t
 ^
                                       APPENDIX 8

                                WATER  QUALITY ASSESSMENT
       §                           HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
       ~                           ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
       -                           WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460

-------

-------
                                             CONTENTS
                                                                                    Page
            LIST  OF  FIGURES                                                          111
            LIST  OF  TABLES                                                            iv
        .    INTRODUCTION                                                             B-l
            B-I.   SUSPENDED  SOLIDS  DEPOSITION .                                       B-2
                 SMALL  DISCHARGER APPROACH                                           B-2
                 LARGE  DISCHARGER APPROACH                                           B-6
            B-II.  DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION  FOLLOWING  INITIAL  DILUTION        B-15
            B-III.   FARFIELD DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEPRESSION                            B-23
                 SIMPLIFIED  MATHEMATICAL MODELS                                     B-25
                 NUMERICAL MODELS                                                  B-35
                 EVALUATION  OF  FIELD DATA                     -                     B-36
            B-IV.  SEDIMENT  OXYGEN  DEMAND                                          B-38
            B-V.   SUSPENDED  SOLIDS  CONCENTRATION FOLLOWING  INITIAL DILUTION         B-44
.           B-VI.  EFFLUENT  pH  AFTER INITIAL DILUTION    "                          B-48
            B-VII.   LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE                                            B-53
            B-VIII.   OTHER WATER QUALITY VARIABLES                                 B-61
                 TOTAL  DISSOLVED GASES                                             B-61
                 CHLORINE RESIDUAL                                                  B-61
                 NUTRIENTS                          -                                B-62
 *                COLIFORM BACTERIA                                                  B-64.
            REFERENCES                                                              B-68
                                               B-ii

-------

-------
j
a
                                               FIGURES
            Number                                                                   Page

              B-l   Projected relationships between  suspended solids mass
                    emission, plume height-of-rise,  sediment accumulation,
                    and dissolved oxygen depression  for open coastal areas           B-3

              B-2   Projected relationships between  suspended solids mass
                    emission, plume height-of-rise,  sediment accumulation,
                    and dissolved oxygen depression, for semi-enclosed
                    embayments  and estuaries                                         B-5

              B-3   Example of  predicted steady-state  sediment  accumulation
                    around a marine outfall                                         6-10

              B-4   Dissolved oxygen deficit vs.  travel time for  a  submerged
                    wastefield                                                      8-28

              B-5   Farfield dilution  as a function  of 12€0t/B2                    B-33
                                                B-iii

-------

-------
                                 . TABLES
Number                                                                  Page
  B-l   Example tabulations of settleable organic component by
        group and maximum settling distance by group                   8-12
  B-2   Example tabulations of deposition rates and accumulation
        rates by contour                                               B-13
  B-3   Typical IDOD values    .                                        B-l7
  B-4   Dissolved oxygen saturation values                             B-21
  B-5   Subsequent dilutions for various Initial field widths and
        travel times                                                   B-41
  B-6   Selected background suspended solids concentrations            B-46
  B-7   Calculated values for the critical effluent Secchi depth (cm)
        for selected ambient Secchi depths, initial dilutions, and a
        water quality standard for minimum Secchi disc visibility of
        1 m                                                            8-58
                                    B-iv

-------

-------
                                INTRODUCTION
     This  appendix  provides  detailed  guidance,  for  responding  to  water
quality-related  questions  in  the  Application Questionnaire.   Methods  for
predicting values of the following water quality variables are presented:
          Suspended solids deposition


          Dissolved^oxygen concentration following initial dilution


          Farfield dissolved oxygen depression


          Sediment oxygen demand

                         •*              i        .
          Suspended solids concentration following initial dilution


          Effluent pH after initial dilution
              "            *                            *" • j
              » •  r              '    .
          Light transnrittance

                *             "           .1
          Other/water quality variables.
                                    B-l

-------
                     B-I.  SUSPENDED SOLIDS DEPOSITION
     The applicant must predict the seabed accumulation due to the discharge
of suspended  solids into the  receiving  water.   Two  prediction  methods are
described  in  this  appendix.  The first  is  a simplified approach  for small
dischargers only.   If this method  is  applicable,  then a  small  discharger
need not perform dissolved oxygen calculations dependent on settled effluent
suspended  solids  accumulations.   The second prediction method is applicable
for both small and  large dischargers.

SMALL DISCHARGER APPROACH

     Two  types  of  problems  (dissolved oxygen  depletion  and  biological
effects) and  two types  of receiving water environments (open  coastal  and
semi-enclosed bays  or estuaries) are considered in the following approach.

     Figure 8-1  is to be  used  for open coastal  areas that  are  generally
considered well flushed.  The  dashed line represents  combinations  of solids
mass emission rates and plume heights-of-rise that would result in a steady-
state sediment  accumulation of 50  g/m?.   Review of  data  from several  open
coast discharges  has  indicated  that  biological  effects  are minimal  when
accumulation rates  were estimated to be  below this  level.   Consequently, if
the applicant's mass emission rate and height-of-rise fall  below this dashed
line no further sediment accumulation analyses are needed.   Applicants whose
charge characteristics fall above the line should conduct a  more detailed
analysis of sediment accumulation discussed in the following section.

     The solid line in Figure  B-l  represents a combination of mass emission
rates and  plume heights-of-rise  that were projected to result in sufficient
sediment accumulation  to cause  a 0.2 mg/L oxygen depression.   Applicants
whose discharge  falls  below  this solid  line need not  provide  any further
analysis of sediment accumulation as it relates to dissolved oxygen.
                                    B-2

-------
         7000 r-
         eooo
--r
      (A
      K
         4OOO
         MOO
         2000
         WOO
             024     •    8    10    12    14    1i    18   20

                               HEIGHT Of  RISE*, m
                  STEADY STATE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION LESS THAN 900/m2
                  DO'DEPRESSION  DUE TO STEADY-STATE  SEDIMENT
                  DEMAND > O2
                                                           Rcfaranoa: TetraT«eti(l982).
      Figure B-1.  Projected relationships between suspended solid mass
                  emission, plume height-of-rise, sediment accumulation,
                  and dissolved oxygen depression for open coastal areas.
                               B-3

-------
                                    ^Jv'iiisi*--^1 •*-*» a» s^urrr . "'-'"^iCi. ' '•-  •"•"*.«,, .r •-r*-•?(• "w
                                                                     *
     Figure  B-2  should be used  in  a similar manner for discharges  to semi-
enclosed  embayments  or  estuaries.   Because  estuaries  and  semi-enclosed
embayments  are_ potentially more   sensitive  than  open coastal  areas,  the
critical-sediment/accumulation' was "set" at 25 g/m^.                         \

     Methods,described"in_Jetfa Tech:(1982)Jwere used .to determine  the mass
emission rates and  he1ghts-of-rise resulting  in  the sediment  accumulation
rates  specified  above.  In order  to use these methods, several  assumptions
were made.   A  current velocity of 5 cm/sec  was assumed  for the open coastal
sites  and  a  velocity of 2.5  cm/sec  was assumed  for  the  semi-enclosed
embayments.  these velocities  are conservative estimates of average current
velocities over a  1-yr period.   The settling velocity  (Vs)  distribution used
is considered  typical  of  primary or advanced primary effluents and  is shown
below:

                     5 percent have Vs > 0.1 cm/sec
                     20 percent have Vs > 0.01 cm/sec
                     30 percent have Vs > 0.006  cm/sec
                     50 percent have Vs > 0.001  cm/sec

The  remaining  solids settle  so  slowly  that  they  are assumed  to  remain
suspended  in the water column indefinitely.   The effluent  is  considered to
be 80  percent  organic and 20  percent inorganic.   The above distribution is
based  on  the   review of  data  in  Section 301(h)  applications  and  other
published data (Myers  1974; Herring and  Abati 1978).

     The annual  suspended  solids  mass  emission  rate  should be calculated
using  the  average  flow rate and  an average suspended solids concentration.
The  plume  height-of-rise,  determined  previously  in  the  initial   dilution
calculation, or  0.6 times the  water depth, whichever  is larger, should be
used to enter the  appropriate figure (Figure B-l or 8-2).
                                    8-4

-------
 I
 s
    4000
  at
  3 3000
 8
     2000
  2  1000

  in
             24    ft    0    10   12   M


                          HEIGHT OF RISE, m
16    18    20
               STEADY STATE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION LESS THAN 2Sg/m2
               DO DEPRESSION DUE TO STEADY-STATE SEDIMENT

               DEMAND > 0.2 mg/l
                                                       Reference: T«tm Tech (1982).
Figure B-2.  Projected relationships between solid mass emission, plume
            height-of-rise, sediment accumulation, and dissolved oxygen

            depression for semi-enclosed embayments and estuaries.
                              B-5

-------
URGE DISCHARGER APPROACH
                                                                    »

     The  approach  described  here  considers  the  processes  of  sediment
deposition,  decay of  organic materials,  and resuspension.   However,  the
strictly quantitative prediction of seabed accumulation 1s based only on the
processes of  deposition  and decay.   Because resuspension Is  not evaluated
easily using  simplified  approaches,  the analyses described  in this chapter
consider resuspension  separately and in a  more  qualitative manner that is
based on measured near-bottom current speeds in the vicinity of the diffuser.

Pat 
-------
deposition and for  a yearly period.   If  the  applicant  anticipates  the mass
emission rate will  increase during the permit term,  the  mass  emission rate
at the end of the permit" term should be used.
 *       -  •*   *              ..*.*'•

    , Current-speed  data  are needed  to.  determine  the  distance  from  the
outfall that the sediments will  travel  before accumulating on  the bottom.
Consequently, depth-averaged values  are  best,  if  available.   Otherwise,
current speeds near mid-depth may be sufficient.   The following current data
are heeded for the assessment:

     •    Average value upcoast, when the current is upcoast
                 ^ r     .  *\*                                    '
     •    Average value downcoast, when the current is downcoast

     •    Average value onshore, when the current is onshore

     •    Average value offshore, when the current is offshore.

If no current data are available, values of 5 cm/sec for longshore transport
and 3 cm/sec for onshore-offshore transport have been found to be reasonable
values.

     Plume trapping  levels  representative of  the critical 90-day period and
of the annual cycle  are needed.   The applicant should use density profiles,
effluent volumetric flow rates, and ambient currents characteristic of these
time  periods.    Extreme  values  should  not  be  used.   Usually the  annual
average and  critical 90-day  average  flow rates  and  current  speeds (in the
predominant current  direction)  should be used.  The expected  average plume
heights-of-rise  above  the seafloor  should  be  determined using  available
receiving water  density profiles.   If large numbers of  profiles  exist for
each month  (or  oceanographic season), then the  applicant could compute the
plume height-of-rise  above  the  seafloor  for each of the available profiles,
and then average the heights.  If relatively few profiles are available for
each month,  then the applicant  could compute the plume  height of risk for
each profile and use the  lowest height-of:rise as the average.  The monthly
                                    B-7

-------
average heights of  rise can then be used  to  compute the average height-of-
rise for annual and critical 90-day  periods.   If so few profiles exist that
it is not possible to determine whether differences exist between months (or
oceanographic  seasons), then  the  applicant   should use  the lowest  plume
height-of-rise  (based  on calculations using  the average effluent  flow and
current  speed) as  the average  he1ght-of-rise  for both  the  annual  and
critical 90-day periods.

     If  the  applicant  has not  determined   a  suspended  solids  settling
velocity distribution,  the  following can  be  used based on data from other
Section 301(h) applications:

Primary or Advanced Primary Effluent              Raw Sewage

   5 percent have Vs >0.1 cm/sec         5 percent have Vs >1.0 cm/sec
  20 percent have Vs >0.01 cm/sec       20 percent have Vs >0.5 cm/sec
  30 percent have Vs >0.006 cm/sec      40 percent have Vs >0.1 cm/sec
  50 percent have Vs >0.001 cm/sec      60 percent have Vs £0.01 cm/sec
                                        85 percent have Vs >0.001 cm/sec.

The  remaining  solids   settle  so slowly  that  they are  assumed to  remain
suspended  in  the  water column indefinitely  (i.e.,  they act  as colloids).
Consequently,  50  percent of the suspended solids  in a  treated effluent and
85 percent of those in a raw  sewage discharge are assumed to be settleable
in the ambient environment.

Prediction of Deposition

     Although  a portion of the settled solids  is  inert,  primary concern is
with  the  organic fraction  of  the  settled solids.   For  purposes of this
evaluation,  composition of the waste  discharge  can be  assumed to  be as
follows:
                                    B-8

-------
     •    80 percent  organic and 20 percent inorganic,  for  primary or
          advanced primary effluent

     •    50 percent organic and 50 percent inorganic, for raw sewage.

     Accumulation  should  be predicted  for the critical 90-day  period when
seabed deposition  is  likely to  be  highest and for  steady-state conditions
where average  annual  values are  used.   The results  should  be presented in
graphical  form,  as  shown   in  Figure  B-3.    Supporting  tables should  be
submitted with  the application.   The applicant must  exercise judgment when
developing'the  contours,  especially when  accounting  for rapid depth changes
offshore.  Sediment contours should be expressed in units of g/n»2, not as an
accumulation depth.

     An applicant  may  use a proprietary or publicly  available sedimentation
model.   Two widely  known models are those  of Hendricks  (1987), which  has
been  used  extensively offshore  of  Palos  Verdes  Peninsula  in  the  Southern
California Bight,  and Farley (Tetra  Tech 1987),  which  describes  the Ocean
Data  Evaluation System  (ODES)  model  DECAL.   The model DECAL  is  publicly
available through  the U.S. EPA.  A simple model is described herein.  It can
be used to obtain  acceptable estimates of sediment accumulation in a variety
of environments.   If  its  use results  in sediment  accumulations that lead to
violations  of  state   standards  or  federal  criteria  for  receiving  water
quality,  an  applicant  may  use a   more sophisticated effluent  sediment
accumulation model that better simulates the marine environment.

     The method described  below assumes  that effluent  sediment  particles
having  a  specific  particle  fall   velocity  settle  uniformly  within  an
elliptical  area.   This area depends on  the plume  height-of-rise relative to
the  seafloor  (not the  port depth),  the particle  fall velocity,  and  the
average currents speeds in four directions (upcoast,  downcoast, onshore, and*
offshore) appropriate for an effluent  wastefield at the plume height-of-rise.
For  the  following .sample calculations,  the  diffuser was  assumed to  be a
point source.  Use of this assumption  may not produce  reasonable estimates of
sediment accumulation if the  diffuser  is long.   If the  diffuser  is long,
                                    B-9

-------
              nautical milaa
             i Mlometars
CONTOURS IN FEET
Figure B-3.  Examples of predicted steady-state sediment accumulation
             around a marine outfall.
                            B-10

-------
           then estimates  of the sediment accumulation from  each  diffuser port can be
           summed to obtain  an  estimate for the entire diffuser.  This sum Is approxi-
           mately the same as that obtained from assuming that the sediment accumulation
        - • area*1s*a ZID-1ike area (with ends the same as the similar elliptical halves
           computed  for a single point .discharge)  and  that  the  effluent  suspended
           solids having the specific particle fall  velocity uniformly settle 1n this
           area.  The  sediment accumulation due to  the entire  discharge Is the sum of
           the accumulations for each particle fall velocity modeled.

                To  begin  computations  for  a  discharge   at  a point location,  the
           applicant can  create a  table similar to  Table  B-l, showing the  amount of
           organic  sol Ids  that  settle within  each   settling velocity group,  and the
           maximum  distance  from  the outfall  at  which each group  settles.    If the
           applicant has current data for more  than  four  quadrants, those data, can be
           used.   The  maximum settling distances for each  group In each direction are
           calculated using  the formula shown In the  footnote of Table  B-l.

                With a sufficiently detailed map (e.g., a NOAA bathymetric chart), each
           point DI  through  Ojg, or Rj  through  R2Q.  can be plotted with the center of
           the diffuser  as the  reference  point.  Depositional  contours are formed by
           the  four points  that  define the  perimeter of  a  depositional  field (e.g.,
•c
           01020304).  The applicant  should join these points by smooth lines, so that
           the contours are  elliptically shaped.  If the applicant has current data at
           60°  or  30°  intervals,  instead  of the  90° intervals  used here,  then the
           contours could  be created more accurately.

                The  deposition rates  corresponding  to each  contour  are determined as
j          follows.  First,  predict the deposition rate within each contour due to each
           individual  settling  velocity group,  as  shown  in  Table  B-2.  This quantity
           is  M^/A-j, or  the  group  deposition  rate  divided by  the  area  within the
           contour.   The  area within  any contour  is a  function of  the  four points
           (e.g., DI,  D2,  03, and 04),  and  is  denoted in  the table by f^C^D^.  A
           planimeter  is  probably the most accurate  method of  finding the area.  Once
a          the  deposition  rates  by  group have  been found,  then  the total deposition
           rate can be calculated by  summing all contributing  deposition rates.   For
                                               B-ll

-------
                        TABLE 8-1.  EXAMPLE TABULATIONS OF  SETTLEABLE ORGANIC COMPONENT
                               BY GROUP, AND MAXIMUM SETTLING DISTANCE BY GROUP
Mass Emission Rate • NT
Organic Component * Mo *
                              0.8 My, for primary effluent
                             •0.5 My. for raw effluent
  Percent by Settling
Organic Component
Maximum Settling Distance from Outfall
Velocity Group
Primary Effluent
5 (V. « 0.1 cm/sec)
15 (V* « 0.01 cm/sec)
10 (V* » 0.006 cm/sec)
20 (V* • 0.001 cm/sec)

Raw Sewage
10 (V, » 1.0 cm/sec)
10 (V* * 0.5 cm/see)
20 (V* B 0.1 cm/sec)
20 (V. B 0.01 em/sec)
25 (V « O.U01 cm/sec)

by Group upcoast

0.04 MT D.
0.12 MT - De
0.08 Mi DA
0.16 Mf D13
Sun » 0.40 MT
*
0.05 MT Ri
0.05 M| Re
0.10 M* R,
0.10 M! R,,
0.125 % HI?
Sun - 0.425 Hy
Douncoast

<>10
DU


!2
B6
R10

Onshore Offshore

D* 04
D7 08
211 S12
D1S D16


"15 *16
R19 R2Q

                                                      V H,
0 The distance D (or R) is calculated as:  D (or R) « -*
where:
     V. * Ambient velocity » 5 cm/sec upcoast and downcoast (default) and 3 cm/sec onshore and offshore
          (default)
     HT = Average trapping level of plume, measured above bottom
     V8 « Appropriate settling velocity by group for primary or raw discharges

If the bottom slope is 5 percent or greater, D should be calculated as follows:
where:
     S = Slope, m/m, positive if onshore, negative if offshore.

                                                      B-12

-------
i
•



•
, -




i






a





V




i





a


• "•

•


. \ *

\*£ T-
?



§
S
Ul
° S
JJ
=j
g
* n
1
" • • • 8
s
|
i
s
s
en
S
i
1
Ul
!
*
(XI
01
. ,1













., t
*£*>'
a
I'
1
|
S
i
£




8 .
- a
Of £
JLJ
1-
U*
•3*
|




I*
is

. '
i
§
+>
&

-
|f
Ju
^
o »
? 2
0

? ?
I *
'-..,- I-,-,- I-: r I... • .-
i i
c . . . ' s "
• / •• -',-. , ;« ^ .'.... / ...*
• ..'.".|» " -1 :•",»,;" ., • .' .
• - • ; , ' . r ' •

"rlJ°
- "- • •


"*" J" J? ^ J"
. , " n « a »
«- << „ Itl^
J^ • + "^. *— . "Si.
«MJI1>1,£«' ** J? j? X^
^* 2* dh ' »T* «f i?1
* »u - •- "^SJ
j£* *


-«•''* 4 '

' > .
, ' ~

-'s 2s. ^ I2 ~s
< < c °s Ej^ j |j

S2S§ 55^55
• • * # JT J?
*.
» • ' '
S ^
5ir"jTlir'«* •«"•*« n
£IIMH'« gjitHiiB ^
B^<%JDL *
\
2
a
o
*
1 .
4ml
• O . t
-


-------
example, the innermost contour receives contributions from all groups* while
the outermost contour receives a contribution only from one group.
                        *
     So far, only the rates of organic deposition (in units of g/m2/yr) have
been  predicted.    The  accumulation  of  the  organic material  (S-j)  can  be
predicted by including decay as follows:


          Sj  (g/m2) -   jj-1 , at steady state
                          d
                                                                       '  B-2
                         fl
          S1  (g/m2) -   r1   [1 - exp (-90 kH)], for 90 days.
The f^  are  the deposition rates in units  of  g/m2/day,  as contrasted to the
units of g/m2/yr  in Table B-2.  The decay rate  constant, kj,  has a typical
value of 0.0 I/day.   For example, if the .organic deposition rate for annual
conditions is 100 g/m2/yr, the steady -state accumulation is:

                  100 g/m2/yr x    -     x          - 27 g/m2;           8-3
If the organic deposition rate for the critical 90-day period is 300 g/n»2/yr,
the 90-day accumulation is:


  300 g/m2/yr x 36^ ^ys x 0.0l/day x [1-exp (-90 x 0.01)j - 49 g/m2.    B-4
This example shows that Input data for the 90-day and steady-state accumula-
tions  are different.    Consequently, Tables  8-1  and  B-2  should each  be
completed twice.   Also the  accumulation  over a  critical  90-day period can
exceed  the  steady-state  accumulation.     This  is  caused, by  short-term
deposition rates  that are  considerably  higher than the  long-term average.
In  the example,  the  maximum  90-day  deposition  rate  of 300  g/m2/yr would
eventually decrease to  values  below 100 g/m2/yr, so that on a yearly basis
the deposition rate is 100 g/m2/yr.

                                    B-14

-------
      B-II. -DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION FOLLOWING INITIAL DILUTION
      When wastewater Is discharged through a single port or  a  diffuser,  the
 effluent forms  a buoyant  plume that  entrains  ambient water  as It  rises.
.Because the Initial dilution.process  occurs  rapidly-(i.e., on the  order of
 minutes), BOD^exertion (a relatively slow process)  is  negligible  during this
 period. ,  However,  an   immediate  dissolved  oxygen  demand  (IDOD),   which
 represents  the  oxygen  demand  of  reduced   substances that  are  rapidly
 oxidized  (e.g.,  sulfides  to  sulfates),  might  not.  be  negligible.     The
 dissolved oxygen concentration  following initial  dilution can be predicted
 using the following expression:

                      DOf - D0a + (D0e - IDOD  - D0a)/Sa                   B-5

 where:

    DOf -  Final dissolved  oxygen concentration of receiving  water at  the
           plume trapping level, mg/L

    D0a »  Affected   ambient   dissolved  oxygen   concentration   immediately
           upcurrent of the diffuser averaged over  the tidal  period  (12.5 h)
    :       and from.the diffuser port depth to the  trapping  level, mg/L
   ' •         -*"  '   '   t      ''                            r
    D0e -  Dissolved, oxygen of effluent, mg/L    _     -

  •IDOD"  Immediate'dissolved oxygen demand,  mg/L        :
   i .                 .          t          •  •         »
    .Sa -  Initial dilution (flux-averaged).    .                       -     ••
                                                             •E*
      The applicant should use  the least  favorable  combination.of values  for
 effluent  dissolved  oxygen,  IDOD,  affected  ambient,  dissolved oxygen,  and
 initial dilution.  The effluent  dissolved  oxygen concentration at the point
                                     B-15

-------
 of discharge  from the  treatment  plant  is  often 0.0  mg/L.    Because the
 critical  case  Is  desired,  a  concentration of  0.0  mg/L 1s  a reasonable
 value.   However,  if data  show that dissolved  oxygen  concentrations in the
 effluent are greater than 0.0  mg/L during  the critical periods, then  these
 data  may be used.
      The JDOD values  typically  vary from 0  to 10 mg/L,  but  can be  higher
 depending on  the  level  of  treatment  and  presence  of  Industrial   flows.
 Table B-3 can be used to select reasonable IDOD values.   Alternatively, the
,IDOD can be  measured  as discussed  below.  The  Influence of the effluent  IDOD
 on   ambient  dissolved .oxygen can  be  estimated  from  the  following table
 (calculated  as  -IOOD/Sa):
          *                                                           •
               Contribution of IDOD to Lowering of DOf (mg/L)

                              	Initial  Dilut1on
           IDOD  (mg/L)

                 1
                 2
                 5
                10
                20

 At  high  Initial dilutions,  the  IDOD contribution  Is  small.    Thus,  the
 expense  of laboratory  tests may  be unwarranted.  If IDOD  Is  to be determined
 experimentally,  the procedures  in Standard Methods (American Public  Health
 Association  1985,  p.  530)  should  be  generally  followed except  that  the
 dilution water  should  be  seawater from  the  discharge  site   instead of
 distilled water, and the effluent sample  should  be incubated anaerobically
 for  a length of time  equal  to the travel times from  the plant  through the
 diffuser for minimum, average,  and  maximum  flow conditions.   The effluent
 sample  should  be  mixed  with  the dilution  water after incubation.   The
 dissolved oxygen concentration  of  the effluent and dilution water should be
 measured separately after  incubation and before  mixing  the samples.   The
 dissolved oxygen-of the mixture  should  be measured 15 min  after preparation.
                                    B-16
10
-0.1
-0.2
-0.5
-1.0
-2.0
30
-0.03
-0.07
-0.17
-0.33
-0.67
50
-0,02
-0.04
-0. 1
-0.2
-0.4
100
-0.01
-0.02
-0.05
-0.10
-0.20

-------
                      TABLE B-3.  TYPICAL IDOD VALUES

Treatment Level
Untreated or less
than primary

-
-
Primary





•
•
Advanced primary

" Effluent
BOD5, mg/L




50-100
50-100
50-100
100-150
100-150
100-150
150-200
150-200
150-200
<50
<50
Travel Time, m1na
<60
_ 60-200
200-300
>300
0-100 *
, 100-300
>300
0-100
100-300
>300
0-100
100-300
>300
0-60
>60
IDOD, mg/L
5
10
IS
20
2
3
4
3
4
5
5-'
7
8
0
1

a Travel time should  Include  the'total  travel  time from the treatment plant
through the dlffuser, Including any land portion of the outfall.

Note:  Information compiled from 301(h) applications.
                                    -B-17

-------
     The IDOD is calculated using the following equation:
 — — — 5 - -                   B-6
where:                , .                                      "

  IDOD «  Immediate dissolved oxygen demand, mg/L

   DOp =•  Dissolved oxygen of dilution water (seawater), mg/L

    PQ »  Decimal fraction of dilution water used

     S »  Dissolved oxygen of effluent after incubation, mg/L

    PS -  Decimal fraction of effluent used

          Dissolved oxygen of mixture after 15 min, mg/L.
Several  dilutions  should be  used,  preferably  close  to the  actual  initial
dilution, unless the difference between the initial and mixed concentrations
is  less  than  0.1  mg/L.   All data  used  in  the  above  calculations,  the
incubation times, and  the computed  results  for each test should be included
in the application.

     The  lowest initial  dilution  (flux-averaged)  should  be used  for  the
final dissolved  oxygen calculation.   Usually, this dilution will correspond
to  the maximum  flow  rate  at  the  end  of  the permit  term.   Low initial
dilutions can also occur at smaller effluent  flow .rates if .stratification is
sufficiently  severe.   . Typically,  dilutions  during  periods  of  maximum
stratification should  be used for the final dissolved oxygen  calculation.

     The  affected  ambient  dissolved  oxygen  concentrations   should  also
represent  critical   conditions.    Usually,   critical  conditions will  occur
                                    B-18

-------
            during -the'maximum  stratification period 'in the late summer or in the spring
            when  upwelling of  deep ocean water  occurs.'  Tor  existing  discharges, the
            affected  ambient data  should  be collected at locations directly upcurrent of
            the  diffuser,'thereby"incorporating the potential effects of recirculation.
            For  proposed new or relocated discharges, affected ambient dissolved oxygen
            levels  upcurrent  of  the  diffuser  should be  estimated  from mathematical
            models  of   the  discharge  or  by  extrapolation   from  similar  situations.
            Dissolved oxygen data,  as well as any ambient water quality constituent, may
            be averaged between the depth of the'discharge ports and the plume trapping
            level,  which  corresponds  to  the lowest  initial  dilution that  was used to
            predict  the  final  dissolved oxygen  concentrations.    If applicants  use a
            mathematical  model  that allows multiple vertical  levels  of input for ambient
            water quality instead  of an average value, this should be noted.

                The  time period over which ambient  data  may be averaged may depend on
            specifications of intensity and duration  factors  in applicable water quality
            standards.   For example, if certain numerical  values shall  not  be compromised
            over a period of 4  h,  a 4-h average of  input data may  be reasonable.  Absent
            any more  stringent.specification in locally .applicable standards, an average
            over  a half tidal  cycle  (approximately  12.5  h) would  provide  a generally
            conservative estimate.
<*
                The   affected   ambient  dissolved   oxygen   concentration  can  change
            substantially as  a  function of depth, depending  on environmental character-
            istics and  seasonal  influences  (e.g., upwelling).  As  the plume rises during
            initial  dilution,  water from deeper  parts  of  the water column is entrained
            into  the plume and  advected  to  the plume trapping level.  If the dissolved
 i           oxygen concentration is lower in the bottom of the water column than at  the
^           trapping  level,  the  low  dissolved  oxygen  water  is  advected to  a region
            formerly  occupied  by  water  containing  higher concentrations  of dissolved
            oxygen.  .The result is an  oxygen depression caused  by  entrainment.

                This oxygen depression  caused  by  the waste  discharge  and associated
            entrainment  (ADOi)  should  be  computed  as the  difference  between  DOf  as
2                              '       '

                                               B-19

-------
   defined in Equation  B-5 and the .affected  ambient dissolved oxygen  concen-
,,  tration at the trapping depth (00$).  -; •*-.              ';.

              ADOj.- DOf - D0t - D0a - D0t + (D0e. - IDOD - D0a)/Sa         B-7

 ,  The oxygen  depression  of  the..wastefield  relative  to the  trapping  depth
   expressed in  percent,1s (-ADOj/DOt)100.           .,.-..:«••.

        For cases when the effect of entraining low  dissolved oxygen water can
   be  neglected,   the  oxygen  depletion  (AD02)   should   be  computed  as  the
   difference between the  average affected  ambient dissolved oxygen  concentra-
   tion (D0a) in the entrained  water and DOf as  shown below.

                    AD02  - DOf -  D0a -  (D0e - IDOD - D0a)/Sa                B-8

   The oxygen depletion of  the wastefield relative to  the  average  affected
   ambient dissolved oxygen concentration is (-AD02/DOa)lQO.

        The equation of  Baumgartner (1981)  for the percentage depression is:

                                 (D0t -  DO.  -I-  IDOD)
                                    * 00t x  Sa	* 10°                    8"9

   This equation can  be derived by  assuming  that D0a  »  DO^  in  Equation  B-7.
   Use of Equation  B-9 has been allowed  in the State of California.

