United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Program Operations (WH 546)
Washington DC 20460
November 1982
430/9-82-011
&EPA
Revised Section 301 (h)
Technical Support
Document
-------
REVISED SECTION 301(h)
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
November, 1982
by
Tetra Tech, Inc., Staff
Contract Number 68-01-5906
Project Officer
Dr. Paul Pan
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 10460
Tetra Tech, Inc.
1900 - 116th Avenue, N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98004
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report was prepared under the direction of Dr. Robert Zeller,
Policy Advisor, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street S.W., Washington, D.C., 20460, (202) 426-8706.
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Water Program Operations
and the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
0,S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PREFACE
Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act provides publicly owned
wastewater treatment works (POTWs) an opportunity to apply for variances
from secondary treatment requirements for discharges to marine waters. This
Technical Support Document supplements the section 301(h) regulations as
amended in November, 1982 (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G). This document
provides information which establishes a technical basis for understanding
the major differences between the original section 301(h) regulations
promulgated in 1979 and the 1982 amended regulations. This document also
provides a technical explanation of assessments required for obtaining
section 301(h) modified discharge permits and guidance for both small and
large POTWs to use in completing the appropriate application questionnaire.
This document supersedes the original (1979) Technical Support Document.
However, the technical information provided by that document is still
relevant and useful.
The guidance provided in this Technical Support Document is advisory
only; its use is not required. However, EPA believes that section 301(h)
applicants will benefit substantially by following the guidance and
procedures provided in this document to demonstrate they have satisfied
requirements of section 301(h) and 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G.
This document has incorporated a number of changes which were made to
the Draft Technical Support Document released in May, 1982. Some of the
significant modifications are listed below.
TSD MODIFICATIONS MAY, 1982 — NOVEMBER, 1982
I. Introduction
t Brief reference to the 1981 U.S. Court of Appeals decision
was added
m
-------
Applicant questionnaire flow chart was clarified
Description of Assessments
Reference to "available supply of dilution water"
has been deleted
Small Applicant Questionnaire
Qualifying flow requirement for
status has been clarified to
average dry weather flow at the
period of less than 5 MGD"
I I.A.4.b)
"small applleant"
read "projected
end of the permit
Question
• Conditions under which small applicants should
conduct more detailed analyses and/or provide more
Information than requested In the small applicant
questionnaire are clarified
• The guidance associated with Question II.B.1 has
been modified to clarify that the 25 ppt salinity
test Is general only and not an absolute
requIrement
• Questions II.B.4.a and I I I.E.2 have been modified
to request discussion of fecal collforms
Question II.D.3 has been clarified to more
accurately specify the Information being sought
Use of Figures I I 1-3 and
and new figures provided
11-4 has been clarified
• Guidance associated with questions
I I I.H.4 has been clarified
II I .H.2 and
IV
-------
V. Large Applicant Questionnaire
• Definition of flow requirement for large
applicants has been clarified (.se_e, Question
M.A.4.b>
• Reference to requirements for revised applications
has been added
• The guidance associated with Question II.B.1 has
been modified to clarify that the 25 ppt salinity
test Is general only and not an absolute
requIrement
• Questions II.B.5.a. and III.E.2 have been modified
to request discussion of fecal collforms
• The guidance associated with Question II.C.1 has
been cI art fled
• Question II.D.3 has been clarified to more
accurately specify the Information being sought
• Proposed Question III.A.2 (regarding dilution
water supply) has been deleted
V. Physical Assessment
No significant changes.
VI. Water Quality Assessment
• Table VI-3 has been corrected
• Equation VI-12 has been corrected
• Figure VI-4 has been corrected
• Equation VI-24 has been corrected
-------
• Equation VI-29 has been corrected
• Equation VI-30 has been corrected
• Table VI-12 has been modified to include only potable water
supply facilities.
VII. Marine Biological Assessment
No changes.
VIII. Toxic Substance Control Programs
t Reference to toxic pollutants and pesticides has been
corrected to 40 CFR 125.58 (v) and (m)
• Table VIII-1 has been replaced.
IX. Monitoring Programs
No changes.
X. Plan of Study
No changes.
VI
-------
CONTENTS
PREFACE
I. INTRODUCTION I_l
Background I_l
Experience to Date 1-4
Regulatory Changes I-H
Guidance Organization 1-12
II. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENTS H-l
Physical Assessment H-l
Water Quality Assessment II-3
Public Water Supply Assessment II-4
Recreational Activity Assessment II-4
Biological Assessment I1-5
Toxic Substances Assessment II-ll
Monitoring Programs 11-12
III. SMALL APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE III-l
I. Introduction III-l
II. General Information and Basic
Data Requirements II1-2
A. Treatment System Description II1-3
B. Receiving Water Description II1-7
C. Biological Conditions III-9
D. State and Federal Laws [40 CFR 125.60] III-ll
III. Technical Evaluation 111-13
A. Physical Characteristics of Discharge
[40 CFR 125.61(a)] IH-13
B. Compliance with Applicable Water Quality
Standards [40 CFR 125.60(b) and 125.61(a)] 111-27
C. Impact on Public Water Supplies
[40 CFR 125.61(b)] IH-31
D. Biological Impact of Discharge
[40 CFR 125.61(c)] IH-31
E. Impacts of Discharge on Recreational
Activities [40 CFR 125.61(d)] 111-36
F. Establishment of a Monitoring Program
(40 CFR 125.62) m_38
G. Effect of Discharge on Other Point and
Nonpoint Sources (40 CFR 125.63) 111-41
-------
H. Toxics Control Program (40 CFR 125.64) 111-42
IV. LARGE APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE IV-1
I. Introduction IV-1
II. General Information and Basic Data
Requirements IV-2
A. Treatment System Description IV-2
B. Receiving Water Description IV-7
C. Biological Conditions IV-12
D. State and Federal Laws [40 CFR 125.60] IV-14
III. Technical Evaluation IV-15
A. Physical Characteristics of Discharge
[40 CFR 125.61(a)] IV-16
B. Compliance with Applicable Water Quality
Standards [40 CFR 125.60(b) and 125.61(a)] IV-17
C. Impact on Public Water Supplies
[40 CFR 125.61(b)] IY-19
D. Biological Impact of Discharge
[40 CFR 125.61(c)] IV-20
E. Impacts of Discharge on Recreational
Activities [40 CFR 125.61(d)] IV-26
F. Establishment of a Monitoring Program
(40 CFR 125.62) IV-28
G. Effect of Discharge on Other Point and
Nonpoint Sources (40 CFR 125.63) IV-28
H. Toxics Control Program [40 CFR 125.64] IV-29
V. PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT V-l
Initial Dilution V-l
Data Requirements V-l
Computer Models Y-3
Zone of Initial Dilution (ZID) V-5
Dispersion and Transport V-6
VI. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT VI-1
Ambient Water Quality VI-1
Suspended Solids VI-2
Suspended Solids at Completion of
Initial Dilution VI-4
Suspended Solids Deposition VI-7
Data Requirements VI-7
Prediction of Deposition VI-9
Resuspension of Deposited Sediments VI-14
Dissolved Oxygen VI-19
Dissolved Oxygen after Initial Dilution VI-19
Farfield Dissolved Oxygen Demand VI-25
Sediment Oxygen Demand VI-39
Oxygen Demand due to Resuspension
of Sediments YI-41
-------
Light Transmittance VI-43
Analysis of pH VI-51
Other Parameters Covered by Applicable Water
Quality Standards VI-53
Total Dissolved Gases VI-53
Chlorine Residual VI-54
Nutrients VI-54
Coliform Bacteria VI-56
Impacts on Water Supplies and Other Sources VI-58
Water Supplies VI-58
Other Sources VI-60
VII. MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT YII-1
Basic Information VII-1
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries VI1-3
Distinctive Habitats of Limited Distribution VI1-8
Field Surveys VII-10
Surveys at Reference Sites VII-11
Surveys beyond the ZID VI1-12
Surveys within the ZID VI1-13
Biological Communities Sampled VII-14
Benthic Macroinvertebrates VII-14
Fishes VI1-17
Bioaccumulation VII-18
Plankton VII-21
VIII. TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL PROGRAMS VIII-1
Chemical Analysis VIII-1
Industrial Pretreatment Program VII1-4
Nonindustrial Source Control Program VII1-5
IX. MONITORING PROGRAMS IX-1
Treatment Plant/Effluent Monitoring IX-2
Water Quality Monitoring IX-2
Biological Monitoring IX-4
X. PLAN OF STUDY X-l
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A: RELEVANT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
IX
-------
FIGURES
Number
1-1 Section 301(h) applicant questionnaire flow
chart I_14
II-l Wastefield generated by simple ocean outfall 11-2
III-l Small discharger initial dilution relationships,
Fr = 1 to 15 111-19
111-2 Small discharger initial dilution relationships,
Fr = 1 to 50 HI-20
111-3 Projected relationships between suspended solids mass
emission, plume height of rise, sediment accumulation
and dissolved oxygen depression for open coastal areas II1-24
III-4 Projected relationships between suspended solids mass
emission, plume height of rise, sediment accumulation
and dissolved oxygen depression for semi-enclosed
embayments and estuaries II1-26
V-l Diffuser types and corresponding ZID configurations V-7
VI-1 Example of predicted steady-state sediment accumulation
around a marine outfall VI-10
VI-2 Example cumulative frequency distribution of current
speed VI-17
VI-3 Summary of dissolved oxygen analyses VI-20
VI-4 Dissolved oxygen deficit versus travel time for a
submerged wastefield VI-31
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Range of Discharge Characteristics of Reviewed
Section 301(h) Applications 1-5
1-2 Relationship of Additional Large Applicant Questions to
Small Applicant Questions 1-13
III-l Seawater Densities (Expressed in ot Units) for
Selected Temperatures and Salinities 111-17
III-2 Estimated Dissolved Oxygen Depression Following Initial
Dilution 111-28
111-3 Known Desalinization Plants 111-32
V-l Summary of Plume Model Characteristics V-4
VI-1 Example of Ambient Water Quality Data Needed VI-3
VI-2 Selected Ambient Suspended Solids Concentrations VI-6
VI-3 Example Tabulations of Settleable Organic Component
by Group and Maximum Settling Distance by Group VI-11
VI-4 Example Tabulations of Deposition Rates and
Accumulation Rates by Contour VI-13
VI-5 Bottom Current Speeds to Induce Resuspension VI-15
VI-6 Example Summary of Current Meter Data by Speed
Interval VI-18
VI-7 Typical IDOD Values VI-22
VI-8 Dissolved Oxygen Saturation Values VI-26
VI-9 Subsequent Dilutions for Various Initial Field
Widths and Travel Times VI-34
XI
-------
VI-10 Calculated Values for the Critical Effluent
Secchi Depth (cm) for Selected Ambient Secchi
Depths, Initial Dilutions, and a Water Quality
Standard for Minimum Secchi Disc Visibility of 1 m VI-48
VI-11 Estimated pH Values After Initial Dilution VI-52
VI-12 Known Desalinization Plants VI-59
VII-1 Fish and Fisheries Information Needs, Sources,
and Types VI1-6
VIII-1 Toxic Pollutants and Pesticides as Defined in
125.58(u) and (m) VIII-2
XI 1
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Clean Water Act of 1977 included provisions under section 301(h)
which allow POTWs to apply for a modified National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit to discharge effluent receiving
1 ess-than-secondary treatment to marine waters. Section 301(h) provides
that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with
the concurrence of the State, may issue an NPDES permit to a POTW which
modifies the Federal secondary treatment requirements for POTW discharges
into certain ocean or estuarine waters if the POTW adequately demonstrates
that the modification would not impair the integrity of the marine receiving
waters and biota. Regulations implementing section 301(h) were first issued
by EPA in June, 1979 (44 FR 34784, 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G).
The June 15, 1979, regulations were challenged in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by the Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC), the Pacific Legal Foundation,
Inc. (PLF), the municipalities of Skagway, Wrangell, and Anchorage, Alaska,
and the Marina County Water District, California. On May 7. 1981, the court
struck down the provisions of EPA's regulations which prohibited issuance of
section 301(h) modified permits:
1. For a discharge receiving less than primary treatment
2. For the discharge of sewage sludge
3. Where the applicant is currently meeting effluent
limitations based on secondary treatment.
Subsequent to the Court's decision, section 301(h) was amended by the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of 1981
(P.L. 97-117} and now specifies that:
1-1
-------
"The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, may issue
a permit under Section 402 which modifies the requirements of
subsection (b)(l)(B) of this section with respect to the
discharge of any pollutant from a publicly owned treatment works
into marine waters, if the applicant demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that-
(1) there is an applicable water quality standard specific
to the pollutant for which the modification is
requested, which has been identified under Section
304(a)(6) of this Act;
(2) such modified requirements will not interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of that water quality which
assures protection of public water supplies and the
protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allows
recreational activities, in and on the water;
(3) the applicant has established a system for monitoring
the impact of such discharge on a representative
sample of aquatic biota, to the extent practicable;
(4) such modified requirements will not result in any
additional requirements on any other point or nonpoint
source;
(5) all applicable pretreatment requirements for sources
introducing waste into such treatment works will be
enforced;
(6) to the extent practicable, the applicant has
established a schedule of activities designed to
eliminate the entrance of toxic pollutants from
nonindustrial sources into such treatment works;
1-2
-------
(7) there will be no new or substantially increased
discharges from the point source of the pollutant to
which the modification applies above that volume of
discharge specified in the permit;
For the purposes of this subsection the phrase 'the discharge of
any pollutant into marine waters' refers to a discharge into
deep waters of the territorial sea or the waters of the
contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine waters where there is
strong tidal movement and other hydrological and geological
characteristics which the Administrator determine necessary to
allow compliance with paragraph (2) of this subsection and
section 101(a)(2) of the Act. A municipality which applies
secondary treatment shall be eligible to receive a permit
pursuant to this subsection which modifies the requirements of
subsection (b)(l)(B) of this section with respect to the
discharge of any pollutant from any treatment works owned by
such municipality into marine waters. No permit issued under
this subsection shall authorize the discharge of sewage sludge
into marine waters."
Seventy final applications for section 301(h) variances were received
under the 1979 section 301(h) regulations. The experience gained by EPA
since 1979 from evaluating these applications has helped to identify a
number of areas where the section 301(h) regulations and application data
requirements can be effectively streamlined. The size of the POTW discharge
was found to play an important role in impacting the water quality and
biological communities of the receiving waters. As a result, it was
determined that application data requirements and associated costs for small
section 301(h) applicants can be reduced.
The EPA has therefore, amended the regulations implementing section
301(h) to reflect the 1981 court case, the 1981 legislated changes, and
EPA's experience in implementing this program. As a result, the regulations
and application requirements have been made simpler, clearer, and more
flexible.
1-3
-------
This document provides technical support for the major changes made in
the section 301(h) regulations since 1979 and provides technical guidance to
applicants, both small and large, for use in responding to the appropriate
application questionnaire when completing their section 301{h) applications.
An additional document entitled "Design of 301(h) Monitoring Programs for
Municipal Wastewater Discharges to Marine Waters" (Tetra Tech 1982) provides
information related to monitoring programs.
EXPERIENCE TO DATE
The section 301(h) applications reviewed to date encompass a wide
variety of geographic locations, receiving water conditions and discharge
characteristics. Geographically, applications were filed from Hawaii, the
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Alaska, and the continental East and West
Coasts. Applicant discharges were located in estuaries, along open
coastlines, and in coastal embayments. Table 1-1 illustrates the range of
discharge characteristics observed.
The quality of applicant effluents, expressed as effluent limitations,
also covered a wide range. Maximum average biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
concentrations ranged from 40 to 350 mg/1. Maximum average suspended solids
concentrations ranged from 31 to 150 mg/1. Effluent limitations for pH were
all within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.
Toxic substances observed in applicant POTW effluent samples that were
projected to exceed EPA water quality criteria after critical initial
dilution were:
Cadmium BHC Isomers
Chlordane Lead
Chlorinated benzenes Mercury
Copper Nickel
Cyanides PCBs
DDT Pentachlorophenol
Endrin Selenium
Ethyl benzene Silver
Heptachlor Zinc
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-1. RANGE OF DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS
OF REVIEWED SECTION 301(h) APPLICATIONS
Range of Characteristics
Characteristic Minimum Maximum
Average discharge, m^/sec
(MGD)
Discharge depth, m
(ft)
0.06
(1.4)
2.4
(8)
25.20
(575)
70.1
(230)
Minimum initial dilution 2.3:1 147:1
Average mass emissions rate, kg/day
(Ib/day)
BODc 410 161,780
° (904) (356,770)
Suspended solids 410 275,000
(904) (606,000)
1-5
-------
Although data were not available to distinguish between industrial and
nonindustrial sources, it is suspected that industrial discharges to the
POTWs were the primary source of observed priority pollutants. Industrial
inflows ranged from 0 to 30 percent of average plant discharge. All cases
of projected toxic organic compound concentrations greater than EPA water
quality criteria after critical initial dilution occurred at plants with
average discharges greater than 0.22 m3/Sec (5 MGD) and industrial
contributions greater than 5 percent. It is important to note that none of
the applicants had fully implemented industrial pretreatment programs under
40 CFR Part 403 at the time of application. Significant reductions of
priority pollutant and pesticide concentrations in applicant effluents are
expected once industrial pretreatment programs are in effect.
Compliance with applicable water quality standards for dissolved oxygen
and suspended solids is a primary concern of section 301 (h). All states
with section 301(h) applicants have standards establishing minimum dissolved
oxygen concentrations to be maintained following initial dilution as well as
surrogate standards for suspended solids such as light transmittance or
turbidity. Noncompliance with dissolved oxygen standards under worst-case
conditions was indicated in only a few cases. In some of these cases,
ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations were only a few tenths of a mg/1
above applicable water quality standards and, thus, even small dissolved
oxygen depressions would cause noncompl iance. The largest observed
dissolved oxygen depression after initial dilution was 1.5 mg/1. In all
other cases, the depression beyond the zone of initial dilution was less
than 1 mg/1. No clear cases of suspended solids standards noncompliance
were indicated. While the impact of suspended solids in the water column
was found to be minimal, the impact of solids and associated toxic substance
accumulation on the seabed was found to be the single most significant
environmental impact related to municipal discharges to the marine
environment.
Of the marine communities which may be affected by POTW discharges, the
benthic communities or other communities depending upon the benthos as a
food source (i.e., bottom-dwelling or bottom-feeding organisms) are usually
the most sensitive to pollutants. The rate of accumulation of discharged
solids and associated toxic substances near a POTW outfall affects the
magnitude and extent of impacts on benthic communities. Based on the review
1-6
-------
of biological conditions near both large and small discharges in a variety
of marine and estuarine environments, it is apparent that the effects of
POTW discharges on the benthos are determined primarily by the influence of
the local hydrographic regimes on solids deposition and accumulation.
Observed biological effects in areas of solids accumulation were generally
associated with decreased abundances of suspension-feeding animals and
increased abundances of deposit-feeding animals. Such effects would be
expected to occur in sediments enriched with organic matter.
Some of the largest POTW discharges evaluated [larger than 100 million
gallons per day (100 MGD)] were located in relatively deep waters (about 60
m) in open coastal environments. These outfalls also had well-designed
diffusers and high initial dilutions (about 100:1). Nevertheless, effects
on benthic communities near most of the largest discharges were shown to
occur over relatively large areas, ranging from about 10 to 100 square
kilometers (km2) as measured by some biological variables. Effects on the
benthos were also predicted to extend over areas of about 4 to 10 km2 after
discharge improvements. The extent of impacts for the larger discharges has
been shown to be correlated to the discharge rate of total solids. For
outfalls in similar receiving water environments, the greatest areal extent
of modified benthic communities was detected near the discharge with the
highest mass emission rate of total suspended solids. The ameliorating
influence of relatively high ambient currents on benthic effects was
indicated at a large estuarine discharge at which there was no evidence of
widespread domination of benthic communities by deposit-feeders despite a
relatively high solids emission rate.
Studies conducted near discharges with flow rates between 10 and 70 MGD
generally did not have sufficient numbers of sampling stations to define the
areal extent of effects on the benthos. Available studies indicated an
apparent absence of highly modified benthic communities near several
intermediate-sized discharges, one of which is located in an estuarine area
of very high flushing characteristics and the others in open coast
environments. In cases where apparent effects were detected at these sites
with high dispersion characteristics, the effects were expressed only as
moderate changes in benthic species composition in areas very near the
discharges. Apparent adverse effects on benthic communities were detected,
however, at several discharges in this intermediate discharge category, all
1-7
-------
of which are located in relatively protected environments (i.e., embayments)
on the continental shelf of the Atlantic coast. In such cases, benthic
communities near the discharges were dominated by pollution-tolerant or
opportunistic species.
Evaluation of discharges from small POTWs (less than 5 MGD) has
indicated a general absence of adverse impacts on benthic communities. Two
categories of smaller discharges have been evaluated: 1) discharges in open
coast environments at water depths of 12 to 28 m and distances of 600 to
1,800 m offshore; and 2) discharges located in highly flushed estuarine
environments at depths of 25 to 27 m and distances of 150 to 200 m offshore.
In both of these types of environments there was an apparent absence of
localized solids accumulation near the discharges. In most cases ambient
sediment particle sizes were relatively large (sand to cobble), indicating
that natural tidal currents or wave-induced currents resulted in dispersion
of discharged particulates. Wave-induced resuspension may have been
especially important in preventing localized accumulation near two
discharges located at depths of 12 to 13 m. The solids emission rates were
also relatively small, resulting in a lower potential for impact on the
benthos.
Although as a result of higher current speeds the potential for
localized solids accumulation would decrease with decreasing depth in an
open coast environment, there would be an associated increase in the
potential for other adverse effects. These effects include increased
potential for contaminating recreational beaches or intertidal shellfish
resources for discharges into nearshore environments. In addition, the
potential impacts on productive intertidal or shallow subtidal habitats
(e.g., rocky intertidal, coral reefs, kelp beds, or seagrass beds) would be
higher in the case of neaVshore discharges. None of the small discharges
evaluated were located in nearshore, shallow water habitats (water depth
less than 10 m) with limited dispersion potential (e.g., embayments).
Hence, discharges to nearshore waters are of concern due to their higher
potential for impact and the lack of previously evaluated sites which would
form a predictive information base.
The distribution of demersal or bottom-feeding fishes can also be
affected by accumulation of solids near POTW discharges. Such fish species
1-8
-------
have sediment preferences and may either avoid or be attracted to
organically enriched sediments. Generally, demersal and certain
bottom-feeding fishes feed on invertebrates in or on the sediment. Thus,
changes in the availability of these preferred food species can also result
in secondary impacts on the distribution of demersal or bottom-feeding
fishes distributional patterns.
At some of the largest discharges evaluated, bottom trawl surveys have
indicated changes in demersal fish abundances expressed as higher numbers of
some species (e.g., Dover sole) and lower numbers of others (e.g., longspine
combfish). Based on the apparent lack of localized solids accumulation and
lack of highly modified benthic invertebrate communities near the smaller
discharges evaluated, it is reasonable to assume that demersal fish
abundances would not be greatly altered.
The accumulation of discharged solids contaminated by toxic substances
can have additional effects on benthic invertebrates and demersal fishes.
Physical contact with contaminated sediments or ingestion of contaminated
prey or sediments can result in bioaccumulation of toxic substances or
induction of diseases. Both of these effects have been observed near very
large discharges (greater than 100 MGD) that have historically discharged
large quantities of toxic substances. Evidence of bioaccumulation of toxic
substances also exists for the intermediate-sized discharges located in
limited dispersion areas. These are the same sites at which modified
benthic invertebrate communities were indicated by substantial accumulations
of discharged solids near the discharge.
With one exception, bioaccumulation of toxic substances has not been
directly assessed near smaller section 301(h) applicant discharges.
However, none of the applications submitted with flow rates less than 5 MGD
had significant industrial contributions to their flow. The potential for
adverse bioaccumulation is considerably less at small discharge sites
analyzed because of the apparent lack of effluent-derived solids
accumulation near discharges with flows less than 5 MGD located in areas of
high dispersion and the low quantities of toxic substances in effluents
containing primarily domestic wastes. Discharges located in shallow,
semi-enclosed environments would have a greater potential for causing
adverse bioaccumulation, especially if relatively large quantities of toxic
substances occurred in the effluent.
1-9
-------
Effects of marine POTW discharges on plankton communities have been
evaluated primarily at the largest discharges. Some evidence of elevated
primary productivity was observed near some outfalls, but no direct adverse
effects on phytoplankton have been observed, although indirect ecological
impacts may occur in certain cases. The lack of apparent adverse impacts on
open coast phytoplankton communities, even for the largest discharges, is
consistent with the relatively high effluent dispersion characteristics in
these areas. Moderate elevations in primary productivity or algal standing
crop may be considered as beneficial or neutral effects if they do not
result in secondary effects such as substantial dissolved oxygen
depressions, fish kills or stimulation of nuisance or toxic phytoplankton
blooms.
Effects of POTW discharges on plankton communities in shallow estuaries
or embayments have not been evaluated. These areas with limited flushing
characteristics represent a relatively high potential for adverse impacts on
phytoplankton when compared with the open coast environments.
The above findings have allowed significant conclusions with regard to
the necessity for data collection and field studies by small section 301(h)
applicants. Applications which have been reviewed include a wide range of
geographic locations and flow rates. Sources of toxic substances appear to
be primarily related to industrial flows and very few small discharges
reviewed had toxic substances concentrations which, after initial dilution,
would exceed water quality criteria. Benthic community and demersal fish
studies indicated that effects were observed when there was significant
solids accumulation, but such effects are not expected in the absence of
solids accumulation. Most small discharges at depths greater than 10 m are
not expected to result in substantial solids accumulation. Receiving water
quality standards were not violated except under unusual conditions. As a
result of these findings, small discharges (without substantial industrial
inflows) to depths greater than 10 m into well-mixed receiving waters are
not expected to have adverse effects on the receiving water ecosystem.
Consequently, specific, onsite field surveys and related, detailed analyses
generally are not necessary for such small applicants to demonstrate the
absence of adverse effects on the marine environment. Monitoring also
should be necessary only to determine compliance with applicable water
1-10
-------
quality standards and to address any identified or potential receiving water
and biological habitat problems.
REGULATORY CHANGES
EPA has amended the original (1979) section 301(h) regulations to make
them simpler, clearer, and more flexible. While many of the amendments are
procedural in nature, others are focused on avoiding unnecessary expenditure
of applicant resources and the collection of unnecessary data. All
applicants are encouraged to use existing data where possible in responding
to the data and technical evaluation requirements in the questionnaires.
Where existing data are not sufficient, applicants are encouraged to develop
a plan of study in consultation with EPA and to collect the necessary
additional data as support for completed applications before the application
deadline of December 29, 1982. After the deadline, plans of study are
required and additional data collection for supplementing an application can
be done only as authorized or requested by EPA [40 CFR 125.59{f)].
Some of the regulation amendments either simplify the actual data
requirements or increase the flexibility that applicants are allowed in
meeting the requirements, or both. In the case of the monitoring program
and toxics control program requirements, the basic structure and objectives
of the regulatory requirements remain the same but more flexibility is
provided for achieving the objectives of those requirements. In addition,
some of the specific data requirements of the regulations have been
simplified or deleted for small applicants based on the findings and
conclusions that have resulted from EPA's experience in evaluating existing
section 301(h) applications. The amendments lead to a different approach in
dealing with small applicants that can certify they have no known industrial
sources of toxic pollutants, discharge into waters with good flushing and
dispersion characteristics, and do not impact areas of special biological,
commercial, or recreational concern.
As defined in the amended regulations, a section 301(h) modified permit
may be based on current, improved or altered discharge characteristics [40
CFR 125.58(j)]. Discharge improvements may include collection system,
treatment plant, and/or outfall improvements and relocations. Altered
discharges include those proposing a treatment level less than that
1-11
-------
currently achieved, resulting in downgrading of effluent characteristics
with or without outfall improvements/relocations to compensate for the lower
effluent quality. Therefore, under the amended regulations, applicants may
propose any treatment level (including no treatment).
A separate application questionnaire is provided for small POTWs (those
with service area populations less than 50,000 and discharging under 5 MGD
[40 CFR 125.58(c)]) who may submit a more streamlined application than
either large applicants (those with service area populations equal to or
greater than 50,000 or discharging 5 MGD or more [40 CFR 125.58(c)]) or
small applicants with known industrial sources of toxics, discharging in
waters with poor mixing and dispersion characteristics, or with potential
impacts on areas of special biological, commercial, or recreational
importance. Although the same basic determinations are required of both
large and small applicants (that is, the same types of questions are asked
and the same information and analyses are requested by both the Small and
Large Applicant Questionnaires), the questions and data/analytical
requirements are less complicated for those small applicants with low
potential for violation of water quality standards and low potential for
adverse impacts on areas of biological, recreational, or commercial
importance. The Large Applicant Questionnaire includes several questions
that are not included in the Small Applicant Questionnaire. These
additional questions supplement the more general questions of the Small
Applicant Questionnaire and seek more detailed data in certain areas. Table
1-2 describes how the additional questions asked in the Large Applicant
Questionnaire are covered by the more general questions of the Small
Applicant Questionnaire.
GUIDANCE ORGANIZATION
Figure 1-1 shows how this document is organized to help small and large
applicants to complete their respective section 301(h) application
questionnaires.
Figure 1-1 shows how potential section 301(h) applicants are
categorized as small or large depending on their POTW service area
population and discharge design flow. Small dischargers/applicants are
directed to Chapter III of this document and large dischargers/applicants to
1-12
-------
TABLE 1-2. RELATIONSHIP OF ADDITIONAL LARGE APPLICANT
QUESTIONS TO SMALL APPLICANT QUESTIONS
Large Applicant
Questionnaire
Question
II.B.4. Oceanographic conditions description is covered in the Small
Applicant Questionnaire by question II.B.3.
II.B.6. Data on sediment related dissolved oxygen is covered in the
Small Applicant Questionnaire by question II.B.4.
II.C.I. Description of biological communities is covered in the Small
Applicant Questionnaire by question 11.C.I.
III.A.4. Effects of currents and dispersion is covered in the Small
Applicant Questionnaire by question III.A.3.
III.B.3. Dissolved oxygen depression related to sediments is covered in
the Small Applicant Questionnaire by question III.B.4.
III.B.5. Change in pH is covered in the Small Applicant Questionnaire by
question III.B.4.
III.D.4. Related to adverse biological impacts is covered in the Small
Applicant Questionnaire by question III.D.I, 2, and 3.
1-13
-------
ALL POTENTIAL
APPLICANTS
CHAPTERS I 4 II
SERVICE
AREA
POPULATION
LESS THAN
50,000?
DISCHARGE
LESS THAN
5 MGD?
YES
LARGE APPLICANTS
GO TO CHAPTER IV
ADDITIONAL
DATA
REQUIRED?
•^1
^
SMALL APPLICANTS
GO TO CHAPTER III
GO TO REVELANT
SECTION(S) OF
CHAPTERS IV
THROUGH VIII FOR MORE
DETAILED GUIDANCE
CONSULT WITH EPA;
COLLECT ADDITIONAL DATA
COMPLETE LARGE APPLICANT
QUESTIONNAIRE ACCORDING
TO CHAPTER IV AND SUBMIT
WITH APPLICATION
ONE
OR MORE
AREAS OF
CONCERN
EXIST?
ADDITIONAL
DATA
REQUIRED?
CONSULT WITH EPA;
COLLECT ADDITIONAL DATA
COMPLETE SMALL APPLICANT
QUESTIONNAIRE ACCORDING
TO CHAPTER III AND SUBMIT
WITH APPLICATION
COMPLETE SMALL APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE
ACCORDING TO CHAPTER III AND RELEVANT
QUESTIONS IN LARGE APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE
AND SUBMIT WITH APPLICATION
Figure 1-1. Section 301(h) Applicant Questionnaire
Flow Chart.
1-14
-------
Chapter IV, for specific guidance on completing their application
questionnaires. The questionnaires are organized into two major sections;
1) general information and basic data requirements, and 2) technical
evaluation. Applicants are required to complete both sections of the
appropriate questionnaire for determining compliance with section 301{h)
criteria and related regulatory requirements [40 CFR 125.59(c)].
It is expected that most small applicants will be able to complete the
questionnaire using available data. Some small applicants will find,
however, that their discharge or receiving water circumstances include
special areas of concern such as:
• A discharge with low initial dilution
t Receiving waters with poor dispersion and transport
characteristics
• A discharge near distinctive and/or susceptible biological
habitats
• A discharge with substantial quantities of toxic pollutants
or pesticides.
Such applicants are referred by the guidance in Chapter III to specified
later chapters of this document for more detailed guidance. They are
required to answer the relevant questions of the related sections in Parts
II and III of the large applicant questionnaire. Table 1-2 can help direct
such small applicants to the relevant questions in Parts II and III of the
large applicant questionnaire. If such applicants determine the need for
additional data collection, they are encouraged to prepare a plan of study
and consult with EPA before collecting the additional data and submitting
the data with their applications.
1-15
-------
II. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENTS
Assessing the effects of POTW discharges into the marine environment
involves physical, water quality, and biological evaluations. Possible
effects on public water supplies and recreational activities must also be
assessed as directed by section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act. Section
301(h) also requires that appropriate consideration be given to effluent,
receiving water, and biological monitoring; control of toxic substances; and
possible interactions with other pollutant sources. This section provides a
discussion of the important processes such as dilution, dispersion,
dissolved oxygen consumption, and sedimentation, which occur in the
receiving waters and the types of assessments which are made to determine
compliance with section 301 (h) requirements. This document addresses the
relative importance of these processes as they occur in different receiving
water environments, such as open coastlines, embayments, and saline
estuaries.
PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT
POTW effluents are normally discharged into marine waters through
outfalls that range from open-ended pipes to extensive diffusers. The
characteristics of the effluent and the receiving water, the diffuser
design, and the depth of discharge will determine the amount of effluent
dilution achieved. As shown in Figure II-l, the lower-density (non-saline)
discharge/effluent creates a buoyant plume that rises rapidly toward the
water surface, entraining significant amounts of ambient saline water. The
momentum and buoyancy of the discharged effluent are primarily responsible
for the entrainment of dilution water (mixing of ambient saline water with
effluent). As the plume rises and entrains ambient saline water (dilution
water), its density increases and its momentum and buoyancy decreases
accordingly. If a sufficient ambient vertical density gradient or zone of
stratification (like a pycnocline or thermocline) is present, the plume will
spread horizontally at the level of neutral buoyancy (i.e., plume density
equals ambient water density). If a sufficient density gradient is not
II-l
-------
J PYCNOCLINE OR
ATHERMOCLINE REGION
TRANSITION ZONE
--DRIFT
FIELD-
PARTICULATES
(WHICH SETTLE OUT
OF DRIFT FIELD I
EFFLUENT LEAVING
DIFFUSER PORTS
ENTRAPMENT OF
DILUTION WATER
Figure II-l. Wastefield generated by simple ocean outfall
II-2
-------
present, the diluted effluent will reach the water surface and flow
horizontally. The vertical distance from the discharge point(s) to the
center!ine of the plume when it reaches the level of neutral buoyancy or the
water surface is called the "height of rise" (sometimes referred to as the
heights to "trapping" or "equilibrium" level).
The dilution achieved at the completion of this process is called the
"initial dilution." Dilution is the ratio of the total volume of a sample
(ambient water plus effluent) to the volume of effluent in the sample. A
dilution of 100 to 1 is, therefore, a mixture composed of 99 parts of
ambient water to 1 part of effluent. The initial dilution is a critical
parameter relative to compliance with water quality standards and is thus
discussed in some detail in the evaluation of both large and small
applications. The magnitude of initial dilution achieved is dependent on
ambient density gradients and diffuser design.
The "zone of initial dilution" (ZID) is the volume of water and
underlying seabed in which this initial dilution process occurs. The ZID
size is important in determining compliance with water quality and
biological criteria. This guidance document provides a method which can be
used to determine the size of the ZID.
The transport of the diluted effluent beyond the ZID is also important
in determining if a discharge will comply with water quality standards. In
addition, dischargers to estuaries or partially enclosed (or restricted
flow) areas may need to demonstrate that re-entrainment or accumulation of
effluent will not result in violation of applicable water quality standards.
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The discharge of effluent can affect the receiving water quality in a
number of ways depending on effluent quantity and composition, the receiving
water conditions, and the dilutions achieved. Water quality assessment
variables of primary concern in the section 301(h) decisionmaking process
are dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, and pH. However, any other
variables subject to applicable water quality standards are also of concern.
Dissolved oxygen in the receiving water is diminished as a result of the
"immediate dissolved oxygen demand" (IDOD) within the ZID and oxidation of
II-3
-------
organic material in the diluted effluent beyond the ZID. Dissolved oxygen
demand caused by oxidation of effluent organic material is referred to as
"biochemical oxygen demand" (BODg). The section 301(h) assessment
procedures involve determination of dissolved oxygen levels (or depression)
beyond the ZID due to BODg and as a result of accumulated sediment oxygen
demand. This assessment requires knowledge of the effluent characteristics,
receiving water dissolved oxygen concentrations, and accumulated sediment
characteristics. Suspended solids which accumulate on the seabed may exert
a dissolved oxygen demand as a result of continuous oxidation of sediment
surface organic material plus rapid, periodic oxidation of resuspended
sediments. Rates of suspended solids accumulation are calculated based on
discharge rates, settling characteristics, and oceanographic conditions such
as currents and density stratification that affect dispersion and transport
of discharged effluent solids.
In addition to potential effects on receiving water dissolved oxygen of
effluent solids that accumulate on the seabed, suspended solids in the water
column may reduce light transmittance and thus water clarity. Reduction of
the depth to which available sunlight penetrates may also affect biological
communities within the water column.
The pH of the receiving water can be affected as a result of the
discharge of either highly acidic or highly alkaline wastes. Final pH
values after initial dilution can be estimated from experimental
measurements or can be computed based on carbonate system alkalinity
relationships.
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
It is possible that a public water supply (desalinization plant) intake
could be contaminated by marine POTW discharges. Although such a
possibility may be remote, guidance is provided in Section VI of this
document to assist in this determination.
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT
The impact of POTW discharges on recreational activities must be
assessed. Recreational fisheries are considered in the biological
II-4
-------
evaluation section. Other activities such as boating, swimming, and SCUBA
diving are potentially affected by microbiological contamination. For
recreational impact assessment, dispersion and transport of the effluent
needs to be considered in conjunction with the applicant's disinfection
procedures.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Marine POTW discharges may affect biological communities in several
ways, such as the following:
• Modified structure of benthic communities (bottom
dwelling/feeding fishes and invertebrates) caused by
accumulation of discharged solids on the seabed
• Stimulation of phytopl ankton or macroalgal growth due to
nutrient inputs
• Reductions in phytoplankton or macroalgal growth due to
turbidity increases
t Reductions in dissolved oxygen due to phytoplankton blooms
and subsequent die-offs leading to mass mortalities of
fishes or invertebrates
• Bioaccumulation of toxic substances in marine organisms
resulting from sediment contact, sediment ingestion, direct
uptake from effluent, or from ingestion of contaminated
organisms
• Induction of diseases in marine organisms caused by contact
with contaminated sediments, by ingestion of contaminated
organisms, or exposure to effluent.
