MAHONING RIVER
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION STUDY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Eastern District Office
Fairview Park, Ohio
-------
MAHONING RIVER
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION STUDY
Prepared for the
OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 1977
(First Revision July 1977)
Gary A. Amendola
Donald R. Schregardus
Willie H. Harris
Mark E. Moloney
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DIVISION
EASTERN DISTRICT OFFICE
FAIR VIEW PARK, OHIO
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.1
SECTION PAGE '
I INTRODUCTION 1-1 to I-f
II FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS II-l to II-6
III RECOMMENDATIONS III-l
IV MAHONING RIVER BASIN DESCRIPTION IV-1 to IV-55
A. Geography IV-1
B. Geology IV-3
C. Meteorology IV-8
D. Land and Water Uses IV-15
E. Demography . IV-27
F. Economy IV-31
G. Hydrology IV-31
H. Mahoning River Stream Mileage IV-47
References IV-54
V SIGNIFICANT WASTEWATER DISCHARGERS V-l to V-46
A. Industrial Dischargers V-l
1. Copperweld Steel Corporation V-4
2. Republic Steel Corporation V-4
3. United States Steel Corporation V-8
4. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company -V-10
5. Ohio Edison Company V-l3
6. Other Industrial Dischargers V-l4
-------
B. Municipal Dischargers V-26
1. Warren V-26
2. Niies V-28
3. McDonald V-29
4. Girard V-29
5. Youngstown V-30
6. Campbell V-31
7. Struthers V-31
8. Lowellville V-32
9. Meander Creek V-32
10. Other Municipal Dischargers V-33
References V-^5
VI WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND HISTORICAL
WATER QUALITY VI-1 to VI-36
A. Ohio and Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards VI-1
B. Historical Water Quality VI-8
1. Temperature VI-9
2. Dissolved Oxygen VI-12
3. pH VI-15
4. Ammonia-N VI-17
5. Cyanide VI-17
6. Phenolics VI-20
7. Oil and Grease VI-20
8. Heavy Metals VI-22
9. Bacterial Conditions VI-25
10. Biological Conditions VI-25
11. Taste and Odor VI-31
References VI-35
VII WATER QUALITY MODEL VERIFICATION VII-1 to VII-155
A. Water Quality Model VII-2
1. River Basin Model VII-2
-------
2. River Temperature Models VII-7
a. QUAL-1 VII-8
b. Edinger-Geyer VII-9
B. USEPA Field Studies VII-10
1. Hydrology and Physical Characteristics VII-11
2. Travel Time .< VII-16
3. Reaction Rates VII-19
a. Carbonaceous BOD Reaction Rate VII-22
b. Nitrogenous BOD Reaction Rate VII-28
c. Total Cyanide Reaction Rate VII-31
d. Phenolics Reaction Rates VII-33
e. Dissolved Oxygen Reaeration VII-36
f. Sediment Oxygen Demand VII-38
4. Comprehensive Basin Surveys VII-41
a. February 11-14, 1975
Comprehensive Survey VII-42
1) Hydrology VII-42
2) Weather Conditions VII-46
3) Sampling Stations VII-48
a) Main Stem and Tributary Stations VII-48
b) Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant
Stations VII-51
c) Industrial Stations VII-51
4) Survey Results VII-53
a) Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen,
Nutrients, Suspended Solids VII-57
b) Total Dissolved Solids, Fluoride,
Sodium, Chloride, Suifate VII-60
c) Total Cyanide, Phenolics VII-61
d) Metals VII-62
b. 3uly 14-17, 1975
Comprehensive Survey VII-73
1) Hydrology VII-73
2) Weather Conditions VII-77
3) Sampling Stations VII-77
-------
a) Main Stem and Tributary Stations VII-77
b) Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant
Stations VII-77
c) Industrial Stations VII-80
if) Survey Results VII-80
a) Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen,
Nutrients, Suspended Solids VII-80
b) Total Dissolved Solids, Fluoride,
Sodium, Chloride, Sulfate VII-86
c) Total Cyanide and Phenolics VII-87
d) Metals VII-88
c. Mahoning River Sediment Chemistry
and Biota VII-102
C. Verification Results VII-1H
1. Tributary and Discharge Loadings VII-114
2. Temperature VII-114
3. Carbonaceous BOD VII-122
>4. Ammonia-N VII-126
5. Nitrite-Nitrogen VII-130
6. Dissolved Oxygen VII-133
7. Total Cyanide VII-137
8. Phenolics VII-143
9. Verification Summary VII-148
References VII-152
VIII WASTE LOAD ANALYSIS VIII-1 to VIII-107
A. Waste Load Allocation Policy VIII-2
B. Water Quality and Technology Based Discharge
Criteria VIII-3
C. Waste Treatment Alternatives VIII-7
1. Case 1 BPCTCA - Secondary Treatment VIII-10
2. Case 2a Proposed NPDES Permits (May 1976) VIII-10
3. Case 2b Proposed NPDES Permits with Thermal
Control at Ohio Edison VIII-11
-------
4. Case 3 Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards VIII-12
5. Case 4 Joint Treatment VIII-13
6. Case 5 BATE A - Nitrification VIII-15
D. Water Quality Analyses VIII-32
1. Water Quality Modeling of Waste Treatment
Alternatives • VIII-32
a. Flow Regime VIII-32
b. Temperature and Thermal Loadings VIII-32
c. Waste Loadings VIII-36
d. Stream Reaction Rates VIII-41
e. Tributary and Upstream Initial Conditions
f. Non-Point Source Considerations
2. Water Quality Response VIII-48
a. Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania
State Line VIH-48
1) February Conditions VIII-48
2) July Conditions VIII-54
3) Monthly Conditions VIII-58
b. Sensitivity Analysis VIII-66
1) Sensitivity of Temperature VIII-66
2) Sensitivity to Temperature VIII-67
3) Sensitivity to Velocity VIII-68
4) Sensitivity to Travel Time and
Reaction Rates VIII-69
5) Sensitivity to Flow VIII-70
6) Dissolved Oxygen Sensitivity VIII-74
7) Sensitivity Analysis Summary VIII-76
c. Water Quality in Ohio VIII-91
1) February Conditions VIII-91
2) July Conditions VIII-95
E. Discussion of Results VIII-99
References VIII-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
APPENDICES
A. Steel Industry Information
B. USEPA Water Quality Survey Data
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The lower Mahoning River remains today as one of the most severely
polluted streams in the nation. Although it is a small stream, averaging only
about 150 feet in width and four feet in depth, it receives tremendous use by
a steel manufacturing complex including nine separate plants, a power
generating station, and eight Ohio municipalities which use it as a receiving
water for sanitary wastes. The Mahoning River is also an interstate stream
flowing from northeast Ohio in a southeasterly direction into northwestern
Pennsylvania. At its confluence with the Shenango River in New Castle,
Pennsylvania, it forms the Beaver River, which discharges into the Ohio
River about twenty-five miles below Pittsburgh. The forty mile stretch of
the stream from Warren, Ohio to New Castle, Pennsylvania is studied herein.
In order to maintain current industrial uses, streamflow of the
Mahoning River downstream of Warren, Ohio is highly regulated for low flow
augmentation, temperature control, and flood control with an elaborate
system of reservoirs operated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. This
regulation results in higher summer minimum flows than winter minimum
flows, opposite that of most natural streams. Even with regulation, the
total flow of the Mahoning River may be used from two to four times during
the summer months and over five times during periods of winter minimum
flow. It is this continual use and re-use and, more significantly, overall lack
of water pollution control by basin dischargers that render the stream unfit
for aquatic life and recreational uses, both within Ohio and in Pennsylvania.
Pollution in the stream is characterized by extremely high temperatures,
low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, high levels of ammonia-N, cyanide,
phenolics, and metals, severe bacterial contamination, and gross amounts of
floating oil. Only pollution tolerant benthic organisms populate the lower
reaches of the stream. Needless to say, the lower Mahoning River in Ohio
does not support a well-balanced, native fish population.
-------
With abundant recreational areas in the upper portions of the basin and
with the economy of the area heavily dependent upon the stream, valley
residents have not looked upon the Mahoning River for recreational uses, but
rather as an important economic resource to be used to its utmost capacity.
Unfortunately, existing uses of the stream in Ohio are not consistent with
Pennsylvania's intended uses of recreation and aquatic life and existing uses
of the Beaver River as a public water supply. Efforts by state and federal
regulatory agencies to implement a pollution abatement program in the
Mahoning Valley have been clouded by controversy for over twenty-five
years.
At this writing, a viable water pollution abatement plan for the
Mahoning Valley has not yet been implemented. Ohio water quality
standards are again being revised and proposed National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits of May 1976 for the major municipal
and industrial dischargers have been appealed by the dischargers, the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the Western Reserve Economic
Development Agency. These proposed NPDES permits were based upon the
preliminary findings of this analysis and were designed to begin implementa-
tion of USEPA Administrator Train's decision of March 1976 to provide
economic relief to the Mahoning Valley steel industry from the full impact
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-
500).
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act establishes a continuous
planning process for water quality improvement to be implemented by the
states on a river basin scale (Section 303(e)); an areawide planning process to
be implemented within the framework of the basin plans (Section 208); and,
a NPDES permit program to regulate municipal and industrial wastewater
discharges by means of nationwide technology-based effluent limitations and
other discharge criteria necessary to achieve water quality objectives
(Section 402). Ideally, NPDES permits should be consistent with and
implement the results of the planning processes. This study was completed
at the request of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to estbalish the
technical basis for a Section 303(e) plan.
The major purpose of this report is to establish cost effective waste
load allocations for significant Ohio municipal and industrial dischargers to
-------
achieve federally approved Pennsylvania water quality standards. The
results can, and have, been used for Section 208 planning purposes,
preparation of proposed NPDES permits, and development of appropriate
water quality standards for the Ohio portion of the stream.
Developing waste discharge allocations for the Mahoning River is a
complex task involving questions of equity, economics, waste treatment
technology, mathematical water quality simulation, and a high degree of
engineering judgment. Prior to assigning allowable discharge loadings to
each discharger, a considerable amount of detailed information about the
river system had to be developed. A review of the complex hydrology of the
system was necessary. The location of each significant discharger and the
amounts of wastes discharged were quantified. The relation of existing
discharges and possible changes in discharges to instream water quality were
established. Appropriate treatment technologies were evaluated in terms of
applicability to each discharger and available estimated capital cost
information was assembled. Finally, the allocations were established for
several treatment technologies and were evaluated in terms of the water
quality objectives.
In completing each of the above tasks an effort was made to use the
best information available. Where existing information was either lacking or
inadequate, substantial resources were expended to provide the necessary
data. Although the mathematical water quality models employed herein
were validated within reasonable limits, the results obtained were not
mechanically transferred into conclusions and recommendations, but were
evaluated in terms of the strengths and weaknesses of the entire analysis
and the feasibility of the treatment technology considered, then formulated
into an implementable water quality improvement plan.
Based upon the water quality analysis, the minimum level of waste
treatment for Ohio dischargers found to be consistent with Pennsylvania
water quality standards includes regionalization and secondary treatment
plus nitrification for municipal sewage treatment plants; BATEA or closed
dirty water quench systems for coke plants; recycle of blast furnace process
waters with discharge of minimal blowdown to the stream; BPCTCA or
equivalent treatment for steelmaking, hot forming, cold rolling, and
finishing operations at the steel mills; and, offstream cooling and recycle of
-------
condenser cooling water at the Ohio Edison power plant. Estimated
municipal capital costs associated with the above levels of treatment are
about 120 million dollars, while estimated industrial capital costs range from
about 104 to 128 million dollars, depending upon the type of coke plant
treatment provided.
The report is presented in eight sections and separate appendices:
Section I is the introduction; Sections II and III present conclusions and
recommendations, respectively; the Mahoning River basin is described in
Section IV with emphasis on the complicated hydrology of the stream;
Section V presents background information and effluent data for the major
industrial and municipal dischargers; a listing of applicable Ohio and
Pennsylvania water quality standards is presented in Section VI with a
historical water quality review; the mathematical water quality models
employed in the waste load analysis, the results of USEPA field studies that
were necessary to obtain sufficient data to use the water quality models,
and the results of model verification studies are presented in Section VII;
and, Section VIII presents the waste load allocation policy employed,
throughout the analysis, six waste water treatment alternatives, and the
water quality response and estimated capital costs associated with each
alternative.
-------
SECTION I I
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Hydrology
1. The lower Mahoning River is highly regulated by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers for flood control, low flow augmentation, and temperature
control, resulting in summer minimum regulated flows greater than winter
minimum regulated flows. Using the Mahoning River minimum regulated
flow schedules for water quality design purposes does not provide the safety
inherent in using the annual minimum consecutive seven day flow with a ten
year recurrence interval used for design purposes for most natural streams
in Ohio. Mahoning River streamflow at the minimum regulated schedules
may occur as much as twenty percent of the time on an annual basis.
2. Based upon information provided by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
significant increases of minimum regulated schedules are not possible with
existing uses of the reservoir system in the Mahoning River Basin.
Increasing streamflow to minimize or eliminate point source waste treat-
ment requirements is not feasible as the drainage area of the basin is not
capable of supporting significantly higher sustained flows.
B. Water Quality
1. With the exception of improved pH levels, stream quality of the lower
Mahoning River has not appreciably improved since the early 1950's.
Excessive water temperatures, minimal dissolved oxygen concentrations,
gross amounts of floating oil, severe bacterial contamination, and high levels
of ammonia-N, total cyanide, phenolics, and metals are still prevalent.
-------
2. Existing Ohio and Pennsylvania water quality standards for the lower
Mahoning River have been routinely violated since they were adopted in
1972 and 1971, respectively.
3. The level of aquatic life in the stream has not improved from 1965 to
1975 as measured by the diversity and numbers of benthic organisms.
C. Water Quality Management Planning
1. The mathematical water quality model RIBAM, as modified by USEPA,
and an Edinger-Geyer temperature simulation model have been validated for
the lower Mahoning River system. Given the complexity of the system in
terms of the altered flow regime, the number of significant point sources,
and existing severely polluted conditions, efforts to validate the mathe-
matical models for water quality management planning were successful.
2. At this writing, the data base assembled for the lower Mahoning River
for determining mathematical model input parameters is the most extensive,
detailed, and complete data set for any river system in Ohio.
3. Except for the sensitivities of computed values of temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and ammonia-N to changes in flow, and the sensitivity of
computed dissolved oxygen values to changes in temperature, water quality
model computations for the lower Mahoning River are not overly sensitive to
anticipated ranges of input parameters supplied to the mathematical models.
Mahoning River quality in Ohio, and in Pennsylvania, is primarily a function
of municipal and industrial waste discharges in Ohio.
4. The waste load allocation analysis was completed with no explicit
safety factors for achieving Pennsylvania water quality standards. For the
most part, these standards are expressed as values not to be exceeded at any
time. Monthly average vs. daily maximum discharge loadings for municipal
and industrial sources were employed, and, as noted above, frequently
-------
occuring water quality design flows were included. Allowances for
expansion in steel production in the Mahoning Valley were not made.
Industrial modernization, expansion, or growth must incorporate new source
performance discharge standards which will result in minimal impacts in
stream quality, and will most likely occur as existing production facilities
with high discharges of pollution are replaced.
5. Water quality models cannot be used exclusively to develop a
comprehensive water quality management plan for the Mahoning River.
Important constituents having adverse impacts on stream quality including
suspended solids, oil and grease, fluoride, certain nutrients, and metals must
be evaluated separately. For some constituents, rough quantitative
assessments of probable impacts on stream quality were made. For others
only qualitative judgments could be considered; and, for oil and grease, the
level of analysis was severely hampered by the very nature of oil and grease,
the absence of any reasonably specific applicable criteria, and, the difficulty
of relating waste discharges to such criteria.
D. Waste Treatment Technology to Achieve Pennsylvania Water Quality
Standards.
1. The most cost effective method of achieving Pennsylvania water
quality standards for the Mahoning River within the framework of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 was found to be
the following (Case 3, Tables VIII-3 and VIII-7):
a. Regionalization of municipal sewerage systems with secondary treat-
ment plus nitrification (Ammonia-N removal). Estimated capital and annual
operating costs (1976 dollars) for the eight municipalities included in this
analysis are 120 and 4.2 million dollars, respectively, as opposed to 96 and
3.3 million dollars, respectively, for conventional secondary treatment. Of
the total capital costs, 18 million dollars are for interceptor projects
necessary regardless of treatment plant design. About 0.4 million dollars of
the annual operating costs are associated with interceptor systems.
b. Off stream cooling and recycle of condenser cooling water at the Ohio
Edison-Niles Steam Electric Generating Station. Estimated capital costs
-------
associated with this project are 8 million dollars (1976 dollars).
c. Depending upon the level of coke plant treatment provided, total
capital costs of 96.2 to 120.3 million dollars are estimated for the steel
industry (1975-1976 dollars). Costs associated with each process operation
are summarized below:
1) Coke plants
Closed dirty water quench systems (about 1.8 million dollars), or,
depending upon air pollution considerations, BATEA (25.9 million dollars).
2) Blast Furnaces
Recycle of gas wash water, direct contact gas cooling water, and
miscellaneous contaminated streams with minimal blowdown to the river
(26.6 million dollars). Depending upon the performance of recycle systems
at the three most downstream blast furnace operations, blowdown treatment
may be required (up to 3.6 million dollars assuming BATEA costs for
blowdown treatment).
3) Hot Forming
Treatment of process waste water to 30 mg/1 suspended solids and
10 mg/1 oil and grease (49.5 million dollars). There is considerable
uncertainty that this level of treatment for oil and grease (or BPCTCA
(70.0 million dollars)) is sufficient to achieve designated stream uses.
Estimated hot forming BATEA costs are 102.0 million dollars.
'f) Cold Rolling, Finishing
Treatment to BPCTCA or equivalent (12.8 million dollars).
5) Miscellaneous
Sanitary waste improvements (1.9 million dollars).
2. The treatment technology outlined above represents the minimum
basic program necessary to achieve Pennsylvania water quality standards.
Relatively minor adjustments of industrial final effluent limitations for
ammonia-N, total cyanide, and phenolics may be necessary after treatment
controls are installed. However, selection of the basic minimum waste
treatment technology at this time is not affected by these minor
adjustments or by the sensitivity of water quality model computations.
3. Estimated capital costs for the Mahoning Valley steel industry to
-------
occuring water quality design flows were included. Allowances for
expansion in steel production in the Mahoning Valley were not made.
Industrial modernization, expansion, or growth must incorporate new source
performance discharge standards which will result in minimal impacts in
stream quality, and will most likely occur as existing production facilities
with high discharges of pollution are replaced.
5. Water quality models cannot be used exclusively to develop a
comprehensive water quality management plan for the Mahoning River.
Important constituents having adverse impacts on stream quality including
suspended solids, oil and grease, fluoride, certain nutrients, and metals must
be evaluated separately. For some constituents, rough quantitative
assessments of probable impacts on stream quality were made. For others
only qualitative judgments could be considered; and, for oil and grease, the
level of analysis was severely hampered by the very nature of oil and grease,
the absence of any reasonably specific applicable criteria, and, the difficulty
of relating waste discharges to such criteria.
D. Waste Treatment Technology to Achieve Pennsylvania Water Quality
Standards.
1. The most cost effective method of achieving Pennsylvania water
quality standards for the Mahoning River within the framework of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 was found to be
the following:
a. Regionalization of municipal sewerage systems with secondary treat-
ment plus nitrification (Ammonia-N removal). Estimated capital and annual
operating costs (1976 dollars) for the eight municipalities included in this
analysis are 120 and 4.2 million dollars, respectively, as opposed to 96 and
3.3 million dollars, respectively, for conventional secondary treatment. Of
the total capital costs, 18 million dollars are for interceptor projects
necessary regardless of treatment plant design. About 0.4 million dollars of
the annual operating costs are associated with interceptor systems. -
b. Offstream cooling and recycle of condenser cooling water at the Ohio
Edison-Niles Steam Electric Generating Station. Estimated capital costs
-------
associated with this project are 8 million dollars (1976 dollars).
c. Depending upon the level of coke plant treatment provided, total
capital costs of 96.2 to 120.3 million dollars are estimated for the steel
industry (1975-1976 dollars). Costs associated with each process operation
are summarized below:
1) Coke plants
Closed dirty water quench systems (about 1.8 million dollars), or,
depending upon air pollution considerations, BATEA (25.9 million dollars).
2) Blast Furnaces
Recycle of gas wash water, direct contact gas cooling water, and
miscellaneous contaminated streams with minimal blowdown to the river
(26.6 million dollars). Depending upon the performance of recycle systems
at the three most downstream blast furnace operations, blowdown treatment
may be required (up to 3.6 million dollars assuming BATEA costs for
blowdown treatment).
3) Hot Forming
Treatment of process waste water to 30 mg/1 suspended solids and
10 mg/1 oil and grease (49.5 million dollars). There is considerable
uncertainty that this level of treatment for oil and grease (or BPCTCA
(70.0 million dollars)) is sufficient to achieve designated stream uses.
Estimated hot forming BATEA costs are 102.0 million dollars.
4) Cold Rolling, Finishing
Treatment to BPCTCA or equivalent (12.8 million dollars).
5) Miscellaneous
Sanitary waste improvements (1.9 million dollars).
2. The treatment technology outlined above represents the minimum
basic program necessary to achieve Pennsylvania water quality standards.
Relatively minor adjustments of industrial final effluent limitations for
ammonia-N, total cyanide, and phenolics may be necessary after treatment
controls are installed. However, selection of the basic minimum waste
treatment technology at this time is not affected by these minor
adjustments or by the sensitivity of water quality model computations.
3. Estimated capital costs for the Mahoning Valley steel industry to
-------
achieve Pennsylvania water quality standards (96.2 to 120.3 million dollars),
are significantly less than estimated capital costs for industry-wide
BPCTCA (147.4 million dollars) and industry-wide BATEA (189.1 million
dollars).
E. Prospects for Stream Recovery
1. Numerical physical and chemical Pennsylvania water quality standards
will be achieved with the waste treatment alternative outlined above. There
is uncertainty that the Ohio and Pennsylvania general criteria for oil and
grease will be achieved.
2. Taste and odor problems at the Beaver Falls water supply resulting
from municipal and industrial discharges in Ohio should be abated. However,
taste and odor problems associated with reservoir operations in the Beaver
River Basin will continue to occur.
3. Poor sediment quality in the Mahoning River is likely to persist for
some time after gross point source discharges are abated. During natural
cleansing of these sediments to levels consistent with then current
discharges, background water quality, and residual non-point source loadings,
adverse effects upon overlying water quality will be minimal.
4. After treatment controls are installed and discharges of toxic
substances are reduced, instream levels of phosphorus, and carbonaceous and
nitrogenous materials, will be sufficient to result in algal growth. The
extent to which nuisance conditions will occur is difficult to predict.
Several factors influencing algal growth, including the high natural turbidity
of the Mahoning River, reduction of extreme temperatures, and the
establishment of a foraging fish population, may tend to minimize possible
nuisance conditions.
5. Violations of Pennsylvania dissolved oxygen standards resulting from
non-point source loadings and combined sewer overflows induced by major
-------
precipitation events are uniikely. Such effects in the Ohio portion of the
stream will be more severe.
6. After treatment controls are installed, the Mahoning River in
Pennsylvania will be capable of supporting a balanced warm water fishery.
Except for the most congested industrial areas just downstream of Warren
and Youngstown where the entire stream is a mixing zone for waste
discharges, the Ohio portion of the stream should also support a varied
aquatic population. Operation and maintenance of pollution control
facilities installed by dischargers located close to the Ohio-Pennsylvania
state line will have a major bearing on water quality in Pennsylvania.
-------
SECTION III
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Engineering and construction of municipal and industrial water
pollution control facilities consistent with Conclusion D. 1 be implemented
simultaneously through appropriate mechanisms provided by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act and other Ohio EPA programs.
2. Additional comprehensive water quality and discharge surveys of the
lower Mahoning River should not be considered until point source discharge
controls are installed and operating. Existing long term ambient monitoring
programs should be continued to determine progress towards achieving
desired water quality objectives.
3. The design of municipal sewage treatment plants should consider
supplemental sludge handling capability in the event phosphorus controls are
necessary to minimize algal growth in the stream.
-------
-------
SECTION IV
MAHONING RIVER BASIN DESCRIPTION
The Mahoning River Basin is described below in terms of geography,
geology, meteorology, land and water uses, demography, economy, and
hydrology. By design, the information and data presented are of a general
nature for the purpose of providing background information only. Additional
detailed information concerning the description of the basin can be found in
appropriate listed references. Hydrologic information is limited primarily to
the lower Mahoning River downstream of Leavittsburg, Ohio.
A. Geography *
The Mahoning River is an interstate stream originating in northeastern
Ohio flowing 96 miles in a southeasterly direction before crossing the Ohio-
Pennsylvania State line near Lowellville, Ohio (Figure IV-1). The river flows
another 12 miles in Pennsylvania prior to its confluence with the Shenango
River at New Castle, Pennsylvania, forming the Beaver River. The Beaver
River flows for about 21 miles in Pennsylvania to the Ohio River at mile
point 942.4 (from its mouth) which is approximately 13 miles upstream of
where the Ohio River crosses the Pennsylvania State line.
Total drainage area of the Mahoning River Basin is 1140 square miles,
1078 of which are in Ohio and 62 in Pennsylvania. Principal tributaries are
the West Branch of the Mahoning, Eagle Creek, Mosquito Creek, Meander
Creek and Mill Creek. The average stream gradient of the Mahoning River
is 2.2 feet per mile from Pricetown to Leavittsburg and 2.6 feet per mile
from Leavittsburg to Lowellville.
-------
FIGURE 12-1
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
New Castle
-------
The Mahoning River Basin is located in the Southern New York section
of the Appalachian Plateau Province, in the Appalachian Highlands
physiographic division (Figure IV-2). The southern New York section is a
mature glaciated plateau of moderate relief.
B. Geology3' *
Figures IV-3 through IV-5 illustrate generalized geologic cross-sections
at various locations within the Mahoning Basin. The rocks exposed in the
basin dip gently toward the south, so that the formations crop out in east-
west belts with successively younger formations toward the south. The
Berea sandstone of Mississippian age occurs at the surface north of Warren.
For several miles south of Warren, interbedded shales and sandstones of
Mississippian age prevail at or near the surface. The surface of the southern
portion of the Mahoning River Basin is underlain by the Pottsville and
Allegheny rocks of Pennsylvanian age. Several of the sandstones and
conglomerates are water bearing but the Pennsylvania strata are
predominantly shale and clay with thin beds of coal and limestone. As a
result, the effect of groundwater storage on streamflow is probably
negligible.
Of relatively greater importance, from the hydrologic standpoint, is
the covering of glacial drift. This is erratic in thickness and of variable
character. The drift is mostly of late Wisconsin age, largely till, and
generally is thin, averaging about 25 feet in thickness. Except in the buried
valleys there is little water storage in the glacial deposits, and in these
valleys the materials are generally clay and fine sand, with limited storage
and permeability. The western part of the area has thicker drift, associated
with the end moraines.
There is a buried valley with drift 200 feet thick, extending south to
north across Portage County, and a similar one extending to the northward
in the present Mahoning-Grand River valley. The glaciers blocked northward
flowing streams, and filled the ancient valleys with drift, rearranging the
drainage pattern, and causing such reversals in direction as the bend in the
Mahoning River near Warren. Generally, the most abundant water supplies
-------
FIGURE 1E-2
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
PHYSIOGRAPHIC SECTIONS OF OHIO
10 40 60
SOURCE' Norlhtoit OMo Wof«r Plan, 1972
LEGEND
I I Till Plains
[ ]
Lake Plains
C>V,j-'_1 Blueqrass Region
I 'I
| \ Glaciated Plateau
fciff.y-j Unglaciated Plateau
-------
FIGURE nr-3
GENERALIZED CROSS SECTION SHOWING THE GEOLOGY
OF THE MIDDLE MAHONING RIVER BASIN
FEET
IOO
• I-
tr.
SCALE
HORIZONTAL
J
I
2 MILES
V77A TILL
\OfJ»\ GRAVEL
SAND
SANDS
SHALE
SOURCE: Ohio Water Plon ' Inventory, I960
-------
FIGURE IE-4
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A*
I20O
LLJ
LU
1100
O
CD
1000
2
O
I-
LU
111
900
SOURCE' Ohio Wat«r Plan Inventory, I960
-------
FIGURE I3Z-5
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION, NORTH TO SOUTH
ACROSS THE UPPER MAHONING RIVER BASIN
/
/
/
^
\
\\
\
\
\
\
\
\
°o°
oa
°0
° 0
o«
00
CLAY
SAND
GRAVEL
SANDSTONE
SHALE
SCALE
MILES
SOURCE! Ohio Water Plan Inventory, I960
-------
are in the underlying rocks, indicating that there is little natural
groundwater storage affecting streamflows (Figure IV-6).
The groundwater of the basin is generally of poor quality due to local
geological conditions. Relatively few groundwater supplies have been
developed in the basin. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources reports
that troublesome amounts of iron and manganese are present in most wells,
many of which also contain objectionable amounts of dissolved solids and
hardness. Water from most wells in the area has a pH greater than 7.0.
Temperature of underground water in the area remains essentially constant
throughout the year; however, wells that induce infiltration from the
Mahoning River below Youngstown yield water with temperatures
considerably higher than the average of 51-54 F.
As mentioned previously, the soils in the Mahoning River Basin
developed generally from late Wisconsin till deposited on sandstone and
shale. As is the case for areas that have experienced glaciation, the soils of
the basin are varied with many abrupt changes. Table IV-1 presents
generalized information on soil features and limitations for several land uses
by major soils within association groups shown in Figure IV-7. The
Mahoning, Ellsworth, Remsen, and Canadea soils are dominated by a siity
surface layer with fine textured, clayey subsoil below 0 to 12 inches deep.
These soils have a rapid runoff rate and are highly erosive. The Wadsworth,
Rittman, Canfield, Ravenna, Conneaut, Chili, Loudonville, Weikert and
Platea soils have a moderate erodibility factor. The restrictive subsoil layer
is deeper, resulting in a better water holding capacity.
C. Meteorology^' 6
The climate of the Mahoning River Basin is characteristic of northern
Ohio. The mean annual air temperature is approximately 50°F with
maximum daily temperatures averaging 83°F during July and minimum daily
temperatures averaging 28°F during January. Figure IV-8 is an isohyetal map
of the basin depicting annual mean precipitation in inches; average rainfall
across the basin is approximately 36.5 inches. Average annual snowfall is
approximately 38 inches. The growing season for the basin averages
between 140 and 150 days. Table IV-2 presents mean air temperatures,
-------
FIGURE T2.-6
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
UNDERGROUND WATER RESOURCES
GROUND WATER YIELDS
< 5 GPM
| | 5-25 GPM
25-100 GPM
100-500 GPM
> 500 GPM
SOURCE : Northeast Ohio Water -Plan, 1972
-------
TABLE IV - 1
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL ASSOCIATIONS
Soil
Association
Mahoning
Ellsworth
Mahoning
Remsen
Wadsworth
Rittman
Canfield
Ravenna
Conneaut
Painesville
Canadea
Sebring
Slope
Range
nearly level
to strongly
sloping
nearly level
to gently
sloping
nearly level
to sloping
nearly level
to sloping
nearly level
to gently
sloping
nearly level
Septic Tank
Leach,
Fields
wetness,
slow
permeability
wetness,
slow
permeability
wetness,
slow
permeability
wetness,
slow
permeability
wetness
wetness,
slow
permeability
Agriculture
and
Landscaping
wetness,
poor tilth,
clayey
erosion
wetness,
poor tilth,
clayey,
erosion
wetness,
erosion
temporary
wetness
temporary
wetness
wetness,
poor tilth,
clayey
Soil Features
and/or Limitations
- Ponds and
Recreation Lakes
wetness,
temporary
wetness
wetness,
temporary
wetness
wetness,
temporary
wetness
wetness,
temporary
wetness
wetness ,
temporary
wetness
wetness
few
limitations,
clayey,
subject to
cracking
few
limitations,
clayey,
subject to
cracking
few
limitations
few
limitations
moderate
seepage
moderate
seepage
for Selected Uses
Roads and
Parking
Lots
wetness,
frost
heave
wetness,
frost
heave ,
high
shrink-swell
wetness
temporary
wetness,
frost heave
temporary
wetness,
frost heave
wetness,
poor
stability,
frost heave
Pipelines
and Sewers
seasonal high
water table
seasonal high
water table,
high
shrink-swell
seasonal high
water table
seasonal high
water table,
seepage above
fragipan
seasonal high
water table
seasonal high
water table
-------
TABLE IV- 1 (Continued)
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOIL ASSOCIATION
Soil
Association
Chili
Wheeling
(Muck)
Colonie-
Conotton
Elnora
Loudonville
Weikert
Platea
Sheffield
Slope
Range
nearly level
to strongly
sloping
gently
sloping
sloping to
very steep
level to
sloping
Septic Tank
Leach,
Fields
few
limitations,
possible ground
water
contamination
(muck) is
severe
few
limitations,
possible ground
water
contamination
shallow to
bedrock,
steep slope
wetness,
slow
permeability
Agriculture
and
Landscaping
seasonal
drouthiness,
wind erosion
on farmed
sandy,
drouthy
shallow to
bedrock,
some steep
slope
wetness
Soil Features and/or
Recreation
few
limitations
except on muck
few
limitations
steep
slopes
wetness,
temporary
wetness
Limitations
Ponds and
Lakes
high
seepage
rate
high
seepage
rate
shallow to
bedrock
few
limitations
for Selected Uses
Roads and
Parking
Lots
few
limitations
except very
low stability
and wetness
on muck
few
limitations
shallow to
bedrock
steep slopes
wetness
Pipelines
and Sewers
few
limitations
on Chili and
Wheeling,
high water
table in
muck
possible
caving
bedrock at
2 to 4 feet,
stony
seasonal high
water table
Applies to homes, light industrial and commercial buildings of less than four stories with basements.
Soils of slow permeability are defined by percolation rates of 0.063-0.200 inches per hour.
2
Applies to athletic fields, campsites, and picnic areas.
Source: Prepared as part of the Ohio Cooperative Soil Survey by Division of Lands and Soils. Ohio Department of Natural Resources;
U. S. Soil Conservation Service; and the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.
-------
FIGURE IE-7
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
SOIL ASSOCIATION AND ERODIBILITY
LEGEND
LJ J
Serious Erosion Probobilify
Soil Associotion
I. Mohoning-Ellsworth
2. Mahoning- Remsen
e.Canodea-Sebring
Moderate Erosion Probability
Soil Association
3. Wadsworth-Rittmon
4. Canfield-Rauenna
5. Conneaut-(Puinesville)
7. Chili-Wheeling-Muck
9. Loudorwi lie- Weikert
10. Platea-Sheff ield
SOURCE
Division of Land and Soils,
Ohio Departmentof Natural Resource
-------
FIGURE IZ-8
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
ISOHYETAL MAP
AVG. ANNUAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES
SOURCE^ Northeast Ohio Water Plan, 1972
-------
TABLE IV - 2
CLIMATIC DATA FOR NORTHEAST OHIO
Mean Temperature, ( F)
Area
Cleveland
Painesville
Akron
Chardon
Hiram
Youngstown
Ravenna
Warren
Canfield
Annual
49
49
49
48
48
48
49
50
49
.9
.9
.7
.9
.8
.7
.2
.3
.2
3uly
72.2
71.0
72.4
70.6
71.2
70.6
70.6
72.1
70.8
January
27.5
28.
27.
26.
26.
26.
27.
27.
27.
2
0
2
1
0
1
8
0
Average Dates of
Killing Frost
First
Nov.
Nov.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Sept.
Sept.
Sept.
2
4
22
17
15
4
25
24
28
Last
Apr.
Apr.
Apr.
May
May
May
May
May
May
21
24
30
3
2
12
14
11
11
Average Length
of Growing
Season (Days)
195
193
173
167
165
145
133
148
142
Latitude
41°24' N
41°45' N
40°55' N
41°35' N
41°19' N
41°16' N
41°10' N
41°12' N
41°01' N
Reference:
Climate Guide for Selected Locations in Ohio, Division of Water, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Climatological Summary.
-------
average dates of killing frost and the average length of the growing season
for selected locations in the basin and other locations in northeast Ohio.
D. Land and Water Uses
Table IV-3 presents a summary of land use within the seven Ohio
counties included in the Mahoning River Basin. As shown in Table IV-4, only
small portions of Ashtabula, Columbiana, Geauga, and Stark counties are
actually in the basin. Land uses in the basin associated with portions of
these counties are primarily agricultural and residential. As shown in Table
IV-3, approximately 35 percent of the land within the basin is devoted to
cropland, 25 percent to forest and woodland, 17 percent to urban and
developed areas, and 17 percent to various farm and nonfarm uses. Less
than 0.5 percent of the basin is covered by water.
The Mahoning River Valley from Warren, in the northwest portion of
the basin, to Lowellville near the Pennsylvania line, is characterized as a
large urbanized area, comprising industrial, residential and commercial uses.
On the 36 miles of river frontage from Newton Falls to the Pennsylvania line
approximately ten miles are in open and undeveloped land. Eight miles of
this open land are evident from Newton Falls to Warren and two miles near
Lowellville. The reach in Pennsylvania from the State line to New Castle is
mostly undeveloped, although some urban development extends into the
Mahoning Valley of Pennsylvania from the outskirts of New Castle.
Approximately five miles of river frontage in the Mahoning River
Valley is in intensive urban development with a mix of residential,
commercial and industrial uses evident as the river pases southeast through
Warren, Niles, McDonald and Girard in Trumbuil County. The stretch from
lower Warren to Niles is characterized by scenic, undeveloped river banks.
Nearly 60 percent, or about 21 miles, of river front from Newton Falls to
the Pennsylvania line is in heavy industrial use that includes several major
steel mills.
Major uses of the basin's water resources are municipal, industrial, and
recreational. Other uses include livestock watering, fish and wildlife
propagation, and disposal of municipal and industrial wastes. Flow
augmentation is practiced on the Mahoning River by the U. S. Army Corps of
-------
TABLE IV - 3
MAHONING RIVER BASIN PLANNING AREA
1967
LAND USE
(ACRES)
Area of County
Urban and
Developed Area
Water Area
Cropland
Pasture and
Range
Forest and
Woodland
Other Land -
in Farm
Not in Farm
Federal Non-
Cropland
Ashtabula
County
451,340
57,959
1,100
142,954
24,310
135,674
48,412
40,931
0
% of
Total
12.8
0.2
31.7
5.4
30.1
10.7
9.1
0.0
Columbiana
County
342,103
43,804
803
142,803
52,828
88,768
6,600
6,497
0
% of
Total
12.8
0.2
41.7
15.4
25.9
1.9
1.9
0.0
Geauga
County
259,080
31,825
1,258
80,591
19,057
100,663
14,465
11,211
10
% of
Total
12.3
0.5
31.1
7.4
38.9
5.6
4.3
< 0.1
Mahoning
County
268,160
77,326
754
80,026
15.485
31,026
16,048
46,779
716
% of
Total
28.8
0.3
29.8
5.8
11.6
6.0
17.4
0.3
Portage
County
319,320
36,206
1,332
115,622
32,053
89,327
3,990
17,902
22,888
% of
Total
11.3
0.4
36.2
10.0
28.0
1.2
5.6
7.2
Stark
County
366,720
86,458
147
152,777
23,157
67,120
10,000
25,705
1,356
% of
Total
23.6
< 0.1
41.7
6.3
18.3
2.7
7.0
0.4
Trumbull
County
391,145
60,638
.
2,000
105,583
32,127
86,224
30,719
64,615
9,239
% of
Total
15.5
0.5
27.0
8.2
22.0
7.9
16.5
2.4
SOURCE: Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Needs Inventory, the Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Needs Committee, 1971.
-------
TABLE IV - 4
OHIO COUNTIES IN THE MAHONING RIVER BASIN
County
Ashtabula
Columbiana
Geauga
Mahoning
Portage
Stark
Trumbull
Total
Area
(sq. mi.)
709
535
409
425
505
579
641
Portion in
Area
(sq. mi.)
113*
56
6
352*
276
57
496*
Basin
Percent
of County
16
10
1.5
84
55
10
78
SOURCE: Water Inventory of the Mahoning and Grand River Basins and
adjacent areas in Ohio, Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Water, April 1961.
* Includes 285 square miles drained into Pennsylvania by the Shenango River
and its tributaries.
-------
Engineers to provide adequate cooling water for industry, for flood
protection, and for recreational use.
Table IV-5 presents the average water consumption of the five largest
industrial water users within the basin. With the exception of municipal
water used for boiler operation and sanitary service, these facilities use the
Mahoning River as their major water source. Total daily usage during
normal production amounts to over 800 million gallons. Based upon
minimum regulated streamflows at Youngstown for July (480 cfs) and
January (225 cfs), the total flow of_the river is used about 2.6 times during
the summer and as much as 5.6 times during winter low flow periods. Since
the Mahoning River is also a very shallow stream, several low head dams
were constructed at various strategic points downstream of Leavittsburg to
provide adequate depth for industrial intakes. Some of the smaller industrial
water users on the Mahoning are Benada Aluminum Products Co., General
Electric - Mahoning and Niles Glass Plants, Fitzsimmons Steel Company,
Jones & Laughlin Steel, Reactive Metals Inc., Packard Electric Division -
CMC, and the Wilkoff Company. Most of these dischargers obtain water
from various municipalities and do not use surface water directly. Industrial
water demand projections, by county, through the year 2020 are presented in
Table IV-6A.
Current public water supplies within the basin are listed in Table IV-7
with projected demands of the major systems through the year 2020
presented in Table IV-8. Table IV-7 shows that approximately 70 mgd were
processed by local water treatment plants for municipal usage in 1974.
Because of its severely polluted condition, the main stem of the Mahoning
River below Warren has never been used for potable water supply. However,
the Beaver River is used by the town of Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania as its
potable water supply. Tables IV-6B and IV-9A and B present projected rural
and suburban domestic water demand, projected livestock water demand and
projected crop irrigation water demand.
Major recreational areas in the basin, those 50 acres or larger in area,
are located on Figure IV-9, which is keyed to Table IV-10 providing details
for specific areas. Table IV-10 shows that the reservoir system in the
Mahoning River Basin provides considerable recreational opportunities,
however, the Lower Mahoning River itself is generally not used for
-------
TABLE IV - 5
MAJOR INDUSTRIAL WATER CONSUMPTION
LOWER MAHONING RIVER BASIN
Copper weld Steel Corporation
Steel Bar Division
Ohio Edison Company
Niles Electric Steam
Generating Plant
Republic Steel Corporation
Warren Plant
Niles Plant
Youngstown Plant
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company
Brier Hill Works
Campbell Works
Struthers Division
U. S. Steel Corporation
McDonald Mills
Ohio Works
Flow (mgd) Source
34.6 Mahoning River
209.5 Mahoning River
60.1
1.7
73.3
55.6
232.8
22.9
43.0
78.8
Mahoning River
Mosquito Creek
Mahoning River
Mahoning River
Mahoning River
TOTAL
812.3
SOURCES: Industrial Discharge Permit Applications (1971 - 1973)
-------
TABLE IV - 6 A
MAHONING RIVER BASIN PLANNING AREA
INDUSTRIAL
WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
County
Ashtabula
Columbiana
Mahoning
Portage
Stark
Trumbull
TOTAL
RURAL AND
1930
184.6
2.2
437.6
4.0
9.8
120.8
759.0
SUBURBAN
1990
158.8
2.6
416.1
4.2
9.6
123.9
715.2
TABLE
2000
117.0
3.0
310.5
5.2
9.0
126.8
571.5
IV- 6 B
(MGD)
2010
103.6
3.6
246.4
6.1
9.6
130.3
499.6
DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
IN MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
County
Ashtabula
Columbiana
Mahoning .
Portage
Stark
Trumbull
TOTAL
1980
1.80
2.75
3.46
5.02
0.60
2.43
16.06
1990
1.84
2.80
3.07
5.02
0.69
2.48
15.90
2000
1.99
3.02
2.85
5.32
0.76
2.68
16.62
(MGD)
2010
2.02
3.08
2.44
5.32
0.77
2.73
16.36
2020
81.9
4.0
220.7
6.6
10.3
129.9
453.4
PROJECTIONS*
2020
2.17
3.31
2.15
5.61
0.83
2.93
17.00
* Principally individual sources of well water withdrawal.
Source: Northeast Ohio Water Plan, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, November 1972.
-------
TABLE IV - 7
MAHON1NG RIVER BASIN PLANNING AREA
System
Alliance
Columbiana
Cortland
Craig Beach
Garrettsville
Hiram
Mahoning Valley
Sanitary District
Mosquito Creek Water
District
Newton Falls
Ohio Water Service Co.
Ravenna Ordinance Depot
Sebring
Warren
Windham
MAJOR PUBLIC
1974
Consumption
(MGD)
8.3
0.4
0.38
0.06
0.37
0.18
38
0.06
1.0
5.7
0.1
0.9
14.5
0.3
WATER SUPPLIES
Source
Upper and Lower Deer Creek Reservoirs,
Mahoning River and Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Wells
Meander Creek Reservoir
Wells
Mahoning River
Lake Evans (4.3 MGD)
Lake Hamilton (1.4 MGD)
Wells
Mahoning River
Mosquito Creek Reservoir
SOURCE: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Northeast District Office,
Water Supply Section, April 23, 1975.
-------
TABLE IV - 8
MAHONING RIVER BASIN PLANNING AREA
MAJOR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Average Daily Demand (MGD)
System
Alliance
Columbiana
Cortland
Craig Beach
Garrettsville
Hiram
Mahoning Valley _
Sanitary District
Mosquito Creek
Water District
Newton Falls
Ohio Water ,
Service Co.
Ravenna
Ordinance Depot
Sebring
Warren5
Windham
TOTAL
1969
6.46
.37
.26
.08
.25
.11
37.13
1.14
4.05
1.10
.85
13.62
.25
65.67
1980
7.44
.71
.40-
.28
.33
.25
44.00
1.45
5.78
1.12
1.00
17.25
.45
80.46
1990
9.00
.91
.55
.36
.51
.45
52.25
1.78
7.02
1.14
1.20
22.55
.65
98.37
2000
10.86
1.07
.70
.41
.85
.69
60.75
2.18
8.18
1.16
1.37
27.85
.91
116.98
2010
13.07
1.32
.87
.47
1.08
.96
73.20
2.58
9.32
1.18
1.56
33.65
1.23
140.49
2020
15.60
1.59
1.06
.52
1.30
1.23
86.50
.01
3.01
10.30
1.20
1.74
39.00
1.59
164.65
1. Includes East Alliance
2. Includes McDonald, Youngstown, Niles, part of Lordstown, Austintown, Boardman, Girard,
Canfield, Coltsville Center, North Jackson, Smiths Corners, Wickliffe, and Mineral Ridge
3. Includes Campbell, Lowellville, North Lima, Poland, and Struthers
4. Includes Beloit and Maple Ridge
5. Includes part of Lordstown, Howland Corners, and Leavittsburg
SOURCE: Northeast Ohio Water Plan, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, November 1972.
-------
TABLE IV - 9 A
MAHONING RIVER BASIN PLANNING AREA
LIVESTOCK WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
IN MILLION GALLONS
County
Ashtabula
Columbians
Mahoning
Portage
Stark
Trumbull
TOTAL
1980
0.66
0.41
0.32
0.39
0.07
0.43
2.28
1990
0.61
0.38
0.31
0.36
0.07
0.40
2.13
TABLE IV
CROP
IRRIGATION
PER DAY
2000
0.61
0.38
0.31
0.36
0.07
0.41
2.14
-9B
(MGD)
2010
0.55
0.35
0.28
0.33
0.06
0.38
1.95
2020
0.49
0.32
0.26
0.30
0.05
0.35
1.77
WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
IN MILLION GALLONS
County
Ashtabula
Columbiana
Mahoning
Portage
Stark
Trumbull
TOTAL
1980
253
426
433
829
93
232
2266
1990
300
569
498
919
98
260
2644
PER DAY
2000
341
644
562
978
105
260
2890
(MGD)
2010
344
687
570
1020
110
266
2997
2020
355
727
601
1057
110
276
3126
SOURCE: Northeast Ohio Water Plan, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, November 1972.
-------
FIGURE IZ-9
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
EXISTING WATER BASIN RECREATION AREAS
Map Number and Location of Area
I2» Greater Than 50 Acres and Less
Than 300 Acres.
Map Number, Name and General
Outline of Areas Larger Than
300 Acres.
SOURCE.- Nottheost Ohio Water Plon
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Principal Consultant Burgess a Niple, Limited
1972
-------
TABLE IV- 10
WATER BASED RECREATION - MAJOR RECREATIONAL AREAS
Key to
County Figure IV-9 Name of Area
Columbiana
Columbiana
Columbiana
Columbiana
Columbiana
Mahoning
Stark
Portage
Portage
Portage
Portage
Portage
Portage
Trumbull
Trumbull
Trumbull
Trumbull
Mahoning
Mahoning
Mahoning
Mahoning
Mahoning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Lake Pine Sportsmen's Club
Paradise Lake Park
Valley View Hunt Club
Willow Springs Lake
Westville Lake
Lake Park Wildlife Area
Silver Park
Shultz Lake
Hickory Hills Park
Silver Spur Ranch Club
Family Acres
Leisure Lake Park
Hideaway Woods Lake
Ridge Ranch
Niles Conservation Club
Paramount Lake
Liberty Lake
Lake Palmyra Park
Arrowhead Lake Park
Greenfield Lake
Calvins Marsh
Lake Wilaco
Administrative
Agency
Private
Private
Private
Private
Alliance
Alliance
Alliance
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Total
65
130
338
60
160
93
55
60
62
250
52
200
57
115
52
110
119
106
300
80
150
200
Acres
Land
56
100
338
53
21
73
54
63
47
244
50
187
52
100
2
85
20
103
275
72
20
192
Water Boating
9 x
30
0
7
139 x
20 x
1
37 x
15 x
6 x
2
13
5
15 x
50
25
99 x
3
25 x
8
130 x
8
Activities
Fishing
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Swimming
X
X
X
X
X
X .
X
X
X
X
X
-------
TABLE IV - 10
(continued)
WATER BASED RECREATION - MAJOR RECREATIONAL AREAS
Key to
County Figure IV-9 Name of Area
Mahoning
Mahoning
Mahoning
Mahoning
Mahoning
Mahoning
Columbiana
Portage
Portage
Portage
Stark
Stark
Mahoning
Mahoning
Trumbull
Mahoning
Mahoning
Mahoning
23
21
25
26
27
28
29
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
32
33
34
29
Hamilton Lake
New Middletonn Sports Club
Rolling Meadows Lake Park
Canfield's Sports Cons. Club
Western Reserve Lake
Eastern Ohio Cons. Club Farm
Ponderosa Park
W. Branch Reser. State Park
Berlin Reservoir
Berlin Reser. Wildlife Area
Berlin Reservoir
Deer Creek Reservoir
Berlin Reservoir
Berlin Reservoir Wildlife Area
Mosquito State Park
Mill Creek Park
Evans Lake
Lake Milton
Administrative
Agency
OH Water Svc.
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
DNR
COE
DNR
COE
Alliance
COE
DNR
DNR
Youngstown
Township
OH Water
Svc. Co.
Youngstown
Acres
Total
104
64
80
102
95
78
87
7873
4810
713
507
323
2059
570
11833
2389
566
2856 .
Land
0
60
77
100
80
72
77
5223
3090
709
215
10
735
570
3983
2213
0
1171
Water Boating
104 x
4
3
2 x
15
6
10
2650 x
1720 x
4
292 x
313
1324 x
0
7850 x
176 x
566 x
1685 x
Activities
Fishing
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Swimming
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
SOURCE: Northeast Ohio Water Plan, 1972.
-------
recreational use because of its inaccessibility in most areas and the high
degree of pollution that persists. With more than ample recreational areas
provided by the extensive reservoir system in the basin, there has been little
local interest in upgrading the Lower Mahoning River for extensive
recreational uses.
E. Demography1' 7' 8> 9
Based upon the 1970 census, the population in the Mahoning River
basin was approximately 600,000 people, or about 5.6 percent of Ohio's
population of 10,650,000 people. Approximately 95 percent of the basin
population resides in the Mahoning and Trumbull counties.
Population growth of the Mahoning-Trumbull counties area, as it is
generally throughout the country, has been almost exclusively a function of
the area's economy. Past trends in population growth have generally
followed the changing pattern of demand for the area's major product -steel.
Future growth will be primarily related to the steel industry and the valley's
ability to attract new industrial development. Table IV-11 presents a listing
of the major population centers and the relative change between 1960 and
1970. With few exceptions, the population of the basin municipalities
exhibited increases between 1960 and 1970. The population of the two major
urban areas, Youngstown and Warren, declined from 1960 to 1970. This loss
of population reflects a lag in economic growth over the same period,
especially during 1961 through 1963 and the first part of 1967, and migration
to less densely populated townships and smaller cities and villages.
Table IV-12 illustrates decennial population projections for major
population centers in the basin. Note that Trumbull County consistently
demonstrates a higher growth rate than Mahoning County. The rapid growth
of Trumbull County is projected to continue through 2020, while the growth
rate of Mahoning County is moderate through 2000 and is projected to
decline to slightly less than the 1970 population by the year 2020.
The Ohio Bureau of Employment reports that civilian labor forces in
Mahoning and Trumbull Counties in 1974 were 133,500 and 105,500,
respectively. Table IV-13 illustrates a slow steady growth in the civilian
labor force for Mahoning and Trumbull Counties, between 1968 and 1974
-------
TABLE IV- 11
MAHONING RIVER BASIN - MAJOR POPULATION CENTERS
Location
MAHONING COUNTY
Campbell
Canfield
Craig Beach
Lowellville
Poland
Struthers
Youngstown
TRUMBULL COUNTY
Cortland
Girard
Hubbard
McDonald
Newton Falls
Niles
Warren
PORTAGE COUNTY1
Garrettsville
Hiram
Windham
STARK COUNTY1
Alliance
1960
300,480
13,406
3,252
1,139
2,055
2,766
15,631
166,689
208,526
1,957
12,997
7,127
2,727
5,038
19,545
59,648
91,798
1,622
1,011
3,777
340,345
28,362
1970
304,057
12,577
5,468
1,532
1,943
3,117
15,343
139,901
232,579
2,666
14,085
8,688
3,177
5,378
21,489
58,037
123,588
1,690
1,475
3,200
368,559
26,376
Change %
+ 1.1
-6.6
+68.0
+34.5
-5.8
+ 12.7
-1.9
-19.1
+ 11.5
+36.2
+8.3
+21.7
+ 16.5
+6.7
+9.9
-2.8
+34.6
+4.2
+45.9
-18.0
+8.3
-7.5
A small percentage of population of Portage and Stark Counties lie within
the Mahoning River Basin.
SOURCES: U. S. Census Bureau
Northeast Ohio Water Plan
-------
TABLE IV - 12
MAHONING RIVER BASIN - POPULATION PROJECTIONS
MAHONING COUNTY
Campbell
Canfield
Craig Beach
Lowellville
Poland
Struthers
Youngstown
TRUMBULL COUNTY
Cortland
Girard
Hubbard
McDonald
Newton Falls
Niles
Warren
PORTAGE COUNTY1
Garrettsville
Hiram
Windham
STARK COUNTY1
Alliance
1960
300,480
13,406
3,252
1,139
2,055
2,766
15,631
166,689
208,526
1,957
12,997
7,137
2,727
5,038
19,545
59,648
91,798
1,622
1,011
3,777
340,345
28,362
1970
304,057
12,577
5,468
1,531
1,943
3,117
15,343
139,901
232,579
2,666
14,085
8,688
3,177
5,378
21,489
58,037
123,588
1,690
1,475
3,200
368,559
26,376
1980
316,988
12,594
6,151
1,607
1,789
3,039
15,828
132,575
266,919
3,107
16,252
10,377
3,703
6,025
26,413
73,264
171,266
2,000
2,123
3,128
421,867
27,709
1990
326,789
12,717
6,808
1,727
1,780
3,154
16,204
129,240
306,534
3,683
18,590
12,155
4,293
6,837
30,600
83,547
228,400
2,439
2,884
3,301
478,771
30,038
2000
330,056
12,709
7,112
1,779
1,764
3,196
16,309
126,777
346,893
4,233
20,996
13,890
4,881
7,692
34,780
94,212
288,695
2,939
3,678
3,622
522,722
32,026
2010
320,919
12,292
7,030
1,747
1,700
3,113
15,829
121,442
378,617
4,656
22,894
15,233
5,340
8,370
38,043
102,646
339,365
3,370
4,343
3,934
547,046
33,114
2020
302,456
11,554
6,680
1,655
1,594
2,936
14,905
113,595
400,896
4,948
24,229
16,169
5,661
8,849
40,325
108,589
372,234
3,650
4,775
4,138
551,774
33,198
A small percentage of population of Portage and Stark Counties lie within the Mahoning River Basin.
SOURCE: Northeast Ohio Water Plan, 1960-1970 Census.
-------
TABLE IV- 13
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE MAHONING <5c TRUMBULL COUNTIES
1968
1969
1970
1971
% change
1972
% change
1973
% change
197*
% change
Percent Increase
1970-197*
Average
Annual
Increase
1968-197**
Mahoning
120,325
12*,075
120,800
123,125
1.9
123,100
126,825
3.0
133,500
5.3
10.5
2.5
Trumbull
93,*75
98,125
95,500
97,175
1.8
97,300
0.1
100,375
3.2
105,500
5.1
10.5
2.5
SOURCE: Division of Research & Statistics,
Ohio Bureau of Employment Services
* Data for 1968-1969 represent all persons who work in each county,
while 1970-197* data represent only those persons who live and
work in each county.
-------
with an annual average increase of 2.5 percent. The manufacturing, retail
trades, service and construction industries provide most of the present basin
employment with the basic steel industry accounting for about 27,000 direct
jobs.
F. Economy
Aside from the limited discussion of the area's economy presented
earlier, a review of more detailed information is beyond the scope of this
report. Additional data can be found in the following references:
1. Population and Economics - Part 1, June 1970. Mahoning-
Trumbull Counties Comprehensive Transportation and
Development Study.
2. Comprehensive Transportation and Development Study -
Economic Inventory Report 1, March 1968.
3. Employment Trends in EDATA Planning Region - Eastgate
Development and Transportation Agency, 1975.
4. EDATA Economic Trends - A Bimonthly Summary of
Economic Indicators.
5. Economic Impact of Pollution Control Regulations on Steel
Plants in the Mahoning River Valley - Booz, Allen &
Hamilton Management Consultants for USEPA, April 1976.
G. Hydrology
The hydrology of the lower Mahoning River is extremely complex and
significantly affects water pollution abatement requirements necessary to
achieve desired stream standards, both within Ohio and in Pennsylvania.
Natural streamflows have been altered by an extensive reservoir system
constructed for low flow augmentation and temperature control, flood
control, and water supply, and by several low head channel dams in the
Leavittsburg-Loweliville reach of the river. Table IV-14 lists the major
reservoirs in the basin and summarizes total storage capacity and the
capacity allocated for low flow augmentation. ' Figure IV-1 illustrates
the location of each reservoir while the location of the low head dams can
be found in Figure IV-17. The discussion presented herein is limited to water
quality design flow considerations and to operation of the reservoir system
-------
TABLE IV- 1*
MAJOR RESERVOIRS IN MAHONING RIVER BASIN
Year
Reservoir Completed
Milton Reservoir 1917
Meander Creek 1931
Berlin Lake 1943
Mosquito Creek Lake 1944
Michael J. Kirwan Reservoir 1966
TOTAL
Tributary
Owner or Drainage Area
Operator (Sq. Mi.)
City of Youngstown 273
Mahoning Valley 84
Sanitary District
Corps of Engineers 248
Corps of Engineers 98
Corps of Engineers SI
Total Summer low flow
Storage Capacity Storage Capacity
(Acre feet) (Acre feet) % of Total
29,770 21,500 72
35,500 - 0
91,200 56,600 62
104,100 69,400 68
78,700 " 52,900 67
339,270 200,450 59
Note: For Berlin Lake, the amount of storage available for low flow augmentation depends upon storage withdrawn for water supply.
The minimum low flow storage capacity is 37,200 acre feet.
SOURCES: (1) Water Resources Data for Ohio - 1974, Part 1. Surface Water Records, LJ. S. Geological Survey.
(2) Water Resources Development in Ohio, 1975, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
(3). Personal Communication with Max R. Janairo, Jr., Colonel, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh Dist., September 1976.
-------
for low flow augmentation rather than expanded to a broad review of the
basin hydrology encompassing annual flow duration and yield, maximum
flood flows, and other hydrologic data.
Ohio water quality standards, EP-1-01 (B) (1), establish the annual
minimum consecutive seven day average streamflow with a ten year
recurrence interval (7 day - 10 year low flow) as the water quality design
flow, or the minimum flow at which stream standards are to be achieved.
Pennsylvania water quality standards do not specify a design flow, although
the 7 day -10 year low flow is employed for water quality design purposes in
Pennsylvania. For the lower Mahoning River at Youngstown, the natural
design flow would probably be much less than 50 cfs (1 cfs = 0.646 mgd)
12
without the construction and operation of the reservoir system. However,
current operation of the system by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is
designed to provide guaranteed minimum streamflows ranging from 225 cfs
at Youngstown during the months of November through March, to 480 cfs
during July. This schedule has been developed over the past sixty years
beginning with the construction of Milton Lake by the City of Youngstown in
1917 to provide low flow augmentation for steel production during World
War I. Berlin Lake and Mosquito Creek Lake were constructed during World
War II, primarily for low flow augmentation and flood protection. The
Michael 3. Kirwan Reservoir (West Branch) was added in 1966 for additional
low flow augmentation and flood protection. Meander Creek Reservoir was
constructed in 1931 for water supply purposes only. (Berlin Lake can be used
to augment the water supply potential of Meander Creek Reservoir.) The
Corps of Engineers operates these reservoirs as a system, generally using
Berlin Lake-Milton Lake and Kirwan Reservoir to maintain the schedule at
Leavittsburg, and Mosquito Creek Lake to maintain the schedule at
Youngstown.
Figure IV-10 presents the current flow schedules the Corps of
Engineers is maintaining at Leavittsburg and Youngstown, labeled BL and
14
BY, respectively. Also shown are schedules encompassing alternate
releases for the Warren and Youngstown water supplies and the Kirwan
Reservoir. The BY-BL schedule includes an allocation of up to 17 mgd from
Berlin Lake for the Youngstown water supply and up to 16 mgd from
Mosquito Creek Lake for the Warren water supply. This schedule is designed
-------
FIGURE EZ-IO
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
FLOW REGULATION SCHEDULES
SCHEDULES
YOUNGSTOWN LEAVITTSBURG
BY
CY
DY
AL
BL
CL
DL
Berlin, Milton, Mosquito 8 W. Br. Mahoning River Reservoirs
No Diverson for Ystn. Water Supply a 10 MGD for Warren
Berlin, Milton, Mosquito & W. Br. Mahoning River Reservoirs
17 MGD for Ystn Water Supply 8 16 MGD for Warren
Berlin, Milton, Mosquito 8 W. B r. Motioning River Reservoirs
34 MGD for Ystn. Water Supply 8 16 MGD for Warren
Berlin, Milton, Mosquito Reservoirs
No Diverson from Ystn. Water Supply 8 10 MGD for Warren
in
H-
u
O
_J
6OO
500
400
300
20O
IOO
NOTE:
The flow shown at Youngstown are at the
USGS Gage and include the sewage from
Niies and adjoining areas.
SOURCE- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pittsburgh District
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
MOV
DEC
-------
to control mean stream temperatures in Youngstown to 98 F in July based
upon 1958-1959 industrial production levels. The location of the
temperature control point is at the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company -
Campbell Works river intake.
According to the Corps of Engineers, the succession of drought years
from 1930 to 1934 serves as a basis foe* the present reservoir storage and
release schedules. Minimum regulated flows were determined from
rainfall, runoff, evaporation, temperature, and storage computations for the
1930-1934 period. Maintenance of these schedules during a similar drought
period would result in almost complete depletion of the storage in each
reservoir, thereby fully consuming the water resources in the basin.
Since EP-1-01 (B) (1) also provides for consideration of hydraulically
altered flow regimes in establishing water quality design flows, it is
appropriate to consider the minimum regulated schedule as the design flow
for the Mahoning River. The duration or percent of time the regulated flows
are achieved could result in non-attainment of desired aquatic life uses,
notably in Pennsylvania. Figure IV-11 illustrates the actual flow duration
experienced at the Leavittsburg, Youngstown and Lowellville USGS stream
gages for the 1943-1965 period. While these data cannot be directly used
to determine the frequency at which the BY-BL schedule was achieved prior
to the construction of the Kirwan Reservoir, Figure IV-11 serves to
illustrate the high frequency at which relatively low flows are encountered
in the basin. For example, the annual average flow from schedule BY is
about 300 cfs at Youngstown. This flow was equaled or exceeded only 77
percent of the time from 1944-1965; the maximum flow from schedule BY
(480 cfs) was achieved less than 50 percent of the time. Also shown on
Figure IV-11 is the simulated annual flow duration at Youngstown prepared
by the Corps of Engineers for the 1930-1966 period assuming operation of
existing reservoirs in the basin and no regulation for excessive stream
temperatures. This curve primarily reflects the addition of the Kirwan
Reservoir, showing an increase over the actual 1944-1965 duration at flows
less than 400 cfs. Since the 1930-1966 simulation period includes the severe
drought years of 1930-1934, a simulation of the 1944-1965 period would most
likely also illustrate an increase over actual duration for flows greater than
400 cfs.
-------
IO.OOO
• 000
• 000
7000
eooo
50OO
4000
u
I IOOO
o 90°
_1
U. BOO
700
600
soo
FIGURE IZ-II
MAHCNING RIVER BASIN
FLOW DURATION AT
LEAVITTSBURG-YOUNGSTOWN- LOWELLVILLE
-Lowellville (1944-1965)
(1931-1960 Adjusted Mean Discharge
lOOOcfs, 0.932cfs /sq. mi.)
•Youngstown (1944-1965)
(1922-1965 Mean Discharge
83lcfs, 0.925cfs/sq.mi.)
Simulation-Youngstown
(1930-1966)
Leovittsburg (1943-1965)
(1931-1960 Adjusted Mean Discharge
533cfs, 0.927cfs/sq.mi.)
Sources: (I) Flow Duration of Ohio Streams Bullitin 42
Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
(2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
J_
_L
J_
JO «0 5O 60 70
% OF TIME FLOW EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED
-------
While Figure IV-11 provides some insight as to the occurrence of low
flows at Youngstown, attainment of the BY schedule throughout the year is
not addressed. Since the schedule encompasses significant annual variation
which is opposite that of most natural streams, attainment of the schedule
throughout the year becomes important for water quality considerations.
Figure IV-12 presents a comparison of the daily minimum regulated schedule
with actual monthly flow duration for the 1944-1975 period of record.
Since a direct comparison of daily minimum regulated schedule with monthly
flow duration cannot be made, the monthly flow duration data were plotted
at the beginning of each month with an ascending schedule (April, May,
June, July) and at the end of each month with a descending schedule
(August, September, and October); the flow duration data were plotted at
the middle of each month for which the schedule is constant (November
through March). Plotting the data in this fashion more clearly illustrates the
flow duration trends in relation to the daily minimum schedule. The 1944-
1975 period includes full operation of Mosquito Creek Lake and Berlin Lake,
operation of the Kirwan Reservoir from 1968-1975, and the recent two-year
period when Milton Lake was taken out of service for emergency repairs.
Since the BY-BL schedule was not developed until the late 1950's and not
18
implemented until 1968 after Kirwan Reservoir became operational, it is
not possible to determine actual maintenance of the schedule from the data
in Figure IV-12. However, these data serve to illustrate frequent occurrence
of low flows in the past. A review of the data indicate the extreme 100
percent duration flows occurred during the summer months of 1952.
To confirm the ability of the existing reservoir system to achieve the
BY-BL schedule throughout the year, the Corps has also simulated monthly
flow duration for the 1930-1966 period assuming operation of the current
reservoir system, the actual hydrology of the basin during that time, and no
regulation for excessive stream temperatures. Figure IV-13 presents a
comparison of the simulated monthly flow duration with the BY schedule.
Since the simulated flow duration data represent monthly average values,
the data were plotted in the same manner as the data presented in Figure
IV-12. Figure IV-13 illustrates that simulation of the-current reservoir
system in the Mahoning River basin for the period 1930-1966 would have
resulted in attainment of the BY schedule had the Kirwan Reservoir been in
-------
550 -
50O -
100
FIGURED?-12
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
MONTHLY FLOW DURATION AT YOUNGSTOWN
(WATER YEARS 1944-1975)
.•*""••. LEGEND
FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED
50% OF THE TIME
. — 70% OF THE TIME
- — 90% OF THE TIME
IOO% OF THE TIME
MINIMUM REGULATED STREAM FLOW I
(SCHEDULE 8V FROM FIGURE XZ-IOj .
SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 1968) I
SOURCE.- U.S. Geological Survey
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
-------
550
FIGURE 12-13
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
MONTHLY FLOW DURATION AT YOUNGSTOWN
(SIMULATION OF 1930-1966 PERIOD)
500
450
400
M
O
I
$
O
_l
U- 350
ID
CC
H
OT 300
250
MINIMUM REGULATED STREAM FLOW
(SCHEDULE BY FROM FIGUREJE-IOj
SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 1968 )
LEGEND
FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED
200
150
SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pittsburgh D istr i ct
••• 50% OF THE TIME
— 70% OF THE TIME
— 90% OF THE TIME
.— 100% OF THE TIME
I
J_
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AU6
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
-------
operation for that time and had Mosquito Creek Lake and Berlin Lake been
in operation from 1930-1944. These data lead one to conclude that the
Corps can maintain the BY-BL schedule in the future although the overage
above the schedule expected during the June-August period will be minimal
at best.
Figure IV-14 is a similar plot encompassing the 1968-1974 water years,
after operation of the Kirwan Reservoir was initiated. The monthly flow
duration data were plotted in the same manner as the flow duration data in
Figure IV-12. These data illustrate significant shortfalls from the schedules
from May through August and attainment of scheduled flows during 3uly only
about 80 percent of the time. The Corps of Engineers attributes the
nonattainment of the minimum schedules for the 1968-1974 period to the
lack of about 50 cfs of water for flow augmentation from Milton Lake which
was taken out of service during part of this time for emergency repairs.
In addition to the streamflow provided directly by the reservoir
system, the municipalities which depend upon the reservoirs for potable
water add flow to the stream through discharges of partially treated sewage.
Table IV-15 presents discharge points for the eight municipal sewage
treatment plants on or near the main stem of the lower Mahoning River,
annual average discharge flow rates for 1973, 1974, 1975 and, projected
19 70 71
design flow rates for 1985. ' ' These data indicate that the current
annual average sewage volume of 50-55 mgd amounts to about 38 percent of
the regulated flow at Youngstown for the November through March period
and about 18 percent of the maximum 3uly schedule. Since only the
municipalities of Warren, Niles, McDonald and Girard discharge above the
Youngstown gage, actual percentages at the gage are 14 percent of the
November through March schedule and about 6 percent of the maximum 3uly
schedule. Over 50 percent of the total sewage volume is discharged at
Youngstown, about three miles downstream from the USGS gage.
Also shown in Table IV-15 are estimated 1985 design flow rates for the
most likely arrangement of regional sewage treatment systems in the
valley. ' These data show a probable increase in sewage volume to
about 80 mgd or an increase of about 45 percent over current levels.
Included in the total are 5.8 mgd from the recently completed Meander
-------
55O r-
500 -
45O
40O
o
I
35O
UJ
cr
1-
C/)
3OO
\
25O
200
ISO
FIGUREISr-14
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
MONTHLY FLOW DURATION AT YOUNGSTOWN
(WATER YEARS 1968-1974)
MINIMUM REGULATED STREAM FLOW
(SCHEDULE BY FROM FIGURE 3Z-IO
SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE 1968)
LEGEND
SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pi f tsburgh District
FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED
50% OF THE TIME
70% OF THE TIME •
90% OF THE TIME
100% OF THE TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR .
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
-------
TABLE IV - 15
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
Municipality
USGS Stream Gage at
Warren
Meander Watershed
Niles
McDonald
Girard
USGS Stream Gage at
Youngstown
Campbell
Struthers
USGS Stream Gage at
Lowellville
TOTAL
STP Discharge
(River Mile)
Leavittsburg (River Mile 46.08)
35.83
30.77
29.47
27.32
25.73
Youngstown (River Mile 22.80)
19.78
16.09
14.90
Lowellville (River Mile 12.67)
12.35
_
Annual Average Discharge (MGD)
1973 1974 1975
12.800
-
3.729
0.529
3.174
28.760
2.090
2.270
0.210
53.560
12.950
-
4.157
0.605
2.680
29.040
2.270
2.000
0.283
53.990
12.210
-
4.163
0.805
1.840
28.500
2.530
2.050
0.269
52.370
Design Discharge (MGD)
Current 1985 (Estimated)
13.50
-
3.00
0.61
1.80
50.00
2.50
2.50
0.22
74.10
16.0
5.8
W1'
-
*•
40.0(2)
-
8.5<3>
0.5
80.8
Notes: (1) Regional treatment facility serving Niles, McDonald, Girard and adjacent areas located at existing Niles Treatment Plant site.
(2) Regional treatment facility serving Youngstown and adjacent areas located at Mill Creek (River Mile 22.03).
(3) Regional treatment facility serving Campbell, Struthers and adjacent areas located at existing Struthers Treatment Plant site.
SOURCES: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Eastgate Development and Transportation Agency
-------
Creek Watershed Plant and increases of about 4 mgd at Warren and 2 to 3
mgd from a regional Niles-McDonald-Girard facility, all of which will be
discharged above the USGS gage in Youngstown. The resultant increase in
flow at the gage should be about 12-13 mgd or about 19 cfs.
According to the Corps of Engineers, increases in sewage flow above
the gage would not result in alterations io the BY schedule. Because of the
limited water resources of the basin, further augmentation to the regulated
schedule cannot be justified since the maximum yield of the reservoir
\k
system is currently being approached at the BY schedule. The Corps has
indicated it could not provide increased flows during the November through
March period without a downward adjustment of the summer schedule.
Although limited recent data (Figure IV-14) suggest somewhat lower
design flows during the May-August period may be indicated, simulation
results of the 1930-1966 period and expected increases in sewage flow by
1985 indicate use of the BY-BL schedule for water quality design flow
purposes may be warranted. Figure IV-15 presents water quality design
profiles from the USGS gage at Leavittsburg to the Ohio-Pennsylvania State
line incorporating BY-BL schedule flows of 225 cfs (November-March), 300
cfs (September-October), and 480 cfs (July) at Youngstown. The expected
1985 municipal flows were applied to the stream at the most probable
location of the regional treatment facilities. For the purpose of this
analysis, it was assumed that Berlin Lake-Milton Lake and Kirwan Reservoir
would be employed to maintain the schedule at Leavittsburg with Mosquito
Creek Lake accounting for the difference to maintain the schedule at
Youngstown. Net additions from municipal systems were incrementally
added below the Youngstown gage. Contribution from minor tributaries
between Leavittsburg and Lowellville was assumed to be negligible, as is
usually the case during dry summer months and occasionally during the
winter because of freezing. Sensitivity of the water quality response to
changes in flow is reviewed in Section VIII.
It is important to note that flow in the Mahoning River will be at or
close to the BY-BL schedule frequently throughout the year, more so during
the June-October period and less frequently during the winter months.
Hence, the safety inherent in adoption of a water quality design flow based
upon rather extreme probability such as the 7 day-10 year low flow is
-------
o
u.
UJ
cc
200
FIGUREUT-15
MAHONING RIVER
FLOW PROFILE AT WATER QUALITY DESIGN FLOWS
319 ef. (JULY)
243of« (SEPT-OCTI
K3of» (NOV -MARCH)
2T«.30>
189. «0>.
20».Sofi
lOI.3ot«
30O«f«
1
ZZ3 of •
•
30l.90fl f
515. lof. 5l5.*of.
33 3O 23 20
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
-------
lacking for the Mahoning River. For unregulated streams adjacent to the
Mahoning River basin, the ratios of design flows (Q7 . n) to annual mean
flows (Q ) are as follows:22' 23' 2/*
cl
Drainage Area
Stream (Sq. Mi.) Q7 'Jn/Q
- - - ^ / , i U a
Grand River near Madison 581 0.002
Ashtabula River near Ashtabula 121 0
Conneaut Creek at Conneaut 175 0.006
Little Beaver Creek near 496 0.036
East Liverpool
For the Mahoning River at Youngstown, this ratio would be about 0.3
assuming the annual mean of the BY schedule as the design flow.
For comparison purposes, the USGS was requested to compute
equivalent annual minimum consecutive seven day mean flows with various
recurrence intervals for the period 1944 to 1975 at the Lowellville,
Youngstown, and Leavittsburg gaging stations. These data are presented
in Table IV-16. The 1944-1975 period was selected to include the time after
Berlin Lake and Mosquito Creek Lake became operational. In summary, the
data show 7 day-10 year low flows of 100 cfs, 156 cfs, and 197 cfs for
Leavittsburg, Youngstown, and Lowellville, respectively. For Youngstown,
the value of 156 cfs represents only 69 percent of the minimum winter BY
schedule of 225 cfs, less than 33 percent of the maximum July schedule of
480 cfs, and about 52 percent of the annual average schedule value of 300
cfs. Table IV-16 also demonstrates the high frequencies at which relatively
low 7 day-10 year low flows have been occurring. Although the
determination of a 7 day-10 year low flow for a regulated stream has little
meaning in terms of Ohio Water Quality Standards the data further serve to
illustrate the tight flow regulation in the basin and the lack of safety
inherent in employing regulated flows for design purposes. Hence,
maintenance of a water quality criterion in the lower Mahoning River will
depend more upon the frequency at which design effluent discharges are
achieved rather than upon the frequent and prolonged occurence • of the
design flow. For natural, unregulated streams design discharge levels are
generally based upon flows which infrequently occur.
-------
TABLE IV- 16
*
ANNUAL MINIMUM CONSECUTIVE SEVEN DAY MEAN FLOWS
Low flow
Probability
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.20
0.50
0.80
0.90
0.96
0.98
0.99
Recurrence
Interval
(Years)
100
50
20
10
5
2
1.25
1.11
1.0*
1.02
1.01
PERIOD OF RECORD
LOWER MAHONING
Leavittsburg
(cfs)
71
78
89
100
115
1*8
189
213
2*2
263
282
19^-1975
RIVER
Youngstown
(cfs)
125
132
1**
156
173
213
266
301
3*5
377
*10
Lowellville
(cfs)
1*6
158
178
197
222
280
350
392
**3
*78
512
SOURCE: U. S. Geological Survey
-------
Figure IV-16 is a cumulative drainage area graph for the entire
Mahoning River basin showing both the drainage area and location on the
main stem of major and minor tributaries. Also shown are locations of USGS
gaging stations and reservoirs. Significant changes in the slope of the
stream and pooling effects caused by the low head dams are illustrated in
Figure IV-17.
H. Mahoning River Stream Mileage
Stream mileage along the main stem of the Mahoning River from its
confluence with the Shenango River near New Castle, Pennsylvania to just
upstream of the Copperweld Steel river intake in Warren Township was
determined from U. S. Army Corps of Engineers maps with a calibrated map
measure. The Corps of Engineers maps were developed from photographs
exposed during December 1961 for the Corps' Lake Erie - Ohio River Canal
study (scale 1:2400 or 1" = 200'). Mileage from the most upstream point
covered by these maps (River Mile 42.90) to the Leavittsburg Dam in
Leavittsburg, Ohio (RM 46.08) were determined from United States
Geological Survey 7.5 minute series topographic maps for the Warren,
Champion, and Newton Falls quadrangles (scale 1:24000 or 1" - 2000').
Stream mileages to RM 42.90 are presented with two significant figures
beyond the decimal point (-52.8 ft. or 0.264 inches on the Corps' maps),
while the second decimal is estimated for mileages above 42.90. The zero
mile point for the Mahoning River was selected at the center track of the
Penn Central Railroad bridge nearest the confluence of the Mahoning and
Shenango Rivers.
Tables IV-17, 18, and 19 present stream mileage for tributaries,
bridges, dams, and USGS gages, respectively.
-------
1200
1100
1000
900
_* BOO
i
0)
° 700
CT
FIGURE
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
DRAINAGE AREA VS RIVER MILE
UJ
tr
UJ
600
500
K 400
Q
300
20O
100
I
I
I
I
I
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF
45 50 55
MAHONING RIVER
60
65
70
75
80
-------
FIGURE IE-17
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
ELEVATION VS RIVER MILE
880 i
40
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
35 30
25
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
870 -
860
850
• SUMMIT ST. DAM
WARREN
-REPUBLIC STEEL DAM
WARREN
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
^ 840
UJ
> 830
LU
LU B20
GO
O 810
CD
800
>«—LIBERTY ST. DAM
GIR ARD
— MARSHALL ST. FALLS
._ YOUNGSTOWN
STREAM BOTTOM ELEVATION
-USGS GAGE
It-
- U.S. STEEL DAM
I YOUNGSTOWN
1-_REPUBLIC STEEL DAM
_YO_UNGSTOWN
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET 8 TUBE DAM
CAMPBELL
-USGS GAGE
-LOWELLVILLE DAM
UJ
790
780
770
760
750
20
15 10
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
-------
TABLE IV- 17
MAHONING RIVER STREAM MILEAGE
(River mouth to Leavittsburg, Ohio!
i
Tributary River Miles Above Mouth
Hickory Run 0.02
Byers Run 2.98
Coffee Run 10.42
Grays Run 13.10
Mines Run 14.90
Yellow Creek 15.63
Dry Run 18.47
Crab Creek 19.81
Mill Creek 22.03
Fourmile Run 25.64
Little Squaw Creek 25.73
Squaw Creek 27.67
Meander Creek 30.77
Mosquito Creek 31.14
Mud Creek 33.33
Red Run 41.04
Infirmary Run 41.62
-------
TABLE IV- 18
MAHONING RIVER STREAM MILEAGE
(River mouth to Leavittsburg)
Bridges
Lawrence County, Pennsylvania
Penn Central RR (3 tracks)
Montgomery Av. .*
Route 18
Montgomery Av.
Penn Central RR (2 tracks)
Brewster Road
Route 224
Church Hill Road
Mahoning County, Ohio
Lowellville
Washington St.
Pittsburgh and Lake Erie RR (1 track)
Poland Township
Pittsburgh and Lake Erie RR (1 track)
Struthers
Bridge St. (State Route 616)
Pittsburgh and Lake Erie RR (1 track)
Penn Central RR (1 track)
Youngstown
Oakland Av.
Penn Central RR (4 tracks)
Penn Central RR (2 tracks)
Center St.
Baltimore & Ohio RR (1 track)
Baltimore & Ohio RR (2 tracks)
Cedar St.
South Av. (State Route 164)
Market St. (State Route 57, U.S. Route 62)
Marshall St.
Mahoning Av. (State Route 18)
West Av.
Lake Erie & Eastern RR (2 tracks)
Baltimore & Ohio RR (2 tracks)
Baltimore & Ohio RR (2 tracks)
Interstate 680
Erie-Lackawanna RR (1 track)
Bridge St.
Lake Erie & Eastern RR
Lake Erie & Eastern RR (2 tracks)
Division St. (Lower)
Division St. (Upper)
Youngstown <5c Northern RR (1 track)
River Miles Above Mouth
(center track)
0.00
0.23
0.42
1.43
1.52
4.34
6.76
9.69
12.64
13.52
14.21
15.77
15.83
16.64
16.69
17.82
17.87
18.29
16.51
19.17
19.80
20.11
20.49
20.91
21.03
21.50
21.58
21.80
22.40
22.42
22.43
22.73
22.93
23.75
23.84
23.88
24.82
-------
TABLE IV - 13
(continued)
MAHONING RIVER STREAM MILEAGE
(River mouth to Leavittsburg)
Bridges River Miles Above Mouth
Trumbull County, Ohio »
Girard
Baltimore <3c Ohio RR (1 track) 25.78
Interstate 80 26.20
Liberty St. 26.77
Niles
Olive St. 29.52
Belmont Av. 30.48
Erie-Lackawanna RR (1 track) 30.76
Main St. (State Route 46) 31.30
Weathersfield Township
Penn Central RR 33.24
West Park Av. 33.71
Warren Township
Baltimore & Ohio RR (2 tracks) 36.94
Dover Av. 36.95
Warren
Main Av. 38.08
Baltimore & Ohio RR (1 track) 38.66
Erie-Lackawanna RR (2 tracks) 38.70
South St. 38.71
Market St. (State Routes 5 and 82) 38.91
Summit St. 39.93
Erie-Lackawannna RR (1 track) 40.02
Dunstan Av. 41.51
Leavittsburg
Leavitt Road 46.02
-------
TABLE IV - 19
MAHONING RIVER STREAM MILEAGE
(River mouth to Leavittsburg, Ohio)
Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Low Head Dams
1. Lowellville Dam
2. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Dam
3. Republic Steel Dam
4. Marshall Street Falls
5. U. 5. Steel Dam
6. Liberty Street Dam
7. Republic Steel Dam
8. Summit Street Dam
9. Leavitt Road Dam
USGS Stream Gages
1. Lowellville
2. Youngstown
3. Leavittsburg
River Miles Above Mouth
Location
Lowellville
Campbell
Youngstown
Youngstown
Youngstown
Girard
Warren
Warren
Leavittsburg
11.61
12.81
16.06
17.98
20.91
22.96
26.82
36.69
39.99
46.08
12.67
22.80
46.02
-------
REFERENCES - SECTION IV
1. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water,
Water Inventory of the Mahoning and Grand River Basins, Report No.
16, April 1961.
2. Ohio Department of Health, Report of Water Pollution Study,
Mahoning River Basin, 1954.
3. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Ohio
Streamflow Characteristics, Part 1, Flow Duration, Bulletin 10,
September 1949.
4. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Northeast Ohio Water Plan,
November 1972.
5. U. S. Department of Commerce, Climatological Summary.
6. Division of Water, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Climate
Guide for Selected Locations in Ohio.
7. City Planning Associates, Inc., Population and Economics - Part 1,
Mahoning - Trumbull Counties Comprehensive Transportation and
Development Study, June 1970.
8. U. S. Census Bureau, 1970 Census.
9. Eastgate Development and Transportation Agency, Employment Trends
in the EDATA Planning Region, June 1970.
10. U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Ohio - 1974, Part 1,
Surface Water Records.
11. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ohio River Division, Water Resources
Development in Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1975.
12. LeBosquet, M., Jr., Statement on Water Pollution in Mahoning River
(presented before joint meeting of Trumbull County Manufacturer's
Association and the Mahoning Valley Industrial Council), U. S. Public
Health Service, November 1945.
13. Personal Communication from Edwin W. Thomas, Assistant Chief,
Engineering Division, Pittsburgh District, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, February 1975.
14. Personal Communication from Max R. Janairo, Jr., Colonel, U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District, January 1976.
15. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water,
Flow Duration of Ohio Streams, Bulletin 42, 1968.
-------
16. Personal Communication from William Salesky, Hydrology and
Hydraulics Branch, Engineering Division, Pittsburgh Division, U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, May 1976.
17. Personal Communication from Michael Hathaway, Data Processing
Branch, Ohio District Office, U. S. Department of Interior, Geological
Survey, August 1976.
18. Personal Communication from Ale'x Barna, Hydrology and Hydraulics
Branch, Engineering Division, Pittsburgh District, U. S. Army Corps of-
Engineers, September 1976.
19. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Northeast District Office,
Municipal Discharger Files.
20. Personal Communication from Self Amragy, Division of Water Quality
Standards, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1976.
21. Personal Communication from John R. Getchy, Sanitary Engineer,
Eastgate Development and Transportation Agency, 1976.
22. USEPA, Region V, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Michigan-Ohio
District Office, Northeast Ohio Tributaries to Lake Erie Waste Load
Allocation Report, March 1974.
23. USEPA, Region V, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Michigan-Ohio
District Office, Little Beaver Creek Waste Load Allocation Report,
March 1974.
24. Antilla, P. W., A Proposed Streamflow Data Program for Ohio, U. S.
Geological Survey, Ohio District Office, June 1970.
-------
-------
SECTION V
SIGNIFICANT WASTEWATER DISCHARGERS
As noted earlier, the basic steel industry dominates the economy of
the Mahoning Valley, and to a large extent, determines the quality of water
in the Mahoning River. The average net discharge from the nine major steel
plants may exceed 400,000 Ibs/day of suspended solids, 70,000 Ibs/day of oil
and grease, 9,000 Ibs/day of ammonia-nitrogen, 500 Ibs/day of cyanide,
600 Ibs/day of phenolics, and 800 Ibs/day of zinc. The oil discharge is
equivalent to over 200 barrels per day, or the equivalent of enough energy to
heat nearly 30,000 average sized homes. Including the discharge from the
Ohio Edison Power Plant, the total industrial thermal loading may exceed
four billion BTU's/hr during periods of peak steel production, enough energy
to heat 96,000 average sized homes. Unfortunately, this energy is not in a
usable form. As noted earlier, the major plants may use the entire flow of
the Mahoning River about 5.6 times during periods of winter critical flow
and about 2.6 times during periods of summer critical flow. The aggregate
discharge from the many smaller industrial facilities discharging to the
lower Mahoning River is insignificant compared to the steel industry
discharge. However, the total municipal discharge from the eight primary
sewage treatment plants is significant, amounting to over 27,000 Ibs/day of
suspended solids, 33,000 Ibs/day of BOD^, and 3,600 Ibs/day of ammonia-N.
A more detailed review of the major dischargers follows. Figure V-l
illustrates the locations of the major and significant smaller dischargers
along the main stem of the lower Mahoning River.
A. Industrial Dischargers
Table V-l presents a summary of employment, water usage, and
production data for the nine most significant steel plants. Tables V-2 to V-
11 present summaries of available discharge data for each steel plant and
-------
-COPPERWELO STEEU
Thomot Srrlp Steel
REPUBLIC STEEL'
Warrtn Plont
WARREN STP'
.CMC-Packard Eltctrle DlviiUon
,Vo« Hufl.l Tubt Corp.
.REPUBLIC STEEL-Worr.n Plonl
0«n«ral El.cfrlc -Nil«« Olaii Plant
-REPUBLIC STEEL-NIU> Plant
•RMI Compamy
NILES STP
FIGURE V-l
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
LOCATION MAP
8«noda Aluminum Inc.
MEANDER STP
Janai ant LaughlU Staal Nllti Conduit Plant
OHIO EDISON -Nil*! Plont
UNITED STATES STEEL-McDonald Mill>
_YOUNGSTOWN SHEET 8 TUBE .
Britr Hill Workt
t Kopp«r• Co. i
-REPUBLIC STEEL-Youngttown Plant
. Th« Wilkoff Co.
MCDONALD STP
UNITED STATES STEEL-Ohio Workl
Fitziimoni Stol Co.
Jons, and Laughlin St.«l Stalnl*» and Strip Division
YOUNSSTOWN SHEET ft TUBE - Campblll Workl '
YOUNGSTOWN STP
REPUBLIC STECL-Young»to«n Plant
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET 8 TUBE- Canpbtll Work.
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET 8 TUBE-Strut hart Oi.ition STRUTHERS ST P
NEW CASTLE STP
-------
TABLE V - 1
MAJOR MAHONING RIVER STEEL PLANTS
Production Rates (Tons/day)
Facility
Copperweld Steel Corporation
Republic Steel Corporation
Republic Steel Corporation
Republic Steel Corporation
U. S. Steel Corporation
McDonald Mills
U. S. Steel Corporation
Ohio Works
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
Brier Hill Works
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
Campbell Works
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.
Struthers Division
TOTAL
Location
Warren
Warren
Niles
Youngstown
McDonald
Youngstown
Youngstown
Campbell
Struthers
Approximate
Employment
2300
4600
200
4100
2400
3600
1900
7900
See Above
27000
Water Coke Iron Steel
Usage Plants Making Making
(mgd)
34.6 2030
59.1 1413 3024 6825
1.7
73.9 2990 4290
43.0
78.8 4200 5600
55.6 1108 3850
232.8 4013 5050 5400
22.9
602.4 8416 17672 23705
Hot Cold
Forming Rolling Pickling
3540 400
11733 1611 3117
990 1119
7366 1605
8640 . 760
iw
7086
8436 266
16506 2306 2400
975
64282 6778 7796
Coating
1245
•
207
391
225
2068
NOTES: 1. Employment data from permit applications and other industrial sources.
Breakdown between U. 5. Steel plants is estimated.
2. Production data supplied by industries.
-------
the Ohio Edison power plant at Niles. Tables 1 to 9 of Appendix A present a
summary of production operations, associated outfalls and existing waste
treatment facilities for each facility. Table V-12 summarizes the corporate
contribution of discharges to the Mahoning River.
1. Copperweld Steel Corporation .*
The main Copperweld Steel discharge is located just upstream from
the City of Warren about 42.6 miles above the mouth of the river (Figure V-
1). The company produces various alloy steels with electric furnaces and
may sell either ingots or finished and semi-finished bar products.
Copperweld Steel accounts for about 9 percent of the raw steelmaking
capacity in the Valley. As there is no coking or iron making at this facility,
the primary contaminants of concern are suspended solids and oil and grease
resulting from hot forming and heat treating operations. Of the nine major
steel plants, Copperweld Steel accounts for about 2 percent of the aggregate
suspended solids discharge and about 4 percent of the aggregate oil and
grease loading. However, the Copperweld discharge is important because of
its high volume in relation to critical stream flows and because it imparts
turbidity and a visible oil sheen to the river in an area of good quality water
and few significant dischargers (Figure V-2). Although the company uses
about 37 percent of the stream during winter .critical flows, the thermal
loading from the plant does not result in significant increases in stream
temperature.
Copperweld Steel has had an effective NPDES permit since 1974
which requires the company to treat and recycle its plant effluent with a
nominal blowdown to the river by July 1, 1977.
2. Republic Steel Corporation
Republic Steel's operations in the Mahoning Valley are inter-dependent
both within the Valley and with other Republic Steel operations in Ohio. Of
the three plants in the Mahoning Valley District, the Warren and Youngstown
Plants are most significant in terms of production and waste discharges.
The Warren Plant is fully integrated, producing coke, iron, steel, and semi-
finished and finished products. Most of the production is devoted to hot
2 3
strip with some cold rolling, galvanizing, and terne (lead) coating. '
-------
Figure V-2 Copperweld Steel Corporation river intake, effluent settling
basin, outfall 002 (3uly 1971). Note discoloration resulting from discharge.
sf*
Figure V-3 Republic Steel Corporation-Warren Plant coke plant and blast
furnace area; blast furnace discharge 013 at crest of dam (July 1971).
-------
Although the plant is fully integrated, it depends upon the Youngstown Plant
for supplemental coke for its blast furnace and for hot metal (molten iron)
to keep its BOF steelmaking facility operating at capacity. The Youngstown
Plant has no steelmaking, but receives ingots and semi-finished strip from
2 3
the Warren Plant for conversion into various sections and pipes. ' A small
portion of the pipe produced is galvanized. The Niles Plant is a small
pickling and cold rolling operation. Republic Steel produces about
29 percent of the raw steel in the Valley.
Discharges from the Warren Plant are located just downstream from
the City of Warren and just upstream from the City of Warren Sewage
Treatment Plant about 36.3 to 37.9 miles above the mouth of the Mahoning
River. These discharges account for about 51 percent of the total industry
suspended solids loading, 14 percent of the oil loading, 21 percent of the
ammonia discharge, 14 to 15 percent of the cyanide and phenolics
discharges, and about 52 percent of the zinc loading. The Warren Plant blast
furnace (Figure V-3) discharges more suspended solids than any other facility
or entire plant in the Valley (90 tons/day), resulting in sludge banks
downstream. Figure V-4 illustrates a combined discharge from the Warren
Plant cold rolling, pickling, galvanizing, and terne coating operations.
Emulsified oil used in cold rolling is evident in the river. Water usage can be
as high as 64 percent of winter and 30 percent of summer minimum
regulated streamflows. Hence, large discharge loadings of the above
contaminants and a high thermal discharge have significant adverse impacts
on stream quality. The Mahoning River is of fairly good quality above the
Republic Steel Warren Plant.
The Niles Plant withdraws water from Mosquito Creek and discharges
to the Mahoning River upstream from Mosquito Creek about 34.3 miles
above the mouth of the river. Discharges from the plant account for about
1 percent of the total industry suspended solids discharge and about
4 percent of the oil discharge.
t~
The active portion of the Republic Steel Youngstown Plant discharges
downstream of the City of Youngstown Sewage Treatment Plant and just
upstream from the Campbell city limits, about 17.8 to 18.5 miles above the
mouth of the river (Figure V-l). The facility accounts for about 22 percent
of the total industry suspended solids discharge, 13 percent of the oil
-------
*i&*~
*«,••
. .-t—», "~«w»ji^- ,x, .
' J" -•- ' 1 >s4
.-" -- -V ••• I
•*-^-»*« w-^.
^x**^.
r***
Figure V-^ Republic Steel Corporation-Warren Plant cold rolling and
finishing area outfall 009 (July 1971). Note discharge of emulsified oil from
lagoon.
Figure V-5 Republic Steel Corporation-Youngstown Plant blast furnace area
(July 1971). Note sludge banks in river formed by blast furnace discharges.
-------
loading, 33 percent of the ammonia loading, 17 percent of the cyanide
loading, and about 39 percent of the phenolics discharge. The blast furnace
area contributes most of the suspended solids discharged by the plant. As
illustrated in Figure V-5 sludge banks are evident below the blast furance
outfalls. Although most coke plant wastes are disposed of by dirty water
coke quenching, discharges of ammonia, cyanide, and phenolics are quite
high. Thermal discharges from the plant are also significant in terms of
resultant increases in stream temperature.
Republic Steel Corporation can be attributed with discharging the
following portions of the steel industry pollution loading to the Mahoning
River from its three plants:
Suspended Solids 75% Ammonia 53%
Oil and Grease 31% Cyanide 32%
Zinc 55% Phenolics 53%
3. United States Steel Corporation
The Ohio Works and the McDonald Mills comprise the Youngstown
4
Works of U. S. Steel. The Ohio Works is located in Youngstown just
upstream from the center of town discharging to the Mahoning River about
22.5 to 23.2 miles above its mouth (Figure V-l). The McDonald Mills is
located in McDonald, about five miles upstream from the Ohio Works and
about 28.7 miles above the mouth of the Mahoning River. Figure V-6 depicts
the Ohio Works and Figure V-7 shows the McDonald Mills discharge.
Iron making, steelmaking, primary rolling and a small amount of
pickling are carried out at the Ohio Works while the McDonald Mills
produces bars, strip, and various shapes from the semi-finished products of
the Ohio Works.2' ^ Pickling is also carried out at the McDonald Mills. U. S.
Steel does not operate a coke plant in the Valley, receiving coke for the
Ohio Works blast furnaces from its Clairton, Pennsylvania coke plant.
Because of the absence of a coke plant and in general better housekeeping
and more adequate treatment facilities, discharges from the U. S. Steel
facilities account for a proportionately lesser share of the total steel
industry discharge than Republic Steel or Youngstown Sheet and Tube. U. S.
Steel produces about 24 percent of the raw steel in the Valley, yet
discharges only 4- percent of the steel industry suspended solids loading from
-------
Figure V-6 U. S. Steel Corporation-Ohio Works (background), Youngstown
Sheet and Tube Company-Brier Hill Works blast furnace area (foreground)
Duly 1971).
Figure V-7 U. S. Steel Corporation-McDonald Mills outfall 006 Duly 1971).
Note oil sheen along left bank of river resulting from discharge.
-------
its Ohio Works and less than 2 percent from the McDonald Mills. Together
both plants discharge 2 percent of the industry oil loading, although there is
a severe floating oil problem at the McDonald Mills as shown in Figure V-7.
The Ohio Works discharges about 18 percent, 40 percent, and 20 percent of
the steel industry ammonia, cyanide, and phenolics discharges, respectively.
Both plants are significant thermal dischargers. The Ohio Works uses about
54 percent of the winter critical stream flow and about 25 percent of the
summer critical flow while the McDonald Mills uses about 30 percent of the
winter flow and 14 percent of the summer flow.
4. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company
The Youngstown District of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company
(YS&T) includes the Brier Hill Works located in Girard and Youngstown, the
Campbell Works located in Campbell, Struthers, and Youngstown, and the
Struthers Division located in Struthers. The Campbell Works is a fully
integrated facility with tubular goods and strip as main products; the Brier
Hill Works produces iron, steel, electric weld pipe, cold drawn bars, and
semi-finished products for finishing at the Campbell Works; and, the
2 5
Struthers Division produces bars and electroplated conduit. ' The
company produces about 39 percent of the raw steel in the Valley.
The Brier Hill Works receives coke, hot metal and skelp from the
Campbell Works and hot rolled bars from the Struthers Division. Slabs and
rounds are sent to the Campbell Works. The discharges from the plant
extend from 23.6 to 25.7 miles above the mouth of the Mahoning River and
account for about 4 percent of the total industry suspended solids loading,
and about 7 percent of the oil, ammonia, cyanide, and phenolics discharges.
As shown in Figure V-l and V-8, the Brier Hill Works is just upstream and
across the river from the U. S. Steel Ohio Works. Figure V-9 illustrates a
heavy oil sheen on the river between the two facilities. The total water
usage amounts to 38 percent of the winter critical stream flow and about 18
»"
percent of the summer critical flow. The Brier Hill Works is a significant
thermal discharger.
The Campbell Works (Figure V-10 and V-ll) uses more water than any
other discharger in the Mahoning Valley, consuming up to 120 percent of the
critical winter flow and 66 percent of the summer low flow. The plant
-------
. *
!sR»*-Vi»i**,-.
Figure V-8 U. S. Steel Corporation-Ohio Works (foreground), Youngstown
Sheet and Tube Company and Brier Hill Works (background) (July 1971).
Figure V-9 Oil sheen on Mahoning River between Youngstown Sheet and
Tube Company-Brier Hill Works and U. S. Steel Corporation-Ohio Works
(July 1971).
-------
discharges as much oil as all other steel plants combined, accounting for 51
percent of the total oil loading, 21 percent of the ammonia loading, 13
percent of the cyanide discharge, 20 percent of the phenolics loading, and 36
percent of the zinc discharge. The Campbell Works is also the largest steel
industry thermal discharger, and discharges about 14 percent of the steel
industry suspended solids loading. A reason for the relatively low suspended
solids discharge is the partial blast furnace gas wash water recirculation
system in operation here. With the river being highly contaminated before
reaching the plant and with the tremendous loadings from the Campbell
Works, the most contaminated section of the stream is found just
downstream from the Campbell Works to the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line.
The Campbell Works discharges about 16.2 to 17.6 miles above the mouth of
the river and only about 4.6 to 6.0 miles above the State Line.
The Struthers Division is a relatively small operation compared to the
Brier Hill Works and Campbell Works, but nevertheless, contributes
significant waste loadings to the stream. The plant accounts for less than
1 percent of the total industry suspended solids loading, about 5 percent of
the oil discharge, 9 percent of the cyanide loading, and 9 percent of the zinc
discharge. The Struthers Division is located just downstream from the
Campbell Works.
Except for oil and grease, discharges from the three Youngstown Sheet
and Tube Company plants generally account for less pollution than
discharges from Republic Steel and more pollution than discharges from
U. S. Steel. Percentages of the total major steel industry loading are shown
below:
Suspended Solids 19% Ammonia 2996
Oil and Grease 63% Cyanide 28%
Total Zinc 45% Phenolics 27%
5. Ohio Edison Company
Ohio Edison operates a 250MW coal fired steam electric generating
station at Niles, Ohio just below the confluences of Mosquito and Meander
Creeks with the Mahoning River. The condenser cooling water is discharged
about 30.1 miles above the mouth of the river. Ohio Edison may use as much
-------
Figure V-10 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Campbell Works
steelmaking, primary mills and finishing mills (3uly 1971).
Figure V-ll Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Campbell Works blast
furnace and sinter plant area (foreground) coke plant area (background)
(July 1971). GPO 8I5-661
-------
as 155 percent of the winter critical stream fli w and 6v percent of the
summer critical stream flow. Water usage in exc.s1 of actual stream flows
is possible because the plant river intake withdi aws water from the pool
created by the Liberty Street Dam in Girard, thus ccirculation of a portion
of the heated effluent results.
At peak power production, Ohio Edison may discharge in excess of one
billion BTU's/hr of waste heat to the river resulting in increases in stream
temperatures of over 12 F depending upon stream rlcw rates.
6. Other Industrial Dischargers
Figure V-l also illustrates the locations of t<;n of the more significant
smaller industrial dischargers to the Lower 'vlahoniny River and its
tributaries. While discharges from some of tl ese facilities may have
localized adverse impacts on stream quality, none have the far-reaching
effects of the major steel plants or Ohio Edison.
-------
TABLE V- 2
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
COPPERWELD STEEL COMPANY
D 350*BD
OH 0011207
NET DISCHARGE LOADINGS (Ibs/day) .
Thermal Total Oil
Loading Suspended and Total Total Total
(xlO BTU/hr) Solids Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide Phenolics Zinc Chromium
Permit Application
1972 USEPA Sampling1
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(July)
Ohio EPA
Discharger
100 6050 1560
80 3010 220
70 2880 9 16 5
60 3*60 15 U 9
3300 1100
6250 2620
NOTES: 2 One 8 hour or 24 hour composite sample per outfall.
, Average of three consecutive 24 hour composite samples at significant outfalls.
^ Modified NPDES permit limitations.
-------
TABLE V- 3
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION
Warren Plant
D 304*AD
OH 0011274
NET DISCHARGE LOADINGS (Ibs/day)
Thermal Total Oil
Loading Suspended and Total Total Total
(xlO BTU/hr) Solids Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide Phenolics Zinc Chromium
Permit Application
1972 USEPA Sampling1
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(July)
Ohio EPA
Discharger
670 17200 4600 980 37 250 1070 68
400 31700 9000 750 12 60 310
310 111700 1280 62 154 540 32
370 40600 670 49 55 140 10
302700 15100 1910 68 79
400 205800 9500 1930 72 84 450
NOTES: 2 One 8 hour or 24 hour composite sample per outfall.
, Average of three consecutive 24 hour composite samples at significant outfalls.
Long-term average from comprehensive monitoring program (75-152 observations per outfall).
-------
TABLE V - t
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION
Niles Plant
D 305*AD
OH 0011266
NET DISCHARGE LOADINGS (Ibs/day)
Thermal
Loading
(xlObBTU/hr)
Total
Suspended
Solids
Oil
and
Grease
Total
Ammonia-N Cyanide Phenolics
Total
Zinc
Total
Chromium
Permit Application
1972 USEPA Sampling1
1975 USEPA Sampling
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling
(July)
Ohio EPA
Discharger
Discharger
9300
3030
2280 1630
Not sampled - production curtailed
Not sampled - production curtailed
9000
5100
2870
2900
NOTES: _ One 8 hour or 2* hour composite sample per outfall.
Long-term average from comprehensive monitoring program (28-29 observations).
-------
TABLE V - 5
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
Permit Application
1972 USEPA Sampling1
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(duly)
Ohio EPA
Discharger
Thermal
Loading
(xlO BTU/hr)
380
350
470
140
390
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION
Youngstown Plant
D 306*AD
OH 0011282
NET DISCHARGE LOADINGS (Ibs/day)
Total Oil
Suspended and Total
Solids Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide
66400 2150 2440 140
29700 3000 990 50
15400 3740 240
45700 '" 650 138
161100 15490 3540 90
88800 8950 3090 80
Total Total
Phenolics Zinc Chromium
480 510 28.
260 30
560 240 9
60 150 . 9
190
230 20
NOTES: - One 8 hour or 24 hour composite sample per outfall.
Average of three consecutive 24 hour composite samples at significant outfalls.
Long-term average from comprehensive monitoring program (61-112 observations per outfall).
-------
TABLE V- 6
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION
McDonald Mills
D 329*AD
OH 0063215
NET DISCHARGE LOADINGS (Ibs/day)
Thermal Total Oil
Loading Suspended and Total Total Total
(xlO BTU/hr) Solids Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide Phenolics Zinc Chromium
Permit Application
1972 USEPA Sampling1
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling2
Duly)
Ohio EPA
Discharger
15 2900 300
175 13300 1050
104 8310 6
44 4310 13
^ 3700 900
10270 3770
NOTES: 2 One 8 hour or 24 hour composite sample per outfall.
., Average of three consecutive 24 hour composite samples at significant outfalls.
Proposed NPDES permit effluent limitations reflecting existing discharge levels (30 day average).
-------
TABLE V- 7
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
UNITED
STATES STEEL CORPORATION
Ohio Works
D 327*AD
OH 0011916
NET DISCHARGE LOADINGS (Ibs/day)
Permit Application
1972 USEPA Sampling1
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling2
Duly)
Ohio EPA
Discharger
Thermal Total
Loading Suspended
(xlO BTU/hr) Solids
115 3930
310 7700
420 7050
170 2870
15000
37160
Oil
and Total Total Total
Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide Phenolics Zinc Chromium
550 520 70
800 430 62 160
93 7 1 24
490 1680 190 120
1550 2560 1260 240
NOTES: 2 One 8 hour or 24 hour composite sample per outfall.
_ Average of three consecutive 24 hour composite samples at significant outfalls.
Proposed NPDES permit interim effluent limitations reflecting existing discharge (30 day average).
-------
TABLE V- 8
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
Permit Application
1972 USEPA Sampling1
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(July)
Ohio EPA .
Discharger
Thermal
Loading
(xlObBTU/hr)
330
190
270
120
270
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY
Brier Hill Works
D 337*AD
OH 0011312
NET DISCHARGE LOADINGS (Ibs/day)
Total Oil
Suspended and Total Total Total
Solids Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide Phenolics Zinc Chromium
20460 4920 200 70 18
4810 560 110 60 5 16
16700 660 74 32 28
1070 - - - 63
20400 4910 150 170 IS
17750 4870 680 32 42
NOTES: - One 8 hour or 24 hour composite sample per outfall.
, Average of three consecutive 24 hour composite samples at significant outfalls.
Long-term average discharge (observations from 1968-1975).
-------
TABLE V - 9
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
•
Permit Application
1972 USEPA Sampling1
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(July)
Ohio EPA
Discharger
Thermal
Loading
(xlO BTU/hr)
1710
980
720
350
850
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY
Campbell Works
D 336»AD
OH 0011321
NET DISCHARGE LOADINGS (Ibs/day)
Total Oil
Suspended and Total
Solids Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide
74600 93000 2240 30
108000 53700 1150 22
32100 2660 490
16300 980 100
72400 94200 2060 90
54720 34380 2020 60
«
Total Total
Phenolics Zinc Chromium
120 420 40
110 1020
310 640 210
150 450 90
190 420
120 310
NOTES: « One 8 hour or 24 hour composite sample per outfall.
Average of three consecutive 24 hour composite samples at significant outfalls.
Long-term average discharge (observations from 1968-1975).
-------
TABLE V- 10
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY
Struthers Division
D 334*AD
OH 0011321
NET DISCHARGE LOADINGS (Ibs/day)
Thermal Total Oil
Loading Suspended and Total Total Total
(xlO BTU/hr) Solids Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide Phenolics Zinc Chromium
Permit Application
1972 USEPA Sampling1
1975 USEPA Sampling2
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling2
Duly)
Ohio EPA
Discharger
84 6220 1140 50 45 79
22 630 40 85 360
Not Sampled
26 890 18 8 28
6120 1140 46 79
40 2590 3280 43 80
NOTES: 2 C*ne 8 hour or 24 hour composite sample per outfall.
, Average of three consecutive 24 hour composite samples at significant outfalls.
Long-term average discharge (observations from 1968-1975).
-------
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling
(July)
Ohio EPA
Discharger
TABLE V- 11
INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
OHIO EDISON COMPANY
Niles Steam Electric Generating Station
NET DISCHARGE LOADINGS (Ibs/day)
Permit Application
1972 USEPA Sampling
1975 USEPA Sampling
Thermal
Loading
(xlObBTU/hr)
810
970
1160
Total Oil
Suspended ' and Total
Solids Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide Phenolics
•
Total Total
Zinc Chromium
800
1300 (maximum)
-------
TABLE V- 12
SUMMARY OF MAJOR INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
Total
Thermal Suspended Total
Discharge Solids Oil and Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide Phenolics
Copperweld
Steel Corporation
Republic Steel Corporation
United States Steel Corporation
Youngstown
Ohio Edison
Sheet and Tube Company
Company
106BTU/hr
70
790
520
1160
1160
% of total Ibs/day
( 2) 6300
(21) 299700
(If) 18700
(31) 75100
(31)
% of total Ibs/day
( 2) 2620
(75) 21350
( 5) 1390
(19) 42530
% of total Ibs/day % of total Ibs/day % of total Ibs/day % of tota
(4)
(31) 5020 (53) 152 (32) 314 (53)
(2) 1680 (18) 190 (40) 120 (20)
(63) 2700 (29) 135 (28) 162 (27)
TOTAL
3700
399800
67890
9400
477
596
NOTE: Data for Republic Steel Corporation and Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company are long-term averages.
Data for United States Steel Corporation were obtained from the Ohio EPA, and data for Copperweld Steel Corporation reflect interim NPDES permit effluent limitations.
-------
B. Municipal Dischargers
Tables V-13 to V-20 present summaries of available discharge data for
eight sewage treatment plants discharging to the lower Mahoning River.
Figure V-l illustrates the location of the dischargers and Figure V-12
illustrates the respective service areas for each sewage treatment plant.
Information pertaining to all existing municipal waste water treatment
facilities in the valley are presented in Table V-21. With the exception of
the newly constructed Meander Creek Sewage Treatment Plant, the eight
facilities described herein provide primary treatment. Since effluent quality
for these facilities falls within the range expected for primary treatment,
adverse impacts on stream quality are roughly in proportion to effluent
volume. The total effluent from the facilities amounted to 54 MGD on an
annual average basis in 1974. The Meander Watershed plant is expected to
add 4 MGD by late 1977.
1. Warren
The Warren WWTP, located on 104 acres of land between the Mahoning
River (M.P. 36) and South Main Street, is a primary sewage treatment plant
with facilities for chemical precipitation, sludge filtration and incineration.
The plant was placed in operation in 1962 and now treats an average daily
flow of 12.2 MGD.7 Average design flow of the plant is 13.5 MGD and the
design population is 90,000. The plant presently serves about 80,000 people
including the entire population of Warren and several thousand people from
g
Champion, Lordstown, Warren, and Howland Townships.
There are three pumping stations within the service area. Most of the
raw sewage is lifted to the Warren plant from the Mahoning River
interceptor pumping station located approximately 0.8 miles to the north of
the plant on South Main Street. The maximum capacity of this pumping
o
station is 38.0 MGD with a firm pumping capacity of 28.5 MGD. Industrial
wastes (4.5 MGD) coming to the treatment plant originate from automobile,
electric products, aluminum extrusion and steel manufacturing and
fabrication plants.
A combined sewer system and infiltration result in excessive flows
during wet weather. Bypassing occurs at the Brookside and D- pumping
8
stations, the Mahoning River interceptor and at the treatment plant.
-------
FIGUREZ-IS
EXISTING AND PROPOSED FUTURE
MUNICIPAL SERVICE AREAS
Cross-Hotched and Shaded Areas
Indicates Existing Service.
j j Future Proposed Service Area
W - Warren
I N I- Niles
| G j - Girard
• Y . - Youngs town
I S I- Struthers
ILJ- Lowellville
SOURCE' Th« Cattgat* Development and Trontportation Agency
NOTE' Future Sirvlo Areoi May 8« Modilitd P
-------
Overflows can occur at the Union Street storm sewer and at the Market
g
Street and Republic Steel office building regulating stations. With the
exception of the bypass at the treatment plant, all other bypasses and
overflows are discharged to the Mahoning River without treatment. Excess
flow at the treatment plant is chlorinated prior to being discharged to the
Mahoning River.
The Warren plant is the second largest municipal discharger to the
lower Mahoning River. For 1974, the annual average effluent flow was 12.95
MGD. The plant flow amounts to about 24 percent of the total municipal
contribution to the lower Mahoning River and the discharge accounts for
about 21 percent (5900 Ibs/day) of the municipal suspended solids discharge,
25 percent (8200 Ibs/day) of the BOD- discharge, and about 30 percent (1000
Q -^
Ibs/day) of the ammonia discharge.
2. Niles
The Niles WWTP is located in the southeasterly section of the City just
upstream of U. S. Steel McDonald Mills, about 28.5 miles above the mouth of
the Mahoning River. Niles is the third largest municipal discharger to the
lower Mahoning. The plant receives and processes sanitary sewage using
primary sedimentation with some chemical pretreatment, followed by
chlorination of the effluent and anaerobic decomposition of sludge. The
Niles plant was designed to serve a population of 25,000 by the year 1980,
providing primary treatment for a design flow of 3.0 MGD. The plant
presently serves the entire populaion of Niles (23,500 people) and Howland
Sewer District //9 which accounts for some 1100 people. In 1974, the
plant treated an annual average daily flow of 4.2 MGD, which is about 40
percent higher than the design flow. The hydraulic overloading can be
attributed to large amounts of infiltration and storm water entering the
combined sewerage system. Typically, the flow must exceed 9.2 MGD
before bypassing will occur at the plant. This maximum flow has been
exceeded on numerous occasions. Sewer overflows reportedly occur
upstream of the treatment plant at nine different locations within the
service area.
The Niles discharge accounts for about 7 percent of the total
municipal effluent flow and 7 percent, 6 percent, and 9 percent of the
-------
suspended solids, BOD,-, and ammonia loadings, respectively. Discharge
loadings during 1974 averaged about 2300 Ibs/day of BOD5, and 1900 Ibs/day
of suspended solids. U. S. EPA's July 1975 survey revealed an average
ammonia discharge of about 300 Ibs/day over a three day period.
3. McDonald
The McDonald Sewage Treatment Plant is located just downstream of
U. S. Steel McDonald Mills about 27.8 miles above the mouth of the
Mahoning River. The plant receives and processes sanitary sewage, using
primary sedimentation with some chemical pretreatment, followed by
chlorination of the effluent and anaerobic sludge digestion. The plant was
placed in operation in 1959 and now treats an average daily flow of
0.605 MGD. Design flow of the plant is 0.610 MGD average and design
population is 5300. The plant presently serves the entire population of
McDonald, roughly 3200 people. There are no reported industrial dischargers
to this facility. The collection system consists of both separate and
combined sewers. The plant has infiltration/inflow problems, although
bypassing is reported to be infrequent. With the exception of the
Lowellville WWTP, the McDonald WWTP is the smallest municipal discharger
to the lower Mahoning. The plant discharge accounts for about 1 percent of
the total municipal contribution of BOD, (250 Ibs/day), suspended solids (120
Ibs/day) and flow (0.605 MGD).1 ^
4. Girard
The Girard Sewage Treatment Plant is located across from the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Brier Hill Works about 25 miles above the mouth
of the Mahoning River. The plant services all of Girard, with a population of
about 14,000, and Liberty Township Sewer District #3, which accounts for
some 6000 people. The facility was placed in operation in 1963 and has a
design flow of 1.8 MGD and design population of 18,000. The only known
industrial discharger to this facility is the Benada Aluminum Products
Company.
The existing sewerage system is predominantly separate with a few
combined sewers in the main business district. However, inflow/infiltration
-------
has resulted in hydraulic overload problems at the treatment plant. During
heavy rains, sewer overflows also occur upstream of the treatment plant.
During dry weather, the plant effluent may become the total flow of
Little Squaw Creek before it reaches the Mahoning River. The Girard
discharge accounts for about 5 percent of the total municipal contribution of
NH3-N (180 Ibs/day), BOD5 (18,000 Ibs/day), suspended solids (1000 Ibs/day)
and flow (2.7 MGD) to the lower Mahoning River.
5. Youngstown
The Youngstown Wastewater Treatment Plant is located just upstream
of the Republic Steel Youngstown Plant about 19.5 miles above the mouth of
the Mahoning River and about 8 miles above the Ohio-Pennsylvania State
Line. The Youngstown Plant provides primary treatment that can be
augmented by chemical addition. The plant was placed in operation in 1965
10
and now treats an average daily flow of 28.5 MGD while the design flow is
50 MGD with a design population of 490,000. The Youngstown treatment
facility presently serves about 90 percent of the population of Youngstown
(approximately 126,000 people) and 80,000 people from Mahoning and
Trumbull Counties outside the City limits. There are numerous industrial
discharges to the plant, many of which are unknown. However, the City has
retained a consultant to identify all sources of industrial discharges to the
plant.
The collection system includes a large number of combined sewers,
resulting in wide fluctuations in flow to the plant during wet weather. Due
to the large amount of excess hydraulic capacity available, bypassing at the
treatment plant is infrequent and is likely to occur only during power
outages. There are reportedly 117 regulators and overflows upstream of
the treatment plant which have discharges into every stream in the area,
including Silver Creek, Crab Creek and Mill Creek which traverses an
extensive park system. Ten to fifteen percent of the city, by area
(Northwest section) and approximately 10 percent by population, is
18
unsewered with septic tanks for sanitary service. Projects for improving
and expanding the collection system are in progress.
The Youngstown WWTP is the largest municipal discharger in the study
area and can be attributed with discharging the following portions of the
municipal pollution loading to the lower Mahoning River:
-------
Flow 54% or 28.5 MGD
Suspended Solids 63% or 17000 Ibs/day
BOD5 52% or 17000 Ibs/day
Ammonia 46% or 1900 Ibs/day
6. Campbell _.t
The Campbell WWTP, located about 16.5 miles above the mouth of the
Mahoning River, is a primary sewage treatment plant (with provisions for
chemical treatment) serving the entire population of Campbell (13,000
people). The plant was placed in operation in 1958 and between March 1974
19
and September 1975 treated an average daily flow of 2.274 MGD. There
are no reported industrial discharges to this facility, with the exception of
sanitary wastes from Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Campbell
Works.20
Although most of the sanitary sewage is separated from the storm
water throughout the City, both are combined in a 5' x 6' concrete box sewer
on Wilson Avenue, directly upstream from the treatment plant. Due to the
location of the plant with respect to the City, the storm water reaches the
plant in a very short time causing hydraulic overloading and resultant
bypassing of much of the septic solids deposited in the interceptor during dry
weather conditions. The Campbell discharge contains 4 percent, 3 percent,
4.5 percent, and 3 percent of the total municipal contributions of flow,
suspended solids, BOD,-, and ammonia, respectively to the lower Mahoning
River.
7. Struthers
The Struthers WWTP is located just downstream of the Youngstown
Sheet and Tube Company-Struthers Division, about 14.2 miles above the
mouth of the Mahoning River. The plant receives and processes sanitary
sewage using primary sedimentation followed by chlorination of the effluent
and anaerobic decomposition of sludge. The plant was placed in operation in
21
1961 and now treats an average daily flow of about 2.0 MGD. Design flow
22
of the plant is 2.5 MGD and the design population is 25,000 people. The
plant presently serves about 29,000 people including the entire population of
22
Struthers and 12,000 people from Poland Township. With the exception of
-------
some sanitary wastes from the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-
Struthers Division, there are no reported industrial discharges to this
facility.21' 22
The City has major intercepting sewers which intercept combined
sewers. Sewer overflows occur upstream of the treatment plant at about
four different locations during heavy.Drains. Bypassing of raw sewage also
occurs at the plant during wet weather. However, bypassed sewage is
chlorinated prior to being discharged.
The Struthers discharge accounts for about k percent, 2 percent, 2
percent, and 5 percent of the total municipal contribution of flow, suspended
solids, BOD,, and ammonia, respectively. Discharge loadings during 1974
averaged about 650 Ibs/day of suspended solids, 918 Ibs/day of BOD., and
207 Ibs/day of ammonia.
8. Lowellville
The Lowellville WWTP, located just upstream of the Ohio-Pennsylvania
State Line about 12.2 miles above the mouth of the Mahoning River, is a
primary sewage treatment plant with facilities for chemical precipitation.
The plant was placed in operation in 1959 and during 1975 treated an
average annual flow of 0.269 MGD.23 Design flow of the plant is 0.25 MGD
23
and the design population is 2500. The plant presently serves about 1800
23
people within the Village of Lowellville. There are no reported industrial
discharges to this facility. The sewerage system has major hydraulic
overloading problems, resulting from inflow/infiltration and numerous
combined sewers. Bypassing and sewer overflows occur during heavy
23
rains. The Lowellville WWTP is the smallest municipal discharger to the
lower Mahoning River. The plant discharge accounts for less than 1 percent
of the total municipal contribution of flow (0.269 MGD), suspended solids
(170 Ibs/day), BOD5 (250 Ibs/day), and ammonia (14 Ibs/day).
9. Meander Creek
The Meander Creek Sewage Treatment Plant, located on Meander
Creek near Niles, Ohio, has recently been completed and was .placed in
operation in late 1976. The plant is a secondary treatment facility (Pure
Oxygen Activated Sludge) with phosphorus removal capability and
-------
disinfection by ozonation. Average design flow of the plant is 4.0 MGD and
2k
the design population is 40,000. The plant will serve the City of Canfield,
Mineral Ridge, and portions of the Austintown Township sewer service
district.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the
Meander Creek facility has been issued to the Board of County
Commissioners of Mahoning County. Pertinent discharge limitations of this
permit which went into effect June 21, 1976 appear below:
Parameter
Suspended Solids, mg/1
Phosphorus, mg/1
Ammonia (summer), mg/1
Ammonia (winter), mg/1
pH su
Fecal Coliform IDS/ 100 ml
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/1
30 Day
Average
15
20
1
2.5
5
7 Day
Average
25
30
1.5
5
7.5
200
400
Other
6-9
minimum of 5
10. Other Municipal Dischargers
In addition to the sewage treatment plants discussed above, Table IV-
20 also presents data pertaining to other municipal waste water treatment
facilities in the Mahoning River Basin. Included in Table V-20 are the types
of sewer systems and treatment facilities provided by the municipalities and
counties along with performance data. It should be noted that nearly all of
the municipal and county dischargers not previously discussed, now provide
secondary treatment. Discharges from these facilities are generally of
reasonably good quality. However, localized water quality problems are not
uncommon.
-------
TABLE V- 13
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
WARREN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DISCHARGE LOADING (Ibs/day)
BOO,
Permit Application 11000
1975 USEPA Sampling 7300
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling 9300
(July)
1973 Annual Summary 9500
of Operations
1974 Annual Summary 8200
Total
Suspended
Solids
6100
7300
6400
6200
5900
Total
Phosphorus
300
500
600
600
700
Ammonia-N
1300
1000
700
1200
1000
of Operations
-------
TABLE V- 1*
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
NILES WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DISCHARGE LOADING (Ibs/day)
Permit Application
1975 USEPA Sampling
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling
Duly)
1973 Annual Summary
of Operations
1974 Annual Summary
BOD^
2900
2700
2200
2000
2300
Total
Suspended Total
Solids Phosphorus
2300
1200 230
2200 170
2000
1900
Ammonia-N
380
300
of Operations
-------
TABLE V- 15
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
MCDONALD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DISCHARGE LOADING (Ibs/day)
BOD5
Permit Application
1975 USEPA Sampling 200
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling 330
(July)
1973 Annual Summary 220
of Operations
1974 Annual Summary 250
Total
Suspended Total
Solids Phosphorus
100 30
310 40
100
120
Ammonia-N
50
70
of Operations
-------
TABLE V - 16
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
GIRARD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DISCHARGE LOADING (Ibs/day)
Permit Application
1975 USEPA Sampling
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling
(July)
1973 Annual Summary
of Operations
1974 Annual Summary
BOD^
2200
1250
1400
2200
1800
Total
Suspended Total
Solids Phosphorus
1600
740 100
1300 100
1600
1000
Ammonia-N
210
180
of Operations
-------
TABLE V- 17
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
YOUNGSTOWN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DISCHARGE LOADING (Ibs/day)
BOD,
Permit Application 14000
1975 USEPA Sampling 10200
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling 13900
(July)
1973 Annual Summary 13700
of Operations
1974 Annual Summary 17000
Total
Suspended
Solids
16000
8000
13500
16800
17000
Total
Phosphorus
1600
1100
1100
1400
1660
Ammonia-N
400
1500
1900
2100
2700
of Operations
-------
TABLE V - 18
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
CAMPBELL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DISCHARGE LOADING (Ibs/day)
BOD5
Permit Application 1500
1975 USEPA Sampling 1100
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling 1100
(July)
1973 Annual Summary 1480
of Operations
1974 Annual Summary 1800
Total
Suspended Total
Solids Phosphorus
830
380 100
1000 110
750
850
Ammonia-N
130
140
of Operations
-------
TABLE V - 19
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
STRUTHERS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DISCHARGE LOADING (Ibs/day)
Permit Application
1975 USEPA Sampling
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling
(July)
1973 Annual Summary
of Operations
1974 Annual Summary
BOD5
1350
1460
950
1111
900
Total
Suspended Total
Solids Phosphorus
720
740 130
900 120
776
650
Ammonia-N
250
200
of Operations
-------
TABLE V - 20
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE SUMMARY
LOWELLVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
DISCHARGE LOADING (Ibs/day)
BOD^
Permit Application
1975 USEPA Sampling 70
(February)
1975 USEPA Sampling 90
Duly)
1973 Annual Summary 210
of Operations
1974 Annual Summary 250
Total
Suspended Total
Solids Phosphorus
60 10
110 15
120
170
Ammonia-N
6
of Operations
-------
TABLE V - 21
DATA ON MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
Entity
Alliance*
Beloit*
Campbell
Canfield*
Columbiana
Cortland*
Garrettsville*
Girard
Hiram*
Receiving
Stream
Beech Creek
Tirbutary to
Mahoning River
Mahoning River
Sawmill Creek
Mill Creek
Mosquito Creek
Silver Creek
Little Squaw Creek
Big Hollow Creek
Type Sewer System
Type Treatment Facility
Design Flow MGO/PE
S+C - Sec. + D
4.7/36,400
S - Sec. + D
0.1/1,000
S - Prim. + Chem. - D
2.5/25,000
S - Sec. + D
0.75/7,500
S - Sec. + D
0.8/8,000
S - Sec. + D
0.22/2,200
S - Sec.
0.15/2,000
S - Prim. + Chem. - D
1.8/18,000
S - Sec.
0.1/1,000
1970
Population
26,5*7
921
12,577
4,997
4,959
2,525
1,718
14,119
1,484
1974
Annual
Av. Flow
MGD
3.060
0.004
2.270
0.700
0.710
0.270
0.128
2.680
0.139
Performance Data
Raw BOD
RawSS
179
188
186
223
162
109
182
177
101
206
130
140
156
62
157
132
217
121
Final BOD
Final SS
39
134
3
17
93
45
16
20
3.9
4.3
47
58
58
34
80
46
52
37
Annual
% Removal
BOD
SS
78
82
98
93
42
59
91
88
96
98
64
58
63
45
49
65
51
55
-------
TABLE V-21
DATA ON MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
Entity
Lowellville
McDonald
Newton Falls
Niles
Sebring*
Struthers
Warren
Windham*
Youngstown
Receiving
Stream
Mahoning River
Tributary to
Mahoning River
Mahoning River
Mahoning River
Fish Creek
Mahoning River
Mahoning River
Eagle Creek
Mahoning River
Type Sewer System
Type Treatment Facility
Design Flow MGD/PE
S - Prim. - Chem. - D
0.22/2,640
S - Prim. - Chem. - D
0.61/5,230
C - Prim. - D
1.0/7,000
S-C - Prim. - Chem. - D
3.0/27,000
S - Sec.
0.5/4,045
S - Prim. - Chem. - D
2.5/31,000
S-C - Prim. - Chem. - D
13.5/90,000
S - Sec. - D
0.6/6,000
S-C - Prim. - Chem. - D
50/218,000
1970
Population
1,836
3,177
5,378
21,581
4,954
15,343
63,494
3,360
140,909
1974
Annual
Av. Flow
MGD
0.283
0.605
0.719
4.160
0.500
2.000
12.95
0.370
29
Performance Data
Raw BOD
Raw 55
221
157
117
: 132
65
128
177
109
144
131
97
106
100
160
226
68
151
. 157
Final BOD
Final SS
109
71
49
24
38
47
66
54
12
13
55
39
76
55
17
11
71
69
Annual
% Removal
BOD
SS
51
55
58
82
42
63
63
50
92
90
43
63
24
66
92
84
56
53
-------
TABLE V-21
DATA ON MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
Entity
Mahohing County
Milton S. D. //I I
Craig Beach
Mahoning County *
Park S. D. #29
Boardman STP
Portage County *
Atwater Sanitary S. D. //I
Trumbull County *
Mineral Ridge S. D.
Trumbull County *
Mosquito Creek S. D.
Trumbull County *
Warren-Champion 5. D.
Subdistrict //1-B •
Kuszmaul Allotment
Trumbull County *
Warren-Champion S. D.
Subdistrict //1-D
Meadowlane Heights Allotment
Trumbull County *
Weathersfield S. D. //I
Receiving
Stream
Mahoning River
Mill Creek
Tributary to Deer Creek
Meander Creek
Mosquito Creek
Chocolate Run
Chocolate Run
Tributary of
Mahoning River
Type Sewer System
Type Treatment Facility
Design Flow MGD/PE
S - Sec. - D
0.32/3,200
S - Sec. - D
5.0/50,000
S-Sec. -D
0.2/2,000
S - Sec.
0.2/2,000
S - Sec. - D
1.5/15,000
S - Sec.
0.09/900
S - Sec.
0.015/150
S - Sec.
0.12/1,200
197* Performance
Annual
1970 Av. Flow Raw BOD
Population MGD Raw SS
650
5,000 l.*30 164
16*
•
0.04* 127
231
136
158
1.973 1*6
100
201
192
192
229
163
198
Data
Final BOD
Final SS
2.6
15
8
6
18
18
15
17
15
16
10
13
19
5
Annual
% Removal
BOD
SS
98
91
97
9*
87
89
90
83
93
92
95
9*
98
88
SOURCES: 1) Reference 25 2) 197* Annual Summaries of Operations
-------
REFERENCES - SECTION V
1. Amendola, G. A., Inspection Report - Copperweld Steel Corporation,
U. S. EPA - Ohio District Office, Fairview Park, Ohio, October 1971.
2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Impact of Pollution
Control Regulations on Steel Plants in the Mahoning Valley,
Washington, D.C., April 28, 1976.
3. Amendola, G. A., General Report - Republic Steel Corporation
Mahoning Valley District, U. S. EPA - Ohio District Office, Fairview
Park, Ohio, May 1972.
4. Amendola, G. A., General Report - United States Steel Corporation -
Youngstown Works, U. S. EPA - Ohio District Office, Fairview Park,
Ohio, May 1972.
5. Amendola, G. A., General Report - Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Company, U. S. EPA - Ohio District Office, Fairview Park, Ohio, May
1972.
6. The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, General Flow Diagram of
Plant Operations, Youngstown, Ohio (Preliminary Drawings,
September 1972).
7. Baclawski, T., Report on Operation and Maintenance - Warren WWTP,
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Northeast District Office,
March 18, 1976.
8. City of Warren, NPDES Permit Application - Standard Form A -
Municipal, April 9, 1974.
9. City of Warren, Annual Summary of Operations for Sewage Treatment
Plant at Warren, Ohio 1974.
10. Amendola, G. A., Inspection Report - Niles Wastewater Treatment
Plant, U. S. EPA - Ohio District Office, Fairview Park, Ohio, August
1971.
11. City of Niles, Annual Summary of Operations for Sewage Treatment
Plant at Niles, Ohio, 1974.
12. City of Niles, NPDES Permit Application - Standard Form A -
Municipal.
13. Ohio Department of Health, A Report on Recommended Water Quality
Standards for the Interstate Waters Mahoning River, Pymatuning,
Yankee and Little Beaver Creeks, Ohio-Pennsylvania, May 1970.
14. Village of McDonald, Annual Summary of Operations for Sewage
Treatment Plant at McDonald, Ohio, 1974.
-------
15. City of Girard, NPDES Permit Application - Standard Form A -
Municipal.
16. Baclawski, T., Report on Operation and Maintenance - Girard WWTP,
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Northeast District Office,
January 21, 1976.
17. Amendola, G. A., Inspection Report - Youngstown Wastewater
Treatment Plant, U. S. EPA - Ohio District Office, Fairview Park,
Ohio, August 1971.
18. Bell, R., Report on Operation and Maintenance - Youngstown STP,
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Northeast District Office,
December 30, 1975.
19. Bell, R., Report on Operation and Maintenance - Campbell STP, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Northeast District Office,
October 9, 1975.
20. City of Campbell, NPDES Permit Application - Standard Form A -
Municipal, September 1974.
21. Bell, R. Report on Operation and Maintenance - Struthers STP, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Northeast District Office,
October 9, 1975.
22. City of Struthers, NPDES Permit Application - Standard Form A -
Municipal, October 1973.
23. Bell, R., Report on Operation and Maintenance - Lowellville STP, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Northeast District Office, April 14,
1976.
24. Personal Communication with Ronald Bell, Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, Northeast District Office, July 1976.
25. Ohio Department of Health, A Report on Recommended Water Quality
Standards for the Interstate Waters - Mahoning River, Pymatuning,
Yankee, and Little Beaver Creeks, Ohio-Pennsylvania, May 1970.
-------
SECTION VI
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND HISTORICAL WATER QUALITY
A. Ohio and Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards
The history of water quality standards development for the Ohio
portion of the Mahoning River is long and full of controversy. While a
detailed historical review is beyond the scope of this report, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency has made a summary of major
developments from February 1965 to March 1976 from its perspective. The
effective standards as of this writing are those originally adopted by Ohio on
July 11, 19722 and Federally approved on September 29, 1972.3 These
standards were re-adopted by Ohio without change on July 27, 1973 with
if.
other statewide standards and again Federally approved on December 18,
1973. Federal exception to a few of the statewide criteria were amended
by Ohio on January 8, 19756 and Federally approved May 14, 1975.7
7
By these standards, the Mahoning River from Warren to the
Lowellville Dam is classified for secondary contact recreation, as a well
balanced warm water fishery, for industrial water supply, and for
agricultural use and stock watering. The reach from the Lowellville Dam to
the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line is also classified for public water supply
and for primary contact reaction. At this writing, the Ohio EPA is
considering downgrading designated stream uses and water quality criteria
for selected Ohio reaches of the Mahoning River from 1977 to 1983. The
post 1983 standards would be compatible with existing Pennsylvania water
quality standards at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line.
The current water quality standards for the Pennsylvania portion of
o
the Mahoning River were adopted on September 2, 1971 and Federally
q
approved on August 10, 1973. These standards designate the Mahoning
River in Pennsylvania for warm water fish; domestic, industrial, livestock,
and irrigation water supplies; recreational uses including boating, fishing,
water contact sports, natural and conservation areas; and, power
-------
(generation) and treated waste assimilation. Pennsylvania is considering
minor adjustments to the numerical criteria associated with the warm water
fish use designation.
Table VI-1 summarizes existing Ohio Mahoning River water quality
standards, Ohio statewide water quality standards, existing Pennsylvania
Mahoning River water quality standards, and possible revisions to the
Pennsylvania water quality standards under consideration. The criteria
association with the possible revisions to the Pennsylvania standards were
obtained from recent correspondence between the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources.10'11'12'13
-------
TABLE VI - 1
OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
Water Quality
Constituent
Ohio Standards
Mahoning River . General Statewide Standards
July 11, 1972 January 8, 1975
Pennsylvania Standards
Mahoning River Possible Revisions to
September 2, 1971 Pennsylvania Standards
1) Temperature
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
2) Dissolved Oxygen
3) pH
4) Ammonia-N
5) Total Cyanide
6) Free Cyanide
Allowable increase over temperature
measured at Leavittsburg, Ohio
10°F
10
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
Minimum daily average >.0 mg/1
Minimum at any time 4.0 mg/1
No values below 6.0 su
No values above 8.5 su
Daily fluctuations which exceed the
range of pH 6.0 to pH 8.5 and are
correlated with synthetic activity
may be tolerated
See "Toxic Substances" (17)
(0.02 mg/1 unionized Ammonia-N)
See "Toxic Substances" (17)
5 F Allowable increase over natural
stream temperatures and maximum
values not to be exceeded:
50°F
50
60
70
80
90
90
90
90 _
78
70
57
Minimum daily average 5.0 mg/1
Minimum at any time 4.0 mg/1
No values below 6.0 su
No values above 9.0 su
pH may be less than 6.0 or more
than 9.0 if there is no contribution
of acidic or alkaline pollution
attributable to human activities
Maximum at any time 1.5 mg/1
Maximum at any time 200 ug/1
Maximum at any time 5 ug/1
Maximum values not to
exceeded:
50°F
50
60
70 '
80
90
90
90
90
78
70
57
Minimum daily average
5.0 mg/1
No value less than
4.0 mg/1
Not less than 6.0 su
Not more than 8.5 su
See "Toxic Substances" (17)
(0.02 mg/1 unionized Ammonia-N)
Not more than 25 ug/1
be Maximum values not to
be exceeded:
56°F
56
62
71
80
90
90
90
90
78
69
58
-------
TABLE VI - 1
(continued)
OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Water Quality
Constituent
Mahoning River
July 11, 1972
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
Ohio Standards
General Statewide Standards
January 8, 1975
Pennsylvania Standards
Mahoning River Possible Revisions to
September 2, 1971 Pennsylvania Standards
7) Phenolics
8) Oil and Grease
9) Dissolved Solids, mg/1
10) Total Iron
11) Dissolved Iron
12) Fluoride
13) Threshold Odor Number
1*) Total Copper
See "Toxic Substances" (17)
See "General Criteria" (18)
Maximum monthly average 500 mg/1
Maximum at any time 750 mg/1
Daily average of 24 at 60 C
See "Toxic Substances" (17)
Maximum at any time 10 ug/1
5.0 mg/1 (hexane soluble)
Dissolved solids may exceed one, but
not both of the following:
a) 1500 mg/1
b) 150 mg/1 attributable to human
activities
Maximum at any time 1.0 mg/1
Maximum at any time 1.0 mg/1
The threshold odor number
attributable to human activities
shall not exceed 24 at 40°C
Total Copper
(ug/1)
Maximum values at any time:
Hardness
(mg/lCaCO3)
5 0-80
10 80-160
20 160-240
50 240-320
75 > 320
Not more than 5 ug/1
See "General Criteria"
(18)
Maximum monthly average
500 mg/1
Maximum at any time
750 mg/1
Not more than 1.5 mg/1
Not more than 1.0 mg/1
Not more than 24 at 60°C
See "Toxic Substances" (17)
Not more than 10 ug/1
Not more than 2.0 mg/1
Not more than 24 at 40°C
-------
Water Quality
Constituent
TABLE VI - 1
(continued)
OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Mahoning River
July 11, 1972
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
Ohio Standards
General Statewide Standards
January 8, 1975
Pennsylvania Standards
Mahoning River Possible Revisions to
September 2, 1971 Pennsylvania Standards
15) Total Zinc
See "Toxic Substances" (17)
16) Bacteria
Primary Contact - (Swimming and
Water-Skiing)
Bacteria: The fecal coliform content
(either MPN or MF count) not to
exceed 200 per 100 ML as a monthly
geometric mean based on not less
than' five samples per month; nor
exceed 400 per 100 ML in more than
ten percent of all samples taken
during a month
Secondary Contact - (Boating, Fishing
and Wading)
Bacteria; The fecal coliform content
(either MPN or MF count) not to
exceed 1,000 per 100 ML as a
monthly geometric mean based on not
less than five samples per month; nor
exceed. 2,000 per 100 ML in more
than ten percent of all samples taken
during a month
Maximum values at any time:
See "Toxic Substances" (17)
Total Zinc
(yg/i)
75
100
200
Hardness
(mg/lCaCO3)
0-80
80-160
160-240
400 240-320
500 > 320
1. Geometric mean fecal coliform
content (either MPN or,. MF count),
based on not less than five samples
within a 30-day period, shall not
exceed 200 per 100 ml
2. Fecal coliform content (either
MPN or MF count) shall not exceed
400 per/100 ml in more than ten
percent of the samples taken during
any 30-day period
The fecal coliform density in
five consecutive samples
shall not exceed a geometric
mean of 200 per 100 ml
-------
Water Quality
Constituent
TABLE VI - 1
(continued)
OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Mahoning River
3uly 11, 1972
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
Ohio Standards
General Statewide Standards
January 8, 1975
Pennsylvania Standards
Mahoning River Possible Revisions to
September 2, 1971 Pennsylvania Standards
17) Toxic Substances
Toxic Substances:
IS) General Criteria
_^_^ Not to exceed
"o! tFe 96-hour median
limit, except that other
one-tenth
tolerance
limiting concentrations may be used
in specific cases when justified on the
basis of available evidence and
approved by the appropriate
regulatory agency.
Minimum Conditions Applicable to all
Waters at all Places and at all Times
1. Free from substances attributable
to municipal, industrial or other
discharges, or agricultural practices
that will settle to form putrescent or
otherwise objectionable sludge
deposits.