        These differences  can   be  described as  a  percentage  of the  ambient
   concentration or as a numerical  difference, depending on the  requirements of
   the state.  In some states,  the final  dissolved oxygen  concentration must be
   above  a  specified limit or  must be converted  to percent  saturation  to
   determine whether  the  final   concentration  is  above   a  prescribed  limit.
   Dissolved oxygen saturation can  be determined  as a  function of  temperature
   and salinity using the method of Green  and  Carritt (1967)  and Hyer  et  al.
   (1971)  as tabulated  in Table B-4.   The  applicant may  want to consult  with

                                      B-20

-------
                          TABLE B-4.  DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION VALUES
j

Dissolved Oxvaen Saturation. ma/L
Temperature
(° C) 20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
9
. 9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
.8
.5
.1
.8
.5
.3
.0
.7
.5
.2
.0
.6
.5
.3
.1
.9
.7
.6
.4
.2
.1
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.2
.2
.1
.1
22
12
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
,9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
.6
.3
.0
.7
.4
.1
.9
.6
.3
.1
.9
.6
.4
.2
.0
.8
.6
.5
.3
.1
.0
.9
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
.1
.1
24
12.5
12.2
11.9
11.5
11.3
11.0
10.7
10.5
10.2
10.0
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.5
8.4
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
Salinity (ppt)
26 28 30
12.3
12.0
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.8
10.6
10.4
'10.1
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
12.1
11.8
11.5
11.2
11.0
10.7
10.4
10.2
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.5
8.3
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
12.0
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.8
10.6
10.3
10.1
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8.1
. 7.9
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.8
32
11.8
11.5
11.2
10.9
10.7
10.4
10.2
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.7
8.5
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
34
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.8
10.5
10.3
10.0
9.8
9.6
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.5
8.4
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
36
11.5
11.2
10.9
10.7
10.4
10.1
9.9
9.7
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.7
                                                B-21

-------
the state  water quality agency  to  determine whether any  other  methods are
                                                                    9

used to determine compliance with the dissolved oxygen standards.
                                   B-22

-------
                           B-III.   FARFIELD DISSOLVED OXYGEN  DEPRESSION
                          '   • *             . '                       "

                Subsequent to  Initial dilution, dissolved oxygen In the water column Is
           consumed  by the  BOD In  the  wastefield.    The effluent 800$  after Initial
           dilution  is needed  to  estimate farfleld  dissolved  oxygen depletion.   The
           final 8005  concentration  can be estimated using the following expression:

                       :           BODf - BODa + (BODe - BODa)/Sa                   B-10

           where:

             BODf -  Final BODs concentration, mg/L

             BODa »  Affected  ambient  BODg  concentration  immediately  updrift  of the
                     diffuser  averaged over one-half the  tidal period (12.5 h) and from
                     the diffuser  port depth to the trapping depth, mg/L

             BODe «  Effluent  800$ concentration, mg/L
*                                      *                          .
               Sa »  Initial dilution  (flux-averaged).

                This equation  provides an estimate of  the  total  BODs concentration in
           the receiving water.  The maximum contribution due to the effluent alone can
           be  determined by dividing  the effluent  BODs concentration by the  initial
J          dilution.   This  value is  used later to  estimate farfield effects  of the
           effluent.   As  a  critical  case,  the maximum  monthly  average  effluent BODs
           concentration  should be  used  with  the  (monthly)  critical initial dilution.
           For  existing plants, the previous 12 mo  of effluent 8005 data  is used to
           support  the selection  of a  600$  concentration.   For  proposed or modified
           treatment   plants where  effluent  data are  not  available,  monthly  average
2          influent  BODg  data  should be provided along with the range of  daily  values.

                                               B-23

-------
The average removal efficiency  for  the  new or modified plant 1s also needed
to compute estimated effluent BODs concentrations.

     Three  approaches  to  assessing  far field dissolved  oxygen demand  are
described below:

 . .   •    Simplified  mathematical  models, predicting  dissolved  oxygen
          depletions, using  calculation  techniques  that do not require
     f  ..   computer support

     •    Numerical models predicting dissolved oxygen  depletions, using
          a computer

     •    Evaluation  of field  data, using  a data- intensive  approach
          where  dissolved  oxygen  concentrations are  measured  in  the
          water column and compared to ambient concentrations.

     Before  undertaking  any analysis   to  determine  whether  farfield  BOD
exertion causes a  violation  of  the  dissolved  oxygen standard,  the applicant
should first check to see whether:
                        D0f •  BODfu,  for critical  conditions             B-ll

where:

          Dissolved oxygen standard
   DOf =  Dissolved  oxygen  concentration  at  the  completion  of  initial
          dilution

 BODfu •  Ultimate BOD at the completion of initial dilution  (<• BODf x 1.46).

If the  above inequality  is true, then  the discharge will  not  violate the
dissolved  oxygen  standard  due  to BOD  exertion  and no  further  analysis of
                                    B-24

-------
            farfield BOD  exertion 1s  required.    If  the Inequality  1s  not true,  then
                  -.-,•'"•  f  •••     ' '      , ••      '-••(•*        -.     .     •
            further analysis 1s required.

            SIMPLIFIED MATHEMATICAL MODELS

                 Oxygen depletion  due  to coastal  or estuarlne wastewater  discharges 1s
            primarily caused by exertion of  BOD,  although Increased  nutrient levels can
            affect oxygen concentrations Indirectly by altering algal photosynthesis and
            respiration rates.   BOD  consists of a carbonaceous  component (CBOD)  and
H           nitrogenous component  (NBOD).   .Both  components can  contribute to  oxygen.
            depletion.   CBOD Is often reported as  BOD5, the  5-day BOD.  Before using BOD
            to predict oxygen  depletion, the applicant  should convert It  to  BOOL, the
            ultimate BOO,  by the following relationship:

                                         BODL - 1.46 BODs                           8-12
a   .   '       '                                         ...
            A typical decay rate for CBOD  is 0.23/day  (base e) at 20° C.   A temperature
            correction should be made as follows:

 0         .      • _    "'           kT - 0.23 x 1.047T-20/day           "          B:13
                                                                                  - * « "
*                     •
            where:

                 k-f -  BOD decay rate at temperature T (° C).

                 NBOD might not always contribute to oxygen  depletion.  If the applicant
            discharges into open coastal waters where there  are no other major discharges
j           in the vicinity, the background population of  nitrifying bacteria might be
            negligible.   Under these   circumstances,  the   NBOD" will  not be  exerted
            immediately.   In more  enclosed  estuarine waters,  nitrification in the water
                        .*-»..                "         .             .     -
            column has been documented  from numerous water  quality studies.  Applicants
            should  analyze' the  potential   impact of NBOD,  if  they  discharge  into
            estuarine waters.
u.                 •          '                         ' •            -.
                                                B-25

-------
   •  NBOD  can  be  estimated based  on  data  for  total   Kjeldahl  nitrogen
concentration  (the sum  of  organic  nitrogen and  ammonia nitrogen)  in the
waste discharge using the following relationships:
                                   - 4.57 (TKN)                           B-14
       ,t*   *^t ,. . ,   ^  _  - . _ ^ .             •     • *
       .  /  .'" "  "",   'I    NBODs « NBODL/2.54

where:

     TKN-  Total Kjeldahl nitrogen

   NBODL *  Ultimate NBOO

   NBODs -  5-day NBOD.

The decay rate of NBOD can be taken as:

                         kT - 0.10 x 1.047T-2°/day                       B-15

where:                                                            ,

     kj •  The decay rate at temperature T (° C)

   0.10 -  The decay rate at 20° C  (base e).
                                                   i   F              '   '
     Simplified  mathematical  models  are an  acceptable alternative  to  the
more complex numerical  models.   .In the  simplest model  of oxygen depletion,
the following are generally assumed:

     •    The  wastewater  plume  is  submerged   at  the completion  of
          initial  dilution  for  critical  conditions  (so  that direct
          reaeration of atmospheric oxygen into  the wastefield  does not
          occur). .

                                    B-26

-------
                •    Oxygen depletion 1s a function of distance from the discharge
                     and Is caused  by carbonaceous oxygen demand  and  nitrogenous
                     oxygen demand.

V.   -   r       m    The wastefleld  entrains ambient water as a function of travel
       •              time.    Lateral  dilution  1s  the predominant  mechanism .of
                     entrainment.                                  '   .     .

           If the applicant demonstrates  that  the plume will  always surface,  then the
j|          effects of atmospheric reaeration can be Included; otherwise they should not
       -be Included.  .

                When applying  a  model that predicts  farfield oxygen depletion,  It Is
           suggested that the  applicant .plot  dissolved oxygen depletion  as  a  function
           of travel time  so  that  the  behavior of dissolved  oxygen concentrations In
j          the wastefleld can  be examined to locate minimum values.

                Example oxygen depletion curves as  a  function of  travel time are shown
           in Figure B-4.  The depletion  indicated  at time,  t=0,  denotes the depletion
         ,  immediately  following initial '  dilution.    The  dissolved   oxygen  deficits
           plotted in the figure are relative to the ambient concentration, and tend to
           approach zero at travel times longer than those shown in the figure.

                For the three cases, the maximum deficits  occur at the following travel
           times:                            •     •

                •    0.0 days for Curve A

                •    Approximately 0.2 days for Curve B
         »?'
                •    Approximately 4.0 days for Curve C.
         f                -
           The primary reason for the difference in magnitude and time of occurrence of
           the maximum  deficits  is  the  IDOD,  which varies from a high  of 66  mg/L for
           Curve A  to  0.0  mg/L for Curve C.   When the IDOD  is 66 mg/L (a high value,
                                               B-27         •

-------
    1.0 •


    0.9


    0.8


    0.7


3  0.6


X  0.5
O
Q
UJ  0.4


8  0-3

5  0.2
        0.1 —
        0.0
                               B
                      TRAVEL TIME (days)

CURVE

A
B
C
BODf
(uttlmat*)
(mg/L)
3.5
3.5
3.5
INITIAL
DO DEMAND
(rng/U)
66.
44.
0.
Figure B-4.  Dissolved oxygen deficit vs. travel time for a submerged
            wastefield.
                         B-28

-------
         "" but  one that  could be  associated  with an  unusual  discharge),, the maximum
           depletion  is caused  by initial  mixing processes, and  not by farfield  BOD
           exertion. ;  Conversely, when  IDOD  is  .0.0  mg/L,  the maximum depletion  is
           caused  by BOD exertion,  and  occurs  at some distance from the discharge.

           .. .-,  J!je, sJmP]^?d.;farfield^oxv9en  depletion  model., for  coastal   waters
         ,'* 'suggested Jusrein  is "based  onA an  approach  developed, by  Brooks  (1960)  for
          ' predicting   wastefield  .dilution  subsequent  to  initial   dilution.     The
           dissolved oxygen  concentration  in the receiving  waters can be expressed as a
g          ^function of  travel  time as follows:                 .               „

                    '  "     00--DO a    Lfr              .  Lfn   :
              D0(t) - DO •+•  fD   *--'   p^  l-exp(-kct)  - ^  l-exp(knt)          B-16
         -.;.•'   - -•   •:::•'.  S-   • •   S     ,  -    ,   •  '   S.  .  • .      •*••--,

           where:
a  '  .           .    .
          . .D0(t) -«• Dissolved oxygen  concentration  in a  submerged  wastefield as  a
                     function of  travel  time t, mg/L

              D0a  a Affected  ambient  dissolved  oxygen   concentration  . immediately
                     updrift. of  the diffuser,  mg/L  ,      -  •
                    •i                                                                   •
              DOf  = Dissolved  oxygen   concentration  at   the   completion  of   initial
                     dilution calculated using Equation B-5,  mg/L

                kc  = CBOD  decay  rate constant

                kn  « NBOD  decay  rate constant
                             T

              Lfc  » Ultimate CBOD concentration above  ambient  at  completion of initial
                     dilution, mg/L
                                               B-29

-------
    Lfn "  Ultimate NBOD concentration above ambient at completion of  initial
'"•'•'"  "/?  dilution, mg/L  ""''*"    :               '•""*"  '"     ' '"  *;

  '   Ds -'.' Dilution attained  subsequent  to initial  dilution as a function  of
      ''""'"'""'travel time.'"   '      "

   '"'  the above equation expresses the  dissolved  oxygen  deficit that  arises
 'because of an initial deficit at the completion of  Initial dilution  (D0a-D0f)
' plus that  caused by exertion of  BOD  in the water  column.   The last  term  in
 the above equation estimates the  exertion due  to NBOD.  The dissolved oxygen
 deficit tends  to decrease at longer  travel times  as a result of subsequent
 dilution and to  increase  as a  result  of BOD exertion.    Depending on the
 particular case  being  analyzed,  one influence can dominate the .other  over a
 range  of  travel  times  so that a minimum dissolved oxygen  level  can occur
 either  immediately  following  initial  dilution or  at a  subsequent  travel
 time, as previously shown in Figure B-4.

      To  predict  farfield  oxygen  distribution,  one  must  determine  the
 dilution attained within  the wastefield  as   a  function  of  time  following
 discharge.   For open  coastal  areas,  dilution  is  often  predicted using the
 4/3 law  (Brooks  1960), which states  that  the lateral  diffusion coefficient
 increases as the 4/3 power of the wastefield width.  In mathematical  form:
 where:

      e -  Lateral diffusion coefficient,

     e0 »  Diffusion coefficient when L = b

      L -  Width of sewage field at any distance from the ZID, ft

      b -  Initial  width  of  sewage  field  (approximately  as   the longest
           dimension of the ZID), ft.
                                     B-30

-------
13
            •  •    .  ., -  •; -"  --:-  m • t-r  ...  .••*•.„••    '        :<  '
            The initial diffusion coefficient can be predicted from:
           -            "   •              '   •                 '
    e0 - Os.001 b4/3
            Based  on  the 4/3 law,  the center!ine dilution, 0§, is given by:
                                                                                    B-18
                                                    1.5
1/erf
                    *  .
                                                               1/2
                                                                                    B-19
           where:
                 t  »   Travel  time,  sec

              erf  «   The error function.

                 The  4/3 Taw  is not always  applicable,  especially  in  coastal  areas or
           estuaries.    In coastal  areas,  Grace  (1978)  suggests  that  the diffusion
           coefficient  vary  linearly with L.  The  subsequent dilution can be expressed
           as:
                           D .- 1/erf
                                                       - 1
                                                            1/2
                                              8-20
           A  more  conservative choice is  to assume  the diffusion  coefficient  is a
           constant.   The  subsequent dilution can then be expressed as:
                                  1/erf
                                         116
                                              B-21
                                               B-31

-------
     These three  equations are  cumbersome to  use,  especially  if  repeated
                                                                    *
applications  are  needed.   To facilitate  predicting subsequent  dilutions,
values of  Ds  as a function of 12c0t/b2  are shown in Figure B-5  for  values
of Brooks' n  equal  to  0,  1,  and 4/3.   For example,  if b = 100 ft,  and
t - 9,000 sec (2.5 h), then e0 » 0.464 ft2/sec and 12e0t/b2 - 5.0.  Assuming
that Brooks'  n - 1, then use of Figure B-5  shows that Ds • 4.3 approximately.

     The figure also  reveals  that  the predicted dilutions are  substantially
different, depending on  the  relationship  obeyed  by the  lateral  diffusion
coefficient.    In  some instances,  the Brooks'  n » 1 law  might overestimate
subsequent dilution,  even if the  outfall  is  in coastal waters.   To  attain
the subsequent dilutions  predicted at large travel times,  a large amount of
dilution water must be available.  Because many outfalls,  particularly small
ones, are not far  from shore,  the  entrainment  rate of dilution water can be
restricted by the  presence  of the  shoreline and the  depth of the water.  As
the wastefield widens substantially,  the rate  of entrainment could decrease,
and neither the Brooks' n • 4/3 nor the Brooks'  n  - 1 law may be obeyed.  It
is suggested that applicants be conservative and base subsequent dilution on
a constant lateral diffusion  coefficient  (i.e., Brooks' n » 0), rather than
the Brooks' n » 1 or Brooks'  n  »  4/3 laws.  However,  if the  applicant can
show  that  the  4/3 law  (or  some other relationship)  is  applicable  to the
discharge site, then that relationship should  be used.

     If the applicant's  discharge  is near  the mouth of a wide estuary, the
approach just discussed  can  be  used directly to  predict  oxygen depletion.
If, however, the applicant discharges into a long  narrow estuary, then it is
likely that the sides of the estuary will limit the lateral dilution that is
attainable.   Under  these  conditions, the maximum dissolved oxygen deficit
with respect to saturation can be predicted as:
                           kW
                         A(k2-k)
1
                                                                        B-22
                                    B-32

-------
II R  H
e e  e
                  I

                 A
                      (D
                               N
                                    _ O
                                    — O)
                                    — to
                                        w
                                        ffi
                                        u;
                                        CM
                                                         CM
CM

"5
C
O

I


-------
where:                                   „.,..-

      D -  Dissolved oxygen deficit

      A -  Cross-sectional area of the estuary near the discharge site

      k -  CBOD decay rate constant

     kg •»  Reaeration rate constant

     E[_ -  Longitudinal dispersion coefficient

      W -  Mass loading rate of CBOD.

The applicant can predict  the  deficits  due to NBOD by using the appropriate
k and VI values and adding the two deficits to get  the total.  With reasonable
values for the  constants,  the total dissolved oxygen  deficit for discharge
to narrow estuaries becomes:

                       D -  (3:14  Wc  + 2.55 Wn) 1
-------
           NUMERICAL MODELS     "  ,
                                  1 • T:  ' • ~

                Numerical  models  are  an  acceptable  method, of  predicting. oxygen
          .-*.'•         .*.«"-        •                   ••                •   .
          ...depletion caused by a  discharge.  Numerical models may consider the combined
           effect  of  farfield demand in the water column,  as discussed above, and the
          „ oxygen  demand  associated with  organic sediments.s  If not, the applicant may
          ?j»ave. :to,  augment  the ^numerical  modeling  analysis  to  address  unanswered
           questions associated with sediment oxygen demand..    .,             .
          » "    - "•* "   -    x -  —  , •
          . ..»",(•<••,..       »' i      '              '          * •
                the .applicant  should  try to  isolate the  Impact  of  the  outfall  on
                   •4-
           dissolved oxygen concentrations by considering that the applicant's discharge
           Is  the sole source  of oxygen  depletion  in  the system being  modeled.   The
           applicant  can then  predict the  dissolved oxygen  depletion caused  by the
           discharge  by subtracting the  background dissolved  oxygen  level  from those
           predicted  by  the  model.   This  approach  also  simplifies  the  applicant's
           analysis because data  from other wastewater sources  are not  required..

                Specific  guidelines can  be offered  to  applicants  who choose  to use
           numerical models.  Typically, the most  severe  dissolved oxygen depletion due
           to  BOO  exertion occurs  when  the water column is  density stratified in the
           presence of tidally reversing  currents and low nontidal  currents,  and the
«          .    >•
           wastefield  remains submerged following  initial dilution.  If such conditions
           occur  at  the applicant's outfall  site, then  the  numerical  model should be
           layered vertically,   with  a  minimum of  two  layers.   The  plume should be
           discharged  into  the bottom layer  to simulate the  submerged discharge with
           the consequence  that direct atmospheric  reaeration is not  present  in this
           layer.
**              *               -                                         .».»•,
                The applicant should  set  up the  grid system  for  the  numerical  model
           such that the  smallest segments are  located in the vicinity of the diffuser
           and gradually  increase in size  with  distance from the diffuser.  The volume
           of the  segments in the immediate vicinity of the diffuser should  approximate
           the  volume  of  the  ZID in  order to  prevent an  initial dilution  that  is
2          artificially high  and  that  would cause the model  to underestimate dissolved
           oxygen  depletion.    The applicant  might  choose  to  experiment with  grid
                                               B-35                     ;

-------
configuration  by  starting with a coarse grid  and  then decreasing grid size
until the model results do not significantly change.

     A  steady-state numerical  model  will  be  acceptable for  the dissolved
oxygen  analysis  because  dynamic  or  unsteady  analyses are generally more
costly, more  difficult to implement,  and"require  more data..  The applicant
'should  consider,  however,  whether  intratidal  variations  can  cause more
severe depletions than'are predicted  by a  steady-state model that calculates
average  oxygen depletions  over a  tidal   cycle.   Slack tide,  for example,
might  be  critical because oxygen-demanding materials  can  accumulate  in the
vicinity  of the  discharge.   For  existing discharges,  the  applicant might
want  to  augment  the  steady-state  modeling   analysis by  an  abbreviated
sampling  program  to determine dissolved oxygen depletions during slack-tide
                                      *•
periods within a tidal cycle.   Intratidal  variations  are likely to be more
important in enclosed estuaries than  along open coastal  areas.

EVALUATION OF  FIELD  DATA

     Extensive field  data collection  and analysis  are required  to fully
implement this third approach.   Limited   samples  of water column dissolved
oxygen  may be inadequate  to demonstrate compliance  with  standards under
critical  conditions.    Limited  information  should  be  supplemented with
analyses  based on numerical  or  simplified  mathematical modeling.

     These  statements  should not  discourage  applicants from collecting and
submitting dissolved oxygen  data from the  vicinity of  an existing discharge.
To  the  contrary,  such  data,  if available, should  be submitted,  particularly
if  the Section 301 (h) application  is for  a  current  discharge or  for  an
improved  or altered  discharge  at the  same  location.  However, the data might
reveal  only a portion of the  impact of  the  wastefield,  for the following
reasons:

     •    The  location of the maximum oxygen depletion  might not  be
          sampled.
                                    B-36

-------
                •.   the  sampling  program could  have  been  conducted  during*a
                     period  that  was-not  critical  with respect to  the  discharge
                     or receiving water conditions.  Critical discharge conditions
                     are  generally  associated  with  high  effluent  BOD  and  high
                     volumetric flow rates.  . Critical  receiving  water conditions
                    'are   usually  associated  with  minimum   initial  dilutions
                     (maximum density stratification), maximum water temperatures,
                     and possibly slack-tide or low nontidal current conditions.

                •    Ambient dissolved  oxygen  concentrations  can vary  spatially
                     and. temporally  for   conditions  unrelated to  the  discharge
                     (e.g.,  upwelling effects).   Consequently, dissolved  oxygen
                     depletions associated with the  discharge can  be  masked  by
                    . background variability.                   .

              <  Some  applicants  might  have  access  to dissolved  oxygen demand data
           collected adjacent to another outfall at a  nearby coastal  area and attempt to
           use -those data  to show that their own  discharge will  not violate dissolved
                                                   ,- .      r*          i .
           oxygen standards.   This approach can be,  but  is not always,  reliable.  The
           applicants  should include  in   the application  .sufficient  information such
           that, the  data collection  program  for the nearby, area  can  be reviewed, and
           then show that the  predicted   dissolved oxygen, depletions are  the  maximum
           likely to  be produced  at the  nearby discharge  site.   The applicant  should
           also demonstrate that the results of  the nearby  discharge  can  be extrapolated
           to the  applicant's  discharge.   Essentially, the dissolved oxygen depletion
           at the adjacent discharge (due to both  BOO  utilization and sediment  oxygen
           demand)  will need  to  be at  least  as  severe  as  that,  at the  applicant's
j          discharge.  ,
                                               B-37

-------
                       B-IV.  SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND
                  *' •   :  :             I  -             '      *
                                                              * »
     The  oxygen  depletion  due  to  a  steady sediment  oxygen demand  can  be
predicted by:


                              wn  A» *      a w Kj A»
                     Ann      D   n   B       Q  PI                     n n»
                     *UM "  86,400 UHD   86,400 UHD              "      B"^

where:

   ADO «  Oxygen depletion, mg/L

    SB *  Average benthie oxygen demand  over the deposition area, g

    XM »  Length  of   deposition   area   (generally  measured  in  longshore
          direction),  ni

     H =  Average  depth  of  water column  influenced  by  sediment  oxygen
          demand, measured above bottom, m

     U *>  Minimum sustained current speed over deposition area,  m/sec

    k(j »  Sediment decay rate constant,  0.01/day

     a =  Oxygen:sediment stoichiometric ratio, 1.07 mg 02/mg sediment

     S =  Average  concentration  of deposited  organic  sediments over  the
          deposition area, g/m2                         .

     D =  Dilution caused  by  horizontal entrainment of ambient  water as  it
          passes over the deposition area  (always >1).

                                    B-38

-------
D
           Both  S and XM  can be determined  from the analysis performed  in the Chap-
           ter B-I on  "Suspended  Solids Deposition."  Figure B-4 in that chapter shows
           an  example plot  of seabed  deposition. ... For that  example,  an  appropriate
           estimate of S 1s the average  of the maximum and minimum values, or
                                                                                   B-25
           The  distance  XM,  measured  parallel  to  the coast  and  within the  5 g/m2
           contour, is 8,000 m.                 •,-"-'•'     .;..-•

                The depth of water affected by the sediment  oxygen demand  is not  really
           a  constant value  (as suggested by  the previous  formula)  but  varies as a
           function of the travel  time across the  zone of deposition.   The affected
           depth, H  (in meters) 1s chosen  to  represent the average depth  Influenced by
           the sediment oxygen demand and  can be estimated as:
                                                                                   B-26
                      ,                 *?•''•*         '
           where:                 ,      '-             -..•-.-          .,

                ez =  Vertical diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec).

           For the example case where U - 3 cm/sec, XM = 8,000 m, and  ez - 1 cm2/sec,

                          H - 0.8 »l " 8-0°" '          x     . - 4.1 •           8-27
                If the  applicant desires  to  compute a value  of vertical diffusivity,
           the following empirical expression can be used:
                                               B-39

-------
                                                                        B-28
             •••-   •"••       • •  *•   £dz            •

where:  -

     €2 «  Vertical diffusion coefficient, cmfysec

      p •  Ambient water density,  kg/m3  (1,024)

     |* -  Ambient density gradient,  kg/m4.

The  density gradient  used  should reflect the  most severe  stratification
condition that is likely to occur during the critical period.

     The dilution D that is used in Equation B-24  can be found from Table' B-5
where  the  field  width  is  the width  of  the  deposition  area.   For  the
appropriate  travel  time and field width,  the smaller of  the  two estimates
shown in the table should be used.

     In  Chapter  B-I  (Suspended Solids  Deposition),  the applicant  is  asked
to compute  the long-term accumulation and the critical  90-day accumulation.
Because the critical 90-day accumulation might exceed the long-term average,
the  applicant  should use  the  more  critical  case when  predicting  sediment
oxygen demand.

Oxygen Demand Due to Resusoension of Sediments

    "It  is  more  difficult to  accurately  predict  oxygen demand due  to
resuspension  than due  to either  farfield  BOD decay  or a steady  sediment
oxygen  demand.    To simplify  the analysis,  the  approach here  considers a
worst-case  situation.   The  amount of sediment to be resuspended ,1s equal to
the critical 90-day accumulation, which is found  using the methods discussed
in the above guidance on "Suspended Solids Deposition."

                                    B-40

-------
I
             v	  ,.-?•-v.-/'-t^'1:   '-  -'-v  -.I'.--:-^:••"••*.;
                              TABLE 8-5.  SUBSEQUENT DILUTIONS* FOR VARIOUS  INITIAL FIELD WIDTHS AND  TRAVEL TINES
1
Travel
Tine 
0.5 	 "
•^.''^••jMi,
2.0
• -4.0
8.0
12
24
48
72
96
Initial Field Width (ft)
10
213/5.5
!";3;1>13S '
4.3/32 / -.
6.1/85 '• -
8.5/»100
10/>100
15/>100
21/>100
26/>100
29/>100
50
1.5/2.0
2.0/3.9 '
. 2.7/8.5
~~3.7/21
5.2/53
6.3/95
8.9/>100
13/>100
15/>100
18/>100
100
1.3/1.6
1.6/2.6' '
2.2/5.1
. 3.0/11 '
4.1/29
5.1/50
7.1/100
10/>100
12/>100
. 14/>100
500
1.0/1.1
"1.2/1.3
1.4/1.9
1.9/3.5
2.5/7.3
3.0/12
4.2/30
5.9/80 .
7.3/>100
8.4/>100
1,000
1.0/1.0
1.1/1.1 '
1.2/1.5
1.5/2.3
2.0/4.4
2.4/6.8
3.4/16
4.7/41
5.8/73
6.6/100
5,000
1.0/1.0
1.6/1.6
1.0/1.0
1.1/1.2
1.4/1.7
1.6/2.3
2.1/4.4
2.8/10
3.4/17
3.9/24
* The  dilutions  are entered in  the table as M^IU, "here
coefficient,  and  N2  is the dilution assuming the 4/7 law.
                                                                               is  the dilution aasuning a constant diffusion
                                                                   8-41

-------
     For the material to  remain  suspended,  the ambient current speed has to
be sufficiently  great that the  volume  of water containing  the resuspended
material Increases  over  time  as ambient water  is  entrained.   It is assumed
        '._•»!        "*"'.,       ' '       '    . '  .
that this process continues for up to 24 h.                      ....
     The applicant should compute the oxygen depletion as a function of time
during this period.  This can be done using the following relationship:

                                    Sr        /-krt\
                              ADO -pg [1-exp I-24-)]                  B-29

where:

   ADO -.  Oxygen  depletion,  mg/L

    Sr =  Average  concentration (in  g/m^)  of resuspended  organic sediment
           (based on 90-day accumulation)

     H -  Depth of water volume containing resuspended materials, m

    kr <*  Decay rate of resuspended sediments, O.I/day

     t •   Elapsed time following resuspension, h (t varies from 0 to 24 h)

     D »  Dilution as defined previously  (generally set equal to 1).

     The variable H is a function of travel time and can be predicted from:

                          H  -     (3,600  t 6}1/Z                       B-30

where:
   €' »   Vertical  diffusion  coefficient  when  resuspension  is  occurring
          (5 cm2/sec)

     t »  Elapsed time following resuspension,  h.
                                    B-42

-------
Q
            The  applicant  should  check to  be sure  that H  does  not exceed  the water
            depth.   If  it does,'set H equal to the water depth.

                 The concentration of  resuspended  sediments Sr can  be  approximated as
            the  average concentration over  the  width of the  zone  of deposition.  This
            can  be  determined  directly  from the contour plots of sediment accumulation,
            developed  in response to the  guidance  on  "Suspended Solids Deposition" in
            Chapter B-I.                '. .  ..

                 The applicant should calculate ADO  for 3-h Increments for a  period  of
            up  to  24 h.   The  results can  be  tabulated  as  shown  below.    Data and
            calculations should be included in the application.

                                t  fh)                    DO fma/11
                                   0                          0
                                   3             .   *."
                                   6
                                 .  9
                                   12
                                   15
                                   18
                                  21
                                  24                     predictions
I
            Most often, a maximum depletion will occur somewhere in  the  24-h period, with
            depletions decreasing for larger travel times.
                                                B-43

-------
      f'Vvr  SUSPENDED SOLIDS ^CONCENTRATION ^FOLLOWING  INITIAL. DILUTION
       The  concentration  of suspended  solids  at  the  completion^ of, initial
• i  '     ••,•».?•'•.• ''  .'    ,  :   .  i  ' *•   -•         "'•           •  .•-/'.,".
  dilution  should be  calculated using the  following equation:

     ^_ """ '  '  '  "   "*  :""~	 '     ss'  -  ss,
                              SSf - SSa  +  —*=	a             '• ••'-•   'B-31
                                               a

.  where:       :        ...

      SSf  -   Suspended solids concentration  at completion of  initial  dilution,
             mg/L

      SSa  »   Affected   ambient  suspended   solids  concentration   immediately
             upcurrent of the diffuser averaged over one-half  the  tidal  period
             (12.5  h)  and from the  diffuser port depth  to  the trapping level,
             mg/L

      SSe  «   Effluent  suspended  solids concentration, mg/L

       Sa  =   Initial dilution (flux-averaged).

  The maximum change, AS, due to the effluent can be computed as follows:

                                   AS = SSe/Sa                             B-32

  where the terms  are as defined above.   Equation  B-32  is  appropriate as long
  as  the effluent  suspended  solids concentration  is  much  greater  than  the
  background  concentration.    During spring  runoff  in some estuaries,  the
  background suspended solids  concentration may  exceed the  effluent concentra-
  tion.   In these cases,  the  final suspended  solids  concentration  will  be
  below the background concentration.
                                      B-44

-------
    .;.IJ.S.  EPA requires data  for, periods of maximum  stratification  and for
other periods when discharge characteristics, oceanographic conditions, water
quality, or biological seasons indicate more critical situations exist.  The
      *       *
critical  period  generally occurs  when  water quality- standards are most
likely to  be  violated.   If the standard is expressed as a maximum numerical
limit, the critical  period would be when  the  background concentrations are
highest and the  initial  dilution  is low.  If the standard is expressed as a
numerical  difference  from background,  the  critical  period would  be when
effluent  concentrations  are  high  and  initial  dilution  low.   When  the
standard is expressed  as  a percent  difference  from background, the critical
period could occur when background concentrations are low.

