborn
Wixom
Ypsilanti
Monroe
Niles
Bay City
Flint
. Div. Grand Rapids
Flint
ast Pit. Saginaw
Jackson
River Rouge
Ecorse
Permit No. Expiration Dat
MI 0002500
MI 0000779
MI 0001252
MI 0002925
MI 0000540
MI 0000566
MI 0000205
MI 0000761
MI 0000523
MI 0002356
MI 0002666
MI 0001031
MI 0000868
MI 0000655
MI 0003026
MI 0002020
MI 0003450
MI 0000281
MI 0000884
MI 0004031
MI 0000094
MI 0004561
MI 0002836
MI 0002747
MI 0002348
MI 0004146
MI 0003361
MI 0028151
MI 0003280
MI 0003247
MI 0003093
MI 0001121
MI 0025194
MI 0001236
MI 0001597
MI 0001139
MI 0001899
MI 0026778
MI 0002313
12/31/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/80
9/30/79
*
10/31/79
*
*
*
6/30/81
8/31/80
10/31/79
9/30/79
10/31/79
6/30/82
7/31/80
*
9/30/79
*
12/31/81
*
*
6/30/81
4/30/80
12/31/80
10/31/79
12/31/79
*
9/30/79
3/31/81
*
6/30/81
6/30/81
10/31/79
5/31/80
3/31/81
9/30/79
9/30/79
* Bates will be determined following reissuance
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
85
FY 1980 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS - INDUSTRIAL (Cont.)
Name Location
40. Great Lakes Steel - Zug Island
41. Great Lakes Steel - Mich. Steel Plant
42. Hanna Mining Co. - Groveland Mine
43. Harbison Walker Refractories
44. Hardy Salt Co.
45. Hercules, Inc.
46. Hitachi Magnetics Corp.
47. Hoerner Waldorf Corp.
48. Holland Die Casting & Plating Co.
49. Hooker Chemical
50. Hoover Ball & Bearing Co.,
Universal Die Casting Division
51. Hoover Universal, Inc.,Die Casting Div,
52. Huron Cement, Division of
National Gypsum Company
53. Indian Head Co., Extruded Metal Div.
54. Kimberly Clark Corp.
55. Lakeside Refining Co.
56. Lear Siegler, Ind., Plastics Div.
57. ' Manistique Pulp & Paper Co.
58. Marquette Iron Mining Co.
Republic Mine
59. Martin Marietta Chemicals
60. McGraw Edison Co.
61. McLouth Steel Corp.
62. McLouth Steel Corp.
63. Mead Corporation
64. Mead Paper Company, Escanaba Mill
65. Medusa Portland Cement
66. Menasha Corp.
67. Menominee Paper Co., Inc.
68. Michigan Seamless Tube Co.
69. Michigan Sugar Co.
70. Michigan Sugar Co.
71. Michigan Sugar Co.
72. Michigan Sugar Co.
73. Monitor Sugar Co.
74. Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Co.
75. Morton Chemical Co.
76. Morton Salt
77. Morton Salt
78. National Standard Company,
City Complex
79. National Standard Company, Niles
Lake Street Plant
Permit No. Expiration Dati
Ecorse
Ecorse
Pine Creek
Ludington
Manistee
Harbor Beach
Edmore
Ontonagon
Holland
Montague
Saline
Fowl ervi lie
Al pena
Bel ding
Munising
Kal amazoo
Mendon
Manistique
Republic
Manistee
Albion
Gibraltar
Trenton
Otsego
Escanaba
Charlevoix
Otsego
Menominee
South Lyon
Caro
Carroll ton
Croswel 1
Sebewaing
Bay City
Trenton
Manistee
Marys vi lie
Manistee
Niles
MI 0026786
MI 0026794
MI 0000116
MI 0003620
MI 0002461
MI 0000876
MI 0027812
MI 0006122
MI 0000167
MI 0002631
MI 0003239
MI 0003727
MI 0001988
MI 0002763
MI 0000892
MI 0003778
MI 0004006
MI 0003166
MI 0000078
MI 0004154
MI 0025321
MI 0004227
MI 0002399
MI 0000787
MI 0000027
MI 0003158
MI 0003824
MI 0000060
MI 0001902
MI 0002267
MI 0002224
MI 0002542
MI 0002003
MI 0001091
MI 0000558
MI 0002470
MI 0001040
MI 0001503
MI 0039179
10/31/79
11/30/79
12/31/81
*
10/31/80
10/31/79
*
11/30/79
*
12/31/81
9/30/79
*
6/30/80
11/30/79
12/31/81
*
*
9/30/79
11/30/80
7/30/80
3/31/80
9/30/79
*
3/31/81
10/31/79
*
3/31/81
*
9/30/80
6/30/81
6/30/81
6/30/81
6/30/81
8/31/81
9/30/79
*
5/31/80
12/31/80
12/31/80
-MI 0027596
1-2
-------
86
FY 1980 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS - INDUSTRIAL (Cont.)
Name
80. Packaging Corp. of America
81. Parke-Davis 4 Co.
82. Parke-Davis & Co.
83. Peet Packing Co.
84. Penn Dixie Cement
85. Pennwalt Corp., East & West Plants
86. Plainwell Paper Co.
87. Port Huron Paper
88. Presque Isle Corp.
89. Proctor & Gamble Paper
90. Renaissance Center, Detroit
Downtown Development Corp.
91. Revere Copper j Brass
92. Stauffer Chemical
93. Tilden Mining Co.
94. Total Leonard
95. Uniroyal Tire Company
96. -Upjohn Co., Portage Rd.
97. Watervliet Paper Co.
98. White Pine Copper Div.
Copper Range Company
Location
Permit No. Expiration Date
Filer City
Detroit
Holland
Chesaning
Petoskey
Wyandotte
Plainwell
Port Huron
Al pena
Cheboygan
Detroit
Detroit
Weston
Ishpeming
Alma
Detroit
Kalamazoo
Watervliet
White Pine
MI 0001171
MI 0001945
MI 0004715
MI 0000311
MI 0004294
MI 0002381
MI 0003794
MI 0002160
MI 0003468
MI 0002496
MI 0024929
MI 0002372
MI 0025135
MI 0038369
MI 0001066
MI 0002321
MI 0002941
MI 0000817
MI 0006114
•9/30/79
6/30/81
*
*
*
5/30/80
3/31/81
3/31/81
*
5/31/80
12/31/83
*
4/30/80
10/31/81
*
3/31/81
*
3/31/81
10/31/79
1-3
-------
87
MICHIGAN
FY 1980 List of Major Dischargers
POWER PLANTS
September 1979
Name Location
1. Consumers Power Co.,
Big Rock Plant
2. Consumers Power Co.,
B. E. Morrow Plant
3. Consumers Power Co.,
J. H. Campbell Plant
4. Consumers Power Co.,
J. R. Whiting Plant
5. Consumers Power Co., D.Ł.
Karn & J. C. Weadock Plant
6. Consumers Power Co.,
B. C. Cobb Plant
7. Consumers Power Co.,
Palisades Plant
8. Consumers Power Co.
9. Detroit Edison Co.,
PennsVlt Station
10. BASF Wyandotte Corp..
Wyandotte North Station
11. Detroit Edison Co.,
Enrico Fermi #1
12. Detroit Edison Co.
13. Detroit Edison Co.
14. Detroit Edison Co.
15. Detroit Edison Co.
16. Detroit Edison Co.
17. Detroit Edison Co.
Del ray Plant
18. Detroit Edison Co.,
St. Clair Plant
19. Detroit Edison Co.,
Conners Creek Plant
20. Detroit Edison Co.,
Greenwood #1
21. Indiana 4 Michigan Power Co.
Donald C. Cook Station Bridgman
22. James DeYoung Power Plant Holland
23. Lansing Board of Water & Light,
Otto Eckert Station Lansing
24. Northern Michigan Elec. Coop. Boyne City
Advance Steam Plant
25. Upper Peninsula Power Co.,
Presque Isle Station Marquette
Permit No. Expiration Date
Charlevoix
Comstock
West Olive
Luna Pier
Essexville
Muskegon
Covert
Ludington
Riverview
Wyandotte
Newport
Monroe
River Rouge
Harbor Beach
Marys vi lie
Trenton
Detroit
Belle River
Detroit
Avoca
MI 0001431
MI 0001384
MI 0001422
MI 0001864
MI 0001678
MI 0001520
MI 0001457
MI 0035912
MI 0001821
MI 0001805
MI 0001830
MI 0001848
MI 0001724
MI 0001856
MI 0001694
MI 0001791
MI 0001783
MI 0001686
MI 0001775
MI 0036978
8/31/80
8/30/80
10/31/80
10/31/79
10/31/79
10/31/79
9/30/80
5/31/80
12/31/79
12/31/79
10/31/79
10/31/79
10/31/79
10/31/79
10/31/79
10/31/79
10/31/79
10/31/79
10/31/79
1/31/83
MI 0005827
MI 0001473
MI 0004464
MI 0003589
10/31/79
11/30/79
*
11/30/79
MI 0006106 10/31/79
1-4
-------
Name
1. Adrian
2. Albion
3. Alma
4. Alpena
5. Ann Arbor
6. Battle Creek
7. Bay City
8. Bedford Township
9. Benton Harbor - St
10. Big Rapids
11. Bridgeport
12. Buchanan
13. Buena Vista Township
14. Cadillac
15. Cheboygan
16. Coldwater
17.. Delta Township
18. Detroit
19. Dowagiac
20. East Lansing
21. Escanaba
22. Flint
23. Flushing
24. Genesee Co., District
25. Genesee Co., District
26. Grand Haven-Spring Lake
27. Grand Rapids
28. Grandville
29. Greenville
30. Grosse lie Twp.
31. Hillsdale
32. Holland
33. Huron Rouge Sewage Dist.
34. Ionia
35. Iron Mountain Kingsford
36 Ironwood
37. Ishpeming
38. Jackson
39. -Kalamazoo
40. Lansing
41. Lapeer
42. Lowell
43. Ludington
44. Manistique
45. Marine City
88
MICHIGAN
FY 1980 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
Joseph
P
ct 12
ct 13
Lake
Dist. Sys
iford
MUNICIPAL
Location
Adra'in
Albion
Alma
Alpena
Ann Arbor
Battle Creek
Bay City
Erie
Benton Harbor
Big Rapids
Bridgeport Twp.
Buchanan
Saginaw County
Cadillac
Cheboygan-
Coldwater
Delta Twp.
Detroit
Dowagiac
East Lansing
Escanaba
Flint
Flushing
Genesee Co.
Genesee Co.
Grand Haven
Grand Rapids
Grandville
Greenville
Grosse lie Twp.
Hillsdale
Holland
.'Walled Lake
Ionia
Iron Mountain
Ironwood
Ishpeming
Jackson
Kalamazoo
Lansing
Lapeer
Lowell
Ludington
Manistique
Marine City
Permit No.
MI 0022152
MI 0022161
MI 0020265
MI 0022195
MI 0022217
MI 0022276
Ml 0022284
MI 0020761
MI 0022322
MI 0022381
MI 0022446
MI 0022489
MI 0022497
MI 0020257
MI 0020303
MI 0020117
MI 0022799
MI 0022802
MI 0022837
MI 0022853
MI 0025381
MI 0022926
MI 0020281
MI 0022977
MI 0022993
MI 0021245
MI 0026069
MI 0023027
MI 0020397
MI 0026191
MI 0022136
MI 0023108
MI 0024287
MI 0021041
MI 0023205
MI 0020125
MI 0021369
MI 0023256
MI 0023299
MI 0023400
MI 0020460
MI 0020311
MI 0021334
MI 0023515
MI 0020893
September 1979
Expiration Date
12/31/81
*
3/31/81
*
3/31/82
3/31/82
3/31/82
*
3/31/82
*
3/31/82
*
3/31/80
*
3/31/82
*
*
*
3/31/82
3/31/82
*
*
*
*
*
3/31/82
*
3/31/82
*
3/31/82
*
3/31/82
3/31/82
3/31/82
3/31/82
3/31/80
3/31/82
9/30/79
*
*
*
* Dates will be determined following reissuance
1-5
-------
89
MICHIGAN
MUNICIPAL (Cont.)
Name
46. Marquette
47. Marshall
48. Marysville
49. Mason
50. Menominee
51. Midland
52. Monroe
53. Mt. Clemens City
54. Mt. Pleasant
55. Muskegon County
56. Negaunee
57. Niles
58. Owosso
59. Paw Paw Lake
60. Pontiac - Auburn Plant
East Blvd. Plant
61. Port Huron
62. Portage Lake Water &
Sewer Authority
63. -Rochester
64. Saginaw
65. Saginaw Township
66. Saline
67. Sault Ste. Marie
68. South Haven
69. Sturgis
70. Tecumseh
71. Three Rivers
72. Traverse City
73. Trenton
74. Warren
75. Wayne County - Flat Rock
76. Wayne County - Trenton
77. Wayne County - Wyandotte
78. Wyoming
79. Ypsilanti Communtiy Utility
Auth. - Ford Lake Plant
80. Ypsilanti Community Utility
Auth. - Willow Run Plant
81. Zilwaukee
Location
Marquette
Marshall
Marysvi lie
Mason
Menominee
Midland
Monroe
Mt. Clemens
Mt. Pleasant
Muskegon County
Negaunee
Niles
Owosso
Paw Paw Lake
Pontiac
Port Huron
Portage Lake
Rochester
Saginaw
Saginaw County
Saline
Sault Ste. Marie
South Haven
Sturgis
Tecumseh
Three Rivers
Traverse City
Trenton
Warren
Flat Rock
Trenton
Wyandotte
Wyoming
Ypsilanti
Ypsilanti
Zilwaukee
Permit No. Expiration Date
MI 0023531
MI 0023540
MI 0020656
MI 0020435
MI 0025631
MI 0023582
MI 0028401
MI 0023647
MI 0023655
MI 0027391
MI 0021296
MI 0023701
MI 0023752
MI 0023779
MI 0023825
MI 0023833
MI 0020061
MI 0023931
MI 0025577
MI 0023973
MI 0024023
MI 0024058
MI 0020320
MI 0020451
MI 0020583
MI 0020991
MI 0027481
MI 0021164
MI 0024295
MI 0024325
MI 0024317
MI 0021156
MI 0024392
MI 0024406
MI 0024422
MI 0023981
3/31/82
9/30/82
*
4/30/82
*
3/31/82
*
*
12/31/81
*
3/31/82
3/31/82
*
*
*
*
*
3/31/82
*
3/31/82
6/30/82
3/31/82
*
3/31/82
3/31/82
*
*
*
12/31/79
3/31/82
3/31/82
*
*
3/31/82
3/31/82
3/31/82
1. Selfridge AFB
2. USAF -K.I. Sawyer
FEDERAL
Mount Clemens
Marquette
MI
MI
0109991
0021423
*
*
1-6
-------
90
d. MINNESOTA
(1) Overview
The State of Minnesota has three different agencies involved in ambient
water monitoring within the State. These agencies are the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The coverage provided by these
networks meets the explicit intent of the Basic Monitoring Program. The
intent of the basic program is to provide a data base which is represen-
tative of the national water quality and trends. Considering sampling
parameters and frequency, there is no duplication in these networks.
