APPENDIX  B
                        WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
CD

UD

-------
                                 CONTENTS


                                                                        Page

LIST OF FIGURES                                                         iii

LIST OF TABLES                                                           iv

INTRODUCTION                                                            B-l

B-I.  SUSPENDED SOLIDS DEPOSITION                                       B-2

     SMALL DISCHARGER APPROACH                                          B-2
     LARGE DISCHARGER APPROACH                                          B-6

B-II.  DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION FOLLOWING INITIAL DILUTION       B-15

B-III.  FARFIELD DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEPRESSION                           B-23

     SIMPLIFIED MATHEMATICAL MODELS                                    B-25
     NUMERICAL MODELS                                                  B-35
     EVALUATION OF FIELD DATA                                          B-36

B-IV.  SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND                                          B-38

B-V.  SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION FOLLOWING INITIAL DILUTION        B-44

B-VI.  EFFLUENT pH AFTER INITIAL DILUTION                              B-48

B-VII.  LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE                                            B-53

B-VIII.  OTHER WATER QUALITY VARIABLES                                 B-61

     TOTAL DISSOLVED GASES                                             B-61
     CHLORINE RESIDUAL                                                 B-61
     NUTRIENTS                                                         B-62
     COLIFORM BACTERIA                                                 B-64

REFERENCES                                                             B-68
                                    B-ii

-------
                                  FIGURES


Number                                                                  Page

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

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

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

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

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

-------
                                  TABLES
Number                                                                  Page

  B-l   Example tabulations of settleable organic component by
        group and maximum settling distance by group                   B-12

  B-2   Example tabulations of deposition rates and accumulation
        rates by contour                                               B-13

  B-3   Typical IDOD values                                            B-17

  B-4   Dissolved oxygen saturation values                             B-21

  B-5   Subsequent dilutions for various initial field widths and
        travel times                                                   B-41

  B-6   Selected background suspended solids concentrations            B-46

  B-7   Calculated values for the critical effluent Secchi depth (cm)
        for selected ambient Secchi depths, initial dilutions, and a
        water quality standard for minimum Secchi disc visibility of
        1 m                                                            B-58
                                    B-iv

-------
                                INTRODUCTION


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

     •    Suspended solids deposition

     •    Dissolved oxygen concentration following initial dilution

     •    Farfield dissolved oxygen depression

     •    Sediment oxygen demand

     •    Suspended solids concentration following initial dilution

     •    Effluent pH after initial dilution

     •    Light transmittance

     •    Other water quality variables.
                                    B-l

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

SMALL DISCHARGER APPROACH

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

     Figure B-l  is  to  be  used  for open coastal  areas that  are  generally
considered well flushed.   The  dashed line represents  combinations  of solids
mass emission rates  and plume heights-of-rise that would result in a steady-
state sediment  accumulation of  50  g/m2.   Review of  data  from several  open
coast discharges  has  indicated  that  biological  effects  are minimal  when
accumulation rates were estimated  to be  below this  level.   Consequently, if
the applicant's mass emission rate and height-of-rise fall  below this dashed
line no further sediment accumulation analyses are needed.   Applicants whose
charge  characteristics  fall above the line should conduct  a  more detailed
analysis of sediment accumulation discussed in the following section.

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

-------
   7000 r-
   6000
I
» 5000
(ft
9
ui
   4000
   3000
   2OOO
   1000
            I
       024    6    6    1O   12   14   16   18    20

                         HEIGHT OF RISE, m
            STEADY STATE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION LESS THAN 50g/m2
            DO DEPRESSION DUE TO STEADY-STATE SEDIMENT
            DEMAND > 02 mg/l
                                                     R«f«r»rx»: Tetra Tech (1982).
Figure B-1.  Projected relationships between suspended solid mass
            emission, plume height-of-rise, sediment accumulation,
            and dissolved oxygen depression for open coastal areas.
                          B-3

-------
     Figure B-2  should be used in a  similar  manner for discharges to semi-
enclosed  embayments  or  estuaries.    Because  estuaries and  semi-enclosed
embayments  are  potentially more  sensitive  than  open  coastal  areas,  the
critical sediment accumulation was set at 25 g/m?.

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

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

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

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

-------
    4000 r-
 0 3000

 o
 (A
 o
 uj 2000
 cc

 I
 M 1000
 (A
 55
                       6    8    10   12   U   16

                          HEIGHT OF RISE, m
20
               STEADY STATE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION LESS THAN 250/m2
               DO DEPRESSION DUE TO STEADY-STATE SEDIMENT
               DEMAND > 0.2 mg/l
                                                       Reference: Tetra Tech (1982).
Figure B-2.  Projected relationships between solid mass emission, plume
            height-of-rise, sediment accumulation, and dissolved oxygen
            depression for semi-enclosed embayments and estuaries.
                              B-5

-------
LARGE DISCHARGER APPROACH

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

Data Requirements

     To predict  seabed deposition rates of  suspended  solids,  the following
information  is required:

     •    Suspended solids mass emission rate

     •    Current speed and direction

     •    Height-of-rise of the plume

     •    Suspended solids settling velocity distribution.

     The mass emission  rate, M (kg/day), is:

                               M  = 86.4(S)(Q)                            B-l

where:

     S »  Suspended solids concentration, mg/L

     Q -  Volumetric flo* rate, m3/sec.

It  is  suggested that  the  applicant  develop  estimates  of  the suspended
solids mass  emission rate for the  season (50-day period) critical for seabed
                                    B-6

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

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

     •    Average value upcoast, when the current is upcoast

     •    Average value downcoast,  when  the  current is downcoast

     •    Average value onshore, when the current is onshore

     •    Average value offshore, when the current is offshore.

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

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

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

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

Primary or Advanced  Primary Effluent              Raw Sewage

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

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

Prediction of Deposition

     Although  a  portion of the settled solids  is  inert,  primary concern is
with  the  organic  fraction of  the   settled solids.    For  purposes  of this
evaluation,  composition  of the waste  discharge  can  be  assumed  to  be as
fol1ows:
                                    B-8

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

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

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

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

     The method  described  below  assumes  that  effluent  sediment  particles
having  a  specific  particle  fall  velocity  settle  uniformly  within  an
elliptical  area.  This area depends on  the plume  height-of-rise relative to
the  seafloor  (not  the   port  depth),  the  particle  fall  velocity,   and the
average currents speeds in four directions (upcoast,  downcoast, onshore, and1
offshore) appropriate for an effluent  wastefield at the plume height-of-rise.
For  the following  sample  calculations, the  diffuser  was  assumed  to  be a
point source.  Use of this assumption  may not produce reasonable  estimates of
sediment accumulation if the diffuser  is long.   If the  diffuser  is long,
                                    B-9

-------
                           180
o           i
I	i	l nautical mites
I      I      i kilometers
o            2

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

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

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

     With a sufficiently detailed map (e.g., a NOAA bathymetric chart), each
point DI  through 0^5,  or  Rj through  R2Q>  can be  plotted with the center of
the diffuser  as  the reference point.   Depositional  contours are formed by
the  four points that  define  the  perimeter of a depositional  field (e.g.,
0^0304).  The applicant should join these points  by smooth lines, so that
the contours are elliptically  shaped.   If  the applicant  has current data at
60°  or  30° intervals,  instead of the  90° intervals used  here,  then  the
contours could be created more accurately.

     The  deposition  rates corresponding to each contour  are determined as
follows.  First, predict the deposition rate within each contour due to each
individual  settling  velocity  group,  as  shown  in Table  B-2.   This quantity
is  Mi/A-j, or  the  group  deposition  rate   divided  by the area  within  the
contour.   The  area  within any  contour is a function  of the  four points
(e.g., DJ,  02,  03,  and 04), and is denoted in the table by f(0^20304).  A
planimeter  is probably the  most  accurate method  of  finding  the  area.  Once
the  deposition  rates by  group have  been  found,  then the total deposition
rate can  be calculated by  summing all  contributing deposition  rates.   For
                                    B-ll

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

0.04 MT
0.12 M}
0.08 MT
0.16 Hj
Upcoast

o1
°5
D13
Oowncoast

D6
D14
Onshore Offshore

D15 °16
                                    Sum » 0.40 MT
Ran Sewage
10
10
20
20
25


(Vs
s

-------
                                        TABLE B-2.  EXAMPLE TABULATIONS OF DEPOSITION RATES  AND ACCUMULATION RATES BY CONTOUR
Organic Mass Com-
ponent by Group
Primary Effluent
0.04 MT = M1
0.12 MT * M2
0.08 HT = Mj
0.16 MT = M4
Raw Sewage
a, 0.05 MT = M1
£ 0.05 MT = M2
o.io MT = MJ
0.10 MT = M4
0.125 MT = Mj
Bottoa Area

A1 ' f(D102D3D4>
A2 " f(05°6W
A4 ' f(D13014D15D16)

A, - ftR^R,)
A3 " f(R9R10R11R12}
A4 = f(R13R14R15R16>
A5 = f(R17R18R19R20)
Mass Deposition Total Organic Deposition Rate
Rate, by Group within Area (g/r/yr)

Mj/A, M^yM-j/A^Mj/Aj^ - f,
H / A_ M_ /A_^M /A • f
H4/A4 M4/A4 » f4

M^A, M1/A1*M2/A2*M3/AJ*M4/A4*M5/A5 - f,
1* ""• "I* T A* A "C' C *X
N/B\ U /A ttt /A B 4
/ ' "/ / * A^^C*"C A
M5/A5 VA5 " f5
Accumilation (a/i/)
Steady-State 90 Day


f« fl
j1 jj1 I1-wp(-90k^]



ri r^ [1-exp(-90kJ]
"d Kd ff


Note:  Units of ff are g/o^/day.

-------
example, the innermost contour receives contributions from all groups,, while
the outermost contour receives a contribution only from one group.

     So far, only the rates of organic deposition (in units of g/m2/yr) have
been  predicted.   The  accumulation  of  the  organic material  (S^)   can  be
predicted by Including decay as follows:

                  ,      fi
          S^  (g/mz) »   r1 , at steady state
                         *d
                                                                         B-2
          Si  (g/m2) -   J-   [1 - exp (-90 kd)], for 90 days.
                          d

The f-j  are  the deposition rates in  units  of g/m2/day,  as contrasted to the
units of  g/nrVyr in Table B-2.  The decay rate  constant,  kj, has a typical
value of  0.01/day.   For example,  if the  organic deposition rate for annual
conditions  is 100 g/m2/yr, the steady-state accumulation is:
                   100
If the organic deposition rate for the critical 90-day period is 300 g/m^/yr,
the 90-day accumulation  is:

  300 g/m2/yr x 36* ^ys x 0>0i/day x  [1-exp (-90 x 0.01)] = 49 g/m2.    B-4
This example shows that  Input data for the 90-day and steady-state accumula-
tions  are  different.   Consequently,  Tables  B-l  and B-2  should  each  be
completed  twice.   Also  the accumulation over a  critical  90-day period can
exceed  the  steady-state   accumulation.    This  is  caused  by  short-term
deposition  rates  that  are considerably higher than  the  long-term average.
In  the example,  the maximum  90-day deposition  rate of  300  g/m2/yr would
eventually  decrease  to values below  100 g/m^/yr,  so  that on a yearly basis
the deposition  rate  is  100 g/m2/yr.

                                    B-14

-------
      B-II.  DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION FOLLOWING INITIAL DILUTION


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

                     D0f - D0a + (D0e - IDOD  -  D0a)/Sa                   B-5

where:

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

   D0a *  Affected   ambient   dissolved  oxygen   concentration   immediately
          upcurrent of the diffuser averaged over the tidal  period (12.5 h)
          and from the diffuser port depth to the trapping level, mg/L

   D0e *  Dissolved oxygen of effluent, mg/L

  IDOD -  Immediate dissolved oxygen demand,  mg/L

    Sa =  Initial  dilution (flux-averaged).

     The applicant should use the least  favorable combination  of values for
effluent  dissolved   oxygen,  IDOD,   affected  ambient  dissolved  oxygen,  and
initial dilution.  The effluent  dissolved  oxygen  concentration  at the point
                                    B-15

-------
of  discharge from  the  treatment  plant  is  often  0.0 mg/L.   Because  the
critical  case  Is  desired,  a  concentration  of  0.0  mg/L  Is a  reasonable
value.  However,  If  data  show  that  dissolved oxygen concentrations  In  the
effluent  are  greater than 0.0 mg/L during the  critical  periods,  then these
data may be used.

     The  IDOD values typically vary  from 0 to  10  mg/L,  but can  be  higher
depending  on the  level  of  treatment  and  presence  of  Industrial  flows.
Table B-3 can be  used to select reasonable IDOD values.   Alternatively,  the
IDOD can be measured  as discussed below.  The Influence of the effluent IDOD
on  ambient  dissolved oxygen  can be estimated  from the  following  table
(calculated as  -IDOD/Sa):

              Contribution of IDOD to Lowering  of DOf (mg/L)

                              	Initial Dilution
           IDOD (mg/L)

                1
                2
                5
                10
                20

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

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

Treatment Level
Untreated or less
than primary



Primary








Advanced primary

Effluent
BODs, mg/L




50-100
50-100
50-100
100-150
100-150
100-150
150-200
150-200
150-200
<50
<50
Travel Time, mina
<60
60-200
200-300
>300
0-100
100-300
>300
0-100
100-300
>300
0-100
100-300
>300
0-60
>60
IDOD, mg/L
5
10
15
20
2
3
4
3
4
5
5
7
8
0
1

a Travel time should  include the  total  travel  time from the treatment plant
through the diffuser, including any land portion of the outfall.

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

-------
     The IDOD Is calculated using the following equation:

                              (DOD)(PD) + (S)(PS) - DOM
                       IDOD	B	B	5	*	H                  B-6
                                          s

where:

  IDOD «  Immediate dissolved oxygen demand, mg/L

   DOp »  Dissolved oxygen of dilut :>n water (seawater), mg/L

    Pp -  Decimal fraction of dilution water used

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

    PS »  Decimal fraction of effluent used

   D0|yj =  Dissolved oxygen of mixture after 15 min, mg/L.

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

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

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

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

     The time period over  which ambient data  may  be averaged may depend on
specifications of intensity and duration factors in applicable water quality
standards.  For  example,  if certain numerical values  shall not be compromised
over a period of 4 h, a 4-h average of input data may be reasonable.  Absent
any more stringent specification in locally applicable standards, an average
over  a  half tidal cycle  (approximately 12.5  h)  would provide  a generally
conservative estimate.

     The  affected   ambient  dissolved  oxygen  concentration   can  change
substantially as  a function of depth,  depending on environmental character-
istics and seasonal   influences  (e.g.,  upwelling).   As the plume rises during
initial  dilution,  water from deeper parts of  the  water column is entrained
into the plume  and  advected to the plume  trapping level.   If the dissolved
oxygen concentration is lower  in the bottom of the water column than at the
trapping  level,   the  low  dissolved  oxygen water  is  advected  to  a  region
formerly occupied by water containing  higher concentrations  of dissolved
oxygen.   The result  is an oxygen depression caused by entrainment.

     This oxygen  depression caused  by  the  waste discharge  and associated
entrainment  (ADO})   should  be  computed as  the  difference between  DOf as
                                    B-19

-------
defined  in  Equation B-5  and  the affected ambient dissolved  oxygen  concen-
tration at the trapping depth
           ADOj  - DOf -  D0t - D0a  - D0t +  (D0e. -  IDOD - D0a)/Sa         B-7

The  oxygen depression  of  the  wastefield  relative  to  the trapping  depth
expressed in percent  is  (-
     For cases when  the  effect  of entraining low dissolved oxygen water can
be  neglected,  the  oxygen  depletion  (A002)  should  be  computed   as  the
difference between  the average  affected ambient dissolved oxygen concentra-
tion (D0a) in the entrained water and DOf as shown below.

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

The  oxygen  depletion  of the wastefield relative  to the  average  affected
ambient dissolved oxygen concentration is (-AD02/DOa)100.

