WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION REPORT
FOR
COSHOCTON SEGMENT
0? TIE
MUSICIXGUM RIVSR
MILE POINTS 89.9 TO 126.3
August 28,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Indiana District Office
Evansville, Indiana
-------
WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION REPORT
FOR
COSHOCTON SEGMENT
OF THE
MUSKINGUM RIVER
MILE POINTS 89.9 TO 126.3
August 28,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
Indiana District Office
Evansville, Indiana
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction 1
Objectives 1
Scope 1
Findings and Conclusions 2
Recommendations k
Area Description 5
Population and Economics, Present and Projected 9
Water Quality Standards and Segment Classification 11
Existing Water Quality, Stream 13
Point Sources, Existing Discharges 16
Thermal Loadings 25
Model Study 26
Determination of Maximum Permissible Loads for
Oxygen-Demanding Materials 26
Data Analysis, Hydraulic Characteristics 2?
Data Analysis, Depletion and Replenishment of
Oxygen 30
Results of the Modelling Study 38
Sensitivity Ul
Waste Load Allocation ^1
Appendix I - Ohio Water Quality Standards following Ul
- i -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure Description
Page
6
7
1 General Map
2 Study Area Map
3 Daily Discharge Records for Muskingura River
at Dresden, March - May, 197U 28
h Observed and Predicted Values of CBOD, May 197^ survey 36
5 Observed and Predicted Values of NBOD, May 197^ survey 37
6 Observed and Predicted Values of DO, May 197^ survey 39
7 Projected DO Deficit at Low Flow and Critical Load ^0
8 Projected DO Deficit by Origin at Lev; Flow and
Critical Load ^2
Table Description Page
I County Populations, I960 and 1970 9
II Growth Rate Comparison, Corps and OB&R3 Projections 10
III Projected County Populations 10
IV Indices of Production, Muskingum River Basin 12
V Results of Stream Sampling, April-May, 197^ 1^,15
VI Results of Sampling, Point Dischargers,
April-May, 197^ 17,18,19
VII 2U-Hour DO study 21
VIII Comparison of Study Data with Monthly Operating
Reports 23
IX Routing of Conservative Substances 2k
X Stream Flows 29
XI BOD in Stream 31
XII Calculated BOD, by Discharger 32
XIII Measured BOD, by Discharger 33
XIV Muskingum River Tributaries, Flo1.-/ and Quality 3^
XV Waste Loads, Present, Projected, and Recommended
Allocation ^3
- ii -
-------
-1-
IKTRODUCTION;
The Coshocton Segment is that reach of the Muskingum River,
including its tributaries, beginning at Coshocton, Ohio and going
thence downstream to Ellis Barn, north (upstream) of Zanesville.
Field studies described herein were undertaken by the Indiana District
Office (irrDO) on April 30 through May 2, 197^, in conjunction with
waste load allocation determinations also set forth in this report.
OBJECTIVES;
The objectives of this study were to determine actual loadings
to the Muskingum River in the Coshocton area, to establish maximum
permissible loadings to the river without violations of appropriate
water quality standards, and to allocate allowable waste loads among
those discharging to the reach under consideration. The State of
Ohio is currently dealing with the reach as if it were a Water Quality
segment.
SCOPE;
The geographic area studied includes the downstream ends of the
Walhonding and Tuscarawas Rivers at Coshocton, the Muskingum River
downstream from the confluence of the Walhonding and Tuscarawas Rivers
at River Mile (RM) 126.3 to Ellis Dam, RM 89.9, a distance of 36.k
miles, plus two tributaries entering within the reach, Wills Creek
and Wakatomika Creek.
Flow measurements and water samples were obtained at several
locations along the streams. In addition to stream studies, surveys
were made at two municipal wastewater treatment facilities and at
nine industrial discharges. Samples included 2U-hour composites and
-------
- 2 -
grab sampling at selected locations.
A stream quality computer model was used to determine maximum
loadings of oxygen-demanding materials which might be permitted through
the reach, based on Ohio stream quality standards.
FINDINGS AMD CONCLUSIONS;
1. A survey of stream conditions and point discharges within
the study area was made by the Indiana District Office of the EPA
in late April and early May, 197*1-. At the time of the survey, stream
flov/-3 -.-.•ore in exc-.-.ss of 10 times the 7 day, 10 year low flow; consequently,
no constituents were found to exceed maximum concentrations set forth
by present Ohio stream quality standards except for fecal coliforms,
part of which entered from upstream. A proposed Chio and EPA standard
for phenolics was exceeded in the Tuscarawas and in the Muskir.gurn
River throughout the study reach, even under elevated flow conditions.
2. There are two sewage treatment plants in the study area, at
Coshocton and at Dresden. The Coshocton STP presently meets Ohio and
EPA standards for secondary treatment; the Dresden plant does not.
3- There are six industries discharging to the Tuscarawas and
Muskingum Rivers in the study reach: Stone Container Corp., Carnation
Co., General Electric, St. Regis Paper Co., Universal Cyclops, and the
Conesville Generating Station. Pretty Products and Clow Corporation,
surveyed during this study, apparently have no direct surface connection
to a stream. Two Peabody Coal Co. mines located on tributaries to the
Muskingum River, have little effect on the stream.
-------
- 3 -
U. Of the industrial dischargers, Stone Container Corporation had
by far the greatest effect on the stream, both because of its location
on an upstream tributary (the Tuscarawas River) and because of the
volume of constituents discharged. Through its three outfalls, Stone
Container discharged sone 95 percent of the total BOD discharged into the
reach, nearly 68,000 lb/da of UBOD, and discharged fecal coliformr;
up to 25,000/100 ml. In addition, it discharged nearly 25,000 lb/da
of alkalinity (CaC03 equivalent), about 172,000 lb/da of solids, of
which about 28,000 lb/da were suspended solids, about 1^6,000 lb/da
of COD, nearly 12,000 lb/da of chlorides, nearly 17,000 lb/da of sulfates,
nearly 110,000 lb/da of sodium, 760 lb/da of potassium, and smaller
amounts of chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, phosphorus,
and oils and grease. A discharge of 90 lb/da of phenolics if continued
would result in violation of Ohio's proposed new 10 ug/1 standard.
5. The St. Regis Paper Co. at the time of study was discharging
more than ^00 lb/da of BODc and nearly 650 lb/da of suspended solids.
6. Universal Cyclops discharged the greatest quantities of
heavy metals: Ul7 out of a total of U87 lb/da of iron, 6^ out of 65
lb/da of chromium, and 18.5 out of 25 lb/da of nickel.
7. Except for the phenolics mentioned above, a routing of
conservative substances, principally metals, through the reach failed
to clearly show any violations of Ohio's present water quality standards
under low-flow conditions.
8. The assimilative capacity of the Muskingurn River in the subject
segment at the 7 day, 10 year low flow of ^32 cfs is 11,000 lb/da of
-------
ultimate biochemical oxygen demand (UBOD). This is in addition to the
UBOD exerted by tributary streams and the instream loading upstream
from Coshocton.
9. Existing UEOD loads to the Muskingutn River from point source
loadings within the segment was 71j£87 Ib/da at the time of study.
10. On the basis of code], studies done by EPA, it was found that
in order not to exceed the maximum permissible loadings within the
Coshocton reach, it was necessary for the dischargers within the reach
to reduce pollutants in their effluents to a considerable decree, re-
sulting in levels of treatment beyond the secondary for the Coshocton
sevage treatment plant and levels of treatment equivalent to best
available treatment economically available for Stone Container Coi-p.
and the St. Regis Paper Co.
11. After application of treatment levels recommended in this
report, total UBOD loadings entering from point sources within the
reach should total about 11,030 Ib/da, if municipal and industrial
growth is as anticipated.
12. Presently and as proposed, the Conesville generating station
is adding enough thermal loading to the Muskingum River to raise the
stream temperature at 7 day, 10 year low flow as much as l^o°F.
(8.1°C), if operating at capacity. These values are greater than
the maximum permitted under Ohio stream standards, 5°F. (2.8°C).
RECOMMENDATIONS; It is recommended;
1. That the Coshocton segment of the Muskingun River Easin be
classified as a V.'ater Quality Segment.
2. That Stone Container Corp. and St. Regis paper Co. be required
-------
to meet levels of treatment equal to effluent limitation guidelines
representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the appli-
cation of the best available technology economically achievable.
3. That the Coshocton sewage treatment plant be required to provide
treatment sufficient to produce maximum effluent concentrations of 30
mg/1 of BODtr and suspended solids, plus an 80 percent reduction of
nitrogenous material, or, as an alternative, maximum effluent
concentrations of 20 mg/1 3005 and suspended solids plus a 60 percent
reduction in nitrogenous material.
U. That the Dresden sewage treatment plant be required to meet
secondary treatment levels of pollutants, i.e., no more than 30 rcg/1
of BODc and suspended solids, and no more than 200/100 ml fecal coliforrns,
5. That the Conesville generating plant provide additional off-
stream cooling capacity or curtail operation of its units with once-
through cooling at times of low stream flow in order not to exceed
maximum temperature rises permitted under Ohio standards.
AREA DESCRIPTION;
I
The study area is located at and downstream from the confluence
of the Walhonding and Tuscarawas Rivers to form the Muskingun River
at Coshocton, in Coshocton and Muskingun Counties, Ohio, about 50
airline miles east and a little north of Columbus. The general area
is shown in Figure I.
The Muskingum River basin as a whole ranges from the nearly flat
to the nearly vertical, having been glaciated in its northern portions.
That part of the Allegheny Plateau physiographic province containing
the study area is shaped by consolidated rock, except for unconsolidated
-------
FIGURE I
Source: Ohio Dept.
of Transportation
1973
GEITERAL
Scale:
1 in = 8.75 mi
-------
r
^r;:\^
- -«".*-.'> '
:"^.Q-n;^3;. V v'-'J ^fer ^^
•;);:-:gf5k:i^i44^wnH;^k^^/^^'-5
Figure 2: Study Area Map
Scale 1:250,000
IKDO, Evansville, IN
August,
-------
- 8 -
alluvium along major streams, and is well dissected with only a little
flat land on flood plains. Rock strata dip toward the east, and sand-
stones, shale, limestone, and coal of Fennsylvanian and Permian ages
crop out successively toward the Ohio Hiver. The Muskingum River is
tributary to the Ohio River at Marietta, Ohio.
The only major population center within the study segment is
Coshocton, with a 1970 population of 13,7^7- There are other small,
agriculturally-oriented communities within the study area.
Coshocton receives an average of ^0.6 inches of precipitation
per year. June and July usually are the wettest months, and the driest
periods occur in the late fall. The average annual temperature
is about 52.6 C; the average growing season is about loO days.
At their confluence the two streams making up the Muskingum are
atout of equal size, the Walhonding having a drainage area of 2,256
square miles, and the Tuscarawas 2,596. Wills Creek contributes 853
square miles of drainage area; Wakatomika Creek, 23^ square miles.
The drainage area of the Muskingum River at the upstream end of the
study reach is ^,852 square miles, and at the downstream end, 6,050.
A United States Geological Survey stream gaging station has been
in operation since 1938 at the Randle Bridge two miles south of Coshocton,
where the drainage area is U,859 square miles. The minimum discharge
ever recorded at this station was ^20 cubic feet per second (cfs) on
September 13, 195^. The 7 day, 1 in 10 year low flow has been
established to be ^32 cfs. The flow exceeded 95 percent of the time
is 620 cfr,. The average discharge for 29 years of record is ^,752
cfs. The drainage area is about 70 percent controlled by 12 flood
-------
- 9 -
control reservoirs totalling 1,25^,700 acre-feet of storage. Over
the period of record, runoff has averaged 0.978 cfs per square
mile, or about 13.29 inches of runoff from the drainage area per
year.
Much of the land is forested. Fanning occurs on the lesser
slopes and in the stream valleys. Coal mining, both shaft and open
pit, occurs in the Tuscarawas River basin upstream from the study
area and in the Wills Creek sub-basin.
POPULATION AND ECONOMICS, PRESEiJT ACT PROJECTED
Between 1960 and 1970, the population of the entire Muskingura
River Basin increased about 6 percent, less than the lU percent in-
crease in the United States and lees than the 8+ percent increase in
Ohio during the same period. The total population in the 16 counties
comprising Water Resources Subarea Jfook (Richland, Ashland, Wayne,
Stark, Knox, Holmes, Coshocton, Tuscarawas, Carroll, Harrison, Licking,
Muskingum, Guernsey, Perry, Morgan, and Washington) as established by
the Water Resources Council* was 1,080,918 in I960. For 1970, the
corresponding population was 1,15U,78U.
The Coshocton segment of the Muskingum River basin includes parts
of two counties. Recent census populations are as follows:
TABLE I
Coshocton County
Muskingum County
Both Counties
County Populations
Ponulation
I960 " 1970
32,22U 32,861
79,159 76,969
111,383 109,830
Percent
Increase
+2.0
-2.8
-l.U
* - "1972 OBERS Projections, Regional Economic Activity in the U.S.,
Volun-e 3," U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington, September, 1972.
-------
- 10 -
The Corps of Engineers* projects as overall basinwide growth
rate somewhat greater than the 1972 OBERS projections (referenced in earlier
footnote) for the same basin, as set forth in the table below:
TABLE II
A Comparison of Projected Growth Rates Betv;een
Corps of Engineers and OBERS, 1972 Projections
Muskingura River Basin
I960 Base
Source Index for 1960 1980 2000 2020
Corps of Engineers 100 131 170 219
CDERS 100 122 152 189
NOTE: OBERS projections based on l6 counties comprising Water
Resources Subarea ?r?oU; Corps projections include these plus three
additional counties of Medina, Sunlit and Noble.
The Corps disaggregated its population projections to the county
level; the OBERS projections are limited to the regional level. In the
table below, the Corps projection indices and consequent population
projections for the two subject counties are presented vis-a-vis an
approximate comparable diseggregation based on the OBERS projections.
