I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA 503/6-90-006
May 1986
&IER&
301 (h) PERMIT REISSUANCE
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
FOR SMALL DISCHARGERS
-------
-------
OJ
C7>
CT>
March 1966
301 (h) PERMIT REISSUANCE
GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR
SMALL DISCHARGERS
Prepared by:
Tetra Tech, Inc.
11820 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Division: 301 (h) Program
Marine and Estuarine Protect,on
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
! 'hADQUARIERS LIBRARY
"; -"iRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This guidance document was prepared by the contractor to provide small
municipal dischargers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
with technical guidance on the preparation and evaluation of applications
for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified NPDES permits.
-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST CF TABLES
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
8ASIS FOR PERMIT REISSUANCE
STATUTORY CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS
DEMONSTRATIONS OF COMPLIANCE BY PERMITTEES
APPLICATION FORMAT
REQUIRED DATA
APPROPRIATE ANALYSES AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
EVALUATIONS OF COMPLIANCE BY U.S. EPA
DETERMINATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 301(h) MODIFIED
PERMIT CONDITIONS
DETERMINATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH 301(h) CRITERIA
EVALUATIONS OF PREDICTED CONDITIONS AND
PREDICTED CONTINUED COMPLIANCE
REISSUANCE OR TERMINATION OF SECTION 301(h) MODIFIED PERMITS
PROCEDURES FOR REGULATORY ACTION
REGULATORY OPTIONS
REFERENCES
Page
i i i
iv
1
2
3
5
5
6
20
20
22
23
70
70
73
78
82
82
83
85
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
Number
1
2
3a
3b
4
FIGURES
Generalized depiction of changes in species numbers, total
abundance, and total biomass along a gradient of organic
enrichment
Numbers of species collected in replicate benthic grab
samples and stations in the vicinity of an outfall
Salinity at stations in the vicinity of an outfall
Total organic carbon content of the sediments at stations
in the vicinity of an outfall
Sediment grain-size characteristics of stations in the
vicinity of an outfall
Page
47
49
50
51
53
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Summary of U.S. EPA marine water quality criteria
Page
65
IV
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This guidance document was prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc. for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under the Section 301(h) pre-decision
technical support contract No. 68-01-6922, Mr. Barry Burgan, Project
Officer. The primary author was Dr. Gordon R. Bilyard. Or. A. Mills
Soldate assisted with the presentation of technical information. Ms. Marcy
Brooks-McAuliffe edited the document and supervised document production.
This document has been reviewed by the 301(h) Task Force and the Office
of General Counsel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Task
Force includes representatives from the Water Management Divisions of U.S.
EPA Regions I, II, III, IV, IX, and X; the Office of Research and Development
- Environmental Research Laboratory - Narragansett (located in Narragansett,
RI and Newport, OR); and the Marine Operations Division in the Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection, Office of Water.
-------
I
I
1
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
Modified National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits have been issued to many publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)
discharging to the marine environment under Section 301(h) of the Clean
Water Act. The first of these permits to expire will be small discharger
permits. Small dischargers are defined as POTWs that (U.S. EPA 1982,
p. 53676)
"have contributing populations of less than 50,000 people and
average dry weather flows of less than 5.0 mgd (million gallons
per day). For the purposes of this document the contributing
population and flows shall be based on projections for the end of
the five year permit term. Average dry weather flows shall be the
average daily total discharge flows for the maximum month of the
dry weather season"
POTWs that were classified as small dischargers under their original Section
301(h) modified permits, but that no longer meet the conditions of the
foregoing definition or that are not expected to meet the conditions of the
foregoing definition during the term of the new permit, must apply for
reissuance of their Section 301(h) modified permit as a large discharger.
This document identifies the regulatory requirements applicable to
reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits held by small dischargers, and
presents a framework for meeting those requirements. Assessments and data
analyses that are needed for small dischargers to satisfy applicable regula-
tory requirements, and methods by which regulatory personnel may evaluate
compliance with regulatory requirements are also discussed. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that applicants for permit
reissuance and regulatory personnel in the Regional offices of the U.S. EPA
will benefit greatly by following the guidance provided in this document.
The regulatory requirements and assessments applicable to reissuance of
1
-------
Section 301(h) modified permits held by large dischargers will be provided
at a later date.
BACKGROUND
The first modified NPDE5 permits under Section 301(h) of the Clean
Water Act were issued during 1983. Each of these permits is for a 5-yr
period. At least 180 days prior to the expiration of these permits, POTWs
holding such permits must apply for the reissuance of their NPDES permits
and may at the same time apply for reissuance of their Section 301(h)
modification as stipulated in 40 CFR 125.59(g)(6), 122.21(d), and 124.3.
Six Section 301(h) modified permits will expire during the next two fiscal
years (FY 88 and FY 89). All six permits are for small dischargers [serving
populations of less than 50,000 and having average dry-weather flows of less
than 0.22 m3/sec (5 MGD)]. One of these discharges is in New Hampshire
(Region I), and five are in Alaska (Region X). The first Section 301(h)
modified permit for a large discharger will expire in FY 90.
POTWs that apply for reissuance of their Section 301(h) modification
"should be prepared to support the continuation of the modification based on
studies and monitoring performed during the life of the permit" [40 CFR
125.59(g)(6)]. However, neither the aforementioned subsection nor other
parts of 40 CFR 125 Subpart G [Criteria for Modifying the Secondary Treatment
Requirements under Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act] provide specific
guidance on how the results of studies and monitoring should be used to
support the application for reissuance of the permit. Subsection 40 CFR
125.59(g)(6) states only that "upon a demonstration meeting the statutory
criteria and requirements of this subpart, the permit may be renewed under
applicable procedures of 40 CFR Part 124."
The revised Section 301(h) regulations (U.S. EPA 1982) recognize the
limited financial resources of most small applicants and the lower potential
for environmental impacts typically associated with small discharges. The
revised Section 301{h) regulations therefore provide separate questionnaires
for small and large applicants, with fewer requirements placed on small
applicants. In 1982, U.S. EPA made available to potential applicants a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tecnnical support document (Tetra Tech 1982b) that provided guidance on
responding to the questionnaires required of small and large applicants.
General guidance provided for small applicants in the 1982 technical support
document should still be useful for the preparation of applications for
permit reissuance and for evaluation of those applications by the U.S. EPA
Regions. However, a need now exists for guidance specific to the permit
reissuance process.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This guidance document provides the needed guidance specific to
reissuance of Section 301(h) permits for small dischargers. [Additional
guidance for large dischargers seeking reissuance of their Section 301(h)
modified permits will be provided at a later date.] This document serves
two major purposes:
It identifies the regulatory requirements applicable to
reissuance of Section 301{h) modified permits
It provides technical explanations of the assessments and data
analyses needed to satisfy applicable regulatory requirements.
The revised Section 301(h) regulations do not provide specific guidance
on the level of detail required in applications for reissuance of Sec-
tion 301{h) modified permits. Therefore, the Regions have considerable
discretion regarding the level of detail that is necessary to demonstrate
continued compliance of these permittees with the Section 301(h) statutory
and regulatory criteria. This document addresses the appropriate levels of
detail that the Regions may require of permittees during the permit
reissuance process. Just as the revised Section 301(h) regulations and the
1982 technical support document (Tetra Tech 1982b) discussed simplified
methods for small dischargers to demonstrate compliance with certain 301{h)
criteria, guidance is provided herein on how the reapplication process can be
streamlined for small dischargers.
-------
This document also provides the Regions with procedures for evaluating
compliance with Section 301(h) regulatory requirements. Appropriate uses of
monitoring data to evaluate compliance with regulatory criteria are
discussed, including the use of monitoring data to evaluate predictions of
conditions that were expected to occur during the term of the Section 301(h)
modified permit. Guidance is also provided to the Regions on how to
evaluate the presence or absence of environmental impacts, and whether those
impacts comply with 301(h) criteria.
Having reached a decision regarding an application for reissuance of a
Section 301{h) modified permit, the Region may reissue the Section 301(h)
modified permit with the same or different permit conditions, or deny the
Section 301(h) application. In the case of denial, the permit would then be
reissued by U.S. EPA (or, in NPDES-delegated states, by the state) with
secondary treatment requirements. This document defines the conditions
under which each of these actions is appropriate, and provides the Regions
with guidance on procedures for reissuing and terminating Section 301(h)
modified permits. Guidance on the preparation of NPDES permits has been
published by the U.S. EPA (1986b) and is not discussed in this document.
Monitoring data that are collected during the term of the modified
permit are submitted to the Regions in accordance with procedures set forth
in the permit. These data are used by the Regions to determine continuing
compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit, and with Section
301{h) regulations. The purpose of this document is not to provide guidance
to the Regions on the conduct of ongoing evaluations of monitoring data
during the terms of the modified permits. However, much of the guidance
provided below is applicable to such evaluations. In the event that an
ongoing evaluation of monitoring data indicates the presence of adverse
impacts, the Region may modify, or revoke and reissue, the discharger's
NPDES permit in accordance with procedures set forth in Section 122.62.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
BASIS FOR PERMIT REISSUANCE
The basis for permit reissuance is found in 40 CFR 125.59(g)(6):
"At the expiration of the section 301(h) modified permit, the POTW
should be prepared to support the continuation of the modification
based on studies and monitoring performed during the life of the
permit. Upon a demonstration meeting the statutory criteria and
requirements of this subpart, the permit may be renewed under the
applicable procedures of 40 CFR Part 124."
This clause mandates that two actions occur before a permit is reissued.
First, the POTW "should be prepared to support the continuation of the
modification based on studies and monitoring performed during the life of
the permit." Second, a demonstration should be made that the criteria and
requirements of 40 CFR 125 Subpart G are met. This clause does not specify
that POTWs holding Section 301(h) modified permits must prepare applications
for permit reissuance. However, each application for permit reissuance is
considered to be an application for a completely new NPDES permit. There-
fore, a new, completed application for reissuance of a Section 301(h)
modified permit is required of each applicant, and that application must
contain all relevant information and demonstrations required by 40 CFR 125
Subpart G. This document addresses all technical issues associated with the
preparation and evaluation of such an application. However, areas are
identified where the application process can be simplified, thereby reducing
the financial burden to small applicants.
-------
STATUTORY CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS
Statutes and regulations that are applicable to applications for
reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits are discussed below. They
include regulations applicable to the issuance of NPDES permits (40 CFR Part
122), the Section 301(h) regulations (40 CFR 125 Subpart G), the 1982
revised Section 301 (h) regulations, and the Water Quality Act of 1987.
40 CFR Part 122. EPA Administered Programs; The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
Subsection 122.21(d). Duty to Apply--
Under this subsection, POTWs with an existing NPDES permit must submit
an application for a new NPDES permit a minimum of 180 days before the
expiration date of the existing permit. The applicant may request that the
new application be submitted after the applicable submittal date, and the
Region may grant such a request. The Region may grant permission for an
application to be submitted up to the expiration date of the existing
permit. Upon review of an application, the Region may determine that
additional information is needed to determine compliance with 301(h)
regulations and permit conditions. Such information may be requested at any
time (including after the application deadline has passed) in accordance
with Subsection 122.41(h).
Subsection 122.21(d) allows POTWs to submit applications for reissuance
of Section 301(h) modified permits up to the expiration date of the existing
permit, upon approval by the Regions. However, it is strongly recommended
that POTWs submit their applications for reissuance of Section 301(h)
modified permits as early as possible, and no later than 180 days prior to
expiration of the existing permit. This early submittal is particularly
important because of the need to establish compliance with the recent
statutory amendments to Section 301(h). As is discussed below, early
submittal gives the Regions time to review applications for completeness,
and to request any information needed to complete applications before
existing permits expire. An applicant must submit a completed application
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
containing all required information prior to expiration of the existing
permit, or at tne time the application is due, whichever is first. Timely
submittal cf a completed application is required to qualify for the
continuation described below.
Section 122.6. Continuation of Expiring Permits--
A permittee may have submitted a complete, timely application to the
Region, but through no fault of the permittee, the Region may not have
issued a new permit with an effective date on or before expiration of the
previous permit. This section provides that in those cases, the previous
permit will remain fully effective and enforceable, pursuant to the Admin-
istrative Procedures Act.
40 CFR 125 Suboart G
Section 125.56. Scope and Purpose--
40 CFR 125 Subpart G establishes the criteria by which the U.S. EPA
evaluates requests for Section 301(h) modified permits. It also establishes
special permit conditions that must be included in Section 3Ql(h) modified
permits. The criteria established in this subpart are affected by the
provisions of Section 303 of the Water Quality Act of 1987. This subpart is
presently being revised to reflect those provisions. Because the revisions
are not yet completed, the provisions of Subpart 303 of the Water Quality
Act of 1987 are discussed separately below.
Section 125.57. Law Governing Issuance of a Section 301(h) Modified
Permit--
All applicants for Section 301(h) modified permits must demonstrate
satisfactorily to the U.S. EPA that seven requirements will be met by the
modified discharge. The importance of each of these requirements to
permittees applying for reissuartce of Section 301(h) modified permits is
discussed below.
-------
!, An applicant must demonstrate that an applicable water quality
standard exists for each pollutant for which the modification
is requested. Details of this requirement are given in
Section 125.60. Demonstrations that applicable water quality
standards exist will be superfluous for reissuance of Section
301(h) modified permits because the original Section 301(h)
modified permit was based, in part, on successful demonstra-
tions that such standards exist. However, as specified in
Section 125.60, an applicant must demonstrate that the
modified discharge will comply with applicable water quality
standards. An applicant must also provide a determination
signed by an authorized state or interstate agency, stating
that the modified discharge will comply with state law. Both
the demonstration of compliance with applicable water quality
standards and the state's determination are required of
applicants for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits.
2. An applicant must demonstrate that the modified discharge will ,
result in water quality that assures the protection of public
water supplies; assures the protection and propagation of a
balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife; and allows for recreational activities. Specific
demonstrations that must be performed by an applicant are
specified in Section 125.61. All are required of applicants
for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits.
3. An applicant must demonstrate that a monitoring program has
been established that is capable of documenting the impact of
the modified discharge on a representative sample of aquatic
biota. General requirements of the monitoring program design
and specific requirements applicable to the biological, water
quality, and effluent monitoring programs are specified in
Section 125.62. Demonstrating that an effective monitoring
program has been established will be simple for most POTWs
applying for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits
because monitoring data will have been collected over the
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
life of the existing modified permit. However, the U.S. EPA
may require an applicant to demonstrate the effectiveness of
an established monitoring program when the quality of the
data is suspect, or when incomplete data have been submitted
to the U.S. EPA.
An applicant must demonstrate that the modified discharge
will not result in additional requirements on other point or
nonpoint sources of pollutants. Section 125.63 reiterates
the necessity of this demonstration, and requires an applicant
to provide a determination signed by an authorized state or
interstate agency indicating whether the modified discharge
will result in any such additional requirements. The
foregoing demonstration and determination of compliance are
required of applicants for reissuance of Section 301 (h)
modified permits.
An applicant must demonstrate that pretreatment requirements
for sources that introduce industrial wastes into the
treatment works will be enforced. This demonstration
includes chemical analysis of the discharge for all toxic
pollutants and pesticides, identification of sources of toxic
pollutants and pesticides, and development and implementation
of an approved industrial pretreatment program, as specified
in Section 125.64. However, these requirements are waived
for small applicants that certify that there are no known or
suspected sources of toxic pollutants and pesticides, and that
document the certification with an industrial user survey as
described by 40 CFR 403.8(f). Because most small applicants
receive influent only from municipal sources, most small
applicants for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits
will be required to provide only an updated certification
that there are no known or suspected sources of toxic
pollutants or pesticides. Because industrial sources of
pollutants may have changed over the term of the original
Section 301(h) modified permit, all applicants for reissuance
-------
of Section 301 (h) modified permits should review updated
information on industrial sources of pollutants before
performing the required demonstration or certifying that
there are no known industrial sources of toxic pollutants or
pesticides.