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

                              (DO. - D00 + IDOD)
                                   D0t x S, - * 10°                   B'9
                                      w    a

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

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

                                    B-20

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

Dissolved Oxvaen Saturation. ma/L
Temperature
(° C) 20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
12.8
12.5
12.1
11.8
11.5
11.3
11.0
10.7
10.5
10.2
10.0
9.6
9.5
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.6
8.4
8.2
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
22
12.6
12.3
12.0
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.9
10.6
10.3
10.1
9.9
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.5
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.1
24
12.5
12.2
11.9
11.5
11.3
11.0
10.7
10.5
10.2
10.0
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.5
8.4
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
Salinity (ppt)
26 28 30
12.3
12.0
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.8
10.6
10.4
10.1
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
12.1
11.8
11.5
11.2
11.0
10.7
10.4
10.2
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.5
8.3
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
12.0
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.8
10.6
10.3
10.1
9.8
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.2
8.1
7.9
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.8
32
11.8
11.5
11.2
10.9
10.7
10.4
10.2
9.9
9.7
9.5
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.7
8.5
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
34
11.7
11.4
11.1
10.8
10.5
10.3
10.0
9.8
9.6
9.3
9.1
8.9
8.7
8.5
8.4
8.2
8.0
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.8
6.8
36
11.5
11.2
10.9
10.7
10.4
10.1
9.9
9.7
9.4
9.2
9.0
8.8
8.6
8.4
8.3
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.7
                      B-21

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

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

-------
               B-III.  FARFIELD DISSOLVED OXYGEN DEPRESSION
     Subsequent to initial  dilution,  dissolved oxygen in the water column is
consumed by  the BOD  in the wastefield.   The  effluent BODs  after  initial
dilution is  needed to  estimate  farfield dissolved  oxygen depletion.   The
final BODs concentration can be estimated using the following expression:
                      BODf - BODa + (BODe ' B°Da)/sa                    B'10

where:

  BODf =  Final BODs concentration,  mg/L

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

  BODe =  Effluent BODs concentration,  mg/L

    Sa -  Initial dilution (flux-averaged).

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

                                    B-23

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

     Three  approaches  to assessing  farfield dissolved  oxygen demand  are
described below:

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

     •    Numerical models predicting dissolved oxygen  depletions, using
          a computer

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

     Before  undertaking  any  analysis   to  determine  whether   farfield  BOD
exertion causes a  violation  of the  dissolved oxygen standard,  the applicant
should first check to see whether:

                DO$TD 1 D0f • BODfu,  for critical  conditions            B-ll

where:

 DO$TD •  Dissolved  oxygen standard

   DOf =  Dissolved  oxygen  concentration   at  the  completion  of  initial
          dilution

 BODfu a  Ultimate BOD  at the completion of initial  dilution (» BODf x 1.46).

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

-------
farfield BOD  exertion Is  required.    If  the Inequality  1s  not true,  then
further analysis 1s required.

SIMPLIFIED MATHEMATICAL MODELS

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

                             BODL -1.46 BOD5                           B-12

A typical decay rate  for CBOD  Is  0.23/day  (base e)  at 20° C.   A temperature
correction should be made as follows:

                         kj - 0.23 x 1.047T-20/day                      B-13

where:

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

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

-------
     NBOD  can  be  estimated based  on  data  for  total  Kjeldahl  nitrogen
concentration  (the sum  of  organic  nitrogen and  ammonia  nitrogen)  in  the
waste discharge using the  following relationships:

                             NBODL -  4.57 (TKN)                          B-14

                             NBOOs -  NfiOD|./2.54

where:

     TKN -  Total  Kjeldahl nitrogen

   NBODL -  Ultimate NBOO

   NB005 -  5-day  NBOD.

The decay rate of  NBOO can be taken as:

                         kT  - 0.10 x 1.047T-20/day                      B-15

where:

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

   0.10 -  The decay rate  at 20°  C (base e).

     Simplified  mathematical models  are an  acceptable alternative  to  the
more complex  numerical  models.    In  the  simplest model of oxygen depletion,
the following are  generally  assumed:

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

                                    B-26

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

     •    The wastefield  entrains ambient water as a function of travel
          time.     Lateral  dilution  Is  the predominant  mechanism  of
          entralnment.

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

     When applying  a model that predicts  farfield oxygen depletion,  it is
suggested that the  applicant  plot  dissolved oxygen depletion  as  a  function
of travel time  so  that the  behavior of dissolved  oxygen  concentrations in
the wastefield can  be examined to locate minimum values.

     Example oxygen depletion curves as  a  function  of  travel  time are shown
in Figure B-4.  The depletion  indicated  at time,  t=0,  denotes the depletion
immediately  following  initial  dilution.    The  dissolved  oxygen  deficits
plotted in the figure are relative to the ambient concentration, and tend to
approach zero at travel times longer than those shown in the figure.

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

     •    0.0 days  for Curve A

     •    Approximately 0.2 days for Curve B

     •    Approximately 4.0 days for Curve C.

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

-------
        1.0 -

        0.9 -
        0.8 -

        0.7 -
    2  0.6 -
    O
    5  0.5-
    o
    UJ  0.4 —

    8  03~
    °  0.2 —

        0.1 —

        0.0
                      1         2         3
                      TRAVEL TIME (days)
i
4
CURVE
A
B
C
BOOf
(ultimata)

-------
but one  that could  be  associated with  an unusual discharge),  the maximum
depletion 1s  caused by  Initial  mixing processes,  and not by  farfield BOD
exertion.   Conversely,  when IDOD  is 0.0  mg/L,  the  maximum  depletion  is
caused by BOD exertion, and occurs at some distance from the discharge.

     The  simplified  farfield  oxygen  depletion  model  for coastal  waters
suggested herein  is  based  on an  approach developed, by Brooks  (1960) for
predicting  wastefield  dilution  subsequent   to  Initial   dilution.    The
dissolved oxygen concentration in the receiving waters can be expressed as a
function of travel time as follows:

                 D0f-D0a    lfr                Lfn
   D0(t) - DO  +   TD  a -  rf±  l-exp(-k t) - Tp1  l-exp(k t)          B-16
                     s       s                  s

where:

 D0(t) »  Dissolved  oxygen   concentration  in  a  submerged  wastefield  as  a
          function of travel time t, mg/L

   D0a =  Affected   ambient   dissolved  oxygen   concentration   immediately
          updrift of the diffuser, mg/L

   DOf =  Dissolved  oxygen  concentration  at  the  completion  of  initial
          dilution calculated using Equation B-5, mg/L

    kc =  CBOD decay rate constant

    kn =  NBOD decay rate constant

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

-------
   Lfn -  Ultimate NBOD concentration above ambient at completion of initial
          dilution, mg/L

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

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

     To  predict  farfield  oxygen  distribution,  one  must  determine  the
dilution attained within  the wastefield  as  a  function  of time  following
discharge.   For open  coastal  areas,  dilution  is  often  predicted  using  the
4/3 law  (Brooks 1960), which states that  the  lateral  diffusion coefficient
increases as the 4/3 power of the wastefield width.  In mathematical form:
                                                                        B-17
                                   u \ u/
where:
     c -  Lateral diffusion coefficient,

     0 »  Diffusion coefficient when L = b

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

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

-------
The initial diffusion coefficient can be predicted from:
                              e0 - 0.001 b4/3 ft2/sec
Based on the 4/3 law, the center!ine dilution, D$, is given by:
                          1/erf
where:
          Travel time, sec
   erf -  The error function.
"•*
                                                   1/2
                                  B-18
B-19
     The 4/3  law is not  always  applicable,  especially  in  coastal  areas or
estuaries.     In  coastal   areas,  Grace  (1978)  suggests  that  the  diffusion
coefficient vary linearly with L.   The  subsequent dilution can be expressed
as:
                    1/erf
                                           - 1
                                                1/2
                                  B-20
A  more conservative  choice  is  to  assume  the diffusion  coefficient  is  a
constant.  The subsequent dilution can then be expressed as:
                      1/erf
                                  B-21
                                    B-31

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

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

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

-------
00
I
CO
co
UJ
C
DC
                          16 -i
                           14 -
                          12 -
                           10 -
                           -
                           6 -
     4 -
                            2  -
                                          	 n = 4/3
                                          	 n=1
                                          	n = 0
                                                      I
                                                      3
                                       456

                                          12€«t/B2
i
9
10
                                                                                              Reference: Brooks (1960).
                 Figure B-5.   Farfield dilution as a function of 12 €Qt/B.

-------
where:

      0 -  Dissolved oxygen deficit

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

      k -  CBOD decay rate constant

     kg -  Reaeration rate constant

     E|_ -  Longitudinal dispersion coefficient

      U -  Mass loading rate of CBOD.

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

                       D - (3.14  Wc + 2.55 Wn) 1
-------
NUMERICAL MODELS

     Numerical   models  are  an  acceptable  method   of  predicting  oxygen
depletion caused by a discharge.   Numerical  models may consider the combined
effect of farfield demand  In  the water column, as discussed  above, and the
oxygen demand associated with organic sediments.   If  not,  the applicant may
have  to  augment  the  numerical   modeling  analysis   to address  unanswered
questions associated with sediment oxygen demand.

     The  applicant  should  try  to Isolate  the  Impact of  the outfall  on
dissolved oxygen concentrations by  considering that the applicant's discharge
1s the  sole  source of oxygen  depletion In the  system being modeled.   The
applicant can  then predict  the  dissolved  oxygen depletion  caused  by the
discharge by  subtracting the background  dissolved oxygen level  from those
predicted by  the  model.    This  approach  also  simplifies the  applicant's
analysis because data from other  wastewater sources are not required.

     Specific guidelines  can be  offered to  applicants who  choose  to use
numerical models.  Typically,  the most severe dissolved oxygen depletion due
to BOD  exertion occurs when the  water  column is density  stratified in the
presence of tidally  reversing  currents and  low nontidal  currents,  and the
wastefield remains submerged following initial  dilution.  If such conditions
occur at  the  applicant's outfall  site,  then  the numerical  model  should be
layered  vertically,  with  a minimum  of two  layers.    The  plume  should be
discharged into  the  bottom layer  to  simulate  the submerged  discharge with
the consequence that  direct atmospheric reaeration  is not present in this
layer.

     The  applicant  should set up  the  grid  system for  the  numerical model
such that the smallest segments  are located  in  the vicinity of the diffuser
and gradually increase in size with distance  from the diffuser.  The volume
of the segments in the immediate  vicinity of the diffuser should approximate
the  volume  of  the ZID  in order  to  prevent  an  initial  dilution  that  is
artificially high and that would cause  the  model  to  underestimate dissolved
oxygen  depletion.    The  applicant might  choose  to   experiment  with  grid
                                   B-35

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

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

EVALUATION  OF  FIELD  DATA

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
                       B-IV.  SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND
     The  oxygen  depletion  due  to  a  steady  sediment  oxygen demand  can  be
predicted by:
                     Ann     SB  XM   -  a S kd XM
                     AUO " 86,400 UHD   86,400 UHD

where:

   ADO  =•   Oxygen  depletion,  mg/L

    SB -  Average benthic oxygen demand over the deposition area, -g

    XM =  Length  of   deposition   area  (generally  measured  in  longshore
          direction), m

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

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

    kd -  Sediment decay  rate constant, 0.01/day

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

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

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

                                    B-38

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

     The depth of water affected by the sediment oxygen demand is not really
a  constant  value  (as  suggested by the  previous formula)  but  varies  as  a
function of  the travel time  across the zone  of deposition.  The  affected
depth H  (in meters)  is chosen to represent the  average  depth influenced by
the sediment oxygen demand and can be  estimated as:


                                   *7  u1/2
                         H = 0.8 I -^rr1]                               B-26

where:

     ez •  Vertical diffusion coefficient (cnrVsec).

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


               H.0.8x/'*»'0f'"00]1/2xIfe.-4.1.           B-27

     If the  applicant  desires to compute  a value of  vertical  diffusivity,
the following empirical expression can be used:
                                   B-39

-------
                                                                        R 28
                                                                        B'28
                                   p dz

where:

     ez «  Vertical diffusion coefficient, cm^/sec

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

     j£ -  Ambient density gradient, kg/m*.

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

     The dilution D that 1s used in Equation B-24  can be found from Table B-5
where  the  field width  is  the width  of  the deposition  area.    For  the
appropriate  travel  time and  field  width,  the smaller of  the two estimates
shown in the table should be  used.

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

Oxygen Demand Due to Resuspension of  Sediments

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

                                    B-40

-------
              TABLE 8-5.  SUBSEQUENT DILUTIONS* FOR VARIOUS INITIAL  FIELD WIDTHS AND TRAVEL TIMES
Travel
Time (h)
0.5
1.0
2.0
4.0
8.0
12
24
48
72
96
Initial Field Width (ft)
10
2.3/5.5
: " 3.1/13
4.3/32
6.1/85
8.5/>100
10/>100
15/>100
21/>100
26/>100
29/>100
50
1.5/2.0
2.0/3.9
2.7/8.5
3.7/21
5.2/53
6.3/95
8.9/>100
13/>100
15/>100
18/>100
100
1.3/1.6
1.6/2.6
2.2/5.1
3.0/11
4.1/29
5.1/50
7.1/100
10/>100
12A100
14/>100
500
1.0/1.1
1.2/1.3
1.4/1.9
1.9/3.5
2.5/7.3
3.0/12
4.2/30
5.9/80
7.3/>100
8.4/>100
1,000
1.0/1.0
1.1/1.1
1.2/1.5
1.5/2.3
2.0/4.4
2.4/6.8
3.4/16
4.7/41
5.8/73
6.6/100
5,000
1.0/1.0
1.0/1.0
1.0/1.0
1.1/1.2
1.4/1.7
1.6/2.3
2.1/4.4
2.8/10
3.4/17
3.9/24
* The  dilutions are entered  in the table as N^/tU,  where N1 is the dilution  assuming a constant diffusion
coefficient,  and M2 is  the dilution assuming the 4/J law.
                                                    B-41

-------
     For the material  to  remain suspended,  the ambient current speed has to
be sufficiently  great that  the volume  of water containing  the resuspended
material increases  over time as ambient water  is  entrained.   It is assumed
that this process continues  for up to 24 h.

     The applicant should compute the oxygen depletion as a function of time
during this period.  This can be done using the following relationship:

                                    S         /-krt\
                              ADO - p£ [l-expl-2f-l]                  B-29

where:

   ADO =   Oxygen depletion,  mg/L

    Sr -  Average  concentration (in  g/m2)  of  resuspended  organic sediment
           (based on 90-day accumulation'

     H =  Depth  of water  volume containing resuspended materials, m

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

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

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

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

                          H  =     (3,600 t e1/2                       B-30

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

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

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

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

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

                    t fhl                    DO fma/Ll
                       0                          0
                       3
                       6
                       9
                      12
                      15
                      18
                      21
                      24                     predictions

Most often, a maximum depletion will occur  somewhere in the 24-h period, with
depletions decreasing for larger travel times.
                                    B-43

-------
      B-V.  SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION FOLLOWING INITIAL DILUTION
     The  concentration  of suspended  solids  at  the  completion of  Initial
dilution should be calculated using the following equation:

                                        SS  - SSa
                            SSf = SSa + —^	a                       B-31
where:

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

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

   SSe =»  Effluent suspended solids concentration, mg/L

    Sa =  Initial dilution  (flux-averaged).

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

                                 AS = SSe/Sa                             B-32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              [C032-]/[HC03-] - K2
                              [H+] [OH'] - Kw

                     Cj - [H2C03*] + [HC03-] +  [C032~]

               Alkalinity  -  [HC03-]  + 2[C032']  -»- [OH'] - [H+]
B-33

B-34

B-35

B-36

B-37
where:
   [H2C03*] »  The sum of aqueous C02 and true  H2C03  concentrations

         CT -  Total carbonate concentration.

The carbonate species can also be expressed  in  terms  of ionization fractions
OQ , aj, and ct2:
                              [H2co3*] = CT OQ

                               [HC03-] = CT  a!

