5941
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
Permits Division EN-336
Washington, DC 20460
                        September 1987
             Water
 vvEPA
Guidance Manual for
Preventing  Interference
at POTWs

-------
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                          OFFICE OF
                                                           WATER
                           2 1987

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:    Pretreatment Program Guidance
FROM:       James/TfTHElder, Director
            Office of Water Enforcement
              ind Permits  (EN-335)

TO:         Users of the Guidance Manual for
            Preventing Interference at POTWs

     This guidance manual was developed by EPA to aid publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) in identifying, tracking, and
mitigating interference episodes caused by discharges of
nondomestic wastes.  Interference is defined in the General
Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403) in terms of a
discharge which, alone or in combination with other discharges,
inhibits or disrupts the POTW and causes it to violate its
NPDES permit or applicable sludge use or disposal regulations.
The legal responsibilities of POTWs and their industrial
users for avoiding interference are specified in the General
Pretreatment Regulations.  The basic regulatory requirements
are explained in this manual and technical guidance is provided
to help POTW operators detect and determine the sources of
interference.

     This document will be useful to all POTWs that may
experience interference problems, not just those that have
been required to establish federally-approved pretreatment
programs.  Therefore, EPA is distributing it widely.  Additional
copies of this guidance manual or further information about
the national pretreatment program can be obtained by writing to
the Permits Division, (EN-336), US EPA, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.

     EPA is preparing another guidance document that deals
specifically with the development of local limits to prevent
interference and pass through.  It was distributed in draft
form for comment to States and EPA Regions in May 1987 and
will be mailed to all POTWs with federally-approved pretreatment
programs when final.   Additional information about the local
limits guidance document can also be obtained from the Permits
Division.

-------
           GUIDANCE MANUAL

                   FOR

 PREVENTING INTERFERENCE AT POTWs
             September, 1987
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
              Office of Water
  Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
            401 M Street, S.W.
          Washington, D.C.  20460
U.S. Environmental Protection
      5.Library(Pt-12J)

-------
                          ACKNOWLEDGEME NTS
This document was prepared by  James M. Montgomery,  Consulting Engineers,
Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68-03-1821.  Mr. John Grantham was the Project
Manager,  with Dr. Edward  Wetzel  and Mr. Scott Murphy  acting  as Project
Engineer  and Assistant  Project  Engineer, respectively.   Messrs. Wetzel  and
Murphy are  the principal authors of this manual.  Treatment plant site visits
conducted as part of the case study effort were made by Messrs. David  Harrison,
Paul Skager  and Roger Stephenson  and Ms. Sheila McShane,  in addition to the
authors.  The contributions of a number of other members of the Pasadena office
support staff to the production of  this manual are gratefully acknowledged.

This manual was prepared under the technical direction of Ms. LeAnne Hammer
and Mr. Gregory McBrien of the Permits  Division, Office of Water Enforcement
and  Permits, and  Dr. Sidney Hannah  of the  Water Engineering  Research
Laboratory (WERL).  Additional guidance and assistance were provided by the
other members  of  the Pretreatment  Support Group  of WERL,  consisting of
Messrs. James Kreissl, Dolloff Bishop, Richard Dobbs, Kenneth Dostal and Henry
Tabak.  Peer review  and comments were also provided by Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) under EPA Contract  No. 68-01-7043.  Special
thanks are also offered  to  Mr. Guy Aydlett of  the Hampton Roads Sanitation
District and to Mr. Paul (Kip) Keenan of the City of Baltimore Pollution Control
Section.

-------
                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                        Page

Acknowledgements                                                        i
Table of Contents                                                        ii
List of Tables                                                            iv
List of Figures                                                           v

1. Introduction                                                           1

      1.1   Background                                                    1
      1.2   Definition of Interference                                       2
      1.3   Guidance Manual Objectives                                   4

2. Detecting Interference                                                 6

      2.1   Types of Interference                                           6
           2.1.1      Chronic Inhibition                                    8
           2.1.2      Upset Conditions                                     8
      2.2   Interference - Causing Substances                               9
           2.2.1      Conventional Pollutants                             11
           2.2.2      Metals and Other Inorganics                         11
           2.2.3      Organic Compounds                                12
      2.3   Sewer Collection System                                      12
      2.4   Plant Operations                                             14
           2,4.1      Observation                                        14
           2.4.2      Instrumentation                                    15
           2.4.3      Analytical Results                                  15
      2.5   Waste water Monitoring                                       16
           2.5.1      POTW Influent                                      16
           2.5.2      Other POTW Locations                             17
           2.5.3      Inhibitory Effects Testing                           18

3. Source Identification                                                 29

      3.1   Chronic Discharges                                           30
           3.1.1      Routine Monitoring                                 31
           3.1.2      Tracking Program                                  32
      3.2   Isolated Spills and Unauthorized Discharges                    33
           3.2.1      Hauled Wastes                                      35
      3.3   Rapid Screening Techniques                                  36
      3.4   Summary                                                    37
                                      11

-------
                                                                      Page

4. Mitigation                                                          43

     4.1   Treatment Plant Control                                     43
           4.1.1      Biological Process Control                          43
           4.1.Z      Biological Augmentation                            45
           4.1.3      Chemical Addition                                 45
           4.1.4      Operations Modification                            46
           4.1.5      Physical Modification                               47
           4.1.6      Summary                                          48
     4.2   Pretreatment and Source Control                             49
           4.2.1      Local Limits                                       49
           4.2.2      Accidental Spill Prevention                         49
           4.2.3      Pretreatment Facilities                            50
           4.2.4      Regulation of Waste Haulers                        50
           4.2.5      Planning for Future Sources                         51
     4.3   Legal and Enforcement Remedies                             52
           4.3.1      Penalties                                          53
           4.3.2      Orders and Compliance Schedules                   54
           4.3.3      Litigation                                         54
           4.3.4      Sewer Disconnection or Permit Revocation          54

References                                                            61

Appendix A - Case Studies

     Back River  (Baltimore, MD)                                        A-3
     Patapsco (Baltimore, MD)                                          A-6
     Bayshore Regional (Union Beach, NJ)                                A-9
     East  Side Plant  (Oswego, NY)                                       A-12
     Hamilton Township (Trenton, NJ)                                   A-15
     Horse Creek (North Augusta, SC)                                   A-18
     Maiden Creek (Blandon, PA)                                        A-21
     Metro-West Point (Seattle, WA)                                    A-24
     Neuse River Plant (Raleigh, NC)                                    A-27
     Newark, OH                                                      A-30
     North Shore (Gurnee, IL)                                           A-33
     Passaic Valley (Newark, NJ)                                        A-36
     Sioux City,  IA                                                     A-3 9
     Tolleson, AZ                                                      A-42

Appendix B - Interfering Substances                                     B-l
                                     111

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES
No.      	Title	               Page

2-1      Metal, Cyanide and Inorganic Compound                       20
            Concentrations Inhibiting Biological
            Processes
2-2      Organic  Compound Concentrations Inhibiting                   21
            Biological Processes
2-3      Waste Characteristics Pertaining to Hazards                    22
            in Collection Systems
2-4      Interference  Identification Through                            23
            Plant Observation
2-5      Instrumentation of Plant Processes and                         26
            Wastestr earns
2-6      Analytical  Monitoring of Plant Processes                      27
2-7      Methods for Evaluating Inhibitory Effects                      28
            of Industrial Wastewaters

3-1      Industrial Spills of Hazardous Materials:                       38
            Impact on Sewer Collection System
3-2      Industrial Spills of Hazardous Materials:                       39
            Impact on Treatment Plant
3-3      Impacts  of Waste Hauler Discharges on POTWs                 40

4-1      Biological Process Control Steps                              56
4-2      Chemical Additions                                          57
4-3      Treatment Plant Control Measures                            58

A-l      Case Study Summary Table                                A-l, 2
A-2      Average Metal Content of  Back River Sludge                 A-4

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES
No.      	Title	          Page

 3-1      Treatment Plant Upset Identification Procedures                41
 3-2      HRSD Source Tracking Procedure                              42

 4-1      Fundamental Procedures for POTW ASPP Development          59
 4-2      Procedures of a Waste Hauler Permit Program                  60

A-l       Monthly Acute Toxicity (Patapsco/Baltimore, MD)             A-7
A-2       Impact of Industrial Waste Discharge on POTW               A-10
           Loadings (Bayshore/Union Beach, NJ)
A-3       Horse Creek Pollution Control Facility                       A-l9
           Influent pH
A-4       Wastewater Discharge at Influent Metering                   A-21
           Station (Maiden Creek/Blandon, PA)
A-5       West Point Chromium Concentrations (Seattle, WA)           A-25

-------
               NOTE TO USERS OF THE GUIDANCE MANUAL
The case studies contained in Appendix A, and referred to throughout the text
were  conducted over  a period from  December, 1985  to March,  1986.   The
information contained in each discussion was current at that time, but since then
the status  of  some of  the activities at the case study sites is likely to have
changed.
                                     VI

-------
                             1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND

Sections 307(b)(l)  and  (c)  of the  Clean  Water  Act  (CWA)  direct  the  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish pretreatment standards "to
prevent  the  discharge  of  any pollutant through  treatment works...  which  are
publicly  owned, which pollutant interferes with, passes through, or is otherwise
incompatible with such works."  These sections address the problems created by
discharges  of  pollutants   from  nondomestic sources   to  municipal  sewage
treatment works.   Specifically  addressed are discharges of pollutants which
either interfere with the operation or performance of the works or pass through
the works to navigable waters untreated or inadequately  treated.  Pretreatment
standards are intended to  prevent these problems from  occurring by requiring
nondomestic users of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)  to pretreat their
wastes before discharging  them  to the  POTW.   In  1977, Congress amended
Section 402(b)(8) of the CWA to  require POTWs to help regulate their industrial
users (lUs) by establishing local programs  to ensure that industrial users comply
with pretreatment standards.

In establishing the national pretreatment  program to achieve  these  goals,  the
EPA adopted  a broad-based regulatory approach  that  implements  the statutory
prohibitions against pass-through and interference at two basic  levels.  The first
is through the promulgation  of national  categorical standards  which apply to
certain industrial users within selected categories of industries that  commonly
discharge  toxic  pollutants.    Categorical   standards   establish  numerical,
technology-based discharge limits  derived primarily to control  the discharge of
toxic pollutants which could interfere with or pass  through POTWs.  The EPA has
promulgated categorical standards for many major and minor industry  categories
(See 40 CFR Parts 400-469).  The EPA will be evaluating these industries and
other industries for the control of additional toxic pollutants.

Implementation of the categorical standards will not remedy all the interference
and pass-through problems  that may arise at  a POTW.  The potential for many
pass-through or interference  problems depends not only on the nature of  the
discharge but also on local conditions (e.g., the type of treatment process used
by the POTW,  local water quality, the  POTW's chosen method for handling
sludge), and thus needs to  be addressed on a case-by-case basis.  Such problems
can result from discharges by categorical  industries of pollutants not covered by
a  categorical  standard or  from  nondomestic sources  not  regulated  by  the
categorical standards.  In  addition, since categorical  standards are  established
industry-wide,  they cannot  consider site-specific conditions, and therefore,  may
not be adequate to  prevent all  pass-through and  interference  even  for  the
regulated pollutants.  The  second level of  EPA's regulatory approach, contained

-------
in the  General Pretreatment Regulations  (40 CFR  Part 403), addresses these
areas of concern.  First, Section 403.5(b)  establishes  specific prohibitions which
apply to all nondomestic users and are designed to guard against common types
of pollutant discharges that may result in  interference and pass-through (e.g., no
discharge  of   flammable,   explosive,  or  corrosive  pollutants).    Second,
Section 403.5(a)  establishes  a  general  prohibition  against  pass-through  and
interference which serves as a back-up standard  to  address  localized problems
that occur.  In addition, POTWs with total  design flow greater than  5 mgd and
which receive pollutants which pass through or interfere with  POTW operation or
are  otherwise  subject  to  pretreatment  standards  must   establish  formal
pretreatment programs  which  must be approved by the EPA or a  designated
State agency.  POTWs with design flow less than 5 mgd may also be required to
develop  pretreatment programs if circumstances  warrant in order  to prevent
pass-through or interference.  As part of their programs, POTWs must develop
and  enforce specific local limits  to prevent  pass-through and interference.
POTWs not required  to develop pretreatment programs may still be required to
develop local limits if they experience pass-through or interference that is likely
to recur (Section 403.5(c)).

The  need for  guidance  on preventing  interference was  identified by   the
Pretreatment Implementation Review Task Force  (PIRT).  PIRT was established
on February  3, 1984 by the  EPA Administrator.  The task force  was composed of
17 representatives  from POTWs, States, industry, environmental groups and EPA
Regions.   The  charge  given to PIRT was to  make recommendations to EPA
concerning the problems faced  by POTWs, States, and  industry in implementing
the national pretreatment  program.  In its Final  Report to the Administrator
(U.S.  EPA, 1985b), one of  the  specific problems identified by  PIRT was  the
difficulty experienced by POTWs in the recognition,  tracking, and mitigation of
interferences caused  by industrial discharges.  PIRT's recommendation was  for
EPA to provide guidance to  municipalities regarding such interference problems.
This report is EPA's response to that recommendation.

1.2 DEFINITION OF  INTERFERENCE

The  U.S.  EPA recently promulgated revised  definitions for  the terms  "pass
through"  and "interference"  (52 Federal  Register  1586,  January 14,  1987).  As
defined in 40 CFR, Part 403.3 (i):

(i)    The  term  "Interference"  means a discharge  which,  alone  or in
      conjunction with a discharge or discharges from  other sources, both:

      (1)   Inhibits or  disrupts  the POTW, its  treatment  processes or
           operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; and

      (2)   Therefore is a cause of a violation of any  requirement of the
           POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase  in the magnitude
           or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge
           use  or  disposal  in  compliance  with  the following  statutory
           provisions and regulations or permits issued thereunder (or  more
           stringent  State or local regulations):  Section 405 of the Clean
           Water Act,  the Solid  Waste  Disposal Act (SWDA) (including

-------
           Title n, more commonly referred to as the Resource Conserva-
           tion and Recovery Act (RCRA), and including State regulations
           contained  in any  state  sludge  management plan  prepared
           pursuant to Subtitle D of  the  SWDA), the Clean  Air Act, the
           Toxic  Substances  Control Act,  and  the Marine  Protection,
           Research and Sanctuaries Act.

In the same rulemaking that established the new definitions (52 Federal Register
1586, January 14, 1987), EPA amended the General Pretreatment Regulations to
establish affirmative defenses to liability on the part of an industrial user for
violating the general prohibitions or certain  of the specific prohibitions.  These
defenses address situations where an industrial user did not know or have reason
to know that its discharge  would cause interference.  The reader is referred to
the Federal Register citation  above for  additional information and perspective,
as provided in the preamble to  the regulation.

The  interference  prohibition  addresses  situations where an industrial user's
discharge,  either alone  or in  conjunction with other discharges,  disrupts  the
POTW or its sludge practices,  and the disruption is a  cause of a permit violation
or prevents the  POTW  from  lawfully using its chosen  sludge use or disposal
method.  In contrast, the pass-through prohibition addresses situations where an
lU's  discharge  exits the POTW to waters of the United  States in quantities or
concentrations which, alone or  in conjunction with  other discharges, cause a
permit violation.  Pass-through is not necessarily related  to an inhibition or
disruption of the POTW  processes, but instead is related to a pollutant discharge
which is not susceptible to adequate treatment by the POTW.

An industrial user whose discharge is found to cause pass-through or interference
is legally liable  for violating  the general prohibitions, and may be  subject to
enforcement action.  However, as discussed in the Federal Register preamble to
the  new  definitions  of pass-through  and  interference,  an  industrial  user's
discharge is considered to be interference or pass-through only  if the discharge
is a cause of the POTW's noncompliance.  If a malfunction or improper operation
by the  POTW, rather than an industrial  user's discharge,  causes the POTW's
noncompliance with  its  NPDES  permit  or  sludge requirements,  interference
and/or pass-through are not occurring.  The EPA  intends the definitions to be
interpreted and  implemented  in  a manner  consistent with  the Congressional
intent that pretreatment technology not be required as a substitute for adequate
operation and maintenance of  the  POTW.    Thus,  if  the   POTW's improper
operation alone prevents it from meeting the effluent limitation in  its NPDES
permit, the POTW must correct its operational problem.

The  interference  definition does not  directly address  situations in which  a
discharge causes problems other than NPDES permit violations or impairment of
sludge use or disposal. For example, POTW worker health and safety problems or
unacceptable  air emissions could  result  from IU  discharges.   The EPA is
currently  considering  whether   and  how   to  address  these  problems  more
specifically through  guidance and future regulations,  if appropriate,  and  by
encouraging POTWs to  address these concerns in  their  local ordinances.   This

-------
manual addresses such concerns  to  only  a limited degree,  focusing mainly on
interference as defined in the above-mentioned regulation.

1.3 GUIDANCE MANUAL OBJECTIVES

The  purpose of  this manual is  to  provide POTW operators with guidance on
dealing with interferences caused by pollutants from  nondomestic sources.  In
addition, some guidance  is  provided on distinquishing interferences caused by
nondomestic discharges from problems resulting from  poor operation and main-
tenance of  the POTW. This manual is divided into three major sections, which
correspond  to the order in  which a POTW should address interference.  These
sections are:

      •    Detecting Interference
      •    Source Identification
      •    Mitigation

The  section on detecting interference is  intended to help identify the types of
interferences  and substances which are known to cause problems.  The way in
which interference occurs in both the sewer collection system and the treatment
plant is also discussed, along with analytical tests and monitoring that can be
conducted by POTW operators.

The  second major section deals with the identification of the industrial sources
of the interference-causing  substances.  Sources can be separated into chronic
dischargers of industrial pollutants,  isolated spill events,  and  hauled wastes.
Identification techniques  range from  simple sensory observations to the use of
sophisticated monitoring equipment for tracing problems at the POTW back to a
source.

The  final section on mitigation discusses ways in which municipalities  can cope
with  interference  problems.  In-plant  control,  source control  and  legal and
enforcement  remedies are  addressed  in the  section.   Operators should be
cautioned that there are few straightforward solutions to these  problems, and
that  often  a combination of techniques will need to be employed to properly
mitigate an interference. The section concludes with a discussion on planning, so
that  future industrial discharges  will  not  interfere with successful  POTW
operations.

There are  two  appendices  included in the back of  this manual.  Appendix A
contains case studies of  14 POTWs, visited as  part of this project, that  have
previously  experienced interferences  but  have mitigated the problems over the
past few years.   These cases are  referred to throughout the manual wherever a
certain case stud}? illustrates a particular problem or  solution that is discussed.
While the  case  studies represent some of  the  types  of  interference  problems
experienced by  POTWs, they should  not  necessarily be viewed  as examples of
pretreatment  programs which are ideally implemented or fully endorsed by the
EPA.   It  is  hoped  that  the case  studies  will be useful  to people  who are
experiencing problems similar to those described, A summary of the case studies
including the names and phone numbers of  individuals who can be contacted for
further information is provided on Table A-l.  Appendix B is a list compiled from

-------
the published literature and actual treatment plant studies that includes many of
the inorganic and organic substances now recognized as having the potential to
cause interference.

-------
                       Z.  DETECTING INTERFERENCE
2.1 TYPES OF INTERFERENCE

Interference  can be broken down into two basic types:  (1) interference with the
POTW's ability to meet its NPDES permit; and (2) interference with its ability  to
utilize its chosen sludge disposal method.  With either type, several sources may
contribute to the  interference.   For example,  contamination  of sludge  with
unacceptable levels of metals may be due to  the cumulative contributions from
several industries.   Domestic  sewage background concentrations can  also be a
significant source of some metals.  Unless the interference  is caused solely by
domestic sources or inadequate  operation and maintenance of the POTW, each
nondomestic  source of the interfering pollutant should be identified and  its role
in causing the  interference  assessed.   The  individual sources  must then be
controlled  as necessary to allow the POTW to  meet its NPDES permit  and utilize
its chosen sludge disposal method.

Industrial users' discharges can cause the first type of interference, involving a
permit violation, by several means. These include, but are not limited  to:

      •     physically  disrupting the  flow of wastewater through the  POTW's
           system

      •     chemically,  physically,  or   thermally  inhibiting  the  treatment
           processes

      •     hydraulically overloading  the plant so that proper settlement does not
           occur or wastes are retained for too short a time to receive adequate
           treatment before discharge.

The pollutants discharged by the industrial user that cause the POTW to violate
its permit  may be  the same as, or different from,  the pollutants discharged  in
violation of the  permit.   For  example, an industrial user discharging excessive
BOD  that causes a disruption  of the biological treatment  process and results  in
the  POTW exceeding its BOD discharge permit  limit may  be causing  an
interference.   Likewise,  the same industrial user discharging a toxic pollutant
that  inhibits  the  POTW's performance  and results in effluent BOD  permit
violations is also causing an interference.  It should be noted that  in the example
of an excessive  BOD discharge causing  a BOD permit  violation, the problem
could be pass-through  rather than interference.  For example, a heavy discharge
of relatively non-degradable organic matter might pass through the plant  without
causing an upset. The distinction between pass-through and interference must  be
made depending of  the individual circumstances of such cases.

-------
The  second type of interference, impairment of sludge use or disposal, results
when the POTW's sludge no longer meets applicable requirements for its chosen
use or disposal alternative.  Thus, if the POTW has elected to apply the sludge to
land but industrial  discharges prevent the lawful implementation of this method,
interference  occurs.    Detection  of  this  type of interference is  generally
performed by sludge monitoring coupled with monitoring of industrial  users.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, any type of interference is a violation of the general
prohibition (40 CFR Part 403.5(a)).  Some interferences are also violations of the
specific prohibitions  (40  CFR  Part 403.5(b)).   The  specific  prohibitions  bar
discharges which:

      1.    create a fire or explosion hazard;
      2.    are corrosive to POTW structures;
      3.    obstruct wastewater flow resulting in interference;
      4.    release   pollutants (including BOD) at rates or concentrations which
           will cause interference; or
      5.    increase the influent  wastewater temperature above 40°C, or inhibit
           biological activity due to heat, resulting  in interference.

The  problems  referred to by  the specific  prohibitions do not  always result in
interference  (ie.,  permit  violations),  yet  they  are  detrimental   to  POTW
operations. In fact, many local sewer use ordinances contain additional or more
stringent local prohibitions, such as  a  prohibition against discharges  which
release toxic vapors  endangering POTW worker health and safety.   The EPA
strongly supports and encourages  such local  prohibitions.

Another way of looking  at types of  interference  is to classify  them by  the
location of  impact:   either  the collection  system or  the  treatment  plant.
Collection system problems (corrosion of sewer mains, explosions in sewers, etc.)
are  generally  easier  to relate  to industrial  or  commercial discharges, while
interference at the treatment plant  requires detailed analysis to ensure that it is
not  the result of poor operation and  maintenance  practices or from domestic
sources.  Since it  is often the most difficult to detect and trace to industrial
sources, this chapter emphasizes treatment process interference.  The chapter
looks at both chronic inhibition and upset conditions. The ability of a particular
waste discharge to cause inhibition or upset is considered in terms of three
factors:

                 •     industrial discharge practices
                 •     acclimation of POTW treatment processes to the specific
                      pollutants
                 •     impacts on the POTW

The  next two subsections  will  discuss chronic  inhibition and upset  conditions in
more detail.  Collection system problems are discussed in Section 2.3.

-------
2.1.1  Chronic Inhibition

Chronic  inhibition refers to a more or less consistent pattern of impairment of
the functioning of  the  biotnass  in a biological  treatment process  caused  by
influent  pollutant concentrations that are above  tolerable levels.  Inhibition is
usually defined by a decrease in oxygen uptake rate or a decrease in COD/BOD
removal.   If the inhibition  leads to a permit violation,  it then is classified as
interference.   This type of interference  results from  either  a continuous  or
semi-continuous  discharge  of  an industrial pollutant  to the POTW.  Chronic
inhibition may also result from the total effect of several industries discharging
a variety of inhibitory pollutants. Industrial sources of chronic problems tend to
be  by-products of  production activities  such  as chemical derivatives,  rinse
waters and contact cooling water.

The effects of an inhibitory pollutant on plant biomass  vary  depending on how
frequently and at what level the pollutant is discharged.  The more  consistently a
pollutant is fed to the biological treatment process, the more chance the biomass
has to develop a "resistance" to the pollutant.  If a pollutant  is fed  at a  fairly
even  rate and  concentration, the biomass will generally eventually become
accustomed to or "acclimate" to the  polluant, and BOD removal efficiency will
no longer suffer.  For this reason, a plant may  experience operational problems
unless there has been sufficient time  for the biomass to become acclimated.  In
addition,  discharges of toxics at high  enough concentrations can cause inhibition
even in acclimated systems.

Although it does not always  result in a POTW violating its NPDES permit limits,
chronic inhibition can increase the overall expense and difficulty of operating a
treatment plant in compliance with NPDES permit limits.  For example, a plant
may have to be operated at an increased  MCRT or  require additional aeration
capacity  to  counteract the negative effects of  inhibition.  Depending on  the
circumstances,  this  may  involve significantly increased  operating  costs  for
recirculating sludge at  a higher rate or providing more aeration. It may also
take  away any  reserve  capacity that the plant might  otherwise have had  for
future growth.  Therefore,  POTW's experiencing chronic inhibition should take
steps to mitigate it even when there is no immediate  threat of an NPDES permit
violation.

2.1.2  Upset Conditions

The results of 29 case studies performed in conjunction with the development of
this manual showed that most interference problems  are caused by intermittent
discharges  of  high-strength  conventional wastes  which  overload  a POTW's
organic capacity, causing plant upset. The  term "upset" is used in this manual to
refer to  an exceptional  incident which creates a temporary non-compliance with
permit limits due to the impacts of  the incoming waste characteristics on  the
treatment processes.   Discharges causing upset commonly  come  from food
processors such as  bakeries,  dairies, breweries,  canneries, poultry  farms  and
meat  packaging  plants.    Examples of  interferences due   to  high-strength
conventional  wastes   are   provided   by   the   Bayshore  Regional   Sewerage

-------
Authority  (New Jersey), and Hamilton  Township  (New  Jersey) case  studies in
Appendix A.  In some cases, upsets have occurred even when the total industrial
contribution  was significantly less than 5 percent of the total plant flow.  It is
frequently  the intermittent discharge of concentrated wastes which leads to the
upset.

Similarly, in  cases of plant upsets due to  the discharge  of toxic pollutants, it is
usually the intermittent discharges  of  toxics which produce  the  most drastic
effects.  These types of discharges may result from:

                      process tank contents disposal
                      cleanup operations
                      industrial spills
                      waste hauler discharges
                      midnight dumping (illegal waste hauling)

Biological  populations  are  typically not  acclimated   to  either  the  specific
compounds or concentration levels observed in such discharges. The impacts on
biological  processes can  therefore be severe  and rapid, often requiring long
recovery periods.   Such interferences commonly affect the  effluent quality
rather than the stabilized and dewatered sludge characteristics, although the loss
of an anaerobic digester due to slug loads  of heavy metals is not unusual. A slug
load is defined  as any pollutant in a discharge at  a flow rate  and/or pollutant
concentration which will cause interference at the POTW.

It is important that POTWs  monitor the occurrence of upset  conditions caused by
industrial waste discharges. In some cases, the problems may recur in a cyclical
pattern, such as once-per-week or once-per-month.  Recognition of the pattern
coupled with contaminant identification will go a  long  way toward discovering
the source  of the problem.  Intermittent discharges of this type tend to  produce
similar impacts on the POTW from  incident to  incident.  Changes in dissolved
oxygen (DO)  levels, mixed  liquor suspended solids  (MLSS),  sludge volume index
(SVI), reactor temperature,  etc. are all indications of process changes potentially
resulting from industrial wastes.