An applicant must demonstrate that a schedule of activities
has been established to eliminate the introduction of toxic
substances from nonindustrial sources into the treatment
works. Just as was required in the original Section 301(h)
application, applicants must comply with the specific
requirements of Section 125.64. These requirements are that
a public education program be developed, submitted with the
application, and implemented; that nonindustrial source
control programs be developed and implemented in accordance
with schedules submitted with the application; and that it is
understood that the foregoing program may be revised by the
U.S. EPA before issuance of a Section 301(h) modified permit,
or during the term of that permit. However, for small
applicants certifying that there are no known or suspected
problems related to toxic pollutants or pesticides in the
discharge, only a public education program is required. As
was true for original Section 301(h) applications, most small
applicants for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits
should be able to provide the foregoing certification.
However, updated information on water quality, sediment
quality, and biological conditions should be reviewed by the
applicant before certifying that there are no known or
suspected water quality, sediment accumulation, or biological
problems that are related to the discharge of toxic pollutants
or pesticides.
An applicant must demonstrate that the modified discharge
will not result in new or substantially increased discharges
of the pollutant for which a Section 301(h) modification is
being requested. Details of this requirement are given in
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 125.65, which states that where pollutant discharges
are attributable, in part, to combined sewer overflows, an
applicant must minimize such overflows and prevent increased
discharges of pollutants. An applicant must also provide
projections of effluent volumes and mass emission rates for
pollutants to which the modification applies. These
projections must be provided in 5-yr increments for the design
life of the facility. This demonstration applies to
applicants for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits.
Section 125.58. Definitions--
Regulatory and technical terms used in 40 CFR 125 Subpart G are
defined in this section. All but two definitions remain applicable to
applicants for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits.
The definition of the term "application" is no longer applicable
because it defines only original Section 301(h) applications submitted under
the 1979 or 1982 revised Section 301(h) regulations. In accordance with
Subsection 125.59(c), an application for reissuance of a Section 301(h)
modified permit consists of a certification of veracity; a signed, completed
NPDES application; and a completed Application Questionnaire.
The definition of the term "current discharge" is also not applicable
because it refers to the 5-yr period of time prior to the 1982 deadline for
submittal of original Section 301(h) applications. Applications for
reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits should consider "current
discharge" to mean the volume, composition, and location of the discharge at
the time of permit reapplication.
Of critical importance to small dischargers applying for reissuance of
Section 301(h) modified permits is the definition of "applicant." A small
applicant is defined as a POTW that has a contributing population of less
than 50,000 people and average dry-weather flows of less than 0.22 m^/sec
(5.0 MGD). A large applicant is defined as a POTW that has a contributing
population of more than 50,000 people or average dry-weather flows greater
11
-------
than 0.22 m3/sec (5.0 MGD). The definition further stipulates that estimates
of the contributing population and average dry-weather flows "should be
based on projections for the end of the five year permit term" and that
"(a)verage dry weather flows shall be the average daily total discharge flows
for the maximum month of the dry weather season" (U.S. EPA 1982, p. 53676).
During the preparation of an application for reissuance of a Section
301(h) modified permit, a small applicant may estimate that the contributing
population will exceed 50,000 or that the average dry-weather flows will
exceed 0.22 m3/sec (5.0 MGD) during the upcoming permit term. In either
case, that small discharger will be required to apply for reissuance of the
Section 301(h) modified permit as a large discharger. Because small
discharger monitoring programs are typically reduced in scope compared with
those of large dischargers, insufficient information may be available for
that discharger to respond to some of the questions in the Large Applicant
Questionnaire. Therefore, the Region should be prepared to exercise its
discretionary powers in determining the appropriate level of technical
detail required of the applicant.
Section 125.59. General--
This section establishes general criteria and requirements that must be
met by applicants for Section 301(h) modified permits. Also specified are
several regulatory options that may be exercised by the U.S. EPA during the
application process. As indicated below, some of the general regulations
are not relevant to applications for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified
permits.
Subsection 125.59(a) states that an application may be based on a
current, improved, or altered discharge into ocean waters or saline estuarine
waters. This requirement remains relevant to applications for reissuance of
Section 301(h) modified permits. However, applications for permit reissuance
that are based on altered discharges are permissible only when downgrading
of effluent quality results from population growth and/or industrial growth
in the service area, and not simply from a lower level of effluent treatment.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
No Section 301 (h) modified permits may be issued for discharges that
would not assure compliance with 40 CFR Part 122 and 40 CFR 125 Subpart G;
for the discharge of sewage sludge; or for discharges that would not be in
compliance with state, local, or other federal laws and Executive Orders [40
CFR 125.59(b)]. This requirement also remains relevant to applications for
reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits.
Subsection 125.59(c) states that all applications for Section 301(h)
modified permits must contain a signed, completed NPDES application; a
completed Application Questionnaire; and a certification of veracity. This
provision remains valid for applications for reissuance of Section 301(h)
modified permits. However, as was the case for original Section 301(h)
applications, the level of detail required of applicants responding to
questions in the application questionnaire will vary according to the
volume, composition, and characteristics of the discharge, and to the
characteristics of the receiving environment and biota. The Regions should
consult with each applicant for permit reissuance well in advance of the
application deadline. Timely consultation will ensure that each applicant
is informed of the appropriate level of detail required to complete the
Small Applicant Questionnaire, and will ensure that all data necessary for
completing the Small Applicant Questionnaire have been collected and are
adequate to demonstrate compliance with 301(h) criteria and regulations.
Revisions to original Section 301(h) applications that were submitted
under the 1979 and 1982 application deadlines are discussed in Subsection
125.59(d). Such revisions are not relevant to applications for reissuance
of Section 301(h) modified permits.
Application deadlines and distribution schedules discussed in 40 CFR
125.59(e) are also relevant only to original Section 301(h) applications.
Deadlines relevant to applications for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified
permits are specified in 40 CFR 122.21(d), and are discussed above.
Distribution schedules relevant to applications for reissuance of Section
301(h) modified permits are not specified in 40 CFR Part 124 or 40 CFR 125
Subpart G. However, applicants should adhere to the distribution schedule
required for original Section 301(h) applications, as indicated in 40 CFR
13
-------
125.59(e) (1). That schedule required an applicant to submit one original
application and one copy to the appropriate U.S. EPA Regional Administrator,
and one copy to state and interstate agencies that are authorized to provide
certification or concurrence in accordance with Sections 124.53-124.55. One
copy should also be sent to U.S. EPA, Marine Operations Division (WH-556F)
in Washington, DC. [This requirement will be addressed in the 301(h)
regulatory revision process.] Adherence to this distribution schedule would
ensure that all appropriate regulatory agencies receive copies of the
application in a timely manner.
A favorable state determination is required before the Region reviews
an application. Under Subsection 125.59(e)(3), state determinations are due
to the Regions no more than 90 days after an application is submitted to the
U.S. EPA. The Regions may extend the 90-day deadline for determinations
upon request by the state. However, extensions are not recommended because
the amount of time remaining until expiration of the existing modified
permit, and hence, the amount of time available for an applicant to respond
to concerns of the state, is decreased. It is strongly recommended that the
state submit a timely determination to-the Region, so as not to diminish an
applicant's likelihood of being reissued a Section 301(h) modified permit.
under
en, ia.59(f). the Regions
of Compliance by Permittees."]
Options th.t tne Kerens and states
. S Jon ,.l(h) »dified Per*H are specie
,in re.evant to applications for reusuance of
permits. For the Region to grant a Section 301(
ppHcant »st Kave demonstrated co^.nce « th S
State certification (concurrence) is also
cosigning «,. Section 301(h, Rifled
indicated in the written concurrence.
|
(
I
> ,
to do so waj
14
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
be 'Ssued In accordance with procedures in 40 CFR Part 124, and must contain
all applicable terms and conditions specified in 40 CFR Part 122 and Section
125.67. Appeals of Section 301(h) determinations may be made in accordance
with procedures in 40 CFR Part 124.
Section 125.67. Special Conditions for Section 301(h) Modified Permits--
Section 125.67 provides special conditions that must be included in
Section 301(h) modified permits, in addition to those specified in 40 CFR
Part 122. All remain valid for reissued Section 301(h) modified permits.
The special conditions are that effluent limitations and mass loadings
assure compliance with 301(h) regulations; that schedules of compliance be
included for the required industrial pretreatment program, the nonindustrlal
toxics control program, and control of combined sewer overflows (Section
159.65); that the proposed monitoring program include provisions for
monitoring biota, water quality, and effluent; and that the monitoring data
be reported at the frequency prescribed in the approved monitoring program.
19S2 Revised Section 301(h) Regulations
The text of the 1982 revised Section 301(h) regulations (U.S. EPA 1982}
consists of two major parts: the supplementary information and the full text
of 40 CFR 125 Subpart G. The latter of these parts is discussed above.
The supplementary information includes primarily background information,
responses to public comments, and discussions of changes from the 1979
Section 301(h) regulations. All issues discussed in the supplementary
information are either discussed therein or are effectively promulgated as
regulations in 40 CFR 125 Subpart G. Regulations in 40 CFR 125 Subpart G
that are relevant to applications for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified
permits are discussed above.
Water Quality Act of 198/
Certain provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1987 may affect some
small dischargers. Potentially applicable provisions are found in Section
303, entitled "Discharges into Marine Waters." Section 303 includes
15
-------
Subsections 303(a) through 303(g). However, Subsection 303(c) is not
applicable to small dischargers, and Subsection 303(f) is not applicable to
applications for the reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits.
Subsection 303(a) amends Subsection 301(h)(2) to state that the modified
discharge "will not interfere, alone orincombinationwith pollutants from
other sources, with the attainment of maintenance of water quality which
assures protection of public water supplies and the protection and propaga-
tion of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife,
and allows recreational activities, in and on the water" {emphasis added).
This amendment strengthens the existing regulations to prohibit Section
301(h) discharges in receiving waters where pollutants from the discharge
would, in combination with pollutants from other sources, result in adverse
impacts to water quality, recreational activities, or the resident biota.
Under Subsection 303(b), the scope of a Section 301(h) discharger's
monitoring program is limited to "those scientific investigations that are
necessary to study the effects of the proposed discharge." This limitation
is applicable only to modifications and renewals of modifications that are
tentatively or finally approved after the date of enactment of the Water
Quality Act of 1987.
Under Subsection 303(e), Section 301(h) modified permits may not be
issued for discharges into marine waters where the dilution water contains
"significant amounts of previously discharged effluent from such treatment
works." Reentrainment of previously discharged effluent is often a potential
problem in receiving waters that exhibit poor flushing characteristics, such
as semi-enclosed bays or long, narrow estuaries. It is unlikely that POTWs
holding Section 301(h) modified permits were experiencing (or anticipated
experiencing) substantial reentrainment of effluent at the time the existing
Section 301(h) modified permit was issued. If such problems had been
occurring, it is unlikely that many of the 301(h) regulations pertaining to
protection of the receiving environment could have been met (e.g., mainte-
nance of water quality; protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife). However, if the contributing
population and volume of the applicant's discharge increased substantially
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
during the term of the existing permit, reentrainment of previously dis-
charged effluent could have become a problem. If monitoring data collected
over the term of the existing Section 301(h) modified permit indicate that
the dilution water contains substantial quantities of previously discharged
effluent, the Region should deny the request for reissuance of the Section
301(h) modified permit.
Subsection 303(e) also states that Section 301(h) modified permits may
not be issued for discharges into saline estuarine waters unless those waters
meet all of the following conditions:
Support a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife
Allow for recreational activities
Exhibit ambient water quality characteristics that are
adequate to protect public water supplies; protect shellfish,
fish, and wildlife; allow for recreational activities; and
comply with standards that assure and protect such uses.
A Section 301 (h) modified permit may not be issued if any one of the
foregoing conditions does not exist, regardless of whether the applicant's
discharge contributes to departures from such conditions. Thus, if the
saline estuarine receiving environment exhibits any of the foregoing
conditions, then, regardless of cause, the Region should deny the request
for reissuance of the Section 301(h) modified permit. Such denials will
most likely occur in cases where the applicant's contributing population and
volume of the discharge have increased substantially over the term of the
existing permit, or where discharges of pollutants from other sources have
increased substantially over the term of the existing permit.
In Subsection 303(d), a minimum requirement of primary effluent
treatment (or its equivalent) and compliance with federal water quality
criteria (U.S. EPA 1980, 1985b, 1986a) is established for all Section 301(h)
dischargers. As stated in Subsection 303(g), Subsections 303(a), 303(c),
17
-------
303(d), and 303(e) do not apply to Section 301(h) modified permits that were
tentatively or finally approved prior to enactment of the Water Quality Act
of 1987. However, Section 303(g) further states that those subsections will
apply to all renewals of Section 301(h) modified permits that postdate
enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987. Therefore, all applicants for
reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits must achieve primary treatment
or its equivalent for the Region to be able to grant a reissued Section
301(h) modified permit. "Primary or equivalent treatment" is defined in
Subsection 303(d)(2) as "treatment by screening, sedimentation, and skimming
adequate to remove at least 30 percent of the biological oxygen demanding
material and of the suspended solids in the treatment works influent, and
disinfection, where appropriate."
Many small applicants for reissuance of Section 301 (h) modified permits
will already have met or exceeded the primary treatment requirement under
conditions specified in the original Section 301(h) modified permit. Thus,
meeting this statute will not impose additional treatment requirements on
them. However, some small dischargers were issued permits for the discharge
of less than primary treated effluent. Under Subsection 303(g), those small
dischargers will be required to improve their treatment facilities such that
primary treatment, or its equivalent, is achieved by the effective date of
the new Section 301(h) modified permit. The Region, however, may grant a
tentative (proposed) waiver with conditions of, and a schedule for, primary
treatment or its equivalent. When that schedule has been completed and
primary treatment or its equivalent has been achieved, a new final Section
301(h) modified permit may be issued.
Permittees will also be required to demonstrate compliance with federal
water quality criteria by the effective date of the new Section 301(h)
modified permit. In the original Section 301(h) application, many small
applicants were exempted from providing an analysis of toxic substances and
pesticides in their effluent because they were able to certify that there
are no known or suspected sources of those substances in their service area.
However, those exemptions were not permanent (U.S. EPA 1982, p. 53673).
Subsection 125.62(d) requires all Section 301(h) permittees to analyze their
effluent for toxic substances and pesticides, to the extent practicable, as
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
part of their monitoring programs. Hence, to the extent practicable, all
Section 301(h) permittees shall have performed at least one effluent
analysis for toxic substances at a representative time during the 5-yr term
of the original Section 301(h) permit. To the extent practicable, they
shall also perform another effluent analysis for toxic substances at a
representative time during the 5-yr term of the reissued permit. Results of
those analyses should be used to demonstrate compliance with federal water
quality criteria.
Many small applicants will be able to demonstrate that concentrations of
toxic substances and pesticides in their effluent are low or are not
detectable. For such discharges, the potential for bioaccumulation of toxic
substances or pesticides in the resident biota should be low. However, for
small applicants that discharge quantities of toxic substances or pesticides,
the Regions should consider the potential impacts that the bioaccumulation
of those substances could have on public health and on the health of the
biota in the receiving environment. When considering the potential impacts
of bioaccumulation, the Regions should consult appropriate 301(h) technical
guidance documents and the results of new studies as they are published.
19
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEMONSTRATIONS OF COMPLIANCE BY PERMITTEES
APPLICATION FORMAT
As specified in Subsection 125.59(c), a full, completed application for
a Section 301(h) modified permit contains a certification of veracity; a
signed, completed NPDES application [Short Form A or Standard Form A in
accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(d) and 124.3]; and a completed Application
Questionnaire. The order in which these parts are assembled is not specified
in the 301(h) regulations, but many applicants for original Section 301(h)
modified permits used the following sequence:
Cover letter to U..S. EPA with the certification of the
application's veracity either included in, or attached to,
the letter [many small applicants included the cover letter
and certification of veracity in the introduction to the
Small Applicant Questionnaire (i.e., Part I)
The signed, completed NPDES application establishing the
requested permit conditions (e.g., effluent limitations)
The completed application questionnaire.