                               [C032-] = CT  a2
B-38

B-39

B-40
where:
                                                    -i
                                                   -i
                                                                         B-41
                                                                         B-42
                                    B-49

-------
                                  i+i 2   ru+
+ 1
      -1
                                                                        B-43
Substituting   the  hydroxide-hydrogen   ion   relationship  and   ionization
fractions into the alkalinity equation yields:


               Alkalinity - CT (a, + 2a,) + —7- - [H*]                 B-44
                             '    l    ^      +
Because total  carbonate is conserved and oj and  og  are  functions solely of
pH, the above  equation has only one variable:   hydrogen ion concentration.
The model solves  the  equation  to  determine  the pH of the effluent-receiving
water mixture.  The steps  involved in the calculations are listed below:

     •    Determine input  data

     •    Calculate ion product of water,  Kw, and carbonate dissociation
          constants,  Kj and  l<2,  of the  effluent and receiving water
          based on temperature and salinity data

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

     •    Calculate  total  carbonate  in  effluent  and receiving water
          separately

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

     •    Calculate  Kw, Kj,  and  K£ for  the  effluent-receiving water
          mixture following  initial dilution
                                    B-50

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

     •    Record results.

The ion product  and dissociation  constants are calculated for  the appropriate
temperature and salinity based on  the equations  given below.  The equations
for the receiving  water have been revised  so that  salinity (in ppt) can be
used.
For effluent:
           M07.7 + 0.03279T - 14.8435 (Kelts and Hsu 1978, p. 300)    B-45
     pK2 - *<9°2'4 + 0.02379T - 6.498 (Kelts and Hsu 1978, p. 300)      B-46
           A 471 n
     pKw =  ' j    + 0.01706T - 6.0875 (Stumm and Morgan 1981, p.  127)  B-47


For receiving water and the effluent-receiving water mixture:


     pKj = 3l4°4'7 + 0.03279T - 14.712 - 9.1575S1/3                     B-48
                              (Stumm and Morgan 1981, p. 205)


     pK2 = 2t9°2'4 + 0.02379T - 6.471 - 0.3855S1/3                      B-49
                              (Stumm and Morgan 1981, p. 206)


           3l441'° + 2.241 - 0.0925S1/2                                 B-50
                              (Dickson and Riley 1979, p. 97)
                                    B-51

-------
where:                  .





     T -  Temperature in degrees Kelvin





     S -  Salinity in ppt.





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

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

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

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

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

-------
over a wide range of conditions, and can be used to estimate the attenuation
coefficients  for  coll 1mated and diffuse  light  and, therefore,  to  estimate
the depth  of the euphotlc  zone.   However,  since a wastewater  plume may  be
held below the upper regions of this  zone during periods of stratification,
Secchi disc measurements may not be appropriate  under all conditions.

     Beam transmlttance  1s  measured with  a  transmlssometer  and  1s  a measure
of the  attenuation  of a co Hi ma ted  beam of artificial  light along a  fixed
path  length   (usually  1m).   The attenuation  Is  caused  by suspended  and
dissolved  material   as  well  as  the  water  Itself.    These  measurements,
therefore,  provide   Information about  both the  absorption and  scattering
properties of the water.  The attenuation of a collimated beam of light In a
water path Is described  by  the Beer-Lambert law:

                                 Td = e'*1                              B-51

where:

    T(j »  The proportion of light transmitted along a path of length d, m

     a -  Light attenuation coefficient, m"*.

Measurements  of beam transmittance are made in situ at any depth.

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

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

-------
from suspended solids concentrations.  The derivation of these relationships
from existing  data,  in some  instances,  may be sufficient to  allow  for the
demonstration of compliance with state standards.   Existing data can also be
used  to predict  the  transparency  characteristics  in  the  vicinity of  an
improved- discharge.   Alternatively,  a sampling  program can be  designed  to
assess compliance with light transmittance standards based on such empirical
relationships.

     Where standards are written in  terms  of  maximum allowable turbidity or
turbidity  increase,   predicted  turbidity  in  the  receiving  water  at  the
completion of  initial  dilution  can  be  used to demonstrate  compliance.   By
treating  turbidity  as  a  conservative  variable,  the  turbidity  in  the
receiving water at the completion of initial dilution can be predicted as:
                              Tf - T. +
where:
     Tf = Turbidity in receiving water at the completion of initial dilution,
          typically NTU or Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU)

     Ta = Ambient or background turbidity

     Te - Effluent turbidity

     Sa - Initial dilution.

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

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

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

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

                                  a = Iq T                              B-53

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

-------
                                             -i- . -L-
                                 SDf   SD,      s:
                                                                        B-56
or
where:
                     SD.
                                    SD.
                                                    -1
B-57
   SDf -  Minimum allowable Secchi disc reading in receiving water such that
          the water quality standard is not violated

   SDa -  Ambient Secchi disc reading

    Sa -  Minimum initial dilution that occurs when the plume surfaces

   SDe -  Critical Secchi disc depth of effluent.

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

     Values  of the  critical  effluent Secchi  depth (SDe)  calculated  using
Equation  B-57  are  presented  in  Table  B-7.   In  this  example,  the  water
quality  standard  for  the  minimum  Secchi  visibility  is  1 m  (3.3  ft).
Effluent having a Secchi depth greater than those presented for the selected
ambient  conditions  and  initial   dilution  will   not  violate   the  clarity
standard of  the  example receiving water.   Primary effluents typically have
                                    B-57

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

Initial
Dilution
10
20
40
60
100

2
18
10
5
3
2
Ambient
3
14
7
4
2
1
Seech 1
4
13
7
3
2
1
Deoth fm)
5
12
6
3
2
1

10
11
6
3
2
1
                                    B-58

-------
Secchi disc  values  of 5-30 cm  (2-12  in).    For  this case, with  an,initial
dilution greater  than 40  and  an ambient  Secchi  depth of  2  m (6.6 ft)  or
greater, these calculations indicate that the standard would not be violated.

  l!  Since  Secchi  disc  measurements  are  made  from  the  water  surface
downward, critical  conditions  (in terms of  the  Secchi disc  standard)  will
occur when  the initial dilution  is  just  sufficient  to allow the  plume  to
surface.    It  is  notable  that  maximum  turbidity  or light  transmittance
impacts of a wastewater plume will occur when the water column is stratified,
the plume remains submerged, and initial  dilution is a minimum.  Under these
same conditions, however, Secchi disc readings might  not  be altered at all,
if the plume  is  trapped below the water's surface  at  a depth exceeding the
ambient Secchi disc depth.

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

                                a = k x JTU                             B-58

where:

   JTU -  Turbidity, JTU

     k =  Coefficient of proportionality.

Combining Equations B-51 and B-58, turbidity can be expressed as:

                                   -In T.
                             JTU =   kd g                               B-59

where:

     Tj =  Fraction of beam transmittance over distance d.

                                   B-59

-------
The coefficient of  proportionality  (k)  takes  on  values  0.5-1.0.   Therefore,
to utilize these relationships for demonstrating compliance with a turbidity
standard based on existing  light  transmittance data,  the value of k must be
determined  empirically.   This  requires  simultaneous  measurements of  beam
transmittance and determination of  turbidity  covering the complete range of
existing light  transmittance records.   If  data  are not  available,  the "k"
value can be set equal to 1  as a conservative estimate.

   ,  Where  a  relationship  between  suspended  solids concentration  and  beam
transmittance data  at a particular site can be derived,  the suspended solids
concentration at  the completion of initial  dilution from Equation  B-31 can
be used to  predict  compliance  with  standards  written  in  terms  of  light
transmittance.
                                    B-60

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

TOTAL DISSOLVED GASES

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

CHLORINE RESIDUAL

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

-------
completion  of Initial dilution,  the concentration in the  receiving/water,
assuming the ambient concentration is 0.0 mg/L, can be estimated as follows:

                                Clf - Cle/Sa                             B-60

where:

   Clf -  Chlorine residual at completion of initial dilution, mg/L

   Cle -  Chlorine residual in effluent, mg/L

    Sa -  Lowest flux-averaged initial dilution.

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

NUTRIENTS

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

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

-------
where:

    Ca -  Affected ambient concentration  Immediately upcurrent of dlffuser,
          mg/L

    Ce -  Effluent concentration, mg/L

    Sa •  Initial dilution (flux-averaged)

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

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

     Because water quality criteria are often prescribed  as maximum values
not to be exceeded following initial dilution, it is useful to rearrange the
above equation  to express the  maximum allowable effluent concentration as
fol1ows:

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

where:

    (Ce)max -  Maximum  allowable  effluent  concentration   such  that  water
               quality criteria are not exceeded

         Cc -  Applicable water quality criterion

    (Sa)m-jn »  Minimum expected initial dilution.

The maximum observed  effluent  concentration  can  then  be compared  to  the
predicted  allowable  concentration.    This  approach  can  be  used  for  any
conservative constituent.   Thus,  if  other  specific  limits exist  such  as
                                    B-63

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

COLIFORM BACTERIA

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

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

                                 Bf = Be/Sa                              B-63

where:

     Be -  Effluent coliform bacteria count, MPN/100 ml

     Sa -  Initial dilution.

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

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

                                   Bf '  Ba
                         Bx - Ba *   D^                              B'64

where:

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

    Ba -  Affected ambient bacteria count immediately upcurrent of diffuser,
          #/100 ml

    Bf »  Bacteria count at completion of initial dilution, #/100 ml

    Ds =  Dilution attained subsequent to initial dilution at distance x

    DD =  "Dilution"  due  to  dieoff of  bacteria  caused  by the  combined
          effects of exposure to  seawater and sunlight.

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

                                         B
                                                                        B-65
                                   °* " Ds°b

Values  for subsequent  dilution  as  a function  of !2e0t/B2  in  Figure B-5.
Guidance  is  included in Chapter B-III  ("Farfield  Dissolved Oxygen Demand")

                                    B-65

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

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

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

                              Dsw = exp(kswt)                           B-66

                              Osl  =* exp[al(t)]                          B-67

where:

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

     a -  Constant,  m2/MJ

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

     t =  Travel time, h.
                                    B-66

-------
The bacteria dieoff due to the combined effects of saltwater and sunlight 1s
Db * Dsw°sl-  Gameson  and Gould  (1975)  Indicate that a • 1.24 m2/MJ in situ
for Dorset, England seawater.    The total  Intensity of sunlight received at
the water surface can  be measured, or  estimated using site-specific data or
general methods (Wallace  and  Hobbs  1977).   If  the  wastefleld 1s submerged,
then the  calculation  of the  total  sunlight  received  should  reflect  the
effect of turbidity on Mght transmission from the sea surface to the top of
the wastefleld.   '               --

     The bacteria decay  rate  due to the exposure to saltwater 1s known for
both coliform bacteria and enterococcus bacteria.  For coliform bacteria,

                ksw - 2.303 exp[(0.0295T -  2.292)2.303] / h             B-68

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

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

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

-------
                                 REFERENCES


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

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

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

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

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

Gameson, A.L.M.,  and D.J. Gould.   1975.  Effects of solar radiation on the
mortality  of some terrestrial   bacteria in  seawater.   pp.  209-219.   In:
Discharge of Sewage  from Sea  Outfalls.   Proc. of an International  Symposium
held at  Church House, London, 27 August to 2 September 1984.   A.L.M. Gameson
(ed).  Pergamon Press,  Oxford, UK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wallace, J.M., and P.V. Hobbs.  1977.  Atmospheric science:  an introductory
survey.  Academic Press, New York NY.  467 pp.
                                    B-69

-------
     APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

-------
                                APPENDIX C
                           BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
     Because  benthic infauna  are  sedentary and  must  adapt to  pollutant
stresses or  perish, this  assemblage  is  often used  to define  the spatial
extent and magnitude of biological  impacts  in  the vicinity  of  sewage dis-
charges.   The general  changes  in  benthic community  structure and function
that occur under conditions of organic  enrichment of  the  sediments  (e.g.,
due to  municipal sewage  effluent)  have  been  well documented  (Pearson  and
Rosenberg 1978).  Slight  to moderate enrichment  results in  slight increases
in numbers of species,  abundances,  and biomass of benthic  communities (see
Figure 3  in   main  text),  while species  composition remains  unchanged.   As
enrichment  increases,   numbers  of   species  decline  because  less  tolerant
species are eliminated.   The total abundance of organisms increases as a few
species adapted  to  disturbed  environments or organically enriched sediments
become very   abundant.    When enrichment  levels are  optimal  for  those  few
species,  they  become  extremely  abundant and  overwhelmingly dominate  the
benthic  community  (corresponding  to  the "peak of opportunists"  shown  in
Figure 3).    Biomass generally decreases,  however,  because  many  of  those
opportunistic  species  are  small.    Further  organic  enrichment  of  the
sediments  drastically   reduces  the   number  of  species  and  abundances  of
benthic organisms, as conditions become intolerable for most taxa.

     Because  the model  developed by Pearson and  Rosenberg  (1978)  has been
shown to be  valid in many benthic environments,  it is often instructive to
examine the abundances of species that the authors  identify as opportunistic
or pollution-tolerant.   Those data,  in conjunction with the applicant's data
on  numbers  of  species,  total  abundances,  and biomass at  stations  in  the
vicinity of   the  outfall,  are  often sufficient to determine the relative
degree of impact within and beyond the ZID.
                                    C-l

-------
     Comparable  models that describe changes in the  structure and function
of plankton  and  demersal  fish communities in organically enriched receiving
environments have not  yet been developed.  However, it may be instructive to
examine  the  scientific  literature  that is available for  the biogeographic
region  in which  the  outfall  is located.   That  literature  often contains
information describing the  responses of the local fauna and flora to organic
materials and other  pollutants,  and identifying opportunistic and pollution-
tolerant  species.    Such information  is  extremely useful  for interpreting
data collected in the  vicinity of the outfall.

     A  variety  of  analytical   tools  may  be  used  to  conduct  biological
comparisons  for Section  301(h)  applications.   Applicants may  analyze the
data graphically or  statistically,  or  may use other mathematical tools such
as multivariate  analyses (e.g., classification  and ordination procedures).
Graphical analyses can be especially useful for presenting data in an easily
understood  format.    In  Figure C-l,  data on  numbers  of species  in  each
replicate sample at  stations  in  the vicinity of an outfall have been plotted
to show  the  range of  reference  values  in comparison  with values at within-
ZID,  ZID-boundary,   nearfield,  and  farfield  stations.    These data  may  be
tested statistically to determine those  test stations at  which mean values
differ  from  mean  values at  either or both  reference  stations.   But  even
without  such tests,  the data in Figure C-l clearly indicate that a gradient
of  effects  occurs   near  the outfall.    Relative  to  reference conditions,
numbers  of  species  are depressed  at   the  within-ZID and  downcurrent  ZID-
boundary  stations,  and may  be depressed at the nearfield and upcurrent ZID-
boundary  stations.

     Graphical  analyses are  especially  useful  for presenting  data  on the
physical  characteristics  of the  habitat.    For  example,  it  is  often in-
structive to plot water column  or  substrate  characteristics  in relation to
distance  from  the outfall  (see  Figures C-2 and C-3).  Gradients of effects
(as  in  Figure  C-3)  are  often   revealed  in  such simple  presentations.   An
especially   useful   method   for  presenting  data   on  sediment  grain  size
distributions  that  has  proven  useful  in  analyses of  301 (h)  data  was
developed by Shepard (1954).  Sediments are classified by  the proportions of
                                    C-2

-------
                    50-1
O
I
CO
              UJ
o

o.
UJ
cc

DC
UJ
0.

CO
UJ

o
UJ
D.
(0

U.
O

DC
UJ
ffi
2
                    40-
                    30-
                    20-
                    10-
                                            •

                                            :
                                                                      RANGE OF

                                                                     - REFERENCE

                                                                      CONDITIONS
                                   •
                                   •
                                   •
                           NET

                           CURRENT_

                           DIRECTION
REFERENCE  REFERENCE      ZID-       WITHIN

    1          2      BOUNDARY 1     ZIO
    T

   ZID

BOUNDARY2
                                                                                   NEARFIELO
                                                                                FARFIELO
                                                       STATION
                 Figure C-1.  Numbers of species collected in replicate benthic grab samples at stations in the
                             vicinity of the outfall.