     Because  .effluent   suspended  solids  concentrations   can  vary  with
discharge  flow rate, the concentration at the completion of initial dilution
               *                                       ,    ••               .
should be computed for the minimum,  average dry- and wet-weather, and maximum
flow rates, using the  associated  suspended  solids concentration.   The range
and average effluent concentrations should be provided in the application by
month, unless  locally  applicable standards require  compliance over shorter
durations.  This information should be available from operating records.

     The selection  of  an  appropriate  background suspended solids concentra-
tion may be difficult  due to a general  lack of data.   A common problem for
coastal sites  is that measurements may  be available only at  the mouths of
large  rivers.   Concentrations  are often  higher  at  such  locations  than
farther offshore  because  of the solids  contribution  from  runoff.   Selected
values of background suspended solids concentrations are shown  in Table 8-6.
Suspended  solids background data  should  be  obtained  at control stations, at
the ZIO  boundary of the existing  discharges,  and at stations between the
ZID-boundary and control  stations.  Data should  be collected over the tidal
cycle and at several depths so the average concentration over the height-of-
rise of the plume over the tidal cycle can be calculated.  This value should
be used in Equation B-31.
                                    B-45

-------
 '•'   TABLE 8-6.  SELECTED BACKGROUND SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS
          *-%••;,      "                    .   ' •        .
             :  '  '•'                     •               Suspended Solids
.        ;- Water Body                              .  Concentration, mg/L
Cook Inlet, AK                                          250-1,280
    .;."."   •"•      . . .' •   .       p •.      .  •    i     .       ' '
Southern California Bight           .                .      0.7-60
Pacific Ocean near San Francisco, CA     .           ;      1-33
Broad Sound, MA                                         18.6-25.2
Massachusetts Bay near South Essex                       1.2-30.5
New Bedford Harbor, MA                                   0.4-6.1
East River, NY                                           6.0-25.6
Ponce, PR (near shore)                                     13.5
Puget Sound, WA                >                          0.5-2.0.
Outer Commencement Bay, Tacoma, WA                        33-51
Commencement Bay near Puyallup River, WA                  23-136
Tacoma Narrows, WA                                        33-63

Note:  Data are from 301(h) applications.          .
                                    B-46

-------
     Compliance with  the water quality standard can  be  determined directly
if the standard 1s expressed in the form of suspended solids concentrations.
If only a general  standard  exists,  the maximum increase  due to the effluent
should  be computed.    If the  increase is  less  than 10  percent,  then  no
substantial effect in the water column is likely.  However, seabed deposition
could still be substantial  depending  on the mass  emission rate of suspended
solids  and ambient  currents  at the discharge  site,  and  thus  should  be
evaluated.                            "

     The water quality  standards may also  specify limitations  on  the level
of suspended solids removal.  For example,  California has a requirement that
75 percent of the solids entering  POTWs  must be removed.   Compliance with
this standard can be determined by estimating the average removal efficiency
for each month based on  the average monthly influent  and effluent suspended
solids concentrations.  The removal  efficiency should be equal to or greater
than the  required percentage in  all  months.  The applicant should include
the monthly  average influent  and effluent  suspended  solids concentrations
along with the computed removal/efficiencies.
                                   B-47

-------
    '„',  "   °"~ "' B-VlT  EFFLUENT pH AFTER INITIAL DILUTION
    ~~ *      •   -'•--   •-•-     " *      '•'           •
    'The calculation of effluent pH following initial  dilution 1s chemically
'-•= '  • .-:.',:-,'  '•  .  ,          .„-'•.'.,          .         • .
 more sophisticated than other chemical calculations in  this  document.   This
 appendix details the  basis  for  Table 1 in the main text  showing the ranges
 of  probable  effluent  pH   following  initial  dilution.    The  method  for
 calculating  effluent   pH  following  initial  dilution  is  described  herein,
 assuming that  all  of the  required  variables are  known..   These variables
 include initial  dilution and the temperature, salinity, pH, and alkalinity of
 the  effluent  and   the  receiving  water.    Effluent  and  receiving  water
 temperature,  salinity, and pH are normally measured.   The (usually critical)
 initial  dilution  is  routinely   calculated  as part  of  either  the  Section
 301(h)  waiver   application  process  or  the  Section  301(h)  permit  renewal
 process.  However,  neither the alkalinity of the  receiving water nor that of
 the effluent  is usually measured.  The alkalinity  of  seawater is relatively
 constant,  however,  at a value  of  2.3 meq/L  (Stumm and Morgan  1981).   The
 alkalinity of effluent varies from 0.1 to 6.0 meq/L.

      The method described  herein predicts pH  at the completion  of initial
 dilution  of  an effluent-receiving  water  mixture.     Because the  initial
 dilution process occurs  over a  short  time period, mixing  is  considered to
 occur  In  a  closed  system.    Also,  in  stratified   receiving waters,  the
 wastewater plume is often  trapped  below the surface.   Thus,  the plume does
 not equilibrate with the atmosphere,  and carbon dioxide exchange between the
 atmosphere and mixture is considered  negligible.   This  method is useful for
 the calculation of pH, alkalinity, and total  inorganic  carbon concentration
 in the plume  after initial  dilution.

      The pH of the effluent  receiving water  mixture  is  calculated using the
 equations  for aqueous carbonate equilibrium  in  a  closed system  (Stumm and
 Morgan  1981).   For  this condition,  the  five equations  that  describe the
 relationships between pH, the carbonate species,  and alkalinity are:
                                    B-48

-------
                                          [HC03-]/[H2C03*] - K!

                                          [C032-]/[HC03-,] - K2
                                               [OH'] - Kw
                                 Cj - [H2C03*] + [HC03-]
                          Alkalinity -  [HC03-] + 2[C032'] +  [OH']  -  [H*]
B-33

B-34

B-35

8-36

B-37
            where:
j
               [H2C03 3  •  The sum of aqueous C02 and true H2C03 concentrations

                     Cj  -  Total  carbonate concentration.

            The carbonate species can also be expressed in terms of ionization fractions
            OQ,  oq,  and  a2:                                 •
            where:
                                          [H2C03*] = Cyan

                                          [HC03'3 = Cj aj

                                          [C032-] = CT az
                                                               -1
                                                              -1
8-38

B-39

B-40
                                                                                    B-41
                                                                                    B-42
                                               B-49

-------
                                  i+i 2   m+
                                if K   +  |f   "*" 1
                                IX • I\M     IN A ^
-1
                 •    B-43
Substituting  the   hydroxide-hydrogen   ion   relationship  and   lonlzatlon
fractions into the alkalinity equation yields:

                                             Kw
               Alkalinity -• C, (a, + 2o>) + —•" ' tH 3                 B'44
                               '            [H 3

Because total carbonate  is  conserved and cq  and  03  are functions solely of
pH, the above equation has  only one  variable:   hydrogen ion concentration.
The model solves the  equation  to  determine  the pH of the effluent-receiving
water mixture.  The steps involved in the calculations are listed below:

     •    Determine input data

     •    Calculate ion product of water, Kw>  and carbonate dissociation
          constants,  Kj  and  Kg,  of  the effluent and  receiving water
          based on temperature and salinity data

     •    Check consistency  between  alkalinity and pH of both effluent
          and receiving water

     •    Calculate  total  carbonate  in  effluent and  receiving water
          separately

     •    Calculate   total    carbonate,   alkalinity,   salinity,   and
          temperature  of the effluent-receiving water mixture following
          initial  dilutiony  (based   on  proportions  of  effluent  and
          receiving water)

     •    Calculate  K^t  Kj,  and K2  for the effluent-receiving water
          mixture following  initial dilution
                                    B-50

-------
                 •    Use a  stepping  procedure to  find pH  based  on the  computed
                      values for  total  carbonate and  alkalinity of the  effluent-
                      receiving water mixture            •        "•"''•  rr

                 •    Record results.

            The 1on/product  and dissociation constants are calculated for the appropriate
            temperature and  salinity based on the equations  given  below.   The equations
            for the receiving water have  been revised so that salinity  (In  ppt)  can be
            used-
a
            For effluent:
                       3l4°7-? + 0.03279T - 14.8435 (Kelts and Hsu 1978,  p.  300)    B-45
0
                 pK2 - *«•   + 0.02379T - 6.498 (Kelts and Hsu 1978,  p.  300)      B-46


                       & ATI  n
                        ' Y    + 0.01706T - 6.0875 (Stumm and Morgan 1981, p.  127)  B-47


            For receiving water and the effluent-receiving water mixture:


                               + 0.03279T - 14.712 - 9.1575S1/3                     B-48
                                          (Stumm and Morgan 1981, p. 205)  ~


                 pK  -  <'   + 0.02379T - 6.471 - 0.3855S1/3                      B-49
                                          (Stumm and Morgan 1981, p. 206)


                 pKw -  ^       + 2.241  - 0.0925S1/2                                 B-50
                                          (Dickson and Riley 1979, p. 97)
a

                                               B-51

-------
where: ••.,.  .    - .^.     ^  .,,   '..,   .                     •-.





     T •  Temperature in degrees Kelvin                   <




     S -  Salinity  in ppt.




The receiving water .equations are valid for salinities  down  to about 10 ppt.
                                    B-52

-------
                     v'B-VII.  LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE
     Increased  suspended solids  concentrations  associated with  municipal
discharges can cause a decrease  in light penetration within the water column.
Reductions  in  light penetration can  result in a  decrease  in phytoplankton
productivity as  well  as a  reduction  in the areal distribution  of attached
macroalgae such as kelp.  Therefore, several states have enacted regulations
governing the-allowable levels of interference with light transmittance.

     The  evaluation  of light transmittance may require the  measurement  of
one or more water clarity variables and a  comparison  of values  recorded  in
the vicinity of the outfall  with those recorded in control  areas.  Variables
that are  widely measured to  assess light  transmittance  include turbidity,
Secchi disc depth, beam  transmittance,  and  downward  irradiance.   While many
of the state requirements are very  specific in terms of the light transmit-
tance measurements,  others  leave the  selection  of the  sampling  methods  to
the discretion of the applicant.

     Turbidity  is a  measure  of the  optical   clarity of  water, and  many
standards  are written  in  terms of  Nephelometric  Turbidity Units -{NTU).
Measurements are made with a nephelometer, which provides a comparison of the
light-scattering  characteristics  of the  sample with  a  standard reference.
Differences in the optical  design of  nephelometers can cause  differences  in
measured  values  even when  calibrated  against  the same  turbidity standard.
For this  reason,  caution must  be  exercised when  comparing measurements  of
turbidity made from different field sampling programs.            : •

     A Secchi  disc is  used to make  visual observations of  water clarity.
Records of  the depth  at  which the  Secchi  disc  is just barely visible can  be
used  to  make  comparisons  of  light  transmittance  among  sampling  sites.
Measurements of Secchi disc depth are probably the most widely used means  of
estimating  light  penetration.   The Secchi  disc is easy  to  use,  is accurate
                                    B-53

-------
 over a wide range of conditions; and can be used to estimate the attenuation
 coefficients for  collImated and diffuse  light  and, therefore,  to  estimate
 the depth  of  the euphotlc zone.,-'However,  since a wastewater  plume may  be
 held below the upper regions of this zone during periods  of stratification,
 Secchi disc measurements may not be appropriate  under all  conditions.
 +  „        _
     .Beam transmittance is measured with  a transmissometer  and  Is a measure
 of the attenuation  of,a collimated  beam of artificial  light along a  fixed
.path  length  (usually 1m).   The  attenuation  is caused  by suspended  and
 dissolved  material  as  well  as the water  itself.  ,  These  measurements,
 therefore,  provide  Information  about   both  the  absorption and  scattering
 properties of the water.  The attenuation of a collimated  beam of light in a
 water path is  described  by the  Beer-Lambert law:

                                  Td - e'0*1           .                   B-51

 where:
                       t
            f
     T(j =   The  proportion of light transmitted along a path of length d,  m

      a «   Light attenuation coefficient, m'1.

 Measurements of beam transmittance  are made in situ at any depth.
      * *
      The  Intensity and attenuation  of daylight penetration are measured with
 an irradiance  meter, which  utilizes  a  photovoltaic cell to  record  incident
 light levels.   Measurements are made just  below the surface and at  selected
 depth intervals throughout the  water column  so  that light  attenuation  over
 specific  depths can be determined.    Unlike beam transmittance measurements,
 irradiance  measurements are  influenced  by sunlight  as  well  as  surface
 conditions.

      Empirical  relationships can  be derived among the light  transmittance
 variables measured  by  these methods, which  permits  the  estimation of  one
 based on  recorded values of another.   These values  can  also  be predicted
                                    B-54

-------
           from suspended solids concentrations.  The derivation of these relationships
           from existing  data, 1n  some  instances,'may be  sufficient  to allow for the
          -.demonstration of compliance with state' standards.  Existing data can also be
           used  to  predict  the  transparency characteristics  in the  vicinity  of an
          ' improved  discharge.   Alternatively,  a sampling program can  be  designed'to
          -assess compliance with light transmittance standards based on such empirical
          -relationships.     :.;;,:•                    ..'.-•..       :-
          .":-;.'."   '-S    _"£;.,•..  j  ~L>.    '•  •'  "    '- "•    '••-..           .       ••'•:'
                Where standards are written  in terms of maximum allowable turbidity or
           turbidity  increase,  predicted  turbidity in  the  receiving  water  at the
          -completion of  initial  dilution can be used to  demonstrate compliance.  By
           treating  turbidity  as   a  conservative  variable,  the  turbidity  in the
           receiving water at the completion  of  initial dilution can be predicted  as:
                                                                                    B-52
           where:

                Tf = Turbidity in receiving water at the completion of initial dilution,
                     typically NTU or Jackson Turbidity Units  (JTU)

                Ta = Ambient or background turbidity

                Te - Effluent turbidity

                Sa - Initial dilution.

                Initial  dilution  can be  predicted based  on the  methods  presented  in
           Appendix A.  Equation B-52 can be used,  then,  to directly evaluate compliance
           with  standards  written  in  terms  of  maximum  allowable  turbidity  or  a
           turbidity increase.

1               Laboratory experimental work can also be used  in lieu  of field  sampling
           to demonstrate  compliance with  standards  written in terms of an allowable
                                               B-55

-------
turbidity  Increase. .-These  analyses consist of determining the turbidity of
a  seawater- effluent  mixture prepared  in  the same proportions corresponding
to  the predicted  concentrations following  initial  dilution.   Experiments
should  be conducted to  simulate  worst -case, conditions.    Simulations of
expected  receiving water turbidity should  be made  for periods  of highest
effluent  turbidity .(greatest  suspended  solids  concentrations)  as  well .as
lowest  initial dilutions.   Values of the initial turbidity of the seawater,
the effluent  mixture,  and the simulated  dilution  should accompany all  test
•results.      •   ,                       ,      --

     By  deriving  a  relationship between  turbidity  and  Seech i  depth and
utilizing  the method  of prediction  for  turbidity  in  the  receiving water
following  initial  dilution  (Equation B-52), compliance with state standards
written  in  terms of   Seech i  depth, can  be evaluated.    Secchi  disc and
turbidity  can be related in the following manner.  Assume that the extinction
coefficient of  visible light (a) is  directly  proportional  to turbidity (T)
and inversely proportional to Secchi  disc (SD),  or:

                                  a = kj T                               B-53

and
                                                                        B-54
where  kj  and  fy are constants which need not be specified since they cancel
out  in  further calculations.    These  two  relationships  have theoretical
bases, as discussed  in Austin  (1974) and Graham  (1966).  Combining those two
expressions,  the relationship  between  Secchi disc and turbidity becomes:
                                                                        B-55
When  state standards are written  in  terms  of Secchi disc, it is convenient
to combine Equations B-52 and  B-55 to yield:
                                    B-56

-------
                                            -f,i  - •   i-   en   .. en •.. ,       -     -.  i
                                            •=i- ~eSr *   e     a    -:••  , ,-•     - B-56
                                            SD*   SD  ,  "7 .5	 -    '   • •• *    • '
                                              T     ..a -  ,. 3_            ,.
                                               , * •  * i ? . .  •  a
           or
                                so: -
                                         SD,   SO.   "a   SO
B-57
           where:

              SDf »  Minimum allowable Secchi disc reading  in receiving water  such  that
           '."""".   _the water quality standard  is not violated   -- -  "    "-.'     ~-~

              SDa *  Ambient Secchi disc reading

               Sa -  Minimum initial dilution that occurs when the  plume  surfaces

              SDe »  Critical Secchi disc depth  of effluent.

                 In  this  manner,  the critical   effluent   Secchi  depth  (S0e)  can  be
           calculated.   An effluent  reading higher  than  this value  indicates  that
           standards will  not  be violated.   This method of predicting  the  final Secchi
           depth  in  the receiving water can  be  utilized to provide an estimate of the
           effect  of the  wastewater discharge  on  the  receiving  water.   This method
           should  only  be used  where the  standard  is exclusively  in terms  of  the
J          acceptable decrease in  the Secchi depth.

                Values  of  the  critical  effluent Secchi depth  (SDe)  calculated using
           Equation  B-57  are  presented  in Table  B-7.    In  this  example,  the water
           quality  standard  for  the  minimum  Secchi   visibility   is  I  m  (3.3   ft).
           Effluent having a Secchi depth greater than those presented  for  the selected
a          ambient  conditions  and  initial  dilution  will  not  violate  the  clarity
           standard  of  the example receiving water.   Primary effluents  typically  have
                                               B-57

-------
TABLE B-7.  CALCULATED VALUES FORJHE CRITICAL EFFLUENT SECCHI DEPTH (cm)
    FOR SELECTED AMBIENT SECCHI  DEPTHS,  INITIAL DILUTIONS, AND A WATER
        QUALITY STANDARD FOR MINIMUM  SECCHI DISC VISIBILITY OF 1 m

Initial
Dilution
10
r
20
40
60
loo * :

2
18
10
5
3
2
Ambient
3
14
7
4
2
1
Secchi
4
13
7
3
2
1
Deoth (•)
5
12
6
3
2
1

10
11
6
3
2
1
                                   B-58

-------
           :Secchrd1scr values -of'5-30-cm  (2-12 in).- •• For this case,  witlTanVinltlal
            dilution1 greater  than S40 -and  an ambient :Secch1  depth  of  2 m  (6.6  ft)  or
           -greater, 'these calculations  Indicate that the standard would not be violated.
           ..*::  >V"' t*r.:.;,Si. ~:. .1 •  .ct. •;;,.--. f  ~  ?  v ' X"'-      '     .''   '    •'' " *'••
—     ..""*" "^r'"Since rSecch1 •  disc  measurements   are  made  from  the  water  surface
          "downward,'critical conditions  (In terms of  the Secchi  disc' standard) 'will
            occur when  the initial dilution ?1sJ just-sufficient'to'allow  the  plume 'to
            surface.   It  1s  notable  that  maximum  turbidity  or  light  transmittance
          ~  Impacts  of a wastewater plume will occur when the water column is stratified,
_         -<-the plume  remains  submerged, and initial dilution is a minimum.  Under these
            same conditions, however, Secchi disc readings  might  not be altered at all,
            if the plume  is trapped below the water's surface  at  a.depth exceeding the
            ambient  Secchi disc  depth.

                 The ability  to  relate measurements  of  turbidity  to  the attenuation
-,           coefficient (a) for  collimated light has been demonstrated by Austin (1974).
            The attenuation coefficient can be expressed in terms of turbidity as:

                                            a - k x JTU                             B-58
  •
            where:

               JTU -  Turbidity,  JTU

                 k =  Coefficient of proportionality.

            Combining  Equations  B-51 and B-58, turbidity can be expressed as:
j
                                               -In  T,
                                         JTU	g-f                               B-59

            where:

a-               T,j  -   Fraction  of beam transmittance over distance d.

                                                B-59

-------
The.coefficient  of,.proportionality  (k)  takes on values 0.5-1.0.  Therefore,
to utilize these relationships-for demonstrating compliance with a turbidity
.standard based on.existing light transmittance data, the value of k must-be
determined  empirically.    This  requires  simultaneous measurements  of beam
transmittance and  determination  of  turbidity covering the complete range of
existing light  transmittance records.   If data are  not available,  the.Tk"
value can be set equal to  1 as a conservative estimate.                  .
. .«.- ...^-  „    .-*•.-  ..,-.         «...                     .•
     Where  a relationship  between  suspended solids  concentration and beam
transmittance data at a particular site can be derived, the suspended  solids
concentration at the completion of initial  dilution  from Equation B-31 can
be  used to  predict  compliance  with  standards written  In terms  of light
transmittance.
                                    B-60

-------
Q
                              B-VIII.  OTHER WATER QUALITY VARIABLES
                 Other variables  for which  water quality standards  may exist  Include
            total  dissolved  gases,  col 1 form bacteria,  chlorine residual,  temperature,
                    • -.-.-••        <•••••*•.           •       ...
            salinity,"radioactivity, and nutrients.  Variables  concerned with  aesthetic
            effects  that also may be Included are  color,  floating material,  taste  and
i           odor,  and  hydrocarbons  (I.e.,   grease  and  oil).    For  most  dischargers,
            temperature,  salinity,   and  radioactivity  standards  are.  unlikely  to  be
            violated.    Aesthetic  effects  are more  likely  to occur  when  the  plume
            surfaces  and the dilution  is  low.   Compliance with aesthetic standards  can
            best be checked  by  field'observations, at  the  discharge site and  along  the
            shore.
2           "               '       '                       ".
            TOTAL DISSOLVED GASES

                 Several  states  have a  limit for total  dissolved gases of 110 percent of
            saturation.   Supersaturation of dissolved  gases is not considered to be  a
            . I    • -    •* '         '                   .                        r '
            likely problem  for municipal wastewater  discharges  to the  marine environment
            and  is not discussed further.

          ,  CHLORINE RESIDUAL
             ' •  '  m          ,     ' *                 \     ' •           • ~      *        •• *.

                 Chlorine  residual standards may  be expressed  as  a concentration  limit
            in  the effluent or  as  a maximum  concentration  in the receiving-water  at
            the  completion  of initial dilution.  If the effluent is not  chlorinated,  no
            further  information   is  required.     If  the  standard   is expressed  as  an
            effluent  limit,  chlorine  residual  data  from  treatment  plant  operating
            reports,  or other sources,  should  be presented  in  the application.   If no
            data are  available,  then  the  procedure  for  chlorination,  including  the
            compound  used,  quantity, and occurrence of any operational problems,  should
            be  described.    If  the  standard is  expressed  as  a  maximum limit  at  the
                                               B-61

-------
completion of  Initial  dilution,  the  concentration In the  receiving^water,
assuming the ambient concentration 1s 0.0 mg/L, can be estimated as follows:

                                Clf -  Cle/Sa                             B-60

where:
                                                        • .       —          ?
   Clfx-  'Chlorine residua] at completion of initial dilution, mg/L

   Cle -  Chlorine residual In effluent, mg/L

    Sa -  Lowest flux-averaged Initial dilution.

As  a  worst-case  approach,  the  maximum observed  chlorine  residual  in the
effluent  should  be  used with  the  lowest  dilution.    If  violations are
predicted, the  applicable water quality standard may require information on
the frequency of occurrence.

NUTRIENTS
            •'                              ''            »

     Standards  can be expressed  as maximum receiving water concentrations of
total  nitrogen  or total  phosphorus  or as a general  prohibition on amounts
                                                                •»
that  would  cause  objectionable  aquatic  life.    In  general,  for   small
discharges when the initial dilution  is  large,  nutrients are not likely to
cause problems.  Appropriate state agencies should  be contacted to ascertain
if  algal  blooms,  red  tides,  or other  unusual  biological  activity have
occurred near the discharge site in the past.

     Receiving  water and effluent nutrient  data  can  be used  to estimate
concentrations  at  the   completion  of  initial  dilution.     For screening
purposes,  the  'nutrients  can  be  treated  as  conservative  variables.    The
concentration  is  estimated as  follows  in  a  similar  manner  to suspended
solids:
                                    B-62

-------
Q
                                                    C ?-  C ' -            ••    "  '
                                                  •  _g - i           .'....-    B-61
                                                  .a

            where:

                Ca  -Affected  ambient concentration Immediately  upcurrent  of diffuser,
            :.",..-.-J -  ----v  ;  . .-.   --I-..'   -    '.. "   .      "•     .  •          .-   .-  .
                 .  ^ mg/L  _                         .,..••'..

                Ce  - .Effluent  concentration,  mg/L

                Sa  - Initial dilution (flux-averaged)

                Cf  » Concentration at the completion of initial  dilution, mg/L.

            The  predicted  concentration can then  be  compared to the state standard.

                Because  water quality  criteria  are often prescribed as maximum values
          •not  to  be exceeded  following initial  dilution,  it is  useful  to rearrange the
            above  equation to  express the maximum  allowable effluent  concentration  as
            follows:

                                  (Ce)max-Ca.+  (Sa)min (Cc-Ca)                    B-62

            where:                       .

                (Ce)max »   Maximum  allowable  effluent  concentration   such  that  water
                           quality criteria are not  exceeded
                                              »           -     •
                    Cc »   Applicable  water quality"criterion

                (sa)min °   Minimum expected initial  dilution.
                           *                                                         »•
            The  maximum observed  effluent concentration  can  then be  compared  to  the
            predicted  allowable  concentration.    This  approach  can be used  for  any
            conservative  constituent.    Thus,  if other  specific  limits  exist such  as
                                               B-63

-------
for color,  effects  due  to  the discharge  can  be  determined  as shown  in
Equations B-61 and B-62.

COLIFORM BACTERIA

     Standards may exist for total or fecal coliform bacteria or enterococci
and are usually expressed  as  a mean  of median bacterial count and a maximum
limit that  cannot be exceeded  by more  than 10 percent of the  samples.   If
the effluent is continuously disinfected using chlorlnation or an equivalent
process,  analyses for coliform bacteria may  be  needed only to  verify  the
effectiveness of  disinfection.  If  disinfection  is done part  of the year,
analyses should be representative of conditions  when  the effluent is not so
treated.   The chemicals  used, quantities, and  frequency of use  should be
provided along with a discussion of the reliability of the system.

     The coliform bacteria count at  the completion of  initial  dilution  due
to the discharge can be estimated as follows:

                                 Bf = Be/Sa      .                        B-63

where:

     Be -  Effluent conform bacteria count, MPN/100 ml

     Sa «  Initial dilution.

As  a  conservative  approach,  the maximum  effluent  count  and the  lowest
initial  dilution  should  be used.   If onshore currents occur only during a
particular season, the coliform count  at  the  completion of Initial dilution
can be  estimated  using  the  lowest  initial  dilution  appropriate for  that
season.    Effluent coliform data  should be submitted to  support  the appli-
cant's values.    The  predicted value can  be  compared  with  the appropriate
standard at the ZID  boundary.  This value  can  also be  used  to  estimate  the
bacterial  concentration at specific locations  away from the ZID.
                                    B-64

-------
      Because  different limits may apply to  specific areas (e.g., shellfish
 harvesting  areas,  beaches,  diving areas),  the maximum  bacterial  count at a
 specified  distance from  the  discharge may  be  of concern.   This bacterial
 count  can  be estimated  In  a  manner analogous to the estimation  of the BOD
 exerted  as  the wastefield spreads out  from  the  ZID.  The maximum bacterial
 count  at the  centerline  of the wastefield  can be estimated as a  function of
 distance" from the discharge as follows:
* where:    ,

     Bx *  Bacteria count at distance x from ZID, #/100 ml

     Ba »  Affected ambient bacteria count  immediately upcurrent of diffuser,
                 mL
     Bf *  Bacteria count  at completion of  initial dilution, #/100 ml

     Ds ••  Dilution attained subsequent to  initial dilution at distance x

     D[j «  "Dilution"  due  to  dieoff  of  bacteria  caused  by  the  combined
           effects of exposure  to  seawater  and  sunlight.

 when  x » 0,  Bx =  Bf.    In  cases where the  background  bacterial  count  is
 negligible  or the effect  of  the discharge  alone  is  desired,  the terms  for
 the ambient bacterial count can be dropped,  simplifying  Equation B;64 to:

 Values  for  subsequent  dilution  as  a  function  of 12e0t/B2  in Figure  B-5.
 Guidance  is included in  Chapter  B-III  {"Farfield Dissolved Oxygen  Demand")

                                     B-65

-------
 on  methods for estimating  subsequent dilution for  sites  located In  narrow
 estuaries or  bays.

      The  decay  rate  of  bacteria  in  the  ocean  is  influenced  by  water
i
 temperature,  incident  light,  salinity,  and other  factors.  As  a conservative
 estimate, the minimum decay rate  should  be used.   If no violations  would
 occur,'then further calculations are not needed.  Flocculation  and  sedimen-
 tation  can cause an apparent  decrease in coliform count in the water column,
 but the  bacteria are  retained in the  sediment.   Thus, this process  is  not
 included in the above  approach.   If the applicant has information Indicating
 that the decay rate at  the discharge site should be a different value,  the
 revised decay rate  may  be used.   The  evidence  for  the revised  decay  rate,
 including any data  or  results of laboratory  tests, should  be included in  the-
 application.

      In  this  report,  dieoff due  to the combined  effects of exposure  to
 saltwater and exposure  to  sunlight  only are considered.  The dieoff due to
 exposure to saltwater, Dsw, and  the dieoff due to exposure to  sunlight, 05],
 are (Gameson  and Gould 1975):

                               Dsw • exp(kswt)                           B-66

                              Dsl'- exp[ol(t)]                           B-67

 where:

    ksw  -  Bacteria  decay rate due to exposure  to  saltwater,  1/h

      a  =  Constant, m2/MJ

   I(t)  =  Total  intensity of  sunlight received  by  bacteria  during  the
           travel time, MJ/m2

      t  =  Travel time, h.         .                    ...

                                    B-66

-------
 The bacteria dieoff due to  the combined  effects of saltwater and sunlight 1s
 D(> • DSW0S].  Gameson and Gould (1975),indicate that a-  1.24 m2/MJ  in situ
 for Dorset,  England seawater.   The total Intensity of sunlight received at
 the water surface can be measured, or estimated using site-specific  data or
 general; methods (Wallace and  Hobbs  1977). "if the,_ wastefield 1s submerged,
 then the  calculation of  the  total  sunlight  received  should  reflect the
 effect  of .turbidity on.Tight ..transmission from,.the sea surface to the top of
 the wastefield.  ^    '•":    <-:"-  •'•&    ^->	\-'^r~     -••<-.-::..
"/'--^'The  bacteria'decay rate due. to the 'exposure to saltwater Is known-for
'both coHform bacteria and  enteYococcus  bacteria.  For coll form bacteria,
            ;  .   ksw-,2.303  exp[(0.0295T  -2.292)2.303] / h    .          B-68
      *    **        r
                                           ? •               •*

 where  T - water temperature.(°  C),  based on field measurements at Brldport
 (Dorset,  England)  (Gameson and Gould 1975). The enterococcus  bacteria dieoff
 rate due  to exposure  to  saltwater  Is:


                           ksw - 0.5262 /  (24 h)                         B-69
 at  a temperature of  20° C  (Hanes  and  Fragala 1967).   [It should be noted
 that Hanes and Fragala  (1967)  determined  that ksw for conform bacteria  Is
 0.0424/h  at 20° C,  a value slightly smaller  than  the value of 0.0457/h  at
 20°  C based on  the  formula  from Gameson  and Gould  (1975).]

     The  estimated coll form count  at  the location  of  Interest  should  be
 compared  to the applicable  standard:  If a violation  Is predicted, the water
 quality  standards  may  require that  the approximate frequency  should  be
 discussed  based on  the percentage or likelihood of  currents  transporting the
 wastefield in the direction of  interest.
                                    B-67

-------
   ';               .              REFERENCES                      ."'."'
      «r- »•  .-••"•,•   ,    ,       ••
   .     *••       «            *•     ••                         "       "

American  Public  Health  Association.    1985.    Standard methods  for  the
examination of water and wastewater.  APHA, Washington,  DC.   16th Edition.
1268 pp. /•••-.;• _r .