The impacts  of interference-causing substances are not restricted to biological
systems within a treatment facility.  Interference problems can also surface in
physical  treatment systems (clarifiers, thickeners, filters, etc.) or in the  sewer
collection  system.    Municipalities  should  make  every  effort  to  mitigate
discharges  that  threaten any treatment process as well  as the integrity of the
collection  system,  not only to avoid interference, but  for the  protection  of
worker health and safety as well.

2.2 INTERFERENCE-CAUSING SUBSTANCES

POTW interference can be  caused by a wide variety of chemical, biological and
physical  factors.   Chemical factors such as the types  and concentrations  of
industrial wastewater constituents which cause interference  are highly variable.

-------
The studies reported in the literature discussing chemical interference/inhibition
range from research done in the laboratory to studies of actual treatment plant
operations.  There  has been  a substantial  body of  work published and  many
researchers have devoted  a great deal  of  effort  to these  types of  studies.
Previous reviews (U.S. EPA, 1979; Geating,  1981; U.S.  EPA,  1981a; Russell, et
al., 1983; U.S. EPA,  1986a) have presented ranges of concentrations for a variety
of pollutants which  inhibit biological processes.  The reader should refer to these
documents for a more  thorough, presentation of pollutant treatability and process
inhibition.    As  an  aid to  POTW operators, this  manual compiles  available
in for ..nation on the types and concentrations of pollutants and compounds which
inhibit some biological treatment systems.

There  are various  ways of measuring inhibition  and the  fact  that  different
researchers use  different  methods results  in a range  of published  "inhibiting
concentrations",  even  for  nearly  identical  study conditions.   The  two  most
typical methods of determining activated  sludge inhibition  are  by measuring
1) decreases in COD or BOD removal or 2) decreases in oxygen utilization rates.
Threshold inhibition levels as measured by these two methods are usually defined
differently by  individual  researchers,  but  are  most  typically set  at  the
10-50 percent  range.   Anaerobic  treatment inhibition is typically defined as
increased volatile acid levels or decreased methane generation, but once  again
the threshold levels  are variously defined.  Nitrification inhibition  is specified as
a decrease in the degree of ammonia conversion.

The most important  conditions that affect biological inhibition are:

                      the nature and strength of the inhibiting agent
                      biomass characteristics
                      pH
                      temperature
                      synergism
                      antagonism
                      acclimation

For most  studies, biomass characteristics are not  described in  the literature,
except as  related to whether or not  the biomass was acclimated. The diverse
biomass  population  is  likely to  be  very different from one reported study to the
next.  Characteristics such as sludge age or food to microorganism (F/M) ratio
will have  a significant impact on the inhibitory concentration levels of pollu-
tants.  Actual  test  conditions,  including  temperature  and pH, vary dramatically
from study to study, with the result being that inconsistent values are reported.
Wastewater pH plays  a particularly  important role  in metal-caused inhibition.
The pH affects the  solubility of metal ions, and it is primarily the soluble metal
that is toxic to  microorganisms.  Synergism, or  the  increase in  the  inhibitory
effect of  one  substance by the presence of another, is most important when
considering combinations of metals.   Toxic organics do not exhibit this effect as
often as metals.  On  the other hand, some  compounds are antagonistic  towards
each other, decreasing the inhibitory effect of either compound alone.  Examples
are chelating agents,  such as EDTA, which  are  antagonistic toward metal ions
and reduce their toxic effects.
                                      10

-------
Substances  which cause  interference/inhibition problems  can be  divided into
three groups:

                •     conventional pollutants
                •     metals and other inorganics
                •     organic compounds

Each of these categories is considered separately in the subsections to follow.

2.2.1 Conventional Pollutants

The  term  "conventional  pollutants"  as used  in  this manual  includes  BOD,
suspended solids, pH, and  oil and grease.  Since BOD  and  suspended solids (SS)
form the  usual basis of secondary treatment plant design, interference/inhibition
problems  result from exceeding the peak mass loadings specified by the design.
Such "shock loadings" (slug  loadings) of conventional  pollutants  are a common
cause  of  permit   violations  resulting   from  oxygen  transfer   limitations,
insufficient biodegradation  and solids  carryover.   Oil and  grease are normal
constituents of domestic  wastewater that  if present in elevated  concentrations
can  interfere with normal waste treatment by  preventing bacteriological floe
from properly settling and disrupt mechanical equipment operation.  The pH of a
wastewater can also  cause interference if it is too high or too low, or is  widely
fluctuating.

2.2.2 Metals and Other Inorganics

More research efforts have been directed toward the impacts of heavy metals on
biological treatment  than any other  classification of contaminant found  in
wastewater.  A large percentage  of the insoluble metals  and metal salts that
enter a POTW settle out during primary clarification.   Consequently, a signifi-
cant impact of metals  is in  rendering sludges  unacceptable  for  a variety  of
disposal options, notably landspreading for agricultural purposes.

The  soluble fractions of the metals  can  upset the secondary treatment processes.
Table 2-1 presents ranges  of metal  and other inorganic pollutant  concentrations
inhibiting biological  processes.   Important  factors  affecting these ranges  of
values are pH, solubility,  and the definition of inhibition used by the researchers
reporting  the  results.  The wide range of concentrations presented results from
apparently contradictory data published in the  literature.   The values presented
in Table 2-1 represent the range of reported threshold  inhibition concentrations.
Acclimation is an important issue, which in many studies was either not  reported
or was not known.  However, it would be reasonable to  expect the lower end of a
range to correspond to threshold levels inhibiting an  unacclimated system while
the upper end of the range  would  correspond to threshold levels  inhibiting  an
acclimated system.  The primary references, for this table are U.S.  EPA (1981a),
Russell, et al., (1983) and Geating  (1981).  U.S. EPA  (1986a) provides a more
complete  reference list.

The  inhibition levels presented in  Table 2-1 are for the dissolved  metal unless
otherwise indicated.   The dissolved forin is the most  toxic.  However, POTWs
                                      11

-------
should control  the  total metal  entering the plant because participate metal or
metal  compounds may exert  some toxicity or may  later be resolubilized.  The
dissolved  metals present in the secondary treatment process are derived both
from dissolved metals in the  plant influent and from desorption of metals from
sludges that are recycled to secondary treatment.   A large percentage  of  the
toxic  metals present in the aeration basins at some treatment plants has been
found  to  be  contributed by  recycled   solids  handling  sidestreams.    Such
contributions can cause a continued toxic effect long after the source has been
controlled.

2.2.3 Organic Compounds

Considerable  interest  exists  among the EPA and public  health officials
concerning the fate and effects of toxic organic compounds in POTWs.  Organic
substances which enter  municipal facilities are either removed in the biological
treatment processes,  inhibit  biological degradation, or pass through the plant.
The principal removal mechanisms are:

                 •     volatilization
                 •     biodegradation
                 •     adsorption to biological floes and settling

The amount of information available on the impacts of organic contaminants is
small compared with the metals,  due in large part to the number of compounds
of interest and also to  the sophisticated  analytical  equipment required  to
measure these organics. Table 2-2 presents ranges of concentrations for toxic
organic compounds which inhibit biological systems.

The  classification  scheme used in Table 2-2 involved  grouping compounds of
similar structure and characteristics  which  might tend  to  inhibit biological
processes at similar  concentrations.  The reader is cautioned,  however,  that
chemicals with  similar structure  do  not  always  possess similar inhibition
characteristics.  For a more detailed summary of what is known about inhibition
by individual  organics, see Russell,  et al. (1983),  U.S.  EPA (I981a),  Geating
(1981), and U.S.  EPA, (1977b).

It is important to note  that the categories in Table 2-2 are very broad and the
concentration ranges  presented are  simply typical  values for some  compounds
and should not be interpreted as  defining an  inhibition range for all compounds
within the classifications.  Appendix B lists the  compounds that  fall into these
broad  classifications.

2.3 SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM

Industrial and waste hauler discharges can be very detrimental to the condition
of the sewer  collection system.  The  types of substances responsible for  such
problems are generally the same pollutants addressed by the specific prohibi-
tions.  Table 2-3 defines four categories of these substances with examples given
for each.
                                      12

-------
Corrosivity problems can be identified by observing the deterioration of the pipe
material or measuring the pH of the wastewater at several locations within the
collection system.   Corrosion rates generally increase significantly below pH 5
and above pH 12.5.  The best approach is  to maintain a program of regular sewer
inspection  coupled with  the use of recording pH meters  located at  strategic
interceptor locations in the sewer system.   A proper inspection program should
include the detection of unusual colors or odors by trained personnel.

Detecting substances which may result in ignitability or reactivity problems is a
more  complicated  task.    Instrumentation  is  available to  detect  explosive
conditions, lack of oxygen and the presence of hydrogen sulfide.  Such equipment
is  typically used for worker safety prior  to entering confined, below grade areas
such as  manholes and sewer interceptors.   To  install  and maintain  sensitive
instruments of this type, along with the recording  devices needed for proper
monitoring, would be  very expensive  if placed in numerous locations.  A more
practical approach is to survey  the industries discharging to a POTW  as a means
of identifying potential  dischargers of these substances  (see Section 3).  Once
likely  industrial candidates are identified, portable detection instrumentation
can be used to spot check the sewer  environment or permanent equipment can
be installed in a few, selected locations.

Baltimore, Maryland and Passaic Valley, New Jersey are examples of locations
where  sewer collection system problems  have been identified and addressed (see
Appendix A).   Discharges  of volatile organics  such as  ethyl benzene,  xylene,
toluene and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) into the Baltimore collection system have
resulted in  pump  station  and   other  building  evacuations in the  past.   By
successfully tracing these  problems to  the  source,  the  City has reduced the
occurrence of  such incidents  dramatically.   Passaic Valley experienced both
sewer  clogging problems  from a pulp and paper mill and high concentrations of
flammables from a  number of industrial sources. Lower explosion limits (LEL)
were  established and  industries identified  as being dischargers of flammables
were  required to install LEL detection equipment in their effluent piping.

Another example of the  use of  LELs is  by the  Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts, where the  wastewater  ordinance requires all significant  potential
dischargers of  flammable  substances to  install,  operate and  maintain  an
adequate combustible  gas monitoring system.    The system provides early
detection so that preventive measures can be taken.  Systems must be installed
in  a fixed location and continuously operated, incorporating an indicator,  as well
as an  automatic  continuous  recorder,  adjustable  two-stage  alarm system,
calibration for methane  detection, and  a means for diverting flow  from the
sewer  to a holding vessel when  the combustible gas level is 20% of the LEL or
greater. Industrial  users, primarily petroleum  refineries, storage and transfer
facilities, and chemical manufacturing plants, must submit engineering drawings
of their proposed systems for  review and approval by  the Districts prior  to
construction.
                                      13

-------
2.4 PLANT OPERATIONS

There  are  numerous  tools  available  to the  plant operator  to monitor  the
condition and performance of the facility.  Suspended growth biological treat-
ment systems generally provide more operational control (such as sludge wasting
and recycle, aeration tank D.O., process modifications), and therefore monitor-
ing opportunities,  than  do  fixed film  systems.   However,  all POTWs have
processes that can be easily checked on a daily basis which can signal the onset
of an  interference  problem.   Making  use  of  the available  tools may be  the
difference between total process failure and catching the problem before it fully
develops.

The operational tools available fall into the following categories:

     •    observation
     •    instrumentation
     •    analytical results

2.4.1  Observation

Some of the most powerful tools in the operation of a treatment facility are the
senses of sight, sound, touch  and smell.  Maintenance personnel are typically
trained to listen for the improper operation of a blower or to feel for signs of an
overheated  bearing.   Similarly, plant  operators should be trained to observe
changes  in the appearance or smell of unit  processes which might be  indicative
of a problem. A major  thrust  of the  Hamilton Township,  New Jersey,  inter-
ference identification program was to require  that operators spend a minimum
number of hours each work shift "walking the grounds" (see Appendix A).  Such a
requirement can  (and did) result in the  identification of late night spill events
that might  otherwise go  unnoticed until morning, when it may  be too late for
biological processes to recover.

Examples of what operators should notice as they work around a POTW are the:

           surface  appearance of clarifiers
           amount  and color of foam in  aeration tanks
           presence  of nuisance  organisms, insects or odors  near fixed film
           systems
           common odors at each plant location
           sludge and recycle flow appearance at each processing step

The EPA has provided troubleshooting and process control guidance to  operators
in previously published manuals (U.S.  EPA,  1977a; U.S. EPA,  1978).   These
documents assist POTWs  in  troubleshooting process performance problems,  and
provide numerous tables  to help the operator  identify problems through  visual
inspection.  Many problems  uncovered  through plant observation do  not  result
from industrial discharges, but rather from equipment malfunction, inadequate
maintenance or design deficiencies.  The two manuals referenced above provide
assistance in distinguishing between the  potential sources  of such problems.
Table  2-4 identifies the operational indicators of process malfunction which may
                                      14

-------
be related to industrial waste discharges.  The processes listed in Table 2-4 are
for  typical  secondary  treatment  plants.    Advanced  wastewater treatment
systems  and sludge thickening and dewatering processes are not included in this
manual.

Z.4.Z Instrumentation

Instrumentation is designed into treatment  facilities as an aid to the operations
staff.  Whether located at the central control panel or at the piece of equipment
being monitored, digital and dial gauge readouts provide instant feedback to an
experienced operator  concerning the conditions in  the  plant.    Strip  chart
recorders maintain permanent  records of the critical parameters,  such as raw
wastewater feed, to identify long-term trends and isolated  excursions.  Despite
the  availability  of  instrumentation and  level of sophistication,  much of the
hardware may be unused or simply ignored  by operators because of a perceived
complexity  and/or unreliability.

When monitoring instruments are incorporated into a POTW, it is important that
such equipment be maintained in accordance with manufacturer's  specifications
and  recalibrated at regular intervals.  The  utility of  these  instruments depends
upon the operator's understanding of the readout.  Proper training of operations
personnel is therefore a  critical  element  in  using instrumentation as possible
early warning signals of a pending interference problem.

The  use  of simple portable instruments and equipment for routine POTW site
inspection can be quite useful to the operator.  The use  of a device to measure
the depth of sludge in clarifiers may be the best way to learn that a sludge pump
did not operate as expected or that unusual wastes have entered  the  plant.  In
the Tolleson, Arizona treatment plant  (see Appendix A), the operators discovered
that a rapidly increasing sludge depth  in the primary clarifiers  was  indicative of
upset conditions caused by high solids discharges from a meatpacking industry.

A number  of  commercially available instruments  can be utilized  by  plant
operators either  for permanently-mounted,  continuous monitoring and control or
as portable  devices. Table 2-5  lists the types of instruments, where they can be
utilized in the treatment facility, and  the parameters of interest in  interference
identification.  The instruments listed in the  table are  useful for  both process
evaluation  as  discussed   in  this  section,  and  for  wastewater  monitoring
(Section  2.5).  The instrumentation selected by a POTW  should be a function of
the wastewater characteristics  of the  industrial discharges as determined by the
industrial survey  conducted during pretreatment program development.

2.4.3.  Analytical Results

The  subsection on observation  (2.4.1)  outlined the benefits  of noting  the  smell
and appearance of unit processes during routine plant inspections.   There  are a
number  of  standard analytical techniques  that can  be used to   confirm  the
presence  and extent of problems identified  by sensory observation.  Table 2-6
lists the common test procedures that can  be performed on  typical treatment
plant processes.   The  testing frequency indicated is  typical  of  well-operated
                                      15

-------
facilities.   The  actual  frequency used will  be site-specific as a  function  of
process problems,  industrial  discharges, and  staff  and equipment availability.
The  monitoring procedures listed on Table 2-6 are relevant to assessing overall
plant performance, not  just interference problems.   As was the case in both
Tolleson,  Arizona  (primary sludge  depth)  and Oswego, New York (activated
sludge  SVI),  the  relationship  between operating  parameters  and  specific
industrial discharges is oftentimes correlated by trial and error.

Conductivity,  D.O., flow  and pH  are the parameters that are measured most
reliably by the instrumentation specified in  Table 2-5.  Some of  the devices,
such as the selective ion electrodes, are adversely  affected  by the  wastewater
environment,   and  are  therefore not  well-suited  to  on-line  monitoring
applications.  TOC analyzers are expensive  instruments that should be housed in
controlled laboratory environments.   In order to be effective in identifying slug
discharges of organics,  the instrument  must be  provided with representative
wastewater samples on a regular basis.

2.5   WASTEWATER MONITORING

A critical aspect  to  any successful industrial waste management program is
comprehensive monitoring of industrial discharges, POTW influent, effluent and
sludge, and important process  streams within  the plant. The benefits derived by
the municipalities in terms of understanding  their influent wastewater charac-
teristics and  sources  of specific  contaminants are  many.   Monitoring is also
performed  to  provide  data from which to develop  local limits and later  to
evaluate an industry's compliance with those limits.

Developing a large database  of  analytical  results on  a  POTW's  wastewater
provides a baseline for  future comparison.  When industrial discharges cause a
significant  deviation from the baseline, noting  such changes will help detect a
potential interference problem  and may prove useful  in  later  identifying  the
source.   In the  Hamilton Township, New Jersey plant, the discharges from a
pharmaceutical manufacturer were  correlated to high POTW influent soluble
BOD through an extensive analytical testing program.  A pharmaceutical manu-
facturer was  also  implicated in the discharge of high ammonia levels  to  the
Neuse River Plant in Raleigh, North Carolina.  Year-round sampling of 70 metal
finishing/electroplating  industries and strict  enforcement of  local limits  for
metals has substantially reduced  the concentrations  of heavy  metals (Cr,  Cd,
Cu,  Pb,  Ni, Zn) at the  Metro-West  Point Plant in Seattle, Washington over the
past five  years.

2.5.1 POTW Influent

Most municipalities now have some form of  influent wastewater monitoring. The
most common approach is to install an automatic  sampler at the headworks of
the  plant.  State-of-the-art  sampling equipment  provides  the POTW with four
options:
                                      16

-------
           9     timed sampling with collection in discrete sample containers
           •     flow-proportioned sampling with  collection in discrete  sample
                 containers
           •     time-proportioned composite sampling
           •     flow-proportioned composite sampling

Samples collected in discrete containers provide a  means  of identifying  diurnal
fluctuations  in wastewater characteristics.  Such  an approach  can be costly if
hourly samples are analyzed, but is particularly useful if  "midnight dumping" of
prohibited substances  is  suspected,  since discrete samples do  not  mask the
impact of short-term  discharge  concentrations by averaging  over a  24-hour
period.  An alternative approach  is to preserve and store the discrete samples,
and then analyze only if problems occur at  the POTW.

Composite sampling involves the collection of a fixed volume of  wastewater at
regular intervals into a single, large container.  A typical approach is to  collect
100 ml every 15  minutes for  24 hours  into a 10-liter sample bottle.  This is the
most  common method of obtaining average daily influent samples.  A better
approach is   to  proportion   the  sample  volume consistent with  the  influent
volumetric discharge at  the time of collection.   This  technique requires a
feedback signal  from an  influent  flowmeter  to the sampler,  but results in a
sample that is consistent with the mass loadings to the POTW.

Analyses  performed  on a POTW influent  should routinely include BOD,  SS and
other  pollutants  (such  as NH3  and P) included in the  NPDES permit.   When
evaluating the potential  for inhibition caused by toxic  pollutants,  additional
testing is necessary.  The  testing intervals for  the toxic organics and metals are
determined  on  a  site-specific   basis  as  a  function   of  permit violations,
pretreatment  program   requirements,  process  upsets,  types  of  industrial
discharges and budgetary constraints.

A suggested  approach is for  the POTW to survey  its nondomestic users  to  find
out what  toxic metals and organics are reasonably  expected to be present in its
influent at detectable levels. The POTW  should then  analyze its plant influent
for those pollutants. In addition to the pollutants expected  to  be present, it is
recommended  that  the POTW  sample for the metals  and cyanide listed in
Table 2-1. Among the  toxic  organic pollutants, standardized analytical methods
are available  primarily  for EPA's list of "priority pollutants".   These pollutants
are covered by EPA methods  in the 600 series.   The reference for  these methods
is the  Federal Register  (40 CFR Part 136), October 26, 1984, and  June 30, 1986.
Most  full-service commercial analytical  laboratories, as  well  as some  of the
large  municipal laboratories are capable of analyzing for the priority pollutants.
A once per year scan for the  priority  pollutants is recommended.  For pollutants
which  are detected in  the influent at least once, additional sampling should be
conducted to determine variability and evaluate trends.

2.5.2  Other POTW Locations

POTW effluent is generally composite sampled and analyzed in  accordance with
NPDES permit requirements.  Operators  may,  however,  select  other  process
                                      17

-------
streams  within  a facility for  intermittent  monitoring.  For example, sampling
primary  effluent allows for calculations of loadings to the secondary treatment
system.  The response of a biological process  is more easily explained if one
knows the  specific wastewater feed characteristics, as opposed  to  assuming a
primary clarifier performance based on influent characteristics.

POTW sludge monitoring is necessary to  determine  if the  POTW  is  meeting
applicable   sludge  use   or   disposal  requirements  and  to  detect   sludge
contamination.   If sludge contamination is found, it  will trigger the need  for
additional sampling of both domestic wastewater and  nondomestic discharges in
order to  identify the source(s) of contamination.

An informative yet infrequently employed sampling method is to evaluate the
strength of sidestream  flows, particularly from solids processing.  Recycle flows
can  add 50 to  100 percent  of  the  influent solids  and organics  to the liquid
processing  trains when inefficient sludge solids  capture  persists.   POTW design
often  neglects  the  impact  of recycle streams,  a  problem  magnified when
unanticipated quantities  of heavy metals  and  priority organics are discharged
from industrial sources.  While monitoring such sidestreams on a daily or weekly
basis may  prove impractical  (and costly),  periodic sampling and  flow  measure-
ment permits mass balancing  around solids processing units, and can  provide
insight into the  presence of  substances  in the POTW effluent not  necessarily
present in the influent.

Recycle  flows can be intermittent, or at least shift dependent, and  as such  are
poor  candidates  for  24-hour  composite  sampling.   Grab sampling  is  done by
extracting  a representative  sample  of   sufficient  quantity  to perform   the
necessary analytical tests. Some procedures, such as the extraction methods for
oil and grease, require grab sampling to prevent deposition of the material on the
container over the 24-hour composite period.

2.5.3.  Inhibitory Effects Testing

Testing  which measures  the  inhibitory  effects  of industrial discharges might
prove useful in evaluating the impacts of those  discharges on the POTW.  One of
the simplest methods of  detecting inhibition due to an industrial  discharge is to
add  incremental volumes of the waste to seeded dilution water and  analyze for
5-day BOD.  If  the  wastewater is inhibitory to  the  POTW bacteria, higher
concentrations will result in less oxygen depletion and lower BOD.  If completely
biodegradable,   larger   volumes  of  the  industrial   waste  should  produce
proportionately higher oxygen  depletion.   The advantage of  this  technique,
termed serial  addition, is that the  concentration  at  which the  waste changes
from biodegradable to inhibitory can be estimated by this technique.  The major
disadvantages are  the  five day waiting period and the  questionable correlation
between degradation in a BOD bottle as compared with a  full-scale biological
reactor.

Other test  procedures  have  been  developed  which overcome  some  of  the
disadvantages of the  BOD procedure.  One such  procedure  is to add  varying
concentrations of an industrial wastewater to a BOD bottle containing an active
                                      18

-------
biological culture (usually  mixed  liquor activated sludge) from  the secondary
treatment system.  A DO  meter  equipped with a BOD probe can  be used to
measure the oxygen uptake rate after  the sample is saturated with oxygen.  If
the industrial wastewater is inhibitory, increased doses will result  in reduced
oxygen utilization. A similar approach using respirotneters allows for the use of
larger reactors  (up   to  10-liters),  continuous  oxygen feed  and  strip-chart
recording of the uptake rate with time.  At the Patapsco Wastewater Treatment
Plant  in Baltimore,  Maryland  (see  Appendix A)  daily  routine operation of  a
respirometer is used as a tool for measuring the inhibitory characteristics of the
plant influent. The standard operating procedure for the respirometer involves
the use of  plant biomass and simulates the plant's biological system  (Slattery,
1986).

Recent variations of  the  respirometry approach utilize special  cultures of
microorganisms, instead of the POTW bacteria, as more precise  predictors of
toxic effects. One manufacturer uses specially prepared and packaged bacterial
cultures in conjunction with a DO meter  to plot families of inhibition curves and
to develop lethal  concentration dosages  analogous  to those obtained  by bioassay
testing.   A  second  technique uses photo-luminescent  marine  microorganisms,
whose light  output decreases proportionally to  the level of  toxic shock when fed
varying concentrations of industrial wastewater.  This approach has been used
extensively  in Baltimore, Maryland (see Appendix A) and Chattanooga, Tennessee
to evaluate the toxicity  of influent wastewaters  to the POTW and  to measure
toxicity reduction through  the biological treatment process.  At  the Patapsco
plant  in  Baltimore,  pure  oxygen  activated  sludge  treatment  reduced the
wastewater  toxicity by up to 40 percent from the raw wastewater feed.

