Ol
en
oo
CD
o
o
ro
CERI 89-257
WORKSHOP ON WATER QUALITY-BASED
PERMITTING, ENFORCEMENT, AND
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATIONS
San Francisco, CA - January 16-17,1990
Nashville, TN - February 7-8, 1990
Jacksonville, FL - February 27-28, 1990
Dallas, TX - March 13-14, 1990
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WORKSHOP ON WATER QUALITY-BASED PERMITTING,
ENFORCEMENT, AND TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATIONS
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1
Recent Developments in the NPDES Program 1
Section 2
Concepts of Biological Testing 11
Section 3
Permit Limit Development 31
Section 4
Toxicity Limits 63
Section 5
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement 75
Section 6
Basic Permitting Principles/Introduction to TREs
Introduction to TREs
TREs in the Permitting and Enforcement Process
TRE Available Guidance 113
Section 7
TRE Industrial and Municipal Protocols 133
Section 8
TIE Overview 159
Section 9
Guidelines and Review Criteria for TRE Plans 187
Section 10
TRE Abstracts and Case Studies 193
ill
-------
SECTION 1
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NPDES PROGRAM
-1-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1987
- SLUDGE
- STORMWATER
- 304(L)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
REVISIONS TO THE TSD
DOMESTIC SEWAGE STUDY REGULATIONS
REVISIONS TO THE TSD
SCHEDULE:
• REGIONAL REVIEW (END 10/10/89)
• WILLIAMSBURG GROUP REVIEW
-States -Interest Groups
-Industry -Environmental Groups
•FEDERAL REGISTER ANNOUNCEMENT
• BLUE RIBBON PANEL REVIEW
• FINAL DOCUMENT
FINAL DOCUMENT AVAILABLE SUMMER '90
REVISIONS TO THE TSD
MAJOR CHANGES:
CHAPTER 1: New documentation
Correlations
CHAPTER 2: Acceptable ambient concentrations
Legal basis for AACs
CHAPTER 3: Streamlined procedures
Screening
Bioconcentration
—3—
-------
REVISIONS TO THE TSD
MAJOR CHANGES.
CHAPTER 4: Mixing Zones
Bioconcentration
CHAPTER 5: More user-friendly!
CHAPTER 6: Permitting and Enforcement
Principles
Surface Water Toxics Control Program
Activities Conducted Under §304(1)
Develop control* under
existing CWA authorities for
(A) 0) and (A) (M)«
Develop Water
Quality Assessment
Plan (as necessary)
Opportunity lor State
to correct
deficient aubmlttal
-4-
-------
interrelationship of Waters Listed Under
Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act
MINI LIST
(AKI):
Control actions
include use of
all existing
CWA
authorities for
toxic pollutants.
LONG LIST
(AKH):
Control actions
include use ol
all existing
CWA
authorities lor
all pollutants
and all waters
SHORT LIST
(B):
Control actions
require
Individual
Control
Strategies.
304(1)
"LONG LIST1
- 17,576 waters listed
- Range 0 to 1745, average 304
- Most east of Mississippi River
"MINI LIST"
- Few waters listed
"SHORT LIST"
- 595 waters listed
-5-
-------
304(1)
"C LIST'
• 879 POINT SOURCES
o 625 INDUSTRIALS
- 134 METAL FINISHING
- 94 PULP & PAPER
- 55 NATURAL GAS
- 22 ORGANIC CHEMICAL
- 21 PETROLEUM REFINING
o 240 MUNICIPALS
0 14 FEDERAL FACILITIES
• ICSs REQUIRED
Individual Control Strategies
• All known water quality problem waters impaired by
§307(a) toxics due entirely/substantially to point source
discharges require an ICS (Short List)
• An ICS is a NPDES permit plus documentation (i.e.,
TMDLs/WLAs and other rationale)
• An ICS is to produce a reduction in the discharge of
§307(a) toxic pollutants and achieve State WQ standards
within 3 years
• Effluent toxicants, ammonia, and chlorine must also be
controlled by permits under other CWA authorities
3O4(l) Changes to 4O CFR 122.44
SUBSECTION (d) - WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND STATE REQUIREMENTS
- WATER QUALITY-BASED PERMIT LIMITS
FOR SPECIFIC TOXICANTS
- WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITS
WHERE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE
STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
-6-
-------
Section 122.44(d)(l)(i)
ALL POLLUTANTS THAT CAUSE,
HAVE THE REASONABLE POTENTIAL
TO CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO AN
EXCURSION ABOVE A WATER QUALITY
STANDARD MUST BE CONTROLLED
- Includes narrative and numerical
criteria
- Reflects EPA's approach to water
quality-based permitting
Section 122.44(d)(l)(ii)
STATES MUST USE VALID PROCEDURES
TO DETERMINE WHETHER A DISCHARGE
CAUSES, HAS THE REASONABLE
POTENTIAL TO CAUSE, OR CONTRIBUTES
TO AN EXCURSION
ACCOUNT FOR:
- existing controls
- variability
- species sensitivity
- dilution (where allowed)
Section 122.44(d)(l)(iii)
NPDES PERMITS MUST INCLUDE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR EVERY
POLLUTANT THAT CAUSES, HAS THE
REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE
OR CONTRIBUTES TO AN EXCURSION
ABOVE A NUMERIC WATER QUALITY
CRITERION
— 7 —
-------
Section 122.44(d)(l)(iv)
NPDES PERMITS MUST INCLUDE WHOLE
EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITATIONS
WHEN A DISCHARGE CAUSES, HAS THE
REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE,
OR CONTRIBUTES TO AN EXCURSION
ABOVE A STATE NUMERIC CRITERION
FOR WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
f
Section 122.44(d)(l)(v)
WHEN A DISCHARGE CAUSES, HAS THE
REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE,
OR CONTRIBUTES TO AN EXCURSION
ABOVE A STATE NARRATIVE WATER
QUALITY CRITERION, THE PERMIT
MUST CONTAIN LIMITATIONS ON
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
- unless chemical specific limitations
are demonstrated to be sufficient
to achieve all applicable water
quality standards
f
Section 122.44(d)(l)(vi)
WHERE AN ACTUAL OR PROJECTED
EXCURSION ABOVE A WATER QUALITY
CRITERION IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A
PARTICULAR POLLUTANT FOR WHICH
THE STATE HAS NOT ADOPTED WATER
QUALITY CRITERION, THE PERMIT MUST
CONTAIN WATER QUALITY-BASED
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS TO CONTROL
THE POLLUTANT OF CONCERN
-8-
-------
Section 122.44(d)(l)(vi)
THREE OPTIONS:
(1) CALCULATE NUMERIC CRITERION
FOR THE POLLUTANT;
(2) USE EPA's WATER QUALITY
CRITERION FOR THE POLLUTANT; OR
(3) ESTABLISH EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
ON AN INDICATOR PARAMETER
r
Section 122.44(d)(l)(vi)
IF AN INDICATOR PARAMETER IS USED,
FOUR PROVISIONS MUST BE MET:
(a) The permit must identify which
pollutants are intended to be controlled
by the indicator parameter;
(b) The fact sheet must set forth the
basis for the limit;
(c) The permit must require monitoring
to show continued compliance with the
water quality standards; and
(d) The permit must contain a reopener
clause allowing for changes (as needed) to
achieve water quality standards
3O4(l) Changes to 4O CFR 122.44
SUBSECTION (d) - WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND STATE REQUIREMENTS
- WATER QUALITY-BASED PERMIT LIMITS
FOR SPECIFIC TOXICANTS
- WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITS
WHERE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE
STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
-9-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
SECTION 2
CONCEPTS OF BIOLOGICAL TESTING
-11-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
• 38 States require Industries to conduct toxicity testing.
• 27 States require municipalities to conduct toxlctty testing.
• Toxicity testing Is required In 1343 Industrial permits.
• Toxlctty testing Is required In 597 municipal permits.
• Biological toxlctty testing requirements are few or non-existent In the mid-
western and western States.
•) Effluent toxlctty limits are hi industrial permits In 14 States and are found
In 39 percent of the Industrial permits that require biological testing.
• Effluent toxlctty Hmtts are In municipal permits In 10 States and are found
In 78 percent of the municipal permits that require biological testing.
• 16 States have a toxicity testing requirement In Industrial permits only.
• 8 States do not require effluent biological testing.
• 19 States protect that as new permits are Issued, or as existing permits
are reissued, all major and significant minor permits will contain bio-
logical testing requirements.
• 15 States require biological toxicity testing in 50 percent or more of their
major industrial permits. California, Virginia, and West Virginia require
biological testing In all of their major industrial permits and in some
minor permits.
• 6 States require biological toxicity testing in 50 percent or more of their
municipal permits. New Jersey requires biological testing in all of their
major municipal permits and in some minor permits.
• 10 States have TRE programs and 13 additional States are beginning
such programs.
• 5 States have (or win have within one year) biological laboratory
certification programs.
•) 16 States operate mobile biological laboratories for flow-through or
chronic biological testing.
• 29 States have the capabilities for conducting definitive acute or chronic
toxlctty tests.
• 33 State* conduct receiving water macroinvertebrate or fish assessments
related either to special study pollution Investigations or to provide trend
monitoring determinations.
-13-
-------
TAIll 1. IIOLOCICAI IMLUKT 1IITJX Ik t'Dtl ft Hunt
XMVfTIUAI.
AIAI1MA
ALAMA
AK)ZO««
AftKAklAI
CAU'OHMIA
COLO«ADO
COKfttCTlCUT
OtLAClKE
rinmct fi« to.
FLORIDA
IIOHCIA
HA** I I
10AMO
1111*011
1ROIAIA
IO*A
KA«t*t
IfNTUClY
IOUII1AMA
•AIM
•ARTlAND
• ACSACHl/IITTO
•ICNIIAk
• 1MUIOTA
«I*II*H»P:
•IttOUKl
•0*1 »«»
MttKAtKA
•(VADA
*r« MAHPfMIRE
«!• JIMM
HI* BIIICO
*(• T0*(
• 0"t« CAROLINA
•0*TM OAIOTA
OHIO
OILAHOMA
OMOON
rt**m»»»iA
•MOOI IILAID
•OUT* CAftOLUA
• OUT*. DAKOTA
TMNIIIfi
TCKAI
UTAM
»I««0«T
V1M1»1A
•AININCTOM
•ItT VIDCJHIA
•xeontiM
•YPMIM
TOTAH
/
00
•
10
114
1
ft*
«
40
II
t
It
100
11»
te
tf
10
10
11
•*•
•
?
It
11
•
•
• 4
•
••
1*1
•
t
100
• 7
70
•
1141
/
01
1
71
111
t
?»
11
11
4»
ir
10
• 0
• 7
71
It
I
10
e
•
11
it
•
•t
•
I
11
71
I
• 1
• 0
t
10
•1
•t
t
1*1
•t
111
•
/
00
I
40
141
g
•
•
40
•
e
10
1
•
17
•
10
0
•
0
100
•
ft
•
e
»
t
•
•
•
•
7
t
•
•
•
•0
•
I
111
r
*
9
•
i
•
*
f
*
*
•
•
*
«
*
4
«
*
•
«
1
t
•
•
«
»
t
•
•
»
*
1
•
•
4
«
9
f
•
0
•
0
171
I
' 0
1
40
1
1
4
I
to
It
0
0
0
1
t
171
14
70«
1
»
e
•
•
14
• •
1
4
•
»
f
••
•
•
•
»I7
/
•
•
•
• 7
11
•
T
100
It
1
I
T
t
»4
1t
•
0
0
17
I
100
•
14
»
•
f
•
•
71
4
1
f
t
If
•
tt
1
•
11
/ *
11
4
17
7
•
tt*
fi
t
i
•
/
• 0
t
1
40
• II
I
ft
•
*
fO
II
t
4
f
•
1
17
too
11
41
14
11
1
10
100
II
lit
1
51
It
11
1
•0
•I
1
•1
111
11
•
110
17
70
1
1140
10
1
1
• 1
110
I
41
1*
100
It
14
11
•1
14
• 0
10
f
1
14
•
•
•
I
• t
•
• 7
t
«
•a
•i
»
44
11
1
11
t7
It
•
111
41
74
4
/ 4F
10
I
0
40
• 01
•
•
•
1
•0
•
•
•
•
1
•
17
•
•
0
•t
•
•
11
•
•
•
I
171
•
•-
111
•
•
•
t
•
•
0
0
0
0
•
0
•
01
0
9
0
•ft
/ *
•
»
«
«
4
•
t
•
•
•
4
«
•
•
f
0
•
t
t
4
1
t
*
4
4
t
«
1
t
»
t
t
•
•
•
•
1
0
•
•
4
«
•
•
•
•
•
0
t
«
• I»tt«*>( ••» »*••*••••*• •<• •••'•<•«'••'•• !•«»•'.
1 •*•»•• •«tk t**t«*| ••» «*lln*» »tj»r •••
»l!t»» I* »»Jtr »•••<«•.
••Hutu tadtltr Halt*.
4 •*•• ••• »r •il(lln| »•'•<>• •'• •••••» •
•» • ll»l*|«t*l l«i«(lty »*it«nf «* fll
t • Tti«1«| r««n(•••« <• ••lf*t*«
0 • •
-14-
-------
i»u.i t. •I»TI
THAI •touim
MDUCIO* i»»iu*no«<
AIAIAHA
AlAilA
••IIO**
AllANSAI
CAUFDHMIA
COLORADO
CDUKCTJCUt
•IkAVAM
fiemo*
•io«ei»
«»»*ji
IC»HO
Jtimon
SHBU«*
IBt«
IANSAI
IIMTUCtf
leviiitit
•tint
•AUTIAVD
•tittCMuirtTt
me»ii*»ii
•t*«[(OT*
mitiili'fi
•itioun
•OITAIIA
•IIKttK*
•IVAB*
•If NAHMN1M
• It JKHY
•1* HIXICO
•1C TO«K
•OKTM e**oii*t
•ODTM BA1C1A
•wie
•(i*ne>*
•iiten
MINIYIVIII*
RMDOI J»l»«»
• OUTM CAkOLIM
•OUTK IAKCT*
TIDXtttl
TIIAf
VTAM
VI*HOHT
*i«iim*
•AIMlltTOII
•I IT V1*(I«I*
tllCOKIII
VTOB1II
T«T*Lt
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
10
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
11
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IT
-15-
-------
l»0tt I.
»»ot*i*t
Fi*C0»«(l AIMUAILV
*«.«•«««
»t*ll»
*«!IOM*
ARItllllt
c«iitom]«
COLODADO
comftitin
DtL*«*E
DUTmci or eo.
HOMO*
ttOMl*
MAI* 11
JPAHO
ILIIVOU
1IDU»*
1P»*
CAIIAI
t|*tUC(V
LOUIIIAIIA
•AIIK
•A*riAMO
•AltACNUltTII
•1CM1IAI
•IHKIIOT*
NUIICIIMI
•1IIOW*1
•OUT***
ItMtllA
•IV ADA
It* NAMMNIMI
•1* 4IMIT
•t* niKieo
•!• T0»«
•PKTN CADDI.IIIA
•PIITH •*IOT«
OHIO
OtkAHOBA
onion
fl»«tTL»*«U
•MODI ltk»»D
•euTM CAROLII*
IOUTM 0*tOT*
ii««tt(it
1IXM
UTAH
»I«HO«T
V1M1IU
ItlMIMTDM
•IIT VI«fI*t«
•iteoMtn
rroilM
TOTAL*
• 0
•
•
11
1
• »
•
>«0
•
•
• 0
IT
•
44
410
1*0
• 0
• 0
100
• 0
II
•
•
•
• .
t
110
•
•
100
•
Tt
•
1*0
•
•
•»
•
•0
10
t
•
•1
11
71
•
•
14(0
•
•
•
•
t
ID
•
•
•
•
t
0
•
•
It
111
• 0
»
It
11
11
10
•0
100
•
10
•
lit
•
0
•
•
1*
•
•
•
10
11
•
•
•
tot
•0
•
•
•1
•
10
•
0
to
•
•
•«
10
0
40
ot
I
It
•0
I
0
400
•1
•
•
1
11
41
•0
•0
•
fO
•
Ml
• 40
t
•
11
110
tft
I
•0
110
410
•
Mil
I
•
0
I
•
ID
•
•
•1
•
•
•
It
I
• 0
•0
I
• 0
I
10
•
•1
110
•
•
M
111
•
•
•
M
1M
11
M
M
t
•0
M
1TO
41
M
•
1114
•
•
1
1
•
•
•
I
1
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
•
•
0
•
•
•
•
•
1
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
»
•
•
•
1
I
•
t
11
•
f»1»t
•»
or
•••••••••%» »%t%t«« tt
rtl*t« t*
I lt»tt •»•'•*•• • ••>• • »1»lt|«»*l
««tft*r|*(.
••niri«*|«*» »r*|r*«.
-16-
-------
nmmt 1. MMCCNTAOI or NWJOW MMKIKML Kimrrt WITM
TOXICITT TESTING NCQUMCMCNTS
KKCCHTAOt Of MAJOT MUMCWAL KIMMTS
WITH Toxtcrrr TESTING MEOumEMENTs
FIGURE 3. NUMBER OP PERMITS WITH TOXICITY LIMITS
10.C.
-17-
-------
BASIS FOR USING
THE WHOLE EFFLUENT APPROACH
U.S. EPA POLICY LANGUAGE
'WHERE VIOLATIONS OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
ARE IDENTIFIED OR PROJECTED, THE STATE WILL
BE EXPECTED TO DEVELOP WATER QUALITY-BASED
EFFLUENT LIMITS FOR INCLUSION IN ANY ISSUED
PERMIT.... WHERE THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT LIKELIHOOD
OF TOXIC EFFECTS TO BIOTA IN THE RECEIVING WATER
EPA AND THE STATES MAY IMPOSE PERMIT LIMITS ON
EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND MAY REQUIRE AN NPDES
PERMITTEE TO CONDUCT A TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATION."
SOimCff: 4t ftDtfti. WCISTf" » 0 ' 7 f • MANCM 1t»4)
DETERMINING
EFFLUENT TOXICITY
CHEMICAL
ANALYSIS
COMPARE WITH HEALTH
AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
CRITERIA
PROBABLY
HOT TOXIC
PROBABLY
TOXIC
./
TOXICITY REOUCATION
EVALUATION
ACUTE TESTS
• ENDPOINT: MORTALITY
• DURATION: 98 HOURS FOR FISH, 48 HOURS
FOR SOME INVERTEBRATES
• SPECIES USED: FATHEAD MINNOWS. DAPHNIA tpp.,
MYSIOS, TROUT, ETC.
• CONCENTRATION SERIES: EITHER 100% ONLY OR.
•.9. 1OO%. 5O%. 25%. 12.5%, AND 0% SERIES
• ADVANTAGES: -- »T«NoMoizra noTocoi
-- MHO ANO MCXPCNIIVI
-- CNWOMT It tA$Y TO QUANTIFY
• DISADVANTAGES:-- MOKATO ONLY FATAL CONCINTMTIOM
- WOmt ONLY FOK FAIT ACTINO CMMCM.I
- M*V NOT MFLICT HE*1 -WOULD tX^OSIMt
CHRONIC TESTS
• ENDPOINT: MORTALITY, GROWTH, REPRODUCTION, ETC.
• DURATION: WHOLE LIFE CYCLE OR CRITICAL PORTION
OF LIFE CYCLE
• SPECIES USED: FATHEAD MINNOWS, DAPHNIA *pp.,
CERIODAPHNIA «PP, MYSIDS, TROUT, ETC.
• ADVANTAGES: - MOM mmmtttuN aeon tim
- MUmi NUMKTm OTHDI TUN O«»TM
-MAT HtniCT DI*L-WO«tO CONCINTHATIONt
• OISAOV ANT AGES:-- MICH MOM comr UNO Txt-umwivt
— MOM HNSITIVI TO lOW-LtV«L CONTAMINATION
-18-
-------
LC -THE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION AT WHICH SO PERCENT
SO OP THE TEST ORGANISMS ARE KILLED WITHIN A SPECIFIED
TIME
NO6C—THE HIGHEST EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION AT WHICH NO
OBSERVED EFFECT WILL OCCUR AT CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE
TO TEST ORGANISMS
VARIABILITY IN
TOXICITY TEST RESULTS
SPECIES USED
STRAIN OR SOURCE OF TEST ORGANISMS
CONDITION OR HEALTH OF THE ORGANISMS
TEST CONDITIONS
• TtNWCMATUflE
• 0.0.
• rooo
• WATER QUALITY
• ITC
SPECIES MEAN ACUTE
VALUES FOR AMMONIA
I: EPA 1t«3WUrT)
HOTTLto i CULMN
FLATWOHM
WMTCSUCKM
•LUfOLL
MNK SALMON
DAfMNU »«N**rl*
OHAMGlTtMOAt DAKTf *
GOiMNnovr
CUTTHHOAT THOUT
COWMLMOM
NAMM>W THOUT
RELATIVE SENSITIVITY
WAttEVt
SPECIES
FATHEAD
COHO
CHINOOK
RAINBOW
BLUEGILL
LARGEMOUTH
D. MAGNA
AMMONIA
23
11
10
5
8
12
15
N*35
DOT
COPPER
34
28
27
22
18
3
9
N=42
20
7
4
5
36
37
1
N=42
Silverside (Menldia)
-19-
Anatomy of female Oaphnia pulti (0* Geer), 170; A, antenna; BC,
brood chanber; H, heart; INT, intestine; I, legs; 0V, ovary; f>,
postabdoflt*n; PC, postabdofflma) claw, (from Pennai(. '978).
-------
Lateral and dorsal view of a typical mysid.
Fathead minnow, adult female (left) and breeding male
(right).
LC50
TEST PROCEDURES
• TYPE OF TEST
- OTATIC. MENfWAL. FtOW-TMNU
• NUMBER OF CONCENTRATIONS
• NUMBER OF SPECIES
-1 ntcwMiion
• NUMBER OF ORGANISMS
- 20 MCOMMCNOCD
• DUPLICATIONS
• AGE OF ORGANISMS
• TEST CONDITIONS
-DM*. TON
•CUTI 14. 40 0««
CMMOMC T. 14, tnt
- (FttCT MUIUMO
MOHTM.W, MtCHMO. nMOMICTION, OKOWTU
•CMMHIIlDlOINa
H ". n.ow-riMu
O.tf ILfTATK
- 00. • «» KTVMTION
LC50
DATA ANALYSIS
• DETERMINE TYPE OF ANALYSIS
• DEVELOP TABLE OF DATA
• DEVELOP GRAPH
• DETERMINE LC50
• DETERMWE CONFIDENCE MT0WALS
-20-
-------
VOCABULARY
EMBRYO-LARVAL-THE LIFE STAGE JUST AF-
TER HATCHING
JUVENILE-THE LIFE STAGE WHERE THE OR-
GANISMS LOOK LIKE THE ADULT BUT ARE NOT
REPRODUCTIVELY MATURE
TERATOGENIC-CAPABLE OF CAUSING AB-
NORMAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BODY OR
BODY PARTS
MUTAGENIC-CAPABLE OF CAUSING OR IN-
DUCING A GENETIC MUTATION
LETHALITY--PERTAINING TO DEATH
CHRONIC TEST-MEASURES LONG TERM EF-
FECTS (GROWTH, REPRODUCTION)
ACUTE TEST-MEASURES SHORT TERM EF-
FECTS (MORTALITY)
ALGAE-ANY NUMBER OF SIMPLE AQUATIC
PLANTS POSSESSING CHOROPHYLL AND
CAPABLF Or CARRYING ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS
DAPHNIA SPP-A SPECIES OF WATER FLEA
CERIODAPHNIASPP-A SPECIES OF WATER FLEA
CLADOCERAN-ANY MEMBER OF THE CLADO-
CERA, AN ORDER OF BRANCHIOPOD CRUSTA-
CEANS THAT INCLUDE THE WATER FLEAS.
STATIC TEST-TEST WATER IS NOT CIRCU-
LATED OR EXCHANGED
STATIC RENEWAL TEST-TEST WATER IS
EXCHANGED FOR NEW WATER AT SPECIFIC
INTERVALS
FLQWJHRQUGHTES_I-TEST WATER IS CON-
TINUOUSLY CIRCULATED IN AND OUT OF THE
TEST CHAMBER
NEQNATE--RECENTLY HATCHED CLADO-
CERAN
CEBJOJJAPHN1A SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION
O SCOPE OF TEST-MEASURES THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF WHOLE
EFFLUENTS TO THE CLADOCERAN, CERIODAPHNIA DUB1A, DURING
A 7-DAY, STATIC RENEWAL EXPOSURE.