Austin/ W.R.   1974.   Problems  in measuring turbidity  as  a  water quality
parameter.    EPA-600/4-74-004.    pp.  23-54.    In:    Proc.   on Seminar  on
Methodology for Monitoring the Marine Environment.

Baumgartner, D.   1981.   Environmental  Protection Agency,  Office of Research
and Development, presentation at 301(h) Task Force Meeting.   13 March 1981.

Brooks, N.H.  1960.   Diffusion of  sewage effluent in an ocean current,  pp.
246-267.   In:   Proc. of  the  1st International  Conference on Waste Disposal
in  the Marine  Environment,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,   CA,  July
1959.  Pergamon Press,  Elmsford, NY.

Dicksori, A.G., and J.P. Riley.  1979.   The estimation  of acid dissociation
constants in seawater media from potentiometric titrations with strong base;
I.  The ionic product of water-l^.   Mar. Chem. 7:89-99.

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.   Proc.  of an International  Symposium
held at Church House, London, 27 August to 2 September 1984.   A.L.M. Gameson
(ed).  Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK.

Grace, R.  1978.  Marine outfall systems planning, design, and construction.
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.  600 pp.

Graham, J.J.  1966.  Secchi disc observations and extinction coefficients in
the central and eastern North Pacific Ocean.  Limnol. Oceanogr. 2:184-190.

Green, E.J.,  and  D.E.  Carritt.  1967.   New tables for  oxygen saturation of
seawater.  J. Mar. Res. 25:140-147.

Hanes, N.B.,  and  R.  Fragala.   1967.   Effect of  seawater concentration on
survival of indicator bacteria.  J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 39:97-104.

Hendricks, T.J.  1987.  Development of methods for estimating the changes in
marine sediments  as a  result of the discharge  of sewered municipal waste-
waters through submarine  outfalls.   Part I  - sedimentation  flux estimation.
Final Report.  Prepared for U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Environmen-
tal  Research  Laboratory,  Newport, OR.   Southern California  Coastal  Water
Research Project Authority, Long Beach, CA.   65 pp.
                                    B-68

-------
             Herring,  J.R.,  and  A.L.  Abati.     1978.    Effluent  particle dispersion.
             pp.  113-125.   In:  Coastal  Water  Research Project Annual Report. 'Southern
             California  Coastal  Water Research  Project,  El  Segundo,  CA.

             Hyer,  P.V., C.S. Fang,  E.P. Ruzecki, and  W.J.  Hargis.  1971.  Hydrography
            -and  hydrodynamics of Virginia estuaries.   II.  Studies of the distribution
_,           of   salinity  and  dissolved  oxygen  In  the  upper York  system.    Virginia
             Institute of Marine Science,  Gloucester  Point, VA.  167 pp.

             Kelts,  K.,  and K.J. Hsu.  1978.   p.  295+.   In:   Lakes:  Chemistry,  Geology,
             Physics.  Lerman, A.  (ed).   Springer,  New York,  NY.

             Myers,  E.P.  1974.   The concentration and isotrophic  composition of  carbon
             in   marine  sediments  affected  by  a  sewage  discharge.     Ph.D.  thesis.
•           California  Institute  of Technology, Pasadena,  CA.   179  pp.

             Stuntm,  W.,  and  J.J. Morgan.   1981.  Aquatic chemistry.  John  Wiley and Sons,
             Inc.,  New York.   780  pp.

             Tetra  Tech.    1982.    Revised  Section  301(n)  technical  support document.
             EPA-430/9-82-011.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Washington, DC.

             Tetra  Tech.  1987.   A simplified  deposition calculation  (DECAL) for organic
a .          accumulation near marine outfalls.  Final Report.  Prepared for U.S.  Environ-
             mental  Protection  Agency,   Office  of   Marine   and  Estuarine Protection,
             Washington, DC.   Tetra  Tech,  Inc., Bellevue, WA.  49  pp.  + appendices.

             Wallace, J.M.,  and  P.V.  Hobbs.   1977.  Atmospheric  science:   an introductory
             survey.  Academic Press, New York  NY.  467 pp.
a


                                                B-69

-------
:.*   2ij.-.r     'i

-------

-------

-------
     APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

-------

-------
12
                                             APPENDIX C
                                       BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
                 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 biological  impacts  in  the vicinity  of  sewage dis-
3            charges.   The general changes  in  benthic community  structure and  function
                  •
            that occur  under conditions of  organic  enrichment of the  sediments  (e.g.,
            due to  municipal sewage  effluent)  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 (see
            Figure 3  in main text),  while  species  composition  remains  unchanged.   As
j           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 3).    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 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  stations  in  the
            vicinity  of the outfall,  are  often sufficient to  determine the  relative
            degree of impact within and beyond  the ZID.
                                                C-l

-------
     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  (e.g., classification  and ordination  procedures).
Graphical analyses can be especially useful for presenting data in an easily
understood  format.   In  Figure C-l,  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 C-l 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 Figures  C-2 and C-3).  Gradients of effects
(as  in  Figure  C-3)  are  often revealed in such  simple  presentations.   An
especially   useful   method   for presenting  data   on  sediment  grain   size
distributions  that  has  proven  useful  in  analyses of  301(h)  data  was
developed  by Shepard (1954).   Sediments  are classified by  the proportions of
                                     C-2

-------
                       UJ
j
                    9
               31VOHd3a
                                                     Si
                                                     *i:
                                                          o

                                                          I-
                                                     0)
                                                     Ul
     8
S3l03dS dO
                                                                  CD



                                                                  CA

                                                                  .o



                                                                  08


                                                                  H
                                    O
                                    o
                                                                  "3.

                                                                  CA =
                                                                  O A

                                                                  '81
                                                                  0.0
                                    2 o
                                    8 >•
                                    If
                                    3 O
                                                                  6
                                                                   O)
                                                                  il
                                       C-3

-------
                            I
                                  2
                                  O
                 n
Odd) A1INHVS
O
05
                                                 "
                                                 *o
                                                 ">
                                                 (D
.g
Is

to

-'£
"5
CO

cvi
6

I
o>
                C-4

-------

                                            •§
                                            CO
                                            to
                                o
                                p

                                CO
                                            I
                                            8
                                            i
  ''    (lN30b3d)
NOQUVO OINVOUO 1V1O1
                                            t

                                            (0
                                            S>
                                            o
CO
6
I
o>
                 C-5

-------

their three major grain-size categories (Figure C-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.]

     Statistical  tests   are  among  the  most  effective  tools  for comparing
biological communities among  stations.   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  based on three assumptions:  the error  of an
estimate is  a random normal  variate,  the  data are normally distributed, and
the  data exhibit homogeneous variances.   Corrections for  the first are not
easily  achieved,  and an  erroneous assumption  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
                                     C-6

-------
                                     SAND
NEARFIELD
REFERENCE 2
Z1D-BOUNDARY 1
REFERENCE 1
FARFIELD
WITHIN-ZID
ZID-BOUNDARY2
SILT
CLAY
          Figure C-4.  Sediment grain size characteristics at stations in the
                      vicinity of the outfall.
                                     C-7

-------
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 affect the value of
the  F-statistic,  especially  in  cases  where the  statistical  design  is
unbalanced (i.e., where numbers  of  replicate  values  vary among the stations
or station groups being tested).

     Several  tests  are available to  determine whether  variances  are homo-
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).

     When  sample variances  are found to  differ significantly  (P<0.01),  a
transformation  should  be  applied  to  the data. . [A more  conservative pro-
bability  level  (e.g.,  PO.05)  should  be  used  when  the statistical  design is
unbalanced.  ANOVA is sensitive  to  unbalanced statistical designs.]   Sokal
and Rohlf (1981) describe  several transformations that may be used.  Because
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 Kruskal-Wallis  test should only be used
when  the  appropriate   transformation fails  to correct for  heterogeneous
variances (Sokal and Rohlf 1981). The Kruskal-Wallis test requires a minimum
of five replicate values per station because it is  a test of ranks.

     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.
                                    C-8

-------
                 Classification analyses  (e.g.,  cluster analyses)  have  also been  used
            extensively  in  the 301(h)  program.   In  the normal  classification mode,
            stations are grouped by  the attributes of the assemblages that  occur there
            (e.g.,  species composition  and abundance).   This  type of analysis  is  very
            useful  for  identifying the  stations that  are the most  similar and least
            similar to one another  in fauna and/or flora.  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
m           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
J           flexible  sorting  strategy' are  recommended  because  they  produce  little
            distortion of  the original  similarity matrix.   [See Tetra  Tech (1985)  for
            additional rationale on the use of these three indices.]
                                                C-9

-------
                                 REFERENCES


Bloom,  S.A.   1981.    Similarity  indices  in community  studies:  potential
pitfalls.   Mar.  Ecol.  Prog.  Ser. 5:125-128.             :

Boesch,  O.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.

Gauch,  H.G.  1982.  Multivariate  analysis  in community ecology.  Cambridge
Studies  in  Ecology:  1.   Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,  UK.  298 pp.

Green,  R.H.  1979.  Sampling design and statistical  methods for environmental
biologists.  John Wiley & Sons,  Inc.,  New York, NY.  257 pp.

Kruby,  T.   1987.  Using  similarity  measures in benthic impact  assessments.
Environmental Monitoring  and Assessment 8:163-180.

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.
                                                    k         : •
Romesburg,  H.C.  1984.  Cluster  analysis for  researchers.  Lifetime Learning
Publications, Belmont,  CA.   334  pp.              '

.Sokal,  R.R., and F.J.  Rohlf. 1981.  Biometry.  2nd ed.  W.H. Freeman  & Co.,
San Francisco, CA.  859 pp.

Tetra Tech.   1985.   Summary of U.S. EPA-approved methods, standard methods,
and other  guidance for 301(h) monitoring  variables.   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.   16 pp.

Winer,  B.J.   1971.   Statistical  principles in experimental  design.  2nd ed.
McGraw-Hill Book Co.,  New York,  NY.  907 pp.

Zar, J.H.   1974.  Biostatistical  analysis.   Prentice-Hall,  Inc.,  Englewood
Cliffs,  NJ.  620 pp.
                                    C-10

-------

-------

-------
              APPENDIX  0
NAVIGATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS

-------

-------
j
                                             CONTENTS
                                                                                    Paoe
            LIST OF FIGURES                                                         iii
            LIST OF TABLES                                                           iv
            MONITORING STATION LOCATIONS                                            D-l
            ACCURACY LIMITATIONS                                                    D-l
            POSITIONING ERROR                                                       D-4
            SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES AND EQUIPMENT                         D-7
            CANDIDATE SYSTEM SELECTION                                              D-7
            SHALLOW-WATER POSITIONING METHODS                                      0-11
            USE OF LORAN-C                                                         D-13
            SYSTEM SELECTION PROCEDURE                          ~                  D-14
            REFERENCES                  '                                           D-18
                                                 n

-------

-------
J
                                              FIGURES
            Number                                                                  Page
              D-l    Examples  of some key 301(h)  monitoring station  locations  for
                    a  medium-large marine municipal  discharge                        D-2
              D-2    Locations of ZID-boundary stations  for selected ZID sizes       D-6
              D-3    Examples  of differential  Loran-C error ellipse  orientation
                    at a ZID-boundary sampling station                              0-15
              D-4    Navigation system preliminary screening criteria               D-17

-------

-------
J
                                               TABLES
            Number                                                                   Paoe
              0-1   Example  ZID-boundary  station  locations                           0-5
              D-2   Summary  of  recommended  systems                                   D-9
              D-3   Theoretical  error ellipses  of'differential  Loran-C  for
                    various  U.S.  locations                                          0-16
                                                 IV

-------

-------
                                 APPENDIX  0
                   NAVIGATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS
     Information  presented  below  addresses  navigational requirements  and
methods  for Section  301(h)  dischargers.   It  is  summarizes more  detailed
discussions in Tetra Tech  (1987, 1988).

MONITORING STATION LOCATIONS

          Compliance  with  conditions  of  a   secondary  treatment  variance
requires monitoring  at a  site-specific array  of  sampling locations.   The
types  of  stations  usually  specified  in  301(h)  monitoring programs  are
depicted  in Figure  D-l.    Positioning  accuracy  is most critical   for  the
within-ZID  and  ZID-boundary  stations  (Stations Zg,  l\,  2-2  *n  Figure D-l).
Applicants  must  be  able  to  sample at  a specific  boundary  location  on  any
given  occasion,  and  to return  to nearly  the same location on subsequent
trips.  At gradient  (Gj, 63,  63, 64) and control or reference (Cj) stations,
initial  accurate  location  is not as critical.  However,  it  is  important to
relocate  these  stations   accurately  during  subsequent  surveys to  enable
quantification of  temporal changes in  the  variables  sampled (e.g.,  benthic
community characteristics).   This requirement for  high  repeatable accuracy
also applies to stations  in  or near special habitats (Hj, H2).   The ability
to conduct sampling at the appropriate  depth contour is also very important.
              i
Sampling programs  for  301(h)  typically include requirements that  a bottom
sampling station can be relocated to within 10 m (32.8 ft).

ACCURACY LIMITATIONS
                           j
     Both  the procedures  and  equipment used  to  establish  a  navigational
position  contribute  errors  that  affect  the  overall  accuracy  of  a. fix.
Absolute or predictable accuracy is  a measure of  nearness to which a system
can define a position by latitude and longitude (Bowditch  1984).  Repeatable
                                  •D-l

-------
      O
„ X1
      N
      *-
        s
       M
                  » i i > *
O
S1
IS
 I



I

eg

5
(0

.1
                                 c
                                 O
                                 to


                                 2
                                 T- 9
                                 O S»
                                 CO oj

                                 II
                                 o^

                                 II
                                 (0 -
                                 (0 7
                                 2 E
                                 Q. Q
                                 x 5
                                 in E
                                 O)
                                 u_
   D-Z

-------
 or  relative  accuracy is a measure of  a  system's  ability to return the user
 to  a given position  with coordinates that were previously measured with the
 same system.  The difference between  these two  accuracies can be substantial.
 For example, depending on one's location  in the coverage area, Loran-C has a
 repeatable accuracy  in offshore areas of 15-90  m (49-295  ft), but an absolute
 accuracy  of  185-463  m  (607-1,519 ft)  (Dungan  1979).   In  many instances,
 repeatable   accuracy  is  more  important  than  absolute  accuracy  (e.g.,
 retrieval of crab pots,  return  to desirable  fishing  grounds,  avoidance of
    » .            "          -                >•
 underwater obstructions, and reoccupation of reference stations).

      For  coastal  outfall monitoring,  both  repeatable  and absolute accuracy
 can be  important, depending on  the  type of sampling  site.   For within-ZID
 and ZID-boundary  stations,  both  accuracies are  important because sampling
 stations  must  be  located within  or very near the boundary and be repeatedly
 occupied  during the  program.  For gradient, special  habitat,  and reference
 stations,  repeatable  accuracy  is more  important than  absolute geographic
 location.  Once  such a  station  is established within  a special habitat, it
 is  often  necessary to return to the same site to identify temporal variations
 .in  the  previously sampled biological, community.   Thus,  it is important to
 select  navigational   procedures  and  equipment with both  the  absolute and
 repeatable accuracies  needed to meet the  monitoring program objectives.

      Because  repeatable  accuracy  of  navigational  equipment is  usually at
 least .1  order of  magnitude  better  than  absolute  accuracy,   the  latter
5 frequently  limits the  overall  positioning accuracy  of  a  sampling vessel
 during  coastal monitoring  programs.   Therefore, the  following discussion
 focuses  on1 absolute accuracies  that can be achieved  by various procedures
 and associated equipment.

      Practical  considerations   also  limit  the  accuracy of   an  offshore
 positional fix.   Resolution  of a position, to  better than  1-2 m  (3.3-6.6 ft)
 becomes  meaningless  when measuring  the  'location of a  moving vessel (e.g.,
 during  trawling)  or a  vessel  that  is on station but  pitching and rolling.
                                      D-3

-------
Antenna  movement  alone  usually  precludes  higher  resolution  In  position
coordinates.    Exceptions  to  this   rule  can  occur  when  conditions  are
unusually calm.

POSITIONING ERROR

     Many  factors  contribute to  the total error  in position of  the water
column or  benthic  sampling point.  These  factors  include  movement or drift
of the "on-station" vessel, offsets between the deployment point of sampling
equipment  and  the navigational  system antenna,  and  offsets between  the
deployment  point  and  the  subsurface  location  of the sampling  or profiling
equipment,  and  error  in the ship's  initial location.  Most of these factors
are  site-  or  operationally  specific,  and  can  be  estimated with  varying
degrees  of confidence.    Because  the accuracy to which  the actual sampling
point  is  known  is highly  dependent  on all these  factors, they  should be
carefully  considered  in both the design and conduct of monitoring programs.

     A  ZID-boundary  error  proportional   to  some   percentage  of the  ZID
dimension   has  been  selected  as  the  controlling  parameter  for  301(h)
navigational requirements.  Because ZID size is proportional to water depth,
the  allowable  error  in position  is  thus  also proportional to depth.   For
example,  ZID-boundary  stations  can be   located  at  a distance  from  the
diffuser  axis  equal  to one-half the  ZID width plus  20  percent of the water
depth  at mean tide level.   The allowable maximum error in the location of
these stations  can then be ±20  percent of  the water depth.  As a result, the
closest  to the diffuser  that  sampling  would occur  is  at  the ZID boundary,
and  the  farthest from the  diffuser  that sampling  would occur is 40 percent
of the water depth beyond this  boundary.   Nominally, however, sampling would
be performed within a distance from the ZID boundary equal to 20  percent of
the water  depth.   Example ZID-boundary station locations using this approach
for  a  variety of  ZID sizes are listed in Table D-l.   The ZID-boundary and
sampling  station  locations for discharges  at the 100-,  60-, and 20-m  (328-,
197-, and  66-ft) depths are shown in  Figure D-2.
                                    0-4

-------
             TABLE D-l.   EXAMPLE ZID-BOUNDARY STATION LOCATIONS

Average
Diffuser
Depth
(•)
100
90
80
. 70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
3
Average
Diffuser
Diameter
(•)
4.0
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.5
.1.0 •
0.5
ZID
Width
(•)
204.0
183.6
163.4
143.2
123.0
102.5
82.2
62.0
41.8
31.5
21.5
11.0
6.5
Recommended
Station
Location3
(•)
122.0
109.8
87.7
85.6
73.5
61.3
49.1
37.0
24.9
18.8
13.8
8.5
6.3
Recommended
Allowable
Error"
(•)
±20
±18
±16
±14
±12
±10
±8
±6
±4
±3
±3
±3
±3

a  Distance  from  the zone  of initial  dilution  center!ine to  the station,
based on 0.5 times  the  ZID width plus 20 percent of the average water depth
of the diffuser when over 15 m (49 ft).

b  Error  magnitude  is  equal to ±20  percent  of the average  diffuser depth,
when over 15 m (49 ft).
                                    D-5

-------
          2JD BOUNDARY
               STATION
              LOCATION
100 m DEPTH
4.0 m OIFFUSER
                ""25-J <0i
                 LIMIT
                      210
                 BOUNDARY
A
                                   •204m-
        122m
                                               OUTFALL PIPE
                                              DIFFUSER
 60m DEPTH
 3.0 m DIFFUSER

1
1 -
1*

1


j, 123m
715 m












'





 20 m DEPTH
 1.8 m DIFFUSER
!
1
1
1

»m m\
1
1


r*

41
249

^—


I

•fe^H
;

m
m




;

1
,






t

     Figure D-2.  Locations of ZID-boundary stations for selected ZID sizes.
                                   D-6

-------
                When  discharge depths are less than approximately 15 m (49 ft), the 20
           percent  error allowance  results  in an  overly  restrictive positional error
           [i.e.,  less than ±3  m (9.8 ft)].   Therefore,  a positioning  error  of ±3 m
           (9.8  ft)  is considered to  be  more appropriate  when sampling station depths
           are  less than 15 m (49  ft).   Although the percent error as  a function of
           water depth increases at  shallower depths, this minimum error is considered
           reasonable given available navigating techniques for small sampling  vessels
           in  other  than  extremely  calm  waters.   Stations  beyond the  ZID  may be
           similarly  located using the 20 percent  of  depth  rule beyond the 15-m  (49-ft)
           contour  and the  ±3-m (9.8 ft)  error limitation for shallower  locations.  As
           indicated  earlier,   it  is  recognized that the  ability to reoccupy  a given
           site  can  be  as  important as  knowing  its  exact geographical  location.
           However, relocation beyond the ZID  probably will not be a  problem  if the  same
           navigational  equipment used to locate ZID-boundary stations  is  also  used
           elsewhere.

           SUMMARY  OF RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES  AND EQUIPMENT

                Based on Tetra Tech's evaluation  of optional positioning methods, the
           systems  recommended for  coastal  positioning include theodolites, sextants,
           electronic  distance measuring  instruments  (EDMIs),   total   stations,  and
•»          microwave   and  range-azimuth  systems.     Although  satellite  systems offer
           adequate accuracy  (when   used in  a differential  mode),  their use  may be
           limited  because a sufficient  number  of  satellites may not  always be
           available.

           CANDIDATE  SYSTEM SELECTION

j
                The details  of  positioning   techniques  and  associated  equipment are
           described  in Tetra Tech  (1987).    No single system is best for all  coastal
           monitoring purposes.  Needs vary according to the size and complexity of the
           planned  monitoring  program,  the  nature  of the  immediate and  surrounding
           areas,  and other navigational  or surveying requirements of a municipality.
                                                D-7

-------
     Positioning techniques fall into three principal measurement categories:

     •    Multiple horizontal angles

               Theodolite intersection

               Sextant angle resection

     •    Multiple electronic ranges        ..

               Distance-measuring instruments

               Range-range mode

               Hyperbolic mode

               Satellite ranging

     •    Range and angle,       ;           ..

               Theodolite and EDMI

               Total station

               Range-azimuth navigation systems

Systems  within these  categories that  will meet  or exceed  the positional
accuracy  recommended  herein  are  summarized  in  Table 0-2.    Additional
information on the recommended categories  is provided below.

Multiple Horizontal Angles

     In  the  multiple horizontal angles category,  theodolites were found to
have the angular  accuracies required  for the maximum  ranges anticipated.
Their costs  range from $1,000  to $4,000  (30-sec  vs.  10-sec accuracy), and
                                    D-8

-------
sadva
Advantages
j
£•:
                                   •;=£  .58-
Traditional method.
Iensive. High
aacy. Successfu
aed. Restricted
a. ' , -
                                   dt
                                   S 3.
ppl
rea
                                   v
                                   -e
                                  i -8
                     S
                                   I E

                                   +J
                                  IB
, 4i > el

^j ff3 3 ** e w

±J§| £ IS
* itiiil iL
i Kan KI
ji« . Si
n> 1. • -g, • » B
• C 4j *» S —
8.C M OI V X
•w q 01 «•
u oo g _g
**.-.• ISs
1.281 ^fe«
t-S-s-t. ff^-a
2S&8. -S*
i 1
••§ g
1 1
m 43
•, * •
8 S

g
o 8 '•
is) in

T , m
t !„
CD ' O3
4) 41
' 3 3
a £
- "


"

§
i.
, «>
*5
.1-. s
e
|s
o;5
u «*-»
5s
*>
S.ll
*J +J 3
328
W M in
ill
pa
Si.
*=U
|*SJ
*.«
5- = =
1 •
I
|
*.
;\

s'
m
"+I

to
03
01
2
^H






«| "
gj1"
u"> <»
SB^T

ts
8
u

L.
*O1
e
acy. Single
Circular cover-
^
§s
•g,i«
£«?
,
8
i
S
e
in
. *
!•'
o
3
o
e
i
4)
3
n





j:
' 1
* *0 10
m S
c w
oe v>
I
(5 ^jt

U *J
o> e
if
of
I*
W
§ , S «
|cS|
=•**!
vV2
fL.
a e>~- O •
u u "tt u o»
u »• « c
S *i *• it o
.e.2 .sis
f?i^S
z^: « ii »
i-
§"£
a3
§5
o "B
•*4^^


E
o
i


i
10 '
41
43
5




1
1
41
*«
.S


















i
.e

H!
i-
2
o
4)
1
8
i
s
4)
                                                D-9

-------
they  are  readily  available  because they  are widely  used  as  a  surveying
instrument.    At  least  two  theodolites,   two  operators, a vessel  siting
target,  and  a  three-way  communications  link  to  coordinate  fixes  are
required.  Visibility can be a limiting factor.

     By  comparison,   sextant  angle  resection  can  be  performed using  one
instrument  if the vessel  is  stationary,  or  using  two  instruments  simul-
taneously  if  the vessel  is moving.   Achievable angular accuracy of ±10 sec
is adequate, and relatively inexpensive sextants ($1,000-12,"000) are readily
available.  Again, visible  range can be limiting.   Shooting  an accurate fix
from a non-stationary platform in any significant sea or swell could be more
difficult  than  shooting  with  theodolites from  shore.   A distinct advantage
of  sextant angle  resection  is  location of  the navigators on the  survey
vessel.   The  method generally  requires highly visible  shore  targets  and a
three-arm protractor for plotting positions.

Multiple Electronic Ranges

     Positioning using multiple  ranges  can  be accomplished with two staffed
EDMI. stations.   Accuracies were found  to be more than  adequate but  ranges
were found  to  be marginal  [if needed beyond  3  km  (1.9  mi)]  unless  multiple
prisms  are used.    Because  such  prisms  are  directional,  procurement  of
multiple clusters  for more than one direction could result in substantial
additional costs.  The initial investment (i.e., without multiple prisms) is
$3,500-$5,000:each for two shorter-range units, or  $8,000-$ 15,000  each for
two longer-range units.  Several microwave navigation systems with more than
adequate range and sufficient  accuracy  are  available in the  $40,000-$90,000
range.   Limitations  include  geometry  of  shore stations;  position of  the
vessel in the coverage area (i.e., crossing angle limitations); and possible
interferences  due  to  line-of-sight obstructions,  sea-surface  reflective
nulls, and land-sea boundaries.   The hyperbolic mode provides multiple user
capability, but at the cost of an additional shore station.

     Satellite ranging  holds  promise because  required  accuracies  should be
achievable in the near future.   Transit satellite-based systems do not offer
                                   D-10

-------
            sufficient accuracy,  except with multiple  passes,  and multiple passes  are
            impractical  when  a  given  sampling  station  is  occupied  only  briefly.
            Accuracies  needed  will   undoubtedly  be  achievable  in  the  future  using
            differential  global positioning system (GPS) techniques ($10,000-$40,000 for
            first units;  as low as $1,000 for subsequent production models).  Commercial
            geosynchronous satellite networks, such as  GEOSTAR, may become available at
            a proposed system interrogator cost of  $450 plus a monthly  fee.   However,
            this system  is  in the very early stages of planning,  having only recently
            received FCC  approval'of requested  frequencies.  Finally,  the codeless GPS
            systems  (SERIES  or  Aero  Services  Marine .GPS  System)  currently  under
            development could be used, but at a current cost of over $250,000.

            Ranoe and Angle

                 Systems  in  the  range-azimuth  category show great promise.   Required
            angular  and   range accuracies  are  available,  only  one  shore station  is
            needed,  and  costs  depend  on  system refinements.   At the low end  of the
            scale,  an  EDMI and  theodolite  could  be paired  with  a  communication link for
            approximately $10,000-$12tOOO.    Total  stations  developed  specifically for
            this requirement  range in  cost  from  $8,000  for a manual station to $15,000-
            $30,000 for  a fully automatic station.  Optical  and  infrared range limita-
*           tions apply to these  systems.   The  three range-azimuth navigational systems
            examined  provide  sufficient  positional  accuracy with  a single  station at
            costs ranging from $65,000 for manual tracking to $70,000-$100,000 for fully
            automatic tracking.

            SHALLOW-WATER POSITIONING METHODS

                 When  sampling stations are  located  in relatively  shallow water,  they
            can be  identified by  relatively  inexpensive methods  (in  addition to those
            discussed earlier  in  this  report).   Provided the center of the ZID over the
            outfall can be located (e.g., by diver-positioned surface float), an optical
            range finder may be used to establish the required distances to nearby water
            quality or biological sampling stations.  An optical range  finder  is used by
            simply  focusing  a split-image  on  the target  float,  enabling  the  slant
                                                D-ll

-------
distances to the target to be read from the instrument scale.  When combined
with a careful  compass  reading,  this distance reading allows positioning of
the sampling vessel.

     A survey  of accuracies claimed for  commercially available instruments
suggests that the +3 m (9.8 ft) recommended minimum accuracy can be achieved
for ranges up to  approximately  100 m (328 ft) from the surface target.  The
Lietz Model  1200,  for  example,, provides  an  accuracy of.  ±1 m  (3.3  ft) at
100 m (328 ft).  Beyond this distance, instrumental errors increase rapidly.
For the  instrument  cited,  a  +9  m (29.5 ft) accuracy is quoted at 300 m  (984
ft).  The suggested U.S.  list  prices of optical range finders vary from $35
to $120  (Folk,  L.,  21 March 1985, personal communication).

     An  acceptable  alternative  method for collecting  bottom  samples from
desired  locations in shallow water is to use.divers.  Provided visibility is
adequate,  divers may measure   radial  distances  to desired  locations  by
holding  a tape  at the outfall, and  traversing the appropriate distance over
the bottom in the proper direction.

     Visual ranges  have sometimes been used to establish a station position.
This  method  requires that  a  minimum of. two  objects  are in  alignment,
enabling the vessel  to be  placed.on a common  axis extending to the vessel's
position.   Simultaneous  siting  on  a second  set of at  least  two  objects
places the vessel at. the  intersection of  the  .two common axes.  The accuracy
of each  visual  range  is  highly  dependent  on  the quality of the visual range
(e.g., alignment),  the distance from the alignment objects  to the vessel,
and the  angle between each  range.   Also, the number of  visual ranges used
affects  the magnitude of the positional  error.   Although this  technique is
frequently used for positioning single sampling  stations  in bays,  harbors,
and other areas in  which two or more conveniently alignable targets can be
selected, the method  is not  considered acceptable for coastal monitoring at
ZID-boundary stations.   Also,  it is  not  likely that a  sufficient number of
alignment  target-pairs will  be  present  for  all  desired  locations.   In
addition, the  unpredictability of  repeatable position error detracts from
the value of this method.
                                    D-12

-------
     Permanent  Installation of  a  marker  buoy  at the  outfall terminus  or
midpoint  of the  diffuser allows  easy  return to  this  point  on  subsequent
sampling trips.   Using  the  previously discussed  range-finder technique or a
line of desired  length  enables positioning  at  desired distances  from the
marker  buoy.    However,  it is  not uncommon  to  lose  such  a buoy  due  to
vandalism,  impact, or severe weather conditions.   Therefore, it is necessary
that the sampling party be prepared to relocate the outfall (e.g., by diver,
sonar,   or pinger  mounted  on the outfall  itself),  if location of stations is
dependent on knowledge of the outfall location.

     Because the  techniques described here are inexpensive to implement (as
are use of  the sextant resection  or theodolite  intersection methods), they
are  attractive to  small  coastal   municipalities.    However,  use of more
sophisticated  and  less  labor-dependent   techniques  may  be  achievable  at
moderate costs by renting or leasing, rather than buying such equipment.

USE OF  LORAN-C

     In their evaluation of positioning methods,  Tetra Tech (1987) concluded
that Loran-C  did  not provide the  absolute and  repeatable accuracies needed
for the 301(h) program.  However,  because  Loran-C is in such wide use and is
relatively  inexpensive,  use of Loran-C in  a  special  operating mode was re-
examined  in  Tetra  Tech  (1988).    The  special  operating  mode  is  called
differential Loran-C,  which requires an  additional Loran-C receiver onshore
at a known  geographic location.   At this  location,  the Loran-C signals are
received,  and  a  correction  is  generated and  transmitted  to  the   survey
vessel,  allowing  the  correction  to be  applied  to signals  received  by the
ship's  Loran-C unit.

