905R8111Q
REGION V
SUPPORT PACKAGE
FOR AREA-BY-AREA TOXICS CONTROL
WITH AN EMPHASIS ON
AREA SPECIFIC DILUTION STUDIES
- CANTON, OHIO -
- MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA -
Monitoring Branch
Monitoring and Data Support Division
June 8, 1981
-------
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I:
CHAPTER II:
CHAPTER III:
CONTENTS
Canton, Ohio
Minneapolis St. Paul. Minnesota
Overview of Geographic or Area-by-Area Approach to Toxics
Control
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Dilution Study Methodology and Assumptions
Appendix B: EPA Contacts
-------
INTRODUCTION
Attached is a contractor report, Water Quality Analyses -- Area
Sbecific Dilution Studies Region V, which contains the results of a
simple screen of rivers and streams in two geographic areas for reaches
most likely to be contaminated with priority pollutants after
technology-based toxic controls have been implemented. The two
areasCanton, Ohio and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesotawere selected
for study because various data sources indicate that Canton and
Minneapolis/St. Paul may contain river reaches where water quality-based
controls are needed to meet Clean Water Act goals.
The contractor studies for these two areas were completed as part of
EPA's program for a "geographic" or "area-by-area" approach to toxics
control.
This document discusses the results of the contractor studies for
Canton and Minneapolis/St. Paul, and includes recommendations to the
States and Regions to further characterize the sources and levels of
toxics in these two areas. This characterization will help determine to
what extent toxic contamination exists now, before technology-based
controls are fully implemented, and whether water quality-based controls
will be warranted in the future. Also discussed in this document is the
area-by-area approach to toxics control.
-------
Chapter I: CANTON, OHIO
SUMMARY
The attached document, Water Quality Analyses Area_ Specific
Dilution Studies Region V, contains a contractor study of potential toxic
pollution in the Canton area. The study-identifies thirty-two of 129
priority pollutants as potential toxic contaminants in river reaches
where point source discharges may require water quality-based controls if
receiving waters are to achieve EPA water quality criteria. It 1s
recommended that the Region or the State consider reconnaissance
monitoring, particularly in Hurford Run, to determine to what extent
toxic conditions exist now, before best available treatment (BAT) is
implemented. This recommendation focuses pre-BAT baseline monitoring for
toxics on reaches which may need water quality-based controls.
BACKGROUND
The area-specific dilution studies arose from work funded by the
Monitoring Branch to help meet the requirements of Paragraph 12 of the
revised EPA/NRDC Settlement Agreement. (Reference Chapter III:
Background.) The dilution studies are one technique the Branch is using
to identify river reaches where water quality-based toxics controls may
be needed.
The area-specific dilution studies use simple stream-to-discharge
dilution calculations to estimate priority pollutant concentrations in
receiving waters of the study area. The estimates are calculated from
the permitted flows of local point source dischargers, receiving water
dilution capacity, and available information describing point source
discharge constitutents after BAT is implemented.
Appendix A describes the study methodology in greater detail.
To determine which area river reaches are likely to have the greatest
adverse effects from point source toxic discharges, the dilution
calculations are compared with EPA water quality criteria.
For the Canton study, nineteen river reaches in a 510 square mile
drainage area of Stark County, Ohio around the city of Canton were
considered (see Figure 1). Section 3 of the attached report describes
the results of the contractor study.
FINDINGS
The contractor projected that instream levels of thirty-two priority
pollutants may exceed EPA water quality criteria:
-------
REACH Ul
REACH
REACH
s
REACH
- CALCULATION
REACH NUMBER
LOCATED AT CONFLUENCE
WITH SOUTH FORK OF
SUGAR CREEK
Figure 1 . Canton, OH dilution study area schematic,
-------
Under Mean and Low Flow Conditions
Under Low Flow Conditions
&-BHC
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Copper
Cyanides
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Dichlorobromomethane
Trichloromethane
Tribromomethane
Tetrachloromethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichl-oroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,n)anthracene
Ideno (l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Pyrene
Selenium
Thai 11 urn
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
(see Table 1)
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
The Region or the State is urged to further characterize river
reaches in the Canton area to determine to what extent toxic levels exist
now, before BAT is implemented.
