EPA-430/9-76-006
Anv
AIi I
'0;^,IHV1RGNMEHTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office;'of-Water Program Operations
~-Washington, D.C. 204SQ
MCD-27
-------
TASK FORCE. REPORT
on
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Of
MUNICIPAL
OCEAN DISCHARGES
April, 1976
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
NOTES
To order this publication, Task Force Report on Secondary Treat-
ment of Municipal Ocean Dischages, MCD-27, write to:
General Service? Administration (8-FFS)
Centralized Mailing List Services
Bldg. 41, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
Please indicate the MCD number and title of publication.
-------
OCEAN DISCHARGES/SECONDARY TREATMENT
TASK FORCE MEMBERS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Program Operations
Office of Research and Development
Office of Enforcement and General Counsel
Office of Planning and Management
Office of Legislation
Office of Toxic Substances
Region I
Region II
Region IV
Louis DeCamp
Charles H. Sutfin
Dennis Tirpak
Donald Baumgartner
Murray Stein
William Frick
Arnold Kuzmack
David Schuenke
Kenneth Kirk
R. L. Hammond
Lester Sutton
George Mollineaux
David Luoma
Douglas McCurry
George Collins
Region X
Robert Burd
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface vii
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 4
Views of States, Municipalities,
Engineers and Scientists 6
Categories of Ocean Waters . 9
Pollutants 10
Forms of Regulatory Control 15
Technologies and Costs 16
Other Discharges 23
Conclusions 24
Options 29
Analysis of Options 30
Appendices:
A. Selected Sections of the Federal Water A-l
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
PL 92-500 (Sections 301, 304, 403 & 307).
B. Ocean Dumping Regulations and Criteria, B-l
October, 1973.
C. Construction Grant Regulations of July, 1971, C-l
Under Section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
D. Secondary Treatment Information, August, 1973. D-l
E. EPA Office of Enforcement and General Counsel E-l
Opinions on Secondary Treatment and Ocean Outfalls,
April 19, 1974 and December 27, 1972.
F. "Definition of the Open Ocean," Paper by F-l
D. J. Baumgartner, EPA Pacific Northwest
Environmental Research Laboratory.
-------
PAGJL
G. Documents from Meeting of Task Force, G"""1
Portland, Oregon, June, 1974.
(1) List of Participants G'2
(2) Paper on "The Position and Technical ^-3
Documentation of Some Coastal Municipalities,
Hawaii and Puerto Rico^on the Need for
Secondary Treatment."
(3) Statements of Consulting Engineers and G-47
Scientists
(4) List of Documents Provided G-83
H. (1) California State Ocean Water Quality H-l
Control Plan
(2) California State Water Quality Control H-T7
Policy for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries
I. Sewage and Nutrients Effect on Marine Aquatic 1-1
Life and Wildlife, from "Water Quality Criteria,
1972", Report of the National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, D.C.
J. Technologies and Costs Data: J-l
K. (1) Information on Treatment Methods for Ocean Kl
Discharge of Municipal. Wastewater from
EPA National Environmental Research Center,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
(2) "Comparison of Primary and Secondary Treatment" K-12
by Floyd K. Mitchell for the Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project.
-------
PREFACE
This report has been prepared at the request of the Administrator,
Mr. Russell E. Train. He asked that a Task Force examine the need for
secondary treatment of wastewater discharged to the ocean from publicly-
owned treatment works and make recommendations on "whether to propose
to Congress any exceptions to the secondary treatment standards,"
The Task Force has not recommended that EPA propose any amendments
to P. L. 92-500 which would provide for exceptions to secondary treat-
ment. However, it has recommended that the construction of secondary
treatment facilities for certain open ocean discharges be delayed until
the environmental effects of municipal discharges on the ocean can be
better determined, and improved marine pollution control technologies
can be developed.
In order to implement the Task Force recommendations, an amendment
to Section 301 of P. L. 92-500 to permit the Administrator to extend
the 1977 date for compliance with the secondary treatment requirements
will be necessary. House Bill H.R, 9560 and Senate Bill S. 3038 include
amendments which are based in part on these recommendations.
Implementation of the Task Force recommendations will not resolve
the controversies over the need for secondary treatment of ocean dis-
charges unless municipalities conduct the necessary studies to deter-
mine environmental effects and alternative treatment technologies, and
unless EPA increases its research and development efforts in marine
pollution control.
The Task Force is encouraged by the work that has been undertaken
as a result of its draft recommendations. However, it is clear that
much more needs to be done quickly. H.R. 9560 and S. 3038 provide
until 1982 and 1983 respectively to complete the necessary studies and
construct alternatives to secondary treatment.
Charles H. Sutfin,
Ocean Discharges/Secondary Tjjtatment
Task Force
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500) require the attainment of minimum effluent limita-
tions by all dischargers to the nation's waters. For publicly
owned treatment works (POTW'si these limitations are based on
achieving secondary treatment removal levels.
After the enactment of PL 92-500, substantial reservations
were expressed on the need for secondary treatment of municipal
discharges to the ocean. Responding to these reservations, the
EPA Administrator authorized a Task Force to report its findings
and recommendations.
The Task Force has concluded that pollutants of general
concern in all ocean waters are toxic and persistent metals and
organics, settleable solids, floatable solids and pathogens.
However, at the present time, not enough is known to relate the
environmental effects of these pollutants to effluent quality on
a quantitative basis. For certain ocean waters the removal of
the soluble oxygen demanding materials (soluble BOD) may not be
necessary.
For the purpose of this report, the Task Force divided the
ocean into the open ocean and near-shore ocean waters. Near-
shore ocean waters include bays, estuaries, inlets and shallow
coastal waters. Open ocean waters are those seaward of the line
demarcating the near-shore zone. Open ocean waters can be
reached by a land-based outfall at an economical distance from
shore on the West coast of the United States, and the coasts of
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands.
However, this is not generally possible on the East Coast of the
United States because of the width of the continental shelf.
Puget Sound and Cook Inlet in Alaska are near-shore ocean waters
but portions exhibit open ocean characteristics. The Task Force
has concluded that the removal of soluble oxygen demanding
materials (soluble BOD) to the level of secondary treatment is
required for near-shore ocean waters, but may not be necessary
for discharges to the open ocean and portions of Puget Sound and
Cook Inlet.
Secondary treatment is a term that has been conventionally
used in the field of water pollution control to refer to
those processes designed to achieve a high degree of removal
of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids from
municipal waste waters, generally the chief pollutants of
concern for POTW's.
-------
Primary treatment is principally designed to remove set-
tleable solids and is presently being utilized by most municipal
ocean dischargers prior to releasing their effluents through deep
ocean outfalls. As compared to chemical primary or secondary
treatment, primary treatment is lower in cost, however, it is
substantially less effective in removing the pollutants of
concern to the ocean. The Task Force determined that primary
treatment alone would not be sufficient for most open ocean
discharges.
Of the technologies available for municipal wastewater
treatment, secondary treatment generally achieves the best
removal of pollutants of concern in the ocean. However, second-
ary treatment is primarily designed to remove BOD and suspended
solids. Although it also removes toxic materials and persistent
organics, it was not specifically designed to remove those
pollutants. Technologies, which have not yet been fully develop-
ed, may be better suited to marine pollution control (more cost-
effective than secondary treatment).
Based on the foregoing findings, the Task Force recommends
that, where the need to remove oxygen demanding materials is
questionable, construction of secondary treatment facilities for
open ocean discharges be postponed by virtue of the State prior-
ity list. During this postponement, the environmental effects of
municipal waste discharges on the open ocean can be better
determined and improved technologies for marine pollution control
can be developed. This recommendation should not affect the
construction of plants for which Federal funds have been obli-
gated. Since primary treatment would be incorporated as a unit
process in the total treatment system, primary treatment facil-
ities should be constructed, without delay, at sites that are
presently discharging raw wastewater.
The Task Force recommends that Federal grant funds (Step 1
grants) be made available to municipalities for environmental
assessments which would include the determination of treatment
alternatives and their environmental effects. EPA should also
accelerate its research and development efforts to better iden-
tify the pollutants for which some base level of control is
necessary and to develop and demonstrate improved technologies
for marine pollution control. Upon completion of the studies and
research, EPA should be in a better position to recommend technologies
that remove the pollutants of concern to the ocean and, if necessary,
an amendment to PL 92-500 to modify the secondary treatment
reqirements for ocean discharges. This recommendation will make
grant funds available for higher priority construction projects.
It does not require an amendment to the secondary treatment
requirements of PL 92-500, at the present time.
-------
However, an amendment to the Act which would provide author-
ity to the EPA Administrator for case-by-case extensions of the
1977 deadline for achieving the secondary treatment requirements
will be necessary. Bills H.R. 9560 and S. 3038 provide such
authority. S. 3038 is preferred because it provides authority to
extend the date for compliance to July 1, 1983, one year longer
than H.R. 9560.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500) require a minimum of secondary treatment for all
publicly owned waste treatment works (POTW's). (See Appendix A).
Section 304(d)(l) requires that EPA publish information on the
effluent quality attainable by secondary treatment. Section 301
(B)(l)(b) requires that all POTW's achieve secondary treatment by
1977, or by 1978 in the case of grants approved prior to June 30,
1974. (This later date allows a maximum of four years from the
time of approval to complete construction). Section 403 requires
that the EPA Administrator promulgate guidelines (Appendix B)
containing ocean discharge criteria which all dischargers to the
territorial sea, the contiguous zone, or the ocean must satisfy
before a permit can be issued.
Prior to the enactment of PL 92-500, effluent limitations
for municipal waste treatment plants were determined on a case-
by-case basis from water quality standards set by the States. In
its construction grant program in 1971, the EPA had established
by regulation (Appendix C) a minimum requirement for secondary
treatment, but with provision for case-by-case exceptions for
discharges to open ocean waters.
In writing PL 92-500, Congress rejected the concept of
determining effluent limitations solely from water quality stan-
dards because it had been generally unsuccessful in their view.
This lack of success was due to the technical and administrative
difficulties in determining assimilative capacities of receiving
waters and in allocating permissible pollutant loadings to point
sources. Difficulties were also encountered in enforcement.
Accordingly, Congress adopted the concept of minimum technology
based effluent standards for all point sources. For POTW's sec-
ondary treatment was chosen because it was thought to be gener-
ally needed nationwide to achieve the water quality goals of the
Act.
Secondary treatment is a term that has been traditionally used
in the field of water pollution control to refer to processes
designed to achieve a high degree of removal of biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids from municipal wastes.
Usually, biological processes such as activated sludge and
trickling filters have been used. More recently, physical/
chemical processes have been developed which can achieve an
effluent quality comparable to or better than biological sec-
ondary treatment. EPA in its definition of secondary treatment
(Appendix D) included limits on fecal coliform bacteria
which necessitate the use of disinfection processes in addition
to biological or physical/chemical processes. An amendment to
the secondary treatment regulation was proposed on August 15,
1975, which would delete the fecal coliform bacteria limitations
from 40 CFR 133 and rely on water quality standards and public
health needs to establish disinfection requirements for publicly
owned treatment works.
-------
Since the enactment of PL 92-500, there has been consid-
erable discussion of the necessity for requiring secondary
treatment for the very small proportion of municipalities dis-
charging to the ocean. Most of those affected have argued that
BOD, the major pollutant addressed in the secondary treatment
regulation promulgated by EPA, is not of concern in open ocean
waters, and that expenditures for secondary treatment of ocean
discharges are wasteful of public funds.
EPA in its definition of secondary treatment included limi-
tations on BOD, suspended solids, pH and fecal coliform bacteria.
Further, in order to comply with PL 92-500, the secondary treat-
ment regulations must be uniformly applicable nationwide and must
include limitations on BOD. Special consideration cannot be
given to ocean outfalls based on water quality needs specific to
ocean discharges without an amendment to PL 92-500. As stated
above, the Act is based on nationwide compliance with effluent
quality control (using guidelines that incorporate social and
economic considerations) rather than the former statutory reli-
ance on water quality control, alone.
Recognizing the arguments against secondary treatment for
ocean outfalls, the Administrator asked in March, 1974 that a
Task Force be established to investigate the issue and make
recommendations for action. (For a list of Task Force members,
see the Acknowledgments). This report contains the conclusions
of the Task Force and provides an analysis of the options.
During the development of the secondary treatment regulations,
EPA's General Counsel determined (Appendix E) that no exceptions
to the secondary treatment regulations could be made for ocean
outfalls without amendment to the Act. This determination was
supported by the Congressional committee staffs.
-------
VIEWS OF STATE, MUNICIPALITIES, ENGINEERS AND SCIENTISTS
In June 1974 in Portland, Oregon, the Task Force met with
several individuals, including representatives of the municipali-
ties, States, consulting engineers, research organizations and
universities, who are concerned with the issue of the need for
secondary treatment of municipal ocean discharges. These individ-
uals were asked to present information available to them relating
to the issue of municipal ocean discharges. (A list of partic-
ipants and documents provided at or subsequent to the Portland
meeting is included in Appendix G).
In assessing the meeting, it was readily apparent to the
Task Force that the situation in each locality is unique.
However, the following views were held in common:
(a) Secondary treatment is not the most cost-effective
technology for the pollutants which cause or have the potential
to cause adverse environmental impacts in the ocean.
(b) Other pollution controls have higher priorities in
terms of abatement effect per dollar invested, i.e., control of
combined sewer overflows, construction of secondary treatment
facilities for non-ocean discharges, interceptor sewer construc-
tion, etc.
(c) BOD is generally not a problem in open ocean waters,
(d) Effluent limitations for POTW discharges to the ocean
should be determined on a case-by-case basis. There was general
agreement on an amendment to PL 92-500 proposed by Seattle:
"The EPA Administrator may modify the requirement of
Sections 301(b)(l)(B) and (b)(2)(B) with respect to any
publicly owned treatment works discharging into tidal
saline waters upon application and proof satisfactory
to the Administrator that alternative treatment strate-
gies would produce a result consistent with the national
goal prescribed in Section 101(a)(2) for an equal or
lesser expenditure of public monetary and material
resources."
-------
Municipalities and States
To record individual views, a paper was prepared for the
Task Force on "The Position and Technical Documentation of Some
Coastal Municipalities, Hawaii and Puerto Rico on the Need for
Secondary Treatment" from the presentations and documentation
provided in Portland. (See Appendix G. Also included is a list
of the background documents).
The States of California and Florida were also given an
opportunity to present their views. The policies are briefly
summarized below:
In Florida, there is a statewide law requiring secondary
treatment (90 percent removal of BOD) of all discharges, in-
cluding those to the ocean, by January 1, 1974. This requirement
was adopted before the enactment of PL 92-500. A major concern
in Florida has been the public health problems (specifically from
viruses) associated with municipal sewage discharges to the
ocean. Construction grant funding has been made available to
most of the municipalities in Florida having ocean discharges.
)
In an Environmental Impact Statement prepared by EPA Region
IV entitled, "Ocean'Outfalls and Othec Methods of Treated Waste-
water Disposal in Southeast Florida," it was concluded that
ocean outfalls were a viable disposal method for wastewater for
Southeast Florida and that such diversion of wastewater would
substantially improve the quality of the inland surface waters
both immediately and over the longer term.
It was judged that secondary treatment with disinfection
followed by dilution and adequate separation of the effluent from
the general population would protect public health. Conditions
for such ocean disposal were: (1) minimal disturbance of the
reefs, to be accomplished by a physical and biological site
survey to establish the best alignment of the outfall; (2)
positioning of the outfall beyond the furthermost reef so the
boil will not overshadow the reef under maximum shoreward current
conditions; and (3) initiation of continuous monitoring to detect
unforeseen changes in the marine environment so the required
alternate disposal methods can be instituted.
The contributing municipalities were: Los Angeles, San
Diego, Orange County, Seattle, Anchorage, and Miami Beach.
EIS can be reviewed at EPA, Washington, D.C. and at
the EPA Region IV Office, Atlanta.
-------
The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted a
"Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California"
(Appendix II) in 1972. This plan includes a combination of water
quality objectives' and specific effluent requirements for all
discharges to the ocean waters from the State.
The effluent requirements2 included iirthe plan were based
on technology available (both treatment and source control).
However, limitations were established for only those pollutants
which, in the opinion of the State, have adverse effects on the
ocean environment.
- In 1974 the State of California also adopted a "Water
Quality Control Policy for the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of
California" (Appendix H). This document states that "the dis-
charge of municipal wastewaters and industrial process waters
(exclusive of cooling water discharges) to enclosed bays and
estuaries, other than the San Francisco Bay-Delta system, shall
be phased out at the earliest practicable date".
water quality objectives include standards on bacte-
riological characteristics; physical characteristics including
grease and oil, floating particulates, discoloration, light
transmittarrce, and inert solids deposition; chemical charac-
teristics including dissolved oxygen, pH, sulfides, metals
and organics in sediments and nutrients; biological charac-
teristics; toxicity characteristics; and radioactivity. An
initial dilution of 100:1 is required 50 percent of the time.
The effluent requirements include limits on grease and oil,
particulates and solids, metal, toxic and persistent organics
(not BOD), toxicity, ammonia, and radioactivity. These
requirements have to be achieved on a time schedule adopted
on a case-by-case basis.
^A common point made by the California municipalities at the
meeting was that the effluent requirements in the ocean plan
could not be achieved with even secondary treatment and good
source control (See Appendix K). It was also clear that
secondary treatment would come closest to achieving
the requirements of the plan. Particularly emphasized
was the chromium limitation of 0.005 mg/1. While
recognizing that there is reason to change the chromium
limitation, the California representative at the meeting
stated that the Water Resources Control Board has chosen
not to modify the requirement until it can be determined
what is attainable.
-------
Engineers, Universities and Research Organizations
Representatives from the universities, consulting engineer-
ing firms, and research organizations made presentations to the
Task Force from a variety of perspectives not necessarily repre-
senting the views of a specific municipality or State. In gener-
alizing, there appeared to be agreement that the pollutants of
concern in the ocean include persistent and toxic organics,
metals, floatable and settleable solids, and microorganisms; and
that each discharge must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
(Summaries of the presentations are included in Appendix G.)
CATEGORIES OF OCEAN WATERS
The term "ocean" is very broad and can include not only the
waters seaward of the baseline defining the territorial sea but
also inland waters such as bays, estuaries, sounds, etc. For the
purposes of this report, the ocean has been divided into two
categories: (1) open ocean, and (2) near-shore ocean waters.
This division is based on a proposal by D. J. Baumgartner, a
member of the Task Force (Appendix F). His proposal provides a
conceptual method for determining the line of demarcation between
the open ocean and near-shore waters based on consideration of
the depth of discharge, circulation, winds, tides, sensitive
water use areas and unique oceanographic features such as basins,
upwellings, rip currents, etc.
Near-shore ocean waters include bays, estuaries, inlets and
shallow coastal waters. These waters are very productive, heavily
used, and of all ocean waters the most sensitive to pollution
inputs. Open ocean waters are those seaward of the line demar-
cating the near-shore zone. Open ocean waters can be reached by
a land-based outfall at an economical distance from shore on the
West coast of the United States, and the coasts of Hawaii, Puerto
Rico, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands. However, this is
not generally possible on the East coast of the United States
because of the width of the continental shelf. Puget Sound and
Cook Inlet in Alaska are near-shore ocean waters but portions
exhibit open ocean characteristics.
If a decision is made to amend PL 92-500 with regard to
treatment requirements for municipal ocean discharges, this
method could be used for establishing a line dividing ocean
waters needing secondary treatment from those waters where
alternative technologies can be considered.
-------
POLLUTANTS
The foil owing paragraphs include a brief summary of the
available information on pollutants of concern in ocean waters.
Metals
Metals in municipal wastewater discharges include those
which are very toxic in low concentrations and are not known to
be essential to any marine organism. These are mercury, lead,
cadmium, silver, uranium, chromium and others. These elements
should be removed from sewage effluents to the best practicable
level.
Other metals such as iron, vanadium, copper, boron, cobalt,
zinc, and molybdenum are toxic at some level but are known to be
essential to certain marine organisms. No metal input from
municipal sewage discharges can be considered a significant
fraction of the national input to the ocean on a global scale.
From this one might conclude that with very effective dispersion
of municipal effluents, removal of metals mignt not be necessary.
The application of present day ocean outfall design techniques
can result in effective dispersion of the effluent so as to cause
no significant increase in metals concentration in the water
column. This was reported by the Southern California Coastal
Water Research Project (SCCWRP) in their March 1973 study.
However, the SCCWRP also reported that most metals concentration
in the sediments around the outfalls was considerably greater
(orders of magnitude) than the natural levels in similar but
unaffected sediments along the California coast. Metals enrich-
ment in the sediments around sewage outfalls results from the
metals contained in the wastewater particulates that settle to
the ocean floor.
Metals enrichment in ocean sediments represents a signif-
icant alteration of the ambient conditions in which marine
organisms must function. This would seem reason enough to remove
metals in the insoluble form from municipal sewage discharges as
far as practicable, if they cannot be adequately dispersed in the
water column. (Refer to discussion on "Particulates," page 13.)
10
-------
Metals in soluble form in sewage effluents should be at such
a level that, with effective dilution/dispersion, the concentra-
tion does not increase more than a few percentage points above
ambient levelsJ
There does not appear to be justification or scientific
support for drawing a distinction between near-shore and open
ocean waters with respect to metals removal.
Nutrients
Nutrients are of concern because they stimulate the growth
of aquatic plants which cause nuisance conditions and exhaust the
oxygen supply during decomposition. Nutrients generally conceded
to be of concern are the various forms of phosphorus and nitrogen.
Silica is a necessary nutrient for marine diatoms; however,
sewage effluents are not significant contributors of this material.
Carbon is similarly necessary for energy and sythesis but will be
discussed subsequently. The importance of trace metals as nutrients
has already been discussed.
Nitrogen rather than phosphorus is thought to be the limiting
nutrient in the ocean. A subtle increase in plankton productivity
due to nitrogen enrichment has been shown adjacent to outfalls
discharging to the open ocean. However, this is generally not
considered to be of significance when compared with natural
variations. Some have argued that such a controlled increase in
productivity may be beneficial because of improved commercial and
sport fisheries.
In many near-shore, shallow ocean waters, principally
estuaries, the amount of nutrients added by municipal sewage
effluents is sufficient to produce enough organic material to
completely exhaust the oxygen supply due to decomposition.
'Findings to date by the SCCWRP suggest that the benthic animals
observed in that study did not take up metals and appeared not
to be affected by them. Comments submitted by the Project Staff
question the value of removal of metal forms that are biologically
unavailable. However, they also point out that it is too early
to segregate metals in accordance with animal needs. The Task
Force believes that because information on the effect of metals
on benthic animals is inconclusive at the present time, it is
prudent to remove metals in the insoluble form as far as
practical, based on the undisputed fact that metals enrichment
of sediments does occur around sewage outfalls and the extensive
amount of information documenting the toxic effects of certain
metals on living organisms.
11
-------
The National Academy of Sciences in their "1972 Water
Quality Criteria Report" (Appendix I) found that control of the
limiting nutrient will generally control enrichment, and there-
fore recommended that the natural ratios of available nitrogen to
phosphorus be evaluated for each discharge. The Academy also
recommended that in order to ensure adequate oxygen, the levels
of nitrogen in the ocean should be maintained at less than 360
ug/1. The California Ocean Plan (Appendix H) requires 40 mg/1 of
ammonia nitrogen and a minimum of 100:1 dilution which will yield
400 ug/1 in the ocean. SCCWRP has measured nitrogen off the
California coast at levels as high as 630 ug/1 and claims no
adverse effects were apparent.
In the absence of more definitive information, establishing
the need for nutrient removal from municipal sewage effluents
discharged to the ocean must depend on an evaluation of each
discharge on a case-by-case basis.
Qrganics
Organics can be considered in three groups: (1) obviously
persistent and possibly very toxic; (2) toxic at certain concen-
trations and exposure times but only moderately persistent; and
(3) generally non-toxic, possibly beneficial or essential to
marine life, and rapidly degradable.
Included in the first group are PCB's, aldrin, endrin, DDT,
heptachlor, lindane, chlordane and others. Because of their
demonstrated adverse effects and persistence in the environment
and the unresolved questions about possible effects yet unknown,
these materials should be removed from both near-shore and open
ocean discharges by the best practicable treatment technology or,
alternatively, by controlling them at the source.
In the second group are organics such as phenols, cyanides,
glycols, some oils and organic acids. These materials should be
removed from sewage discharges into both near-shore and open
ocean waters to a level which will avoid toxicity, oxygen depres-
sion and significant increases above background levels in waters
beyond the intitial mixing zone. In open ocean waters, removal
may not be necessary if dilution and detoxification rates are
high enough.
The third group includes the easily degradable soluble
organics normally associated with the five-day biochemical oxygen
demand test (BOD ) such as alcohols, sugars, and a variety of
indistinguishable materials found in human sewage. Their primary
effect is oxygen demand resulting from decomposition. Because of
the dilution and dispersion possible at most open ocean and some
12
-------
near-shore discharge points these materials do not generally
present a problem.' However, in the majority of cases involving
near-shore discharges BODr in excessive amounts will cause oxygen
depression. According to information provided to the Task Force,
significant oxygen depression has not occured at Seattle dis-
charge into Puget Sound (West Point) and the Anchorage discharge
into Cook Inlet (See discussion on page 9).
Particulates
Particulates carry most of the trace elements present in
municipal wastes discharged to the ocean. They are largely
organic material (including chlorinated hydrocarbons) that
transport microorganisms. Particulates need to be controlled at
the treatment plant for both open ocean and near-shore discharges
because of the problems or adverse affects associated with the
materials they carry, the formation of sediments and their
possible interference with light transmission in the water
column.
Outfall design can affect the fallout pattern of partic-
ulates by controlling the amount of mixing and dispersion;
however, special consideration must be given to certain factors
which influence the effectiveness of this method of control.
Particulates are dominated by the forces in the plume,as 1t rises
from the outfall diffusers. Sedimentation forces dominate after
the plume has dissipated. The particulates that settle form a
sludge on the ocean bottom which, if not dispersed widely, can
become anaerobic due to decomposition of the organic fraction
(insoluble BOD). Sulfides can be formed which restrict the
release of metals into the water column. Substantial enrichment
(orders of magnitude) of the sediments with metals and chlorin-
ated hydrocarbons can occur. SCCWRP has shown that these condi-
tions exist adjacent to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District
outfall at White's Point. The area affected is 10-15 square
kilometers. Recent information, supplied by the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts, shows that the affected area has
been reduced by the application of good source control and the
construction of additional primary clarification and digestion
units.
The significance of increased particulates in the water
column is far less critical to water quality than other pol-
lutants. The outfall diffuser can be designed such that the
increase above background is not significant. However, at this
time the influence of particulates in the water column on light
transmission is generally unknown.
discussion is primarily concerned with soluble BOD.
It should be noted that BOD in the form of particulates can
be of concern in ocean waters. Refer to the discussion of
the effect of particulate BOD in the following section on
"Particulates".
13
-------
In the open ocean the greater depths may facilitate initial
dilution of discharges sufficiently to effect adequate and
permanent dispersion of parttculates. Therefore, there may be
some justification for less stringent requirements on partic-
ulates in open ocean discharges.
Floatables
Greases, oils, wax, and a variety of particulates appear at
the sea surface when wastes are discharged through submarine
outfalls. Because they are unsightly, carry other pollutants,
such as chlorinated hydrocarbons and pathogens, and can be
carried easily by winddriven surface currents, they must be
removed from wastes to the best practicable level prior to
discharge in near-shore and open ocean waters.
Microorganisms
Perhaps more is known about the die-off of coliforms in
seawater than is known about any other marine water quality
problem. Unfortunately, little is known about human disease
related to contact with seawater containing coliforms of sewage
origin. Nevertheless, coliform concentration is frequently the
guiding design criterion for ocean outfalls, influencing the
location so that travel time of a calculated drift field exceeds
the time required for the coliform concentration to die-off to
slightly less than ambient quality criterion in a bathing area.
There is considerably less known about the survival of virus
in seawater. More recently, recognized dangers associated with
drug resistant strains of bacteria of possible sewage origin cast
additional doubts on the utility of die-off predictions based on
coliforms and fecal coliform counts. In those near-shore coastal
water areas where human water use activities are concentrated,
adequate protection seems to require a positive disinfection
step. Chlorination has recently become suspect because of
formation of possibly persistent and toxic compounds; however,
better controls on the chlorination process and, perhaps, sub-
sequent dechlorination can reduce this apparent problem. Because
of the toxicity of chlorine to marine organisms dechlorination
may be required in some waters. Other disinfection processes are
becoming available.
For open ocean outfalls, the risk of human contact and
infection is likely to be considerably less, and positive dis-
infection may not be necessary because of dispersion. At the
same time in view of the uncertainty surrounding die-off of
viruses, no credit should be taken for die-off in planning and
designing such outfalls.
14
-------
FORMS OF REGULATORY CONTROL
PL 92-500 requires that minimum effluent limitations be
established based on applying the best practicable technology to
all discharges from point sources to navigable waters. If, in
the case of a specific discharge, such minimum effluent limita-
tions will not achieve the water quality goals of the Act, more
stringent effluent limitations based on water quality standards
are imposed.
In formulating PL 92-500, the previous regulatory concept
using water quality standards as the sole basis for determining
effluent limitations was rejected by the Congress. In was felt,
such an approach had generally proven unsuccessful prior to 1972.
In establishing the minimum level of treatment required for
publicly-owned treatment works, Congress determined that second-
ary treatment is the most cost-effective for the country as a
whole. While this may be true nationwide, it is also recognized
that secondary treatment may or may not be the most cost-effective
technology for ocean outfalls. Most of the municipalities with
ocean discharges seeking reconsideration of the secondary treat-
ment requirements recommended that PL 92-500 be amended to
provide for case-by-case determination of effluent limitations
for ocean discharges. (See "Views of States, Municipalities,
Engineers and Scientists", above.)
Upon evaluating the available information, the Task Force
concluded that any amendments to PL 92-500 should maintain the
concept of technology based effluent limitations because not
enough is known about the effect of pollutants on the ocean
environment (both near-shore and open ocean) to permit the
establishment of effective guidelines or protocols for a case-by-
case approach to establishing effluent limitations.
It is anticipated that the results of scientific research
and field studies on existing open ocean outfalls will be used in
establishing technology based effluent limitations for the
pollutants of concern to marine waters. These effluent limita-
tions would be applicable to discharges to the open ocean water.
In the development of these effluent limitations, consid-
eration should be given to the following:
(a) pollutants which cause or have the potential to cause
adverse environmental effects;
(b) determining whether municipal systems represent major
inputs of such pollutants to the marine environment;
(c) the total cost of the application of technologies
relative to the removal of such pollutants;
(d) non-water-quality environmental impacts; and
(e) the engineering aspects related to the application of
technologies.
15
-------
These factors are similar to those considered in the deter-
mination of technology-based effluent limitations for industrial
sources, and therefore, would be consistent with the purpose of
PL 92-500.
The Task Force concluded that amendments to the existing
legislation should not dictate a particular technology, such as
secondary treatment, that must be employed at each open ocean
discharge site. The amendments should provide a basis for
determining the best technology for ocean discharges.
TECHNOLOGIES AND COSTS
Treatment Technologies
It has been shown that oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD) do
not have an appreciable effect on the water quality in the open
ocean, if the ocean outfall diffuser system is designed for rapid
and efficient initial dilution. ^However, suspended solids,
floatable and settleable solids ,*and metals and toxic materials
do have adverse effects on both near-shore and open ocean waters.
The range of treatment technologies available for removal of
these pollutants fall into four categories:
\ (a) Primary -- Screening,-grinding and settling (clarifi-
cation).
(b) Chemical Primary — Primary treatment as above, with
addition of chemicals (polymers, ferric chloride, alum, lime,
etc.) to the clarifiers to coagulate or precipitate pollutants,
allowing them to be settled out.
(c) Secondary ~ Normally a biological process involving
the metabolism of biodegradable wastes (commonly, primary clari-
fier effluent) by microorganisms. Recently, physical/chemical
processes have been developed which achieve a level of treatment
equivalent to biological secondary. These processes include
chemical clarification, multi-media filtration, and activated
carbon absorption.
(d) Disinfection — The addition of chemicals such as
chlorine to treatment effluents (from primary, chemical primary
or secondary processes) for the purpose of destroying pathogenic
microorganisms. The secondary treatment regulations promulgated
by the EPA include disinfection as part of the secondary treat-
ment process.'
'An amendment to the secondary treatment regulation was proposed
on August 15, 1975, which would delete the fecal coliform
bacteria limitations from 40 CFR 133 and rely on water quality
standards and public health needs to establish disinfection
requirements for publicly owned treatment works.
16
-------
None of these processes were developed specifically to
remove the pollutants of concern in ocean waters, i.e., toxic and
persistent metals and organic compounds, settleable solids,
floatables and pathogens. They were essentially developed for
fresh water pollution control. More effective and less expensive
methods might have been developed if marine pollution control had
been the objective. Clearly, more research by EPA is needed in
this area. The EPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
(MERL) in Cincinnati has suggested the following possibilities:
(a) Sulfide precipitation and1*dissolved air flotation.
(b) Powdered carbon or low-cost chars for refractory
organics removal.
(c) Improvements in low lime, single-stage clarification.
(d) Screening and high rate media filtration.
(e) Incorporation of rotating biological contactors in
existing primary clarifiers.
In Appendix J, Table J-l shows the approximate removal
efficiencies for several pollutants by the primary, chemical
primary and secondary processes. The removal efficiencies for
all pollutants and processes except metals and secondary physical/
chemical were generalized from several sources (EPA files, Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts, Los Angeles City, MERL
Cincinnati and Seattle Metro and Orange County Sanitation Districts)
The values for physical/chemical treatment were obtained from
MERL Cincinnati. The values for metals removal were obtained
from a June 1974 report submitted to the Task Force at its Portland
meeting by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. It is
not possible to generalize on metals removal in these processes
because these processes are not specifically designed for metal
removal. Metals removal is extremely variable depending on
influent concentration, form (suspended or in solution), the
presence of precipitating agents such as sulfides, and many other
factors not controllable in the treatment processes listed.
As can be seen from Table J-l, there is a substantial
increase in the efficiency for the removal of the pollutants of
concern in progressing from primary treatment to chemical primary
or secondary treatment. These increases are higher than the
increase in suspended solids capture and show the effect of
chemical precipitation in the case of chemical primary and
biological adsorption and flocculation in the case of secondary
treatment. With the exception of phosphorus removal with chemical
addition, removals of nitrogen and phosphorus, which are not
generally of concern to the open ocean, are not affected by
additional unit processes. Nickel is extremely soluble in the
wastewater and cannot be appreciably released by additional
treatment.
17
-------
The Task Force concluded (See Pollutants) that specific
pollutants of concern in municipal effluents should be removed to
a level attained by applying the best practicable treatment and
that those levels should serve as a basis for establishing
effluent limitations (See Forms of Regulatory Control) for all
open ocean discharges. Based on these conclusions, the Task
Force determined that primary treatment alone would not be
sufficient for most ocean outfalls. However, in small coastal_
communities of low industrial input, the concentrations of toxic
organic and heavy metals may be at a level such that effective
primary treatment may reduce the oil, grease, and settleable and
floatable solids to a level below the established effluent limita-
tions for open ocean discharges. In view of this possibility,
the Task Force did not completely rule out primary treatment for
open ocean discharge and included primary treatment in its evalua-
tion.
In order to determine the total treatment works cost rel-
ative to the benefits in terms of pollutant removal, a pollutant
which best reflects and represents treatment efficiencies for all
the pollutants which have adverse effects in ocean waters must be
selected. In fresh waters BOD was selected as the best indicator
of treatment efficiency when determining the treatment level that
should be required in secondary treatment for best practicable
technology. In the case of ocean discharges, suspended solids is
a good measure of treatment performance in that it is indicative
of the .removal of most other pollutants identified as important
to ocean waters. It should be pointed out that suspended solids
removal is good measure for expected removals of oil, grease and
floatables however, higher forms of treatment will attain higher
removals of the remaining pollutants of concern than the suspended
solids removal would indicate. Because of this and the availability
and reliability of suspended solids data, the Task Force selected
suspended solids as the key parameter.
Figures J-l to 6 (Appendix J) relate the percentage of
removal of suspended solids in primary, chemical primary and
secondary treatment to capital costs, operation and maintenance
costs, total costs, land requirements, on-site electrical demand,
and sludge production. These curves are not intended to be an
exhaustive analysis of the best practicable technology for
suspended solids removal, but they do give an idea of the rel-
ative merits of each technology. (The costs used in developing
the curves were taken from a draft report1 entitled "A Guide to
the Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems"
prepared for EPA by the Bechtel Corporation in May 1973. The
costs are for February, 1973.)
'This report was published in Summer, 1975.
18
-------
It would be ideal if each curve exhibited a clean break or
"knee at the same technology. If this were the case, one would
be able to select that technology as being the best practicable
for suspended solids removal. However, for each factor shown on
the curves a different conclusion can be drawn. Therefore, the
selection of a technology for any one case depends on the weighting
and priorities established for each factor considered. The
implications of these curves are:
(a) Capital costs -- Chemical primary treatment is at the
point of diminishing returns.
(b) Operation and Maintenance Costs -- Primary treatment is
at the point of diminishing returns. Chemical primary treatment
using ferric chloride is very operation and maintenance intensive.
If something better than primary treatment is necessary, the
choice between chemical primary and secondary treatment would be
difficult to make upon comparison of their respective capital and
operation and maintenance costs. Other factors should probably
be considered.
(c) Total Costs -- Operation and maintenance costs dominate
the total cost curve and therefore primary treatment is at the
point of diminishing returns.
(d) Land Requirements -- In general, land requirements
steadily increase with increasing removals. However, chemical
primary treatment using lime has the lowest land requirement
because of the increased clarifier overflow rates that can be
used.
(e) On-Site Electrical Demand -- Primary treatment is
clearly the lowest user of electrical power.with secondary
treatment following.
(f) Sludge Production -- Again primary treatment is clearly
lower unless more effective treatment is necessary, in which case
secondary treatment should be chosen.
From the above it can be seen that the choice is variable.
In limited cases where effluent limitation can be achieved when
approximately 50 percent suspended solids are removed, then
primary treatment would be the obvious choice. For higher levels
of treatment, which would apply to most discharges, the choice is
less obvious. In such cases, it would seem that since chemical
primary treatment technology is dependent on sources of lime and
ferric chloride, and since these technologies are very energy-,
sludge-, and operation and maintenance cost-intensive, secondary
biological treatment might be the best choice. It is recognized,
however, that chemical primary treatment is capable of achieving
an effluent quality comparable to or better than biological
secondary treatment. The final choice between biological second-
ary and chemical primary at a specific site must be determined by
cost-effectiveness considerations.
19
-------
These conclusions seem to match those reached by the Los
Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) and Los Angeles City.
In their report to the Task Force, the LACSD provided two cost
curves for their Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (Appendix
J). This plant is somewhat atypical in that the raw waste
suspended solids level is 500 mg/1 as compared with the normal
250 mg/1 and they have problems with the waste streams which are
returned to the plant flow from sludge processing systems. The
point on the curves marked "polymer addition" is roughly equiv-
alent to primary treatment in most municipal plants. LACSD has
concluded, if they must provide better treatment than that
achievable with polymer addition, they would provide biological
secondary treatment. It should be noted that the State of
California does require a higher level of treatment than the
Joint Water Pollution Control Plant would seem to provide;
however, the LACSD feels that their plan for polymer addition
will have a high probability of achieving the State water quality
objectives. (This is based on the SCCWRP studies and experiences
at Los Angeles City and Orange County Sanitation Districts.)
Representatives of Los Angeles City stated at the Portland
meeting that to meet the California State requirements they
planned to install complete secondary treatment at their Hyperion
plant. The waste received at this plant is more typical of
normal domestic waste; suspended solids in the influent consti-
tute approximately 280 mg/1.
Disinfection of primary effluents is very costly and,
relative to secondary effluents, also ineffective. This is due
to the high concentration of suspended solids remaining after
primary treatment, which prevents contact of the disinfectant
with the pathogens contained in the solids. Primary effluents
require three to four times as much disinfectant as secondary
effluents, and even then the effectiveness is questionable.
In virtually all areas where water quality standards and dis-
infection requirements apply, adequate disinfection is much more
difficult if not impossible to accomplish, if primary treatment
is selected. Because of the toxicity of chlorine to marine life,
dechlorination of the effluent may be required prior to discharge
through the ocean outfalls.
In lieu of, or in addition to, treatment at the municipal
plant, source control, including pretreatment, can be an effec-
tive means of reducing the concentrations of metals, toxic
organics and other pollutants of concern in ocean waters. Pre-
treatment for removal of pollutants which interfere with or pass
through municipal plants is required under Section 307 of PL 92-
500. (Refer also to page 23.) In practice, source control has
been very effective in reducing the levels of PCB (polychlorinated
biphenyls) and DDT in the effluent from the Los Angeles County
Joint Water Pollution Control Plant.
20
-------
In summary, primary treatment is obviously lower in cost
(capital, operation and maintenance) than secondary treatment,^
however, because of its lower efficiencies of removal for the
pollutants of concern, its application to open ocean dischargers
is inconsistent with the Task Force's conclusions on the need to
remove the pollutants of concern. Primary treatment would not be
applicable for most open ocean discharges. Good source control
should be practiced by all open ocean dischargers to reduce
pollutant inputs. Where disinfection is required, secondary
treatment or chemical primary will be necessary. In the majority
of cases, additional removals will be required and it appears
that secondary treatment is the better alternative.
An additional factor is that Section 201(g)(2)(B) of PL 92-
500 requires that to the extent practicable treatment works
proposed for grant assistance take into account the application
of technology which will provide for reclaiming or recycling of
water. Of the treatment technologies considered in this report,
secondary treatment is most consistent with this goal of the act.
This requirement is particularly applicable to water-short areas
where discharge to the ocean can be considered wasteful of a
potential freshwater resource.
additional papers on treatment technology are included
in Appendix K. The first is a paper entitled "Information
on Treatment Methods for Ocean Discharge of Municipal Waste-
water" prepared for the Task Force by MERL/Cincinnati. It
includes additional information on treatment processes,
removal efficiencies, and costs. The second is a paper by
Floyd K. Mitchell of the Southern California Coastal Water "
Research Project (SCCWRP) which is part of the 1974 SCCWRP
Annual Report. Included in data on the performance of primary,
chemical primary, and secondary treatment, and the performance
expected with source control at the Hyperion plant in Los
Angeles. This data is compared with the present effluent
requirements of the State of California for ocean discharge.
21
-------
POTENTIAL COST OF SECONDARY TREATMENT
Using U.S. Geological Survey baseline maps, information from
EPA Regional files, and the 1973 Needs Survey ("State Cost
Estimates for Construction of Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment
Facilities"), the number of municipalities capable of discharging
into open ocean waters at an economical distance from shore was
estimated (4 miles of length and 150 feet of depth were assumed).
The estimate established states and territories whose coastal
waters exhibited open ocean characteristics as defined in the
section titled, "Categories of Ocean Waters," where the need to
remove the oxygen demanding materials to the levels defined by
secondary treatment may be questionable. Included in the esti-
mate are California, Southeast Florida, Washington, Alaska,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands. The
existence of the Continental Shelf along the East Coast of the
United States, makes discharge to the open ocean economically and
practically unfeasible. The Task Force concluded that the removal
of the oxygen demanding materials to the secondary treatment
level would be required for discharges to these areas.
The Task Force determined that alternative treatment tech-
nologies may be applicable to approximately 60 POTW's. The
capital cost to convert these facilities from primary to secondary
treatment was estimated at 2.26 billion dollars (Table J-2). The
total cost does not include additional primary facilities for
projected increases irr flow or the cost of additional outfalls.
The Task Force assumed that the existing outfalls for most of the
facilities were presently discharging into the open ocean.
Since the Task Force concluded that primary treatment alone
was not a viable process for ocean discharges, the total cost of
2.26 billion dollars provides a basis from which alternative
treatment systems can be economically compared. The Task Force
emphasized that any cost effective analysis of alternative systems
must be based on total cost which includes capital plus operation
and maintenance. With the projected large expenditure of capital
dollars for secondary treatment, the development of viable methods,
that compared to secondary treatment have lower capital and O&M
costs, offers the potential for considerable cost savings.
22
-------
OTHER DISCHARGES
The Task Force did not consider municipal discharges to
inland fresh waters nor'industrial discharges. However, the
effluent limitation requirements established for these categories
of point sources may, in some cases, not be necessary to achieve
the water quality goals of the Act. Therefore, it is likely that
if a change were made in the requirements for municipal discharges
to the open ocean based on water quality considerations some
industries and inland municipalities would seek similar legislative
relief. No rationale could be developed that would justify
treating industries which discharge to the ocean differently than
municipalities with respect to minimum treatment requirements.
This further supports the conclusion that any amendment for
municipal ocean discharges should provide for technology-based
effluent limitations. (See "Forms of Regulatory Control",
above.)
It is also possible that certain industrial dischargers to
municipal systems may construe the report recommendations as the
basis for delaying compliance with Federal pretreatment require-
ments under Section 307 of the Act. The Task Force believes that
inasmuch as the pollutants of concern to a great extent are of
industrial origin, implementation of the recommendations would
not affect pretreatment requirements. As indicated on page 20 of
the Report, source control is recognized as an effective means of
reducing the concentrations of metals, toxic organics and other
industrial pollutants.
23
-------
CONCLUSIONS
(a) In order to allow the application of treatment tech-
nologies other than secondary treatment to POTW discharges into
ocean waters, PL -92-500 must be amended; i.e., there are no
administrative options.
(b) Two broad categories of ocean waters have been iden-
tified which have different water quality needs -- near-shore
ocean waters and open ocean waters. Near-shore waters include
bays, estuaries, inlets and a protected zone adjacent to the
coast. Near-shore waters are very productive, heavily used, of
the ocean waters the more polluted, and of all ocean water
categories the most sensitive to pollution inputs. Open ocean
waters are those seaward of the line demarcating the near-shore
protected zone. In general, the open ocean is less productive
and less sensitive than the near-shore coastal waters. Open
ocean waters can be reached by a land-based outfall at an eco-
nomical distance from shore on the West coast of the United
States, and the coasts of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and
the Virgin Islands. However, this is not generally possible on
the East coast of the United States because of the width of the
continental shelf. Puget Sound and Cook Inlet in Alaska are
near-shore ocean waters but portions exhibit open ocean charac-
teristics.
(c) The open ocean and near-shore ocean waters can be
differentiated based on depth, circulation, winds, tides, sensi-
tive water use areas and unique oceanographic features such as
canyons, basins, upwellings, rip currents, etc.
(d) There are pollutants whose input to both open ocean and
near-shore waters should be limited because of their toxic and
persistent characteristics and because their effects cannot be
minimized by dilution. These include lead, cadmium, mercury and
persistent organics.
(e) In addition to the pollutants listed in (d), pollutants
which cause or have the potential to cause adverse environmental
effects in near-shore waters include moderately toxic and per-
sistent metals and organic compounds, nutrients, oxygen demanding
materials (soluble and particulate), settleable solids, floatables
and pathogens.
(f) In addition to the pollutants listed in (d) pollutants
which cause or have the potential to cause adverse environmental
effects in the open ocean include moderately toxic and persistent
metals and organic compounds, settleable solids, floatables and
pathogens. Not included are nutrients and oxygen demanding
materials. However, these materials can cause harm adjacent to
the outfall site if the water is not rapidly diluted and dis-
persed. Not only must soluble BOD be adequately dispersed, but
special attention must also be given to particulate BOD, which
has the potential to settle and cause the bottom to become
anaerobic.
24
-------
(g) Of the treatment technologies considered (primary,
chemical primary, and secondary), secondary treatment achieves
the best effluent quality for the pollutants of concern in both
near-shore and open ocean waters. Other more effective, but more
costly technologies were not considered.
Secondary treatment is also the most consistent of these
technologies with Section 201(g)(2)(B) of the Act, which requires
that treatment alternatives consider reclaiming or recycling of
water, wherever practicable. Water short areas are already
examining re-use possibilities in order to preserve a potential
fresh water source.
(h) Disinfection is necessary to achieve destruction of
pathogens. However, the opportunity for adequate disinfection
following primary treatment is generally precluded because of its
relative.ineffectiveness and comparatively high cost.
(i) Based on preliminary investigations, primary treatment
has the lowest costs, sludge production, land requirements and
on-site energy demand. However, primary treatment, is rnnsjid-
erably less effective in removing TKe pollutants of concern.
difficult and costly to disinfect, ana was not generally consid-
ered as a viable option for the treatment of open ocean discharges
Chemical primary treatment is often less desirable because it is
generally higher in operation and maintenance costs, sludge
production, and on-site energy demand. Of the three technologies
including secondary treatment, none could be considered "best
practicable" under the requirements of PL 92-500 in that they are
not specifically designed to remove the pollutants of concern in
open ocean waters. Development of processes for the treatment of
municipal wastewater to date has not been directed at discharges
to the ocean and, therefore, a proven technology most applicable
to such discharges does not yet exist. Removals that do occur in
conventional processes, generally, are incidental to suspended
solids removal.
(j) Sewage treatment processes have not been developed
specifically to prevent marine pollution problems, i.e., to
control pollutants of concern in marine waters, but rather were
developed for fresh water pollution control, chiefly in streams.
Primary and secondary treatment, have been used by municipalities
discharging to coastal waters with some success, but this is not
to say that more effective and less expensive methods might not
have been developed if marine pollution control had been the
design objective. The following treatment processes have poten-
tial in marine pollution control but need further development.
25
-------
(1) Sulfide precipitation and dissolved air floatation.
(2) Powdered carbon or low-cost chars for refractory
orgam'cs removal.
(3) Improvements in low lime, single-stage clarification.
(4) Screening and high rate media filtration.
(5) Incorporation of rotating biological contactors
in existing primary clarifiers.
In determining the definition of the best practicable
treatment for ocean discharges, the possible use of these
developing technologies should not be precluded. However, by the
same token, no particular technology should be dictated. (See
discussion under "Forms of Regulatory Control", above.)
(k) There is not sufficient justification for modifying PL
92-500 requirements for secondary treatment of POTVI discharges to
near-shore coastal waters at this time. There may be some
justification for making the requirements more stringent.
(1) There is some technical justification for modifying the
requirements for POTW discharges to the open ocean and certain
areas with open oceanlike characteristics such as Puget Sound and
Cook Inlet to provide for the application of alternative technologies,
The principal justification is that the removal of the oxygen
demanding materials, an existing requirement for all POTW dis-
charges, may not be necessary prior to discharging to the open
ocean. However, not enough is known to be able to sufficiently
relate effluent quality directly to environmental effects. With
these limitations, a practicable technology might be chosen which
best removes the pollutants of concern in open ocean waters.
(m) Not enough is known about the effect of pollutants on
the ocean environment, including both near-shore and open ocean
waters, to permit the establishment of guidelines or protocols
for a case-by-case approach toward establishing effluent require-
ments.