-------
o
I
                          34-|
                          33-
                    Q.
                    O.
                    Z

                    IJ
                    <
                    (0
                          32-
31-
                          30
                                     REFERENCE   REFERENCE      ZID-       WITHIN-        ZID

                                         1          2       BOUNDARY I      ZID     BOUNDARY 2
                                                                    NEARFIELD    FARFIELO
                                                               STATION
                  Figure C-2.  Salinity at stations in the vicinity of the outfall.

-------
I
en
                  o
                  ffi
                  DC
                  <
                     uj

<


O
i.o-
                          0.0
                                     REFERENCE   REFERENCE      ZIO-       WITHIN-       2ID-

                                         1           2       BOUNDARY 1      ZIO      BOUNDARY 2
                                                                          NEARFIELD    FARFIELO
                                                                STATION
                 Figure C-3.  Total organic carbon content of the sediments at stations in the vicinity of the

                              outfall.

-------
their three major grain-size categories (Figure C-4)
.  Sand, silt,  and  clay are often the most useful categories.  However, the
gravel, sand, and mud  (silt plus clay) categories are useful where sediments
are  relatively  coarse.    [See  Shepard (1963)  for  information  on  sediment
grain size scales.]

     Statistical  tests  are  among  the most  effective  tools  for comparing
biological  communities among  stations.  A variety  of statistical tests are
available,  the  most widely  used of which  is one way  analysis  of variance
(ANOVA).   ANOVA and other statistical tests  have been  used extensively for
biological  comparisons in  the  301(h)  program, but they  have often been used
improperly.   For  this  reason,  procedures  for conducting  statistical  com-
parisons using  biological  data are  discussed  briefly below.  Applicants are
encouraged to consult  references on biostatistics (e.g., Zar 1974; Sokal and
Rohlf  1981)  for  more   specific  guidance  on  the  application of  these  pro-
cedures .

      The  use  of  one  way ANOVA  for biological  comparisons  is preferred
because  ANOVA  is  an  efficient  and  robust test.   ANOVA compares  the  mean
values  of  a  given  variable  among stations (or groups  of  stations)  for the
purpose of detecting significant differences  at a predetermined  probability
level.   ANOVA requires  a  minimum of  three replicate values at each station
to estimate the mean value and associated variance.

     ANOVA is a parametric test  based  on three assumptions:  the  error of an
estimate is a random normal  variate,  the  data are normally distributed, and
the  data exhibit  homogeneous variances.   Corrections for  the first are not
easily  achieved,  and an erroneous assumption  can greatly affect the results
of  the  test.    Fortunately,  error estimates  in  survey  data  are  usually
independent.

     ANOVA is relatively robust  with respect  to the assumption that the data
are  normally  distributed.   Substantial departures  from normality can occur
before  the value  of the F-statistic  is affected  greatly (Green  1979).   For
                                    C-6

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

-------
this reason,  tests  for normality are not usually conducted  before data are
analyzed using ANOVA.

     The third  assumption, that  variances  are homogeneous,  is  critical  to
execution of ANOVA.  Heterogeneous variances can greatly affect the value of
the  F-statistic,  especially  in  cases  where the  statistical  design  is
unbalanced  (i.e., where  numbers  of  replicate  values  vary among the stations
or station groups being tested).

     Several  tests  are  available  to  determine whether  variances  are  homo-
geneous.  The Fmax test  (see Zar 1974; Sokal and Rohlf 1981)  and Cochran's C
test  (Winer 1971) are both appropriate, although  the  latter  is  preferred
because it uses more of the information in the data set.  Bartlett's test is
not recommended  because  it is  overly  sensitive to  departures from normality
(Sokal and Rohlf  1981).

     When  sample variances  are found to  differ significantly  (P<0.01),  a
transformation  should  be  applied  to  the data.   [A more  conservative pro-
bability level  (e.g.,  P<0.05)  should  be  used  when  the statistical  design is
unbalanced.  ANOVA is  sensitive  to unbalanced statistical designs.]   Sokal
and Rohlf  (1981)  describe  several transformations that may be used.  Because
ANOVA  on  transformed  data is  usually a  more efficient test  for detecting
departures  from  the null  hypothesis  than  is  the Kruskal-Wallis  test (the
nonparametric analog of  ANOVA),  the Kruskal-Wallis  test should only be used
when  the  appropriate  transformation fails  to  correct  for  heterogeneous
variances  (Sokal  and Rohlf 1981).  The Kruskal-Wallis test  requires a minimum
of five replicate values per station  because it is a test of ranks.

     When  ANOVA  or   a  Kruskal-Wallis  tests  are  performed,  significant
differences  (P<0.05) among individual stations or groups of stations may be
determined  using the  appropriate  a  posteriori  comparison.   Of  most im-
portance  in 301(h)  demonstrations  are differences  among reference stations
and stations within the  ZID, at  the ZID boundary, and beyond the ZID.   It is
primarily  these  comparisons  upon  which  determination  of  the  presence or
absence of  a  balanced  indigenous  population is based.
                                    C-8

-------
     Classification analyses  (e.g.,  cluster analyses)  have also  been  used
extensively  in  the  301(h)  program.    In  the  normal  classification  mode,
stations are grouped by  the attributes of the  assemblages  that occur there
(e.g., species  composition  and abundance).  This  type of  analysis  is  very
useful for  identifying  the stations that  are the  most  similar  and  least
similar to one another  in fauna and/or flora.  Because biological communities
respond  to  organic materials  and  other  pollutants,  stations  at  which
pollutant impacts  are  occurring  typically  cluster  together in interpretable
groups.  Inverse  classification analysis,  in which  taxa are grouped  by the
stations  at  which  they co-occur,  is  also  helpful  because  it  defines
assemblages  that  are  characteristic   of  different   levels  and  types  of
pollutant impacts.

     Classification analysis  involves two  analytical  steps:  calculation of
a matrix of similarity  values  for all possible station  pairs, and grouping of
stations based on  those  between-station similarity  values.   Many similarity
indices  and  clustering strategies are  available to perform these  two tasks
(see  Boesch  1977;  Green 1979;  Gauch  1982;  Pielou  1984;  Romesburg  1984).
However, only the  Bray-Curtis  similarity index  and  either the group average
clustering strategy (i.e., the unweighted pair-group method using arithmetic
averages) or the flexible sorting strategy have been used commonly in 301(h)
demonstrations.  Their continued  use is recommended.   The Bray-Curtis index
is  easily  understood,   and  has  been  used  widely  in ecological  studies.
Moreover, two  comparisons  of similarity  indices  (i.e.,  Bloom  1981;  Hruby
1987)  have   shown  it  to be  superior  to  many  of  the other commonly  used
resemblance  measures.   Both  the  group  average clustering  strategy  and the
flexible  sorting  strategy  are  recommended  because  they produce  little
distortion of  the original  similarity  matrix.   [See  Tetra Tech (1985) for
additional rationale on  the use of these three indices.]
                                    C-9

-------
                                 REFERENCES


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

Boesch, D.F.   1977.  Application of  numerical  classification  in ecological
investigations  of water  pollution.   EPA-600/3-77-033.   U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency,  Corvallis, OR.  115 pp.

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

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

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

Pearson, T.H., and  R. Rosenberg.  1978.  Macrobenthic succession in relation
to organic  enrichment and  pollution  of  the  marine  environment.   Oceanogr.
Mar. Biol. Annu.  Rev. 16:229-311.

Pielou,  E.C.   1984.   The  interpretation of  ecological  data -  a  primer on
classification and  ordination.   John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.  263 pp.

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

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

Tetra Tech.   1985.   Summary of U.S.  EPA-approved methods, standard methods,
and other  guidance for 301(h) monitoring variables.   Final  report prepared
for Marine  Operations Division, Office  of Marine and Estuarine Protection,
U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   EPA Contract  No.  68-01-6938.   Tetra
Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.  16 pp.

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

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

-------
             APPENDIX D



NAVIGATIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND METHODS

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

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

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

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

MONITORING STATION LOCATIONS

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

ACCURACY LIMITATIONS

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

-------
ro
                                             COASTAL
                                           TREATMENT
                                             FACILITY

                                                    ZID BOUNDARY -
                                                               ,-z.
^
X '
Za
i

z,

	 x ••
G,

•60m 	 X
G

IX
 Ga
                                                                                  PREDOMINANT







KEY.
G
H
R
S
1
Z



GRADIENT
HABITAT
REFERENCE
NEARSHORE
TRAWL
ZONE OF INITIAL DILUTION


^^
CURRENT
1 	 ? 	 1
TJ 	 gom 	 1



               Figure D-1.  Examples of some key 301 (h) monitoring station locations for a medium-large
                           marine municipal discharge.

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

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

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

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

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

POSITIONING ERROR

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

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

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

Average
Diffuser
Depth
(•)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
15
10
5
3
Average
Diffuser
Diameter
(•)
4.0
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.5
ZID
Width
(•)
204.0
183.6
163.4
143.2
123.0
102.5
82.2
62.0
41.8
31.5
21.5
11.0
6.5
Recommended
Station
Location3
(•)
122.0
109.8
87.7
85.6
73.5
61.3
49.1
37.0
24.9
18.8
13.8
8.5
6.3
Recommended
Allowable
Error6
(•)
±20
±18
±16
±14
±12
±10
±8
±6
±4
±3
±3
±3
±3

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

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

-------
          ZID BOUNDARY
               STATION
              LOCATION
100 m DEPTH
4.0 m DIFFUSER
                ERROR
                  LIMIT
40m
                       ZID,
                 BOUNDARY
                                   -204m-
        122m
                                               ' OUTFALL PIPE
                                               DIFFUSER
 60m DEPTH
 3.0 m DIFFUSER"
      -a-»
                                      123m
           ?as m
 20 m DEPTH    .
 1.8 m DIFFUSER
;
1
1


8 m^^»J
1
1

e—
»

41.
249

«•


I
^^m

m
m




!
t
1
1
J
*l
1
1
1
t
     Figure D-2.  Locations of ZID-boundary stations for selected ZID sizes.
                                    D-6

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

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED  PROCEDURES AND EQUIPMENT

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

CANDIDATE SYSTEM SELECTION

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

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

     •    Multiple horizontal angles

               Theodolite intersection

               Sextant angle resection

     •    Multiple electronic ranges

               Distance-measuring instruments

               Range-range mode

               Hyperbolic mode

               Satellite ranging

     •    Range and angle

               Theodolite and EDMI

               Total station

               Range-azimuth navigation systems

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

Multiple Horizontal Angles

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

-------
                                                              TABLE D-2.  SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED SYSTEMS
Category
Theodolite
Sextant
Representative3
Equipment
Table B-l
Table B-2
Table B-3
Accuracy
10-30 sec
±1 m (3.3 ft)
+10 sec
+2 m (6.6 ft)
Cost Advantages
$1.000- $4. 000 Traditional method.
Inexpensive. High
accuracy. Successfully
applied. Restricted
areas.
$1.000-$2.000 Rapid. Easy to imple-
ment. Most widely used.
Di sadvantages
Line-of -sight. Two
manned shore stations.
Simultaneous measure-
ments. Limits on
intersection angles.
Area coverage; station
movement .
Simultaneous measure-
ment of two angles.
 o
  I
 to
     EOMI
     Total stations
Table B-4
Table B-5
1.5-3.0 cm
$3.500-$15.000
  5-7 cm
$8.000-$30.000
                                                                                                             Low cost.  No shore party.
                                                                                                             High accuracy.
Extremely accurate.
Usable for other surveying
projects.  Cost.  Compact,
portable, rugged.
Single onshore station.
Other uses.  Minimum
logistics.
Target visibilities,
location, maintenance.
Line-of-sight.   Best
in calm conditions.
Limits on acceptable
angles.

Motion and direction-
ality of reflectors.
Visibility, unless
microwave.  Two shore
stations.  Ground wave
reflection.

Reflector movement and
directionality.  Prism
costs.
Microwave
navigation
systems
Range-azimuth
systems
Satellite systems
Table B-6 ±1-3 m $40.000-$90.000
Table B-10 0.01° and 0.5 m $65. 000-$ 100. 000
Table B-9 1-10 m $150. 000- $300. 000
(initial units)
No visibility restric-
tions. Multiple users.
Highly accurate. Radio
llne-of -sight.
High accuracy. Single
station. Circular cover-
age.
High accuracy. Minimum
logistics. Use in re-
stricted/congested areas.
Future cost. No shore
stations.
Cost. Multiple onshore
stations. Logistics.
Security.
Single user. Cost.
Current coverage. Ini-
tial development cost.
a Table references refer to Tetra Tech  (1987).

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

     By  comparison,   sextant  angle  resection  can  be  performed  using  one
instrument  if the  vessel   is  stationary,  or  using  two instruments  simul-
taneously if  the  vessel  is moving.   Achievable angular  accuracy  of ±10 sec
is adequate,  and relatively inexpensive sextants ($1,000-$2,000) are readily
available.  Again, visible  range can  be limiting.   Shooting  an accurate fix
from a non-stationary platform in any significant sea or swell could be more
difficult than  shooting  with  theodolites from  shore.  A distinct advantage
of  sextant  angle  resection  is  location of  the navigators  on  the  survey
vessel.   The  method  generally  requires highly visible  shore  targets  and a
three-arm protractor  for plotting positions.

Multiple Electronic Ranges

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

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

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

Range and Angle

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

SHALLOW-WATER POSITIONING METHODS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

USE OF LORAN-C

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

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

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

SYSTEM SELECTION PROCEDURE

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

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

X.Y)


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

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

-------
       TABLE D-3.   THEORETICAL ERROR ELLIPSES OF DIFFERENTIAL LORAN-C
                         FOR VARIOUS U.S.  LOCATIONS

Location
Anchorage, AK
Puget Sound, WA
San Francisco, CA
Los Angeles, CA
San Diego, CA
Mississippi Delta, LA
Panama City, FL
Chesapeake Bay, VA
Boston, MA
Approximate
Direction
of
Major Axis
NW/SE
NW/SE
NE/SW
NE/SW
N/S
NW/SE
N/S
W/E
N/S
Length
of
Major Axis3
70
180
60
90
90
50
30
40
30
Length
of
Minor Axis3
20
40
30
30
20
20
20
20
20

3 Lengths are given to the nearest 10 m based on 95 percent confidence level
error  ellipses.    Standard  deviation   of  time  differences  is  25  nsecs
(achievable with differential Loran-C).
                                     D-16

-------
                       CANDIDATE   SYSfEV
Figure D-4.  Navigation system preliminary screening criteria.
                            D-17

-------
                                 REFERENCES


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     •    Has an "applicable pretreatment requirement in effect"

     •    Achieves  "secondary removal equivalency."

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

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

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

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

     •    Categorical standards

     •    Local limits.

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

     A given  industrial  discharger may be subject  to  categorical  standards
for some pollutants  and  local  limits  for  other  pollutants, or to both types
of  limitations for  the  same  pollutant.  In  the latter  case, the stricter
standard applies.    The  urban  area pretreatment  requirement  for  all  toxic
pollutants entering  a POTW will probably require a combination of both forms
of pretreatment standards.

U.S. EPA GUIDANCE

     The U.S.  EPA Office  of  Water Enforcement  and Permits  (OWEP)  and the
U.S. EPA Office  of  Water  Regulations and Standards  (OWRS)  have issued the
following  guidance  manuals  tj  assist POTWs  in implementing pretreatment
regulations and developing technically based local limits:
                                    E-3

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

     •    Procedures Manual  for Reviewing a  POTW Pretreatment Program
          Submission (U.S. EPA 1983b)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     •    Demonstrate  that  the  needed  resources (e.g.,  funds,  staff,
          equipment) are available to carry out program requirements.