Although the foregoing sequence of application parts is not mandatory, it is
recommended herein that applicants for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified
permits adhere to the sequence because it facilitates review by the Region
and appropriate state agencies. Accessory documents that would be useful to
the Region during review of the application (e.g., data reports) should be
appended to the application.
To ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 303(d) of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, the Regions should require applicants to demonstrate
that the treatment works will discharge, at a minimum, primary treated
20
-------
effluent (or its equivalent). This demonstration should be made in partial
response to Question II.A.3. The Regions must also require applicants to
demonstrate that the proposed discharge will comply with federal water
quality criteria (U.S. EPA 1986a). This demonstration should be made in
partial response to Question II.D 4.
The Small Applicant Questionnaire given as Appendix A of 40 CFR 125
Subpart G, is designed to provide U.S. EPA with all information necessary
to determine whether an applicant meets the statutory criteria and regu-
lations of 40 CFR 125 Subpart G. Guidance provided in the Revised Section
301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b) and in the document
entitled Design of 301(h) Monitoring Programs for Municipal Wastewater
Discharges to Marine Waters (Tetra Tech 1982a) were written to complement
the Small Applicant Questionnaire. Although all applicants are required to
respond to each question, the Regions have the discretionary power to
determine the appropriate level of response to each question answered by
each applicant. The Region may also allow an applicant to incorporate data
by reference to previous submittals, as appropriate.
The appropriate levels of response to questions should be communicated
by the Regions to each applicant through timely consultation. Timely
consultations will help permittees meet their responsibility for submitting
the appropriate information in a timely manner. The Regions should work
with each permittee over the 5-yr term of each permit, but these working
relationships should be especially close during the end of term of the
existing permit. Close working relationships will ensure that all data
necessary for completion of the Small Applicant Questionnaire are available
well in advance of the application deadline, and that each applicant
understands the level of detail appropriate for each response. Because of
the substantial differences among the permittees and their respective
receiving environments, it is expected that applicants' responses to a given
question may range from a single sentence to a very detailed analysis and
interpretation of data. Applicants should provide complete, informative
responses to all questions. However, wherever possible, the Region is
encouraged to discuss the appropriate level of effort with the applicant.
Such discussions should result in more concise responses to the questions,
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
and should help avoid unnecessary effort and expense by the applicant during
the application process.
REQUIRED DATA
Applicants "should be prepared to support this continuation of the
modification based on studies and monitoring performed during the life of the
permit" [40 CFR 125.59(g)(6)3. For most small dischargers, data collected
during these studies and monitoring programs will be relevant to many, but
not all, of the questions in the Small Applicant Questionnaire. Additional
relevant data may be found in publications and technical reports produced by
other agencies, institutions, and companies working in nearby areas of the
receiving environment. Data from such surveys could be used to better
define environmental factors, such as the critical density profile for
initial dilution calculations or biological conditions in a reference area.
However, for some applicants, no new data [i.e., data collected after
issuance of the original Section 301(h) modified permit] will be available
to respond to some of the questions in the Small Applicant Questionnaire.
It is the permittee's responsibility to determine what types of data are
necessary to respond to questions in the Small Applicant Questionnaire, and
to provide those data. However, it is also important that the Regions
communicate with permittees well in advance of the application deadline
regarding any possible needs for additional information, so as to give
applicants sufficient time to collect, analyze, and Interpret those data.
Although it is the permittee's responsibility to submit the appropriate
information, it is critical that the Regions work with, and communicate to,
permittees any perceived information deficiencies well in advance of the
application deadline. Once informed of information deficiencies, permittees
must collect, analyze, and interpret the necessary information for incorpora-
tion into the application for permit reissuance. Failure to supply necessary
information could result in a denial of the request for permit reissuance on
the grounds that a complete application was not submitted. After an
application has been received, however, the Region may determine that
additional information is needed to determine compliance with 301(h)
regulations and permit conditions. Such information may be requested at any
22
-------
time (including after the application deadline has passed) in accordance
with Subsection 122.41(h).
APPROPRIATE ANALYSES AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS
Guidance is provided below for the preparation of a complete application
for reissuance of a Section 301(h) modified permit. The sequence in which
the application parts are discussed below corresponds to that recommended
above in the discussion of the application format. Any accessory documents
that would be useful to the Region during review of the application (e.g.,
data reports) should be appended to the application.
Just as original Section 301(h) applications were based on the most
recent, appropriate, and technically correct data available at the time the
application was prepared, applications for reissuance of Section 3Ql(h)
modified permits should consider monitoring data collected over the term of
the existing modified permit. When monitoring data and other information
collected over the term of the existing permit confirm that all values of
the variables used in a given calculation or demonstration have not changed
and are not expected to change over the term of the new modified permit,
the applicant may simply reproduce the calculation or demonstration that was
given in the original application. However, in cases where the values of
one or more variables have changed, or where new monitoring data are useful
for supporting a given demonstration, those data should be included in the
required response. Applicants are reminded that under Subsection 303(a) of
the Water Quality Act of 1987, all demonstrations of compliance with
applicable statutes and regulations must consider the effects of the
discharge singly and in combination with pollutants from other sources, if
any other sources exist.
I. INTRODUCTION
For clarity and consistency among applications, It is recommended that
the introduction contain the following parts:
A cover letter signed by the responsible official for the POTW
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
The statement of veracity mandated in 40 CFR 125.59(c), also
I signed by the responsible official for the PQTW
IB A table of contents for the application, including any
appendices
| A list of figures for the application
I A list of tables for the application
A signed, completed NPDES Application Short Form A or
Standard Form A.
The foregoing information will establish the conditions of the application
_ for all concerned parties, and will provide information on the organization
| of the application.
I
II. GENERAL INFORMATION AND BASIC DATA REQUIREMENTS
A. Treatment System Descri ption
1. Are you applying for a modification based on a current
II discharge, improved discharge, or altered discharge as
I defined in 40 CFR 125.58? [40 CFR 125.59(a)]
I P Applicants for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits should
I consider "current" discharge" to mean the actual volume, composition, and
I location of a 3Ql(h) permittee's discharge at the time of permit reapplica-
V tion. Use of the latest one full year of data would be most appropriate ir
the application.
I An improved discharge may result from any of the following changes
improvements to the collection system, treatment plant, or outfall (includir
outfall relocations); improvements to treatment levels or dischan
24
-------
should emphasize any changes in the service area, treatment system, or
outfall system that were implemented during the term of the existing permit.
Water depths and navigational coordinates of the outfalls as they exist
should be correctly specified. Water depth of the outfall should be
specified as the water depth at the midpoint of the diffuser, referenced to
mean sea level or mean lower low water. Water depths and navigational
coordinates found in engineering design documents are often not correct
because of changes in the lengths and routes of the outfalls made during
construction. Hence, drawings of "as built" conditions should be used.
3. Effluent Limitations and Characteristics [40 CFR 125.60(b)
and 125.61(e)(2)]
Applicants should specify the effluent limitations they are requesting
for their Section 301(h) modified permits, and the basis (e.g., monthly
average values) for those limits. Information on effluent characteristics
can be found in plant operating records. Applicants must request specific
limitations. Except for pH, ranges of values or a list of alternatives are
not acceptable.
The requirement to submit data on toxic pollutants and pesticides in the
effluent is waived when the service area contains no known or suspected
sources of toxic pollutants or pesticides, and the applicant provides
certification and documentation (i.e., by an industrial user survey) of that
fact. Small applicants unable to certify that there are no known or
suspected sources of toxic pollutants or pesticides must provide results of
chemical analyses for toxic substances, as required by 40 CFR 125.64(a) and
discussed in Chapter VIII of Tetra Tech (1982b). The list should include
all toxic substances detected in the effluent, including those present at
concentrations less than 10 ug/L. The detection limits used should be
sufficiently low so that compliance with state and federal ambient water
quality criteria and effluent regulations can be assessed.
In addition to describing effluent limitations and characteristics, ap-
plicants should demonstrate that the treatment works will discharge, at a
minimum, primary treated effluent (or its equivalent), as mandated by
Z6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
characteristics; improvements in the operation or maintenance of the
treatment system; or measures to eliminate or control the introduction of
pollutants into the treatment works. For improved discharges, applicants
should briefly describe the changes to the treatment system or its operation
upon which the application is based.
Discharge alterations include all changes that result in a treatment
level less than that currently achieved, including changes in effluent
volume and/or composition. All changes that result in the downgrading of
effluent characteristics, regardless of whether the outfall was previously
improved or relocated to compensate for lower effluent quality, are
considered altered discharges. Applications for altered discharges are
permissible only for downgrading of effluent characteristics that are
attributable entirely to population growth and/or industrial growth within
the service area. Applications are not permissible for altered discharges
that simply propose a lower level of effluent treatment. Applicants that
propose altered discharges based on population growth and/or industrial
growth, and that propose improvements in treatment levels, should briefly
describe the changes to the treatment system and/or its operation upon which
the application is based.
2. Description of the Treatment/Outfall System [40 CFR 125.61(a)
and 125.61(e)]
Most of the above information can be found in Sections 1-13 of the NPDES
Standard Form A. Past experience in the 301 (h) program has shown that
applicants often do not provide information on the treatment and outfall
system that is of sufficient detail to evaluate the technical merit of the
application. Applicants should provide a detailed description of this
system such that the reader will have a complete picture of the physical
aspects of the treatment and outfall system and will be able to understand
the treatment processes that occur therein. Information on diffuser
dimensions that are used in determining the port flow distribution achieved
by the outfall are especially important (see Question II.A.7 below), and
should be specified as accurately as possible. Figures and drawing with
dimensions should be included if possible. In those descriptions, applicants
25
-------
Section 303(d) of the Water Quality Act of 1987. Applicants are advised that
"primary or equivalent treatment" is defined in Section 303(d) as "treatment
by screening, sedimentation, and skimming adequate to remove at least 30
percent of the biological oxygen demanding material and of the suspended
solids in the treatment works influent, and disinfection, where appropriate."
To support this demonstration, the applicant should supply monthly averaged
data (typically monthly averages) for both the influent and effluent 6005,
suspended solids, and pH, and flow for the last 1-yr period. The form of
such data (e.g., weekly averages, monthly averages) should be specified
precisely for each variable. Applicants should also submit data on the
predicted maximum 2- to 3-h flow for the new end-of-permit year, and on the
measurements of coliform bacteria concentrations in the effluent that are
appropriate to satisfy state water quality regulations. Where average
values are given (e.g., average dry-weather flow), applicants should specify
how they were calculated.
4. Effluent Volume and Mass Emissions [40 CFR 125.61 (e)(2) and
125.65]
Applicants should provide projections of effluent flows and mass
emissions for the term of the modified permit being requested, and for
subsequent years at 5-yr intervals. Projections should be based on expected
changes in the service area and population over the term of the modified
permit being requested, and over the subsequent periods of time being
considered. They should also be based on the annual average flows and
annual average effluent characteristics. Projections for the new end-of-
permit year must be given, including the average daily flow for the maximum
month of the dry-weather season, and average effluent characteristics for
that month.
Small dischargers are advised that if the projected population served
by the POTW at the end of the 5-yr permit term exceeds 50,000, or if the
projected average dry-weather flow at the end of the 5-yr permit term exceeds
0.22 m3/sec (5.0 MGD), they are required to apply for reissuance of the
Section 301(h) modified permit as a large discharger. Because small
discharger monitoring programs are typically reduced in scope compared with
27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
those of large dischargers, insufficient information may be available to
respond to some questions in the Large Applicant Questionnaire. The
applicant is advised to contact the appropriate U.S. EPA Region in a timely
manner for guidance on the appropriate levels of responses to questions in
the Large Applicant Questionnaire.
5. Average Daily Industrial Flow (m^/sec). Provide or estimate
the average daily industrial inflow to your treatment facility
for the same time increments as in Question 11. A. 4 above.
[40 CFR 125.64]
In responding to this question, data on average annual industrial flow
will generally be sufficient for nonseasonal (i.e., continuous operation)
industries. For seasonal industries, applicants should provide average
daily industrial flows for the periods of operation, and should indicate
those periods of operation. Supporting information (e.g., lists of indus-
tries and products manufactured) may be required.
6. Combined Sewer Overflows [40 CFR 125.65(b)]
Applicants should provide information on the locations, flow quan-
tities, and frequency of overflows that occur. Data on total effluent flow
and on suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand concentrations in the
effluent should also be provided for times when overflows occur. Where
appropriate, the effect of increased infiltration during the rainy season
should be discussed. Applicants should also provide a narrative description
of steps that are or will be taken to minimize combined sewer overflows to
the receiving environment.
7. Outfall/Dlffuser Design. Provide available data on the
following for your current discharge as well as for the
modified discharge, if different fro« the current discharge:
[40 CFR 125.61(a)(l)]
Diameter and length of the outfall(s) (meters)
Diameter and length of the diffuser(s) (meters)
ZB
-------
Angle(s) of port orientation(s) from horizontal
(degrees)
Port diameter(s) (meters)
Orifice contraction coefficient(s), if known
Vertical distance from mean lower low water (or mean low
water) surface and outfall port(s) centerline (meters)
Number of ports
Port spacing (meters)
Design flow rate for each port, if multiple ports are
used (nj3/sec)
The information requested above should be available from the engineering
drawings for the treatment plant outfall and diffuser system. If risers are
used, information sufficient to compute the riser discharge coefficient by
using the method of Koh (1973) should also be provided. For example, if the
riser consists of a vertical pipe, the length and inside diameter of the
pipe, the material from which it is made, and the port orifice should be
specified. Missing information should be so indicated in the responses to
the foregoing questions. Because outfalls and diffusers are often built
somewhat differently than specified in the engineering design drawings,
applicants are advised to verify that the existing outfall and diffuser
system is as designed. If not, appropriate changes should be noted on the
engineering drawings, and those changes should be reflected in the responses
to the foregoing questions.
In addition to the foregoing information, applicants should provide
information on the slope of the diffuser and the slope of the port center-
lines if they differ from that of the diffuser. If the diffuser ports
discharge to opposite sides of the diffuser, that information should be
noted. The depths of the ports below mean lower low water (or mean low
water as applicable) should be provided, and any variations in port depths
along the length of the diffuser should be noted.
The information provided in this section is routinely used in the
review process to determine whether the diffuser is well-designed hydrauli-
cally for the range of flows (daily minimum to daily maximum) expected
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
during the requested permit term. Among the characteristics of a well-
designed diffuser are uniform port flows and individual port densimetric
Froude numbers that are always greater than 1. Methods for computing the
port flow distribution from a multiport diffuser are described by Grace
(1978) and Fischer et al. (1979). Discharge coefficients for risers can be
computed using methods described by Koh (1973). [The explanation of these
methods provided by Fischer et al. (1979) should not be used because it is
incomplete and contains errors.] The effect of the bottom slope must be
included in the diffuser hydraulics computations because some diffusers
behave properly on a horizontal seafloor, but poorly on a sloping bottom,
especially at low flow rates.
B. Receiving Water Description
1. Are you applying for a modification based on a discharge to
the ocean or to a saline estuary [40 CFR 125.58(q)]? [40 CFR
125.59(a)]
Guidance for responding to this question is given in Chapter III of the
Revised Section 30Hh) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b).
Estuarine dischargers are advised that Section 303(e) of the Water Quality
Act of 1987 states that Section 301(h) modified permits may not be issued
for discharges into saline estuarine waters unless those waters meet all of
the following conditions:
Support a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife
Allow for recreational activities
Exhibit ambient water quality characteristics that are
adequate to protect public water supplies; protect shellfish,
fish, and wildlife; allow for recreational activities; and
comply with standards that assure and protect such uses.
30
-------
These conditions must be met, regardless of whether the applicant's discharge
contributes to departures from such conditions. Section 303(g) of the Water
Quality Act of 1987 states that the foregoing prohibitions of Section 301(h)
modified discharges into estuarine waters that do not exhibit the above
characteristics do not apply to discharges with Section 301(h) modified
permits that were tentatively or finally approved prior to the enactment of
the Water Quality Act of 1987, However, H further states that the foregoing
prohibitions do apply to all renewals of Section 301(h) modified permits
that postdate enactment of the Water Quality Act of 1987. Thus, all
estuarine dischargers must demonstrate in the appropriate parts of the Small
Applicant Questionnaire that the receiving waters exhibit the above charac-
teristics at the time of permit reissuance, regardless of whether such
conditions existed at the time the existing Section 301(h) modified permit
was issued.
