1
z
o
1
IL.
u
o
t
;
i
j •
• i
! ; !
j i
.-
;
1
1 • 4
; . j •
i
! i
1 t i
L
; : !
1
: ' !
i
:
> i
i
;
i
-
-*"•<>*
| i
'
\
.-
Ill- |s's If
il -'1* 5J OB '•-So
53 —5« •- • *-o *"5
-------
^
|O-f«i
Jfis
3.
s
*j*2 -
^ l**m
j!p«f
i •*•] • *
I'f
1
> «
i <
.; j
= . **
,; -a
i °*
!*•••
§~^
JJ S
*> *
U -
t
^?
fe.r
id *— *
1 I
;«i 5
»--S
*^S
-'«* 5
£.1
* . — 5
< j •
a
.' ' ' "
* ' !
> i *
: j ! ~
i; i
'2 «
: X <
: * -*
• Z i
1.1 ;
.d^^H^WM
. ;:.:
r — ! —
1 : ••;!
ilrrr
i «" *
H
z < ^
««E -
*-v
D
h>
j
j
;
1
t
|
1
•
4
I14B. 4 Bromo
phcnyl Phtnyl
Elh.. 1101 8B 31
t
|
'
,
:
1
'
1168 Bulyt Btniyl
Phih«l»l« (85 68-7
0
i
•
!
j
!
.
!
!
!
i
i
1
I
i
I
1
(
!
i
i
i
ot."
5 i S
2
s_
»S
c —
«nio (u.lt)
Anlli' •!:•')•
Ib3 '03|
*
•
•
1
t
t
1
E
I
.
|
i
1
•
Is
~
*" 3
1
( | / (HJl «I.»MP».| t
UMM'tKO C t Hlf 1
s
(
k.
§
z
^
z
j
^
>
o
05
nt
^ O
o
1C
rt
0
u.
&.
4-24
-------
e ^
\ * i
w
•
Z
j §
j °
h.
0
f
v
1
X
^
Z
U «"
• s
3 S
Z
!/
IK
(u
JO
2S
:3
(Z
4#
[ M
«
<
*
r
» t
*
H
(
[
Z
o
<
c
1 «
1
"
I
-
1
Ij
•
:
.
* .
f
I
*
Z
jf*
3
> ;
^t
f
•z 1
«:
f J
V
4
5
o
iptnirriuoa,
i
<
HI
Ul
t
[QC/MS FRACTION
I22B. 1.4 Dlchloro
btniin* (IM-48 7|
. i i
; t
1 1
1
j |
1 ;
! '
'
< ;
- i '
; t
, <
* : 1 •
i ; •
i ;
, ! ;
' .'
: ' i
;
1
;
'
i f
i 1 ;
1 i i
,
; ' 1
: i :
s *
2 _ 1 2*
* -i Z I ^:
o £ ; _ ? 52
I28B. 2.6 Olnlira
lolutn* (606 20 21
1
(29O D. N Oclyl
FhtritKI*
t1)7«40]
I30B. 1.2 Olph«nvl
hydrailn* tot Ato-
tunltnt) (122 6fl 7
1
1
IIIB. Fluoitnihin*
20644^01
I
.
c
3 f-
i
!
1
1
•
t"
Ilia H.ucntwoWmrn
IH».7* 1'
1
;
i j
j j
: •
i
j
* '
. i
i J
.
i
: 1
i
i
1
,
(
i
:
i .
t
•
! ;
So C Q •
I- Is
:|-1|- Is
rt « 2 o M — PS 5
t
;
', i
1 • : •'
i !
. ( 1
[ ' :
i
t
i
i
t
i : :
: '
i
* «i X X
1 , r |
iL| j j \ I]
4-25
-------
*s
?
I
•£.
w
1C
<
t_
z
M
«
H
w
I
1
1
£
u
3
««
14
ill
«
ic
r
z
<
T
[l. POLLUTANT
w
«•'
*
*
1
««
33
*>
4
4
M
4
z
tf
U
t
0
u
•
0.
— 4
;j
f«
*i i
r
^
5
f
«
;
<
5s
2S
a
r
x
p
-
3
;
>
j
<
• MAXIMUM 1
| „•
\:-
: *J
: *i
1-!
•
»
•
»s
-
^
i!
iia
2
GC/MS FRACTION
i
i
i
'.
M
f43B. N-Nhro
•odlphmyltmln*
(8630-SI
'
(
•
c
e
Is
rs
fi
!
1
!
l
I
i
i
;
;
!
1 a
;
•
C —
• o
£t
s5
»
^s
T.C-
«.i«
iP
HE
«•
§
II*
•v
t
FaC/MS FRACTION
|
M
IIP. AWrln
(309003)
1
t
1 "
i
i
IIP. O-BMC
|31984«l
i
u;:
£s
«Xa
ftc
i
'
i
!
1
i
u
s:
f-«
i?
!
i
IbP. 6 BHC
I319B6B)
1
i
I
IP Chloidint
17 74 B)
!
i
i
i
i
1
j
i
i
1
,
1
i
1
I
i
I
»-
Q
«rf
£
i.
i
ii
E
Z
J
a
>
•)
<
.
4-26
-------
9J
MM ,
*-m '
I«>»
K -
< r
M-
;* -:
!i]
: 5 *
l o
:O
'
1
x ;
i
J
:
o
2
u —
* n
|s5
1 «»
|fti|
;
M
;
«<•
2S
on
V«
°- «
IS
i
!
j
J
X '
1
J
]
*
A —
«*-
»s
S!''
t:s
a —
1
x
w —
<*•«
iS
is
»O
SZ
r* —
j
(
|
K ;
1
i
' •* -
ft
« ^,
Mtt
*2
U^.
OL «
•"• ^
o!^I
o _*
c* —
1
s^
-
o
ON
a-
klz
is
IN —
K
•
a«
»«s
o n
H> ^
&!
Ci T
4-27
-------
4-28
-------
MODUIJ; 4 - SUGGESTED REFERENCE MATERIALS
Application Form 1 - General Information. Consolidated Permits Program (EPA Form
3510-1), EPA, Office of Enforcement, October 1980.
Standard Form A - Municipal (EPA Form 7550-22), EPA July 1973.
Application Form 2B - Concentrated Animal Feed Operations and Aquatic Animal
Production Facilities (EPA Form 3510-2B), EPA, Office of Enforcement, February 1985.
Application Form 2C - Wastewater Discharge Information. Consolidated Permits
Program. Existing Manufacturing. CornmerciaL Mining, and Silvicultural Operations
(EPA Form 3510-2C), EPA, Office of Enforcement, February 1985.
Application Form 2D - Wastewater Discharge Information. Consolidated Permits
Program. New Manufacturing. Commercial Mining, and Silvicultural Operations (EPA
Form 3510-2D), EPA Office of Enforcement, February 1985.
Application Form 2E - Facilities Which Do Not Discharge Process Wastewater (EPA
Form 3510-2E), EPA, Office of Water enforcement and Permits, September 1986.
Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual. Appendix E. Example IU Permit
Application. EPA. September 1989.
Guidance Manual for the Preparation of NPDES Permit Applications for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (EPA-505/8-01-002), EPA. Office of
Water, April 1991.
Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Part 1 of the NPDES Permit Application for
Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (EPA-5Q5-8-91-OQ3A). EPA,
Office of Water, April 1991.
4-29
-------
4-30
-------
MODULE # 5
TITLE: Technology-Based Effluent Limits
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Explain the purpose of technology-based requirements for NPDES permits
• Define the general types of technology requirements for pollutant categories (conventional,
nonconventional, and toxic)
• Provide brief statutory history of technology-based performance standards
• Explain the general concept of use of best professional judgement to supplement effluent
guidelines (for non-municipal)
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture
Approximate Presentation Time: 30 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: None
Applicable Statutory /Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 301
CWA Section 304
CWA Section 306
CWA Section 307
40 CFR §122.44(a)
40 CFR §122.45
40 CFR §125.3
Effluent Limitations
Information and Guidelines
National Standards of Performance
Toxic and Pretreatment Effluent Standards
Technology-based effluent limitations and standards
Calculating NPDES permit conditions
Technology-based treatment requirements in permits
-------
-------
Module 5
Technology-Based Effluent Limits
Technology-Based Effluent
Limits
Learning Objectives
Explain the purpose of technology-
based requirements
Describe the types of technology-
based requirements
Technology-Based Requirements
» Purpose
- Establish minimum level of pollutant
controls for all point source
dischargers
• Conventional pollutants
• Non-conventional pollutants
• Toxic pollutants
- Provide equity among dischargers
within categories
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
5-1
-------
Module 5
Technology-Based Effluent Limits
Technology-Based Requirements
• Technology-based requirements
implemented through NPDES permits
• National technology-based standards are
available
- Effluent guidelines for non-municipal
- Secondary treatment standards (of municipal
* in the absence of National standards
- Technology-based requirements developed
on » case-by-ease basis
NPDES Permit WritersTTraining Course
5-2
-------
MODULE#5A
TITLE: Secondary Treatment Standards for Municipal Point-Source Dischargers
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Define secondary treatment standards
• Explain exceptions/alternatives to secondary treatment standards
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture, practical exercise
Approximate Presentation Time: 30 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: 30 minutes
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 301(b)(l)(b)
CWA Section 304(d)
40 CFR §122.45(b)(l)
40 CFR §125.3(a)(l)
40 CFR Part 133
Effluent limitations compliance dates
Application of secondary treatment standards
Production-based limitations
Technology-based treatment requirements in permits (for
POTWs)
Secondary Treatment Regulation
-------
-------
Module 5A Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Municipal Dischargers
Technology-Based Effluent
Limits for Municipal
Dischargers
Learning Objectives
* Describe secondary treatment
regulations
* Explain equivalent to secondary
requirements
Flow Diagram of a Wastewater
Treatment Plant
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
5A-1
-------
Module 5A Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Municipal Dischargers
Technology-Based Requirements for
Municipal Dischargers Secondary Treatment
(
MOM: CO
5-CteyBOD
TSS
PH
300iyAv*rege 7 Day Av*rag*
H%BOO<«n4TS8 —
40 CFR PM133)
nvUtm Oman* = mm
Calculation of Permit Limits
• Must be concentration-based
(40 CFR § 122.45 (f)(1)(ii»
• May also be mass-based (40 CFR §
122.45 (f)(2)>
- If mass-based, use design flow of the
treatment plant (40 CFR § 122.45 (b»
Calculation of Permit Limits (Continued)
Example calculation:
5 day BOO: 30 day average = 30 mg/L
POTW Design Flow = 5.0 mgd
BOD UmK = (5 mgdX30 mg/LXS.34*) = 1,251 Ibs/day
* &34 K the convwston (actor
What If:
POTW Actual Row = 7 mgd?
POTW Actual Row = 25 mgd ?
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
5A-2
-------
Module 5A Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Municipal Dischargers
Exceptions/Alternatives to Secondary
Treatment Requirements
* Substitution of CBODs for BODs [133.102(aX4)]
4 Adjustments to reflect:
- Combined sewers [133.103(a)]
- Industrial wastes [133.103
-------
Module 5A Technology-Based Effluent Limits for Municipal Dischargers
Conditions to Consider in Applying Equivalent
to Secondary Effluent Limitations
• Treatment works operating beyond
the design hydraulic capacity or
organic loading limit are not
considered eligible for equivalent to
secondary limitations
• New facilities
Conditions to Consider in Applying Equivalent
to Secondary Effluent limitations (Coptjatitd)
• Calculation of equivalent to
secondary limitations
• Combination of biological treatment
processes employed at a facility
» Alternative State Requirements
(ASRs)
Sources of Facility Information
• Application Form 1 and Form A (2A)
* Supplemental Information (sludge,
toxicity, CSOs, pretreatment)
• Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
• Pretreatment program submissions
• Annual pretreatment reports
• Pretreatment audits
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
5A-4
-------
PRACTICAL EXERCISE
Developing Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
for Publicly Owned Treatment Works
SITUATION:
You are a permit writer responsible for drafting effluent limitations for a wastewater treatment
plant that provides secondary treatment of municipal wastewater.
GIVEN:
Summary of permit application data:
Average Flow:
Maximum Flow:
Design Flow:
Population Served:
Sewer System Type:
7.4 million gallons per day (MGD)
8.5 MGD
10.0 MGD
50,000
100% Separate
Major Industrial Contributors: Dairy; Poultry processor; Pulp and paper mill
Schematic of treatment plant:
5A-5
-------
QUESTIONS:
(1) What effluent limitations would you establish for 5-day Biochemical Oxygen demand
(BOD5), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and pH for Outfall 001?
(2) Are there any other permit limitations or requirements that would be necessary in order
to comply with secondary treatment requirements? If yes, describe.
5A-6
-------
MODULE # 5B
TITLE: Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Non-Municipal Dischargers
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Explain the general process for developing effluent guidelines
• Define treatment standards for point sources (i.e., BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS)
• Explain considerations in applying effluent guidelines
• Explain distinctions between mass- vs concentration-based effluent guidelines
• Define point-of-compliance for technology-based effluent limits
• Describe concept and considerations for integrated facilities
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture, practical exercise
Approximate Presentation Time: 45 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: 30 minutes
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section
CWA Section
CWA Section
CWA Section
CWA Section
40 CFR §122.
40 CFR §122.
40 CFR §125.
301 (b)
304(b)
304(m)
306
307(a)
44(a)
45(b)(2)
3(a)(2)
Effluent limitations compliance dates
Guidelines for effluent limitations
Schedule for review of guidelines
National Standards of Performance
Effluent standards for toxic pollutants
Technology-based effluent limitations and standards
Production-based limitations
Technology-based treatment requirements in permits (for
non-POTWs)
-------
-------
Module SB Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Non-Municipal Dischargers
Effluent Limitations Guidelines
for Non-Municipal Dischargers
Learning Objectives
» Describe process used in
developing effluent limitations
guidelines
• Discuss considerations in applying
effluent guidelines
* Explain application of effluent
guidelines
Effluent Limitations Guidelines
Definition
- Effluent limitations guidelines are National
standards prescribing allowable
discharges of pollutants from industrial
point source categories corresponding to
various levels of treatment or control
technologies
Scope
- Guidelines are established for most
primary and some secondary industries
NPDES Permit Writers^Training Course
5B-1
-------
Module 5B Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Non-Municipal Dischargers
CWA Technology-Based Control Matrix
in* aim iiinn mtrm
O"*w«^f *•*•*"• W)
~^jy« ''•'-"•''"
-— —
••••••mag
SSSP— —•
TWMM
DM***
BMMI
GtoM
BIMCI
—
—
—
ni» «nn
X
X
X
X
X
C^^.1
X
X
X
X
X
TV*
X
X
X
X
X
Statutory Compliance Deadlines for
Technology-Based Requirements
.^- i~^^
^•ymy
CdOMMiMdinl
Coii^
-------
Module 5B Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Non-Municipal Dischargers
§304(m) Schedule - 10/7/96 (61 FR 52582)
Cttgrxy
PMp. PHOT, nd
i-ink HI F«r»ua«iB.nn«i>i|
Ptanucufctf MmhekMii
PI EH>i.n.iiiini
Implementing Effluent Guidelines
• Effluent guidelines
- Implemented and enforced through
NPDES permits
- Serve as the basis for technology-
based limits
Considerations Involved in Use of
Effluent Guidelines
Determination of proper category and
subcategory
- Applicability section in regulation
- Preamble to regulation
- SICCode(s)
(e.g., Copper Forming = SIC Code 3351)
- Development documents
NPDES Permit WritersTraining Course
5B-3
-------
Module 5B Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Non-Municipal Dischargers
Considerations Involved in Use of
Effluent Guidelines
Classification of plants that fall under more
than one category
- Must apply all applicable effluent guidelines
- Some guidelines supersede others
- Considerations for common treatment
systems
• BPJfof non-regulated poaotants
- Account for dilution from non-ragulated
- Inconsistent limits expressions (units)
- Use internal outfalls
Considerations Involved in Use of
Effluent Guidelines (Continued)
Example 1:
Co* 1 MMal
CuMfcHI 1 RnW*
-^ RMMngW
, 1 |*rt>111 1
•Met 1
~*
WM»»
Considerations Involved in Use of
Effluent Guidelines (Continued)
Example 2:
Coil Coating mg/m2
Metal Finishing: mg/L
Ferroalloy Manufacturing: kg/mwh
NPD6S Permit WritereTTraining Course
5B-4
-------
Module 5B Effluent Limitations Guidelines for Non-Municipal Dischargers
Considerations Involved in Use of
Effluent Guidelines (Continued)
Determination of appropriate measures of
production and flow
- Use reasonable measure erf actual production
and flow rate
- Long-term average expected during the term
of permit
- Account tor planned changes
- Time period of measurement
• Dally imnfemm producttonfflow — DMy maximum Ihnh
• A vw»g« monthly productkxvTtow — Monthly «w*g*HmK
Considerations Involved in Use of
Effluent Guidelines (Continued)
Use of alternative or tiered limits
- To account lor variability of production/now
(e.g., seasonal)
- Significant *> 20%
- Requires careful examination of production data
- Requires special reporting requirements
• Na«flcaUan0fclMng*d|VaductiOTfflow
* Fropoftinfl of proof ICIKHI tMrtA
Considerations Involved in Use of
Effluent Guidelines (Continued)
• Application of effluent guidelines in permits
- Include all regulated pollutants
- Parameters considered by effluent guideline but
not regulated by effluent guideline
- Include both daily maximum and monthly average
limits
- Express as mass limits unless guideline allows,
or parameter requires concentration-based limit
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
5B-5
-------
5B-6
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 214 / Thursday. November 5. 1987 / Rules and Regulations 42525
including the 85 "priority" toxic
pollutants and classes of pollutants.
Under the Act the EPA is required lo
establish several different lands of
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. They are summarized briefly
below:
1. Beat Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available
BPT effluent limitations guidelines are
generally based on the average of the
best existing performance by plants of
various sizes, ages, and unit processes
within the category or subcategory for
control of familiar (i.e., conventional)
pollutants.
In establishing BPT effluent
limitations guidelines. EPA considers
the total cost in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits, the age of equipment
and facilities involved, the processes
employed, process changes required.
engineering aspects of the control
technologies, and non-water quality
environmental impacts (including energy
requirements). The Agency considers
the category-wide or subcategory-wide
cost of applying the technology in
relation to the effluent reduction
benefits.
2. Best Available Tecfanoi
Economically Achievable fl
BAT effluent limitations guidelines, in
general represent the best existing
performance in the category or
subcategory. The Act establishes BAT
as the principal national means of
controlling the direct discharge of toxic
and nonconventional pollutants to
navigable waters.
In establishing BAT. the Agency
considers the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the processes
employed, the engineering aspects of the
control technologies, process changes.
the cost of achieving such effluent
reduction, and non-water quality
environmental impacts.
3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCTT~~'""""~'^~
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean
Water Act added section 301(b)(2)fE).
establishing "best conventional
pollutant control technology" (BCT) for
the discharge of conventional pollutants
from existing industrial point sources.
Section 304(a)(4) designated the
following as conventional pollutants:
BOO. TSS. fecal coliform. pH. and any
additional pollutants defined by the
Administrator as conventional The
Administrator designated oil and grease
a conventional pollutant on July 30,1979
(44 FR 44501).
BCT is not an additional limitation but
replaces BAT for the control of
conventional pollutants. BAT remains in
effect for the toxic and nonconventional
pollutants. In addition to other factors
specified in section 304fbJ(4}(B). the Act
requires that the BCT effluent
limitations guidelines be assessed in
light of a two part "cost-
reasonableness" test American Paper
Institute v. EPA. 660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir.
1981). The first test compares the cost
for private industry to reduce its
discharge of conventional pollutants
with the cost to publicly owned
treatment works for similar levels of
reduction in their discharge of these
pollutants. The second test examines the
cost-effectiveness of additional
industrial treatment beyond BPT. EPA
must find that limitations are
"reasonable" under both tests before
establishing them at BCT. In no case
may BCT be less stringent than BPT.
EPA has promulgated a methodology
for establishing BCT effluent limitations
guidelines (51 FR 24974. July 8.1966).
4. New Source Performance Standard*
(NSPS)
NSPS are based on the performance of
the best available demonstrated
technology. New plants have the
opportunity to install the best and most
efficient production processes and
wastewater treatment technologies. As
a result NSPS should represent the most
stringent numerical values attainable
through the application of best available
demonstrated control technology for all
pollutants (toxic conventional and
nonconventional}.
nt Standards for Existing
5. Pretreat
Sources j~
PSES are designed to prevent the
discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs). The dean Water Act requires
pretreatment standards for pollutants
that pass through POTWs or interfere
with POTWs' treatment processes or
sludge disposal methods. The legislative
history of the 1977 Act indicates that
pretreatment standards are to be
technology-based and analogous to the
BAT effluent limitations guidelines for
removal of toxic pollutants. For the
purpose of determining whether to
promulgate national category-wide
pretreatment standards. EPA generally
determines that there is pass through of
a pollutant and thus a need for
categorical standards if the nation-wide
average percentage of a pollutant
removed by well-operated POTWs
achieving secondary treatment is less
than the percent removed by the BAT
model treatment system. The General
Pretreatment Regulations, which sat
forth the framework for categorical
pretreatment standards, are found at 4:1
CFR Part 403. (Those regulations contain
a definition of pass through that
addresses localized rather than national
instances of pass through and does not
use the percent removal comparison test
described above. See 52 FR 1566.
January 14,1987.)
6. Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources fPSNS)
Like PSES. PSNS are designed to
prevent the discharge of pollutants that
pass through, interfere with, or are
otherwise incompatible with the
operation of a POTW. PSNS are to be
issued at the same time as NSPS. New
indirect dischargers, like new direct
dischargers, have the opportunity to
incorporate in their plant the best
available demonstrated technologies.
The Agency considers the same factors
in promulgating PSNS as it considers in
promulgating NSPS.
B. Overview of the Industry
The OCPSF industry is large and
diverse, and many plants in the industry
are highly complex. This industry
manufactures over 25.000 different
organic chemicals, plastics, and
synthetic fibers. However. less than halt
of these products are produced in excess
of 1.000 pounds per year. The industry
includes approximately 750 facilities
whose principal or primary production
activities are covered under the OCPSF
SIC groups. There are approximately :oo
other plants which are secondary
producers of OCPSF products, i.e-
OCPSF production is ancillary to their
primary production activities. (As
discussed above in this preamble, this
regulation covers OCPSF discharges
from secondary producers, with certain
exceptions.) Thus the total number of
plants to be regulated totally or in part
by the OCPSF industry regulation is
approximately 1.000. Secondary OCPSF
plants may be part of other chemical
producing industries such as the
petroleum refuting, inorganic chemicals.
Pharmaceuticals, and pesticides
-industries as well as chemical
formulation industries such as the
adhesives and sealants, the paint and
ink. and the plastics molding and
forming industries.
Some plants produce chemicals in
targe volumes while others produce only
small volumes of "specialty" chemicals.
Large volume production tends to use
continuous processes. Continuous
processes are generally more efficient
than batch processes in minimizing
5B-7
-------
Federal Register / Vol 52. No. 214 / Thursday. November 5. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
Xffl. Variances and Modifications
Once the OCPSF regulation is in
effect the numerical effluent limitations
for the appropriate subeategory must be
applied in all Federal and State NPDES
permits thereafter issued ta OCPSF
direct dischargers. The pretreatment
standards are directly applicable to
indirect dischargers and become
effective aa discussed in I 414.12 of the
regulation.
For the BPT effluent limitations, the
only exception to the limitations
contained in the regulation is EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
variance. See £ L daPont de Nemours
and Co. v. Train. 430 U.S. 112 (1977):
Wcywrtiaeuser Co. v. Costle. supra. This
variance recognizes factors concerning a
Srticalar discharger that are
idamentally different from the factors
considered in this ruiemaking, However.
the economic ability of the individual
operator to meet the compliance coat for
BPT standards is not a consideration for
granting a variance. See National
Crushed Stoae Association v. EPA. 449
US. 84 (1980). Although this variance
dause waa originally set forth ia EPA's
1973-1978 categorical industry
regulations, it ia now included in the
general NPOES regulations and will not
be included in die OCPSF or other
specific industry regulations. See 40 CFR
Part 12& Subpart R
The BAT limitations in this regulation
also are subject to'EPA's
"fundamentally different factors"
variance. However, section 308 of the
Water Quality Act of 1987 added a new
section 30l(n) to the Act which
somewhat limits the availability of FDF
variances from BAT effluent limitations
guidelines. An FDF application must be
based solely on information and
supporting data submitted to EPA during
the ruiemaking establishing *he
limitations that discussed the
fundamentally different factors, or on
information and supporting data that the
applicant did not have a reasonable-
opportunity to submit during the
ruiemaking. The alternative requirement
must be BO less stringent thaa justified
by the fundamental difference and must
not result in markedly more adverse
non-water quality environmental
impacts than those considered by EPA
in establishing the guideline.
Indirect dischargers subject to PSES
are also eligible for the "fundamentally
different factors" variance. See 40 CFR
403.13. They are subject to essentially
the same new statutory provisions for
FDF variances as discussed above for
BAT.
Readers should note that EPA has not
yet amended its FDF variance regulation
to conform to the provisions of the
Water Quality Act of 1987. The
regulation promulgated today refers to
the existing regulatory sections.
However. EPA recognizes that die new
section 301(n) of the Act overrides the
existing FDF regulation to the extent of
any inconsistency, and EPA does intend
to modify the FDF regulation to conform
to the new statutory requirements.
Indirect dischargers subject to PSES
and PSNS are eligible for credits for
toxic pollutants removed by a POTW.
See section JOTfb) of the CWA and 40
CFR 40&7. The removal credits
regulation was remanded to EPA in
Natural Xecource* Os/eose Council v.
EPA. 790 FM 289 (3rd Or. 1980). The
court held mat some of the means by
which EPA considered local POTW
removal efficiencies were not
sufficiently stringent and that credits for
POTW removals may not be authorized
until comprehensive regulations for the
use and disposal of sludge are
promulgated under section 405(d) of the
CWA. However, it should be noted that
pretreatment standards for the OCPSF
industry, like other categorical
pretreatment standards, have been
promulgated based upon the
assumptions that indirect dischargers
will be required to comply with the
standards without removal credits, and
thus that they are subject to the full
costs of complying with
XIV. ImnleaMatatlaa of Limitations and
Standards
A. Flow Basis
The limitations promulgated today are
concentration-based and thus do not
regulate flow. The permit writer must
use a reasonable estimate of process
wastewater flows and the concentration
limitations to develop mass limitations
for the NPDES permit Process
wastewater discharge is defined in the
regulation (40 CFR 401.11) to include
wastexvaten resulting from manufacture
of OCPSF products that come in direct
contact with raw materials, intermediate
products, or final products, and surface
runoff from the immediate process area
that has the potential to become
contaminated. Noncontact cooling
waters, utility wastewaters. general site
surface runoff, ground waters, and other
nonprocess waters generated on site are
specifically excluded from the definition
of process wastewater discharges. In
cases where the process wastewater
flow claimed by industry may be
excessive, the permit writer may
develop a more appropriate process
wastewater flow for use in computing
the mass effluent or internal plant
limitations. The following items should
be considered in developing the more
appropriate process wastewater flow:
t. A review of the component flows to
insure that the claimed flows are. in
fact process wastewater flows as
defined by the regulation:
2. A review of plant operations to
insure that sound water conservation
practices are being followed. Examples
are: minimization of process water uses:
cascading or countercurrent washes or
rinses, where possible: reuse or recycle
of intermediate process waters or
treated wastewaters at the process area
and in wastewater treatment operations
(pump seals, equipment and area
washdowns, etc.).
3. A review of barometric condenser
use at the process level. Often,
barometric condensers will gen?' ate
relatively large volumes of wau -
contaminated at low levels.
Replacement of barometric condensers
with surface condensers can reduce
wastewater volumes significantly and
result in collection of condensates that
may be returned to the process.
The final NPDES permit limitations
will be the son of the mass effluent
limitations derived as described above
and any matt effluent limitations
developed on a case-by
-------
Example of Concentration-Based Effluent Guideline Calculations (Maximum Daily Limit)
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
40 CFR Parts 414 and 416
Component
Ground Water
Process Water
Cooling Towers
Total
Reorted Averae Flow
0.60
2.40 (1.10 mgd for metal bearing wastestream)
Q.30
3.30
BAT Calculation for Nitrobenzene:
Since the effluent guidelines state that only process water should be used in the calculation, the
allowable mass discharge is calculated as follows:
(68 ug/l)*(2.40mgd)*(8.34)*(.001mg/ug) = 1.36 Ib/day
BAT Calculation for Lead:
Since the effluent guidelines state that only the flow from "metal bearing" wastestreams be used
for calculation of allowable mass discharge, the limit is calculated as follows:
(690 ug/l)*(1.10mgd)*(8.34)*(.001mg/ug)« 6.33 Ib/day
5B-9
-------
5B-10
-------
§414.91
Dlsflwrgs) Point
flMt Ut* fad of ffp« M-
• 414JO Applicability; description of the
•ubeatefory of direct discharge point
sources that use end-of-pipe biological
- treatment.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the process wastewmter
discharges resulting from the manu-
facture of the OCPSP products and
product groups defined by f 414.11
from any point source that uses end-
of-pipe biological treatment or installs
end-of-pipe biological treatment to
comply with BPT effluent limitations.
I414.il Toxk pollutant effluent limita-
tions and standards for direct dis-
charge point sources that use end-of-
pipe Motogieal treatment
(a) Any point source subject to this
subpart must achieve discharges not
exceeding the quantity (mass) deter-
mined by multiplying the process
wastewater flow subject to this sub-
part times the concentrations in the
following table.
(b) In the case of chromium, copper.
lead, nickel, zinc, and total cyanide.
the discharge quantity (mass) shall be
determined by multiplying the concen-
trations listed In the following table
for these pollutants times the flow
from metal-bearing waste streams for
the metals and times the flow from cy-
anide-bearing waste streams for total
cyanide. Metal-bearing waste streams
and cyanide-bearing waste streams are
defined as those waste streams listed
in Appendix A of this part plus any
additional process wastewater streams
identified by the permitting authority
on a case-by-case basis as metal or cya-
nide bearing based upon a determina-
tion—
(1) That such streams contain signif-
icant amounts of the pollutants identi-
fied above and that
(2) The combination of such
streams, prior to treatment, with the
Appendix A waste streams wffl result
in substantial reduction of these pol-
lutants.
This determination must be based
upon a review of relevant engineering,
production, and sampling and analysis
information.
Effluent ctwsctenstics
Carton
i nun* i
U-OteMoroMtam
1.1,1-TitaMomeii
1.1-OICNC
1.12-Ti
CNOTMS1
1.1-OfeM
i
U-
EftySJi
iMMCNe
ophi
2.4-OHkaptwnol—
4>QM>n o tmet..
OHM DM
pMMsM
Pyrar
ToMOwamium..
Effluent Mrntstorw
BATsndNSPS'
Maxi-
mum tor
dey
9*
242
136
as
2S
140
a
211
94
54
5S
94
4S
9S
163
29
54
112
230
641
10S
ISO
124
129
277
2S
270
97
203
47
9S
61
61
67
56
SO
94
ass
2.770
3,360
urn
3J8I
mum for
22
M
37
16
19
66
15
as
21
21
22
21
104
21
31
77
31
IS
16
21
36
153
29
16
113
259
32
29
40
86
20
22
27
41
72
71
76
19
103
27
61
is
22
23
23
22
22
22
22
22
22
21
104
1.110
1.490
420
5B-11
-------
§414,100
EWu«* characteristics
Total ZhK*
Effluent limitations
BAT and NSPS '
Maxi-
mum for
anyone
day
2.610
Man-
mum for
monthly
average
1.050
1 AH units are rmcrogrsms per liter.
* Total Zinc for Rayon Roar Manufacture mat i
the viscose process and Acrylic Fibar Manufacture
that uaaa tha zinc chloride/solvent process « 6.796
MO/I and 3,325 jig/1 tar maximum for -any ona day
and maximum for monthly average, reipecttvsty.
(52 PR 42568, Nov. 5. 1987. as amended at 54
PR 27352. June 29. 1989]
Subport J— Wr»et Discharge) Point
Source* Thot Do Not Uto End-of-
§414.100 Applicability; description of the
•ubeatefory of direct discharge point
sources that do not use end-of-pipe bio-
logical treatment
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the process wastewater
discharges resulting from the manu-
facture of the OCPSP products and
product groups defined by 1414.11
from any point source that does not
use end-of-pipe biological treatment
and does not install end-of-pipe biolog-
ical treatment to comply with BPT ef-
fluent limitations.
0414.101 Toxic pollutant effloent limita-
tion* and standards for direct dis-
charge point sources that do not use
end-of-pipe biological treatment
(a> Any point source subject to this
subpart must achieve discharges not
exceeding the quantity (mass) deter-
mined by multiplying the process
wastewater flow subject to this sub-
part times the concentrations In the
following table.
(b) In the case of chromium, copper.
lead, nickel, zinc, and total cyanide,
the discharge quantity (mass) shall be
determined by multiplying the concen-
trations listed In the following table
for these pollutants times the flow
from metal-bearing waste streams for
the metals and times the cyanide-bear-
ing waste streams for total cyanide.
Metal-bearing waste streams and cya-
nide-bearing waste streams are defined
40 Cft Ch. I (7.1-91
as those waste streams listed in AD.
pendix A of this part, plus any addj.
Uonal process wastewater streams
identified by the permitting authority
on a case-by-case basis as metal or cy*.
nide bearing based upon a determin*.
tion—
(1) That such streams contain signif.
icant amounts of the pollutants identi-
fied above and
(2) That the combination of such
streams, prior to treatment, with the
Appendix A waste streams would
result in substantial reduction of these
pollutants.
This determination must be bated
upon a review of relevant engineering,
production, and sampling and analysis
information,
Effluent characteristics
BAT effluent
limitation* and
NSPS>
Ma»
mum for
Maxi-
mum for
anyone
day
2.4-OMttopnmol
4,6-OMro-O-crMOl
Tout Chromum
Total Cope*
Tot* Cyiridt
Total
Total NfcM
5B-12
-------
Effluent charaetansttca
Tflt>l 2fclC *
BATa
MvwUK
NSf
Ma»
mum tor
any one
d*
2.610
rnUSnt
mind
**
Ma*
mum for
•MM«Mtfc«
nwrarey
•wag*
1.090
1 AH units are nucfoo/ams per Mar.
> Total Zinc lor Rtyon fiber Manufacture that uses
the viscose process and Acrylic Rberi Manufactura
that uses
-------
5B-14
-------
Example of Production-Based Effluent Guideline Calculations (Daily Maximum)
Non-Ferrous Metals Manufacturing
40 CFR Part 421
Facility is subject to 40 CFR Part 421, Subpart J (Primary Tungsten). The facility utilizes a
Tungstic Acid Rinse, an Acid Leach Wet Air Pollution Control system, and an Alkali Leach
Wash in its manufacturing process.
Long-term Average Production Rate:
BPT Calculation for Lead (S 421.102):
4.7 million pounds per day of Tungstic Acid
3.5 million pounds per day of Sodium Tungstate
a) Tungstic Acid Rinse
(4.7 million lbs/day)*(l7.230 Ibs/million Ibs) = 80.918 Ibs/day
b) Acid Leach Wet Air Pollution Control
(4.7 million Ibs/day)*(15.040 Ibs/million tbs) = 70.688 Ibs/day
c) Alkali Leach Wash
(3.5 million lbs/day)*(0.000 Ibs/million Ibs) = 0.000 Ibs/day
d) Total Allowable Discharge = 80.918 + 70.688 + 0.000 = 151.669 Ib/dav
BAT Calculation for Lead f§ 421.103):
a) Tungstic Acid Rinse
(4.7 million lbs/day)*(l 1.490 Ibs/million Ibs) = 54.003 Ibs/day
b) Acid Leach Wet Air Pollution Control
(4.7 million Ibs/day)*(1.003 Ibs/million Ibs) - 4.714 Ibs/day
c) Alkali Leach Wash
(3.5 million Ibs/day)*(0.000 Ibs/million Ibs) - 0.000 Ibs/day
d) Total Allowable Discharge = 54.003 + 4.714 + 0.000 = 58.717 Ib/dav
5B-15
-------
5B-16
-------
Swbpart 4—Primary Tungston
f 421.100 Applicability: Description of the
primary tungsten •ubcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges resulting from
the production of tungsten at primary
tungsten facilities.
I4» PR 8812. Mar. 8.1984]
§421.101 Specialized definition*.
For the purpose of this subpart the
general information, abbreviations,
and methods of analysis set forth in 40
CFR pan 401 shall apply to this sub-
part.
f 421.102 Effluent limitations guideline*
representing the degree of effluent re-
duction attainable by the application of
the best practicable control technology
currently available.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
. source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable technol-
ogy currently available:
(a) Subpart J—Tungstic Acid Rinse.
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Pollutant or poftiunt praporty
forinyl
1205
25.030
2.404.00
800.000
17.230
99.900
1,881000
(b) Subpart J—Acid Leach Wet Air
Pollution Control.
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Pofcjtantori
[prop*
Uamrwm
(orww 1
Mwmum
4MM MMM^t^BM
KJf fflOfWwy
Rig/kg (pound* par mMon
pound*) of tungMe tod
(**W)predue*d
15.040
S&280
4.773.000
1.408.000
7.182
21.840
2.088.000
688.300
' wmn ft* ranga of 7.0 to 10.0 at at ttw*.
(0 Subpart J—Alkali Leach Wash.
BPT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
«ormy
day
mg/kfl (pound* por mWon
poimk) of todbm
(M W)
Bnc-
J 0.000
J 0.000 1
0.000
0.000
§421.103 Effluent limitation* guideline*
repfiatnting the degree of effluent re-
daction attainable by the application of
the beet available technology economi-
cally achievable.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart shall
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology
economically achievable:
rang* of 7.0 to 10.0 at al Km**.
5B-17
-------
(&) Subpart J—Tungrtlc Add Rinae.
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
PoMvtori
tor my i
Mwmurn
for ntonffwy
ing/kg (powidi par m*on
poum» of
ane-
11.4M
41.«SO
5.4W.OOO
S.333
17.330
£404.000
(b) Submit J-Acid Leach Wet Air
Pollution ControL
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
PoiulHt or poHutvit prepwty
foranyl
Off
(pounds p«r mHon
pounds) of twigttc Mid
Ammon»(MN>..
1.003
3.683
477.400
1.904
(c) Subpart J—Alkali Leach Wash.
BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
or poftMitt property
tor my 1
ol wdtan
(M W)
anc..
0.000
aooo
0.000
aooo
SB-18
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Engineering and Analysis
Division (4303)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone (2021 260-7120
Fax (202) 260-7185
September 1996
&EPA
Industrial Wastewater
Contacts in the
Effluent Guidelines Program
Industry/Subject
Regulation
Person
Phone (Area Code 202)
Aluminum Forming
Analytical Methods Support
40 CFR 467
40CFR136
Asbestos Manufacturing 40 CFR 427
Asphalt - see Paving and Roofing Materials
George Jett
Bill Telliard
Ben Honaker
Ron Kirby
40 CFR 461 George Jett
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking - see Coil Coating
Carbon Black Manufacturing
Cement Manufacturing
Centralized Waste Treatment
(Hazardous & Non-Hazardous)
Chemicals - see Gum & Wood, Inorganic, Organic, Pesticides
Cluster Rule - see Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Coal Mining 40 CFR 434 Bill Telliard
(also Coal Remining, Coal Slurry Pipelines) Joe Vrtafe
Coil Coating
(includes Canmaking)
Copper Forming
Dairy Products Processing
40 CFR 465 George Jett
40 CFR 468
40 CFR 405
George Jett
Don Anderson
Development Documents (Ordering) - see Water Resource Center
Docket - see Water Docket
Drum Reconditioning Don Anderson
260-7151
260-7134
260-2272
260-7168
260-7151
40 CFR 458
40 CFR 411
proposed
George Jett
Ron Kirby
Jan Matuszko
Ed Terry
260-7151
260-7168
260-9126
260-7128
260-7134
260-7172
260-7151
260-7151
260-7137
260-7189
5B-19
-------
EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts
Economic Analysis
Effluent Guidelines Plan
(Clean Water Act - Section 304(m»
Effluent Guidelines Task Force
Electrical & Electronic Components
Electroplating
Environmental Monitoring Methods Index
40 CFR 469
40 CFR 41 3
(EMM!)
Neil Patel
Eric Strassler
Beverly Randolph
George Jett
Mark Ingle
Marion Thompson
Ben Honaker
260-5405
260-7150
260-5373
260-7151
260-7191
260-7117
260-2272
EPA Water Resource Center (Publications) - see Water Resource Center
Ethanol for Fuel
Explosives Manufacturing
Feedlots
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
Fertilizer Manufacturing
40 CFR 457
40 CFR 412
40 CFR 424
40 CFR 418
Bill Telliard
Joe Vrtalis
Don Anderson
George Jett
Anna Kinney
260-7134
260-7172
260-7189
260-7151
260-7127
(Nitrogen & Phosphate)
Don Anderson
260-7137
Fish Hatcheries
Foods - see Dairy, Fruits & Vegetables, Grain MUls, Meat Products, Poultry, Seafood, Sugar
Foods and Beverages, Miscellaneous Don Anderson 260-7137
Foundries - see Metal Molding & Casting
Fruits & Vegetables Processing 40 CFR 407 Don Anderson
Glass Manufacturing 40 CFR 426 Wendy Smith
Grain Mills 40 CFR 406 Don Anderson
260-7137
260-7184
260-7189
"GukJePnes and Format for Methods
to Be Proposed at 40 CFR Part 136 or Part 141" - see Streamlining
Gum & Wood Chemicals Manufacturing 40 CFR 454
Hospitals 40 CFR 460
Incinerators (Thermal Destruction)
Industrial Laundries
Ink Formulating 40 CFR 447
Don Anderson
Frank Hund
260-7189
260-7182
Samantha Hopkins 260-7149
Susan Bums 260-5379
Don Anderson 260-7189
5B-20
-------
EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts
Inorganic Chemicals
Iron & Steel Manufacturing
Landfill Leachate
Leather Tanning & Rnishing
Low BTU Gasification
Meat Products
Metal Finishing
Metal Molding & Casting (Foundries)
Metal Products and Machinery- Phase f
Metal Products and Machinery - Phase If
Mineral Mining & Processing
40CFR415
40CFR420
40CFR425
40 CFR 432
40 CFR 433
40CFR464
proposed
40 CFR 436
Mining - see Coal Mining, Mineral Mining & Processing,
Nonferrous Metals Forming
(includes Metal Powders)
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing
Oil and Gas Extraction
Offshore
Coastal/Onshore
Ore Mining & Dressing
Organic Chemicals, Plastics*
Synthetic Fibers
Paint Formulating
Paving and Roofing Materials
(Tars and Asphalt)
Pesticide Chemicals
Manufacturing
Formulating/Packaging/Repackaging
Petroleum Refining
pH Effluent Limitations under
40 CFR 471
40 CFR 421
40 CFR 435
40 CFR 440
40 CFR 414
40 CFR 446
40 CFR 443
40 CFR 455
40 CFR 41 9
40 CFR 401.
Anna Kinney
George Jett
John Tinger
Don Anderson
BiJITeHiard
Don Anderson
Mark Ingle
George Jett
Steve Geil
Mark Ingle
Ron Kirby
Ore Mining & Dressing
George Jett
George Jett
Ron Jordan
Chuck White
Ron Kirby
George Jett
Don Anderson
Bill Telliard
Shari Zuskin
Ron Kirby
17 Henry Kahn
260-7127
260-7151
260-4992
260-7189
260-5134
260-7189
260-7191
260-7151
260-9817
260-7191
260-7168
260-7151
260-7151
260-7115
260-5411
260-7168
260-7151
260-7189
260-7134
260-7130
260-7168
260-5408
Continuous Monitoring
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
40 CFR 439
Frank Hund
260-7182
5B-21
-------
EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts
Phosphate Manufacturing
Photographic (Processing) "
Plastics Molding & Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Poultry Processing
40 CFR 427 Anna Kinney
40 CFR 459 Joe Daly
40 CFR 463 Woody Forsht
40 CFR 466 George Jett
Don Anderson
Pretreatment JoeVKafe
(or call Permits DMston/Pretreatment Branch: 202-260-7539)
Priority Pollutants
(See 40 CFR 423, Appendix A)
Printing & Publishing
Bill Telliard
Don Anderson
260-7127
260-7186
260-7190
260-7151
260-7137
260-7172
260-7134
260-7189
Publications - see EPA/OW- Water Resource Center (WRC)
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Rubber Manufacturing
Seafood Processing
Shipbuilding (MP&M Phase II)
Soap & Detergent Manufacturing
Solvent Recovery
Statistical Analysts
Steam Electric Power Generation
Storm Water (Industrial)
Streamlining (and Method Flexibility)
Sugar Processing
Superfund Sites - Discharges to
POTWs (Guidance Document)
Textile Mills
Timber Products Processing
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
40 CFR 430 Don Anderson
40 CFR 428 Joe Walts
40 CFR 408 Don Anderson
Mark Ingle
40 CFR 41 7 Woody Forsht
Woody Forsht
Henry Kahn.
40 CFR 423 Joe Daly
JoeVrtalis
40 CFR 136, 141 Bill Telliard
Marion Thompson
40 CFR 409 Don Anderson
Woody Forsht
40 CFR 410 Hugh Wise
40 CFR 429 Don Anderson
Gina Matthews
Jan Goodwin
260-7189
260-7172
260-7189
260-7191
260-7190
260-7190
260-5408
260-7186
260-7172
260-7134
260-7117
260-7189
260-7190
260-7177
260-7189
260-6036
260-7152
Toxic Pollutant Ust
40 CFR 401.15 Bill Telliard
260-7134
5B-22
-------
EPA Industrial Wastewater Contacts
Used Oil Reclamation Ron Kirby 260-7168
Waste Treatment -see CentraTtzed Waste Treatment, Incinerators, LandfillLeachate
Water Docket (Rm. 2616) Colleen Campbell 260-3027
Water Resource Center (WRC) - Publications (Rm. 2615) Mary Conway
Automated Document Ordering
Water Supply
Don Anderson
260-2814
260-7786
260-7189
5B-23
-------
5B-24
-------
PRACTICAL EXERCISE
Developing Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
Using Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
SITUATION:
You are a permit writer responsible for drafting a permit for a facility involved in leather
tanning operations. There is one outfall from the facility that contains all the treated process
wastewater. You must determine the technology-based effluent limits for the facility.
GIVEN:
The facility is subject to the Leather Tanning and Finishing Point Source Category effluent
guidelines, 40 CFR Part 425 (which are attached to the exercise).
The tannery processes cattle hides into finished leather by the following process:
Hair save unhairing - Chrome tanning - Retan-wet finishing
The long-term production rate is 500 pounds of raw material (hides) per day, and the long-
term average process flow is 40,000 gallons per day.
QUESTIONS:
(1) What Subpart(s) of the Leather Tanning and Finishing Point Source Category effluent
guidelines is (are) applicable to this facility?
(2) What parameters are limited by the effluent guidelines?
(3) What are the BPT effluent limits that you would impose at the outfall?
5B-25
-------
(4) What are the BCT effluent limits that you would impose at the outfall?
(5) What are the BAT effluent limits that you would impose at the outfall?
5B-26
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
PART 425
SUBCHAPTER N—EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
PART 425— LEATHER TANNING AND
FINISHING POINT SOURCE CATE-
GORY
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec.
425.01 Applicability.
425.02 General definitions.
425.03 Sulfide analytical methods and ap-
plicability.
425.04 Applicability of sulfide pretreat-
ment standards.