LOCAL LIMITS

     The  technical   approach  used  by  a POTW  to develop  local   limits  is
primarily a  local  decision,  provided that the  local  limits are enforceable
and scientifically  based.   Most POTWs  use the  headworks  loading method in
the  U.S.  EPA  (1987c)  local   limits  guidance manual.    OWEP-recommended
procedures  for  developing  local  limits  appear as  Attachment  1  to this
                                    E-5

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

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

     •    Changes  in  NPOES permit  limits  to  include additional  or  more
          restrictive  toxic pollutant limits

     •    Changes  in  water quality limits including  toxicity require-
          ments

     •    Changes in sludge disposal standards or POTW disposal  methods

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

     OWEP  is  presently  developing  guidance  to   determine  the  technical
adequacy  of  1ocal  limits  and  to  ensure  their enforcement.  This guidance
will  also clarify the use of  best professional judgment  for  establishing
local  discharge limits   or  technology-based  limits  when  the  data  are
insufficient.
                                    E-6

-------
                  SECONDARY REMOVAL EQUIVALENCY APPROACH
     One approach  that  301(h)  applicants may  use to satisfy  the new urban
area pretreatment  requirement  is  to  demonstrate secondary  removal  equiva-
lency.   As noted in 40 CFR 125.65(d):


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


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


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


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


     POTW existing  +  industrial  =  POTW existing  +•  industrial
       treatment      pretreatment      treatment      pretreatment
                                       upgraded to
                                   secondary treatment
                                    E-7

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

b At the option of the  NPDES-permitting  authority,  CBODs may be substituted
for 8005.
                                    E-9

-------
SECONDARY TREATMENT PILOT PLANT DESIGN CRITERIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
        TABLE E-2.  SECONDARY TREATMENT PILOT PLANT DESIGN CRITERIA
Reactor Basin (Aeration Tank)
     Volume                   50 gal (189 L)
     Detention time           8 h
     Organic loading          25-60 Ib BOD/1,000 ft3/day (0.4-1.0 kg/m3/day)
     Air requirement          0.20-0.44 ft3/min (0.33-0.75 m3/h)
Settling Basin (Final Clarifier)
     Volume
     Surface Area
     Overflow Area
     Solids Loading
     Weir Length
     Detention Time
20 gal (76 L)
0.375 ft2 (0.035 m2)
400 gal/ft2/day (16.3 n^/m^day)
14 Ib/ft2/day (68.4 kg/m2/day)
0.5 ft (0.152 m)
3 h
Influent Feed Pump
     Capacity
     Type
0-290 gal/day (0-12.7 L/sec)
Peristaltic
Return Activated Sludge Pump
     Capacity                 0-130 gal/day (0-5.7 L/sec)
                                    E-ll

-------
          MFLUENT
                                                                                              EFFLUENT
m
i
                                                                                                     WASTE

                                                                                                   SLUDGE (WAS)
               Figure E-1.  Components of a conventional activated sludge system.

-------
   TABLE E-3.  CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE DESIGN PARAMETERS
Food to microorganism ratio
Mean cell residence time
Aeration detention time
Oxygen requirements
Return activated sludge
  flow rate
0.15-0.4 Ib BOD5/lb MLSS/day
5-15 days
4-8 h
0.8-1.1 Ib (kg) 02/lb (kg)
BOD5 removed
30-100 percent influent flow
Mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS)    1,500-4,000 mg/L
Organic loading at
  3,000 mg/L MLSS
Respiration (oxygen uptake) rate
  at 3,000 mg/L MLSS
Sludge volume index
Waste activated sludge
20-60 Ib BOD/1,000 ft3
(0.3-1.0 kg BOD/m3)
15-45 mg oxygen/L/h
90-150
0.4-0.6 Ib (kg)/lb (kg)
BOD removed
                               E-13

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

SECONDARY TREATMENT PILOT PLANT STARTUP

     In the  activated sludge  process,  microorganisms  metabolize nearly all
soluble organic matter in  the influent.   The microorganisms  (i.e.,  active
biological solids)  must be removed from the  settling basin to produce an
acceptable  effluent,  and   the  proper  operation  of the  settling basin is
critical.  The  following process control parameters should  be  monitored to
ensure proper operation of  the activated sludge system:

     •    MLSS

     •    Mixed  liquor volatile suspended solids  (MLVSS)

     •    Dissolved oxygen

     •    Sludge volume index  (SVI)

     •    Sludge density index (SDI)

     •    Organic loading

     •    Return activated  sludge  (RAS) flow rate

     •    Waste activated sludge  (WAS)  flow rate

     •    Mean  cell residence  time  (MCRT)/solids  retention time  (SRT)

     •    Food/microorganism ratio  (F/M)

     •    Temperature
                                    E-14

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

     •    Respiration rate (RR).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mixed Liouor  Suspended Solids

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

Mixed Llouor  Volatile Suspended Solids  (MLVSS)

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

Dissolved Oxygen

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

-------
                TABLE €-4.   PILOT  PLANT MONITORING SCHEDULE
 Sampling Point
      Parameters3
     Frequency
Primary Effluent
MLSS
WAS/RAS

Secondary Clarifier

Final Effluent
      Temperature
          pH
          SS

         BOD5
     Overflow rate
         CBOD5

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

           SS

  Sludge blanket  depth

      Temperature
          pH
   Settleable solids
          SS

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

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

1 grab daily

2 grabs daily

1 grab daily
1 grab daily
1 grab daily
4 grabs weekly and
3 24-h composites weekly
3 24-h composites weekly
1 24-h composite weekly
a SS  = Suspended  solids;  8005  =  5-day biochemical  oxygen  demand; CBODc =
5-day  carbonaceous  biochemical  oxygen  demand;  VSS  =  volatile   suspended
solids.
                                    E-17

-------
Sludge Volume Index  (SVI)

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

               CUT   volume of settled sludge (ml) x l.QOQ
               bvi =             MLSS (mg/L)

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

Sludoe Density Index  (SDI)

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

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

Organic Loading

     From routine  laboratory 8005  analysis, the plant operator can determine
organic loading in the  reactor basin.

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

     on-ru cffT,,on+ Dfin  (mn/t\ v  PQTW  Effluent Flow  (MGD)  x 0.0624
     POTW Effluent BOD  (mg/L) x     Reactor Basin Volume  (MG)

                                    E-18

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

     To properly operate the activated sludge  process,  an  MLSS that settles
adequately must  be achieved and  maintained.   The  MLSS are settled  in the
settling  basin  and then  returned to  the  reactor  basin  as  RAS.   The RAS
allows the microorganisms to remain  in the  treatment system longer than the
flowing wastewater.   Changes in  the activated sludge  quality  and settling
characteristics will require different RAS flow rates.

     Two  basic  approaches  can be  used  to control  the  RAS flow rate.   One
approach  establishes  a  constant  RAS  flow rate, independent  of the influent
flow.    This  approach  is  simple   (i.e.,  maximum  solids  loading in  the
settling  basin  occurs  at  the  start of the  peak  flow  periods)   and  less
operator  attention  is needed.   A disadvantage of  this  approach is that the
F/M ratio is constantly changing.  However, because of short-term variation
in the  MLSS  due to hydraulic  loading,  the range of  fluctuation  in the F/M
ratio  is  generally  small  enough  to ensure  that  no  significant problems
arise.

     A second approach establishes the RAS flow rate as  a constant percentage
of  the  influent  flow.    This  approach  reduces  variations   in   the  MLSS
concentration and  the F/M  ratio,  and the MLSS remain in  the settling basin
for shorter time periods (which may reduce the possibility of denitrification
in the  basin).   The most significant disadvantage  of this approach is that
the settling  basin is  subjected  to maximum  solids  loading when  the basin
contains the maximum amount of  sludge, which produces excessive  solids in the
effluent.

     Two  methods  are commonly  used  to  determine the  RAS flow rate.   The
settleability method  uses  the  settled  sludge volume from the SVI test to
calculate the RAS flow rate:
                                    E-19

-------
                           RAS Flow Rate (MGD) •
     Volume of Settled Sludge (mL) x FPOTW Effluent HOW MP)1

The  second  and more  direct method  Is  to monitor  the  depth of  the  sludge
blanket  in  the settling  basin.   The depth of the  sludge  blanket should be
less than  one-fourth  of the water depth of  the  settling  basin sidewall.
The operator must  check  the sludge blanket depth  twice  daily,  adjusting the
RAS flow to control the blanket depth.  If the depth of the sludge blanket is
increasing,  increasing   the RAS  flow  is   only  a   short-term  solution.
Increases in sludge blanket  depth may  result  from too much activated sludge
in the  treatment  system,  a  poorly  settling sludge, or  both.   If the sludge
is settling  poorly,  increasing  the  RAS flow  may  cause even  more problems
by further  increasing  the  flow   through  the  settling basin.    Long-term
corrections noted  below must be made to improve the settling characteristics
of the sludge or remove the  excess solids from the treatment system:

     •    If  the  sludge  is  settling  poorly  because of  bulking,  the
          environmental   conditions  for  the  microorganisms  must  be
          improved

     •    If there is too much activated sludge in the treatment system,
          the excess sludge  must  be wasted.

     The best time to measure RAS  flow  is during the period of maximum daily
flow, because  the clarifier  is operating under the  highest  solids loading
rate.   Adjustments in the RAS flow rate should  be needed  only occasionally
if the activated sludge process is operating properly.

Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) Flow Rate

     The increase  of activated sludge is a cumulative  process that eventually
produces surplus  WAS.   This surplus has  to  be permanently removed from the
treatment process  and collected  for ultimate disposal.   The  WAS flow rate
should  be  determined and adjusted daily to maintain the  desired mean cell

                                    E-20

-------
residence time (MCRT), based on the MLSS in the entire secondary system,  and
RAS suspended solids concentration:

                                       [Aeration Tank Volume (MG) +
  WAS now Rate (WD) - MLSS (ng/L) x
                                       [RAS Suspended Solids (mg/L)]

Mean Cell Residence Time (MCRT) /Sol ids Retention Time (SRT)

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

           Suspended solids in total secondary system Mb)
          Solids wasted (Ib/day) + effluent solids (Ib/day)

FMLSS fmo/DI x [Aeration Tank Volume(MG) + Secondary Clarifier Volume(MG)1
               [WAS Suspended solids (mg/L) x WAS Flow (MGD)] +
          [Effluent Suspended solids (mg/L) x Effluent Flow (MGD)]

     MCRT  is the  best process  control technique  available  to the  plant
operator.  By using  the MCRT,  the operator can  control  the quantity of food
available  to  the  microorganisms  and  calculate  the  amount  of  activated
sludge that should be wasted.

Food/Microoraam'sm Ratio (F/M)

     The F/M  ratio is the ratio  of  BOD in the POTW  effluent  to the MLVSS.
An F/M ratio of 0.15 to 0.4 is desirable.  F/M is defined as:

                         PQTW Effluent BOD (mo/L)
                              MLVSS  (mg/L)

To control the F/M ratio,  the  operator must adjust the MLSS by wasting more
or less sludge.
                                    E-21

-------
Temperature

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

Hydrogen Ion Concentration  (pH)

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

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

     RR (mg oxygen/h/g MLSS) = [DO change over t  (mo/DI x  [60.0001
                                     [MLSS (mg/L)] x [t (min)J
                                    E-22

-------
Microscopic Examination

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

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

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

     •    Sampling/Monitoring Program

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

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

               Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation  of Water
               and Uastewater (U.S. EPA 1982c)

     •    Chemical Analytical Methods

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

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

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

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

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

     •    Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)

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

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

Information from these documents is summarized below.

SAMPLING FREQUENCY

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

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

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

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

SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

-------
     •    Grab sample - a  discrete sample volume is collected.   (This
          type of  sample  will not  always provide an accurate  measure
          of wastewater characteristics,  particularly when  the  flow or
          pollutants are heterogeneous or vary with  time.)

     •    Simple composite sample  - equal  sample  volumes  are collected
          sequentially  overtime  and  combined in  a single  reservoir.
          (This type of sample does not measure the  mass  of pollutants
          discharged,  because  pollutant  loading  is   a   flow-related
          value.)

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

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

-------
        TABLE E-5.   LIST OF TEST PROCEDURES APPROVED BY U.S.  EPA
                  FOR  INORGANIC COMPOUNDS  IN EFFLUENT

Note:  This table is an  exact reproduction of Table  IB  in 40 CFR 136.3,

Parameter, units, and method


2. Alkalinity, a« CaCCs mg/L
to pH 4.5. manual, or.
Automated
3. Aluminum— Total ' mg/L: Digestion '
followed by:
AA direct aspramn 	
AA tumaca
inductively coupled plasma or

4 Ammonia (•» N). mg/L: Manual distil-
lation (at pH 9.5) » followed by:
Nestienzation
Titration
Electrode
Automated pnenate or 	
Automated aiecuode 	
5. Antimony— Total *. mg/L. Digestion "
followed by:
AA dvect asp*aMn 	
AA furnace or ,
influcimi) coupled plasma
6 Arsenc— Total ». mg/L: Oigesuon *
followed by
AA gaseous hydnde 	
M furnace
inductively coupled plasma, or 	
Colonmetnc (SOOC) 	
7 Banum— Total ». mg/L Digestion » fol-
lowed by:
AA direet aspiration 	
AA furnace, or 	
inductively coupled plasma
8. Beryllium— Total '. mg/L Digestion *
followed br
AA direct aspratjon 	
AA furnace. ..
inductively coupled plasma, or

9. Biocftemeal oxygen demand (BOO •).
mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen Depletion 	
10. Boron— Total. mg/L
Colonmetnc (curcumm) 	
or inductively Coupled plasma
11 Bromide. mg/L Titnmetnc
12. Cadmium— Total '. mg/L. Digestion »
followed by:
AA direct aspiration 	
AA furnace
inductively coupled plasma 	
vottametry " or
Colonmetnc (Ditntzone) 	
13 Calcium— Total *. mg/L. Digestion9
followed by
AA direct novation 	
Reference (method No or page)
EPA 1979
30* 1
310 1
310.2....
202.1 	
2022


350 2
350.Z 	
3S0.2 	
350.3 	
350.1 	
204.1 	
204.2.....

206.5 	
206.3 	
206.2 	

206.4 	
208.1 	
208.2 	

210.1 	
210.2....


405.1 	
212.3 	
320.1
213.1 	
213.2...



215.1 	
Standard
metfiods
iem Ed.
40.2(4 •)
403

303C 	
304 	

3068
41 7A
4178 	
4170 	
417EOTF...
41 7G

303A 	
304 	


303E 	
304 	

307B 	
303C 	
304 	

303C
304

309B
507 	
404A


303 A or 8.
304


3108
i
! 303A 	
ASTM
1067-«2(E) 	
Ol067-«2(8) 	





01 426-791 A) 	
01426-79(0) 	
01426-79
-------
TABLE E-5.  (Continued)
Parameter units, and method
Reference (method No or page)

Standard
EPA 1979 methods ASTM USGS ' Otner
'6th Ed
inductively coupled Bi»»m». or
T.tnmeinc (EDTA) 2152
'4 Caroonaceous biochemical oiygen
demand ICBOO .). mg/L " Dissolved
Oxygen Oeoienon with mtntication m.
hibitor
iS Chemical oxygen demand (COO).
mg/L.
Titnmetnc Of • 	 • 410. i
Spectropnotomemc. manual or auto-
mated.
16. Chlonde. mg/L.
Titnmetnc (silver nitrate)
or (Mercuric nitrate) or

Automated (Femcyanide) 	
1 7 Chionne— Total residual. mg/L.
Titnmetnc: 	
Amperometnc direct
Slarcn end point direct 	
Back mration either end
point 14. or
OPD-PAS 	
Spectropnotometnc OPO
Or Electrode 	
18 Chromium VI dissolved. mg/L 045
micron filtration followed by:
AA cneiatjon-extracuon. or 	
Cotonmetnc (Dipnenyicarbazide) 	
19 Chromium— Total ]. mg/L. Diges-
tion •• followed by:
AA direct aspiration 	
A A cneianon extraction ..
AA furnace 	
inductively coupled plasma or
Coionmetnc (Dtpnenylcaroaittfe)
20 Cobalt— Total '. mg/L Digestion '
followed by:
AA direct aspiration
AA *umace or
i~" icttveiy coupled plasma
21 Ccor platinum cobalt uruts or dorm-
nant wavelength, hue. luminance
punty:
Coionmetnc (AOMI). or 	
(Platinum coMR) or

22 Copper— Total3 mg/L Digestion-" fol-
lowed by:
AA direct aspiration 	
AA furance
inductively coupled plasma.
Coionmetnc (Neocuprotne) or
(Bicincnontnate) 	
23 Cyanide— Total. mg.L: Manual distil-
lation with MgO: followed by
Titrimetnc or
410.2. or 	
4103
4104

32S.3 	

3251. or 	
3252
330 1
3303 	
3302
311C...
S07(5e.6)
508A 	
407A .
4078 	

4070 	
408C 	
408A 	
4oaa
330.4 	 4MD 	
3305
ATMf
i
218.4 	
218.1 	
2183
218.2..