Most of the potential impacts of POTW discharges are associated with
the interactions of marine biota with discharged particulate matter. The
potential effects of discharged solids may be compounded because many toxic
substances in the effluent are adsorbed onto those suspended solids. Hence,
II-5
-------
the primary potential effects of sediment enrichment by organic particles
and sediment contamination by toxic substances are closely linked and are
generally manifested in the same biotic groups. There tends to be an
accumulation of discharged effluent solids in the vicinity of marine
discharges. Thus, bottom-dwelling marine organisms (e.g., benthic
macroinvertebrates and bottom-feeding fishes) are potentially affected by
these accumulations since they live in or on the sediments and are
susceptible to distributional changes associated with preferences for
certain bottom types, trophic modifications, and uptake of toxic substances.
Additional important environmental effects may be associated with the
discharge of plant nutrients which may result in eutrophication, especially
in semi-enclosed wa.ter bodies such as estuaries or coastal embayments.
Related impacts can include stimulation of toxic or nuisance algal
(phytoplankton) blooms. Such blooms may adversely affect commercial and
recreational fisheries; the decomposition of phytoplankton after massive
blooms can cause dissolved oxygen deficiencies and associated fish or
invertebrate kills.
The assessment of adverse biological effects in the section 301(h)
process involves assessment of whether or not a balanced indigenous
population (BIP) of shellfish, fish and wildlife exists in the vicinity of
the discharge and in other areas potentially affected by the discharge.
Since the BIP concept forms an integral part of the applicant's biological
assessment, it is important to establish the meaning and interpretation of
the term in the context of a section 301(h) biological demonstration.
The term "population" does not mean a reproductive unit of a single
species but rather all biological communities existing in the receiving
water body. Similarly, the terms "shellfish," "fish" and "wildlife" should
be intepreted to include any and all biological communities that may be
affected adversely by a marine POTW discharge [40 CFR 125.58(s)].
A BIP is defined in the section 301(h) regulations [40 CFR 125.58(f)]
as "an ecological community which: 1) exhibits characteristics similar to
those of nearby, healthy communities existing under comparable but
unpolluted environmental conditions, or 2) may reasonably be expected to
become re-established in the polluted water body segment from adjacent
II-6
-------
waters if sources of pollution were removed." Balanced, indigenous
populations occur in unpolluted waters. The second part of the definition
concerning the re-establishment of communities is included because of its
relevance to proposed, improved discharges and to discharges into waters
that are stressed by sources of pollution other than the applicant's
modified discharge.
The biological community characteristics that might be examined in an
evaluation of a BIP include, but are not limited to: species composition,
abundance, biomass, dominance, and diversity; spatial/temporal
distributions; growth and reproduction of populations; disease frequency;
trophic structure and productivity patterns; presence or absence of certain
indicator species; bioaccumulation of toxic materials; and the occurrence of
mass mortalities of fish and invertebrates.
The first step in an applicant's BIP demonstration is to define the
"indigenous population" and establish the natural variability of the
"balanced population." Because EPA has determined that these are observable
characteristics of natural communities existing in the absence of human
disturbance, a comparative strategy is found throughout the section 301(h)
regulations. Biological parameters of concern near the discharge should be
compared to the range of natural variability found in comparable, but
unpolluted habitats. The section 301(h) applicant is to compare biological
conditions at reference (control) sites with conditions in areas of
potential discharge impact within and beyond the zone of initial dilution
(ZID).
Biological assessments for improved discharges, altered discharges, or
discharges into stressed waters involve predictive demonstrations of future
biological conditions near the outfall and elsewhere in the receiving water
body. These analyses may involve establishing relationships between water
quality conditions and biological conditions and using these relationships
in a predictive manner. Thus, biological assessments for improved or
altered discharges involve not only a description of existing biological
communities but a determination of whether a BIP will exist beyond the ZID
following future discharge improvements or alterations.
II-7
-------
The concepts of spatial extent of discharge-related biological effects
and intercommunity effects are important in a BIP demonstration. For
example, substantial changes to one or more biological communities may be
acceptable within the ZID of an open coastal discharge that would not be
acceptable in other areas of potential impact outside the ZID. Such
substantial changes within the ZID, however, cannot contribute to extreme
adverse impacts. Observed changes in one or more communities outside the
ZID may also be acceptable so long as the applicant demonstrates no
resulting substantial changes to other biological communities. For example,
discharge related bioaccumulation of toxics in one community may cause
adverse/injurious effects on a predator community. There/ore, if
differences between ZID boundary and control communities are observed, the
assessment of a BIP should include a characterization of the extent and
possible interrelationship(s) of effects beyond the ZID. Special emphasis
should be placed upon any predicted changes in the areal extent of
discharge-related effects following discharge improvements or alterations.
To support a section 301{h) modification, the applicant does not have
to show that conditions of each biological community at all points beyond
the ZID fall within the natural range of variation observed at the reference
sites. Rather, the applicant's assessment should concentrate on determining
the conditions of the following types of biological assemblages at control
sites and within the area(s) of potential impact:
t Communities that are most susceptible to impacts from POTW
discharges
• Communities with aesthetic, recreational, or commercial
importance
• Communities with distributional patterns that enable
quantitative assessment with reasonable sampling effort and
resources.
Based on this approach, applicants should be able to apply available
resources to study those important marine communities which would be
expected to show demonstrable discharge-related effects while not expending
unnecessary effort on studies with a limited potential for providing
II-8
-------
meaningful results. Based on the review of existing large section 301(h)
applications, it is apparent that the major potential effects of POTW
discharges are associated with benthic macroinvertebrates and demersal
fishes. Because of their distribution characteristics, both of these
communities can be assessed quantitatively with a reasonable level of
sampling effort. Benthic macroinvertebrates are also the primary food items
for demersal fishes and early-life stages of certain other fishes.
Consequently, these two communities are linked by a food web relationship,
and severe impacts on benthic macroinvertebrates may result in secondary
impacts on demersal or other fishes.
Although, as discussed above, benthic macroinvertebrates and demersal
fishes are two important groups to be assessed in making BIP demonstrations,
it should not be assumed that these are the only biological communities to
be studied on a case by case basis. The concept of a BIP includes any and
all biological communities potentially affected by the discharge.
Therefore, in addition to assessing benthic communities and demersal fishes,
the applicant should consider the need to assess other discharge-related
effects on other biological communities. In assessing this need, the
applicant should consider the nature of the discharge (e.g., flow, location,
solids emission rates, and concentrations of discharged pollutants,
including toxic substances) and characteristics of the receiving water body
(e.g., circulation patterns, productivity, and trophic relationships). For
example, if a discharge is located close to shore or there is significant
onshore transport, the assessment of effects on intertidal or subtidal
macroalgae may be another important component of the BIP demonstration.
Similarly, if a discharge is located in an estuary or enclosed embayment
where phytoplankton blooms may be stimulated by nutrient inputs, the
assessment of plankton communities may be appropriate as part of the
applicant's BIP demonstration.
In determining the presence or absence of a BIP, biological differences
that are detected between control sites and areas of discharge impact in
this comparative approach should be evaluated in the context of adverse
effects. For example, minor changes in the relative abundances of some
species in a limited area may not be considered adverse. However,
biological effects on a particular marine community that result in
substantial secondary effects on another community, or result in a potential
II-9
-------
for adverse effects in man would normally be considered adverse. Examples
of adverse impacts include, but are not limited to:
t Damage to distinctive habitats of limited distribution;
t Greatian of disease epicenters in commercially or
recreationally important species;
t Contamination of fishery resources by pathogenic
microorganisms or their indicators;
• Mass mortalities of fish or shellfish;
• Bioaccumulation of toxic substances in fish and shellfish at
levels injurous to the marine organisms or man;
• Substantially decreased abundance of commercially or
recreationally important species.
The magnitude and spatial extent of observed biological effects are
also important in determining whether or not biological differences between
discharge impact areas and control sites would be considered as adverse.
The response of biological communities to pollutant stress involves a
continuum, as indicated by the gradients in biological variables near
sources of organic pollutants (Pearson and Rosenberg 1978). The response of
benthic invertebrates to low levels of organic enrichment may include
increased abundance of some species and increased community biomass without
a reduction in species richness. Such effects, although potentially outside
the range of natural variability, in themselves may have little potential
for causing adverse secondary effects on other biological communities.
Consequently, such effects may or may not be evidence of a non-BIP.
Alternatively, replacement of the natural benthic community with an
assemblage dominated by pollution-tolerant organisms with different
trophic/habitat characteristics may result in secondary effects on predators
such as demersal fishes. Therefore, if an applicant finds evidence of
changes (beyond the ZID) in a biological community that fall outside the
range of natural variability, the applicant then needs to investigate other
biological communities and to characterize the total extent of
11-10
-------
discharge-related changes in other potentially affected biological
communities.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES ASSESSMENT
Control of toxic substances is an important element of the section
301(h) program. The discharge of toxic pollutants and pesticides can result
in direct toxicity to marine organisms or result in bioaccumulation and
potential detrimental effects on fishery resources and man. Emphasis is
placed on control of both industrial and nom'ndustrial sources of toxic
pollutants and pesticides. Control prior to entry into a POTW is
particularly important because wastewater treatment at less than
conventional secondary levels is less effective in removing toxic pollutants
and pesticides in the treatment process. The toxic substances control
program should therefore, be designed to identify and control toxic
pollutants and pesticides at their sources.
All applicants, except those small dischargers that certify no known or
suspected sources of toxic pollutants or pesticides, are to submit as part
of the application chemical analyses of their effluent for all toxic
pollutants and pesticides as defined in 40 CFR 125.58(u) and (m). These
compounds are listed in Table VIII-1 of this document. The analyses shall
be performed on two 24 hour composite samples (one dry weather and one wet
weather). In addition, applicants are to identify and categorize known and
suspected sources.
Applicants unable to certify no known or suspected industrial sources
of toxic pollutants and pesticides are subject to industrial pretreatment
program requirements. Pretreatment program development for industrial
sources is to be in accordance with 40 CFR 403 regulations.
All applicants are to submit a proposed public education program
designed to minimize the entrance of nonindustrial toxic pollutants and
pesticides into their POTW. More substantial nonindustrial source control
programs are required of all applicants, except small applicants that
certify that there are no known or suspected water quality, sediment
accumulation, or biological problems related to toxic pollutants or
pesticides in its discharge. This program is to include a schedule of
activities for identifying sources and control thereof.
11-11
-------
MONITORING PROGRAMS
Establishment of a monitoring program for applicants granted section
301{h) modified discharge permits is important to evaluate the impact of the
modified discharge on selected marine biological communities, to demonstrate
continued compliance with applicable water quality standards, and to monitor
effectiveness of the toxics control program.
The monitoring program consists of three parts; biological, water
quality, and effluent. Although each of these parts involves sampling at
different locations and for some different variables, they should not be
considered as separate and independent activities, but as an integrated
study. In this manner, the applicant will be able to meet specific
objectives of each part of the study while also conducting a meaningful
assessment of impacts of the discharge. Moreover, as predictable
relationships are established among the biological, water quality, and
effluent monitoring variables, it should be possible to delete certain
elements of the field monitoring studies.
Biological monitoring programs normally consist of four
parts: periodic surveys of biological communities, bioaccumulation
determinations, sampling of sediments, and assessments of fisheries.
The continued assessment of marine biota as part of the monitoring
program involves the same type of comparative strategy as is required for a
BIP demonstration in the application. The characteristics of selected
marine communities in the discharge vicinity are compared with biological
characteristics at reference areas. Hence, a primary objective of the
biological monitoring program is to evaluate continued compliance with the
BIP requirements. This demonstration can be accomplished by conducting
periodic (e.g., quarterly) seasonal surveys of biological communities.
Biological communities selected for study in the monitoring program
should include those communities which are most likely affected by the
discharge. As is the case for BIP demonstrations as part of the original
application, the monitoring program should address any biological effects as
to their spatial extent, magnitude, potential for secondary impacts, and
11-12
-------
potential for involvement of commercial or recreational species. All of
these factors will be important in determining whether or not detectable
differences in biological characteristics are adverse.
Bioaccumulation determinations and sediment sampling are used to
evaluate biological effects of toxic substances in the effluent. The
results of these studies may also be used to determine the need for
additional (or fewer) analyses of toxic substances in indigenous organisms.
Elevated or increasing levels of toxic substances in sediments or in
organisms exposed to the diluted effluent would indicate the potential for
adverse effects, especially if recreationally or commercially important
fishery resources occurred in the outfall vicinity.
Because of the lower potential for adverse impact, small applicants are
not required to propose the above elements of a biological monitoring
program (except for periodic surveys of biological communities most likely
to be affected by the discharge) if they meet the following requirements:
• Discharge located at a depth greater than 10
m
• Solids deposition analysis indicates negligible seabed
accumulation of discharged solids near the outfall.
The water quality monitoring program is intended to evaluate compliance
with applicable water quality standards and to measure the presence of toxic
substances. An additional objective of the water quality monitoring program
is to provide information that will supplement the biological monitoring
program. This involves the collection of data that will assist in the
interpretation of observed biological differences.
Monitoring of the POTW effluent is important in providing supplementary
information for both the water quality and biological programs. The data
are also used for demonstrating continued compliance with the modified
permit effluent limitations and deciding on permit renewal applications.
11-13
-------
III. SMALL APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE
I. INTRODUCTION
This questionnaire is to be used by small applicants for modification of
secondary treatment requirements under section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). A small applicant has a contributing population to its wastewater
treatment facility of less than 50, 000 and a projected average dry weather
flow of less than 5.0 million gallons per day (MOD, 0.22 rrP/eee) [40 CFR
12S.58(c)J.
The questionnaire is in two sections, a general information and basic
requirements section and a technical evaluation section. Satisfactory
completion of this questionnaire is necessary to enable EPA to determine
whether the applicant's modified discharge meets the criteria of section
301(h) and EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G).
Where applicants diligently try but are unable to collect and submit all
the information at the time of application, EPA requires that a plan of
study for gathering and submitting the data be provided with the
application. 40 CFR 125.59(f) states the procedures governing such
post-application data collection activities.
Most small applicants should be able to complete the questionnaire using
available information. However, small POTWs with low initial dilution
discharging into shallow waters or waters with poor dispersion and transport
characteristics, discharging near distinctive and susceptible biological
habitats, or discharging substantial quantities of toxics should anticipate
the need to collect additional information and/or conduct additional
analyses to demonstrate compliance with section 301(h) criteria. Such small
applicants are directed to the related sections in Parts II and III of the
large applicant questionnaire and must answer the relevant questions of
these sections. If there are questions in this regard, applicants should
contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office for guidance.
III-l
-------
Guidance for responding to this questionnaire is provided by the Revised
Section 301 (h) Technical Support Document. Where available information is
incomplete and the applicant needs to collect additional data during the
period it is preparing the application, EPA encourages the applicant to
consult with EPA prior to data collection and submission of its application.
Such consultation, particularly if the applicant provides a plan of study,
will help assure that the proper data are gathered in the most efficient
manner.
This chapter provides specific guidance for completing the Small
Applicant Questionnaire. For this purpose, the Small Applicant
Questionnaire (printed in italics) is set forth along with associated
guidance (printed in conventional type). As necessary, the guidance directs
some small applicants to more detailed guidance and analyses in later
chapters of this document. Small POTWs with discharge or receiving water
characteristics involving areas of special concern as described above should
anticipate the need to collect additional information and/or conduct
additional analyses to demonstrate compliance with section 301(h) criteria.
After the December 29, 1982, application deadline, collection of
additional data to support an application (or application revision) must be
authorized or requested by EPA and must be preceded by submittal of a plan
of study to EPA [40 CFR 125.59(f)]. Additional guidance on plans of study
is provided in Chapter X. Applicants submitting revised applications should
refer to 40 CFR 125.59(d).
II. GENERAL INFORMATION AND BASIC DATA REQUIREMENTS
Applicants should answer all questions; where your response to a
question is "yes", "no", or "not applicable, " explain the basis for your
response. Where your answer indicates that you cannot meet a regulatory or
statutory criteria, discuss why you believe you qualify for a section 301(h)
variance.
Where your response to a question is incomplete, EPA may request the
collection of additional data before the application is evaluated.
III-2
-------
A. Treatment System Description
1. Are you applying for a modification based on a current
discharge, improved discharge, or altered discharge as
defined in 40 CFR 125.58? [40 CFR 125.59(a)]
See Chapter II for additional descriptions of these terms.
2. Description of the Treatment/Outfall System [40 CFR
125.61(a) and 125.61(e)]
a. Provide detailed descriptions and diagrams of the
treatment system and outfall configuration which you
propose to satisfy the requirements of section 301(h) and
40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G. What is the total discharge
design flow upon which this application is based?
b. Provide a map showing the geographic location of the
proposed outfall(s) (i.e., discharge). What is the
latitude and longitude of the proposed outfall(s)?
c. For a modification based on an improved or altered
discharge, provide a description and diagram of your
current treatment system and outfall configuration.
Include the current outfall's latitude and longitude if
different from the proposed outfall.
Most of the above information can be found in Section 1-13 of the NPDES
Standard Form A.
3. Effluent limitations and characteristics [40 CFR 125.60(b)
and 125.61(e)(2)]
a. Identify the final effluent limitations for 5-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BODg), suspended solids, and
pE upon which your application for a modification is
based:
BOD5 mg/l
Suspended solids mg/l
pH (range)
IZI-3
-------
Please provide the effluent limitations you are requesting for your section
301(h) modified NPDES permit.
b. Provide available data on the following effluent
characteristics for your current discharge as well as for
the modified discharge if different from the current
discharge:
Flow (m3/sec):
minimum
- average dry weather
- average wet weather
- maximum
annual average
BOD5 (mg/l) for the following plant flows:
- minimum
- average dry weather
- average wet weather
maximum
- annual average
Suspended Solids (mg/l) for the following plant flows:
minimum
- average dry weather
average wet weather
maximum
- annual average
Toxic pollutants and pesticides (ug/l)
list each identified toxic pollutant and pesticide
III-4
-------
pH
- minimum
maximum
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l prior to ahlorination) for the
following plant flows:
minimum
average dry weather
average wet weather
- maximum
annual average
Immediate Dissolved Oxygen Demand (mg/l)
Most of the above information can be found in plant operating records.
Please indicate where requested data are not available. If you cannot
certify that there are no known or suspected sources of toxic pollutants and
pesticides, provide results of the chemical analyses for toxics as required
by 40 CFR 125.64U) and as discussed in Chapter VIII of this document. List
all toxic substances detected including those at concentrations less than 10
ug/1.
4. Effluent volume and mass emissions [40 CFR 125.61(e)(2) and
125.65]
a. Provide analyses showing projections of effluent volume
(annual average, m?/sec) and mass loadings (mt/year) of
BOD5 and suspended solids for the design life of your
treatment facility in five-year increments. If the
application is based upon an improved or altered
discharge, the projections must be provided with and
without the proposed improvements or alterations.
b. Provide projections for the end of your five-year permit
term for 1) the treatment facility contributing
population and 2) the average daily total discharge flow
for the maximum month of the dry weather season.
III-5
-------
Projections may be based on expected population and service area changes
over the design life of your wastewater treatment plant in five-year
intervals. The projected effluent volume for Question 4.b above should be
based on the maximum monthly average flow during the dry season.
5. Average daily industrial flow (ms/sec) (40 CFR 125.64)
Provide or estimate the average daily industrial inflow to
your treatment facility for the same time increments as in
Question II.A.4.a above.
Annual average flow data will generally be sufficient for non-seasonal
(i.e., continuous operation) industries. For seasonal industries, please
provide average daily flows for the period(s) of operation.
6. Combined sewer overflows [40 CFR 125.65(b)]
a.
Does (will) your collection and treatment system include
combined sewer overflows?
b. If yes, provide a description of your plan for minimising
combined sewer overflows to the receiving water.
Please provide information on location(s), flow quantity(ies), and frequency
of overflows along with a narrative description and schedule of your plan
for minimizing the discharge of combined sewer overflows to the receiving
waters.
7. Outfall/diffuser design. Provide available data on the
following for your current discharge as well as for the
modified discharge, if different from the current
discharge: [40 CFR 125.61(a)(1)]
diameter and length of the outfall(s) (meters)
diameter and length of the diffuser(s) (meters)
angle(s) of port orientation(s)
from horizontal (degrees)
port diameter(s) (meters)
III-6
-------
orifice contraction coefficient(s) , if known
vertical distance from mean
lower low water (or mean
low water) surface and outfall
port(s) centerline (meters)
number of ports
port spacing (meters)
design flow rate for each port,
if multiple ports are used (
The above data should be available from the engineering drawings for your
treatment plant outfall/diffuser system. Please indicate in your response
where requested data are not available.
B. Receiving Water Description
2. Are you applying for a modification based on a discharge to
the ocean or to a saline estuary [40 CFR 125.58(q)J? [40
CFR 12 5. 59 (a)]
"Ocean waters" are defined in 40 CFR 125.58(1) and are those coastal waters
landward of the baseline of the territorial seas, the deep waters of the
territorial seas, or the waters of the contiguous zone. Territorial seas
extend 3 miles outward from the baseline and the contiguous zone extends an
additional 9 miles.
"Saline estuarine waters" are defined in 40 CFR 125.58(q) and are those
semi-enclosed coastal waters which have a free connection to the territorial
sea, undergo net seaward exchange with ocean waters, and have salinities
comparable to those of the ocean. Generally, these waters are near the
mouths of estuaries and have cross-sectional, annual mean salinities greater
than 25 parts per thousand. It should be noted, however, that 25 ppt is
used as a general test in section 125.58(q) and the failure of the receiving
water to meet this salinity concentration does not absolutely preclude
eligibility for consideration under section 301(h). However, where
salinities fall significantly below this concentration, applicants should be
careful to document that the waters into which they discharge meet the other
requirements of section 125.58(q) (i.e., free connection to the territorial
sea and net seaward exchange with ocean waters).
III-7
-------
2. Is your current discharge or modified discharge to stressed
waters? If yes, what are the pollution sources contributing
to the stress? [40 CFR 125.61(f)J
"Stressed waters" are defined in 40 CFR 125.58 (t) and are receiving water
environments in which a balanced indigenous population (BIP) does not exist
as a result of factors other than the applicant's modified discharge. If an
applicant's discharge is to stressed waters, the application must
demonstrate that the modified discharge will not contribute to the stress or
retard recovery if other pollutant sources are diminished and/or removed.
Please state the basis for your conclusion if your answer to this question
is no. Please provide a list of the locations and descriptions of other
point and nonpoint sources that may be contributing to the stress if your
answer is yes.
3. Provide a description and available data on the seasonal
circulation patterns in the vicinity of your current and
modified discharge(s). [40 CFR 125.61(a)]
Information on current speed and direction in the vicinity of the discharge
is needed to describe dispersion and transport of the diluted effluent.
U.S. Department of Commerce (U.S. DOC 1979a, b) tidal current prediction
tables are a useful source for this information.
4. Ambient water quality conditions during the period(s) of
maximum stratification.
a. Provide available data on the following in the vicinity
of the current discharge location and for the modified
discharge location if different from the current
discharge: [40 CFR 125.60(b)(1)]
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
- Suspended solids (mg/l)
- pH
- Temperature (°C)
III-8
-------
- Salinity (ppt)
- Transparency (turbidity, percent light transmittance)
Other significant variables (e.g., nutrients, toxic
pollutants and pesticides, fecal coliform).
Please provide the available water quality data from areas outside the
impact area of the discharge but close enough to be representative of water
quality conditions in the absence of the discharge. The dissolved oxygen,
suspended solids, pH, and transparency data are needed for assessing
compliance with water quality standards. The temperature and salinity data
are needed for determining densities used in the initial dilution
calculations and for determining whether the discharge is to a saline
estuary. The applicant should assess the need for submitting data on other
variables which will help to understand water quality conditions in the
vicinity of the discharge. Sources of information on ambient conditions are
discussed in Chapter VI of this document.
b. Are there other periods when receiving water quality
conditions may be more critical than the period(s) of
maximum stratification? If so, describe these other
critical periods and provide the data requested in 4.a for
the other critical periods. [40 CFR 125.61(a)(1)]
Other periods of concern include periods of exceptional biological activity;
periods of maximum hydraulic loading, periods of low background water
quality; periods of low net circulation, periods of low effective net
flushing or low intertidal mixing, and periods of minimum stratification.
C. Biological Conditions
1. a. Are distinctive habitats of limited distribution (such as
kelp beds or coral reefs) located in areas potentially
affected by the modified discharge? [40 CFR 125.61(c)]
b. If yes, provide available information on types, extent,
and location of habitats.
Available information should be used by the applicant to describe all
distinctive habitats of limited distribution identified in the vicinity of
III-9
-------
the outfall and in other areas potentially influenced by the discharge.
Distinctive habitats of limited distribution include those marine
environments whose protection is of special concern because of their
ecological significance or value to man. These habitats include, but are
not limited to, coral reefs, kelp beds, seagrass meadows, intertidal or
subtidal rock outcroppings, sites of productive fisheries and all areas
recognized as marine or estuarine sanctuaries.
The basic information supplied by the applicant is expected to be
descriptive in nature and should not require field sampling. Possible
sources of information on distinctive habitats include:
• Contacts with local offices of state conservation agencies
• Review of literature, especially resource maps available for
many areas.
Since most distinctive habitats are visible to a surface observer, the
applicant may also use direct visual observation of the marine environment
in the outfall vicinity. If such habitats are not present in areas
potentially affected by the applicant's discharge, the applicant must
document the source(s) of this information. If distinctive habitats are
present in the potentially affected area(s), the applicant must provide
available information, or estimate, the types, location and extent of such
habitats. Potential impacts of the discharge should be assessed in the
response to Question III.D.2.
2. a. Are commercial or recreational fisheries located in areas
potentially affected by the modified discharge? [40 CFR
125.61(c)J
b. If yes, provide available information on types, location
and value of fisheries.
Documentation of fisheries in the receiving water body is important because
of economic and recreational aspects and because of the potential for human
consumption of contaminated organisms. The applicant should use available
information to describe commercial or recreational fishery resources in the
receiving water body. Potentially important resources include molluscan
111-10
-------
(e.g., clams), epibenthic crustacean (e.g., crabs), demersal (e.g.,
flounder) and pelagic (e.g., salmon) fisheries.
Applicants should consider contacting the following information sources to
determine if fishing resources occur in the outfall vicinity and to collect
descriptive information:
• Local fishermen
t Public, institutional or agency libraries
• Academic institutions
t Local, state or federal resource agencies
• Regional fishery management councils
• State and federal public health agencies.
If commercial or recreational fishery resources are not present in areas
potentially affected by the applicant's discharge, the applicant should
document the source(s) of this conclusion. Affidavits or reports of
personal contacts from fishery biologists, marine ecologists,
oceanographers, or other experts that have studied fishery resources in your
general area will normally provide sufficient support to such a conclusion.
If fisheries are present, the applicant should provide available information
on the type, location, and value of the fisheries. Potential impacts of the
modified discharge should be assessed in response to Question III.D.3.
D. State and Federal Laws [40 CFR 125.60]
1. Are there water quality standards applicable to the
following pollutants for which a modification is requested:
- Biochemical oxygen demand or dissolved oxygen?
- Suspended solids, turbidity, light transmission, light
scattering, or maintenance of the euphotic zone?
- pH of the receiving water?
III-ll
-------
2. If yes, what is the water use classification for your
discharge area? What are the applicable standards for your
discharge area for each of the parameters for which a
modification is requested? Provide a copy of all applicable
water quality standards or a citation to where they can be
found.
3. Will the modified discharge [40 CFR 125.59(b)(3)]:
- Be consistent with applicable State coastal zone
management program(s) approved under the Coastal Zone
Management Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et
seq.? [See 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A)]
- Be located in a marine sanctuary designated under
Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et
seq. or in an estuarine sanctuary designated under the
Coastal Zone Management Act as amended, 16
U.S.C. 1461? If located in a marine sanctuary
designated under Title III of the MPRSA, attach a copy
of any certification or permit required under
regulations governing such marine sanctuary [See 16
U.S.C. 1432(f)(2)J
- Be consistent with the Endangered Species Act as
amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.? Provide the names of
any threatened or endangered species that inhabit or
obtain nutrients from waters that may be affected by
the modified discharge. Identify any critical
habitats that may be affected by the modified
discharge and evaluate whether the modified discharge
will affect threatened or endangered species or modify
a critical habitat [See 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)]
4. Are you aware of any State or Federal Laws or regulations
(other than the Clean Water Act or the three statutes
111-12
-------
identified in item 3 above) or an Executive Order which is
applicable to your discharge? If yes, provide sufficient
information to demonstrate that your modified discharge will
comply with such law(s), regulations(s), or order(s). [40
CFR 125.59(b)(3)J
Applicants should contact the state water quality agency for answers to D.I
and D.2 and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), and state coastal zone management agency for a
response to D.3. A list of state water quality agencies, coastal zone
management agencies, and regional offices of the NMFS, USFWS, and EPA is
provided as Appendix A to this document.
III. TECHNICAL EVALUATION
Answers to the following questions will be used to assess the effects of
the modified discharge. The responses will be used by the State agency(s)
in their determination [as required by 40 CFR 125.60(b)(2) and 125.63(b)]
and by EPA in preparing its decision on the applicant's request for a
section 301(h) variance.
your answers to the following questions must be supported by data and
responses from Section II of this questionnaire. The analyses and
calculations required below must show the input [supporting] data for all
calculations. Applicants should answer all questions; where your answer to
a question is "yes", "no", or "not applicable, " explain the basis for your
response. Where your answer indicates that you cannot meet a regulatory or
statutory criterion, discuss why you believe you qualify for a variance.
If EPA decides to check calculations in an application, the formulas and
methods provided in this document may be used for that purpose. If
applicants use methods other than those provided in this document, such
methods must be described by the applicant.
A. Physical Characteristics of Discharge [40 CFR 125.61(a)]
1. What is the lowest initial dilution for your current and
modified discharge (s) during 1) the period(s) of maximum
111-13
-------
stratification? and 2) any other critical period(s) of
discharge volume/composition, water quality, biological
seasons, or oceanographic conditions?
The dilution achieved by the effluent plume is an important factor in
assessing the likelihood of water quality standards violations. There are a
number of methods available to compute initial dilution. Small dischargers
may use one of the two simplified methods (A and B) described in this
section or one of the more complex methods contained in Chapter V of this
document. The simpler of the two, Method A, will usually produce lower
initial dilution estimates and both methods will usually produce estimates
lower than those obtained with one of the mathematical models described in
Chapter V. These simplified methods have been provided in this document for
small applicants with limited receiving water data and limited resources who
are unable to use the more complex mathematical models.
These simplified methods require calculation of the diffuser Froude number
and estimation of the discharge plume's height of rise. With these two
numbers and the flow rate through a single diffuser port the applicant can
estimate initial dilution, (Sa).
The two methods presented in this section are based upon results obtained
using the EPA dilution model PLUME (Teeter and Baumgartner 1979) with the
following simplifying assumptions:
• The effluent is discharged horizontally
• The effluent density is .1.000 g/cc
• The bottom receiving water density is 1.025 g/cc (density of
standard seawater)
• The receiving water density gradients are constant from the
bottom to the surface and are within the range of 1 x 10"5
to 1 x 10~2 g/cc/m.
If the applicant's discharge deviates significantly from these assumptions,
the procedures contained in Chapter V of this document should be followed.
111-14
-------
In addition, in developing Method A, it is assumed that a small discharge
will produce a plume whose relative height of rise is less than the minimum
relative heights of rise calculated for 90 percent of the first 30 section
301(h) applications reviewed (where the relative height of rise is the
height of rise divided by the total water depth). Method B assumes that the
plume continues to entrain bottom water until the plume density equals the
ambient surface density. If the height of rise required to achieve this
density is greater than the water depth, then it is assumed that the plume
surfaces.
The equations used in the methods presented here require values in metric
units, for example, flow in cubic meters per second (m3/sec),and linear
units in meters (m). A list of the variables used in these equations and
formulas for converting from English to metric units are provided here:
Variables:
H = water depth at the discharge, m
Q = total effluent discharge flow, m3/sec
d = discharge port diameter, m
n = number of discharge ports
TB = temperature of near-bottom receiving water, °c
SB = salinity of near-bottom receiving water, ppt
TS = temperature of surface receiving water, °C
Ss = salinity of surface receiving water, ppt
Conversion Formulas:
meter = feet/3.281
m3/sec = MGD/22.82
°C = (°F - 32) x 5/9.
The steps which may be followed in estimating initial dilution for small
discharges are:
Step 1. Calculate flow rate per port, q(m3/sec)
111-15
-------
total flow (m /sec
n (number of ports
Step 2. Calculate
K =
where:
K = a variable calculated to facilitate the determination of the
Froude number but does not represent a specific physical process
or quantity
q = flow rate per port, m3/sec
d = port diameter, m.
Step 3. Estimate bottom receiving water density, ag, from Table III-l.
Step 4. Compute the Froude number
Fr =
Step 5. Calculate initial dilution by either Method A or Method B or by
both methods— A consideration in selecting either Method A or B is the
level of knowledge concerning the receiving water. Method A requires that a
near-bottom salinity and temperature be available or estimated (Step 3,
above) for the period of maximum stratification. Method B, however,
requires both near-bottom and surface salinity and temperature for the
critical period. These data may be available from studies previously
performed near the outfall or the applicant may elect to determine these
values. In either event, the date and time of the salinity and temperature
observations should be stated. Other considerations are that Method A is
the easier of the two methods to apply and, in general , provides a lower
(more conservative) initial dilution estimate.
111-16
-------
TABLE III-l. SEAWATER DENSITIES (EXPRESSED IN ot UNITS) FOR
SELECTED TEMPERATURES AND SALINITIES
I
I—>
•-J
T (DEC C)
0
2
6
8
1A
0
1 2
1 4
1 6
1 8
20
22
24
2 6
/-J A
28
30
SALINTIY (PPT)
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
20.085 20.888 21.692 22.496 23.300 24.104 24.908 25.713 26.518 27.324 28.130
?2'2J? ™'81° 21'607 22-405 23.202 24.001 24.799 25.598 26.397 27.196 27.996
19.884 20.676 21.467 22.259 23.051 23.843 24.636 25.429 26.223 27.016 27 811
19.704 20.490 21.276 22.063 22.849 23.636 24.423 25.211 25.999 26.788 27^77
9.475 20.256 21.037 21.818 22.599 23.381 24.163 24.946 25.729 26.513 27.297
19.199 19.975 20.751 21.528 22.305 23.082 23.859 24.637 25.416 26.195 26.974
18.880 19.651 20.423 21.195 21.967 22.740 23.513 24.287 25.061 25.836 26.611
18.518 19.285 20.053 20.821 21.589 22.358 23.127 23.897 24.667 25.437 26.208
18.116 18.880 19.643 20.408 21.172 21.937 22.702 23.468 24.235 25.001 25.769
17.676 18.436 19.196 19.957 20.718 21.479 22.241 23.003 23.766 24.530 25.294
17.198 17.955 18.712 19.469 20.227 20.985 21.744 22.503 23.263 24.023 24.784
16.684 17.438 18.192 1.8.946 19.701 20.456 21.212 21.968 22.725 23.483 24.241
16.135 16.886 17.637 18.389 19.141 19.894 20.647 21.401 22.155 22.910 23.665
15.552 16.300 17.049 17.798 18.548 19.298 20.049 20.800 21.552 22.304 23.058
14.935 15.681 16.428 17.175 17.922 18.670 19.419 20.168 20.917 21.668 22.41Q
14.285 15.029 15.773 16.518 17.264 18.010 18.757 19.504 20.252 21.000 21 749
1 ot Unit = (density (g /cc) - 1) x 1,000.
Reference: Teeter and Baumgartner (1979)
Example: Salinity = 32.5 ppt, temperature = 12.8°C
Sigmat (32.5, 12.0) = £5.061 - 24.287) (32.5 - 32.0) + 24.287 = 24 674
(33.0 - 32.0)
Sigma. (32.5, 14.0) =£4.667 - 23.897) (32.5 - 32.0) + 23.897 = 24 282
(33.0 - 32.0)
Sigma. (32.5, 12.8) =£4.282 - 24.674) (12.8 - 12.0) + 24.674 = 24 517
14.0 -12.0
-------
Method A:
Al. Compute the minimum plume height of rise, Hr, for discharge water
depths less than or equal to 19 m,
Hr = 0.2H
or, for discharge water depths greater than or equal to 19 m.
Hr = 0.25 (H-19) + 3.8
A2. Compute B, which is a variable calculated to facilitate the
estimation of initial dilution, but does not represent a specific physical
process or quantity
B = Hr/q°-4
A3. Determine initial dilution, Sa, by entering Figures III-l or III-2
with the values B and Fr. The intersection point of these two values
provides the initial dilution estimate which can be interpolated between the
lines of equal dilution.
Method B:
Bl. Using the available ambient surface and bottom salinity-temperature
measurement pairs, find the pair having the highest density (using Table
III-l). Let ag and o<. be the bottom and surface densities of this pair. If
temperature and salinity measurements exist in published documents which are
appropriate for the applicant's outfall location, these may be used.
B2. Compute
S = °B/(aB " °S^
where S is the dilution which would occur if, at the maximum height of rise,
the plume density equals the ambient surface density.
111-18
-------
01
5 10
FROUDE NUMBER, Fr
15
Figure III-l.
Small discharger initial dilution relationships
F- = 1 to 15.
111-19
-------
10 15 2O 25 30 35 40 45 SO
FROUDE NUMBER, F,
Figure III-2.
Small discharger initial dilution relationships,
Fr = 1 to 50.
111-20
-------
B3. Enter Figure III-l or Figure III-2 with the Froude number and,
using S as an initial estimate of Sa, estimate the corresponding value of B.
B4. Calculate the height of rise using the value of B estimated in B3
above with the equation
Hr = Bq°-4
B5. If the height of rise, Hr, is less than the water depth, H, then S
is the initial dilution $a. if Hr is greater than H, set Hr equal to H, and
calculate a value of B (using the equation in Step A.2 above) which is used
with Fr to obtain a new Sa value from Figures III-l and 111-2.
A worked example is provided in this section to illustrate the estimating
procedures for initial dilution.
Example:
H = water depth = 20 ft (6.1 m)
Q = total effluent flow = 0.5 MGD (0.0219 m3/sec)
d = port diameter = 6 in (0.152 m)
n = number of ports = 1
TB = bottom temperature = 60° F (15.56° C)
SB = bottom salinity =32.5 ppt
5 = surface temperature = 62° F (16.67° C)
S$ = surface salinity - 32.5 ppt
Step 1. q = - = 0.0219 m3/sec
Step 2. K = °'0219 » 2.43
V(0.152)5
Step 3.
°R = 23.95
III-Z1
-------
Step 4. Fr = 2.43 x = 6.38
A/23.95
Step 5. Calculation of initial dilution by Method A or Method B.
Method A:
Al. H = 6.1 m which is less than 19 m, therefore use Hr = 0.2H
Hr = 0.2 x 6.1 = 1.22 m
A2. B = _ 1-22 _ = 5 63
B Q . 3.00
(0.0219)u
A3. Sa = 7.5, say 8, from Figure III-l.
Or, alternatively, Method B could be used as follows:
Method B:
Bl. From Table III-l
° = 23.95
°s = 23.70
B2. S = 23'95
23.95 - 23.70
S = 95.8, say 96
B3. From Figure III-l for Ff = 6.38 and S = 96;
B = 59.7
B4. Hr = 59.7 x (0.0219)0'4 = 12.95 m
B5. Since Hr is greater than H, set Hr = 6.1 m and
111-22
-------
B = 6.1/(0.0219)°'4 = 28.1, say
28
from Figure III-l, Sa = 32.9.
For comparison, the EPA model PLUME, run for the conditions of this example,
produces an initial dilution value, Sa, of 40.4. The relative trend of the
results obtained by the different methods for this example is indicative of
the general condition. Generally, method A provides lower estimates than
method B, and methods A and B provide lower estimates than the mathematical
models described in Chapter V.