O SUMMARY OF METHOD-CERIOPAPHNIA ARE EXPOSED IN A STATIC
RENEWAL SYSTEM FOR 7 DAYS TO DIFFERENT CONCENTRATIONS
OF EFFLUENT OR RECEIVING WATER. TEST RESULTS ARE BASED ON
SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION. IF THE TEST IS CONDUCTED
PROPERLY, THE CONTROL ORGANISMS SHOULD PRODUCE THREE
BROODS OF YOUNG (10-35 NEONATES/BROOD) DURING THE 7-DAY
PERIOD.
o END POINT-CERIODAPHNIA MORTALITY AND REPRODUCTION
o TEST OBSERVATIONS-FIRST BROOD ON THIRD DAY IS 2-5 YOUNG,
THEREAFTER A BROOD OF 10-35 NEONATES IS RELEASED EVERY
36-48 HOURS.
-MORTALITY AND/OR NUMBER OF YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ARE
RECORDED DAILY.
o NUMBER AND AGE OF ORGANISMS-60 NEONATES < 4-H OLD
Vo«™«?!NN'NG °F THE TCST (1° ORGANISMS/CONCENTRATION
•*• CONTROL).
o TERMINATION OF TEST-ALL OBSERVATIONS MUST BE COMPLETED
IN 7 DAYS (± 2-H) AFTER INITIATION OF TEST COMpL£TED
O DATA ANALYSIS-TOTAL NUMBER OF YOUNG
DETERMINED UNTIL DEATH OR END OF TEST
FIRST. CALCULATE MEAN NUMBER OF YOUNG PER ADUL
FOR EACH CONCENTRATION TO PROVIDE A COMBINED
OF THE TOX.CANT-S EFFECT ON MORTALITY AND
ADULT FEMALE (S
METHODS MANUAL F°* DETAILED
-21-
-------
TAJU i. summ of Mcwxcoeo TEST COIOITIONS rt» ttniODAmmt
iOIUUW. »KO MMOOUCUO* UST
1. Tilt t/p<:
2. TMPM-tturt (°C):
3. Ugnt qudtty:
4. ltfnt Intensity:
Stlttc rintvtt
25 » I«C
AlBltnt Ittorttory Kgnt
10-20 ut/>2/l, or 50-100 ft-<
(mlint tiaontory Itvtlt)
S. PtwtwtrlM:
6. Ttlt »t»tl tin:
7. Tut idlution volim:
10. taxMr of tilt orgtnlm
oir cn«Mri
16 n light. 8 h dirt
30 «.
IS «.
I. lintnl of tilt eoncintrxtlons: Ollly
9. Agi of tist orginisxts: LISS thin 24 h; ind ill rilnsid
1
10
11. lluBMr of rtpllcitt
Cluxwrt Mr triiUMtit:
12. Fitting rtjl«t:
1). Alrltlon:
14. Dilution «lttr:
li. 011utlM fitter:
It. tttt «uru«n:
17. [ffKtf
Fttd 0.1 n. food Sulptnl Ion/15 •..
dllly
Kodirittl/ him itinoird utcr,
rtctlv^ng vitir, othir turf«cl
Mtir, or froyM "Itlr «lth MrdMtl
itatllr to racolirlng »lt«r
Apprvilutll; 0.) or O.S
?«*»!
Sunlxl tut riprMuctlon
I*1L£ 2. OAT» FHOH CCKIOOAPHlill EFFLUENT TOXICITr TEST
tffl
Cone
Cont
1.01
3.01
6.01
12.01
2$ .OS
Oly
No.
3
4
7
3
4
S
6
7
3
4
S
6
7
4
S
t
7
3
4
5
t
7
3
4
S
7
Repllcit*
A
0
2
9
TT
0
2
9
4
0
2
3
10
0
2
2
9
0
0
1
8
11
0
X
IT
e
0
2
2
4
0
4
S
3
T?
0
1
4
8
0
4
8
2
if
0
4
e
4
0
0
X
TT
c
0
4
9
j
0
1
2
6
TT
0
2
6
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
8
T7
0
J,
-r
0 C
0 0
0 6
0 9
U U
0 0
0 4
o a
2 8
4TJ
0 0
4 4
9 11
9 0
0 0
2 0
3 10
6 12
TT 5T
0 0
2 2
2 3
3 10
6 10
T3~ TT
0 0
«. :
IT 15
f G
> 0
. 2
- 0
•*-*
0 0
2 2
13 2
8 10
TTTT
0 0
8 2
6 2
3 6
6 11
TT TT
0 0
1 2
6 8
13 9
T7 TT
0 0
0 1
} 0
10 S
0 0
i 0
X
Tt TT
H
0
6
6
rf
0
3
8
0
0
0
4
10
if
0
0
6
11
TT
0
2
2
10
0
X
TJ
1 J
0 0
1 4
2 9
11 10
0 0
2 2
2 2
6 <
11 12
TJ TT
0 0
4 3
8 »
8 3
0 3
4 2
2 4
TTTT
0 0
1 4
3 0
6 7
0 0
0 0
X X
f IT
Totll
Young
0
27
46
Si
0
22
SI
ss
,fr
0
30
55
63
3
19
38
52
0
18
12
71
0
0
1
0
T
do.
Adults
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
6
1
0
0
Host young
•yAny
Oni AOult
0
6
9
11
to
0
4
13
10
13
0
8
11
10
12
3
4
8
10
13
0
4
S
10
12
0
0
1
0
0
« • OtiO Mult, no young oroducM bifori Mitli.
1* • 0*14 Mult; OM young (roaucM tafori witn.
•otl: Mys I ind 2 in not IncludM NciuM r°un| Met not producM until
tin tnlrd Oiy. Adult lortlllty •« not rKordid for dlyt I ind 2.
-22-
-------
FATHEAD MINNOW (PIMEPHALES PRQMELAS)
LARVAE
O SCOPE Of TEST-ESTIMATE THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF WHOLE
EFFLUENTS TO FATHEAD MINNOW LARVAE IN A 7-DAY, STATIC
RENEWAL TEST.
o SUMMARY OF METHOD-LARVAE (PREFERABLY < 24-H OLD) ARE
EXPOSED IN A STATIC RENEWAL SYSTEM FOR 7 DAYS TO
DIFFERENT CONCENTRATIONS OF EFFLUENT TEST RESULTS ARE
BASED ON THE SURVIVAL AND GROWTH (INCREASE IN WEIGHT) OF
THE LARVAE.
O END POINT-MORTALITY AND GROWTH (CHANGE IN WEIGHT) OF
THE LARVAE.
O NUMBER AND AGE OF ORGANISMS-150-300 PER TEST; THREE
SEPARATE SPAWNS; <24-H OLD.
o TERMINATION OF TEST-AFTER 7 DAYS THE LARVAE IN EACH
CHAMBER ARE PRESERVED AS A GROUP. LARVAE ARE RINSED,
OVEN DRIED (100° C FOR >2-H) AND WEIGHED (0.1MG).
o DATA ANALYSIS-MORTALITY AND MEAN WEIGHT OF LARVAE FOR
EACH CONCENTRATION ARE COMPARED TO CONTROLS AND
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT (P=0.05) DIFFERENCES DETERMINED.
O CALCULATIONS-SEE CHRONIC METHOD MANUAL FOR DETAILED
DISCUSSION.
TAKE I. SUMMARY OF SURVIVAL AND GROWTH DATA OF FATHEAD HINNOU LARVAE EXPOSED FOR
SEVEN OATS TO SODIUM PENTACHLOROPHENATE
Test
Cone.
No.
,
2
3
4
S '
6
NaPCP
Cone.
(ug/L)
Control
32
64
128
256
512
Proportion of
Survival In
Replicate Chambers
A B C 0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.4
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.2
Mean
Prop. CV*
Surv. (K)
0.95 6
0.85 12
0.975 5
0.90 9
0.775 29
0.325* 29
Ave Dry Hot |mg) In
Replicate Charters
A
0.711
0.646
0.669
0.629
0.650
0.358
B
0.662
0.626
0.669
0.680
0.558
0.543
C
0.718
0.723
0.694
0.513
0.606
0.488
0
0.767
0.700
0.676
0.672
0.508
0.495
Mean
Dry Ugt
(-9)
0.714
0.674
0.677
0.624
o.seo*
0.47lb
CV
(SI
6
7
2
12
II
17
•Coefficient of variation (standard deviation X I00/*ean).
^Significantly different from control (P - 0.05).
-23-
-------
ALGAL fSELENASTRUM CAPRICORHUTUM)
GROWTH TEST
O SCOPE OF TEST-MEASURES THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF WHOLE
EFFLUENT TO THE FRESH WATER ALGA, SELENASTBHU
CAPRICORNUTUM, DURING A 4-OAY STATIC EXPOSURE.
O SUMMARY OF METHOO-A SELENASTRUM POPULATION IS EXPOSED
IN A STATIC SYSTEM TO A SERIES OF EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
FOR 96-H. THE RESPONSE OF THE POPULATION IS MEASURED IN
TERMS OF CHANGES IN CELL DENSITY (CELL COUNTS PER ML),
BIOMASS, CHLOROPHYLL CONTENT, OR ABSORBANCE. BY
EXTENDING THE TEST TO 14 DAYS, IT MAY BE USED TO MEASURE
THE ALGAL GROWTH POTENTIAL OF WASTEWATERS AND
SURFACE WATERS.
0 WHAT IS THIS7-SELENASTRUM IS A UNICELLULAR COCCOID GREEN
ALGA.
0 END POINT-CELL COUNTS OR CHLOROPHYLL CONTENT OR
TURBIDITY (LIGHT ADSORBANCE). REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD,
TEST SOLUTIONS SHOULD BE CHECKED UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
TO DETECT ABNORMALITIES IN THE CELL SIZE OR SHAPE.
O METHODS OF MEASURING THE END POINT
(1) COUNTING-AUTOMATIC PARTICLE COUNTER; COUNTS EACH
CELL PASSING THROUGH AN APERATURE BY MEASURING A
CHANGE IN VOLTAGE. CELLS MAY BE MANUALLY COUNTED,
MINIMUM OF 400 CELLS PER REPLICATE.
(2) CHLOROPHYLL CONTENT-CHLOROPHYLL MAY BE MEASURED
IN-V1VO FLUOROMETRICALLY OR SPECTROPHOTOMETRICALLY.
FLUOROMETRIC MEASUREMENTS ARE RECOMMENDED
BECAUSE OF SIMPLICITY AND SENSITIVITY.
ALGAL (SELENASTRUM CAPRICORNUTUMl
GROWTH TEST(Continued)
o METHODS OF MEASURING THE END POINT
(3) TURBIDITY(ABSORBANCE)- A SPECTROPHOTOMETER IS USED
TO DETERMINE THE TURBIDITY, OR ABSORBANCE, OF THE
CULTURES AT A WAVE LENGTH OF 750 NM. VOLUME, SIZE, AND
PIGMENTATION OF THE ALGAE CAN AFFECT THE RESULTS;
CALIBRATE TO ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ABSORBANCE AND CELL DENSITY.
(4) BIOMASS-ALGAL GROWTH POTENTIAL RESULTS MAY BE
EXPRESSED AS A MG DRY WEIGHT ORGANIC MATTER/LITER.
BIOMASS CAN BE CALCULATED FROM CELL COUNTS AND
MEAN CELL VOLUMES, OR CAN BE MEASURED DIRECTLY BY
GRAVIMETRIC METHODS.
o NUMBER AND AGE OF CELLS-10,000 CELLS/ML/DILUTION AND
REPLICATE FROM 4 TO 7 DAY STOCK.
o CALCULATIONS-SEE CHRONIC METHODS MANUAL FOR DETAILED
DISCUSSION
-24-
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF RECOHMENOEO TEST CONDITIONS FOR THE ALGAL fiftOWTH TEST
1. Ttst type:
2. Tenperature:
1. Light quality:
4. Light Intensity:
S. Photoperlod:
6. Test flask size:
7. Test solution volune:
8. Age of stock culture
used for Inoculum:
9. Initial cell density:
10. Number of replicates
per concentration:
11. Snaking rate:
12. Dilution niter:
13. Dilution factor:
14. Test duration:
IS. Effect aeasurtd:
16. Cnd pcint(s):
Static
24 4 2°C
•Cool white* fluorescent lighting
86 * 8.6 uE/rf/S (400 * 40 ft-C)
Continuous illumination
125 «L or 2SO it
SO nL or 100 M.
4 to 7 days
10,000 cells/ml
3
100 epm continuous, or twice daily
by hana
Algal stock culture nedium without
EOTA, or surface water
Approximately 0.3 or O.S
96 h
•rowth (cell counts, chlorophyll
fluorescence, aosorbance, bioaass)
EC1. NOEC, S(X)
TABLE 4. SAMPLE DATA FROM AL&AL TOXIC1TY TEST WITH CADMIUM CHLORIDE
Toxicant
Concentration
(UQ Cd/L)
0 (Control)
i
10
20
40
80
Growth
Response:
Cells/m
1000
1209
1180
1340
1212
1186
1204
826
628
816
493
416
4)3
127
147
147
49.3
40.0
44.0
Cells/itl
1000
(Logio)
3.082
3.072
3.127
3.084
3.074
3.081
2.917
2.798
2.912
2.693
2.619
2.6)6
2.104
2.167
2.167
1.693
1.602
1.643
Percent
Inhibition
of (rowth
US)
0
3.4
39.1
64. S
88.7
96.4
-25-
-------
CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
IWCUI»l»T»lT «1tt-ttt
M mm irTNnwnvxmin »•>-•••
•nmm emmnow-rMMiMH
VARIABLE SPECIES COST
STATIC ACUTE
DAPHNIOS MINNOW
24-HR SCREENING 250 400
150 250
200 400
250 400
48-HR DEFINITIVE 500 1000
450 625
300 700
500 1000
-26-
-------
TEST CONDUCTED AT CENTRAL LABORATORY
COSTRANOBW N
1-100
101-2OO
201-300
301-400
401400
S01-WO
SCREENING DEFINmV
I
I 3
7 •
S «
4
601-700
32
701-WO " *
23*
TOTAL LABS
MEAN COST
COST RANGE
TEST CONDUCTED AT CENTRAL LABORATORY
NO. LABORATORIES CONDUCTING SHORT-TERM CHRONIC TES
COSTRANOe(S) DAPHMOS MINNOW MINNOW AGP
LARVAL EMBRYO
4 21
M1-000 * ' 2 J
•01-1100 2 3 4 »
ltOI-1400 7 21>
1401-1700 2 4 • •
1701-9000 • 14-
20014300 1 •
23014000 • 11-
TOTAL UM 10 14 13 11
MEAN COST 1007 1220 1000 737
COST RANGE 3004200 4004*00 4004SOO 200-1400
PRECISION FOR INORGANIC ANALYSIS
AT LOW END OF MEASUREMENT RANGE
MEASURBMgNT 'LABS CV
Al 21 154
Cd 55 357
Cr 47 105
Cu 60 81
ft 54 575
Pb 60 88
Mn 55 245
HQ 76 131
Ag SO 17.6
Zn 86 371
BOD 58 33
COO 58 34
TOC 21 80
REFERENCE EPA 6OO/4 - 79 - 020
TEN LABORATORY ROUNDROBIN PRECISION
TESTS FOR FATHEAD 7-DAY EFFLUENT TEST
(ALL VALUES AS % EFFLUENT)
301 401 501
LAB 12 12 12
A
B
C
D
E
F
0
H
1
J
M*m
STD D«v
CV
.72
.82
—
.3
.66
.5
.47
t.t
—
1.6 1
.759
.367
48
.8
.76
~
.48
.64
.41
.6
.68
—
.5
36 47
43 32
41 61
39 43
23 29
- 26
32 46
30 39
50 61
73 80
42.6
13.7
32
.52 .9
3.3 2.7
5.6 5.1
.96 .82
..
.84 .83
3.0 2.5
2.T 1.8
3.5 4.2
1.6
2.4
1.57
66
-27-
-------
PRECISION OF EFFLUENT
TOXICITY TESTS
•LABS
SPECIES
TESTS
EFFECT
CV(%)
9
3
3
2
1
2
3
10
10
D. magna
D. magna
Fathead
Fathead
Cerlodaphnla
D. pulex
D. magna
Fathead
Fathead
18
18
3
4
7
2
3
60
60
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Chronic
LC50
LCSO
LCSO
Growth
• —
28.5
49
12
26
0
7
7
33
49
BIOMONITORING CONTRACT DATA
LAB
A
B
D
E
f
J
K
M
N
0
MEAN
C.V.
EFFLUENT LCSO (%)
5.1
8.7
8.6
6.5
1.8
3.8
6.9
6.4
8.2
0.04
5.6
52
37(MINUS LAB
REF. TOX. LCSO (%)
33
41
38
39
8.8
35
19
39
27
39
31.0
31.0
0) 33
COMPLEX EFFLUENT TOXICITY
TESTING PROGRAM
6 Stream*
RESULTS:
84 Monitoring Locations
• Ambient toxlcitT directly correlated to
stream population impact*
• Effluent toxlcity from single source
directly correlated to stream impact
* Stream population also affected
by temperature. D.O.. pH. etc.
-28-
-------
NORTH CAROLINA STUDY
43 Point Source Discharge Sites
No Irwtreom Toiicfty Predict*
impact Noted
Imlreom Toiicrty Predicted
Impact Noted -,-~
555;
No trutream Toiicrty Predicted
No Impact Noted OTJ^
SALT WATER STUDY
79 Ambient Stations and 4 Dischargers
PREDICTED AMBIENT TOXICITY
6X NO TOXICITY OBSERVED
NO »MBENT TOXICITY PREDICTED
TOXICITY OBSERVED c«
PREDICTED AMBIENT TOXICITY
TOXICITY OBSERVED
14%
NO MOENT TOXICITY PREDICTED
NO TOXICITY OBSERVED
75X
-29-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
SECTION 3
PERMIT LIMIT DEVELOPMENT
-31-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
TOXICITY PERMIT
LIMIT
DEVELOPMENT
U.S. EPA POLICY LANGUAGE
"WHERE VIOLATIONS OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
ARE IDENTIFIED OR PROJECTED, THE STATE WILL
BE EXPECTED TO DEVELOP WATER QUALITY-BASED
EFFLUENT LIMITS FOR INCLUSION IN ANY ISSUED
PERMIT.... WHERE THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT LIKELIHOOD
OF TOXIC EFFECTS TO BIOTA IN THE RECEIVING WATER,
EPA AND THE STATES MAY IMPOSE PERMIT LIMITS ON
EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND MAY REQUIRE AN NPDES
PERMITTEE TO CONDUCT A TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATION."
SOURCE: 4« FEDERAL REGISTER 90 17 (9 MARCH 1904)
TOXICITY LIMITS
1. TESTING ONLY
- FREQUENCY: 1 /MONTH TO 4/YEAR
2. TESTING WITH LIMIT BUT
-EXCEEDANCE TRIGGERS MORE FREQUENT
TESTING
- EXCEEDANCE TRIGGERS TOXICITY
REDUCTION EVALUATION
3. ACUTE LC50LIMIT - MAXIMUM DAY
4. CHRONIC NOEC LIMIT - MAXIMUM DAY
5. TSD STATISTIC DERIVATION
- MAXIMUM DAY/AVER AGE DAY - LC50
- MAXIMUM DAY/AVERAGE DAY - NOEC
-33-
-------
GENERAL WATER QUALITY-
BASED APPROACH
FROM WATER QUALITY STANDARD
(never to be exceeded instream concentration)
1) Determine Wasteload Allocation (WLA)
(never to be exceeded effluent concentration)
Assume values for worst-case conditions
2) Determine Permit Limits such that the WLA
will not be exceeded as long as:
- Limits are met
- WLA assumptions are not violated
Must consider MONITORING FREQUENCY
and EFFLUENT VARIABILITY
PERMIT LIMITS ARE BASED ON
• A SPECIFIC PROBABILITY LEVEL THAT WILL
ALLOW DISTINGUISHING NON-COMPLYING
PLANTS USING IMPERFECT MONITORING
• AN ASSUMED NUMBER OF
OBSERVATIONS PER MONTH
WHAT A PERMIT WRITER NEEDS TO
WRITE A WATER QUALITY-BASED LIMIT:
1) PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
2) C.V. (FOR 2-NUMBER S.S. MODEL)
3) WLA CONSISTING OF:
- FLOWS (EFFLUENT & STREAM)
• MIXING ZONE
- CRITERIA
4) SENSITIVE SPECIES FOR TOXICITY LIMIT
-34-
-------
STATE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
NUMERIC - Use general approach
NARRATIVE - Must interpret standard
to use general approach
(e.g., "No toxics in toxic amounts")
TSD INTERPRETATION OF
NARRATIVE "NO TOXICS" WQS
NO CHRONIC TOXICITY (in stream for a
chronic exposure period)
NO ACUTE TOXICITY (in stream for an
acute exposure period)
-35-
-------
TRANSLATES TO:
NO CHRONIC TOXICITY AFTER MIXING
NO ACUTE TOXICITY WITHIN
MIXING ZONE* (end of pipe OR
after initial dilution)
Mixing Zone defined by the State
AT ANY TIME:
100% STREAM (after mixing) = NOEC
1OO% STREAM (in Mixing Zone) = LC l
-36-
-------
DOSE RESPONSE CURVE
ACUTE
bj
o
u
rear
PERCENT EFFLUENT
LC50 = 3.33 LC1 1/LC50
0.3 (1/LC1)
WLA:
EFFLUENT
FLOW)
STREAM
FLOW
DURATION
MAGNITUDE FREQUENCY
\
\
CMC = 0.3 TUA S 1hr/3 yrs
CCC =1.0 TUC 3 4 DAYS/3 yrs
STATE MIXING ZONE
WLA IS A QUANTIFICATION OF AN AMBIENT
TARGET. IT IS SEPARATE FROM A PERMIT LIMIT.
-37-
-------
WHY
TWO NUMBER CRITERIA
AMBIENT CONCENTRATION
CMf*
f*f*f*
— VxVxL»
1 1 1
ZONES
LETHALITY
CHRONIC
EFFECT
NO
EFFECT
10 2O 3O
TIME (DAYS)
WHY
TWO NUMBER CRITERIA
ZONES
LETHALITY
AMBIENT CONCENTRATION
I CMP
... - . f*f*f*
Vrl«V
1 1 1
CHRONIC
EFFECT
NO
EFFECT
1O 20 30
TIME (DAYS)
-38-
-------
WHY
TWO NUMBER CRITERIA
o
i-
<
oc
H
Z
w
0
Z
o
Z
UJ
m
1
+
+
ZONES
LETHALITY
CHRONIC
EFFECT
NO
EFFECT
10
2O 30
TIME (DAYS)
-39-
-------
SIMPLE DILUTION
CALCULATION METHOD
TOXICITY IS INVERSELY
PROPORTIONAL TO
WET TEST ENDPOINTS
(NOEC, LC50)
TOXIC UNITS (TU)
LC OR NOEC
TUa = Toxic Units ACUTE
TUC = Toxic Units CHRONIC
-40-
-------
STEADY-STATE WLA DERIVATION
PROCEDURE
Effluent Toxiclty WLA <. Criterion X Dilution Factor
where: criterion = 0.3 TUa for acute toxicity
1.0 TUc for chronic toxicity
Dilution factor (d.f.) = the factor by which the effluent is
diluted in the receiving water
(A) When plant's water source is receiving stream
d.f. = Qs
(B) When plant's water source is not the receiving stream
d.f. = Q + Q
Q~
(c) Qs = receiving stream design flow
Qa = effluent design flow
-41-
-------
TOX1CITY PERMIT LIMIT DEVELOPMENT
FACILITY: ———— CHEMICAL COMPANY
LOCATION:
PERMIT: — • ••
CAL RIVER: 7010 • 27.3 CFS
1010-21.1 CFS
PLANT FLOW: 147,000 GPD (OUTFALL 001). 0.31 CFt
INSTBEAM WASTE CONCENTRATION (IWC)
IWC FOR 7010 (CHRONIC) • .
IWC FOR 1010 (ACUTE) •
ASSUMPTIONS;
(1) COMPLETE MIXINO-
(MIXINO ZONE WOULD RESULT IN MORE STRINGENT LIMITS)
(2) NO TOXICITY FROM UPSTREAM SOURCES
(9) ACUTE TO CHRONIC RATIO • 10
(4) COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION (CV) > O.S
DETERMINE WLA
WLA toxteitr * BCQuent toxicity never to be
exceeded
Determined at worst-case conditions:
Q (critical stream flow - low flow)
^•
(design effluent flow)
-42-
-------
M«NMr 1T| ar LTA I. |lv*n IMS CV,
LTA
TIME
CV » 0.6
Figure 5-4. Relationship of Hermit Llmita. Uasteload /U locations,
and long Ten* Average for a Given Coefficient of Variation
CHRONIC WLA
STEP 1:
Convert Criteria (100% stream after mixing =NOEO
to TUC (acts like mg/L)
If NOEC = 1OO% Stream
x TUC * -Jjjg- - 1 TUC after mixing
-43-
-------
CHRONIC WLA (cent.)