2. Free from floating debris, oil,
scum and other floating materials
attributable to municipal, industrial
or other discharges, or agricultural
practices in amounts sufficient to be
unsightly or deleterious.
All pollutants or combinations of
pollutants shall not exceed at any
time one-tenth of the 96-hour
median tolerance limit for any
indigenous aquatic species, except
that other more stringent
application factors shall be imposed
where necessary to meet the
minimum requirements of the
National Technical Advisory
Committee, "Water Quality
Criteria," 1968.
All waters of the state shall be free
from substances attributable to
human activities which result in
sludge deposits, floating materials,
color, turbidity, or other conditions
in such degree as to create a
nuisance.
The list of specific water
quality criteria does not
include all possible
substances that could cause
pollution. For substances not
listed, the general criterion
that these substances shall
not be inimical or injurious to
the designated water uses
applies. The best scientific
information available will be
used to adjudge the
suitability of a given waste
discharge where these
substances are involved.
General Water Quality Criteria:
a) Water shall not contain
substances attributable to
municipal, industrial or other
waste discharges in
concentration or amounts
sufficient to be inimical or
harmful to the water uses to
be protected or to human,
animal, plant or aquatic life.
b) Specific substances to be
controlled shall include, but
shall not be limited to,
floating debris, oil, scum and .
other floating materials,
toxic substances and
substances which produce
color, tastes, odors, turbidity
or settle to form sludge
deposits.
-------
Water Quality
Constituent
TABLE VI - 1
(continued)
OHIO AND PENNSYLVANIA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Mahoning River
3uly 11, 1972
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
Ohio Standards
General Statewide Standards
January 8, 1975
Pennsylvania Standards
Mahoning River Possible Revisions to
September 2, 1971 Pennsylvania Standards
18) General Criteria
3. Free from materials attributable
to municipal, industrial or other
discharges, or agricultural practices
producing color, odor or other
conditions in such degree as to create
a nuisance.
-------
B. Historical Water Quality
Prior to the industrialization and urbanization of the Mahoning River
Valley in Ohio, the Mahoning River supported a diverse fish population
including Ohio muskellunge, redfin pickerel, smallmouth bass, largemouth
Hi
bass, yellow perch, and walleye among, others. Many of the migratory
species were eliminated from the stream during the first half of the
14
nineteeneth century with the construction of channel dams. Virtually all
species of fish were eliminated from the main stem of the lower Mahoning
River during the early twentieth century by untreated municipal and
14
industrial wastes from a growing steel producing center. While there are
probably no water quality data available for the pre-industrialized Mahoning
River, references to the polluted state of the stream prior to World War II
and numerous data from the early 1950's to the present are available.
Following is an excerpt from a 1936 report concerning the then current state
of the river:
"Nine communites with a 1936 population of 276,000 discharge
into the stream up to 40 million gallons a day of untreated
domestic sewage. Industrial wastes from many plants are also
discharged without treatment directly into the Mahoning. Sew-
age odors in Youngstown and elsewhere are often extremely
objectionable. In the mills almost crude sewage is used at times
for cooling rolls, blast furnace operations, condensation, boiler
feedwater, etc. and sewage odors become very offensive. During
periods of low flow the river water is black and boils with
putrefication. Sewage wastes clog industrial equipment."
While conditions described above no longer exist, the Mahoning River
remains as one of the most polluted streams in the nation by present day
standards. Municipal sewage treatment plants for the eight communities
described in Section V were not installed until the late 1950's and early
1960's. The City of Youngstown did not begin operations at its plant until
1965. Prior to that time, raw sewage was discharged directly to the stream.
As noted earlier, all of these facilities currently provide only primary
sewage treatment. With few notable exceptions, the existing level of
treatment at the steel plants remains characteristic of that found
throughout the industry during the early 1950's, i.e., direct discharge of coke
plant wastes or disposal through coke quenching; rudimentary solids removal
-------
for blast furnace gas wash water; scale pits with and without oil skimming
for hot forming wastes; no treatment for emulsified cold rolling oils; direct
discharge of spent pickling acids and rinse waters; and, no treatment for
coatings wastes. The notable exceptions being the partial recirculation
system for blast furnace wastes at the Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Company-Campbell Works installed during the late 1960's; the recirculation
system installed at the Republic Steel-Warren Plant strip mill during the'
early 1960's when that mill was modernized; and, the new cold rolling mill
and pickle rinse water treatment system installed by Youngstown Sheet and
Tube at its Campbell Works in late 1976. Two other notable improvements
in steel plant waste disposal practices occurred during the past twenty
years: direct discharges of spent pickling acids were generally eliminated in
the mid 1960's when off-site disposal methods were adopted; and, most steel
plant sanitary wastes were diverted to municipal sewerage systems as
sewage treatment plants were planned and constructed, although a few
direct discharges of raw sewage from the mills remain. Against this
background, a brief review of water quality during the post World War II
period is presented.
1. Temperature
Large increases in water temperature over natural levels accelerate
oxygen depletion, adversely affect fish and other aquatic life, and may
intensify toxic effects of other waste constituents.
The water temperature of the Mahoning River above Leavittsburg,
Ohio is governed largely by air temperatures and by releases from upstream
reservoirs. Aside from seasonal variations, the water temperature down-
stream of Leavittsburg is controlled primarily by thermal loadings from the
steel industry and the Ohio Edison-Niles Plant. The monthly maximum and
mean water temperatures of the Mahoning River from 1943 through 1965 at
Leavittsburg and Lowellville are illustrated in Figure VI-1. These
continuous thermographs illustrate excessive temperatures in terms of
aquatic life uses generally prevailed during the summer months throughout
the entire period of record. Monthly maximum and mean river temperatures
frequently exceeded 100°F and 90°F, respectively, at Lowellville. Figure
VI-2 illustrates the water temperature of the Mahoning River between 1966
-------
FIGURE 3ZI-I
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
MONTHLY MAXIMUM AND MEAN WATER TEMPERATURES
OF THE MAHONING RIVER
120
LOWELLVILLE
•
(Y
3un
gs
ow
n v
'he
LEAVITTSBURG
i d
ash
ed)
f
/ax
1
Maxim
j
imum /
Mepn
I
jm-
Me
^
— •>
an
•N
X
•x
\
\
X
* N.,
\
"X
^ ^
*-.
/
/
/
//
s
/ f
1
/
?
-•
^\
X,
X
v
\
X.
N\
V
^
V
s'
*,
\
^
/•
/
^
V
>';
'f
S
"" s
^
•• •*
»• ••
\
* N
^""S
^
\
20
120
1943
1944
1945
1961 1962 1963
Source •• Geologicol Survey Woter-Suppy Poper I859C
1964
1965
-------
110 |-
100 -
FIGURE TZL-2
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
MONTHLY MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM WATER TEMPERTURES
MAHONING RIVER AT LOWELLVILLE
1966-1974
«- 90
c
01
O
I
LU
cr
D
t-
<
or
ui
Q.
5
UJ
t-
cc
UJ
1-
60
70
60 -
50
40
30
I I I I I I I I I
III I I I I I I I I
TAKEN AT OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE
I I 1 I I I I
BELOW LOWELLVILLE, OHIO
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
YEAR
1971
1972
1973
1974
-------
and 1974. These thermographs reveal that temperature conditions remained
essentially unchanged from those observed between 1943-1965. During this
entire period, these data indicate that existing Ohio and Pennsylvania water
quality standards were routinely exceeded.
More recent data (Appendix B), which was obtained by the USEPA
during July 1976, show some reduction of water temperatures, however, the
July data were obtained during a period of very low steel production. Even'
under these conditions, temperature increases from Leavittsburg to
Lowellville resulted in violation of the existing Mahoning River standards
adopted in 1972 (maximum allowable ATof 5°F).
2. Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is required for the respiration of all aerobic life
forms. Reduced dissolved oxygen concentrations disrupt the natural
biological balance within a stream and result in increased toxicity of many
toxic substances. A well balanced aquatic biota requires minimum dissolved
oxygen concentrations above four or five mg/1.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations found at Leavittsburg are generally
sufficient for all designated stream uses. Downstream from Warren to
Lowellville, however, the discharge of oxygen consuming materials including
organic and nitrogenous matter along with thermal discharges, reduce the
river's capacity to maintain natural dissolved oxygen levels. The majority of
the oxygen demanding material is discharged by the municipalities of Warren
and Youngstown. Loadings from industry, largely from the three by-product
coke plants, blast furnaces, and finishing operations also contribute to the
oxygen demand on the river.
Typical dissolved oxygen profiles are illustrated in Figures VI-3 and VI-
10 i q
4. ' The data presented for the summer months of 1952, 1963, 1964,
1969, 1970 and 1971 demonstrate the profile has not significantly changed
during this period. As expected, the heavy concentration of oxygen
demanding wastes discharged downstream vof Warren resulted in almost
complete depletion of oxygen at several locations. Installation of primary
sewage treatment plants on the main stem of the Mahoning River during the
late 1950's and early 1960's has not significantly improved dissolved oxygen
levels in the stream. This is due to an increase in municipal influent loads
-------
500
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF BEAVER RIVER
WARREN
MILES
GIRARD
YOUNGSTOWN
STRUTHERS
MAHONING RIVER STREAM SURVEY DATA SEPTEMBER 24, 1952
TYPICAL PROFILES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN, TEMPERATURE,
AND FLOW DURING PERIOD OF FULL INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION
-------
FIGURE m-4
MAHONING RIVER
12
II
10
9
—
— 8
o>
E
Z 7
LU
0
X 6
0
O
111 5
O
CO
CO 4
o
3
2
'
o
— uy i *J *J\J l_
V U. t
s \sr\ i WL. iv
I I 1 VX 1
b_ L*
JUNE-SEPTEMBER
1963, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1971
_ YEAR
1963 1964 1969 1970 1*71
-
~
_
1
t
-
~
i
k
i
<
k j
*»
^^
1^ ^_
A
I
T
t
•i.
AQUATIC LIFE
i
A
i
AQUATIC LIFE B
-
-
I 1 -
, t
i
» —
i
i
t
^^
1
1
,
4
1
i
h
i '
f
i j
j
t
t
L
i
J
I 1
LEAVITTSBUR6 NILES VOUNGSTOWN
MILE PT. MILE P T. MILE PT
46.0 33.3 23.8
^^
<-
i J
(
'. L
i
i
L
I
J
1
t
i
i J
i
i
J
k «.
1
DO EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDED'
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
a 30% OF TIME
I 67% OF TIME
i , 85% OF TIME
i ,
i
i
J
i
i
•
,
'
1
1 '
t
I-
1
L
1
i
1 1
1 i
i
L
. -
OHIO
1969 1970 1971
^^
PA. STD.
PA.
I
.
,
L
j
t
-•
„-,
A
i .
± A.
STRUTHERS LOWELLVILLE " MT. JACKSON
MILE PT
15.7
MILE PT. MILE PT. MILE PT.
12.6 1 .7 1.4
SAMPLE STATIONS
DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
INDUSTRIAL INTAKE DAMS
-------
since 1950, lack of control for soluble organic and nitrogenous matter, and
lack of control for industrial discharges.
The present dissolved oxygen standards for the Mahoning River in Ohio
are not less than 5.0 mg/1 as a daily average value, nor less than 4.0 mg/1 at
2
any time. As shown in Figure VI-4, dissolved oxygen levels in the Mahoning
River have consistently violated these standards and were less than 4.0 mg/1
fifty percent of the time at Lowellville during 1964, 1969, 1970 and 1971.
Dissolved oxygen levels at Mt. Jackson, more than ten miles into
Pennsylvania, violated the Pennsylvania standard of 5.0 mg/1 from 1969
through 1971 and never exceeded 3.6 mg/1 during the summer months of
1970 and 1971.
3. p_H
Extreme pH values interfere with domestic and industrial water uses
and adversely affect fish and other aquatic life. Changes in pH also affect
toxicity of certain pollutants, notably ammonia-N and cyanide.
In the past, low pH values observed in the lower Mahoning River were
the result of uncontrolled discharges of spent pickle acid solutions by steel
mills in the Warren-Lowellville section of the basin. The Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) estimated in 1959 that approxi-
mately 400,000 pounds per day of acid (as equivalent CaCOj were
20
discharged by the steel mills. Table VI-2 is a listing of pH data for the
Mahoning River compiled from 1959 through 1973. These data illustrate
that extreme values of pH were recorded through 1967. Major improve-
ments occurred in the disposal methods of pickling acids between 1968 and
1971 which resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of acid
discharged to the stream. For water year 1973, the pH at the USGS
Lowellville monitoring station never was less than 6.0 and on only 15 days
was it less than 6.5. The maximum pH recorded was 8.2. Although rinse
waters from pickling operations at Republic Steel, U. S. Steel, and
Youngstown Sheet and Tube are still discharged with no treatment, the pH
of the Mahoning River has generally achieved current Ohio and Pennsylvania
water quality standards since 1968 (pH 6.0 to 8.5).
-------
TABLE V I - 2
MAHONING RIVER WATER QUALITY DATA
Location
Leavittsburg
Warren
Niles
Youngstown
Struthers
Lowellvilie
(1) (1) (1) (2)
Oct 1957 Oct 1958 Oct 1959 3an 1963
to to to to
Sept 1958 Sept 1959 Sept 1960 ' Dec 1963
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
6.6 8.9
5.3 8.9
4.6 7.3
5.8 7.6
6.1 7.0 5.3 7.3 6.6 7.2 6.1 8.0
EH
(3) (2)
Oct 1963 Jan 196* .
to to
Sept 1964 Dec 1964
Days
Min Max <6.0/<6.5 Min Max
6.9 8.6
3.5 7.3
3.9 8.1
6.2 8.3
3.8 8.5 63/149 4.4 9.0
(2)
Jan 1965
to
Dec 1965
Min Max
6.6 8.3
5.4 7.7
4.6 8.2
6.5 8.1
6.3 8.5
(3) (3) (3)
Oct 1965 Oct 1966 Oct 1972
to to to
Sept 1966 Sept 1967 Sept 1973
Days Days Days
Min Max <6.0/<6.5 Min Max <6.0/<6.5 Min Max <6.0/<6.
'ito
4.0 8.1 33/81 3.0 9.5 63/107 6.0 8.2 0/15
(1) U. S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Papers, Numbers 1571, 1672, 1742.
(2) Ohio Department of Health, Stream Surveillance Report, 1963, 1964, 1965.
(3) U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Ohio, Part 2; Water Quality Records 1964, 1966, 1967, and 1973.
-------
4. Ammonia-N
Excessive ammonia-N concentrations contribute to several water
quality problems including toxicity to fish, deoxygenation, and stream
eutrophication. High levels of ammonia during the warmer months depresses
the dissolved oxygen substantially below the level accounted for by the
residual carbonaceous BOD. The chlorine demand of raw water for potable
supplies is increased significantly by the presence of ammonia-N.
Ammonia-N in the Mahoning River is derived mostly from coke plant
and blast furnace discharges and from municipal sewage. Other sources
include hot dip galvanizing rinse waters and wash waters from the General
Electric - Niles Plant glass bulb frosting operation. Ammonia-N data for
the Mahoning River are presented in Table VI-3. As shown, the general Ohio
water quality standard of 1.5 mg/1 has been exceeded at Lowellville since at
least 1958. As clean water rarely exceeds a few tenths of a mg/1, these
concentrations are indicative of gross contamination. More recent data
(1971 and 1975) presented in Table VI-3, appear to show some improvement
at Lowellville over previous years. Since there have been no major
treatment facilities installed which would account for reduced ammonia
concentrations, the improvements noted by the recent data are attributed to
mitigating factors including the levels of steel production and stream flow
occuring at the time of stream sampling.
5. Cyanide
Cyanide is known to be toxic to fish at relatively low concentrations.
The toxicity, however, varies widely with changes in pH, temperature and
22
dissolved oxygen. Concentrations of total cyanide found in the Mahoning
River result from discharges from coke plants, blast furnaces, and to a
lesser extent from plating operations.
Table VI-4 presents total cyanide data for the Mahoning River
measured from 1952 to 1975. These data reveal that total cyanide levels
s
have exceeded the current Pennsylvania water quality standard of 25 ug/1
by wide margins since 1952. The average total cyanide concentration
measured at Lowellville between November 1952 and September 1953 was
250 ug/1. In February 1975, the USEPA found an average total cyanide
concentration in the river at Lowellville of 205 ug/1; the average
-------
Location
Below Alliance
Below Berlin Reservoir
Below Lake Milton
Leavittsburg
Niles
Below Niles
Youngstown
Struthers
Lowellville
Mt. 3ackson
Route 22*
TABLE V I - 3
MAHONING RIVER WATER QUALITY DATA
Ammonia-N, mg/1
Period of Record
(1) (1) (1) (2) (3)
Oct 1957-Sept 1958 Oct 1958-Sept 1959 Oct 1959-Sept 1960 Oct 1967 Oct 1970-Sept 1971
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
3.28
0.08 0.33
0.02 0.06
•
0.010.71 1.2 2.6 1.7
1.2 2.8 1.8
3.46 *.15
Mr
1.1 0.1 1.8
1.1 3.0 2.1
0.0 12.03.5 0.0 7.8 3.5 0.2 7.* 3.3 8.6*10.02 0.8 3.7 1.9
0.8 3.7 1.8
(*)
Feb 1975
Min Max Avg
0.150.180.17
0.661.020.85
1.061.2*1.11
2.2* 2.27 2.26
2.37 2.*0 2.38
2.32 3.2* 2.66
(5)
3uly 1975
Min Max Avg
0.030.120.06
O.*0 0.79 0.66
0.621.210.96
1.752.5*2.10
1.502.371.90
1.2*1.861.57
(1) U. S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Papers, Numbers 1571, 1672, 17*2.
(2) Ohio Department of Health, A Report on Recommended Water Quality Standards for Interstate Waters, Mahoning River, Pymatuning, Yankee, and Little Beaver Creeks,
Ohio-Pennsylvania, May 1970.
(3) USEPA, Region V, Ohio District Office, Mahoning River Enforcement Report, March 1972.
(*) USEPA, Mahoning River Survey, February 11-1*, 1975.
(5) USEPA, Mahoning River Survey, 3uly 1*-17, 1975.
-------
TABLE VI-4
MAHONING RIVER WATER QUALITY DATA
Total Cyanide, mg/1
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Nov 1952-Sept 1953 Aug 1965-3uly 1976 1969 Oct 1971-Sept 1972 Feb 1975
Location Range Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
Leavittsburg * .00 .007 .006
Warren
Niles . .014.028 .023
Girard Dam .05 .13
Youngstown, Penn. RR .05 .13 .184.200 ,131
Struthers .198.274 .226
Lowellville 0-1.0 .25 .05 .12 .188.224 .205
Ohio-Penn State Line .00 .120 .046
Route 224 Bridge-Edinburg .00 .240 .047
Newcastle ' .107.190 .183
(6)
July 1975
Min Max Avg
<.005 .007 .002
<.005 <.005 <005
.029 .059 .040
.028 .088 .052
.066 .153 .099
.063 .098 .076
.021 .035 .026
(1) Public Health Service, U. S. Department of HEW, Report on Quality of Interstate Waters, Mahoning River, Ohio-Pennsylvania, January 1965.
(2) USEPA, data processing network, STORET, August 1965 to 3uly 1976.
(3) Ohio Department of Health, A Report on Recommended Water Quality Standards for the Interstate Waters, Mahoning River, Pymatuning, Yankee and Little Beaver Creek,
Ohio-Pennsylvania,, May 1970.
(4) U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Ohio, Part 2, Water Quality Records, 1972.
(5) USEPA, Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975.
(6) USEPA, Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975.
-------
concentration measured at Edinburg, Pennsylvania was 183 ug/1, over seven
times the Pennsylvania standard, indicating virtually no improvement in
total cyanide concentrations in the Mahoning River since 1952.
6. Phenolics
High levels of phenolics cause disagreeable tastes and odors in drinking
water, taint the flavor of fish flesh, and are directly toxic to fish at high
concentrations. If phenolics are present in raw water supplies in sufficient
concentrations to cause taste and odors, expensive water treatment
procedures may be required to minimize the problems. For this reason, the
National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of Engineering commit-
tee on water quality criteria recommends no more than one ug/1 of phenolic
compounds in streams being utilized for public water supply. The
Mahoning River below Leavittsburg is not used for public water supply,
however, phenolics that originate from the coke plants and blast furnaces in
the industrial Warren-Youngstown area, contribute to taste and odor
problems in Pennsylvania water supplies on the Beaver River. '
Table VI-5 presents the average and extreme phenolics concentration
in the Mahoning River from 1952 to February of 1975. The levels of
phenolics measured at Lowellville have remained relatively constant during
this period, illustrating a continuing discharge of excessive amounts of
phenolics since 1952. Phenolics concentrations measured in Pennsylvania
are much higher than the levels recommended for public water supplies and
are also much greater than the Pennsylvania water quality standard of 5
Q
ug/1. Average concentrations found during the USEPA February 1975
survey were 82 ug/1 at Edinburg and 70 ug/1 at New Castle, Pennsylvania.
7. Oil And Grease
There are no quantitative data for instream levels of oil and grease for
the Mahoning River. However, as noted in Section V, as much as 200 barrels
of oil per day have been discharged to the stream based upon industrial
discharge data; and, as noted in Section VII, oil concentrations in Mahoning
River sediments are measured in terms of percents. McKee and Wolf
indicate oils in waters used for domestic water supplies may have the
following potential deleterious effects: hazards to the health of consumers;
-------
TABLE V I - 5
MAHONING RIVER WATER QUALITY DATA
Location
Pricetown
Leavittsburg
Niles
Youngstown
Struthers
Lowellville
Mt. 3ackson
Edinburg
New Castle
Mouth
Beaver Falls
(1) Public Health
Phenolics, ug/1
Period of Record
(0 (2) (2) (1) (3)
1952 to 1954 1957 to 1958 1958 to 1959 1959 to 1961 1963
Range Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg
14 0 4.5 •
111 0 7.4
1561 2 232
166 0 28
571 7 136
5-44 348 8 65 524 5 109 240 3 45
100 0 15
300 0 28
(3) (4) (5)
1964 1969 1970 to 1971
Max Min Avg Max Min Avg Max Min Avg
7.1 0 .13
7.1 0 0.4 70 0 30
1656 5 162 275 0 55
366 Q 41 81 61 165 0 55
557 14 139 295 10 45
540 5 63 36 8 185 0 45
•^25 0 35
.
(6)
1975
Max Min Avg
33 12 16
62 33 43
130 110 120
200 120 193
140 130 137
100 72 82
100 48 70
Service, U. S. Department of HEW, Report of Interstate Waters, Mahoning River, Ohio-Pennsylvania, January 1965.
(2) U. S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Papers Numbers 1271, 1672, 1742.
(3) U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Ohio, Part 2, Water Quality Records, 1963 and 1964.
(4) Ohio Department of Health, A Report on Recommended Water Quality Standards for the Interstate Waters, Mahoning River, Pymatuning, Yankee and Little Beaver Creek,
Ohio-Pennsylvania, May 1970.
(5) USEPA, Region V, Ohio District Office, Mahoning River Enforcement Report, March 1972.
(6) USEPA, Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975.
-------
production of tastes and odors; presence of turbidity, films, or irridescence;
and, increased difficulty of water treatment. Adverse effects upon aquatic
life include interference with fish respiration; destruction of algae and other
plankton; destruction of benthal organisms and interference in spawning
areas; fish flesh tainting; deoxygenation; interference with photosynthesis
and reaeration; and, direct toxic action.,*
Oil sheens are always found on the Ohio portion of the lower Mahoning
River, and during periods of peak steel production, heavy oil slicks covering
the entire stream surface can be found in the Campbell-Struthers area as
well as in some upstream locations.
8. Heavy Metals
Heavy metals individually or in combination may be toxic to aquatic
organisms and thus can have an adverse impact on the aquatic environ-
ment. Iron has been found to be objectionable in public water supplies
because of its effect on taste, staining of plumbing fixtures and laundered
22
clothes and accumulation of deposits in distribution systems. Table VI-6
presents available heavy metals data for the Mahoning River. With the
exceptions of iron, zinc and copper, existing levels of heavy metals do not
appear to present significant water quality problems.
During the period 1963-1965, iron concentrations at Leavittsburg were
less than 1.5 mg/1 for 90 percent of the time. From Niles downstream to
Lowellville, the iron concentrations increased markedly and concentrations
in excess of 50 mg/1 were measured frequently. There has been some
reduction in total iron levels since 1965 (primarily the result of pickle liquor
from steel mills being hauled off-site for neutralization), however, total iron
remains in excess of the maximum Pennsylvania water quality standard of
1.5 mg/1.8
Data for zinc and copper are too limited to exhibit any significant
water quality trends, however, levels exceeding general Ohio water quality
standards from Leavittsburg to the State line during April, 3uly and October
of 1969 and February of 1975 were common. Zinc is primarily discharged by
plating operations, blast furnaces, and municipal sewage treatment plants.
Copper is also found in plating wastes and occasionally in blast furnace
discharges.
-------
TABLE V I - 6
MAHONING RIVER WATER QUALITY DATA
Hoaw \letaK, mr,/l
Ohio Stations
April, July, Oct 1969
(1)
Parameter
Youngstown
,V.in Max Avg
Lowcllville
Min Max Avg
Chromium
Copper
Total Iron
Soluble Iron
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
0.02
0.02 0.0*
3.0 10.2
0.21 0.25
0.02
0.15 0.50
0.09 0.19
0.02
0.02 0.05
«.S 13.0
0.16 0.3S
0.02
0.22 0.61
0.11 0.19
(1) Ohio Department of Health, A Ropon on Recommended Water Quality
Standards for the Interstate Waters. M.thonifx RIVCT. Pyrnat'jnmt;. Yankee
and Link- Beaver Creek. Ohio-Pennsylvania, May 1^70.
Parameter
10/70- 9/71(3)
Total Iron
Ferrous Iron
Arsenic, ppb
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
2/75(*>
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Total Iron
Lead
Zinc
(3) USEPA, Region
TABLE V I - 6
Continued
MAHONING RIVER WATER QUALITY DATA
Heavy Metals, myj\
Pennsylvania Stations
Mahoning River
Route 22<( Mt. Jackson
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
•
0 2.7 1.1
0 2.7 0.2
<6.0 <6.0
O.01 O.01
O.03 *O-03
O.I O.I
O.I O.I
O.I O.I
o.oos
0.03 0.065 0.045
.025 0.1 0.055
2.8 «.l 3.5
O.05
0.26 0.37 0.32
V, Ohio District Office, Mahoning River Enforcement
Beaver River
Beaver Falls
Min Max Avg
<6.f
O.O
O.O
o.
0.
0.
Report, March 1972.
M USEPA, Mahoning River Survey, February 11-1*, 1975.
-------
TABLE V I - 6
Continued
MAHONING RIVER WATER QUALITY DATA
Heavy Metals, mg/1
Ohio Stations
Parameter Pricetown Leavittsburg Niles
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
l/63-12/65(2)
Total Iron 2.0 5.0 160 12
1 0/70-9/7 1(3)
Total Iron 0.1 1.7 0.4 0.5 11.9 3.8
Ferrous Iron 0 0.2 <0.1 0 3.3 1.0
8/71(3)
Arsenic, ppb <6.0 <6.0 <6.0
Cadmium <.01 <.01 <.01
Chromium <03 <.03 <.03
Lead < .1 < .1 < .1
Mercury < .1 < .1 < .1
Nickel < .1 < .1 < .1
Cadmium ' <008 <-008
Chromium <.020 .025 .17
Copper <010 .075 .031 <02 .45 .16
Total Iron .40 .590 .520 .31 7.9 4.1
Lead <.050 <.05
Zinc . <.020 .05 .035 .08 .16 .12
(2) U. S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Papers Number 1859C.
(3) USEPA, Region V, Ohio District Office, Mahoning River Enforcement Report, March
\
(4) USEPA, Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975.
Youngstown
Min Max Avg
60 5.5
0.5 14.3 3.5
0 4.3 1.0
•
<6.0
<01
<03
< .1
< .1
< .1
<.008
<02 .02 .011
.01 .06 .04
2.1 2.7 2.4
<05
.12 .29 .20
1972.
Struthers Lowellville
Min Max Avg Min Max Avg
91 8.6 107 6.6
0.5 14.8 5.7 0.2 8.8 2.2
0 2.4 1.0 0 1.4 0.5
<6.0 <6.0
<.01 <01
<.03 .„. <.03
< .1 < .1
< .1 < .1
< .1 < .1
<.OOS <.008
.04 .05 .45 ' .03 .04 .035
.02 1.08 .06 . .03 .04 .035
3.3 5.3 4.6 3.0 3.2 3.1
<.05 <.05
.26 .40 .32 .30 .36 .33
"--
-------
9. Bacterial Conditions
High total coliform densities, especially when accompanied by high
fecal coliform concentrations, indicate the presence of human or animal
wastes which may contain pathogenic organisms capable of causing enteric
diseases in humans. The presence of these organisms above acceptable
levels in streams pose potential health problems to those exposed to the
water. Major bacterial sources in the Mahoning River are sewage treatment
plant discharges, combined sewer overflows, and storm water runoff.
Total and fecal coliform data for the Mahoning River collected
between 1939 and 1971 are contained in Table VI-7. These data are at levels
indicative of gross contamination throughout the period of record. The
construction of primary sewage treatment plants with chlorination during
the late 1950's and early 1960's seems to have done little to improve the
coliform densities found in the lower Mahoning and Beaver Rivers. '
Gross contamination continues as.a result of combined sewer discharges,
storm water runoff, and inadequate disinfection of primary sewage effluents
because of high solids content. Data collected during August 1971 also
suggests possible bacterial aftergrowth induced by high river temperatures
and an abundance of organic matter. This record shows continuous violation
of both Pennsylvania and Ohio water quality standards listed in Table VI-1.
10. Biological Conditions
The biotic variety in a stream is a good indicator of pollution levels.
In July 1952 a lengthy steel strike curtailed industrial production along the
Mahoning River and the pollution load to the stream at that time was
primarily untreated municipal wastes. Industrial production was resumed in
September when the strike ended. Figure VI-5 shows the differences in the
number of genera of plants and animals under conditions which existed in
July and September. The biotic community was severely reduced with the
resumption of industrial activity and the resulting increase in the industrial
pollution load discharged to the stream. These data also indicate the
relatively rapid repopulation of the stream once toxic discharges were
abated at the outset of the strike. Seasonal variations between July and
September did not affect the results as evidenced by the data obtained at
the two upstream control stations.
-------
TABLE V I - 7
MAMONISG RIVER BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA
(Number per 100m!)
Period of Record
March- April 1966(2>
T. Coliform F. Coliform
Above Alliance
Below Alliance
Below Berlin Res.
Below Lake Milton
Pricetown
Below Newton Falls
Leavittsburg
Warren
Niles
Youngstown-Div. St.
Youp.gstown-Rt. IS
Struthers
Lowellville
Route 224 (Pa.)
Mt. Jackson (Pa.)
New Castle (Pa.)
Beaver Falls (pa.)
Min
20
3,300
10
10
540
2,500
390
100
20,000
77,000
61, COO
45,000
4,300
Max
430
5,800
20
30
6,100
6,300
9,200
24,000
53,000
370,000
161,000
120,000
210,000
Min
10
2,000
s
2
2,100
360
440
300
6,400
33,000
11,000
3,900
1.300
Max
330
19,500
10
10
4,100
1,000
1.700
2.900
71, SCO
69.COO
36,000
ll.SOO
12,000
August 8
T. Coliform
5,000
23,000
33,000
90,000
370,000
360.COO
360.000
26,000
590,000
, I971(3) August 17, I971(3)
F. Coiiform T. Coliform F. Coliform
2,800 9,000 690
690 64,000 3,200
2,300 8.500 1,300
S.500 82,000 56,000
60,000 6SO.OOO 74,000
15,000 500,000 30,000
13,000 450,000 33,000
990 12,000 1,100
210 1,000 390
August 24, 1971(3) August 31, 1971(3)
T. Coliform F. Coliform T. Coliform F. Coliform
13,000 3,200 2,200 250
24,000 2,500 54,000 3,100
39,000 2,500 86,000 4,000
4SO.OOO 8,400 7,200 1,000
'
690,000 14,000 170,000 22,000
900,000 44,000 490,000 34,000
860,000 42,000 400,000 47,000
57,000 4,400 11,000 700
7,000 470 5,000 6,000
Total Coliform
% of months
Dan 1936- March 1939(1)
Mahor.ingtown (Pa.)
Dan 194S- Dune 1953'"
Beaver Falls (Pa.)
(1) Ohio Department of
(2) Ohio Department of
Onio-Pennsvlvania, May
3,
Min Max
1S1 115,000
020 57,100
Avg avg index > 3000
40,000
22,500
SO
97
Health, Water Pollution Study, Mahoning River
Health, A
1970.
Report on Recommended
Water Qua!
Basin, October 1954.
itv Standards
for Interstate Waters. Mahoning River,
Pvmatuning, Yankee, and Little Beaver Creeks,
(3) USEPA, Region V, Ohio District Office, Mahonini; River Enforcement Report, March 1972.
-------
EFFECT OF
FIGURE 3ZI-5
INDUSTRIAL WASTES ON GENERA OF ORGANISMS
IN MAHONING RIVER
1952
i
i
i
i
i
(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(ID
(12)
l i I
L I
I
I
I i !
I i I
72 64 56 48 40 32 24 16 8
PERCENT REDUCTION OF GENERA
SEPTEMBER OVER JULY, 1952
LEGEND
TOTAL GENERA, JULY
12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
NUMBER OF GENERA
JULY AND SEPTEMBER, 1952
BASED ON COMPARISON OF BIOLOGICAL STUDIES IN
JULY 1952 WITH CURTAILED INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
AND IN SEPT. 1952 AFTER RESUMPTION OF
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION.
52
TOTAL GENERA, SEPT.
-------
A later study completed in 1965 by the U. S. Public Health Service
measured the number and kinds of bottom organisms and the concentration
of phytoplankton in the Mahoning River. The following excerpt from
Mackenthun presents the findings of this study which are nearly identical
to those found by USEPA during 1975 (Section VII). (Figure numbers revised
to conform to this report):
"In a study during the week of January 4, 1965, bottom
organisms were reduced in numbers from over 1,300 per square
foot upstream from Newton Falls, Ohio, to about 350 per square
foot upstream and downstream from Warren, 300 per square foot
at Lowellville (Mile 11), and 850 per square foot at the first
bridge crossing downstream from the Ohio-Pennsylvania State
line (Figure VI-6). Similarly, 11 different kinds of organisms
were found upstream from Newton Falls, only one kind, a
pollution tolerant organism, was found at Lowellville (Mile 11),
and 3 kinds were found at the first bridge crossing downstream
from the State line (Figure VI-7). Although few in numbers
downstream from Newton Falls, clean-water associated organ-
isms were found to the highway 422 bridge upstream from
Warren, Ohio. Cleanwater-associated organisms were not found
throughout the remainder of the Mahoning River. Only pollution-
tolerant sludgeworms persisted at Lowellville, and only pollution-
tolerant sludgeworms and leeches and one kind of tolerant snail
were found at the station downstream from the State line. The
absence of clean-water associated fish food organisms in the
Mahoning River downstream from Warren, Ohio, the severe
decrease in the diversity of bottom organisms and the generally
low numbers of stream bed animals at most sampling stations,
attests to the severely polluted condition of the river and its
toxicity from Warren, Ohio, to its confluence with the Shenango
River in Pennsylvania.
The bottom of the Mahoning River throughout the reach
studied was generally rock and rubble with sludge along the
shores and in many slack water areas. Such a rubble substrate
would be expected to support a bountiful fish food organism
population when not polluted. In many areas, oil formed a film
on the water's surface, adhering to twigs, shoreline grasses and
debris, and became mixed with the sludges. Substrate rocks and
rubble were covered with a thick iron deposit that was harmful
to bottom organisms in the Lowellville-State line reach.
Conditions of existence were only slightly improved in the
Beaver River. Sludgeworm populations were reduced from those
found in the more polluted reaches of the Mahoning River, which
indicates a reduction in the organic food supply. At New
Brighton, Pa., partial stream recovery was found. The different
kinds of organisms had increased and stoneflies were observed in
small numbers on rocks in the shallow water near the shore.
These were not found in quantitative samples taken from deeper
-------
FIGURE 3ZI-6
NUMBERS OF STREAM BED ANIMALS, MAHONING-BEAVER RIVERS
JANUARY 1965
10OO
1200
f-
O
O
LL 900
6
V)
OC.
UJ
0.
or
UJ
m eoo
z
30O
o
-
—
-
CO
_i
<
^
z
o
1-
s
u
z
70 60
^
z
UJ
0:
GC
5
1 fy^yi 2 fyy^ ^
1
UJ
O
I
Q:
—
O
0 _
z
*
o
1-
o
z
D
O
P^B*
\
^
•x>
^
50 40 30 20
M/I unn//i\i/? an/ra
o
T
O
("SENSITIVE
[_FORMS
JXX PPOLLUTION
XX — } TOLERANT
•* XX LfORMS z
f I - 1
>-
'ft CO
K
CO Q
z '
z *
UJ UJ
0.
0
I
z
0 P^J 0 .^ 0 0 [%
10 020 10 0
: K.d flfr/ll/ff? f?/l//rp ^
RIVER MILES
-------
FIGURE 31— 7
KINDS OF STREAM BED ANIMALS, MAHONING-BEAVER RIVERS
JANUARY 1965
12
-
-
I
1
I
CO
"• Si w £
£ ^ <
z ec ^ o:
° i z °
UJ
Z
1
I
UNGSTOWN
O
1
z
o >
I >
0 <0
z
z
UJ
a.
•I
I
I
1
BRIGHTON
5
ui
z
1
10
(O
Q
LL
O
cc
UJ
m
70
60
SO
40 30
•MAHONING RIVER
20
10
020 10
-*|^ BEAVER RIVER
RIVER MILES
-------
water where the impact of pollution would be expected to be
greatest.
Oil was also found throughout the Beaver River. Many of
the bottom rock were red in color and showed evidence of an iron
precipitate. Colonizing the rock's surface in shallower waters
was a growth of slick, slimy algae often characteristic of
polluted water.
Fisheries investigators have reported that the Mahoning
River does not support a catchable fish population downstream
from Warren, Ohio, to its confluence with the Shenango River,
and that the Beaver River supports a catchable fish population
only in its lower reach in the New Brighton area. In those areas
where fishing was not reported, there were no bottom organisms
on which fish normally feed.
Results of an examination of the phytoplankton population
were similar to those found for the bottom organism population.
Values of total counts upstream from Newton Falls, Ohio, were
in a range that would be expected in an unpolluted stream during
the winter months (Figure VI-8). Downstream from the U.S.
Highway 5 bridge (mile 47.4) total count values were substan-
tially reduced and remained so throughout the remainder of the
Mahoning River. At Lowellville, Ohio, and at the first bridge
crossing downstream from the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line,
total count values were one-fourth of those upstream from
Newton Falls. Some recovery was found at the highway 18
bridge upstream from the confluence of the Mahoning River with
the Shenango River. Depressed algal counts demonstrate the
degrading effects of pollution on this primary food source for
aquatic life in the stream. The low phytoplankton total count
values and the low population numbers found in the bottom
organism population is strongly suggestive of the action of a
toxic substance or substances to aquatic life."
While there has been little, if any, change in biological conditions in
the Mahoning River from 1952 to 1975, the physical characteristics of the
stream are such that a substantial fish population could be supported in the
absence of toxic substances and deoxygenating wastes. There is evidence
that a substantial recovery of the stream for aquatic life uses is possible
once wastewater discharges are controlled.
11. Taste and Odor
Taste and odor in surface waters may result from many sources.
Among these are discharges of phenolics, oils, and municipal wastes, bottom
river sediments, and natural odor producing substances. All of these
contribute to this problem on the Mahoning River in addition to bottom
releases from upstream reservoirs in the basin.
-------
PHYTOPLANKTON
FIGURE 3CC—8
IN MAHONING-BEAVER RIVERS
JANUARY 1965
I6OO
1400
1200
cr.
UJ
— 1000
UJ
Q.
cc
UJ
m
800
600
40 O
200
I
I
I
70
60
SO
40 30
MA HONING RIVER
20
10
20.7 10.7
* BEAVER RIVER-
0.7
RIVER MILES
-------
An indication of the odor potential of water is measured by the
threshold odor (T.O.) determination. The Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion and the Ohio Department of Health cooperated in a threshold odor study
of the Mahoning River during 1969 and 1970. The results of that study are
presented in Table VI-8. As shown, mean threshold odor number values
ranged from 18 to 114 at 40 C for the stations from above Youngstown to
Mt. Jackson, Pennsylvania. Similarly, mean threshold odors values of 2 to
306 were found for the five reservoirs tributary to the Mahoning River.
Mean odors values at the Beaver Falls water intake during this survey ranged
from 7 to 65.
The existing Ohio threshold odor limit on the main stem of the
Q
Mahoning from Warren to Lowellville, is a daily average of 24 at 60 C. As
shown in Table VI-10, these criteria have been exceeded in the Mahoning
River and in the Beaver River at the Beaver Falls water intake.
To combat tastes and odors, the Beaver Falls water treatment plant
uses large quantities of activated carbon, which add significantly to water
treatment costs. Under average Mahoning River conditions, the plant uses
25
from 35 to 100 pounds per day of powdered activated carbon. However, as
much as 600 pounds per day have been used on numerous occasions to
combat shock loads of taste and odor causing materials.
-------
TABLE V I - 8
MAHONIMG AND REAVER RIVERS
Threshold Odor Data"'
1969-1970
Mahoning River Stations
April 1969
(slumber of Samples
Range
Mean
July 1969
Number of Samples
Range
Mean
October 1969
Number of Samples
Range
Mean
February 1970
Number of Samples
Range
Mean
Alliance
3
13-30
20
3
8-24
13
3
25-76
52
3
6-9
8
Above
Warren
10
5-66
12
9
4-58
20
10
2-7
5
10
4-4S1
S5
Above
Youngstown
9
7-35
IS
9
20-100
44
10
20-50
33
10
10-121
62
State Line
-
9
17-57
32
8
22-99
59
10
43-200
114
10
17-181
73
Mt. Jackson
10
12-57
33
9
22-150
61
10
27-171
94
10
2X-I81
75
Beaver River
at Eastvale Pa .
10
5-10
7
9
7-43
18
10
1S-S7
43
10
10-150
65
Reservoirs Tributary to the Mahoning River
Below
Berlin
Reservoir
5
4-10
6
5
5-23
10
5
1-3
2
5
6-1500
306
Below
Lake
Milton
5
2-35
10
5
5-70
26
5
2-200
42
5
6-340
76
Below
West Branch
Reservoir
5
1-4
2
5
3-162
66
5
1-3
2
5
4-150
40
Below
Mosquito
Reservoir
5
10-125
39
4
10-43
32
5
3-59
19
5
13-35
27
Below
Meander
Reservoir
3
4-8
6
3
3-75
27
3
3-6
4
3
5-8
7
(1) Results are recorded as T.O.N. at 40 C.
Source: Ohio Department of Health, A Report on Recommended Water Quality Standards for Interstate Waters. Mahomnc River, Pymatuninz, Yankee, and Little Beaver Creeks
Ohio-Pennsylvania. May 1970. *—* "* ! l
-------
REFERENCES - SECTION VI
1. Division of Water Quality, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency,
Background Statement in Support of Proposed Water Quality Standards
for the Lower Mahoning River in Ohio, July 1976.
2. Water Pollution Control Board, Ohio Department of Health, Water
Quality Standards Adopted by the Board July 11, 1972 for the
Mahoning River and its Tributaries in Ohio, Columbus, Ohio, July 11,
1972.
3. Mayo, Francis, T., USEPA, Region V, Administrator, Chicago, Illinois
to (Honorable John J. Gilligan, Governor of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio)
September 29, 1972, als, Ip.
4. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Regulation EP-1 Water Qual-
ity Standards, July 27, 1973.
5. Mayo, Francis T., USEPA, Region V, Administrator, Chicago, Illinois to
(Honorable John J. Gilligan, Governor of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio)
December 18, 1973, als, 3pp.
6. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Regulation EP-1 Water Qual-
ity Standards, January 8, 1975.
7. Mayo, Francis T., USEPA, Region V, Administrator, Chicago, Illinois to
(Honorable James A. Rhodes, Governor of Ohio, Columbus, Ohio) May
14, 1975, als, 2pp.
8. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Title 25, Part
1, Subpart C, Article II, Chapter 93, Water Quality Criteria,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, September 2, 1971.
9. Snyder III, Daniel J., USEPA, Region III, Administrator, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania to (Honorable Milton J. Shapp, Governor of Pennsylvania,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) August 10, 1973, als.
10. Goddard, Maurice K., Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to (Hearing Clerk, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio) September 10,
1976, Is, 2pp.
11. Williams, Ned E., P. E., Director, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Columbus, Ohio to (Maurice K. Goddard, Secretary, Pennsyl-
vania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsyl-
vania) October Ik, 1976, als, 3pp.
12. Goddard, Maurice K., Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania to (Ned E. Williams, P. E.,
Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio)
December 15, 1976, Is, 2pp.
-------
13. Schoener, Kenneth E., Ohio-Lake Erie River Basin Engineer, Pennsyl-
vania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsyl-
vania to (J. Earl Richards, Assistant Director, Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, Columbus, Ohio) January 4, 1977, Is, 1 p.
14. Trautman, M. B., The Fishes of Ohio, The Ohio State University Press,
1957.
15. Testimony of William Sullivan, President, Western Reserve Economic
Development Agency, at Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Public
Hearing for Mahoning River Water Quality Standards, July 8, 1976,
Niles, Ohio (Hearing Transcript, pp. 106-107).
16. Ohio Geological Survey-Water Supply Paper 1859C, Analysis of Water
Quality of the Mahoning River in Ohio, Columbus, Ohio 1968.
17. Mackenthun, K. M. - U.S. Department of the Interior Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, The Practice of Water Pollution
Biology, Washington D. C., September, 1969.
18. Ohio Department of Health, Report of Water Pollution Study Mahoning
River Basin, Columbus, Ohio 1954.
19. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Ohio District Office,
Mahoning River Enforcement Report, 1972.
20. U. S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Report on Quality of Interstate Waters Mahoning River, Ohio-
Pennsylvania, Chicago, Illinois, January 1965.
21. McKee, J. E. and Wolf H. W., Water Quality Criteria, second edition,
Publication 3-A, The Resources Agency of California, State Water
Resources Control Board, Sacramento, California, 1963.
22. Environmental Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, Water Quality Criteria 1972, for the
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-R3-73-033, Washington, D. C.
March 1973.
23. Ohio Department of Health, A Report on Recommended Water Quality
Standards for Interstate Waters, Mahoning River, Pymatuning, Yankee
and Little Beaver Creeks, Ohio-Pennsylvania, Columbus, Ohio, May
1970.
24. Floyd G. Browne and Associates, Limited, Technical Report for
Position Paper For August 31, 1971 Hearing on Mahoning River Water
Quality Standards Prepared for Mahoning-Trumbul Council of Govern-
ments, Marian, Ohio, August 1971.
25. Personal Communication from Charles Van Lear, Chemist, Beaver
Falls Water Treatment Plant, November 9, 1976.
-------
SECTION V 11
WATER QUALITY MODEL VERIFICATION
A mathematical water quality model is necessary for water quality
management planning in the lower Mahoning River because of the large
number of point source dischargers and the unique hydrologic characteristics
of the system. A computerized water quality model (BEBAM) for the entire
Beaver River basin including the Mahoning and Shenango Rivers and two
reservoirs in the Mahoning River system was developed by Raytheon
Oceanographic and Environmental Services under contract with the USEPA.
Before BEBAM could be used with some degree of confidence for water
quality management planning for the industrialized stretch of the Mahoning,
significant modification and a more rigorous verification of the model were
necessary. The BEBAM code was modified to improve the flexibility of the
model with respect to interdependent constituents and to accurately
incorporate the effects of sediment oxygen demand in the dissolved oxygen
balance. The segmentation was adjusted to the actual distribution of
dischargers, tributaries, and channel dams along the study reach, thus
forcing the computational procedures in BEBAM to more closely reflect
mixing and transport phenomena found in the river. Detailed physical data
of the system were considered permitting more accurate water quality
computations. Numerous field and laboratory studies were conducted to
develop stream reaction rates specific to the Mahoning River for
carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia-N, total cyanide, and
phenolics. Because of the lack of published information concerning total
cyanide and phenolics, the respective reaction rate dependence on
temperature had to be determined. Also, sediment oxygen demand rates
were measured in the field. Finally, two comprehensive point source and
water quality surveys were conducted for model verification purposes and
sediment quality and biota were investigated.
-------
A. Water Quality Model
The water quality model, BEBAM, with some modifications was used
throughout this study to simulate water quality in the Mahoning River. The
model is composed of two major elements: a computerized model of
seventeen water quality constituents, called the River Basin Model (RIBAM);
and a general computerized model of river water temperatures called
QUAL-1. Specialized data decks provide the two models with information
descriptive of the particular river basin being studied. A second tempera-
ture prediction model was also evaluated in this study. General descriptions
of the models are presented below. More detailed descriptions can be found
in References 1 and 2.
1. River Basin Model
RIBAM is a far-field, one-dimensional, steady-state computer model
adapted from the DOSAG water quality model prepared by the Texas Water
Development Board. The conceptual and theoretical approach used in the
computation of the 17 water quality parameters in RIBAM is a direct
extension of the approach used to model BOD and DO in DOSAG.
Modifications were made by the USEPA to the RIBAM code received from
Raytheon in order for the model to be more compatible with the Mahoning
River system.
In RIBAM, the river is analyzed as a network consisting of four basic
components:
1) Junctions - the confluence of two streams,
2) Stretches - the length of the river between junctions,
3) Headwater stretches - the length of a river from its headwaters
to its first junction,
4) Reaches - the subunits that comprise a stretch.
Reach boundaries were selected at effluent sources, channel dams,
tributaries or physical changes in the stream which divide a stretch into
subunits of uniform physical and hydraulic characteristics. As a result, all
effluent sources are considered to enter the stream at the upstream end of a
reach.
To compute water quality, RIBAM assumes steady-state conditions in
which each constituent behaves according to a continuous differential
-------
equation throughout a reach. At reach boundaries, effluent sources are
added and stream characteristics can be changed. This approach may be
used because the definition of a reach assumes that physical characteristics
of the stream remain constant for the length of the reach. In addition, the
mathematical model assumes stream quality is one dimensional, i.e., that
concentrations vary along the length of a reach but are uniform in width and
depth.
For modeling purposes, the 17 water quality constituents are grouped
into three categories: 1) conservative, 2) non-conservative, non-coupled
and 3) non-conservative coupled. Each constituent within a given category
obeys a general equation which is characteristic of that category. The
concentration of each constituent is computed for any point in a reach by
evaluating the appropriate equation using the time of travel from the head
of the reach to the point. Time of travel is computed by the time-rate-
distance equation:
7.1
where x = the distance downstream from the head of the reach
v = average stream velocity within a reach.
The constituents of particular concern on the Mahoning River are
temperature, ammonia-nitrogen, total cyanide, phenolics, and dissolved
oxygen (DO). Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD), and
nitrite-nitrogen, were also considered in the modeling because of their
effect on dissolved oxygen. Conservative constituents were not modeled in
this analysis. However, mass balance relationships were reviewed for each
conservative constituent studied (see Section VII-B).
In RIBAM, CBOD, ammonia-N, total cyanide, and phenolics are
classified as non-conservative, non-coupled constituents and are assumed to
obey the first order differential equation:
3? = -KC 7-2
where K is the reaction rate and the C the concentration. The solution to
equation 7.2 is:
-------
C (t) = Coe'Kt 7.3
where C is the concentration at the head of the reach and t is the time.
o
The starting concentration C is determined by a mass balance
equation, which assumes that the effluent mixes completely with the river
water at the point of discharge. All tributary and municipal flows and
loadings are added at this point as well as net loadings from the industrial
discharges. The most significant industrial discharges generally do not add
to the total flow of the stream since most steel plant process and cooling
water is withdrawn and then discharged to the river.
In RIBAM, the first-order decay of ammonia-N is the first step in the
three-step biological removal of ammonia-N from the system. The reactions
modeled are the oxidation of ammonia-N to nitrite-N, the oxidation of
nitrite-N to nitrate-N and the biological assimilation of nitrate-N.
Reactions representing the bio-chemical decomposition of organic nitrogen
to ammonia-N and biological assimilation of ammonia-N are not included in
RIBAM. These reactions do not consume DO in the stream, however, both
reactions affect ammonia-N concentrations which in turn can affect oxygen
levels during nitrification. In RIBAM, the nitrification of ammonia-N to
nitrite-N consumes 3.43 mg/1 of dissolved oxygen for every mg/1 of
t>
ammonia-N that is oxidized to nitrite-N. Nitrite-N is also oxidized by
bacteria to nitrate-N. Concentrations of nitrite-N are therefore increasing
as a result of the ammonia-N reaction and depleting as a result of
nitrification to nitrate-N. In RIBAM, nitrite-N is modeled as a non-
conservative, "coupled" parameter with two first-order reactions taking
place simultaneously. The differential equation for this reaction is:
dC?
dT =K2C2 + CF1,2K1C1 7A
where C is concentration, K is the reaction rate, CF is the conversion factor
from ammonia to nitrite and the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to ammonia-N and
nitrite-N, respectively. For this reaction, CF, 9 is 1.0, indicating that
*»'
one mg/1 of nitrite-N is produced for each mg/1 of ammonia-N that is broken
down. The solution to equation 7.4 for nitrites is:
-------
•C2(t) = (C2° + A1 2) e-K2t - A e -"V 7.5
where A
1,2~K1-K2
It has been shown that the oxidation of one mg/1 nitrite to nitrate consumes
up to 1.14 mg/1 of DO. This relationship is incorporated into the DO
equation. The complete nitrification of one mg/1 of ammonia-N to nitrate-N
therefore uses a total of 4.57 mg/1 of DO, assuming a stoichiometric
conversion.
RIBAM assumes dissolved oxygen is dependent upon and coupled to
CBOD, ammonia-N, nitrite-N, iron, chlorophyll a, and sediment oxygen
demand. However, DO in the Mahoning River is dominated by the effects of
abnormally high stream temperatures, large CBOD and ammonia-N
discharges from the industries and municipalities, and to a much lesser
extent by the oxygen uptake of the polluted sediments. Preliminary
evaluations indicated that in most cases the effects of iron and chlorophyll a
on DO would be minimal and were therefore not included in this analysis.
The affects of not including these constituents in modeling DO is discussed
further in a subsequent review of model verification.
The resulting differential equation for the dissolved oxygen deficit is:
—- = -KRD + 3.43 KjCj + 1.14 K2C2 + K^C3 + B 7.6
where D is the DO deficit, K the reaction rate, C the constituent
concentrations, and B is the benthic oxygen demand. The subscripts 1, 2,
and 3 denote ammonia-N, nitrite-N, and carbonaceous BOD, respectively,
and R denotes the reaeration rate. As modeled in this analysis,
carbonaceous BOD represents the total oxygen demand less that from the
nitrification of ammonia-N and nitrite-N. The RIBAM code includes
additional terms for chlorophyll a and iron which are deleted in equation 7.6
because they were not included in this analysis. The solution to equation 7.6
is:
D(t) = (D° + Aj + A2 + A3 - b) e~KRt - A2 e"K2t - A3 e~K3l + b 7.7
where A. = 3>^3 K1C1
K1-KR
-------
A, = -
K2-KR
A -
3
b = B/KR
The dissolved oxygen concentration is computed by subtracting the
oxygen deficit computed in equation 7.7 from the saturated dissolved oxygen
concentration (Cc._).
oA 1
CDO(t) = CSAT - D (t) 7'8
The saturation dissolved oxygen concentration is dependent on the stream
water temperature, T, and the mean basin elevation, E. C<,,~. is computed
in the model by the equation:
2)
*{(1-(0.00000697*E))5*67}
CSAT = f1*'62 " °'3898*T + (0.006060*T) - (0.0005897*T)} 7.9
where T is in degrees centigrade and E is feet above sea level.
An important factor in maintaining dissolved oxygen levels in the
Mahoning River is the many low-head channel dams located between
Leavittsburg and Lowellville. The turbulent mixing which occurs as water
flows over these dams substantially reduces dissolved oxygen deficits. In
RIBAM, the change in the DO deficit resulting from reaeration over channel
dams is computed after Owen, et al.
Da/Db = 1 + 0.1 1 ab (1 + 0.046 T) H 7.10
where Da = dissolved oxygen deficit above dam (mg/1)
Db = dissolved oxygen deficit below dam (mg/1)
T = temperature (C°)
H = height (feet which the water falls)
a = 1.25 in clear to slightly polluted water;
1.0 in polluted water;
0.80 in sewage effluents.
-------
b = 1.3 for step weirs to cascades;
1.0 for weir with free fall.
Since values of 1.0 for coefficients a and b are built into the RIBAM code,
adjustments were made to the values of H input to the code based upon
measured data above and below each dam to compensate for the inflexibility
with respect to the a and b coefficients. Adjusting the dam heights has the
same effect on the computed reaeration over the dams as changing
coefficients a and b to correctly account for the degree of stream pollution
and dam configuration.
In RIBAM, reaction rates for non-conservative parameters are assumed
to have an Ahrhenius temperature dependence. Reaction rates at 20 degrees
centigrade for each reaction are adjusted for temperature by the
generalized expression:
T 70
K(T) = K(20)9I~'CU 7.11
K(T) = reaction rate at temperature T
T = Temperature of a reach in C
6 = temperature correction factor for
a particular constituent
Values of 8 were computed from data obtained on the Mahoning River or
selected from recently published information.
2. River Temperature Models
Two temperature prediction models were evaluated to determine
which would be more appropriate to successfully and easily simulate the
temperature regime in the Mahoning River. The two models evaluated were
QUAL-1, developed by the Texas Water Development Board, and the
2 ff
Edinger-Geyer completely mixed stream model. ' The QUAL-1 model had
been received from Raytheon as the temperature modeling portion of the
Beaver Basin Model (BEBAM) project. Some difficulty had been encountered
by Raytheon in trying to verify QUAL-1 on the Mahoning River. It was for
this reason that a second temperature model, the Edinger and Geyer
formulation, was also evaluated.
-------
a. QUAL-1
QUAL-1 contains the capability to simulate CBOD, DO, temperature
and conservative constituents. Only the temperature portion of the model
was evaluated in this study. The basis for temperature simulation in the
QUAL-1 model is a heat budget which represents the energy transfer across
the air-water surface: -
HN - Hsn + Han " (Hb ' Hc + He) 7'12
where
2
H., = Net energy flux passing the air-water interface, BTU/ft -day
2
H = Net shortwave solar radiation passing through interface, BTU/f t -day
of l
H = Net longwave atmosphere radiation flux passing through interface,
cin A
BTU/ft -day
r
2
H^ = Outgoing longwave back radiation flux, BTU/ft -day
2
H = Conductive energy flux between air and water, BTU/ft -day
2
H = Energy loss by evaporation, BTU/ft -day
The heat budget equation shown above is the basis not only for
QUAL-1 but for most temperature models. The basic differences between
models are the particular methods used to estimate the heat terms in
Equation 7.12 and the methods used to simulate the hydraulic system to
which the heat budget is applied. Equations developed by Water Resources
Engineers and Anderson are used to estimate both short and long wave
7 8
atmospheric radiation in QUAL-1. ' Back radiation, H, , is computed using
the Stephen-Boltzman Fourth Power Radiation Law, and heat transfer due to
conduction (H ) is computed from the Bowen Ratio which relates H to the
heat transfer due to evaporation. H is given by the relationship developed
9 e
by Roesner. The evaporation term is important because the heat transfer
term is dependent on wind speed which is often quite variable and the
evaporation relationship is also used to compute H .
The heat budget described above is applied to a control volume which
is also being affected by mass transport (advection) into and out of the
volume and longitudinal dispersion. The relationship for dispersion was
determined from work by Elder and employs the use of Manning's roughness
coefficient. Because the model includes dispersion, a finite difference
n
-------
method is employed to solve the differential equation for the temperature
flowing out of the control volume.
QUAL-1 requires as input standard hydrologic and point source
loadings as well as the following meteorological data:
. Dry Bulb Temperature
. Wet Bulb Temperature
. Cloud Cover
. Barometric Pressure
. Wind Speed
Meteorological data can be supplied to the model for time intervals
corresponding to the computational time step which is also input to the
code.
b. EDINGER-GEYER
A non-stratified, one-dimensional, temperature distribution model was
developed by Edinger and Geyer for the purpose of estimating the
temperature distribution in the vicinity of a heated water discharge. In this
model, increases in temperature resulting from the addition of heat to a
water body decay in the downstream direction and approach an equilibrium
temperature by heat exchange between the water and the atmosphere. With
longitudinal advection the dominant transport mechanism, and assuming
steady-state conditions, the temperature distribution downstream of a heat
course is given by:
-KA/pCO
(T -E)e P r 7.13
where
m
E = equilibrium temperature, °F
T = mixed river temperature at heat source, F
III O
K - exchange coefficient, BTU/ft day-°F
2
A = surface area, ft
3
p = density of water, 62.4- Ib/ft
C = specific heat of water, 1.0 BTU/lb
Q = river flow, ft /day
-------
A heat budget similar to the one used in QUAL-1 was used to derive
equations for the equilibrium temperature and the exchange coefficient in
the above equation. The Edinger and Geyer model uses the Brunts formula
for long-wave atmospheric radiation, the Anderson relationship for
8 11
evaporation, and requires measured shortwave radiation as input. '
Equations representing the remaining terms in the heat budget were the
same as those found in QUAL-1. Linear approximations were then made to
simplify calculation procedures used to solve for the equilibrium tempera-
ture and exchange coefficient.
In reviewing the Edinger and Geyer model, Parker found some of the
approximations were not necessary and modified the equations for
12
K and E. Those modified equations were applied to this study.
B. USEPA Field Studies
Data obtained during field studies conducted between February 1975
and July 1975 provided the information needed to compute the inputs and to
verify the water quality models. Reaction rate studies for CBOD,
ammonia—N, total cyanide, and phenolics were conducted on May 5, June 5,
June 17, and June 24, 1975. Sediment oxygen demand rates were determined
on May 21 and July 23, 1975 with an in situ benthic respirometer. To verify
time of travel calculations, dye studies of the lower 15 miles of the
Mahoning River were conducted on June 17, 1975 and for the Warren-Niles
area on June 24, 1975. Additional time of travel data obtained for the
entire area of study by the U. S. Geological Survey during the week of
July 20, 1975 were also considered. On March 7, 1975 sediment chemistry
and benthic macroinvertebrate samples were obtained at 14 locations.
Sediment chemistry data were also obtained from river sediment samples
collected on July 23, 1975 just downstream from the three coke plants in the
valley. On February 11-14, 1975 and July 14-17, 1975, comprehensive basin
surveys were conducted to obtain sufficient data to verify the water quality
models for water quality simulation purposes.
Data developed through these comprehensive field efforts have been
made available to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the
Eastgate Development and Transportation Agency (EDATA), which is the
-------
208 Planning Agency for Mahoning and Trumbull Counties. Data pertaining
to sediments have been made available to the Corps of Engineers. The
Corps is studying the feasibility of dredging polluted sediments in the
Mahoning River and the effect of these sediments on water quality. A
discussion of the field studies to determine model input parameters and how
the results were processed into the form required by the computer code are
presented below followed by a discussion of the results of the February and
July comprehensive surveys.
1. Hydrology and Physical Characteristics
In RIBAM, a river system must be subdivided into reaches with uniform
physical and hydraulic characteristics. To maintain this uniformity and to
insure that all effluent sources were correctly located at the head of a
reach, the Mahoning River between Leavittsburg, Ohio and New Castle,
Pennsylvania was segmented at the confluence of tributaries, the discharge
point for each municipality and major industrial source, and at the channel
dams. One additional reach boundary was chosen at State Route 224 bridge
in Pennsylvania for comparison with measured water quality at that point.
Table VII-1 gives a description of each reach and the river mile points of the
boundaries. For industrial sources with multiple outfalls, one discharge
located at the average river mile of major outfalls was selected. A
boundary was not established at the dam at the Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Campbell Works because this dam is located adjacent to the Campbell STP
discharge, the next upstream reach boundary. The difference in computed
dissolved oxygen levels introduced by shifting the dam location to the head
of this reach is negligible.
Array sizes in the RIBAM code limit the number of reaches in a
stretch to 20 and the total number of reaches in a basin to 40. The choice of
boundaries described above results in a total of 37 reaches, a value within
the total reach constraint but exceeding the size constraint for the number
of reaches in a stretch (i.e., the length of a river between junctions). To
accommodate the reach per stretch constraint, an artificial tributary with a
length of .01 miles and zero flow was added to the system to form a junction
below reach number 20. This results in the main stem of the Mahoning River
being divided into two stretches, the headwater stretch from Leavittsburg to
-------
TABLE V I I - 1
MAHONING RIVER REACH BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
Boundary
Identification
USGS Caging Station
Copperweld Steel Company
Infirmary Run
Red Run
Summit Street Dam
Republic Steel Corporation-Warren Plant
Warren Sewage Treatment Plant
Mud Creek
Mosquito Creek
Meander Creek
Ohio Edison Company-Niles Plant
Niles Sewage Treatment Plant
U. S. Steel Corporation-McDonald Mills
Squaw Creek
McDonald Sewage Treatment Plant
Liberty Street Dam
Girard Sewage Treatment Plant
Fourmile Run i
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Brier Hill Works
U. S. Steel Corporation-Ohio Works
U. S. Steel Dam
Mill Creek
Marshall Street Falls
Crab Creek
Youngstown Sewage Treatment Plant
Dry Run
Republic Steel Corporation-Youngstown Plant
Republic Steel Dam
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Campbell Works
Campbell Sewage Treatment Plant
Yellow Creek
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Struthers Division
Struthers Sewage Treatment Plant
Lowellville Dam
Lowellville Sewage Treatment Plant
Coffee Run
State Route 224 Bridge
Penn Central RR, New Castle, Pa.
River Mile
at Head of Reach
1*6.08
42.57
41.62
41. 04
39.99
36.71
35.83
33.33
31.14
30.77
30.06
27.47
2S.66
27.67
27.32
26.82
25.73
25.64
23.85
23.09
22.96
22.03
20.91
19.81
19.76
18.47
18.14
17.98
16.40
16.09
15.63
15.50
14.90
12.81
12.35
10.42
6.76
1.52
Length
of Reach
(Miles)
3.51
.95
.58
1.05
3.28
.88
2.50
2.19
.37
.71
.59
.81
.99
.35
.50
1.09
.09
1.79
.76
.13
.93
1.12
1.10
.05
1.29
.33
.16
1.58
.31
.46
.13
.60
2.09
.46
1.93
3.66
5.24
-
-------
the U. S. Steel - Ohio Works and the lower stretch from the U. S. Steel -
Ohio Works to New Castle, Pennsylvania. The addition of the artificial
tributary increased the total number of reaches to 38 but cannot affect the
water quality computations because the additional tributary has zero flow.
The flow regimes for both February and July verification studies were
computed using measured flows at the three USGS gaging stations as
boundary values. Flow recorded at the Leavittsburg gaging station was used
to initialize the river flow. Measured flow additions from the sewage
treatment plants and tributaries Jocated between the Leavittsburg and
Youngstown gages were accumulated with the initial flow and the total
compared with the flow recorded at the Youngstown gaging station. During
both the February and July sampling surveys, the flow recorded at
Youngstown was about 10 percent greater than the sum of measured flows
up to that point.
Since changes in flow through the major dischargers were not
considered, unaccounted for differences in flow between the gages were
assumed to be the result of surface water runoff and were apportioned on a
drainage area basis. To apportion the "runoff" flow, drainage areas for all
tributaries whose flow was not measured were totaled with the portion of
the main stem drainage area between the gaging stations. This enabled an
2
average runoff per square mile (cfs/mi ) to be computed for the upper
length of the river. The runoff factor was multiplied by the respective
tributary drainage area and resultant flow added at the head of the river
reach where the tributary joined the main stem. The remaining runoff was
assumed to flow directly into the main stem (i.e., not through the tributary).
Main stem runoff was divided by the length, in miles, between the two USGS
gaging stations to determine the runoff per mile length along the main stem.
This factor was multiplied by the length of each river segment to get the
runoff per reach which was added at the head of each segment.
The same procedure described above was used between the
Youngstown and Lowellville USGS gaging stations to compute unmeasured
tributary flows and main stem runoff flows. To obtain runoff flows below
the Lowellville gaging station, runoff rates were similarly applied to
drainage areas downstream of Lowellville. For the February survey, the
runoff rate was calculated using the total basin drainage area upstream of
-------
the Lowellville USGS gage and the three-day average flow at the Lowellville
gage. For the July survey, the drainage area and measured flow of Coffee
Run were used to calculate the runoff rate. The computed runoff flows
were again added at the head of each reach. Table VII-2 lists the drainage
areas employed for flow apportionment.
Stream cross-sectional data were needed to determine stream
velocities and depths for input to the RIBAM code. These data were
obtained from maps provided by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers which
are based upon photographs exposed December 6, 1961. River soundings at
intervals of approximately one-tenth of a mile from the Copperweld Steel
Corporation downstream to the Beaver River and bottom elevations at about
20 foot intervals across the river are supplied, as well as the water surface
elevation on December 6, 1961. Bottom elevations were averaged and
subtracted from the water surface elevation to obtain an average depth at
every one-tenth of a mile. River widths were measured directly with a ruler
divided into hundredths of an inch. The relatively large scale on the maps,
1" = 200', enables an accuracy of - 4 feet for stream widths. Cross-sectional
areas were calculated at every sounding by multplying the width by the
average depth. Cross-sectional areas and depths for each reach on the
model were computed by averaging the values determined at every tenth of
a mile interval. These values however, represent the physical dimensions
occurring during the December 6, 1961 flow regime and had to be adjusted
to the flow measured during the Feburary and 3uly 1975 surveys.
Depth and cross-sectional area adjustments for different flow regimes
were made using the 1961 USGS hydrograph for the Leavittsburg,
Youngstown and Lowellville gaging stations. For a specific flow (average
flow measured during February 1975 survey), the corresponding gage height
was computed using the 1961 hydrograph. The difference between the
computed gage height and the value measured on December 6, 1961 was
considered the depth adjustment at that location. Depth adjustments were
computed at all three gaging stations and a linear depth adjustment by mile
point was assumed for free-flowing reaches between the gaging stations.
Depth adjustments were then added (or subtracted) to the 1961 depths.
Below the Lowellville gage, the depth adjustment determined at the gage
was applied downstream to New Castle, Pennsylvania.
-------
TABLE V I I - 2
MAHONING RIVER DRAINAGE AREAS
Tributary
Infirmary Run
Red Run
Mud Creek
Mosquito Creek
Meander Creek
Squaw Creek
Fourmile Creek
Mill Creek
Crab Creek
Dry Run
Yellow Creek
Coffee Run
Basin
above Leavittsburg Gage
above Youngstown Gage
above Lowellville Gage
above Beaver River
Mainstem Only
Leavittsburg to Youngstown
Youngstown to Lowellville
Lowellville to Beaver River
Total
Area
10.5
7.2
11.9
138.0
85.8
18.4
4.7
78.4
21.1
, 10.1
39.4
10.6
575
898
1073
1140
46.5
26.0
29.2
Drainage Area
(Square Miles )(1)
Downstream of
USGS Gage
10.5
7.2
11.9
40.5
1.9
18.4
4.7
12.1
21.1
10.1
39.4
10.6
(1) Information Source: Drainage Areas of Ohio Streams, Supplement to Gazetteer of
Ohio Streams, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Report 12a, 1967.
-------
A separate technique was used to compute depth adjustments in
channel dam pools. Head heights at dams were computed using the formula
for flow over a broad crested weir:
Q2/3
H = , & . 7.14
3.33 xL
•i
where Q = flow, ft /sec
L = length of the dam, ft
H = height of water flowing over the dam, ft
The difference between the head height computed using the
December 1961 flow and the head height determined using the flow from one
of the field surveys was the depth adjustment applied to the entire length of
the dam pool.
The average reach cross-sectional area determined from the Corps'
maps was divided by the average reach depth to obtain the reach width
which was multiplied by the adjusted depth to determine an adjusted cross-
sectional area. In computing adjusted cross-sectional areas by this method,
it is assumed that stream width remains constant with changes in flow. This
assumption is reasonable for the Mahoning River because of the steep banks
found along most of the study area, notably in the industrial segments.
Adjusted cross-sectional areas are used in the following equation to
compute stream velocities for input to the RIBAM code:
V = % 7.15
2
where A = average cross-sectional area, ft
Q = average flow in a reach, ft /sec
The average flow used in equation 7.15 was equal to the flow at the head of
a reach plus one-half of the surface flow for that reach.