2. What are the dimensions of the zone of initial dilution for
your modified discharge(s)?
The ZID may be considered as the bottom area within a distance equal to the
water depth from any point on the diffuser and the water column above that
area. Alternative methods for calculating ZID dimensions may be used but
the ZID may not be larger than mixing zone restrictions in applicable water
quality standards. The applicant is encouraged to consult with the state
water quality agency on an appropriate method for ZID calculations.
3. Will there be significant sedimentation of suspended solids
in the vicinity of the modified discharge?
A simplified approach to determining the need for detailed analysis of
suspended solids accumulation has been developed to aid small dischargers
that are not likely to have sediment accumulation related problems. Two
types of problems (dissolved oxygen depletion and biological effects) and
two types of receiving water environment (open coastal and semi-enclosed
bays or estuaries) have been considered.
Figure III-3 is to be used for open coastal areas that are generally
considered "well flushed." The dashed line represents combinations of
solids mass emission rates and plume heights of rise that would result in a
steady-state sediment accumulation of 50 g/m2. Review of data from several
open coast discharges has indicated that biological effects are minimal when
accumulation rates were estimated to be below this level. Consequently, if
the applicant's mass emission rate and height of rise fall below this line
111-23
-------
•o
(0
Q
Ui
tf>
tf>
(A
1
7000 r-
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
HEIGHT OF RISE, m
STEADY STATE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION LESS THAN 50g/m2
DO DEPRESSION DUE TO STEADY-STATE SEDIMENT
DEMAND > 0.2 mg/l
Figure III-3.
Projected relationships between suspended solids
mass emission, plume height of rise, sediment
accumulation and dissolved oxygen depression for
open coastal areas.
111-24
-------
no further sediment accumulation analyses are needed. Applicants whose
discharge characteristics fall above the line should conduct a more detailed
analysis of sediment accumulation and biological effects as discussed in the
biological impact section (VI-7) and (II.D.I), respectively.
The solid line in Figure III-3 represents a combination of mass emission
rates and plume heights of rise which were projected to result in sufficient
sediment accumulation to cause a 0.2 mg/1 oxygen depression. Applicants
whose discharge falls below this line need not provide any further analysis
of sediment accumulation as it relates to dissolved oxygen.
Figure III-4 should be used in a similar manner for discharges to
semi-enclosed embayments or estuaries. Because estuaries and semi-enclosed
embayments are potentially more sensitive than open coastal areas, the
critical sediment accumulation was set at 25 g/m^.
The methods described in Chapter VI of this document were used to determine
the mass emission rates and heights of rise resulting 1n the sediment
accumulation rates specified above. In order to use these methods several
assumptions were made. The estimated variables include ambient current
velocity and a settling velocity distribution. The current velocities used
were 5 cm/sec for the open coastal sites and 2.5 cm/sec for the
semi-enclosed embayment case. These velocities are conservative estimates
of average currents velocities over a 1 year period. The settling velocity
distribution used is considered typical of primary or advanced primary
effluents and is shown below:
5 percent have Vs >_ 0.1 cm/sec
20 percent have Vs >_ 0.01 cm/sec
30 percent have Vc > 0.006 cm/sec
o —
50 percent have Vs >_ 0.001 cm/sec
The remaining solids settle so slowly that they are assumed to remain
suspended in the water column indefinitely. The effluent is considered to
be 80 percent organic and 20 percent inorganic. The above distribution is
based on the review of data in section 301(h) applications and other
published data (Herring and Abati 1978; Myers 1974).
111-25
-------
4000
co
•o
O)
g 3000
O
CO
UJ 2000
o
V)
W 1000
5
UJ
V)
CO
6 8 10 12 14
HEIGHT OF RISE, m
16
18
20
STEADY STATE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION LESS THAN 25g/m2
DO DEPRESSION DUE TO STEADY-STATE SEDIMENT
DEMAND > 0.2 mg/l
Figure III-4.
Projected relationships between suspended solids
mass emission, plume height of rise, sediment
accumulation and dissolved oxygen depression for
semi-enclosed embayments and estuaries.
111-26
-------
The applicant is to calculate the annual suspended solids mass emission rate
(MER) using the average flow rate and an average suspended solids
concentration. The plume height of rise, Hr, determined previously in the
initial dilution calculation, or 0.6 times the water depth, whichever is
larger, should be used to enter the appropriate figure.
B. Compliance with Applicable Water Quality Standards
[40 CFR 125.60(b) and 125.61(a)]
1. What is the concentration of dissolved oxygen immediately
following initial dilution for the period(s) of maximum
stratification and any other critical period(s) of discharge
volume/composition, water quality, biological seasons, or
oceanographic conditions?
Dissolved oxygen immediately following initial dilution depends on the level
of dissolved oxygen in*the discharge, the immediate dissolved oxygen demand
of the discharge, the receiving water dissolved oxygen concentration, and
the initial dilution. Detailed methods and data requirements to compute
dissolved oxygen concentrations are provided in Chapter VI of this document.
However, for small discharges, an estimate of the dissolved oxygen
depression can be obtained from Table 111-2. Table III-2 gives estimated
dissolved oxygen depressions for initial dilutions ranging from 10 to 100
and for untreated (raw) sewage discharges, primary effluents, and advanced
primary effluents. If the estimated dissolved oxygen depression is
considered to be small relative to applicable water quality standards and
receiving water concentrations, no further analysis is needed. If
depressions are substantial (e.g., greater than 0.5 mg/1 or the applicable
water quality standard is violated), a more refined analysis as described in
Chapter VI is necessary.
2. What is the farfield dissolved oxygen depression and
resulting concentration due to BOD exertion of the
wastefield during the period(s) of maximum stratification
and any other critical period(s)?
Following initial dilution, the wastefield is dispersed and BOD of the
wastefield is exerted. These two processes result in a balance between
111-27
-------
TABLE III-2 ESTIMATED DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEPRESSION
FOLLOWING INITIAL DILUTION
Initial
Dilution
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Untreated (Raw)3
1.00-1.20
0.50-0.60
0.33-0.40
0.25-0.30
0.20-0.24
0.16-0.20
0.21-0.17
0.13-0.15
0.11-0.13
0.10-0.12
Level of Treatment
Primary
0.70-0.90
0.35-0.45
0.23-0.30
0.18-0.22
0.14-0.18
0.12-0.15
0.10-0.13
0.09-0.11
0.08-0.10
0.07-0.09
Advanced
Primary0
0.50-0.70
0.25-0.25
0.17-0.23
0.13-0.18
0.10-0.14
0.18-0.12
0.07-0.10
0.06-0.09
0.06-0.08
0.05-0.07
Note: Effluent dissolved oxygen concentration = 0.0 for all cases. The
range is due to the difference between using an ambient dissolved
oxygen of 5 or 7 mg/1.
a Effluent BOD5 concentrations of untreated sewage were considered to be 150
mg/1 or greater and the IDOD was estimated as 5 mg/1.
b Effluent BODc concentrations of primary plants were considered to be 50 to
150 mg/1 and tne IDOD was estimated as 2 mg/1.
c Effluent BOD5 concentrations of advanced primary plants were considered to
be 50 mg/1 or less and an IDOD of 0.0 mg/1 was used.
111-28
-------
mixing and BOD exertion which can result in dissolved oxygen depressions.
An estimate of the farfield dissolved oxygen depression can be obtained by
using the following simple formula.
ADO = BOD5/30(Sa) for areas which are well mixed,
and open coastal areas.
ADO = BOD5/10($a) for areas which are poorly mixed,
semi-enclosed embayments.
where:
ADO = farfield oxygen depression, mg/1
BOD5 = 5 day BOD concentration in the effluent, mg/1
Sa = initial dilution.
The constants in the above equation are conservative estimates of subsequent
dilution in the given water body. Total dilution is the initial dilution
times the subsequent dilution. More refined methods for estimating
subsequent dilution for a specific site are given in Chapter VI of this
document.
If the estimated farfield oxygen depression is small (less than 0.2 mg/1)
and within applicable water quality standards, and receiving water
concentrations are predicted to meet applicable standards, no further
analysis is needed, if these calculations indicate that water quality
standards would not be met by the applicant, a more refined analysis as
described in Chapter VI may be appropriate.
3. What is the increase in receiving water suspended solids
concentration immediately following initial dilution of the
modified discharge(s)?
Suspended solids in the effluent can result in reduced light transmittance,
a visible plume, and deposition of solids. The change in concentration
following initial dilution should be estimated using the following formula:
111-29
-------
ASS = sse/sa
where:
ASS = increase in suspended solids, mg/1
SSe = suspended solids concentration in the effluent, mg/1
Sa = initial dilution.
a
4. Does (will) the modified discharge comply with applicable
water quality standards for:
- Dissolved oxygen?
- Suspended solids or surrogate standards?
- pH
The applicant can compare his answers to B.I and B.2 above to the applicable
water quality standards (provided in response to II.D.I above) for
determining compliance with the dissolved oxygen standard. Most states,
however, provide only surrogate standards for suspended solids such as
Secchi disc depths and light transmittance. Consequently, the applicant may
need to consult with water quality agency officials for a determination of
whether the calculated increase in suspended solids (B.3 above) is
significant. For pH, it is expected that very few small marine dischargers
will have a problem complying with applicable water quality standards.
Unless the effluent pH values fall outside the range of applicable
standards, no problems should be anticipated. If effluent pH values do fall
outside the limits, the applicant should consult Chapter VI for more
detailed guidance.
5. Provide the determination required by 40 CFR 125.60(b)(2)
or, if the determination has not yet been received, a copy
of a letter to the appropriate agency(s) requesting the
required determination.
111-30
-------
c' Impact on Public Water Supplies [40 CFR 125.61(b)J
1. Is there a planned or existing public water supply
(desalinisation facility) intake in the vicinity of the
current or modified discharge?
2. If yes,
a. what is the location of the intake(s) (latitude and
longitude)?
b, will the modified discharge(s) prevent use of the
intake(s) for public water supply?
a. will the modified discharge(s) cause increased treatment
requirements for the public water supply(s) to meet
local, State, and EPA drinking water standards?
It is not expected that any marine POTW discharges will affect public water
supply intakes. At the present time in the United States, there are only a
few desalinization plants designed to provide potable water and most of
these are used for research purposes. Table III-3 lists desalinization
plants identified through the section 301(h) review process. The applicant
should also contact state water quality agencies, public health departments,
any local military facilities, and local water supply departments to
determine if any plants exist or are planned in the vicinity of the
applicant's discharge. If no desalinization plants or other water supply
intakes exist within 16 km (10 mi) of the discharge, no analyses are
required. The name of the agencies contacted and the person involved should
be listed in the application.
If a water supply intake does exist, the location should be shown on a map
with the discharge site marked. The travel time to the intake should be
estimated using the average current speed. The applicant should show that
all water quality standards are met at the intake using the methods
discussed in this document.
D- Biological Impact of Discharge [40 CFR 125.61(c)]
1. Does (will) a balanced indigenous population of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife exist:
111-31
-------
TABLE 111-3. KNOWN DESALINIZATION PLANTS
Plant Location Status Purpose
Rosarito; Mexico operating water supply
California-American Water Company
at San Diego Bay, CA closed water supply
Virginia Beach, VA proposed water supply
Santa Catalina Island, CA operating water supply
111-32
-------
-------
predict effects of the modified discharge. The emphasis of the applicant's
response should include the potential for effluent transport to the
distinctive habitat. If field studies are necessary to document existing
conditions of distinctive habitats located in areas potentially influenced
by the effluent, the applicant should also consult Chapter X.
3. Have commercial or recreational fisheries been impacted
adversely (e,g,, warnings, restrictions, closures, or mass
mortalities) by the current discharge and will they be
impacted adversely by the modified discharge?
If fishery resources are present in areas potentially influenced by the
discharge, Chapter VII should be consulted for more detailed guidance. The
applicant should use information on effluent dispersion patterns and
historical status of the fisheries to determine if impacts on fisheries have
occurred. Information on fishery closures/warnings, contamination,
diseases, or catch reductions should be used to evaluate effects. The
emphasis of the applicant's response should include the potential for
effluent transport to the fishery areas, the potential for sediment
accumulation in those areas, and the concentration of toxic substances in
the effluent.
4. For discharges into saline estuarine waters: [40 CFR
125.61(c)(4)J
a. does or will the current or modified discharge cause
substantial differences in the benthic population within
the ZID and beyond the ZID?
b. does or will the current or modified discharge interfere
with migratory pathways within the ZID?
c. does or will the current or modified discharge result in
bioaccumulation of toxic pollutants or pesticides at
levels which exert adverse effects on the biota within
the ZID?
Estuaries are generally more productive than coastal areas, and are often
more sensitive to pollutants. Moreover, the flushing characteristics of
estuaries may be considerably less than for open coastal areas, especially
111-34
-------
during periods of reduced freshwater input. Thus, for a given discharge
size, there is a higher potential for discharge-related impact in estuaries
than in open coastal areas. Consequently, it will be more difficult for
small applicants that discharge into estuaries to demonstrate absence of
adverse ecological effects without conducting onsite field studies. For
estuarine discharges, field studies may not be necessary if the discharge is
less than 2.5 MGD (rather than 5.0 MGD for open coastal discharges) and the
outfall and receiving water characteristics identified under Question D.I
above are satisfied.
Estuarine discharges are also subjected by section 301(h) regulations to
increased information requirements associated with allowable effects within
the ZID and interference with migratory pathways. Thus, field data
collections may be needed to assess within-ZID biological effects (benthic
community structure and bioaccumulation) if predictive analyses (guidance
for A.3 above) indicate the potential for any substantial accumulation of
discharged solids near the outfall.
5. For improved discharges, will the proposed improved
discharge(s) comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
125.SI(a) through 40 CFR 225.61(d)? [40 CFR 125.61(e)]
This question involves a predictive demonstration by the applicant. The
applicant must demonstrate that the proposed improvements to the discharge
will result in compliance with sections 125.61(a) through 125.61(d). This
demonstration may be accomplished by conducting effluent transport or
sediment accumulation analyses for the improved discharge as described under
Question III.A.3 above, or by a comparison with conditions near discharges
which are similar to the proposed improved discharge and are located in
similar receiving water environments.
6. For altered discharge(s), will the altered discharge(s)
comply with the 40 CFR 125.61(a) through 125.61(d)? [40 CFR
125,61(e)]
Applicant's requesting modifications for altered discharges may use similar
predictive methods to those described for improved discharges; the applicant
is to demonstrate that the reduction in treatment level will still enable
compliance with sections 125.61U) through 125.61(d).
111-35
-------
7. If your current discharge is to stressed waters, does or
will your current or modified discharge: [40 CFR 125.61(f)]
a. contribute to, increase, or perpetuate such stressed
condition?
b. contribute to further degradation of the biota or water
quality if the level of human perturbation from other
sources increases?
c. retard the recovery of the biota or water quality if
human perturbation from other sources .decreases?
If a BIP does not exist in the vicinity of an outfall because of pollution
from sources other than the applicant's modified discharge, the applicant is
to demonstrate that its modified discharge does not or will not contribute
to, increase or perpetuate stressed biological conditions. The stressed
water demonstration requires difficult predictions involving spatial and
temporal trends in biological communities and water quality conditions.
These assessments are considerably more complex than those required for
discharges into unstressed waters, and would in all cases require the
collection of site-specific field data to be used in responding to this
question.
The basic comparison for stressed waters involves unstressed and stressed
control sites in addition to sites near the outfall. The applicant should
use the unstressed control data or historical data to document the
differences between the stressed biological communities in the receiving
water body and those communities that would occur in the area in the absence
of pollutant stress. The contribution of the applicant's discharge to
existing pollutant stresses should be evaluated by comparing biological
communities near the outfall with those at the stressed control site(s).
Determination of the effects of the discharge on future degradation or
recovery if the level of other pollutant sources changes involves predictive
analysis of biological response to future trends in water quality
conditions. Small applicants that discharge to stressed waters should
consult Chapters VII and IX for additional guidance.
E. Impacts of Discharge on Recreational Activities
[40 CFR 125.61(d)]
111-36
-------
It is necessary to ensure that the modified discharge: 1) will meet water
quality standards relevant to recreational activities beyond the zone of
initial dilution, and 2) will not cause legal restrictions on recreational
activities which would be lifted or modified by upgrading the applicant's
POTW to secondary treatment.
1. Describe the existing or> potential recreational activities
likely to be affected by the modified discharge(s) beyond
the zone of initial dilution.
All recreational activities currently occurring within the bay, estuary, or
an 8-km radius of the discharge should be identified, i.e., swimming,
boating, fishing, shellfish harvesting, underwater diving, picnicking, other
beach activities. Any additional potential future recreational activities
should also be identified, i.e., new ports, boat harbors, etc. A map should
be provided indicating the location of current recreational activities, the
location of the current discharge and the modified discharge, if different.
Qualitative, or whenever possible, quantitative information should be
provided indicating the extent of the existing activities. This could
include: number of boats or slips in the area, species of fish and
shellfish taken, size of catch, number of beach user days.
2. What are the existing and potential impacts of the modified
discharge(s) on recreational activities? Your answer should
include, but not be limited to, a discussion of fecal
coliforms.
Water quality standards, particularly coliform bacteria standards, for
protecting recreational uses, should be provided. The designation of the
water classifications within 8 km of the discharge should be indicated. To
confirm compliance with standards relevant to recreational activities, any
required coliform bacteria monitoring data for the effluent, at the ZID
boundary, and on the adjacent shoreline should be submitted. If shoreline
areas are not normally monitored, sampling should occur on the shore near
high water-activity areas. If non-compliance with coliform bacteria
standards is noted, an explanation and proposed corrective measures should
111-37
-------
be provided. Other sources of coliform bacteria present in the area which
could be contributing to the problem should be identified and the relative
contribution estimated.
3. Are there any Federal, State or local restrictions on
recreational activities in the vicinity of the modified
discharge(s)? If yes, describe the restrictions and provide
citations to available references.
Any federal, state, or local restrictions or closures relating to the
discharge and recreational activites should be identified. The nature of
restrictions, the date implemented, and the agency responsible should be
indicated.
4. If recreational restrictions exist, would such restrictions
be lifted or modified if you were discharging a secondary
treatment effluent?
If restrictions are in place, the relation of the restriction to the
current/modified discharge quality should be established. If an improvement
in the discharge quality would modify or eliminate the restriction on
recreational activites, this should be indicated. In all such events, it
should be determined if secondary treatment would provide sufficient
discharge improvement to modify the restriction.
F. Establishment of a Monitoring Program (40 CFR 125.62)
1. Describe the biological, water quality, and effluent
monitoring programs which you propose to meet the criteria
of 40 CFR 125.62.
2. Describe the sampling techniques, schedules, and locations,
analytical techniques, quality control and verification
procedures to be used.
General guidance on the design and execution of monitoring programs is
provided in Chapter IX and in a separate document entitled "Design of 301(h)
Monitoring Programs for Municipal Wastewater Discharges to Marine
111-38
-------
Waters." Monitoring programs for plant effluent would typically include
flow, BOD5, suspended solids, pH, oil and grease, and coliform bacteria.
Nutrients, dissolved oxygen, settleable solids, floating particulates, and
temperature may also be useful. The frequency required for effluent
monitoring of toxic substances and pesticides will depend on the probability
of toxic substances or pesticides being present. This probability will be
affected by industrial and nonindustrial sources as well as any associated
control programs.
The water quality monitoring program should include sampling near the ZID
and at a control site as well as in near-shore areas or other potentially
important sites. Important variables include dissolved oxygen, temperature,
pH, salinity, suspended solids and/or light transmittance and coliform
bacteria. Sampling frequencies should conform to state requirements.
Initially, sampling during the critical environmental periods should be
adequate. The proposed monitoring program should be described and a map of
the station locations submitted.
Biological monitoring requirements are minimized for small discharges
located at water depths greater than 10 m if an adequate demonstration
(e.g., response to III.A.3 above) is supplied to indicate that there will be
negligible accumulation of discharged solids near the modified discharge.
Such small applicants must still, to the extent practicable, conduct
periodic surveys of the biological communities and populations most likely
affected by the modified discharge, but are generally excused from the other
specific elements of biological monitoring set forth in section
125.62(b)(l). See section 125.62(b)(2).
More extensive biological monitoring is required by section 301(h)
regulations for small discharges not meeting the above criteria. Further
guidance is provided in Chapter IX of this document. However, because of
the low potential impact of small discharges, it is expected that proposed
monitoring programs will generally include only limited assessment of those
biological communities most likely to be affected by the discharge. The
section 301(h) regulations state that biological monitoring programs for
applicants not meeting the above criteria should include in addition to the
periodic sampling of selected biological communities under section
125.62(b)(l){i) the following study types:
111-39
-------
• Periodic determination of bioaccumulation of toxic
substances
• Sampling of the sediments
• Periodic assessments of fisheries (if present).
Each of the above biological monitoring program elements is discussed
briefly below. The applicant's monitoring plan should include only those
study aspects which are practicable in the site-specific receiving water
environment. In cases where the applicant considers that one or more of the
aforementioned study types are not practicable, a justification for their
proposed deletion from the monitoring program should be provided. Examples
of situations in which reductions in the frequency or extent of biological
surveys would be allowed include conditions of high currents or adverse
climatic periods and periods of low biological variability or extremely low
productivity.
For small applicants, the required biological monitoring program would
generally involve a small number of sampling sites. The sampling areas
would most likely correspond to the minimum number necessary for making
required BIP comparisons at ZID-boundary and control sites. Small
discharges into saline estuarine environments should also include monitoring
of within-ZID biological communities. All small applicants should also
include sampling of any distinctive habitat of limited distribution
occurring in the vicinity of the discharge.
Bioaccumulation determinations are to be conducted by small applicants not
meeting the water depth and sediment accumulation criteria. In situ
bioassays may also be necessary on a case-by-case basis. When conducting in
situ bioassays, exposures of bivalve molluscs or other test organisms should
be conducted as close as practicable to the ZID boundary and at a reference
area. If bioaccumul ation studies are required, the applicant should use
locally important recreational or commercial fish or invertebrates.
Sampling of sediments, by small applicants not meeting the water depth and
sediment accumulation criteria, to determine the accumulation of toxic
111-40
-------
substances is to be conducted in the vicinity of the discharge and at
control sites. Within-ZID sediment sampling should be included for saline
estuarine discharges. Monitoring for bioaccumulation of toxic substances 1n
indigenous organisms should be conducted if sediment analyses indicate the
presence of elevated or increasing concentrations of toxic substances.
If recreational or commercial fisheries are present in areas potentially
affected by the discharge, the applicant must also conduct periodic
assessments of those fisheries. These evaluations must reflect an
understanding of the potential impacts of the discharge on the fisheries.
The periodicity and level of fishery surveys will depend on factors such as
the size and location of the discharge, concentrations of toxic substances
in the effluent, species harvested, and the importance of the commercial or
recreational fishery.
3. Deseri.be the personnel and financial resources available to
implement the monitoring programs upon issuance of a
modified permit and to carry it out for the life of the
modified permit.
A plan indicating the number and type of personnel, facilities, and
equipment should be provided. The cost of the program should be estimated
in order to determine if sufficient resources will be available to carry out
the program.
G. Effect of Discharge on Other Point and Nonpoint Sources
(40 CFR 125.63)
1. Does (will) your modified discharge(s) cause additional
treatment or control requirements for any other point or
nonpoint pollution source(s)?
2. Provide the determination required by 40 CFR 125.63(b) or,
if the determination has not yet been received, a copy of a
letter to the appropriate agency(s) requesting the required
determination.
111-41
-------
The section 301(h) regulations require an analysis of whether a decreased
treatment level at the applicant's discharge would require other pollution
sources in the vicinity to increase their treatment levels or apply other
additional controls.
For open coastal waters, a list of discharges within the anticipated impact
area of the applicant's modified discharge should be provided. The
subsequent dilution at each outfall can be estimated using Table VI-9 in
Chapter VI of this document. The total dilution is the initial dilution
times the subsequent dilution. If the effect of the applicant's discharge
is small at other source(s), no further analysis may be needed. If not, an
analysis of compliance with water quality standards at the other discharger
sites is appropriate for determining the effects of the applicant's
discharge at these sites. For most small POTW discharges, the effects on
other sources should be negligible.
In estuaries where outfalls are close together, effects on other sources are
possible. A similar approach as above can be used to estimate the total
dilution at the other outfalls.
#• Toxics Control Program (40 CFR 125.64)
1. a. Do you hive any known or suspected -industrial sources of
toxic pollutants and pesticides?
b. If no, provide the certification required by 40 CFR
125.64(a)(2).
c. If yes, provide the results of wet and dry weather
effluent analyses for toxic pollutants and pesticides.
d. Provide an analysis of known or suspected industrial
sources of toxic pollutants and pesticides identified in
(l)(c) above.
2. Do you have an approved industrial pretreatment program?
a. If yes, provide the date of EPA approval.
b. If no, and if required by 40 CFR 403 to have an
industrial pretreatment program, provide a proposed
schedule for development and implementation of your
111-42
-------
industrial pretreatment program to meet the requirements
of 40 Cm Part 403.
3. Describe the public education program you propose to
minimize the entrance of nonindustrial toxic pollutants and
pesticides into your treatment system.
4. a. Are there any known or suspected water quality, sediment
accumulation, or biological problems related to toxic
pollutants or pesticides from your modified discharge(s)?
b. If no, provide the certification required by 40 CFR
125.64(d)(2) together with available supporting data.
c. If yes, provide a schedule for development and
implementation of nonindustrial toxics control programs
to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 125.64(d)(3).
Small applicants that can certify that there are no known or suspected 1)
industrial sources of toxic pollutants and pesticides as documented by an
industrial user survey as described in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2) or 2) water
quality, sediment accumulation, or biological problems related to toxic
pollutants or pesticides from the modified discharge, need only provide the
certifications requested by H.l.b and H.4.b and develop the public education
program requested by H.3. Public education programs may include preparation
of newspaper articles, posters, or radio and television announcements
designed to increase public awareness of the need for proper disposal of
waste oils, solvents, herbicides, pesticides, and any other substances
containing toxic pollutants and pesticides.
All other small applicants need to respond to all of the toxic control
program questions and are referred to Chapter IX of this document for
additional guidance.
111-43
-------
IV. LARGE APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE
I. INTRODUCTION
This questionnaire is to be used by large applicants for modification of
secondary treatment requirements under section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). A large applicant has a population contributing to its wastewater
treatment facility of at least 50, 000 or a projected average dry weather
flow of its discharge of at least 5.0 million gallons per day (MGD, 0.22
ms/sec) [40 CFR 125.58(c)].
The questionnaire is in two sections, a general information and basic
requirements section and a technical evaluation section. Satisfactory
completion of this questionnaire is necessary to enable EPA to determine
whether the applicant's modified discharge meets the criteria of section
301(h) and EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G).
Where applicants diligently try but are unable to collect and submit all
the information at the time of application, EPA requires that a plan of
study for gathering and submitting the data be provided with the
application. 40 CFR 125.59(f) states the procedures governing such
post-application data collection activities.
Guidance for responding to the questions is provided by the Revised
Section 301 (h) Technical Support Document. Where available information is
incomplete and the applicant needs to collect additional data during the
period it is preparing the application, EPA encourages the applicant to
consult with EPA prior to data collection and submission of its application.
Such consultation, particularly if the applicant provides a plan of study,
will help assure that the proper data are gathered in the most efficient
manner.
This chapter provides specific guidance for completing the Large
Applicant Questionnaire. For this purpose, the Large Applicant
IV-1
-------
Questionnaire (printed in italics) is set forth along with associated
guidance (printed in conventional type). Applicants are expected to use all
available data for responding to the questionnaire. If it appears that
additional data are needed for response to individual questions, the
applicant is encouraged to develop a plan of study and consult with EPA
prior to collecting the additional data and submitting it with the completed
application. After the December 29, 1982, application deadline, collection
of additional data to support an application (or application revision) must
be authorized or requested by EPA and must be preceded by submittal of a
plan of study [40 CFR 125.59(f)]. Guidance on plans of study is provided in
Chapter X. Applicants submitting revised applications should refer to 40
CFR 125.59U).
II. GENERAL INFORMATION AND BASIC DATA REQUIREMENTS
Applicants should answer all questions; where your response to a
question is "yes", "no", or "not applicable," explain the basis for your
response. Where your answer indicates that you cannot meet a regulatory or
statutory criteria, discuss why you believe you qualify for a section 301(h)
variance.
Where your response to a question is incomplete, EPA may request the
collection of additional data before the application is evaluated.
A. Treatment System Description
1. Are you applying for a modification based on a current
discharge, improved discharge, or altered discharge as
defined in 40 CFR 125.58? [40 CFR 125.59(a)]
See Chapter III for additional descriptions and examples of these terms.
2. Description of the Treatment/Outfall System [40 CFR
125.61(a) and 125.61(e)]
a. Provide detailed descriptions and diagrams of the
treatment system and outfall configuration which you
propose to satisfy the requirements of section 301(h) and
IY-2
-------
40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G. What is the total discharge
design flow upon which this application is based?
b. Provide a map showing the geographic location of the
proposed outfall(s) (i.e., discharge). What is the
latitude and longitude of the proposed outfall(s)?
c. For a modification based on an improved or altered
discharge, provide a description and diagram of your
current treatment system and outfall configuration.
Include the current outfall's latitude and longitude, if
different from the proposed outfall.
Most of the above information can be found in Section 1-13 of the NPDES
Standard Form A submitted with the application.
Z. Effluent Limitations and. Characteristics [40 CFR 125. 60 (b)
and 125.61(e)(2)]
a. Identify the final effluent limitations for five-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BODc) , suspended solids, and
pH upon which your application for a modification is
based:
_ mg/l
- Suspended solids _ mg/l
- pH _ (range)
Please provide the effluent limitations you are requesting to be stipulated
in your section 301 (h) modified NPDES permit.
b. Provide data on the following effluent characteristics
for your current discharge as well as for the modified
discharge if different from the current discharge:
Flow (ms/sec):
- minimum
- average dry weather
- average wet weather
IV-3
-------
- max^mum
- annual average
BOD5 (mg/l) for the following plant flows:
- minimum
- average dry weather
- average wet weather
- maximum
annual average
Suspended solids (mg/l) for the following plant flows:
- minimum
- average dry weather
- average wet weather
- maximum
- annual average
Toxic pollutants and pesticides (ug/l):
list each identified toxic pollutant and pesticide
pH:
— minimum
- maximum
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l, prior to chlorination) for the
following plant flows:
- minimum
- average dry weather
- average wet weather
- maximum
- annual average
Immediate dissolved oxygen demand (mg/l)
IV-4
-------
Most of the above information can be found in plant operating records.
Provide results of the wet and dry weather chemical analyses for toxic
pollutants and pesticides as discussed in Chapter VIII of this document as
requested above. List all toxics detected including those at concentrations
less than 10 ug/1. Additional guidance on sampling and chemical analyses
for conventional and toxic pollutants is presented in Chapter IX on
Monitoring. The IDOD values can be estimated or measured using the
procedures presented in Chapter VI.
4. Effluent Volume and Mass Emissions [40 CFR 125.61(e)(2) and
125.65]
a. Provide detailed analyses showing projections of effluent
volume (annual average, ms/sec) and mass loadings
(mt/year) of BODS and suspended solids for the design
life of your treatment facility in five-year increments.
If the application is based upon an improved or altered
discharge, the projections must be provided with and
without the proposed improvements or alterations.
b. Provide projections for the end of your five-year permit
term for 1) the treatment facility contributing
population and 2) the average daily total discharge flow
for the maximum month of the dry weather season.
Projections of effluent volume and mass emissions may be based on expected
population and service area changes over the design life of your treatment
facility.
5. Average Daily Industrial Flow (rrfi/sec) (40 CFR 125.64)
Provide or estimate the average daily industrial inflow to
your treatment facility for the same time increments as in
question II.A.4.a above.
Annual average flow data will generally be sufficient for nonseasonal (i.e.,
continuous operation) industries. For seasonal industries, please provide
average daily flows for the period(s) of operation. Please provide flows
for each industrial contributor.
IV-5
-------
6. Combined Sewer Overflows [40 CFR 125.65(b)]
a. Does (will) your collection and treatment system include
combined sewer overflows?
b. If yes, provide a description of your plan for minimising
combined sewer overflows to the receiving water.
Please provide information on location(s), flow quantity(s), and frequency
of overflows along with a narrative description and schedule of your plan
for minimizing the discharge of combined sewer overflows to the receiving
water.
7. Out fall/Diff user Design. Provide the following data for
your current discharge as well as for the modified
discharge, if different from the current discharge: [40 CFR
- diameter and length of the outfall(s) (meters)
- diameter and length of the diffuser(s) (meters)
- angle (s) of port orientations ( s ) from
horizontal (degrees)
- port diameter(s) (meters)
- orifice contraction coefficient(s), if known
- vertical distance from mean lower low water
(or mean low water) surface and outfall
port(s) centerline (meters)
- number of ports
- port spacing (meters)
- design flow rate for each port if multiple
ports are used (nr/sec)
The above data should be available from the engineering drawings for your
outf all /diff user system.
IV-6
-------
B. Receiving Water Description
1. Are you applying for a modification based on a discharge to
the ocean or to a saline estuary [40 CFR 125.58(q)]? [40
CFR 125.59(a)]
"Ocean waters" is defined in 40 CFR 125.58(1) and are those coastal waters
landward of the baseline of the territorial seas, the deep waters of the
territorial seas, or the waters of the contiguous zone. Territorial seas
extend 3 miles outward from the baseline and the contiguous zone extends an
additional 9 miles.
"Saline estuarine waters" is defined in 40 CFR 125.58(q) and means those
semi-enclosed coastal waters which have a free connection to the territorial
sea, undergo net seaward exchange with ocean waters, and have salinities
comparable to those of the ocean. Generally, these waters are near the
mouth of estuaries and have cross-sectional, annual mean salinities greater
than 25 parts per thousand. It should be noted, however, that 25 ppt is
used as a general test in section 125.58(q) and the failure of the receiving
water to meet this salinity concentration does not absolutely preclude
eligibility for consideration under section 301(h). However, where
salinities fall significantly below this concentration, applicants should be
careful to document that the waters into which they discharge meet the other
requirements of section 125.58(q), i.e., free connection to the territorial
sea and net seaward exchange with ocean waters.
2. Is your current discharge or modified discharge to stressed
waters? If yes, what are the pollution sources contributing
to the stress? [40 CFR 125.61(f)]
"Stressed waters" are defined in 40 CFR 125.58U) and means receiving water
environments in which a balanced indigenous population (BIP) does not exist
as a result of factors other than the applicant's modified discharge. If an
applicant's discharge is to stressed waters, the application must
demonstrate that the modified discharge will not contribute to the stress or
retard recovery if other pollutant sources are diminished and/or removed.
If your answer to this question is yes, please provide a list of the
locations and descriptions of the other point and nonpoint sources
contributing to the stress. If no, please state the basis for this
conclusion.
IV-7
-------
3. Provide a description and data on the seasonal circulation
pattern in the vicinity of your current and modified
discharge(s). [40 CFR 125.61(a)]
This information should include a description of current patterns and
general density structure on a seasonal basis as well as the variation over
a tidal cycle. Hydraulic residence times and flushing characteristics
should be described for discharges into estuaries and semi-enclosed bodies
of water. Any periods of natural upwelling should be described, including
changes in the current patterns and stratification. U.S. Department of
Commerce (U.S. DOC 1979a, b) tidal current prediction tables are a useful
source for this information.
4. Oceanographic Conditions in the Vicinity of the Current and
Proposed Modified Discharge(s). Provide data on the
following: [40 CFR 125.61(a)]
lowest ten percentile current speed (m/sec)
- predominant current speed (m/sec) and direction (true)
during the four seasons
- period(s) of maximum stratification (months)
- period(s) of natural upwelling events (duration and
frequency, months)
- density profiles during period(s) of maximum
stratification
The vertical and areal distribution of currents and water density in both
the nearfield and farfield are needed to evaluate plume dilution and
transport of the wastefield. Data collected from previous studies or nearby
similar areas will often be appropriate.
The number and location of sampling stations needed to provide sufficient
data will depend on the bathymetric and hydrographic environment. For open
coastal sites with uniform bathymetry and minimal freshwater inflows, as few
as five stations may be adequate. However, for an estuary with significant
freshwater inflow and highly variable bathymetry, as many as 50 stations may
be necessary.
IV-8
-------
For existing discharges, the measurements should be made in the vicinity of
the outfall but outside the region directly influenced by the discharge.'
For relocated outfalls, measurements should be made in the vicinity of the
proposed discharge location. Current data should be obtained near the
surface, at the approximate depth of the wastefield, and in the bottom 2 m
(6.6 ft) of the water column. Water depths at the stations should be
similar to the depth of the current and relocated outfalls (if present).
The duration of time within which these measurements should be obtained is
dependent on the characteristics of the principal components of the current
regime and the variability of the density structure. If the currents are
predominantly tidal, the current measurements should be at approximately 30
minute intervals for not less than 29 days. If seasonal changes in
oceanographic conditions are significant (upwelling, shoreward transport,
high and low runoff) then information should be obtained for each season.
The question presumes that the period(s) of maximum stratification will be
critical for calculating initial dilutions. Field data on other potentially
critical periods may be necessary for determining whether this is true.
Reduction and presentation of data should be of sufficient detail to support
the interpretation and analyses performed in the application. Forms of data
reduction and presentation which are recommended are:
Current Persistence Tables - Summary of the frequency and
duration of specific current speed and direction events. For
example, currents with speeds between 10 and 15 cm/sec between
directions of 260 and 280 degrees (t) for durations of 1 hour or
more occur for 18 percent of the data record.
Current Speed and Direction Frequency Tables - Frequency of
specific current speed and direction intervals. For example,
currents with speeds between 5 and 10 cm/sec occurred for 20
percent of the data record and currents with directions between
80 and 90 degrees (T) occurred for 23 percent of the data
record.
IV-9
-------
Net Coastal Orthogonal Component Analysis - By determining the
predominant direction(s) of current flow, a primary axis for
orthogonal component decomposition of each current vector, can
be selected. The net component relative to each axis can then
be determined. If the currents do not exhibit predominate flow
direction(s), an axis parallel to the local bathymetry or in the
direction of an area of significance can be selected.
Current Mean and Variance - For the predominate direction(s) of
current flow or the selected primary axis, the mean and variance
of the current speed can be determined.
Guidance concerning the instrumentation and methods for collection of
oceanographic data can be obtained from the document "Design of 301(h)
Monitoring Programs for Municipal Wastewater Discharges to Marine Waters."
5. Ambient Water Quality Conditions During the Period(s) of
Maximum Stratification: at the zone of initial dilution
(ZID) boundary, at other areas of potential impact, and at
control stations: [40 CFR 125.61(a)(2)]
a. Provide profiles (with depth) on the following for the
current discharge location and for the modified discharge
location, if different from the current discharge:
- BOD5 (mg/l)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
- Suspended solids (mg/l)
- pH
- Temperature (°C)
- Salinity (ppt)
- Transparency (turbidity, percent light transmittance)
- Other significant variables (e.g., nutrients, toxic
pollutants and pesticides, fecal coliforms)
Sampling of nutrients, coliform bacteria and other significant variables may
be conducted at selected depths. Secchi disc depth data should be provided
if transparency data are not available. Ambient water quality data
IV-10
-------
collection procedures and requirements are discussed in the document
entitled "Design of 301(h) Monitoring Programs for Municipal Wastewater
Discharges to Marine Waters" and in Chapter IX of this document.