425.05 Compliance dates.
425.06 Monitoring requirements.
Subpoft A— Hair Pwlp, Chroma Tan, Ra*an-Wat
Finish
425.10 Applicability: description of the hair
pulp, chrome tan, retan-wet finish sub-
category.
425.11 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best prac-
ticable control technology currently
available (BPT).
425.12 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCT).
425.13 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best avail-
able technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425.14 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
425.15 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425.16 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Subpart B— Hair Sav«, Chroma Tan, Ratan-Wat
Finish Swbcategery
425.20 Applicability; description of the hair
save chrome tan. retan-wet finish sub-
category.
425.21 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best prac-
ticable control technology currently
available (BPT).
425.22 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCT).
425.23 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best avail-
able technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425.24 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
425.25 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425.26 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Subpart C Hair Sava ar Pulp, Noa-Chfama
Tan, Katan-Wat Finish Svbcataaary
425.30 Applicability: description of the hair
save or pulp, non-chrome tan. retan-wet
finish subcategory.
425.31 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best prac-
ticable control technology currently
available (BPT).
425.32 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCT).
425.33 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best avail-
able technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425.34 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
425.35 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425.36 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
SvbfMrt D—Raton-Wat Finish-Sides
Subcatagory
425.40 Applicability, description of the
retan-wet finish-sides subcategory.
425.41 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best prac-
ticable control technology currently
available (BPT).
425.42 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCT).
425.43 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best avail-
able technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425.44 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
5B-27
-------
Part 425
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1.88 Edition)
425.45 PretreatmeiH standards for existing
sources (PSES).
425.46 Pretreatment standards Tor new
sources (PSNS).
Subparf E—No B»omhowt• Swbcotogory
425.50 Applicability: description of the no
beamhouse subcategory.
425.51 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best prac-
ticable control technology currently
available (BPT).
425.52 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCT).
425.53 Effluect limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain*
able by the application of the best avail*
able technology economically achievable
(BAT).
425.54 New source performance standards
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§425.03
425.95 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES).
435.96 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Arronux A TO PART 425—POTASSIUM FERRI-
cr ABIDE TTTRATIOH METHOD
APPENDIX B TO PART 425—MODIFIED
MOHTEB-WILLIAMS METHOD
APPENDIX C TO PART 425—DErmmoN AND
PROCEDURE TOR THE DETERMINATION or
THE METHOD DETECTION LIMIT
AUTHORITY: Sees. 301. 304(b>. (c). (e). and
(g). 30ftb> and (c). 307(b) and (c), 308 and
SOI of the Clean Water Act (the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972. as amended by the Clean Water Act
of 1977) (the "Act"); 33 UJS.C. 1911,1314(b),
(c), (e). and (g). 1316(b) and (c). 1317(b) and
(c). 1318. and 1361; 86 Stat. 816. Pub. L. 92-
500; 91 Stat. 1567, Pub. L. 95-217.
SOURCE: 47 PR 52870. Nov. 23. 1982, unless
otherwise noted.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 425.01 Applicability.
This part applies to any leather tan-
ning and finishing facility which dis-
charges or may discharge process
wastewater pollutants to the waters of
the United States, or which Introduces
or may introduce process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned treat-
ment works.
9425.02 General definitions.
In addition to the definitions set
forth in 40 CFR Part 401. the follow-
ing definitions apply to this part:
(a) "Sulfide" shall mean total sulfide
as measured by the potassium ferri-
cyanide titration method described in
Appendix A or the modified Monier-
WUliams method described in Appen-
dix B.
(b) "Hide" means any animal pelt or
skin as received by a tannery as raw
material to be processed,
(c) "Retan-wet finish" means the
final processing steps performed on a
tanned hide including, but not limited
to, the following wet processes: retan.
bleach, color, and fatliquor.
(d) "Hair pulp" means the removal
of hair by chemical dissolution.
(e) "Hair save" means the physical
or mechanical removal of hair which
has not been chemically dissolved, and
either selling the hair as a by-product
or disposing of it as a solid waste.
(f) "Chrome tan" means the process
of converting hide into leather using a
form of chromium.
(g) "Vegetable tan" means the proc-
ess of converting hides into leather
using chemicals either derived from
vegetable matter or synthesized to
produce effects similar to those chemi-
cals.
(h) "Raw material" means the hides
received by the tannery except for fa-
cilities covered by Subpart D and Sub-
part I where "raw material" means the
hide or split in the condition in which
it is first placed into a wet process.
(i) "Monthly average" means the
arithmetic average of eight (8) individ-
ual data points from effluent sampling
and analysis during any calendar
month.
(j) "Interference" means the dis-
charge of sulfides in quantities which
can result in human health hazards
and/or risks to human life, and an in-
hibition or disruption of POTW as de-
fined in 40 CFR 403.3(1).
[47 PR S2870. Nov. 23. 1982, as amended at
53 PR 9181. Mar. 21.1988)
§425.03 Sulfide analytical methods and
applicability.
(a) The potassium ferricyanide titra-
tion method described in Appendix A
to Part 425 shall be used whenever
practicable for the determination of
sulfide in wastewaters discharged by
plants operating in all subcategories
except the hair save or pulp, non-
chrome tan, retan-wet finish subcate-
gory (Subpart C, see §425.30). In all
other cases, the modified Monier-Wil-
liams method as described in Appen-
dix B to Part 425 shall be used as an
alternative to the potassium ferricya-
nide titration method for the determi-
nation of sulfide in wastewaters dis-
charged by plants operating in all sub-
categories except Subpart C.
(b) The modified Monier-Williams
method as described in Appendix B to
Part 425 shall be used for the determi-v
nation of sulfide in wastewaters dis-
charged by plants operating in the
hair save or pulp, non-chrome tan,
retan-wet finish subcategory (Subpart
C. see § 425.30).
[S3 PR 9181. Mar. 21. 1988]
5B-29
-------
§ 425.04
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
§425.04 Applicability of sutflde pretreat-
ment standards.
(a) A POTW receiving wastewater
from a facility subject to this part may
require more stringent pretreatment
standards for sulfide than those estab-
lished by this part without EPA ap-
proval.
(b) The pretreatment standards for
sulfide established by this part will
not apply if the POTW receiving
wastewater from a facility subject to
this part certifies in writing with ex-
planation of relevant factors consid-
ered. in accordance with the provisions
of paragraph (c) of this section, that
the discharge of sulfide from the facil-
ity does not interfere with the oper-
ation of the POTW. In malting this de-
termination, the POTW shall consider
all relevant factors including but not
limited to the following:
(1) The presence and characteristics,
of other industrial wastewaters which
can increase or decrease sulfide con-
centrations, pH. or both.
(2) The characteristics of the sewer/
interceptor collection system which
either minimize or enhance opportuni-
ties for release of hydrogen sulfide
gas.
(3) The characteristics of the receiv-
ing POTWs headwords, preliminary
and primary treatment systems, and
sludge holding and dewatering facili-
ties which either minimi7.e or enhance
opportunities for release of hydrogen
sulfide gas.
(4) The occurrence of any prior sul-
fide related interference as defined in
§ 425.02(j).
(cXl) On October 13. 1983. a POTW
which intends to certify that the sul-
fide pretreatment standard should not
apply must publish, in a local newspa-
per with the largest circulation, a
notice that presents the findings sup-
porting this determination consistent
with paragraph (a) of this section. Al-
lowance for public hearing of these
findings also must be provided. The
POTW shall identify all existing facili-
ties to which the sulfide pretreatment
standard otherwise established by this
part would not apply.
(2) On January 11. 1984. a POTW
which intends to certify that the sul-
fide pretreatment standard should not
apply must file a written certification
with the Regional Water Management
Division Director, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, in the appropriate Re-
gional Office. This certification shall
include the findings supporting this
determination and the results of
public comments. and public
hearing(s) if held.
(3> On February 10. 1984, EPA shall
acknowledge to the POTW receipt of
any certification submitted under
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this sec-
tion, and shall indicate to the POTW
the adequacy of the submission based
upon a review of the factors set forth
in paragraph (b) of this section.
(4) Within 30 days of the date of re-
ceipt of adequate submissions under
paragraphs (c) (1). (2), and (3) of this
section, EPA shall publish a notice in
the FEDEHAL REGISTER identifying
those facilities to which the sulfide
pretreatment standards of this part
shall not apply.
(5) A POTW may certify that the
sulfide pretreatment standards of this
part should not apply to a new source
planning to discharge into the POTW.
This certification must be submitted
prior to the commencement of dis-
charge, and must conform at a mini-
mum with criteria in paragraph (b) of
this section and the general proce-
dures and intervals of time contained
in paragraphs (c) (1). (2), (3). and (4)
of this section.
(d) (1) If, after EPA and the POTW
have determined in accordance with
this section that the sulfide pretreat-
ment standards of this Part are not
applicable to specified facilities, a
POTW then determines that there
have been changed circumstances (in-
cluding but not limited to changes in
the factors specified in paragraph (b)
of this section) which justify applica-
tion of the sulfide pretreatment stand-
ards, the POTW shall revoke the certi-
fication submitted under paragraph
(c) of this section. The POTW and
EPA shall then adhere to the general
procedures and time intervals con-
tained in paragraph (c) of this section
in order to determine whether the sul-
fide pretreatment standards contained
in this Part are applicable.
(2) If pursuant to paragraph (dXl)
of this section, the sulfide pretreat-
ment standards of this Part are appli-
5B-30
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§ 425.12
.cable to a specified facility, the indi-
rect discharger shall comply with the
sulfide pretreatment standards no
later than 18 months from the date of
publication of the FEDERAL REGISTER
notice identifying the facility.
(e) At any time after October 13.
1983, if a POTW determines that
there have been changed circum-
stances (including but not limited to
changes in the factors specified in
paragraph (b) of this section), it may
initiate proceedings contained in para-
graph (c) of this section to determine
that the sulfide pretreatment stand-
ards of this Part shall not be applica-
ble. The POTW and EPA shall follow
the procedures and time intervals con-
tained in paragraph (c) of this section
to make this determination. A final de-
termination that the sulfide pretreat-
ment standards are not applicable
must be made prior to the discharge of
sulfide not in accordance with the
standards set forth in this Part.
(The Information collection and reporting
requirements contained in paragraphs (b)
and (c) were approved by the Office of Man-
agement and Budget under control number
2040-0032)
[47 PR 52870. Nov. 23. 1982: 48 PR 30117.
June 30. 1983; 48 PR 31404. July 8. 1983; 48
PR 32346. July IS. 1983; 48 PR 35649. Aug.
5,1983; 53 PR 9181. Mar. 21.1988]
§425.05 Compliance dates.
The compliance date for new source
performance standards (NSPS) and
pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSES) is the date the new
source commences discharge. The
compliance date for BPT effluent limi-
tations and guidelines and pretreat-
ment standards for existing sources to
no later than March 31.1989.
[S3 PR 9182. Mar. 21.1988]
§ 425.06 Monitoring requirements.
Compliance with monthly average
discharge limitations is required re-
gardless of the number of samples
analyzed and averaged.
Subpart A—Hair Pulp, Chrome Tan,
Retan-Wet Finish Subcategory
§425.10 Applicability; description of the
hair pulp, chrome tan, retan-wet finish-
ing subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater dis-
charges resulting from any tannery
which, either exclusively or in addi-
tion to other unhairing and tanning
operation, processes raw or cured
cattle or cattle-like hides into finished
leather by chemically dissolving the
hide hair, chrome tanning, and retan-
wet finishing.
§425.11 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
practicable control technology current-
ly available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
BPT hmrUboru
•fiylctty
Maximum lor
monthly
kg/Meg (or pounds per
1.000 pounds of raw ma-
Writi
BOO5 ......_.„..-„
TSS
Off AGrwtM ,
pH .... . .
9.3
134
39
0.24
(i)
4.2
6 t
1.7
0.09
<*)
1 Within ttw range of 6.0 to 9.0
[53 PR 9182. Mar. 21. 1988]
§ 425.12 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
5B-31
-------
§ 425.13
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology (BCT): The ef-
fluent limitations are those for BODS,
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH con-
tained in § 425.11.
§425.13 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for
Total Chromium contained in § 425.11.
§425.14 New source performance stand.
ante (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this sub-
part must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
Potutant or poftj
ipropwty
NSPS
tar any 1
K9/kfcg (Of 16/1.000 to) of
BOO,
TSS^,,, , -
Di ttvl r>Ml«
Total chromium ..... .
pH _.. . _
6.0
8.7
i5
0.16
{»)
^7
4.0
1 1
0.06
(')
'Within in* rang* 6.0 » ML
[47 FR 52870, Nov. 23. 1982; 48 FR 30116.
June 30. 1983]
§ 425.15 Pretreatment standards for exist-
ing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in § 425.04
and 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any ex-
isting source subject to this subpart
which introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned treat-
ment works must comply with 40 CFR
Part 403, and achieve the following
pretreatment standards:
Pollutant or poHutani property
PSES
Maximum
tor »ny 1
day
Maximum
for monthly
average
Milligrams per liter (mg/l)
Solfide
Total chromium.
PH
2*
12
> Within the range 70 to 10.0.
(b) Any existing source subject to
this subpart which processes less than
275 hides/day shall comply with
§ 425.15(a>, except that the total chro-
mium limitations contained in
§ 425.15(a) do not apply.
(47 PR 52870. Nov. 23. 1982: 48 FR 30116,
June 30. 1983. as amended at 53 FR 9182.
Mar. 21.1988]
9425.16 Pretraatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 425.04, any new source subject to
this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the
pretreatment standards contained in
§ 425.15.
Subpart B—Hair Save, Chromo Tan,
R«fan-Wet Finish Subcatogory
§425.20 Applicability, description of the
hair sare, chrome tan, retan-wet finish
subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater dis-
charges resulting from any tannery
which processes raw or cured cattle or
cattle-like hides into finished leather
by hair save unhairing. chrome tan-
ning, and retan-wet finishing.
§425.21 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
practicable control technology current-
ly available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
5B-32
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§ 425.26
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
Pofctart or poKutant property
BPT imrtations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
average
Kg/kkg (or pound per 1.000
ID} of raw material
BOO5
Oi Mid QToaia
Total chroiwuni ... — —
82
11 8
3.4
0.21
37
$4
1.5
0.08
> WMNn the range 6.0 to 9.0.
9425.22 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCD.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology (BCT): The ef-
fluent limitations are those for BOO5,
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH con-
tained in $ 425.21.
§425.23 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for
Total Chromium contained in § 425.21.
§425.24 New source performance stand-
ards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this sub-
part must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
Pollutant or pollutant property
NSPS
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum for
• ••iKIii
mUflUHy
average
Kg/kkg (or pound per 1.000
tb) o« raw material
BOOf
TSS
OH and gf easa . .
Total chromium
pH
6.9
99
29
0.18
(')
3 1
45
1 3
006
<')
1 Within the range 6.0 to 9.0
§ 425.25 Pretreatment standards for exist-
ing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in § 425.04 and 40
CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing
source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollut-
ants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR Part
403, and achieve the following pre-
treatment standards:
Pollutant or potutant property
PSES
Maximum
tor any 1
day
Maximum
for monthly
average
MiKgnum per liter (mg/l)
Suffice
Total Chromium..
pH
24
12
| Within the range 7.0 to 10.0
§ 425.26 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS)
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 425.04, any new source subject to
this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403. and achieve the
Pretreatment standards contained in
§ 425.25.
5B-33
-------
§ 425.30
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
Subporl C—Hair Save or Pulp, Non-
Chroma Ton, Reton-Wet Finish
Subcotegory
§425.30 Applicability; description of the
hair save or pulp, non-chrome tan,
retan-wet finish subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater dis-
charges resulting from any tannery
which processes raw or cured cattle or
cattle-like hides into finished leather
by hair save or pulp unhairing. vegeta-
ble tanning or alum, syntans. oils and
other agents for tanning, and retan-
wet finishing.
§425.31 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
practicable control technology current-
ly available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
poiutanC property
BPT irritation*
MBomumtor
any 1 day
(or pound* par
1.000 pounds) o< rawma-
BOD5 .„ _
TSS- .
CM 4 Gmata
Total Orwm>n
pH_ . _.
6.7
9.7
2J
0.17
C)
3.0
4.4
1.3
0.06
(»>
1 Within «w njnga of 8.0 to 9.0
[47 FR 52870. Nov. 23. 1982. as amended at
53 FR 9182, Mar. 21. 1988]
§425.32 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology (BCT): The ef-
fluent limitations are those for BODS,
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH con-
tained in § 425.31.
§425.33 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for
Total Chromium contained in S 425.31.
§42&34 New source performance stand-
ards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this sub-
part must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
PoMutwit OF polutMnt pvofMVty
NSPS
avwaga
Kg/Ma (or pound par 1.000
ft) Or fBW I
B005
Oi and grtn» _ _..
pH _.
5.9
8.5
0.15
Z7
3.9
1.1
0.00
' WrtNn the rang* 6.0 » 9.0.
§425.35 Pretreatment standards for exist-
ing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in §425.04
and 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13. any ex-
isting sources subject to this subpart
that introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned treat-
ment works must comply with 40 CFR
Part 403. and achieve the following
pretreatment standards:
5B-34
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§ 425.44
Potuttt* or potutart property
PSeS limitations
Maximum
for any 1
day
MAxvnuffi
for monthly
average
Milligrams per liter (mg/l)
SuMde 24
Total Chromium ! 1 2
pH (')
a
(')
| Not less than 7.0.
(b) Any existing source subject to
this subpart which processes less than
350 hides/day shall comply with
§425.35(a), except that the Total
Chromium limitations contained in
§ 425.35(a) do not apply.
[47 PR 52870, Nov. 23. 1982: 48 PR 36116,
June 30. 1983, as amended at 53 FR 9182,
Mar. 21. 1988}
§425.36 Pretreatment standards for new
source* (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 425.04. any new source subject to
this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403. and achieve the
pretreatment standards contained in
§ 425.35.
Subpart D—R.tan-Wet Finish-Side*
Subcategory
§425.40 Applicability; description of the
retan-wet finish-sides subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater dis-
charges resulting from any tannery
which processes previously tanned
hides and skins (grain side only) into
finished leather by retan-wet finish-
ing.
§425.41 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
practicable control technology current-
ly available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
Pollutant or pollutant property
8PT limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum tor
inofNftty
average
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1.000 pounds) of raw ma-
terial
6O05
TSS
Oil & Grease
Total Chromium
pH
89
128
3 7
023
(')
A fl
58
l 7
008
Ml
' '
1 Within the range of 6.0 to 90.
(47 FR 52870. Nov. 23. 1982. as amended at
53 FR 9182. Mar. 21.19881
§425.42 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology (BCT): The ef-
fluent limitations are those for BODS,
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH con-
tained in § 425.41.
§425.43 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for
Total Chromium contained in § 425.41.
§ 425.44 New source performance stand-
ards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this sub-
part must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
5B-35
-------
§ 425.45
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
NSPS
MajorflOflt
lor any 1
day
Minimum
tor monthly
average
ng/Mtg (or pounds per
1.000 pounds) ot raw
material
9OD5.
TSS
Oil & Grease
Total Chromium
pH
6.5
9.3
2.7
0 17
C>
2.9
4.3
1.2
006
(')
• WitNn the range o» 6.0 to 9.0.
[47 PR 52870, Nov. 23. 1982. as amended at
53 PR 9182. Mar. 21.1988]
§425.45 Pretreatment standards for exist-
ing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the
following pretreatment standards:
PSES
tor any t
day
Migrants per Her (mg/l)
Total <
PH..
19
12
> VWWn tfta rang* 6.0 to 10.0.
§425.46 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,
any new source subject to this subpart
that introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned treat-
ment works must comply with 40 CFR
Part 403. and achieve the pretreat-
ment standards contained in § 425.45.
Subpart E—No B«amhous«
Subcategory
§425.50 Applicability; description of the
no beamhouse subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater dis-
charges resulting from any tannery
which processes cattle hides, sheep-
skins, or splits (hair previously re-
moved and pickled) into finished
leather by chrome or non-chrome tan-
ning, and retan-wet finishing.
§ 425.51 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
practicable control technology current-
ly available
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§ 425.61
§425.53 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for
Total Chromium contained in 5 425.51
9425.54 New source performance stand-
ards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this sub-
part must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
Poflutant or poftjtant property
NSPS
Maximum (or
any 1 day
Maximum tor
monthly
average
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 b) * raw materiel
B005
TSS
01 4 Create.
pH
5.3
7.7
23.
0.14
(l)
2-4
3.5
1.0
0.05
(')
1 Within the twge 6.0 to 9.0.
6 425,55 Pretreatment standards for exist-
ing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13. any existing source subject
to this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403. and achieve the
following pretreatment standards:
Pollutant or poMutart property
PSES
Maximum.
lor any 1
day
Maximum
tof monthly
average
PoMutent of pollutant property
pH
PS
Maomum
(or any 1
4*t
(i)
ES
Maximum
for monthly
average
ll\
1 Within me range 6.0 to 10.0.
§425.56 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,
any new source subject to this subpart
that introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned treat-
ment works must comply with 40 CFR
Part 403. and achieve the pretreat-
ment standards contained in § 425.55.
Subpart F—ThrougMfie-Blue
Subcategory
§425.60 Applicability; description of the
through-the-blue subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater dis-
charges resulting from any tannery
which processes raw or cured cattle or
cattle-like hides through the blue
tanned state by hair pulp unhairing
and chrome tanning; no retan-wet fin-
ishing is performed.
9425.61 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
practicable control technology current-
ly available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
Pollutant or pofkitant property
BPT Iknrtaeons
Maximum for
any t day
Maximum lor
monthly
average
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 pounds) o* raw ma-
terial
Milligrams per liter (mg/t)
19
8OO5
TSS
Oil & Grease
Total Chromium
3.2
4.7
1.4
o.oa
1.5
2.1
0.61
0.03
58-37
-------
§ 425.62
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
Poftitant or poftulant property
pH
BPTlwr
Maximum tor
any 1 day
(')
itations
Mawnumtor
iDOttttwy
average
C)
' Within in* range Qt 6.0 to 9.0-
(47 PR 52870. Nov. 23. 1982, as amended at
53 PR 9183, Mar. 21.19881
§425.62 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology (BCT): The ef-
fluent limitations are those for BODS,
TSS, Oil and Grease, and pH con-
tained in $ 425.61.
§425.63 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
available technology economically
achievable (BATX
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for
Total Chromium contained in § 425.61.
§425.64 New source performance stand-
ards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this sub-
part must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
PoHutant or pollutant property
BPT (rotations
Maximum tor
anylday
Maximum for
monthly
average
Kg/kkg (or pounds per
1.000 pounds) of law ma-
terial
BOO5
TSS
CM A Grease... .
Total Chromium
pH
32
4 7
1 4
008
(')
1 5
2 1
061
003
f't
' Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0.
[47 PR 52870. Nov. 23. 1982. as amended at
53 PR 9183. Mar. 21.1988]
§ 425.65 Pretreatment standards for exist-
ing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in § 425.04 and 40
CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing
source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollut-
ants into a publicly owned treatment
works must comply with 40 CFR Part
403, and achieve the following pre-
treatment standards:
Poflutftnt or poNuttnt property
PSES
Maximum tor
anylttay
Maximum tar
«ut«4S^*
fnonwy
average
Miliy am* per Ber (mg/1)
Sutftto
Total chromium.,
pM „ .
24
12
1 WWHn the range 7.0 to 10.0.
§425.66 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 425.04. any new source subject to
this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment must comply with 40
CFR Pan 403. and must achieve the
Pretreatment standards contained in
§ 425.65.
5B-38
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Subpart G—Shearling Subcategory
9425.70 Applicability; description of the
shearling subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater dis-
charges resulting from any tannery
which processes raw or cured sheep or
sheep-like skins with the wool or hair
retained into finished leather by
chrome tanning, and retan-wet finish-
ing.
§425.71 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the beat
practicable control technology current-
ly available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
TSS, Oil and Grease,
tained in § 425.71.
§ 425.75
and pH con-
§425.73 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for
Total Chromium contained in § 425.71.
§ 425.74 New source performance stand-
ards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this sub-
part must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
Poflutwit or pottutetnt property
NSPS
Madman for
anylday
Maxtnumtor
Muu^t^*
manmy
kg/kkg (or
1.000 pound*} of raw ma-
terial
PoMutint Of poNulflflt property
NSPS
Maximum for
«nr< »»y
Maximum lor
• III Xlltlil 1
rnwMUny
Average
Kg/Meg (or pound per 1,000
to\ of raw material
9OO5
TSS- _.
pM
4.3
1.2
1.9
O.S5
lit
( l
BCO5
TSS
pH. ,„ , ,„ ,„ „-,„,„,„ „
13.2
19.1
0.34
S.9
8.7
0.12
> Within the rang* of 6.0 to 9.0.
[47 FR 52870. Nov. 23. 1982. as amended at
53 FR 9183, Mar. 21.19881
§ 425.72 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology (BCT): The ef-
fluent limitations are those for BODS,
1 Within Iha range 6.0 to 9.0.
§425.75 PretreatRient standards for exist-
ing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 403.13, any existing source subject
to this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the
following pretreatment standards:
5B-39
-------
§ 425.76
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
Pollutant or pollutant property
PSES
Maximum
for any 1
day
Maximum
for monthly
average
Milligrams per liter (mo/I)
Total chromium.
PH
19
12
> Within th« range 6.0 to to 0.
§425.76 Pretrcatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7,
any new source subject to this subpart
that introduces process wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned treat-
ment works must comply with 40 CFR
Part 403. and must achieve the pre-
treatment standards contained in
S 425.75.
Subpart H—Pigskin Subcategory
§42&M Applicability; description of the
pigskin subeatefory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater dis-
charges resulting from any tannery
which processes raw or cured pigskins
into finished leather by chemically
dissolving or pulping the hair and tan-
ning with chrome, then retan-wet fin-
ishing.
§425.81 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
practicable control technology current-
ly available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
Pollutant or poHutanl property
BPT limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Maximum lor
morrtMy
average
kg/kkq (or pounds per
1.000 fb) of raw material
BOOS
TSS
OH and grease
Total chromium
pH
70
101
30
0.18
(')
32
4.6
1.3
0.07
(')
> Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
(47 PR 52870. Nov. 23. 1982; 48 FR 30117.
June 30,1983]
§425.82 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best con-
ventional pollutant control technology
(BCD.
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best conventional pollut-
ant control technology (BCT): The ef-
fluent limitations are those for BOD5,
TSS, Oil and Grease and pH contained
in § 425.81.
§425*3 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain*
able by the application of the best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for
Total Chromium contained in § 425.81.
§425.84 New source performance stand-
ards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this sub-
part must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
5B-40
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§425.92
Poiulant or polMart property
MSPS
Maximum for
•ny 1 day
Maximum for
monthly
tvertge
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1.000 to) of raw material
O/TO5
TCB
Oil End grease -
Total chromium
aH
s.a
8.3
2.4
0.1S
c>
2.6
3.8
1.1
005
(')
' Within the range 6.0 to 9.0.
§425.85 Pretrestment standards for exist-
in; sources (PSES).
Except as provided in § 425.04 and 40
CFR 403.7 and 403.13. any existing
source subject to this subpart that in-
troduces process wastewater pollut-
ants into a publicly owned treatment
works- must comply with 40 CFR Part
403. and achieve the following pre-
treatment standards:
PoNutwit or poMutaMit property
PSES
Maximum
for any 1
day
MftofTwn
f*tr eVhrfMeiiMh*
ior vnonwy
«vmg«
Milligram* per War {mo/0
SutMe
pH
24
12
(')
6
(')
> Within the range 7.0 to 10.0.
§425.86 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7
and 425.04, any new source subject to
this subpart that introduces process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR Part 403, and achieve the
pretreatment standards contained in
§ 425.85.
Subpart I—Retan-Wet Finish-Splits
Subcategory
§425.90 Applicability; description of the
retan-wet finish-splits subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to process wastewater dis-
charges resulting from any tannery
which processes previously unhaired
and tanned splits into finished leather
by retan-wet finishing.
§425.91 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
practicable control technology current-
ly available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
PoHutmnt or pollutant property
8PT kmrtatiQns
Maximum for
any 1
-------
§ 425.93
§ 425.93 Effluent- limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attain-
able by the application of the best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30
through 125.32. any existing point
source subject to this subpart must
achieve the following effluent limita-
tions representing the degree of efflu-
ent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT): The
effluent limitations are those for
Total Chromium contained in § 425.91.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
performance stand-
§425.94 New source
ards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this sub-
part must achieve the following new
source performance standards (NSPS):
poiufent preptrty
NSPS
Maximum tor
1.000 fe)olra
BOO5 „
TSS
Tn«^ rtmiMlmfti
pf4
3.5
5.t
1.S
0.09
(')
1*
23
O.M
ota
<•)
> WHMn «w rang* 6.0 to 9.0.
§ 425.95 Pretreatment standards for exfct-
ing source* (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR
403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that introduces
process wastewater pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must
comply with 40 CFR Part 403. and
must achieve the following pretreat-
raent standards:
Pottutant or pollutant property
pH
PS
Maximum
for arty 1
day
ES
Maximum
for monthly
avwaoe
1 Witftn OM range 6.0 to 100
(b> Any existing source subject to
this subpart which processes less than
3,600 splits/day shall comply with
§ 425.95(a), except that the total chro-
mium limitations contained in
§ 425.95
-------
MODULE # 5C
TITLE: Best Professional Judgement-Based Permit Limits
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Provide overview of when to use BPJ limits
• Identify the circumstances for the application of BPJ
- Industrial discharges
- Combined sewer overflows
- Storm water
• Discuss necessary considerations when using BPJ to develop permit limits
• List tools and resources available for developing limits using BPJ
• Provide overview of economic considerations when developing effluent limits using BPJ
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture, practical exercise
Approximate Presentation Time: 45 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: 30 minutes
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 402(a)(l)
40 CFR §122.44(a)
40 CFR §122.45(b)(2)
40 CFR §125.3(a)(2)
NPDES authority
Technology-based effluent limitations and standards
Production-based limitations
Technology-based treatment requirements in permits (for
non-POTWs)
-------
-------
Module 5C
Best Professional Judgment-Based Permit Limits
Best Professional
Judgment-Based Permit
Limits
Learning Objectives
• Provide overview of BPJ derived
limits
» Describe examples of BPJ
application
» Discuss BPJ technical and
economic considerations
• Present BPJ tools and resources
BPJ is the Permit Writer's Opinion
* Technology-based NPDES permit
conditions, developed using all reasonable
available and relevant data
• Why? Technology-based effluent limits
must be established for all
pollutants regulated in a permit
* When? On a case-by-case basis in the
absence of effluent guidelines and
standards for a facility or pollutant
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
5C-1
-------
Module 5C
Best Professional Judgment-Based Permit Limits
Hypothetical Situation for Use of BPJ
Muumtot*
Hi||iilmitaP»nitfl
Cooptr
Zbic
Bram
Muntoum
^^
ndSlindvdiT
YM
VH
Ho
Ha
BFJEffimnlUm*
MM**?
No
No
V«
Y»
BPJ Application Examples
Combined sewer overflows
PharmaceuticiU*
* Ha
stetreate
« Equipment manufacturer?
» Industrial la
drie
Punt BitcE ink racilitwft
» Transportation (acUtttes
* Mining operations
* Water tnnan«it plants
* Petroleum industry
BPJ Considerations
For BPT requirements:
- Total cost of technology in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits to be achieved
fi'Ofii such application
- Age of equipment and facilities involved
- proce**(e*) employed
- Engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques
- Process changes
- Non-water quality environmental impact
including energy requirements
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
5C-2
-------
Module 5C
Best Professional Judgment-Based Permit Limits
BPJ Considerations
For BCT requirements:
- Reasonableness of the relationship between
cost» ol attaining reduction in effluent and the
derived effluent reduction benefits
- Age of equipment and facilities involved
- Processes) employed
- Engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques
- Non-water quality environmental impact
including energy requirements
- Comparison of the cost and level of reduction
of such pollutants from a class or category of
industrial sources
BPJ Considerations
For BAT requirements:
- Age of equipment and facilities involved
- Processes) employed
- Engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques
*~ Process ^tanges
- Cost of achieving effluent reduction
- Non-water quality environmental impact
including energy requirements
Cost Considerations
PlClpOMd
Treatment
Option -
MIIMM
E»uM
Lta
COM it)
BEX
(Mb)
141
(Economically
ftchtovmbto?)
A
10
s
1»
600
4
V»
B
10
•
75
710
10
H>
C
to
«
100
300
2
YM
w<*
NPDES Permit Writer&Training Course
5C-3
-------
Module 5C
Best Professional Judgment-Based Permit Limits
BPJ Defensibility
• Defensibility depends on
reasonableness
* Reasonableness demonstrated by
documentation
• Documentation should include:
- What is being imposed?
- Why is It being imposed?
- How it was developed?
BPJ Tools and Resources
• Abstracts of Industrial NPDES permits
» Treatabilhy Manual and Database
• NPDES Best Management Practices
Guidance Document
* Technical Support Document for the
Development of Water Quality-Based
Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants
• Economic achievability protocol
BPJ Tools and Resources (Continued)
Effluent guideline data/information
- Development documents
- Proposed regulations
Other sources information
- Model permits
- General permits information exchange
- Discharge monitoring reports
- Compliance inspection reports
- Industry teams/national experts
NPDES Permit WritersTraining Course
5C-4
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
CINCINNATI. OHIO 4SZ68
March 17, 1995
Dear Colleague:
As requested, enclosed is a copy of Version 5.0 of the "RREL
Treatability Data Base." The purpose of the data base is to
provide a review of the removal/destruction of chemicals in
various types of media, including water, soil, debris, sludge and
sediment. The program contains physical/chemical properties for
each compound, as well as treatability data. The treatability
data summarizes the types of treatment used to treat the specific
compound; the type of waste/wastewater treated; the size of the
study/plant; and the treatment levels achieved.
The requirements to operate the program are as follows: IBM
personal computer, or compatible; 8 megabyte hard disk storage;
640K RAM memory; DOS Version 2.0 or higher; and a 12-pitch
printer.
To load the program, insert the diskette into the 3-1/2"
disk drive and type A:install or B:install, whichever disk drive
is assigned for 3-1/2" disks. The installation program will
create a subdirectory on your hard drive entitled "TDB5". You
will have the opportunity to customize the installation if you so
choose. If you have any questions regarding installation of this
software, please review the file entitled, "read.me11 prior to
installation. To start the data base program, enter the
subdirectory and type "MAIN."
Some users have reported that they have gotten an error
message "Not Enough Memory" after typing in "MAIN" to start the
data base. If you get a "Not Enough Memory" error message,
please type in this command: "SET CLIPPBR=F55; \\B:2000" before
you type in the command "MAIN" to start the data base program.
The "SET CLIPPER" (as seen above) command sets up the runtime
variable to open enough file handles and buffers. It also takes
advantage of expanded memory (if the PC has any memory above the
640KB). This command "SET CLIPPER=F55; \\E:2000" can be added to
the autoexec.bat file or you can put both commands ("MAIN", "SET
CLIPPER=F55; \\E:2000") into a batch file.
5C-5
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Beyond these suggestions, we nay not be able to solve all
the operational problems with the multitude of hardware and
software configurations in existence. Please contact your local
computer support group for additional help in problem solving
your exact set up.
If you have any technical questions and/or comments about
this data base, please call Glenn Shaul at (513) 569-7408;
FAX: (513) 569-7787. For any computer questions, please call
Jerry Waterman at (513) 569-7834; FAX: (513) 569-7787.
I hope this improved version will assist you and I would be
interested in your comments after you have had an opportunity to
use the data base for a while.
incerely yours,
Glenn M. Shaul
Chief
Chemical Engineering Section
Toxics Control Branch
Water and Hazardous Waste Treatment
Research Division
Enclosure
5C-6
-------
RREL TREATABILITY DATABASE
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) has developed and is continuing to expand
a database on the removal/destruction of chemicals in various types of media, including water,
waste-water, soil, debris, sludge, and sediment. This activity is being conducted under the direction of
Mr. Glenn M. Shaui.
The following editing rules are being used to evaluate the data prior to entry into the database:
o Only primary references will be used.
o Bench-top and pilot-plant data from aqueous biological treatment processes must be
acclimated systems.
o Only matched pairs of influent and effluent data will be used.
o Data will be from continous flow processes in equilibrium unless noted by a "(B)" in the
"Technology" column for the "Aqueous" data file or by a "(B)" in the "Scale" column
for the "Solids" data file.
The compound name used in the database will be labeled as a "Primary Name" in the "Compound
Name List". Other chemical names are synonyms for the "Primary Name". Even if treatability data are
not available, only information related to chemical and physical properties, environmental data and
possibly adsorption data will be given.
If you have any questions/comments concerning this database, please contact:
Mr. Glenn M. Shaul
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
(513)569-7408
(513) 569-7787 (Fax No.)
Disclaimer: The data collected herein are a tabulation from many sources and are presented for review
by the user for informational purposes only. The data presented herein does not represent a total listing
of the technologies capable of treating the target chemical compound and should not be viewed as solely
reliable for treatability system design and should be thoroughly reviewed to support regulatory guidelines.
Therefore, the conclusions and opinions drawn are solely those of the user and are not necesarily the
views of the agency. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
The RREL Treatability Database is also available through the Alternative Technology Treatment
Information Center (ATTIC). ATTIC is a comprehensive information network providing up-to-date
information on innovative treatment technologies. ATTIC provides the information needed to make
effective decisions on hazardous waste clean-up alternatives. It can be accessed with a PC and modem
24 hours a day, and there are no user fees. For further information on ATTIC please call the ATTIC
System Hotline at (301) 670-6294.
5C-7
-------
RREL Treatability Database Ver No. 5.0 04/21/95
MERCURY
CAS NO.: 7439-97-6
COMPOUND TYPE: INORGANIC,ELEMENT
FORMULA: HG
CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES REFERENCE
MOLECULAR WEIGHT: 200.59 333A
MELTING POINT (C): -38.87 333A
BOILING POINT (C): 356.58 333A
VAPOR PRESSURE a T
-------
RREL TreatabiLity Database (Aqueous) Ver. No. 5.0 04/21/95
MERCURY
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - 0-100 ug/L
EFFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCE
CODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
0
D
0
D
D
0
0
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
0
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
0
D
D
0
0
D
D
0
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
F11
F18
F1
F2
F3
F4
F12
F27
F19
F51
F37
F18
F28
F
F25
F57
F6
F17
F20
F1
F4
F38
FS9
F2a
F2b
F1
F1b
F7
F6
F4
F
F1a
F2
F1
F2
F3
F30
F12
F10
F26
F19
F29
F27
F31
F22
F21
F13
F15
F16
F7
F34
F37
F23
FU
F3S
F32
F9
F5
F33
F6
F5
F10
F12
F13
FH
F15
0.01 (5)
0.01 <5)
0.05 (1)
<0.03 (1)
<0.02 (1)
0.10 (1)
<0.2 (6)
<0.22 (6)
<0.23 (6)
<1.0 (6)
<0.23 (6)
0.23 (6)
<0.3 (6)
<0.3 (19)
<0.22 (6)
<1-2 (6)
0.23 (6)
<0.2 (6)
<0.2 (6)
0.40 (7)
0.45 (6)
<0.2 (6>
<0.13 (6)
<0.24 (14)
<0.23 (24)
<1 (30)
<0.21 (19)
<1 (2)
<1 (2)
5 (3)
0.16
<0.20 (20)
<1 (4)
0.02 (6)
0.03 (10)
0.04 (11)
0.02 (11)
0.02 (10)
0.01 (13)
0.02 (5)
0.02 (5)
0.02 <11)
0.04 (5)
0.05 (10)
0.02 (10)
0.01 (5)
0.01 (10)
0.08 (10)
0.03 (6)
0.03 (10)
0.03 (6)
0.03 (5)
0.03 (10)
0.05 (12)
0.01 (5)
0.02 (5>
0.01 (5)
0.01 (5)
0.02 (11)
0.10 (9)
0.5 (U)
<0.03 (1)
0.05 (1)
0.03 0)
«0.03 O)
O.Q5 (D
89
92.3
38
>83
>75
33
>62
>64
>62
>41
>58
56
>52
>35
>63
>76
92.8
>43
>74
0
62
>78
>68
>66
>54
>67
>48
>0
>0
0
69
>33
>50
80
81
86
95.6
93.1
96.7
60
90.0
92.0
81
89
86
96.7
90.9
70
89
90.6
81
91.9
88
88
93.8
93.5
98.8
95.8
91.7
86
17
>91.7
81
77
>70
82
868 -S-
868 -S-
255B -S-
255B -S-
2556 -5-
2558 -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
1B -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
201B -S-
18 -S-
1B -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
1B -S-
1B -S-
1B -S-
1B -S-
678 ---
678 ---
35E -S-
678 —
35E -S-
35E -S-
35E -S-
59E ---
67B ---
35E -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
86B -S-
86B -S-
86B -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
866 -S-
866 -S-
868 -S-
66B -S-
KOB -S-
2558 -S-
255B -S-
255B -S-
2558 -S-
255B -S-
5C-9
-------
RREL Treatability Database (Aqueous)
Ver. No. 5.0
04/31/95
MERCURY
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - 0-100 ug/L
EFFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT
CODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL
REFERENCE
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
0
D
0
0
0
D
0
D
0
0
0
D
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
D
0
D
D
D
D
0
0
D
D
0
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
0
D
D
0
D
0
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
F11
F18
F1
F2
F3
F4
F12
F27
F19
F51
F37
F18
F28
F
F25
F57
F6
F17
F20
F1
F4
F38
F59
F2a
F2b
F1
Fib
F7
F6
F4
F
Ma
F2
F1
F2
F3
F30
F12
F10
F26
F19
F29
F27
F31
F22
F21
F13
F15
F16
F7
F34
F37
F23
F14
F35
F32
F9
F5
F33
F6
F5
F10
F12
F13
F14
F15
0.01 (5)
0.01 <5>
0.05 (1)
<0.03 (1)
«0.02 (1)
0.10 (1)
<0.2 (6)
<0.22 (6)
<0.23 (6)
<1.0 (6)
<0.23 (6)
0.23 (6)
<0.3 (6)
<0.3 (19)
<0.22 (6)
<1.2 (6)
0.23 (6)
cO.2 (6)
<0.2 (6)
0.40 {7}
0.45 (6)
<0.2 (6)
<0.13 (6)
<0.24 (14)
<0.23 (24)
<1 (30)
<0.21 (19)
<1 (2>
<1 (2)
5 (3)
0.16
<0.20 (20)
<1 (4)
0.02 (6)
0.03 (10)
0.04 (11)
0.02 (11)
0.02 (10)
0.01 (13)
0.02 (5)
0.02 (5)
0.02 (11)
0.04 (5)
0.05 (10)
0.02 (10)
0.01 (5)
0.01 (10)
0.08 (10)
0.03 (6)
0.03 (10)
0.03 (6)
0.03 (5)
0.03 (10)
0.05 (12)
0.01 (5)
0.02 (5)
0.01 (5)
0.01 (5)
0.02 (11)
0.10 (9)
0.5 (14)
<0.03 (1)
0.05 (1)
0.03 (1>
<0.03 (1)
0.05 <1>
89
92.3
38
>83
>75
33
>62
>64
>62
>41
>58
56
>52
>35
>63
>76
92.8
>43
»74
0
62
>78
>68
>66
>54
>67
>48
>0
>0
0
69
>33
>50
80
81
86
95.6
93.1
96.7
60
90.0
92.0
81
89
86
96.7
90.9
70
89
90.6
81
91.9
88
88
93.8
93.5
98.8
95.8
91.7
86
17
>9K7
81
77
>70
82
868 -S-
868 -S-
2S5B -S-
2558 -S-
255B -S-
2558 -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
1B -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
IB -S-
201B -S-
1B -S-
1B -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
1B -S-
IB -S-
678 ---
678 ---
35E -S-
678 ---
35E -S-
35E -S-
35E -S-
59E ---
67B ---
3SE -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
86B -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
86S -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
866 -S-
1408 -S-
255B -S-
255B -S-
2558 -S-
"255B -S-
255B -S-
5C-10
-------
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS+Fil
AS+Fil
CAC
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
Fil
PACT
RBC
RO
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
D F16
0 F17
D F18
D F19
D F20
D F3a
D F3b
D F
0 P3
0 P
D F
0 F
0 P
D F17
D P
0 F2
D F1
0 F3
D F7
D F6
D F4
D F8
D F20
D F25
D F36
D F24
Sed 0 F2B
Sed 0 F1
Sed 0 F2
Sed D F3
Sed 0 F6
Sed 0 F6
Sed D F7
Sed D F8
TF 0 F27
TF D F37
TF D F29
TF 0 F10
TF D F21
TF D F17
TF D F39
TF D F40
TF D F3
TF 0 F4
AL
AL+Fil
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AnFF
CAC
CAC (B)
ChOX(Cl)
ChPt
Fil
GAC
GAC
GAC
PACT
RA (B) » Fil
SS+GAC
Sed
Sed+AS
28 F11
28 F29
28 F1
28 F2
28 F25
28 F21
28 F13
10 B
28 F
49 62
28 F26
33 P
28 F16
28 F14
28 F15
29 P1
29 P2
28 F20
28 F27
31 F8
28 F28
ChPt ML F
ChPtuPAC+Fil RCRA P4
UOx+Fil (B) RCRA 614
WOx+Fil (8) RCRA 61
UOx+Fil (B) RCRA 815
OAF (B) SF 84
0.11 (1)
0.05 (1)
<0.05 (1)
0.15 (1)
0.15 (1)
<0.20 (20)
<0.20 (16)
<0.5 (2)
2
0.93
1.2 (74)
0.13
1.8 (2)
0.03 (10)
0.1
2 (4)
3 (30)
4 (3)
1 (2)
1 (2)
0.04 (8)
0.06 (5)
0.08 <5)
0.10 <5)
0.01 (5)
0.10 (6)
0.09 (5)
0.6 (14)
0.6 (14)
0.7 (14)
1.6 (14)
0.06 (1)
0.08 (1)
<0.05 (1)
0.43 (6)
0.30 (6)
0.65 (6)
<0.2 (6)
0.27 (6)
<0.2 (6)
0.28 (6)
0.57 C6)
4 (3)
0.8 (14)
<4 (1>
1.0 (2)
<1 (1)
1 (1)
<0.2 (1)
3.0 (3)
<2 <2)
<1 (5)
0.09
0.25 (1)
66 (1)
<0.3
70 (1)
<10 (1)
70 (1)
0.9 (1)
0.5 (1)
<4 (1)
10 (3)
<1 (D
1.0 (2)
2.7 (18)
0.1 (1)
11 (D
8 (1)
4 (1)
<0.2 (2)
31
54
>90.0
98.5
92.5
>82
>B7
>33
90
0
70
19
81
79
0
67
57
0
0
0
69
38
43
44
92.9
82
74
54
25
12
36
33
85
>38
31
46
0
>68
60
>43
47
37
0
47
>20
0
>so
0
>50
0
>17
>67
87
7
3
>57
0
>23
0
47
50
>85
85
>9
0
75
75
0
0
0
>62
GAC SF F8 <1.0 (1) >41
2558 -S-
2556 -S-
2558 -S-
2558 -S-
2558 -S-
676
...
678 ---
156 ••-
55E
476
18308
59E
173E
866
144A
35E
35E
35E
35E
35E
868
868
868
866
868
866
868
1406
1408
1408
1406
2556
2556
2558
16
16
18
16
16
16
IB
18
35E
1408
878
878
326
326
878
876
876
45E
393A
6386
878
538
876
878
876
188A
188A
87B
876
316
87B
36E
2650
2668
2666
2666
19278
2456
—
...