TABLE III
Projected County Populations
Coshocton Muskingum
County Count./
I960 Population 32,22H 79,159
1980 Pop. Index, Corps 137 120
Projected Pop. kk,150 9^,990
•x- _ "Historical and Projected Economic Data, Muskingum River Basin,"
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntingdon District, May 1968.
-------
-11 -
TABLE III (Con't)
Projected County Populations
Coshocton Muskingum
County County
Index, 03ERS base 116 116
Projected Pop. 37,^00 91,800
2000 Pop. Index, Corps 183 137
Projected Pop. 59,000 108,lfOO
Index, OBERS base 135 135
Projected Pop. ^3,500 106,900
2020 Pop. Index, Corns 235 150
Projected Pop. ~ 75,700 118,700
Index, OBERS base 150 150
Projected Pop. US,300 118,700
Neither the Corps projections nor the OBERS projections diseggregate
industrial data to the county level, presenting instead aggregates
for the entire Muskingun River Basin. These data are sunrr.arized in
Table IV.
WATER QUALITY STAriDARDS AMD SECT-SENT CLASSIFICATION;
The stream water quality standards applicable to the study reach
are those promulgated by the Ohio EPA as Regulation EP-1, July 27, 1973,
and adopted by the U.S. EPA on December 18, 1973.
The Coshocton segment of the Kuskingum River basin has been classified
by the Ohio EPA as an Effluent Limiting Segment for the purposes of
Section 303(e) of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (P.L. 92-500); however, a representative of the Ohio EPA Planning
Division verbally stated on August 20, 197^, that the Coshocton segment
was being considered as effectively a Water Quality Limiting Segment and
thus scheduled for early study due to the loads being imposed upon it.
Ohio EPA Regulation EP-1, described above and attached to this
-------
T.ABLK IV
i-1
ro
Muskinpiiim River Basin, Indices of Productions for Various Industries
Projected,
03SRS Projections
Mining
Coal
Crude Petroleum, Natural Gas
Non-metallic , except fuels
Manufacturing
Food and ?Cindred Products
Textile Mill Products
Apparel £: Other Fabric Products
Lumber Products, Furniture
Paper £ Allied Products
Printing and Publishing
CherrJLcals & Allied Products
Petroleun Refining
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals & Ordinance
Machinery, Except Electrical
Electrical Machinery & Supplies
Motor Vehicles & Equipment
Transp. Equip, except Mtr. Veh's.
Other Manufacturing
1969
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
K-bO
193
122
153
157
250
161
1^5
123
123
177
lUl
139
155
126
183
193
175
1US
2000
375
19<+
233
301
535
3^5
258
203
186
U52
2BU
209
352
196
*H5
ifSU
JA3
29^
2020
608
286
392
5Uy
1038
662
^52
372
299
1100
5Ul
31U
760
319
870
1100
1002
579
1980 and 2020
Corps of Engineers Projections
1967 Region
_-__
100 NW
S
_
____
100 NW
S
100 NW
S
100 ffl
S
100 NW
S
1930
170
170
155
_
210
220
-
150
150
150
2000
360
330
190
_
660
8^0
-
250
2kO
290
2020
700
560
230
_
1330
2000
-
500
U6o
570
NOTES: 1. Corps' 1W basin area contains Coshocton as well as Ashland, Holmes, Knox, Richland, Wayne, and
Medina Counties. Corps' S basin area contains Muskingum as veil as Guernsey, Licking, Morgan, Noble,
Perry and Washington Counties.
-------
- 13 -
report as Appendix I, specifies that "all surface waters of the state
are hereby classified as appropriate for warm water fisheries, for
primary contact recreation, for processing by conventional treatment
into industrial and agricultural water supplies..." There are no
municipal surface water supplies within the subject segment.
EXISTETG WATER. QUALITY, STREAM;
Results from water quality sampling dons during the survey of
April 30 through May 2, l$7k, are shown'in Table!/.
Upstream fron Coshccton, the Walhonding River appears to be in
fairly good shape at the Prairie Chapel Bridge near the southwest
corner of T. 6fl., R. 7 W., about U.6 miles above the confluence
with the Tuscarawas Rivar. An exception is an abundance of fecal
coliforms, about 300-^00 per 100 ml, exceeding Ohio standards.
At the US 36 bridge at V/est Lafayette, about 10.8 miles upstream
from its confluence with the V/alhonding at Coshocton, the Tuscarawas
River already is approaching the Ohio stream standard for Chlorides
(250 mg/l) and dissolved manganese (1,000 ug/l). Values obtained for
fecal coliforms were more than 10 times greater than Ohio stream
standards permit.
At the time the study was done, April and May of 197^, the
flow in the various streams was 11 to 20 times the 7 day, 10 year
low flow; consequently, concentrations of various constituents in the
streams might have varied considerably from low flow conditions. Under
conditions as found, the only constituent determined to be exceeding
Ohio stream quality standards was fecal coliform, which was exceeded
at all sampling points except for the one on Wills Creek.
-------
j!csr..it;; of Rt.jeni.-i fi.'^f.
:;:::• Co::'-iOctoii, O'-ito
;, TiP.10 Ktu:ly ol' Anj.-il V) - M'-.y Z.
~A Iv .
me
BLJL
ItOTL.
T!l 0.
1*3,3
vifi.l,
ii.'.n
W.I
89.9
Station
Ualhoruli ng River
nr Prairie: Chanel
Tuscarawas River
.it US ^6 briilcu!
Tuscarawas River
at. Bridge Fit.
Muskin,-;uRi River
at SH-83
Miickinrfuni River
at ConHsvillR Uridr-t;
l-iuskiiiifun Ilivcir
ut Ail.i."r. Mill
Wills Cruck
ni-. IRC;; na»
Vlii.U.Ml.CBr.ika Creek
..-it SII..60 bi-i (|,;R
'•hiahiiv,um River
,it. 'r-j-pofl
Uuskinftuii River
at Mil is lian
Date
19/1|
5/0.1.
5/0?
5/01
5/02
5/Q.l
'-,/0;>
5/01
5/02
5/0.1.
5/0'.'
5/0.1.
5/U2.-
j/02
-,/m
-,AP
5/01
5/Q2 .
Ti,e
11:50
Q9J30
10:20
1.0:00
11:00
IQslSL
13:05
l'l:05
12:20
13:50
1.2:1(5
13:20
llj'iO.
LUIQ
3:20
1-30
3 -'10
nn-*n
111: 20
09jOO
5-tlt
BOD
1.9
2.2
3.0
3.6
9.3
9.«
5.0
''•9
•3-9
3.6
3.7
3.8
2.2
3.2
!! .£
J-8
.. ,
3 *
ll T
ijOJl
•i.Y
',.!•
Y.'I
7.8
21.0
10.0
9.8
8.1
7.'.
10. ll
8.0
5.2
6.1
5.2
11. ll
9r>
A.I.
35-
•-!-•>.
W.
V)
...
80.
70.
85.
55.
r">.
'jr>.
25.
llO.
30.
25.
85.
l| 5 .
Ll,
Wai
frr
_
16.
15.
17.
16.
1
1
',
i- Tain
5ofT
Kl.
16.
iii.-i
1.6.
15.
16.
15.
17.
16.
17.
17.
18.
VL.
XL-
17.
.16.
18.
J.8.
.
73V-
16.
15.
17.
16.
~nl:
ri
8.7
7.2
8.5
oiv«a~
at Kl.
8.6
8.1
Y-'t
8.2
J.-2
8.8
7. 'I
8.2
8.3
8.1,
8.0
8.9
8.2
8.6
8.3
7-6
8 .0
[o]5jml
Bunk
8 ll
7.8
Klc
25%
fron
7.6
7-5
7.3
Id nil
504
lit. I
8.2
7.9
7-5
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.7
7.5
7.2
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.2
_7.0
-Zi5_
7.2
8 2
-7.0-
.._ .: i
75%
unk
7.6
7.5
7.7
7-5
'«
8.1
7.8
7.6
7.7
7-8
7.6
7.8
7-8
...7.L.
lj.6
:LS..
7.8
•IT —
i*.
^;; jr
Spec.
Com)
uniho/c
'llO
1060
1250
1060
1080
730
7CO
820
760
500
530
1180
'i55
750
Tfin
...765-
Alk.
irg/1
130
100
85
105
.115
1.1.0
110
100
86
80
55
52
115
75
105
-99-
"Fccioil Coiifi'ii™"
25?.
fi-oc
3200
21(00
750
50% 1 75%
Kt. l^.aX
310
'130
'1300
H700
r-soo
2200
1600
850
1500
750
inoo
«30
10
•21
"5100
760
610
...310..
2300
1700
2000
690
'I'otV
Solid!
300
960
830
800
•J'i5
560
5(0
5-30
3SO
l|20
'lOO
330
•tfo
til.0
..'j£o_.
Susp".
iolids
inir/1
26
22
77
58
60
33
32
3»
33
35
27
33
21,
15
33
30
_jia_.
j™
10
17
13
28
18
28
1U
22
17
15
19
18
21,
13
16
ifi
2,'j
,.,
--
?>j
.-.
57
222
239
222
ate
159
J/'-O
liO
Jfe
156
I/O
1-33
1.1.7
150
...51.
jflo
..1L7-
Cl
22
167
,03
165
151
.:.
icy
,...,
i-..;
i-w
5:.
16
17
29
31
,0
£8
S7
I
-------
tij;"". !Hva.' no:,'- Co.:jtJOel.osi. O'iilo
tKni1 atrt:-!.'-, 3:iBni.l;i.;, IK1X) Study o.f
River
Mile
:m !i.
T'no.
•VI* 0.
123~i
•n.'Ui
115.0
'-,'7.1
'•••9.?
Station
Ual!ior.din.: Hjvcv
nr Pjvi-irii; Cfciliol
Wuscurawas River
nt IB T", brid--./02
'j/01
'3/02
'j/01
5/CK
Time
1.150
O'«0
1.020
1000
JJflQ.
1030
1TO5
TliO'i
1??0
13-,0
O2l*i.
IH20
llllO
1110
1320
1.130
13'iO
0320.
l'(20
0900
Tot .
J1icr.o
...-/I
-__
It ?
..
!; Ii
...
...
...
...
It.
...
...
...
...
...
...
1; 'i
~5iL."
p
e ./.I
.o:..i
.n::
.1»7
• 3.1'j
.175
.23;'.
.126
..1.7',
.115
,1-73
.11.1.
.iS-j
.]0'!
.oOil
.071
.09v
.10o
.175
.ion
.200
:;o ;•:
Kfsv;
.1'
m-yi
.OTC,
.01,7
.OO:.
.01'^
.013
.0.1..;'.
.010
.022
.012
.016
.Olid
.01^
.01.7
.7
.ooy
•Of.3
f.. 007
.019
.012
.O-.'v.',
. •...
i.-o; i
fio.,
ir,.;/.li}
.9.1
1.10
1.01
1.3'J
• 93
1.25
• SI
1.17
1.05
1.31
.06
1.11
.3'!
.Vi
1.7'i
.61
•ye
• 93
• 79
.!S6
pl'Of:t
"VriF:
mi -II
•«.Vi
1: .0
.06
.06
.27
h .03
...
k .03
•og
.03
.05
.Oil
.O'l
.05
.Oil
•23
.09
.03
.03
.07
k .03
Una ;
DJSS
I-V:
Ui'/l
.15
_15
111
•lh
„
„
0\
39
lilt
39
ii,'.
ill
>i
19
J19
'i'i
li'i
5l|
20
20
vcliu
"Soir
rti-,
I'S/-1
3
2
Ii
2
3
2
2
2
1; 2
2
2
2
)i 2
k 2
2
k 2
2
2
k 2
p
incli.
•A.;..
C.v
11: ./.I
1.5
k 5
k 1O
k 1
3
!; 10
k 10
k 10
k 10
k 10
k 3.0
k 10
I; 10
k .1.0
i 10
k 10
'. 1.0
k 10
2.0
k 1.0
i tug
'i'O :/ .
(Jr
"?',/!.
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
k 30
luss
' SotT
Cn
»:>/l
k .10
k 10
k .10
k 10
k 10
k 10
k 1O
k .1.0
k 10
k 10
k 10
10
10
k 10
k J.O
20
k 10
20
k .1.0
30
,.SI|"
'I'll!'. .
11)
•M/l
k 5
k 5
6
S
k l'i
k ';
7
k 'j
5
5
5
9
k 5
k 5
k ')
8
5
13
1.3
k -j
•esi.
Wi
k 0.2
k O.2
k 0.2
k 0.2
1; 0.2
0.2
k O.2
k 0.2
k 0.2
k 0.2
k O.2
k 0.2
k 0.2
k 0.2
k 0.2
k 0.2
X 0.2
k 0.2
k 0.2
k O.2
l'0t.
i.'i
"../•I
k liO
k 1)0
k liO
to
co
SO
k 1)0
50
k l|0
1.0
k >|0
liO
k ho •
70
k ><0
k 'iO
70
CO
k ',0
K l;0
'••at.
?,n
«;A
10
1.5
50
70
50
**!•
o5
60
1,0
25
35
25
30
60
15
30
50
25
It5
50
1.0
l.'iss
UL;/ 1.
70
50 _|
620
S&O
_-_
_._
360
•JCO
330
1420
320
'150
s&o
600
1130
960
330
350
1»20
2fiO
Kriel
-Vi
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.2
1.0
„__
0.8
1.3
0.8
1..0
0.6
0.0
0.5_
0.7
1.0
0.7
O.B
1.1
0.7
1.0
•Stream
n.ow
cfs 1
580.
1.27O.
3820
U130
ItfiOO
S'lOO
• -
630
630
205
-— —
— _.-.
-------
However, on the basis of effluent sampling, discussed below, it
is anticipated that Ohio standards for other para-.eters aay be
exceeded under low flow conditions.