2. Travel Time
The time required for water in the main stem to move downstream
from one location to another is important in water quality modeling of non-
conservative constituents. As indicated earlier, RIBAM computes travel
-------
times using cross-sectional areas and stream flows. To verify the methods
used to compute travel times, dye tracer studies were conducted by the
USEPA, Michigan-Ohio District Office in two different river sections and
later by the U. S. Geological Survey from Warren, Ohio to New Castle,
Pennsylvania.
Both the USEPA and the USGS dye studies were conducted in the same
fashion. Time was recorded when a dark-red trace dye (rhodamine B) was
dumped into the river at an upstream location. At downstream measuring
stations, a fluorometer sensitive to low level dye concentrations was set up
to detect passage of the dye. Times were recorded when the dye was first
detected and again when the maximum dye levels occurred. In the USEPA
survey, water samples were collected at one-half hour intervals before dye
arrival with the last grab sample collected before dye detection, saved for
chemical analysis and use in reaction rate determinations.
USEPA dye studies were conducted on June 17, June 23, and
June 24, 1975. The first of these studies was from the PL and E railroad
bridge in Struthers (RM 15.83) to the Penn Central railroad bridge in New
Castle, Pennsylvania (RM 1.52) with three intermediate sampling stations.
This section of the river included the pool behind the Lowellville dam and
the lower free flowing portion of the Mahoning River. Cross-sections and
travel times were computed in the manner described earlier using the
measured flows at the USGS gaging station at Lowellville and measured
flows at Coffee Run, a tributary within the reach. Runoff per square mile,
which was used in determining runoff flow in each reach, was computed
from the drainage area and measured flow of Coffee Run. Computed travel
times are shown in Table VII-3.
The results of this study showed excellent correlation between
measured and computed values up to the State Route 224 bridge. Travel
times computed using the previously described methods were within 10
percent of the measured arrival times of the maximum dye concentrations
which represents the main body of water. However, below the State Route
224 bridge computed travel times were only half the measured travel time
of the main body of water and only two-thirds the travel time of the leading
edge. The poor agreement indicates that cross-sectional data from 1961
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers' maps are probably not representative of
present stream conditions in the river segment below Route 224.
-------
To check this conclusion, a second dye study was conducted on
June 23, 1975 in the lower river segment from State Route 224 to New
Castle, Pennsylvania. An additional sampling station at the Brewster Road
bridge (RM 4.34) was selected to determine more precisely where 1961
cross-sectional data may no longer be representative of stream geometry.
No water samples were taken during this study. Travel times were
computed using the methods described above with the resulting measured
and computed travel times presented in Table VII-4.
The results of the June 23, 1975 study support the conclusion that
actual travel times in the lower Mahoning River are larger than computed.
There was good agreement between measured and computed values
downstream to the Brewster Road bridge, however, below that point the
computed travel time was 1.38 hours, whereas the measured time of arrival
for the maximum dye concentration was 3.37 hours. A difference of this
magnitude indicates cross-sectional areas and the total segment volume in
this section is significantly larger than the values determined from the
Corps' maps.
The cross-sectional changes were included in the modeling by making
adjustments to the total segment volumes between Brewster Road and New
Castle using the ratio of the measured travel time to the computed travel
time (2.44). The volume ratio was further broken down to adjustment
factors for depth and width assuming two-thirds of the volume increase
resulted from an increase in the depth and one-third was a result of an
increase in width. The computed factors of 1.35 and 1.81 for width and
depth, respectively, were multiplied times the adjusted dimensions used in
computing the travel time. The adjusted depth was then corrected for flow
using the method described earlier to determine the depth corresponding to
the December 1961 flow regime in which the other segment depths were
measured.
The corrected depth and widths for the lower segment were then used
to compute travel times for the June 17 dye study. In this case, good
correlation was found between measured and computed values. The travel
time calculated with the corrected dimensions for the State Route 224
bridge to New Castle segment was 5.08 hours which differs from the
-------
measured value of 5.62 hours by less than 10 percent. The corrected cross-
sections were therefore considered representative of the lower Mahoning
River.
On June 24, 1975, the USEPA conducted a dye study of a portion of the
Liberty Street dam pool from the Warren STP to the Carver-Miles Road
bridge with an intermediate station at the West Park Avenue bridge. The
measured corresponding computed times are presented in Table VII-5.
Computed and measured values were nearly identical from Warren STP to
West Park Avenue (2.42 hours vs. 2.43 hours), however the computed travel
time for the reach from West Park Avenue to Carver-Niles bridge was
1.7 hours (30 percent) less than the measured time for the peak dye
concentration. Although this is a significant difference, cross-sectional
adjustments were not made with these data because reasonably good
agreement was found between measured and computed travel times obtained
with USGS data for this reach (Table VII-6).
At the request of Ohio EPA, the U. S. Geological Survey conducted a
time of travel study from the Summit Street bridge in Warren, Ohio to the
State Route 108 bridge in New Castle, Pennsylvania. The dye study was
conducted in three separate sections over a three-day period from
July 22—24, 1975. Flow rates varied widely over the study period as a result
of a large rain which occurred on July 20 and 21 (410 to 1170 cfs as
measured at Youngstown). Measured travel times and the corresponding
computed values are reported in Table VII-6. Computed travel times agreed
within 10 percent of the measured values for all segments except the 4-mile
stretch below the Liberty Street dam. In this segment, computed travel
times were about 20 percent (2 hours) longer than the measured time value
for peak dye arrival. Considering the unsteady flows which existed during
this survey, the correlation was considered good and the methodology used
to compute travel times was considered verified.
3. Reaction Rates
Implicit in the use of the water quality model, RIBAM, is the
assumption that the non-conservative constituents carbonaceous BOD
(CBOD), ammonia-N, nitrite-N, total cyanide, and phenolics react in the
stream according to first-order differential equations. While decay or
-------
TABLE V 11 - 3
JUNE 17, 1975 USEPA DYE STUDY
Station
Description
PL<5cE RR, Struthers
PL&E RR, Lowellville
Church Hill Rd.
State Route 224
Penn Central RR
New Castle, Pa.
LOWER
River
Mile
15.83
13.52
' 9.69
6.76
1.52
MAHONING
Length
(Miles)
0
2.31
3.83
2.93
5.24
RIVER
Dye Arrival Time (Hours)
Leading
Edge Peak Computed
0 0
2.00 2.17
' 3.08 3.67
1.88 2.45
4.70 5.62
0
2.11
3.36
. 2.50
* 3.10
Flow recorded at USGS Gage at Lowellville, 960 cfs.
* After width and depth correction, computed dye arrival time was 5.08 hours, see text.
TABLE V I I - 4
3UNE 23, 1975 USEPA DYE STUDY
Station
Description
State Route 224
Brewster Rd.
Penn Central RR,
New Castle, Pa.
LOWER
River
Mile
6.76
4.34
1.52
MAHONING
Length
(Miles)
0
2.42
2.82
RFVER
Dye
Leading
Edge
0
1.66
2.50
Arrival Time
Peak
0
1.80
3.37
(Hours)
Computed
0
1.79
1.38
Flow recorded at USGS Gage at Lowellville, 826 cfs.
TABLE V 11 - 5
3UNE 24, 1975 USEPA DYE STUDY
Station
Description
Warren STP
West Park Avenue
Carver-Niles Road
LOWER
River
Mile
35.83
33.71
30.48
MAHONING
Length
(Miles)
0
2.12
3.23
RIVER
Dye
Leading
Edge
0
2.00
4.42
Arrival Time
Peak
0
2.42
5.44
(Hours)
Computed
0
2.43
3.77
Flow recorded at USGS Gage in Leavittsburg, 440 cfs.
I/ / / -
-------
TABLE V I I - 6
JULY 1975 USGS DYE STUDY
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
Station
Description
Summit St.
Market St.
N. Main St.
Liberty St.
Liberty St.
Bridge St.
Center St.
South St.
Center St.
Washington St.
(Lowellville)
Route 224
SR 108
(New Castle, Pa.)
River
Mile
39.93
38.91
31.30
26.97
26.97
22.73
18.29
20.11
18.29
12.6*
6.76
1.43
Length
(Miles)
0
1.02
7.61
4.53
0
4.04
4.44
0
1.82
5.65
5.88
5.33
Discharge
Date (cfs)
7/24
7/24 410
7/24 410
7/24 540
7/23
7/24 560
7/24 600
7/22
7/22
7/22 1020
7/22 1030
7/22 1170
Dye Arrival Time (Hours)
Leading
Edge Peak Computed
0
0.83
10.50
11.92
0
9.33
6.67
0
1.33
5.17
4.33
4.33
0
1.08
12.42
12.58
0
9.92
8.00
0
1.58
6.25
4.92 '
5.08
0
1.09
12.50
13.30
0
12.00
8.30
0
5.80
4.40
4.60
-------
removal of these constituents may in fact be more complex owing to the
nature of the biochemical and physical processes involved, the simplification
of first-order reactions is commonly employed in water quality modeling
since rates of decay closely, though not always exactly, follow first-order
reactions. ' ' ' ' Reaction rates for all of the above constituents
are dependent upon the specific environment in which the reaction occurs,
i.e., temperature, pH, populations of specific microorganisms, concentra-
tions of toxic or inhibiting substances, channel geometry and bottom
conditions, proximity to waste discharges, etc. Because of the uniqueness of
the lower Mahoning River in terms of its highly polluted state and multitude
of waste discharges, reaction rates presented in the literature for different
streams or determined by laboratory studies may not be representative of
those found in the Mahoning. For this reason, field and laboratory studies
were conducted specifically to obtain data necessary to compute reaction
rates for the Mahoning River.
Four separate sampling programs were conducted during the months of
May and June 1975 to obtain rate data. Two of these sampling programs
were conducted in conjunction with the travel time studies discussed earlier.
Grab samples were collected during the four surveys at the sampling
locations presented in Table VII-7. Samples were analyzed for the non-
conservative constituents being modeled as well as other constituents.
Temperature, pH and conductivity were recorded at the time samples were
collected as well as river stage at the three USGS gaging stations. Samples
were collected in pre-preserved bottles and thoroughly iced until analysis.
Water quality data obtained during all rate surveys are presented in
Appendix B, Tables 1-4.
A summary of the rates determined from the stream data is presented
in Table VII-8 with the methodology for rate determination presented below.
a. Carbonaceous BOD Reaction Rate
The rate of oxidation of carbonaceous BOD (CBOD) can be computed
using two general methods. Regression analysis can be applied to CBOD
loadings along a stream to calculate the reaction rate, or one of several
procedures developed to determine BOD rates from daily BOD bottle values
can be used to calculate the CBOD rate at a given point in the stream.
-------
TABLE V 11 - 7
SAMPLING STATIONS FOR USEPA REACTION RATE STUDIES
MAHONING RIVER
Station Description
Leavitt Road Bridge
B<3cO RR Bridge
Below Warren STP
West Park Avenue Bridge
Belmont Avenue Bridge
Liberty Street Bridge
Division Street Bridge
Bridge Street Bridge
Marshall Street Bridge
B&O RR Bridge
Penn Central RR Bridge
P&LE RR Bridge
Washington Street Bridge
Church Hill Road Bridge
Route 224 Bridge
Brewster Road Bridge
Penn Central RR Bridge
River Mile
46.06
38.66 .
35.80
33.71
30.48
26.77
23.84
22.73
20.91 '
19.17
17.82
15.83
12.64
9.69
6.76
4.34
1.52
May 5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Survey Date (1975)
June 5 June 17
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
June 2'
X
X
X
-------
TABLE V I I - 8
SUMMARY OF IN-STREAM REACTION RATES
Parameter
Total Cyanide
Phenolics > 20 yg/1
Phenolics < 20 yg/1
BOD
Nitrite
Ammonia-N
FOR LOWER MAHONING RIVER
Reaction Rate
at 20°C
1.350
3.710
1.580
0.300 **
2.000
0.276
9*
1.050
1.060
1.060
1.0*7
1.060
1.100
* 6 = Temperature correction factor k(T) = k(20°C)9^T"20^
** A value of 0.12 was used for the BOD reaction rate for water quality
projections (see Section VIII).
-------
Regression analysis (curve fitting) has the advantage of including the effects
of CBOD decay, settling, and removal by attached plants and- slimes;
however, it has the disadvantage of requiring collection of data throughout
fairly long river stretches having no major CBOD loadings. Since bottle rate
determinations do not require river sampling over any given length, rates
can be computed for relatively short river segments with many industrial
and municipal point sources as found in the Mahoning River. Reaction rates
determined from bottle studies, however, do not include the effects of
settling and removal by attached growth which can be significant in streams
with a large wetted perimeter in relation to streamflow. To account for
greater contact with attached biological organisms, RIBAM has the
flexibility to adjust input CBOD rates for stream depth as suggested by
Hydroscience where bottle rates are employed.
For this study, CBOD reaction rates were computed using the
Tsivoglou daily difference method, a bottle rate procedure. Because of
the large number of major dischargers between Warren and Struthers, there
are virtually no stretches of river where an adequate number of sampling
points can be located to employ the curve-fitting technique. In addition,
long-term BOD values measured at many sampling locations in the lower
stretches of the river can be unreliable due to high concentrations of
cyanide, phenolics, and metals which can create toxic conditions for BOD
stabilizing organisms in the water sample. Recent surveys of the Mahoning
River stream bed by the Corps of Engineers showed that sedimentation was
occurring only along the stream banks and behind the larger channel dams
with generally less than 30 percent of the bottom covered by sediment
18
deposits. Hence, use of the CBOD bottle rates could underestimate the
total CBOD disappearance behind some dams by excluding settling.
The Tsivoglou daily difference method for BOD rate determination is
an adaptation of Fair and Velz methods and gives a graphic picture of
observed data and predominant rate changes with time. As described in the
19
USEPA Water Quality Training Manual, the rate calculation procedures
are quite simple. The method, however, assumes that the majority of the
data follow a first order reaction. Points that do not fit this assumption are
considered extraneous.
When ammonia-N is present in the water sample, nitrification can
substantially increase the long-term BOD bottle values. Since RIBAM
-------
handles the effects of nitrification separately from the oxidation of CBOD,
oxygen depletion caused by nitrification must be subtracted from the total
BOD measured in the sample bottle. Generally, the two reactions can be
separated because CBOD oxidation starts immediately and ammonia-N
nitrification may be delayed a few days while a sufficient population of
nitrifying bacteria is being established. The daily difference method is then
applied to the BOD values for the first few days before nitrification
becomes significant.
^
As discussed by Veiz, the effects of nitrification on the BOD test can
be controlled by chemically inhibiting nitrification. Studies by Young
showed nitrification could be controlled by addition of 2-chloro-6
(trichloromethyl) pyridene (TCMP) without affecting CBOD stabilization.
The standard BOD test was run on samples with and without nitrification
inhibited for two of the sampling programs, June 5 and July 14-17, 1975.
For the other surveys, BOD samples were not analyzed with nitrification
inhibited and NBOD was separated assuming a time delay as discussed above.
The calculated CBOD rates for all four rate studies, as well as the
comprehensive July survey, are presented in Table VII-9. CBOD rates show
variability between stations during a specific survey, as well as variability
between surveys at a specific station. This variability can be attributed to
many factors, including variations in BOD characteristics at different
sampling locations; possible toxic conditions in highly polluted segments of
the river; substantial differences in river flows between surveys; variable
waste loadings; and to the different techniques employed to separate the
effects of nitrification. Considering the many factors affecting BOD
stabilization, the calculated rates show an overall average of 0.3 day" with
most values within plus or minus 0.1 day" of the average.
The range of computed rates, as well as the average value computed
rates, agree well with values presented in the literature for highly polluted
streams. Klein reports CBOD rates for polluted streams between 0.3 and
0.5 day . Eckenfelder indicates untreated sewage exhibits CBOD rates
I 22
between 0.35 and 0.60 day . Clean streams have been found to have
-1 73 7U
CBOD rates in the range 0.10-0.12 day . '
Considering the variability found in the CBOD rates, the average value
of 0.3 day" was applied to the Mahoning River from Leavittsburg to New
-------
TABLE VI I-9 .
CARBONACEOUS BOD REACTION RATES
MAHONING RIVER
Station Description
Leavitt Road Bridge
B&O RR Bridge
Below Warren STP
West Park Avenue Bridge
Belmont Avenue Bridge
USS McDonald Intake
Liberty Street Bridge
Division Street Bridge
Bridge Street Bridge
Marshall Street Bridge
B&O RR Bridge
Penn Central RR Bridge
P&LE RR Bridge
Washington Street Bridge
Church Hill Road Bridge
Route 224 Bridge
Brewster Road Bridge
Penn Central RR Bridge
Survey Average
Flow cfs
Leavittsburg
Youngstown
Lowellville
River
Mile
46.06
38.66
35.80
33.71
30.48
28.83
26.77
23.84
22.73
20.91
19.17
17.82
15.83
12.64
9.69
6.76
4.34
1.52
46.02
22.80
12.67
May 5
*
.116
.194
.305
.170
.112
#
.174
.485
.454
.502
.401
.234
.273
.126
.109
.261
335
450
566
(Bottle Rates in Base e,
June 5 June 17
.228
.225
.329
.233
.267
.277
.225
.734
.239
.265
.289 .397
.245 .358
.205 .372
.181 .386
.195
.156 .431
.237 .388
2340
3323
2550 ' 960
I/day)
Survey Date (1975)
June 24 July 14-15
.252
.256
4.22
4.22 .345
.410
.339
.229
.358
.264
.274
.270
.337
.418 .292
440 442
702 557
669
July 15-16
.264
.309
.348
.337
.252
.454
.266
.296
.245
*
.308
372
563
669
July 16-17
.261
.304
.376
.363
#
.320
.329
.320
.348
.280
.322
332
479
585
* BOD values did not readily fit first order reaction.
-------
Castle for verification of the RIBAM code. Some of the surveys showed
increase in CBOD rates in certain segments of the river. However,
variability in the rates at given sampling stations was high and trends seen in
the data were not consistent for all surveys. Selection of different rates for
different river segments did not appear warranted.
Since BOD bottle rates are all determined at the incubation
temperature of the water sample, 20 C, temperature dependence of the
CBOD rate cannot be determined from these data. The temperature
correction coefficient commonly presented in the literature (1.047) was used
o 14
to adjust CBOD rates occurring at temperatures other than 20 C.
b. Nitrogenous BOD Reaction Rate
The nitrification of ammonia-N to nitrate-N is a two-stage reaction
which, if carried to completion, will consume 4.57 mg/1 DO for each mg/1 of
ammonia-N oxidized. The first stage, the oxidation of ammonia-N to
nitrite-N, is the controlling reaction because the conversion proceeds at a
slow rate and most of the oxygen depleted in complete nitrification is
consumed in this reaction (3.43 mg/1). The second stage is the oxidation of
nitrite-N to nitrate-N which can proceed at a rate as much as ten times
faster than the first stage and consumes 1.18 mg/1 DO for each mg/1 of
^
nitrite-N oxidized. Because of the differences in reaction rates, there is
generally little accumulation of nitrite-N in the stream.
Since the ammonia-N decay rate is equal to the oxygen uptake rate of
nitrogenous biochemical oxygen demand (NBOD), the rate can be determined
from bottle BOD values or by applying regression techniques to ammonia-N
data along the river. The advantages and disadvantages discussed earlier of
using these two methods for CBOD rate determination apply to the use of
these techniques for NBOD rate calculation as well. As a result, the
Tsivoglou daily log difference procedure was also selected for NBOD rate
calculations. Rates calculated with this procedure are representative of the
rate for the first stage of nitrification, and could underestimate the
disappearance rate of ammonia-N behind channel dams because it does not
include the relatively small loss of NH,-N from settling or direct utilization
by plants.
As discussed previously, daily BOD values were determined with and
without nitrification inhibited for the 3une 5 and July 14-17, 1975 surveys.
The difference between the measured BOD values is the oxygen depletion
I?
-------
(BOD) resulting from ammonia-N nitrification. Tsivoglou's method was
applied to the difference between the BOD values with and without
nitrification inhibited to calculate the NBOD reaction rate. The daily log-
difference procedure was also used to compute NBOD rates for the May 5,
June 17, and June 2k surveys but only for those stations where the CBOD
and NBOD reactions could be separated because of a time lag before
nitrification began. The computed NBOD rates for all surveys are presented
in Table VII-10.
A significant difference was found between NBOD rates computed
when nitrification was chemically inhibited and when CBOD and NBOD were
separated based upon the time lag. For the surveys where nitrification was
not inhibited, NBOD rates show a large variability (0.2-1.2 day" ). However,
in the surveys when CBOD and NBOD were chemically separated, NBOD
rates show only minor variations. All rates except two were within 0.1 of
the mean value of 0.276 day~ . Also when the BOD's were chemically
separated, the data indicate that at most locations, nitrification was
starting immediately. Hence, the time-lag method of separation does not
appear to be a good method for correctly and consistently separating the
reactions of nitrification and CBOD stabilization. For this reason, the
nitrification rate calculated from the chemically inhibited samples was used
as input to the RIBAM code.
Examination of the calculated rates showed no consistent trends along
the river. Rates computed from the June 5 survey data indicate an increase
in the reaction rate in the Youngstown area, however, the survey was
conducted during a period of very high flow. No discernible trend was seen
in the calculated rates determined from the three-day July survey which was
conducted during a period approaching summer critical low flows. As a
result, the average computed NBOD rate (0.276 day~ ) was applied to the
river from Leavittsburg to New Castle. A temperature correction
coefficient of 1.10 as shown in Eckenfelder and Thomann is used to adjust
22 23
the NBOD rate input to the model. '
The reaction rate for the oxidation of nitrite-N to nitrate-N, the
second stage of the nitrification of ammonia-N, cannot be calculated from
the data collected. Therefore, values found in the literature for the
nitrite-N reaction rate (2.0 day~ ) and the temperature dependence of this
reaction (1.06) were used in the model. '
-------
TABLE V 11 - 10
NITROGENOUS BOD REACTION RATES
MAHONING RIVER
(Bottle Rates in Base e, I/day)
Station Description
Leavitt Road Bridge
B&O RR Bridge
Below Warren STP
West Park Avenue Bridge
Belmont Avenue Bridge
USS McDonald Intake
Liberty Street Bridge
Division Street Bridge
Bridge Street Bridge
Marshall Street Bridge
B&O RR Bridge
Penn Central RR Bridge
P&LE RR Bridge
Washington Street Bridge
Church Hill Road Bridge
Route 224 Bridge
Brewster Road Bridge
Penn Central RR Bridge
Survey Average
Flow cf s
Leavittsburg
Youngstown
Lowellville
River
Mile
46.06
38.66
35.80
33.71
30.48
28.83
26.77
23.84
22.73
20.91
19.17
17.82
15.83
12.64
9.69
6.76
4.34
1.52
46.02
22.80
12.67
May 5
*
.197
.199
.454
.726
.569
*
.456
.469
.338
.930
.845
.401
.333
.587
1.204
.551
335
450
566
June 5
.268
*
.086
.218
.200
.213
.222
.242
.351
.372
.313
.310
.465
.294
.360
*
.280
2340
3323
2550
Survey Date (1975)
June 17 June 24 July 14-15
-
-
*
* .315
*
.265
.234
.262
.366 .223
.313 .338
.310
.386 .245
.289
.288 .285
.325 * .258
440 442
702 557
, 960 669
July 15-16
-
-
.230
.290
.268
.287
.316
.289
.329
.334
.292
372
563
669
July 16-1
-
.272
.250
.193
. .245
.282
.362
.279
.283
.271
332
479
585
* Data do not readily fit a first order reaction.
- Insufficient amount of nitrification to determine rate,
-------
c. Total Cyanide Reaction Rate
The decay of cyanide compounds in the Mahoning River is assumed to
obey a first-order reaction. This reaction is thought to be chiefly biological
in nature, although instream settling may account for some removal. Linear
regression analysis was employed to calculate the decay rate in conjunction
with field measurements and computed travel times. Since the major
sources of cyanide compounds in the Mahoning are blast furnaces and coke
plants, maximum instream concentrations are found just downstream of the
steel plants in Youngstown and "Struthers. Hence, the segment of the
\
Mahoning from Struthers to New Castle is an appropriate stretch to evaluate
total cyanide destruction as maximum stream concentrations occur at the
head of the reach and no major sources of total cyanide enter below that
point. Assuming a first-order reaction, the rate is calculated by taking the
natural logarithm of the flowing total cyanide loadings in the stream and
plotting the values on Cartesian coordinate paper with travel time on the
abscissa. The slope of the best fit line calculated by linear regression is the
stream reaction rate.
Total cyanide was studied during six USEPA sampling programs
conducted on the Mahoning River between February and July 1975.
However, data from only three of these surveys (February 11-14, May 5, and
July 14-17) were suitable for calculation of total cyanide reaction rates.
Because of high streamflow and low steel production, total cyanide was not
found in sufficient quantities to compute reaction rates during the June 17
and June 24, 1975 surveys. As discussed earlier, the flow regime
encountered during the June 5, 1975 survey was high and did not exhibit
steady-state conditions, making it impossible to calculate streamflows and
travel times necessary to compute the reaction rate.
The computed rates for the remaining three surveys, along with the
average measured river temperature in the reach, are presented in
Table VII-11. Since these reaction rates were determined over a wide range
of temperatures (7.7-26.9°C), the rates and the corresponding temperatures
were used to derive both the average reaction rate of 20°C and the
temperature correction coefficient. Assuming an Ahrrhenius temperature
dependence, regression analysis was used to calculate cyanide reaction rate
-------
TABLE VI I- 11
TOTAL CYANIDE REACTION RATES
MAHONING RIVER
Survey Date
February 11-1*, 1975
May 5, 1975
July 14-27, 1975
Computed rate at 20°C
Temperature correction
Temperature ( C)
7.7
21.3
26.9
factor (6)
Rate (I/day)
(Base e)
0.797
1.366
1.971
1.35
1.05
K(T) = K(20)9
(T-20)
-------
at 20°C of 1.35 day" and a temperature correction factor of 1.05. The high
•j
correlation of this regression (r = 0.98) indicates a good fit of the curve to
the data.
Because several planned studies did not produce total cyanide data
suitable for computation of reaction rates, data for the February and July
comprehensive surveys had to be included in the rate determinations,
notably with respect computation of rate dependence on temperature (6).
Hence, in order to verify the total cyanide reaction rate and temperature
correction coefficient (8) below Loweilville, a verification of the rates with
a data set other than the February and July data was made.
d. Phenolics Reaction Rates
The destruction of phenolic compounds in a stream results from
oxidation by aerobic bacteria belonging chiefly to the genera
Achromobacter, Vibrio, Micrococcus, Pseudomonas, and Nocardia. How-
ever, other removal mechanisms may include sedimentation with particulate
matter, and possibly air stripping in turbulent reaches. The total reaction
rate or removal rate of these compounds in the Mahoning River by all
mechanisms was calculated using the same curve fitting techniques
employed for total cyanide rate determinations. Stream data from five of
the six Mahoning River sampling programs were used to compute reaction
rates at measured stream temperatures (Table VII-12). The June 5, 1975
survey data could not be included because of high and unstable streamflow.
The calculated rates show a typical Ahrrhenius temperature depen-
dence except for the rate encountered during the July 14-17, 1975 survey
which appears slightly low. Excluding the July survey rate, regression
techniques were applied to calculate a temperature correction coefficient
(9) of 1.06 and a phenolic reaction rate (K ) of 3.71 at 20°C. The
correlation coefficient of this regression (r = 0.995) indicates that these
rates closely fit the assumed temperature dependence. A slightly smaller
value of 8 was computed when the July rate was included, however a
poorer fit to a single curve was found (r = 0.88). Because of this, the values
of 8 and K , calculated by excluding the July survey rate, were employed
for model verification. The lower phenolic reaction rate in July and only
small rate differences in the temperature range of 21-27°C possibly
indicates an attenuation of the phenol rate temperature dependence at
/\
-------
TABLE VII- 12
PHENOLICS REACTION RATES
Survey Date
February 11-1*, 1975
May 5, 1975
June 17, 1975
June 24, 1975
July 14-17, 1975
Computed rate at 20°C
Computed rate at 20°C
Temperature Correction
MAHONING RIVER
Temperature ( C)
7.7
21.4
25.9
24.0
26.9
Concentration > 20 yg/1
Concentration < 20 yg/1
Factor (6)
Rate (I/day)
(Base e)
1.80
4.26
5.05
4.82
3.98
3.71 day"1
1.58 day"1
1.06
K(T) = K(20)9
(T-20)
-------
temperatures above 20 C. Additional rate data on the Mahoning River at
temperatures in the 30-40°C range are needed to substantiate this
hypothesis and determine the appropriate mathematical relationships for
high stream temperatures. However, the necessity of obtaining such data
may be mitigated should thermal discharge limitations be imposed which
would prevent the river from reaching abnormally high temperatures.
An examination of the phenolic data used to calculate rates, shows
that a large drop in concentration occurs between Struthers (RM 15.83) and
Lowellville (RM 12.64), however, below Lowellville phenolic destruction
appears slower. An examination of sediment quality (Table VII-21) shows no
accumulation in the sediments between these points; in fact, the measured
sediment phenolic concentration is less at Lowellvilie. Hence, biological
oxidation appears to be the primary cause for the decay. Regression
analysis on the data from Lowellville downstream results in significantly
lower reaction rates than the values shown on Table VII-12, except for the
February survey when phenolic values below Lowellville were above 50 yg/1.
In discussing phenolic reactions, Klein indicates different phenolic com-
pounds react at different rates with some compounds (nitrophenols) unable
32
to be oxidized by bacteria. It appears reasonable, therefore, that rate
differences seen in the Mahoning are attributable to the presence of at least
two different classes of phenolic compounds, each having different char-
acteristic reaction rates. As the faster reacting compounds are depleted,
slow reacting compounds are more readily seen oxidizing in the stream.
To incorporate the above findings into a single first order reaction
equation as contained in RIBAM, it was assumed for modeling purposes that
the phenolic reaction rate is dependent on stream concentrations. The data
show that the phenolic concentration below which a lower reaction rate
appears evident is about 20 ug/1. For concentrations less than 20 yg/1, a rate
of 1.58 day~ was calculated from the data. Since stream concentrations in
the 5-20 yg/1 range are expected after point source controls are installed,
_1
the rate of 1.58 day was employed for modeling various waste treatment
alternatives. For verification purposes, the lower reaction was used in those
river segments where the computed phenolic concentrations dropped below
20 yg/1.
Although more reaction rate data were obtained for phenolics than for
>// -35
-------
total cyanide, the February survey data were used to compute the rate at
20°C and temperature dependence because these data were obtained at low
stream temperatures, thus providing a good range of data for computing the
temperature correction coefficient (6). A verification of the phenolics rate
and temperature dependence below Lowellville with a data set other than
the February and 3uly data was also made.
e. Dissolved Oxygen Reaeration
The waste assimilation capacity of a stream for oxygen demanding
materials is partially dependent upon the rate at which oxygen from the
atmosphere enters the stream. It is generally held that the rate of
reaeration in free-flowing stream segments is governed by physical laws and
is dependent upon such hydraulic parameters as velocity, depth, and energy
loss in the stream. ' ' ' Significant dissolved oxygen reaeration also
occurs as water tumbles over channel dams or natural stream falls.
Insufficient data were obtained during the sampling programs on the
Mahoning River to enable DO reaeration formulations to be developed for
the river. Therefore, a review was made of recently published literature in
order to select a reaeration formulation which can be applied to hydraulic
conditions encountered on the Mahoning River.
Several methods for calculating atmospheric reaeration have been
developed for use in mathematical water quality models. A review of the
literature indicates that the most commonly used reaeration formulations
were developed by O'Connor-Dobbins (1958), Churchill, et al. (1962), Owens,
et al. (1962), and Tsivoglou (1972).5' 2^' 25} 26 O'Connor's, Churchill's and
Owen's formulations assume reaeration to be a function of stream velocity
and depth with all three expressions of the form:
7.16
where K = reaeration rate
V = stream velocity
D = stream depth
a,b,c = emperical constants
-------
Values of a, b, and c were determined from field data and are different
for the three formulations. Tsivoglou, on the other hand, using gas tracer
techniques, concluded that the reaeration rate coefficient is directly
proportional to the rate of energy expenditure in nontidal streams. To
depict this relationship, Tsivoglou suggested the following equation:
K2 = 0.054 (Ah/t) at 25°C 7.17
where Ah = change in water elevation in feet
t = time in days
In a recent review of reaeration formulations, Covar indicates that
considerable scatter was found in data used by Tsivoglou and that data from
streams with different hydraulic characteristics were used to develop the
27
formulations by Churchill, O'Connor and Owens. Covar arrives at the
conclusion that the studies by Churchill, O'Connor and Owens are the most
appropriate formulation when applied to streams with a combination of
depth and velocity similar to that used in the original research.
Different flow regimes were encountered on the Mahoning River
during the February and July 1975 comprehensive water quality surveys. For
the February survey, the average river flow was about 1060 cfs at
Youngstown with the river exhibiting combinations of velocity and depth
which were at the borderline between the use of O'Connor-Dobbins
formulation and the Churchill formulation. Both relationships give essen-
tially the same reaeration rate for the velocities and depths determined at
this flow. In the July survey, the flow at Youngstown was much lower (530
cfs) with corresponding lower velocities and depths. For these combinations
of flow and velocity, the O'Connor-Dobbins formulation appears more
appropriate. Considering that the velocities and depths encountered in the
Mahoning River over a large range of flow are similar to the stream
characteristics reported in the original research by O'Connor, the O'Connor-
Dobbins equation was used to calculate reaeration in the free-flowing
segments of the Mahoning River.
The equation for the reaeration occurring at channel dams
(Equation 7.10) was calibrated using data obtained on July 15 and 16, 1975.
-------
DO measurements were taken a short distance upstream and downstream of
four dams. Data were obtained far enough downstream to insure complete
mixing, generally a few hundred feet. These data, along with stream
temperature data, were used to compute the ratio of the DO deficit above
and below each dam as well as the multiplicative factor (axb) contained in
Equation 7.10. Since the factors (axb) cannot be input to the RIBAM code,
dam heights input to code for the February and July verification studies
were adjusted by the factors shown in Table VII-13. For the Summit Street
and Republic Steel dams in Warren, height adjustments were not made
because this portion of the stream is currently relatively unpolluted and such
dams, according to Owens, would allow more reaeration than dams in
polluted segments. Dam heights at the Liberty Street dam and the remains
of the Marshall Street dam were adjusted by the average of the calibrated
factors. The adjustment for the Lowellville Dam was excluded when
computing the average adjustment factor because of the atypical physical
structure of this dam. An adjustment factor of 1.0 for clean streams was
applied for water quality projections with significant treatment.
f. Sediment Oxygen Demand
Because of the potential impact of the sediment oxygen demand (SOD)
on the dissolved oxygen balance in the Mahoning River, field studies were
conducted on May 21-22, 1975 and 3uly 23-24, 1975 to roughly quantify SOD
rates at selected locations along the main stem of the stream. A benthic
respirometer of known volume and bottom surface area was employed to
measure the change in dissolved oxygen over time. The change in dissolved
oxygen over the same time period was also determined in a BOD bottle
suspended in the stream containing river water. The effects of normal BOD
decay and algal respiration would be accounted for in the bottle, thus
permitting isolation of the sediment effect in the respirometer. Field tests
were generally completed along the sides of the stream rather than in the
center owing to the nature of sedimentation in the river discussed earlier
and the large amount of rubble and debris found at many stations.
Table VII-14 presents SOD rates determined at ten locations in this
fashion. Higher rates were generally found in the Youngstown-Lowellville
area, with lesser rates in the Leavittsburg-Niles area and in Pennsylvania.
-------
TABLE V 11 - 13
DAM HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
MAHONING RIVER
Channel Dam
Actual
Height
(H in feet)
Da/Db*
Computed
factor (ab)
U. S. Steel Ohio Works
July 15, 1975
July 16, 1975
Republic Steel, Youngstown
July 16, 1975
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Campbell Works
July 16, 1975
Lowellville
July 16, 1975
Average
7.5
3.0
5.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
l.S
0.42
0.30
0.52
0.45
0.65**
0.42
* Ratio of measured DO deficit above dam to DO deficit below dam.
** Not included in average because of atypical physical geometry of Lowellville Dam.
Equation 7.10 Da/Db = 1 + 0.11 ab (1 + 0.046T)H
-------
TABLE V 11 - If
SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
Station
1
-
-
-
8
10
12
-
-
14
17
Location
Leavittsburg
Warren
Niles
Youngstown
Youngstown
Youngstown
Struthers
Lowellville
Lowellville
Church Hill Rd.
New Castle, Pa.
River
Mile
46.08
40.02
30.45
23.84
22.73
19.17
15.83
13.52
13.52
9.69
1.52
Sample
Date
5/21/75
7/24/75
5/21/75
7/24/75
5/22/75
7/24/75
5/22/75
5/23/75
7/23/75
5/23/75
7/23/75
Stream
Temp.
18.5°C
23.0°C
24.5°C
29.0°C
28.0°C
26.0°C
30.0°C
27.0°C
27.5°C
28.0°C
27.0°C
SOD at
Ambient-Temp.
(gm/m day)
1.77
3.24
0.32
8.40
1.30
6.91
10.07
11.66
4.53
2.81
0.66
SOD at^C
(gm/m day)
1.90
2.80
0.26
5.41
0.88
5.16
6.18
8.28
3.14
1.90
0.47
-------
Rates were determined at the same station near Lowellville (RM 13.52) in
May and July 1975, respectively, at different points along the cross-section
of the stream. The large difference in the rates obtained at nearly the same
temperature suggests high variability in the data, as expected. The rates
determined at ambient temperatures (18.5-30 C) were adjusted to 20 C
assuming an Ahrrhenius temperature dependence (9 = 1.05) after Velz. For
model verification purposes, these rates were adjusted to ambient tempera-
ture and applied to the percent of bottom covered with sediment as
determined by the Corps of Engineers (Figure VII-48). Based upon sediment
quality data, the SOD rates at certain stations may be inhibited. Hence, a
longer period of time may be required in some locations than in others for
the in situ demand to be satisfied once point sources of organic solids are
controlled.
4. Comprehensive Basin Surveys
During February 11-14, 1975 and July 14-17, 1975, comprehensive
basin surveys were completed to obtain sufficient data to verify RIBAM for
water quality simulation purposes. These comprehensive surveys included 23
stream and tributary sampling stations in February and 29 in July, eight
municipal sewage treatment plants, one electric power generating station,
and about 40 separate discharge points from the valley steel plants. Three
consecutive 24-hour composite samples were obtained by USEPA personnel
at most stream and tributary stations. Three stream stations were sampled
for temperature and dissolved oxygen only in February. Plant operators at
the eight sewage treatment plants obtained grab samples which were
composited proportional to flow by USEPA personnel. Twenty-four hour
composite samples were obtained by Republic Steel with the company's
automatic samplers. One U. S. Steel plant was sampled by the company and
one by USEPA personnel. Twenty-four hour composite samples were
obtained at each U. S. Steel facility during the February survey, while only
twice daily grab samples were obtained at the Ohio Works during the July
survey because of curtailed production. Twenty-four hour composite
samples were obtained at the McDonald Mills in July. The Youngstown
Sheet and Tube Company obtained eight-hour composite samples at its
facilities. Municipal and industrial samples were obtained in pre-preserved
-------
containers provided by USEPA, and, with the exception of Republic Steel
samples, all were iced or refrigerated during collection. Laboratory
analyses were completed by USEPA laboratories in Cleveland and Chicago.
The February survey was completed during a period of full steel production,
while the July survey was completed during a period of low production.
Hourly gage heights were obtained at the Leavittsburg, Youngstown,
and Lowellville USGS gages to determine main stem streamflow. Selected
tributaries were gaged by USEPA personnel at least six times per day during
both surveys. Effluent flows from municipal sewage treatment plants were
obtained from plant flow meters while estimates or measurements of
industrial effluent flow rates were provided by the respective companies.
a. February 11-14, 1975 Comprehensive Survey
1) Hydrology
The February and July surveys were designed to quantify instream
quality and significant waste discharges during periods of winter and summer
critical flows, respectively. Although winter critical flows have historically
28
occurred with the greatest frequency during the month of February,
greater runoff and reservoir releases were experienced during February 1975
resulting in the daily hydrograph shown in Figure VII-1. Considering the day-
to-day variations in streamflow that can occur, the flow was remarkably
stable during the three-day survey as illustrated in Figure VII-2 and can be
considered to be representative of steady-state conditions. Since the
computed time-of-travel from Leavittsburg to the most downstream
sampling station for the flows experienced during the survey was slightly
less than two days, the sampling period of three days exceeded the time-of-
travel by about 50 percent. Thus, the water flowing by the Leavittsburg
sampling station at the start of the survey had completely passed through
the study area. Travel time throughout the study area at flows encountered
during the February and July surveys are compared with times-of-travel at
winter and summer critical flows in Figure VII-3. From these data, it is
apparent that the February survey results are not representative of winter
critical flow conditions (1061 cfs vs 225 cfs at Youngstown), but the data
obtained are nonetheless valid for model verification purposes.
-------
9000
aooo
s
<
UJ
a
3000
3000
2000
1000
FIGURE
MOHONING RIVER BASIN
DAILY HYDROGRAPH
FEBRUARY 1975
LOWELLVILLE
SURVEY
LEAVITTSBURO
RM 46.02
YOUNOSTONE
RM 22.6O
1
I
1
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
2/1 2/2 2/3 2/4 2/9 2/8 2/7 2/« 2/9 2/10 2/11 2/12 2/13 2/14 2/19 2/16 2/17 2/18 2/19 2/20 2/21 2/22 2/21 2/24 2/29 2/26 2/27 2/21
-------
ISOOi-
1400
I3OO
1200
5 1100
o
1000
cc
t-
v>
»OO
•oo
TOO
600
FIGURE 501-2
MOHONING RIVER BASIN
HOURLY HYDROGRAPH
FEBRUARY 9-16, 1975
USEPA SURVEY
I ... I ... I
2400 2400 2400 24OO
2/10 2/11 2/12 2/19
TIME
2400
2/14
2400
2400
2/18
-------
8.
5.
3.
2.
FLO'S OF 225 CFS AT THE roUNGSTO-N USGS
,'FICW OF 490 CFS AT THE TG'JSGSTC-S L'SJS GAG
OF 533 CFS AT T-E 'OUV5STC-1 US53 GAGE
..---'-"FIOIJ OF 106C CFS AT THE TOUNGSTC^N USGS GS6E
OHIO
I
I
48. 4T. 40. 36.
32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE KOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
FIGURE VII-3
TRAVEL TIME VS. RIVER MILE
LOWER MAHONING RIVER
12.
-------
Figure VII-4 presents the three-day average main stem flow profile for
the February survey and the maximum and minimum daily average flows
recorded at the Leavittsburg, Youngstown, and Lowellville USGS stream
gages. The distribution of flow between the gages and downstream of
Lowellville was reviewed earlier.
2) Weather Conditions
The February 1975 survey was completed during a period of seasonal
weather for the month of February. Air temperatures at the river
(measured at the Youngstown STP) ranged from about 20 to 35°F, while air
temperatures at the Youngstown Airport were slightly colder, ranging from
f\ n *?Q
12 to 28 F and averaging about 21 F. The Youngstown Airport is located
about eleven miles north of Youngstown and is 250-300 feet higher in
elevation than the river near the Youngstown STP.
Wind velocity was highly variable at the Youngstown STP ranging from
calm conditions to 14 mph and averaging 4.5 mph, which is less than the
average wind velocity recorded at the Youngstown Airport for the same
29
period (12.4 mph). Wind direction at both locations was also variable but
winds were generally from the northwest. Barometric pressure at the
Youngstown STP exhibited a generally rising trend throughout the survey
ranging from 29.89 to 30.06 inches of mercury on February 11-12, from
29.83 to 30.10 inches on February 12-13, and 30.10 to 30.18 inches on
February 13-14, 1975. Cloud cover exceeded 0.9 during the three-day survey
79
and two periods of snowfall were recorded. The first snowfall was
relatively light and occurred during the early morning hours of February 12.
However, the second snowfall occurred on February 13 and was more severe,
amounting to one to three inches at places.
Aside from the snowfall and efforts by local municipalities in salting
roads, the weather conditions should have had no measureable impact on
streamflow. The effects of melting snow from road salting were negligible
since the flow at the Youngstown and Lowellville gages showed no
appreciable changes as illustrated in Figure VII-2. Possible effects of road
salting on stream quality are discussed elsewhere. The cold weather
necessitated a change to manual stream sampling at many stream stations
from automatic sampling as the inlet tubing to the automatic sampling
-------
1400.
1350.
1300.
1250.
1200.
1150.
£; 1100.
§ '050.
u.
1000.
>50.
900.
850.
800.
MEASURED VALUES
[luiimm
AVERAGE
nimnirn
I
I
I
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHONIHG RIVER
FIGURE VI1-4
MAIN STEM FLOW PROFILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY
U.
12.
FEBRUARY 11-14. 1975
-------
devices tended to freeze. Also, air temperatures below freezing rendered
the computation of wet bulb temperature from psychometric formulae
imprecise at best. Wet bulb temperature is an input to the Qual-1 watfer
temperature model.
3) Sampling Stations
a) Main Stem and Tributary Stations
Figure VII-5 illustrates the location of the 17 main stem and six
tributary sampling stations employed during the February survey.
Table VII-15 presents station descriptions. Most main stem stations were
selected at convenient highway or railroad bridges spanning the river. The
design was to bracket significant municipal and industrial dischargers and
significant tributaries. Industrial water supply intakes at the Republic
Steel-Warren Plant, the Ohio Edison plant, and both U. S. Steel plants were
selected because of their convenient locations. Also, the use of industrial
water supply intakes as river stations reduced the required number of
chemical analyses.
Because of the relatively shallow depth of the river (average depth
about four feet), turbulence occurring at the low head dams, and moderate
stream velocities, near complete vertical mixing of effluent discharges with
the stream occurs rapidly. Lateral mixing is aided by the large temperature
differences between most industrial dischargers and the stream; the force at
which some of the larger discharges enter the river; industrial use of the
total stream at flows less than 1200 cfs at Youngstown; and the many
changes in the direction of the river, notably in the upper reaches. Although
lateral mixing usually requires longer distances to occur than vertical
mixing, most stream stations were located sufficiently downstream of
significant point source discharges to assure that adequate mixing has
occurred. For this reason, samples were taken at only one location at each
station, generally near the center of the stream. However, because of the
concentration of discharges, in the lower Youngstown-Campbell-Struthers
area, complete lateral mixing of the wastes discharged between sampling
stations may not occur. This is probably more significant at Station 10,
located less than 500 feet below the Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant coke
-------
-COPPERWELD STEEL
Tdomai Strip Stttl
REPUBLIC STEEL
Warran Plant
WARREN STP
^GMC-Pockord Eltctrle Dlvltlton
i Hufftl Tub* Corp.
,REPUBLIC STEEL-Worrtn Plant
0«n«ral Elic t rlc - Nllai Qlatt Plant
-REPUBLIC STEEL-Nlltl Plant
• R M I Compomy
NILES STP
FIGURE3LT1-5
STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS
USEPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY
FEBRUARY 1975
.Btnada Aluminum Inc.
<-.«•'
,YOUNGSTOWN SHEET 8 TUBE
Brltr Hill WorK>
T
MEANDER STP
Jon«i an< Laughlln St««l Nllti Conduit Plant
OHIO EDISON-Nil.i Plant
UNITED STATES STEEL - McDonald Mllll
MCDONALD STP
Kopp«r> Co.
REPUBLIC STECL-roungttown Plant
Th« WIUoll Co.
Fllzilmont Slot Co.
,Jont> and Laughlln Staal Slalnlot and Strip Olvlilon
.YOUNOSTOWN SHEET a TUBE -Compb.ll Workt
'* x ' /
I
UNITED STATES STEEL-Ohlo Work! ,'
oV
**7
YOUNOSTOWN STP
REPUBLIC STEEL-Youngttown Plant
YOUNOSTOWN SHEET » TUBE-CampbaM Worki
YOUNOSTOWN SHEETS TUBE-8trutn«r« Olvlilon STRUTHER8 STP '
LOWELLVILLE STP
NEW CASTLE STP
-------
TABLE V 11 - 15
STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS
USEPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY
February 11-14,
1975
MAIN STEM STATIONS
Station Number
1
2
3
-------
plant discharge, and Station 12, located less than 2000 feet below the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Campbell Works coke plant and blast
furnace discharges.
Of the industrial intake stations, Station 7 at the U. S. Steel-Ohio
Works may not fully take into account the blast furnace discharge of
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Brier Hill Works located on the
opposite side of the river about 1000 feet upstream for the intake, and the
Niles STP discharge may not be completely mixed with the river as it passes
the U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills intake at Station 6 about 3000 feet down-
stream. The Republic Steel-Warren Plant intake (Station 2) and the Ohio
Edison intake (Station 5) are located sufficiently downstream of significant
point sources and tributaries to assure near complete mixing.
Because of resource limitations, only the six largest tributaries were
sampled during the February survey. These were sampled as close to the
respective confluences with the Mahoning River as possible.
b) Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Stations
Twenty-four hour composite discharge samples were obtained by
sewage treatment plant personnel at Warren, Niles, Girard, Youngstown,
Campbell, and Struthers. Twelve-hour and eight-hour composite samples
were obtained by plant personnel at the McDonald and Lowellville plants,
respectively.
c) Industrial Stations
Table VII-16 provides a summary of the industrial intake and discharge
sampling stations employed during the survey. Because of laboratory
resources limitations, only the most significant discharges could be sampled.
Twenty-four hour composite samples were obtained by USEPA personnel at
Copperweld Steel and at the U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills. The U. S. Steel-
Ohio Works intake (stream Station 7) was sampled by the USEPA, while U. S.
Steel personnel sampled the Ohio Works discharges.
With the exception of the most upstream intake at the Warren Plant
(stream Station 2), which was sampled by the USEPA, Republic Steel
obtained 24-hour composite intake and effluent samples for the Warren and
Youngstown Plants employing automatic samplers. The Niles Plant was not
-------
TABLE VII- 16
INDUSTRIAL SAMPLING STATIONS
USEPA MAHON1NG RIVER SURVEY
February 11-14, 1973
Republic Steel Corporation U. S. Steel Corporation Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. Ohio Edison Co.
Copperweld Steel Warren Plant Youngstown Plant McDonald Mills Ohio Works . Brier Hill Works Campbell Works Niles Generating Station
River Intake
Outfall 002
River Intake G001
River Intake G002
Outfall 008
009
010
013
014
River Intake 3002 River Intake
Outfall 006-008 Outfall 005
Oil
013
014
015
016
River Intake
Outfall 001
002
003
River Intake
Outfall 003
003
River Intake
Outfall 002
007
012
014
015
017
River Intake
Outfall 002
024
025
026-A
040
041
-------
sampled due to curtailed production. The Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Company provided eight-hour composite samples for the Brier Hill Works
and Campbell Works. The Struthers Division was not sampled. The Ohio
Edison intake (stream Station 5) and the condenser cooling water discharge
were sampled by USEPA personnel.
4) Survey Results
Table VII-17 lists the water quality constituents studied at each stream
and tributary station and municipal and industrial discharge. Tables 5 and 6
of Appendix A summarize the daily municipal and industrial effluent
discharge data obtained during the February survey, respectively. A
complete compilation of the raw data is on file at the USEPA, Region V,
Eastern District Office. Figures VII-6 through VII-22 graphically depict
trends in stream quality along the main stem of the river. A tabular
presentation of the water quality data, including tributary data, is made in
Appendix B, Table 7. Total cyanide and phenolics were measured at only
those industrial discharges where the presence of total cyanide or phenolics
was either known or suspected. Although the discharge of oil and grease
causes severe water quality problems, oil and grease determinations were
not made during the survey because of laboratory resource limitations.
Likewise, microbiological analyses of the stream and sewage treatment
plant discharges and phytoplankton analyses of the stream could not be
made. Table VII-18 presents sediment chemistry data obtained on
March 7, 1975.
The discussion presented below is more qualitative than quantitative.
Emphasis is placed upon describing general water quality trends, reviewing
compliance with Pennsylvania water quality standards, and the relationship
between significant discharges and stream quality. Additional discussion of
those constituents modeled (temperature, dissolved oxygen, CBOD,
ammonia-N, nitrite-N, total cyanide, and phenolics) is presented in
Section VII-C, Verification Results. The stream data are reviewed in the
following groupings:
- Temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, suspended solids
- Dissolved solids, fluoride, sodium, chloride, and sulfate
- Total cyanide, phenolics
- Metals
-------
TABLE VII- 17
WATER QUALITY CONSTITUENTS
USEPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY
February 11-14, 1973
Field Measurements
Flow (tributaries only)
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Specific Conductance
Laboratory Analyses
Total Dissolved Solids
Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
BOD,
BOD
COD
.20
Total Cyanide
Phenolics
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia-N
Nitrite+Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Total Hardness (stream and
tributaries only)
-------
TABLE V 11 - 18
MAHONING RIVER SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY
March 7, 1975
Sediment Chemistry (mg/kg - dry weight)
Station Number/Location
Main Stem
1. Leavittsburg
it. Miles-West Park Avenue
- Niles-Belmont Avenue
- Youngstown-Division Street
8. Youngstown-Bridge Street
11. Youngsotwn-Penn Central RR
12. Struthers-P and LE RR
13. Lowellviile-Washington Street
15. Edinburg-Route 224
17. New Castle-Penn Central RR
Tributaries
18,21. Mosquito Creek
19, 22. Meander Creek
20, 25. Mill Creek
USEPA Region V Criteria for
Polluted Sediments
River
Mile
46.02
33.71
30.18
23.84
22.73
17.82
15.83
12.64
6.76
1.52
Above
Moutn
0.41
0.81
0.04
Sample
Number
7037
7038
7041
7042
7043
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7039
7040
7044
Total
Solids
(%-Wet)
72.6
80.0
31.3
50.3
34.0
47.1
50.0
42.7
44.1
44.0
31.8
17.3
75.2
Non Polluted
Moderat
Heavily
ely Polluted
Polluted
Volatile
Solids
(%)
0.8
1.3
15.6
6.3
7.0
5.7
11.7
10.7
10.4
8.5
3.4
8.6
1.7
< 5
5-8
> 8
COD
5,300
7,500
260,000
120,000
150,000
140,000
180,000
170,000
170,000
180,000
21,000
50,000
14,000
< 40,000
40-80,000
> 80,000
TKN
100
160
' 2,900
2,200
870
1,400
2,300
2,300
1,900
. 1,800
460
1,400
260
< 1,000
1-2,000
> 2,000
NH3-N
6
17
160
110
70
50
68
30
82
99
92
170
75
< 75
75-200
>200
Total
Phosphorus
280
680
2,200
2,400
1 1,200
2,800
2,400
1,400 '
3,500
3,500
460
680
310
< 420
420-650
> 650
Oil
and
Grease
< 100
800
1,300
17,000
17,000
22,000
24,000
15,000
27,000
32,000
1,400
1,600
800
< 1,000
1-2,000
> 2,000
Total
Cyanide
0.06
1.40
4.80
4.20
8.80
25.00
6.40 .
14.00
15.00' .
17.00
0.16
6.40
1.20
< 0.1
0.1-0.25
>0.25
Phenolics
0.41
0.75
3.80
0.60
1.80
1.30
4.20
0.94
1.80
2.50
3.80
13.00
0.53
-------
TABLE V 11 - 18
Continued
MAHONING RIVER SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY
March
Sediment Chemistry
Station Number/Location
Main Stem
1. Leavittsburg
4. Miles-West Park Avenue
- Niles-Belmont Avenue
- Youngstown-Division Street
8. Youngstown-Bridge Street
11. Youngstown-Penn Central RR
12. Struthers-P and LE RR
13. Lowellville-Washington Street
15. Edinburg-Route 224
17. New Castle-Penn Central RR
Tributaries
18, 21 Mosquito Creek
19, 22. Meander Creek
20, 25. Mill Creek
USEPA Region V Criteria
for Polluted Sediments
Aluminum
3,560
8,440
295
14,900
18,900
8,300
17,000
19,100
17,200
23,100
820
0,120
10,000
Non-Polluted
Moderately Polluted •
Heavily Polluted
Arsenic
3
19
13
12
26
2
1*
9
27
1*
1
< 1
12
< 3
3-8
> 8
Cadmium
< 1
2.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
< 1
2.0
1.0
> 6
7, 1975
(mg/kg - dry weight)
Chromium
15
68
370
310
23
150
220
260
110
150
3
18
27
< 25
25-75
>75
Copper
6
210
330
170
115
145
190
320
165
255
4
58
20
< 25
25-50
>50
Iron
7,800
330,000
200,000
83,000
410,000
155,000
190,000
190,000
147,000
' 230,000
1,400
7,800
27,000
< 17,000
17-25,000
> 25,000
Lead
15.
110
670
200
290
280
640
870
520
690
20 .
45
160
< 40
40-60
> 60
Manganese
155
1,640
3,220
2,330
4,160
1,690
1,970
2,210
1,690
2,150
92
345
1,190
< 300
300-500
> 500
Mercury
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.2
0.2
< 0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.5
< 0.1
< o.i
< 0.1
< 1
> 1
Nickel
50
180
360
150
50
155
190
270
150
200
40
50
25
< 20
20-50
> 50
Zinc
36
650
1,990
1,000
530
1,290
1,240
3,650
2,160
2,900
22
134
154
< 90
90-200
> 200
-------
a) Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients, Suspended Solids
Figure VII-6 illustrates the increase in stream temperature with travel
downstream. Although the flow at the USGS gage at Youngstown was nearly
five times greater than the February minimum schedule of 225 cfs, an
average increase in stream temperature of about 10°F at the warmest part
of the stream at Struthers was recorded, indicating high steel production.
The maximum allowable Pennsylvania temperature water quality standard of
50 F for the month of February was approached but not exceeded. As shown
on Table 6, Appendix B, the most significant thermal dischargers were the
Ohio Edison-Niles Plant (1160 x 106 BTU/hr), Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Company-Campbell Works (710 x 10 BTU/hr), Republic Steel-Youngstown
Plant (470 x 106 BTU/hr), U. S. Steel-Ohio Works (420 x 106 BTU/hr), and
the Republic Steel-Warren Plant (340 x 10 BTU/hr). The aggregate affect
of the thermal discharges resulted in decreases in dissolved oxygen
concentrations of 1.8 mg/1 at Station 12 (Struthers) and 1.5 mg/1 at
Station 17 (New Castle, Pa.), respectively. Because of increasing flow with
travel downstream, the decrease in saturation flowing loads is larger than a
proportional decrease in dissolved oxygen saturation concentrations. The
apparent slight increase in average stream temperature at Station 16
(RM 4.34) is due to the fact that samples could only be taken during daylight
hours because of hazardous road conditions. Hence, the colder nighttime
temperatures were not recorded. There are no significant thermal
dischargers between Stations 15 and 16.
Figure VII-7 presents the dissolved oxygen profile measured during the
February survey. Maximum, minimum, and three-day average concentra-
tions are plotted at each main stem station (Stations 1 through 17), as well
as the average measured flowing stream loading and the calculated loadings
at saturation. Flows from Figure VII-4 were employed to compute stream
loadings. These data demonstrate a substantial decrease in dissolved oxygen
concentrations from an average of about 14 mg/1 (slightly above saturation)
at Leavittsburg to less than 10 mg/1 at New Castle, Pennsylvania. Taking
saturation values into account, the measured dissolved oxygen deficit at
New Castle averaged about 19,000 Ibs/day. The total deficit at Station 17,
including the effects of reduced saturation values because of increased
stream temperatures amounted to about 30,000 Ibs/day. Because of cold
-------
stream temperatures and high stream flows, the Pennsylvania dissolved
oxygen standards (5.0 mg/1 daily average, 4.0 mg/1 daily minimum) were not
•
violated.
Figure VII-7 illustrates that large discharges of carbonaceous and
nitrogenous oxygen demanding substances in the Warren area (Warren STP,
Republic Steel-Warren Plant, Tables 5, 6, Appendix B) exerted their effect
in the upper Youngstown area. The slower rate of in-stream oxidation at
cold temperatures and decreased travel time because of high flows caused
the oxygen sag to occur further downstream than during summer low flow
periods (Figures VII-3, 4). The oxygen demand from significant discharges in
the Youngstown-Struthers area (Youngstown STP, U. S. Steel, Youngstown
Sheet and Tube, Republic Steel, Tables VII-5, 6, Appendix B) had not been
satisfied in the Mahoning River as dissolved oxygen levels were still
declining near the confluence with the Shenango River. This is also
illustrated in Figures VII-8 and 9 which show only partial oxidation of
carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demanding substances and a significant
loading discharged to the Beaver River. The increase in five and twenty day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD- -n), from Station 16 to Station 17 is
most likely the result of resuspension of settled material in this reach of the
river as indicated by Figure VII-10. There are no known significant point
sources in this area except the New Castle STP which is outside the study
area and is downstream of Station 17.
Figure VII-9 (nitrogen series) illustrates the rising trend of total
kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and ammonia-nitrogen (NH,-N) with discharges in
the Youngstown-Struthers area contributing most of the loadings. The
increase in nitrite+nitrate nitrogen (NO- + NO, - N) with travel downstream
demonstrates nitrification was occurring, although the rate of nitrification
was considerably reduced by cold stream temperatures.
The effects of algal activity were also expected to be minimal owing
to seasonal conditions. Based upon these data, a nitrogenous oxygen demand
loading of about 90,000 Ibs/day (4 x TKN) was being discharged to the
Beaver River from the Mahoning River during the survey. The corresponding
carbonaceous demand was about 160,000 Ibs/day (BOD_0 - 4TKN). A
comparison of upstream loads at Leavittsburg, tributary loads, and the
municipal and industrial point source loadings indicates that measured
I/'> '
-------
stream loadings of BC^Q are generally 15-30 percent higher than the sum
of the point source and tributary loadings. However, the sum of the
tributary and point source COD loadings are generally within 5-10 percent of
the stream COD loadings. This is the result of toxicity problems in BOD
testing for several steel plant discharges. The dilution of these wastes in
the stream reduced the toxicity and most likely resulted in higher stream
BOD values than the sum of the discharge values. Significant unaccounted
for combined sewer overflows and non-point source loadings were not
expected with the weather and runoff conditions encountered during the
survey.
Figure VII-11 depicts an increase in average ammonia-N concentra-
tions from less than 0.2 mg/1 at Leavittsburg to about 2.4 mg/1 at
Lowellville. This value exceeds the general Ohio WQS level of 1.5 mg/1 but,
owing to low stream temperatures, the recommended USEPA aquatic life
criterion of 0.02 mg/1 un-ionized NH, -N (equivalent to 3.5 mg/1 at pH 7.5
and 46 F) was not exceeded. At February design flows, the ammonia
concentration could reach 6.0 mg/1 considering the longer travel times and
faster reaction rates at higher stream temperatures. This level would
greatly exceed the recommended USEPA criterion (1.5 mg/1 NH~ -N at
pH 7.5 and 66°F). Pennsylvania has no specific ammonia water quality
standard for the Mahoning River and, as noted earlier, relies upon a general
water quality criteria for control of toxic substances. The recommended
USEPA aquatic life criterion for ammonia is considered a reasonable
benchmark to assess compliance with Pennsylvania water quality standards.
Figure VII-12 and Tables 5 and 6, Appendix B demonstrate major
sources of total phosphorus during the survey were the municipalities of
Youngstown (1090 Ibs/day) and Warren (490 Ibs/day). The total industrial
loading averaged 530 Ibs/day while the total municipal loading averaged
about 2200 Ibs/day. Maximum stream concentrations in excess of 1.0 mg/1
were recorded at Station 12 (Struthers) and approached 0.9 mg/1 at Station 4
(Niles). Upstream values recorded at Leavittsburg averaged about 0.1 mg/1.
The instream settling of phosphorus illustrated in Figure VII-12 is verified by
the high sediment concentrations found at and below the Warren and
Youngstown STP's (Table VII-18). Sediments in the Pennsylvania reach of
the river are highly enriched from discharges in the Youngstown area.
-------
Stream concentrations in the 0.3 to 0.5 mg/1 range encountered for most of
the stream are high from a nutrient standpoint.
b) Total Dissolved Solids, Fluoride, Sodium, Chloride, Sulfate
Analyses for total dissolved solids (TDS), fluoride, sodium, chloride,
and sulfate were completed for each stream, tributary, and discharge sample
obtained. Figures VII-13 through VII-17 illustrate increases in stream
concentrations of these substances with travel downstream and average
flowing loads at each stream sampling station employing the average flows
from Figure VII-4 and the respective three-day average concentration.
Pennsylvania has water quality standards for total dissolved solids
(500 mg/1 monthly average, 750 mg/1 maximum) and fluoride (1.0 mg/1
maximum). Based upon Figure VII-13, the maximum dissolved solids
criterion of 750 mg/1 was not approached and it appears that the stream
would be in compliance with the monthly average value of 500 mg/1.
Although the average fluoride concentration increased by a factor of 2.5
from upstream levels at Leavittsburg, the Pennsylvania standard of 1.0 mg/1
was not exceeded because of high stream flow. Maximum values of over
0.6 mg/1 were recorded at the State line (Figure VII-14). Major sources of
fluoride during the survey were the Republic Steel-Warren Plant
(1440 Ibs/day), the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works
(330 Ibs/day), the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works (310 Ibs/day), the Republic Steel-
Youngstown Plant (275 Ibs/day), the Youngstown STP (200 Ibs/day) and the
Warren STP (105 Ibs/day), (Tables 5, 6, Appendix B). Most of the steel plant
discharges result from blast furnace gas washing operations. However, over
80 percent of the Republic Steel-Warren Plant discharge resulted from an
intermittently run finishing operation in the galvanizing area employing a
fluoride compound. The municipal discharges are the result of fluorida-
tion of potable water supplies. Although the General Electric Company-
Niles Glass Plant had been considered a major source of fluorides, the data
obtained for Mosquito Creek show an average gross fluoride discharge of
150 Ibs/day or 0.31 mg/1 which is only slightly above background levels (0.19
to 0.26 mg/1) measured at Leavittsburg and other tributaries.
There appears to have been an error in analyses or data transcription
for TDS at Station 17. The three-day average concentration for Station 17
-------
was 343 mg/1 while corresponding values for Station 13 and 15 were 387 mg/1
and 393 mg/1, respectively. Data for other macro constituents and total
hardness do not indicate a precipitation reaction of major proportions
occurred although the suspended solids concentration increased somewhat
(Figure VII-10). A review of the specific conductance data for the samples
taken at Stations 13, 15, and 17 show near constant values for each day.
There are no significant sources of low TDS water in the area. Most of the
average decrease from Station 15 to Station 17 results from values obtained
on February 12-13, 1975 when 400 mg/1 was recorded at Station 15 and
310 mg/1 at Station 17. Had the data at Station 17 been reported as
410 mg/1 vs 310 mg/1, the three-day average values would have been more in
line. Hence, a laboratory or data transcription error is suspected, but a
review of laboratory bench sheets, etc. could not confirm the possible error.
Figures VII-15, 16, and 17 illustrate increasing concentrations of
sodium, chloride, and sulfate, respectively, with travel downstream. Com-
parison of tributary, industrial, and municipal discharges of sodium and
chloride with flowing loads in the Youngstown area indicate significant non-
point source discharges, most likely the result of road salting on two days of
the survey. Downstream of Struthers, instream concentrations and loadings
of these materials remained relatively constant. However, as shown on
Figure VII-17, the concentration of sulfates continued to increase well into
Pennsylvania. This is most probably the result of runoff from strip mines in
the lower part of the basin which would be high in sulfates. Neither the
chloride nor sulfate concentrations exceeded recommended drinking water
criteria of 250 mg/1. With discharges of spent pickling acids no longer
occurring on a regular basis, it is doubtful these criteria would be exceeded.
c) Total Cyanide, Phenolics
Large discharges of total cyanide and phenolics from coke plant and
blast furnace operations resulted in the stream profiles depicted in
Figures VII-18 and 19. Pennsylvania water quality standards of 25 pg/1 for
total cyanide and 5 yg/1 for phenolics were exceeded by wide margins.
Cyanide concentrations exceeding 200 yg/1 near the Ohio-Pennsylvania State
line (Station 13) and concentrations of phenolics in excess of 120 yg/1 were
recorded. As shown in Table 6, Appendix B and graphically depicted in
-------
Figure VII-18, the major sources of cyanide are in the Youngstown-Struthers
area, most notably the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works
(490 Ibs/day), U. S. Steel-Ohio Works (430 Ibs/day), and the Republic Steel-
Youngstown Plant (240 Ibs/day). The total municipal cyanide discharge in
the basin during the survey averaged about 110 Ibs/day. The most
significant dischargers of phenolics were the Republic Steel-Youngstown
Plant (560 Ibs/day), the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works
(310 Ibs/day), the Republic Steel-Warren Plant (150 Ibs/day), and the U. S.
Steel-Ohio Works (60 Ibs/day). The total municipal discharge averaged about
20 Ibs/day.
While upstream, cyanide concentrations (Station 1) were near the
detectable limit of 5 yg/1, phenolics were found at 12 and 21 yg/1 on the
second and third days of the survey (the first day samples could not be
analyzed within the recommended holding period of 24 hours after collection
and were discarded). These values are in excess of Ohio's general water
quality standard of 10 yg/1. The source is unknown but bottom releases from
the upstream reservoirs are suspect. Nonetheless, these relatively low
concentrations are far overshadowed by the downstream concentrations
(100-200 yg/1) resulting from point source dischargers. Both total cyanide
and phenolics exhibited relatively rapid decay in the stream despite cold
temperatures and short travel time resulting from high stream flow.
Considering the minimum regulated schedule for February (225 cfs at
Youngstown) and the effluent loadings encountered during the February 1975
survey, total cyanide and phenolics concentrations in excess of 200 yg/1
respectively, would be expected at the State line. As noted in Section VI,
values in this range have been recorded.
With the exception of Crab Creek, the tributaries sampled were
relatively free of cyanide and phenolics. Concentrations of 89 yg/1,
160 yg/1, and 740 yg/1 for phenolics were recorded for Crab Creek (Table 7,
Appendix B). The probable source of these phenolics is the Koppers
Company tar distillation plant located upstream of Station 21, the Crab
Creek sampling point.
d) Metals
Of the six metals studied, cadmium and lead were not found to be
present in the stream above the detectable limits of 8 yg/1 and 50 yg/1,
-------
respectively, although the discharge of these metals is indicated in Table 6,
Appendix B. The cadmium discharges are peculiar to the Republic Steel
Warren and Youngstown plants. Chromium was found above the detectable
limit (20 yg/1) only on the third day of the survey. Measured discharges in
the Warren area could not account for the maximum concentration of
190 yg/1 recorded at Station 4 in Niles.
Figures VII-20, 21, and 22 illustrate changes in copper, iron, and zinc
with travel downstream. The sharp spikes for copper and iron recorded at
Station 4 (Niles) were the result of slug loadings on the second day of the
survey from the Republic Steel-Warren Plant blast furnace discharge
indicating a possible process or treatment system upset on that day. The
peaks and valleys for copper, iron, and zinc are also reflected in the
sediment chemistry data presented in Table VII-18 and generally by the
suspended solids data presented in Figure VII-10. Pennsylvania's total iron
standard of 1.5 mg/1 was exceeded by a factor of two. At the hardness
levels recorded at the State line (177-205 mg/1 as CaCO3), the Ohio general
standards for copper (0.020 mg/1 at 160-240 mg/1 hardness) and zinc
(0.200 mg/1 at 160-240 mg/1 hardness) were exceeded. Pennsylvania has no
specific metals criteria, but the Ohio general standards which are based
upon toxicity data are good benchmarks for comparison purposes.
The steel industry iron discharge averaged more than 35 tons per day
during the survey while the zinc discharge approached one ton per day.
-------
50.
48.
44. .
44.
42.
40.
38.
36.
34.
32.
MEASURED VALUES
T-IUX1MJH
1
OHIO M.
1
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAhONING RIVER
12.
FIGURE V1I-6
TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14. 1975
10.
7.
6.
2.
1.
0.
0.
17
16.
IS.
14.
13.
12.
11.
10.
9.
8
-
-
.
-
C
-
48.
A AVERAGE LOADING
O AVERAGE LOADING
MEASURED VALUES
i- MAX [nun CONC.
UvEP«C£ CO>C.
Lnlninun cone.
!
* — — " "
\ \
44. 40.
- LBS./OAT
AT SATURATION - LBS./DAT
'
£.-» =1
1
36.
r
[
"
O
'A
y\
»
i
32.
ff> »-'J
' xa /
/ -* _^
2 — *"
~
-
__ , JO
_
a ~"
*''*-'
j'"
\
^^ ^
i i
28. 24.
.>
N
i
I
__A _^-* *s.
^^* *— ^\^
r
•[I[ i 1
1 1 I
OHIO -M.
lilt
20. 16. 12. 8.
