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.

-------