Available data from State 305(b) Reports, previous Regional studies,
Fish Kill reports, and STORET and BIOSTORET should be reviewed. (The
Monitoring Branch has funded the development of additional software for
STORET that can be used to retrieve and analyze STORET toxics data. The
Water Quality Analysis Branch has developed software for retrieving
surface water drinking water supply intakesT]Other information on
nonpoint sources such as hazardous waste site inventories or atmospheric
deposition studies should also be considered, if available.
Once the literature has been reviewed, reconnaissance monitoring of
water column, fish tissue, and sediment in those reaches projected to be
most heavily affected by toxics discharges should be considered. (The
State has the in-house laboratory capability to analyze metals and
organics samples). The monitoring agency may elect to sample less
extensively for pollutants whose dominant fates, other than dilution, may
reduce levels of the pollutants in ambient waters below detectable levels
or below the levels projected by the study. The monitoring agency is
urged to designate sampling sites in the affected reaches that are
optimal for testing water quality standards compliance. Bioassays and
-------
>-
<
s
2:
=>
to
2:
o
Ci
O
t_5
U)
_i
a
-
w
l\ 1
o
1
^
5
«c
111
tf
si
UJ
^
£
£
u.
a
e
i_
co
H-
c
a
|
I
>-
*
i.
_o
t.
CL
S
^
y
O
**»
CT
5.
«r
00
7^
>9
^
in
3-
f>
f>
f*
-
c
z
o
c
IX.
C
a
0
U
?
^
^r
O
u.
5
|
u_
c
a
o
2:
Arsonlc
f\
Oi
-
-
-
I
\L
o
_j
*
u_
c
e
_o
§
">
u
o
C
w\
CM
>
U.
c
§
z
§
c
\*L
c
rz
O
^.
1
T:
B
U
vO
fN
s
?
§
fC
z
z
s
§
s
§
s
z
*
o
iZ
X
s
X
u.
c
c
o
k
a
?
?
§
?
_s
?:
S
§
§
z
§
z
z
*
tZ
X
>
u_
c
c
o
z
"o
JC
u
z.
iZ
*
c
f
o
iZ
c
/c
J
rl
<£
»
O
^B
a
k
r-
r-
C
[Z
q
u.
H
*H
f\
^
c
K
?
0
u.
C
X
u.
c
c
c
*£
T4
f>
K
««
i
fe
<
,
u.
-------
c
«r»
P
C
O
u
LU
_J
ca
CO
1
hi
UJ
1
*
O
IZ
E
1_
ISI
C
c
4-
3
>
_£
C.
C
-
^
0
**.
cr
CP
to
r-
i
*
:r
rr,
rr»
«
-
o
c
JC
o
u.
c
o
«4
CS
o
(N
O
C
rt
O
T
V
5
>
|
c
0
"u
o
c
z
9
O
o
i
o
o
c
o
L
U
«
C
O
s
o
o
o
c
o
t
*
c
X
_0
In
O
O
O
0
«
c
o
u
e
4
C
=
rs
o
O
h
o
o
"o
c
o
0
5
*-
UJ
r-
\n
O
O
0
0
c
o
«
o
c
4-
UJ
R
o
o
k
O
I
L.
t-
0
C
O
I
«
CM
0
c
4-
UJ
s
T
O
o
,
I
h
1
i
i
i
u
-i
o
c
o
1
0
c
UJ
vC
y.
o
h
o
o
o
o
c
o
totra-
o
c
LJ
V£
0
o
s
jr
u
0
c
o
c
2
a
a
e
r-
>
u.
O
c
c
o
o
o
"y
C
^
2
^
?.
0
o
«
-
c
c
0
*
a
X
c
c
e
a
a
a
-
*
o
0
k
o
0
^
o
u.