219 1
2192

110 1
110.2 	 	
110 3
220.1 	
2202



3038

303A
3038
304

3128
303 A or B...
304

2040
204A
2048
303 A or 8...
304.

3138..

0511-841 A)
01252-83 	
0512-81(8)
OS 12-81 (A)
0512-81(0).. ..

D12S3-76
Notes 12
33.067 >
Note 15
3078."
33.089.'
200. 7 «
P 37 •
200.7 «
Note 17
33.089'.
200.7."
Note 18.
p. 22.'
P. 17 •
or 13
P 37 •
                                    E-29

-------
TABLE E-5.  (Continued)
Parameter units, and metnoa
Deference (memod No. or page)
• Standard : : :
EPA 1979 ; metnods - ASTM ! USGS ' I
i • 16m 6d' ; ! j

Otner
24 Cyandie amendable to cnioonation.
mg/L Manual distillation with MgCl.-
followed by titnmetnc or spectropnoto-
meinc
25 Fluonde — Total, mg/L. Manual distil-
lation • followed by
Electrode, manual or . 	
Automated 	
Cofonmetnc (SPAONS) 	

Or Automated compierane 	
26 Gold— Total3. mg/L Digestion* fol-
lowed by:
AA direct aspiration or 	
AA furnace
27 Hardness— Total, as CaCOj mg/L
Automated coKximetnc 	
Titnmetnc (EOTA) or Ca plus Mg as
mew carbonates, by inductively
coupled plasma or AA dvect asp*-
radon. (See Parameters 13 and
33)
26. Hydrogen ion (pH). pM units:
Electrometnc measurement, or
Automated electrode 	
29 inoiunn— Total-'. mg/L Digestion'' fol-
lowed by:
AA d*eact aspiration or
AA fumaff*
30. iron— Total1. mg/L. Digestion-1 fol-
lowed by
AA direct aspiration
AA furnace
inductively coupled plasma, or 	

31 Kjettam nitrogen -Total (as N). mg/
L. Digestion and distillation followed
by:
Titration
NessienzaMn

Automated pnenate 	 	 	
Semi-automated (Mock digestor or
Potentiometnc 	
32 Lead— Total ;l. mg/L. Digestion •• fol-
lowed by
AA direct aspiration
AA furnace
inductively coupled plasma 	
Voitametry '" or
Coionmetnc (Ditnizone) 	

uon ' followed by-
AA direct aspiration 	 '. 	
inductively coupled plasma, or .
Gravimetric
34 Manganese— Total '. mg/L. Diges-
tion ' followed by:
AA direct aspiration
A A furnace
inductively coupted piasma. or 	
Coionmetnc (Persuitatei. or
iPenodatei
335.1 	

340.2 	

340.1 	

340.J 	
231 1 	
231 2 	
1301 	
1302 	
ISO 1

235 1 ...
2352.
2361 .
2302.


351 3
351 3.
351 3.
351.3... ..- .
351.1 	
351 2
351 4 	
239 1
2392




242.1 	


243 1..
243 2

412F 	
413A 	
4138 	

413C 	

4136 	
303A 	
304 	

3148
423

303A ...
304
303 A or 8..
304

3158 	
420 A or 8
4170
4178
417 E or F



303 A or 8
304


3168 	

303A 	

3188
i 303 A or 8
304
, 3198
02036-82(8)
.
01179-80(9) 	

01179-80(A) 	




01126-80 	
01293-84 (A
or 8).


01088-84 (C
orO).

01086-64
-------
TABLE  E-5.    (Continued)
                                                   Rafaranca (method No. or paga)
     Paramatar. units. and fnatnod
                                 EPA 1979
Standard
             ASTM
                                                                     USGS>
                                                                                    OttMT
35. Marcury— Total ». mg/L
CoW vapor manual or 	
Automatad
36. Molybdanum— Total '. mg/L Oigaa-
don> followed by
AA diract aapration
AA fumaca of ....

37. Nick* Total'. mg/L DtgaaOon •
followad by
AA diract aapntton 	 	
AA fumaea


3>. Nitrata •«• N) mg/L CotorimaMc
(Bruon* ,.«ata). or Nftata-nima N
MWM^ klitHA 84 /C^M •^•MMMfc^tf^MM 1O
mtnUB mm* ra (9OT pranwrv *jv
and 40).
»M1H«I« i alula Im* Nl im/l • r^tormm
raduetton. Manual or
Automatad. or 	

40. Nima (aa N). mg/L 3o«cttoprio l^a^^4^«
«o, wxygan ovaoivaa« (no/L* wwviaf
iAfldai niodMcatton), or
C!A«MBMM«A
47. Palladium— ToM *. mg/L Olaanon •
feiio»ad by
AA fumaea
48. Pnanola, mg/L
Manual fHaWailon *•
FoHOwao oyt
rpionmaaic (4AAP) manual, or....
Automatad l*
49 Phoaonorm (atamantaO mg/L Qaa*

50. Phoapheru*— Total. mg/L Parauifata
j^^^at^MK f«yb^^^H4 Itej
ui^Hmon TuH^^iQ Dy
Manual or 	
Automatad aanonjic aod 'tiluction
or.
Samhautomatad Mock dtoaattr 	
245.1
245.2 	
240 1
24&2. 	

248.1 	
249.2. 	


352.1 	
1533
353.2, 	
353 1
354.1 	 _..

413.1 	
415.1 	 .

306.1
38&Z 	 	
HW3
2521
2522.
380.1 	
253.1
253.2,
420.1 	
420 1 	
420.2. 	


306^.
305^ or
305.3.
3051
305.4 	
303F

303C
304

303 A or B...
304 	

321 B 	

418C
410F... 	

419 	

503A 	
505 	

424Q.. .
424F 	

303C
304 	
4218 	
421 F 	







424C0II) 	
424P 	
424G

03223-60 	




01686-64 (C
orO).


0992-71 	
03067<45(B)
O3667-65(A). 	

01254-07.


02579.85 (A or
B).

DS15-62tA) ..'..



0688-61 (C) 	


01783-60 (A
orB).




0515-62(A).


1-3462-84

1-3490-64


1-3499-64 	




1 «645 64 	


1-4540-64



M601-64




1-1575-78 ' 	
1-1 576-78 f 	









I-4600-64

33095 *



200 7 4

2007*

33083* 4190 '•
p. 28.*


Nota 24


33.044 » p 4 "

33 118 '
33 111 *



33.028.'
P S27*
P. S28.»
Nott 26.


Nota 27.

33.111.'

33.116*

                                              E-31

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

Pwntttr, units, And nwttiod

toftowadby:
AA diract •Tr"*"'*"" or
AA fumaca 	 ,
52. PoUMMfn toui*. mg/L Ogotien
foaowadby:
AA dkact aspiration 	

Rama photornatnc. or 	

S3 Raariua — Total mg/L Gnrnmatnc
103-105'C.
M Raaidua — (WaraMa mg/l: Onvinx
me, iBO'C.
^ Heart* — nonfUtaraMa (TSS) mg/L:
Gravwnamc, 103-105'C poat waahing

57. P.i»jdui Volatta. mg/L Gravwna-
BitSSO'C.
56. Rhodium— Total *. mg/L Oigarton'
loNMvadby:.
AA fumaca 	

IM^H • 0Mll«ta«^M4 >^^>
oon • lOnowao oyr
AA lumaca
60. Satanum— Total '. mg/L OigaMon *
(olioaad by
AA fumaca 	 	

AA gaaaoua ftydnda
61 Silica— Oitaolvad. mg/L 0.45 micren
Kllfation tottowad by:
Cotonmatnc, Manual or 	
*utnrw«rt (Mnt>oan>iliean) or

62. Silvar— Total '*. mg/L Oigarton »
toltowadby:
AA olract Mention
AA lumaca 	


63. SodNjm— Total *. mg/L Oigarton'
foliowadby:
inducttvaly eauplad piaima. or
Flama pnotomatnc
64. Seacrfic conductanca. mcromhoa/
cm at 25'C: Whaatttorta bndga
65. Sutfata (aa SO.). mg/L
Automatad colonmatnc. (banum
craorarMata).
Grawimatnc. or
Tufbidimainc 	

EPA 1979

255 1
255A 	
288.1 	



iao.3 	
160.1..- 	
1602.
160.5 	

160.4 	
265.1 	
26S.2. 	 	

267.1.. 	
2672..
270.2. 	

270.3 	
370.1 	


272.1 	
272.2. 	


273 1


120.1 	
375.1 	
! 3753
375.4 	
Ra
StWtaVd
H^a^tWM4ai
nwinom
letnEd.

303A
304 	
303A 	

?229

209A 	
209B 	

209E 	

2090 	
303A 	
304

303A
304
304 	

303E 	
425C 	


303 A or 8
304 	


303A

32SB
205 	

426 A or B

laranca {mainod I
ASTM





D1428-82(A) 	






*••.••••••••••••••••••*•••••••






03859-64



1-3630-64



1-3750-64 	
1-1750-64 	
1-3765-64 ....
1 _ 	 _ 	

1-3753-64 	






1-3667-64 	
1-1700-64 	
I-2700-64 	

1-3720-64 	



1-3735-64 . . ..


1-1780-64 	
i



Omar



33.103.'
2007*

31 78 '•











2007*



200.7.«
33.089 *. p. 37.*

3198.'*
200.7*
33.107 »
200.7.*

33.002.'

' 33.124 *
426C .»•
       Trtnmatnc (iodma) or .............................. ! 376.1 .............. |  4270 ........................................... : I-3840-64 ........... 228A."
       Colonmatnc (mathylana Mua) ............... ! 376.2 .............. !  427C [[[
    67  Suffita (at SO,).  mg/L  Trtnmatnc ; 377.1 .............. ;  426A .............  01339-84(C) ...................................
     ((Odtna-iodata)
    68   Surtacunts.   mg/L:   Colonmatnc : 425.1 .............. .5128 .............  02330-82IA).  '  .............
69 Tempcratura. 'C.. Thannomatnc
170.1

-------
TABLE  E-5.     (Continued)
                                                                Reference (method NO  or pagei
        Parameter, units, and method
                                                        Standard
                                           EPA 1979     methods
                                                        i6tn Ed.
                                                                    ASTM
                                                                                   USGS'
                                                                                                      Other
   70  Thallium—Total'.  mg/L. Digestion >
     followed by:
       AA direct aspiration	279.1	  303A	:	
       AA fumsce. or	279.2	304	;	
       inductively coupled plasma	,	;	 200.7 <
   71  Tin—Total1.  mg/L DigestionJ  fol-  '             ;                            ;
     lowed by:                            •             '
       AA direct aspiration, or	j 282.1	; 303A	i	; I-3850-78 '	:
       AA furnace	i 282.2	: 304	i	|	|
   72. Titanium—Total'.  mg/L Digestion3  i             '            •                ,                :
AA direct aspiration, or 	
AA furnace 	
73. Turbidity NTU- Nephetometnc 	
74. Vanadium. Total 3. mg/L Digestion *
followed by:
AA furnace

Cotonmetnc (Gallic acid) 	
75. Zinc-Total3. mg/L Digestion' fol-
lowed by:
AA furnace 	


(Zncon) 	

283.1 	
283.2 	
180.1 	
288.1 	
288.2 	


289.1 	
289.2 	




303C 	
304 	
214A 	
303C 	
304 	

3278 	
303A or B....
304 	

328C 	



	
01889-81 	



D3373-«4e effluent sampiea are on company We to show that
   this prekmnaiy distillation  step • not neeeaaary: however, manual distiBaoon win be rrjured to resolve any  controversies.
     •Ammona.  Automated  Electrode Method. Induamal Method • Number 379-75  we dated  February  19. 1978.  Techncon
   AutoAnaryzer II. Techncon induatneJ Systems, Tarn/town. NY. 10591.
     'The approved method is  that  cited m "Methods for Determination  of  Inorganic Substances  in  Water and  Fluvial
                                                                      2. 1975. AvaMMe from ANSI. 1430 Broadway,

                                                                                                    Supplement to
    Sedimema". USGS TWAI, Book 5. Chapter A1 (1979).
      • American National Standard on Photographic Pnxaeamg Effluents, Apr.
    New York. NY 10018.
      • "Selected Analytical  Methods Approved and Cited by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
    the Fifteenth Edition of Stanoavtf «ee*ioa» for tttt £xmmfitHofi of Wit* tnd WMMwemr (1981).
      18 The use of normal and differential putaa voltage ramps to increase sensitivity and resolution is acceptable.
      1 ' Caroonaceous tuochemcal oxygen demand (CBOO.) must not be confuaed with the traditional BOD, test which measures
    •total BOO." The addition of the  nuiUcauuii inhibitor is not  a procedural option, but must  be included to report the CBOD,
    parameter. A discharger whose  permit requires reporting the traditional BOO. may not use a  nnnfication mnfcrtor in  the
    procedure tor reporting the results^ Only when a discharger's permit specifically states CBOO. is required, can the permittee
    report data using the nrtnfication wihibrtor.

                                                          E-33

-------
TABLE  E-5.     (Continued)
    '- QIC Chemical Oxygen Demand Method. Oceanography international Corporation. 512 West Loop. P.O. Box 2980. College
 Station. TX 77840
    "Chemical Oxygen Demand. Method 8000. Hach Handbook of Water Analysis. 1979. Hach chemical Company. P.O Box
 389. Loveiand. CO 80537
    1' The back titration method will be used to resolve controversy.
    '••Onon Research  instruction Manual. Residual Chlorine  Electrode Model 97-70. 1977. Onon  Research incorporated. 840
 Memorial Drive. Cambridge. MA 02138.
    '" The approved method  « that cited m SunOard Mamoat tor ma Examination of Watar ana Wattawatar. 14th Edition.
 1976.
    17 National Council ol the Paper Industry tor Air  and Stream improvement, (inc.) Technical Bulletin 253. December 1971
    '"Copper.  Biocmchomate Method.  Method 8506.  Hach Handbook of Water Analysis. 1979. Hach Chemical Company. P0
 Box  389. Loveiand. CO 80537.
    '• After the manual drstHlaton * completed, the autoanaiyzer manifolds in EPA Method* 335.3  (cyanide) or 420.2 (phenols)
 are simplified by connecting the re-sample hne oveetty to the sampler. When using the manifold setup shown m Method 335.3.
 the buffer 6.2 should be replaced with me buffer 7.6 found m Method 335.2.
    "Hydrogen ion (pH) Automated Electrode Method, industrial Method Number 378-75WA. October 1976, Techmcon Auto-
 Analyzer II. Techmcon industrial Systems. Tarrytown. NY 10591.
    " Iron. 1.10-Phenanthrotme Method. Method 8008. 1980. Hach Chemical Company. PO. Box 389. Loveiand.  CO 80537
    " Manganese. Penodate Oxidation Method. Method 8034. Hach Handbook of  Wastewater Analysis. 1979. pages 2-113 and
 2-117. Hach Chemical Company. Loveiand. CO 80537.
    " Goerhtz. D.. Brown. E.. "Methods  for Analysis  of Organc Substances in Water."  U.S. Geoiogwal Survey Techniques of
 Water-Resources Inv.. book 5. ch A3. page 4 (1972).
    " Nitrogen. Nrtnte.  Method 6507. Hach Chemical Company, P.O. Box 389. Loveiand. CO 80537.
    " Just pnor to dmtillation. adiust the suHunc-acid-preserved sample to OH 4 with 1 *  9 NaOH.
    " The approved method is that cited m Standard UatnoOt for ma Summation of Watar ana Waatawatar.  14th Edition. The
 cokximetnc reaction « conducted at a pH of 10.0=0.2. The approved  methods are given on pp.  576-81 of the 14th Edition:
 Method  510A  tor distillation.  Method 5106  for  the  manual cokximetnc procedure,  or  Method  510C for  the manual
 spectrophotometnc procedure.
    " R.  F.  Addison and R. G.  Ackman.  "Direct Determination of  Elemental  Phosphorus  by Gas-Liquid  Chromatography."
 Journal of Chromatography. vol. 47. No. 3. pp. 421-426. 1970.
    "Approved  methods for the analysis of stiver  m industrial wastewaters at concentrations  of 1  mg/L and  above  are
 inadequate  where silver exists as an morganc halide. Silver  haMes such as the bromide and chloride are relatively insoluble in
 reagents such as ratnc aod but are readily soluble m an aqueous buffer of sodium ttvosuitate and sodium hydroxide to a pH of
 12 Therefore, for levels of sliver above 1  mg/L 20  mL of sample should be dduted to 100  mL by adding 40 TIL each of 2 M
 NajSjOj and 2M NaOH. Standards should be prepared m the same manner. For levels of  silver  below 1 mg/L the approved
 method is satisfactory
    »* The approved method  * that cited in Standard MamoOa lor ma Examination ol Watar ana Wastawatar. 15th Edition
    10 The approved method  is that cited in Stanoara UathoOs lor tha Examination ol Watar ana Wastawatar. 13th Edition
    :
-------
        TABLE E-6.   LIST OF TEST PROCEDURES APPROVED  BY  U.S.  EPA
                  FOR  NON-PESTICIDE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