However, Minnesota's Basic Monitoring Program has deficiences in the
areas of quality assurance, intensive surveys, effluent monitoring
and data interpretation and reporting.
(2) Assessment of the State Monitoring Program
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency operates three fixed station
networks in the State of Minnesota. These are (1) the National Ambient
Network, consisting of 19 stations, (2) a State monitoring network,
consisting of 26 stations, and (3) the National Water Quality Surveillance
System network, consisting of 4 stations. Additionally, the USGS operates
3 networks of stations, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers operates a
network at impoundments. An evaluation of each of these networks is
presented below.
In addition to the monitoring networks, the following programs are also
evaluated: quality assurance, intensive surveys, effluent monitoring,
proposed biological monitoring and data interpretation and reporting.
(a) National Ambient Monitoring Network
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency operates a network of 19 National
Ambient Water Monitoring stations. This network is funded by the USEPA.
These stations are listed below in Table 7 and described in Figure 13.
TABLE 7
NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS - MINNESOTA
Station Location Station Number
Beaver River, 1 1/2 miles north of Beaver Bay BV-4
St. Louis Bay, Below interstate 535 bridge, Duluth SLB-1
Minnesota River, Bridge on SH-19 at Henderson MI-64
Minnesota River, Bridge on SH-19 and USH-71 at Morton MI-196
Blue Earth River, At confluence with Minnesota River in
Sibley Park above dam, Mankato BE-0
-------
s \ MINNESOTA
Figure 13 State Monitoring Network, Basic Water Monitoring Network and Water Intakes
Major Dischargers
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
A - Agricultural
Monitoring Stations:
• State Stations
ic Water Monitoring Program
A. Water Intakes
-------
91
TABLE 7 (CONT'D)
NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS - MINNESOTA
Station Location STATION NUMBER
Mississippi River, Minneapolis waterworks intake, Fridley UM-859
Mississippi River, Bridge on SH-200 at Jacobson UM-1137
Mississippi River, Bridge on SH_6, 6 miles southwest of
Cohassett UM-1186
Mississippi River, Bridge on USH-200, 1/2 mile west of
Lake Itasca (town) UM-1365
Sauk River, Bridge on CSAH-1, north of St. Cloud SA-0
St. Croix River, C&NW Railway bridge at Hudson, Wisconsin SC-17
Cedar River, Bridge on CSAH-4, 3 miles south of Austin CD-10
Red River, at Grand Forks waterworks intake, Alemont Ave
South RE-300
Red River, Bridge on Main Street and 1st Avenue, Fargo,
Moorhead RE-452
Red Lake River, Bridge on SH-200 at East Grand Forks RL-0.2
Rainy River, International Bridge at Baudette RA-12
Rainy River, at international toll bridge,
International Falls RA-83
Mississippi River, Bridge on USH-14 at LaCrosse, Wisconsin UM-698
Based on a STORET retrieval of 6 stations, the parameter coverage and
sampling frequency comply with the minimum requirements of the Basic
Monitoring Program with the exception of representative fish tissue data
which is not presently in STORET. In addition to the minimum parameter
list, the State also analyzes many general chemistry and heavy metal
parameters. Station description forms have been submitted for each
designated station.
(b) State Monitoring Network
In addition to the basic network, the State of Minnesota operates a network
of 26 ambient water quality monitoring stations within the State. Most of
the stations are located on major rivers and significant tributaries. Ac-
cording to the State, the parameter coverage and frequency of sampling comply
with the minimum requirements of the Basic Monitoring Program with the exception
of chemical oxygen demand, representative fish tissue analysis and flow, which
are not analyzed. In addition to the minimum parameter list, the State also
analyzes many heavy metal parameters on an annual basis. These stations
are shown in Figure 13.
(c) National Water Quality Surveillance System Network
The State also operates a network of 4 National Water Quality Surveillance
System stations. These stations are located on the Blue Earth River and the
Mississippi River. According to the State, the parameter coverage and frequency
of sampling comply with the minimum requirements of the Basic Monitoring Program
with the exception of representative fish tissue analysis and flow, which are not
completed. In addition to the minimum parameter list, the State also
analyzes many general chemistry and heavy metal parameters on varying
sampling schedules. These stations are shown in Figure 14.
-------
92
(d) U.S. Geological Survey
The USGS operates 3 water quality monitoring networks in the State of
Minnesota. These are (1) an ambient water monitoring network, (2) the
NASQAN network, and (3) the Hydrologic Benchmark network. These networks
are shown in Figure 14 and are discussed in detail below.
_1_. Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network
This network consists of 30 stations spread more or less evenly across
the State. Parameter coverage and sampling frequency vary from station
to station. For the most part, these stations do not meet the minimum
requirements for parameter coverage and sampling frequency as prescribed
by the Basic Water Monitoring Program. However, at some stations an
extensive variety of additional parameters are analyzed, including general
chemistry, heavy metals, and toxic organics.
2. NASQAN Network
The NASQAN Network consists of 10 stations, 4 of which are Pesticides
Subnetwork stations. Parameter coverage and sampling frequency meet the
minimum requirements of the Basic Monitoring Program, with the exception
of chemical oxygen demand, and kjeldahl nitrogen, which are not analyzed.
Also, at all stations, an extensive variety of additional parameters are
analyzed, including general chemistry, heavy metals, periphyton and
phytoplankton.
For the Pesticide Subnetwork stations, pesticides are analyzed at the EPA
laboratory in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.
—' Hydrologic Benchmark Network
This network consists of 2 stations: the Kawishi River near Ely, and the
North Fork Whitewater River near Elba.
At these stations, parameter coverage and sampling frequency do not meet
the minimum requirements of the Basic Water Monitoring Program. However,
at the station on the Kawishi River near Ely, an extensive variety of
additional general chemistry parameters are analyzed. Also, at the
station on the North Fork Whitewater river near Elba, a more extensive
variety of additional parameters are analyzed, including general chemistry,
heavy metals, toxic organics and radiochemical substances.
(e) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Corps of Engineers monitoring activites in Minnesota are confined
only to impoundments. They have no permanent water quality monitoring
stations within the State. At the present time the Corps is conducting
studies on the following 13 impoundments:
-------
'/A MINNESOTA
Figure 14 USGS Monitoring Networks, National Water Quality Surveillance System and Corps
of Engineers Sampling Sites
Major Dischargers
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
A - Agricultural
Monitoring Stations:
0USGS Ambient Water Quality Monitoring
+NASQAN Stations USGS
•^Benchmark USGS
ONational Water Quality Surveillance System
ACorps of Engineers
-------
93
Bid Sandy Lake - 5 stations
Cross Lake - 5 stations
Gull Lake - 4 stations
Big Stone Lake - 4 stations
Lac Qui Parle - 6 stations
Leech lake - 6 stations
Marsh Lake - 5 stations
Mud Lake - 4 stations
Orwell Lake - 5 stations
Pokegama Lake - 5 stations
Red Lake - 5 stations
Traverse Lake - 4 stations
Winnebigoshish Lake - 5 stations
The parameter coverage and frequency of sampling for these stations do
not meet the minimum requirements of the Basic Monitoring Program; however,
samples are collected for special purposes at these locations, chiefly, to
determine the quality of water entering and leaving the impoundments.
(3) Major Dischargers - Fixed Station Networks
A review of Figures 13 and 14, showing the locations of major dischargers
together with the locations of the monitoring stations, indicates that
31 major dischargers are not being monitored by any network station
within a distance of 15 miles. Although there are no criteria relating
dischargers to downstream monitoring the information is considered
relevant, particularly for those interested in modeling or waste load
allocation studies. These major dischargers are listed below. A complete
listing of all major dischargers in the State of Minnesota is presented
in the Attachment.
TABLE 8
MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED - MINNESOTA
1. Casmir Chirpich, Wells (Agricultural Discharger)
2. Fairmont WWTP
3. Northern States Power, Sherburn Units 1&2
4. Worthington WWTP
5. Worthington Industrial, Worthington
6. Marshall WWTP
7. Owatonna WWTP
8. Faribault WWTP
9. Red Wing WWTP
10. S.B. Foot Tanning Co., Red Wing
11. Northern States Power, Red Wing
12. Lakesville-Farmington WWTP
13. Melrose WWTP
14. Litchfield WWTP
15. Hutchinson WWTP
16. Northern State Power Co., Granite Falls
17. Willmar WWTP
18. Alexandria San. Dist., Alexandria
-------
94
TABLE 8 (Cont'd)
MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED - MINNESOTA
19. Detroit Lakes WWTP
20. Skylark Ranch, Detroit Lakes
21. Thief River Falls WWTP
22. River Valley Enterprises, Oklee
23. Nelson Quality Egg Farm, Bagley
24. Nelson Quality Eggs, Inc., Bagley
25. Weldon Nelson #1, Bagley
26. Weldon Nelson #2, Bagley
27. Ribbing North WWTP
28. Ribbing South WWTP
29. Virginia WWTP
30. Ely WWTP
31. Brookdale Farms Inc. Brooks
(4) Quality Assurance Program
The State of Minnesota has not collated a total quality assurance
(QA) document with QA management responsibility identified for the
total monitoring effort. Therefore, data quality cannot be verified,
based on those QA principles required by the Agency in a centrally
managed QA program.
The State is committed to finalizing a QA program that will meet
Agency requirements. Some progress was made in FY '80. QA Officers
have been identified with QA responsibilities, that impact data
quality. The QA management structure is very strong and is in a
position to operate the program in an effective manner. Field
sampling documentation is 100% complete. Laboratory methodology
documentation is the largest task to be completed. It is anticipated
this task will be completed no later than the end of the third
quarter of FY '81.
(5) Intensive Survey Program
Eleven surveys were completed in the following stream segments during FY 1979:
Intensive surveys involving model development:
Blue Earth River at Winnebago and Blue Earth
Otter Tail River at Perham
-------
95
Intensive surveys conducted throughout the State downstream of selected
dischargers:
North Fork Crow River at Cokato
Long Prairie River
Sauk River at Melrose
County Ditch 40A at Lafayette
Sucker Creek at Arlington
Straight River at Owatonna
South Fork of Crow River at Hutchington
Chippewa River at Benson
The following abstracts were received:
Assessment of County ditch 40A
and Judicial Ditch 1A Downstream of Lafayette
Assessment of the North Fork of the Crow
River from Cokato to Delano
Assessment of a Water Basin and the Otter
Tail River Downstream of Perham, Minnesota
The abstracts show that the surveys were conducted in accordance with the
requirements of the Basic Water Monitoring Program.
(6) Effluent Monitoring Program
Minnesota has 47 municipal, 9 agricultural and 29 non-municipal major
dischargers. Inspections planned and completed during FY 79 were as
follows.
Projected Accomplished
Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI) 55
Municipal 32
Non-Municipal 12
Agricultural 0 1
Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI) 30
Municipal 2
Non-Municipal 37
Agricultural 0 3
-------
96
Projected Accomplished
Toxics 0
Municipal 0
Non-Municipal 0
Commitments were made to complete a compliance sampling inspection (CSI)
or a compliance evaluation inspection (CEI) at all major dischargers
during FY 1979. The State did not meet their commitment for CSIs,
completing only 44 out of a commitment to do 55. The State exceeded
their commitment for CEIs, completing 39 against a commitment of 30.
It should be noted that the results of compliance monitoring for FY 79
reveals 87% municipal and 89% of non-municipal major dischargers were in
compliance with their permits.
The State did not commit to do any agricultural surveys, but did conduct
one CSI and 3 CEIs at major agricultural dischargers. No commitments
were made to complete CEIs or CSIs at any toxics or minor dischargers.
The commitment and accomplishments for inspections is adequate. Their
performance in submitting the required NPDES compliance forms after each
inspection is satisfactory. The follow-up enforcement action upon
receiving deficiency letters is considered good.
(7) Proposed Biological Monitoring Program
The State of Minnesota collected fish and macroinvertebrates from all 19
core stations in 1979. The fish samples were not analysed for the various
organic and inorganic pollutants. It will be early 1981 before any data
are available. The macroinvertebrate analyses were completed and were of
acceptable quality. Plankton and periphyton sampling were not included
in their biological program.
Indications are that the biological monitoring program will be greatly
reduced during FY 1980 becuase of local interest in potential acid rain
problems and other commitments.
(8) Data Interpretation and Reporting
Ambient Data
The State of Minnesota submitted their ambient water quality data for
storage into the STORET system. The data were submitted quarterly.
Effluent Data
Upon completion of an inspection, the State submitted a report of each
sampling and evaluation inspection of a major discharger to the Enforcement
Division.
-------
97
Intensive Survey Data
Abstracts were submitted for a total of 11 surveys performed during
FY 1979.
Section 305(b) Report
Utilizing the Section 305(b) reporting process, the State completed and
submitted biennially to the USEPA a report describing the status of the
waters of the State. The latest report submitted was for the year 1980.
-------
98
MINNESOTA
FY 1980 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
September 1979
Name
1. Albert Lea
2. Alexandria Sanitary Dist,
3. Anoka (MWCC)
4. Austin
5. Bemidji
6. Blue Lake (MWCC)
7. Brainerd
8. Cottage Grove (MWCC)
9. Crookston
10. Detroit Lakes
11. East Grand Forks
12. Elk River
13. Ely
14. Fairmont
15. Faribault
16. Fergus Falls
17. Grand Rapids
18. Hastings (MWCC)
19. Hibbing - North
20. Hibbing - South
21 Hoyt Lakes
22. Hutchinson
23 Lakeville-Farmington
24. Litchfield
25. Little Falls
26. Made!ia
27. Mankato
28. Marshall
29. Mel rose
30. Metro Plant (MWCC)
31. Moorhead
32. New Ulm
33. Northfield
34. Owatonna
35. Red Wing
36. Rochester
37. St. Cloud
38. St. Peter
39. Seneca (MWCC)
40. Stillwater
41. Thief River Falls
42. Two Harbors
43. Virginia
44. Western Lake Superior
San. Dist. (WLSSD)
45. Willmar
46. Winona
47. Worthington
MUNICIPAL
Location
Albert Lea
Alexandria
Anoka
Austi n
Bemidji
Blue Lake
Brainerd
Cottage Grove
Crookston
Detroit Lakes
East Grand Forks
Elk River
Ely
Fairmont
Faribault
Fergus Falls
Grand Rapids
Hastings
Hibbing
Hibbing
Hoyt Lakes
Hutchinson
Empire Township
Litchfield
Little Falls
Made!i a
Mankato
Marshall
Mel rose
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Moorhead
New Ulm
Northfield
Owatonna
Red Wing
Rochester
St. Cloud
St. Peter
Seneca
Still water
Thief River Falls
Two Harbors
Virginia
Duluth
Willmar
Winona
Worthington
Permit No.