—
...
...
-S-
...
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
•s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
-s-
•s-
-s-
-s-
...
—
—
—
—
...
—
—
..-
—
—
--S
—
...
—
...
—
...
—
...
—
--J
—
-s-
-s-
-s-
...
...
5C-11
-------
RREL TreatabiUty Database (Aqueous)
Ver. No. 5.0
04/21/95
MERCURY
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - >100-1000 ug/L
EFFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCE
CODE ( ug/l ) REMOVAL
AlglE
AS
ChPt
ChPt (B) + Fit
RO
SExt
ChPtuPAC+FH
ChPt*#AC+Fi I
ChPtwPAC+Fi I
TECHNOLOGY
RO
RO
ChPt
ChPt CB)
GW
I
I
I
I
I
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
INFLUENT
28
10
28
10
28
&
Ft?
P1
F19
P2
F8
P1
P2
P3
CONCENTRATION
MATRIX SIC
0
D
S
S
CODE
SCALE
P3
P4
B1
82
4.1 (13)
190 <2)
10 (12)
26 (1)
60 (4>
240 <1>
2.4 (1)
0.4 (1)
400 (1)
- >1-10 «g/L
EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATION
( ug/L )
900 (2)
1,600 (2)
2,600 (1)
<1 (1)
99.44
0
98.0
89
78
0
98.8
99.922
0
PERCENT
REMOVAL
82
82
10
>99.966
1458
STB
51B
STB
51B
STB
2650
265D
2650
...
...
...
—
—
...
—
—
REFERENCE
18B
188
43E
43E
—
—
...
5C-12
-------
PRACTICAL EXERCISE
Best Professional Judgement
SITUATION:
You are the permit writer responsible for drafting a NPDES permit for a printing facility.
Processes employed at the facility include lithographic and letterpress printing. Since effluent
limitations guidelines and standards have not been promulgated for the printing industry, you
must develop technology-based effluent limits based on your best professional judgement. For
purposes of this exercise, you must particularly develop limits for copper.
GIVEN:
All process wastewaters generated at the printing facility are directed to a physical/chemical
treatment plant (chemical precipitation followed by filtration) prior to discharge via Outfall
001. No other wastewaters from the facility are treated or discharged through Outfall 001.
Other characteristics include:
Average influent copper concentration = 110 ug/1
Average effluent copper concentration = 55 ug/I
Average flow = 25,000 gpd
QUESTIONS:
(1) What level of treatment should be reflected in the technology-based limit to be
established for copper based on best professional judgement?
(2) Based on the information contained in the EPA RREL Treatability Data Base (see
attached print-outs), is the facility treatment plant achieving the appropriate level of
treatment? Explain your answer.
(3) Based on information in the EPA RREL Treatability Data Base, what is the expected
range of percent removals for copper? Based on this expected removal, what should be
the expected effluent concentration from the facility treatment plant?
5C-13
-------
(4) Based on information contained in the NPDES Industrial Permit Abstracts for three
facilities than contain effluent limitations for copper (see attached), which of the three
could serve as the basis for a technology-based effluent limit for copper for the printing
facility? Explain your answer.
(5) Based on information contained in the EPA Summary of Available Information on the
Levels and Control of Toxic Pollutants Discharges in the Printing and Publishing Point
Source Category (see attached), what percent removal would be expected for copper at
the printing facility? Explain the rationale for your answer.
(6) Of the sources of information reviewed, which do you feel would serve as the most
defensible basis for a technology-based effluent limit for copper at the printing facility?
Explain your conclusions.
5C-14
-------
COPPER TREATABILITY DATA
FROM THE
EPA RREL TREATABILITY DATA BASE
(Version 5.0)
5C-15
-------
5C-16
-------
RREL TREATABILITY DATABASE
TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES CODE AND ABBREVIATION TABLE
AQUEOUS DATA FILE
Treatment Technologies (Those with data)
AAS - Activated Alumina Sorption
AFF - Aerobic Fixed Film
AL - Aerobic Lagoons
API - API Oil/Water Separator
AS - Activated Sludge
AirS - Air Stripping
AlkHyd - Alkaline Hydrolysis
AlglE - Algal Ion Exchange
AnFF - Anaerobic Fixed Film
BGAC - Biological Granular Activated Carbon
CAC - Chemically Assisted Clarification
ChOx - Chemical Oxidation (Parantheses shows oxidation chemical
(i.e. ChOx(UV) is ultraviolet light, ChOx(Cl) is
chlorine, ChOx(Oz) is ozone, ChOx(H2O2) is peroxide,
ChOx(C102) is chlorine dioxide, and ChOx(Sur) is
surfactant)
ChOx/Pt - Chemical Oxidation/Precipitation
ChPt - Chemical Precipitation
ChRed - Chemical Reduction
DAF - Dissolved Air Flotation
ED - Electrodialysis
Fil - Filtration
GAC - Activated Carbon (Granular)
IE - Ion Exchange (Parantheses shows resin type ie. (A) is
anionic, (C) is cationic, and (M) is mixed)
KPEG - Dechlorination of Toxics using an Alkoxide (Formed by the
reaction of potassium hydroxide with polyethylene glycol
(PEG400))
PAC - Powdered Activated Carbon
PACT - Powdered Activated Carbon Addition to Activated Sludge
RA - Resin Adsorption
RBC - Rotating Biological Contactor
RO - Reverse Osmosis
SBR - Sequential Batch Reactor
SCOx - Super Critical Oxidation
Sed - Sedimentation
SExt - Solvent Extraction
Soft - Water Softening
SS - Steam Stripping
TF - Trickling Filter
UF - Ultrafiltration
WOx - Wet Air Oxidation
5C-17
-------
NOTES:
+ is the first process unit followed in process
train by the second ie. AS + Fil - Activated Sludge followed
by Filtration.
w is the two units together ie. UFwPAC -
Ultrafiltration using Powdered Activated Carbon.
(B) is batch instead of continuous flow.
Scale
B - Bench Top P - Pilot Plant F - Full Scale
Number after letter refers to the plant number in a specific
reference (ex. F7 - plant 7 is the seventh full scale plant in the
indicated report).
Matrix
C - Clean water (ex. distilled)
D - Domestic wastewater
GW - Groundwater
HL - Hazardous leachate
I - Industrial wastewater
ML - Municipal leachate
RCRA - RCRA listed wastewater
S - Synthetic wastewater
SF - Superfund wastewater
SP - Spill
T - Tap water
TSDF - Commercial treatment, storage and disposal facility -
liquids
W - Surface water
SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) Codes
For industrial wastewaters a 2 digit SIC code will be given
following the letter designation, i.e. I 22 is a Textile Mill
Products wastewater.
If the SIC code is unknown a U will be shown, I U.
10 - Metal mining
12 - Coal mining
13 - Oil and gas extraction
20 - Food and kindered products
22 - Textile mill products
24 - Lumber and wood products
26 - Paper and allied products except computer equipment
27 - Printing and publishing
28 - Chemicals and allied products
29 - Petroleum refining and related
30 - Rubber and misc. plastic products
31 - Leather and leather products
33 - Primary metals industries
5C-18
-------
34 - Fabricated metal products except machinery &
transportation equip.
36 - Electronic and electric equipment
37 - Transportation Equipment
39 - Misc. manufacturing industries
47 - Transportation services
49 - Electric, gas, and sanitary
99 - Nonclassifiable establishments/industries
Effluent Concentration
Effluent concentration will be given as a arithmetic mean to two
significant figures. The number of samples used to calculate the
mean is given after concentration as (n) (ex. 13 (5) - 13 is the
mean of 5 sample values).
% Removal
Percent removal will be calculated on a concentration basis. If
data are available, it will also be calculated on a mass basis for
physical/chemical systems. Those values calculated on a mass basis
will be noted by a (m). An example would be:
% Removal:
99.95
98 (m)
99.95 is based on concentration
98 is based on mass
where % Removal =
Influent - Effluent
Influent
Reference Quality Codes
A - Papers in a peer reviewed journal.
B - Government report or database.
C - Reports and/or papers other than in groups A or B not
reviewed.
D - Group C papers and/or reports which have been given a "good"
quality rating by a selected peer review.
E - Group C papers and /or reports which have been given a "poor"
quality rating by a selected peer review. These data will only
be used when no other data are available.
Additional Codes Following Reference Codes
V - Volatile emissions data available in Reference
S - Sludge data available in Reference
$ - Costs data available in Reference
5C-19
-------
RftEL Ttestability Database (Aqueous)
ver. NO. 5.0
04/18/95
COPPER
TECHNOLOGY
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - 0-100 ug/L
EFFLUENT
MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT
CODE < ug/L ) REMOVAL
REFERENCE
AL
AL
AL
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
CAC
ChPt
ChPt
Fit
Fil
GAC
RBC
RBC
RO
RO
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
TF
TF
TF
TF
D
D
D
D
0
D
0
D
D
D
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
D
0
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
0
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
0
F
F3
F4
F1
F
f2
f
F2
F
F6
F30
F32
F60
F10
F2
F26
F19
F54
F2
F4
F9
F5
F
F6
F4
F7
F3
F8
F5
F9
F5
F19
F13
F21
F12
F35
F27
F10
F2
F2
P
F
F
F1
F33
F17
P1
P
F12
F10
Ml
F9
f3
Ft
F20
F28
F2S
F1
F6
F6
F7
F8
F10
F5Z
F40
F15
0.12 (36)
10 (1)
<10 (1)
<1 (7)
30 (33)
10
24 (35)
3
10 (14)
<1 (7)
<2 (6)
44 (6)
8 (6)
12 (6)
<1 (7)
8 (6}
15 (6)
<3 (6)
10 <7)
17 (6)
26 (6)
31 (6)
62
30 (2)
40 (3)
10 (23)
<10 (1)
50 (2)
30 (23)
20 (1)
70 (2)
10 (1)
20 (2)
10 (1)
10 (2)
20 (1)
10 (1)
20 (1)
50 (14)
23 (9)
7.7
55
25
20 (27)
<2 (6>
10 (2)
3.9 (32)
0.5
20 (23)
60 (23)
50 (23)
90 (1)
60 (3)
10 (2)
20 (1)
30 (1)
10 CD
78 (14)
85 (14)
40 CD
30 (1)
50 <1>
10 (6)
12 (6)
30 (6)
25 (6)
5C-20
36
50
>67
>98.2
77
84
72
92.3
86
>98.9
>90.0
56
92.0
83
>98.7
92.0
85
>86
82
63
63
56
33
67
33
89
>67
17
67
78
12
89
75
83
90.0
60
80
75
38
68
84
11
56
64
>94.9
75
92.6
72
SO
14
0
10
33
67
60
70
80
2
12
20
0
50
06
48
48
57
54E ---
255B -S-
255B -S-
234A —
198E -S-
243A -S-
201 B -S-
167E -S-
142A ---
234A ---
IB -S-
1B -S-
1B -S-
IB -S-
234A ---
IB -S-
1B -S-
1B -S-
1B -S-
18 -S-
1B -S-
1B -S-
596 ---
35E -S-
35E -S-
52A ---
318 -•-
35E -S-
52A ---
3SE -S-
35E -S-
86B -S-
86B -S-
86B -S
868 -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
25SB -S-
131E -S-
1682B ---
47B ---
59E ---
330 -S-
1682B ---
IS -S-
868 -S-
188 ---
144A ---
52A ---
52A --
52A ---
3SE -S-
35E -S-
86B -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
131E -S-
1408 -S-
2558 -S-
255B -S-
255B -S-
18 -S-
- 1B -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
-------
TF
TF
AL
AnFFwGAC
AnFFwGAC
AU+FH
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AlkHyd
CAC
CAC
CAC
ChOx(Cl)
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+FU
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt*fit
ChPt*FU
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil (B>
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil <8)
ChPtwChOxCCl}
Fil
GAC
GAC
GAC
GAC
GAC
PACT
PACT
RA
RBC
S£xt
ss
ss
ss
ss
ChPtwPAC+FH M
API S
AS S
AirS S
ChPt S
ChPt (8) S
DAF S
OAF
17 (1)
8 CD
18 (1)
26 (1)
<4 (1)
47 (1)
50 (1)
20 (1)
<8 (3)
<9 (3)
28 (3)
72 (3)
34 (3)
13 (1)
6 (1)
<8 (3)
18 (3)
7 (1)
22 (1)
59 (1)
12 (1)
36 (1)
4 (1)
2 (1)
8 tD
1 <1)
7 (1)
5 (1)
8 (1)
14 (1)
24 (1)
14 (1)
22 (1)
5 CD
8 (D
6 (1)
1 (D
1 (1)
4 (D
8 CD
8 CD
3 CD
10 CD
<20 CD
20 CD
13
78
40 CD
20 CD
21 (3)
30 C2)
<6 C2>
<10 CD
34 CD
43 C2>
69 CD
18 C3)
<6 CD
30 CD
21 C3)
10 CD
<5 CD
24 CD
<26 (5)
30 C4)
S CD
<1 CD
37 (1)
<2.0 (2)
<18 <>)
18 CD
<4.5 CD
«5.7 CD
17 <1>
50
50
70
33
67
>76
82
58
0
0
>33
0
9
50
>53
>47
0
0
€
86
93.8
>77
14
77
27
32
SO
59
83
90.0
60
95.0
65
83
90.8
53
72
84
27
79
67
75
95.0
95.0
80
60
60
85
83
>33
0
74
20
0
80
25
30
>50
>76
0
0
0
47
>25
0
22
0
>89
8
>73
0
90.7
>99.00
0
>94.7
>75
51
>10
>91.6
15
52A --
35E -S
878 --
1548 --
1548 --
878 --
31B --
318 --
32B --
32B --
328 --
318 --
32B --
328 --•
878 --
878 •••
878 --•
878 --•
878 --•
328 --•
328 --•
2618 -•
878 --•
298
298
298
298
296
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
29B
29B
29B
298
29B
296
298
298
298
298
298
176E
169E
169E
139E
538
328
878
878
878
87B
31B
32B
878
318
878
878
878
878
87B
2650
24SB
2458
2458
91E
182A
2458
19278
2458
2458
245B
245B
2458
5C-21
-------
RREL TTestability Database (Aqueous)
Ver. No. 5.0
04/18/95
COPPER
TECHNOLOGY
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - >100-1000 ug/L
EFFLUENT
MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT
CODE (ug/L ) REMOVAL
REFERENCE
AL
AL
AL
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS
AS+FU
AS»FU
CAC
D
0
D
D
0
D
0
D
0
D
0
0
D
0
D
D
D
0
D
D
0
0
D
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
0
D
0
D
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
0
D
D
D
0
0
0
D
D
0
D
0
0
0
D
D
0
0
0
D
D
D
D
D
D
F55
F18
F
F1
F4
F3
F1
F3
M2
F18
F57
F38
F20
F14
F5
F31
F6
F17
F59
F36
F27
FS5
F
F25
F13
F51
F7
F37
F1
P
Fl
Fib
F2
F2a
F2b
F3
F4
F1a
F6
F4
F2
F10
F7
F1
F2
F3
F30
F34
F10
F14
F31
F29
F32
F6
F33
F23
F15
F5
F15
F16
F1B
F19
F20
F3a
F3b
F
<13 (6)
10 (1)
240 (12)
14
9
5
H
30 <7)
86 (6)
7 (6)
81 (6)
5 (6)
9 (6)
28 (6)
26 (7)
49 <6)
47 (6)
35 (6)
20 (6)
11 (6)
15 (6)
40 (6)
<20 (3)
<8 (6)
28 (6)
19 (6)
39 (6)
14 <6>
27 (7)
160 (14)
160 (23)
66 (28)
100 (4)
58 (15)
99 (23)
40 (23)
38 (1)
42 (23)
70 <23)
20 (23)
20 (23)
70 (3)
200 (2)
80 (30)
140 (2)
10 (2)
10 (2)
190 (1)
10 (2)
10 (2)
10 (2)
10 (2)
10 (1)
20 (2)
10 (2)
20 (1)
20 (2)
67 (14)
160 (1)
100 (1)
<10 (1)
30 (1)
20 (1)
<19 (22)
<18 (15)
130 (3)
>90.7
98.1
76
89
93.3
96.2
87
86
90.7
94.2
90.0
96.9
95.0
90.3
86
78
93.8
81
88
90.8
93.8
84
>85
>92.7
77
94.2
82
96.1
85
80
70
84
9
89
83
83
76
92.0
90.0
86
88
60
74
62
66
90.9
96.3
68
94.4
91.7
91.7
96.8
91.7
88
92.3
94.1
90.5
60
33
84
>95.2
88
97.4
>95.3
>89
19
IB -S-
868 -S-
132D -S-
167E -S-
167E -S-
167E -S-
243A -S-
234A ---
IB -S-
IB -S-
18 -S-
1B -S-
18 -S-
1B -S-
234A •-
IB -S-
18 -S-
16 -S-
1B -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
15B ---
18 -S-
18 -S-
1B -S-
1B -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
16A -S-
52A ---
678 --•
35E -S-
67B ---
67B ---
52A ---
318 ---
67B ---
52A ---
52A ---
52A ---
356 -S-
35E -S-
35E -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
86B -S-
86B -S-
86B -S-
86B -S-
86B -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
868 -S-
1408 -S-
2558 -S-
2558 -S-
2558 -S-
2558 -S-
25SB -S-
- 676 ---
678 ---
158 ---
5C-22
-------
CAC
ChPt
ChPt
PACT
RO
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
Sed
sed
Sed
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
TF
GAC
ChPtNPAC+Ftl
AL
AL
AS
AS
AS
AnFF
CAC
CAC
CAC
CAC
CAC
CAC (B)
CAC (B)
CAC
CAC (8)
CACwFil
ChOx
ChOx(Cl) (B)
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt * Fil (B)
ChPt + Fil (B)
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+FH
ChPt+FH
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+FH
ChPt+Fit
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+F i I
ChPt+Fil (B)
ChPtwChOx(Cl)
Fil
GAC
GAC
GAC
GAC
GAC
IE
RA
RA (B) + Fil
SExt (B)
SS
SS+GAC
D
D
0
0
D
0
D
0
D
0
D
D
0
D
D
D
0
0
D
D
0
D
D
D
D
D
0
GU
HL
31
28
28
28
28
10
28
31
31
31
31
49
49
49
33
36
28
28
34
99
34
99
34
33
34
28
36
34
34
34
99
99
34
34
34
37
49
10
10
28
28
28
28
28
28
10
28
23
28
28
26
F4
F1
F
P
P2
F2
P
F5
F1
F8
F3
F6
F36
F24
F1
F2
F3
F9
F21
F27
F11
F17
F29
F39
F37
F8
F4
F2
P7
F7
F11
F3
F21
F13
B
F
F6
F2
F7
F1
B1
B3
B2
81
F
F26
F18
B19
P1
816
P2
B66
P
B69
82
81
B20
818
817
P1
P2
B67
868
B70
F
f
B2
P2
F16
F3
F15
F3
F1
F10
P2
F3
F20
F32
F6
F27
160 (1)
68 (27)
88 (101)
<80 <4)
70 (4)
110 (4)
72 (4)
80 (2)
210 (30)
60 <2)
30 (1)
90 (2)
10 (1)
20 (1)
68 O4>
61 (14)
75 (14)
200 (1)
150 <6)
160 (6)
62 (6)
12 (6>
68 (6)
110 <6)
120 (6)
110 (23)
47 (14)
30 (1)
<80 (1)
60 (1)
81 (3)
ISO (1)
560 (3)
64 (2)
55 (5)
130
19 (1)
41 (1)
220 (1)
42 (1)
110 (1)
10 (1)
220 (1)
30 (1)
50
160 (3)
220 (3)
40 (1)
85
69 (1)
160
28 (1)
98
10 (1)
20 (1)
65 (1)
24 (1)
18 (1)
20 (1)
26
41
28 (1)
7 (1)
8 (1)
15 (6)
260
<20 (1)
50
170 (3)
43 (1)
93 (3)
370 (1)
350 (1)
860 (1)
170
67 (1)
6 (1)
200 (2)
150 (1)
57 (3)
63
73
69
>84
92.9
58
52
77
32
45
90.0
40
90.9
82
70
58
28
50
56
33
74
93.3
38
45
67
8
65
71
>43
73
83
0
0
65
92.4
66
88
64
42
61
80
95.4
73
93.9
70
0
0
95.0
87
91.4
71
96.9
90.0
98.9
92.0
85
97.0
97.8
97.5
96.2
92.3
96.9
99.22
99.11
98.4
64
>97.9
70
26
80
44
0
0
0
10
82
94.6
0
0
78
31B ---
16828 ---
1830B --•
173E ---
18B ---
35E -S-
44E -S-
35E -S-
35E -S-
35E -S-
318 ---
35E -S-
86B -S-
86B -S-
140B -S-
140B -S-
1408 -S-
2558 -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
16 -S-
1B -S-
18 -S-
18 -S-
1B -S-
52A ---
1408 -S-
878 ---
26SD ---
318 ---
878 ---
32B ---
878 ---
878 ---
45E ---
393A ---
318 ---
318 ---
31B ---
318 ---
638B ---
6388 ---
6388 ---
169E ---
279E ---
878 ---
87B ---
298 --*
7E ---
298 --$
7E ---
29B --S
538 --$
29B --*
88E —
88E ---
29B --$
298 --$
298 --$
7E ---
7E ---
298 --$
29B •-*
29B --$
137B --$
194E ---
668 ---
139E ---
878 -•-
32B ---
87B ---
878 --•
878 ---
878 ---
1396 ---
878 --•
878 ---
- 87B ---
878 ---
878 ---
5C-23
-------
Sed
Sed
Sed (B)
Sed*AS
CtiPt
Ii(C)
WOx+Fil (B)
AS
AirS
ChPt
Fil
Fil
GAC
IE
I
I
I
I
HI
RCRA
RCRA
S
SF
SF
• SF
SF
SF
W
31
49
33
28
fa
F1
81
F28
F
P
B1
B
F6
F6
F2
F8
F8
P
<30 CD
180
<20 (1)
37 (3)
87 (20)
130 (7)
120 (1)
100 (5)
110 (4>
66 C4>
140 (1)
250 (5)
<9 (5)
12 (3)
>83
56
>95.9
81
86
74
66
13
0
28
7
9
>94.3
95.0
318 ---
6388 ---
169E ---
87B •-•
36E --f
2678 ---
2668 -S-
2SA -S-
2458 —
2458 ---
2458 ---
24SB ---
2458 ---
42A ---
5C-24
-------
RREL Treadability Database (Aqueous)
Ver. No. 5.0
04/18/95
COPPER
INFLUENT CONCENTRATION - >1-10 mg/L
EFFLUENT
TECHNOLOGY MATRIX SIC SCALE CONCENTRATION PERCENT REFERENCE
CODE ( ug/L ) REMOVAL
AS
AS
AS
ChPt
RO
RO
Sed
Sed
AS
AS
AS
AS
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt
ChPt (B)
ChPt
ChPt (B>
ChPt + FH (B)
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+FH
ChPt+FH
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+FH
ChPt+Fi I
ChPt+Fi I
ChPt+Fi I
ChPt*Fi I
ChPt+FJ I
ChPt*Fi t
ChPt*Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil
ChPt+Fil (B)
ChPtwFii
RO
AnFF P
ChPtwPAC+FH V
ChPtwPAC+FH I*
IE(A) R
ChPt (B) S
ChPt S
ChPt S
ChPt+FH (B) S
ChPt+Fil (B) S
D
D
D
D
D
D
9
D
L
L
I
CRA
F
F
F
F
28
28
28
99
34
36
36
10
34
34
34
10
33
34
34
34
33
34
34
49
49
34
34
36
U
36
36
36
34
34
33
34
33
34
34
33
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
10
34
10
F28
F
F12
P1
P3
P4
F7
F
F4
F3
F31
B
B31
B4
81
F
B49
B71
B34
P1
B39
854
S46
B51
B36
B74
F
B5
86
B1
B2
B
S3
85
S3
82
B32
B33
B38
B48
B40
B52
850
B37
B47
BS3
B55
873
B35
872
875
81
F2
P2
P
PS
P6
P
810
F2
F8
B1
B2
130 (6)
57
4300 (1)
1,800
180 (7)
660 (8)
770 (2)
1,200
4,800
82
890 (3)
250 <4)
240 (1)
1,900 (1)
1,800 (1)
8
60 (1)
860 (1)
210 (1>
50 (12>
38 (1)
82 <1)
910 (1)
140 (1)
39 (1)
13 (1)
43 (15)
140 (1)
<500 (1)
<40 <1>
<300 (1>
110 <5>
20 (1)
5 CD
67 (1)
200 0)
240 (1)
140 (1)
14 (1)
930 (1)
6 (1)
33 (1)
160 (1)
14 (1)
940 (1)
3 (1)
18 (1)
130 (1)
170 (1)
850 (1)
13 (1)
<20 (1)
550 (22)
10 (4)
1,500 (8)
1200 (1)
600 (1)
510 (7)
100 (1)
ISO (1)
280 (5)
<50 (1)
70 (1)
92.4
95.0
0
19
93.4
89.9
36
47
16
97.5
78
80
81
17
22
99.914
97.0
22
84
99.06
99.46
98.2
54
97.1
99.44
98.8
97.8
96.5
>58
>99.60
>85
96.2
98.7
99.78
97.1
91.3
82
89
99.80
54
99.914
99.30
92.0
99.80
53
99.936
99.62
88
87
23
98.8
>98.6
90.5
99.84
74
86
93.2
89
99.00
97.7
96.1
>97.9
98.5
18 -S-
330 -S-
2558 -S-
55E —
188 ---
186 --•
35E -S-
33D -S-
9758 --
9758 --
878 --
268A -S
29B --
298 --
298 --
19E --
298 --
' 298 --
298 --
518 -
298 --
298 --
298 --
298 •-
298 --
298 --
898 --
24E --
24E --
1296 --
129E --
184E --
88E --
298 --
298 --
298 --
298 --
29B --
298 -•
298 --
298 -•
298 --
298 --
298 --
298 --
298 --
298 --
298 --
- 29B --
298 --
29B --
668 ---
62E ---
518 ---
41A -S-
2650 ---
2650 ---
267B ---
181B •--
2458 ---
2458 ---
1976D -S$
19760 -S$
5C-25
-------
5C-26
-------
SELECTED ABSTRACTS
FROM THE
NPDES INDUSTRIAL PERMIT ABSTRACTS
5C-27
-------
5C-28
-------
Facility Name: Sunlit Corp of Anerica Permit Nuifeer: CT0001180
Facility Description: Hatal finishing SIC Code: 3471
Monitoring
Limit ELGs UOSs BPJ Only
§«sis: ^ ^ I 1
Storm WO
Special BKPs Water Sediment Survey
Conditions: J. 2. - ~
WET WET Testing Multiple Tiered
Limits Only Categories limits Other
J. - - - ;
Bio
Survey TRES MOLs Monitoring Other
- J. - - I
Abstract Information:
Complete; Outfall 001
Outfall: 001 [ Receiving water: Naugatuck River | Treatment: Heut, PF
Amount/Component s ;
0,376 MOO average, O.S HGD daily maximal, of treated metal finishing uastewater.
Parameter
Acute WET
Ag
Al
Au
BOOS
Cd
Chronic WET
CN (A), Amenable
CN
CN
Cr (T)
Cu
Fe
flow
Fluoride
NH3
Ni
Other
Pb
Limitations
Average
N/A
N/A
0.027200 kg/d
0.100000 mg/l
N/A
2.000000 mg/l
N/A
0.100000 mg/l
N/A
N/A
0.025000 kg/d
0.100000 ma/l
N/A
N/A
M/A
0.100000 mg/l
0.193060 kg/d
0.220000 mg/l
N/A
1.000000 mg/l
0.218000 kg/d
1.000000 mg/l
N/A
3.000000 mg/l
N/A
N/A
N/A
20.000000 mg/l
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.000000 mg/l
N/A
N/A
0.048300 kg/d
0.1 00000 mg/l
Maximum
N/A
Report
0.054400 kg/d
0.500000 mg/l
N/A
4.000000 ma/l
N/A
0.500000 mg/l
N/A
Report
O.OSOOOO kg/d
0.500000 ma/l
N/A
Report
N/A
0.200000 mg/l
0.386200 kg/d
0.400000 mg/l
N/A
2.000000 mg/l
0.436000 kg/d
2.000000 mg/l
N/A
5. 000000 mg/l
N/A
Report
N/A
40.000000 mg/l
N/A
10.000000 mg/l
N/A
2.000000 mg/l
N/A
Report
0.096600 kg/d
0.500000 mg/l
Other
See below
See below
See below
Indium
Monitoring Requirements
Frequency
1 /quarter
1/ueek
1/ueek
1/neek
1 /month
I/year
I/quarter
1/week
I/week
I/year
1/ueek
1/ueek
During discharg
I/week
1/ueek
1/ueek
1/week
1 /month
Sample Type
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Compos i te
Record
composite
Composite
i
Composite
Composite
Composite
I
50-29
-------
Facility Name: Suiwit Corp of America Permit Number; CT0001130 ]
Facility Description: Metal finishing SIC Code: l^Hj
Pd
PH
Sn
Temp.
TRC
TSS
TTOS
2n
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
M/A
2.000000 rag/ 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.350000 mg/l
M/A
20.000000 mg/l
N/A
N/A
0.558500 kg/d
1.000000 fflB/l
N/A
Report
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.000000 mg/l
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.620000 mg/l
N/A
30.000000 mg/l
N/A
1.000000 mg/l
1.117000 kg/d
2.000000 mg/l
Between 6.0 su and 9
.5 su
See below
See below
I/week
1 /month
I/week
1/week
I/week
1 /month
1/week
composite
Composite
Compos i re
Grab
Composite
Grab
Compost te
limitations/Monitoring Basis:
The Units and monitoring conditions were based on ELG» in 40 CFR Part 433 Section 22a-430-4s(2> and State UQSs.
The concentration of the pollutants limited on any grab sample ia required to be less than 1.5 times the maximn
daily concentrations. The mass-based limitations (Cu, Cd, Pb, Ag, Zn, and CN
-------
Facility Name:
Bradford Dyeing Assoc., Inc. Permit Number: R I 0000043
Facility Description: Dyes and finishes wool and woven cloth products SIC Code; 2269
Limit
Basis:
Special
Conditions:
ELGs
i
BMPS
UQSS
i
Storm
Water
BPJ
Sediment
Monitoring
Only
i
WQ
Survey
WET
Limits
Bio
Survey
UET Testing
Only
i
TRES
I
Multiple
Categories
MDLS
i
Tiered
Limits
i
Monitoring
i
Other
1 \
Other j
{Abstract Information:
| Complete; Outfall 002 (created for abstracting purposes), 002A, 002B, 002C, 0020, and 002E.
Outfall: 002
Receiving Water: Pawcatuck River
| Treatment: AL
IAmount/Components: '
I 1.4 cfs design flow of wastewaters from manufacturing processes, sanitary, cooling, potable, and storm water.
Parameter
Acute UET
Cd (T)
Coliform (T)
Cu (T>
FC
Flow
NH3 (T)
Otner
P (T)
Pb (T)
pH
Priority pollutan
ts
Sb (T)
TOC
Zn (T>
Limitations
Monthly
Average
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.000000 ug/l
200.000000
N/A
N/A
36.000000 ug/l
200.000000
N/A
2.300000 HGD
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. 000000 ug/l
N/A
N/A
N/A
tt/A
N/A
116.000000 ug/l
N/A
N/A
N/A
368.000000 ug/l
Daily
Maxinun
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.000000 ug/l
400.000000
N/A
N/A
36.000000 ug/l
400.000000
N/A
3.600000 MGO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Report mg/l
N/A
Report mg/l
N/A
2.000000 ug/l
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
232.000000 ug/l
N/A
tt/A
N/A
406.000000 ug/l
Other
See below
Units: HPN/100 ml
Units: KPN/100 ml
Monitor in UET test!
ng
Ortho-phosphorus
Monitor 1 year only
< 1 ug/l monthly ave
rage
Between 6.0 su and 9
.0 su
See below
Monitor in WET testi
ng
Monitoring Requirements
Frequency
1 /quarter
2/month
a/month
2/month
2/month
Continuous
every 2sp. event
1 /month
1 /month
2/month
1 /operating day
2/year
2/month
every 2sp. event
2/month
Sample Type
24hr fw composite
24hr fw composite
grab
24hr composite
grab
recorder
24hr composite
24hr composite
24hr composite
grab
Varies
2Ahr composite
24hr composite
^Limitations/Horntoring Basis:
! Outfall 002 was created for abstracting purposes to represent those limitations which are in effect, regardless of
; varying production. These limits apply in conjunction with Outfalls 002A, 002B, 002C, 002D, and 002E tiered limits.
i Generally, limitations and monitoring requirements are based on ELGs, State UOSs, State regulations, and BPJ. FC is
included and limited due to the sanitary wastewater discharge. Limits are based on State performance standards for
1 secondary treatment. A review of sampling data from the State User Fee Program and DMRs indicated the need to
| monitor and limit Sb (T), Cd (T), Cu (T), Pb (T), and Zn (T); WO-based limits were calculated using water quality
j criteria and minimum database guidelines. Daily max. limits for Sb (T), Pb (T), and Cd (T) were statistically
! derived from the monthly avg. because the daily max. limit is more than two times themonthly avg. Limits bases for
i flon and pH were not specifically explained. Monitoring for P nutrients is specified in order to determine nutrient
5C-31
-------
Facility Name: Springfield Electroplating Permi c Nu*er: VT0000272
Facility Description: Natai finishing/electroplating and electroless plating SIC Code: ^^H
Monitoring
Limit ELGs UQSs 8PJ Only
Basis: ill ;
Storm WQ
Special SMPs Water Sediment Survey
Conditions: ^11 ^
WET WET Testing Multiple Tiered "^^1
Limits Only Categories Limits Other
- - - - I
Bio i !
Survey TRES MDLs Monitoring other
- - 1^1
Abstract Information:
Complete; 001
Outfall: 001 j Receiving Water: Black River | Treatment: ChPt
Amount/Components :
1500 GPO (MX. allowable) treated electroplating umtewater including resin exchange regenerant.
Parameter
Cd
Cd
CM
CH
Cr
Cr (T)
Cu
cu
Flow
Hi
Ni
PH
PH
TSS
TSS
TTOs
TTOs
Zn
Limitations
Average
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
K/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Naxioui
N/A
0.300000 »8/l
N/A
0.300000 mg/l
N/A
0.300000 «g/l
N/A
0.300000 ng/l
N/A
0.500000 mg/l
N/A
0.500000 mg/l
N/A
0.500000 mg/ 1
N/A
0.500000 ma/ 1
N/A
1500.000000 GPO
N/A
1.000000 mg/t
N/A
1.000000 mg/l
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
30.000000 mg/l
N/A
30.000000 mg/l
N/A
2.130000 mg/l
tt/A
2.130000 ins/I
Other
Between 6.5 su and 9
.0 su
Between 6.5 su and 9
.0 su
Metal treatment only
N/A i
1.480000 mg/l. :
Monitoring Requirements
Frequency
1 /batch
I/batch
1 /batch
1 /batch
1 /batch
1 /batch
1 /batch
I/batch
1/day
1 /batch
1 /batch
t /batch
1 /batch
1 /batch
Sample Type
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
grab
|
" •
Grab
Grab
total
Grab
Grab
I
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab j
5C-32
-------
Facility Name: Springfield Electroplating
Permit Nutter: VTQ000272
Facility Description: Metal finishing/electroplating and electroless plating
Zn
N/A
M/A
N/A
1.480000 mg/l
1/batch
SIC Code: 3471
Grab
Limitations/Monitoring Basis: .
Limits for TSS and TTO are based on ELGs (40 CFR Part 433 - Metal Finishing Point Source Category Electroplating and '
Electroless Plating). Limits for Cd(T), Cr{f), Cu(T}, Ni(T), N(T}, flow, and pH are based on the ant i backs tiding
clause of the CWA. Limits for Cd(T>, Cr(T>, Cu(T), Ni(T), Zn(T), CN(T>, and TSS apply to samples collected from
treatment batches following metals precipitation. Permit specifies that samples are to be collected from each
treatment batch at least 30 minutes after the agitator has been shut off. CN limit applies following treatment
batches following CN destruction. Neither metals nor CN treatment batches nay be discharged unless samples comply
with limits. In lieu of TTO Unit, the parwittee may certify that no toxic organics are discharged and submit a
solvents management plan by 3/31/91 and analyze one grab sample for purgeable organics (list provided in permit). i
Special Conditions Basis:
See limitations/monitoring basis
Effective Date: 12/18/90
Expiration Date: 09/30/95
i
j
Abstract Date: 09/20/93
5C-33
-------
5C-34
-------
Unrt*d StMM
EnvwonnMfit*) Protection
Afl«icy
Effluent GuiiMinw Division
WH-SB2
WMhington OC 20460
EPA 440/1-63/400
October 1983
Summary
of Available Information
on the Levels and Control
of Toxic Pollutants Discharges
in the
Printing and Publishing
Point Source Category
-------
5C-36
-------
»
•
fip B- «
-g f fe
R
S
V5
•a-a
.a .a
s,
£
C-.
f. i
L.9
V u
III
O ^ ^N
•3^.2
8 u
u.a fe
•a
o
I
.?
N ff (O
*,5 8 _ _
s JL £2
8. 2
al
8
I
I
es
?
.a I
f.s
f*
U IB
U3 S
I fr
l«
h.«
i T"B
5 I S3
^ I ! -B
- a 5 i
?, . . *
«
ii & S-fi
8 S'S
8
o
5C-37
-------
TABLE VI-2
TOXIC POLLUTANT REMOVAL IN BATCH METALS
TREATMENT SYSTEM AT PLANT 5478l
Parameter
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Ethylbenzene
Benzene
Chloroform
Arsenic
Influent to
Treatment (ug/1)
109,000
4,610
482,000
74
10, 700
1,780
190
900
33
Effluent From
Treatment (ug/1)
1,690
771
3,830
71
14,300
80
10
5
6
Percent
Removal
98
83
99
4
96
95
99
82
1 Flow = 600 gpd from water-based ink press cleaning.
5C-38
-------
TABLE VI-5
REDUCTION OF TOXIC, CONVENTIONAL, AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS
IN PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL TREATMENT SYSTEM AT PLANT 81901
Pollutant
Chromium (ug/1)
Copper (ug/1)
Lead (ug/1)
Silver (ug/1)
Zinc (ug/1)
8005 (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
TOC (mg/1)
NH3 as N (mg/1)
TKN as N (mg/1)
Total Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
Total Volatile Solids
(mg/1)
Raw
Wastewater
1,190
52
46.1
8.5
395
570
2,700
560
8.4
1.2
40
360
Treated
Effluent
" 75
12
7.5
0.5
28
<6.0
31
9.0
0.4
0.7
4.0
50
Percent
Removal
94
77
84
94
93
>98
99
98
95
42
90
86
ow approximately 39,000 gpd. Chromium is added as part of
cooling water treatment program. Raw wastewater does not include
contract hauled pressroom effluent.
5C-39
-------
TABLE VI-6
REDUCTION OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN
LIMESTONE FILTER AT PLANT 66531!2
Parameter
PH3
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Mercury
Influent
(ug/1)
8.4
70.5
281
180
22.4
51.3
553
11
Effluent
(ug/1)
9.1
1.25
11
39
0.6
29.8
—
2.1
Percent
Removal
98
96
78
97
42
81
1 Wastewater flow is estimated to be 11,500 gpd.
2 No toxic organic pollutants were detected in either of the
screening samples collected.
3 pH readings from grab samples collected October 13, 1977.
—: Not analyzed.
5C-40
-------
TABLE VI-7
REDUCTION OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS
IN LIMESTONE FILTER AT PLANT 90I2l>2
Parameter
PH3
Cadmium
Cyanide
Zinc
Mercury
Influent
(ug/1)
8.8
319
560
35.4
3.3
Effluent
(ug/1)
9.3
8.52
120
40
1.7
Percent
Removal
97
79
48
1 No flow data available.
2 No toxic organic pollutants were detected in either of the
screening samples collected.
3 pH reading from grab samples collected October 13, 1977.
5C-41
-------
TABLE VI-8
REDUCTION OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN
METALS TREATMENT SYSTEM AT PLANT 5430
Parameter
Bis ( 2-ethylhexyl ) phthal ate
Phenol
Butyl benzyl phthal ate
Di-n-butyl phthal ate
Diethyl phthal ate
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Zinc
Blended Raw
Wastewater
(ug/1)
9,800
500
200
800
89
50
13,755
20,950
4,200
220,000
Reactor
Effluent
(ug/1)
<10
500
<10
<10
<10
13
3,413
692
36
685
Percent
Removal
>99
0
>95
>99
>89
74
75
97
99
>99
A maximum of four 3,500 gallon batches are treated per day.
5C-42
-------
MODULE # 5D
TITLE: Variances to Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Describe the role of variances in NPDES permits
• Describe the types of relief granted by variances
• List the types of variances for technology-based effluent limits in NPDES permits
• Explain how variance requests are initiated and who initiates them
• Explain the process to grant/deny variance requests
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture
Approximate Presentation Time: 30 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: None
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 301(c) Economic variance
CWA Section 301(g) Water quality variance
CWA Section 301(h) Secondary treatment variance
CWA Section 301(n) Fundamentally different factor variance
CWA Section 316(a) Thermal variance
40 CFR §122.45(g) Pollutants in intake water
40 CFR Part 125, Subpart D Criteria and Standards for Determining
Fundamentally Different Factors
40 CFR Part 125, Subpart E Criteria for Granting Economic Variances from
Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (Reserved)
40 CFR Part 125, Subpart F Criteria for Granting Water Quality Related
Variances (Reserved)
40 CFR Part 125, Subpart G Criteria for Modifying the Secondary Treatment
Requirements
40 CFR Part 125, Subpart H Criteria for Determining Alternative Effluent
Limitations Under Section 316(b)
-------
-------
Module 5D
Variances to Technology-Based Permit Effluent Limits
Variances to Technology-
Based Permit Effluent Limits
Learning Objectives
• Explain role of variances in NPDES
permits
* Describe types of variances
• Discuss relief granted by variances
• Describe variance initiation and
review processes
Role of Variances in NPDES Permits
• Allows limited relief:
- effluent limits
- compliance deadlines
» Address exceptional circumstances
• Provides relief of NPDES program for
"unusual" circumstances
» Only granted on rare occasions
• Some may be granted by States, others
require EPA approval
NPDES Permit WritersTraining Course
5D-1
-------
Module 5D
Variances to Technology-Based Permit Effluent Limits
Types of Variances
Initiation of Variance Requests
Variance applications submitted by
the discharger, must be submitted
before the dose of the public
comment period of the permit
PDF variance requests must be
requested by the discharger within
180 days of the guideline
promulgation
NPDES Permit WritersrTraining Course
5D-2
-------
MODULE 5 - SUGGESTED REFERENCE MATERIALS
Workbook for Determining Economic Achievabiiity for National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Permits. PHB, August 1982.
Treatabilitv Manual. Volumes I-V (EPA-60Q/8-80-042a-e) . EPA, Office of Research and
Development, July 1980.
NPDES Industrial Permits Abstracts 1993 (EPA 833-B-93-005). EPA, Office of Water,
October 1993.
Guidance for NPDES Permits and Compliance Personnel - Secondary Treatment
Redefinition . EPA, Permits Division, December 1985 (Draft)
5D-3
-------
5D-4
-------
MODULE #6
TITLE: Overview of Water Quality Standards and Limitations
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Introduce the standards to permit process
• Provide overview and purpose of water quality standards
• Discuss the components of a water quality standard
- Designated uses
• Anti-degradation
- Water quality criteria
• Explain difference between numeric and narrative criteria/standards
• Explain EPA water quality criteria development process
• Define whole effluent toxicity and describe its role in the standards process
• Discuss new initiatives in criteria development
- Biological
- Sediment
- Wildlife
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture
Approximate Presentation Time: 60 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: None
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 301 Effluent Limitations
40 CFR §122.44(d) Water quality standards and State requirements
CWA Section 303 Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans
CWA Section 304(a)(8) Information on Water Quality Criteria
40 CFR §130.3 Water quality standards
40 CFR Part 131 Water Quality Standards
-------
-------
Module 6
Overview of Water Quality Standards and Limitations
Overview of Water Quality
Standards and Limitations
Learning Objectives
Provide brief overview/history of
water quality-based permitting
Discuss the relationship between
water quality- and technology-based
permitting
Identify the objectives and
components of water quality
standards
Learning Objectives (Continued)
Describe the types of water quality
criteria
Explain the relationship between
criteria and standards
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6-1
-------
Module 6
Overview of Water Quality Standards and Limitations
Clean Water Act Requirements
Section 101(aX2)
- EstabisM* "fwhabte *nd cwiimwbto" goal
Section 301(bX1XC)
- Requires compliance with limits necessary to meet
water quality standards
Section 303(c)
- Establishes framework tor water quality standards
- Requires State* to establish enter quality standards
Section 3O4(a)
- Requires EPA to develop and publish water
quality criteria
Water Quality-Based Limits
• Required to achieve statutory
requirements to meet water quality
standards
• Used to supplement technology-
based effluent limits
Developing Effluent Limitations
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6-2
-------
Module 6
Overview of Water Quality Standards and Limitations
Water Quality Standards
A water quality standard defines the
water quality goals of a waterbody,
or portion thereof, by designating
the use or uses to be made of the
water and bv setting criteria
necessary to protect the uses.
(40 CFR Parti 31)
Establishment of Water Quality
Standards
* All "waters of the U.S." have water quality
standards
« Water quality standards are adopted for
each waterbody in a State
- Segments of waterbodtes
* States are responsible for establishing
water quality standards
- 40 CFR Part 131
- Revised every 3 years
- EPA has oversight
Components of a Water Quality
Standard
* Designated uses
• Water quality criteria
• Antidegradation policy
NPDES Permit Writer* Train ing Course
6-3
-------
Module 6
Overview of Water Quality Standards and Limitations
Designated Uses
* 40 CFR §131.10
- Requires that each State specify appropriate
uses to be achieved and protected
* Common use categories
- Public water supply
- Fish and wildlife propagation
- Agricultural
- Industrial
- Navigation
Designated Uses (Continued)
Question: What if the designated
use is not being attained...can it be
changed?
Answer: Depends on the type of
use and the basis for the change
- Designated vs. Existing Use
- Use Attainability Analysis
State Water Quality Criteria
• Numeric criteria
- Concentrations of chemicals
- Aquatic Life
- Human health
« Narrative criteria
— Statements that describe the desired water
quality goal
- Tree from..."
• Toxics in tone amount*
* Objectionable cotor. odor, asta, «nd IwfeMty
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6-4
-------
Module 6
Overview of Water Quality Standards and Limitations
Types of Numeric Criteria
Aquatic Life Criteria
- Designed to protect aquatic organisms,
including plants and animals
- Two types
• acute
• chronic
- Considers the magnitude, duration, and
frequency of exposure to specific
pollutants
Types of Numeric Criteria (Continued)
Human Health Criteria
- Single expression of the highest
pollutant concentration not expected
to pose significant long-term risk to
human health
• Based on chronic exposure via
consumption of water and/or aquatic life
• Accounts for btoconcentntioiV
tMoaccumulation
EPA Water Quality Criteria
• EPA responsible for establishing
guidance and procedures
- Establish and publish scientifically
derived ambient criteria [CWA Section
304(a)]
• 1968 Green • 1980 Toxics
• 1973 Blue • 1986 Gold
• 1976 Red
- Establish procedures for deriving
criteria
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6-5
-------
Module 6
Overview of Water Quality Standards and Limitations
Antidegradation Policy
Ensures that once a use is achieved
it will be maintained
Each State is required to adopt an
antidegradation policy and method
of implementation
Components of the
Antidegradation Policy
Three tiers
I. Level of quality necessary to protect the
existing uses of a water segment
II. Protection of actual water quality where
water quality exceeds levels necessary to
protect fish and wildlife propagation and
recreation on and in the water
HI Special protection of waters designated
as Outstanding National Resource Waters
(ONRW)
Outstanding National
Resources Water (ONRW)
Outstanding National Resources Water
(ONRW}
- National and State parks
- Wildlife refuge
- Ecologically unique water that need
additional protection or are of special
significance (i.e., swamps, hotsprings, etc.)