*- j
'
i
V
1
4.
s
! -
-
95.
90.
85 .
80. «
t-
75. %
70.
65.
60. °
55.
SO.
0.
MILES ABOVE MOUTh OF nAHONING RIVER
1'IGURE VII-7
DISSOLVED OXTGEN VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14. 1775
-------
260.
240.
229.
200.
180.
160.
140.
120.
100.
80.
60.
40.
20.
A COD LOAD - IBS./DAT
• BODj LOAD - IBS./DAT
O BOD20 LOAD - LBS./DAT
I
I
I
I
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20. 16. 12.
I1ILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONINO RIVER
FIGURE V1I-8
COD, BOD5. BDD20 VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAH3NING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14. 1975
4.
d N0" N03-N LOAD - LBS./DAI
O ORC-N LOAD - LBS./DAT
32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
NILES ABOVE MOUTH Of HAHONING RIVES
FIGURE VII-?
TKN. NH3-N. ORG-N. N02» N03 VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14, 1975
-------
30.
27.
24.
21.
18.
IS.
12.
4.
3.
A AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./OAY
NEASURED VALUES
[nuinun cone.
*v««£ cone."
nimnun cone.
0.
I
I
I
OHIO P«.
I
20.
18.
16.
14.
12.
1C.
48. 44. 40.
36. 32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONiNG RIVER
12. 8.
4.
0.
FIGURE VII-10
SUSPENDED SOLIDS VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14. 1975
3.6
180.
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.0
2 l.t
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
A AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./DAT
MEASURED VALUES
tuxinun co«c.
»V£R*CE CO«C.
nwnuH CO«C.
48. 44. 40.
I
I
OHIO P».
J l',
36. 32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
12. 8.
160.
140.
120.
100.
60.
40.
20.
4. 0.
us
FIGURE VII-11
AMMONIA-NITROGEN VS. RIVER MILE
MAHONING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14, 1975
-------
1.8
. 3.0
4 AVERAGE LOADING - IBS./DAY
McASURtO VALUES
HAH [PUM COHC.
-------
0.9
50.
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
S 0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
A AVERAGE LOADING - IBS./DAY
MEASURED VALUES
T-nuimm co»c.
k«v£R«E CHUG.
Lnwnun co»C.
0.0
OHIO
J_
J_
_L
J_
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20. U.
MILES ABOVE HQUTH OF KAHONING RIVER
12.
45.
40.
35.
30. 2
25.
20. •
15.
10.
5.
0.
0.
FIGURE VI1-14
FLUORIDE VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHQNING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14. 1975
48.
44.
40.
36.
32.
28.
24.
20.
16.
3CO.
270.
240.
210.
180.
150.
120.
90.
60.
30.
4 AVERAGE LC;D;NG - LBS./DAY
MEASURED VALJES
•VER1CE CC«:.
cc»:.
12.
I
I
I
I
I
48. 44. it. 36.
32. 29. 24. 20. 16.
H1LES ABOVE flOUTH OF MAHQNING RIVER
12.
FIGURE VM-15
TOTAL SODIUM VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHCNING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14, 1975
4.
0.
-------
100.
50.
90.
80.
70.
60.
5 50.
40.
30.
20.
A AVERAGE LOADING - IBS./DAT
MEASURED VALUES
,-nAxlnuH co«C.
I AVERAGE CCXC.
l-niN!nun co«c.
10.
48.
40.
OHIO
1_
I
I
I
I
32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHONING RIVER
12.
8.
45.
40.
35.
30. °
25. C?
20.
15.
10.
5.
0.
0.
FIGURE VI1-16
CHLORIDE VS. RIVER MILE -
US EPA MAHHNiNt RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14, 1975
105.
100.
95.
90.
i 85.
•" 80.
. 75.
70. -
4 AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./DAT
MEASURED VALUES
j-MAXInun CG»C.
I AVERAGE COHC.
LniNlniin cone.
65.
I
I
OHIO PA.
_J I.
44. 40. 35. 32. 28. 24. 20. It.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
12.
4.
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4. ,
3.
2.
1.
0.
0.
FIGURE VIi-17
SULFATE VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHQNING RIVE1? SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14, 1975
-------
340.
320.
300.
280.
260.
240.
220.
200.
180.
160.
140.
120.
100.
80.
60.
40.
20.
0.
A AVERAGE LOADING - IBS./DAT
MEASURED VALUES
tnuinun cone.
•VERice COK.
m«imm cone.
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
12.
US
FIGURE VII-18
TOTAL CYANIDE vs. RIVER MILE
EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14. 1975
17.
16.
15.
14.
13.
12.
11.
10. ~«,
9. *
<
8. (?
7. 3
I
«• g
5. 3
u
4.
3.
2.
1.
0.
4 AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./DAT
HEASU3ED VALUES
[nix]mm cane.
•VERACE cone.
nmmm cone.
32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF KAHQN1NG RIVER
FIGURE VII-19
PHENQLICS VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA HAHONING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14. 197S
0.
0.
-------
50J.
450. -
400. -
350. -
300. -
250. -
200. -
150. -
100. -
50. -
0.
48.
A AVERAGE LOADING - IBS./DAT
MEASURED VALUES
tiuuimm cone.
AVERAGE COIIC.
nininun cone.
I 1- I I I 1
1200.
- 1080.
- 960.
- 840.
- 720.
- 600.
- 480.
- 360.
- 240.
- 120.
0.
44.
32. . 28. 24. 20. 16.
HUES ABOVE nOUTH OF MAHONINU RIVER
FIGURE VII-20
TOTAL COPPER vs. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY " FEBRUARY 11-14, 1975
36.
6.
3 4.
S 3.
2.
1.
A AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./DAr
MEASURED VALUES
Euxlnun CO*C.
AVERJtE COIIC.
Mil I run cone.
OHIO PA.
_L
J_
_L
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
12.
32.
28.
24.
20.
16.
12.
4.
C.
0.
FIGURE VII-21
TOTAL IRON vs. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14, 1975
-------
900.
29.
800.
700.
600.
e soo.
400.
° 300.
200.
100.
0.
4 AVERAGE LOADING - IBS./CAT
MEASURED VALUES
EiuxinuN co«c.
AVERAGE COHC.
niKinun co>c.
48. 44. 40. 36.
32. 28. 24. 20. U.
MILES ABOVE nOUTH Of MAHONING RIVER
12. 8.
4.
24.
20.
12.
0.
FIGURE VII-22
TOTAL ZINC VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHQNING RIVER SURVEY FEBRUARY 11-14, 1975
-------
b. July 14-17, 1975 Comprehensive Survey
1) Hydrology
July was selected as the month for the second comprehensive survey in
an attempt to sample the stream at the peak of the BY-BL minimum
regulated schedule (480 cfs at Youngstown - Figure IV-10). During dry
summers, the flow at Youngstown generally is very stable and remains in the
immediate range of the BY minimum schedule. However, as shown in Figure
VII-23, relatively wide fluctuations in flow were experienced throughout July
1975. Fortunately, the comprehensive survey was completed during a period
of fairly steady flow considering the daily variation for the remainder of the
month. Figure VII-24 presents hourly variations in flow at each USGS gage
for the July 9-20, 1975 period. The effect of a severe thunderstorm is
illustrated from the evening of July 10 to the early morning hours of July 11
followed by about three days of declining flow. A moderate thunderstorm
occurred between Youngstown and Lowellville on July 13 preceeding the
survey and a moderate, more steady rain occurred in the upper part of the
basin just prior to the initiation of the survey accounting for the variation
shown in Figure VII-24. The hydrograph declined slightly for the remainder
of the survey and leveled out during the July 16-19 period which was
immediately followed by intense thundershowers in the lower part of the
basin.
The three-day average flow profile is presented in Figure VII-25. This
profile was constructed in the same fashion as the flow profile for the
February comprehensive survey (Figure VII-4). The average flow recorded at
the Youngstown gage was 533 cfs, about 11 percent higher than the
maximum BY schedule, and, as shown on Figure VII-3, the travel time
experienced during the survey is close to that for the BY schedule. Although
the average flow during the survey was close to the BY schedule, the
significant variation just prior to the survey and the declining hydrograph
during the survey did not result in near-perfect, steady-state flow conditions
as experienced during the February survey. Nonetheless, there were no
fluctuations in flow of such magnitude that would render a steady-state
analysis employing three-day average data unreasonable.
-------
FIGURE 3ZH-23
MOHONING RIVER BASIN
DAILY HYOROGRAPH
JULY 1975
1200 -
7/1 7/2 7/S 7/4 7/5 7/e tit 7/» 7/9 7/10 7/11 7/12 7/IS 7/14 7/18 7/16 7/IT 7/16 7/l» T/20 7/21 7/22 7/ZS 7/24 7/25 7/26 2/27 7/26
-------
FIGURE 2TI-24
MOHONING RIVER BASIN
HOURLY HYDROGRAPH
JULY 9-30, 1975
1300
i
$
o
1100
900
700
800
30O
7/9
7/10
7/11
7/12
7/13
7/14
7/18
7/19
7/17
7/IB
7/19
r/to
-------
700.
675.
650.
£25.
400.
575.
550.
S2S.
tf»
£ 500.
I
i 47S.
O
" 450.
425.
400.
375.
350.
325.
300.
MEASURED VALUES
iuuinun
MERltt
OHIO M.
I
I
48. 44. 4t. 31. 32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHOH1NS RIVER
If.
12.
4.
FIGURE VII-25
MAIN STEM FLOW PROFILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVET JULY 14-17,
-------
2) Weather Conditions
As noted above, several significant precipitation events occurred
during July 1975. The total monthly precipitation recorded at the
Youngstown airport was 2.25 inches of rain while the long-term July average
33
is 3.80 inches. While the monthly precipitation was below normal, the
intensity of the individual rainfall events resulted in wide fluctuations in
stream flow. Air temperatures recorded throughout the basin were
seasonably low, ranging from 59°F to 80°F at Warren, 55°F to 84°F at the
Youngstown airport, and 59°F to 80°F at Edinburg, Pennsylvania. Daily
average temperatures at the Youngstown airport exhibited a warming trend
from 66.5°F on July 14-15, to 68.8°F on July 15-16, to 72.2°F on July 16-17,
1975, corresponding to the decreasing trend of cloud cover which averaged
34
0.6, 0.5, and 0.4 on the three days, respectively. Wind speed averaged 8.5,
4.7, and 4.9 mph at the Youngstown airport and 6.0, 2.6, and 2.2 mph at the
Warren STP for the three day survey, respectively.
3) Sampling Stations
a) Main Stem and Tributary Stations
Figure VII-26 illustrates the location of the 29 stream and tributary
sampling stations employed for the July 14-17, 1975 survey. Station
descriptions are presented in Table VII-19. Two changes in main stem
sampling stations were made from the February survey. A new Station 2
was established at the Summit Street bridge in Warren. Station 2 from the
February survey was relocated to the B and O RR bridge in Warren from the
Republic Steel-Warren Plant intake to provide better access. This station
was renumbered to Station 3 for the July survey. Composite samples were
collected at Stations 14 and 16 for the July survey in addition to field
measurements. Only field measurements were made during the February
survey at these stations. The tributaries Infirmary Run, Red Run, Mud
Creek, Squaw Creek, and Coffee Run were also included in the July survey.
b) Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Stations
Sewage treatment plant discharges from Warren, Niles, McDonald,
Girard, Youngstown, Campbell, Struthers, and Lowellville were sampled in
the same manner as was done for the February survey.
-------
COPPERWELD STEEL
Tnomoi Strip Sle.l
REPUBLIC STEEL'
Worr«n Pioof
WARREN STP
.CMC-Packard El.cfrlo Dlvl.lton
Hufftl Tub. Corp.
, REPUBLIC STEEL-Warrtn Plant
G.n.ral El*etrlc -Nil.. Qloi. Plant
| — REPUBLIC STEEL-Nll.j Plant
• RM I Company
NILES STP
FIGURE 3231-26
STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS
USEPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY
JULY 1975
Binatfa Aluminum Inc.
^YOUNOSTOWN SHEET ft TUBE
Brl.r Hill Worn
MEANDER STP
Joint and Loughlln Sttal Nlltf Conduit Plant
OHIO EDISON -Nlltt Plant
UNITED STATES STECL-NoDonald Nlllt
MCDONALD STP
Kopptrt Co.
REPUBLIC STEEL-Younottown Plant
Tn* Wllkoff Co.
Flrztimont Sttal Co.
i and Loughlln Stt«l Stalnlait and Strip
YOUNOSTOWN SHEET a TUBE-Campbtll Werki
Olvlilon
UNITED STATES STEEL-Onlo Works
YOUNOSTOWN STP
REPUBLIC STEEL-Yaungttown Plant
YOUN08TOWN SHEET a TUBE-Compball Work.
YOUNOSTOWN SHEET • TUBE-8tr«tn«r« Olvlilon
STRUTHER8 «TP_
NEW CASTLE STP
OHIOJP*.
-------
TABLE V 11 - 19
STREAM SAMPLING STATIONS
USEPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY
July 14-17, 1975
MAIN STEM STATIONS
Station Number
1
2*
3*
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
River Mile
46.02
39.93
38.66
33.71
30.14
28.83
23.43
22.73
20.91
19.17
17.82
15.83
12.64
9.69
6.76
4.34 ^
1.52 '
Description
Leavitt Road
Summit Street
B and O RR - Warren
West Park Avenue
Ohio Edison Intake
U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills Intake
U. S. Steel-Ohio Works Intake
Bridge Street
Marshall Street
B and O RR - Youngstown
Penn Central RR - Youngstown
P and LE RR - Struthers
Washington Street
Church Hill Road (Pa.)
Route 224 (Pa.)
Brewster Road (Pa.)
Penn Central RR (Pa.)
TRIBUTARY STREAMS
Station
Number
February July
18
19
20
(18) 21
(19) 22
23
24
(20) 25
(21) 26
(22) 27
(23) 28
29
Tributary
(River Mile)
Infirmary Run (41.62)
Red Run (41.04)
Mud Creek . (33.33)
Mosquito Creek (31.14)
Meander Creek (30.77)
Squaw Creek (27.67)
Little Squaw Creek (25.73)
Mill Creek (22.03)
Crab Creek (19.81)
Dry Run (18.47)
Yellow Creek (15.63)
Coffee Run (Pa.) .(10.42)
Description
(Miles Above Mahoning River)
B and O RR (0.55)
At Mahoning River (0.01)
Paramount Lake (0.03)
Penn Central RR (0.14)
Route 46 (0.81)
Erie Lackawanna RR (0.04)
RR Bridge (0.35)
Mahoning Avenue (0.04)
Elk Street (0.47)
P and LE RR (0.13)
Yellow Creek Park Dam (0.44)
East Churchill Road (0.30)
* Different than Stations 2 and 3 for February 1975 survey.
-------
c) Industrial Stations
All of the industrial intake and discharge stations sampled during the
February survey (Table VII-16) were also sampled during the July survey.
Because of curtailed production at the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works, two effluent
grab samples per day were obtained by USEPA personnel and combined for
analyses. The Republic Steel-Niles Plant was again not sampled because of
curtailed production. Outfall 012 of the Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant
was included in the July survey, as were the river intake and Outfalls 042,
045, and 049 of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Struthers Division.
4) Survey Results
Table VII-20 is a listing of the water quality constituents studied.
Tables 8 and 9 of Appendix B summarize the municipal and industrial
discharge loadings, respectively. A complete compilation of the raw data is
on file at the USEPA, Region V, Eastern District Office. Figures VII-27
through VII-47 illustrate trends in stream quality along the main stem of the
river. A tabular presentation of the main stem and tributary data can be
found in Table 10 of Appendix B. The July survey data are reviewed in the
same categories as were the February data.
a) Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, Nutrients, Suspended Solids
Figure VII-27 presents the temperature profile encountered during the
July 1975 survey. Stream temperatures at Leavittsburg averaged about
70 F over the three days, while those in the Youngstown-Struthers area
averaged from 78-81 F. Maximum values in the lower reaches of the stream
in Ohio approached 86°F. The increase in stream temperature for the flow
regime encountered is small by historical standards and is a direct result of
low steel production. The aggregate steel industry thermal loading was
about 1250 x 106 BTU/hr vs about 2400 x 106 BTU/hr measured in February.
Overall, roughly 40 percent less heat was discharged to the stream. The
significant temperature variation measured at each station is a result of
declining streamflow, the cool air temperatures at night, and the variability
of thermal loadings at the U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills and Ohio Works, the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Brier Hill Works, and the Republic Steel-Warren
Plant. For most stations in the Youngstown area, the range of temperatures
-------
TABLE V I I - 20
WATER QUALITY CONSTITUENTS
USEPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY
July 14-17, 1975
Field Measurements
Flow (tributaries only)
Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen
Specific Conductance
PH
Laboratory Analyses
Total Dissolved Solids
Sodium
Chloride
Sulfate
Fluoride
Total Suspended Solids
BOD,
BOD20
COD/U
TOC
Total Cyanide
Phenolics
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia-N
Nitrite-N
Nitrite+Nitrate-N
Total Phosphorus
Ortho Phosphorus
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Zinc
Total Hardness (stream and
tributaries only)
-------
exceeded 8°F. Because of the reduced thermal loadings, the Pennsylvania
maximum temperature water quality standard of 90°F for July was not
exceeded.
Despite lower steel production, the dissolved oxygen profile illustrated
in Figure VII-28 demonstrates severe depletion below Warren, a moderate
recovery in upper Youngstown, followed by a continual sag from lower
Youngstown downstream to the mouth of the river. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations averaged 8.4 mg/1 (94 percent of saturation) at Station 3
above the Republic Steel-Warren Plant, 6.0 mg/1 (70 percent of saturation)
at Station 4 in Niles, 3.4 mg/1 (42 percent saturation) at Station 6, the
U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills intake, 5.9 mg/1 (72 percent of saturation) at
Station 9 at Marshall Street in Youngstown, 4.6 mg/1 (58 percent of
saturation) at Station 13 near the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line, and 3.1 mg/1
(38 percent of saturation) just upstream from the New Castle STP at Station
17. The Pennsylvania water quality dissolved oxygen standards of 5.0 mg/1
daily average, and 4 mg/1 daily minimum were violated by wide margins.
The profile illustrated in Figure VII-28 is similar to that found during the
February 1975 survey (Figure VII-7), but owing to the higher stream
temperatures and longer travel times, the sag below Warren is more
pronounced. The measured dissolved oxygen deficits at Station 17 for both
surveys were fairly close - about 20,000 Ibs in February and 18,000 Ibs in
July. Much of the dissolved oxygen variation encountered at each station
during the July survey can be attributed to the declining hydrograph (Figures
VII-23, 24). Higher concentrations were generally recorded on the first day
of the survey and lower values on the last day.
Figures VII-29 and VII-30 demonstrate that most of the carbonaceous
and nitrogenous oxygen demanding wastes were discharged in the
Youngstown area. Discharges from the municipal sewage treatment plants
were close to those measured in February, while discharges from many of
the steel plants were significantly different, (Tables 5, 6, 8, 9, Appendix B).
The BOD->0 values measured at the steel plants from the U. S. Steel-
McDonald Mills downstream were not considered reliable since there was not
nearly enough carbonaceous material (total organic carbon) or nitrogenous
material present in the discharge to account for the extremely high
analytical results obtained. Consistent results could not be obtained at
-------
various dilutions in the BOD testing. Station to station mass balances of
COD, TOC, and BOD,- show fairly good agreement between measured
discharge loadings, while there is a consistently high imbalance in the
BOD-Q discharge loadings in concentrated industrial areas. For these
reasons, TOC data were employed for all steel plant wastes to estimate
carbonaceous BOD for water quality modeling. These data are also more in
line with the COD effluent data obtained (Table 9, Appendix B).
The nitrogen series data are indicative of a more complex stream than
was encountered in February (Figure VII-30). Increasing nitrites and nitrates
with travel downstream demonstrate nitrification was occurring at a faster
rate, as would be expected with higher stream temperatures. However,
simple nitrification of ammonia-N to nitrate-N was not the only reaction
involving the various forms of nitrogen in the stream. A mass balance
between Stations 3 and 4 indicate a nitrogenous discharge load was not
accounted for in the discharges from the Republic Steel-Warren Plant and
the Warren sewerage system. From Station 4 to Station 5, instream settling
in the upper reaches of the Liberty Street Dam pool most likely accounts for
the loss of organic nitrogen. The small increase in ammonia-N is probably
the result of the breakdown of organic-nitrogen. Nitrification was also
occurring as evidenced by the increase in nitrate-N.
Reactions between the Ohio Edison Power Plant and the U. S. Steel-
McDonald Mills intakes appear to be more complex. The power plant used
about 60 percent of the total river flow for condenser cooling and virtually
instantaneously raised the temperature of this water by 12-15°F. In
addition, chlorination of the intake cooling water for slime control was
practiced daily. These factors probably resulted in algal die-off, and,
further settling in the dam poolxresulted in a loss of organic nitrogen. It also
appears that the rate of nitrification in the stream was exceeded by the rate
of nitrate-N uptake as shown by decreasing nitrate-N. Previous data
obtained at Ohio Edison indicate conversion of about 200 Ibs/day of
35
organic-N to ammonia—N through the plant.
Nitrification was also occurring between the U. S. Steel-McDonald
Mills intake (Station 6) and the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works intake (Station 7) as
evidenced by a corresponding decrease in ammonia-N and an increase in
nitrate-N. While this was occurring, the organic-N level (and TKN) also
-------
increased, possibly indicating the presence of blue-green algae behind the
Liberty Street Dam. It appears that a discharge source was missed between
the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works and the Marshall Street falls in Youngstown
(Station 9) as evidenced by increasing nitrogenous material as well as
carbonaceous material. The Youngstown sewerage system is suspect as
ox
there are numerous overflows in that area.
The Youngstown STP and the Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant
discharges are plainly evident between Stations 9 and 11. The data obtained
above and below the Youngstown STP and Republic Steel indicate that algal
growth was occurring. However, the situation reversed itself in the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube dam pool as a large decrease in organic-N was
accompanied by a large increase in ammonia-N not fully accounted for by
discharge loadings from the Campbell STP and the Youngstown Sheet and
Tube-Campbell Works. Breakdown of some of the organic nitrogen
discharged by the Youngstown STP, Republic Steel, and Youngstown Sheet
and Tube to ammonia-N probably accounted for most of this change. Since
TKN was also lost, it appears that algal die-off may have been caused by
high temperatures and high levels of toxic materials. Settling behind the
dam resulted in removal of some of the organic-nitrogen from the stream.
The large increase in organic-nitrogen between Stations 12 and 13
probably resulted from the growth of blue-green and green algae in the
Lowellville dam pool. The blue-green forms can use both available
ammonia—N and fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, while the green forms
would probably use nitrate-N for synthesis. Conditions for such growth
during the survey were good, i.e., high stream temperatures and considerable
sunshine. Also, toxic materials were significantly reduced at Station 13
from upstream levels. Nitrification was obviously occurring below
Station 13 in Pennsylvania. However, the growth of algae and conversion of
organic-N to ammonia-N complicated the nitrogen balance in the stream.
Most of the nitrogenous oxygen demand was not satisfied in the
Mahoning River, but was discharged to the Beaver River. Based upon
Figure VII-30, this demand averaged nearly 50,000 Ibs/day during the July
survey vs the 90,000 Ibs/day encountered during the February survey when
steel production was much higher and industrial TKN loadings were 80
percent greater.
Suspended solids concentrations in the stream were found to be highly
-------
variable as shown in Figure VII-31. This is attributed to the rainfall events
described earlier. The higher values were measured on the first day of the
survey immediately following the rain and the lowest values on the last day
while the hydrograph was declining. It is interesting to note that the highest
dissolved oxygen concentrations also coincided with high runoff, suggesting
the effect of the rainfall event was an improvement in stream quality.
Since the previous rainfall event was more severe (Figure VII-24) and
occurred only three days earlier, it is possible that slug loadings of oxygen
demanding wastes often assoicated with storm events were not discharged
during the rainfall event immediately preceeding the survey.
Instream settling occurred above the major dischargers in the Warren
area followed by an increase in the solids loading below the Republic Steel-
Warren Plant and the Warren STP. There is a dramatic change in sediment
quality above and below these dischargers (Table VII-18). Significant
settling also occurred in the upper Youngstown area as well as in
Pennsylvania. The effects of the loadings from the Youngsotwn STP and the
steel industry in the Youngstown-Struthers area are plainly evident.
Figure VII-32 presents concentrations and flowing loads of ammonia-N
at each station. As noted above, the most significant loadings were
discharged in the Warren and lower Youngstown areas. Concentrations
above Warren were very low, and in many instances below the limit of
detection (0.03 mg/1). However downstream at Station 4, the concentration
averaged about 0.8 mg/1. At Station 12 in Struthers, the average
concentration was 2.1 mg/1. At the State line (Station 13) the average value
of 1.9 mg/1 more than doubled the recommended USEPA aquatic life criteria
of 0.8 mg/1 (pH 7.5 and temperature 81 F) based upon 0.02 mg/1 of unionized
ammonia-N. -,.
Concentrations of total phosphorus and flowing loads of total and
ortho-phosphorus are illustrated in Figure VII-33. Upstream of Warren
concentrations of total phosphorus in the immediate range of 0.1 mg/1 were
found. However, loadings from the Warren STP (590 Ibs/day) and the
Youngstown STP (1140 Ibs/day) largely account for the increase in concen-
tration to nearly 1.0 mg/1 in Youngstown. As in February, the steel industry
loading (600 Ibs/day) was low in comparison to the municipal discharges
(2280 Ibs/day). About 70 percent of the phosphorus discharged by the
\l
yf
. j
-------
municipalities was ortho-phosphorus, while about 50 percent of the industrial
discharges was ortho-phosphorus. Hence, most of the phosphorus discharged
is in a form that is readily assimilated for biological growth.
As noted earlier, the levels encountered in the stream are high
compared to concentrations necessary to stimulate biological productivity
and phosphorus controls may be warranted in the future to limit algal growth
in the stream. The high turbidity in the Mahoning River resulting from the
high erodability of the soils in much of the basin may serve to limit algal
growth in spite of high nutrient levels due to reduced light penetration.
However, high growth rates are expected.
Of the tributaries sampled, Little Squaw Creek, made up of primary
effluent from the Girard STP, had the highest concentrations of carbon-
aceous and nitrogenous materials as well as phosphorus. Most other
tributaries with known sewage discharges exhibited moderate contamination.
Mill Creek was one of the cleaner tributaries during the survey.
b) Total Dissolved Solids, Fluoride, Sodium, Chloride, Sulfate
Figures VII-34 and VII-35 present dissolved solids and fluoride profiles
encountered during the July survey, respectively. Pennsylvania water
quality standards for these constituents were not exceeded. The maximum
dissolved solids concentration in Pennsylvania was less than 370 mg/1 vs. the
standard of 500 mg/1 and the maximum fluoride concentration detected in
Pennsylvania was less than 0.6 mg/1 vs. a standard of 1.0 mg/1. Industrial
fluoride loadings were much higher in February (2410 Ibs/day) than in July
(550 Ibs/day) accounting for the relatively low concentrations, while the
municipal discharges were about the same (380 Ibs/day in February and
470 Ibs/day in July). The average loading from Mosquito Creek was about
350 Ibs/day with concentrations ranging from 0.46 to 0.66 mg/1, indicating
possible greater discharges from the General Electric-Miles Glass Plant than
in February.
Major discharges of sodium, chloride, and sulfate in the Youngstown
area are illustrated in Figures VII-36, 37, and 38, respectively. While the
concentrations and flowing loads of sodium and chloride leveled off at the
State Line and remained relatively constant in Pennsylvania, the concentra-
tion and loading of sulfates continued to increase, again indicating runoff
-------
from abandoned mining sites in that area of the basin.
c) Total Cyanide and Phenolics
Despite lower steel production, the concentration of total cyanide
exceeded 100 yg/1 in the Ohio portion of the stream and, as illustrated in
Figure VII-39, exceeded the Pennsylvania water quality standard of 25 yg/1
by a wide margin. Although the total industrial loading for the July survey
(290 Ibs/day) was considerably less than measured in February (1300 Ibs/day),
high stream concentrations were recorded because of reduced stream flow
(533 cfs vs 1061 cfs at Youngstown). The Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant
contributed nearly half of the industrial total cyanide loading in July and the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works contributed about one third.
The municipal discharge during the July survey averaged about 110 Ibs/day,
over 75 percent of which was discharged by the Youngstown STP.
The industrial discharges of phenolics were also considerably lower in
July than in February (260 Ibs/day vs 1120 Ibs/day), with the Youngstown
Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works contributing nearly 60 percent of the
measured total. Loadings of both total cyanide and phenolics recorded from
the Republic Steel plants may be low because the samples were not iced
during collection. Although samples were obtained in containers with
chemical preservatives added before collection, the hot effluent tempera-
tures and lack of icing prevented the samples from being cooled to
recommended holding temperatures until several hours after collection of
the composite samples. The Pennsylvania water quality standard of 5 yg/1
was barely exceeded at the State line. At Station 17, the concentration was
reduced to below detectable levels (2 yg/1). Phenolics were not detected
above the Republic Steel-Warren Plant. The reduced loadings coupled with
longer travel time and warmer temperatures resulted in much lower
concentrations than measured in February. From the data presented in
Figure VII-40, it appears that the rate of decay of phenolics was much faster
from Station 12 to Station 13 where concentrations were relatively high than
from Station 13 to Station 17 where concentrations were in the 0-15 yg/1
range. This may be due to different reaction rates for the various types of
phenolic compounds present in coke plant and blast furnace discharges.
-------
Crab Creek was again found to be highly contaminated with total
cyanide and phenolics, suggesting significant discharges from the Koppers
Company plant located on that tributary; Little Squaw Creek contained
detectable levels of cyanide and phenolics, most of which appear to be
discharged from the Girard STP. Red Run also showed high concentrations
of cyanide, although the rate of flow was negligible ( < 0.1 cfs). The source
of cyanide is among the several industrial dischargers to Red Run in Warren.
The source of cyanide in Squaw Creek is unknown.
d) Metals
Figures VII-41 to 47 present measured concentrations and flowing loads
of aluminum, arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, and zinc,
respectively, for the July 1975 survey.
Cadmium was detected in the main stem of the river only on the third
day of the survey at Stations 8 (13 yg/1), and 10 (11 yg/1), and in Crab Creek
(11 yg/1), slightly above the detectable limit of 10 yg/1 and above the Ohio
general water quality standard of 5 yg/1 {EP-1-02(J)}. It does not appear
that the measured discharges of 1 Ib/day and 7 Ibs/day from the Republic
Steel-Warren and Youngstown Plants, respectively, could account for the
measured stream concentrations owing to their location and instream
dilution. Aside from a minor discharge from the Warren STP ( < 1 Ib/day),
there were no other measured cadmium discharges during the survey. Lead
was found above the detectable limit of 50 yg/1 and above the Ohio general
water quality standard of 40 yg/1 on Julyl5-16, 1975 at Station 9 (100 yg/1),
and on July 16-17, 1975 in Dry Run (110 yg/1). Although discharges of lead
were measured at Copperweld Steel (84 Ibs/day), the Republic Steel-Warren
Plant (23 Ibs/day), the Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant (44 Ibs/day), the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works (38 Ibs/day), and the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Struthers Division (8 Ibs/day), none could be
found in the stream directly below these plants. However, a review of the
sediment chemistry data presented in Table VII-18 reveals high concentra-
tions from Niles downstream. Lead was not detected in municipal
discharges during the July survey.
Of the other metals studied, chromium (Figure VII-43) was detected in
the range of 0-30 yg/1, well below the general Ohio water quality standard of
-------
300 yg/1. Arsenic (Figure VII-42) was found in the range of 0-7 yg/1, also
well below the respective water quality standard of 50 yg/1. Although there
is no stream standard for aluminum (Figure VII-41), relatively high
concentrations (300-500 yg/1) were found at Leavittsburg as well as in the
industrial reach of the stream. Little Squaw Creek contained 26-60 mg/1 of
aluminum.
At the total hardness values found in the stream (136-170 mg/1), Ohio
general water quality standards for copper (Figure VII-44) and zinc
(Figure VII-47) would be 10 and 100 yg/1 respectively. As shown in Figures
VII-44 and 47, these values were exceeded by wide margins both in Ohio and
Pennsylvania. Major sources of copper were the Republic Steel-Warren
Plant (239 Ibs/day), Copperweld Steel (27 Ibs/day), and the Republic Steel-
Youngstown Plant (23 Ibs/day). The total municipal discharge averaged
about 15 Ibs/day. Most of the steel plant loading results from blast furnace
operations. Probable sources are the copper furnace cooling systems and
traces in ores.
Major zinc sources were the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell
Works (451 Ibs/day), Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant (147 Ibs/day), the
Republic Steel-Warren Plant (143 Ibs/day), and the Youngstown Sheet and
Tube-Brier Hill Works (63 Ibs/day). The total municipal discharge averaged
57 Ibs/day. Steel plant zinc sources include galvanizing line rinse waters and
blast furnace discharges.
Figure VII-45 depicts violations of Pennsylvania's total iron standard of
1.5 mg/1 with values of the State line ranging from 2.2 to 2.6 mg/1 and those
at Station 17 in New Castle reduced to 1.1 - 1.3 mg/1 by instream settling.
Major sources of iron are blast furnace and hot forming discharges.
Assuming the pickle rinse iron discharges are totally ferrous iron and other
iron discharges are ferric iron, there was relatively little ferrous iron
discharged to the stream. Since total manganese (Figure VII-46) never
exceeded 1.0 mg/1, the general Ohio stream standard of 1.0 mg/1 dissolved
manganese was obviously not exceeded. The highest concentrations were
recorded at Leavittsburg. Slightly increasing concentrations from
Lowellville to New Castle are probably the result of runoff from mining
activities in that part of the basin.
Metals contamination of the tributaries is a function of the type of
-------
discharges to the tributaries. Red Run exhibited high levels of copper (200-
820 yg/1) and zinc (340-3600 yg/1) indicating plating or metal finishing
wastes; Squaw Creek contained high levels of iron (13-20 mg/1) and zinc
(5300-6800 mg/1), the source of which is unknown; Little Squaw Creek
showed high levels of aluminum (26-60 mg/1) and chromium (1300-2400 yg/1)
most probably from the Benada Aluminum Products Company discharge; Dry
Run contained high concentrations of copper (510-1400 yg/1), chromium
(15-600 yg/1), zinc (140-230 yg/1), and iron (46-283 mg/1), a result of pickle
rinse water and other discharges from Fitzsimons Steel. The pH of Dry Run
ranged from 2.8 to 3.3 standard units. Mud Creek contained detectable
levels of arsenic (11-14 yg/1). Infirmary Run, Mosquito Creek, Mill Creek,
Crab Creek, Yellow Creek, and Coffee Run were relatively free of metals
contamination.
_ 9.')
-------
»».
at.
83.
80.
77.
. .
S" 74.
1
iii-
ac
1 71-
Ul
a.
" 68.
65.
62.
CO
„"
HEASU8ED VALUES j" .
l»V£R»t£
t-nmimm
.
*•
_ •
r i- r
' '
[ i 11.
i- i.
1
-
-
J-
' .'
*- *-
'
• ' OHIO P«.
1 1 1 1 1 III
- 30.
- 27.
tj
- 24. "
1
til
Q;
=>
r—
<
Of
LU
• 21- £
»—
- 18.
. 15.
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20. 16. 12. 8. 4. 0.
, HILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONINO RIVER
FIGURE VII-27
TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA KflHONING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17. 1975
Id •">
J.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
5 3.
2.
t.
0.
I" _;. »--» 0
f,°-~3--~---&~
r • •'
- 1 1 [
r ' -
/
»_ o ^ ' '
-—& \
* " " ^\.
^v
N.
\T
^"~"""' [ /
'
•
/ \ F —
' \ r >^~~-^
^I/^r ^ • E
~~ • ^\ r
J- ' ' \_ -
iV
' ll • i r">:.
A AVERAGE LOADIKS - IBS. /DAT *• *•
O AVERJCE LOAOU'C AT SATURATION - L9S./OAT
HEASURED VALUES
t-wuinun cane.
MVEMCE ttuC.
<-MIKIHUI1 GJ"C. . OHIO P*.
1 1 1 1 1 • • 1 t 1
27.
24.
21.
••"v
*"
18. *
«x
o
-x.
Wl
is. 3
i
12. I
X
a
o
UJ
9_ >
a
tn
t/>
O
6-
3_
n
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 2!. H. 12. 8. 4. 0.
NILES AB;VE MUTH :F ."^ONU; RUER
FIGURE VII-28
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VS. RIV£R r:LE
US EPA HflHONING SIVER SL'SVEI JULY l4-;7. 5975
-------
121-
III. . P-
JI-
BU-
SI. -
37- -
ZT- -
32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONIKG RIVER
FIGURE VII-29
COD. BOD5. SOD20, TQC VS. RIVER
US EPA KAHOKING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17, 1975
4.
A UK LCAD - IBS./DAT
-N LOAD - L8S./DAT
O ORG.-H LOAD - LBS./DAT
D N03-N LOAD - LBS./DAY
o NOj-N LOAD - LBS./DAT
32. 28. 24. 20.
NILES ABOVE MOUTH OF H1HONING RIVER
FIGURE V1I-30
TKN. NH3-N. ORG.-N. NOj-N. NQj-N VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHQN1NG RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17. 1975
4.
-------
60.
A AVERAGE LOAD INI! - LB3./DAT
MUSl'REO VALUES
-HAXtmJM COSC.
o 12. -
8. -
4. -
0.
32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHONING RIVER
FIGURE VII-31
SUSPENDED SOLIDS VS. RIVER NILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17, 1975
5.
0.
2..»
0.5
A AVERAGE LOADING
MEASURED VALUES
piuxinun cone.
»A',ERA;C cone.
LHIXIKUH cone.
- LBS./DAY
7200.
34.
32. 20. 24. 20. 16.
MUES ABOVE HOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
12.
- 6400.
- 5600.
- 4800.
- 4000. .
- 3200. *
- 2
-------
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
A TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./DAY
a ORTHO-PHGSPHATE AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./DAY
MEASURED VALUES OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
fMjutmm cone.
tvmcE CO«C.
KWram co«c.
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20. U.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
12.
FIGURE VII-33
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND ORTHO-PHOSPHATE VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17. 1975
30.
- 27.
- 24. <>•
-21.
- 18.
- 15- S:
- 12. 5
- 9.
- 6.
0.
0.
370.
350.
330.
310.
290.
270.
250.
230.
210.
A AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./DAY
MEAS'JRED VALUES
ErMinir, can.
AVERAGE COIIC.
11 Ml nun cone.
J_
_L
_L
12.
11.
10.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
0.
48. 44. 40. 3«. 32. 28. 24. 20. 14.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH QF HAHONING RIVER
12.
FIGURE VII-34
DISSOLVED SOLIDS VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17. 1975
0.
-------
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
1 AVESAiE IOADIKG - IBS./DAT
MEASURED VALUES
fituiflun OJKC.
AKRACE cent.
miimm QIC.
JL
_L
OHIO
JL
48. 44. 40.. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20. U.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONIN6 RIVER
13.
FIGURE VII-35
FLUORIDE VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17. 1975
4.
20. .
18.
16.
14.
12.
10.
0.
36.
34.
32.
30.
23.
26.
I 24.
= 22.
o
° 20.
18.
16.
14.
12.
10.
4 AVERAGE LOAD I KG - LBS./DAT
MEASURED VALUES
AVERACE COIC.
niHimn cone.
_L
48. 44. 40. 34. 32. 28. 24. 20. U.
HILES ABOVE MOUTH Of HAHONUG RIVER
12.
FIGURE VII-34
SODIUM VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17, 1975
4.
110.
100.
80.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
-------
56.
52.
44.
< 40.
32.
28.
24.
20.
4 AVERAGE LOADING - IBS. /DAT
MEASURED VALUES
44.
cone.
com:.
40.
36
32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE .10UTH OF MAHQNING RIVER
8.
FIGURE VII-37
• CHLORIDE VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17. J975
4. 0.
120.
IIS.
110.
IDS.
100.
95.
J
**
o
c
, «.
u>
f—
I 85.
(A
80.
75.
70.
45.
60.
A AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./DAT
MEASURED VALUES
[fuxinun CO"C.
AVER*SE cone.
BUdMUl COIIC. .
i
i
i
i
i
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20. K.
HILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
12.
FIGURE VII-38
SULFATE VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING 'RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17. 1975
4.
40.
37.
34.
31.
28.
25.
22.
19.
16.
13.
10.
0.
-------
!60.
A AVERAGE LOADING - LB'j./PAY
MEASURED VALUES
20. -
0.
32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHDNINS RIVER
FIGURE VII-39
TOTAL CYANIDE VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA HAHONING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17, 1975
4.
350.
- 300.
- 250.
- 200.
-------
500.
14.
440.
420.
380.
340.
300.
248.
220.
180.
140.
100.
A AVERAGE LOADING - IBS./DAT
MEASURED VALUES
tnuinun cone.
AYERACE CtJHC.
nimnuit cone.
i
I
i
12.
10.
4.
2.
0.
48. 44. 40. 34. 32. 28. 24. 20. 14.
NILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHONING RIVER
12.
FIGURE VII-41
TOTAL ALUMINUM VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHQNING RIVER SURVEY JULY H-17, 1975
0.
20.
32. 28. 24. 20. 14.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHONING RIVER
FIGURE VII-42
TOTAL ARSENIC VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17.
- 10. '
A AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./DAY
MEASURED VALUES
ON QIC.
I AVERAGE COIIC.
- 2.
0.
0.
1975
-------
48.
44.
•!0.
34.
32. 28. X24. 20. 14.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
FIGURE VII-43
TOTAL CHROMIUM vs. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHQN1NG RIVER SURVET JULT 14-17. 1975
4.
0.
0.
80.
72.
64.
S6.
48.
40.
32.
24.
U. -
8. -
110.
100.
0.
4 AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./DAT
MEASURED VALUES
[MAxinun cone.
AVERAGE COHC.
Hixirnm co«c.
80.
70.
60.
50.
40.
30.
20.
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20. 14.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
12.
8.
FIGURE VII-44
TOTAL COPPER vs. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVET JULY 14-17, 1975
0.
-------
- 1 AVERAGE LOSDINC - IBS./OAT
MEASURED VALUES
i-nuinut co«c.
32. 28. 24. 20. U.
MILES ABOVE C.OUTH OF .1AHONING RIVER
FIGURE VII-45
TOTAL IRON VS.RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17. 1975
4.
100.
- 90.
- 80.
- 70.
- 60.
- 50.
- 40.
30.
- 20.
10.
500.
460. -
420. -
380. -
340. -
300. .
2<0. -
220. -
180.
140. -
100.
i AVERAGE LOADING - LBS./DAY
MEASURED VALUES
[ituinun cone.
*«R«CE COK.
nimnun cone.
32. 28. 24. 20. U.
HUES AIOVE 10UTH or tlAHONINC RIVER
FIGURT VII-44
TOTAL MANG.NEH vs. RIVER NILE
US EPA MAHONING RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17. 1975
4.
-------
.440.
400.
3*0.
320.
280.
•j 240.
3
. I
£ 200.
tst
£ 160.
o
120.
• 80.
40.
0.
A AVERAGE LOADING - IBS./DAT
MEASURED VALUES
j-MM I HUH CO«C.
LAVERAGE CO«C.
. LnimmiN M»c.
44.
I
3<; 32. 28. ZS. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH cr MAHONIMG RIVER
16.
12.
FIGURE VII-47
TOTAL ZINC VS. RIVER MILE
US EPA MAHQN1NG RIVER SURVEY JULY 14-17.
810.
730.
650.
570.
490. "*.
410.
330. =
250.
170.
90.
1975
-------
c. Mahoning River Sediment Chemistry and Biota
Tables VII-18 and 21 present sediment chemistry and benthos data
obtained on March 7, 1975. Figure VII-48 illustrates the percent of bottom
covered with sediment as determined by the Corps of Engineers during
April 1975, the location of the low head dams, and the approximate
discharge points of the major dischargers. According to information
18
provided by the Corps of Engineers, most of the sedimentation in the
lower .Mahoning occurs along the stream banks rather than in the center of
the stream bed indicating scouring of deposited sediments at high stream
flows.
As shown on Figure VII-48, about 15 percent of the bottom was found
to be covered with sediment just below the Copperweld Steel discharge and
over 50 percent directly behind the Summit Street dam. Little or no
sedimentation was found between the Summit dam and the Republic Steel-
Warren Plant. However, from 25 to 60 percent of the bottom was covered
above the Republic Steel dam. Republic Steel's largest discharge (blast
furnace discharge 013) occurs at the dam crest and, according to Republic
Steel monitoring data, deposits about 180,000 Ibs/day (90 tons/day) of
suspended solids into the stream. The effect of this discharge and that of
the Warren STP are evident throughout the Liberty Street dam pool which
also receives discharges from Mosquito Creek, Meander Creek, the
U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills, and the Niles and McDonald STPs. About 25 to
40 percent of the Liberty Street dam pool bottom was found to be covered
with sediment with the maximum coverage (55-75 percent) occurring at
about river mile 32 to 33 where the pooling effect begins.
Downstream from the Liberty Street dam, the percent of the bottom
covered with sediment averages 12 to 15 percent. Although point source
suspended solids loadings are relatively high in the Youngstown-Struthers
area from the Youngstown Sheet and Tube, U. S. Steel, Republic Steel
plants, and the Youngstown STP, the lesser sedimentation probably results
from higher stream velocities than normally occur in the Liberty Street dam
pool. The entire stream bed was covered with sediment within 0.1 miles of
the Lowellville dam, but the average coverage for the Lowellville pool was
found to be only 17 percent. Short reaches in Pennsylvania were found to
have little or no sedimentation, while the coverage for the lower seven miles
averaged about 15 percent.
-------
TABLE V I I - 18
MAHONING RIVER SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY
March
7, 1975
Sediment Chemistry (mg/kg - dry
Station Number/Location
Main Stem
1. Leavittsburg
4. Miles-West Park Avenue
- Niles-Belmont Avenue
- Youngstown-Division Street
8. Youngstown-Bridge Street
11. Youngsotwn-Penn Central RR
12. Struthers-P and LE RR
13. Lowellville-Washington Street
15. Edinburg-Route 224
17. New Castle- Penn Central RR
Tributaries
18, 21. Mosquito Creek
19, 22. Meander Creek
20, 25. Mill Creek
USEPA Region V Criteria for
Polluted Sediments
River
Mile
46.02
33.71
30.48
23.84
22.73
17.82
15.83
12.64
6.76
1.52
Above
Mouth
0.41
0.81
0.04
Sample
Number
7037
7038
7041
7042
7043
7046
7047
7048
7049
7050
7039
7040
7044
Total
Solids
(%-Wet)
72.6
80.0
31.3
50.3
34.0
47.1
50.0
42.7
44.1
44.0
31.8
17.3
75.2
Non Polluted
Moderately Polluted
Heavily Polluted
Volatile
Solids
(%)
0.8
1.3
15.6
6.3
7.0
5.7
11.7
10.7
10.4
8.5
3.4
8.6
1.7
< 5
5-8
> 8
COD
5,300
7,500
260,000
120,000
150,000
140,000
180,000
170,000
170,000
180,000
21,000
50,000
14,000
< 40,000
40-80,000
> 80,000
weight)
TKN
100
160
2,900
2,200
870
1,400
2,300
2,300
1,900
1,800
460
1,400
260
< 1,000
1-2,000
> 2,000
NH3-N
6
17
160
110
70
50
68
30
82
99
92
170
75
< 75
75-200
>200
Total
Phosphorus
280
680
2,200
2,400
1,200
2,800
2,400
1,400
3,500
3,500
460
680
310
< 420
420-650
> 650
Oil
and
Grease
< 100
800
1,300
17,000
17,000
22,000
24,000
15,000
27,000
32,000
1,400
1,600
800
< 1,000
1-2,000
> 2,000
Total
Cyanide
0.06
1.40
4.80
4,20
8.80
25.00
6.40
14.00
15.00
17.00
0.16
6.40
1.20
< 0.1
0.1-0.25
>0.25
Phenolics
0.41
0.75
3.80
0.60
1.80
1.30
4.20
0.94
1.80
2.50
3.80
13.00
0.53
-------
TABLE V 11 - 18
Continued
MAHONING RIVER SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY
March
Sediment Chemistry
Station Number/Location
Main Stem
1. Leavittsburg
4. Niles-West Park Avenue
- Niles-Belmont Avenue
- Youngstown-Division Street
8. Youngstown-Bridge Street
11. Youngstown-Penn Central RR
12. Struthers-P and LE RR
13. Lowellville-Washington Street
15. Edinburg-Route 224
17. New Castle-Penn Central RR
Tributaries
18, 21 Mosquito Creek
19,22. Meander Creek
20, 25. Mill Creek
USEPA Region V Criteria
for Polluted Sediments
Aluminum
3,560
8,440
295
14,900
18,900
8,300
17,000
19,100
17,200
23,100
820
4,120
10,000
Non-Polluted
Moderately Polluted •
Heavily Polluted
Arsenic
3
19
13
12
26
2
14
9
27
14
1
< 1
12
< 3
3-8
> 8
Cadmium
< 1
2.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
< 1
2.0
1.0
> 6
7, 1975
(mg/kg - dry weight)
Chromium
15
68
370
310
23
150
220
260
110
150
3
18
27
< 25
25-75
>75
Copper
6
210
330
170
115
145
190
320
165
255
4
58
20
< 25
25-50
>50
Iron
7,800
330,000
200,000
83,000
410,000
155,000
190,000
190,000
147,000
230,000
1,400
7,800
27,000
< 17,000
17-25,000
> 25,000
Lead
15.
110
670
200
290
280
640
870
520
690
20
45
160
< 40
40-60
> 60
Manganese
155
1,640
3,220
2,330
4,160
1,690
1,970
2,210
1,690
2,150
92
345
1,190
< 300
300-500
> 500
Mercury
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.2
0.2
< 0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.5
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 1
> 1
Nickel
50
180
360
150
50
155
190
270
150
200
40
50
25
< 20
20-50
> 50
Zinc
36
650
1,990
1,000
530
1,290
1,240
3,650
2,160
2,900
22
134
154
< 90
90-20
> 200
-------
TABLE VII-21
MAHONING RIVER BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
March 7, 1975
Main Stem Stations
Station Number 1* 4 - - 8 11
Location Leavittsburg Niles Niles Youngstown Youngstown Youngstown
Leavitt Rd. West Park Av. Belmont Av. Division St. Bridge St. Penn Central
River Mile 46.02 33.71 30.48 23.84 22.73 17.82
Substrate Sand and Sand Oily sludge, Sand, black Black oily Black oily
gravel oily sludge, sewage oily sludge sludge sludge
fly ash sludge " ash
Number of Taxa 23 1 21 2 2
Organisms/Sq. Meter 1033 1652 369 • 15 516 5552
Sludgeworms (Oligochaeta) 204 1652 369 516 '" 5472
Leeches (Hirudinea) ' 15 SO
Snails (Gastropoda) 19
Fingernail Clams 223
(Pelecypoda)
Plenaria (Turbellaria) 32
Roundworms (Nematoda) 19
Caddia Flies (Trichoptera) 19
Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) 26
Midge Flies 440
(Tendipedidae)
Other Diptera 51
Isopoda (Asselus)
Amphipoda (Crangongx)
Odonata (Coenagriidae )
•Benthos sample collected May 5, 1975.
12 13 15 17
Struthers Lowellville Edinburg, Pa. New Castle, Pa.
P&LE RR Washington St. Route 224 Penn Central
15.83 12.64 6.76 1.52
Black oily Black oily Sand, oily Black oily
sludge sludge sludge sludge
3 25 '4
78,279 22,253 89 2264
78,121 22,253 20 2175
158 49 89
15
5
-------
TABLE V 11 - 21
Continued
MAHONING RIVER BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES
March 7, 1975
Tributary Stations
Station Number
Location
River Mile
Substrate
18, 21 19, 22
Mosquito Creek Meander Creek
CU1
Ash, sand
0.81
Greyish white
chemical fines,
softening sludge
20,25
Mill Creek
0.04
Sand, gravel,
silt
Number of Taxa 5
Organisms/Sq. Meter 562
Sludgeworms (Oligochaeta) 30
Leeches (Hirudinea)
Snails (Gastropoda)
Fingernail Clams (Pelecypoda)
Plenaria (Turbellaria)
Roundworms (Nemtoda)
Caddis Flies (Trichoptera)
Mayflies (Ephemeroptera)
Midge Flies (Tendipedidae) 74
Other Diptera
Isopoda (Asselus) 89
Amphipoda (Crangongx) 369
1
15
15
10
492
187
182
123
-------
FIGURE inr-48
MAHONING RIVER SEDIMENTS
MARCH -APRIL, 1975
SOURCE! U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENOINEERS
-------
For comparison purposes, draft USEPA Region V criteria for open lake
dumping of harbor dredgings are presented in Tables VII- 18. These interim
guidelines were developed from data from over 100 harbors for volatile
solids, COD, TKN, oil and grease, lead, zinc, and mercury, and from 260
samples from 34 harbors for ammonia-N, total cyanide, phosphorus, iron,
nickel, manganese, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, barium, and copper.
While these criteria are not directly based upon biological requirements of
benthic organisms, they provide a means of qualitatively assessing the
degree of pollution in the sediments of the lower Mahoning River.
As shown in Table VII-21, the sand and gravel substrate at Leavittsburg
was found to be inhabited by a diverse benthic community suggesting clean
water of good chemical quality. This is confirmed by the water quality
measured during the February and 3uly 1975 surveys and previous data
(Section VI). Sediment quality can be termed non-polluted considering draft
Region V criteria discussed above. The sediments were low in organic
content and nitrogenous material, had no detectable oil and grease, and
contained relatively low amounts of metals.
At West Park Avenue in Niles (RM 33.71), the substrate is greatly
affected by discharges from the Republic Steel-Warren Plant and the Warren
STP. Oily sludge and fly ash predominated making the benthic environment
unsuitable for most forms of life. Only pollution tolerant sludgeworms were
found. The chemical data suggests little organic deposition occurs in this
immediate area as the volatile solids content and COD of the sediments
were found to be quite low, 1.3 percent and 7500 mg/kg, slightly above
values found at Leavittsburg. However, 800 mg/kg of oil were found and the
content of most metals far exceed the draft Region V "Heavily Polluted"
criteria. The iron content was found to be id percent. Since the river is
free flowing at this point, stream velocities are apparently high enough to
preclude most organic deposition, but not so high as to keep the heavier
particulate matter discharged from Republic Steel blast furnace operations
in suspension.
The next downstream station studied, Belmont Avenue in Niles
(RM 30.48), is in the upper reaches of the Liberty Street dam pool. The
chemical and biological data obtained, lower stream velocities, and the
percent of bottom covered with sediments (Figure VII-48) indicate more
organic deposition occurs in this area than upstream. The substrate was
-------
found to be primarily black, oily sludge. Nearly 16 percent of the sediments
were found to be volative solids, and the COD was determined to be 260,000
mg/kg. The TKN increased from 160 mg/kg at West Park Avenue to 2900
mg/kg. A similar increase in phosphorus was noted and the total cyanide and
phenolics levels increased by factors of nearly 4 and 5, respectively. The
concentration of most metals was also increased substantially over levels
found at West Park Avenue. These data suggest that lighter particulate
matter settling in this area either contain or absorb cyanide and phenolics.
With the high organic content found, high numbers of sludgeworms and
leaches would be expected. Only sludgeworms were found in low numbers
suggesting the benthic environment may be toxic in this area and possibly in
most of the Liberty Street dam pool.
Benthic conditions in the tributaries of Mosquito Creek and Meander
Creek were generally much better than the main stem, with Mosquito Creek
being the cleaner of the two tributaries. The substrate in Meander Creek
was chiefly composed of grayish-white chemical fines which tend to smother
most benthic invertebrates. Only a few leaches were found. The source of
this material is clearly the Mahoning Valley Sanitary District water
treatment plant. The source of cyanides may be the Jones and Laughlin
Niles Conduit Division located nearby, but the source of phenolics is not
known; decaying vegetation is suspect. The substrate in Mosquito Creek was
chiefly ash and sand. Sludgeworms, leaches, midges, and several crawling
organisms were found suggesting moderately contaminated conditions. The
volatile matter, COD, and metals were low while the measured ammonia-N
concentration was higher than measured at most main stem stations. The
General Electric Company-Miles Glass Plant is the probable ammonia
source.
Benthic conditions in the upper Youngstown area (Division St.,
RM 23.84) were not much better than at Belmont Avenue in Niles. The
substrate is basically the same black, oily sludge. Measured volatile solids
and COD levels were less than at Belmont Avenue although the oil and
grease level increased by more than an order of magnitude. Phosphorus and
cyanide levels remained about the same while concentrations of nitrogenous
material and phenolics decreased somewhat as did most metals.
-------
Nonetheless, only leeches in low numbers were found, again suggesting toxic
conditions. Ohio Edison, the U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills, the Niles,
McDonald and Girard STPs, and part of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-
Brier Hill Works discharge between Belmont Avenue and Division Street .
The large increase in aluminum levels at Division Street probably result
from the Benada Aluminum Products Company which discharges to Little
Squaw Creek. The substrate and chemical quality of Bridge Street (RM
22.73), just below the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Brier Hill Works and U. S.
Steel-Ohio Works, is about the same as that measured at Division Street.
However, levels of total cyanide and phenolics increased due to upstream
blast furnace discharges. The sediments were found to contain 41 percent
iron, nearly 2 percent oil, and 7 percent volatile material. Only
sludgeworms were found, and in low numbers.
A sample obtained just behind a spillway on Mill Creek near the mouth
of the Mahoning River was composed of sand, gravel, and silt. Levels of
volatile solids (1.7 percent), COD (14,000 mg/kg), NH3-N (75 mg/kg),
phosphorus (310 mg/kg), and oil and grease (800 mg/kg) are below the draft
Region V polluted sediment criteria and well below values found along the
main stem of the Mahoning. However, levels of arsenic, chromium, iron,
lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc are above the respective draft criteria and
suggest contamination by metal finishing wastes or possibly mine drainage.
Sludgeworms and midge flies dominate the benthic community along with
crawling organisms. The mix and numbers of organisms in the substrate
found is an indication of moderate pollution.
Black, oily sludge was also encountered at the Penn Central Railroad
bridge in Youngstown (RM 17.82), downstream from the Youngstown STP and
the Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant. Chemical quality was like that of
several upstream stations: high organics, nitrogenous materials, phosphorus,
and metals. The oil and grease content exceeded 2 percent and the total
cyanide level was the highest recorded in the river (25 mg/kg). This site is
undoubtedly affected by the Republic Steel coke plant and blast furance
discharges located just upstream of the sampling point. Benthic organisms
exhibited an increase in total numbers, but the kinds of organisms found,
sludgeworms and a few leeches, hardly constitute a well balanced benthic
community.
M
-------
The worst water quality in the Mahoning River is generally found at
the P&LE Railroad bridge in Struthers (RM 17.82), just downstream from the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works. However, the relatively high
stream velocity encountered in the free-flowing area below the Youngstown
Sheet and Tube dam and settling in the dam pool probably precludes this
area from having the worst sediment quality in all categories. Nonetheless,
the volatile solids content was nearly 12 percent, COD - 13 percent,
TKN - 2300 mg/kg, phosphorus - 2400 mg/kg, oil and grease - 2.4 percent,
and iron - nearly 20 percent. The highest mercury level (0.5 mg/kg) in the
basin was found here. As might be expected, the benthic community was
composed of only sludgeworms in high numbers and a few leaches.
Sediment quality at Washington Street in Lowellville (RM 12.64) was
close to that found at Struthers. The substrate was the same black, oily
sludge first seen at Niles and the benthic community consisted only of
sludgeworms. The concentrations of most chemicals far exceeded the
heavily polluted criteria shown in Table VII-18, and the highest zinc level
(3650 mg/kg) encountered in the basin was found here.
Considering sediment chemical quality, conditions in Pennsylvania
(RM 6.76 and RM 1.52) did not improve, and for phosphorus, oil and grease,
aluminum, arsenic, and cadmium, the highest concentrations in the basin
were found. The substrate at Edinburg (RM 6.76) had some sand as well as
black, oily sludge. A few snails were found in addition to low numbers of
sludgeworms and leaches. The substrate at New Castle was black, oily
sludge and only sludgeworms and leaches were found. The oil and grease
content was 2.7 percent at Edinburg and 3.2 percent at New Castle vs levels
ranging from 1.5 to 2.4 percent in the Youngstown-Struthers area. This
indicates continued deposition of oil in Pennsylvania and, most probably,
well into the Beaver River.
Table VII-22 presents additional sediment chemistry data obtained on
July 23, 1975 below the three operating coke plants in the Mahoning Valley
located at the Republic Steel-Warren Plant, the Republic Steel-Youngstown
Plant, and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works. A fourth coke
plant located at the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Brier Hill Works is not
operated. These data were obtained to determine if coke plant discharges
have resulted in deposits of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in the
river. Studies at U. S. Steel facilities in Gary, Indiana and Lorain, Ohio have
-------
TABLE VII-22
SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY BELOW
Station
Location
River Mile
Sample Number
Total Solids (%-wet)
Volatile Solids (%)
Organic Carbon (%)
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Oil and Grease
Total Cyanide
Phenolics
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons*
Napthalene
Methylnapthalene
Dimethylnapthalene
Fluorene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
MAHONING RIVER COKE PLANTS
July 23, 1975
(mg/kg - dry weight)
_
Warren
35.87
76-5074
52.6
7.8
2.5
78,000
1,100
72
630
7,000
1.1
3.8
, 2,700
' 6
< *
36
41
85
760
< 0.1
33
290
^carbons*
0.24
11
Youngstown
17.82
76-5075
48.0
10.8
4.2
127,000
2,100
200
2,400
16,000
4.0
5.4
6,800
11
< 4
77
63
240
630
0.3
34
520
0.5
19
35
13
12
12
Struthers
15.83
76-5076
60.7
5.7
2.7
9,600
670
64
1,400
17,000
2.3
7.6
2,200
5
< 3
77
54
140
390
0.1
26
520
6.5
3.7
1.9
7.3
35
20
14
•Several other compounds in the 0.1 to 20 mg/kg range were present in each sample but
could not be identified.
f/Z-
-------
38 39
revealed the presence of PAH in sediments below coke plants ' and in
39
coke plant wastes. PAH have been included in the USEPA Office of Toxic
Substances listing of chemicals of near-term interest primarily because of
£|Q
the carcenogenic properties of some PAH. Sediment chemistry data were
also obtained for most of those constituents studied during March 1975.
As shown in Table VII-22, PAH were found below each coke plant. Of
the many PAH, only napthalene, methylnapthalene, dimethylnapthalene,
fluorene, anthracene, fluoranthene, and pyrene could be positively
identified. However, several other PAH in the 0.1 to 20 mg/kg range were
found to be present in each sample but could not be identified. Only
napthalene was detected below the Republic Steel coke plant in Warren
while most of the above listed compounds were found below the Republic
Steel-Youngstown Plant and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-
Campbell Works in increasing concentrations. Relatively low values below
the Republic Steel-Warren Plant may result from the manner in which the
coke plant discharge reaches the river. Coke plant Outfall 014 discharges to
a swampy area just east of Main Street and then to the river. Hence,
considerable sedimentation of particulate matter could occur before the
waste reaches the stream.
Sediment chemistry data at the Youngstown and Struthers stations
were generally similar to that found on March 7, 1975. However, the data
obtained at Warren (RM 35.87) show much higher COD, TKN, NH--N, oil and
grease and phenolics than found about four miles downstream at RM 33.71
on March 7, 1975.
-------
C. Verification Results
1. Tributary and Discharge Loadings
The RIBAM code requires that discharge loadings from municipal,
industrial and tributary point sources be supplied to the model in the form of
a concentration and flow. In applying the February and July survey data for
model verification analyses, three-day average concentrations and flows
were used for municipal and tributary sources. For industrial sources the
three-day average plant loads were calculated from the daily net loadings of
each outfall. An average effluent concentration was then calculated using
the total plant load and total plant discharge flow. As discussed earlier
industrial flows input to the model are assumed to be withdrawn from the
stream and returned after processing, thus not affecting streamflow.
Nonpoint source loadings and small, unmeasured tributary loadings
were input to the code using the flows discussed in the hydrology section and
a concentration determined by averaging the values collected at selected
locations. The sampling locations selected were at the upstream survey
boundary at Leavittsburg and at tributaries not severely contaminated with
municipal or industrial effluent. For the February verification, the selected
stations included Leavittsburg, Mosquito Creek, Meander Creek, and Mill
Creek. For the July survey, the selected stations included the locations used
for the February survey plus Mud Creek and Coffee Run. Nonpoint source
loadings were added to the stream at the head of the appropriate river
segment.
2. Temperature
As discussed earlier, two one-dimensional temperature prediction
models were evaluated in order to select an applicable model for thermal
load allocation. Both the QUAL-1 temperature model and a modified
Edinger and Geyer completely mixed model were used to compute river
temperatures for the February and July 1975 USEPA Mahoning River
surveys. The meteorological, hydrologic, and thermal loading data supplied
-------
to each model were the same; however, river segmentation was somewhat
different because of the different input requirements and limitations. A
discussion of the inputs specific to the temperature models is presented
below followed by the results of the verification.
With regard to river segmentation, the node points selected for the
RIBAM model were also applied to the Edinger and Geyer model. River
geometry, stream hydrology, and segment velocities in the RIBAM code
were used directly in the Edinger and Geyer model. Tributary, municipal,
industrial, and runoff loadings were applied at the head of each segment to
compute an initial temperature which was decayed downstream to the next
node point using Equation 7.13.
Computational array size constraints in QUAL-1 limited the number of
reaches which could be modeled in one run to 25. However, each reach can
be further subdivided into a maximum of 20 computational elements.
Hence, the Mahoning River was divided into ten reaches, nine of them five
miles long and one reach one mile long. Each reach was further subdivided
into half mile computational elements. Stream geometries obtained for the
RIBAM code were averaged over the corresponding reach lengths input to
the QUAL-1 model. Manning's Roughness coefficient was calculated from
the stream geometry and average stream flow. In order to ensure that
travel times were the same in both temperature models, the travel times
computed from RIBAM were used to calculate the appropriate reach
velocities input to the QUAL-1 code. Tributary, municipal, industrial, and
runoff loadings were added at the head of the nearest computational
element.
The same meteorological conditions were used in both temperature
models. With respect to QUAL-1, daily average meteorological data were
found to give the best results even though data can be input on a more
frequent basis (hourly). For the Edinger and Geyer model, Parker's
computational procedures, as modified by USEPA, were applied to the
daily average weather conditions to calculate the equilibrium temperature
(E) and heat exchange coefficient (K). Daily values for E and K were then
averaged to obtain values used in the temperature verification studies. As
noted earlier, wind speed data obtained from the Youngstown Municipal
Airport were higher than the wind speed data collected at the Youngstown
-------
STP during the February survey and at the Warren STP during the 3uly
survey by USEPA personnel. Considering the instrumentation and sampling
methodology used by USEPA personnel, wind speed data collected at the
STP's are less reliable than measurements at the airport. However, since
both temperature models are sensitive to wind speed, the models were
applied to the river using the wind speed collected at both locations. Tables
VII-23 and 2k show the average meteorological conditions during the two
sampling surveys and the resultant equilibrium temperatures and heat
exchange coefficients computed for the Edinger and Geyer model.
Temperatures computed by QUAL-1 for February 1975 survey are
compared with measured stream temperatures in Figure VII-49. The three-
day averaged computed temperatures using wind speed data from both
Youngstown STP and the Youngstown Municipal Airport are plotted for each
computational element in the model. Using the higher Youngstown airport
wind speed data, computed temperatures steadily become lower than
measured instream temperatures from Leavittsburg downstream to Ohio
Edison. Just above Ohio Edison, the computed temperatures are about 3 F
below average stream temperatures. From below Ohio Edison to
Youngstown, the model predicts about 2.0 F below measured temperatures.
Downstream of Youngstown, the difference between measured and computed
values increases to about 5.5°F. The relatively gradual but steady decline of
the computed temperatures below measured values indicates that the model
was not accurately simulating the exchange of heat across the air-water
surface. Because computed temperatures are low, the discrepancy was
caused by underestimating the energy absorbed from short and long wave
radiation or overestimating the heat being lost from the water by
evaporation, conduction, or back radiation. With the slower wind speed data
obtained from the Youngstown STP, computed temperatures more
accurately replicate measured values. Upstream of Ohio Edison the model
predicts about 1.5 to 2.0°F below measured values. From Ohio Edison to
Youngstown computed values are generally within 1°F of measured
temperatures and below Youngstown computed temperatures are low by
about 1.5°F.
Figure VII-50 shows the results of simulations by the Edinger and
Geyer model of the February survey using the airport and the Youngstown
STP wind speeds. Computed values generally followed the form of the
-------
TABLE VII-23
METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
FEBRUARY 1975 USEPA SURVEY
Date
2/11-12/75
2/12-13/75
2/13-14/75
Average
Wind
Air Temp (°F) Airport
24.2 10.0
22.9 15.3
15.4 11.9
20.8 12.4
Speed (mph)
STP
3.1
6.0
4.3
4.5
MAHONING
2 Relative
Humidity
.96
.77
.70
.81
TABLE V I
RIVER
Cloud Cover
(Tenths)
10.0
9.3
9.0
9.4
I - 24 .
E (°F) K(BTU/Ft
Airport STP Airport
26.3 29.3 87.6
24.2 27.3 118.1
18.6 23.4 95.3
23.0 26.7 98.7
2-Day-°F)
STP
36.4
55.8
44.5
45.6
METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
JULY 1975 USEPA SURVEY
Date
7/14-15/75
7/15-16/75
7/16-17/75
Wind
Air Temp ( F) Airport
66.5 8.5
68.8 4.7
72.2 4.9
Speed (mph)
STP
6.0
2.6
2.2
MAHONING
, Relative
Humidity
.65
.61
.58
RIVER
Cloud Cover
(Tenths)
5.7
4.6
3.8
E (°F) K(BTU/Ft
Airport STP Airport
67.1 69.3 133.1
73.5 78.6 80.6
75.7 82.9 83.4
2-Day-°F)
STP
98.5
51.6
46.1
Average 69.2 6.0 3.6 .61 4.7 72.1 76.9 99.0
1. Except as noted, all Meteorological data were obtained from the weather station located at the Youngstown Municipal Airport.
2. Wind speed collected at the Youngstown Sewage Treatment Plant.
3. Wind speed collected at the Warren Sewage Treatment Plant.
65.4
-------
48.
COMPUTED VALUES
USIHC AlSPCSr U!»D SPEED
WINS StP Hint) SPEED
46.
44.
42.
40.
5 38.
3(5.
34.
32.
30.
MEASURED VALUES
EHAX1MUM
AVERAGE
H
• t
JL
J_
JL
OHIO PA.
I.
. 48.
40. 3«. 32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE HOUTH Of HAHONING RIVER
16. 12.
4.
FIGURE VII-49
.TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER MILE
QUAL-1 MODEL VERIFICATION USING FE8RUARY 11-14, 1975 DATA
50.
48.
4S.
44.
42.
. 10.
33.
34.
34.
32.
COHPUTED VALJES
USIKS MRPqST HIHD SPEED
USIKS SIP MIKD SPEED
MEASURED VALUES
I 30.
l
l
I
OHIO PA.
• I
48. 44. 40. 36.
32. 28. 24. 20. 14. 12. 8. i
MILES ABOVE HOUTH OF HAHOHIHC RIVER
FIGURE VII-50
TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER MILE
4wn HFYFP Hnnci vcotcrATinu IICIUP CCQDMAQY ii_ij» to-jc n»T«
0.
-------
measured temperatures with the temperatures computed using the slower
STP wind speed becoming slightly high and computed temperatures using the
faster airport wind speeds generally being below average measured values.
The difference between the temperatures computed with the different wind
speeds increases steadily in the downstream direction reaching a maximum
of 4.5°F at New Castle, Pennsylvania. Downstream of Youngstown, the
Edinger and Geyer temperature model predicted 1.0 to 1.5 F high using STP
wind speed and 1.0 to 3.0 F low using the airport data.