MN 0030155
MN 0040738
MN 0029921
MN 0022683
MN 0022462
MN 0029882
MN 0047481
MN 0029904
MN 0021423
MN 0020192
MN 0021814
MN 0020788
MN 0020508
MN 0030112
MN 0030121
MN 0029807
MN 0022080
MN 0029955
MN 0030627
MN 0030643
MN 0020206
MN 0020265
MN 0045845
MN 0023973
MN 0020761
MN 0024040
MN 0030171
MN 0022179
MN 0020290
MN 0029815
MN 0024236
MN 0030066
MN 0024368
MN 0024457
MN 0024571
MN 0024619
MN 0040878
MN 0022535
MN 0030007
MN 0029998
MN 0021431
MN 0022250
MN 0030163
MN 0049786
MN 0025259
MN 0030147
MN 0031186
Expiration Datt
4/30/82
12/31/79
3/31/82
3/31/82
9/30/82
3/31/82
9/30/80
3/31/82
9/30/81
6/30/82
3/31/82
12/31/80
5/31/82
5/31/83
3/31/84
12/31/81
6/30/83
3/31/83
3/31/81
3/31/81
6/30/81
3/31/84
9/30/80
6/30/82
3/31/82
9/30/83
3/31/84
9/30/83
6/30/80
6/30/82
12/31/81
12/31/83
3/31/84
3/31/82
3/31/84
12/31/83
5/31/82
6/30/80
3/31/82
12/31/83
9/30/83
3/31/82
3/31/84
6/30/83
8/31/83
3/31/84
3/31/82
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
MINNESOTA
FY 1980 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
Name
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.-
15.
16.
17.
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
American Crystal
Sugar Co.
American Crystal
Sugar Co.
American Crystal
Sugar Co.
Boise Cascade Corp.
Koch Refinery
Minnesota Malting
Minnesota Mining 4
Mfg. Co.- Chemolite
Northwestern
Refining Co.
Potlatch, Inc.
Reserve Mining Co.
(Peter Mitchel Mine)
Reserve Mining Co.
St. Paul Ammonia
Products, Inc.
St. Regis Paper Co.
S.B. Foot Tanning Co.
Wausau Paper Mills
(Hennepin Paper Co.)
Wilson 4 Co.
Worthington Industrial
Minnesota Power 4
Light Co.
Minnesota Power 4
Light Co.
Minnesota Power 4
Light Co.
Northern States Power
Northern States Power
Northern States Power
Northern States Power
Northern States Power
Northern States Power
Northern States Power
Northern States Power
12. Ottertail Power
INDUSTRIAL
Location
Crookston
E. Grand Forks
Moorhead
Int'l Falls
Pine Bend
Cannon Falls
Cottage Grove
St. Paul Park
Brainerd
Babbitt
Silver Bay
So. St. Paul
Sartell
Red Wing
Little Falls
Albert Lea
Worthington
POWER PLANTS
Aurora
Cohasset
Duluth
Burnsville
Granite Falls
Minneapolis
Monti cello
Oak Park
Heights
Red Wing
St. Paul
Sherburn
Units 1 4 2
Fergus Falls
Permit No.
MN 0001929
MN 0001937
MI 0001945
MN 0001643
MN 0000418
MN 0001481
MN 0001449
MN 0000256
MN 0001422
MN 0046981
MN 0001198
MN 0000329
MN 0000973
MN 0038962
MN 0000302
MN 0000124
MN 0031178
MN 0000990
MN 0001007
MN 0001015
MN 0000876
MN 0000906
MN 0000892
MN 0000868
MN 0000825
MN 0004006
MN 0000884
MN 0002186
MN 0002011
September 1979
Expiration Date
10/31/83
10/31/83
10/31/83
3/31/81
6/30/80
6/30/82
12/31/81
6/30/80
6/30/80
(Covered by Court Ord
6/30/80
6/30/82
6/30/81
12/31/80
11/30/83
3/31/83
9/30/80
6/30/84
3/31/80
4/30/81
6/30/82
6/30/82
5/31/81
6/30/81
8/31/80
12/31/80
* Dates will be determined following reissuance
1-2
-------
100
September 1979
MINNESOTA
FY 1980 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
Name
1. Brookdale Farms, Inc.
2. Casmir Chirpich
3. International Swine, Inc,
4. Nelson Quality Egg
Farm
5. Nelson Quality Eggs,
Inc.
6. River Valley
Enterprises
7. Skylark Ranch
8. Weldon Nelson #1
9. Weldon Nelson #2
AGRICULTURAL
Location
Detroit Lake
Bagley
Bag!ey
Permit No. Expiration Date
Brooks
Wells
Rochester
Bagley
Bagley
Oaklee
MN 0045870
MN 0045853
MN 0047473
MN 0045675
MN 0031682
MN 0044075
12/31/79
12/31/79
12/31/79
*
*
10/31/79
MN 0043150
MN 0039764
MN 0039772
10/31/79
*
* Dates will be determined following reissuance
1-3
-------
101
e. OHIO
(1) Overview
In the State of Ohio, there are three agencies involved in ambient
monitoring. They are the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA)
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Department of Agriculture
(DA). Extensive monitoring is conducted throughout the State, primarily
by OEPA and USGS. There is no duplication in these networks when sam-
pling parameters and frequency are considered. However, when compared
to the Basic Water Monitoring Program, the overall program within the
State has minor deficiencies in regards to ambient and effluent monitor-
ing, quality assurance and data reporting. The intensive survey program
cannot be evaluated because abstracts were not submitted. The intensive
survey program and the other parts of the State monitoring program are
discussed in greater detail below. The ambient monitoring conducted by
the other agencies is also discussed.
(2) Assessment of the State Monitoring Program
(a) National Ambient Monitoring Network
Ohio EPA has identified 39 National Ambient Monitoring Stations which
comprise the core network. As described in Figure 15, these stations
provide a broad coverage of the State waters and are operated as prescribed
in the basic program except that parameter sampling and analysis does
not include toxic parameters. The station locations are adequate for the
purpose of providing trend data; however, the adequacy of the network to
assess pollution control programs is questionable. As shown in Figure 15,
the impact of a large number of major dischargers would not be assessed
if only the core network was operational. The locations of the core
stations are described in Table 9.
TABLE 9
NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS - OHIO
Station Location Station No.
Oregon Water Intake, Lake Erie 504240
Mentor Water Intake, Lake Erie 504130
Maumee River at Waterville, Ohio 500080
Maumee at Antwerp 500140
Auglaize above Defiance 500290
Portage River at Woodville 500510
Sandusky River above Fremont 500820
Huron below Milan 501050
Vermilion at Vermilion 501260
Black River at Elyria 501520
Rocky near Berea 501800
Cuyahoga River at Independence 502020
Chagrin at Willoughby 502400
-------
OHIO
Figure 75 Basic Water Monitoring Network and USDA Sampling Sites.
-------
102
TABLE 9 (CONT'D)
NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATION - OHIO
Station Location Station No.
Grand near Painesville 502530
Ashtabula near Ashtabula 502760
Conneaut at Conneaut 502870
Great Miami River at Dayton 600310
Great Miami at New Baltimore 600030
Mad at St. Paris Pike at Eagle City 610040
Little Miami River at Oldtown
Little Miami River at Milford 600520
Ohio Brush near West Union 600660
Scioto River near Circleville 601340
Scioto River at Highy 600770
Olentangy River near Worthington 601290
Big Darly Creek at Darbyville 601300
Racoon at Adamsville 601400
Hocking River at Athens 601650
Muskingum River near Coshocton 611740
Muskingum at McConnelsville 601860
Tuscarawas River below Massillon 601930
Tuscarawas at Newcomertown 611790
Nimishillen Creek at North Industry 601940
Walhonding at Nellie 601910
Mohican River at Greer 601870
Licking River below Newark 601770
Mahoning River at Leavittsburg 602280
Mahoning River at Lowellville 602300
Little Beaver near E. Liverpool 602000
A STORET retrieval of 9 stations was made to determine if all parameters
prescribed in the basic program were being analyzed. In addition to the
toxic parameters for fish tissue, water and sediment, nitrate and nitrite
are not being analyzed. Description forms have been submitted for each
core station. It should be noted that 9 of these core stations are
NASQANs, operated by USGS.
(b) State Monitoring Network
In addition to the national network, the State has established a series of
stations to supplement national needs and to satisfy state and local needs
in Ohio. These are displayed in Figure 16.
The State network is broken into three parts, with many of the stations
located at exisiting stations, or dual stations.
The Ohio EPA has established 33 stations to supplement the
National Ambient Network, sampled on a monthly basis.
-------
OHIO
Figure 16 State Monitoring Network and Water Intakes.
-------
103
0 The State has also established 42 stations for quarterly
sampling. These stations are sampled 4 times a year during
seasonal changes.
0 During periods of low-flow, a network consisting of 54
stations will be established to sample one or more times per
year during low-flow periods to determine water quality at
its most critical point.
Parameter coverage for these stations is presented in Attachment 1.
All parameters required for the Basic Water Monitoring Program are
analyzed except for representative fish tissue samples. Also, a large
number of additional parameters are analyzed. ORSANCO monitoring stations
along the Ohio River are supported in part by the State. An evaluation of
this effort is not included in this report.
(c) USGS Network
The USGS operates 26 ambient water quality monitoring stations in the
State of Ohio. These are separate from the stations operated by Ohio
EPA. There are 39 Ambient Monitoring Stations in the Ohio basic network.
Of these 39 stations, 9 are NASQAN sampling sites maintained by the USGS.
One Benchmark sampling site is also maintained by the USGS. Although the
NASQAN sites are sampled monthly, at certain stations parameters are
analyzed at quarterly intervals. The USGS stations are displayed in
Figure 17.
The NASQAN samples are analyzed for all of the parameters required for
the Basic Water Monitoring Program, except for representative fish tissue
analyses and flow. However, the samples are analyzed for most of the
trace organics required for fish tissue and sediments and other parameters,
including heavy metals.
All data are stored in WATSTORE (USGS computer system) through the various
U.S. Geological Survey laboratories as the samples are analyzed. WATSTORE
is merged with STORET approximately every six months.
(d) Department of Agriculture
The U.S. Department of Agriculture maintains an Ambient Water Monitoring
network to meet the research needs of their Coshocton, Ohio research
station. The data collected from the network represents agricultural and
stripmine watershed samples from 5 areas located in 3 counties within the
state. These watersheds are sampled on a storm event basis and are
analyzed for all of the parameters required for the Basic Water Monitor-
ing Network except fecal coliform, total kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrite,
chemical oxygen demand and representative fish tissue analyses. Addi-
tional parameters analyzed at each station include heavy metals, acidity,
alkalinity, ammonia, bicarbonate, carbon dioxide, chloride, color, cyanide,
fluoride, hardness, hydrogen sulfide, phenols, sulfate, and dissolved
solids. Springs at these sites are sampled weekly. The network, dis-
played in Figure 15, solely supports the research needs of the Department
of Agriculture, with no connection between Federal (EPA) or State networks.
-------
OHIO
Figure 1 7 USGS Monitoring Networks
10 20 30 40 Miles
-------
104
(3) Major Dischargers - Fixed Station Network
A review of Figures 15 thru 17, showing the locations of major dischargers
together with the locations of the monitoring stations, indicates that
31 major dischargers are not being monitored by any network station
within a distance of 15 miles. Although there are no criteria relating
dischargers to downstream monitoring, the information is considered
relevant, particularly for those interested in modeling or waste load
allocation studies. These major dischargers are listed in Table 10
below. A complete listing of all major dischargers in the State of Ohio
is presented in Attachment 2. Certain of the dischargers to the Ohio River
may have ORSANCO stations within 15 miles.
TABLE 10
MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED - OHIO
DISCHARGERS
1. Archbold WWTP
2. Bryan WWTP
3. Van Wert WWTP
4. Ohio Decorative Products, Spencerville
5. Fostoria WWTP
6. Willard WWTP
7. Bowling Green WWTP
8. Beliefontaine WWTP
9. Greenville WWTP
10. Oxford WWTP
11. Clermont County Amelia-Batavia Regional S.D., Gatavia
12. U.S. Dept. of Energy-Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
13. Empire Detroit Steel, Portsmouth
14. Portsmouth WWTP
15. Orrville WWTP
16. Union Camp Corp., Dover
17. Dover Chemical Corp., Dover
18. Empire Detroit Steel, Dover
19. Dover WWTP
20. New Philadelphia WWTP
21. Uhrichsville-Dennison WWTP, Uhrichville
22. Alliance WWTP
23. Chase Bag Co.
24. Geauge County- McFarland S.D., Bainbridge Twp.
25. Tiffin WWTP
26. Willard WWTP
27. Galion WWTP
28. Zanesville WWTP
29. Jackson WWTP
30. Wellston North WWTP
31. Wellston South WWTP
-------
105
(4) Intensive Survey Program
Field survey work was planned and completed on the following stream
segments during FY 1979:
Mill creek from Marysville to Scioto River
On Scioto River-75 mile segment from Dublin to Chillicothe
On Hocking-23 mile segment from Lancaster to Logan.
Mimishillen Creek-90 miles includes Hurford run-fohl ditch and
Sherrich run.
Luscarawas River-35 mile segment from Massillon to Dover.
Abstracts were submitted for surveys completed. According to the state,
technical reports are prepared for each intensive survey. Chemical/
physical data are entered into STORE! and are included as part of their
305b report.
(5) Effluent Monitoring Program
In the State of Ohio, there are 262 major dischargers; 156 municipal,
103 non-municipal and 3 federal. Inspections planned and completed during
FY 1979 were as follows:
Projected Accomplished
Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI) 68
Municipal 36
Non-Municipal 50
Federal 0
Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI) 177
Municipal 107
Non-Municipal 57
Federal 0 0
Toxics 0
Municipal 0
Non-Municipal 0
Commitiments were not made to complete either a CSI or CEI at all major
dischargers during FY 1979. However, the State did commit to 68 CSI and
177 CEIs , a total of 245 inspections against 262 required. Ohio exceeded
their commitment for CSI surveys, completing 86 against 68 committed.
They did not meet their commitment for CEI surveys, completing 164 against
a commitment of 177.
-------
106
It should be noted that the results of compliance monitoring (State and
Federal) for FY 79 reveals 75 percent of municipal and 65 percent of non-
municipal major dischargers were in compliance with their permits.
The State's accomplishments for inspections is adequate. Their perfor-
mance in submitting the required NPDES compliance forms after each inspec-
tion is satisfactory. The follow-up enforcement action upon receiving
deficiency letters is considered good.
Commitments were not made for federal inspections nor toxic inspections.
No commitments were made for CEIs or CSIs at any minor dischargers.
(6) Proposed Biological Monitoring Program
The State of Ohio completed part of the work described in the Proposed
Biological Monitoring Program in 1979. Macroinvertebrate and periphyton
were collected at 20 of the 39 designated stations. No fish samples were
collected for priority pollutant analyses, nor were phytoplankton collected.
It is projected that the 1980 biological program will be similar to 1979.
The work that was accomplished is of acceptable quality.
(7) Quality Assurance Program
The State of Ohio has just completed collating a total quality assurance
(QA) document with QA management responsibility identified for the total
monitoring effort, and forwarded to the Region for review/approval. The
review, when concluded, should find this document acceptable. An earlier
draft has been reviewed by the Region and recommendations made to the
State to correct deficiencies. This document should address these
deficiencies.
The State is in the process of filling the position of QA Coordinator.
This individual will be responsible for managing the QA program. As soon
as the State brings this person on board the Regional Administrator will
be in a position to approve the State's QA program. This program upon
implementation, will verify data quality based upon those QA principles
required by the Agency in a centrally managed QA program.
(8) Data Interperation & Reporting
Using the Section 305(b) reporting process, the State of Ohio has submitted
biennially a report to the USEPA describing the quality of their waters.
The latest report submitted was for the year 1980.