For each survey, the following information should be submitted along with
the data: a map showing exact locations of the stations, the depth at which
the measurements were taken, and the sampling dates and times. The
applicant should state whether effluent was discharging from the outfall at
the time of the survey and should provide the flow rate, BOD5 concentration,
pH, and suspended solids concentration of the effluent, if available. Any
unusual meteorological or oceanographic conditions (e.g., storms, onshore
transport) should be discussed. If current data or other oceanographic
information are available at the time of the survey, the direction of
movement of the wastefield should be described.
b. Are there other periods when receiving water quality
conditions may be more critical than the period(s) of
maximum stratification? If so, describe these other
critical periods and the data requested in 5.a. for the
other critical period(s). [40 CFR 125.61(a)(1)]
Other periods when water quality conditions may be more critical include
periods of maximum hydraulic loading from the POTW; periods of exceptional
biological activity; periods of low background water quality; periods of low
net circulation; periods of low effective net flushing or low intertidal
mixing; and periods of minimum stratification.
6. Provide data on steady state sediment dissolved oxygen
demand and dissolved oxygen demand due to resuspension of
sediments in the vicinity of your current and modified
discharge(s) (mg/l/day).
Dissolved oxygen depletion due to steady sediment demand and sediment
resuspension depends on sediment composition (e.g., grain size distribution
and organic content) and accumulation rates, current speeds, and circulation
patterns. When possible, field and/or laboratory measurements may be used
to determine oxygen consumption rates. If such measurements are made, the
results and procedures used should be described.
IV-11
-------
C. Biological Conditions
1. Provide a detailed description of representative biological
communities (eg, plankton, macrobenthos, demersal fish,
etc.) in the vicinity of your current and modified
discharge(s): within the ZID, at the ZID boundary, at other
areas of potential discharge-related impact, and at
reference (control) sites. Community characteristics to be
described shall include (but not be limited to) species
composition; abundance; dominance and diversity;
spatial/temporal distribution; growth and reproduction;
disease frequency; trophic structure and productivity
patterns; presence of opportunistic species; bioaccumulation
of toxic materials; and the occurrence of mass mortalities.
The biological information shall be used to describe the existing conditions
near the applicant's discharge and to evaluate whether or not a BIP exists
(or will exist) near the current and modified discharge(s). The descriptive
information shall be used as the basis for the applicant's response to
Question D.I. in the Technical Evaluation.
2. a. Are distinctive habitats of limited distribution (such as
kelp beds or coral reefs) located in areas potentially
affected by the modified discharge? [40 CFR 125.61(c)]
b. If yes, provide information on type, extent, and location
of habitats.
Distinctive habitats of limited distribution include those marine
environments whose protection is of special concern because of their
ecological significance or value to man. These habitats include, but are
not limited to, coral reefs, kelp beds, sea grass meadows, intertidal or
subtidal rock outcroppings, sites of productive fisheries and all areas
recognized as marine or estuarine sanctuaries.
The applicant should provide information on all distinctive habitats of
limited distribution identified in the vicinity of the outfall and in other
areas of the receiving water body which are potentially influenced by the
discharge. Sources of information on occurrences of such habitats include:
IV-12
-------
t Contacts with local offices of state conservation agencies
• Review of literature, especially resource maps available for
the general vicinity of the discharge(s).
Since most distinctive habitats are visible to a surface observer, the
applicant may also use direct visual observation of the marine environment
in the outfall vicinity to determine local occurrences.
If distinctive habitats are identified in the receiving water body, the
applicant should provide additional information on the types, locations, and
extents of such habitats. This information may be collected from maps, by
aerial surveys, or by diver observations.
3. a. Are commercial or recreational fisheries located in areas
potentially affected by the discharge? [40 CFR
125.61(c)]
b. If yes, provide information on types, location, and. value
of fisheries.
Documentation of fisheries in the receiving water body is important because
of economic and recreational aspects and because of the potential for human
consumption of contaminated organisms.
The applicant should provide information on all fishery resources, both
utilized and non-utilized, in the outfall vicinity and in other areas
potentially influenced by the discharge. The descriptive information
presented should include the fishery types, effort levels, economic value
and temporal patterns. Emphasis should be placed upon regulatory or
health-related factors which prevent utilization of the resource, especially
if such factors are related to pollutant contamination. Sources of
information include natural resource agencies, public health agencies, local
fishermen and academic institutions.
IV-13
-------
D. State and Federal Laws [40 CFR 125.60]
1, Are there water quality standards applicable to the
following pollutants for which a modification is requested:
- Biochemical oxygen demand or dissolved oxygen?
- Suspended solids, turbidity, light transmission, light
scattering, or maintenan&e of the euphotic zone?
- pH of the receiving water?
2, If yes, what is the water use classification for your
discharge area? What are the applicable standards for your
discharge area for each of the parameters for which a
modification is requested? Provide a copy of all applicable
water quality standards or a citation to where they can be
found.
3. Will the modified discharge: [40 CFR 12S.59(b)(3)]
- Be consistent with applicable State coastal zone
management program(s) approved under the Coastal Zone
Management Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.?
[See 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A)]
- Be located in a marine sanctuary designated under
Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et
seq. or in an estuarine sanctuary designated under the
Coastal Zone Management Act as amended, 16
U.S.C. 1461? If located in a marine sanctuary
designated under Title III of the MPRSA, attach a copy
of any certification or permit required under
regulations governing such marine sanctuary. [See 16
U.S.C. 1432(f)(2)J
- Be consistent with the Endangered Species Act as
amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.? Provide the names of
any threatened or endangered species that inhabit or
obtain nutrients from waters that may be affected by
the modified discharge. Identify any critical habitat
that may be affected by the modified discharge and
evaluate whether the modified discharge will affect
IV-14
-------
threatened or endangered species or modify a critical
habitat. [See 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)]
4. Are you aware of any state or Federal Laws or regulations
(other than the Clean Water Act or the three statutes
identified in item 3 above) or an Executive Order which is
applicable to your discharge? If yes, provide sufficient
information to demonstrate that your modified discharge will
comply with such law(s), regulation(s), or order(s). [40
CFR 125.59(b)(3)J
Applicants should contact the state water quality agency for answers to D.I
and D.2 and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), and state coastal zone management agency for a
response to D.3. A list of state water quality agencies, coastal zone
management agencies, and regional offices of the NMFS, USFWS, and EPA is
provided as Appendix A to this document.
III. TECHNICAL EVALUATION
Answers to the following questions will be used to assess the effects of
the modified discharge. The responses will be used by the state agency (s)
in their determination (as required by 40 CFR 125.60(b)(2) and 125.63(b)),
and by EPA in preparing its decision on the applicant's request for a
section 301(h) variance.
Your answers to the following questions must be supported by data and
responses from Section II of this questionnaire. The analyses and
calculations required below must show the input [supporting] data for all
calculations. Applicants should answer all questions; where your answer to
a question is "yes", "no", or "not applicable, " explain the basis for your
response. Where your answer indicates that you cannot meet a regulatory or
statutory criteria, discuss why you believe you qualify for a variance.
If EPA decides to check calculations in an application, the formulas and
methods provided in this document may be used for that purpose. If
applicants use methods other than those provided in this document, such
methods must be described by the applicant.
IV-15
-------
A. Physical Characteristics of Discharge [40 CFR 125.61(a)]
1. tfhat is the critical initial dilution for your current and
modified discharge(s) during 1) the period(s) of maximum
stratification? and 2) any other critical period(s) of
discharge volume/composition, water quality, biological
seasons, or oceanographic conditions?
Methods for computation of Initial dilution are provided in Chapter V of
this document. If other methods are used they should be fully documented.
Initial dilutions should be calculated for the period(s) of maximum
stratification and other periods of critical environmental conditions.
The availability of sufficient dilution water should be determined based on
regional currents and circulation patterns as discussed in Chapter V of this
document.
2. tfhat are the dimensions of the zone of initial dilution for
your modified discharge(s)?
The ZID may be considered to be the bottom area within a distance equal to
the water depth from any point on the diffuser and the water column above
that area. Alternative methods for calculating ZIP dimensions may be used
but the ZID may not be larger than mixing zone restrictions in applicable
water quality standards. The applicant is encouraged to consult with the
state water quality agency on an appropriate method for calculating ZID
dimensions.
3. What are the effects of ambient currents and stratification
on dispersion and transport of the discharge
piume/wastefieId?
The effects of ambient conditions on effluent dispersion should be
determined as described in Chapter V of this document. This analysis is
used to compute farfield dissolved oxygen consumption and suspended solids
deposition.
IV-16
-------
4. Sedimentation of suspended solids
a
What fraction of the modified discharge's suspended
solids will accumulate within the vicinity of the
modified discharge?
b. What are the calculated area(s) and rate(s) of sediment
accumulation within the vicinity of the modified
discharge (s) (g/m^/yr-) ?
a. What is the fate of settleable solids transported beyond
the calculated sediment accumulation area?
The above questions can be addressed with methods described in Chapter VI of
this document. The fate of suspended solids is needed in order to calculate
oxygen consumption rates and interpret biological data. Settling velocity
distributions of the effluent should be provided, if available. Graphs
showing the settling velocity (cm/sec) and percent of solids which settle at
that velocity or less are preferred. The suspended solids concentration
(mg/1), test conditions, and laboratory procedures used should be described.
B' Compliance with Applicable Water Quality Standards
[40 CFR 125.60(b) and 125.61(a)]
1. What is the concentration of dissolved oxygen immediately
following initial dilution for the period(s) of maximum
stratification and any other critical period(s) of discharge
volume/composition, water quality, biological seasons, or
oceanographic conditions?
Dissolved oxygen concentrations are needed to verify that water quality
standards will be met. Chapter VI provides methods to compute the dissolved
oxygen following initial dilution. This value depends on the dissolved
oxygen concentration of the effluent and receiving water, the immediate
dissolved oxygen demand (IDOD), and the initial dilution. Normally, the
critical period(s) for dissolved oxygen will coincide with the period(s) of
maximum stratification.
2. What is the farfield dissolved oxygen depression and
resulting concentration due to BOD exertion of the
IV-17
-------
wastefield during the period(s) of maximum stratification
and any other critical period(s)?
The farfield oxygen depression determination is needed to assess whether
water quality standards will be met in areas away from the ZID. Methods for
estimating farfield effects are described in Chapter VI.
S. What are the dissolved oxygen depressions and resulting
concentrations near the bottom due to steady sediment demand
and resuspension of sediments?
An estimate of dissolved oxygen depressions resulting from steady sediment
demand and resuspension should be made using the methods described in
Chapter VI. If field or laboratory measurements are available, the results
can be used in these analyses.
4. What is the increase in receiving water suspended solids
concentration immediately following initial dilution of the
modified discharge (s)-?
The suspended solids concentration following initial dilution can be
estimated by a simple mass balance calculation as described in Chapter VI.
This value depends on the suspended solids concentration of the effluent and
receiving water and initial dilution. The suspended solids concentration
can affect light transmittance and sensitive biological habitats (e.g.,
coral reefs) and is used in the analysis of solids deposition.
5. What is the change in receiving water pE immediately
following initial dilution of the modified discharge(s)?
The pH following initial dilution is needed to verify that water quality
standards are met. The pH can be calculated or measured in the laboratory
as discussed in Chapter VI of this document.
6. Does (will) the modified discharge comply with applicable
water quality standards for:
- Dissolved oxygen?
. IV-18
-------
- Suspended solids or surrogate standards?
- pH?
The applicant should summarize the findings of questions B.I through B.5 and
show that the appropriate standards are met.
7. Provide the determination required by 40 CFR 125.60(b)(2)
or, if the determination has not yet been received, a copy
of a letter to the appropriate agency(s) requesting the
required determination.
c' Impact on Public Water Supplies [40 CFR 125.61(b)J
1. Is there a planned or existing public water supply
(desalinization facility) intake in the vicinity of the
current or modified discharge?
2- If yes,
a. what is the location of the intake(s) (latitude and
longitude)?
b. will the modified discharge(s) prevent use of the
intake(s) for public water supply?
c. will the modified discharge (s) cause increased treatment
requirements for the public water supply(s) to meet
local, state, and EPA drinking water standards?
It is not expected that any marine POTW discharges will affect public water
supply intakes. However, the applicant should verify that none are located
within 16 km (10 mi) of the discharge. Chapter VI provides some background
information on coastal desal inization plants. If no desalinization plants
or other water supply intakes exist within 16 km (10 mi) of the discharge,
no analyses are required. The name of the agencies contacted and the person
involved should be listed in the application. If a water supply intake does
exist, the location should be shown on a map with the discharge site marked.
The travel time to the intake should be estimated using the average current
speed. The applicant should show that all water quality standards are met
at the intake using the methods discussed in this document.
IV-19
-------
D. Biological Impact of Discharge [40 CFR 125.61(c)]
1. Does (will) a balanced -indigenous population of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife exist:
a. immediately beyond the ZID of the current and modified
discharge(s)?
b. in all other areas beyond the ZID where marine life is
actually or potentially affected by the current and
modified discharge(s)?
Previous review of applications for larger discharges has indicated that
structural modifications of marine communities can occur near the
applicants' discharges. This question should be addressed in relation to
spatial comparisons of biological communities near the discharge and at
control areas. The purpose of the question is to determine whether
unacceptable adverse impacts occur or will occur beyond the ZID.
The applicant should consult Chapter VII for information on study design and
data requirements. The biological community characteristics that might be
examined in an evaluation of a BIP include, but are not limited to, species
composition, abundance, biomass, dominance and diversity, spatial/temporal
distributions, growth and reproduction, disease prevalence, trophic
structure, productivity, and presence or absence of pollution indicator
species.
The applicant should compare the ranges of biological characteristics among
the four specified areas where communities are to be assessed. If
differences in biological variables which are attributable to the discharge
are detected between study areas (e.g., ZID boundary vs. control), the
applicant should assess the spatial extent of those differences. In
addition, the magnitude of the effect should be characterized with regard to
the relative deviation from control conditions (e.g., percent reduction in
species richness), the potential for intertrophic effects (e.g., reductions
in fish food organisms) and the potential for involvement of recreationally
or commercially important species. Please see Chapter VII for additional
guidance.
IV-20
-------
2. Have distinctive habitats of limited distribution been
impacted adversely by the current discharge and will such
habitats be impacted adversely by the modified discharge?
If distinctive habitats are present in areas potentially influenced by the
discharge, the applicant should conduct field surveys to document the extent
and condition of those habitats and to evaluate any effects of the
discharge. The applicant should also provide a detailed evaluation of
available historical information on the spatial distribution of any
distinctive habitats near the outfall and in nearby control areas. Trends
in spatial occurrence should be evaluated relative to historical discharges
by the applicant and relative to other water quality or biological factors
which potentially influence the habitat.
S. Have commercial or recreational fisheries been impacted
adversely by the current discharge (e.g., warnings,
restrictions, closures, or mass mortalities) or will they be
impacted adversely by the modified discharge?
If fishery resources are present in areas potentially influenced by the
discharge, the applicant should assess the effects of the outfall on these
resources by analyzing catch records, market acceptability, contamination of
tissues by toxic substances, prevalance of disease, and harvest
warnings/closures.
Field surveys may be required to document distribution patterns, migratory
pathways and status of spawning areas. These studies should generally
emphasize potential outfall effects on demersal fishes, epibenthic
mega-invertebrates and filter-feeding bivalve molluscs since these biotic
groups are most susceptible to effects of solids accumulation, tissue
contamination and induction of disease.
4. Does the current or modified discharge cause the following
within or beyond the ZID: [40 CFR 125.61(c)(3)]
a. mass mortality of fishes or invertebrates due to oxygen
depletion, high concentrations of toxics or other
conditions?
IY-21
-------
b. an increased incidence of disease in marine organisms?
c. an abnormal body burden of any toxic material in marine
organisms?
d. any other extreme, adverse biological impacts?
This question requires the assessment of several specific potential impacts
of POTW discharges. The applicant should review and summarize available
information on occurrences of mass mortalities of marine organisms in the
receiving water environment. The suspected cause(s) of mass mortalities
should be evaluated to determine if any mass mortalities could have resulted
from the applicant's discharge. Evaluation of the occurrences of, or
potential for, mass mortalities is especially important for applicants with
discharges into estuaries or enclosed embayments. Dissolved oxygen
deficiencies in these environments with limited flushing characteristics may
result from BOD inputs or algal decomposition following bloom conditions.
Evaluation of disease incidence or tissue contamination in marine organisms
should be conducted by spatial comparisons of communities near the discharge
(ZID and ZID boundary) with those in control areas.
5. For discharges into saline estuarine waters: [40 CFR
125.61(c)(4)]
a. Does or will the current or modified discharge cause
substantial differences in the benthic population within
the ZID and beyond the ZID?
b. Does or will the current or modified discharge interfere
with migratory pathways within the ZID?
c. Does or will the current or modified discharge result in
bioaccumulation of toxic pollutants or pesticides at
levels which exert adverse effects on the biota within
the ZID?
Estuaries are generally more productive than coastal areas, and are often
more sensitive to pollutants. They also serve as spawning and nursery
grounds for many invertebrates and fishes. Moreover, the flushing
characteristics of estuaries may be considerably less than open coastal
areas, especially during periods of reduced freshwater input. Thus, for a
given discharge size, there is generally a higher potential impact in
estuaries than in open coastal environments.
IV-22
-------
Additional information is required for saline estuarine discharges. EPA
regulations [40 CFR 125.61(c)(4)] require applicants to demonstrate that
there are no substantial differences between the benthic communities within
the ZID and beyond the ZID. Hence, applicants discharging into saline
estuaries must conduct comparisons of within-ZID and ZID-boundary benthic
communities with benthic communities at the reference site(s).
The applicant should also assess interference potential of the discharge
with migratory pathways within the ZID. In conducting this assessment the
applicant may calculate the proportion of the cross sectional area of the
estuary that is influenced by the ZID. The potential for migratory
interference may then be evaluated by a consideration of the relative size
and characteristics of the discharge-affected area and its location in the
estuary with respect to known migratory pathways.
Applicants with saline estuarine discharges are also to assess the
bioaccumulation of toxic substances within the ZID. If elevated or
increasing concentrations of toxic substances are found in fish or
shellfish, the applicant should assess the potential for adverse impacts
such as restrictions on human use (e.g., FDA Action Levels), induction of
disease, or interference with fish and shellfish growth or reproduction.
6. For -improved discharges, will the proposed improved
discharge!s) comply with the requirements of 40 CFR
125.61 (a) through 125.61 (d)? [40 CFR 125.61 (e)^]
EPA regulations require applicants who propose discharge improvement(s) to
demonstrate that the improvements) will result in compliance with sections
125.61U) through 125.61{d). This demonstration might be accomplished by
comparing conditions at the outfall location with conditions near discharges
which are similar to the proposed improved discharge. Assuming that there
is a basic similarity in indigenous biota of the receiving environment, such
a comparison may be sufficient to predict protection of a BIP. Applicants
may also conduct predictive analyses of effluent dispersion and seabed
accumulation of solids following discharge improvements.
IV-23
-------
Applicants whose discharge improvement plans include outfall relocation
should describe present biological conditions at both the proposed and
current outfall sites. Those applicants are also to predict future
biological conditions at the proposed site following relocation of the
discharge. Such predictions might be conducted by comparisons with other
discharges which are similar to the relocated discharge. Discharges used
for such comparisons should be located in receiving environments similar to
the applicant's discharge.
7, For altered discharge(s), will the altered discharge(s)
comply with the 40 CFR 125.61(a) through 125.61(d)? [40 CFR
125.61(e)]
EPA regulations require applicants requesting modifications for altered
discharges to demonstrate that a treatment level less than that currently
achieved will nonetheless enable compliance with sections 125.61(a) through
125.61(d). This demonstration requires a difficult prediction since the
applicant is to show how an increase in pollutant discharges will not result
in adverse effects on indigenous biota.
Applicants proposing altered discharges should initially document any
impacts of the current discharge. If the applicant's current discharge does
not result in maintenance of a BIP, the applicant should demonstrate how
outfall improvements (e.g., relocation) would operate in conjunction with
the reduced treatment level to enable compliance with the BIP requirements.
If no outfall improvements are proposed in such cases, it would not be
possible for the applicant to make the necessary BIP demonstration since
biological conditions would be expected to deviate further from a BIP under
increased pollutant loadings.
If available data indicate that the applicant's current discharge does not
result in adverse ecological impact, the applicant should conduct predictive
analyses to demonstrate a continued absence of impact with the altered
discharge. Such analyses may include the use of sediment modeling
procedures as described in Chapter VI or comparisons with other discharges.
8. If your current discharge is to stressed waters, does or
will your current or modified discharge: [40 CFR 125.61(f)]
IV-24
-------
a. contribute to, increase, or perpetuate such stressed
condition?
b. contribute to further degradation of the biota or voter
quality if the level of human perturbation from other
sources increases?
a. retard the recovery of the biota or water quality if
human perturbation from other sources decreases?
If a BIP does not exist in in the vicinity of an outfall because of
pollution from sources other than the applicant's modified discharge, the
applicant is to demonstrate that its modified discharge does not or will not
contribute to, increase, or perpetuate stressed biological conditions. In
addition to all other requirements, the applicant should show that the
following three conditions are met:
• The differences are documented and assessed between the
biological conditions that currently exist in the general
vicinity of the outfall and the balanced indigenous
population that would occur there in the absence of all
human disturbances. The assessment of the degree of
ecological alterations can be accomplished by comparisons of
environmental conditions near the outfall with historic data
collected in the same area or from similar habitats
elsewhere and by spatial comparisons on a larger geographic
scale that includes comparable, but unpolluted habitats
(e.g., unstressed control sites). The applicant also is to
assess temporal trends that would indicate whether the
degree of ecological alteration is increasing or decreasing.
• The applicant demonstrates that its discharge is not
contributing to the present biological alterations
associated with the stressed waters outside of the ZID.
This demonstration includes all of the section 301(h)
biological assessments that would be required of a discharge
into unstressed waters. It differs because the biota within
and immediately beyond the ZID are to be compared with the
biota existing at stressed reference sites, rather than
IV-25
-------
unpolluted reference sites. In conducting this comparison,
applicants may need to consider spatial gradients of stress
from other pollutant sources, thereby determining whether
the degree of stress at the discharge site is equal to,
greater than, or less than that at the stressed reference
site.
• The applicant demonstrates that its discharge will not
contribute to further degradation of the biota if the level
of pollution from other sources increases, and that its
discharge will not retard the recovery of the biota if the
level of pollution from other sources decreases. This
demonstration requires a prediction of biological responses
to future pollution levels. Any quantity of pollutant
discharge into stressed waters theoretically may contribute
to the existing level of stress and may therefore retard
recovery if other sources are removed. In assessing the
importance of this contribution the applicant should address
the magnitude and extent of the impact. Similarly, in
addressing the degree of potential retardation, the relative
importance of the retardation in light of the rate and
extent of recovery possible is of primary interest.
E. Impacts of Discharge on Recreational Activities
[40 CFR 125.61(d)]
It is necessary to ensure that the modified discharge will: 1) meet water
quality standards relevant to recreational activities beyond the zone of
initial dilution, and 2) will not cause legal restrictions on activities
which would be lifted or modified by upgrading applicant's POTW to secondary
treatment.
1. Describe the existing or potential recreational activities
likely to be affected by the modified discharge(s) beyond
the zone of initial dilution.
All recreational activities currently occurring within the bay, estuary, or
an 8-km radius of the outfall should be identified, i.e., swimming, boating,
IV-26
-------
fishing, she!1fishing , underwater diving, picnicking, other beach
activities. Any additional potential future recreational activities should
also be identified, i.e., new ports, boat harbors, etc. A supplementary map
should be provided indicating the location of current activities, along with
the location of the existing and/or proposed outfall. Qualitative or,
whenever possible, quantitative information should be provided indicating
the extent of the existing activities. This could include; number of boats
or slips in the area, species of fish and shellfish taken, size of catch,
number of beach user days.
2. What are the existing and potential impacts of the modified
discharge(s) on recreational activities? Your answer should
include, but not be limited to, a discussion of fecal
coliforms.
Water quality standards, particularly coliform bacteria standards, for
protecting recreational uses, should be provided. The designation of the
water classifications within 8 km of the discharge should be indicated. The
schedule and frequency of chlorination should be established. To confirm
compliance with standards relevant to recreational activities, any required
coliform bacteria monitoring data for the effluent, at the ZID boundary, and
on the adjacent shoreline should be submitted. If shoreline areas are not
normally monitored, sampling should occur on the shore near high
water-activity areas. If noncompliance with coliform bacteria standards is
noted, an explanation and corrective measures should be provided. Other
sources of coliform bacteria present in the area which could be contributing
to the problem should be identified.
3. Are there any Federal, State or local restrictions on
recreational activities in the vicinity of the modified
discharge(s)? If yes, describe the restrictions and provide
citations to available references.
Any federal, state, or local restrictions or closures relating to the
discharge and recreational activities should be identified. The nature of
restrictions, the date implemented, and the agency responsible should be
indicated.
IV-27
-------
4. If recreational restrictions exist, would such restrictions
be lifted or modified if you were discharging a secondary
treatment effluent?
If restrictions are in place, the relation of the restriction to the
current/modified discharge quantity and quality should be established. If
an improvement in the discharge quality would modify or eliminate the
restriction on recreational activities, this should be indicated. In all
such events, it should be determined if secondary treatment would provide
sufficient discharge improvement to modify the restriction.
F. Establishment of a Monitoring Program (40 CFR 125.62)
1. Describe the biological, water quality, and effluent
monitoring programs which you propose to meet the criteria
of 40 CFR 125.62.
2. Describe the sampling techniques, schedules, and locations,
analytical techniques, quality control and verification
procedures to be used*
3. Describe the personnel and financial resources available to
implement the monitoring programs upon issuance of a
modified permit and to carry it out for the life of the
modified permit.
General guidance on the design of the monitoring program and the information
to be submitted in the application is discussed in Chapter IX of this
document and in a separate document entitled "Design of 301(h) Monitoring
Programs for Municipal Wastewater Discharges to Marine Waters."
G. Effect of Discharge on Other Point and flonpoint
Sources (40 CFR 125.63)
1. Does (will) your modified discharge(s) cause additional
treatment or control requirements for any other point or
nonpoint pollution source(s)?
IV-28
-------
Methods for estimating the effect of the discharge on other sources Is
discussed in Chapter VI of this document.
2. Provide the determination required by 40 CFR 125.63(b) or,
if the determination has not yet been received, a copy of a.
letter to the appropriate agency(s) requesting the required
determination.
H. Toxics Control Program (40 CFR 125.64)
1. a. Do you have any known or suspected industrial sources of
toxic pollutants or pesticides?
b. If no, provide the certification required by 40 CFR
125.64(c)(2).
2. Provide the results of wet and dry weather effluent analyses
of toxic pollutants and pesticides as required by 40 CFR
125.64(a)(l).
S. Provide an analysis of known or suspected industrial sources
of toxic pollutants and pesticides identified in 2. above.
4. Do you have an approved industrial pretreatment program?
a. If yes, provide the date of EPA approval.
b. If no, and if required by 40 CFR Part 403 to have an
industrial pretreatment program, provide a proposed
schedule for development and implementation of your
industrial pretreatment program to meet the requirements
of 40 CFR Part 403.
S. Describe the public education program you propose to
minimize the entrance of nonindustrial toxic pollutants and
pesticides into your treatment system.
6. Provide a schedule for development and implementation of
nonindustrial toxics control programs to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 125.64(d)(3).
IV-29
-------
Guidance for response to these questions is provided in Chapter VIII of this
document.
IV-30
-------
V. PHYSICAL ASSESSMENT
A physical assessment of the applicant's discharge is necessary to
determine the initial dilution that will be achieved, the zone of initial
dilution (ZID), and the farfield transport and dispersion of the effluent.
Municipal wastewater effluent discharged into the ocean through
submerged outfalls creates a buoyant plume that rises quickly toward the
surface, entraining significant amounts of ambient saline water. The
momentum and buoyancy of the effluent relative to seawater are primarily
responsible for entrainment of seawater, although in some circumstances
ambient currents" and turbulence also contribute to initial dilution.
One consequence of the entrainment process is that the density of the
rising plume becomes greater and approaches that of the ambient waters along
its trajectory. If a sufficient ambient vertical density gradient or a
stratification zone (like a pycnocline) is present, the plume can spread
horizontally at a level of neutral buoyancy below the sea surface. If a
sufficient density gradient is not present, the diluted wastewater plume
reaches the surface and flows horizontally.
INITIAL DILUTION
Data Requirements
Characteristics of the discharge and physical environmental conditions
at the discharge site are needed to calculate initial dilution. Information
is required for the period(s) of maximum stratification and other critical
periods. A diagram or verbal description of the diffuser length and
diameter, port orientation, and arrangement with respect to the seabed and
to other ports will be used by EPA to assess the adequacy of the
calculations and the adequacy of the design. For multiport diffusers, the
design flow of each port is requested, as unequal flow may influence the
actual dilution achieved. It is also helpful to have information for the
V-l
-------
period(s) of minimum stratification. It is not necessary for the applicant
to calculate the initial dilution for each port but only for that segment of
the diffuser with the highest flow rate per unit diffuser length or for the
port with the highest flow rate.
Effluent flow data are required for the computations. Historical data
should be used to determine the minimum, average dry-weather, average
wet-weather, annual average, and maximum flows.
Since initial dilution calculations can be strongly dependent on the
vertical gradient of density relative to the density of the wastewater,
larger applicants will need to evaluate a substantial amount of data from
both the discharge site and nearby areas having similar environmental
conditions before selecting a worst-case density profile. Since ambient
currents may affect the initial dilution achieved, a modest amount of
current (the lowest 10 percentile) can be used in predicting initial
dilution.
Initial dilution is the flux-averaged dilution (averaged over the
cross-sectional area of the plume) achieved during the period when dilution
is primarily a result of plume entrainment. It is characterized by a time
scale on the order of minutes. With proper location and design, marine
outfalls can achieve initial dilution values of about 100 to 1 or better
before the plume begins a transition from essentially vertical flow to an
essentially horizontal flow dominated by ambient oceanographic conditions.
For the purpose of this evaluation process, "dilution" is defined as the
ratio of the total volume of a sample (ambient water plus wastewater) to the
volume of wastewater in that sample. A dilution of 100 to 1, therefore, is
a mixture composed of 99 parts of ambient water and 1 part of wastewater.
Adequate initial dilution is necessary to assure compliance with water
quality standards. A number of factors influence the degree of initial
dilution which will be achieved. These factors include:
Discharge depth
Flow rates
Density of effluent
Density gradients in the receiving water
V-2
-------
Ambient current speed and direction
Diffuser characteristics
Port sizes
Port spacing
Port orientation
There are a number of methods and models available to calculate the
initial dilution to be expected for different oceanographic and diffuser
conditions. This section describes several methods of computing initial
dilution.
Computer Models
Several mathematical models are available from EPA which are
appropriate for different oceanographic and diffuser conditions. A summary
of the characteristics of these models is presented in Table V-l and a brief
description of them is provided here:
• PLUME - Analyzes a single, positively buoyant plume in an
arbitrarily stratified stagnant environment.
• OUTPLM - Analyzes a single, positively buoyant plume in an
arbitrarily stratified flowing environment.
• DKHPLM - Analyzes a multiport, positively buoyant plume in a
linearly stratified flowing receiving water.
• MERGE - Analyzes either positively or negatively buoyant
discharges. The model analyzes a plume element through the
history of its trajectory and dilution, accounting for the
effects of adjacent plume interference in a receiving water
with arbitrary vertical density and current variation.
• LINE - Treats discharges as a line source accounting for
adjacent plume interference. The model is capable of
analyzing positively buoyant discharges in an arbitrarily
stratified receiving water with a current flowing parallel
or perpendicular to the diffuser.
V-3
-------
TABLE V-l. SUMMARY OF PLUME MODEL CHARACTERISTICS
Model
Name
PLUME
OUTPLM
DKHPLM
MERGE
LINE
Current
Speed
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
Current
Di rectione a
90°
70° < 0 < 110°
90°
0 < 0 < 180°
Port Type
single
single
multiple
multiple
line
Density Profile
Type
arbitrary
arbitrary
linear
arbitrary
arbitrary
a A current flowing perpendicular to the diffuser axis has current direction
0= 90°. The widest range of possible angles is 0 to 180 .
V-4
-------
The first three of these models are described in detail by Teeter and
Baumgartner (1979) and are adequate for most situations. The model MERGE is
a generalization of OUTPLM. The model LINE is a generalization of Roberts
(1979). Neither MERGE nor LINE has been published in the open literature
but both have been used in the evaluation of section 301(h) applications.
All of these models are available from the EPA. Applicants are not required
to use any of the models listed in Table V-l. If other methods are used,
however, the application should include a detailed description of the
method(s) employed and demonstrate that the method(s) provides reasonable
estimates of initial dilution.
Other methods to determine initial dilution may include in situ
observations. However, if in situ observations are used, the applicant
should demonstrate that they represent the critical dilutions, not merely a
typical dilution. In addition, there are a number of other mathematical
models available in the published literature which can be adapted for
estimating initial dilution. References which describe several of these
models are: Abraham (1963, 1971); Baumgartner and Trent (1970); Baumgartner
et al. (1971); Briggs (1969); Brooks (1973); Cederwall (1971); Davis (1975);
Davis and Shirazi (1978); Fan (1967); Hirst (1971a, b); Kannberg and Davis
(1976); Koh and Fan (1970); Morton (1959); Morton et al. (1956); Priestley
and Ball (1955); Rouse et al. (1952); Sotil (1971); Teeter and Baumgartner
(1979); and Winiarski and Frick (1976).
ZONE OF INITIAL DILUTION (ZID)
The ZID is the region of initial mixing surrounding or adjacent to the
end of the outfall pipe or diffuser ports and includes the underlying
seabed. The ZID describes an area in which inhabitants, including the
benthos, may be chronically exposed to concentrations of pollutants in
excess of water quality standards or at least to concentrations greater than
those predicted for the critical conditions described above. The ZID does
not attempt to describe the area bounding the entire mixing process for all
conditions, or the total area impacted by the sedimentation of settleable
material.
V-5
-------
In general, the ZID can be considered to include that bottom area
within a distance equal to the water depth from any point of the diffuser
and the water column above that area. Figure V-l shows several examples for
different diffuser configurations and corresponding ZID dimensions.
DISPERSION AND TRANSPORT
A general description of the ambient currents expected within the
influence of the diffuser site is required by EPA. Since this description
is primarily of use in the determination of where the effluent wastefield is
likely to be transported during several days' time, the response to this
subsection should be of sufficient detail for this purpose. In a region
where currents are predominantly tidal in nature, current persistence and
the mean current speed and its variance, with respect to the primary
direction(s) of water flow, should be given. If the currents have large
components unrelated to tidal influences (e.g., wind induced currents), then
a more detailed analysis should be performed. The mean, variance, and
direction of the tidal component should be determined, as well as a synopsis
of the nontidal current speed, direction, and persistence. Depth variations
in currents are important at depths where the effluent wastefield is
trapped.
The basis for the current estimates should be provided. Acceptable
sources of information are site-specific measurements and/or published
measurements or predictions. The Tidal Current Tables published annually by
the U.S. Department of Commerce [see USDOC (1979a, b)] provide tidal current
information for a large number of locations. Information from other
published documents is usable if the documents are available to EPA on
request.
Expected or measured dilutions at significant shoreline stations should
be included. Section VI of this document provides further guidance on
computing farfield dilutions for water quality parameters.
V-6
-------
Y-DIFFUSER
LINEAR DIFFUSER
SINGLE POINT
L-DIFFUSER
NOTE: d = water depth
Figure V-l.
Diffuser types and corresponding ZID
configurations
V-7
-------
VI. WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
A water quality assessment is necessary to demonstrate that water
quality standards will be met and that water quality conditions will be
adequate to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allow recreational
activities in and on the water. This section provides guidance on
appropriate methods to assess the effects of the discharge on water quality
conditions. As the methods used to determine compliance with water quality
standards vary, the applicant may wish to consult with appropriate state
personnel.
AMBIENT WATER QUALITY
Ambient water quality data are needed to characterize the receiving
water and provide a basis for computing the effects of the discharge. The
parameters needed for water quality analyses include dissolved oxygen, pH,
suspended solids, light transmittance or other surrogates for suspended
solids, and coliform bacteria. Salinity and temperature data are needed to
characterize the receiving water and to determine appropriate values for
decay constants and other coefficients (typical values are provided herein).
Sources of background water quality data, in addition to the
applicant's own data, include water quality management planning studies,
receiving water studies conducted by state agencies or private groups, and
data from other 301(h) applicants. In some areas large regional studies may
provide water quality data. Examples are the Southern California Coastal
Water Research Project, the Puget Sound Interim Studies done for the
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Oceanographic Baseline Data for the
Formulation of Marine Waste Disposal Alternatives for Puerto Rico, the Water
Quality Program for Oahu, and studies in Chesapeake Bay. Other information
may be available from local universities and studies conducted for nearby
industrial outfalls or power plant discharges.
VI-1
-------
Depth profiles of water quality parameters should be provided at
several control stations for determining ambient water quality (i.e.,
unaffected by applicant's discharge). EPA requires that profiles at the
control stations be measured during the season(s) of maximum stratification
and other potentially critical periods of discharge characteristics, water
quality, biological seasons, or oceanographic conditions. In shallow water
[10 m (33 ft) or less], measurements should be taken at a minimum of 1 m
(3.3 ft) below the water surface, at 1 m (3.3 ft) above the bottom, and at
mid-depth. In deeper waters, measurements should be made at a minimum of
3-m (10-ft) intervals. An example of the information needed is shown in
Table VI-1. All data sets should identify the exact location of the
stations on a map, the depth at which the measurements were taken, the date
of the survey, whether effluent was discharging from the outfall or not, and
any unusual conditions such as storms or onshore currents. The actual data
profiles should be included in the application. In some states, coliform
data are also required at the surf zone and nearshore locations.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Suspended solids in a wastefield can affect the light transmittance of
the water column and can form benthic sediment deposits which decay and
consume oxygen. Toxic constituents can also be adsorbed onto the sediment
particles. Suspended solids can thus affect biota directly or because of
the associated benthic oxygen demand or toxic constituents. Water quality
standards relating to suspended solids may be expressed as a general
prohibition against objectionable sludge or bottom deposits, a quantitative
suspended solids or settleable solids concentration, or as a surrogate
parameter. Surrogates include percent light transmittance, turbidity,
secchi disc depth, and extinction coefficient. Because the effluent
suspended solids concentrations are generally available and the
concentration at the completion of initial dilution is easily computed, the
predicted suspended solids concentration may be used as an indicator of
whether the discharge causes a significant change from background
concentrations.
VI-2
-------
TABLE VI-1. EXAMPLE OF AMBIENT WATER QUALITY DATA NEEDED
Station Name:Location
Date:Time
o Suspended
Depth, m DO, mg/1 Temp, C Salinity, ppt pH Solids, mg/1
1
4
7
10
13
16
19
22
25
Weather Conditions:
Wind Speed and Direction:
Unusual Oceanographic Conditions:
Predominant Current Direction:
Effluent Discharging at Time of Sampling
Flow, m /sec:
BOD5, mg/1:
Suspended Solids, mg/1:
VI-3
-------
Suspended Solids at Completion of Initial Dilution
The concentration at the completion of initial dilution should be
calculated using the following equation:
ss . ss
SSf ' SSa
where:
SSf = suspended solids concentration at completion of initial
dilution, mg/1
SSa = ambient suspended solids concentration, mg/1
SSe = effluent suspended solids concentration, mg/1
Sa = initial dilution (flux-averaged).
o
The maximum change, AS, due to the effluent can be computed as follows:
AS = SSe/Sa VI-2
where the terms are as defined above. Equation VI-2 is appropriate as long
as the effluent suspended solids concentration is much greater than the
ambient concentration. During spring runoff in some estuaries, the ambient
suspended solids concentration may exceed the effluent concentration. In
these cases, the final suspended solids concentration will be below the
ambient concentration.