2. Is your current discharge or modified discharge to stressed
waters? If yes, what are the pollution sources contributing
to the stress? [40 CFR 125.61(f)]
Guidance for responding to this question is given in Chapter III of the
Revised Section 3Ql(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b). The
response to this question should be coordinated with the response to Question
III.D.7 below. Section 303(a) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 states that
permits may not be reissued if the discharge alone or in combination with
pollutants from other sources adversely impacts the balanced indigenous
population, water quality, or recreational activities. In addition,
estuarine dischargers are advised that under Section 303(e) of the Water
Quality Act of 1987, permits may not be reissued for discharges to stressed
estuarine waters.
3. Provide a description and available data on the seasonal
circulation patterns in the vicinity of your current and
modified discharge(s). [40 CFR 125.61(a)]
The applicant should provide sufficient information on current speed
and direction in the vicinity of the discharge to predict the dispersion and
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
transport of diluted effluent. Useful sources of information include data
coTiected during execution of the monitoring program for the existing
modified permit, data collected in the vicinity of the discharge by other
researchers, and U.S. Department of Commerce tidal current tables {e.g.,
Tidal Current Tables 1987, Atlantic Coast of North America; Tidal Current
Tables, Pacific Coast of North America and Asia). The information provided
should include estimates of near-surface and near-bottom lowest 10 percentile
current speeds. Information on the locations of the current meters and the
time span over which data were collected should also be provided. The
applicant should also provide seasonal average current speeds and directions,
and a discussion of the occurrence of onshore surface currents. Because
onshore winds induce onshore currents, wind speed and direction statistics
appropriate for the diffuser location should also be provided. .
Section 303(e) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 prohibits Section 301(h)
modified permits for discharges where the dilution water contains "sig-
nificant amounts of previously discharged effluent from such treatment
works." In responding to this question, applicants should discuss the
potential for reentrainment of previously discharged effluent. Reentrainment
is a potential problem primarily in receiving waters that exhibit poor
flushing characteristics.
4. Ambient water quality conditions during the period(s) of
maximum stratification.
Guidance for responding to this question is given in Chapters III and
VI of the Revised Section 30Hh) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech
1982b). Temperature and salinity profiles sufficient to determine the most
stratified and the typical conditions should be provided for each oceano-
graphic season. The "most stratified" temperature and salinity profile with
depth is the profile that will produce the lowest initial dilution. In some
locations, such a profile has the steepest gradients of temperature and/or
salinity near mid-depth. Both temperature (expressed in degrees C) and
salinity (expressed in ppt) should be measured accurately to two decimal
places so that density (expressed in gm/cm^) can be computed accurately to
five decimal places. Also, only measured profiles should be provided.
32
-------
Averages of measured profiles or "representative" profiles should never be
substituted. Density profiles should exhibit a stable water column over the
plume height-of-rise (i.e., no higher density water should overlie lower
density water). One year is the minimum period of time over which oceano-
graphic data must be collected to establish typical and most stratified
conditions. Because oceanographic conditions vary among years, it is
recommended that data be collected for 5 yr.
C. Biological Conditions
1. Are distinctive habitats of limited distribution (such as
kelp beds or coral reefs) located in areas potentially
affected by the Modified discharge? If yes, provide available
information on types, extent, and location of habitats. [40
CFR 125.61(c)]
Guidance on responding to this question is given in Chapters III and
VII of the Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech
19825). Because the biota of many distinctive habitats of limited dis-
tribution are very sensitive to pollutants (e.g., Pastorok and Bilyard
1985), brief or infrequent periods of exposure to sewage effluent may be
detrimental to those biota. [For this reason, some small applicants may
have been required to monitor distinctive habitats of limited distribution
periodically over the term of the existing Section 301(h) modified permit].
All distinctive habitats, should be considered in the response to this
question, regardless of their direction from the outfall (i.e., inshore or
offshore, upcoast or downcoast) or the direction of the prevailing currents.
To the extent that information is available, the following types of data
should be provided on each distinctive habitat in the vicinity of the
applicant's discharge:
Areal extent of the habitat (shown on a chart if possible)
Physical characteristics of the habitat (water column and
substrate)
33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Species composition of the biota (flora and fauna)
Abundance or percent cover (as applicable) of the resident
species
Spatial and temporal variations in the biotic and abiotic
components of the distinctive habitat.
Such detailed information is critical for determining whether pollutant
stresses from the applicant's discharge or other point or nonpoint sources
of pollutants are causing adverse impacts to the biota; The applicant is
encouraged to include graphical and tabular data in the response to this
question. Extensive graphical or tabular data (or the report in which they
are found) may be appended to the application.
2. Are commercial or recreational fisheries located in areas
potentially affected by the nodi tied discharge? If yes,
provide available information on types, location, and value of
fisheries. [40 CFR 125.61(c)]
Guidance for responding to this question is found in Chapters III and
VII of the Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech
1982b). As recommended for Question II.C.I (above), detailed information on
commercial and recreational fisheries should be presented when it is
available. Extensive graphical or tabular data may be appended to the
application. When available, data should be provided on each commercial or
recreational species harvested from the receiving waters in the vicinity of
the applicant's outfall.
D. State and Federal Laws F40 CFR 125.601
1. Are there water quality standards applicable to the following
pollutants for which a modification is requested:
Biochemical oxygen demand or dissolved oxygen?
34
-------
Suspended solids, turbidity, light transmission, light
scattering, or maintenance of the euphotic zone?
pH of the receiving water?
If yes, what is the water use classification for your
discharge area? What are the applicable standards for your
discharge area for each of the parameters for which a
modification is requested? Provide a copy of all applicable
water quality standards or a citation to where they can be
found.
Hill the modified discharge: [40 CFR 125.59(b)(3)]
Be consistent with applicable State coastal zone
management program(s) approved under the Coastal Zone
Management Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.? [See
16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A)]
Be located in a marine sanctuary designated under Title
III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA) as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., or in an
estuarine sanctuary designated under the Coastal Zone
Management Act as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1461? If located
in a urine sanctuary designated under Title HI of the
MPRSA, attach a copy of any certification or permit
required under regulations governing such marine
sanctuary [See 16 U.S.C. 1432(f)(2)]
Be consistent with the Endangered Species Act as amended,
16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.? Provide the names of any
threatened or endangered species that inhabit or obtain
nutrients from waters that may be affected by the
modified discharge. Identify any critical habitats that
may be affected by the modified discharge and evaluate
whether the modified discharge will affect threatened or
endangered species or modify a critical habitat [See 16
U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)]
35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Are you aware of any State or Federal laws or regulations
(other than the Clean Water Act or the three statutes
identified in item 3 above) or an Executive Order which is
applicable to your discharge? If yes, provide sufficient
information to demonstrate that your modified discharge will
comply with such law(s), regulation(s), or order(s). [40 CFR
125.59(b)(3)]
Guidance for responding to these four questions is provided in
Chapter II of the Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra
Tech 1982b). Because each application for permit reissuance is considered
to be an application for a new NPDES permit, applicants are required to
provide new determinations of compliance with all applicable local, state,
and federal laws and regulations, as indicated above. Moreover, in response
to Question II.D.4, applicants should demonstrate compliance with federal
water quality criteria established by the U.S. EPA (1986a), as mandated by
Section 303(d) of the Water Quality Act of 1987.
Individual states often have water quality standards that must be met
independently from federal water quality criteria. State standards that are
applicable to the applicant's discharge must be provided in this section,
and determinations of compliance with those standards must be provided in
Section III.B.5. Occasionally, state water quality standards are dependent
on location of the outfall diffuser. If the effluent wastefield is transpor-
ted to a location having different standards than the diffuser location,
then both sets of standards apply.
III. TECHNICAL EVALUATION
A. Physical Characteristics of Discharge f40 CFR 125.61 fall
1. What is the lowest initial dilution for your current and
modified discharge(s) during 1) the period(s) of maximum
stratification? and 2) any other critical period(s) of
discharge voluae/coaposition, water quality, biological
seasons, or oceanographic conditions?
36
-------
The lowest (i.e., critical) initial dilution must be computed for each
of the critical environmental seasons. The predicted peak 2- to 3-h effluent
flow for the new end-of-permit year and the current speed no higher than the
lowest 10 percentile current speed must be used. A simplified procedure for
computing initial dilution is described in Chapter III of the Revised
Section 301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b). Five U.S.
EPA-approved computer models (i.e., PLUME, UOUTPLM, UMERGE, UDKHDEN, ULINE)
as well as several analytical formulations for computing initial dilution
are described by Muellenhoff et al. (1985a). ASCII files containing FORTRAN
code for these models are available from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA, 22161 [(703) 487-4650].
These files are on either nine-track tape or on floppy diskettes that can be
read by an IBM compatible personal computer. Muellenhoff et al. (1985a)
discuss guidelines for use of the models. During computation of initial
dilution by one of these methods, the flow from each of the ports modeled
should be approximately constant within a section of the diffuser. The
initial dilution and trapping depth for each section should be a flow-rate
average to obtain the initial dilution and trapping depth, respectively, for
the entire diffuser. The depth of the discharge is determined as the depth
of the section below mean lower low water or mean low water, or as the
average for the diffuser. If the adjacent ports discharge on opposite sides
of the diffuser, the port spacing should be equal to the distance between
ports discharging on the same side of the diffuser. (This stipulation is
applicable to UMERGE and UDKHDEN, but not ULINE.) Sufficient documentation
of the methods and parameters used must be provided so that the results
obtained can be independently duplicated.
For many applicants, conditions specified in the original application
will not have changed, and it will be necessary only to reproduce the
calculations given in the original application. Other applicants will find,
however, that monitoring data or other information collected during the term
of the original modified permit requires that new calculations be performed.
For example, new calculations will be required in cases where the water
column density profile is better defined, effluent flows have changed or are
expected to change, or the number of open ports has changed.
37
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. What are the dimensions of the zone of initial dilution for
your modified discharge(s)?
Guidance for responding to this question is given in Chapters III and V
of the Revised Section 301 (h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b).
The water depth used should be the maximum water depth along the diffuser
axis (axes) with respect to mean lower low water or mean low water, as
applicable.
Unless changes to the outfall system have been made or are anticipated,
or unless incorrect water depths or outfall characteristics were used in the
original Section 301(h) application, the calculation presented here should
be identical to that presented in the original application. Repetition of
the calculation in the application for reissuance of the Section 301(h)
modified permit is necessary to confirm that all values used in the original
application were correct, and that the outfall system has not, and will not,
change over the term of the new permit.
3. Will there be significant sedimentation of suspended solids
in the vicinity of the modified discharge?
The applicant should compute whether significant sedimentation of
suspended solids occurs. These computations should be made for an annual
period and for the critical 90-day period (i.e., the 90-day period during
which the highest sedimentation rate occurs). In these computations, the
average plume height-of-rise with respect to the seafloor should be used. A
simplified procedure for computing the effect of sedimentation is described
in Chapter III of the Revised Section 301fh) Technical Support Document
(Tetra Tech 1982b). If this method is not applicable, the methods described
in Chapter VI of the aforementioned document should be used.
As for Questions II.A.I and II.A.2 above, new calculations will be
needed only in cases where conditions have changed since the original
application was submitted. Such changes would include, for example, changes
in initial dilution or trapping level, the effective length of the outfall
38
-------
diffuser (i.e., the closure of ports since the original application was
submitted), the concentration of suspended solids in the effluent, and
effluent flow.
B. Compliance with Applicable Hater Quality Standards
F40 CFR 125.6Qfb) and 125.61fa)1
1, What is the concentration of dissolved oxygen immediately
following initial dilution for the period(s) of maximum
stratification and any other critical period(s) of discharge
volume/composition, water quality, biological seasons, or
oceanographic conditions?
A simplified procedure for computing the dissolved oxygen concentration
immediately following initial dilution is explained in Chapter III of the
Revised Section 301fh) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b).
Although simplified, this method yields conservative results. If this
method is not applicable, or if its use results in water quality violations,
a more complicated, but more accurate method may be used instead. Note that
some states limit the maximum allowable dissolved oxygen concentration
depression, and that the maximum dissolved oxygen depression may not occur
during the season having the lowest initial dilution,
2. What is the farfield dissolved oxygen depression and resulting
concentration due to BOD exertion of the wastefield during
the period(s) of uxiauB stratification and any other critical
period(s)?
A simplified procedure for computing the farfield dissolved oxygen
depression is explained in Chapter III of the Revised Section 301(h)
Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b). Although simplified, this
method yields very conservative results. If this method is not applicable,
or if it results in water quality violations, a more complicated, but more
accurate method (Brooks 1960) may be used instead. In Brooks' method, the
value for a variable n must be chosen, where n has a value of 0, 1, or 4/3.
In Chapter VI of the Revised Section 301fh) Technical Support Document
39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
(Tetra Tech 1982b) , Brooks' method is provided for n equal to 0 and 4/3.
However, in open coastal waters relatively close to shore, it may not be
reasonable to choose n equal to 4/3; n equal to 1 may be more appropriate
(Grace 1978). In the notation used in equation VI-2Q of the Revised _5ection
3Ql(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b), the centerline
dilution (Ds) for n equal to 1 is given by:
Ds = {erf([1.5/((l + 12 Ot/b2)2 - I}]0-5)}'1
where:
o = 0.001 b4/3 (ft2/sec)
b = wastefield width (ft)
t = time (sec)
erf = error function.
Regardless of current direction, the wastefield width should be approximated
by the diffuser length.
3. What is the increase in receiving water suspended solids
concentration immediately following initial dilution of the
modified discharge(s)?
The formula provided in Chapter III of the Revised Sec t i on 301(n)
Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b) should be used to compute the
receiving water suspended solids concentration following (critical) initial
dilution. In cases where the initial dilution or the concentration of
suspended solids in the effluent has not changed since the original
application was submitted, and are not expected to change over the term of
the new permit, it will be necessary only to reproduce the calculation
provided in the original application. However, changes in either variable
will necessitate recalculating the receiving water suspended solids
concentration.
40
-------
4. Does (will) the modified discharge comply with applicable
water quality standards for:
Dissolved oxygen?
Suspended solids or surrogate standards?
pH?
The applicant must demonstrate compliance with applicable receiving
water quality standards in this section. Typically, standards exist for
dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, and pH, in which case the results of
previous sections may be used. If a quantitative state standard exists for
turbidity, expressed in a given turbidity unit, then turbidity of the
effluent and the receiving water (expressed in turbidity units as a function
of concentration) should be measured so that a demonstration that the
standard is met can be made. Guidance for the determination of pH following
initial dilution is provided in Chapter VI of the Revised Section 301 fh)
Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b). Other state standards may
also exist, such as for col i form bacteria concentrations at the edge of a
mixing zone. The dieoff rate Dcb for coliform bacteria due to exposure to
seawater can be estimated by the formula (Gameson and Gould 1975):
exp[2.3(exp[2. 303(0. 0295T-2.292)])TT]
where:
T = seawater temperature (° C)
TT = exposure time (h).
Monitoring data collected during the term of the original Section 301(h)
permit may also be useful for demonstrating compliance with applicable
receiving water standards, and for verifying predictions that were made in
the original application.
Section 303(e) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 states that permits may
not be issued if the dilution water for the discharge contains significant
41
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
amounts of previously discharged effluent. In general, this criterion win
be met if all water quality standards are met.
5. Provide the determination required by 40 CFR 125.60(b)(2) or,
if the determination has not yet been received, a copy of a
letter to the appropriate agency(s) requesting the required
determination.
Because all applications for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified
permits are considered applications for new NPOES permits, all applicants
are required to provide new determinations of compliance with state regula-
tions, as required by 40 CFR 125.60(b)(2). A copy of the letter requesting
the required determination may be provided if the determination by the
appropriate state agency has not yet been received.