STEP 2:
Back-calculate WLA
WLA » 1 TUC x
OL, = 7Q1O low flow for stream
°8 critical
Q = effluent design flow
6
(+ Q, ) is added if source of water thru
plant is NOT the stream
SIMPLE DILUTION CALCULATION
CHRONIC
WLA + 1.0 IWC = 1.0( ) = %
NOEC
EFFLUENT STATEMENT
THE NOEC OF THE EFFLUENT USING A
SEVENC7) DAY CERIODAPHNIA spp. TEST
SHALL BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN %
AT ANY TIME. THE NOEC AS REPORTED IN
TOXIC UNITS SHALL NOT EXCEED TUc.
-44-
-------
ACUTE WLA
STEP 1:
Convert Criteria U00% Stream In Mixing Zone =
to TUa (acts like mg/L)
If LCi = 10O% Stream
TIa = k loo" to
Jt = conversion factor for -j^r-to -£c — = °-3
1 5O
* TUa» 0.3-Jgg- = 0.3 TUa in M. Z.
Jlvw
(cont.)
STEP 2:
Back-calculate WLA
WLA s 0.3 TIL X -= - After Initial Mix
^ 9e
CL. = CL = 1Q1O low flow for stream
** ^critical **
Q = effluent design flow
e
(+ Q }ts added if source of water thru plant is NOT the stream
WLA = 0.3 TUa
NO Initial Mix
SIMPLE DILUTION CALCULATION
WLA
LCso °3
THE LC OF THE EFFLUENT USING
50
A 96 HOUR CERIQDAPHNIAjspp. TEST
SHALL BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN %
AT ANY TIME. THE LC AS REPORTED IN
50
TOXIC UNITS (TU) SHALL NOT EXCEED TUa
-------
SIMPLE DILUTION CALCULATION
^CUIEJXLCHRONIC_(ACR)
WLA = IWC X ACR = X 10 =
AC
EFaUENr STATEMENT
THE LC OF THE EFFLUENT USING A
so
96 HOUR CERIQDAPHNIA_spp. TEST SHALL
BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN %
AT ANY TIME FOR CHRONIC PROTECTION.
THE LC^S REPORTED IN TOXIC UNITS
SHALL NOT EXCEED TUc.
SIMPLE DILUTION CALCULATION
ACUTE
IWC
0.3 0.3
ACUTE TO CHRONIC (ACR)
WLA = IWC X ACR = X 10 = 0.1%Q
0.1
0.3
1
0.1
-46-
-------
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(Industrial)
This facility is a textile plant which has been discharging at this site for more
than 50 years. Form 2C states that the plant process includes dyeing of
synthetic (acrylic) fibers (SIC code 22), up to 22,000 Ibs/day. The waste stream
for the facility; including process water, boiler leedwater, non-contact cooling
water and sanitary water (120 people); is permitted for 0.1 mgd. The single
outfall discharge into Smith Creek is 33% domestic waste and 67% industrial
waste.
The treatment system is comprised of two vibrating fine screens, an equali-
zation tank, activated sludge tank, chemical feed, f locculation, clarification and
disinfection. Plant wastewater contains the following pollutants (quantity
unknown): color, ammonia, organic nitrogen, nitrate, nitrite, phosphorus,
chloride, calcium, fecal coliform, iron, potassium, sodium, zinc, phenols,
surfactant, and chlorine. The compliance history of the facility is good.
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(Industrial)
PF X 100
IWC (%) =
PF + 7Q10
WHERE PF = PERMITTED FLOW (cfs) OF FACILITY
7Q10 = 10 YEAR, 7 DAY LOW FLOW (cfs)
OF THE RECEIVING STREAM
PERMITTED FLOW = 0.1 mgd ( 0.155 cfs)
7Q10 = 0.3 cfs
IWC =
IWC =
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(Industrial)
There must be no observable inhibition of reproduction or mortality at a %
effluent concentration using a seven day Ceriodaphnia test. Testing shall be
quarterly using 24 hour composite samples and in accordance with the
methods outlined in the North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay
procedure (revised February 1987). Sampling shall be done in the months
of March, June, September, and December.
-47-
-------
A. ( ). EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Final
DurlBi tb. p.rl.4 b.(lnml«t. on tha affective data of tha per.lt nad lantluc nntll .itplr.Uon tk»
Paraltta* la cntWrlMil t. dlnckarn* fro. o.tfall(a) aarlal na>fc*r(a) 001. Sack dlacliar.aa aball b. li.ft~<
and anUtond by the) Pnmltta* M --• " - « 11 on IIKK.M
Ck«r«nth
Waakly
Vaakly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annually
•^^ — — ««~**»»»^M
••SlS «tan>le
Trpa Locatlonj
Recording I or t
Conpoalta
Coa^toalta
Coa^walta
Crab
Grab
Covpoilta
Crab
Grab
Covpoilta
Grab
, U. D
. U. D
. t). D
Grab U. D
Con«K»lta E
CoaqMtlt* E
Co^ollte E
I
• Saaapt* locatloaw: E - EfflMait, I - laflMtt, U - Upaitra** at 2)rd Str«*t. D - Dowutraaa at
W tU«*at«T HI
••Chronic TonicIty (Carlodaphnla) P/r at MS , March. Juna. Saptcaber and December. Saa Part III.
Condition No. C.
«*• Ba« Part III. Condition No. I.
Tb« pi aball not b« laaa tk«n 6.0 atnwlard «olt. nor txaatar than 9.0 atandud unlta and aball b*
•onitornd makly at tba affluant by (rab aanpla.
•n>.ra aball bn M 4UckW(a of floating aollda or *lalbla foaai In otbar than traca awmata.
-48-
-------
Part III
f»r«i t No . NC0000317
F. Toxlclty Reopener
This permit shall be modified, or rtvokcd and reissued to
Incorporate toxlcity limitations and monitoring requirements In the
tvtnt toxiclty teating or other acudlaa conducted en the affluent or
receiving atream Indicate chat detrimental affaeta may be expected
in the receiving stream aa a raault of thla diacharge.
C. Chronic Toxlclty Teatlng Requirement
The affluent discharge shall at no tine exhibit chronic toxiclty
ualnf teat procedurea outlined in:
1. The North Carolina Ce£^p_da_£hn_la chronic affluent bioaasay
procadura (North Carolina Chronic lloaaaay Froeadurc - R'cviaed
•February 1987) or eubsequent versions.
The affluent concentration at vhich there may ba no observable
Inhibition of reproduction or significant mortality ia 3*X (defined
aa treatment tvo in the Morth Carolina procadura document). The
permit holder shall perform quarterly monitoring ualng thla
procedura to establish compliance with tha permit condition. The
first csst will be performed after thirty days from issuance of this
permit during tha months of March. June. September and December.
Effluent sampling for this tasting shall ba performed at the NPDCS
permitted final affluent discharge balov all treatment proceaeet.
All toxiclty casting raaulta required as psrc of this permit
condition will be entered on tha Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form
(MR-l) for the month in which it waa performed, ualng the
appropriate parameter eoda. Additionally, D*.M Form AT-1 (original)
ia to ba sffnt to tha following address:
Technical Servieea Iraech
North Carolioa Division of Environmental Management
PO lox 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Teat data shall ba complete end accurate and include all aupportlni
ehemlcal/phyaleal aeaaurementa performed in aaaociation with the
toxieity tasts, as wall •• all dose/response data. Total rtsidual
chlorine muat ba measured and reported if chloriaa it employed for
disinfection of the waate atraam.
Should any teat data from thla monitoring requirement or testa
performed by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this pernlt nay
be reopened and modified to include alternate monitoring
requirements or llmltationa.
-49-
-------
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(POTW)
This facility is a POTW which currently discharges 0.825 MGD through a
single outfall into Hannah Creek. The application form states that secon-
dary treatment of wastewater occurs via dual oxidation ditch wastewater
treatment facility with grit removal, communitor, bar screens, dual clarifi-
ers, chemical feed (lime), tertiary filters, post chlorination, and post aera-
tion. There are plans to Increase the plant capacity to at least 1.0 MGD.
This facility has an approved pretreatment program.
The facility receives 76% domestic waste and 24% industrial.
About 200,000 gpd of wastewater are treated from textile plant which
makes cotton and synthetic fiber cloths and surgical gowns.
Occasional noncompliance with various permit parameters; however,
none were recurring or significant.
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(POTW)
PF X 100
PF X 7Q10
Where PF = Permitted flow (cfs) of facility
7Q10 = 10 year, 7 day low flow of the receiving stream
Permitted flow = 1.274 mgd (1.97 cfs)
7O10 = 0 cfs (Dry weather stream, effluent dominated)
IWC =
IWC =
State requirements allow a maximum instream waste concentration
(IWC) of 99%
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(POTW)
There must be no observable inhibition of reproduction or mortality at a
% effluent concentration using a seven day Certodaphnia test. Testing
shall be quarterly using 24 hour composite samples and in accordance
with the methods outlined in the North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic ef-
fluent bioassay procedure (revised February 1987). Sampling shall be
done In the months of March, June, September, December.
-50-
-------
A. nrumrr LIMITMIGNS »t> MONITORING RBOOIRWEMTS - Final
•r: April 1 - October 31
During th* P*'"*1 b«2'n?i'3 °" "» *««*lve date of the permit and lasting until expiration or enpansion,
the permittee la authorized to discharge from outfall serial number - 001. '
aich discharge shall be limited and monitored by the permittee aa specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
Dlacharne
Monitoring Reaul
Km in other tlwvi titk-p anmntr..
Fteiiiiy Name,
Permit*
CHRONIC Toxicrnr TESTING REQUIREMENT (MONTHLY)
The effluem djscharfe shalJ at no Dme exhibit chronic tojucirv using itst procedures ouUuted IT.
1.) The Nonh Carolina CtDflliliHUJ chronic effluent bioassay procedure (North Cirolina Chror.-.;
Bioassay Procedure - Revised • February 1987) or subsequent versions
The effluent concentration at which there nay be no observable inhibition of rcproducnon or
fifnificani Boruliry is % (defined as ntatmeni two in the Nonh Carolina procedure
document). The permit holder shall perform manihl\ monitahnf usin| this procedure to establish
compliance with the permit condition The first lest will be performed within thirty days from
issuance of this permit Effluent samplinf for this testvif thai! be performed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below aJJ vtaoneni processes
All toxicity tesoni results required as pan of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed, using the parameter
cede TGP3B Additionally. DEM Form AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Technical Services Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh. N.C 27611
Test daia shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical^hysica) measurement
performed in association with (he toxicity tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed (or
disinfection of the waste stream
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the Nonh Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving stream, this
permit may be re-opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or limits.
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism stsrviva] and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid lest
Hid will require immediate reesnngf within 30 days of inibal monitoring event). Failure D submit
suitable sett results will constitute a failure of permit condition
70,10
Permited Flow
IWC*.
.ds
.MOD
Recommended by:
Basin A Sub-btsin.
Receiving Stream _
County
Date.
••Chronic Toxicity (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at __%, See Part . Condition
-51-
-------
Facility Name _____________________________ Permit * _________
ACUTE TOX30TY TESTING REQUIREMENT
Fwhe*d Minnow 4i hr • Monthly Monitoring
The permittee shall conduct acute toxicity tests on a •••*>» basis usin| protocol! defined in
E.P.A Document 600/4-85/O13 entitled The Acute Toucity of Effluents to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms". The monitoring (hall be performed as a Fathead Minnow (Pimephiles
promel»o 48 hour static test, using effluent collected as a 24 hour composite. Effluent samples for
self-monitoring purposes must be obtained during representative effluent discharge belo» all waste
Btaunem. The first test will be performed within thirty days from issuance of this permit.
The parameter code for this test is TAA6C. All toxiciiy .sting results required as pan of this
permit condibon will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the monih
in which it was performed, using the appropriate parameter code. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Technical Services Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measuremerr.s
performed in association with the toxicity tests,, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent loxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfection of the waste stream.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements or tests performed by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving scream.
this permit may be re-opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirenvnts or limns
NOTE: Failure to achieve test conditions as specified in the died document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate ictcsnnf (within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to subnrui
suitable test results will constitute t failure of permit condition.
7Q10 efs
Permitted Flow MOD Recommended by:
1WC%
Basin A Sub-Basin _____________
Receiving Stream
County Date
••Acute ToJuciry(Fathead Minnow 4Shr) Monitoring. See Pan . Condibon .
-52-
-------
TOXICITY PERMIT
LIMIT DEVELOPMENT
BY
STATISTICAL METHOD
USING TU
RATIONALE FOR USING THE
STATISTICAL APPROACH
• PROVIDES MECHANISM FOR SETTING
PERMIT LIMITS WHICH WILL BE
TOXICOLOGICALLY PROTECTIVE
• ALLOWS COMPARISON OF TWO WLA's
TO DETERMINE WHICH IS MORE
LIMITING
• PROVIDES A MEANS TO ACCURATELY
DETERMINE THE AVERAGE MONTHLY
PERMIT LIMIT
NOTE: PROCEDURE IS APPLICABLE
FOR ANY WATER QUALITY-BASED
EFFLUENT PARAMETER
APPROACH
WLA REQUIREMENTS
ASSUMPTIONS:
ALLOWABLE WLA CXCEEDENCE MATE
PARAMETER VARIABILITY CV
4 REQUIRED TREATMENT
SELECT LIMITING
REQUIREMENT
CALCULATE LIMITS
SPECIFICATIONS:
EXCEEDCNCE PROBABILITY BASIS
BASIS FOR MONTHLY LIMIT
4
-53-
-------
STEADY-STATE WLA DERIVATION
PROCEDURE
Effluent Toxicily WLA <. Criterion X Dilution Factor
where: criterion = 0.3 TU, for acute toxlcity
1.0 TUC for chronic toxicity
Dilution factor (d.f.) = the factor by which the effluent is
diluted in the receiving water
(A) When plant's water source is receiving stream
d.f. = Q.
(B) When plant's water source is not the receiving stream
d.f. = Q.+
(C) Q, = receiving stream design flow
Q, = effluent design flow
PERMIT LIMIT DERIVATION
STEP 1: Convert WLAa to chronic toxic units (TUc)
WLAa(TUa)XACR = WLA^fTU,.)
where:
ACR (Acute-Chronic Ratio) = 10
if data is unavailable
-54-
-------
LOUISIANA . PACIFIC CORPORATION
SAMOA PULP MILL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
• THE SAMOA PULP MILL IS A MARKET BLEACHED KRAFT PULP MILL
LOCATED NEAR THE COMMUNITY OF SAMOA, CA, ON THE SAMOA
PENINSULA IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY.
• DISCHARGES INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN CONSIST OF:
- PROCESS WASTEWATER FROM KRAFT PULPING, PULP BLEACHING.
AND PULP DRYING
- SOUDS FROM RAW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
. POWER BOILER EFFLUENT
•SAWMILL EFFLUENT
- TREATED SANTTARY SEWAGE
"- STORM WATER
• DISCHARGES INTO HUMBOLDT BAY CONSIST OF:
- NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
• STORM WATER
• EFFLUENT IS DISCHARGED FROM A 3200 FOOT OUTFALL THROUGH A
498 FOOT MULTIPORT DIFFUSER AT AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 41.5 FEET.
• BENEFICIAL USES OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN AND HUMBOLDT BAY:
- INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY
- NAVIGATION
- WATER CONTACT RECREATION
- NON-CONTACT WATER RECREATION
- OCEAN COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHING
- MARINE HABITAT
- FISH MIGRATION
. RSH SPAWNING
- SHELLFISH HARVESTING
LOUISIANA - PACIFIC CORPORATION
SAMOA PULP MILL
CALCULATION OF EFFLUENT TQXICITY LIMITS
I) Ocean P|an
where:
C. * Effluent concentration limit
C-. B Background seawater concentration
(Table C; Ocean Plan)
C. * Concentration to be met at completion of
Initial dilution (Table B; Ocean Plan)
Dm * Minimal probable Initial dilution
(part ieawater/part waatewater)
* 0.05 + 69(0.05-0)
»3.5TU.
II) Toxlelty Limits Baaed on WLA Calculation*
a)j&£Ute: WLA. * (0.3 TU.) Dm a 1 day average
b)£biani£: WLA, • (1.0 TU.) Dm as 4-day average
- TU.
-55-
-------
STEP 2: Calculate the long term average (LTA) required to
meetWLAs.
A) 1-Day (Acute) LTA:
LTA = exp(/i 4- 0.502)
where: u = ln(acute WLA in TUC) - ztf
z = 1.645 (95% confidence interval)
o = ymfCY2 + 1)
CV = coefficient of variation;
use 0.6 if no data is available
WLA
LTA
WLA
LTA
A .
CV-1.0
V V V
CV • 0.6
/
. . .
y r v \/ v
5-3 taUtUmhip tecuMn Uut*lmcunu at wucion
-56-
-------
Coefficient of VwiMlofi
Figure 5-7. A«mea HentMy Mrrnn umit« M • function of uw CMfflctMN el VwMletk
St«p 1: Calculate gMlutnt
Variability
CV « s/X
where:
7 * 3.223
8 = 1.282
CV«
Stap 2: Derive Parformanee tor 1-Day
WLA Reoulrement
M« ln(WLA.)-Z
-------
B) 4-Day (Chronic) LTA:
LTA a exp(/* -i- 0.502)
where: ,
M = M« - °.5o2 + 0.5ln(1 + [(e* -1/4])
M4 = ln(chronic WLA) - z Vln(1 -f [(e* -1/4])
z, CV,
LTA. « exp(/z+O-S^1)
STEP 3: Select the lower LTA. This is the more stringent
ofthetwoLJAs.
1 2 3 4 5 • 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS
TIME
-58-
-------
nw i rM««Mr t nyr I r^iL (tan IMI cv, ••
LTA
TIME
CV • 0.6
Figure 5-4. HeJuUonshlp of remit Llmtt*. Uuteload Allocation*,
ml long Tcra Average for a Given Coefficient of Varia
LTAC-44.39 TU,
LTA.-9.100TU.
«91.00TUe
8t»ume1TU. «10TUe
44.39 < 91.00
thercfort, LTAt (44.39) Is mort limiting
-59-
-------
STEP 4: Derive Daily Maximum Permit Limits:
Daily Max. = exp(/*+ zo)
where:
M = ln(LTA)-0.5
-------
Step S: Partying Permit Limits
UTA, « 44.39 TU,
CV «0.4
0 « 0.3853
a) M»ln(LTAJ.0.5tr»
b) Pally Maximum » exp ( IJL+ Zo);
where:
Z » 1.645 (95% confidence
interval)
•
c) Using 4 samples/month
ff*m 4*
•) Monthly Average » exp (f\ + ZffJ]
where:
Z • 1.645
III) Summary: Effluent Toxlclty Limits lor Louisiana-
Pacific
6-Month Monthly Dally
Parameter Unite Median Average Maximum
Toxielty TU. 3.5
Concentration
(Acute)
Toxlclty TU, 60 78
Concentration
(Chronic)
-61-
-------
MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS
1) FREQUENCY
• > 1/MONTHCACCOUNT FOR BATCH PROCESSING)
2) SAMPLING
• GRAB"- ACUTE
• COMPOSITE - CHRONIC
3) TYPE OF TEST
• ACUTE OR CHRONIC TEST IS DETERMINED
BY THE TOXICITY LIMIT ITSELF
4) NUMBER OP TEST SPECIES
• INITIALLY THREE SPECIES FOR
SENSITIVITY IDENTIFICATION
• MOST SENSITIVE SPECIE POR MONITORING
• RESIDENT vt STANDARDIZED SPECIES
- FALSE NEGATIVE RESULTS
> IF WASTE NOT PONDED AND WELL-MIXED BEFORE DISCHARGE,
THEN NEED FOUR S-HOUR COMPOSITES PER MONTH.
9-1
VMM
OS
eft
ACUM: 1010
Clwtte 7O10
UflM
VMM
VMM
Acutr GH/Qu
d.t.
Acutt:0«O«
Aeutr
Ctaorte: (O^QiVO*
VMM
WU
TUa
Ann: OJ*dJ.
TUB
CMorte 1.0-
if:
Haiti:
Irftafefe
-62-
-------
SECTION 4
TOXICITY LIMITS
-63-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
III. TOXICITY LIMITS
A. Toxicity and the Water Quality
Act of 1987.
EPA has authority to impose toxicity-based permit limitations
to implement both technology-based and water quality-based
requirements. As we argued in our initial brief, under section
502(6) of the Act, EPA is free to define "pollutant" to include
toxicity. EPA Br. at 93-95, moreover, "effluent limitation" in
section 502(11) is defined very broadly to allow the Agency
considerable discretion in determining how to reduce the discharge of
pollutants. EPA Br. at 91-93. As a practical matter, EPA has often
established limitations on pollutant parameters similar to toxicity
in effluent limitations guidelines and standards as well as in most
individual permits (both technology-based and water quality-based)
since the very earliest water permits were issued. For example,
limitations on biochemical oxygen demand ("BOD"), chemical oxygen
demand ("COD"), pH, total toxic organics and total suspended solids
are commonly established and the courts have upheld these
limitations. See e.g.. Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA. 760 F.2d 549 (4th
Cir. 1985) (total toxic organics); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costie; 590
F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (BOD); C&H Sugar Co. v. ££A. 553 F.2d 280
(2d Cir. 1977) (BOD, total suspended solids); FMC Corp. v. Train. 539
F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976) (COD). Like effluent toxicity, these
parameters combine various constituents that might not be identified
individually. This approach to the regulation of pollutants is an
efficient and effective method of implementing the purposes and
directives of the Act. Indeed, it is sometimes the only feasible way
to do so. EPA Br. at 92.
-65-
-------
EPA has been using toxicity-based requirements in permits for
some time, to implement both technology-based and water quality-based
controls. In 1984, the Agency issued a policy for water quality-
based controls that recommended the use of such limitations where
necessary. 49 Fed. Reg. 9,016 (March 9, 1984). Since the issuance
of EPA's 1984 policy, use of toxicity-based limitations have become
widespread.
Contrary to Industry petitioners' contentions, when the
overall purpose and explicit language of section 308 of the WQA is
read along with the Agency's pre-existing authority and practice,
strong support exists for EPA's regulation authorizing the use of
toxicity-based limitations in NPDES permits. Section 308 explicitly
recognizes biomonitoring techniques and assessments as a means of
controlling the discharge of toxic pollutants and thus endorses EPA's
position that toxicity-based limitations are authorized by the CWA.
Section 308(c) and (d), WQA. In recognizing the use of toxicity-
based limitations, Congress also endorsed existing EPA efforts.
Section 308(d) states that "nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or delay the use of effluent limitations or other
permit conditions based on or involving biological monitoring or
assessment methods or previously adopted numerical criteria." The
clear implication of this statement was to clarify that while EPA and
the states were implementing the additional requirements imposed by
Section 308, they should not slow existing efforts to control toxic
pollutants.
Section 308 was enacted because the toxics problem was so
pervasive that certain waters were not meeting water quality
standards and existing State and EPA efforts were not adequate or
-66-
-------
fast enough. Section 308 sets out specific deadlines and
requirements for controlling toxic pollutant discharges to surface
waters where water quality is impaired even after the imposition of
BAT. 14/ Thus, states are required to list waters which do not meet
their designated uses and develop and submit individual control
strategies ("ICS") for achieving those standards to EPA for approval
by February 4, 1989. Section 308, WQA; Section 304(1), CWA. If a
state fails to timely submit a strategy or if EPA does not approve
the strategy, EPA must, after notice and public comment, develop an
ICS which assures attainment of the water quality standard. Section
308(a), WQA; Section 304(1) (2), CWA. These new provisions build on
existing authorities for protecting water quality with the intent of
accelerating the control of toxic pollutants.
Congress also required states to adopt numerical criteria for
toxic pollutants listed pursuant to section 307(a) (1) of the CWA
where the discharge of those pollutants could interfere with
attainment of the designated use. Where numerical criteria are not
available, states must adopt criteria based upon biological
monitoring or assessment methods. Section 308(d), WQA; Section
303(c)(2), CWA. As noted above, section 308(d) also states that it
is intended not to delay existing efforts. One of these existing
efforts was the use of toxicity-based requirements. While not
explicitly authorizing the use of toxicity-based limitations, section
308(d) reflects this intent and implicitly recognizes that permit
As Senator Moynihan stated in floor debates, "EPA has already
identified 34 of these areas which may require more stringent
controls than the best available technology standards currently
308(d) reflects this intent and implicitly mandated by the Act." 133
Cong. Rec. S759 (daily ed. Jan. 14, 1987).
-67-
-------
limitations based upon biological monitoring or assessment methods
(i.e., toxicity-based limitations) may be an appropriate means to
protect water quality.