NPDES Permit Writer&JTraining Course
6-6
-------
Module 6
Overview of Water Quality Standards and Limitations
Implementation of Water Quality
Standards
• States must assess compliance with
water quality standards for all water
bodies
+ If water quality standards are not
being achieved, controls must be
developed
- Point sources
- Non-point sources
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6-7
-------
-------
MODULE #6A
TITLE:
Standards to Permits Process
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
• Introduce Permitting Concepts from the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control (USEPA, 1991)
• Introduce Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)
• Explain Concept of Wasteload Allocations (WLA)
• Introduce Statistical Approach for Permit Limit Development
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture
Approximate Presentation Time: 30 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: None
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 301
CWA Section 303
CWA Section 304(a)(8)
40 CFR §130.3
40 CFR Part 131
Effluent Limitations
Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans
Information on Water Quality Criteria
Water quality standards
Water Quality Standards
-------
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
Standards to Permits Process
Learning Objectr
Introduce Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDL)
Explain concept of Wasteioad
Allocation (WLA)
Summarize statistical approach to
developing water quality-based
effluent limitations
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-1
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
Standards-to-Permits Process
Develop Technology-
Based Limits for All
Pollutants of
Concern (POC)
Place Technology-
Based Limits In NPDES
Permits or collect
more data
Calculate WQ-Based
Wastetoad Allocation
(WLA)
^Continued
Standards-to-Permits Process
(Continued)
Calculate WQ-Based
WasWoad
Use statistical
procedure to develop
Long Term Average
(LTA)
Use statistical procedure to
develop Maximum Daily Limit
(MDL) and Average Monthly
Limtt(AML)
Place Water
Quality-Based limits
in permit
AreWQ-
basedMDL
AML more stringent
than Technology
limits?
Place Technology-
Based limits
in Permit
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-2
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
• CWA Section 303(d)(1)
- Requires States to identify waters that
will not achieve water quality
standards after implementation of
technology-based limits
- States rank identified waters based on
severity of pollution and uses
- Requires TMDL for priority waters
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
(Continued)
• Used as a tool for implementing
water quality standards
• Defined as the amount of a pollutant
that may be discharged into a
waterbody and still meet water
quality standard
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-3
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
Components of TMDL
• Wasteload allocations (WLAs)
are assigned to each point
source discharge
• Load allocations (LAs) are ,
assigned to nonpoint sources
* WLAs and LAs are
established so that predicted
receiving water
concentrations do not exceed
water quality criteria
Use of Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations
Water quality-based limitations are
used when it has been determined
that more stringent limits than
technology-based effluent limits
must be applied to a discharge in
order to protect "designated use" of
the receiving waters.
(40CFR§122.44(d)(1))
I
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-4
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
Reasonable Potential
40 CFR §122.44(d)(l)(i)
Limitations must control ail
pollutants or pollutant parameters
that are or may be discharged at a
level which will cause, have
reasonable potential to cause, or
contribute to an excursion above
any state water quality standard.
Reasonable Potential Decision Criteria
• Cause
• Reasonable Potential to Cause
• Contribute
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-5
-------
Module 6A Standards to Permits Process
Reasonable Potential Analysis
Without Effluent Data
• Effluent Variability
- Compliance history
- History of toxic impacts
• Point/nonpoint source controls
- Existing treatment technology
- Type of industry or POTW
- Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Reasonable Potential Analysis Without
Effluent Data (Continued)
• Species Sensitivity
- In-stream data
- Adopted water quality criteria and
designated uses
• Dilution
- Critical receiving water flow
- Mixing zones
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-6
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
Reasonable Potential Analysis With
Effluent Monitoring Data
• Must consider uncertainty
associated with sparse data sets
and effluent variability
Reasonable Potential Analysis with
Effluent Data
Lognormal Distribution
Coefficient of Variation (CV)
Long!
Average
(LTA)
Projected Maximum
Expected Value
Concentration
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-7
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
Reasonable Potential Analysis
Projected Maximum
Effluent
Concentration
-»•
Water Quality
Model
*
Projected Receiving
Water
Concentration (Cr)
Determining the Need
• If Cr > State WQ criterion, then need to
establish a WQ-based limit.
• If Cr < State WQ criterion, then no need
to establish a WQ-based limit.
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-8
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
Determining the Need for Water
Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Criteria
Chemical-specific
WET numeric
Narrative
Type of Limit
Chemical specific
WET
WET or
Chemical specific
Regulatory Cite
40CFR
§122.44(d)(l)(iii)
40CFR
§122.44(d)(l)(iv)
40CFR
§122.44(d)(l)(v-vi)
TMDL-Based Wasteload Allocation
WLA = portion of the
receiving water's total
maximum daily load
(TMDL) that is allocated to
a specific point source
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-9
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
Facility-Specific Wasteload Allocation
WLA = the maximum allowable pollutant
concentration in the effluent from ABC, Inc.
which, after accounting for available
dilution, will meet water quality standards
in-stream
Developing Wasteload Allocations
Models can help determine pollutant
loadings that will not violate water
quality criteria.
Environmental
Conditions
Pollutant
Load
Receiving
Water Quality
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-10
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
Maximum Daily and Average Monthly Limits
• 40 CFR §122.45(d) requires all permit
limits (unless impracticable) be
expressed as:
- Average weekly and average monthly limits
for POTWs (EPA recommends a maximum
daily limit rather than an average weekly limit
for water quality-based permitting)
- Maximum daily and average monthly limits
for other dischargers
• How do we use the wasteload allocation
to develop water quality-based effluent
limits?
Goal is to Reduce Effluent Concentrations
to Below the WLA
WLA
Concentration
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-11
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
This Distribution Achieves the Goal
WLA
Concentration
We Can Characterize the Desired
Distribution by LTA and CV
cr
o>
LTA WLA
Concentration
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6 A-12
-------
Module 6A
Standards to Permits Process
We Can Determine the Effluent Limits
Based Upon the Distribution
LTA AML MDL
Concentration
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6A-13
-------
6A-14
-------
MODULE #6B
TITLE: Introduction to Water Quality Modeling
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Provide an overview of modeling methods and considerations
• Define mixing zones
• Describe the general considerations for implementing water quality standards
• Describe types and uses of water quality models
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture
Approximate Presentation Time: 60 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: None
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 303(d)
CWA Section 303(e)(3)(A)
CWA Section 304(1)
40 CFR §130.7
Identification of water quality-limited water bodies
Requirement for water quality-based effluent limits
Individual Control Strategies for Toxic Pollutants
Total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and individual water
quality-based effluent limitations
-------
-------
Module 6B
Introduction to Water Quality Modeling
Introduction to Water
Quality Modeling
Learning Objectives
• Introduce modeling principles
• Define steady state and dynamic
models
• Explain concept of "mixing zone"
Why Use Models?
Models can help determine pollutant loadings
that wit) not violate water quality criteria
Environmental
Conditions
__»
Pollutant
Load '
Model
• Reduce Load <
NQ
Receiving
Water Quality
Compliance
' with Criteria?
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6B-1
-------
Module 6B
Introduction to Water Quality Modeling
Decision Tree for Model Selection
Does the State allow a mixing zone?
No / \ Yes
No model necessary
Select appropriate
model
Decision Tree for Model Selection
(Continued) _
Is there rapid and complete mix?
\
NO
Complete mix assessment
Mixing
An resources available
V-
Steady state Dynamic
What is Rapid and Complete Mixing?
Rapid and complete mixing occurs when
lateral variation in concentration in the
direct vicinity of the outfall is small
(e.g., less than 5 - 25%)
Potential occurrences include:
- Effluent dominated systems (effluent flow
greater than stream flow);
- Diffuser located across entire stream width
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6B-2
-------
Module 6B
Introduction to Water Quality Modeling
Steady State Model
Predicts the magnitude of pollutant
concentration for a single set of
environmental conditions
Used when complete data are not
available
Steady State Model (Continued)
The modeler should choose environmental
conditions that reflect the duration and
frequency concerns for the applicable criteria
Example: Upstream Dilution Flow
Acute Toxictty: 1Q10 low flow
Chronic Toxicity: 7Q10 low flow
Hufran Hottltfi: HBfinooic mMn flow,
30O5 low flow
• "Worst case" assumptions for flow, pollutant
parameter, concentrations, and environmental
effects.
Mass-Balance Equation
QdCd -i- QsCs = QrCr
» Q = Flow (mgd orefs)
» C = Pollutant concentration (mg/1)
• Mass = [Concentration] [Flow]
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6B-3
-------
Module 6B
Introduction to Water Quality Modeling
Dynamic Model
* Used when adequate data are
available to estimate frequency
distribution of effluent quality
• Accounts for daily variations of and
relationships between effluent,
receiving water, and environmental
conditions
Dynamic Model
• No design conditions
* Variability in alt model inputs
• Results are expressed as a
probability of exceedance instead of
a single value
Types of Dynamic Models
Continuous simulation
Monte Carlo simulation
Log-normal analysis
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6B-4
-------
Module 6B
Introduction to Water Quality Modeling
Mixing Zones
Definition
- A limited area or volume of water
where initial dilution of a discharge
takes place and where water quality
criteria can be exceeded
Constraints
- Cannot impair integrity of the
waterbody
- No significant health risks
- No lethality to passing organisms
Mixing Zones (Continued)
• CWA does not require attaining
water quality criteria at end-of-pipe
* States have discretion to allow
mixing zones
• States should specify their mixing
zone requirements as part of their
water quality standards
Regulatory Mixing Zone
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6B-5
-------
Module 6B
Introduction to Water Quality Modeling
Determination of Mixing Zone Dilution
• Reid Studies
- Actual measurement of instream
contaminant concentrations
- Dye studies
• Modeling
- Calibrated to actual observations
- Simulate critical conditions
Considerations in Water Quality Modeling
* Applicable water quality standards
and implementation procedures
- Criteria and designated uses
- Mixing zones
- Critical low flows/dilution
• Discharge characteristics
- Flow rate
— Pollutant concentrations
Considerations in Water Quality Modeling
(Continued)
» Receiving water characteristics
- Polliitam concentrations (i.e^b*ekground)
- Stream flow
» Pollutant characteristics
- Typo of pollutant
•ii
dHuba
itogmiMian hi aw rcMiving (town (
taeMa)
• Cunmvill»«. nttgitMl by nxtural *1r*«m dilution
- Reaction rates
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6B-6
-------
Module 6B
Introduction to Water Quality Modeling
Why Use Models?
Environmental
Conditions
Pollutant
Load '
Receiving
Water Quality
••—.t--s-affis;
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6B-7
-------
6B-8
-------
MODULE # 6C
TITLE: Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Define requirements for determining reasonable potential
• Explain the types of calculations required for developing water quality-based effluent limits
• Identify data requirements and considerations when developing limits for specific
compounds
• Explain Technical Support Document statistical approach to permit limit development
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture, practical exercise
Approximate Presentation Time: 90 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: 45 minutes
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 301(b)(l)(C) Effluent limitations compliance dates
40 CFR §122.44(d) Water quality standards and State requirements
-------
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Developing Chemical-Specific Water
Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Learning Objectives
• Review process for determining
"reasonable potential"
• Discuss procedures for calculating
wasteload allocations
• Explain steps for translating a
wasteload allocation into water
quality-based effluent limits
NPDES Permit Witters Training Course
6C-1
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Standards-to-Permits Process
Develop Technology-
Based Limits for All
Pollutants of
Concern (POC)
HasaTMDLbeen
developed for the
POC?
Is there
"Reasonable
Potential"?
Calculate WQ-Based
Wastotoad Allocation
(WLA)
Place Technotogy-
Based Limits in NPOES
Permits or collect
more data
'Continued
Standards-to-Permits Process
(Continued)
Calculate WQ-Based
Wastetoad
Allocation
Uae statistical
procedure to develop
Long Term Average
(LTA)
Use statistical procedure to
develop Maximum Daily Limit
(MOL) and Average Monthly
Limit (AML)
Place Water
Quality-Based limits
in permit
IMDLi
AML more stringent
thanTe
I limits?
Place Technology-
Based limits
in Permit
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-2
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Determining the Need for Water
Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Criteria
Chemical-specific
WET numeric
Narrative
Type of Limit
Chemical-specific
WET
WET or
Chemical specific
Regulatory Cite
40CFR
40CFR
§122.44(d)(1)(5v)
40CFR
§122.44(d)(1)(v-vi)
Mass-Balance Equation
QdCd + QsCs = QrCr
* Q = Flow (mgd or cfs)
• C = Pollutant concentration (mg/l)
• Mass = [Concentration] [Flow]
• QdCd + QsCs = QrCr
• To determine pollutant concentration in the stream:
Cr - QdCd + QsCs
Qr
Note: Qr = Qs + Qd
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-3
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Is There Reasonable Potential to Exceed
Water Quality Standards?
Qs = Upstream river flow (1Q10)
Qd - Discharge flow
Cs = Upstream river concentration
Cd = Discharge concentration
Water Quality Standard (acute criterion)
- 1.2 cfs
= 0.31 cfs
= 0.8mg/l
= 1.5mg/l
= 1.0mg/1
Cr - QdCd + Qs Cs _ (0.31X1.5) +M.2)(0.8)
Qr 1.2 + 0.31
Cr = 0.94 mg/l
Projecting a Maximum Value for Cd
• We must consider
- Effluent variability - defined by the coefficent
of variation (CV)
- Uncertainty due to a limited number of data
points
- Desired upper-bound of the expected
lognormal distribution
Cd (Maximum)
Projected
Concentration
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-4
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Statistical Approach
Confidence Level
- Characterization of the highest measured
effluent concentration based on the desired
confidence level
Example:
- At the 99% confidence level:
• the largest value of 5 samples is greater than
the 40th percentile
• the largest value of 330 samples is greater than
the 99th percentile
Statistical Approach (Continued)
Selected Percentile
- Characterization of the relationship between
the percentile represented by the maximum
observed value (based on the number of
samples) and the selected upper bound
percentile of the lognormal distribution
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-5
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Projecting a Maximum Value for Cd
• How do you determine Cd with a
99% confidence level at the 99%
upper bound?
- Options:
1) Take the maximum value of 330 or more
samples
2) Project a maximum value from existing
data using a multiplier
Reasonable Potential Multiplying Factors
(99% Confidence Level and 99% Probability Basis)
Sampii
N inn be
H
1
2
3
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
i
r
02
2J
Z-0
13
1.7
1.7
14
1.6
1.5
1,5
14
14
1.4
14
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
04
«4>
4.0
9.3
U
1.7
24
24
2J
2J
13
2.1
2J>
2J>
24)
1Jt
IJ
14
U
14
14
0.6
1«
74
5.6
4.7
4J
34
3-6
34
3-2
3.0
2-9
2.8
2.7
2.6
24
24
24
2.4
2.4
2.3
Coeffii
0.8
264
12.7
U
7.2
6J
5J
5^1
44
4J
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.6
M
3J
3i
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
dent ol
IJ)
4U
202
134
10J
14
74
6.7
0-0
5.7
SJ
SJ
4.7
44
4J
4.1
4J>
34
3.7
34
34
Varial
12
S1.4
3O3
19J5
142
1«
94
8.7
74
7.1
6.6
U
54
5-5
5^
5.0
44
44
44
4J
4J
Ion
14
1210
434)
2S.7
1U
144
124
104
94
8.7
8.0
74
74)
«4
t2
5.9
5.6
54
5.2
5.0
44
14
1903
58.4
334
234
18.4
15 J
13.1
114
104
94
84
8.1
7.6
7J
64
64
6.2
5.9
3.7
54
14
2694
76.6
424
29.1
224
1*4
1S.6
134
12.2
11.0
10.1
•4
8.7
8J
7.7
7.3
7.0
6.7
6.4
6.1
2.0
M6J
*74
S24)
3S-1
264
214
112
154
144)
124
114
104
9.9
9.2
8.7
L2
7.8
7.4
7.1
64
NPOES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-6
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Projecting a Maximum Value for Cd
Re-examine data for ABC, Inc.
- Number of samples (n)
- CV
- 8
= 0.6 (default value if
n<10
- Maximum Observed Value
of Effluent Concentration (Cd) - 1.5 mg/I
- Projected Maximum Value of Cd =1.5 mg/I x multiplier
= 1.5 mg/I x 3.3
= 5.0 mg/I
Is There Reasonable Potential to
Exceed Water Quality Standards?
Qs
CM
Cs
Cd
Cr
Upstream river flow 1Q10 = 1.2cfs
Discharge flow = 0.31 cfs
Upstream river concentration = 0.8 mg/I
Maximum observed discharge concentration = 1.5 mg/I
Water Quality Standard (Acute Criterion) = 1.0 mg/I
QdCd + QsCs
Qr
NPDES Penmit Writers Training Course
6C-7
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Is There Reasonable Potential to Exceed Water
Quality Standards? (Continued)
Projected maximum Cd
Cr =(0.31X5.0)
= 1 .5 mg/l x 3.3
= 5.0 mg/l
1.2 + 0.31
= 1.7 mg/l
1.7 mg/l > 1.0 mg/l (WQS - Acute criterion)
What is the maximum allowable pollutant concentration
in the ABC, Inc. effluent assuming complete mixing?
Upstream river flow
Qd = Discharge flow
Cs = Upstream river cone.
Cr = Water Quality Criterion
Acute
Chronic
Cd = Cr(Qd + Qs) - CsQs
Qd
1Q10
7Q10
1.2cfs
3.6 cfs
0.31 cfs
0.8 mg/l
1.0 mg/l (applied at 1Q10)
0.9 mg/l (applied at 7Q10)
Cd(acute) = 1.8 mg/l
Cd(chronic) = 2.1 mg/i
L
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-8
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Steps in Developing Chemical-Specific
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Acute and Chronic Wasteload Allocations (WLAs)
Step 1: Calculate Long-Term Average (LTA) for Both WLAs
Step 2: Select Lowest LTA
_*_
Step 3: Calculate Maximum Daily Limit (MDL) and
Average Monthly Limit (AML)
Stepl: Calculate LTAs
Wastetoad allocation (WLA) is
"never to be exceeded"
Assume a log normal effluent
distribution
Characterize "never to be exceeded'
by a probability (e.g., WLA is the
99th percentile concentration on the
log normal effluent distribution)
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-9
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Goal is to Reduce Effluent Concentrations
to Below the WLA
u
i
$
i
0>
DC
Desired
WLA
Concentration
This Distribution Achieves the Goal
WLA
Concentration
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-10
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
We Can Characterize the Desired
Distribution by LTA and CV
LTA
Concentration
WLA
cv
0.1
02
O3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0-8
0.3
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
WLA multipliers
JO.S 02 -zo\
95th
pWCGAOW
0.853
0.736
0X44
0.571
0.514
0.468
0.432
0.403
0.379
0.360
0.344
0.330
0-319
0.310
0.302
0296
0290
0.285
OJ81
0277
99th
pafeenflto
0.797
0.643
0.527
0.440
0.373
0.321
0^81
0249
0224
0.204
0.187
0.174
0.162
0.153
0.144
0,137
0.131
0.126
0.121
0.117
Acute
LTAltiC=WLA^c.eIIIJiol!-ai1
where: o2 =/nCCV2 +1]
z = 1.645 for 95th percentile
occurrence probability, and
z = 2.326 for 99th percentile
occurrence probability
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-11
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
0.1
0.2
OJ
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
U
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1-3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
WLA multipliers
[0.5 042 -lot]
95th
percmtlte
0.922
0.853
0.791
0.736
0.6(7
0.644
0.606
0571
0.541
0.514
0.490
0.46*
0.449
0.432
0.417
0.403
0.390
0.379
0.369
0-360
99Ih
(Mrctntlto
0491
0.797
0.71 S
0643
0.581
0.527
0481
0AM
0<404
0.373
OJ45
OJ21
OJOO
0.2OT
OJ64
0^49
0^36
OL224
O214
0^04
where:
Chronic
(4-day average)
1]
z = 1.645 for 95th percentile
occurrence probability, and
z = 2.326 for 99th percentile
occurrence probability
Step 2: Select Lowest LTA
Protects both WLAs (acute and chronic)
Sets one treatment design basis
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-12
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Because There Are Two LTAs, We Need
to Use the More Stringent
o>
sr
o>
>
«
LTAa LTAc
Concentration
WLAa WLAc
Step 3: Calculate MDL and AML
• Allows comparison to technology-
based limits
• Uses upper-bound estimates for
both MDL and AML
• Ties AML to planned frequency of
monitoring
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-13
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
We Can Characterize the Upper Bounds of
the Effluent from the LTA and CV
LTA AML MDL
Concentration
Maximum Daily Limit (MDL)
MDL = LTA.
where: o2 = fr^CV2 +1]
z = 1.645 for 95th percentite
occurrence probability, and
z = 2.326 for 99th percentite
occurrence probability
CV
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Oi
0.6
0.7
OJ
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
LTA multipliers
[ze-05o2]
95th
p0fCW1uM
1.17
1.36
1.55
1.75
1.95
2.13
231
2M
2.64
2.78
2.91
3.03
3.13
323
3.31
3.38
3.45
3.51
3.56
3.60
S9th
pwcvntiw
125
1.55
130
227
2.68
3.11
3.S6
4.01
4.46
4.90
5.34
S.76
6.17
6.56
6.93
729
7.63
7.95
826
8.55
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-14
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Average Mommy Limit
AML =
where:
LTA.e'""-0-501121
on2s//i[CWh + 1].
z = 1 .645 for 95th percentile
occurrence probability, and
z = 2.326 for 99th percentile
occurrence probability
n = number of samples/month.
cv
0.1
02
OJ
OJ
05
a»
0.7
OJ
OJ
IjO
T.I
TJ
t.4
1*
1.7
U
1J
2:0
LTA multipliers
(zon - 0.5
99th percentfte
it1 n-2 not n>10 m30
125 1.1*
15* 127
UO 15*
127 1J3
UB 109
111 137
156 1«
4&1 19S
44* 32*
4JO 3J9
S.76 423
6.17 45S
6J6 4J6
CJ3 5-17
729 5.47
7.S3 5.77
7.95 «.06
*2* *J4
84B «.«1
1.12
125
140
155
1.72
UO
2.0*
227
24*
2.90
3.11
3.34
1»
171
4.01
423
44*
4.68
4JO
1.01
1.1*
124
123
152
U2
1.73
1J4
us
2-07
119
132
245
19*
171
2J4
19*
112
32*
1.04
1.13
1.1*
123
12*
123
129
144
150
15*
1.62
U*
1.74
IJO
1J7
U3
100
107
114
Example
Recall that we calculated the following WLAs:
Cd(acute) = 1.8mg/l
Cd(chronic) = 2.1 mg/l
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-15
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Step I: Calculate LTAs
cv
0.1
0.2
0.3
O4
OS
O6
0.7
OJt
O9
1.0
1.1
1.2
IJ
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.*
1.9
2.0
WLA multipliers
,,10.5 02 -*r]
9Stti
pwmrtfto
0.853
0736
0.644
0.571
Oil 4
0.46*
Oj432
0-403
0.379
0.360
0.344
0.330
0.319
0.310
0,302
0.296
0.290
0.2*5
0^281
0.277
99HI
pMCMtDW
O797
0643
0527
0440
0373
032t
O281
O249
0224
O204
0.1B7
O174
O162
0153
0.144
0.137
0.131
0.126
0.121
0.117
Acute
cv
WLA(acute)
= 0.6
LTA(acute) =
1.8mg/l
99th percentiie value
1.8mg/lx0.321
0.58 mg/I
Stepl: Calculate LTAs
CV
0.1
02
03
0.4
0£
0.6
0.7
OA
0-9
1.0
1.1
1.2
U
]A
U
1.6
1.7
1&
1.9
2.0
WLA multipliers
eio-s^**)
watk
V9UI
p«rc*ntil«
0322
0353
0.791
0.736
0.687
0.644
0.606
0.571
0.541
0.514
0.490
0.468
0.449
0.432
0.417
0.403
0.390
OJ79
OJ69
0-360
MHfl
win
OM\
0.797
0.715
0.643
0^61
OJ27
0.481
0.440
0.404
0.373
0-345
OJ21
OJOO
0.2*1
OMt
0^49
0-236
0-224
0214
0204
CV
WLA(chronic)
LTA(chronic)
Chronic
= 0.6
= 2.1 mg/I
= 99th percentiie value
= 2.1 mg/1 x 0.527
= 1.1 mg/I
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-16
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Step 2: Select Lowest LTA
LTA(acute) = 0.58 mg/l
LTA(chronic) = 1.1 mg/l
Select LTA(acute) = 0.58 mg/l
Step 3: Calculate MDL and AML
cv
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.S
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
LTA multipliers
95th
(MfCMItHO
1.17
1J6
1.55
1.75
1.95
2.13
2J1
2.48
2.64
2.78
2.91
3.03
3.13
323
3.31
3.38
3.4S
3.S1
3.56
3.60
99m
1.2S
1.5S
1.90
Z2T
2.68
3.11
3.56
4.01
4.46
4.90
5.34
5.76
6.17
6.56
6.93
7.29
7.63
7.9S
8.26
8.55
MDL
CV = 0.6
MDL = 99th percentile value
MDL = 0.58 mglx 3.11
= 1.8 mg/l
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-17
-------
Module 6C Developing Chemical-Specific Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Step 3: Calculate MDL and AML
(Continued)
cv
0.1
02
02
04
9JS
04
OJ
04
04
1.1
12
1J
14
14
14
1.7
14
14
24
LTA multipliers
[zon-0.5on2]
95thpweentite
H=1
1.17
12*
145
1.75
14C
2.13
221
24*
244
241
3JB3
3.13
323
321
32*
34S
341
34*
340
m£
1.12
121
142
14*
140
144
un
223
249
24*
247
2J7
24*
24!
343
3.10
3.17
32,
n-4
14*
1.17
12*
14f
ITS
14S
2J04
2.13
221
240
24*
24*
244
2.71
2.7*
Rs*
IjOC
1.12
1.1*
125
121
14*
14S
142
l£
1.T3
140
147
144
240
2J07
2.14
220
227
223
n>30
1J»
14*
1.12
1.1*
1.1*
12*
12*
123
12*
143
147
140
144
147
141
144
,4,
99ttipwc«itite
ml nd n-4 nsio m*0
13S
140
227
24*
3.11
441
44*
440
524
5.7*
6.17
tst
<43
72*
743
745
•2*
•45
1.11
14*
143
24*
227
24*
24*
32*
341
423
44S
446
f.17
*47
*.77
tM
(44
.4,
1.12
125
140
1.72
140
24*
227
24*
241
240
3.11
344
34*
3.7*
441
423
44*
44*
440
14*
1.1*
124
123
142
142
142
1.73
144
14*
2J07
2.11
222
24!
24*
2.71
244
24*
3.12
326
144
14*
1.13
1.1*
123
12*
121
12*
144
140
14*
141
1.74
140
147
143
240
247
2.14
AML
Number of = 8 (assume twice*
Samples weekly sampling)
CV = 0.6
AML = 95th percentile value
AML = 0.58 mg/lx 1.38
= 0.80 mg/1
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6C-18
-------
PRACTICAL EXERCISE
Determining the Need for Chemical-Specific,
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
DIRECTIONS:
You are a permit writer and have received a permit renewal application from a
manufacturer. The previous permit was issued using effluent limits derived from
technology-based effluent limitation guidelines. Since that time, the State has revised its
water quality standards to ensure aquatic life protection. Therefore, you must determine
whether water quality-based limits are needed.
GIVEN:
Cr = [(Cd)(Qd) + (CS)(QS)]
where:
(Qd + Qs)
Cr = the receiving water concentration,
Cd = the effluent concentration,
Qd = the effluent flow,
Cs = the receiving water background concentration, and
Qs = the appropriate receiving water flow.
Water Quality Criteria:
Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection - Zinc
Acute = 120 ug/1 [Achieved at the 1-day, 10 year return frequency flow (1Q10)]
Chronic = 110 ug/1 [Achieved at the 7-day, 10 year return frequency flow (7Q10)]
Effluent Data (from DMR^:
Qd = 7.06 cfs
Observed Concentrations:
Cd(1)=0.17mg/l
Cd(2)= 0.21 mg/1
Cd(3) = 0.14mg/l
Cd(4) = 0.19 mg/1
CV = 0.6 (default value for < 10 observations)
6C-19
-------
Receiving Water Data:
Illinois River
1Q10 flow = 23.6 cfs
7Q10 flow = 70.9 cfs
Receiving water background concentration (Cs) = 0.07 mg/1
Reasonable Potential Multiplier Table (Table 3-1 from Technical Support Document):
Table 3-1. Reasonable Potential Multiplying Factors: 99% Confidence Level and 99% Probability Basis
Number of
Samples
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16 *
17
18
19
20
Coefficient of Variation
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1.6 2.5 3.9 6.0 9.0
1.4 2.0 2.9 4.0 5.5
1.4 1.9 2.5 3.3 4.4
1.3 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.8
1.3 1.7 2.1 2.7 3.4
1.3 1.6 2.0 2.5 3,1
1.3 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.9
1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.8
1.2 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.7
1.2 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.6
1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.5
1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.4
1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3
1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.1
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1
1.2 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
13.2 18.9 26.5 36.2 48.3
7.4 9.8 12.7 16.1 20.2
5.6 7.2 8.9 11.0 13.4
4.7 5.9 7.2 8.7 10.3
4.2 5.1 6.2 7.3 8.6
3.8 4.6 5.5 6.4 7.5
3.6 4.2 5.0 5.8' 6.7
3.3 3.9 4.6 5.3 6.1
3.2 3.7 4.3 5.0 5.7
3.0 3.5 4.1 4.7 5.3
2.9 3.4 3.9 4.4 5.0
2.8 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7
2.7 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.5
2.6 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.3
2.6 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1
2.5 2.9 3.2 3.6 4.0
2.5 2.8 3.1 3.5 3.8
2.4 2.7 3.0 3.4 3.7
2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6
2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.5
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
63.3 81.4102.8128.0157.1
24.9 30.3 36.3 43.0 50.4
16.0 19.0 22.2 25.7 29.4
12.2 14.2 16.3 18.6 21.0
10.0 1V.5 13.1. 14.8 16.6
8.6 9.8 11.1 12.4 13.8
7.7 8.7 9.7 10.8 12.0
6.9 7.8 8.7 9.6 10.6
6.4 7.1 7.9 8.7 9.6
5.9 6.6 7.3 8.0 8.8
5.6 63. 6.8 7.4 8.1
5.2 5.8 6.4 7.0 7.5
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.1
4.8 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.7
4.6 5.0 5.4 5.9 6.4
4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.1
4.2 4.6 5.0 5.4 5.8
4.1 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6
4.0 4.3 4.6 5.0 5.3
3.8 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.2
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
90.3 227.8 269.9 316.7 368.3
58.4 67,2 76.6 86.7 97.5
33.5 37.7 42.3 47.0 52.0
23.6 26.3 29.1 32.1 35.1
18.4 20.4 22.4 24.5 26.6
15.3 16.8 18.3 19.9 21.5
13.1 14.4 15.6 16.9 18.2
11.6 12.6 13.6 14.7 15.8
10.4 11.3 12.2 13.V 14.0
9.5 10.3 11.0 11.8 12.6
8.8 9.4 10.1 10.8 11-5
8.1 8.8 9.4 10.0 10.6
7.6 8.2 8.7 9.3 9.9
7.2 7.7 8.2 8.7 9.2
6.8 7.3 7.7 8.2 8.7
6.5 6.9 7.3 7.8 8.2
6.2 6.6 7.0 7.4 .7.8
5.9 6.3 6.7 7.0 7.4
5.7 6.0 6.4 6.7 7.1
5.5 5.8 6.1 6.5 6.8
6C-20
-------
(1) Calculate a maximum projected value for the effluent concentration based on the observed
values and the TSD "Reasonable Potential Multiplier Table" provided above.
Maximum projected effluent concentration =
(2) Calculate the projected receiving water concentrations (Cr) for zinc, using the mass balance
equation and data supplied above, for comparison with both acute and chronic criteria.
(a) Zinc (acute)
(b) Zinc (chronic)
(3) Compare the receiving water concentrations calculated hi question (2) with the State Water
Quality criteria for aquatic life protection. Which is larger? What does this mean? Do
you need to set a water quality-based limit for zinc?
(4) What effect would a stream flow (Qs) of 0 cfs have on the receiving water concentration?
What about a stream flow of 1,000 cfs?
6C-21
-------
6C-22
-------
PRACTICAL EXERCISE
Calculating Chemical-Specific
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
DIRECTIONS:
You are a permit writer and have received a permit renewal application from a
manufacturer. The previous permit was issued using effluent limits derived from
technology-based effluent limitation guidelines. Since that time, the State has revised its
water quality standards to ensure aquatic life protection. In the previous exercise, you
determined that this facility had a "reasonable potential" to exceed State water quality
criteria for zinc. Using the data provided below, calculate the effluent limitations for zinc.
GIVEN:
Cd = [Cr(Qd + OJ - (CS)(QS)]
where: Cd = effluent discharge concentration = wasteload allocation (WLA)
Cr = receiving water concentration,
Cs = receiving water background concentration, and
Qd = effluent flow,
Qs = appropriate receiving water flow.
Water Quality Criteria:
Criteria for Aquatic Life Protection - Zinc
Acute = 120 ug/1 [Achieved at the 1-day, 10 year return frequency flow (1Q10)]
Chronic = 110 ug/1 [Achieved at the 7-day, 10 year return frequency flow (7Q10)]
Effluent Data (from DMR1:
Qd = 7.06 cfs
Receiving Water Data:
Illinois River
IQlOflow = 23.6 cfs
7Q10 flow = 70.9 cfs
Receiving water background concentration (Cs) = 0.07 mg/1
6C-23
-------
Tables 5-1 an4 5-2 from Technical Support Document (TSD):
TaWeS-1. Bade Calculations of Long/Fet m Average
cv
o.t
02
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
.0
.1
2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
WIA Multipliers
(0.5 02-10J
9
95th
flm titmnttlm
rwCwTDW
0.853
0.736
0.644
0.571
0.514
0.468
0.432
0.403
0.379
0.360
0.344
0.330
0.319
0.310
0.302
0.298
0.290
0285
0281
0277
99tt
Pwocnbto
0.797
0.643
0.527
0.440
0.373
0.321
0.281
0^49
0224
0.20*
0.187
0.174
0.162
0.153
0.144
0.137
0.131
0.126
0.121
0.117
Acute
u^wj±c.ra2'zo]
wh«*02-/nfCV2 + lI,
A • I .t^v«/ I^M v«ni t IWt wVI ItHO IM
» 4,-tai tor yam parcontM
-------
Table 5-2. Calculation of Permit Limits
cv
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
2.0
LTA multipliers
tza-0.502)
6
95th
Percentile
1.17
1.36
1.55
1.75
1.95
2.13
2.31
2.46
2.64
2.78
2.91
3.03
3.13
3.23
3.31
3.38
3.45
3.51
3.56
3.60
99th
. Percentile
1.25
1.55
1.90
2.27
2.68
3.11
3.56
4.01
4.46
4.90
5.34
5.76
6.17
6.56
6.93
7.29
7.63
7.95
8.26
8.55
Maximum Daily Limit
[zo-OSo2]
MDL — LTA • 6
where o2 = In [ CV2 + 1 ].
z s 1 .645 for 95th percentile occurrence probability, and
z = 2.326 for 99th percentile occurrence probability
Average Monthly Limit
21
AML = LTA • e z °" * °n
where On2 = In [ CV2/n * 1 ],
z = 1 .645 for 95th percentile.
z = 2.326 for 99th percentile, and
n = number of samples/month
CV
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
.0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
1.9
2.0
LTA Multipliers
et«n-0.s8n2]
95th
Percentile
n»1 n=2 n=4 n= 8 n=30
1.17 1.12 1.08 1.06 1.03
1.36 1.25 1.17 1.12 1.06
1.55 t.38 1.2ft 1.18 1.09
1.75 1.52 1.36 1.25 1.12
1.95 1.66 1.45 1.31 1.16
2.13 1.80 1.55- 1.38 1.19
2.31 1.94 1.65 1,45 1.22
2.48 2.07 1.75 1.52 1.28
2.64 230 1.85 1.5» 1.29
2.78 2.33 1.95 1.66 1.33
2.91 2.45 2.04 1.73 1.36
3.03 2.56 2.13 1.80 1.39
3.13 2:67 2.23 1.87 1.43
3.23 2.77 2.31 1.94 1.47
3.31 2.86 2.4O 2.00 1.50
3.38 2.95 2.48 2.07 1.54
3.45 3.03 2.56 2.14 1.57
3.51 3.10 2.64 2.20 1.61
3.56 317 2.71 2.27 1.64
3.60 333 2.78 2.33 1.68
99th
Percentile •
n=1 n=2 ri=4 n=10 n=30
1.25 1.18 1.12 1.08 1.04
1.55 1.37 1.25 .16 1.09
1.90 1.59 1.40 .24 1.13
2.27 1.83 1.55 .33 1.18
2.68 2.09 1.72 .42 1.23
3.11 2.37 1.90 .52 1.28
3.5ft 2.66 2.08 .62 1.33
4.01 2.96 227 .73 1.39
4.46 328 2.48 .84 1.44
4.90 3.59 2.68 1.96 1.50
5.34 3.91 2.90 2.07 1.56
5.78 4.23 3.11 2.19 1-62
6.17 4.55 3.34 2.32 1.68
6.56 4.86 3.56 2.45 1.74
633 5.17 3.78 2.58 1.80
7.29 5.47 4.01 2.71 1.87
7.63 5.77 4.23 2.64 1.93
7.95 6.03 4.46 2.98 2.00
8.26 6.34 4.66 3.12 2.07
8.55 6.61 4.90 3.26 2.14
6C-25
-------
(1) Calculate the waste load allocations for zinc using the equation and data supplied above.
(2) Using the statistical methodologies recommended in the EPA Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-based Controls (March 1991) calculate the long-term average (LTA),
Maximum Daily Limit (MDL), and the Average Monthly Limit (AML)?
[NOTE: Assume a CV=0.6; monitoring requirement of 4 samples per month; LTA
percentile = 99%; MDL percentile = 99%; and AML percentile = 95%]
6C-26
-------
(3) Compare the chemical specific water quality-based limits calculated above with the
technology-based effluent limitations given below for Outfall 001. In which case(s) is the
water quality-based limit(s) less stringent?
Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
Pollutant Maximum Daily Limit (MDL) Average Monthly Limit (AMD
Zinc
0.15mg/l
0.10mg/l
(4) Discussion Question: How could a permit writer account for technology-based limitations
prior to calculating water quality-based effluent limits for a specific chemical?
6C-27
-------
6C-28
-------
MODULE # 6D
TITLE: Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Discuss the applicability and uses of whole effluent toxicity (WET)
• Describe WET test endpoints
- Acute
- Chronic
• Explain the use of toxicity units
• Define acute-to-chronic ratio
• Describe WET test methods
• Describe the purpose of toxicity reduction evaluations
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture, practical exercise
Approximate Presentation Time: 90 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: 45 minutes
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 301(b)(l)(C) Effluent limitations compliance dates
40 CFR §122.44(d) Water quality standards and State requirements
-------
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Learning Objectives
• Foster better understanding of scientific
underpinnings of WET
- Describe uses and limitations
• Discuss WET implementation
requirements
• Describe WET test methods
• Explain the purpose of toxicity reduction
evaluations
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-1
-------
Module 6D Whole Effluent Toxidty
What is Whole Effluent Toxicity
(WET) Testing
• Part of water quality-based toxics
control approach
• Measures the aggregate toxic effect of
effluent or ambient water
- measures the response of exposed
aquatic organisms
Why WET?
• Allows for the protection of the
narrative standard "no toxics in toxic
amounts"
- Implementation Policy
• Integrated Approach to Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control
- Chemical specific approach
- Biological criteria approach
- Whole effluent toxicity approach
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-2
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Uses and Potential Pitfalls of WET Testing
• Uses
- Complex effluents
- Supplement to chemical-specific
limits
- Ambient water testing
• Potential Concerns
- QA/QC
- Quality of labs
- Training
Acute/Chronic Toxicity
Acute
- Test duration: 96 hours or less
- Endpoint: Mortality (expressed as LCso)
Short-term Chronic
- Test duration: 1.5 hours (sea urchins) to
9 days (sheepshead minnows)
- Endpoint: Growth, reproduction, etc.,
(expressed as NOEC and LOEC)
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-3
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Acute WET Statistical Endpoints:
Definitions
• LC50
- Concentration of effluent that is lethal to
50 percent of the exposed organisms
• uses a dilution series
• pass/fail
- instream waste concentration (IWC) or
ambient toxicity test measured against a
control
Example of Acute Test Data and
Statistical Analysis
100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0%
u n
D
% Effluent
Concentration
100% 80% 40% 20%
0%
0% % Mortality
100
II
UJ C
™ o 10
S«
I
20 40 60 80 100
Percent Mortality
NPDES Permit Writer&Jraining Course
6D-4
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Example of Pass/Fail Acute
Test at IWC or Ambient
• In stream Waste Concentration (IWC)
equals 75%
• Statistical evaluation using student-t test
compares mortality rates of ambient or
IWC sample against the control
- Is there a "significant statistical difference"?
IWC = 75%
Lab Control
Statistical Approaches
Hypothesis testing
- LOEC, NOEC
Point estimate techniques
- LC50, ECp, ICp
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-5
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Chronic WET Statistical Endpoints
(Hypothesis Testing)
LOEC
-- Lowest Observed Effect Concentration
(LOEC) - the lowest concentration of an
effluent or a toxicant that results in
observable adverse effects in the aquatic
test organisms
NOEC
- No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) -
the highest concentration of an effluent
or a toxicant at which no adverse effects are
observed on the aquatic test organisms
Example of Chronic Test Data
100%
50% 25%
y a
12.5% 6.25%
0%
13
33
33
33
33
% Effluent
Concentration
* of young
(Total = 33)
D>
§
O
0
S
E
1
f
35-1
30-
25-
20-
15-
10-
5-
• • a^NOcC
**
10 100
Percent Effluent (log scale)
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-6
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Chronic WET Statistical Endpoints
(Point Estimate)
'Cp
- Inhibition Concentration (1C) - a point
estimate of the toxicant concentration
that would cause a given percent
reduction in a nonlethal biological
measurement of the test organisms
(e.g., reproduction, growth, etc.)
Chronic WET Statistical Endpoints
(Point Estimate)
• EC,
- A point estimate of the toxicant
concentration that would cause an
observable adverse effect in a given
percentage of the test organisms (e.g.,
death, immobilization)
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-7
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
100%
Example of Determining an IC25
from Chronic Test Data
50% 25% 12.5% 6.25%
H U D D
0% % Effluent
Concentration
13
33
33
33
f of young
33 (Total =33)
m
1
0
|
z
1
f
35-1
30-
25-
20-
15-
10-
5-
i • • •
A|CZS
*
10 100
Percent Effluent (log scale)
Hypothesis Testing Facts
• NOEC are not point estimates
• Cannot calculate coefficients of
variation or confidence intervals
• NOEC may represent a different
amount of effect from test to test
• NOEC is a lower concentration level
than the LOEC
NPD6S Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-8
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Point Estimates Facts
• Can caluculate coefficients of
variation and confidence intervals
• Always estimating same effect
• Need specification of a biological
effect - what value of p
Options for Expressing WET Values
• Option A
- Use LCso, NOEC, LOEC, or IC25 directly
(after accounting for dilution)
- Example Limit: LCso @ 30% effluent
• Option B
- Use toxic units
TUa =
TUc =
100
"~
LCso
100
NOEC
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-9
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Examples of Toxic Units
• Acute (TUa)
- Assuming LCso = 28%
LCso 28
- Assuming LCso = 10%
= 3.6
TUa=-UHL = JflJL =10.0
LCso 10
• Chronic (TUc)
- Assuming NOEC = 50%
- Assuming NOEC = 30%
Definition of Acute-Chronic Ratio
• Acute-chronic ratio (ACR) - the ratio
of the acute toxicity of an effluent or
a toxicant to its chronic toxicity
- Used as a factor for estimating chronic
toxicity on the basis of acute toxicity
data, or for estimating acute toxicity
on the basis of chronic toxicity data
Example: ACR =
* Arn _ TUc _
ACR- TUa -
=2.6
1.5
NPDES Peimit Writers Training Course
6D-10
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxlcity
ACR Calculations
ACR =
Acute Endpoint
LCso
Chronic Endpoint ~ NOEC
TUa =
LCso =
JflJL
LCso
-1QG-
TUa
TUc _ 1QO
IUC~NOEC
TUc
_ LCso (100mJa) TUc
- NOEC = (100/TUc) ~ TUa
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Developing WET Effluent Limitations
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-11
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Whole Effluent Toxicity Criteria
• Narrative - "no toxics in toxic amounts'
• Numeric - (recommended in TSD)
- Acute = 0.3 TUa = 100/LC50
- Chronic = 1.0 TUc = 100/NOEC
Whole Effluent Toxicity Criteria
(Continued)
• Assumptions for applying 0.3 TUa and
1.0 TUc
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-12
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Steps in Developing WET Permit
Limitations
Acute and Chronic Wasteload Allocations
Stepl: Convert Acute WLA into Chronic WLA
(WET only)
1
Step 2: Calculate LTA for Both
I
Step 3: Select Lowest LTA
I
Step 4: Calculate Maximum and Average Limits
What is the Maximum Allowable Whole Effluent Toxicity in
the ABC, Inc. Effluent Assuming Complete Mixing?