C. Impact on Public Water Supplies T40 CFR 125.61fb)l
1. Is there a planned or existing public water supply (desal.ini-
zation facility) intake in the vicinity of the current or
modified discharge?
Guidance for responding to this question is given in Chapter III of the
Revised Section 3QHh) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b).
D. Biological Impact of Discharge T40 CFR 125.6Ucl1
1. Does (will) a balanced indigenous population of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife exist:
Immediately beyond the ZID of the current and modified
discharge(s)?
In all other areas beyond the ZID where marine life is
actually or potentially affected by the current and
modified discharge(s)?
42
-------
During the preparation of applications for original Section 301(h)
modified permits, many small applicants were able to respond to this question
without conducting field studies of biological communities in the vicinity
of the discharge. As discussed in Chapter III of the Revised Section 301fh)
Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b), those small applicants were
required to use existing information to demonstrate that the characteristics
of the discharge and receiving environment indicated a very low potential
for adverse impacts. In cases where applicants were not required to collect
biological information during the term of the existing permit, applicants
may continue to use other available information to demonstrate that the
characteristics of the discharge and receiving environment indicate a very
low potential for adverse impacts. Applicants are reminded, however, that
under Subsection 303(a) of the Water Quality Act of 1987, such demonstrat-
ions must consider the potential for adverse impacts of the discharge singly
and in combination with other discharges (if any exist). The following
characteristics indicate a low potential for impact:
Location of the discharge at water depths greater than 10 m
(33 ft)
Hydrographic conditions that result in low predicted solids
accumulation rates on the bottom
The absence of distinctive habitats of limited distribution
and the absence of fisheries in the vicinity of the outfall,
when such absences are not a result of anthropogenic stresses
The absence of known or suspected sources of toxic pollutants
and pesticides or low concentrations of these substances in
the effluent.
Most small dischargers that were able to demonstrate a low potential for
impact previously should be able to do so again. They only need demonstrate
that characteristics of the discharge and receiving environment did not
change greatly during the term of the existing permit. Monitoring data
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
collected during the term of the original Section 301(h) modified permit
should also be useful for such demonstrations.
Some small dischargers may not be able to demonstrate a low potential
for impacts because characteristics of the discharge or receiving environment
differ from those listed above. In some cases, the discharge or receiving
environment may not have exhibited the aforementioned characteristics at the
time the original application for a Section 301{h) modified permit was
prepared. In others, characteristics of the discharge or receiving en-
vironment may have changed, or additional information may now be available
that documents a greater potential for impact than was previously supposed.
For example, the composition of the discharge may have changed to include
toxic pollutants or pesticides from a new industrial source. Alternatively,
a fishery for a previously underutilized species may have developed in the
vicinity of the discharge, or research by local scientists may have dis-
covered that the habitat in the vicinity of the outfall is an important
nursery ground for a commercially harvested species of fish or shellfish.
When it is apparent for one or jnore reasons that the discharge or
receiving environment does not exhibit characteristics that would indicate a
low potential for impacts, the Regions have the discretionary power to
require that an applicant for permit reissuance perform a detailed assessment
of biological conditions in the vicinity of the outfall. The level of
detail that would be expected in such a demonstration would be comparable to
that required by large dischargers. Therefore, small applicants should
consult the guidance given under Questions II.C.I and III.D.I in Chapter IV
of the Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b)
(i.e., the Large Applicant Questionnaire) in addition to the guidance
provided in the following discussion.
In some cases, the applicant may have been required to monitor one or
more biological communities under the conditions of the existing Section
301(h) modified permit. The Region may require the applicant to analyze and
discuss those biological monitoring data in response to this question. When
biological monitoring data were not collected, but concern exists that the
modified discharge has the potential to cause adverse impacts to the biota,
44
-------
the Region may require the applicant to collect biological data in support
of the application for permit reissuance. If the Region requires the
collection of additional data, the Region should consult with the applicant
we'd in advance of the application deadline, thereby giving the applicant
adequate time to design and execute appropriate studies. Applicants
required to perform field surveys of biological communities in the vicinity
of the discharge in support of the application for permit reissuance should
consult Chapter X of the Revised Section 301fh) Technical Support Document
(Tetra Tech 1982b) and Tetra Tech (1982a, 1985e, 1986a,c) for guidance on
the design and execution of those surveys. To ensure the collection of
adequate, high quality data, the Region should work closely with the
applicant during all phases of the necessary studies.
Effective demonstrations that the modified discharge, either singly or
in combination with other discharges, does not contribute to adverse
biological impacts include comparisons of biological conditions and habitat
characteristics among stations or groups of stations. As is apparent from
the guidance in the Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document
(Tetra Tech 1982b) (see especially Chapter VII), the applicant should
demonstrate that biological conditions and habitat characteristics do not
differ substantially among stations (or groups of stations) in zone of
initial dilution (ZID)-boundary, nearfield, farfield, and reference areas.
Numerous variables may be used to describe biological communities and
compare them among stations (or groups of stations). Comparisons are
commonly made for numbers of species, total abundances of organisms, and
abundances of selected pollution-sensitive, pollution-tolerant, and op-
portunistic species. [See Tetra Tech (1985e) for further guidance on the
selection of biological indices.] Physical characteristics of the receiving
environment that are often measured include water column characteristics,
(e.g., depth, water temperature, salinity, nutrient concentrations, chloro-
phyll a concentrations) and substrate characteristics (e.g., bottom type and
composition). Information on the physical characteristics of the environment
may be used to interpret the biological data and to determine whether the
applicant's discharge is altering the physical or chemical characteristics
of the receiving environment.
45
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Species vary in their sensitivities to pollutants, including organic
enrichment. Changes in species composition and abundance begin to occur
,vnen trie mass emission rates of materials in a sewage discharge are
sufficiently high to affect the most sensitive species. As the abundances
of pollution-sensitive species decrease or are driven to zero, abundances of
opportunistic and pollution-tolerant species are typically enhanced. For
this reason, changes in the values of community variables (e.g., numbers of
species, total abundances, dominance) are often accompanied by changes in
the abundances of opportunistic and pollutiontolerant species.
Because benthic infauna are sedentary and must adapt to pollutant
stresses or perish, this assemblage is often used to define the spatial
extent and magnitude of pollutant impacts in the vicinity of sewage dis-
charges. The general changes in benthic community structure and function
that occur under conditions of organic enrichment of the sediments (such as
occur as a result of municipal sewage effluent discharges) have been well
documented (Pearson and Rosenberg 1978). Slight to moderate enrichment
results in slight increases in numbers of species, abundances, and biomass
of benthic communities (Figure 1), while species composition remains
unchanged. As enrichment increases, numbers of species decline because less
tolerant species are eliminated. The total abundance of organisms increases
as a few species adapted to disturbed environments or organically enriched
sediments become very abundant. When enrichment levels are optimal for
those few species, they become extremely abundant and overwhelmingly
dominate the benthic community (corresponding to the "peak of opportunists"
shown in Figure 1). Biomass generally decreases, however, because many of
those opportunistic species are small. Further organic enrichment of the
sediments drastically reduces the number of species and abundances of
benthic organisms, as conditions become intolerable for most taxa.
Because the model developed by Pearson and Rosenberg (1978) has been
shown to be valid in many (but not all) benthic environments, it is often
instructive to examine the abundances of species that the authors identify as
opportunistic or pollution-tolerant. Those data, in conjunction with the
applicant's data on numbers of species, total abundances, and biomass at
46
-------
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
^f
1
1
1
^B
1
1
1
|
M
1
1
PO E
/\ x--zr-.
/ -^^^ ^\~"~~S
/ X/X "^^""^-^ >N-' B
X**
Increasing Organic Input
S = Species numbers
A - Total abundance
B * Total biomass
PO = Peak of opportunists
E * Ecotone point
TR « Transition zone
Reference: Figure 2 of Pearson and Rosenberg (1978).
Figure 1. Generalized depiction of changes in species numbers,
total abundance, and total biomass along a gradient of
organic enrichment.
1
-------
stations in the vicinity of the outfall, are often sufficient to determine
the relative degree of impact that is occurring within and beyond the ZID.
Comparable models that describe changes in the structure and function
of plankton and demersal fish communities in organically enriched receiving
environments have not yet been developed. However, it may be instructive to
examine the scientific literature that is available for the biogeographic
region in which the outfall is located. That literature often contains
information describing the responses of the local fauna and flora to organic
materials and other pollutants, and identifying opportunistic and pollution-
tolerant species. Such information is extremely useful for interpreting
data collected in the vicinity of the outfall.
A variety of analytical tools may be used to conduct biological
comparisons for Section 301 (h) applications. Applicants may analyze the
data graphically or statistically, or may use other mathematical tools such
as multivariate analyses (i.e., classification and ordination procedures).
Graphical analyses can be especially useful for presenting data in an easily
understood format. In Figure 2, data on numbers of species in each replicate
sample at stations in the vicinity of an outfall have been plotted to show
the range of reference values in comparison with values at within-ZID, ZID-
boundary, nearfield, and farfield stations. These data may be tested
statistically to determine those test stations at which mean values differ
from mean values at either or both reference stations. But even without
such tests, the data in Figure 2 clearly indicate that a gradient of effects
occurs near the outfall. Relative to reference conditions, numbers of
species are depressed at the within-ZID and downcurrent ZID-boundary
stations, and may be depressed at the nearfield and upcurrent ZID-boundary
stations.
Graphical analyses are especially useful for presenting data on the
physical characteristics of the habitat. For example, it Is often in-
structive to plot water column or substrate characteristics in relation to
distance from the outfall (see Figure 3). Gradients of effects (as in
Figure 3-b) are often revealed in such simple presentations. An especially
useful method for presenting data on sediment grain size distributions that
48
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
US| 4z
III 1 £
CEO LU D E
, zoo
1
*
f
1 1 1 1 1
a s s s s c
31VOnd3d d3d S3l03dS dO H39WnN
49
a
-i
_ y
c
U.
O
U;
t b.
Z
g
- go
§
" p ^ ^^
c ^"
g
P
V <
1 H
-Si w
ILI
9
~ LU
LL
LU
"" UJ
LL.
C
3
1
Q
t/3
C
g
ra
"5
in
Q
Q.
E
CO
.Q
CO
0)
O
OJ
o
"5.
c
o
B
"o
o
W _;
81
Q) T
»- C
o ra
52 o
"1 1
Z '>
eg
3
.03
-------
0
UJ
c
eg
rsi z
o
H
.2
"5
o
c
CO
s;
Nl
o
o
CO
to
CO
m
A1INI1VS
50
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(lN30d3d)
Noaavo OINVOUO ivioi
c
a
5
UJ
h-
CO
o
c;
CO
c
'o
0)
c
c
g
ra
CO
M
"E
o
^
0)
Q)
"c
o
o
I
§
o
o
"to
CO
1
O)
51
-------
has proven useful in analyses of 301(h) data was developed by Shepard (1954).
Sediments are classified by the proportions of their three major grain-size
categories (Figure 4). Sand, silt, and clay are often the most useful
categories. However, the gravel, sand, and mud (silt plus clay) categories
are useful where sediments are relatively coarse. [See Shepard (1963) for
information on sediment grain size scales.]
Among the most effective tools for comparing biological communities
among stations are statistical tests. A variety of statistical tests are
available, the most widely used of which is one way analysis of variance
(ANOVA). ANOVA and other statistical tests have been used extensively for
biological comparisons in the 301(h) program, but they have often been used
improperly. For this reason, procedures for conducting statistical com-
parisons using biological data are discussed briefly below. Applicants are
encouraged to consult references on biostatistics (e.g., Zar 1974; Sokal and
Rohlf 1981) for more specific guidance on the application of these pro-
cedures.
The use of one way ANOVA for biological comparisons is preferred
because ANOVA is an efficient and robust test. ANOVA compares the mean
values of a given variable among stations (or groups of stations) for the
purpose of detecting significant differences at a predetermined probability
level. ANOVA requires a minimum of three replicate values at each station
to estimate the mean value and associated variance.
ANOVA is a parametric test that assumes the error of an estimate is a
random normal variate, that the data are normally distributed, and that the
data exhibit homogeneous variances. Among these three assumptions, the
first is not easily corrected for, and can greatly affect the results of the
test. Fortunately, error estimates in survey data are usually independent.
ANOVA is relatively robust with respect to the assumption that the data are
normally distributed. Substantial departures from normality can occur
before the value of the F-statistic is affected greatly (Green 1979). For
this reason, tests for normality are not usually conducted before data are
analyzed using ANOVA. The third assumption, that variances are homogeneous,
is critical to execution of ANOVA. Heterogeneous variances can greatly
52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SAND
NEARF1ELD
REFERENCE 2
ZID-BOUNDARY 1
REFERENCE 1
FARFIELD
WITHIN-ZID
ZID-BOUNDARY 2
SILT
CLAY
Figure 4. Sediment grain-size characteristics at stations in the
vicinity of an outfall.
53
-------
affect the value of the F-statistic, especially in cases where the sta-
tistical design is unbalanced (i.e., where numbers of replicate values vary
among the stations or station groups being tested).
I
I
Several tests are available to determine whether variances are homo- I
geneous. The Fmax test (see Zar 1974; Sokal and Rohlf 1981) and Cochran's C
test (Winer 1971) are both appropriate, although the latter is preferred
because it uses more of the information in the data set. Bartlett's test is ~
not recommended because it is overly sensitive to departures from normality _
(Sokal and Rohlf 1981). I
When sample variances are found to differ significantly (PO.01), a |
transformation should be applied to the data. [A more conservative pro-
bability level (e.g., P<0.05) should be used when the statistical design is V
unbalanced. ANOVA is sensitive to unbalanced statistical designs.] Sokal
and Rohlf (1981) describe several transformations that may be used. Because M
ANOVA on transformed data is usually a more efficient test for detecting
departures from the null hypothesis than is the Kruskal-Wallis test .(the «
nonparametric analog of ANOVA), the Kru-skal-Wallis test should only be used j|
when the appropriate transformation fails to correct for heterogeneous
variances (Sokal and Rohlf 1981). The Kruskal-Wallis test requires a minimum J
of five replicate values per station because it is a test of ranks.
1
When ANOVA or a Kruskal-Wallis tests are performed, significant
differences (P<0.05) among individual stations or groups of stations may be
determined using the appropriate a posteriori comparison. Of most im-
portance in 301(h) demonstrations are differences among reference stations _
and stations within the ZID, at the ZID boundary, and beyond the ZID. It is
primarily these comparisons upon which determination of the presence or
absence of a balanced indigenous population is based. f
Classification analyses (i.e., cluster analyses) have also been used I
extensively in the 301(h) program. In the normal classification mode,
stations are grouped by the attributes of the assemblages that occur there
(i.e., species composition and abundance). This type of analysis is very "
useful for determining which stations exhibit the most similar fauna and/or
54
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
flora, and which are least similar. Because biological communities respond
to organic materials and other pollutants, stations at which pollutant
impacts are occurring typically cluster together in interpretable groups.
Inverse classification analysis, in which taxa are grouped by the stations
at which they co-occur, is also helpful because it defines assemblages that
are characteristic of different levels and types of pollutant impacts.
Classification analysis involves two analytical steps: calculation of
a matrix of similarity values for all possible station pairs, and grouping of
stations based on those between-station similarity values. Many similarity
indices and clustering strategies are available to perform these two tasks
(see Boesch 1977; Green 1979; Gauch 1982; Pielou 1984; Romesburg 1984).
However, only the Bray-Curtis similarity index and either the group average
clustering strategy (i.e., the unweighted pair-group method using arithmetic
averages) or the flexible sorting strategy have been used commonly in 301(h)
demonstrations. Their continued use is recommended. The Bray-Curtis index
is easily understood, and has been used widely in ecological studies.
Moreover, two comparisons of similarity indices (i.e., Bloom 1981; Hruby
1987) have shown it to be superior to many of the other commonly used
resemblance measures. Both the group average clustering strategy and the
flexible sorting strategy are recommended because they produce little
distortion of the original similarity matrix. [See Tetra Tech (1985e) for
additional rationale on the use of these three indices.]