Examination of stream temperature data indicates that a portion of
the discrepancy between measured and computed values appears attributable
to missed or unrepresentative point source thermal loadings. At the Ohio
Edison-Niles Plant, the computed temperature increase of the river was
about 1.0°F higher than the measured temperature increase from the Ohio
Edison intake to the U. S. Steel-McDonald Works intake. There also appears
to be a missed thermal loading between the Bridge Street sampling station
(RM 22.73) and the Marshall Street station (RM 20.91). In this segment,
average measured temperatures increased about 1.0°F, whereas computed
temperatures decreased about 1.0 F primarily due to the addition of cooler
water from Mill Creek. No known heated discharges enter in this river
segment, however, combined sewer overflows are suspected here. Had these
thermal loads been accurately measured during the February survey,
computed temperatures using the airport wind speed would have more
accurately replicated measured values. Between Stations 6 and 7 (RM 28.83
to 23.43), computed stream temperatures using both airport and STP wind
speed did not decrease as fast as measured stream temperatures, while
measured and computed values have almost identical slopes for the balance
of the river. The difference in slope between Stations 6 and 7 suggests that
locally different weather conditions, most likely wind speed, were prevalent
in this area. A difference in wind speed can result from a funneling of wind
across the water at an increased velocity not generally seen in other
portions of the basin.
Temperatures computed with the QUAL-1 model for the 3uly 1975
survey are compared with measured stream temperatures in Figure VII-51.
In the 3uly survey, there was a wider range of measured temperatures than
occurred in February. Generally, computed temperatures fell within the
range of measured temperatures, although the temperatures computed using
-------
06.
84.
82.
80.
78.
72.
70.
66.
COMPUTED VALUES
isme MRPtwr uiim sreeo
';SI»S STI> M!KD SPEED
MEASURED VALUES
j-itxximjti
L AVE2AG5
"V
JL
J_
J_
CHIO PA.
, , I, ,
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ADOVE MOUTH OF HAHOXING RIVER
14.
12.
FIGURE V1I-51
TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER MILE
UUAL-1 MODEL VERIFICATION USING JULY 14-17. 1975 DATA
39
86.
84.
I 82.
80.
• 78.
u.
t
« 76.
H-
ce
i*j -, (
a. /^ -
ar
LU
f—
72.
70.
<8.
<6.
_
-
-
-
-
48.
COMPUTED VALUES
I'SlX? AIRPORT HJfl
USl*tS STP HIf(3 Si9
HEASU3ED VALUES
L AVERASE
f^-
^
M_-
1
44. 40.
, t
"i.
j-
L
' L
-^
r — r
~"^-S
*•
~L_
••»
r
IT
t.
J
-~!
•
— — .
1 *"*
1 I.I II
X.
-t
'"V~—
'X-...
_r^
1 — ~~— — — r
vj
"" '•--->
1
1 1 t J-
CHIO PA.
III!
36. 32. 28. 24. 20. 16. 12. 8. 4. 0
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHQHtNS RIVER
FIGURE VI1-52
TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER HILE
-------
the airport wind speed more accurately replicated average measured values
upstream of Youngstown. Using the airport wind speed, computed
temperatures are high by 2°F above Ohio Edison and within 1°F of measured
values from Ohio Edison to Youngstown. Below Youngstown the model
predicted low by about 2 F. QUAL-1 predicts about 1 to 3 F higher when
wind speeds collected at the Warren STP are supplied to the model.
Temperatures computed by the Edinger and Geyer model for the 3uly
survey are illustrated in Figure VII-52. In this case, temperatures computed
with the wind speed recorded at Warren STP are generally high whereas
computed temperatures using the airport data accurately replicate average
measured values. Applying the lower wind speed from the Warren STP
results in computed temperatures gradually but steadily increasing above
averaged measured values in the downstream direction to a maximum of 3°F
above measured temperatures downstream of Youngstown. When higher
wind speeds recorded at the airport are supplied to the model, computed
temperatures are within 1°F of the three-day average measured tempera-
tures at all but two sampling stations. Downstream of Youngstown, after
temperatures have been modeled for over 30 stream miles, computed values
are within two or three tenths of a degree fahrenheit of average measured
temperatures. Considering the large daily fluctuations in temperature seen
in the stream, the precision with which the temperature model replicated
measured values is considered excellent.
After reviewing the February and 3uly verification results for both
QUAL—1 and the Edinger and Geyer model, it was evident that the modified
version of Edinger and Geyer model was superior for predicting tempera-
tures in the Mahoning River. The Edinger and Geyer model as applied in this
analysis, adequately replicated stream temperatures during both a cold
winter condition (February 1975) and a warm summer condition Duly 1975).
Using the more reliable airport wind speed data, QUAL-1 predicted stream
temperatures much less accurately than the Edinger and Geyer Model. The
accuracy of the QUAL-1 model improved when using the STP wind speeds
but overall the verification of the Edinger and Geyer Model was superior.
The results also indicate that for modeling temperature the wind speed
measured at the Youngstown Municipal Airport adequately represent wind
conditions in the vicinity of the river. Use of the Youngstown Municipal
Airport wind speed in the Edinger and Geyer model results in the model
-------
predicting better in the summer and about the same in the winter as is
achieved by using wind speed determined at the sewage treatment plants
which are closer to the river. Considering the accuracy shown in the
verification, the Edinger and Geyer model can be used with a high degree of
confidence for predicting temperatures under varying thermal load
conditions (see Section VIII).
3. Carbonaceous BOD
For the February and July verification studies, carbonaceous BOD was
modeled in RIBAM as an ultimate demand exhibited by carbonaceous
material. For stream quality and municipal loadings, this ultimate demand
was determined as long-term BOD less the oxygen demand resulting from
nitrification (CBOD = BOD2Q - 4.57 NH-j-N). The above procedure, however,
could not be applied to industrial effluents because most long-term BOD
results were unreliable, most likely due to interference from toxic
substances in the waste samples (see Section VII-B.3). For industrial
sources, CBOD loads were calculated from TOC loadings. Assuming TOC
oxidized to carbon dioxide, 2.67 mg/1 of DO are consumed for each mg/1 of
21
TOC. Thus, each pound of TOC is equivalent to 2.67 pounds of CBOD.
Since water samples were not analyzed for TOC in the February survey
because of laboratory resource limitations, TOC loads were estimated for
each outfall by multiplying the TOC/COD ratio determined for the July
survey by the COD load calculated from the February data. Outfall loads
were totaled for each plant before converting TOC loads to CBOD values.
The stream CBOD concentrations computed by RIBAM using the
February survey data are compared with measured river quality in
Figure VII-53. Computed values lie within the range of measured concentra-
tions at many sampling locations and are within 1 mg/1 of average
concentrations determined downstream of Lowellville, with the exception of
the New Castle sampling point. Between river miles 23 and 16, the
computed concentrations appear about 2 to 3 mg/1 low (15-20 percent).
From Figure VII-53, this difference appears attributable to a missed point
source loading in the vicinity of U. S. Steel, Ohio Works (river mile 23.09)
that was not sampled during the February survey. Even in this short stretch
of river, the form followed by the computed values closely approximates the
step increases of the measured values. At the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-
-------
increase was computed by the model as compared to the increase seen in the
river from Station 11 to Station 12. In this segment, the nitrogen data
indicated that large amounts of organic nitrogen were being converted to
ammonia-N in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube dam pool. Also, discharge
data from Youngstown Sheet and Tube show that only 8 percent of the TKN
discharged was ammonia-N on one day of the survey vs over 70 percent for
the other two days. Conversion of organic-N discharged from the
Youngstown STP, the Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant, and the Youngstown
Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works to ammonia-N in the stream would have a
major impact on ammonia-N concentrations at Station 12.
Since RIBAM is not capable of modeling organic-N, the model was run
with adjusted ammonia-N loadings at the Republic Steel-Warren Plant, Ohio
Edison, and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works to account for
the organic-N. Adjusted effluent loadings at each location were determined
by mass balances of ammonia-N at the sampling stations above and below
each source and the measured loadings between the stations. The computed
stream concentrations with the adjusted ammonia-N loadings are displayed
as the dashed line in Figure VII-56. In this case, the model more accurately
simulated measured concentrations throughout the river. The model appears
to predict excessive amounts of decay of ammonia-N from the Warren STP
downstream to the Youngsotwn STP. This discrepancy could be caused by
too fast a reaction rate for ammonia-N in this stretch. However, the
excellent verifications of the nitrite-N model in this segment and the
continuous loss of organic-N seen in this reach indicates the difference was
the result of the breakdown of organic-N thus increasing stream concentra-
tions of ammonia-N. In the segment below Youngstown, the computed
concentrations were within 15 percent of the average measured values and
closely reproduced the decay of ammonia-N seen in the stream. With
adjusted effluent loadings, the model appeared to adequately replicate
measured concentrations for the July survey. The breakdown of organic-N
into amrnonia-N represented an important source of ammonia-N in the July
survey and a reaction which was not included in the development of RIBAM.
This reaction was not as significant in the colder February survey.
Figures VII-55 and VII-56 show that the water quality equations for
ammonia-N can adequately replicate measured stream concentrations. The
ammonia-N reaction rate determined from bottle rate studies when
-------
corrected for temperature appeared to reproduce the disappearance rate
seen in the Mahoning River under two significantly different flow and
temperature regimes. The difficulties in replicating measured concentration
were primarily attributable to problems in determining point source loadings
notably in Warren STP segment of the river.
The failure to include the reaction of organic-N in the RIBAM model
should have a lesser effect on the water quality response of the waste
treatment alternatives studied in Section VIII than it had in the July
verification study. With advanced levels of treatment being considered for
the municipalities, blast furnaces, and coke plants in the valley, considerably
less organic-N will be discharged by the point sources. In the future, algal
growth could play a more important role in the nitrogen balance in the
stream under favorable sunlight and temperature conditions since
availability of nutrients will not be a growth limiting factor.
5. Nitrite-Nitrogen
Unlike carbonaceous BOD and ammonia-N, the primary source of
nitrite-nitrogen in the Mahoning River is the nitrification of ammonia-N to
nitrite-N and not the large industrial and municipal dischargers. Since the
major source of nitrite-N is a reaction and not measured point sources and
since there are two simultaneous reactions affecting the concentration,
nitrite-N is somewhat more difficult to simulate than standard first-order
kinetic reactions.
In the February 11-1*, 1975 survey, nitrite-N was not determined. For
this reason, the nitrite—N model was unable to be verified separately for the
February survey. Nitrite-N was however simulated for the February survey
in order that the secondary affect of nitrite-N on dissolved oxygen levels
would be correctly considered by RIBAM. For the February dissolved oxygen
verification, nitrite-N municipal and tributary loadings were estimated
based upon ratios of NO2~N/NO2+NO,-N from historical data. Small
industrial loadings of nitrite-N were not considered.
In the July survey, nitrite-N was measured separately and the results
of the model were compared with measured stream concentrations. The
computed concentrations of nitrite-N with measured and adjusted
-------
ammonia-N loading and the corresponding measured in stream
concentrations for the July survey are illustrated in Figure VII-57.
Computed concentrations with and without the adjusted ammonia loading
have the same general shape and, with the exception of the river segment
below Youngstown, the curves agree within 0.02 mg/L Since it is more
important to know the accuracy of the riitrite-N model when ammonia-N is
properly simulated, the discussion on nitrite-N verification pertains
primarily to the nitrite-N curve computed with adjusted ammonia-N
loadings at the Republic Steel-Warren Plant, the Ohio Edison-Niles Plant,
and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works.
In Figure VII-57, predicted concentrations adequately replicated
measured values from Leavittsburg downstream to Youngstown. In this
upstream portion of the river, computed concentrations were generally
within 0.02 mg/1 of the three-day average measured concentrations. At
approximately river mile 18 in Youngstown, computed concentrations
increase sharply to a maximum of 0.26 mg/1. Average measured values
however, remain at about 0.12 mg/1 downstream to the Ohio-Pennsylvania
state line before a significant increase was seen. At Station 16, both the
measured and computed values leveled off at about the same concentration
(0.24 mg/1). Within the 14 mile stretch of the river where measured and
computed values do not agree, the maximum difference was 0.14 mg/1.
Since the differences between measured and computed values did not begin
as a sudden jump at a node point, the discrepancy does not appear
attributable to an error in point source loadings of nitrite-N. The difference
between measured and computed concentrations just below Youngstown was
most likely caused by a high decay rate for ammonia-N or a low reaction
rate for nitrite-N. However, the ammonia-N reaction does not appear too
high in that segment of the river as measured and computed concentrations
of ammonia-N have nearly the same slope below Youngstown (Figure VII-56).
This would indicate that the nitrite-nitrogen reaction rate input to the
model for this segment of the river was too slow. Nitrogen series data
support this postulate in that a large amount of ammonia-N was being lost
with a corresponding increase in nitrate-N.
As discussed earlier, nitrite-N is less important than other water
quality constituents modeled in RIBAM and was considered in the analysis
-------
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.18
2 O.U
? 0.14
UJ
£ 0.12
z
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
VALUES
11 Jl£ASl'=;0 EFfl'JENT LOAD
21 JOJUS;-:D EFFLUENT LOAD
SEAS'JSED VALUES
Efixinui CD»C.
AVERAGE COXC.
KIHlriUrt CO«C.
I
44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF flAHONINO RIVER
16.
12.
0.
FIGURE VII-57
NITRITE-NITROGEN VS. RIVER MILE
MODEL VERIFICATION USING JULY 14-17. 1?75 DATA
-------
primarily because the reaction consumes dissolved oxygen. Also, the small
accumulation of nitrite-N in the stream represents only a small oxygen
demand compared to the demand resulting from high discharge levels of
CBOD and ammonia-N. The nitrite-N July verification was therefore
considered sufficient and the model along with the reaction rate applied in
the July verification were used in the waste load allocation portion of this
study.
6. Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is the most complex water quality constituent
modeled in this analysis. In addition to the point source loadings of dissolved
oxygen, concentrations are affected by reactions of carbonaceous BOD,
ammonia-N, nitrite-N, and benthic oxygen demand. Dissolved oxygen is
replenished by the physical process of reaeration throughout the river and by
the reaeration occurring at the channel dams. Temperature affects
dissolved oxygen, not only through the changes in reaction rates but also
directly controlling the total quantity of oxygen the water can hold.
Computed dissolved oxygen concentrations using the
February 11-14, 1975 survey data are shown in Figure VII-58 along with
measured stream concentrations. Computed values closely followed the
average measured concentrations throughout the river and never deviated
more than 1 mg/1 from the average measured concentrations. At many
stations, including the sampling points downstream of Youngstown, com-
puted values differed from the average measured concentration by less than
0.3 mg/1. The only consistent deviation of the computed values from
average measured conditions was in the segment of the river from the
Republic Steel-Warren Plant to Ohio Edison where the model predicted low.
In this upper stretch of the river, average measured dissolved oxygen
concentrations slightly exceeded theoretical saturation dissolved oxygen
levels. In fact, the starting concentration of the model, which was the
average value measured at Leavittsburg, exceeded the theoretical dissolved
oxygen saturation level by almost 1 mg/1. Downstream of Leavittsburg, the
computed DO concentrations quickly decreased to the saturation DO valve.
When stream temperatures increased below Ohio Edison and measured
\)U -
-------
17.
IS.
14.
13.
12.
11.
10.
48.
COMPUTED VALUES
MEASURED VALUES
cone.
44.
40.
36.
32. 28. 24. ••"• 20. li.
* _.•*
MILES ABOVE MOUTH xnx^hAHQNINS RIVER
4.
FIGURE VII-58
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VS. RIVES MILE
K3DEL VERIFICATION USING FEBRUARY 11-14.1975 DATA
13.
12.
11.
10.
9.
8.
7.
4.
5.
'4.
3.
2.
1.
0.
COMPUTED VALUES
11 hEASvSED EfFLUEUT LOAD
21 ADJUSTED EfHUEKf LOAD
MEASURED VALUES
cone.
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ASQVE MOUTH OF MAHQN1NG RIVER
li.
12.
4.
FIGURE VII-59
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VS. RIVER MILE
MODEL VERIFICATION USING JULY 14-17. 1975 DATA
-------
stream DO levels no longer exceeded theoretical saturation values, the
model quickly began to predict concentrations within a few tenths of a mg/1
of average measured values. Even in this upstream portion of the river, the
form of the computed values closely replicated that of the average
measured values.
The results of the July verification runs of RIBAM are shown along
with measured DO concentrations in Figure VII-59. The predicted DO
concentrations with measured ammonia-N loadings at all outfalls are shown
as the solid line in Figure VII-59. In this case, predicted DO concentrations
were high throughout most of the river downstream of the Republic Steel-
Warren Plant and the Warren STP. Since the DO model began predicting
high in the same river segment that ammonia-N began predicting low, the
difference between measured and computed values appeared to be caused by
insufficient oxygen demand from ammonia-N. The DO model was therefore
rerun with the adjusted ammonia-N loadings applied at the Republic Steel-
Warren Plant, Ohio Edison, and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell
Works. With the adjusted ammonia-N loadings, the ammonia-N model
adequately predicted measured stream concentrations but the computed
values were still a little low (Figure VII-56).
The computed DO concentrations with the adjusted ammonia-N
loadings are shown as the dashed line in Figure VII-59. In this case,
computed concentrations fell within the range of measured concentrations
at most sampling locations but were still above the three-day average
stream concentrations. In Warren and Youngstown, computed concentra-
tions were within one-half of a mg/1 of average measured concentrations.
However, between Warren and Youngstown and downstream of Youngstown
the model predicted concentrations about one mg/1 above average measured
values. The tendency to predict high DO concentrations is partially
attributable to underprediction of ammonia-N for the July survey. How-
ever, the affects on DO of underpredicting ammonia-N is somewhat offset
by the overprediction of carbonaceous BOD.
In the segment of the river below Warren, the tendency of the model
to predict high is probably caused by an overestimation of the reaeration
occurring in this stretch. There are no significant changes in the stream DO
due to point sources in this reach and the difference between measured and
-------
computed ammonia-N concentrations would not account for a one mg/1
difference in DO in this short stretch of the river. The stream reaeration
rate in the long Liberty Street dam pool was naturally low because of slow
stream velocities and increased stream depths. This low rate was probably
further reduced by floating oil discharged from the Republic Steel-Warren
Plant and the U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills. It appears that the CBOD rate
input to the model below the Warren STP was fairly accurate (Figure VII-54).
Hence, the high predictions are most likely due to overestimation of
reaeration capacity, and possibly to a larger than predicted sediment oxygen
demand in the Liberty Street dam pool.
In the section of the river below Youngstown, the difference between
computed and measured DO concentrations appears related to a point source
problem (DO) and an overestimation of the reaeration capacity of the river.
Measured and computed DO concentrations differ by less than 0.5 mg/1
above the Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant. Downstream of the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works, computed concentrations
exceed the three-day average measured value by about one mg/1. Some of
this difference may have been caused by an overestimation of the oxygen
added to the stream by the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works.
Dissolved oxygen measurements were taken at the intake and outfalls only
twice during the July survey, once on each of two days. These data
indicated the Campbell Works was adding over two mg/1 of oxygen to the
water taken from the river. Because these measurements were taken
infrequently with non-ideal sampling methods which would tend to produce
high results, the values may not be representative of actual DO loadings of
the facility. Reaeration above and over the Republic Steel and Youngstown
Sheet and Tube dams is also an important factor in this reach. Since this -«'
area carried the heaviest covering of floating oil during the survey,
reaeration was probably overestimated.
In the segment of the river downstream of Lowellville, computed
concentrations consistently remain about one mg/1 above measured concen-
trations. Since the difference in measured and computed values did not
become smaller further downstream, stream reaeration may have been
overestimated. Oil floating on the river was not taken into account in
computing the reaeration rate in the stream.
-------
An important factor which has not been discussed is the effect of
photosynthesis and algal respiration on the DO concentrations in the
Mahoning River. Undoubtedly photosynthesis during the day and the
respiration of algae at night increased the range of measured DO
concentrations in the Mahoning River. Apparently, the net affect of the
reactions did not significantly increase average stream DO concentrations
because the model, which did not include the affects of either reaction,
computed DO levels close to, but above, measured values. If photosynthesis
was significant measured DO concentrations would have been above
computed concentrations. Since the July survey was conducted during a
period of relatively sunny skies and a flow regime close to the summer
design flow of the river, maximum photosynthetic effects would be
expected. While photosynthesis may not be currently affecting dissolved
oxygen levels in the stream, the environment after point source controls are
installed may be more amenable to increased algal production under
favorable light and temperature conditions.
Considering the extremely complex system involved in modeling
dissolved oxygen in the Mahoning River, the RIBAM code verified well for
the two surveys. Over the wide range of temperature and flow conditions,
the model generally predicted within one mg/1 of average measured DO
concentrations throughout the river. The computed concentrations
replicated the DO sag occurring behind channel dams, the DO loss resulting
from increased temperatures, the reaeration through long stretches, and the
point source reaeration at dams and from point source loadings. The
tendency of the model to overpredict the stream reaeration in the July
survey is not a significant factor when simulating the response to treatment
alternatives since the gross levels of floating oil now prevalent should be
substantially reduced, if not eliminated.
7. Total Cyanide
There is little, if any, information presented in the literature
concerning the modeling of total cyanide in a river system. One aspect,
however, that is critical to the verification of a total cyanide model is the
proper handling and preservation of the water samples. Total cyanide reacts
quickly at elevated water temperatures and unless samples are properly
-------
preserved and refrigerated upon collection, significant amounts of total
i>2
cyanide may be lost. In both the February and 3uly 1975 surveys, stream
samples were preserved and refrigerated immediately upon collection.
However, because of limited manpower, municipalities and industries
obtained discharge samples in bottles provided by USEPA containing the
appropriate chemical preservative. These samples were picked-up daily by
USEPA for analysis. The sewage treatment plants generally had provisions
for refrigerating the water samples but many industrial samples were not
refrigerated until after they were picked up from the plants. These
procedures can cause industrial total cyanide loads to be low, notably during
the July survey when air and water temperatures were quite warm.
Measured and predicted total cyanide concentrations for the February
1975 survey are displayed in Figure VII-60. Throughout the river, computed
concentrations closely follow measured values, and at all but two sampling
stations in Youngstown, predicted concentrations are within 10 to 15 percent
of the three-day average measured value. In the portion of the river from
downstream of the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works to the Youngstown Sheet and
Tube-Campbell Works, computed concentrations become progressively lower
than average measured values. This difference is probably attributable to a
combination of incomplete mixing of the discharges at the sampling stations
and underestimation of the point source loadings in this area.
At Marshall Street (river mile 20.91), the model computed about
20 ug/1 below measured values. Since there are no known significant point
source loadings of total cyanide between the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works and the
Marshall Street sampling station and most of the reduction in computed
concentration between these points resulted from dilution by Mill Creek, the
difference between measured and computed concentrations probably
resulted from a low total cyanide load at the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works. At the
sampling stations upstream and downstream of the Republic Steel-
Youngstown Plant, the model predicted low by about 40 and 60 ug/1,
respectively. Because the computed total cyanide increases at Youngstown
STP and at the Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant were less than the
corresponding concentration increases seen in the stream, the difference
again appeared attributable to low total cyanide loadings at the respective
discharges. Inadequate sample refrigeration and reliance upon estimated
,, o
-------
260.
240;
220.
200.
180.
160.
140.
120.
100.
80.
60.
40.
20.
g
4G
COMPUTED VALUES
MEASURED VALUES
E«VER«E CO«C.
IIIPIIM'JIt COIIC.
-
-
-
- ' ' ' . ' . -
. '
I
-
.
-
I f 1 r=
. r' L —
1 1 1 1 1 1
44. 40. 34. 32. 28. 24.
•-'
£
' fr-
I
1
20. U
^T^^. ;
OHI3 f».
t 1 II"
12. 8. 4. 0
HUES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
FIGURE VII-60
TOTAL CYANIDE "s. RIVER MILE
MODEL VERIFICATION USING FEBRUARY 11-14. 1975' DATA
180.
160. -
140. -
120. -
ICO. -
40. -
20. -
t.
48.
40.
34.
32. 28. 24. 20.
ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHONING RIVER
FIGURE vii-i5i
TOTAL CYANIDE vs. RIVER MILE
MODEL VERIFICATION USING JULY n-i?. 1975 DATA
-------
plant flow rates most likely caused the loading-related differences between
measured and computed values at all three locations. In addition, samples
collected at Station 11 (river mile 17.82) and to a lesser degree at Station 10
(river mile 19.17) may have been overly affected by incomplete mixing of
large point source loadings located only short distances upstream of the
sampling points. As expected, complited decay of total cyanide closely
followed that soon in the river downstream of Lowellville.
Computed and measured total cyanide concentrations for the Duly 1975
USEPA survey are shown in Figure VII-61. The solid line in Figure VII-61
represents computed values with measured total cyanide loads at all point
sources. In this case, the model predicted significantly low throughout most
of the river even though the shape of computed values closely matched the
decay of total cyanide seen in the stream. An examination of Figure VII-61
showed that most of the difference between measured and computed values
was caused by two significant increases in measured values which were not
correctly accounted for in the model. The first such difference occurred in
the area around the Republic Steel-Warren Plant and the Warren STP.
Measured total cyanide loads for Republic Steel and the Warren STP caused
an increase in the computed concentration to 27 yg/1, whereas at Station 4
two miles downstream of Warren, three-day average measured concentra-
tions showed almost twice as much cyanide in the stream. Undoubtedly, a
significant source of total cyanide was missed in the Warren segment of the
river. The source is most likely the Republic Steel-Warren Plant as samples
obtained by the company from this plant were not refrigerated until four to
six hours after 2k composite samples were collected.
The second major total cyanide increase seen in the river which was
not accounted for in the model was at the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works. During
the July survey, the blast furnaces at U. S. Steel were reportedly down.
Grab samples were therefore collected only twice daily on the blast furnace
outfall while the remaining two outfalls were sampled six to eight times
daily. The sharp increase in measured total cyanide concentrations from the
U. S. Steel intake to the Bridge Street sampling point immediately
downstream of U. S. Steel is attributed to a large point source loading. This
loading was most likely discharged by U. S. Steel. However, a missed load at
-------
the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Brier Hill Works could also
account for this problem since, as noted earlier, it is doubtful that the blast
furnace discharge from this plant is fully accounted for at the U. S. Steel
intake (Station 6).
To determine how well the model would have replicated measured
total cyanide concentrations had these two major point sources been
accurately measured, the total cyanide model was rerun with adjusted total
cyanide loads at the Republic Steel-Warren Plant and the U. S. Steel-Ohio
Works. At Republic Steel, the adjusted total cyanide load was estimated
using the difference between measured and computed concentrations at
sampling Station 4 and the corresponding river flow at that point. The
adjusted total cyanide load applied at the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works was
calculated using the difference between the average stream concentrations
upstream and downstream of the plant and the river flow at Bridge Street.
The computed river concentrations with these two adjusted loadings are
shown as the dashed line in Figure VII-60. As expected, the computed values
much more accurately replicated measured concentration throughout the
river. With the two adjusted loads, computed concentrations are within 15
percent of the three-day average measured concentration at most sampling
points.
Computed values closely duplicated the slope of the average measured
concentrations along the entire length of the river. This was expected below
Lowellville, however, agreement of the computed and measured total
cyanide decay verifies the total cyanide rate in the upstream portion of the
stream. The only significant deviation of the computed concentrations from
measured values was in the segment of the river immediatley downstream of
the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Campbell Works. Again the
difference appeared related to a low total cyanide loading at the Campbell
Works. As with the total cyanide load for the Republic Steel-Warren Plant
and the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works, the low total cyanide load may be caused by
inadequate refrigeration of the samples or the use of unrepresentative
discharge flow estimates in calculating plant loadings. In addition, the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works was sampled only during the
daytime work shift. Loadings computed from these data may not be
representative of actual daily average loadings which may have been higher
-------
depending upon discharges over the remaining two-thirds of the day.
Overall, the total cyanide model only did a fair job of replicating
measured values in the July survey. When missed input loadings were
considered, the model agreed well by predicting within 10 to 15 percent of
average measured concentrations throughout the river. However, using only
the loads determined from the data, the predicted concentrations were low
by as much as 40 ug/1. The loading problems do not reflect upon the
accuracy of computational procedures but rather indicate deficiencies in a
portion of the data base used to verify the model.
Because stream data obtained during the comprehensive February and
3uly surveys downstream of Lowellville were used in computing reaction
rates, a seperate data set was used to verify the total cyanide rate
downstream of Lowellville. Raytheon Company made seven travel time
measurements from Lowellville to New Castle on August 24 and 25, 1973.
In addition to travel time, stream temperature, total cyanide, and phenolics
were determined at both ends of the study segment at the time of water
passage. Analytical procedures were identical to those used in the USEPA
surveys. The data obtained from the Raytheon study are presented in
Table VII-25 and the corresponding computed and measured stream concen-
trations are illustrated in Figure VII-64.
Computed concentrations in Figure VII-64 were determined using the
average measured travel time, the total cyanide reaction rate adjusted for
temperature, and the average concentration at Lowellville. The resulting
computed concentration at New Castle was well within the range of
measured values. Hence, the total cyanide reaction rate and temperature
correction coefficient adequately replicated the decay rate seen in the
stream.
Reviewing the results of the February and 3uly verification runs, the
water quality model appears to adequately simulate stream concentrations
of total cyanide. The first order differential equation when applied using a
single temperature adjusted reaction rate adequately duplicated the reaction
of total cyanide throughout the Mahoning River during both high flow-low
temperature and low flow-high temperature conditions. Difficulties in
replicating average measured stream concentrations encountered in the
verification were caused by inaccurate point source loadings which indicate
-------
deficiencies in the sampling program and not with the model.
8. Phenolics
Little has been written about modeling phenolic compounds in a river
system. Like total cyanide, phenolics break down quickly at the elevated
temperatures seen in the Mahoning River. Therefore, proper handling and
preservation of water samples are critical for verification in order that
significant amounts of phenolics not be lost before analysis. As discussed
earlier in this report, two reaction rates were used in simulating phenolics.
The faster reaction rate was applied to all river segments where the
computed concentration of phenolics exceeded 20 yg/i and the slower
reaction rate was applied to the segments where computed concentrations
were less than 20 pg/1.
The computed and measured phenolics concentrations for the February
1975 survey are displayed in Figure VII-62. For the February survey, the
model predicted concentrations of phenolics within about 15 percent of the
three-day average measured value at most sampling stations. In the upper
Youngstown portion of the river near the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works, the
computed concentrations were about 20 to 30 yg/1 low and remained
consistently below measured values downstream of this point. It appeared
that the model underpredicted the concentration increases seen at the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Brier Hill Works, the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works and
the Youngstown STP. This was the same area where significant total
cyanide loadings were missed in the February survey. Had the concentration
increases at these facilities been properly accounted for in the model,
computed concentrations would have been within about ten percent of the
three-day average measured stream concentrations throughout the river.
Even though there was apparently missed loadings of phenolics, the model
closely duplicated the decay of phenolics seen in the stretches of the river
below Warren and, as expected, below Youngstown.
The computed and measured phenolics concentrations for the
July 14-17, 1975 survey are shown in Figure VII-63. The solid line in Figure
VII-63 represents predicted concentrations with measured loadings at all
point sources. In this case, predicted concentrations followed the average
measured values throughout the river but with the computed values being
-------
20. -
0.
48.
32. 28. 24. 20.
HUES ABOVE HOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
FIGURE VII-62
PHENQLICS VS. RiVER MILE
MODEL VERIFICATION USING FEBRUARY 11-14.1975 DATA
0.
73.
40.
SO.
40.
20.
10.
0.
CGW'JTED VALUES
ii «Asi,=.£s £«LO£»I L:»DIW
21 A3jusi:g £FF'.j£»i L:AOI«
FO* IS-I - CAK?=£U H.AHT
MEASURED VALUES.
tAVERACC CO»C.
rininun CO«C.
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20.
HiLES ABOVE HOUTH OF MAHONISC RIVER
Ii.
12.
FIGURE VII-63
PHEKOLICS VS. RIVER MILE
MODEL VERIFICATION USING JULT 14-17. 1975 DATA
-------
TABLE V I I - 25
TOTAL CYANIDE AND PHENOLICS
LOWER MAHON1NG
Sampling Point
Lowellville
New Castle
Lowellville
New Castle
Lowellville
New Castle
Lowellville
New Castle
Lowellville
New Castle
Lowellville
New Castle
Lowellville
New Castle
Averages
Lowellville
New Castle
Travel Time (hours)
Temperature (°F)
* Data excluded from
Date
Sampled
8/2*
8/2*
8/2*
8/2*
8/2*
8/2*
8/2*
8/25
8/25
8/25
8/25
8/25
8/25
8/25
averages.
RIVER
August 2*, 25, 1973
Time Water Temp.
Sampled . (°F)
800
1*20
1200
2000
1600
2*00
2100
500
100
900
600
1*00
1200
2000
•
7.8
85.9
Source: Raytheon Company, Expanded Development
Water Quality for the
8*. 5
8*. 5
85.0
83.5
82.6
87.5
88.0
86.0
88.5
88.0
Total Cyanide
ug/1
1*6
60
1*3
60
13*
*0
113
*8
80
31
89
21
62
26
110
*1
of BEBAM-A Mathematical
Beaver River Basin, US EPA
Phenolics
ug/1
7
7
19
7
11
8
12
5
13
8
10 *
22 *
9
7
12
7
Model of
Contract No. 68-01-1836,
May 197*.
-------
20
15
«>
*-
li
"^
o>
10
C0
u
UJ
•£ 5
FIGURE VII-64
TOTAL CYANIDE AND PHENOLICS VERIFICATION
USING AUGUST 24,25 1973 DATA
PHENOLICS vs R^VER MILE
14
12
10
150
125
UJ
U
50
25
TOTAL CYANIDE vs RIVER MILE
MEASURED VALUES
~T"Maximum
• Average
_4_ Minimum
COMPUTED VALUES
14 12 10 8 64 2
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF THE MAHONING RIVER
-------
slightly high downstream of both Warren and Youngstown. Below Warren,
the model predicted high by only about 5 yg/1 downstream to the Ohio Edison
intake. This difference probably resulted from an overestimated load at the
Republic Steel-Warren Plant, as the temperature adjusted reaction rates in
that area adequately reflect the decay in the stream. Between the sampling
station at the Ohio Edison intake and the* U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills intake,
average stream concentrations increased by 14 ug/1. Since no known sources
of phenolics were sampled in this area, except the Niles STP, the model did
not duplicate this concentration increase. At the next downstream sampling
station (U. S. Steel-Ohio Works intake) phenolics had decayed sufficiently
that measured and computed concentrations were again in agreement.
Downstream of Youngstown, the predicted concentrations were as
much as 14 yg/1 above measured concentrations. Since the measured and
computed concentration difference quickly reduced to less than 5 yg/1 in
Pennsylvania the difference appeared attributable to an overestimated load
in the Youngstown area. A review of the daily discharge data for phenolics
from the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works, revealed that the
discharge from outfall 041 of the coke plant was ten times higher on the
second day than it was on the first or third days of the survey. Apparently
there was a slug discharge on the second day that was not seen during the
rest of the survey. Because the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell
Works was sampled only during the daytime work shift, the daily composite
sample may be overly affected by one or two highly contaminated grab
samples while the remaining samples were at lower levels. Had the sample
been a 24-hour composite additional low level grab samples would have
diluted the slug load.
To determine the effects of this overestimated phenolics load the
model was rerun with an adjusted load at the Campbell Works. The adjusted
load was computed by averaging only the first and third day's load from
Outfall 041 and adding this load to the total of the three-day average loads
for the other outfalls. The dotted line in Figure VII-63 represents the
predicted phenolic concentration with the adjusted phenol load. In this case,
the predicted concentrations came within 1 or 2 yg/1 of the three-day
average measured concentration downstream of Youngstow^n. Considering
the number of outfalls and the sample handling and preservation problems,
-------
the verification of the model for the July survey was considered excellent.
In the segment of the stream below Lowellville, an additional
verification of the model was made using the Raytheon data discussed
earlier. In this case, the lower phenolic rate corrected for temperature was
applied in the verification because measured stream concentrations were
less than 20 ug/1. The results, shown in Figure VII-64, indicate good
agreement between measured and computed values at New Castle. Hence,
the phenolic reaction rates and the temperature correction coefficient
adequately replicate decay in the stream.
The results of the February and July verification runs show that the
phenolic model adequately replicated concentrations in the Mahoning River.
The two rates used in the analysis represent a simplification of the complex
reactions occurring in the stream. However, considering that the two-rate
system accurately predicted the decay of phenolics during the cold winter
condition when concentrations were relatively high and during warm summer
conditions when in-stream concentrations were frequently below 20 ug/1, the
simplification appears warranted. As with the other water quality
constituents, some difficulties were encountered in the verification in
accurately determining point source loadings, especially for the industrial
discharges. When applying the model for load allocations, point source
loadings are selected first, with the model being used to determine the
water quality response to the selected loadings. Effluent loadings are
therefore known quantities in water quality allocations. Difficulties
encountered in accurately determining loadings for a particular water
quality survey do not reflect on prediction capabilities of the model.
9. Verification Summary
In general, the Edinger and Geyer temperature model and the RIBAM
water quality model adequately simulated conditions in the Mahoning River.
As applied in this study, the one dimensional Edinger and Geyer temperature
model predicted stream temperatures within two degrees fahrenheit of
three-day average measured temperatures occurring during two completely
different weather and flow conditions (February and July). RIBAM
successfully modeled the reaction of CBOD throughout the Mahoning during
February. However, some difficulty was encountered reproducing measured
-------
CBOD values in the July survey in the Youngstown area. For ammonia-N,
during winter conditions RIBAM accurately predicted average measured
concentrations. A far more complex nitrogen system was found in the July
survey, and after adjusting point source loadings to account for organic-
nitrogen, the model predicted within about 15 percent of average measured
values. The nitrite-N model was not evaluated for the February survey,
however, in the July survey the model predicted well downstream to
Youngstown where computed values became high for about 14 miles, then
agreed well with measured values at the downstream end of the river. The
dissolved oxygen model which includes the simulated reaction of CBOD,
ammonia-N and nitrite-N generally predicted within about 0.5 mg/1 of
average measured concentrations in the winter survey and after ammonia-N
loads were adjusted in the July survey, the model was within about 1.0 mg/1
of measured values. The high dissolved oxygen results obtained in July are
primarily attributed to floating oil seen on much of the river which reduced
reaeration from computed values. Some loading related discrepancies were
discovered in modeling total cyanide and phenolics. However, both models
predicted within about 10 to 15 percent of average measured concentrations
for both surveys. Based upon the ability of the computational procedures to
reproduce measured stream concentrations, the models were considered
verified on the Mahoning River.
During the verification studies, some difficulties were found in
accurately reproducing stream concentration increases caused by point
source loadings. The discrepancies in loadings primarily occurred at
industrial sources where stream concentration showed larger increases than
those computed with measured plant loadings. The major reasons for the
discrepancies were that estimated flow rates and not measured values had to
be used to compute industrial loadings, not all outfalls were sampled at each
steel plant, and finally, sample handling was not always ideal. As pointed
out earlier, errors in loadings do not indicate inadequacies in the model, but
deficiencies in portions of the data set used for verification purposes.
The reaction rates and temperature correction coefficients supplied to
the model accurately replicated the disappearance rates seen in the
Mahoning River at widely varying flows and temperatures. The single rates
-------
determined for CBOD, ammonia-N, and total cyanide, and the two rates
applied to the phenolics model successfully predicted the decay downstream
of both industrial and municipal sources. Different reaction rates were not
required for each river segment. The only significant rate problem seen in
the verification was for the reaeration rate which appeared somewhat high
for the July survey (see above). The good agreement for the other reaction
rates was undoubtedly related to the fact that travel times and velocities
were computed from procedures which had verified accurately with dye
studies conducted on the Mahoning River.
It is also important to note that the accurate verification of the
RIBAM model supports the use of the simplifying assumptions made during
model development. Steady-state conditions for stream flow and discharge
loadings were not fully obtained during either the February or 3uly survey.
However, the methods of compositing effluent samples and averaging data
over the three-day sampling period produced model results which were in
good agreement with measured values. The assumption that effluent
loadings mix instantaneously and completely in the river at the point of
discharge, produced no significant discrepancies except at the sampling
stations which were located in congested areas. Incomplete mixing of the
effluent at these stations generally produced larger concentration variations
and sometimes average measured values which were not consistent with
sampling stations further downstream. This problem points out the need for
careful selection of sampling points.
As discussed in the ammonia-N verification, the hydrolysis of organic-N to
ammonia-N is not included in the model. Failure to include this reaction
will cause predicted ammonia-N to be low and dissolved oxygen to be high in
the warm summer months. Because organic-N loadings to the Mahoning
River will be substantially reduced when proposed waste treatment controls
are installed, the error introduced by not including organic-N will also be
substantially reduced.
A statistical comparison of measured and computed concentrations, or
an error analysis, was not made in this study. Many of the inputs required
for an error analysis, such as the standard deviation or standard error of the
input parameters were not readily obtainable. Also the calculation
-------
16. Tsivoglou, E. C., Oxygen Relations in Streams, SEC Tech. Report, W-
58-2, p. 151, 1958.
17. Hydroscience Inc., Simplified Mathematical Modeling of Water
Quality, March 1971.
18. Personal Communication with J. S. Minnotte, Chief, Engineering
Division, Pittsburgh District, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
May 19, 1975.
19. Ludzack, F. J., Lesson Outline for Water Quality Studies Course,
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Training Activities
Section, June 1967.
20. Young, James C., Chemical Methods for Nitrification Control, Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 45, No. 4, April 1973.
21. Klein, Louis, River Pollution II. Causes and Effects, Butterworth and
Company, Limited, London, England, 1962.
22. Eckenfelder Jr., W. W., Water Quality Engineering for Practicing
Engineers, Barnes and Noble, Inc., New York, 1970.
23. Thomann, R. V., O'Connor, D. J., and Ditoro, D. M., The Effect of
Nitrification on the Dissolved Oxygen of _ Streams and Estuaries,
Manhattan College, June 1971.
24. O'Connor, D. J. and Dobbins, W. E., Mechanism of Reaeration in
Natural Streams, American Society Civil Engineers Transactions, Vol.
123, pp. 641-684, 1958.
25. Churchill, M. A., Elmore, H. L., and Buchingham, R. A., The Prediction
of Stream Reaeration Rates, American Society Civil Engineers
Journal, Vol. 88, No. SA-4, pp 1-46, 1962.
26. Tsivoglou, E.G. and Wallace, J. R., Characterization of Stream
Reaeration Capacity, U. S. EPA, Report R3-72-012, 1972.
27. Covar, A. P., Selecting the Proper Reaeration Coefficient for Use in
Water Quality Models, Proceedings of the EPA Conference on
. Environmental Modeling and Simulation Conference, April 1976.
28. U. S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Water Resources
Data for Ohio, Part I Surface Water Records.
29. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Weather Service, Surface Weather
Observations for Station NW5O Youngstown, Ohio, February 11-14,
1975.
30. U. S. Department of Commerce, Environmental Services
Administration, Weather Bureau, Relative Humidity and Dew Point
Table (TA No. 454 0 30).
-------
31. Kitrell, F. W., A Practical Guide to Water Quality Studies of Streams,
U. S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, 1969.
32. Personal Communication with L. Wisniewski, Environmental Control,
Republic Steel Corporation.
33. Personal Communication with National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Weather Service, August 1976.
34. U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Weather Service, Surface Weather Observa-
tions Surface Weather Observations for Station NWSO Youngstown,
Ohio, July 14-16, 1975. '
35. Amendola, G. A., General Report - Ohio Edison Company, Niles Steam
Electric Generating Plant, USEPA, Region V, Ohio District Office,
Fairview Park, Ohio, May 31, 1972.
36. Salata, E. 3., Sewer Location Map of the City of Youngstown and
Surrounding Areas, Department of Public Works, City of Youngstown,
January 1973.
37. Personal Communication with R. 3. Bowden, Chief, Great Lakes
Surveillance Branch, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Region V,
USEPA, March 1976 draft report (8 pages).
38. Clifford, P. R., Organic Analysis of the Grand Calumet Oil and Grease
Sampling, National Field Investigation Center - Cincinnati, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, January 1973.
39. Brass, H. 3., Elbert, W. C., Feige, M., Click, E. M., and Lington, A. R.,
United States Steel - Lorain, Ohio Works, Black River Survey;
Analysis for Hexane Organic Extractables and Polynuclear Automatic
Hydrocarbons, Organic Chemistry Laboratories, National Field
Investigation Center -Cincinnati, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, October 1974.
40. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Toxic Substances,
Summary Characterizations of Selected Chemicals of Near-Term
Interest, Washington, D.C., (EPA 560/4-76-004) April 1976.
41. Personal Communication from Dr. Bruce Tichenor, Chief, Thermal
Pollution Branch, Pacific Northwest Research Center, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, May 1975.
42. Personal Communication with Mark 3. Carter, Chief, Inorganic Unit,
Chemistry Section, Central Regional Laboratory, USEPA, Region V,
3anuary 1975.
43. Raytheon Company, Expanded Development of BEBAM - A Mathe-
matical Model of Water Quality for the Beaver River Basin, USEPA
Contract No. 68-01-1836, May 1974.
-------
Carter, M. 3. and Houston, M., Preservation of Phenolic Compounds in
Wastewater, Central Regional Laboratory, USEPA, Region V
(unpublished).
-------
-------
SECTION VIII
WASTE LOAD ANALYSIS
Establishing allowable wastewater discharge levels to achieve any
desired water quality objective for the lower Mahoning River can easily
become unmanageable owing to several factors, not the least of which is the
long and volatile history of water pollution abatement, or lack thereof, in
the Valley. There are virtually an unlimited number of combinations of
treatment alternatives for the 20 or so significant municipal and industrial
dischargers. At this writing, water quality standards for the Ohio portion of
the stream are again being revised and final best practicable control
technology currently available (BPCTCA) and best available technology
economically achievable (BATEA) effluent guidelines for the steel industry
are as yet uncertain as a result of industry challenges. Hence, this effort is
primarily directed at developing waste load allocations to achieve
Pennsylvania water quality standards at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line.
The fact that significant dischargers are located between five and thirty
miles upstream from the State line further complicates the analysis.
Although Ohio's intention is to downgrade water quality standards for
certain segments of the river, water quality in Ohio is important since it
basically determines the quality in Pennsylvania. Also, future upgrading
uses and standards of the Ohio portion of the stream may be desired.
The balance of Section VIII presents the waste load allocation policy
employed in developing treatment alternatives; water quality-related and
treatment technology-related effluent criteria; major treatment alterna-
tives and resultant water quality in Ohio and at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State
line; estimated capital costs associated with each alternative; and, the
sensitivity of the water quality analysis and its relation to the selection of a
treatment alternative.
-------
A. Waste Load Allocation Policy
Simply stated, the waste load allocation policy employed in this
analysis incorporates roughly equivalent levels of treatment for industrial
process operations in a given manufacturing category and the same degree
of sewage treatment for municipalities and regional treatment systems. The
equivalent treatment approach was adopted after considering several others,
including working directly from the Pennsylvania WQS to determine
acceptable treatment levels. However, depending upon how allocations were
made, this policy could result in severely penalizing dischargers located
close to the State line while permitting virtually uncontrolled discharges
well upstream. The policy employed herein was applied with several levels
of treatment to determine those that would result in compliance with
Pennsylvania WQS. Nonetheless, there are alternate methods of allocating
waste loads and the selection of a particular method could be debated ad
infinitum. The concept of roughly equivalent treatment for the various
corporate and municipal entities is probably the most equitable, more cost
effective, and , politically more feasible to implement.
Conventional secondary treatment and an advanced level of treatment
incorporating nitrification (ammonia-N removal) were considered for
municipalities. Proposed, remanded, and interim-final BPCTCA and BATEA
effluent guidelines were considered for the steel industry, and, no treatment
and offstream cooling with complete recycle of condenser cooling water
were considered for Ohio Edison. Six major treatment alternatives were
developed incorporating the above treatment levels in various combinations
and were evaluated in terms of compliance with Pennsylvania water quality
standards.
Use of effluent guidelines for the steel industry which have not been
finally promulgated by the USEPA has certain limitations. However, these
guidelines do provide an equitable method of determining waste loadings
within a given process subcategory based upon production rates of Mahoning
Valley operations within that subcategory. Of the various steel industry
effluent guidelines, those for coke plants and blast furnaces are critical in
terms of specific numerical criteria contained in Pennsylvania water quality
standards.
I j/
-------
In the past, various schemes to treat the entire Mahoning River near
the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line have been proposed. More recently, the
Ohio EPA has considered cooling the entire Mahoning River near Lowellville
to achieve Pennsylvania water quality standards for temperature. Aside
from the obvious technical problems assoicated with these proposals, they
have been rejected by the USEPA as being outside the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and thus illegal. Hence, "treat-the-river" schemes
are not considered.
B. Water Quality and Technology Based Discharge Criteria
Table VIII-1 presents a summary of the basis for NPDES permit
effluent limitations for major Mahoning River municipal and industrial
dischargers. The steel industry discharges are classified according to
production operation. As shown, limitations for suspended solids, oil and
grease, and metals are classified as technology-based while those for
thermal discharges, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand,
ammonia-N, total cyanide, phenolics, and fecal coliform/residual chlorine
are water quality-based. Although Pennsylvania has no numerical water
quality criteria for suspended solids, oil and grease, and metals, general
2
water quality criteria contained in Pennsylvania WQS, clearly prohibit the
current gross discharge of these materials:
"93.4 General Water Quality Criteria
(a) Water shall not contain substances attributable to municipal,
industrial or other waste discharges in concentrations or amounts
sufficient to be inimical or harmful to the water uses to be
protected or to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life.
(b) Specific substances to be controlled shall include, but shall
not be limited to floating debris, oil, scum and other floating
materials, toxic substances and substances which produce color,
tastes, odors, turbidity or settle to form sludge deposits."
Section 311 of the FWPCA also restricts the discharge of oil to amounts
which will not "... cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the
surface of the water or adjoining shorelines or cause a sludge or emulsion to
be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines."
Also, Ohio WQS "Four Freedoms" criteria, which are similar to the
Pennsylvania General Water Quality Criteria, prohibit the gross discharge of
these materials.
VI
if*
-------
TABLE V 111 - 1
BASIS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
MAHONING RIVER BASIN
Principal Pollutants
Basis for Limitation
Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants
Total Suspended Solids
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Ammonia-N
Dissolved Oxygen
Fecal Coliform/Residual Chlorine
Steel Industry
Thermal Discharge
Coke Plants
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Ammonia-N
Total Cyanide
Phenolics
Blast Furnaces
Total Suspended Solids ,
Ammonia-N 1
Total Cyanide
Phenolics
Steelmaking
Total Suspended Solids
Hot Forming
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Cold Rolling
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Metals
Coatings and Finishing
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Metals
Power Industry
Total Suspended Solids
Thermal Discharge
Residual Chlorine
Treatment Technology
Water Quality
Water Quality
Water Quality
Water Quality
Water Quality
Treatment Technology
Treatment Technology
Water Quality
Water Quality
Water Quality
Treatment Technology
Water Quality
Water Quality
Water Quality
Treatment Technology
Treatment Technology
Treatment Technology
Treatment Technology
Treatment Technology
Treatment Technology
Treatment Technology
Treatment Technology
Treatment Technology
Treatment Technology
Water Quality
Water Quality
-------
For temperature, oxygen consuming materials, ammonia-N, total
cyanide, and phenolics, discharge loadings can be evaluated in terms of
expected water quality with some degree of confidence using the mathe-
matical water quality models reviewed earlier. It is not possible to do so for
suspended solids and oil and grease. Hence, discharge limitations for these
materials are based more upon qualitative than quantitative effects on
stream quality. Gross discharges of suspended solids will generally be
eliminated with the installation of technology to control other substances.
Installation of BPCTCA-type treatment for steel industry finishing opera-
tions should preclude water quality problems with respect to metals.
Acceptable discharge levels of oil and grease are more difficult to define.
Based upon information presented by McKee and Wolf, the discharge
of oil can have deleterious effects on Pennsylvania's major designated water
uses for the Mahoning and Beaver Rivers. For public water supplies, oils can
create health hazards to consumers, produce taste and odors, result in
turbidity, films, or irridescence, and increase difficulty of water treatment.
Adverse effects upon aquatic life include interference with fish respiration,
destruction of algae and plankton, destruction of benthic organisms and
interference with spawning, tainting fish flesh, inteference with reaeration
and photosynthesis, direct chronic or acute toxic action, and deoxygenation.
Data presented earlier indicate some of the above adverse effects are
obviously occurring (taste and odor, presence of turbidity and films,
destruction of benthic environment) while others may be less obvious
(increased difficulty of water treatment, destruction of algae and other
plankton, fish-flesh tainting, interference with reaeration and photosyn-
thesis, toxicity, and contribution to deoxygenation). There are no known
data that suggest health hazards due to oil for those using the Beaver Falls
water supply. Nonetheless, the current gross discharge of oil must be abated
to achieve Ohio's and Pennsylvania's designated water uses. Aside from
establishing a "no discharge" policy, the minimum degree of abatement
required at each discharger to achieve those uses is not easily determined
and may, in fact, not be determinable in a quantitative fashion.
Currently, steel industry hot forming operations contribute most of the
oil discharged to the Mahoning River, and estimated capital expenditures
necessary to treat those wastes comprise about 48 percent of the total
-------
estimated cost to achieve BPCTCA for the eight major facilities. Hence,
any reduction in hot forming treatment costs due to region-specific effluent
criteria which would result in discharges close to BPCTCA could be
significant, provided designated water uses were achieved. Attachments A
to the proposed NPDES permits issued in May 1976 for the steel industry
reflect a deviation from nationwide hot forming BPCTCA discharge levels in
order to provide maximum cost savings to the steel industry while
attempting to achieve the Ohio and Pennsylvania designated water uses.
For the purposes of this analysis, three levels of treatment for oil
from hot forming mills are considered: (1) Interim-Final Phase II BPCTCA
(March 29, 1976); (2) Existing process discharges treated to 10 mg/1 (pro-
posed NPDES permits), and (3) Proposed Phase II BATEA (March 29, 1976).
Oil limitations for cold rolling and finishing operations were established at
either BPCTCA or BATEA. The aggregate discharge of oil from all plants
with each of these alternatives and the respective estimated capital cost of
treatment is compared with the existing full production discharges. The
relatively small contribution of oil from coke plants is included in the
existing discharge total, but coke plant treatment costs are not considered.
Estimated Capital Cost
of Treatment (Millions)
Hot Forming,
Cold Rolling,
Ibs/day of Oil Finishing Hot Forming
Existing 70,000 0 0
net discharge (long-term average)
10 mg/1 at existing 15,400 $ 62.3 $ 47.7
process flows (30-day average)
BPCTCA 12,200 $ 82.8 $ 70.0
(30-day average)
BATEA 500 $118.1 $102.0
(30-day average)
Based upon the above, the more cost effective approach appears to
be treatment to 10 mg/1 of oil at existing process flows rather than
treatment to BPCTCA levels, assuming an oil discharge in the
12-15,000 Ibs/day range is acceptable from a water quality viewpoint. The
BATEA level would be required if 301(c) economic demonstrations by the
-------
respective discharges were unsuccessful or if water quality objectives were
not achieved with higher levels of discharge. (Tables VIII-10 to VIII-12
present capital cost estimates and list cost references for each facility.)
C. Waste Treatment Alternatives
The six major waste treatment alternatives selected for evaluation are
outlined in Table VIII-2. While there are virtually an unlimited number of
possible combinations, these alternatives generally represent the significant
differences in treatment levels specified in PL 92-500 and are consistent
with the waste load allocation policy presented earlier. Each alternative
was evaluated for compliance with Pennsylvania water quality standards
over a wide range of stream flows for temperature, dissolved oxygen,
ammonia-N (toxicity criteria), total cyanide, and phenolics using the water
quality models reviewed in Section VII.
Table VIII-3 presents a summary of municipal discharge loadings for
each treatment alternative considered, and Table VIH-'f presents estimated
capital and annual operating costs for the respective 201 areas. Interceptor
costs for all cases and capital and operating costs for Cases 2a, 2b, 3, and 5
were obtained from the 208 Agency municipal consultant. Treatment
facility capital and operating costs for Case 1 were estimated by similar
7 8
methods by USEPA. ' The general configuration of regional treatment
facilities considered herein was found to be the least cost alternative by the
9
208 Agency. Note that costs for the Meander Creek plant are not included
as this facility has been completed and is in operation. Also, municipal costs
include only those facilities discharging to the lower Mahoning River.
Municipal costs estimates and the locations of regional facilities may be
modified somewhat once 201 Step 1 facilities plans are complete and design
flows are firmly established.
Tables VIII-5 to VIII-9 present industrial effluent discharges summaries
for Cases 1 to 5, and Tables VIII-10 to 12 present industrial capital cost
estimates and were taken from the USEPA economic analysis of the
Mahoning Valley. Appropriate references are listed in Tables VIII-10 to 12.
Table VIII-13 summarizes municipal and industrial costs for each alternative.
Most industrial cost data were current as of early 1975. A brief description
of each treatment alternative follows:
-------
TABLE VIII-2
MAHONING RIVER WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Case
Title
Municipalities
Steel Industry
Power Industry
BPCTCA-Secondary
Secondary Treatment
2a
Proposed NPDES
Permits (5/20/76)
Nitrification
2b
Proposed NPDES
Permits (5/20/76)
with Thermal Controls
Pennsylvania WQS
Nitrification
Nitrification
Coke Plants
Blast Furnaces } Phase 1 BPCTCA (6/24/74)
Steelmaking
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling } Phase 2 BPCTCA (3/29/76)
Finishing
Coke Plants - Dirty Quench (or Phase 1 BATEA)
Hot Forming - 10 mg/1 oil, 30 mg/1 suspended solids
with existing process flow rates
Coke Plants - Dirty Quench (or Phase 1 BATEA)
Blast Furnaces i , RprTr.
Steelmaking ' Phase 1 BPCTCA
Hot Forming - 10 mg/1 oil, 30 mg/1 suspended solids
with existing process flow rates
2 BPCTCA
No Treatment
No Treatment
Coke Plants - Dirty Quench (or Phase 1 BATEA)
Blast Furnaces - Phase 1 BPCTCA for Rep-W,
YS and T-BH; Phase 1 BPCTCA Ammonia-N and
30% of Phase 1 BPCTCA total cyanide and phenolics
for others.
Steelmaking - Phase 1 BPCTCA
Hot Forming - 10 mg/1 oil, 30 mg/1 suspended solids
with existing process flow rates
SSST8 >ph-2BpcTCA
Offstream Cooling and
Recycle of Condenser
Cooling Water
Offstream Cooling and
Recycle of Condenser
Cooling Water
-------
TABLE VII I-2
MAHONING RIVER WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Case
Title
Municipalities
Steel Industry
Power Industry
Joint Municipal
Industrial Treatment
(Warren and Youngstown)
Nitrification
BATEA-Nitrification
Nitrification
S£ Fusees > ""7"™* » '^ ' BPCTCA
and discharge to Warren or
Youngstown sewerage systems
Steelmaking - Phase 1 BPCTCA
Hot Forming - 10 mg/1 oil, 30 rng/i suspended solids
with existing process flow rates
BPCTCA
c:
Coke Plants
Blast Furnaces } Phase 1 BATEA
Steelmaking
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling } Phase 2 BATEA
Finishing
Offstream Cooling and
Recycle of Condenser
Cooling Water
No Treatment
-------
1. Case 1 BPCTCA - Secondary Treatment
As shown in Table VIII-3, conventional secondary treatment effluent
criteria were specified for the municipal systems (30 mg/1 suspended solids
and 30 mg/1 BOD,-)- Existing ammonia-N discharge levels were assumed. Of
the total capital cost of 96 million dollars, 18 million dollars are for
interceptors which would be needed regardless of treatment plant design.
Estimated annual operating costs associated with the interceptor systems
amount to 0.41 million dollars of the total annual operating cost of 3.28
million dollars.
Final effluent limitations contained in the effective NPDES discharge
permit for Copperweld Steel and the existing thermal discharge for Ohio
Edison were included (Table VIII-5). Phase I and Phase II BPCTCA Effluent
Guidelines were employed for the major steel facilities in the Valley. The
total Case I industrial cost of 147.4 million dollars is categorized by process
operation and by corporation as follows:
Millions of Dollars % of Total
Coke Plants 24.1 16
Blast Furnaces 26.6 18
Hot Forming 70.0 48
Cold Rolling, Finishing 12.8 9
Acid Regeneration 12.0 8
Cooling 0 0
Miscellaneous (Sanitary) 1.9 1
Total 147.4
Copperweld Steel 0.8 1
Republic Steel 67.0 45
U. S. Steel 26.9 18
Youngstown Sheet and Tube 52.7 36
Ohio Edison 0 0
Total 147.4
2. Case 2a Proposed NPDES Permits (May 1976)
Case 2a reflects the municipal and industrial NPDES permits proposed
by the Ohio EPA during May 1976. Municipal treatment includes more
stringent BOD^ removal and ammonia control to 3 mg/1 during the summer
months and 5 mg/1 during the winter. While Case 1 and 2a interceptor costs
-------
are identical, the treatment facility costs for Case 2a are increased by
about 25 million dollars and annual operating costs by 0.9 million dollars to
reflect the advanced treatment provided.
Copperweld Steel's effective NPDES permit and the existing thermal
discharge at Ohio Edison were included. No discharge of process wastes
from coke plants was assumed. This would be achieved by improving
existing dirty water coke quenching systems at the Republic Steel-Warren
and Youngstown Plants, and at the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell
Works. However, depending upon air quality considerations, this practice
may have to be discontinued in the future. In the event dirty water coke
quenching is not allowed, BATEA treatment would be required for discharge
of coke plant wastes to the river. Blast furnace discharges were set at
BPCTCA levels as were cold rolling and finishing operations. Hot forming
discharge levels were established at 10 mg/1 of oil at existing process flows
as discussed earlier. Total estimated industrial costs of 92.6 million dollars
(dirty water coke quench) and 116.7 million dollars (coke plant BATEA) are
summarized by process operation and corporation:
Dirty Water Coke Quench
Millions of
Dollars % of Total
Coke Plants
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling, Finishing
Acid Regeneration
Cooling
Miscellaneous (Sanitary)
Total
1.8
26.6
49.5
12.8
0
0
1.9
92.6
Copperweld Steel 0.8
Republic Steel 33.8
U. S. Steel 15.7
Youngstown Sheet and Tube 42.3
Ohio Edison 0
2
29
53
14
0
0
2
1
37
17
46
0
Coke Plant
Millions of
Dollars
25.9
26.6
49.5
12.8
0
0
1.9
116.7
0.8
50.1
15.7
50.1
0
BATEA
% of Total
22
23
42
11
0
0
2
1
43
13
43
0
Total
92.6
116.7
-------
3. Case 2b
Proposed NPDES Permits with Thermal Control at Ohio
Edison
Municipal and steel plant treatment levels are the same as presented
in Case 2a. However, offstream cooling and complete recycle of condenser
cooling water at the Ohio Edison-Niles Plant is included. The capital cost
summary is shown below:
Dirty Water Coke Quench
Millions of
Dollars % of Total
Coke Plant BATEA
Millions of
Dollars % of Total
Coke Plants
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling, Finishing
Acid Regeneration
Cooling
Miscellaneous (Sanitary)
Total
Copperweld Steel
Republic Steel
U. S. Steel
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Ohio Edison
Total
1.8
26.6
49.5
12.8
0
8.0
1.9
2
26
49
13
0
8
2
25.9
26.6
49.5
12.8
0
8.0
1.9
21
21
40
10
0
6
2
100.6
124.7
0.8
33.8
15.7
42.3
8.0
1
34
16
42
8
0.8
50.1
15.7
50.1
8.0
1
40
13
40
6
100.6
124.7
4. Case 3
Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards
Case 3 incorporates most of the municipal and industrial discharge
loadings presented in Case 2b. Total cyanide and phenolics discharges from
blast furnace operations at the U. S. Steel-Ohio Works, the Republic Steel-
Youngstown Plant, and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works
were reduced because of their proximity to the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line
and the magnitude of the Case 2a and 2b discharges. Total cyanide and
phenolics limitations for these blast furnace systems were set at 30 percent
of BPCTCA discharge levels. This reduction was determined by reviewing
the Case 2b total cyanide and phenolics responses at the most critical flow
-------
condition. For capital cost estimating purposes, BATEA, costs were
employed for the three affected blast furnace operations.
Although this approach represents a slight departure from the waste
load allocation policy employed throughout this analysis, each of the three
major steel producers in the Valley was treated equally. It is more cost
effective to obtain additional total cyanide and phenolics removal from
those large dischargers located close to the State line, rather than from
those upstream. The increase in the estimated total industrial cost over
Case 2b is about 3.6 percent. A breakdown by process operation and by
corporation is shown below:
Dirty Water Coke Quench Coke Plant BATEA
Millions of Millions of
Dollars % of Total Dollars % of Total
Coke Plants
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling, Finishing
Acid Regeneration
Cooling
Miscellaneous (Sanitary)
Total
Copperweld Steel
Republic Steel
U. S. Steel
Youngstown Sheet
Ohio Edison
Total
1.8
30.2
49.5
12.8
0
8.0
1.9
2
29
48
12
0
8
2
25.9
30.2
49.5
12.8
0
8.0
1.9
20
24
39
10
0
6
1
104.2
and
0.8
34.4
17.8
Tube 43.2
8.0
104.2
1
33
17
41
8
128.3
0.8
50.7
17.8
51.0
8.0
128.3
1
40
14
40
6
5. Case 4 3oint Treatment
Case 4 represents joint treatment of municipal wastes with coke plant
and blast furnace wastes pretreated to the Phase 1 BPCTCA level. Coke
plant and blast furnace wastes from the Republic Steel-Warren Plant would
be treated at the Warren STP and coke plant and blast furnace wastes from
all other steel mills at the Youngstown STP. Other regional schemes in the
upper Youngstown area and in the Campbell-Struthers area may be possible.
However, the volume and strength of coke plant and blast furnace wastes
-------
may result in treatability problems at the smaller facilities, notably the
proposed Campbeli-Struthers facility. Hence, joint treatment at the
Youngstown STP is considered the most feasible for it would provide greater
dilution of industrial wastes with municipal sewage, be more resistant to
treatment upsets due to fluctuating raw waste loads, and provide more time-
of-travel in the stream above the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line. The
respective flow and effluent concentration increases for the Warren and
Youngstown facilities are shown in Table VIII-3.
Case 4 incorporates treatment of the ammonia loadings from coke
plants at the municipal facilities, but allocates blast furnace ammonia
loadings to the respective municipalities in the form of increased effluent
concentrations. A recent summary of the literature concerning biological
treatment of coke plant wastes indicates near complete removal of
phenolic compounds, but somewhat less successful total cyanide removal.
Based upon this information, no increase in the municipal phenolics
discharge of 10 mg/1 and 75 percent total cyanide removal are projected
(Table VIII-3). Only non-contact cooling water would be discharged from
coke plants and blast furnaces at the steel plants. Other steel plant process
discharges would be identical to those contained in Cases 2a, 2b, and 3.
Offstream cooling is considered for Ohio Edison. The industrial cost
summary presented below does not include municipal capital cost recovery
for the increased size of necessary treatment facilities, cost of tie-in to
municipal systems, and the increased operating cost that would be
chargeable to the steel industry. These costs, which can be considerable,
can only be developed during the 201 facility planning process.
Millions of Dollars % of Total
Coke Plant 24.1 20
Blast Furnace 26.6 22
Hot Forming 49.5 40
Cold Rolling, Finishing 12.8 10
Acid Regeneration 0 0
Cooling 8.0 7
Miscellaneous 1.9 2
Total 122.9
-------
Millions of Dollars % of Total
Copperweld Steel 0.8 1
Republic Steel 48.9 40
U. S. Steel 15.7 13
Youngstown Sheet and Tube 49.5 40
Ohio Edison 8.0 7
Total 122.9
6. Case 5 BATEA - Nitrification
Case 5 reflects the same level of treatment for the municipalities as
presented in Cases 2a, 2b, and 3 while all steel plant discharges are upgraded
to BATEA. No treatment for thermal discharges is considered for Ohio
Edison. The industrial cost data summary presented below does not include
BATEA costs for treatment of miscellaneous steel plant runoffs (coal and
ore storage, etc.).
Millions of Dollars % of Total
Coke Plants 25.9 14
Blast Furnaces 31.0 16
Hot Forming 102.0 54
Cold Rolling, Finishing 16.1 9
Acid Regeneration 12.2 6
Cooling 0 0
Miscellaneous (Sanitary) 1.9 1
Total 189.1 1
Copperweld Steel 0.8 1
Republic Steel 91.6 48
U. S. Steel 31.1 16
Youngstown Sheet and Tube 65.6 35
Ohio Edison 0 0
Total 189.1
-------
TABLE V I 11 - 3
MUNICIPAL DISCHARGE LOADINGS
MAHON1NG RIVER
Case
1
Warren
Niles-McDonald-Girard
Meander Creek
Youngstown
Campbell-Struthers
Lowellville
TOTAL
2a, 2b, 3, 5
Warren
Niles-McDonald-Girard
Meander Creek
Youngstown
Campbell-Struthers
Lowellville
TOTAL
4
Warren
Niles-McDonald-Girard
Meander Creek
Youngstown
Campbell-Struthers
Lowellville
TOTAL
Flow
MGD
16.0
10.0
5.3
40.0
8.5
0.)
80.3
16.0
10.0
5.3
40.0
8.5
0.5
80.3
16.63
. 10.0
5.3
43.06
8.5
0.5
84.0
Suspended Solids
mg/l Ibs/day
30
30
20
30
30
30
-
20
20
20
20
20
20
-
20
20
20
20
20
20
-
4006
2504
8S5
10014
2128
125
19662
2670
1669
885
6676
1419
83
13402
2775
1669
8S5
7186
1419
83
14017
BOD,
mg/l Ibs/day
30
30
15
30
30
30
-
15
15
15
15
15
15
-
15
15
15
15
15
1)
-
4006
2504
663
10014
2128
125
19440
2003
1252
663
5007
1064
63
10052
2081
1252
663
5390
1064
63
10513
UCBOD
Ibs/day
6009
3756
995
15021
3192
188
29161
3005
1878
995
7511
1596
94
15079
3122
1878
995
S084
1596
94
15769
WASTE
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Ammonia-N
Summer Winter
mg/l Ibs/day mg/l Ibs/day
10.2
11.3
2.5
7.9
6.8
3.5
-
3
3
2.5
3
3
3
-
5.7
3
2.5
S.1
3
3
.
1362
943
111
2637
482
15
5550
401
250
111
1001
213
13
1989
795
250
111
2910
213
13
4292
10.2
11.3
5.0
7.9
6.8
3.5
-
5
5
5
5
5
5
-
7.7
5
5
10.0
5
5
.
1362
943
221
2637
482
" 15
5660
668
417
221
1669
355
21
3351
1062
250
133
3578
355
21
5399
Dissolved Oxygen
Summer Winter
mg/l mg/l
4
4
5
4
4
4
-
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
.
6
6
7
6
6
6
-
7
7
7
7
7
7
-
7
7
7
7
7
7
.
Total Cyanide
Ug/1 Ibs/day
50
10
10
50
10
10
-
1 50
10
10
50
10
10
-
200
10
10
370
10
10
.
6.7
0.8
0.4
16.7
0.7
< 0.1
25.4
6.7
0.8
0.4
16.7
0.7
< 0.1
25.4
27.4
0.8
0.4
133.9
0.7
< 0.1
163.3
Phenolics
Ug/1 Ibs/day
10
10
10
10
10
10
-
10
10
10
10
10
10
-
10
10
10
10
10
10
-
1.3
0.8
0.4
3.3
0.7
< 0.1
6.6
1.3
0.8
0.4
3.3
0.7
< 0.1
6.6
1.4
0.8
0.4
3.6
0.7
< 0.1
7.0
Nitrite-N
mg/l Ibs/day
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-
-
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
-
66.8
41.7
22.1
166.9
35.5
2.1
335.1
66.8
41.7
22.1
166.9
35.5
2.1
335.1
69.4
41.7
22.1
179.7
33.5
2.1
350.5
-------
TABLE V 111 - 4
ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
MAHONING RIVER MUNICIPAL TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
(Millions of Dollars)
Estimated
Capital Costs
•
Case 1
Warren
Niles-McDonald-Girard
Youngstown
Campbell-Struthers
Lowellville
TOTAL
Case 2a, 2b, 3, 5
Warren
Niles-McDonald-Girard
Youngstown
Campbell-Struthers
Lowellville
TOTAL
Interceptor
7.17
4.00
3.81
2.58
0.45
18.01
7.17
4.00
3.81
2.58
0.45
18.01
Treatment
Facility
15.4*
17.32
39.78
4.68
0.37
77.64
20.65
22.20
53.05
6.00
0.46
102.36
Total
22.66
21.32
43.59
7.26
0.82
95.65
27.82
26.20
56.86
8.58
0.91
120.37 ..