     Differential Loran-C was  found to significantly improve the positional
accuracies  achievable compareu  to Loran-C  in the  normal mode.   During  a
simulated monitoring  program near Newport Beach, California, normal Loran-C
positional  errors of  40-50  m (131-164  ft)  were reduced to 7-15 m  (23-49 ft)
using  differential   Loran-C in  conjunction  with  special  vessel  operating
                                    D-13

-------
procedures,  a  video  display,  and  data  averaging  techniques.    Higher
accuracies are expected  in  other coastal areas where  improved  lattice line
crossing angles occur.  Acceptability may depend on relative orientations of
the diffuser and the  error  ellipse  axes  (Figure 0-3,  Table D-3).  For those
considering  use  of differential  Loran-C, a  procedure for  determining  the
error in a ZID-boundary station location is provided in Tetra Tech (1988).

SYSTEM SELECTION PROCEDURE

     A procedure for selecting an appropriate navigation system is described
in  detail   in  Tetra  Tech  (1987).    The procedure  involves definition  of
positioning  requirements, establishment  of screening criteria (e.g.,  range,
accuracy,  availability,  and  costs),  review  of  candidate  systems,  and
evaluation  of  purchase/lease options.    As  indicated  in   Figure  D-4,  a
stepwise screening technique  is  recommended  to identify  an optimal  system
for  a given monitoring  program.   At each step  in the  screening process,
systems that cannot achieve the  required criterion are removed from further
consideration.
                                    D-14

-------
                                                              OUTFALL PIPE
                  ZID
                  BOUNDARY
                  ELLIPSE ROUGHLY
               PARALLEL TO DIFFUSER
 95% PROBABILITY
      ELLIPSE

X,Y)


I	ACROSS-ZID
    ERROR VARIATION
                          ACROSS ZID
                          ERROR VARIATION
J
                 ELLIPSE ROUGHLY
                 PERPENDICULAR TO
                     DIFFUSER
    X.Y   Coordinates of 2ID-
          Boundary Sampling
          Station.

    EH    95% Probability of
          Actual Sampling
          Station Position being
          in this Area.
                       Figure D-3.  Examples of differential Loran-C error ellipse orientation
                                   at a ZID-boundary sampling station.
                                                    D-15

-------
      TABLE D-3.  THEORETICAL ERROR ELLIPSES OF DIFFERENTIAL LORAN-C
                        FOR VARIOUS U.S. LOCATIONS
Location
Anchorage, AK
Puget Sound, WA
San Francisco, CA
Los Angeles, CA
San Diego, CA
Mississippi Delta, LA
Panama City, FL
Chesapeake Bay, VA
Boston, MA
Approximate
Direction
of
Major Axis
NW/SE
NW/SE
NE/SW
NE/SW
N/S
NW/SE
N/S
W/E
N/S
Length
of
Major Axisa
70
180
60
90
90
50
30
40
30
Length
of
Minor Axis3
20
40
30 •
30
20
20
20
20
20
a Lengths are given to the nearest 10 m based on 95 percent confidence level
error  ellipses.    Standard  deviation  of  time  differences  is  25  nsecs
(achievable with differential Loran-C).
                                     D-16

-------
                  \7—i
!J
                     t!
                             I      I
                      CANDIDATE I SYSfEV
Figure D-4.  Navigation system preliminary screening criteria.
                           D-17

-------
                                 REFERENCES
                                   :

Bowditch, N.  1984.  American practical  navigator.  An epitome of navigation.
Defense Mapping Agency Hydrographic/Topographic Center, Washington, DC.  pp.
1272, 1278.

Dungan, R.G.   1979.   How to get the most our of LORAN-C.  SG 54.  Extension
marine advisory Program, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.  12 pp.

Folk, L.   21 March  1985.   Personal Communication (phone  by  Dr.  William P.
Muellenhoff, Tetra Tech).  Kuker-Rankin, Inc., Settle, WA.

Tetra Tech.   1987.  Evaluation of  survey  positioning methods for nearshore
and  estuarine  waters.   EPA-430/9-86-003.  Final report  prepared  for Marine
Operations  Division,  Office  of  Marine  and  Estuarine  Protection,  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.   Tetra Tech,  Inc.,  Bellevue,  WA.  54 pp. +
appendices.

Tetra Tech.   1988.   Evaluation of differential Loran-C  for  positioning in
nearshore marine  and estuarine  waters.   Draft  report prepared  for Marine
operations  Division,  Office  of  Marine  and  Estuarine  Protection,  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.   EPA Contract  No.  68-C8-0001.   Tetra Tech,
Inc., Bellevue, WA.
                                    0-18

-------

-------

-------
j
                                            APPENDIX E
                               URBAN AREA PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS

-------

-------
                                             CONTENTS
                                                                                    Paoe
           LIST OF FIGURES                                                          iii
           LIST OF TABLES                                                            iv
           INTRODUCTION                        .                                     E-l
           APPLICABLE TREATMENT  PROGRAM APPROACH                                    E-3
                U.S. EPA GUIDANCE                                                   E-3
                LOCAL LIMITS                                                        E-5
           SECONDARY REMOVAL  EQUIVALENCY  APPROACH                                   E-7
                SECONDARY TREATMENT  PILOT PLANT DESIGN CRITERIA                    E-10
                SECONDARY TREATMENT  PILOT PLANT STARTUP                            E-14
                SECONDARY TREATMENT  PILOT PLANT OPERATING CRITERIA                 E-16
           TOXIC POLLUTANT MONITORING  PROGRAM, TESTING PROCEDURES, AND
                QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL                                  E-24
                SAMPLING FREQUENCY                                                 E-25
                SAMPLE COLLECTION AND  ANALYSIS                                     E-26
                QA/QC                                                              E-43
           UPGRADING TO A FULL-SCALE SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITY                  E-50
           DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE  USING PILOT PLANT DATA .                        E-55
i           REFERENCES                  .                                            E-56
           ATTACHMENT 1:  U.S. EPA OFFICE OF WATER  ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS
                PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING TECHNICALLY BASED  LOCAL LIMITS           E-59
           ATTACHMENT 2:  U.S. EPA GUIDANCE MANUAL  ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND
                IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL. DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS UNDER THE
                PRETREATMENT  PROGRAM                              .                E-68
                                               E-ii

-------

-------
                                              FIGURES
            Number
              E-l   Components of a conventional activated sludge system
 Paoe
E-12
II
                                                E-iii

-------

-------
                                               TABLES
            Number              ,                   .                                 Page
              E-l   Effluent water quality values that shall not be exceeded
                    under secondary treatment                                       E-9
              E-2   Secondary treatment pilot plant design criteria                E-ll
              E-3   Conventional activated sludge design parameters                E-13
              E-4   Pliot plant monitoring schedule                                E-17
              E-5   List of test procedures approved by U.S. EPA for inorganic
                    compounds in effluent                                          E-28
              E-6   List of test procedures approved by U.S. EPA for non-
                    pesticide organic compounds in effluent                    .    E-35
              E-7   List of test procedures approved by U.S. EPA for pesticides
                    in effluent                                                    E-38
              E-8   Recommended sample sizes, containers, preservation, and
                    holding times for effluent samples                             E-41
              E-9   Reported values for activated sludge biological process
                    tolerance limits of organic priority pollutants                E-51
              E-10  Reported values for activated sludge biological process
                    tolerance limits of inorganic priority pollutants              E-53
3.
                                                E-iv

-------

-------
                                            INTRODUCTION
                 Section 303(c) of the Water Quality  Act of 1987 amended Section 301(h)
            of the 1977 Clean  Water  Act  by adding the "urban area pretreatment require-
            ment."   This  requirement applies  only to POTWs serving  a  population of at
            least  50,000  and  only  to toxic pollutants  introduced  by  industrial  dis-
            chargers.   For  each toxic pollutant  introduced  by  an industrial discharger
            in affected POTWs,  the  applicant must demonstrate  that  it  meets one of the
            following two conditions:

                 •    Has an "applicable pretreatment requirement in effect"

                 •    Achieves "secondary removal equivalency."

            This  new  statutory  requirement  complements  the   toxics  control  program
            requirements in the existing  Section  301(h)  regulations  (40 CFR 125.66) and
            other pretreatment requirements  in 40 CFR 403.

,                The intent of this  appendix is  to help POTWs interpret and comply with
            the  new  requirement.   For  site-specific reasons,   concepts  and procedures
            recommended  herein may  not  necessarily  apply to  all   301(h)  applicants.
            Issues that are not addressed by this appendix should be directed to U.S. EPA
            Regional  offices.   Applicants should also check with appropriate state and
            local agencies for any explicit  requirements  (e.g., water quality standards)
 ,           that  apply  to  them.   The  procedures to demonstrate compliance  with this
J           urban area  requirement must  be formulated and implemented by each POTW with
            concurrence from the  appropriate U.S. EPA Regional  office.   Compliance with
            the  urban area  pretreatment  requirement  is  required before a 301 (h) permit
            may  be issued  by  U.S. EPA,  although tentative approval  may  be   granted on
            demonstration of the  applicant's good faith  effort.
                                                E-l

-------
     When  a  review of  the 301(h) application  indicates  that noncompliance
with pretreatment requirements is  substantial  and  that  the applicant is not
taking  effective steps  to assure  compliance,  then  U.S.  EPA may  deny the
permit.   Factors relevant to such  a decision  include the  number  of non-
complying  industrial  sources, the  nature of their  toxic  pollutant contri-
bution  to the  POTW,  and potential  or  actual  POTW interference  of  pass-
through. .
                                    E-2


-------
                              APPLICABLE TREATMENT PROGRAM APPROACH
                Applicable  pretreatment  requirements  for each toxic pollutant may take
           one of two forms:                    .

                •    Categorical standards

                •    Local  limits.

           Categorical  standards  are nationally uniform, technology-based pretreatment
           limitations  developed  for specific  industrial  categories  under Section 307
           of  the  Clean  Water Act.    All   categorical  industries  must comply  with
           categorical  standards,  even  if they discharge to a POTW without a federally
           approved  local  pretreatment  program.    By  contrast,  local  limits  are
           developed by the POTW  to prevent  interference with  the treatment works or
           pass-through of  toxic pollutants,  as required by 40 CFR 403.5(b).

                A  given industrial  discharger may  be subject to categorical standards
           for some  pollutants and local limits for other pollutants, or to both types
           of  limitations  for  the same  pollutant.   In the  latter  case,  the stricter
           standard  applies.    The urban area pretreatment requirement  for  all toxic
           pollutants entering  a POTW will probably require a combination of both forms
           of pretreatment  standards.
j          U.S.  EPA GUIDANCE
                The  U.S. EPA  Office of  Water Enforcement and  Permits  (OWEP)  and the
           U.S.  EPA Office of Water Regulations and  Standards  (OWRS) have issued the
           following  guidance  manuals  to  assist  POTWs   in  implementing pretreatment
           regulations  and  developing  technically based local  limits:
                                                E-3

-------
     •    Guidance  Manual for POTU Pretreatment  Program Development
          (U.S. EPA 1983a).

     •    Procedures Manual  for Reviewing a  POTH Pretreatment Program
          Submission (U.S. EPA  I983b)

     •    NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual  (U.S. EPA 1984)

     •    Guidance Manual  for Implementing Total  Toxic  Organics (TTO)
          Pretreatment Standards (U.S. EPA 1985a)

     •    Guidance Manual  for the  Use of Production-Based Pretreatment
          Standards  and the Combined  Uastestream  Formula  (U.S.  EPA
          1985b)                    .                    .

     •    Pretreatment  Compliance  Monitoring and  Enforcement Guidance
          (U.S. EPA 1986a)

     •    Guidance Manual for Preventing Interference at POTUs (U.S. EPA
          1987a)

     •    Guidance for Reporting and Evaluating POTU Noncompliance with
          Pretreatment Implementation Requirements (U.S. EPA  1987b)

     •    Guidance  Manual on  the  Development  and  Implementation  of
          Local Discharge  Limitations  Under  the  Pretreatment Program
          (U.S. EPA 1987c) (enclosed as Attachment 2 to this  appendix).

The  implementation  and enforcement guidelines  in  these manuals require the
POTW to undertake the following:

     •    In the POTW industrial waste survey (which must be  updated on
          a  regular  basis),  identify and  locate  all  industries  that
          discharge pollutants into the POTW
                                    E-4

-------
£
j
                      Demonstrate  that  the. sampling procedures and analysis program
                      undertaken   were   adequate  to  characterize  industrial  and
                      nonindustrial  pollutant  loading  to the POTW,  and pollutant
                      concentrations  in the POTW  influent, effluent, and sludge

                      Compare measured  pollutant concentrations to applicable sludge
                      criteria  or  guidelines, water quality criteria or standards,
                      and  POTW  process .inhibition thresholds

                      Demonstrate   that  the   existing  pretreatment  program   is
                      adequate  to  control  industrial user discharges,  and that  it
                      contains  specific numerical limits  for industrial pollutants

                      Demonstrate  that  local  limits are technically based, adequate
                      to  protect  the  POTW,  and allow compliance with  its   NPDES
                      permit                    .

                      Demonstrate  that  steps have been  taken to  identify the causes
                      of past POTW operating problems (e.g., industrial discharges,
                      equipment failures,  plant  upsets,   NPDES  permit violations,
                      sludge contamination) and correct them

                      Demonstrate  that  POTW inspection  and  compliance monitoring
                      procedures exist  and  are  being  implemented

                      Demonstrate  that  the needed resources  (e.g.,  funds, staff,
                      equipment) are  available  to carry out program requirements.
            LOCAL  LIMITS
                 The  technical  approach  used  by  a  POTW to  develop  local  limits  is
            primarily a local decision,  provided  that the local limits  are  enforceable
            and  scientifically based.   Most POTWs use  the headworks loading method  in
            the   U.S.   EPA   (1987c)   local  limits  guidance  manual.    OWEP-recommended
            procedures  for  developing  local   limits  appear  as Attachment  1  to  this
                                                E-5

-------
appendix.  Best  professional  judgment,can  be used to establish pretreatment
requirements when  data or criteria are insufficient to  perform a pollutant
loading  analysis for  a  specific pollutant  of  concern.   The  applicant may
implement  the  local limits via  uniform maximum allowable concentrations or
discharger-specific maximum allowable mass emissions.

     Local limits should be reviewed and revised periodically in response to
changes  in federal  or state regulations,  environmental, protection criteria,
plant design and operational  criteria, or the  nature  of industrial  contri-
butions  to POTU influent.   For  example,   the  following specific  changes
could affect criteria  used to derive local limits:

     •    Changes  in  NPDES  permit  limits  to  include additional or more
          restrictive  toxic pollutant limits
                                    »                  •*
     •    Changes  in  water quality limits including  toxicity require-
          ments

     •    Changes in sludge disposal standards or POTW disposal methods

     •    Availability of additional  site-specific data pertaining  to
          pollutant removal efficiencies and/or process inhibition.

     OWEP  is  presently  developing  guidance  to  determine  the  technical
adequacy  of  ^cal  limits  and to  ensure  their enforcement.   This guidance
will also clarify  the use of best professional judgment  for establishing
local  discharge  limits  or  technology-based  limits  when  the  data  are
insufficient.
                                    E-6

-------
                              SECONDARY REMOVAL EQUIVALENCY APPROACH
                 One approach that  301 (h)  applicants may use  to satisfy the new  urban
            area  pretreatment requirement  is to  demonstrate secondary removal  equiva-
            lency.   As  noted  in  40 CFR 125. 65 (d):                                '.


                 An  applicant shall demonstrate that it achieves  secondary  removal
                 equivalency  through the use of a secondary treatment pilot  plant
                 at  the applicant's facility which provides  an  empirical determina-
                 tion of the  amount of a toxic pollutant removed  by  the application
                 of  secondary treatment to  the applicant's discharge,  where  the
                 applicant's  influent has  not been pretreated.   Alternatively,  an
                'applicant  may make this determination  using influent  that has been
                 pretreated,  notwithstanding section  125.58(w).


            In  effect,  the  applicant's  existing treatment processes  and  industrial
            pretreatment program must  remove at least as much  of a toxic  pollutant  as
            would be removed .if the applicant  applied secondary treatment and  did not
            have  an industrial  pretreatment  requirement  for that  pollutant..  This
            approach can be represented as  follows:


*              .  POTW existing  +  industrial  =  POTW  existing  +  no industrial
                  treatment       pretreatment     treatment       pretreatment
                                                   upgraded  to
                                               secondary treatment


            U.S.  EPA recognizes,  however,   that  it would be simpler for- applicants  to
            perform  this demonstration by using a secondary  treatment  pilot  plant on the
j          ^actual pretreated influent.   This approach  is  shown below:


                 POTW existing  +  industrial  »  POTW  existing  +  industrial
                  treatment       pretreatment     treatment      pretreatment
                                                   upgraded  to
                                               secondary treatment
a.

                                                E-7

-------
Although  U.S.  EPA  will  consider  them,  demonstrations to  account for the
effects  of  industrial  pretreatment  will  probably  be  difficult.     The
secondary treatment  pilot  plant approach is conservative (i.e., protective)
where it uses influent that has  received  industrial pretreatment, because the
calculated  required removals will  be greater than  those resulting  from a
demonstration using  influent that has not been pretreated.

     Secondary  treatment  at  POTWs typically involves  biological  processes
that remove organic matter through biochemical oxidation, usually variations
of the activated sludge process. Other physical-chemical secondary treatment
processes  (e.g.,  coagulation,  filtration,  carbon adsorption)  may also  be
used, particularly for nonbiodegradable wastewaters.   The specific secondary
treatment process  used by a  POTW  is dependent on numerous  factors  such as
wastewater quantity, waste biodegradability, and available space at the POTW
site.   Each POTW must  determine the best strategy  and  the  most applicable
treatment  process  for complying  with  the  secondary removal  equivalency
requirements.

     The  level' of  effluent  quality  attainable  through the  application  of
secondary  treatment  is defined  in  40  CFR 133  (Table  E-l).   Treatment
processes  that  are  considered equivalent  to  secondary treatment  (e.g.,
trickling  filter,  waste  stabilization  pond)  are  discussed  in  40  CFR
133.105.  Minimum levels of effluent quality  attainable from these equivalent
treatment processes differ from  those shown in Table E-l.

     Because secondary treatment levels were defined only for BOD, suspended
solids,  and pH,  POTWs were  usually not  required  to  institute technology
specifically to  control toxic pollutants.   Under the  1977  Clean Water Act,
toxic pollutants in the .POTW effluents were controlled predominantly through
pretreatment programs, categorical standards, and local POTW limits required
by the issuance of NPOES permits.
                                    E-8

-------
I
                     TABLE E-l.   EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY VALUES THAT SHALL NOT
                               BE EXCEEDED UNDER SECONDARY TREATMENT

Variable3
BOD5
CBOD5b
ss
PH
30-Day
Average
30 mg/L
25 rag/L
30 mg/L
6.0
7-Day 30-Day Average
Average (Percent Removal)
45 mg/L
40 mg/L
45 mg/L
to 9.0
>85
>85
>85


            a BODg =  5-day  measure of biochemical oxygen demand;  CBODs  - 5-day measure
            of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand; SS = suspended solids.

            b At the option of the NPDES-permitting  authority,  CBOD5 may be substituted
            for
                                                E-9

-------
SECONDARY TREATMENT PILOT PLANT DESIGN CRITERIA
                                           /
     A secondary  treatment pilot  plant  should be  designed for  an  average
flow of approximately  150 GPD.   The flow rate should remain constant over a
24-h period.   The  pilot plant  should .require minimum operation  and main-
tenance time,  and  must  be able to  operate  unattended for  16-24 h.   The
organic loading will vary with  the diurnal  and seasonal  fluctuations in the
8005 concentration  in  the  existing POTW effluent.   Design  criteria for the
secondary treatment pilot plant are shown in Table E-2.

     A conventional activated sludge system (Figure E-l) for a POTW includes
the following related components:

     •    Single  or multiple   reactor  basins  (i.e.,  aeration  tanks)
          where  microorganisms  consume  the   organic  wastes.    These
          basins  are  designed  to  allow  for complete  mixing of its
          contents, which are defined as mixed liquor suspended solids
          (MLSS).   Each  basin must provide typical  hydraulic retention
          times of 2-24 h.

     •    Pressurized  or atmospheric oxygen-containing gases  that are
          dispersed into the reactor basin.

     •    Settling  basin  (i.e., final clarifier) to separate the MLSS
          from the treated wastewater.

     •    Equipment  to collect  the  solids in the  settling basin, and
          to  recycle  the  active  biological   solids  (i.e.,  activated
          sludge) to the reactor basin.

     •    Equipment to remove excess active biological solids from the
          system.

Typical design  variables for the  conventional  activated  sludge process are
shown  in  Table  E-3.  Additional information  on  activated sludge systems is
                                    E-10

-------
i
                   TABLE  E-2,   SECONDARY  TREATMENT  PILOT  PUNT  DESIGN  CRITERIA
           Reactor Basin  (Aeration  Tank)
                Volume                    50  gal  (189  L)
                Detention time            8 h
                Organic loading           25-60  Ib  BOD/1,000  ft3/day  (0.4-1.0  kg/m3/day)
                Air  requirement           0.20-0.44 ft3/min  (0.33-0.75 n»3/h)

           Settling  Basin  (Final  Clarifier)
                Volume
                Surface Area
                Overflow Area
                Solids Loading
                Weir Length
                Detention Time
20 gal (76 L)
0.375 ft2 (0.035 m2)
400 gal/ft2/day (16.3
14 Ib/ft2/day (68.4 kg/m2/day)
0.5 ft (0.152 m)       ,
3 h
            Influent Feed  Pump
                Capacity
                Type
0-290 gal/day (0-12.7 L/sec)
Peristaltic
j
           Return Activated  Sludge  Pump        '    .  .
                Capacity                  0-130 gal/day  (0-5.7  L/sec)
                                               •E-ll

-------
                                            o

                                            I
                                            (A
                                            Q>
                                            1
                                            O

                                            1
                                            CD
                                            (0

                                            B
                                            CO
                                            c
                                            
                                            iZ
E-12

-------
   TABLE E-3.  CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE DESIGN PARAMETERS
Food to microorganism ratio

Mean cell residence time

Aeration detention time

Oxygen requirements
Return activated sludge
  flow rate
0.15-0.4 Ib BOD5/1b MLSS/day

5-15 days

4-8 h

0.8-1.1 Ib (kg) 02/lb (kg)
     removed
30-100 percent influent flow
Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)    1,500-4,000 mg/L
Organic loading at
  3,000 mg/L MLSS

Respiration (oxygen uptake) rate
  at 3,000 mg/L MLSS

Sludge volume index

Waste activated sludge
20-60 Ib BOD/1,000 ft3
(0.3-1.0 kg'BOD/nP)

15-45 mg oxygen/L/h
90-150

0,4-0.6 Ib (kg)/lb (kg)
BOD removed   .
                               E-13

-------
provided by  the Water Pollution Control Federation  [(WPCF)  1976,  1987] and
WPCF/American Society for Civil Engineers (1977).

SECONDARY TREATMENT PILOT PLANT STARTUP

     In the  activated sludge  process,  microorganisms  metabolize nearly all
soluble organic matter in the influent.   The microorganisms  (i.e., active
biological solids)  must be  removed from the  settling basin  to produce an
acceptable effluent,  and  the  proper  operation  of the  settling  basin is
critical.  The  following process control parameters should  be monitored to
ensure proper operation of the activated sludge system:
          MLSS
          Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS)
          Dissolved oxygen
          Sludge volume index  (SVI)
          Sludge density index (SOI)
          Organic loading
          Return activated sludge (RAS) flow rate
          Waste activated sludge  (WAS) flow rate
          Mean cell residence time (MCRT)/solids retention time (SRT)
          Food/microorganism ratio (F/M)
          Temperature
                                    E-14

-------
     •    Hydrogen ion concentration (pH)

     •    Respiration rate (RR).

In addition to these  process  control  parameters,  microscopic examination of
the MLSS should be performed.

     An initial F/M ratio of 0.2 should be achieved.  Field operators should
adjust  the  F/M  ratio by  changing the  MLSS concentration  in the  reactor
basin if the  required 30-day average  effluent  quality (i.e., 30  mg/L BOD,
30 mg/L  suspended  solids)   cannot be  achieved.    If  temperature  varies
substantially between summer and winter,  the F/M ratio will probably need to
be lowered during winter to achieve the required effluent quality.

     The  pilot plant should  be  seeded  with  MLSS from  a  local  domestic
wastewater treatment  facility.   Acclimation  of  the pilot plant will  require
about 4-6 wk.   If there is no local source  of  MLSS, the pilot plant may be
started using  the POTW's effluent.   An  additional 4-6 wk may be needed to
ensure that the MLSS meets the desired design concentration.

     The MLSS should be fed with domestic wastewater for the first 2-3 days.
The  volumetric  proportion of the  effluent  should then  be  adjusted  to 10
percent of the total feed for 4-5 days.  After the  initial week of operation,
the  volumetric  proportion  of the  regular POTVI effluent  in  the pilot plant
feed can  be increased approximately  5 percent per day  until  the system is
receiving 100 percent POTVI effluent.

     Sampling for 8005 and suspended solids should be conducted daily during
and  after the acclimation period.   Sampling  for toxic pollutants should not
be started  until  2 wk after  the pilot plant is  receiving  100 percent POTW
effluent.                                       .
                                    E-15

-------
SECONDARY TREATMENT PILOT PLANT OPERATING CRITERIA

     The  process control  parameters  Identified  in  the preceding  section
should  be monitored  to  provide  information  for  process  control  and  to
determine treatment efficiency.  A monitoring schedule is shown in Table E-4.
The  frequency  of sample  collection  and  analysis may  vary for  each  POTW,
however, depending on the size of the POTW, available laboratory facilities,
available staff, and technical skills of personnel.  Additional sampling and
analysis may be required for abnormal  conditions or during periods of process
upsets.   Implementation of  the monitoring program,  data interpretation, and
pilot plant operation and maintenance is  estimated  to require about 5 labor
hours per day..  Each process control parameter is discussed below.

Mixed Liauo'r Suspended Solids

     Samples  of MLSS  should  be  collected  from  the effluent  end of the
reactor basin twice daily and  analyzed for suspended solids.   This analysis
will  measure the  total  amount  of  solids  in  the aeration  system.    The
concentration of the MLSS, which depends on the influent 8005 concentration,
should be adjusted based on the daily average.

Mixed Liauor Volatile Suspended Solids (MLVSS)

     Each MLSS sample should be analyzed for MLVSS.  This analysis indirectly
measures the living biological percentage of the MLSS.  The concentration of
MLVSS is normally 70 to 80 percent of the concentration of the MLSS.

Dissolved Oxygen

     The  concentration  of  dissolved oxygen in the  reactor  basins should be
                                                                 *
measured  twice  daily to  ensure that  a  concentration of 1-3  mg/L  is  main-
tained.   Samples should be collected about 2  ft below the  surface  of the
reactor basin, near the effluent weir. .The plant operator should adjust the
air supply to provide more air if the dissolved oxygen concentration is less
than 1 mg/L and  less air if it is greater than 3 mg/L.
                                    E-16

-------
I
                           TABLE  E-4.   PILOT  PLANT MONITORING SCHEDULE
             Sampling Point
      Parameters*
     Frequency
            Primary Effluent
            MLSS
            WAS/RAS

            Secondary Clarifier

            Final  Effluent
      Temperature
           DH
           SS

          B005
     Overflow rate
         CBOD5

      Temperature
           pH
    Dissolved oxygen
    Respiration  rate
  Sludge volume index
           SS
          VSS
Microscopic examination

           SS

  Sludge  blanket depth

      Temperature
           pH
   Settleable solids
           SS

          BOD5
         CBOD5
1 grab daily
1 grab daily
4 grabs weekly and
3 24-h composites weekly
3 24-h composites weekly
1 grab daily
1 24-h composite weekly

1 grab daily
1 grab daily
2 grabs daily
2 grabs daily
2 grabs daily
1 grab daily
1 grab daily
1 grab daily

1 grab daily

2 grabs daily

1 grab daily
1 grab daily
1 grab daily
4 grabs weekly and
3 24-h composites weekly
3 24-h composites weekly
1 24-h composite weekly
            a SS  -  Suspended  solids;  BODi; =  5-day biochemical oxygen  demand;
            5-day carbonaceous  biochemical  oxygen  demand;  VSS  =  volatile  s
            cnl -i Af
j
            solids.
                                              ,  CBODg =•
                                              suspended
                                                E-17

-------
Sludge Volume Index fSVIl

     The rate at which the MLSS settles in the settling basin depends on the
sludge  characteristics.    These characteristics are  described by  a simple
settling test:   1,000 ml  of  the MLSS effluent is collected  and  allowed to
settle  for  30 rain  in a Mallory  settleometer.   At the  end of 30  min,  the
volume of the settled sludge is measured.  The SVI is calculated as follows:

               CUT   volume of settled si udoe fmU  x 1.000
               5VI =             MLSS (rog/L)    ~

The  lower  the SVI, the  more dense the  sludge.   An  SVI  of 150 or less is
usually considered good.

Sludoe Density Index  (SDI)

     The SOI  test  is  also used to  indicate  the  settling characteristics of
the sludge, and it is arithmetically related to the SVI:
                                    SVI

SDI  of  a "good  settling sludge"  is  about 1.0.   A  value of  less  than 1.0
indicates  light sludge  that  settles  slowly.   An  index greater  than 1.5
indicates dense sludge that settles rapidly.

Organic Loading

     From routine laboratory 6005 analysis, the plant operator can determine
organic loading in the reactor basin.

                 Organic loading = (Ib BOD/1,000  ft3/day)

     wvru wi,,<»,* nnn (mn/\\ v  PQTW Effluent Flow fMGDl  x 0.0624
     POTW Effluent BOD (mg/L) x     Reactor Basin Volume  (MG)

                                    E-18

-------
            Return  Activated Sludge (RAS)  Flow Rate

                 To properly operate the activated sludge process, an MLSS that  settles
            adequately must  be  achieved and  maintained.   The MLSS  are settled in  the
            settling basin  and  then  returned-to the  reactor basin as RAS.   The  RAS
            allows  the microorganisms to,,remain in the treatment-system longer  than  the
            flowing wastewater.    Changes  in the  activated  sludge quality and  settling
            characteristics  will  require different RAS  flow  rates.
                                                              ».> •••
                 Two basic  approaches  can  be used to  control the RAS  flow rate.   One
            approach establishes a constant RAS  flow rate,  independent of the  influent
            flow.     This  approach  is  simple  (i.e.,  maximum  solids  loading  in  the
            settling basin  occurs, at  the  start of  the peak  flow  periods)  and less
            operator attention is needed.   A  disadvantage of this approach  is  that  the
            F/M ratio is constantly changing.  However, because of short-term variation
            in  the MLSS due to hydraulic loading, the  range of  fluctuation in  the  F/M
            ratio  is  generally  small  enough  to ensure  that no  significant  problems
            arise.

                 A second  approach establishes the RAS flow rate as a constant percentage
m           of   the  influent flow.    This  approach  reduces variations  in  the MLSS
            concentration  and the  F/M  ratio,  and the MLSS remain in the settling  basin
           .for shorter time periods  (which may reduce the possibility of denitrification
            in  the basin).   The most significant disadvantage of .this  approach is that
         .   the settling  basin  is subjected  to maximum  solids  loading when the  basin
            contains the maximum amount of sludge, which produces excessive solids in  the
-.           effluent.
*~                                                      .
                 Two methods  are commonly  used  to  determine the RAS  flow rate.   The
            settleability  method  uses  the  settled  sludge volume, from  the SVI  test to
            calculate the  RAS flow rate:
                                               E-19

-------
                           RAS Flow Rate (MGD) =
     Volume of Settled Sludge 
-------
residence time (MCRT)* based on the MLSS in the entire secondary system, and
RAS suspended solids concentration:.