The placement of this statement in a provision containing
requirements to develop additional water quality criteria for toxic
pollutants is not inconsistent with this interpretation, contrary to
Industry's argument. Ind. Br. at 32. Congress recognized that
toxicity-based requirements may be an appropriate way of meeting the
requirement to adopt water quality criteria for toxics. But reading
this to allow the imposition of limitations only after the criteria
are adopted would be inconsistent with the last sentence in section
308(d), since it would allow or possibly force delays in the existing
water quality-based controls of toxic pollutants. Industry's reading
would thus make the last sentence of that provision meaningless.
Industry petitioners advance three reasons why section 308 of
the WQA supports the position that EPA has no authority to establish
toxicity-based limits under 40 C.F.R. S 125.3(c)(4) (1986). First,
Industry argues that the 1987 WQA provides no support for EPA's
claims that toxicity may be a means to implement technology-based
requirements. Second, Industry argues that EPA's regulation would
usurp the role of the states in establishing water quality standards.
Finally, Industry argues that the WQA supports their earlier position
that biological monitoring methods have not been adequately developed
enough to justify EPA's position in the regulation. Ind. Br. at 30-
37. Industry is incorrect in each argument. Rather, the WQA lends
strong support for EPA's toxicity-based regulation.
B. The WQA Supports EPA's Regulation That
Toxicity May Be a Means To Implement
Technology-Based Requirements.
-68-
-------
Industry argues that because the only references to effluent
limitations based on biological monitoring or assessment methods are
found in subsections 308(c) and (d) of the WQA which relate to water
quality criteria for toxic pollutants, such methods were not intended
to apply to technology-based effluent limitations under sections 301,
304(b) and 306 of the Act. Ind. Br. at 32. In advancing this
argument, Industry takes an unnecessarily cramped interpretation of
the overriding goals of section 308 of the WQA.
Section 308 of the WQA deals with water quality-based permit
requirements. The section clarifies that EPA has the authority to
use toxicity as a measure for pollution control. As stated above,
section 308(d) implicitly recognizes that toxicity-based limitations,
in the form of biological monitoring or assessment methods, is a
proper approach to the control and protection of the quality of the
nation's waters. This provision also supports the Agency's position
that toxicity is an appropriate parameter for technology-based
permits. Congress, by accepting the concept of toxicity-based
limitations for water quality-based permits, cannot be assumed, as
Industry does, to have rejected the use of the same types of
limitations in technology-based permits.
Also, EPA's broad authority to write toxicity-based limits as
a means to implement technology-based requirements is not only
supported by the purpose and structure of the WQA but also this
Court's recent opinion addressing several issues in this litigation.
In its partial opinion this Court rejected Industry's attack on the
validity of EPA's regulation at 40 C.F.R. S 122.21(g)(9) allowing EPA
to gather data on "any toxic pollutant which the applicant currently
uses or manufactures . . ."In rejecting Industry's challenge, the
-69-
-------
Court stressed that "toxic pollution stands high in the hierarchy
of Congress1 environmental concerns," citing the 1972 and 1977
Acts. NRDC v. EP.A., supra. slip op. at 26. The Court then focused
on the purpose behind EPA's regulation, issued under section 308 of
the CWA, as critical to carrying out the objectives of the Act. In
so holding, the Court noted that Industry's "crabbed
interpretation" of the Act "would hamstring the agency by limiting
its data-gathering function to information on toxic pollutants
already identified." Id. at 29. Rather, EPA's "legitimate
regulatory purpose" would be better served by the broad disclosure
requirement in the Act. Id. Similarly, Congress' re-emphasis in
the 1987 WQA on the need to address the toxics problem along with
establishment of specific procedures for developing and approving
toxics control strategies supports the reasonableness of EPA's
regulation allowing technology-based limits to be expressed in
terms of effluent toxicity.
C. The WQA Does Not Limit Toxicity to Establish-
ment of State Water Quality Standards.
Industry argues that 40 C.F.R. S 125.3(c)(4) would usurp the
role of the states in the water quality standard development
process as more precisely described in the WQA. Ind. Br. at 33.
Again, Industry reads the WQA's effect on this regulation much too
narrowly.
Under section 308 of the WQA, if a state does not submit a
timely plan or EPA finds a state plan inadequate, EPA is to develop
and promulgate an individual control strategy for the identified
area or areas within the state. Thus, Congress intended for EPA to
assume the state's responsibilities for developing ICSs to address
serious toxics problems if the state did not meet its
-70-
-------
responsibilities. It simply would make no sense for the states to
have authority to use biological assessment methods in reviewing or
revising their water quality standards if numerical criteria are
not available, while at the same time prohibiting EPA from doing
the same thing in developing ICSs to cure a state's failure to
develop a timely or adequate plan. Indeed, the practical effect of
Industry's interpretation is that the Agency would be unable to
develop plans for states using overall toxicity limits where
individual numerical limits for highly toxic pollutants could not
be ascertained. The result would be that many complex toxic waste
streams which caused or contributed to a violation of state water
quality standards at certain "toxic hotspots" could not be
effectively regulated.
Moreover, section 301(b)(l)(C) of the CWA requires the
Administrator to make independent judgments with respect to the
limitations necessary to achieve state water quality standards.
Nothing in the WQA which allows states to use biological monitoring
or assessment methods in establishing water quality standards
directly or indirectly affects or limits this broad EPA authority.
D. The WQA Provides Support for EPA to Use
Biological Monitoring and Assessment
Techniques.
Finally, Industry argues that under section 308 of the WQA,
Congress recognized that biological monitoring methods had not been
adequately developed and that EPA may not utilize such methods
until it gathers information, consults with appropriate state
agencies and publishes information for establishing and measuring
water quality criteria. Ind. Br. at 35-37. This is clearly not
the case.
-71-
-------
As we argued in our initial brief, EPA may employ toxicity
limits prior to the establishment of generally applicable test
methods. EPA Br. at 90. The WQA does not change this authority.
Section 308 merely requires EPA to publish guidelines and
information for the states on methods for measuring effluent
toxicity. Congress was recognizing that EPA, as the federal agency
with responsibility and expertise in water pollution, is the
appropriate agency to conduct this task as a way of assisting
states in developing individual toxics control strategies.
However, it does not translate into a requirement that nationally
applicable test methods must be in place prior to their actual use
by individual permittees. This is consistent with EPA's historic
position on section 304(h) of the CWA which authorizes EPA to
develop test procedure guidelines. If nationally applicable test
methods have not been adopted, individual test methods imposed in a
permit can be challenged on a case-by-case basis, but that does not
preclude their use in advance of completion of the national
rulemaking. Given primary responsibility of the states in
developing ICSs under section 308, it makes perfect sense for
Congress to require EPA to continue its development of toxicity
evaluation methods to assist states in the establishment and
revision of their water quality standards.
In short, the congressional directive to EPA to develop
assessment methods, including biological monitoring and evaluation
for toxic pollutants, in no way precludes EPA from using such
methods as envisioned in 40 C.F.R S 125.3(c)(4) on an individual
permit basis.
-72-
-------
IV. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTY AUTHORITY
FOR STATE PROGRAMS
The Water Quality Act of 1987 increases both the civil and
criminal penalty authority of the CWA. Section 313(b) of the WQA
raises the maximum civil penalty to $25,000 per day of each
violation, increased from the previous maximum of $10,000 per day.
Section 309(d), CWA; 33 U.S.C. S 1319(d). Section 312 of the WQA
raises the general penalty for knowing violations of certain Clean
Water Act provisions to a minimum of $5,000 per day/per violation
to a maximum of $50,000 per day/per violation. Section 309(c),
CWA? 33 U.S.C. S 1319(c). The former maximum criminal penalty was
$25,000 per day. 15/
NRDC had challenged EPA's state program enforcement
guidelines for not requiring state programs to contain authority to
assess the maximum penalty amounts allowed under section 309 of the
CWA. At the time of the argument of this issue, the Clean Water
Act did not expressly or impliedly specify the extent of the
penalty authority which was to be included in state enforcement
programs. See EPA Br. at 256-260.
A. EPA is Not Required to Mandate Maximum
Civil Penalties for State Permit Programs.
With regard to civil penalties, the Water Quality Act
clearly provides that EPA is not required to mandate maximum civil
15/ Section 312 also expands the authority to assess criminal
penalties for negligent violations of certain CWA sections. New
subsection 309(c)(3) of the CWA establishes a $250,000 penalty for
a knowing violation that places another person in imminent danger
of death or serious bodily injury. Section 312 also raises prison
terms to felony levels, i.e.. in excess of one year.
-73-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
SECTION 5
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
-75-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
COMPLIANCE
MONITORING &
ENFORCEMENT
With Emphasis on Whole Effluent Toxlclty
QUESTION rt:
WHY DO WE NEED WHOLE-EFFLUENT TOXICfTY AS *
MEASURE OF EFFLUENT QUALITY? AREN'T CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
LIMITS ENOUGH?
LIMITATIONS OF
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC APPROACH
Alt waatawatar toxicant* may not ba known and, tharatora, not
control wd.
MMaurarnant* ol many Individual toxicant* can ba axpanalva (a.g.,
organic ehtmlcalt).
Tba btoavallablllty of tha toxicant* i* not a**a**ad.
TIM Intaractlon* batwaan toxicant* (a.g., addltivlty) art not rnaaaurad.
QUESTION «2:
IF WHOLE-EFFLUENT TOXICITY IS SO WONDERFUL. WHY
THE "INTEGRATED APPROACH"? WHY NOT REQUIRE WET
LIMITS IN LIEU OF CHEMICAL SPECIFIC LIMITS?
LIMITATIONS OF
WHOLE EFFLUENT APPROACH
• Propartla* ol apacHtc chamicala ara not aaaaaaad. a.g.,
Woaecumulatton.
• Elflutm toitclty traatablllty data ara lacking; anginaar* ara mora
rarnlllar with daalgnlng lyttam* to Iraat apaci c cnamlcal*.
• Den not account tor changa* In loxlclty downitrawn dua to
enafnical/phyalcal condition* (a.g., pH ehanga*. MMnHy changa*,
pho«oly»l*, ate.)
QUESTION «:
OH 1 T0 L™EFf LUEMTS 'ASED
-77-
-------
STATUTORY AMD REGULATORY CITES
Statute:
Section 101(a)
"The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters."
Section I0l(a)(3)
Declaration of Goals and Policy - "it is the national policy
that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be
prohibited;"
Section 301(a)
"Except as in compliance with this section and sections
302,306,307, 318, 402, and 404 of this Act, the discharge of
any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful." - see
Section 502
Section 30l(b)(1)(C)
"In order to carry out the objective of this Act there shall
be achieved not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent
limitation, including those necessary to meet water quality
standards... '
Section 302(a)
provides the authority to establish water quality-based
effluent limitations on discharges that interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of that water quality which shall
assure protection of public health, putlie water supplies,
and the protection and propogation of a balanced population
of shellfish, fish and wildlife.
Section 303(c)(2)(B)
authorizes the adoption of numeric water quality criteria
that are based upon biological monitoring or assessment
methods and the use of effluent limitations or other permit
conditions based on or involving biological monitoring or
assessment methods or previously adopted numeric criteria.
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or
delay the us* of effluent limitations or other permit
conditions based on or involving biological monitoring or
assessment methods..."
Section 304(a)(8)
requires EPA to develop and publish information on methods
for establishing and measuring water quality criteria for
toxic pollutants including biological monitoring and
assessment methods.
Section 308(a)
authorizes the installation, use and maintenance of
biological monitoring methods by point sources, where
appropriate, for the development of effluent limitations or
the determination of compliance with such limitations,
prohibitions, or effluent standards.
section 402
authorizes issuance of a permit for the discharge of any
pollutant, or combinations of pollutants (See Section 502),
upon the condition that the discharge meet all applicable
requirements and provisions of the CWA.
Section 502
"effluent limitation" is defined as 'any restriction...on
quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical,
biological, and other constituents which are discharged..."
"pollutant" is defined as '...industrial, municipal, and
agricultural waste discharged into water.'
"toxic pollutant" is defined as 'those pollutants, or
combinations of pollutants, including disease-causing
agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion,
inhalation or assimilation into any organism, either
directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion
through food chains, will... cause death, disease,
behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations,
physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in
reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or
their offspring.'
"biological monitoring" is defined as 'the determination of
the effects on aquatic life, including accumulation of
pollutants in tissue, in receiving waters due to the
discharge of pollutants (A) by techniques and procedures,
including sampling of organisms representative of
appropriate levels of the food chain appropriate to the
volume and the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the effluent, and (B) at appropriate
frequencies and locations."
-78-
-------
Regulation - 40 CFR
Section 122.2
'Whole effluent toxicity means the aggregate toxic effect of
an effluent measured directly by a toxicity test.
Section 122.44(d)
'In addition...each NPDES permit shall include conditions
meeting the following requirements when applicable...Water
quality standards and State requirements: any requirements
in addition to or more stringent than promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines or standards...necessary to:
(1) achieve water quality standards established under
section 303 of the CWA, including State narrative criteria
for water quality
(i) Limitations must control all pollutants or
pollutant parameters...which...may be discharged at a
level which will cause, have the reasonable potential
to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State
water quality standard, including State narrative
criteria for water quality...
(iv) (Numeric criterion for whole effluent toxicity)
(v) '...has the reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes to an in-stream excursion above a narrative
criterion..., the permit must contain effluent limits
for whole effluent toxicity...[except] where chemical-
specific limits for the effluent are sufficient to
attain and maintain applicable numeric and narrative
State water quality standards.'
QUESTION #7:
HOW ARE WET LIMITS ENFORCED?
The same principles apply to whole-effluent toxicity enforcement as
enforcement of chemical-specific limits.
PERMITTEES are responsible for:
Attaining,
Monitoring, and
Maintaining COMPLIANCE with their permits
(and for data quality)
REGULATORS are responsible for:
TRACKING COMPLIANCE with and
ENFORCING against violations of
permit requirements
These principles and the Integration of whole-effluent toxicity control Into the
compliance monitoring and enforcement process are embodied In the
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY FOR TOXICS
CONTROL
-79-
-------
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
PROCESS
1. Determining permit requirements;
2. Tracking compliance and determining violations;
3. Reporting and placing the violations in priority order; and
4. Determining appropriate response.
1. Determining permit requirements (or even enforcement order
requirements) may sound easy, but it isn't always. Permits may
be soundly written from a water-quality perspective, but difficult to
track (e.g., based on stream-flow, effluent flow, or even the Spring
thaw!). Others may just be poorly written:
CONSENT DECREE : WORDING IS
IMPORTANT
A POORLY WORDED EXAMPLE:
Beginning on the day that follows by two weeks the
last day of the next month following the date of entry
of this decree, and continuing thereafter on the
corresponding day ol each subsequent month until
the termination of the decree shall
prepare and transmit a monthly report for the second
previous month.
-80-
-------
HOW DO WE DETERMINE COMPLIANCE?
SELF-MONITORING
DMR/QA PROGRAM
INSPECTIONS
CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
QA is an important aspect of whole-effluent toxicity control. Many
Regions and States are requiring complete reports on whole-
effluent toxicity tests as specified in the protocols. These reports
are then compared to QA checklists to make sure that the tests
fall within the parameters of the protocol. Any deviation from
these bounds (temperature, D.O., etc.) provide the basis for
requiring re-tests, or require more technical review (i.e., ESD
review) to determine whether or not the test w«s valid.
DMR/QA
Reference Toxicant Pilot Project
• New Jersey
• North Carolina
-81-
-------
PERMITTEE NAME/ADDRESS (Inrlm/e
Faciliti \inni', I I'l.ilii'n i/ Jiljtrrnl)
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (XPDtS)
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT (/)»(«)
Farm Approtmi
OMB No. 2040400*
NAME
ADDRESS
(.'-/«• (17-19)
FACILITY
LOCATION
FROM
PARAMETER
(32-37)
NOEL STATRE 7DAY CHR
CERIODAPHNIA
TBP3B 1 0 0
EFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
NOEL STATRE 7DAY CHR
CERIODAPHNIA
TBP3B 000
SEE COMMENTS BELOW
NOEL STATRE 7DAY CHR
PIMEPHALES
TBP6C 1 0 0
FEVTTTFNT r,Rf)SS VAT.HE
NOEL STATRE 7DAY CHR
PIMEPHALES
TBP6C 000
SEE COMMENTS BELOW
00
M
1
X
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PKMMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PKNMIT
KCOUIMEMKNT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
ramirr
REOU1MMBMT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PKMMIT
RcoutRcumrr
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
pmtttY
RKOUMOMWr
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
JNOnHT"
KCQUIMMntr
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
WfcHsWtP
REOUtKKMMT
NAME/TITLE PRINCIPAL. EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TYPED ON PRINTED
(J Card Only) QUANTITY OR
(46-H) (5<-6J)
AVERAGE
******
******
******
DELM0N
MONTH Mfl
******
******
******
DELMON
MONTH M3
•
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR
MO DAY YEAR MO DAY
TO
1
120-21) (22-23) (24-25) (2627) (28-29) (30-11)
LOADING
MAXIMUM
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
1 CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THAT
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE INFORMATION
ON MY INQUIRY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS
OBTAINING THE INFORMATION 1 BELIEVE
IS TRUE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE 1 AM
WFICANT PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING F
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINE AND IMPRISONMC
33 USC I 1319 iPrnclllr* undrr llirnr Umlul
atvt of maximum tmprtiHtnmrnt itf hrtufrn f mntt
UNITS
****
****
****
****
1 HAVE PERSONALLY
SUBMITTED HEREIN AN
MMEOIATELY RESPONSI
THE SUBMITTED INFC
AWARE THAT THERE
ILSf INFORMATION IX
NT SEE 18 USC II
m niev tnrludr fmr* up
An and .1 \rrnr* I
(4 Card Only) QUALITY OR
<-)«-«) (46-51)
MINIMUM
9.6
MONTH AV
4.3
WKLY MN
9.6
MONTH AU
4.8
TVH1Y MN
AfpTOV*
'MpTM 9-3O-48
NOTE: RMd Instructions before compiling this form.
CONCENTRATION
<*•«/)
AVERAGE
******
******
******
DELMON
MONTH MN
******
******
******
DELMON
MONTH *™
:XAMINED
0 BASED
BLE FOR
>RMATION
ARE SIC
h? »»«»«( SIGNATURE OF PRIN<
OFFICER OR AUTH
MAXIMUM
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
'• I ' -.-'
;...::•; ":ir
:iPAL EXECUTIVE
ORIZED AGENT
UNITS
PERCEN1
PERCENT
PERCENT:
PERCENT
NO.
EX
(62-631
TELEPHONE
255i NUM-E"
FRCQUCHCY
OF
ANALYSIS
(64-6*)
MNTHLY
MNTHLY
MNTHLY
MNTHLY
SAMPLE
TYPE
(69-70)
24/COMI
24/COMJ
24 /COM!
2 4 /COM!
DATE
YEAR
MO DAY
COMMENT AND EXPLANATION OF ANY VIOLATIONS (Re/rrrnct all lUluchmtnU Her*)
TOXICITY TESTING REPORTS SHALL BE ATTACHED TO AND SUBMITTED WITH THE DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT. ALL SAMPLES SHALL BE
TAKEN AFTER THE LAST TREATMENT UNIT PRIOR TO DISCHARGE INTO THE RIVER. NOEL SHALL BE REPORTED AS PERCENT EFFLUENT.
Form 3320-1 (Rev. lo-79)J««viou«_EpiTioN_Tp BE USED
(REPLACES KPA FORM T-4O WHICH MAY NOT BE USED.)
PAGE
OF
-------
• QMUJTY
Par.it NO. AK000000 I
Facility MM _
Facility Location
Laboratory/lnvaatlgator
Parait Raquiraaanta i
- -
Saipling Location tmtt QUIT Typa ot S«.pl. 1A HoOO CDMP.
Li»lt A.»% Taat Duration 7 OH/ (.<* > braadp
Typ< of Taat Cg»»0*fHNK PHftO, Taat Orq.ni.. Aq« 2-t* H«. «U. HHWN
CHOPMC ^-Offtc^Ssua
Taat Haaultai tttMP ClOOJ.O)
LC50/ECSO/I
Quality Control Supaaryi
Data of Saapla i Dataa of Taat i
Control Mortalityi it 1t> I Control IMan SSi/SitjUt 2. \ff
Taiparatura aaintainad within »t-C of taat taiparatura7 Yaa No
Dlaaolvad oxygan Xavala alwaya graatar than 40% aaturation?
Y" "° & l/« -\ wtutto
Loading factor for all aipoaura chasb*ra laaa than or aqual to
•axiaiu allomd tor tha taat typa and taiparatura? Vaa So
Do tha taat raaulta indlcata a diract ralationahip batvaan aftluant
concentration and raaponaa of tha taat organial (i.a., aora d*atha
occur at tha highaat affLuant concantrationa)? Yaa Eto
COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS
Inapectlon* ar« conducted to:
• Verity permittee compliance
• Dvvelop *ntorc«ment Information
• Respond to citizen complaints
• Support permit development
• Maintain a regulatory presence
- FOCUS ON CIA
- REGIONS/STATES MUST HAVE CAPABILITY OF ASSESSING SAMPLE
COMPLIANCE
- RESERVE SAMPLING INSPECTIONS FOR PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT
PRIORITIES
-83-
-------
HOW DO WE TRACK COMPLIANCE?
The PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM
PCS FUNCTIONS
Tracks permit Issuance, reissuance, and appeal activities
Screen* compliance data for effluent, schadu' •, and reporting
violations
Tracks enforcement responses
Automates ONCR preparation
Automates strategic planning and management systems reporting
Provide* facility Information
Facilitates inspection schodulino
PERMIT FACILITY DATA
-84-
-------
020 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
EVENT CODES
• TABLE-CD
001 CT Submit Toxlcity Evaluation Scop*
001 PA Submit Toxic Reduction Evaluation
002 CT Begin Toxlcity Evaluation Program
003 CT Proposed Toxic Reduction Treat Mod.
013 99 Submit Proposed Toxic Reduction Evaluation
019 99 Completion of Toxic Reduction Evaluation
021 99 Toxlca Reduction Evaluation Plan
022 99 Toxics Reduction Evaluation
101 08 1 st Bioaaaay Reault
WET PARAMETER CODES
Five digit*, flrat on* always a "T
Secon*1 digit reflects analytical end point (*.g., LC50, NOEL, chronic
value, percent mortality, etc.)
Third digit reflects type of test (e.g., acute, chronic), length of t*at
(e.g., 24 hours), and solution renewal (e.g., static renewal or flow
through).
Fourth and fifth digits reflect species.
"T" DATA SHEET
Whole-Effluent Limit Expressed As (circle appropriate):
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
NOEL
% effluent causing
NOAEL
effect (e.g., LCW)
Low flow pass/fail (LF P/F)*
Half low flow pass/fail (HLF P/F)*
P/F*
chronic Value (CHV)
LC50/P/F*
% Mortality at % effluent
* Pass/Fail Conditions
Type of Test (circle appropriate):
A = Static 48 hour ACUTE
B - Static 96 hour ACUTE
C = Static 4 day CHRONIC
D = Static 7 day CHRONIC
E - Static 24 hour ACUTE
M » Static Renewal 48 hour ACUTE
N - Static Renewal 96 hour ACUTE
o
p
H
X
V
Static Renewal
Static Renewal
Flow-thru
Flow-thru
Flow-thru
Z Flow-thru
48
96
4
7
hou:
hou:
day
day
day CHRONIC
day CHRONIC
ACUTE
ACUTE
CHRONIC
CHRONIC
Test Species (circle appropriate):
1A - Selenastrum capncornutum
IB • L minor
1C - Champia
3A - Arbacia
3B " Ceriodanhnia
3C - Daphnia maana
3D » Daphnia pulex
3E - Mvaidopsis bahia
3F - Oyster embryo
3G * Daphia species
6A » Cvprinodon varieaa
6B - Menidia
6C - Pim«phal«3 pronelas
60 » Salmo aair
6E » Lenomis macrochirus
-85-
-------
In PCS, effluent limits and measurements are tied to a pipe
schedule which specifies the pipe, reporting frequency (e.g.,
monthly DMRs), and limit effective dates. Whole-effluent toxicity
limits that are required on a different repotting frequency, or that
have different limit effective dates, or that change reporting
frequency or limit within the life of the permit require the
establishment of new pipe designators (act like separate pipes).
This can be confusing and time-consuming.
MORAL: Keep differences in reporting frequency and limit
effective dates to a minimum or be prepared for an increase in
mental illness (followed by sore throats (from screaming), a loss of
hair (from pulling it out), and increased head and stomach aches)
among the PCS community!