Qs = Upstream river flow
1Q10 = 1.2 cfs
7Q10 = 3.6 cfs
Od = Discharge flow = 0.31 cfs
Cs = Upstream river concentration = OTUc
Cr = Water quality criteria
Acute = 0.3 TUa applied at 1Q10 low flow
Chronic = 1.0 TUc applied at 7Q10 low flow
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
60-13
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Joxicity
Acute WLA
Cd
- Cr(Qd + Qs) • CsQs
Qd
Cd Acute - 0-3 (0-31+1-2)-(0X1.2)
0.31
Cd Acute = WLAa = 1.5TUa
Chronic WLA
Cd
_ CrfQd + Qs) - CsQs
Qd
Cd chronic = 1-0(0-31+3.6)-(0X3.6)
0.31
Cd chronic = WLAC = 13TUc
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-14
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Step 1: Convert Acute WLA into
Chronic WLA
Assume observed ACR = 10(TUa~)
WLAa>c = Acute WLA expressed in TUc
WLA3)C = WLAa x ACR
= 1.5 TUa
= 15 TUc
Step 2: Calculate LTAs
cv
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0-S
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
WLA multipliers
^(0.5 ^-JOl
95th
pGfccnwfi
0.853
0.736
0.644
0.571
0.514
0.468
0.432
0.403
0.379
0.360
0.344
0.330
0.319
0.310
0.302
0.296
0.290
0.285
0.281
0.277
99th
percent)!*
0-797
0.643
O.S27
0.440
0.373
0.321
0.261
0.249
0,224
0.204
0.187
0.174
0.162
0.1S3
0.144
0.137
0.131
0.126
0.121
0.117
Acute LTA
Number of samples
CV
WLAa,c
= 4
= 0.6
= 15 TUc
= 99th percentile value
LTAa = 15 TUc x 0.321 = 4.8 TUc
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6D-15
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Step 2: Calculate LTAs
cv
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
03
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.8
13
2.0
WLA multipliers
el0.5a42*4]
95th
peretnttle
0922
0453
0791
0.736
O687
0644
0606
0.571
0.541
0514
0490
0468
0.449
O432
0.417
0403
0390
O379
O369
0.360
99th
penenUft
0.891
0.797
0.715
0.643
0.581
0.527
0.481
0.440
0.404
0373
O345
0.321
0.300
O261
0264
0.249
0236
0224
0.214
0.204
Chronic LTA
Number of samples = 4
CV = 0.6
WLAc = 13TUc
= 99th percentile value
LTAc = 13TUc x 0.527 « 6.9 TUc
Step 3: Select Lowest LTA
LTAa = 4.8 TUc
LTAc = 6.9 TUc
Select LTAa = 4.8 TUc
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6D-16
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxidty
Step 4: Calculate MDL and AML
cv
0.1 "
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
LTA multipliers
glzo-O-So2]
95th
percentile
1.17
1.36
1.55
1.75
1.95
2.13
2.31
2.48
2.64
2.78
2.91
3.03
3.13
123
3.31
3.38
3-45
3.51
3.56
3.60
99th
percentile
1.25
1.55
1.90
2.27
2.68
3.11
3.56
4.01
4.46
4.90
5.34
5.76
6.17
6.56
6.93
7.29
7.63
7.95
&26
8.55
CV
MDL
MDL
= 0.6
= 99th percentile value
MDL = 4.8 TUc x 3.11 = 15TUC
Step 4: Calculate MDL and AML
cv
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
04
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
14
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.S
10
LTA multipliers
•Jtn -0.5 a 2]
"^ n n
95th percentile
o*1 ns=2 n*4 n=8 n*30
1.17
1.36
145
1.75
146
2.13
241
2.48
2.64
2.78
241
343
3.13
3.23
3.31
348
3.45
3.51
3.56
160
1.12
125
148
142
146
140
144
247
240
243
2.45
246
247
2.77
246
24$
1O3
110
3.17
323
148
1.17
1.26
146
145
145
145
1.75
145
145
244
2.13
223
241
2.40
2.48
246
244
2.71
2.78
1X16
1.12
1.18
12S
141
1.38
1.45
142
1-59
146
1.73
140
147
1.94
240
247
2.14
2.20
2J7
2.33
1.03
146
149
t.12
t.16
1.19
1.22
1.26
U9
143
146
149
1.43
1.47
1JO
144
147
1.61
1.64
148
99th percentile
n=1 iPtt n=4 n=10 n*30
125
146
140
227
248
3.11
346
441
4j46
440
SJ4
5.76
6.17
646
6-93
729
743
745
&26
844
1.16
147
148
143
248
2J7
246
248
128
349
341
443
445
44B
5.17
5.47
5.77
646
644
641
1.12
145
140
145
1.72
140
248
227
2.48
248
240
3.11
344
346
178
441
4-23
446
4.68
440
1J»
1.16
124
143
142
142
1.62
1.73
144
146
247
2.19
242
245
248
2.71
244
248
3.12
326
1.04
1.08
1.13
1.18
123
1JS
143
1.39
1.44
140
1-56
1.62
1.68
1.74
140
147
149
240
2.07
2.14
AML
Number of samples - 4
CV = 0.6
AML = 95th percentile
value
AML = 4.8 TUc x 1.55 = 7.4 TUc
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6D-17
-------
Module 6D Whole Effluent Toxicity
Permits Must Specify
• Test species and method
• Testing frequency
• Statistical endpoints
• Steps to address toxicity
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
• What is a TRE?
Procedures for investigating the
causes and identifying corrective
actions for effluent toxicity problems
• Why are TREs necessary?
Achieve compliance with limits or
requirements for effluent toxicity
contained in NPDES permits
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-18
-------
Module 6D
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
(Continued)
• How are TREs performed?
• Site-specific study designed to:
- Identify the causative agents of effluent
toxicity
- Isolate the sources of the toxicity
- Evaluate the effectiveness of toxicity
control options
- Confirm the reduction in effluent toxicity
Mechanisms for Requiring TREs
• Special conditions in NPDES permit
• Section 308 letter
• Section 309 Administrative Order or
a Consent Decree
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-19
-------
Module 6D Whole Effluent Toxicity
What Does the Permit Writer Need
to Know?
« Goals of WET testing
• State Implementation Policy
• WET Test Methods
- test and endpoints
• Statistical Procedures that are to be used
• QA/QC
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6D-20
-------
PRACTICAL EXERCISE
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
DIRECTIONS:
Preliminary examination of toxicity testing data submitted by a discharger indicates that toxicity
is present in the effluent discharged to the receiving water. Therefore, you must determine if
there is a need for developing whole effluent toxicity (WET) effluent limitations for the permit.
If you determine a need for WET effluent limitations, then calculate those limits.
GIVEN:
Where
Cr =
(C.XQ.)
(Qd + Qs)
Cr = receiving water concentration
Cd = effluent concentration
Qd = effluent flow
Cs = receiving water background concentration
Qs = appropriate receiving water flow
Toxicity Data (Fathead minnows) from Discharge Monitoring Reports:
Mean
CV
Multiplier
LC50
(% effluent)
62
18
68
61
63
70
17
35
35
35
47
46
0.4
2.1
NOEC
(% effluent)
10
10
25
10
25
25
5
10
10
25
10
15
0.5
2.5
Acute to
Chronic Ratio
6.2
1.8
2.7
6.1
2.5
2.8
3.4
3.5
3.5
1.4
4.7
3.5
-
-
CV = Coefficient of Variation
Multiplier=Reasonable Potential Multiplier from Table 3-1 of the USEPA Technical Support Document
6D-21
-------
(1) Determine the maximum projected effleunt concentrations (in Toxic Units (TU)) for acute
and chronic toxicity.
[HINT: First convert the maximum measured acute and chronic toxicity (in LC50 and
NOEC)to toxic units (TU), then apply the reasonable potential multiplier]
(2) Calculate the receiving water concentration (Cr) in toxic units for both acute and chronic
toxicity given the following:
Qs = 23.6 cfs (the 1Q10 for acute protection)
Q5 = 70.9 cfs (the 7Q10 for chronic protection)
Qd = 7.06 cfs
6D-22
-------
(3) Determine the need for WET limitations by comparing each receiving water concentration
calculated in question (2) with the State water quality standards for acute and chronic
protection. Given that:
State Water Quality Standard for Acute Protection = 0.3 TUa
State Water Quality Standard for Chronic Protection =1.0 TUC
Are WET effluent limitations necessary? Explain your answer.
(4) If it was determined in question (3) above that WET limitations are needed, then calculate
the waste load allocations for acute and chronic WET using the following equation:
cd = WLA = [cr rod + eg - rc.vcui
(5) Convert the acute WLA (in TUJ to TUC using the acute to chronic ratio (ACR) provided
with the toxicity data.
(6) Discussion Question: What would the water quality-based effluent limitations be if the
methodologies recommended in the EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Controls (March 1991) were used?
6D-23
-------
6D-24
-------
MODULE # 6E
TITLE: Variances to Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Define the different types of water quality standard variances
- Site-specific criteria modification
- Designated use
- Water quality standard variance
• Describe how the variances affect water quality-based effluent limits
• Describe the role of NPDES permit writer in implementing the variances
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture
Approximate Presentation Time: 30 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: None
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 303(c)
40 CFR Part 131
Adopting and modifying water quality standards
Water Quality Standards
-------
-------
Module 6E
Variances to Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Variances to Water Quality-
Based Effluent Limits
Learning Objectives
• Describe the types of variances from
water quality standards
• Discuss how variances affect water
quality-based effluent limits
* Explain the role of the permit writer
Types of Water Quality Variances
• Site-specific modification of water
quality criteria
- Permanent change in criteria
- Designated uses maintained
• Designated use reclassification
- Permanent change in water quality
standard
- Use and criteria change
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
6E-1
-------
Module 6E
Variances to Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Types of Water Quality Variances
(Continued)
• Water quality standard variance
- Short-term and temporary change to
standard
- Basic water quality standards remain
in place
- Pollutant and discharger specific
Affect of Variances on Permit Limits
* Changes the fundamental basis of
water quality-based effluent limits
- May impact reasonable potential
determination
- May result in more or less stringent
limitations
• Role of permit writer
- Ensure that variance is reflected in
permit
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
6E-2
-------
MODULE 6 - SUGGESTED REFERENCE MATERIALS
Final Guidance for Implementation of Requirements^Under Section 304(1) of the Clean Water
AcLas Amended. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards and Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits, March 1988.
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control CEPA/505/2-9Q-OOn.
EPA, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, March 1991.
Introduction to Water Quality Standards (EPA 440/5-88-089). EPA. Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, September 1988.
Quality Criteria for Water. 1986 (rEPA/440/5-86-OOn. EPA, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, May 1986.
Water Quality Standards Handbook: Second Edition (EPA -823-B-94-005ai EPA, Office of
Water, August, 1994.
Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The TMDL Process (EPA 440/4-91 -00 n. EPA,
Office of Water, April 1991.
Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms. Fourth
Edition (EPA/600/4-90/027F). EPA, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, 1991.
Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Organisms. Third Edition fEP A/600/4-91/OQ2V EPA, Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, 1991.
Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Marine andEstuarine Organisms. Second Edition CEP A/600/4-91/003). EPA, Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, 1991.
Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms rEPA/600/R-95/136X EPA, Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, 1995.
6E-3
-------
6E-4
-------
MODULE # 7
TITLE: Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Explain the regulatory requirements and purpose of establishing monitoring requirements
in NPDES permits
• Discuss considerations for establishing monitoring conditions in permits
• Identify different methods for sample collection
• Discuss conditions under which certain sampling techniques are appropriate
• Describe the elements of monitoring conditions and the applicability to municipal and non-
municipal dischargers
• Describe whole effluent toxicity monitoring requirements and considerations
• Explain analytical requirements for sample analysis
• Discuss reporting and record-keeping requirements for NPDES permits
• Define Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
• Provide questions for reviewing monitoring conditions in a permit
» Provide examples for specifying sampling locations and setting monitoring requirements in
a permit
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture
Approximate Presentation Time: 1 hour
Review Questions/Exercise: None
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 304(h)
CWA Section
CWA Section
40 CFR §122.
40 CFR §122.
40 CFR §122.
40 CFR §122.
40 CFR §122.
40 CFR §122.
405(d)(4)
503
410XD
410X2)
410X4)
42(a)
44(i)
45(e)
40 CFR §122.45(1)
40 CFR §122.48
Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of
Pollutants
Monitoring on a Case-by-Case Basis
Sludge
Representative Monitoring
Records
Discharge Monitoring Reports
Pollutants Subject to Notification Requirements
Reporting at Least Once per Year
Frequency and Rate of Discharge for Noncontinuous
Discharge
Other Measurements including Internal Waste Streams
Monitoring, Recording, Recordkeeping
-------
-------
Module 7
Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Monitoring and Reporting
Conditions
Learning Objectives
Describe purpose of monitoring
conditions
Discuss the considerations for
establishing monitoring conditions
Explain analytical method
requirements
Describe reporting requirements
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
7-1
-------
Module 7 Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Purpose of Monitoring
• Determine compliance with permit
conditions
• Establish a basis for enforcement
actions
• Other
- Assess treatment efficiency
- Characterize effluents
- Characterize receiving water
Types of Monitoring
Self monitoring
- Permittee performs sampling and
analysis
Compliance monitoring
- Permitting authority monitors effluent
during compliance inspection
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
7-2
-------
Module 7
Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Example POTW: Flow Diagram
Raw
Wastewater
Final
Effluent
Ash to Sludge
"^ Lagoon
Example: Industrial Flow Diagram
Aekt
Waste
Storage
t
^ Water ~~*"
— — -*• Solids
Chromium- 1
Containing 1 *
Wastes 1 *
Chromium 1 C
Reduction 1 O>
t
Neutralization 1
T"
t 1 *
Filter L_
Process r^
Clarification I
1 111
Sludge to Landfill
JkaJine
Pastes
1
yanide
cidation
Final Effluent
^
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
7-3
-------
Module 7 Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Self Monitoring Considerations
• Location
• Frequency
• Type of sample
• Cost
Considerations for Monitoring Location
• Is it on the facility's property?
• Is it accessible?
• Will the results be representative of
the targeted wastestream?
• Are monitoring internal points
needed?
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
7-4
-------
Module 7
Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Frequency Considerations
Size and design of facility
Type of treatment
Location of discharge
Frequency of discharge
(batch, continuous)
Compliance history
Nature of pollutants
Number of monthly samples used
in developing permit limit
I
fl)
_3
O
Q>
UJ
Daily
Composite
Samples
Quarterly
Grab Samples
Pollutant Toxicity/Variability
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
7-5
-------
Module 7
Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Types of Samples
Grab Sample: Taken from a wastestream
on a one-time basis without consideration
of the flow rate of the wastestream and
without consideration of time
- Must be used to monitor certain
parameters (e.g., pH, volatile organics,
cyanide)
- Used for monitoring batch discharges
Example Situation - Case #1
£
o
U
Tim*
Time
Slight daily fluctuation in pollutant
concentration and flow
Recommendation: Grab Sample
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
7-6
-------
Module 7
Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Types of Samples (Continued)
• Composite: Sample composed of two or more
discrete aliquots. The aggregate sample will
reflect the average water quality over the sample
period.
- More representative measure of the discharge of
pollutants over a given period of time
- Accounts for variability in pollutant concentration
and discharge flow rate
- May be sequential discrete samples or a single
combined sample
Types of Samples (Continued)
• Composite Sample is defined by the time interval
between aliquots, and the volume of each aliquot (t, V).
- Time Proportional (te, Vc): Interval time and sample
volume are constant A
VT i i i i i i .
- Flow Proportional: Interval time QI sample volume
may vary i
. Constant volume (tv, Vc) v 11| | [
Constant time (tc, Vv)
-t
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
7-7
-------
Module 7
Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Example Situation - Case #2
Tim*
Time
• Regular fluctuations in pollutant loading
over the course of the day
4- Very slight fluctuations in flow
• Recommendation: Time Proportional
Composite
Example Situation - Case #3
Time
Time
Irregular fluctuations in pollutant loading
over the course of the day
Erratic fluctuations in flow
Recommendation: Flow Proportional
Composite
NPDES Permit Writers Training Course
7-8
-------
Module 7
Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Types of Samples (Continued)
• Continuous Sample: Automated collection
and analysis of a parameter in a discharge
- Typically used for pH and flow
- 40 CFR § 401.17 allows excursions for pH
Analytical Methods
40CFR Parti36
- Test methods in Appendix A to Part 136
- Standard Methods for the Analysis of
Water and Wastewater
- Methods for the Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes
- Test Methods: Methods for Organic
Chemical Analysis of Municipal and
Industrial Wastewater
Alternative methods
NPDES Permit Writere Training Course
7-9
-------
Module 7
Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Analytical Detection Level Considerations
o
o
Effluent Umttfl
IMhod Detection Leva! (HDL)
Effluent Limit f2
• Compliance with Limit #1 -» 40 CFR Part 136
• Compliance with Limit #2 -»? ? ?
Estimated Costs for Analytical Procedures
BOOS $30
TSS $15
TOC $60
Oil and Grease $35
Odor $30
Color $30
Turbidity $30
Fecal eoltform $15
Metals (each) $15
Cyanide $35
Gasoline (Benzene. Toluene, Xytene) $100
Purgeatria Halocarbons (EPA Method 601) $113
Acrotein and Acrytonftrile (EPA Method 603) $133
PurgeaMes (EPA Method 624} $251
Phenols (EPA Method 604) $160
Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs (EPA Method 608) $157
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (EPA Method 610) $175
DJOxin(2,3,7,8-TCDD)(EPAMethod«13) $400
Base/Neutrals and Acids (EPA Method 625) $434
Priority pollutant scan* $2,000
TCLP $150
Acute WET $750
Chronic WET $1,500
• Includes 13 metals, cyanide, dioxin, volatiles (purgeables), base/neutral and acids,
pesticides and PCBs, and asbestos „__
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
7-10
-------
Module 7
Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Example #1: Annual Analytical Costs
Times Unit Annual
Per Year Cost ($) Cost ($)
BODS
TSS
Fecal Coliform
Oil and Grease
104
104
104
104
30
15
15
35
3,120
1,560
1,560
3,640
Total 9,880
Example #2: Annual Analytical Costs
Pollutant
Priority Pollutants
Acute WET
Phenols
Cyanide
BODS
TSS
Metals (Ni, Cr, Cu, Pb, Zn)
No.
Samples
4
4
12
52
156
156
780
Cost/
Sample
$2,000
$750
$160
$35
$30
$15
$15
Total
Cost/
Year
$8,000
$3,000
$1,920
$1,820
$4,680
$2,340
$11,700
$33,460
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
7-11
-------
Module 7 Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Reporting of Monitoring Results
• What is reported?
- Data required in permit
- Data for pollutants monitored more
frequently than required
• When is information reported?
- At least 1/year for limited pollutants
• Who is responsible for reporting?
- The Permittee
• What format is used for reporting?
- Discharge Monitoring Reports
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
• Must be used to report self-
monitoring data
- Required at 40 CFR §122.41 (1)(4)(i)
- States may alter format
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
7-12
-------
Module 7
Monitoring and Reporting Conditions
Record Keeping
Records of monitoring must be kept
for 3 years
- Records for sewage sludge use and disposal
activities must be kept for 5 years
Monitoring records include:
- Data, place, and time
- Individual performing sampling
- Date of analysis
- Individual performing analysis
- Analytical methods used
- Analytical results
Permit should specify where records
should be located
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
7-13
-------
7-14
-------
N A1 ION SYSJ EM (NI'DtV ^^F
tEPOBT fl)MK>
(17 IV)
I'FHMIIIEE NAMEji^^Ksihh Wr NATIONAL POLI Uf A^^BcHAHGE E LIMI
fniUitrMm't/loiurifliUjIfrm-nt) OlSCHARflWRONlTORING F
NAME a-i6)
NOTE: Read instructions before completing this torm.
DISCHARGE NUMBER
Qinn
Q
C
2
5
PERMIT NUMBER
tirtM
1
!
1
i
in
tn
ui i
K
0 1
-s
z ^
5 «
3 — LJ
> ^ ^
: Q j
~ o 3
^ S
I 1
WObd NOI1V3O1
Ainiovj
uj
« *"
FREQUENCY
OF
ANALYSIS
(6468)
bx §
2" j
(4 Card Only} QUALITY OR CONCENTRATION
(31-4*) (46i)> (54-61)
ANTITY OR LOADING
1*4-61)
1(3 Card Onlvl Q(J
I46..V)
Z
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
Z>
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
K
PARAMETER
/ between A ttmnthi and % rear*.)
\ NAME/TITLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TYPEDOR PRINTED
I
a
«
F
1
!
i
*
i
t
-------
7-16
-------
MODULE 7 - SUGGESTED REFERENCE MATERIALS
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater . American Public
Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control
Federation. (Use most current version)
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastewater (EPA/600/4-79-020) . EPA,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, March 1979.
Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants under the Clean
Water Act (40 CFR Part 136~>. (Use most current version)
NPDES Storm Water Sampling Guidance Document (EPA/833-B-92-QQn . EPA, Office
of Water, July 1992.
Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms. Fourth Edition (EPA-600/4-90/027) . EPA, Environmental Monitoring and
Support Laboratory, 1991.
Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater Organisms. Third Edition CEP A/600/4-91/002) . EPA,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, 1991.
Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms (EPA/600/4-91/003) . EPA, Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, 1991.
NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector draining: Laboratory Analysis. EPA, Office
of Water, August 1990.
NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training: Sampling^ EPA, Office of Water,
August 1990.
NPDES Compliance Monitoring Inspector Training: Biomonitoring.... EPA, Office of
Water, August 1990.
POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance . EPA, Office of Water, August 1989.
Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation of Water and Wastewater
(EPA/600/4-82-029) . EPA, Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, 1982.
Handbook for Monitoring Industrial Wastewater . EPA, Office of Technology Transfer,
1973.
7-17
-------
7-18
-------
MODULE#8
TITLE: Special Conditions
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
Describe the purpose of special conditions
Describe the regulatory authority for establishing special conditions
Describe the general types of special conditions applicable to municipal and non-municipal
dischargers
- Non-Regulatory Monitoring
- Best Management Practices (BMPs)/Pollution Prevention
- Compliance Schedules
Introduce the types of special conditions unique to municipal and non-municipal sources
Municipal
Pretreatment Program
Grants
Sewage Sludge
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm Water
Non-municipal
BMPs/PolIution Prevention
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture
Approximate Presentation Time: 45 minutes
Review Questions/Exercises: 15 minutes
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
40 CFR §122.44(f)
40 CFR §122.44(k)
40 CFR §122.44(n)
40 CFR §122.47
Notification Level
Best Management Practices
Grants
Schedules of Compliance
-------
-------
Module 8
Special Conditions
Special Conditions
Special Conditions are Used in NPDES
Permits to...
• Address unique situations
* Incorporate preventative requirements
• Incorporate compliance schedules
• Incorporate other NPDES programmatic
requirements (e.g., pretreatment,
sewage sludge)
Types of Special Conditions
* Additional monitoring
• Best management practices (BMPsy
pollution prevention
• Compliance schedules
NPDES Permit WritersTraining Course
8-1
-------
Module 8
Special Conditions
Additional Monitoring
Used to supplement effluent limits
Used to collect data for future limit
development
Examples:
- Dilution studies
- Sediment samples
- Bioconcentration studies
Definition of Best Management Practices
"Best management practices (BMPs) are
actions or procedures to prevent or minimize
the potential for the release of toxic pollutants
or hazardous substances in significant
amounts to surface waters"
Best Management Practices
Legislative Authority
Section 304{e)
— The Administrator_jnay publish
regulations supplemental to effluent
limitations for a class or category of
point sources for toxic or hazardous
pollutants under Section 307(a) or 311
of the Act to control:
• PS&ift wto runon
• Spillage or teaks
• Sludge or waste disposal
- Drainage from raw material storage
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
8-2
-------
Module 8
Special Conditions
Best Management Practices
Legislative Authority (Continued)
» Section 304(e) (Continued)
- ...which are associated with or ancillary to the
Industrial manufacturing or treatment process
and may contribute significant amounts of
such pollutants to navigable waters
• Section 402(aM1)
- In the absence of BMPs promulgated tor a
category of point sources (such as steel mills,
petroleum refiners, etc.) under authority of
Section 304(e), psrmtt writers may place BMP*
hi permits on a ease-by-case basis
BMP Candidates?
Facility A
Facility B
BMPs in NPDES Permits
BMP plan
Site-specific BMPs
- Facility-specific
- Pollutant-specific
NPDES Permit WritersTraining Course
8-3
-------
Module 8
Special Conditions
Recommended Components of a BMP Plan
Minimum requirements
- Name and location of facility
- Statement of BMP policy and
objectives
- Review by plant manager
Recommended Components of a BMP Plan
(Contained)
* Specific requirements
— BMP committee
- Risk identification and assessment
- Reporting of BMP incidents
- Materials compatibility
- Good housekeeping
- Preventive maintenance
- Inspections and records
- Security
- Employee training
Specific BMPs Are...
• Most effectively used in conjunction
with effluent limitations in permits
• Qualitative — should generally
indicate how or what not how much
• Procedural
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
8-4
-------
Module 8
Special Conditions
Procedural
* Visual inspections
• Training
• Maintain maintenance logs
• Material handling procedures
• Preventive maintenance
• Housekeeping
Other Examples of BMPs
• Water conservation/
non-use
• Secondary containment
• Nondestructive testing
» Materials engineering
• Covering
• Sealing
* Packaging
* Waste stream segregation
• Source Elimination
• Alarm systems
• Diverting
• Paving
• Runoff control
« Sludge management
• Monitoring
• Security
BMPs Should Not:
Substitute for quantitative controls
Tell managers how to run their plants
Require costly methods when
inexpensive ones will suffice
NPDES Permit WritersTraining Course
8-5
-------
Module 8
Special Conditions
Pollution Prevention and Special Conditions
• Hierarchy of pollution prevention
practices
- Source reduction
- Environmentally sound reuse and
recycling
- Treatment
- Disposal
• Pollution prevention measures are
implemented through BMPs
Compliance Schedules
40 CFR §122.47
- Allows for establishing schedules of
compliance with CWA and regulations
• Interim dates if schedule exceeds
1 year from permit issuance
• Reporting 14 days following each
interim date
NPDES Permit Vtfriter^Training Course
8-6
-------
MODULE # 8A
TITLE: Special Conditions for Municipal Dischargers
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Describe the purpose of special conditions for municipal dischargers
• Describe the regulatory authority for establishing special conditions
• Describe special conditions unique to municipal dischargers
- Pretreatment Program
- Sewage Sludge
- Combined Sewer Overflows
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture
Approximate Presentation Time: 40 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: 20 minutes
Applicable Statutory /Regulatory Citations:
40 CFR §122.44(j) Pretreatment Programs for POTWs
40 CFR §122.44(k) Best Management Practices
40 CFR Part 403 General Pretreatment Regulations
40 CFR Part 503 Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge
-------
-------
Module 8A
Special Conditions for Municipal Dischargers
Special Conditions for
Municipal Dischargers
Learning Objectives
• Define pretreatment program
requirements
• Define sewage sludge requirements
• Define combined sewer overflow
requirements
Domestic Sewage Exclusion
• Domestic sewage or any mixture of
domestic sewage and other wastes that
pass through a sewer system to a
POTW are not considered "solid waste"
under RCRA...
• Unless received at the POTW by:
- Truck
- Rail
- Dedicated pipeline
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
8A-1
-------
Module 8A
Special Conditions for Municipal Dischargers
National Pretreatment Program
Major goal is controlling discharges in
order to:
- Prevent interference with POTW processes
- Prevent pass through of pollutants
- Protect sludge management options
Additional programmatic goals
- Encourage recycling and reclamation
- Ensure POTW personnel health and safety
Regulatory Requirements - General
Pretreatment Regulations (« cut PART 403)
• Elements:
- National Pretreatment Standards
- Requirements for POTW and State
programs
- Industrial and POTW reporting
requirements
* Effluent Limitations Guidelines
(40 CFR 405-471)
- Including categorical pretreatment
standards
Pretreatment Program Development
• Who?
- POTWs > 5 MGD
- POTWs < 5 MGD with past problems
• What?
- Legal authority
- Industrial user survey
- Individual control mechanisms for all
SlUs
- Compliance/enforcement
- Resources
— Data management
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
8A-2
-------
Module 8A
Special Conditions for Municipal Dischargers
NPDES Permits Drive the
Pretreatment Program by Requiring;
• Adequate legal authority
* Maintaining industrial user inventory
• Development/implementation local
limits
• Individual control mechanisms be
issued all SlUs
* Compliance monitoring activities
NPDES Permits Drive the
Pretreatment Program by Requiring;
• SwHt and effective enforcement
• Data management and
recordkeeping
• Reporting to the approval authority
(EPA or State)
• Public participation
Permits for Municipal Sewage Sludge
(Biosolids)
* Any Section 402 permit issued to a
POTW should contain requirements
for sewage use and/or disposal
• 40 CFR Part 503 requirements should
be incorporated into a permit for:
- Incineration
- Land application
- Surface disposal
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
8A-3
-------
Module 8A
Special Conditions for Municipal Dischargers
Permits for Municipal Sewage Sludge
(BJOSOlids) (Continued)
• Other entities may be delegated
responsibility to comply
(40 CFR Part 503 standards and
requirements may not all be placed
in the POTW permit)
• Permits must contain:
- Additional standard conditions
- Special conditions
Typical Combined Sewer System
Configuration
Requirements for Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs)
• Technology-based requirements
(BPJ)
- BAT (none promulgated)
- BCT (none promulgated)
• Applicable State water quality
standards
NPDES Peim'rt WritersTraining, Course
8A-4
-------
Module 8A
Special Conditions for Municipal Dischargers
Considerations for Developing Special
Conditions for CSOs
+ Characteristics of the discharge
• Control technologies
• CSO control policy
Overview of CSO Control Policy Approach
MBKI T PftMl
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
8A-5
-------
8A-6
-------
Office of
Wastewater Enforcement
and Compliance (EN-336)
The National Sewage
Sludge Program
Sludge Us* or Disposal RtguMfen* Fact Shttt Serin
Legal Authority
As mandated by the Clean Witer Act
of 1987, EPA has issued national standards
regulating the use or disposal of sewage
sludge. These «n""*"fi« promulgaBMl in 40
CFR Pan 503, in conjunction win die
permitting requirements established in 40
CFR Pans 122, 123. and 501, n>ake op the
regulatory framework of the N'atioaal Sew-
age Sludge Pregnun.
Who is Regulated?
Pan 503 generally regulatesoeatenand
preparcrs of sewage sludge that will be land
applied, incinerated, or placed on a surface
disposal site, as well as the generators and
end users or disposers of the sewage sludge.
What is Regulated?
The National Sewage Sludge Pro-
gram generally regulates all sewage sludge
that is used or disposed thnnagh im^ appli-
cation, surface disposal, or incineration.
What is sewage stodge?
Sewage sludge is defined as a "solid.
semi-solid, or liquid residue generated dar-
ing the treatment of domestic sewage in a
treatment works. Sewage sludge includes,
but is not limited to. domestic sepage; scorn
or solids removed in primary, secondary, or
advanced wastewater "•*V"*TH jpmATfu.
and material derived from sewage stodge."
(Materials derived from :
elude the products of stodgec
digesters, treated sewage stodge which is
bagged forsaleasfertilizer.oranyothertype
of processed prorated ir wage iludge winch
is land applied, incinerated, or placed in a
surface disposal site.) "Sewage stodge does
not include ash generated during the firing of
sewage sludge in asewage. sludge incinerator
or grit and screenings generated during the
preliminary treatment of domestic sewage
in a treatment works." (§503.9 (w))
Domestic septage is also regulated by
Pan 503. Domestic septage is "liquid or
solid material removed from a septic tank,
cesspool, portable toilet. Type 01 marine
sanitation device, or similar treatment works
that receives only domestic sewage..."
(}S03.9<0)
C ui i cutty cxcntdcd fion regulation
under Part 503, are industrial sludge and
S6DQUE6 OfOUl IDfttfSsTllI QsT COOUOCatCttJ £P *
dimes. Generally, stodge geouated at an
iiKiinuial far ilny is not regulated by Pan
503. However, if the domestic wastewaBr
is segregated from the jjiuieu water, the
you UK
k h Mml
j
the domestic wastewater is covered by
Part 503.
Sludges '•'iKgtfH* as hazardous and
«inHpf-{ nf *iiintrig 50 me/kg or more poly*
cmorinatcfl Dmnenyts U^^BSJ are also oot
regulated in Part 503, but are subject to other
regulatory requirements.
When is Compliance
Required?
Deadlines for compliance with Pan
503 regulations were established in the Gean
Water Act of 1987. In most cases. Pan 503
is a "self-implementing" regulation; it is
directly enforceable even in the absence of a
permit. Pan 503 requires compliance with
Mveh9, 1993
monitoring and recordkeeping require-
(except for monitoring of total hydro-
carbon emissions in incinerator exit gases)
by July 20.1993. Pan 503 requires compli-
ance with all other standards (including total
hydrocarbon emissions monitoring) as soon
as possible, but no later than February 19,
1994 (or February 19.1995 if construction
of a poOution control facility is required to
comply with Deregulation.)
Permits: Who Applies for
One, and Who Doesn't?
Section 405(0 of the Clean Water
Act requires National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits is-
sued to publicly owned treatment works and
other treatment works treating domestic
sewage to contain conditions implementing
Pan503. EPAhas defined treatment works
treating domestic sewage to be "a [publicly
owned treatment works] or any other sew-
age sludge or wastewater treatment devices
or systems. reganDess of ownership (includ-
ing federal facilities) used in the storage,
treatment, recycling, or reclamation of mu-
nicipal or domestic sewage, including land
dedicated for the disposal of sewage sludge.
Tfrii df fitrit"11* rtftffl not "***'Kfrr fffpc tai Vs
or stmflsrdevices__In States where there is
no approved State sludge management
program..abe Regional Administrator may
designate, any person subject to the stan-
dards for sewage sludge use and disposal in
40 CFR Part 503 asa'treatment works treat-
ing domestic sewage,'™ when be or she finds
that such designation is necessary to ensure
that such person is in compliance with 40
CFR Part 503." (81212)
Important Note:
Compliance is required by
the dates above, regardless
of whether a permit has
been issued.
8A-7
-------
Sludge Use or Disposal Regunaont F«a Sh»»i S*mt
Practices and Materials
Not Regulat«* by
40 CFH Part 503
(Part 257)
(PCS*) (Part 7*1}
(Put am
»tudg» loot whfch
or any
PnetfoM which may bo ngutetad
by ttw NatfOMl S*w«g*Skidg»
Program in tho luturo. -
Under this definition. fjci>fry»5 which
must apply for a permit include the genea-
All generators of sewage sludge that wfll be
. land appued.uicinefjued. placed inasurface
disposal site, or sent to a municipal solid
waste landfill, will need to apply for a
permit. Also, all persons who change the
quality (It., change me pathogen level, the
vector atnvtion characteristics, orthepol-
ItttttU OOQOBQB9DOO) OK ^g^yjuw ••UQflB tDalt
wiUbe land appHcri.incaerated.orplacedin
a surface disposal site, wfll need to apply for
a permit.
For example, a composting facility
would be mi|iiHf
-------
Sludga U«a or Disposal RacuUBteni Fact Shaa* Ctnai
1993
Regulated Use and
Disposal Practices
Land Application
Land application is defined as "the
spraying or spreading of sewage sludge onto
the land surface; die injection of sewage
sludge below the land surface: or the incor-
poration of sewage sludge into the soil so
that sewage sludge can either condition the
soil or fertilize crops or vegetation grown in
the soil" (5503.11 (h)). Exampkssreoseat
reclamation sites as a soil conditioner; use
by sod farms; and the disthbutioo of sludge
as a commercial fertilizer.
Surface Disposal
A surface disposal site is an area which
contains one or more "sewage sludge anils,"
where only sewage sludge is placed for final
disposal. This term does not include mu-
nicipal solid waste landfills that accept
sewage sludge. Furthermore, this does not
include land on which sewage sludge is
placed for either storage or treatment
(§503.21 (n) and (p))
Asanile of thumb, storage is placement
of sludge on a sue for op to 2 yens. If
sewage sludge is stand for nave Dan 2
years, then a rationale supporting me need
for the additional time should be submioed
toitepemuoingauthority. Fbrmoreinfor-
mation on storage. caD your EPA Regkxul
Sludge Coordinator.
Disposal in a municipal solid waste
landfill (MSWLF) is not considered surface
disposal. A generator who sends sewage
sludge to a MSWLF needs to apply for a
permit, but die MSWLF is mi regained by
the National Sewage Sludge Program.
Examples of surface disposal mcbjde
disposal in a sewage sludge monofia and the
trenching of septage.
Incineration
Incineration is defined as me combos*
tion of the organic mano and
IT12Qfif in $C*W8B9 SiQQflC 4tt flt^BI
tures in an enclosed device mat fires only
sewage sludge and an auxiliary fueL The
auxiliary fuel can include, but is not limited
to, natural gas. fuel oil. coal, and municipal
solid waste. Municipalsolidwastecanbeup
to 30% of the combined dry weight of the
sewage sludge and the municipal solid waste.
Hazardous waste is not considered an auxil-
iary fuel. (§503.41 (b), (g) and (k))
Are You Regulated by
The National Sewage Sludge Program?
AM you m
or
atudgaraguu
No
t
DoyouMnd*
municipal aoad
of
I by Part SW?
•gadudgatoa
ilandB?
YM
YM
You ara raautatod and «4I ntod t>
No
An you
Do you changa fw Ojuatfrt o*
Do you )uat land apply
YM
You «« nood to apply far • pwmrt.
Howvw. fto iwnieipal sold ww
•notl * not mputaM toy PM 503
and «• not iiMd •> appty tor • pamtt.
You an mauattBd and wi naad to
apply tar apanntt.
Yaa
Yoa
You an ragutatod and wl naad b
apply tor a paimk.
You ara raguawd and «A naad to
apply tor a pam*
You an ragutoMd. but gtnaraly
do not -naad to apply tor a
ptYmKi HOWWSJf, (f yOU aTWUt
you may ba laqubad to apply for
aparmk.
You am
QB not
pamiL
but ganarally
to apply tor a
YM
You may ba aubjact to aoma
PtOQfSfTU Out
oo nrt fpiMQ B appty
toraparmlt
You am probably not
by ha National Sawaga Sudot
•Part 503 only raguta
i la land appaad. Mnantod hi a
itor. or plaoad In a turte* dnpoaaJ unk.
ojuaiiy criavia. Tha UIHKIB arai patfiogarax
chamoariatleB. and ivgUatod orgw* and Inorgante p
8A-9
-------
Siudg* Us* or Disoosal 8«gu«9onf PaoShMtSfm*
MlW i •»?"
Publication
Sources
NMtoMtTl
NTiS
S2B5 Port Royal Rd.
SpmotiaU. VA 22161
Tftto: (703)4i7-«SSO
Nstfonal Sun* Rows
NSFC
Tala: (800) 6244301
1200 Champsn Ad. Room 310
CohMibut. OH 43212
Tale: {•14)202471?
Moral R«glst»r NoUew
P«t 503 wn puttWwd on Frtnivy 19.
1993 U 90 FMraf
mmtt to *
Pr
pwmit
Regional Sludge Coordinators
(tuMtiwdon fttawy 18.
Of «M ^PCHnV Wfc^pWiPR MaWjf OOawQat*
. and Dubtte tibrariat ara
SLUDGE
PUBLICATIONS
POTWShNlot aaMpHng * Analyrta
OuMHMMI HMT wfflMI0
UM
1M3
EPA'« Polay
UM«f
•ndlhalMw T
PfOflWR 8IM ™
dem, M ffflaTW (Hay 2,1«M)
(AiMOdad V1M3, M « FRM04)
REGION 1
Thatma Hamfton
JFKFadwalBUg.
Ona Congrass St
BoMon, MA 02203
Tata: (617)5660569
REGION 2
AiaRoufaaai
26 Fadacal PtUA
N4wYork.NY1Q27B
T«4a: (212) 264-3663
REGIONS
AmCwWiuff
(3WM55)
REGION 6
SMphaiwKordzi
(6-WPM)
1446 Rets Awf 1200
OaJaa. TX 75202-2733
Tata: (214) 655-7520
REGION?
JohnOum
Kansas City. KS 66101
Tato: (913) 551-7594
REGIONS
Phtodrtphia. PA 10107
Tato: (215)597-9408
REGION 4
Vmca Miter
34SCourttandSt.N.E.
Attama,GA3036S
Tata: (404) 347-2391
REGIONS . c . .
Jahn Oototti. ft^ 0
-------
SEWAGE SLUDGE
OR BIOSOLIDS
USE OR DISPOSAL DOCUMENTS
List Compiled by:
Sharie Centilla, USEPA, OWM/Permits
Division (202) 260-6052
Sewage sludge pubications are available from the fotowing sources. Not al documents are
avalabto from el sources. Please note sources in margin adjacent to document name.
Resources Center COW Resource Canter)
OWRC
Offtee of Water Resources
USEPA - RC-4100
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington. D.C. 2O460
Tata: (202) 260-7786
ERIC
CERI
i Information Center (EMC)
1929 Kenny Road
Columbus, OH 43210-1080
Tata: (614) 292-6717 or Fax: <614) 292-0263
Cantar for Emrin
InslNuts
NTIS
CEM Publication.
26 Wast Martin Uithar King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45248
Tata: (513) 569-7562 or Fax: (513) 569-7566
U.S. Department of Commarca
I Technical Information Sarvie* (NTIS)
5285 Pen Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Tale: (703) 487-4650 or (800) 553-6847
n am uMd by MTV. Other >
NSFC
i (NSFC)
c/o.WVUnivarsity
P.O. Box 6064
Morgantown, Wast Virginia 26506-6064
Tele: (800) 624-83O1 or Fax: (304) 293-3161
8A-11
-------
PUBLICATIONS ON SLUDGE/B1OSOUDS
August 1994
OWRC Guidance for Writing Case-By-Case Permit Requirements for Municipal Sewage Sludge (EPA
NTIS 505/8-90-001), May 1990; USEPA OWEC/Permits Div; NTtS (PB91-145508); (1989
NSFC document: NTIS only; revised March 1993: new title: Guidance For Writing Permits for Use
or Disposal of Sewage Sludge.; draft only available from OW Resource Center; final
available late 1994)
NTIS
POTW Sludge Sampling and Analysis Guidance Document, August, 1989; USEPA
OWEC/Permits Div; available only from NTIS (PB93-227957); (being revised late 1994)
OWRC Preparirw Sewage Stodge For Land Appfoxtnr or Surface Disposal: A Guide for Pn
NTIS of Sewage Sludge on the Monrtoring, Recordlteeping, end Reporting Requirements of the
NSFC Fader* Stamtaro* For Use or Disposal of Se»*g* Sludge, 40 CFK Pen 503 (EPA 83^B-93-
002a); August 1993.
OWRC Surface Disposal of Sewage Sludge: A Guide For Owners/Operator* of Surf^
NTIS Fecttties on the Monitoring, Recordkoeping, and r^tm^ation Requirements of the Federal
NSFC Standards For the Uae or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 CFR Part 503: May 1 994.
OWRC Land Application of.
bdjoe: A Guide For Land ApoOers on the Recordkeeping and
Notification Requirement of the Federal Standard* For the Use or Disposal of Sewage
Sludge. 40 CFR Part 503: Available September 1994 from OW Resource Center.
OWRC Qtwtforw 4/4n»ww»cwT Part 5O3; available late 1994
OWRC 7WC Continuous t
Guidance for Pert 503 For Sewag
Incinerators'. June 1994
OWRC EfldfflaLBaoJBfi Notice 5/2/89 Final Sludge State Progn
t end Permitting Regulations
OWRC fe^rml Ranter Mntiee 7/24780 General Pimuemuomnt A HPOfS RmoulatfDn Chmnees tthe
Domestic Sewage Study)
OWRC Video: Sewage Sludge Sampling Techniques, 20 minutes long, USEPA OWEC Enforcement
Division; 1993
OWRC
Municipal Support DfvWon Pubications- Sludge Treatmem aod Disposal:
NTIS
NTIS
NTIS
NTIS
itai Regulations A Technology: Use A Disposal of Municipal Wastawater Sludge
(PB 80200546 for NTIS only). March 1989
Anaerobic Sludge Digestion: Operations Manual (EPA 430/09-76-O01) (PB 250129/AS for
NTIS only). Fab. 1976
\
Appicetion of Sewage Sludge to Cropland; Appraisal of Potential Hazards of the Heavy
Metals to Plants and Animals (EPA 430/09-76-013) (PB 264015/AS for NTIS only), Nov.
1976
Sludge HandSng A Conditioning - Operations Manual (EPA 430/09*784)02) (PB 279449/AS
for NTIS only). Fab. 1978
8A-12
-------
NTIS
NT1S
NTHS
NTIS
NTIS
NTIS
NTIS
NTIS
OWRC
NTIS
NSFC
ERIC
OWRC
NTIS
NSFC
ERIC
OWRC
NTIS
NSFC
OWRC
NTIS
NSFC
Composting Processes to Stabilize A Disinfect Municipal Sewage Sludge (EPA 430/09-81 -
011) (PB 81240509 for NTIS only), June 1981
Institutional Constraints & Public Acceptance Barriers to Utilization of Municipal
Wastewater A Sludge For Land Reclamation A Biomass Productions (EPA 430/09-81 -013)
(PB 83128629 for NTIS only). Jury 1981
Sludge & the Land: The Rofe of Sot & Water Conservation Districts in Land Application of
Sewage Stodge (EPA 430/09-82-007) (PB 83156307 for NTIS only), S«pt. 1982
Sludge Recycling for Agricultural Use (EPA 430/O9-82-O08) (PB 83164202 for NTIS only),
Oct. 1982
Multiple-Hearth & Fluid Bed Sludge Incinerators: Design A Operational Considerations (EPA
430/09-85-002) (PB 86179660 for NTIS only), Sept. 1985
Heat Treatment/Low Pressure Oxidation Systems: Design A Operational Considerations
(EPA 430/09-85-001) (PB 86120003 for NTIS only), Sept 1985
Startup A Operation of Chemical Process Technologies in the Municipal Sector: The Carver-
Greenfield Process for Sludge Drying (EPA 430/09-89-007) (PB 90161902 for NTIS only).
June 1989
Evaluation of Sludge Management Systems: Evaluation Checklist A Supporting Commentary
(EPA 430/9-80-001)
-------
OWRC Land Application of Municipal Study*; (EPA 625/1-83-016) Oct. 1983; bring revised &
CERI renamed: Access £tes&n Manual for Land Application of Sewage Sludge & Domestic
Septage'; revision available July 1995
Septage Treatment end Disposal; (EPA 625/6-84/009) Oct. 1984
OWRC
CERI
OWRC
CERI
OWRC
CERI
OWRC
CERI
OWRC
CERI
OWRC
CERI
OWRC
CERI
OWRC
CERI
NHS
Handbook: estimating Sludge Mgmt Costs (EPA 625/6-85/010); Oct. 1985
Dewatering Municipal Wastewater Sludges; (EPA 625/1-87/014) Sept. 1987
Summary Report: In-Vassal Composting of Municipal Wastewater Sludge (EPA 62S/-8-89-
16)
Autothemal TnermopnSic Aerobic Digestion of Municipal Westewaw Sludge: (EPA
625/10-90/007)
Use and Disposal of Municipal Wastewater Stodge (EPA 625/10-84/003)
ORD ASS Users' Manual (V 2.0) (EPA 6OO/M-91 A>50}
Composting Municipal Sludge: A Technology Evaluation (EPA 600/2-87-O21); PB87-
171252/AS tar NTIS only
CERI CEFOWRD ELECTRONIC BU11ETM BOARD: Tele: (513) 669-7810 (24 houra operation) To
11
USEPA ow/orneaj or
503
Support DOCUIIMIIIB rOf Part
NTIS TSD for Land Application of Sewage Sludge. Volume i (PB93-1 1 0575 for NTIS only)
NTIS TSD Fof Lend Application of Sewage Sludge, Vohane II (PB93-1 10583 for NTIS only)
NTIS TSD For Surface Disposal of Sewage Sludge (VQ33-\ 10691 for NTIS only)
NTIS TSD fa Imzneration of Sewage Shxfa {PB93-WW7 tor NT\$ or*?)
NTIS TSD for Pathogen A Vector Attraction Reduction* Sewage Sludge (PB93--I "\Q6O9iOT
NTIS only)
NTIS Humen HeafOj Ks* Assessment fa^ Use & Disposa/ of S«w»ge Studye
Regulation (PB93-1 1 1640 for NTIS only)
•_
NTIS 77>« fiogutatory Impact Analysis (PB93-1 1 0625 for NTIS only)
8A-14
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4201)
EPA 832-F-94-OQ2
April19«4
-------
Why are CSOs a problem?