POIriT SOURCES. EXISTING DISCliARGES
Durin,3 the April 30 - :-Viy 2 study, of fluent samples were obtained
frcr. twelve different dischargers at 19 different locations, an shown
in Table VI. Of these, Pretty Products ras found to be discharging
to a ditch which drains to a swa.-rpy area fron which there is no
perceptible discharge. The Clow Corporation dircharced wastevv.tcrs
into a lar,~c pit without a surface outlet.
The Stone Container Corporation's three outfalls to the lov.'or e:-.d
of the Tuscaravfiis River discharce by far the Greatest c-our.ts
of the larecst variety of constituents in the reach. The discharges
at the time of sampling include quantities such as:
- nearly 25.CCO lb/da of Alkalinity as CaCO^
- about 172,000 lb/da of solids, of which about 23,000 lb/d
-------
Kas:;.lii.'-;ur.i Hivcr nc:.u- Coa'itiiitnn, Ohio
i'csultii o!' Sampling I'oi.'ri; Souruc-B, IjMa^tufij__nf AJJ:'.'^j° "
liiver
Mile
TO1 . ?
Tiil. 2
'i'HO.li
l!"l,'i
IJ-I, 'i
Ifli.S
113J
1 00 •''
IPO.II
117.1
1.1V. U
S-JC— -
;-;c—
*r—
Station
Stone; Container Corp.
Copj:lnn_d OOl fc 002
Stone Container Corp.
Tatoon. O0'<
Stone Container Corp.
(Mariner, OOli
Carnation Co.
Coolin;; water;:
J'rettv rrodiictn
(iencrul KlectrlR
(•.oollnu Kilters
Cu.'ihoeton Sewage In-
'IVf:utn»-rit 1'lilnt^ flo-.
Ciiunocton S'lT
KITlnnpl.
fit. KC;;.LG Riper Co.
Univursal Cyuloos
Conesville Oen.Sta.,
Coll. Dan in
Conesv Lilt; Gen. Sta.,
Final Effluent"
I'eabody Coal Co.
llroken Arrow mini:
I'eabody Coal Co.
SimcG Mine. 00.1.
Itaciiody Coal Co.
SJMCO MIPR. 002
Date
'I/I"
'•'11
i,fta
•i/01
'1/30
5/01
•./oi
li/TO
•i/oi
1(/,0
JiA'L
-(1/30-
'i/fil
Jl/30.
5/01
l,/p
_5/oi
5/01
5/0]
5/01
5/02
5/02
I/O!
Vo?
Tjmc
(W-B)C
OolO
101 5C
og?o
001 5C
o6i.q
1.100C
r>737
102 5C
070P
moc
OVli'5
•i i oon
•nooc:
1000
LU-osc.
0805
12li W
ocu, ;
UTOC
1.01,7
L'H5C
1030
QWj
1020
or.
now
in.jd
3.68
0.2'v
.1.80
1.3
.556
3.2
2.8
.632
U.2I,
.217
.112
.02
.02
^:;;
3u.
17
3>'.
'.3.
20.
fiii.
25.
If..
23.
31.
18.
12
13
no '
5-?
'..7
"i.5
7.8
7-0
5.B
7.0
9.0
6.li
fielil
I'li
7.'.
B.2
7.2
7.9
8.2
9.6
9-5
G.2
0.3
7.0
pH
7.2
R. 3
7.7
7.9
0.0
8.3
7.3
7.1
7.B
7.1
7-5
7.'.
5-9
3-3
5.8
Sl«:c
Coml
1720
5'iOO
3110.
850.
920. .
855.
131.0.
1050.
LlBO.
820
1|170
1700
Tol.
Alk
S-(V.
?2l,0.
790.
210.
185.
70.
li'iO.
100.
330.
105.
31,.
105.
8.0
0.0
21.
011&
in /I
3.0
2.0
1; 2
:
k 2
2.0
3.0
k 2.
k 2.
Fecal
Coli
/100m;
25.00C
2OO.
23, OCX
10
10.
k 10.
160.
k 10,
30.
5"io
Tolul
Solids
2150,
9880.
5690,
710.
600.
350.
710.
600.
1200.
750.
81:0.
57-0
1.200.
isno.
Sur.p
Solid:
110.
1150
1U70
110.
g,,.
j;i5.
ISO.
30.
120.
33-
20.
1.8.
3.0
53.
Iho.
'IV. rb.
10
11.
'•3.'
12.
10.
27.
35.
1.0.
22.
250.
i-da
I!OD
'(50.
5.3
2.2
9-9
2'iO.
22.
k 1.0
li.'i
5.9
20-da
BOD
760.
12.
6.2
25.
1430.
70.
5.0
COD
1660.
£300.
5200,
50.
23.
65.
350.
99.
302.
30.
111.
36.
TCC
l|.
7.
Cl
250.
320.
21)0.
5'*.
3'4.
3rt.
fill.
90.
Mt.
122.
121.
96.
6.
7.
k 5.
so,,
300.
770.
IpOO.
163.
192.
.'ill .
107.
I'lO.
37't.
166.
3fiO.
156.
1.170.
27'iO.
920
Diiis
Res id
Cl"
.146
k 0.1
0.6
FhenoJ
Tot.
17140,
320.
23'iO.
k 'i
ino
7'i30.
210.
u.o
Tol.
P
in- /I.
• 551
21. 9
J.9)
.193
.0.1=0
.337
y.'i.'j
9-52
3.07
.O::'!
.li'iM
.165
k.007
1.78
li.o.,
Tot.
Fe
„•/}.
u,8or
26, 20^
16900C
Bi,,ec.
I
-------
cto.i. (iilo
RUJO 2 or 3
nj. jigm-cns, _Ti30 iit.u-1;,- of /-.r;lj. "•',<• - V- •" '?._, -'.'7{^i
K.ivc:-
Mile
y;;.fi
06. S
...
S ta t .1 on
Orosduii~Bn«.Tr.I!iant
'I'nlMncnl
Dresden ynvi.Tr.l'O.ant
ElTlnont
Clow Corp. Cement Lino
— no dlscliarv.c
Clow Corp. V/ct Cap Lin
— -no diachniTW
MOTJ-S:
* - 'JMrcii: A value To]
"k" jndlrntcs "less tlii
Date
Wl
'^/on
5/01
JJ/02
Vv
5/01
owed
n"
TJrai:
•X
l.''0'4
.1000C
1150
1510
1500
y "C"
KLoir
ni,'fd
•'..13
indie
Vfattr-
Te-r.p
°C
1H.
ill.
21.
67.
t.us a
IX i
raiiAl
6.2
2h -ho
rioj.fi
p!i
6.;3
i'>.6
r cwnj
la'u
pi!
7.^
7-'i
11.5
B.I
OBllu
Spat:
Coful
liiVlilO/
lUBo.
1590.
UMiO.
1820
saiijplti
•tot
All;
»--A
3'iQ.
31-0.
J*?L
150.
|je,«,ii
Oil f.:
•", rails
i.r;/l
nin<^f
•
Kocal
Coli
/100m
10000
t tim
'1'ot
Solid
•n,Vl
1170.
905.
2330.
.1880.
indie
uU.'ip
Solid!
avji
3'lO.
165.
.Uioo.
590.
a ted.
Turb
JTU
Ii8.
20.
6Co.
'i30
Mili
5 -da
L'OD
inc/1.
305.
I'lO.
27.
l.ll
"HLt
—
20-da
liOD
m:'/l
'i50.
2liO.
56.
3-9
ir.es us
COO
ra,-/l
i&9.
saa.
cd.
'iX)C
in^j/1
CM
™-YI
210.
107.
196.
SO
"iJ/A
!39.
7'iO .
600.
Dies
PI
^Q&
Kcsid
Cl"
..mil/l.
0.1
ri:o:io
Tot
4*/i
•|.v.i!,.
P
,A^/i
23.2
11.2
.992
.Z;li7
Tot.
Kc 1
— '
j
. .
-------
UTlUi VT
Mun:-.in-;ii:f. liiver imi's- Cofikaclon, Ohio
3 of 3
B of BtmoU.'i;; Po.lm. aa;uoes. liiTOJituUy oi' .'.nrl.! ;;0 - !-'.'.^ «! . jj
Hivcr
M j lc
TO1..H
'I'M.?
T.'iO,.!,
1*1. •;
ipii.-j
121.7
i r1.'' . 7
15-0.1,
i I.Y. s
^
/c— .
;f;---
Ol.«
ta.
. Pi ml Ei-fl nunt.
Fttabody Coal Co.
•llrokiin Arrow Mini!
! \jiLiKKly Coi\.l Co .
...Siiac.0. MLiie,.rXH
l\!abc*1.v Coal Co.
iiinr-o Kino, 002
Dresden STP
, lufLuant.
Drcudcn STP
Clow Corp Cornell 1 I.ine
-,._nn d1.ni-l.ar 'i!
Glow Corp V.'et Cap Line
-- — nr, rilKc-l-.nr «>
NOTES: •>' - Time: A vi
Date
197'i
W
V*
i,/™
W
'I /V
ii/™
-b/30.
WW
ll/'-iO
•>/oi
•i/01
..ri/Q2
5/02
•1/02
-5/OL
5701
lue fi
-X
Time
Mrs
WVX
101 -JO
O9i'jc
1100C
1035.0.
nior:
11QQC.
11OOC
l?.i5f;
12l|'iC
l'i30C.
UllSC
1020
10^5
looon
I'ilO .
1500 .
ilowe<
.an
HO-a
=~~i
O.'j
3-
0.8
0.95
3.02
1.20
l.oS
6.06
0.05
20.2
1.5'.
1.10
k .03
o.oii
O.Ou
0.02
0.11
2.29
l.ll'l
by "(
0.7
'.2.
1.3
O.Oo
0.05
0.10
10.1
.r..ii?;
O.l|2
O.li?
o. :•).•>
y. -03
:'.. 03
1.10
0.5i)
i'i . it
18.8
1.66
0.6o
1 indi
Kjul
re.
lfi.9
0.9
0.5
0.!:
27.0
11.
Hi. 2
1.1.
1.7
0.8
O.IM
37.
31.
10.
l.li
cates
Ti.t
3200.
160.
730.
26.7
11.7
l-'iO
57.0
(Vp.O
1,2.0
21.3
Ii50.
155-
lot).
155-
220.
a 2l|-:
Tut
mii/1
10.3
52.
22..".
9.0
our c<
Tot
Al
~---Q-
k 21X)
(!6o.
2SOOO.
3300
iLOOO
3000
.iposil
Mr.
'155.
;-!!W
28900
15.30
1.120
'16200
c satai
Y'ot
.-Ui/1
k 10.
lc be;
Tot
As
JU'/l.
k 5-
5.
7.
6.
3.0
k 2.
k 2.
2.
U.
' a.
2.
k 2.
l.'i.
12.
k 5.
If 2.
2.
18.
i nnio:
Tot
Sb
1W/1
k 50
at t.
Tot
Cd
k IO.
k 10.
k 10.
2.0
k 1.0
k 10.
k 10.
k .1.0.
k 1.0
k 1.0
k .10.
k 10.
k 10.
k 10.
20.
MiO.
me i nr
Tot
Cr
k 'Jfl
J.60.
{'.0.
k 30
k 30
k 30.
k 30
k 30.
k 30.
is;oo
k 30.
k 30.
k 30.
k 3_0._
k 30.
230.
150.
icatci
Cr
k fO.
. MI:
Tot
Cu
VU.ll-
30-
1.0.
130.
20.
k 10.
6SO.
50.
30.
20.
30.
30.
k 1.0.
k 1.0.
SO.
'lO
130.
220.
itary
Tot
Pb
2.CQ-.
200.
200.
10.
10.
13-
12
10.
12.
15.
7.
10.
35.
35-
630.
5200.
times
,
Tot
0.2
0.3
0.3
k 0.2
k 0.2
k 0.2
O.'i
0.2
k 0.2
0.?.
k.O.2
k 0.2
K 0.2
k 0.2
k 0.2
O.I.
O.I.
1-9
k 0.2
used.
Tot
Mi
"'/.I.
•So.
220.
210.
kllO
k ho
k 'iO
k 1.0
li 'iO.
1,0.
v».
k iio.
k 1,0
150.
loOO.
260.
k |tO_
k 1.0
100.
80.
To I
Si.
k hot
k liOO
Tot
Ue
3-
k 2.
Tot
7,n
\'-l\
Hi',.
350.
55.
105.
30.
255-
- "
00.
25.
(b
1,0.
100.
1.000.
320.
llOO.
.1.510.
97'iOO
Dis
A.I.
r /I
•
250.
27000
300
JsJfi
Dis
13_7CC<
31.000
67000
Dis
Kn
— : —
lO'-OO
MiOO
1'jOO
-------
- 20 -
- and s=all amounts of chromium, copper, lead, r.ercury, nickel,
zinc, phosphorus, and oils and grease.
This heterogeneity of constituents caused no apparent violations
of Ohio's water quality standards at the time of sazplins, although
fecal colifor.-ns discharged adds to an already overburdened stream. Even
at low flow, only the fecal coliform and oxycen demanding wastes appear
to exceed Ohio's present water quality standards. However, the US EFA
has proposed (May 3, 1971*, Federal Register) a rsaxi.-aum of 10 ug/1 of
phenolics in Ohio streams; the State of Ohio has recently (Aueust 19,
197**) completed a round of public hearings which -./ill provide the sar.e
linitation. Once this standard is promuJcated, t;;c discharge of ::honolic:i
from Stone Container Germany's outfalls must be curtailed in order (;o
avoid exceeding the revised standard, not only in the Tuscarauas Sivor
but in the Kuskincum River through the study reach.
Vlith the exception oi' oxyjcn-dcisar.dins substances and fecal coliforns,
the other dischargers to the reach did not exceed Ohio stream quality
standards during the study. ?or the most part, their discharges, vliilo
not trivial, verc small in comparison vith the flow in the streams.
Dissolved oxygen standards for the stream were not violated during
the course of the study. The results of a S'l-hour dissolved oxygen
study aade on May 2, and 3, 197'f, are presented in Table VII. It is
to be noted that the dissolved orison found in the strear.i did not drop
under 7.0 mg/1 under conditions of temperature and flou obtaining it
the time of the study.