PC8 Coordinators
Region I
Veronica Harrington
Ed Kin
CT Gail suprin-Peplau
HE John Moulton
Region II
Ari Harris
George Nossa
NJ Terry Beym
NJ George Caporale
Region III
Edna Jones
PA
WV
Kenneth Okorn
Pravin sangani
Region IV
Hike Donehoo
GA Billy Wayne sykes
MS Warren Foster
SC Jerry Brown
TN Donald Ey
Region V
Arnie Leder
IL Ken Rogers
IN Jim Hayes
IN Gary starks
MI Frank Baldwin
HN Dana Counts
OH Sandra Kemper
WI Mary Jane Ziegler
FTS/835-3525
(617/565-3525)
FTS/835-3720
(617/565-3720)
203/566-2719
207/289-7196
FTS/264-4707
(212/264-4707)
FTS/264-9850
(212/264-9850)
609/633-1199
609/984-4428
FTS/597-0441
(215/597-:441)
717/787-5184
304/348 086
FTS/257-3973
(404/347-3973)
404/656-4708
601/961-5152
803/734-4600
615/741-7883
FTS/886-6702
(312/886-6702)
217/782-9720
317/232-3591
317/232-8694
517/373-4624
612/296-8709
614/644-2837
608/266-7775
-86-
-------
Region VI
Ruth Gibson
AR Joslyn Burleson
Region VII
Maryane Tremaine
IA Charles Furrey
KS Mike Tate
HO Dann East
NE Dennis Burling
Region VIII
Bill Murray
NEIC Regina King
HT Mike Pasichnyk
SD Dennis Rounds
UT Fred Pehrson
UT Bob Shipman
Region IX
Carey Houk
HI Charles Oumi
NV Joe Livak
Region X
Nancy Brown Brincefield
PC« Hotline
Sheila Frace
FTS/255-6450
(214/655-6450)
501/562-7444 X611
FTS/757-2817 X429
(913/236-2817) X429
515/281-4067
913/862-9360
314/751-7023
402/471-4230
FTS/564-1655
(303/293-1655)
FTS/776-2382
406/444-2406
605/773-3351
801/533-6146
801/533- 146
FTS/454-^271
(415/974-8271)
808/548-6355
702/885-4670
FTS/399-1389
(206/442-1389)
FTS/475-8529
(202/475-8529)
FTS/475-9456
(202/475-9456)
-87-
-------
REPORTING WHOLE-EFFLUENT TOXICITY VIOLATIONS
QUARTERLY
NONCOMPLIANCE REPORT (QNCR)
• Effluent limitations—with potential to impact water quality
• Compliance schedule milestones—90 days late
• Reports—30 days late or incomplete
SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE
• Effluent violations—with potential to impact water quality
• Compliance schedule milestones—90 days late*
o Submit THE plan/schedule
<> Initiate TRE
^ Submit final TRE test results/Implementation plan
•0- Start construction
0- End construction
4- Attain final compliance
• Reports—30 days late*
O DMR
•» Final TRE report of progress (indicate permit compliance)
* All milestones and reports required by judicial actions
ENFORCEMENT OF WHOLE-EFFLUENT TOXICITY REQUIREMENTS
Initial review of self-monitoring reports leading to the review of
violations by someone responsible for enforcement:
VIOLATION REVIEW
ACTION CRITERIA = 1
Any violation of a Whole Effluent Toxicity Limit must be evaluated
Any monitoring results in response to "monitor only" requirements
must be evaluated
-88-
-------
HOW DO YOU REVIEW TOXICITY VIOLATIONS?
CONSERVATIVELY!
Remember assumptions made in permit limit derivation
- Variability of Effluent
- Monitoring Frequency
- Acute to Chronic Ratio
Consider importance of a prompt response
- Time needed to determine cause/eliminate toxicity
• Is stream near (or soon may be) low flow conditions?
Do you have definitive data, or just a pass/fail result?
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
INFORMAL
TewpfioffM CBII
Wanting Letter
S308 Letter
FORMAL
Administrative
Order (AO)
Judicial Order
Civil/Criminal
WHAT SHOULD WE REQUIRE IN AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION?
Same first step as with any violation:
GET INFORMATION ON THE VIOLATION
Require More Monitoring if necessary
Remind permittee of violation reporting
requirements
40 CFR Section 122.41 (I)(6&7)
Reporting Requirements. The permittee shall report any noncompliance which
may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall be provided
orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the
time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission
shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its clause: the period of
noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if-u^ noncompliance has not
the anticipated time it is expected to continiiei and steps ff^jfffl ?f
planned to reduce. clJIHIMlP P**4 Prevent reoccurrence of the noncompHaiwe.'
-89-
-------
HOW DO PERMITTEES IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF THE TOXICITY
AND ITS TREATABILITY?
GENERALIZED TRE FLOWCHART
Information and Data
Acqulattlon
Facility Operation and
Maintenance Evaluation
Toxlctty MantHlcatlon
Evaluation
•
| Toxlctty TraatabHtty Evaluation | | Source Investigation |
Control Htethod Salactlon
1
FoHow-Up and Confirmation |
TRE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
To assist permittees in conducting TREs and achieving compliance with
whole effluent toxicity limits, US-EPA has developed a series of five guidance
documents:
o Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations
Phase I Toxicity Characterization Procedures
(EPA/600/3-88/034)
Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures
(EPA/600/3-88/035)
Phase in Toxicity Confirmation Procedures
(EPA/600/3-88/036)
o Generalized Methodology for Conducting Industrial Toxicity Reduction
Evaluations
(EPA/600/2-88AV70)
o Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Protocol for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants
(EPA/600/2-88/062)
-90-
-------
WHAT MECHANISMS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REQUIRING A TRE?
PERMIT - can require monitoring, establish affluent limitations, and require any
and all phases of a TRE, Including construction.
SECTION 308 LETTER - can require monitoring and the first phases of a TRE
(toxlcity source and treatability studies, not construction).
SECTION 309 ORDERS, JUDICIAL DEGREES - can require monitoring and any
and all phases of a TRE, including construction, BUT ONLY IN RESPONSE
TO A PERMIT VIOLATION!
NOTE: Only permits may require a compliance schedule for construction
or other corrective measures in advance of the effective date of a whole-
effluent limit In the permit.
HOW DO YOU REQUIRE A TRE? (language)
- Easier If you have some information In advance (require as much as
possible Informally)
- Make sure you have a FINAL COMPLIANCE DATE
(It may be your last strong-hold)
- Remember it Is the PERMITTEE'S responsibility to solve their problem
(EPA Is providing the protocols and some assistance thru NETAC, BUT we do
not have Infinite Don Mounts, Fred Bishops, Bill Peltiers, Comey Webbers, etc.,
etc.)
HELP!
MODEL LITIGATION
GUIDANCE
• Anticipated defense* with responses
• Statutory and regulatory cttes
• Model complaint alleging wet monitoring and limit violations
• Model consent decree requiring TRE
-91-
-------
ENFORCEMENT CASES
NRDC V. SSAi 859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
The court upheld EPA regulations which authorize the use of
effluent Units framed in terms of toxicity.
Reynolds Metala Co. v. EPAf 760 F.2d 549 (4th Cir. 1985);
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costlef 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978);
C&H Sugar Co. v. EPA. 553 F.2d 280 (2nd Cir. 1977);
FMC Corp^ v. Train, 539 F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976); and
BASF Wvandotte v. Costle. 598 F.2d 651 (1st Cir. 1979)
The courts upheld other water characteristics (BOD, TTO,
TSS, COD) as permit limits.
Champion International Corp. v. EPA,. 648 F. Supp. 1398 (W.D.N.C.
1987)
The court upheld EPAs authority to object to permits which
do not contain conditions adequate to achieve approved state
water quality standards.
Trustees for Alaska v. £££, 749 F.2d 549, 557 (4th Cir. 1984)
The court found that EPA as permit writer is required to
establish whatever permit limits are necessary to achieve water
quality standards.
API V. EPA. 787 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1986)
The court upheld EPAs use of a 96-hour i :,0 as the most
widely accepted benchmark for toxicity evaluations by EPA and
sustained EPAs choice of the test for limiting effluent "mud"
(drilling fluid) toxicity.
BASF Wvandotte v. Costle. 598 F.2d 647-50, 655 (1st Cir. 1979);
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe. 401 U.S. 402, 416,
91 S.Ct. 814, 824, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971);
Permian Basin Area Rate Casesf 390 U.S. 747, 810-11, 88 S.Ct.
1344, 1382-83, 20 L.Ed.2d 312 (1968); and
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council. 462 U.S. 87, 103 (1983)
The courts deferred to the Agency's judgement in the
settlement of technical issues.
Given the on-going nature of enforcement of water quality-
based permit requirements, it is recommended that updated
information be researched by the reader through available means
such as the use of LEXIS.
-92-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
January 25, 1989
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: JWhole Effluent Toxicity Basic Permitting Principles and
(Qiforceraent Strategy
J\*AoA-<^*— H^-r>Kvv*^
FROM: Rebecca W. Hanmer, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
TO: Regional Administrators
Since the issuance of the "Policy for the Development of
Water Quality-based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants" in
March of 1984, the Agency has been moving forward to provide
technical documentation to support the integrated approach of
using both chemical and biological methods to ensure the
protection of water quality. The Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control (September, 1985) and the
Permit Writer's GuidetoWaterQuality-based Permitting for Toxic
Pollutants (July^1987) have beeninstrumental in the Initial
implementation of the Policy. The Policy and supporting
documents, however, did not result in consistent approaches to
permitting and enforcement of toxicity controls nationally. When
the 1984 'Policy was issued, the Agency did not have a great deal
of experience in the use of whole effluent toxicity limitations
and testing to ensure protection of water quality. We now have
more than four years of experience and are ready to effectively
use this experience in order to improve national consistency in
permitting and enforcement.
In order to increase consistency in water quality-based
toxicity permitting, I am issuing the attached Basic Permitting
Principles for Whole Effluent Toxicity (Attachment 1) as a
standard with which water quality-based permits should conform.
A workgroup of Regional and State permitting, enforcement, and
legal representatives developed these minimum acceptable
requirements for toxicity permitting based upon national
experience. These principles are consistent with the toxics
control approach addressed in the proposed Section 304(1)
regulation. Regions should use these principles when reviewing
draft State permits. If the final Section 304(1) regulations
include changes in this area, we will update these principles as
necessary. Expanded guidance on the use of these principles will
be sent out shortly by James Elder, Director of the Office of
-93-
-------
Water Enforcement and Permits. This expanded guidance will
include sample permit language and permitting/enforcement
scenarios.
Concurrent with this issuance of the Basic Permitting
Principles, I am issuing the Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Strategy for Toxics Control (Attachment 2). This
Strategy was developed by a workgroup of Regional and State
enforcement representatives and has undergone an extensive
comment period. The Strategy presents the Agency's position on
the integration of toxicity control into the existing National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance and
enforcement program. It delineates the responsibilities of the
permitted community and the regulatory authority. The Strategy
describes our current efforts in compliance tracking and quality
assurance of self-monitoring data from the permittees. It
defines criteria for review and reporting of toxicity violations
and describes the types of enforcement options available for the
resolution of permit violations.
In order to assist you in the management of whole effluent
toxicity permitting, the items discussed above will join the 1984
Policy as Appendices to the revised Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-based Toxics Control.To summarize,these
materials are the Basic Permitting Principles, sample permit
language, the concepts illustrated through the permitting and
enforcement scenarios, and the Enforcement Strategy. I hope
these additions will provide the needed framework to integrate
the control of toxicity into the overall NPDES permitting
program.
I encourage you and your staff to discuss these documents
and the 1984 Policy with your States to further their efforts in
the implementation of EPA's toxics control initiative.
If you have any questions on the attached materials, please
contact James Elder, Director of the Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits, at (FTS/202) 475-8488.
Attachments
cc: ASWIPCA
Water Management Division Directors
-94-
-------
BASIC PERMITTING PRINCIPLES FOR WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
1. Permits must be protective of water quality.
a. At a minimum, all major permits and minors of
concern must be evaluated for potential or known
toxicity (chronic or acute if more limiting).
b. Final whole effluent toxicity limits must be
included in permits where necessary to ensure
that State Water Quality standards are met.
These limits must properly account for effluent
variability, available dilution, and species
sensitivity.
2. Permits must be written to avoid ambiguity and ensure
enforceability.
a. Whole effluent toxicity limits must appear in Part I
of the permit with other effluent limitations.
b. Permits contain generic re-opener clauses which
are sufficient to provide permitting authorities
the means to re-open, modify, or reissue the
permit where necessary. Re-opener clauses covering
effluent toxicity will not be included in the
Special Conditions section of the permit where
they imply that limit revision will occur based
on permittee inability to meet the limit. Only
schedules or other special requirements will be
added to the permit.
c. If the permit includes provisions to increase
monitoring frequency subsequent to a violation, it
must be clear that the additional tests only deter-
mine the continued compliance status with the limit;
they are not to verify the original test results.
d. Toxicity testing species and protocols will be
accurately referenced/cited in the permit.
3. Where not in compliance with a whole effluent toxicity
limit, permittees must be compelled to come into compliance
with the limit as soon as possible.
a. Compliance dates must be specified.
b. Permits can contain requirements for corrective
actions, such as Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
(TREs), but corrective actions cannot be delayed
pending EPA/State approval of a plan for the
corrective actions, unless state regulations
require prior approval. Automatic corrective
actions subsequent to the effective date of a final
whole-effluent toxicity limit will not be included
in the permit.
-95-
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Explanation of the Basic Permitting Principles
The Basic Permitting Principles present the minimum
acceptable requirements for whole-effluent toxicity permitting.
They begin with a statement of the goal of whole-effluent
toxicity limitations and requirements: the protection of water
quality as established through State numeric and narrative Water
Quality Standards. The first principle builds on the Technical
Support Document procedures and the draft Section 304(1) rule
requirements for determining potential to violate Water Quality
Standards. It requires the same factors be considered in setting
whole-effluent toxicity based permits limits as are used to
determine potential Water Quality Standards violations. It
defines the universe of permittees that should be evaluated for
potential violation of Water Quality Standards, and therefore
possible whole-effluent limits, as all majors and minors of
concern.
The second permitting principle provides basic guidelines
for avoiding ambiguities that may surface in permits. Whole-
effluent toxicity limits should be listed in Part I of the permit
and should be derived and expressed in the same manner as any
other water quality-based limitations (i.e., Maximum Daily and
Average Monthly limits as required by Section 122.45(d)).
In addition, special re-opener clauses are generally not
necessary, and may mistakenly imply that permits may be re-opened
to revise whole-effluent limits that are violated. This is not
to imply that special re-opener clauses are never appropriate.
They may be appropriate in permits issued to facilities that
currently have no known potential to violate a Water Quality
Standard; in these cases, the permitting authority may wish to
stress its authority to re-open the permit to add a whole-
effluent limit in the event monitoring detects toxicity.
Several permittees have mistakenly proposed to conduct
additional monitoring subsequent to a violation to "verify" their
results. It is not possible to verify results with a subsequent
test whether a new sample or a split-sample which has been stored
(and therefore contains fewer volatiles) is used. For this
reason, any additional monitoring .required in response to a
violation must be clearly identified as establishing continuing
compliance status, not verification of the original violation.
-96-
-------
The second principle also deals with the specification of
test species and protocol. Clearly setting out the requirements
for toxicity testing and analysis is best done by accurately
referencing EPA's most recent test methods and approved
equivalent State methods. In this way, requirements which have
been published can be required in full, and further advances in
technology and science may be incorporated without lengthy permit
revisions.
The third and final permitting principle reinforces the
responsibility of the permittee to seek timely compliance with
the requirements of its NPOES permit. Once corrective actions
have been identified in a TRE, permittees cannot be allowed to
delay corrective actions necessary to comply with water quality-
based whole effluent toxicity limitations pending Agency review
and approval of voluminous reports or plans. Any delay on the
part of the permittee or its contractors/agents is the
responsibility of the permittee.
The final principle was written in recognition of the fact
that a full-blown TRE may not be necessary to return a permittee
to compliance in all cases, particularly subsequent to an initial
TRE. As a permittee gains experience and knowledge of the
operational influences on toxicity, TREs will become less
important in the day to day control of toxicity and will only be
required when necessary on a case-specific basis.
-97-
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
Background to the Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Strategy for Toxics Control
The Compliance Monitor ing and Enforcement Strategy for
Toxics Control sets forth the Agency's strategy for tracking
compliance with and enforcing whole-effluent toxicity monitoring
requirements, limitations, schedules and reporting requirements.
The Strategy delineates the respective responsibilities of
permittees and permitting authorities to protect water quality
through the control of whole-effluent toxicity. It establishes
criteria for the review of compliance data and the quarterly
reporting of violations to Headquarters and the public. The
Strategy discusses the integration of whole-effluent toxicity
control into our existing inspection and quality assurance
efforts. It provides guidelines on the enforcement of whole-
effluent toxicity requirements.
The Strategy also addresses the concern many permittees
share as they face the prospect of new requirements in their
permit - the fear of indiscriminate penalty assessment for
violations that they are unable to control. The Strategy
recognizes enforcement discretion as a means of dealing fairly
with permittees that are doing everything feasible to protect
water quality. As indicated in the Strategy, this discretion
deals solely with the assessment of civil penalties, however, and
is not an alternative to existing procedures for establishing
relief from State Water Quality Standards. The Strategy focuses
on the responsibility of the Agency and authorized States to
require compliance with Water Quality Standards and thereby
ensure protection of existing water resources.
-98-
-------
01/19/89
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
FOR TOXICS CONTROL
I. Background
Issuance of NPDES permits now emphasizes the control of toxic
pollutants, by integrating technology and Mater quality-based
permit limitations, best management practices for toxic discharges,
sludge requirements, and revisions to the pretreatment implementa-
tion requirements. These requirements affect all major permittees
and those minor permittees whose discharges may contribute to
impairment of the designated use for the receiving stream. The
goal of permitting is to eliminate toxicity in receiving waters
that results from industrial and municipal discharges.
Major industrial and municipal permits will routinely contain
water quality-based limits for toxic pollutants and in many cases
whole effluent toxicity derived from numerical and narrative
water quality standards. The quality standards to establish NPDES
permit limits are discussed in the "Policy for the Development of
Water Quality-based Permit Limits for Toxic Pollutants,* 49FR 9016,
March 9, 1984. The Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control, EPA 1440/44-85032, September, 1985 and the
Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-based Permitting for Toxic
Pollutants, Office of Water, May, 1987, provide guidance for inter-
preting numerical and narrative standards and developing permit
limits.
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 (PL 100-4, February 4,
1987) further directs EPA and the States to identify waters that
require controls for toxic pollutants and develop individual
control strategies including permit limits to achieve control of
toxics. The WQA established deadlines, for individual control
strategies (February 4, 1989) and for compliance with the toxic
control permit requirements (February 4, 1992). This Strategy
will support the additional compliance monitoring, tracking, evalu-
ation, and enforcement of the whole effluent toxicity controls
that will be needed to meet the requirements of the WQA and EPA's
policy for water quality-based permitting.
It is the goal of the Strategy to assure compliance with
permit toxicity limits and conditions through compliance inspec-
tions, compliance reviews, and enforcement. Water quality-based
limits may include both chemical specific and whole effluent toxi-
city limits. Previous enforcement guidance (e.g., Enforcement
Management System for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, September, 1986; National Guidance for Oversight of NPDES
Programs, May, 1987; Guidance for Preparation of Quarterly and
S«mi-Annual Noncompliance Reports, March, 1986) has dealt with
-99-
-------
chemical-specific water quality-based Units. This Strategy will
focus on whole effluent toxicity Units. Such toxicity limits nay
appear in permits, administrative orders< or judicial orders.
II. Strategy Principles
This strategy is based on four principles!
1) Permittees are responsible for attaining, monitoring,
and maintaining permit compliance and for the quality
of their data.
2) Regulators will evaluate self-monitoring data quality
to ensure program integrity.
3) Regulators will assess compliance through inspections,
audits, discharger data reviews, and other independent
monitoring or review activities.
4) Regulators will enforce effluent limits and compliance
schedules to eliminate toxicity.
III. Primary Implementation Activities
In order to implement this Strategy fully, the following
activities are being initiated:
A. Immediate development
1. The NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual was
revised in May 1988 to include procedures for
performing chronic toxicity tests and evaluating
toxicity reduction evaluations. An inspector
training module was also developed in August
1988 to support inspections for whole effluent
toxicity.
2. The Permit Compliance System (the national NPDES
data base) was modified to allow inclusion
of toxicity limitations and compliance schedules
associated with toxicity reduction evaluations.
The PCS Steering Committee will review standard
data elements and determine if further modifi-
cations are necessary.
3. Compliance review factors (e.g.. Technical
Review Criteria and significant noncompliance
definitions) are being proposed to evaluate
violations and appropriate response*
4. A Quality Assurance Fact Sheet has been developed
(Attached) to review the quality of toxicity test
results submitted by pernittees.
-100-
-------
5. The Enforcement Response Guide in the Enforcement
Management System will be revised to cover the use
of administrative penalties and other responses to
violations of toxicity controls in permits. At
least four types of permit conditions are being
examined! (1) whole-effluent toxicity monitoring
(sampling and analysis). (2) whole effluent
toxicity-based permit limits, (3) schedules to
conduct a TRE and achieve compliance with water
quality-based limits, and (4) reporting requirments.
B. Begin development in Spring 1989
With the assistance of the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring (OECM), special remedies and model forms
will be developed to address violations of toxicity permit
limits (i.e., model consent decrees, model complaints, revised
penalty policy, model litigation reports, etc.)
IV. Scope and Implementation of Strategy
A. Compliance Tracking and Review
1. Compliance Tracking
The Permits Compliance System (PCS) will be
used as the primary system for tracking limits and
monitoring compliance with the conditions in NPDES
permits. Many new codes for toxicity testing have
already been entered into PCS. During FY 89, head-
quarters will provide additional guidance to Regions
and States on PCS coding to update existing documenta-
tion. The Water Enforcement Data Base (WENDB)
requirements as described in the PCS Policy Statement
already require States and Regions to begin
incorporating toxicity limits and monitoring information
into PCS.
In addition to guidance on the use of PCS,
Headquarters has prepared guidance in the form
of Basic Permitting Principles for Regions and
States that will provide greater uniformity
nationally on approaches to toxicity permitting.
One of the major problems in the tracking and
enforcement of toxicity limits is that they differ
greatly from State-to-State and Region-to-Region.
The Permits Division and Enforcement Division in
cooperation with the PCS Steering Committee will
establish standard codes for permit limits and
procedures for reporting toxicity results based on
this guidance.
-101-
-------
Whole effluent tozicity self-monitoring data
should undergo an appropriate quality review. (See
attached checklist for suggested toxicity review
factors.) All violations of permit limits for
toxics control should be reviewed by a professional
qualified to assess the nonconpliance. Regions and
States should designate appropriate staff.
2. Compliance Review
Any violation of a whole effluent toxicity
limit is of concern to the regulatory agency and
should receive an immediate professional review.
In terms of the Enforcement Management System (EMS),
any whole effluent violation will have a violation
review action criterion (VRAC) of 1.0. However, the
appropriate initial enforcement response may be to
require additional monitoring and then rapidly
escalate the response to formal enforcement if the
nonconpliance persists. Where whole effluent
toxicity is based on a pass-fail permit limitation,
any failure should be immediately targeted for
compliance inspection. In some instances, assessment
of the compliance status will be required through
issuance of Section 308 letters and 309(a) orders to
require further toxicity testing.
Monitoring data which is submitted to fulfill
a toxicity monitoring requirement in permits that do
not contain an independently enforceable whole-effluent
toxicity limitation should also receive immediate
professional review.
The burden for testing and biomonitoring is on
the permittee; however, in some instances, Regions and
States may choose to respond to violations through
sampling or performance audit inspections. When an
inspection conducted in response to a violation identi-
fies noncompliance, the Region or State should
initiate a formal enforcement action with a compliance
schedule, unless remedial action is already required
in the permit.
B. Inspections
EPA/State compliance inspections of all major permittees
on an annual basis will be maintained. For all facilities
with water quality-based toxic limits, such inspections should
include an appropriate toxic component (numerical and/or
whole effluent review). Overall the NPDES inspection and
data quality activities for toxics control should receive
greater emphasis than in the present inspection strategy.
-102-
-------
1. Regional/State Capability
The EPA's "Policy for the Development of Water
Quality-based Parnit Limit* for Toxic Pollutants"
(March 9, 1984 Federal Register) states that EPA
Regional Administrators will assure that each
Region has the full capability to conduct water
quality assessments using both biological and chemi-
cal methods and provide technical assistance to the
States. Such capability should also be maintained
for compliance biomonitoring inspections and toxics
sampling inspections. This capability should include
both inspection and laboratory capability.
2. Use of Monsampling Inspections
Nonsampling inspections as either compliance
evaluations (CEIs) or performance audits (PAIs) can
be used to assess permittee self-monitoring data
involving whole effluent toxicity limits, TREs, and
for prioritieation of sampling inspections.* As
resources permit, PAIs should be used to verify
biomonitoring capabilities of permittees and
contractors that provide toxicity testing self-
monitoring data.