(n) Amendments to PL 92-500 which , (1) maintain the
concept of technology based guidelines; and (2) consider those
materials which cause or have potential to cause adverse environ-
mental impacts, whether municipal systems represent major inputs
of such pollutants to the marine environment, the total cost of
the application of technologies relative to the removal of such
pollutants, non-water quality environmental impacts, and the
engineering aspects related to the application of technologies,
would be consistent with the intent of PL 92-500.
26
-------
(o) The alternative treatment requirements for open ocean
outfalls were estimated to be applicable to approximately 60
POTW's. The estimate was based on the fact that discharge to the
open ocean is not practical along the East Coast of the United
States, but could be applicable to those areas listed in Table J-
2 and unique areas such as Puget Sound and Cook Inlet. These
facilities were assumed to employ primary treatment and discharge
through outfalls located in open ocean waters. The total cost to
convert these plants to secondary treatment was estimated to be
2.26 billion dollars. This figure represents the maximum expend-
iture and provides a basis from which alternative treatment
technologies, that are more effective in removing the pollutants
of concern, can be compared.
(p) Coastal municipalities opposed to the requirement for,
secondary treatment have primarily maintained the following:
(1) Secondary treatment is not the most cost-effec-
tive, environmentally sound (in terms of energy, resources
and land requirements) technology for removal of the pol-
lutants which cause or have the potential to cause adverse
environmental impacts in ocean waters.
(2) Other pollution controls have higher priorities,
i.e., combined sewer overflow pollution abatement, construc-
tion of secondary treatment for non-ocean discharges, sewer
construction, etc.
(3) BOD is generally not a problem in ocean waters.
(4) Effluent limitations for POTW discharges to the
ocean should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
(q) Two major coastal States, Florida and California, have
established requirements for secondary treatment,, or its equiv-
alent, of POTW discharges into the ocean.
(r) Among the scientists consulted by the Task Force, there
was a considerable difference of opinion as to the level of
treatment needed for POTW discharges to the ocean. There was a
general consensus, however, that the pollutants identified in
Conclusions (d) and (f) should be removed to the, maximum "extent
practicable, and that each discharge must be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis.
(s) It is likely that, if a proposal were made to amend PL
92-500 to modify the requirements for POTW discharges to the
ocean, industries and some inland municipalities would seek
similar legislative relief. No rationale could be developed that
would justify treating industries which discharge to the ocean
differently than municipalities. However, it is. believed that
27
-------
pretreatment requirements wouTd not be adversely affected by
adoption of the Task Force recommendations because of the recog-
nized effectiveness of source control by industrial dischargers
to municipal systems on reducing the discharge of many of the
identified pollutants of concern in ocean waters.
(t) A clear need was established for more intensive marine
research and development to better identify the pollutants
requiring some base level of control and to develop and demon-
strate treatment technologies specifically designed to control
such pollutants.
28
-------
OPTIONS
The Task Force has identified four options which are listed
below:
Option (1)
Amend PL 92-500 to:
(a) delete the requirements for secondary treatment of POTW
discharges into the open ocean;
(b) require the Administrator to establish technology-
based-guidelines for POTW discharges into the open ocean based on
consideration of those pollutants which cause or have the poten-
tial to cause adverse environmental impacts, the relative impact
and contribution by municipal systems of such pollutants to the
marine environment, the total costs of the application of various
technologies relative to removal efficiencies for such pollutants,
the non-water quality environmental and resource impacts, and the
engineering aspects related to the application of technologies;
(c) require the Administrator to establish guidelines for
ocean outfall diffusion systems;
(d) define the open ocean as those waters seaward of a
protected zone or ocean waters which have characteristics similar
to the open ocean, as determined by the Administrator, based on
consideration of winds, tides, currents, circulation, etc.; and
(e) require that all POTW's which discharge into the open
ocean achieve, in lieu of secondary treatment, effluent limi-
tations based on guidelines established for such discharges and
comply with the design guidelines established for ocean outfall
diffusion systems.
Option (2)
Amend PL 92-500 to:
(a) delete the requirements for secondary treatment of POTW
discharges into the open ocean;
(b} require a case-by-case determination by the Administrator
of effluent limitations for POTW discharges into the open ocean;
and
(c) define the open ocean the same as Option (1).
29
-------
Option (3)
Amend PL 92-500 to provide an extension of the time allowed
for municipalities to achieve secondary treatment if adequate
Federal funding has not been available for completion of the
secondary treatment works. By deferring funding of secondary
treatment construction for municipal ocean discharges (low
priority should be established by the State), there will be an
opportunity to develop marine pollution control technology and to
better determine the effects of municipal ocean discharges through
Step 1 grants for environmental assessments and EPA research and
development. The implementation of this option should not effect
the construction of plants for which Federal funds have been
obligated.
Option (4)
No amendment to PL 92-500, thereby maintaining the secondary
treatment requirements for POTW discharges into the ocean.
ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS
Option (1) - Technology Based
(a) Pros
(1) The concept of technology based standards as now
exists in PL 92-500 is maintained.
(2) Relative to a case-by-case approach, it is easier
to apply and enforce.
(3) It provides an opportunity to develop and apply a
technology based effluent standard which includes open ocean
pollutants but excludes those not of concern.
A bill (H.R. 9560) has been introduced to the first session of
the 94th Congress to amend P.L. 92-500. H.R. 9560 contains a
provision that would allow the Administrator to extend the
1977/78 deadline for POTW's if the construction of such treat-
ments cannot be completed by the date specified by Section 301
of PL 92-500. H.R. 9560 specifies that no time modification
shall extend beyond July 1, 1982. Enactment of H.R. 9560 would
permit the strategy outlined in Option 3. However, it may be
difficult to develop, design and construct alternation technologies
by 1982. EPA suggested July 1, 1983 in its testimony on
H.R. 9560 before the House Committee on Public Works and Trans-
portation. S. 3038 would permit such extensions to July 1, 1983
and is supported by the Administration.
30
-------
(4) It provides for proper design of diffusion systems.
(5) Alternative treatment offers potential for con-
siderable cost savings.
(6) It makes funds available for other, higher priority
water pollution control needs.
(7) It provides for an explicit definition of ocean
discharge.
(b) Cons
(1) Some States have requirements for secondary treat-
ment, or its equivalent.
(2) Although there is some technical justification for
this option, the arguments are mostly site-specific and cannot
support national application.
(3) No time is provided to better determine effects of
municipal discharges on the marine environment and apply the
knowledge gained to treatment standards.
(4) Technologies specifically designed to prevent
pollution in the open ocean have not been adequately demonstra-
ted.
(5) The technologies that are available are not
ideal. Secondary treatment is the most effective. Primary
treatment is the least expensive but the removals of the pol-
lutants of concern are significantly less. Chemical primary
treatment has high energy demand, sludge production and operation
and maintenance costs.
(6) It does not afford the EPA a timely opportunity to
develop technologies better suited to marine pollution control.
(7) Industries and municipalities not affected will
probably seek similar legislative relief.
Option (2) - Case-by-Case
(a) Pros
(1) It provides for effluent limitations suited to
local conditions.
(2) It makes funds available for other higher priority
water pollution control needs.
(3) It provides for an explicit definition of an open
ocean discharge.
31
-------
(b) Cons
(1) It does not maintain the concept of technology
based standards as now exists in PL 92-500.
(2) Relative to a technology based approach, it is
more difficult to apply and enforce.
(3) Some States have requirements for secondary
treatment or its equivalent.
(4) There is insufficient technical justification for
this option.
(5) It does not provide time to better determine
effects of municipal discharges on the marine environment and
apply the knowledge gained to treatment standards.
(6) Technologies specifically designed to prevent
pollution in the open ocean have not been demonstrated.
(7) The technologies that are available are not ideal.
Secondary treatment is the most effective. Primary treatment is
the least expensive, but the removal efficiencies are signif-
icantly less than secondary. Chemical primary treatment has high
energy demand, sludge production, and operation and maintenance
costs.
(8) It does not afford the EPA a timely opportunity to
develop technologies better suited to marine pollution control.
(9) Industries and municipalities not affected are
likely to seek similar legislative relief.
(10) Not enough is known about the effect of pollutants
on the ocean environment to permit the establishment of guidelines
or protocols for a case-by-case approach toward establishing
effluent requirements.
Option (3) - Extend 1977/78 Date
(a) Pros
(1) Construction of projects involving secondary
treatment of municipal ocean discharges could be postponed until
the need for secondary treatment is determined conclusively.
(2) The secondary treatment requirements remain
intact. It does not involve an amendment to relax standards.
32
-------
(3) It gives new significance to State priority lists.
States can determine the priority for secondary treatment of
ocean discharges relative to other water pollution control needs.
(4) It provides time to better determine effects of
municipal discharges on the marine environment and apply the
knowledge gained to treatment standards.
(5) It provides opportunity to improve treatment
technology for marine pollution control.
(6) It maintains support for existing State require-
ments for secondary treatment. Such support would be consistent
with the requirement of PL 92-500, Section 101(b) "to recognize,
preserve and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of
the States...," and the policy of decentralizing Federal authority
(7) It can establish, through the permit program,
interim treatment requirements for ocean discharges which are
known to be needed and have priority.
(8) Public funds will not be spent on projects for
secondary treatment of ocean discharges for which the environ-
mental need is uncertain. Such funds would be available for
other, higher priorities.
(b) Cons
(1) It delays full resolution of the issue.'
(2) Municipalities will be uncertain as to ultimate
treatment requirements.
(3) Industrial dischargers could construe the exten-
sion as a basis for a request for legislative relief.
(4) Federal funds are presently available for certain
municipalities discharging to the open ocean; if funding of these
projects is postponed, it is not certain that funds will be
available in the future.
(5) It is applicable to all municipal discharges, not
just ocean discharges.
Option (4) - No Amendment to PL 92-500
(a) Pros
(1) The secondary treatment requirements would remain
intact. It does not involve an amendment to relax standards.
33
-------
(2) It maintains support for existing State require-
ments for secondary treatment.
(b) Cons
(1) The environmental protection need is uncertain,
and therefore, public funds may be wasted.
(2) It does not provide for other, higher priority
water pollution control needs.
(3) It does not provide time to better determine
effects of municipal discharges on the marine environment and
apply the knowledge gained to treatment standards.
(4) Secondary treatment, as presently defined, is not
ideal for municipal open ocean discharges.
(5) It does not provide opportunity to improve treat-
ment technology for marine pollution control.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Task Force recommends that Option 3 be implemented.
This recommendation is based principally on the conclusion that
while there is some justification for modifying the secondary
treatment requirements as they apply to open ocean discharges,
the technical information presently available is not substantial
enough to support an amendment to PL 92-500 which specifically
addresses ocean discharges.
34
-------
APPENDICES A - K
-------
APPENDIX A
SELECTED SECTIONS OF
THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS
OF 1972, PL 92-500
SECTIONS 301, 304, 403, and 307
-------
October 18, 197Z
Pub. Law 92-500
96 STAT. 844
community, or (2) is for a new collection system in an existing com-
munity with sufficient existing or planned capacity adequately to trout
such, collected se\vage and is consistent with section 201 of this Act.
"SEC. 212. As used in this title —
"(1) The term 'construction7 means any one or more of the follow-
ing: preliminary planning to determine the feasibility of treatment
works, engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, or economic investiga-
tions or studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings. specifica-
tions. procedures, or other necessary actions, erection, building,
acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension of
treatment works, or the inspection or supervision of any of the
foregoing items.
''(2) (A) The term 'treatment works' means any devices and systems
used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal
sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature to implement section
201 of this Act-, or necessary to recycle or reuse water at the most eco-
nomical cost over the estimated life of the works, including intercept-
ing sewers, outfall sewers, sewage collection systems, pumping, power,
and other equipment, and their appurtenances; extensions, improve-
ments, remodeling, additions, und alterations thereof; elements essen-
tial to provide a reliahle recycled supply such as standby treatment
units and clear well facilities; and any works, including site acquisition
of the land that will be an integral part of the treatment process or is
used for ultimate disposal of residues resulting from such treatment.
"(B) In addition to the definition contained in subparagraph (A)
of tliis pa nigraph, 'treatment works' means any other method or sys-
tem for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating, separating,
or disposing of municipal waste, including storm water runoff, or
industrial wuste, including waste in combined storm water and sani-
tary sewer systems. Any application for construction grants which
includes wholly or in part such methods or systems shall, in accordance
with guidelines published by the Administrator pm-suant to subpara-
graph (C) of this paragraph, contain adequate data and analysis
demonstrating such proposal to he. over the, life of such works, the
most cost efficient alternative to comply with sections 301 or 302 of
this Act, or the requirements of section 201 of this Act.
"(C) For the. purposes of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the
Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty davs after the,
date, of enactment of this title, publish and thereafter revise no less
often than annually, guidelines for the evaluation of methods,
including cost -effective analysis, descriln-d in subparagniph ( I!) of
this paragraph.
"(:•() Tlie term •replacement,' as used in this title means those.
expenditures for obtaining and installing equipment, accessories, or
appurtenances during the useful life of the treatment works necessary
to maintain the capacity and performance for which such works are
designed and constructed.
"TITLE III— STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
"EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
"Sec. 301. (a) Except as in compliance with this section and sec-
tions 302. 306, 307, 318, 402, and 404 of this Act, the discharge of any
pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.
"(b) lu order to carry out the objective of this Act there shall be
achieved —
Methods,
evaluation
A-P
-------
Pub. Law 92-500 October 18, 1972
86 ST*T. 845
"(1)(A) not later than July 1, 1977, effluent limitations for
point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, (i)
which shall require the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available as defined by the Administrator
pursuant to section 3<>4(b) of this Act, or (ii) in the case of a dis-
charge into a publicly owned treatment works which meets the
requirements of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, which shall
require compliance with any applicable pretreatment requirements
and any requirements under section 307 of this Act; and
"(B) for publicly owned treatment works in existence on
July 1, 1977, or approved pursuant to section 203 of this Act prior
to June 30,1974 (for which construction must be completed within
four years of approval), effluent limitations based upon secondary
treatment as defined by the Administrator pursuant to section
H(H(d)(l)-of this Act; or,
" (C) not. later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent limitation,
including those necessary to meet water quality standards, treat-
ment standards, or schedules of compliance, established pursuant
to any State law or regulations (under authority preserved by sec-
tion 510) or any other Federal law or regulation, or required to
implement any applicable water quality standard established pur-
suant to this Act.
"(2) (A) not later than July 1, 1983, effluent limitations for
categories and classes of point sources, other than publicly owned
treatment works, which (i) shall require application of the best
available technology economically achievable for such category
or class, which will result in reasonable further progress toward
the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants,
as determinedin accordance with regulations issued by the Admin-
istrator pursuant to section 304(b)(2) of this Act, which such
effluent limitations shall require the elimination of discharges, of
all pollutants if the Administrator finds, on the basis of informa-
tion available to him (including information developed pursuant
to section 315), that such elimination is technologically and eco-
nomically achievable for a category or class of point sources as
determined in accordance with regulations issued by the Adminis-
trator pursuant to section 304(b) (2) of this Act, or (ii) in the case
of the. introduction of a pollutant into a publicly owned treatment
works which meets the requirements of subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph, shall require compliance with any applicable pretreat-
ment requirements and any other requirement under section 307
of this Act; and
"(B) not later than Julv 1, 1983, compliance by all publicly
owned treatment works with the requirements set forth in sec-
tion 201 (g) (-2) (A) of this Act.
" (c) The Administrator may modify the requirements of subsection
(b) (2) (A) of this section with respect to anv point source for which
a permit, application is filed after July 1, 1977, upon a showing by the
owner or operator of such point source satisfactory to the Administra-
tor tlmt such modified requirements (1) will represent the maximum
use of technology within the economic capability of the owner or
operator; and (2) will result in reasonable further progress toward
the elimination of the discharge of pollutants.
"(d) Any effluent limitation required by paragraph (2) of subsec-
tion (b) of this section shall be reviewed at least every five years and,
if appropriate, revised pursuant to the procedure established under
such parnsrraph.
"(e) Effluent limitations established pursuant to this section or sec-
tion 302 of this Act shall be applied to all point sources of discharge
of pollutants in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
A-3
-------
October 18, 1972 Pub. Law 92-500
86 STAT. (146
W
"(f) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act it shall be
unlawful to discharge any radiological, chemical, or biological war-
fare agent or high-level radioactive waste into the navigable waters.
"WATER UL'ALlTir RELATED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS*
"SEC1. 3(tl. (a.) Whenever, in the judgment of the Administrator, dis-
charges of pollutants from a point source or group of point sources,
with the application of effluent limitations required under section 301
(b)(2) of this Act, would interfere with the attainment or mainte-
nance of that water quality in a specific portion of the navigable waters
which shall assure protection of public water supplies, agricultural
and industrial uses, and the protection and propagation of a balanced
population of shellfish. Hsh and wildlife, ana allow recreational activi-
ties in and on the water, effluent limitations (including alternative
effluent control strategies) for such point source or sources shall be
established which can reasonably be expected to contribute to the
attainment or maintenance of such water quality.
"(b) (1) Prior to ratuulislunent of any effluent limitation pursuant Publio h«»ring.
to subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator shall issue notice
of intent to establish such limitation and within ninety days of such
notice hold a public hearing to determine the relationship of the eco-
nomic and social costs of achieving any such limitation or limitations,
including any economic or social dislocation in the affected community
or communities, to the social and economic benefits to be obtained
I including the attainment of the objective of this Act) and to deter-
mine whether or not such effluent limitations can be implemented with
available technology or other alternative control strategies,
"(~2) If a person affected by such limitation demonstrates at such
hearing that (whether or not such technology or other alternative con-
trol strategies are available) there- is no reasonable relationship
between the economic and social costs and the benefits to be obtained
(including attainment of the objective of this Act), such limitation
shall not. become effective and the Administrator shall adjust such
limitation as it applies to such person.
"(c) The establishment of effluent limitations under this section shall
not operate to dehiy the application of any effluent limitation estab-
lished under section 301 of this Act.
"WATXK yl'AMTY XTANI1ARI>« AXU t.Mrl.KMKNTATION IM.VNS
"SK.r. .'!o:l. (it) ( 1 ) In oilier to curry out the purpose of this Act, any
water quality standard applicable to interstate waters which was
adopted by an v State and submitted to. and approved by, or is awaiting
approval by, the Administrator pursuant to this Act as in effect imme-
diately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollu-
f'.on Control Act Amendments i>f l!)7-2. shall remain in effect unless the.
Administrator determined that such standard is not consistent with
the applicable rei|uircmenN of this Act as in effect immediately prior
to the date of enactment of the Federal Water I*ollution Control Act
Amendments of 1072. If the Administrator makes such a determina-
tion he shall, within three months after the date of enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 107-2, notify
the State and specify the rhansertion (V>) of this section.
A-li
-------
Section 304(d)(l) and (2)
October 18,
Sec. 304
1972
Pub. Law 92-500
86 STAT. 852
result in the elimination or reduction of the discharge of pollutants
to implement standards of performance under section 306 or this Act.
Such information shall include technical and other data, including
costs, as are available on alternative methods of elimination or reduc-
tion of the discharge of pollutants. Such information, ajid revisions
thereof, shull be published in the Federal Register and otherwise shall
be made available to the public.
•'(d)(l) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate
Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, shall publish
within sixty d»ys after enactment of this title (and from time to time
thereafter) information, in terms of amounts of constituents and chem-
ical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, on the degree
of effluent reduction attainable through the application of secondary
ti-eatment.
"(2) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Fed-
eral and State agencies and other interested, persons, shall publish
within nine months after the date of enactment of this titfle (and from
time to time thereafter) information on alternative waste treatment
management techniques and systems available to implement section
:i01 of this Act.
u(e) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Fed-
eral and State- agencies and other interested persons, shall issue to
appropriate Federal agencies, the States, water pollution control
agencies, and agencies designated under section 208 of this Act, within
one year after the effective date of this subsection (and from time to
time thereafter) information including (1) guidelines for identifying
und evaluating the nature and extent o?nonpoint sources of pollutants,
and (2) processes, procedures, and methods to control pollution result-
ing from—
"(A) agricultural and silvicultural activities, inchiding runoff
f rom fields and crop and forest lands;
~(B) mining activities, including runoff and siltation from
new, currently operating, and abandoned surface and under-
ground mines;
" (C) aJl construction activity, including runoff from the facili-
ties resulting from such construction;
"(D) the disposal of pollutants in wells or in subsurface
excavations;
"(E) salt water intrusion resulting rfrom reductions of fresh
water ilow from any cause, including extraction of ground water,
imeaition, obstruction, and diversion ; and
**(F) changes in the movement, flow, or circulation of any navi-
gable waters or ground waters, including changes caused by the
construction of dams, levees, channels, causeways, or flow diver-
sion facilities.
Such information and revisions thereof shall be published in the Fed-
i-rnl Register and otherwise made available to the public.
•'(f) (1) For the purpose of assisting States m carrying out pro-
grams under section 402 of this Act, the Administrator shall publish,
within one hundred and twenty days after the date of enactment of this
title, and review at leas t annually thereafter and. if appropriate, revise
guidelines for pretreatment of pollutants which he determines are not
susceptible to treatment by publicly owned treatment works. Guide-
lines under this subsection shall be established to control and prevent
the discharge into the navigable waters, the contiguous zone, or the
ocean (either directly or through publicly owned treatment works) of
imy pollutant which interferes with, passes through, or otherwise is
incompatible with such works.
Alternative
waste treatment
methods.
Publication in
Federal Register.
S eoondary
treatment infor-
mati on.
Publication in
Federal Register.
Pretreatment
standards guide-
lines, publioa-
tioiv.
A-5
-------
86 STAT, 883
Pub. Law 92-500
October 18, 1972
information.
30 Stat. 1152.
33 USC 407.
Ante. p. 816.
Guidelines.
establishing specifications for safe transportation, handling, carnage,
storage, ana stowage of pollutants.
"(h) In the event any condition of a permit for discharges from a
treatment works (as defined in section 212 of this Act) which is
publicly owned is violated, a State with a program approved under
subsection (b) of this section or the Administrator, where no State
program is approved, may proceed in a court of competent jurisdiction
to restrict or prohibit tne introduction of any pollutant into such
treatment works by a source not utilizing such treatment works prior
to the finding that such condition was violated.
;'(i) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the author-
ity of the Administrator to take action pursuant to section 309 of this
Act.
"(j) A copy of each permit application and each permit issued
under this section shall be available to the public. Such permit appli-
cation or permit, or portion thereof, shall further be available on
request for the purpose of reproduction.
"(k) Compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this section shall
l>e deemed compliance, for purposes of sections 309 and 505, with sec-
tions 301, .'502, 306. 307, and 403, except any standard imposed under
section 307 for a toxic pollutant injurious to human health. Until
December 31, 1974, in any case where a permit for discharge has been
applied for pursuant to this section, but final administrative disposition
of such application has not been made, such discharge shall not be a
violation of (1) section 301, 306, or 402 of this Act, or (2) section 13
of the Act of March 3, 1899, unless the Administrator or other plain-
tiff proves that, final administrative disposition of such application has
not iH-t»u made, because of the failure of the applicant to furnish infor-
mation reasonably required or requested in order to process the applica-
tion. For the 180-day period beginning on the dnte of enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, in the case
of any point source discharging any pollutant or combination of pol-
lutants immediately prior to such date of enactment which source is
not subject fo i-cotion 13 of tin? Act of March 3, ISO!), the discharge bv
such source shall not be a violation of this Act if such a source applies
for a permit fordischarge pursuant to this section within such 1 KO-dny
"OCEAN
CHITKRIA
••Sp.r. 403. (a) No permit, under section 4(>2 of this Art for a disclmrg"
into the territorial sea, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the m-enns
^hall be issued, after promulgation of guidelines established under sub-
section (r) of this section, except in compliance with snrh guidelines.
Prior to the promulgation of such guidelines, a permit may I* issued
under Mich section 40-2 if the Administrator determines it to be in the
public interest.
"(b) The requirements of subsection (d) of section 4o^| of this Act
may not I* waived in the ease of permits for discharges into the
territorial sea.
"(c)(l) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty
days after enactment of this Act (and from time to time thereafter),
promulgate guidelines for determining the degradation of the waters
of the territorial seas, the. contiguous zone, nmlrlie ocuans, which shall
include :
''(A) the effect of disposal of pollutants on human health or
welfare, including but not limited to plankton, fish,shellfi3h, wild-
life, shorelines, and beaches;
-'(B) the effect of dis(>o8al of pollutants on marine life includ-
ing I hp transfer, concentration, »nd dis|>ersa] of pollutants or their
I I I I I
A-6
-------
October 18, 197Z
Pub. Law 92-500 86 STAT. 684
byproducts through biological, physical, and chemical processes;
changes in marine ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability;
and species and community population changes;
" (C) the effect of disposal, or pollutants on esthetic, recreation,
and economic values;
"(D) the persistence and permanence of the effects of disposal
of pollutants;
(E) the effect of the disposal at varying rates, of particular
volumes and concentrations of pollutants:
"(F) other possible locations and methods of disposal or recy-
cling of pollutants including land-based alternatives; and
"(G) the effect on alternate uses of the oceans, such as mineral
exploitation and scientific study.
"(2) In any event where insufficient information exists on any pro- Prohibition.
posed discharge to make a reasonable judgment on any of the guide-
lines established pursuant to this subsection no permit shall be issued
under section 402 of this Act.
PERMITS FOR DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL
"Sec. 404. (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, may issue permits, after notice and opportunity for
public hearings for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the
navigable waters at specified disposal sites.
"(D) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, each such disposal
site shall be specified for each such permit by the Secretary of the Army
(1) through the application of guidelines developed by the Adminis-
trator, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army, which guide-
lines shall be based upon criteria comparable to the criteria applicable
to the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the ocean under section
403(c), and (2) in any case where such guidelines under clause (1)
alone would prohibit the specification of a site, through the applica-
tion additionally of the economic impact of the site on navigation and
anchorage.
"(c) The Administrator is authorized to prohibit the specification
(including the withdrawal of specification) of any defined area as a
disposal site, and he is authorized to deny or restrict the use of any
defined area for specification (including the withdrawal of specifica-
tion ) as a disposal site, whenever he determines, after notice ana oppor-
tunity for public hc-at-ings, that the discharge of such materials into
such area will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water
supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and
breeding areas), wildlife, or recreational areas. Before making such
determination, the Administrator shall consult with the Secretary of
the Army. The Administrator shall set forth in writing and make
public his findings and his reasons for making any determination
under this subsection.
Notioe» hearing
opportunity •
Disposal site,
specification
prohibition*
Findings of
Attain! strator,
publication.
"DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDOE
"SEC. 405. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or
of any other law, in any case where the disposal of sewage sludge
resulting from the operation of a treatment works as defined in section
212 of this Act (including the removal of in-place sewage sludge from
one location and its deposit at another location) would result in any
pollutant from such sewage sludge entering the navigable waters,
such disposal is prohibited except in accordance with a permit issued
by the Administrator under this section.
A-7
-------
October 18, 1972 Pub. Law 92-500
ogy and alternatives change, revise such standards following the.
procedure required by this subsection for promulgation of such
standards. Standards of performance, or revisions thereof, shall
become effective upon promulgation. In establishing or revising
Federal standards of performance for new sources under this section,
the Administrator shall take into consideration the cost of achieving
such effluent reduction, and any non-water quality environmental
impact and energy requirements.
"(2) The Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, iiml
sizes within categories of new sources for the purpose of establish-
ing such standards and shnll consider the type of process employed
(including whether batch or continuous).
"(3) The provisions of this section shall apply to any new source
owned or operated by the United States.
•'(c) Each State may develop and submit to the Administrator a
procedure under State law for applying and enforcing standards of
performance for new sources located in such State. If the Adminis-
trator finds that the procedure and the law of any State require the
application and enforceiiiriit of standards of performance to at least
the same extent as required by this section, such State is authorized
to apply and enforce such standards of performance (except with
respect to new sources owned or operated by the United States).
"(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any point
source the construction of which is commenced nfter the date of enact-
ment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 and which is so constructed as to meet all applicable standards
of performance shnll not be subject to any more stringent standard
of performance during a ten-year period beginning on the date of
completion of such construction or during the period of depreciation
or amortization of such facility for the purposes of section 1B7 or 169
(or both) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever period
ends first.
"(e) After the effective date of standards of performance promul-
gated under this section, it shall be unlawful for any owner or operator
of any new source to operate such source in violation of nny standard
of performance, applicable to such source.
"TOXIC AND PHETRKATMENT EFFXITF.NT RTANDABD8
"SEr. 307. (a) (1) The Administrator shall, within ninety days after
the date of enactment of this title, publish (and from time to time
thereafter revise 1 a list which includes any toxic pollutant or combina-
tion of such pollutants for which an effluent standard (which may
include a prohibition of the discharge of such pollutants or combina-
tion of such pollutants) will be established under this section. The
Administrator in publishing such list shall take into account the toxic-
ity of the pollutant, its persist once, degradnbility, the usual or potential
presence of the, affected organisms in any waters, the importance of
the affected organisms and the nature and extent of the effect of th«
toxic pollutant on such organisms.
"(2) Within one hundred and eighty days after the date of pub-
lication of any list, or revision thereof, containing toxic pollutants or
combination of pollutants under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the
Administrator, in accordance with section 563 of title 5 of the United
States Code, shall publish a proposed effluent standard, (or a prohibi-
tion) for such pollutant or combination of pollutants which shall take
into account the toxicity of the pollutant, its persistence, degmdability,
86 STAT. 856
Standards of
pe rf ormanoe,
State enforce-
ment procedure.
58A Stat. 51;
85 Stat. 508.
93 Stat. 667.
26 USC 167,
169.
Proposed
effluent
standard,
publication,
80 Stat. 383.
-------
86 STAT. 357
.Pub. Law 92-500
October 18, 1972
Hearing.
Sevlsed
effluent
standard.
Effeotlve
'date.
Pratrea-tmerrt
standards«
proposed
regulations i
r^ublloation.
the n.-iuul or potential presence of the art'ecfed organisms in any
waters, the importance, of the affected organisms and the nature and
extent of the effect of the toxic pollutant on such organisms, and he
shall publish a notice for .1 public hearing on such proposed standard
to be held within thirty days. As soon as possible after such hearing,
but not later than six months after publication of the proposed effluent
standard (or prohibition), unless the Administrator finds, on the
record, that a modification of such proposed standard (or prohibition)
is justified based upon a preponderance of evidence adduced at such
hearings, such standard (or prohibition) shall be promulgated.
"(•') If after a public hearing the Administrator finds that a modi-
fication of such proposed standard (or prohibition) is justified, a.
revised elHuent standard (or prohibition) for such pollutant or com-
bination of pollutants shall lx> promulgated immediately. Such stand-
ard (or prohibition) shall be reviewed and, if appropriate, revised at
least every tlirw years.
•'(4) Any effluent standard promulgated under this section shall be
at that level which the Administrator determines provides an ample
margin of safety.
''(5) When proposing or promulgating any effluent standard (or
prohibition) under this section, the Administrator shall designate, the
category or categories of sources to which the effluent standard (or
prohibition) shall apply. Any disposal of dredged material may be
included in snch a category of sources after consultation with the
Secretary of the Army.
"(6) Any effluent standard (or prohibition) established pursuant to
this section shall take effect on such date or dates as specified in the
order promulgating such standard, but in no cose more than one year
from the date of such promulgation.
"(7) Prior to publishing any regulations pursuant to this section
the Administrator shall, to the maximum extent, practicable within
the time- provided, consult with appropriate advisory committees,
States, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
"(b)(l) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty
days after the date of enactment of this title and from time to time
thereafter, publish proposed regulations establishing pretreatment
standards for introduction of pollutants into treatment works (as
defined in section 212 of this Act) which are publicly owned for those
pollutants which are determined not to be susceptible to treatment by
such treatment works or which would interfere with the operation of
such treatment works. Not later than ninety days after such publica-
tion, and after opportunity for public hearing, the Administrator shall
promulgate such pretrei«tment standards. Pretreatment standards
under this subsection shall si>ecify a time for compliance not to exceed
three years from the date of promulgation and shall be established to
prevent the. discharge of any pollutant through treatment works (as
defined in section 212 of this Act) which are publicly owned, which
pollutant interferes with, passes through, or otherwise is incompatible
with such works.
"(2) The. Administrator shall, from time to time, as control tech-
nology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives change,
revise such standards following the procedure established by this sub-
section for promulgation of such standards,
"(3) When proposing or promulgating any pretreatment standard
under this section, the Administrator shall designate the category or
categories of sources to which such standard shall apply.
"(4) Nothing in this subsection shall affect any pretreatment
requirement established by any State or local law not in conflict with
nny pretreatment standard established under this subsection.
A-9
-------
October 18, 1972 Pub. Law 92-500
86 STAT. 858
"(c) In order to insure that any source introducing pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works, which, source would be a new source
.subject to section 306 if it were to discharge pollutants, will not cause a
violation of the effluent limitations established for any such treatment
works, the Administrator shall promulgate pretreatment standards for
thn category of sucli sourros simultaneously with the promulgation of
standards of performance under section 306 for the equivalent category
of new sources. Such pretreatment standards shall prevent the dis-
charge of any pollutant into such treatment works, which pollutant
may interfere with, PUSH through, or otherwise be incompatible with
MIICII works.
"(d) After the effective date of any effluent standard or prohibition
or pn'.tre.atme.nt, standard promulgated under this section, it shall be
iinlii wful for any owner or operator of any source to operate any source
in violation of any such diluent standard or prohibition or pretreat-
ment standard.
''IHtU'ECTIONS, MONITORING AND KNTKY
'•SEC. 308. (a) Whenever required to carry out tho objective of this
Act, including but not limited to (1) developing or assisting in the
development of any effluent limitation, or other limitation, prohi-
bition, or effluent standard, pretreatment standard, or standard of
performance under this Act; (2) determining whether any person is
in violation of any such elHuent limitation, or other limitation, pro-
hibition or effluent standard, pretreatment standard, or standard of
performance; (3) any requirement established under this section; or
(4) carrying out sections 305, 311, 402, and 504 of this Act—
''(A) the Administrator shall require the owner or operator Reoordkeeping;
of any point source to (i) establish and maintain such records, reports.
(ii) make such reports, (iii) install, use, and maintain such
monitoring equipment or methods (including where appropriate,
biological monitoring methods), (iv) sample such effluents (in
accordance with such methods, at such locations, at such inter-
vals, and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe),
and (v) provide such other information as he may reasonably
require; and
''(B) the Administrator or his authorized representative, upon
presentation of his credentials—*-
%'(i) shall have a right of entry to, upon, or through any
premises in which an effluent source is located or in which
any records required to be maintained under clause (A) of
this subsection are located, and
u(ii) may at reasonable times have access to and copy
any records, inspect any monitoring equipment or method
required under clause (A), and sample any effluents which the
owner or operator of such source is required to sample under
such clause.
"(b) Any records, reports, or information obtained under this sec-
tion (1) shall, in the case of effluent data, be related to any applicable
effluent limitations, toxic, pretreatment, or new source performance
standards, and (2) shall be available to the public, except that upon
a showing satisfactory to the Administrator by any person that rec-
ords, reports, or information, or particular part thereof (other than
effluent data), to which the Administrator has access under this-sec-
tion, if made public would divulge methods or processes entitled to
protection as trade secrets of such person, the Administrator shall
consider such record, report, or information, or particular-portion
thereof confidential in accordance with the purposes of section 1905
A-10
-------
APPENDIX B
OCEAN DUMPING REGULATIONS
AND CRITERIA
October, 1973
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUSCHAPTER H—OCEAN DUMPING
TRANSPORTATION FOR DUMPING AMD
DUMPING OF MATERIAL INTO OCEAN
WATERS
Pursuant to title I of the Marine Pro-
tection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972, Public Law 92-532, (hereinafter,
"the Act"), the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) published on April 5.
1973, interim regulations, effective im-
mediately, describing procedures for
application for, and issuance and denial
of, permits for ocean dumping under the
Act. Interim criteria for the evaluation
of permit applications for ocean dump-
ing under P.L. 92-532 were published
May 16, 1973, as part of the interim
regulations.
These criteria also satisfied the re-
quirement of section 403(c) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-500,
which require, under the heading of
"Ocean Discharge Criteria," that EPA
promulgate guidelines for determining
the degradation of the waters of the ter-
ritorial sea, the contiguous zone, and the
oceans, in compliance with which per-
mits under section 402 of Pi- 92-500
must be Issued after promulgation.
The EPA is publishing herewith the
final regulations describing procedures
for application for, and issuance and
denial of, permits for ocean dumping
under the Act. Final criteria for the eval-
uation of permit applications for ocean
dumping under the Act or for permits for
ocean discharge of pollutants as required
by section 403 (c) of P.L. 93-500, are pub-
lished as Part 227 of these regulations.
Public comment periods for the Regu-
lations expired June 4, 1973, and for the
Criteria June 23, 1973. The final regula-
tions and criteria published herewith
were revised from the interim criteria
based on comments received from the
general public and from marine scien-
tists, and from EPA operating experience
during the first five months of the pro-
gram.
The following analysis summarizes
comments received on the cited sections
of the interim Regulations a.ni\ Criteria
and presents a rationale for the changes
made. Sources of comments are refer-
enced to Attachment A by the numeral in
parentheses.
Section 220.1. There was a comment
that "fish wastes", "territorial sea", "con-
tiguous zone", and "ocean" should be de-
nned (5). All of these terms except "fish
wastes" are defined in the Act and are
referenced hi § 220.2. "Fish wastes" seems
self-explanatory, so no changes were
made in response to this comment.
A new §220.1 (a) has been added to
clarify the relationship between these
regulations and the International Ocean
Dumping Convention (IODC). This
merely points out that the basis for the
control of ocean dumping under these
regulations is the same as required by
the IODC and lists the criteria of the
IODC. This change was recommended by
the Department of State for inclusion as
soon as the Convention was ratified by
the U.S.
This section has also been changed by
the addition of a section on the place-
ment of materials for enhancement of
fisheries and the basis on which a permit
will not be required under this Act This
change is made based on a comment re-
ceived (5) and on discussions with other
Federal agencies on how this matter
could be most easily handled.
Section 220J. Several comments were
received on the categories of permits,
with the general permit the subject of
most concern. Environmental groups (7,
10) were concerned that detailed criteria
for the Issuance of general permits were
not given and were concerned about the
basis on which general permits would be
issued. On the other hand, suggestions
were made that the general permit could
be used to allow the dumping of munic-
ipal sewage sludge (9), as an Interim
measure for all wastes (8), and for the
dumping of materials such as fly ash (2).
Other comments were concerned with
setting' an outside time limit on permits
of one year (2, 3, 4, 6). Because of the
time required to obtain permits and the
budgetary cycles of municipalities, pe-
riods ranging from two to five years were
recommended.
There appeared to be a general con-
fusion and misunderstanding of the man-
ner in which EPA intended to use the
general permit, and also some confu-
sion about the overall relationship among
general, special, interim, special, and
emergency permits (9, 2). The listing
of permit categories was split among
several sections of the. interim -Regula-
tiona and. Criteria; to facilitate under-
standing, therefore, all the categories of
permits and the general basis for issu-
ance were consolidated into 5 220.3 and
more precise definitions were applied to
remove the apparent basis of confusion.
In summary the permit categories as re-
vised are:
1. General permits. Requirement for a
fixed expiration data was removed. Since
this will be used only for such things
as the dumping of galley waste and
burial at sea, an expiration date is
inappropriate.
2. Special permits. Only for wastes
that meet the numerical criteria of
§§ 227.22 and 227.3. The outside time
limit is lengthened to three years.
3. Emergency permits. Language un-
changed. Covers materials which do not
meet § 227.22 (trace contaminants) and
requires consultation with State for ma-
terials violating § 227.22.
4. Interim permits. These are a subset
of "special permits" within the meaning
of the Convention and are identified hi
these regulations as a- separate category
of permits to cover the dumping of mate-
rials which do not meet the numerical
requirements of 8 227.22 or § 227.3, but
must be dumped at present because there
is no feasible alternative. This would re-
quire an implementation plan (the time
limit Is keyed to the plan and may not
exceed one year), and the permits are
not renewable. A new permit may be Is-
sued on proof of satisfactory progress In
implementation. *
5. Research permits. This was also a
subset of special permits. It Is broken
out separately to permit more flexible
review not only by the public, but also
by the scientific community to determine
its merit on a continuing basis. Research
permits would be granted only for 18
months, but could be renewed after re-
view by EPA, This type of permit Is
needed to allow for research on ocean
dumping, research which would be Il-
legal without such a permit.
Section 220.4. The New York Conserva-
tion Department (5) feels that this
delegation would allow EPA Regional
Administrators to issue permits for
dumping within New York territorial
waters without the consent of New York.
This is not the case; 9 222.3 (c) allows
for State certification, and 5 227.1 (f)
states that no permit will be issued
which violates State water quality stand-
ards. The Section has been rewritten to
clarify the nature and extent of the dele-
gation to Regional Administrators bawd
on this and other comments concerning
conditions which may be imposed on
permits and on administrative Jurisdlc-
tional problems arising during the first
months of the program.
The delegation of authority to the re-
gions extends only to the issuance or
denial of special and interim permits and
review of Corps permits. General, emer-
gency, and research permits are all re-
tained In Headquarters primarily because
of the national coordination required
prior to their issuance.
Section 221.1, Comments were received
(7, 10) statins that the alternatives to
dumping must be clearly spelled out on
the application. Sections 321.10) and
227.4 on requirements of Implementation
plans cover these requirements ade-
quately. A comment was also received
that municipal and Industrial sludges
should be treated differently and the re-
quirements placed on municipal sludges
should be less stringent as far as the
Information submitted is concerned (9).
The composition of municipal sewage
sludge can vary quite widely, and the
same degree of care in its disposal is nec-
essary as for industrial sludges. No
changes were made In the text.
Sections 221.3 and 221.4. Comments
were received concerning the permittee
being able to warrant accuracy of the
information furnished him by someone
else (5, 9). The permittee can, as part of
his contract with the supplier of the
waste, hold him responsible for any false
Information given him; also, the appli-
cant is required to certify to EPA that
the information he provides on the ap-
plication is correct, and a permit would
be granted on the basis of that informa-
tion. There seem to be adequate safe-
guards to'protect the permittee who is
not the applicant. No changes were made.
Section 221.5. The suggestion was
made that there should be no exemptions
from the processing fee (5>. This was
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 198—MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1V73
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
rejected because It would involve addi-
tional administrative work: In merely
shifting tax dollars from one pocket Lo
another. It was suggested that contrac-
tors working lor a government agency
be exempt from any fee (4). This can be
accomplished by the government agency
applying for the permit rather than the
contractor without a change In language.
The processing fees have been In-
creased because the original estimates of
processing costs -were too low.
Section Z22.1. There was a comment
that negative action or denial Is antici-
pated as final action on permit applica-
tions (7). This Is not the case; each per-
mit application Is to be evaluated fairly
based on the criteria as stated In the
regulations. The Act requires strict regu-
lation of dumping, not prohibition.
Section 222.2. Several comments were
received stating that the 10 day period
to make a tentative determination on
permit applications was too short (7, 10).
The language has been changed to re-
quire notification of an applicant within
10 days as to whether hia application is
complete and to allow 30 days Sfter a
completed application for preparation of
a tentative determination of action and
publication of a public notice.
Other comments were received con-
cerning the interim time, limits (3, 6, 7,
10); this section no longer applies and
has been deleted.
Section 222.3. One comment received
said that States should certify not only
for dumping in territorial -waters but also
In dumping which could affect their ter-
ritorial waters (1); the language has
been changed to include requesting certi-
fication for dumping within the con-
tiguous zone, but denial of certification
will be accepted only If the State can
demonstrate Its water quality standards
In the territorial sea will be violated by
dumping in the contiguous zone. Other
comments dealt with including addi-
tional Information with the public notice,
such as an environmental impact state-
ment, monitoring requirements, etc. (5,
7, 10). The public notice is a brief sum-
mary of the permit application and In-
tended action, suitable for publication In
a newspaper or posting In a public place.
Inclusion of the detail suggested is not
feasible in the public notice, but all docu-
mentation of the application will be
available, for public Inspection as
5 222.3 (a) (4i states.
Section 222.4. Comments were received
suggesting that there is an implied in-
tent to approve permits in the regula-
tions (7, 10); the language has been
changed to correct any such impression.
The question was also raised as to the
basis on which States are expected to
certify applications (6). The language
has been changed to state that certifica-
tion as to Impact on water quality stand-
ards is required.
Section 222.5. This Section deals with
the circumstances under which a public
hearing may be called. Comments by en-
vironmental groups cuggest that any time
anyone requests a public hearing such a
hearing must be held. The regulations
merely state that anyone requesting a
public hearing must state in writing
what his objections are, and what issues
are to be raised at such a hearing. These
are reasonable requirements, and serve
merely to screen out the irresponsible
people who have no issues to raise, but
just want to have a public forum for
speechmaking which would not contrib-
ute to the basis for consideration of a
permit application and would be done
at the expense of the taxpayers.
Section 222.7. Comments were made on
the necessity of making the entire permit
application available to the public (7,
10). This is covered adequately in I 222.3
(a)(4).
Section 222.3. One comment was made
on the "ominous" tone of the regulations
(7). This relates to the findings of the
presiding officer of the public hearing;
the language explicitly states he must
give full consideration to all views and
arguments presented at the hearing and
forward his recommendations to the ap-
propriate authority. This seems quite
adequate to serve the public interest, and
the "ominous" nature of the regulations
is not apparent.
Section 222.10. There was an objec-
tion to limiting consideration of permit
applications to 180 days, apparently on
the basis that this is too short a period
for full examination and study in the
"light of ecological criteria" (10). Six
months seems quite adequate for full
consideration by competent professionals
of any permit application.
Section 223.1. This Section deals with
the contents of permits; comments were
received suggesting that the composition
requirements on municipal sewage
sludges were too exhaustive (8), and that
monitoring requirements should be
spelled out in some detail (7, 10). The
regulations specifically state in this Sec-
tion that a permit shall Include such
monitoring as the Administrator deter-
mines la feasible; additional detail is
.extraneous, since monitoring require-
ments must be imposed on a case-by-
case basis.
Section 223.3. One comment states
that the permit must be displayed on the
vessel doing the dumping (10); the Act
states that this must be done and suita-
ble language has been explicitly included
in } 223.1.
Section 224.1. This Section refers to
the records to be kept by permittees.
One comment stated that the informa-
tion required should be obtained by EPA
rather than individual sewerage author-
ities (7) ; the information required Is
that which a dumper would normally be
expected to acquire in the course of car-
rying out the conditions of a. permit. The
dumper, of course, may not be the ap-
plicant; this seems to be the basis for
the comment. A comment was made that
the records should be submitted to EPA;
this Is required in § 224.2.
Section 224.2. Reports on emergency
actions have been changed to a time
limit of 10 days rather than 30 days In
response to two comments (4, 5). Com-
ments were also made that EPA should
require reports more often than every
six months (1, . 10) ; the regulations
specify other reporting requirements
may be imposed. The six-months inter-
val Is a basic requirement, and other,
more restrictive requirements may be
Imposed as the Administrator or his
designee deems necessary.
Part 225. Two comments were re-
ceived regarding the 15-day time limit
for responding to notification by the
Corps of Engineers of proposed action on
dredged material permits (7, 10). This
is not considered adequate for full con-
sideration of a permit application by
those commenting. If the tests specified
in the criteria have been applied, this
time is quite sufficient; if they have not
been applied, the time is ample for
pointing this out.
Part 225. One comment was received
cm to whom the penalties apply (9) .
It seems obvious from the law and from
the regulations that whoever dumps il-
legally, or in violation of a permit is-
sued to htm is subject to the penalties
under the law.
Part 227. These criteria are Intended
to apply both to P.L. 92-532 and to sec-
tion 403 (c) of Pi. 92-500. Comments
were received indicating that this re-
lationship Is not apparent (24). Lan-
guage has been Introduced to include the
statement "dumping or other discharge"
where appropriate, instead of "dump-
ing." The sections on Release Zone,
5 227.72 and Mixing Zone, § 227.73, have
also been modified appropriately.
Section 227.1. Comments were received
stating that, the overall thrust of the
criteria was confusing (14, 24) . A section
has been introduced (§ 227.1 (O) to
clarify the general basis on which per-
mits may be granted. Other comments
suggested relatively minor changes
which were incorporated (19, 20, 21, 28) .
These were to insert in §227.1 (a) "in
quantities" after "ocean waters of any
material" and to change § 227. l(e) "be-
cause of" to "to prevent or minimize"
Because of some doubt as to the scien-
tific advisability of using locations off the
continental shelf (37) , the last sentence
of $ 227. l(h) was eliminated. One com-
ment suggested incorporating the con-
cept of elimination of ocean discharges
by 1985 (24) , a policy goal of P.L. 92-500,
not Pli. 92-532.
Section 227.21. A comment by AEC
(18) says that we should define radio-
logical warfare agents. This term ap-
pears to be self-explanatory and is not
defined either in the International Con-
vention or In PI. 92-532.
Section 227.22. Numerous comments
were received on the prohibition of these
materials except in trace concentrations
(24, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26) . The comments
made on this section also relate to the
definition of "trace" and those pertinent
to this definition will be considered in
the discussion under § 227.74. The
burden of. the comments was basically
that this requirement is highly restric-
tive except for the exclusion in para-
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 198—MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1973
B-3
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
graph (e). Comments by Industry sug-
gested that EPA, by using these limita-
tions, could eflectively eliminate all
ocean dumping; comments by NRDC
suggested that EPA might use this ex-
clusion to permit a lot more ocean dump-
ing. It was pointed out that the term
"trace concentrations" does not follow
the language of the Ocean Dumping Con-
vention which uses the term, "trace con-
taminants". This is true- and the lan-
guage has been changed from "wastes
containing more than trace concentra-
tions of the following materials" to
"wastes containing the following mate-
rials as other than trace contaminants".
A definition of trace contaminants and
allowable levels for their discharge has
been included in this section.
The City of Philadelphia (26) wanted
organohalogens, mercury, and cadmium
to be removed from this section and
placed in § 227.31. This cannot be done
because of the requirements imposed by
the Ocean Dumping Convention.
Industrial representatives (19, 28)
wanted the language of -I 227.22(e)
broadened; the present language reflects
the usage of the International Ocean
Dumping Convention and has not been
changed.
Section 227.3. NRDC (24) says -that
EPA should define acceptable bioassay.
A procedure for bioassay is being pre-
pared and should be available by De-
cember 1; however, there seems to be
little point in Including t&e procedure
in these regulations. The language of
3 227.31 (a) (2) was changed to show that
the volume of the mixing zone is a factor
in determining the limiting permissible
concentration. Several industries (19,
21, 29) wanted a reference to titanium
dioxide wastes in § 227.3Kb) (3) elimi-
nated. The list of processes given are
those in which ocean dumping has been
used in the past and which are the ones
for which particular care must be taken.