Ambient Data
Except for fish tissue data, the State of Ohio submitted the majority
of their ambient water quality data for storage into the STORET system.
-------
107
However, retrievals for the CY 1979 Environmental Profile clearly shows
that the State is not storing data at all stations. It also shows data
stored does not meet the sampling frequency rate of the Basic Water
Monitoring Program.
Effluent Data
Upon completion of an inspection, the State submitted a report of each
compliance sampling and compliance evaluation inspection of a major
permitter to the Enforcement Division.
Intensive Survey Data
Abstracts were not submitted for FY 1979.
-------
108
STATE AMBIENT NETWORK
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
Acidity, Total, CaC03
Alkalinity, Total, CaC03
Aluminum, Total, Al
Arsenic, Total As
BOD 5 day
Cadmium, Total, Cd
Carbon, Total Org., C
Chloride, Cl
Chlorine, Total Residual
Chromium, Hex, Cr
Chromium, Total Cr
COD
Conductivity (field)
Copper, Total, Cu
Cyanide, Total, CN
Dissolved Dxygen (field)
Fecal Coli, Total, MF
Flow (USGS)
Fluoride, Diss., F
Hardness, Total CaC03
Iron, Total, Fe
Lead, Total, Pb
Manganese, Total, Mn
NBAS
ABBREVIATION
Acid CaC03-T
Alkaline CaC03-T
Al-T
As-T
BOD-5
Cd-T
C-T-Org
Cl
C12-T-R
Cr-Hex
Cr-T
COD
Micromho (field)
Cu-T
CN-T
D.O. (field)
Fecal Coli-T-MF
Flow (USGS)
F-Diss
Hard CaCCyT
Fe-T
Pb-T
Mn-T
MBAS
M Q LF ST
X
X
X
X
4 4 X
X
X
X
X
4 4 1 X
12 4 1
12 4 1
4 4 1 X
X
12 4 1
12 4 1
12 4 1
X
4 4 1 X
4 4 1 X
4 4 ] X
X
X
ATTACHMENT
-------
109
STATE AMBIENT NETWORK
ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS
PARAMETER
Mercury, Total, Hg
Nickel, Total, Ni
Nitrate, N03 as N
Nitrite, N02 as N
Nitrogen, Ammonia, N
Oil-Grease, Total
Organic Scan
pH (field)
Phenol ics
Phosphorus, Dissolved, P
Phosphorus, Total, P
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Residue, Total Fit. (Diss)
Residue, Total Nflt. (Susp)
Silica, Total (Diss)
Sulfate, S04
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Water Temperature (field)
Zinc, Total, Zn
ABBREVIATION
Hg-T
Ni-T
N03-N-T
N02-N-T
NH3-N-T
0+G-T
OS
pH (field)
Phenol ics
P-Diss
P-T
PCB
TDS
TSS
Si-T-Diss
S04-T
Kjel-T-N
Temp (field)
Zn-T
M
4
4
12
12
12
12
12
4
12
12
V
12
4
Q
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
LF
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ST
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a. Station Type and Sampling Frequency:
Flow (L); Special Tests (ST)
Monthly (M); Quarterly (Q); Low
ATTACHMENT 1-2
-------
110
OHIO
FY 1980 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
September 1979
Name
MUNICIPAL
Location
Permit No.
Southeast District
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Athens
Belmont County S.A. |1
Cambridge
Chillicothe Easterly
Coshocton
Dover
Ironton
Jackson
Logan
Marietta
New Philadelphia
Portsmouth
Steubenville
Uhrichs vi 11 e-Denni son
Wellston-North
Wellston-South
Zanesville
Athens
Belmont County
Cambridge
Chillicothe
Coshocton
Dover
Ironton
Jackson
Logan
Marietta
New Philadelphia
Portsmouth
Steubenville
Uhrichsville
Wellston
Wellston
Zanesville
OH 0023931
OH 0049999
OH 0024309
OH 0024406
OH 0024775
OH 0024945
OH 0025852
OH 0020834
OH 0023388
OH 0026344
OH 0026727
OH 0027197
OH 0027511
OH 0020079-
OH 0023507
OH 0059056
OH 0028240
Southwest District
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
,
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Bellefontaine
Butler County
Lesourdsville, S. D.
Clark County
Southwest Regional
Clermont County
Lower East Fork Regional
Clermont County Amelia-
Batavia Regional
Dayton
Englewood
Fai rborn
Fairfield
Greene County-
Beaver Creek
Greene County-
Sugar Creek
Greenville
Hamilton
Hamilton County, M.S.D.-
Little Miami
Hamilton County, M.S.D.-
Mill Creek
Hamilton County, M.S.D.-
Muddy Creek
Hamilton County, M.S.D.
Lebanon
Bellefontaine
Liberty Township
Medway
Miami Township
Batavia
Dayton
Englewood
Fai rborn
Fairfield
Beaver Creek Twp
Sugar Creek Twp
Greenville
Hamilton
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Cincinnati
Remington
Lebanon
OH 0024066
OH 0049417
OH 0049794
OH 0049379
OH 0049387
OH 0024881
OH 0025011
OH 0025062
OH 0025071
OH 0025381
OH 0040592
OH 0025429
OH 0025445
OH 0025453
OH 0025461
OH 0025470
OH 0025488
OH 0021059
* Dates will be determined following reissuance
Expiration
Date
5/31/82
5/31/82
9/21/80
9/19/80
9/18/80
4/30/82
5/31/82
7/01/82
*
2/28/82
9/18/80
3/31/82
5/31/82
8/15/83
6/30/82
4/30/82
9/14/81
3/31/82
6/30/82
6/30/82
9/27/80
*
9/29/80
9/19/80
9/21/80
11/29/81
9/20/80
9/27/80
9/26/80
9/26/80
6/30/82
9/21/80
*
ATTACHMENT 2-1
-------
Ill
September 1979
Name
36. MCD, Franklin Area
37. Miamisburg
38. Middletown
** 39. Montgomery County -
Moraine S. D.
40. Montgomery County -
Western Regional
'41. Montgomery County -
Eastern Regional
42. Ohio Suburban Water Co.
(Huber Heights, P.U.C.O.)
43. Oxford
44. Pi qua
45. Sidney
46. Springfield
47. Troy
48.- Urbana
49. Vandalia
50. West CarrolIton
51. Wilmington
52. Xenia - Ford Road
53. Xenia - Glady Run
Northeast District
54. Akron
55. Alliance
56. Amherst
57. Ashtabula
58. Avon Lake
59. Barberton
60. Bedford
61. Bedford Heights
62. Berea
63. Brookpark
64. Campbell
65. Canton-
66. Łonneaut
67. Cuyahoga County -
Rocky River S.D. #6
68. Cuyahoga County -
Brecksville S.D. 113
OHIO
MUNICIPAL (Cont.)
Location
Franklin
Miamisburg
Middletown
Moraine City
Miami Township
Kettering
Permit No.
OH
OH
0025275
0026492
OH 0026522
OH 0026611
OH 0026638
OH 0026590
Akron
Alliance
Amherst
Ashtabula
Avon Lake
Barberton
Bedford
Bedford Heights
Berea
Brookpark
Campbell'
Canton
Conneaut
Cuyahoga County
OH 0023833
OH 0023868
OH 0021628
OH 0023914
OH 0023981
OH 0024007
OH 0024040
OH 0024058
OH 0024104
OH 0038024
OH 0024325
OH 0024350
OH 0024767
OH 0030503
Expiration
Date
9/27/80
9/27/80
*
9/27/82
4/30/82
9/28/80
Wayne Township OH 0049298 7/17/84
Oxford
Pi qua
Sidney
Springfield
Troy
Urbana
Vandal i a
West Carrollton
Wilmington
Xenia
Xenia
OH 0026930
OH 0027049
OH 0027421
OH 0027481
OH 0027758
OH 0027880
OH 0027901
OH 0020133
OH 0028134
OH 0028193
OH 0028207
9/27/80
9/28/80
5/31/80
6/30/82
6/30/82
9/20/80
12/14/81
11/29/83
9/29/80
9/20/80
9/20/80
9/19/80
9/28/80
3/31/81
9/26/80
8/31/81
5/31/82
6/30/79
9/19/80
9/29/80
5/31/80
12/23/79
9/27/80
9/27/80
9/27/80
Cuyahcga County OH 0024856 8/31/79
* * This facility will be deleted when it ties into the Regional Plant
2-2
-------
112
September 1979
OHIO
MUNICIPAL (Cont.)
Name
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81,
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
105.
J06.
East Liverpool
Elyria
Euclid
Geauga" County -
McFarland S.D.
Geneva Sub-area
Girard
Kent
Lake County-Madison S.D.
Lake County-Mentor S.D.
Lakewood
Lorain-East Side
Mahoning County-
Boardman S.D.
Mahoning County-Meander S.D.
Maple Heights
•Massillon
Medina County S.D. 1100
Medina County S.D. 1200
Medina County S.D. 1300
Medina County S.D. 1500
Medina County S.D. #2 -
Wadsworth
Middleburg Heights
Niles
Northeast Ohio Regional S.D.
Easterly
Northeast Ohio Regional S.D.
Westerly
Northeast Ohio Regional S.D.
Southerly
North Olmsted
North Royalton "A"
Oberlin
Orrville
OWDA (French Creek)
Painesville
Ravenna
Salem
Solon - Central
Strongs vi lie A
Struthers
Summit County S.D. #15
Suimit County 16 - N.E.S.D.
Location
East Liverpool
Elyria
Euclid
Bainbridge Twp
Geneva
Girard
Kent
Madison
Mentor
Lakewood
Lorain
Boardman
Mineral Ridge
Maple Heights
Mas si 11 on
Brunswick
Medina
Hi nek ley Twp.
Valley City
Wadsworth
Middleburg Heights
Niles
Cleveland
Cleveland
Cuyahoga Hts
North Olmsted
North Royalton
Oberlin
Orrville
Sheffield
Painesville
Ravenna
Salem
Solon
Strongsville
Struthers
Macedonia
Hudson
Permit No.
OH 0024970
OH 0025003
OH 0031062
OH 0043494
OH 0020109
OH 0025364
OH 0025917
OH 0036790
OH 0043559
OH 0026018
OH 0026093
OH 0037249
OH 0045721
OH 0026336
OH 0020516
OH 0043583
OH 0043575
OH 0045748
OH 0043567
OH 0027936
OH 0026506
OH 0026743
OH 0024643
OH 0024660
OH 0024651
OH 0026778
OH 0026794
OH 0020427
OH 0020371
OH 0044512
OH 0026948
OH 0023221
OH 0027324
OH 0027430
OH 0033693
OH 0027600
OH 0027642
OH 0043397
Expiration
Date
*
9/20/80
6/30/82
5/31/82
*
*
9/22/80
5/31/82
4/30/82
9/20/80
9/20/80
9/21/80
1/31/81
10/04/82
9/18/80
6/01/80
6/01/80
2/01/84
9/20/80
9/27/80
9/28/80
6/30/82
5/31/82
5/31/82
9/19/80
9/30/79
9/19/80
3/31/81-
9/29/80
5/15/82
9/19/80
5/31/82
9/20/80
9/30/82
9/21/80
12/18/79
9/26/80
6/30/79
2-3
-------
113
September 1979
Name
OHIO
MUNICIPAL (Cont.)
Location
107.
108.
109.
no.
111.
112.
Trumbull County-Mosquito
Creek
Twinsburg
Warren
Willoughby - East Lake
Wooster
Youngstown S.T.P.
Howl and Twp.
Twinsburg
Warren
Willoughby
Wooster
Youngstown
Northwest District
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.-
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
132.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
Archbold
Ashland
Bowling Green
Bryan
Bucyrus
Celina
Defiance
Delphos
Find! ay
Fostoria
Fremont
Gallon
Kenton
Lima
Lucas County -
Maumee River WWTP
Mansfield
Marion
Mount Vernon
Norwalk
Oregon
Perrysburg
Port Clinton
Sandusky
Shelby
St. Mary's
Tiffin
Toledo
Upper Sandusky
Van Wert
Vermin ion
Wapakoneta
Willard
Archbold
Ashland
Bowling Green
Bryan
Bucyrus
Celina
Defiance
Delphos
Find! ay
Fostoria
Fremont
Gallon
Kenton
Lima
Manclova Twp.
Mansfield
Marion
Mount Vernon
Norwalk
Oregon
Perrysburg
Port Clinton
Sandusky
Shelby
St. Mary's
Tiffin
Toledo
Upper Sandusky
Van Wert
Vermill ion
Wapakoneta
Willard
Permit No.
OH 0043401
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
0027863
0027987
0028126
0028185
0028223
Expiration
Date
10/30/81
6/30/82
5/31/82
9/27/80
6/30/82
OH 0020796
OH 0023906
OH 0024139
OH 0020532
OH 0052922
OH 0020320
OH 0024899
OH 0024929
OH 0025135
OH 0052744
OH 0025291
OH 0025313
OH 0025925
OH 0026069
OH 0034223
OH 0026328
OH 0026352
OH 0026662
OH 0052604
OH 0052914
OH 0021008
OH 0052876
OH 0027332
OH 0023540
OH 0021415
OH 0052949
OH 0027740
OH 0020001
OH 0027910
OH 0023612
OH 0027952
6/30/80
9/20/80
6/30/80
11/12/81
9/28/80
6/30/83
6/30/80
*
6/30/82
6/30/82
9/28/80
6/30/80
11/13/82
6/30/80
6/30/80
9/29/80
9/28/80
9/18/80
9/22/80
9/18/80
*
*
6/30/80
9/21/80
*
9/27/80
6/30/82
*
9/18/80
6/30/80
9/21/80
OH 0028118
2-4
-------
114
Na_me
Central District
OHIO
MUNICIPAL (Cont.)
Location
September 1979
145. Circleville
146. Columbus - Jackson Pike
147. Columbus - Southerly
148. Delaware
149. Delaware County -
Sanitary Sub-District 1A
150. Heath
151. Lancaster
152. Marysville
153. Newark
154. Ohio Utilities Co. -
Blacklick
155. Reynoldsburg
156. Washington Court House
Circleville
Columbus
Columbus
Delaware
Liberty Twp.
Heath
Lancaster
Marysvi lie
Newark
Madison Twp.
Reynoldsburg
Washington Court
House
Permit No.
Expiration
Date
OH 0024465
OH 0024732
OH 0024741
OH 0024911
OH 0054399
OH 0025763
OH 0026026
OH 0020630
OH 0026671
OH 0036021
OH 0027243
OH 0028002
9/19/80
9/28/80
9/26/80
9/26/80
9/29/80
*
9/19/80
*
9/29/80
6/30/82
9/19/80
FEDERAL
Name
Location
Permit No.
Expiration
Date
1. U.S. Department of Energy- Fernald OH 0009580 4/15/80
Feed Materials Production Center
2. U.S. Department of Energy- Portsmouth OH 0006092 4/15/80
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
3. U.S. Department of the Air Force- Columbus OH 0021512 9/21/79
Rickenbacker A.F.B.
2-5
-------
115
Name
Southeast District
OHIO
FY 1980 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
INDUSTRIAL
Location
September 1979
1. Allied Chemical Corp.
2. Ashland Oil Company
3. Dover Chemical Corp.
4. Empire Detroit Steel
5. Empire Detroit Steel
6. Gould, Inc.
7. Gould, Inc.
8. Ironton Coke Corp.
9. Mead Corp.
10. National Steel Corp.
11. Ormet Corporation
12. Shell Chemical Co.
13. Stone Container Corp.
14. Union Camp Corp.
15. Union Carbide Corp.
16. Universal Cyclops Steel
17. USS Chemicals
18. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.
19. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.
20. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.
21. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.
Southwest District
22. Armco Steel Corp.
23. Armco Steel Corp.
24. Bergstrom Paper Co.
25. Crystal Tissue Co.
26. Gulf Oil (Cinci.Refinery)
27. Miami Paper Co.
28. Monsanto Co.
Northeast District
29. Ashland Petroleum Co.
30. BFI/Ecological
31. Chase Bag Co.
32. Chemline Corp.
33. Copperweld Steel Co.
34. Diamond Shamrock Chemical
35. E.I. DuPont de Nemours
& Co., Inc.
Ironton
South Point
Dover
Portsmouth
Dover
McConnelsville
McConnelsville
Ironton
Chillicothe
Steubenville
Hannibal
Bel p>e
Coshocton
Dover
Marietta
Coshocton
Haverhill
Steubenville
Yorkvilie
Martins Ferry
Mingo Junction
New Miami
Middletown
West Carroll ton
Middletown
Cleves
West Carrol Hon
Addyston
Canton
East Palestine
Chagrin Falls
Lisbon
Warren
Ashtabula
Cleveland
Permit No.
Expirat
Date
OH 0007544
OH 0007714
OH 0007269
OH 0006068
OH 0004910
OH 0048372
OH 0048364
OH 0007579
OH 0004481
OH 0010774
OH 0011550
OH 0007030
OH 0004235
OH 0007196
OH 0004006
OH 0004260
OH 0007391
OH 0011355
OH 0011371
OH 0011339
OH 0011347
12/09y
12/29;
3/29/
12/31/
9/30/
6/01 /
6/01/
9/27/
12/01/
8/05/
5/18/:
6/24/1
12/15/:
6/30/f
*
10/31/'/
8/03/E
11/03//
OH 0009989
OH 0009997
OH 0009377
OH 0009539
OH 0009326
OH 0009784
OH 0009946
12/29/7
12/21/8
11/17/7!
1/19/81
2/23/8(
5/18/8C
3/31/81
OH 0005657
OH 0063223
OH 0000400
OH 0051799
OH 0011207
OH 0029149
OH 0000990
3/23/80
10/18/80
3/09/80
9/30/79
3/31/81
4/19/82
* Dates will be determined following relssuance
2-6
-------
116
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
Name
Ford Motor Co.
General Electric Co.
General Electric Co.
GMC-Fisher Body
G&W Natural Res. Gr.
General Tire 4 Rubber Co.
Glidden-Durkee Co.
Harshaw Chemical Co.
IMC Chemical Group
Jones & Laugh! in Steel
01 in Corp.
Packaging Corp. of America
PPG Industries, Inc.
Republic Steel Corp.
. Republic Steel Corp.
Republic Steel Corp.
Republic Steel Corp.
Republic Steel Corp.
RMI Co. (Sodium & Chlorine)
Thomas Strip Steel
Union Carbide Corp.
U.S. Steel Corp.
U.S. Steel Corp.
U.S. Steel Corp.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Youngstown Sheet & Tube
Location
Brook Park
Niles
Niles
Elyria
Ashtabula
Ashtabula
Ashtabula
Cleveland
Ashtabula
Cleveland
Ashtabula
Rittman
Barberton
Canton
Cleveland
Warren
Massillon
Youngstown
Ashtabula
Warren
Ashtabula
Lorain
Youngstown
Youngstown
Struthers
Youngstown
Campbell
Northwest District
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
Brush Wellman Co.
Cyclops Corp.
Empire Detroit Steel Dvn.
CMC-Central Foundry
Gulf Oil Co.
Hooker Chemical (Durez Dvn.)
Libbey-Owens-Ford
Ohio Decorative Products
O.H. Routh Packing
Standard Oil Co.
Standard Oil Co. (Ohio)
El more
Mansfield
Defiance
Toledo
Kent on
Toledo
Spencerville
Sandusky
Lima
Toledo
September 1979
OHIO
INDUSTRIAL (Cont.)
Permit No.
OH 0001228
OH 0011231
OH 0011223
0000272
0000493
0002283
0000523
0000655
OH 0000752
OH 0000850
0001376
0006718
0005177
0006912
OH 0000957
OH 0011274
OH 0006939
0011282
0002313
0011363
0000027
0001562
0011916
OH 0063215
OH 0063207
OH 0011312
OH 0011321
OH 0002518
OH 0006840
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
0002666
0002810
0006769
0002445
0002852
0001643
OH 0002623
OH 0002461
Expiration
Date
1/11/83
6/30/80
6/30/80
10/30/80
3/31/81
3/31/81
3/31/81
1/01/81
8/01/81
9/30/80
3/31/81
1/20/80
9/30/80
9/30/79
6/30/80
6/30/80
6/30/81
10/15/79
6/01/81
12/28/82
12/28/82
12/04/79
5/19/80
2/10/81
7/21/80
3/20/80
11/10/79
6/30/81
12/19/81
3/31/80
11/24/79
2-7
-------
117
Name
73. Sun Oil Co.
74. Vistron Corp.
75. Whirlpool Corp.
76. Whirlpool Corp.
77. White-Westinghouse
OHIO
INDUSTRIAL (Cont.)
Location
Oregon
Lima
Marion
Clyde
Mansfield
September 1979
Permit No.
OH 0002763
OH 0002615
OH 0007358
OH 0000965
OH 0004600
Expiration
Pate
3/31/80
9/05/79
5/06/80
*
7/26/81
Central District
78. Container Corp. of USA
79. Crown Zellerbach Corp.
80. E.I. Dupont de Nemours
& Co., Inc.
81. Owens-Corning
82. Owens Illinois
83. PPG Industries, Inc.
Circleville
New Baltimore
Circleville
Newark
Columbus
Circleville
OH 0005681
OH 0004961
OH 0006327
OH 0007153
OH 0006971
OH 0004251
3/31/81
10/20/79
10/30/80
1/06/81
6/30/80
12/15/81
POWER PLANTS
Southeast District
1. Columbus & Southern Ohio G&E
2. Dayton Power 4 Light
3. Ohio Edison Co.
4. Ohio Edison Co.
5. Ohio Power
6. Ohio Power
7. Ohio Valley Electric
Conesvilie
J. M. Stuart
Burger
Sarrnii s
Muskingum
Cardinal
Kyger Creek
OH 0005371
OH 0004316
OH 0011592
OH 0011525
OH 0006149
OH 0012581
OH 0005282
9/21/81
4/13/82
4/13/82
6/27/82
11/30/81
3/23/82
Southwest District
8.
9.
10.
11.
Cincinnati Gas
Cincinnati Gas
Dayton. Power &
Dayton Power &
& Electric
i Electric
Light
Light
W. C. Beckjord
Miami Fort
Hutchings
Tait
OH 0009865
OH 0009873
OH 0009261
OH 0009245
3/23/82
3/23/82
6/16/82
6/16/82
Northeast District
12. Cleveland Electric 111.
13. Cleveland Electric 111.
Eastlake
Ashtabula
OH
OH
0001139
0001121
2-J
-------
118
OHIO
September 1979
POWER PLANTS (Cont.)
Name
14. Cleveland Electric 111.
15. Cleveland Electric 111.
16. Ohio Edison Co.
17. Ohio Edison Co.
Location
Avon Lake
Lake Shore
Niles
Akron
Permit No.
OH 0001112
OH 0001147
OH 0011533
OH 0000213
Expiration
Date
2/20/83
4/13/82
Northwest District
18. Toledo Edison
19. Toledo Edison
Bayshore
Oak Harbor
OH 0002925
OH 0003786
3/27/82
3/08/82
Central District
20. Colunbus & Southern
Ohio Electric
Picway
OH 0054780
10/31/80
2-9
-------
119
f. WISCONSIN
(1) Overview
Three agencies are involved in ambient monitoring in the State of
Wisconsin. These agencies are the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE). Considering sampling parameters and frequency,
there is no duplication in the network stations. The coverage provided
by these networks meets the explicit intent of the Basic Monitoring
Program. The program is intended to provide a data base which is repre-
sentative of National Water Quality and trends. Wisconsin's Basic Moni-
toring Program has minor deficiencies in the areas of effluent monitoring,
quality assurance and data reporting. Although Wisconsin's intensive
survey program is considerably more active than most other states, the
program can not be properly evaluated because abstracts were not sub-
mitted on the surveys completed. The intensive survey program and the
other parts of the State program are discussed below in greater detail.
(2) Assessment of the State Monitoring Program
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources operates two fixed station
networks. One is the basic network consisting of 29 National Ambient Water
Quality Monitoring Stations, and the second is a State monitoring network
consisting of 39 stations. Additionally, the USGS operates three networks
in the State, and the Corps of Engineers operates a network. These
networks are shown in Figures 18 and 19. An evaluation of each of
these networks is presented below.
(a) National Ambient Monitoring Network
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources operates a basic network of
29 National Ambient Water Quality Monitoring stations. A listing of
station locations and numbers for the basic network are provided in Table 11.
These stations are shown in Figure 18.
TABLE 11
NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS - WISCONSIN
Location Station No.
Fox River at Berlin 243020
Rock River at Indianford 543017
Rock River at Afton 543001
Wisconsin River at Wisconsin Dells 573052
Fox (Illinois) River Waukesha 683096
Kinnickinnic River at Milwaukee 413069
Root River at Racine 523061
Sheboygan River at Sheboygan 603095
Fox River At Depre 053210
-------
•>.'» 0
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
Monitoring Stations:
• Basic Water Monitoring Program
•State Stations
A Pesticides
A Water Intakes
10 0 10 20 30 40 Miles
wu
Figure 1
Pesticide
-------
120
TABLE 11 (Cont'd)
NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING STATIONS - WISCONSIN
Location Station No.
Fox River at Neenah-Menasha 713002
Oconto River at Neak Gillett 433003
Oconto River at Oconto 433002
Peshtigo River at Peshtigo 383001
Wolf River at New London 693035
Wisconsin Power at Petenwell Dam 013001
Wisconsin River at Biron 723002
Wisconsin River at Nekoosa 723220
Wisconsin River at Rhinelander 443001
Wisconsin River at Rhinelander 443002
Wisconsin River at Wausau 373001
Black River near Galesville 623107
Chippewa River at Eau Claire 183057
Chippewa River at Holcombe Dam 093051
Kickappoo River at Steuben 123017
Mississippi River near Lynxville 123016
Mississippi River near Red Wing, Mn. 483027
Namekagon River near Riverside 073002
Nemadji River near Superior 163003
Based on a 1979 STORET retrieval of 7 stations, the parameter coverage
complies with the minimum parameter list and sampling frequency for the
Basic Ambient Water Monitoring Program except for fish tissue analyses.
The fish monitoring program for ambient stations began in 1977. The
organic analyses results for 1978 and all of the fish analyses results
for 1980 must be entered into STORET. Description forms have been sub-
mitted for each designated station.
(b) State Monitoring Network
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has established a State
Ambient Water Monitoring network consisting of 39 stations. These stations
were designed to provide the data needed for such information as loadings
to the Great Lakes, intermediate sites to the national network stations,
and trend data in water use areas. Also, the network was designed to
expand the State's overall monitoring of surface water.
The State network is broken into two levels, I and II. Basically the
only difference between these levels is the station parameter coverage.
Eighteen stations were selected for the State level I network. The
parameter coverage is as follows:
-------
121
Minimum Parameter Coverage
State I Network
STORE! Sampling
Parameter (units) Parameter Code Frequency
Temperature (°C) 00010 monthly
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 00300 monthly
ph (standards units) 00400 monthly
conductivity (umnos/cm @ 25°C) 00095 monthly
BODs (mg/1) 00310 monthly
Fecal Coliform (count/100 ml) 31616 monthly
Total Phosphorus (mg/1) 00665 monthly
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (mg/1) 00671 monthly
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/1) 00625 monthly
Organic Nitrogen (mg/1) 00605 monthly
Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/1) 00610 monthly
Nitrate + Nitrite Nitrogen (mg/1) 00630 monthly
Total Non-filtrable Residue (mg/1) 00530 monthly
These analyses are similar to the minimum parameter list and frequency
of sampling for the Basic Monitoring Program with the exception of chemical
oxygen demand, and flow, which are not analyzed.
State network level II consists of 21 stations, ten of which are to monitor
loadings to the Great Lakes. The others 11 stations provide data to
supplement the overall monitoring within the State, or provide data from
water sheds of unknown water quality. The parameter coverage is as
follows:
Minimum Parameter Coverage
State II Network
Parameter (units)
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
pH (standard units)
Conductivity (umhos/cm<§ 25 °C)
BOD5 (mg/1)
Fecal Coliform (count/lOOml)
Total Phosphorous (mg/1)
Soluble reactive Phosphorous (mg/1)
Total Non-Filtrable Residue (mg/1)
STORET
Parameter Code
00010
00300
00400
00095
00310
31616
00665
00671
00530
Sampling
Frequency
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
These analyses are similar to the minimum parameter list and frequency
of sampling for the Basic Monitoring Program with the exception of chemical
oxygen demand, total Kjeldahl mitrogen, nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen, and
flow, which are not analyzed.
Both the State I and II networks are shown in Figure 18.
-------
122
(c) U.S. Geological Survey
The USGS operates three networks in the State of Wisconsin. These are
(1) a Sediment Station Network, (2) the NASQAN network and (3) the
Hydrologic Benchmark Program. These networks are shown in Figures 18
and 19, and are discussed in detail below.
i* Sediment Station Network
The USGS operates a network consisting of 13 sediment stations throughout
the State. Nine of these are funded by the Corps of Engineers, one
station is funded by the Dane County Regional Planning Commission (Willow
Creek at Madison), and three are GREAT (Great River Environmental Action
Team) stations, also funded by the Corps of Engineers. The latter three
stations also are part of the NASQAN network. With the exception of the
NASQAN stations, the only analytical work done on samples collected is
for determination of suspended sediment concentration and bed-material
particle-size distribution. Samples are collected six times annually
at 7 of the stations, and daily at six of the stations.
2. NASQAN Stations
The USGS also operates a network of 10 NASQAN stations throughout the
State of Wisconsin. Water temperature and specific conductance are
continuously recorded at 3 of the 10 stations. These water properties
are measured once daily at the other seven stations. Also, 3 of the 10
stations are part of National Pesticide Monitoring Network. These 3
stations are montitored 4 times per year. One station is also part of
the radiochemical monitoring network.
The parameter coverage for these stations complies with the minimum
parameter list as required for the Basic Monitoring Program with the
exception of chemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform and representative
fish tissue analysis. In addition, analyses are run on a wide variety of
inorganic parameters, heavy metals, phytoplankton, periphyton, and
chlorophyll. Pesticides are run on the pesticide monitoring stations.
Radiochemical tests are run on the radiochemical monitoring station. In
general, the sampling frequencies for the various parameters for the
NASQAN stations are not in conformance with the requirements of the Basic
Monitoring Program.