3. Quality Assurance
All States are encouraged to develop the
capability for acute and chronic toxicity tests
with at least one fish and one invertebrate species
for freshwater and saltwater if appropriate. NPDES
States should develop the full capability to assess
compliance with the permit conditions they establish.
EPA and NPDES States will assess permittee
data quality and require that permittees develop
quality assurance plans. Quality assurance plans
must be available for examination. The plan should
include methods and procedures for toxicity testing
and chemical analysis; collection, culture, mainte-
nance, and disease control procedures for test
organisms; and quality assurance practices. The
Due to resource considerations, it is expected that sampling
inspections will be limited to Regional/State priorities in
enforcement and permitting. Routine use of CEIs and PAIs should
provide the required coverage.
-103-
-------
permittee should also have available quality control
charts, calibration records, raw test data, and
culture records.
In conjunction with the QA plans, EPA will
evaluate permittee laboratory performance on EPA
and/or State approved methods. This evaluation is
an essential part of the laboratory audit process.
EPA will rely on inspections and other quality
assurance measures to maintain data quality. However,
States may prefer to implement a laboratory certifi-
cation program consistent with their regulatory
authorities. Predetermined limits of data accepta-
bility will need to be established for each test
condition (acute/chronic), species-by-species.
C. Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREs)
TREs are systematic investigations required of permittees
which combine whole effluent and/or chemical specific testing
for toxicity identification and characterization in a planned
sequence to expeditiously locate the source(s) of toxicity and
evaluate the effectiveness of pollution control actions and/or
inplant modifications toward attaining compliance with a permit
limit. The requirement for a TRE is usually based on a
finding of whole effluent toxicity as defined in the permit.
A plan with an implementation schedule is then developed to
achieve compliance. Investigative approaches include
causative agent identification and toxicity treatability.
1. Requiring TRE Plans
TRE's can be triggered: 1) whenever there is a
violation of a toxicity limit that prompts enforcement
action or 2) from a permit condition that calls for a
toxicity elimination plan within a specified time
whenever toxicity is found. The enforcement action
such as a 309(a) administrative order or State
equivalent, or judicial action then directs the
permittee to taXe prescribed steps according to a
compliance schedule to eliminate the toxicity. This
schedule should be incorporated into the permit, an
administrative order, or judicial order and compliance
with the schedule should be tracked through PCS.
2. Compliance Determination Followup
Compliance status must be assessed following the
accomplishment of a TRE plan using the most effi-
cient and effective methods available. These methods
include site visits, self-monitoring, and inspections.
-104-
-------
Careful attention to quality assurance will assist in
minimizing the regulatory burden. The Bethod of
compliance assessment should be determined on a
case-by-case basis.
D. Enforcing Toxic Control Permit Conditions
Enforcement of toxic controls in permits depends upon a
clear requirement and the process to resolve the noncompli-
ance. In addition to directly enforceable whole effluent
limits (acute and chronic/ including absolute pass-fail
limits), permits have contained several other types of
toxic control conditions: 1) "free from" provisions,
2) schedules to initiate corrective actions (such as TREs)
when toxicity is present, and/or 3) schedules to achieve
compliance where a limit is not currently attained.
Additional requirements or schedules may be developed
through 308 letters, but the specific milestones should be
incorporated into the permit, administrative order or
State equivalent mechanism, or judicial order to ensure
they are enforceable.
1. The Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR)
Violations of permit conditions are tracked and
reported as followst
a. Effluent Violations
Each exceedance of a directly enforceable whole
effluent toxicity limit is of concern to the
regulatory agency and, therefore, qualifies
as meeting the VRAC requiring professional
review (see section IV.A.2.).
These violations must be reported on the QNCR
if the violation is determined through profes-
sional review to have the potential to have
caused a water quality impact.
All QNCR-reportable permit effluent violations
are considered significant noncompliance (SNC).
b. Schedule Violations
Compliance schedules to meet new toxic controls
should be expeditious. Milestones should be
established to evaluate progress routinely and
minimize delays. These milestones should be
tracked and any slippage of 90 days or more
must be reported on the QNCR.
-105-
-------
The following milestones are considered SNC when
90 days or more overdue: submit plan/schedule
to conduct TRE, initiate TRE, submit teat results,
submit implementation plan/schedule (if appro-
priate), start construction, end construction,
and attain compliance with permit.
c. Reporting/Other Violations
Violation of other toxic control requirements
(including reports) will be reported using
criteria that are applied to comparable NPDES
permit conditions. For example, failure to
submit a report within 30 days after the due
date or submittal of an inaccurate or inadequate
report will be reportable noncompliance (on
the QNCR)•
Only failure to submit toxicity limit self-
monitoring reports or final TRE progress reports
indicating compliance will be SNC when 30 days
or more overdue.
Resolution (bringing into compliance) of all three
types of permit violations (effluent, schedule,
and reporting/other) will be through timely and
appropriate enforcement that is consistent with
EPA Oversight Guidance. Administering agencies
are expected to bring violators back into compliance
or take formal enforcement action against facilities
that appear on the QNCR and are in SNC; otherwise,
after two or more quarters the facility must be
listed on the Exceptions List.
2. Approaches to Enforcement of Effluent Limitations
In the case of noncompliance with whole effluent
toxicity limitations, any formal enforcement action
will be tailored to the specific violation and remedial
actions required. In some instances, a Toxicity
Reduction Evaluation (TRE) may be appropriate. However,
where directly enforceable toxicity-based limits are
used, the TRE i* not an acceptable enforcement response
to toxicity noncompliance if it requires only additional
monitoring without a requirement to determine appropriate
remedial actions and ultimately compliance with the
limit.
If the Regions or States use administrative
enforcement for violations of toxic requirements,
such actions ehould require compliance by a date
certain, according to a set schedule, and an
-106-
-------
administrative penalty should be considered.1
Failure to conply with an Administrative Order
schedule within 90 days indicates a schedule delay
that nay affect the final compliance date and a
judicial referral is the normal response. In instances
where toxicity has been measured in areas with potential
impacts on human health (e.g., public water supplies,
fish/shellfish areas, etc.), regions and states
should presume in favor of judicial action and seek
immediate injunctive relief (such as temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction).
In a few highly unusual cases where the permit-
tee has implemented an exhaustive TRE plan2, applied
appropriate influent and effluent controls3, maintained
continued compliance with all other effluent limits,
compliance schedules, monitoring, and other permit
requirements, but is still unable to attain or maintain
compliance with the toxicity-based limits, special
technical evaluation may be warranted and civil penalty
relief granted. Solutions in these cases could be
pursued jointly with expertise from EPA and/or the
States as well as the permittee.
Some permittees may be required to perform a
second TRE subsequent to implementation of remedial
action. An example of the appropriate use of a
subsequent TRE is for the correction of new violations
of whole effluent limitations following a period of
^Federal Administrative penalty orders must be linked to violations
of underlying permit requirements and schedules.
2See Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations,
Phase I, Toxicity Characterization Procedures, EPA-600/3-88/035,
Table 1.An exhaustive TRE plan covers three areas: causative
agent identification/toxicity treatability; influent/effluent
control; and attainment of continued compliance. A listing of
EPA protocols for TREs can be found in Section V (pages 11 and
12).
3For industrial permittees, the facility must be well-operated
to achieve all water quality-based, chemical specific, or BAT
limits, exhibit proper 0 t M and effective BMPs, and control
toxics through appropriate chemical substitution and treatment.
For POTW permittees, the facility must be well-operated to
achieve all water quality-based, chemical specific, or secondary
limits as appropriate, adequately implement its approved pretreat-
ment program, develop local limits to control toxicity, and
implement additional treatment.
-107-
-------
sustained compliance (6 months or greater in duration)
indicating a different problem from that addressed
in the initial TRE.
3. Enforcement of Compliance Schedule and Reporting
Requirements
In a number of instances, the primary
requirements in the permits to address toxicity
will be schedules for adoption and implementation
of biomonitoring plans, or submission of reports
verifying TREs or other similar reporting require-
ments. Regions and States should consider any
failure (1) to conduct self-monitoring according
to EPA and State requirements, (2) to meet TRE
schedules within 90 days, or (3) to submit reports
within 30 days of the specified deadline as SMC.
Such violations should receive equivalent enforce-
ment follow-up as outlined above.
4. Use of Administrative Orders With Penalties
In addition to the formal enforcement actions
to require remedial actions, Regions and States
should presume that penalty AO's or State equiva-
lents can be issued for underlying permit violations
in which a formal enforcement action is appropriate.
Headquarters will also provide Regions and States
with guidance and examples as to how the current
CWA penalty policy can be adjusted.
5. Enforcement Models and Special Remedies
OWEP and OECM will develop standard pleadings
and language for remedial activities and compliance
milestones to assist Regions and States in addres-
sing violations of toxicity or water quality-based
permit limits. Products will include model litiga-
tion reports, model complaints and consent decrees,
and revised penalty policy or penalty algorithm
and should be completed in early FY 1989.
-108-
-------
V. Summary of Principal Activities and Products
A. Compliance Tracking and Review guidance
1. PCS Coding Guidance - May, 1987; revision
2nd Quarter 1989
2. Review Criteria for Self-nonitoring Data (draft
attached)
B. Inspections and Quality Assurance
1. Revised NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual -
May 1988.
2. Quality Assurance Guidance - 3rd Quarter FY 1989.
3. Biomonitoring Inspection Training Module -
August 1988.
4. Additions of a reference toxicant to OMRQA program -
(to be determined)
C. Toxics Enforcement
1. Administrative and Civil Penalty Guidance - 4th
Quarter FY 1989
2. Model Pleadings and Complaints - 2nd Quarter 1989
3. EMS Revision - 2nd Quarter FY 1989
D. Permitting Consistency
1. Basic Permitting Principles - 2nd Quarter FY 1989
E. Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
1. Generalised Methology for Conducting Industrial
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations - 2na Quarter
FY 1989
2. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Protocol for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants - 2nd Quarter
FY 1989
-109-
-------
Methods for Aquatic Tozicity Indentification
Evaluations
a. Phase !• Toxicity Character!tation
"~ Procedures > EPA-600/3-88/034-
Septeaber 1988
b. Phase II. Toxicity Identification
~~"~ Procedures, EPA-600/3-88/035-
2nd Quarter 1989
c. Phase III* Toxicity Confirmation Procedures-
"" EPA-600/3-88/036 - 2nd Quarter
FY 1989
-110-
-------
Attachment
QUALITY CONTROL FACT SHEET FOR SELF-BIOMOMITORIMG
ACUTE/CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST DATA
Feralt No.
Facility Hame
Facility Location
Laboratory/Investigator
Permit Requirements:
Sampling Location
Limit
Type of Test
Test Results;
LC50/EC50/NOEL
Type of Sanple_
Test Duration
Test Organism Age
Quality Control Summaryt
Date of Sample:
95% Confidence Interval
Dates of Test:
Control Mortality:
Control Mean Dry Weight
Temperature maintained within +2«C of test temperature? Yes No_
Dissolved oxygen levels always greater than 401 saturation?
Yes No
Loading factor for all exposure chambers less than or equal to
maximum allowed for the test type and temperature? Yes No
Do the test results indicate a direct relationship between effluent
concentration and response of the test organism (i.e., more deaths
occur at the highest effluent concentrations)? Yes No
-111-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
SECTION 6
BASIC PERMITTING PRINCIPLES/INTRODUCTION TO TREs
INTRODUCTION TO TREs
TREs IN THE PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
TRE AVAILABLE GUIDANCE
-113-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
PERMITTING PRINCIPLES AND
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR TREs
BASIC PERMITTING PRINCIPLES
AND
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR
WET and TREs
PRINCIPLE NUMBER ONE
PERMITS MUST BE
PROTECTIVE OF WATER
QUALITY
-115-
-------
AT A MINIMUM, ALL MAJOR PERMITS AND
MINORS OF CONCERN SHOULD BE
EVALUATED FOR POTENTIAL OR KNOWN
TOXICITY
FINAL WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITS
MUST BE INCLUDED IN PERMITS WHERE
NECESSARr TO ENSURE THAT STATE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ARE MET
PRINCIPLE NUMBER TWO
PERMITS MUST BE
WRITTEN TO AVOW
AMBIGUITY AND ENSURE
ENFORCEABILITY
I
PERMIT CONDITION NUMBER
ONE
PERMIT LIMITS IN PART ONE
OF PERMIT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
OR AT A SPECIFIED DELAYED
DATE
-116-
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITS
Part 1A. Final Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date
of this permit and lasting until the expiration date,
the permittee is authorized to discharge in
accordance with the following limitations and
monitoring requirements from the following
outfall(s): .
Effluent Characteristic
Reporting
code/units
"arameter
Discharge Limitation
Daily
Maximurr
Monthly
Average
Monitoring Frequency
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
61426/TUc Toxoty 5.9
1.2
x/month
composite
PERMIT CONDITION NUMBER
TWO
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO INCREASE
MONITORING IN THE EVENT OF EFFLUENT
VIOLATION. AND LEADING EITHER TO
AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION, TRE OR
RETURN TO NORMAL MONITORING
DOES NOT VERIFY THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION
-117-
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Part 1B Reporting Requirements
1. Toxicity Limitations
Where any one monitoring event shows a violation of the limits
in Part 1A of this permit, the permittee shall be considered in
violation of this permit and shall increase the frequency of
toxicity testing to once per week and submit the data within
x days to the permitting authority The permitting authority
will determine whether enforcement action will be initiated, or
whether the permittee must implement the requirements of
Part IDA of this permit or return to the monitoring requirements
in Part 1A.
The permittee shall use the testing and data assessment procedure
described in Part 1MB of this permit.
PERMIT CONDITION NUMBER
THREE
TOXICITY TESTING SPECIES AND
PROTOCOLS SHOULD BE ACCURATELY
REFERENCED/CITED IN THE PERMIT
-118-
-------
PRINCIPLE NUMBER THREE
WHERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE
WITH A WET LIMIT,
PERMITTEES MUST BE
COMPELLED TO COME INTO
COMPLIANCE WITH THE
LOOT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
ALL COMPLIANCE DATES SHOULD BE
SPECIFIED
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (TKEs) CANNOT
BE DELAYED PENDING EPA OR STATE
APPROVAL OF THE PLAN, UNLESS
STATE REGULATIONS REQUIRE
PRIOR APPROVAL
TRE PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE
SET IN PERMIT WHERE TOXJCITY IS
KNOWN. OR BY RE-OPENING THE
PERMIT OR ISSUING AND ENFORCEMENT
ORDER (SECTION 308 OR 309) WHERE
TOXJCITY IS FOUND SUBSEQUENT
TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
-119-
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR TRE SCHEDULES
Part IMA. Special Conditions: Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
The Discharger shall demonstrate that effluent toxicity-based permit
limits described in Part IA of this permit are being attained and
maintained through the application of all reasonable treatment and/or
source control measures. Upon identifying noncompliance with those
limits following the conditions of Part IC1, the Discharger shall initiate
a TRE according to the following schedule:
Task Deadline
1. Take all reasonable measures necessary
to immediately reduce toxicity, where
source is known Within 24 hours
2. Where source of toxicity is known, submit
a plan and schedule to attained continued
compliance with effluent toxicity-based permit
limitations in Part IA, if immediate compliance
is not attained
Within 30 days
3. Where source of toxicity is unknown and
toxicity cannot be immediately controlled
through operational changes, submit a TRE
study plan detailing the toxicity reduction
procedures to be employed. EPA's Toxicity
Reduction Evaluation Procedures; Phases 1,2 and
3 (EPA 600/3-88-034,035 and 036) and TRE
Protocol for POTWs (EPA600/8-88-00)
shall be the basis for this plan.
4. Initiate TRE plan
S. Comply with approved TRE schedule
6. Submit results of TRE; include a summary of
findings, corrective actions required, and data generated
7. Implement TRE controls as described in final report
8. Complete TRE implementation to meet
permit limits and conditions
Within 45 days
Within 45 days
Immediately upon
approval
Per approved schedule
On due date of final report
per approved schedule
Per approved schedule,
but in no case later than
later than x months from
initial nonooMpUance
-120-
-------
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION
fTRE)
A SITE-SPECIFIC STUDY CONDUCTED IN
A STEP-WISE PROCESS TO
NARROW THE SEARCH POR
EFFECTIVE CONTROL MEASURES
FOR EFFLUENT TOXICITY
Figure 1 - Generalized TRE Flowchart
Information «nd Data
Acquisition
Facility Operation and
Maintenance evaluation
Toxicity Identification
Evaluation
Toxicity Treatability
Evaluation
Source Investigation!
Control Method Selection
and loplenentation
Follow-up and Confirmation
-121-
-------
WHAT PROMPTS A
TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATION?
TRE
SCENARIOS
SCENARIO
TOXICITY FOUND PRIOR
TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
-122-
-------
SCENARIO #1
• TRE REQUIREMENT IN PERMIT
• SOME DATA, SO SPECIFIC SCHEDULE
• LIMIT IN PERMIT PRIOR TO REQUIRING
CONSTRUCTION OR SOURCE CONTROL
EHRMPLC PERMIT LRNGUflGE
FOR TRE SCHEDULES
Part MIR. Special Conditions: ToHicfty Reduction Evaluation
The Discharger shall Initiate a TRE according to the following schedule
Task
1. Submit TRE study plan
detailing the todciry reduction
evaluation procedures to be
employed. EPA* Tojdctty Reduction
Evaluation Procedures: Phases 1. 2
and 3 (EPA 600/3-88-034.035 and
036) and TRE Protocol for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants IEPA
6OO/8-88-62) shall be the basis for
this plan
2 Initiate TRE
3. Submit TRE progress reports
4 Submit results of TRE
5 Implement TRE controls as
described in final report
6 Complete toxlcity control
Implementation and meet
permit limits and conditions
Deadline
Within 45 days of
permit Issuance
Within 45 days of
permit Issuance
By the 15th day of each
calendar quarter
Within 10 months of
permit issuance
Within 16 months of
permit issuance
Within 2 years of
permit Issuance
-123-
-------
SCENARIO #2A
TOXICITY TESTING WITH A
THE TRIGGER
SCENARIO #2A
• THE TRIGGER IN PERMIT
• NO SPECIFIC DATA. SO GENERAL TRE
SCHEDULE
• MUST REOPEN PERMIT TO SET LOOT
AND REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION,
SOURCE CONTROL, OR OTHER
TOXICITY CONTROL OPTIONS
-124-
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR TRE SCHEDULES
Part MIA Special Conditions Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
The Discharger shall demonstrate that ettluenl loiictty-baaed permit
limits described in Pen IA ol this permit are Ming attained and
maintained through the application ol Hi reasonable treatment and/or
source control measures. Upon identifying noncompkance with (hot*
limits following the conditions ol Part 1C t. the Discharger Shan initial*
a TRE according to tie toaowing schedule:
Icfe Daatffat
1 Take all reasonable measures necessary
to immediately reduce toxeify. where
source is known Within 24 hours
2. Where source ol toiteily I* known, submit
a plan and schedule to attained continued
compliance wtm ettkient toiidiy-bated permit
limitation! m Pan IA. N Immediate compliance
I* not attained Within 30 days
3. Where source ol toiictty Is unknown and
toiteity cannot be Immediately controlled
throueh operational ehtnget. aubmit t TRE
•tudy plan detailing the toiicily reduction
procedures to be emptoyed EPA's Toiicity
Beducton Evaluation Procedures; Phases 1.2 and
3 (EPA «00/3-M.034.035 and 036) and TRE
Protocol tor POTWs (EPA«00/B-lt-00)
anal be tie basis tor Ms plan. Within 45 days
4. Initial* TRE plan Within 45 days
S. Comply with approved TRE schedule immediately upon
approval
«. Submit results ol TRE; include a summary ol
findings, corrective actions required, and data generated Per approved schedule
7 implement TRE controls as described ft final repon On due date ol Imai repor
par approved schedule
I. Complete TRE Implementation to meet Par apt* wed schedule.
permit limits and conditions but m no case later than
lM9f atun x fnofllto fftwrt
i noncomphanct
SCENARIO #2B
TOXICITY TESTING WITH
NO TRE TRIGGER
OR
PERMITTING AUTHORITY
FINDS TOXICITY
-125-
-------
SCENARIO #2B
1. ISSUE SECTION 308 LETTER TO
REQUIRE ACCELERATED TESTING
2. IP ADDITIONAL DATA SHOWS TOXICITY.
ISSUE SECTION 308 LETTER TO REQUIRE
TRE
OR
REOPEN PERMIT TO ADD LIMIT AND/OR
REQUIRE TRE
SCENARIO #2B
• SOME DATA. SO SPECIFIC SCHEDULE
• MUST REOPEN PERMIT TO SET LOOT
AND REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OR
SOURCE CONTROL, OR OTHER
TOXICITY CONTROL OPTIONS
SCENARIO #3A
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
LIMIT WITH A TRE TRIGGER
-126-
-------
SCENARIO #3A
• NO SPECIFIC DATA, SO GENERAL THE
SCHEDULE
• MAT WANT TO ISSUE SECTION 308
LETTER TO REQUIRE ACCELERATED
TESTING
• DO NOT NEED TO REOPEN PERMIT TO
SET LIMIT/REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION,
SOURCE CONTROL, OR OTHER
TOXICITY CONTROL OPTIONS
• MAT WANT TO REOPEN PERMIT TO
MODIFY SCHEDULE
SCENARIO #3B
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
LIMIT WITH NO THE TRIGGER
SCENARIO #3B
• ISSUE SECTION 308 LETTER REQUIRING
ACCELERATED MONITORING
OR
• ISSUE SECTION 3O9 ORDER REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL MONITORING AND/OR TRE
• SOME DATA, SO SPECIFIC TRE SCHEDULE
DO NOT NEED TO REOPEN PERMIT TO
SET LIMIT/REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION,
SOURCE CONTROL. OR OTHER
TOXICITY CONTROL OPTIONS
-127-
-------
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A SUCCESSFUL THE SHOULD RESULT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERMIT
TOXICITT MAT BE ELIMINATED THROUGH
SIMPLE OftM OR HOUSEKEEPING
IMPROVEMENTS
TOXICITT MAT MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEAR
BUT THE TRE IS NOT OVER YET
-EXISTING DATA EVALUATION
•CONTINUED FOLLOW-UP
MONITORING
IN SUMMARY . . .
TREs
ARE TRIGGERED BY "UNACCEPTABLE
TOXICITT"
CAN BE REQUIRED BT
PERMIT S3
SECTION 3O8 LETTER
SECTION 309 ORDER (OR
JUDICIAL DECREES)
-128-
-------
AVAILABLE GUIDANCE
METHODS FOR AQUATIC TOXICITY
IDENTIFICATION EVALUATIONS
- PHASE h-TOXICITY CHARACTERIZATION
PROCEDURES, EPA 600/3-88/034
- PHASE II--TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION
PROCEDURES, EPA 600/3-88/035
- PHASE III—TOXICITY CONFIRMATION
PROCEDURES, EPA 600/3-88/036
GENERALIZED METHODOLOGY FOR CONDUCTING
INDUSTRIAL TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATIONS,
EPA 600/2-88/070
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION PROTOCOL
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANTS, EPA 600/2-88/062
-129-
-------
TRE Objective - Definition
• GoiU
• Triggers
Effluent ind Influent
Monitormf Data
Information and
Plant and
Procea* Description
DaU Acquisition
Evaluation of Chemical UM
Evaluation of
Facility Housekeeping
Evaluation of
Treatment System
Did
Treatment System
Corrections Reduce
Toiieity ?
Did
Housekeeping
Improvements Reduce
TOJEICIIV'
Did Chemical
Replacement! Reduce
Toticity ?
Toiicitv Identification Evaluation (TIE)
Tcxin'.v Treaubilitv Approacn
Causative Agent Approach
Source
Identification Evaluation
Toticity Reduction
Method Evaluation
Evaluation of Source Control/
Treating Procea* Streams
Evaluation of
Treating Final Effluent
» Selection and Method Implementation |
Follow-up and Confirmation
Tier I
Tier II
Tier Ml
Tier IV
Tier V
Tier VI
Figurt 1 2 Toxicrry Reduction Ev»ula«ion (TRE) flow cnart
-130-
-------
NPOES TME Permit Cendrt.cmt
Requirements/Recommendationi
Informtton and Data AcquMon
PrMTMUncnt Program Rtvww, POTW
•nd Operating Ravww
Performance
Evaluation (Figure 3-1)
Initial Phaae I
Tomeiry Characienution
Yet
Conventienal Pollutant
Treatabiiitv Teats
ToncitY Identification
Evaluation (Figurg 4-1)
Yea
Tomcity
Paw-Through
or Treatment
Inhibition
7
No
Yes
TOUCHY Source Evaluation-
Tier I (Figure. 5-1)
No
Yet
TOUCHY Source Evaluation— Tier II:
Source Benking/Preirestmeni
Evaluation (Figura 6-1)
•OTW In-PUnt
Control Evaluation
(Figure. 7-1)
1.
i
Toaicity Control
Selection
No
Toncity Control
Implementation and
Follow-Up Monitoring
Flgur* 1-V THE flow diagram for municipal waatewater treatment plant.