Since CSOs are comprised of raw
sewage, commercial and industrial wastes,
and storm water runoff, many different types
of pollutants may be present. The main
constituents of CSOs are untreated human
and industrial wastes, toxic materials like oil
and pesticides, and floating debris washed
into the sewer system from streets and their
drainage area. These pollutants can affect
your health when you swim in CSO-polluted
water or eat fish or shellfish contaminated
by CSOs. CSO impacts on water quality are
unique to each location and may be
responsible for beach closures, shellfish bed
closures, fish kills, and other water quality
degradation in your community.
How are
regulated?
CSOs are considered to be "point
sources" of pollution under the Clean Water
Act (CWA). The CWA requires EPA and
States to issue permits for controlling point
sources, including discharges from CSOs.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits must be issued to
address CSOs.
Permits are written to meet the water
quality standards for a particular
waterbody. Water quality standards are
State-adopted or Federally-promulgated
rules that serve as the goals for the
waterbody and the legal basis for NPDES
permit requirements under the CWA.
For example, a waterbody may be
designated for a variety of recreational
activities (e.g., swimming, boating, fishing,
etc.), and standards are developed
accordingly.
What are the key components
of the Policy?
EPA's CSO Policy ensures that
municipalities, permitting and water quality
standards authorities, and the public
engage in a comprehensive and
coordinated planning effort to achieve cost-
effective CSO controls and ultimately
comply with the Clean Water Act. The
Policy recognizes the site-specific nature of
CSOs and their impacts, and provides the
necessary flexibility to tailor controls to local
situations. Key components include:
Municipalities should Immediately
Implement the nine minimum
controls (see box on next page);
Municipalities should use a
targeted approach, giving the
highest priority to environmentally
sensitive receiving waters;
• Municipalities, in cooperation
wtth EPA, States, environmental
agencies, and water quality
groups, must develop long-term
CSO control plans. These plans
should identify and evaluate various
control strategies, and lead to
selection of an approach that is
sufficient to meet water quality
standards.
• States may decide to review and
revise, as appropriate, State water
quality standards during the CSO
long-term planning process.
The financial capability of
municipalities may be considered
when developing schedules for
implementation of CSO controls.
Public participation is essential
throughout all CSO planning and
implementation efforts.
8A-16
I
-------
The Policy also provides flexibility to
accommodate ongoing or completed CSO
projects, the special needs of small
communities, and watershed planning.
How expensive are CSO control
measures?
Past CSO proposals have carried
national price tags as high as $160 billion or
more. The negotiated Policy has reduced
that cost to $41 billion, a substantial
savings. CSO costs may be high in some
communities, but low in others. The severity
and frequency of CSOs, plus the local water
quality standards, will determine the types of
controls that are needed and their costs.
EPA recognizes that financial
considerations are often a major factor
affecting the implementation of CSO
controls. For that reason, the Policy allows
consideration of a community's financial
capability in connection with the long-term
CSO control planning effort, water quality
standards review, and enforcement actions.
However, communities are ultimately
responsible for aggressively pursuing
financial arrangements for implementation of
the minimum controls and the long-term
CSO control plan.
EPA and State agencies will work
with CSO communities to find economically
achievable solutions that will improve public
health and create a safer environment for
everyone.
How will the Policy be enforced?
Elements of the Policy will be
incorporated into National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits or other appropriate enforceable
mechanisms.
The enforcement portion of the Policy
indicates EPA's intent to commence an
enforcement initiative immediately against
municipalities that have CSOs that occur
during dry weather. It also provides
guidance on the enforcement of the wet*
weather elements of the Policy.
Nine Minimum Controls
Communities should immediately
implement the following minimum controls:
1. Proper operation and regular
maintenance programs for the
sewer system and CSOs;
2. Maximum use of the collection
system for storage;
3. Review and modification of
pretreatment requirements to
assure CSO impacts are minimized;
4. Maximization of flow to the
municipal sewage treatment plant
for treatment;
5. Prohibition of CSOs during dry
weather;
6. Control of solid and floatable
materials in CSOs;
7. Pollution prevention;
8. Public notice to ensure that the
public receives adequate
notification of CSO occurences
and impacts; and
9. Monitoring to effectively
characterize CSO impacts and the
efficacy ot CSO controls.
For more information
For copies of the CSO Control
Policy, please contact the Office of Water
Resource Center in Washington, DC, at
(202)260-7786. Or write:
Office of Water Resource Center
US EPA, Maiteode RC-4100
Washington, DC 20460
8A-17
-------
Diagram of a Combined Sewer System
During Wet Weather
This diagram shows how domestic wastewater (sewage),
industrial and commercial wastes and storm water are
collected in the same sewer pipes in a combined sewer
system. During dry weather, all of this wastewater should
be carried to the wastewater treatment plant for treatment.
But when it rains, some of the combined wastewater
overflows untreated into the nearest receiving water,
causing a combined sewer overflow.
Wet Weather Flow
to Overflow Point
Storm Water and Dry Weather Flow
OrepctoimeiceMor
8A-18
-------
PRACTICAL EXERCISE
Special Conditions for Municipal Dischargers
SITUATION:
The City of Otherville has a population of 30,000. The wastewater treatment plant, an
activated sludge treatment plant, has a design flow of 4 million gallons per day (MGD).
Municipal wastewater is collected throughout the service area by a combined sewer system;
the main interceptor can contain up to 8 MGD. The City discharges into a river, and
comprises 60 percent of the river flow at low flow (7Q10). During wet weather, one of the
seven lift stations hi the service area cannot handle all of the flow, resulting in untreated sewer
overflows to the river.
The City had been disposing of its treatment plant sludge at the municipal solid waste landfill,
but is currently stockpiling its sludge on-site until the landfill's co-composting operation for
leaf litter and sludge becomes operational.
The City's wastewater treatment plant also serves two adjacent towns. The City has had a
pretreatment program since 1984. The last pretreatment compliance inspection (PCI) report
noted the following:
There is a significant industrial user (SIU) in one of the contributing towns of which
the City had been unaware of.
The City is now accepting treated groundwater from a leaking underground tank
cleanup operation at the City's vehicle maintenance garage. The annual pretreatment
monitoring of influent and effluent indicates benzene present in the influent, but most
effluent concentrations are below detection. The City has no local limit for benzene.
QUESTIONS:
(1) Briefly describe the general or specific special conditions (if any) that should be
included in the City's permit:
Combined sewer overflows
Pretreatment program.
(2) Any there any other general or specific special conditions that should be considered for
the City? If so, then describe briefly below.
8A-19
-------
-------
MODULE 8 - SUGGESTED REFERENCE MATERIALS
NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance Document (EPA/600/9/79-045) . EPA,
Office of Water Enforcement and Office of Research and Development, December 1979.
Guidance Manual for Developing Best Management Practices (BMPs)CEPA 833-B-93-
004). EPA, Office of Water, October 1993.
Storm Water Management for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution Prevention
Plans and Best Management Practices (EPA 832-R-92-006). EPA, Office of Water,
September 1992.
Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC). EPA, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration,
April 1990.
U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC): Electronic
Information Exchange System (EIES) -User Guide. Version 1.1 (EPA/6QO/9-89/086) .
EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Office of Environmental Engineering and
Technology Demonstration, September 1989.
Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual (EPA 625-7-88-003). EPA, Office
of Research and Development, July 1988.
(EPA/625-10-86/005) . EPA. Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, July 1986.
Guidance for Developing Control Authority Enforcement Response Plans, EPA Office
of Water, September 1989.
Guidance Manual for POTW Pretreatment Program Development . EPA, Office of
Water Enforcement and Permits, October 1983.
Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge
Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program. EPA, Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits, December 1985. Supplemental Manual on the Development and
Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program. EPA,
Office of Water, May 1991.
RCRA Information on Hazardous Wastes for Publicly Owned Treatment Works. EPA,
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, September 1985.
Guidance for Writing Case-by-Case Permit Requirements for Municipal Sewage Sludge
(EPA 505/8-90-001). EPA, Office of Water, May 1990.
-------
-------
MODULE # 9
TITLE: Standard Conditions of NPDES Permits
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Identify the purpose of standard conditions
• Discuss methods to implement standard conditions
• Provide understanding of each standard condition
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture
Approximate Presentation Time: 45 minutes
Review Questions/Exercise: None
Applicable Statutory /Regulatory Citations:
40 CFR §122.41 Conditions applicable to all permits
40 CFR §122.42 Additional conditions applicable to specified categories of NPDES permits
-------
-------
Module 9
Standard Conditions ofNPDES Permits
Standard Conditions of
NPDES Permits
Learning Objectives
» Describe the rote of "boilerplate"
language
• Discuss methods for placing
standard conditions in permits
• Review the types of standard
conditions
Standard Conditions in the Permit
• Standard conditions must appear
in every NPDES permit
• Standard conditions may be placed
in permits verbatim or by reference
(40 CFR §122.41 and §122.42)
NPDES Permit WritersTraining Course
9-1
-------
Module 9
Standard Conditions ofNPDES Permits
Types of Standard Conditions
• Duty to comply
• Duty to reapply
• Need to halt or reduce activity
not a defense
• Duty to mitigate
• Proper O & M
• Permit actions
• Property rights
Types of Standard Conditions
(Continued)
• Duty to provide information
• Duty to allow inspections/entry
• Monitoring and records
• Signatory/certification
• Planned change
- Plant alteration/addition
- Pollutants/flow/production
- Sludge use/disposal method
Types of Standard Conditions
(Continued)
• Anticipated noncompliance
• Nontransferability
* Monitoring reports
• Compliance schedules
• 24 hour reporting of endangerment
*• Bypass
* Upset
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
9-2
-------
Module 9
Standard Conditions ofNPDES Permits
Other Standard Conditions
• Notification levels for existing non-
municipal discharges
- e.g., 200 ug/l for acrotein and acrylonrtrile
• Notification for POTWs
- New significant indirect discharger
- Change in pollutant volume or character
• Annual report for municipal separate
storm sewer systems
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
9-3
-------
9-4
-------
MODULE # 10
TITLE:
Administrative Process
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
• Explain regulatory requirements and procedures of permit issuance
• Define requirements and need for fact sheet and statement of basis, and provide examples of good
permit documentation
• Discuss public participation requirements
• Explain permit appeals process
• Explain EPA and State/Tribe roles in issuance process
• Discuss administrative activities after issuance of final permit
• Identify the conditions under which a permitting authority may re-open existing permits
LOGISTICS:
Presentation Format: Lecture, example, exercise
Approximate Presentation Time: 1.5 hours
Review Questions/Exercise: none
Applicable Statutory/Regulatory Citations:
CWA Section 401
40 CFR§ 122.61
40 CFR §122.62
40 CFR §122.63
40 CFR §122.64
40 CFR Part 123
40 CFR Part 124
Subpart A
Subpart D
Subpart E
Subpart F
Untitled
Transfer of Permits
Modification or Revocation and Reissuance of Permits
Minor Modifications of Permits
Termination of Permits
State Program Requirements
Procedures for Decision Making
General Program Requirements
Specific Procedures Applicable to NPDES Permits
Evidentiary Hearing for EPA-issued NPDES Permits and EPA
terminated RCRA Permits
Non-adversary Panel Procedures
-------
-------
Module 10
Administrative Process
Administrative Process
Learning Objectives
• Describe NPDES permit
administrative procedures
• Discuss requirements and need for
documentation
• Explain public participation
requirements
• Describe administrative activities
after final permit issuance
NPDES Permitting Process
NPDES Permit WritersTraining Course
10-1
-------
Module 10
Administrative Process
NPDES Permitting Process (Continued)
NPDES Administrative Process
The administrative process of developing
and issuing a permit involves:
- Documenting all permit decisions
- Coordinating EPA and State review of the
ili ^A permit
- Providing public notice, conducting
hearings (if appropriate), and responding
to comments
- Defending the permit and modifying after
issuance (if required)
Reasons for Good Documentation
• Streamlines reissuance/complianee-
monitoring process
» Establishes permanent record of the
basis for the permit
• Explains legal basis of permit
• Provides sound basis for future
modifications and permits
• Requires permit writer to be organized
and logical throughout permit
development process
NPDES Permit WritersTraining Course
10-2
-------
Module 10
Administrative Process
Contents of Administrative Record -
Draft Permit
* What is it?
• What is in it?
- Application and supporting data
- Draft permit
- Statement of basis or fact sheet
- Documents/items cited in statement of
basis or fact sheet
- Other Hems supporting permit
development
- Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for new source draft permits
Fact Sheet vs. Statement of Basis
| Fact Start |
• Permit involves a
major facility
• Puiiiin incorporates
a variance
* Permit is an NPDES
96ft6ral permit
• Permit Is subject to
widespread public
interest
| Statement of Basis |
« Used when fact sheet
not required
• Requires:
- Description of
conditions
- Reasons for
conditions
Minimum Elements of a Fact Sheet
• General facility information
- Description of facility or activity
- Sketch or description of location
- Type and quantity of waste/pollutants
discharged
• Summary rationale of permit
conditions
- Applicable statutory/regulatory
citations
- References to administrative record
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
10-3
-------
Module 10
Administrative Process
Minimum Elements of a Fact Sheet
(Continued)
Detailed rationale of permit conditions
- Explanation and calculation of effluent
limitations and conditions
- Specific explanation of:
• Toxic pollutant limits
• Unite on internal wastestreams
• Case-by-case requirements
• Limits on indicator pollutants
• Regulation of users (Non-POTW* only)
- Sewage sludge land application plan
- Inappropriateness of requested variances
Minimum Elements of a Fact Sheet
(Continued)
«• Administrative Requirements
- Permit procedures
• Comment period begin and end i
• Procedures for fe^uestinji 8 hearing
• Public involvement in final decision
- Permitting authority contact name and
telephone
EPA and State/Tribal Roles
• State/Tribal issued permits
- EPA required to review:
• Major municipal and industrials
• General permits
• Class I sludge fadatie*
- EPA reviews other significant permits (minor)
* EPA issued permits
- State/Tribal Section 401 certification required
• Certifies that permit will achieve water quality standard
NPDES Permit WritersTraining Course
10-4
-------
Module 10
Administrative Process
Public Notice
Purpose of public notice
Types of actions requiring public notice
- Tentative denial of application
- Draft NPDES permit
- Public hearing
- Fonnal appeal of permit (after issuance)
- Major permit modifications
(after issuance)
- Granting of evidentiary hearing
(after issuance)
Public Notice (Continued)
Methods applicable to public notice
process
- Publication in newspaper
- Direct mailing
Contents of public notice
- Name and address of regulatory authority
- Name and address of permittee
- Brief description of facility
- Name, address, and telephone of contact
- Additional information
(EPA-tssued permits)
Public Notice (Continued)
Timing of public notice
- After EPA/State review
- Allow at least 30 days for comments
Responding to comments
- Significant comments must be
responded to in writing
NPDES Permit WritersTraining Course
10-5
-------
Module 10
Administrative Process
Public Hearings
• Public hearings may be requested
by any party
* Hearings are optional
* Scheduling the hearing
automatically extends the comment
period until the close of the hearing
[40 CFR §124.12(0)]
• A transcript of the hearing must be
available to interested persons
Contents of Administrative Record -
Final Permit
• AH comments received
* Public hearing tape or transcript
• Response to comments
+ Final EIS for new sources
* Final permit
• Although not mandated, records from
the draft permit should be added
After Final Permit Issuance
• Permit appeals
• Minor/major permit modifications
• Permit termination
• Permit Transfer
NPDES Permit WritersrTraining Course
10-6
L
-------
Module 10
Administrative Process
Permit Appeal
» Used by permittee to contest final permit limits
and conditions
• Must be requested within 30 days following final
permit issuance
- Challenge* limited to is*ua* raised during public
comment on draft permit (unto** good cause is ahown)
» Regional administrator decides to grant/deny
request
* Hearing must be public noticed
» Only contested permit conditions are stayed
Permit Appeal
Permit writers' role during appeal
- Witness for permit authority
- Source of technical knowledge for
attorney
- Assist in developing cross-
examination questions
Minor Modifications
Used to make corrections to permit
conditions
Exempt from administrative procedures
(i.e., draft permit, public notice, etc.)
Actions considered minor:
1. Typographical emm
2. Here frequent monitoring
3. Change m Interim compliance fete (<1ZO days)
4. Change In ownership
S. Change In construction schedule tor new source
6. Deletion of point source outfall
7. Incorporate approved local pietieaiiiieiit program
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
10-7
-------
Module 10
Administrative Process
Major Modifications
• Required to address new information
that may impact permit conditions
• Administrative procedures must be followed
(i.e., draft permit, public notice, etc.)
«• Causes for modification:
1. naopanafwmllUmi
2. Cornel Metrical and fegat mtotalm
3. Falun to notflrMwwtwIStMa
Major Modifications
• Causes for modification:
6. New regulation*
7. Modlficathm of a compliance »chedule(>120
-------
Module 10
Administrative Process
Permit Transfer
Necessary to address change in
owner or operator
Transfer Options
- Transfer by modification or revocation
and reissuance
- Automatic transfer
• Prior 30-day notice
• Written agreement between new and old
owners
• Permit will not be modified or revoked
NPDES Permit Writers-Training Course
10-9
-------
10-10
-------
EXAMPLE NPDES PERMIT
10-11
-------
10-12
-------
Permit Mo.: IL06S4321
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Hater Act, as amended, (33
U.S.C. §1251 et seq; the "Act"),
LUSTER GLASS, INC.
is authorized to discharge from a facility located in Morris, Illinois
to receiving waters named the Illinois River
in accordance with discharge point(a), effluent limitations, monitoring
requirements and other conditions set forth herein. Authorization for discharge
is limited to those outfalls specifically listed in the permit.
This permit shall become effective
August 31, 1989
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,
August 31, 1994.
Signed this
day of
Authorized Permitting Official
Director
Water Management Division
Title
10-13
-------
PART I
Page 2 of 19
Permit No.:
IL0654321
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Sheet"-Issuance and Expiration Dates
I. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
A. Definitions
B. Description of Discharge Points
C. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements
(Includes Compliance Schedules as Appropriate)
II. Monitoring, Recording and Reporting Requirements
A. Representative sampling
B. Monitoring Procedures
C. Penalties for Tampering
D. Reporting of Monitoring Results
E. Compliance Schedule*
F. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
G. Records Content*
H. Retention of Record*
I. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
J. Other Noncompliance Reporting
K. Inspection and Entry
III. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
D. Duty to Mitigate
B. Proper Operation and Maintenance
F. Removed Substances
G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
H. Upset Condition*
I. Toxic Pollutants
J. Change* in Discharge of Toxic Substances
IV. General Requirements
A. Planned Changes
B. Anticipated Noncompliance
C. Permit Actions
D. Duty to Reapply
E. Duty to Provide Information
F. Other Information
G. Signatory Requirements
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
I. Availability of Reports
J. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
K. Coast Guard
L. Property Rights
M. Severability
N. Transfers
O. State Laws
P. Hater Quality Standard Requireraents-Reopener Provision
Q. Toxicity Reopener Provision
V. Special Requirements
A. Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan
B. BMP Implementation
C. Site-Specific BMPs
10-14
-------
PAST I
Page 3 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
I. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
A. Definitions.
1. The "30-day (and monthly) average," other than for fecal coliform
bacteria and total coliform bacteria, is the arithmetic average
of all samples collected during a consecutive 30-day period or
calendar month, whichever is applicable. Geometric means shall
be calculated for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform
bacteria. The calendar month shall be used for purposes of
reporting self-monitoring data on discharge monitoring report
forms.
2. The "7-day (and weekly) average," other than for fecal coliform
bacteria and total coliform bacteria, is the arithmetic mean of
all samples collected during a consecutive 7-day period or
calendar week, whichever is applicable. Geometric means shall be
calculated for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform
bacteria. The 7-day and weekly averages are applicable only to
those effluent characteristics for which there are 7-day average
effluent limitations. The calendar week which begins on Sunday
and ends on Saturday, shall be used for purposes of reporting
self-monitoring data on discharge monitoring report forms.
Weekly averages shall be calculated for all calendar weeks with
Saturdays in the month. If a calendar week overlaps two months
(i.e., the Sunday is in one month and the Saturday in the
following month), the weekly average calculated for that calendar
week shall be included in the data for the month that contains
the Saturday.
3. "Daily Maximum" ("Daily Max.") is the maximum value allowable in
any single sample or instantaneous measurement.
4. "Composite samples" shall be flow proportioned. The composite
sample shall, as a minimum, contain at least four (4) samples
collected over the compositing period. Unless otherwise
specified, the time between the collection of the first sample
and the last sample shall not be less than six (6) hours nor more
than 24 hours. Acceptable methods for preparation of composite
samples are as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
Constant time interval between samples, sample
proportional to flow rate at time of sampling;
volume
Constant time interval between samples, sample volume
proportional to total flow (volume) since last sample. For
the first sample, the flow rate at the time the sample was
collected may be used;
Constant sample volume, time interval between samples
proportional to flow (i.e., sample taken every "X" gallons
of flow); and.
Continuous collection of sample, with sample collection rate
proportional to flow rate.
A "grab" sample, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a
single "dip and take" sample collected at a representative point
in the discharge stream.
10-15
-------
PART I
Page 4 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
6. An "instantaneous" measurement, for monitoring requirement*, is
defined as a single reading, observation, or measurement.
7, "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is
unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based
permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the
reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include
noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error,
improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment
facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or
improper operation.
8. "Bypass* means the intentional diversion of waste streams from
any portion of a treatment facility.
9. "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to
property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to
become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural
resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the
absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean
economic loss caused by delays in production.
10. "Director" means director of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's Water Management Division.
11. "EPA" means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
12. "Sewage Sludge* is any solid, seal-solid or liquid residue that
contains materials removed from domestic sewage during treatment.
Sewage sludge include*, but is not limited to, primary and
secondary solids and sewage sludge products.
13. "Acute Toxicity" occurs when SO percent or more mortality is
observed for either test species (See Part I.e.) at any effluent
concentration. Mortality in the control must simultaneously be
10 percent or less for the effluent results to be considered
valid.
14. "Chronic Toxicity" occurs when the survival, growth, or
reproduction, as applicable, for either test species, at the
effluent dilution(s) designated in this permit (see Part I.e.),
is significantly less (at the 95 percent confidence level) than
that observed for the control specimens.
10-16
-------
PART I
Page 5 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
B.
Description of Discharge Points
The authorization .to discharge provided under this permit is limited to
those outfalls specifically designated below as discharge locations.
Discharges at any location not authorized under an NPDES permit is a
violation of the Clean Water Act and could subject the person{s>
responsible for such discharge to penalties under Section 309 of the Act.
Knowingly discharging from an unauthorized location or failing to report an
unauthorized discharge within a reasonable time from first learning of an
unauthorized discharge could subject such person to criminal penalties as
provided under the Clean Water Act.
Outfall
Serial Number
001
Description of Discharge Point
Discharge of effluent from the wastewater treatment
oil/water separator and settling basins, and cooling
tower blowdown to the Illinois River.
10-17
-------
PART :
Page 6 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
C. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements
1. Effluent Limitations (Outfall 001}
Effective immediately and lasting through the life of the permit, the
permittee, is authorized to discharge from Outfall 001. Such
discharges shall be limited by the permittee as specified below:
Sffluent
Parameter
Flow, HGO
Total Suspended Solids,
Ib/day
mg/1
Oil and Grease,
Ib/day
ng/1
Total Phosphorus,
Ib/day
mg/1
Total Zinc,
Ib/day
rng/1
Total Lead,
Ib/day
mg/1
Whole Effluent Toxicity
(WET), Ttfc b/
pH, S.u.
Temperature
30-Day a/
Average
N/A
351.3
9.23
104.2
2.74
16.5
0.43
3.75
0.1
1.14
0.03
£/
Daily a./
Maximum
N/A
451.1
11.86
104.2
2.74
16. S
0.43
3.75
0.1
1.52
0.04
5.9
£/
d/
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts.
a/ See Definitions, Part I.A. for definition of terms.
b/ The permittee shall demonstrate compliance with WET requirements specified
in Part I.e.3 of this permit.
c/ pH shall not be less than 6.0 s.u. nor greater than 9.0 s.u.
d./ Temperature shall not be greater than 2.8 degrees Centigrade above ambient,
or 1.7 degrees Centigrade above the following maximum limits: from
December 1 through March 31-, 16 degrees Centigrade (60 degrees Fahrenheit)
and from April 1 through November 30, 32 degrees Centigrade (90 degrees
Fahrenheit)-
10-18
-------
PART I
Page 7 of 19
Permit No.: IL06S4321
C. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements
2. Self-Monitoring Requirements (Outfall 001)
As a minimum, upon the effective date of this permit, the following
constituents shall be monitored at the frequency and with the type of
measurement indicated; samples or measurements shall be representative
of the 'volume and nature of the monitored discharge. If no discharge
occurs during the entire monitoring period, it shall be stated on the
Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1} that no discharge or
overflow occurred.
Effluent
Parameter
Flow, MGD b/
Temperature
Total Suspended Solids
Oil and Grease
Total Phosphorus
Total Zinc
Total Lead
Whole Effluent Toxicity
(WET), Chronic
pH
Fre
-------
PART I
Page 8 of 19
Permit Ko.: IL06S4321
C. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements fCont.^
3. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing - Chronic Toxicity
starting the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall
conduct biweekly chronic toxicity tests on a 24 hour composite sample
of the final effluent. If chronic toxicity is detected, the permittee
shall conduct a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation, according to
specifications in Part I.e.4 of this permit. Teat species shall
consist of Pimephales proarelas (Fathead minnows). The chronic
toxicity tests shall be conducted in general accordance with the
procedures set out in the latest revision of "Short-Term Methods for
Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water* to
Freshwater Organisms", EPA/600-4-89-001. If control mortality exceeds
20 percent, the test shall be considered invalid. Chronic toxicity
occurs when the No Observed Effect Concentrations (NOECs) {calculated
within a 95 percent confidence interval) exceed(s) the permit
limit(s). Test results shall be reported along with the Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) submitted for the end of the calendar period
during which the whole effluent test was run. The report shall
include all the physical testing as specified and shall report test
conditions, including temperature, pH, conductivity, mortality, total
residual chlorine concentration, control mortality, and statistical
methods used to calculate an NOEC.
If the results for one year (26 consecutive weeks) of whole effluent
testing indicate no chronic toxicity, the permittee may request, the
permit issuing authority to allow the permittee to reduce testing
frequency. The permit issuing authority may approve, partially
approve, or deny the request based on results and other available
information.
4. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE)
If the permittee fails to meet toxicity requirements specified, in this
permit, the permit issuing authority shall determine that a TRE is
necessary. The permittee shall be so notified and shall initiate a
TRE immediately thereafter. The TRE shall include a TRE Test Plan
that must be submitted to the permitting authority within 60 days
after notification of a TRE requirement. The permitting authority
will then establish a deadline for compliance. The purpose of the TRE
will be to establish the cause of the toxicity, locate the source(s)
of the toxicity, and control or provide treatment for the toxicity
prior to the deadline.
If acceptable to the permit issuing authority, this permit may be
reopened and modified to incorporate any additional numerical
limitations, a modified compliance schedule if judged necessary by the
permit issuing authority, and/or a modified whole effluent protocol.
Failure to conduct an adequate TRE, or failure to submit a plan or
program as described above, or the submittal of a plan or program
judged inadequate by the permit issuing authority, shall in no way
relieve the permittee from the deadline for compliance contained in
this permit.
10-20
-------
PART II
Page 9 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
II. MONITORING, RECORDING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A.
B.
C.
D.
£.
F.
G.
Representative Sampling. Samples taken in compliance with the
monitoring requirements established under Part I shall be collected
from the effluent stream prior to discharge into the receiving waters.
Samples and measurements shall be representative of the volume and
nature of the monitored discharge.
Monitorina Procedures. Monitoring must be conducted according to test
procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test
procedures have been specified in this permit.
Penalties for Tampering. The Act provides that any person who
falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this
permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years
per violation, or by both.
Reporting of Monitoring Results. Effluent monitoring results obtained
during the previous month(s) shall be summarized for each month and
reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1),
postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month following the
completed reporting period. if no discharge occurs during the
reporting period, "no discharge" shall be reported. Until further
notice, sludge monitoring results may be reported in the testing
laboratory's normal format (there is no EPA standard form at this
time), but should be on letter size pages. Legible copies of these,
and all other reports required herein, shall be signed and certified
in accordance with the Signatory Requirements (see Part IV). and
submitted to the Director, Water Management Division and the State
water pollution control agency at the following addresses:
original to:
copy to:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Attention: Hater Management Division
Compliance Branch
State Department of Health
Attention: Permits and Enforcement
Compliance Schedules. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or
any progress reports on interim and final requirements contained in
any Compliance Schedule of this permit shall be submitted no later
than 14 days following each schedule date.
Additional Monitoring bv the Permittee. If the permittee monitors any
pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, using test
procedures approved under 40 CFR 136 or as specified in this permit,
the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation
and reporting of the data submitted in the DMR. Such increased
frequency shall also be indicated.
Records Contents. Records of monitoring information shall include:
1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
2. The initials or narne(s) of the individuals) who performed the
sampling or measurements;
3. The date(s) analyses were performed;
4. The time(s) analyses were initiated;
10-21
-------
PAST II
Page 10 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
S. The initials or name(s) of individual(s) who performed the
analyses;
6. References and written procedures, when available, for the
analytical techniques or methods used; and,
7. The results of such analyses, including the bench sheets,
instrument readouts, computer disks or tapes, etc., used to
determine these results.
H. Retention of Records. The permittee shall retain records of all
monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance
records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous
monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this
permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for
this permit, for a period of at least three years from the date of the
sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be
extended by request of the Director at any time. Data collected on
site, copies of Discharge Monitoring Reports, and a copy of this NPOES
permit must be maintained on site during the duration of activity at
the permitted location.
I. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting.
1. The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may seriously
endanger health or the environment as soon as possible, but no
later than twenty-four (24) hours from the time the permittee
first became aware of the circumstances. The report shall be
made to the EPA Emergency Response Branch at (312) 293-1788 and
the State at (312) 370-9395.
2. The following occurrences of noncompliance shall be reported by
telephone to the EPA Compliance Branch at (312) 293-1S89 and the
State at (312) 331-4590 by the first workday (8:00 a.m. - 4:30
p.m.} following the day the permittee became aware of the
circumstances:
a. Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any -effluent
limitation in the permit (See Part III.G.. Bypass of
Treatment Faci1it ies.);
b. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the
permit (See Part III.H.. Uoset conditions.1; or,
c. Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of
the pollutants listed in the permit to be reported within 24
hours.
3. A written submission shall also be provided within five days of
the time that the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances.
The written submission shall contain:
a. A description of the noncompliance and'its cause;
b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and
times;
c. The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if
it has not been corrected; and,
d. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent
reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
10-22
-------
PART II
Page 11 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
4. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-caae basis
if the oral report has been received within 24 hours by the
Compliance Branch, Water Management Division by phone, (312) 293-
1589.
S. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part II.P..
Reporting of Monitoring Results.
Other Noncompliance Reporting. Instances of noncompliance not
required to be reported within 24 hours shall be reported at the time
that monitoring reports for Part II.D. are submitted. The reports
shall contain the information listed in Part II. 1.2.
Inspection and Entry. The permittee shall allow the Director, or an
authorized representative, upon the presentation of credentials and
other documents as may be required by law, to:
1. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or
activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept
under the conditions of this permit;
2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that
must toe kept under the conditions of this permit;
3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations
regulated or required under this permit; and,
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of
assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act,
any substances or parameters at any location.
10-23
-------
PART III
Page 12 of 19
Permit No,: IL06S4321
III. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
E.
F.
Duty to Comely. The permittee must comply with all conditions of this
permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act
and is grounds for- enforcement action; for permit termination,
revocation and reissuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit
renewal application. The permittee shall give the Director advance
notice of any planned changes at the permitted facility or of an
activity which may result in permit noncompliance.
Penalties for Violations of Permit conditions. The Act provides that
any person who violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301,
302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to a civil
penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day of such' violation. Any person
who willfully or negligently violates permit conditions implementing
Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, or 308 of the Act is subject to a fine of
not less than $5,000, nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or
by imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. Except as
provided in permit conditions in Part i;iI.G.. Bypass of Treatment
Facilities and Part III.H.. Unset Conditions, nothing in this permit
shall be construed to relieve the permittee of the civil or criminal
penalties for noncompliance.
Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense. It shall not be a
defense for a permittee in an enforcement action that it would have
been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit.
Duty to Mitigate. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to
minimize or prevent any discharge in violation of this permit which
has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
Proper Operation and Maintenance. The permittee shall at all times
properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment
and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by
the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this
permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes. adequate
laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures.
This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems which are installed by a permittee only
when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the
conditions of the permit. However, the permittee shall operate, as a
minimum, one complete set of each main line unit treatment process
whether or not this process is needed to achieve permit effluent
compliance.
Removed Substances. Collected screenings, grit, solids, sludges, or
other pollutants removed in the course of treatment shall be buried or
disposed of in such a manner so as to prevent any pollutant from
entering any waters of the state or creating a health hazard. Filter
backwash shall not be directly blended with or enter either the final
plant discharge and/or waters of the United States.
Bypass of Treatment Facilities;
1. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The permittee may allow any
bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations to be
exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to
assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to
the provisions of paragraphs 2. and 3, of this section.
10-24
-------
PART III
Page 13 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
2.
Notice:
Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of
the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if
possible at least 60 days before the date of the bypass.
Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of
an unanticipated bypass as required under Part II.I..
Twenty-four Hour Reporting.
3. Prohibition of bypass.
a.
b.
Bypass is prohibited and the Director may take enforcement
action against a permittee for a bypass, unless:
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass,
such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities,
retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during
normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition
is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should
have been installed in the exercise of reasonable
engineering judgement to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime
or preventive maintenance; and,
(3) The permittee submitted notices as required under
paragraph 2. of this section.
The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects, if the Director determines
that it will meet the three conditions listed above in
paragraph 3.a. of this section.
H. Upset Conditions.
1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense
to an action brought for noncompliance with technology based
permit effluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph 2.
of this section are met. No determination made during
administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by
upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final
administrative action subject to judicial review (i.e.,
Permittees will have the opportunity for a judicial determination
on any claim of upset only in an enforcement action brought for
noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations).
2. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset... -A permittee
who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall
demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating
logs, or other relevant evidence that:
a. An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the
cause(s) of the upset;
b. The permitted facility was at the time being properly
operated;
c. The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required
under Part II.I.. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncomoliance
Reporting; and,
d. The permittee complied with any remedial measures required
under Part III_.D. . Duty to Mitigate.
10-25
-------
PART III
Page 14 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof.
Toxic Pollutants. The permittee shall comply with effluent standards
or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) of the Act for toxic
pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish
those standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been
modified to incorporate the requirement.
Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances. Notification shall be
provided to the Director as soon as the permittee knows of, or has
reason to believe:
1. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result
in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic
pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge
will exceed the highest of the following "notification levels":
a. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ug/L);
b. Two hundred micrograns per liter (200 ug/L) for acrolein and
aerylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/L)
for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-»ethyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol;
and one milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony;
c. Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for
that pollutant in the permit application in accordance with
40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or,
d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40
CFR 122.44(f).
2. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result
in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of a
toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that
discharge will exceed the highest of the following "notification
levels*:
a. Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/L);
b. One milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony:
c. Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for
that pollutant in the permit application in accordance with
40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or,
d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40
CFR I22.44(f).
10-26
-------
PART IV
Page IS of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
IV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Planned Changes. The permittee shall give notice to the Director as
soon aa possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to
the permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
1. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one
of the criteria for determining whether a facility ia a new
source as determined in 40 CFR 122.29(b); or
2, The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature
or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This
notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification
requirements under Part IV.A.I.
B. Anticipated Moncoraoliance. The permittee shall give advance notice of
any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may
result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
C. Permit Actions. This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or
terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the permittee for a
permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not
stay any permit condition.
D. Duty to Reaoolv. If the permittee wishes to continue an activity
regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit,'the
permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit. The application
Should be submitted at least 180 days before the expiration date of
this permit.
E. Duty to Provide Information. The permittee shall furnish to the
Director, within a reasonable time, any information which the Director
may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking
and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance
with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Director,
upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
F. Other Information. When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to
submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted
incorrect information in a permit application or any report to the
Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
G. Sionatorv Reauirements. All applications, reports or information
submitted to the Director shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer;
b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general
partner or the proprietor, respectively;
c. For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency:
by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected
official.
2. All reports required by the permit and other information
requested by the Director shall be signed by a person described
above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A
person is a duly authorized representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described
above and submitted to the Director, and,
10-27
-------
PART IV
Page 16 of 19
Permit No.: IL06S4321
b. The authorization specified either an individual or a
position having responsibility for the overall operation of
the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of
plant manager, operator of a well or a well field,
superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an
individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized
representative may thus be either a named individual or any
individual occupying a named position.)
3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under paragraph
IV.G.2. is no longer accurate because a different individual or
position has responsibility for the overall operation of the
facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of
paragraph IV.G.2. must be submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports, information, or applications to be
signed by an authorized representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section
shall make the following certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted.
Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the
system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering.the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware
that there are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment
for knowing violations."
H. Penalties for Falsification of Reports. The Act provides that any
person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or
certification in any record or other document submitted or required to
be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or
reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction be
punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by
imprisonment for not more than two years per violation, or by both.
I. Availability of Reports. Except for data determined to be
confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, all reports prepared in accordance
with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection
at the offices of the State water pollution control agency and the
Director. As required by the Act, permit applications, permits and
effluent data shall not be considered confidential.
J. oil and Hazardous Substance Liability. Nothing in this permit shall
be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or
relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties to which the permittee is or may be subject under
Section 311 of the Act.
K. Coast Guard. If the Permittee operates its facility at certain times
as a means of transportation over water, the Permittee shall comply
with any applicable regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating, that establish
specifications for safe transportation, handling, carriage, and
storage of pollutants.
L. Property Rights. The issuance of this permit does not convey any
property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal
rights, nor any infringement of .federal, state or local laws or
regulations.
10-28
-------
PART IV
Page 17 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
M. SeverabilitY. The provisions of this permit are sever able, and if any
provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of this
permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit,
shall not be affected thereby.
N. Transfers. This permit may be automatically transferred to a new
permittee if:
1. The current permittee notifies the Director at least 30 days in
advance of the proposed transfer date;
2. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and
new permittees containing a specific date for transfer of permit
responsibility, coverage, and liability between them; and,
3. The Director does not notify the existing permittee and the
proposed new permittee of his or her intent to modify, or revoke
and reissue the permit. If this notice is not received, the
transfer is effective on the date specified in the agreement
mentioned in paragraph 2. above.
O. state Laws. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to
any applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by
Section 510 of the Act.
P. Reooener Provision. This permit may be reopened and modified
(following proper administrative procedures) to include the
appropriate effluent limitations (and compliance schedule, if
necessary), or other appropriate requirements if one or more of the
following events occurs:
1. Water Quality Standards: The water quality standards of the
receiving water(s) to which the permittee discharges are modified
in such a manner as to require different effluent limits than
contained in this permit.
2. WastelQad Allocation; A wasteload allocation is developed and
approved by the State and/or EPA for incorporation in this
permit.
3. Water Quality Management Plan; A revision to the current water
quality management plan is approved and adopted which calls for
different effluent limitations than contained in this permit.
10-29
-------
Q-
?AHT IV
Page IS of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
Toxicity Limitation-Reopener Provision. This permit may b« reopened
and modified (following proper administrative procedures) to include
a new compliance date, additional or modified numerical limitations,
a new or different compliance schedule, a change in the whole effluent
protocol, or any other conditions related to the control of toxicants
if one or more of the following events occur:
1. Toxicity was detected late in the life of the permit near or past
the deadline for compliance.
2. The TRE results indicate that compliance with the toxic limits
will require an implementation schedule past the date for
compliance and the permit issuing authority agrees with the
conclusion.
3. The TRE results indicate that the toxicant(s) represent
pollutant(*} that may be controlled with specific numerical
limits, and the permit issuing authority agrees that numerical
controls are the most appropriate course of action.
4. Following the implementation of numerical controls on toxicants,
the permit issuing authority agrees that a modified whole
effluent protocol is necessary to compensate for those toxicants
that are controlled numerically.
S. The TOE reveals other unique conditions or characteristics which,
in the opinion of the permit issuing authority, justify the
incorporation of unanticipated special conditions in the permit.
10-30
-------
PART v
Page 19 of 19
Permit No.: IL0654321
V. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Best Management Practices (BMP1 Plan
A BMP plan shall be developed within aix months of permit reissuance,
addressing each of the nine specific requirements described in the
June 1981 EPA document, NPDES BMP Guidance Document. Emphasis shall
be placed on good housekeeping practices, visual inspection, and
preventative maintenance.
The BMP plan shall be written up and delivered to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency no later than February S, 1990.
B. BMP Implementation
The BMP plan shall be fully implemented within twelve months of permit
reissuance. An implementation report shall be delivered to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency no later than August 5, 1990.
C. Site-Specific BMPs
The following site-specific BMPs shall be included:
Tank Number 42: Remedial action is required to repair the damaged
tank. This shall include transfer of the contents to another
vessel (e.g., tank truck), cleaning the tank, and repairing,
welding, or plugging the hole. To prevent environmental damage
in the future, secondary containment is required. Monthly visual
inspections and/or preventative maintenance shall be conducted.
Drum Storage Area: The drums shall be inventoried to identify
the contents and amounts of chemicals therein. The drums shall
be inspected for deterioration or leak*. They shall be
segregated and any leaking or deteriorating drums shall be
disposed of or repaired. Any contaminated soil shall be removed
and adequately disposed of. The remaining drums shall be neatly
stacked in a manner to eliminate hazards to humans or the
environment by isolating the drums from walkways or roadways,
placing them on an impervious pad, covering the storage area,
diking the area, moving the storage area away from the river, or
some combination thereof.
1.
10-31
-------
10-32
-------
EXAMPLE FACT SHEET
10-33
-------
10-34
-------
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT
FACT SHEET
Permittee Name:
NPDES Permit
Number:
Mailing Address
Location:
Contact Person:
Telephone:
Luster Glass, Inc.
IL0654321
P.O. Box 319
Morris, IL 60123
1 River Ridge Drive
Morris, IL 60123
Mr. John Baker, Vice President
(312) 834-4536
I.
Status of Permit
NPDES Permit No. IL0654321 was issued on August 5, 1984, became
effective on August 31, 1984, and expired on August 31, 1989. The
permittee submitted an NPDES permit application for the renewal of
the permit on March 1, 1989.
II. Facility Description
Luster Glass Inc. operates a manufacturing facility in Morris, IL.
The facility specializes in manufacturing auto glass. On average,
40,000 sq. ft./day of auto tempered glass, and 275,000 sg. ft./day
of auto laminated glass is produced at the facility.
Ill. Description of Discharge
All wastewater generated at this facility is discharged through
Outfall 001 to the Illinois River. The primary waste streams
discharged through Outfall 001 are process and rinse waters from
the glass manufacturing processes and cooling tower blowdown. The
glass manufacturing process wastewaters from auto glass tempering
(cutting, grinding, polishing edges, bending, and tempering) and
auto glass lamination (cutting, bending, washing, and laminating)
are routed through a wastewater treatment system consisting of oil
and water separators and settling basins. The cooling tower
blowdown is not treated prior to discharge.
IV. Receiving Water
The receiving water for Outfall 001 is the Illinois River, Segment
16 of the Northern Illinois River Basin. Downstream of the
facility, the Illinois River flows approximately 3 miles to Segment
15 of the Northern Illinois River Basin. Following is a summary of
flow data for Segment 16 of the Illinois River:
10-35
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 2 of 21
Average Flow - 446.7 cfs
Harmonic Mean Flow - 245.5 cfs
7Q10 - 70.9 cfs
1Q10 - 58.8 cfs
The use designations for the Illinois River are given below:
Indigenous Aquatic Life
The applicable water quality standards to protect these uses are
specified the State Water Pollution Control Rules in Part 302
(State Administrative Code, Title 35 - Environmental Protection,-
Subtitle C - Water Pollution, Chapter 1; adopted March 17, 1980) .
The effluent standards are found in Part 304.
V.
Description of Discharge
a.
Permit Acolication Summarv
The following table summarizes the discharge characteristics of
Outfall 001 as reported in the NPDES permit application dated March
1, 1989:
Parameter
Flow (MGD)
TSS (tng/1)
COD (mg/1)
pH (S.U.)
Oil & Grease (mg/1)
Phosphorus (Ibs/day)
Zinc (mg/1)
Lead (mg/1)
Long-Term
Average
4.563
18.8
ND
6.6 min.
12
19
0.036
0.025
Daily
Maximum
4.591
50.0
50.0
9.0 max.
22
29
0.07
0.047
Note: Only data for parameters reported above detection limits are
shown above.
b. Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Data
A summary of DMR data is given in Table 1.
from March 1983 through February 1989.
This data was taken
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing performed during the last
year of the permit term (March 1988 to February 1989) demonstrated
acute toxicity at Outfall 001. Test results indicated a fathead
minnow LC50 of 8 percent and a Ceriodaphnia LC50 of 15.8 percent.
Chronic Toxicity tests also demonstrated toxicity at Outfall 001.
Chronic toxicity test results indicated a fathead minnow NOEC of
1.3 percent and a Ceriodaphnia NOEC of 2.7 percent. A summary of
WET data for Luster is also presented in Table 1.
10-36
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 3 of 21
VI. Proposed Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
Regulations promulgated at 40 CFR §122.44(a) require technology-
based effluent limitations to be placed in NPDES permits based on
National effluent limitations guidelines and standards, best
professional judgement (BPJ), or a combination of the two.
Discharges from Outfall 001 are subject to effluent limitations
given in 40 CFR Part 426 for the Glass Manufacturing Point Source
Category, and State effluent and water quality standards.
Limits were developed for Luster Glass Inc. based on an evaluation
of the permit application and DMRs. Lead and zinc were detected in
significant concentrations in the discharge as reported in DMRs.
While the previous permit did not contain limits for lead and zinc,
monitoring was required. Thus, technology-based effluent limits
were set for zinc found in the cooling tower blowdown. Technology-
based limits were also established for lead which is found in the
process wastewater, however water quality-based limits were found
to be more limiting {see Section VII of this Fact Sheet).
Effluent mass limits for total suspended solids {TSS), phosphorus,
and oil and grease are based on the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT) limitations specified for the
Automotive Glass Tempering Subcategory in 40 CFR §426.62 and for
the Automotive Glass Laminating Subcategory in 40 CFR §426.72.
These limitations are shown below:
Automotive Glass Tempering Subcategorv
Effluent Limits
Pollutant
TSS
Oil and Grease
Monthly Avg.
(Ib/lOOOft2)
0.25
0.13
Daily Max.
Qb/100Qft:)
0.40
0.13
pH shall be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 standard units.
Automotive Glass Laminating Subcatecrory
Effluent Limits
Monti:
Pollutant
Monthly Avg.
(Ib/lOOOft2)
Daily Max.
(Ib/lOQQft3)
TSS
Oil and Grease
Phosphorus
0.90
0.36
0.22
0.90
0.36
0.22
pH shall be within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 standard units.
10-37
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 4 of 21
Effluent limitations for oil and grease, TSS, phosphorus, and pH
from the process wastewater contribution to Outfall 001 are
calculated using the above effluent limits and the production rates
of 40,000 square feet per day of tempered glass and 275,000 square
feet per day of laminated glass. The TSS effluent limitations for
cooling tower blowdown are based on State Effluent Standards for
TSS in non-process wastewaters, including cooling tower blowdown.
Calculations of the effluent limitations are shown below. It
should be noted that both mass and concentration limits will be
applied to Outfall 001 for oil and grease, TSS, and phosphorus.