_3_- Hydrologic Benchmark Station
The USGS operates one Benchmark station in the State of Wisconsin. This
station is sampled 12 times annually for the following parameters: water
temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved-oxygen concentration, and
instantaneous water discharge. Water samples also are collected for the
determination of fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria.
-------
5*1
*
Major Dischargers:
M - Municipal
I - Industrial
P - Power Plants
Monitoring Stations:
+ NASQAN Stations USGS
• USGS Sediment Stations
^Benchmark USGS
Acorps of Engineers
Wl
Figur
Sam|
10 0 10 20 30 40 Miles
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 827-580
-------
123
The parameter coverage for these stations complies with the minimum
parameter list as required for the Basic Monitoring Program, with the
exception of chemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, and representative
fish tissue analysis, which are not analyzed.
In addition, analyses are run on a wide variety of inorganic parameters,
heavy metals, toxic organics, and radiochemical parameters. Sampling
frequencies for the various parameters for the Hydrologic Benchmark
station are not in conformance with the requirements of the Basic Monitoring
Program.
(d) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Army Corps of Engineers sampling in Wisconsin is confined to just one
area is the State, the Eau Galle River and Reservoir. Water quality data
is collected on the Eau Galle River, both upstream and downstream of the
Eau Galle Reservoir and 5 locations in the reservoir itself for the
purpose of ecological modeling. There are a total of 9 stations. These
stations are shown in Figure 19.
Parameters measured during the period from Augsut 1978 to August 1979
were as follows:
DEPTH
PARAMETER RIVER LAKE
Temperature .6 Profile
Specific Conductance " Surface & Bottom
Dissolved Oxygen " Profile
pH
Chlorophyll A
Suspended Solids " "
Particulate Organic Carbon
Total Phosphorus
Particulate Phosphorus
Dissolved Phosphorus
Nitrate
Ammonia " Near Bottom
Subsurface light .6 Profile
Photosynthesis —
Secchi Disc
These analyses do not conform to the minimum parameter list of the
Basic Water Monitoring Program. However, as pointed out above, sampling
is done for a special purpose at these locations.
-------
124
(3) Major dischargers -Fixed Station Network
A review of Figures 18 and 19, showing the locations of major
dischargers together with the locations of the monitoring stations,
reveals that 38 major dischargers are not being monitored by any network
station within a distance of 15 miles. Although there are no criteria
relating dischargers to downstream monitoring, the information is con-
sidered relevant, particularly for those interested in modeling or waste
load allocation studies. These major dischargers are listed in Table 12
below. A complete listing of all major dischargers in the State of
Wisconsin is presented in the Attachment.
TABLE 12
MAJOR DISCHARGERS NOT MONITORED-WISCONSIN
Dischargers
1. Wisconsin Electric Power Co, Pleasant Prairie
2. Wisconsin Electric Power Co., Oak Creek
3. South Milwaukee WWTP
4. Muskego N.W. Dist. WWTP
5. Burlington WWTP
6. Lake Geneva WWTP
7. Dairyland Power Coop., Genoa #1,2, & 3
8. Beloit WWTP #1
9. Beloit WWTP #2
10 Wisconsin Power & Light Co. (Rock River), Beloit
11. Whitewater WWTP
12. Fort Atkinson WWTP
13. Oconomowoc WWTP
14. Hartford WWTP
15. West Bend WWTP
16. Mayville WWTP
17. Beaver Dam WWTP
18. Sun Prairie WWTP
19. Monroe WWTP
20. Platteville WWTP
21. Baraboo WWTP
22. Portage WWTP
23. Wisconsin Power & Light Co., Portage
24. Reedsburg WWTP
25. Prairie du Chien WWTP
26. Fond du Lac WWTP
27. New Holstein WWTP
28. Waupun WWTP
29. Shawano Lake San. Dist. #1 WWTP
30. Shawano paper Mills, Inc. Shawano
31. Niagara of Wisconsin paper Co., Niagara
32. Sparta WWTP
33. LaCrosse WWTP
34. Rice Lake WWTP
35. Flintkote Co., Cornell
36. Antigo WWTP
37. Marshfield WWTP
38. Green Bay Packaging, Inc., Green Bay
-------
125
(4) Quality Assurance Program
The State of Wisconsin has not collated a total quality assurance
(QA) document for the total monitoring effort. Therefore, data
quality cannot be verified, based on those QA principles required by
the Agency in a centrally managed QA program even though the State
has excellent analytical capability.
Management has identified a QA element for environmental monitoring.
The QA Coordinator has responsibility for management of QA activities
for the States total environmental monitoring program (including
air, water supply, solid waste, toxics, and hazardous waste). This
positive approach to QA exemplifies the strong leadership and commit-
ment of management to implement a strong QA program. The State is
the first Region V State to centralize all media QA activities
under one umbrella, so complete integration of the States QA program
is achieved. Laboratory methodology and field sampling documentation
is approximately 857, complete and is scheduled for completion by the
end of the 3rd quarter of FY '81. Based on the State's commitment
to QA,the final program should be found to be acceptable for meeting
the Agency's QA requirements.
(5) Intensive Survey Program
Four waste load allocation surveys were completed during FY 1979. This
compares to a commitment to complete 10 surveys. These surveys were
completed down stream of wastewater treatment plants near the following
cities, Bloomer, West Bend, Monroe and Belgium. The data collected will
be used to develop stream models. Abstracts were not submitted
for the surveys that were completed. However, a wasteload allocation
report for the city of Monroe has been submitted.
(6) Effluent Monitoring Program
In the State of Wisconsin there are 140 major dischargers; 80 municipal
and 60 non-municipal. Inspections planned and completed during FY 1979
were as follows:
Projected Accomplished
Compliance Sampling Inspections (CSI) 102
Municipal 38
Non-Municipal 44
-------
126
Projected Accomplished*
Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI) 15
Municipal 19
Non-Municipal 6
Toxics 0
Municipal 0
Non-Municipal 0
*As of 4/11/80
Committments were not made to complete a CSI or CEI at all major dischargers
during fiscal year 1979. The State committed to 102 CSIs and 15 CEI
surveys. They did not meet their commitment for CSI surveys, completing
82 out of 102 committed. They exceeded their commitements for CEI surveys,
completing 25 against a commitment of 15. No commitments were made for
any toxic surveys or minor discharger inspections.
It should be noted that the results of compliance monitoring (State and
Federal) for FY 79 reveals 74 percent of municipal and 78 percent of non-
municipal major dischargers are in compliance with their permtis.
The State's effluent monitoring inspection program is effective. They
are submitting the required NPDES compliance forms. In instances where
violations were found, appropriate enforcement action was taken by the State.
(7) Proposed Biological Monitoring Program
The proposed biological monitoring program was not implemented by the
State of Wisconsin in 1979. Data collected in past years were evaluated
and, as a result, it was determined that the State would drop the program.
The State is developing its own network of stations, some of which may be
at or near the National network stations.
(8) Data Interpretation & Reporting
Using the Section 305(b) reporting process, the State of Wisconsin has
submitted biennially a report to the USEPA describing the quality of
their waters. The latest report submitted was for the years 1978 - 79.
Ambient Data
The State of Wisconsin submitted their ambient water quality data
for storage into the STORET system. The data were submitted
quarterly. A BIO-STORET scan of Region V shows that Wisconsin is
the only State that has entered biological data into the system.
-------
127
Effluent Data
Upon completion of an inspection the State submitted a report of
each sampling and evaluation inspection of a major discharger to
the Enforcement Division.
Intensive Survey Data
Abstracts were not submitted for FY 1979.
-------
128
September 1979
WISCONSIN
FY 1980 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
MUNICIPAL
Name
1. Antigo- City of, STP
2. Appleton- City of, STP
3. Ashland- City of, STP
4. Baraboo- City of, STP
5. Beaver Dam- City of, STP
6. Beloit- Town of, STP
7 Beloit- Town of, STP
8. Berlin- City of, STP
9. Brookfield- City of, STP
10. Burlington- City of, STP
11. Cedarburg- City of, STP
12. Chippewa Falls- City of, STP
13. Clintonville- City of, STP
14. DePere- .City of, STP
15. Eau Claire- City of, STP
16. Fond du Lac- City of, STP
17. Fort Atkinson- City of, STP
18. Germantown- Village of, STP
19. Grafton- Village of, STP
20. Green Bay- MSD STP
21. Hartford- City of, STP
22. Heart of the Valley MSD STP
23. Janesville- City of, STP
24. Jefferson- City of, STP
25. Kenosha- City of, STP
26. LaCrosse- City of, STP
27 Lake Geneva- City of, STP
28. Madison- MSD STP
29. Manitowoc- City of, STP
30. Marinette- City of, STP
31. Marshfield- City of, STP
32. Mayville- City of, STP
33. Menasha- S.D. |4, East Side STP
34. Menasha- S.D. #4, West Side STP
35. Menomonie- City of, STP
36. Menomonee Falls- City of, STP
37. Merrill- City of, STP
38. Milwaukee- SWG, Cotnm-Jones Island STP
39. Milwaukee- SWG, Comm-South Shore STP
40. Monroe- City of, STP
41. Muskego N.W. 01st, STP
42. Neenah-Menasha- SWG Conn STP
Location
Town of Rolling
Appleton
Ashland
Baraboo
Beaver Dam
Beloit
Beloit
Berlin
Brookfield
Burlington
Cedarburg
Chippewa Falls
Clintonville
DePere
Eau Claire
Fond du Lac
Fort Atkinson
Germantown
Grafton
Green Bay
Hartford
Kaukauna
Janesville
Jefferson
Kenosha
LaCrosse
Lake Geneva
Madison
Manitowoc
Marinette
Marshfield
May vi lie
Menasha
Menasha
Menomenie
Menomonee Falls
Merrill
id STP Milwaukee
[ STP Milwaukee
Monroe
Muskego
Neenah-Menasha
Permit No.
WI 0022144
WI 0023221
Wl "0030767
WI 0020605
WI 0023345
WI 0023370
WI 0026930
WI 0021229
WI 0023469
WI 0022926
WI 0020222
WI 0023604
WI 0021466
WI 0023787
WI 0023850
WI 0023990
WI 0022489
WI 0020567
WI 0020184
WI 0020991
WI 0020192
WI 0031232
WI 0030350
WI 0024333
WI 0028703
WI 0029581
WI 0021130
WI 0024597
WI 0024601
WI 0026182
WI 0021024
WI 0024643
WI 0025909
WI 0024686
WI 0024708
WI 0025381
WI 0020150
WI 0024767
WI 0024775
WI 0020362
WI 0021164
WI 0026085
Expiratior
6/30/7
12/31/7
7/31/7
12/31/8
12/31/8
6/30/8
6/30/8
3/31/8
9/30/a
5/31/8.
6/30/81
3/31/8;
6/30/8',
6/30/75
6/30/81
6/30/8^
6/30/82
6/30/82
3/31/82
3/31/84
12/31/79
12/31/79
6/30/79
6/30/82
3/31/79
3/31/84
6/30/81
6/30/82
6/30/79
3/31/84
6/30/79
12/31/81
6/30/82
6/30/82
3/31/84
6/30/82
3/31/84
6/30/82
6/30/82
6/30/82
3/31/79
12/31/79
ATTACHMENT 1
-------
129
September 1979
WISCONSIN
MUNICIPAL (Continued)
Name
Location
Permit No. Expiration Date
43. New Hoi stein- City of, STP
44. New London- City of STP
45. North Park- S.D. STP
46. Oconomowoc- City of, STP
47. Oconto- City of, STP
48. Oshkosh- City of, STP
49. Peshtigo- City of, WTR & SWR Utl.
50. Platteville- City of, STP
51. Plymouth- City of, STP
52. Port Washington, City of, STP
53. Portage- City of, STP
54. Prairie du Chien- City of, STP
55. Racine- City of, STP
56. Reedsburg- City of, STP
57. Rhine!ander- City of, STP
58. Rice Lake-City of, STP
59. Richland Center- City of, STP
oO. Ripon- City of, STP
61. Rothschild- City of, STP
62. Shawano Lake S. 0. II, STP
63. Sheboygan, City of, STP
64. South Milwaukee, City of, STP
65. Sparta, City of, STP
66. Stevens Point- City of, STP
67. Stoughton- City of, STP
68. Sturgeon Bay- City of, STP
69. Sun Prairie- City of, STP
70. Superior- City of, STP
71. Sussex- Village of, STP
72. Two Rivers- City of, STP
73. Watertown- City of, STP
74. Waukesha- City of, STP
75 Waupaca- City of, STP
76. Waupun- City of, STP
77. Wausau- City of, STP
78. West Bend- City of, STP
79. Whitewater- City of, STP
80. Wisconsin Rapids- City of, STP
New Hoi stein
New London
North Park
Oconomowoc
Oconto
Oshkosh
STP Peshtigo
Platteville
Plymouth
Port Washington
Portage
Prairie Du Chien
Racine
Reedsburg
Rhine!ander
Rice Lake
Richland Center
Ripon
Rothschild
Shawano
Sheboygan
South Milwaukee
Sparta
Stevens Point
Stoughton
Sturgeon Bay
Sun Prairie
Superior
Sussex
Two Rivers
Watertown
Waukesha
Waupaca
Waupun
Wausau
West Bend
Whitewater
Wisconsin Rapids
WI 0020893
WI 0024929
WI 0022900
WI 0021181
WI 0022861
WI 0025038
WI 0030651
WI 0020435
WI 0030031
WI 0020460
WI 0020427
WI 0020257
WI 0025194
WI 0020371
WI 0020044
WI 0021865
WI 0020109
WI 0021032
WI 0030279
WI 0028452
WI 0025411
WI 0028819
WI 0020737
WI 0029572
WI 0020338
WI 0021113
WI 0020478
WI 0025593
WI 0020559
WI 0026590
WI 0028541
WI 0029971
WI 0036490
WI 0022772
WI 0025739
WI 0025763
WI 0020001
WI 0025844
6/30/82
3/31/79
6/30/84
3/31/84
6/30/82
3/31/84
6/30/79
6/30/82
1/31/84
3/31/84
12/31/78
3/31/84
3/31/79
3/31/79
3/31/79
6/30/82
6/30/79
6/30/82
3/31/79
6/30/79
6/30/79
6/30/79
6/30/82
6/30/79
6/30/79
3/31/79
6/30/82
6/30/82
6/30/79
6/30/79
6/30/82
6/30/82
6/30/79
12/31/8!
6/30/79
6/30/79
6/30/82
4/30/79
1-2
-------
130
WISCONSIN
FY 1980 LIST OF MAJOR DISCHARGERS
INDUSTRIAL
September 1979
Name
1. American Can Co.
2. American Can Co.
3. American Can Co.
4. Ansul Company
5. Appleton Papers, Inc.
6. Badger Paper Mills, Inc.
7. BASF Wayandotte Corp.
8. Bergstrom Paper Co.
(Glatfelter, P.H.)
9. Brown Co. (Sterling Op)
10. Brown Company
11. Consolidated Papers, Inc.
12. Consolidated Papers, Inc.
13. Consolidated Papers, Inc.
14. Consolidated Papers, Inc.
15. Fort Howard Paper Co.
16. Flambeau Paper Corp.
17. 'Flintkote Company, The
18. Georgia Pacific Corp.
19. Green Bay Packaging, Inc.
20. Kimberly Clark Corp.
21. Kimberly Clark Corp.
(Lakeview Mill)
22. Midtec Paper Corp.
23. Mosinee Paper Corp.
24. Murphy Oil Corp. (Refinery)
25. Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
26. Nekoosa Papers, Inc.
27. Niagara of Wisconsin
Paper Co.