2. Have distinctive habitats of limited distribution been
impacted adversely by the current discharge and will such
habitats be impacted adversely by the modified discharge?
Guidance for responding to this question is given in Chapters III and
VII of the Revised Section 301fh) Technical Support Document (Tetra
Tech 1982b). In responding to this question, applicants should emphasize the
physical, chemical, and biological conditions that occurred within the
distinctive habitats in the vicinity of the applicant's outfall during the
term of the existing Section 301(h) modified permit.
55
-------
The most effective demonstrations of impacts (or the lack of impacts)
include comparisons of potentially impacted areas with reference areas
beyond the influence of the discharge. Experience with applications for
Section 301(h) modified permits has shown, however, that suitable reference
areas for distinctive habitats of limited distribution are often difficult
to find. The biota that characterize distinctive habitats often require
specific environmental conditions that occur discontinuously within the
biogeographic zone, and often only in small areas. When a suitable reference
area for a distinctive habitat of limited distribution does not occur in the
vicinity of the applicant's outfall, the applicant should present (to the
extent possible) detailed information on the typical physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of that distinctive habitat within the bio-
geographic zone. Information on conditions that are typical for that
distinctive habitat should then be used to assess potential impacts of the
applicant's discharge on that distinctive habitat in the vicinity of the
applicant's outfall. When suitable data are available, applicants should
assess potential impacts to distinctive habitats of limited distribution by
using the graphical and mathematical tools discussed above under .Ques-
tion III.D.I.
When it appears that an applicant's discharge is causing (or has the
potential to cause) impacts to distinctive habitats of limited distribution,
the Region may require the applicant to perform a detailed assessment of
distinctive habitats in the vicinity of the discharge. Such a detailed
assessment would be comparable to that required of large dischargers.
Therefore, guidance provided under Questions II.C.2 and III.D.2 in Chapter
IV of the Revised Section 3Ql(hl Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech
1982b) (i.e., the Large Applicant Questionnaire) and under Question III.D.I
(above) is relevant to the performance of such detailed demonstrations. The
Region should notify the applicant well in advance of the application
deadline of the need for additional data on distinctive habitats, so as to
give the applicant adequate time to design and execute appropriate studies.
Moreover, the Region should work closely with the applicant during all
phases of the studies to ensure that adequate, high quality data are
collected.
56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
3. Have commercial or recreational fisheries been impacted
adversely (e.g., warnings, restrictions, closures, or mass
mortalities) by the current discharge and will they be
impacted adversely by the modified discharge?
Guidance for responding to this question is found in Chapters III and
VII of the Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech
1982b).
I 4. For discharges into saline estuarine waters: [40 CFR 125.61
I
I
I
I
Does or will the current or modified discharge cause
substantial differences in the benthic population within
the ZID and beyond the ZID?
Does or will the current or modified discharge interfere
with migratory pathways within the ZID?
Does or will the current or modified discharge result in
bioaccumulation of toxic pollutants or pesticides at
levels which exert adverse effects on the biota within
the ZID?
Guidance for responding to this question is found in Chapter III of the
Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b). Small
applicants with discharges into saline estuaries and the Regions should note
that, as discussed earlier, the Water Quality Act of 1987 prohibits the
issuance of Section 301(h) modified permits for discharges into saline
estuaries that:
Do not support a balanced indigenous population of shellfish,
fish, and wildlife
I
I
I
I
Do not allow for recreational activities
Exhibit ambient water quality characteristics that are not
adequate to protect public water supplies; protect shellfish,
57
i
-------
and
I
m
A Section 301 (h) modified permit may not be issued if the receiving wate*
exhibit any of the foregoing conditions, regardless of the causes of anB<
fish, and wildlife; allow for recreational activities;
comply with standards that assure and protect such uses.
those conditions.
jgW
i
When there is reasonable concern that one or more of the fore
conditions has come into existence during the term of the existing
tion 301(h) modified permit, the Regions should require small applicants
discharges into saline estuaries to demonstrate successfully that none
the foregoing conditions exists. To do so, applicants may be require
perform a detailed biological survey similar to that required of la
dischargers. Applicants are advised to consult the information pro
under Questions II.C.I and III.D.I in Chapter IV of the Revised Sec
301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b) (i.e., the
Applicant Questionnaire), under Question III.D.I (above), and in Tetra1
(1982a) for guidance on the design and execution of detailed
surveys. The Regions should notify applicants well in advance
application deadline if a demonstration is required to document the absc
of stressed conditions in the receiving environment.
i u
i
i
improved discharges, will the proposed laprovedl
25*
5. For improved discharges, will
charge(s) coaply with the requirements of 40 CFR 125
through 40 CFR 125.61(d)? [40 CFR 125.61(e)]
This question requires the applicant to conduct a predict!v
onstration. The applicant must demonstrate that the proposed improvem
the discharge will
125.61(a)-(d).
result in compliance with the provisions of 40
I
I
i
Predictive demonstrations may be accomplished by several
Applicants may conduct effluent transport or sediment accumulation an!
as described above under Question III.A. The purpose of these
would be to demonstrate that the effluent plume or dissolved and par
materials associated with that plume will not (or will have a low p
I
58
-------
I
I
to) adversely impact the receiving environment and its resident biota,
fl Applicants may also compare attributes of the proposed effluent and the
receiving environment with conditions near other outfalls that discharge
effluent of similar volume and composition and that are located in similar
receiving environments. [Experience with the 301{h) program has shown,
however, that such comparisons between discharges are rarely made. Large
differences usually exist in the characteristics of the receiving environment
or the volume and composition of the effluent discharged at the various
outfalls within a biogeographic region.]
I Finally, it may be possible to use models that describe cause-and-
effect relationships to predict the effects of the proposed improved
discharge. Although qualitative, the Pearson and Rosenberg (1978) model
that describes the effects of organic enrichnment on benthic communities
(Figure 1) has been used to predict the effects of proposed improved
discharges on the benthic biota. To date, the only quantitative model that
has been developed to describe the cause-and-effect relationship between
sewage discharges and a biological community relates the mass emission rate
of suspended solids to the biomass and.structure of benthic communities in
Jj the Southern California Bight (Mearns and Word 1982). (Similar models are
now being developed for use in Puget Sound, Washington and New Bedford
Harbor, Massachusetts.) Use of this model is limited to that biogeographic
region. However, similar models could be developed for other biogeographic
_ regions when sufficient data are available to adequately describe the
I responses of the resident biota to sewage effluent.
I 6. For altered discharge(s), will the altered discharge(s)
comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 125.61(a) through
125.61(d)? [40 CFR 125.61(e)]
Applicants requesting modifications for altered discharges may use
" predictive methods similar to those described for improved discharges.
(However, such applicants must demonstrate that the increased pollutant
loading that results from population growth and/or industrial growth within
the service area will still enable compliance with 40 CFR 125.61(a)-(d).
I
59
-------
I
These predictions of compliance with 301(h) criteria during the 5-yr permit
term may be technically difficult, and may require extensive analyses.
7. If your current discharge is to stressed waters, does or will
your current or modified discharge: [40 CFR 125.61(f)]
Contribute to, increase, or perpetuate such stressed
condition?
Contribute to further degradation of the biota or water
quality if the level of human perturbation from other
sources increases?
Retard the recovery of the biota or water quality if
human perturbation from other sources decreases?
Guidance for responding to this question is provided in Chapter III of
the Revised Section 301fh) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b}.
Note that under Section 303(e) of the Water Quality Act of 1987, applicants
with discharges into saline estuaries are prohibited from applying for a
Section 301(h) modified permit if the estuarine receiving waters are
stressed.
When it appears that an applicant's receiving waters are or may be
stressed, the Region may require that the applicant demonstrate the presence
or absence of stressed conditions. If stressed conditions exist,.the areal
extent and magnitude of those stresses should be documented. Because
stressed water determinations are largely based on biological conditions in
the receiving environment, applicants may be required by the Regions to
perform detailed biological surveys. Such surveys would be similar to those
required of large dischargers. Therefore, applicants required to perform
detailed biological surveys for the purpose of determining whether stressed
waters exist in the receiving environment should consult the guidance
provided under Question III.D.7 in Chapter III of the Revised Section 301fh)
Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b) (i.e., the Small Applicant
Questionnaire), Question III.D.8 in Chapter IV of the Revised Section 301(h)
Techincal Support Document (i.e., the Large Applicant Questionnaire), and
Question III.D.I (above). The Regions should notify applicants well in
60
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
advance of the application deadline if surveys of the biota are required to
determine whether stressed conditions exist in the receiving environment.
Moreover, the Regions should work closely with applicants during all phases
of the required studies to ensure the collection of adequate, high quality
data.
E. Impacts of Discharge on Recreational Activities
F40 CFR 125.61(d)1
1. Describe the existing or potential recreational activities
likely to be affected by the modified discharge(s) beyond the
zone of initial dilution.
Guidance for responding to this question is given in Chapter III of the
Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 19825}.
2. What are the existing and potential impacts of the modified
discharge(s) on recreational activities? Your answer should
include, but not be limited to, a discussion of fecal coliform
bacteria.
Guidance for responding to this question is given in Chapter III of the
Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b). Many
states have coliform bacteria standards applicable to nearshore areas.
Compliance with such standards may require calculations of the farfield
coliform bacteria concentration. Because the coliform bacteria concentration
decreases with increasing travel time, the receiving water conditions that
permit the shortest travel time from the diffuser to the regulated nearshore
area must be estimated. In many instances, the shortest travel time is
caused by onshore winds, which transport a surfacing wastefield toward shore
at speeds of roughly 0.03 times the surface wind speed (Shemdin 1973). The
coliform bacteria concentration at the nearshore area can then be computed by
dividing the effluent coliform bacteria concentration by the product of the
appropriate initial dilution, the farfield dilution factor [calculated using
the method of Brooks (1960)3, and the coliform bacteria dieoff factor due to
exposure to seawater (see Section III.B.4). Dieoff factors that implicitly
61
-------
include the effects of combined processes or dieoff due to exposure to
sunlight should not be used. The applicant should specify whether or not
the effluent is chlorinated, and, if so, specify both the dosage of chlorine
used and the effluent coliform bacteria concentration after chlorination.
3. Are there any Federal, State, or local restrictions on recrea-
tional activities in the vicinity of the modified dis-
charge(s)? If yes, describe the restrictions and provide
citations to available references.
Guidance for responding to this question is given in Chapter III of the
Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b).
4. If recreational restrictions exist, would such restrictions
be lifted or modified if you were discharging a secondary
treatment effluent?
Guidance for responding to this question is given in Chapter III of the
Revised Section 301(M Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b).
F. Establishment of a Monitoring Program T40 CFR 125.621
1 .
2. Describe the sampling techniques, schedules, and locations,
analytical techniques, quality control and verification
procedures to be used.
Guidance for responding to these questions is given in pe$iqn of 301(hi
Monitoring Programs for Municipal Mastewater Discharges to Marine Waters
(Tetra Tech 1982a) and in Chapter III of the Revised Section 301(hi Technical
Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b). Applicants are also referred to the
following documents for additional guidance on specific topics relevant to
the design and execution of 301(h) monitoring programs:
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Describe the biological , water quality, and effluent Monitoring ft
programs which you propose to meet the criteria of 40 CFR 125.62. *
I
I
I
62
I
I
I
-------
I
I
_ Tetra Tech (1986a) for information on positioning methods in
| nearshore marine and estuarine waters
I
1
I
I
I
I
Tetra Tech (1986c) for information on quality assurance/quality
control procedures for field and laboratory methods
Tetra Tech (1985a,b,c,d) for information on bioaccumulation
monitoring studies
Tetra Tech (1986b) for information on fish liver pathology
monitoring studies.
Although applicants should propose a complete, integrated monitoring
program in response to this question, the emphasis of the applicant's discussion
should be on any proposed changes to the existing monitoring program.
3. Describe the personnel and financial resources available to
implement the monitoring programs upon issuance of a modified
I
_ permit and to carry it out for the life of the modified permit.
Guidance for responding to this question is given in Chapter III of the
Revised Section 301 fh) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b) .
G. Effect of Discharge on Other Point and Nonooint Sources
f40 CFR 125.631
1. Does (will) your modified discharge(s) cause additional
treatment or control requirements for any other point or
nonpoint pollution source (s)?
I 2. Provide the determination required by 40 CFR 125.63(b) or. if
the determination has not yet been received, a copy of a
letter to the appropriate agency (s) requesting the required
determination.
I
I
-------
Guidance for responding to these questions is given in Chapter III of
the Revised Section 3Ql(h) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b).
H. Toxics Control Program F4Q CFR 125.641
i. Do you have any known or suspected Industrial sources of
toxic pollutants and pesticides?
2. Do you have an approved industrial pretreatment program?
3. Describe the public education program you propose to minimize
the entrance of nonindustrial toxic pollutants and pesticides
into your treatment system.
4. Are there any known or suspected water quality, sediment
accumulation, or biological problems related to toxic pollutants
or pesticides from your modified discharge(s)?
Guidance for responding to these questions is given in Chapter III of
the Revised Section 301fh) Technical Support Document (Tetra Tech 1982b).
The U.S. EPA marine water qualtiy criteria are listed in Table 1. When
demonstrating that regulated pollutant concentrations following initial
dilution satisfy state standards, the applicant should be careful that the
initial dilutions used are computed as allowed by the state. At least one
state, for example, requires that the initial dilution be computed with zero
current speed.
64
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF U.S. EPA MARINE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Pollutant
Acenaphthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitri le
Aldrin
Antimony
Arsenic
Pentavalent
Trivalent
Asbestos
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryl lium
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorinated benzenes
Chlorinated ethanes
Dichloroethane 1,2
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2
Trichloroethane 1,1,1
Chlorinated ethylenes
Dichloroethylenes
Tetrach 1 oroethy 1 ene
Trichloroetnylene
Acute
970a
55a
b
1.3C
d
2,319a
69d
b
5,100a
b
b
43d
50,000a
0.09C
160a
113fOOOa
940a
390a
9,020a
31,200a
224,QOOa
10,200d
2,000a
Concentrations (ua/L)
Chronic
710a
b
b
b
b
b
36e
b
700a
b
b
9.3*
b
0.004f
129a
b
b
281 a
b
b
224,000a
450J
References
(see below)
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldboak
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
65
-------
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Concentrations lua/L)
Pollutant
Chlorinated naphthalene
Chlorinated phenols
Chlorophenol 2
Chlorophenol 4
Pentachlorophenol (penta)
Tetrachlorophenol 2,3,5,6
Chlorine
Chloroalkyl ethers
Chloroform
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium
Hexavalent
Trivalent
Copper
Cyanide
DDT
DDT Metal bolites
ODD (TDE)
DDE
Oemeton
Dichlorobenzenes
Dichlorobenzidines
Dichlorophenol 2,4
Dichloropropanes
Dichloropropenes
Dieldrin
Dimethyl phenol 2,4
Acute
7.5a
29,700a
13d
440a
13d
b
b
0.011d
l,100d
10,300a
2.9d
1.0d
0.13C
3.6a
14a
b
l,970a
b
b
10,300a
790a
0.71C
b
66
Chronic
b
b
7'9h
b
7.5e
b
b
0.00566
50«
b
2.9e
1.0e
0.001f
b
b
0.1
b
b
b
3,040a
b
0.0019f
b
References
(see below)
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Update No. 2
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Update No. 2
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
^^f
1
I
m
1
1
1
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Concentrations (ua/L)
Pollutant
Dinitrotoluene
Diphenylhydrazine 1,2
Endosulfan
Endrin
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Guthion
Haloethers
Halomethanes
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH)
Lindane (gamma-HCH)
HCH (mixture of isomers)
Hexach 1 orocyc 1 opentad i ene
Isophorone
Lead
Malathion
Mercury
Methoxychlon
Mi rex
Naphthalene
Nickel
Nitrobenzene
Acute
590a
b
0.034C
0.037C
430a
40a
b
b
12,000a
0.053C
32a
0.16C
0.34a
7.0a
12,900a
140d
b
2.1d
b
b
2,350a
75C
6,680a
Chronic
370a
b
0.0087f
0,0023f
a
16a
0.01
b
6,400a
0.0036f
b
b
b
b
b
5.6e
0.1
0.0256
0.03
0.001
b
8.3f
b
References
(see below)
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Update No. 2
Goldbook
67
-------
TABLE 1. (Continued)
Concentrations (ua/L)
Pollutant
Nitrophenols
Nitrosamines 3
Parathion
Phenol
Phosphorous (elemental)
Phthalate esters
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons
Selenium (inorganic selenite)
Silver
Sulfur (hydrogen sulfide, HgS)
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene
Vinyl chloride
Zinc
a Data insufficient to derive
Acute
4,850a
,300(000a
b
5,800a
b
2,944a
10a
300a
410C
2.3C
b
2,130a
6,300a
0.21d
b
95d
criteria,
observed effect level (LOEL) . These
threshold levels for acute and/or chronic
convey information about the
absence of established criteria.
l\
degree of
i
Chronic
b
b
b
b
0.1
3.4a
0.03f
b
54f
b
2f
b
5,000a
0.0002e
b
86e
Value presented
References
(see below)
Goldbook
Goldbook
Update No. 2
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Goldbook
Update No. 2
Goldbook
Update No. 2
is the lowest
concentrations represent apparent
toxic affects, and are intended to
toxicity of a pollutant in the
D Criterion has not been established for marine water quality.
c Not to be exceeded at any time.
d Maximum 1-h average. Not to
average.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
OT
1
be exceeded more than once every 3 yr on the
68
1
-------
I
TABLE 1. (Continued)
I
e Maximum 96-h (4 day) average. Not to be exceeded more than once every
I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T Maximum 24-h average. Not to be exceeded more than once every 3 yr.