Estimated Annual
Operating Costs
Interceptor
0.05
0.19
-
0.15
0.02
0.41
0.05
0.19
-
0.15
0.02
0.41
Treatment
Facility
0.89
0.66
0.93
0.33
0.06
2.87
1.19
0.84
1.23
0.43
0.08
3.77
Total
0.94
0.85
0.93
0.48
0.08
3.28
1.24
1.03
1.23
0.58
0.10
4.18
NOTE: (1) Lowellville costs reflect tie in to Campbell-Struthers regional facility
-------
TABLE V III -5
CASE 1 BPCTCA - SECONDARY TREATMENT
MAHON1NG RIVER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Thermal
Discharge
Plant (10bBTU/hr)
Copperweld Steel 0
Republic Steel-Warren Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Central Treatment
Total 350
Republic Steel-Niles Plant
Ohio Edison-Niles Plant 1160
U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills 100
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co.
Brier Hill Works
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total 250
U. S. Steel-Ohio Works
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Total 350
Republic Steel- Youngstown Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total 240
Suspended
Solids
(Ibs/day)
360
103
157
4870
1458
6588
323
-
4210
58
2667
272
2997
218
526
744
218
223
1708
60
2209
Oil and
Grease
(Ibs/day)
320
31
-
2657
374
3062
106
-
1905
_
1290
109
1399
_
408
408
65
_
822
19
906
Ammonia-N
(Ibs/day)
-
258
394
-
-
652
-
.•>*-
-
144
-
-•
144
547
„
547
545
559
_
-
1104
Total
Cyanide
(Ibs/day)
.
61.9
47.1
-
-
109.0
.
-
-
17.3
-
-
17.3
65.5
_
65.5
131.0
66.9
_
-
197.9
Phenolics UCBOD
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
320
4.3
12.7
-
-
17.0 3062
106
-
1905
4.7
-
-
4.7 1399
17.6
_
17.6 408
9.0
18.0
_
_
27.0 906
Metals
(Ibs/day)
-
_
.
-
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
-
BPCTCA
-
-
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
•
_
-
_
_
_
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
-------
TABLE VIII -5
(continued)
CASE 1 BPCTCA - SECONDARY TREATMENT
MAHONING RIVER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Plant
Youngstown Sheet and
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total
Youngstown Sheet and
Hot Forming
Finishing
Total
Thermal
Discharge
(KTBTU/hr)
Tube-Campbell Works
690
Tube-Struthers Division
. 40
TOTAL - ALL PLANTS 3180
Suspended
Solids
(Ibs/day)
295
263
7231
795
8584
457
212
669
26664
Oil and
Grease
(Ibs/day)
88
-
3636
301
4025
207
-
207
12338
Ammonia-N
(Ibs/day)
738
658
.
-
1396
^f —
-•
3843
Total
Cyanide
(Ibs/day)
177.1
78.8
-
-
255.9
-
5.3
5.3
650.9
Phenolics UCBOD
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
12.1
21.2
-
-
33.3 4025
-'
_
207
99.6 12338
Metals
(Ibs/day)
.
_
-
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
_
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
-------
TABLE V I I I - 6
CASES 2a, b PROPOSED NPDES PERMITS
Plant
Copperweld Steel
Republic Steel-Warren Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Central Treatment
Total
Republic Steel-Miles Plant
Ohio Edison-Niles Plant
U. 5. Steel-McDonald Mills
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Brier Hill Works
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total
U. S. Steel-Ohio Works
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Total
Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total
Thermal
Discharge
(KTBTU/hr)
0
MAHONING
RIVER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Suspended Oil and
Solids
(Ibs/day)
360
Grease
(Ibs/day)
320
No Discharge of
350
-
2a 1160
2b 0
100
250
350
2*0
157
1230
1458
2845
323
.
10715
58
2370
272
2700
218
1502
1720
No
232
i 4410
f
4642
_
410
374
784
106
_
3572
_
790
109
899
_
500
500
Discharge of
_
1470
1470
Ammonia-N
(Ibs/day)
-
Process Wastes
394
-
_
394
- •
»•*•
-
144
-
-
144
547
-
547
Process Wastes
559
_
559
Total
Cyanide
(Ibs/day)
-
(or BATEA)
47.1
-
_
47.1
-
_
-
17.3
-
_
17.3
65.5
_
65.5
(or BATEA)
66.9
_
66.9
Phenolics UCBOD
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
320
12.7
-
_
12.7 784
106
_ _
3572
4.7
.
_
4.7 899
17.6
-
17.6 500
18.0
_
18.0 1470
Metals
(Ibs/day)
-
_
-
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
_
-
,
.
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
»
_
-
„
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
-------
TABLE V I I I - 6
(continued)
CASES 2a, b PROPOSED NPDES PERMITS
MAHONING RIVER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Plant
Thermal
Discharge
(10 BTU/hr)
Suspended Oil and Total
Solids Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide Phenolics UCBOD Metals
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total 690
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Struthers Division
Hot Forming
Finishing
Total 40
TOTAL - ALL PLANTS
2a
2b
3180
2020 .
263
20040
20303
3720
212
3932
47540
No Discharge of Process Wastes (or BATE A)
66SO
6680
1090
1090
15421
658
658
2302
78.8
78.8
5.3
5.3
280.9
21.2
21.2
74.2
6680
1090
15421
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
-------
TABLE V III - 7
CASE 3 - PENNSYLVANIA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
MAHONING RIVER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Plant
Thermal
Discharge
(KTBTU/hr)
Suspended
Solids
Obs/day)
Oil and
Grease
(Ibs/day)
Ammonia-N
(Ibs/day)
Total
Cyanide
(Ibs/day)
Phenolics
(Ibs/day)
UCBOD
(Ibs/day)
Metals
(Ibs/day)
Copperweld Steel 0
Republic Steel-Warren Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Central Treatment
Total 350
Republic Steel-Niles Plant
Ohio Edison-Niles Plant 0
U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills 100
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Brier Hill Works
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total 250
U. S. Steel-Ohio Works
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Total 350
Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total 240
360
320
No Discharge of Process Wastes (or BATEA)
157 - 394 47.1 12.7
1230 410 - -
1458 37* - -
2845 784 394 47.1 12.7
323
10715
106
3572
58
2370
272
2700
218
1502
1720
No
112
4410
4522
790
109
899
500
500
Discharge of
1470
1470
144
144
547
547
Process Wastes
559
559
17.3
17.3
19.6
19.6
(or BATEA)
20.1
20.1
4.7
4.7
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
?20
784
106
3572
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
899
500
1470
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
-------
TABLE VIII - 7
(continued)
CASE 3 - PENNSYLVANIA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
MAHONING RIVER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Plant
Thermal Suspended
Discharge Solids
(106BTU/hr) (Ibs/day)
Oil and Total
Grease Ammonia-N Cyanide Phenolics UCBOD Metals
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total 690
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Struthers Division
Hot Forming
Finishing
Total 40
No Discharge of Process Wastes (or BATEA)
131 - 658 23.6
20040 6680
TOTAL - ALL PLANTS
2020
20171
3720
212
3932
47288
6680
1090
1090
15421
658
2302
23.6
5.3
5.3
133.0
6.4
6.4
34.5
6680
1090
15421
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
-------
TABLE V 11 I - 8
CASE 4 - 3OINT TREATMENT
MAHON1NG RIVER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Thermal Suspended
Discharge Solids
Plant (10bBTU/hr) (Ibs/day)
Copperweld Steel
Republic Steel-Warren Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Central Treatment
Total
Republic Steel-Miles Plant
Ohio Edison-Miles Plant
U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Brier Hill Works
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total
U. S. Steel-Ohio Works
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Total
Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total
0 360
0
0
1230
1458
350 2688
323
0
100 10715
0
2370
272
250 2642
0
1502
350 1502
0
0
i 4410
J
240 4410
Oil and
Grease
(Ibs/day)
320
0
.
410
374
784
106
-
3572
-
790
109
899
_
500
500
0
_
1470
1470
Ammonia-N
(Ibs/day)
-
0
0
.
-
0
-
~c
-
0
-
.
0
0
-
0
0
0
_
-
0
Total
Cyanide
(Ibs/day)
-
0
0
- .
_
0
-
-
-
0
-
-
0
0
-
0
0
0
_
-
0
Phenolics
(Ibs/day)
-
0
0
-
-
0
-
-
-
0
-
.
0
0
-
0
0
0
_
_
0
UC«OD Metals
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
320
_
_
_
BPCTCA
784 BPCTCA
106 BPCTCA
-
3572
_
-
BPCTCA
899 BPCTCA
_
_
500
BPCTCA
1470 BPCTCA
-------
TABLE V 11 I - 8
(continued)
CASE 4 - 3O1NT TREATMENT
MAHONING RIVER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Plant
Thermal
Discharge
(10bBTU/hr)
Suspended
Solids
Obs/day)
Oil and
Grease
(Ibs/day)
Ammonia-N
(Ibs/day)
Total
Cyanide
(Ibs/day)
Phenolics UCBOD Metals
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works
Coke Plant 0
Blast Furnaces 0
Hot Forming i 20040
Cold Forming '
Total 690 20040
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Struthers Division
Hot Forming 3720
Finishing 212
Total 40 3720
TOTAL - ALL PLANTS
2020
46612
0
6680
6680
1090
1090
15421
5.3
5.3
5.3
6680
1090
15421
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
BPCTCA
-------
TABLE V 111 - 9
CASE 5 - NITRIFICATION - BATEA
MAHONING RIVER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Plant
Copperweld
Republic Steel-Warren Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Central Treatment
Total
Republic Steel-Niles Plant
Ohio Edison-Niles Plant
U. S. Steel-McDonald Mills
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Brier Hill Works
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total
U. S. Steel-Ohio Works
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Total
Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
Cold Rolling
Total
Thermal Suspended
Discharge Solids
(10 BTU/hr) (Ibs/day)
0 6
29
79
11
195
250 314
229
1160
0
29
8
272
200 309
109
16
330 125
62
112
\ 21
1
140 . 195
Oil and
Grease
(Ibs/day)
6
12
_
11
55
78
92
-
.
8
109
117
-
16
16
25
_
14
39
Ammonia-N
(Ibs/day)
12
31.5
•
.
43.5
-
-
No
11.5
-
-
11.5
43.7
-
43.7
25
44.6
-
69.6
Cyanide-A
(Ibs/day)
0.3
0.8
-
.
1.1
-
-
Discharge
0.3
-
-
0.3
1.1
-
1.1
0.6
1.1
-
1.7
Phenolics UCBOD
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
6
0.6
1.6
_
_
2.2 78
92
-
0.6
-
-
0.6 117
2.2
-
2.2 16
1.2
2.2
-
3.4 39
Metals
(Ibs/day)
_
_
_
BATEA
BATEA
BATEA
-
_
.
BATEA
BATEA
-
-
-
-
.
BATEA
BATEA
-------
TABLE VI II-9
(continued)
CASE 5 - NITRIFICATION - BATEA
MAHONING RIVER INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Thermal
Discharge
Plant (10 BTU/hr)
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming \
Cold Rolling '
Total 350
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Struthers Division
Hot Forming No
Finishing
Total 0
TOTAL - ALL PLANTS 2430
Suspended
Solids
(Ibs/day)
84
131
491
706
Discharge
212
212
2096
Oil and
Grease
(Ibs/day)
34
_
202
236
-
0
584
Ammonia-N
(Ibs/day)
34
52.5
T
86.5
^f- _
.
254.8
Cyanide- A
(ibs/day)
0.8
1.3
-
2.1
Total Cyanide
5.3
5.3
Cyanide-A
6.3
Phenolics
(Ibs/day)
1.6
2.6
-
4.2
i
-
_
12.6
UCBOD
(Ibs/day)
236
0
584
Metals
(Ibs/day)
_
_
BATEA
BATEA
BATEA
BATEA
BATEA
-------
TABLE V 111 - 10
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
MAHONING RIVER WASTE
TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES
(Millions of Dollars)
Alternative
Warren Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
Central Treatment
Acid Regeneration
TOTAL
Niles Plant
Youngstown Plant
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Central Treatment
TOTAL
Republic Steel
TOTAL
NirtTFS- fH RPr.Tr.A rnst
1
8.0
7.3
9.7
5.3
8.8
39.1
1.8
7.7
7.5
10.9
26.1
67.0
pstimal
2a
-/8.4
7.3
0.4
5.3
13.0/21.4
1.8
0.6/8.5
7.5
10.9 *
19.0/26.9
33.8/50.1
•PS hasprf unnn A;
2b
-/8.4
7.3
5^3
13.0/21.4
1.8
0.6/8.5
7.5
10.9
19.0/26.9
33.8/50.1
ita simnlipd hv
3
-/8.4
7.3
0.4
5.3
13.0/21.4
1.8
0.6/8.5
8.1
10.9
19.6/27.5
34.4/50.7
Rpnnhlir Stppl
4
8.0
7.3
0.4
5.3
21.0
1.8
7.7
7.5
10.9
26.1
48.9
C.nrnnrati
• 5
8.4
7.8
20.2
8.5
8.8
53.7
1.8
8.5
8.1
19.5
36.1
91.6
nn.10'11'12
(2) Lesser coke plant cost reflects upgraded dirty water quench. Higher cost reflects BATEA
for coke plants. Warren coke plant dirty water quench costs to be included in cost for
new coke battery.
(3) Case 4 coke plant and blast furnace costs do not include cost of tie in to municipal systems
and municipal cost recovery.
(3) Case 2a, 2b, and 3 Warren Plant hot forming costs and .Youngstown coke plant costs based
upon information provided by Republic Steel Corporation.
14
(4) Republic Steel BATEA costs based upon estimates by C. W. Rice Division of NUS Corporation.
-------
TABLE VIII- 11
YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
MAHONING RIVER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
(Millions of Dollars)
Alternative
Brier Hill Works
Blast Furnace
Hot Forming
EWT
Sanitary
TOTAL
Campbell Works
Coke Plant
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming - S
Hot Forming - C
Cold Rolling
Acid Regeneration
Sanitary
TOTAL
Struthers Division
Hot Forming
Finishing
1
1.3
4.2
1.0
0.8
7.3
8.4
1.2
2.8
20.7
3.5
3.2
1.1
40.9
3.3
1.2
2a
1.3
4.2
1.0
0.8
7.3
1.2/9.0
1.2
2.8
20.7
3.5
1.1
30.5/38.3 ^
3.3
1.2
2b
-
1.3
4.2
1.0
0.8
7.3
1.2/9.0
1.2
2.8
20.7
3.5
1.1
30.5/38.3
3.3
1.2
3
1.3
4.2
1.0
0.8
7.3
1.2/9.0
2.1
2.8
20.7
3.5
1.1
31.4/39.2
3.3
1.2
4
1.3
4.2
1.0
0.8
7.3
8.4
1.2
2.8
20.7
3.5
1.1
37.7
3.3
1.2
5
1.6
6.4
1.1
0.8
9.9
9.0
2.1
3.7
25.5
3.5
3.4
1.1
48.3
6.2
1.2
TOTAL 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 7.4
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
TOTAL 52.7 42.3/50.1 42.3/50.1 43.2/51.0 49.5 65.6
NOTES: (1) BPCTCA AND. BATE A cost estimates based upon data supplied by Youngstown Sheet and
Tube Company.0' 16' U
(2) Lesser coke plant cost reflects upgraded dirty water quench. Higher cost reflects BATEA
for coke plant.
(3) Case 4 coke plant and blast furnace costs do not include cost of tie in to municipal systems
and municipal cost recovery.
(4) Breakdown of BPCTCA and BATEA costs for hot forming operations based upon information
provided by Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company.
-------
TABLE V 111 - 12
UNITED STATES STEEL, COPPERWELD STEEL, AND OHIO EDISON
ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
MAHONING RIVER WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
United States Steel
Ohio Works
Blast Furnaces
Hot Forming
TOTAL
McDonald Mills
United States Steel
TOTAL 26.9
Copperweld Steel
" TOTAL 0.8
Ohio Edison Company
TOTAL 0
(Millions of Dollars)
2a 2b
9.3
5.8
15.1
11.8
• 9.3
5.8
15.1
0.6
9.3
5.8
15.1
0.6
11.4
5.8
15.1
0.6
9.3
5.8
15.1
0.6
6*.3
17.7
13.4
15.7
0.8
15.7
0.8
8.0
17.8
0.8
8.0
15.7 31.1
0.8 0.8
8.0
NOTES: (1) U. S. SteejQBPCTCA and BATEA cost estimates based upon information supplied
U. S. Steel. ' Blast furnace cost supplied Jay U. S. Steel reduced by 2.0 million dollars
delete cost of dismantling No. 1 blast furnace.
by
to
(2) U. S. Steel Case 4 blast furnace cost does not include costs of tie in to municipal system and
municipal cost recovery.
(3) U. S. Steel Case 2b, 3, f^cost estimates based upon information provided by C. W. Rice
Division of NUS Corporation.
(4) Copperwj^d Steel Corporation based upon communication with Copperweld Steel
Corporation.
(5) Ohio Edison Company cost estimate based upon information provided by Ohio Edison
Company.
-------
(Millions of Dollars)
1
22.7
21.3
43.6
7.3
0.8
2a
27.8
26.2
56.9
8.6
0.9
2b
27.8
26.2
56.9
8.6
0.9
3
27.8
26.2
56.9
8.6
0.9
4
27.8
26.2
56.9
8.6
0.9
5
27.8
26.2
56.9
8.6
0.9
TABLE V 111 - 13
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
MAHON1NG RIVER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1
Municipal 201 Areas
Warren
Niles-McDonald-
Girard
Youngstown
Campbell-Struthers
Lowellville
Municipal Total 95.7 120.4 120.4 120.4 120.4 120.4
\
Industrial '
Copperweld Steel 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
Republic Steel 67.0 33.8/50.1 33.8/50.1 34.4/50.7 48.9 91.6
U.S. Steel 26.9 15.7 15.7 17.8 15.7 31.1
Ohio Edison 0 0 8.0 8.0 8.0 0
Youngstown Sheet
and Tube 52.7 42.3/50.1 42.3/50.1 43.2/51.0 49.5 65.6
Industrial Total 147.4 122.9 189.1
a) Dirty Water
Coke Quench 92.6 100.6 104.2
b) Treatment for
Coke Wastes 116.7 124.7 128.3
NOTE: (1) Alternative 4 Joint Treatment costs do not include increased municipal capital costs for
introduction of industrial wastes, or increased industrial costs for tie in to municipal systems and municipal
cost recovery.
-------
D. Water Quality Analyses
1. Water Quality Modeling of Waste Treatment Alternatives
a. Flow Regime
The streamflow used for water quality design purposes directly affects
the selection of a basinwide waste treatment alternative. As noted in
Section IV, the minimum regulated streamflows provided by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers were selected for design purposes, but, because of the
complex hydrology in the basin and the important flow/temperature/time-
of-travel relationships, the water quality response for each alternative was
studied over a wide range of expected flows for the months of February and
July. The water quality design flows presented in Section IV and the flows
encountered during the verification studies reviewed in Section VII are
within the range of flows studied herein. In addition, Cases 2b and 3 were
studied at flows exceeded 90 percent of the time during each month to
determine other periods of the year that may be critical from a water
quality viewpoint.
Figure VIII-1 illustrates the actual February and 3uly flow duration as
measured at the USGS gage in Youngstown for the 1945-1975 period of
record. The February duration was selected as being typical of those winter
months with minimum regulated flows of 225 cfs. The 90 percent duration
flow for each month for the same period of record is illustrated in Figure IV-
12. Actual flow duration in the future (and achievement of the minimum
regulated streamflows) may be slightly higher because of the installation of
the Kir wan Reservoir in 1968. Flow profiles for the length of the study area
and stream velocities for each segment were developed from the flows at
Youngstown by methods described earlier. To simplify the calculations,
minor tributaries were assumed to contribute no flow, Mill Creek was
assumed to contribute no flow during the summer and 15 cfs during the
winter, and Mosquito Creek was assumed to supplement the flow at
Leavittsburg and the upstream sewage treatment plants to provide the flow
at Youngstown. Table VIII-14 presents a listing of the specific flows studied
25
and the respective flow durations. All references to flow in evaluating
waste treatment alternatives are to the USGS gage in Youngstown.
-------
FIGURE TZHL-I
MAHONING RIVER FLOW DURATION AT YOUNGSTOWN
FEBRUARY AND JULY
PERIOD OF RECORD 1945-1975
IOOOO '
«»T cf»-DAII.Y AVERAGE JULY MINIMUM REGULATED STREAMFLCW
400
SOO
tit Ol-OAILT AVCRASC FCBRUARV MINIMUM REGULATED STRCANFLOW
200
100
u.s. ocoLoaicAL SURVEY
10
20 30 40 SO 60 70 SO
PRECENT OF TIME FLOW EQUALLED OR EXCEEDED
-------
TABLE V 11 I - 14
MAHONING RIVER FLOW DURATION AT YOUNGSTOWN
Flow
(cfs)
175
225
300
400'
480
675
900
1200
1500
(1944-1975 Period of Record)
Percent of Time
Equaled or Exceeded Month
February
97
86
79
68
60
50
43
34
26
July
97
94
61
22
10
5.8
4.0
January
February
March
April
May
i June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Flow Equaled or
Exceeded 90% of Time
(cfs)
200
200
380
315
315
330
420
380
285
200
200
200
SOURCE: U. S. Geological Survey
-------
TABLE VIII- 15
MAHONING VALLEY INDUSTRIAL THERMAL DISCHARGERS
(106BTU/HR)
Copperweld Steel
Republic Steel
Warren Plant
Ohio Edison
U. S. Steel
McDonald Mills
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Brier Hill Works
U. S. Steel
Ohio Works
Republic Steel
Youngstown Plant
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Campbell Works
Youngstown Sheet and Tube
Struthers Division
TOTAL
Existing
Full Production
Thermal Discharge
70
400
1160
100
270
420
390
850
40
3700 .
Case 1
BPCTCA
Secondary
0
350
1160
100
250
350
240
690
40
3180
Case 2a
Proposed NPDES
Permits - No
Thermal Control
0
350
1160
100
250
350
240
690
40
3180
Case 2b
Proposed NPDES
Permits - With
Thermal Control
0
350
0
100
250
350
240
690
40
2020
Case 3
Pennsylvania
WQS
0
350
0
100
250
350
240
690
40
2020
Case 4
Joint
Treatment
0
350
0
100
250
350
240
690
, 40
2020
Case 5
BATEA
Nitrification
0
250
1160
0
200
330
140
350
0
2430
-------
b. Temperature and Thermal Loadings
The thermal discharge conditions resulting from the six treatment
alternatives selected for evaluation are presented in Table VIII-15. The
existing thermal discharges for Copperweld Steel, Ohio Edison, and
U. S. Steel are those measured under high production during the February
1975 USEPA survey. Existing thermal discharges for Republic Steel and
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company were obtained from the respective
dischargers. The existing thermal discharges are assumed to represent total
plant 30-day average loadings that would be expected during periods of high
steel production and not daily maximum discharges which could be
considerably higher. As shown by the difference in loadings experienced
during the February and 3uly USEPA surveys (Appendix B, Tables 6 and 9),
the level of steel production in the Valley can have a significant impact upon
thermal discharges to the stream.
Table VIII-16 summarizes equilibrium temperature, heat transfer
coefficient, and municipal sewage temperature data employed in the stream
temperature analyses for each month. Monthly average equilibrium
temperature and heat transfer coefficient data were computed from
26
meteorological data obtained at the Youngstown Weather Station by
27 28
methods described by Parker and modified by USEPA. Extreme
conditions were estimated from average and extreme conditions at
Cleveland, Ohio. Since the thermal discharge data are taken to approximate
monthly average loadings, the stream temperature profiles developed from
an analysis incorporating average meteorological conditions more closely
represents expected monthly average conditions at a given streamflow
rather than daily maximum values. Pennsylvania WQS for temperature are
maximum values not to be exceeded. The results of the thermal analysis are
presented in Section VHI-D-2.
c. Waste Loadings
To fully evaluate a given waste treatment alternative, adjustments to
the standard constituents limited in NPDES permits are necessary. For
example, in Ohio, municipal discharges are generally limited in terms of
five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BODJ whereas the ultimate carbon-
aceous oxygen demand (UCBOD) is needed for input to the model. Municipal
UCBOD levels for each alternative were determined by multiplying the
-------
TABLE VIII- 16
EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURES, HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS, AND
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT TEMPERATURES
MAHONING RIVER WASTE
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Average Condition Extreme Condition
Equilibrium Heat Transfer Equilibrium Heat Transfer
Temperature Coefficient Temperature Coefficient
Month (°F) (BTU/FT -day-F) (°F) (BTU/FT -day-F)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
31
33
40
49
60
69
74
73
67
58
43
33
85
80
95
105
105
115
115
110
110
100
100 *
85
40
41
46
57
68
76
80
79
73
65
50
42
70
60
80
90
95
105
105
95
95
85
80
75
Municipal STP
Temperature
50
50
55
60
65
70
75
75
70
65
60
50
Notes:
(1) Mahoning River at Leavittsburg and tributaries assumed to be at equilibrium temperature or, based upon
data at Leavittsburg, at 33°F when equilibrium temperature is below 32°F.
(2) Extreme condition obtained from relation of average and extreme conditions for Cleveland, Ohio.
(3) Municipal sewage temperatures obtained from City of Youngstown data and USER A surveys.
-------
BOD,- effluent limitations by a factor of 1.5 which generally represents the
inverse of the ratio of BOD«-/BOD7n during normal BOD amortization where
24 30
BOD2Q is close to the ultimate demand. '
Estimates of UCBOD discharges from the steel plants were based upon
data obtained at plants outside the Mahoning basin with operating treatment
31 32 33 34
systems similar to those contemplated for the Mahoning Valley. ' ' '
As noted earlier, the existing discharge of wastewaters from hot forming
and cold rolling operations contributes a carbonaceous oxygen demand to the
stream. To estimate the UCBOD from treated wastes, limited oil and
grease and BOD data were evaluated from hot forming wastes treated by
31 32
large lagoons with oil skimming, large diameter clarifiers, and large
•2Q
diameter clarifiers followed by pressure filters. The highest UCBOD/oil
ratio was 0.8 for the lagoon system and the lowest was indeterminate since
no measurable oil (, 1 mg/1) was being discharged from the pressure filter
system. This system also discharged less BOD than contained in the river
intake water. The ratio for the large diameter clarifier system was 0.43 on
one day of a survey and -0.43 on the second day. Less UCBOD was
discharged from the facility than was taken in from the river on the second
day. Based upon these limited data, a conservative value of one pound of
UCBOD per pound of oil discharged was selected to account for the
carbonaceous demand associated with oily waste discharges. It is important
to note that application of this factor is not the basis for oil and grease
limitations. Any oxygen demand associated with oily waste discharges is
probably associated with breakdown products of oil rather than oil itself, the
exception being emulsified oils which would be more amenable to biological
oxidation.
The UCBOD discharge from a blast furnace gas wash wat?r recircu-
34
lating system was found to be negligible. However, the nitrogenous
demand associated with the ammonia discharge was substantial. Nearly all
of the TKN discharged was in the form of ammonia-N. Based upon these
results, no UCBOD was assigned to blast furnace discharges. The above
factor for oil was used to estimated the UCBOD discharges for coke plants.
Since either BATEA or dirty water quench (no discharge of process wastes)
are envisioned for treatment, the effect of coke plant discharges on the
stream should be negligible.
As noted in the verification studies and previous work, steel and
power plant and cooling and process discharges tend to contain less dissolved
-------
oxygen than intake waters when the intakes are relatively close to
saturation and the discharges are elevated in temperature. Conversely,
when intake dissolved oxygen levels are severely depleted, the effect of the
discharges is to add significant amounts of dissolved oxygen by turbulence
and mixing. There appears to be little change when the intake dissolved
oxygen levels were in the middle range of five to eight mg/1. For the
purpose of analyzing waste treatment options, no direct effect of industrial
discharges on dissolved oxygen was assumed since middle range dissolved
oxygen levels are expected for most of the industrialized stretch of the river
after treatment under both summer and winter conditions.
BPCTCA cyanide discharge criteria for coke plants and blast furnaces
are specified as total cyanide while BATEA criteria are specified as
cyanide-A (cyanide amendable to chlorination). As noted in Section VII,
stream reaction rate studies and the verification analyses were based upon
total cyanide only. Cyanide-A was not studied since Pennsylvania WQS are
based upon total cyanide, due to laboratory and resource limitations, and,
because of the poor reproducibility of cyanide-A determinations. Although
total cyanide was not modeled for Case 5, the levels of discharge should be
quite low and would be expected to result in compliance with the
Pennsylvania total cyanide standard.
The oxygen demand associated with the oxidation of organic nitrogen
is not explicitly included in the RIBAM model. However, it was implicitly
included in the February verification analysis by the methods used to
determine stream and discharge UCBOD values. These were generally
determined with the following formula:
UCBOD = BOD2Q - 4.57 NH3-N
Any organic nitrogen oxidized during the BOD test would thus be
included as UCBOD and not associated with the nitrogenous demand from
ammonia—N. Since the rates of decay of UCBOD and ammonia-N were
found to be very close (0.3 day" vs 0.276 day" ), any error introduced in the
verification studies by including the demand associated with organic
nitrogen as UCBOD would be small. The respective rates employed in the
evaluation of waste treatment alternatives (Cases 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5) are not
close (0.12 day"1 vs 0.276 day"1). However, as indicated earlier, coke plant
-------
discharges should be negligible, blast furnaces discharges should not contain
appreciable amounts of organic nitrogen, and nitrified municipal treatment
35 36
plant effluents should be relatively low in organic nitrogen. ' Hence, the
error introduced by not including organic nitrogen in the dissolved oxygen
balance is expected to be small although the effect will be to overestimate
stream dissolved oxygen levels and underestimate ammonia-N levels.
Municipal sewage treatment disharges were assumed to contain 0.5 mg/1 of
nitrite-N and, based upon survey results, industrial discharges were assumed
to contain no nitrite-N. The dissolved oxygen balance in the stream is not
sensitive to the estimated total nitrite-N discharge of 300-400 Ibs/day.
Use of monthly average discharge loadings for waste load allocation
purposes rather than daily maximum loadings is considered to be reasonable
for the lower Mahoning River system. Typically, waste load allocations are
based upon daily maximum effluent loadings necessary to meet water quality
standards just downstream of a discharge. In these cases, the maximum
daily load is simply determined by computing the maximum permissible
stream loading at the water quality design flow at the point in question,
assuming there are no upstream loadings. For the Mahoning River, the
primary objective is to achieve a stream standard downstream of a large
number of dischargers. With properly designed and operated treatment
systems, it is highly unlikely that each discharger will achieve the respective
daily maximum discharge simultaneously. Total system performance is
expected to be closer to the total daily average loading of all dischargers.
Hence, the use of daily maximum discharges for waste load allocation
purposes for this system tends to be overly restrictive in terms of treatment
requirements. However, implicit in the use of monthly average loadings is
some risk of violating Pennsylvania water quality standards when dischargers
close to the State line discharge significantly above allowable monthly
average loadings.
Safety factors or reserve allocations for industrial effluent discharges
were not made. Significant growth in the Mahoning Valley steel industry is
unlikely owing to the economic conditions in the area. Curtailment of
production at some plants is possible. Any new production facilities or plant
expansions would have to be treated to new source performance standards
which are at least equivalent to BATEA, thus having little or no impact on
-------
stream quality. Municipal growth is considered in terms of the dissolved
oxygen response of various alternatives at the State line.
With the frequent occurrence of the water quality design flow of the
river, the use of monthly average vs daily maximum loadings for allocation
purposes, and no explicit safety factors or reserve allocations for industrial
growth, the allocations made are not considered to be overly conservative in
terms of stream quality.
d. Stream Reaction Rates
Table VIII-17 presents a summary of stream reaction rates and
temperature correction coefficients considered in the evaluation of waste
treatment alternatives. With the exception of the UCBOD rate, these rates
and coefficients were also employed in the verification analysis. A lower
UCBOD rate (0.12 day" vs 0.30 day ) was used for evaluating treatment
alternatives since these alternatives, notably 2a, 2b, 3, 4 and 5, encompass a
high degree of municipal treatment. The residual carbonaceous material
discharged to the stream should be slower reacting than that contained in
37 38
the primary sewage effluents currently being discharged. '
Aside from the change in the UCBOD reaction rate, it is difficult to
estimate changes in the stream reaction rates for other constituents after
treatment controls are installed. With higher dissolved oxygen levels, much
lower concentrations of toxic materials, and with highly nitrified municipal
effluents providing seed organisms, the instream nitrification rate may be
expected to increase somewhat. However, the reaction rate studies
reviewed earlier indicate rates close to the value of 0.276 day" used in the
verification studies were found in relatively clean stretches of the river.
Hence, that value was used in evaluating waste treatment alternatives.
Some of the cyanide discharged from blast furnace systems after
39
recycle of gas wash water may be in the form of ferro- or ferri-cyanides.
Although less toxic than simple cyanides, ferro-ferri-cyanides can be
photochemically decomposed by ultraviolet light to hydrocyanic acid and
40 41 42
simple soluble cyanides. ' ' One source indicates as much as 75
percent of ferro-cyanide was oxidized in five days upon exposure to sunlight
40
and complete removal occurring in 10 to 12 days. No data for
temperature, pH, or other environmental conditions were presented. The
-------
TABLE VIII- 17
STREAM REACTION RATES AND TEMPERATURE CORRECTION COEFFICIENT
MAHONING RIVER WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Reaction Rate K Temperature Correction
at 20°C (base e) Coefficient (9)
UCBOD
N02-N
NHyN
Total Cyanide
Phenolics ( < 20 yg/1)
Phenolics ( > 20 yg/1)
Reaeration GO
0.12
2.00
0.276
1.35
1.58
3.71
•»
1.047
1.06
1.10
1.05
1.063
1.063
1.024
fl (T-20)
e
Tin°C
* O'Connor-Dobbins Formulation
12.9 u°'5
H1'5
Where u = velocity, ft/sec
H = depth, ft
-------
same reference, indicates the conversion occurs "rapidly" and complex
cyanides should be considered the same as simple cyanides for discharge
t>Q m 42
purposes. Research currently underway ' confirms the photodecom-
position of ferri- and ferrocyanides and documents that chronic low level
exposure to cyanide interferes with fish spawning. There are currently only
limited data available concerning the relative amounts of ferri- ferro-
cyanides in recycled blast furnace discharges, and these data are highly
39
variable. Hence, there is considerable uncertainty concerning the type of
cyanide that will be discharged and the rate of instream decomposition.
Since the Mahoning River is a highly turbid stream, instream decomposition
of ferrocyanides may be slower than measured by USEPA for existing total
cyanide discharges. Because of the lack of sufficient information to
estimate the instream cyanide reaction rate and temperature correction
coefficient which might occur after treatment controls are installed, the
rate and correction coefficient determined from USEPA field studies were
employed for evaluating waste treatment alternatives. Based upon limited
information presented above, the rate may be somewhat high, possibly
producing overly optimistic results. Since reaction rates for total cyanide
and phenolics were determined when stream dissolved oxygen levels were
fairly high for the Mahoning River (four to nine mg/1), increases in these
rates due to increased dissolved oxygen levels after treatment controls are
installed are not anticipated.
Owing to the relatively minor effects of sediment oxygen demand
(SOD) on the dissolved oxygen balance in the stream, SOD was not included
in the evaluation of waste treatment alternatives. This has the effect of
slightly overestimating dissolved oxygen concentrations (generally from , 0.1
to 0.3 mg/1) throughout the study area. However, the slight difference
obtained in the dissolved oxygen response was not worth the effort to obtain
temperature adjusted sediment oxygen demand rates for each of the 38
stream segments modeled at the numerous stream temperature conditions
evaluated. In any event, SOD will probably remain the same until point
source controls are installed, exhibit some increase for a period of time as
in-place toxicants are gradually degraded, then revert to a level reflecting
residual waste loadings, normal background, and non-point source effects.
While this process could take several years to occur after the existing gross
discharges are abated, the effect on ambient dissolved oxygen concentra-
-------
tions should not be severe.
e. Tributary and Upstream Initial Conditions
In addition to temperature which was reviewed earlier, initial stream
concentrations of dissolved oxygen, CBOD, ammonia-N, nitrite-N, total
cyanide, and phenolics for the most upstream segment of the study area
(Mahoning River at Leavittsburg) and for the two tributaries included
(Mosquito Creek and Meander Creek) must be specified. Based upon USEPA
survey results and historical data, the data presented in Table VIII-18 were
selected as initial conditions at Leavittsburg and for Mosquito and Mill
Creeks.
f. Non-Point Source Considerations
As the Mahoning Valley is a highly urbanized and industrialized area,
non-point source pollution is expected to consist of combined sewer
overflows containing raw sewage (high in suspended matter, CBOD,
ammonia-N, fecal coliform); urban runoff (high in suspended matter,
containing some oil, heavy metals, and organic matter); and industrial runoff
(high in suspended matter, containing some oil and organic matter, and
possibly ammonia-N, cyanide, phenolics and sulfides from coke plant and
blast furnace areas). Runoff high in nutrients associated with agricultural
runoff is not expected for the lower Mahoning River.
A review of available data for the Mahoning River reveals that no
intensive surveys were conducted specifically to gather non-point source
loadings and evaluate effects on stream quality. The only continuous
historical record of water quality below the Youngstown area is maintained
by the USGS at Lowellville, and then only for flow, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, pH, and specific conductance. Of these, only dissolved oxygen and
possibly specific conductance would be significantly affected by non-point
source pollution. Since adverse non-point source effects on water quality
constituents for which there are criteria (i.e., dissolved oxygen, ammonia-N,
total cyanide, phenolics, fecal coliform), are most likely to occur at the
outset of major precipitation events, an analysis of changes in water quality
at Lowellville for 39 major precipitation events from 1966 to 1974 was
-------
TABLE V 111 - 18
INITIAL UPSTREAM CONDITIONS AND TRIBUTARY CONCENTRATIONS
MAHONING RIVER
WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Concentration, mg/1
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Dissolved
Oxygen
13.0
13.0
11.7
10.3
9.0
8.2
7.8
7.8
8.4
9.3
11.2
13.0
CBOD
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
Ammonia-N
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
'0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Nitrite-N
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Total
Cyanide
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.010
Phenolics
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.010
-------
made. Unfortunately, only changes in dissolved oxygen could be evaluated
as there are no continuous data for ammonia-N, total cyanide, phenolics, or
fecal coliform.
A major precipitation event was defined in terms of streamflow as a
day-to-day increase in the flow at Lowellville of at least 25 percent. It is
highly doubtful that normal operation o! the reservoir system would result in
day-to-day increases in flow of 25 percent at Lowellville. Hence, changes of
such magnitude would most likely be the result of precipitation or a quick
thaw which would have roughly the same effect. Since the USGS records
both daily minimum and daily maximum dissolved oxygen concentrations, the
changes in both were considered. A summary of the results is presented in
Table VIII-19. These data show that daily minimum concentrations
decreased after about 67 percent of the events with an average decrease of
0.70 mg/1, while daily maximum concentrations decreased after about 28
percent of the events with an average decrease of 0.35 mg/1. Daily
minimum and maximum concentrations actually increased during 25 percent
and 69 percent of the events, respectively. The average day-to-day change
for all events was -0.33 mg/1 for daily minimum concentrations and +0.42
mg/1 for daily maximum concentrations. Assuming a similar response after
point source controls are installed, violations of dissolved oxygen standards
at the State line would occur only in extreme cases as a result of storm-
inducted, non-point source pollution. Effects in the Ohio reach of the river
would most likely be more severe. Hopefully, conditions in the future would
improve with construction of planned major interceptor sewers in the
heavily populated urban areas, and with supplementary storm-water manage-
ment and land-use practices to be considered as part of the 208 program.
Based upon the data presented in Table VIII-19, a reserve allocation or
safety factor for oxygen demanding substances from combined sewer
discharges, urban runoff, and industrial runoff was not made in this analysis.
Unfortunately, data are not available to determine the effects of other
critical constituents at the State line. Since adverse effects of these
constituents will generally be at least partially mitigated by higher flows,
reserve allocations for these constituents in terms of more stringent point
source controls were also not made.
v/
-------
TABLE V 111 - 19
CHANGES IN DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS WITH
MAJOR PRECIPITATION EVENTS
MAHONING RIVER AT LOWELLVILLE, OHIO
1966-1974
Events with Decreasing Concentrations
Events with No Change in Concentration
Events with Increasing Concentration
Dissolved Oxygen
Daily Minimum Daily Maximum
Concentration Concentration
26/39
3/39
10/39
67%
8%
25%
11/39
1/39
27/39
2S%
3%
69%
Maximum Increase
Average Increase
Average Change
Average Decrease
Maximum Decrease
Number of
Events
1
10
39
26
1
Change in
Daily Minimum
Concentration
+1.60 mg/1
+0.54 mg/1
-0.33 mg/1
-0.70 mg/1
-3.00 mg/1
Number of
Events
1
27
39
11
1
Change in
Daily Maximum
Concentration
+2.40 mg/1
+0.76 mg/1
+0.42 mg/1
-0.35 mg/1
-1.10 mg/1
TYPICAL DISSOLVED OXYGEN RESPONSE
v
DO
•o
V
"3
I
Daily Maximum
Daily Minimum
0 1
Time,. Days
Source: U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Ohio, Part 2. Water Quality Records.
-------
2. Water Quality Response
The discussion of the water quality response to the treatment
alternatives studied herein includes projected water quality at the Ohio-
Pennsylvania State line, a sensitivity analysis of the response to changes in
model inputs, and resultant water quality in the Ohio portion of the stream.
a. Response at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Figures VIII-2 to VIII-4 present expected water quality at the State line
for each alternative at the February stream flows presented in
Table VIII-14; Figures VIII-5 to VIII-7 present the respective results for the
month of July. Figure VIII-8 presents the stream temperature response at
the State line to Case 3 thermal discharges at monthly flows equaled or
exceeded 90 percent of the time and with monthly average and extreme
meteorological conditions (Table VIII-16). Figures VIII-9 to VIII-12 present
the respective Case 2b and Case 3 dissolved oxygen, ammonia-N, total
cyanide, and phenolics results at the monthly average temperature condition
illustrated in Figure VIII-8.
1) February Conditions
As noted in Table VI-1, the current Pennsylvania temperature standard
for February is 50°F maximum; an upward revision to 56°F is being
considered. Data presented in Figure VIII-2 demonstrate that the 50°F
standard would be exceeded at streamflows up to 660 cfs during February
with the average thermal discharges associated with Cases 1 and 2a. Flows
less than 660 cfs occur about 51 percent of the time during February. The
proposed standard of 56°F would be exceeded at flows up to 400 cfs, or
those occurring about 32 percent of the time in February. Reduced thermal
discharges associated with Cases 2b, 3, and 4 would permit compliance with
the 50°F standard at streamflows greater than 400 cfs (exceeded 68 percent
of the time) and with the 56°F proposed standard at flows greater than 200
cfs (exceeded 92 percent of the time). The temperature response of. Case 5
is slightly different but indicates compliance with the 50°F standard at
flows greater than 420 cfs (54 percent of the time) and with the 56°F
-------
69
60
55
ce
CL
S
49
40
FIGURE EHI -2
WATER QUALITY AT THE OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE
TEMPERATURE AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN v» FLOW
FEBRUARY CONDITIONS
MAHONING RIVER
IOO
300
900
9OO
1100
I20O
I5OO
13.0
12.9
12.0
11.9
11.0
o>
f ,0.9
Z
kl
j? 10.0
X
O
S ••»
9.0
ft. 5
8.0
7.9
7.0
6.9
PENNSYLVANIA WOS
9.O»4/I DAILY AVERAGE
4.O mg/l MINIMUM
IOO
300
9OO TOO 900 1100
STREAMFLOW AT YOUNGSTOWN-ef»
I3OO
1500
*r%
Tt%
-------
standard at the lowest flow studied (175 cfs), which has been exceeded
97 percent of the time.
As indicated earlier, the predicted temperatures are based upon
monthly average meteorological conditions and what are considered to be
monthly average industrial thermal discharges at relatively high production
levels. Extreme meteorological conditions would result in significantly
higher State line temperatures as would maximum, or peak, industrial
thermal discharges. Conversely, low steel production would result in
significantly lower State line temperatures. While the probability of each
steel plant operating at either high or low production at the same time is
relatively high based upon the production history in the Valley, the
probability of each discharge at each plant simultaneously achieving a
maximum thermal discharge is remote. The temperature response of Cases
2b, 3, and 4 and that of Case 5 indicates that compliance with proposed
revisions to Pennsylvania temperature standards could be achieved by
complete cooling at Ohio Edison (Cases 2b, 3, 4) or by no cooling at Ohio
Edison and significant cooling at each steel plant (Case 5).
With the relatively low stream temperatures expected during
February, compliance with the Pennsylvania 5.0 mg/1 dissolved oxygen
standard is anticipated with any treatment alternative as illustrated in
Figure VIII-2.
Depending upon the pH of the stream, compliance with the rec-
ommended aquatic life criterion (0.02 mg/1 of unionized ammonia-N) would
not be achieved with Case 1 discharges at low flow-high temperature
conditions. The permissible ammonia-N level would be about 1.8 mg/1 at pH
7.5 and the expected temperature of 62°F and flow of 225 cfs. At pH 7.0,
the permissible level would be about 5.0 mg/1, but at pH 8.0, only about
0.6 mg/1. Predicted values at the State line are in the 4.0 to 4.5 mg/1 range
at low flows for Case 1 discharges. Expected ammonia-N values at the
State line for Cases 2b, 3, and 4 are slightly above the permissible level at
pH 7.5, temperature 56°F and flow 225 cfs, (2.7 mg/1 vs 2.3 mg/1); while well
below the permissible level at pH 7.0 (2.7 mg/1 vs 7.0 mg/1); and significantly
above the permissible level at pH 8.0 (2.3 mg/1 vs 0.7 mg/1). Case 2a
ammonia-N levels are about 0.5 mg/1 lower than levels for Cases 2b, 3, and k
at low flows owing to faster reaction at higher stream temperatures. Case 5
-------
4.5
4.0
3.5
i25
s
<
2.0
1.5
1.0
O.5
FIGURE Em-3
WATER QUALITY AT THE OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE",
AMMONIA-N AND PHONOLICS vs FLOW
FEBRUARY CONDITIONS
MAHONING RIVER
o
o
M
20
15
a.
i
to
o
z
ui
X
Q.
PROPOSED PENNSYLVANIA WOS 10 yj/l MAXIMUM
EXIST I N6 PEN NSY UVANIA WQS
MAXIMUM
100 £ S 300 500 700 900 MOO
STREAMFLOW AT YOUNGSTOWN-cfs
PERCENT Of TIME FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED '
16% 79% ««% 60% 80% 43%
1300
34%
rsoo
26%
-------
values are the lowest of all. Based upon Figure VIII-3, it is apparent that
only marginal compliance with the recommended aquatic life criterion for
ammonia-N would be achieved under a wide range of flow conditions for
Cases 2a, 2b, 3, and 4. Expected concentrations for Case 1 would be out of
compliance for most flows studied whenever pH values approached or
exceeded 7.5 standard units. -1
With a background phenolics concentration of 10 ug/1 for the Mahoning
River at Leavittsburg and major tributaries, Cases 3, 4, and 5 are projected
to achieve compliance with the proposed Pennsylvania standard of 10 ug/1 at
all flows studied (Figure VIII-3); Cases 1, 2a, and 2b are projected to result
in non-compliance at all flows with levels at most flows for within 5 ug/1 of
the 10 ug/1 proposed standard. Only Case 4 is projected to achieve the
existing 5 ug/1 standard over a wide range of flows under winter conditions.
The response for each case is nearly flat over the range of flows studied,
with flows of 300 - 480 cfs presenting maximum values due to the flow-
temperature-time of travel relationships for the system from Youngstown to
the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line.
The total cyanide response presented in Figure VIII-4 illustrates that
Cases 3 and 4 are projected to achieve marginal compliance with the
maximum total cyanide standard of 25 ug/1 while projected values for Cases
2a and 2b are significantly above the standard for all flows studied under
winter conditions. Case 1 values are extremely high owing to the BPCTCA
coke plant discharges at the Republic Steel-Youngstown Plant, and the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works. The effect of achieving the
proposed Pennsylvania temperature standard of 56 F is shown by differences
in the responses for Cases 2a and 2b over the lower flow range studied.
Although Case 5 (BATEA) was not modeled for total cyanide, low stream
concentrations are expected.
In summary, under February conditions, Cases 2b, 3, *f, and 5 are
projected to achieve compliance with proposed Pennsylvania temperature
standards; all cases would be in compliance with dissolved oxygen standards;
only marginal compliance with recommended ammonia-N criteria is expec-
ted with Cases 2a, 2b, 3, 4, and 5; Cases 3, 4, and 5 would result in
compliance with the proposed phenolics standard; and, only Cases 3 and 4
-------
FIGURE SHI-4 •
WATER QUALITY AT THE OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE
TOTAL CYANIDE vs FLOW
FEBRUARY CONDITIONS
MAHONING RIVER
160
140
120
100
I
LJ
Q
< 60
>
O
_l
<
£
60
40
20
PENNSYLVANIA WOS 25v9/l MAXIMUM
O
O
O
O
_l
IOO
300
»T% «6% 79% 88% 60%
500 700 900 1100
STREAMFLOW AT YOUNGSTOWN-cfs
PER'ENT OF TIME FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED
1300
1500
90%
34%
-------
(and 5) are projected to achieve the Pennsylvania total cyanide standard. It
is important to note that Pennsylvania standards for temperature, total
cyanide, and phenolics are values not to be exceeded. A minimum dissolved
oxygen standard is also included. The discharge loadings used for evaluating
compliance with Pennsylvania WQS are 30 day average NPDES discharge
limitations. Hence, the variability of the discharges, notably of those close
to the State Line, can have a significant impact on achievement of water
quality standards.
2) July Conditions
As illustrated in Figure VIII-5, the projected monthly average July
temperature at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line for Cases 1 and 2a is
expected to exceed the 90 F maximum Pennsylvania WQS at flows less than
500 cfs which occur more than 40 percent of the time. The projected
monthly average temperatures for Cases 2b, 3, 4, and 5 are about 3°F below
the 90°F maximum standard at flows in the 400 to 480 cfs range and well
below the standard at flows in excess of 700 cfs. Flows in excess of 700 cfs
only occur about 20% of the time in July.
The July dissolved oxygen response for Case 1 includes state line
concentrations in the 5.0 to 5.5 mg/1 range at flows from 400 to 500 cfs and
greater than 6.0 mg/1 at flows exceeding 700 cfs. Expected state line
concentrations for the other alternatives are generally in the 6.0 to 7.0 mg/1
range at the lower flows studied and slightly greater than 7.0 mg/1 in the
higher flow range. It is important to note that the state line is just
downstream of the Lowellville Dam and reaeration over the dam signif-
icantly impacts state line dissolved oxygen levels.
With higher stream temperatures resulting in faster reaction of
ammonia-N, total cyanide, and phenolics, state line concentrations of these
constituents illustrated in Figures VIII-6 and 7 for all cases are significantly
lower than those expected for February conditions. Aside from Case 1,
ammonia-N concentrations which range from about 1.5 ug/1 at lower flows
to about 1.1 ug/1 at higher flows, expected July ammonia-N levels are in the
range of the recommended 0.02 ug/1 unionized ammonia-N criterion at pH
7.5. Of particular interest is the flat response to changes in streamflow.
The phenolics responses of all cases are below the proposed Pennsyl-
vania standard of 10 ug/1 and in the immediate range of the existing 5 ug/1
-------
FIGURE mt-5
WATER QUALITY AT THE OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE
TEMPERATURE AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN vs FLOW
JULY CONDITIONS
MAHONING RIVER
93 r-
U.
90
87
K
tf
S
itl
64
81
76
100
300
500
700
900
1100
1300
I50O
8.0 r
o>
UJ
O
X
O
O
IU
>
o
7.0
3.0
100
PENNSYLVANIA WOS
S.Omg/l DAILY AVERAGE
4-Omg/l MINIMUM
300
500 70O 900 1100
STREAMFLOW AT YOUNGSTOWN -cf s
1300
*T% t4% «i%
PERCENT OF TIME FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED
22%
10%
1500
4.0%
-------
1.6
• 1.4
1.2
£ ,.0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
100
10
o>
• S
VI
o
UJ
D.
IOO
FIGURE -PTTT-ft
WATER QUALITY AT THE OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE
AMMONIA-N AND PHONOLICS vs FLOW
JULY CONDITIONS
MAHONING RIVER
§ S
I
300 500 700 900
PROPOSED PENNSYLVANIA WOS I0y«/l MAXIMUM
1100
1300
I
ISOO
CASE 3
CASE S
I CASE 4
300 50O 7OO 900 1100
STREAMFLOW AT YOUNGSTOWN-cfs
PERCENT OF TIME FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED
•T% t4% 61% 22% 10%
1300
1
1500
4.0%
-------
FIGURE -gm-7
WATER QUALITY AT THE OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE
TOTAL CYANIDE vs FLOW
JULY CONDITIONS
MAHONING RIVER
8O
7O
60
50
N!
o>
a.
o
< 40
O
30
20
10
PENNSYLVANIA WQS 29 yj/l M AX INUM
£iir2<1
CASE 4
O
O
O
O
I
I
I
J
100
300
500 700 900 MOO
STREAMFLOW AT YOUNGSTOWN-cfs
PERCENT OF TIME FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED
61% 22% 10%
1300
1500
8.8%
-------
standard. Only the Case 1 total cyanide response illustrated in Figure VIII-7
is significantly above the maximum Pennsylvania WQS of 25 ug/1. Responses
for the other cases are in the immediate range or below the standard for all
flows studied. Again, both the expected phenolics and total cyanide levels
at the state line are relatively constant with increases in flow. It is
noteworthy that the Pennsylvania WQS are maximum values not to be
exceeded while the projected state line concentrations represent levels less
than expected maximum values.
3) Monthly Conditions
From the results obtained over a wide range of flows under February
and July conditions it is apparent that Case 1 is unacceptable because of
high winter and summer stream temperatures, ammonia-N, and total
cyanide; high winter phenolics; and, marginal summer dissolved oxygen.
Case 2a is not projected to comply with winter or summer temperature
standards and the total cyanide and phenolics standards under winter
conditions. The total cyanide and phenolics responses for Case 2b under
February conditions are also above the respective standards. Cases 3, 4, and
5 are projected to comply with all standards under both summer and winter
conditions.
Since compliance with Pennsylvania temperature standards is neces-
sary, and the likelihood of extensive joint municipal-industrial treatment
and/or installation of BATEA on a large scale is small, Cases 2b and 3 were
selected for further analysis at flows exceeded 90% of the time for each
month. As noted earlier, Case 2b reflects implementation of the May 1976
proposed NPDES permits and offstream cooling at the Ohio Edison-Niles
Plant. Case 3 discharges of heat and most constituents are identical to
those included in Case 2b. However, total cyanide and phenolics discharges
are reduced for certain steel plants.
Figure VIII-8 illustrates monthly average and extreme equilibrium
water temperatures computed by methods described earlier with meteoro-
logical data obtained at the Youngstown Airport. These values represent the
expected water temperatures that would occur with no artificial inputs of
heat. Data obtained at the USGS water quality monitor at Leavittsburg are
in the immediate range of these values. Also shown in Figure VIII-8 are
monthly maximum existing and proposed Pennsylvania water quality stand-
V I t / - 5V
-------
FIGURE STB-8
WATER QUALITY AT THE OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE
WATER TEMPERATURE v* MONTH
MAHONING RIVER
100
I
uj
IT
U
f-
•3
cr
uj
a.
5
ce
u
^-
BO
TO
60
50
40
30
FLOW CONDITION'
FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED
90% OF THE TIME
THERMAL DISCHARGE. TABLE SOTC- IS, CASE 3
METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS' TABLE'BUZ-IS
COMPUTED TEMPERATURES
WITH EXTREME METEOROLOGICAL
CONDITIONS
COMPUTED TEMPERATURES
WITH AVERAGE METEOROLOGICAL
CONDITION
. JAN
, I
FES MARCH
Doily Av«fogt
(1966-1974)
1 1
APRIL
>ion to P«nn«»lvoi»io WOS
-------
Figure VIII-8 are monthly maximum existing and proposed Pennsylvania
water quality standards for temperature. Projected state line temperatures
computed with Case 3 monthly average thermal discharges, at monthly flows
equaled or exceeded 90% of the time, and, with average and extreme
equilibrium temperatures, are compared with the WQS. As shown, the
computed temperatures with average meteorological conditions are gen-
erally below the proposed revisions to existing Pennsylvania WQS by one to
three degrees Fahrenheit, the exception being February where the projected
temperature is the same as the proposed maximum standard of 56°F. The
range about the projected values for each month represents the actual daily
average temperature range recorded for each month at Lowellville from
1966 to 1974. Owing to the averaging of large amounts of data, these
ranges, generally within 2.5 F, do not adequately reflect extreme daily
fluctuations of more than 10 F which have occasionally occurred.
Projected temperatures with extreme meteorological conditions are
generally above the proposed revisions to the WQS, the exceptions being
March, 3une, and September, where the projected value is less than 1 to 2°F
below the respective standards. Projected increases over the proposed and
existing standards range from 6 to 9°F during the winter months to 1 to 2°F
during 3uly and August. Daily fluctuations in temperature will tend to
exacerbate the problem.
These data serve to illustrate that only marginal compliance with
proposed revisions to Pennsylvania WQS for temperature can be expected
throughout the year during low flow, high production periods. Since the flow
rates employed in this analysis are close to the minimum regulated schedule
maintained by the Corps of Engineers, attainment of the state line
temperature standards will probably be more closely related to the
production level in the valley than to streamflow which frequently occurs.
The dissolved oxygen response for Cases 2b and 3 at the above
temperatures (average meteorological conditions) and flows is presented in
Figure VIII-9. Full compliance with the Pennsylvania WQS is projected
throughout the year with concentrations in the 6.0 ug/1 range expected
during the summer months. Considering the data presented in Table VIII-19,
concentrations approaching the minimum Pennsylvania dissolved oxygen
standard of 4.0 ug/1 resulting from non-point source and combined sewer
overflow effects are not expected. However, as noted earlier, non-point
-------
FIGURE mi-9
WATER QUALITY AT THE OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE
DISSOLVED OXYGEN vs MONTHS
MAHONING RIVER
10
E
i
2
UJ
o
>-
X
o
o
LU
O
GO
CO
o
FLOW CONDITION' MONTHLY FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED BO% OF THE TIME
TEMPERATURE' FIGURE TOO. - 8 . AVERAGE METEOR OL09 ICAL CONDITIONS
PENNSYLVANIA W08-DAILY AVERAGE OF 0.0 mj/l
MINIMUM OF 4.0 mg/l
JA'J
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
-------
effects in the Ohio portion of the stream could be more severe.
The ammonia-N responses of Cases 2b and 3 illustrated in Figure VIII-
10 are identical, as the same point source discharges are included in each
case. The projected quality at the state line at the flow and temperature
conditions reviewed for dissolved oxygen is compared with the recommended
aquatic life criterion of 0.02 ug/1 unionized ammonia-N at pH values of 7.0,
7.5, and 8.0 standard units. The Mahoning River is generally in the pH 7.0 to
7.5 range. However, values in the 7.5 to 8.0 range are not uncommon, and
values above 8.0 are recorded. As shown in Figure VIII-10, the responses of
Cases 2b and 3 are close to the recommended criteria associated with pH
7.5, well below those associated with pH 7.0 and significantly above those
associated with pH 8.0. Considering the existing pH range found in the river
and the species of fish desired for the Pennsylvania section of the stream,
compliance with ammonia-N toxicity criteria appears adequate for the Case
2b and 3 discharge loadings.
The total cyanide and phenolics responses for Cases 2b and 3 at the
Ohio-Pennsylvania state line are illustrated in Figures VIII-11 and 12,
respectively. Case 2b discharges are projected to exceed the maximum
Pennsylvania total cyanide standard by wide margins in the winter, spring,
and fall months and only marginally during the summer months. Case 3
discharges are expected to achieve the total cyanide standards on a monthly
average basis throughout the year. Large variations in waste discharges
above the monthly average discharge loadings specified herein, notably at
those plants located closest to the Ohio-Pennsylvania state line, will result
in state line concentrations well above those illustrated in Figure VIII-11.
The phenolics responses are similar in form to the total cyanide
responses. However, the Case 2b phenolics discharge loadings result in
attainment of the existing and proposed revisions to the Pennsylvania WQS
of 5 and 10 ug/1, respectively, more of the time. The widest variations from
the 10 ug/1 revised criterion are projected for the winter months when
values 5 to 8 ug/1 above the limit are shown. The Case 3 discharges are
projected to comply with the proposed 10 ug/1 standard throughout the year.
However, as noted above for total cyanide, large fluctuations in waste
discharges near the state line can result in significant violations of the WQS.
,',2-
-------
8.0
7.0
6.0
_ 3.0
v.
6
z
I
z
O
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
FIGURE 3OH-IO
WATER QUALITY AT THE OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE
AMMONIA-N vs MONTHS
MAHONING RIVER
O.O2 mt/l UNIONIZED '
AMMONIA-N AT pH 7.0
\
A
FLOW CONDITION. MONTHLY FLOW .
EQUALED OR EXCEEDED »0% \
OF THE TIME O
\
TEMPERATURE- FIGURE HnT-«,
AVERASE METEOROLOOICAL CONDITIONS
0.02 mg/l UNIONIZED
AMMONIA-N AT pH ».O
O
JAN
FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
OCT Nbv DEC
-------
70
6O
50
o
z
>-
< 30
O
20
10
FIGURE
WATER QUALITY AT THE OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE
TOTAL CYANIDE vs MONTHS
MAHONING RIVER
FLOW CONDITION! MONTHLY FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED »O% OF THE TIME
TEMPERATURE- FIOURE TCHX-t, . AVERAGE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUO
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
-------
25
20
FIGURE 3mr-l2
WATER QUALITY AT THE OHIO-PENNSYLVANIA STATE LINE
PHONOLICS V8 MONTHS
MAHONING RIVER
FLOW CONDITION. MONTHLY FLOW EQUALED OR EXCEEDED 90% OF THE TIME
TEMPERATURE' FIGURE TCDt- », AVERAGE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
15
I
OT
o
_l
o
z
UJ
a.
10
PROPOSED PENNSYLVANIA WOS
MAXIMUM OF I0>ig/l
EXISTING PENNSYLVANIA WOS
MAXIMUM OF
CASE 3
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AU6 SEPT OCT NOV DEC
-------
b. Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivities of water quality responses to several mathematical model
inputs were determined to evaluate effects of naturally occuring changes in
flow and temperature, and to evaluate possible errors in certain specified
inputs including reaction rates, stream velocity, travel time, temperature,
reaeration rate, stream depth, and sediment oxygen demand. The discharge
loadings associated with Case 2b were selected as the base case. The
February design flow of 225 cfs at Youngstown was used as the base flow as
the worst water quality generally occurs at lower design flows, the
exception being dissolved oxygen which achieves minimum concentrations
during the warm summer months. A flow of 400 cfs at Youngstown was used
for evaluating the sensitivity of dissolved oxygen to certain related inputs
under 3uly conditions. The sensitivity results are illustrated in Figures VIII-
13 to VHI-36 and summarized in tabular form in Table VIII-20.
1) Sensitivity of Temperature
Computed stream temperatures are affected by meteorological and
hydrologic variables. The sensitivity of temperatures to meteorological
inputs is discussed below, while the sensitivity of temperatures to velocity
and flow is presented later. Air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity
and cloud cover are used to calculate the equilibrium temperature (E) and
the heat exchange rate (K) for the temperature model employed in this
analysis. The sensitivity of computed temperatures to E and K was
evaluated rather than determining the response of the model to each
meteorological variable used to compute E and K.
The value of E was increased and decreased 5 F resulting in a 10°F
range, three times larger than the range of E computed for the February
verification study using wind speeds which differed by more than a factor of
two. Computed temperatures with the changes in E are displayed in Figure
VIII-13 and the response at three locations in the stream are presented in
Table VIII-20. The results indicate that stream temperatures are relatively
sensitive to changes in E. With E increased 5°F, computed temperatures
exceeded temperatures for the base case by 2.9 F at Youngstown, by 3.1 F
at the state line, and by 3.7°F at New Castle. Similar decreases in
computed temperatures resulted when E was decreased by 5°F. Computed
Vltl-M
-------
temperatures at the state line under winter low flow conditions changed by
about 0.6°F for each degree of change in the equilibrium temperature. At
higher design flows encountered during the summer, the sensitivity of
computed temperatures to E remains about the same since the heat
exchange rate is generally higher in the summer and offsets the effects of
reduced travel time caused by higher flows.
*V' '
Values of K were increased and decreased 25 percent (- 20 BTU/Ft -
Day-°F). This range of K is twice as large as the difference in K values
computed using average and extreme meteorological conditions for the
month of February (Table VIII-16). Figure VIII-1* illustrates the sensitivity
of computed temperatures to this range of K and the results at three stream
locations are presented in Table VIII-20. With the higher heat exchange
rate, computed temperatures were below the values for the base case by
2.1°F at the state line and 2.7°F at New Castle. With K decreased,
computed temperatures exceeded the base case values by 2.5 F at the state
line and 3.4°F at New Castle. Calculated stream temperatures are about
one-half as sensitive to changes in K during summer low flow conditions
since travel times are about fifty percent lower.
2) Sensitivity to Temperature
The sensitivity of computed concentrations to temperature was
determined by running RIBAM with calculated temperatures for the base
condition increased and decreased 5 F. A 5 F shift in temperature is twice
as large as the maximum difference between measured and computed values
in the verification of the Edinger and Geyer temperature model. The
resulting 10 F range in temperature includes most temperatures seen during
the winter months, as well as most variations caused by extreme weather
conditions. Since the initial temperature at Leavittsburg was set at 33 F,
the temperature from Leavittsburg to the Republic Steel-Warren Plant could
only be lowered to 32°F, and, by the full 5°F below Republic Steel.
Computed concentrations of ammonia-N, dissolved oxygen, total cyanide and
phenolics with adjusted temperatures are illustrated in Figures VIII-15
through VIII-18, respectively.
The results for ammonia-N, Figure VHI-15 and Table VIII-20, indicate
that stream concentrations are relatively insensitive to changes in tempera-
ture throughout Ohio and at the Ohio-Pennsylvania state line. The
-------
difference in ammonia-N concentrations for the 10 F temperature range
never exceeded 0.3 mg/1 or about 10 percent of the instream concentration.
The maximum range in computed values was only 0.36 mg/1 at New Castle.
At higher summer design flows, the range of expected ammonia-N
concentrations for a 10°F range in temperature would be about 10% less
since the reduction in travel time mofe than offsets the higher reaction j
rates resulting from higher temperatures.
Computed dissolved oxygen concentrations were fairly sensitive to
changes in temperature (Figure VIII-16 and Table VIII-20). At the Ohio-
Pennsylvania state line, a 5°F shift in temperature caused a 0.7 mg/1 (8
percent) change in DO from base level concentrations. Unlike ammonia-N,
the range of DO concentrations remains fairly constant throughout the river
since it primarily results from a 0.7 mg/1 shift in the DO saturation
concentrations. At the water temperatures encountered during the summer
months, a 5°F change in water temperature causes changes in the DO
saturation concentrations of only - 0.^ mg/1.
Total cyanide and phenolics were relatively insensitive to changes in
temperature during winter low flow conditions (Figures VIII-17, VIII-18 and
Table VIII-20). As with ammonia-N, the range of total cyanide and phenolics
concentrations corresponding to the 10°F range in temperatures started
small and gradually increased with travel downstream. At the Ohio-
Pennsylvania state line, computed total cyanide concentrations with the
adjusted temperatures were within - 7 yg/1 (about 10 percent) of the
computed values for the base case. For phenolics, the computed
concentrations at the state line were within - 2.5 yg/1, or about 15 percent,
of the base case. Both constituents would be about half as sensitive to
temperature during the warmer summer conditions. •
-------
Figure VIII-19 shows the sensitivity of computed temperatures to
changes in velocity. Adjustments in stream velocities caused steadily
increasing temperature ranges in the downstream direction. With increased
velocities, thermal loadings had less time to decay and thus stream
temperatures were higher; conversely, with velocities decreased, stream
temperatures decreased. At the state line, the velocity adjustments caused
less than a 3.0°F change in temperature from the base case or about 10
percent of the thermal loading remaining in the stream at that point (Table
VIII-20).
Concentrations of ammonia-N, dissolved oxygen, total cyanide and
phenolics were relatively insensitive to changes in velocity (Figures VIII-20
to VIII-23). With stream velocities adjusted as above, ammonia-N
concentrations changed about 0.1 mg/1 at the state line (5 percent) and less
than 0.1 mg/1 throughout the Ohio portion of the stream. For dissolved
oxygen, the effects of changes in velocities were offset by resulting changes
in temperature. Throughout Ohio, the DO concentrations showed little
variability for 25 percent changes in velocity, with the largest range in DO
values being 0.5 mg/1 (4 percent) behind the Liberty Street Dam. At the
Ohio-Pennsylvania state line there was a 0.3 mg/1 range in computed DO
concentrations which increased to about - 0.5 mg/1 at New Castle. Both
total cyanide and phenolics showed steadily increasing ranges of computed
values throughout the study area. At the state line the range of computed
concentrations for both constituents is about - 15 percent of the base case
concentration at that point, i.e., - 10 yg/1 for total cyanide and - 3 yg/1 for
phenolics.
4) Sensitivity to Travel Time and Reaction Rates
The sensitivity of computed concentrations to travel time is the same
as the sensitivity to reaction rates. Since stream concentrations are
simulated with first order differential equations, the product of the reaction
rate and the travel time is contained in the exponent of the water quality
equations. Changing the travel time by a fixed percentage has the same
effect as changing the reaction rate by the same percentage. RIBAM was
run with travel times increased and decreased by twenty-five percent. In
-------
this instance, temperatures input to the model were not adjusted to reflect
the change in travel time so that the sensitivity to reaction rates could be
separately evaluated. The results are illustrated in Figures VIII-24 to VIII-
27. The water quality responses at three locations are presented in
Table VIII-20.
As seen in Table VIII-20, ammonia«-N and dissolved oxygen concentra- j
tions were relatively insensitive to - 25 percent adjustments in travel times.
Ammonia-N concentrations changed by only 0.06 mg/1 at Youngstown and
0.14 mg/1 (5 percent) at the state line with adjusted travel times. The range
of computed dissolved oxygen concentrations with the increase and decrease
in travel time was less than 0.4 mg/1 throughout Ohio and was less than 0.3
mg/1 at the Ohio-Pennsylvania line. The range of computed concentrations
remained fairly constant at 0.3 mg/1 downstream to New Castle. Although
travel time adjustments are equivalent to simultaneous changes in all
reaction rates affecting DO, the computed concentrations changed by only a
few tenths of a mg/1.
Total cyanide and phenolic concentrations were found to be more
sensitive to travel time or reaction rates. The twenty-five percent increase
in travel time caused 12 ug/1 (18 percent) decrease in total cyanide and
about a 3 ug/1 (17 percent) decrease in phenolics at the Ohio-Pennsylvania
state line. The twenty-five percent decrease in travel times resulted in
total cyanide and phenolic increases of 15 pg/1 (21 percent) and 4 ug/1 (22
percent), respectively, at the state line. Computed concentrations in Ohio
were less sensitive to travel time. On a percentage basis, total cyanide and
phenolics were more sensitive to travel time and reaction rates than other
constituents.
The reaction rates of total cyanide and phenolics are much faster than >,.
those for other constituents and therefore larger percentages of the effluent
loadings decay in the stream. Concentrations of both constituents would be
about one half as sensitive to twenty-five percent adjustments in travel time
or reaction rates at summer critical flow conditions when shorter travel
times occur.
5) Sensitivity to Flow
Of the parameters supplied to the water quality models, stream flow
-------
exhibits the largest fluctuations and directly affects all other hydrologic
variables in the model. Hence, a more detailed examination was made of
the sensitivity of the models to flow. Numerous runs were made using
different flow regimes for both winter and summer conditions and the
treatment alternatives discussed earlier. February flow regimes ranged
from a low value of 175 cfs at the Yodngstown gage, (exceeded 97 percent
of the time) to a high value of 1,500 cfs at Youngstown (exceeded only 26
percent of the time). The flow regimes and initial conditions applied in the
analysis were reviewed earlier. (Section VIII, D, Table VIII-14). For each
flow, velocities and depths were calculated using previously describe
procedures and the Edinger and Geyer temperature model was used to
compute water temperatures for the different treatment alternatives.
Calculated velocities, depths and temperatures were input to RIBAM to
compute water quality.