One industry (14) objects to the inclu-
sion of oxygen consuming and/or bio-
degradable organic matter as a material
requiring special care. Such materials
if dumped in large quantities and con-
centrated in one place can cause extreme
oxygen depletion with concomitant kills
of biota. The AEC (18) wants the sec-
tion on containment of radiological
wastes eliminated; we feel that contain-
ment of radiological wastes is an impor-
tant means of disposal and the section
should be retained.
The AEC (18) wanted more specific
language about containerization of ra-
dioactive wastes incorporated; the pres-
ent language incorporates the approach
they would like to use and no changes
were made.
NRDC (24) wanted the terminology of
I 227.33 changed by eliminating "single
time and place"; making this change
would completely change the meaning of
the section, so no change was made. In
5 227.34 NKDC (24) wanted "no per-
manent damage" to refer Instead to 100
years. We,think that the present lan-
guage Is far more comprehensive and
can see no significance in making the
suggested change.
NRDC also wants a definition for "en-
vironmentally Innocuous materials" in
§ 227.35; the term appears self-explana-
tory and it is certain not subject to quan-
titative definition.
In § 227.36 the Corps of Engineers (11.
31) wanted the term dredged material
removed and the State of Pennsylvania
(30) wanted the term sewage sludge re-
moved. The language was broadened to
include any material.
Section 227.4. The American Petroleum
Institute (6) says that the requirement
that, in the exploration of alternatives
to ocean dumping changes in plant proc-
esses be considered, means that the Ad-
ministrator could insist that a company
make a product In a particular way. This
is not true; this is merely a requirement
that all means possible for reducing or
eliminating a waste material be explored.
The only decision that EPA will make is
whether or not to grant an ocean dump-
ing permit and it is a reasonable require-
ment to ask a manufacturer to explore
other ways of getting rid of the waste
besides ocean dumping.
NRDC (24) wants implementation
plans to be provided for all discharges
which fall under the jurisdiction of the
FWPCA. This would be a matter to be
covered in permits granted under the
NPDES rather than under P.L. 92-532.
This section merely establishes the cri-
teria upon which an acceptable imple-
mentation plan will be judged in evalu-
ating a permit application, not whether
an implementation plan will be required.
AEC (18) wants a requirement for best
practicable technology and best avail-
able technology to be eliminated. This
matter is a point of EPA policy and the
change is not made.
Section 227.5. NRDC (24) says that
EPA cannot guarantee the nontoxlclty
of all other materials not specified in
§§ 227.22 and 227.31. The referenced sec-
tions are written so as to include prac-
tically all waste materials which are
likely to contain toxic materials. A per-
mit must still be granted for materials
regulated under § 227.5; these sections
just categorize some materials for which
less extensive testing may be required
than the materials listed in §3227.22
and 227.31.
Section 227.6. One Industrial corpora-
tion (15) objected to the latitude being
given hi making decisions on disposal of
dredged spoil. NRDC also objects to the
discretionary language in the disposal of
dredged spoil. This particular section
was developed after considerable nego-
tiation between EPA and the Corps of
Engineers. It Is recognized that the test
procedure described in § 227.61 (c) has
limited applicability. The present test as
specified is an Interim indicator of short-
term effects to determine whether
dredged spoil is polluted. Upon comple-
tion of research now underway by the
Corps of Engineers (June 1974). modifi-
cations to this test may be proposed.
Section 227.71. Several comments were
received about the definition of limiting
permissible concentrations. Most of the
comments dealt with choice of an appli-
cation factor (24, 14, 18, 6, 19, 20, 25,
28. 29). NRDC stated we must provide
justification for an application factor of
0.01. Various industries' comments sug-
gested values of 0.5, 0.1, and at the dis-
cretion of the Regional Administrator.
The application factor of 0.01 was rec-
ommended by the National Technical
Advisory Committee on Water Quality
Criteria as a conservative factor to use
in cases where a waste of unknown
ecological impact is involved. This factor
is also used by the British Government
in the regulation of ocean dumping
around the British Isles. A number of
scientists have been asked to comment
on the bioassay procedure. All have com-
mented upon the difficulty of running
bioassays involving marine specimens,
but none has suggested that another ap-
plication factor would be preferable. We
feel that the 0.01 factor represents a
sound conservative approach toward in-
terpretation of the bioassay results and
their application in the environment and
that this approach is based upon the best
available scientific knowledge and
experience.
Sections 227.72 and 227.73. The lan-
guage has been changed in these sections
to state explicitly how these definitions
apply for disposal through an outfall or
other structure.
Section 227.74. The definition of trace
concentrations was the subject of con-
siderable comment by industrial repre-
sentatives. Several modifications to the
definition in the interim criteria were
suggested (3, 8, 14, 19, 21, 28, 29), and a
new definition incorporating some of the
suggestions has been developed and in-
corporated into 5 227.22. Section 227.74
has been eliminated as unnecessary.
List of approved interim dump sites.
Numerous questions were raised on the
selection and use of dump sites. The
modifications required in response to
these questions will require substantive
changes in the list and the addition of a
new section to these regulations. This
addition will be published as proposed
rulemaking for additional public com-
ment before being promulgated as part
of the final regulations. Until then, no
changes will be made In the list of ap-
proved dump sites.
These regulations and criteria will be
revised periodically to reflect additional
public comment, additional operating
experience, and advances in scientific
understanding of the impact of pollut-
ants on the marine environment, and the
recommendations of international scien-
tific bodies on contaminant concentra-
tions permissible In the oceans.
Comments on these regulations and
criteria will be considered in all future
revisions. Comments should b« addressed
to Office of Air and Water Programs, En-
vironmental Protection Agency. Atten-
tion: Mr. T. A. Wastler. Room 735. Eisl
Tower. Waterside Mall. 401 M Street 3W..
Washington, D.C. 20460.
The International Convention on the
Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
was ratified by the U.S. Senate on Au-
FEMRAl REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 1»3—MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1973
E-U
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
State Senate,. Commonwealth of Mas-
••ehussitts.
Consolidated Zdlson Company of New
York. Inc.
Manufacturing Chemists Association.
Washington. D.O.
Ofltoe oH*gu&Uxm, SPA.
State at Sew Tort Department of En-
gust 3. 1973. These regulations and cri-
teria form the basis for the operating
program to enforce the Convention when
It comes Into force after ratification by
fifteen nations. They will be modified to ~
be fully consistent with the Convention
when It comes Into force for the United
States.
AH applications for ocean dumping
permits received after October 15, 1973,
wfll be processed In accordance with
these final regulations. AH permits
granted ""rfpr the interim regulations,
and which expire prior to February 13,
1974. are hereby extended until Febru-
ary 13, 1974; all other permita win ex-
pire as stated in the permit, except that
all permits issued ""
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Administrator under this section on
application of an interested person In
accordance with the procedures of Part
221, or may be granted by the Adminis-
trator on his own initiative, subject to
the notice and hearing requirements of
Part 222 of this subchapter.
(b) Special permits. The dumping of
material requiring an EPA permit under
the Act, and not covered by a general
penhit published in the FBDKRAL Ric-
ISTER under paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion, will require a special permit Issued
to a specified applicant, having a fixed
expiration date, (which shall be no later
than three years from the date of Issue)
and specifying the exact amount of ma-
terial permitted to be dumped there-
under. Special permits will be granted
only on application in accordance with
the requirements of Part 221 of this sub-
chapter. No special permit shall be
granted for any material which does not
meet the criteria of 8§ 227.22 and 227.31
of this subchapter. Special permits may
be renewed upon application at the dis-
cretion of the Administrator or Ills
designee.
(c) Emergency -permits. After consul-
tation with the Department of State and
with such other -persons as may be ap-
propriate, the Administrator may issue
an emergency permit to dump materials
specified hi § 227.22 of this subchapter
where there is demonstrated to exist an
emergency requiring the dumping of
such material, which poses an unaccept-
able risk relating to human health and
admits of no other feasible solution. As
used herein, "emergency" refers to situ-
ations requiring action, with a marked
degree of urgency, but is not limited In
its application to circumstances requir-
ing immediate action.
Cd) Interim permits. It is the intent
of this program to prevent or strictly
regulate the disposal to the marine en-
vironment of any materials ^Trvg1*^ to
that environment. The quantitative basis
for determining limiting concentrations
and quantities of known toxic or other-
wise damaging materials which can be
dumped without measurable damage,
based on existing knowledge, is given in
§5 327.22 and 227.31 of this subchapter.
When an applicant wishes to dump any
of the materials listed in § 227.31 of 'this
subchapter in excess of the limiting per-
missible concentrations, orwhen the con-
stituents identified hi § 227.22 of this
subchapter are present as trace contami-
nants as defined In § 227.22 (e) of this
subchapter but are in excess of the levels
at which they may be dumped under spe-
cial permit, he may, under certain con-
ditions, be granted an Interim permit at
the discretion of the Administrator or his
designee. These conditions are:
(1) An environmental assessment of
the potential environmental impact of
the dumping will be required as part of
each application and, in addition, a thor-
ough review of the actual need for the
dumping and possible alternatives win
be made In evaluating the permit appli-
cation. The decision on whether or not
to grant an interim permit win be based,
in part, on consideration of the following
factors relative to the need for and al-
ternatives to dumping:
(i) Degree of treatment feasible, for
the waste to be dumped, and whether or
not the waste material has been or will
be treated to this degree before dumping.
(11) Manufacturing or other processes
resulting In the waste, and whether or
not these processes are essential, or if
other less polluting processes could be
used.
(ill). The relative environmental Im-
pact and cost for ocean dumping as op-
posed to other possible alternatives, for
example land disposal or deep well in-
jection, after the best practical waste
treatment has been carried out.
(iv) Temporary and/or permanent ef-
fect of the dumping on alternative uses
of the oceans, such as navigation, living
resources exploitation, nonliving re-
source exploitation, scientific study, and
other legitimate uses of the oceans, as
opposed to the impact on other parts of
the environment of alternate means of
disposal.
(2) An interim permit will require the
development and active implementation
of a plan to either eliminate the discharge
entirely from the ocean or to bring it
within the limitations of § 227.3 of this
subchapter. Such plans must meet the
requirements of 5 227.4 of this sub-
chapter. The expiration date of an
interim permit will be determined by
completion of sequential phases of the
development and implementation of the
required plan, and will not exceed one
year from the date of issue. An interim
permit may not be renewed, but a new
interim permit may be issued upon ap-
plication according to Part 221 of this
subchapter upon satisfactory completion
of each phase of the development and
implementation of the plan;
(3) No interim permit will be granted
for the dumping of waste from a new
facility or from the expansion of a facil-
ity after the effective date of these regu-
lations without the completion of Phase A
of an implementation plan.
(e) Research permits. A permit for the
dumping of materials (other than those
prescribed in J5 227.21 and 227.22 of this
subchapter) into the ocean as part of re-
search into the impact of materials on
the marine environment may be issued by
the Administrator when he determines
the scientific merit of the proposed proj-
ect outweighs the potential damage that
may occur from the dumping. A research
permit will be issued only under the fol-
lowing conditions:
(1) TJbe applicant provides to the Ad-
ministrator a detailed statement of the
proposed project, including an assess-
ment of the probable environmental im-
pact of carrying out the project.
(2) There Is public notice and oppor-
tunity for public hearing.
(3) Research permits will be issued for
no longer than 18 months, but may be
renewed after review by the Adminis-
trator.
§ 220.4 Delegation of authority.
(a) Special and interim permits. Sub-
ject to the exclusion of paragraph (b)
of this section. Regional Administrators
or their designees have the authority to
Initiate and carry out enforcement pro-
ceedings and to issue, deny, and to Im-
pose conditions on special and interim
permits for:
(1) The dumping of material in that
portion of the territorial sea which is sub-
ject to the jurisdiction of any State
within their respective regions, and in
those portions of the contiguous zone
coterminous with such parts of the terri-
torial sea;
(2) The dumping of any material
within any other dump site, or other des-
ignated area explicitly assigned as a
regional management responsibility by
these regulations, amendments to them,
or by order of the Administrator.
13) The transportation for dumping of
any material from a location in a State
in their respective regions and its dump-
ing at a designated site, except to the ex-
tent a different Regional Administrator
has such authority by virtue of para-
graph (a) (1) or (2) of this section.
(b) Exclusions. (1) Where transpor-
tation for dumping is to initiate in one
region and dumping Is to occur In
another region, the former region will be
responsible for review of the applica-
tion and prepare the technical evaluation
of the need for'dumping and Alternatives
to ocean disposal. The latter region will
specify the conditions to be imposed, give
public notice, and issue or deny the per-
mit. If both regions do not concur In
the disposition of the permit applica-
tion, the Administrator will make the
final decision on Issuance or denial of a
permit and on the conditions to be
imposed.
(2) All activities involving monitoring
of the disposal site shall be approved by
the Administrator.
(c) Other permits. In all cases not de-
scribed in paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section, tile Administrator, or such other
EPA employee as he may from time to
time designate in writing, shall issue.
deny or Impose conditions on special.
interim, general, emergency, or research
permits Issued pursuant to the Act.
Designation of new disposal sites.
Disposal sites will be designated by pub-
lication In the FIDERAL RraisTEH in this
subchapter. Recommendations for desig-
nation will be based on baseline studies
and monitoring of sites, and will be ap-
proved by the Administrator prior to
designation.
(e) Corps of Engineers permits. Au-
thority to review and approve or disap-
prove Corps of Engineers permits for
ocean disposal of dredged material is
granted to each Regional Administrator
for those dredged material dumping sites
within their regional Jurisdiction.
PART 221—APPLICATIONS
Sec.
331.1 Application forma for special permits.
331.3 Other Information.
221.3 Applicant.
231A Adequacy of Information.
331.5 Processing fees.
ATJTHOIHTT: Title I, Pub. L. 96-^533, 86 St&t.
1062 (33 TT.S.C. 1411-1431).
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 198—MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 1973
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
SJ 221.1 Application form* for special
permit*.
Applications for HPA special or Interim
I'jermits under the Act may be filed with.
the Administrator or the Regional Ad-
ministrator. II ar.y, authorized by 5 220.4
to act on the application. Unless and until
prirued application, forms are made avail-
able, an application may be made by let-
ter. Any application for a permit under
this subchapter win include at a
minimum:
(a> Name and address of applicant;
Cb) Name of the person or firm (if not
the applicant), and the name or other
identification and usual location of the
conveyance, to be used in the transporta-
tion and dumping of the material
Involved;
(c) Physical and chemical description
of material to be dumped, including re-
sults of tests necessary to meet the re-
quirements of Part 227 of this subchapter,
and the number, size, and physical con-
figuration of the materials and any con-
tainers to be dumped;
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
unless the State can demonstrate that
dumping In the contiguous zone will vio-
late water quality standards within the
part of the territorial sea under its
jurisdiction.
(d) Notice to Corps of Engineers. In
addition to other notice required by this
section, notice of each application for
dumping wlB be forwarded to the appro-
priate office of the UJ3. Army Corps of
Engineers for review in accordance with
section 106(c) of the Act (pertaining to
navigation, harbor approaches, and
artificial islands on the outer continental-
shelf) . Unless advice to the contrary is
received within 30 days of the date such
notice is transmitted to the Identified
agencies by the Administrator, Regional
Administrator or their designees, these
agencies will be deemed to have no ob-
jection on account of matters required
to be considered pursuant to section 106
(c) of the Act.
(e) Notice to Coast Guard. In addi-
tion to other notice required by this
section, notice of each application for
dumping will be forwarded to the appro-
priate district office of the US. Coast
Guard for review In accordance with
section 104(a)<5) of the Act.
(f) Fish and WUdWe Coordination Act.
The Pish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1970, and
PJj. 92-632 require Regional Adminis-
trators to consult with appropriate re-
gional officials of the Departments of
Commerce and Interior, the Regional
Director of the NMFS-NOAA, the agency
exercising administrative' jurisdiction
over the fish and wildlife resources of the
State subject to any dumping. Unless
advice to the contrary is received within
SO days of the date such notice is trans-
mitted to the identified agencies by the
Administrator, Regional Administrator
or their designees, these agencies will be
deemed to have no objection on account
of matters required to be considered pur-
suant to section 10S(c) of the Act.
§ 222.4 Issuance or denial of permit*
without hearing.
(a) General. Subject to the receipt of
certification, if required, pursuant to
section 401 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, from any Stats to which
notice has been sent pursuant to § 222.3
(c), the Administrator. Regional Admin-
istrator or their designees wiU issue or
deny permits in accordance with 9 222.1,
as soon as all provisions of i 222.3(a)
(pertaining to public notice) have been
compiled with, unless a request-for a pub-
lic hearing has been granted pursuant
to 9 222.5 (b), or nnleM objection is re-
ceived from the Corp* of Engineers pur-
suant to 5 222.3(d).
(b) Waiver of ,5toi» certification,
State certification aa to the probable Im-
pact of the proposed dump on State
water quality standards pursuant to sec-
tion 401 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act will be deemed waived. In ac-
cordance with the terms thereof, if such
certification Is not received within 60
days of notice to the appropriate State
agency under § 222.3(c), or such longer
period to which the Administrator, Re-
gional Administrator or their designees,
may agree.
§ 222.5 Initiation of hearings.
(a) Any person may, within 30 days
of the date on which all provisions of
§ 222.3(0) have been complied with, re-
quest a public hearing to consider the
issuance or denial of any permit applied
for under this Part. Any such request for
a public hearing must be in writing, and
must state any objections to the Issu-
ance or denial of the proposed permit,
and the issues which are proposed'to be
considered at the hearing.
(b) Upon receipt of a written request
meeting the requirements of paragraph
(a) of this section, or at his own dis-
cretion, the Administrator, Regional
Administrator or a deslgnee of either,
wiU fix a time and place for a public
hearing, and shall publish notice of such
hearing In accordance with 9 222.7,
whenever such request presents bona
fide issues amenable to resolution by
public hearing.
(c) In the event the Administrator,
Regional Administrator or a deslgnee of
either, determines that a request pur-
portedly made pursuant to this section
does not comply with the requirements
of paragraph (a) of this section, he
shall so advise, in writing, the person
requesting the hearing, and «haii pro-
ceed to rule on the permit application
in accordance with } 222.4 (a).
§ 222.6 Time and place of hearings.
When the Administrator or Regional
Administrator grants a request for a
public hearing pursuant to 5 223.8(a),
he shall designate on appropriate loca-
tion for such hearings, and an appro-
priate time which shall be no sooner
than 30 days following the receipt of such
request. Where possible, public hearings
shall be held in a location in the States,
if any, to which notice of the permit ap-
plication was given pursuant to } 222.3
(c).
§ 222.7 Notice of hearings.
Notice of public hearings, including
Information as to their time and place,
shall be given, at a minimum, to persons
to whom, and in the manner In which,
notice of the permit application was pub-
lished pursuant to i 222.3.
§ 222.8 Conduct of hearingx.
The Administrator or Regional Ad-
ministrator may designate a presiding
officer, to conduct a hearing convened
pursuant to this part. The presiding offi-
cer shall be responsible for the expedi-
tious conduct of the hearing, and Tfrflli
cause a suitable record (including, If
appropriate, a Verbatim transcript) of
the proceedings to be made. Any person
may appear at a hearing convened pur-
suant to this Part whether or not he
requested the hearing, and may be rep-
resented by counsel or any other author-
ized representative. The presiding officer
Is authorized to set forth reasonable re-
strictions on the nature or amount of
documentary material or testimony pre-
sented at a hearing, giving due regard to
the relevancy of any such information,
and to the avoidance of undue repetitive-
ness of Information presented. No cross-
examination of any person, including the
applicant, appearing at a hearing shall
be permitted, although, the presiding of-
ficer, may, in his discretion, address to
persons or their authorized representa-
tives questions submitted in writing by
participants at a hearing.
§ 222.9 Recommendations of presiding
officer.
At any time following the adjourn-
ment of a public hearing convened pur-
suant to this part, the presiding officer
may prepare written recommendations
relating to the Issuance or denial of the
proposed permit, or relating to any con-
ditions which: he believes may appro-
priately be imposed on any such permit,
after full consideration of the views and
arguments expressed at the hearing: pro-
vided, that the presiding officer's find-
ings and recommendations, if any, and
the record of the hearing, will In all cases
be completed and forwarded to the Ad-
ministrator, Regional Administrator, or
their designated representatives within
30 days following adjournment of the
hearing. Copies of the presiding officer's
findings and recommendations. If any,
shall be provided to any interested person
on request, free of charge. Copies of the
record will be provided in accordance
with 9 2.111 of this title.
§ 222.10 luoanee of permit* after hear-
ing*.
Within 30 days following receipt of the
presiding officer's findings and recom-
mendations, if any, but in no event later
than 180 days from the time limit speci-
fied in 9 222.1. The Administrator, Re-
gional Administrator, or their designees,
shall make a final determination with
respect to the issuance, denial, or im-
position of conditions on, any permit
applied for under this part.
PART 223—CONTENTS OF PERMITS
Sec,
233.1 Contents of permit*.
333.3 QenaraUr applicable condition* of
permit*.1
AUTHOUTT: TJU» I, Pub. L. 92-633, 88 Stat.
1052 (33 U.3.C. 1411-1431).
§ 223.1 Content* of permit*.
Permits, other than general permits,
which may be issued on forms to be pub-
lished by EPA and must be displayed on
the vessel engaged In dumping, win in-
clude at a minimum the following:
(a) Name of permittee;
(b) Means of conveyance and methods
and procedures for disposal of material
to be dumped: and, in the case of per-
mits for the transportation of material
for dumping, the port through or from
which such material will be transported:
(c) A complete description, 1rn-lvrfl'nir
all relevant chemical and physical prop-
erties and quantities, of the material to
be dumped;
(d) The disposal site;
FEDltAl MGISm, VOL 38, NO. 198—MONDAY, OCTOBS* 15, 1973
B-8
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(e) The times at which the permitted
dumping may occur;
cf) Such monitoring relevant to the
assessment of the impact of permitted
dumping activities on the marine en-
vironment at the disposal site as the Ad-
ministrator determines is feasible; and
(g) Any other terms and conditions,
including those with respect to release
procedures, determined to be necessary
and adequate la order to conform the
permitted dumping activities to the fac-
tors set forth in section 102 (a) of the
Act, and the criteria set forth in Part
227.
§ 223.2 Generally applicable conditions
of permits.
(a) Modification or revocation. Any
permit. Issued under thia Part shall be
subject to modification, or revocation In
whole or In part for cause, as follows:
(1) Violation of any term or condi-
tion of the permit;
(2) Misrepresentation, Inaccuracy, or
failure to disclose all relevant facts In
the permit application;
(S) Changed circumstances, such as
changes in conditions obtaining at the
designated dumping site, and newly dis-
covered scientino data relevant to the
granting of the permit;
(4) Failure to keep the records, and
to notify appropriate officials of dump-
Ing activities, as specified in 5 5 221.1 and
224.2.
(b) Suspension. In addition to the
conditions of a permit Imposed pursuant
to paragraph (a) of this section, each
permit shall be subject to suspension by
the Administrator or Regional Admin-
istrator If he determines that the per-
mitted dumping has resulted, or Is re-
sulting. In imminent and substantial
harm to human health* or welfare or the
marine environment. Such suspension
shall be effective immediately upon re-
ceipt of notification thereof by the
permittee.
(c) Hearings. Within 30 days after
receipt of notice of revocation or modifi-
cation pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section, or of suspension pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this section, a per-
mittee or other Interested person may re-
quest in writing a hearing on the issues
raised by any such revocation or suspen-
sion. Upon receipt of any such request,
the Administrator or Regional Admin-
istrator shall. appoint a hearing officer
to conduct an adjudicator? hearing as
may be required by law and by this sub-
chapter as now or hereafter In effect.
PART 224—RECORDS
Seo.
334.1 Records of permittees.
324.3 Reports.
AUTKOUTT: TltU I, Pub. L. 92-532, 86 3tat.
1003 (33 U.8.C. 1411-1431).
§ 224.1 Record* of permittees.
Each permittee and each person avail-
ing himself of the privilege conferred by
a general permit, shall maintain com-
plete records, which will be available for
Inspection by the Administrator, Re-
gional Administrator, the Commandant,
U.S. Coast Guard, or their designees, of:
(a) The nature, including a complete
description of relevant physical and
chemical characteristics, of material
dumped pursuant to the permit;
(b) The precise times and locations of
dumping;
(c) Any other Information reasonably
required as a condition of a permit by the
Administrator, Regional Administrator
or their designees:
(1) For the purpose of determining
whether dumping has in fact been ac-
complished in accordance with all terms
and conditions of the permit;
(2) To assess the Impact of permitted
dumping activities on the marine en-
vironment.
§ 224.2 Report*.
(a) Periodic reports. Information In-
cluded in records required to be kept
pursuant to { 224.1 nrm.il be reported to
the EPA official who Issued the permit in
question, as follows:
(1) As of the end of each six-month
period, if any, measured from the effec-
tive date of the permit and ending be-
fore its expiration;
(2) As of the expiration of the permit,
unless renewed; and
(3) As otherwise required in the con-
ditions of the permit.
(b) Time of reporting. Reports re-
quired by this section must be received
by EPA within 30 days of the date as of
which the information Is required to be
reported; provided, that If an application
for renewal of a special permit is pend-
ing at such time, the report required by
paragraph (a) (2) of this section may be
deferred until 30 days after the date of
a denial of the renewal application.
(c) Emergencies. If material, the
dumping of which is regulated under
this subchapter, is dumped without a
permit in an emergency to safeguard life
at sea, the owner or operator of the ves-
sel from which such dumping occurs
shall as soon as feasible inform the Ad-
ministrator or the nearest Coast Guard
district of the Incident by radio, tele-
phone, or telegraph and shall within 10
days report to the Administrator the in-
formation required under } 224.1, and a
complete description of the emergency
which occasioned the dumping.
PART 225—CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PERMITS
S«c.
226.1 General.
326.2 Review of Corps permit applications.
328.3 Waivers.
AtTTHOBiTT: Title C, Pub. L. 98-632, 88
Stat. 1062. (33 U.3.C. 1411-1421).
§ 225.1 General.
AB indicated in 5 220.1, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has the authority to
issue permits for the transportation and
dumping of dredged material. As defined
in the Act, "dredged material" means
"any material excavated or dredged from
the navigable waters of the United
States." EPA personnel will not act ini-
tially on any application received for the
transportation or dumping of dredged
material, but will forthwith forward any
such application to the appropriate offlce
of the Corps, whteh will, in acting on any
such application, apply the criteria in
Part 227 of this subchapter.
§ 225.2 Review of Corps permit applica-
tion*.
Within 30 days following receipt of
notification, pursuant to section 103(c)
of the Act, the Administrator, Regional
Administrator or the deslgnee of either,
will notify In writing the Corps of his
disagreement, if any, to the Issuance of
the permit in question, on the grounds
that it would not be In accordance with
the criteria of Part 227 of this subchap-
ter, or would violate section 102 (c) of the
Act (pertaining to critical areas).
§ 225.3 Waivers. ,
If, after notice of disagreement is given
the Corps pursuant to § 225.2, a request
for a waiver Is received pursuant to sec-
tion 103(d) of the Act, such request will
be forwarded to the Administrator; pro-
vided, that If any such request does not
include the finding required by section
103 (d) of the Act as to economically
feasible methods of disposal, and the ba-
sis for such finding, the request will be
denied. The Administrator will act on the
request for a waiver in accordance with
section 103 Cd) of the Act, within 30 days
of receipt thereof by EPA.
PART 226—ENFORCEMENT
Sac.
228.1 ClvU penalties.
236.2 Enforcement hearings.
226.3 Determinations.
228.4 Final action.
ADTHoarrr: TlUe I, Pub. L. 92-632, 88
Stat. 1083 (33 U.S.C. 1411-1421).
§ 226.1 Civil penalties.
In addition to the criminal penalties
provided for in section 105(b) of the Act,
the Administrator or his deslgnee may
assess a civil penalty of not more than
$50,000 for each violation of the Act
and of this subchapter. Upon receipt of
information that any person has violated
any provision of the Act or of this sub-
chapter, the "Administrator of his des-
lgnee will notify such person in writing
of the violation with which he is charged,
and will convene a hearing to be con-
vened no sooner than 60 days after such
notice, at a convenient location, before
a hearing officer. Such hearing shall be
conducted in accordance with the proce-
dures of § 226.2.
§226.2 Enforcement hearings.
Hearings convened pursuant to § 226.1
shall be hearings on a record before a
hearing officer. Parties may be repre-
sented by counsel, and will have the right
to submit motions, to present evidence
in their own behalf, to cross-examine ad-
verse witnesses, to be apprised of all
evidence considered by the healing offi-
No. 198—Pt. II-
FEDEHAl REGISTER, VOL. 38, NO. 198—MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1973
B-9
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
ce:\ and to receive copies of the tran-
script of the proceedings. Formal rules
of endence will not apply. The hearing-
officer will rule on all evidentiary mat-
ters, and on all motions, which will be
.- abject to review pursuant to § 226.3.
> 226.3 Determinations.
Within 30 days following adjournment
of the hearing, the hearing officer will in
all cases make findings of facts and
recommendations to the Administrator,
including, when appropriate, a recom-
mended appropriate penalty,- after con-
sideration of the gravity of the viola-
tion, prior violations by the person
charged, and the demonstrated good
faith by such person in attempting to
achieve rapid compliance with the pro-
visions of the Act and this subchapter.
A copy of the findings and recommenda-
tions of the hearing officer shall be pro-
vided to the person charged at the same
time they are forwarded to the Admin-
istrator. Within 30 days of the date on
which the hearing officer's findings and
recommendations are forwarded to the
Administrator, any party objecting
thereto may file written exceptions with
the Administrator.
§ 226.4 Final action.
A final order on a proceeding under
this Part will be issued by the Admin-
istrator or by such other person desig-
nated by the Administrator to take such
final action, no sooner than 30 days fol-
lowing receipt of the findings and recom-
mendations of the hearing officer. A copy
of the final order will be served by regis-
tered mail (return receipt requested) on
the person, charged or his representa-
tive. In the event the final order assesses
a penalty, it shall be payable within 60
days of the date of receipt of the final
order, unless Judicial review of the final
order Is sought by the person agates*
whom the penalty is assessed.
PART 227—CRITERM FOR THE EVALUA-
TION OF PERMIT APPLICATIONS
Sec.
227.1 General grounds lor the Issuance of
permits.
227.2 Prohibited acts.
227.21 Materials for wnlch no permit will
be Issued.
227.22 Other prohibited maierlala.
227.3 Strictly regulated dumping.
227.31 Materials requiring special care.
227.32 Hazards to fishing or navigation.
227.33 Large quantities of materiala,
227.34 Acids and alkalis.
227.35 Containerized wastes.
227.36 Materials containing living orga-
nisms.
227.4 Implementation plan requirements
for Interim permits.
227.5 Leas strictly regulated1 tamping and
disposal acts,
227.51 Wastes at a non-toxte nature.
227.52 Solid wastes.
227.6 Disposal of dredged material.
227.81 Unpolluted dredged ma.fjirifll
227.62 Disposal at unpolluted" dredged ma-
terial.
227.63 Polluted dredged material.
227.84 Disposal of polluted dredged mate-
rial.
227.65 Revision of test procedures.
Sec.
227 7 Definitions.
227.71 Limiting permissible concentrations.
227.72 Release zone.
227.73 Mixing zone.
227.74 High-level radioactive wastes.
227.8 Amendment of criteria.
AUTHORITT: Title I, Pub. L. 92-532, 86 8tat.
1052 (33 TJ^.C. 1411-1421).
§ 227.1 General ground* for the issuance
o f permits.
(a) It Is the policy of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to regulate the
dumping of all types of materials Into
ocean waters and to prevent or to reg-
ulate strictly the dumping or other dis-
charge Into ocean waters of any mate-
rial in quantities which would adversely
affect huma^i health, welfare, or amen-
ities, or the marine environment, eco-
logical systems, or economic potential-
ities, or plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife,
shorelines, or beaches.
(b) These criteria apply to the eval-
uation of permit applications for the
dumping or discharge through outfalls
or other structures of gaseous, solid, and/
or liquid matter of any kind-or descrip-
tion,
(c) Sections 102(c) of PL 93-532 and
403
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
<4) The total amounts of oils and
grea&es aa identified In paragraph (d)
ol this section do not produce a visible
surface sheen In an undisturbed water
sample when added at a rat* of one part
waste material to 100 parts of water.
(g) Those constituents identified in
paragraphs (a)—(d) of this section will
be regarded as trace contaminants In
the waste material of an Industrial proc-
ess or plant which uses them as raw
materials or produces any of them only
When the limitations of paragraph (f>
of this section are not exceeded.
(h) Paragraphs (a)-(d) of this section
do not apply to materials which are
harmless or are rapidly rendered harm-
less by physical, chemical, or biological
processes in the sea; provided they will
not, if damped, make edible marine or-
ganisms unpalatable; or will not. if
damped, endanger human health or that
of domestic animals, fish, shellfish, and
wildlife.
§ 227.3 Strictly regulated dumping.
Evidence of the acceptability of pro-
posed acts Of disposal will be required
from the applicant according to the
criteria in 55 227.31 through 227.38.
§ 227.31 Materials requiring special care.
(a) Permits may be Issued for the
dumping or other disposal of the mate-
rials described in paragraph (b) of this
section if the applicant can demonstrate
that the material proposed for disposal
meets the limiting permissible concen-
tration of total pollutants as defined in
{ 227.71 considering both the concentra-
tion of pollutants in the waste material
Itself and the total mixing zone avail-
able for Initial dilution and dispersion.
(b) Wastes containing' one or more
of the following- materials shall be
treated as requiring special care:
(1) The elements, ions, and com-
pounds of:
Arsenic. Vanadium.
Lead. Beryllium.
Capper. Chromium.
Zinc. Nickel.
Selenium.
(2) Organosillcon compounds and
compounds which may form such sub-
stances in the marine environment:
(3) Inorganic processing wastes, in-
cluding cyanides, fluorides, titanium di-
oxide wastes, and chlorine.
(4) Petrochemicals, organic chemi-
cals, and organic processing wastes, in-
including, but not limited to:
Aliphatic solvents. Amines.
Phenols. Polycycllc
Plastic Intermedl- aromatlcs.
ates and by- Phthalate eaters.
product*. Detergents.
Plastics.
(5) Biocides not prohibited elsewhere,
including, but not limtled to:
Organophoephorus Herbicide*.
compounds. Insecticides.
Carbarn* te
compound*.
(8) Oxygen-consuming and/or biode-
gradable organic matter.
(7) Radioactive wastes not otherwise
prohibited. As a general policy, the con-
tainment of radioactive materials
(5 227.35) la Indicated rather than their
direct dispersion and dilution in ocean
waters.
(8) Materials on any list of toxic pol-
lutants published under section 307(a)
of P-L. 92-500, and materials designated
as hazardous substances under section
311(b) (2) (A) of P.L. 92-500. unless more
strictly regulated under i 227.2.
(9) Materials that are immiscible with
seawater, such as gasoline, carbon disul-
fide, toluene.
§ 227.32 Hazards to fishing or naviga-
tion.
Wastes which may present a serious
obstacle to fishing or navigation may be
disposed of only at dumping sites and
under conditions which will insure no
interference with fishing or navigation.
§ 227.33 Large quantities of materials.
Substances of a non-toxic nature
which may damage the ocean environ-
ment due to the quantities in which they
are dumped, or which are liable to seri-
ously reduce amenities, may be dumped
only when the quantities to be dumped
at a single time and place are controlled
to prevent damage to the environment
or to amenities.
§ 227.34 Acids and alkalis.
In the dumping of large quantities
of acids and alkalis, consideration shall
'be given: (a) To the effects of any
change in acidity or alkalinity of the
water at the disposal site; and (b) to the
potential for jynerglstic effects or for the
formation of toxic compounds In the
dumping area.
§ 227.35 Containerized wastes.
(a) Wastes containerized solely for
transport to the dumping site and ex-
pected to rupture or leak on impact or
shortly thereafter must meet the require-
ments of 5 $227.22, 227.31, 227.32, and
227.36.
• (b) Other containerized wastes will be
approved for dumping only under the
following conditions:
(1) The materials to be disposed of
decay, decompose or radiodecay to en-
vironmentally Innocuous materials con-
sidering the life expectancy of the con-
tainers and/or their inert matrix:
(2) Materials to be disposed of are
present in such quantities and are of
such nature that only short-term local-
ized adverse effects will occur should the
containers rupture at any time; and
(3) Containers are disposed of at
depths and locations where they will
cause no threat to navigation or fishing.
§ 227.36 Materials containing living or-
ganism*.
It is prohibited to dump any material
which would:
(a) Extend the range of biological
pests, viruses, pathogenic microorga-
nisms or other agents capable of Infest-
ing, Infecting or altering the normal
populations of organisms.
(b) Degrade uninfected areas, or
(c) Introduce viable species not in-
digenous to an area.
g 227.4 Implementation plan require-
ments for interim permits.
As a condition on every interim per-
mit, the applicant must carry out two
phases to bring his waste within accept-
able limits:
PHASI A—PLANNING
(a) Make a thorough review of the actual
need for the dumping;
(b) Submit an evaluation of potential en-
vironmental impact:
(1) Description of proposed action;
(2) Environment*! Impact of the proposed
action;
(8) Adverse impacts which cannot be
avoided should,the proposal be implemented:
(4) Alternatives to the proposed action:
(1) Land flU;
(U) Deep we!} Injection;
(Ul) Shallow well injection;
(Iv) Incineration;
(v) Spread of material over open ground;
(vl) Recycling of material for:
(a) Reuse In process;
(b) By-products;
(Til) Biological, chemical, or physical
(8) Belationshlp between short-term uses
of man's environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long-term productivity;
(6) Irreversible and Irretrievable commit-
ment* of resources which would be Involved
in the proposed action should It be Imple-
mented; -
(7) A discussion of problems and objec-
tions raised by other Federal, State and local
agencies and by Interested persons In the
review process;
The content of an acceptable plan for dif-
ferent waste materials will vary but the fol-
lowing requirements should be recognized
and met:
(a) U the waste la treated to the degree
necessary to bring It Into compliance with
the ocean disposal criteria, the applicant
should provide a description of the treat-
ment and a scheduled program for treat-
ment and a subsequent analysis of treated
material to > prove the effectiveness of the
process.
(b) If treatment cannot be effected by
post-process techniques the applicant should,
determining the offending constituents, ex-
amine his raw materials and his total process
to determine the origin of the pollutant. If
the offending constituents are found In the
raw material the applicant should consider a
new supplier and provide an analysis of the
new material to prove compliance. Raw mate-
rials are to Include all water used In the
process. Water from municipal sources com-
plying with drlnJsing water standards Is ac-
ceptable. Water from other sources such as
private wells should be analyzed for con-
taminants. Water that has Seen used In the
process should be considered for treatment
and recycling as an additional source of proc-
ess water.
(c) If offending constituents are a result
of the process, It Is recommended that a
consultant be employed by the applicant to
Investigate and describe the source of the
constituents, A report of this Information
will be submitted to EPA and the applicant
will then submit a proposal describing possi-
ble alternatives to the existing process or
processes and level of cost and effectiveness.
(d) Schedule and documentation for im-
plementation of approved control process:
(1) Engineering plan.
(2) Financing approval.
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 198—MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1773
3-11
-------
(3) Starting date for change.
(4) Completion date.
( 5 I Operation starting date.
, e i If an acceptable alternative does not
e.'clst, the applicant will demonstrate a com-
mvrmpnr. to an Investigation of the problem
either by submitting an acceptable In-house
research program or by employing a com-
petent research Institution to study the
problem. The program of research- will then
be submitted by the permittee/applicant.
if) Schedule and documentation for Im-
plementation of a research program:
11) Approaches.
(2) Experimental design,
(3) Starting date.
(4) Reporting intervals.
(5) Proposed completion date.
(6) Report of recommendations.
PHASE B—IMPLEMENTATION
In no event will an Interim permit be
granted for the dumping of material* which
do not meet the provisions of 5 2273 unless
the permit applicant can: (a) demonstrate
the need for the proposed dumping aa com-
pared to alternative locations and methods
of disposal or recycling, (b) demonstrate
that the need for the proposed dumping out-
weighs the potential harm which may taie
place as a result of such dumping, and (c)
provide a satisfactory implementation plan
covering future- dumping activities and fully
adhere to the plan. For Industrial sources,
any auch plan shall provide for:
(a) By not later.than July 1, 1977, the
application of the best practicable tech-
nology currently available for the removal
of such materials, as determined by the
Administrator;
(b) By not later than July 1, 1983. the
application of the best available technology
economically available for the removal of
such material, as determined by the Admin-
istrator, which will result In reasonable
further progress toward the goal of achieving
compliance with the requirements of this
part.
§ 227.5 Less strictly regulated dumping
and disposal acts.
§ 227.51 Wastes of a non-toxic nature.
Liquid waste phases containing none
of the materials listed in 58 227.22 and
227.31 may be regarded as basically non-
toxic in the marine environment. Solid
waste phases containing any or all of
the materials listed in §{ 227.22 and
227.31 in forms insoluble or soluble but
not exceeding the acceptable limits of
5 227.22 (f) or limiting permissible con-
centrations of § 227.71 may also be re-
garded as non-toxic in the marine en-
vironment. Permit applications for such
materials may be evaluated on the basis
of the chemical composition and physical
nature of the waste without the need
for a bioassay as required under § 227.31.
§ 227.52 Solid wastes.
Solid wastes of natural minerals or
materials compatible with the ocean en-
vironment may be generally approved
for ocean disposal provided tbey are In-
soluble above the applicable trace or
limiting permissible concentrations and
are rapidly and completely settleable, or
they are of a particle size and density
that they would be deposited or rapidly
dispersed without damage to benthic,
demersal, or pelagic biota,
§227.6 Disposal of dredged material.
The dumping of any material dredged
or excavated from the navigable waters
RULES ANO REGULATIONS
of the United States is regulated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. With re-
spect to the dumping of such material in
the ocean, the following definitions and
criteria will be considered:
(a) Dredged materials are bottom
sediments that have been dredged or ex-
cavated from the navigable waters of
the United States. In that sediments are
known to Include and/or to exhibit a
capacity for absorption and adsorption
of a wide variety of chemical substances,
including man-made pollutants, the
presence or absence of pollutants within
sediments may be used as an index of the
history of exposure of the sediments to
domestic and industrial discharges, as
well as urban and agricultural runoff.
(b) Because the natural processes of
sediment absorption, adsorption, dep-
osition, resuspenslon, and redeposltion
may alter the toxic or other pollutions!
properties of municipal. Industrial, or
runoff wastes incorporated into bottom
sediments, practical Implementation of
the criteria of §§ 227.22 and 227.31 will
be achieved through the procedures of
the following sections In differentiating
between unpolluted and polluted dredged
material.
(c) The dumping of dredged material
in the ocean. wiH be permitted subject
to the conditions outlined in §5 227.61
through 227.64 unless there is evidence
that the proposed disposal will have an
unacceptable adverse impact on munici-
pal water supplies, «h»»iifl»ri beds, wild-
life, fisheries (inrinrfing spawning and
breeding/ areas), or recreational areas.
(d) Decisions fmmming the.disposal
of dredged material In the ocean will be
based on considerations of the actual
need for such disposal, alternatives to
ocean dumping, the nature and extent
of the environmental Impact, and the
economic cost* or benefits Involved.
§ 227.61 Unpolluted dredged material.
Dredged mat^rl^H may be classified as
unpolluted based on the known primary
source (s) of the sediments, the history
of its exposure to pollutants, and its
physical composition. If the sediments
cannot be classified as unpolluted ac-
cording to the following criteria, labora-
tory analyses will be required. Dredged
material will be considered unpolluted
if it meets one of the following condi-
tions:
(a) The dredged material Is composed
essentially of sand and/or gravel, or of
any other naturally, occurring sedimen-
tary materials with particle sizes larger
than silts and claya, generally found in
inlet channels, ocean bars, ocean en-
trance channels to sounds and estuaries,
and other areas of normally high wave
energy such as predominates at open
coastlines.
(b) If the water quality at and near
the dredging site is adequate, according
to the applicable State water quality
standards, for the propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife, and if the biota
associated with the material to be
dredged are typical of a healthy eco-
system, taking into account the normal
frequency of dredging, the sediments
can be reasonably classified as unpol-
luted.
(c) If it produces a standard elutriate
— which the concentration of no major
constituent is more than 1.5 times the
concentration of the same constituent In
the water from the proposed disposal
site used for the testing. The "standard
elutriate" is the supernatant resulting
from the vigorous 30-minute shaking of
one part bottom sediment with four parts
water from the proposed disposal site
followed by one hour of letting the mix-
ture settle and appropriate filtration or
centrtfugation. "Major constituents" are
those water quality parameters deemed
critical for the proposed dredging and
disposal sites taking into account known
point or areal source discharges In the
area, and the possible presence In their
wastes of the materials in §§ 227.22 and
227.31.
§ 227.62 Disposal of unpolluted dredged
material.
Material which is determined to be un-
polluted may be dumped at any site
which has been approved for the dump-
ing of settleable solid wastes of natural
origin.
§ 227.63 Polluted dredged material.
Any dredged material which cannot
be classified as unpolluted according to
the requirements of 5 227.61 \s regarded
as polluted dredged material.
§ 227.64 Disposal of polluted dredged
material.
Polluted dredged material may be dis-
posed of in the ocean If It can be shown
that the place, time, sod conditions of
dumping are such as not to produce an
unacceptable advene Impact on the areas
of the marine environment cited in
§227.60(c). When material has been
found to be polluted In accordance with
§227.61(0, bioassay tests may be per-
formed when it can be shown that the
results of such tests can be used to as-
sist In setting disposal conditions. To
minimize the possibility of any such
harmful effects, disposal conditions must
be carefully set, with particular atten-
tion being .given to the following factors:
(a) Disposal site selection. (1) Dis-
posal sites should be areas where benthic
life which might be damaged by the
dumping is minimal.
(2) The disposal site must be located
such that disposal operations will cause
no unacceptable adverse effects to known
nursery or productive fishing areas.
Where prevailing currents exist, the cur-
rents should be such that any suspended
or dissolved matter would not be carried
in to known nursery or productive fish-
ing areas or populated or protected
shoreline areas.
(3) Disposal sites should be selected
whose physical environmental charac-
teristics are most amenable to the type
of dispersion desired.
(b) Dumping conditions. 'I> Times of
dumping should be chosen, wbere pos-
sible, to avoid interference with tte
seasonal reproductive and migratory
cycles of aquatic life in the disposal area
(2) If the type of material Involved
and the environmental characteristics
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 38, NO. 198—MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1973
B-12
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
lit the disposal site should make either
maximum or ^minimum dispersion de-
sirable, the discharge from and move-
ment of the vessel during dumping
should be in such a manner as to obtain
the desired result to the fullest extent
feasible.
§ 227.65 Revision of lest procedure*.
Test procedures and values mentioned
above are based on the best currently
available knowledge and, are subject tc
revision and modification based on the
general increase of knowledge or specific
Information on the effects of the dis-
posal of dredged materials in the ocean.
§ 227.7 Definitions.
§ 227.71 Limiting permissible concen-
tration*.
The limiting permissible concentra-
tion is:
(a) That concentration of a waste
material or chemical constituent in the
receiving water which, after reasonable
allowance for initial mixing in the mix-
ing zone, will not exceed 0.01 of a con-
centration shown to be toxic to appro-
priate sensitive marine organisms in a
bloassay carried out in accordance with
approved EPA procedures; or
(b) 0.01 of a concentration of a waste
material or chemical constituent other-
wise shown to be detrimental to the ma-
rine environment.
§ 227.72 Release zone.
A release zone Is the area swept out by
the locus of points constantly 100 meters
from the perimeter of the conveyance
engaged in dumping activities, beginning
at the first moment in which dumping is
scheduled to occur and ending at the
the last moment in which dumping is
scheduled to occur. For disposal through
an outfall or other fixed stucture, the
release zone is measured from the point
at which the waste material enters the
ocean if no diffuser Is used, or from the
length of outfall along which diffuser
ports are located.
§ 227.73 Mixing zone.
(a) The mixing zone is the region into
which a waste is initially dumped or
otherwised discharged, and into which
the waste will mix to a relatively uniform
concentration within four hours after
dumping. It is required that the concen-
tration of all waste materials or trace
contaminants be at, or below, the limit-
ing permissible concentration at the
boundaries of the mixing zone at all
times and within the mixing zone four
hours after discharge. The actual con-
figuration of a mixing zone will depend
upon vessel speed, method of disposal,
type of waste, and ocean current and
wave conditions. For the purposes of
these regulations a volume equivalent to
that of a mixing zone is the column of
water immediately contiguous to the re-
lease zone, beginning at the surface of
the water and ending at the ocean floor,
the thermocline or halocline, if one
exists, or 20 meters, whichever is the
shortest distance.
(b) Fof disposal through an outfall or
other structure, the volume of the mix-
Ing zone will be measured by projecting
the release zone at the depth of the point
of release or the waste to the nearest
hydrodynaznic discontinuities above and
below that point, but in no case exceed-
ing 20 meters in total distance. Diffusion
of wastes beyond the limits of the mixing
zone will be estimated by standard
oceanographic methods of calculation
acceptable to the Administrator or his
designee.
§ 227.74 High-level radioactive wastes.
High-level radioactive waste means
the aqueous waste resulting from the
operation of the first cycle solvent ex-
traction system, or equivalent, and the
concentrated waste from subsequent ex-
traction cycles, or equivalent, in a fa-
cility for reprocessing Irradiated reactor
fuels or irradiated fuel from nuclear
power reactors.
§ 227.8 Amendment of criteria.
In the event that the Administrator or
his delegate concludes that it is desirable
to amend this Part, he shall announce
his Intention of doing so by publishing
notice thereof in the FEDERAL REGISTER,
and shall thereafter follow the proce-
dures prescribed in section 4 of the Ad-
ministrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C.
553). Any person proposing amendments
to this Part shall notify the Administra-
tor of the amendments so proposed, and
the .justifications supporting.the amend-
ments so proposed. Should the Adminis-
trator reject the amendments so pro-
posed, he shall notify the proponent of
such action within 30 days of the date
upon which such amendments were given
to him.
[PR Doc.73-21343 Filed lftrl2-73;8:46 am]
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL, 38, NO. 198—MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1973
B-13
-------
APPENDIX C
CONSTRUCTION GRANT REGULATIONS
OF JULY, 1971 UNDER
SECTION 8 OF THE
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
-------
APPENDIX C
TITLE 18 - CONSERVATION OF POWER AND WATER RESOURCES
Chapter V - Environmental Protection Agency
PART 601 - GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Subpart B - Grants for Construction of Treatment Works
On July 10, 1970, pursuant to the authority in section 8 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1159), notice
of proposed rule making was published in the Federal Register (35 F.R. 8942)
which set forth the text of an amendment to Subpart B of Part 601 relating
to minimally acceptable performance requirements for treatment works.