-131-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
SECTION 7
TRE INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL PROTOCOLS
-133-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
MUNICIPAL PROTOCOL
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION
PROTOCOL FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
TRE REQUIREMENT
• Triggered by evidence of unacceptable
effluent toxicity
• Usually a TRE plan and schedule must be
submitted
• Continues until acceptable effluent toxicity
is achieved
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION
• Identify the constituents causing effluent
toxicity
• Locate the sources of effluent toxicants/toxicity
• Evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of
toxicity control options
-135-
-------
MUNICIPAL TRE PROTOCOL
• Development and review of a TRE plan
• Selection of appropriate steps in a TRE
• Evaluation and interpretation of the data
• Selection and implementation of control
options
LIMITATIONS OF THE PROTOCOL
• Addresses Methods for Reduction in Whole
Effluent Toxicity
• Limited Case Studies
COMPONENTS OF THE MUNICIPAL TRE PROTOCOL
Information and Data Acquisition
POTW Performance Evaluation
Toxicity Identification Evaluation
Toxicity Source Evaluations (Tiers I and II)
POTW In-Plant Control Evaluation
Toxicity Control Selection and Implementation
POTW OPERATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA
NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports
POTW Design Criteria
Process Control Data
Treatment Interferences
Process Sidestream Discharges
Wastewater Bypasses
-136-
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM INFORMATION
POTW Effluent and Influent Toxicity/Toxics Data
POTW Sludge Toxics Data
Industrial Waste Survey Information
Annual Pretreatment Program Reports
Local Limits Compliance Reports
POTW PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
• Evaluate major unit treatment processes
(CCP Approach)
• Identify deficiencies that may contribute to
effluent toxicity
• Determine in-plant sources of effluent toxicants
(e.g., chlorination, bypasses)
POTW PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
A limited TIE Phase I can be conducted to:
• Indicate in-plant toxicants such as chlorine
and suspended solids
• Provide information to set up treatability tests
CONVENTIONAL TREATABILITY TESTS
Recommended for Improvements in Conventional
Pollutant Treatment
Can Identify Modifications in Conventional
Treatment That Also Reduce Toxicity
-137-
-------
CONSIDERATIONS IN TIE TESTING AT POTWS
Characterize effluent toxicant variability over time
Utilize pretreatment program data to support TIE
Can initiate treatability tests based on Phase I
results
RESULTS OF TIE
• Specific toxicants are identified
• One fraction is consistently toxic
• Variable fraction toxicity
PURPOSE OF TOXICITY SOURCE EVALUATION (TSE)
Determine Sources of Effluent Toxicants/Toxicity
Determine Feasibility of Pretreatment Control
TIER I TSE - SAMPLING DECISIONS
Sewer Line Sampling:
• TIE and pretreatment program data
are limited
• POTW has a large number of (Us
Point Discharge Sampling:
• TIE and pretreatment program data
attribute toxicants to (Us
• Number of (Us is manageable
-138-
-------
TSE TIER I APPROACHES
Chemical-Specific Tracking
Refractory Toxicity Assessment
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC TSE REQUIREMENTS
Pretreatment Program Data to Indicate Sources
Knowledge of Sewer Discharge Characteristics
Accurate Analytical And Flow Data
TSE - REFRACTORY TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
A simulation of the POTW treatment system
which utilizes toxicity tests to estimate the
amount of refractory toxicity in sewer
wastewaters.
RTA SAMPLE COLLECTION, CHARACTERIZATION
AND PREPARATION
24-Hour Flow Composites
Analyze for COD, TKN, TP, TDS and pH
Adjust BOD5:N:P Ratio to 100:5:1
Adjust pH
-139-
-------
EXAMPLE RESULTS FOR TIER I RTA
LC50 (% Effluent)
Sample/ Sample/ Potential
Synthetic Primary Primary Toxicity
Source Wastewater Effluent Effluent Source
35
38
70
YES
22
77
72
NO
21
12
85
YES
TIER II - TOXICITY SOURCE EVALUATION
Confirm Sources of Refractory Toxicity
Identified In Tier I
Determine Potential for Biological Treatment
Inhibition (optional)
Characterize Refractory Toxicity Using TIE
Phase I Tests (optional)
EXAMPLE RESULTS FOR TIER II RTA
Sample Dilution
(Times Percent Flow in POTW Influent)
Batch Effluent LC 50
Batch Effluent Toxic
Units CTU)
Sum of TUs = 15.3
10x
10
10
5x
30
3.3
2x
50
2
-140-
-------
RELATIVE TOXICITY LOADING CALCULATION
Relative Score =
Sum of TUs x Sewer Discharge Flow Rate
Where Sum of TUs = 15.3
Flow Rate = 1 mgd
Relative Score = 15.3 TU x 1 mgd = 15.3
TSE TIER II - PRETREATMENT CONTROL EVALUATION
Approaches to Local Limits Development
• Allowable headworks loading
• Industrial User management
• Case by case permitting
Equitable Cost Recovery
SELECTION OF OPTIONS FOR EVALUATION
Review PPE data to determine:
• Space and equipment
• Operational control
Review TIE data to determine:
• Types of toxicants amenable to
treatment
• Treatability test design
-141-
-------
TOXICITY TREATABILITY TESTS
Activated Sludge
Coagulation and Precipitation
Sedimentation
Granular Media Filtration
Activated Carbon
EVALUATION OF TOXICITY CONTROL OPTIONS
Selection based on results of:
• PPE
• TIE
• TSE Tier I - Chemical Specific Testing
• TSE Tiers I and II - Refractory
Toxicity Assessment
• POTW Treatability Testing
POTW TECHNOLOGIES FOR CATEGORIES OF POLLUTANTS
Biodegradable
Organic Non-Biodegradable
Compounds and Organic
Ammonia Compounds
Biological Process Coagulation/
Control Precipitation
Nutrient Filtration
Addition
Activated
Carbon
-142-
-------
POTW TECHNOLOGIES FOR CATEGORIES OF POLLUTANTS
Volatile Heavy Metals
Organic and Cationic
Compounds Compounds
Biological Process pH Adjustment
Control
Aeration Coagulation/
Precipitation
Filtration
COMPARISON OF SELECTION CRITERIA FOR
TOXICITY CONTROL OPTIONS
Alternative
Selection Criteria ABC
Ability to achieve effluent toxicity limits
Ability to comply with other permits
Capital and O&M Costs
Ease of Implementation
Reliability
Environmental Impact
TOXICITY CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION
Toxics Control Implementation Plan
Follow-up Monitoring
-143-
-------
TRE INDUSTRIAL PROTOCOL
TRE INDUSTRIAL
PROTOCOL - AN OVERVIEW
Policy Language
To control pollutants beyond Clean Water Act
technology-based requirements, the EPA will use
an integrated strategy consisting of both
biological and chemical methods to address
toxic and non-conventional pollutants from
Industrial and municipal sources
Where ambient toxicity is identified as a
problem, TREs may be required to identify
sources of the toxicity and to determine
how the toxicity can be reduced to
acceptable levels
Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
(TRE)
An investigation conducted within a plant
or municipal system to isolate the sources
of effluent toxicity and/or determine the
effectiveness of pollution control options
in reducing the effluent toxicity.
-144-
-------
A TRE is a step-wise process
consisting of:
• Evaluation of existing site-specific information
• Toxicity characterization/identification evaluation
• Confirmation
• Source Evaluation
• Toxicity reduction method evaluation
• Method selection and implementation
• Follow-up monitoring
TRE Flowchart
TRE Objectives
Information and Data
Acquisition
Evaluate Facility
Housekeeping
Evaluate Chemical Use
Evaluate Treatment System
Toxicity Identification
Evaluation
Evaluation of Treating
Final Effluent
Identification of the Source(s)
of Final Effluent Toxicity
J_
Evaluation of Treating
Process Systems
Selection and Method
Implementation
Follow-Up and Confirmation
-145-
-------
Evaluation of
Existing Site-Specific
Information
Information Acquisition
Plant and process descriptions
Influent and effluent physical/
chemical data
Effluent toxicity data
Instream biological data
Housekeeping
Materials handling
Spill control
Facility cleanliness
Waste handling, storage
and disposal
Environmental awareness
Treatment System
• Design characteristics
• Operating efficiency
• Influent characteristics
• Effluent characteristics
-146-
-------
Chemical Use
• Process chemicals
• Biocides
• Cleaning operations
• MSDS review
Products Manufactured
• Raw materials
• By-products
Episodic Events
• Intentional or unintentional releases of
toxics to the wastewater treatment
system
• Accidental spills of toxics
-147-
-------
Toxicity Identification Evaluation
Objective: Identify cause(s) of
final effluent toxicity
ideally: Identify specific chemical(s)
If Not: Characterize the toxicants and
identify group(s) or fraction(s)
of chemicals
Flow Chart of Suggested
Effluent Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
Effluent Samples
* * I +
Causative Toxicant Characterization Tests
I
- Variability Associated With Causative Toxicant(s)
- Physical/Chemical Nature of Causative Toxicant(s)
Option 1 Option 2
j J
^ Chemical Analysis Methoc
Bench Scale and I
Pilot Plant Toxicant Identification
Effluent Toxicity I
Treatability Study Source Investigation
I *
4 Source Control
Implementation - Spill Control
of Treatment - Process Modification
- Substitution of
Raw Materials
- Pretreatment
_ I
Post-Control Monitoring
- Chemical
- Biologies1
-148-
-------
Specific Toxicant Identification
Identify toxicants so that they can
be eliminated or reduced at the source,
either by substitution or pretreatment.
TIE STRATEGY
Evaluation of Variability
Performance of Toxicity
Fractionation / Characterization
Identification of Specific Toxicants
Confirmation of Identifications
TIE Strategy Flow Chart
Evaluate Effluent
Toiicity Variability
No
**rfO"i
One*
Perform Fractionation
Several Timts
-149-
-------
100
Effluent Variability
• Volume
• Constituents
Effluent Variability
0 70 40 60 60 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 2*0 280 300
Tesl Date. Days
-150-
-------
Effluent Variability
15
An Effluent Toxicity Test
Cannot Be Repeated to Verify
or Validate Results
Effluent Characterfzatfon
Baseline -
Toxicity Tests
Toxic Effluent Sample
Degradation
Tests
Reducing
Agent Test
Chelation
Test
Air Stripping Filtration C,8 Solid Phase
Test Test Extraction Test
Acid Base Neutral
*• ' ^
Acid Base Neutral
-151-
-------
Toxicity Reduction
Method Evaluation
• Eliminate at the source
• Treatment of final effluent
Treatment of Final Effluent
• Identify possible treatment methods
• Modify or add to present system
• Design and construct new
treatment system
TOXICITY PERSISTENCE
• Can be useful in sourcing toxicants and
in identifying treatment options
Follow-Up Monitoring
Optimize toxicity reduction
method
Confirm toxicity reduction
Assess acceptability of
toxicity variability
-152-
-------
Source Elimination
• Chemical substitition
• Process modification
• Treatment of process streams
(pretreatment)
• Eliminate the process
Toxicity Treatment
Characterize whole effluent toxicity
and then develop treatment procedures
to reduce the toxicity to acceptable
levels.
-153-
-------
Factors to Consider
Before Initiating a TRE
DILUTION WATER OPTIONS
• Receiving Water
• Laboratory Water
• Reconstituted Water
Proper Sample Collection,
Shipment and Storage Is Critical
to Maintain Realistic Effluent
Characteristics
EFFLUENT COLLECTION
SHIPPING AND STORAGE
• Grab Sample vs. Composite
• Shipped on Ice in the Dark
. Overnight Courier
. Stored Until Use at About 4° C
-154-
-------
Species Sensitivity
Temporal variability
Very important in establishing and
attaining the goals of the TI/RE
The Development of a Sufficient
Database Is the Only Way to Ensure
That Inappropriate Treatment
Costs Are Avoided
On-Site Cooperation Is Essential
• With an industry it is virtually impossible
to identify the source of the problem(s)
without their cooperation.
• Frequently an on-site person assigned
to the TI/RE full-time will be very
valuable.
Work Cooperatively With the
Regulatory Authority
• Agree upon a reasonable goal.
• Work together to accomplish the goal.
• Assure that the goal does not change
in the process of conducting the TRE.
• Flexibility in the schedule is the key.
• Maintaining a good faith effort is important
• It is always easier to be successful if a good
relationship is maintained between permittee,
contractor, and regulatory authority.
-155-
-------
Increased Level of Environmental
Awareness/Consciousness
A requirement If long-term and widespread success if to
be achieved.
Summary
• A defined THE target Is essential
• Generalized methodologies should
be developed and applied
• Flexibility In design, Implementation
and schedule
• TREs should be facility-specific
• Effluent variability Influences
design of THE
• Confirmation of causes of toxiclty
Important
• Cooperation among all participants
critical
Chlorine Toxicity
Pass-through cooling water
toxicity
POTW disinfection toxicity
Unionized Ammonia Is Primarily
Responsible for Ammonia Toxicity,
and Both Temperature and pH
Control Percent Unionized Ammonia
-156-
-------
Ammonia Toxicity is Difficult to
Interpret in Shipped Effluent
Samples Collected in Cold Weather
Heating the Municipal Effluent From
(5 - 10° C) up to 25° C Increases
the Percent Unionized Ammonia
Substantially, as Does an
Increase in pH From 7.0 to 8.0
The Result Is a More Toxic Effluent
Adjusting Test Temperatures and pH for
Fish Bioassays Is Possible and
Can Provide for More Environmental
Realism in Toxicity Tests
Toxicity Resulting From Polar
Organics Presents Difficult
Problems in TREs
Fractionation/Characterization Procedures
Do Not Necessarily Produce Absolute
Separation of Classes of Toxicants
-157-
-------
Effluent Matrix Variability
Can Also Affect the
TRE Process
In TRE Work the Results of Chemical
Analyses Need to Be Carefully Interpreted
Sample Preparation Procedures
Deserve Special Scrutiny
-158-
-------
SECTION 8
TIE OVERVIEW
-159-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION
EVALUATION OVERVIEW
PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSES
Do not represent all toxic
chemicals
Two Approaches to Toxicity Reduction Evaluations:
Toxicity Investigation Evaluation
(Causative Agent Approach)
Effluent Toxicity Treatability
Both the Treatability & Identification
Approaches Utilize Physical-Chemical
Characteristics of Toxicants.
TIE BASED ON TWO PRINCIPLES
Concentrate
Separate
-161-
-------
THREE MAJOR PARTS OF THE TIE
Characterization
Identification
Confirmation
Identify General Nature of Toxicant(s)
- Solubility
- Volatility
•• Dtcomposability
- Complexability
» Filterability
-• Sorbability
-162-
-------
»TQXICITY CHARACTERIZATION
MANIPULATION TYPE CHARACTERIZATION
pH adjustment Toxic form alttred
Filtration and pH Suspended solids
adjustment Solubility changes
Purging and pH Volatiles
adjustment
C-18 SPEand pH Non-polar compounds
adjustment
Thiosulfate and Oxidants and metals
EDTA
Following Characterization,
the choice of
Treatability or Identification
is best made.
II. TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION
GROUP APPROACH
Non-polar organic* SPE, HPLC, GC/MS
Metals AA, Ion exchange,
chelation
Ammonia pH manipulation,
zeolite
Surfactants Bubble removal
Polar organlcs
Volatiles
-163-
-------
FINAL CONFIRMATION
1. Toxicity vs. Concentration
Correlation
2. Symptoms
3. Spiking Effluent
4. Toxicity Mass Balance
5. Other Species
6. Spiking Fractions
7. Misc.
pH
Hardness
Tissue Uptake
-164-
-------
UJ
3 •
5 1
o
x
f2»O.T3
SLOPE«O.B2*0.14
Y-INTERCEPT-0.46tO.22
2 4
TOXIC UNITS OF SUSPECT TOXICANTS
Toxic Components of a POTW Effluent
M
H 3 -
X « ,
O z
Wnolc EfnlMill
WE FHt«f»d
Total fetttelto
\
EFFLUENT SAMPLE
Presence of toxic concentrations
does not prove
the cause of toxicity.
-165-
-------
Amount of industrial
contributions not
related to toxicity.
A GOOD TIE PLAN CONSISTS OF
SEVERAL ASPECTS:
• Use of broad "Characterization" steps.
• Effluent variability considered
• Toxicity tracked with analyses.
• Analytical capability is broad.
• Reliance on the QC/MS Is realistic
• Choice of test species logical.
• Toxicity tests are streamlined.
• Supply of test organisms Is not limiting.
• Team work approach Is built in.
Choice of Test
Species for TIE?
-166-
-------
Does Objective of TIE
Include Resident Species?
TRIGGERS
FOR
TRE's
CHRONIC
TIE METHODS
LIMITED
EPA ACUTE
METHODS
NOT APPLICABLE
CHRONIC TRE
TREATABILITY METHODS
COMPLETE
-167-
-------
CHOOSING
CONTRACT FIRM
TOXICANT PATTERNS
ARE
EMERGING
-168-
-------
LEGEND
D « 1.0UQ/I
D 0.10-O.25
• >0.25
"" Not clutoniAioU
Figure 2. Frequency of cfazinon occurrence in POTW
effluents from around the United States.
-------
64 Sites Evaluated
6 Lacked Acute Toxicity
58 TIE'S
Summary of NETAC TIE'S
Total Samples Evaluated 58
Successful Phase I 39 of 40
Successfully Determined
if Toxicant is X
(e.g., ammonia)? 18 of 18
Successful for Phase II
and/or III 16 of 18
Phase I Findings:
pH dependent 3
Inorganics 15
Oxidants 9
Non-polars 25
Volatiles 1
-170-
-------
Some Toxicants Identified
thru February 1989
Discharge Type
Industrial
Cotnpoundfs)
• zinc, non-polar organics
salinity (IDS)
• ammonia
• nickel
Municipal
zinc, non-polar organics
ammonia, diazinon, malathion
nickel
diazinon, chlorfenvinphos
diazinon, dichlorovos
ammonia, non-polar organics
diazinon, non-polar organics
diazinon
detergents
Other:
Ambient
Ambient
Elutriates
Elutriates
carbofuran, methyl parathion
diazinon
ammonia
manganese
One to three toxicants
have usually been
most of the problem.
-171-
-------
Toxicity often occurs
at
ug/L concentrations.
In a 35 mgd plant
1 ug/L = 0.3 Ibs/day.
With 90% removal
1 ug/L = loading of about 3 Ibs/day.
TOXICANTS AT ug/L CONCENTRATIONS:
• Can't be found by examination
of loadings
- Can't be related to conventional
pollutants
• Are not likely to be related to
flow
CONCLUSIONS:
1. TIE/TRE's are enjoying good success.
2. Many contractors are able to do TIE'S.
3. Phase I, characterization, is rapidly
becoming routine.
4. Trends are emerging.
5. Solutions are being found.
6. Causes of toxicity are often few.
7. The cause of toxicity is often not
industrial.
-172-
-------
COMMON LABORATORY
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
COMMON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
TIEs
• TEST ORGANISMS
• DISPOSABLE 1-OUNCE TEST CHAMBERS
• LIGHT BOX AND/OR MICROSCOPE
• pH METER AND PROBE
• 7 ml SCINTILLATION ft AUTO SAMPLER WITH CAPS
• STIR PLATE
• MAGNETIC STIRRERS/BARS (PERFLOUROCARBON)
• C 18 SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION COLUMNS
• AERATION DEVICE OR COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM WITH MOLECULAR
SIEVE
• AIR STONES
• FLUID METERING PUMP WITH RESERVOIR
COMMON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
TIEs(Continued)
• PERFLOUROCARBON TUBING
• RING STANDS
• CLAMPS
• PARAFILM
• WIRE MESH TEST CHAMBERS
• GLASS-FIBER FILTERS (1.0/Jm)
• IN-LINE FILTER HOUSING
• STAINLESS STEEL TWEEZERS
• GLASS WOOL
• NITROGEN
-173-
-------
COMMON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
TIEs(Continued)
• GLASSWARE
• 10 ml AUTOMATIC PIPETTES
• 1 ml GLASS PIPETTES
• DISPOSABLE PIPETTES TIPS
• EVE DROPPER OR WIDE BORE PIPETTE
• BEAKERS-30, 50, 250, 500, ft 600 ml
• TITRATIONBURRETTES
• GLASS STIRRING RODS
• GRADUATED CYLINDERS-25 & $0 ml WIDE MOUTH, AND 250 & 500
ml
• ERLENMEYER FLASKS--20.40. « 80 ml
• 100 ml VOLUMETRIC FLASKS
COMMON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
TIEs(Continued)
• SOLUTIONS.CHEMICALS
• DILUTION/CONTROL WATER • CaC03 ft MgC03
• HCL • CLEANING SOLVENTS
• NaOH SOLUTIONS • N«2S2O3 SOLUTIONS
• pH BUFFERS • EDTA SOLUTIONS
• HPLC GRADE METHANOL • ACS GRADE NH4CI
• HIGH PURITY WATER • HEXANE
• ZEOLITE
-174-
-------
COMPLEX LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
REQUIREMENTS FOR TIEs
HIGH PRESSURE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPH (HPLC)
GAS CHROMATOGRAPH/MASS
SPECTROPHOTOMETER(GC/MS)
ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETER (AA)
INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION
SPECTROMETER (ICP)
-175-
-------
FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND
LABORATORY REQUIREMENTS
FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND LABORATORY REQUIREMENTS
Laboratories must demonstrate competency in performing the
chemical and biological tests required as part of the TRE and
should be equipped with all the basic and complex laboratory
equipment required to conduct TREs. Laboratory personnel should
be skilled and experienced in the required methods in order to
meet quality assurance/quality control goals.
The facilities, equipment and reagents needed to perform a
TRE will be different for each element of the TRE. The general
laboratory equipment and requirements for each particular type of
analysis are briefly described in this section.
The facilities and equipment needs in the initial steps of
the TRE are generally standard. However, in the later steps of
the TRE the facility and equipment needs will be site-specific
and will depend both on the physical/chemical characteristics of
the causative toxicants and on the choice of toxicity evaluation
and control approaches. The apparatus and reagents needed to
conduct a Phase I evaluation are relatively set (not site-
specific) and are typically found in laboratories that can
perform acute toxicity tests with aquatic organisms. The
additional needed equipment (fluid metering pump, C18SPE columns,
etc.) are simple to operate and relatively inexpensive.
Laboratory apparatus and reagents needed for Phase II are a
function of the two choices of Phase II options: l)toxicity
treatability or 2)toxicant identification/source control. The
Phase I tests must be completed before the Phase II requirements
can be determined. The requirements are very site-specific,
however, laboratories equipped to perform, priority pollutant
analysis should have the more sophisticated equipment needed.
Analytical equipment that may be needed will include gas
-176-
-------
chromatographs, mass spectrometers, high pressure liquid
chromatographs, atomic absorption spectrophotometers and/or
inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometers. The
exception of equipment availability may be a HPLC which is
commercially available but not typically used in water pollution
monitoring. Other nontypical equipment (eg. zeolite,
chromatography columns, etc.) can be easily obtained and is not a
major investment. Some costs of sophisticated equipment are
GC/MS, S60-300K; AA, $35-85K (w/autosampler)? and HPLC, S25-40K.
The instruments needed for treatability studies may be
available at larger POTWs or environmental engineering consulting
firms.
It is best for a laboratory to have both toxicity testing
and cher.ical analysis (for Phase II toxicant identification
option) and/or treatability equipment (for Phase II toxicity
treatability option) in the same location. Shipping samples
between two different labs is not recommended. This is due to:
sample toxicity degradation; the lack of communication between
chemists, biologists, engineers and others involved; and the most
crucial requirement of a TRE may be the communication between the
different disciplines.
The specific requirements needed for each of the key
analytical procedures required in a TRE are summarized below.
1. Characterization Tests - Laboratories should be
equipped with pH adjustment, filtration, air stripping,
reducing agent, chelating agent and C18 solid phase
extraction columns; fractionation capabilities to
perform characterization tests (3) (see Phase i
Laboratory Equipment Needs).
-177-
-------
2. Toxicity Tests - Standard toxicity test equipment,
standard reference toxicants and an organism culturing
facility are required for the toxicity testing.
3. Batch Toxicity Treatability Tests - Laboratories should
be equipped with respirometer (optional), TSS, VSS, ATP
and COD analysis capabilities to conduct treatability
studies.