                                       [Aeration Tank Volume (MS) +
 . WAS Flow Rate (MGD) = MLSS (mg/L), x	[desirlr ***'**
                                                             ] x
                                       [RAS Suspended Sol ids' (mg/L)]

Mean Cell Residence Time (MCRT)/So1ids Retention Time (SRTl

     The MCRT,  which is  also called  the  SRT, is  a  measure of  the  age of
sludge.  Under normal conditions, the MCRT is,5-15 days.  MCRT is defined as*.

           Suspended solids in total secondary system fib)  a
          Solids wasted (Ib/day) + effluent solids  (Ib/day)
FMLSS (ma/Pi x [Aeration Tank Volume (MG) + Secondary Clarifier Volume(MG)1
               [WAS Suspended solids (mg/L) x WAS Flow (MGD)] +
          [Effluent Suspended solids (mg/L) x Effluent Flow (MGD)]
     MCRT  is the  best  process  control  technique available, to  the plant
operator.  By using  the MCRT,  the operator can control the quantity of food
available  to  the microorganisms  and  calculate  the  amount of  activated
sludge that should be wasted.

Food/Microoraanism Ratio (F/M)

     The F/M  ratio is the ratio  of  BOD in the POTW  effluent to the MLVSS.
An F/M ratio of 0.15 to 0.4 is desirable.  F/M is defined as:
                   * .           p k   • •     •
                         POTW Effluent BOD (nio/U
                              MLVSS  (mg/L)
                  *•
To control the F/M.ratio,  the operator must adjust the MLSS by wasting more
or less sludge.
                                    E-21

-------
Temperature                                ......

     In  process  control, accurate temperature measurements are required to
predict  and  evaluate   process  performance,  thereby  enhancing  microbial
growth.   Typically, the rate of microbial  growth  doubles for  every  10° C
increase  in  temperature  within  the  specific   temperature  range  of  the
microbe.

Hvdrooen Ion Concentration  foH)

     The activity  and health of microorganisms  is affected by pH.   Sudden
changes or abnormal  pH  values may  indicate an adverse industrial discharge.
A pH drop  will  also result when nitrification  is occurring in a biological
process; alkalinity  is  destroyed and carbon  dioxide  is  produced during the
nitrification process.

Respiration Rate (RR)

     The efficiency of  the  activated  sludge process depends  primarily on
the activity  of bacteria  that use  organic  compounds in  sewage for energy
and reproduction.    When in  contact with an adequate food  supply,  viable
bacteria will have  a respiration rate (i.e., oxygen uptake rate) of 5-15 mg
oxygen/h/g  MLSS.    Respiration rate  data   provide  immediate  information
concerning viability,  nitrification, organic loading, nutrient levels, and
toxicity in the activated sludge.
             /•
     The  respiration  rate,   or  oxygen  uptake  rate,  is  monitored  with  a
dissolved  oxygen  meter  over  a  time interval  (t)  (e.g.,  6-10 min).   The
respiration rate  is a measure  of  the decrease in  dissolved  oxygen concen-
tration:

     RR (mg oxygen/h/g MLSS)  = fDQ change over t  (mo/in  x  rgO.OOOl
hanoe over t fmo/L)1 x r60.(
[MLSS (mg/ L) ] x [t (mi n) ]
                                    E-22

-------
Microscopic Examination

     Microscopic  examination  of the  MLSS  can  be  used  to  evaluate  the
effectiveness of  the activated  sludge process.   The most  important  micro-
organisms are the protozoa, heterotrophic bacteria, and autotrophic bacteria
responsible for  purifying the wastewater.   Both protozoa  (e.g.,  ciliates)
and rotifers are  indicators  of treatment performance, and  large  numbers of
these organisms in the MLSS  indicate good  quality sludge.   Large numbers of
filamentous organisms  and certain ciliates indicate  poor sludge  quality,  a
condition commonly  associated with a sludge  that settles poorly  (i.e,  the
sludge floe is usually light and fluffy because it has a low density).  Many
other organisms  in  the  sludge {e.g.,  nematodes, waterborne  insect larvae)
may be found in the  sludge.  However,  these organisms are not significant to
the activated sludge process.
                                    E-23

-------
          TOXIC POLLUTANT MONITORING PROGRAM, TESTING PROCEDURES,
               AND QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
     A  sampling  strategy  must  be  developed  to  estimate the  difference
between toxic  pollutant concentrations in the  existing  discharge and those
in the secondary treatment pilot plant discharge.  Samples must be. collected
using proper  techniques and analyzed  using  appropriate-analytical  methods.
Both  field and  laboratory methods  must  be  performed under  defined QA/QC
procedures.      .             •                        .

     Applicants  are  referred  to  the  following  documents  for guidance on
specific topics  relevant to the design  and execution of 301(h)  monitoring
programs:

     •    Sampling/Monitoring Program

               NPDES Compliance Sampling Manual (U.S. EPA 1979a)

               Design  of  301(h)  Monitoring  Programs  for  Municipal
               Uastewater Discharges to Marine Waters (U.S. EPA 1982a)

               Handbook for Sampling and Sample  Preservation  of Uater
               and Uostewater (U.S. EPA 1982c)

     •    Chemical Analytical Methods

               Methods for Chemical  Analysis of Uater and Wastes (U.S.
               EPA 1979b,  revised  1983)

               Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis
               of Pollutants [40 CFR Part 136 (1984)]
                                    E-24

-------
               Standard  Methods  for  the  Examination  of .Voter  and
              • 'Hastewater (16th ed.) (American Public Health Association
               1985)

               Analytical  Methods  for  EPA  Priority  Pollutants  and
               301(h)  Pesticides  in  Estuarine and  Marine  Sediments
               (Tetra Tech 1986a)

               Analytical  Methods _ for  EPA ' Priority  Pollutants  and
               301 (h) Pesticides  in Tissues from  Estuarine and Marine
               Organisms (Tetra Tech 1986bj

     •    Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)

               Handbook  for Analytical  Quality Control  in  Voter and
               Mastewater Laboratories (U.S. EPA 1979c)

               Quality  Assurance/Quality  Control   (QA/QC)  for  301(h)
               Monitoring Programs:   Guidance  on  Field and Laboratory
               Methods (Tetra Tech 1987).       "'

Information from these documents is summarized  below.   •

SAMPLING FREQUENCY
    *'
     The frequency  of sampling is  dependent  on the  characteristics  of the
discharge  (e.g.,  influent and  effluent toxic  pollutant  variability, flow,
size  and  location  of  the discharge).   For example,  large applicants with
substantial  quantities  of  toxic  pollutants   should  conduct  more frequent
sampling  than small  dischargers  with fewer  toxic pollutants.    Also,   if
existing  toxic pollutant  data  are minimal,  and   estimates  of  periods   of
maximum pollutant loadings and  peak concentrations are not known, then more
frequent monitoring is needed.
                                    E-25

-------
     The  concentrations  of toxic  pollutants  in the  discharge may vary  in
response  to  periodic peak inflows.   If a fixed periodic trend  is observed
(e.g., a  sine curve)  the sampling  plan  could  be designed to collect samples
during the peak period.

     If a fixed  sampling interval  is chosen that  is  equal  to or a.multiple
of the period, every  sample would  be taken at the same inflow condition and
the  estimate  of  the mean  difference  in toxic  pollutant  concentrations
between samples  would not take into effect all  possible inflows.   The most
favorable  sampling  situation  occurs  when the fixed sampling  interval  is  an
odd multiple of the half-period (i.e., successive deviations above and below
the  mean  inflow would  mathematically  cancel  one  another,   and  the  mean
difference in concentration between  samples would  take into effect the mean
inflow).   However,  toxic pollutant effluent data from the applicant may not
be  sufficient  to  identify  the odd  multiple  of the  half-period.    In  this
case, a fixed sampling interval would not be recommended.

     Assuming that  the toxic  pollutant  limits  for  the POTW will  be based on
the pollutant concentrations  measured  in the  secondary treatment effluents,
a flexible sampling scheme for secondary treatment pilot plant effluents may
involve sample collection for 1 day/wk  (over  24 h) on different days of the
week over a 1-yr  period of  pilot plant operation.   This flexible sampling
frequency would generate a data set that represents an acclimated biological
treatment  system.   It would also address the day/night, weekday/weekend, and
seasonal  variations in  domestic,  industrial/commercial,  and  wet- and dry-
weather, discharges.-

SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

     Representative  samples  must  be  collected  to  ensure  that  .data  are
reliable.   Care must be taken to select appropriate  sampling  devices and
procedures.  Depending upon the toxic  pollutant to be analyzed,  three types
of samples may be collected:                                     .  •
                                    E-26

-------
                 •    Grab sample - a  discrete sample volume is collected.   (This
                      type of  sample  will not  always provide an accurate  measure
                      of wastewater characteristics,  particularly when the  flow or
                      pollutants are heterogeneous or vary with time.)
                                                                          •   •   *
                 •    Simple composite sample - equal  sample  volumes are  collected
                      sequentially overtime  and  combined in  a single reservoir.
                      (This type of sample does not measure the mass of pollutants
                      discharged,  because  pollutant  loading  is   a   flow-related
                      value.)

                 •    Flow-proportioned composite sample  -  incremental samples.are
                      collected  over time and  sample volumes are proportional  to
                      flow.  Incremental  samples are combined in a single reservoir.
                      (This type  of  sample provides  the  most  accurate measurement
                      of wastewater quality and pollutant loading.)

                 The  methods   to be  used  for the  analysis  of  toxic  pollutants  are
            summarized in  Tables  E-5,  E-6,  and E-7.   Grab  samples  for volatile organic
            compounds,  total   recoverable phenolic  compounds, and cyanide  should  be
            collected manually at least  four times during the discharging period of the
«           POTW during  a  24-h period  (e.g., at  least every  6 h within  a  24-h period,
            assuming continuous  discharge).   Samples  for all other variables should be
            collected using an automatic  sampler.  The automatic sampler  should collect
            a selected  number of sample aliquots (minimum of  100  ml  each) during the
            discharging-  period  of  the  POTW.    Recommended  sample sizes,  containers,
            preservation techniques, and holding  times are shown in Table  E-8.  Sample
i           analyses  will  generally be  completed by the analytical  laboratory  within
            4-6 wk;  data analyses will  generally  require  an  additional week.   Interpre-
            tation of all  data  collected  at  the pilot plant  during  1 yr  will  require
            about 2  wk.
                                                E-27

-------
        TABLE E-5.   LIST. OF TEST PROCEDURES APPROVED BY U.S. EPA

                  FOR INORGANIC COMPOUNDS  IN EFFLUENT
                 .**     *


Note:  This table Is an exact reproduction of Table  IB  in 40 CFR  136.3.

Parsmatar . units, and mainod

•nd pomt or phanotpntnalam and pomt.
2. Alkalinity, it CaCO> mg/L
10 pM 4.5. manual, or
Automatad
3. Atumtnwn— Total ' mg/L OigctMn1
followed by*
AA dtfacf aapifaoon
AA tumaca 	


4 Ammonia (at N) mg/L' Manual 4stt>
laton (at OH 9.9) » louowad by:
NtttlanzttOn 	
TitraMn
EMctrod* . .
Automatad phanata or 	

5 Antimony— Total ' mg/L DigaMon*
toiiOMdby:
AA tumac* , or , , 	 	 	 	
Inanflfiarji coupHfl pttima
S Artanc — Total * mg/L: Oigttnon a
followed by
AA giitout rtydnda 	
AA fumaca 	 : 	
induciivari' coupiio plawna. or
Cotonmatne (SDOC)
? Banum— Total *. mg/L Oignnpn ' lot-
lowtdby;
AA dwact sspvtnon 	 	 	
AA tumaca or

8. Bttyibum— Total J. mg/L Ogaaton'
fOllOwMlby;
AA diract aipvaHon 	
AA htfnaca. 	


9 BfccnwNcaj otygan damand (BOO.).
mg/L
Piiiorud Owygan Paptaooo
10. Boron— Total. mg/L

11. BroffHfl*. ffig/L Trtnmttnc ...
12. C*dmtum— TOUI V mg/L. Digestion »
foilo«Md»y:
AA furnace

VoKamaoy '• or 	
Coionmatnc (Oiinizona) 	
13 CaWum— Total s. mg/L DigMMn*
toiio«*«d by
AA d»aet awaeen 	

EPA 1979
305 ^

3102 	
202 1
202.2. 	


3S02 	
350.2 	
3502 	
3503 	
350.1 	

204.1 	
204.2 	

208.5 	
2003
206.2 	

2064
208.1 	
208.2 	

210.1 	
2107. 	


> t
405.1 ..
2123 	

320.1 	
213.1.
2132 ..



215.1, 	
. Rfl
Standard
flwtnods
. iem Ed.
402(4 a)
4/Vl

303C
304 	

30BB
41 7 A 	
41 7B 	
41 7D 	
417 E or f...
4170 	

303A 	
304 	


303E
304 	

3078
303C 	
304 	

303C 	
304

3098 	
507 '....
404A 	


303 A or 8..
304


3108
303A 	
itarafica (matfiod
ASTM
1067*62(E)
ni fM7 JI9lD\






01426-79'A) 	

01426-79(0) ....
01426-79(0) 	





0297244(8) ....


02972-94
-------
TABLE E-5.  (Continued)
Parameter units, ana metr»oa
Reference (method NO or page)

Standard ;
EPA 1979 metnodS ASTM USGS ' Other
t6tn 'Ed.
inductively eoupied piaima. or
Timmetnc (EDTA) 2'52. 3nC.
'* Carbonaceous BiOCherrncai oiygen • 507(5 e.0)
demand (CBODO. mg/L " Dissolved
Oxygen Depletion with nitrification m.
niftier
is Chemical o«yg»n demand .
mg/t
Tiinmetne or 	 • 4io 1 • SMA
Speciropnotometnc. manual or auto-
mated.
16. CNgnde. ri>g/L.
Titnmetnc (silver ratrate) 	
or (Mercunc nitrate), or 	
Automated (Femeyamde) 	
17 Chlorine— Total residual. rng/L
Titnmetnc .- .
Amperemetne direct 	
Sack utration either end
pant ". or
OTO-FAS 	

Or 6lectrode .
<8 Chromium VI dissolved. mg/L: 045
micron filtration toiiowea tjy:
AA eheiabon-enraction. or 	
Coionmetnc (DtpftenytcarBaziOe) . .
19 Chromwrn— Total >. mg/L Diges-
lion ' followed by:
AA direct aspiration ..
AA cneiamn extraction
AA furnace 	
inducaveiy eoupMd plasma or 	
Coionmetnc (DtprtenytcarOazida)
20. Cooait— Total '. mg/U: Digestion J
•oitow^d byt
AA direct aspiration 	
AA furnace, or

21 Cs-ar piatmum cobtti urns or dom*
nant wavelength, hue, lumnance
punty:
Coionmetnc (AOMI). or 	
(Platinum cobalt), or 	
22 Cooper— Total' mg/L Digestion' fol-
lowed By:
AA dvect aspiration 	
AA turance,

Cotgnmetnc (Neocuproine). or - 	
(Boncnontfiatei 	
23. Cyanide— Total. mg.L Manual distil-
lation with MgO* followed Oy
Titrimetnc or
410.2. or 	
4103
4104 	 : 	

325.3 	
325 t. or 	
3212...
330.1 	
3303

?
407A 	
407B 	
4070 	
400C 	
40AA
330 2 408B
OS1T-84(A) .
01252-03 	
0512-0KB) 	
DS12-0MA) 	
0512-01IC) 	
01253- 78(A>
	
•
1-3500-04 or
1-3502-04.
1-3501-04 ..,..
1-1103-04..
1-1104-04 	
1-1107-04 	
1-2107-04
,
01253-70x8)
Part 10.3 	
	
1 '
330.4 	 4080 	
330.5 	 J408E 	 	
21B.4 	
210 1
303B 	
aosA
210 3 ima
210.2 	


219.t 	
219.2...

ItO 1
110.2 	 .........
1103
220.1 	
220.2..


304 	

3128
303 A or B...
304

2040
-204A 	
2048
*^° 	
303 A or 8...
304 	

3138..... 	


0100744(0) 	


D1687-044A)
03550-04 (A
or 8).



01000-04(0
WE).

01600-04(A)

	 1 4t2B 	 	 	
	 	 : 412C....- . • 	 • 	

	 	 	

1-1232-04 	
1-1230-04
'
1*323*44 	



1-3239-04 or 	
1-3240-04 	



1-1250-04 	
.
t-3270-«4 or
1-3271-04.





Spectrophotemetnc. manual or . ; 335.2. . .1 «120 . . 02036-82(A| I-3300-84
Automated " 	 335.3 	 D2036-82IAJ .... • 	
200.7'
33.034 >.
Notes <2
33.007.'
Note 15
307B.'*
33.009.'
200.7.'
P 37 •
200.7*
Note 17
33.009'.
200.7.'
Note 10.
P. 22.'
P. 17«.
or 13.
P 37"
                                    £-29

-------
TABLE  E-5.   (Continued)
                                                    Reference imetnod Ho or page)
              units, and matriod
           •  Standard
  EPA 1979  ;  metnods  •    ASTM
!             161ft Ed'  ;
                                                                      USGS'
Other
24 Cyandio amendable to cwonnttion.
mg/L Manual distillation witn McO;
followed by ittnmatnc or soecvopnoto- .
metric
25 Fluoride— •Total. mg/L Manual distil-
lation- followed by
Electrode, manual or 	 	 	

Cownmetnc (SPAONS) 	

26. Gold— Total3, mg/L Digestion* fol-
lowed Oy:
AA direct aspiration, or 	
A* rumace 	 X 	
27. Hardness— Total, at CaCOi mg/L
Titrtmemc (fiOTA) or Ca plus Mg as
their csfDonstes* by inductively
coupled plasma or AA dwect asp-
ration. (See Parameters 13 and
33)
28. Hydrogen ion (pM). pM units:
Electrometnc measurement or
Automated electrode 	
29 irttum— Total-'. mg/L Digestion'1 lot*
towed ay:
AA diftefj! aspirstion or
AA furnace . 	
30. iron— Total1, mg/L. Digestion-' fol-
lowed by
AA direct aspiration 	
AA furnace. 	
inductively coupled plasma, or 	
Cctonmetnc (Prtenaiitnroitne) 	
31 KieMeM nitrogen— Total, {as N). mg/
L. Ogesoon and oiswietjon (allowed
by-
Titratwn 	

Electrode 	
Automated pnenete 	 , 	
Sem-automated otocti digester or

32 Lead— Total \ mg/L Digestion •• lot-
towed by
AA direct aspiration 	
AA furnace 	
inductively coupwt plasma .,
Vottametry '" or

33 Magnesium— Total >. mg/L Diges-
t«n < followed by:
AA direct aspiration 	 	 	
inductively coupled plasma, or
Gravimetric 	
34 Manganese— Total '. mg/L. Diges-
tion ' followed by:
AA street aspiration 	
inductively coupieo piasma. or 	
Coionmetrtc (Persultaiei. or
33S.T 	

340.2.

340.t 	
3403
231 i 	
231.2 	
130 1
130.2..-
ISO 1 .

23S t
233.2 	
238.1 	
238.2 	


331.3 	
351.3 	
331.3 	
331.3 	 	
331. t 	
351.2 	
391 4
239 1 ...
2392 .

	

242.1 	
243.1 	 -.. . .
: 343 3

412F 	
'
41 3A 	
4130 	

413C 	
4t36
303A 	
304 	

3140 	
423

303A
304 	
303 A or 0 ..
304

3150 	
420 A or 0 .,
4170 	
4170.
417 6 or f ..



303 A or 0..
304


3160 	
303A 	 	
3180 	 '. 	
303 A or 0.
304 •
\ 3190.
02036-82(8)

01179-80(3).

01179-60
-------
                   TABLE  E-5.    (Continued)
J
                                                                              Hafaranca imathoa No. or paga)
                                                          EPA 1979  '  matnodi
                    35 Morcury • Total', mg/L
                        CoM vapor, manual or.-	
                            AulomatM	
                    36.  Molyodanum—Total». mg/L Digaa.
                      •MM • fc^bM«^*4 tMJ.
                      uOH * fOHCMMO BTi
                        AA dlraet aapvatton		....
                        AA lumaoa, or .......................................
                        inducflvaiy oouplod plMma	
                    37.  Nictal  Tom*.  mg/L Digattlen'
                        AAdlracli

                        AA lumaca	
                        inducowiy ooupMjd ptaama, or..
                        Coiofwtmrtc (HvptooonM}«
                    35. NHna  «•  N). mg/L  CoMmattc
                      (Brucna  .,t«a), or Nttala-nrttta N

                      and 40).
                    39. NUmaxwrta (IB N). mg/L CtdmJum
                      reduction. Manual or
                        Automata*. or._...	.	
                         utomejadhydN
                    40.  Ntmta (aa N). mg/L SoacBophote-
                    41.  on and
             (Oitminoon)
                   ToW
42. Oroanc carbon—Total (TOCJ. mg/L
  CombuMon or oadatton.
43. Organe nttogan (aa N) mg/L Total
  KjaMtM  N (Paramatar 31) mmua «n>
  mona N (Paramatar 4.).
44. Ortnoprioapnata (aa P). mg/L Aacor-
    Ainomnad or..............:..«.
    Manual angta raagant.^
    or Manual two r»agant.-.
45.  Oarnum—Totat». mg/L
  lOHowadby:
    AA dnct laplrailon. «..„
    AA lurmea	..	
46.  Oxvgan
                      mg/L WMdar
                    47. PaOadhm—Tot*". mg/L Dlgiaion •
                      looowodby;
                        AAd*aet
                    45. Phanola. mg/L
                        Manual dMWMon **..
                           CeionmaMB (4AAP) manual, or..
                                    lit		
                    49. Phoapnorua (atamantaQ mg/L
                      Nqud cnromatograpny.
                    50. Phoapnorua—Tottl, mg/L PoraulMa

                       Manual or	'.	

                                          aad raducfion.
                                                  Standard  i
                                                  TMMhOdft  !
                                                  10th Ed.  !
                                                                 ASTM
                                          USQS>
                                                                                                onw
                                     245.1...
                                     245.2...
                                                 303F.
                                     246.1	
                                     249.1..
                        03223-50..
                                                 SOX	
                                                 yy*	
                                                 303 A or 8..

                                                 304	

                                                 3218	
                                     352.1......






                                     i«-»a
353.1.



354.1..

413.1..

415.1.
                                                        365.1
                                                         92
                                     350.1



                                     253.1
                                     253J

                                     420.1
                                     420.1	
                                     420.2.	
                                     365 J or
                                      355.3.
                                     355.1	

                                     365.4	.'.
415C

416?




419...




SOS...
                                                 424Q.
                                                                     *24F.
                                                                     421F..
                                                 424C(IIO...

                                                 424F	


                                                 424G	
                        01886-64(0
                          orO).
                                                             0992-71..
                                                             D3667-6S. p. 4.**
                                          33.116.*
                                          33.111.*
                                          33.025.*
                                                      P. S27.«
                                                      P. 825.*

                                                      NOW 25.
                                          Noia25.

                                          Note 27.

                                          33.111.*



                                        ..i 33.116.*
                                                                        E-31

-------
TABLE  E-5.    (Continued)

PwmMiW » UfVtft* 4VKI fVWNnQQ .
51. Platinum— ToW '. mg/L Oigtrton •
fOHOVMd Oy!
AA draet aapraMni or

52. PoHMMum— tow*. mg/L fXgMoon


H "itrtfui Ttrtal mgi'L Quwmatrtt
103-105'C.
54. ftnidui IMaraMa. mg/L Gravim*.
me. 180-C.
fS RaatrJM — f«jn(IHaiitHa (TS8) mg/L:
GnMHNMte. 103-105*C poet waning
of raardua.
9o. naawMO^— aatwaaDia. mg/L volumal'
nc, (Imtarl cone) or gramrnatnc
57. ".UHJUI VoiaBa. mg/L Qnwim*.
«tc.SSO*C.
56. Rhodium-Total «. mg/L Otgaatton •
AAfumaea 	 	 	
59 Authanwm— Tow *. mg/L Oiga*-
IbMk 9 i#^a««^^aw4 l**^
Q91 " fQRQWIJO O)T
AA diract aipmion. or 	
AA Iwnac* 	 	
60. OttariMTi Tow '. mg/L OigaMton *
fottoMdby:
AA gaaaouahydnda
61. S*c*— OiaaohMd. mg/L 0.4S mcron
fllvaiion tottowad by:
CotonmwK. Manual or 	
Automaiad (Moiybaorticata). or 	
62. SilMr-ToW» mg/L OigaMon*
AA tfinct "p*i"»"
AA lumaca 	 __
Cownmatne (Orthaona). or 	

63. Sodwm— Total ». mg/L agaaiion*
AA dract aiewaiion 	 	 	
Flama pnotomatnc 	

em ai 25*C WhMtttorw bndga
65. Suifata (*• sa). mg/L

EPA 1979
259 1
298A 	
2981


180.3 	 . 	
160.1. 	
160.2. -
180.5 	 '. 	
160.4 	
2891
269.2. 	
287.1.. 	 M
287.2, 	

270J
370.1 	
979 t
272A 	







FM
Standard
303A
304 	
303A

3229
209A 	
20BB 	
209C 	 :.
2086 	
2080 	
303A
304
303A 	
304
304 	
3036
425C 	
am A t* a
304



303A 	
3258
2|

HHtBOCi) \ ffNHFlCKi
ASTM




Dl 428-121 At

	 1 	

.................. — ......

*.*........*..*..*... ....

D>)fl99'^4fAI
0659-60(8) 	
-




	
D142B42(A) ...


*>. orpao»l
USGS'

.



1-3750-64 ...
1-179044 	
(-378944
1 	
1-379344 	

..............................

1-388744
1-170044 	
1-270044 	

-372044 	



1-373944 	
*<*»•*»•'«•*••'*•'*><-.'.'•*••<•



Omar


Wlftt •
2007* *

317B."






200.7'

200.7.*
	!	' 33.124.'
           ...!	j 051642(8)	:	• 426C."
,i 376.1...
' 378.2...
I 377.1...
              4270 ............. .................. ............ 1-3840-84
             ! 427C [[[ '.
             : 428A ............. 01339-84
-------
&
                    TABLE  E-5.    (Continued)
                                                                                   Reference (method NO. or oagei
                            Parameter, units, and method
                                                              EPA 1979
                                                    Standard
                                                                           i6m Ed.
                                                                   ASTM
USGS'
                                                                                                                          Other
                       TO  Thallium—TotalJ. mg/L Digestion'
                         loiiewedbyt                                                       •
                           AA direct aspiration	279.1	  303A	;	    •   .
                           AA furnace, or  	:. 279.2	304-	-.....'.	.'	
                           inductively coupled plasma	,	'•	  200.7«
                       71.  Tin—Total1. mg/L Digestion1  fa*
lowed oyi
AA dwect ssptfstion or ....
AA fumao
72. Titanium— Total1. mg/L Digestion'
followed by?
AA direct aspiration or
AA furnace
73. Turbidity. NTU: Nephotomotnc 	
74. vanadium. Total '. mg/L: Digestion >
followed by: *
AA direct sspifaifi?^ ...« 	 * 	
AA h "••«»••

Coionmetnc (QaWc sod)
75. anc-Total>. mg/k Oigsstion' tot-
lowed by:
AA direct itf**!1*""
AA furnace' ~

(2ncon)

282 1 	
282.2 	
•
283 1
2832
180.1 	
•
288.1 	
2862.


288.1. 	 	 	
289.2...



303A 	 '.,.
304 	
-
303C
304 	
21 4A 	
303C 	 1 	
304 	

3278 	
303A or B....
304 	
32BC 	


*
4M 	 	 	 , 	
"- *
'
D1889-81..: 	

D3373-«4(A). 	
01691-64 (C
. or 0).
•V .


(-3850-78 '
....


1-3660-84 ..
	 	 	


1*3900-84 	 :.

4
	




'

2007*

33.089 > p. 37.*

200.7*
Note 32.

                                                                      in Water and Fluvial Sediments." U.S. Department ot me (manor. U.S.
                                                                      le
                                                                           OtM
             for Analyse ol inorganic Substance*
Geotogeai Survey. Open-File Report 89-499. 1988. u  	        	
  '"Offloai  Methods of AnalyM ot me Association ol Official Analytical Chemist*" methods  manual.  14th  ed. (1985).
  ' For me determnation of total metals me sample is not filtered before processing. A digestion procedure is rsqured to
soMMM suspended material and to destroy  poaatta organe-metal  complexes.  Two digestion procedures are gwen in
"Methods for Ohemcal Anatys* of Water and Wastes, 1979V7 One (section 4.1,3). is a vigorous digestion using nnnc aod. A
less  vigorous digsstion using nmc and hydroentonc scads (Section 4.1.41 is preferred; however, the analyst should be
cautioned that mn mad digestion may  not suffice for  all  atmpla types. Particularly, it a colonmemc proceOure is to be
                                        irgano-motantc bonds be  broken so mat the metal * in a reactive ttats. in those
situation* the vigorous  "_         -   -     •
containing  targa amounts of
tschrvquo.  inductively coupiad ,	_	      	    .    _.    ~
mercury. seMnum. and tttanum require a modified digestion and in  al csaas the  method wnts-up  should be consulted for
specific instruction and/or caution*.

  /VOTE it the digestion mdudad m one of me other approved
be used.
                            vigorous digesaon using nine and  hydrocMone sods (Section 4.1.41 is pratorret
                            MMd  that mis m*a digestion  may not sutftee for all  temple types. Particularly, it
                            »yed. it is necessary to ensure met t» organoHmetanic bonds be broken so that the i	      	
                                                 »n is to be  preferred making  certain that at no time does (he sample.90 to dryness. Samples
                                                  organe materials wouM also  benefit by Vw vigorous digestion, use ot  the graphite furnace
                                                 I plasma, as wet as determinations tor caftan  elarnanti such as arsenc. me noble metals.
                                                                                        is different than me above, the EPA procedure must
j
  Dissolved metals am defined  aa thoae constituents which *« pan through a 0.49 micron membrane filter.
filtration ot the sample, the referenced procedure for total metals must be followed. Sample digestion for dissolved metals may
be omitted for AA (direct aspiration or graphite furnace! and ICP anatyaa* provided the sample solution to be analyzed meets
the following entena:
  a. has a tow COO «20)
  0. is vuMy naneparent wan a turbMty meesurement of 1 NTU or lee*
  e. is cclorlaai w«i no parcaptabla odor, and
  d. is ol one liquid phase and free ot partcuvm or suspended mattar fottowing aadrflcatton.

  « The mi text ot Method 200.7. "Inductively Coupled Plasma  Atomic Emissian Specumnelrlc Method for Trace EMmam
AnalyM of water and Waste*" is gwen at Appendix C of the Part 136.                                        _,	
  > Manual dirtMtion is not required it comparability data on representative effluent samples are on company Me to show mat
ma prewnmary  distitatton step • not necessary; however,  manual dtstflatton w* be rrjiared to resolve any eorttovarM*
  •Ammona. Automated EtecVode Method, industnal Method Number 379-75 WE. dated  February 19, 1979. Tachracon
AutoAnaiynr II. Techmcen industrial System* Tarrytown. NY. 10991.                                               	,
  'The approved method is that cited in "Methods for  Determination  of Inorganic Substances m Water  and Fluvial
                                                       Effluent* Apr.
                                                                                            2.  1979. Avertable from ANSI. 1430 Broadway.
    "Selected Analytical Meth
                                                      ppr
                                                              and Otad by (he United States Environmental Pfotacoon Agency." Supplement to
                       me Fifteenth Edition of Stanatotf MgHteat tor a» £iamn*«bn of Wtnuna Wutmni* (1981).
                          1 o The use ot normal and dlflarantial pulse voltage ramps to mcreaea sensfbvity and reaokJtwn is           __
                          1 ' Caioonaceous bacheiwcal oirygen demand ICBOOt) must not be ccMiaad wim me tradrttonai BOO. te«..which
                       "total BOO." The addition of the nmifteanon mnortor « not s procedural option, but must be included to report me CSOO.
                       parameter. A ancnaroer wnose permit requires rsporong me traditjonal BOO,  may not use a rmntication  mnortor m the
                       procedure for repertng me resuiti1pnty when a dttenargsr's permn tpeansatty states CBOD. is reqwred, can me permmae
                       report data using me iiUiNca&on innArtor.