C
o
e
c
o
">
4-
C
.5
C
U
c
-
-
o
0
c
j;
9
C
<
IS
f
C
c
c
c
c
e
L.
>
C.
s
0
1
1 J.
I
c
1
1
1
-------
-o
"3
c
o
(J
UJ
_J
ca
\
5
1
^
^
^
n{
*s.
^.
4
^
o
N,
TT
*
cr
co
r-
vS
*
sS
»r>
3-
^
4t
^
c\
-
0
u.
o
tf>
1 Priority Pol lutant
K
^
-
O
U_
C
1C
o
z
-
.
»
u_
»
Chrysono
"
*
ul
e
*.
*
O
u.
f
o
c
«
l_
>.
0.
fM
CM
-------
^
Col
o
OJ
C
O
u
JO
U-
E
O
*
o
_o
u.
s
o
o
o
s
ui
i
CO
c
a
a.
x
u
o
L.
a.
in
t.
L.
3
o
in
CM
E
a
a
o
o
fN
i
c.
8
c<
in
O
2
e
3
O
15
O
i.
U
E
vO
O
O
-------
-T3
o
+J
c
o
u
UJ
_!
a
\
rf
CQ
1
_u
\)
111
Qt
fij
|
|
Stream
ty Pol lutont
_o
0.
cr-
V.
t
V.
r-
$
*»
o
s
>»'
J
0
*.
z
-
-
-
-
-
-
0
c
O
O
Si
rt
v\
r^t
a
^
cv
o
u_
-
-
-
-
*
O
1
rt
s
rv
I
CO
*
3
-
f
L.
*
c
o
c
c
o
o
u
o
e
c
a
0
-
-
o
c
§
1
u
L.
C
c
a
o
ithane. trlbromo
aE
s?
-
-
-
-
0
c
-
c
c
K
4-
e
C
13
.C
4-
tn
-
o
c
1
u
c
c
10
O
z
ID
U
3
«
e
a
c.
4-
z
in
O
1
2
o
u
S
c
(!
O
z
A
*
0
c
a
£.
UJ
r-
irt
o
c
chloro
-o
*
c
c
o
A
e
c
o
Ul
(fl
o
o
1 ch 1 oro
4-
O
C
a
o
1
«
CM
«
CM
<
*
O
I
UJ
s
-
-
X
o
i
jtrochloro
*
c
c
e
«
O
e
Ul
K
-
-
-
-
g
i
i
. i
o
1
o
c
c
a
o
a
u
a
*
a
e
JZ
UJ
s
,
-1
h
"
(
c
o
_<
e
e
N
C
a
a
o
c
c
c
13
O
2
c
t,
i
0
c
e
N
c
e
p«
-
-
-
0
j
k
l
1
c
IE
C
S
a
c
e
K
C
«
e
0
*
_0
h
0
£
) U
c
c
c
e
c
">
JC
4-
1
C
e
<
e
o
g
"
>
>
-
-
-
-
8
c
r.
S
e
C
<.
(.
X
4-
<
O
c
^-
-
-
-
o
X
c
i
\
>
c
c
c
e
e
i
>
c
«
K
*
Is
C
c
<
*
~
-
-
-
*
o
*
o
_J
1.
f
-------
o
d)
3
C
C
o
u
UJ
_J
C2
K
8
s
s
:p
*
S
rf
li\
=>
5
|
iZ
a
u
v>
+-
10
1
>,
4-
£
v.
c.
O-
"v
S>-
">».
Oe
»
r-
*
o
N$
§
Vrt
>.
f
Vr>
>
ro
<
t»^
f!
O
*
C
O
£.
O
c
o
2
o
«»
-
I
tl_
c
f
c
s
DIbonzo (a.n)
V£
x
u_
C
anthracene
*
c
o
Fluorono
0
-
S
u.
0
~
|
c
o
s.
^t
^
f^
*
CM
*
x^
2
e
"3
c
o>
-
»
LL.