Oil and Grease
Mass Limitations (Monthly Average and Daily Maximum)
Oil & Grease = {40,000 ftVday (tempered) x 0.13 lb/1000 ft2) +
(275,000 ftVday (laminated) x 0.36 lb/1000 ft2) = 5.2 + 99 = 104.2
Ibs/day
Concentration Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average and Daily
Maximum)
Oil & Grease = (104.2 Ibs/day) (454 g/ 1 Ib) (1000 mg/ l g) (1 gal/
3.785 1) (1 day/ 4.563 10s gal) = 2.74 tng/1
TSS
Mass Limitations - Process Wastewater (Monthly Average)
TSS = [(40,000 ftVday (tempered) x 0.25 lb/1000 ft2) + (275,000
ftVday (laminated) x 0.9 lb/1000 ft2) ]/1000 = 257.5 Ibs/day
Mass Limitations - Process Wastewater (Daily Maximum)
TSS = [{40,000 ftVday (tempered) x 0.4 lb/1000 ft2) + (275,000
ftVday (laminated) x 0.9 lb/1000 f t2) ]/1000 = 263.5 Ibs/day
Mass Limitations - Cooling Tower Blowdown (Monthly Average)
TSS = (25 mg/l)(0.45 106 gal/day)(1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal) =
93.8 Ibs/day
Mass Limitations - Cooling Tower Blowdown (Daily Maximum)
TSS = (50 tng/1) (0.45 106 gal/day) (1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal) =
187.6 Ibs/day
Mass Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average)
TSS = 257.5 Ibs/day +93.8 Ibs/day = 351.3 Ibs/day
10-38
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 5 of 21
Mass Limitations - Outfall 001 (Daily Maximum)
TSS = 263.5 Ibs/day + 187.6 Ibs/day = 451.1 Ibs/day
Concentration Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average)
TSS = (351.3 Ibs/day)(454,000 mg/lb)(1 gal/3.785 1)(day /4.S63 106
gal) =9.23 tng/1
Concentration Limitations - Outfall 001 (Daily Maximum)
TSS = (451.1 Ibs/day)(454,000 mg/lb)(1 gal/3.785 1)(day /4.S63 106
gal) = 11.86 mg/1
Phosphorus
Mass Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average and Daily Maximum)
Phosphorus = 275,000 ft2/day (laminated) x 0.06 lb/1000 ft2) =16.5
Ibs/day
Concentration Limitations - Outfall 001 (Monthly Average and Daily
Maximum)
Phosphorus = (16.5 Ibs/day) (454,000 mg/lb) (1 gal/3.785 1) (day
/4.563 105 gal) =0.43 mg/1
EH
pH limits are based on State effluent standards, as follows:
State Effluent Standards
Pollutant/Parameter Range
pH 6.0-9.0
Monthly Avg.
(ma/1)
N/A
Daily Max.
(mg/1)
N/A
10-39
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 6 of 21
Toxic Pollutants
Zinc and lead were detected in the effluent discharge when the
previous permit was issued. At that time no limits were set, but
a requirement was made to monitor for zinc and lead. Significant
concentrations of zinc (used as a corrosion inhibitor in cooling
water) and lead (from lead soldering of products) have been found,
as reported in DMRs. Therefore, technology-based effluent
limitations are being established and will be included in the draft
permit.
Technology-based effluent limitations for the toxic pollutant zinc
present in the cooling tower blowdown are based on the transfer of
the best available technology economically achievable (BAT)
limitations specified in the Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines and
Standards at 40 CFR §423 .13 (d) (l) . These limitations are shown
below:
BAT Effluent Limitations
Monthly Avg. Daily Max.
Pollutant (mg/1) (mg/1)
Zinc (total) 1.0 1.0
Using the average blowdown flow from the cooling towers (0.45 mgd) ,
monthly average and daily maximum mass limitations are calculated
as follows:
Zinc = (1.0 mg/1)(0.45 10* gal/day)(1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal)
=3.75 Ibs/day
Equivalent end-of-pipe concentration effluent limitations are also
being established in the draft permit. Using the total Outfall 001
flow (4.563 mgd), monthly average and daily maximum concentration
limitations are calculated as follows:
Zinc = (3.75 Ibs/day)(454,000 mg/lb)(1 gal/3.785 1)(day /4.S63 106
gal) =0.10 mg/1
Technology-based effluent limitations for lead found in the process
wastewaters are based on transfer of BAT limitations specified in
the Metal Finishing Effluent Guidelines and Standards at 40 CFR
§433.14(a). These limitations, which are based on the performance
of lime precipitation and sedimentation, are shown below.
BAT Effluent Limitations
Monthly Avg. Daily Max.
Pollutant (mg/1) ... (mg/1)
Lead (total) 0.43 0.69
10-40
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 7 of 21
Due to the potential for dilution of the treated process
wastewaters by the cooling tower blowdown wastewaters, both mass
and concentration limitations are established. Using the average
process flow (4.113 mgd), mass limitations are calculated as
follows:
Monthly Average
Lead = (0.43 mg/1)(4.113 106 gal/day)(1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal)
= 14.74 Ibs/day
Daily Maximum
Lead = (0.69 mg/1)(4.113 106 gal/day)(1 lb/454,000 mg)(3.785 1/gal)
= 23.66 Ibs/day
Equivalent end-of-pipe concentration effluent limitations are also
being established in the draft permit. Using the total Outfall 001
flow (4.563 mgd), concentration limitations are calculated as
follows:
Monthly Average
Lead = (14.74 Ibs/day)(454,000 mg/lb)(1 gal/3.785 1)(day /4.563 106
gal) = 0.38 mg/1
Daily Maximum
Lead = (23.66 Ibs/day)(454,000 mg/lb)(1 gal/3.785 1)(day /4.563 106
gal) =0.62 mg/1
VII. Proposed Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
The State water quality standards require that point source
discharges shall not cause a violation of any applicable water
quality standards nor interfere with the attainment or maintenance
of that water quality which assures the protection and propagation
of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water.
In addition, a requirement of the State water quality standards is
that no effluent shall, alone or in combination with other sources,
cause a violation of any applicable water quality standard.
Temperature
Temperature limits are based on State water quality standards as
follows:
10-41
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 8 of 21
State Water Quality Limits
Pollutant/Parameter Range
Temperature
Not greater than 2.8°C above ambient, or
l.7°C above the following maximum limits:
in December through March, 16°C {60°F)
and in April through November, 32°C (90°F)
Toxic Pollutants
Based on evaluation of the NPDES permit application and DMR data
submitted by Luster Glass Inc., the following pollutants and
parameters for which applicable State water quality standards are
available are present in Outfall 001: lead and zinc. Based on the
fact that no other toxic pollutants are expected to be present in
Outfall 001 at significant concentrations, evaluation for
compliance with water quality standards will only be performed for
lead and zinc.
The State water quality regulations require that water quality
standards- be achieved under the following critical receiving water
flow conditions:
Chronic water quality standards:
7 day, 10 year return frequency flow (7Q10)
Acute water quality standards:
One-third (1/3) of the 7Q10 flow
The 7Q10 for the Illinois River is 70.9 cubic feet per second (cfs)
The facility provided a study of the outfall which showed that the
outfall quickly achieved complete mixing across the width of the
river.. Dilution at the edge of the mixing zone can therefore be
characterized by the complete mixing equation:
Cr =
-------
Pollutant
Lead
Effluent
Concentration (Cd)*
(ma/1)
0.38
Fact Sheet
Page 9 of 21
Receiving Water
Concentration (Cs)**
(ma/1)
Zinc
0.21
0.07
* - Maximum daily concentration reported in the application Form 2C
** - Source U.S.G.S. STORET
For comparison with acute water quality standards, receiving water
concentrations are calculated as follows:
Cr (lead) = [(0.38 mg/1)(7.06 cfs) + (0 mg/1)(23.6 cfs)]/(7.06 cfs
+ 23.6 cfs)
= 0.088 mg/1
Cr (zinc) = [(0.21 mg/1)(7.06 cfs) + (0.07 mg/1)(23.6 cfs)]/(7.06
cfs + 23.6 cfs)
= 0.102 mg/1
For comparison with chronic water quality standards, receiving
water concentrations are calculated as follows:
Cr (lead) = [(0.38 mg/1)(7.06 cfs) + (0 mg/1)(70.9 cfs)]/(7.06 cfs
+ 70.9 cfs)
= 0.034 mg/1
Cr (zinc) = [(0.21 mg/1) (7 . 06 cfs) + (0 . 07 mg/1) (70.9 cfs)]/(7.06
cfs + 70.9 cfs)
= 0.083 mg/1
The following table compares each receiving water concentration
calculated above with the State Water Quality Standard for aquatic
life protection:
'Pollutant
Zinc
Chronic
Acute
Lead
Chronic
Acute
State
Standard
(ua/1)
110
120
3.2
82
Receiving Wate
Concentration
(ua/1)
-
83
102
34
88
10-43
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 10 of 21
Since the calculated receiving water concentrations are less than
the criterion for zinc and greater than the criterion for lead,
water quality limits will be necessary for lead, but not for zinc.
It should be noted that the procedure used above does not account
for the variability of the pollutant concentrations in the
effluent. The EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
based Toxics Control recommends accounting for this variability by
calculating the reasonable potential for pollutants to cause
exceedances of water quality standards. Specifically, the
reasonable potential is calculated using the maximum expected
effluent concentration, which is estimated by using a
multiplication factor (F) that incorporates both the coefficient of
variation (CV) and the number of effluent samples collected. If
this methodology were used with the existing data for Luster Glass,
Inc., there would be a reasonable potential for the concentration
of zinc in the discharge to exceed both the acute and chronic water
quality standards, and thus water quality permit limits will also
be calculated for zinc.
The following equation is used to calculate the effluent
concentrations [which is commonly referred to as the waste load
allocation (WLA)] for lead and zinc that will ensure protection of
the State water quality standard.
Cd = WLA = Cr (Qd + Qs) - (Cs)(Qs)
where
Cd
Cr
Qd
Qs
Cs
Qd
WLA = waste load allocation
the applicable water quality standard
the effluent flow =7.06 cfs
the appropriate receiving water flow
the receiving water background concentration
Based on the following information, the waste load allocations for
lead and zinc are calculated.
Pollutant
Pollutant
Lead
Zinc
Cr = Acute State Water
Quality Standard
Cr = Chronic State Water
QualityStandard
0.0032 tog/1
0.11 mg/1
Cs = Upstream
Concentration
Lead
Zinc
0.082 mg/1
0.12 mg/1
0 mg/1
0.07 mg/1
Cs = Upstream
Concentration
0 mg/1
0.07 mg/1
10-44
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 11 of 21
Lead (acute) Cd = [(0.082 mg/l)(7.06 cfs + 23.6 cfs) - (0
mg/l)(23.6 cfs)] / 7.06 cfs
= 0.36 tng/1
Lead (chronic) Cd = [(0.0032 tng/1) (7.06 cfs + 70.9 cfs) - (0
mg/l)(70.9 cfs)]/ 7.06 cfs
~ 0 . 04 tng/1
Zinc (acute) Cd = [(0.12 mg/l)(7.06 cfs + 23.6 cfs) - (0.07
tng/1) (23.6 cfs)] / 7.06 cfs
=0.29 rag/1
Zinc (chronic) Cd = [(0.11 mg/l)(7.06 cfs + 70.9 cfs) - (0.07
tng/1) (70.9 cfs)]/ 7.06 cfs = 0.51 mg/1
Given that all State water quality standards are expressed as never
to be exceeded (i.e., water quality-based limits must be protective
of the most stringent waste load allocation) , a maximum daily
limitation (MDL) and a average monthly limitation (AMD for lead
and zinc are calculated using the waste load allocations calculated
above. It should be noted that the ratio of daily maximum to
monthly average for the technology-based effluent limitations for
lead and zinc are used to derive the MDL and AML. Specifically,
these ratios are 1.6 for lead and 1.0 for zinc.
Lead - Since the chronic WLA is more limiting than the acute WLA
(i.e., 0.04 mg/1 < 0.36 mg/1), it will be used as the basis for
limitations. Since the chronic WLA can never be exceeded, 0.04
mg/1 is used as the MDL. The AML is calculated as follows:
0.04 mg/1
=0.03 mg/1
1.6
Zinc - Since the acute WLA is more limiting than the chronic WLA
(i.e., 0.29 mg/1 < 0.51 mg/1), it will be used as the basis for
limitations. Since the acute WLA can never be exceeded, 0.029 mg/1
is used as the MDL. The AML is calculated as follows:
0.29 mg/1
1.0
=0.29 mg/1
Comparing the chemical specific water quality-based limits
calculated above with the technology-based effluent limitations
calculated for Outfall 001 (see Section VI above), the water
quality-based limits for lead are more stringent than the
technology-based limits, so they will be used as the basis for
effluent limits in the permit. Since the technology-based effluent
limits for zinc are more stringent than the water quality-based
10-45
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 12 of 21
limits, the technology-based effluent limits will be used.
Equivalent end-of-pipe mass effluent limitations are also being
established in the draft permit. Using the total Outfall 001 flow
(4.563 mgd) , mass limitations for lead are calculated as follows:
MDL - (0.04 mg/1) (4.563 106 gal/day) (1 lb/454,000 mg) (3.785 1/gal)
= 1.52 Ibs/day
AML = (0.03 mg/1) (4.563 106 gal/day) (1 lb/454,000 mg) (3.785 1/gal)
= 1.14 Ibs/day
Whole Effluent Toxicity
The previous NPDES permit issued to the Luster Glass facility
contained a requirement for conducting monthly acute and chronic
toxicity tests during the fourth and fifth year of the permit
(March 1988 through February 1989) . The test species selected by
the facility was the fathead minnow, based on an initial comparison
of species sensitivity performed in February 1988. The results of
these toxicity tests were reviewed to determine whether an effluent
limit on toxicity should be developed for the permit.
The concentration of acute and chronic toxicity in the receiving
water is calculated and is then compared to the State water quality
standards. The receiving water concentrations for acute and
chronic toxicity were calculated using the following formula:
Cr = (Cd) (Qd)
(Cs) (Qs)
Where
Cr
Cd
Qd
Cs
Qs
(Qd + Qs)
receiving water concentration
effluent concentration
effluent flow
receiving water background concentration
appropriate receiving water flow
The following summarizes the toxicity data submitted by Luster
Glass for the period from March 1988 to February 1989:
10-46
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 13 of 21
Toxicity Data {Fathead minnows)
LCjo NOEC
(% effluent) (% effluent)
58.0 50
25.2 3
55.0 10
46.3 30
44.8 25
5.9 1
67.8 10
3.9 1
50.1 30
52.0 10
32.1 3
41.7 30
All toxicity testing by Luster Glass involved the use of upstream
ambient water for the control and diluent, so that in all
calculations, the upstream toxicity is assumed to be zero. The
highest result of chronic toxicity measured was an NOEC equal to 1%
effluent. By dividing 1 into 100, the NOEC is converted to chronic
Toxic Units (TUC) . Similarly for acute toxicity, the highest acute
toxicity was measured at an LC^ equal to 3.9 % which converts to
25.6 TUa.
The resultant receiving water concentration (Cr) in toxic units for
both acute and chronic toxicity are calculated using the following
data:
Cs = 0
Qs = 23.6 cfs (one third the 7Q10 for acute protection)
Qs = 70.9 cfs (the 7Q10 for chronic protection)
Qd = 7.06 cfs
Acute
Cr = (25.6 TUa) (7.06 cfs)/(7.06 cfs + 23.6 cfs)
= 5.9 TUa
Chronic
Cr = (100 TUC) (7.06 cfs)/(7.06 cfs + 70.9 cfs)
= 9.1 TUC
10-47
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 14 of 21
The State water quality standards for acute and chronic protection
are summarized below:
State Water Quality Standard for Acute Protection =0.3 TUa
State Water Quality Standard for Chronic Protection = 1.0 TUC
WET limits would be necessary since the calculated receiving water
concentrations exceed the state water quality standards for both
acute and chronic protection:
For acute protection 5.9 TU4 > 0.3 TUa
For chronic protection 9.1 TUC > 1.0 TUe
Using steady state assumptions, the WLAs were calculated using the
following formula:
Cd = [Cr(Qd + Qs)-(Cs) (Qs)] / Qd
where:
Cd = Concentration of the pollutant in the discharge, or waste
load allocation
Cr s State Water Quality Standard
for chronic protection =1.0 TUC
for acute protection = 0.3 TO,
Qd = Discharge flow = 7.06 cfs
Qs = Appropriate receiving water flow
chronic flow (7Q10) =70.9 cfs
acute flow =23.6 cfs
Cs = Receiving water or upstream concentration = 0
Assuming zero background toxicity, the limits are calculated as
follows:
WLA (acute) = [{0.3 TO.) (7.06 cfs + 23.6 cfs)] - [(0)(23.6 cfs)]
7.06 cfs
= 1.3 TO.
WLA (chronic) = [ (1.0 TUe) (7.06 cfs + 70.9 cfs) ] - [ (0) (70 .9 cf s) ]
7.06 cfs
= 11.0 TU,
An acute to chronic ratio (ACR) was calculated from the toxicity
data by taking the average ACR from each data set as follows:
10-48
-------
Pact Sheet
Page 15 of 21
LCjo NOEC
(% effluent) (% effluent) ACR
58.0 50 1.16
25.2 3 8.40
55.0 10 5.50
46.3 30 1.54
44.8 25 1.79
5.9 1 5.9
67.8 10 6.78
3.9 1 3.9
50.1 30 1.67
52.0 10 5.20
32.1 3 10.7
41.7 30 1.39
Average 4.5
The acute WLA (in TUJ are converted to TUC using the acute to
chronic ratio (ACR) as follows:
WLA (in TUSC) = 1.3 TU, * ACR
= 1.3 TUa * 4.5
= 5.9 TUac
Given that all State water quality standards are expressed as never
to be exceeded (i.e., water quality-based limits must be protective
of the most stringent waste load allocation) , a maximum daily
limitation (MDL) and a average monthly limitation (AMD for WET
were calculated using the waste load allocations calculated above.
A ratio of daily maximum to monthly average of 1.6 is assumed for
WET based upon technolgy-based effluent limits for lead.
Since the acute WLA is more limiting than the chronic WLA (i.e.,
5.9 TUac < ll.O TUC) , it will be used as the basis for limitations.
Since the acute WLA can never be exceeded, 5.9 TU,C is used as the
MDL. The AML is calculated as follows:
5.9 TU1C
' = 3.7 TUC
1.6
The permittee shall conduct chronic toxicity tests according to
methods outlined in "Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms"
(EPA 600/4-89 001).
10-49
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 16 of 21
VIII. Proposed Effluent Limitations
Table 2 summarizes the proposed effluent limitations for Outfall
001. Proposed effluent limitations for zinc are based on BPJ. The
limitation for temperature is based on State water quality
standards. The proposed limitations for lead were calculated above
as chemical specific water quality-based limitations. The
remainder of the effluent limitations are based on BPT/BAT effluent
guidelines at 40 CFR Part 426 and State effluent standards.
IX. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring for those pollutants expected to be present in Outfall
001 (i.e., TSS, oil and grease, phosphorus, lead, and zinc) will be
required once per week. Except for oil and grease, for which a
grab sample is required, 24-hour composite samples are required.
Temperature is to be monitored continuously during discharge.
Whole effluent toxicity testing for chronic toxicity shall be
conducted 2/month on a 24-hour composite sample of the final
effluent.
X.
Special Conditions
Luster Glass Inc. will be required to update their existing Best
Management Practices (BMP) plan to address the potential for
leakage of gasoline from Tank Number 42 and nitric acid from the
drum storage area. Specifically, Luster Glass Inc. should
undertake the following two site-specific BMPs and incorporate them
into their plan. First, remedial action must be taken on Tank
Number 42 to repair the damaged tank. The gasoline must be
transferred to another vessel (e.g., tank truck) while the tank is
cleaned, repaired, welded or holes plugged. To prevent
environmental damage at this site in the future, the following BMPs
should be incorporated into the plan: visual inspection, secondary
containment, prevent at ive maintenance, or some combination thereof.
Secondly, the drum storage area must be cleaned up by following
procedures such as the following: inventory the drums to identify
the contents and amounts of chemicals therein; inspect the drums
for deterioration or leaks, and segregate and adequately dispose of
the leaking or deteriorating drums,- remove and adequately dispose
of any contaminated soil; neatly stack the remaining drums in a
manner to eliminate hazards to humans or the environment by
isolating the drums from walkways or roadways, placing them on an
impervious pad, covering the storage area, diking the area, moving
the storage area away from the stream or some combination thereof.
10-50
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 17 of 21
XI. Information Sources
While developing effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and
special conditions for the draft permit, the following information
sources were used:
(1) EPA NPDES Application Forms 1 and 2C dated October 1980 and
February 1985, respectively.
(2) State Effluent Standards, Part 304 of the State Administrative
Code, Title 35 - Environmental Protection; Subtitle C - Water
Pollution, adopted March 17, 1980.
(3) Division files related to the Luster Glass Inc. NPDES Permit
No. IL0654321.
(4) State Water Quality Standards, Part 302 of the State
Administrative Code, Title 35 - Environmental Protection;
Subtitle C - Water Pollution, adopted March 17, 1980.
(5) EPA Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control.
(6) 40 CFR Parts 423, 433, and 426.
10-51
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 18 of 21
TABLE 1
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
LUSTER GLASS INC.
March 1988 through February 1989
Date
03-88
04-88
05-88
06-88
07-88
08-88
09-88
10-88
11-88
12-88
01-89
02-89
Flow (mgd)
Mon. Avg. Daily Max.
4.575
4.554
4.552
4.568
4.585
4.588
4.571
4.568
4.553
4.551
4.550
4.560
4.583
4.567
4.569
4.573
4.589
4.591
4.581
4.572
4.573
4.541
4.561
4.570
TSS
(Ib/d)
180.4
245.2
429.3
308.7
Oil &
Grease
flb/d)
19
27
88
22
Phosphorus
(Ib/d)
14
18
29
15
10-52
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 19 of 21
Date
03-88
04-88
05-88
06-88
07-88
08-88
09-88
10-88
11-88
12-88
01-89
02-89
TABLE 1 (Continued)
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
LUSTER GLASS INC.
March 1988 through February 1989
pH Temperature Zinc
(S.U.) (degrees F) (ma/1)
Lead
6.6
7.1
9.0
8.1
80
83
78
61
0.21
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.10
0.17
0.12
0.38
COD
(ma/i:
50
10-53
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 20 of 21
TABLE 1 (Continued)
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
LUSTER GLASS INC.
March 1988 through February 1989
Toxicity Test Data: Unless otherwise indicated, acute toxicity
tests were conducted using fathead minnow and
reported as 48 hr. LCJO; chronic toxicity tests
were conducted using fathead minnows and
reported as 7 day NOEC.
DATE
3/88
4/88
5/88
6/88
7/88
8/88
9/88
10/88
11/88
12/88
1/89
2/89
{% effluent)
58.0
25.2
55.0
46.3
44.8
5.9
67.8
3.9
50.1
52.0
32.1
41.7
NOEC
(% effluent)
50
3
10
30
25
1
10
1
30
10
3
30
Toxicity tests using Ceriodaphnia dubla 48 hour survival
(acute) and 7 day reproduction (chronic)
10-54
-------
Fact Sheet
Page 21 of 21
TABLE 2
PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
NPDES PERMIT NO. IL0654321
DAILY MAXIMUM
MONTHLY AVERAGE
PARAMETER
Flow (mgd)
TSS
Oil & Grease
Phosphorous
PH
Temperature
Total Lead
Total Zinc
Whole Effluent
Toxicity (WET)
a/ pH shall be
b/ Not greater
LBS/DAY
Report
451.1
104.2
16.5
a/
b/
1.52
3.75
c/
within the
MG/L
--
11.86
2.74
0.43
--
--
0.04
0.10
range of
LBS/DAY
Report
351.3
104.2
16.5
--
--
1.14
3.75
C/
MG/L
--
9.23
2.74
0.43
--
--
0.03
0.10
--
6.0 - 9.0 standard units
than 2.8 degrees Centigrade above
ambient, or
c/
1.7 degrees Centigrade above the following maximum
limits:
December 1 through March 31
April 1 through November 30
16 deg C (60 deg F)
32 deg C (90 deg F)
Discharges of effluent with toxicity greater than the
following amounts are prohibited: Maximum Daily Chronic
Toxicity of 5.9 TUac and Average Monthly Chronic Toxicity
of 3.7 TUC.
10-55
-------
10-56
-------
EXAMPLE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
10-57
-------
10-58
-------
EXAMPLE
CONTENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
A brief explanation follows of the*e*press statutory or regulatory precision on which permit requirements are based,
including appropriate supporting references to the Administrative Record required by 40 CFR S 124.9:
The following items are used to establish the basis of the draft permit:
(1) NPDES Permit No. LA0002933, effective date 2/17/80, expiration date 3/31/8L
(2) Consolidated Permit Application Forms No. 1 and 20 received 4/3/81
(3) Louisiana Water Quality Criteria, LSCC, 1977.
(4) Louisiana Water Quality Management Plan, Department of Natural Resources, tnghi/fitig Appendix D
(Ponchartram Basin) and Appendix F ^Mississippi River), Phase Q, Vols. L
(5) 40 CFR Part 415 Subpart F, [47 £R 28260,6/29/83].
(6) 40 CFR Part 415.65(b) [39 £R 9616,3/12/74].
(7) Letter White (EPA) to Vlacos (Vulcan) dated 3/29/76.
(8) Letter White (EPA) to Campbeu (Vulcan) DAted 6/9/76.
(9) ROC Hale (EPA) to Leonard (Vukan) dated 11/10/76.
(10) 40 CFR Part 12129 (d)(l) [48 £& 14146,4/1/83].
(11) Letters Gordon (Vulcan) to McHam (EPA) dated 5/17/82 and 7/19/81
(12) 40 CFR Part 40L17,6/4/81
(13) Letters Gordon (Vulcan) to Hale (EPA) dated 1/30/8L
(14) Discharge Monitoring Reports 1980-1981
(15) 40 CFR Part 12262(aX3) [48 F£ 14146,4/1/83J.
(16) 40 CFR Part 12144(1)(2)(1) [48 £& 14146,4/1/83].
(17) 40 CFR Part 415.65(b) [47 ffi 28260,6/29/82].
(18) 40 CFR Part 415.62(b) [47 £R 28260,6/29/82J.
'19) Final Development Document for iimraranv' Chemicals,
EPA 440/1-82/007, June 1982.
(20) Letter Gordon (Vulcan) to Ferguson (EPA) dated 10/30/79.
(21) 40 CFR Part 1253(a)(2)(v) [44 £R 32948,6/7/89, as amended at 45 £R 33512,5/19/80].
(22) 40 CFR part 415£3(b) [47 £R 28260,6/29/82].
(23) 40 CFR Part I2279(d)(2) [48 ER 14146,4/1/83].
(24) 40 CFR Part 14U2 [40 FJL 59570,12/24/75, as amended at 44 f£ 68641,11/29/79.
(25) Preamble to Inarganfe rhfminl Effluent Limitations Guidelines 47 FR. 28263.6/29/81 Column 3].
(26) ROC McHam (EPA) to Gordon (Vulcan) dated 5/25/83.
(27) EPA Treatabffity Manual, EPA 600/2-82/001, September 1982 (Revised).
(28)
W ok for Dete
v''^v f°T
PffTTBiftK prepared for Hap Thron, Permits
Division; prepared by Putnam, Hayes &. Bardctt, Inc.. August 1982.
(29) Moodv's Industrial Manual 1981 pp. 4602-4605
(30) C E Plant Cost Index. Chemical Engineering Magazine, 6/O/83, page 7.
10-59
-------
10-60
-------
EXAMPLE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
10-61
-------
10-62
-------
RESPONSE TO .COMMENTS
FINAL PERMIT DECISION
This is our response to comments received on the subject draft permit in
accordance with regulations promulgated at 40 CFR Part 124.17.
Permit No.
Applicant:
Issuing Office:
Prepared By:
Permit Action:
Date Prepared:
LA0006181
Allied Chemical Corporation
P.O. Box 226
Geisaar, Louisiana 70734
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
Edward C. McHam, Engineer
Industrial Permits Section (6U-PI)
Permits Branch
Water Management Division
(214) 655-7180
Final permit decision and response to comments
received on the draft permit publicly noticed on
7/7/84.
9/5/84
Unless otherwise stated, citations to 40 CFR refer to promulgated regulations
listed at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of 7/1/83.
The following comments have been received on the draft permit:
Letter Dessert (Allied) to Caldwell (EPA) dated 7/30/84
IgSUE NO. 1
The draft permit establishes biomonitoring requirements at Outfall 004. The
company requests deletion of these requirements.
RESPONSE NO. 1
The request is denied.
The permittee states that biomonitoring will be duplicative and unnecessary
because:
(1) EPA has identified the toxic pollutants of concern.
(2) The proposed permit places BAT limits and monitoring requirer.er.es
on these pollutants.
10-63
-------
PERMIT NO. LA0006181
RESPONSE. TO COMMENTS
(3) The BAT Limits are aore restrictive than vacer quality-based
Limitations.
(4) BiomonlCoring results could be distorted and masked by the osaocic
stress on test organisms exerted by the sales present in an HF
plane effluent.
The biononitoring method is a standardized method used throughout EPA Region 6
to measure the toxicicy of various effluents which contain toxic components.
The test is not based on water quality impacts of a specific receiving scream.
Under Section 308 of the Clean Vacer Act, EPA Region 6 has the authority -o
require permittees to support development of data bases such as those
associated with toxics. Therefore, biomonitorlng requirements as established
in Che draft permit are retained in Che final permit.
10-64
-------
Chevron
D P Tactician
*l«f
S: .
Chevron Chemical Company
PQ Boi 78. St. James. LA 70086 • Phone l5G4| 473-7946
January 12, 1990
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT I P 965 729 397
Ms. Ellen Caldvell
Permits Branch (6W-PS)
U.S. EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
SUBJECT: CHEVRON CHEMICAL COMMENTS
NPDES PERMIT NO. LA0029963
Dear Ms. Caldwell:
He have reviewed draft NPDES Permit No. LA0029963 for Chevron
Chemical's St. James Plant issued for public comment by the EPA on
December 16, 1989. We have the following comments:
1. As represented in the Fact Sheet (Part VZZZ. Sect ion C 1), we
understand an administrative order will be issued concurrent
with the final permit decision. We understand the
administrative order will establish interim limits which will
be in.effect until 2/1/91, when our upgraded effluent treatment
plant will be operational. As a result, we have not reviewed,
and are not providing comments on the draft permit relative to
it being in effect during the interim period (i.e. from final
permit issuance to 2/1/91).
2. We want to clarify that the discharge description included in
Part V of the Fact Sheet is representative of our current
facility discharge. Following completion of our ongoing
facility expansion, the concentration of pollutants in our
discharge will significantly decrease and the discharge flowrate
will increase from current levels. These changes to our
discharge were detailed in our submittals to the EPA and have
been properly recognized in development of the proposed perr.it
limits.
3. We request that you change the pH of the Outfall 002 frcm 9.0
to 10.0. The plant's clarified water and firewater is purchased
and is lime softened with a pH of 10. This water has a high pH
but a low alkalinity and is not hazardous to personnel nor to
the environment.
In the last 6 months we have had 2 permit e){^ti£9 i$na jd-e rr?
these water systems. In the first instance, blh-Bfinqply3. washing;
the paved areas of the plant with firewater, we ^exceeded the 9.0
pH limit. In the second instance, a number of clarified -ater
JAN 18'530
OVV-ro
10-65
-------
and firewater lines failed due to the hard December freeze.
This water overflowed the retention pond and again we had a
permit exceedence.
We have developed and have begun implementing a plan to
eliminate continuous sources of high pH water currently
discharged to our retention pond. This work will be completed
by the 1/1/91. We therefore feel that a change of the pK limit
on Outfall 002 froa 9.0 to 10.0 would not endanger people nor
the environment and would eliminate nuisance excursions.
We appreciated receiving the well-organized and readable fact sheet
which clearly established the basis for the permit requirements.
Although the proposed permit limits are substantially lower than those
in our previous permit, we expect to be able to achieve and maintain
compliance once our upgraded effluent treatment plant is fully
operational.
If you have any questions or wish to discuss our comments further,
please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff.
Very truly yours.
^r^j/ » -+^-~
"TJ; P. Teichman
LLR/vho
10-66
-------
7-37-W
OMB He. 2Q4G-OO86 Appr
. J2ei>»r»ewn^aefi).
-m trvu tr* a>*cn) for «iim type.
GENERAL INFORMATION
"ge»ei«t In*tr*ctto~"
X
EP>A 1.0
. r*(C«JTYN*ME
V MAILING ADDRESS
Coniuien el'
Refer ic
II. POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS
INSTRUCTIONS: Cora&wtt A through J to detenmnt ututtm you aMd to fufemfc any ponait avpliartion forms to tta EPA, If you •nswar "yaT to any
quatttont, you mim wbfflit this form «id tte iuppaM«t^ tan la^
Hthfiupplemont^fomaetticba^HyottatiiwaT'^'toe^
;seortCofthaif»arMCti«mLSa»i>s^SeytMnOofthain»mictiomfw fatadi
srceirie eucsrioMs
aunrtovn
I* this feeiirrv a pubticty
trvtiich fVwits in •
(FORM 2A»
us.?
Is to
-------
CONTINUED PROM
IVII. SIC CODES
t in ormr of priority)
VIII. OPERATOR INFORMATION
OF .OT.L5.B.U.R.6..
e. STATUS or OPCHATOft f£nw tne appropriate letter tnio the aimer box; if "Outer", specify.I
D. PHONK farw
Oun federal or state i
O" OTHER toeetfy)
S - STATE
P - PRIVATE
X. EXISTING CNVIRONMENTAL PE
A. NPOKS (Dttctotrge* » SwfM*
•. UIC rt/«d«lfowid Injection ofFiuUt)
K. OTMB» (specify)
Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending to at least one mile beyond property boundaries. The map must shew
the outline of the facility, the location of each of its existing and proposed intake and discharge structures, each of Hs hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facUrbei,and each well where it injects fluids underground. Include all springs, rivers and other surface
water bodies in the map area. See mstnwttone for precise
XIL NATURE OF BUSINESS (provide • o
XIII. CERTIFICATION fte»
/ certify under ptnatty of Ifw that I/i
attfthmantt and that, oasee* on nty inquiry of thorn
i, I Ttttitirt that tnm> information it true.
ft^Momationt^cli^ngth9powbaity offing and imprttonmtnt,
flMaadSne/y layonriMt for ootaMv tht> infomution contuntd in tht
COMMENTS FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
iPA Form 3610-1
-------
FOR AGENCY USE
OMB No. 2O4Q-OO86
Appro**! fVMfff 7-31-88
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTEWATER
STANDARD FORM A - MUNICIPAL
SECTION I APPLICANT AND FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Unless otnerwls* specified on thl» form all lt*ms urn to M compteted. If an item is not applicant* indicat* 'NA."
ADDITIONAL. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELECTED ITEMS APPEAR IN SEPARATE INSTRUCTION BOOKLET AS INDICATED. REFER TO
BOOKLET BEFORE FILLING OUT THESE ITEMS.
Wease Prim or Type
1.
Urfai Name ef Applicant
(see instructions)
2. Maillm Adams of Applicant
(see instructions)
NumMf * StrMt
City
State
Zip Code
3. Applicant's AirtnerUe* Aeaal
(see Instructions)
Nam* and TIM*
Numo*r & $tr**t
City
State
Zip COO*
T*i*phon*
Previews
if a previous application for a per-
mit under trt* National Pollutant
Otscnarea Elimination Syst*m nas
been mad*, trv* the del* of
application.
B mi*, com put*, and accurate. •
.
1
t*s*
..-*-.-- :- •'•>.
1«»
MM*
HO»
wad
-it*
town or unsourg
Wastewater Treatment Facility
123 Main Street
Otisburq
ST
12345
Oave Jones
Superintendent
123 Main Street
Otisburq
ST
12345
(l?3l 450-7890
Area Numoer
Code
90 5 .22.
YR MO DAY
Joe Smith
Prlntad Nam* of Parson Signing
Signatur* of Applicant or Authorized Aoant
City Manager
TttM
95 5 22
YR MO DAY
Oat* Application Signed
;S U.S.C Section 1001 prowidcs that:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and wilfully falsifies, conceals or
carers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or makes or
uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, snail be fined not more than
S 10,000 or imprisoned not more than fire years, or both.
FOR AGENCY USE
Off tCXt ___EI»AR«
SUM
•PA f~m 7S50.22 (7*73)
M
Thi* section contain* 4 pales.
-------
! roit AGCNCY use
t
S. Facility (tee instruction*,)
Give tne name, ownership, and ony**.
cat location of tn* plant or otMr
operating facility where dMcnaree(s)
presently occurts) or win occur.
Nam*
Ownership (Public. Private or
Both Puwlc and Prlvate)-
Check block if a Fedorai facility
and gnu GSA inventory Control
NumtMr
Location:
Number a> Strott
City
County
State
C. Dttoiaive to Another MunMMl
Fadltty
SOoniiot* organizatioR. If yas.
eompMM tn« ran Of tftte lt*rn
and continue witfi inm ?. If no.
go directly to Ittm 7.
oitanlcation
Name
Number t Street
City
State
Zip Code
c. Facility Which Reo*tves
Qiv* ttM nam* of tM facility
(watt* tfMtmom plant) wMcn r*-
c*iv*s and tt ultimately rwtpon-
fibw for tr*ann*nt of the dtacnaree
from your faculty.
AMreea Daily Flow to Faculty
(meal) Give your *»araee dally
flow into the receiving facility.
See #2 above
QFEO
See # 2 above
N/A
N/A
mgd
?. Fa«
rf*
VolMme dee instructiom)
Specify trie number of discharge*
described In tM* application and the
volume of water dMchareed or lost
to each of me cateeonef below.
Estimate a»«ran volume per day in
million eallon* per day. Do not in-
clude intermittent or noncontlnuou*
oneiflowi. bypiner or seasonal eX*-
cnarees from laeoero.
ponds* etc.
EFA fmm 77KU22 (7.73r
1-2
-------
O*U Ho, 2O4O4O86
Affront mains 7-J/-M
To: Surface Water
Surface Impoundment with
no Effluent
unoenjround Percolation
well |injection}
Other
Total item 7
ir 'other* ts specified, describe
If any of me dttcMreas from tins
facility are Intermittent, such at from
overflow or bypass points* or are
seasonal or periodic from laeeons.
hoMroe ponds, etc.. complete item s.
I. MtenMttmst OMctaree*
Indicate OM MmMr of By****
polm for tfte facility that are
d*fcft»ree oe.
occur from noldlng ponds.
iaooons.etc.
CesuctteM System Type
Indicate we type and lenfth (In
mNes) of me collection system MM
By trm fadlrry. (SM instructions)
Separate Storm
Separate Sanitary
ComtNned Sanitary and Storm
Both Separate Sanitary and
ComMned Sewer Systems
Both Separate Storm and
Combined Sewer Systems .
10.
(see Instructions)
Total
MTftT
t*7T»t
1IM*
t*7e*
IVLfl
•••, ,. >"i
.• v*v
"*••*;
* jr
*'X!"
*•**
tf*
!*••> ,
• i;
r
Number of Total volume Diwhareed.
£^2^^2H Minion Gallons Per Pay
1" ^»u 2.7
N/A MHI N/A
N/A ^ N/A
N/A .*>•« N/A
N/A iii^ N/A
'••*. .-^' ..•!.'•.• •
i .••. ;:i<'£i> i 7
!.„ =r5fPnr *?,'
"v J-:..**^ -< J
N/A
N/A
N/A
DSST
QSAN
Ocss
DBSC
Qssc
500 _
Name
JOW1 n^ ntiihurg Wt-
., ._ .. fff*
•«^%'
»ff*
TMt
OH AOCNCY USC
I.I...
Actual Population
Served
20,000
BPA F». 7SM.22 (7-73)
1-3
-------
tl. Aver*** DaNy Industrial Flew
Total estimated average dally waste
fl«w from Ml Industrial sources.
ttf
Q.6
FOR AGENCY USE
T
1!
Note: All major Industrie* (as defined in Section IV)
discharging to ti»e municipal system mult oe
listed in Section iv.
It. Penults. License* and Application*
Ust ait existing, pending or aenwd oermits. licenses and aepiications related to discnarees from ttiis facility, (see instructions)
lit
1.
2.
J.
issuing Afancy
M
EPA
For
Agancy Usa
«Br
Tyoa of Ptrmlt
or Ucania
(0
NPDES
ID Number
{«
US1234567
Oite
Fiiad
v R/MQ/OA
M
90/1/1
Date
liiuad
Vd/MO/OA
W
90/3/1
Oate
Oeniod
VR/MO/OA
(S)
...
Ex 01 ration
Oate
YR/MO/OA
w
95/3/1
13. Maps and Oiawlnfi
Attaen ail raauirad maps and drawings to the back of trtis application, (see instructions)
14. Additional information
ft*
item
Numeef
information
EPA Fenn 7550-22 (7.73) _
1-4
U.S. SOVERHMCNT
OFFICE: t»7S-«2i-06«/»«« 3-1
-------
STANDARD FORM A-MUNICIPAL
SECTION E. BASIC DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION
form Appro**!.
OMB No 204O-OOS6
Apermt/ extures 7-31 -89
FOM AGENCY USE
_
Complete this section for each present or proposed discharge indicated in section I. Items 7 and 8. that is to surface waters. Thi
discharges to otner municipal sewerage systems in wnicn the waste water does not 90 through a treatment worica prior to oemg discharged to
surface waters. Discharges to wells must oe deserltMW where there are also discharges to surface waters from (his facility. Separate
descriptions of aacti dlsenaree are required even if several discharges originate in the MUM faculty. All values for an existing discharge mould
Be representative of the twelve previous months of operation. 11 this is a proposed discharge, values should reflect oest engineering estimates.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SELECTED ITEMS APPEAR IN SEPARATE INSTRUCTION BOOKLET AS INDICATED. REFER TO
BOOKLET BEFORE FILLING OUT THESE ITEMS.
1. On charge serial No. and Name
a. Discharge serial No.
(see instructions)
t>. Discharge Name
Give name of discharge, if any
(see instructions)
c. Previous Discharge Serial No
if a previous NPOCS permit
application was made for this dis-
charge (item 4, Section I) provide
previous discharge serial numoer.
2. Discharge Operating Pates
a. Discharge to Begin Date
if tne discharge nas never
occurred Out is planned for some
future date, give the date tne
discnarge will begin.
Discharge to End Date if thedis- ;
charge is scheduled tope discon- \
tinued within me next S years.
give tne date (within pest estimate)
tne discharge will end. Give rea-
son for discontinuing thi» discharge
in Mem 17.
3. Discharge Location Name the
political boundaries within which
tne ooint of discharge is located:
State
County
[if applicable) City or' Town
4. Discharge Point Description
(see instructions)
Discharge is into (cnecx one)
Stream (includes ditcnes, arroyos.
and otner watercourses)
Estuary
Laice
Ocean
wen ( injection)
Otner
if 'otner' is cheeked, specify type
$ . Ditcna rge Poi n« — Lat/Loftg.
State tne precise location of the
point of discharge to the nearest
second, (see instructions)
Latitude
Longitude
001
Treatment pTant effluent
C1Q1
VR MO
YR MO
ST
Oti'sbarq
Otisbura
OEST
DLKE
QOCE
DOTH
4? OEG. _3f>MIN. SEC
98 OEG. 30 MIM ... _ egg
EPA Form 7SSO-22 (7-731
n-1
This section contains
-------
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
001
POM AGENCY USC
1
111 1
1
S. Otocharfe Receiving Water Name
N*m« tne waterway at tne point of
discnaree.(see instructions)
if the discharge is tnrougn an out-
fan t«i*t extends beyond th« snonMine
or is below tne mean low water line,
complete I tern 7.
7. Offsnore Ofcciwree
a. Orsctiaige Distance f ram Snore
o. Oitaian* Depth Mow Water
Surface
Pristine Creek
For Agency Use
JQ3e
-feet
I f c large is from a bypass or an overflow point or Is a seasonal discharge from a lagoon, holding pond, etc, complete itams 8.9 or 10.
as applicable, and continue with Item 11.
*. Bypass Otscftarge (see Instructions)
> Occmrei
a. By»
Cneck when bypass occurs
wet weatner
Dry weainer
b. Bypass Freauency live tne
actual or approximate number
of bypass incidents per year.
wet weatner
Dry weather
c. Bypass Duration Give tne
tveraoe pypass duration m nours.
Wet weatner
Dry weather
d. Bypass Volume Ghre tne
averaee volume per bypass incident.
in tnousand ouions.
wet wMRter
Dry weather
«. Bypass fteasons Give reatont
why bypass occurs.
Proceed to item 11.
9. Overflow Discharge (see instructions]
a. Overflow Occurrence Check
wnen overflew occurs.
Wet weatner
Dry weather
b. Overflow Pteawency Give the
actual or approximate incidents
per year.
wet weatner
Dry weatner
O Yes D No
D Ye* Q no
N/A
__LlI.tlmes per year
_N/Atlmes per year
A
thou$and gallons per incident
thaMund gallons per incident
N/A
n v«* o NO
EPA Per* 7J50-22 (7-7J)
II-2
-------
OMg No 2040*0086
Affnxrtt txpmt 7-3 t-M
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
001
FOR ACSCNCY USE
1
c. Overflow Deration Give tM
average overflow duration lit
hours.
WM weather
Dry weather
d. Overflow VOMHM Give the
averae* volume par overflow
incident in thousand ^iions.
W«tw«ttlMr
Dry wMtMr
it«m 1}
10.
fr«9«i«ncy If dfcdWfw Is inttr*
niltMnt from • Holding pond.
I49oen. «t, ghw tM «ctu*l or
tofiroxlitut* number of ttm«
tMs dUdurg* occurs p*r y«ir.
VotaiM Ghr« trw av*ra«*
vottim* e*r dWAirg* occurrone*
In thouand Mllon*.
Duration Giva tM merit* dura-
tion of aaen discharge occurrence
in days.
Cheek the
monttis during the yetr wnen
ttie discharge normally occurs.
11. Discharge Treatmeat
*. Dliiilmee TiwteM
ttee* used on this discharge with
a brief narrative. (Seelratruc-
tlom)
N/A
.H^^^MH^^
N/A
N/A
.hours
.Hours
N/A
.thousand gallons Bar Incident
.thousand gallons per incident
N/A
N/A
.thousand gallons per discharge occurrence
N/A
D JAN Q FE8 D MAR
GAPR QMAY QJUN
QJUL DAUG QSEP
DOCT DNOV Qoec
Comnunition, grit removal, primary settling,
activated sTudoe» secondary clarification^
rapid sand filtration, and chlorlnatlon.