A ccnparison of values for 5-day BOD and suspended solids
as found during the survey period and as reported by the discharcors is
~1
-------
TABLE VII
2U-Kour Dissolved Oxygen Study on the Muskinn-um River and Ma.jor Tributaries, May 2-3,
Station
"TJaThondin,--; River
near Prairie Chapel
Tuscarawas River
nt h'cr.t Lafavette
Muskin.'jum River
at Ohio SR 83
Muskin.p-;urn River
at Concsville Brid.'-c
Muskin. ;urr. River
at Adams Mills
Muskin.'.-:um River at SR
208 at Dresden
Muskin ;bn River
at Ellis Dai.-:
8 am
3.7
7A
7A
7.U
7.6
7.6
3.3
D.O.
lOa
8.8
7.U
8.1
8.8
8.6
sampl
12n
9-3
7.8
8.0
7.8
8.0
S.O
fj C
'••' " x<
es v/er
2 pm
9.8.
7.8
8.8
7-9
8.1
8.2
8.6
2 COll
k P
10.0
8.0
9.2
G.H
6.U
e.i
G.I
acted
6p
10.2
7-7
5.8
8.5
£.5
8.3
8.2
each 2
8 p
9-5
7.8
8.5
8.2
8.0
7.9
o.O
nours
lOp
9-7
7-3
8.3
8.8
8.0
8.0
8.0
from
12m
8.9
7.6,
8.1
8.1
8.0
7.3
8.U
eacn
2 am
9.0
7.5
7-9
7.6
7-9
7.8
G.lr
stati
U a
9.1
8.1
8.3
7.8
6.5
7-7
8.2
on.
6 a
8.8
7.5
7.8
7.5
8.0
7.5
8.2
i
LOR3P-7
-------
- 22 -
shewn in Table VIII. Stor.e Container Company appears to be seriously
underreporting its discharces; however, there appears to have been a
definite increase in production within the last four reporting ir.or.ths,
which, if the reporting period were shortened cccr.er.suratcly, would
bring the reported values more in line with survey values.
Ir. addition to solids and o:-vsen de-ending substances (see
section on modelling study, below), conservative substances—primarily
r.etals—were routed through the reach, using upstrea.-n condition.-, as found
during the study for trial base-line data, and carryj..ig the rou';inc through
Coshocton. The results are shorn in Table IX. The three discharges of
Stor.o Container, discharsir.g to the lower cr.d of the Tuscarawn.s River,
were taken in one cluster; the remaining dischargers to the Munkir.Rua
River in the i:c.r.ediatc Coshocton area were taken as another cluster. yiows
used vere the 7 day, 10 year low flows. TO fce noted is that, although
Ohio strean quality standards arc not shown to be exceeded under the test
conditions for conservative substances, a lowering of the phcr.olics
standard to 10 ug/1 will necessitate further rexovals fron the discharges.
Routing was done through a variation of the standard siixinc equation
adapted to cluster computation;
where C = concentrations of constituent,
Q = flow, or discharge, and
subscript s indicates the stream before r.ixi:vj
ar.d subscripts 1,2, . . . n indicate various inflows
subscript t indicates the condition after mixing.
"I
-------
TABLE VIII
A Comparison of April-May 19?U Survey Data with Monthly Operating Reports
of Municipal and Industrial Dischargers
Dischar;
Stone Cc
Copelt
Stone Cc
jueitj,uui
Stone Cc
Clarii
1
Coshoctc
St. Reyj
Universe
Dresden
* _
Mohn ! •
er
ntaine
nd 00]
ntaim
^A"*
, COj
ntaim
ier, C
n STP
s Fane
1 Cyc]
STP
May tr
hnthl-i
r
, 002
r
r
Ok
r Co.
ODS
ru Au'
• -r poor
, Ootr
t.s not
Source
Surv
Rot
Surv
Rt>t
Surv
Rot
Surv
Rot
Surv
Rot
Surve^,
Rpt
Surv
Rot
her It
avail
Report
Period
Nov?3
Mar?U
Nov?3
Mar?U
Nov73
Mar?^
Jan?3
Apr?1!-
Jan73
Mar7^
Dec72
Mar7H
*
7^j F€
5±>JLe_J
Flo'rf
mgd
3.68
3.03
0.21+
0-3^
1.80
0.71
2.7
2.7
0.63
0.62
Lf.2li
6.15
0.13
0.11
b and
or Ca-r
5-dc
ical C
mg/1
^50
168
1,100
1,250
1,1|00
1^,010
22
2U.3
5U
78.7
k 1.
3.0
].UO
Hn
•far Tf
natior
y Bioc
xygen
lb/
1"
i.
t
-.
21
2C
•7^.
and (
hem-
Demanc
da
,811
,330
,202
,7^0
,017
,030
U95
5H?
28U
'»09
162
152
158
encra]
Susr
mg/1
110
Ik.l
1,150
1,120
1,^70
333
30
20. c
120.
9^-3
33
U6.U
16"?
not
ElP,d
ended
Soli
lb/
3,
2.
3:
22,
1.
1.
2.
reoor!
ric .
ds
da
376
3^0
302
226
OcO
978
676
U6U
631
637
167
271
179
ed
GPO 028-2O4-2
-------
MuB!:i.;i..:u:.i Hivor iit Gonlioctoa, Ohio
nj Conservative Suust:iii-.:u:i
Tusca
Ston
Con La
Cti.Lcu
':o:npa
Use f
Use W»
"ttnbii
Muskli
"iKnga:
Location
Ohio Stream Standards
awas liiver at US 36 11.1 -
v:iiv brlil re; Sturt
( Copaland 002
/
ner ( Ia"oon °°3
i Cooling OO'l
a ted, Tuscarawau liiver
below on trails
o, Tuscarawas lilver
at Jjrjil 'e fitrcot
r Timctirawas River
at mouth
lliondinc H 0 Prairie
Cli!«pi-'l...f:ni- inniil.ll .
3d, Use 1'or >: .luster
iip.lcYj.' :
CbrnaLion Co cool'Jn"
ricnera). Klcc. cooling
(Nuhoci.on STP
at.Rnijia Taper Co.
UnivRrnal Cyclops
:',uin Ulvcr bel.ow Coshocti
•: Kuskinpiirn River
It C;om;fiviiv; Briflt-e
•WmSR: •"• - Revised stai
1. Spaces left
2. "k" indicate
3. Ohio Staiulu
flow
nr'il
Vdu/K
127.2
3.«J
0.2l(
l.Bo
132.9
l&llO
132.9
use
Hia. 6
275.';
1.3
3.2
2.0
.632
it. -A
n28Y.'
3500+
dard <
blanlt
s "le;
ds al:
f 10 i
arc a.1
s tluu
o pro1
Au
iif/1.
•;o
li
5
7
li
3
li
3
3.5
6
3.0
a.
6
3-5
2
.5/1 P:
sumed
"
ide 1:
Cd
ii-/l
'j
1.5
1.5
3
2.3
2.0
2.2
klO
oposec
to coi
•nita :
.
Cl
;f.!-h
2'jO
203
250
320
2>iO
20 ^
\(:'j
205
22
110
5'l
36
90
Mi
122
log
9".
(see
tain i
or ha:
Cr
u •:/!.
300
160
80
ll
ll
1.9
'l
1
1.8
X.30
tdxt)
alues
iijni, :
~ns-r-
Cr
Ui^l
50
•
of ze:
Vee ai
Cu
,,;.-/:i
500
30
llO
GO
2
2
1.0
SO
680
30
20
30
9.1.
klO
•o.
d tot!
Dis
Ke
up/1,
1000
111
13
15
13
6.2
5-9
39
1 cyai
il)
"(•/I.
1)0
6
200
200
200
111
Hi
6.R
10
13
10
12
1.5
7.
5
ides,
Dis
Mn
u/i/'Lj
1000
620
593
593
286
2Yl»
1»20
fluor.
»S
ui'/l
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
k.2
dcs, .
Oil A
fireasi
m:'/l
5
3-0
2.0
0.09
0.09
O.O>I
3.0
.07
elcni;
Phono
u«/l
100*
l,7'lO
320
2,360
81
81
39
1,110
210
ll
52
It
in , am
Zn
uir/1
1000
50
I
-------
Similar routings might have been done for the small tributaries
of Wills Creek and Wakatomika Creek, but the observed discharges to the
stream are small compared to the 7 day once in 10 year low flow, and
concentrations of substantial strength can be shown to have little
effect on the streams.
THERMAL LOADINGS;
The major source of heat within the study reach is the Cor.csvillc
Generating station o;7 the Columbus i Southern Ohio Electric Co.
According to industry spokesmen, the plant as of 197^ has 3 units
with a total capacity of UOO MV7 (megawatts) with once-through cooling,
plus one unit with a capacity of 300 MVJ on a closed system with coolir£
towers. Projected for 1977, the plant will have 6 units; as above,
plus two IIOO-MW units on cooling towers. The water intake in 1977 is
projected to be 265 mgd with a discharge of 250 mgd, resulting in
15 ngd lost through evaporation, drift and blowdown.
The 7 day, 10 year low flow in the Muskingum River at the
Conesville Generating station is about U70 cfs. Assuming UCO MW being
generated by once-through cooling, a net heat rate of 8,533 BTU/kwh,
and a discharge of 3,8^0 BTU/k'-.-h of waste heat to the stream, the
temperature rise.in the Muskingum River at 7 day, 10 year low flow would
be 1*7.5°?, or 8.1°C. These values are considerably in exce.ss of the 5°F
(2.8°C) maximum temperature rise permitted under Ohio stream standards
for activities attributable to human activity.
Due to the large volur.c of flow during the April-May 197** survey
and the location of the sampling .stations, the survey data did not pick
up any excessive heat rise below the power plant.
-------
- 26 -
MODEL STUDY: Determination of Maximum Permissible Loads for Oxygen
Demanding Materials :
Maximum permissible loadings for oxygen demanding materials were
predicted by modelling the dissolved oxygen. Flows and waste discharges
were assumed to be at steady state. Longitudinal dispersion was assumed
negligible .
Carbonaceous and nitrogenous EOD's were assumed to decay by first
order kinetics . Inadequate depth data vrere available for computation
of the reaeration capacity by either the O'Connor or Churchill formulas.
Consequently, the Tsivoglou formula* was used:
ka = 0.5^ x 16.36 x S x v,
where ka is the reaeration coefficient, I/day
0.05^ = Tsivoglou 's "escape coefficient", I/ ft
16.36 converts mi/da to ft/sec
S = hydraulic slope, ft/mi
and v = stream velocity, ft/sec
While the computer model was capable of handling diurnal photosynthesis,
the diurnal variation observed during the May 197^ survey was small,
this factor was therefore neglected.
The dissolved oxygen deficit was computed by the following formula:
-kat k, L -krt -kat. k N -knt -kat
e + _2 - (e -e )+n (e -e )
ka-kr
where: DQ = initial oxygen deficit, mg/1
L = ultimate CBOD, mg/1
N = NBOD, mg/1
ka = reaeration coefficient, I/day
* - Tsivoglou, E.G., and Wallace, J.R., Characterization of Stream ReGorg,-
tion Capacity, E PA -R 3 -12 -012, October iy?2 ~~~
-------
kd = CBOD oxidation coefficient, I/day
kr = CBOD removal coefficient, I/day
kn = NBOD decay coefficient, I/day
t = time of travel, days
Data Analysis - Hydraulic Characteristics:
Two U.S. Geological Survey stream gaging stations are located in the
study reach of the Muskingum River, one just downstream from Coshocton,
the other at Dresden. A gaging station for which records are riot kept is
located at KM (River Mile) U.60 on the V.'alhcnding River, at the bridge
near Prairie Chapel. Another gage is located on Wills Creek at the
Wills Creek Dam.
Daily discharge records for the Muskingun River at Dresden are
shown in Figure 3- Stream flows at the time of the survey for both
main stream and tributary stations are shown in Table X.
Data on average velocity at various flows were available from the
U.S. Geological Survey at the Coshocton and Dresden Gaging Stations.
Because the Munkingum River channel is fairly uniform, the USGS recorar.cnded
using these velocities throughout the reach under study.
Equations relating velocity versus flow were determined from a
log-log plot for each gaging station. The relationship for the
Coshocton gage,
v = 0.006U Q°'67
where v = average velocity for the section, ft/sec, and
Q, = volume of flow past the section, ft^/sec
wa.s assumed to apply throughout the upper part of the reach,
-------
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
;':
111!..
' ; ' :
'
. jjf
1 1 1
I
,-
'
:
v. .;.*. '
till
-
. ;
'. i
1 1 1 1
•
1 1 1 1
^
i 1
URVEY>
^
i • i i i
i
10 20 30 10 20 30 10
MARCH APRIL MAY
5,000
?isa7e 3: Mv^-lrijira River a'; n.vcsden, Ohio
Baily Dijchar^es >!ar. I - Miy 20, 19
oavce: U.i. Geclocical ~arv;;y
-------
Table X
Station
Walhonding @ Prairie Chapel
Walhonding @ confluence
Tuscarawas @ confluence
Muskingum @ Coshocton
Wills Creek @ dam
Wakatomika Creek
Muskingum @ Dresden
Flows measured
and projected
(7 day, 1 in
during survey
critical flow
10 year flow)
Flow during survey Critical flowa
5/1
980
1020b
3800C
4800
630
220d
5700
5/2
1270
1340b 221b>c
4100C 206b'c
5400 432
630 10
22d
470
a- From: Report and Recommendations on Water Quality for Muskingum River Basin, by the Div:
of Engineering, Ohio Department of Health, for the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board,
October, 1968.
b. Projected from upstream flow and drainage area
c. Tuscarawas flow and Walhounding flow + discharges = Muskingum at Coshocton flow
d. Estimated from drainage area
to
vO
i
-------
- 30 -
downstream to the confluence with Wills Creek. The relationship
determined for the Dresden gaging station,
v = o.oio Q°'66
was assumed to apply from Wills Creek to Ellis Dam.