                                                                             £-33

-------
TABLE  E-5.    (Continued)
    1 •• QIC Chemical Orygen Demand Method. Oceanography international Corporation. 512 west LOOP. P.O. Box 2980. College
 Station. TX 77940
    "Chemical Omen Damand. Matnod 8000. Mach Handbook of Watar Analysis.  1979. Hach chemical Company. P.O Box
 389. Lovatand. CO 80537
    1«The back mratic* riutnod writ be ijsed to resolve controversy.
    "•Onon Research instruction Manual. Reartuai Cntorma Electrode Modal 97-70. 1977. Own Research ineorporatad. 840
 Memorial Ctive. Cambridge. MA 02138.
    '" The approved method it that cited m StmOtrt Mtlhoot lor me Sxtmnittion of Wutr tna H«*f»Mvi«r.  um Edition.
 1976.
    "National Council ot tha Paper induttry for Air and Stream improvement,  (inc.) Tachmeal Bulletin 253. December 1971
    '"Copper. Bkxmchomate Mamod. Method  8506. Haefi Handbook  of Watar Analysts. 1979. Hach Chemical Company. P.O
 Box 389. Lovaiand. CO 80537
    '» Attar ma manual diaaaawn * eomptatad. tha autoanalyiar manifolds in EPA Mafhoda 335.3 (cyamdel or 420.2 (phenols)
 ara wnpMiad by connecting the re-sample tana dracily to tna aampiar. Whan using me manrioW aatup shown m Matnod 335.3,
 ma butiar 6.2 should ba raplacad with ma buftar 7.6 found m Method 335.2.
    •""Hydrogen Ion (pH) Automated Electrode Method, industrial Method Number 378-75WA. October 1976. Tacnmeoo Auto-
 Analyzer II. Techncon Industrial Systems. Tanytown. NY 10591.
    " iron. 1.10-Phenantnroiine Method.  Method  8006.  i960. Hacfi Cnamcai Company. P.O. Box 369. toveiand. CO 80S37
    " Manganese. Penodate Ondauon Method. Method 8034. Hach Handbook ot Wastewater Analysis. 1979. pages 2-113 and
 2-117. Haeh Chemical Company. Lov*and. CO 80537.
    " Goertatz. 0.. Brown. C. "Methods for  Analysis rt Organc Substances m Water." U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of
 Water-Resources inv.. book 5. eh. A3. page 4 (1972).
    " Nitrogen. Nrtnte. Method 8507. Hach Chemical Company, P.O. 801 389.  Loveiand. CO 60537.
    "Just poor to dwuilation. ad|ust the suHunc-eod-preserwed sample to pH 4 with t * 9 NaOH.
    '•The approved method is mat cited in SutnavaMxnotff tor ffW £**mn*non of MW*r tna Wtstfwunr. 14th Edition. The
 coionmeinc reacbon « conducted at a OH  of I0.0s0.2. The approved methods are given on pp. 576-81 of the utn Edition:
 Method 510A  for disuiation.  Method  5108 for  the  manual cotonmetnc procedure,  or  Method  StOC  for the manual
 spectrophotemetfic procedure.
    " R.  F  Addnon and R. O.  Ackman. "ftreet Determination  of  Elemental Phosphorus by Gas-Liquid Chromatography,"
 JOumtl Of CttromttOttWfif. vol. 47, No. 3. pp. 421-426. 1970.
    '"Approved methods  for the analysis ot  after m industrial  wastewaters at concentrations of  i  mg/L and  above  are
  Mdaou
            •her
r ensa as an morgenc nafide. Silver hahdes such as the bromde and cwonoe are relatively msoiubie m
 reagent* such as mine aod but are readily soluble m an aoueous buffer of sodmm trxosulfate and sodium hydronde to a pH of
 12 Therefore, for levels of stover above 1 mg/L 20 ml ol sample should be dAited to 100 ml. by addmg 40 mi. each of 2 M
 Na&Oi and 2M NaOH. Standards should ba prepared m the same manner, for levels of srtvor below i mg/L me approved
 method « satisfactory.
   '*The approved method « that oted in SUadMrt Mtihoat  lor ttw £ww»w» of Wttur mt WulmMHtr.  iSth Edition
   10 The approved method w that ened in StMnatra Mftftetb  lor irm £*tmtnMon of Wtttr tad Wmtmnur.  13th Edition.
   " Stevens. H. M..  Fiene. J. P.. and Smoot. G. F.. "Water Temperature—influential Factors. Field Measurement ana Data
 Presentation." U.S Geological Survey. T*efir»oues of Water Resources investigations. Book 1. Chapter 01.1975.
   •'* Zinc. Zincon Method. Method 8009. Hach Handbook of Water Analysis. 1979. pages 2-231 and 2-333. Hach Chemical
 Company. Loveiand. CO 80537
                                                      E-34

-------
                      TABLE E-6,  LIST OF TEST PROCEDURES APPROVED 8Y U.S. EPA
                                 FOR NON-PESTICIDE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

               Note:   This table is  an exact reproduction of Table 1C in 40 CFR 136.3.
•

i Actnapmrwn* 	
? AcvwWtytvnt , , 	
3 AcroMm 	
4 Aeryttntnla 	
5 Afltnracana 	
6 Banian* 	
7 BanzKfcna 	 ....
8. Btnzo(a)aninracan« 	
9 Banzo(a)pyrana 	 	 	
10. Banzo(bXluoramftana 	
1 1 Bvnrolg n i)pary
-------
TABLE E-6.  (Continued)
=iram*t
27 Cworofo""
30 2-CMOrOO"*nof
31 4.Chioropn*nyipft*nyl *W
32 ChfyMn* .
33 D**n»U.n)amnrac*»w.
34 Dttromocnioromvtnanr.
35 i.2-0«ntoroo*nz*n*. .
36. l.3-0«niero6*nz*n*..
37 1 4-OicnioroMnx*ft*
39 33 -DicfitofOMfizidin*

40 i i -Oieniorocthan*
41 t 2-Ocniofo*t'ian*
42 1 l-OicMoro*tiwn*
43 trant-i.2-0icnioro*ilwn*.
44 2 4 DicfiiQfOOflanol
45 1 2*0tcftiofopfopafw


48 OMtnyi pfltfcalaw
49 2 C- Qifll*tnylpfl*flQl
SO Dimttfiyt phttiallW
Si OMi-ouiyi pflttiaMw .
52 Di-n-oetyi pntniMW
S3 2 4-OniilfOpmiHH
54 2 4 DlflllTCHOIu*n*
55 2.6-OmrtfOIONMn*.... .

57 EtHytb*nz*n* 	
56. Fhjorantfwfw 	
59 Pluor*n* 	

61 H*aacnioro0utaditn*


64. I0*no(1.2.3-ed)pyran* 	
65 iiopMoran* 	


68. NapmftiWn* 	

70 2-Nrtrepn*nol 	
71 <-MiBPpH*HOl
73. N.Nrtro*odwvoropytanw*

76 PC8-1016
77 PCB-1221
78 PCS- 1232
79 PCS- 1242
60 PCS- 1248
81 PCS- 1254
82 PCS- 1280

84 Ph*n*ntnr*n*
(M PtMfWl
66 Pyr*n*




91 1.2.4.TneMeroMnz*n*..

•r
	 ' 	 :
1
. i



. - 	 ; ... |

















































E=A M*moO Nutno'er -
GC GC. MS HPtC
601
601
612
604
- 611
. 610
" . 610 ,
601
601 602.612
601 602. 612
601, 602. 612
	 601
601
601
601
601
604
601
601
601
608
604
608
608
608
604
609
609
602
610
610
612
412
610
809
601
604
610
609
604
604
607
607
607
611
608
608
608
608
608
608
608
604
610
604
610
601
601
602
612
624. 1624 . Now 3. D *30
624. 1624
625. 1625 .
: 625. 1625 ..
625. 1625
625. '625 610*
625. 1625 : 610
624. 1624 •_. . .
624. 625. T62S ,-.. -
624. 625. 1625 • . .
625. 1624. 1625 :.
625. 1625 j 60S •
624. 1624 L
624. 1624
624. 1624 I
624. 1624 [
625. 1625 .
624. 1624 (.
624.. 1624 [
824. 1624 L
625. 1625
625. 1625
625. 1625
625. 1625
625. 1625
625. 1825
625. 1625
625. 1625
624. 1624
625. 1625
625. 1625
621 1625
625. 1825
'625. 1625
625. 1625
625. 1625
625. 1625
624. 1824
625. 1825
625.1625
625.1625
625.1625
625. 1625
625.1825
'625. 1625
'625.1625
621 1929
625
625
625
625
625
625
625
625. 1625
625. 1625
625. 1825
625. 1625
•613
624. 1624
624. 1624
624. 1624
625. 1625
j

	




,




	 NOW 3. P. 130: '
NOW 6. P
S102
610 <
610
	 1



610
	 1 Not* 3. p. 130;

610
	




	 	 Now 3. p. 43;
	 Now 3. p. 43;
	 NOW 3. p. 43;
	 NOW 3. p. 43;
	 Now 3. p. 42;
	 Not* 3. p. 43;
	 Not* 3, P/43;
	 NOW 3. p. 140:
610
	 610
	 NOW 3. p. 130:
.. Now 3. p. 130:

1 	 Now 3. 0. OO:
                                    E-36

-------
                   TABLE  E-6.    (Continued)
                                      Parameter
                                                                              EPA Method Numoer
                                                                         QC
                                                                                         GC/MS
                                                                                  MPLC
                                                                                                Otner
92,.t.i.i.Tncnioroethane .. .. 	 • ..
93 t.i.2-Tnenioroetnane 	
94 Tricnioroaihene • • ....
95 Tnentorotiuoromatriane 	 > 	
98 2 * 6-TnctiiOrophenoi
9? Vinyl ehtonde 	

TawetC Notes
'The full nil ol Method* 601-613. 624. 625. 162
601
601
601
601
60«
601
624.
624;
624.
625.
624.
1624
1624
1624
624
162S
1624
er (Mfl/U
«. and 1625. are given at Appendix A.
L 	 Net* 3 D ^30
I- 	 :
L 	 •..;
L... .. . ;
i
*TMI Procedures lor Analysis o<
                     Organic Pollutants,  of mts Part  136. The standardized t«t procedure 10 M used to determine the method detection nmn
                     (MOU  tor mesa last procedures « gwen at Appendm 8. "Definition  and Procedure for ma OatarmtnaMA of tna Matnoo
                     Dttactwn umit" of mis Part 136
                       '•'MatAoda for Sanndma; CMormatad Organic Compound*. Panucnlorophanot and Paaucidas m Watar and Wastawatar"
                     U.S Erwranmantal Protacdon Aoaocy. SaotamOar. 1978.
                       •Matnod 624 may 6» aitandad to scraan sampMa (or AcroMm and Actytonitnia. Mowavar. whan ihay ara known 10 ba
                        tam. tn« prafarrad matfiod for tnaaa nw compounds « Matrwd 603 or Matnod 1624
                       > Matnod 625 may ba aitandad to induda aaimdma. naMcmorocyciopantadMM. N^troaodiumatnyamtna. and N-nitrosodi-
                     phanyiamma. Howavar.wr«an may  ara known to M pratam.  Matnods 60S. 607. and 612. or Mctnod 1625. va  pratarrad
                     mathods for thaaa cofipoufids.
                       •625. Sewtnmo. only.
                       '"Satactad Analytical Mathods Approvad and Glad oy ma United Slttaa Enwronmamal Protactjon Agancy." Suopttmant u
                     tha ^ifteanm Edmn of Sttrura unfioa lor «• eamnaan of rtfiMrjntf I*«»iiw««r(l96i).
                       'Eacn analyst mist mau an mmai. ooa-oma.  damonstrtMn of th*r aMity to oanarata aceaptaDta pracwon and Mcuracy
                                i 60i-«i 3. 624. 625. 1624. and  1625 (Sa« Aopandm A of Bw Part 136) 
section 8.2 of each of these Methods. AddrnonaHy. each laboratory, on an on-gong bases must spike and analyze 10% (5%
for Methods 624 and 625 and 100% for methods 1624. and 1625) of aM samples to monitor and evaluate laboratory data
duaMy m accordance with sections 8.3 and 6.4 of these Methods. When ma recovery of any parameter falls outside me
wammg  limits, me analytic* result* for mat parameter m  me unsp*ad sample are  suspect end cannot be reported to
demonstrate regulatory compMHwe.
  Nott: These warning umrta are promulgated as an "Mtaran final acton w#> s request for comments."
j
                                                                         E-37

-------
              TABLE E-7.   LIST OF TEST PROCEDURES. APPROVED
                      BY U.S. EPA FOR PESTICIDES1

Note:  This table  is an exact reproduction of Table ID in 40 CFR 136.3.
Parameter »g U
1 AMm 	 , 	

2. Amtnyn 	
3 Ammocaro , 	 	 	 ..•. 	 ,, 	
4, Anton 	
5 Atrazmt 	 	
6. Amines nwtfiyi
7 Batten
0. o-BHC 	 ... ,
••
9 0-8HC

10. 5-8MC 	

1 1 . y-BMC (Uindano) 	 .". 	 	 	 	
12 CapWJi
13, Caroaryt 	 , 	 , 	
14 CafWpfwnottfcort
ts, CMorMM .,., , 	 , 	

19 CMo»opropti»m
17 J4-D . 	 , 	
10. 44'-OOO 	
19. 4.4--0D6 	 	 	 „ 	

20. 4,4'-00T .... 	

Method
QC 	
GC/MS 	
GC
TIC 	
GC 	
GC 	
GC....
TLC 	
GC ..;. .. .
GC/MS... .
GC ...
GC/MS 	
GC 	 	
GC/MS. 	
GC 	
QC/MS 	
GC 	
TIC 	
GC ..
GC 	
QC-MS 	
TLC 	
GC
GC 	
GC-MS 	
GC 	
GC/MS 	
GC 	
QC/US 	
EP* ••'
806
825






008
•029
608
82S
808
•829
808
629



808
829


808
829
808
829
808
829
Stand-
•rt
Mtm-
odt
',t«
Ed
509A







908A





SOflA
909A


908A


5096
508A
	 soiu

908A

ASTM
03089







03088

03088

03088

0]QOE



03088



OSOflfll
03088

03088

Offwr
Not* 3 p. 7- NOW 4 p 30.

NOW 3 p. 83; Nott 8. p. S8B.
Not* 3. p. 94; Nott 9. p. 518.
Not* 3, p. 83: NOW 9. p. S88.
NOW 3. p. 83; NoW 8. p. S68.
NOW 3. p 29: NoW 8. p. SSI
NOW 3. P. 104; NOW 0. p. S64.
NOW 3, p. 7





NOW 3, p. 7: NOW 4. p. 30.
NOW 3. p 7.
New 3. p. M: Now 9. p. SM.
Now 4 p. 30- Now 9, p. S73
NoW 3. p. 7.

NOW 3. p 104- Not* 6. p. S64
Now 3, p. ii9: Now 4. p. 39.
NOW 3. p. 7- Not* 4. p. 30.
NOW 3. p. 7; Now 4. p. 30.

Now 3. p. 7: Now 4. p. 30.

                                  E-38

-------
                 TABLE E-7.    (Continued)
                                          > u
                                                            Mttnod <  6P*'"
Stand-
 ard
Mttn-
 
-------
TABLE  E-7.    (Continued)
     - The lull text o< mttneds 600 and 625 art given at Appendn A. "Test Procedures for Analysis of Organic Pollutants  9*
   inn  Part '36  The standardized leu orocedure 10 M used to determine the method detection limit (MOU lor these test
   procedures >s given at Appendix S.  'Definition and Procedure for me Determination of me Method Detection umif. of «« Pan
   •36
     ' 'Methods 'or  Benndine. Chionnatcd Organic Compounds. Pentacnioropnenoi and  Pesticides m Watr and Wasttwatar
   US  Envrronmentai  ProtaeMn Agency.  Septemoer.  1978  This  EPA publication include* tnin-uyer cnrematograpny (TLC)
   meinods,              . •
     •  Metnods 'or Analysis of Organic  Substances  m water '  US Geological Survey. Techniques of  Water-a«soure*s
   investigations. Book S. Chapter A3 (igrz).
     1 The metnoa may  be eitended to include a-BHC. 6-8MC. endosulfan  I. endosulfan II. and endrm.  However, when mey are
   known to enst Method 6M « me preferred method.
     ' "Selected Analytical Methods Approved and Cited by the United Slates Environmental  Protection Agency." Supplement 10
   the Fifteenm Edmon of Stmafere1 Mctfioev tar me Sxtmntuon of wtttr vto wwanu* (I98t)
     T Each analyst must make an initial, one-time, demonstration of me* «ft*iy to generate acceptable precision and accuracy
   with Metnods 606 and 629 (See Appendix A of this Pan t36) m  accordance wttn erocedures given m section 6.2 of each of
   these methods. Additionally, each laboratory, on an on-going bans, must spine and analyze tO% ot all samples analysed mm
   Method 808 or SS of all samples analysed w«tn Method 625 to monitor and evaluate laboratory data quality in accordance
   with Sections 63 and 6.4 of these methods.  When the recovery of any parameter falls outside the warning brmts. me analytical
   results for mat parameter m the unsp*ed sample are suspect and cannot be reported to demonstrate regulatory compuanet
          These warning limits are promulgated as an "interim final action with a request for comments."
                                                          E-40

-------
1
                                      TABLE E-8.  RECOMMENDED SAMPLE SIZES. CONTAINERS, PRESERVATION,
                                                  AND HOLDING TIMES FOR EFFLUENT SAMPLES*
^^ Minimum .
Sample Size"
_ Measurement (mL)
pH
Temperature
Turbidity
Total suspended solids
Settleable solids
** Floating particulates
Dissolved oxygen
Probe
Winkler
Biochemical oxygen demand
-j Total chlorine residual .
Oil and grease
Nitrogen
^^ Ammonia-N
Total Kjeldahl-N
Nitrate+Nitrite-N
Phosphorus (total)
Priority pollutant metals
Metals, except mercury
4 Mercury
Priority pollutant organic
compounds
Extractable compounds
(includes phthalates,
nitrosamines, organo-
chlorine pesticides.
PCBs, nitroaromatics,
isophorone. polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons,
haloether. chlorinated
•A hydrocarbons, phenols.
and TCDD)
Purgeable compounds
25
1.000
100
1,000
1,000
5,000

300
300
1.000
200
1,000

400
500
100
50

100
100
4,000
40
Container"
P. G
P, G
P. G
P. G
P. G
P. G

G bottle and top
G bottle and top
P. G
P, G .
G only

P. G
P, G
P. G
P. G

P. G
P. G
G only,
TFE-lined cap
G only,
TFE-lined septum
Preservative*1
None
None
Cool , 4° C
Cool. 4°C
Cool. 4° C '
None

None
Fix onsite;
store in dark
Cool , 4° C
None
Cool , 4° C .
H2S04 to pH«2
-
Cool . 4° C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool , 4° C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool . 4° C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool. 4° C
H2S04 to pH<2

HN03 to pH<2
KN03 to pH<2
Cool , 4° C
0.008% NagS^yl
Store in darfe
Cool . 4° C
0.008% Na2S2039
Maximum
Holding Time
Analyze Immediately0
Measure immediately6
• 48 h
7 days
48 h
Analyze immediately6''

Analyze immediately6
8 h
48 h
Analyze Immediately6
28 days

28 days
28 days
28 days
28 days

6 mo
28 days
7 days until
extraction
40 days after
extractl on
7 daysh
W £-41 .

-------
TABU E-8.  (Continued
. Minimum
Sample Size6
Measurement . (rat)
Total and fecal col i form
bacteria 250-500
Enterococcus bacteria 250-500
Cantai nerc Preservatl ved
P, G Coot. 4° C
0.008X NagSgOg"
P. G Cool . 4° C
0.008X Na2S2039
Maximum .
Holding Time
6 h
6 h
* Reference:  Adapted from U.S. EPA (1979b). 40 CFR Part 136.

   Recoranended  field  sample   sizes  for  one  laboratory  analysis.    If  additional   laboratory
analyses are required (e.g.. replicates), the field sample size should be  adjusted accordingly.

c P « Polyethylene: 6 - Glass.

d Sample  preservation should  be performed  immediately upon  sample collection,    for-composite
samples, each aliquot  should  be preserved at the time of collection.  When  use  of an automated
sampler makes it  impossible to preserve each aliquot,  the samples should be maintained at  4° C
until compositing.

8 Inraedtately means  as soon as possible after the sample is collected, generally  within  15 rain
(U.S. EPA 1984).

f No recommended  holding time is given by U.S. EPA for floating  particulates.   Analysis  should
therefore be made as soon as passible.

9 Should only be used in the presence of chlorine residual.

  Holding  time  and preservation  technique  for  purgeable compounds are based on  the use  of
U.S. EPA Method 624  for  screening  all  priority pollutant  volatile:  organic  compounds,  including
acrolein and acrylonitrile.    If  analysis  of acrolein  and  acrylonitrtle   is  found  to  be  of
concern, a  separate subsample should be  preserved by adjusting the pH  to  4-S and  the  sample
should then be analyzed by U.S. EPA Method 603.
                                               E-42  -

-------
            QA/QC

                 QA/QC procedures  should be detailed  In  the quality assurance  project
            plan (QAPP)  (U.S.  EPA  1979c; Tetra Tech 1987).  The  following  items should
            be discussed in the QAPP:

                 •    Statement and prioritization of study objectives

                 •    Responsibilities   of   personnel   associated   with   sample
                      collection and analysis

                 •    Sampling locations, frequency, and procedures

                 •    Variables to  be measured,  sample sizes, sample  containers,
                      preservatives-, and sample holding times
                                                                        4.
                 m    Equipment checklist

                 •    Sample splits or performance samples to be submitted with the
                      samples

m                m    Sample handling,  packaging,  labeling, and  shipping require-
                      ments

                 •    Laboratories to which samples will be shipped.

            Tetra Tech (1987) provides QA/QC guidance for the following activities:

J                •    Preparation for sampling program

                 •    Sample collection         •             •

                 •    Sample processing                   *
$
                 •    Sample size
                                                E-43

-------
     •    Sample containers

     •    Sample preservation

     •    Sample holding times

     •    Sample shipping

     •    Recordkeeping                    .'.-.''

     m    Labeling

     • '   Custody procedures

     •    Analytical methods

     •    Calibration and preventive maintenance

     •    Quality control checks

     •    Corrective action

     •    Data reporting requirements.

Field Sampling Procedures

     For the field sampling effort,  the following procedures are recommended:

     •    Establish  and  implement chain-of-custody protocols  to track
          samples from the point of collection to final disposition

     •    Establish and implement protocols to prepare sample containers  .
                                    E-44

-------
                •    Prepare  field  "blank"  samples  to  assess potential  sample
                     contamination by the sampling devices

                •    Prepare  "trip blanks"  to assess potential  contamination by
                     volatile organic  analytes en route  to the laboratory (1 trip
                     blank per sample shipment)

                •    Collect replicate  samples to assess sample precision and the
                     homogeneity of samples  collected

                •    Use appropriate sample  collection procedures (see Table E-8).
                                •                                                 *
                Volatile  organic   samples   and  split  composite  samples  should  be
           collected carefully.   Grab samples  for volatile  organic analyses should be
           collected  in duplicate.   Residual  chlorine  should be  eliminated,  and the
           volatile sample containers  should be filled with a minimum of mixing and to
           capacity  leaving  no  headspace.    When  splitting  composite  samples  into
           discrete  aliquots for  analyses,  the  composite sample  should be  mixed to
           provide a  homogeneous mixture.   A  representative  portion  of any solids in
           the  container  should  be  suspended  in the  composite  sample.   Composite
           samples may be  homogenized by  hand stirring with  clean glass  rods  or by
*          mechanical  stirring with teflon-coated paddles.  Metal mixing devices should
           not be used.

           Laboratory  Procedures

                Laboratory analytical results must be accurate and reliable.  Laboratory
j          QA/QC  procedures  are  generally  specified for  each different  analytical
           method,  and  the level  of  QA/QC  and associated  deliverables  vary  among
           methods (Tables E-5 to  E-7).  The following documentation is  required by the
           analytical  laboratory  for  QA  review of  data on  organic  substances  (see
           Tables E-6  and E-7):
                                               E-45

-------
     •    Initial multipoint calibration

     •    Demonstration of method proficiency

     •    Determination of method detection limit [usually 5-10 ppb for
          base,  neutral,  and acid  organic compounds  (U.S.  EPA Method
          625);  0.005-0.10 ppb  for pesticide/PCB  analysis  (U.S.  EPA
          Method 608); and 1-10  ppb  for volatiles  (U.S. EPA Method 624)]

     •    Daily checks of calibration and instrument tuning

     •    Daily analysis of method blanks (1 blank/20 samples)

     •    Analysis  of  duplicate  samples  (minimum  of  5  percent  of
          samples analyzed)  and conduct of matrix  spikes  to determine
          organic recoveries.

The following documentation is  required by  the analytical  laboratory for QA
review of data on inorganic substances  (see Table E-5):

     •    Multipoint calibration

     •    Analysis of reagent blanks

     •    Matrix spikes of 0.5-5 times the sample concentration

     •    Determination of method detection limits

     •    Analysis  of full  method  blanks  at  a  minimum frequency  of
          every 20 samples, rather than reagent water blanks

     •    Verification of calibration  by analysis  of standards (daily or
          with every 10 sample batches)
                                    E-46

-------
                 •    Performance of duplicate  analyses  for a minimum of 5 percent
                      of the total number of samples analyzed

                 •    Use  of  the method  of standard additions for  samples demon-
                      strating interferences.

            Data Evaluation

                 Data generated  from the  monitoring program should  be evaluated using
            the step-wise approach discussed below.

            1.   Assemble  the  original  raw data reports and  the  associated QA/QC data.
                 The analytes  and analytical methods  used will determine  the types of
                 QA/QC data generated, and may  include the following:

                 •    Sample results

                 •    Blank sample results

                 •    Instrument calibrations (initial and continuing)

"                •    Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate results

                 •    Surrogate recovery data

                 •    Instrument tuning data

J                •    Chain-of-custody records

                 •    Analytical request.forms

                 •    Gas  chromatograms

a                •    Mass spectra

                                                "E-47

-------
     •    Instrument detection limit determinations

     •    Serial dilution results

     •    Clean-water precision and accuracy studies

     •    Furnace atomic absorption quality control data

     •    Interference check data

     •    Laboratory control sample results

     •    Holding time documentation.                     "  '

2.   Because  the  resulting  data  will  be  used  to  determine  regulatory
     compliance of  the discharge, the following sequence is  recommended to
     conduct a QA review of the data:

     •    Confirm the  sample  identifier,  container,  and  preservation
          with chain-of-custody records

     •    Confirm  the  analytical   (e.g.,   extraction   or   digestion)
          procedure used with the procedure requested

     •    Confirm that an  acceptable instrument  detection  limit  was
          achieved

     •    Confirm that the analysis proceeded in the manner  specified

     •    Confirm that all  quality control  data deliverables specified
          by the analytical  protocol have been submitted

     •    Confirm that the  analysis  was  performed  within the specified
          sample holding time

                                    E-48

-------
Confirm that the instrumentation used was properly calibrated
initially and that the method was validated

Confirm  detection  limits, precision,  and accuracy  for each
substance and review duplicate analysis results

Confirm  that  blank samples were analyzed  and  that the field
sampling  and  analytical  procedures  did not contaminate the
data
Evaluate the presence of matrix interferences through the use
of surrogate recoveries and matrix spikes

Annotate  the  data  with  appropriate  qualifiers,  and  note
deviations from prescribed methods

Detail problems associated with the analyses.
                          E-49

-------
           UPGRADING TO A FULL-SCALE SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITY
     Data obtained  from  the  monitoring  program described above will be used
to  determine  the  mean  and peak  concentrations  and  siterspecific  toxic
pollutant removal capabilities  for secondary treatment.   Performance of the
secondary treatment pilot plant will be closely related to the attention and
expertise of the  operator  controlling the plant.   If the pilot plant is not
properly operated,  the data  will  not approximate  the removals that could be
achieved with  a  full-scale  facility.   Conventional  pollutant  data (e.g.,
suspended  solids, BOD)  can  be used  to determine  when  the pilot  plant is
operating  within  the  expected  design  removal   efficiencies.     The  most
important  factor  in   performing  site-specific   toxic  pollutant  removal
investigations is to ensure  that  an acclimated biological seed exists prior
to initiating sample collection for pollutant analyses.

     Plant operators should be aware that  activated sludge microorganisms are
susceptible to biological  and chemical  effects that may kill  the organisms
or   severely  inhibit  their effectiveness.    Accumulations  of  toxic  waste
components (via gradual  concentration from continuous  discharges, or sudden
slugs)  could  limit the  ability of  the activated- sludge system to achieve
design  effluent quality  (see Tables E-9  and  E-10).   Disruptions or changes
could be found by  reviewing operating records  (e.g.,  settling characteristics
of secondary  sludge,  species  populations in  the MLSS).   If  inhibition or
upset conditions are found, the concentration and  source  of each pollutant of
concern should be determined.   Concentrations shown in  Tables E-9 and E-10
are  not absolute  and   should  be  used  only  for  comparison  purposes  and
preliminary investigations.