O
pyreno
|
e
o
o
o
1_
>.
0.
CM
CM
-
-
*
O
u_
O
L.
»
VI y
O V)
cv
L.-D
O
m
T
1
1
C
O
§
1
E
v
|
tA
V
^
_o
^t
1
c v-
o
_l
JC
u
M
5
"e
L.
4-
m
3
c
C
^
c
xcoodod
o
«
U
e
u
in
O
4-
C
|
1
-
^
7
0-
"5
u
c
3
E
4?
^o
xcoodod
o
10
t_
o
f-
u
U)
o
+-
JO
_o
c
1
s
j:
u
IA
1
C
a
c
_
a
»-
c
"o
4-
«
O
i combined
o
4-
xcood od
o
10
u
o
4-
u
in
0
+-
ra
^
c
t
f
v
o
few
&
M»
U
S
fe
"5
u
u
JC
"e
»
c
£
£
in
o
O)
t_
a
u
M
I
^
e
o
c
«j
JO
,};
in
w
c
Is
e
4-
^
xcoodod
e
a
^
o
u
^J
o
4-
<0
u
1
^
criteria.
e
excood '
2
Q
o
j3
"«5
in
o
a
5
u
»
«A
CO
c.
0
"a
f\
VI
o
^:
5l
^)
QU
i.
-§
4
S
-^
1
7
*
3
TS
f
^
-6
%>
"?
S
-------
similar toxicity tests ore recommended for determining where toxics are
present in toxic amounts. Monitoring efforts should Include control
samples for areas upstream of the study reach. From the reconnaissance
survey, the State or Region can better determine whether suspected toxics
problems are confirmed and whether additional activities to study and
control toxics in specific reaches are warranted. The results of these
efforts should be transmitted to the Monitoring Branch, Monitoring and
Data Support Division, OWRS, Headquarters (WH-553).
If the monitoring activities indicate that existing ambient water
quality standards are being violated, the Region and the State should
identify in their annual State/EPA agreements those activities they will
complete in order to achieve water quality standards. If Safe Drinking
Water Act violations are found, appropriate remedial action should be
taken. The Region and the State are strongly encouraged to begin work to
identify point and/or nonpoint source controls appropriate for achieving
water quality standards, and to analyze the applicability of different
control options. The results of these efforts should be provided to the
Monitoring Branch.
A brief (one to three page) annual summary of the status of
monitoring and control actions in the area should also be provided to- the
Monitoring Branch^".
11
-------
Chapter I; MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
SUMMARY
The attached document, Water Quality Analyses Area Specific
Dilution Studies Region V, contains a contractor study of potential toxic
pollution in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. The study identifies eight
of 129 priority pollutants as potential toxic contaminants in river
reaches where point source discharges may require water quality-based
controls 1f receiving waters are to achieve EPA water quality criteria.
It is recommended that the Region or the State consider reconnaissance
monitoring, particularly in the Mississippi River between the Minnesota
River and the St. Croix River, to determine to what extent toxic
conditions exist now, before best available treatment (BAT) is
implemented. This recommendation focuses pre-BAT baseline monitoring for
toxics on reaches which may need water quality-based controls.
BACKGROUND
The area-specific dilution studies arose from work funded by the
Monitoring Branch to help meet the requirements of Paragraph 12 of the
revised EPA/NRDC Settlement Agreement. (Reference Chapter III:
Background.) The dilution studies are one technique the Branch is using
to identify river reaches where water quality-based toxics controls may
be needed.
The area-specific dilution studies use simple stream-to-discharge
dilution calculations to estimate priority pollutant concentrations in
receiving waters of the study area. The estimates are calculated from
the permitted flows of local point source dischargers, receiving water
dilution capacity, and available information describing point source
discharge constitutents after BAT is implemented.
Appendix A describes the study methodology in greater detail.
To determine which area river reaches are likely to have the greatest
adverse effects from point source toxic discharges, the dilution
calculations are compared with EPA water quality criteria.