EPA requires data for period(s) of maximum stratification and for other
periods when discharge characteristics, oceanographic conditions, water
quality or biological seasons indicate more critical situations exist. The
critical period is generally when water quality standards are most likely to
be violated. If the standard is expressed as a maximum numerical limit, the
critical period would be when the ambient concentrations are highest and the
initial dilution is low. If the standard is expressed as a numerical
VI-4
-------
difference from ambient, the critical period would be when effluent
concentrations are high and initial dilution low. When the standard is
expressed as a percent difference from ambient, the critical period could
occur when ambient concentrations are low.
Because effluent suspended solids concentrations can vary with
discharge flow rate, the concentration at the completion of initial dilution
should be computed for the minimum, average dry and wet weather, and maximum
flow rates using the associated suspended solids concentration. The range
and average effluent concentrations by month should be provided in the
application. This information should be available from operating records.
The selection of an appropriate ambient suspended solids concentration
may be difficult due to a general lack of data. A common problem for
coastal sites is that measurements may be available only at the mouths of
large rivers. Concentrations are often higher here than further offshore
due to the solids contribution from runoff. Selected values of ambient
suspended solids concentrations are shown in Table VI-2. Ambient suspended
solids data should be obtained at control stations and at the ZID boundary
of the existing discharges. Data should be collected at several depths so
the average concentration over the height" of rise of the plume can be
calculated. This value should be used in Equation VI-1.
Compliance with the water quality standard can be determined directly
if the standard is expressed in the form of suspended solids concentrations.
If only a general standard exists, the maximum increase due to the effluent
should be computed. If the increase is less than 10 percent, then no
significant effect in the water column is likely. However, seabed
deposition could still be significant depending on the mass emission rate of
suspended solids and ambient currents at the discharge site and thus should
be evaluated.
The water quality standards may also specify limitations on the level
of suspended solids removal. For example, California has a requirement that
75 percent of the solids entering publicly owned treatment works (POTW) must
be removed. Compliance with this standard can be determined by estimating
the average removal efficiency for each month based on the average monthly
influent and effluent suspended solids concentrations. The removal
VI-5
-------
TABLE VI-2. SELECTED AMBIENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS
Suspended Solids
Water Body Concentration, mg/1
Cook Inlet, AK 250-1,280
Southern California Bight 0.7-60
Pacific Ocean near San Francisco, CA 1-33
Broad Sound, MA 18.6-25.2
Massachusetts Bay near South Essex 1.2-30.5
New Bedford Harbor, MA 0.4-6.1
East River, NY 6.0-25.6
Ponce, PR (near shore) 13.5
Puget Sound, WA 0.5-2.0
Outer Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA 33-51
Commencement Bay near Puyallup River, WA 23-136
Tacoma Narrows, WA 33-63
Note: Data are from 301(h) applications.
VI-6
-------
efficiency should be equal to or greater than the required percentage in all
months. The applicant should include the monthly average influent and
effluent suspended solids concentrations along with the computed removal
efficiencies.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS DEPOSITION
The applicant is to predict the seabed accumulation resulting from the
discharge of suspended solids into the receiving water. A simplified
approach to accomplish this task is presented here. Although more
sophisticated approaches exist, they usually require more extensive data and
the use of a computer.
The approach described here considers the processes of sediment
deposition, decay of organic materials, and resuspension. However,
prediction of seabed accumulation is based only on the processes of
deposition and decay. Since resuspension is not easily evaluated using
simplified approaches, the analyses described in this chapter consider
resuspension separately and in a more qualitative manner based on measured
current speeds near the bottom in the vicinity of the discharge.
Data Requirements
To predict seabed deposition rates of suspended solids, the following
information is required:
t Suspended solids mass emission rate
t Current speed and direction
• Height of rise of the plume
• Suspended solids settling velocity distribution.
The mass emission rate, in kg/day, is:
M = 86.4(S)(Q) VI-3
VI-7
-------
where:
S = suspended solids concentration, mg/1
Q = volumetric flow rate, nr/sec.
It is suggested that the applicant develop estimates of the suspended
solids mass emission rate for the season (90-day period) critical for seabed
deposition and for a yearly period. If the applicant anticipates the mass
emission rate will increase during the permit term, the mass emission rate
at the end of the permit term should be used.
Current speed data are needed to determine how far from the outfall the
sediments will travel before accumulating on the bottom. Consequently,
depth-averaged values are best, if available. Otherwise, current speeds
near mid-depth may be sufficient. Current data needed for the assessment
are:
• Average value upcoast, when the current is upcoast
t Average value downcoast, when the current is downcoast
t Average value onshore, when the current is onshore
• Average value offshore, when the current is offshore.
If no current data are available, values of 5 cm/sec for longshore transport
and 3 cm/sec for onshore-offshore transport have been found to be reasonable
values.
The plume's trapping levels representative of the critical 90-day
period and representative of an annual cycle are needed. The applicant
should use density profiles, effluent volumetric flow rates, and ambient
currents characteristic of these time periods. Extreme values should not be
used.
If the applicant has not determined a suspended solids settling
velocity distribution, the following can be used (where Vs is settling
velocity) based on data from other section 301(h) applications:
VI-8
-------
Primary or Advanced Primary
5 percent have Vs >_ 0.1 cm/sec
20 percent have V$ >_ 0.01 cm/sec
30 percent have V$ >_ 0.006 cm/sec
50 percent have Vg >_ 0.001 cm/sec
Raw
5 percent have Vg ^ 1.0 cm/sec
20 percent have Vs ^0.5 cm/sec
40 percent have V$ >_ 0.1 cm/sec
60 percent have Vs >_ 0.01 cm/sec
85 percent have Vg >_ 0.001 cm/sec,
The remaining solids settle so slowly that they are assumed to remain
suspended in the water column indefinitely (i.e., they act as colloids).
Consequently, 50 percent of the suspended solids in a treated effluent and
85 percent of those in a raw sewage discharge are assumed to be settleable
in the ambient environment.
Prediction of Deposition
Although a portion of the settled solids is inert, primary concern is
with the organic fraction of the settled solids. For purposes of this
evaluation, composition of the waste discharge can be assumed to be:
• 80 percent organic and 20 percent inorganic, for primary
advanced primary effluent
or
t 50 percent organic and 50 percent inorganic, for raw sewage.
Accumulation should be predicted for the critical 90-day period when
seabed deposition is likely to be highest and for steady-state conditions
where average annual values are used. The results should be presented 1n
graphical form, as shown in Figure VI-1. The applicant will have to
exercise some judgment in developing the contours, especially in accounting
for rapid depth changes offshore. The sediment contours should be expressed
in units of g/m2 and not as an accumulation depth. Supporting tabulations
should be submitted with the application.
To begin computations, the applicant can create a table similar to
Table VI-3. The table shows the amount of organic solids which settle
within each settling velocity group, and the maximum distance from the
VI-9
-------
r
o
KILOMETERS
Figure VI-1. Example of predicted steady-state sediment
accumulation around a marine outfall.
VI-10
-------
TABLE VI-3. EXAMPLE TABULATIONS OF SETTLEABLE ORGANIC COMPONENT
BY GROUP AND MAXIMUM SETTLING DISTANCE BY GROUP
Mass Emission Rate = MT
Organic Component = Mo
Percent by Sett!ing
Velocity Group
5 (Vs = 0.1 cin/sec)
15 (Vs = 0.01 cm/sec)
10 (Vs = 0.006 cm/sec)
20 (V$ = 0.001 cm/sec
0.8 M,, for primary effluent
0.5 MT> for raw effluent
PRIMARY EFFLUENT
Organic Component
by Group
Maximum Settling Distance from Outfall3
Upcoast Dpwncoast Onshore Offshore
02
Os
D,
Dl3
Da
D7
DJJ
D,s
D.
RAW SEWAGE
Percent by Sett! ing
Organic Component
Maximum Settling Distance from Outfall'
Ve'
10 (Vs
10 (Vs
20 (V$
20 (Vs
25 (Vs
locity Group
= 1.0 cm/sec)
= 0.5 cm/sec)
= 0.1 cm/sec)
= 0.01 cm/sec)
= 0.001 cm/sec)
by Group
0.05 MT
0.05 MT
o.io MT
o.io MT
0.125 MT
Sum = 0.425 MT
Upcoast
R:
Rs
R9
Rl3
R:7
Downcoast
R2
Re
Rjo
Rm
RIB
Onshore Offshore
RJ Rk
R? R,
RII RIZ
RIS RIS
R:s R2«
d V H
The distance 0 (or R) is calculated as: D (or R) = -5 I
where
Va - ambient velocity = 5 cm/sec upcoast and downcoast (default) and 3 cm/sec on coast and off
coast (default)
HT = average trapping level of plume, measured above bottom
Vs - appropriate settling velocity by group for primary or raw discharges
If the bottom slope is 5 percent or greater, D should be calculated as follows:
H,
D
where
S = slope, m/m, positive if onshore, negative if offshore.
VI-11
-------
outfall that each group settles. If the applicant has current data for more
than four quadrants, those data can be used. The maximum settling distances
for each group in each direction are calculated using the formula shown in
the footnote of Table VI-3.
Using a sufficiently detailed map (e.g., a NOAA bathymetric chart) each
point D^ through 0^5, or R^ through R2Q» can be plotted with the center of
the diffuser as the reference point. Depositional contours are formed by
the four points D^^D/p R^RsR^ etc. The applicant should join these
points by smooth lines, so the contours are elliptically shaped. If the
applicant has current data at 60° or 30° intervals, instead of the 90°
intervals used here, then the contours could be created more accurately.
The deposition rates corresponding to each contour are found as
follows. First, predict the deposition rate within each contour due to each
individual settling velocity group, as shown in Table VI-4. This quantity
is simply t^/A^, or the group deposition rate divided by the area within the
contour. The area within any contour is a function of the four points Olf
D2, D3> and D^, for example, and is denoted in the table by f(Dj^DgD^). A
planimeter is probably the most accurate method of finding the area. Once
the deposition rates by group have been found, then the total deposition
rate is the sum of all contributing deposition rates. For example, the
innermost contour receives contributions from all groups, while the
outermost contour receives a contribution only from one group.
So far, only organic deposition rates (in units of g/m2/yr) have been
predicted. Now the accumulation of the organic material (S^) can be
predicted by including decay as follows:
f.
i , at steady state
f.
A [1 - exp (-90 k,)], for 90 days
Kd °
VI-4
VI-12
-------
TABLE VI-4. EXAMPLE TABULATIONS OF DEPOSITION RATES AND ACCUMULATION RATES BY CONTOUR
Organic
ponent
0.04
0.12
0.08
0.16
<
i
^ Organic
ponent
0.05 t
0.05 t
0.10 ^
0.10 H
0.125
Mass Corn-
by Group
MT = MI
M__ M
J = "2
M.J. = M3
My = Mi*
Mass Corn-
by Group
1T " Mi
1T « M2
IT " M3
IT = M»
My « Ms
PRIMARY EFFLUENT
Mass Deposition Total Organic Deposition Rate
Bottom Area Rate, by Group within Area (q/m2/yr)
A2 - f(05D$D7D,) M2/A2 MZ/A2+M,/A,+M«/A^ » f2
A3 - f{D,DioDnD,2) M3/A3 M3/A3+M^/A^ = f
A- = f(D,3DuDi5D16) M../A,, MH/A^ = f,,
RAW SEWAGE
Mass Deposition Total Organic Deposition Rate
Bottom Area Rate, by Group within Area (q/m2/yr)
Ai - f(RiR2R3R,,) M,/A, M,/A,iM2/A24Mj/A3+M,/A,+M5/A5 = f,
A2 = f(R5R6R7R,) M2/A2 M2/A2+M,/A,4H»/AH»HS/AS = f,
A3 - f(RjRi0RiiRi2) M,/A, M3/A3+M,/A^M5/A5 = f,
A* = fjRuRuRisRis) M^/A^ MH/A»+MS/AS - f,,
As = f(Ri7RieRi9R2o) M5/A5 MS/AS „ ff
Accumulation (g/m2)
A A
f. f.
IT" r~ [l-exp(-90k .)]
d Kd d
Accumulation (q/m2)
1 i
fi f-
IT F H-^PJ-SOkj)]
I I
Note: Units of f. are g/m2/day.
-------
The f.j are the deposition rates in units of g/m2/day, as contrasted to the
units of g/m2/yr in Table VI-4. The decay rate constant, kd, has a typical
value of 0.01/day.
If the organic deposition rate for annual conditions is 100 g/
for example, the steady state accumulation is:
100 g/tn /yr x ,g,. •%,„„ x n m , . = 27
If the organic deposition rate for the critical 90-day period is 300
g/m2/yr, the 90-day accumulation is:
300 g/m2/yr x * y* x n ni, .,.. x [1 - exp (-90 x 0.01)] = 49 g/m2
VI-6
This example shows that the 90-day accumulation is computed using different
data than for the steady-state case. Consequently, Tables VI-3 and Vl-4
should each be completed twice. Also the accumulation over a critical
90-day period can exceed the steady-state accumulation. This is caused by
short-term deposition" rates which are considerably higher than the long-term
average. In the example, the maximum 90-day deposition rate of 300 g/m2/yr
would eventually decrease to values below 100 g/m2/yr, so that on a yearly
basis the deposition rate is 100 g/m2/yr.
Resuspension of Deposited Sediments
Ambient current speeds in the vicinity of the discharge might be
sufficient to prevent effluent suspended solids from settling and to
resuspend those which have settled. However, it is expected that at most
outfall locations some settling will occur during periods of low ambient
current speeds. Table VI-5 provides criteria for assessing whether or not
resuspension is likely.
VI-14
-------
TABLE VI-5. BOTTOM CURRENT SPEEDS TO INDUCE RESUSPENSION
Untreated Effluent Primary Effluent
Resuspension unlikely 0-6 cm/sec 0-6 cm/sec
Resuspension possible 6-30 cm/sec 6-20 cm/sec
Resuspension probable 30 cm/sec 20 cm/sec
VI-15
-------
If the evidence indicates resuspension is significant, then current
speed data collected in the bottom 2 m (6.6 ft) of the water column should
be submitted. Although speeds are more likely to be higher near the seabed
in shallow water than in deep water, the applicant should not conclude that
it is more advantageous to locate the diffuser in shallow water. Initial
dilutions from shallow water discharges will be less and the potential for
adverse effects on nearshore biological communities and recreational
activities greater.
The applicant should analyze current data to assess the significance of
sediment resuspension. If the applicant has available an extended record of
current speeds, a convenient way of presenting the data is by a cumulative
frequency distribution as shown in Figure VI-2. The three curves represent
current speeds at three depths. This method of presentation clearly reveals
the percent of time current speeds are sufficient to resuspend sediments.
It also puts into better perspective the occasional very high or very low
current speeds which might be recorded. If the applicant has data for
different months of the year, the data for each month should be presented
separately so that seasonal variability can be distinguished. In addition
to plotting the data, the applicant might choose to tabulate the data (as
shown by an example in Table VI-6) to show the distribution of current
speeds in each interval of interest. The example in Table VI-6 illustrates
the possibly large variability by months (e.g., compare May to January). In
January, for example, current speeds of 20 cm/sec were exceeded 45 percent
of the time, Indicating that suspended solids in primary effluent would
probably be resuspended a large portion of the time, and seabed accumulation
would be minimal during this time of year. In contrast, discharge of
untreated effluent during the month of May would probably result in sediment
accumulation since current speeds never exceeded 30 cm/sec.
The applicant should understand that even if resuspension occurs a
certain fraction of time, seabed deposition does not completely cease.
Velocities required to keep the sediments in suspension generally do not
persist indefinitely. Consequently the effluent-related sediments tend to
be reworked and redistributed, but not completely dispersed. Therefore, the
applicant is encouraged to predict seabed accumulation in the absence of
resuspension as an upper limit estimate of seabed accumulation.
VI-16
-------
I
1C
cc
s
90
80 -
70
60
50
40
30
20
12 S 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.8 99.9
PERCENTAGE OF TIME CURRENT SPEED IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO AMOUNT SHOWN
99.99
REFERENCE: FIGURE III-6, SANTA CRUZ 301(h) APPLICATION, 1979.
Figure VI-2. Example cumulative frequency distribution of
current speed.
VI-17
-------
Time Period
TABLE VI-6. EXAMPLE SUMMARY OF CURRENT METER DATA
BY SPEED INTERVAL
Intervals for Primary Discharges
Frequency of Occurrence (Percent)
0-6 cm/sec 6-20 cm/sec >20 cm/sec
May
January
Annual
30
5
15
65
50
65
5
45
20
Time Period
Intervals for Untreated Discharges
Frequency of Occurrence (Percent)
0-6 cm/sec 6-30 cm/sec >30 cm/sec
May
January
Annual
30
5
15
70
80
80
0
15
5
VI-18
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Dissolved oxygen is an important determinant of the water quality of a
receiving water body and thus of the uses of the water body. The discharge
of BOD in municipal wastewater exerts a demand on the oxygen resource of the
water body. In some well-flushed coastal environments, this exertion might
not be significant. However, analyses are to be performed to show
compliance with dissolved oxygen water quality standards. At the present
time, all states have standards for dissolved oxygen rather than for BOD.
Because BOD is chemically related to dissolved oxygen, dissolved oxygen is
an acceptable surrogate for BOD for the purposes of the 301(h) regulations.
The discharged effluent can decrease the dissolved oxygen resource in
the water column at different depths and after varying travel times. The
analyses are to include depletion after initial mixing of the waste plume,
depletion due to BOD exertion in the water column as the wastefield is
dispersed, depletion near the bottom due to the steady demand of
effluent-related sediments, and depletion due to the resuspension of
effluent-related sediments as indicated in Figure VI-3. Methods for
predicting the effect of the effluent for each of these processes are
discussed in the following sections. The selection of critical cases and
minimum data requirements is explained.
Dissolved Oxygen after Initial Dilution
When wastewater is discharged through a single port or a diffuser, the
effluent forms a buoyant plume which entrains ambient water as it rises.
Because the initial dilution process occurs rapidly (i.e., on the order of
minutes), BOD exertion (a relatively slow process) is negligible during this
period. However, an immediate dissolved oxygen demand (IDOD), which
represents the oxygen demand of reduced substances which are rapidly
oxidized (e.g., sulfldes to sul fates), might not be negligible. The
dissolved oxygen concentration following initial dilution can be predicted
using the following expression:
D0f = DO, + (D0e - IDOD - D0a)/Sa VI-7
VI-19
-------
COMPUTE BOOc AFTER
INITIAL DILUTION
ESTIMATED SEDIMENT
DEPOSITION RATE. &
AREA, CURRENT SPEED.
SEDIMENT DECAY RATE
ESTIMATED CONCEN-
TRATION OF RESUSPENDED
SEDIMENT, SEDIMENT
DECAY RATE
COMPUTE OXYGEN
DEMAND DUE TO
STEADY SEDIMENT
OXYGEN DEMAND
COMPUTE OXYGEN
DEMAND DUE TO
SEDIMENT
RESUSPENSION
W
f
k
r
00 DEPRESSION DUE
TO STEADY SEDIMENT
OXYGEN DEMAND
DO DEPRESSION
TO SEDIMENT
RESUSPENSION
DUE
^-
Figure VI-3. Summary of dissolved oxygen analyses,
VI-20
-------
where:
D0f = final dissolved oxygen concentration of receiving water at
the plume's trapping level, mg/1
D0a = ambient dissolved oxygen concentration averaged from the
diffuser port depth to the trapping level, mg/1
D0e = dissolved oxygen of effluent, mg/1
IDOD = immediate dissolved oxygen demand, mg/1
Sa = initial dilution (flux-averaged).
The applicant should use the least favorable combination of values for
effluent dissolved oxygen, IDOD, ambient dissolved oxygen, and initial
dilution. The effluent dissolved oxygen concentration at the point of
discharge from the treatment plant is often 0.0 mg/1. Because the critical
case is desired, a concentration of 0.0 mg/1 is a reasonable value.
However, if data show that dissolved oxygen levels in the effluent are
greater than 0.0 mg/1 during the critical periods, then these data may be
used.
The IDOD values typically vary from 0 to 10 mg/1, but can be higher
depending on the level of treatment and presence of industrial flows. Table
VI-7 can be used to select reasonable IDOD values. Alternatively, the IDOD
can be measured as discussed subsequently. The significance of the effluent
IDOD can be estimated from the tabulation presented below (calculated as
IDOD/S-):
a
Contribution of IDOD to D0f (mg/1)
Initial Dilution
IDOD (mg/1) 10 30 50 100
1
2
5
10
20
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
0.03
0.07
0.17
0.33
0.67
0.02
0.04
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.20
VI-21
-------
TABLE VI-7. TYPICAL IDOD VALUES
Effluent
Treatment Level BODg, mg/1
Untreated or less
than primary
-
-
-
Primary 50-100
-
-
100-150
-
-
150-200
-
-
Advanced primary < 50
-
Travel Time, mina
< 60
60-200
200-300
> 300
0-100
100-300
> 300
0-100
100-300
> 300
0-100
100-300
> 300
0-60
> 60
IDOD, mg/1
5
10
15
20
2
3
4
3
4
5
5
7
8
0
1
a Travel time should include the total travel time from the treatment plant
through the diffuser including any land portion of the outfall.
Note: Information compiled from 301(h) applications.
VI-22
-------
At high initial dilutions, the IDOD contribution is small. Thus, the
expense of laboratory tests may be unwarranted. If IDOD is to be determined
experimentally, the procedures in Standard Methods (APHA 1979) should be
generally followed except that the dilution water should be sea water from
the discharge site instead of distilled water, and the effluent sample
should be incubated anaerobically for a length of time equal to the travel
times from the plant through the diffuser for minimum, average, and maximum
flow conditions. The effluent sample should be mixed with the dilution
water after incubation. The dissolved oxygen of the effluent and dilution
water should be measured separately after incubation and before mixing the
samples. The dissolved oxygen of the mixture should be measured 15 minutes
after preparation.
The IDOD is calculated using the following equation:
(DOn)(Pn) + (S)(PC) - DO
M
IDOD = M VI_8
where:
IDOD = immediate dissolved oxygen demand, mg/1
DOD = dissolved oxygen of dilution water (sea water), mg/1
PD = decimal fraction of dilution water used
S = dissolved oxygen of effluent after incubation, mg/1
PS = decimal fraction of effluent used
DOf^ = dissolved oxygen of mixture after 15 minutes, mg/1.
Several dilutions should be used, preferably close to the actual initial
dilution, unless the difference between the initial and mixed concentrations
is less than 0.1 mg/1. All data used in the above calculations, the
incubation times, and the computed results for each test should be included
in the application.
The lowest initial dilution (flux-averaged) should be used for the
final dissolved oxygen calculation. Usually, this dilution will correspond
to the maximum flow rate at the end of the permit term. Low initial
dilutions can also occur at smaller effluent flow rates if stratification is
VI-23
-------
severe enough. Typically, dilutions during periods of maximum
stratification should be used for the final dissolved oxygen calculation.
The ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations should also represent
critical conditions. Usually, this will be during the maximum
stratification period in the late summer or in the spring when upwelling of
deep ocean water occurs. The ambient data should be from locations not
significantly affected by the discharge or by other waste or thermal
discharges, and at the appropriate depths. Dissolved oxygen data collected
at these locations should be averaged between the depth of the discharge
ports and the plume's trapping level corresponding to the lowest initial
dilution which was used to predict the final dissolved oxygen concentration.
The ambient dissolved oxygen concentration can change significantly as
a function of depth, depending on the estuary or coastal system, as well as
on seasonal influences (e.g., upwelling). As the plume rises during initial
dilution, water from deeper parts of the water column is entrained into the
plume and advected to the plume's trapping level. If the dissolved oxygen
concentration is lower in the bottom of the water column than at the
trapping level, the low dissolved oxygen water is advected to a region
formerly occupied by water containing higher concentrations of dissolved
oxygen. The result is an oxygen depression caused by entrainment.
This oxygen depression caused by the waste discharge and associated
entrainment (ADOj) should be computed as the difference between DOf as
defined in Equation VI-7 and the ambient dissolved oxygen concentration at
the trapping level (D0t).
ADO! = D0t - D0f = D0t - D0a + (D0a + IDOD - D0e)/Sa VI-9
For cases when the effect of entraining low dissolved oxygen water can
be neglected, the oxygen depletion (AD02) should be computed as the
difference between the average ambient oxygen concentration (D0a) in the
entrained water and DO^ as shown below.
AD02 = D0a - D0f = (D0a + IDOD - D0e)/Sa VI-10
VI-24
-------
AD02 can be closely approximated by assuming that D0a = D(k in both
Equations VI-7 and VI-9. Then ADOo = (DO* + IDOD - DO )/S
L- u e a .
These differences can be described as a percentage of the ambient
concentration or as a numerical difference, depending on the requirements of
the state. In some states, the final dissolved oxygen concentration must be
above a specified limit or must be converted to percent saturation to
determine if the final concentration is above a prescribed limit. Dissolved
oxygen saturation can be determined as a function of temperature and
salinity using the method of Green and Carritt (1967) and Hyer et al . (1971)
as tabulated in Table VI-8. The applicant may want to consult with the
state water quality agency to determine if any other methods are used to
determine compliance with the dissolved oxygen standards.
Farfield Dissolved Oxygen Demand
Subsequent to initial dilution, dissolved oxygen in the water column is
consumed by the BOD in the wastefield. The effluent BOD5 after initial
dilution is needed to estimate farfield dissolved oxygen depletion. The
final BOD5 concentration can be estimated using the following expression:
BODf = BODa + (BODe - BODa)/Sa VI-11
where:
= final BOD5 concentration, mg/1
BODg = ambient BODg concentration, mg/1
BODe = effluent BOD5 concentration, mg/1
Sa = initial dilution (flux-averaged).
This equation provides an estimate of the total BOD5 concentration in
the receiving water. The maximum contribution due to the effluent alone can
be determined by dividing the effluent BOD5 concentration by the initial
dilution. This estimate is used later in the estimation of farfield effects
of the effluent. As a critical case, the maximum monthly average effluent
BOD5 concentration should be used with the initial dilution at the average
flow rate. In cases where the BOD5 concentration increases at high flow
rates, the maximum daily BOD5 concentration and initial dilution at the
VI-25
-------
TABLE VI-8. DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION VALUES
Temperature
(° C)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
29
30
20
12.8
12.5
12.1
11.8
11.5
11.3
11.0
10.7
10.5
10.2
10.0
9.6
9.5
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.6
8.4
8.2
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
22
12.6
12.3
12.0
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.9
10.6
10.3
10.1
9.9
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
Dissol
24
12.5
12.2
11.9
11.5
11.3
11.0
10.7
10.5
10.2
10.0
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.5
8.4
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
ved Oxygen Saturation
Sal
26
12.3
12.0
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.8
10.6
10.4
10.1
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
inity,
28
12.1
11.8
11.5
11.2
11.0
10.7
10.4
10.2
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.5
8.3
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
ppt
30
12.0
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.8
10.6
10.3
10.1
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.8
, mg/1
32
11.8
11.5
11.2
10.9
10.7
10.4
10.2
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.7
8.5
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
34
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.8
10.5
10.3
10.0
9.8
9.6
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.5
8.4
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
36
11.5
11.2
10.9
10.7
10.4
10.1
9.9
9.7
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.7
VI-26
-------
maximum flow rate should be used to show what the maximum short-term
concentrations can be. For existing plants, the previous 12 months of
effluent BOD5 data is used to support the selection of a BOD5 concentration.
For proposed or modified treatment plants where effluent data are not
available, monthly average influent BODg data should be provided along with
the range of daily values. The average removal efficiency for the new or
modified plant is also needed to compute estimated effluent BOD5
concentrations.
Three approaches to assessing farfield dissolved oxygen demand are
described here:
• Simplified Mathematical Models predicting dissolved oxygen
depletions using calculation techniques which do not require
computer support
• Numerical Models predicting dissolved oxygen depletions
using a computer
• Evaluation of Field Data using a data-intensive approach
where dissolved oxygen concentrations are measured in the
water column and compared to ambient concentrations.
Before undertaking any analysis to determine if farfield BOD exertion
causes a violation of the dissolved oxygen standard, the applicant should
first check to see if
DOSTD £ D0f - BODfu, for critical conditions VI-12
where:
DOSTD = dissolved oxygen standard
D0f = dissolved oxygen concentration at the completion of
initial dilution
BODfu = ultimate BOD at the completion of initial dilution
(= BODf x 1.46).
VI-27
-------
If the above inequality is true, then the discharge will not violate the
dissolved oxygen standard due to BOD exertion and no further analysis of
farfield BOD exertion is required. If the inequality is not true, then
further analysis is required.
Simplified Mathematical Models--
Oxygen depletion due to coastal or estuarine wastewater discharges is
primarily caused by exertion of BOD, although increased nutrient levels can
affect oxygen concentrations indirectly by altering algal photosynthesis and
respiration rates. BOD consists of a carbonaceous component (CBOD) and
nitrogenous component (NBOD). Both components can contribute to oxygen
depletion. CBOD is often reported as BOD5, the five-day BOD. Before using
BOD to predict oxygen depletion, the applicant should convert it to BODL,
the ultimate BOD, by the following relationship:
BODL = 1.46 BOD5 VI-13
A typical decay rate for CBOD is 0.23/day (base e) at 20° c. A temperature
correction should be made as follows:
kT = 0.23 x 1.0471"'20 VI-14
where:
kj = BOD decay rate at temperature T (° C).
NBOD might not always contribute to oxygen depletion. If the applicant
discharges into open coastal waters where there are no other major
discharges in the vicinity, the background population of nitrifying bacteria
might be negligible. Under these circumstances, the NBOD will not be
exerted immediately. In more enclosed estuarine waters, nitrification in
the water column has been documented from numerous water quality studies.
Applicants should analyze the potential impact of NBOD, if they discharge
into estuarine waters.
NBOD can be estimated based on data for total kjeldahl nitrogen (the
sum of organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen) in the waste discharge using
the following relationship:
VI-28
-------
NBOD = 4.57 (TKN) VI-15
where:
TKN = total kjeldahl nitrogen.
The decay rate of NBOD can be taken as:
kT = 0.10 x 1.0471"-20 VI_16
where:
ky = the decay rate at temperature T (° C)
0.10 = the decay rate at 20° C (base e).
Simplified mathematical models are an acceptable alternative to the
more complex numerical models. The simplest model of oxygen depletion
should generally consider that:
• The wastewater plume is submerged at the completion of
initial dilution for critical conditions (so that direct
reaeration of atmospheric oxygen into the wastefield does
not occur).
• Oxygen depletion is a function of distance from the
discharge and is caused by carbonaceous oxygen demand (CBOD)
and nitrogenous oxygen demand (NBOD).
• The wastefield entrains ambient water as a function of
travel time. Lateral dilution is the predominant mechanism
of entrainment.
If the applicant demonstrates that the plume will always surface, then the
effects of atmospheric reaeration can be included; otherwise they should not
be included.
VI-29
-------
When applying a model which predicts farfield oxygen depletion, it is
suggested that the applicant plot the dissolved oxygen depletion as a
function of travel time so that the behavior of dissolved oxygen levels in
the wastefield can be examined to locate minimum values.
Figure VI-4 shows example oxygen depletion curves as a function of
travel time, where the depletion indicated at time, t=0, denotes the
depletion immediately following initial dilution. The dissolved oxygen
deficits plotted in the figure are relative to the ambient concentration,
and tend to approach zero at travel times longer than those shown in the
figure.
For the three cases, the maximum deficits occur at travel times of:
t 0.0 days for Curve A
• Approximately 0.2 days for Curve B
• Approximately 4.0 days for Curve C.
The primary reason for the difference in magnitude and time of occurrence of
the maximum deficits is the IDOD, which varies from a high of 66 mg/1 for
Curve A to 0.0 mg/1 for Curve C. When the IOOD is 66 mg/1 (a high value,
but one which could be associated with an unusual discharge), the maximum
depletion is caused by initial mixing processes, and not by farfield BOD
exertion. Conversely, when IDOD is 0.0 mg/1, the maximum depletion is
caused by BOD exertion, and occurs at some distance from the discharge.
The simplified farfield oxygen depletion model for coastal waters that
is suggested here is based on an approach developed by Brooks (1960) for
predicting wastefield dilution subsequent to initial dilution. The
dissolved oxygen concentration in the receiving waters can be expressed as a
function of travel time as follows:
D0(t) = DO +
d
D0--D0a
T a
"fc
[l-exp(-kct)]
VI-17
VI-30
-------
0>
X
o
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6-
0.5
0.4-
0.2 -J
Curve
A
B
C
BODf (ultimate)
3.5
3.5
3.5
Initial DO demand
66.
40.
0.
0.1-
00-
^
u.u-j ,
0 1
\
2
l
3
1
4
Travel Time; days
Figure VI-4.
Dissolved oxygen deficit versus travel time
for a submerged wastefield.
VI-31
-------
where:
D0(t) = dissolved oxygen concentration in a submerged wastefield as
a function of travel time, t, mg/1
DO, = ambient dissolved oxygen concentration, mg/1
Q
D0f = dissolved oxygen concentration at the completion of
initial dilution, mg/1
kr = CBOD decay rate constant
c
kn = NBOD decay rate constant
Lfc = ultimate CBOD concentration above ambient at completion
of initial dilution, mg/1
Lf = NBOD concentration above ambient at completion of initial
dilution, mg/1
Ds = dilution attained subsequent to initial dilution as a
function of travel time.
The above equation expresses the dissolved oxygen deficit which arises
due to an initial deficit at the completion of initial dilution (D0a - DOf)
plus that caused by exertion of BOD in the water column. The last term in
the above equation estimates the exertion due to NBOD. The dissolved oxygen
deficit tends to decrease at longer travel times as a result of subsequent
dilution and to increase as a result of BOD exertion. Depending on the
particular case being analyzed, one influence can dominate the other over a
range of travel times so that a minimum dissolved oxygen level can occur
either immediately following initial dilution or at a subsequent travel
time, as previously shown in Figure VI-4.
Prediction of the farfield oxygen distribution requires determination
of the dilution attained within the wastefield as a function of time
following discharge. For open coastal areas, dilution is often predicted
using the 4/3 law (Brooks 1960), which states that the lateral diffusion
coefficient increases as the 4/3 power of the wastefield width. In
mathematical form:
e =
-------
where:
e =
-0
L =
b =
lateral diffusion coefficient, ft2/sec
diffusion coefficient when L = b
width of sewage field at any distance from the ZID, ft
initial width of sewage field (approximately as the longest
dimension.of the ZID), ft.
The initial diffusion coefficient can be predicted from:
£0 = 0.001 b4/3
Based on the 4/3 law, the center!ine dilution, D$ is given by:
/, i^_,__.\i/2r
erf
VI-19
Ds =
VI-20
where:
t = travel time, h
erf = the error function.
The 4/3 law is not always applicable, especially in confined coastal
areas or estuaries. Under these circumstances, it is more conservative to
assume the diffusion coefficient is a constant. The subsequent dilution is
then expressible as:
1/2 1
erf
-1
VI-21
These two equations are cumbersome to use, especially if repeated
applications are needed. To facilitate predicting subsequent dilutions,
values of Ds are tabulated in Table VI-9 for different initial widths (b)
and travel times (t). The initial sewage field widths range from 10 to
5,000 ft and travel times range from 0.5 to 96 hours.
VI-33
-------
I
CO
-p.
TABLE VI-9. SUBSEQUENT DILUTIONS3 FOR VARIOUS INITIAL FIELD WIDTHS AND TRAVEL TIMES
Travel Time(hr) 10
0.5 2.3/ 5.5
1.0 3. 1/ 13.
2.0 4.3/ 32.
4.0 6. I/ 85.
8.0 8.5/>100.
12. 10. />100.
24. 15. />100.
48. 21. />100.
72. 26. />100.
96. 29. />100.
50
1.5/ 2.0
2.0/ 3.9
2'.7/ 8.5
3.7/ 21.
5.2/ 53.
6.3/ 95.
8.9/>100.
13. />100.
15. />100.
18. />100.
Initial Field
100
1.3/ 1.6
1.6/ 2.6
2.2/ 5.1
3.0/ 11.
4. If 29.
5. I/ 50.
7. I/ 100.
10. />100.
12. />100.
14. />100.
Width (ft)
500
l.O/ 1.1
1.2/ 1.3
1.4/ 1.9
1.9/ 3.5
2.5/ 7.3
3.0/ 12.
4.2/ 30.
5.9/ 80.
7.3/>100.
8.4/>100.
1000
l.O/ 1.0
l.l/ 1.1
1.2/ 1.5
1.5/ 2.3
2.0/ 4.4
2.4/ 6.8
3.4/ 16.
4.7/ 41.
5.8/ 73
6.6/100.
5000
l.O/ 1.0
l.O/ 1.0
l.O/ 1.0
l.l/ 1.2
1.4/ 1.7
1.6/ 2.3
2. I/ 4.4
2.8/10.
3.4/17.
3.9/24.
• The dilutions are entered In the table as N/N where
coefficient, and N_ is the dilution assuming the '4/3 law.
is the dilution assumin9 a constant diffusion
-------
The table also reveals that the predicted dilutions are significantly
different, depending on the relationship obeyed by the lateral diffusion
coefficient. In many instances, the 4/3 law might overestimate subsequent
dilution, even if the outfall is in coastal waters. To attain the
subsequent dilutions predicted by the 4/3 law at large travel times, a
significant amount of dilution water must be available. Since many
outfalls, particularly small ones, are often not too far from shore, the
entrapment rate of dilution water can be restricted by the presence of the
shoreline and the depth of the water. As the wastefield widens
significantly, the rate of entrainment could decrease, and the 4/3 law no
longer be obeyed. It is suggested that applicants be conservative and base
subsequent dilution on a constant lateral diffusion coefficient, rather than
the 4/3 law. However, if the applicant can show that the 4/3 law (or some
other relationship) is applicable to the discharge site, then that
relationship should be used.
If the applicant's discharge is near the mouth of a wide estuary, the
approach just discussed can be directly used to predict oxygen depletion.
If, however, the applicant discharges into a long narrow estuary, then it is
likely that the sides of the estuary will limit the lateral dilution which
is attainable. Under these conditions, the maximum dissolved oxygen deficit
(with respect to saturation) can be predicted as:
D =
kW
A(k2-k)
VI-22
where:
D = dissolved oxygen deficit
A = cross-sectional area of the estuary near the discharge site
k = CBOD decay rate constant
^2 = reaeration rate constant
EL = longitudinal dispersion coefficient
W = mass loading rate of CBOD.
The applicant can predict the deficits due to NBOD by using the appropriate
k and W values and adding the two deficits to get the total.
VI-35
-------
Using reasonable values for the constants, the total dissolved oxygen
deficit for discharge to narrow estuaries becomes:
D = (3.14 Wc + 2.55 Wn) 1(T4/A VI'23
where:
A = cross-sectional area in m^
Wc = mass emission rate of CBOD, g/day
Wn = mass emission rate of NBOD, g/day
D = dissolved oxygen deficit, mg/1.
The NBOD term can be added when data are available.