Detailed stream depth data are not available, although the Corps
of Engineers have established stream profiles for the lower Muskingum
River, downstream from the reach under study. Consequently, reaeration
capacities were determined from hydraulic slope data obtained through
elevations established at the gaging stations and from elevations and
distances determined from U.S. Geological Survey 1:2U,OCO scale
topographic quadrangles.
Data Analysis - Depletion and Replenishment of Oxygen:
The ultimate oxygen demand of instream samples and major dischargers
was determined from time-series EOD data shovm in Tables XI and XII.
Ultimate BODs for minor dischargers were estimated from 20-day
BODs. Where suitable, the Thomas graphical method aided in this
analysis*. Ultimate BODs were generally on the order of 10 percent
higher than 20-day BODs.
Nitrogenous BOD (NBOD) was determined from the measured total
Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) multiplied by ^.0. Carbonaceous BOD (CBOD)
was found by subtracting NBOD from the ultimate BOD (UBOD). CEOD and
NEOD concentrations for stream samples and major outfalls are shown
in Tables XIII and XIV. It is apparent from the tables that the Stone
* - Thomas, H.A., Jr., "Graphical Determination of BOD Curve Constants,"
Water and Sewage Works, 97, 123 (1950)
-------
T£.ble XI
Instream BOD (mg/1)
BODU estimated fror. tine aeries;
NBOD = 4 .0 x TK"!: CBO.1) = EODU - rJEOD.
Station
No.
01
p/1>
30
11
14
29
21
23
24
27
Description
V.'alhonding
Tuscaravas at U.S. 36
(V.'est Lafayette
Tuscaravas at Bridge
St . (Coshocton
Muskingurn at SR
83
Muskingun at
Conesville
MuskingLun at
Adams Mills
Wills Creek
Wakatcmika Creek
Muskingum at
SR 208 (Dresden)
Muskin^urn at
Ellis Dam
Date
1974
5/1
5/2
5/1
5/2
5/1
5/2
5/1
5/2
5/1
5/2
5/1
5/2
5/1
5/2
5/1
5/2
5/1
5/2
5/1
5/2
Measured BCD (mg/l)
- incubation period -
1
0.8
2
1.0
1.4
1.1
1.5
4.8
5.4
2.2
2.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
2.1
0.8
1.8
0.5
0.9
1.5
2.9
1.4
2.3
•<
^
6.3
6.9
3A
2.7
k
7.5
5
1.9
2.2
3-0
3.6
9.3
9.6
5.0
U.9
3-9
3.6
3.7
3.8
2.2
^.2
1.2
1.8
3A
5-3
3.3
lr.3
7
2.9
3.2
^.3
U.9
12. 1*
11.7
6.2
6.2
5.1
k.5
5.2
5.0
2.8
3.9
2.0
2.U
'i.5
7.3
^.5
5.5
10
3.5
U.O
5.3
5.9
15.6
13.9
7.6
7.5
6.1
5.6
7.0
6.1
3.5
U.8
3.U
3-3
5.5
9.0
5-9
7.0 .
15
U.U
U.7
6.3
6-9
18.4
15.5
8.7
8.9
7.1
6.7
8.6
7.2
U.U
6.4
4.Q
4.4
6.5
10.1
6.8
8.3
20
5.7
5.4
7.4
7-8
21
17.0
10.
9.8
8.1
7.4
10.4
8.0
5.2
7.4
6.1
5.2
7.6
11.4
8.1
9.2
1
Calculated BOD(ms/l
BODU
6.6
6.6
7.9
8.3
22.0
17.5
10.8
10.8
9.0
8.0
12.0
9.3
6.6
9.8
8.6
7.2
8.9
12.5
8.4
9-9
NBOD
2.0
2.4
3.2
4.8
4.0
-
3.2
5.2
3.2
4.0
2.4
3.2
2.0
2.8
4.0
2.8
3-2
4.4
2.8
4.0
CBOD
4.6
4.2
4.7
3.5
18.0
13.
7.6
5.6
5.8
4.0
9.6
6.1
4.6
7.0
4.6
4.4
5.7
8.1
5.6
5.9
- 31 -
-------
Table XII
Major Discharger BOD (mg/l)
BODU estimated from the time series;
NBOD = h.O x TKN; CBOD = BODU - NBOD.
Discharger
Stone 001
Stone 002
Stone 003
Coshocton STP
Effluent
Measured BOD (mg/l)
- incubation period -
1
150
180
M*0
5
2
230
390
530
11
3
320
510
800
lU
U
390
700
1300
21
5
1*50
1100
lUoo
22
7
520
1300
1680
31
10
630
1600
1830
^
15
690
1800
2050
57
20
760
2100
2300
70
Calculated BOD (mg/l)
BODU
830
2350
2520
77
NBOD
31
688
76
M*
CBOD
800
1660
2^K3
33
- 32 -
-------
TABLE XIII
BOD Loads from Dischargers
Measured During May 197^ Survey
Discharger
Stone Container,
all outfalls
Carnation
General Electric
Coshocton STP
St. Regis Paper
Universal Cyclops
Conesville Gen. Sta.
Dresden STP
Total
Flow
mgd
5-72
1.3
3-2
2.7
0.63
0.22
0.13
C30D
Ib/da
NBOD
Ib/da
6U,505 3,3^7
91 39
582 85
7Uo 990
^36 300
65 218
126
71,658
% of Total
95
0.9
2.it
1.0
0.1*
O.U
100.
NOTE: Pretty Products and Peabody mines, having no direct discharge to Muckingum River,
have also negligible effect on loadings.
- 33 -
-------
Table XIV
Flow and Quality of Muskingum River Tributaries
Tributary
Tuscarawas
Walhonding
Conesville Generating
Station
Wills Creek
Wakatomika Creek
Used
Flowa
206
221
-23b
10
22
for MPL Projections
DO CBOD
7.0 2.0
8.0 2.0
-
7.0 5.0
7.0 4.0
NBOD
2.0
2.0
-
3.0
4.0
a. 7 day 1 in 10 year low flow:
Projected from critical flow per square/mile and drainage area
b. Projected diversion for evaporation from cooling towers
5,6
-------
- 35 -
Container Corporation accounts for 95 percent of the total loadings of
oxygen-demanding materials from all the dischargers. The two municipal
sev.'age treatment plants, at Cochocton and at Dresden, account for an
additional 2.8 percent, leaving only 2.2 percent of loadings of oxygen-
demanding materials attributed to the remaining dischargers.
For the May 197U survey, a stormwater overflow of 10,000 Ib/da CBOD
and 2,000 Ib/da IffiOD was assumed to enter the system at Tuscarawas RM 1.2.
Decay rates were selected from ranges found in the literature*.
The coefficient for decay of CEOD from dischargers was taken to be
Q.k/A&. The decay of SOD and of BOD entering the reach from upstream
was taken to be 0.3/cia. All removal of BOD was attributed to oxidation.
Rate coefficients were corrected for temperature by the following
relationship:
K(T) = K(20) x 0T-20
For decay of all CBCD, 9 was set at 1.C4; for NBOD 9 equalled 1.08;
for reaeration, 9 equalled 1.02U.
A comparison of observed and predicted EOD values during the May
197^ survey period is shown in Figures U and 5- The choppiness
observed moving downstream is believed due to non-steady-state conditions
caused by an intense rainfall on April 30.
Benthal demand of dissolved oxygen was assumed to be negligible.
The small amount of diurnal variation observed indicates that photosynthesis
* - Thorr.ann, R0Y., Syst
-------
OJJ
E
CO
O
1
12
10
125
CU
OJ
*_.
CJ
ca
-------
oo
ci
o> eu
— 01
">• C->
CJ in
c. —
o —
cj 5=
ra
.1C
2=
_ 4
CD
ca
125
Milcpoint
^igure 5: Observed and Predicted Values of Nitror;enojs BOD for Kay 197^ Survey
i
LO
-------
- 38 -
was insignificant during the survey period. A comparison-of
observed and predicted DO levels for the survey period is shown in
Figure 6. No distinct sag is seen under these flow conditions;
however, the model results closely predict the observed deficit.
Attempts to secure additional stream data to test the model
further were unsuccessful. Dewey Fisher's data, collected from 1970
to the present time, do not extend far enough downstream to define sag
and recovery zones. Data gathered by EPA's Wheeling field office
during 1966 and 1967 were unsatisfactory; during the only period of
roughly synoptic data, DO levels were obviously affected by photo-
synthesis and could not be used for testing without further information.
Results of the Modelling Study:
Critical flows were taken to be those 7 day average low flows
to be equalled or exceeded all but once in 3.0 years, on the average
(usually called the 7 day, 10 year low flows); these have been
presented in Table X. Water temperature during the critical flow period
was taken to be 25°C, about 1 to 2 degrees above the July-August average.
Initial water quality assumed for the tributaries was presented in
Table XIV. Decay rates initially used were the same as used for
calibration of the model (k = 0-3 for NEOD and upstream BOD; k « O.k
for CBOD discharges); later, however, consistent with the increased
treatment required, the CBOD decay coefficient was reduced to 0.3/da.
The projected DO profile is shown in Figure ?• The critical
point occurs just above Wills Creek, and recovery has been effected
by the time the Dresden effluent enters. Thus, secondary treatment
is sufficient for the Dresden sewage treatment plant, but load
-------
u
o
tu
•a
t/>
03
10
I
T
125
120
115
-ecVii-J-.orl ^-jvi
110
Milepoint
105
100
95
90
Ivc.'1. Oxygen (luring Mr.y 197^ Purvey.
1 -' :- •-. '.
-------
Is
E
m
_ Saturaticn
6
125
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
Figure 7;
Milepoint
Dissolved Oxygen Deficit under Critical Conditions vfith the Projected MPL
(11,000 Ib/da ultimate BOD for all dischargers above Wills Creek).
o
-------
allocation is necessary for all dischargers upstream of Wills Creek.
The maximum permissible load to be allocated to these dischargers
in order to meet a dissolved oxygen standard of 5-0 mg/1 was found to
be 11,000 Ib/da as UEOD. The deficit produced by this load plus
the tributary (upstream) deficit and load are shown in Figure 8. At
the critical point, the projected background deficit is 1.6 mg/1,
which is likely to be adequate to insure meeting Ohio stream quality
standards.
Sensitivity: The allowable loadings were found to be quite sensitive
to upstream conditions. For example, increasing all upstream
(Tuscarawas and Walhonding Rivers) CO deficits, CEODs and NECDs by
1 mg/1 each was found to decrease the maximum permissible loading
by 75 percent. Changing the CBOD decay rate from O.'l to 0.3 per day
had the effect of raising the maximum permissible loading about 10
percent.*
Waste Load Allocation: Table XV shows the recommended 19BO waste
load allocations for major and principal dischargers in the Coshocton
area, compared with present loadings and projected 1980 loadings
without allocations. The bases for the data and for the allocations
are shown in the notes to the table. Where no basis for allocation
is shown, the 1980 projected values were taken.
* - Additional references:
Report of Water Pollution Study of Munkingun River, Ohio Department
of Health, 1957.
Report and Recommendations on Water Quality for Muskirvjuta River
Basin, prepared by Division of Engineering, Ohio Department of
Health, for the Ohio Water Pollution Control Board, October, 1968.
-------
' E
01
«=
o
C-i
O a,
11
3.0
2.0
1.0
Standard
ro
125
120
115
110
Hilepoint
100
95
90
Figure 8: Dissolved Oxygen Deficit and Component Parts
Under Design Flow and Load Conditions
Total
Background
Dischargers
-------
H AT
OMTO, Vtaatc l.nml Allocations Hncommended. by This Jteport ______
S l.onc
S loti(
Htaic
Carna
Prutt
(iUllttl
Co:;: K
Si:. 1
lini'.'C
llrusd
KO'iKi
l)iKi:liar;;.ev
Container Copeland 002
Container La;.;oon 003
Container Clarlfier 00'
All Stone Container
tlon
/ Products
al Elc-otrJc
cton G'L'P
e;'.ls Riper Co.
rsal Cyclops
;n S'J'P
: (1) Based on inontiil
(2) DIDO survey da I
(3) llaseii on compai
(l|) iiasud on influc
(5) Hased on HAT
(.)) liased on secom
flow
n^d
3.03
0.35
0.71
1.30
0.60
3.20
2.70
0.02
6.15
0.13
y oper
a-
;/ eati
nt coi
ary ti
Pret
:n./
«•,
3,
aii,
itino
nates
centrft
i-atrner
•int C<
!>()[)
ia
330
7'iO
030
50
10
Jolt
5U7
109
u'a
156
report
for St
tiona.
riditii
ra'iZL
l.x>
1250
liOlO
5-3
2.2
9.9
2U.3
5&.7
3.0
1''3
s
one Cc
ns
Vil
i taint
TKF!
iln
172
502
112
10
2.3'
21. l|
2UU
7'l.6
19. i!
33.0
1
r and
m-'/l
6.0
172
lti.9
0.9
0.5
0.0
11.
111. 2
l.U
31.
3t. Re
(1)
(1)
(1
(2)
(2)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(1)
•
,'.;is it
Prc
Flow
m-xl
3.79
O.ll't
0.89
l.«i3
0.66
3-50
3.00
0.82
6.77
0.15
per Cc
.ien toe.
II
'j
l|
30
. Thu
for
BOD
/da
ino
610
O'lO
b'l
11
390
0)7
'109
17S
17l(
other:
9/.0 n
BL/I
171
127't
Iio't7
5. It
2.0
9-9
2U.3
GO
3-2
I'lO
were
J.i'/!
Incrct
_
'IYJI
iln
215
;52S
1>|0
1.0.7
2.57
23.5.
275
75
5"*. 5
37.0
i&ed 1C
mr/1.
6.13
172
IS. 9
-••f
0.9
O.U-,
0.0
u.,
iS.
0.91
29.6
!'