II»A Pern 7550-22 (7.13)
U-3
-------
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
001
FOR AGENCY USE
b. Discnanje Treatment Codes
using tne coats IHtted In Table I
of tit* Instruction Booklet,
describe the wane abatement
processes applied to ttifc dlv
enarge in tne order in wniea
they occur, if possible,
Scearat* all codn wltft commM
•xa»t WIMT* riatMs ara utM
to owionaw pvaiMl opwattom.
if Mils tflselMrtt* is from a nuinteieai wast*
treatment plant (not an overflow or
oyp*«), complete item* 12 and 13
T2. Plant DMlen and OpentJen Manuals
Cheek wtiien of the following are
currently avallaole
a. Enalneerlng Oeden Report
b. Operation and Maintenance
Manual
13. Plant Oesien Data (see Instruction*)
a. nam Oesien Flow (mtd3
o. Hant OeMtn 8OO Removal (%)
c. fUnt Oe»«n N Removal (%}
0. Plant Oesien •> Removal (%)
e. Plant Desl«n SS Removal (%»
f. Plant Befan ovention (year)
g. Plant ust Major RevWon {year)
*»«*
SC, 6. C, AS. N, FSR, PG
3.83 me*
85
40
10
85
1983
tPA Form 7550-22 (7-73)
n-4
-------
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
001
1«. OMCricrtlon of Influent IM Effluent («•• instructions)
OMB Ho 2O4C-OO96
Appro*tt**otm 7-31-88
rOR AGENCY USE
urn]
Parameter and Code
21*
Flow
Million gallons per day
50050
PH
Units
00400
Temperature (winter)
°F
74028
Temperature (summer)
°F
7402?
Fecal Streptococci Bacteria
Number/ 100 ml
74054
(Provide if available)
Fecal Cottform Bacteria
Number/ 100 ml
74055
(Provide if available)
Total Conform Bacteria
Number/ 100 ml
74056
(Provide if available)
BOD 5-day
tng/1
00310
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
mg/1
00340
(Provide if available)
OR
Total Organic Carbon (TOO
rag/1
00680
(Provide if available)
(Either analysis is acceptable)
Chionnc- Total Residual
mg/1
50060
influent
a
g
H
< >
(i)
2.9
XX
><
XX
65
69
\ /
XX
X
/ \
\ /
XX
X
/ \
\ /
\
XX
165
N/A
N/A
...
Effluent
&
g
\l
< >
(2)
2.7
XX
X
Xxj
63
67
\ /
XX
X
/ x
X /
XX
X
/ \
\ X
X
/ X
19
N/A
,
N/A
2.5
!•»
§1
!»
* s
3 >
3 <
(3)
2.2
7.1
63
65
X /
XX
XX
s\
\ /
Xx
xx
^ N
\ /
X
XX
10
N/A
N/A
2.0
2«
11
2 >
« ft
fl
= <
(4)
3.2
7.4
64
68
N/A
86
N/A
21
N/A
N/A
2.8
•s
= =
41 m
3 >i
n
^ <
(5)
Cont.
I/week
I/week
I/week
N/A
I/month
N/A
I/week
N/A
N/A
I/week
w
° „
s s
a.
z <
(6)
—
52
52
52
N/A
12
N/A
52
N/A
N/A
b2
d>
a
a
CO
(7)
G
G
G
IN/A
G
N/A
C
N/A
N/A
b
£PA F«r» 7550-22 f7-73>
II-5
-------
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
nm
14. Description «f Influent and Cfflutnt (M« instructions) (Continued)
ACCNCY use
LLUJJ
Parameter and Cede
214
Total Solids
me/J
00500
Total Dissolved Solids
70300
Tool Suspended Solids
00530
SetdeaMe Matter (Residue)
mi/I
0054$
Ammonia las N)
00610
(Provide if available)
Kjeidahl Nitrogen
me/I
00625
(Provide if available)
Nitrate (as N)
00620
(Provide if available)
Nirme(asN)
mg/J
00615
(Provide if available)
Phosphorus Total (as P)
00665
(Provide if available)
Dissolved Oxyfen (DO)
00300
Influent
|
<
(1)
575
324
145
11
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Effluent
51
(2)
108
40
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
N/A
6.1
Lowest Monthly
Average Value
(3)
98
38
12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.0
Hitthesl Monthly
Average Value
(4)
135
43
14
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.2
Frequency ui'
Analysis
(5)
I/week
I/week
I/week
I/week
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I/day
Numbiii of
Analyse*
(6)
52
52
52
52
N/A
N/A
•
CO
(?)
C
C
G
6
N/A
N/A
N/A pT/A
N/A
N/A
365
N/A
N/A
6
EPA POT* 7SSO-22 (7.7:
n-6
-------
OMB No 2040-0086
Agpronl etptrei 7-31 -88
DISCHARGE SERIAL NUMBER
001
is. Additional wastewater Characteristic*
Cn«* me BOX next to eacn parameter if it ii present in tne effluent. (
FOM ACENCV USE ;
.
«•« m$trueti«»»
Parameter
(215) _
Bromide
71870
Chloride
00940
Cyanide
00720
Fluoride
00951
Sulilde
00745
Aluminum
OII05
Antimony
01097
Arsenic
01002
Beryllium
01012
Barium
01007
Boron
01022
Cadmium
01027 '
i
£
a.
Parameter
(215)
Cobalt
01037
Chromium
01034
Copper
01042 0.048 rng/1
Iron
01045
Lead
01051
Manganese
01055
Mercury
71900
Molybdenum
01062
Nickel
01067
Selenium
01147
Stiver
01077
SI
v>
«>
X
Parameter
(215)
Thallium
01059
Titanium
01152
Tin
01102
Zinc
01092
Algicides*
74051
Chlorinated organic compounds*
74052
Oil and grease
00550
Pesticides*
74053
Phenols
32730
Surfactants
38260
Radioactivity*
74050
I
£
'Provide specific compound and/or element in Item 17. if known.
Pesticides (Insecticides, fungicides, and rodenticides) must be reported in terms of the acceptable common names specified in Acceptable Com-
mon Nona aid Chemical Names for the Ingredient Statement on Pesticide Labels. 2nd Edition. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
D.C 20250. June 1972, as required by Subsection 162.7(b) of the Regulations for the Enforcement of the Federal insecticide. Fungicide, and
Rodemictde Act.
EPA Form 7550.22 (7-73)
II-7
-------
DISCHARGE SERIAL. NUMBER
001
ft. Hint Central* CMCti If the follow-
ing punt control! «re mailatte
for tfils dttcMrge
Alternate power sou re* for m*}or
pumping facility incHMtnt moM
for colKction sysMm lift itatlons
AUrm for power or •aulpnwnt
failure
17. Atftfltional Informatton
2J7
item
Number
information
•FA Fen. 7530^2 (7.73)
11-8
-------
FORM APPROVED
OMB So. ISS-RO'X)
STANDARD FORM A-MUNICIPAL
FOR ACCNCV USC
TIT
SECTION HI. SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENTS AND SCHEDULES OF IMPLEMENTATION
This section requires information on any uncompleted implementation sehecuie which nas oeen imposed for construction of waste treatment
facilities. Requirement schedules may nave been established by local. SUM.or Federal agencies or By court action. IF YOU ARE SUBJECT TO
SEVERAL. DIFFERENT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES:'EITHER BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF AUTHORITY IMPOSING
DIFFERENT SCHEDULES (ITEM lot AND/OR STAGED CONSTRUCTION OF SEPARATE OPERATIONAL UNITS (ITEM ic). SUBMIT A
SEPARATE SECTION III FOR EACH ONE.
1. improvements Required
a. Discharge serial Numbers
Affected LJ»t the discharge
serial numbers, assigned in Sec-
tion ii, tnat ant covered by this
implementation schedule
b. Authority imposing Requirement
Cheat the appropriate item tndl-
eating the authority for tne M>
plemefltatlon scrieaute if the
KtenticM Implementation fcneov
uie has Men oroered oy more
than one authority, check the
appropriate Items, (see In-
structions)
Locally developed plan
Areanvide Plan
Basin Plan
State approved implementation
schedule
Federal appruied water quality
standards implementation plan
Federal enforcement procedure
or action
State court order
Federal court order
c. improvement Oe*crls)U«« Specify the 3-character code for the
General Action Description in Taoie II tnat best describes the
improvements required by tne implementation schedule. If more
than one schedule applies to the facility because of a staged con-
struction schedule, state the stag* of construction Being described
here with the appropriate general action code, submit a separate
Section III for each stage of construction planned. Also, list ail
tne 3-character (Specific Action) codes wfitch describe in more
detail tne pollution abatement practices tnat me implementation
schedule require*.
3>citaraeter general action
description
^character specific action
descriptions
2. implementation Schedule and 3. Actual Completion Dates
Provide dates Imposed by schedule and any actual dates of completion for implementation steps
listed MOW. indicate dam as accurately as posclMe. (see Instructions)
FOR AGENCY USE
O LOG
DARE
DBAS
Dsas
DWQS
DENF
D CRT
implementation Steps
a. Preliminary plan complete
b. Final plan complete
c. Financing complete A contract
2. Schedule (Yr /Mo /Day)
3. Actual Completion (Vr /Mo /Day)
d.. Site acquired
e. Begin construction
f. End construction
g. Begin Discharge
tv Operational level attained
EPA Fern 7590.22 (7.73)
GPO MS.707
m-i
Thia section contains I
-------
-------
FORM APPROVED
OMB No. 1S8~RQIQO
STANDARD FORM A-MUNICIPAL
SECTION DT. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
POK AGENCY USE
I
Suomit a inscription of each miner industrial facility discharging to the municipal system, using t separate Section IV for eacn facility descrip-
tion, indicate the « digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code for the industry, tne major product or raw material, the flow (in tnou-
sand gallons per day), and tne characteristics of the wastewater discharged from tne industrial facility into tne municipal system. Consult Tapie
Ml for standard measures of products or raw materials, (tee instructions)
'• Major Contributing Facility
(see instructions)
Name
Numoer* Street
City
County
State
Zip Code
J. Primary Standard Industrial
Classification code (see
instructions)
3. Principal Product or Maw
Material (*ee instructions)
Product
Raw Material
4. Flew indicate the volume of water
discharged into the municipal sys-
tem in thousand gallons per day
and whether this discharge Is Inter-
mittent or continuous.
S. Pretreatmeiit Provided indicate If
pretreatment is provided prior to
entering the municipal system
«. Cnaracteristics of Wastewater
(see instructions)
40la
40lp
401C
401d
4O1e
401 f
402
403a
403b
We Are Milk
Otlsburq
202
Quantity
Milk
_Cows_
493f
100
.thousand gallons per day
O intermittent (int) 2) Continuous (con)
Parameter
Name
Parameter
Number
Value
BOD
00310
300 mg/1
TSS
00530
200 mg/1
0 & G
»«
60 mg/1
EPA Perm 7550.23 (7.73)
>«S.70C ~
IV-1
This section contains 1 page.
-------
-------
FORM
OMB No.
'Oft AOKNCY US)
1!
STANDARD FORM A-MUNICIPAL
SECTION IT. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
Submit a d*Kriation af *acn major industrial facility discnar*lnfl to tM muMelMr system, using a saparat* Section iv for «aen facility otter,o-
tioa. Indicate tM « dl#t Standard industrial Oafsifleation (SIC) Cod* for tM trMustry, tlw m«or product or raw m*t«o«, tM now (in tnou-
und faiiom o«r «ay), and tM eiuncMrittics of tn« waitowator dbcMrgM from tlw inoustrui faculty rnto tiw mon«/oaj tystom. Conwit Ta«w
Ml for standard moawrvs of products or raw materials. {s*> instruction*)
I- Major contrttirttftt Pactttty
(SM instructions)
Nam*
Numoor* Strwt
Oty
County
SUM
ZtpCodo.
2. Mmaiy Standard industrial
instruction*)
3. MocJMi Prodtwl or daw
MaMrlat (so* instructions)
Product
RawMatwial
4. now inoicat* UM woiumo of wator
dttdurtM into tM municipal sy*
tom in tnoutand fallom por day
and wMtMr mis otocftart* M Inttr*
mlttont or continuous.
9. Motr
iit *Vo*Mod iMfeawif
protnHtmoM is provi«ad prtor to
ontaring tM munlcloal lyttom
4O1a
4010
401d
40la
401 f
4M
The Metal Finishing Shop
Oti'sburq
3479
Miscellaneous
Quantity
Units (SM
ii n
Jewelry Products
S i 1 ver. Come r. Lead
4*3f
20
,Kiou«and oallons par day
jQ[lnt*rmlttom (int) QCor)tinuouS(can)
XZvos QNO
«.
(SM Instructions)
P*ram«t*r
Namo
^aramotor
NwmMr
V«uo
Ao
01077
0.06
Cu
01042
0.5
Pb
01051
1.2
In
01092
1.3
EPA Farm 7SSO-22 (7*73)
SPO «IJ.70(
IV-1
section cootMina 1 page.
-------
-------
FORM APPROVE
'«« AOCNCY
STANDARD FORM A-MUNICIPAL
SECTION 17. INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTRIBUTION TO MUNICIPAL SYSTEM
SuMftK * doKrtpttofl of o*cn major industrial facility aischarelnt to m« municipal lyttom. uting * Mparita Section I v for taefl faeiitty «a*cn».
lien. indicat* uto 4 diftt Standard industrial Qassifleition (SICJ Codo for tno industry. ttM maior proauct of r«w mjt«nai, trw now (in tftou-
»iw won P«r ««yl. MM tlw ciMraeMftttia of tlM w«Jtowu*r dtodi«r«M from UM induftrui faculty into tn* muniOMi iytt«n. Cotwuit
ill for sundara mwtum of erediicts or raw matwlau. (««• instnietloiis)
>• Mtfor CMtrlkiitiiit faculty
(M* rnitructloni)
Numo«r4> Str*tt
City
County
Stat*
2lpCod*
a. MflUfy SlaiMar*
Ctai«mcati««
inttruetlen*}
3. Mud**) P*Mu« or Haw
Mttnlal (Mt instruction*)
Product
Raw M«tori»i
4. now intficaM Hi* volutn* of wanr
dtteiMiytd MMO tiw munKlBai «y*
Mm tn tnousaM gallon* «or oay
and wtMRNor tnt* «tten«rt* it inttr>
iMttMit or conttriMOus.
S. PrvtrvaWMM Pra«MM inMcaWlf
protroatinoiit is orovidod flrlor to
«aia
40tc
401d
401*
401f
ETectroplatino. Inc.
Otlsburg
Automotive Parts
Bumpers (steeH
Quantity
- 1QQO
T»Bt« mi
ons por day
Q inttrmttWnt (int) QQcontlnuoui(eon)
•• CMncttrttUci of
(«o instruction*)
Paramotor
Namo
Param«t«r
Numpor
Vaiuo
Cu
01042
1.2
Pb
01051
0.8
Zn
01092
0.9
Cd
01027
1.1
For* 7530-22 (7.73)
iv-i
Thia **ction containa 1
-------
-------
13. Required Line Drawing - Schematic of Wastewater Plow - Otisburg
8 -
--
•
•
•
<
m
v
Hi
Qw
/•
-------
-------
Q.
ce
s
u
to
ttl
-------
-------
MUNICIPAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Application Review
Instructions:
In preparing for development of an NPDES permit for the Otisburg municipal wastewater
treatment facility, you must first review the submitted permit application. Review the attached
NPDES application forms and determine the following:
1. Are the application forms accurate and complete? If no, what additional information is
needed?
2. For which parameters must you establish technology-based effluent limits (specifically)?
3. For which parameters must you establish water quality-based effluent limits (generally)?
What additional information, if any, would you need to begin development of the NPDES
permit conditions?
What is the next step in developing NPDES permit conditions?
-------
MUNICIPAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits
Technology-Based Limits Worksheet
The final technology-based effluent limits are:
TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS
Parameter
Daily Max.
Cone.
(ug/D
Mass
Ob/day)
7-Day Average
Cone.
(ug/1)
Mass
(Ib/day)
30-Day Average
Cone.
(ug/1)
Mass
Ob/day)
-------
MUNICIPAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits (Cont.)
Water Quality-Based Limits Worksheet
Receiving Water Information
A search of the EPA STORET database identified a monitoring station on Pristine Creek less than
1 mile upstream from the Otisburg outfall. The data extracted for the last 6 years include:
Parameter
Copper
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
PH
Minimum
Concentration (ug/I)
2.0
1.0
20.1
11.1
39.4
14.7
6.9 s.u.
Maximum
Concentration (ug/1)
8.0
1.0
23.3
13.5
41.6
15.1
7.5 s.u.
Number of Data Points
24
1
6
6
6
24
24
Current United States Geological Survey (USGS) flow guage data for Pristine Creek, provided
the following information [NOTE: 1 MGD = 1.55 cfs]:
1Q10 = 50 cfs
7Q10 = 80 cfs
Harmonic Mean = 150 cfs
Summary of Effluent Data for Copper from Application and DMR
Cd(1) - 0.048 mg/l
Cd(2) = 0.032 mg/l
Cd(3) = 0.039 mg/l
Cd<4) = 0.045
Cd(S) = 0.022
Cd(6> = 0.037
[Note: Less than 10 observations; therefore, use default CV = 0.6]
-------
MUNICIPAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits (Cont.)
Water Quality-Based Limits Worksheet
Summary of State Water Quality Standards
The following designated uses apply to Pristine Creek:
- Warmwater habitat
- Agricultural and industrial water supply
- Primary contact recreation
The State Water Quality Criteria applicable to these uses are provided in the following Table:
APPLICABLE STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Paramter
Total Residual Chlorine
Whole Effluent Toxicitv
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
pH
Units
ug/1
TUx
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
s.u.
Aquatic Life
Acute
19
0.3 TUa
12
18
3,000
320
800
220
Chronic
11
1.0 TUc
3
12
500
20
95
150
Human
Health
_,
—
10
1000
50
50
600
5,000
Within range of 6.5 to 9
For the purposes of determining reasonable potential and developing wasteload allocations, the
following design stream flows shall be used:
1. 1-day, 10-year (1Q10) flow for acute protection of aquatic life
2. 7-day, 10 year (7Q10) flow for chronic protection of aquatic life
3. Harmonic Mean Flow for protection of human health.
-------
MUNICIPAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits (Cont.)
Water Quality-Based Limits Worksheet
Table 3-1 from the EPA Technical Support Document
Number o>
Sanpin
1
2
3
A
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
Coefficient of Vwution
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1.6 2.5 3.9 6.0 9.0
1.4 2.0 2.9 4.0 5.5
1.4 1.9 2.S 3.3 4.4
1.3 1.7 2.3 2.9 3.8
1.3 1.7 2.1 2.7 3-4
1.3 1.6 2.0 2.5 3.1
1.3 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.9
1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2-8
1.2 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.7
1.2 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.6
1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.5
1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.4
1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3
1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.3
1.2 1.4 16 1.9 2.2
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.2
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.1
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1
1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1
1.2 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.6 07 0.8 0.9 1.0
13.2 18.9 26.5 36.2 48.3
7.4 9.8 12.7 16.1 20.2
5.6 7.2 8.9 11.0 13.4
4.7 5.9 7.2 8.7 10.3
4.2 5.1 6.2 7.3 8.6
3.8 4.6 5.5 6.4 7.5
3.6 4.2 S.O 5.8 6.7
3.3 3.9 4.6 5.3 6.1
3.2 3.7 4.3 5.0 5.7
3.0 3.5 4.1 4.7 5.3
2.9 3.4 3.9 4.4 5.0
2.8 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7
2.7 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.5
2.6 3.0 3.4 3.9 4.3
2.6 2.9 3.3 3.7 4.1
2.5 2.9 3.2 3.6 40
2.5 2.8 3.1 3.5 3.8
2.4 2.7 3.0 3.4 3.7
2.4 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.6
2.3 2.6 2.9 3.2 3.5
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
63.3 81.4 102.8 128.0 157.1
24.9 30.3 36.3 43.0 50.4
16.0 19.0 22.2 25.7 29.4
12.2 14.2 16.3 18.6 21.0
10.0 11.5 13.1 14.8 16.6
8.6 9.8 11.1 12.4 13.8
7.7 8.7 9.7 10.8 12.0
6.9 7.8 8.7 9.6 10.6
6.4 7.1 7.9 8.7 9.6
5.9 6.6 7.3 8.0 8.8
5.6 6.2 6.8 7.4 8.1
5.2 5.8 6.4 7.0 7.5
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.1
4.8 5.2 57 6.2 6.7
4.6 5.0 5.4 5.9 6.4
4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.1
4.2 4.6 5.0 S.4 5.8
4.1 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6
4.0 4.3 4.6 5.0 5.3
3.8 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.2
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0
90.3 227.8 269.9 316.7 368.3
58.4 67.2 76.6 86.7 97.5
33.5 37.7 42.3 47.0 52.0
23.6 26.3 29.1 32.1 35.1
18.4 20.4 22.4 24.5 266
15.3 16.8 18.3 19.9 21.5
13.1 14.4 15.6 16.9 18.2
11.6 12.6 13.6 14.7 15.8
10.4 11.3 12.2 13.1 14.0
9.5 10.3 11.0 11.8 12.6
8.8 9.4 10.1 10.8 11.5
8.1 8.8 9.4 10.0 10.6
7.6 8.2 8.7 9.3 9.9
7.2 7.7 8.2 8.7 9.2
6.8 7.3 7.7 8.2 8.7
6.5 6.9 7.3 7.8 8.2
6.2 6.6 7.0 7.4 7.8
5.9 6.3 6.7 7.0 7.4
5.7 6.0 6.4 6.7 7.1
5.5 5.8 6.1 6.5 6.8
Table 5-1 from the EPA Technical Support Document:
TaWeS-l. Back Calculations of Long-Term Average
CV
0.1
02
0.3
0.4
0.5
0'.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
WLA Multipliers
9
9Sth
PereenWe
0853
0738
0.644
0.571
0.514
0468
0.432
0.403
0379
0.360
0.344
0.330
0.319
0.310
0.302
0.296
0.290
0.285
0281
0.277
99th
Percentile
0.797
0.643
0.527
0.440
0.373
0.32t
0281
0.249
0.224
0.204
0.187
0.174
0.182
0153
0.144
0.137
0.131
0.126
0.121
0.117
LTA^ = WL
wnereo2*
2»1.645lo
1 .2.326 to
Acute
1 0.5 <£ - 1 a \
*a.c*e
99m percentile occurrence probability
Chronic
( 4-day average)
LTAe = WLA,. • e "' *
where 042**>[CV*/ 4 + 1 ].
z = 1 .645 tor 95W percentile occurrence probability, and
CV
0.1
02
0.3
0.4
O.S
0.6
0.7
O.S
0.9
1.0
1.1
12
1.3
1.4
1.S
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
WLA Multipliers
e '
95th
0.922
0853
0.791
0.736
0.687
0.644
0.606
O.S71
O.S41
0.514
0.490
0.468
0.449
0432
0.417
0.403
0.390
0.379
0.368
0.380
'-«,.!
99th
Percentile
0.891
0.797
0.715
0.643
0.581
0.527
0.481
0.440
0.404
0.373
0.345
0.321
0.300
0.281
0.264
0249
0236
0224
0214
0.204
-------
MUNICIPAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits (Cont.)
Water Quality-Based Limits Worksheet
Table 5-2 from the EPA Technical Support Document:
Table 5-2. Calculation of Permit Limits
CV
0.1
0-2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
14
1.6
1.8
1.9
2.0
LTA multipliers
e[Io-0.5o*)
95*
Porconttm
1.17
1.36
1.SS
175
1.95
2.13
2.31
2.48
2.64
2.78
291
3.03
3.13
3.23
3.31
338
3 45
341
346
3.60
99th
PerceTtile
1.25
1.55
190
2.2"*
2.68
3.11
3.S8
4.01
4.46
4.90
5.34
5.76
6.17
6.56
»M
7.29
7 63
7.95
6.26
6.55
..
Maximum Daily Limit
iiO-OSo2 1
MDL — LTA • e
...i-—.— * L . £w£ ^ * i
z * i .645 tor 95th percent* OCCUTOIX* probability, and
z * 2.326 tor 99th percentite occurrence probability
Work Space:
Average Monthly Umft
. _ _ j .
AML = LTA«e on*°'san J
where on* = In [ CV2 / n * 1 ].
z - 1 .645 for 95th percent*..
z - 2.386 tor 99th percen^ tnd
n m number of :iafnpto^ftim>li
CV
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
LTA Multipliers
eUor -0.50,,*!
9Stti
Percentite
n*1 rt=2 n*4 nsio n«30
1.17 1.12 1.06 1.06 1.03
1.38 1-25 1.17 1.12 1.06
1.55 1.36 1.26 1.18 1.09
1.7S 1.52 1.36 1.25 1.12
t.95 1.66 14$ 1.31 1.16
2.13 1.80 I.SS 1.38 1.19
2-31 1.94 1.65 1.45 1.22
2.48 2.07 1.75 142 1.26
2.64 2-20 1.8S 1.58 1.29
2.78 2-33 1.9S t.66 1.33
2.91 2.45 2.04 1.73 1.36
3.03 2.56 2.13 1.80 l»
313 2.67 2.23 1.87 1.43
333 2.77 241 1.94 1.47
3.31 2.86 2.40 2.00 1.50
3-36 255 E.48 2.07 1.54
3.45 3.03 2.56 2.14 1.57
3.51 3.10 2.64 2.20 1.61
3.W 3.17 2.71 2.27 1.64
3.60 3.23 t.7» 2.33 1.68
99th
Perasntile
n=1 ro2 n=4 n-10 n«30
125 1.16 1.12 1.08 104
1.5S 1.37 1.25 MS 1.09
1.90 1.59 1.40 1.24 1.13
2.27 1.83 1.55 1.33 1.16
2.68 2.09 1.72 1.42 1.23
3.11 2.37 1.90 1.52 1.28
3.S6 2.86 2.08 1.62 1.33
4.01 2.96 2-27 1.73 1.39
4,46 3-28 2.48 1.84 1.44
4.90 3.S9 2.68 1.96 1.SO
5.34 3.91 2.90 2.07 1.56
5.76 423 3.11 2.19 1.62
6.17 4.55 3.34 2.32 168
6.56 4.86 3.56 2.45 1.74
6.93 5.17 3.78 2.58 1.80
7.29 S.47 4.01 2.71 1.87
7.63 5.77 4.23 2.84 1.93
7.95 6.06 4.4C 2.98 2.00
8.26 6.34 4.66 3.12 2.07
8.55 6.61 4.90 3.26 2.14
-------
MUNICIPAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits (Cont.)
Water Quality-Based Limits Worksheet
Work Space:
-------
MUNICIPAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits (Cont.)
Water Quality-Based Limits Worksheet
Work Space:
WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS
Parameter
Daily Max.
Cone.
Mass
7-Day Average
Cone.
Mass
30-Day Average
Cone.
Mass
-------
MUNICIPAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits
Instructions:
Complete the table based on the calculations performed above Provide a b_rief justification for
each parameter for which limits are required below. If limits are not required or are not
appropriate for a parameter, also provide a brief justification below. (Be sure to indicate the
appropriate units.)
FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITS
Parameter
Daily Max.
Cone.
(ug/1)
Mass
Ob/day)
7-Day Average
Cone.
(ug/1)
Mass
(Ib/day)
30-Day Average
Cone.
(ug/I)
Mass
(Ib/day)
JUSTIFICATION FOR EFFLUENT LIMITS
Parameter
Justification
-------
MUNICIPAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Monitoring Conditions
Instructions:
Complete the following Table by developing appropriate monitoring frequencies and sample types
for each of the parameters for which effluent limits were established. Provide a brief justification
for each decision.
MONITORING FREQUENCIES
Parameter
Monitoring
Frequency
Sample Type
Justification
What sample locations) would be specified in the permit? Do any parameters require any unique
sampling requirements (i.e., special sampling location)?
10
-------
MUNICIPAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Special Conditions
Questions:
1. Should the facility be required to develop a Pretreatment Program? Provide a brief
justification for your decision.
2. What special conditions should the NPDES permit include regarding the discharges from
the electroplating facilities?
3. What other special conditions might be included in the permit for this facility?
11
-------
-------
eat arm: or tvO* .f> me _r,jn«KJeC areas
IfUi—.i trvti iff sofcra for el'tt .-ygg. .'.«.. j 2 ct>tr*ctrn/incrU.
form A00ra*mt. OMB Ho. 2O4O-OO86 Agerotfl »to«*s 7-3f
A6ENCV
GENERAL INFORMATION
I. EPA I.O. NUMBER
(Rttd tti* "General iHttmetfoiu" btfort itartint->
If • ptaprintad label has been provide, *
it in the dSMgnaiad space. Review the info
•tion carefully; rf any of it is incurieu. a
thfiMigh it and enter the cutletl data in
eree below. Alto,
AA* «*• «o
Mr of cM* Jeoe/ K* /* inform*
it in
fill-in wrmM bttowr. If tht
comptra «M eorrvet, you nMd not comprf
i. (11 V.
Of
•* ^^. «—«^_j ifc^— t*^^tak rt»MMn'«to»4
IT no HQVV nv own prwiovo
iftftructiofls for
tiom and for tht Ivg^wthoriatiOfit urn
WniCn tntt Ovtt is CQfiMftQO.
Jir. FACILITY NAME N
\ \ \ \ N
1
II. POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTICS
INSTRUCTIONS: Compltn A through J to dtttrmint whttrwr you mod to aibmrt any pwmit •pplieatiim forau to tta EPA. if you ontwir "ytt" to any
quotient, you mutt submit this form and ttM wpptanMrral form fintd in ttw pofmtfum foltowina tin qutnaft. tint "X" in tin BOX in try third column
if tht tuppitmtnttl form « fttactwd. If you OMMT "no" to Heri qontion, you and notwbmit my «f thai form. You mty «niww "no" if your activity
ntxduiMd from ptrmrt raquinmtirti; m Stttion C of tht iwtrwctiont Stt ate, Stetion 0 of tht rmtnretiont f or dffmitioni of toil fattd tamu.
•rfcirtc «UK«TIOMS
-A-
Is tha f»citiry •
wfiieh rwults in •
(FORM 2A)
to
of tfw US.?
X
Does or will thia facility ria/nvr existey or psopci
Ml pfOQUCtlOfi wKlHty WnlCn PMUtU
»to watan of «e UA? (FORM 28)
X
It this a facility which currently results in
to watan of tfw US. other than those described in
A or B above? (FORM 2C)
Does or will this facility treat, store, or dispose of
satat? (FORM 3)
X
facility ropier oian tru
result in a
1M2D)
F.
\
Do you or will you mjaet at tfti* facility industrial or
municipal arfliwrn balow ttw io»«armo« nntum eon-
OjUaWttf (mW Of tfM M9
of drinking MVBJT? (FORM 4}
jt l IT
Xi
G. Do you or will you inject at tni» racilrty any
water or other fluid* which ara brought to t
-------
SOMTIMUED PROM THE FR
VIL SIC COOCS <*<*•*. in ora* of priority)
OPERATOR INFORMATION
e. STATUS or OPCMATOM Center AC tppntpmti imrr aim tut turner MX
o. PHONK W
XII. NATURE OF BUSINESS IffOfidtu triuft
XIII. CERTIFICATION (mi instruction!}
a0p/«e»t»y>, /
mformition, including tit* pouibiOty of fin» tad impnuamtat
TOf OOCMNI^f tAff wlfOflTOfW Q9f9ft9if99Q l/f Cntf
» OFFICIAL. TITI.B (rypt or frtnt)
COMMENTS FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
EPA Form 3510-1 <«•». 10401
U.S. Cov«ra*«ai frtnt:n| Office
-------
Please onni or woe i" tne unsnaaed areas ooiy.
r
; of f
OMB No 204O-OO86
7 3'-86
FORM
2C
u.s. ffMviMONiraMTAL. MOTceriofc AOTMCV . -••.-....•. , •
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DtSCHAAOE MASTBWATER
EXISTING MANUFACTURING, COMMERCIAL, MINING AND SfLVfCULTURAL OPERATIONS
Consolidaud Permits Program
or Men outfall. li» the latituda «nd lengitudt of its location to tne nearest IS noond* and the mme of tht
I "MUM
i nil
£Ai-L a. I.ATITUOI
ri 1. 0««, 1 S. MM.
i
t
>. tne.
c. LONCITUOE
t. a*o.
' t, MIPJ. 1. SCC.
F&venisie. ^2s&^-
i
IL FLOWS, SOURCES OF POLLUTION. AND TREATMENT TECHNOLMlK^l^l^l^l^l^pB^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^HW
A. Ann
and!
nOW
fi A Imv dnvwing inowtng tlw
wmr ftoi
tpona to i
WBtflMfft
Eh* mor* dn»M (touipUoru in ittm 6. Cortrtruct -a wMr brtaim on Hw.Hn* drawing by showing averse
unitsf Mid oolUte* If • wcur bvl^nof CM 11191 te* ovVinninod ^Xfl« i^pv OftfttEft itwttng jcovrtwf^ provide A
•^^•^M- MMflV^ML JH^v^l^HHMP^MHA^^B^tfWM^HMl^H^BpVtfMl ^ gSS^^^^SiJ^FJ.TBIifetittfatjii^SBF^^ w^ ^"™ -• ^ "
nr^BMT ^P^M^>^y IBV^^R»^MW^^iiy^^ffy' ^pJa^^P^^m^ir w*>^^BBpiy^»^BH^j)jPF^-V^S|^^!|j^J^^^ """ •* •" " • *
oooNng wmr, and norm wrar runoff; (2) The wantu flow eontributtd by Men mumlun; ail O> H» inmiiMU 'aemmd by
2. OPCMATIO
M(S| COMTRIftUTlMa PUOW
•. OPERATION (lift)
'=>US£r?>^^LiKi
V\6i^4C\r4
-
b. AVCRA6X FLAW
rinefede wutt>
50,000*^
J
\00,OCD <»pA
*"
' '
-. - - -. .- •• .--•-• ... i i •••!>!• m.
_^^^___ ^^ .. v*. .
?£\ W AtW CtA& f\ C&TI o»4
SUUF\D& fSsc-^T^ohJ
BA^nCCCi >6E*noivi
1
X L4«T COOCS PRO
TAM.C 2C-1
l-T
-z-c
3-*.
\-u.
i
!
i
JFFICIAL. use ONuY itfflueni tuiOelmrt tub-cattfontti
CONTINUE ON ns * = •
-------
CONTINUED FROM THg ?RQNT
C. Except for norm runoff. leaks, or spills, are any of the diacharges described in Items II-A or 8 intermittent or seasonal?
'res team fine Utt following tebl*) -~ NO r*o to Section 111)
I. OUTFALL
NUMBER
z.
CONTRIBUTING PLOW
{list)
3. FREQUENCY
a. DAYS
PER WEEK
| (tpecify
\
b. MONTHS
PER YEAR
upteify
event* j
4. FLOW
•. FL.OW RATE
fin mftf)
b. TOTAU VOCUME
frith unitif
II. PROOUCTION
A. Docs an effluent guideline limitation promulgated by EPA under Section 304 of the dean water Act apply to your facility?
2£vcs (complttt Jttm rtl-B) L— NO (to to Section IV)
B. Are the limitations in the applicable *
Mvn leompttte Sam OI-C)
id in laiutt of productiOR rar vth9f f
[~ NO ffo to Section IV)
C. If you ensured "y*s' to ttam lH-fl. list the quantity which Mpramno an actual measurement of your l«*«l of production. ««pf aaaad in thg tarms and units
us«d in the applicable effluent gwddiiw. and indtem dw aMwtad outtolta.
1. AVERAGE DAK.Y PRODUCTION
C. OPCMATIOM. *»tteuCT. H
(tpecifyl
2.
OUTFAllS
OOO
A. Ar» you low rcQuired oy any Federal, State or local authority to meet any implementation schedule for the construction, upgrading or operation of .-ajst--
water treatment equipment or Bcaetices or any other environmental programs which may affect the discharges described in mis application? Tfus :nCiu«s.
but is not umited to, permit condrtions, administrative or enforcement orders, enforcement compliance schedule tetters, stipulations, court orders, and jran-
or b. •OWKCK •* •«•«>•«•••
1. BRIEF DKSCItlrTION OF PROJECT
u.5Vo
You may at'acn additional she«tjtfescr.omg anv acc-tionai ^a'sr so'-a:"Ji* coritroi oro^ramj for other environmental src,tx~ vr-c*
•/our disctiargesl vou nowJiave underway or wrucf vou oiar.. indicate wnetriir ^scr o'ogram .5 now unoe'way or pJannea, and i-.3>cj:e ,,
ianned sc^eauies for construction.
.MARK -X" IF DESCRIPTION OF ADDITIONAL. COMTROU PROGRAMS IS ATTACHED
£PA Form 3S10-2C (Rev. 2 85)
PAGE 3 Of
CONTIiML-S .;>is-ij£3
-------
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2
EPA i.o. NUMBER leopy from Ittm i of Farm :,
•tvm
OMB No. 2&4O-OO6S
AeofOvml tipires 7-31-38
IV. INTAKE AMP EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
A.B,&C: See instructions before proceeding - Complete one set of tables for eacn outfall - Annotate the outfall number in the
NOTE; Tables V-A. V-B, and V-C are included on separate sheets numbered V-1 through V-9.
provided
^ "
Use trie space below to list any of the pollutants listed in Table 2c-3 of ttie instructions, which you know or haw reason to beliew is disefiaraed or mar "
drscharged from any outfall. For ««ry pollutant you list, briefly describe the reasons you beliew it to be present and report any analytical data in yo«.
possession.
2. SOURCE
1. POLLUTANT
Z. SOURCE
VI. POTENTIAL DISCHARGES NOT COVERED BY ANALYSIS]
wnt of a stitatancBwhicft you currently useJoTr
1 product or
^Yt*'titt ell tucti KMutmtM t>tiou
(go to item VJ-B)
f
t
EPA Form 3510-2C «R*v. 2-85)
PAGE 3 OF 4
CONTINUE ON a^
-------
CONTINUED ERQM THE PROMT
[yil. BIOLOGICAL TOXICITY TESTIJSc OATA]
' Do you tone any toionnadp or i man to batten*that any biological tan for acute or chronic toxicitv ha* been made on any of your
—- . in relation to your dbenarje wrttiin the iwt 3 yaar»?
[3 wo (§o to Section VZ7W
~ W* fidtntify ittt ttttlf> and detcrit* ttittr tarpon* btloia)
VIII CONTRACT ANALYSIS
Were any of the analyj
* '
Wd in l«n> V parfonnad by a contract laboratory or conMttmg finn?
i jy«- nrf'ft**. yid talepkoi* number of, otut poOutontM
onoiyztd by. caen oieft iaaofMory or J»m briow;
NO f«o to Section
A. NAME
•. ADDRESS
; c. TEkcpHonc
i farta code a no.J
ANAWV2E
cop
TDC
;*ose persons dirMtyreswnsibto fix gathering the information, th* information submitted is. u>thei>estofmYknowi«
NO ..:~-c vo«l.- .s. -
SPA Ft T 3510-2C (Rev. 2-85)
PAGE 4 OF
-------
§
-------
-------
(ft
ee
2?
s
fe
-------
-------
Process Water/Wastewater Schematic
Hides R Us
Process
Waste <-
Water
Pigskin
Process Line
Degreasing
Bating,
Pickling,
& Tanning
Retanning
Bleaching
Fat-
Liquoring
Raw Water
Pickled
Sheepskins
Process Line
Degreasing
Fleshing j-
Pickling
and
Tanning
Coloring
Fat-
Liquoring
• >
1
Process
-> Waste
Water
• 4»*»-^ —
To Wastewater Treatment Plant
-------
-------
-------
3
u
1C
<
^
z
ft
«
^
I
*t
V
•
5
t
L.
U
*»
.
1
X
1
z
* i
i *
-<
}-•*
15
H
i
;
e -
c *
-
? =
j;
r
!
i
!
i
1
Ur • i
"= 0^1
P, ?>
5.
c
f
K
3
<
>
S>^
n
I
u
ID
9
J
c
>
i
p
*
<
z
ri
u
9
!
.j
<
i
1
X
<
X
•
Jrt' »)« MIA 1 1«>'»
ar
•*
4
2
2
i
c*
r
V
.*
?
v
*
z
c
«?
a>:;
.
•in
II. POLLUT-
ANT AND
CAS NO.
(if aluillaMfl
!
C
ol
^
X
If. Nitrogen,
1 Total O>g*nlc
t»N>
.
!
!
i
i
I
|
X
1,
M
«o
Y
te
f*~T
ks-
tit
! i
i !
i
;
I
i
*.
|
_&
>c
!i
i
f
!
X
If
X
i
i i II
j 1 i
i
! '
. . i
i ' i
i ' '
1 !
-
i
X*
I
X
lj
Iff
1
!
l : j
! ! 1
i
t
!
i
IX
x
!i
n
i-i
Eil
i :
1 ;
i : i
1. : •
-•-
i
1
iJ J
xNX
i
e
10. ^NwnTBuni,
Total
(7420 804)
1*
III
tx
•j?
iil
i ! :
i : : • .
! : : ;
i r
1 . ;
v
X
ft, Cobtlt.
Total
(744048-4)
i
' i
.. :
i
i
!
l
: ! '
: i
1
!
1 :
: :
i
: i |
; ! :
1
! i
! ! :
i ! •
.
!
i
i
i
t
i
j
; i
; . i
: : • . :
: :
' ; i -IT
x-x^xxxx
I». Iron, Total
(74398061
ifl
lj
5 ^| SJ§» | ?
1 s| *h? I ?
*_b> •-« I CC - — o
| flls f| 55 Ff?
*£E(»^ii *s i»^i
-------
S £
-------
-------
-------
• ! =
; ._>
!i!f!;,:
u-i i. >
: : 3 z;
• •> : «
Mil
•o
i>
M
'i5
S-i
!
.' i
1 i j
i |! j
i J4
«
3£>
M* .=
*j;J
«»!"
i3&
!
ill
I?
w
1^
ir i t;
OB-SI
*•" c .' w
n .
-------
-------
4 THE FHONT
CONTINUED FRO*
S. INTAKE fo/ilio.iuj; ]
4. UNITS
k.
o«S
t
*
I
• LONf
— AJtKJiAfi
|<| i <>MI tin
VHAIION
Ul
0
X
•. CONCEN
TRATION
It. .
H
3
i<
n
3, CFFLULNT
. !
•
x :
x _
Si
» i
S
9
3
0
C>
S
K
X
3
HI
3
«l
>
>
-i
1
£ =
3
S
*'
<'
S1
a
I
z
0
_t
» ^'
z
u
J
i :
t
3
C!
-|i
i
i
*
» !
•
j^
^.2:
i;
^»'r
!;l;
icoitliitiivJI
g
§
- BASI/NEUTRAI
I. POLLUTANT
AND CAS
NUMBLN
(if iwailuMrl
GC/MS FRACTION
I
|
f
i
r
i
i
\
\
/ j
r
.
,
i
'
-i .
xkxx
'••
1430 N Nlwo
«udipl»!(iyl*'ii<
-------
§:
-------
-------
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Application Review
Instructions:
Review the attached NPDES application form, discharge monitoring data, state water quality
standards, receiving water information, and facility inspection report and determine the following:
1. Has the facility provided all the information required by the form? If no, what information
is missing? Is there additional information needed?
2. For which parameters must you establish technology-based effluent limits (generally)?
3. Is this facility subject to effluent limitation guidelines and standards? If yes, which
guidelines should apply?
4. For which parameters must you develop water-quality based effluent limits (generally)?
-------
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits
Technology-Based Limits Worksheet
Summary of Recent NPDES Compliance Inspection of Hides R Us Facility
The report for an inspection performed by EPA in February 1995 at the Hides R Us facility noted
the following information:
Although production volume has remained relatively consistent (see data below),
the facility's wastewater flow has decreased due to water conservation and reuse
practices. The facility reuses the spent tanning solutions and also uses a portion
of the tanning rinse waters as make-up for the pickling liquor.
Production volume (Ib/day)
Sheepskins
Pigskins
1992
9,750
50,000
1993
10,700
52,000
1994
9,550
48,000
Facility records indicate numerous slug loadings (of grease) to the activated sludge
system occur when the grease recovery system is not operational.
Numerous spills in the degreasing process area and in the tanning area due to
operators accidentally overfilling the drums.
The drains in the trenches around the process areas are clogged with hair and
pieces of hides. The process wastewater spills overflow the trenches instead of
draining to the treatment system.
-------
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits (Cont.)
Technology-Based Limits Worksheet
TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS
Parameter
Daily Max.
Cone.
Mass
30-Day Average
Cone.
Mass
-------
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits (Cont.)
Water Quality-Based Limits Worksheet
In addition to the technology-based requirements for BOD5, TSS, oil and grease, total
chromium, and pH, the permit writer also determined that the discharges of total chromium and
pH by Hides R Us may contribute, cause, or have the potential to cause an exceedance of
applicable water quality standards (40 CFR §122.44(d)).
[Note: There are no State water quality criteria for BOD5, TSS, and oil and grease, so effluent
limits for these pollutants would be based solely on technology-based requirements.]
Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits
Using the approach describe in the EPA Technical Suppport Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control (TSD), the following permit limits were developed:
WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS
Parameter
BOD5
TSS
Oil and Grease
Total Chromium
PH
Daily Max.
Cone.
_-
—
..
7,020 ug/1
Mass
~
—
—
8.8 Ib/day
30-Day Average
Cone.
—
..
„
4,680 ug/1
Mass
—
—
—
5.9 Ib/day
Within the range of 6.5 - 9.0 S.U
-------
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Effluent Limits
Instructions:
Complete the table based on the calculations performed above. Provide a brief justification for
each parameter for which limits are required. If limits are not required or are not appropriate for
a parameter, also provide a brief justification. (Be sure to indicate the appropriate units.)
FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITS
Parameter
Daily Max.
Cone.
Mass
30-Day Average
Cone.
Mass
JUSTIFICATION FOR EFFLUENT LIMITS
Parameter
Justification
-------
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Monitoring Conditions
Instructions:
Indicate in the following Table the parameters to be monitored by the facility, the appropriate
monitoring frequencies, and the sample type for each of the parameters to be monitored. Provide
a brief justification for each decision (i.e., why that parameter must be monitored, why that
frequency is required, and why that sample type must be used.)
FINAL MONITORING FREQUENCIES
Parameter
Monitoring
Frequency
Sample Type
Justification
What sample location would be specified in the permit? Do any parameters require any unique
sampling requirements (i.e., special sampling location)?
-------
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
Developing Special Conditions
Questions:
1. Should the facility's permit require development and implementation of specific BMPs or
a BMP Plan? Is yes, what would these be?
2, Would you require whole effluent toxiciry monitoring of the effluent? If so, briefly outline
the condition and justification.
3. What other, if any, special conditions would you impose?
-------
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
The Administrative Process
Instructions:
You have now completed permit development, documented your decisions in the Fact Sheet,
provided notice of the draft permit to interested parties, and issued the final NPDES permit for
Hides R Us (whew!). However, the owner of the facility, unhappy with your work, seeks an
administrative appeal of the permit and in so doing, raises the following issues:
• The permit is improperly based on the provisions of 40 CFR Part 425
(Subcategories E and H));
• The effluent limitations for chromium and oil and grease are calculated incorrectly;
• The facility's written comment to delete the "duty to mitigate" standard condition
was improperly ignored;
• The weekly monitoring requirements for chromium and oil and grease are
excessive; and
• The Agency violated its regulations and established policy by refusing to hold a
hearing as requested by the facility.
QUESTIONS:
(1) Assuming the facility's appeal is granted, what effect will this have on the effectiveness
of the NPDES permit?
(2) .What standard of review should the Hearing Officer use to evaluate the permit?
8
-------
INDUSTRIAL PERMIT WRITING EXERCISE
The Administrative Process (Cont.)
(3)
You have been called upon to testify on behalf of the Permit Authority. How do you
respond to each of the issues raised?
(a) The improper application of effluent guidelines regulations:
(b) The calculation of limitations:
(c) The inclusion of the duty to mitigate condition:
(d) The excessive monitoring requirements:
(e) The failure to hold a hearing:
(4)
In addition to this logically organized and undeniably scientific testimony concerning your
actions in developing this permit, what other assistance might you be asked to lend to your
attorney?
(5) Once the Hearing Officer has made a decision, what is the next step in the process of
getting the Hides R Us permit final and effective?
-------
-------