Figures VIII-28 to 30 illustrate computed stream profiles for
temperature, ammonia-N, and dissolved oxygen for Case 2b effluent loadings
during winter (February) conditions with Table VIII-20 presenting the results
at three stream locations. Each figure presents computed values for three
flows at the Youngstown gage, 225 cfs, 675 cfs, and 1500 cfs. For
temperature, ammonia-N, and DO, the results indicate that as stream flow
increases the effects of point source discharges decrease and the water
quality improves along the entire length of the river. Computed tempera-
tures showed a substantial decrease as flows were increased from 225 cfs to
675 cfs and again when flows were increased to 1500 cfs. At the Ohio-
Pennsylvania state line, computed temperatures decreased by about 10°F
when flow was increased from 225 cfs to 675 cfs, and temperatures
decreased an additional 5°F as stream flow was increased to 1500 cfs.
Computed ammonia-N concentrations showed similar responses to stream
flow with concentration profiles becoming much flatter, and less decay
occuring in the stream because of reduced temperatures and travel times at
higher flows. At the state line, there was a 1.4 mg/1 (50 percent) decrease
in ammonia-N concentrations when flow was increased from 225 cfs to
675 cfs and an additional 0.6 mg/1 (21 percent) decrease when flow was
increased to 1500 cfs. Dissolved oxygen concentrations, plotted in
Figure VIII-30, also showed a substantial flattening as flow was increased.
\J
-------
At higher flows the sag in computed concentrations was much less and the
sudden changes in DO at point sources (i.e. dams or outfalls) was also
reduced. DO concentrations at the state line increased by 2.5 mg/1 when
stream flow was increased from 225 cfs to 675 cfs and an additional 1.2 mg/1
when flow was increased to 1500 cfs. A substantial portion of the
improvement in DO concentration as flow increases is directly related to the
increase in DO saturation concentrations caused by reductions in tempera-
ture.
The sensitivities of total cyanide and phenolics to flow are illustrated
in Figures VIII-32 and VIII-33, respectively. As with other constituents,
increased flows resulted in flatter computed concentration profiles, but in
these cases, the highest flow does not result in the best water quality at all
points in the stream. Immediately downstream of the large industrial
dischargers, computed concentrattions at 225 cfs are significantly higher
than the values computed at 675 cfs or 1500 cfs. However, computed values
at 225 cfs are less than the concentrations computed at the higher flows in
two river segments. At the Ohio-Pennsylvania state line, less than five
miles downstream of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works, there
is only 14 yg/1 (20 percent) difference in total cyanide concentration
between the 225 cfs and 675 cfs cases and a 18 yg/1 difference between the
675 cfs and 1500 cfs. Similar results were seen for phenolics at the state
line. The computed concentration decreased only 1 yg/1 (6 percent) when
flows increased from 225 cfs to 675 cfs and 3 ug/1 as flows increased from
675 cfs to 1500 cfs. Hence, a sixfold increase in flow resulted in a decrease
in phenolics concentration of less than 4 yg/1 at the state line.
As stream flow increases, stream velocities and depths increase, travel
time and computed temperatures decrease, the effects of point source
loadings are diluted, and, the decay of non-conservative constituents is
reduced. The simultaneous effects of these factors at the Ohio-Pennsyl-
vania state line are presented in Figures VIII-2 to VIII-7. Computed
temperatures and dissolved oxygen concentrations at the state line with
February conditions showed consistent improvement as flows were in-
creased. Temperatures at the state line dropped significantly and steadily
with increases in flow for all treatment alternatives. Of the three thermal
control alternatives evaluated, Case 5 temperatures were slightly less
1)11!-1Z
-------
sensitive to flow than the other alternatives because the major thermal
loadings are located well upstream from the state line. Differences in
dissolved oxygen concentrations between the treatment alternatives gen-
erally decreased with increasing flow from a maximum of 2.3 mg/1 at
175 cfs to 0.7 mg/1 at 1500 cfs.
Computed ammonia-N concentrations at the state line decreased
steadily with increases in flow for all alternatives except Case 5
(Figure VIII-3). Under February conditions, computed concentrations for
Case 5 increased slightly when the flow was increased from 175 cfs to
225 cfs. At flows greater than 225 cfs, concentrations at the state line
declined steadily. At flows above 675 cfs all treatment alternatives showed
a decline in the sensitivity of computed concentrations to flow.
Computed phenolics concentrations at the state line using winter
conditions were found to be relatively insensitive to changes in flow. Also,
the maximum concentration at the state line for each treatment alterna-
tives did not occur at the lowest flow. For Cases 1 and 2a the maximum
concentration was found to occur at a flow of 480 cfs, while for Case 2b the
maximum concentration close to 400 cfs. For Cases 3, 4 and 5, computed
concentrations steadily increased with increasing flow to the maximum at
1500 cfs. These steady increases were the result of the initial concentration
of the river being set at 10 yg/1 (Section VIII D). For each case, however,
computed concentration at the state line fluctuated by less than 5 yg/1 over
the entire range of flows studied.
Computed total cyanide concentrations at the state line are also
relatively insensitive to changes in flow. Over the wide range of flows
computed concentrations for Case 2a changed by less than 20 yg/1 and
concentrations for Cases 3 and 4 changed less than 10 yg/1. As was the case
for phenolic concentrations, maximum concentrations at the state line did
not occur at the lowest stream flows. For alternatives 1 and 2b maximum
concentrations at the state line are achieved at 300 cfs. With alternative 2a
the maximum value was obtained at 400 cfs, and for Cases 3 and 4 the
maximum concentration occurred at 480 cfs.
Under summer conditions water quality response at the state line to
increasing flow was similar to that seen in winter conditions, with the
exception that stream temperatures were higher and concentrations of DO,
ammonia-N, phenolics and total cyanide were lower (Figures VIII-6 and 7).
-------
Also with summer conditions, the sensitivity of ammonia-N, total cyanide
and phenolics to increasing flows was somewhat reduced. Ammonia-N
concentrations at the state line for Cases 2a, 2b, 3, 4 and 5 fluctuated by
less than 0.2 mg/1 (20 percent) for the four-fold increase in flow. Computed
phenolic concentrations for Cases 1 and 2a changed by less than 2 yg/1 while
concentrations for the other cases changed by less than 1 yg/1 over the
entire range of flow. The maximum phenolic concentration at the state line
also occurred at a different flow in the summer time (900 cfs) than under
winter conditions (480 cfs). Computed total cyanide concentrations for
Cases 2a, 2b, 3 and 4 fluctuated by less than 5 ug/1 when flows were
increased from 400 cfs to 1500 cfs. Generally, computed concentrations at
the state line using summer conditions were insensitive to large changes in
stream flow.
6) Dissolved Oxygen Sensitivity
The response of computed DO concentrations to changes in reaeration
rate, depth and sediment oxygen demand was also studied. Summer critical
flow conditions were used in conjunction with the Case 2b treatment
alternative as the base case. The critical summer flow conditions represent
the period of minimum expected DO levels.
Throughout this report, the O'Conner-Dobbsin reaeration formulation
43
has been successfully used to compute stream reaeration . In determining
the sensitivity of DO to reaeration, RIBAM was run with the computed
reaeration rates for each segment increased and decreased by twenty-five
percent. The results indicate that throughout most of the river DO
concentrations are relatively insensitive to the reaeration rate (Figure VIII-
33, Table VIII-20). In the Ohio portion of the river a maximum difference of
only 0.4 mg/1 between concentrations computed with reaeration rates
increased and decreased twenty-five percent was predicted. Throughout
most of Ohio, including at the state line, the range of computed values was
generally less than 0.2 mg/1. From Figure VIII-33 it is evident that the
channel dams maintain fairly consistent DO concentrations in the stream,
such that when the reaeration rates are reduced, and DO values decrease,
additional reaeration occurs at the channel dams. Downstream of the Ohio-
Pennsylvania state line, where there are no dams, the computed DO range
increased to 0.65 mg/1.
-------
In RIBAM, stream depths are used in computing the reaeration rates
and to adjust the BOD reaction rates (Section VII, A). When stream depths
were increased and decreased twenty-five percent, velocities were not
adjusted so that the effects of depth could be evaluated separately from
changes in velocity. Figure VIII-3^ shows the computed DO concentration
profiles with the adjusted depths. The results indicate that computed DO
concentrations are relatively insensitive to change in depth. When stream
depths were increased, DO concentrations decreased. Likewise, when depths
were decreased, computed DO values increased. The maximum difference in
computed DO concentration in Ohio using the different depths was 0.4 mg/1,
while many segments had ranges in DO of less than 0.2 mg/1. Again, the
dams tend to equalize DO concentrations. At the state line there was only a
0.2 mg/1 range in computed DO concentrations, however, the range
increased rapidly below the state line to a maximum of 0.9 mg/1 at New
Castle.
The final parameter evaluated was the sensitivity of DO to sediment
oxygen demand. In the verification of the RIBAM model, measured sediment
oxygen demand rates were applied to the stream areas where the Corps of
Engineers found sediment. The resulting sediment oxygen demand was
adjusted for temperature and input to the RIBAM code (Section VII, B).
However, sediment oxygen demand was not considered in waste load
allocations. To determine the sensitivity of computed DO concentrations to
the sediment oxygen demand, the model was run for both summer and winter
low flow conditions with no SOD load (base case), the SOD loads used in the
verification, and the measured sediment demand rates applied to the total
bottom area of the river. All SOD loads were adjusted for temperature as
was done in the verification analysis. The results presented in Figures VIII-
35 and VIII-36 demonstrate that SOD has very little effect on dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the stream. With the measured sediment oxygen
demand rates applied to 100 percent of the river bottom, computed DO
concentrations in July decreased a maximum of 0.3 mg/1 behind the
Lowellville dam from the base case. In most of the remaining portions of
the river DO decreased less than 0.1 mg/1. Using the SOD loads determined
for the verification runs, dissolved oxygen levels in July never decreased
more than 0.1 mg/1 from the base case. Using Feburary low flow conditions
-------
and assuming the entire river bottom covered with sediment, DO decreased
less than 0.2 mg/1 throughout most of the river and decreased a maximum of
0.4 mg/1 behind the Lowellville dam. With the SOD loads used in the
verification studies, DO decreased less than 0.2 mg/1 (2 percent) throughout
the river in February. Clearly DO levels in the Mahoning are insensitive to
existing SOD loads.
7) Sensitivity Analysis Summary
Aside from the effects of large fluctuations in stream flow upon
stream temperatures and concentrations of dissolved oxygen and ammonia-
N, and of temperature upon dissolved oxygen, water quality model
computations for the lower Mahoning River are not overly sensitive to a
fairly wide range of input values for equilibrium water temperature, heat
transfer coefficient, stream velocity, travel time, reaction rates, reaeration
rate, and sediment oxygen demand. Given the physical characteristics of
the stream in terms of widths, depths, and length, and the stream velocities
and travel times resulting from the regulated flow regime, water quality in
the lower Mahoning River is primarily a function of municipal and industrial
effluent discharges rather than of any particular water quality model input.
The sum of sensitivities of the water quality model to each variable is
not the overall sensitivity of the water quality model. In many cases, as one
input was changed causing computed values to increase, a related variable
changes in a manner to cause computed concentrations to decrease, thus
partially offsetting the effects of each change.
Owing to the different distribution of discharge loadings for each
treatment alternative studied herein, the magnitude (percent) change of the
water quality response at the state line to changes in input variables will not
be exactly the same for each case. However, with the exceptions of Cases 1
and 4, neither of which are likely to be fully implemented, the distribution
of effluent loadings along the length of the stream are somewhat similar to
that of Case 2b. Hence, the sensitivity results of Case 2b can be reasonably
applied to Cases 2a, 3, and 5.
-------
TABLE VIII-20
SUMMARY OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
Constituent and
Tested Parameters
Temperature (°F)
E
K
Velocity
Flow
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Temperature
Velocity
Travel Time (Rate)
Flow
K2 Note 1
Depth Note 1
SOD Note 1
SOD
Ammonia-N (mg/1)
Temperature
Velocity
Travel Time (Rate)
Flow
Total Cyanide (ug/l)
Temperature
Velocity
Travel Time (Rate)
Flow
Phenolics (pg/1)
Temperature
Velocity
Travel Time (Rate)
Flow
\
Adjustment to
Input Parameters
Ij°F
i25%
i25%
675 cfs, 1500 cfs
i5°F
±25%
i25%
675 cfs, 1500 cfs
-25%
i25%
Note 2
Note 2
-+5°F .
-25%
-25%
675 cfs, 1500 cfs
±5°F
-25%
±25%
675 cfs, 1500 cfs
t
15°F
i25%
^25%
675 cfs, 1500 cfs
Water Quality Response at February Design Flow Conditions
(response with parameter increased/response with parameter decreased)
Youngstown, Ohio Ohio-Pa State Line New Castle, Pa
River Mile 23.0 River Mile 11.61 River Mile 1.52
Concentration % of base lev tl Concentration % of base level Concentration % of base level
+2.9/-2.9
-l.OM.l
+0.8/-1.2
-11.2, -15.1
-0.8/+0.8
0.0/0.0
0.0/+.1
+2.0, +2.6
0.0/0.0
0.0/0.0
0.0, 0.0
0.0, -0.1
-0.06/+0.06
+.05/-.04
-.06/+.06
-1.0, -1.3
-3/+3
+4/-4
-3/+5
-37, -50
-1/+1
+1/-1
-2/+2
-8, -9
+16/-16 *
-5/+5 •
+4/-6 •
-60, -81 *
-7/+7
0/0
0/+1
+19, +2*
0/0
0/0
0, 0
0, -1
-3/+3
+3/-2
-3/+3
-56, -72
-4/+4
+6/-6
-4/+7
-51, -69
-5/+5
+S/-5
-10/+10
-40, -45
+3.1/-3.1
-2.2/+2.5
+1.9/-2.7
-10.0, -15.5
-.75/+.7S
-0.1/+0.2
0.0/+0.2
+2.6, 3.7
+0.1/-0.1
-0.1/+0.1
0.0, -0.1
0.0, -0.2
-0.16/+0.12
+.12/-.08
-.12/+.14
-1.*, -2.0
-7/+7
.+9/-11
-12/+15
-15, -32
-2.5/+2.S
+2.S/-3
-3/+4
-1, -4
+14/-14 •
-10/+11 *
+9/-12 •
-46, -71 •
-8/+S
•-1/+2
0/+2
-29, +41
+2/-2
-2/+2 .
0/-2
0, -2
-6/+4
+4/-3
-4/+5
-50, -71
-10/+10
+13/-16
-18/+22
-22, -47
-15/+15
+15/-17
-17/+22
-6, -24
+3.7/-3.7
-2.7/+3.4
+2.5M.3
-4.5, -8.8
-0.8/+0.8
-0.3/+0.5
+.3/+.1
2.1, +3.3
+0.3/-0.4
-0.4/+0.5
0.0/-0.1
0.0, -0.1
,
-0.2/+0.16
+.12/-.10
-.16/+.20
-1.2, -1.8
-7/+7
+9/-10
-11/+15
+5, -4
-2/+2
+2/-2
, ' -3/+4
/ +4, +3
+25/-2S •
-18/+23 •
+17/-22 •
-31, -60*
-9/+9
-3/+5
+2/+1
+23, +35
. +S/-7
-7/+8
0/-2
0, -1
-8/+6
+4/-4
-6/+8
-46, -68
-20/+20
+26/-29
-31/+43
+15, -12
-25/+25
+2S/-25
-38/+50
+50,' +38
1) Sensitivity determined for July design flow conditions (480 cfs at Youngstown). /
2) First valve given is with measured SOD rates applied to the portion of the river bottom where sediments were found by the Corps of Engineers.
Second vahre is with SOD rates applied to 100% of river bottom (see text).
• Percentages are based on the difference between the computed and the equilibrium temperature lor the base case.
-------
45.
40.
55.
50.
45.
40.
35.
30.
CASE 2B. FEB.. 225 cfs AT TOUNGSTOHN
W Ounce
E KCRCiSED 5V
e iwattKio S*F
i
t
i
i
OHIO PA.
I
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HJHON1NC RIVER
16. 12.
45.
FIGURE ViII-13
MAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE
TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER MILE
40.
55.
50.
45.
40.
35.
30.
CASE 2B, FEB.. 225 cfs AT tOUSGSTOHN
K) CHUCC
K DECBEISED 251 '
1C I»CRe»SEO 251
48. 44. 40. 34. 32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MHONING RIVER
16. 12.
FIGURE VIII-H
HAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO HEAT TRANSFER RATE
TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER MILE
4.
-------
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0..5
0.0
CASE 2:. FEB.. 225 cfs AT TOUNGSTOilN
C CHMCC
ran'EMnjRE :-yiE»SEO ai t'f
nnPCMTUKE ICSE*SEO IT S'F
OHIO M.
ll
43. <4. 46. 3«.
32. 28. 24. 20.
HUES «OVE MOUTH OF .lAHO'lINC RIVER
16.
12.
FIGURE VI1I-15
MAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO TEMPERATURE
AHHONiA-NITROSEN VS. RIVER MILE
14.
13.
12.
tl.
10.
8.
7.
CASE 2B. FEB.. 225 cfs AT TOUNGSTOHN
w> CHMCC
TEWEMIURE 0£CRE«SED $•
CIIEJSEO $•
48'
40- 34. 32. 28. 24. 20. H.
MILES ABOVE HQUTH OF MAHOMINC RIVER
• FIGURE VIII-U
HAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO TEMPERATURE
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VS. RIVER MilE
12.
4.
0.
-------
140.
120.
100.
BO.
60.
40.
20.
0.
48.
CASE
2B. FEB.. 225 cfs AT YOUNGSTOHN
•0 CHMCE
TENP£Mru«E 0£C«E«SED f
TEWEMTUW IUCPOSEO f
I I 1 1
44.
40.
36.
32. 28. 24. 20.
NILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHONING RIVER.
It.
FIGURE Vll!-17
MAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO TEMPERATURE
TOTAL CYANIDE vs. RIVER MILE
4.
CASE 2B. FEB.. 225 cfs AT YOUNCSTOHN
CO CHAKOE
K:SE«SED s-
TEHP£R«H|»£ KCSE15EO 5'
S. -
0.
48.
32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
NILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHOXIXG RIVER
FIGURE VIII - IB
HAHON1NG RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO TEMPERATURE
PHENOLICS VS RIVER MILE
-------
tt.
55.
50.
45.
40.
35.
CASE 2B. FEB.. 225 cfs AT YOUNGSTOHN
—. DO CHANGE
VEIOCITT DECREASED 251
— — • VELOCITY INCREASED J5X
30.
48.
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
t.O
O.S
0.0
I
44.
J_
J_
. OHIO PA.
i. L
40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20.
WILES ABOVE NOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
16.
12.
FIGURE V1II-1?
HAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO VELOCITY
TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER MILE
CASE 2B. FEB.. 22S cfs AT TOUNGSTOHN
«0 CHANCE
VELOCIlr DECREASED 251
VELOCITY INCREASED 251
_L
JL_
_L
OHIO PA.
., I, L
48. 44. 40. 3«. 32. 28. 24. 20.
HUES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHONING RIVER
\6.
12.
4.
FIGURE VI11-20
MAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO VELQCITT
. AMMONIA-NITROGEN VS. RIVER MILE
-------
14.
13-
12- S_
VI _ •!
-------
40.
35.
30.
25.
1 20.
15.
10.
5.
0.
CASE 2B. FEB.. 225 cfs AT YOUNGSTOHN
«0 CH4KCE
VElOCITr DECREASED 251
WIOCITY i«C«aS£0 lix
48. 44. 40. 36.
32. 28. 24. 20.
HUES ABOVE MOUTH OF (1AHON1NG RIVER
16.
12.
4.
FIGURE VHI-23
HAHOMING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO VEL0CITY
PHENQLICS VS. RIVER MILE
-------
.3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
CASE 28. FEB.. 225 cfi AT lOUNGSTOUN
no ounce
num. TIRE
nuvn n*
f—*
OHIO F*.
I.
48. 44. 40. 3«. 32. 28. 24. 20.
HUES ABOVE HOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
16. 12.
FIGURE VIH-24
MAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO TRAVEL TIME
AHMONIA-NITROGEN VS. ^IVER MILE
4.
14.
13.
12.
11.
° ,n
• in 10.
9.
CASE 2B. FEB.. 225 cfs AT TOUNGSTQUN
DO CHWCt
TUVEl UK KCDUSCO J5I
Tint !»C*E«SCD 2SI
«. 44. 40. 3*. 32. 28. 24. 20.
NILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
U. 12.
FIGURE VMI-25
MAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVE TO TRAVEL TIME
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VS. RIVER HILC
-------
140.
120. -
100. -
CASE 28. FEB.. 225 d> AT TOUNSSTOHN
-- TMVa Tint DECREASED 251
--- TIAVEt TIM IKCKtSED 251
20.
0.
32. 28. 24. 20.
HUES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
: FIGURE VIII-26
HAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO TRAVEL TIME
TOTAL CYANIDE VS. RIVER MILE
4.
40.
J5.
30.
25.
= 20.
15.
II.
5.
CASE 28. FEB.. 225 cfs AT TOUNGSTOHN
no yjax
TII£ PEC?=IS£0 251
. TIC mcf£
-------
55.
St.
1 45.
35.
CASE 2B. FEBRUARY
FLQU AT TQUNGSTQUM
225 cfl
«7S et<
ISO! cfl
1
OHM ; M.
_L
30.
48.
44.
40.
34. 32. 28. 24. 20. 14.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHONINS RIVER
FIGURE VIII-28
HAMMING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO FLOW
TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER MILE
12.
CASE 2B. FEBRUARY
FLOW AT TOUNGSTOUN
3K CFS
<7S CFS
1500 CFS
48.
32. 28. 24. 20. l«.
HUES ABOVE HOUTH OF MAHQNING RIVER •
FIGURE VIII-29
HAHONIMS RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO FLOW
AMMONIA-NITROGEN VS. RIVER MILE
-------
u.
• 13.
12.
tt.
10.
CASE 29. FEE3UARY
FLOW AT roUNSSTOUK
225 CFS
«7S CFS
1500 0S
48.
125.
44.
40.
36.
32. 28. 24. 20.
HILES ABOVE MOUTH 0? NAHONING RIVER
16.
12.
FIGURE VIII-30
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VS. RIVER MILE
HAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO FLOW'
CASE 28. FEBRUARY
FLOW AT YOUNGSTGUN
Z2S CFS
475 CFS
I SOS CFS
32. 2i.
MILES A&OVE -C
24. 20.
OF MAHONIS8 RIVER
FIGURE VHI-31
HAHONING RIVER - ?EN?ITIVITY TO FLOH
TOTAL CTANID? VS. RIVER MILE
-------
CASE 2B. FEBRUARY
FLOW AT
225 CFS
«75 CfS
1500 CFS
43.
32. 28. 2-1. 20.
MILES ABOVE HOUTH OF KAHDNIIiG RIVER
FIGURE VIII-32
MAHOMIIIG RiVER - SENSITIVITY TO FLOW
PHEtlOLlCS VS. RIVER MILE
-------
8.S
8.0
7.5
7.0
4.5
£.0
5.5
5.0
CASE 28. JULY. 400 efs AT TOUNCSTQHN \'
>0 CHiKCE
BE«R«!IO» 0£CR£»SEO 251
JEAERATIO" IKCSEASEO 251
J L
48. 44. 40. 36.
32. 28. 24. 20. \6.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF KAHONING RIVER
12. 8.
FIGURE VIM-33
MAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO REAERATION
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VS. RIVER KILE
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
4.5
4.0
5.5
5.0
CASE 28. JULY. 400 cfs AT YOUNGSTOUN \\\
«0 CH««CE A \
. KPIH OECR6ASED lit
KHH !«C«£«SED 25t
-I 1 : 1 L
40- 3t. 32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH Of MAHONING RIVER
; FIGURE VIII-34
MAHONING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO DEPTH
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VS. RIVER MILE
1(S.. 12. 8. 4.
-------
l.i
8.J
7.S
7.0
4.5
4.0
5.5
S.O
! I
CASE 2B. JULY. 400 cfs AT TOUNOSTQUN
—— m CHJUCE
H£»SU«EO S.0.0.
1001 S.0.0.
48. 44. 40.
36. 32. 28. 24. 20. 16.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH Of HAHQN'.NG RIVER
12.
FIGURE VIII-35
MAHONIMG RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO SEDIMENT OXIDATION DEMAND
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VS. RIVER MILE
14.0
13.5
13.0
12.5
12.0
11.5
11.0
10.5
10.0
».5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.S
CAS? 28. FEBRUARY. 225 cfs AT TOUNGSTOHN V
n ounce
KlSlfflEO 5.O.D.
- — • III! S.0.0.
OHIO
48. 44. 40. 34.
32. 28. 24. 20. U.
MILES A30VE HOUTH Of MAHONING RIVER
12.
FIGURE VIII-34
HAHQNING RIVER - SENSITIVITY TO SEDIMENT OXIDATION DEMAND
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VS. RIVER MILE
-------
c. Projected Water Quality in Ohio
1) February Conditions
Figures VIII-37 to VIII-41 illustrate profiles of temperature, dissolved
oxygen, ammonia-N, total cyanide, and phenolics, respectively, for the
entire study area at the winter critical flow of 225 cfs for Cases 1, 2b, 3,
and 5. Cases 2a and 4 were not included.
As shown in Figure VIII-37, stream temperatures in the range of 38 to
45°F are expected from the Republic Steel-Warren Plant to the Ohio Edison-
Niles Plant for each case studied. The lower values reflect BATEA
treatment at Republic Steel. Temperatures near 65°F, 30°F above natural
levels, are predicted downstream of Ohio Edison with no cooling at that
facility. The Case 1 and Case 5 responses are separated only by the
reduction in thermal loads for BATEA treatment of hot forming wastes at
steel plants downstream of Ohio Edison. The much lower Case 3
temperatures (about 40°F) reflect cooling at Ohio Edison. Downstream of
the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works, the responses for Cases 3
and 5 are nearly identical. While the differences between Case 3 and Case 5
are small downstream of Struthers, the differences from Ohio Edison to
upper Youngstown (River mile 24) are substantial, with the Case 3 response
providing temperatures low enough for all stream uses. Temperatures above
the proposed Pennsylvania standard of 56 F are only seen for a short reach
of stream in Ohio downstream of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell
Works with the Case 3 thermal discharges.
The dissolved oxygen and ammonia-N responses for Case 2b and Case 3
are identical as only discharge loadings of total cyanide and phenolics were
modified for Case 3. The differences in the Case 3 and Case 5 dissolved
oxygen profiles illustrated in Figure VIII-38 primarily result from the large
differences in stream temperatures reviewed above. Figure VIII-38 also
indicates about half of the differences in the dissolved oxygen responses
between Cases 1 and 3 result from thermal effects and half from the higher
degree of municipal treatment contemplated for Case 3. Although values
above the 5.0 mg/1 Pennsylvania water quality standard are projected for all
cases, deficits of three to seven mg/1 from upstream saturation values are
shown.
Ammonia-N profiles illustrated in Figure VIII-39 demonstrate signifi-
cant differences in the Warren area between Cases 1 and 3 due to
-------
70.
65.
60.
55.
L 50.
45.
40.
30.
FLOU - 225 CFS. AT TOUNGSTO^
C«£ I. BPCTCA-SECOWJARI T8EAIBE«r
CASES 29 AND J. PSQPOSEO PTRrtT?
IIICIUDIIIS TEHt'SHATURE AID Ft. U'K
• CASE 5. BATEA-HITR1FICAIIOH
f^
I v
I
I
1
PROPOSED PA. UQS
*
I
43.
40. 3&. 32. 28. 24. -21).
MILES ABOVE HOUTH OF MAHONIBG RIVER
12.
8.'
4.
. FIGURE VI 11-37
MAHONING RIVER - WINTER CRITICAL FLOW [FEBRUARY]
' . TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER MILE
14.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
7.0
4.0
5.0
FLOW - 225 CFS. AT YOUNGSrOKS
----- CASE i. BPcrcA-s;co»DJ« TREATMENT
- CAK; 29 I»D 3. F»OPOS-:O PESTITS
IHL.UOIICC !t«?Ec>TgRE i«D PA. UQS
--- CASE 5. BATEA-H:'?IFICiriON
P». KS S.t HO/L BAH.1T JVERAC:
4.t nc/L nlHliri.''
_L
J_
48. 44. .40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20.
HILES ABOVE MOUTH OF H6HONING RIVER
U.
12.
4.
FIGURE VIII-38
HAHONIHG RIVER - WINTER CRITICAL FLOW [FEBRUARY]
DISSOLVE-D OXYGEN VS. RIVER MILE
-------
5.0
4.5
4.0
J.S
3.0
' 2.5
2.0
l.S
1.0
0.5
0.0
48.
FLOW - 225 CFS. AT TOUNGSTDHH
'. CASE I, BPCTM-SECCHOAR! TREATHEIir
CASES 29 AND J. PROPOSED PERMITS
IHCLUOII6 tEHPERAruRE AKO PA. uQS
USE i. 8ATEA-«™FICATIO»
44.
40.
36.
32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MAHONING RIVER
16.
FIGURE VIII-39
MAHONING RIVER - WINTER CRITICAL FLOW [FEBRUARY]
AHMQNIA-N VS. RIVER MILE
4.
FLOW - 225 CFS. AT TOUNCSTOHH
CASE 1. 8PCICA - SECONDARY TREATnEsr
—„ CASE 23..PROPOSED PERItlTS IKCLUOIK3- IEKPERAIURE
CASE 3. PA. HIS
4B.
44.
40.
; 32. 28. 24. • 20.
KILES ABOVE rtOUTH OF HAHONING RIVC9
FIGURE VIII - 40
MAHONING RIVER - WINTER CRITICAL FLOW [FEBRUARY]
TOTAL CTANIDE VS. RIVER MILE
4.
0.
-------
40.
35.
30.
25.
20.
15.
1C.
5.
FLOW - 225 CFS AT TOUNGSTOKN
CASE I. B?C:CA - SECQHOART IREAtttUT
I >
. CASE J3 PROPOSED PESNITS IftCLUDIMC TEI1PERAruS£
• CASE ) PA. Wi
CASE i BATEA -
0.
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 2-S. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUT-, OF IUHONING RIVER
12.
0.
FIGURE VIII - 41
MAHONING RIVER - WINTER CRITICAL PLOWS [FEBRUARY]
PHENOLICS VS. RIVER MILE
-------
nitrification at the Warren STP and the absence of coke plant wastes at the
Republic Steel-Warren Plant. The difference just below the Warren STP
amounts to over 1 mg/1 in the stream. Case 5 (BATEA at the Republic Steel
blast furnace) represents another 0.4 mg/1 instream decrease below the
Warren STP. Similar differences at downstream dischargers are shown for
each case. For the pH and temperature conditions expected, the Case 3
profile represents marginal attainment of the recommended ammonia-N
criterion.
Figure VIII-40 illustrates the ^extremely high total cyanide concentra-
tions for Case 1 occurring at Warren, upper Youngstown, and in the stretch
of the stream below Youngstown. Major differences between Case 1 and
Case 2b are the result of coke plant dishcarges at the Republic Steel-Warren
and Youngstown Plants, and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell
Works. Aside from the seven mile reach from the Republic Steel-Warren
Plant to just downstream of Ohio Edison, the Case 3 total cyanide levels
should be acceptable for most aquatic life uses throughout the stream.
The phenolics responses for each case shown in Figure VIII-41 are
similar to the respective total cyanide responses. Again, aside from
relatively short reach below Warren, instream levels associated with Case 3
should be adequate for most aquatic life uses throughout the stream.
Concentrations associated with Cases 1 and 2b generally range from two to
four times the recommended 10 ug/1 criterion downstream of significant
dischargers.
2) July Conditions
Figures VIII-42 to VIII-46 present computed profiles for temperature,
dissolved oxygen, ammonia-N, total cyanide, and phenolics, respectively, for
Case 1, 2b, 3 and 5. The maximum flow of 480 cfs included in the Corps of
Engineers regulated schedule for late 3uly was employed.
As shown in Figure VIII-42, temperature profiles associated with Cases
3 and 5 are acceptable for most aquatic life uses throughout the stream
while the Case 1 values are above 90 F from lower Youngstown to just
below the Ohio-Pennsylvania state line. From Ohio Edison to the
Youngstown Sheet and Tube-Campbell Works, the Case 3 thermal profile
provides temperatures nearly 10°F lower than Case 5, with values only
////>-? 5"
-------
FIOH - 480 CFS. AT
CASE I. BPCTCA-SECOOMT TREATflEXT
CASES 28 A>O 3. PROPOSED PESrtlTS
IHCLUOIBC HrrtRAruRE AKD Pi. t>QS
. CASE S. 8«TEA-»ITmFICAIIO»
80
75. -
70.
32. 23. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE HOUTH OF MAHQNIN6 RIVER
FIGURE VIII-42
HAHONING RIVER - SUMMER CRITICAL FLOH [JULY]
TEMPERATURE VS. RIVER MILE
FLOH - 480 CFS AT TOUNCSTOHN
CASE 1. SPCrCA-SECOkDAftT laEMrEHT
CASE ?3 AID J. PROPOSF.O PERMITS
TEMPERATURE AXD PA. UQS
CASE 5, BATEA-HITRIFICATIO*
32. 2>«. 24. 20.
HUES ABOVE MUTH OF HAHQHINC RIVER
FIGURE VIII-43
MAHOHING RIVER --SUMMER CRITICAL FLQH fJULTl
DISSOLVED OXYGEN VS. RIVER KILE.
-------
'2.0
t.e
1.6
1.4
1.2
1 i.e
£ 0.8
t.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
FLOW - 480 CFS AT KOUNGSTOHN
CAJE i. SPcrcA-sEconoARt TKEATREUT
CASE 28 »0 3. PROPOSED PERrtlTS
UCLUmnC TEWERATURE A*3 PA. UQS
CASE 5. BATEA-IIITRIFICATION
48. 44. 40. 36. 32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF niHOtUNG RIVER
16.
12.
0.
FIGURE VtII-44
MAHOMING RIVER - SUMMER CRITICAL FLOW [JULY]
AKMQIilA-N VS. RIVER MILE
180.
160.
140.
120.
100.
80.
60.
40.
20. -
g.
48.
•FLQH - 480 CFS AT TOUKGSTOWN
CASE 1. BPtrCA - SECOHDART IREAIHEIIT
CASE 28. PROPOSED PERnlTS I«CLUD[KG TEMPERATURE
CASE ) PA. UQS
44.
40.
34.
32. 28. 24. 20.
HILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MiHONING RIVER
0.
FIGURE VI 11-45
MAKQHING RIVER - SUMMER CRITICAL FLOW [JULY]
TOTAL CYANIDE vs. RIVER MILE
-------
FLOH - 480 CFS AT TOUNGSTOUN
use i. BPCIM - secoioART TRE»TM£iir
C»SE 3B. PROPOSED PERMITS ISCLUDIHC
CASE 3 ft. UCS
10
0.
32. 28. 24. 20.
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF HAHONING RIVER
FIGURE VII.i-46
MAHONIUG RIVER - SUMMER CRITICAL FLOW CJUlr]
PHENQLICS VS. RIVER MILE
-------
slightly above 80°F upstream of Youngstown Sheet and Tube, and slightly
above 85°F downstream of Youngstown Sheet and Tube where the Case 3
and Case 5 profiles converge.
The dissolved oxygen profiles for Case 1 and Case 3 presented in
Figure VIII-43 clearly illustrate the effects of high carbonaceous and
nitrogenous loadings in the Warren area compounded by a significant
decrease in saturation values caused by Ohio Edison. Average values below
4.0 mg/1 are predicted for Case 1 behind the Liberty Street Dam in Girard
vs. average values of about 6.0 mg/1 for Case 3. Similar differences are
seen downstream with only marginal compliance with the Pennsylvania WQS
of 5.0 mg/1 projected for Case 1. The difference in the profiles associated
with Cases 3 and 5 are largely due to differences in the distribution of
thermal discharges illustrated in Figure VIII-42, except for downstream of
Struthers where differences in discharge loadings are more in effect.
The ammonia-N profiles shown in Figure VIII-44- are similar in form to
those illustrated in Figure VIII-39 for winter conditions, but lower
concentrations associated with higher streamflow are projected. Nonethe-
less, with the pH and temperature conditions expected, Case 3 is estimated
to provide marginal compliance with the recommended ammonia-N criterion
of 0.02 mg/1 unionized ammonia-N.
Case 1 is projected to provide unacceptable total cyanide levels
throughout most of the stream for summer conditions. Those associated
with Case 2b are marginal in the Warren and Youngstown areas while the
total cyanide profile associated with Case 3 shows marginal values for most
aquatic life purposes in the Warren area during July. Only Case 1 provides
high phenolics concentrations with respect to aquatic life uses for July
conditions.
E. Discussion of Results
Of the six waste treatment alternatives studied herein, Case 3
provides the most cost effective means of achieving Pennsylvania water
quality standards, and, with the exception of Case 5 (BATEA), provides the
best water quality for the Ohio portion of the stream. Municipal waste
treatment technology associated with this alternative includes secondary
treatment plus nitrification. Aside from treatment of wastes from the
-------
General Electric-Niles Plant in a regional municipal facility serving the
Niles area, extensive joint municipal-industrial treatment is not anticipated.
The degree of municipal treatment is sufficient to achieve Pennsylvania
dissolved oxygen standards and marginally acceptable levels of ammonia-N
at estimated twenty year design flows for the respective regional treatment
facilities.
There are several methods of achieving Pennsylvania water quality
standards for temperature. Each involves reducing the existing thermal
discharge to the river by a significant amount. If only Pennsylvania
temperature standards were being violated, an equal percentage reduction of
existing full production thermal discharges from each facility would appear
to be an equitable means of allocating discharge loadings. However,
considering overall industrial waste treatment costs to achieve other
Pennsylvania WQS, offstream cooling and recycle of condenser cooling water
at Ohio Edison coupled with thermal load reductions at the steel mills
incidental to other treatment provided is the more equitable means of
achieving the Pennsylvania temperature standards. It is more cost effective
to remove waste heat from one large source with relatively high increases in
temperature, than from numerous diffuse sources with relatively low
temperature increases over river intakes. A cost to Ohio Edison of about
eight million dollars vs steel industry costs ranging up to a probably
maximum of fifty million dollars (assuming thermal load reduction from
recycling hot forming operations) clearly illustrates this point. For Case 3,
Ohio Edison's cost of treatment represents about six to eight percent of
total industrial capital costs and about three to four percent of total
municipal and industrial costs. Although Ohio Edison is about eighteen miles
upstream from the State line and not all of the instream temperature
increase at the plant would be removed at the State line, the improvement
in the Ohio portion of the stream is important and substantial.
Depending upon air pollution considerations, coke plant treatment can
be as rudimentary as dirty water quenching for disposal of aqueous wastes,
or as sophisticated as BATE A. In any event, significant discharges of
contaminants associated with coking operations are not compatible with
Pennsylvania water quality standards.
The basic level of blast furnace treatment required includes recycle of
-------
blast furnace gas wash water, direct contact gas cooling water, and
miscellaneous contaminated streams, with minimal biowdown to the river.
Use of biowdown for slag cooling or quenching at the furnaces is
recommended to minimize discharges. The steel industry maintains that it
is not possible to predict discharge levels of ammonia-N, total cyanide, and
phenolics from recycle blast furnace facilities until they are constructed and
operating. However, data at several existing blast furnace recycle systems
indicate discharge levels of these contaminants well below the Phase 1
BPCTCA effluent guideline values, and also for total cyanide and phenolics,
well below the Case 3 discharge levels allocated to the three blast furnace
34 39 ILL
systems located closest to the Ohio-Pennsylvania State line. ' ' In
addition, zero discharge has been achieved at a few systems by controlling
39
the biowdown to levels consistent with disposal by slag quenching. Based
upon this information, it is doubtful that biowdown treatment will be
necessary at any or all Mahoning Valley blast furnaces to achieve
Pennsylvania WQS. If such treatment is necessary, however, it is relatively
low in cost compared to the basic BPCTCA recycle facilities. Should
additional blast furnace biowdown treatment be required because of
contaminant carry over from coke quenched with dirty water, the cost of
biowdown treatment is small compared to the alternate, coke plant BATEA,
which is estimated to cost about twenty-five million dollars more than
upgraded coke plant dirty water quench systems.
Although oil and grease loadings in the range of BPCTCA for the steel
industry are included in Case 3, there is considerable uncertainty that
designated stream uses will be achieved at this level of discharge, (12-15,000
Ibs/day). A conservative environmental approach would call for BATEA
treatment of oil bearing wastes (500 Ibs/day), but owing to the incremental
cost of nearly sixty million dollars, this is not justified at this time.
Although unlikely, BATEA for oil bearing wastes may be installed at some or
all facilities in the Mahoning Valley, depending upon Section 301 (c) economic
demonstrations by the dischargers.
Installation of the above waste treatment technology is projected to
result in compliance with numerical existing and proposed revisions to
Pennsylvania water quality standards for temperature, dissolved oxygen,
total cyanide, and phenolics. Marginal compliance with recommended
-------
ammonia-N criterion (0.02 mg/i unionized ammonia-N) is also projected.
Existing standards for pH and dissolved solids are currently being achieved.
With suspended solids discharges reduced by over ninety-five percent,
notably from blast furnace operations, full compliance with the total iron
and fluoride standards is expected. Discharges of copper and zinc will be
reduced in like manner and, based upon the range of total hardness values
found in the stream, recommended aquatic life criteria for those substances
will also be achieved. To the extent that existing municipal and industrial
waste water discharges in Ohio contribute to taste and odor problems in
downstream potable water supplies, these problems will be greatly
alleviated. However, taste and odor problems resulting from operation of
the reservoir system in the Beaver River Basin are likely to continue. As
noted above, there is uncertainty regarding compliance with Ohio and
Pennsylvania general criteria for oil and grease with Case 3 discharges.
While improvements in stream quality will occur as soon as treatment
facilities are brought on line, improvement in sediment quality is likely to
occur slowly. Except for areas directly behind channel dams, the center of
the stream is currently not heavily covered by sediment and will improve
prior to the stream banks which are not easily scoured by freshets and
sustained high runoff. Leaching of metals, oil and grease, etc., from
existing deposits will occur, possibly reducing toxic conditions and causing
sediment oxygen demand rates to increase for a period of time. However,
leaching of these materials will not significantly adversely affect overlying
45
water quality to the extent of resulting in violations of stream standards ,
and, as noted earlier, the dissolved oxygen balance in the stream is not
sensitive to sediment oxygen demand.
As water quality improves and toxic discharges are eliminated, the
Mahoning River will become biologically more productive at all trophic
levels. Depressed phytoplankton counts in the industrialized stretch of
stream will improve. With the high nutrient levels expected, algal blooms
will occur during periods of optimal environmental conditions. The extent to
which nuisance conditions develop can be mitigated by several factors
including the high turbidity of the stream, zooplankton grazing, and the
establishment of fish populations which feed on algae. Phosphorus controls
at regional sewage treatment facilities would also tend to reduce the
-------
occurrence of nuisance conditions. However, since it is difficult to precisely
predict what will happen based upon the current condition of the stream, a
prudent approach to municipal sewage treatment plant design should include
provisions for supplementary sludge handling capacity in the event phos-
phorus controls are warranted.
In summary, implementation of the treatment controls discussed
herein will allow the Mahoning River to support designated stream uses in
Pennsylvania. A varied aquatic population will also be supported in most of
the Ohio portion of the stream, with areas directly below Warren and from
lower Youngstown to Struthers somewhat stressed during periods of low
flow.
-------
REFERENCES - SECTION VIII
1. G. William Frick, General Counsel, USEPA. Washington, D.C., to
(George Alexander, Jr. USEPA Region V Administrator, Chicago,
Illinois), August 13, 1976, als, 2 pp.
2. Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards "Title 25, Rules and Regula-
tions, Part I, Department of Environmental Resources Subpart C.
Protection of Natural Resources, Article II. Water Resources, Chapter
93, Water Quality Criteria." Adopted September 2, 1971.
3. 40 CFR Part 110 - Discharge of Oil, Federal Register, Volume 4-1, No.
219 - Thursday, November 11, 1976, pp 49810-49811.
4. Ohio EPA Regulation EP-1, Water Quality Standards, January 8, 1975.
(EP-1-06).
5. McKee, J. E. and Wolfe, H. W., Water Quality Criteria, Second Edition,
Publication 3-A, The Resources Agency of California, State Water
Resources Control Board, Sacramento, California, 1963.
6. Personal Communication with James M. Keevil, Floyd G. Browne and
Associates, Limited, Canton, Ohio, February 17, 1977.
7. VanNote, R. H., Hebert, P. V., Patel, R. M., Chupek, C., and
Feldman, L. A Guide to the Selection of Cost Effective Waste Water
Treatment Systems, for the USEPA Office of Water Programs
Operations, EPA Publication No. 430/9-75-002, July 1975.
8. Personal Communication with James M. Keevil, Floyd G. Browne and
Associates, Limited, Canton, Ohio, February 24, 1977.
9. Floyd G. Browne and Associates, Limited, Recommended Major
Areawide Alternative Technical Plans and the ED ATA 208 Areawide
Waste Treatment Plan and Management Program for the Youngstown-
Warreri Ohio, (Preliminary Draft) September 1976.
10. C. W. Rice Division, NUS Corporation, Evaluation Study on the Water
Pollution Control Costs to the Steel Industry in the Mahoning River
Valley, Republic Steel Warren Plant, (Draft) for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, October 1975.
11. C. W. Rice Division, NUS Corporation Evaluation Study on the Water
Pollution Control Costs to the Steel Industry in the Mahoning River
Valley Republic Steel Corporation, Niles Plant (Draft) for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, November 1975.
12. C. W. Rice Division, NUS Corporation Evaluation Study on the Water
Pollution Control Costs to the Steel Industry in the Mahoning River
Valley, Republic Steel Corporation , Youngstown Plant, (Draft) for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1975.
-------
13. Personal Communication with W. L. West, Associate Director of
Environmental Control, Republic Steel Corporation, January 25, 1977.
14. Personal Communication with T. J. Centi, C. W. Rice Division of NUS
Corporation, December 9, 1976.
15. C. W. Rice Division of NUS Corporation Evaluation Study on the Water
Pollution Control Costs to the Steel Industry in the Mahoning River
Valley, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Brier Hill Works (Draft),
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1975.
16. C. W. Rice Division of NUS Corporation Evaluation Study on the Water
Pollution Control Costs to the Steel Industry in Jhe Mahoning River
Valley, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Campbell Works (Draft),
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/July 1975.
17. C. W. Rice Division of NUS Corporation Evaluation Study on the Water
Pollution Control Costs to the-Steel Industry in the Mahoning River
Valley, Youngstown Company, Struthers Works (Draft), for the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, August 1975.
18. Personal Communication with T. M. Hendrickson, Director of Environ-
mental Control, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, May 1976.
19. C. W. Rice Division of NUS Corporation, Evaluation Study on the
Water Pollution Control Costs to the Steel Industry in the Mahoning
River Valley, United States Steel Corporation, Ohio Plant (Draft), for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1975.
20. C. W. Rice Division of NUS Corporation, Evaluation Study on the
Water Pollution Control Costs to the Steel Industry in the Mahoning
River Valley, United States Steel Corporation, McDonald Mills (Draft),
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
21. Personal Communication with T. J. Centi, C. W. Rice Division of NUS
Corporation, May 1976.
22. Personal Communication with Frank Jackson, Copperweld Steel Cor-
poration, November 18, 1976.
23. Testimony of C. V. Runyon, General Production, Environmental and
Performance Engineer, Ohio Edison Company, at Ohio EPA Public
Hearing on Proposed Revisions to Mahoning River Water Quality
Standards, Niles, Ohio, July 8, 1976.
24. Barker, J. E. and Thompson, R. J., Biological Removal of Carbon and
Nitrogen Compounds from Coke Plant Wastes, for Office of Research
and Monitoring, USEPA, April 1973, EPA Publication No. EPA-R2-73-
167.
-------
25. Personal Communication from Michael Hathaway, Data Processing
Branch, Ohio District Office, United States Department of Interior,
Geological Survey, August 1976.
26. U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau Climatology of the
United States, No. 60-33, Climates of the States-Ohio, December
1959.
27. Parker, F. L. and Thackston, E. L. Effect of Geographical Location on
Cooling Pond Requirements and Performance, Vanderbuilt University,
for the Water Quality Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Project No. 16130 FDQ, March 1971.
28. Personal Communication from Dr. Bruce Tichenor, Chief Thermal
Pollution Branch, Pacific Northwest Research Laboratory, National
Environmental Research Center, USEPA, May 1975.
29. Velz, C. J., Applied Stream Sanitation, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New
York 1970.
30. Crim, R. L. and Lovelace, N. L. Auto-Qual Modelling System,
Technical Report 54, USEPA Region III Annapolis Field Office, March
1973.
31. Amendola, G. A., Technical Support Document for Proposed NPDES
Permit - United States Steel Corporation Lorain Works, USEPA
Region V Michigan-Ohio District Office, July 1975.
32. Unpublished Data by USEPA Region V Michigan-Ohio District Office.
Sampling Survey of Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation - Cleveland
Works, Febraury 24-26, 1976.
33. Unpublished Data by USEPA Region V Michigan-Ohio District Office.
Sampling Survey of Republic Steel Corporation - Cleveland District,
December 6-9, 1976.
34. Unpublished Data by USEPA Region V Michigan-Ohio District Office.
Sampling Survey of Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation - Cleveland
Works, November 3-6, 1975.
35. Sawyer, C. N., Wild, H. E., and McMahon, T. C. Nitrification and
Denitrif ication Facilities Wastewater Treatment, for USEPA Technol-
ogy Transfer Program, EPA Publication No. EPA-625/4-73-004a,
August 1973.
36. Parker, D. S., Stone, R. W., Stenquist, R. J., and Gulp, G., Process
Design Manual for Nitrogen Control, for USEPA Office of Technology
Transfer, October 1975.
37. Eckenfelder, W. W. Water Quality Engineering for Practicing Engineers
Barnes and Nobel, Inc., New York, 1970.
38. Klein, L. River Pollution II. Causes and Effects, Butterworth and
Company, Limited, London, England 1962.
-------
39. Personal Communication with James O. McDermott, USEPA Region V,
Enforcement Division, Compliance and Engineering Section, Regional
Expert for Steel, February 1977.
40. Hendrickson, T. N., and Daignault, L. G. Treatment of Complex
Cyanide Compounds for Reuse or Disposal, for Office of Research and
Monitoring, U.S. EnvironmentarProtection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
EPA Publication No. EPA-R2-73-269, June 1973.
41. USEPA, Quarterly Report of the Environmental Research Laboratory -
Duluth, July-September 1976, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Duluth, Minnesota.
42. USEPA, Quarterly Report of the Environmental Research Laboratory -
Duluth, January-March 1977, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Duluth, Minnesota.
43. O'Connor, D. 3. and Dobbins, W. E., Mechanism of Reaeration in
Natural Streams, American Society Civil Engineers Transactions, Vol.
123, pp. 641-684, 1958.
44. Unpublished Data by USEPA Region V Eastern District Office,
Sampling Survey at Republic Steel Corporation - Cleveland District,
May 17-19, 1977.
45. Havens and Emerson, Limited, Report on Feasibility Study on the
Removal of Bank and River Bottom Sediments in the Mahoning River
(to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District), Cleveland,
Ohio, June 1976 (Preliminary Copy).
-------
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE
IV-l Characteristics of Soil Associations IV-IO
IV-2 Climatic Data for Northeast Ohio IV-l*
IV- 3 Mahoning River Basin Planning Area
1967 Land Use IV-l 6
IV-* Ohio Counties in the Mahoning River Basin IV-l 7
IV- 5 Major Industrial Water Consumption
Lower Mahoning River Basin IV- 19
IV-6 A Mahoning River Basin Planning Area
Industrial Water Demand Projections IV-20
IV-6 B Rural and Suburban Domestic Water Demand Projections IV-20
IV-7 Mahoning River Basin Planning Area
Major Public Water Supplies IV-21
IV-8 Mahoning River Basin Planning Area
Major Public Water Supplies and Demand Projections IV-22
IV-9 A Mahoning River Basin Planning Area
Livestock Water Demand Projections IV-23
IV-9 B Crop Irrigation Water Demand Projections IV-23
IV- 10 Water Based Recreation - Major Recreational Areas IV-25
IV-11 Mahoning River Basin - Major Population Centers IV-28
IV-l 2 Mahoning River Basin - Population Projections IV-29
IV-l 3 Civilian Labor Force Mahoning and Trumbull Counties
1968-197* IV-30
IV-l* Major Reservoirs in Mahoning River Basin IV-32
IV- 15 Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants
,, Lower Mahoning River IV-*2
IV- 16 Annual Minimum Consecutive Seven Day Mean Flows
Lower Mahoning River IV-*6
-------
IV-17 Mahoning River Stream Mileage
(River mouth to Leavittsburg, Ohio)
IV-18 Mahoning River Stream Mileage
(River mouth to Leavittsburg, Ohio)
IV-19 Mahoning River Stream Mileage
(River mouth to Leavittsburg, Ohio)
IV-50
IV-51
IV-53
V-l Major Mahoning River Steel Plants V-3
V-2 Industrial Discharge Summary
Copper weld Steel Company V-l 5
V-3 Industrial Discharge Summary
Republic Steel Corporation, Warren Plant V-l6
V-4 Industrial Discharge Summary
Republic Steel Corporation, Niles Plant V-l7
V-5 Industrial Discharge Summary
Republic Steel Corporation, Youngstown Plant V-l8
V-6 Industrial Discharge Summary
United States Steel Corporation, McDonald Mills V-l9
V-7 Industrial Discharge Summary
United States Steel Corporation, Ohio Works V-20
V-8 Industrial Discharge Summary
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Brier Hill Works V-21
V-9 Industrial Discharge Summary
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Campbell Works V-22
V-10 Industrial Discharge Summary
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Struthers Division V-23
V-ll Industrial Discharge Summary
Ohio Edison Company, Niles Steam Electric Generating
Station V-24
V-l2 Summary of Major Industrial Discharges
Mahoning River Basin V-25
V-l3 Municipal Discharge Summary
Warren Wastewater Treatment Plant V-34
V-l4 Municipal Discharge Summary
Niles Wastewater Treatment Plant V-35
V-l5 Municipal Discharge Summary
McDonald Wastewater Treatment Plant V-36
-------
V-16 Municipal Discharge Summary
Girard Wastewater Treatment Plant V-37
V-17 Municipal Discharge Summary
Youngstown Wastewater Treatment Plant V-38
V-18 Municipal Discharge Summary
Campbell Wastewater Treatment Plant V-39
V-19 Municipal Discharge Summary
Struthers Wastewater Treatment Plant V-40
V-20 Municipal Discharge Summary
Lowellville Wastewater Treatment Plant V-41
V-21 Data on Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Mahoning River Basin V-42
VI-1 Ohio and Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards
Lower Mahoning River VI-3
VI-2 Mahoning River Water Quality Data, pH VI-16
VI-3 Mahoning River Water Quality Data, Ammonia-N VI-18
VIr4 Mahoning River Water Quality Data, Total Cyanide VI-19
VI-5 Mahoning River Water Quality Data, Phenolics VI-21
VI-6 Mahoning River Water Quality Data, Heavy Metals VI-23
VI-7 Mahoning River Bacteriological Data VI-26
VI-8 Mahoning and Beaver Rivers, Threshold Odor Data VI-34
VII-1 Mahoning River Reach Boundary Description VII-12
VII-2 Mahoning River Drainage Areas VII-15
VII-3 3une 17, 1975 USEPA Dye Study, Lower Mahoning River VII-20
VII-4 June 23, 1975 USEPA Dye Study, Lower Mahoning River VII-20
VII-5 3une 24, 1975 USEPA Dye Study, Lower Mahoning River VII-20
VII-6 July 1975 USGS Dye Study, Lower Mahoning River VII-21
VII-7 Sampling Stations for USEPA Reaction Rate Studies,
Mahoning River VII-23
VII-8 Summary of In-Stream Reaction Rates for Lower
Mahoning River VII-24
VII-9 Carbonaceous BOD Reaction Rates, Mahoning River VII-27
VII-10 Nitrogenous BOD Reaction Rates, Mahoning River VII-30
VII-11 Total Cyanide Reaction Rates, Mahoning River VII-32
-------
VII-12 Phenolics Reaction Rates, Mahoning River VII-3*
VII-13 Dam Height Adjustment Factors, Mahoning River VII-39
VII-1* Sediment Oxygen Demand, Lower Mahoning River VII-*0
VII-15 Stream Sampling Stations, USEPA Mahoning River
Survey, February 11-1*, 1975 VII-50
VII-16 Industrial Sampling Stations, USEPA Mahoning River
Survey, February 11-1*, 1975 VII-53
VII-17 Water Quality Constituents, USEPA Mahoning River
Survey, February 11-1*,.1975 VII-5*
VII-18 Mahoning River Sediment Chemistry, March 7, 1975 VII-55
VII-19 Stream Sampling Stations, USEPA Mahoning River
Survey, July 1*-17, 1975 VII-79
VII-20 Water Quality Constituents, USEPA Mahoning River
Survey, 3uly 1*-17, 1975 VII-81
VII-21 Mahoning River Benthic Macroinvertebrates
March 7, 1975 VII-105
VII-22 Sediment Chemistry Below Mahoning River Coke Plants
3uly23, 1975 VII-112
VII-23 Meteorological Conditions, February 1975 USEPA Survey
Mahoning River VII-117
VII-2* Meteorological Conditions, 3uly 1975 USEPA Survey,
Mahoning River VII-117
VII-25 Total Cyanide and Phenolics, Lower Mahoning River,
August 2*, 25, 1973 VII-1*5
VIII-1 Basis for Effluent Limitations, Mahoning River Basin VIII-*
VIII-2 Mahoning River Waste Treatment Alternatives VIII-8
VIII-3 Municipal Discharge Loadings
Mahoning River Waste Treatment Alternatives VIII-16
VIII-* Estimated Capital and Annual Operating Costs
Mahoning River Municipal Treatment Alternatives VIII-17
VIII-5 Case 1 BPCTCA - Secondary Treatment
Mahoning River Industrial Discharges VIII-18
VIII-6 Cases 2a, b - Proposed NPDES Permits
Mahoning River Industrial Discharges VIII-20
VIII-7 Case 3 - Pennsylvania Water Quality Standards
Mahoning River Industrial Discharges VIII-22
-------
VIII-8 Case 4 - Joint Treatment
Mahoning River Industrial Discharges VIII-24
VIII-9 Case 5 - Nitrification-BATE A
Mahoning River Industrial Discharges VIII-26
VIII-10 Republic Steel Corporation, Estimated Capital Cost
Summary VIII-28
VIII-11 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Estimated Capital
Cost Summary VIII-29
VIII-12 United States Steel, Copperweld Steel, and Ohio Edison
Estimated Capital Cost Summary VIII-30
VIII-13 Municipal and Industrial Capital Cost Summary
Mahoning River Treatment Alternatives VIII-31
VIII-14 Mahoning River Flow Duration at Youngstown VIII-34
VIII-15 Mahoning Valley Industrial Thermal Dischargers VIII-35
VIII-16 Equilibrium Temperatures, Heat Transfer Coefficients,
and Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Temperatures,
Mahoning River Waste Treatment Alternatives VIII-37
VIII-17 Stream Reaction Rates and Temperature Correction
Coefficients, Mahoning River Waste Treatment
Alternatives VIII-42
VIII-18 Initial Upstream Conditions and Tributary Concentrations
Mahoning River Waste Treatment Alternatives VIII-45
VIII-19 Changes in Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations With
Major Precipitation Events, Mahoning River at
Lowellville, Ohio, 1966 - 1974 VIII-47
VIII-20 Summary of Sensitivity Analyses VIII-77
-------
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
IV-1 Mahoning River Basin IV-2
IV-2 Mahoning River Basin, Physiographic Sections of Ohio IV-3
IV-3 Generalized Cross Section Showing the Geology of the
Middle Mahoning River Basin IV-*
IV-* Mahoning River Basin, Geologic Cross Section A-AT IV-5
IV-5 Mahoning River Basin, Generalized Geologic Cross Section,
North to South Across the Upper Mahoning River Basin IV-6
IV-6 Mahoning River Basin, Underground Water Resources IV-9
IV-7 Mahoning River Basin, Soil Association and Erodibility IV-12
IV-8 Mahoning River Basin, Isohyetal Map IV-13
IV-9 Mahoning River Basin, Existing Water Basin Recreation
Areas IV-2*
IV-10 Lower Mahoning River, Flow Regulation Schedules IV-3*
IV-11 Mahoning River Basin, Flow Duration at Leavittsburg,
Youngstown, Lowellville IV-36
IV-12 Lower Mahoning River, Monthly Flow Duration at
Youngstown (Water Years 19** - 1975) IV-38
IV-13 Lower Mahoning River, Monthly Flow Duration at
Youngstown (Simulation of 1930 - 1966 Period) IV-39
IV-1* Lower Mahoning River, Monthly Flow Duration at
Youngstown (Water Years 1968 - 197*) IV-*1
IV-15 Mahoning River, Flow Profile at Water Quality Design
Flows IV-**
IV-16 Mahoning River Basin, Drainage Area vs River Mile IV-*8
IV-17 Lower Mahoning River, Elevation vs River Mile IV-*9
-------
V-l Lower Mahoning River Location Map V-2
V-2 Copperweld Steel Corporation river intake, effluent
settling basin, outfall 002 duly 1971). V-5
V-3 Republic Steel Corporation-Warren Plant coke plant
and blast furnace area. V-5
V-4 Republic Steel Corporation-Warren Plant cold rolling
and finishing area outfall 009 (July 1971). V-7
V-5 Republic Steel Corporation-Youngstown Plant blast
furnace area (July 1971). V-7
V-6 U. S. Steel Corporation-Ohio Works, Youngstown Sheet
and Tube Company-Brier Hill Works blast furnace area,
(July 1971). V-9
V-7 U. S. Steel Corporation-McDonald Mills outfall 006
(July 1971). V-9
V-8 U. S. Steel Corporation-Ohio Works, Youngstown Sheet
and Tube Company and Brier Hill Works (July 1971). V-ll
V-9 Oil sheen on Mahoning River between Youngstown Sheet
and Tube Company-Brier Hill Works and U. S. Steel
Corporation-Ohio Works (July 1971). V-ll
V-10 Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Campbell Works
steelmaking, primary mills and finishing mills (July 1971). V-l3
V-ll Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company-Campbell Works
blast furnace and sinter plant area, coke plant area,
(July 1971). V-13
V-l2 Existing and Proposed Future Municipal Service Areas V-27
VI-1 Mahoning River Basin, Monthly Maximum and Mean
Water Temperatures of the Mahoning River VI-10
VI-2 Mahoning River Basin, Monthly Maximum and Minimum
Water Temperatures, Mahoning River at Lowellville
1966-1974 VI-11
VI-3 Mahoning River Stream Survey Data, September 24, 1952 VI-13
VI-4 Mahoning River, Dissolved Oxygen Profile
June - September 1963, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1971 VI-1*
VI-5 Effect of Industrial Wastes on Genera of Organisms in
Mahoning River VI-27
-------
VI-6 Numbers of Stream Bed Animals, Mahoning-Beaver Rivers
January 1965 VI-29
VI-7 Kinds of Stream Bed Animals, Mahoning-Beaver Rivers
January 1965 VI-30
VI-8 Phytoplankton in Mahoning-Beaver Rivers
January 1965 VI-32
VII-1 Mahoning River Basin, Daily Hydrograph, February 1975 VII-43
VII-2 Mahoning River Basin, Hourly Hydrograph,
February 9-16, 1975 VII-44
VII-3 Travel Time vs. River Mile, Lower Mahoning River VII-45
VIM Main Stem Flow Profile, US EPA Mahoning River
Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-47
VII-5 Stream Sampling Stations, USEPA Mahoning River
Survey, February 1975 VII-49
VII-6 Temperature vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-64
VII-7 Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-64
VII-8 COD, BOD^, BOD2Q vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-65
VII-9 TKN, NH3-N, ORG-N, NO2 + NO3 vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-65
VII-10 Suspended Solids vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-66
VII-11 Ammonia-Nitrogen vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-66
VII-12 Total Phosphorus vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-67
VII-13 Dissolved Solids vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-67
VII-14 Fluoride vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-68
VII-15 Total Sodium vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-68
-------
VII-16 Chloride vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-69
VII-17 Sulf ate vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-69
VII-18 Total Cyanide vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-70
VII-19 Phenolics vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-70
VII-20 Total Copper vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-71
VII-21 Total Iron vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-71
VII-22 Total Zinc vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, February 11-14, 1975 VII-72
VII-23 Mahoning River Basin, Daily Hydrograph, July 1975 VII-74
VII-24 Mahoning River Basin, Hourly Hydrograph,
July 9-20, 1975 VII-75
VII-25 Main Stem Flow Profile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1976 VII-76
VII-26 Stream Sampling Stations
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 1975 VII-78
VII-27 Temperature vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-91
VII-28 Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-91
VII-29 COD, BOD5, BOD2Q, TOG vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-92
VII-30 TKN, NH3-N, ORG.-N, NO^N, NO2-N vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-92
VII-31 Suspended Solids vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-93
VII-32 Ammonia-Nitrogen vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-93
VII-33 Total Phosphorus and Ortho-Phosphate vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-94
-------
VII-34 Dissolved Solids vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-94
VII-35 Fluoride vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-95
VII-36 Sodium vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-95
VII-37 Chloride vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-96
VII-38 Sulfate vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-96
VII-39 Total Cyanide vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-97
VII-40 Phenolics vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-97
VII-41 Total Aluminum vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-98
VII-42 Total Arsenic vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-98
VII-43 Total Chromium vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-99
VII-44 Total Copper vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-99
VII-45 Total Iron vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-100
VII-46 Total Manganese vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-100
VII-47 Total Zinc vs. River Mile
US EPA Mahoning River Survey, July 14-17, 1975 VII-101
VII-48 Mahoning River Sediments, March-April, 1975 VII-106
VII-49 Temperature vs. River Mile, Qual-1
Model Verification Using February 11-14, 1975 Data VII-118
VII-50 Temperature vs. River Mile, Edinger and Geyer
Model Verification Using February 11-14, 1975 Data VII-106
VII-51 Temperature vs. River Mile, Qual-1
Model Verification Using July 14-17, 1975 Data VII-120
-------
VH-52 Temperature vs. River Mile, Edinger and Geyer
Model Verification Using July 14-17, 1975 Data VII-120
VII-53 CBOD vs. River Mile
Model Verification Using February 11-14, 1975 Data VII-123
VII-54 CBOD vs. River Mile,
Model Verification Using July I'M7, 1975 Data VII-124
VII-55 Ammonia-Nitrogen vs. River Mile
Model Verification Using February 11-14, 1975 Data VII-127
VII-56 Ammonia-Nitrogen vs. River Mile
Model Verification Using July 14-17, 1975 Data VII-127
VII-57 Nitrite-Nitrogen vs. River Mile
Model Verification Using July 14-17, 1975 Data VII-132
VII-58 Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile,
Model Verification Using February 11-14, 1975 Data VII-134
VII-59 Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile,
Model Verification Using July 14-17, 1975 Data VII-134
VII-60 Total Cyanide vs. River Mile
Model Verification Using February 11-14,1975 Data VII-139
VII-61 Total Cyanide vs. River Mile
Model Verification Using July 14-17, 1975 Data VII-139
VII-62 Phenolics vs. River Mile
Model Verification Using February 11-14, 1975 Data VII-144
VII-63 Phenolics vs. River Mile,
Model Verification Using July 14-17, 1975 Data VII-144
VII-64 Total Cyanide and Phenolics Verification Using
August 24, 25 1973 Data VII-146
*•?•'
VIII-1 Mahoning River Flow Duration at Youngstown,
February and July, Period of Record 1945-1975 VIII-33
VIII-2 Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen vs Flow
February Conditions, Mahoning River VIII-49
VIII-3 Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Ammonia-N and Phenolics vs. Flow
February Conditions, Mahoning River VIII-51
-------
VIII-4 Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Total Cyanide vs. Flow
February Conditions, Mahoning River VIII-53
VIII-5 Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen vs. Flow
July Conditions, Mahoning River VIII-55
VIII-6 Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Ammonia-N and Phenolics vs. Flow
July Conditions, Mahoning River VIII-56
VIII-7 Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Total Cyanide vs. Flow
July Conditions, Mahoning River VIII-57
VIII-8 Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Water Temperature vs. Month, Mahoning River VIII-59
VIII-9 Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Dissolved Oxygen vs. Months, Mahoning River VIII-61
VIII-10 Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Ammonia-N vs. Months, Mahoning River VIII-63
VIII-11 Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Total Cyanide vs. Months, Mahoning River VIII-6^
VIII-12 Water Quality at the Ohio-Pennsylvania State Line
Phenolics vs. Months, Mahoning River VIII-65
VIII-13 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Equilibrium Temperature
Temperature vs. River Mile VIII-78
VIII-14 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Heat Transfer Rate
Temperature vs. River Mile VIII-78
VIII-15 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Temperature
Ammonia-Nitrogen vs. River Mile VIII-79
VIII-16 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Temperature
Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile VIII-79
VIII-17 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Temperature
Total Cyanide vs. River Mile VIII-80
VIII-18 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Temperature
Phenolics vs. River Mile VIII-80
VIII-19 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Velocity
Temperature vs. River Mile VIII-81
-------
VIII-20 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Velocity
Ammonia-Nitrogen vs. River Mile VIII-81
VIII-21 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Velocity
Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile VIII-82
VIII-22 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Velocity
Total Cyanide vs. River Mile VIII-82
VIII-23 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Velocity
Phenolics vs. River Mile VIII-83
VIII-24 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Travel Time
Ammonia-Nitrogen vs. River Mile VIII-84
VIII-25 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Travel Time
Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile VIII-84
VIII-26 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Travel Time
Total Cyanide vs. River Mile VIII-85
VIII-27 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Travel Time
Phenolics vs. River Mile VIII-85
VIII-28 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Flow
Temperature vs. River Mile VIII-86
VIII-29 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Flow
Ammonia-Nitrogen vs. River Mile VIII-86
VIII-30 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Flow
Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile VIII-87
VIII-31 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Flow
Total Cyanide vs. River Mile VIII-87
VIII-32 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Flow
Phenolics vs. River Mile VIII-88
VIII-33 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Reaeration
Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile VIII-89
VIII-34 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Depth
Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile VIII-89
VIII-35 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Sediment Oxidation Demand
Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile VIII-90
VIII-36 Mahoning River - Sensitivity to Sediment Oxidation Demand
Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile VIII-90
VIII-37 Mahoning River - Winter Critical Flow (February)
Temperature vs. River Mile VIII-92
-------
VHI-38 Mahoning River - Winter Critical Flow (February)
Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile VIII-92
VIII-39 Mahoning River - Winter Critical Flow (February)
Ammonia-N vs. River Mile VIII-93
VIII-40 Mahoning River - Winter Critical Flow (February)
Total Cyanide vs. River Mile VIII-93
VIII-41 Mahoning River - Winter Critical Flows (February)
Phenolics vs. River Mile VIII-94
VIII-42 Mahoning River - Summer Critical Flow (July)
Temperature vs. River Mile VIII-96
VIII-43 Mahoning River - Summer Critical Flow (July)
Dissolved Oxygen vs. River Mile VIII-96
VIII-44 Mahoning River - Summer Critical Flow (July)
Ammonia-N vs. River Mile VIII-97
VIII-45 Mahoning River - Summer Critical Flow (July)
Total Cyanide vs. River Mile VIII-97
VIII-46 Mahoning River - Summer Critical Flow (July)
Phenolics vs. River Mile VIII-98
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A study of this magnitude could not have been completed without
assistance from many sources. The comprehensive water quality surveys
were organized and carried out under the direction of the Eastern District
Office Field Support Team. Over thirty people from the USEPA, Region V,
Surveillance and Analysis Division participated in the field work, along with
personnel from the municipal and industrial dischargers in the Mahoning
Valley. The municipalities of Warren and Youngstown provided excellent
accommodations at their respective sewage treatment facilities for USEPA
personnel during the field surveys. The Eastern District Office Field
Support Team also conducted time-of-travel, reaction rate, and sediment
studies. Innumerable laboratory analyses were completed in a timely fashion
by the Eastern District Office laboratory team and the Region V Central
Regional Laboratory. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh
District and the U. S. Geological Survey were most responsive in providing
historical and current hydrologic data for the Mahoning River. The Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency and the Eastgate Development and
Transportation Agency provided a considerable amount of detailed
information unavailable from other sources, and the NASA Lewis Research
Center provided computer facilities for the numerous water quality model
runs necessary.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance received from the
many people and agencies who supported this effort. A special thanks to
Carolyn Stewart, Adel Wagner, Tressa Oltean, and Deborah Neubeck who
typed the manuscript, and to Roland Hartranft who prepared many of the
graphics.
------- |