References: Goldbook=U.S. EPA 1986; Update No. 2-U.S. EPA 1987.
69
-------
I
EVALUATIONS OF COMPLIANCE BY U.S. EPA
DETERMINATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 301(h) MODIFIED PERMIT CONDITIONS
POTWs holding Section 301(h) modified permits must comply with Section
301(h) criteria and regulations, applicable state water quality standards
and regulations, and federal water quality criteria (U.S. EPA 1986a).
Conditions specified in Section 301(h) modified permits are designed primarily
to ensure compliance with Section 301(h) criteria and regulations, and
applicable state water quality standards and regulations. They may not have
been designed to meet federal water quality criteria because compliance with
those criteria was mandated only recently in the Water Quality Act of 1987
[see Subsection 303(d)(l) of the Water Quality Act of 1987 and the discussion
given under Questions II.D.1-II.D.4 of the Small Applicant Questionnaire
(above) for further information on these water quality criteria]. It is
anticipated, however, that most small dischargers holding Section 301(h)B
modified permits will meet the newly mandated federal water quality criteria
because they discharge little or no industrial influent. One exception^
would be in those few cases where small dischargers receive a substantial^
proportion of their influent from industrial sources. In those cases,m
conditions specified in the existing Section 301(h) modified permits may now
be adequate to meet federal water quality criteria.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following discussion presents general guidance for assessing whether
a permittee's demonstration of compliance with the conditions specified ifl
the Section 301(h) modified permit is reasonable. As discussed under Questions
II.D.l-II.0.4 of the Small Applicant Questionnaire (above), the newly mandate*
federal water quality criteria place additional requirements on all SectioP
301(h) dischargers. These federal water quality criteria expand the sco?
of the water quality demonstrations that must be made by each Section 301(fr
discharger to include more variables, but do not create a fundamental!
different, or new, class of criteria or requirements that must be me^
Therefore, the general guidance provided below is also relevant to determinations
I
70
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of compliance with the newly mandated federal water quality criteria that
will be performed by the Regions.
The first step in evaluating a permittee's demonstration of compliance
with applicable criteria and regulations, or in determining compliance with
criteria and regulations when monitoring data are examined by the Regions, is
to compare the data that were submitted by the permittee with the data that
were required to be collected under the conditions of the existing Section
301{h) modified permit. The following two key questions should be addressed:
Were all physical, chemical, and biological variables required
by the Section 301(h) modified permit measured?
Was each required variable measured at the specified locations
and at the specified frequency required by the Section 301(h)
modified permit?
If either question cannot be answered in the affirmative, the applicant
should be considered not to have complied with the terms of the existing
Section 301(h) modified permit.
In cases of apparent noncompliance, the Regions have the option of
denying the application for reissuance of the modified permit without .further
examination of the monitoring data. However, the Regions are strongly
advised to ask the applicant (if no explanation of the apparent deficiencies
was previously made by the applicant) the reasons for the apparent noncom-
pliance. Unforeseen events or conditions beyond the control of the applicant
may have been responsible for failures to execute the conditions of the
modified permit.
Having received all the appropriate data from the applicant, the Region's
second step in assessing the applicant's demonstration of compliance, or in
examining the data submitted by the applicant to arrive at a tentative
decision regarding permit reissuance, is to evaluate the technical merit and
(as warranted) the applicant's interpretation of those data. Three major
issues should be addressed during that evaluation:
71
-------
Data quality
Execution of the analyses
Interpretation of the analytical results.
Successful demonstrations of compliance should provide sufficient information
for the Region to document that data quality is high, analyses were properly
executed, and the applicant's interpretation of the analytical results is
reasonable.
To determine whether the applicant's data were collected properly, the
Regions are referred to guidance given in Tetra Tech (1982a,b; 1986c) and
under the appropriate questions in the Small Applicant Questionnaire (especial ly
Questions III.F.1-III.F.2). Of critical importance to the collection of
data on any variable is whether appropriate field and laboratory methods
were used to collect the data, and whether appropriate quality assurance/quality
control procedures were followed. Data are of little value if they were
collected using inappropriate methods, or if the collection process was so
poorly executed that their accuracy is in doubt.
As is true for data collection methods, data analysis methods vary
greatly among the various types of physical, chemical, and biological variables.
Again, the Regions are referred to the aforementioned documents. The following
general questions should be addressed during the evaluation of the data
analyses:
Have appropriate units been used for each variable?
Are the analytical methods appropriate for the type of data
being analyzed?
Do the mathematical or graphical analyses illustrate what is
being discussed in the text of the application?
7Z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Are calculations correct, and have data points been plotted
correctly?
Provided that the foregoing questions {and other questions related to data
analysis that may be relevant in specific instances) are answered in the
affirmative, the Region should determine whether the applicant's data and the
results of analyses of those data support the applicant's conclusions. If
the Region determines otherwise, alternative conclusions must be developed
by the Region for use in determining whether the applicant's existing or
proposed discharge contributes to adverse impacts on the receiving environment
or biota.
DETERMINATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH 301(h) CRITERIA
When the permittee's monitoring data indicate that impacts to water
quality, sediment quality, or biota are occurring as a result of the permittee's
discharge, it will be necessary for the Regions to determine whether such
impacts are adverse. (Impacts are considered herein to be any changes in
the receiving environment or biota that are directly attributable to the
applicant's discharge of sewage effluent.) Determinations of adverse impacts
are reasonably straightforward for many physical and chemical criteria
(e.g., dissolved oxygen concentrations, concentrations of toxic substances
in the water column after initial dilution) because such criteria are quanti-
tative, and because determinations of compliance rely primarily on the
results of well-documented mathematical calculations. Providing that the
physical and chemical data were properly collected and analyzed, the resultant
values for each physical and chemical variable need only be compared with
applicable Section 301(h) criteria, state standards, and federal water
quality criteria (as appropriate). Results of those comparisons can be used
to determine whether an adverse impact is occurring that would result in the
applicant not meeting Section 301(h) criteria.
When the values of one or more physical or chemical variables con-
sistently fall outside the ranges specified by the foregoing criteria, the
discharge can be inferred (by definition) to be causing adverse impacts to
the physical or chemical characteristics of the receiving environment,
73
-------
thereby resulting in noncompliance with Section 301(h) criteria. In those
cases, the Regions have the option of denying the request for reissuance of
the Section 301(h) modified permit, or requesting that the applicant make
improvements to the outfall or treatment system such that compliance with
appl icable criteria is assured. In most cases, appl icants proposing improvements
will be required to predict the values of the previously noncompliant variables
following implementation of the proposed improvements.
Determinations of the presence or absence of adverse environmental
impacts that result in noncompliance with Section 301(h) criteria are more
difficult for biological criteria because adverse impacts are not defined
quantitatively. Some extreme adverse impacts may be assessed more easily
because they are defined specifically in the 301(h) regulations, and because
they are endpoints in a spectrum of possible biological conditions that may
result from the discharge of sewage effluent. For example, the 301(h)
regulations state that conditions within the ZID must not contribute to
extremely adverse biological impacts, including the following conditions:
Destruction of distinctive habitats of limited distribution
Presence of disease epicenters
Stimulation of phytoplankton blooms that have adverse impacts
beyond the ZID
Conditions that result in mass mortalities of fish and inver-
tebrates.
The Regions should deny applications for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified
permits where such impacts have been demonstrated to occur over the life of
the existing permit, or are expected to occur over the life of the reissued
permit. The Regions may consider applications that propose improvements to
eliminate any of the foregoing adverse impacts. But because all of these
impacts are considered extremely adverse, it would be difficult to demonstrate
that a balanced indigenous population will become reestablished following
improvements to the treatment plant or outfall.
74
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Many biological impact assessments that are required under the 301(h)
regulations necessitate determinations of degrees of impact relative to
unstressed conditions, and subsequent judgments as to whether the documented
changes are in compliance with 301(h) criteria. These assessments rely
largely on comparisons of biological conditions between reference areas and
potentially impacted areas to determine the locations of the changes along
theoretically or empirically derived gradients of impacts. Quantitative
comparisons between reference and potentially impacted areas may be made
using various types of biological data [e.g., numbers of individuals per
unit area, values of the Infaunal Index (Word 1978, 1980)] and various
analytical tools (e.g., normal classification analysis), as discussed under
Question III.D.I (above). However, no quantitative biological criteria have
been established by which the results of these analyses may be judged.
Therefore, determinations of whether changes in, or differences among,
biological communities constitute noncompliance with Section 301(h) criteria
require careful consideration of the types of responses that are manifested
by the pollutant stress, as well as their spatial extents and magnitudes.
Three approaches have been used in the 301 (h) program to determine
whether a specified degree of change in the biota (and associated receiving
environment) should be considered to be in compliance with 301(h) criteria.
The first is to determine whether the observed change represents a reduction
in the areal extent or health of a community or ecosystem. This approach has
most often been used in cases where the major taxa that characterize the
community greatly modify the environment, thereby creating habitat for other
species. Examples primarily include distinctive habitats of limited distribution
such as kelp communities, coral reefs, and seagrass beds. Because most of
the taxa in these communities are highly dependent on the major taxa that
characterize the community (and create habitat niches), the loss of those
major taxa due to pollutant impacts results in destruction of the community.
Unlike some other communities (such as benthic infauna), one assemblage of
organisms is not replaced by another in which the species belong to the
same, or similar, major taxononric groups, and in which the new taxa are able
to tolerate, and in many cases thrive, in the modified environment. Clearly,
in cases where a community or ecosystem is highly dependent on a limited
75
-------
number of major taxa to provide habitat for a wide variety of dependent
species, any loss or decline in the health of those major taxa is an adverse
impact, and is therefore not in compliance with 301(h) criteria.
In communities where pollutant impacts result in changes in species
composition and abundance, but not in the destruction of the habitat, it is
more difficult to determine whether such changes constitute noncompliance
with Section 301(h) criteria. However, two approaches to the problem have
been used in the past in the 301 (h) program. The first is based on the
assumption that a major change in the function of a community (e.g., benthic
infauna, demersal fishes) constitutes noncompliance with Section 301(h)
criteria because it affects, or has the potential to affect, all of the
major elements of the ecosystem. The second is a corollary of the first.
It assumes that a major change in the structure (i.e., species composition
and abundance) of a community constitutes noncompliance with Section 301(h)
criteria because a change in the function of that community has occurred,
regardless of whether a change in function can be demonstrated. Because a
change in the structure of a community is usually much easier to document
than is a change in the function of a community, the second approach has
been used most commonly in the 301(h) program.
Benthic infauna are used in the following example to demonstrate how
the functional and structural approaches may be implemented. The generalized
model developed by Pearson and Rosenberg (1978) for changes in benthic
communities along a gradient of organic enrichment (see Figure 1) has been used
extensively in the 301(h) program, and has been successfully applied to a
variety of soft-bottom benthic communities in temperate and tropical latitudes.
At low to moderate levels of organic enrichment (i.e., the "transition zone"
in Figure 1), biomass increases moderately and numbers of species increase
slightly. Abundances do not increase greatly until the "ecotone point" is
approached. In the "transition zone," there is simply an enhancement of the
community that is typical of the biogeographic region, with the addition of
a few new species. There are no major functional or structural changes.
Providing that there are no major problems with other aspects of the benthic
infauna (e.g., bioaccumulation of toxic substances), the impact to benthic
76
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I infauna may not be considered to be out of compliance with Section 301(h)
/**"» ^ ^ «»< ^ ^
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
criteria.
At ana beyond the "peak of opportunists" as shown in Figure 1, Pearson
and Rosenberg (1978) document that species composition and abundance of the
benthic infauna change substantially. The fauna becomes dominated by a few
opportunistic or pollution-tolerant species whose abundances increase dramat-
ically in response to increased organic loading. Most of these species are
surface or subsurface deposit feeders. Suspension feeders and surface
detrital feeders typically decrease in abundance, or are eliminated. Hence,
the structure (i.e., species composition and abundance) and function (i.e.,
trophic relationships) of the benthic infauna are altered substantially.
In most cases, information is not available to demonstrate that major
changes in the structure and function of a particular benthic community
affect other biological communities (e.g., demersal fishes). However, many
cases of prey specificity by demersal fishes and large epibenthic invert-
ebrates that prey on benthic infauna have been recorded in the scientific
literature. Hence, there is a sound scientific basis for assuming that
major changes in the structure and function of benthic communities as a
result of organic enrichment can induce changes in the species composition
and abundance of predators on infauna, most of which are demersal fishes and
large epibenthic invertebrates. Therefore, major changes in the structure
and function of the benthic infaunal community have often been considered to
constitute noncompliance with Section 301(h) criteria.
Decisions regarding adverse impacts should be based on the results of
the biological demonstrations required of the applicant in the various parts
of the Small Applicant Questionnaire. Those biological demonstrations
should include monitoring data collected over the term of the existing
modified permit. The Regions are referred to discussions under relevant
questions in the Small Applicant Questionnaire (above) for guidance on data
analysis and interpretation.
If a Region decides that an existing discharge may be causing an adverse
impact to the biota, or that the proposed discharge will likely cause an
77
-------
adverse impact to the biota, that Region should require that applicant to
perform detailed biological demonstrations in support of the application.
The required demonstrations may be from either the Small Applicant Quest-
ionnaire or the Large Applicant Questionnaire, as is deemed necessary by the
Region. Such demonstrations would most likely be required in cases where
possible adverse impacts would result in noncompliance with Section 301{h)
criteria, such as adverse impacts to distinctive habitats of limited dis-
tribution, discharges into estuarine waters, and discharges into stressed
waters. It is important that the Region work closely with the applicant
over the term of the existing permit, so that possible adverse impacts or
conditions that would result in noncompliance with Section 301(h) criteria are
identified well in advance of the application deadline. Early notification
of potential adverse impacts will ensure that the applicant has sufficient
time to design and execute appropriate studies. The Region should also work
closely with the applicant during all phases of survey design and execution
to ensure the collection of adequate, high quality data.