28. Nicolet Paper Corp.
29. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
30. Proctor & Gamble Paper
Products Co.
31. Rhinelander Paper Co.
(Div. of Monarch Paper
32. Riverside Paper Co.
33. Scott Paper Co.
34. Scott Paper Co.
35. Shawano Paper Mills, Inc.
36. Superior Fiber Prods. Inc.
37. Thilmany Pulp & Paper Co.
(Div. of Hammer-mill Paper Co.)
Location
Ashland
Green Bay
Rothschild
Marinette
Combined Locks
Peshtigo
Port Edwards
Neenah
Eau Claire
Ladysmith
Appleton
Wisconsin Rapids
Stevens Point
Whiting
Green Bay
Park Falls
Cornell
Tomahawk
Green Bay
Neenah
Neenah
Kimberly
Mosinee
Superior
Nekoosa-Port
Edwards
Whiting
Niagara
West De Pere
Tomahawk
Green Bay
Rhinelander
Appleton
Marinette
Oconto Falls
Shawano
Superior
Menasha
Permit No. Expiration Da
WI 0003140
WI 0001261
WI 0003450
WI 0001040
WI 0000990
WI 0000663
WI 0003565
WI 0001121
WI 0003077
WI 0003204
WI 0001082
WI 0037991
WI 0003344
WI 0003468
WI 0001848
WI 0003212
WI 0003034
WI 0003603
WI 0000973
WI 0037842
WI 0000680
WI 0000698
WI 0003671
WI 0003085
WI 0003620
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/79
3/31/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
3/31/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
12/26/79
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
12/31/79
3/31/80
12/31/79
9/30/80
WI 0003611
9/30/80
WI 0000752
WI 0001473
WI 0002810
WI 0001031
WI 0003026
WI 0000591
WI 0000540
WI 0000531
WI 0001341
WI 0002798
12/31/79
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
9/30/80
11/30/79
9/30/80
3/31/80
WI 0000825
9/30/80
1-3
-------
131
September 1979
WISCONSIN
INDUSTRIAL (Cent.)
Name
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
POWER
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Tomahawk Power & Pulp Co.
Ward Paper Co.
Wausau Paper Kills Co.
Weyerhaeuser Corp.
Wisconsin Tissue Kills
PLANTS
Dairy! and Power Coop.
Dairy! and Power Coop.
Lake Superior Dist. Power Co.
Madison Gas 4 Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
.Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
(Rock River)
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
(Weston 11 4 #2)
Wisconsin Public Service Corp.
(Weston *3)
Location
Tomahawk
Merrill
Brokaw
Rothschild
Menasha
Alma (16)
Genoa f 1 , 2 & 3
Bayfront
Madison
Commerce
Lakeside
Oak Creek
Point Beach
Port Washington
Valley
Pleasant Prairie
Beloit
Portage
Sheboygan (11-4)
Kewaunee
Pull i am
Rothschild
Rothschild
Permit No.
WI 0003387
WI 0003719
WI 0003379
WI 0026042
WI 0037389
WI 0040223
WI 0003239
WI 0002887
WI 0001961
WI 0000892
WI 0000906
WI 0000914
WI 0000957
WI 0000922
WI 0000931
WI 0043583
WI 0002402
WI 0002780
WI 0001589
WI 0001571
WI 0000965
WI 0003131
WI 0042765
Expiration Date
9/30/80
9/30/80
3/31/80
9/30/80
12/31/83
5/30/81
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/80
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
6/30/83
1-4
-------
132
TABLE 13
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BASIC WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
STATE SUMMARY
Programs Illinois Indiana Wisconsin MinnesotaMichigan Ohio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
*
*
*
**
*
**
-
**
**
**
*
**
*
**
-
**
A
**
**
**
AA
**
-
AA
*
AA
AA
AA
**
AA
-
AA
*
*
*
A*
A*
A*
-
AA
*A
A
AA
AA
AAAA
AA
-
AA
Programs
1. National Ambient Monitoring Network
2. State Monitoring Network
3. USGS Monitoring Networks
4. Quality Assurance Program
5. Intensive Survey Program
6. Effluent Monitoring Program
7. Proposed Biological Monitoring Program (1)
8. Data Interpretation and Reporting
A
AA
Meets BWMP requirements
Minor program deficiencies/differences
*** Major program deficiencies/differences
AAAA Program cannot be evaluated
(1) All states except Michigan and Wisconsin participated to some extent in the
Proposed Biological Monitoring Program in 1979. The work that was done met
the BWMP requirements.
2. BASIC WATER MONITORING PROGRAM, FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
The Federal role for implementation of the BWMP is one of overview for
all the elements of the BWMP except Data Interpretation and Reporting and
Effluent Monitoring, which are described below:
a. Effluent Monitoring
Recognizing that in Region V, the States have all been delegated
responsibility for administering the NPDES program, none-the-
less, the Federal role in effluent monitoring remains very
active. This is partly in response to Headquarters guidance
that the Regions complete approximately 20% of the compliance
monitoring annually. However, as administered in Region V, the
compliance program is also used to support an active enforcement
-------
133
program with respect to major dischargers. Beginning in 1979,
portions of these resources were used in initiating programs
related to the identification and quantification of toxic and
hazardous sources. As a result less emphasis was placed on
compliance work than would normally be the case. During FY
1980, the following inspections were completed at major
dischargers.
Inspection Commitment Accomplished
CEIs 125 76
CSI (Toxic) 18 12
CSI (Non muni, Non-toxic) 8 24
PAI 55 2
b. Data Interpretation and Reporting
The Federal role in Data Interpretation and Reporting includes
the following:
Headquarters assigns a STORET representative for each Region. This
individual has the responsibility for establishing and implementing
STORET policies, for determining which data should and should not be
stored, who should or should not be using the system and what their
usage allowance should be. This individual can provide direct assis-
tance or questions pertaining to the use of STORET programs and
other technically oriented matters. The Regional STORET Representa-
tive will store data for states when necessary. At the present
time, data is stored for Indiana until such time as the state has
hired sufficient staff.
3. GREAT LAKES PROGRAM
a. Open Lake Intensive Surveys
1). State Role
There was no open lake monitoring by Region V states in 1979.
The lakes are either intrastate or international in character
and require unique resources to monitor, i.e. large vessels,
oceanographic sampling equipment, and navigation systems which
are not otherwise required by the states for monitoring.
Therefore, open lake monitoring has been a federal responsi-
bility.
2). Federal Role
Open water surveillance/water quality monitoring was completed
on Lake Erie in FY 1979, and Lake Huron in FY 1980. The scienti-
fic and operational crew were provided by a contractor. Data
will be analyzed during FY 1981-82 by GLNPO staff for each lake
with contract assistance.
-------
133a
b. Loadings
1). Atmospheric Deposition
During 1979, the Region V S&A Division operated a 36 station
bulk sampling network at or near the shoreline of the Great
Lakes, except for Lake Ontario. The sampling represented a
very ambitious effort in that it was intended to provide esti-
mates of air pollution impacting the lakes for chemical, nutri-
ent and inorganic toxic pollutants. The stations, consisting
of static sampling devices, one for chemical parameters, one
for nutrients and a third for metals analyses were operated
by volunteers in the local area of the station. The samples
were operated by volunteers in the local area of the station.
The samples were collected over a 30-day period and then ship-
ped to the Central Regional Laboratory (CRL), Region V for
analysis. This effort was conducted in response to commit-
ments to the IJC.
During 1980, the Great Lakes National Program Office assumed
responsibility for this monitoring, and plans were formulated
to improve the capability and the operation of the network.
Following a review, a total of 39 locations were selected as
sampling points, including 6 near Lake Ontario. Other modifi-
cations included a re-designed bulk sampler and the addition
of wet event samplers at selected locations for weekly collec-
tion and analysis of pollutants associated with precipitation
and the acidity of the precipitation. The analysis of the
samples will be completed by CRL under contract. Perhaps most
significant of the changes, the samples will be collected by
state air agency personnel under contract to GLNPO.
a). State Role
The States did not have an active role in the operation
of this network during 1979. Several states have con-
tracted with GLNPO for this work in FY 81.
b). Federal Role
The stations were operated throughout the year.
Following analysis, a laboratory report was published
and the data were forwarded to the IJC for use in
developing estimates of the atmospheric loadings to
the five Great Lakes. A similar effort is carried
out by the Canadians in estimating lake impact.
However, significant differences result in data sets
which are not comparable. The Canadians use wet
event samplers and analyze the sample associated with
precipitation. It is difficult to arrive at a conclu-
sion of the usefulness of the data collected by these
networks. State of the art techniques do not provide
direct measurements of atmospheric loadings to water
bodies.
-------
134
2). Tributary Storm Event Monitoring
a). State Role
No monitoring programwas conducted in 1979. In 1980 the
States of Michigan and Wisconsin were given GLNPO funds to
conduct high flow studies on selected Lake Michigan trib-
utaries. The purpose was to improve the annual estimates
of loading to the Great Lakes, and to determine the effec-
tiveness of phosphorous management.
b). Federal Role
The GLNPO provided funds to Michigan and Wisconsin for the
work described above.
3). Tributary and Point Source Inputs (Phosphorus Management)
a). State Role
The states conducted monthly monitoring on major tributaries
in order to provide data to calculate annual loadings to
the lakes, and they also monitored selected point source
dischargers.
b). Federal Role
One of the primary purposes of the loadings program is the
evaluation of ongoing and alternative management programs
and the prediction of the effect of various phosphorus
management policy options. GLNPO is coordinating the devel-
opment of mathematical simulations to make those predictions.
4). Rivermonths, Embayments and Nearshore Studies
a). State Role
In 1979 the State of Michigan was issued a grant to conduct
water quality nearshore studies at Cheboygan, Alpena and
Harbor Beach.
b). Federal Role
In 1979 the GLNPO issued grants and contracts to conduct
plankton, sediment and water monitoring along the southern
shore of Lake Erie. In 1980 GLNPO funded the Michigan near-
shore study and with LLRS conducted a study of Saginaw Bay
in conjunction with the open lake survey on Lake Huron. In
1979 nearshore studies were conducted in Lake Michigan. Sev-
eral nearshore studies have been conducted in Lake Erie by
the Army Corps of Engineers, and currently NOAA is conducting
a nearshore study in Sandusky Bay with Heidelberg College as
the subcontractor.
-------
135
Fish Monitoring
A monitoring strategy for toxic substances in fish of the
Great Lakes is proposed for 1981. The monitoring program
will include Great Lakes tributaries and the open lakes.
The purposes of this element of the surveillance plan
are to determine if coho salmon and lake trout are in
conformance with US FDA established limits on toxic sub-
stances in fish, to determine the effectiveness of remedial
programs such as the ban on DDT and the restrictions on use
of PGB's and to dectect other compounds which may accumulate
in fish. Collections will be by State agencies and the US
FWS, and the analyses will be performed by US EPA and US FDA.
1) Open Lake Fish Monitoring
a). State Role
No State monitoring program.
b). Federal Role
This program was initiated in Lake Michigan during
1969 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It has
been expanded to where there are now thirteen areas
from the U.S. portion of the Great Lakes from which
fish are collected by the USFWS. Fish are analyzed
to determine PCB concentrations as well as chlorinated
pesticides, heavy metals and other toxic compounds.
2) Tributary Fish Monitoring
a). State Role
Several states collected resident fish samples, as
described in the GLNPO fish monitoring strategy, in
FY 80 from selected Great Lakes tributaries; and most,
if not all, Great Lakes states will collect such sam-
ples from additional selected tributaries in FY 81.
Upon reciept of information from EPA of any specific
toxic contamination problems in these collections,
states are expected to perform specific toxic trend
analyses in subsequent annual fish collections in
their own laboratories to determine the effectiveness
of remedial programs.
b). Federal Role
U. S. EPA provides laboratory support for the GC/MS
analysis of the first state collection from all
selected tributaries.
-------
136
d. Sediment Survey for Toxic Substances in Harbors
a). State Role
No State monitoring program.
b). Federal Role
No Federal program during 1979. However, a survey of sediments
in 91 selected harbors over the next three years will be per-
formed by U.S. EPA - GLNPO to determine the location and degree
of toxic contamination of harbor sediments. This information
will strongly indicate probably sources of contamination to the
waters column and biota.
e. Water Intakes
1). State Role
No monitoring was completed during 1979.
2). Federal Role
No monitoring was completed during 1979. However, contracts
are presently initiated to collect weekly water samples and
phytoplankton on all samples and heavy metals on selected
samples to permit annual assessment of each lake for trends
during non-intensive study years.
f. Support to_Federaj.programs
1). O&tl Inspections of Facilities located on Tributaries
a). State Role
The States, through their own O&M programs, perodically
evaluate POTW's on the Great Lakes Basin.
b). Federal Role
Funds are being provided by the GLNPO for a study to be
contracted to private industry, for inspection and eval-
uation of 30 POTW's located in the Great Lakes Basin;
then 15 of the 30 plants evaluated will be given in-depth
analyses to arrive at schemes for correction of problems
found.
2). Fugitve Emissions
a). State Role
No State monitoring program.
-------
137
b). Federal Role
No Federal monitoring program in 1979. However, there has
been interest expressed in these sources of air pollution.
This lead to a contract in FY 1980 which was managed by the
Enforcement Division. It was concluded that very signifi-
cant amounts of these emissions impact the Great Lakes.
3). Fish Monitoring for Priority Pollutants
(See c. Fish Monitoring)
4). PCS Evaluations
a). State Role
The States of Michigan and Wisconsin have conducted
extensive sampling for PCB's on the Sheyboygan, Shiawassee,
Saginaw, Pine and Tittabawassee Rivers in connection with
their delegated enforcement authority.
b). Federal Role
Special remedial and mitigation feasibility studies have
been sponsored by EPA's Office of Marine Activities, the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Great Lakes National
Program Office in areas not otherwise covered by the Basic
Water Monitoring Program.
4. SECTION 208 AREAWIDE WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT
a. State Role
(1) Illinois
Section 208 funds are currently being use to support the National
Urban Runoff Program activities by the Northeastern Illinois
Planning Commission at Glen Ellyn, Illinois. The project will
assess the effects of storage detention on pollutant loads and
will evaluate the potential load reductions due to source con-
trols. Seasonal surveys will quantify pollutant contributions
from all significant sources.
SIMAPC (Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning
Commission) does not have any ongoing monitoring; however, this
agency has collected monitoring data in two areas: 1) Agricul-
tural Watershed Study - samples were collected in November,
1980; and 2) Urban Stormwater Runoff Project - samples were
taken on December 1, 1979.
-------
138
The State of Illinois (EPA) has ongoing monitoring activities
in the following three areas:
0 Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Champaign, Illinois-this urban runoff
monitoring is directed at evaluating the effectiveness of municipal
street sweeping activities.
0 Monitoring and evaluation of the effect of applied agricultural
Best Management Practices (BMPs) on water quality in the Blue Creek
Watershed. The primary purpose is to determine the actual yield
of pollutants from a variety of agricultural practices to down-
stream waters and its effect upon water quality and water uses.