For the Minneapolis/St. Paul study, nine river reaches in a 1,200
square mile drainage area of Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, and
Washington Counties, Minnesota around the city of Minneapolis/St. Paul
were considered (see Figure 2). Section 3 of the attached report
describes the results of the contractor study.
FINDINGS
The contractor projected that instream levels of eight priority
pollutants may exceed EPA water quality criteria:
12
-------
LEGEND
CALCULATION POINT
61 REACH NUMBER
BASSETT CREEK
M1NNEHAHA CREEK
LOCATED AT-
CONFLUENCE WITH
ST. CR01X RIVER
Figure 2. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN dilution study area schematic
13
-------
Under Mean and Low Flow Conditions Under Low Flow Conditions
Arsenic * Copper
Cadmium . Cyanides
Mercury Nickel
! Zinc
Chlorobenzene
(see Table 2)
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
The Region or the State is urged to further characterize river
reaches in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area to determine to what extent
toxic levels exist now, before BAT is implemented.
Available data from State 305(b) Reports, previous Regional studies,
Fish Kill reports, and STORET and BIOSTORET should be reviewed. (The
Monitoring Branch has funded the development of additional software for
STORET that can be used to retrieve and analyze STORET toxics data. The
Water Quality Analysis Branch has developed software for retrieving
surface water drinking water supply intakes.) Other information on
nonpoint sources such as hazardous waste site inventories or atmospheric
deposition studies should also be considered, if available.
Once the literature has been reviewed, reconnaissance monitoring of
water column, fish tissue, and sediment in those reaches projected to be
most heavily affected by toxics discharges should be considered. (The
State has the in-house laboratory capability to analyze metals and
organics samples). The monitoring agency may elect to sample less
extensively for pollutants whose dominant fates, other than dilution, may
reduce levels of the pollutants in ambient waters below detectable levels
or below the levels projected by the study. The monitoring agency is
urged to designate sampling sites in the affected reaches that are
optimal for testing water quality standards compliance. Bioassays and
similar toxicity tests are recommended for determining where toxics are
present in toxic amounts. Monitoring efforts should include control
samples for areas upstream of the study reach. From the reconnaissance
survey; the State or Region can better determine whether suspected toxics
problems are confirmed and whether additional activities to study and
control toxics in specific reaches are warranted. The results of these
efforts should be transmitted to the Monitoring Branch, Monitoring and
Data Support Division, OWRS, Headquarters (WH-553).
14
-------
cs:
o
CO
CO
o
a.
<
UJ
UJ
-
0
tZ
Strontn
4-
o
I
>
fe
u
C-
3"
*
o-
ec
k
CO
F-
>s
lA
A
VA
^
<*>
it
tn
ri
-
o
o
c
C3
O
s
>
b
u
1
rt
§
z
X
2
z
2
21
Z
z
z
»
*
c
1C
o
"5
o
z
K
z
o
*
Jt
c
a
_c
2c
U
rvj
»
£
O
li_
*
c
J
VO
O
^
2
p«
cv
o
L.
1
*
C
10
£
cs
CM
a
K
a
0
*
c
c
ft
y
CN
a
K
o
o
*
c
.o
O
z
C3
CN
a
is?
»
*
c
a
0
«fr
in
rs
0
a
-------
If the monitoring activities indicate that existing ambient water
quality standards are being violated, the Region and the State should
identify in their annual State/EPA agreements those activities they will
complete in order to achieve water quality standards. If Safe Drinking
Water Act violations are found, appropriate remedial action should be
taken. The Region and the State are strongly encouraged to begin work to
identify point and/or nonpoint source controls appropriate for achieving
water quality standards, and to analyze the applicability of different
control options. The results of these efforts should be provided to the
Monitoring Branch. '
A brief (one to three page) annual suircnary of the status of
monitoring and control actions in the area should also be provided to the
Monitoring Branch.
