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. "

-------