A summary  of the methods available to measure biological inhibition is presented
in Table 2-7.  The table  also includes some cost, testing  and training time
estimates, of concern to municipalities developing a program for determining
inhibitory effects of  industrial or waste hauler discharges.  A potential problem
with all of the techniques discussed is that the results do not accurately reflect
the  treatability  of  the  wastewater  if the biological  treatment  populations
become acclimated to the industrial waste over a long period of exposure.
                                      19

-------
                                TABLE 2-1
    METAL, CYANIDE AND INORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
                   INHIBITING BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES
                                 (in mg/1)
Biological Process
Pollutant
Ammonia
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium (Tot.)
Copper
Cyanide
Iodine
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Sodium
Sulfide
Tin
Vanadium
Zinc
Activated
Sludge
^480
0.04 - 0.4
0.05 - 10
0.5 - 10
2,500
N/A
0.1 - 20
0.1 - 1
0.05 - 20
10
5 -500
0.1 - 10
10
N/A
0.1 - 5.0
1 - 5
0.03 - 5
N/A
>50
N/A
20
0.30 - 20
Nitrification
N/A
N/A
N/A
5-9
N/A
180
0.25 - 1
0.05 - 0.5
0.3 - 20
N/A
N/A
0.5 - 1.7
N/A
50
2 - 12.5
0.25 - 5
0.25
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.01 - 1
Aerobic
Fixed Film
N/A
290
N/A
5-20
N/A
N/A
50
25 - 50
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Anaerobic
Digestion
1,500-3,000
0.1 - 1
2
0.02 - 1
N/A
20,000
1.5 - 50
0.5 - 100
0.10 -4
N/A
5
50 - 250
N/A
1,000
1,400
2 - 200
N/A
3,500
50- 100
9
N/A
1 - 10
N/A - Not Available

Sources:    U.S. EPA (1981a), Russell, et al. (1983), Geating (1981) and U.S.
           EPA (1986a).
                                     20

-------
                                TABLE 2-2
                 ORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
                   INHIBITING BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES
                                  (in mg/1)
Compound Type
Agricultural Chemical
Common Pesticides
Lindane
Aromatics
Chlorinated Benzenes
Halogenated Aliphatics
Nitrogen Compounds
Oxygenated Compounds
Alcohols
Acids
Phenol
Chlorophenols
Nitrophenols
Methylphenols
Phthalates
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons

Activated
Sludge
0.05-0.10
5-10
5- 150
0.1 - 5
150-250
1 - 500
120- 500
1,000
N/A
90 - 1,000
5 - 100
50 - 200
N/A
>10
500 - 2,500
Biological Process
Nitrification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
< 0.1 - 18
0.1 - 100
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 - 10
N/A
150
5-50
N/A
N/A

Anaerobic
Digestion
N/A
N/A
100 - 870
0.1 - 1
0.1 - 100
5 - 500
20 - 1,000
N/A
10
100 - 200
0.2 - 100
100
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A - Not available

Principal Sources:
Russell, et al.  (1983),  U.S.  EPA  (1977b), U.S. EPA
(1981a), Geating (1981), U.S. EPA (I986a)
                                     21

-------
                                TABLE 2-3
                WASTE CHARACTERISTICS PERTAINING TO
                    HAZARDS IN COLLECTION SYSTEMS
                             (From Busch, 1986)
    Term
      Description
     Examples
Ignit ability


Corrosivity
Reactivity
(Explosivity)
Fume Toxicity
Pose a fire hazard
Corrode standard
construction materials

Spontaneous reaction
with air or water
Pose explosion hazard
Generate toxics
Build up of toxic fumes
Pose a hazard to human health
Gasoline
Industrial solvents

Acids
Caustics

Calcium carbide
Cyanides
Sulfides
Industrial solvents
Petroleum
hydrocarbons

Metals
Pesticides
Industrial solvents
(benzene, toluene)
                                     22

-------
  2





  I
  CQ
  O
  h


  I

  •s
  o
  p

T§

1
&

C
0)
6
4->
R»
0)
h
4->

fe
&
0)
4->
«
§•
1
£
b
0)
15
^
is
0!
1
k
P
03
§
*4
O
t3
Black/o
a
.2
13
u
•r4
«M
1
O
>
%
S
£

a
0)
S
4-> Eft
rt -d
 --H
D h
h 0)
PH >
^
iS W
a>
M
1
tn
tt-i
O
4->
tt)
^ 1
o o
•-* u
*M
M en
d) T3
»> -^
0 0
S
§ s
1 ,3














Organic overloads

O
•
P
g
'(3
4->
.2
nj
S
o
a«i
Excessive air rates i
^4
"I §
^ H
3 c
w .2
« 2
! *
1 '
in
"c
.2
-M
4->
c
SB
A.
4-1
fl
fl)
§
»— t
CM
.S
s
o
f— t
•s
0)
4-*
%
&
•d
•r^
u
>
4-1
•s
c
^
O
1— «
<— 1
S
dT
4-J
•r^











u
• t-4
»Q
O
^
0)
n)
c
Organic overloads, a
conditions
T3
4)
{xj
S
M
CJ
Ri
t— 1
43

B
«)
o
>M
t
T)
S
c
&
2 &
•? §
A! CT
a«
O















1
5
^j
o
o
•s
.a
X
E2









Pin floe in overflow



.2
tl^
S
r— <
U
i






tM
O
High grease content
mixed liquor
0)
u
Rj
D-4
§
S
g
0
60
£•
• 1-4
4->
rt
o
Ash-like material fl













w
"2
Changing organic lo<





.S
's
•3
^*
I-H
_v,
u
o
c
»4

• i-l
1-4
• |H
•s
(U
+->
4_t
(U
(0
M
§
O<
Cloudy supernatant,











.S
in
^J^
\/

SS
P-
H
^
^1
p 2
Is




^
§
4^

4->
^
5
M
|
4-"
00
.S
.a
Vi
V
!
W3

























OO
t-
o
I— (
<;
IX
W
to
*
D
15
i-
t~-
0
r— 1

-------




(U
Possible Caus






§
•rt
13
H
on
s



3
4}
y
>«
(X





j4
1
4J
c
o
'•§
Organic overloads in aer







9)
bo
•d
3
I-H
en
f
Localized ris;















Septic conditions

bD
G
"en
• rl
|H
(A

I— H
E
tut
.6
»— t
>>
pjS
CJ
*!-«
H




(U
>
•i-«
in
M
Organic overloads, exce!
biological growth










bO
C
Surface pondi




en
^4
(U
•M
i— i
• r4
fe
i





u
1
!_.
Organic overloads, anaei











CO
14
€
O















conditions



























Metals, toxic shock











Slime colors













(4
O
W
PH
0
4->
Excessive sloughing due
toxic shock loads
(A
•d
•1-1
•— «
o
(A

•d
0)
-d
A
D
PH
1
Ul
C
1
Increased eff


h
S
.|H
CM
'S
n>
1—4
O
i





^
u
0
X
(A





Organic overloads, toxic
Low D.O., sulfides







>-.
«M
• l-H
*— t
^3
g<
Poor effluent






c
0
i
(u
,4












!2
in
i— <
S
rv
1
o
First stage organic overl







(0
JS
S
o
• 1-4
,0
>>>
1
i
(A
•t
(U
4->
• i*















(0
0)
•d
£
1
4-1
§
«-H
U-l
•f-l
O
•rH
*-»
8-
w











en
1
O










24

-------




0
2
U
Possible


1
Observat






n
(A
8
O
1






CO
d>
13
• rH
>fr._l

3
C/I
verloads,
0
u
'H
CB
00
(5


*4
O
T3
O
00
00
(U
Rotten
a
o
•i-«
4-*
CO
0)
OC
•ii
P

U
• ft
•§
s
«J
<
1$
• TH
c
o
B
B
rt
en
i«-i
rt
4->
4>
^B
AS
u
0
X
co
U
'x
£


V4
-§
o
l~,
CD
4J
4-f
^J
Rancid













^
o
o
^3
to
U
• rH
X
o
4-1
verloads,
Organic o

>,
4->
ipernatant quali
9
en
t,
O
fi




















verloads
o
u
1
00
I*
O
4->
(3
rrf
w
15
c
n primary super
•r-t
B
n)
0
fa




















c
tp
4->
fi
O
u
tl)
w
rt
0)
Sb
•a
s

o*
r-M
y
2
4->
O
o
4-*
4->
(U
1
f
B
3
(J
t/3




















verloads
o
u
• rH
00
&


ive foaming
Excessi


e
.2
+j
US
0
M
.1-1
P
u
•i-<
tO
o
)4
(U
<


in
"S
(0
O
I— 1
Vl
0)
o
, organic
•
0
•
P
&
o
J



M
O
T3
O













25

-------
                                 TABLE Z-5
                INSTRUMENTATION OF PLANT PROCESSES
                           AND WASTE STREAMS
      Instrument
       Locations
   Parameters Measured
Conductivity Meter
Density Meter
   gamma radiation
   ultrasonic
D.O. Meter
   membrane electrode
Flow Meter
   flume, venturi,
   magnetic, weir
Gas Analyzers
Oxidation-Reduction
Potential (ORP) Meters

pH Meter
Selective Ion
  Electrodes
Total Organic Carbon
(TOC) Analyzer
Industrial discharge
Primary effluent
Final effluent

Aeration basins
Clarifier underflow
Conditioned sludge
Anaerobic digesters

Aeration basins
RBC stages
Final effluent

Raw wastewater
Sidestream flows
Return/waste sludge
Chemical feed
Final effluent

Collection system
Confined  spaces
Aeration basin off-gas

Industrial discharge
Primary effluent

Industrial discharge
Collection system
Raw wastewater
Aeration basins
Anaerobic digester
Final effluent

Industrial discharge
Primary effluent
Final effluent

Industrial discharge
Raw wastewater
Primary effluent
Final effluent
Metals,
Dissolved solids
MLSS

Solids concentration



Dissolved oxygen,


Flow rate
CO, C02, CH4, H2S
Oxygen transfer


Metal forms


Acids, Bases
Cl~, CN~, Cu+, Cu++, F",
NH3, NO', Pb++, S
Organic slugs,
oil and grease
Source: James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.
                                     26

-------
                                TABLE 2-6
             ANALYTICAL MONITORING OF PLANT PROCESSES
Process
Clarification
Activated Sludge
Trickling Filters
RBCs
Parameters
Dissolved oxygen
Sludge solids content
Sludge "blanket depth
Dissolved oxygen
Mixed liquor suspended solids
Oxygen uptake rates
Microscopic examination
Nutrients
Sludge volume index
Slime thickness
Influent pH, temperature, H^S
Effluent solids content
Dissolved oxygen (each stage)
Soluble BOD (each stage)
Biomass thickness
Shaft weight
Effluent solids content
Testing
Frequency
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily/Weekly
Daily/Weekly
Daily/Weekly
Daily
As needed
As needed
As needed
Daily
Weekly
As needed
Daily/Weekly
As needed
Anaerobic Digestion
Temperature
Solids content
Metals content
Volatile acids/alkalinity
Supernatant solids, NH3
Methane content of gas
     Daily
    Weekly
Weekly/Monthly
     Daily
    Weekly
     Daily
Source:    James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.
                                    27

-------
                              TABLE 2-7
           METHODS FOR EVALUATING INHIBITORY EFFECTS
                    OF INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATERS

1.
2.
3.
4.
Method
BOD Serial Addition
Respirometry
Packaged Bacteria
Photo Luminescense
Testing Time
5 days
30-60 min.
30-60 min.
15 min.
Approximate
Equipment Costs
$1,000
$1,000 - $5,000
$1,000 - $2,000
$5,000 - $10,000
Operator
Training
2-4 hrs.
4-8 hrs.
4-8 hrs.
20-40 hrs.
Source:    James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc.
                                  28

-------
                        3. SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
There  are two  aspects  of  source identification that should be  considered by
POTWs when investigating interference problems:

     •    specific causative pollutants
     •    industrial source(s) of the pollutants identified

The ease  with which a causative agent is identified depends upon the nature of
the permit violation. For example, if the interference results from the inability
to dispose of sludge, the problem nearly always results from  an unacceptable
concentration of a particular heavy metal.  However, if the plant effluent has a
BOD above the permit  limit,  the problem  can range from  a shock loading of
influent BOD to an inorganic or organic  pollutant that  is toxic  to the biological
population in secondary treatment.  Isolated spill events  are difficult  to trace to
a  specific pollutant unless  the pollutant is  detected  in routine influent  and
effluent screening or the spill is accompanied by  distinct, recognizable odors,
appearance,  pH or solid residues.  Recurring  discharges may be  linked  to a
substance with time by process of elimination and analytical testing.

Once an interference is  linked to a specific pollutant, the next step is to identify
the industrial source.  If the POTW has sufficiently charcterized its industrial
users as part of its initial pretreatment  program development,  this  task will be
greatly simplified. As part of the development of a federally-approved pretreat-
ment program,  POTWs  are required to conduct a  survey of industrial users to
characterize their  wastes.    The  POTW should be  familiar  with  each  ITJ's
industrial  processes and  the  chemicals  which  are used,  produced, stored,
disposed,  or  otherwise handled on the site.  The  potential  for  intentional or
accidental discharge of  pollutants  should be evaluated.  The IU survey informa-
tion should be  updated at  least  annually.   Another  approach  to  identifying
industrial sources  is a tracking program  that monitors the interfering pollutants
at key interceptors and traces the substance back to its discharge point.

While industries are sometimes responsible for POTW permit violations, the fault
can be with  operation and  maintenance  practices at the POTW.  Where plants
experience  chronic operational  problems that  cannot  be  linked to industrial
waste  discharges,  the  plant staff  may  wish to conduct  a Composite  Correction
Program (U.S. EPA, 1984) to identify operational problems.  If violations persist,
then a more  comprehensive search for industrial sources is justified.  The  CCP
was developed by  the U.S. EPA as a means to provide "information on methods to
economically  improve the  performance  of existing POTWs".   It  outlines an
approach  for POTW personnel  to evaluate  POTW operations and  implement
systematic improvement steps.
                                      29

-------
3.1 CHRONIC DISCHARGES

Industrial waste  monitoring is the key to successfully identifying most chronic
industrial  waste  sources.   Industries should  be monitored  for  conventional
pollutants, with the testing of other compounds determined by the nature of the
specific industrial waste.  In the case of categorical  industries, some substances
of  concern  and pretreatment  requirements  are  already  specified  by  the
regulations.    For  noncategorical  industries,   information  such   as permit
applications and  questionnaire responses or specific analytical testing of industry
effluent should provide sufficient data  to establish a monitoring program.

Sewer use  ordinances  and industrial waste  management  programs  typically
provide for some means of monitoring an industry's discharge to the municipal
collection  system.  Such ordinances require  measurements of both quantity and
quality of  the  industrial  or  combined  domestic/industrial flow.    Industrial
discharges are usually monitored both by industry,  with regular self-reporting
requirements, and by the municipality.

If it has been determined that a plant  upset  is being caused by industrial wastes
and is not a result of other POTW deficiencies, then it is up  to POTW personnel
to identify the specific source of that  upset. This may necessitate expansion of
the POTW's  monitoring program as discussed in the next subsection.  POTWs
experiencing interference  problems tend  to fall into one  of three categories
regarding interference:

      1.    A single major  industry  in  town dominates the waste characteristics
           at a relatively small POTW.

      2.    One or two industries among  several are primarily  responsible for
           waste strength fluctuations in small to medium-sized POTWs.

      3.    Industrial  wastewater from  numerous sources controls  the waste-
           water feed characteristics,  with no single dominant industry.

The  first  category listed above is by far the easiest situation to deal with from
an  identification standpoint.   By  monitoring  the  industry's discharge, POTW
influent  and effluent and  other relevant plant  operations,  the impact of the
industrial waste  on  the  POTW can  be  determined.   The  cities of Oswego, New
York  and Tolleson,  Arizona  are  examples  of  small  facilities  significantly
impacted by a single industry.

Category two  is a more difficult interference to trace.   A monitoring program
may  be  sufficient  if a  large  database  exists covering  a  period  of  time.
Unfortunately, when numerous industries must be tested on a frequent basis, the
sampling and analysis costs can be high.  Routine sampling for all industries with
additional sampling for troublesome industries may  provide  a solution for  some
POTWs.  For example, Paris, Texas set up a comprehensive  short term (90 day)
sampling program that industry supported  financially.  Through this effort,  Paris
was able  to distinguish which  industries were likely to be  problems  and then
could adjust their long-term sampling accordingly.
                                      30

-------
The  third category generally applies to larger  facilities which are less likely to
be susceptible to any particular industrial effluent.  Baltimore, Maryland  and
Passaic Valley, New  Jersey are examples  of facilities which fit into  this third
category, but have experienced interference (see Appendix A).  Large plants may
be less likely to experience permit violations  due to industrial  waste, but they
have frequently  experienced inhibition and other operational and  maintenance
problems.  Intermittent discharges are particularly difficult to pinpoint by POTW
personnel because of  large service areas.

3.1.1 Routine Monitoring

In order to have  the ability to utilize POTW influent characterization to identify
the source of interfering pollutants, adequate  background and supporting infor-
mation must be available to POTW personnel.  A database obtained over several
years of routine monitoring enables a POTW to develop  action level criteria for
key parameters.  When monitoring shows that these criteria have been  exceeded,
it can be suspected that a spill or unauthorized discharge of industrial  waste has
occurred, which  triggers a  tracking  program.   Specific details  of  industrial
monitoring programs have been outlined by EPA and others  (EPA,  1983; WPCF,
1982).

Routine compliance  monitoring, which is part  of any local  industrial waste
control  program, will  sometimes serve to  generate an adequate background
database.   However, POTWs which have interference problems may need to
perform additional monitoring until the source  of the problem can be identified.
For  compliance  monitoring  purposes,  monitoring methods  and frequency  are
generally specified by each municipality in its  pretreatment program documents
or sewer use ordinance  and in discharge permits, contracts or  orders issued to
industrial users.  Self-monitoring by industry with  monthly checking by  the
municipality enables  the POTW and the industrial users  to share the expenses of
monitoring.  Such an approach is most successful when:

           key manholes or representative  sampling points are available
           sampling procedures are clearly outlined and followed
           a qualified laboratory performs  the analytical testing
           rigorous reporting requirements are  established for the industries
           spot checking  by the municipality is performed  on a  frequent  yet
           random basis

The  alternative to self-monitoring is for a municipality to perform all sampling
and analytical services on a once-per-month or  once-per-quarter basis,  depending
on the  significance of the specific industry to the POTW.  Under this scenario,
split samples should be made available to  the  industry,  if requested, to provide
them with the opportunity to verify the test results from which their compliance
status and user fees will be determined.  Many  municipalities prefer not to place
major reliance on industrial self-monitoring for compliance determinations; they
are able to recover the costs  for their  monitoring programs by assessing fees for
industrial discharge  permits or by  directly billing the sampling  costs to  the
industrial user.
                                      31

-------
Regardless of  the  approach taken, the  objective of any industrial  monitoring
program is to obtain representative analytical results of the wastewater flow and
characteristics. An industry with highly variable quality and quantity should be
sampled more  frequently than  one with  a consistent   effluent quality.   An
appropriate sampling schedule or discharge schedule for batch processes should
be determined for the industry.

If industrial wastes have been well characterized and adequately monitored, then
the identification  of an interfering or potentially interfering pollutant  source
will be  facilitated.   As an example, if a POTW suspects a change in their influent
wastewater characteristics by observing a  change in one or more operational
parameters,  this  triggers  influent sampling.   The interfering  pollutant  and
concentration are determined through analytical testing, which is then compared
with the information from the monitoring  database to  identify industries that
discharge (or have  the  potential to discharge)  the problem pollutant.  In some
cases, especially large sewer systems, it  is not  easily determined which of many
industrial contributors is responsible for a particular pollutant that is causing an
interference.  However, several large POTWs including Baltimore, Maryland and
Hampton  Roads, Virginia  have  experienced  success  after setting  up their
monitoring programs.  It has even been suggested that the mere  fact that they
set up a program motivated some industries into cleaning up, rather than  risking
the consequences.  Those large POTWs that have put effort into their monitoring
program have been  successful.

3.1.2  Tracking Program

A tracking program is a  procedure developed for  locating  the  source(s) of a
pollutant or impact which has been identified at a POTW.  Depending on the size
of the POTW, the sewer system and the type and number of industrial users, this
procedure may be very simple or rather  complex.  A small system with only a
few  industrial  contributors will probably  not require  anything more  than a
procedure  for comparing POTW influent sample  characteristics with industrial
monitoring results.  On the other hand, large systems may require sophisticated
programs involving computer analysis.

The  City  of  Baltimore  has  a  computer  program  that attempts  to  trace
contaminants back to the source, knowing  the necessary background data  (see
Appendix A).   Batch  printouts, called the "Daily Average  Mass  Discharge
Reports," provide monthly listings of  companies grouped by sewer service area
and chemicals  used, stored, and/or discharged.  If a chemical compound (such as
a solvent)  can  be identified by the tracking team, or later by means of  sample
analysis, a search of the Data Management  System's batch printouts can identify
possible industrial sources.

Rapid toxicity testing procedures may become valuable  tools for identification
of interference sources as they gain acceptance  by municipalities.  A toxic
impact  can be traced upstream through a  collection system very rapidly when
the test procedure  takes less than 30 minutes.  Such a system has been used at
Baltimore's Patapsco Plant to identify influent  toxicity problems. This approach
to interference tracing is  most useful if  the  troublesome  industry discharges
                                      32

-------
toxicants.  Municipalities must continue to rely on more conventional monitoring
practices for upsets resulting from non-toxic contamination.

One of the most comprehensive tracking programs is maintained by the Hampton
Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) in the Tidewater area of Southeastern Virginia.
The HRSD operates nine treatment plants handling 130 million gallons per day
generated over  a  service  area covering 1,700 square  miles.   Industrial wastes
from  300 sources are dominated by military installations, with other significant
discharges from manufacturing and food processing.  Industrial discharges are
categorized  according  to which  of  the  following  methods of  tracking  is
employed:

      •     sensory observations
      •     measurements with field equipment
      •     sampling and analysis

For the first two types of  tracking methods, the HRSD has personnel on stand-by
duty supplied with radio equipped vehicles and extensive field sampling and lab
equipment capable of qualitative, as well as quantitative, analyses.  Tracking
begins by HRSD   personnel  checking  pump stations  and  sewer  lines  in  a
downstream  to  upstream  fashion until  the source is  isolated.  Along  the way
samples are collected, labeled and preserved as evidence.

For the third type of tracking method, automatic sampling equipment is set up at
key locations throughout a service area.  The samples are collected each day and
analyzed. After pollutant concentration trends are determined, the samplers are
moved upstream.   This general procedure  is continued until  the  source of the
problem is found.

In either case, once the source(s) is located, the industry is  contacted directly
and actions taken  appropriate  to  the circumstances.  All costs associated with
the investigation,  clean-up and any other item are billed directly to  the source.
The HRSD  has found that just  by having a.  highly  visible industrial waste
investigative team, users are deterred from unauthorized discharge to the sewer
system.  As a result, incidences have decreased by more than 50 percent in the
last eight years.

Tracking programs such as HRSD's are most  successful  at tracking chronic
discharges.  Although not as easily accomplished, isolated spills and unauthorized
slug discharges  of short duration can be tracked if quick, aggressive action  is
taken. The next section discusses  isolated spills in more detail.

3.2 ISOLATED SPILLS AND UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGES

Interference-causing  materials  frequently  enter  POTWs  as   spills   and
unauthorized discharges.   The sources generally fall  into one of the following
categories (Busch, 1986):

      •     transportation accidents or leaks
      •     storage tank or transfer pipe  leaks
      •     industrial discharges
                                     33

-------
     •     industrial accidents
     •     fires in warehouses and commercial operations
     •     waste haulers
     •     midnight dumpers

The focus of this  manual is on industrial discharges, industrial spills, and waste
hauler discharges  (both legal  and illegal), because  these  are  the problems over
which the POTW usually has the most control.  However,  POTWs may be able to
control some of the other problems listed by extending the spill prevention and
control plan procedures described in this manual to  any business that has toxic or
hazardous materials on site. The POTW would have to assess its legal authority
to set up this type of comprehensive program.

The extent of the spill and illegal discharge problem in POTWs is severe.  In the
spring of  1985,  the Association of  Metropolitan  Sewerage Agencies (AMSA)
surveyed  107  of their  member  municipalities concerning  hazardous  waste
discharges to  their  facilities.    The respondents   to  the  survey represent
308 POTWs,  corresponding to  39 percent  of  the estimated  total flow  and
47 percent of the  estimated industrial flow nationwide. The results of the survey
indicated that hazardous wastes, if improperly discharged,  can  have  serious
effects on POTWs. Specifically, the survey showed:

     •     nearly all POTWs receive  hazardous wastes

     •     the   most  commonly  discharged wastes  are corrosives, solvents,
           electroplating baths and sludges

     •     the most  commonly reported  sources  of these  wastes  are spills,
           illegal discharges from industries and routine  discharges from indus-
           tries

      •     half of  the respondents  indicated  the discharge  of  explosive or
           flammable  materials  (gasoline,  toluene,  naphthalene,  benzene,
           xylene, jet fuel) and nearly half reported corrosion of the sewer lines
           due to acids and hydrogen sulf ide gas

      •    approximately 30 percent of the respondents have  experienced one or
           more biological treatment system upsets since 1980 resulting from
           the presence of metals, cyanide, diesel  fuel, toluene, paint thinner or
           stripper, iodine, thiocyanate and pesticides

It is clear that slug discharges resulting from spills, batch releases, dumps, and
illegal discharges  are a common  concern for many  POTWs. It is the  responsibi-
lity of  industry to notify a POTW of a slug discharge under  federal regulations
(40 CFR Part 403.12(f)). The regulations describe a slug loading as any pollutant,
including oxygen-demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.), released in a discharge  at a
flow rate and/or  pollutant concentration which will  cause interference at the
POTW. However, POTWs do not always receive proper notification.   One POTW
(HRSD) has responded to slug loads  by contacting its major industries  in the
service area immediately upon detection.  This action is  taken for the following
reasons:
                                      34

-------
      1.    an IU may not be aware that it is causing a problem;
      2.    it brings the problem to industry management attention;
      3.    it provides visibility for the POTW's control program;
      4.    it discourages illegal discharges;
      5.    if  the  problem  is  later tracked  to  an industry,  the fact that the
           industry was  notified of  the  problem  immediately  may stengthen
           enforcement proceedings against an uncooperative industry; and
      6.    there may still be time to correct  the problem.

The mitigation efforts  described in  Section 4 related to industrial spills focus
mainly on prevention measures and in-plant  corrective  measures that are best
implemented  if proper  notification  is received by  the POTW.   The  use of
permanent gas detection equipment in sewer  lines or treatment plant  headworks
is  a method  of detecting  certain types of pollutants  that  does  not  rely on
industry notification.

Tables 3-1 and 3-2 provide  some  examples of  industrial  spill incidents as
documented by Busch (1986) and Attachment  2 of the AMSA survey report.

3.2.1  Hauled Wastes

Identification of a waste hauler  as the source of an interference is sometimes a
difficult task.  Hauled wastes can be discharged to  convenient manholes and the
hauler gone before the waste reaches the POTW.  There  are  examples where
hazardous waste haulers have paid  industries for the  seclusion their   facility
provides during such illegal discharge events.  Approaches used to help alleviate
the problem include:

      •     periodic sampling of suspected sewer lines

      •     surveillance of waste haulers and suspected  discharge points

      •     education of industries concerning the seriousness of these violations

      •     increased public awareness of illegal dumping

      •     increased enforcement

Many states have  enforcement programs to assist POTWs in detecting illegal
discharges. Local  law  enforcement officials can also  be requested to assist in
surveillance  activities  and  enforcement.    Video surveillance of  suspected
manholes  or storm drains is also a possible  option.   Some POTWs use  locking
manholes  to discourage illegal dumping at suspected sites.

Table 3-3  gives examples of  the impacts of hauled wastes on both the collection
system and treatment  plant in cities  identified  through the AMSA survey.  A
number of problems indicated  by the  AMSA  survey  showed  the  source as
"unknown", which  is indicative of the problems associated with tracking hauled
waste interferences. In the Louisville, Kentucky example given in Table 3-3, the
waste hauler discharged the  hexachloropentadiene to a manhole located within a
tobacco warehouse (Busch, 1986).
                                      35

-------
Interference can  also occur  when hauled  wastes are  discharged legally  to
treatment  plants.   POTWs that  accept  discharges  of hauled  waste  should
establish control procedures to ensure  that  the wastes  are compatible  with
treatment processes.  Procedures for regulating  waste haulers are  discussed in
Section 4.  Identification of a waste hauler as the source of interference can be
facilitated by employing such measures as:

      •    restricting hauled waste disposal to designated, monitored sites in the
           collection system or  at the treatment plant

      •    permitting waste haulers

      •    requiring submission of  a tracking  form that documents the origin,
           transportation, and disposal of the waste

      •    sampling hauler  loads  (samples only analyzed  if there is  a plant
           impact)

      •    permitting, sampling, and inspecting the waste generator

Submission  of a tracking  form, called a waste manifest, is  already  a federal
requirement when  haulers are discharging hazardous wastes.   The Resource
Conservation  and  Recovery  Act  (RCRA) places  requirements  on hazardous
wastes received by truck, rail, or dedicated pipeline into POTWs. It  is important
that POTW  operators  become aware of these RCRA requirements and the  need
to coordinate their local procedures for  accepting hazardous wastes with State
and  EPA personnel.   To  provide  information  and  guidance  on  the  RCRA
hazardous  waste  requirements and  their implications for  POTWs, EPA has
published a  manual titled RCRA Information on  Hazardous Wastes  for Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (EPA,  1985c).

3.3 RAPID  SCREENING TECHNIQUES

Once an interference  is suspected, a number of  rapid chemical tests, available
from  chemical supply  houses, can provide preliminary indication of the presence
of substances  thought  to  be   producing the interference.   These tests  help
determine  in seconds the  need for  more thorough  quantitative  analysis  and
tracking. In addition, these screening tests are also useful when evaluating the
loads of waste haulers at dumping stations (Section 4.Z.4).

      1.    Metals — Chemical  test  strips utilizing color change indicators may
           be used to  detect the presence and concentration of specific metals.