•f, ovei
(3)
(3)
(3
(3)
CO
(3)
(3)
d)
l_
presc
KJ.OM
"i''d.
5.12
I.'i3
0.,%
3.50
3-00
O..v2
6.77
0.15
nt lot
Hecorrnienrlciil for 1:19-0
... Jh-
3,
din:;s.
l!OI
da
375
6'»
11
290
500
195
l..'.'0
37.5
^•/a.
so
S.'i
2.0
Hi.
20
29
3.2
30.
LL'j
|
i
TKH
da ...
l|..»
1.0. /
2.6
23.5
250
37.3
55
37.0
..,
DL./..L
1.1.5
0.9
0.5
0.8
10.
5.5
1.0
29..'
(5
(5
(•--
-
._
— -
n
-------
APPENDIX I
rv-^^A
**C- PI J'-V'A
^vr^ ^r^M
:.^.v.^^ -^--- J /•; ••?.-'•/ v-.-\
I vT-v< LeZi-x.-/ \L-\
tl 1 i'~
-------
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
This document contains the revised Water Quality Standards,
of the State of Ohio, effective July 27, 1973. The standards
were adopted by the Director of the Ohio Env.ironmental Protection
Agency as authorised in Section 6111.041 of the-. Ohio Revised
Code, after public hearing and an extensive period of review
and comment by governmental, industrial, environmental and public
spokesmen. The standards are based upon scientific and technical
knowledge accumulated by the Ohio Envlronip.e.ntal Protection Agency
and the United States Environmental ProLection Agency as to the'
quality of waters of the State of Ohio required to sustain. (:hc
following beneficial uses: municipal, agricultural and industrial
water supplies, well balanced aquatic life habitat, and v:ecr cation?.!
activities.
At the ticie of the adoption of these Water Qunlity Standards,
the principal means 'of regulating sources of water pollution
are defined in the. amendments to the Federal Water Pollution'
Control Act, P.L. 92-500, adopted by Congress on Or.tobc:): 18,
1972. This act sets forth a national program for \vater pollution
control permits, (Section 402), known as the "National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System" or NPDES. Ohio's revised Water
Quality Standards are consistent with the requirements of the
Federal Amendnents, as described in Section 303 of the Act.
The relationship between Ohio's'revised Water Quality Standards
and the NPDES permit program is a complex one1.. The Standards
serve as the objectives to be ultimately attained for v;ater
quality of the. waters of the state. In the enforcement process,
the Standards serve as a basis for calculating appropriate
effluent limitations which are than incorporated into the NPDES
perudt conditions for those sources of water pollution where
the applications of minimum effluent standards will not result •
in the attainment of the Water Quality Standards. In any area
where the application of Federally defined "best available control
technology economically achievable" by all dischargers will not
result in meeting the adopted Water Quality Standards, the Standards
may be waived.
Determination of effluent limitations required for J-iPDL-'.S
-------
yic'.rnits will bf; nade by the Ohio Environment.'-! Prol.c.ction Agency
anil the U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency for all point sources
of v;aLer pol.ltif.ion prior to December 31, 1974. Oliio is cuo:e:ntly
in the process of applying 'for "permanent" authorisation fron
the Administrator of the: U.S. Environaental Protection Agency
for issuing NI'DES perrriits, under authority, provided by the Ohio
General Assembly in Section 6111.03 of the Ohio Revised Code.
The interrelationship between the revised Water Quality Stnivlards
and the Ohio KI'DES permit program for v/ater pollution control
will be more fully elaborated in a forthcoming set of regulations
of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency entitled F.P--31 . Ohio
NPDES Discharge Per nit rse^ul
Questions about these Standards, and the 'Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency water pollution control program are welcomed
and should be addressed to the Division of Surveillance at: the
fjl: Ohio EPA district office:
Ohio EPA
Northeast District Office
2110 East Aurora Road
Twinsburg, Ohio 440S7
Ohio EPA
Southeast District Office
R.R. 2, Box C-l
Nelscnvillc, Ohio
Ohio EPA
Northv/est: District Office
111 West Washington. Sv.rcel:
Bowling Green, Ohio A340/
Ohio EPA
Soutb.vri-.sr. District O.Q'ficc
40 South Main Street
Dayton, Oliio 4.5402
Ira L. Wh:iti3.-'.n, Dirc.ctor
Ohio Envircnrp-eutril Protection Agency
July 27,.1973
-------
KP-l. WATf.R QUALITY STANDARDS
F. ? -1 - Ml Cl ;& sir! cation of lte_tc'VS _o f r. h e JT_C nt_a_._
(A) Except as specified in subsection (Jj) b-r.low, .ill surface
voters of the state are hereby classified as appropriate-.
for'warm water fisheries, for prin-.nry contract, rc-.c7.-eat:j.'on,
for processing by conventional treatment into public>
industrial, and agriculti-.ral water supplies, and for
such other uses as arc identified for specific us as in
subsequent sections of this Chapter, KP-l, of the
Regulations of the Ohio EPA.
(B) The water quality standards S£t forth in this Chapter,
• EP-1, of the Populations of the Ohio EPA, .shall no!:
apply.
(1) Whenever the flow falls below the annual nvliv.l.-i:u'.;n
7 day average flovj that has a rccurr-unca pariod o£
once in ten years taking into account hydraullcally
altered flow regirr.es, calculated by the methods
described in H. C. 'Kij-gs, Te ch irLc^i ie s of l?a t e. r - "c s o u_r ce.r.
Investigation of the Uniired Siiato-s Geological Surrey.,
Chapter JJ 1, Low-Flow Investigations (l-'nshln^ton, D. C. ,
1972); or
(2) Where r. portion of a watercourse is determined to
be a lovj-flow stream. The tern "low--flow sf.x'f;,W
cleans that portion of a v/atcrcourse vyhere:
(a) the total upstream drainage area is less than
five square miles, and
(b) less thar. 50Z of the flow v.-ould be present; if
'there ware r.p point source vastewa;;er discharges
for 15% of any two consecuiilve year period
during the ten years preceding July 1, 1974.
Discharges to low-flow streams as described by this
subsection, EP-1-01 (B)(2), couin^nced on or before July
1, 1976, in.ll be required to either meet water quality
standards or be treated by "the best available control
technology economically achievable" as dcfir.cd by the
Administrator of the United States Environinenf.al
-------
IT-l-O.l
Protection Agency und-sr the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendnxmts of 1972, whichever is»less
stringent: and water discharge permits for such
discharges vrill contain effluent levels that would
be reached by such trcr.tp.ant. The standards set
forth in this Chapter, EP-1, of the Regulations of
the Ohio EPA, shall npply to low-/:lev streams for
discharges commenced after July 1, 1974. Such
discharges shall not interfere with the riutaitiment
or irvaiutenance of the' water quality standards set
fortli In this Chapter.
tinfi Water Quality Standards except to the ey.tcnl: preserved
by EP-l-r?5 and EP-1-% are rescinded.
(Adopted July 27, 1973;
Effective July 2V, 1973)
-------
KP--1-02 General _Standard. Except r.s sections Kl'-l-Ol (A) through
(B) and sections EP-1-03 through KP-1-07 of they,: regula-
tions establish different standards, Die water <;unllty
staadardr; of the state shall be as follows:
(A) V/ithln 500 yards of any public v/ater supply intake,
(1) dissolved solids may exceed one, but not both,
of the following:
(a) 500 ir.g/1 as a monthly .ivernge nor
; exceed 750 rag/1 at any tlree, or
(b) 150 ir.g/1 of dissolved solids attributable
to human activities; and
(2) phenols (storct na-ubar 32730) .shall not exceed
1.0 ug/1; and
(3) nitrate 00 (storet number 00620) shall not
exceed 8 m£/l; and
(A) ; dissolved iron (storct number 0.10-A6) shall
not exceed 300/ag/l; and
(5) chro-.Tdum (hexavnlcut) (s toret ruicber 01032)
shall not exceed iO^s/1; and
(6) cyanide (.storet number 00720) riha.'l.l not
excee.d. .001 mg/1.
(B) Within 500 yards of ..any water supply intake,
clicsolx'ed solids may exceed one, but not both, of
the follov;ing:
(1) 500 ns/1 as a monthly average nor exceed
750 mg/1 at any time, or
(2) 150 rn.g/1 of dissolved solids attributable.
to human activities; and
(C) Dissolved oxygen shall not be less than ?. daily
e.vGrase of 5.0 ng/1 nor less than t;. 0 ir.g/l al:
nay time..
-------
EV-1-02 Ps£C Two
(D) pll shall not be less th?.rt 6.0 and shall not be
rr.ore thr.n 9.0 at any tir.e except that it r.:»y bs
leer, than 6.0 or more than 9.0 if there, is no
contribution of acidic or alkaline pollution
attribution to hu:aan activities.
(E) Fecal coliforc1. content (either MPN or H? count) shall
not exceed 200 per 100 ~1 as a 30 day geometric
i2-3an based en not less than five. aaLTplss during
any 30 day period nor exceed 400 per 100 ol in trore
than ten percent of: all sampler during a 30 day
period.
(F) Dissolved solida w«y exceed one, but not both of
the following:
(1) 1500 wg/l
(?.) 150 mg/l attributable to huisap. activities.
(G) Lalce vrr.ter teiTperature shall not exceed by rr.oro
than three degress fahrenheit (1.7 decrees
centioTTade) the water tcnrisrature which vould
occur if there ware no temperature change of
such waters attributable to huaiu activities,
end strcan water teir.perature shall not excnsd
by more than five dogyrees fahrcnheit (2.8 c!e£t
centigrade) the water tenperaturc wrrich would
occur if there varc no tesporatitrc- change of
such waters attributable to human activities.
Notwithstanding tb.e foregoing standard, at rio
tins shall'water tGtr.paraturc exceed the K2::intn
temperatures indicated in the following table:
-------
TWrVEgATURl-: IH DKGREKS CKNTICRAD;' f, FAliRl^HErj; DUTIIKG H-ONTH
.
rt- Cc
)t
F°
si C.°
F°
Jan.
10.0
50
10.0
50
Peb .
10.0
50
10.0
50
Kar.
15.6
60
15.6
60
Apr.
21.1
70
21.1
70
Kay
26.7
80
26.7
80
June
32.2
90
30.6
07
July
32.2
90
31.7
89
Auj^
32.2
90
31.7
• 89
Scur-.
32.2
90
30.6
87
Oct.
25.6
78
25.6
78
K'ov
21.1
70
21.1
70
Dec.
13.9-
-
57 ;
13.9"
57
(II) The threshold-odor number attributable to hurr^.n
activities shall v.ot exceed 24 ot /;0 dcfjrec.9
centigrr.d.2 tested as described in "Standard
I-S;thodtJ t:or the Exaniw.tion of V.T?.tcr r.;;d Wnste-
v/ater," 13th Edition, 1971, published by r.hft
American Public Health Association, the. teerlcsn
Water Works Association, and VZatcr Pollution
Control Federation..
(I) Groso beta activity shell not exceed .100 p.icocurle.T
per liter, r.or shall activity fron strontiutn 90
exceed 10 picocurlcs per liter, nor ahali activity
from alpha emitters exceed 3 picocuries per liter.
(J) The following clien.lc.~l pollutants shall .not exceed
the following specified concentrations at any ti;.'ie:
-------
Storet Number
Constituent*
Concentration
006.10
/
:•' 0.1002
' 0.1007
/ 01027
"" 00940
/01034
~"~01032
/ 01042
"'00722
GO 720
CO 9 51
38260
010/i6
••' 01051
01054
719CO
00550.
32730
01147
01077
01092
>HS/i
A\r.:,ionia 1.5
Arsenic -
Barium -
Cadn\J.v.T^i -
Chloride 250 .
Chromiua -
Chromium (hsr.r.valent)
Coppsr
Cyanide (frcs) 0.005
Cyaniae 0.2
Fluoride 1.3
Foar:i:!.ns Arjsnts (HIUS) 0.5
Iron (dissolved) -
T.cad ~
Kar.gp.nsse (dissolved) -
Mercury -
Oil & Grease
(hexanc soluble) 5.
Phenols -
Seleniu-a . -
"Silver
7.inc
iiS/i
50.
800.
5.
_
300.
50.
500.'
...
l—
_
1000 .
AO.
1000.
.5
ICO.
5.
1.
1000 .
* Total unless otherwise indicated.
-------
(K) Pollutants or combinations of pollutants shall not
exceed at any tiiae one-tenth of the 96 hour iredlan
tolerance limit: for any indigenous aquatic species
as dcternined by static or dynamic bieassays in
accoixlpjice wit:Vi standard methods described in
"Standard Methods for the Kx;Vinj.nat::l.on of. V.'ntcr and
l-'astcwater," 13Lh Edition, 1971, published by the
American Public ll&alth Association, the Ar.io.rj.can
Uato.r Works Association, and 1,'ator Pollution
Control Federation.
(L) All waters of the state shall be free fro;n substancfis
attributable to hunan activities v/hlch result in sludga
deposits, floating materials, color, turbidity, or
other conditions in such dagree as to creaf.n 3. nuisance,
Existin;-; Water Quality Standards except to the extent preserved
by E?-l-0.'i and EP-1-0.', are rescinded.
(Adopted July 27, 1973;
Effective July 27, 1973)
-------
KV-1--0.3 Hiring Zones.
(A) The waters adjacent to a point of dischar^s1. of
vastewate.v within t'.ho area described in f;v.b£f.ctiovj
(B) shall be recognized as n "mixing xono." The
water quality standards cot forth In subsection
(C) shall apply to ?-H vr.ters within nixing zones
and such waters shall be exempt from all other
v.'ater quality standards.