EVALUATIONS OF PREDICTED CONDITIONS AND PREDICTED CONTINUED COMPLIANCE
POTWS were allowed to apply for first-time Section 301(h) modified
permits based on current, improved, or altered discharges. A current discharge
is defined in 40 CFR 125 Subpart G, as a discharge that has a similar volume,
composition, and location to that discharged any time between 27 December
1977 and 29 December 1982, as specified by the applicant. An improved
discharge may include planned improvements in the outfall, the level of
treatment, discharge characteristics, operation and maintenance, or controls
on the introduction of pollutants into the treatment system. An altered
discharge is defined as any discharge other than a current discharge or an
improved discharge as defined in 40 CFR 125.58.
For improved and altered discharges, applicants were required to predict
conditions that would occur in the receiving environment following implementation
of the proposed improvements or alterations. Section 301(h) modified permits
were issued upon a satisfactory demonstration that the predicted conditions
were reasonable and would satisfy Section 301(h) criteria and regulations.
For dischargers whose original Section 301(h) modified permit was issued
78
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
based in part on predictions of conditions that would occur after proposed
improvements or alterations were implemented, it is necessary to evaluate
whether the predicted conditions have been realized. Because the Regions
should receive monitoring data collected during the term of the existing
permit in support of the application for permit reissuance, evaluations of
the applicant's original predictions of compliance is not unlike other
determinations of compliance. Therefore, the Regions should conduct those
evaluations as discussed above in the two previous sections of this chapter,
entitled "Determinations of Compliance with Section 301(h) Modified Permit
Conditions" and "Determinations of Adverse Impacts."
As was permitted for original Section 301(h) applications, applications
for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits may propose improved
levels of sewage treatment, either in response to comments by the U.S. EPA,
or at the permittee's initiative. Applications for permit reissuance that
are based on altered discharges are also permitted when downgrading of
effluent quality is attributable entirely to population growth or industrial
growth within the service area. Proposals for improved and altered discharges
mandate that the permittee predict the physical, chemical, and biological
conditions that will occur in the receiving environment. In such cases [as
in the original Section 301(h) applications], it will be necessary for the
Regions to evaluate whether the permittee's predictions are reasonable, and
whether the predicted conditions would satisfy Section 301(h) criteria and
regulations.
Evaluations of applicant's predictions should include the following
assessments:
Appropriateness of the models used to generate the predictions
Data quality
Execution of the analyses
Interpretation of the analytical results.
79
-------
It is essential that the applicant conduct each of these steps in the predictive
process properly. Otherwise, the validity of the results and compliance
with applicable regulations and criteria are suspect.
To predict conditions that will occur as a result of a proposed discharge,
applicants may compare attributes of the proposed discharge (e.g., volume
and composition) and receiving environment with conditions near other outfalls
that discharge effluent of similar volume and composition and in similar
receiving environments. The validity of such comparisons rests on the
similarity of the discharges and the similarity of the receiving environ-
ments. Substantial differences in the volumes of the two discharges or the
mass emission rates of pollutants from the two discharges would render such
comparisons questionable, especially for biological variables. For physical
and chemical variables, it might be possible to compensate mathematically
for such differences. However, biological responses to pollutants cannot be
assumed to be linear. Therefore, the validity of predictions involving
comparisons between substantially different discharges are very tenuous
unless the response patterns of the biota within the biogeographic region
are we!1 known.
Similarity of the receiving environments is also critical to such
comparisons. It is important that both discharges be located within the same
biogeographic zone because responses to pollutants vary among species.
Species in one biogeographic zone may respond somewhat differently to a
given pollutant than do species in another biogeographic zone. For that
reason, it may be possible to predict the general types of changes that may
occur as a result of the proposed discharge, but it will not generally be
possible to predict accurately the areal extent or magnitude of such changes.
It is also important that the physical and chemical characteristics of both
receiving environments be similar. For example, discharges into open coastal
areas should not be compared with discharges in embayments. The more similar
the two receiving environments are to each other, the more reliable the
applicant's predictions may be assumed to be.
Applicants may also use models that describe cause-and-effect rela-
tionships to predict impacts of the proposed discharge. Such models would be
80
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
especially helpful for physical and chemical variables (e.g., deposition of
suspended solids in the receiving environment, concentrations of toxic
substances at the ZID boundary). The appropriateness of such models should
be judged on their prior use in the 301(h) program, their acceptance or
recommendation by the U.S. EPA, and their acceptance by the scientific
community. Models that have not been evaluated previously or that have not
been received favorably should be avoided.
Having determined that the applicant used appropriate models to predict
conditions in the receiving environment and biota, the Region should address
the issues of data quality, execution of analyses, and interpretation of
analytical results. These issues should be addressed in a manner similar to
that described above for determining compliance with Section 301(h) modified
permit conditions.
81
-------
REISSUANCE OR TERMINATION OF SECTION 301(h) MODIFIED PERMITS
As stated in 40 CFR 125.59(g)(6), Section 301(h) modified permits "may
be renewed under the applicable procedures of 40 CFR Part 124." Relevant
subparts are 40 CFR 124 Subparts A (General Program Requirements) and D
(Specific Procedures Applicable to NPDES Permits). These subparts provide
an outline of the mechanics of the permit decision-making process, including
review of applications for completeness, conditions for permit reissuance
and termination, and special procedures applicable to Section 301(h) modified
permits. Important sections of these subparts are discussed briefly below.
In addition, 40 CFR Part 124 provides procedures for public notifica-
tion, public hearings, the issuance of draft permits, and keeping of the
administrative record (Subparts A and D); procedures governing evidentiary
hearings for U.S. EPA-issued NPDES permits (Subpart E); and procedures
governing nonadversary panel hearings (Subpart F). These procedures are not
discussed below as they are beyond the scope of this document.
PROCEDURES FOR REGULATORY ACTION
Part 124 contains U.S. EPA procedures for issuing, modifying, revoking
and reissuing, and terminating all NPDES permits. Other types of permits
are also included. Regulatory terms used in Part 124 are defined in Section
124.2. All definitions in this subsection remain applicable to applicants
for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits.
Subpart D of 40 CFR 124 establishes decision-making procedures that are
specific to NPDES permits. All tentative decision documents for 301(h)
permit renewals must be signed by the appropriate Regional Administrator. A
tentative decision document may go to the checklist procedure recommended
for original 301(h) decisions, or may simply be represented by a cover sheet
referencing the fact sheet and draft permit.
82
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Special procedures relevant to applications for Section 301(h) modified
pern-its are set forth in Section 124.65. These procedures were also applicable
to original Section 301(h) applications, and remain applicable to applications
for reissuance of Section 301(h) modified permits. When an applicant fails
to meet Section 301(h) requirements, the Region must deny the request.
Information collected during monitoring studies and other studies conducted
during the term of the existing Section 301(h) modified permit will be
critical to this determination. According to 40 CFR 124.65(d), the U.S.
EPA may not issue a Section 301(h) modified permit unless the state has
concurred or waived concurrence. It also specifies actions that may be
taken by the State Director in states with approved NPDES permit programs
(discussed earlier).
REGULATORY OPTIONS
Depending on the Region's decision regarding reissuance of a Section
301(h) modified permit, the applicant's permit may be reissued with changes,
reissued without changes, or terminated. Administrative procedures that
should be followed by the Regions when permits are reissued or terminated
are set forth in Section 124.5, and are not discussed herein. However, the
conditions under which each of these two regulatory options apply are relevant
to the decision-making process. These conditions, set forth in 40 CFR
122.62-122.64, are discussed below.
Section 301(h) modified permits may be terminated during the term of
the permit, or may be denied during the permit reissuance process for the
following reasons, which are set forth in Section 122.64:
Noncompliance with the conditions of the modified permit
Failure to provide all relevant information or misrepresentation
of relevant information
A determination that the modified discharge endangers human
health or the environment, and that such adverse impacts can
83
-------
be reduced to acceptable levels through permit modification
or termination
Any condition that results in a temporary or permanent cessation
of the discharge, such as the consolidation of two POTWs that
results in elimination of the permittee's discharge.
All terminations of permits must be made in accordance with procedures
specified in 40 CFR Part 124.
When it is evident for reasons specified in Section 122.64 that termination
of a Section 301(h) modified permit is warranted, the Regions may terminate
the Section 301(h) modified permit under applicable procedures of 40 CFR
Part 124. Section 301 (h) modified permits may be reissued under the provisions
of Subsection 122.62(b). Because no specific guidance is given as to which
of these two regulatory options is appropriate under different conditions,
the Regions have considerable discretionary authority over the reissuance or
termination of a Section 301 (h) modified permit that has not been in compliance
with all of the 301(h) regulations. Ln cases where it does not appear that
the applicant will be able to satisfy the conditions of the 301(h) regulations
while holding a Section 301(h) modified permit, the modified permit should
be terminated or allowed to expire without reissuance. However, in cases
where conditions of the permit may be adjusted to achieve compliance with
the 301(h) regulations, the Region may modify the permit with different
permit specifications, as necessary. Effective adjustments of the permit
conditions will require careful examination of all available data and accurate
predictions of the conditions that will result as a consequence of those ad-
justments.
84
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
-------
REFERENCES
Bloom, S.A. 1981. Similarity indices in community studies: potential
pitfalls. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 5:125-128.
Boesch, D.F. 1977. Application of numerical classification in ecological
investigations of water pollution. EPA-600/3-77-033. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR. 115 pp.
Brooks, N.H. 1960. Diffusion of sewage effluent in an ocean current, pp.
246-267. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Waste
Disposal in the Marine Environment, University of California, Berkeley, CA,
July 1959. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY.
Fischer, H.B., E.J. List, R.C.Y, Koh, J. Imberger, and N.H. Brooks. 1979.
Mixing in inland and coastal waters. Academic Press, New York, NY. 483 pp.
Gameson, A.L.M., and D.J. Gould. 1975. Effects of solar radiation on the
mortality of some terrestrial bacteria in seawater. pp. 209-219. In:
Discharge of Sewage from Sea Outfalls. Proceedings of an International
Symposium held at Church House, London, 27 August to 2 September 1984.
A.L.M. Gameson (ed). Pergammon Press, Oxford, UK.
Gauch, H.G. 1982. Multivariate analysis in community ecology. Cambridge
Studies in Ecology: 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 298 pp.
Grace, R. 1978. Marine outfall systems planning, design, and construction.
Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 600 pp.
Green, R.H. 1979. Sampling design and statistical methods for environmental
biologists. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 257 pp.
Hruby, T. 1987. Using similarity measures in benthic impact assessments.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 8:163-180.
Koh, R.C.Y. 1973. Hydraulic test of discharge ports. Technical Memorandum
73-4. California Institute of Technology, W.M. Keck Laboratory of Hydraulics
and Water Resources, Pasadena, CA.
Mearns, A.J., and J.Q. Word. 1982. Forecasting effects of sewage solids on
marine benthic communities, pp. 495-512. In: Ecological Stress and the New
York Bight: Science and Management. G.F. Mayer (ed). Estuarine Research
Foundation, Columbia, SC.
Muellenhoff, W.P., A.M. Soldate, Jr., D.J. Baumgartner, M.D. Schuldt, L.R.
Davis, and W.E. Frick. 1985a. Initial mixing characteristics of municipal
ocean discharges. Volume I - procedures and applications. EPA-600/3-85-
073a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI. 90 pp.
85
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Muellenhoff, W.P., A.M. Soldate, Jr., D.J. Baumgartner, M.D. Schuldt, L.R.
Davis, and W.E. Prick. 1985b. Initial mixing characteristics of municipal
ocean discharges. Volume II - computer programs. EPA-600/3-85-073b. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, RI. 100 pp.
Pastorok, R.A., and G.R. Bilyard. 1985. Effects of sewage pollution on
coral-reef communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 21:175-189.
Pearson, T.H., and R. Rosenberg. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation
to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr.
Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 16:229-311.
Pielou, E.G. 1984. The interpretation of ecological data - a primer on
classification and ordination. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. 263 pp.
Romesburg, H.C. 1984. Cluster analysis for researchers. Lifetime Learning
Publications, Belmont, CA. 334 pp.
Shemdin, O.K. 1973. Modeling of wind induced current. J. Hydraulic Res.
11:281-296.
Shepard, P.P. 1954. Nomenclature based on sand-silt-clay ratios. J.
Sediment. Petrol. 24:151-158.
Shepard, P.P. 1963. Submarine geology. Second Edition. Harper and Row, New
York, NY. 557 pp.
Sokal, R.R., and P.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. Second Edition. W.H.
Preeman & Co., San Prancisco, CA. 859 pp.
Tetra Tech. 1982a. Design of 301(h) monitoring programs for municipal
wastewater discharges to marine waters. EPA-430/9-82-010. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 135 pp.
Tetra Tech. 1982b. Revised Section 301(h) technical support document.
EPA-430/9-82-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Tetra Tech. 1985a. Bi©accumulation monitoring guidance: 1. estimating the
potential for bioaccumulation of priority pollutants and 301(h) pesticides
discharged into marine and estuarine waters. Final report prepared for
Marine Operations Division, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6938. Tetra Tech,
Inc., Bellevue, WA. 69 pp.
Tetra Tech. 1985b. Bioaccumulation monitoring guidance: 2. selection of
target species and review of available bioaccumulation data. Final report
prepared for Marine Operations Division, Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-01-
6938. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 52 pp.
86
-------
Tetra Tech. 1985c. Bioaccumulation monitoring guidance: 3. recommended
analytical detection limits. Final report prepared for Marine Operations
Division, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6938. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue,
WA. 23 pp.
Tetra Tech. 1985d. Bioaccumulation monitoring guidance: 4, analytical
methods for U.S. EPA priority pollutants and 301(h) pesticides in tissues
from estuarine and marine organisms. Final report prepared for Marine
Operations Division, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6938. Tetra Tech, Inc.,
Bellevue, WA.
Tetra Tech. 1985e. Recommended biological indices for 301(h) monitoring
programs. Final report prepared for Marine Operations Division, Office of
Marine and Estuarine Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA
Contract No. 68-01-6938. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 17 pp.
Tetra Tech. 1986a. Evaluation of survey positioning methods for nearshore
and estuarine waters. Final report prepared for Marine Operations Division,
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6938. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
54 pp. + appendices.
Tetra Tech. 1986b. Guidance for conducting fish liver pathology studies
during 301(h) monitoring. Final report prepared for Marine Operations
Division, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6938. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue,
WA. 130 pp. + appendix.
Tetra Tech. 1986c. Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures
for 301(h) monitoring programs: guidance on field and laboratory methods.
Final report prepared for Marine Operations Division, Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Contract
No. 68-01-6938. Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. 267 pp. + appendices.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 256 pp.
1976. Quality criteria for water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Water quality criteria
documents; availability. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Federal Register, Vol.
45, No. 231. pp. 79318-79379.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Modifications of secondary
treatment requirements for discharges into marine waters; final rule. U.S.
EPA, Washington, DC. Federal Register Vol. 47, No. 228. pp. 53666-53684.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985a. Methods for measuring the
acute toxicity of effluents to freshwater and marine organisms. Third
Edition. EPA-600/4-85-013. U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. 216 pp.
87
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985b. Water quality criteria;
availability of documents. U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. Federal Register,
Vol. 50, No. 145. pp. 30784-30796.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986a. Quality criteria for water-
1986. EPA 440/5-86-001. U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Stan-
dards, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986b. Training manual for NPDES
permit writers. U.S. EPA, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Washing-
ton, DC. 98 pp. + appendices.
U.S, Environmental Protection Agency. 1986c. Update No. 1 to quality
criteria for water - 1986. U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, DC. (2 September 1986).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Update No. 2 to quality
criteria for water - 1986. U.S. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, DC. (1 May 1987).
Winer, B.J. 1971. Statistical principles in experimental design. Second
Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY. 907 pp.
Word, J.Q. 1978. The infaunal trophic index, pp. 19-39. In: Coastal
Water Research Project Annual Report. SCCWRP, El Segundo, CA.
Word, J.Q. 1980. Classification of benthic invertebrates into infaunal
trophic index feeding groups, pp. 103-121. In: Coastal Water Research
Project, Biennial Report for the years 1979-1980, W. Bascom (ed). SCCWRP,
Long Beach, CA.
Zar, J.H. 1974. Biostatistical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ. 620 pp.
88
-------
------- |