     Toxic pollutant  removal efficiencies at  the secondary treatment pilot
plant may be greater than those expected  in a full-scale secondary treatment
facility.  The pilot plant will be operated at a constant flow rate and will
not  be subject  to  the diurnal   and  seasonal flow  fluctuations  normally
                                    E-50

-------
   TABLE E-9.  REPORTED VALUES FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE BIOLOGICAL
     PROCESS TOLERANCE LIMITS OF ORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
                                        Threshold of
Pollutant                        Inhibitory Effect (mg/L)a

Acenaphthene                             NIb at 10
Acrolein                                 NI at 62
Acrylonitrile   .                         NI at 152
Benzene                                     125
Benzidine                                    5
Carbon tetrachloride                     NI at 10
Chlorobenzene                             NI at 1
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene                    NI at 6
Hexachlorobenzene                            5
1,2-Dichloroethane                       NI at 258   -
1,1,1-Trichloroethane                    NI at 10
Hexachloroethane   ;       .              NI at 10
1,1-Dichloroethane                       NI at 10
1,1,2-THchloroethane                    NI at  5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane                NI at 201
Ms-(2-Chloroethyl) ether                Nlat 10
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether                NI at 10
2-Chloronaphthalene                      NI at 10
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol                       50
poro-Chloro-flreta-cresol                  NI at 10
Chloroform                               NI at 10
2-Chlorophenol                           NI at 10
1,2-Dichlorobenzene                          5
1,3-Dichlorobenzene                          5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene                          5
1,1-Dichloroethylene                     NI at 10
if2-trff/Js-Dtchloroethylene               NI at 10
2,4-Dichlorophenol                  .     NI at 75
1,2-Dichloropropane                  "   -NI at 182
1,3-Dichloropropylene                    NI at 10
2,4-Dimethyl phenol                       NI at 10
2,4-Dinitrotoluene •                         5
2,6-Dinitrotoluene                           5
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine                        5
Ethylbenzene                             NI at 10
Fluoranthene                             NI at  5
                               E-51

-------
TABLE E-9.  (Continued)
     Pollutant
      Threshold of
Inhibitory Effect (mg/L)a
     Ms-(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether
     Chloromethane
     Bromoform
     Di ch1orobromomethane
     Tri ch1orof1uoromethane
     Chiorodibromomethane
     Hexach1orobutadiene
     Hexach1orocyc1opentad i ene
     Isophorone
     Naphthalene
     Nitrobenzene
     2-Nitrophenol
     4-Nitrophenol
     2,4-Dinitrophenol
     N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
     N-Nitroso-di-N-propylamine
     Pentach1orophenol
     Phenol
     Ms-(2-Ethyl Hexyl) phthalate
     Butyl Benzyl phthalate
     Di-n-butyl phthalate
     Di-n-octyl phthalate   '
     Diethyl phthalate
     Dimethyl phthalate
     Chrysane
     Acenaphthylene
     Anthracene
     Fluorene
     Phenanthrene
     Pyrene
     Tetrachloroethylene
     Toluene
     Trichloroethy1ene
     Aroclor-1242
     Aroclor-1254
     Aroclor-1221
     Aroclor-1232
     Aroclor-1016
        NIb at 10
        NI at 180
        NI at 10
        NI at 10
        NI at 10
        NI at 10
        NI at 10
        NI at 10
       NI at  15.4
           500
           500
        NI at 10
        NI at 10
            1
        NI at 10
        NI at 10
          0.95
           200
        NI at 10
        NI at 10
        NI at 10
       NI at  16.3
        NI at 10
        NI at 10
        NI at  5
        NI at 10
           500
        NI at 10
           500
        NI at  5
        NI at 10
        NI at 35
        NI at 10
        NI at  1
        NI at  1
        NI at  1
        NI at 10
        NI at  1
a Unless otherwise indicated.

b NI = no inhibition at tested concentrations.  No concentration is listed if
reference lacked concentration data.
Reference:  U.S. EPA (1986c).
                                     E-52


-------
                   TABLE  E-10.   REPORTED  VALUES  FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE BIOLOGICAL
                     PROCESS TOLERANCE LIMITS OF INORGANIC PRIORITY POLLUTANTS

                           Pollutant
      Threshold of
Inhibitory Effect (mg/L)
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Chromium (III)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
O.I
1
1
10
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
5
0.03

                      Reference:  U.S. EPA (1986c).
j
                                               £-53

-------
experienced  at  treatment  facilities,   nor the  slug  loadings  and  batch
discharges which  POTWs  can experience in daily operation.   In addition,  at
the  relatively higher  aeration  rates  of  the  pilot  plant system,  higher
degrees of  volatile organics  stripping  may occur,  thereby  implying  higher
levels of removal of biodegradable material  than might actually happen under
full-scale situations.
                                   E-54

-------
                                                                                                   I
                          DEMONSTRATING COMPLIANCE USING PILOT PLANT DATA
                 The  purpose of  operating  a secondary  treatment  pilot  plant  is  to
            determine the concentrations of toxic substances in the  effluent  that  would
            be realized if the applicant were providing secondary  treatment,  rather than
            less-than-secondary  treatment  as  requested  in  the  301(h)   application.
            Effluent  from the  secondary  treatment  pilot  plant  is  then  analyzed  to
            determine the concentration of each toxic  substance in the effluent.   These
            concentrations define the maximum  allowable  concentrations in  the discharge
            of less-than-secondary treated effluent.

                 To demonstrate  secondary equivalency,  the  applicant must  demonstrate
            that  the  concentration  of  each toxic  substance  in  the  effluent  of  the
            Section 301(h) modified discharge is  equal  to, or  less  than, the  concen-
            tration achieved using  the secondary  treatment pilot  plant.   For  toxic
            substances whose concentration  in the  Section 301(h)  modified  discharge
            is greater  than   the  concentration   in  the  secondary 'treated  effluent,
            the applicant must  lower  the concentration  using either or both  of. two
m         •.  approaches.   The  first  approach is  to  establish  local  limits for  such
            substances,  in   accordance  with  the  guidance  given above.    The  second
            approach  is   to  .upgrade  the treatment  process within  the POTW.    Having
            implemented either  or  both  of  these  approaches,  the  applicant must  then
            provide results  of  additional  effluent  analyses  to  demonstrate that  the
            maximum allowable concentrations of toxic  substances  are not being exceeded
J            after the proposed controls have been  implemented.
                                                                      w
                                               E-55

-------
                                 REFERENCES


 American  Public  Health Association/American  Water Works  Association/Water
 Pollution  Control Federation.   1985.   Standard methods for the  examination
 of water and wastewater (16th ed).  Port City Press, Baltimore, MD.  1268 pp.

 Tetra Tech.   1982a.   Design  of  301(h) monitoring  programs  for  municipal
 wastewater discharges  to  marine waters.   EPA 430/9-82-010.   Prepared  for
 U.S.  EPA,  Office of Marine Discharge  Evaluation,  Washington DC.-  Tetra Tech,
 Inc., Bellevue,  WA.   135 pp.

-Tetra Tech.   19825.   Revised  Section  301(h)  technical  support  document.  EPA
 430/9-82-011.   Prepared  for U.S. EPA,  Office  of Water,  Washington,  DC.
 Tetra Tech,  Inc., Bellevue, WA.  248  pp.

 Tetra Tech.   1986a.   Analytical   methods  for EPA priority pollutants  and
 301(h)  pesticides in estuarine and marine sediments.  Final Report.  Prepared
 for the Marine Operations  Division,  Office  of Marine and  Estuarine.Protec-
 tion, U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   EPA Contract No.  68-01-6938.
 Tetra Tech,  Inc.   Bellevue, WA.  120  pp.

 Tetra Tech.    1986b.   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 the 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.   118 pp.

 Tetra Tech.   1987.   Quality assurance/quality  control  (QA/QC)  for  301{h)
 monitoring programs:  guidance on field and laboratory methods.   EPA 430/9-
.86-004.   Prepared for  U.S. EPA,  Office of Marine  and  Estuarine  Protection,
 Washington,  DC.   Tetra Tech,  Inc.,  Bellevue, WA.   277  pp.

 U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency. -  1979a.   NPDES compliance  sampling
 manual.  MCD-51.   U.S.  EPA, Enforcement Division,  Office of Water Enforcement
 Compliance Branch, Washington, DC.  138 pp.'

 U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  1979b  (revised'March 1983).   Methods
 for chemical  analysis  of water and  wastes.   EPA 600/4-79-020.    U.S.  EPA,
 Environmental Monitoring and  Support  Laboratory,  Cincinnati, OH.

 U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency.    1979c.    Handbook  for  analytical
 quality control  in  water and wastewater laboratories.   U.S.  EPA,  National
 Environmental Research Center, Cincinnati, OH.

 U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1982c.   Handbook for sampling  and
 sample  preservation  of water and  wastewater.   EPA 600/4-82-029.   U.S. EPA,
 Environmental Monitoring and  Support  Laboratory,  Cincinnati, OH.   402 pp.

                                    E-56

-------
U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1983a.   Guidance  manual  for  POTW
pretreatment program development.  U.S. EPA, Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits, Washington, DC.  270pp.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.     19835.    Procedures  manual  for
reviewing a POTW pretreatment program submission.  U.S. EPA, Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.  125 pp.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.  1984a.   NPDES  compliance inspection
manual.  U.S.  EPA,  Office  of Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.
159 pp.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   19845.   Report  on the implementation
of  Section  301(h).   EPA 430/9-84-007.   U.S.  EPA,  Office  of  Water Program
Operations.  Washington, DC.  79 pp.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.  1985a.  Guidance manual for  implemen-
ting  total  toxic  organics  (TTO) pretreatment standards.   U.S.  EPA, Permits
Division, Washington, DC.  86 pp.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.  19855. Guidance manual for the use of
production-based   pretreatment   standards   and  the   combined  wastestream
formula.   U.S. EPA,  Permits Division  and  Industrial Technology Division,
Washington, DC.  82 pp.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection   Agency.    1986a.   Pretreatment  compliance
monitoring and enforcement guidance.   U.S.  EPA,  Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits, Washington, DC.  135 pp.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection   Agency.    1986b.   Pretreatment  compliance
inspection and audit  manual  for approval authorities.   U.S. EPA, Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.  107 pp.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1986c.   Report to  Congress  on the
discharge  of  hazardous  wastes  to  publicly   owned   treatment   works  (the
domestic  sewage  study).    EPA  530-SW-86-004.   U.S.  EPA,  Office  of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.   450 pp.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  1987a. Guidance manual for preventing
interference at POTWs.-  U.S. EPA, .Office of Water Enforcement and Permits,
Washington, DC.  113 pp.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1987b.   Guidance  for reporting and
evaluating POTW noncompliance with pretreatment implementation requirements.
U.S.  EPA, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.  23 pp.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1987c.    Guidance  manual  on  the
development  and   implementation of  local discharge  limitations  under the
pretreatment program.   U.S.  EPA,  Office of Water  Enforcement  and Permits,
Washington, DC.  355 pp.


                                    E-57

-------
Mater Pollution Control Federation.  1976.  Manual of practice No. 11 - oper-
ation of wastewater treatment plants.  Lancaster Press, Inc., Lancaster, PA.
pp. 117-160.                                          •    .

Water  Pollution  Control   Federation.    1987.   Manual   of  practice  OM-9,
activated sludge.  WPCF, Alexandria, VA, 182 pp.

Water  Pollution  Control   Federation/American  Society of Civil  Engineers.
1977.  Wastewater treatment plant design.  Lancaster Press, Inc., Lancaster,
PA.  pp. 217-282.
                                    E-58

-------
i
                                     ATTACHMENTJ  TO  APPENDIX E

                          U.S.  EPA OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT AND  PERMITS
                      PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPING TECHNICALLY BASED LOCAL LIMITS
j
                                           E-59

-------
        U.S. EPA OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITS PROCEDURES
               FOR DEVELOPING TECHNICALLY BASED LOCAL LIMITS
INTRODUCTION

     Publicly  owned  treatment  works  (POTWs)  which  discharge  wastewater
into marine  waters may  be  granted  a  waiver under Section  301{h)  of the
Clean Water  Act (CWA)  from the  requirement  for secondary treatment  [Sec-
tion 301(b)(l)(B)].    The  Water Quality  Act  (WQA)  of  1987  added a new
requirement, the urban area pretreatment program, to Section  301(h) of the
CWA for  POTWs  serving a population of  50,000 or  more with respect to toxic
pollutants introduced by industrial  dischargers.   This provision now requires
each applicant  to  demonstrate that it  has  a  pretreatment program in effect
for each toxic  pollutant which,  in  combination with  the applicant's own
treatment of discharges,  removes  the  same  amount  of a  given toxic pollutant
as would  be removed if the  applicant were  to apply secondary treatment (as
defined  in  40  CFR Part 133)  and if it had no pretreatment program for the
toxic  pollutant.   This  new  "secondary  removal equivalency"  requirement
applies only with  respect to a toxic  pollutant  introduced into a POTW by an
industrial  discharger for  which there is no  "applicable pretreatment  in
effect."

     Under  this new  provision,  for each toxic  pollutant introduced by  an
industrial  user,  the  applicant  must  demonstrate either  that there  is  an
applicable  pretreatment  requirement  in effect  or  that  it has  a secondary
removal equivalency program for  any toxic  pollutant from industrial  sources
for which  there   is  no  applicable  pretreatment requirement.   Applicable
pretreatment requirements may take the  form of Federal  categorical pretreat-
ment standards,  local  limits developed in  accordance with 40 CFR Part 403,
or a combination thereof.
                               E-60

-------
                 POTWs  must  demonstrate that  local  limits developed  are adequate and
            enforceable.   This  new CWA provision  also  requires  POTWs to demonstrate that
            '  -      v             •
            industrial  sources  are  in  compliance   with   all  of  their pretreatment
            requirements,  including numerical  standards set by local  limits,  and that
            those requirements  will  be enforced.

                 The following  discussion provides  a review of  procedures  for developing
            technically-based local limits.   Further  details on the various approaches
            are  provided  in U.S. EPA's Guidance Manual on  the  Development and  Implemen-
            tation  of  Local  Discharge  Limitations   Under the  Pretreatment  Program
            (December  1987).   Questions about this guidance should  be directed to the
            U.S.   EPA  Regional   Pretreatment  Coordinators  or  to  The  Office  of Water
            Enforcement and Permits in Washington,  DC.
                                                                                   /
            OVERVIEW OF LOCAL LIMITS
                        .*•
                 Local  discharge limitations are requirements developed by a POTW based
            on  local conditions arid unique' requirements at the POTW.  These limits are
            primarily intended  to protect the treatment plant from industrial discharges
            which could  interfere with  POTW treatment  processes or  pass through the
            treatment  plant  to  receiving waters  and adversely  impact  water  quality.
*           Local limits  are also  designed  to prevent sludge contamination  and  protect
            workers  at the treatment plant.

                 Local limits are usually'developed on a chemical  specific basis and are
            implemented   as   requirements  that  individual   industrial  dischargers must
            meet. Once adopted, local limits are deemed to be  Federal'standards for the
j           purposes of the Clean Water Act Section 307(d)  prohibition  against  violating
            pretreatment  standards- [40 CFR 403.5(d) and 40  CFR  403.3(j)].

            LOCAL LIMITS  DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES

                 U.S.  EPA's  Guidance  on the  Development  and  Implementation  of  Local
a           Discharge   Limitations  Under   the  Pretreatment   Program   (1987)   provides
            various  methods  for  calculating  local  limits.   The predominant  approach
                                          E-61

-------
 used  by POTWs and advocated.In the Guidance is a chemical specific approach
      • ».       •     t                  '•
 known as  the  maximum allowable  headworks  loading method.    This  method
 involves back calculating  from  environmental  and plant protection criteria
 to a  maximum allowable headworks  loadings.   This is accomplished pollutant
 by pollutant for each  environmental  criteria or plant  requirement  and the
 lowest  or most  limiting  value  for  each pollutant  serves as  the basis for
 allocation  to industry and ultimate local limits.   The steps  of the maximum
 allowable headworks  loading local limits development process are shown  in
               . i
 Figure  1, and discussed below.

 Maximum Allowable Headworks Loadino Method

 Determine Applicable  Environmental Criteria—      .              .  .

      The first  step  in  developing  local  limits  by .the  maximum allowable
 headworks loading method is to determine applicable environmental criteria.
 Environmental criteria generally include NPDES permit limits, water quality
 standards or criteria,  sludge  disposal  requirements,   and  unit  process
 inhibition   values.     The   POTW  should  use  all   applicable  environmental
 criteria when developing local  limits.   Other appropriate requirements may
 include  worker   health and safety  criteria,  collection  system effects,
 incinerator emission  requirements or other applicable federal,  state,  or
 local environmental  protection requirements.  Further information on how  to
 incorporate   applicable  environmental   criteria   into   the   local  limits
 development  process  is  contained in  the  guidance,manual.
.           '                  •»

      Another less  frequently  used  environmental   criterion  is  biological
 toxicity.   POTWs that have  conducted biological toxicity  testing indicating
 toxicity should  develop  local  limits  to  correct   the toxicity.   Although
 there is no method  in the guidance manual  to calculate maximum allowable
 headworks loadings based on  the  results  of toxicity testing, the manual
 provides guidance  and additional  references  on  the  Toxicity Reduction
 Evaluation  (TRE)  process.              .                     .
                               E-62

-------
           Characterize Existing Loadings--                                  :

                Industrial Users—During the local limits development process,  the POTW
           must characterize  existing  loadings to the  treatment  plant.   Local  limits
           should be'based on site-specific monitoring  data.  This  can be accomplished
           by conducting  monitoring  of all industrial  users.   Either POTW  monitoring
           or  self-monitoring data  are acceptable,  and information from  the  POTW's
           industrial waste survey may also be of use.
                                *                               .     '
                Hauled Waste—If hauled wastes are accepted at the  POTW,  they  may be a
           significant source of toxic pollutant loadings.   In  such a  case  the POTW
           should consider them  as  a significant nondomestic source  in the  determina-
           tion of local  limits.'

                Domestic  Loadinos—The  POTW must also  characterize  domestic  loadings.
           Site-specific monitoring of a representative  portion of the POTW's  collection
           system should  form the basis for loadings  from domestic/background  sources.
           Use of literature values must be justified by the POTW.
                                                                  *
                Treatment Plant Monitoring—The POTW must conduct  sufficient  monitoring
           at  the  treatment  plant  to  characterize  influent,   effluent,  and  sludge
»          loadings.  Monitoring of  the treatment plant influent, effluent,  and  sludge
           should represent a minimum of  5 consecutive days.   Preferably,  monitoring
           should  include data for  at least  1  day  per month over  at  least  1 yr for
           metals and  other  inorganic pollutants, and  1 day of  sampling per  year for
           toxic pollutants [priority pollutants and Resource Conservation and  Recovery
           Act (RCRA) Appendix 9 constituents].

           Determine Pollutants of Concern--

                As  one  approach for achieving  compliance with Section 301(h)  regula-
           tions, POTWs  serving  a population of 50,000 or more  must demonstrate that
           applicable pretreatment  requirements  are  in effect for  any  and all  toxic
           pollutants contributed  by an  industrial  user.   Therefore,  data should  be
a
           collected  for any  toxic pollutants  of concern  that could  reasonably  be
                                          E-63

-------
expected to be discharged to  the  POTW in  quantities that could pass through
or  interfere  with the  POTW treatment process,  contaminate the sludge,  or
jeopardize worker health and safety or the collection system.

     The POTW  should perform at  least .one priority pollutant  scan  and one
RCRA Appendix  9  scan  to identify  potential pollutants  of concern  in the
influent,  effluent,  and  sludge.   The  POTW must  then  address all  toxic
pollutants  (40  CFR  401.15)  that  are  identified   in  any  analysis  above
detection limits by developing a local limit for each pollutant.

Calculate Maximum Headworks Loadings—

     The  POTW  must  calculate the  maximum  amount  (Ib/day)  of each  toxic
pollutant contributed by an industrial user  or  received  at the headworks of
the  treatment  plant  that will allow  the POTW  to achieve all  of the above
applicable  environmental  criteria.    If  the POTW  does  not calculate the
maximum allowable headworks loading to the POTW for each toxic pollutant, it
must provide  justification why  it has,not done so.    The nonconservative
pollutants  (volatiles)   require  special   consideration   when  conducting
headworks analysis (e.g., alternative formulas and allocation methods).  All
calculations should be consistent with the approach  outlined in the guidance
manual.

     During this step  of  the local  limits development  process,  the POTW
should demonstrate that an acceptable mass balance exists between the actual
loadings  of pollutants  at  the   headworks   and  the estimated   loadings  of
pollutants  from  specific  source  discharges.    This  mass  balance  can  be
accomplished  by  calculating  the actual  loading  of  each pollutant  from
influent  monitoring  data  and  comparing this  value with the  sum of the
estimated loadings from  all  individual sources  (e.g.,  domestic, industrial,
hauled,  waste).  .The  resulting   calculated  loadings  from  various  sources
should be within 80  to  120  percent  of the actual total  influent loading and
flow.
                               E-64

-------
            Calculate Allowable Industrial Loadings—

                 Once the POTW  has  calculated the maximum allowable headworks  loading,
            a safety factor must be applied and the value discounted for domestic/back-
            ground  loadings  in  order  to determine  the maximum  allowable  allocation
            available for  industrial  users.    A  safety factor  is  incorporated  into
            the calculations  to allow  for  future  industrial  growth  and  other  dis-
            crepancies that  may  enter  into  the  calculations  because  of the  use  of
            default  data  or  variations  in  analytical  procedures.    The  POTW  should
            provide justification  for the  selected  safety factor,  which  will  usually
B
a           range from 10 to  30 percent.

            Allocate Allowable  Industrial  Loading-

                 After the  POTW has  calculated the  allowable  industrial  loading,  the
            method chosen to allocate this loading depends on  the number and types  of
            industrial users  and the method of application (permits, contract, or sewer
            use  ordinance)  employed  by  the  POTW.    Where  the  current  loading of  a
            pollutant exceeds  the  maximum allowable  headworks  loading,  the  POTWs  must
            establish a  local   limit  to. reduce loadings  to  within  the  range of  the
            maximum allowable headworks loading.   Where the current loading is far below
»           or approaches the  maximum  allowable  headworks  loading, the  POTW must  set
            industrial discharge limits at current loadings to maintain  the status quo.

                 The  POTW  should  ensure that  it has  selected local  limits that  are
            reasonable.   All  local limits  should be at or above detection  limits  and
            should not be so lenient as  to  provide industry additional opportunity to
                  ;
 j           pollute or encourage discharge of hazardous waste  to the POTW.

            Revise Local  Limits-

                 Many variables on which  these  local  limits  calculations  are. based may
            vary with time.   Local  limits must be revised on a periodic  basis  to reflect
            changes in conditions  or  assumptions.   Conditions which might  require that
 a
            local limits be  revised  include  but are not limited to  changes  in environ-
                                          E-65

-------
mental  criteria,   availability  of  additional  monitoring  data,  changes  in
plant processes, and changes in POTW capacity or configuration.

Implement Local Limits—

     Once  local  limits  have  been developed,  they  must  be  effectively
implemented.    Local   limits  should  be  incorporated   into  the  sewer  use
ordinance or some form of individual control mechanisms.

OTHER LOCAL LIMITS APPROACHES

     Other  methods of  local  limits development  have  been  used by  POTWs.
They  include  the  collection  system approach,  industrial user  management
practice  plans,  and  case-by-case  discharge limits.   These approaches  are
briefly described  below.   U.S. EPA has published extensive  guidance  on  the
development and implementation of local limits.  Further information on each
of these  methods  and  the maximum allowable headworks  loading method  can be
found in  the Guidance Manual  on the Development and Implementation  of Local
Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program (U.S. EPA 1987).

Collection System Approach               .              .

     To apply  this method,  the POTW  identifies  pollutants  that may cause
fire  and  explosion  hazards  or other  worker  health  and safety  concerns.
Pollutants  found  to   be  present  are  evaluated for   their  propensity  to
volatilize  and  are  simplistically  modeled  to  evaluate  their  expected
concentration  in  air.   Comparisons are  made  with  worker health  exposure
criteria  and lower explosive  limits.   Where values  are of concern,  the POTW
may  set  limits or  require development of  management  practices  to control
undesirable discharges.   The  collection  system approach  may also  consider
the prohibition of pollutants with specific flashpoints to prevent discharge
of ignitable wastes.            .  .
                               E-66

-------
Industrial User Management Practice Plans

     This approach  consists  of POTWs requiring  industrial  users  to develop
management  practices  as  enforceable  pretreatment  requirements  for  the
handling  of  chemicals and wastes.    Examples  of management  practice plans
include chemical  management  practices,  best management practices, and spill
prevention plans.   Management practice  plans  are usually  narrative local
limits.                                       .

Case-bv-Case Discharge Limits                       ,

     In  this  approach  a  POTVi  sets numeric  local  limits  based on  best
professional judgment and on  available technologies  that  are known  to be
economically feasible.   This approach is most often  used when insufficient
data are available to employ the other methods noted above.
                               E-67

-------
          ATTACHMENT 2 TO APPENDIX E

U.S. EPA GUIDANCE MANUAL ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND
 IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
         UNDER  THE  PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
                      E-68

-------

-------

-------
J
                                            APPENDIX F
                                WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL

-------

-------
                                WATER QUALITY-BASED TOXICS CONTROL
                 Most  applicants  for  Section  301(h)  modified   NPOES  permits  must
            demonstrate satisfactorily to the U.S. EPA that discharge  from the ROTWs to
            the marine or  estuarine  waters  is in compliance with  Section  301(h)  of the
            Clean  Water Act-  (CWA).    POTWs must  enforce  all  applicable  industrial
            pretreatment,   requirements  and   demonstrate  the  effectiveness   of  both
*           industrial and  nonindustrial  source control  programs.   (Small  dischargers,
            with service area populations of  less  than 50,000 people and  average dry
            weather flows  of  less than 5.0  MGD,  are exempt from  effluent  analysis and
            industrial pretreatment  requirements if  they can  certify that there  are no
            known or  suspected  sources  of toxic pollutants or  pesticides  to the  POTW.)
            Section 301(h)  industrial  source control programs  must be  consistent  with
r*»                          >
            pretreatment regulations and NPDES permit requirements.  Under Sections 308
            and 402  of the CWA,  NPDES permit  applicants  [including 301(h)  POTWs] are
            required  to collect  effluent chemical  (and  possibly  toxicity)  data and
            receiving  water  biological  data  to  assure  compliance with  state  water
            quality standards.  [If  no  state standards have been  developed for specific
x           pollutants at the time of permit issuance, small  and  large dischargers must
            then meet  U.S. EPA's  marine water  quality  criteria at the  boundary  of the
            zone of initial dilution (ZID).]

                 In  1984,   U.S.   EPA (1984)   recommended  that  whole-effluent  toxicity
            testing be used  as  a complement  to chemical-specific  analyses to  assess
 *           effluent  discharges  and determine  NPDES  permit   limitations.    [U.S.  EPA
            developed  this  approach because of  certain  disadvantages  of  the chemical-
            specific  techniques  (i.e.,  the  difficulty  in  identifying  all  potentially
            toxic  pollutants;  the  antagonistic, .synergistic,  or  additive effects  of
            toxic pollutants;  and the  possibility  of complex  Uiemical  interactions).]
            The. integrated approach is recommended  to assure  the attainment  of water

a

                                                F-l

-------
quality standards,  to protect designated water uses,  and  to provide a tool
to  control  pollutants  beyond  the CWA  technology-based  requirements [e.g.,
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)].

     The  Water Quality Act  (WQA) of 1987  also  emphasized the  need for an
Integrated  approach   of   whole-effluent  and  chemical-specific  analyses.
Congress  required  U.S.  EPA  to  report  on  methods  for  establishing  and
measuring water  quality criteria for toxic 'pollutants  through the use of
biological  monitoring  and   assessment  methods,   and   pollutant-specific
analyses.    The  WQA   also  signalled a shift  in  emphasis   from  discharge
requirements  that  were   based  primarily  on  technology-based  pollution
controls  to  requirements  that  combined  both  technology-based  and  water
quality-based pollution controls.

     In 1985, U.S.  EPA's  Office of Water Enforcement and Permits  (OWE?) and
the Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) prepared the Technical
Support Document  for  Voter  Quality-based  Toxics Control  (U.S.  EPA 1985a).
Guidance  was  provided on the  implementation  of a  biomonitoring policy for
the  assessment  and  control   of  toxics  using  both  the  chemical-specific
approach  and  the whole-effluent  toxicity  approach.   The chemical-specific
approach  uses  water quality criteria or state standards  to  limit  specific
pollutants directly.   The whole-effluent toxicity approach,  as described in
the technical support  document predominantly for non-marine waters,  involves
the  use  of  test organisms  [e.g.,  Daphnia spp.  (water  flea),  Pimephales
Promelas  (fathead minnow)] that are exposed to serial dilutions of municipal
or  industrial  effluent/receiving  water to measure acute  (rapid  response)
and/or chronic  (long   term response)  toxicity.   The document also  provided
guidance  for  each step in  the water-quality based  toxics control  program,
including the development  of water quality standards and criteria,  effluent
characterization,  health   hazard  assessment,  wasteload  allocation, permit
requirements, and compliance monitoring.

     In 1985, the U.S. EPA also issued a manual that established standardized
methods for  measuring the acute  toxicity  of effluents to  freshwater and
marine organisms  (U.S. EPA 1985b) and  the  chronic  toxicity  of effluents to
                                    F-2

-------
            freshwater  organisms  (U.S.  EPA  1985c).    In  1988,  U.S.  EPA  released  a
            .document that  established standardized methods  for estimating the  chronic
            toxicity of  effluents to marine  and estuarine  organisms  (U.S.  EPA  1988).
            Chronic toxicity test methods were provided for five species:  the sheepshead
            minnow (Cyprinodon  variegatus),  the inland, silverside  (Menidia  beryllina),
            the mysid (Mystdopsis  bahia),  the sea urchin-(Arbacia punctulata),  and  the
            red macroalga  (Champia parvula).   However,  because  these  tests  use.non-
            indigenous  species  to estimate  the  chronic  toxicity  of  effluents  and
            receiving waters  to-marine  and  estuarine organisms,  test  results may  not
            necessarily  reflect  actual   field  conditions   within   or   near  the  ZID.
            Moreover,  test  results may  not  accurately  represent  impacts of  pollutant
            discharges on balanced indigenous populations (BIPs).
                                            •
                 U.S.  EPA  developed  a permit writer's guide (U.S.  EPA 1987)  to assist
            state and Federal  NPDES  permit writers in establishing water quality-based
            permit  limits  for  toxic  pollutants.   To  meet  these  water  quality-based
            limits, the  U.S.  EPA is continuing  to develop  criteria  that will  assist
            states in  establishing their  water quality  standards  and effluent  permit
            limitations.   The U.S. EPA  criteria  under development  include  recommended
            magnitudes,  durations, and allowable frequencies  of exceedance of  pollutant
            concentrations for both acute  and chronic biological  effects.   POTW permit
«           limits on effluent toxicity  could be  imposed, and the NPDES permittee would
            be required to conduct a  toxicity reduction  evaluation  (TRE)  and implement,
            if necessary, a toxics control  program (TCP)  (U.S. EPA  1985a,  1987).

                 The TRE, a critical  component of the TCP, must be  conducted  to identify
            effluent toxicity  sources,  to determine  (if possible) specific pollutants
i           responsible for the  toxicity,  and to identify source control  options.   The
            TRE includes a  review of the magnitude and  extent  of the toxicity problem,
            the discharge characteristics,  the receiving  water characteristics, the need
            for additional  monitoring to determine water quality/toxicity effects,  and
            chc other potential point and  nonpoint  toxicity  sources  in  the POTW service
            area.
                                                F-3

-------
     Because  all  NPDES-pernritted discharges are unique,  no single effluent
TRE procedure Is applicable to  every  case.   A TCP must  be developed on an
individual case-by-case basis, and  must  include  an  evaluation of the impact
of 1) the existing  POTW wastewater  treatment process,  2)  point and nonpoint
contributors  to  the POTW  influent,  3)  types  of  industries  in the  POTW
service  area,  4) the  variability,  toxicity, and treatability  of chemicals
in the  effluent, and  5}  the  variability  in  species  sensitivity based on
whole-effluent  toxicity  test  results.   Either  technology-based or water
quality-based) source control options also need to be evaluated to determine
their effectiveness  in reducing  effluent  toxicity and  alleviating the water
quality violations.
                                    F-4

-------
J
                                            REFERENCES


           U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency.   1984.   Development of water quality-
           based  permit  limitations for toxic pollutants; national  policy.   U.S. EPA,
           Washington, DC.  Federal Register Vol. 49, No. 48.  pp. 9016-9019.

           U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1985a.   Technical  support document
           for water  quality-based toxics control. EPA 440/4-85-032.   U.S.  EPA Office
           of Water, Washington, DC.  74  pp. + appendices.

           U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   1985b.   Methods for  measuring the
           acute  toxicity  of  effluents to freshwater and marine organisms.  EPA 600/4-
           85-013.   U.S. EPA  Environmental Monitoring  and  Support Laboratory, Cincin-
           nati,  OH.

           U.S.   Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1985c.    Short-term methods for
           estimating  the  chronic  toxicity  of  effluents   and  receiving  waters  to
           freshwater  organisms.   EPA 600/4-85-014.   U.S. EPA Environmental Monitoring
           and Support Laboratory,  Cincinnati, OH.

           U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.    1987.    Permit  writer's  guide to
           water  quality-based  permitting  for  toxic  pollutants.    EPA  440/4-87-005.
           U.S. EPA Office of  Water, Washington, DC.

           U.S.   Environmental  Protection  Agency.    1988.     Short-term methods for
           estimating  the  chronic  toxicity  of effluents and receiving waters to marine
           and  estuarine  organisms.     EPA  600/4-87-028.    U.S.  EPA  Environmental
           Monitoring  and Support  Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
                                                F-5

-------

-------

-------

-------