16
-------
CHAPTER III; OVERVIEW OF THE GEOGRAPHIC OR AREA-BY-AREA APPROACH TO
TOXICS CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
EPA's Office of Water and Waste Management (OWWM) is redirecting its
program priorities and resources to advance the Regions' and States'
toxic pollutant monitoring and control programs particularly, their
capabilities for identifying, classifying, monitoring, and controlling
toxic contamination in defined geographic areas, where local water
quality-based controls more stringent than national technology-based
levels of control may be required, if waters are to achieve designated
uses or water quality goals.
Development of localized toxic control strategies based on
environmental goals, rather than national limitations or guidelines, is
referred to as the "geographic" or "area-by-area" approach to toxics
control.
BACKGROUND
The area-by-area approach to toxics control developed from EPA work
completed in response to Paragraph 12 of the revised EPA/NRDC Settlement
Agreement; which includes a requirement that EPA identify, by July 1,
1981, spurces, toxicants and portions of navigable waters where point
source discharges which meet best available treatment (BAT) limitations
will still interfere with waters attaining designated uses or goals.
To help meet this requirement of Paragraph 12, the Monitoring Branch
began screening 23 selected urban areas for the navigable waters
described by Paragraph 12. The Branch used a simplified modelling
technique known as an "areawide dilution study" to screen the areas.
As each dilution study was completed, the Branch asked the Regional
S&A Divisions to collect environmental data in the study areas as needed
to verify that suspected toxic problems exist now, before BAT is
implemented, and to determine whether additional monitoring or control
actions in the areas are warranted. (The Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) formalized these requests in
Toxic Pollutant Action Recommendations sent to the Regional
Administrators.)
The focus of the Monitoring Branch's current efforts is on developing
technical guidance for water quality-based toxics controls in areas where
point source discharges comprise most, if not all, of the known toxics
loadings to a drainage system.
17
-------
in the future, State toxic monitoring and control agencies will be
encouraged to assume responsibility for Identifying and implementing
needed local water quality-based toxics controls. The Monitoring Branch
will provide the Regions with national coordination and management,
technical guidance, data bases describing point source discharges and
receiving water hydrology, and other available resources, to help the
Regions and States further develop their own area-by-area toxic control
programs.
Basically, the area-by-area approach to toxics control involves four
different activities (Figure 3).
o Identification: Identify, classify and assign priorities to
geographic areas which may require controls more stringent than
national technology-based controls.
o Characterization; As agreed upon in SEA negotiations, characterize
the areas with" technology-based control assessments and
environmental data collected in follow-up monitoring activites.
o Control; Develop and assess control options; then, implement
controls.
o Enforcement: Enforce, maintain or revise controls as needed to meet
environmental goals.
Ultimately, the States will have the primary responsibility for
completing these activities. EPA will be responsible for tracking
activities, providing technical guidance and review, and directly
assisting local studies which are technical prototypes or have other
regional or national significance.
However, in the near future, many States will require extensive EPA
support and guidance, particularly from the EPA Regional offices.
ONGOING ACTIVITIES
Activities supporting the area-by-area approach to toxics control are
ongoing In several areas:
o The Toxics Integration Committee-Geographic Subcommittee is
completing technical and programmatic evaluations of the need
for and feasibility of local, multimedia, environmentally-based
toxics controls.
f
o Headquarters has promulgated water quality criteria for the
priority pollutants and is currently completing additional
analysis of 12 candidate toxics for which State water quality
standards may be required (Table 3).
o OWRS has transmitted Action Recommendations for 23 urban areas
to the Regions, who have monitored or will be monitoring 17 of
the areas before FY83 (Table 4). Meanwhile, the Monitoring
Branch is preparing technical guidance, A Practical Guide to
18
-------
s
I
E
8
o
a
1
.