Numerical Models-
Numerical models are an acceptable method of predicting oxygen
depletion caused by a discharge. Numerical models may consider the combined
effect of farfield demand in the water column, as discussed above, and the
oxygen demand associated with organic sediments. If not, the applicant may
have to augment the numerical modeling analysis to address unanswered
questions associated with sediment oxygen demand.
The applicant should try to isolate the impact of the outfall on
dissolved oxygen concentrations by considering that the applicant's
discharge is the sole source of oxygen depletion in the system being
modeled. The applicant can then predict the dissolved oxygen depletion
caused by the discharge (by subtracting the background dissolved oxygen
level from the levels predicted by the model). This approach also
simplifies the applicant's analysis because data from other wastewater
sources are not required.
There are several specific guidelines which can be offered to
applicants who choose to use numerical models. Typically, the most severe
dissolved oxygen depletion due to BOD exertion occurs when the water column
is density stratified and the wastefield remains submerged following initial
dilution. If such conditions occur at the applicant's outfall site, then
VI-36
-------
the numerical model should be layered vertically, with a minimum of two
layers. The plume should be discharged into the bottom layer to simulate
the submerged discharge with the consequence that direct atmospheric
reaeration is not present in this layer.
The applicant should set up the grid system for the numerical model
such that the smallest segments are located in the vicinity of the diffuser
and gradually increase in size with distance from the diffuser. The volume
of the segments in the immediate vicinity of the diffuser should approximate
the volume of the ZID in order to prevent an initial dilution which is
artificially higher than it should be and which would cause the model to
underestimate dissolved oxygen depletion. The applicant might choose to
experiment with grid configuration by starting with a coarse grid and then
decreasing grid size until the model results do not significantly change.
A steady-state numerical model will be acceptable for the dissolved
oxygen analysis because dynamic or unsteady analyses are generally more
costly, more difficult to implement, and require more data. The applicant
should consider, however, whether intratidal variations can cause more
severe depletions than are predicted by a steady-state model which
calculates average oxygen depletions over a tidal cycle. Slack tide, for
example, might be critical because oxygen-demanding materials can accumulate
in the vicinity of the discharge. The applicant might want to augment the
steady-state modeling analysis by an abbreviated sampling program to
determine dissolved oxygen depletions during slack-tide periods within a
tidal cycle. Intratidal variations are likely to be more important in
enclosed estuaries than along open coastal areas.
Evaluation of Field Data--
Extensive field data collection and analysis are required to fully
implement this approach. Limited samples of water column dissolved oxygen
may be inadequate to demonstrate compliance with standards under critical
conditions. Limited information should be supplemented with analyses based
on numerical or simplified mathematical modeling.
These statements should not discourage applicants from collecting and
submitting dissolved oxygen data from the vicinity of a current discharge.
VI-37
-------
To the contrary, such data, if available, should be submitted, particularly
if the section 301(h) application is for a current discharge or for an
improved/altered discharge at the same location. However, the data might
reveal only a portion of the impact of the wastefield, for the following
reasons:
• The location of the maximum oxygen depletion might not be
sampled.
• The sampling program could have been conducted during a
period which was not critical with respect to the discharge
and/or receiving water conditions. Critical discharge
conditions are generally associated with high effluent BOD
and high volumetric flow rates. Critical receiving water
conditions are usually associated with minimum initial
dilutions (maximum density stratification), maximum water
temperatures, and possibly slack-tide conditions.
t Ambient dissolved oxygen concentrations can vary spatially
and temporally for conditions unrelated to the discharge
(e.g., upwelling effects). Consequently, dissolved oxygen
depletions associated with the discharge can be masked by
background variability.
Some applicants might have access to dissolved oxygen demand data
collected adjacent to another outfall at a nearby coastal area and attempt
to use that data to show that their own discharge will not violate dissolved
oxygen standards. This approach can be, but is not always, reliable. The
applicants should include in the application sufficient information such
that the data collection program for the nearby.area can be reviewed, and
then show that the predicted dissolved oxygen depletions are the maximum
likely to be produced at the nearby discharge site. The applicant should
also demonstrate that the results of the nearby discharge are extrapolatable
to the applicant's discharge. Essentially, this means that the dissolved
oxygen depletion at the adjacent discharge (both due to BOD utilization and
sediment oxygen demand) will be as severe, or more severe, than at the
applicant's discharge.
VI-38
-------
Sediment Oxygen Demand
The oxygen depletion due to a steady sediment oxygen demand can be
predicted by:
ADO - SB XM a S kd XM
86,400 UHD = 86,400 UHD VI-24
where:
AJDO = oxygen depletion, mg/1
SB = average benthic oxygen demand over the deposition area,
9 02/m2/day
XM = length of deposition area (generally measured in longshore
direction), m
H = average depth of water column influenced by sediment oxygen
demand, measured above bottom, m
U = minimum sustained current speed over deposition area, m/sec
kd = sediment decay rate constant (0.01/day)
_a = oxygen:sediment stoichiometric ratio (1.07 mg 02/mg sediment)
S = average concentration of deposited organic sediments over the
deposition area, g/m2
D = dilution caused by horizontal entrapment of ambient water
as it passes over the deposition area (always greater than or
equal to 1).
Both S and XM can be determined from the analysis performed in the section
on "Suspended Solids Deposition." Figure VI-1 in that section shows an
example plot of seabed deposition. For that example an appropriate estimate
of S is the average of the maximum and minimum values, or
100 + 5 _ „ 2
2 52 9/m VI-25
VI-39
-------
rt
The distance Xm, measured parallel to the coast and within the 5 g/m
contour, is 8,000 m.
The,depth of water affected by the sediment oxygen demand is not really
a constant value as suggested by the previous formula but varies as a
function of the travel time across the zone of deposition. The affected
depth H (in meters) is chosen to represent the average depth influenced by
the sediment oxygen demand and can be estimated as:
H = 0-H-ir
1/2
VI-26
where:
EZ = vertical diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec).
For the example case where U = 3 cm/sec, XM = 8,000 m, and ez = 1 cm2/sec,
1/2
H = 0.8x(lx8'0°0xl0°) XTk.n-4.lm VI-27
If the applicant desires to compute a value of vertical diffusivity,
the following empirical expression can be used:
P = 10, VI-28
z _! dp_
p dz
where:
ez = vertical diffusion coefficient, cm2/sec
P = ambient water density, kg/m3 (1,024)
^|= ambient density gradient, kg/m4.
The density gradient used should reflect the most severe stratification
condition likely to occur during the critical period.
VI-40
-------
The dilution D can be found from Table VI-9 where the field width is
the width of the deposition area. For the appropriate travel time and field
width the smaller of the two estimates shown in the table should be used.
In the section on "Suspended Solids Deposition," the applicant is asked
to compute the long-term accumulation and the critical 90-day accumulation.
Since the critical 90-day accumulation might exceed the long-term average,
the applicant should use the more critical case when predicting sediment
oxygen demand.
Oxygen Demand due to Resuspension of Sediments
It is more difficult to accurately predict oxygen demand due to
resuspension than due to either farfield BOD decay or a steady benthic
oxygen demand. To simplify the analysis, the approach here considers a
worst-case situation. The amount of sediment to be resuspended is equal to
the critical 90-day accumulation, which is found using the methods discussed
in the above guidance on "Suspended Solids Deposition."
In order for the material to remain suspended the ambient current speed
has to be sufficiently great, so that the volume of water containing the
resuspended material increases over time as ambient water is entrained. It
is assumed that this process continues for up to 24 hours.
The applicant should compute the oxygen depletion as a function of time
during this period. This can be done using the following relationship:
ADO = 7^
vi-29
where:
£0 = oxygen depletion, mg/1
Sr = average concentration (in g/m2) of resuspended organic
sediment (based on 90-day accumulation)
H = depth of water volume containing resuspended materials, m
VI-41
-------
kr = decay rate of resuspended sediments (O.I/day)
t = elapsed time following resuspension, h (t varies from 0 to
24 h)
D = dilution as defined previously (generally set equal to 1).
The variable H is a function of travel time and can be predicted from:
H=U (3,600 te')1/2 VI-30
where:
£2 = vertical diffusion coefficient when resuspension is occurring
(5 cm2/sec)
t = elapsed time following resuspension, h.
The applicant should check to be sure that H does not exceed the water
depth. If it does, set H equal to the water depth.
The concentration of resuspended sediments Sr can be approximated as
the average concentration over the width of the zone of deposition. This
can be determined directly from the contour plots of sediment accumulation,
developed in response to the guidance on "Suspended Solids Deposition."
The applicant should calculate ADO for 3-hour increments for a period
of up to 24 hours. The results can be tabulated as shown below. Submit
data and calculations in the application.
t (hr) DO (mg/1)
0 0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24 predictions
VI-42
-------
Most often a maximum depletion will occur somewhere in the 24-hour period,
with depletions decreasing for larger travel times.
LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE
Increased suspended solids concentrations associated with municipal
discharges can cause a decrease in light penetration within the water
column. Reductions in light penetration can result in a decrease in
phytoplankton productivity as well as a reduction in the areal distribution
of attached macroalgae such as kelp. Therefore, several states have enacted
regulations governing the allowable levels of interference with light
transmittance.
The evaluation of light transmittance may require the measurement of
one or more water clarity parameters and a comparison of recorded values in
the vicinity of the outfall with those recorded in control areas.
Parameters which are widely measured to assess light transmittance
include: turbidity, Secchi disc depth, beam transmittance, and downward
irradiance. While many of the state requirements are very specific in terms
of the light transmittance measurements, others leave the selection of the
sampling methods to the discretion of the applicant.
Turbidity is a measure of the optical clarity of water, and many
standards are written in terms of Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU).
Measurements are made with a nephelometer which provides a comparison of the
light-scattering characteristics of the sample with a standard reference.
Differences in the optical design of nephelometers can cause differences in
measured values even when calibrated against the same turbidity standard.
For this reason, caution must be exercised when comparing measurements of
turbidity made from different field sampling programs.
A Secchi disc is used to make visual observations of water clarity.
Records of the depth at which the Secchi disc is just barely visible can be
used to make comparisons of light transmittance among sampling sites.
Measurements of Secchi disc depth are probably the most widely used means of
estimating light penetration. The Secchi disc is easy to use, accurate over
VI-43
-------
a wide range of conditions, can be used to estimate the attenuation
coefficients for collimated and diffuse light, and therefore, to estimate
the depth of the euphotic zone. However, since a wastewater plume may be
held below the upper regions of this zone during periods of stratification,
Secchi disc measurements may not be appropriate under all conditions.
Beam transmittance is measured with a transmissometer and is a measure
of the attenuation of a collimated beam of artificial light along a fixed
path length (usually 1 meter). The attenuation is caused by both suspended
and dissolved material as well as the water itself. These measurements,
therefore, provide information about both the absorption and scattering
properties of the water. The attenuation of a collimated beam of light in a
water path is described by the Beer-Lambert law:
T = e-ad VI-31
where:
Td = the proportion of light transmitted along a path of length
d, (m)
<*= light attenuation coefficient, (m'1).
Measurements of beam transmittance are made in situ at any depth.
The intensity and attenuation of daylight penetration are measured with
an irradiance meter which utilizes a photovoltaic cell to record incident
light levels. Measurements are made just below the surface and at selected
depth intervals throughout the water column so that light attenuation over
specific depths can be determined. Unlike beam transmittance measurements,
irradiance measurements are influenced by sunlight as well as surface
conditions.
Empirical relationships can be derived among the light transmittance
parameters measured by these methods which permit the estimation of one
parameter based on recorded values of another. The estimation of these
parameters from predicted suspended solids concentrations can also be made.
The derivation of these relationships from existing data, in some instances,
may be sufficient to allow for the demonstration of compliance with state
VI-44
-------
standards. Existing data can also be used to predict the transparency
characteristics in the vicinity of an improved discharge. Alternatively, a
sampling program can be designed which will permit an assessment of
compliance with light transmittance standards based on such empirical
relationships.
Where standards are written in terms of maximum allowable turbidity or
turbidity increase, the ability to predict the turbidity in the receiving
water at the completion of initial dilution can be utilized to demonstrate
compliance. Treating turbidity as a conservative parameter, the turbidity
in the receiving water at the completion of initial dilution can be
predicted as:
Tf = Ta + ^ VI-32
where:
Tf = turbidity in receiving water at the completion of initial
dilution (typical units: NTU or JTU)
Ta = ambient or background turbidity
Te = effluent turbidity
Sfl = initial dilution.
Initial dilution can be predicted based on the methods presented
earlier in the section on Physical Assessment. Equation VI-32 can be used,
then, to directly evaluate compliance with standards written in terms of
maximum allowable turbidity or a turbidity increase.
Laboratory experimental work can also be used in lieu of field sampling
to demonstrate compliance with those standards written in terms of an
allowable turbidity increase. These analyses consist of determining the
turbidity of a seawater effluent-mixture prepared in the same proportions
corresponding to the predicted concentrations following initial dilution.
Experiments should be conducted in such a manner so as to simulate
worst-case conditions. Simulations of expected receiving water turbidity
should be made for periods of highest effluent turbidity (greatest suspended
VI-45
-------
solids concentrations) as well as lowest initial dilutions. Values of the
initial turbidity of the seawater, the effluent mixture, and the simulated
dilution should accompany all test results.
By deriving a relationship between turbidity and Secchi depth and
utilizing the method of prediction for turbidity in the receiving water
following initial dilution (Equation VI-32), an evaluation of compliance
with state standards written in terms of Secchi depth can be made. Secchi
disc and turbidity can be related in the following manner. Assume that the
extinction coefficient of visible light (<*) is directly proportional to
turbidity (T) and inversely proportional to Secchi disc (SD), or:
VI'33
and
a -
VI-34
where kj and k2 are constants which need not be specified since they cancel
out in further calculations. These two relationships have theoretical
bases, as discussed in Austin (1974) and Graham (1966). Combining those two
expressions, the relationship between Secchi disc and turbidity becomes:
r k2 1_ VI-35
T = k SD
When state standards are written in terms of Secchi disc, it is convenient
to combine Equations VI-32 and VI-35 to yield:
i _i_
1 - 1 * SD • SD;
VI-46
-------
or
_i
where:
SDf = minimum allowable Secchi disc reading in receiving water
such that the water quality standard is not violated
SDg = ambient Secchi disc reading
Sg = minimum initial dilution which occurs when the plume
surfaces
S0e = critical Secchi disc depth of effluent.
In this manner, the critical effluent Secchi depth (SDe) can be
calculated. An effluent reading higher than this value indicates that
standards will not be violated. This method of predicting the final Secchi
depth in the receiving water can be utilized to provide an estimate of the
effect of the wastewater discharge on the receiving water. This method
should only be used where the standard is exclusively in terms of the
acceptable decrease in the Secchi depth.
Values of the critical effluent Secchi depth (SDe) calculated using
Equation VI-37 are presented in Table VI-10. In this example, the water
quality standard for the minimum Secchi visibility is 1 m (3.3 ft).
Effluent having a Secchi depth greater than those presented for the selected
ambient conditions and initial dilution will not violate the example
receiving water's clarity standard. Primary effluents typically have Secchi
disc values of 5 to 30 cm (2 to 12 in). For this case, with an initial
dilution greater than 40 and an ambient Secchi depth of 2 m (6.6 ft) or
greater, these calculations indicate that the standard would not be
violated.
Since Secchi disc measurements are made from the water's surface
downward, critical conditions (in terms of the Secchi disc standard) will
occur when the initial dilution is just sufficient to allow the plume to
surface. It is notable that maximum turbidity or light transmittance
impacts of a wastewater plume will occur when the water column is
VI-47
-------
TABLE VI-10. CALCULATED VALUES FOR THE CRITICAL EFFLUENT SECCHI DEPTH (cm)
FOR SELECTED AMBIENT SECCHI DEPTHS, INITIAL DILUTIONS, AND A WATER
QUALITY STANDARD FOR MINIMUM SECCHI DISC VISIBILITY OF 1 m
Initial
Dilution
10
20
40
60
100
2
18
10
5
3
2
Ambient
3
14
7
4
2
1
Secchi
4
13
7
3
2
1
Depth (m)
5
12
6
3
2
1
10
11
6
3
2
1
VI-48
-------
stratified, the plume remains submerged, and initial dilution is a minimum.
Under these same conditions, however, Secchi disc readings might not be
altered at all, if the plume is trapped below the water's surface at a depth
exceeding the ambient Secchi disc depth.
The ability to relate measurements of turbidity to the attenuation
coefficient (a) for collimated light has been demonstrated by Austin (1974).
The attenuation coefficient can be expressed in terms of turbidity as:
<*= k x JTU VI-38
where:
JTU = turbidity, in Jackson Turbidity Units
k = coefficient of proportionality.
Combining Equations VI-31 and VI-38, turbidity can be expressed as:
-In T.
JTU = k(j g VI-39
where:
T^ = fraction of beam transmittance over distance d.
The coefficient of proportionality (k) takes on values between 0.5 and 1.0.
Therefore, in order to utilize these relationships to demonstrate compliance
with a turbidity standard based on existing light transmittance data, the
value of k must be determined empirically. This requires simultaneous
measurements of beam transmittance and determination of turbidity covering
the complete range of existing light transmittance records. If data are not
available, the "k" value can be set equal to 1 as a conservative estimate.
Where a relationship between suspended solids concentration and beam
transmittance data at a particular site can be derived, the suspended solids
concentration at the completion of initial dilution from Equation VI-1 can
be used to predict compliance with standards written in terms of light
transmittance.
VI-49
-------
Field sampling may be required in situations where water clarity has
not been previously measured in the vicinity of the outfall or where the
previously described methods for demonstrating compliance are not
applicable. Minimum sampling should include replicate measurements of the
appropriate water clarity parameters during critical periods defined on the
basis of spatial and temporal variation in effluent quality and
oceanographic conditions. Light transmittance measurements should be made
at the boundary of the ZID and at least one control site. Where the method
of determining compliance with light transmittance regulations is not
specified by the applicable standard, use of a beam transmissometer is
recommended.
The optical properties of coastal waters are influenced by such factors
as a distance from a shore, water depth at the sampling site, and the
proximity to river discharges. Consideration must be given to these factors
when selecting a control sampling location, so that the effects of the
outfall can be isolated. Additionally, where turbidity or beam
transmittance is the parameter measured, sampling should be conducted
throughout the water column at 1- to 3-m (3.3- to 6.6-ft) intervals.
As a general guideline, water clarity measurements should be made both
during periods of maximum flow and maximum effluent concentrations of
suspended solids. However, the prescribed methods can also influence the
selection of critical sampling periods. Where Secchi disc readings are
specified by state regulations, for example, sampling should be conducted
when the plume is known to surface.
Replicate sampling should be conducted at all sampling stations to
permit statistical comparison of all measurements. Replicate surface
observations or profile samples should be collected at each sampling
location. Information on currents in the vicinity of the outfall should be
reviewed so that sampling at the outfall is conducted in that area expected
to be influenced by the wastewater plume.
VI-50
-------
ANALYSIS OF pH
In most settings the influence of a municipal waste discharge on the
receiving water pH is small. This section provides a method to determine
whether the pH change due to a waste discharge is significant and to
determine if standards are violated.
The pH at completion of initial dilution can be estimated from Table
VI-11. The results shown in Table VI-11 were generated by a pH-alkalinity
model based on the carbonate system which simulates the mixing of effluent
and seawater. Because the waste plumes are usually submerged during initial
dilution, no exchange with the atmosphere is included. The results are
based on a seawater alkalinity of 2.3 meq/1 (Stumm and Morgan 1980), and
dissociation constants from Stumm and Morgan (1980) and Dickson and Riley
(1979).
Effluent alkalinity depends on the alkalinity of the source water and
any infiltrating water, the type of treatment process, and the volume and
type of industrial waste entering the treatment plant. Effluent alkalinity
can range from 0 to 6.0 meq/1. A typical value for effluent alkalinity is 2
meq/1 or higher (Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1979). Because alkalinity data are
scarce, final pH values are calculated for a range of alkalinities in Table
VI-11. If significant industrial waste is present or pure oxygen or
nitrification-denitrification treatment processes are used, the effluent pH
and alkalinity should be measured. For cases of weak primary effluents with
no industrial waste components, an alkalinity value of 0.1 meq/1 with an
effluent pH of 6.0 can be used to estimate the final pH. If the lowest
effluent pH is 6.5 or higher, an alkalinity value of 0.5 meq/1 with an
effluent pH of 6.5 can be used to estimate the final pH.
The applicant should first estimate the pH at completion of initial
dilution for the case when the effluent pH is 6.0 and the ambient pH is
equal to the minimum ambient pH in the vicinity of the discharge. The
estimated value should be compared to the appropriate state standard to
determine if the standard is met. If no receiving water pH data are
available, the lower value of the state's allowable pH range can be used.
No further analysis is needed if the state standard is met. If not, the
applicant should discuss the likely frequency of the violations.
VI-51
-------
TABLE VI-11. ESTIMATED pH VALUES AFTER INITIAL DILUTION
Seawater
Temo. 'C
Seawater
pH
5"C
10
Initial Dilution
25 50 75
100
15'C
Initial Dilution
10 25 50 75
100
25-C
10
Initial Dilution
25 50 75
too
Effluent pH = 6.0 Alk • 0.1
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
6.94
7.37
7.56
7.88
8.21
8.43
6.97
7.44
7.64
7.95
8.26
8.47
6.93
7.47
7.67
7.97
8.28
8.48
6.98
7.47
7.67
7.97
8.28
8.48
6.99
7.48
7.68
7.98
8.29
8.49
6.95 6.97 6.98 6.99
7.40 7.45 7.47 7.48
7.59 7.65 7.67 7.68
7.91 7.96 7.98 7.98
8.24 8.27 8.28 8.29
8.45 8.48 8.49 8.49
6.99
7.48
7.63
7.99
8.29
8.49
6.95
7.42
7.62
7.94
8.25
8.46
6.98
7.46
7.66
7.97
8.25
8.48
6.99
7.48
7.68
7.98
3.29
8.49
6,99
7.48
7.68
7.99
8.29
8.49
6.99
7.49
7.69
7.99
8.29
8.49
Effluent pH - 6.0 Alk - 0.6
7.0
7.5
7,7
8.0
8.3
8.5
6.74
6.98
7.07
7.27
7.66
8.01
6.87
7.23
7.39
7.70
8.03
8.33
6.93
7.35
7.53
7.35
3.20
8.42
6.95
7.40
7.59
7.90
8.23
8.44
6.96
7.42
7.61
7.93
8.25
8.46
6.77 6.89 6.94 6.96
7.03 7.27 7.38 7.42
7.16 7.45 7.57 7.61
7.44 7.79 7.90 7.93
7.89 8.15 8.23 8.25
8.18 8.33 8.44 8.46
6.97
7.44
7.63
7.95
8.26
8.47
6.77
7.08
7.24
7.60
8.02
8.27
6.89
7.31
7.51
7.35
8.19
8.41
6.94
7.40
7.60
7.93
3.24
8.45
6.96
7.43
7.64
7.95
3.26
8.47
6.97
7.45
7.65
7.96
8.27
8.47
Effluent pH • 6.0 Alk • 1.0
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
6.63
6.80
6. 86
6.93
7.21
7.51
6.81
7.10
7.23
7.48
7.91
8.20
6.89
7.27
7.43
7.75
3.12
3.35
6.92
7.34
7.52
7.83
8.18
8.40
6.94
7.37
7.56
7.87
8.21
8.42
6.66 6.83 6.90 6.93
6.86 7.15 7.31 7.36
6.94 7.30 7.49 7.56
7.12 7.63 7.82 7.88
7.51 8.04 8.17 8.21
7.89 8.23 8.39 8.42
6.95
7.39
7.59
7.91
8.23
8.44
6.67
6.90
7.01
7.29
7.76
8.06
6.84
7.20
7.38
7.73
8.10
8.32
6.91
7.33
7.53
7.86
8.19
3.40
6.93
7.38
7.58
7.90
8.22
8.42
6.95
7.41
7.61
7.92
8.23
8.43
Effluent pH * 6.0 Alk • 2.0
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
6.45
6.55
6.53
6.64
6.73
6.83
6.63
6.88
6.96
7.11
7.41
7.78
6.81
7.11
7.23
7.49
7.91
8.20
6.86
7.21
7.36
7.66
8.06
8.31
6.89
7.27
7.43
7.75
3.12
8.36
6.48 6.71 6.83 6.83
6.60 6.94 7.16 7.25
7.64 7.04 7.31 7.43
6.73 7.28 7.65 7.77
6.89 7.73 8.06 8.14
7.10 8.07 8.30 8.37
6.90
7.31
7.50
7.83
8.18
8.40
6.50
6.64
6.70
6.33
7.11
7.48
6.72
6.99
7.12
7.45
7.91
8.18
6.84
7.20
7.39
7.75
8.12
8.35
6.88
7.29
7.49
7.84
8.13
8.40
6.91
7.34
7.54
7.88
8.21
8.42
Effluent pH • 6.5 Alk - 0.5
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
6.92
7.32
7.49
7.80
8.15
8.38
6.96
7.42
7.61
7.92
8.24
8.45
6.93
7.45
7.65
7.96
3.26
8.47
6.98
7.47
7.66
7.97
8.27
8.48
6.99
7.47
7.67
7.97
8.28
8.48
6.93 6.97 6.98 6.98
7.34 7.43 7.46 7.47
7.53 7.63 7.66 7.67
7.85 7.94 7.96 7.97
8.19 8.25 8.27 8.27
8.40 8.45 8.47 8.47
6.99
7.48
7.67
7.98
8.28
8.48
6.93
7.37
7.55
7.88
8.20
8.40
6.97
7.44
7.64
7.94
8.25
8.44
6.98
7.46
7.66
7.96
8.26
3.46
6.98
7.47
7.67
7.97
8.27
8.46
6.99
7.48
7.67
7.97
8.27
8.46
Effluent pH • 6.5 Alk - 1.0
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
6.85
7.18
7.31
7.60
8.00
8.26
6.93
7.35
7.53
7.34
8.19
8.41
6.96
7.42
7.61
7.92
"3.24
8.45
6.97
7.44
7.64
7.95
8.26
8.47
5.98
7.46
7.65
7.96
8.27
8.47
6.87 6.94 6.97 6.98
7.22 7.37 7.43 7.45
7.39 7.57 7.63 7.65
7.72 7.89 7.94 7.96
8.09 8.22 8.26 8.27
8.33 8.43 8.46 8.47
6.98
7.46
7.66
7.97
3.28
8.48
6.33
7.26
7.45
7.80
8.14
8.36
6.94
7.40
7.60
7.92
8.24
8.44
6.97
7.45
7.65
7.96
8.27
8.47
6.98
7.46
7.66
7.97
8.23
8.48
6.98
7.47
7.67
7.98
8.28
8.48
Effluent pH - 6.5 Alk • 2.0
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
6.75
6.99
7.07
7.25
7.61
7.95
6.83
7.23
7.38
7.67
8.06
8.30
6.93
7.35
7.53
7.34
8.18
8.40
6.95
7.39
7.58
7.89
8.22
8.43
6.96
7.42
7.61
7.92
8.24
8.45
6.78 6.89 6.94 6.96
7.04 7.27 7.37 7.41
7.15 7.44 7.56 7.61
7.41 7.77 7.88 7.92
7.84 8.13 8.21 8.23
8.12 8.35 8.42 8.44
6.97
7.43
7.63
7.94
8.25
8.45
6.79
7.08
7.23
7.55
7.96
8.20
6.90
7.30
7.49
7.82
8.16
8.36
6.94
7.39
7.59
7.90
8.22
8.42
6.96
7.42
7.62
7.93
8.24
8.43
6.97
7.44
7.64
7.94
8.25
8.44
Effluent pH • 9.0 AU - 2.0
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
7.03
7.52
7.71
8.00
8.30
8. SO
7.01
7.51
7.70
8.00
8.30
3. SO
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.04 7.01 7.00 7.00
7.51 7.50 7.50 7.50
7.70 7.70 7.70 7.70
8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
8.30 8.30 8.30 3.30
8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.04
7.51
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
3.30
8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
Effluent pH * 9.0 Alk - 4.0
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
7.07
7.54
7.71
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.03
7.51
7.70
8.00
3.30
8.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
3.00
3.30
3.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
3.30
8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
3.30
8.50
7.08 7.03 7.01 7.01
7.54 7.51 7.50 7.50
7.71 7.70 7.70 7.70
8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
8.30 3.30 3.30 8.30
8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8. SO
7.08
7.53
7.70
8.00
8.30
8. SO
7.03
7.51
7.70
8.00
3.30
8.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
3.00
8.30
8.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
3.00
3.30
8.50
7.00
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
Effluent pH « 9.0 Alk • 6.0
7.0
7.5
7.7
8.0
8.3
8.5
7.10
7.56
7.72
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.04
7.52
7.71
8.00
3.30
3 50
7.02
7.51
7.70
8.00
3.30
3.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
3.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.11 7.04 7.02 7.01
7.56 7.52 7.51 7.50
7.71 7.70 7.70 7.70
8.00 3.00 8.00 8.00
8.30 8. JO 8.30 8.30
8.50 • 8.50 8.50 3.50
7.01
7. SO
7.70
8.00
8.30
3.50
7.11
7.54
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.05
7.51
7.70
8.00
8.30
3.50
7.02
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8. SO
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
7.01
7.50
7.70
8.00
8.30
8.50
Note.
Values are s**own to 2 decimal places to al
comparison to
nterpolation but should be rounded to 1 decimal place for
VI-52
-------
If the effluent pH drops below 6.0, the applicant should indicate
approximately how many times per year effluent pH values below 6.0 occurred
and what the suspected cause was. If effluent pH values below 6.0 occur
frequently, a laboratory test of pH after mixing the effluent and seawater
should be done for the critical conditions. The sample mixture should not
be allowed to equilibrate with the atmosphere. The pH should be measured at
close intervals until no further change in pH is observed. The applicant
should describe conditions of the test including temperature, pH, and
alkalinity of the effluent and seawater, initial dilution, and the measured
values after mixing. The measured values should then be compared to the
applicable standard to determine if a violation is likely. The frequency of
any violations should be estimated.
OTHER PARAMETERS COVERED BY APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
This section provides guidance for evaluating the effects of the
discharge on other parameters for which water quality standards may exist.
Parameters which may be included are total dissolved gases, coliform
bacteria, chlorine residual, temperature, salinity, radioactivity, and
nutrients. Parameters concerned with aesthetic effects which also may be
included are color, floating material, taste and odor, and hydrocarbons
(i.e., grease and oil). For most dischargers, temperature, salinity, and
radioactivity standards are unlikely to be violated. Aesthetic effects are
more likely to occur when the plume surfaces and the dilution is low.
Compliance with aesthetic standards can best be checked by field
observations at the discharge site and along the shore.
Total Dissolved Gases
Several states have a limit for total dissolved gases of 110 percent of
saturation. Supersaturation of dissolved gases is not considered to be a
likely problem for municipal wastewater discharges to the marine environment
and is not discussed further.
VI-53
-------
Chlorine Residual
Chlorine residual standards may be expressed as a concentration limit
in the effluent or as a maximum concentration in the receiving water at the
completion of initial dilution. If the effluent is not chlorinated, no
further information is required. If the standard is expressed as an
effluent limit, chlorine residual data from treatment plant operating
reports, or other sources, should be presented in the application. If no
data are available, then the procedure for chlorination, including the
compound used, quantity, and occurrence of any operational problems, should
be described. If the standard is expressed as a maximum limit at the
completion of initial dilution, the concentration in the receiving water,
assuming the ambient concentration is 0.0 mg/1, can be estimated as follows:
Clf = Cle/Sa VI-40
where:
Clf = chlorine residual at completion of initial dilution, mg/1
Cle = chlorine residual in effluent, mg/1
Sa = lowest flux-averaged initial dilution.
As a worst-case approach, the maximum observed chlorine residual in the
effluent should be used with the lowest dilution. If violations are
predicted, the applicable water quality standard may require information on
the frequency of occurrence.
Nutri ents
Standards can be expressed as maximum receiving water concentrations of
total nitrogen or total phosphorus or as a general prohibition on amounts
which would cause objectionable aquatic life. In general, for small
discharges when the initial dilution is large, nutrients are not likely to
cause problems. Appropriate state agencies should be contacted to ascertain
if algal blooms, red tides, or other unusual biological activity have
occurred near the discharge site in the past.
VI-54
-------
Receiving water and effluent nutrient data can be used to estimate
concentrations at the completion of initial dilution. For screening
purposes, the nutrients can be treated as conservative parameters. The
concentration is estimated as follows in a similar manner to suspended
solids:
C - C
Cf = C + -^ VI-41
T a oa
where:
Ca = background concentration, mg/1
Ce = effluent concentration, mg/1
Sa = initial dilution (flux-averaged)
Cf = concentration at the completion of initial dilution, mg/1.
The predicted concentration can then be compared to the state standard.
Since water quality criteria are often prescribed as maximum values not
to be exceeded following initial dilution, it is useful to rearrange the
above equation to express the maximum allowable effluent concentration as
follows:
(Ce>max " ca + < Vmin
-------
Coin form Bacteria
Standards may exist for total or fecal coliform bacteria and are
usually expressed as a mean or median bacterial count and a maximum limit
which cannot be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the samples. If the
effluent is continuously disinfected using chlorination or an equivalent
process, analyses for coliform bacteria may be needed only to verify the
effectiveness of disinfection. If disinfection is done part of the year,
analyses should be representative of conditions when the effluent is not so
treated. The chemicals used, quantities, and frequency of use should be
provided along with a discussion of the reliability of the system.
The coliform bacteria count at the completion of initial dilution due
to the discharge can be estimated as follows:
Bf = Be/Sa VI-43
where:
Be = effluent coliform bacteria count, MPN/100 ml
Sa = initial dilution.
As a conservative approach, the maximum effluent count and the lowest
initial dilution should be used. If onshore currents occur only during a
particular season, the coliform count at the completion of initial dilution
can be estimated using the lowest initial dilution appropriate for that
season. Effluent coliform data should be submitted to support the
applicant's values. The predicted value can be compared with the
appropriate standard at the ZID boundary. This value can also be used to
estimate the bacterial concentration at specific locations away from the
ZID.
Because different limits may apply to specific areas (e.g., shellfish
harvesting areas, beaches, diving areas), the maximum bacterial count at a
specified distance from the discharge may be of concern. This bacterial
count can be estimated in a manner analagous to the estimation of the BOD
exerted as the wastefield spreads out from the ZID. The maximum bacterial
VI-56
-------
count at the center!ine of the wastefield can be estimated as a function of
distance from the discharge as follows:
3
Bx = Bfl + -p--! exp (-k *) vi-44
where:
BX = coliform bacteria count at distance x from ZID, MPN/100 ml
Ba = ambient coliform bacteria count, MPN/100 ml
B^: = coliform bacteria count at completion of initial dilution,
MPN/100 ml
DS = dilution attained subsequent to initial dilution at distance x
k = coliform bacteria decay rate, I/day
X = distance to desired area, m
U = current speed, m/day
when x=0, Bx=Bf. In cases where the background bacterial count is
negligible or the effect of the discharge alone is desired, the terms for
the ambient bacterial count can be dropped, simplifying Equation VI-44 to:
Bf
Bx = F" exp ("kt) VI~45
where:
X
t = travel time in days (-g).
and other terms are as defined previously. Values for subsequent dilution
as a function of travel time and initial wastefield width for open coastal
areas and large estuaries were listed in Table VI-9. Guidance is included
in the Farfield Dissolved Oxygen Demand section of this document on methods
for estimating subsequent dilution for sites located in narrow estuaries or
bays.
VI-57
-------
The decay rate typically used for col iform bacteria is 0.5 to 1.0/day.
The decay rate is influenced by water temperature, incident light, salinity,
and other factors. As a conservative estimate, the minimum decay rate
should be used. If no violations would occur, then further calculations are
not needed. Flocculation and sedimentation can cause an apparent decrease
in coliform count in the water column, but the bacteria are retained in the
sediment. Thus, this process is not included in the above approach. If the
applicant has information indicating that the decay rate at the discharge
site should be a different value, the revised decay rate may be used. The
evidence for the revised decay rate, including any data or results of
laboratory tests, should be included in the application.
The estimated coliform count at the location of interest should be
compared to the applicable standard. If a violation is predicted, the water
quality standards may require that the approximate frequency should be
discussed based on the percentage or likelihood of currents transporting the
wastefield in the direction of interest.
IMPACTS ON WATER SUPPLIES AND OTHER SOURCES
Water Supplies
At the present time in the United States, there are only a few
desalinization plants, designed to provide potable water and most of these
are used for research purposes. Table VI-12 lists desalinization plants
identified through the 301(h) review process. The applicant should contact
the state water quality and public health departments, any local military
facilities, and local water supply departments to determine if any plants
exist or are planned. If no desal inization plants or other water supply
intakes exist within 16 km (10 mi) of the outfall, no analyses are required.
The name of the agencies contacted and the person involved should be listed
in the application.
If a water supply intake does exist, the location should be shown on a
map with the discharge site marked. The travel time to the intake should be
estimated using the average current speed. The applicant should show that
all water quality standards are met at the intake using the methods
discussed in this document.
YI-58
-------
TABLE VI-12. KNOWN DESALINIZATION PLANTS
Plant Location Status Purpose
Rosarito, Mexico operating water supply
California-American Water Company
at San Diego Bay, CA closed water supply
Virginia Beach, VA proposed water supply
Santa Catalina Island, CA operating water supply
VI-59
-------
Other Sources
The 301(h) regulations require an analysis of whether the modified
discharge would result in additional pollution control requirements on other
point or nonpoint sources.
For open coastal waters, a list of pollutant sources within 3.2 km (2
mi) of the applicant's outfall will provide a reasonable scope of interest.
The effect of an applicant's discharge on other sources can be estimated by
estimating the total dilution at the source. The total dilution is the
initial dilution times the subsequent dilution. The subsequent dilution at
each outfall can be estimated using Table Vl-9 in the Dissolved Oxygen
Section of this document. If the effect of the applicant's outfall is small
at the other source, no further analysis is needed. For most small
discharges, the effects on other sources will be negligible. If not, but
water quality standards are met at the other source, then increased
treatment at that source would not be necessary.
In estuaries where outfalls are close together, effects on other
sources are possible. A similar approach as above can be used to estimate
the total dilution at the other outfalls.
VI-60
-------
VII. MARINE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
The purpose of this section is to provide guidance on appropriate
methods to assess the biological effects of the discharge. Information
sources, basic approaches and levels of documentation are described. The
applicant is referred to the document entitled "The Design of 301(h)
Monitoring Programs for Municipal Wastewater Discharges to Marine Waters"
for specific guidance on study design, sampling procedures, and analytical
techniques. In addition, sampling guidelines for demersal fishes, benthic
macroinvertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton, and intertidal assemblages
are available in the following respective EPA publications: Mearns and
Allen (1978); Swartz (1978); Jacobs and Grant (1978); Stofan and Grant
(1978); and Gonor and Kemp (1978).
The extent of documentation provided by the applicant in the marine
biological assessment should reflect the quality and quantity of the
effluent and the sensitivity of the receiving environment. Data
requirements will be less for applicants without substantial industrial
waste sources whose discharges into ocean waters do not potentially affect
distinctive habitats of limited distribution or important fishery resources.
The most technical and comprehensive documentation will be required for
large discharges with substantial industrial wastes located in stressed,
saline estuarine waters.
