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

-------

-------