Note:  This table is an  exact  reproduction of Table 1C in 40 CFR  136.3.
                                       EPA Method Number
farameier
1 Acenaphthene 	
2 Acenaphthyiene
3 Acrolein
4 Acrytomtnie 	 .. . .
5 Anthracene 	
6 Benzene
7 Benzidine 	
8 Benzo(a)anthracene
9 Benzo(a)pyrene
10. Benzo(b)tluoranthene 	
11 8enzo(g h Operyiene .... 	
12 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 	
13 Benzyl chloride 	 	
14 Benzyl butyl phthaiate
15 8is(2-chioroethoxy) methane
16 Bis(2-chioroethyi) ether
17 B«(2-ethyihexyi) pmnaiate 	
1 8 Bromodichlorometnane
1 9 Bromotorm
20 Bromomethane..
21 4-Bromopnenyiphenyi ether . 	
22 Carbon tetracnioride 	
23 4.Chloro-3-methylphenoi ...
24 Chiorobenzene 	
25 Cnioroemane 	
26 2-Chioroethyiwinyi ether 	
GC
610
610
603
603
610
602

610
610
610
610
610
L . .. 	
606
611
611
! 606
601
601
601
611
601
! 604
601.602
'; 601
! 601
QC/MS
625. 1625
625 1625
'624 1624
•624. 1624
625. 1625
624 1624
'625. 1625
625. 1625
625 1625
625. 1625
625. 1625
625. 1625

625 1625
625 1625
625 1625
625. 1625
624 1624
' 624 1624
624 1624
625. 1625
624. 1624
625. 1625
624. 1624
i 624. 1624
' 624. 1624
HPLC
610
610


610

605
610
610
610
610
610









	
uiner






Note 3. p. 1 :





Note 3 p 130:
Note 6. p.
Si 02.






Note 3. p 130
Note 3. p 130.
                                   E-35

-------
TABLE E-6.  (Continued)
'arameter
27 Cnioro'O"Ti
28 Chiorometnane
29 2-Chioronapmnai«ne
30 2-Oloroontnol
31 4.Chioropn*nyipn*nyl etn*r
32 Chryscn* ...
33 Oib*nzo(a.n)antnractn« 	
34 Oibromocnioromcman* 	
35 1 2-Oicnioroo*nz*n* 	 :
36. i 3-OcriioroD«nx*n* 	
37 1 .4.0icniorOD«nz*n« 	 . :
38 3.3 -OicnforoMnzidir* 	 	 i.
39 Dicnioroditiuoronia'than*'
40 i i -Dicnioro*tnarw 	
41 1 2-Oichioro*iftafw 	 i
42 1 1 -Otcfiloro«th*n*
43 trans*i 2>Dtcmoroaith*n6
44 2 4.OiCWOrOPfl*flO) 	 i
45 i 2-OtcftiOf'ODro0"W
46 cts*i 3-OtcfMoroprop9nt>
47 trans- 1 3-DicMOfopfOp«n* 	
48 Ontftyi pnmaiaw ...
49 2 4-OinwflylpMnol
50. Dimmnyt pnthalat* 	
51 Dt-n-Outyi pnttiaJaw . .
52 Oi-n-octyi pfitnaiaw
S3 2 4-Oinitropncftol
54 2 4-Oinitrotoiu4)n*
55 2 6-Otnitrotolu*n*
56 Epicniorofiydnn
57 Etnyibsfiztn*
58 F!uorantn*n* 	
59 Fluorvn*)
60 H*KacMOfot)€fiza*w
6i HnacraoroouMxMn*)
62 H*iacniorocyciocnnTK)wfM
63 Hnacntofo^tfiint
64. id*no(l.2.3-cd)pyr*n*' 	
65 isopnoron*)
68 Mctnywnt cfttono* 	
67 ? UatfM.4 n anmrmti^rt
6fl NaontnaMnc
69 NrtrotMnncn*
70 I flitropmrol
71 « NilrOpfWOl
72 N-NitromUMiMiHylonifM
73 N-NitroaodHA'fvopytajfffMnc
74 14 Hiiiuiodiunlifnin<
75 22*-O«ytm(i-7Moraprapww)
78 PCB-1016 	
77 PCS- 1221 	
78 PCB- 1232 . 	
79 PCB- 1242 	
80 PCB- 1248 	
81 PCB-1254 	
82 PCB- 1280
83 P*nti£ftioroptwnol
84 PfMfwwwsn* 	
85 Ph«nol 	
88 Pyr«n« 	
87 237 6-T9tracfiiorod£4nzo-p'4ioxffi
88 112 2*T9tracftioro4)tf)Afl9
89 TatracniocQ«n625. 1625
825. 1625
625
625
625
625
625
625
625
625. 1625
825. 1625
625. 1625
625. 1625
»613
624. 1624
624. 1624
624. 1624
625. 1625
:::::;:...;


	 ;
,

!
	 i

,
Not* 3 D 130
Not* 6. p
: S102
610
610 i



610
	 i
	 1 Not* 3. p. 130:

610






	 NOW 3. . 43:
	 Not* 3. . 43;
	 Not* 3. . 43;
	 Not* 3. . 43;
	 NOW 3. . 43;
	 NOW 3. . 43;
	 Now 3. .'43:
	 Now 3. . 140:
610
610
.... Now 3. p. 130:
..| Now 3, p. 130:

I. 	 Not* 3. p. 130:
                                    E-36

-------
TABLE E-6.    (Continued)


92 M . 1 -Tncnioroamana 	
93 M .2-Tncnioroatnana 	
94 Tncnioroamana 	
95 Tncniorottuoromatnana
96 2 • 6-Tnchloropnanoi
97 Vinyl cnkjnda .. 	

EPA N
GC
601
601
601
601
604
601

Aamod Numoar -
GC/MS HPLC
624. 1624 [.. :
624! 1624 L. . . . Not* 3 o '30
624. 1624 {. . . . ;
624 I :
625 1625 <- ;
624. 1624 j. 	

    Tabia 1C NOtt*
    ' All paramatari art axprasaad m mcrograms par irtar (»tg/U
    n
  sacwn 8.2 of  aacn of maaa Matnoda. Additionally, aacn laboratory, on an on-oomg baaaa must spika and anaiyza 10% (5%
  for Matnoda 624 and 625  and  100% tor  matnoda 1624. and 1625)  of an samplaa to  monitor and avaluata laooratory data
  quahty  m accordanca witn factions 83 and 8.4 of maaa Matnoda.  Wnan ma racovary of any paramatar falls outsida ma
  warning limits, ma  analytical raautta for  mat  paramatar m ma unap*ad aampia ara auapact  and cannot ba raportad to
  damonatrata ragutatory compkanca.
    Note: Tnaaa warning iimrta ara promukjatad aa an "mtanm final acwn win a raouaat for commama."
                                                       E-37

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

Note:  This table  is an exact  reproduction of Table ID in 40 CFR 136.3.
Paramatar MO- U
i. Aidnrt 	

2 Amotiyn 	

4. Atraton 	
5 Atrvm* 	
6. Azmpftoa mattiyi 	
7 Barban 	 , 	 ,„
8. a-8HC 	

9. 0-8HC 	

10. 5-BMC 	

1 1 , y-BHC (Lindana) 	

12 Captan
13 CarMrvl
14 Cartpphanomion
15, Chtardana 	 ,.,, 	 ,,..

16 Cnioroproptam
17 24-O
1$. 44-OOO 	

19. 4.4--O06 	

20. 4.4'-OOT 	

Matftod
QC 	
QC/MS 	
GC 	
TLC 	
GC . .
GC .
GC 	
TLC 	
GC...: 	
QC/MS 	
GC
GC/MS 	
GC 	
GC/MS ...
GC 	
SC/MS 	
GC 	
TLC 	
GC
GC 	
GC-MS 	
TLC 	
GC
GC 	
GC-MS .
GC 	
GC/MS
GC 	
GC/MS 	
EPA»-»
808
62S






808
•925
808
825
608
•623
608
625



608
625


608
625
608
625
608
825
Stand-
ard
Mam-
oda
!5tfi
£d
SWA







509A





SOOA

508A


509A


5098
509A

509A

509A

ASTM
03086







03088

03086

03086

03086




03086



03086

03088

03086

Othar
Nota 3. p. 7- Nota 4. p. 30.

Nota 3. p. 83: Nota 6. p. S68.
Nota 3. p. 94: Nota 6. p. Si6.
Nota 3. p. 83: Nota 6. p. S68.
Nota 3. p. 83: Nota 6 p. S68.
Nota 3. p. 25: Nota 6. p. S51.
Nota 3. p. 104; Nota 6. p. 564.
NOW 3, p. 7





Nota 3. p. 7- Nota 4 p. 30

Nota 3. p. 7
Nota 3. p. 94; Nota 6. p. 560.
Nota 4 p 30- Nota 6 p 573
Nota 3. p. 7.

Nota 3. p. 104: Nota 6. p. 564
Nota 3 p. 115 Nota 4 p 35.
Nota 3. p. 7: Nota 4. p. 30.

Nota 3. p. 7; Nota 4. p. 30.

Nota 3. p. 7: Nota 4. p. 30

                                  E-38

-------
TABLE E-7.    (Continued)
                       ug :
                                                            oas
                                                            ism
                                                            Ed
                                                                   ASTM
                                                                                    om*f
21 D«m*ton-O 	
22 D*m*nton-S
23. Oiazmon
24 Oicamoa . ...
25 Oicnioltflthion 	
26 Dicnioran 	
27 Dicofol 	
28 OwWnn 	

29 rantnion 	
30 Oiwlfoton
31 Dnxon
32 EndOttJlfan 1

33 Endosultan 1 1

34 Endosuifan suifat*

35 Endrm

36 Endrm ald*nyd*

37 Ethion
38 P*nuron
39 F*nuron-TCA
40. H*ptacnior 	

41 H«ptacMor tpoxid*

42 isodnn.. .. . .
43 Linuron. . . ....
44 Matatrwon 	 . . 	
45 Mctrnocarb 	
46 M*moiycnlor 	
4? MmacarMt*
48 M»t» .... ...
49 Monuron 	
50. Monuron-TCA 	
51. N*6uron 	
52 Paratfteon m*ttiyt
53. ParatfMon *tftyi 	
54 PCNB 	
55. Pwinan* 	

57 Piorn*pyn 	

59 Pfopfum 	
60 Propoiuf
61 5*ct)urn*ton
62 Siduron 	
63 Simian* 	
64 Strooan* 	
65 Sw*p 	
66 245-T
67 2 4 5-TP (&tv«i) 	
6fl T*ft)utf*ylaiin*
69 Toiapn*n*

70 Trtfluralin 	

GC.

iiC ..
GC .
GC
GC
GC
GC/MS
GC 	
GC 	
TLC
GC
GC/MS
GC .. .
GC/MS
GC .
GC/MS
GC.
GC/MS .. .
GC 	
GC/MS 	
GC
TLC
TLC
GC 	
GC/MS
GC
GC/MS
GC ..
TLC
GC . .
TLC 	
GC 	
TLC 	
GC
TLC 	
TLC 	
TLC 	
GC
GC .. .
GC 	
GC 	
GC .
GC . ..
GC 	
TLC 	
TLC
TLC ..
TLC ..
GC 	
GC 	
TLC 	
GC 	
GC 	
GC 	
GC 	
GC/MS .. .
GC 	







608
625



608
•625
608
'625
608
62S
608
'625
608
625



608
625
608
625



























608
625






509A

509A




509A

S09A



509A






509A

509A



509A

509A

509A



509A
S09A
509A









509A

5096
5098

509A

509A






03086





03086

03086



03086






03086

03086





03086








03086













03086



Not* 3. 0 25: Not* 6. 0 S51
Now 3 p 25 Not* 6 p SSI
Not* 3 p 25 Not* 4 p 30
Not* 6. p S51
Note 3 P 115
Not* 4 p 30' Not* 6 p S73
Not* 3 p 7

Not* 3 p 7' Not* 4 p 30

Not* 4. p. 30: Not* 6 p S73.
Not* 3. p. Not* 6 p S51.
Not* 3 p 104 Not* 6 p S64
Not* 3 p 7

Not* 3 p 7



Not* 3 p 7- Not* 4 p 30



Not* 4 P 30- Not* 6 p S73
Not* 3 p 104 Not* 6 p 564
Not* 3 p 104- Not* 6 p S64
Not* 3. p. 7; Not* 4 p 30

Not* 3 p 7' Not* 4 p 30' Not*
6. p. S73.
Not* 4 p 30- Not* 6 p S73
Not* 3 p 104- Not* 6 p S64
Not* 3. p. 25' Not* 4 p 30:
Not* 6. p. SSI
Not* 3. p. 94- Not* 6. p S60
Not* 3. p. 7; Not* 4. p. 30.
Not* 3. p. 94; Not* 6. p. S60.
Not* 3 p. 7
Not* 3. p. 104: Not* 6. p. S64.
Not* 3. p. 104: Not* 6. p. S64.
Not* 3. p. 104; Not* 6, p. S64
Not* 3 p 25' Not* 4 p 30
Not* 3. p. 25.
Not* 3. p. 7.

Now 3. p. 83: Now 6. p. S66.
Now 3. p. 83: Now 6. p. 566.
NOW 3. p. 83; Now 6. . S68.
NOW 3. p. 104; NOW 6. . S64.
Now 3. p. 94; Not* 6. . S60.
Now 3. p. 83: Now 6. . S66.
Now 3, p. 104: Now 6. . S64
Now 3. p. 83; Not* 6. . S66.
Now 3. p. 7.
Now 3. p. t04: Not* 6. p. S64
NOW 3. p. 115; NOW 4. p. 35.
Not* 3. p. 115.
Not* 3. p. 83: Not* 6. p. S68.
NOW 3. p. 7; NOW 4. p. 30.