BASIC INFORMATION
Applicants are to submit certain basic descriptions of biological
communities in the vicinity of the sewage outfall. EPA's regulations place
special emphasis on marine communities which, because of their ecological
significance or direct value to man, deserve special protection from impacts
of sewage discharges. Examples of such communities include coral reefs,
seagrass beds, kelp beds, rocky intertidal areas (where not common), and
fish/shellfish resources of commercial or recreational importance.
VII-1
-------
In addition, large applicants are to submit descriptions of
representative biological communities in the receiving water body. These
descriptions will form the basis for the comparative balanced indigenous
population (BIP) demonstrations. Thus, it is important that the applicant
assess biological community characteristics at a minimum of four sites:
within the ZID, at or immediately beyond the ZID boundary, within the
expected discharge impact area outside the ZID, and at appropriate reference
sites.
POTW effluent discharges have been shown to affect fishes and
invertebrates of commercial or recreational importance. Of special
importance are factors such as bioaccumulation of toxic substances or
disease which may reduce the market acceptability of the catch or may result
in potential effects in humans. Many studies have suggested a relationship
between the incidence of disease in marine organisms and the effects of POTW
effluents. These diseases include exophthalmia in spotfin croakers,
Roncador stearnsi_1_, and white seabass, Cy no scion nobilis; lip papilloma in
white croakers, G e n yon emus 1i n e a t u s; and discoloration in halibut,
Paralichthys californucus (Young 1964); fin erosion in fishes of the New
York Bight (Mahoney et al . , 1973); and fin erosion in Dover sole,
Macrostomus pacificus (Mearns and Sherwood 1974; McDermott-Ehrlich et al.,
1977). Bioaccumul ation of chlorinated hydrocarbons and trace metals has
been reported in marine organsisms collected near sewage outfalls off
Southern California. Affected species included the Dover sole, Microstores
pacificus; rock crab., Cancer anthonyi; mussel, My til us californianus; and
rock scallop, Hinnites multirugosus (Young et al., 1976a; Young et al., 1978;
McDermott-Ehrlich et al., 1978; and McDermott et al., 1976).
Applications, at a minimum, should be based on all available data. The
need for field surveys to collect additional data should be assessed by the
applicant. If additional data are needed, the development of a plan of
study (as suggested or required by EPA regulations, depending on when the
data are to be collected) will provide an opportunity for EPA to consult
with the applicant on data collection, timing, procedures, and analyses.
This process will greatly reduce the potential for unnecessary field surveys
and thereby maximize cost-effectiveness of data collection.
VII-2
-------
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
Assessment of impacts on fisheries is important because of economic
significance, recreational potential, and the potential for human
consumption of contaminated organisms. For this assessment, the applicant
should specify whether species of recreational and/or commercial importance
occur in the following areas:
• In the immediate vicinity of the discharge
t In the general region of the discharge
t As migrants through the region.
The immediate vicinity of a discharge includes the outfall structure
and the area which is associated with the discharge plume and/or which is
clearly impacted by discharged sediment deposition. The spatial extent of
fishery data will depend on the size and potential effects of the discharge
and on the characteristics of the data. In general an applicant should
consider fisheries occurring within areas potentially influenced by the
discharge. Many state fish and game agencies have established coastal
statistical areas for recording fisheries data. In this case, an applicant
can consider regional fisheries as those occurring in the statistical block
which includes the outfall. If an outfall is located within an embayment or
estuary where fisheries occur, an applicant should address these activities
throughout the coastal water body. If the applicant identifies fishery
resources in the receiving water body, the distance(s) of the fishery
resources from the discharge should also be provided.
If the applicant identifies fishing areas in the vicinity of the
discharge, the following information should be provided:
• Magnitude of the fisheries
a. Effort levels (e.g., number of vessels or number of
fishermen)
b. Economic value of landings or sport fishery
VII-3
-------
• Temporal pattern of the fisheries.
The applicant should also determine if any potential, unharvested
fishery resources occur in the area due to warnings or closures. If
unharvested resources are identified, the applicant should indicate the
reason(s) why these resources are not utilized, including such aspects as:
• Health related factors (including paralytic shellfish
poisoning, bacteriological contamination, and
bioaccumulation of toxic substances)
t Economic or marketing considerations
• Resource protection closures
• Other regulatory closures.
If reasons for closures are due to tissue contamination, the applicant
should specify the pollutant sources identified as contributing to the
contaminant levels.
Many sources of information are available to address the fish and
fishery concerns outlined above. Applicants should consider contacting:
1. Local fi shermen
2. Public, institutional, and agency libraries
3. Academic institutions (e.g., marine science, biology,
zoology departments; Sea Grant offices; cooperative fishery
research units)
4. Local (e.g., conservation boards), state (e.g., fish and
game departments), and federal (e.g., National Marine
Fisheries Service, Fish and Wildlife Service) natural
resource agencies and affiliated laboratories
VII-4
-------
5. Regional fishery management councils (contact information
available from National Marine Fisheries Service)
6. State and federal environmental protection and public health
agencies.
The informational needs, sources, and types of data available are
summarized in Table VII-1. This is not an exhaustive listing but is meant
to provide an overview of important considerations and the most likely
sources and types of information which may be expected to be available for a
given area.
It will be to an applicant's advantage to request specific types of
information relevant to the outfall location so that an efficient review of
pertinent data may be made. Therefore, an applicant should carefully design
a systematic information search strategy. The applicant should also
document all personal communications by requesting an affidavit from
recognized authorities contacted or by completing a detailed contact report.
Two limitations are generally inherent in state compiled fisheries
data. First, the data are generally at least 1 to 2 years old when
summarized. Second, the landing records are summarized over relatively
large statistical areas. Thus, it is difficult to describe the magnitude of
a fishery in the vicinity of a particular point such as a discharge. To
overcome these difficulties, larger applicants should contact the
appropriate fisheries personnel who are responsible for compiling the
statistics from the area which includes the discharge. In many cases, the
agency will maintain field stations where fishery biologists are
particularly well acquainted with the local fisheries. While these
biologists may not be able to provide precise figures for the specific
outfall area, a qualitative estimate of the magnitude of the fisheries may
be possible. In addition, the biologists may be able to provide data which
are more current than that available from summarized statistical records.
Both the natural resource agencies and the regional fishery management
councils will be able to provide information on areas, seasons, and
regulations for fisheries. These sources may also be called upon to suggest
particular fishery experts which may provide additional information on the
fish species or fisheries of interest to an applicant.
VII-5
-------
TABLE VII-1. FISH AND FISHERIES INFORMATION NEEDS, SOURCES, AND TYPES
Information Needs
Information Sources
Information Types
Background information on
fish and fisheries
Characterization of fish
community (species composi-
tion, distribution, abundance)
Characterization of recrea-
tional and commercial
fisheries
Fish health (bioaccumulation,
disease, mass mortalities)
Public health considerations
Economic/marketing factors
Libraries
Academic institutions
Natural resource agencies
Natural resource agencies
Regional fishery councils
Academic institutions
Academic institutions
Natural resource agencies
Environmental and public
health agencies
Federal and state natural
resource agencies
Published literature, unpub-
lished technical reports,
and other "grey" literature
Survey data
Fishing areas, seasons, and
regulations
Effort, catch, and value
statistics
Laboratory analyses, survey
data, fish kill reports
Closures, warnings, documented
incidents, laboratory analysis
Fishing regulations, market
demands, prices and availability
-------
Environmental protection and public health agencies should be contacted
to obtain information on fish health in the vicinity of an outfall. These
agencies monitor water quality and levels of coliform bacteria in shellfish
as part of a national public health program. These agencies will also
provide information on paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) if it is known to
occur in the geographic area. Depending on the distribution of fishery
resources and pollutant levels in receiving waters, the agencies may also
conduct laboratory studies on toxic bioaccumul ation in fish species taken
for human consumption. An applicant should request all available
information concerning the region and immediate vicinity of the discharge
and attempt to determine the discharge's contribution to any observed fish
health problems with the assistance of agency personnel. A conclusion by
agency personnel that the discharge is not contributing to public health
problems should be documented by the applicant.
State departments of environmental protection or ecology are generally
involved with recording the occurrence of fish kills within state waters.
Typically, a report is filed by a departmental agent who investigated the
kill, recording such information as the severity of the incident and
probable cause(s). An applicant should request and review reports of
relevant fish kills and document whether the discharge has been implicated
in any of these incidents.
Most environmental protection and public health agencies do not
routinely assess the health status of fish unless a serious problem with
toxics bioaccumulation is suspected in species sought by commercial and/or
recreational fishermen. Sources of information on fish disease or
abnormalities include academic institutions or fisheries agencies which may
have conducted fish surveys in the vicinity of an outfall.
In summary, there are a number of sources which an applicant should
consider contacting to obtain information on fish and fisheries in the
vicinity of a discharge. A careful review of the available information
should enable a smaller applicant to characterize the local fish communities
and fisheries without the need for an actual field survey unless there is
sufficient evidence to indicate that the discharge has, or is likely to,
adversely impact important fish resources. The applicant may also use these
VII-7
-------
informational surveys to determine the kinds of field studies, if any,
required to assess fish communities near the discharge.
Distinctive Habitats of Limited Distribution
Distinctive habitats of limited distribution may be highly susceptible
to impacts from sewage discharges. These habitats include, but are not
limited to, coral reefs, kelp beds, seagrass meadows, spawning or nursery
areas for commercial species, sites of aesthetic appeal to man and rocky
intertidal habitats (where they are uncommon). The relatively high
sensitivity of distinctive habitats results from the potential effects of
discharged suspended solids and nutrients on the unique floral (e.g., kelp,
seagrass) or fauna! (e.g., coral) components of the communities. Moreover,
the potential for adverse effects of bioaccumulation of toxic substances is
also relatively high since sessile floral and faunal organisms may
constitute important trophic pathways within these communities. These
attached communities are also susceptible because of the potential for
continuous exposure to the effluent plume.
The scientific literature indicates that many of the distinctive
habitats may be particularly sensitive to POTW discharges. Johannes (1975)
identified several mechanisms through which sewage effluents have disrupted
coral reefs. These include turbidity, elevated phosphate content of the
water, anaerobic sediment conditions, and the stimulation of the growth of
algae mats which suffocate coral. Zieman (1975) reviewed several instances
in which POTW effluents have caused or contributed to the disappearance of
seagrass beds. Murray and Littler (1974) found that one of the most
obvious effects of a discharge on the intertidal zone was a great reduction
in the normal overstory provided by brown algae and the spermatophytes.
Carlisle (1969) and others have suggested that kelp may not be able to
survive in areas affected by particulates from POTW discharges.
The applicant must present a general description of habitat types
within the receiving water environment. Special attention should be given
to the presence of distinctive habitats of limited distribution. The
applicant must provide the following information regarding distinctive
habitats:
VII-8
-------
• Kinds of distinctive habitats occurring in the general
vicinity of the discharge
• Distribution of the habitat in the region
• Approximate distance from the discharge to potentially
impacted habitats.
The basic information supplied by the applicant is expected to be
descriptive in nature, and should not require field surveys. Possible
sources for information on distinctive habitats include:
• Contacts with local offices of state conservation agencies
t Review of literature, especially resource maps available for
many areas.
Since most distinctive habitats are visible to a surface observer, the
applicant may also use direct visual observation of the marine environment
in the discharge vicinity.
The primary emphasis of the applicant's discussion should be oriented
towards an assessment of the potential for contact of the effluent plume
with any nearby distinctive habitats. The minimum informational
requirements would be associated with cases in which there are no known
distinctive habitats in areas potentially affected by the discharge. If
distinctive habitats are identified in the region, the appl icant must
indicate, using the basic assessments of effluent dilution and dispersion
discussed in Chapters V and VI, the potential for significant solids
deposition or localized eutrophication at the habitat sites.
In cases where a distinctive habitat occurs near a marine outfall, the
applicant can evaluate impacts by considering:
• Degree of initial dilution
• Degree of farfield dispersion
VII-9
-------
• Frequency and direction of waste transport
• Lack of prior appreciable harm.
If available, additional important information which could be supplied
by the applicant would include documentation of any long-term changes in
spatial extent or general health of the distinctive habitat. Examples of
such information would include areal extent of kelp beds or condition of
algal cover on coral reefs. If historical changes in the habitat have
occurred, the applicant should attempt to relate those changes to natural or
pollution-related events. For example, coral reefs may be extensively
damaged by severe storms, and trampling by heavy pedestrian traffic can
impact rocky intertidal communities.
FIELD SURVEYS
For large discharges and for all dischargers where basic information
indicates a likelihood of impact of the sewage discharge on marine
biological communities, or that some impacts are already being manifested,
the applicant should conduct one or more field surveys to document the
extent and magnitude of such effects. The following are examples of the
kinds of basic information which would indicate the need for site-specific
field surveys:
1. Inadequate diffuser design or low initial dilution;
2. Poor flushing characteristics of receiving water body;
3. High concentrations of toxic substances in effluent;
4. Empirical or theoretical evidence for accumulation of
discharged solids near the discharge;
5. Distinctive habitats of limited distribution or important
fisheries in the discharge vicinity;
6. Observed fish kills near discharge;
VII-10
-------
7. Evidence of regional degradation of biological communities
due to other pollutant sources;
8. Previously identified impacts caused by the discharge which
have not been adequately characterized.
Because of the impact potential of large discharges and the previously
documented effects of those discharges, it is expected that field studies of
biological communities will be required in all cases to adequately assess
impacts. The required data may result from past studies conducted by the
applicant or from studies developed as part of the applicant's plan of
study.
Surveys at Reference Sites
The BIP concept is discussed extensively in Chapter II. The
demonstration of a BIP requires a comparison of biological characteristics
near the discharge with those at one or more reference sites. Thus, the
selection of an adequate reference site(s) forms an important aspect of
field survey design.
Reference sites used for BIP demonstrations should be selected to
reflect the physical and chemical characteristics which would be expected to
occur at the discharge site in the absence of pollution. Those
characteristics might include temperature, salinity, depth, substrate
composition and hydrographic regime. Additional reference sites may be
required for distinctive habitats of limited distribution, such as coral
reefs, spawning grounds, seagrass beds, and kelp beds, when they occur in
the discharge area. Different reference sites may be necessary for
assessing each of the biological communities that may be impacted by the
applicant's discharge. For example, a suitable reference site for the
infaunal benthos might not be acceptable for demersal fishes. Demersal
fishes are mobile and a suitable reference site must preclude the
possibility that specimens collected as controls could have recently
inhabited the immediate vicinity of the discharge.
Reference sites should not be subjected to ecologically significant
sources of pollution. Ideally they should be totally unpolluted, but it may
VII-11
-------
be impossible to locate a comparable site that has not been perturbed or
contaminated to some extent by man's activities. The level of contamination
at the reference site should not be sufficient to cause alterations in
natural population or community characteristics.
EPA recognizes the difficulty of locating suitable reference sites for
field investigations of marine pollution. Natural variations occur in the
structure and function of balanced, indigenous populations. Hence, the
agency does not expect applicants to demonstrate that biological conditions
near the zone of initial dilution are identical to biological conditions at
the reference site(s). In conducting a BIP demonstration for an ocean
discharge, the applicant should compare the range of variability of
biological conditions immediately beyond the ZID with the range of natural
variability of biological conditions at the control site(s). Applicants
with estuarine discharges should also compare the variability of within-ZID
communities with the range of natural variability.
Surveys beyond the ZID
EPA recognizes that, due to logistical and navigational constraints,
the applicant may not be able to collect samples immediately beyond the ZID.
For discharges into water depths < 30 m, applicants may use diver-collected
samples or use diver deployment of a marker buoy at the outfall location,
enabling more accurate station positioning of ZID and near-ZID stations.
Station positioning at deeper discharges may be more difficult because of
uncertainties in discharge and vessel locations. Thus, ZID-boundary benthos
or water column samples should be collected within a distance from the ZID
equal to the water depth at the outfall site. If fish sampling is
conducted, stations should be located within 250 m of the ZID boundary for
all outfall depths. ZID-boundary sampling stations should be located at the
same depth as the discharge. Applicants supplying biological data collected
prior to these guidelines should supply information on biological
communities located as close as possible to the ZID.
Additional biological surveys should be conducted where currents or
other factors cause an accumulation of effluent components (in the water
column or on the seabed) away from the boundary of the ZID. Results of
solids deposition analyses will be important for determining the need for
VII-12
-------
additional survey sites in areas of potential discharge-related impact
beyond the ZID.
The survey design should enable detection of substantial variation in
environmental conditions when this occurs near the ZID. If distinctive
habitats of limited distribution are likely to be exposed to the applicant's
discharge, additional sampling should be conducted at both the exposed
habitat and at appropriate reference sites.
In assessing the marine communities near the ZID in relation to control
communities, the applicant should provide several descriptive biological
characteristics rather than relying on a single characteristic. Community
characteristics to be described by the applicant shall include, but not be
limited to, species composition, abundance, dominance, diversity,
spatial/temporal distribution, trophic structure, and presence of indicator
species. The variability of each biological characteristic at the reference
area(s) should be compared with its variability near the discharge.
However, the assessment of the presence or absence of a BIP should not only
involve these individual comparisons, but should be conducted by an overall
consideration of the integrated characteristics of all communities studied.
Surveys within the ZID
Applicants are to assess biological conditions within the ZID.
Within-ZID surveys may be supplemented by other available data (e.g., from
other comparable discharges) to characterize biological assemblages within
the ZID or to predict response of those communities. Such data will be
considered in evaluating compliance with within-ZID biological requirements
or the need for additional data collections. Certain major environmental
perturbations within the ZID are unacceptable. These include, but are not
limited to, the destruction of distinctive habitats of limited distribution
(e.g., coral reefs, nursery and spawning grounds, and shellfish, grass and
kelp beds); the presence of disease epicenters (fin rot, liver hematoma,
lesions of fish and shellfish, or other pathogenic micro-organisms which
present potential hazards to human health); the occurrence of mass
mortalities of marine organisms; or unacceptable accumulation of toxic
substances in commercially or recreationally harvestable fish and shellfish.
VII-13
-------
Biological Communities Sampled
In determining presence or absence of a BIP the applicant may consider
several biological community types such as demersal or pelagic fishes,
benthic macroinvertebrates, phytoplankton, zooplankton, macroalgae, and
intertidal assemblages. An extensive analysis of each of these communities
will not usually be necessary; however, the applicant is to provide a
rationale for the selection of communities to be examined. If one or more
of the aforementioned communities are found, or are expected, to be affected
by the applicant's discharge, the applicant is encouraged to assess other
communities to provide a more comprehensive evaluation of overall biological
conditions near the outfall. As a minimum, an applicant should generally
assess impacts on benthic communities such as infaunal and epifaunal
macroinvertebrates and demersal fishes. The following sections provide
general study design considerations for major community types. The
applicant is referred to "Design of 301(h) Monitoring Programs for Municipal
Wastewater Discharges to Marine Waters" for specific field sampling program
guidance.
BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
The macrofaunal benthos will often provide an appropriate assemblage
for assessing impacts of a discharge. Benthic animals tend to be relatively
long-lived, permanent residents of an area. They are sensitive to both
sediment and bottom- water quality and reflect the integrated effects of
long-term environmental conditions.
For discharges of primarily domestic wastes, the potential impacts on
benthic organisms result mainly from an accumulation of organic material in
the sediments near the outfall. The enrichment of sediments by organic
wastes can modify the normal trophic structure of benthic communities (e.g.,
change from suspension feeders to deposit feeders). Moreover, high
deposition rates can cause anoxic surficial sediments, resulting in
communities dominated by pollution-tolerant species.
Benthic surveys should be designed to assess the intensity and spatial
extent of community changes attributable to the applicant's discharge. They
should also yield data which are adequate to perform valid statistical and
VII-14
-------
community analyses. To meet these objectives, general guidelines are
suggested below.
Benthic stations should be occupied in both nearfield and farfield
areas of the receiving environment. Nearfield and farfield areas may be
determined from results of the suspended solids deposition analysis. In
general, two or more stations should be occupied in the immediate discharge
area (i.e., within and near the ZID), and two or more stations should be
occupied beyond the immediate discharge area but within the region
influenced by POTW effluent. The total number and locations of the benthic
survey stations should reflect the size of the discharge, the hydrography of
the receiving environment, and the projected area of maximum suspended
solids deposition. The greater the projected area of impact, the greater
the number of stations which should be occupied.
Each applicant conducting a benthic survey should also occupy one or
more control stations in an area similar to that of the discharge, but
unaffected by pollutants from any anthropogenic sources. These sites will
provide baseline data on community structure and function in the absence of
all pollutant stresses. Proper selection of these sites is critical to
meeting the objectives of the benthic survey.
Applicant's discharging into stressed waters should also occupy one or
more stressed control sites. Benthic conditions at these sites should
reflect ambient stresses in the receiving environment which are not
specifically attributable to the applicant's discharge. Data from these
sites will be used to determine whether or not the applicant's discharge
contributes to, or perpetuates, alterations of benthic community structure
and function in addition to those generated by ambient levels of stress. As
with unstressed control sites, proper selection of these site(s) is critical
to meeting the objectives of the benthic survey.
Data collected during a benthic survey should include abundance
estimates for all dominant taxa at each site, and biomass estimates for each
site. These data should be adequate to perform valid statistical and
community analyses for the purposes of determining whether or not:
VII-15
-------
1. Benthic community structure in the discharge area differs
from that in the control area
2. Benthic biomass in the discharge area differs from that in
the control area
3. Opportunistic or pollution-tolerant species dominate benthic
communities in the discharge area
4. Anoxic sediment conditions occur in the discharge area
5. Distinctive habitats of limited distribution (when present)
are adversely affected by the applicant's discharge
6. The applicant's discharge contributes to, or perpetuates,
ambient stresses in the receiving environment (stressed
water discharges only).
Structural characteristics of benthic communities can provide adequate
evidence of effluent impacts. These characteristics include densities and
biomass of individual species, species richness, dominance, diversity, and
spatial distribution patterns. The distribution of indicator species known
to be particularly tolerant or sensitive to sewage-related perturbations
should be emphasized since such characteristics form an important component
of a BIP. The dominance of pollution-resistant or opportunistic species
such as capitellid polychaetes may increase in disrupted marine habitats.
Such species are rarely dominant under natural, unstressed marine
conditions. Thus, the applicant should compare the abundances of such
species at the reference site(s) and at sites located just beyond the ZID.
The applicant should consult Word et al . (1977) and Pearson and Rosenberg
(1978) for examples of indicator species.
When the applicant's discharge is located in an area exhibiting soft
substrates, sediment data must also be collected simultaneously at each
sampling site. These data should include grain size composition and a
measure of organic content. Data on Kjeldahl nitrogen, sediment BOD, and
other sediment parameters may also be collected. Sediment data will be used
to determine whether or not correlations exist between benthic community
VII-16
-------
structure and attributes of the sedimentary environment in the receiving
waters.
FISHES
Sewage discharges have been demonstrated to influence demersal fish
communities at discharge locations. Observed responses include changes in
abundance and increases in disease prevalence.
Alterations in fish abundance may be due to a number of factors. Many
outfall pipes are located in sandy or muddy areas where the structural
components of the outfall provide an artificial reef for species which might
not normally occur in the region. Demersal fishes (e.g., flounder, sole)
are susceptible to impact from POTW discharges due to their limited mobility
(compared to pelagic fishes) and direct physical contact with bottom
sediments. Demersal fishes also have preferences for specific substrate
types and may either be attracted to, or avoid, sediments enriched with
discharged organic material. Demersal fishes may respond to the same
potential substrate-related effects of POTW discharges as would benthic
macroinvertebrates, or they may respond to changes in benthic infaunal
communities (e.g., food availability). Due to the inherent difficulties in
assessing distributional effects on fishes, such studies should be
considered as secondary to studies of benthic macroinvertebrates in cases
where basic data indicates the need for field surveys. Thus, the results of
benthic macroinvertetrate studies may be used as an indication of the need
for additional surveys of fishes. The following effects manifested in the
benthos indicate the need for fish surveys:
• Significant reductions in the biomass of benthic organisms
• Reduced or increased abundances of important fish food
organisms (e.g., amphipods)
• Bioaccumulation of toxic substances in important fish food
organisms.
The following are additional considerations which should be used to
evaluate the need for fish surveys:
VII-17
-------
0 The extent of commercial or recreational fish resources in
the immediate vicinity of the discharge
• The occurrence of fisheries for these resources in the
immediate vicinity of the discharge
t The potential for bioaccumul ation of toxic substances
commercial or recreational fish or invertebrate species
• The occurrence of disease, abnormalities, or mass
mortalities in commercial or recreational species in the
immediate vicinity of the discharge.
EPA regulations require applicants to address the occurrence and value
of commercial and recreational fisheries in the outfall area. The potential
for bioaccumulation of toxic substances should also be considered. As
discussed above, the potential for bioaccumulation varies depending upon the
species which inhabit the area. Pelagic and diadromous fishes have a low
probability of risk since populations of these species are transient in
nature. Shellfish and demersal fishes are less mobile and remain in
virtually continuous contact with sediments. Thus, demersal species are
considerably more susceptible to contamination from polluted sediments than
are pelagic species. Therefore, if demersal and shellfish species are
exploited in the immediate vicinity of an outfall where bioaccumulation is
likely to occur (as evidenced by contamination of sediments or benthos), a
field survey should be conducted.
BIOACCUMULATION
The discharge of sewage effluents containing toxic substances can
result in bioaccumulation, especially in areas of organic sediment
accumulation. The two general categories of substances with the highest
potential for bioaccumulation in marine organisms are toxic heavy metals and
persistent synthetic organic compounds. The identification of substantial
concentrations of such substances in the plant effluent in combination with
either of the following receiving water characteristics indicates the need
for evaluation of bioaccumulation:
VII-18
-------
1. Evidence of effluent transport towards areas utilized for
shellfish harvesting
2. Significant occurrence of important recreational or
commercial species and evidence of potential sediment
accumulation in the outfall vicinity.
The potential for bioaccumulation may be evaluated by the applicant by
comparing the concentrations of toxic substances after initial dilution with
EPA saltwater criteria. Two types of information are required for this
comparison:
1. Concentration of the pollutant in the discharged effluent
2. Critical initial dilution.
The value of (1) divided by (2) should then be compared with the
available criteria value.
Most of the toxic substances with a high bioaccumulation potential will
be associated with organic particulates in the discharged effluent. Thus,
in determining bioaccumulation potential, it is important not only to
evaluate concentrations of these substances in the effluent and in the
receiving water following initial dilution, but also to examine sediment
accumulation patterns. For such substances, water quality criteria may be
met, but significant bioaccumulation can potentially occur due to localized
accumulation of contaminated sediments. Alternatively, the applicant may be
able to demonstrate that bioaccumulation is not a serious problem, even
though toxic substances are present in the effluent, by providing
information demonstrating:
• Adequate initial dilution
• Sufficient circulation to prevent localized accumulation of
solids or trapping of effluent plumes.
VII-19
-------
The degree to which the applicant may be required to assess
bioaccumulation using field surveys is also dependent upon the kinds of
organisms present. Several studies have demonstrated the ability of bivalve
molluscs and crustaceans to accumulate metals and organic substances near
sewage discharges (Young et al., 1976b; Young et al., 1978). Studies at
some of the same sites and at other contaminated areas have indicated that
demersal marine fishes do not generally accumulate metals in muscle tissue
{with the exception of organic mercury) but accumulate organic substances
such as high molecular weight chlorinated hydrocarbons (McDermott-Ehrlich et
al., 1978; McDermott et al., 1976). Thus, in cases where an effluent has
significant levels of heavy metals, the potential data requirements would be
greater if shellfish resources occurred in potentially impacted areas than
if fishes constituted the only locally important resources. Furthermore,
the potential for bioaccumulation would be less if fishes with only
transitory plume exposure were present (e.g., pelagic or migratory species)
than if demersal species dominated in areas of sediment deposition.
Sessile filter-feeding molluscs which are highly susceptible to
bioaccumulation, and which may also be important commercial or recreational
resources, are generally found in near-shore habitats, especially in
embayments or estuaries. If an applicant can demonstrate that shellfish
resources do not occur in the outfall vicinity or in other areas potentially
impacted by the discharge, and/or that effluent dispersion is adequate,
tissue analyses of indigenous biota may not be required to demonstrate the
absence of adverse bioaccumulation. Discharges located in areas with
limited dispersion, such as estuaries or embayments, may cause contamination
of local shellfish resources. In such cases, the applicant should conduct
analyses of tissue concentrations of toxic substances identified in the
plant effluent. Examples of species which may be appropriate for tissue
analyses include oysters, clams, mussels, crabs, or lobsters. An additional
situation which will influence the requirement for direct assessment of
bioaccumulation is where other pollutant sources cause observed
contamination of fish or shellfish resources. This would especially pertain
to cases of nearby fishery closures or harvesting restrictions due to
pollutant inputs. In such cases it is important for the applicant to
demonstrate that its discharge is not contributing to the existing
contamination. This demonstration can be accomplished by the previously
described analyses of effluent pollutant concentrations and initial
YII-20
-------
dilutions, or by evaluation of existing information on the spatial patterns
of pollutant concentrations in organisms or sediments. It may be necessary
for the applicant to conduct tissue or sediment analyses if effluent and
dilution analyses indicate the potential for bioaccumulation and sufficient
data are not available to determine pollutant sources in areas of existing
contamination of fishery resources.
PLANKTON
Plankton are, by their very nature, transient and not permanent
residents of an area. Hence, it is less likely that plankton will undergo
severe adverse impacts of sewage discharge than for certain other biotic
groups. Phytoplankton are more likely to be adversely affected than are
zooplankton.
The most likely direct effect of sewage effluent on phytopl ankton
communities is enhancement or inhibition of primary production. Enhancement
may occur in areas where the phytopl ankton are naturally nutrient limited,
since sewage effluent may represent a significant source of nutrients.
Inhibition may occur if there are sufficient concentrations of toxic or
inhibitory substances in the effluent.
Relatively minor enhancement of phytoplankton primary production may be
viewed as a beneficial effect, since it may lead towards increased
production at higher trophic levels. More extensive stimulation of algal
production may contribute to eutrophication of the receiving water body,
however, and an overabundance of phytoplankton may cause depletion of
dissolved oxygen upon decomposition of the algae. Dissolved oxygen
deficiencies may be responsible for fish kills or the deaths of other marine
organisms. Conditions contributing to severe eutrophication might include
the following:
• Discharge of sewage effluent into oligotrophic waters
• Inadequate initial dilution
• Re-entrainment of the diluted effluent into the effluent
plume
VII-21
-------
• Poor flushing of the receiving water body.
Dissolved oxygen deficiencies may also result from decomposition of the
organic matter contained in sewage. Numerous fish kills have occurred which
can be attributed to eutrophication and/or decomposition of the organic
matter contained in sewage (Tsai 1975).
An applicant may be able to demonstrate that adverse eutrophication of
the receiving water body is not occurring, or will not occur, by providing
information demonstrating:
• Degree of initial dilution
• Sufficient circulation to provide flushing of the receiving
water body and to prevent re-entrainment of the effluent
plume
• Absence of evidence suggesting kills of fishes or .other
organisms
• Adequate dissolved oxygen concentrations in the receiving
water body.
These demonstrations would generally not require field surveys and are
discussed as basic informational requirements in the preceding sections.
If there is evidence of dissolved oxygen deficiencies and/or fish kills
in the local area, the applicant may be able to demonstrate that
eutrophication is not the cause. If phytoplankton production is greatly
enhanced, the standing stock of phytoplankton may be expected to be higher
than in reference areas. Measurement of chlorophyll a_ concentrations is an
indirect method of estimating the standing stock of phytoplankton. The
applicant may demonstrate that chlorophyll £ concentrations in the general
vicinity of the outfall are not significantly higher than those in
appropriate reference areas. If this is the case, dissolved oxygen
deficiencies and/or fish kills may be due to other causes (e.g., high BOD
levels in the sewage effluent or other pollutant sources in the area).
VII-22
-------
In situations where field surveys of phytoplankton are indicated, the
applicant may assess standing stock (chlorophyll a^, species composition, or
primary production (14C light-dark bottle technique). The measurement of
primary production is more complicated and subject to varying
interpretations. Since the ecological consequences of small-scale changes
in production as measured by available techniques are obscure, the applicant
should consider standing stock measurements and taxonomic analyses of
phytoplankton communities as constituents of a basic phytoplankton survey.
Measurements of primary production would serve as supplementary studies,
especially in cases of very large discharges into sensitive receiving
environments.
While many alterations in phytoplankton community composition would not
have drastic ecological effects, one such alteration is of considerable
concern. Toxic dinoflagellate species occasionally bloom in some geographic
areas, resulting in the closure of fisheries for some shellfish due to the
possibility of paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). While conclusive
evidence is lacking, there have been suggestions that the nutrients
contained in POTW effluents may stimulate such blooms [cf. Tsai (1975); Doig
and Martin (1974); Dunstan and Menzel (1971)]. Consequently, the applicant
should document historic occurrences of toxic dinoflagellate blooms in the
vicinity of the outfall. Local health department officials may provide
information on PSP-related closures of shell fishing grounds in the area.
For zooplankton, there is not likely to be a direct functional response
to the discharge of sewage effluents similar to the enhancement or
inhibition of phytoplankton primary production. Toxic effects of sewage
effluent on zooplankton are possible if there are sufficient concentrations
of toxic substances in the effluent. Alteration of zooplankton community
composition is a distinct possibility in areas where the phytoplankton
community composition has been affected, since many zooplankton graze on
phytoplankton. Given the smaller proportion of their life spans spent
within the sphere of influence of the discharge, zooplankton are less likely
to experience changes in community composition than are phytoplankton.
Zooplankton typically have highly variable distributions (Jacobs and
Grant 1978), requiring numerous samples over closely spaced intervals of
space and time to achieve precise estimates of abundance. Zooplankton are
VII-23
-------
also subject to significant, natural variations in abundance and species
composition, requiring collection of samples at intervals throughout the
entire year. Taxonomic analysis of these samples is time consuming and
costly, and it requires the services of a competent zooplankton taxonomist.
Discharge-related alterations in zooplankton community composition are
not only less likely to occur than are changes among the phytoplankton, but
they are also less likely to have drastic ecological effects. Alterations
in zooplankton community composition could have effects on organisms at
higher trophic levels, many of which feed either directly or indirectly on
zooplankton, but considering the localized nature of any possible effects on
zooplankton, the possibility of such higher level effects is relatively
remote. Thus, conducting zooplankton field surveys should always be
considered secondary to phytoplankton surveys.
VII-24
-------
VIII. TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL PROGRAMS
The toxics control program is designed to identify and assure control
of toxic pollutants and pesticides discharged to the POTW. The section
301(h) toxic control regulations require both industrial and nonindustrial
source control programs. However, the control of industrial sources is
separately addressed by pretreatment program regulations [40 CFR Section
403.8(d)] that require all industrial pretreatment programs to be approved
by July 1, 1983. The concern of section 301 (h) with regard to industrial
pretreatment is therefore that applicants adhere to section 403 program
requirements and compliance schedules.
EPA's section 301(h) toxics control program regulations apply to all
applicants. However, small applicants who certify that there are no known
or suspected sources of toxic pollutants and pesticides to the POTW are
relieved of most of the cost burden for toxic control program development.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Toxic pollutants and pesticides are defined in 125.58(u) and (m),
respectively, and include those compounds listed in Table VIII-1.
Analytical procedures described in Sampling and Analysis Procedures for
Screening of Industrial Effluents for Priority Pollutants (EPA 1977) and
Federal Register, December 3, 1979 (pages 69464-69575) must be followed.
Additional guidance for sampling and analysis is contained in "Design of
301(h) Monitoring Programs for Municipal Wastewater Discharges to Marine
Waters."
EPA's regulations require applicants to submit results of wet- and
dry-weather analyses of the treatment plant effluent. If available,
influent data would also be helpful. If historic data are available, they
should be presented as well. Results of the analyses should be tabulated in
a summary form to allow an evaluation of the toxic quality of the discharge.
The applicant should describe the sampling effort by describing the
VIII-1
-------
TABLE VIII-1. TOXIC POLLUTANTS AND PESTICIDES
AS DEFINED IN 125.58(u) and (m)
Pesticides
Demeton
Guthion
Malathion
Methoxychlor
Mi rex
Parathion
Toxic Pollutants
1. Acenaphthene
2. Acrolein
3. Acrylonitrile
4. Aldrin/Dieldrin
5. Antimony and compounds
6. Arsenic and compounds
7. Asbestos
8. Benzene
9. Benzidine
10. Beryllium and compounds
11. Cadmium and compounds
12. Carbon tetrachloride
13. Chlordane (technical mixture
and metabol ites)
14. Chlorinated benzenes (other
than dichlorobenzenes)
15. Chlorinated ethanes (including
1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and
hexachloroethane)
16. Chloroalkyl ethers (chloro-
methyl, chloroethyl, and mixed
ethers)
17. Chlorinated naphthalene
18. Chlorinated phenols (other
than those listed elsewhere;
includes trichlorophenols and
chlorinated cresols)
19. Chloroform
20. 2-chlorophenol
21. Chromium and compounds
22. Copper and compounds
23. Cyanides
24. DDT and metabolites
25. Dichlorobenzenes (1,2-, 1,3-,
and 1,4-dichlorobenzenes)
26. Dichlorobenzidine
27. Dichloroethylenes (1,1- and
1,2-dichloroethylene)
28. 2,4-dichlorophenol
VIII-2
-------
TABLE VIII-1. (Continued).
29. Dichloropropane and dichlo
propene
30. 2,4-dimethyl phenol
31. Dinitrotoluene
32. Diphenylhydrazine
33. Endosulfan and metabolites
34. Endrin and metabolites
35. Ethyl benzene
36. Fluoranthene
37. Haloethers (other than tho
listed elsewhere; includes
chlorophenylphenyl ethers,
bromophenylphenyl ether,
bis(dichloroisopropyl) eth
bis-(chloroethoxy) methane
polychlorinated diphenyl e
38. Halomethanes (other than
listed elsewhere; includes
methylene chloride, methyl
chloride, methyl bromide, b
form, and dichlorobromomet
39. Heptachlor and metabolites
40. Hexachlorobutadiene
41. Hexachlorocyclohexane
42. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
43. Isophorone
44. Lead and compounds
o-
r,
and
hers)
hose
omo-
ane)
45. Mercury and compounds
46. Naphthalene
47. Nickel and compounds
48. Nitrobenzene
49. Nitrophenols (including 2,4-
dinitrophenol, dinitrocresol)
50. Nitrosamines
51. Pentachlorophenol
52. Phenol
53. Phthalate esters
54. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
55. Polynuclear aromatic hydro-
carbons (including benzanthra-
cenes, benzopyrenes, benzo-
fluoranthene, chrysenes,
dibenzanthracenes, and
indenopyrenes)
56. Selenium and compounds
57. Silver and compounds
58. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD)
59. Tetrachloroethylene
60. Thallium and compounds
61. Toluene
62. Toxaphene
63. Trichloroethylene
64. Vinyl chloride
65. Zinc and compounds
Bis (chloromethyl) ether was
EPA 1981a).
Dichlorodifluoromethane and t
toxic pollutant list (U.S. EPA
emoved from the toxic pollutant list (U.S.
ichlorofluoromethane were removed from the
981b).
VIII-3
-------
procedures for collecting, compositing, and preserving the samples. The
number of grab samples taken for volatile organics analysis should be
included in the discussion.
Rainfall data submitted for at least 5 days preceding the sampling will
confirm wet or dry conditions at the time of sampling. Past analyses
(Feiler 1980) have shown toxics concentrations to be significantly higher
during Monday through Friday as opposed to Saturday and Sunday. It is
therefore recommended that composite effluent samples not be collected on
weekends unless it can be shown that another sampling period is more
representative.