Pursuant to the above notice, a number of comments have been re-
ceived from interested persons, and due consideration has been given
to all relevant matter presented. In light of the preceding, a number
of revisions have been made in the amendment as proposed.
In accordance with the statement in the notice of proposed rule
making, §601.25 is amended by revising paragraph (b) thereof as follows,
effective on publication.
§601.25 Grant limitations.
(b) No grant shall be made for any project unless the applicant
provides assurance satisfactory to the Administrator that the proposed
treatment works, or part thereof, will adequately treat sewage or
industrial wastes of a liquid nature in order to abate, control, or
prevent water pollution. No such assurance will be satisfactory
unless it includes assurance that the treatment works or part thereof,
if constructed, operated and maintained in accordance with plans,
designs and specifications will result in: (1) Substantially complete
removal of all floatable and settleable materials; (2) removal of
not less than 85 percent of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand; (3) substan-
tially complete reduction of pathogenic micro-organisms; and (4) such
additional treatment as may be necessary to meet applicable water quality
standards, recommendations of the Administrator or order of a court
pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Act: Provided, that in the case
of a project which will discharge wastes into the open ocean waters
through an ocean outfall, the Administrator may waive the requirements
or subparagraph (2) of this paragraph if he determines that such
discharges will not adversely affect the open ocean environment and
adjoining shores: Provided further, that in the case of a project
designed solely to treat or control wet weather combined sewer
C-2
-------
overflows, the Administrator may waive the requirements of subparagraphs
(2) and (3) if he finds such project to be consistent with river basin
and regional or metropolitan plans to meet approved water quality
standards.
Dated: July 8, 1971.
William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
(Doc.71-9884 Filed 7-12-71;8:51am)
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D
SECONDARY TREATMENT INFORMATION
AUGUST, 1973
-------
RULES AND REGULATIONS
Title 40—Protection of Environment
CHAPTER I—ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHAPTER D—WATER PROGRAMS
PART 133—SECONDARY TREATMENT
INFORMATION
On April 30,1973, notice was published
In the FXDERAL REGISTER that the En-
vironmental Protection Agency was pro-
posing information on secondary treat-
ment pursuant to section 304(d) (1) of
the Federal .Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act).
Reference should be made to the-.pre-
amble of the proposed rulemaking for a
description of the purposes and Intended
use of the regulation.
Written comments on the proposed
rulemaking were invited and received
from interested parties. The Environ-
mental Protection Agency has care-
fully considered all comments received.
All written comments are on file with the
Agency.
The regulation has been reorganized
and rewritten to Improve clarity.
Major changes that -were made as a re-
sult of comments received are sum-
marized below:
(a) The terms "1-week" and "1-
month" as used In § 133.102 (a) and
(b) of the proposed rulemaking- have
been changed to 7 consecutive days and
30 consecutive days respectively (See
} 133.102 (a), (b),and >.
(b) Some comments indicated that the
proposed rulemaklng appeared to re-
quire 85 percent removal of biochemical
oxygen demand and suspended solids
only in cases when a treatment works
would treat a substantial portion of ex-
tremely high strength Industrial waste
(See § 133.102(g) of the proposed rule-
making) . The intent was that In no case
should the percentage removal of bio-
chemical oxygen demand and suspended
solids in a 30 day period be less than 85
percent. This has been clarified In the
regulation. In addition, it has been ex-
pressed as percent remaining rather than
percent removal calculated using the
arithmetic means of the values for In-
fluent and effluent samples collected in
a 30 day period (See 5 133.102 (a) and
(b)).
(c) Comments were made as to the
difficulty of achieving 85 percent removal
of biochemical oxygen demand and sus-
pended solids during wet weather for
treatment works receiving flows from
combined sewer systems. Recognizing
this, a paragraph was added which
will allow waiver or adjustment of that
requirement on a case-by-case basis
(See 5 133.103(a)).
(d) The definition of a 24-hour com-
posite sample (See i 133.102(c) of the
proposed rulemaking) was deleted from
the regulation. The sampling require-
ments for publicly owned treatment
works wlD be established In guidelines
Issued pursuant to sections 304 (g) and
402 of the Act.
(e) In 5133.103 of the proposed rule-
making, It was recognised that secondary
treatment processes are subject to upsets
over which little or no control may be
exercised. This provision has been de-
leted. It is no longer considered necessary
in this regulation since procedures for
notice and review of upset Incidents will
be Included In discharge permits Issued
pursuant to section 402 of the Act.
(f) Paragraph (f) of J 133.102 of the
proposed rulemaking. w^iich relates to
treatment works which receive substan-
tial portions of high strength industrial
wastes, has been rewritten for clarity. In
addition, a provision has been added
which limits the use of the upwards ad-
justment provision to only those cases in
which the flow or loading from an Indus-
try category exceeds 10 percent of the
design flow or loading of the treatment
works. This intended to reduce or elimi-
nate the administrative burden which
would be Involved in making Inrignifl-
cant adjustment* In the biochemical
oxygen demand and suspended solids
criteria (See i 133.103 0»).
The major comments for which
changes were not made are discussed
below:
(a) Comments were received which
recommended that the regulation be
written to allow effluent limitations to be
based on the treatment necessary to meet
water quality standards. No change has
been made in the regulations because the
Act and Its legislative history clearly
show that the regulation Is to be based
on the capabilities of secondary treat-
ment technology and not ambient water
quality effects.
(b) A number ~of comments were re-
ceived which pointed out that waste sta-
bilization ponds alone are not generally
capable of achieving the proposed efflu-
ent quality in terms of suspended solids
and fecal coliform bacteria. A few com-
menters expressed the opposite view. The
Agency is-of the opinion that with proper
design (including solids separation proc-
esses and disinfection in some cases) and
operation, the level of effluent quality
specified can be achieved with waste
stabilization ponds. A technical bulletin
will be published in the near future which
will provide guidance on the design and
operation of waste stabilization ponds.
(c) Disinfection must be employed In.
order to achieve the fecal coliform bac-
teria levels specified. A few cnmni enters
argued that disinfectant Is not a second-
ary treatment process and therefore the
fecal coliform bacteria requirements
should be deleted. No changes were made
because disinfection Is considered by the
Agency to be an Important element of
secondary treatment which is necessary
for protection of public health (See
5133.102CC)).
Effective date. These regulations shall
become effective on August 17,1973.
Chapter I of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended by add-
ing a new Part 133 as follows:
Sec.
133.100 Purpoee.
133.101 Authority.
133.103 Secondary treatment.
133.103 Bp«clal considerations.
133.104 Sampling and te*t procedures.
ATJTHOMTT: Bec«. 3O4()(1), S01(b) (1) (B),
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ment*. 1073, Pi. B3-COO.
§ 133.100 PurptMe.
This part provides information on the
level of effluent quality attainable
through the application of secondary
treatment.
g 133.101 Authority.
The Information contained in this
Part Is provided pursuant to sections
304(d) (1) and 301(b) (1) (B) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, PL 92-500 (the
Act).
% 133.102 Secondary treatment.
The following paragraphs describe the
level of effluent quality attain-
JOHM OTTARUB,
Acting Administrator
AUGUST 14,1913.
able by secondary treatment In terms of
the parameters biochemical oxygen de-
mand, suspended solids, fecal coliform
bacteria and pH. All requirements for
each parameter shall be achieved except
as provided for in 5 133.103.
(a) Biochemical oxygen demand (five-
day).
-------
(2) The geometric mean of the values
for effluent samples collected In a period
of seven consecutive days shall not ex-
ceed 400 per 100 mllllllteri.
(d) pH. The effluent values for pH shall
remain within the limits of 6.0 to 9.0.
§ 133.103 Special coiuiderations.
(a) Combined tewers. Secondary
treatment may not be capable of meet-
ing the percentage removal requirements
of paragraphs (a) (3) and (b) <3) of
i 133.102 during wet weather In treat-
ment works which receive flows from
combined sewers (sewers which are de-
signed to transport both storm water
and sanitary sewage). For such treat-
ment works, the decision must be made
on a ease-by-case basis as to whether
any attainable percentage.removal level
can be defined, and if so, what that level
should be.
RULES AND REGULATIONS
(b) Industrial wastes. For certain In-
dustrial categories, the discharge to nav-
igable waters of biochemical oxygen de-
mand and suspended solids permitted
under sections 301(b) (1) (A) (1) or 306 of
the Act may be less stringent than the
values given In paragraphs (a)(l). and
(b) (1) of 5 133.102. In cases when wastes
would be introduced from such an indus-
trial category into a publicly owned
treatment works, the values for biochemi-
cal oxygen demand and suspended solids
In paragraphs (a)(l) and (b)(l) of
9 133.102 may be adjusted upwards pro-
vided that: (1) the permitted discharge
of such pollutants, attributable to the
industrial category, would not be greater
than that which would be permitted
under sections 301(b) (1) (a) (1) or 308
of the Act If such Industrial category
were to discharge directly Into the navi-
gable waters, and (2) the flow or loading
of such pollutants Introduced by the In-
dustrial category exceeds 10 percent of
the design flow or loading of the publicly
owned treatment works. When such an
adjustment Is made, the values for bio-
chemical oxygen demand or suspended
solids In paragraphs (a) (2) and (b) (2)
of § 133.102 should be adjusted propor-
tionally.
§ 133.104 Sampling and tc.it procedures.
(a) Sampling and test procedures for
pollutants listed In 9 133.102 shall be In
accordance with guidelines promulgated
by the Administrator pursuant to sec-
tions 304(g) and 402 of the Act.
(b) Chemical oxygen demand (COD)
or total organic carbon (TOO may be
substituted for biochemical oxygen de-
mand (BOD) when a long-term BOD:
COD or BOD:TOC correlation has been
demonstrated.
|FR Doc.73-17194 Filed 8-lft-73;8:46 am]
FEDEKAl IEGISTE», VOL. 31, NO. 159—FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 1973
D-3
-------
APPENDIX E
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
OPINIONS ON SECONDARY TREATMENT
AND OCEAN OUTFALLS
April 19, 1974 and December 27, 1972
-------
APPENDIX E
\p
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
1 9 1974
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Rhett
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water Program Operations (AW-446)
FROM: Ray McDevitt
Attorney, Oftice of Enforcement and General Counsel (EG-331)
SUBJECT: Ocean Outfalls and Secondary Treatment
Question
You have asked whether, under the current provisions of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, the Administrator may establish exceptions
to the minimum requirements of secondary treatment, now set forth in
40 CFR Part 133, on the basis of water quality considerations,
Answer
No. The Act does not contemplate exceptions to the requirements of
secondary treatment based on the anticipated effects of that treatment on
the quality ot the ambient receiving water. Accordingly, in order for the
Agency to allow municipalities discharging into coastal waters to provide a
lesser degree of pollutant reduction than required by the present definition
of secondary treatment, the Act will have to be amended.^
1 Section 318 ot the Act authorizes the Administrator to permit, the discharge
of pollutants in connection with approved aquaculture projects. As I under-
stand it, the regulations governing aquaculture projects, which are about to
be proposed, would allow the discharge of specific pollutants in quantities
greater than those otherwise permitted under the Act, if certain criteria
are met. For example, the applicant must show that pollutants exempted
from §401 and 402 will be beneficial to the organisms under culture, will
be confined to the area of the aquaculture project and that the aquaculture
crop will have commercial value. Any municipal plant discharging into coastal
or ocean waters is, of course, entitled to apply for an aquaculture permit.
However, there is nothing to suggest that such dischargers are more likely to
obtain these permits than are other categories of dischargers. Any effort to
apply the criteria more leniently in the case of ocean dischargers or to tailor
the criteria to allow a higher percentage of ocean dischargers to qualify would
no doubt be perceived (.correctly) as an indirect modification of the secondary
treatment standards and would be unlikely to succeed.
E-2
-------
Discussion
I have reviewed the Act and the pertinent legislative history. I- have
discovered nothing which suggests that the conclusions previously reached
on this subject by John quarles, Alan Kirk, Robert Zener, William Frick
and Alan Eckert are not correct.
The Report accompanying the Senate version of the 1972 Amendments
(S2770) made clear that both the 1972 standard of "best practicable control
technology currently available" (which is applicable to industrial discharges)
and "secondary treatment" (which is applicable to discharges from publicly-
owned treatment works) are to be based on the capacity of defined levels of
technology to remove pollutants:
"The application of Phase I technology to industrial
point sources is based on the control technologies
for those sources and to publicly-owned treatment
works is based upon secondary treatment. It is not
based upon ambient water quality considerations."
(S. Rep. 92-414, p. 43)
The same report also states:
"in primary treatment of sewage, between 30 percent
and 50 percent of organic pollution is removed. With
secondary treatment between 50% and 90% is removed."
Ud. p. 6) .
Moreover, the Committee Report accompanying the House bill (H.R. 11896)
states:
"Secondary treatment as considered in the context of a.
publicly-owned treatment works is generally concerned
with suspended solids and biologically degradable oxygen
demanding material." (E. Rep, 92-911, p. 788).
It is not, therefore, open to the Agency to amend the secondary treatment
regulations in such a way as to require removal of heavy metals or toxic
materials from ocean dischargers while permitting relatively uncontrolled
discharge of oxygen demanding materials.
As previous memoranda have indicated, and the Conference Committee
Report makes clear, the guidelines establishing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by secondary treatment are intended to establish a
nationally uniform level of treatment which is determined by the removal
E-3
-------
efficiencies of certain treatment technologies and not by ambient harm,
(See S. Rep, 92-1236, p, 126). As with the corollary requirement of
best practicable control technology, this level is a minimum, to be varied
only where additional levels of treatment are necessary to meet water
quality standards.
Ray McDevitt
2 Section 403 of the Act, which provides for the establishment of ocean
discharge guidelines and for consideration of these guidelines in the
issuance of permits under Section 402, appears to be analogous in its
effect to water quality standards. ihat is, permit conditions more
stringent than those required under Sections 301, 304 and 306 may be
imposed in particular permits on the basis of Section 403 guidelines
(for example, those on mercury or cadimum - 40 CFR 227.22). However,
less stringent limitations contained in the ocean dumping guidelines
do not authorize deviations from secondary treatment anymore than do
lenient water quality standards.
E-U
-------
•| ^\J77 £ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\, -o^ WASHINGTON. D.C* 20460
*i PflCrt4-
DEC 2 7 1972
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL
MEMORANDUM
TO : Assistant Administrator for Air and Water Programs
FROM : Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and General
Counsel
SUBJECT : Definition of "Secondary Treatment" -- Ocean Outfalls
Question
You have asked whether the definition of "secondary treatment"
under section 304(d)(l) may include primary treatment in the case
of ocean outfalls, where the municipality demonstrates that the
primary treatment effluent does not harm the environment.
Answer
The term "secondary treatment" may not be defined under
§304(d)(l) to include primary treatment for ocean outfalls — even
where it is shown that a primary treated effluent will not harm the
aquatic environment.
Discussion
Both the Act and its legislative history clearly show that the
1977 standardsof "best practicable" for industry and "secondary
treatment" for municipalities were to be technology-based rather
than based on water quality effects. Water quality comes into play
only through the provision that stricter standards than "best
practicable" or "secondary treatment" may be imposed where necessary
to meet water quality standards (§301(b)(l)(C)). The Senate Report
makes this point clear:
"The application of Phase I technology to
industrial point sources is based on the control
technologies for those sources and to publicly
owned sewage treatment works is based upon
secondary treatment. It is not based upon
ambient water quality considerations."
E-5
-------
Senate Report No. 92-414, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. at p. 43.
In addition, §304(d)(l) requires the Administrator to define
"the degree of effluent reduction attainable through the applica-
tion of secondary treatment." This language, like the language
of §304(b)(l) (requiring the Administrator to define "the degree
of effluent reduction attainable through the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available"), is
basically tied to finding a level of technology rather than a
level of ambient harm.
Secondary treatment has had an understood meaning in the trade;
and this meaning relates to certain treatment technologies and
levels of pollutant reduction in the effluent, not to levels of
ambient harm. The usage of the term "secondary treatment" in
§304(d)(l) reflects this understood meaning. Thus I do not think
EPA has discretion to define the term by reference to effects on
water quality.
*
I recognize that Congressman Johnson, one of the conferees,
made the statement during the debate on the Conference Report that
EPA could determine that "secondary treatment" requirements are
me t. where. -the-discharge receives only primary treatment but goes
out through an ocean outfall, and there is a showing of no harm to
the aquatic environment. (Cong. Rec. daily ed. Oct. 4, 1972 at
H9130-9131, copy attached). This statement, however, is not
consonant with the plain meaning of the statute as well as other
more authoritative" legislative his~tory (see the Senate Report dis-
cussed above) .
n R. Quarles, Jr.
E-6
-------
APPENDIX F
DEFINITION OF THE OPEN OCEAN
Prepared for the EPA
Ocean Discharges/Secondary
Treatment Task Force
D. J. Baumgartner
Chief, Coastal Pollution Branch
EPA Pacific Northwest Environmental
Research Laboratory
-------
Definition of the Open Ocean
The locations and physical configuration of ocean outfalls are
determined by depth, distance from water use areas to be protected,
circulation and mixing features of the local coastal waters and factors
influencing interactions of wastes with the environment.
The importance of depth in determining the maximum initial dilution
achieved by the forced plume rising due to buoyancy (See Figure 1) has
been extensively investigated (Brooks, 1973) and detailed nomographic
solutions (Shirazi and Davis, 1972) and computer programs (Baumgartner,
et.al., 1971) have been developed to facilitate design calculations.
The mechanics of fluid flow in the transition zone from a rising plume
to a horizontal drift flow are not well defined, however, it is convenient
to assume that no additional dilution is achieved in this region. The
travel time involved to this point is usually on the order of minutes,
insignificant to bacterial die-off, but important for chemical reactions.
Increased depth may not always increase the net efficiency because poor
net flushing of a deep basin with the open sea may cause vertical cycling
of the effluent (Figure 2.) The diffusers can be designed so that the
drift field is caused to surface, or remain submerged. The choice is
variable depending on whether the surface and subsurface currents are
predominantly offshort or onshore, on relative flushing efficiencies, and
on biochemical considerations. The depth chosen for one parameter (Zl)
may not be the optimum choice for all effluent parameters (22-17.}
The distance offshore is generally selected so that water quality
criteria in nearshore use areas will not be violated under assumed worst
conditions of onshore current and wind based on data derived from histor-
ical records. Figure 3 is a hypothetical representation of water quality
criteria expressed as a concentration - time frequency diagram inspired by
the State of California (1972a) criteria. This, if well founded, allows
for a more precise, but more demanding analysis of oceanographic condi-
tions to assure that a sufficient distance is selected so that no portion
of the critical line is below the time history curve of observed concen-
trations within the use area. Figure 4 shows that dilutions achieved in
the drift flow region are small (factor of 2-3) for times on the order of
hours to days and distance of miles, compared to plume dilutions. In this
graph, an eddy dispersion coefficient is assumed to be constant as a con-
servative estimate. Dilutions of a greater degree (factor of 6-12) can be
predicted using dispersion coefficients which increase as a function of
time (or length scale.) Just how this factor increases is still of current
research interest, as is the methodology to acquire field estimates of
numerical values for the coefficient (Callaway, 1974.)
F-2
-------
Greater distance offshore may provide the desired increased travel
time for protection during adverse conditions of onshore current. On
possible larger scales of concern (weeks) for other parameters and other
water use areas (100 square kilometers,) the local circulation features
need to be considered. Stagnation in deep basins or in eddies of hori-
zontal extent (Figure 5) may negate any advantages sought from increased
distance offshore. Appropriate conventional oceanographic investigations
need to be conducted to assess the importance of these and other features.
(Rip currents and submarine canyons may offer exploitable advantages for
proper disposal of wastes.)
Long term transport of particulates is predicted using only simpli-
fied mechanics based on Stoke's Law and point source models. Shelf
circulation models (Callaway, et.al., 1974) should be considered for the
more realistic analysis capabilities they offer in terms of multilayer
flows, multiple source inputs, and large scale circulation features.
Additional precautions need to be considered near the mouths of
estuaries due to possible tidal transport of pollutants into estuarine
areas where they may be retained. Callaway (in preparation) has proposed
that the combined effects of landward tidal current, which decays with
distance offshore, can be combined with onshore wind speed to select a
distance which assures that surface flows will be effectively retained
outside the estuary. His expression,
L =
is evaluated in Figure 6 for several conservative conditions. Additional
distance may be required to prevent the subsurface transport of pollutants
into estuaries due to the characteristic landward flow of deep sea water
into the mouths of estuaries (USGS, 1970.)
For convenience of applying the principles and judgements discussed
above in a workable way, the open ocean might be defined as that portion
of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, and international waters,
seaward of a zone of maximum protection. The line of demarcation for
this zone, as shown schematically in Figure 7, may be drawn from the
critical computation of the various distances described in the previous
section. Where two estuaries are close together the space between may be
defined by a conveniently drawn line connecting the respective distances
derived from Figure 6, or from a consideration of studies employing sea-
bed drifters. If an outfall is to be placed in a coastal region between
estuaries, computations of the necessary depth, distance, and circulation
may be found controlling. Local features may suggest a controlling
distance even without specific waste discharges in mind. Whether this
line is taken to be the point where an ocean outfall may be placed, or
the line where sensitive uses are to be protected needs to be decided
before a precise location can be established. The range of distances
is easily within 2-20 nautical miles, the outside range is not worthy
of speculation at this time.
F-3
-------
This exclusion zone, or zone of maximum protection is a zone where
ocean outfalls and other waste dumping should be prohibited, or, if not
prohibited, dedicated to the improvement and maintenance of the highest
degree of water quality needed to protect all marine water uses, save
one. To be effective, the "waste assimilative capacity" of the marine
waters must be pre-empted as an allowable water use in this plan.
Municipalities which choose to discharge into this zone, and indeed every
municipality far upstream along the rivers which empty into the ocean,
must be committed to ever-increasing demands to provide the maximum amount
of treatment, certainly secondary and possibly tertiary, to preserve and
protect the sensitive and important estuarine and nearshore coastal waters.
There should be no question that these marine waters are the most produc-
tive, most sensitive to pollution, and most in need of abatement. This
zone is desirable, furthermore, in anticipation of future demands for
recreational water of high quality and with increased emphasis on natural
seashore preserves. It is entirely consistent with current federal
legislation and published literature citing the need for marine pollution
control and the ecological importance and sensitivity of nearshore marine
waters compared to offshore waters (Council on Environmental Quality, 1970;
Lauff, 1967; Moiseer, 1971; Odum, 1971; FWPCA, 1969; Ryther, 1969; Wass
and Wright, 1969.)
Adoption of a plan of this sort would present design engineers with
two clear choices - discharge near shore with maximum treatment or off-
shore with less treatment. Most of the guess work surrounding predictions
of fate and effect would be centered in the design of the offshore dis-
charge where uses are fewer and more room for risk taking exists. The
national cost of such a plan is hard to evaluate; however, some costs for
ocean outfalls (Rittall, unpublished) shown in Figure 8, can be used to
compare with costs for treatment plants (EPA, 1972.) An ocean outfall
line of 9 nautical miles, with diffusers is estimated from this chart to
cost $10 million.
A variety of predischarge ecological studies are required in desiqn-
ing ocean outfalls and post discharge monitoring efforts are implied.
Methods are available to conduct these studies (Morris, 1973; Anon, no date;
Slack, et.al., 1973; State of California, 1972b; Swartz, 1972; Menzies, 1973.!
These methods and their applications may be far from completely satisfactory,
however, and continued criticism can be expected along with, hopefully,
improvements (McGowan, et.al., 1969.)
F-U
-------
CURRENT
ENTRAINMENTOF
DILUTION WATER
FIGURE F-1 WASTE FIELD GENERATED BY TYPICAL OCEAN OUTFALL
F-5
-------
EFFECT OF RESTRICTED FLUSHING ON NET
EFFICIENCY OF DEEP D f FFUSERS
NET FLOW.
FIGURE F-2
F-6
-------
01
z
o
g
tr
• h-
z
ui
O
O
O
2
900
800 h
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
9
8
7
6
PERCENTAGE OF OBSERVATIONS EXCEEDING CONCENTRATION
8 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98
I I I I I I I I I I I I
OBSERVATION IN CASE V
SHOW VIOLATION OF LIMIT "A"
ALLOWABLE LIMIT "A"
CASE "b" VIOLATES "A"
ALLOWABLE LIMIT "B"
CASE "a" VIOLATES "B"
•••*.
A'
CASE "b" MEETS LIMIT "B
I I
I I I I
I I I
FIGURE F-3 MARINE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA DESCRIBED AS CONCENTRATION
- TIME HISTORY FUNCTIONS
F-T
-------
CENTERLINE DILUTION AS A FUNCTION OF
TRANSPORT AND DISPERSION
E EDDY DIFFUSIVITY
X - DISTANCE
U = CURRENT SPEED
b= INITIAL FIELD WIDTH
i i i i i i i i
6.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
TRANSPORT AND DISPERSION TERM, 12EX
Ub'
FIGURE F-4
FIGURE F-5 EXAMPLE OF OUTFALL LOCATION WHERE FULL ADVANTAGE OF
DISTANCE IS NOT REALIZED DUE TO POOR CIRCULATION
F-8
-------
MINIMUM SAFE DISCHARGE DISTANCE AS A FUNCTION
OF ONSHORE WIND SPEED AND ONSHORE TIDAL CURRENT
EVALUATION OF L = VTe KVT + WD
FOR T = D = 6HOURS AND -0.04.
WHERE V = AVERAGE FLOOD TIDE
VELOCITY, nm/hr
W = ONSHORE WIND VELOCITY, nm/hr
K = EXCURSION COEFFICIENT, nm~1
(AFTER CALLAWAY, IN PREP.)
25
20
e/j
P
<
Z.
10
K =0.0
O O
D o o ^
0 o o ^ ° o o
o ,? ° ° o o o
0 o o o o o o
w=io
W = 5
W = 0
1
i J
V, NAUTICAL MILES/HOUR
I
4
K = 0.05
= 0.2
FIGURE F-6
F-9
-------
ZONE OF MAXIMUM PROTECTION
(PROHIBITED OR RESTRI CTED DISCHARGE)
OPEN OCEAN
(SEAWARD OF PROHIBITED ZONE)
54321
• •• a
EXAMPLE LEGEND
Nun
0
HZ
A
15
C
ticul Miles
5
1
2 11.111.
= S n.m.
= 5 n.in.
10
1
FIGURE F-7
A POSSIBLE WORKING DEFINITION OF OPEN OCEAN WATERS
WITH REGARD TO A NATIONAL POLICY FOR OCEAN DISPOSAL
F-10
-------
OCEAN OUTFALL COSTS
2000 - -
1000 - -
700
500
o
o
u.
CO
in
O
O
<
I-
2
200 - -
100 - -
70
50
20
10
COSTS ADJUSTED TO ENR INDEX = 2000
•) REINFORCED CONCRETE
CAST IRON
5 7 10 20
OUTFALL DIAMETER IN INCHES
50 70 100
200
FIGURE F-8
-------
SOURCES
Ardern, Edward, and W. T. Lockett. 1914. Experiments on the oxidation
of sewage without the aid of filters. Jour. Soc. Chem. Ind. 33:523-
539.
Baumgartner, D. J. 1970. Disposal of liquid and particulate wastes to
the Ocean. Chemical Engineering Symposium Series 67(107):46-53.
Baumgartner, D. J. 1972. Statement at a Public Hearing conducted by
the State Water Resources Control Board relative to "Water Quality
Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California." Sacramento, California,
April 20, 1972. 10 pp.
Baumgartner, D. J., D. S. Trent, and K. V. Byram. 1971. User's guide
and documentation for outfall plume model. Working Paper #80.
Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific Northwest Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. 29 pp.
Blakeslee, P. A. 1973. Monitoring conditions for municipal wastewater
effluent and sludge applications to the land. Proc. Cont. on
Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land.
Bowen, H. J. M. 1966. Trace elements in biochemistry. Academic Press.
New York,
Brooks, N. H. 1973. Dispersion in Hydrologic and Coastal Environments.
Ecological Research Series, Office of Research and Development, EPA
EPA-660/73-010. 136 pp.
Bruland, K. W., K. Bertine, M. Koide and E. D. Goldberg. 1974. History
of Metal Pollution in Southern California Coastal Zone. Environmental
Science and Technology 8(5):425-432.
Buckley, J. A. and R. I. Matsuda. 1972. Toxicity of the West Point
Treatment Plant effluent to Coho Salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. 25 pages.
Callaway, R. J. Subsurface horizontal dispersion of pollutants in open
coastal waters. Coastal Pollution Branch, Pacific Northwest
Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA. 18 pp.
Callaway, R. J., T. Laevastu, A. Stroud and M. Clancy. 1974. Computation
of tides, currents, and dispersal of pollutants in the New York
Bight from Block Island to Atlantic City with large grid size,
single and two-layer hydrodynamical-numerical models. Part 4 of a
series of four reports prepared for EPA, PNERL, Corvallis,
ENVPREDRSCHFAC, Technical Note No. 4-74. 80 pp.
F-12
-------
Carpenter, E. J. 1972. Polystyrene spherules in coastal waters.
Science 178(4062):74975Q.
Chambers, C. W. Chiorination for control of bacteria and viruses in
treatment plant efiluents. JWI'CF. 43. 228-241.
Chen, C. W. and G. T. Orlob. 1972. The accumulation and significance
of sludge near San Diego outfall. J. Wat. Poll. Contr. Fed. 44:1362-
1371.
Chen, K. Y., Naresh Rohatg. 1973. Transport of heavy metals in suspended
parti dilates upon mixing with seawater. Interim Report to Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project. 85 p.
Chuang, S. C. and V. Goldschmidt. 1974. Turbulent Diffusion in Liquid
Jets: Final Report. Project No. 16070 DEP, Program Element 1BA025.
Prepared for EPA. 126 pp.
deary, E. J. 1974. Effluent standards strategy: Rejuvenation of an
old game plan. JWPCF. 46. 9-17.
Colwell, R. R., T. E. Lovelace, L. Wan. T. Kaneko, T. Staley, P. K.
Chen, and H. Tubiash. 1972. Vibrio parahaemolyticus - isolation,
identification, classification, and ecology. Journal of Milk and
Food Technology 36(4):202-213.
Council on Environmental Quality. October, 1970. Ocean Dumping - A
National Policy. U. S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington D.C. 45
P-
Conmittee on Public Works, United States Senate. 1971. Report #92-414.
Calendar #411. USGPO. Washington, D.C. October 28, 1971.
DiGiano, F. A. and A. B. Scaramelli (1974). Wastewater treatment.
JWPCF. 46:1109-1121.
Edelman, Lester. Congressional intent of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. JWPCF 45:157-164.
Environmental Protection Agency. March 15, 1974. "Water Quality Strategy
Paper," 2nd Edition. U.S.E.P.A. Washington, D.C. 82 p.
Environmental Protection Agency. October 15, 1973. Ocean dumping,
final regulations and criteria. Federal Register, Vol. 58 #198,
Part II. Pages 28610-28621.
F-13
-------
Esvelt, L. A., W. J. Kaufman, and R. E. Selleck. 1973. Toxicity assess-
ment of treated municipal waste waters. J. Water Poll. Contr. Fed.
45:1558-1572.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1969. The National
Estuarine Pollution Study, Three Vols. U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Washington, D.C. Various paging.
Feldman, M. H. 1970. Trace materials in wastes disposed to coastal
waters: fates, mechanisms, and ecological guidance and control.
Working Paper #78, FWQA. Corvallis, Oregon (NTIS PB 202 346). 102
P-
Flemer, D. A. and D. R. Heinle. 1974. Effects of wastewater on estuarine
ecosystems. Report #33 Chesapeake Research Consortium Inc.
U. of Maryland Natural Resources Institute Ref. #74-79. 30 p.
Foxworthy, J. E. and H. R. Kneeling. 1969. Eddy diffusion and bacterial
reduction in waste fields in the ocean. Allan Hancock Foundation,
Research Grant WP 00931. FWPCA. 175 pp.
Gilath, C., S. Bilt, Y. Yoshpe-Purer and H. I Shuval. Radioisotope
tracer techniques in the investigation of dispersion of sewage and
disappearance rate of entieric organisms in coastal waters.
IAEA/SM-142/44. Oceanographic and Limnological Research Co. of the
Israel National Council for Research and Development. 12 pp.
Grabow, W. 0. K., 0. W. Prozesky and L. S. Smith. 1973. Drug resistant
coliforms call for review of water quality standards. Water Research
8: 1-9.
Grigg, R. W. and R. S. Kiwala. 1970. Some ecological effects of dischar-
ged wastes on marine life. California Fish and Game 56: 145-155.
Hendricks, T. J. and J. M. Harding. 1972. The dispersion and possible
biological uptake of ammonia in a wastefield, Point Loma, May 1972.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 11 pp.
Hiatt, C. W. 1964. Kinetics of the inactivation of viruses. Bacterio-
logical Reviews 28(2): 150-163.
Hirayama, K. and R. Hirano. 1970. Influences of high temperature and
residual chlorine on marine phytoplankton. Marine Biology 7(3):
205-213.
F-lk
-------
Huggett, R. J., 0. P. Bricker, G. R. Helz and S. E. Sommer. 1974. A
report on the concentration, distribution, and impact of certain
trace metals from sewage treatment plants on the Chesapeake Bay.
CRC publication No. 31. Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Contribution No. 628. 17 pp.
Eppley, R. W. 1971. Eutrophication in coastal waters: nitrogen as a
controlling factor. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water
Pollution Control Research Series 16010 EHC 12/71. 67 pp.
Jones, G. E. 1971. Fate of freshwater bacteria in the sea. Develop.
Ind. Microbiol. 12:141-151.
Kerzan, I., M. Lenarcic and J. Stirn. 1974. Recycling of organic
pollutants in maricultures III. - mass-cultures of selected phyto-
plankters fertilized by sewage and utilization of crops in secondary
productivity. Rev. Intern. Oceanogr. Med. Tome XXXIV. pp. 73-94.
Kleinert, S. J., P. E. Degurse and J. Ruhland. 1974. Surveys of Toxic
Metals in Wisconsin, Technical Bulletin No. 74, Department of
Natural Resources, pp. 2-8.
Kuenzler, E. J. and A. F. Chesnut. 1971. Structure and functioning of
estuarine ecosystems exposed to treated sewage wastes. Inst. Mar.
Sci., Univ. North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Annual
Rept. for 1971. 345 p.
Lauff, G. A. (ed.) 1967. Estuaries. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Pub!. 83,
Washington. 757 p.
Lisitzin, A. P. 1972. Sedimentation in the world ocean. Spec. Pub.
17. Soc. Econ. Paleo & Mineral. Tulsa, Okla. 218 pp.
Manheim, F. T., R. H. Meade and G. C. Bond. 1970. Suspended matter in
surface waters of the Atlantic continental margin from cape cod to
the Florida Keys. Science 167:371-376.
Martens, D. W. and J. A. Servizi. 1974. Acute toxicity of municipal
sewage to fingerling sockeye salmon. Int. Pacific Salmon Fish.
Comm. Progr. Rept. No. 29. 18 p.
McGowan, J. A., J. T. Enright, and E. W. Fager. 1969. The ecology and
oceanography of sewer outfalls. A Seminar held at Scripps Institution
of Oceanography, Spring 1970. 20 pp.
F-15
-------
McManus, R. J. The new law on ocean dumping - statute and treaty.
Oceans 6, September, 1973. 25-32.
Mearns, A. J. and C. S. Greene. 1973. Quantitative response character-
istics of coastal fish and benthic invertebrate communities.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. El Segundo,
California. EPA Grant R801152. 1973. Ann. Progr. Rept. 37 p.
Myers, E. P. 1974. The concentration and isotopic composition of
carbon in marine sediments affected by a sewage discharge. Ph.D.
Thesis, California Insitute of Technology, Pasadena. 179 pp.
Moseev, P. A. 1971. The living resources of the world ocean. Trans.
from Russian by N. Kaner and W. E. Ricker. Nat. Mar. Fish Service,
NOAA. 344 pp.
Morris, A. H. and F. I Hamilton. 1974. Polystrene spherules in the
Bristol Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin 5(2):26-27.
Munda, I. 1974. Changes and succession in the benthic algal association
of slightly polluted habitats. Rev. Intern. Oceanogr. Med. 34:57-
49.
Mytelka, A. I., J. S. Szachor, W. G. Guggino, H. Golub. 1973. Heavy
metals in wastewater and treatment plant effluents. JWPCF 45.
1859-1864.
T
National Academy of Sciences. 1973. Water quality criteria 1972.
Advance Copy'. Washington D.C. December, 1973. 533 pp.
National Academy of Sciences. 1973b. Research needs in water quality
criteria 1972. Washington, D.C. 1973. 14 p.
Norris, D. P., L. E. Birke Jr., R. T. Cockburn, and D. S. Parker (1973).
Marine waste disposal - a comprehensive environmental approach to
planning. JWPCF. 45. 52-70.
Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology. Third Edition. W. B.
Saunders Co., Philadelphia. 574 p.
Public Health Service. 1965. Interaction of heavy metals and biological
sewage treatment processes. Publ. #999-WP-22.
Renfro, W. C., J. E. McCauley, Bard Glenne, R. H. Bourke, D. R. Hancock,
S. W. Hager. 1971. Oceanography of the nearshore coastal waters
of the Pacific Northwest relating to possible pollution. 2 Vols.
U. S. Govt. Printing Office. 1971-442-964/355 Stock # 5501-0140.
F-16
-------
Rudolfo, K. W. and B. A. Buss. 1971. Suspended sediments increase due
to hurricane Gerda in continental shelf waters off Cape Lookout,
North Carolina. Jour. Sed. Pet. 41: 1121-1125.
Ryther, H. and M. Dunstan. 1971. Nitrogen, phosphorus and eutrophication
in coastal and marine environment. Science 171, 1008.
Schubel, J. R. 1968. Turbidity maximum of the northern Chesapeake Bay.
Science 161:1013-1015.
Shirazi, M. A. and L. R. Davis. 1972. Workbook of thermal plume
prediction. Vol. 1, submerged discharge. Environmental Protection
Technology Series EPA-R2-72-005a. 228 pp.
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. 1972. The ecology
of the Southern California Bight: Implications for water quality
management. SCCWRP, El Segundo, California. 531 pp.
Thomas, R. H. 1963. Marine Dilution and Inactivation of Sewage. Int.
0. Air Wat. Poll. 7: pp. 845-864.
Train, R. E. 1974. The quality of growth. Science, Vol. 184, 1050-
1053.
Tsuji, Takashi, Humitake Seki, and Akihiko Hattori. 1974. Results of
red tide formation in Tokyo Bay. JWPCF. 46:165-172.
Turner, C. H., E. E. Ebert and R. "R. Given. 1964. An ecological survey
of a marine environment prior to installation of a submarine outfall.
California Fish & Game. 50. 176-188.
Turner, C. H., E. E. Ebert, and R. R. Given. 1966. The marine environ-
ment in the vicinity of the Orange County Sanitation District's
ocean outfall. California Fish and Game 52: 28-48.
Turner, C. H., A. R. Strachan, and C. T. Mitchell. 1967- Survey of a
marine environment subsequent to installation of a submarine outfall.
State of California. Dept. of Fish & Game report to the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board. October 30, 1967. Various
paging.
Walsh, John. November 10, 1972. Environmental legislation: last word
from Congress. Science 178:593595.
Water Pollution Control Federation Highlights, April 1974. EPA to
support changes to PL 92-500. Published by Water Pollution Control
Federation. Washington D.C. 20016.
F-17
-------
White, G. C. 1974. Disinfection practices in the San Francisco Bay
Area. Journal WPCF 46(1): 89-101.
Young, P. H. 1964. Some effects nf sewer effluent on marine life.
California Fish and Game. 50:33-41.
Anon. 1974. Appeals court decision gives interesting insight
on health proof. Environmental Health Letter, 15,
July 1, 1974.
Anon. Handbook for coastal zone management. Conservation
Foundation, Washington, 0. C. In press.
Callaway, R. J. Defining an offshore exclusion zone, EPA
report, in preparation. Corvallis, Oregon
Code of Federal Regulation. 1973. Title 40, Chapter 1,
Part 133. Federal Register, 38(159), August 17, 1973.
Davis, E. M.,.L. W. Whitehead, and J. D. Moore. 1974. Disinfection
literature review. JWPCF. 46. 1181-1191.
Eisler, R. 1973. Annotated bibliography on biological effects of
metals in aquatic environments. National Environmental
Research Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Corvallis, Oregon. 287pp.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. The economics of Clean
Water. Volume 1. USGPO report. 5501-0377 Washington D.C.
157pp.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Draft interim analytical
methods manual for the Ocean Disposal Permit Program.
Washington, D.C. Various paging.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1969. The national
estuarine study report. 3 Vols.
Galloway, J. W. 1972. Global concepts of environmental contamination
Marine Pollution Bulletin .3. 78-79
Galloway, J. W. 1972. Man's alteration of the natural geochemical
cycle of selected trace metals. Thesis, Chemistry,
University of California, San Diego.
Goldberg, E. D. 1972. Man's role in the major sedimentary cycle.
The Changing Chemistry of the Oceans. Wiley.
F-13
-------
Goldman, 0. C., K. R. Tenore, J. H. Ryther and N. Corwin. 1973a.
Inorganic nitrogen removal in a combined tertiary treatment
-marine aquaculture system-I Removal efficiencies.
Water Research 8. 45-54.
Goldman, J. C., K. R. Tenore and H. I. Stanley. 1973b.
Inorganic nitrogen removal in a combined tertiary - marine
aquaculture system-11. Algal bioassays. Water Research 8.
55-59.
Menzies, R. G. 1973. A handbook on procedures and methods
employed in the Offshore Ecology Investigation (OEI).
Gulf Universities Research consortium Report No. 126, 220 pp.
Mitchell, R. and H. W. Jannasch. 1969. Processes controlling
virus inactivation in seawater. Environmental Science
and Technology. 3. 941-943.
Morel and Morgan. 1972. A numerical method for computing equilibira
in aqueous chemical systems. Environmental Science and
Technology 6(Issue 1): 58-67.
Murphy, R. S., R. F. Carlson, D. Nuquist, and R. Britch.
Effect of Waste Discharges into a Silt-Laden Estuary,
A Case Study of Cook Inlet, Alaska. Institute of Water
Resources, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. 1972.
National Academy of Sciences. 1970. Wastes management concepts
for the coastal zone, requirements for research and Tnvesti-
i- gation. Committee on Ocean Engineering.
Rittall, W. F. Unpublished data on ocean outfall construction
costs. Coastal Pollution Branch. EPA. Corvallis, Oregon.
Ryther, J. H. Photosynthesis and fish production in the sea.
Science, 166 72-78.
Slack, K. V., R. C. Averett, P. E. Greeson and R. G. Lipscomb. 1973.
Methods for collection and analysis of aquatic biological
and microbiological samples. Techniques of Water-
Resources investigations of the United States Geological
Survey, Book 5, Chapter A4. 165 pp.
State of California, State Water Resources Control Board. 1972a.
Ocean Waters of California. Water Quality Control Plan. 13 pp,
State of California, State Water Resources Control Board. 1972b.
Guidelines for the preparation of technical reports on waste
discharges to the ocean and for monitoring the effects of
waste discharges on the ocean. Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters of California. 65 pp.
F-19
-------
Stumm, W. 1972. The acceleration of the hydrogeochemical cycling
of phosphorus. The Changing Chemistry of the Oceans. Wiley.
Swartz, R. C. 1972. Biological criteria of environmental change
in the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Science 13
(Supplement): S17-S41.
U.S. Coast Guard. 1965. Rules of the Road. Publication 169.
Washington, D. C. 102 pp.
U. S. Geological Survey, 1970. Preliminary study of the effects
of water circulation in the San Francisco Bay estuary.
Circular 637-A.B.
Underwood, E. J, Factors influencing trace element needs and tol-
erances in man. Marine pollution bulletin, 5. 86-88.
Wass, M. L. and Wright, T. D. 1969. Coastal wetlands of Virginia.
Special report in applied marine science and ocean engineer-
ing. Number 10. Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Ward, G. H. and W. H. Espey. 1971. Estuarine modeling: an
assessment. EPA Water Pollution Control Research Series
15070DZV. 497pp.
Weber, C. I. (Ed.) 1973. Biological field and laboratory methods
for measuring the quality of surface waters and effluents.
National Environmental Protection Agency. 136 pp.
F-20
-------
APPENDIX G (1), (2), (3) and (4)
DOCUMENTS FROM MEETING OF
OCEAN DISCHARGES/SECONDARY TREATMENT
TASK FORCE
Portland, Oregon, June, 1974
-------
APPENDIX G (1)
Ocean Discharges/Secondary Treatment Task Force
Participants and Papers, June Task Force Meeting - Portland, Oregon'
Fred Harper - Orange County Sanitation Districts
Richard Marl and - State of Hawaii
Peter Baljet - State of Florida
Harold Rosen - City of Miami Beach
Leonard Weinstein - City of Miami Beach
Frank Spence - City of Miami Beach
John Bergacker - City of Miami Beach
James H. Carpenter - Consultant, City of Miami Beach
Jim Swing - Water Pollution Control Engineer, Greater Anchorage Area
Raymond Walsh - California Water Resources Control Board
William Garber - City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation
Donald C. Tillman - City of Los Angeles
Walt Garrison - Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Dick King - City of San Diego
Robert Levy - City and County of San Francisco
Charles J. Henry, Jr. - Seattle Metro
Alinda Newby - Seattle Metro
Tom Gibbs - Consultant, Seattle Metro
Richard C. Bain, Jr. - Consultant, Seattle Metro
Lee White - West Coast Committee; White, Fine and Ambrogne
*Raul E. Filardi - Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority
*R. R. Colwell - Department of Microbiology, University of Maryland
*Joel W, Hedgpeth - Marine Science Center, Oregon State University
*James Morgan - Keck Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
*Norman Brooks - Keck Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
*Fred R. McLaren - J. B. Gilbert and Associates, Sacramento, California
*Willard Bascom - Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
*Frank D. Schaumburg - Department of Civil Engineering, Oregon State Univ,
*Maximilian Cerame-Vivas - Department of Marine Sciences, Univ. of P. R.
*Daniel Smith - Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska
John Freshman - National Commission on Water Quality
Charles Carry - National Commission on Water Quality
Norman Shields - National Commission on Water Quality
Doug Henry - National Commission on Water Quality
Austin W. Nelson - National Commission on Water Quality
Craig Jeffery - National Commission on Water Quality
^Asterisk designates speakers. Summarized statements and papers
presented at the meeting are included at Appendix G(3).
G2
-------
APPENDIX G (2)
The Position and Technical Documentation
of Some
Coastal Municipalities, Hawaii and Puerto Rico
on the Need for Secondary Treatment
by
Allen M. Teeter
Prepared for the EPA
Ocean Discharges/Secondary
Treatment Task Force
G-3
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT
A. Orange County
1. Facilities
2. Position on secondary treatment issue
3. Scientific studies and opinions
4. Costs
B. Los Angeles County
1. Facilities
2. Position on secondary treatment issue
3. Scientific studies and opinions
(also see I-A-3)
4. Costs
C. City of Los Angeles
1. Facilities
2. Position on secondary treatment issue
3. Scientific studies and opinions
(also see I-A-3)
4. Costs
D. San Diego
1. Facilities
2. Position on secondary treatment issue
3. Scientific studies and opinions
(also see I-A-3)
4. Costs
II. HAWAII
A. Faci 1 i ti es
B» Position on Secondary Treatment Issue
C. Scientific Studies and Opinions
D. Costs
G-U
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
III. SEATTLE
A. Facilities
B. Position on Secondary Treatment Issue
C. Scientific Studies and Opinions
D. Costs
IV. ANCHORAGE
A. Facilities
B. Position on Secondary Treatment Issue
C. Scientific Studies and Opinions
D. Costs
V. PUERTO RICO
A. Facilities
B. Position on Secondary Treatment Issue
C. Scientific Studies and Opinions
D. Costs
VI. MIAMI BEACH
A. Facilities
B. Position on Secondary Treatment Issue
C. Scientific Studies and Opinions
D. Costs
G-5
-------
I. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT
The Southern California Bight is defined as an open embayment bounded
on the east by the reach of North American coastline extending from
Point Conception, California to Cabo Colnett, Baja California, Mexico;
and on the west by the California current (see Figure I). The
population of the coastline is now about 11 million and has seen
phenomenal grow during the recent past. Table 1 lists the mass
emissions into the Bight. Four major discharges - Los Angeles County
(371 MGD), City of Los Angeles (340 MGD), Orange County (130 MGD),
San Diego (90 MGD), - contribute 93 percent of the total municipal
wastewater currently discharged into the Bight.
A. Orange County
1. Facilities
Orange County operates a pair of interconnected treatment
plants handling about 150 MGD wastewater. The plants are essentially
primary treatment consisting of screening, grit removal, primary
sedimentation, and skimming. The sludge is digested, centrifuged,
and sold as fertilizer. The centrate is combined with the primary
effluent and discharged through a 120-inch outfall about 4 miles
offshore. The outfall discharges at a depth of 185 feet through a
6,000-foot diffuser. Details of this and other outfalls in Table 2.
2. Position on Secondary Treatment Issue
Orange County has proposed specific effluent and receiving
water limitations for pollutants after considering the available
knowledge of local environmental conditions. For discharges into
G-6
-------
o
—^
35°N
121°W
120°W
119°W
ns°w
117°W
116°W
115°W
34°N
33°N
32°N
31°N
N *o.
ft
N
>.
~*$
V,
COASTAL BASIN
STUDY AREA
DRAINAGE DIVIDE
0
50 100
. . , j 1.1 t
KILOMETERS
I I
V.
CALIFORNIA
—1 I v.^,-v
.SAN BUENAVENTURA ^-x/
^•^r-^g . • LOS ANGELES
^ ^S
^3000 M
'<>.
^
• SANTA ANA
• *%.
V
»
s
~\.
1
I DIEGO Vj
t
_A
v
I \ |
CALIFORNIA
% r
-V
\
\
I
\
\
Figure J-l The SCCWRP Study Area.
-------
ESTIMATED CONSTITUENT MASS EMISSION RATES (M TONS/YR)
INTO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT
(From Reference 1)
Constituent
Silt
Total Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
5-day Bio. Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Oil and Crease
Dissolved Silica (SiO,)
Nitrate Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Organic Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen
Phosphate Phosphorous
Detergent (MBAS)
Cyanide (CN)
Phenols
Heat (109 kwh/yr)
S il ver
Arsenic
Cadm iuro
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
I ron
Manganese
Total DDT
Total PCB
Disc
Municipal
Was teva ters
278,000
17=1,000
211.000
675,000
65,000
33,000
5 10
59,400
24.8DO
85 , 400
1 ), 100
7 , 600
.'HI
1 , 7 JO
15
54
J.O
644
567
2.9
313
211
1,680
6,000
102
19
9.7
rete Sources
Runoff Waste
274,000
16,000
6,000
29.000 78,1)00
4,400 2,200
2,800
"80
440 'I, 'Ml)
1 ,041)
J.r)IO 10,000
'.10
hi,
I 1
J69 4 1
•IV
1 .1
1 ..'