0 Expansion of toxicity and aquatic life impacts of significant
industrial and municipal discharges. The objective is to charac-
terize and assess the environmentl impacts of trace organics
discharged from point sources to surface waters.
(2) Indiana
The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board and several of the
areawide planning comissions have conducted monitoring in the
following areas from 1978 to the present. These efforts are
described below.
a) Intensive surveys for 8 segments to support non source WLA
and permit reissuance. Surveys consist of 24 hour composite
sampling of dischargers, receiving streams and tributaries.
b) Reaeration studies for 7 segments to support point
source modelling.
c) Determine the existing and potential use (life supporting
ability) of certain stream reaches, in support of development
of limited use classification.
d) Contract for analysis of toxicants to support poorly
equipped and staffed state program.
Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commision (NIRPC) 208 funds are
being utilized to fund monitoring programs for overland runoff from
various types of land - use in the NIRPC planning area. The information
is intended to provide loading factors for various land-uses for stream
modeling purposes. Stream sampling programs have been initiated or
planned for the Little Calumet and Grand Calumet Rivers to determine
water quality conditions under both low flow and high flow conditions.
Stormwater sampling of the Valparaiso lakes was funded in FY 80 to
establish the impact of urban stormwater runoff on small freshwater lakes.
-------
139
Salt Creek will be monitored for the determination of spawning potentials
for lake trout and coho salmon.
Michiana Council of Governments (MACOG) has proposed to sample non-point
source loadings from agricultural sources in the Juday Creek basin for
the purpose of evaluating agricultural BMPs.
MACOG completed sampling of Travis Ditch Trail Creek and the St. Joseph
River under the FY 1978 208 program. The Travis Ditch sampling was
conducted to determine the need for advanced waste treatment at Valpar-
siaso Indiana. The Trail Creek and St. Joseph data were used to deter-
mine the impact of combined sewer overflows on the St. Joseph River and
Lake Michigan.
MACOG also sponsered a sampling program for area well owners to determine
the extent of toxic pollutants in well water supplies.
Indiana Heartland Coordination Commission (IHCC) in cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Model Implementation Plan (MIP) efforts
has initiated sampling on Stotts Creek and Eagle Creek in the Indianapolis
area to determine BMPs for controlling agricultural sources of sediment
and nutrients.
In addition, Region VI is undertaking a biological sampling program on
the Blue River, the White River and its tributaries to develop a biologi-
cal water pollution index.
In addition to the specialized monitoring programs, the areawide agencies
utilized 208 monies to conduct baseline water quality sampling for the
purpose of waste load allocation in original 208 plan development. In
the case of Pipe and Killbuck creeks in Region VI the sampling establi-
shed that waste load allocation modeling would not be justified
(3) Michigan
Michigan completed 6 intensive stream surveys with their FY 78
208 grant. The surveys will be expanded and formalized into
WLAs as a part of Michigan's stream classification effort.
Eight additional streams were studied with FY 79 208 dollars.
Because of EPA's 208 funding policy, WLAs have not been funded
for FY 80 or FY 81; however, Michigan has suggested the use of
Supplemental FY 81 106 dollars for a WLA effort.
Michigan currently has a ground water grant to develop a state
strategy. It will also do preliminary remedial monitoring of
five of eight case study sites and intensive monitoring on the
remaining three. Four areawide agencies will also do ao.u •::.>•—
ing to develop preventative actions on four additional sites.
-------
140
The status of Michigan's monitoring effort for the future has
been placed in question because of recent budget cuts. Some
areas have been severly cut back or eliminated. The current
106 (FY 81) program plan reflects many of the above issues.
(4) Minnesota
The State of Minnesota conducted water monitoring activities
with 208 funds. Areas that have been sampled are:
a) Minnesota River intensive survey work for WLA purposes in
the metro area.
b) Minnesota River sampling in the outstate area to assess
nonpoint source contributions to the downstream problems.
c) Sampling on the Mesabi Range in Northeastern Minnesota to
assess pollution from copper and nickel mining and iron ore
waste disposal.
d) Ground water monitoring in site specific areas for toxics
and fecal coliform contamination.
The Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities has conducted
monitoring in the following areas: 1) Rural nonpoint source
monitoring on selected watersheds in the 7- county metro area
(1980); 2) Urban nonpoint source monitoring on selected water-
sheds; 3) Point source monitoring on the Mississippi River for
model verification and calibration work and 4) monitoring of
50 lakes in the 7 county area for toxics and traditional
parameters.
(5) Ohio
Monitoring efforts funded under the Water Quality Management
Program (Section 208) were initiated in Ohio's designated areas
as early as 1974. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
(OEPA) performed monitoring, supported with 208 funds, beginning
in 1977.
OEPA's major initial monitoring effort under the 208
program was in support of the development of wasteload allo-
cations for 112 water quality river segments in Ohio.
The data encompasses physical and conventional chemical
parameters. An intensive monitoring effort on the Great
Miami River was recently completed. Subsequent to 1978,
limited monitoring in mining and construction non-point
sources has occurred.
-------
141
The Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission (Dayton), through
contract to the Miami Conservancy District, performed point
source and urban stormwater related monitoring with 208 funds.
The Toledo Metropolitan area council of government performed
monitoring with 208 funds to help determine loadings to the
Maumee River. The Eastgate Development and Transportation
agency (Youngstorm) and the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional
Council of governments (Cincinnati) relied primarily on exist
ing data in the development of their water quality Management
Plans. The Northeast Ohio four-County Planning and Development
Organization (Canton) sampled several river segments within
the Tuscarawas Basin to help characterize agricultural and
urban runoff non-point source pollution. The Northeast Ohio
areawide coordinating agency (Akron) performed monitoring to
characterize urban non-point source pollution from specific
land uses in Akron and performed an intensive survey to help
develop wasteload allocations for the Black River, Tinkers
Creek and the Middle Cuyahoga River.
(6) Wisconsin
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has utilized
§208 funds extensively for water quality monitoring. During
the initial planning phases §208 funds were used to augment
water quality data on the Wisconsin, Fox and Rock rivers.
These Rivers are the largest in the State and experienced the
greatest point and non-point source problems. The data was
used to derive water quality models, standards and waste load
allocations.
§208 funds are also presently being used in Milwaukee to deter-
mine Urban NPS pollution loadings and the pollutants in urban
run-off. 208 funds are paying for a monitoring and evaluation
study of WQM plan implementation in the Galena River basin in
southwestern Wisconsin and in the Monitowoc River Basin in
East Central Wisconsin.
(b) Federal Role
The federal role in 208 monitoring activities is to oversee the state
and areawide projects.
5. HEADQUARTERS PROGRAM
a. Effluent Guidelines, Exposure/Risk, Fate and Dilution Studies (priority
pollutants).
(1) State Role
No monitoring for priority pollutants is conducted.
-------
142
(2) Federal Role
No priority pollutant samples were collected in 1979. In
1980, samples were collected by the Eastern and Central
District Offices with assistance from the Central Regional
Laboratory. The sample analyses were done by the CRL or
completed by contract laboratories.
b. Hot Spot Studies
(1) State Role
No monitoring is conducted.
(2) Federal Role
EPA has completed 24 "hot spot" studies (5 in Region 5)
of local areas projected to have toxics problems after
BAT, as part of Paragraph 12 of the NRDC Settlement
Agreement. These studies will provide insights into the
source of water quality problems in urban waterways.
c. POTO/Toxics Project
(1) State Role
No monitoring is conducted.
(2) Federal Role
The POTW/toxics project is described in an Interim Report
put out by the Effluent Guidelines Division entitled Fate
of Priority Pollutants in Public Owned Treatment Works
(EPA 440/1-80-301). Influent, effluent and sludge samples
were collected from 20 selected locations throughout the
country. This included two pilot studies, one in Indiana-
polis and one in Cincinnati, plus 18 other studies. The
final report, which is to be completed in May or June
1981, will include 30 additional studies for a total of 50
studies for the project. Of these 30, 13 are in Region V.
-------
143
6. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) PROGRAM
a. State Role
The operation of the program in each of the States is described
below.
(1) Illinois
The State is conducting construction grant compliance inspec-
tions at the end of the first year after construction is com-
.pleted.
Forms 7500 are filled out for all municipal inspections conducted
(major and minor dischargers).
In addition, inspections are conducted without filling out Form
7500. These are mostly reconnaisance inspections conducted on
minor dischargers by technicians.
Follow-up inspections are conducted on problem facilities, and
technical assistance is being provided.
O&M manuals are reviewed in the Compliance Assurance Section.
(2) Indiana
No construction grant compliance inspections are conducted
(these were discontinued in FY 1980). The state commitment for
these was not met in FY 1979.
Forms 7500 are filled out at every major municipal discharger
which is inspected. Usually a CEI or CSI (with completion of
Form 3560) is conducted at the same time.
Inspections are also conducted which are not reported on Form
7500, but are reported on a State form. These inspections far
exceed the number of inspections conducted for any other purpose.
The state conducts follow-up inspections at problem facilities,
and provides technical assistance, either from State staff or
by referral to the private sector.
The Plan Review Section provides review of O&M manuals. The
O&M program for Indiana was significantly expanded in FY 1980.
-------
144
(3) Michigan
The state is conducting construction grant compliance inspections
annually for a 3-year period after completion of construction.
Results are reported on Form 7500.
Manpower is deficient now to carry out a full O&M program;
however, O&M inspections are being performed and the results
reported on Form 7500. Also, whenever a CEI or CSI is done, a
Form 3560 is completed.
Some inspections are performed that are not reported on Form 7500.
Finally, the state conducts follow-up inspections on an estimated
10% of the total inspections performed. Also, reviews of O&M
manuals are performed.
(4) Minnesota
The State is conducting construction grant compliance inspections
annually for a 3-year period after completion of construction.
Results are reported on Form 7500.
There is no O&M inspection program as such. However, whenever
a CEI or CSI is performed, page 5 of the Form 7500 is completed
along with the Form 3560.
Follow-up inspections are being performed, as well as technical
assistance.
Also, the State reviews O&M manuals and approves start-up
services and plans of operation for plants within its
jurisdiction.
(5) Ohio
The State conducts construction grant compliance inspections
and reports the results on Form 7500. The state only completes
audits that the USEPA specifically asks for. Four audits were
completed at plants where construction had been completed in 1979.
The State conducts O&M inspections and reports the results on
Form 7500. In addition, a Form 7500 is completed whenever a
Form 3560 is filled out for compliance purposes.
The State conducts a great number of inspections other than
those reported on Form 7500. Forms 7500 are completed for
major dischargers only.
The State performs follow-up inspections and provides
limited technical assistance to problem plants, including
review of O&M manuals for plants in its jurisdiction.
-------
145
(6) Wisconsin
For Federally funded projects, the State conducts a final audit
on plants when construction is complete, but results are not
reported on Form 7500. The Corps of Engineers conduct periodic
inspections during construction of Federally funded projects.
However, most projects are state-funded and inspected by State
personnel.
The State performs O&M inspections, but results are not reported
on Form 7500. State personnel write a narrative report for
each inspection done.
The State performs follow-up inspections and technical assist-
ance. They have an O&M team in the Green Bay office which
performs O&M inspections in that district, plus any follow-up
and technical assistance work.
Wisconsin believes O&M is an important supplement to enforcement.
Actually, they have performed O&M efforts in place of CEIs and
CSIs.
Also, the State provides review of O&M manuals for plants in
its jurisdiction.
b. Federal Role
The role of the USEPA in the O&M program is mainly one of
overview. However, in those areas where the States cannot meet
their commitments due to a lack or resources, the USEPA has been
providing limited supplemental assistance. Assistance has mainly
been provided in the area of conducting O&M inspections, and in
providing limited technical assistance. The USEPA has also been
managing a Region-wide O&M awards program which has recognized
outstanding treatment plants in each state.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT PROGRAM (RCRA)
a. State Role
For FY 79, the states are working on developing programs for
RCRA, i.e., strategy of implementation, public participation,
monitoring, etc. The thrust of the program is to have each
state eventually implement their own programs. The states are
conducting inspections under various state hazardous waste laws.
RCRA became effective November 19, 1980. The states will be
responsible for submitting to EPA letters of intent to apply for
interim authorization. Interim authorization is phase I of the
final RCRA program. State investigatiors will accompany Federal
inspectors to various monitoring sites.
-------
146
b. Federal Role
For FY 79, the Federal role was one of evaluation of the state's
developmental program. For FY 80, the Federal role was guidance
and evaluation of the state's interim authorization letters.
The Federal government will have a primary implementation role
if a state fails to implement the program. Federal inspectors
will investigate those sites considered to be of imminent and
substantial endangerment of public health and environment.
8. DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
a. State Role
The four areas of program activity that require monitoring are
described under PROGRAM NEEDS in Appendix A. States which have
requested and have been granted primary enforcement authority
for the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulations carry out
this monitoring with the Region providing an overview role.
The primary states in Region V are Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio and Wisconsin. Indiana does not have a primary role but
maintains a program which meets most SDWA monitoring needs for
municipal systems.
Special issues exist in three states. Illinois has public
water systems which exceed maximin containment levels for
barium, fluoride and radium. Minnesota and Wisconsin lack
laboratory capability to perform trihalomethane (THM) analyses.
Region V plays a lead role in working with the states to resolve
issues of this nature.
b. Federal Role
The Federal role of overview of State programs having primacy
varies depending on the status of the State with regard to new
Federal monitoring regulations. This because the states vary
in their mechanism for adopting new regulations and in their
view toward the need for certain of the Federal regulations.
Therefore, for new regulations the primary role for monitoring
may remain with the Region for an interim period of time. For
these interim periods, the Region places a high degree of
emphasis on cooperative agreements whereby the State executes
the extra monitoring voluntarily as part of its routine program.
In the case of Indiana, the Federal role includes receiving the
monitoring data from the State and local laboratories and checks
these data for compliance with SDWA regulations. Region V
carries out all monitoring needs in Indiana with regard to non-
municipal community systems and non-community systems.
-------
147
For all States, Region V plays a lead role in research need
investigations, particularly those developed by Headquarters or
the Region. Such investigations are also conducted by the
states but on a more limited basis.
9. DREDGE AND FILL ACTIVITIES
a. State Role
Under section 401 (certification), states are required to
review and certify any applicant's permit to conduct any
activity including, but not limited to, the construction or
operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge
into navigable waters. Some monitoring may be done by states
prior to certification.
b. Federal Role
No monitoring activities.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - DULUTH (ERL-D)
a. State Role
No Monitoring activities
b. Federal Role
Historically, the major research emphasis at ERL-D has been on
the effect of pollution on aquatic life. More recent efforts
not only include continuous emphasis on the effects of water-
borne toxic pollutants on aquatic life, but also on the effects
of pollutants from atmospheric and solid residue sources.
11. LARGE LAKES RESEARCH STATION - GROSSE ILE (LLRS)
a. State Role
Funding of state monitoring activities is minimal. If states
are sampling in an area of interest to the LLRS, funding may be
allocated for the states to do additional work as needed.
b. Federal Role
The Large Lakes Research Station allocates funds to Universities,
and to a lesser degree to states, to conduct water monitoring
studies in Lake Huron and Saginaw Bay as well as other Great
Lakes studies.
US. E'-ivis-onrr.e:-:••'-•! Protection Agency
Region V, [ >br
------- |