NOW 3. p. 7

    Tabi* 10 Not*s
    1 PvstiodM ar* i«t*d en tm* taw« by common n«m* (or m* conv*ni*nc* of m* r*ad*r. Additional p**nod*s may b* found
  under TaOM iC. «n*r* *ntn** ar* nn*d Dy cnvrrucai nam*.
                                                   E-39

-------
TABLE  E-7.    (Continued)
     •• The full ttit o< methods 608 and 625-are given at Appendix A.  'Test Procedures for Analysis ot Organic Pollutants   o»
   mis  Pan  '36 The  standardized test procedure to oe used  to determine ine method  detection iimt (MOD 'or tnese test
   procedures is given at Appendix S.  Definition and Procedure for the Determination of tne Method Detection urnit". of this Pin

     '  Methods for Benzidine. Chionnated Organic Compounds. Pentachioroonenoi and Pesticides  in Water and Wastewater '
   US  Environmental  Protection Agency.  September.  1978.  This EPA  puOiication includes  thin-layer cnromatoo/apny  (TLC)
   methods.               .  •
     4  Methods 'or Analysis of Organic  Substances  m  Water." U.S.  Geological  Survey.  Techniques ot  Water-Resources
   investigations. Book 5. Chapter A3 (1972).
     1 The metnod may be extended to include a-8HC. 5-8HC. endosulfan I. endosulfan 11.  and endrm  However, when they are
   known to exist.  Metnod 608 is tne preferred method.
     • 'Selected Analytical Methods Approved and Oted by the United Slates Environmental Protection  Agency." Supplement  to
   the fifteenth Edition of Sttnava MftfioO* tor Me Eximinition of Winr tnd WutiwMr (1981)
     : Each analyst must make an initial, one-time, demonstration of their abtdty to generate acceptable precision and accuracy
   with Methods 608 and  625 (See  Appendix A of this Part 136) m accordance with procedures given in section 8.2 of each  of
   tnese methods. Additionally, each laboratory, on an on-going basis, must spike  and analyze 10% ot all samples analyzed with
   Metnod 608  or 5%  of  ail  samples  analyzed with Method 625 to monitor and  evaluate laboratory data quality m accordance
   with Sections 8.3 and 8.4 of these methods.  When the recovery of any parameter falls outside the  warning limits, the analytical
   results for that parameter m the unsptked sample are suspect and cannot be reported to demonstrate regulatory compliance
     NOTE: These  warning limits are promulgated as an "mtenm final acton with a  request tor comments."
                                                           E-40

-------
             TABLE E-8.  RECOMMENDED SAMPLE SIZES.  CONTAINERS.  PRESERVATION.
                         AND HOLDING TIMES FOR EFFLUENT SAMPLES3
Minimum
Sample Size"
Measurement (ml) Contai nerc
PH
Temperature
Turbidity
Total suspended solids
Settleable solids
Floating parti culates
Dissolved oxygen
Probe
Winkler
Biochemical oxygen demand
Total chlorine residual
Oi 1 and grease
Nitrogen
Ammonia-N
Total Kjeldahl-N
Nitrate+Nitrite-N
Phosphorus (total)
Priority pollutant metals
Metals, except mercury
Mercury
Priority pollutant organic
compounds
Extractable compounds
(includes phthalates.
nitrosamlnes. organo-
chlorine pesticides.
25
1.000
100
1.000
1.000
5,000

300
300
1. 000
200
1,000

400
500
100
50

100
100

4.000
P. G
P. G
P. G
P. G
P. G
P. G

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

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

P. G
P. G

G only,
TFE-lined cap
Preservatl ve™
None
None
Cool . 4° C
Cool . 4° C
Cool. 4° C
None

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

Cool . 4° C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool . 4° C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool . 4° C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool . 4° C
H2S04 to pH<2

HN03 to pH<2
HN03 to pH<2

Cool , 4° C
0.008X Na2S2039
Store in dark
Maximum
Holding Time
Analyze Inmedlately8
Measure immediately6
48 h
7 days
48 h
Analyze immediately*^

Analyze immediately8
8 h
48 h
Analyze Immediately8
28 days

28 days
28 days
28 days
28 days

6 mo
28 days

7 days until
extraction
40 days after
extracti on
  PCBs,  nitroaromatics,
  isophorone,  polycyclic
  aromatic hydrocarbons,
  haloether,  chlorinated
  hydrocarbons,  phenols,
  and TCDD)

Purgeable compounds
40         G only,
       TFE-lined septum
  Cool. 4° C
0.008X Na2S2039
7 daysh
                                           £-41

-------
TABLE £-8.  (Continued

Minimum .

Sample Size"
Measurement
Total and fecal coll form
bacteria

Enterococcus bacteria

(mL)

250-500

250-500

Container0

P. G

P. G



Preservatl ve^

Cool . 4° C
0.008X Na2S2039
Cool . 4° C
0.008X Na2S2039


Maximum
Holding

6 h

6 h

Time





a Reference:  Adapted from U.S. EPA (1979b), 40 CFR Part 136.

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

c P = Polyethylene; G » Glass.

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

e Iirmediately means  as soon as possible after the sample is collected, generally within 15 min
(U.S. EPA 1984).

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

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

  Holding  time  and preservation technique  for  purgeable compounds  are based  on the use  of
U.S. EPA Method 624  for  screening all  priority pollutant  volatiles organic  compounds,  including
acrolein  and acrylonitrile.    If analysis  of acrolein  and  acrylonitrile  is  found  to be  of
concern,  a  separate subsample should be  preserved by adjusting the  pH  to 4-5  and the sample
should then be analyzed by U.S. EPA Method 603.
                                               E-42

-------
QA/QC

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

     •    Statement and prioritization of study objectives

     •    Responsibilities   of   personnel   associated   with   sample
          collection and analysis

     •    Sampling locations, frequency,  and procedures

     •    Variables  to  be measured,  sample sizes, sample containers,
          preservatives, and sample holding times

     •    Equipment checklist

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

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

     •    Laboratories to which samples will be shipped.

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

     •    Preparation for sampling program

     •    Sample collection

     •    Sample processing

     •    Sample size
                                    E-43

-------
     •    Sample containers

     •    Sample preservation

     •    Sample holding times

     •    Sample shipping

     •    Recordkeeping

     •    Labeling

     •    Custody procedures

     •    Analytical methods

     •    Calibration and preventive maintenance

     •    Quality control checks

     •    Corrective action

     •    Data reporting requirements.

Field Sampling Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

     •    Use appropriate sample collection procedures (see Table E-8).

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

Laboratory Procedures

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

-------
     •    Initial multipoint calibration

     •    Demonstration of method proficiency

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

     •    Daily checks of calibration and instrument tuning

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

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

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

     •    Multipoint  calibration

     •    Analysis of reagent blanks

     •    Matrix spikes of 0.5-5 times  the sample concentration

     •    Determination of method detection limits

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

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

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

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

Data Evaluation

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

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

     •    Sample results

     •    Blank sample results

     •    Instrument calibrations (initial and continuing)

     •    Matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate results

     •    Surrogate recovery data

     •    Instrument tuning data

     •    Chain-of-custody records

     •    Analytical request forms

     •    Gas chromatograms

     •    Mass spectra

                                    E-47

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

     •    Serial dilution results

     •    Clean-water precision and accuracy studies

     •    Furnace atomic absorption quality control data

     •    Interference check data

     •    Laboratory control sample results

     •    Holding time documentation.

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

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

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

     •    Confirm  that  an  acceptable  instrument  detection  limit  was
          achieved

     •    Confirm that the analysis proceeded in the manner specified

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

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

                                    E-48

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

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

Confirm  that  blank  samples were analyzed  and  that the field
sampling  and  analytical  procedures  did not  contaminate the
data

Evaluate the presence of matrix interferences through the use
of surrogate recoveries and matrix spikes

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

Detail problems associated with the analyses.
                          E-49

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

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

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

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

Acenaphthene                             NIb at 10
Acrolein                                 NI at  62
Acrylonitrile                            NI at 152
Benzene                                     125
Benzidine                                    5
Carbon tetrachloride                     NI at  10
Chlorobenzene                             NI at 1
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene                    NI at 6
Hexachlorobenzene                            5
1,2-Dichloroethane                       NI at 258
1,1,1-Trichloroethane                    NI at  10
Hexachloroethane                         NI at  10
1,1-Dichloroethane                       NI at  10
1,1,2-Trichloroethane                    NI at  5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane                NI at 201
Ms-(2-Chloroethyl) ether                NI at  10
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether                NI at  10
2-Chloronaphthalene                      NI at  10
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol                       50
para-Chloro-meta-cresol                  NI at  10
Chloroform                               NI at  10
2-Chlorophenol                           NI at  10
1,2-Dichlorobenzene                          5
1,3-Dichlorobenzene                          5
1,4-DiChlorobenzene                          5
1,1-Dichloroethylene                     NI at  10
1,2-trans-Dichloroethylene               NI at  10
2,4-Dichlorophenol                       NI at  75
1,2-Dichloropropane                      NI at 182
1,3-Dichloropropylene                    NI at  10
2,4-Dimethyl phenol                       NI at  10
2,4-Dinitrotoluene                           5
2,6-Dinitrotoluene                           5
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine                        5
Ethyl benzene                             NI at  10
Fluoranthene                             NI at  5
                               E-51

-------
TABLE E-9.  (Continued)
                                            Threshold of
     Pollutant                        Inhibitory Effect  (mg/L)a

     Ms-(2-Chloroisopropyl) ether            NIb at  10
     Chloromethane                            NI at 180
     Bromoform                                NI at 10
     Dichlorobromomethane                     NI at 10
     Trichlorofluoromethane                   NI at 10
     Chlorodibromomethane                     NI at 10
     Hexachlorobutadiene                      NI at 10
     Hexachlorocyclopentadiene                NI at 10
     Isophorone                              NI at 15.4
     Naphthalene                                 500
     Nitrobenzene                                500
     2-Nitrophenol                            NI at 10
     4-Nitrophenol                            NI at 10
     2,4-Dinitrophenol                            1
     N-Nitrosodiphenylamine                   NI at 10
     N-Nitroso-di-N-propylamine          .     NI at 10
     Pentachlorophenol                          0.95
     Phenol                                      200
     Ms-(2-Ethyl Hexyl) phthalate            NI at 10
     Butyl Benzyl phthalate                   NI at 10
     Di-n-butyl phthalate                     NI at 10
     Di-n-octyl phthalate                    NI at 16.3
     Diethyl phthalate                        NI at 10
     Dimethyl phthalate                       NI at 10
     Chrysane                                 NI at  5
     Acenaphthylene                           NI at 10
     Anthracene                                  500
     Fluorene                                 NI at 10
     Phenanthrene                                500
     Pyrene                                   NI at  5
     Tetrachloroethylene                      NI at 10
     Toluene                                  NI at 35
     Trichloroethylene                        NI at 10
     Aroclor-1242                             NI at  1
     Aroclor-1254                             NI at  1
     Aroclor-1221                             NI at  1
     Aroclor-1232                             NI at 10
     Aroclor-1016                             NI at  1


a Unless otherwise indicated.

b NI = no inhibition at tested concentrations.   No concentration is listed  if
reference lacked concentration data.

Reference:  U.S. EPA  (1986c).


                                    E-52

-------
TABLE E-10.  REPORTED VALUES FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE BIOLOGICAL
  PROCESS  TOLERANCE  LIMITS  OF  INORGANIC  PRIORITY  POLLUTANTS
                                     Threshold of
        Pollutant               Inhibitory Effect (mg/L)
Arsenic
Cadmi urn
Chromium (VI)
Chromium (III)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
0.1
1
1
10
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
5
0.03

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

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

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

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

-------
                                 REFERENCES


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

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

Tetra Tech.  1982b.   Revised Section 301(h)  technical support document.  EPA
430/9-82-011.   Prepared  for  U.S.  EPA,   Office of  Water,  Washington,  DC.
Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA.  248 pp.

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

Tetra  Tech.    1986b.   Bi©accumulation monitoring guidance:   4.   analytical
methods  for  U.S.  EPA  priority  pollutants and 301(h)  pesticides  in tissues
from estuarine and marine  organisms.  Final  Report.  Prepared for the Marine
Operations  Division,  Office  of  Marine  and  Estuarine  Protection,  U.S.
Environmental  Protection Agency.   EPA Contract  No.  68-01-6938.   Tetra Tech,
Inc.  Bellevue, WA.   118 pp.

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

U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.    l?7?a»   NPDES  compliance sampling
manual.  MCD-51.  U.S. EPA, Enforcement Division, Office of Water Enforcement
Compliance Branch, Washington, DC.  138 pp.'

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

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

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

                                    E-56

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

U.S.  Environmental   Protection  Agency.     1983b.    Procedures  manual  for
reviewing a POTW pretreatment program submission.  U.S. EPA, Office of Water
Enforcement and Permits, Washington, DC.   125 pp.

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

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.  1984b.   Report  on the implementation
of  Section  301(h).    EPA 430/9-84-007.   U.S.  EPA,  Office  of  Water Program
Operations.  Washington, DC.  79 pp.

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

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  1985b.  Guidance manual for the use of
production-based  pretreatment   standards   and  the   combined  wastestream
formula.   U.S.  EPA,  Permits  Division  and  Industrial  Technology  Division,
Washington, DC.  82 pp.

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

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

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

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

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

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


                                    E-57

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

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

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

-------
               ATTACHMENT 1 TO APPENDIX E

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

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

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

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

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

     The following discussion provides a  review of procedures for developing
technically-based local  limits.   Further details on the various approaches
are provided in U.S. EPA's  Guidance  Manual  on the Development and Implemen-
tation  of  Local  Discharge  Limitations  Under  the  Pretreatment  Program
(December 1987).   Questions about this  guidance should be  directed  to the
U.S.  EPA Regional  Pretreatment  Coordinators or to  The  Office of  Water
Enforcement and Permits in Washington, DC.

OVERVIEW OF LOCAL LIMITS

     Local discharge limitations are requirements developed  by a POTW based
on  local  conditions  and  unique requirements at the  POTW.   These limits are
primarily intended to protect the treatment plant from industrial discharges
which  could  interfere with POTW treatment  processes  or  pass  through  the
treatment plant  to  receiving waters  and  adversely  impact  water quality.
Local  limits are  also  designed to prevent  sludge contamination and protect
workers at the treatment plant.

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

LOCAL LIMITS DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES

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

-------
used by POTWs  and  advocated In the Guidance is a chemical  specific approach
known  as   the  maximum  allowable  headworks loading  method.    This  method
involves back  calculating from environmental  and  plant  protection criteria
to a maximum allowable headworks  loadings.  This  is  accomplished  pollutant
by pollutant  for each  environmental  criteria  or plant  requirement  and  the
lowest or  most  limiting  value for each  pollutant serves  as the  basis  for
allocation to  industry  and  ultimate local  limits.   The steps  of the maximum
allowable  headworks  loading local  limits  development process are  shown  in
Figure 1,  and discussed below.

Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading Method

Determine Applicable Environmental Criteria—

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

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

-------
Characterize Existing Loadings—

     Industrial Users—During the local  limits  development  process,  the POTVI
must characterize  existing  loadings  to the treatment  plant.   Local  limits
should be based on site-specific monitoring data.   This  can be accomplished
by conducting  monitoring  of all industrial users.   Either POTW  monitoring
or  self-monitoring data  are acceptable,  and  information  from the  POTW's
industrial waste survey may also be of use.

     Hauled Waste—If hauled wastes are accepted at the  POTW,  they  may be a
significant source of toxic  pollutant  loadings.   In  such a  case  the POTW
should consider them  as  a significant nondomestic source  in the  determina-
tion of local  limits.

     Domestic  Loadings—The  POTW  must also characterize domestic  loadings.
Site-specific monitoring of a representative portion of the POTW's collection
system should  form the basis  for  loadings  from domestic/background  sources.
Use of literature values must be justified by  the POTW.

     Treatment Plant Mom'torinq—The POTW must  conduct sufficient monitoring
at  the  treatment  plant  to  characterize  influent,   effluent,  and  sludge
loadings.  Monitoring of  the  treatment  plant influent, effluent,  and sludge
should represent a minimum of  5  consecutive  days.    Preferably,  monitoring
should include data for  at least 1  day  per  month over at  least  1  yr for
metals and  other  inorganic pollutants, and 1  day of  sampling per  year for
toxic pollutants [priority pollutants and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Appendix 9 constituents].

Determine Pollutants of Concern--

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

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

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

Calculate Maximum Headworks Loadings—

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

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

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

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

Allocate Allowable Industrial  Loading-

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

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

Revise Local Limits-

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

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

Implement Local  Limits—

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

OTHER LOCAL LIMITS APPROACHES

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

Collection System Approach

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

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

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

Case-bv-Case Discharge Limits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-------
                                REFERENCES


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

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

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

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

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

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

-------