VGStigate
3 (Table-
'Iplrt Work}
c -u u
H-v8.fc
oTV) C
OJ
S i> C
2*8
tJ s°
0 0) -
H »-3 r
tt JD C
*3*
x) in £
#££
-^
1
V
I8
!*
, « fi
5*M
1
SS
as
k?
u 8
o
1
§
§
i
N
^o'il
JL> i> -i -
w q U
c; jj
P. W
& C U
5 V 5 JJ
C. C c 0
T
f
s
s
«c.
Jj
§
H
9
5
£
sties
u
3
10
5
a
4
%
D
»
0)
W
O
ft
>
<:
2
"I
X.
1
^
T
.S
fi ei
e o
«
Vi >,
a >-i
> o
51
3.8
50.
C -i
o o
« -r<
u ~
E ^
±
S .
SI
>
« <
j-!
u ui
r;
u
§
3
«?
o s.
0 , ' C
ij u -3 HI
c - 3
lEy E
-------
Table 3
High Priority Pollutants Currently Being Considered for Recommended State
Water Quality Standards Revisions
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Endosul fan
Heptachlor
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
March 13, 1981
20
-------
Table 4
URBAN AREAS FOR AREAWIDE DILUTION STUDY
ACTION RECOMMENDATION TRANSMITTED
Baton Rouge, LA
Beaumont, TX
Birmingham, AL
Charleston, WV
'Charlotte, NC
Coeur d'Alene, ID
Dayton, OH
~Des~TC5Tnes7 I A
^Gary. IN_
Kingsport, TN
OH
Louisville, KY
ADDITIONAL AREAS BEING REVIEWED
Albany (Tri-City), NY
Allentown, PA
Denver, CO
Hartford, CT
Houston, TX
Lincoln, NB
Memphis, TN
.MidlandlSaginaw. MI
Passaic, NJ
Philadelphia, PA
Pittsburgh, PA
St. Louis, MO
Scranton, PA
Springfield, MA
Syracuse, NY
Wichita, KS
Youngstown, OH
J4i nne.apo1 i s/ St. Paul. MN
Nashville, TN
Pittsfield, MA
Portland, OR
Rochester, NY
Tulsa, OK
Washington, DC
SPECIAL STUDIES. NOT FOR ACTION RECOMMENDATION
Chattanooga Creek, for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); Des Plaines
drainage system, for TARP; Rome, GA, as a field sampling prototype;
Walnut River Basin, for Region VII.
21
-------
"Hot Spot" Identification, Monitoring, and Control, for reducing
or eliminating toxic discharges in these areas.A~ contractor
has been hired to transfer the dilution study software to EPA's
system this fiscal year. The Branch is also preparing both
the July 1, 1981 list of potential problem areas required by
Paragraph 12, and dilution studies for 13 additional urban areas
including the ones attached.
CONCLUSIONS
Substantial additional work needs to be completed to support the
area-by-area toxic control program. Additional technical information
for example, descriptions of priority pollutant transport and fates;
actual, proposed BAT limitations for specific industries; and
quantification of priority pollutant contributions to study areas from
indirect discharges and nonpoint sources -- needs to be developed. This
will better enable Regions and States to decide whether local water
quality-based controls are needed in a particular problem area and to
identify control options for that area.
22
-------
APPENDIX A
DILUTION STUDY METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
The areawide dilution study methodology includes four major
steps: .
1. Within a designated area, point source dischargers and
their flows are identified. Where actual discharge
* flows are unknown, discharge capacity is used.
2. Priority pollutants occurring in point source discharges
are identified and discharge wasteloads are computed
from the discharge flows and the estimated BAT
treatability levels for the discharged pollutants.
Municipal point source discharge loads are computed from
discharge flows and typical or median effluent
concentrations for secondary treatment plants.
3. Discharge vasteloads for each pollutant are aggregated
by stream reach, and the instream concentration is
computed for mean flow and low flow periods. Fates
other than dilution by the receiving waterbody are
assumed to be negligible.
4. Instream concentrations are compared with EPA water
quality criteria proposed as of April, 1979.
Assumptions required to perform the dilution studies tend to
both overestimate and underestimate the instream priority
pollutant concentrations.