(B) The area within a nl:dLnx zone shall be as jiollcwo:
(1) .Kxcept cc paragraphs (B) (?.) or ()>) (3) provide
d5.£ferent liaits, no ci-.ing csone 'shall:
(a) co-.-isUitute core than one ho. If ol: the
width cf t:he receiving v;Gterco»?:sc nor
constitute more than one-third of the area
of any crosa-nectiou of the receiving
watercourse,
(b) extend downs i renn at any time a distance
more than, five tinea the w:Ld£!i or the
receiving watercourse at the poir.fc of
(c) exceed twenty-thi'ca acres of horl/jontal
area cf the Ohio River or twelve ceres of
horizontal artn of any other 7:occivir>£
vatorcourss,
(d) include spawnlr.s or nursery areas of any
aquatic species,
(e) interdict, the migratory routes oJ: any
indigenous aquatic species ..
(f) include a drinking water supply intake > or
(2) For watercourses classified as cold water fisheries
streams in Section EP-1-04, T\O Tiii^dLng >:one shall:
(a) constitute more than one-third of the x;idth
of the receiving watercourse nor constitute.
core than one fifth of the area of any cross-
section of the receiving watercourse,
-------
(b) extend downstream at any t:L;:ie a distance
more than five. Circes the. width oC the
receiving watercourse at: the point of
discharge,
(c) exceed three acres of horizontal area of
the receiving watercourse,
(d) include spawning or nursery areas oi: any
indigenous aquatic species,
(e) interdict the nigratory routes of ziiy
aquatic species,
(f) 'include a drinking water supply intake..
(3) Mo nixing zone in an inland lake shall:
(a) extend in any direction noire t.hau 300 feet
fro;r\ the point of discharge.,
(b) include hypolinnetic waters,
(c) include spawning or nursery areas of any
indigenous aquatic species,
(d) include a drinking water supply intake.
(C) The follovius water quality•standards shall apply
in inixlng zones:
(1) Kxceyt as paragraphs (C) (2) or (C) (3) of this
section establish, different v;ater quality standards
.within a nixing zor.e, the water quality standards
shall be as f.oLlovrs:
(a) pollutants or coniinations of pollutants
shall not exceed at any tine the 96 hour
7:"sdiC'.n tolerance limit for any indigenous
aquatic species as determined by static or
dynauilc bicc.ssa.ys in accordance vith standard
p-athods described in "Standard Kcthod'j for
the Exnruinatiop. of Water and Uastewater,"
13t!i Edition, 1971, published by the
Arcaricsn Public Health Association, the
American Water Works Association, and Water
Pollution Control Federation.
-------
(b) water temperature shall not exceed the
temperature of the rr.celvj.ng watercourse
ups trcau of the rvijxing /.or. a by more
than 15 decrees f;:hrenheit (3,3 clajiTP.cn
centigrade) during the nicsiths o£ Hny,
June, July, August, September, and
October or by more than 23 clR^rctia
fahreaheit (.12.3 degrees centigrade)
during the rr.onthr, of Move.niber, December,
January, February, March, and April.
(2) For all waters -within nixing zones in watercourses
classified as cold water fisheries .streams in
• EP-1-04, the water quality standards shall be
as follows :
(a) pollutants or combinations of pollutant:.';
shall not exceed one-tenth of the 96 hour
i^ediaix tolerance, lirnir, for any indiscnous
aquatic species as determined by cf.atic
or dyr.r.ciic bioassnys in accordance \/ith
standard r.echods described in "Standard
Hr.thods for the Examination of Water and
Wa3tewatar," 13th Kdif.ion, 197.1, published
by the Airsrican Public Health Aiisociar-ion,
the Ar/aricau UaLer Works Ar,3ociation, and
V?ater Pollution Control "Federation. -
(b) viaccr tcnperatures .shall not: exceed tfi'ia
temper a uure of the receiving watercourse
\ipstreaa of th?. mixing i:cnc by more than
5 degrees fahrenhait (2.8 degrees centigrade/
during the months of Hay, 'June, July, August,
September, and October or by more than 23
degrees fi'-hrenh-aii; (12.8 degrees centigrade)
during the p.onths of Kovenibar, December,
January, February, March and April.
(3) For all waters within ndxing zones in inland lakes
the water quality standards shall be as follows :
(a) • pollutants or combinations of
shall not exceed the 96 hour radian f.oleranco
liuit for any indigenous aquatic species
as dr.tcmincd by static or dynamic bioassays
in accordance vi.th standard p.cthods described
in "Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Uastcv;ater ," 13th Edit ion, 15)71,
-------
published by the American PuM.ic Health
Association, the American V.';-.c:er Uorks
Association, and Water Pollution Control
Federation.
(h) v;atcr tcrrperature at ;:ny depth shall not
exceed natural water temperatures outside
the mijcing zone by rcorc than 15 degrees
Fahrenheit (8.3 degrees centigrade) during
the months of May, June, July, August,
September, and October or by more than
23 degrees fahrenheiL' (12. ft dagrces
centigrade) during the ninths of Nove~ibe.r,
Dacenbor, January, February, March and
April.
Existing Water Ounlity Standards except to the ex 1:enJ:
by KP-.l-0.'> and EP--.1-06 arc rescinded.
(Adopted July 27, 1973;
Effective July 27, .1973)
-------
F.P-1—14 Cold Water Fisheries
(A) The water quality standards in watercourse-;; classified
as cold water fisherls;; streams In nubssct J.ovi (15)
shall be the water quality standards in Section KP--1-0?
except that, to the extent that: the following paragraphs
establish different standards, the latter standards
shall apply.
(1) Dissolved oxygen shall not bo less thi-.n six j:iAll:Lgra!!is
par liter. In spawning area:-; dissolved oxygen
shall not bs Icsn than seven willigrnma par- liter,
(2) pH shall not be less r.hnn 6.5 and shall no;: be
more than 9.0.
(3) There shall be no variation of water f:e7;'.peri.-i:ure.
attributable to huir.ari activities,
(IS) The following watercourses are hereby classified no
cold wr.to:r fisheries streams (the county designations
are for the. purpose of Identifying the. general loca-
tion of the stream only, and do not llMlt: tho classi-
fication to a portion of the .stream) :
(1) Mad Hiver and its ttibut?.jciv:r; upyfcrcara or Dxbana..
C2) Beaver Creek upstream of the confluence with
Green Creek (Seneca County) .
(3) Cold Creek upstream of the confluence with
Sandusky Bay (L'rie County) .
(4) Pine Run upstreaa of the confluence with Mohican
River (Ashland County) .
(5) Turkey Creek upstreaa of tha. confluence vrlth
Lake Erie (Ash tabula County).
(G) Connsaut Creek upstream of the confluence v/ith
Lake Erie (Ashtabula County).
(7) East Branch of Chagr.in River unstreau of the
confluence with Chagrin River (flsanga County)
(8) Apple Creek upstream of thn conf.liK-'.nce v;ith
Spring Hv.\n (Vlayr.a County) .
-------
F.P-1-05 Lake. Erin:, ''"tic water quality critcr.tr. adopted by the
Water Pollution Control Board on April .11, 1967, for
Lake Eric; and the interstate v.iterc thereof shall be. the
water quality standards for the waters to which thf:y
apply.
Existing V.'atcr Quality Standards except to the extent preserved
by EP-l-nS and EP-1--06 arc rescinded,
(Adopted July 27, 1973;
Effective July 27, 1973)
-------
EP-1-06 jjahon.in^ River Basin. The V/ater Quality Standards for
the Hnhanlnft River aac' its tributaries in Ohio adopted
by the Ohio Water Pollution Control Hoard on July 11,
1972, shall be the water quality standards for r.hosc
v:2tercours£s and inland lakes to vhich tfiey r.pply.
Existing Uatcr Quality Standards except to the extent preserved
by EP-1-05 and EP-l-Ori are rescir.dad.
(Adopted July 27, 1973;
Effective, July 27, 1973)
-------
EP--1-07 ?foa-;.'?.gr'adation of Hip.h Quality Watc.rs.. It is the. policy
of the Ohio EPA that; vaters whose .existing quality is bettor
than these standards as of July 1, 1973, vi.1.1 be Taaintair.eul
at their axis tins hi^h quality, pursuant to the Ohio water
pollution control statutes, so as not to interfere wJ.l:h ov:
bcconv: injurious to any es.signed uses j^«dc of., or presently
possible, in such waters. This vill require that any
industrial, public or. private, project or development: <:hat:
v;ould constitute a new source of wastewater cMsicharge or
an increased wastewalrer discharge to high quality vatei's
as part of the initial project design, to provide'the
most effective waste, treatment available under existing
technology, as provided in the Regulations of. the Ohio EPA.
govcrsiitxg installation, of: ne->r sources of VTastewater dis-
charge.
Existing Water Quality Standards except to the extent preserved
by EP-1-05 and El?-1-06 are rescinded.
(Adopted July 27, .1.973;
Effective July 27, 197.3)
-------
UNITED STATES
!.'Nvir?Ofs'i/::.:wTAL PioorKc
rnCGION V
i NOUTH WAC.KH:;? Oicivs:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS GOODS
~* n -i o -jiVrv'-
b JL o ! = /^
Honorable John J. Gilligan
Governor of Ohio
Columbus, Ohio !43215
Dear Governor Gilligan:
It is ray pleasure to inform you that except as noted below, I am
approvin.5 the vatcr quality standards of the State of Ohio in their
entirety. The approved standards consist of regulations TOP-1-01,
EP-1-02* in part, EP-1-P3, EP-l-Oh , EP-1-06, and EF-1-07, and an •
approved are tlione applicable unclsr the Federal VJ;.-.tor Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P. L. 92-500) . Tlie approved :itand.::..-ds
are ecncrrally fi«e regulations that vrill protect the vatcrs of Ohio.
In reviewing the new standards, I ai.i pleased to note that mixing zones
are comprehensively defined vith the stringency needed to ;naV:e tlie
v:ater quality standards raec.ninsful. In addition, toxi.eity re^alaxicn
is required inside the mix ing ?.onc, preventing the gross discliargo of
contaminants that would adversely affect the non-:iiotile planli'l'.onic a-.v-'t
bcnthic organisms in the area of the discharge. Furthcr.niore, low flo'.v
streomc are definitively described, and discharges to these stream?; viill
be reqxrired to undergo tlic best available control technology eccrio>nica."l.ly
achievable, as a ininiinuin. Ifou-ever, in tliese streojno water quality
standards will ultimately determine treatment requirements according
to the federal .law.
Unfortunately, the Ohio standards include several unapprovable items
which I will now fully discuss.
The standards for copper and zinc (EP-1-02 J) are excessively lenient
as they are not protective of an indigenous or desirable fishery. In
addition, the standard for phenol will not prevent fish tainting. V.'e
have been made aware most recently of the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency reasoning behind the excessive copper 'standard which is to allow
room for the use of copper sulfate in controlling algae. This could
have been "o;:tter accomplished with a water resource management exemption
for copper and other chemicals used for this purpose. As adopted,' the
State standard would allow wholesale'' copper degradation of waters not
needing the resource management exemption.
-------
O
U i
Honorable ."lohn J. Gilligan
Page Tv.'O
In addition the standard for x.iuc allowr. gross contamination fro a this
pollutant as related to its effects on indigenous aqiuit.i.c life. Since
the toxicit'.y of zinc: and cupper arc. water h.irdness dependent, it would
be appropriate to delete both v.inc and copper from EP-1-02 (J) and to
determine safe concentration levels on a case by case bas:is and as
dc.Eincd under EP-1--Q2 (K) , the general toxicity standard.
Although the phenol standard is protective against acute and chronic
toxicity, it is not", adequate to prevent fish tainting. If not already
so, all State of Ohio waters will become supportive of a desirable
v/ara v;at«r fishery as a minimum. For full use these streams r.uisi; be.
free of materials that impart odor and ta5:te" to fish flesh and other
jirc:;hwater edible products such as crayfish, clams, and pravmG. The
success or failure of a profitable sports fishary way very wc-ill dc-pend
upon the adoption of an adcc>uate phenol standard.
The general toxicity standard (EP-1-02 K) is not completely adequate
based upon the recoiiMendations of the National Technical Advisory
Conv.-.iittec (NTAC) . As adopted the inin:Li:iuin application factor of one-
tenth,' for many toxicants not listed in F.P-1-02 GO , is not protective
of the entire life cycle of the indigenous aquatic life found in State
of Ohio v;.'ite;:s.
Ohio }\:-\.:t i-ever had couple;:ely federally approved standards for Lake
Eirle. The .=.:[• andards adopted :i n 1967 for Lake. Erie v?p.ro. unapprovable
because tlie Ohio pre-1972 Aquatic Life A Criteria for dissolved o>:y;/,e.n.
and ter.tp?.ratiire. were not consistent uith the minimum recor.L-iendntions
of the MTAC. The standards adopted for Lake Erie in 1967, without any
revisions to correct for basic deficiencies, were inade part of the
present Ohio standards (EP-1-Q5). Furthermore, the Lake Erie criteria
do not reflect the necessary objectives of the Agreement between the
United States and Canada on Great Lakes Water Quality.
The deficiencies described above, and other minor modifications as
shown in the attached federal promulgation packet, v/ill be published
ir.raediatcly in the Federal Register. The published proposals will be
promulgated as federal standards no later than 190 days after publi-
cation unless prior to that date Ohio adopts revisions to the a.bove
deficiencies which arc determined by ne to be in accordance, with the
requirements of'the Act as in effect ii-ir.-ed iatcly prior to the enactment
of the Amendments of 1972. I strongly urge the State to begin the
hearing process for the EP-1 exceptions immediately to preclude the
establishment of federal standards for these deficiencies.
-------
Honorable. John J. Ci.l.ligan
Page Three
n«-p 1 ° 10?^
UT_u. i o ui" o
I note that Ohio has adopted recreation and aquatic life standards for
all its v/aters. Because tlie Canadian American Agreo.r.K-.nt o;i Great Lakes
Water Quality provides for the id.cn tif ic.iitlon of certain localised Lake
Eric areas, such as harbors, where the Lake Erie standards may not be
met at least by 1977, and because federal Guidelines for Dc.veloping or
Rev i sin£ V.'ater Quality Standards provide for parametric exceptions based
upon natural conditions or technological limit a Lions, we are including
a mechanism in the federal proposal whi.ch will permit the State of Ohio
to identify any such areas, and to assign to them criteria less stringent
than necessary to protect recreation and desirable or indigenous aquatic
life .