5. j
25
18
0.06
17
90
101
26,000
183
0.119
0.246
1) ( f fuse Sources
Vessels Pumping Fallout Transport Tot.il
274,000
294,000
179,000
297,000
/B2.000
71 ,1)00
15,800
1,'>LO
69 , 140
25,890
97,910
13,710
7,666
221
2,042
- 94
1.5 6,000 6,1118
1.5 2
0.1 14 :,DOO 2,0h
-------
TABLE G-2 (From Reference 2)
MAJOR OCEAN OUTFALL SYSTEMS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
]i scharge
Present Flow, MGD
Outfall Capacity, MGD
Distance from shore, ft.
Depth, ft.
Effluent Characteristics
Outfall Sizes
Diameter, inches
Diffuser diameter, inches
Diffuser length, feet
Diffuser Characteristics
Number of ports per
24-ft. length
Size of ports, inches
Total number of ports
Date Placed in Service
City of
Los Angeles
340
600
22,000
195
Primary, secondary*
Digested Sludge**
144
102,72+
7920
0.5
6.75-8.13
168
1961
Orange County
Sanitation
Districts
130
27,000
200
Primary, centrate,
Digester Supernate
120
120
6000
2
2.96-4.13
500
1971
City of
. San
Diego
90
234
14,186
200
Primary
108
78
2688
0.5
6.5 and 7
56
1963
County Sanitation
Districts-Los Angeles
90" 120"
380 (Total)
240 370
10,400 11,880
205 165-190
Primary, centrate
90 120
60 120, 102 ,72+
2400 4440
1 4
6.5 and 7.5 2 to 3.6
100 740
1956 1966
Q
I
VO
**
One-third secondary effluent; two-thirds primary effluent
Digested sludge is discharged through a separate seven mile outfall
+ Diffuse)' diameter decreases in stages
-------
territorial seas, the contiguous zone or adjacent saline tidal waters
where it can be demonstrated that conditions exist to rapidly mix and
disperse it in a seaward direction, initial diffusion and a defined
mixing zone should be considered part of the treatment process (including
secondary treatment considering the ocean as a biological treatment
system). Oxygen depletion is not a problem if proper consideration is
4
given to outfall design. Proposed effluent constituent maxima are
listed in Table 3, and Table 3a.
3. Scientific studies and opinions
The Orange County sanitation districts concur with the
conclusions and the scientific evidence collected by the Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP).1 This project was
founded in 1969 when five local Government agencies (Ventura County,
the cities of San Diego and Los Angeles, and the sanitation districts
of Los Angeles and Orange Counties) agreed to sponsor regional studies
of the coastal environment. Control was delegated to a commission of
local civic leaders and elected officials. SCCWRP has been awarded a
series of grants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over the
last few years. Its twenty-five scientific staff is organized into
divisions of biology, chemistry, and engineering. The project's
primary concern and expertise are with the effects of the ocean
discharges of municipal wastewater on sea life.
SCCWRP's findings to date and conclusions drawn regarding
various polluting substances from several existing ocean outfalls and
their effects are summarized as follows:
Oxygen Demanding Substances
The ocean waters along Southern California Bight are on the rim of a
huge reservoir of dissolved oxygen which is quite capable of handling
-------
THE EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS OF THE CONSTITUENTS LISTED ARE NOT TO EXCEED
THE FOLLOWING:
CONCENTRATIONS NOT TO BE
UNITS OF EXCEEDED MORE THAN:
MEASUREMENT 50% OF TIME 10% OF TIME
SUSPENDED SOLIDS MG/L 75. 100.
TURBIDITY JTU 75. 100.
SETTLEABLE SOLIDS ML/L 0.5 0.6
GREASE AND OIL
(HEXANE EXTRACTABLES) MG/L 25. 40
PH UNITS WITHIN LIMITS OF 6.0 to 9.0
UNITS OF MEAN* VALUE
POTENTIAL TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEASUREMENT NOT TO EXCEED
AMMONIA (N) MG/L 40.
ARSENIC MG/L 0.05
CADMIUM MG/L 0.02
CHLORINE (TOTAL RESIDUAL) MG/L 1.0
CHROMIUM MG/L 0.08
COPPER MG/L 0.2
CYANIDE MG/L 0.2
LEAD MG/L 0.1
MERCURY MG/L 0.001
NICKEL MG/L 0.2
PHENOLIC COMPOUNDS MG/L 0.5
SILVER MG/L 0.02
ZINC MG/L 0.3
* BASED ON THE AVERAGE OF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN 24-HOUR COMPOSITE SAMPLES
TAKEN DURING A 30-DAY CONSECUTIVE DAY PERIOD.
TABLE G-3 (From Reference 4)
PROPOSED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF WASTEWATER CONSTITUENTS
G-ll
-------
Orange County further recommends the following criteria:
PROPOSED MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF WASTEWATER CONSTITUENTS
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Pesticide concentrations in the effluent should not exceed the
96-hour LCso established for the most sensitive species of marine
organisms using bioassay procedures established for marine organisms
and published in Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and
Wastewaters by the American Public Health Association.
Persistent Organic Pollutants
We concur with the recommendations of the National Academy of
Sciences with regard to marine wildlife in establishing standards
based upon concentrations in fish, shellfish, or other organisms
through trophic accumulation.
OTHER PROHIBITIONS
Hazardous Substances
I. The discharge of any radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare agent into the ocean is prohibited.
2. All high level radioactive materials shall be excluded from
the collection system.
By-Passing
1. The by-passing of untreated waste to the ocean shall be
prohibited.
TABLE G-3a
| From Reference 4)
-------
many times the amounts of oxygen-demanding materials that man discharges
i_f the materials are presented to the ocean at the right place at a
reasonable rate.
No problem of oxygen depletion has been observed. The:effect of 300
mg/1 BOD on the oxygen content of the receiving water, assuming a
minimum of 100:1 dilution at the outfall diffuser and a first-hour
BOD at sea temperature of 5 mg/1, is insignificant (0.05 mg/1 in one
hour).
Nutrients: Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus
The sea is starved for these basic plant nutrients and their thoughtful
introduction into the coastal environment can be beneficial.
The highest level of nitrogen measured in-the'-Bight has been 630 yg/1.
No blooms or other effects have been observed to be attributable to
ammonia nitrogen.
The effect of moderately large ocean outfalls is to enhance the primary
productivity of the nearby ocean area as indicated by increased amount
and diversity of animals, including plankton, invertebrates, and fish.
Metals
At the present rate of discharge, metals do not appear to be a public
health or toxicity problem. Levels measured in fish and mussels showed
no uptake or bioconcentration. The effects on small marine life and of
the higher concentrations of metals found in sediments adjacent to some
outfalls are unclear and being studied.
G-13
-------
Particulates
It is necessary to ensure that these materials be spread out so that
the ocean's capacity to assimilate them is not overloaded. Too much
organic material in one spot may use up all the oxygen in the bottom
sediment and turn it anaerobic, greatly reducing the numbers of animals.
Each discharge area should be separately evaluated for its ability to
absorb particulate material.
Around the larger outfalls, there is generally a small area in which
the diversity of the bottom dwellers is reduced. However, the increase
in number and diversity just outside the depressed zone often results
in an increase in the total number of animals. These effects have
been found by experience to be reversible within a year or two. It
has been found that the turbidity caused by suspended particulate
matter stays below the thermocline and has not effected the kelp.
Floatables
Although floatable material in itself is only a minor aesthetic
annoyance, it can also transport dangerous microorganisms for long
distances. Slicks also occur naturally and are not a matter of concern.
Microorganisms
On the question of how to ensure that the public health is protected
from the dangerous types of microorganisms, there appears to be two
answers: (1) chlorinating the wastewater may be damaging to some
marine animals and depress plankton productivity; and (2) release the
material well offshore in fairly deep water via a well-designed outfall.
The latter would give plankton a better chance of consuming the microbes
G-lU
-------
prior to contact with man. Shellfish, especially filterers, can be
contaminated with pathogens. The present practices and standards for
shellfish sanitation control are adequate and should continue.
Organic Chemicals and Pesticides
These materials have been shown to be very damaging to some sea animals.
Chlorinated hydrocarbons are known to be taken up by small animals and
passed up the food web, eventually concentrating in large fish, birds
and mammals.
SCCWRP concludes that ocean waters such as those off the coast of
Southern California are quite capable of assimilating the oxygen demand
being placed on them. Some wastewater plants will find it necessary to
continue to upgrade certain aspects of the primary treatment so that
more floatables and settleables are removed. Source control of organic
chemicals such as DDT and PCB is imperative, and source control of
metals, so as to further reduce their concentration, will also be useful
although these do not seem to be causing damage.
With the above improvements (some of which have already been instituted),
some of the major outfalls will produce no measurable adverse effects.
Other larger outfalls, even when similarly upgraded, may cause some
damage to marine life, not because they discharge more damaging
toxicants, but because the sheer volume of their outflow may locally
overwhelm the ocean's capacity to assimilate material. If these
discharges were released further from shore at several widely spaced
points, this possible difficulty would be removed. SCCWRP believes
that the above steps would produce a satisfactory ocean discharge and
that there are viable alternatives to proposed effluent limits.
G-15
-------
TABLE G- 4(From Reference 5)
PERCENT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES Op VARIOUS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
I
a
Constituent
Suspended Solids
Floatable Solids
Settleable Solids
Oil and Grease
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
JWPCP
Present
Treatment
40
40
90
50
10
25
JWPCP
Primary with
Centrate Treatment
65
50-60
92
50
10
25
JWPCP
Primary with
Polymers
80
60-70
94
60
10
25
Chemical
Primary
80-90
65-75(*)
95
85-95(*)
80-90(*)
15-25(*)
Biological
Secondary
85-95
75-85(*)
95
80-90(*)
25-30(*)
20-40(*)
(*) Reference, "Concepts in Open Coastal Disposal of Municipal Wastewater, California State
Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, California, 1971.
-------
4. Costs
Three alternative plans have been studied for effectiveness
and costs. The first is a plan designed to meet the California Ocean
Plan requirements with a waiver on grease to 25 mg/1. This would be
accomplished by chemical primary sedimentation to lower suspended
solids, grease and BOD. This treatment (coagulation, flocculation
and sedimentation) would take place in a single converted primary
sedimentation basin.
The second alternative plan would meet the California Ocean
Plan without waiver and would consist of both activated sludge and
chemical primary sedimentation. A conventional activated sludge process
consisting of thickening by dissolved air flotation prior to anaerobic
stabilization would be combined with primary and chemical sludges and
anaerobically digested. The digested sludge is to be dewatered by
centrification to capture 90 percent of solids. This effluent would
then be blended with that coming from chemical sedimentation facilities
before discharge.
The final alternative would meet EPA's definition of secondary
treatment. The process consists of a two-stage biological treatment--
primary sedimentation, roughing filters (to reduce the size of the
aeration basins required) and conventional activated sludge treatment.
Table 5 shows the influent characteristics, effluent
characteristics and costs for each alternative. An eight-year staged
construction is anticipated to meet EPA's secondary treatment requirements
A stringent source control program would go with each alternative.
G-17
-------
Table G-5 (From Reference 6)
FINAL WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND COSTS
FOR ORANGE COUNTY'S THREE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Wastewater
Characteristics
(Mg/1)
Influent Effluent
CHEMICAL PRIMARY ROUGHING FILTERS
CHEMICAL + ACTIVATED SLUDGE + ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PRIMARY BLEND + CHLORINATION
BOD5
Total
Suspended
Solids
Grease
Costs
in $1 ,000's
Primary
Sedimentation
and Pumping
Improved
Treatment
Sludge
Hand! ing &
Disposal
Odor Control
Fad Titles
210 130 35 21
250 42 32 21
63 21 7 5
24,575 24,575 24,575
50,050 162,000 188,600
20,300 24,000 44,800
18,900 17,850 17,850
TOTAL COSTS 113,825 228,425 275,825
G-18
-------
B, Los Angeles County
1. Facilities
Treatment at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP)
which discharges 380 million gallons/day through the ocean outfalls
off Palos Verdes, consists of screening, grit removal, skimming and
gravity sedimentation with a clarifier detention time of 60 minutes.
About 65 percent of the suspended solids are now removed in primary
sedimentation. Sludge collected from the clarifiers is anaerobically
digested 10-12 days and then centrifuged prior to drying for use as a
fertilizer. The centrate from the centrifuge operation is combined
with primary effluent and discharged through the outfall about two
2
miles offshore. Characteristics of the outfall are given in Table 5.
Approximate overall suspended solids removal by the system is 40
percent. Removal efficiencies of floatables, settleable solids, and
total suspended solids are listed in Table 5.
2. Position on secondary treatment issue
Los Angeles County recommends that a category for the best
practicable treatment of municipal wastewaters incorporating deep-ocean
outfalls be created, in lieu of the existing requirements of PL 92-500
for secondary treatment, recognizing that the factors influencing design
and utilization of deep ocean discharge systems vary from location to
location. The assimilating power of the waters must also be well
defined. The effects of discharge can then be evaluated for several
different levels of treatment. Current scientific investigations
concerning the marine environment and the alternatives available
simply do not support the mandate of PL 92-500 requiring secondary
treatment, when properly designed deep ocean outfall can be utilized.
G- 19
-------
Based on facts gathered by Los Angeles County and others, the
discharge of plant nutrients or oxygen-demanding substances as practiced
is not damaging. The constituents of greatest concern are chlorinated
hydrocarbons and floatable particulates. A strong industrial waste
discharge policy has been adopted. Improved solids removal (and thus
metals) has been studied and a second-stage centrifuge system will be
operable by 1975.?
3. Scientific studies and opinions
The county sanitation district's ocean monitoring problem has been
concerned with trawl, benthic and sediment surveys as well as other
water quality parameters.3>7
Some findings of this monitoring problem:
Dissolved Oxygen
Measurements of dissolved oxygen made above the outfall diffuser at the
surface and at depths 10 and 20 feet below the thermocline have revealed
oxygen depressions on the order of 0.1 to 0.2 mg/1 below unaffected
areas at the same depths. Only several, out of several thousand, measure-
ments fell below 4 mg/1. This value is at least 50 percent saturation
for the conditions likely to occur, adequate to support marine life.
Calculated oxygen uptake, based on an initial dilution of 100:1 and
effluent BOD of 300 mg/1, ranged from .1 to .2 mg/1 during the first 24
hours. Similar calculations showed that effluent BOD could only utilize
from 1 to 5 percent of the advective supply of oxygen within the ocean.
Plant Nutrients
Comparisons were made between chlorophyll concentrations where natrual
G-20
-------
upwelling occurs and close to the outfalls. Chlorophyll concentrations
monitored at the upwelling stations were as high as those near the
o
outfalls but not as consistently so. The stimulation can be compared
to naturally occurring upwelling, not great enough to foster "blooms."
Sediments
Of greatest concern was the conveyance of trace elements into the
marine system. Metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons were found to be
bound to suspended solids in wastewater effluents, thus elevating the
concentrations of these elements in sediments close to the outfall.
However, metal concentrations in the livers of fish feeding close to
the outfalls were not above normal. Industrial source control programs
have reduced DDT discharge from 600 Ibs/day to 10 Ibs/day in 1970 with
a similar decrease of uptake in fish.
Los Angeles County also feels that SCCWRP's major report supports
their contention that no appreciable adverse effect has been caused by
their present discharge practices and reveals certain areas where present
practice could be improved (also see I-A-3).
4. Costs
Capital and operating costs for various alternative treatment
processes are given in Table 6. The 17 percent improvement in suspended
solids removal gained by implementing secondary treatment instead of
improved primary is obtained at a capital cost of over $200 million.
Estimated power use by a secondary treatment system is 5.5 x 10 BTU/MG,
four times the power which would be used by an improved primary system.
G-21
-------
TABLE 6-6 (From Reference 7)
CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
OF VARIOUS TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
AT THE JOINT WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
(1972 Dollars)
Treatment
Alternative
Existing
Facilities
Improved
Centrate
Processing
Polymer
Addition
Effluent
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
300
180
100
Cumulative
Capital Cost
(millions of dollars)
30
50
60
Cumulative
O&M
(mi 11 ions. of
dollars/yr)
2.5
9.6
11.1
Polymers and
Ferric Chloride
Addition 75
Activated Sludge
(without amonia
reduction and
without
filtration) 30
75
14.0
300
21.9
G-22
-------
C. City of Los Angeles
1. Facilities
The City of Los Angeles treatment facility processes about
340 MGD of wastewater. Treatment consists of screening, grit removal,
primary sedimentation, and skimming. At this point, two-thirds of the
effluent goes directly to the outfall. The remainder goes through an
activated sludge process. Detention time in the aeration tanks is
about 8 hours and for final settling tanks, 5 hours. All the sludge
is digested and screened. Screenings are hauled to a landfill, the
remainder is discharged through another outfall (about 4.7 MGD diluted).
The effluent is censtructed of 12-foot diameter concrete.
It has two 4,000-foot diffuser legs in 200 feet of water, five miles
out to sea. The design details of this outfall are given in Table 2.
The sludge outfall extends 7 miles offshore to the head of a submarine
canyon at a depth of 320 feet. It is approximately 20 inches in
9
diameter.
2. Position on secondary treatment issue
The City of Los Angeles feels that the most cost-effective
way to meet the requirements of the California State Ocean Plan is to
convert their treatment to total activated sludge, discontinue use of
the present sludge disposal system, and institute a thorough source
control program for industry. Even then, it may not be possible to
9
meet the State's limit on chromium.
The feasibility of reclaiming wastewater and various alternate
methods of disposing of the sludge output are being studied.
G-23
-------
3. Scientific studies and opinions (also see I-A-3)
The biological and chemical characterists of both receiving
waters and bottom sediments have been extensively studied by the
Hyperion staff as well as SCCWRP, Allan Hancock Foundations, Marine
Biological Consultants, Inc., Aqua-Contractors and Oceanographies, and
the academic community- Data from these sources covering FY '72 was
compiled and compared with State guidelines. The areas of consideration
include bacteria, physical characteristics (floatables, discoloration
and light transmittance), chemical characteristics of water and
sediments, biological characteristics, toxicity characteristics, and
Q
radioactivity. The general results as compared to State requirements
are 1isted in Table 7.
4. Costs
The equivalent cost of the Hyperion Plant is $115 million.
Operation and maintenance costs $27.87 per MG wastewater treated.
The additional costs of upgrading the plant to meet State and Federal
requirements are estimated to be:
Secondary Conversion $ 70,000,000
Sludge Processing and Disposal 40,000,000
Additional Sludge Digesters 15,088,000
Electrical, Plumbing, Instrumentation 3,040,000
Gas Mixing for Digesters 1,550,000
Misc. Major Improvements 1,350,000
TOTAL $121,028,000
Cost of operating the proposed secondary facility has been estimated
to be about $31/MG, for sludge disposal and additional $25/MG for a
total operated cost of S56/MG.
-------
Table G-7 (From Reference 9)
SUMMARY TABLE
EXISTING CONDITIONS VS. OCEAN PLAN
Parameter
Meets State Standards
1. Bacterialogical Characteristics
a. Most Probable Number Shoreline
b. Most Probable Number Near-shore
c. Shellfish
2. Physical Characteristics
a. Floating Participate,
Grease and Oil
b. Cone, Grease and Oil
c. Cone, Floating
Participates
d. Surface Discoloration
e. Light Transmittance
f. Deposition of Inert Solids
Virtually all the time
Virtually all the time
Virtually all the time
Not observed
Yes
No station including
ocean control
Yes
Yes
Not at sludge outfal1
3. Chemical Characteristics
a. Dissolved Oxygen Cone.
b. pH
c. Dissolved Sulfides
d. Bottom Sediments
e. Cone, of Organic Material
f. Nutrient Material
4. Biological Characteristics
a. Marine Communities
b. Taste, Odor and Color
5. Toxicity Characteristics
6. Radioactivity
Most of the time
Most of the time
Not observed
Usually not
Not at sludge outfall
Not at sludge outfal1
Not at sludge outfal1
Yes
Yes
No
G-25
-------
D. San Diego
1. Facilities
San Diego's main treatment facility is a primary treatment
process with sludge digestion. The sludge is mixed with seaweed and
used as soil amendment. The 90 MGD effluent is discharged 2^ miles
offshore in 200 feet of water. Outfall characteristics are given
in Table 2.
2. Position on secondary treatment issue
San Diego's long-term problem is one of water supply and
not pollution. Consequently, San Diego would proceed to zero discharge
whether, there was a PL 92-500 or not because of the water recycle
advantage, which is a-necessary consideration for the next 30-year
planning period. The sequencing steps of PL 92-500 would prevent
obtaining the zero discharge goal.
San Diego's most favorable environmental system would be
physical/chemical treatment, rather than biological secondary, as the
way to tertiary. This might be possible if PL 92-500 were changed to
expand its overall scope and stress the 1983 goal while de-emphasizing
the detailed steps to get there. This would automatically force an
evaluation of the total environmental concerns (water supply and
sewer facilities) and not just one isolated part of it. The diffuser
system in an outfall should not be ignored. A detailed provision
within PL 92-500 could specify that the diffused effluent be no better
than either drinking water or the waters that receive it.
3. Scientific studies and opinions (also see I-A-3)
The operation of San Diego's treatment facilities has been
G-26
-------
investigated many times by various research scientists, including SCCWRP's
major report, and judged as having no adverse environmental effects.
This is visually confirmed by noting an abundance of kelp beds growing
directly over the outfall. Some details of the outfall are given in
Table 2.
San Diego has a very low industrial loading—about 5 percent
which is one-tenth that of the average city in the United States. This
results in low heavy metals discharge--32 percent less than the present
EPA approved State Ocean Discharge Plan requirements.
4. Costs
No cost data supplied.
II. HAWAII
A. Facilities
The present sewage treatment facilities on the Island of Oahu,
Hawaii, perform greatly different treatments and discharge through
short shallow outfalls. Of particular concern is the Sand Island
outfall which discharges untreated 55 MGD or 59 percent of the Island's
municipal wastewater. The outfall discharges into 40 feet of water
approximately 3,600 feet offshore. Other outfalls discharge into the
shallow poorly-circulated waters of Pearl Harbor. Various other
1 2
domestic discharges are listed in Table 8.
B. Position on Secondary Treatment Issue
The city and county of Honolulu is in favor of amending section
301 of PL 92-500 to eliminate the requirement for secondary treatment
G-27
-------
TABLE G-8 (From Reference 12)
PRESENT WASTE DISCHARGES FROM MUNICIPAL AND MILITARY FACILITIES
Area Point
1 Ala Mo ana SPS
Subtotal
2 Hart St. SPS
*Ft. Shatter
o incl. Triplet
1 Hospital
l\>
03 Aliamanu
Crater STP
.
Treatment
Raw
Raw
Raw
Trickling
Filter
(mgd)
39.2
38.9
14.2
20.6
1.4
0.03
Hastewater Characteristics
c
132
183
915
169
50
BOD
HER
43,000
40,500
43,000
22,000
157,000
1,975
12
c
110
160
307
143
45
SS
HER
36,000
33,000
36,000
19,000
53,000
1,667
11
(c-rng/1
Total-H
c
20
-
38.8
62
28
21
KER
6,500
5,100
4,600
10,700
322
5
and MER-lbs/day)**
Tot«l-P
c
5.6
8.1
3.7
7.1
10
HER
1,800
1,800
960
650
83
2
Grease
c
66
-
49
45
36
20
HER
21,500
20,700
21,500
5,800
7,000
416
5
Receiving Waters
Ocean, off Sand Island
Ocean, off Sand Island
Ocean, off Sand Island
Salt Lake
Subtotal
*Halaua Hills STP Primary
*City and County Trickling
Jail STP Filter
Animal Quarantine Activated
STP Sludge
Subtotal
23,987 20,678
0.53 125 550 110 480 27
4,927 1,045 6,221
120 10 45 24 110
Ft. Kan STP
Capehart H»g.
Iroquols Pt.
Subtotal
Activated 4.1
Sludge
Primary
.094
.09
.1
.53
50
11
56
125
40
8
5,980
1,900
550
2,450
45
15
8
110
35
11
526
270
440
750
21
12
13
27
15
8
143
410
120
530
10
15
5
10
10 20
11 20*
66
170 20*
45 24
215
15
15
140
700
110
810
Pearl Harbor, East Loch (Dis-
continued, June 1970 and flow
diverted to Pearl City STP)
South Halawa Stream
North Halawa Stream
Ocean, Pearl Harbor Channel
Ocean, off. Pearl Harbor
entrance
-------
TABLE G-8 (Continued)
PRESENT WASTE DISCHARGES FROM MUNICIPAL AND MILITARY
Uastewater Characteristics
Study Collection
Area Point
5 Pearl City STP
Subtotal
6 Palisades STP
Subtotal
O 7 *Walpio STP
1
ro
Hililani STP
Waipahu SPS
it
Capehart Hsg.
Manana
*Uaipio (Dequasing
Station)
*Waipio (Inactive
servcraf t)
Subtotal
8 *NAS Barbers Ft.
*Makakilo
Heights
Manakai
Subtotal
Type of
Treatment
Primary
Trickling
Filter
Extended
Aeration
Rapid Bloc
Raw
Trickling
Filter
Extended
Aeration
Extended
Aeration
Primary
Activated
Sludge
Extended
Aeration
Flow
(mgd)
4.39
0.69
0.15
0.12
2.24
0.1
0.004
0.012
1.5
0.36
0.023
c
71
31
40
10
230
50
40
40
125
50
40
BOD
HER
2,600
2,600
180
180
50
11
4,300
40
1
4
4,406
1,600
150
7
1,757
c
90
36
45
8
188
45
45
45
110
45
45
C C
oo
HER
3,300
3,300
210
210
55
9
3,500
40
1
5
3,610
1.400
130
9
1,639
FACILITIES
(c==ing/l and MER-lbs/day)**
To ta 1~N
c
15.3
20
21
*21
*30
21
21
21
27
21
21
HER
560
560
120
120
25
20
560
20
0.5
2
627
340
60
4
440
_
TotaL~P Grease
c
8.6
18
10
*10
12
10
10
10
10
10
10
HER
320
320
104
104
10
10
230
10
0.3
1
261
120
30
2
c
19
. 7
20
*20
*40
20
20
20
24
21
20
HER
210
210
40
40
25
20
750
20
0.5
2
817
300
60
4
364
Receiving Waters
Pearl Harbor, Middle Loch
Waimano Stream
Waikakalaua Stream
Kipapa Stream
West Loch, Pearl Harbor and
Irrigation (1970)
Ualawa Stream
Leaching Pit
Leaching Pit
Ocean, off Barbers Point
Plantation irrigation, «t«btl
izatlon pond leaching welli
Irrigation ditch, leaching
well
-------
TABLE G-8 (Continued)
PRESENT WASTE DISCHARGES FROM MUNICIPAL AND MILITARY FACILITIES
Study Collection
Area Point
9 Walanae STP
*Hakaha STP
*Lualualel NRS
Lualualel NAD
Subtotal
O *
1 10 Whitmore
0 Village STP
*NCS Wahiaua
Scho field STP
Helemano
Subtotal
10A Wahiaua STP
Subtotal
11 *Laie
Type of
Treatment
Primary
Extended
Aeration
Trickling
Filter
Stab. Pond
Extended
Aeration
Trickling
Filter .
Trickling
Filter
Trickling
Filter
Activated
Sludge
Trickling
1969-70
Flow
(mgd)
0.36
0.15
0.06
0.2
0.16
0.285
1.64
0.5
1.12
0.2
Wasteuater Characteristics (c-mg/1 and MER-'lbs/day)**
BOD
c
151
40
50
50
40
50
30
50
15
50
HER
450
50
25
83
608
55
120
400
200
775
140
140
85
c
110
45
45
45
45
45
52
45
27
45
SS
HER
320
60
20
75
475
60
105
700
180
1,045
250
250
75
Total-N Total-P
c
16
21
21
21
21
21
*21
21
26
21
HER c
50 7.1
30 10
10 10
35 10
125
30 10
50 10
290 *10
90 10
460
245 8
245
35 10
HER
21
10
5
17
53
15
25
140
40
220
75
75
15
Grease
c
25
20
20
20
20
20
*20
20
4
20
MER
74
20
10
33
137
30
50
280
90
450
60
60
35
Receiving Waters
Ocean
Irrigation
Drainage Ditch
Drainage Ditch
Wahlawa Reservoir
Poamoho Gulch
Walkele Stream
Helemano Stream
Wahlawa Reservoir
Ditch
Filter
12
Subtotal
None
85
75
35
15
35
-------
TABLE G-8 (Continued)
PRESENT WASTE DISCHARGES FROM MUNICIPAL AND
Study Collection
Area Point
13 *Ahuimanu STP
Subtotal
14 Kaneohe STP
*MCAS Kaneohe
Subtotal
Q
1
UJ 15 Kallua STP
Kukanono
*Maunaulli #1
*Maunaulll i2
*
Pohakapu
Subtotal
16 *Walmanalo STP
Subtotal
17 *Hauaii-Kai STP
Subtotal
i f\{ f\ -jn
Wastewater Characteristics
BOD
Treatment (mgd) c
Aero- .11 40
accelator
and pond
Trickling 2.53 40
Filter
Primary 1.0 125
Trickling 3.2 56
Filter
*Extended 0.05 40
Aeration
Extended 0.10 40
Aeration
u/Pond
Extended 0.04 40
Aeration
Trickling 0.27 50
Filter
Trickling 0.067 50
Filter
Primary 1.5 125
HER c
35 45
35
840 40
1,050 110
1,890
1,500 60
20 45
30 45
13 45
110 45
1,613
30 45
30
1,600 110
1,600
(c"mg/l
SS Total-H
HER c
40 21
40
910 15
900 27
1,810
1,700 19
20 21
35 21
15 21
100 21
1,870
25 21
25
1,400 27
1,400
HER
20
20
320
225
545
500
7
18
6
50
581
10
10
500
500
MILITARY FACILITIES
and MER-lbs/day)**
Total-P
c
10
6.5
10
6.5
10
10
10
10
10
10
HER
10
10
140
85
225
170
4
7
4
22
207
5
5
120
120
Grease
c
20
7
24
23
20
20
20
20
20
24
HER
20
20
140
200
340
610
7
18
6
45
686
10
10
300
300
Receiving Waters
Ahulmanu Stream
Ocean, into Kaneohe
Ocean, into Kaneohe
Ocean, into Kallua
Bay
Bay
Bay
Leaching well with overflow
into Kauainui Swamp
Haunawili Stream
Maunawill Stream
Kauainui Stream
Kahawai Stream
Ocean, off Sandy Beach
(a) Without tuna cannery waste.
(b) At time of peak seasonal flow from pineapple cannery.
* Estimated values based on design capacities or on other similar discharges.
-------
and to allow for a lesser degree of treatment for sewage discharged into
the deep ocean under certain oceanographic conditions. These include
enough depth at the outfall to insure that the waste field stay submerged,
favorable currents to insure dispersion and a compatible marine ecology.
Potential outfall sites in two of Oahu's seven sewage districts
have been shown to meet these criteria. Present plans call for
advanced primary treatment at Sand Island with maximum removal of
floatables and discharge at a depth of 240 feet approximately two miles
offshore, and a combined Pearl Harbor facility to provide either primary
or secondary treatment depending on the particular need for irrigation
reclaiming and discharge in 200 feet of water about two miles offshore.
Because the ocean around Hawaii is nutrient-deficient, it can
benefit from the proper introduction of wastewaters of lesser degree
of treatment. Bacteria die-off rates are very fast here and thus there
is no need for costly disinfection of wastewater. The sound concepts
of deep ocean outfall design can be combined with good local circulation
and mixing to insure that BOD be assimilated by the ocean without
adverse effect.
C. Scientific Studies and Opinions
A comprehensive two-year water quality study was begun in 1970 and
conducted by a consortium consisting of Science of Arcadia, California,
12
firms of Sun, Low, Tom and Hara and Dillingham Environmental.
Attention was focused on the problems of Honolulu (Sand Island) and
Pearl Harbor.
The Hawaiian Archipelago consists of a chain of volcanoes with
peaks surfacing to form the islands. Because of this, the ocean floor
G-32
-------
around each island drops off rapidly into deep water. Winds are an
important factor influencing currents and circulation patterns.
Northeast tradewinds are predominate while Kona winds (S and SW) are
prevalent from October to April. During the trades, offshore transport
to the South is characteristic in Mamala Bay (into which the Sand
Island and Pearl Harbor outfalls would flow). During Kona storms,
transport changes to ESE. Surface currents in the bay range from 0.25
to 0.41 knots and the deep currents from 0.04 to 0.28 knots. A
well-defined density stratification necessary to keep a waste field
submerged exists (even at times of minimum stratification) between
the surface and 300 feet. Bacterial decay rates are relatively short
with a T-90 (time for 90 percent decay) generally below 45 minutes. '
Average concentrations of dissolved oxygen at the ocean stations
generally exceeded 6.0 mg/1 (> 90 percent saturation). In the vicinity
of waste discharges at Sand Island and in Pearl Harbor depressed oxygen
levels of 3.5 and < 3.0 mg/1 respectively were found. A bottom area
of about 300 acres was measurably effected by the Sand Island discharge.
The principal reason for this effect was settleable solids. Chlorinated
hydrocarbons and mercury were present in bottom sediments around the
Sand Island outfall at 3 PPB and < 10 PPB levels, respectively.
Bottom populations at the proposed discharges site were found to
be sparse and of little ecological or economic importance. Biostimulatory
response of three indigenous marine algae to nitrogen and phosphorus
showed nitrogen to be growth limiting. However, the concentration of
nitrogen at which all growth constraints are removed is lower than
existing near-shore background. Thus, neither macronutrient is growth
limiting.
D. Costs
Hawaii's 1973 survey of needs for municipal wastewater treatment
G-33
-------
facilities showed a total capital cost of $373 million required to meet
1990 needs based on present requirements of PL 92-500. Treatment
represents $105 million of this. Treatment cost if secondary were
required at Sand Island would be increased by $17 million. For the
Pearl Harbor area the additional cost would be $12 million. A total_
cost increase of $29 million or 27 percent of the treatment cost would
result from compliance to PL 92-500's secondary treatment requirements.
There would be an even greater increase in operation and mainte-
nance costs (O&M). If secondary treatment is required, O&M annual costs
for Sand Island Plant will rise from $1.2 to $1.8 million while at Pearl
Harbor it will go from $315,000 to $750,000. Energy needs for the two
plants will increase 107 percent over primary treatment needs.^
III. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OF SEATTLE
A. Facilities
Seattle's West Point Treatment Plant provides primary treatment
for a designed 125 MGD. The process consists of screening, pre-aeration
with grit removal and primary sedimentation. The effluent is chlorinated
before discharge into Puget Sound through an outfall diffuser line 600
feet long located approximately 3/4th of a mile offshore at a depth of
240 feet. Construction of the plant began in 1966.15
Seattle Metro also operates several other primary treatment plants
and the Renton water quality treatment plant. The Renton plant con-
sistently removes in excess of 95 percent of the influent BODs and has
never had to bypass untreated sewage in its eight years of operation.
B. Position on Secondary Treatment Issue
Seattle Metro feels they should be allowed to by-pass the 1977
requirements for secondary treatment of its waste and concentrate on the
G-34
-------
1983 goal of "best practicable waste treatment technology." Seattle
cannot justify the expenditure of funds necessary to meet secondary
treatment requirements for plant discharges into Puget Sound since no
measureable improvement to water quality will result.
Secondary treatment of wastes to remove BOD just is not necessary
to preserve the oxygen-rich waters of Puget Sound. The water quality of
the Sound is good and ongoing programs will assure that there are no
undetected adverse effects. By defining what those adverse effects
might be, we will define "best practicable" treatment. Besides Metro
studies of toxicants, floating solids and nutrients, a major interagency
(NOAA, EPA, U OF W, Metro) study will soon be underway to gather knowl-
edge covering the whole of Puget Sound.16
C. Scientific Studies and Opinions
Seattle has been collecting information on the water quality of
the Sound since 1961. Physical, chemical and biological parameters
including coliform, dissolved oxygen nutrients and oxygen-demanding
substances have been studied.16
The overall water quality of the area of the Sound near the West
Point outfall has been improving since the discharge of untreated sewage
was stopped in 1970. Coliform levels are consistently within State
standards and getting lower. There has been no measurable buildup of
digested sludge at the vicinity of the outfall, no layering or buildup
of organic material. Acute toxicity bioassays performed on fingering
Coho salmon indicate that the principal toxicant of the waste is the
chlorine used for disinfection. At 100:1 dilution, the effluent con-
centration in the receiving water would be reduced to nearly one-tenth
of the averate TL 50 concentration at which 50 percent test fish die
within 96 hours.
G-35
-------
Information on the impact of oxygen-demanding substances on Puget
Sound supports Seattle's contention that BOD removal is not necessary.
Historical data dating back to 1935 and data gathered since their
monitoring program began in 1961 indicates that sewage discharges into
the Sound never have had nor are now effecting the long-term oxygen
levels. Figure II and III traces the dissolved oxygen trend over the
periods when raw sewage discharges ended. This reduction in oxygen-
demanding substances discharged had no apparent effect on dissolved
oxygen levels. The physical dimensions of the Sound and its flushing
action are responsible for its large dissolved oxygen resource. The
size of the Sound and the depth of its water (averaging 210 feet)
provide an enormous volume in which dispersion can take place. The
deep layer of this stratified estuary is believed to have an exchange
time of once/year, while the entire volume is replaced on the average
of twice/year.
D. Costs
Compliance with the 1977 requirement for secondary treatment would
cost Metro $51 million over the $305 million anticipated cost of achieving
best practicable waste treatment technology at all their plants.
IV. ANCHORAGE
A. Facilities
The existing primary treatment facility cost over $6 million and
became operational in mid-1972. At present, it handles roughly ^ of
the sewage of the Anchorage area. By late 1974, the remainder of the
area's sewage will be transported to the facility for treatment. Large
portions of Anchorage will still need sewerage.
G-36
-------
FIGURE G"2 (From Reference 16)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN SURFACE
WATERS OF PUGET SOUND
SURFACE
WEST PT. 1973
SURFACE
JEFFERSON PT. 1935-42
SURFACE
WESTPT.
1966-72
J J A S
MONTHS
N
G-37
-------
100-
FIGURE G~3 (From Reference 16)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN DEEP WATERS
OFPUGETSOUND
90--
80--
< 70 +
60--
200 M
WE.ST POINT, 1966-1972
200 M
-WE.ST POINT, 1973
200 M
JtFFtRSON POINT, 1935-1942-
uJ
o
V
X
O 40
O 30
(ft
vt
20--
40--
—I 1—
JUN JUL
MONTHS
JAN
Fta
MAR APR
MAY
Auo
OCT
NOV DEC
G-38
-------
B. Position on Secondary Treatment Issue
Anchorage feels that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1972 should be amended (by Senate Bill 3093) so as not to impose the
secondary treatment requirement on Anchorage's Pt. Woronzof Sewage
Plant. Secondary treatment of municipal sewage for the removal of BOD
and suspended solids is unnecessary to the preservation of the natural
water quality in Upper Cook Inlet. Construction and operation of
secondary treatment facilities would consume scarce energy resources
and seriously increase operating costs. Major environmental and water
quality improvements other than secondary treatment, such as extending
and upgrading sanitary sewers to eliminate excessive infiltration and
inflow, are considered to be essential to the health of the community
18
and to the receiving water quality.
C. Scientific Studies and Opinions
Anchorage concurs with the findings of a three-year study begun
in 1969 by the Institute of Water Resources of the University of
19
Alaska. Study areas included: tidal currents and mixing
characteristics, chemical quality, the presence of free-swimming
microorganisms, bacteria of sewage origin and character of bottom
muds. During the study period 4.1 MGD untreated wastes were being
20
discharged. A summary of each area follows.
Tidal currents of up to Tl ft/sec occur twice a day in each
direction. Based on calculated diffusion coefficients, the highest
expected concentration of BOD in a section across from the outfall
would be 0.0034 PPM. At no time does thermal stratification develop
which might hinder mixing.
G-39
-------
Suspended solids concentration vary from 300 mg/1 to 2100 mg/1,
preventing light penetration, pH values range from 7.7 to 8.3,
dissolved oxygen stays near saturation (7-9 mg/1), and salinity varies
from 6 to 20 ppt. Nutrient levels are also lower than average sea
water: total nitrogen .344 to .47 mg/1, total phosphorus .0074 to .0031
mg/1, and silica 2.53 to 0.73 mg/1. These conditions are very
inhospitable to biological forms.
A sampling of plankton (indicators of productivity) and benthic
organisms indicate a very low level of productivity.
Coliform organisms were measured in concentrations of 10 to 125
per 100 ml with higher values around outfalls..
The conclusions of this study indicate that the discharge of raw
sewage had not appreciably effected upper Cook Inlet and that large
quantities of primary treated wastewater likewise could be discharged
without appreciable effect.
D. Costs
The requirement to convert this new treatment facility will cost
$13 to $20 million in capital and also increase operating costs 60
percent to $600,000.21
V. PUERTO RICO
A. Facilities
Currently 80 odd treatment plants of different types handle an
average flow of 70 MGD. Total current wastewater flow is 170 MGD,
G-40
-------
less than half of the population is sewered. One ocean outfall is
operating on the south part of the island while another is being con-
structed on the north coast and will begin operation next year (1975).
No other data available.22
B. PositionjDn Secondary Treatment Issue
Puerto Rico's position is that primary treatment of wastewater
should be sufficient in most cases prior to ocean discharge. Some cases
may require other treatment technology, but not necessarily secondary,
and this should be determined through a case by case evaluation.
C. Scientific Studies and Opinions
Technical documentation concerning ocean discharges was not
submitted. More time is needed to make studies of these effects and
other oceanographic conditions in order to evaluate what the best
practicable waste treatment process should be. An investigation is
underway to determine the impact of the outfall discharge which will
begin next year.22
D. Costs
No cost data available.
G-41
-------
VI. MIAMI
A. Facilities
Miami Beach presently discharges 22 MGD of untreated wastewater
through a 12,000-foot outfall into 140 feet of water. This wastewater
is low in toxicants because of the very light industrial loading it
receives.
In Southeastern Florida between Palm Beach and Miami there are
about 190 MGD of wastewater discharged to the ocean between 4,600 and
23
12,000 feet offshore in water depths ranging from 17 to 140 feet.
B. Position on Secondary Treatment Issue
Miami Beach sees a great cost savings possible if secondary
treatment requirements were waived until a demonstration project can
prove the applicability of deep ocean outfalls in solving the problem
of sewage disposal. Although available information is scarse, Miami
feels it is sufficient to justify a pilot project at Miami Beach.
Miami proposes extending their outfall 4,000 ft to a water depth
of between 300 and 400 feet. The wastewater would receive primary
23
treatment and the outfall equipped with an effective diffuser.
C. Scientific Studies and Opinions
Technical documentation of the important parameters affecting
hydrologic and physical dispersion of pollutant materials in the waters
off Florida's southeastern coast were not presented. However, Miami
Beach's proposal references several investigators from the University
G-42
-------
of Miami's Sea Grant Program as well as others. Drs. Lee and Carpenter
of that program have endorsed a demonstration pilot project at Miami
Beach.
Miami Beach contends that oceanographic conditions at the proposed
outfall diffuser location will trap the waste field below the "permanent"
thermocline and it will be subsequently carried off and mixed within
the Gulf Stream Current. Organisms indigenous to the area will kill
off 90 percent of the bacteria in 1.5 to 7.5 hours. Nutrients and
other organics will be assimilated and benefit the "nutrient impoverished"
Gulf Stream. Miami's data show this "permanent" thermocline to
exist between 200 and 300 foot depths at the edge of the continental
slope.
D. Costs
The total cost of Miami's proposed demonstration pilot project -
would be between $3 and $4 million. The alternative is to build an
interconnecting line with the Virginia Key treatment plant and expand
that facility to perform secondary treatment on Miami Beach's wastewater.
The total cost of this project is expected to be $40 million. The
proposed demonstration project would also save $3^ million annually
in OSM costs.
Should a similar outfall alternative be found feasible for and
applied to all ocean discharges between Palm Beach and Miami, Miami
23
Beach estimates the total savings to be $1 billion.
G-43
-------
REFERENCES
1. "The Ecology of the Southern California Bight: Implications for
Water Quality Management." Southern California Research Project.
El Segundo, California. (1973).
2. "Project Report for Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2." Orange
County Sanitation Districts. Fountain Valley, California. (1974).
3. Parkhurst, J. D. "Ocean Disposal of Municipal Wastewater in
Southern California." Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
Los Angeles, California.
4. "Proposed Definition of Best Practicable Treatment for Publicly
Owned Treatment Works Discharging into Territorial Seas." Orange
County Sanitation Districts. Fountain Valley, California. (1974).
5. Bascom, W. Letter to J. T. Rhett Commenting on Technical Questions
Raised by Ocean Discharges/Secondary Treatment Task Force. (21 May,
1974).
6. "Alternatives for Improved Treatment." Orange County Sanitation
Districts. Fountain Valley, California. (1974).
7. "Technical Evaluation of Best Practicable Treatment for Deep
Ocean Discharge." Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts.
Los Angeles, California. (1974).
8. Thomas, W. H. "Nutrients, Chlorophyll, and Phytoplankton
Productivity near Southern California Sewage Outfalls." Final
Report to SCCWRP. Institute of Marine Resources Reference 72-19,
U.C. San ?iego. La Jolla, California. (1973).
9. "Technical Report - Waste Discharges to the Ocean - Hyperion
Treatment Plant." City of Los Angeles Dept. of Public Works.
Los Angeles, California. (1973).
10. King, R. W. Letter to R. N. Baker. (10 May, 1974).
11. Yuen, G. A. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Environmental
Pollution. Honolulu, Hawaii. (18 March, 1974).
G-44
-------
12. "Water Quality Program for Oahu with Special Emphasis on Waste
Disposal." Engineering - Science, Inc., Sunn, Low, Tom and Hara,
Inc., Dillingham Environmental Co., City and County of Honolulu,
Hawaii. (1972).
13. Fasi, F. F. Testimony Before the Senate Subcommittee on
Environmental Pollution, Honolulu, Hawaii. (18 March, 1974).
14. "Environmental Engineering Survey #1-14-2614-1201 T-90 Total
Coll form Decay Study." Environmental Health Engineering Agency,
U.S. Army Medical Center, Okinawa, P.O. Box 243, APO San Francisco,
California. (1973).
15. "West Point Environmental Planning Study." Metropolitan Engineers.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Washington. (1973).
16. Gibbs, C. V. Testimony to be Presented to the Subcommittee on
Environmental Pollution of the Senate Public Works Committee."
Honolulu, Hawaii. (18 March, 1974).
17. Swing, J. P. Letter to C. V. Gibbs on The Impact of Secondary
Treatment on the Greater Anchorage Borough (Alaska). (3 July, 1973)
18. "A Resolution Urging the Congress of the United States of America
to Amend the 1972 Water Quality Act." Resolution No. Re-73-152.
Greater Anchorage Area Borough, Alaska. (1973).
19. Murphy, R. S. "Effect of Waste Discharges into a Silt-Laden
Estuary - A Case Study of Cook Inlet, Alaska." Institute of
Water Resources. U.A. Fairbanks, Alaska. (1972).
20. Carlson, R. "Synopsis of Effect of Waste Discharges into a
Slit-Laden Estuary - A Case Study of Cook Inlet, Alaska."
Institute of Water Resources. U.A. Fairbanks, Alaska.
21. Roderick, J. Assembly Memorandum No. Me-73-706 on Conformance
with PL 92-500 Regarding Conversion of the Pt. Woronzof Sewage
Treatment Plant to Secondary Treatment. Greater Anchorage Area
Borough, Alaska. (1973).
22. Filardi, R. E. "Paper Presented to the Special EPA Task Force
on Ocean Discharges/Secondary Treatment." Portland, Oregon.
(25 June, 1974).
23. Spence, F. R., Miami Beach Pilot Project Proposal to R. E. Train.
(5 April, 1974).
G-45
-------
APPENDIX G(3)
STATEMENTS OF
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
AND SCIENTISTS
AT THE
OCEAN DISCHARGES/SECONDARY TREATMENT
TASK FORCE MEETING
PORTLAND, OREGON
June, 1975
-------
Hi Hard Bascom
Municipal wastewaters are discharged into the Southern California
Bight at a rate of approximately 1,000 million gallons per day (MGD).
There are five major discharges and many small ones. Rainfall amounts
to about 400 MGD and approximately 180 MGD of industrial waste is
discharged. Advection (circulation) through the Bight amounts to
14,000,000 MGD. However, we are not sure of the current patterns
or of the influence of this circulation. The Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) is concentrating its studies
in the near coastal areas adjacent to the major discharges.
The taxonomy of the Bight is being investigated. There are
approximately 2,000 kinds of animals living in the Bight, of which
perhaps 300 may be influenced by sewage. It has been alleged that
certain of these animals have been decimated by waste discharges in
some areas. On closer examination, this appears to be the result of
misidentification by biologists. Accordingly, the Project is working
with marine biologists from other institutions to develop a uniform j-r
system of identification for invertebrates.
SCCWRP is also studying the toxicology and pathology related to
waste discharges. Tumors have been found in fish around outfalls.
However, upon examination, it was found that there were equal numbers
of fish with tumors in areas unaffected by waste discharges. However,
fin erosion disease in fish has been associated with municipal waste
discharges from outfalls. The incidence of this disease is as high
as 80 percent in some species of fish, but the exact cause is still
unknown. It may be related to the high metals concentration or H£S
in the sediments adjacent to the outfalls.
We should keep the ocean clean enough so that it is not harmful
to man or beast, either now or in the future. Having discovered what
is harmful, we should then do whatever is necessary, regardless of
cost, to meet this goal. However, the solution will be quite differ-
ent in different areas. Since large sums of money will be involved,
it will be worthwhile to investigate each ocean area before any
arbitrary decisions are made. A lot of the objections to the arbi-
trary requirement for secondary treatment have arisen because insuf-
ficient distinction has been made between harbors or estuaries and
the open ocean. The open ocean is the part that is impinged upon by
major ocean currents and waves.
Nearly all pollutants including metals, solids, and bacteria are
already in the ocean at some low level.. Recently, it has been dis-
covered that there are several hundred varieties of halogenated hydro-
carbons in the ocean and that bacteria metabolize these materials.
Director, Southern California Coastal Mater Research Project
G-48
-------
Pollutants accumulated in the bottom sediments in the past may
represent a major source, These sediments contain substantial amounts
of sewage materials, including organics, PCB, DDT, metals, etc. It
is conceivable that a major storm could stir up these materials. In
areas adjacent to some outfalls, there are reducing conditions on
the sea floor. This condition prevents the metals in the sediments
from being mobilized into the water column. Another major source of
these pollutants could be the sediments accumulated in the sewer
pipes under the city.