4. Specific Cher.ical Identification - More complex pieces
of equipment are required for the specific
identification of chemicals depending upon the type of
analysis needed. Equipment that may be required
includes: mass spectrometer (MS), gas chromatograph
(GC), high pressure liquid chromatograph (HPLC) with
IR, UV detectors, atomic absorption (AA)
spectrophotoneter, coupled plasma atonic emission (ICP)
spectror.eters, and ion chromatograph.
5. Sampling Equipment - Laboratories need to be equipped
with all the standard sampling equipment including
timed and sequential composite samplers, and flow
proportional cor.posite samplers.
6. General Analytical Laboratory Equipment and Reagents -
General laboratory equipment such as refrigerators,
microscopes, a water purification system, and commonly
used reagents are also required. It is important to
emphasize that copper, galvanized material, lead, and
brass should not be used in collecting or storing
effluent samples or control water. Use of inert
materials such as perfluorocarbon plastics are
particulary important in the latter steps of the TRE.
-178-
-------
LAB EQUIPMENT NEEDS
FOR
PHASE I
Baseline Toxicity Test
Apparatus:
Eighteen to 20 disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic
pipette (10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper cr
wide bore pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional
depending on test species used).
Reagents:
90 to 100 test organisms of the same age and species,
dilution/control water.
Initial Toxicity Test
Apparatus:
Twelve disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette
(10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide
bore pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional depending on
test species used).
Reagents:
Sixty test organisms of the same age and species,
dilution/control water. -179-
-------
pH Adjustment Test
Apparatus:
Burettes for acid and base titrations, pH meter and probe
(solid state), 2-500 ml beakers, 2-500 ml graduated cylinders,
12-30 ml beakers, stir plate, and stir bars (perfluorocarbon).
Eight disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette (10
ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide bore
pipette, light box and/or r.icroscope (optional depending on test
species used).
Reagents:
1.0, 0.1 and 0.01 N NaOH, 1.2, 0.12 and 0.012 N HC1 (ACS
grade in high purity water), buffers for pH meter, 40 test
organises of the sane age and species, dilution/control water.
Aeration Test
Apparatus:
Aeration device or compressed air system with a molecular
sieve, six air stones or diffusers, six-50 ml wide mouth
graduated cylinders, burettes for acid and base titrations, pH
meter and probe, stir plate(s), and perfluorocarbon stir bars.
Fifteen disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette (1C
ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide bore
pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional depending on test
species used).
Reagents:
0.01 N NaOH, 0.012 N HC1 (ACS grade in high purity water),
buffers for pH meter calibration, 75 test organisms of the sare
age and species, dilution/control water.
-180-
-------
C18 SPE Test
Apparatus:
Six-250 ml graduated cylinders, eight-25 ml graduated
cylinders, burettes for acid and base titrations, pH meter and
probe (solid state), stir plate, perfluorocarbon stir bars, fluid
metering pump (stainless steel piston with carbon cylinder) with
sample reservoir, perfluorocarbon tubing, ring stands, clamps,
and 3-3 ml C1B SPE columns (200 mg sorbent). Twenty-seven
disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette (10 ml),
disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide bore
pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional depending on test
species used).
Reagents:
HPLC grade methanol, high purity water, 0.01 N NaOH, 0.012 K
HC1 (ACS grade in high purity water), buffers for pH meter
calibration, 135 test organisms of the same age and species,
dilution/control water, solvents for cleaning pump and reservoir.
Oxidant Reduction Test
Apparatus:
Glass stirring rods, 1 ml glass pipette, eight to ten
disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette (10 ml),
disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide bore
pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional depending on test
species used).
Reagents:
Two Na2S203 (molarity depending on total residual chlorine
concentration as measured by the iodometric method and the
species used as test organisr), 40 test organisms of the sane age
and species, dilution/control water.
-181-
-------
EDTA Chelation Test
Apparatus:
Glass stirring rods, burettes for EDTA addition, 8 to 10
disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette (10 ml),
disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide bore
pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional depending on test
species used).
I
Reagents:
EDTA solutions (concentration dependent on the hardness and
salinity of the effluent and the species used as test organism),
40 test organisms of the sar.e age and species, dilution/control
water.
Graduated pH Test
Apparatus:
Burettes for acid and base addition, magnetic stirrers, and
perfluorocarbon stir bars.
3-50 ml beakers, 3 one ounce disposable transparent test
chambers, Parafilm" or 3-600 ml beakers, wire mesh test chambers.
Reaaents:
1.0 and 0.1 N NaOH or 0.1 N and 0.01 N NaOH, 1.2 N and 0.12
N HCl or 0.12 N and 0.012 N HCl, 15 test organisms of the same
age and species, dilution/control water.
-182-
-------
Filtration Test
Apparatus:
Six-250 ml graduated cylinders, 6-250 ml beakers, fluid
metering pump (stainless steel piston with carbon cylinder) with
sample reservoir, teflon tubing, in-line filter housing, ring
stands, clamps, [alternatively; vacuum flask (500 ml capacity),
filter stand, clamp, vacuum tubing, water aspirator or vacuum
pump], glass-fiber filters; nominal size 1.0 urn (without organic
binder), stainless steel tweezers, burettes for acid and base
titrations, pH meter and probe, stir plate, and perfluorocarbon
stir bars, fifteen disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic
pipette (10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or
wide bore pipette, light box and/or r.icroscope (optional
depending on test species used).
Reagents:
Solvents and high purity water for cleaning pump reservoir
and filter, 0.1 N and 0.01 N NaOH, 0.12 N and 0.012 N HCl (ACS
grade in high purity water), buffers for pH meter calibration, 75
test organises of the same age and species, dilution/control
water.
-183-
-------
EQUIPMENT NEEDS
FOR
PHASE II
Nonpolar Organic Toxicants
Apparatus:
6, 3 and/or 1 ml C1B SPE columns, fluid metering pump
(stainless steel piston with carbon cylinder), with glass
reservoir, vacuum manifolds, drying manifold, adapters and luer-
lok needles to fit C16 SPE columns, 1.0 urn glass fiber filters,
in-line filter housing, 7 ml scintillation and autosampler vials
with perfluorocarbon lined caps, 20, 40 and 80 ml Erlenmeyer
flasks, 100 ml volumetric flasks, 100 ml graduated cylinders, 25C
ul syringes, GS-MS equipped with capillary column, data syster,
with mass spectral library, HPLC equipped with solvent delivery
system (capable of producing a solvent gradient), C18 column, UV
detector, fraction collector, one ounce disposable plastic test
chambers, automatic pipette (10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10
ml), and stirring rods, eye dropper or wide bore pipette, light
box and/or microscope (optional depending on test species used).
Reagents:
HPLC grade methanol (25, 50, 75, 80, 85, 90 and 95* methanol
in high purity water), nitrogen, high purity water, test
organisms of the appropriate age and species, dilution water.
-184-
-------
Ammonia (Equitoxic Soln Test)
Apparatus:
Six 600 ml beakers, 6-250 ml graduated cylinders, 6 wire
mesh test chambers, 6 perfluorocarbon stir bars, magnetic
stirrers, apparatus for ammonia analysis (see EPA-600/4-79-20;
Method 350.1, 350.2 or 350.3), burettes for acid and base
titration, 6 one ounce disposable plastic test chambers,
automatic pipette (10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye
dropper or wide bore pipette, light box and/or microscope
(optional depending on test species used).
Reagents:
1.0 N and 0.1 N NaOH, 1.2 N and 0.12 N HC1, reagents for
ammonia analysis (see above reference) ACS grade NH^Ci, dilution
water, test organisms of the appropriate age and species.
Ammonia (Zeolite Test)
Apparatus:
Chromatographic column with reservoir (approximately 19 mm
i.d. x 41 cm), glass wool, apparatus for ammonia analysis (see
EPA-600/4-79-020, Method 350.1, 350.2 or 350.3), 3-500 ml
beakers, 500 ml graduated cylinder, 10 one ounce disposable
plastic test chambers, automatic pipette (10 ml), disposable
pipette tips (10 ml), eye droppers or wide bore pipette, light
box and/or microscope (optional depending on test spe~ies used)
Reagents:
30g zeolite, reagents for ammonia analysis (see EPA 600/4-
79-020, Method 350.1, 350.2, or 350.3), high purity water,
dilution water, test organisms of the appropriate age and
species, ACS grade NH^Cl (optional).
-185-
-------
Cationic Metals
Apparatus:
Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometer or
atomic absorption spectrophotometer with graphite furnace,
associated hardware and glassware specified in EPA-600/4-79-020
(selected method(s) from the 200 series), 500 ml separatory
funnel (optional), one ounce disposable plastic test chambers,
automatic pipette (10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml),,eye
dropper or wide bore pipette, light box and/or microscope
(optional depending on test species used).
Reagents:
Reagents as specified in EPA-600/4-79-020 for netal analysis
roethod(s) chosen, hexane (optional), CaCOj and MgCOj (optional),
dilution water, test organisms of the appropriate age and
species.
-186-
-------
SECTION 9
GUIDELINES AND REVIEW CRITERIA FOR TRE PLANS
-187-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
GUIDELINES AND REVIEW
CRITERIA FOR
TRE PLANS
GUIDELINES
FOR
TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATION PLANS
A DISCHARGER WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A
TRE PLAN TO THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE:
• A DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY PLAN
• A SCHEDULE FOR CONDUCTING SPECIFIC TASKS
AND REPORTING THE RESULTS
• RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE
FACILITY
• WHO WILL BE CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION
THE TRE PLAN SHOULD CLEARLY ESTABLISH: I
• SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES (TARGET) OF THE STUDY
• MONITORING TEST CONFIRMATION OF REDUCTION
• THE SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE AND MILESTONES
-189-
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRE PLAN IS SOLELY THE |
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DISCHARGER j
• 1 TO 3 MONTHS WILL BE SUFFICIENT FOR PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION IN TRE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW WILL HELP ENSURE A
AND GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO ACHIEVE
THE TRE OBJECTIVE
U.S EPA DOES NOT RECOMMEND
TRE PLANS BE FORMALLY APPROVED
UNLESS REQUIRED BY STATE REGULATIONS
FLEXIBILITY IN DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING A TRE
WILL BE NECESSARY
• SOME DECISIONS ON THE MOST APPROPRIATE
APPROACH MUST BE BASED ON THE RESULTS
OF THE INITIAL STEPS OR TIERS OF THE TRE
• BE WARY OF TREs THAT MAY BECOME RESEARCH
PROJECTS INVESTIGATING NEW AND UNPROVEN
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
• USE THE EPA GUIDANCE AS BASIS FOR REVIEW
• REQUEST REASONS AND DOCUMENTATION FOR ANY
MODIFICATIONS OR ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
THINGS TO AVOID]
• RELIANCE ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT SCANS
• RESEARCH ON SURROGATE PARAMETERS TO
CORRELATE WITH AQUATIC ORGANISM TOXICITY
TESTS
• LACK OF PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS
• CONFIRMATION STEP NOT CARRIED OUT FOR
IDENTIFICATION OR TREATABIUTY STUDIES
• PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR TRE IS ARRIVED AT BY
ADDING TOGETHER TIMES FOR TRE STEPS THAT ARE
USUALLY ALTERNATIVES OR ELSE CONDUCTED
CONCURRENTLY
• INCLUSION OF STUDIES NOT DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO
CONDUCTING THE TRE AND ACHIEVING THE TRE
OBJECTIVE
-190-
-------
THINGS TO ENCOURAGE]
• INTERIM REPORTS WITH SUMMARY DATA AND NEXT
STEPS TO BE CONDUCTED
• SPECIFICATION OF THE NUMBER, TIMING OF SAMPLES,
AND THE SAMPUNG POINTS
• THE SPECIFIC PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE
VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE EVALUATION
• PRELIMINARY OR MINIMUM ESTIMATES OF HOW MANY
OF EACH ANALYSIS WILL BE CONDUCTED
• INDICATION THAT INVESTIGATORS HAVE
INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPERTISE
• THOROUGH OA/OC PRACTICES INCORPORATED IN ALL
CONFIRMATION STEPS
EVALUATION CRfTE
• ARE THE OBJECTIVES OR TARGETS OF THE TRE
CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY STATED?
• ARE THE SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES FOR
ACCOMPLISHING THE TASKS DESCRIBED IN THE STUDY
PLAN?
• ARE THE FINAL REPORT, PROGRESS REPORTS AND
MEETINGS WITH THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
INCLUDED AS PART OF THE SCHEDULE?
• ARE THE APPROACHES OR METHODS TO BE UTILIZED
DESCRIBED TO THE EXTENT THAT IS POSSIBLE PRIOR
TO REACHING DECISION POINTS AND WITHOUT THE
RESULTS AND DATA THAT WILL BE COLLECTED IN THE
INITIAL STEPS OR TIERS OF THE TRE?
• HAS THE AVAILABLE GUIDANCE BEEN UTILIZED IN THE
DESIGN OF THE TRE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
TRE PLAN?
• DOES THE TRE PLAN ALLOW A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF
TIME AND APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF EFFORT FOR EACH
OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE STUDY PLAN?
• DOES THE TRE PLAN SPECIFY WHAT RESULTS AND
DATA ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INTERIM AND FINAL
REPORTS?
• DOES THE TRE PLAN PROVIDE FOR ARRANGEMENTS
FOR ANY INSPECTIONS OR VISITS TO THE FACILITY OR
LABORATORY WHICH ARE DETERMINED BY THE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO BE NEEDED?
• ARE THE TOXICmr TEST METHODS AND ENDPOINTS TO
BE UTUZED SPECIFIED OR REFERENCED?
-191-
-------
• ARE OPTIMIZATION OF EXISTING PLANTrTREATMENT
OPERATIONS AND SPILL CONTROL PROGRAMS PART
OF THE INITIAL STEPS OF THE TRE?
• DOES THE TRE PLAN INCLUDE A TIMELINE
(HORIZONTAL BAR GRAPH) WHICH CLEARLY
ILLUSTRATES THE TIMEFRAME FOR CONDUCTING THE
SPECIFIC COMPONENTS OF THE TRE (AS DESCRIBED
IN THE GUIDANCE) AND ANY OVERLAP OF THESE
COMPONENTS?
• DO THE SUBSEQUENT TESTS AND EVALUATIONS BUILD
ON THE PREVIOUS RESULTS AND PROCEED BY
NARROWING DOWN THE POSSIBILITIES IN A LOGICAL
PROGRESSION?
• ARE ALL TEST RESULTS ANALYZED AND USED TO
FOCUS ON THE MOST EFFECTIVE APPROACH FOR
SUBSEQUENT SOURCE INVESTIGATIONS, TREATABIUTY
STUDIES, AND CONTROL METHOD EVALUATIONS?
EVALUATION CRfTERIA FOR TIES \
• ARE THERE BROAD CHARACTERIZATION STEPS?
• IS EFFLUENT VARIABILITY CONSIDERED?
• is Toxicmr TRACKED WITH ANALYSES?
• IS THE ANALYTICAL CAPABILITY BROAD?
• IS RELIANCE ON GC/MS REALISTIC?
• IS CHOICE OF TEST SPECIES LOGICAL?
• is Toxicmr TESTING STREAMLINED?
• IS SUPPLY OF TEST ORGANISMS ADEQUATE?
• IS TEAM APPROACH BUILT IN?
• IS CONFIRMATION INCLUDED?
-MASS BALANCE - OTHER SPECIES INCLUDED
•CORRELATION -SPIKING
- SAMPLING OVER TIME - BIOAVAILABIUTY
-192-
-------
SECTION 10
TRE ABSTRACTS AND CASE STUDIES
-193-
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATION ABSTRACTS
AND CASE STUDIES
TRE ABSTRACTS
and
CASE STUDIES
TRE CASE STUDIES
-195-
-------
MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX
SHELL OIL COMPANY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
TOXICITY RESEARCH 1976-1985
REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTION FACILITY
PRODUCES GASOLINE, DIESEL FUEL, LUBE OILS
AND GREASE
TREATMENT PROCESSES
•OIL/WATER SEPARATION
• BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION
• SECONDARY CLARIFICATION
• TERTIARY FILTRATION
EARLY STUDIES
INITIAL FRACTIONATION/CHARACTERIZATION
SHOWED OIL AND GREASE AND AMMONIA
TO BE PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
TOXICITY
PRIOR TO CONFIRMATION, ACUTE
TOXICITY DISAPPEARED
-196-
-------
SUBSEQUENT METHOD
• EFFLUENT OCCASIONALLY
ACUTELY TOXIC
• CORRELATE OBSERVED EFFLUENT
TOXICITY TO MANUFACTURING
PROCESSES
RELATE CHANGES IN PROCESSES TO
PERIODS OF TOXICITY/ NO TOXICITY
NARROW SCOPE OF WORK TO
FOCUS ON PROCESSES WHICH
CORRELATE WITH EFFLUENT
TOXICITY
SUSPECTED TOXICANTS:
AMMONIA
OIL AND GREASE
-NAPHTHENIC ACIDS
DIALLYLAMINE PROCESSES
•SEVERAL AMINE COMPOUNDS
POLYETHYLENEIMINE
•FLOCCULATING AGENT
-197-
-------
AMINES
CAUSE OF TOXICITY?
-CONVERTED TO AMMONIA DURING
BIOTREATMENT?
•PASS-THROUGH AT HIGH
CONCENTRATIONS?
•INHIBIT NITRIFICATION OF AMMONIA?
CONTROL METHOD (1976-9):
•BYPASS WATCH SCRUBBER:
INCINERATE ETHYLENEDIAMINE
DIRECTLY
•INSTALL ION ELECTRODE MONITOR:
MONITOR AMINE/AMMONIA
CONCENTRATIONS. AT HIGH
CONCENTRATIONS, RERUN
TREATMENT
AMMONIA
SUSTAIN NITRIFICATION
BMPs
•CONTROL OF SLUDGE AGE
• CONTROL PH
•AVOID INHIBITORY ADDITIVES (SUCH AS PEI)
•GREATER EMPHASIS ON SPILL CONTROL
-198-
-------
POLYETHYLE1VEIMIJVE
(PEI)
CAUSE OF TOXICITY:
-FREE PEI TOXIC TO FISH
•INHIBITS DEGRADATION OF
OIL AND GREASE
•INHIBITS NITRIFICATION (RESULTING
IN HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF
NAPHTHENIC ACIDS AND AMMONIA)
CONTROL METHOD:
-REPLACE PEI WITH A DIFFERENT.
LESS TOXIC FLOCCULATING
AGENT
OIL AND GREASE
(NAPHTHENIC ACIDS)
SOURCE:
•CRUDE OIL DESALTER (NAPHTHENIC
ACIDS PARTITION INTO WATER PHASE)
CONTROL METHOD:
-BRINE DEOILING UNIT ADDED TO
REDUCE CONCENTRATION OF
NAPHTHENIC ACIDS PARTITIONING
INTO WATER PHASE
•PACT ADDITION TO ACTIVATED
SLUDGE FOLLOWING SPILLS OR
UPSETS
-199-
-------
OLE* HAVEN
GLEJV RAVEN MILLS
ALTAMAHAW, NORTH CAROLINA
FEBRUARY 1985- MARCH 1986
REQUIRED TO MEET 46 HOUR ACUTE
STATIC ICSO OF >90% ON
DAPHNIA PUIEX
OLBtHAVCH
PROCESS:
DYES PANTYHOSE WITH ACID
AND DISPERSE DYES
CHEMICALS USED;
DYESTUFFS
SURFACTANTS
CHELATING AGENTS
FABRIC SOFTENERS
GLEtt KAVCH
TREATMENT PROCESSES:
EQUILIZATION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT
CLARIFICATION
CHLORINATION
-200-
-------
OUW JUVEM
TIER 1: CHEMICAL
COMPOUND
OPTIMIZATION
ELIMINATE/MINIMIZE CHEMICALS
WITH KNOWN TOXICITY AND
MINIMAL BIODEGRADABILITY
ALKYL PHENYL ETHOXYLATES (APE)
BIOCIDES
QUATERNARY AMMONIUM COMPOUNDS
ORGANIC SOLVENTS
ENHANCE ACCURACY OF
COMPOUND MEASUREMENT/USE
UCN JUVCW
TIER 2: OPERATIONAL
PRACTICES
ADDITIONAL EQUALIZATION
REDUCE LIQUOR RATIOS
IN DYEING MACHINES
(FROM 30:1 TO 10:1)
PRACTICES NOT IMPLEMENTED
DUE TO UNCERTAIN
FEASIBILITY
-201-
-------
GUM HAVEN
TIER 3: EFFLUENT
CHARACTERIZATION
TOXIC CONCENTRATIONS FOUND:
COPPER
NICKEL
ZINC
NONBIODEGRADED NONIONIC
SURFACTANTS
LINEAR ALCOHOL ETHOXYLATES
OtfH HAVEN
METAL REDUCTION
EXPERIMENT:
CATIONIC EXCHANGE RESIN
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF COPPER
AND ZINC
MINIMAL REDUCTION OF IRON
SOME REDUCTION OF CADMIUM,
CHROMIUM. LEAD AND NICKEL
EFFLUENT LC50
71.9% UNTREATED
80.7% TREATED
METALS NOT LIKELY SOURCE OF
TOXICITY
HIGH CONCENTRATIONS PROBABLY
CHELATED
-202-
-------
OUNKAVEN
EXTENDED BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT EXPERIMENT
TREATMENT
FULLY DEGRADE AND TREAT
SURFACTANTS
ACTIVATED SLUDGE RENEWAL
(20% EVERY FIVE DAYS)
EXTENDED TREATMENT
EFFLUENT LC50
71.9% UNTREATED
>90% TREATED
OLEN RAVEN
CONCLUSIONS:
EFFLUENT IS NONTOXIC IF ADEQUATE
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT IS RECEIVED
ADDITIONAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
BIODEGRADfS SURFACTANTS
AND ORGAN1CS
REDUCES COD LOADING
MAXIMUM FLOW OF WASTEWATER
SHOULD BE NO GREATER THAN 20% OF
TREATMENT FACILITY CAPACITY OR
EFFLUENT SHOULD RECEIVE 20% MORE
SLUDGE CONTACT TIME
CONCENTRATIONS OF TOTAL
RECOVERABLE METALS EXCEED ACUTELY
TOXIC CONCENTRATIONS BUT DO NOT
APPEAR TO BE CONTRIBUTING
SIGNIFICANTLY TO TOXICITY
(DUE TO CHELATION?)
-203-
-------
TRE SUMMARY
INFORMATION
STITES 111 ITU TRE PROGRAMS
•R
WHERE TIEs IRPE BEEN HONE
-204-
-------
• THE STUDY LOOKED AT 34 TREs - ALL CONDUCTED PRIOR
TO PUBLICATION OF EPA PROTOCOLS
TYPES OF FACILITIES REPRESENTED:
4 OIL REFINERIES
4 METAL INDUSTRIES
4 TEXTILES FACILITIES
8 CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES
9 POTWi
5 MISCELLANEOUS
• TREs RANGED FROM 3 MONTHS TO 2 YEARS DEPENDING
ON THE COMPLEXITY OF THE WASTESTREAM AND
VARIABILITY OF TOXICITY
TOXICAJVT IDENTIFICATION
' TOXICANTS WERE IDENTIFIED AT 23 FACILITIES (68%)
1 9 FACILITIES DID NOT ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY
TOXICANTS
•7 CHARACTERIZED THE WASTIWATCR TO IDENTIFY
SUSPECTS, THEN WENT TO TREATMENT
•2 DID NOT CHARACTERIZE EFFLUENT
-1 ELIMINATED OUTFALL
•1 IS NOT MEETING LIMIT CURRENTLY
2 FACILITIES ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON
IDENTIFICATION
TOXICANTS
TOXICANTS WERE IDENTIFIED AT 23 FACILITIES
•PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES AT 7 FACILITIES
•OTHER ORGANICS AT 12 FACILITIES
•AMMONIA AT $ FACILITIES
-METALS AT S FACILITIES
-205-
-------
TREATMENT
13 FACILITIES HAVE SELECTED AND
IMPLEMENTED TREATMENT
6 FACILITIES HAVE SELECTED BUT NOT
IMPLEMENTED TREATMENT
13 FACILITIES HAVE NOT SELECTED TREATMENT
2 FACILITIES HAVE CLOSED THE OUTFALL
- r DIVERTED TO A POTW
•1 STOPPED PROCESS CAUSING TOXICITY
TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS.
• OF THE 13 FACILITIES WHICH IMPLEMENTED
TREATMENT:
•8 HAVE MET PERMIT LIMITS
•2 HAVE REMOVED ACUTE TOXICITY BUT STIU HAVE
CHRONIC TOXICITY
-r IS NOT MEETING PERMIT LIMITS
•2 ARE UNKNOWN (TREATMENT RECENTLY INSTALLED)
• PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION, PACT AND SYSTEM
UPGRADES MOST COMMON TREATMENTS
SELECTED
-206-
------- |