Anti-degradation is an integral part of the Ohio Water Quality Standards.
In order to be enforceable, and for anti-degradation to serve :i. i:s intended
purpose, the baseline quality of the applicable waters r.u;st be determined
in a comprehensive fashion. This can be accomplished while satisfying the
requirements of the continuous planning process. An adequate water quality
baseline can then be used to protect the appropriate waters (e.g. Lake ET
froni degradation to that quality defining the most stringent Ohio use
designation.
It is evident that waste treatment and water pollution control technology
will advance, knowledge and comprehension of water quality rcqnireiucnts for
specific uses will improve, and the collection of water quality data will
make more information available to assure i;:orr. accurate assignment of water
quality criteria. As this new knowledge becomes available, wo V7ill further
expect to cooperate with the State of Ohio in making necessary amendments
to the standards that have heretofore been approved. It will be our pleasure
to continue to work together to protect, upgrade, and enhance the quality of
the waters of our State.
^Sincerely yours,
Francis T. Mayo
Regional Administrat
-------
UNITED STATES
AL I'F.OVECT'.GN A
FROM:
Hater Quality Standards: Publication of
Proposed Standards for Ohio
i\r'rf(Yi tir:'rU':MirV, I-'-1 -
•- ML i ) Uri !',r.:v Jivili Ju. i
Recrioiv;!l Adain istrator
DATF:
* O
.'. O
TO:
Adiv.inistrator
lssuc
Section 303(a)(l) and (2) of tl.e FWPCA tenchr-siits of '1972 requires
the Administrator to intiate action to promulgate standards for a
state when the stats has failed to revise its standards as requested
by the U.S. tPA within 90 days after notification to do so. Such
action is intiatcd by publishing proposed standards in the Federal
Register.
Discussion
On January 1G and March 14, 1973, the Regional Administrator noti-
fied Ohio that certain revisions to its interstate and intra state
v/ater quality standards v.-cre necessary to make the standards con-
sistent with the requirements of P.L. 92-500.
The State held hearings on March 26 and 27, 1973, for proposed re--
visions to all Ohio waters with the exception of Lake K'rio. On
July 27, 1973, Ohio adopted revised regulations and ininii'd lately
thereafter submitted these regulations to the Region for approval.
The revised regulations include the original Lake Lrrie standards
adopted in 1967 which to this time have not been completely federally
approved. In addition to the tin-approved Lake Erie standards, certain
portions of the newly revised and adopted general standards remain
unapprovable.
Recommendations
Since federal requirements have not been met in the current revision
process, it is recommended that the following amendments to the Ohio
water quality standards be published in the Federal Register immediately
Francis T. Mayo
.,,..,.
-------
THF. U.S. F.PA PROPOSES WATCPx QUALITY STAiOARDS FOR OHIO
The Fiivircn;:ienta1 Protection Agency today proposed revised sta
for Lake Frie and certain general standard toxicants. This action is
required by the Federal Hater Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(P.L. 92-I300) as the State did not adopt the appropriate revisions within
the allowable time limit after being notified by the U.S. F.PA according to
the directives of the above Act.
V.'ater Quality Standards for Ohio were partially approved on
November, 1973. '
The proposed Federal standards are scheduled for publication in thr;
Federal Register on
State action is not foreclosed by this publication. If Ohio adopts
the appropriate revisions for Lake F.rie and the pertinent general standard
toxicants and submits them to the Regional Administrator in Region V, it
would eliminate the need to impose Federal Standards.
Public comment on the proposed standards is invited. Interested persons
may submit written data, views, or arguments in regard to the proposer.! re-
gulations to the Regional Administrator, Region V, U.S. (invironniintal Protec-
tion Agency, 1 rlorth '.-/acker Dn'vs, Chicago, Illinois 60505. All relevant.
material received not later than forty five days after the date of this
publication in the Federal Register will be considered.
-------
E!-!VIFlOi:!•£NTAl. PRO'iiXTIOr! AGFMCY
('10 CFR Part 120)
Navigable Waters of
State of Ohio
Proposed Mater Quality Standards
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the authority of Section
303(b) of the Federal Mater Pollution Control Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251,
1313(b); 86 Stat. 816 et seq.; P.L.' 92-500), ("the Act"), regulations- setting
forth standards of water quality to be applicable to the navigable waters of
the State of Ohio are proposed.
Under Section 303(a) of the Act, the Administrator of the U.S. linviroll--
mental Protection Agency is required to review water quality standards for
interstate and intrastatc waters adoptee! and submitted by the States. Mhon hi-:
determines that changes in such standards are necessary to west the require-
ments of the Act as in effect prior to October 18, 1972, (the date of• enactment
of the 1972 Amendments to the Act, P.L. 92-500), he must notify the State. If
the State does not adopt the required revisions, or if the revisions submitted
by the State do not meet the requirements of the Act, the Administrator is to
publish proposed revised water quality standards in accordance with such re-
quirements.
The State of Ohio, prior to October 13, 1972, adopted water quality
standards for both interstate and intrastatc waters. After the enactment of
the 1972 Aiii-iMvJiiicnts, U.S. EPA reviewed both the interstate and intrastate
standards pursuant to Section 303(a) of the Act. (A notice concerning U.S.
LPA review of all interstate air.l intrastatc water quality standards was
-------
- 2 -
published in the Federal Register on December 29, 1972, 37 F.R. 28775-28780).
The State of Ohio adopted revised interstate and intrastate water quality
standards, in response to U.S. EPA's request, on -July 27, 1973. The revised
water quality standards, contained in the document entitled "L'P-1 , Mater
Quality Standards, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, July 27, 1973,"
have been found by the U.S. EPA to be consistent with the requirements of
the law, except as otherwise noted below, and ace the water quality standards
applicable to the navigable waters of Ohio. ' The standards document is available
for inspection and copying at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Seneca
Towers, Columbus, Ohio 43216, and the U.S. EPA Regional Office, One North
Hacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60505. U.S. EPA's information regulations,
f\Q CFR Part 2, provide that a res may be charged for making copies.
On January 16, 1972, the Regional Administrator notified Ohio that certain
revisions to its interstate water quality standards wore necessary to make the
standards consistent with the applicable requirements of the Act. On March
14, 1973, a similar notification was made for intrastate water quality standard?
The revisions submitted by the State ware not completely consistent with the
applicable requirements of Section 303(a)(l), and (2) of the Act. Accordingly,
pursuant to Section 303(b)(l), U.S. EPA is now proposing regulations setting
forth-standards required to comply v/ith the Act as in effect prior to October If
1972.
Section 303(b)(2) of the Act, requires the Administrator to promulgate
standards no later than 190 days after the date of publication of this notice,
unless by such time the State shall have adopted a water quality standard which
the Administrator determines to be in accordance with the requirements of
Section 303(a) of the Act. However, the Administrator is not required to nv/ait-
State action for the entire 190 day period prior to promulgation. Tims, these
-------
- 3 -
standards may be promulgated by the Administrator .;; t any tir:-e following the
expiration of time for public comment.
Except as provided in the attached proposed regulations, the interstate:
and intrastate standards previously adopted by the'State of Ohio, as references
above, are the effective water quality standards under Section 303 of the Act
for interstate and intrastate navigable waters within that State. Who.'re -tV
proposed regulations set forth below are inconsistent v/ith the refereiv
standards, these regulations, if promulgated, './ill supersede such standards
to the extent of the inconsistency.
Interested persons may submit v/ritten data, vicv/s, or arguments, in
triplicate, in regard to the proposed regulations to the Regional Adiniivistra tot
One North Hacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60505. All relevant ma taria'l
received not later than sixty (60) clays after the o'.vte of this publication
in the Federal Register v/ill be considered.
Date Administrator
-------
The regulations in Chapter I of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation;;,
are amended as follows:
1. Part 120 is amended to add a new subsection 120.20 as fol'lov;s:
§ Ohio v/ater quality standards
Hater Quality Standards established by Ohio on July 27, 1973 and
approved by U.S. EPA on /..vv.-.••.:•'.:..>/.••'. /.^contained in the document entitled
"Regulation EP-1 , Ohio Hater Quality Standards, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, July 27, 1973," hereinafter will be the water quality standard';
for t!u State of Ohio except for the following:
FP 1-01 Classification of Haters of the State
(a) The following shall be added to Regulation EP-1-01
(3) In certain specific valers to bo identified by the State
of Ohio excepled classification may be granted by Hie
Administrator upon" suhnission of proposed vater quality
standards for si'.cli specified waters and upon submission
of an analysis bci.sed upon presently available info'crno.tion
and sufficient data to support tlie identification, t}>at
because of naturally occurring uater quality conditions
or techiological limitations; itiprov&nent of inter quality
in sucli specific areas to the degree necessary to protect
recreational use and tne preservation ard propagation of
desirable, or indigenous species of aquatic biota by tnc
-------
terminal do.'ie as act forth in P.L. 02-C>00 for the purpose of
meeting ico.ter quality standards (1977) and as required by the
general standai^dc is impossible.
(b) Th3 specified criteria in Section EP-1~02(J) shall bs revised
as follov/s:
STOWW A'O. COUST'fl'UVNT C011CEHTP.ATI011
OlO'\2 Copper delete
32730 Plienolfi 10 ug/l
0109?. Zinc delete
(c) Section EP--1-02(K) shall b2 revised as follows:
Pollutants or combinations of any pollulo.ntr, shall not exceed
at any tiins one-tenth of the 9G hour median tolerance limit
for any indigenous o.quatic spscieSj except that other more
strings-lib application factors shall be imposed where neces-
sary to meet the ininimwi requirements of the National
Technical. Advisory Corwitbee , "i-'aler .Quality Cicit&ri-a..."
1968. Tlis, median tolerance limit shzll be deter.nimd by
sto.tic or dyna/nic bi-oassays in accordance with standard
methods described in "Sto.ndard l-]etl\ods for the Examination
of l-.'ater and Vast colter," l'6th Edition., 1971 f published, by
the American l\!.bli-c Health Association^ and I'ater Pollution
Control Federation.
-------
(d) Tlis following shall be added to rsyulation F.P-1--02
(M) Total PkvF.pl-or;.'a as P (storet mwber OOC05): •
Phosphorus shall be limited, to the extent necessary
»
to prevent nuisance growths of algc.e^ uecds, and
slimes. In areas where nuisance growths e:cist,
pliosphoriis discharges from point so:>rces determined
significant by the Agency shall not exceed a daily
average of one milligram per liter as total P, or such
stricter requirements as nay be imposed Irj agency
permits.
Section EP-1-05 Lake Erie - the Welter Quality Star.clovds for Lake trie
shall bs revised as follov;s:
In addili-on to the appropriate standards contained in /'.'P-.7...
namely EP-1-02, EP-1-0?., EP-1-07, EP-1-08, EP-1-09, the
following criteria shall be applicable to Lake Erie:
(1) Total Dissolved Solids - not to exceed ?,00 rng/l.
(?.) Taste and Odor - obj'cctio/iable -taste a.n3. odor producing
substc.nces shall be virtually absent. Phenolic compounds
shall not exceed 0. 001 mg/l.
(3) Filterable Iron - not to exceed 0. 3 ir,j/l.
(4) Phosphorus - municipal uo.sie treatment plants discharging
in excess of one million gallons per day into l'
-------
daily average effluent concentration ofJ.O mg/l as total
phosphorus (P).
(5) Dissolved Oxygen - not less than 6 ing/I at any tints nor less
than 7 mg/l in the spavining areas of cold inter fish.
(G) Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pll) - shall not be outiii.de
the range 6.7 - 8.5
(7) Temperature - the moxvnm temperature rive at any time
outside the mixing zone shall not ercceed '6°F above natural
te/nperalure. In addition _, tlie water twpero.ture shall not
exceed the maxinwsn limits indicated in the folio-Ming table:
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. ffay. June. July. Aug. Sept. Oct. Uov. Dec
45 45 45 CO 70 75 80 8S 80 70 GO 50
(G) Mixing Zones - In applying ijale.r quality standards, areas may be
allowed for the. admixture of waste effluents i)ith the receiving
ujalers. Water quality standards must be met at every point
outside of these areas. Characteristics inside the rn'j;ing
zone clia.ll not be deleterious to populations of important
aquatic species. Pollutants or combinations of pollutants
should not exceed the 96 hour median tolero.nce li:nit for indi-
genous aqua.tic species. Water temperature should, be limited so
as to assure that lethal conditions for important fish species
are not created as determined by a time-exposure relationship.
-------
Location and sine of mixing ;:cnes sha.11 be df.t-sniinod on a case
by cave basis in accordance vith the following co'.vlit-i&ns:
(1) Mixing zones shall not include important spanning or nursery
areas.
(2) Mixing zones Sriy.ll nob block fish migratory routes.
('6) Mixing r.oms sho.ll r&t include any drinking izitei- supply intake.
(4) Mixing xones shall not include any shoreline bathing arza.
(5) !-'i:r.ing zones shall not include 'the. hypolir,inion.
(0) Mixing zones shall 1)3 designed and located in such a. t'.anner tint the
protection and propagation of fish,, shellfish ami i-)j.ldlife in tlie body
of inter as a anolc sfcill not be. adversely affected.
The follov;ing sections shall bo add?.cl to Regulation EP-1:
EP-1-08 Chemical Applications - The application of chemicals for inter
resource management projects in accordance with and subject to sfa'te
statutory provisions is not subject to the S'tond.ards prescribed by these
rule$j hoioevsr^ all projects shall be revieusd and approved' by the Agency
prior to application of chemicals.
EP-1-09 Analytical Testing - All methods of sample collect'{-on, preser-
vation,, and analysis used in applying any of the rules and regulations
in this chapter shy.ll be in accord with those, prescribed in the Federal
jte^istciv, Titls Chapter I, Sub-Chapter D, Part T6G., "Cui^slinss
Es'io.blishi-ng Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants. "
------- |