Unwarranted concern over BOD in the ocean seems to have led to
the secondary treatment requirements, ' SCCWRP does not believe that
there is any serious problem of depleting the oxygen in the ocean
waters. The ocean contains a huge reservoir of oxygen. Locally,
sludge sediments may create a serious problem by creating small
areas of reducing environment.
All ocean discharges can be improved by reducing the most damag-
ing inputs, but more research is necessary to find the sensible level
for discharge requirements. We should not rule out the ocean as a
disposal medium. It may very well be that some reducing basins are
better places to dispose of pollutants than land disposal sites.
G-49
-------
Norman Brooks
The secondary treatment regulation specifies treatment technology
performance, but ignores the outfall and its technology. The effluent
requirements needed to achieve specified water quality depend greatly
on the design of the outfall. For example, there would be gross
pollution of the Southern California coastal waters if all the present
outfalls discharged at 500 feet from shore. However, because these
outfalls are designed and successfully built to achieve very high initial
dilutions (100 to 300:1) such pollution has been prevented.
There are two strategies for disposal of waste material. One is
by means of dispersion into the environment. The other is storage in
a landfill, storage tank, etc. With effective dispersion, carbon and
nutrients can be returned into the ocean environment. On the other
hand, materials which are damaging to the ocean environment, such
as excessive amounts of heavy metals, radioactive materials, etc.,
should not be dispersed, but should be captured, usually at the sources.
Twenty years ago outfalls were designed with a single outlet and
achieved only about 10:1 initial dilution. Significant improvements
have been made in the dilution efficiency of outfalls since that time.
By increasing the length of the diffuser, the number of diffuser ports
and the depth of discharge, much higher dilution can be achieved.
Models have been developed which enable one to predict the initial
dilution achievable by an outfall system.
An example of a high dilution outfall is the one recently built by
the Orange County Sanitation Districts. It is 27,000 feet long and has
a diffuser section 6,000 feet long at a depth of 200 feet, with 503 ports.
The total cost of this outfall was about $9 million. It exhibits a com-
bination of both length for isolation from the shore and sensitive water
use areas and depth for rapid and efficient initial dilution. The charac-
teristics of major Pacific Ocean outfalls are given in Table 1.
There is a relatively stable density stratification or thermocline
in the ocean. With proper outfall design (high dilution), the thermo-
cline will prevent the effluent plume from reaching the surface and
being carried toward shore by surface currents. In California,
bathing water quality standards can often be met without effluent dis-
infection, or else with only intermittent disinfection in a few weeks
in winter. Los Angeles County has to disinfect its effluent for approxi-
mately two weeks in the winter (when the thermocline disappears) in
order to achieve water quality standards.
The results of the California Ocean Pollution Research Conference
(Lake Arrowhead, November, 1973) were presented and explained,
In reacting to questions on secondary treatment requirements:
lKeck Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
G-50
-------
1. Effluent BOD reduction is not necessary with adequate outfall
dilution.
2. Suspended solids numbers are difficult to choose. They should
be reduced so that bottom sediments around outfalls remain aerobic.
If the sediments remain aerobic, accumulation of metals is probably
less. Also, the light transmissability of the ocean should not be
significantly reduced.
3. Floatables should be reduced, and more work is needed in
that treatment area.
4. On disinfection, the California State regulations are adequate
and should be maintained.
5. pH levels cause no problem with 100:1 dilution.
6. Nutrients may be slightly beneficial, with adequate dilution.
7. The removal of metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons from
ocean discharges should be vigorously pursued. The solution to this
problem appears to be related to increased solids removal and source
control. Source control has the advantage in that the trace contami-
nants are also kept out of the sludge.
G-51
-------
Dr. Maximilian Cerame-Vivas
I will address myself to the statements and questions that were
distributed to the participants in the Discussion Guide, though not
necessarily in the same order nor with the same prominence. Those ques-
tions dealing with sanitary engineering technology, or with economics,
I have left to those with competence in sanitary engineering or economics.
The statement suggesting that "BOD, the primary pollutant addressed
in the secondary treatment regulations, is not of concern in ocean
waters..." is false. It may be that in the temperate zone, where cold
waters are to sustain higher concentrations of dissolved gases, and
where lower temperatures depress the rate of chemical reactions, a high
BOD is not of such apparent importance. In the tropics, however, the
higher ambient temperatures of coastal waters depress the solubility of
oxygen while simultaneously accelerating the rate of biochemical re-
actions. Oxygen concentrations become dangerously reduced, specially
at night when photosynthetic organisms are not liberating, but are
rather consuming, oxygen. Just last week our students conducted a
class exercise involving a 24-hour dissolved oxygen monitoring in a
relatively unpolluted mangrove embayment along the south coast of Puerto
Rico. The results were typical. Dissolved oxygen concentrations
ranged from a high of 7.0 ppm at around 3:00 p.m. to a low of 3.9 ppm
aroupd 3:00 in the morning, while temperature varied only 1.9°C; from
28.0 C to 29.9°C.
• The Act establishes a goal of water quality which provides for the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. To protect
fish and shellfish for the fisherman, large or small, commercial or sport,
is both commendable and statistically convenient. A creel census can
tell us what the sport or subsistence fishermen are catching. A market
analysis can tell us how the commercial fishermen are doing. But how
many of the statistically observed forms are organisms that are con-
stantly being recruited from elsewhere? That could continue to move
into polluted areas and be caught in ever increasing numbers because
pollution makes them more vulnerable to being caught? This could lead
us into a statistical misconception regarding the water quality of a
given body of water, if quality is equated to fish or shellfish landed.
The "protection" is related to the number of specimens being eliminated
from the natural population, and, the more specimens eliminated, the
better the water quality. Or so goes the assumption. But when it goes
to the "propagation" of fish and shellfish, what do we really know?
Which contaminant is most damaging, in what concentration, to which
developmental stage? And at what times of the year? If we are concerned
with the protection and propagation of salmon, our criteria may be
Professor of Marine Ecology, Department of Marine Sciences,
University of Puerto Rico
G-52
-------
irrelevant to the protection and propagation of the Florida spiny
lobster or to the queen conch in Puerto Rico. What do we know about
the life cycles or the embryologies of those species whose presence
or absence we use as significant bioassay information in water quality
criteria? Perhaps we should use only those forms whose embryology has
been thoroughly studied, such as that of the sea urchin Arbacia. This
would give Woods Hole excellent bioassay material. Florida and Puerto
Rico, however, lack Arbacia as members of their faunas. How many
marine fish have been reared under laboratory conditions? Precious few.
We maintain that the propagation of fish and shellfish is an index of
water quality without knowing enough about their propagation. Worse
yet, we are unable to ascertain whether fluctuations in their
natural populations are natural fluctuations or are being induced by
environmental degradation.
To the question, "In ocean waters, what pollutants and in what
amounts are of concern?", the answer is, "Of concern to whom?". Phos-
phate and nitrate pollution would probably enhance a phytoplankton
bloom. Though favorable perhaps to the phytoplankters, eutrophic con-
ditions result in detriment to the rest of the community. A bather
in Waikiki would never notice a tenfold or a hundredfold increase in
the concentration of mercury in the water, although this increase could
result in an outbreak of Minamata disease nearby. Increased turbidity
could bring about a reduction or an elimination of photosynthetic
activity by merely reducing ambient light. Remember that light im-
pinging upon the water at an angle greater than 48 from the vertical
will be reflected back to the sky. An alga at the bottom has a day
only 47 percent as long as the day of the floating Sargassum, yet must
make do with that short day. Increased turbidity may result in the
elimination of benthic algae, although this turbidity may be associated
with a water mass that is less saline and floats at the surface never
touching the bottom. Florida bathers may never accept any turbidity at
all.
A little thermal pollution might be pleasant to a bather at Jones
Beach, but lethal to bonefish in Puerto Rico, where organisms live near
their upper limits of temperature tolerance. Alterations in the ionic
composition of sea water may have one osmotic effect within a marine
organism at low temperatures and the opposite effect at high tempera-
tures. A pollutant, while being lethal in the tropics, may not be of
concern by itself in the temperate zone unless it were coupled with
thermal pollution.
To the question, "What are the ambient physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of ocean waters?", the answer is, "Where?"
In Alaska or in. Florida? Some of this information is more readily
available for waters around major marine centers such as Friday Harbor,
La Jolla, Port Aransas, Biscaine Bay, Sapelo Island, Beaufort, or Woods
Hole, to name just a few. But even in these places there are gaps in
information, and there are many coastal areas yet to be examined. There
G-53
-------
are also great differences. The ambient conditions of Phosphorescent
Bay, in La parguera, Puerto Rico, are quite different from those of the
coral reef just off its inlet.
To the question, "How can such ocean waters be clearly and ex-
plicitly defined?", the answer is, "By learning how to clearly and
explicitly define them." In a specific area into which you propose to
discharge an outfall you must learn about its normal pattern of drift;
about Its inshore currents; about the biota to become affected; about
its bottom topography; about distance to the edge of the shelf; about
the depth and stability of the thermocline.
Depth and distance offshore are important criteria. In the event
of an onshore drift, distance from shore will allow for some dilution
before the waste reaches the beach. Depth might be such that the point
source is below the thermocline and therefore in another biota and
another temperature regime, which has bearing upon BOD and osmotic con-
siderations.
The question asking for the short-term and long-term public health,
water quality, aquatic life, and aesthetic effects of the pollutants
identified as being of concern, I would only approach from the stand-
point of aquatic life. Give me a quarter million dollars a year for
the next five years and I might define for you some half dozen pol-
lutants that should be of concern, and describe for you their effects
upon half a dozen tropical marine species in vitro (in the laboratory).
If I were to do field experiments with pollutants, the field experiments
would require an environmental impact statement that I probably could
not afford. Obviously, I could not begin to tell you what the short-
term and long-term effects of these pollutants would be on a tropical
marine community. On the one hand, we do not know enough about the
dynamics of tropical marine communities over an extended period of
time to be able to intelligently state whether a change in its species
composition or dominance diversity is a natural, successional, evolu-
tionary phenomenon, or an effect of pollution. On the other hand,
if I began to play Russian Roulette with a whole reef or mangrove forest,
the success of the experiment might be the demise of the community.
I am an ecologist. I developed as an ecologist when ecology was
still a branch of science. I also consider myself a conservationist.
As a conservationist, I have grave reservations about the twist that
the whole recent ecological concern has taken. Ecology is now well
entrenched in the field of politics and in the mires of burocracy. I
think we have lost sight of the spirit that inspired the Environmental
Protection Act. It was to protect the environment. In some cases the
act has become a devise, a legal tool, to go on damaging the environ-
ment just as before, but under the official protection of having filed
a compliance plan five years into the future. In other cases it has
become a labyrinth of technicalities and specifics, some of which have
no valid ecological justification. I have found myself being cross
examined at a hearing in a local environmental regulatory agency, and
G-54
-------
at a regional EPA office, on account of having failed to make a certain
set of environmental measurements while neither the examiner nor the
official could give me the reason for their wanting me to examine the
paramenter, nor its ecological importance.
In Puerto Rico, the locaTt^regulatory agency is the Environmental
.Duality Board (EQB«). The EQB has denied approval to the development
.,.5$a project on presumed environmental grounds. At a private hearing,
ft was subsequently established that the forbidding reasons lacked
ecological validity. The developer went to Federal Court against the
EQB on a Civil Rights lawsuit. The EQB, withdrawing in the judge's
chambers, accepted a court stipulation that allowed the developer to
proceed with a total waiver of the Environmental Impact Statement re-
quirement. The jurisprudence before us now is that any developer who
feels unduly harrassed by the regulatory agency may go to the Federal
Court on behalf of his civil rights and come out exempted from having
to file an environmental impact statement by demonstrating that the
regulatory agency goofed in detriment to the developer.
mi^ Such jurisprudence does not help ecology any. The environmental
backlash that we have feared for so long is upon us today. Thanks are
due, 1n great measure, to the establishment of criteria that could not
be%ustained on account of their ecological importance.
We have been asked whether or not the science of ocean quality is
well enough advanced to allow us to form uniform methodologies and
criteria to permit case-by-case evaluations. If there is a need for
case-by-case evaluations, there is no need for uniform universal cri-
teria. Quite the opposite. You need specific knowledge on the specific
case and on the specific environment into which the new outfall is
going to empty. Universal criteria would place restraints upon the
intelligent evaluation of local conditions. After alaj^ the coastline
of the United States Intrudes upon several biogeographic provinces,
ranging from the tropics to the Arctic. Criteria valid for Cape Cod
may not be valid for Cape Kennedy.
One can understand why a regulatory agency that wishes to be fair
and just may wish to have uniform standards and not be open to consid-
ering exceptions to the ruling. The truth is that many exceptions are
often based upon political or engineering decisions which may or may
not take environmental criteria into account.
What are needed are not universal answers. What we need are uni-
versal questions. What is the impact? As opposed to, "Will it meet
the established criteria?"The standard should be whatever is required
so as not to have an adverse effect upon the local natural community.
The standard should also see to it that water quality is compatible
with recreation and other uses. Such standards can only be based upon
thorough base line studies, formerly known as ecological surveys. Unfor-
tunately, the granting agencies stopped funding ecological surveys long ago
The regulatory agencies of today will not fund base line studies. Base
G-55
-------
line studies are made by the agencies only after a petition is submitted
before agency, by which time the proponents on the one hand, and the pre-
servationists on the other, have created such public furor over the proj-
ect that granting or not granting approval becomes a political issue.
The regulatory agency must designate, after serious and conscien-
tious ecology; (1) which are the critical ecological areas which should
be free from any and all discharges; (2) which areas are tolerant of
discharges treated to a tolerable level; and (3) which areas are to be
sacrificed on behalf of the community and the public interest and will
allow ecological lesions.
Administratively, previously designated critical ecological areas
allows both the proponent and the regulatory agency "a priori" knowledge
of where no outfall applications are even to be considered. It allows
for negotiation between the proponent and the agency on a case-by-case
basis regarding specific levels of treatment to be required and toler-
ated for a particular outfall in the less critical ecological areas,
and allows for considerable savings in public moneys by knowing before-
hand where discharges are most likely to be approved with the least
stringent conditions.
An inventory of existing outfalls, and what they dumpr is necessary.
Such an inventory has been carried out in Puerto Rico. There we have
only three polluting agents: Industry, Government, and People. Our
refineries pollute. Our major refinery dumps into Tallaboa Bay. If
you were to examine the bay. you would discover over five hundred acres
of bottom covered by an oily sludge eighteen inches thick. This happens
to this day. Our petrochemicals pollute. Some, like (this) one near
San Juan, dump right into the water. Others, like (this) one in Arecibo,
dumpover the beach into our coastal waters. Others dump into streams
that eventually hit the sea. Our tuna canneries pollute. The rich
pollute. The poor also pollute. Our government-owned power generating
authority pollutes. When the new generating complex at Jobos Bay becomes
fully operational, its effluent will have a delta "T" of nineteen degress
Farenheit. Our municipalities pollute. Some even burn their garbage in
coastal mangrove areas. Our Armed Forces pollute. We have a bit of
a solid waste disposal problem with the Navy in the Island of Culebra.
Some of the solid waste is still live. We've had oil spills. We've
had oil spills 1n harbors, on beaches, in mangroves, and over coral
reefs. We're not so different from the rest of the world.
Every effort must be made to conslidate outfalls by means of
regional collectors and improve treatment. Under ideal conditions,
common collectors should be considered for the whole manageable area.
Hawaii and Puerto Rico lend themselves beautifully to serve as model
candidates of island-wide sewerage, where every waste could be brought
into a central treatment facility, preferably located in those drier
portions of the islands where effluent waters could be use for Irri-
gation. The bonuses resulting from regional common collectors are
numerous. It gives you a single coastal ecological lesion, as opposed
G-56
-------
to many scattered ones. A single manageable lesion. Recovery of water,
organic matter, and other substances becomes more feasible at a large,
well designed, central facility. The right of way of sewerage can be
used for other public utilities which might even include a rapid trans-
it monorail system. All major polluters could be given, by law, a dead-
line by which they must connect to the main trunkline. Not unlike the
present compliance plan. Each subscriber could pay for having their
waste treated on the basis of both effluent volume and effluent treata-
bility. Governments could offer incentives to developers who locate
in keeping with the collector's loads. Government planners can invite
industry to locate wherever it becomes more convenient to handle their
waste, and the incentive of freeing industry from regulatory waste
problems is not to be dismissed too lightly. I have with me copies of
a pre-proposal for one such collector submitted by us to the FWPCA in
1969 from Puerto Rico. It may be of interest as an historic document,
if nothing else.
It behooves us to seek solutions that will enhance the quality of
life on our planet. Solutions are not forthcoming from those so-called
ecologists who oppose everything and who have no science to sustain
their perpetual protest. Solutions are not forthcoming from over-
zealous public officials who live so by the book that they apply
Cincinnati standards blindly to all marine environments. I dare say
that the Ohio River has contributed more water quality standards to
the nation's coastal waters than any serious attempt to inventory real
coastal waters. Communications between the real conservationists and
the conscientious regulatory officials must be kept open. Workshops
such as this one are perhaps the best medium. After all, if we both
do it right, your numbers are going to come out just the same as my
numbers. And we will all have gained from it.
G-57
-------
Dr. R. R. Colwell1
COMMENTS ON MICROBIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF MUNICIPAL OCEAN DISCHARGES
A program 1n nricrobial ecology is underway at the University of
Maryland which concerns microbiological activities in Chesapeake Bay
and in the coastal and open ocean regions of the Atlantic Ocean. The
microorganisms under study include the bacteria, fungi, yeasts, nyco-
plasmas, and viruses. Microorganisms, unfortunately, are, more often
than not, placed in a "black box" in ecological models. How micro-
organisms fit into an ecosystem is not always clearly understood. Our
research for the last five or six years has concerned microorganisms
in the marine environment. Hence, we now have some ideas about the
kinds of microorganisms present in a given estuarine and marine system
and what may happen to these microorganisms in a stress situation, such
as an oil spill or introduction of sewage, or similar environmental
insults. Bacteria often play quite specific roles in a given environ-
ment. Some rather interesting discoveries are that bacteria demonstrate
seasonal cycles similar to phyto- and zoo-plankton. There is also a
measurable association of certain kinds of bacteria with plankton in
the water column which are quite different from those in the sediment.
Bacteria act to recycle and mineralize food chain components, returning
complex compounds to their basic elements. If the environmental insult,
however, is too great, the demand on the bacteria is such that they
cannot keep degradation rates high enough to match the rates of intro-
duction of pollutants to the ocean environment. A case in point might
be an oil spill. Bacteria do degrade oil and can utilize certain
fractions of oil rather quickly and effectively under ambient pressure
and temperature. However, even under ambient temperature and pressure
there is a residual component composed of various "refractory" compounds
such as the polynuclear aromatics. These are degraded very, very
slowly. On the other hand, under open ocean conditions of low tempera-
ture and high pressure, oil is degraded at almost imperceptive rates
since microbial activity is greatly slowed.
In Chesapeake Bay, there is a microorganism, Vibrio parahaemolyticus,
a Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacterium, which can be isolated at stations
in Chesapeake Bay from Baltimore Harbor to the mouth of the Bay. The
organism, although distributed throughout the Bay, is found in greatest
numbers in the midbay regions of optimum salinities (brackish). The
peak incidence of this organism occurs in the months of June through
October. The organism is not found in the water column in the winter
months and actually survives the winter in sediment. The point to be
made is that this microorganism is associated with the Chesapeake Bay
zooplankton. The relationship of Vibrio parahaemolyticus with the
zooplankton in Chesapeake Bay is such that when it achieves its maximum
incidence, this bacterial species acts to mineralize the chitin of the
zooplankton populations. Hence, it plays a role in the recycling of
nutrients in the Bay.
Department of Microbiology, University of Maryland, College Park,
Maryland 20742
G-58
-------
We have done a series of studies off the Georgia and North and
South Carolina Coasts to determine the distribution of various groups
of bacteria, including V. parahaemolyticus, in water and sediment and
found that V_. parahaemoTyticus is an estuarine organism and that there
are specific groups of marine bacteria found only in the open ocean.
By means of computer techniques developed in our laboratory, we have
been able to analyze data for thousands of strains of estuarine, coastal,
and open ocean bacteria. The conclusions are that there are
characteristic bacterial populations in a natural balance existing in
these environments. Introduction of pollutants, highly concentrated
and non-disperse, will have measurable and significant effects on the
mlcrobial ecology of the coastal and open ocean environments.
It 1s useful to describe very briefly another series of experiments
we have accomplished in which we investigated how bacteria mobilize
mercury. Mercury concentrations in Chesapeake Bay water and sediment
vary from high levels in Baltimore Harbor to rather low, barely detect-
able levels in more isolated areas of Chesapeake Bay. Our hypothesis
was that 1n those areas of high heavy metal concentration, there will
be a large bacterial population tolerant to or capable of utilizing the
heavy metal. Thus, a total count of mercury-tolerant or mercury-
resistant bacteria should be a useful index of mercury concentration
in a given environment. This was found to be the case where the mercury
concentrations are high, the population of bacteria resistant to mercury
and to other heavy metals is large. The mechanism operating is most
likely selection of those microblal species capable of being induced
to resistance to mercury. In such areas of pollution, the natural flora
becomes altered so that the population of microorganisms includes a
large proportion of the population being mercury resistant. Also, a
seasonal1ty was noted. In the spring months, much higher numbers of
mercury-resistant bacteria were found in Baltimore Harbor.
Another kind of bacteria which tells us a great deal about a
given environment is the petroleum-degrader. Increased incidence of
petroleum-degrading bacteria in petroleum-polluted environments was
noted. Also, a seasonality of these bacteria was observed. Many of
the petroleum-degraders were also mercury resistant.
Bacteria metabolizing mercury were observed to be inducible. That
is, the presence of mercury results in a response by the bacterium in
which it develops the necessary enzyme system to metabolize mercury.
Cells not previously exposed to mercury, did not take up mercury or
produce the characteristic elemental mercury vapor. A special chamber
was developed for these studies in conjunction with a group at the
National Bureau of Standards, with whom we undertook a cooperative study
of mercury-metabolizing bacteria. Some bacterial species were found to
produce significant amounts of mercury. Experiments were also done in
which sediments were collected from the Bay and were placed in the
testing chamber. Mercury vapor, released into the atmosphere by the
mixed culture of mercury-metabolizing bacteria in the sediment, was
detected. As an extension of this work, we have placed oysters in a
G-59
-------
closed chamber in which the concentration of radioactive mercury in
the chamber could be monitored. Oysters placed in a mercury-containing
seawater with mercury-metabolizing bacteria showed a significantly
enhanced uptake of mercury, compared with oysters in chambers with
mercury added but without mercury-metabolizing bacteria.
Bacteria and other microorganisms respond promptly to environ-
mental changes. -Bacteria, thus, can act as a fine tuner, or perhaps
as the fine adjustment on a microscope in that the changes in the
microbial populations occur rapidly. Changes will occur at the micro-
biological level long before they will be detectable at the macroscopic
(macrobiological) level. The finely tuned ecology of microorganisms is
such that, although a certain degree of sophistication is required to
measure these changes, they are highly suitable as early warning sig-
nals for environmental alterations. An enumeration of petroleum-
degrading and mercury-metabolizing bacteria should permit detection of
very low levels of heavy metals, perhaps even below that detectable
by sophisticated chemical instrumentation. In this case, the micro-
organisms can serve as an index of changes that occur in an outfall or
at any other location. Finally, there is a point to be made that heavy
metal resistance is often associated with, drug resistance. In hospitals,
heavy metal-resistant bacteria also are antibiotic-resistant. In many
cases, this situation arises because transfer of genetic markers for
drug resistance and for metal resistance occur simultaneously since
these markers can be located on the same genetic element. The mechanism
involved is that of plasmid-mediated transfer of genetic information for
drug resistance and metal resistance from one bacterial cell to another.
Work in my laboratory has shown that this can occur in strains of
bacteria from Chesapeake Bay. Drug resistant bacteria can be isolated
from open ocean samples. Clearly, the problem of transfer of genetic
information from sewage bacteria to marine bacteria is a serious one.
Marine bacteria are capable of growth at low temperature, high salt
concentration, and high pressure. Hence, they will survive and main-
tain viability in the ocean. With genetic information for antibiotic
resistance, toxin production, and other pathogenic and invasive proper-
ties, we may, indeed, be creating chimeric forms. The ramifications of
the introduction of living sewage bacteria into the estuarine, coastal,
and open ocean environments must not be lightly discounted.
1. How many of these are known species (the ones you find in the
sea)?
Citrobacter, Arizona and Aeromonas species are found in the water
columrTClostridium spp. can be found in the sediment. Fish pathogens
include Aeromonas spp. Hence, the situation may be such that the
environment is detrimental for the fish in the deep water areas.
2. A little broader view of things we are considering might be
the point of introduction of sewage. What difference does it make with
respect to the microorganisms whether we discharge waste near a shore
or further off shore, and what about various alternatives, i.e., more
G-60
-------
treatment or less treatment?
The data of N. E. Gibbons in the Thirties showed that the natural
flora of fish does not include conforms of human origin. Escherichia
coli is found in and on fish only in areas of sewer outfalls. These
data have been known for about 40 years. Areas where fish feed around
outfalls certainly provide a mechanism for introducing human pathogens
into fish, creating potential problems.
Research is badly needed on total recycling systems, i.e., waste
waters purified sufficiently to serve as drinking water. Pasteurization
ought to be applied to waste waters, which would rid us of most of the
pathogens, including viruses. Viruses are not eliminated by secondary
treatment, hence we can do ourselves a great service by considering
pasteurization in any new technology for waste water treatment. The
methane generated in the sludge digestion processes could serve as the
energy source needed for the pasteurization or the cooling towers of
power plants could be adapted for this purpose.
A problem with chlorination is the formation of chloramines and
the interference of the protozoa/bacteria interactions. Protozoa graze
on the bacteria, keeping them cropped to given levels, so to speak.
Chlorination interferes with this process. In the New York Bight,
coliforms can now be isolated with relative ease, I understand.
Another point to raise is that having deposited heavy metal wastes
at a given site, months or years later, the metals may reach the water
column or get into the food chain because the bacteria will continue
to metabolize, i.e., to mobilize the metals.
3. Are there advantages to going out further? Is there a deep
enough place in the ocean? Are there advantages of going 5 miles and
300 feet compared to 1 mile and 50 feet compared to 15 miles?
Well, out of sight, out of mind. I suppose that is what you are
trying to say. I remember seeing some very dramatic photographs taken
by the personnel at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D. C.
Deep ocean cameras took photographs showing milk containers of the wax
type and other debris. Either these bits of rubbish were carried great
distances by ocean currents or they have been there for a long time,
or perhaps both. The question then is, do we want to refrigerate our
garbage? Do you want the deep ocean to be the kitchen middens for this
century?
4. Are you saying it does not decay in the ocean?
It decays very slowly because of the high pressure (up to 1000 atm)
and low temperature (4C).
5. Are you saying the higher the pressure in the open ocean, the
slower the decay?
G-61
-------
Yes. Terrestrial bacteria do not function in the deep ocean.
These bacteria do not survive deep ocean atmospheric pressures at 6,000
meters. There are deep sea bacteria that do function at the high pres-
sures and Tow temperatures of the open ocean. They will metabolize
substrates at 1,000 atmospheres pressure but this metabolism is very
slow. It can take 3 to 6 months or a year to accomplish the same
degradation as would occur at ambient pressures. In the coastal regions.
the nursery grounds for major fisheries will be despoiled by municipal
discharges. In the deep ocean areas, the microorganisms are not as
active, hence, very slow to degrade materials introduced into the
environment.
6. Is it better to try to disburse wastes throughout a given
area? Or is it better to concentrate them in one area?
If the bacteria are overwhelmed, incomplete degradation occurs,
with partial degradation products accumulating which are unaesthetic
and often malodorous. Dispersion as fine particulates is preferable
to concentrated disposal. It is best to provide conditions for maximum
microblal degradation, i.e., mineralization.
G-62
-------
Dr. Raul E. Filardl1
The Puerto R1co Aqueduct and Sewer Authority appreciates this
opportunity to present its case regarding secondary treatment prior
to ocean discharge. Perhaps the only honest way to begin is by stating
that while we do not have too much experience and only a little know-
ledge on the subject area, we have plenty of opinions on it. Our lack
of experience comes from the fact that we have just recently completed
our first ocean outfall on the South part of the island and unfortun-
ately, no background data was gathered on pre-operation conditions.
A second one is currently under construction on the North coast, at a
place called Barceloneta, but will not be completed until early next
year. Because of this, our knowledge on ocean outfalls or discharges
is mostly of a theorectical-design nature. We do, of course, have some
experience and knowledge of primary and secondary treatment, and a
good start on oceanographic data and information. Notwithstanding the
preceding remarks, our opinions are not only based on theory, but on
good general information and knowledge, plus hard facts. It is true
that at present these facts do not cover things like ocean discharges
with primary treatment only, but that kind of information will be
available shortly. At the Barceloneta Regional Plant outfall a three
stage monitoring/oceanographic investigation is underway which will pro-
vide baseline (pre-use) conditions, partial use conditions, and full
primary and outfall operation conditions. The usefulness of the data
is augmented because it covers a "worst" case condition, that is, a
predominantly industrial effluent. We believe and have reason to hope
that the facilities provided will adequately meet any standards.
Before proceeding with our case, however, a brief background
description of our unique circumstances is in order. Puerto Rico is
a small tropical island, 35 by 100 miles, part of a volcanic chain
extending southeast of Florida. It is about 950 miles southeast of
Florida at latitude 18° North. Though small, the Island has strikingly
different and varied conditions due to physiographical features includ-
ing a central mountain range which divides it lengthwise. In the path
of the easterly trade winds, it has a mild climate and high temperatures
all year around (they average 74 F in winter). Its rivers are not large
and their waters reach the sea in less than a day. The Island, which
enjoys Commonwealth status, is still in the process of development,
moving from an agricultural economy to an urban-industrial one. The
present population is around three (3) million and five (5) million is
projected by the year 2020. Currently 80 odd treatment plants of
different types handle an average flow of about 70 mgd. Total current
wastewater flow is well over 170 mgd. Projections indicate a domestic
flow of 290 mgd by the year 2020 and a commercial and light industrial
flow of 155 mgd for a total of 345 mgd.
^•Subdirector for Planning Area, Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
Authority
G-63
-------
The Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA) is a public
corporation (a quasi-public agency) within the Commonwealth, charged
with providing adequate water and sewer service to all the inhabitants
of the Island. Thus it plans, constructs, operates and maintains all
of the Island's water supply and sewerage systems. In regard to sewage
effluents, as in other environmentally related facets the Authority
must respond to the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board, the local
regulatory agency on these matters.
The requirements implicit in the amendments to the 1972 Water
Pollution Control Act confront PRASA with a general, across-the-board
type statute which has the inflexible requirement of secondary treat-
ment prior to ocean discharge because it fails to recognize that
regional differences exist within the Nation. PRASA's position, and
possibly that of the Commonwealth Government, is that in most cases
primary treatment is sufficient prior to ocean discharge. Some cases
might require other treatment technology, but not necessarily secondary,
and this should be determined through a case by case evaluation, after
due consideration to regional differences. Our approach is based
largely on the necessity for recognizing differences of a regional or
other nature in the relevant legislation. This should be incorporated
if good, efficient, cost-effective and reasonable solutions are sought,
according to the spirit and the intention of the Law.
In Puerto Rico's case we can start off with differences of an
environmental nature. We can classify these differences broadly in
terms of physical, biological and chemical parameters which may be
used to define pollution in the ocean and to also permit a "measurement"
of the recuperative or assimilative capacity of the waters. These
parameters have a direct relation and feedback on the planning and
design of treatment and discharge facilities. In most cases, and very
specially in ours, there are effects that we do not know about, but we
can theorize about them or make do for the present with those we do
know something about.
Beginning with the physical parameters we can mention, among
others, temperature, density gradients, currents and the extent and
slope of the continental shelf. Our sea temperatures are rather high,
averaging 28 C on the surface and going down to 26°C at an average
depth of 75 meters in even gradients. Very little variation exists in
nearshore waters by location or season. On the North coast, particularly,
the shelf is narrow and steeply sloping. For most locations the re-
ported frequency of some shoreward currents indicates that initial
dilution values should be used in design of outfalls. There are no
general impediments to long outfall difussion techniques, current and
density figures indicating that design for initial drhjtion values
should vary from 50:1 on the North and West to 200:1 on the East at
depths less than 600 feet. The total picture seems to indicate that,
at least for the North and West coasts, the conditions for outfall
discharge are optimum. In the South coast reuse of water will probably
G-64
-------
be considered, since it is an extremely water-short area. Please
notice that there are significant sub-regional differences even within
such a small island as Puerto Rico.
Our biological parameters, the coastal flora and fauna, are quite
favorably affected by the purely local tropical mildness of the non-
varying climate and higher ambient temperatures. This has been con-
ducive to a greatly varied and diversified population in larger total
amounts than in most continental climates and with greatly accelerated
rates of biological activity. This effect is felt all along the life
(or food) chain. It tends to indicate a greater capacity for metabo-
lizing and stablizing waste or detoxifying it. This is especially true
for domestic waste, since investigations at several existing short, raw
discharges, Indicate a great proliferation of life forms, more than in
other locations and including most of the life forms encountered where
no discharge is present. In San Juan Bay, considered a highly polluted
water body, large amounts of sunfish, which are relatively sensitive
to D.O. levels, have flourished.
The chemical parameters also show the effect of purely local con-
ditions. Our waters are generally nutrient deficient since no large
river system exists to provide this input, nor do we have seasonal ocean
upswells that would provide them. Domestic wastewater from primary
plants would provide this and indirectly enhance the food chain, while
removal of these nutrients prior to discharge would waste a good op-
portunity and add to the cost. The higher ambient temperatures of the
waters in Puerto Rico definitely affect the reaction rates, in turn
affecting the sediment and water quality characteristics. Our dis-
solved oxygen levels for example, are normally lower than in many main-
land coasts. The fact is that, because of a combination of factors,
our waters are still very near saturation, even in areas where raw
discharges exist.
All of these environmental differences, characteristics peculiar
to island waters and dissimilar to most of the continental coasts, tend
to bear out the fact that less treatment could be required prior to
ocean discharge. They also underline the fact that a great many
regional ambient factors need to be considered and weighed before a
decision is made, and that their great variability precludes an across
the board, uniform, determination.
Turning now to regional differences of another kind we find still
more reasons in support of our case. Puerto Rico is different from
the rest of the Nation in economic and social terms. It must be
remembered that we are still in a process of development, nowhere near
the Nation's norm in spite of the progress that has been achieved.
Also, being a small island, we have always lacked certain necessary
resources and relied heavily on the importation of many goods.
Let us consider economic resources as a broad class. The Island,
and certainly PRASA, does not possess the same broad and solid economic
G-65
-------
base the rest of the Nation has. This general lack precludes our
meeting deadlines which are not even realistic for the highly developed
economy they were directed at. Our relatively meager financial re-
sources, even with federal aid, cannot assume the added burden of
capital, operation and maintenance costs that would be imposed by full
compliance. Specially not at our present stage of development. Be-
cause of this same developmental stage and a lack of human, technical
and natural resources, we cannot cost-effectively justify secondary
treatment prior to ocean discharge. As a matter of fact we are hard
put to justify primary treatment and ocean discharge. There just are
no real benefits accruing from adding secondary treatment prior to
discharge in our case.
As already mentioned the island also lacks the human resources,
the manpower, necessary for the design, operation and maintenance of
advanced type facilities at the rate at which they are.required by the
Law. This is implicit in our present stage of development and also
precludes meeting deadlines that assume the manpower to exist.
Our condition as a small island also implies the lack of certain
necessary natural resources. Of special significance are those
associated with energy; we are completely dependent on oil imports to
satisfy our needs. This emphasizes the need for low energy consuming
types of treatment. That the energy input to a secondary treatment
plant is many times that of a primary one has been amply demonstrated
by others. In the world's current energy crisis, a special note needs
to be made of this point.
As a developing country, and a region of the U.S. we have different
priorities, in some cases drastically so, from the rest of the Nation.
This is true, among others, in matters of health and welfare. Our
Government, and PRASA within it, faces many competing demands for the
available dollars. To give but one example, in the case of public
health the need to establish a complete sewer collection system has a
much higher priority than secondary treatment. Less than half of our
population is presently sewered. It somehow seems irrelevant to pro-
vide the facilities for secondary treatment of effluent when we do not
have the sewer collection system that will transport the effluent to
the plant. Further stressing this is the fact that 300,000 people
in Puerto Rico suffer from the endemic disease of Schistosonriasis
(Bilharzia), which has a general debilitating effect. This is a blood
worm disease, easily contracted from larvae found in infected streams,
ponds and lakes. Experts on the disease, and we have the best in the
Nation, agree that the best, most efficient and economic solution is
the adequate collection and disinfection of the sewage, since the
streams are infected by direct or indirect discharge of untreated
sewage.
Puerto Rico, being a Commonwealth rather than a State, also has
differences of a political nature. Commonwealth status carries with
it a certain degree of autonomy which has been preempted by current
G-66
-------
federal legislation. Moreover, the environmental issue has all the
earmarks of becoming a "hot" political issue.
To summarize, we have presented the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and
Sewer Authority's position regarding ocean discharges and secondary
treatment, namely, we think that primary only, prior to discharge,
should be sufficient in most cases. We have tried to highlight the
rather unique nature of the Island as regards the environmental, econo-
mic and social aspects, to emphasize the fact that these regional dif-
ferences merit and require recognition and incorporation into legisla-
tion. We think these differences supply the needed justification for
our position and request federal cognizance of this fact. In view of
the foregoing, and in the absence of more data of a technical nature,
acquiescence in the subject of secondary treatment seems to be a mis-
use of our limited funds and resources, except in special cases.
PRASA, and the Commonwealth, need more time to consider alterna-
tive courses of action that better fit our particular needs and re-
sources, while at the same time trying to meet federal objectives.
We also need the funds for the collection and analysis of data that
must precede these determinations. This should not be interpreted as a
delaying tactic, but a fully necessary requirement if the best and most
efficient use of resources is to be made within the particular context
of the region. Our effort is moving towards effective environmental
quality control, but at a necessarily slower pace in relation to the
Nation.
Finally, we should note that the foregoing discussion on re-
gional differences implies and supports a case by case evaluation of
effluent requirements and treatment alternatives, but also underscores
the fact that uniform criteria and methodologies are by nature in con-
flict with this and will not perform as adequately as required.
G-67
-------
Joel H. Hedgpeth1
As I am not a sewer engineer and have no direct involvement in
this matter, I assume that I was asked to attend this meeting as a
naturalist and to present the naturalist's view of the situation.
That means, of course, that we must take a conservative view of waste
disposal, especially when unknown substances or materials whose effects
are unknown are concerned, for it is what we don't know that may hurt
us. There is also the time aspect; what, for example, may be the cum-
ulative effect of disposal in deep waters of Puget Sound after 50
years? Fifty years is a relatively short time in the life of a
natural system (or ecosystem as we are fond of calling it these days),
but it may be relatively long for us in terms of our own socio-economic
factors. A further consideration of much concern is our ability to
synthesize and manufacture new chemicals to kill plants and animals we
consider undesirable. We could, in time, produce some extremely de-
vastating substance. In the decade of the 1940's we began producing
four classes of chemicals whose effect on the environment was not under-
stood until they began to accumulate in the environemnt. These were
pesticides, detergents, radioactive isotopes and antibiotics.
A naturalist would prefer to avoid, if possible, release into
the environment of any substances whose effects are unknown. It
must not be forgotten that biological systems or processes are cumula-
tive and exponential in character so that material is accumulated and
built up in the system, often at amazing rates. Unfortunately, there
is a tendency to use biological terms and ideas a bit carelessly. For
example, I do not consider it advisable to think of the end of a sewer
pipe as an "ecosystem."
We have seen again these pretty movies of the end of the big
sewer pipe. Obviously this is a very peculiar situation. Water is
being entrained by the physical movement of the effluent out of the
pipe, and all those lush clusters of sea anemones and hordes of fishes
are not in the effluent but the water brought to the proximity of the
pipe by the entraining action of the effluent, which, as fresher water,
moves upwards from the pipe. So what is really going on at the end of
a big sewer pipe on the ocean bottom is the downward seeping of the
sludge and the upward movement of water and particles. This is not
really a "system" and we may in fact be expending unnecessary effort
in taking bottom samples around the pipe and computing diversity
indexes. Some of the sampling procedures suggested by water quality
agencies could constitute a major fishery effort whose effects could
in the long run be more devastating than the pollution being measured.
As for our present environmental concern, it is in my opinion not
1Emeritus Professor of Oceanography, Marine Science Center,
Oregon State University
G-68
-------
related to the original conservation movement of the 1900's. That was
essentially concerned over resources and who was to use them—or save
them. The problem that confronts us now is the integrity of the en-
vironment of our species, of ourselves. We--or at least many of us —
suspect that we cannot go on the way we have been doing, but in our
concern for environmental protection we are in danger of bending our
legal system Into kinks, of setting laws and requirements that are
Impractical to enforce. We get tied up in socio-economic and legal
systems that are not actually related to the welfare of man on earth
but to his pocketbook and property rights. But the people who view
the environmental approach as "radical" fail to realize they are the
ones who advocate the radical solution of let's do it, maybe we will
find a solution later as opposed to the true conservative position
that we must not do what we do not understand or that we suspect will
endanger our continued tenure of the earth. I have often suggested,
for example, that the massive withdrawals of organic materials from
the ocean without any compensatory return to the system—or actual
region—of great fisheriesis a drain on the system that man should
not make.
At the same time, we seem to be doing too much research, over and
over of the same things. Each bureau does its own study, or feels
obliged to, either because it has a different idea of how it should
be done or because it can't think of anything else to do. At the same
time, some critical and valuable work is done that is not generally
accessible. The U.S. Navy, for example, is attempting a base line
study of Pearl Harbor and devising field procedures that can be used by
personnel essentially untrained in science. We are going to need such
techniques in view of the increasing environmental impact of our pre-
sence on this planet. But, for the basic problem we already know what
we should do, as I stated in a summary of the water problems of es-
tuaries:
"The continued reliance on consultants and other advisors to
produce development plans, management studies and proposals
for maintaining programs is diverting funds from needed acti-
vities. The broad national policy is that estuaries must be
preserved and it is time to begin to do just that."
This thought should be extended to the coastal regions of the open
sea. As I have tried to emphasize in these remarks, the danger in se-
wage treatment and discharge is not in doing too much, but not doing
enough.
G-69
-------
Fred McLaren1
In preparing the California State Ocean Plan, an attempt was made
to define effluent quality requirements for ocean discharge that are
more directly related to the ocean environment than the 85 percent
BOD removal requirement. I feel the need for secondary biological
treatment for ocean discharges is very doubtful. More protection than
is being provided by classical primary treatment is, in my opinion,
very desirable. The problem is not best resolved by specifying a
singly acceptable treatment process as does the Federal 85% BOD
removal restriction, but by defining effluent quality which will re-
sult in the most environmentally and economically beneficial treat-
ment facility applicable to a given condition. The initial task
should be to select a point of discharge which provides maximum off
shore dispersion. Consideration should then be given to the character-
istics of the marine environment which is to receive the effluent, and
the engineer designing the treatment system should choose the best
process, including source control considerations that will most econo-
mically achieve the effluent quality required to protect that marine
environment.
Four different definitions of secondary, or best practicable,
treatment would be most desirable: one each for the ocean, the bays
and estuaries, fresh water, and groundwater. Secondary treatment
should not dictate biological processes. Its definition should be re-
lated to water quality objective. The ideal way to regulate any
specific waste discharge is to comprehensively study the pollution
problem and develop a specific system that most economically protects
the environment. Some nationwide definition that is effluent standard
oriented could be technically acceptable provided the effluent stan-
dards relate to environmental needs.
A major EPA problem is the definition of an ocean discharge. In
California, an ocean discharge is defined as one which provided 100:1
initial dilution and is a sufficient distance from shore to assure
protection of public health in bathing areas. Bays and estuaries in-
clude all tidal waters. Fresh or surface waters include those upstream
of tidal influences.
The water quality objectives and effluent quality requirement for
each of the four groups of waters should be defined and considered in-
dependently. In the ocean, the objective is not the same as in ground-
water. In groundwaters, the concern is with salt—certainly not a
pollutant of concern in the ocean. In the bays and estuaries, the con-
cern is with temperature, toxicity and bio-stimulation. In fresh
waters the concern is with public health and biostimulation. In the
shoreline areas of the ocean where there are shellfish and body contact
J. B. Gilbert and Associates, Sacramento, California
G-70
-------
uses, aesthetics and protection of public health are of concer^. Off
shore ocean discharges must be concerned with protecting the marine
community.
The appropriate management concept for protection of the ocean
includes the following considerations: 1. deep ocean discharge;
2. Off shore dispersion; 3. Diffusion; 4. Effective removal of
floatables; 5. Effective removal of toxicants. Effluent standards
can be defined in relation to water quality goals. They are more en-
forceable, and will be supported by the technical community.
Basically, in the California Ocean plan, toxic metals and grease
and oil are numerically limited, and chlorination is not required.
In setting the limits the conclusions of many pilot treatment programs
were influential. These showed that much less expensive processes
than biological secondary could obtain acceptable levels of grease and
oil, floatables, and toxic substances. Also, the requirement for 100
to 1 Initial dilution assured that California's deep ocean dischargers
would comply with very restrictive receiving water criteria without
secondary biological processes and without environmentally damaging
chlorination during a major part of the year.
Chronic toxicity in the receiving waters was considered, and
acute toxicity levels were established on effluent quality that would
assure maintenance of acceptable receiving water toxicity concentrations,
In conclusion, the definition of secondary treatment for ocean
discharges should relate to controlling toxic metals, pesticides, and
floatables, and effective off shore dispersion and diffusion. There
should be no disinfection requirement for effluents discharged to the
ocean other than those which affect waters used for body contact sports
or shell fishing areas.
Some general comments were made on:
1. Primary Treatment. Classical primary treatment processes
are not adequate for ocean discharge because of insufficient
removal of floatables.
2. Sludge. It would seem questionable to remove sludge through
treatment processes and then discharge it to the ocean through
separate outfalls. In view of the long time period required to
define environmental damage for ocean discharge consideration
should be given to excluding sludge discharges from the ocean;
however, environmentally acceptable alternatives must be avail-
able. It is most important to note that significantly greater
sludge volumes are produced and must be disposed of when higher
levels of treatment are dictated. Therefore, we should strive
for minimum treatment levels that will protect ocean resources.
G-71
-------
3. Source Control. Many metals and pesticides can be controlled
through an effective source control program which would reduce
the need for higher levels of treatment in centralized treatment
systems.
4. Correctness of Water Quality Standards. Although data are
usually insufficient, it is possible to arrive at acceptable
standards based on attainability, cost effectiveness and environ-
mental factors. We seem very willing to accept past standards
as being valid and necessary, yet we are quite unwilling to es-
tablish new ones even though we have far greater knowledge. For
example, we are very reluctant to accept a fairly well proven
toxicity standard or floatables standard for receiving waters, yet
a violation of a drinking water standard, or BOD standard, is
considered highly inappropriate.
5. Other pollutant sources. Although other sources may contri-
bute more pollutants than municipal wastes, the technology and
resources exist to control municipal wastes and, therefore, the
effort should be made in that area.
6. Prior commitment to Secondary Treatment. Although concern
has been expressed about the effect of changing (or not changing)
the definition of secondary treatment because of prior commit-
ment to facilities construction, the fact that environmental know-
ledge and regulations are an ever-changing and improving process
should be accepted and judgments made on the best available in-
formation now available rather than to continue past poor judg-
ments - such as requiring biological treatment for ocean discharges.
As we learn more, we should be very willing to change our ideas
and our standards and admit our past errors. Without this flex-
ibility, environmental progress will be greatly hampered.
7- Suspended Solids. There is good information which indicates
that efficient removal of suspended solids results in efficient
removal of heavy metals and pesticides. This can be accomplished
by biological or chemical treatment (secondary)0 processes. (A
source of information is the 68 technical reports on file with
the State of California from their ocean dischargers).
8. The California Ocean Plan. The plan has no time schedule for
compliance but requires that dischargers implement a staged pro-
gram of improvement which will lead to ultimate compliance. The
Task Force should consider such a staged compliance process for
ocean dischargers - particularly in light of limited financial
resources, limited physical capability to construct major improve-
ments, and environmental priorities. Let's clean up waters known
to be polluted before we spend our financial resources in ques-
tionable areas.
G-72
-------
Dr. James Morgan^
An alternate viewpoint, or approach, to biologically-centered
environmental controls is geochemically based. The current view re-
quires detailed biological information on acute chronic toxicity, the
latter requires a determination of alteration in the geochemical en-
vironment of natural populations. Geochemical conditions have been
fairly constant over fairly long periods of time. If an alteration
should occur, either through the addition of synthesized materials, or
unusually high levels of materials ordinarily present, the natural
populations would probably suffer undue stress.
At Cal Tech (California Institute of Technology) the impact of
discharged metals on natural levels in the environment is being ex-
amined. In the city and County of Los Angeles, the pollutant effects
of organic carbon (biochemical oxygen demand) holds much interest.
These are the organic compounds that remove oxygen from water or sedi-
ment when they are oxidized, thus becoming anaerobic. However, organic
carbon would seem to exert an insignificant drain on the oxygen re-
sources of Southern California's coastal waters.
As for nutrients in the Los Angeles area effluent, nitrogen in the
form of ammonia probably increases the background level of ammonia in
the receiving waters by a factor of 3 to 4, after dilution. This is
because the relative concentration of ammonia in sewage as compared to
sea water is about 300 to 1. The impact of phosphorus discharges is
less significant. The concentration of phosphorus in sewage compared
to sea water is 150-200 to 1, which after dilution, brings the back-
ground level up to 1-1/2 to 2.
Rather than the foregoing approach, considering four elements
would exemplify a geochemical approach to setting discharge standards.
These elements are chromium, cadmium, lead and nickel. A comparison
of the concentration of these elements in Los Angeles sewage effluents
to the background seawaters and seabed of Southern California, a dis-
tance up to 50 miles away from the outfall site (given as a factor of
1) is shown below. (This information is from the Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project, Willard Bascom's report.)
lKeck Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
G-73
-------
Ratio of Mixed
Form
Element Sewage/Seawater
CR
CD
Pb (lead)
Ni
18,000***
300
4,000
3
Ratio of Sus- Percent of
pended Form Suspended
Sewage/Sediment Solids*
20
130
50
5
95
95
95+
45
Percent of
From
Sewers
93
77
38
78
*County of Los Angeles Sanitation Department
**An uncertainty factor of 25-50% exists in this ratio number and further
study will probably revise it downward.
G-74
-------
Frank D. Schaumburg1
PL 92-500 was based on an overriding concern for waste quality
but only a passive conceirofor the non-water quality impacts on the environ-
ment.
The distinction between municipal and industrial discharges is
arbitrary. Secondary treatment involves the removal of organic material
from a waste stream (BOD) regardless of its source. Both industrial
and municipal discharges should be considered. Unnecessary treatment
by either municipality or industry is a cost that the public eventually
must bear.
Using the concepts of thermodynamics, we know that all man's ac-
tivities increase the entrophy state of nature and consume free energy.
All man's activities pollute the environment in some way, in some location.
Pollutants are not "disposed of" but rather are relocated in one of three,
and possibly four, ultimate sinks: the atmosphere, the ocean, the land,
and perhaps some fresh water lakes.
p
Pollution is that level of contamination that nature cannot safely
handle. To place pollutants in a sink without causing pollution re-
quires environmental management -- doing different things in different
places depending on local conditions. PL 92-500 legislates and regulates
the environment but does not manage it. This approach will appear to
work initially but eventually we will find that our activities have been
counter-protective to the total environment. Secondary treatment also
pollutes the environment. This is based on the following facts:
(a) Matter cannot be destroyed. Treatment technology simply
moves matter from one phase to another.
(b) All technology consumes energy and other natural resources.
(c) The production and utilization of energy and other natural
resources contaminates the environment. This contamination
is not pollution if it can be safely assimilated.
In increasing the level of wastewater treatment the level of con-
taminants discharged in the effluent decreases; but the level of contamin-
ants resulting from treatment increases. These two courses intersect at
a minimum net level of contamination of the environment. The ocean has
a large assimilative capacity for organics. By removing these contamin-
ants in the treatment process you must dispose of them elsewhere in the
environment -- to another sink that might not be able to safely assimilate
them.
^Department of Civil Engineering, Oregon State University
G-75
-------
Examples of these concepts were given for the South Lake Tahoe ad-
vanced treatment facility, and the Ketchikan Pulp Company in Ketchikan,
Alaska. The concept of chlorination of primary and secondary effluents
was also questioned.
-------
Daniel W. Smith1
I have been asked to express the interest that many people in
Alaska have in Public Law 92-500. Of particular concern is the require-
ment for secondary treatment even for ocean discharges.
I would be remiss if I were to fail to mention the common and un-
common conditions Alaska has with the rest of the United States. The
first item one thinks of is, of course, temperature. Nearly a third of
the coastal regions have climates a bit colder but similar to Washington.
about another one-third is considerably colder with several months of
ice coyer. The last portion sees a very few days each year in which the
water is ice free. So we see there are some similarities and some dif-
ferences.
The second point is the low population densities of the State, The
total population of Alaska is some 302,000 people. This is about 79% of
the population of Portland. The 1970 population density of Alaska was
0.5 persons/square mile. This is nearly seven times less than the next
lowest State Wyoming (3.4 persons/square mile). Alaska is growing and
will continue to grow, but right now the population is low.
The third item of interest - the one I feel is the most important
is the general sanitary conditions in the State. Right now there are
approximately 195 villages in the State. About 40 of these communities
have water and sewer systems. I feel that before we start requiring such
advanced systems as secondary treatment universally, we should attempt to
install the basic sanitation systems. This means that common everyday
thing - running water in the home. We should provide the basic sewer system
to get the wastes away from the home.
This sounds somewhat unrelated to the subject at hand. It is not.
Many communities in Alaska are on the coast. The requirement for secon-
dary treatment of the wastewater before discharge does not seem reasonable
'when these funds could be put into providing a safe water supply for
another community.
Now let's look at one of the population centers of Alaska-Anchorage.
The Anchorage Bowl has a population of 147,000. Of these people, about
65 percent are connected to the sewer system which is currently provid-
ing primary treatment then discharging to the Cook Inlet at Pt. Woronzof.
The flow past Pt. Woronzof originates in Knik Arm from some eight(8)
streams. The total flow varies from about 1000 cfs in March to over
40,000 cfs in July.
llnstitute of Water Resources, University of Alaska
G-77
-------
Chester Creek Oulfall
?. Ship Creek Outfn
3. Elm-jndorf Outfa
4 Fort Richardson Outfa
5 Turnagain Heights Outfall
6 Airport Outfall
7 Campell l.n'ne Outfall
ANCHORAGE
COOK INLET
g. 7. /l/op o/ the K/nk Arm reyinn
the major sewag? oiti falls (indiciited by arrows)
G-78
-------
The Cook Inlet area of Alaska"has received the beginning of a
fairly extensive study in the last few years. I am here to present some
of the work which was done by the Institute of Water Resources of the
University of Alaska, and allide to other work. I want to make it clear
that I was not with the Institute at the time the studies were made. I
do want you to know that there is considerable information available
on these regions. Also, I want to convey some of the opinions and con-
clusions reached by members of the Institute at that time.
First we must realize that samples collected, analyzed, and evaluated
are representative of conditions at the time and place of their collec-
tion. Conditions are changing both in terms'of the inputs to the estuary
and in the way the estuary reacts to these inputs. At the time of the
studies wastewater was discharged directly into the Inlet without the
benefit of disinfection. Today about 65 percent of the domestic wastes
does receive primary treatment and disinfection.
Much of the efforts of earlier research are summarized in the paper,
"Effects of Waste Discharges Into a Silt-laden Estuary: A Case Study
of Cook Inlet, Alaska." It was published in 1972 and reports on work
done in 1969 and 1970.
The work conducted by the Institute of Water Resources was done,
before the present wastewater collection system was installed. The
present system collects the wastewater produced by 95,500 people in the
Anchorage area. Another 5,000 could be connected to the collection
system at present. The study area and some of the important outfalls
at the time are shown in figure 1 of the report. To the best of my know-
ledge these outfalls have been eliminated.
The following items were investigated in the IWR study:
1. Currents in the Inlet
2. Chemical quality
3. Microorganisms
4. Bottom muds
Considerable effort was directed at the Chester Creek Outfall since
it contributed the majority of the wastewater.
Physical Dispersion
Dispersion depends on the physical environment and a number of
boundary conditions.
G-79
-------
The primary forces of interest in Cook Inlet are the 30" foot tides
which generate tidal currents which in turn move the wastes.
The figure on the next page shows the general tidal conditions in
the inlet. The wastes are generally pushed out of the Inlet as well as
being biologically converted to cellular material. The next figure
shows a plot of the mean monthly discharges for streams flowing into
Knik Arm from the Matanuska and Knik Rivers. These two have substantial
flow in the warmer months due to snow and glacial melt and low flow in
the winter due to groundwater contributions.
The second important point is the suspended sediment load. As
you can see in figure 3, it varies considerably with the season. This
tremendous load limits the aesthetic, qualities and biological populations
of the Inlet. The water is very brown. The bottom of Knik Arm is a
silt-sand material. The extreme tides continuously resuspended this
material. The contribution of sediments from the two major rivers is a
function of the temperature at the higher-elevation glaciers.
The research staff used basic estuary models to examine what was
happening in the inlet. Both a one-dimensional model and a two-dimensional
model were used, however, the two-dimensional model was used only in
a limited fashion. The important point in these calculations was that
the Co or initial concentration values of 5-day 20°C biochemical demand
in Knik Arm at the Chester Creek Outfall, assuming a waste flow of 4.1
mgd and a BOD of 100 ppm are between 0.003. and 0.004 mg/1.
Today the wastewater flows average 21 mgd with a spring peak of
40 mgd. The raw BOD is 100-130 mg/1 and the treated values are 60-75
mg/1. The values of 40 mgd and 75 mg/1 can be inserted into the calcu-
lations with the results being between 0.024 and 0.061 ppm.
Conclusions drawn by the research group included that Cook Inlet
is well mixed. The wastes are highly diluted. Biological action may
reduce the concentration of biochemical oxygen demand quickly. General
environmental studies included evaluation of temperature which varied
from -1.1°C in March to 12.4°C in August. Suspended sediments varied
greatly with the time of year, ranging from 300-2000 mg/1. With regard
to dissolved oxygen studies the report concluded "That there was no
recognizable oxygen depletion due to any of the existing waste outfalls".
Nutrient values were all extremely low as reported in Table 3, Page 17
in the report. The figures show phosphate, nitrate, ammonia concentration
at various points about Knik Arm. The report notes that coliform organisms
were found. These may have been due to the raw waste discharges. The
report does state that "As much as 200 mgd can be-discharged into the
Inlet without causing an undesirable situation".
I feel it would be foolish to recommend the blanket eltnination of
the secondary treatment requirement for municipal wastewater discharges
to the ocean via deep water outfalls.
G-80
-------
loopcc
I
CD
r
o
o
5 |,OCC
<
LJ
100
TOTAL FRESH-
WATER FLOW
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D J
MONTHS
variation of ll;c major freshwater
SOC.OOOp-
ico.ooo
c.
o
O
o 10,000
_J
L'J
5
C3
UJ
CO
Q
G
2
UJ
Q.
cn
1.000!
100
-I
inputs to Knik Ann
J. FMAMJ J ASOND
MONTHS
Fig. j. Time variation of ihc mean
sediment inputs t<: Knik Arm
-------
If it can be shown that the effects are negligible or beneficial
to the total aquatic system, by all means do not require the most soph-
isticated system, because it is policy.
EPA is comprised of some of the most highly trained people in the
world. They have access to hundreds of others that are involved in
research, development and evaluation. These people should be expected
to use their abilities to reach well thought out, well organized solu-
tions to individual problems.
I think we can and should make decisions and establish requirements
for the discharge of municipal wastewater based on what is needed.
Recommendations such as a maximum strength of wastewater discharges of
100 to 200 mg/1 BOD's and an expected dilution by diffusion of 100 to
200 times would be more than adequate to meet environmental needs.
G-82
-------
APPENDIX G(4)
LIST OF DOCUMENTS PROVIDED
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Annual Report-1974.
SCCWRP - El Segundo, California 90245.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering. Water
Quality Criteria 1972. A report of the Committee on Water Quality
Criteria. GPO Pub!. #5501-00520, Washington, D.C. (EPA #R3-73-033,
March 1973.)
Letter dtd May 21, 1974: Willard Bascom, Director - So. Calif. Coastal
Water Research Project, El Segundo, Calif., to John T. Rhett, Deputy
Assistant Administrator for Water Program Operations, EPA, Wash. D.C.
In re: Ocean Discharges/Secondary Treatment task force.
Project Report for Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2. Orange County
Sanitation Districts Fountain Valley, California. March, 1974.
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California (Dists.l,2,3,
5,6,7 & 11): Alternatives for Improved Treatment. Statement to
Environmental Protection Agency Secondary Treatment Task Force.
County Sanitation Distr. of Orange County, Calif., Fountain Valley,
Calif. 92708
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County. Technical Report for
Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California. Jan. 1973.
Letter dtd May 15, 1974: Richard E. Marland, Office of Environmental
Quality Control, Office of the Government. State of Hawaii, to
Chas. Sutfin, EPA: In Re: State of Hawaii deep ocean outfalls .
Ibid: Ltr dtd 5/28/74
Brown and Caldwell, Carey and Kramer, Hill & Ingman, R. W. Beck and
Associates: A Joint Venture. Interim Report - West Point Environ-
ment Planning Study. Metropolitan Engineers, Seattle, Wash. Apr.1973.
Letter dtd Apr. 10, 1974: James P. Swing, Public Works Dept., Greater Anchorage,
(Alaska) Area Borough, to Chas. Sutfin, EPA: In re: Univ. of Alaska
Tech. Rpt. Univ. of Alaska Inst. of Water Resources Effect of Waste
Discharges Into a Silt-Laden Estuary. Nov. 1972.
Letter from City of Miami Beach, Florida, to National Comm. on Water
Quality dated September 27, 1974, to the Attn. of Nelson A. Rockefeller,
Chairman, and enclosed publications.
Muskie, Sen. Edmund S. (Maine). Opening Statement : Hearing on Secondary
Treatment Requirement of Clean Water Law. Honolulu, Hawaii. Released
March 18, 1974.
G-83
-------
Letter dtd July 17, 1974, to Charles Sutfin (EPA) from Lee C. White,
White, Fine & Ambrogne, Attorneys at Law, Washington, D. C., in re:
Observations in Connection with the EPA Secondary Treatment Task
Force Assignment . Meeting in Portland, Ore. June 13, 1974.
Till man, Donald C. and Robert S. Horii. Clean Air Equals Dirty Water.
Amer. Soc. of Civil Engineers, Nat'l Water Resources hngineerinq
Meeting, Los Angeles, Calif. Jan. 1974.
Letter dtd May 24, 1974, to Senator Warren G. Magnuson from Lillian
Regelson (EPA) in re "EPA Participation in a Baseline Study of
Puget Sound."
Letter dtd Sept. 24, 1974, to Teodoro Moscosco, EDA Puerto Rico from
John T. Rhett (EPA) in re EPA Ocean nischarnes/Secondarv Treatment
Task Force Recognition of Position of Puerto Rico on Issues Involved.
Barber, Carlos M. Jimenez . Comments on the Applicability of Federal
Environmental Rules and Regulations on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Statement prepared before Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on Puerto Rico,
San Juan. April 27, 1974.
County Sanitation Dist. of Orange County, California. Proposed Defini-
tion of Best Practicable Treatment for Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Discharging into Territorial Seas. Revised. June 1974.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO). Paper: Metro Strateay
for Compliance with the- Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1972. Sept. Z7,. 1973. Seattle, Wash.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO). Ltr dtd April 25, 1974,
to Sewer Committee Members from C.J. Henry in re Interim Puget Sound
Studies.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO). Ltr dtd June 21, 1974,
to C. J. Henry from R. S. Domenowski in re Descriptive Comments of
Puget Sound.
State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Central Coast Region (3). Water Duality Control Plan - Central
Coastal Basin. Abstract, May 1974. California.
California Institute of Technology. Recommendation to the EPA Task Force
on Ocean Discharges/Secondary treatment by N. H. Brooks. California
Ocean Pollution Research- Conference, Nov. 11-15, 1973, Lake Arrowhead,
California.
Greater Anchorage (Alaska) Area Borough. Letter from James P. Swinn to
Director, Municipal Construction Division, (EPA) dtd April 30, 1974,
in re: Alternate Waste. Treatment Management Techniques and Systems
for Best Practicable Waste Treatment.
G-84
-------
RIBCO. Water Quality Management Study. Final Alternatives - Conclusions
and Recommendations. Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc. Engrs-Planners
March 1974. Metropolitan Seattle.
Barns, Clifford A. Paper: Hydrographic Characteristics of Puget Sound.
Undated.
Friebertshauser, Mark A., and Duxgury, Alyn C. "A Water Budget Study of
Puget Sound and its Subregions." Abstract. Reprinted from Limnology
Vol. 17:2. pp.237-247. Dept. of Oceanography, Univ. of Washington,
Seattle. March 1972.
Memorandum dtd June 21, 1974 to C. J. Henry from R. S. Domenowske,
METRO, Seattle in re: Descriptive Comments of Puget Sound.
Memorandum dtd April 25, 1974 to Sewer Committee Members from C.J. Henry
in re: Interim Puget Sound STudies. Seattle, Wash. METRO.
Letter from METRO Seattle (undated) as part of the Metro NPDES Permit,
and in re: Section I - Item 14, Background Heavy Metals and Heavy
Metals Removal at Treatment Plants w/attached reports. Seattle.
Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc. RIBCO. Water Quality Management Study.
FINAL ALTERNATIVES - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. State of
Washington. March 1974.
Collias, Eugene, E., Noel McGary and Clifford A. Barnes. Atlas of
Physical and Chemical Properties of Puget Sound and Its Approaches.
A Washington Sea Grant Publication. Municipality of Metropolitan
Seattle - Univ. of Washington Press. 1974.
Letter dtd July 2, 1974 to John Rhett (EPA) from Richard E. Marland,
State of Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control, in re:
Portland, Oregon Meeting of the "Ocean Outfall."
Letter dtd May 16, 1974 to Charles Sutftn ("EPAI from James P. Swing
Greater Anchorage Area Borough; PuBl. Works Dept. tn re "Plan for
the Ocean Discharges/Secondary Treatment Task. Force." Ancfiorage,
Alaska.
Letter dtd June 24, 1974 to Jack. Rhett [EPA} from John D. ParkfiUrst
County Sanitation Districts of Los- Angeles, in re "Best
Practicable Treatment for Deep Ocean Dicharges. Los Anqeles, Calif.
Letter dtd May 20, 1974 'to Charles Sutfin, (EPAl from Edward Y. Hirata
Bd. of water Supply, City of Honolulu in re "Plan for the Ocean Dis-
charges/Secondary Treatment Task Force provided By Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) on May 3, 1974.
Letter to John T. Rhett (EPA) from Richard S. Page, Municipality of
Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) in re: June 13, 1974 Portland, Ore.
Meeting on Ocean Dischargers/Secondary Treatment TasR Force.
Seattle, Washington.
G-85
-------
Ltr from Municipality of Metro. Seattle (Washington) dtd July 24, 1974
to John T. Rhett, EPA in re Comments of Portland Ocean Dischargers/
Secondary Treatment Task Force meetingv
Garber, W. F.; Ohara, Geo. T.; Raksit,. Sagar K. (Abstract). Energy
Assessments of Certain Wastewater Treatment and Solids Disposal
Processes. Bureau of Sanitation, City of Los Angeles, California.
Hay, W. A., and Reinsch, D. A. Ocean Disposal ofTreated Sewage Through
Deep-Water Submarine Outfalls. Australia & New Zealand Assoc. for
Advancement of Science, 44th Congress, Sydney, August 1972.
Bureau of Sanitation, Department of Public Works, Ctty of Los Angeles.
Environmental' Effects of Liquid Wastewater Discharge Upon Santa Monica
Bay. March, 1971.
METRO - Seattle, Washington. Report: "A Discussion of Compounds Existing
in Municipal Wastewater and Methods for Their Removal." Attachment to
Itr dtd May 22, 1974, to Charles Sutfin, EPA, from Charles V. Gibbs,
Director of Seattle, Washington METRO,
A Plan for Kawaii's Environment. A report of the Temporary Commission on
Statewide Environmental Planning. Novembers, 1973. Honolulu, Hawaii.
Gibbs, Charles V. Testimony to be Presented: to.the Subcommittee on
Environmental Pollution of the.Senate Public Works Committee.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle- Presented at Honolulu, Hawaii,
March 18, 1974.
So. Calif. Coastal Water Research: Project: "The Coastal Water Research
Project." El Segundo, California.. Malcolm -Cook, Hillside Press.
Los Angeles. 1974.
METRO - Seattle, Washington. Report: "Seattle Metro's Strategy for Best
Practicable Waste Treatment Technology." Letters and Resolutions.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Washington. 1973.
Resolution No. 1910: Council of Municipality of Metro. Seattle, establish-
ing Best Practicable Treatment for all Metropolitan Sewage Treatment
Facilities by July 1, 1983 as the Policy of the Municipality and Directing
the Executive Director to Prepare for the:Implementation of Such Policy.
July 1973.
City of Los- Angeles. Dept. of Public Works.. Technical Report Waste Dis^
charges to the Ocean. HYPERION TREATMENT PLANT. PART I. Jan. 1973.
City of Los Angeles. Dept. of Public Works. Technical Report Waste Dis-
charges to the Ocean. HYPERION TREATMENT PLANT. PART II. Jan. 1973.
EPA Ocean Discharges/Secondary Treatment Task Force. COMPILATION OF BACK-
GROUND INFORMATION AND SOURCE DOCUMENTS. Aug. 22, 1974.
EPA Ecological Research Series/ DISPERSION IN HYDROLOiSIC AND COASTAL
ENVIRONMENTS. EPA-660/3-73-010. GPO. Washington, D. C. $1.55
G-86
-------
Series of Reports of the Precision Analytical Laboratories, Inc.,
Miami Beach, Florida. Analyzing Sewage Constituents from Outfalls,
1970-1974. Meeting held September 5, 1974 (Miami Beach, Florida.)
EPA Publication 660/2-74-039. Catalyzed Bio-Oxidation and Tertiary
Treatment of Integrated Textile Wastewaters. GOP Washington, D.C.
Cerame-Vivas, M. J., Dept. of Marine Sciences, Univ. of Puerto Rico,
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Presentation Before the Ocean Discharges/
Secondary Treatment Task Force Meeting, Portland, Ore. June 26-27, 1974.
California Institute of Technology. Background Papers For a Research
Conference on California Ocean Pollution. Presented at Lake Arrowhead,
California, Nov. 11-15, 1973. CalTech & Scripps Inst. of Oceanography.
Sanitary Engr. Res. Lab., College of Engr. & School of Public Health,
Univ. of California (Berkeley). The Significance and Control of
Wastewater Floatables in Coastal Waters. Preliminary Paper, Jan. 1974.
City of Los Angeles (California) Dept. of Public Works. Project Report.
Hyperion Treatment Plant. Sludge Processing & Disposal System. Un-
dated.
Territory of Guam, Office of the Governor. Letter dtd Sept. 29, 1974
in re: PL 92-500: Standards of Water Quality of Waters of the Terri-
tory of Guam. Governor Garlos G. Camacho to Senator Edmund S. Muskie.
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California. Proposed Pro-
gram to Achieve the Goals Established by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and the California Ocean Plan Effluent Quality Criteria.
April 1974.
Van Note, Robert H., Paul V. Hebert & Ramesh M. Patel. Bechtel Corp.
A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems.
San Francisco, Calif. May 1973.
Orange County Sanitation Districts, California. Environmental Impact
Report for Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2. Fountain Valley, Calif.
March 1974.
City of Miami Beach Florida. "Application... for Approval of Demonstra-
tion Project of Deep Current Assimilation of Sewage." November 11, 1974,
City and County of Honolulu, Dept. of Public Works, "Water Quality Program
for Oahu with Special Emphasis on Waste Disposal." Final Report. En-
gineering Science, Inc. March, 1971.
Report, "Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment
Systems," Bechtel Corp., May, 1975.
Environmental Impact Statement, "Ocean Outfalls and Other Methods of
Treated Wastewater Disposal in Southeast Florida," EPA Region IV.
G-87
-------
APPENDIX Hi
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. ?2-45
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
FOR
OCEAN WATERS OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS:
I. The Board finds it necessary to promulgate water quality
objectives and effluent quality requirements to govern the
disposal of waste into the coastal waters of California;
2. The Board, after extensive review and analysis of testimony
received at public hearings, has determined that protection
of beneficial uses of the ocean waters of the State will
require maximum practicable control of waste substances which
may unreasonably impair those uses;
3. The Board finds that maximum practicable control of waste
can be achieved through a comprehensive program which com-
bines source control of waste and modern waste treatment
technology;
4. The Board believes that application of current technology
through intelligent design of control systems rather than
irrational specification of arbitrary treatment methods
can provide the highest degree of water quality protection
without unreasonable cost;
5. The Board intends to implement monitoring programs to deter-
mine compliance with water quality objectives and effluent
quality requirements, and to yield other information such as
the effectiveness of source control programs and the identi-
fication of any short-term or long-term degradation of marine
biota;
6. The Board intends to review all available data from time to
time to determine the efficacy of control programs for pro-
tecting water quality;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that
1. The Board hereby adopts the "-WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR
OCEAN WATERS OF CALIFORNIA"
2. The Board hereby directs all affected California Regional
Water Quality Control Boards to implement the provisions of
the PLAN.
3. The Board hereby directs its Executive Officer to issue
guidelines for monitoring the effects of waste discharges
to the ocean at the earliest possible date.
H-2
-------
APPENDIX H
CALIFORNIA STATE
OCEAN UATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN
and
WATER QUALITY CONTROL POLICY
FOR ENCLOSED BAYS AND ESTUARIES
-------
No. 72-4 5
•';. The Board hereby declares its intent to determine from tins.
to time the need for revising the FLAW to assure that it.
reflects current knowledge of water quality objectives
necessary to protect beneficial uses of ocean waters and
that it is based on latest technological improvements.
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned, Executive Officer of the State Water Resources
Control Board, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full,
true, and correct copy of a resolution duly and regularly adopted
at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on
July 6, 1972.
Bill B. Dendy
Executive Officer
H-3
-------
CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR
OCEAN WATERS OF CALIFORNIA
In furtherance of legislative policy set forth in Section
13000 of Division 7 of the California Water Code (Stats. 1969,
Chap. 482) and pursuant to the authority contained in Section
13170 (Stats. 1971, Chap. 1288) the State Water Resources
Control Board hereby finds and declares that protection of the
quality of the ocean waters for use and enjoyment by the people
of the State requires control of the discharge of waste—/ to
ocean waters.2/ in accordance with the provisions contained
herein.
CHAPTER I.
BENEFICIAL USES
The beneficial uses of the ocean waters of the State that
shall be protected include industrial water supply, recreation,
esthetic enjoyment, navigation, and preservation and enhance-
ment of fish, wildlife, and other marine resources or preserves
CHAPTER II.
WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
This chapter sets forth limits or levels of water quality
characteristics for ocean waters to ensure the reasonable pro-
tection of beneficial uses and the prevention of nuisance. The
discharge of waste shall not cause violation of these objectives
A. Bacteriological Characteristics^
1. Within a zone bounded by the shoreline and a distance
of 1,000 feet from the shoreline or the 30-foot depth
contour whichever is further from the shoreline, and
in areas— outside this zone used for body-contact
sports, the following bacteriological objectives
shall be maintained throughout the water column:
Samples of water from each sampling station
shall have a most probable number of coliform
organisms less than 1,000 per 100 ml (10 per
ml); provided that not more than 20 percent of
the samples at any sampling station, in any 30-
day period, may exceed 1,000 per 100 ml (10 per
ml), and provided further that no single sample
when verified by a repeat sample taken within 48
hours shall exceed 10,000 per 100 ml (100 per ml).
Adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board
by Resolution No. 72-45 on July 6, 1972.
E-h
-------
Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters of California
Chapter II. A.
4 /
2. At all areas— where shellfish may be harvested for
human consumption, the following bacteriological
objectives shall be maintained throughout the water
column:
The median total coliform concentration
shall not exceed 70 per 100 ml, and not
more than 10 percent of the samples shall
exceed 230 per 100 ml.
B. Physical Characteristics
1. Floating particulates and grease and oil shall not
be visible.
2. The concentration of grease and oil (hexane
extractables) on the water surface shall not exceed
10 mq/m2 more than 50 percent of the time, nor 20
mg/m more than 10 percent of the time._/
3. The concentration of floating particulates of
waste origin on the water surface shall not exceed
1.0 mg dry weight/m more than 50 percent of the time,
nor 1.5 mg dry weight/m^ more 'than 10 percent of the
time.I/
4. The discharge of waste shall not cause esthetically
undesirable discoloration of the ocean surface.
5. The transmittance of natural light shall not be
significantly^./ reduced at any point outside the
initial dilution zone.-Z/
6. The rate of deposition of inert solids and the
characteristics of inert solids in ocean sediments
shall not be changed such that benthic communities
are degraded.jL/
C. Chemical Characteristics
q /
The dissolved oxygen concentration— shall not at any
time be depressed more than 10 percent from that which
occurs naturally.
g/
The pH— shall not be changed at any time more than
0.2 units from that which occurs naturally.
H-5
-------
Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters of California
Chapter II. C.
3. The dissolved sulfide concentration of waters in and
near sediments shall not be significantly^/ increased
above that present under natural conditions.
4. The concentration of substances set forth in Chapter
IV, Table B,in marine sediments shall not be signi-
ficantly^./ increased above that present under natural
conditions.
5. The concentration of organic materials in marine sedi-
ments shall not be increased above that which would
degrade^/ marine life.
6. Nutrient materials shall not cause objectionable
aquatic growths or degraded/ indigenous biota.
D. Biological Characteristics
1. Marine communities, including vertebrate, inverte-
brate, and plant species, shall not be degraded.2/
2. The natural taste, odor, and color of fish, shellfish,
or other marine resources used for human consumption
shall not be altered.
E. Toxicity Characteristics
1. The final toxicity concentration shall not
exceed 0.05 toxicity units..L2/
F. Radioactivity
1. Radioactivity shall not, exceed the limits specified
in Title 17, Chapter 5. Subchapter 4, Group 3, Article 3
Section 30269 of the California Administrative Code.
H-6
-------
Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters of California
CHAPTER III.
PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGEMENT OF
WASTE DISCHARGES TO THE OCEAN
A. Waste management systems that discharge to the ocean must
be designed and operated in a manner that will maintain
the indigenous marine life and a healthy and diverse
marine community.
B. Waste discharged to the ocean must be essentially free—/
of:
1. material that is floatable or will become
floatable upon discharge,
2. settleable material or substances that form
sediments which degrade^/ benthic communities
or other aquatic life,
3. substances toxic to marine life due to increases
in concentrations in marine waters or sediments,
4. substances that significantly decrease the
natural light to benthic communities and other
marine life, and
5. materials that result in esthetically undesir-
able discoloration of the ocean surface.
C. Ocean outfalls and diffusion systems must be designed to
achieve rapid initial dilution^2/ and effective disper-
sion to minimize concentrations of substances not removed
by treatment.
D. Location of waste discharges must be determined after a
detailed assessment of the oceanographic characteristics
and current patterns to assure that:
1. pathogenic organisms and viruses are not
present in areas where shellfish are har-
vested for human consumption or in areas
used for swimming or other body-contact
sports,13/
H-7
-------
Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters of California
Chapter III. D.
natural water quality conditions are not
altered in areas designated as being of
special biological significance, and
maximum protection is provided to the marine
environment^
CHAPTER IV,
QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR WASTE DISCHARGES
(EFFLUENT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS)
This chapter sets forth- the quality requirements for
waste discharges to the ocean.-!/
TABLE A
Concentration not to be
exceeded more than:
Unit of
measurement
Grease and Oil
(hexane extractables) mg/1
Floating Particulates
(dry weight) mg/1
Suspended Solids mg/1
Settleable Solids ml/1
Turbidity JTU
pH units
50% of time 10% of time
10.
1.0
50.
0.1
50.
15.
2.0
75.
0.2
75.
within limits of
6.0 to 9.0 at all
times.
H-8
-------
Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters of California
Chapter IV.
TABLE B
Concentration not to be
exceeded more than:
Arsenic
Cadmium
Total Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Phendlic Compounds
Total Chlorine Residual
Ammonia (expressed as
nitrogen)
Unit of
measurement
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
rag/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
50% of time 10% of time
14/
Total Identifiable
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons-^'
Toxicity Concentration—
Radioactivity
mg/1
mg/1
tu
0.01
0.02
0.005
0.2
0.1
0.001
0.1
0.02
0. 3
0.1
0.5
1.0
40.
0.002
1.5
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.3
0.2
0.002
0.2
0.04
0.5
0.
1.
2.0
60.
0.004
2.0
not to exceed the limits
specified in Title 17,
Chapter 5, Subchapter 4,
Group 3, Article 5,
Section 30285 and 30287
of the California
Administrative Code.
CHAPTER V.
DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS
A. Hazardous Substances
The discharge of any radiological, chemical, or biological
warfare agent or high-level radioactive waste into the ocean is
prohibited.
b. Areas of Special Biological Significance
Waste shall be discharged a sufficient distance from areas
designated as being of special biological significance to assure
maintenance of natural water quality conditions in these areas.
- - - H-9
-------
Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters of California
Chapter V.
C. Sludge
The discharge of municipal and industrial waste sludge
and sludge digester supernatant directly to the ocean, or
into a waste stream that discharges to the ocean without
further treatment, shall be prohibited.
D. By-Passing
The by-passing of untreated waste to the ocean shall be
prohibited.
CHAPTER VX.
GENERAL- PROVISIONS
A. Effective Date
This plan is in effect as of the date of adoption by the
State Water Resources Control Board* The less restrictive
provisions of each of the extant policies and plans for the
ocean shall be void and superseded by all applicable provisions
of this plan.
B. Mass Emission Rates
In addition to receiving water objectives and effluent
quality requirements, waste discharge requirements shall set
forth the Maximum Allowable Daily Mass Emission Rate and the
Maximum Allowable Monthly Mass Emission Rate for each effluent
quality constituent included in the waste discharge requirements.
The Maximum Allowable Daily Mass Emission Rate for each
constituent shall be calculated from the total waste flow occur-
ring each specific day and the concentration specified in waste
discharge requirements as that not to be exceeded more than 10
percent of the time. The mass emission rate of the discharge
during any 24-hour period shall not exceed the Maximum Allowable
Daily Mass Emission Rate.
The Maximum Allowable Monthly Mass Emission Rate for each
constituent shall be calculated from the total waste flow
occurring in each specific month and the concentration specified
in waste discharge requirements as that not to be exceeded more
than 50 percent of the time. The mass emission rate of the dis-
charge during any monthly period shall not exceed the Maximum
Allowable Monthly Mass Emission Rate.
H-10
-------
Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters of California
Chapter VI.
C. Technical Reports
Persons responsible for existing waste discharges to the
ocean shall be required by the Regional Board to submit a
technical report prior to January 15, 1973. The technical
report shall include but not be limited to:
1. A proposed program of improvement of waste
treatment facilities necessary to assure
compliance with all provisions of this plan.
2. A proposed time schedule for construction of
necessary facilities.
3. An estimate of the capital cost of necessary
facilities.
4. Any request, with supporting evidence, for less
restrictive effluent quality requirements.
5. An analysis of all other factors deemed necessary
by the Regional Board to permit establishment of
waste discharge requirements.
For discharges exceeding 40 mgd the technical report shall
include a correlation of the effluent quality requirements for
the parameters set forth in Chapter IV, Table A, with all water
quality objectives set forth in Chapter II, and with all effluent
quality requirements set forth in Chapter IV, Table B.
D. Waste Discharge Requirements
The Regional Boards may establish more restrictive water
quality objectives and effluent quality requirements than those
set forth in this plan as necessary for the protection of
beneficial uses of the ocean.
Effluent quality requirements shall not ba less restrictive
than those set forth in Chapter IV, Table B, of this plan.
Effluent quality requirements may be less restrictive than
those set forth in Chapter IV, Table A, of this plan provided
the Regional Board finds that the discharge shall comply with
all water quality objectives set forth in Chapter II and all
effluent quality requirements set forth in Chapter IV, Table 3.
Less restrictive effluent quality requirements shall be
effective only upon approval by the State Board.
H-U
-------
Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters oi California
FOOTNOTES
JY This plan is not applicable to vessel wastes, the con-
trol of dredging, or the disposal of dredging spoil.
Provisions regulating the thermal aspects of waste dis-
charged to the ocean are set forth in the Water Quality
Control Plan for the Control of Temperature in the
Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays and
Estuaries of California dated May 18, 1972.
2/ Ocean waters are waters of the Pacific Ocean adjacent
to the California coast outside of enclosed bays,
estuaries, and coastal lagoons.
Enclosed bays are indentations along the coast which
enclose an area of oceanic water within distinct head-
lands or harbor worXs. Enclosed bays include all bays
where the narrowest distance between headlands or cuter-
most harbor works is less than 75 percent of the g-eate..t
dimension of the enclosed portion of the bay. Th ..
definition includes but is not limited to: Humooirlt H;.",
Bodega Harbor, T^.aales Bay, Drakes Estero, San Franci T
Bay, Carmel Bay, Morro Bay, Los Angeles Harbor, Upper
and Lower Newport Bay, Mission Bay, and San Diego Ba\
Estuaries and coastal lagoons are waters at the mouths
of streams which serve as mixing zones for fr..si and oce-in
waters during a. major portion of the year. Mou: us of
streams which are temporarily separated *. rom tn-2 ooeu.
-------
Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters of California
Chapter VI,
E. Revision of Waste Discharge Requiremen ts_
The Regional Board shall revise the waste discharge
requirements for existing discharges as necessary to achieve
compliance with this plan and shall also establish a time
schedule for compliance. Prior to adoption, but not later
than April 15, 1973, the Regional Board shall submit to the
State Board all technical reports provided by the waste dis-
chargers, proposed waste discharge requirements, and time
schedules for compliance for all discharges to the ocean.
F. State Board Review of Time Schedules
The State Board shall review proposed time schedules
for all municipal discharges throughout the State and shall
recommend to the Regional Boards specific schedules to assure
the maximum benefit from, and equitable distribution of,
available state and federal grant funds.
G. Monitoring Program
The Regional Board shall require dischargers to conduct
self-monitoring programs and submit reports necessary to
determine compliance with the waste discharge requirements,
and may require dischargers to contract with agencies or
persons acceptable to the Regional Board to provide monitoring
reports. Such monitoring programs shall comply with Guidelines
for Monitoring the Effects of Waste Discharges on the Ocean
which shall be issued by the Executive Officer of the State
Board.
H. Areas of Special Biological Significance
Areas of special biological significance shall be desig-
nated by the State Board after a public hearing by the
Regional Board and review of its recommendations.
H-13
-------
Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters of California
footnotes
3/ The Water Quality Objectives and Effluent Quality
Requirements are defined by a statistical distribution
when appropriate. This method recognizes the normally
occurring variations in treatment efficiency and samp-
ling and analytical techniques and does not condone poor
operating practices. The 50 percentile value (concen-
tration not to be exceeded more than 50 percent of the
time) and 90 percentile value (concentration not to be
exceeded more than 10 percent of the time) establish an
acceptable distribution for any consecutive 30-da" period.
The distribution of actual sampling data for am consecu-
tive 30-day period shall not have any percentile value
exceeding that of the acceptable distribution.
4/ Body-contact sports areas outside the shoreline zone set
forth in Chapter II. A.I. and all shellfishing areas sha.1. ,.
be determined by the Regional Board on an individual basis,
_5_/ Surface .samples shall be collected from stations r- ore-
sen tative of the area of maximum probable impact.
Q/ The mean of sampling results for ciny consecutive
30-day period „ust be within one (1) standard dev\ati^i
of the mean determined for natural levels for the ..a-
period.
]_/ Initial Dilution Zone is the volume of water .. .- , he po.nt
of discharge within which the waste iramed'- Lei •. -.-, '/iih
ocean water due to the momentum of the waste d_u, on^ry.- and
the difference in density between the waste and the
receiving water.
8/ Degradation shall be determined by analysis of the effects
of waste discharge on species diversity, population density,
growth anomalies, debility, or supplanting of norrr.al species
by undesirable plant and animal species.
_9/ Compliance with water quality objectives shall be determir '
from samples collected at stations representative of the
area within the waste field where initial dilution is com
pleted. The 10 percent depression of dissolved oxygen ma;
be determined after allowance for effects of induced
upwelling.
H-lU
-------
Water Quality Control Plan
Ocean Waters of California
Footnotes
i_0/ This parameter shall be used to measure the acceptability
of waters for supporting a healthy marine biota until
improved methods are developed to evaluate biological
response.
a. Toxicity Concentration (Tc)
Expressed in Toxicity Units (tu)
inn
Tc (tu) = Q£ u^
b. Median Tolerance Limit (TLm%]
The TLm shall be determined by static
or continuous flow bioassay techniques
using standard test species. If
specific identifiable substances in
wastewater can be demonstrated by the
discharger as being rapidly rendered
harmless upon discharge to the marine
environment, the TLm may be determined
after the test samples are adjusted to
remove the influence of those substances,
When it is not possible to measure the
96-hr. TLm due to greater than 50 per-
cent survival of the test species in
100 percent waste, the toxicity con-
centration shall be calculated by the
expression :
Tc (tu) = (100 - S
S = percentage survival in
waste.
c. Toxicity Emission Rate (TER)
Is the product of the effluent Toxicity
Concentration (Tc) and the waste flow
rate expressed as mgd.
TER (tu.mgd) = Tc (tu) x Waste Flow Rate ( ,TK:
H-15
-------
Warer Quality Control Plan
Oc'i-an Waters of California
. tnotes
d. Final Toxicity Concentration
(FTc) expressed in toxicity units (tu)
shall be determined by a bioassay and
estimated by the following calculations
FT ,t s Toxicity Emission Rate
Initial Dilution Water + Waste Flow
TER
Qd + Qw
e. Initial Dilution Water (Qd)
Shall be calculated as the product of
estimated current velocity, effective
diffuser length normal to the pre-
vailing current, and effective mi r. ing
dep th.
ll/ Essentially free means the specific limitations set forth
in Chapter IV of this plan.
127 Diffusion systems should provide an initial dilution of
wastewater with seawater exceeding 100 to 1 at least 50
percent of the time, and exceeding 80 to 1 at least 90
percent of the time. If a waste is essentially identical
to natural seawater, less restrictive dilution require-
ments may be permitted by the Regional Board.
13/ Waste that contains pathogenic organisms or viruses should
be discharged a sufficient distance from shellfishing and
body-contact sports areas to maintain applicable bacterio-
logical standards without disinfection. Where conditions
are such that an adequate distance cannot be attained,
reliable disinfection in conjunction with a reasonable
separation of the discharge point from the area of use must
be provided. Consideration should be given to disinfection
procedures that do not increase effluent toxicity and that
constitute the least environmental and human hazard in their
production, transport, and utilization.
14/ Total Identifiable Chlorinated Hydrocarbons shall be mea-•
sured by summing the individual concentrations of DDT, ODD,
DDE, aldrin, BHC, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor, lindane,
dieldrin, polychlorinated biphenyls, and other identifiable
chlorinated hydrocarbons.
-------
APPENDIX H(2!
WATER QUALITY CONTROL POLICY
FOR THE ENCLOSED , ,
BAYS AND ESTUARIES OF CALIFORNIA—7
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this policy is to provide water quality principles
and guidelines to prevent water quality degradation and to
protect the beneficial uses of waters of enclosed bays and
estuaries. Decisions on water quality control plans, waste
discharge requirements, construction grant projects, water
rights permits, and other specific water quality control imple-
menting actions of the State and Regional Boards shall be
consistent with the provisions of this policy.
The Board declares its intent to determine from time to time
the need for revising this policy.
This policy does not apply to wastes from vessels or land
runoff except as specifically indicated for siltation
(Chapter III 4.) and combined sewer flows (Chapter III 7.).
H-17
-------
CHAPTER I.
PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGEMENT OF
WATER QUALITY IN ENCLOSED BAYS AND ESTUARIES
A. It is the policy of the State Board that the discharge of
municipal wastewaters and industrial process waters^/
(exclusive of cooling wat--?r discharges) to enclosed bays and
estuaries, other than the San Francisco Bay-Delta system, shall be
phased out at the earliest practicable date. Exceptions to
this provision may be granted by a Regional Board only when
the Regional Board finds that the wastewater in question
would consistently be treated and discharged in such a
manner that it would enhance the quality of receiving waters
above that which would occur i.n the absence of the discharge. —
B. With regard to the waters ^L the San Francisco Bay-Delta
system, the State Boarc1 f_ is and directs as follows:
la. There is a considerable body of scientific
evidence and opinion which suggests the
existence of biological degradation due
to long-term exposure to toxicants which
have been discharged to the San Francisco
Bay-Delta system. Therefore, implementation
of a program which controls toxic effects
through a combination of source control for
toxic materials, upgraded wastewater treatment,
and improved dilution of wastewaters, shall
proceed as rapidly as is practicable with the
objective of providing full protection to the
biota and the beneficial uses of Bay-Delta waters
in a cost-effective manner.
H-18
-------
Ib. A comprehensive understanding of the biological
effects of wastewater discharge on San Francisco
Bay, as a whole, must await the results of
further scientific study. There is, however,
sufficient evidence at this time to indicate
that the continuation of wastewater discharges
to the southern reach of San Francisco Bay,
south of the Dumbarton Bridge, is an unacceptable con-
dition. The State Board and the San Francisco Regional
Board shall take such action as is necessary to assure
the elimination of wastewater discharges to waters
of the San Francisco Bay, south of Dumbarton
Bridge, at the earliest practicable date.
Ic. In order to prevent excessive investment which
would unduly impact the limited funds available
to California for construction of publicly owned
treatment works, construction of such works shall
proceed in a staged fashion, and each stage shall
be fully evaluated by the State and Regional Boards
to determine the necessity for additional expen-
•9
ditures. Monitoring requirements shall be estab-
lished to evaluate any effects on water quality,
particularly changes in species diversity
and abundance, which may result from the
operation of each stage of planned facilities
H-19
-------
and source control programs. Such a staged
instruction program, in combination with an
increased mor.toring effort, will result in
the most cost-effective and rapid progress
toward a goal of maintaining and enhancing
water quality in the San Francisco Bay-Delta
system.
Where a waste discharger has an alternative of
in-bay or ocean disposal and where both alter-
natives offer a similar degree of environmental
and public health protection, prime consideration
shall be given to ; -2 alt rnative which offers
the greater degr^, _>f flexibility f'~r the
implementation " economically feasible waste-
water reclamation options.
E-20
-------
C. The following policies apply to all of California's enclosed
bays and estuaries:
1. Persistent or cumulative toxic substances shall
be removed from the waste to the maximum extent
practicable through source control or adequate
treatment prior to discharge.
2. Bay or estuarine outfall and diffuser systems
shall be designed to achieve the most rapid
4 /
initial dilution— practicable to minimize con-
centrations of substances not removed by source
control or treatment.
3. Wastes shall not be discharged into or adjacerit
to areas where the protection of beneficial
uses requires spatial separation from waste
fields.
4. Waste discharges shall not cause a blockage of
zones of passage required for the migration of
anadromous fish.
5. Nonpoint sources of pollutants shall be controlled
to the maximum practicable extent.
H-21
-------
CHAPTER II.
Q.'JALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR
Is'ASTE DISCHARGES
1. In addition to any requirements of this policy, effluent
limitations shall be as specified pursuant to Chapter 5.5
of the Porter-Cologne Water <2uality Control Act, and Regional
Boards shall limit the mass emissions of substances as
necessary to meet such limitations. Regional Boards may set
more restrictive mass emission rates and concentration
standards than those which are referenced in this policy to
reflect dissimilar tolerances to wastewater constituents
among different receiving water bodies.
2. All dischargers of thermal wastes or elevated temperature
wastes to enclosed bays and estuaries which are permitted pur-
suant to this policy shalL comply with the "Water Quality
Cunt'Tol Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and
Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of Califonia",
State Water Resources Control Board, 1972, and with amend-
ments and supplements thereto.
3. Radiological limits for waste discharges (for which regulatory
responsibility is not preempted by the Federal Government)
shall be at least as restrictive as limitations indicated in
Section 30269, and Section 30355, Appendix A, Table LI, of
the California Administrative Code.
4. Dredge spoils to be disposed of in bay and estuarine waters
must comply with federal criteria for determining the accept-
ability of dredged spoils to marine waters, and must be
certified by the State Board or Regional Boards as in compliance
with State Plans and Policies.
H-22
-------
CHAPTER III.
DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS
1• New discharges—/ of municipal wastewaters and industrial
process waters-f/ (exclusive of cooling water discharges) to
enclosed bays and estuaries, other than the San Francisco
Bay-Delta system, which are not consistently treated and
discharged in a manner that would enhance the quality of
>
receiving waters above that which would occur in the
absence of the discharge, shall be prohibited.
2. The discharge of municipal and industrial waste sludge
and untreated sludge digester supernatant, centrate, or
filtrate to enclosed bays and estuaries shall be prohibited.
3. The deposition of rubbish or refuse into surface waters
or at any place where they would be eventually transported
to enclosed bays or estuaries shall be prohibited.—
4. The direct or indirect discharge of silt, sand, soil
clay, or other earthen materials from onshore operations
including mining, construction, agriculture, and lumbering,
in quantities which unreasonably affect or threaten to
affect beneficial uses shall be prohibited.
5. The discharge of materials of petroleum origin in sufficient
quantities to be visible or in violation of waste discharge
requirements' shall be prohibited, except when such discharges
are conducted for scientific purposes. Such testing must be
approved by the Executive Officer of the Regional Board and
the Department of Fish and Game.
6. The discharge of any radiological, chemical, or biological war-
fare agent or high-level radioactive waste shall be prohibited,
7. The discharge or oy-passinq of untreated waste to bays and
estuaries shall be prohibited.—/
H-23
-------
CHAPTER IV.
4
GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Effective Date
This policy is in effect as of the date of adoption by
the State Water Resources Control Board.
B. Review and Revision of Plans, Policies and Waste Discharge
Requirements
Provisions of existing or proposed policies or water quality
control plans adopted by the State or Regional Boards for
enclosed bays or estuaries shall be amended to conform with
the applicable provisions of this policy.
Each appropriate Regional Board shall review and revise the
waste discharge requirements with appropriate time schedules
for existing discharges to achieve compliance with this policy
and applicable water quality objectives. Each Regional
Board affected by this policy shall set forth for each
discharge allowable mass emission rates for each applicable
effluent characteristic included in waste discharge require-
ments .
i
Regional Boards shall finalize waste discharge requirements
as rapidly as ia consistent with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit Program.
-------
C. Administration of Clean Water Grants Program
The Clean Water Grants Program shall require that the
environmental impact report for any existing or proposed
wastewater discharge to enclosed bays and estuaries,
other than the San Francisco Bay-Delta system, shall
evaluate whether or not the discharge would enhance
the quality of receiving waters above that which would
occur in the absence of the discharge.
The Clean Water Grants Program shall require that each
study plan and project report (beginning with F. Y. 1974-75
projects) for a proposed wastowater treatment or conveyance
facility within the San Francisco Bay-Delta system shall
contain an evaluation of the degree to which the proposed
project represents a necessary and cost-effective stage in
a program leading to compliance with an objective of full
protection of the biota and beneficial uses of Bay-Delta
waters.
D. Administration of Water Rights
Any applicant for a permit to appropriate from a water-
course which is tributary to an enclosed bay or estuary
may be required to present to the State Board an analysis
of the anticipated effects of the proposed appropriation
on water quality and beneficial uses of the effected bay
or estuary.
H-25
-------
E. Monitoring Program
The Regional Board shall require dischargers to conduct
self-monitoring programs and submit reports as necessary
to determine compliance with waste discharge requirements
and to evaluate the effectiveness of wastewater control
programs. Such monitoring programs shall comply with
applicable sections of the State Board's Administrative
Procedures, and any additional guidelines which may be
issued by the executive Officer of the State Board.
H-26
-------
FOOTNOTES
I/ Enclosed bays are indentations along the coast which
enclose an area of oceanic water within distinct headlands
or harbor works. Enclosed bays include all bays where the
narrowest, distance between headlands or outer most harbor
works is less than 75 percent of the greatest dimension
of the enclosed portion of the bay. This definition
includes, but is not limited to: Humboldt Bay, Bodega
Harbor, Tomales Bay, Drakes Estero, San Francisco Bay,
Morro Bay, Los Angeles-Long Beach Harbor, Upper and Lower
Newport Bay, Mission Bay, and San Diego Bay.
Estuaries*', including coastal lagoons, are waters at the
mouths of stream which serve as mixing zones for fresh
and oceajoi waters,
Mouths, of streams which are temporarily separated from the
ocean by sandbars shall be considered as estuaries.
Estuarine waters will generall:/ be considered to extend
from a bay or the open ocean to a point upstream where
there is no significant mixing of fresh water and seawater.
Estuarine waters shall be considered to extend seaward if
significant mixing of fresh and saltwater occurs in the open
coastal waters. Estuarine waters include, but are not
limited to, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as defined
by Section 12220 of the California Water Code, Suisun Bay,
Carquinez Strait downstream to Carquinez Bridge, and
appropriate areas of the Smith, Klamath, Mad, Eel, Noyo,
and.Russian Rivers.
_2/ For the purpose of this policy, treated ballast waters and
innocuous nonmunicipal wastewater such as clear brines, wash-
water, and pool drains are not necessarily considered industrial
process wastes, and may be allowed by Regional Boards under dis-
charge requirements that provide protection to the beneficial
uses of the receiving water.
3/ Undiluted wastewaters covered under this exception provision
shall not produce less than 90 percent survival, 50 percent of
the time, and not less than 70 percent survival, 10 percent of
the time of a standard test species in a 96-hour static or
continuous flow bioaasay test using undiluted waste. Maintenance
of these levels of survival shall not by themselves constitute
sufficient evidence that the discharge satisfies the criteria
of enhancing the quality of the receiving water above that
which occur in the absence of the discharge. 'Full and
uninterrupted protection for the beneficial uses of the
receiving water must be maintained. A Regional Board may
require physical, chemical, bioassay, and bacteriological
assessment of treated wastewater quality prior to authorizing
release to the bay or estuary of concern.
H-27
-------
4/ Initial dilution zone is defined as the volume of water near
the point of discharge within which the waste immediately
.nixes with the bay or estuarine water due to the momentum of
the waste discharge and the difference in density between the
waste and receiving water.
5/ A new discharge is a discharge for which a Regional Board has
not received a report of waste discharge prior to the date
of adoption of this policy, and which was not in existence
prior to the date of adoption of this policy.
5/ Rubbish and refuse include any cans, bottles, paper, plastic,
vegetable matter, or dead animals or dead fish deposited or
caused to be deposited by man.
_7/ The prohibition does not apply to cooling water streams
which comply w_th the "Water Quality Control Plan for the
Control of Temperature in Coastal and Interstate Waters and
Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California" - State Water
Resources Control Board.
H-28
-------
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 74- 43
WATER QUALITY CONTROL POLICY FOR THE
ENCLOSED BAYS AND ESTUARIES OF CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS:
1. The Board finds it necessary to promulgate water quality
principles, guidelines, effluent quality requirements, and
prohibitions to govern the disposal of waste into the
enclosed bays and estuaries of California;
2. The Board, after review and analysis of testimony received
at public hearings, has determined that it is both feasible
and desirable to require that the discharge of municipal
wastewaters and industrial process waters to enclosed bays
and estuaries (other than the San Francisco Bay-Delta system)
should only be allowed wh^n a discharge enhances the quality
of the receiving water above that which would occur in the
absence of the discharge;
3. The Board has previously promulgated requirements. £or the
discharge of thermal and elevated temperature wastes to
enclosed bays and estuaries (Water Quality Control Plan for
Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters
and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California - SWRCB, 1972);
4. The Board, after review and analysis of testimony received
at public hearings, has determined that implementation of a
program which controls toxic effects through a combination
of source control for toxic materials, upgraded waste treat-
ment, and improved dilution of wastewaters, will result in
timely and cost-effective progress toward an objective of
providing full protection to the biota and beneficial uses
of San Francisco Bay-Delta waters;
5. The Board intends to implement monitoring programs to determine
the effects of source control programs, upgraded treatment,
and improved dispersion of wastewaters on the condition of
th policy.
H-29
-------
The Board hereby declares its intent to determine from time
to time the need for revising the policy to assure that it
reflects current knowledge of water quality objectives
nocc.ssary to protect beneficial uses of bay and estuarine
waters and that it is based on latest technological improvements
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned, Executive Officer of the State Water Resources
Control Board, does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full,
true, and correct c~py of a resolution duly and regularly adopted
at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on
May 1C, 1974.
Bill B. Dendy
Executive Officer
H-30
-------
APPENDIX I
Sewage and Nutrients Effect On
Marine Aquatic Life and Wildlife
Water Quality Criteria, 1972," Report of the National Academy of Sciences^
SEWAGE AND NUTRIENTS
Magnitude of fhe Problem
The discharge of municipal sewage is a major factor
affecting the water quality of receiving systems. Because
the amount of municipal waste produced is directly related
to the human population, the unit emission rates together
with information on the number of people using a system
provide an accurate estimate of the load that is imposed on
a particular estuary or section of coastal water.
The effect of sewage discharges on water quality varies
widely and depends on (1) its composition and content of
toxic materials, (2) the type and degree of treatment prior
to discharge, (3) the amount released, (4) the hydrody-
namics of the receiving waters, and (5) the response of the
ecosystem. Increasing human population and affluence
have resulted in increasing amounts of domestic and in-
dustrial wastes. However, because the kind and degree of
treatment often can be improved, it should be possible to
cope with this pollution problem and to maintain or im-
prove the quality of the marine environment.
In most cases the discharge of sewage effluent is inten-
tional and the source of sewage and sewage treatment
products en'-img marine ecosystems can be described more
TALSLt n-8—/Art-race Sewage Emissions for a Densely
Populated Area
ConiMuent
Miu imliiiog rill (l
Unit •n»u«i nil
Diiiolvid Jolidj
SusfMijwl lolidi
100 . .
Trial mt»iin(N)
Pho^l,(P,,,
3.6M
565
560
165
too
1.0)
0.1SJ
0.160
o.m;
O.Ort
" For 700 mgd of lawaje; population of 7 million.
NAS-NRC Commillea on Ocumjjrjpdy 1970'".
accurately than the sources of other pollutants entering the
ecosystem. The volume of discharges and certain aspects of
llicir composition, specifically, the amount of organic mat-
UT and the inorganic nutrients, can be monitoicd continu-
ously bv existing automated methods. Average values for
some important constituents and their emission rates in a
densely populated coastal area are given in Table IV-8.
Kunolf from agriculture areas is an important factor in
llii' nutrient enrichment of freshwater systems, but it is less
important to marine s\ stems because relatively fi-wer farms
are concentrated on estuaries and coasts. Nevertheless, agri-
cultural practices should be considered. Pesticides, fertil-
izers and animal wastes may be carried by rivers into
estuaries. Runoff from duck farms was involved in a study
•on excessive nutrient enrichment by Rythcr (1954).4"
Commoner (1970)40'1 has emphasized that in the United
States during the last twenty-five years the amount of ni-
trogen used in agriculture has increased fourtecnfokl while
the amount of nitrogen released via sewage has increased
only seventy per rent.
In addition to dcgradable organic materials derived from
fecal and food wastes, municipal sewage also contains a
wide variety of "exotic" or synthetic materials that are non-
degradable or degrade slowly and only under special condi-
tions (e.g., petroleum residues, dissolved metals, detergents,
dyes, solvents, and plasticizcrs). Some of these adversely
affect the biota of receiving waters, and many interfere with
the biological degradation of organic matter either in the
treatment plant or in the environment. Because waste
treatment technology currently in use is designed to treat
the fecal and food materials derived from organic wastes,
an operational definition of municipal sewage "exotics" is
all those materials not derived from fecal or food sources.
If the exotic materials accumulate in the receiving ecosys-
tem, the capacity for recycling of the degradable organic
materials may be reduced.
Oxyg«n Depletion
Efficient biological degradation of organic materials re-
quires dissolved oxygen, and overload of sewage in receiving
waters can result in oxygen depletion and secondary effects
such as objectionable odors, plant and animal die-off, and
generally decreased rates of biological degradation. Such
effects can also Ix; created by excessive algal growth and
subsequent die-oil.
The most widely used method for estimating the organic
pollution load of a \vaste is the 5 day Biochemical Oxygen
Demand Test (BOD.-,). Discussions of the test (Fair et al.
1968,407 Standard Methods 19714"3) and its limitations
(\Vilhm and Do'rris 1968j;fi) are available. Among the im-
portant limitations of the BOD5 arc: it does not indicate the
presence of organics which are not degraded under the pre-
scribed conditions; it assumes that no toxic or inhibitory
materials will affect microbial activity; and it does not
measure the nitrogeneous oxygen demand of the organic
waste. The chemical oxygen demand (COD) is an alternate
procedure for determining the amount of uxidizable ma-
terial in a water sample. 1 lowrver, it dors not indicate the
nature of biological ox\gcn consumption in a given time,
and it does not distinguish between inorganically and or-
ganically oxidizablc materials. Both HOI)-, and COD
measurements musl \>r n-rogni/rd as being onl> partial
1-2
-------
APPENDIX I
SEWAGE AND NUTRIENTS EFFECT
on
MARINE AQUATIC LIFE AND WILDLIFE
from ,
"WATER QUALITY CRITERIA, 1972"
Report of the National Academy of Sciences
Washington, D.C.
-------
descriptions of the .sewage load of a receiving water. While
BOD; and COD measurements arc useful for evaluating
treatment s\ stems, these two measurements do not ade-
quately asvc->. the environmental impact of a given sewage
load (Wilhii, .,nd Dorris
sea and of the changes which occur in amounts of various
elements left in water as a result of algal growth
Excessive Nutrient Enrichment
Marine plants, like those on land and in fresh water, re-
quire fertilizing elements essential for their growth and re-
production. These essential elements arc natural constitu-
ents of municipal sewage and the amount that can be added
to the marine environment without deleterious effect is de-
termined by the stimulated growth of aquatic plants. Even
if the major share of the organic material is removed from
the sewage in treatment plants, the growth of normal
marine plants can increase if the fertilizing elements present
in sewage are added to the environment. Sewage treatment
plants arc designed to remove the organic material and the
suspended solids and to decrease the bacterial population
by disinfection. In most cases, this is done by processes that
release or "mineralize" the plant nutrients which then stim-
ulate the growth of algae in the receiving waters. In only a
few cases have efforts been made to remove these fertilizers
from the effluent to prevent or reduce the excessive growth
of plants in the aqu;itic environment.
In the marine environment, growth of phytoplankton is
commonly limited by the availability of essential nutrients,
the most important of which are phosphorus and nitrogen
in available forms. In some cases, shortages of silicate can
inhibit the growth of the diatoms and encourage growth of
other species. In certain limited areas, other elements such
as iron and manganese have been reported as limiting
growth of algae, and the presence or absence of other
growth stimulating substances, such as vitamin B,?, can in-
fluence both the amount and the character of plant species
capable of growing. It should be noted that in the marine
environment, several elements essential for plant growth
such as potassium, magnesium, and sulfur, arc present in
great excess.
Organic material produced by natural phytoplankton
populations produces an oxygen demand when the material
is consumed or decomposed. Oxygen is produced by the
process of photosynthesis, but this production occurs only
near the surface during daylight when the amount of light
penetrating the water is adequate. Due to the sedimentation
of dead organic paniculate material, decomposition usually
takes place in the deep waters where photosynthctically pro-
duced oxygen is not available.
The amount of organic material which can be produced
by marine phytoplankton as a result of the addition of
fertilizing elements is dependent upon the composition of
the organic material. Redficld ct al. (I963)420 give the fol-
lowing ratios as characteristic of living populations in the
AU:
276:
138:
AC:
1 06 :
40:
AN
16
1 by atoms or
1 bv weight
•In addition to the readily available forms of phosphorus
and nitrogen (dissolved orthophosphate, ammonia, nitrite,
and nitrate), organic forms of phosphorus and nitrogen may
be made available by bacterial decomposition. Some dis-
solved organic nitrogen compounds arc also available for
direct assimilation.
It should be emphasized that these ratios are not con-
stant in the rigorous sense of the stoichiometric ratios in
chemistry. The plant cells can both enjoy a "luxury" con-
sumption of each element (Lund 1950)'114 or survive nutri-
tional deficiencies (Ketchum 1939,410 Ketchum et al.
1949411). In terms of the total production of organic ma-
terial these variations are important only when concentra-
tions of the elements arc unusually low. It has been shown,
for example, in New England coastal waters that nitrogen is
almost completely removed from the sea water when there
is still a considerable amount of phosphorus available in the
system. Under these circumstances the plants will continue
to assimilate phosphorus, even though total production of
organic matter is limited by the nitrogen deficiency
(Ketchum et al. 1958,4'2 Rythcr and Dunstan 1971423).
The amount of oxygen dissolved in sea water at equi-
librium with the atmosphere is determined by salinity and
temperature. Nutrient elements added to the marine en-
vironment should be limited so that oxygen content of the
water is not decreased below the criteria given in the dis-
cussion of Dissolved Oxygen in this Section. In many pol-
luted estuaries, the amount of fertilizing elements added in
municipal sewage is sufficient to produce enough organic
material to completely exhaust the oxygen supply during
decomposition. The oxygen content of sea water and of
fresh water at equilibrium with the atmosphere is presented
for different temperatures in Table IV-9. For the purposes
of this table, a sea water of 30 parts per thousand (%o)
salinity has been used, which is characteristic of the near-
shore coastal waters. The salinity effect on concentration of
oxygen at saturation is minor compared to effects of tem-
perature in the normal ranges found in coastal waters.
From the ratios of elements given above and the satura-
tion values for oxygen, one can derive the effect of nutrient
enrichment of marine waters. For example, from an addi-
tion of phosphorus and available nitrogen to final concen-
trations of 50 and 362.5 micrograms per liter respectively
in the receiving water, enough organic material rould be
produced to remove 6.9 milligrams per liter of OX\UCM from
the water. Data in Table IY-9 indicair lhai sea wain wiih
a salinity of 30 ''no and a temperature of '!'•> ('. will ( nnlaiii,
1-3
-------
at vvi'Mtion. '• >' i'l'll.-'rjms- of oxxgcn per liter. This con-
.-(.-:>.• ,.;n ul nutrient \\ouid lluis permit die s\-tcm to be-
,., lu.xic .niu uouul '. ioi.iic I! M- v> mi re1 tier it thai ox\ grn
p changed be\ond levels cxpicssed in ilie section on
!' /vcd Oxvgen. Fresh \saier uould contain ii.! mg ' I nl
gen at saturation at 25 0, so that the same amount ol
..trient addition would remove 84 per cent of the available
ux\ gen.
The example used might be considered to set an upper
limit on the amount of these nutrients added to water. 1 In-
actual situation is, of course, much more complicated. It is
clear from the data in Table 1V-9 that summer conditions
place the most stringent restrictions on nutrient additions to
the aquatic environment. Furthermore, the normal content
of nutrients in the natural environment has to be considered.
If these were already high, the amount of nutrients thai
could be added would have to be reduced. As mentioned
above, the ratio of elements present in the natural environ-
ment would also be important. Nitrogen is frequently the
element in minimum supply relative to the requirement of
the phytoplankton, and addition of excess phosphorus under
these circumstances has less influence than addition of nitro-
gen. Differences in the ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus may
also modify the l\ pc of species present. R\ther (1 954),4'-"-
for example, found that unusually low nitrogen to phos-
phorus ratios in Moriches Bay and (irent South Bay on
Long Island, New York, encourage the growth of micro-
TAIILE IV-'' :.',ccrs oj Salinity ami Temperature on tlm
un Content of \Vater in Equilibrium with Air at
Atmospheric Pressure
T^,Ur,C
25
20
10
0
Salimlr o.oo
30
30
30
30
om/,
S.I
7.<
S.I
11.65
Safcflity0,'W Ozyisn «t/l
0 I.I
a I.J
0 10.9
0 U.IS
nt Ctrws IBS'".
scopic forms of .\'/iininr/ilnris nlnnuis at the expense of the
diatoms normally inhabiting this estuary.
Many forms of bluc-grccn -algae are capable of fixing
nitrogen Irom the gaseous nitrogen dissolved in sea water.
Nitrogen deficiencies could be replenished by this mecha-
nism so that decrease in phosphorus content without con-
comitant decrease in nitrogen content might still lead to
ovcrenrichment, as well as shift the. dominant phytoplank-
ton population.
Oxygen content of tipper water lasers can be increased by
exchanges with the atmosphere. This process is proportional
to the partial pressure of oxygen in the two s\stems so that
the more o.xsgcn deficient the uater becomes, th,- more
rapid is the rate o! replacement ofox\uen in the \\atcr by
atmospheric o\\nen. Finally, mixing and dilution of the
contaminated water uith adjacent bodies of uater could
make additional o.xsgen available. All of these variables
must be consideird in older lo determine acceptable levels
at which nutiienls present in sewage can be added to an
aquatic environment. In I act, many polluted estuaries al-
ready conlain excessive amounts ol UICM- lertih/ing elements
as ;f result of pollution In municipal sewage.
The effects of ratios of elements discussed abo\c have a
very important bearing upon some ol the methods of con-
trol. For example, the removal of phosphates alone from the
sewage will have an ellect upon the processes of over-
enrichment onl\ if phosphorus is indeed the element limit-
ing production of organic matter. When nitrogen is limit-
ing, as it is in New England coastal waters according to
Rythcr and Dunstan (1971),4-3 the replacement of phos-
phorus by nitrogen compounds, such as nitrilotri.icrlate
(NTA) could be more damaging to the* ecosystem than con-
tinued use of phosphate-based detergents.
Pathogenic Microorganisms
The fecal coliform index is I he most widely used micro-
biological index of sanitary quality of an cstunry. Fecal
cohfurm indices represent a compromise, between the ideal
of direct determination ol bacterial and viral pathogens in
time-consuming laboraioiv procedures, and the indirect,
less indicative but practical exigencies. Laboratory methods
for quantitative enumeration of virus currently are being
developed and their present status is one of promise, but
more time is needed for their evaluation. Bacterial pathogen
detection frequently requires special laboratory attention.
Virus, in general, may exhibit considerably longer sur-
vival times in water and shellfish as compared lo feeal
coliform bacteria. Under these circumstance-, a negative R.
coli test can give a false impression of the absence of \iral
pathogens (Slanctzetal. 1965,"4 Mctcalf and Stiles I'JGH41-).
Fecal coliform multiplication may possibly occur in pol-
luted waters leading to further dillicullics in interpreting
sanitary quality.
Disinfection of waste water by chlorine is eflectivc in re-
moving most pathogenic bacteria but unpredictable in re-
ducing the number of viruses. Differences in resistance of
bacteria and virus to chlorination may result in the appear-
ance of infectious virus in treated effluents devoid of bac-
teria. Failure to demonstrate the presence of viruses would
be the best way to insure their absence, but such capability
awaits development of methods adequate for quantitative
enumeration of virus in water.
The pollution of estuaries with waste products has led to
the contamination of shellfish with human pathogenic
bacteria and viruses. Outbreaks of infectious hepatitis and
acute gastroenteritis derived from polluted shellfish have
reinforced concern over the dangers to public health associ-
ated with the pollution of shelllish waters. 'I In- seriousness of
viral hepatitis as a world problem ha< been dm umcnted by
Moslc\ and Kendnek (I'll/)) '"''' f i ansini^-ion of infeclious
I-h
-------
hepatitis as a consequence of s(~\vagc-pollui< ,<)00 to 15,000
feet as compared to samples kept at equal temperatures
(38 F) in the laboratory. Since (a) the disposal of organic
wastes should be designed on the basis of rapid decomposi-
tion and recycling, and (b) there is no control of the pro-
cesses following deep-sea disposal, this environment cannot
be considered a suitable or safe dumping site.
Potential Beneficial Uses of Sewage
Light loads of either organic-rich raw sewage or nutrient-
rich biological treatment (secondary) ellluent increase bio-
logical productivity. Except for short-term data on increased
fish and shellfish production, beneficial effects have rarely
licen sufficiently documented, but at the present time several
active research programs arc underway. Some degree of
nutrient enrichment exists today in most estuaries close to
centers of populations. These estuaries remain relatively
productive and useful for fishing and recreation. Certain
levels of ecosystem modification via organic and nutrient
enrichment appear to be compatible with current water
uses; however, subtle changes in ecosystems may be accom-
panied bv later, more extensive change.
The possibility ol intensive use of essential plant nutrients
in waste material to increase the harvestablc produciivitv
of cstuarinc coastal systems has been suggested as a logical
way to treat sewage and simultaneously derive an economic
benefit. Aquaculturc systems would essentially be an ex-
tension of the waste treatment process. Conceptually, aqua-
culture is a form of advanced treatment. The limiting factor
involves problems presented by toxic synthetic chemicals,
petroleum, metals, and pathogenic microorganisms in
effluents of conventional biological treatment plants.
Rationale for Establishing Recommendations
It is conceptually difficult to propose a level of nutrient
enrichment that will not niter the natural flora because
seasonal phytoplankton blooms with complex patterns of
species succession are an integral part of the ecology of
cstuarinc and coastal waters. The timing and intensity of
blooms vary from sear to year and patterns of species suc-
cession are frequently different in successive years. The
highly productive and variable ccolog) of estuaries makes it
difficult to differentiate between the early symptoms of arti-
ficial nutrient enrichment and natural cyclic phenomena.
In addition, there have already been major quantitative
and qualitative changes in the flora of marine waters close
to centers of population. These changes arc superimposed
on the normal patterns of growth and may not in themselves
impair the recreational and commercial use of waters.
Simulation modeling has been used to predict the lotal
phytoplankton response to given nutrient inputs \\ it h success
by O'Connor (l%5)m and DiToro ct al. (1971 ;'"•• in the
San Joaquin Estuary and by Dugdalc and \Vlutlcdgc
(1970)4"6 for an ocean outfall. Their models predict the
phytoplankton response from the interaction of the kind
and rate of ntitrient loading and the hydrocK namic dis-
persal rates. This technique, although nol perfect, facilitates
evaluation of the ecological impact of given nutrient loans,
but docs not help in deciding what degree of artificial en-
richment is safe or acceptable.
Recommendations
. Untreated or treated municipal sewage dis-
charges should be recognized as a major source of
toxic substances. Recommendations for these con-
stituents will limit the amount of sewage effluent
that can be dispersed into estuaries. Reduced
degradation rates of highly dispersed materials
1-5
-------
should be considered if the effluent contains re-
fractory organic material. Vndegrndable synthetic
organic compounds do not cause oxygen depletion
but can still adversely alTect the ecosystem. Main-
tenance of dissolved oxygen standards will not pre-
vent the potentially harmful buildup of these
materials. Specific quantitative analyses should be
done to identify and assess the abundance of these
compounds.
. The addition of any organic waste to the ma-
rine environment should be carefully controlled to
avoid decomposition which would reduce the oxy-
gen content of the water below the levels specified
in the recommendations for oxygen.
• Neither organic matter nor fertilizers should
be added that will induce the production of organic
matter by normal biota to an extent causing an
increase in the size of any natural anoxic zone in
the deeper waters of an estuary.
• The natural ratios of available nitrogen to
total phosphorus should he evaluated under each
condition, and the element actually limiting plant
production should be determined. Control of the
amount of the limiting element added to the water
will generally control enrichment.
• If the maximum amounts of available nitrogen
and phosphorus in domestic waste increase the
concentration in receiving waters to levels of 50
micrograms per liter of phosphorus and 300 micro-
grams per liter of nitrogen, enough organic matter
would be produced to exhaust the oxygen content
of the water, at the warmest time of the year under
conditions of poor circulation, to levels below those
recommended (see p. 275). These concentrations of
nutrients are clearly excessive.
« The potential presence of pathogenic bacteria
and viruses must be considered in waters receiving
untreated or treated municipal sewage effluents.
The present quality standards for fecal coliform
counts (see pp. 31 32) should be observed. The
procedures for the examination of seawater and
shellfish as recommended by llosty et al. (1970)'"*
should be used.
« Disposal of sludge into coastal waters may ad-
versely affect aquatic organisms, especially the
bottom fauna. Periodic examination samples
should determine the spread of such an operation
to aid in the control of local waste material loads.
The probable transport by currents should be care-
fully considered. The dumping of sludge into
marine waters should be recognized as a temporary
practice.
• Disposal of organic wastes into the deep-sea is
not recommended until further studies on their
fate, their effect on the deep-sea fauna, and the
controllability of such a procedure have been com-
pleted.
1-6
-------
APPROXIMATE REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES (PERCENT)
FOR TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
POLLUTANT
BOD5
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SETTEABLE SOLIDS
OIL AND GREASE
FLOATING PARTICULATES
PHOSPHORUS
NITROGEN
COD
CADMIUM
TOTAL CHROMIUM
COPPER
LEAD
MERCURY
NICKEL
SILVER
ZINC
PRIMARY
35
50
90
50
40
10
25
40
20
25
20
35
40
15
10
30
PRIMARY +
POLYMER
50
'80
95
60
65
10
25
55
55
75
65
75
60
30
55
75
PRIMARY +
INORGANIC
CHEMICALS
65
85
95
90
70
85
25
70
75
80
80
80
75
20
60
80
SECONDARY
BIOLOGICAL
90
90
95
90
80
25
25
90
90
90
80
90
80
30
75
80
PHYSICAL
CHEMICAL
95
98
99
95
. "
90
15
95
98
98
96
90
95
95
NOTES:
(1) ALL METALS REMOVALS EXCEPT PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL) FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICTS JUNE. 1974 REPORT TO TASK FORCE.
(2) PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL REMOVALS FROM NERC CINCINNATI.
(3) ALL OTHER REMOVALS GENERALIZED FROM SEVERAL SOURCES.
TABLE J-1
J-2
-------
CAPITAL COSTS (100 MGD PLANT)
24 -|
20 -
16 -
to
2 12
x
*»
8 -
4 -
LEGEND
© PRIMARY
A LIME
CHEMICAL PRIMARY
SSECONDARY
I
60
r
80
20 40
PERCENT REMOVAL OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
FIGURE J-1
100
J-3
-------
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COST (100 MGD PLANT)
12 -i
10 -
8-
o 6H
X
CO
4 -
2 -
LEGEND
(•) PRIMARY
> CHEMICAL PRIMARY
HSECONDARY
i i i i i i i
20 40 60 80
PERCENT REMOVAL OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
r
100
FIGURE J-2
-------
TOTAL COSTS (100 MGD PLANT)
v>
O
o
§
6 i LEGEND
® PRIMARY
A LIME*.
A > CHEMICAL PRIMARY
FeCl""
5 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
SECONDARY
100
PERCENT REMOVAL OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
FIGURE J-3
J-5
-------
LAND REQUIREMENTS (100 MGD PLANT)
UJ
CC
o
24 ~>
20-
16-
8 -
4-
LEGEND
) PRIMARY
i LIME
CHEMICAL PRIMARY
[SECONDARY
1
20
i
40
I
60
1
80
100
PERCENT REMOVAL OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
FIGURE J-4
J-6
-------
ON-SITE ELECTRICAL ENERGY DEMAND (100 MGD)
X
>
O
I
3
24 -i
20-
16 -J
12 -
8 -
4 -
TO 55
r A -r
/ WITH I
INCINERATION
LEGEND
(§) PRIMARY
A LIME..
A FeCI ^ CHEMICAL PRIMARY
[SECONDARY
I
20
i
40
I
60
80
100
PERCENT REMOVAL OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
FIGURE J-5
J-7
-------
SLUDGE PRODUCTION (100 MGD PLANT)
6 -I
5-
4 -
3H
X
Q
O
vi
1 -I
LEGEND
^PRIMARY
FeC
CHBADICAL PRIMARY
HSECONDARY
I 1 I I I I T
20 40 60 80
PERCENT REMOVAL OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
FIGURE J-6
I
100
J-8
-------
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT OPERATING COST VS. EFFICIENCY
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
tc
<
ui
>
tr
UJ
0.
z
O
OPERATING COST
(1972 DOLLARS)
25
20
15
10
T
152
140
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
WITHOUT AMMONIA REDUCTION
OR FILTRATION
120
100
POLYMER + FeCI3 ADDITION
POLYMER ADDITION
80
CENTRATE PROCESSING
60
o
o
33
v>
"O
m
33
O
O
r-
O
40
20
EXISTING FACILITIES
400
300 200 100
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
FIGURE J-7
J-9
-------
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT CAPITAL COSTS VS. EFFICIENCY
Los Angeles county Sanitation Districts Joint Water Pollution Control Plant
400
- 300
cc
o
Q
O
2 200
H
UJ
H
CL
o
100
1 1
NOTE: ALL TREATMENT SCHEMES SHOWN BEYOND
EXISTING FACILITIES INCLUDE REMOVAL OF
FLOATABLES
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
WITHOUT AMMONIA REDUCTION
OR FILTRATION
POTENTIAL SS REDUCTION
83% »4*-17%
POLYMER + FeCI3 ADDITION^
POLYMER ADDITION,
CENTRATE PROCESSING^
EXISTING FACILITIES
400
300 200
EFFLUENT SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/1)
100
FIGURE J-8
-------
Table J-2
SUMMARY OF POTW1s WHERE
DEEP OCEAN OUTFALLS ARE FEASIBLE
California
Florida
Washington
Alaska
Hawaii
American Samoa
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Projects with Secon-
Total dary Treatment Facili-
Projects ties Under Construction
16 4
5 2
15 0
9 0
5 0
2 0
3 0
1 0
56
Potential Cost
of Secondary
Treatment ($ mill)*
1888
33
156
55
61
1
63
3
2260
* "Potential Cost of Secondary Treatment" are the capital costs
(Federal and Local funds) for secondary treatment facilities;
the dollar amount indicates the total cost for secondary treat-
ment for these facilities including projected future funds.
J-ll
-------
APPENDIX K (1)
INFORMATION ON TREATMENT METHODS
FOR
OCEAN DISCHARGE OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
Prepared for
EPA Ocean Discharges/Secondary
Treatment Task Force
by EPA National Environmental Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
Information on Treatment Methods for Ocean
Discharge of Municipal Wastewater
Information has been gathered on the costs, chemical requirements,
energy requirements and pollutant removal capabilities of a number of
processes in relation to treatment of municipal wastewater prior to
ocean discharge. Processes considered are as follows:
Primary treatment
Primary treatment with chemical addition
Primary treatment with flotation
Secondary treatment (activated sludge)
Secondary treatment with chemical addition
Independent, physical-chemical treatment including lime clarification,
dual-media filtration, and carbon treatment
Chlorination
Dechlorination with sulfur dioxide
Primary treatment is preseatly being used in some cases for ocean
discharge as is secondary treatment. Activated sludge has been assumed
for secondary treatment since substantially more information is available
than from trickling filters. The latter should show removals, however,
similar to activated sludge for most pollutants. The conventional treat-
ment methods with chemical addition, and primary treatment with flotation
are included because they give improved suspended solids removal and
icetals removal. Independent physical-chemical treatment is included as
an alternative which has excellent capability for removal of a wide range
of pollutant types. Chlcrination is included for disinfection. Dechlori-
nation is included for the purpose of destroying toxicity which might be
caused from chlorination.
Treatment Costs
Capital and operating costs for the various processes are given in
Tables 1 and 2 for plant capacities ranging from 1 mgd to 100 mgd.
Operating costs include amortization. The cost figures must be considered
very approximate for any given site and set of conditions. The significant
differences shov/n at the 1 mgd and 10 mgd levels for primary treatment with
two different methods of disposal of sludge indicate how sensitive costs
can be to variations in the detailed design of any system. Although
chlorination is shown as a separate item for only independent physical-
chemical treatment, it is included in the costs for the other systems.
Of concern in relation to ocean discharge is a comparison of treatment
plant capital cost and outfall cost. Some very rough figures for outfall
costs are given in Table 3.
K-2
-------
Table K-l
Capital Costs for Wastewater Treatment Processes
Treatment Method
Primary with sludge drying beds
Primary with incineration
Primary with chemical addition and
sludge drying beds
Primary with chemical addition and
incineration
Primary with flotation and
incineration
Activated sludge with sludge drying
beds
Activated sludge with incineration
Activated sludge with chemical
addition and sludge drying beds
Activated sludge with chemical
addition and incineration
Independent physical-chemical
Two stage lime treatment
Filtration
Carbon treatment
Chlorination
Total
Dechlorination
Capital Costs (millions of dollars)
Plant Capacity (mgd)
1.0
0.8
1.5
1.1
2.0
2.2
1.3
1.9
1.4
2.3
1.0
0.3
0.7
0.1
2.1
0.03
10
2.7
3.8
3.6
6.8
7.5
5.0
7.3
5.4
8.0
3.8
1.2
2.7
0.2
7.9
0.08
100
16
17
24
26
32
35
36
38
38
19
6
21
1
47
0.24
K-3
-------
Table K-2
Tcc.u Operating Costs for Wastewater Treatment Processes
Treatment Method
Primary with sludge drying beds
Primary with incineration
Primary with chemical addition, and sludge
drying beds.
Primary with chemical addition and
incineration
Primary with flotation and incineration
Activated sludge with sludge drying beds
Activated sludge with incineration
Activated sludge with chemical addition
arid sludge drying beds
Activated sludge with chemical addition
and incineration
Independent physical-chemical
Two stage lime treatment
Filtration
Carbon treatment.
Chlorination
Total
Dechlorination
Operating Costs (c/1000 gal.)
Plant Capacity (mgd)
1.0
33
53
51
76
77
54
72
60
86
49
13
30
3
95
0.9
10
10
15
22
29
30
19
24
24
31
16
6
12
1
35
0.4
100
6
7
17
16
17
13
13
18
18
11
3
9
0.6
24
0.3
K-4
-------
Table K-3
Ocean Outfall Costs
Outfall Cost
Daily Flow (mgd) (millions of dollars per mile)
i.a 1.4
10 1.8
100 5<1
Using these costs and costs from Table I, approximate outfall lengths
equivalent in cost to the various treatment methods can easily be calcu-
lated. For example, primary treatment with sludge drying beds costs the
equivalent of a 0.6 mile outfall at the 1 mgd level and a 3 mile outfall
at the 100 mgd level. To produce secondary effluent by activated sludge
treatment requires capital investment roughly equivalent to a 0.9 mile
outfall at the 1 mgd level and a 7 mile outfall at the 100 mgd level.
The difference in capital cost for producing primary and secondary
effluent is, therefore, the equivalent of a 0.3 mile outfall at the 1 mgd
level and a 4 mile outfall at the 100 mgd level. Similar comparisons can
be made for the other processes.
Chemical Requirements
Significant .amounts of chemicals are utilized in a number of the
treatment systems included. Chemical addition to primary treatment
usually involves the use of an iron salt such as ferric chloride, and
an anionic polymer. For chemical addition to secondary treatment an
aluminum salt such as alum is usually used. Lime is used in the independ-
ent physical-chemical systems. The chemical dose has been determined
largely from the requirements for maintaining a certain degree of phos-
phorus removal. As a result the dose is usually expressed as a ratio of
flocculating metal to phosphorus. The mole ratio of iron to phosphorus
in primary treatment is usually in the range of 1.8 to 2.0. The mole
ratio of aluminum to phosphorus in secondary treatment is usually in the
range of 1.5 to 2.0. Although phosphorus removal may not be a significant
parameter in ocean disposal, the same ratios are believed to be necessary
to obtain reasonable flocculation. These ratios give chemical requirements
of about 32 to 36 mg/1 iron and about 13 to 17 mg/1 aluminum. Anionic
polymer requirements for primary treatment would be about 0.2 mg/1. Lime
requirements will usually be in the range of 300 to 400 mg/1 as CaO. The
costs given are based on chemical doses in these ranges. In addition to
the chemicals mentioned chlorine would be used in amounts of about 25 mg/1
when disinfecting primary effluents and 8 mg/1 or less when disinfecting
other effluents. If dechlorination were utilized the dose would be about
5 mg/1.
K-5
-------
Power Requirements
The power consumption for municipal wastewater treatment methods is
very small compared to the total national consumption of power and con-
sists mostly of electric power. Exceptions are incineration, lime
recalcination and carbon regeneration which require fuel oil or gas. It
has been estimated that present consumption of electricity for municipal
wastewater treatment is about 1% of the average residential consumption.
Table 4 gives approximate electric power requirements for most of the
treatment methods under consideration here. In most cases the requirements
are less than 1 kwh/1000 gal.
Table K-4
Electric Power Requirements
Treatment Method Power Requirements (kwh/1000 gal.)
Plant Capacity (mgd)
1.0 10 100
Primary 0.40 0.23 0.20
Activated Sludge 1.10 0.89 0.84
Chemical Addition 0.10 0.03 0.03
Independent Physical-Chemical
Two-stage lime treatment 0.46
Filtration , 0.10
Carbon treatment 0.39
Total 0.95
Fuel requirements for incineration of conventional treatment sludges
are estimated to be about 50 gal. of fuel oil (or gas converted to an equivalent
amount of oil) per ton of dry solids. This corresponds to approximately
0.02 gal./lOOO gal. for primary treatment and 0.04 gal./1000 gal. for
treatment through secondary. The amount varies widely, however, depending
on the amount of moisture in the sludge. Recalcination of the sludge to
recover lime requires about 25,000 Btu/1000 gal. of water treated. A
rough figure for carbon regeneration fuel requirement is 1,500 Btu/1000
gal.
Pollutant Removal Capability
Removal capabilities cf the various processes, where data are available,
for BOD, suspended solids, floatables, pathogens, polychlorinated
biphenyls, DDT, and selected trace metals are shown in Table 5. For
metals removal, results of a number of studies have been reported sepa-
rately for primary and secondary treatment.
K-6
-------
Table K—5
Removal Capabilities
Floatables
TreiLmeat Methods
Primary
PrJjnary with flotation
Primary uith chemical addition
Secondary
Secondary with chemical addition
Independent physical-chemical
Line clarification
Filtration
Carbon treatment
Chlorlnation
BOD
30-402
60-91Z
32-71Z
*85%
£852
50-80Z
60-85Z
'85-95Z
~
ss
40-60Z
62-382
51-842
i852
>852
i80Z
>95Z
>95Z
•*
(Oil & Grease) Bacteria Virus PCB DDT
8-84% -
good up to 99Z -
-
29-932 70-992 up to 70Z 702
- -
80-902
excellent ' . - -902 - -100Z
excellent - ~95Z -100Z ~100Z
<1000 total up to 100Z -
coliforms/
100 ml
< 200 Fecal -
'coliforms/
100 ml
Kg Cd Cr
25-542 0-25Z 26-36Z
11-172
-
_
up to 75X up to 602 up to 802
17-472 11-292 38-782
37-82Z
-
up to 502 up to 97Z up to 97Z
up to 702 up to 982 up to 98Z
up to 92Z up to 992 up to 98Z
— — —
Zn Pb
22-68Z 28-59Z
26-33Z
-
-
up to 90Z up to S
48-51Z 43-f
53-85Z
_
up to 902 up to '.
up to 99Z up to '
up to
- -
-------
BOD Removal - Ths BOD removal of the primary treatment processes Is
well known and is approximately as shown. The combination of flotation
and primary treatment, or the addition of chemicals in conventional pri-
mary treatment increases BOD removal substantially. It should be pointed
out that the low end of the BOD removal range for chemical addition to
primary treatment represents hydraulically overloaded conditions. A
value approaching the high end of the range is more reasonable for a
properly sized plant. The BOD removal shown for secondary treatment is
based on the recently established standard. While standard rate activated
sludge and trickling filters should achieve this standard, the high rate
processes in use in many locations probably will not. Although it is not
obvious from the table, chemical addition will improve the BOD removal of
the high rate processes, probably making it possible for many of the installa-
tions to meet the standard. Other than phosphorus removal, the improved
BOD removal is the principal advantage of chemical addition in the secondary
treatment. Independent physical-chemical treatment has a very good capa-
bility for BOD removal. Chemical clarification of raw sewage, even without
filtration, has given BQD removals almost as high as can be achieved with
secondary treatment. The addition of filtration increases BOD removal
slightly. Carbon treatment results in a significant further increase
depending on the residence time in the carbon treatment system.
Suspended Solids Removal - The suspended solids removal achieved in
primary treatment is approximately 50%- This can be increased significantly,
as in the case of BOD removal, by adding flotation or by using chemical
addition to the conventional primary process. It should be pointed out
that the data for fluLacica are very limited. Also, the low end of the
removal range for chemical addition represents hydraulically overloaded
conditions. A value approaching the high end gives a better id^a of removals
achievable in a properly sized plant. Secondary treatment gives substan-
tially improved removal over primary treatment. The figure shown is based
on the recently established standard and is typical for standard rate
processes. High rate processes are not likely to meet the standard.
Chemical addition will improve the suspended solids removal of the high
rate processes. Independent physical-chemical treatment has capability
for almost complete suspended solids removal.
Floatables Removal - The data shown for primary and secondary treat-
ment are from a study of plants near Cincinnati, Ohio and actually
represent oil and grease. The extreme range of removals indicates the
variability that exists in capability for floatables removal. The averages
of these data are 35% for primary treatment and 60% for secondary treat-
ment. The upper end of the ranges shown arc probably representative of
the removals that can be obtained with good skimming or screening equip-
ment and with careful operation. No data were found for floatables
removal for the other processes. Chemical addition to primary and
secondary treatment would not be expected to improve floatables removal.
Because of the nature of the process, flotation would be expected to
K-8
-------
give good removal. An independent physical-chemical system will give
excellent removal. The removal of floatables obtained in the chemical
clarification stage alone, however is not expected to be significantly
different from the removal obtained in secondary treatment.
Pathogen Removal
All of the treatment methods considered have a significant pathogen
removal capability. With the possible exception of very high pH lime
treatment, however, none will remove pathogens to levels satisfactory to
public health authorities. Disinfection is required to reach these
levels. A chlorine dose of 8 rag/1 or less will reduce bacterial indicator
organisms to the levels shown for both secondary effluents and physical-
chemical treatment effluent. Ozone could also be utilized. The costs and
effectiveness of the latter are, hovever, less well known.
PCS and Pesticide Removals
Very few data have been taken to allow estimates to be made of the
removal capability of treatment processes for chlorinated hydrocarbons.
In most cases where analyses are made for these materials, they are made
only on plant effluents, not on influents. As a result the degree of
removal is not known. A very recent but limited study of PCB removal
by conventional treatment plants indicated approximately 70% removal
through secondary treatment. Finding of significant concentrations of
PCB in both primary and secondary sludges indicates that both processes
contribute to the removal. Carbon treatment should give essentially total
removal of PCB. The amount of PCB that has been found in effluents has
varied widely. For example, data for primary effluent from four
California plants gave a range of PCB concentrations from 0.08 u.g/1 to
11.7 yg/1.
From studies on DDT removal from drinking water supplies, somewhat
more is known about this material than PCB. It has been found that
chemical clarification with filtration gives a very high degree of removal,
probably because of the extremely low solubility of the material. This
would suggest that chemical clarification of wastewater would also give a
high degree of removal. Carbon treatment is very effective for DDT
removal. The fact that DDT has been found in significant quantities in
the sludges from conventional treatment plants indicates that removal of
the material occurs in primary and secondary treatment. As with PCB,
the concentration of DDT found in effluents varies widely. Primary
effluents from five California plants gave a range of DDT concentrations
from 0.06 ug/1 to 36 Ug/1.
A small amount of information on the removal of other pesticides is
available. Up to 90% chlordane removal has been observed in activated
sludge treatment. Carbon has been shown very effecitive in the removal
of lindanr., parathion, dieldrin and endrin. Chemical clarification and
filtration is less effective for removal of these materials than for DDT.
Most of these have been found in sludges from conventional treatment
indicating a degree of removal.
K-9
-------
Petals Removal - The subject of trace metals removal is a complicated
one. The data that have been obtained show wide ranges in removal. Solu-
bility product considerations should have a bearing on the maximum removal
obtainable in some cases. The generally lower percentage removal obtained
with decreasing influent concentration is in line with the concept of
solubility product as a limiting minimum. The effluent concentrations
found using various treatment methods do not, however, demonstrate any-
thing approaching the consistency that would be expected from that concept.
There are other mechanisms which undoubtedly play an important role. For
very low residuals, the degree of suspended solids removal is particularly
important.
Primary treatment alone is not a very effective method for removal
of trace metals. If the very favorable assumption were made that all of
these metals were associated only with suspended solids, a maximum removal
of only about 50% could be expected. The information shown in Table 5
bears out the expected poor removals. These are generally significantly
less than 50%. Although absolute values of metals in primary effluent
have no meaning as far as predicting the values that might be found in
other effluents, mention of a few might be useful. In a number of pri-
mary effluents from California the ranges of concentration of metals were
as follows: mercury, 1 to 3 yg/1; cadimium, 20 to 60 yg/1; chromium, 60 to
860 ug/1; zinc, 0.2 to 2.4 mg/1; and lead, 0 to 250 ug/1.
Adding secondary creatmcnt to primary generally increases the metals
removal capability significantly. There is, however, considerable
variability in the removals obtained at any one site and further variabil-
ity from one site to another. The data in Table 5 represent total removals
through both primary and secondary treatment. Unfortunately, there are
no data for secondary treatment from the California plants to compare
with results of primary treatment. There has been a considerable amount
of data taken on a pilot activated sludge unit at Dallas, Texas, however,
which indicates a very significant additonal removal of metals after
primary treatment. These additional removals are approximately 70% for
mercury, 60% for cadmium, 75% for chromium, 70% for zinc, and 60% for lead.
To obtain trace metals, concentrations significantly lower than are
possible with primary or secondary treatment requires the addition of
flocculating chemicals. Unfortunately, very little good information was
found to confirm the effectiveness of chemical addition. In a pilot
study at Washington, D.C. using alum addition in the activated sludge
process, data were taken for a number of metals. Reductions over the secondl
treatment part of the system were as follows: mercury, from 0.6 down to
0.2 y.g/1; chromium, from 28 down to 12 ug/1; and zinc, from 165 down to
31 yg/1.
Lime is particularly effective for removal of many metals, partly
because of the formation of very insoluble metal compounds at high pll.
Table 5 indicates removals obtained in the independent p'nysical-chemical
K-10
-------
system utilizing lime treatment as the first step. Some pilot results^
from Washington, B.C. indicate the very low residual metals concentrations
that can be obtained. The following reductions were found to occur over
the lime clarification system alone: mercury, from 0.34 down to 0.16
yg/1; chromium, from 35 down to 10 yg/1; zinc,from 154 down to 14 ug/1;
and lead, from 30 down to 15 yg/1. Significant additional removals, were
obtained by filtration. The percentage removals are not as great as
those indicated in Table 5. Those values were obtained from wastewaters
having substantially higher metals concentrations in the influent. It
is interesting that activated carbon generally shows removal capacity tor
metals, event at quite low concentrations.
K-11
-------
APPENDIX K (2)
Floyd K. Mitchell
COMPARISON OF
PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Approximately 87 percent of the more than 1 billion gallons
of treated municipal wastewaters discharged daily into
southern California coastal waters are primary treatment
effluents. The remaining 13 percent receive secondary
treatment. Recent Federal legislation requires that all
Table 1. 1971-1973 Hvssrion Treatment Plant process performance.
Wastawater
Conrtttuent
Raw Wastewater
Concentration * (mg/L)
Chemical oxygen
demand
5-day biological
oxygen demand
Suspended tolids
Oil and grease
Phenolic compounds
M8AS (detergents)
Ammonia nitrogen
Phosphate phosphorus
Cyanide
Copper
Zinc
Silver
Nickel
Lead
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
539
269
290
72
0.14
-
34.3
7.7
0.33
0.39
0.68
0.018
0.30
0.03
0.015
0.01
0.55
Effluent
Concentration
State
Standards
Primary
315
165
Secondary
31
<50%
of time
(mg/U)
of time
(mg/L)
103
28
0.09
6.1
20
10.1
0.30
0.25
0.42
0.019
0.24
0.07
0.017
0.02
0.37
9
0.5
'0,009
0.9
9.6
3.3
0.13
0.08
0.23
0.012
0.15
0.08
0.013
0.013
0.013
50
10
0.5
-
40
—
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.02
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.02
0.005
75
15
1.0
-
60
—
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.04
0.2
0.2
0.02
0.03
0.01
"Data from 1971 only.
"Mean values for 3-year period. Concentrations in bold typfl do not meet State 50% standard.
T"Coastal Water Research Project 1974 Annual Report,'1 pp. 163-5,
K-12
-------
Coastal Water Research Project
municipal wastewaters be treated by secondary treatment
processes by 1977. Furthermore, California State effluent
standards for ocean discharges are such that secondary
effluent may not meet all of the standards. Because munici-
pal discharges are the predominant source of man's input of
pollutants to the Bight and because of the possibility that
the character of these inputs will be changed in the near
future, it is of interest to compare the pollutant concen-
trations in primary and secondary effluents.
As a beginning, we have reviewed data from the Hyperion
Treatment Plant of the City of Los Angeles. At this plant,
235 mgd is treated by primary treatment only and 100 mgd
receives both primary and secondary treatment. Table 1 pre-
sents a summary of recent data on both primary and secondary
effluents at Hyperion; the California State effluent stan-
dards are listed for comparison. Primary effluent exceeds
eight of the State standards, while four standards are
exceeded by secondary effluent. Most of the standards
Tabla 2. Predicted concentrations (mg/L) of trace constituents in final effluents
produced by various treatment/source control options.
Constituent
If
si
I 3
Options
ro
s
1
H
I *
I =
1 3
I
Estimated
Ocsan
Background
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Phenol*
0.017
0.02
0.37
0.25
0.07
0.003
0.24
0.02
0.42
0.30
0.11
0.017
0.017
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.003
0.08
0.01
0.18
0.02
0.09
0.013
0.013
0.085
0.08
0.085
0.001
0.15
0.012
0.23
0.13
0.009
0.013
0.011
0.014
0.013
0.007
0.001
0.034
0.001
0.071
0.008
0.004
0.001-0.09
0.001
'0.03-0.10
0.01-0.04
0.01-0.15
0.002-0.014
0.14
-
0.01-0.15
0.1-0.67
-
0.01
0.02
0.005
0.2
0.1
0.001
0.1
0.02
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.3
0.2
0.002
0.2
0.04
0.5
0.2
1.0
-
0.0001
0.00035
0.0028
0.00003
0.0002
0.006
0.0003
0.010
-
-
1. Concentrations that do not meet the mean State standard are in bold type.
2. Results of bench scale tests by Hyperion laboratories.
3. Activated sludge.
4. To obtain these values, we reduced the values in the fifth column by estimating the best practical percent removed by sourcs control.
5. Valuns taken from the Project's 3-yr. report, p. 1 27.
K-13
-------
Engineering/Physics Program
exceeded by both treatments are trace constituent standards.
Another method of reducing wastewater trace constituents
is by source control of inputs to the sewer. A recent
report to the California State Water Resources Control Board
by Che City of Los Angeles included estimated best practical
reductions in trace materials inputs by source control.
These estimated reductions and other information from the
same source have been used to compile the information pre-
sented in Table 2. The possible effects of source control
are significant. Primary treatment plus source control
meets more of the trace constituent standards than does
secondary treatment without source control. Secondary
treatment with source control meets all but two of the stan-
dards. The concentrations of suspended solids and oil and
grease concentrations in primary effluent are not likely to
change with source control, and these values will exceed
State standards either way.
K-U
------- |