Five assumptions lead to an underestimation of the pollutant
concentrations:
1. Water upstream of the dilution study area is assumed to
be pristine, i.e., to contain no background levels of
the priority pollutants*
2- Discharges from only those dischargers with location data
are" included in the study.
3. All dischargers are assumed to meet BAT treatability
1evels .
A. Nonpoint source loadings are ignored. This assumption
is most valid for estimates for low flow periods. Low
flow is defined as the seven-day, ten-year low flow.
5. Zero growth is assumed, i.e., no increase in discharge
flows over time.
Five assumptions lead to an over estimation of the instream
concentrations:
23
-------
' ^ . APPENDIXA (Continued)
1. It is assumed that all plants in the same standard
industrial code (SIC) category discharge the same
pollutants. Each plant is modelled as discharging all
known pollutants discharged by any one plant in the SIC
category. Pollutant discharge characteristics are.
estinated by EPA from knowledge of pollutant production
and uses in the industry end from effluent screening
data for the industry. These estinates will be subject
to revision when effluent verification data becomes '"
* available.
2. Pollutant fates other than dilution are assumed to be
negligible. A recent study of the transport of organic
chemicals in the Delaware River ("Sources and Movement
of Organic Ch'emicals in the Delaware River," Sheldon and
Kites, Environmental Science and Technology, Hay, 1979)
suggests that this assumption aay be valid in areas near
the discharge source of "some organic chemicals.
However, a recent EPA-sponsored draft literature search
(Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority '
Pollutants , Contract No. 68-01-3852, Task 12, VERSAR,"
Springfield, Virginia, February, 1979) suggests that
this assumption is not valid for many priority
pollutants.
3. 'Discharge levels are assumed to be BAT treatability
levels. Where - pollutants occur in an effluent in trace
amounts or at levels below the t r ea.tabil i ty numbers,
discharge levels will be lower than the treatability
.numbers; this is particularly true for the metals and
inorganics. A recent draft EPA study of discharge
levels in the Fox River (Fox River Dilution Study,
Contract No. 68-01-3852, Task 23, VERSAR,Springfield,
Virginia, July, 1979) shows current industry discharge
levels for metals to the Fox River, to be generally lower
than levels estimated using the BAT treatability levels.
4. Unless the industry category has been designated a dry
industry, BAT level treatment is assumed not to be zero
di scharge
5. Discharge flows are permit flows or design flows^ which
generally exceed actual discharge flows.
Projected instream concentrations are calculated for both
mean flows and low flows for the dilution study receiving
vs.terbodies. Stream concentrations are compared with proposed EPA
criteria for freshwater aquatic life or for human health,
vhichever is more stringent.
Due to the assumptions discussed above, the projected
Ir.stream toxics concentrations and criteria violations are subject
10 error. Therefore, the action recommendations are based not
24
-------
, APPENDIX' A (Continued)
only on the results of the dilution studies, but also on an
assessment of the fate of the priority pollutants (as it is
kr.ovn), and on an assessment of current priority pollutant levels
reported in the EPA's national water quality data base (STORE!)
and in the States' Section 305(b) water quality reports.
-------
APPENDIX B
The following is a list of EPA contacts who can provide further
information on the dilution studies, action recommendations, and ongoing
activities supporting the area-by-area approach to toxics control.
Tim Stuart, Chief
Monitoring Branch
KDSD
Tom Murray, Chief
Monitoring Analysis
Section, MDSD
Morrie Mabbitt, Chief
Monitoring Management
Section, MDSD
Ruth Wilbur
Environmental Scientist
Monitoring Analysis
Section, MDSD
General Information
General Information
Follow-up monitoring
activities
Methods, Approach and
Recommendations
FTS 426-7760
FTS 426-7778
FTS 426-7778
FTS'426T7774
J>hillip Taylor, Chief
"Environmental Analysis
Section, MDSD
STORET, IFD file
FTS 426-7760
26
------- |