      2.    Solvents — Gas detection tubes,  sensitive to gases  and vapors, can
           indicate the presence and concentration of solvents, but may not be
           reliable  for determining the  specific solvent type due  to  chemical
           interferences among similar-type solvents.  A portable hand pump
           draws in a calibrated amount of air through the detector tube, and
           the amount of color  change indicates the concentration.
                                      36

-------
3.4 SUMMARY

Source  identification  is the  key aspect  of  any industrial waste  management
program.   Identifying the  source(s) of interference-causing substances  being
discharged from a variety of  industries is not  an easy  task  and must be
approached with an aggressive, well conceived program if it is to be successful.

There is no simple step-by-step procedure to follow to efficiently identify the
source of  every  interference  problem.  However, a rational  approach to  the
problem can be employed for some interferences which can minimize the effort
required.  Figure  3-1 is a flow  chart that suggests a possible approach to dealing
with permit violations or upsets. It basically outlines steps to be taken at the
treatment plant to identify possible pollutants causing problems. Figure 3-2 is  a
flow chart developed by  the HRSD that outlines  the steps they take in the event
that the treatment plant is upset or unusual influent is detected.  It must be
recognized that  each POTW  presents a unique  management and  operations
structure  to go along with process variations.  Therefore,  it  is important to
realize  that   Figures 3-1  and  3-2  are only  examples,  and   not necessarily
applicable  to  all  POTWs.    The  most  important  aspects   of  any  source
identification  or  tracking program are  well thought out procedures coupled with
an aggressive approach to enforcement.
                                     37

-------
                            TABLE 3-1

           INDUSTRIAL SPILLS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
              IMPACT ON SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
City
Akron, OH
Bayville, NJ
Bergen, NJ
County
Bloomington, IN
Dayton, OH
Forth Worth, TX
Hillborough, FL
Jacksonville, FL
Los Angeles, CA
County
St. Paul, MN
Toledo, OH
WSSC, MD
Industry
Rubber Mfg.
Pharmaceutical
Water Treatment
Grain Processing
Electroplating
Food Processor
Gasoline Station
Battery Salvaging
Organic Chemicals
Petroleum
Refining
Metal Finishing
Adhesives
Photofinishing
Pollutants
Naphtha, Acetone,
Isopropyl Alcohol
Sulfides from
high BOD
High and low pH
Hexane
Acids
Gasoline
Acids
Solvents
Sulfides
Acids
Glue
Sodium Bisulfite,
low pH
Impact
Explosion
Corrosion
Corrosion
Explosion
Corrosion
Explosion
Corrosion
Corrosion,
Odors
Corrosion
Corrosion
Plugged
Sewers
Corrosion
Sources:   Busch (1986), AMSA
                                38

-------
                                TABLE 3-2

             INDUSTRIAL SPILLS OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
                     IMPACT ON TREATMENT PLANT
   City
Industry
 Pollutants
  Impact
Boise, ID
Camas, WA
Camden, NJ
County
Dallas, TX


Depue, IL
Electroplating



Pulp Mill


Dye Mfg.
Fertilizer Mfg.
Cu, Ni, Zn



Chlorine


Aniline
Organic Chemicals     Xylene, Toluene
Sulfuric Acid
Reduced
treatment
efficiency

Biological
upset (2 days)

Biological
upset, sludge
contamination

Fouled carbon
scrubbers

Biological
process wiped
out
Sources:   Busch (1986), AMSA
                                    39

-------
                                TABLE 3-3

           IMPACTS OF WASTE HAULER DISCHARGES ON POTWs
          City
  Pollutants
     Impact
Central Contra Costa, CA
Louisville, KY
Rockford, EL
San Diego, CA
     Solvents
Hexachloropentadiene
Electroplating sludge
Cd, Cr, Pb, Zn, CN~
     Gasoline
Biological process
wiped out

Treatment plant
out of operation
for 3 months

Hydrogen cyanide
gas production
potential

Sewer explosion
Source:   U.S. EPA (1986a)
                                    40

-------
                                                                                                 TRACE TO

                                                                                                 SOURCE
                                                              IMPROVE
                                                               PLANT
                                                            PERFORMANCE
                          SAMPLE
  IMPROVE
   PLANT
PERFORMANCE

f.
S AND
LL.ENT


                                                                TRACE TO SOURCE
                                                                  ENFORCE
                                                                LOCAL LIMITS
SAMPLE POTW
UNIT
PROCESSES


                                                                                COMPOSITE CORRECTION
                                                                                PROGRAM (SEE TEXT, PAGE 29)
                                                                                SOURCE:
                                                                                  JAMES M. MONTGOMERY,
                                                                                  CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC.
                                                               TRACE TO

                                                               SOURCE
                                         FIGURE 3-1
             TREATMENT PLANT UPSET IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES
                                                   41

-------
     Supervisor inspects
     treatment plant &
     phones key industries
     to check for spills
     Samples collected,
     labeled & preserved
     during tracking
     process
Costs involved with
treatment plant
upset billed to
industry
Supervisor contacts
Coast Guard and/or
State Water Control
Board if pass-through
is evident
                IU permit changed to reflect
                new monitoring requirements
                & compliance schedule
                                          If discharge not
                                          stopped, permit
                                          suspended for up to
                                          60 days to stop all
                                          industrial waste-
                                          water discharges
                          IU permit modified
                          to reflect compliance
                          schedule  Sc possibly
                          increased monitoring
                          requirements
                          Water and/or
                          wastewater service
                          may be terminated at
                          this time or later
                                     FIGURE 3-2
                HRSD SOURCE  TRACKING PROCEDURE
                                            42

-------
                               4. MITIGATION
Mitigating an interference is the goal following the detection of an interference
problem.   Whether source  identification precedes mitigation depends  on the
success of the POTW's tracking program, its knowledge of its lUs, and the other
issues discussed in Section 3.   In  certain  cases,  interim  measures  to address
interference can  be taken  without initially defining  the  interfering  pollutant
substance  or  source,  although this information can be very helpful.  However,
even  if an isolated interference  event can be handled by process modification at
the treatment plant, the source of  the interfering  discharge  should be identified
and controlled. Interference mitigation by pretreatment and source control or
legal   and  enforcement  remedies  obviously requires  information  about  the
discharger(s) causing the problem, but results in a more reliable solution.

The success of any effort  to mitigate interference  is dependent to a great extent
on the characteristics of the pollutants causing  the interference, the charac-
teristics  of the  treatment plant  (capacity,  capacity utilization,  biological
process, etc.)  and  the type(s)  of  mitigation attempted.    It is important to
emphasize  that  mitigation  of   an interference  problem  is generally not  a
straightforward process.   Each POTW  possesses  unique  characteristics  that
exclude generalized solutions or  approaches so that a combination of techniques
is often necessary to realize satisfactory results.

4.1 TREATMENT PLANT CONTROL

The  effects of industrial pollutants  on  a  typical  POTW can be eliminated or
minimized through a number of measures initiated at the treatment plant, often
in combination. They  can be generally categorized as:

           biological process control
           biological augmentation
           chemical additions
           operations modifications
           physical modifications

The list above is generally in order  of increasing implementation difficulty, e.g.,
biological process control generally requires only  minor  changes  in plant opera-
tion while physical modifications  can include costly capital improvements.

4.1.1  Biological Process Control

Biological  process  control  is generally  limited  to activated sludge  systems,
although some  modifications  to fixed  film processes  (e.g., trickling  filters,
rotating biological  contactors)   might  be  considered  as a  form of  biological
                                      43

-------
process control.  An activated sludge system is generally monitored or controlled
by utilizing one or more of three process parameters:  mean cell residence time
(MCRT), mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) and food to microorganism ratio
(F/M).  The biomass  and its characteristics  are  controlled  by varying  these
interrelated process  parameters.   The following changes to  these  parameters
have  been  observed to  mitigate   the  effects of industrial  pollutants  on  an
activated sludge system:

      1.    Increase  the  Mean  Cell Residence  Time.   Increasing  the  MCRT
           (sludge  age)  has  been  shown  to have  the effect  of  reducing  the
           inhibitory effects of all  forms of toxic industrial contaminants.  By
           increasing the  MCRT at the first sign of a possible  toxic upset, (by
           decreasing the solids  wasting  rate) the  inhibitory effect of  any
           toxicant will generally be less than if no action is taken.

      2.    Increase  the  Mixed  Liquor Suspended Solids.  High  mixed liquor
           suspended solids (MLSS)  concentrations  have  been shown  to offset
           some of  the  effects  of  industrial pollutants.   A high MLSS provides
           the  best  conditions  for biosorption  and  acclimation  to  a  toxic
           substrate.  Increasing the sludge return rate to the aeration basin at
           the first indication of toxic upset,  while at the same time  diverting
           and  storing  any remaining  toxic influent  away  from the  aeration
           basins, will lessen the impact of a short term upset  and cause quicker
           biomass acclimation to a long term problem.

      3.    Decrease  the  Food-to-Microorganism  Ratio.   This  parameter is
           directly  related  to both the  MCRT and  the MLSS.   It  has been
           observed that decreasing the F/M causes improved biodegradation of
           toxic comtaminants, and expedites biomass acclimation.

Table 4.1  summarizes these process control steps.

The process control steps  described  apply to  both  activated sludge systems
treating for carbonaceous removal  and nitrifying systems. Generally, the steps
described are beneficial  for treating any type of interfering pollutant, whether it
be a metal, toxic organic or high-strength conventional pollutant.

For a fixed film process,  control of the biomass characteristics is not  as easily
accomplished.   However, varying  the  amount and point of recirculation in a
trickling  filter  can  modify  the   inhibitory  effect  of  industrial pollutants.
Recirculating secondary  clarifier effluent is a means of achieving the greatest
dilution effect,  which may  be  desirable for high-strength  organic  waste or
toxics.  Should excessive biomass sloughing  be  a problem due to toxic pollutants,
returning uncontaminated secondary clarifier underflow may help in  maintaining
a proper biomass population.
                                      44

-------
4.1.2 Biological Augmentation

Biological augmentation is a method by which selected microorganisms are added
to an existing biological population in an attempt to improve some characteristic
of  the biological  system.   Conclusive  evidence  is lacking, but  biological
augmentation of secondary  treatment systems has been  reported to improve
some industrial pollutant  treatment by  promoting  the specific microorganism
populations that successfully degrade particular pollutants. Other enhancements
reported include reduced  sludge  production and increased COD  removal rates
(Grubbs, 1986).  The addition of selected microorganisms to an aeration basin is
relatively inexpensive and in the worst case will  have no effect on treatment.
The EPA, through ongoing  experiments at the Wastewater  Engineering Research
Laboratory  in  Cincinnati, Ohio,  is presently  studying the  subject in greater
depth.   Maiden  Creek,  Pennsylvania  employed  biological augmentation  to
improve treatment, however the results  of these efforts were clouded due to
other  modifications  made  at  the same time   (see  Appendix A).   Rotating
biological contactors plants have used selected bacteria under substrate-limiting
conditions as a control on biomass growth, but with limited success.

After a treatment upset has occurred, biological augmentation by reseeding with
viable microorganisms is a useful step in getting a plant up and running quickly.
Having commercially packaged microorganisms  available and in  supply  at a
treatment  facility may help in  speeding such a recovery  if  reseeding  from
another treatment facility is difficult.

4.1.3 Chemical Addition

The addition of chemicals or nutrients  to the wastewater stream in  existing
treatment steps has been  shown  in many instances to mitigate the effects of
some industrial pollutants. The following  are examples of chemicals or additives
that  have  been  shown  to  improve  industrial  wastestream  treatability  or
biological process stability:

           chlorine
           nutrients
           lime or caustic
           organic polymers
           inorganic coagulants
           powdered activated carbon

Table 4-2 lists these chemicals and additives, the reasons for their use and the
resulting effects.  The  reader is cautioned that the generalizations in the table
do not apply to all situations. Some exceptions are pointed out in the text.

Chlorine.  Chlorine  has been  shown to  be successful in  controlling bulking
activated sludge caused by industrial pollutants from such industries as textiles,
breweries and wood and paper products.  Points of chlorine addition vary, but
best results generally occur when chlorine is added to the aeration basin effluent
or return activated sludge (RAS).  The  Horse Creek Plant  in North  Augusta,
South Carolina and the East Side Plant in Oswego, New York  are  examples of
facilities which have successfully employed chlorination to control bulking sludge
(see Appendix A).

                                     45

-------
Nutrients.  Phosphorus addition and, to a  lesser  extent, sulfur and nitrogen
addition,  occasionally improve biological treatment and sludge settleability of
industrial wastewater  with high  carbonaceous content.   In  general,  better
treatment and  settleability is  attributed to  correcting a  nutrient  deficient
condition resulting from a high industrial/domestic wastewater ratio.

pH Adjustment.  Lime and caustic are sometimes successful at mitigating the
effects of some heavy metals on  activated sludge systems.  Addition of either
before primary treatment  has the  effect of  raising  the pH which  generally
improves precipitation of heavy  metals in  primary clarifiers.   There are
exceptions to this generalization, however.  For example, it makes a difference
whether  the  pH is being raised from 2 to 6 or  from 7 to 11.  In this  latter case,
iron and chromium will go into  solution rather than precipitate.  Optimum pH
ranges exist  for  metal insolubilities,  but these ranges are  affected by  many
factors and  are therefore  system dependent.   Lime can also be used  for pH
adjustment  of  an acidic  wastewater  prior   to  aeration to  provide  a  more
conducive environment for biodegradation.

Coagulants.  Polymers  and  inorganic coagulants such as alum  and ferric chloride
are introduced to POTW wastestreams in part to help  mitigate the effects of
industrial pollutants.  Added prior  to primary treatment, the coagulants improve
primary  sedimentation  and may  increase  the removal of toxic pollutants before
they reach the  aeration basins.  Added after the  aeration basins, the coagulant
aids can  assist in controlling bulking sludge  and reducing effluent suspended
solids. Jar testing is an important part of any  chemical addition program as the
best means  of determining  optimum  dosages.  The   North Shore Sanitation
District  in Gurnee, Illinois has utilized coagulants successfully for mitigating the
effects of interference  (see Appendix A).  It  should  be noted that  chemical
coagulants affect the  characteristics  of the  sludge and could alter ultimate
disposal  methods. If added after secondary treatment, they  could increase the
toxicity  of the recycle sludge. Therefore, their use should be carefully evaluated
and contamination potential should be investigated.

Activated Carbon.   The addition  of powdered activated carbon (PAC) to an
activated sludge unit has been  successful at reducing  the inhibitory  effect of
toxic organic chemicals.   By  providing  adsorption sites,  the  organic pollutants
not biodegraded are removed by the activated carbon.  The activated carbon also
improves sludge settleability by providing dense floe nuclei.  A patented process
(PACT,  licensed  and  sold by Zimpro,  Inc)  exists  employing this treatment
concept  at full scale.  However, even a slug additon of PAC to an aeration basin
known to contain  toxics can significantly reduce the effects of the toxics on the
biomass.

4.1.4 Operations Modification

Activated Sludge Alternatives.   A further means of mitigating the effects of
industrial pollutants  on POTWs  is  through modifying the operation of existing
treatment steps.   Activated  sludge  systems  are often designed to operate in
several  different "modes"  (e.g., step aeration, contact  stabilization,  etc.) by
providing the appropriate physical layout.  Some modes of operation have been
shown to be more successful than others at mitigating  the effects of  industrial
                                      46

-------
contaminants, particularly those dosed in highly variable concentrations.  It has
been shown at the laboratory and plant-scale  that  extended aeration and step
aeration (step feed) are generally more resistant to upset than complete mix and
conventional  activated sludge  (see East  Side  Plant,  Oswego,  New  York,
Appendix A).  It appears that complete  mix generally provides more consistent
treatment, particularly under shock loading conditions, than conventional plug
flow treatment.  The contact stabilization  mode  is generally less successful at
treating industrial  pollutants than  other modes, particularly when the organic
matter is predominantly soluble and waste strength fluctuations are common.

Staged Treatment.  A successful means of  mitigating the effects of industrial
contaminants on any biological treatment process is through the use of staged
treatment.  Many  treatment systems have  realized improved conventional and
industrial pollutant removal  when  switching from parallel treatment to  series
treatment.  For example,  two aeration basins  operating in series are generally
more successful at mitigating  the  effects  of  industrial contaminants than the
same two basins operating in parallel. The same  principles have been observed
to  apply equally  to  fixed   film processes and  fixed  film/suspended  growth
combinations.

Excess Biomass.  A typical  response of  a fixed film process to some industrial
waste  stressing is excess biomass growth, resulting in clogged media and reduced
treatment efficiency.  Should this be a problem, treatment is generally improved
if the  biomass population  (thickness) can be reduced.  By  increasing or altering
shearing  forces, biomass  sloughing increases.   This can be accomplished by
altering the direction of flow through RBCs and submerged fixed film basins, or
by increasing or altering the aeration pattern (if any) in  the basins. A second
means of inducing increased biomass sloughing is through chemical addition, but
this approach is potentially harmful to the biomass and should only be attempted
under the guidance of professionals skilled in the use of such chemicals.

4.1.5  Physical Modification

The most permanent  type of industrial pollutant  mitigation effort that can be
undertaken  at the  POTW  itself comes  in the  form  of  physical addition to or
modification  of  the treatment system.   Successful modification of treatment
plants for industrial waste effects mitigation have included the addition of new
plant facilities such as flow  equalization and physical/chemical treatment steps,
the  addition  of facilities  for adding chemicals  (as previously discussed)  to
existing treatment processes, and the modification of existing biological systems
(i.e. converting to  oxygen activated sludge or replacing  rock trickling filter
media with plastic media).

Flow Equalization.  Adding flow equalization prior to biological treatment units
has the effect  of  dampening any  slug  or  diurnal loads  of noncompatible or
high-strength industrial contaminants entering a treatment plant.   Pollutants
that intermittently enter a POTW in inhibitory concentrations can be diluted by
flow  equalization  to  noninhibitory  levels and thus, not  adversely  impact the
biological system.  Maiden Creek, Pennsylvania provides a dramatic  example of
the effects of non-equalized industrial flows (see Figure  A-4). In this particular
case, hydraulic  shocks were accompanied  by  organic  shocks that  resulted in
                                      47

-------
solids carryover, reduced BOD removal efficiency and sometimes total biological
process failure.

Instrumentation/Control.  Some POTWs use a variation of the flow equalization
principle with success, especially when toxic metal pollutants are involved.  pH
and  conductivity of the  influent wastewater is measured  and  recorded con-
tinuously in the influent.  When the pH  drops or conductivity rises drastically,
possibly indicating an increased heavy metal level, the influent flow  is diverted
to a holding basin until such  time that the pH and conductivity in the influent
return to normal. At that time, the diverted wastewater  can be bled back to  the
influent wastestream in a manner such that metal concentrations are diluted  and
do not  inhibit  the biological system.  This type of  technique may become more
useful  in  the  future  as  continuously recording  specific  ion  electrodes  are
developed for more pollutants.

An example of similar  control steps is Chicago Heights, IL.  Officials  there were
alerted to  a pesticide spill that entered the sewer system.  Operators were able
to isolate the incoming spill to some parallel primary clarifiers, activated sludge
and aerobic digester tanks where the toxic materials were subsequently treated
chemically and  biologically  (Busch,  1986).  Passaic Valley, New  Jersey  and
Newark, Ohio employ similar procedures when necessary (see Appendix A).

Special Treatment  Operations.   Other  treatment steps that might be added
depend  on   the   interfering   industrial   pollutants.      The   addition   of
flotation/skimming  tanks  is beneficial for removing pollutants like oils, greases
or other water-immiscible compounds.  Separate settling basins may be benefi-
cial  in some  cases for  chemical treatment to precipitate metals or  cause
coagulation of  unsettleable solids.

Pure  Oxygen Activated Sludge.   Another type of treatment plant modification
that has experienced some mitigation success is the  replacement  of  an existing
air activated sludge unit  with oxygen activated sludge.  Pure oxygen activated
sludge has been reported  by U.S. EPA (1981c) to be a more biologically stable
process with improved sludge settleability over conventional air  facilities when
responding to toxic  or high-strength organic loadings. However,  a disadvantage
with a covered oxygen system is that volatile organics can build up to potentially
explosive levels inside the covers. Baltimore, Maryland and Passaic Valley, New
Jersey have both experienced problems of this type.

Oxygen Transfer. Increasing the efficiency of oxygen transfer in  aeration basins
will help mitigate the effects of high-strength conventional pollutants.  Retro-
fitting existing coarse bubble or turbine aeration units with fine bubble units may
provide additional treatment  capacity for  a high-strength waste (see Newark,
Ohio  and Maiden Creek,  Pennsylvania in Appendix A).   However, maintaining
oxygen levels  above  2-3  mg/1 has not been shown  to  consistently  result in a
better treatment of conventional or organic pollutants.

4.1.6 Summary

Table 4-3  summarizes the  available measures that  may  be  employed at  a
treatment plant to mitigate interference effects.
                                      48

-------
4.2 PRETREATMENT AND SOURCE CONTROL

Pretreatment and source control of interfering industrial pollutants is the most
direct  and  efficient  way  of mitigating the  effects  of industrial pollutants
because the cause of the interference never reaches the POTW.  This reasoning
was  the  impetus for the General  Pretreatment Regulations which specify  the
guidelines under which municipalities must develop pretreatment programs.  It is
not  the  intent  of this guidance  manual  to  discuss  pretreatment  guidelines,
complete program development or details of industrial treatment processes.
Rather, this  discussion is intended to document elements important to bringing
about  pollutant  source  control,   whether  as  part of a  municipal/industrial
cooperative agreement or a fully approved pretreatment program.

4.Z.1 Local Limits

Setting local industrial discharge limits is one of the best and  most direct ways
of mitigating any industrial interference that may exist at  a  POTW.   Federal
Categorical Pretreatment Standards must be applied by POTWs with federally-
approved pretreatment programs,  but this does  not  guarantee  interference
prevention because of the  uniqueness  of POTWs and the waste they treat.  In
addition, noncategorical industries are  not  regulated by such federal standards.
Setting rational, technically-based  local limits in a fair  and equitable manner is a
sound  approach  to  preventing  interference.    The   General  Pretreatment
Regulations  (40  CFR Part 403.5(c))   require  POTWs  with federally-required
pretreatment programs and  other POTWs which experience  pass-through  or
interference  to establish  local limits.  Details on the development  of local
discharge limits are contained in the "Guidance Manual  for POTW Pretreatment
Program  Development"  (U.S.   EPA,  1983).     In   addition,   a   computer
program/model  for helping  municipalities   develop  local  limits has been
developed (U.S.  EPA, 1985a) and  is available  from the EPA Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits.

4.2.2 Accidental Spill Prevention

It  is in  the  best interests  of any  municipality to  consider  developing an
accidental spill prevention program (ASPP).   The purpose  of an ASPP is  to
provide "...a  set of procedures and a regulatory structure that will minimize  the
chance that  accidental  spills of toxic  materials  will  damage a  municipality's
collection  system  or  treatment  plant"   (U.S.  EPA,  1986b).   The principal
elements of an effective municipal ASPP are:

           identification of potential sources and types of spill materials
           adequate regulatory control
           POTW review of industrial user spill prevention programs
           complete emergency response procedures
           documentation of the development strategy

Spill materials would  include all  sources and  types  identified  for  industrial
pretreatment, but would also include apparently insignificant users who have  the
potential for spillage  into floor drains connected to a POTW.  Facilities such as
chemical warehouses, radiator shops, etc., which are supposedly "dry" or usually
recycle all harmful wastes, could have an accident that would impact a POTW.

                                     49

-------
A POTW should require industrial users to develop their own in-house ASPP and
the program should be  reviewed  for  thoroughness and  effectiveness  by the
POTW.   Industrial user  ASPPs, as  well as the overall ASPP  should  include
complete emergency response procedures by all involved parties.  These proce-
dures must be  outlined in enough detail to be effective and all the appropriate
personnel must be adequately familiar with the necessary emergency steps.

Finally, the development  of  the ASPP  must  be well documented so that as time
passes and modifications become necessary, a written record of  the program
development will be available  for consultation.   This record should prevent
needless rethinking of old ideas.

An  active spill prevention program with a high degree of visibility can have  a
positive  impact  on  reducing unauthorized discharges of  industrial wastes.
Figure 4-1 outlines the fundamental procedures in the development of an ASPP.

4.2.3  Pretreatment Facilities

There exists  a wide variety of  treatment processes  applicable  to  industrial
pretreatment,  depending on the  wastestream  pollutants,  the volume  of the
wastestream and the extent to which the waste must be  treated. The application
of specific  treatment streams is not  addressed by this  document.   However,
many typical municipal  treatment processes can be applied to some  industrial
wastestreams.   There are many  other types of treatment processes,  usually
physical/chemical, applicable to pretreatment applications.

In many cases where industries have been  required to pretreat wastes, it has
been  found that wastewater  flow equalization, pH neutralization or conservation
and recycle/reuse have been all that  are necessary to meet discharge limits and
eliminate  interferences.    Process modifications  or  wastestream  recovery
processes (such as for metals) have in some  cases ended up  saving  industries
money in addition to reducing pollutant loads.  These  aspects of pretreatment
should be emphasized in discussions with industries. The Horse Creek facility in
North Augusta, South Carolina, experienced  significant  operational improvement
from   relatively   small   industrial   operation  changes   (see   Appendix A).
Modifications such as discharging sump water from the surface rather than the
drain and equalizing pumping schedules, so as  to  minimize hydraulic peaks were
typical of successful adjustments.

4.2.4  Regulation of Waste Haulers

POTWs that accept discharges of hauled waste should establish procedures to
control the wastes so as to ensure  that they are  compatible  with the treatment
process. A waste hauler permit or "manifest" system is an effective method of
regulation.  Use of such  a system to document  the origin,  transportation, and
disposal of the waste, along  with a source control program (permitting, sampling
and inspecting the generator) and predischarge sampling,  will provide a high
degree of control over incoming wastes.  Figure 4-2 presents an overview of the
procedures of a waste hauler permit system.
                                      50

-------
POTWs may  choose to  restrict the  discharge  of hauled  waste  either  to a
designated  point  in the  collection  system  or  to  the plant  itself.    These
restrictions may be implemented through a permit or license.  Larger  POTWs
that can handle the slug load from a hauler, may grant access to the headworks.

In other cases, where storage or equalization capacity is available, hauled waste
may be discharged  to  equalization or holding tanks,  where  it can  be charac-
terized prior  to introduction to the system.  Sioux City, Iowa has developed a
successful method  to  regulate the  impact  of  waste  hauler discharges  (see
Appendix A).   A  large holding receptacle is utilized  for  all wastes  and the
contents  are  metered  to the  treatment  plant in controlled dosages, so as to
prevent any upsets from high strength waste.

If hauled  waste discharges are  restricted to a single site, the POTW can easily
inspect and sample the waste, verify tracking records, supervise the discharge of
the waste, and prohibit the discharge of wastes that would be incompatible with
the POTW. Such  supervision will also discourage illegal discharges.  Monitoring
of  a collection system discharge  point  is  more  difficult  than monitoring a
headworks discharge point.   However, dilution of  the waste  is achieved when
discharged at  a remote location in the collection system.

Waste generators  may be regulated by permits specifying conditions such as self-
monitoring requirements, local  limitations, categorical standards, specific prohi-
bitions, etc.,  which must  be  met  before  allowing discharge.  Procedures to
control generators of hauled wastes should be  similar to those employed  for
generators of fixed  discharges, since both are covered by the General Pretreat-
ment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403).  The POTW  may inspect the generator's
facility and sample the wastes for pollutants of concern to the POTW, as well as
determine if any other wastes have the potential for being mixed with the wastes
that are  to be hauled.  Based  on inspection results, the POTW may sample  for
those pollutants which should be limited before discharge is allowed.

If the POTW monitors the waste prior to discharge, one sample of the waste may
be analyzed for a single indicator parameter  and a  second sample preserved in
case  any problems  occur after introduction  to  the POTW.  While this might
subject the POTW to  unknown pollutants, it  would save the  cost of analyzing
each load extensively.   In  the case  of  manifest  discrepancies, or  where the
sample failed the indicator parameter test, or where an interference resulted,
more comprehensive testing could occur.

A waste hauler permitting and monitoring program should serve as a deterrent to
haulers against  discharging illegal  or harmful wastes.  If  deterrence  alone is
unsuccessful,  such a program  could  trigger enforcement  action such as fines,
refusal of wastes,  permit revocation, or assignment of liability for damages.

4.Z.5 Planning for Future Sources

To prevent the likelihood  of  future interferences  developing, POTW officials
must plan for future sources of industrial pollutants.  Future pollutant  loadings
should be considered  from two sources:  new  industries, and new  pollutant
streams  of existing industries.  Planning for  future  sources is  particularly
                                      51

-------
important as it relates to local limits development. Future pollutant sources and
quantities must be considered in setting local limits, so that a treatment facility
is able to handle increased pollutant loadings adequately.

4.3 LEGAL AND ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES

Interference is  costly to  POTWs  in  terms  of worker  safety,  physical  plant
integrity, effectiveness of operation, and liability for NPDES permit violations.
Interference is also a violation of a federal prohibition  applicable directly  to
industrial users.  POTWs are required to establish local limits as necessary  to
prevent  interference   and  to  take appropriate  enforcement actions  against
violators.

In order  to prevent and quickly remedy interference,  the POTW must be ready to
exercise its authority to take effective enforcement and legal actions.  These
actions should be clearly defined and readily understood by all parties involved.
The range of enforcement mechanisms available to the POTW will depend on the
legal authorities  given to it by the municipality, county, and state.  Wastewater
treatment  personnel who have not had extensive experience with  enforcement
and legal proceedings  in the past should consult with the  POTW's attorney, city
solicitor, or comparable city official to determine what  options are available.
POTWs which have federally-approved or state-approved pretreatment programs
should consult their program submission documents regarding legal authority and
enforcement procedures.

EPA  has recently  distributed a comprehensive guidance  document for POTWs
titled Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement  (PCME) Guidance
(EPA, 1986c).   It provides  detailed  discussions  on compliance  monitoring,
establishing enforcement priorities, and conducting  enforcement actions.  The
PCME guidance should be examined by POTW  personnel for the development or
review  of  their enforcement  response  procedures.   POTWs are  encouraged  to
develop  an  enforcement response guide containing procedures  which will define,
in a nonsubjective way, the  type of enforcement response that can be expected
for a particular kind or level of violation.

Enforcement  actions  for  POTW interference or industrial discharge  noncom-
pliance are typically  spelled out in the local  sewer  use  ordinance, permits  or
contracts  with  industrial  users,  or an  approved pretreatment  program.   In
addition, the enforcement procedures can be  described in the  POTW's  enforce-
ment response guide or their  NPDES permit.  It is important  that the  enforce-
ment options be strong enough to  provide  a real deterrent  to the  regulated
industries.  This requires  that adequate  manpower and documentation exist  to
pursue enforcement actions.   Documentation will primarily consist of industrial
waste monitoring as discussed elsewhere in this manual.  An in-depth evaluation
of all documentation concerning monitoring results, methods, and techniques, as
well  as  quality  assurance  procedures should be  part of the preparation for
enforcement proceedings.

In  interference  situations in which there is imminent endangerment  to human
health, the environment, or the  POTW, it  is important that  the POTW  have the
ability  to  immediately notify the  discharger and  bring about  a  halt to  the
                                      52

-------
discharge.   POTWs with approved pretreatment programs are required to have
this authority by the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403.8 (f)(vi)(B)).
In situations in  which  there  is no threat of immediate harm,  enforcement steps
usually begin with noncompliance warnings, meetings and other informal actions.
Should these measures prove inadequate, other more stringent measures should
be taken. These commonly include:

      •     penalties
      •     orders and  compliance schedules
      •     litigation
      •     sewer disconnection and permit revocation

Bayshore  Regional  Sewerage  Authority  (Union Beach,   New  Jersey)  and
METRO-Seattle, Washington are examples of POTWs which have  shown aggres-
sive enforcement efforts (see Appendix A).  These POTWs have not hesitated to
levy fines  and take other  enforcement  actions after documenting  the source of
interference problems.

Both  formal  and informal  actions  are  important  parts   of   an  effective
enforcement program. Informal actions are  likely to be more successful  if the
POTW  has developed a  cooperative  relationship with  its industrial  users.
Virginia's Hampton Roads Sanitation District provides a good example of the
advantages of  developing  and maintaining  a good  working and  monitoring
relationship between an authority and the industrial user community.  Once the
interfering source is  located,  the  District technicians, along with a supervisor,
directly contact the industry to notify them of the  problem and see  to it  that the
discharge ceases.  The District approaches the source of any interference in a
cooperative manner, with ample documentation in hand.  The  source is normally
willing  to  rectify the problems  and  agreement  on  administrative  and  other
measures is reached informally, without the need to resort to  legal remedies. If
a  clean-up is  warranted,  the responsible  industrial  user   contracts  for  the
necessary work to be done, with District personnel  overseeing  the operation until
completion.   All costs involved with the investigation, clean-up  and any other
District  expenditures  as a result  of  the upset are then billed to the industrial
source.

4.3.1  Penalties

After compliance  warnings  and  efforts  to  encourage industrial  pretreatment
have  failed, the enforcement  option  most  commonly initiated  is the use of
penalties.   The amount  of  a penalty  is generally  limited  through state or
municipal  laws.   EPA's "Guidance  Manual  for POTW Pretreatment Program
Development"  (October, 1983)  recommended that POTWs  have  the  ability to
assess penalties of at least  $300 per  day of violation to  act as a  sufficient
deterrent.  However,  this limit may be inadequate  for discharges which interfere
with the POTW. Appropriate  action may involve  seeking the assistance of the
state  or EPA for obtaining penalties under state  or federal law, which may be
substantially greater  (up to  $100,000 per day and 6 years in jail for   a repeat
knowing  criminal violation).   Penalties may  be used in conjunction with billing
procedures  for  minor  violations which  may  be detected during inspections or
compliance review of self-monitoring  data.  Such penalties should appear as a
                                     53

-------
separate item on a bill with the violation identified.  The amount of the penalty
imposed will usually depend upon the nature and  severity of the  interference
caused or the quantity of the interfering pollutant.

Surcharges are not  penalties,  but rather recover the POTW's cost of  treating
industrial wastewaters.  Payment of surcharges is not a justification for an IU to
violate  pretreatment standards or cause interference.   POTWs  should  make it
clear to their industrial users, as part of the IU permit or contractual agreement,
that lUs may be subject to both surcharges for the additional treatment costs, as
well as  substantial penalties for causing interference.

4.3.Z Orders and Compliance Schedules

In order to force  an industrial user to install acceptable pretreatment equipment,
some POTWs may issue administrative orders to place  an industrial user on an
enforceable compliance schedule  to meet pretreatment standards.  Additionally,
orders are sometimes used to require increased monitoring or installation of slug
notification systems.

The Hampton Roads Sanitation District, for example, may modify  an industry's
discharge permit to reflect increased  monitoring for a  period of time to show
compliance.  Also, a compliance  schedule from  the industry is required to show
what steps are taken to prevent recurrence.  Depending on the  severity  of  the
problem, the District  may require the  industry to permanently install some type
of alarm system and/or automatic shut-off.

4.3.3 Litigation

POTW-initiated litigation can  be used  as a further  attempt to cause compliance
after earlier measures have failed to  bring about  the desired result.   In many
cases, litigation  is  a  way  of  obtaining an injunction against the discharger to
cease the discharge or to clean it up, or to obtain  a sewer disconnection or  the
payment of substantial penalties  which go beyond routine fines.   Litigation also
serves to bring media attention and public pressure to bear when  pressure  from a
sewer authority has failed. For example, the City of Canandaigua, New York
obtained an out-of-court settlement dictating a compliance schedule for  a user
following the City's initiation  of court action. The user was required to expand
its pretreatment facility and the City's POTW operation was then able to meet
its NPDES permit.

In some cases, litigation has been initiated to collect  unpaid fines, which  may
amount  to sizeable  sums.   New Jersey's Bayshore Regional  Sewerage Authority
found adverse publicity to have little effect on a major  industrial employer,  and
was forced to initiate  legal action hi an attempt to recover $1.25 million in back
surcharge payments and costs.

4.3.4 Sewer Disconnection or Permit Revocation

Sewer disconnection or permit revocation is used by many POTWs under serious
circumstances such as when there is imminent endangerment to public health,
the environment  or  the POTW, or when other methods to obtain compliance have
failed.

                                      54

-------
A  local ordinance can provide this authority by allowing the POTW to issue  a
suspension order and by requiring the discharger to immediately halt discharging
upon notification. Furthermore, the ordinance can allow the POTW to sever the
sewer connection if the industry does not respond.

Frequently, unless there is an immediate  threat to human health, an administra-
tive hearing of some type is held  before  discontinuing service.  The industrial
user is invited to appear before a local hearing board, presented with the facts
demonstrating noncompliance, and asked to show cause why service should not be
discontinued.  The board then decides whether to pursue disconnection.

Recently  in New Jersey, the Hamilton Township Wastewater Treatment  Plant
required an industrial user  to install  flow  equalization equipment.   However,
deterioration  in  effluent quality continued, leading to termination of sewer
service.    In  Pennsylvania,  the  Maiden  Creek  Wastewater Treatment  Plant
discontinued service to  a user when the  discharge  from the facility caused  a
total process failure.  Any future failure to comply with municipal requirements
for flow equalization and monitoring, BOD reduction, and sampling will subject
the user  to another shut-off.  The Bayshore,  New Jersey  Regional Sewerage
Authority's policy  is  to notify recalcitrant  industries  of a  violation,  with
subsequent discontinuation of service if noncompliance extends beyond 15 days.

At  Hampton Roads in  Virginia, if a problem represents  an  imminent hazard to
the public health, safety or welfare,  or to the local environment or to  any
portion of the sewerage  system, the District may suspend a permit for a period
of  up  to  60 days.   Failure to immediately cease  discharge  of all industrial
wastewater into the sewerage system  may also result in termination of water
and/or wastewater service.  If cooperation is not received from the user,  then
the District may revoke the industrial user's permit.
                                     55

-------









•M
1
tt!
P"M




•sl

_J +J
o S
£ B
2 "S,
1

g|
+-> u
O JIT
O







JfS
T> c;
id Q
C^ 3
oS





o

^
_s rt
2 8 c
R O
G B 'it
o o "S
B o g
.§ "S 0 § .$
"u $ *"" u §
U ^ ^.ij oD ^^
rt ^ iC .S j->
h O ^ *• fl
^ & 55 s ^S
§0 iS -2 1
-M PQ CM p.
tn
!S
"^-J fll
S *'

4) »H
0) S
81
p &

0
18
u
s
u w>

H 4
&S
i^l
« "°
^^
,2
c
o
• *•*
"S
-1

J3 t>
"S «s
*^ fi I
a^
•" §
o '£
+> rt
•C "3
(U ™
O m1
||
CO
13
7J fl)
(0 +->

f§ fi
0) Jj
fH P
U *->

(U
CO
rt
(U
b
0)
p




S
(O
•P
.croorgai
'M)
§£
2.2
i •*-<
13 rt
o
PH




























Cti
vO
CO
i— 1
*\

-------
§
I
U

•3.1
II
O T3
p< <








•»->
"3
&






Pollutant (s)
Causing
Problem


Reason
for
Addition




0)
£
+j
<3
* a
CO O
3 e B
PS -a s
^ 55 o
3 -0 u
•° R -M
« 2 55
wi -PH flj
HI -i-j •
U/ TT P-J
a ?~
CO (U t4_i
> Ctf 0)






W o

^ S3
M +j
(3 B)
•3 T3 te
3 r> r.
Various, partic
textile and wo<
products waste


Reduce bulking




CO
.S
>H
O
2
U

c
o
• p*
13
S3
rt
(1)
tM _,
o .S
«w U)
>H
S ^
(U .1-4
il
S O
5 o
M ^^
« *J
tJ §
£'C
s ^
0 ^
u -S

CO
3
o
at
High carbonao
strength waste

13
i \
Improve biologic
treatment and
reduce bulking
sludge



M
*-l 1) ,— 1
o to 3
^ O CO
P* M _.
w -t-" "o
o s S
^? S S
£

e primary
ier
^i t->
0 .jH
•M 3
0) JO
PQ 73



(u
•y
n}
bo -1-1
c 'S
.S ft
a '0
* 2
^ s,
ffi 0
p,«
in to
<8 13
.2 -2
n> -> c
0 o
•s g
PQ co


fi
o
•f*
^j
T) ni
§g
ID (X
u B
• rH •(-)
X -d
o  CO
in w
0) V
> >
0 0
B ^
(U p
P5.S




Various


Improve
sedimentation



81
yj (0
S3
B 8P
tn
o U
PH
c
ration basi
0)
ftf
o
H






u
• P*
9
00
pH
S «
j§ 3
S5
10 ^J
31.




Toxic organics

13
Reduce biologic
inhibition



T3
•o 
•3
'&
o
0
0)
o
r**
•o
3
o
,d
ti5
M
PN
0)
•*->
cu
fi
H
a
o
• pH
13
s .
£ o
« ^
#»^
13 to
M
c S
•5 tU
>> s
&•§)
QJ H
c?W
+j M
2 «
fi -^
11
•5 °
•S U
rt w
•*-> ».
- >>
alizations in this
s M. Montgomer
S4 <"
S B
0) CO
Krt 1-^
DO >T3
(U
-O
P ..
0)
•• o
Co r
•M H
o §
IS co
                               57

-------
CO
a
                       73-5
                        U «J
                       73
                       u
Process
c
o
•i-i
+->
Rj
U
                                r
                                a
                                    f
                                    !

I
-t
                                               o
                                               tjn
          l
          81
                                                    o u
                                                    Pi
                                                                u
                                                                0)
                                                                (U
                                                               W

                                                                60
                                                                C
                                                                R
                                                                o
                                                               o
                                                                a;

                                                                S
                                                                o
                                                                (50
                                                               •«->
                                                                c
                                                                o
James M
ce
                                         58

-------

B.
||
1 I* .

E » « §
o u w S
1 I* ol 2
• .5 S g Eb
O -2 V 2 e
£ X J » §

0) 4) S ° "" «
s 2 a Sol
g .2 3 -^ K r
& g S £ ftg
,5 w £ S S 8
'S
Ml O O
i

<- P
C "-1
O h
elop ASPP Requirements
Specific Spill Control Equipm
to be Required
Administrative Procedures fo
ASPP Submittal and Review
WOO
—
If ^
** «ri a? S **""
O * *£ 00 U
S « '- .S S
* S 2 S S)
^ > 3 '3 <
h o P* »!;
rt ^  £ »
« « 2 « *. «

c JJ 8. oo g .S "
"g g i "8 .5- 68.
" E 'i.'S S- « ^
D g. S-.E « DO;

o o






V )
s s
C en u
(U (A tt> D
.£ || S
•2 S « P
«*-• x o n
i
*
.y
i
§

w
£
£
«||f| 2
g 4, g^ g g (1,
0< * S § « «
|Ssl| J
W i i i i S



0 0



H
n OJ
o P °2
Cb »5 o2'^
« 5 s If" |fi8
.>. o S *-^[H cS&i
^« > ^, w>Z3 ]£ •** o
.S a, o o atus 7^1-
J| 1 1 IBS §|.s
I! I II It! Ill
O 0 O
0 0

•o
il la
4-» 3 v *-
•^ 5> s «

I
IM
0
i
1
1
0
i! 1
a £• « ~
ol 5^
1 ! -||
fr'SiS £•?
Jfc £ "u 'S3
H 4) « O O
- « Q(S ZU
a
(fc O O
iT
E
4)
•S 8
L !. ^
'^3 « V- "° "••
S2 as § |
^1 "3 « « 5
S «- If - £
c 2 S w .2 -g «
0) & M «, £• •"
II "MI t-l
U II! l<
DOS uau a
-------
     POTW notifies
     hauler of
     permit system
     requirements
     Hauler
     applies
     for permit
POTW random
sampling
of load

er
i
i
H
                                               POTW compliance
                                               action if permit
                                               violated
                    provides
                    copy of
                    manifest
                    to POTW at
                    time of
                    discharge
                     FIGURE 4-2

PROCEDURES OF A WASTE HAULER PERMIT PROGRAM
                   (U.S. EPA, 1985a)
                          60

-------
                               REFERENCES
Busch, W.H. (1986) "Protecting Your Plant From Hazardous Waste." Operations
Forum, WPCF, April Issue.  11-15.

Geating, J. (1981)  "Literature Study of  the  Biodegradability of Chemicals  in
Water (Vols. 1 and 2)" U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. 241 pp.

Grubbs,  R.B.  (1986)  "Biotechnology  Proves Good  Examples."    Pollution
Engineering, June, 1986.

Russell, L.L., Cain, C.B. and Jenkins, D.I. (1983) "Impact of Priority Pollutants
on Publicly Owned  Treatment Works Processes:  A Literature Review."  Proc.
37th Ind. Waste Conf. Ann Arbor  Publishing, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 871-883.

Silva, S.J.  (1981)  "EPA  Moving to Control Industrial Toxic Pollutants with New
NPDES Permits." Civil  Engr. 51:76.

Slattery, G.H. (1986) "Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant Standard Operating
Procedure:   Routine  Operation of  Wastewater  Respirometer", Baltimore,
Maryland.

U.S. EPA  (1977a) "Process  Control  Manual for Aerobic Biological Wastewater
Treatment Facilities." Prepared by Tsugita, R.A., De Coite, D.C.W. and Russell,
L.L. for U.S.  EPA, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (1977b) "Federal Guidelines - State and Local Pretreatment Programs."
U.S.  EPA, Municipal  Construction Division  MCD-43,  EPA-430/9-76-017a,
Washington, D.C. 3 volumes.

U.S. EPA (1978) "Field  Manual for Performance Evaluation and Troubleshooting
at Municipal  Wastewater Treatment Facilities."  EPA-430-9-78-001.  Prepared
by Gulp, G.L. and Heim, N.F. for U.S. EPA, Washington, DC.  387 pp.

U.S. EPA (1979) "Biodegradation  and Treatability of Specific Pollutants." EPA-
600/9-79-034. Prepared by Barth, E. F., and  Bunch,  R. L.  for U.S. EPA,
Cincinnati, Ohio.  60 pp.

U.S. EPA (1981a) "304(g) Guidance Document:  Revised Pretreatment Guidelines
(Vols. I and H)." Internal Report.  Prepared by JRB Associates  for U.S. EPA,
Cincinnati, Ohio.

U.S. EPA (I981b) "Assessment of  the Impacts of Industrial Discharges on Publicly
Owned  Treatment  Works."   Report  submitted   to  the  Office  of  Water
Enforcement, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.  by JRB Associates.

                                    61

-------
U.S EPA  (1981c) "Parallel Evaluation of Air  and Oxygen-Activated Sludge."
EPA-600/2-81-155.  Prepared by Austin, S., Yunt, F. and Wuerdeman, D.,  for
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio, 43 pp.

U.S.  EPA  (1983)  "Guidance  Manual  for  POTW  Pretreatment   Program
Development."    U.S.   EPA,  Office  of Water  Enforcement  and   Permits,
Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA  (1984) "Improving POTW Performance Using the Composite Correction
Program  Approach."     U.S. EPA,  Center   for  Environmental   Research
EPA-625/6-84-008, Cincinnati, Ohio. 258 pp.

U.S. EPA  (1985a) "PRELIM:  The EPA Computer Program/Model for Developing
Local Limits -  User's Guide."  Prepared by SAIC/JRB Associates for U.S. EPA,
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA  (1985b)  "Pretreatment  Implementation Review Task  Force:  Final
Report to the Administrator."  U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. 75 pp.

U.S. EPA (I985c) "RCRA Information on Hazardous  Wastes for Publicly Owned
Treatment Works."  U.S.  EPA, Office  of Water Enforcement and  Permits,
Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA (1986a) "Interferences at Publicly  Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)."
Submitted  to  U.S. EPA-WERL, Cincinnati,  Ohio by  James M.  Montgomery,
Consulting Engineers, Inc.

U.S. EPA,  Region X  (1986b)  "Guidance Manual  for the  Development of an
Accidental  Spill Prevention  Program." Prepared  by  Science  Applications
International Corp.  for U.S. EPA, Region X,  Seattle, Washington.

U.S. EPA (1986c)  "Pretreatment  Compliance Monitoring  and  Enforcement
Guidance" U.S.  EPA, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.

WPCF (1982) "Industrial Wastewater Control Program for Municipal Agencies."
MOP OM-4, WPCF, Washington, DC.  166 pp.
                                     62

-------
 APPENDIX A
CASE STUDIES

-------
    Id

    05


    IM
    K
T   •<


S   I
«   w



1
*{ a,
fl) to
.«?«
2
>~ — i .2
o i3 £•
•fl 'C S
o -a .y
II!
3


41 2
11
1
0£



•s
£ u
*!



«M V
0 S 0)
£ US
§ Jf -
»2 k 'S,
rt o> tiT
zs





tJ o
rt 0
+j (A
4*


C jt.

** *LJ

(S





s 1

"^ t
Implemente
treatment ]

t

jr
5
1
1*
>


IT
"7
>>
*«
c
rt
.c
J

"fS
w
i £J
u *"
i M
"i
tf£




L, 0
0) O
^ c ^
2 ~~

D
- 3

> ^
£ o
•" 'Z
U i
n) «
03 CO


t
1 '
"^ •J3 C
Required ir
to improve
house solve
recovery
DO
.S
O
'S
O

c
01
~
c
L.
fa
>,
t.
§
c1
"c ^
S «
> •§

Id
ft
P N
;- «
^ O
V .F«
s 1
S c.
W) W



















s
S e- Si
-.^ 	 C Q
B.S!
o2i
IH
2 .§ S
C^ u nj


^
| . E|
till
S 'c a) o
,5 « a- u


£
|»|
.£ s "3
s ^ £
(i c'-S

c
o
0 '^
•—
s §
la




1 M§
^ C f
? 'c ^
fe JS o

D
5

o £
U 0
&>:"

rt rt
fX CQ
1 «
tfl 0)
•S.S
"I lo§&
"S *j cu £ c ^
1= |.|f§
u u e «-. c S •"
g a - 2 'i 1 '6
el | S. a -2 s
W u H O «*i *-• O«
t- b
_c c
E ^ E £
C t3 c *O
os os

in
«
g
d §
[D y5
C
.2
(fl
c
'« 5 '(/)
£" S ^
c ^ c
£ ^ »C
JS >^
!
1 1 -si
•C ~ "Sj;
*> ^ -^ C
.H *5 rt C
g, i p.'C 5
JH QJ 3 > .2
O D. V) O >




w in fc. r-
5 "T £ E T
!2 «?— .- "" —
||S |j2

H
-J=" SM
u C
7 *  ^
2 > j
i d
-22 | g.
C > &" ^
u w or
11 li
D g. SM
c
•e
c
a;
£ 'S = S -
S c.j!j .c ™
^i >5 i
P "? ^^ ~ rt ^
||| |S§
•§ "^
c r;
> *j
OH, j^ «
H 3 (U 3
^ flj Ofi
c „ £3
o c U <
1: ? Si £

(C i. O O
K H S Z
                                         A-1

-------






















**
1
U
bJ
CO
^
'"









































a
w
a
j:
1
w
H
>•
tf
<
3
2
P
en
Q
1
W
i/l
u





















d
11
2

"3 "n 'S
•si •§
* 3 is


a



Jr
*. S
w t£
u ?
01




t
* 0






- S
o a 01
II!
^ «J W
zjg









?i
Jl





4^
i*
« 'o
£ c»*
**
i
*j "•' 2
C "0 **"
J2 P « *->
a- c s c
cflj
| 'I £ S
0) a) '*- D
,»• o, * t,
H o u a

0
c ^
^

"c «
O E


m
S
z

u:
p"
O
ca


^
c
.£
'S
£ CO
°1
« «
l-s
> ^J



3
*C |
j.. «
Ssl
DJ -rj *J
SB*
C°S
III
*• o Q^
H - o.







e
|I|
ell
•c ^ o^
|'Ss?
S^S


^
£ 2
U c
flj o
'5 *
25
, S
s £
s.»
2 s.
f I
g-2
E ^.







J2
~a
 •% •#
QP en ^^
^ 3 •£>
§ -5 0
052i
'o
0,
*j
|<:
6 j
o< r
« OJ
2 U5
i)
.- o
« E , S.
.2 u m c
u 01 *. C
» a °-^
3 ^ *« c
•S •" 1 1 t
II III
k |
- 1 1 '^
« fc K .-

S >, 'rt -o o
.j i ? 5 E
«3
"c
if 0
-^ e &
cC t- -o
1 1^
C ™ QJ
« j«2
s g e
1 II




« c 2
"w O w
ra 2 ^
•° sc -°
J 6^


c
.c §
*j ^3 '
1 slf
I i-^^s
§ c^°
u 
1 III

U5 H - 0.





»•>
o ^
a S
'I 1
I %
I I 1^1
- 1 <£ 8 - S
•E * P J * m
ill III



£ u g
2 jf jT
o ^ ?3
3 JS S
a> m v
2 o: z

?~l«
c Tj pg (j
i§Si
£§DI
| '•= S °
ll!I

| '^
en .*—

•O o
& F



«

o
£
|




c .2
.£ "
'w 'rt 5s
£ S «
** ra (/i
" -0 0
c j 5




V)
ID
U
O
2^
5|f
S c a
Z .M D
tn
4)
u
'>

(U

^i
O
*-•
a
"%
|j|
0 ^"
'£ 3 S
i £3
£ 'DC



g'j
| 7"
jr u
s §
z o
.6 g
v a ^C
0. fi> C -3 ^
K £ - g H
.So. ^ *- Q
C £ Cc i
| E I '5 g ^ „
"n tf !^ il "" 3 ^
S" S £

!2 "E -2 f ™" >•
y; .tl tn -ti . if
3 C 3 C X1 3
-3 O 13 O c "O
£ E £ E 0 .S

*2
CO
OJ

-2 o en
> 1 u C
r/T W C O
V) 0 N W



c
.2
in « f- .2
•s •» S j.
•«" 'rt' "o |
S S •« ™
•§ rt 1 i
j j > j


01 g
3 , .2
i u) "rt
U i|i I
3 "fl 3 ^ _rfl 3
H) 'p * "a .Sf «»
(D u QJ ^ IP
•< «J > 0 5 >
Hd. H *- eft H
c
_C
*Z^
3

O
a
o.| 5.
§| 1 c^ |
^•fr4 £2cJ- 5^
^ M *" >*> £t)M ^0
1PI Sfl II

w
fr ^ N
=3g ^ **
t J? C o"
'« rt x tu
" S 3 3
« v .2 o
0. 2 M H








































m
m
o
ro
o
vO







A-2

-------
BACK RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Baltimore, Maryland

The City of Baltimore owns  and operates two wastewater treatment facilities,
Back  River  and Patapsco,  with  a  combined  flow rate  of  approximately
250 million gallons per day.  The plants serve a combined population of nearly
1.7 million in an area which  includes  approximately 4,700 sources or potential
sources of nondomestic wastewater.  In accordance with the requirements of the
General  Pretreatment  Regulations   (40 CFR  Part 403)  established  by  the
U.S. EPA, the City  developed an  extensive  industrial waste  control program
requiring a significant commitment in terms of personnel,  equipment, office
space, and supplies.

The Back River facility is currently undergoing a major renovation to replace the
30 acres of trickling filter rock media with complete-mix  activated sludge, along
with significant alteration and expansion  of most  process units. The renovation
work is in preparation for new NPDES  permit  limits of 10/10  (BOD and TSS) and
2 mg/1  (NHg), which will  require  extensive  modification of  the  system for
nitrification and multi-media filtration.  Industrial  flows  to Back  River  total
approximately 27 mgd, resulting in metals and solvents in the discharge.

The primary  source  of metals  in  the  system  is  from  the  12 metal  plating
operations identified by the  industrial waste survey.  If too high, the  metals
content in the wastewater restricts the ultimate disposal options for the digested
and dewatered sludge.  When local limits were calculated based on unrestricted
distribution  of  the  sludge,  the  limits  were occasionally  one-fourth  of the
electroplating categorical standards. A compost facility now  under construction
is expected to process 150 wet tons of the 450 tons produced each day, beginning
in March 1987.

The benefits  of  pretreatment for metals removal have  been  demonstrated at
Back River.  An incinerator had been discharging 2 tons of fly ash  per hour into
the collection system, which  was high  in metal content and was responsible for
90 percent of the cadmium in the POTW influent.  Other  wastewater containing
metals were from steel and automobile manufacturing.  In each case, industrial
user pretreatment  facilities  have come on-line during the  past  year,  with  a
measureable drop in influent and sludge concentrations.  A  summary  of the
improved metal  content of  the sludge  from 1984 to  1986  is  provided on
Table A-2.  Based on the  current metal content, the composted sludge  will be
acceptable for agricultural use.

The second major area of concern at the Back River plant stems from the large,
batch discharges of solvents,  petroleum hydrocarbons and other toxic organics.
In 1985, a 2:00 am discharge of ethyl benzene, xylene and toluene resulted in the
evacuation of the largest pump station  and other buildings in town.  The problem
was traced to a paint and chemicals manufacturer, which has  since improved its
in-house  solvent recovery  system.    A  similar  evacuation  resulted  from  a
4,000 gallon  discharge  of  xylene by  a waste hauler,  which was traced  to  a
                                     A-3

-------
specific  location  in  the  collection  system.   Tetrachloroethylene  has been
discovered and traced to dry cleaning operations. While such discharges have not
usually resulted in interference with the plant's ability to meet its NPDES permit
limits, the health and safety issues  and potential  for explosion are of  serious
concern to the City.
                                 TABLE A-Z

                      AVERAGE METAL CONTENT OF
                           BACK RIVER SLUDGE
                           (mg/kg dry weight basis)
       Metal           Allowable1      1984       1986    % Reduction
Cr (total)
Cu
Pb
Ni
Zn
Cd
Hg
NA
I960
730
575
5,130
48
12
1,491
1,001
372
266
2,747
26
5
273
549
388
67
1,522
17
3
82
45
-4
75
45
35
40
          From Compost  Contract Schedule 2, City of Baltimore, MD
An interesting aspect of Baltimore's program  for  preventing  interference  and
sewer system hazards is the computer coding of the sewer collection system.  By
knowing the constituents of each industry's discharge,  the  flow rate and their
location in  the  coded sewer system, a contaminant  discovered at either Back
River or Patapsco can theoretically be traced back  to its potential source or
sources.  While  such a  backtracking program is  of limited  use  for  isolated
discharges,  it could prove beneficial in  locating chronic dischargers of  specific
compounds.

In order to  further protect the sewer system, a City Ordinance requires  that the
atmosphere in a manhole receiving an industrial discharge must not exceed 10%
of the LEL (lower explosive limit)  for  any fuel.   This  regulation is in force by
manual monitoring  of the  sewer manhole and has been successful in  curbing
intentional dumps or disposal of fuels and flammable solids.
                                     A-4

-------
                                   BACK RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                                              BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
   Design Flow:
   Secondary Treatment:
       180 mgd
       Trickling Filters and Activated Sludge
     INFLUENT WASTEWATER
                                                                 SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES
  Ave. Flow, mgd
  % Industrial
  BOD5, rog/1
  SS, rag/1
Typical (Upset)

   180 (Z70)
      15
      130
      190
       Industry

Metal Plating (12)
Auto Mfr.
Paint and Chemical
Incinerator
Waste Haulers
Flowrate
 (mgd)

  0.18
   1.5
  N/A
  N/A
  N/A
          Problem Pollutants

Metals
Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn
Ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene
Cd,  Hg
Solvents, petroleum hydrocarbons
                                                  PLANT LOADING
Primary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/s£/day
  Detention Time, hours
  Effluent BODs, mg/1
  Effluent SS, mg/1
Secondary Clarifiers (A.S./T.F)

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  SVI, ml/gm
                  Typical (Upset)

                     730 (1,170)
                        3.6
                        180
                        100
                  Typical (Upset)

                      750/950
                      2.5/2.1
                        95
                       Aeration Basins                         Typical (Upset)

                          Ave. Flow, mgd                             60
                          F/M, Ibs BOD5/lbs MLSS/day               0.4
                          MCRT, days                               6.1
                          MLSS, mg/1                              2,000
                          Detention Time, hours                     3.5
                          Return Flow, To                           30-40
                          D.O. Level, mg/1                          Z-3

                       Trickling Filters                        Typical (Upset)

                          Ave. Flow, mgd                          150(200)
                          Hydraulic Loadings, ga/sf/d               120 (136)
                          Organic Loading, Ibs BOD/1000 cf/d         20
                          Return Flow, %                             0
                            ,  mg/1
                       SS, mg/1
                                               PLANT PERFORMANCE

                                                        Permit Limit
                                        45
                                        45
                                      Typical (Upset)

                                          40 (50)
                                          40 (50)
           BAW WASTEWATER
                                                                 BETHLEHEM STEEL
                                                                 COOLING WATER
                                                                                       FINAL EFFLUENT
                                                         A-5

-------
PATAPSCO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Baltimore, Maryland

A 1981 EPA-sponsored project on biomonitoring of direct  discharges rated the
Patapsco plant as having the most toxic effluent of those surveyed. Ironically,
the second most toxic discharge came from an agricultural chemicals manufac-
turer who, in 1983, ceased direct discharging and now sends their pretreated
wastewater to Patapsco. The high level of toxicity has prompted the collection
of much bioassay, acute toxicity and respirometer data over the  past four years
in order  to  evaluate the  potential for both toxicity pass-through  and toxic
inhibition of the plant biomass.  Despite the presence of inhibitory levels of
pollutants in the influent, the plant  currently meets its discharge limits for BOD
and  SS, indicating the ability  of activated  sludge to acclimate to consistent
levels of many inhibitory compounds.  It has, however, been necessary to operate
at a reduced organic loading in order to offset  the effects  of the inhibition. This
has reduced the  wastewater treatment capacity of the plant.

The  City is evaluating several measures to reduce  this inhibition and thus
prevent any possibility of interference.  They have  begun  daily routine operation
of a respirometer for measuring the inhibitory characteristics of  the plant
influent.  They are also evaluating the use of respirometry as a tool  for assessing
the impacts of several industrial effluents on the plant.

Another concern to the City is the pass-through of toxicity. Acute influent and
effluent toxicity data using  a Beckman Microtox unit have been collected since
November 1980. Some of the results of these analyses are shown on Figure A-l.
The  data are on an inverse scale, with 0% indicating  complete  toxicity and
approximately 45 percent corresponding to no toxic  effect.

Figure A-l illustrates the highly toxic nature of the plant influent  and  effluent
until September 1982, at which time the secondary treatment system went on-
line.   The acclimation of the  activated sludge improved the monthly  average
effluent toxicity from 5 percent to 40 percent by December, where it remained
until secondary  shutdown in February 1983.  The average  effluent toxicity again
increased until  the secondaries returned on June 15, providing clear evidence of
the  detoxification capability of acclimated activated  sludge.   Even  though
overall effluent toxicity has been reduced, individual daily tests continue to show
substantial day-to-day variability, with significant effluent toxicity occurring in
more than one-third of the tests. Therefore, the City is continuing to study ways
to reduce this toxicity pass-through. In fact, the City  of Baltimore is currently
performing a toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE)  in  conjunction with the U.S.
EPA.

As a means of improving both the inhibition and toxicity pass-through situations,
the  State of Maryland included the following in a consent order issued  to the
City in 1984:

      •    install on-line toxicity monitoring of the plant  influent
      •    develop a toxics emergency response plan
      •    enlarge the scope of the City sewer ordinance to include specifics on
           toxicity and flammability for industrial effluents.
                                     A-6

-------
  u
                                FIGURE A-l
                        MONTHLY ACUTE TOXICITY
                  (Courtesy G.H. Slattery, City of Baltimore)
In spite of high  influent  toxicity, the  plant  is  not  currently  experiencing
interference with its ability to meet its NPDES permit limits. With a mean cell
residence time varying between 10 and 15 days,  the plant produces reasonably
stable operation and  good  plant performance  on removals of  conventional
pollutants. Although compliance with the NPDES permit has been achieved for
BOD  and  SS  at Patapsco,  the plant flow  is well below  the  70 mgd  design
capacity.  Toxic  inhibition  of the activated sludge  bacteria  is  still present
despite the improvement since 1983.  Evidence of this inhibition is provided by
the plant actual operating F/M of 0.3, which is significantly less than the  design
value of 0.5, and also was verified by respirometry tests on the plant influent.

The  attached  data sheet indicates  that Patapsco's current  noncompliance has
resulted from  discharging excess phosphorus and  an effluent pH below 6.5.  The
phosphorus problem is  being dealt with by  installing  anaerobic/oxic  (A/O)
technology in  the oxygenation basins as  a means  of  biological phosphorus
removal.  The low pH  is inherent in oxygen activated  sludge systems, typically
producing an effluent in excess of 250 mg/1 of CO2 and a pH of 6.2.  The problem
can  be  corrected with  either chemical  adjustment  or  post-aeration  of the
wastewater.
                                     A-7

-------
                                  PATAPSCO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                                            BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
   Design Flow:
   Secondary Treatment:
70 mgd
Activated Sludge (Pure Oxygen)
INFLUENT WASTEWATER SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES


Ave. Flow, mgd
% Industrial
BOD5, mg/1
SS, mg/1
TOX, %
Flowrate
Typical (Upset) Industry (mgd) Problem Pollutants
•42 Chemicals 1.0 Insecticides, Volatiles, phenols, metals
30
265 (320) Metal Finishing 0.13 pH, solvents, metals
325 (470)
15
                                               PLANT LOADING
Primary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  Effluent BOD5, mg/1
  Effluent SS, mg/1
Secondary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  SVT, ml/gm
           Typical (Upset)

                1,150
                 1.5
                 190
                 30
           Typical (Upset)

                 450
                 6.3
                50-75
Aeration Rising

  F/M, Ibs BOD5/lbs MLSS/day
  MCRT, days
  MLSS, mg/1
  Detention Time, hours
  Return Flow, %
  D.O. Level, mg/1
Typical (Upset)

     0.3
    10-15
    5,000
      2
      30
     2-4
                                             PLANT PERFORMANCE

                                                     Permit Limit
                                                   Typical (Upset)
BOD5, mg/1
SS, mg/1
Total-P, mg/1
pH
TOX, %
30
30
2.0
6.5-8.5

13 (40)
15 (40)
3.5
6-6.5
40
  RAW WASTEWATER
                                                     RAS
                                                                                         FINAL EFFLUENT
    BAR SCREENS
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
(3)
1
1
j
1
1
i






OXYQENATION
BASINS
(4)





/I
                                                                   AIR
                                                               FLOTATION
                                                               THICKENERS
                                                                   (4)
                                            SLUDGE
                                             LENDING
                                             TANKS
                                               (2)
                                                                         ASH TO

                                                                         LAGOON
                                                    A-8

-------
BAYSHORE REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
Union Beach, New Jersey
The Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority (BRSA) operates an activated sludge
treatment facility whose  performance is largely dictated by a single  industrial
waste discharger.  Three  manufacturers of flavors and fragrances (one of whom
is  a  perfume retailer)  represent  the  total  industrial  wastewater  flow  of
325,000 gpd, or less  than 5 percent  of the POTW total.  All three  industries
discharge high concentrations  of  conventional  pollutants and routinely violate
the maximum allowable monthly concentration limits for BOD (500), COD (1500)
and TSS (500) as specified in their industrial waste permits.   Two of  the  three
manufacturers contribute less  than 0.5 percent of the POTW flow, hence their
impact  is minimal.  However,  one building of the largest industry produces in
excess of Z00,000 gpd of wastewater with the following characteristics  (in mg/l):
                          1984                       October 1985
                        Monthly  Monthly                 Daily    Daily
 Parameter    Ave.       High      Low        Ave.        High     Low

    BOD       1004       2054       245        2624        5250      522
    COD       3238       4998      1440        7084       11380     2520
    TSS       776       1835       94         1113        1698      672
The  large variation in  wastewater quality indicates that a  two-stage primary
pretreatment  system  located at the  industry  is not  sufficient to meet the
fluctuating demands of their process wastes.

The  potential impact of such an industrial discharge is evident when analyzing
Figure A-2.   The bar  graph represents the  percentage of  total  BOD being
contributed by the industry on a daily basis.  The upper plot on the line graph
corresponds to the mass BOD loading, with the industry's contribution plotted
beneath.  This graph  clearly demonstrates that the effluent from  this single
industry has  increased  the   BRSA  plant  loading above the design  limit of
15,000 pounds of BOD per day.  This has interfered with the plant's ability to
meet its permit limit for BOD.

The  BRSA has been particularly aggressive in their dealings with the industry in
question. It has taken a two-pronged approach:

     •     notification  of violation with a subsequent discontinuation of service
           if noncompliance persists after 15 days, and
     •     legal action to recover $1.25 million in back surcharge payments and
           costs.
                                    A-9

-------
                                   •00 COWMIMOII
                                            II 1011 2211 24 H« 17 21 It 3031
                                    OCTOIOI 1*M
                               IMMWTMY MO *• % OF TOTAL tOO
                                            Iff Mil 2223 24 2S M tr ti *» 30
                                    OCTOm 1MI
                                  Figure A-2
            Impact of Industrial Waste Discharge on POTW Loadings
                                 October 1985
In addition to the BRSA actions, the County Prosecutor's office made a surprise
visit to the industry in question, in which records were confiscated and samples
collected for  analysis.  The result was  a $5 million fine levied by the State of
New Jersey in June of 1986, coupled with new NJPDES permit POTW limits. As
a direct consequence of  the state  and local  acions, the  industry's  wastewater
BOD and SS have each been consistently below  100 mg/1 since  July, 1986.  To
date, $300,000 of the back payments have been received by the BRSA, with some
litigation still pending.
                                    A-10

-------
                                   BAYSHORE REGIONAL SEWERAGE AUTHORITY
                                              Union Beach, New Jersey
    Design Flow:
    Secondary Treatment:
      8.0
      Activated Sludge
      (Modified Contact Stabilization)
                   Location:
                   Population Served:
Eastern shore
80,000
     INFLUENT WASTEWATER
  Ave. Flow, ragd
  % Industrial
  BODj, mg/1
  SS, mg/1
Typical (Upset)

      6.6
       5
   220 (380)
   250 (400)
       Industry

Flavors & Fragrances
(3 industries)
                                                                SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES
                                                                 Flowrate
                                                                 (1000 gpd)

                                                                    325
                                                                  Problem Pollutants
                                                                              BOD, TSS, COD
                                                 PLANT LOADING
Primary Clariflen

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  Effluent BODs, mg/1
  Effluent SS, mg/1
Secondary Clarifier*

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  SVI, ml/gm
                  Typical (Upset)

                       SIS
                       1.75
                     150 (250)
                     100 (200)
                  Typical (Upset)

                       540
                       3.35
                    US (500)
                       Aeration Basins

                         F/M, Ibs BOD5/lbs MLSS/day
                         MCRT, days
                         MLSS, mg/1
                         Return Flow, fa
                         Detention Time, hours
                          Contact
                          Reaeration
                      Typical (Upset)

                        0.65 (1.25)
                           8-10
                        2000-2500
                            25

                            3
                            12
                       BOD5, mg/1
                       SS, mg/1
                       D.O. rog/1
                         PLANT PERFORMANCE

                                  Permit Limit

                                       30
                                       30
                                       5
                                     Typical (Upset)

                                        35 (400)
                                         27 ISO)
                                          2-5
                        RAW
                   WASTEWATER
                                                                 HAS
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS (4)
CYCLONE 7*S
1

BASINS
(4)
                                                           WAS
                                                                                              ASH TO
                                                                                              SLUDGE LAGOON
                                                                         INCINERATOR
                                                            A-H

-------
EAST SIDE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
Oswego, New York
The City of Oswego, East Side Treatment Plant has experienced significant non-
compliance problems associated with the  loss of solids from  their secondary
clarifiers.  Half of the plant's hydraulic flow is from a  paper mill which is  the
only major industry in the city.  From 1981  to 1983, the noncompliance problems
at the plant were attributed to severe hydraulic and organic load peaks from  the
paper mill  as well as operational difficulties such as frequent breakdowns of  the
return sludge  pump drives. It is not known whether filamentous  growth in  the
sludge occurred  at that time.   In 1983   the paper mill began  reducing  the
hydraulic  and  organic  peaks  to the plant.  Solids  losses from the secondary
clarifier still remained a problem. During  1984,  the plant frequently exceeded
their NPDES discharge suspended solids by five times the limit  and the BOD by
three times the limit.  During that period, the plant still occasionally received
hydraulic peaks from the paper mill which  were twice the average rate  for two
to three hour  periods, but a substantial cause of  the problem was identified as
poor  sludge settleability due  to filamentous growth. The frequent washout of
biosolids from  the  secondary  clarifiers resulted  in   a low mean cell residence
time  and the generation of a young sludge  that did not settle well.  In the spring
of 1985, the belt drives on the return sludge pumps which had  frequently been
out  of service were replaced  with  electronic  variable  speed  drives.  This
improvement allowed the plant operators to maintain better control of the solids
inventory in the aeration tanks.  Plant performance was still poor, however,
because of sludge bulking.

Several measures have been  taken at the  plant in an attempt  to  alleviate  the
sludge bulking problem.  The measures that  were taken include:

      •    switching  from plug flow feed to a step feed  in the aeration tanks in
           order to achieve better dissolved oxygen distribution;

      •    increasing  the  sludge return rate  and mean  cell residence time to
           improve settleability; and

      •    chlorination of the return  sludge for the destruction of filamentous
           growth in the sludge.

The  step feed operation has resulted in better dissolved  oxygen distribution  but
did not significantly  improve  sludge settleability.  The second two mitigation
efforts were   ongoing  at  the  time  of  writing.   A   chlorination dosage of
6 Ib C12/1000  Ib solids  had been  applied  to  the return sludge.    Microscopic
examination of the sludge indicated that the filaments  had  shrunk and the  SVI
level had dropped to the range of 60-80.  The plant operators intend to chlorinate
whenever  the  SVI increases  to  150.   It  has  not  been  determined  if  these
mitigation measures can result in plant performance that will consistently meet
the permit discharge limits.

The  paper mill periodically discharges slugs of waste containing high suspended
solids to the treatment  plant. At these times, the sludge in the  primary tanks
                                    A-12

-------
takes  on a  gelatinous  quality which makes  sludge  removal  difficult.   High
periodic input of clay filler materials from the paper mill has resulted in poor
sludge incineration with associated high fuel usage.

The City of Oswego is presently preparing  an industrial discharge permit for the
paper  mill.  The permit will restrict the  monthly  and daily average BOD and
suspended solids levels in the influent from the paper mill as well as restrict the
daily  maximum  hydraulic peak allowed.  Under the permit provisions the paper
mill will be required to submit listings of the chemicals used in their processes.
The  paper  mill is presently  investigating the possible  relationship  of the
chemicals  used  in  their  manufacturing  processes  to  the  occurrence  of
filamentous growth in the activated sludge process.
                                    A-13

-------
                                     EAST SIDE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
                                              OSWEGO, NEW YORK
   Design Flow:           3 mgd
   Secondary Treatment:   Phig or Step Feed
                          Activated Sludge
                                           Location:
                                           Population Served:
                                                 Northern New York
                                                 10,000
     INFLUENT WASTEWATER
  Ave. Flow, mgd
  % Industrial
  BOD5, mg/1
  SS, mg/1
   Typical (Upset)

        Z.5
         50

Municipal   Paper Mill
  100
  120
300
450 (1000)
                  Industry

                Paper Mill
                                                               SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES
 Flowrate
(1000 gpd)

  1,200
Problem Pollutants

    SS, BOD
Primary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  Effluent BOD5) mg/1
  Effluent SS, mg/1
                               PLANT LOADING

                     Typical (Upset)             Aeration Basins
                          600
                           Z

              Municipal     Paper Mill
                 70
                 40
                 120
                 100
   F/M, Ibs BOD5/lbs MLSS/day
   MCRT, days
   MLSS,  mg/1
   Detention Time, hours
   Return Flow, %
   D.O. Level, mg/1
               Typical (Upset)

                     O.Z
                    7(3)
                   Z.OOO (300)
                      1
                   25 -  45
                   Z  -  4
Secondary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  SVI, ml/gm
           Typical (Upset)

                 800
                  Z
              100 (1000)
                                             PLANT PERFORMANCE

                                                     Permit Limit
                                                            Remainder of
                                                 Summer        Year
                                                            Typical (Upset)
BODs, mg/1
SS, mg/1
30 45
30 70
RAW DOMESTIC RAW PAPER MILL
WASTEWATER WASTEWATER
-L- JL
iSAR
CREENI
^ 4T
JORIT J|
CHAMBERS
L
r~
\ *
1 	 *-
1 s~ -v
1 /ORAVITY\
L— (JTMCKENERBl
*^;


...- f^^nn^i n
J PRIMARY | f H T T T
dcL«RIF,ER8(2)h T 1.LL1 '
U BASINS _*.
1 .k . ,^.
t PRIMARY 11 | "'
CLARIFIERS ttf 1 ^~

WAS

VACUUM <^3
	 »-|f"-IERS) 	 — * ~>
\ (?) y <-~^ 	 ». *••*
^_^ 	 -. ~~ LAND
I MULTIPLE HEARTH
INCINERATORS (2)
20 (120)
25 (300)
FINAL
EFFLUENT
t
CHLORINE
CONTACT
CHAMBER
t
SECONDARY 1
CLARIFIERS '
<&l
	 1 I
J
TO
FILL
                                                             A-14

-------
HAMILTON TOWNSHIP WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Trenton, New Jersey
The  Hamilton  Township Wastewater  Treatment Plant  (HTWTP) is an unusual
facility in that plant upgrades over the past 30 years have been constructed as
parallel flow processes rather than as replacements for older, outdated techno-
logy. Although this results in a complicated plant schematic (see below), parallel
flow paths  do  provide operational  flexibility  and an opportunity to study the
impact  of a combined industrial/domestic wastewater  on different  fixed-film
biological treatment processes.  The HTWTP has had a difficult time meeting its
permit limit for BOD over the past few years,  and is currently under  a Consent
Order and Agreement and Compliance Schedule from the State Department of
Environmental Protection.

Despite being at just over  50 percent of the plant's hydraulic capacity, Hamilton
Township has experienced organic overloads, resulting in at least partial failure
of 15 of the 48 RBC units.  With the advent of an Industrial  Waste Monitoring
Program as  part  of  a Sewers and  Sewage Disposal Ordinance, the reasons for
such overloading became apparent.  Although  the  industrial  waste program is
still  in  its infancy, observations and analytical data have identified a pharma-
ceuticals manufacturer as  a significant and potentially harmful discharger to the
POTW.

Dating  back to the summer  of 1984, high concentrations of volatile organics
were being  discharged to  the POTW on  a  once  or twice-per-week  basis.  A
monitoring program  at the HTWTP uncovered an increase in influent  BOD from
150 to 350-500 mg/1  and high atmospheric levels of  organic  constituents with
this  discharge pattern.  The specific industry was identified when a high influent
pH reading  led Hamilton  Township personnel  to the  pharmaceuticals manu-
facturer in  March, 1985.  Sampling  conducted at that time detected significant
levels of ethyl benzene, toluene and xylene in the  industry's effluent.   These
findings precipitated an extensive  testing program  by the Township,  with  an
independent engineering study conducted by the  industry.  The results indicated a
correlation between the pharmaceutical discharges and high influent soluble BOD
at the POTW. Analyses conducted on the industry's  flow streams resulted in the
following calculated average effluent concentrations:
                 Parameter

      Arsenic
      Phenols
      Total Toxic Volatile Organics (TTVO)
      BOD
      TSS
      TDS
Concentration  (mg/1)

          2.6
         25.7
          1.3
       21,800
          557
       65,800
Based on an average flow of 15,000 gpd, these wastewater characteristics should
not be harmful to an 8.5 mgd facility if discharged on a steady basis.  It  is the
intermittent discharge  of this wastewater which has contributed to the  over-
loading of the biological population of the POTW.
                                    A-15

-------
During  a three week shutdown of  the  industry  in  July  of 1985,  the  HTWTP
recovered  to  the point of  meeting  their  permit limits.   Consequently,  the
Township only permitted  the industry access to the  sewer system after  the
installation of metering pumps  to  equalize flows.   This  requirement  initially
improved POTW performance during the fall of 1985,  but a gradual deterioration
in effluent  quality (indicating possible toxicity effects) lead  the Township to
terminate service to the industry in late-November.

While the most recent action is being challenged, the  industry is constructing an
anaerobic pretreatment facility on site to reduce its loading to the POTW.

A number of operations  and personnel  changes  have been instituted  at  the
HTWTP to help mitigate the impact of the industrial  discharges.   These  changes
include:

     •     installation  of  aeration  equipment  in  the influent channels to  the
           RBCs to increase the first stage DO to 2-3 mg/1;

     •     extensive  use of  sludge depth measurement  and visual monitoring to
           augment reliance on control room instrumentation;

     •     performance of bioassay  testing by  an  independent  contractor to
           assess toxicity  effects;

     •     purchase of a toxicity tester to be used in calculation of local limits;
           and

     •     hiring of  four  more  people plus the purchase of  a  vehicle for an
           extensive  industrial sampling program.
                                    A-16

-------
                             HAMILTON TOWNSHIP WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                                               Trenton, New Jersey
   Design Flow:
   Secondary Treatment:
      16 mgd
      Trickling Filter and RBC
Location:
Population Served:
   Central Western Border
   87,000
     INFLUENT WASTEWATER
                                                               SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES
  Ave. Flow, mgd
  % Industrial
  BODs, mg/1
  SS,  mg/1
Typical (Upset)

      8.5
    10 (estl
   240 (500)
   160 (400)
      Industry

Pharmaceutical
Electroplaters  (2)
    Flowrate
    (1000 gpd)

       15
       160
         Problem Pollutants

BOD, phenol, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene
Cd, Cr, Zn, Ni
Primary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
                            PLANT LOADING

                  Typical (Upset)             Trickling Filters
                   830, 260, 320
                    1.8, 4.8, 5.6
      Plant Flow (mgd)
      Hydraulic Loading, gal/sf/day
      Organic Loading, !')s 3OD/1,000 cf/day
      Return Flow, %
                         Typical (Upset)

                            2.5, 1.0
                            100, 210
                           15, 16 (30)
                             20,100
Secondary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
                  Typical (Upset)

                   520, 260, 265
                    2.8, 4.S, 6.8
      RBCs

      Plant Flow (ragd)
      First Stage Organic
      Loading, Ibs BOD/1,000 sf/day
       - Total
       - Soluble
                         Typical (Upset)
                              5.0
                                                                                                        5.3 (10.8)
                                                                                                         3.5 (6.7)
                                             PLANT PERFORMANCE

                                                      Permit Limit
                           s, mg/1
                      SS, rag/1
                      NHs, mg/1 (Effective 6/86)
                                       30
                                       30
                                       10
                  Typical (Upset)

                      45 (100
                      20 (50)
                      20 i'30)
            RAW
       WASTEWATER
                                                         TD. RAT
                                                       TRICKLING
                                                         FILTERS
                                                           (3)
                                                                               SECONDARY
                                                                            -O-JCLARIFIERS—
                                                                               V~^\
                                                                                 / VACUUM \
                                                                               -»4  FILTER J
                                                                                   >	4
                                                                         —»• LANDFILL
                                                          A-17

-------
HORSE CREEK POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY
North Augusta, South Carolina
The  Horse  Creek Pollution Control  Facility  (HCPCF)  is  a  regional  plant,
operated  by the Aiken  County  Public  Service  Authority (ACPSA), treating a
predominantly industrial wastewater.    Ninety five percent  of the industrial
wasteload is contributed by several large textile  mills and is characterized by
high COD,  BOD,  alkalinity  and pH.    Combined domestic/industrial  influent
wastewater pH and  alkalinity  fluctuations  caused inhibition of  the  biomass,
poorly settling  sludge and effluent suspended solids  permit violations.  Since
implementing  a  pretreatment  program  and  issuing  industrial   wastewater
discharge permits, the  treatability of  the  industrial  waste  has improved, the
result  being that  HCPCF has been free of  NPDES permit  violations  for over
eight months.

Local  textile  processes  include grading operations,  finishing  processes utilizing
dyes, and specialized textile chemical manufacturing.  The textile wastewater is
highly  caustic with alkalinity as high as 2400 mg/1, and pH exceeding 12.5. Prior
to pretreatment the  combined  industrial/domestic influent  to  the HCPCF had
the following characteristics:
                           pH
                           BOD             360 mg/1
                           COD             910 mg/1
                           Alkalinity       1100 mg/1
                           TSS              210 mg/1

Other distinguishing characteristics  of  the influent  wastewater included the
light, non flocculant nature of the suspended solids and  a dark blue/black color,
typical of textile wastewater  from washing and dying operations.

Prior to the summer of 1985, the textile industries employed a limited type  of
pretreatment and  flow  equalization.   This  limited  pretreatment and  flow
equalization resulted  in plant influent  pH fluctuations of  2 to 2.5 units and
alkalinity fluctuations  of  up  to 600  mg/1  in  a given day.   These fluctuations
caused some inhibition of the biomass, but because the hydraulic detention time
in the aeration basins  was in excess  of  3.5 days, effluent BOD  was  within the
permit limit of 33  mg/1.  These pH  and alkalinity fluctuations had  their most
detrimental effect on biomass settling characteristics and solids carryover in the
secondary  clarifier often resulted,  lasting  for  24-36 hours.    During these
episodes, filamentous organisms were occasionally observed in the biomass.  The
solids carryover  problem  worsened  in  the  winter  months  when  wastewater
temperatures were  lower, but chlorination of  the  return activated sludge, the
influent  to  the secondary clarifier and  the contents of the  aeration basin was
somewhat successful at improving settleability.  Despite this, the  HCPCF  still
experienced  interference with its ability to meet suspended solids limits in 15 of
the 19 months prior  to September,  1985.

The State of South Carolina mandated that the ACPSA implement and enforce a
pretreatment program  in the  spring of   1984.   The  ACPSA responded   by
                                     A-18

-------
developing such  a program and issuing draft industrial wastewater discharge
permits.  Final  State  approval came in May, 1985.  As presently written, the
industrial wastewater  discharge permits are not restrictive, allowing BOD,  COD
and alkalinity levels as high as 600 mg/1, 1300 mg/1 and 1500 mg/1, respectively.
However, the permits have caused the textile  industries  to make small, but
meaningful  alterations to  their wastewater  discharge  practices,  resulting in
average  plant influent pH levels dropping from  11-12 to 10 and alkalinity  from
1100 mg/1  to  700 mg/1.    More  importantly,  maximum   daily  influent pH
fluctuations  have been reduced  to 0.5 units  or less.  Figure A-3 shows the
magnitude of pH fluctuations both before  and after  the  implementation of
pretreatment.   Simple modifications at textile facilities to process operations
and waste pumping schedules were typical of  the changes that were necessary to
realize  the described results.  Because of the more stable wastewater discharge,
the HCPCF has  realized more  consistent plant operation and has not violated its
NPDES permit in over eight months.

Some of the  textile dischargers  do not currently meet the pH  and alkalinity
limits  of  their  industrial  wastewater  discharge permits and  are  under  a
compliance schedule to  do so. The facilities are installing pretreatment works
for caustic recovery that should significantly lower pH and alkalinity levels.  The
HCPCF  is  also  presently  studying the addition  of floating  mixing units to
augment the turbine surface aerators in the  aeration basins.  To date, evidence
indicates that a more  consistent secondary clarifier solids feed is achieved which
improves the quality of the secondary effluent.
                                 FIGURE A-3
       HORSE CREEK POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY INFLUENT pH
                                     A-19

-------
                                HORSE CREEK POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY
                                         Alken County, South Carolina
   Design Flow:
   Secondary Treatment:
      ZOmgd
      Extended Aeration
      Activated Sludge
                 Location:
                 Population Served:
               West-central South Carolina
               70,000
     INFLUENT WASTEWATER
                                                            SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES
  Ave. Flow, mgd
  % Industrial
  BOD;, mg/1
  SS, mg/1
  COD, mg/1
  Alkalinity, mg/1
  pH
Typical (Upset)

     10.4
      80
     360
     Z10
     910
  1100 (1600)
  10-11 (12.5)
      Industry

Textile
Textile chemicals
Flowrate
(1000 gpd)

  8,400
   300
                                                                                  Problem Pollutants
COD, Alkalinity, pH
COD, pH
Primary Clarifien

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
Secondary Clarifiera

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
                           PLANT LOADING

                 Typical (Upset)             Aeration Basins
                      300
                      4.4
                 Typical (Upset)

                      195
                      9.1
                       F/M, Ibs BOD5/lbs MLSS/day
                       MCRT, days
                       MLSS, mg/1
                       Detention Time, hours
                       Return Flow, %
                       D.O. Level, mg/1
                                    Typical (Upset)

                                       0.05-0.10
                                        50-90
                                       3800-4500
                                          9Z
                                        40-60
                                        1-3 (4)
                                           PLANT PERFORMANCE

                                                   Permit Limit
                                                       Typical (Upset)

BODs, mg/1
SS, mg/1
COD, mg/1
PH
33
57
9
15
40 (85)
175
9 (10)
RAW
WASTEWATER D»Q
     r7
      \    /
       \A— — *-
   SCREENS AND
  AERATED GRIT
  CHAMBERS (2)
                                                                                     FINAL
                                                                                    EFFLUENT
                                                                                                  LANDRLL
                                                                 V^      \^J
                                                       A-ZO

-------
MAIDEN CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Blandon, Pennsylvania


The  Maiden  Creek Wastewater  Treatment  Plant (MCWTP)  went on-line in
December, 1981 as a secondary  treatment facility designed  to  remove  both
carbonaceous  and  nitrogenous BOD.  The  plant  uses  a patented aerated sub-
merged  fixed film  biological treatment  system, where flat  asbestos plates
hanging  vertically in the settled  wastewater provide a growth surface for the
bacteria. Each  of three  contact  basins contains  320 plates with  200 sq. ft. of
surface  area.  Oxygen is provided  by fine  bubble aeration  through  ceramic
diffusers.

During the first  six  months of operation following an initial acclimation period,
the MCWTP  experienced gradual flow increases  from 0.1  to 0.15 mgd  while
consistently meeting their permit limits.  In August of 1981, a local mushroom
processor began  batch discharging high BOD wastewater to the POTW at flows
sometimes exceeding  100 gpm.    The hydraulic  and  organic shock  loadings
resulted  in nitrifier washouts, solids carryover, reduced BOD removal efficiency
and at times  total  biological process  failure.  Although the industry  was not
measuring their  wastewater flow  rates  at  that  time,  they were the  only
significant non-domestic contributor.  After factoring out any potential  infiltra-
tion/inflow from stormwater flows, the discharge pattern from  the industry was
obvious  from an  inspection of  the  weekly  flow recordings at  the  POTW.
Figure A-4 illustrates  the dramatic effect of the industrial discharges on the
MCWTP influent.
           April, 1982
October, 1982
                                FIGURE A-4
   WASTEWATER DISCHARGE AT INFLUENT METERING STATION (MGD)
                                   A-21

-------
As a result of significant time and effort on the part of Maiden Creek Township
Municipal Authority  two years  ago,  the food  processor  installed a physical-
chemical treatment system which included surge control tanks and aeration. The
system did reduce the solids load and partially mitigated the flow spike problem,
although the surge tanks were not capable of providing complete equalization.
Unfortunately, the great percentage  of  their organic waste  is soluble,  so  the
pretreatment  facility is ineffective in reducing the BOD loading to the  POTW.
Additionally, wastewater production far exceeds  the  50,000 gpd limit imposed by
their  permit,  so  occasional flow  spikes  are still evident.   The industry  has
requested nearly ten  times the current flow limit, necessitating the design of a
full secondary system to reduce their waste strength to domestic levels.  Such a
system, including a 650,000 gallon aerated equalization basin,  is scheduled to go
on-line  in  mid-1986.   In the  interim, the municipality has  required  that  the
industry:

     •     control flow surges;
     •     meter and record their flows continuously;
     •     reduce the BOD in the effluent by  in-house methods; and
     •     composite sample their discharge on a regular basis.

Failure  to comply with  the abovementioned program will result in a shut off by
the POTW,  a measure used previously in February, 1985 when the industry's
wastewater was responsible for total process failure at the plant.

A number of operational changes were instituted in  May of 1985 to help combat
the high organic loads in the contact basins. These changes included:

     •     increasing the aeration by using all blowers at the plant, resulting in
           an increase in the first stage D.O.  from 2 xng/1 to 5 tng/1;

     •     addition of selective  strains of bacteria to increase the rate of BOD
           removal;

     •     recycling  the plant effluent to the  head of the  plant to dilute the
           incoming wastewater; and

     •     reducing  the allowable  flow  from the  food processor  and  closely
           monitoring their adherence to the  limits.

Since these changes  were implemented concurrently, it is impossible to isolate
the individual impacts of each operations  change. However, the collective result
was a substantially improved compliance record.  There have also been no flow
spikes at the POTW since mid-December, 1985, indicating better  flow control on
the part of the food processor.
                                    A-22

-------
                                MAIDEN CREEK WASTE* ATER TREATMENT PLANT
                                            BLANDON, PENNSYLVANIA
   Design Flow:
   Secondary Treatment:
   0.45 mgd
   Aerated Submerged Fixed
   Film (Contact Aeration)
              Location:
              Population Served:
               Southeastern Pennsylvania
               Z,000
     INFLUENT WASTEWATER


                    Typical (Upset)
  Ave. Flow, mgd
  % Industrial
  BODs, mg/1
  SS, mg/1
  NH3, mg/1
  0.25
 20 (60)
350 (900)
  200
   60
  Industry

Food Processor
Dental Office
                                                               SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES
Flowrate
(1000 gpd)

   50
  negl.
Problem Pollutants

 BOD, Flow surges
 Hg
                                                PLANT LOADING
Primary Clarifien

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  Effluent BOD;, mg/1
  Effluent SS, mg/1
Secondary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
               Typical (Upset)

                 350 (1,000)
                 3.75 (1.Z5)
                     260
                     100
               Typical (Upset)

                 450 (1,300)
                  2.8 (1.0)
                                                                Contact Basins
                                                       Typical (Upset)
                    Organic Loading (Ibs BOD5/1000 sf/day)
                      Total Plant                             2.8
                      First Stage                             8.4
                    Detention Time, hours                      12
                    D.O. Level, mg/1                        5-10
                      BOD;
                      SS, mg/1
                      NH3, mg/I
                       PLANT PERFORMANCE

                               Permit Limit

                                    30
                                    30
                                  10/20
                                Typical (Upset)

                                   15 (400)
                                    10 (50)
                                    1 (60)
                RAW
          WASTEWATEM
            I
 COMMMUTOR
T
PfNMAJIV
CLAMFKM


1M »TAQE
CONTACT
AERATION
BASIN
1

                                    DM3E8TER
                                                       LAND APPLICATION
                                                       OR
                                                       8LUDQE DRYING BEDS
                                                           A-Z3

-------
METRO-WEST POINT TREATMENT PLANT
Seattle, Washington
The  Municipality of  Metropolitan Seattle  (METRO) has  had  an operational
industrial pretreatment program since 1969-   With minor modifications,  the
program was EPA-approved in 1981 as one of the first in the nation. Successful
reductions in influent wastewater and primary sludge heavy metal concentrations
during the last five years can, to a great extent, be attributed to implementation
and  enforcement of pretreatment standards.   As an  outcome  of this, self-
monitoring by industrial dischargers augmented with year-round spot monitoring
by Metro's Industrial Waste Section has reduced the incidences of toxic upsets in
the anaerobic digesters of the West Point Treatment Plant.

The  Metro-West  Point  Treatment Plant provides primary treatment and sludge
digestion for  an  average daily wastewater flow of 132 mgd, 4.7  percent  origi-
nating from industrial sources.  Approximately  70 metal finishing/electroplating
industries discharge  to the sewer system in addition  to  a variety of  other
categorical  and non-categorical industries. Records of periodic digester upsets
go back as early as  1967, but their occurrences have become less  frequent since
1980,  coinciding with  substantial overall reductions  in  heavy  metal  concen-
trations.  Past upsets directly linked to toxic metals (generally chromium) caused
increased volatile acid concentrations, increased carbon dioxide  content of the
gas produced, and reduced gas production. An  October, 1980 chromium spill to
the West Point facility caused a typical upset and resulted  in the plant  influent
chromium concentration jumping 10 fold to greater than 2 mg/1.  Primary sludge
concentrations of chromium reached 710 mg/1, resulting in a 30 mg/1 increase in
digester concentrations above their normal 16-17 mg/1 level.  Metro practices
sludge application to forest lands.  Application  rates had to  be decreased during
upsets, although no interference occurred.

Figure A-5 below typifies the reduction in metals realized during  the 1981-1985
time period.  Plant influent chromium levels dropped approximately 55  percent
while the digested sludge concentrations were reduced by more than 40 percent.
The  magnitude of  these decreases are typical of other heavy metals  as well,
averaging 41  percent  for  chromium,  cadmium, copper,  lead, nickel and zinc
combined (see the  accompanying  data  sheet).   The  primary reason  for  the
reduction of  cadmium and  chromium concentrations  is  improved industrial
pretreatment.  In addition to pretreatment, a less corrosive city water supply has
also resulted  in  lower background metal  concentrations  for the  other  metals,
especially for copper.  The city recently began chemically conditioning its water
in an attempt to  extend conduit life.

Success of  the Metro  Industrial Pretreatment Program can be attributed to a
number of important factors including:

      •    development of stringent local  limits for industrial discharges;

      •    year-round  industrial waste sampling programs supported financially
           by industry; and
                                    A-24

-------
      •    follow-up procedures to industrial waste spills,  taking enforcement
           action and levying fines when necessary.

Metro  has  recently  implemented  the  following  steps   to  improve   their
pretreatment program:

      •    information  exchange with  industries through the use of quarterly
           newsletters and personal communication, and

      •    increasing  public awareness  of industrial  discharge  violators  by
           publishing the names  of violating companies  in local  papers along
           with a statement of Metro's enforcement policy.
                           Chromium Wast Point  1981 to  1985
                                          O_ EFFLUENT LBS/DAX
                                          •— INFLUENT LBS/DAY
                                          V- 00 SLUDGE MG/KG
                                             BEST LINE FIT SLUDGE
                                      H	1
                1/81   7/»l   2/82    B/12   3/»3   8/83   4/14   11/84   5/83   12/83

                                       Tima

                                  FIGURE A-5
                 WEST POINT CHROMIUM CONCENTRATIONS
                                      A-25

-------
                                       WEST POINT TREATMENT PLANT
                                           SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
   Design Flow:
   Primary Treatment
      IZSmgd
                  Location:
                  Population Served:
              West-Central Washington
              500,000
    INFLUENT WASTEWATER
  Ave. Flow, ragd
  % Industrial
  BO05, mg/1
  SS, mg/1
  Cr, mg/1
Typical (Upset)

     13Z
      5
     160
     Z60
   0.05 (2.0)
      Industry

Metal finishing and
electroplating
                                                             SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES


                                                                                   Problem Pollutants
Flowrate
 (mgd)
                                                                 1.1
                                                                                    Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Zn
Primary Clarifiers
  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  Effluent BODs, mg/1
  Effluent SS, tog/1
                           PLANT LOADING

                 Typical (Upset)
                      1080
                      1.58
                     75-110
                      60-90
                                                                    Digested Sludge Metal Concentrations
                        Cadmium, mg/kg
                        Chromium, rag/kg
                        Copper, rng/kg
                        Nickel, mg/kg
                        Lead, mg/kg
                     1981 Level
                           45
                          480
                         1300
                          160
                          800
1985 Level
    Z8
    250
    700
    1ZO
    400
                                            PLANT PERFORMANCE
                              BOD5, mg/1
                              SS, mg/1
                              Cr, mg/L
                               Permit Limit     Typical (Upset)

                              Summer Winter   Summer  Winter

                                135     85      110      75
                                1Z5     65       90      60
                                0.07    0.07     <0.05 (0.151
MAW
WASTE WATER.




BAR
SCREENS

	 	 _^^ PRIMARY

: QKT CHAMBERS
(4)

i I
CHLORINE
^ CONTACT
^^ CHANNELS
(2)
J
                                                                                                    » FINAL
                                                                                                  EFFLUENT
                        CENTRIFUGE
                        THICKENING
                                                                                    LAND
                                                                                    APPLICATION
                      ANAEROBIC
                      DIGESTERS
                          (3)
                      CENTRIFUGE
                      DEWATERING
                          (2)
                                                       A-26

-------
NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Raleigh, North Carolina
The Raleigh case study illustrates the need for continuous survey and monitoring
even after the implementation of  an industrial waste program in any dynamic
population center.  In 1976, the  30 mgd Neuse River  Wastewater Treatment
Plant (NRWTP) went  on-line to replace the overloaded 16 mgd  Walnut Creek
plant.  In the early 1960's, influent  BODs exceeded 300 mg/1  at Walnut Creek,
with the effluent ranging from 35 to  55 mg/1.  These effluent levels violated the
Walnut  Creek  Plant  permit, established by the state in order to protect the
quality of the Neuse River, which was used as the raw water source for the City
of Smithfield located downstream of  Raleigh.  Industries  were encouraged to
conserve  and recycle  wastes,  resulting in  a 250 mg/1 influent  BOD by the
mid-1960's.  The  City's first Sewer  Use Ordinance was enacted in 1972, with
continual modification to comply with changes in  the  federal  regulations.  The
net effect is a current influent  BOD consistently below 200 mg/1, despite  an
industrial flow volume representing 25 percent of the plant flow.

The  only significant industrial discharger of metals to the Walnut Creek plant
was  a  large  electroplater  whose  occasional plating  bath  dumps  were  not
prohibited by  a  sewer  use ordinance  during the  1950's.    Digester upsets
(decreased gas production) and high  sludge  metals content were traced to this
particular  industry.    Since  dried sludge  was being  made  available to  the
community for landscaping purposes  at the time, concern for the metals levels
prompted adoption  of a  proposed ordinance  which  directed  the industry  to
construct a physical-chemical pretreatment facility.

Two other metals-related industries have been responsible for high sludge metals
since the construction of the NRWTP.  In the current facility, wet sludge is land
applied  to farmland adjacent to the  POTW, hence metal content  is critical.  In
each  case (an electroplater and  a  printed circuit board manufacturer), the
industries were discharging levels of Cr, Ni, Zn, Pb and  Cu sometimes in excess
of 1,000 mg/1, with highly  variable effluent pH,  and  were  uncooperative  in
dealing  with the  City of Raleigh.   Fining the former industry $ 1,000, and
threatening the latter with  the same, provided sufficient incentive to install
pretreatment.

In the early 1980's, a  producer  of amino acids for Pharmaceuticals in Raleigh
discharged slug  loads totaling  1,000 Ibs  of  NH3  to  the POTW each  day.
Fortunately,  an activated sludge system had been constructed for their facility
for  BOD  reduction,  which  possessed  sufficient  capacity  to   nitrify  their
wastewater to  an ammonia concentration of 50 mg/1.  On one occasion, the NHg
levels became  toxic to the  lU's activated sludge pretreatment, resulting in a
gradual  loss  of nitrification  at  the  POTW.   Rapid identification  of  the  NH3
discharge by City personnel preserved the POTW nitrifier population, which was
subsequently used  to  re-seed  the  industry's  activated sludge with  a viable
nitrifier  population for a  speedy recovery.   The rapid  response prevented the
monthly effluent NH3 levels from  exceeding the permit  limit, despite high daily
concentrations following the  incident.
                                    A-27

-------
A  dairy product manufacturer who cleans  the  stainless  steel tanker trucks on-
site had previously discharged these wastes  directly to the sewer.  Average BODs
of 10,000 mg/1, with occasional values in the 30,000 to  40,000 mg/1 range were
typical, often resulting in effluent BODs in excess of  the 6 mg/1 (12 in winter)
allowed for the POTW.  Working  with the North Carolina State University, a
vacuum recovery system was developed and a market identified for the collected
whey waste. The  effluent BOD now averages 2,000 mg/1, still resulting in a high
surcharge payment, but no permit violations at the POTW.

An unusual case at the NRWTP was the discovery of high zinc levels (1,000 mg/1)
in the discharge  from an office  building with  no manufacturing component.
Through discussions with maintenance personnel, the City of Raleigh discovered
that the contaminated discharges corresponded to floor stripping activities in the
building.  They learned that a Zn-based floor wax had been used, and stripping an
entire office building over the course  of a week discharged  enough Zn to the
POTW to significantly raise the level  in their sludge.   The elevated zinc level
threatened to interfere with the POTW's ability to dispose of its sludge.

The  Raleigh plant  is currently  under  construction to  increase the hydraulic
capacity from 30 to 40 mgd, with an additional expansion to 60 mgd planned for
the  near  future   (the  schematic shown on  the next page is  for  the 40 mgd
facility).  The rapid growth of this community will continue  to  bring with it a
variety of challenging new industrial wastewaters with, in some cases, unpredict-
able impacts on the POTW.
                                    A-28

-------
                                 NEUSE RIVER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                                          RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Design Flow: 40 mgd Location: Central North Carolina
Secondary Treatment: Activated Sludge Population Served: 195,000
(Extended Aeration)
INFLUENT WASTEWATER

Ave. Flow, mgd
% Industrial
BODj, mg/1
SS, mg/1
Typical (Upset)
25
25
165 (350)
170 (500)
Industry
Electroplaters, Metal
Finishers (5)
Pharmaceutical
Dairy
Snack Foods
SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES
Flowrate
(1000 gpd) Problem Pollutants
750 Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Cn", Fe, pH
400 NH3
110 BOD
100 BOD
Primary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours

  Secondary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, Hours
  SVI, ml/gm
  Effluent BODg, mg/1
  Effluent SS, mg/1
  Effluent NH3, mg/1
           PLANT LOADING

Typical (Upset)             Aeration Basins
      650
      3.0

Typical  (Upset)

      680
      3.3
 150-200 (250)
  F/M, Ibs BOD5/lbs MLSS/day
  MCRT, days
  MLSS,  mg/1
  Detention  Time, hours
  Return Flow, %
  D.O. Level, mg/1

Multi-Media Filters

Hydraulic loading, gpm/sf
                                             PLANT PERFORMANCE

                                                     Permit Limit

                                                   Summer   Winter
                                        Typical (Upset)
Typical (Upset)

   0.08-0.10
    12-20
     2500
      15
      50
Typical (Upset)
                                                                    2.5
BOD5, mg/1
SS, mg/1
NH3, mg/1
6
30
3
12
30
6
3 (15)
4
1.5 (8)
RAW
WAStEWATER
                   •AR SCREEN*
                   AND
                   OMT CHAMBER
                                                        EFFLUENT
     HAS
                                                                                             LAND
                                                                                             APPLICATION
                                                       A-29

-------
NEWARK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Newark, Ohio
The  Newark  Wastewater Treatment Plant (NWTP) had been in substantial non-
compliance with its 1981  NPDES permit from the beginning  of 1983 until the
middle of 1984. This consistent violation had resulted primarily from increased
waste loads on the POTW from  industrial sources. Between 1979 and 1984, the
percentage of industrial wastewater increased from 12 to 22 percent by volume,
with influent BOD increasing  from  220 to  330 mg/1,  while suspended solids
increased from  200 to  350 mg/1.   To complicate the non-compliance problem,
four separate ammonia discharge  episodes occurred  from  August  to October,
1983 which resulted in  both  the loss of  activated sludge viability (interference)
and the pass-through of the NH3 and the subsequent killing of 80,000 fish in the
Licking River. The fish kill precipitated the submission of  Verified Complaints
to the Ohio  EPA  on  August 6, 1984 by the Black  Hand  Gorge  Preservation
Association,  against the  City of  Newark  and the  NWTP.   Following  an
investigation, the Ohio  EPA  issued  Director's  Final  Findings   and  Orders,
specifying a  compliance  schedule  and interim discharge limits for  the POTW
until a planned facility upgrade is completed by July 1988.

There  are two significant industrial contributors  to  the NWTP who were also
issued  Director's Final Findings  and Orders in May, 1985.  A fiberglas insulation
manufacturer had been discharging high concentrations of phenol (2-5 mg/1) and
NH3 (up to 500 mg/1), with occasional spills of formaldehyde into the collection
system.   The activated sludge  bacteria were acclimated to  the phenol in the
wastewater, but were susceptible to interference from shock loadings of the NH3
and formaldehyde. Fortunately, the  industry was responsive to the problems of
the NWTP, and instituted a corrective program to:

     •    conserve and recycle plant flows, which have reduced their discharge
           by 60 percent (from  1.22 to 0.45 mgd) over the past two years;

     •    construct an  aerated  equalization  basin to air-strip  phenol and
           distribute diurnal fluctuations; and

     •    construct a pretreatment facility for their landfill leachate.

The  POTW is still subject to occasionally high NH3 loads  from  the industry,
which  is currently the only identifiable cause of  isolated interference problems
in the  plant.  The municipality and industry  continue to work cooperatively  to
resolve this problem through the implementation of a spill prevention and control
program.  Additionally, the renovated POTW will use some of  the  existing
clarifier tankage for off-line storage in the event of future spill episodes.

The  replacement of coarse bubble  aerators with fine bubble equipment  in mid-
1984 significantly improved BOD  removals and the  NWTP  compliance record.
Nitrification, which did not  occur  previously, now  takes place in  the last two
aeration basins, because of the  improved carbonaceous  BOD (CBOD) removal in
the initial basins.   The only incident  of non-compliance with the interim permit
in 1985 resulted from an NH3  discharge from the fiberglass manufacturer.  In
                                    A-30

-------
this  case,  even though the  average  monthly  BOD  measured 29 mg/1,  the
carbonaceous  component was less than  10 tng/1.  The final permit  will have a
more stringent NH3 requirement and will also designate  CBOD  as  a permitted
parameter.

A second major industry is  a  dairy which came  on-line in 1976. Initially,  the
dairy stored whey waste in  a silo and typically bled it into the sewer system.
The discharge was high in both BOD and suspended solids (Z,000 mg/1), and would
occasionally be batch discharged to the POTW, resulting in a shock loading to  the
activated sludge and violation  of the  NPDES permit limits.   The industry  has
since installed a reverse osmosis treatment system for the whey waste which  has
reduced the solids and organic loading to the plant.

The only categorical industry that currently discharges to NWTP is an electro-
plater who  constructed a metals removal system in conformance with federal
pretreatment regulations. In the past, dewatered sludge had been applied to corn
fields  adjacent  to  the  plant  property.   However,  when  heavy metals  were
detected in seven of ten monitoring wells, Newark  began hauling liquid sludge
off-site.  The planned  facility upgrade  will include installation of belt  filter
presses, so that  the existing  sludge (with acceptable levels of heavy  metals)  can
once again be  dewatered and more economically hauled off-site to farm land.
                                    A-31

-------
                                   NEWARK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                                                NEWARK, OHIO
   Design Flow:
   Secondary Treatment:
8.0 (1Z.O Hydraulic) mgd
Activated Sludge
(Conventional)
           Location:           Central Ohio
           Population Served:   41,000
     INFLUENT WASTEWATER
                    Typical (Upset)

  Ave. Flow, ragd       7 . 5
  % Industrial           1 5
  BOD5, mg/1       305 (450)
  SS, mg/1          360 (550)
  NH3, mi/1          35 (60)
                                                              SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES
                     Industry

                   Fiberglass
                   Dairy
                   Electroplater
               Flowrate
               (1000 gpd)

                450
                223
                 97
     Problem Pollutants

Phenol, NH3, Formaldehyde
BOD, Phosphorus, SS
Cr, Cd, Pb, Ni, Zn, Cyanide
Primary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  Effluent BODs, mg/1
  Effluent SS, mg/1
Secondary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/dav
  Detention Time, hours
  SVT, ml/gm
   Typical (Upset)

        560
        3.2
      194 (280)
      147 (218)
    Typical (Upset)

        500
        3.7
     150 (350)
PLANT LOADING

            Aeration Basins

       F/M, Ibs BOD5/lbs MLSS/day
       MCRT, days
       MLSS, mg/1
       Detention Time, hours
       Retun Flow, %
       D.O. Level, mg/1
         Typical (Upset)

           0.25 (0.4)
              5-6
             2,000
              6.3
              50
              2.0
                          s, mg/1
                      SS, mg/1
                      NH3, mg/1 (Summer)
                   PLANT PERFORMANCE

                       Permit Limit

                           20
                           40
                           25
                             Typical (Upset)

                                 13 (60)
                                 n (95)
                                 15 (30)
         RAW
   WASTEWATER
                  BAR
                SCREENS
                              WAS
         V7—
      AERATED
        QRIT
      CHAMBER
R
PRIMARY
CLARIFIERS
(7)

A9 |
1
f,

AERATION
BASINS
(6)


                                            /ANAEROBIC)
                                             DIGESTERS
                                                 (3)
                                          LIQUID
                                          SLUDGE
                                          HAULING
                                                         A-32

-------
NORTH SHORE SANITARY DISTRICT GURNEE PLANT
Gurnee, Illinois
The  Gurnee  Plant  of  the North Shore  Sanitary  District (NSSDGP) receives an
average daily wastewater flow of 1Z.4 mgd from a variety of sources.   Those
sources  include  a  major  naval  installation,  domestic  sewage  discharges,
secondary effluent from the District's North Chicago  Sewage Treatment  Plant,
and other industries which contribute 17 percent of the total flow.

Since startup in 1976, the NSSDGP has experienced periodic failures at achieving
nitrification  in  the  two-stage  activated sludge system.  The  failures to achieve
nitrification  to the ammonia levels of the District's  NPDES effluent limits have
also,  at times, been accompanied by general process upsets which have resulted
in effluent SS and BOD5 violations.  One of the major industrial contributors to
the Gurnee Plant, a pharmaceutical manufacturer discharging an average flow of
750,000 gpd,  has  similarly  experienced upsets  of  its own  activated   sludge
pretreatment system  which have resulted in  violations of  the District's local
sewer use ordinance. It was initially believed that the observed interferences at
the NSSDGP were the result of the discharge of filamentous organisms and other
solids by  the manufacturer.   The initiation  of in-plant solids control methods
(which  significantly lessened  the  quantity  of  solids  entering  the industrial
wastewater pretreatment system)  and  pretreatment system upgrades did not,
however, eliminate interferences at  the NSSDGP.

In 1980, District personnel began to suspect that the presence of a nitrification
inhibiting antibiotic, erythromycin, in the pharmaceutical wastewater was the
main cause of the process upsets at  the NSSDGP.   By 1983,  test and control
bench-scale activated sludge reactors were placed in  operation and the effects
of the  pharmaceutical  wastewater and  erythromycin  on  the NSSDGP  were
investigated.   A  bioassay test for  the  presence  of  erythromycin and  other
nitrification  inhibitors  was also  developed,  along with a Direct  Insertion
Probe/Mass Spectrometric technique for confirmation. The results of the bench-
scale testing indicated that the presence of soluble  and/or solid constituents of
the pretreated  pharmaceutical wastewater inhibited  nitrification and, at high
levels, could completely suppress nitrification.  Additionally, it was found that
although erythromycin inhibited nitrification, acclimation  to  low concentrations
of  erythromycin  could   occur  in  the  absence   of   extreme  concentration
fluctuations.

During January of  1984, an observed average industrial pretreatment effluent
erythromycin concentration of  53 mg/1 with mass loading fluctuations of greater
than  two  orders of magnitude completely inhibited nitrification in the Gurnee
Plant. The resulting BOD5 and SS  concentrations were as high as 26  mg/1 and
67 mg/1, respectively. Lower  concentrations of erythromycin in the absence of
such strong concentration  fluctuations did not interfere with the performance of
the Gurnee Plant during August of 1984,  with average effluent BODs and SS
concentrations  of   11 mg/1  and 8 mg/1, respectively,  and  effluent  ammonia
concentrations  ranging  from  0.4 mg/1  to  1.5  mg/1  as  N.   Experience at the
Gurnee Plant and with the bench-scale test systems has also indicated that a lag
period of two to three mean cell residence times is required before the effects
                                    A-33

-------
of erythromycin on the activated sludge process become apparent.  Erythromycin
also was found to disrupt the settling of the first-stage carbonaceous organisms.

Measures  undertaken by  District  personnel  to  lessen  the  effect  of the
pharmaceutical discharge on plant performance have included:

     •     The  addition of  inorganic   coagulants  to  aid  primary  clarifier
           performance;
     •     the addition of polymer to the first-stage activated sludge system,
     •     daily  bacterial   (staphylococcus  aureus)  bioassays  of   industrial
           wastewaters for  the presence of inhibiting substances; and
     •     the   development  of   an  ordinance  governing  the  discharge  of
           erythromycin to  the NSSDGP.

Since passage of the ordinance in November,  1985, in which the  discharge limits
for erythromycin  were   established,  the  NSSDGP  has substantially  been  in
compliance with its NPDES permit and ammonia levels of 0.25 mg/1 to 1 mg/1 as
N have been consistently achieved.
                                    A-34

-------
                                NORTH SHORE SANITARY DISTRICT GURNEE PLANT
                                               GURNEE, ILLIONOIS
   Design Flow:
   Secondary Treatment:
      13.8 mgd
      Activated Sludge
      (Two-Stage, Modified-Contact)
                  Location:
                  Population Served:
                Northeastern niinoi*
                65,000
     INFLUENT WASTEWATER
  Ave. Flow, mgd
  % Industrial
  BODs, mgA
  SS, mg/1
  NH3, mg/1
Typical (Upset)

     1Z.4
      37
     140
     180
      15
      Industry

Pharmaceutical
Electroplating
Chemical
Nonferrous Metals
Military Installation
                                                               SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES
 Flowrate
(1000 gpd)

   750
   100
   170
   90
  3,500
                                                                                      Problem Pollutants
Antibiotics, SS
Cu, CN
Organics
W
PH
                                                PLANT LOADING
Primary CUrifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  Effluent BODj, mg/1
  Effluent SS, mg/1

First Stage CUrifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
Second Stage CUrifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
                  Typical (Upset)

                       695
                       2.7
                       100
                       100

                  Typical (Upset)

                       780
                       2.5
                  Typical (upset)

                       645
                       3.1
                      First Stage Aeration Basins             Typical (Upset)

                        F/M, Ibs BODj/lbs MLVSS/day             0.95
                        MCRT, days                               7
                        MLSS, mg/1                              3000
                        Detention Time, hours                    4.2
                        Return Flow, %                           25
                        D.O. Level, mg/1                         2.5

                      Second Stage Aeration Basins           Typical (Upset)

                        F/M, Ibs NH3-N/lbs MLVSS/day            0.07
                        MCRT, days                              13
                        MLSS, mg/1                              3500
                        Detention Time, hours                    5.8
                        Return Flow, %                           50
                        D.O. Levels, mg/1                         2.5
                      BOD5, mg/1
                      SS, mg/1
                      NH3, mg/1 (summer)
                         PLANT PERFORMANCE

                                    Permit Limit

                                         10
                                         12
                                        1.5
                                        Typical (Upset)

                                           5     (17)
                                           5     (23)
                                          0.5    (15)
          MAW
     WASTEWATIR
                              I POLYMER
                                                                                 FINAL
                                                                                EFFLUENT
                                                                                                          TO
                                                                                                    CENTRALIZED
                                                                                                    DEWATERINO
                                                                                                       FACILITY
                                                            A-35

-------
PASSAIC VALLEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Newark, New Jersey
Coping with  industrial waste  discharges  to  a  300 mgd  POTW  in a  highly
industrialized  area is a  challenging task.   The  Passaic  Valley  Sewerage
Commissioners  (PCSC) maintain  an industrial waste control staff to monitor
nearly 400 industries that  contribute 20 percent of the wastewater volume and
50 percent of  the  waste  strength.  The PVSC performed their  first  Industrial
Waste Survey for database development in 1972, and adopted a set  of  Rules and
Regulations (including local  limits)  in  1976.  By  1982, a  comprehensive system
consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act  of  1977 had been adopted, which
established uniform user  fees for mass and volumetric loadings in the Passaic
Valley plant.

The  influent  wastewater to the POTW is considered a high-strength waste, with
typical BOD  and  TSS values of  290 and  450 mg/1, respectively.  Despite the
strength of the influent, the plant is close to meeting the 30/30 NPDES discharge
limits, even though the primary clarifiers are not scheduled to  go  on-line until
later this year  (1986).   The  high percentage  of industrial  flow  volume  is
responsible for the high influent BOD, and hence an interference exists, although
the number of industries makes it impossible at this time to determine which are
responsible for the interference.  The PVSC believes that the addition of primary
treatment coupled with the economic incentives for pretreatment created by the
user charge system will reduce the effluent to consistently below the limits.

The  individual  constituents of concern  to the  PVSC  fall into three general
categories:

                •     metals
                •     flammables
                •     fibers

The  sources of heavy metals are chemical manufacturers, platers and  tanneries.
One of the smaller (30,000  gpd)  chemical companies had been identified as  a
significant contributor (120 Ibs/day) of mercury to the POTW.  Although the
mercury level of 50 ug/1  at the influent was not inhibitory to the  activated
sludge, the concentration of mercury in the sludge limited  the municipality's
disposal options.   It is anticipated that  ocean disposal  of sludge  will not be
permitted much longer, which will require the PVSC to incinerate.  The Federal
Air  Pollution  Standards  limit  the  mercury  discharge  to 3,200 g/day,  which
translates into a local limit of 0.4 Ibs/day in the wastewater from the industry in
question.  The  chemical  company responded by isolating the relevant process
streams and  utilizing a batch recovery  system  for the mercury,  reducing the
discharge  from  120 down to  5 Ibs/day.    When  ocean  disposal   is formally
eliminated as a disposal option, the company can employ carbon treatment for
removal of the remaining mercury.

The oxidation of trivalent chromium  to the hexavalent form in a POTW sludge
incinerator is a problem caused by  the chromium-laden discharge  from  various
industrial users.  An additional problem caused by the tanning industrial category
                                    A-36

-------
is  the clogging of  local  sewers that results  from hides being  inadvertently
discharged from the  companies.   Similar  clogging problems  existed  at  the
pretreatment  plant  due  to  the balled-up  fibers from the  pulp and paper
manufacturers  which close off sludge return lines, orifices and nozzles.  This
condition improved substantially when the moving-bridge  primary clarifiers were
placed in service in December, 1985.

The  Passaic  Valley  plant  had a. unique problem  with high concentrations of
flammable materials in the influent wastewater.  The lower explosive limit (LEL)
is defined as the "lowest concentration of a combustible substance  in air through
which  a  flame,  once ignited, will continue to propogate". When  a  wastewater
approaches 50 percent of the LEL, it is important that it not be discharged into
the sewer collection system.  The pure oxygen process has a control built into
the system  which vents all oxygen away  from the activated sludge treatment
process when high  LEL is detected.  Since the venting of the oxygen reduces the
treatment  efficiency it can result in a permit  violation as well  as creating a
health hazard.

The  PVSC  instituted a three-part program in October of 1984  to mitigate the
problems of flammables:

     •    required  industries using  or  manufacturing solvents which come in
           contact  with   discharged  wastewater  to  install   LEL  detection
           instruments, and to provide pretreatment to isolate the  flammables if
           high LELs were detected;

     •    surveyed  other  industries which used  solvents  but  had  no  such
           discharge  to  determine if a potential  existed, requiring necessary
           control mechanisms; and

     •    monitored the collection system  more closely  for illegal  dumping of
           such chemicals.

Representatives of Passaic Valley made it clear that a cooperative  attitude on
the  part of industry was an  important  factor  in  successful mitigation  of
interference  problems.  In fact, it  was the  local pharmaceutical manfacturer
that  conducted  the  research   resulting   in the  type  of  LEL  instrument
recommended by the Advisory Committee when the LEL regulation  was adopted.
                                    A-37

-------
                              PASSAIC VALLEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                                             Newark, New Jemr
   Design Flow:
   Secondary Treatment:
   330 mgd
   Activated Sludge
    (PoreOrytea)
                  Location:
                  Population Served:
              Adjacent to Newark Bay
              l.SMillke)
     WFLOENT WASTEWATER


                   Typical 
-------
SIOUX CITY WASTE TREATMENT PLANT (SCWTP)
Sioux City, Iowa
The Sioux City Waste Treatment Plant (SCWTP) treats a combined industrial and
municipal wastewater  average flow of 13.5 mgd and discharges to the Missouri
River.  More  than  140 industries  were identified  by an industrial  survey  as
potential sources of  wastewater.  Of these, four are categorical metal finishing
or electroplating industries  and, as of recently,  eleven  industries contributed
significantly to the suspended solids, BOD and oil  and grease discharged  to the
SCWTP.   Although  the  total volumetric  load  of  the industrial wastewater is
typically less than 10 percent of the total flow, the industrial organic loads  to
the plant account for greater than 50 percent of the observed loads.

The  SCWTP  has experienced  two  separate   incidents  in  which  industrial
discharges have interfered with  normal plant operations.  Isolated slug loads  of
zinc  were experienced by the  SCWTP in March  and again in April of  1984.
Levels as high  as 16 mg/1 Zn were observed in the treatment plant influent and
both slug-load incidents resulted in an upset of the activated sludge process and
violations  of  the  NPDES  discharge  limits.    Effluent  BODg  concentrations
exceeded  60 mg/1 and effluent  suspended solids  concentrations  in  excess  of
200 mg/1 were observed.  The investigation of  the  first  slug  load of zinc was
somewhat hampered by the lack  of in-house capabilities for metals analysis and
the first  indication  of a contamination problem was the process upset  itself.
Upon confirmation of the nature of the interference,  a temporary system for the
continuous addition  of lime to the primary clarifiers, which  would result in the
precipitation of subsequent  slug  loads of zinc, was installed and operated until
such time that frequent and periodic monitoring and analysis of the influent for
metals could be performed at the SCWTP.

The  source  of  the metal discharge was identified  from the City's industrial use
survey and from samples of wastewater and solids collected at specific locations
in the wastewater  collection system.  The  floor drain  at  the manufacturing
facility through which the zinc discharges occurred  was disconnected from the
sanitary sewer. In addition to the process upsets, several  years accumulation  of
sludge held in storage lagoons and slated for disposal by land  application became
contaminated with zinc. Upon receipt of special permitting from  the State, the
SCWTP was allowed  to dispose of the sludge as planned.

In 1985, a pharmaceutical manufacturer came on-line discharging batches of high
strength waste without pretreatment.   The strength of the  waste ranged from
10,000 to 100,000 mg  BODs/1 and the waste contained high levels of salt and
sulfite. The average BODs of the waste was 35,000 mg/1  and  the batch  dumps
represented 45 percent of the total organic load to the SCWTP.  The activated
sludge process was severely overloaded and intermittent depressions of the D.O.
level occurred.  It  was possible  to operate  the activated sludge process  to
accommodate the severe organic loads, but  the process  would again be upset
during the weekends when the pharmaceutical manufacturer was not discharging
waste  and  the  organic  loads were reduced.   Throughout  1985, the SCWTP
experienced  severe  violations   of  their  NPDES  6005  and  suspended  solids
discharge  limits.  Frequent violations of the  pharmaceutical manufacturer's
                                    A-39

-------
discharge permit occurred with respect to the organic  strength and daily mass
loading of the waste.  The industrial user  was placed on a compliance schedule
and continued violations of the discharge permit necessitated actions that would
result  in flow equalization  and reductions in  the  levels of methyl mercaptan,
sulfite and sulfide.  Presently, all batch waste dumps are transported  by bulk to
the SCWTP where they are metered, by SCWTP personnel, into the plant influent
under controlled conditions.

The  upset conditions presented  in the  following  table  represent  conditions
related to the discharge of the pharmaceutical wastewater.  The reported upset
conditions represent  averages for several months  of 1985 whereas the typical
conditions were based on data for 1984 which spanned nine months and  included
those months in which the slug loads of zinc were experienced.
                                    A-40

-------
                                    SIOUX CITY WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
                                              SIOUX CITY, IOWA
   Design Flow:
   Secondary Treatment:
      30mgd
      Activated Sludge
       (Conventional)
                  Location:
                  Population Served:
               Northwest Iowa
               135,000
     INFLUENT WASTEWATER
  Ave. Flow, mgd
  % Industrial
  BODj, mg/1
  SS, mg/1
Typical (Upset)

     13.5
      7
   380(612)
   550 (630)
      Industry

Meat Processing
Pharmaceutical
Metal Finishing
                                                             SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES
Flowrate
(1000 gpd)

  1,000
   70
   20
         Problem Pollutants

BOD5, oil and grease, SS
BODg, methyl mecaptan, sulfite
Zn, Cr, Ni
                                              PLANT LOADING
Primary Clarifien

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  Effluent BODs, mg/1
  Effluent SS, mg/1
Secondary Clarifien

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  SVI, ml/gm
                 Typical (Upset)

                      577
                      2.9
                    220 (370)
                    240 (235)
                 Typical (Upset)

                      722
                       3
                      150
                     Aeration Basins

                       F/M, Ibs BOD5/lbs MLSS/day
                       MCRT, days
                       MLSS, mg/1
                       Detention Time, hours
                       Return Flow, %
                       D.O. Level, mg/1
                                    Typical (Upset)

                                       0.2 (0.3)
                                         10
                                         2500
                                         15
                                         40
                                         2.5
                         s, mB/l
                      SS, mg/1
                        PLANT PERFORMANCE

                                Permit Limit

                                    30
                                    30
                                   Typical (Upset)

                                      34 (37)
                                      33 (45)
           MAW
       WA4TIWATER
                    •AN SCREENS
                        AND
                   OMT CHANNELS
          T      pr
                                                                                                     FINAL
                                                                                                  EFFLUENT
MI-

t

PRIMARY
CLARIFIED*
(4)
•AERATION !
rANKS 1
u> '
                            RAS
                                    PRIMARY
                                      EST
                                       (4)
                                  DK3E8TER8J
                                     (4)
                                                    • 8LUDQE LAGOONS
                                                           A-41

-------
TOLLESON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Tolleson, Arizona
The Tolleson Wastewater Treatment Plant (TWTP) is a two stage trickling filter
plant  that  treats a predominantly domestic wastewater  from Phoenix, Arizona
suburbs.    The successful operation  of  the TWTP is dependent  on  the  one
significant industrial contributor to the  treatment plant, a meatpacker  who
processes 1,000 to 1,400 head of beef per day.

The influent to the TWTP could be typified as medium to high-strength municipal
wastewater with  average BOD 5 and  SS levels being 275 mg/1 and  225 mg/1,
respectively.  Approximately 25 to 30 percent of the average organic and solids
loading is contributed by the  meatpacker  average at levels of 1,100-1,600 mg/1
BODs and 700-1,200 mg/1 SS,  for wastewater flows of 0.8-1.0 mgd.  In general,
the domestic/industrial waste  stream BODs, and SS can both be treated to below
10 mg/1,  well within the  30/30 discharge  limits.   However, hi the  past  the
meatpacker has upset the treatment process by slug discharging blood or other
high strength  organic slaughter by-products with BODs anc^ ^3  levels of up to
2,200 mg/1 and 1,375 mg/1, respectively.   Prior to 1982, these upset conditions
would last  for several days and result in weekly and monthly  effluent suspended
solids of  30-40 mg/1, in violation of permit limits.

Treatment upsets have diminished in frequency and intensity since 1982 for two
reasons:
     •     A legal contract with the meatpacker limits flow to 0.8 mgd,
           to  10,675 Ibs  per  day  (1,600 mg/1)  and  SS  to  6,670 Ibs per  day
           (1,000 mg/1),  and provides  for fines or disconnection if these limits
           are exceeded, and

     •     Improved  treatment plant process monitoring has enabled operators
           to better detect, and thus act on, a potentially upsetting condition.

The contract with the meat packer attempts to prevent waste blood  from being
stored for more than about eight hours at  a time before discharging to the  sewer.
Prior practice resulted in blood being held back for up to a week at a time  before
being discharged all at once.

Primarily through trial and error,  the  operators of the TWTP have established
several operating parameters that help  them in  detecting upset conditions hi the
plant.  The depth  of sludge in the primary clarifiers is monitored closely; a high
or rapidly increasing sludge depth is indicative of upset conditions and is caused
by the high solids content of the meatpacking waste. The mixed  liquor in the
solids contact basin following the second trickling filter is  monitored closely as
well,  with levels  above  500 mg/1  signaling possible problems.   Mixed  liquor
                                    A-42

-------
concentrations of  1,500 mg/1  generally  result in effluent suspended  solids of
greater than 30 mg/1.  To remedy an upset condition, primary sludge pumping
rates are  manually increased above their normal levels to reduce the  solids
inventory and prevent escape in the effluent.
                                    A-43

-------
                                  TOLLESON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                                             TOLLESON, ARIZONA
   Design Flow:
   Secondary Treatment:
   8.3 rogd
   2 Stage Trickling Filter
    with Solids Contact
Location:
Population Served:
Sooth Central Arizona
65,000
     INFLUENT WASTEWATER


                    Typical (Upset)
                                                              SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIES
  Ave. Flow, mgd
  % Industrial
  BOD5, mg/1
  SS, mg/1
   7.4
   14
Z75 (340)
ZZ5 (Z80)
                         Industry

                  Meat Packer
    Flowrate
    (1000 gpd)

      1000
      Problem Pollutants

            BOD, SS
                                                PLANT LOADING
Primary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  Effluent BODj, mg/1
  Effluent SS, mg/1

Intermediate Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
  Effluent BODs, mg/1
  Effluent SS, mg/1
               Typical (Upset)

                    860
                    1.9
                    160
                    95

               Typical (Upset)

                    735
                    Z.4
                    30
                    30
    First Stage Trickling Filter                 Typical

    Hydraulic Loading, gal/sf/day               1,000
    Organic Loading, Ibs BODj/lOOO cf/day        45
    Recirculation, %                            100
    Second Stage Trickling Filter               Typical

    Hydraulic Loading, gal/sf/day               500
    Recirculation, %                           100
Secondary Clarifiers

  Overflow Rate, gal/sf/day
  Detention Time, hours
               Typical (Upset)

                    480
                    7.4
                      BODj, mg/1
                      SS, mg/1
                                             PLANT PERFORMANCE

                                                     Permit Limit
                                   30
                                   30
                  Typical (Upset)

                      9 (Z5)
                      9 (35)
          MAW WASTIWATER
                                                                                                 EFFLUENT TO
                                                                                               TURF IRRIGATION
                       •AH VCREEN AND
                       OMIT CHAMBER
                                                INTERMEDIATE
                                                 CLARIFIER* (2)
                                                                            8LUOQE TO TURF FARM
                                                          A-44

-------
                               APPENDIX B

                        INTERFERING SUBSTANCES
CONVENTIONAL

     Biochemical Oxygen Demand
     Fats, Oil and Grease

METALS AND INORGANICS

     Alkalinity
     Ammonia
     Arsenic
     Barium
     Beryllium
     Boron
     Cadmium
     Calcium
     Chloride
     Chromium
     Cobalt
     Copper
     Cyanide
     Iodine
     Iron
     Lead
     Magnesium

AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS

     Aldrin/Dieldrin
     Chlordane
     Chlorophenoxy Herbicides
     DDT
     Endrin
PH
Suspended Solids
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Sulfide
Sulfite
Tin
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Heptachlor
Lindane
Malathion
Organometallic Pesticides
Toxaphene
AROMATICS
     Benzene
     Chlorobenzene
     Dichlorobenzene
     Dinitrotoluene
Nitrobenzene
PCBs
Toluene
Zylene
                                   B-l

-------
HALOGENATED ALEPHAT1CS

     Carbon Tetrachloride                       Methylene Chloride
     Chloroform                                Tetrachlorodibenzodioxins
     Chlorom ethane                             Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
     Dichloroethane                             Tetrachloroethane
     Dichloroethylene                           Tetrachloroethylene
     Dichloropropane                            Trichloroethane
     Hexachlorobutadiene                       Trichloroethylene
     Hexachlorocyclohexane                     Vinyl Chloride
     Hexachloroethane

NITROGEN COMPOUNDS

     Acetanilide                                Dyes
     Acetonitrile                                EDTA
     Acrylonitrile                               Ethylpyridine
     Aniline                                    Fluor enamine
     Benzidine                                  Hydrazine
     Benzonitrile                                Nitrosodiphenylamine
     Chloroaniline                               Pyridine
     Dichlorobenzidine                          Trisodium Nitrilotriacetate
     Dimethylnitrosamine                       Urea
     Diphenylhydrazine

OXYGENATED  COMPOUNDS  (Acids,  Alcohols,  Aldehydes,  Esters,  Ethers,
Ketones)

     Acetone                                   Ethylene Glycol
     Acrolein                                   Formaldehyde
     Adipic Acid Esters                          Formic Acid
     Allyl Alcohol                               Heptanol
     Benzoic Acid                               Hexanol
     Boric Acid                                 Isophorone
     Butanol                                    Linoleic Acid
     Butyl Benzoate                             Malonic Acid
     Chlorobenzoate                            Methanol
     Chloroethyl Ether                          Methylethyl Ketone
     Cinnamic Acid                             Methylisobutyl Ketone
     Crotonol                                   Octanol
     Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acid                 Polyethylene Glycols
     Diethylene Glycol                          Polyvinyl Alcohols
     Ethoxy Ethanol                             Protocatechuic Acid
     Ethyl Acetate                              Syringic Acid
                                    B-2

-------
 PHENOLS
       Catechol                                   Pentachlorophenol
       Chlorophenol                               Phenol
       Cresol                                     Trichlorophenol
       Dichlorophenol                             Trinitrophenol
       Dinitrophenol                               Vanillin
       Nitrophenol

 PHTHALATES

       Dimethylphthalate
       Disoctylphthalate
       E thylhexylphthalat e

 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS

       Anthracene                                Naphthalene
       Benzo (a) Anthracene                        Phenanthrene
       Chloronaphthalenes                         Pyrene
       di-Isopropyhiaphthalene
                                      B-3


•tr U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1967— 716- 0 0 2/ 60699

-------