Analytical methods should be discussed, with appropriate references to
published analytical procedures. The identity of the analytical laboratory
should be given. Quality assurance procedures used on the analysis should
be summarized, and results presented for review. Differences between the
wet- and dry-weather analysis should be explained, if possible. Also, a
comparison with past results could be made.
Sources of detected toxic pollutants must be identified and, to the
extent practicable, categorized according to industrial and nonindustrial
origins. The purpose of this identification and categorization is to
provide a useful reference for toxics monitoring and source controls. If
the applicant recognizes that the source list requires improvement,
procedures to accomplish this should be described. In-system sampling and
analysis, industrial discharge analysis, permit data, and site inspections
could yield quantitative information as to sources of identified priority
pollutants.
INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
In this section the applicant should clearly present the history of
compliance with the section 403 industrial pretreatment program. If such a
program has already been approved by EPA it is necessary to indicate only
the date of approval. If the program has not been approved, a schedule of
activities, including the expected date of submittal to EPA, leading to
section 403 compliance must be provided.
VIII-4
-------
NONINDUSTRIAL SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAM
sediment
The purpose of nonindustri
specific nonindustrial sources
then to develop specific means
must address this requirement
suspected water quality,
associated with toxic pollutant
requirements, the applicant she
schedule and description of p
control nonindustrial sources
minimum, all applicants must de\
limit nonindustrial sources.
articles, posters, or radio <
increase public awareness of t
solvents, herbicides, pestici
pollutants and pesticides.
1 source control programs is to identify the
of priority pollutants and pesticides and
for their control. All large dischargers
is well as small dischargers with known or
accumulation, or biological problems
or pesticides. To properly address these
uld describe current programs or present a
Deposed programs designed to identify and
of toxic pollutants and pesticides. At a
el op a public education program designed to
This may include preparation of newspaper
nd television announcements designed to
e need for proper disposal of waste oils,
(fles, and other substances containing toxic
searches, in-system sampling
products commonly released to
Activities to identify nonindustrial sources could include literature
i
other POTW operators having a similar mix of users
and analysis, research on nonindustrial
the sewer, and pooling of information with
There are no clearly defi
which an applicant should apply
level of effort is expected
discharger, however. For examp
the service area may find it
analysis to explain the occurre
led rules to determine the level of effort
to identify nonindustrial sources. This
o be directly related to the size of the
e, dischargers with diverse land uses within
njecessary to perform in-system sampling and
ice of toxic pollutants and pesticides.
i
Concentrations of pollutants within the system not accounted for by
industrial sources are genera
Applicants should therefore
ly attributable to nonindustrial sources.
e careful not to duplicate any in-system
sampling efforts performed fojr compliance with industrial pretreatment
regulations.
Extensive control measures
produce concentrations of toxic
may be necessary where nonindustrial sources
pollutants and pesticides within 50 percent
VIII-5
-------
or more of the receiving water criteria after initial dilution. These
measures could include control of the sale, use, handling, and disposal
stages of substances containing priority pollutants and pesticides.
EPA recognizes the serious potential for adverse effects on marine
organisms and man from bioaccumulation of discharged toxic pollutants and
pesticides. EPA also recognizes the potential complexity of nonindustrial
control programs. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to consult with EPA
during development of nonindustrial control programs. EPA regulations state
that proposed nonindustrial source control programs are subject to review
and revision by EPA prior to issuing a section 301(h) modified permit and
during the term of any such permit.
VIII-6
-------
IX. MONITORING PROGRAMS
The extent of an applicant's monitoring program required as part of a
section 301(h) variance will depend upon the characteristics of the
discharge and the receiving water body. Monitoring of the effluent and
receiving water may also be required as part of the applicant's existing
NPDES permit or to meet state regulations. The applicant's proposed
monitoring program must be submitted with the section 301(h) application. A
separate document entitled "Design of 301(h) Monitoring Programs for
Municipal Wastewater Discharges to Marine Waters" provides detailed guidance
on the design of section 301(h) monitoring programs.
The applicant must provide information on available personnel,
facilities, and financial resources to show that the proposed monitoring
program can be implemented and continued for the term of the modified
discharge permit if a section 301(h) variance is granted. State monitoring
requirements should be reviewed to ensure that the proposed program meets
those requirements.
The following information must be provided for all portions of the
proposed monitoring program:
• Variables to be measured
• Sampling methods
• Sampling schedule
• Sampling location
• Analytical techniques
t Quality control and verification procedures.
IX-1
-------
TREATMENT PLANT/EFFLUENT MONITORING
The major objectives of treatment plant monitoring are to provide data
for determining compliance with permit effluent limitations and state
requirements, to measure the effectiveness of the toxic substance control
program, and to relate discharge characteristics to the receiving water
biological and water quality conditions. In addition, influent and effluent
monitoring provide data for assessment of treatment plant performance as may
be required to meet modified discharge permit conditions.
Variables which should be measured in the effluent are flow, BOD5,
suspended solids, pH, dissolved oxygen, and the toxic pollutants and
pesticides present or likely to be present in the discharge. The toxic
pollutants and pesticides which should be measured are specified in the
section 301(h) regulations in section 125.58(u) and (m). Additional
variables which may be required by other permit conditions include grease
and oil, settleable solids, nutrients, total and fecal coliform bacteria,
and temperature.
Influent samples for conventional pollutant and nutrient analyses, if
required, should be collected just downstream of any coarse screens or grit
chambers. Effluent samples should be collected downstream of any
chlorination or disinfection units. Samples for toxic substances should be
collected in the effluent just prior to entering the outfall. In general,
grab samples should be taken for pH and total and fecal coliform bacteria.
For the other conventional pollutants (e.g., suspended solids), 24-hour
flow-composite samples are recommended.
The analytical methods to be used for each variable should be described
and the laboratory to perform the work identified. The laboratory must be
state certified according to U.S. EPA-approved procedures. Quality control
procedures should be provided stating the type and frequency of quality
control analyses to be conducted.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING
The objectives of the water quality monitoring program are to provide
data for determining compliance with applicable water quality standards to
IX-2
-------
measure the presence of toxics identified or expected in the effluent, and
to assist in the evaluation of biological data.
The water quality variables which may be measured are dissolved oxygen,
BOD5, suspended solids, pH, temperature, salinity, and light transmittance.
Light transmittance standards may be specified in terms of turbidity, Secchi
disc depth, extinction coefficient, or percent light transmittance. With
the exception of Secchi disc depth, water column profiles should be
determined for these variables. Other variables which may be measured
include nitrogen (nitrate, nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and ammonia),
total and reactive phosphorus, chlorophyll at, floating particulates, color,
settleable solids, and total and fecal coliform bacteria. Samples for these
variables should be collected 1 m (3.3 ft) below the water surface, at
mid-depth, and 1 m (3.3 ft) above the bottom. Sampling for toxic pollutants
and pesticides should also be assessed. In deep water, additional water
column sampling may be required. The applicant's monitoring program should
state for which parameters profiles are to be taken along with the sampling
interval and the sampling depths for the other parameters.
Station locations should include sampling at the ZID boundary, at
control sites, and in potential impact areas (e.g., in the nearshore zone
and close to areas with distinctive habitats). The applicant should use
information on local currents and wastefield dispersion patterns in
selecting sampling station locations in potentially impacted areas.
Sampling stations located at the ZID boundary and at control sites should be
in approximately the same depth of water and at about the same distance from
shore. Control stations should be located in areas not influenced by the
applicant's discharge or by other pollutant sources. For discharges
involving outfall relocation, monitoring stations must be located at the
current discharge site until cessation of discharge and at the relocation
site. The applicant should include a map showing the location of the
outfall, the shoreline, any distinctive habitats, and all sampling stations.
The latitude and longitude and depths of the stations should be specified.
Sampling frequencies should be selected to comply with state
requirements and to provide data for critical periods. In most cases,
quarterly surveys which include the critical periods (e.g., time of maximum
stratification) should meet state requirements. More frequent sampling (for
IX-3
-------
coliform bacteria) may be required by states in swimming or shell fishery
areas. The analytical methods should be selected from the EPA-approved
methods listed in 40 CFR Part 136. Quality control/quality assurance
procedures should be described.
The applicant must demonstrate that adequate resources are available to
implement the program. This can be demonstrated by estimating the cost of
the monitoring program and showing that adequate funds, personnel, and
facilities are available.
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
The applicant's biological monitoring program must include to the
extent practicable:
1. Periodic surveys of control sites and biological communities
most likely to be affected by the discharge
2. Periodic bioaccumulation determination and examination of
adverse effects of effluent-related toxic substances
3. Sampling of sediments
4. Periodic assessment of commercial or recreational fisheries
(if present).
Small applicants are not subject to items 2 through 4 immediately above if
they discharge at depths greater than 10 meters and demonstrate through a
suspended solids deposition analysis that there will be negligible seabed
accumulation in the vicinity of the modified discharge.
Objectives of the biological monitoring program are to evaluate the
impact of the applicant's modified discharge and to demonstrate compliance
with section 301(h) biological requirements. Thus, the biological
monitoring program must enable the same spatial comparisons (i.e., ZID, ZID
boundary, discharge impact area, and control) as are required for
demonstration of a BIP.
IX-4
-------
The applicant's monitoring program should include only those study
elements which are practicable and appropriate in the receiving water
environment. In cases where the applicant considers that one or more of the
aforementioned study types is not practicable, a justification for their
proposed deletion from the monitoring program should be provided. Examples
of situations in which reductions in the frequency or extent of biological
surveys would be reasonable might include conditions of high current speeds
or adverse climatic periods {sampling not practicable) and periods of low
biological variability or extremely low productivity (sampling not
appropriate).
Monitoring program specifications supplied by the applicant must
include: biological groups to be sampled, sampling methods, station
locations, sampling schedules, preservation techniques, analytical
techniques, quality assurance/quality control procedures, statistical
analyses, and taxonomic sources.
In selecting biological communities to be sampled on a periodic basis,
the applicant should consider the potential effects of the discharge and the
characteristics of indigenous biota. If past studies have demonstrated
discharge effects on a particular biological group, the applicant should
include continued sampling of that group in the monitoring program.
Monitoring must also include any distinctive habitats of limited
distribution located in areas potentially affected by the discharge.
The three types of sampling stations which should generally be included
in the periodic biological surveys to the extent practicable are:
• In the vicinity of the ZID
• Other areas of potential discharge impact
t Control.
Variable numbers of monitoring locations at intermediate sites between
control and outfall locations should be included, especially in the case of
large discharges where definition of the spatial extent of biological
effects is an important consideration. Additional station requirements
IX-5
-------
would also be associated with discharges into estuaries (within-ZID station)
stressed waters or in situations where other pollutant sources potentially
affect biological communities near the discharge. For modified discharges
involving outfall relocation, monitoring must be conducted at the current
discharge site until cessation of discharge and at the relocation site.
Selection of control stations is one of the more important aspects of
monitoring program design since BIP comparisons will rely on data from these
sites. Control stations should be located in areas not influenced by the
applicant's discharge or other pollutant sources. Sediment characteristics
at the control station should be similar to those expected to occur
naturally in the vicinity of the discharge. Discharge and control stations
should be located at similar water depths.
Bioaccumulation determinations are to be included in the monitoring
program to evaluate the potential adverse effects of toxic substances. Ir±
situ bioassays may be needed on a case-by-case basis. Caged specimens of
bivalve molluscs (e.g., Mytilus edulis or M. californianus) are recommended
as test organisms for in situ bioassays. Exposures should be conducted in
the discharge vicinity and at an appropriate reference site. Additional
exposure sites may be necessary for large discharges, especially in
situations where other pollutant sources contribute toxic substances to the
receiving water body. Only those toxic pollutants and pesticides identified
in the applicant's discharge need to be measured in the exposed organisms.
The monitoring program must also include sediment sampling for toxic
substances in the vicinity of the discharge, in other areas of expected
solids accumulation, and at appropriate reference sites. Within-ZID
sampling should be undertaken where practicable. The sediment sampling is
intended to provide an indication of the toxics accumulation within
sediments near the discharge and the associated contamination potential. If
elevated or increasing concentrations of toxic substances are detected, the
applicant must also analyze tissue concentrations of toxic substances in
indigenous organisms to determine if adverse bioaccumulation is occurring.
Recommended organisms for such analyses include demersal fishes (e.g.,
flounder or sole), epibenthic mega-invertebrates (e.g., crabs or lobster) or
sessile filter-feeding organisms (e.g., clams, mussels, or oysters).
IX-6
-------
Sediment samples should also be analyzed for characteristics which
would provide support for the water quality and biological surveys. The
variables of importance are associated with indicators of organic enrichment
of the sediments due to accumulation of discharged solids. These variables
should include particle size distribution and total volatile solids. Other
variables such as BOD5, sulfides, and total organic carbon, may also be
useful and may be required by states.
If recreational or commercial fisheries are present in areas
potentially affected by the discharge, the applicant must also conduct
periodic assessments of those fisheries. The kinds of evaluations conducted
will depend on the nature of the local fisheries and on the level of detail
in available fisheries data. These evaluations must reflect an
understanding of the potential impacts of the discharge on the fisheries.
Sources of information used to determine the productivity and status of
fisheries include discussions with state resource agencies, voluntary
logbooks, interviews, and field observations. The periodicity and level of
effort of fishery surveys will depend upon the size and location of the
discharge, concentrations of toxic substances in the effluent, species
harvested, and the importance of the commercial or recreational fishery.
IX-7
-------
X. PLAN OF STUDY
The purpose of the plan of study is to assure that data collection
efforts by the applicant are designed to collect only those data necessary
for decision-making purposes. In evaluation of final (1979) applications,
several cases were noted where data collection efforts were beyond those
ultimately required for decision making on the variance request. Other
cases were noted where inappropriate methods were used, sampling stations
were not properly located, data were not properly analyzed, or insufficient
data were collected. Problems such as these can lead to unnecessary cost to
the applicant and delays in evaluation of the applications. If existing
data are not adequate, the applicant is encouraged to develop a plan of
study, consult with EPA, collect the necessary data, and submit the results
with the application prior to the December 29, 1982, deadline. After the
deadline, applicants are required by EPA regulations to submit plans of
study to EPA for consultation prior to collection of additional data to
support an application or revision. Such data collection after the December
29, 1982, deadline can be done only as authorized or requested by EPA.
A plan of study should consist of four parts to describe:
• What data are needed and why
• Where and how frequently the data or samples will be
collected
• Proposed data collection and sampling methods
• How the data will be analyzed.
This approach to the plan of study is applicable to all data collection
activities including influent, effluent, water quality, receiving water, or
biological data. The applicant should be as specific as possible in
describing the proposed data collection program. A diagram showing the
X-l
-------
location of sampling stations in relation to the existing and/or proposed
outfall and shoreline should be included. Specific types of sampling
equipment should be identified. The number of split and replicate water
quality samples intended for quality control purposes should be specified as
should the number of replicate biological samples. Analytical methods
should also be specified.
It is particularly important that the intended data analysis techniques
be described thoroughly. Applicants should take special care to utilize
statistical techniques that are consistent with the data collection program.
The report "Design of 301(h) Monitoring Programs for Municipal Wastewater
Discharges to Marine Waters" provides additional guidance on all aspects of
sampling and analysis.
As further assistance, the applicant can use the following outline to
organize the plan of study.
Plan of Study Outline
A. Data Requirements
1. Existing data
2. Additional data required
B. Proposed Data Collection Program
1. Sampling station location
a. Location map
b. Station coordinates
c. Navigation method
2. Sampling frequency
a. Temporal frequency
b. Water quality sample splits and replicates for quality control
c. Bioloyical sample replication
C. Sampling and Analytical Methods
1. Sampling technique
2. Sample preservation
3. Analytical methods
X-2
-------
4. Analytical quality control
D. Data Analysis
1. Purpose of data analysis or statistical hypotheses to be tested
2. Statistical methods
3. Proposed format for presentation of results
X-3
-------
REFERENCES
Abraham, G. 1963. Jet diffusion in stagnant ambient fluid. Delft
Hydraulics Publication No. 29, Delft, Netherlands.
Abraham, G. 1971. The flow of round buoyant jets issuing vertically into
ambient fluid flowing in a horizontal direction. Delft Hydraulics
Publication No. 81, Delft, Netherlands.
American Public Health Association. 1979. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater. 17th Edition.
Austin, W.R. 1974. Problems in measuring turbidity as a water quality
parameter, pp. 23-54. In: Proc. on Seminar on Methodology for Monitoring
the Marine Environment, EPA 600/4-74-004.
Baumgartner, D.J., and D.S. Trent. 1970. Ocean outfall design: Part I.
Literature review and theoretical development. U.S. Dept. of Int., Federal
Water Quality Adm. (NTIS No. PB-203 749).
Baumgartner, D.J., D.S. Trent, and K.V. Byram. 1971. User's guide and
documentation for outfall plume model. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Pac. N.W. Water Lab. Working Paper No. 80. Corvallis, OR. (NTIS
No. PB 204-577/BA).
Briggs, G.A. 1969. Plume rise. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. (NTIS No. TID 25075).
Brooks, N.H. 1960. Diffusion of sewage effluent in an ocean current, pp.
246-267. In: Proc. 1st International Conference on Waste Disposal in the
Marine Environment, Berkeley, CA. July, 1959. Pergamon Press.
Brooks, N.H. 1973. Dispersion in hydrologic and coastal environments.
EPA-660/3-73-010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Corvallis, OR.
Carlisle, J.G., Jr. 1969. Results of a six-year trawl study in an area of
heavy waste discharge: Santa Monica Bay, California. Calif. Fish Game
55:26-46.
Cederwall, K. 1971. Buoyant slot jets into stagnant or flowing
environment. Cal. Inst. of Tech., Keck Lab. Report No. KH-R-25. Pasadena,
CA.
Davis, L.R. 1975. Analysis of multiple cell mechanical draft cooling
towers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis Environ. Res. Lab.
EPA-660/3-75-039. Con/all is, OR.
-------
M'A* Shl>azt- 1978' A review of thermal plume modeling.
Auo fie?iS< ,™ ?r°C\0f ,the 51>Xth Inte™ational Heat Transfer Conf9,
, Aug. 6-11, 1978, Toronto, Canada.
con^Y" anV'P' 5"eJ' 1979' The estl'mation of acid dissociation
constants in seawater media from potentiometric titrations with strong base-
I. The ionic product of water-Kw< in: Marine Chemistry 7:89-99.
Doig, M.I., and D.F. Martin. 1974. The response of Gymnodinium breve to
municipal waste materials. Mar. Biol . 24:223-228. -------
Dunstan, W.M., and D.W. Menzel . 1971. Continuous cultures of natural
andOceln"5 °f phytoplankton in dl'^ted, treated sewage effluent. Limnol.
; TurbuJent buoyant jets into stratified and flowing ambient
Pasadena CA " KeCk Hydraulics Lab" ReP- "<>• KH-R-15.
[r7er'TH; -98S' Fate of Pri'or1ty pollutants in publicly owned treatment
works, Interim Report. EPA-440/1-80-301.
Conor, J.J., and P.P. Kemp. 1978. Procedures for quantitative ecological
u-s- Env1ron- prot-
Graham J.J. 1966. Secchi disc observations and extinction coefficients in
the central and eastern North Pacific Ocean. Limnol. Oceanogr. 2:184-190.
N6W tabl6S f°r °^e" "*«««on of
m J;R" and A/V ,f?"-B 1978' Efflue"t particle dispersion, pp.
Segundo CA a1 Water Researcn Project Annual Report. SCCWRP, El
Hirst E. A. 1971a. Analysis of round, turbulent, buoyant jets discharged
Nat° ^rin?AStr™Ji"!«?nbiSnJS-. U'S- At°mi'C Ener9y Commi'ssTon, Oak Ridge
Nat. Lab., Rep. ORNL-4685. Oak Ridge, TN.
19,7cb\/n-a1yIrS1'S °f bu°y*nt Jets within the zone of flow
^ ''
?nSrh S'V:' C'S-' Fdn9) E-P' Ruzeckl'> and W.J. Hargis. 1971. Hydrography
and hydrodynamics of Virginia estuaries, studies of the distribution of
of Marineascience ^^ ''" th6 UPP6r Y0rk SyStem' Vl'r91nl'a Institute
1978>. Gu1de1l'nes for zooplankton sampling in
u-s- Environ-
-------
Johannes, R.E. 1975. Pollution and degradation of coral reef communities.
pp. 13-51. In: Tropical Marine Pollution, E.J.F. Wood and R.E. Johannes
(eds). Elsevier Oceanography Series No. 12, Amsterdam.
Kannberg, L.D., and L.R. Davis. 1976. An experimental/analytical
investigation of deep submerged multiple buoyant jets. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, Environ. Res. Lab. EPA-600/3-76-001.
Corvallis, OR.
Koh, R.C., and L.N. Fan. 1970. Mathematical models for the prediction of
temperature distribution resulting from the discharge of heated water in
large bodies of water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Poll.
Cont. Res. Series Rep. 1613 ODWO/70.
Mahoney, J.B., F.H. Midlige, and D.G. Deuel . 1973. A fin rot disease of
marine and euryhaline fishes in the New York Bight. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc. 102:596-605.
McDermott, D.J., G.V. Alexander, D.R. Young, and A.J. Mearns. 1976. Metal
contamination of flatfish around a large submarine outfall. J. Wat. Poll.
Control Fed. 48(8)-.1913-1918.
McDermott-Ehrlich, D., D.R. Young, and T.C. Heesen. 1978. DDT and PCB in
flatfish around southern California municipal outfalls. Chemosphere
6:453-461.
McDermott-Ehrlich, D.J., M.J. Sherwood, T.C. Heesen, D.R. Young, and A.J.
Mearns. 1977. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in Dover sole, Microstomus
pacificus: local migrations and fin erosion. Fish. Bull. 75:513-517.
Mearns, A.J., and M.J. Allen. 1978. Use of small otter trawls in coastal
biological surveys. EPA-600/3-78-083. U.S. EPA, Corvallis, OR. 34 pp.
Mearns, A.J., and M. Sherwood. 1974. Environmental aspects of fin erosion
and tumors in southern California Dover sole. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
103:799-810.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1979. Wastewater engineering:
treatment/disposal/reuse. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, NY. 920 pp.
Morton, B.R. 1959. Forced plumes. J. of Fluid Mechanics 5:151-163.
Morton, B.R., G.I. Taylor, andJ.S. Turner. 1956. Turbulent gravitational
convection from maintained and instantaneous sources. Proc. of the Royal
Soc. of London, Vol. A234, pp. 1-23.
Murray, S.N., and M.M. Littler. 1974. Biological features of intertidal
communities near the U.S. Navy sewage outfall, Wilson Cove, San Clemente,
California. NUC-TP396 (Naval Undersea Center, San Diego, CA).
-------
Myers, E.P. 1974. The concentration and isotopic composition of carbon in
marine sediments affected by a sewage discharge. Ph.D. Thesis. California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. 179 pp.
Pearson, T.H., and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation
to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr.
Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 16:229-311.
Priestley, C.H.B., and F.K. Ball. 1955. Continuous convection from an
JiS°,Ate,r,source °f heat< Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteor. Soc.
ol: 144-157.
Roberts, P.J.W. 1979. A mathematical model of initial dilution for deep
water ocean outfalls, pp. 218-225. In: Proc. of the Specialty Conference
on Conservation and Utilization of Water and Energy Resources, ESCE.
Rouse, H., c.S. Yih, and W.G. Humphreys. 1952. Gravitational convection
from a boundary source. Tell us 4:201-210.
Sotil c.A. 1971. Computer program for slot buoyant jets into stratified
Pasadena,encVA.r°nmentS' Ca1' InSt' °f T6Ch*' Keck Ub" Tech> Memo 71'2'
Stofan, P.E., and G.C. Grant. 1978. Phytoplankton sampling in quantitative
baseline and monitoring programs. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency Ecol. Res
Ser. EPA-600/3-77-033. 83 pp.
Stumm, W., and J.T. Morgan. 1980. Aquatic chemistry. John Wiley and Sons,
i nc •
78. Techniques for sampling and analyzing the marine
.S. Environ. Prot. Agency Ecol. Res. Ser. Rep. No.
pp. H
. D.J. Baumgartner. 1979. Predictions of initial dilution
r™.,,aii?C1rP • ocea" ^scn^ges. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Corvallis Environmental Res. Lab. Pub. No. 043, Corvallis, OR.
Tetra Tech. 1982. Design of 301(h) monitoring programs for municipal
wastewater discharges to marine waters. Contract No. 68-01-5906 U S EPA
Office of Water Program Operations. Washington, D.C. 135 pp.
ih75i-4.EfflCtS °f sewage treatment P^nt effluents on fish: a
Studp, ?n Ie-h l6"^6' i *in1V' °f Md' Ctr" for E"V1>0"- and Estuarine
Studies Contrib. No. 637. (Also CRC Pub! . No. 36).
U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Survey. 1979a Tidal
current tables, Atlantic coast of North America. Rockville, MD.
co«tnff Commer": ^OAA> National Ocean Survey. 1979b. Pacific
coast of North America and Asia. Rockville, MD.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Sampling and analysis
procedures for screening of industrial effluents for priority pollutants.
Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981a. Removal of bis (chloromethyl)
ether from the toxic pollutant list under Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean
Water Act. U.S. EPA, Washington D.C. Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 23,
Part III. pp. 10723-10724.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 19815. Removal of
dichlorodifluoromethane and trichlorofluoromethane from the toxic pollutant
list under Section 307(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act. U.S. EPA, Washington,
D.C. Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 2266.
Winiarski, L.D., and W.E. Frick. 1976. Cooling tower plume model. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis Environ. Res. Lab.
EPA-600/3-76-100. Con/all is, OR.
Word, J.Q., B.L. Myers, and A.J. Mearns. 1977. Animals that are indicators
of marine pollution, pp. 199-206. In: Coastal Water Research Project
Annual Report. SCCWRP. El Segundo, CA.
Young, D.R., D.J. McDermott, and T.C. Heesen. 1976a. DDT in sediments and
organisms around southern California outfalls. J. Wat. Poll. Control Fed.
48(8):1919-1928.
Young, D.R., T.C. Heesen, and D.J. McDermott. 1976b. An offshore
biomonitoring system for chlorinated hydrocarbons. Mar. Poll. Bull.
7:156-159.
Young, D.R., M.D. Moore, 6.V. Alexander, T-K. Jan, D. McDermott-Ehrlich,
R.P. Eganhouse, and P. Hershelman. 1978. Trace elements in seafood
organisms around southern California municipal wastewater outfalls. Pub!.
No. 60. SCCWRP, El Segundo, CA. 104 pp.
Young, P.M. 1964. Some effects of sewer effluent on marine life. Calif.
Fish Game. 50:33-41.
Zieman, J.C. 1975. Tropical sea grass ecosystems and pollution, pp.
63-74. In: Tropical Marine Pollution, E.J. Wood, Jr., and R.E. Johannes
(eds). Elsevier Oceanograph. Ser. No. 12, Amsterdam.
-------
APPENDIX A
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Key
1. State Water Quality Agency
2. State Coastal Zone Management Agency
3. EPA Regional Office
4. National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Office
5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office
-------
APPENDIX A. RELEVANT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
ALABAMA
1. Municipal Waste Control Section
Alabama Water Improvement
c/o Public Health Service Bldg.
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 277-3630
2. Alabama Coastal Area Board
P. 0. Box 755
Daphne, Alabama 36526
(206) 626-1880
3. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 881-4727
4. Southeast Regional Office
NMFS
9450 Koger Blvd.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
(813) 893-3141
5. USFWS Region 4 - Southeast
75 Spring St., SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
(404) 221-3588
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
ALASKA
1. Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
Water Quality Management Section
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK 99811
(907) 465-2653
2. Office of Coastal Management
Pouch AP
Juneau, AK 99801
(907) 465-3540
3. EPA - Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-1220
4. Alaska Regional Office
NMFS
P. 0. Box 1668
Juneau, AK 99802
(907) 586-7221
5. Alaska Regional Office
1011 Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99503
(907) 263-3542
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
CALIFORNIA
1. California Water Resources Control
Board
P. 0. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95801
(916) 445-7762
2. California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 543-8555
3. EPA - Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 974-8153
4. Southwest Regional Office
NMFS
300 S. Perry Street
Terminal Island, CA 90731
(213) 548-2575
5. USFWS Region I - Pacific
500 N.E. Multonomah Street, Suite 1692
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 231-6158
A-3
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
CONNECTICUT
1. Water Compliance Unit
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Bldg.
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06115
(203) 566-3245
2. Coastal Area Management Program
Department of Environmental Protection
71 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06115
(203) 566-7404
3. EPA - Region I
Room 2203
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 223-7210
4. Northeast Regional Office
NMFS
Federal Bldg.
14 Elm Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
(617) 281-3600
5. USFWS Region 5 - Atlantic
One Gateway Center
Suite 700
Newton Center, MA 02158
(617) 965-5100
A-4
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
DELAWARE
1. Water Resources Section
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
State of Delaware
P. 0. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 736-4761
2. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
P. 0. Box 1401/Edward Tatnell Bldg.
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 736-3091
3. EPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 900
New York, NY 10007
(212) 264-2525
4. Northeast Regional Office
NMFS
Federal Bldg.
14 Elm St.
Gloucester, MA 01930
(617) 281-3600
5. USFWS Region 5 - Atlantic
One Gateway Center, Suite 700
Newton Center, MA 02158
(617) 965-5100
A-5
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
FLORIDA
1. NPDES Section
Dept. of Environmental Regulations
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(907) 487-1620
2. Office of Coastal Management
Twin Towers Office Bldg.
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(904) 488-8614
3. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 881-4727
4. Southeast Regional Office
NMFS
9450 Koger Blvd./ Duval Bldg.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
(813) 983-3141
5. USFWS Region 4 - Southeast
75 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 221-3588
A-6
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
GEORGIA
1. Municipal Compliance and Technical
Support Program
Georgia Environmental Protection
Division
270 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404) 656-7400
2. Coastal Resources Division
Dept. of Natural Resources
1200 Glynn Avenue
Brunswick, GA 03520
(912) 264-4771
3. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 881-4727
4. Southeast Regional Office
NMFS
9450 Koger Blvd./Duval Bldg.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
(813) 826-3141
5. USFWS Region 4 - Southeast
75 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 221-3588
A-7
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
HAWAII
1. Pollution Technical Review Branch
Environmental Protection and
Health Services Division
Hawaii State Dept. of Health
P. 0. Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
(808) 548-6410
2. Dept. of Planning and Economic
Development
P. 0. Box 2359
Honolulu, HI 96804
(808) 548-4609
3. EPA - Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 974-8153
4. Northwest Regional Office
NMFS
7600 Sand Point Way, NE
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 527-6150
5. USFWS Region I - Pacific
500 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 1692
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 231-6158
A-8
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
LOUISIANA
1. Division of Water Pollution Control
Dept. of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 44066
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
(504) 342-6363
2. Coastal Resources Program
P. 0. Box 44398
Capital Station
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 78704
(504) 342-7591
3. EPA - Region VI
1201 Elm Street
First International Bldg.
Dallas, TX 95270
(214) 767-2600
4. Southeast Regional Office
NMFS
9450 Roger Blvd./Duval Bldg.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
' (813) 893-3141
5. USFWS Region 4 - Southeast
75 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, 6A 30303
(404) 221-3588
A-9
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
MAINE
1. Division of Water Quality Evaluation
and Planning
Dept. of Environmental Protection
State House
Augusta, ME
(207) 289-2591
2. Natural Resources Division
State Planning Office
184 State Street
Augusta, ME 04330
(207) 289-3261
3. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg., Rm. 2203
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 223-7210
4. Northeast Regional Office
NMFS
14 Elm Street/Federal Bldg.
Gloucester, MA 01930
(617) 281-3600
5. USFWS Region 5 - Atlantic
One Gateway Center
Suite 700
Newton Center, MA 02158
(617) 965-5100
A-10
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
MARYLAND
1. Municipal Permits Division
Water Resources Administration
Department of Natural Resources
201 W. Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
2. Coastal Resources Division
Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office 81dg.
Annapolis, MD 21401
(301) 269-2784
3. EPA - Region II
Sixth and Walnut Streets/Curtis Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 597-9814
4. Northeast Regional Office
NMFS
14 Elm Street/Federal Bldg.
Gloucester, MA 01930
(617) 281-3600
5. USFWS Region 4 - Atlantic
One Gateway Center
Suite 700
Newton Center, MA 02158
(404) 221-3588
A-ll
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
MASSACHUSETTS
1. Permits and Enforcement Section
Division of Water Pollution Control
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 292-5668
2. Executive Office
Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-9530
3. EPA - Region I
Room 2203/Oohn F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 223-7210
4. Northeast Regional Office
NMFS
Federal Bldg.
14 Elm Street
Gloucester, MA 01830
(617) 281.-3600
5. USFWS Region 5 - Atlantic
One Gateway Center
Suite 700
Newton Center, MA 02158
(617) 965-5100
A-12
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
MISSISSIPPI
1. Water Division
Bureau of Pollution Control
Mississippi Dept. of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 10385
Jackson, MS 39209
(601) 961-5171
2. Coastal Program Division
P. 0. Box 959
Long Beach, MS 39560
(601) 864-4602
3. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 881-4727
4. Southeast Regional Office
NMFS
9450 Koger Blvd./Duval Bldg.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
(813) 893-3141
5. USFWS Region 4 - Southeast
75 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 221-3588
A-13
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
NEW HAMPSHIRE
1. Permits and Surveillance Division
New Hampshire Water Supply and
Pollution Control Commission
P. 0. Box 95
Concord, NH 03301
(603) 271-3501
2. Office of State Planning
2-1/2 Beacon Street
Concord, CT 03301
(603) 271-2155
3. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg., Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 223-7210
4. Northeast Regional Office
NMFS
Federal Bldg.
14 Elm Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
(617) 281-3600
5. USFWS Region 5 - Atlantic
One Gateway Center
Suite 700
Newton Center, MA 02158
(617) 965-5100
A-14
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
NEW JERSEY
1. Municipal Waste Management
Division of Water Resources
Department of Environmental Protection
P. 0. Box CN - 029
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 984-4429
2. Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development
Dept. of Environmental Protection
P. 0. Box CN - 401
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 292-9762
3. EPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 900
New York, NY 10007
(212) 264-2525
4. Northeast Regional Office
NMFS
Federal Bldg./14 Elm Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
(617) 281-3600
5. USFWS Region 5 - Atlantic
One Gateway Center/Suite 700
Newton Center, MA 02158
(617) 965-5100
A-15
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
NEW YORK
1. Permit Administration
Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road, .Room 306
Albany, NY 12233
(518) 457-7499
2. Coastal Management Unit
Department of State
162 Washington Street
Albany, NY 12231
(518) 474-8834
3. EPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 900
New York, NY 10007
(212) 264-2525
4. Northeast Regional Office
NMFS
14 Elm Street
Federal B.ldg.
Gloucester, MA 01930
(617) 281-3600
5. USFWS Region 5 - Atlantic
One Gateway Center, Suite 700
Newton Center, MA 02158
(617) 965-5100
A-16
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
NORTH CAROLINA
1. NPDES Program
Environmental Operations Section
Division of Environmental Management
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-5191
2. Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community Development
Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 733-2293
3. EPA - Region IV
345 Court!and Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
(404) 881-4727
4. Southeast Regional Office
NMFS
9450 Koger Blvd./Duval Bldg.
St. Petersburg, FL 33202
(813) 893.-3141
5. USFWS Region 4 - Southeast
75 Spring Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 221-3588
A-17
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
OREGON
1. Water Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
1234 SW Morrison Street
Portland, OR 97025
(503) 229-6474
2. Dept. of Land Conservation and Development
1175 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97310
(503) 378-4097
3. EPA - Region I
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-1220
4. Northwest Regional Office
NMFS
7600 Sand Point Way, NE
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 527-6150
5. USFWS Region 1 - Pacific
500 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 1692
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 231-6158
A-18
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
PUERTO RICO
1. Environmental Quality Board
Box 11499
Santurce, PR 00910
(809) 725-5140
2. Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 5887
Puerta deTierra, PR 00906
(809) 725-2769
3. EPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 900
New York, NY 10007
(212) 264-2525
4. Southeast Regional Office
NMFS
9450 Koger Blvd./Duval Bldg.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
(813) 893-3141
5. USFWS Region 4 - Southeast
75 Spring Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 221-3588
A-19
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
RHODE ISLAND
1. Division of Water Resources
Dept. of Environmental Management
209 Cannon Bldg.
75 Davis Street
Providence, RI 02908
(401) 277-2234
2. Coastal Resource Management Program
Washington County Government Center
Tower Hill Road
South Kingston, RI 02897
(401) 789-3048
3. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg., Room 2203
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 223-7210
4. Southeast Regional Office
NMFS
9450 Koger Blvd./Duval Bldg.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
(813) 893-3141
5. USFWS Region 4 - Southeast
75 Spring Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 221-3588
A-20
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
SOUTH CAROLINA
1. NPDES Administration Section
South Carolina Dept. of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 748-3877
2. South Carolina Coastal Staff
1116 Bankers Trust Tower
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 758-8442
3. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
(404) 881-4727
4. Southeast Regional Office
NMFS
9450 Koger Blvd./Duval Bldg.
St. Petersburg, FL 33202
(813) 893-3141
5. USFWS Region 4 - Southeast
75 Spring Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 221-3588
A-21
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
TEXAS
1. Permits Division
Texas Dept. of Water Resources
1700 North Congress
P. 0. Box 13087, Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 475-3345
2. Natural Resources Division
Texas Energy and Natural Resources
Council
200 E. 18th Street
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 475-0073
3. EPA - Region VI
1201 Elm Street
First International Bldg.
Dallas, TX 75270
(214) 767-2600
4. Southeast Regional Office
NMFS
9450 Koger Blvd./Duval Bldg.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
(813) 893-3141
5. USFWS Region 2 - Southwest
500 Gold Avenue, SW
Albuquerque, NM 87103
(505) 766-2321
A-22
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
VIRGINIA
1. State Water Control Board
P. 0. Box 11143
Richmond, VA 23230
(804) 257-6336
2. Council on the Environment
Ninth Street Office Bldg.
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 786-4500
3. EPA - Region III
Curtis Bldg., Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 597-9814
4. Northeast Regional Office
NMFS
Federal Bldg.
14 Elm Street
Gloucester, MA 01930
(617) 281-3600
5. USFWS Region 5 - Atlantic
One Gateway Center, Suite 700
Newton Center, MA 02158
(617) 965-5100
A-23
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
VIRGIN ISLANDS
1. Dept. of Conservation and Cultural
Affairs
P. 0. Box 4340
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI 00801
(809) 774-6420
2. Dept. of Conservation and Cultural
Affairs
P. 0. Box 4340
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI 00801
(809) 774-6522
3. EPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 900
New York, NY 10007
(212) 264-2525
4. Southeast Regional Office
NMFS
9450 Koger Blvd./Duval Bldg.
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
(813) 893-3141
5. USFWS Region 4 - Southeast
75 Spring St. SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 221-3588
A-24
-------
APPENDIX A. (continued)
WASHINGTON
1. NPDES Program
Department of Ecology
State of Washington
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 459-6078 (6042)
2. Department of Ecology
State of Washington (PY-11)
Olympia, WA 98504
(206) 459-6273
3. EPA - Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 442-1220
4. Northwest Regional Office
NMFS
7600 Sand Point Way, NE
Seattle, WA 98115
(206) 627-6150
5. USFWS Region 1 - Pacific
500 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 1692
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 231-6158
•U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1982 0-393-770/279 A —25
-------
• K T
t~i protection
Uf environmental rro
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business Fourth-Class
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |