CERI 89-257
WORKSHOP ON WATER QUALITY-BASED
PERMITTING, ENFORCEMENT, AND
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATIONS
San Francisco, CA - January 1 6-1 7, 1 990
Nashville, TN - February 7-8, 1990
Jacksonville, FL - February 27-28, 1 990
Dallas, TX - March 13-14, 1990
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WORKSHOP ON WATER QUALITY-BASED PERMUTING,
ENFORCEMENT, AND TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATIONS
-------
TABLE OK CONTENTS
Section 1
Recent Developments in the NPDES Program 1
Section 2
Concepts of Biological Testing 11
Section 3
Permit Limit Development 31
Section 4
Toxicity Limits 63
Section 5
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement 75
Section 6
Basic Permitting Principles/Introduction to TREs
Introduction to TREs
TREs in the Permitting and Enforcement Process
TRE Available Guidance 113
Section 7
TRE Industrial and Municipal Protocols 133
Section 8
TIE Overview 159
Section 9
Guidelines and Review Criteria for TRE Plans 187
Section 10
TRE Abstracts and Case Studies 193
ill
-------
SECTION I
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NPDES PROGRAM
-1-
-------
KECEJVT DEVELOPMENTS
WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1987
- SLUDGE
- STORMWATER
- 304(L)
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
REVISIONS TO THE TSD
DOMESTIC SEWAGE STUDY REGULATIONS
REVISIONS TO THE TSD
SCHEDULE:
• REGIONAL REVIEW (END 10/10/89)
• WILLIAMSBURG GROUP REVIEW
-States -Interest Groups
-Industry -Environmental Groups
•FEDERAL REGISTER ANNOUNCEMENT
• BLUE RIBBON PANEL REVIEW
• FINAL DOCUMENT
FINAL DOCUMENT AVAILABLE SUMMER '90
REVISIONS TO THE TSD
MAJOR CHANGES:
CHAPTER 1: New documentation
Correlations
CHAPTER 2: Acceptable ambient concentrations
Legal basis for AACs
CHAPTER 3: Streamlined procedures
Screening
Bioconcentration
-3-
-------
REVISIONS TO THE TSD
MAJOR CHANGES:
CHAPTER 4: Mixing Zones
Bioconcentration
CHAPTER 5: More user-friendly!
CHAPTER 6: Permitting and Enforcement
Principles
Surface Water Toxics Control Program
Activities Conducted Under §304(1)
Develop
Preliminary
lists of
waters:
(A) (I)
(A) (II)
(B)
Develop control* under
existing CWA authorities tor
(A) (I) and (A) (II) waters
Develop Water
Quality Assessment
Plan (as necessary)
Opportunity for State
to correct
deficient submtttal
-4-
-------
Interrelationship of Waters Listed Under
Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act
MINI LIST
(AMI):
Control actions
include use ol
all existing
CWA
authorities tor
toxic pollutants.
LONG LIST
(AMID:
Control actions
include use ot
all existing
CWA
authorities lor
all pollutants
and in waters
SHORT LIST
(B):
Control actions
require
Individual
Control
Strategies
304(1)
"LONG LIST"
- 17,576 waters listed
- Range 0 to 1745. average 304
- Most east of Mississippi River
"MINI LIST"
• Few waters listed
"SHORT LIST"
- 595 waters listed
-5-
-------
304(1)
"C LIST"
• 879 POINT SOURCES
o 625 INDUSTRIALS
- 134 METAL FINISHING
- 94 PULP & PAPER
- 55 NATURAL GAS
- 22 ORGANIC CHEMICAL
- 21 PETROLEUM REFINING
o 240 MUNICIPALS
0 14 FEDERAL FACILITIES
• ICSs REQUIRED
Individual Control Strategies
All known water quality problem waters impaired by
§307(a) toxics due entirely/substantially to point source
discharges require an ICS (Short List)
An ICS is a NPDES permit plus documentation (i.e.,
TMDLs/WLAs and other rationale)
An ICS is to produce a reduction in the discharge of
§307(a) toxic pollutants and achieve State WQ standards
within 3 years
Effluent toxicants, ammonia, and chlorine must also be
controlled by permits undfir other CWA authorities
304(1) Changes to 40 CFR 122.44
SUBSECTION (d) - WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND STATE REQUIREMENTS
- WATER QUALITY-BASED PERMIT LIMITS
FOR SPECIFIC TOXICANTS
- WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITS
WHERE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE
STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
-6-
-------
Section 122.44(d)(l)(i)
ALL POLLUTANTS THAT CAUSE,
HAVE THE REASONABLE POTENTIAL
TO CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO AN
EXCURSION ABOVE A WATER QUALITY
STANDARD MUST BE CONTROLLED
- Includes narrative and numerical
criteria
- Reflects EPA's approach to water
quality-based permitting
Section 122.44(d)(l)(ii)
STATES MUST USE VALID PROCEDURES
TO DETERMINE WHETHER A DISCHARGE
CAUSES, HAS THE REASONABLE
POTENTIAL TO CAUSE. OR CONTRIBUTES
TO AN EXCURSION
ACCOUNT FOR:
- existing controls
- variability
• species sensitivity
- dilution (where allowed)
Section 122.44(d)(l)(iii)
NPDES PERMITS MUST INCLUDE
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR EVERY
POLLUTANT THAT CAUSES, HAS THE
REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE
OR CONTRIBUTES TO AN EXCURSION
ABOVE A NUMERIC WATER QUALITY
CRITERION
-7-
-------
Section 122.44(d)(l)(iv)
NPDES PERMITS MUST INCLUDE WHOLE
EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITATIONS
WHEN A DISCHARGE CAUSES, HAS THE
REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE,
OR CONTRIBUTES TO AN EXCURSION
ABOVE A STATE NUMERIC CRITERION
FOR WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
Section 122.44(d)(l)(v)
WHEN A DISCHARGE CAUSES. HAS THE
REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE.
OR CONTRIBUTES TO AN EXCURSION
ABOVE A STATE NARRATIVE WATER
QUALITY CRITERION. THE PERMIT
MUST CONTAIN LIMITATIONS ON
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
- unless chemical specific limitations
are demonstrated to be sufficient
to achieve all applicable water
quality standards
Section 122.44(d)(l)(vi)
WHERE AN ACTUAL OR PROJECTED
EXCURSION ABOVE A WATER QUALITY
CRITERION IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A
PARTICULAR POLLUTANT FOR WHICH
THE STATE HAS NOT ADOPTED WATER
QUALITY CRITERION, THE PERMIT MUST
CONTAIN WATER QUALITY-BASED
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS TO CONTROL
[ THE POLLUTANT OF CONCERN
-8-
-------
Section 122.44(d)(l)(vi)
THREE OPTIONS:
(1) CALCULATE NUMERIC CRITERION
FOR THE POLLUTANT;
(2) USE EPA's WATER QUALITY
CRITERION FOR THE POLLUTANT; OR
(3) ESTABLISH EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
ON AN INDICATOR PARAMETER
Section 122.44(d)(l)(vi)
IF AN INDICATOR PARAMETER IS USED,
FOUR PROVISIONS MUST BE MET:
(a) The permit must identify which
pollutants are intended to be controlled
by the indicator parameter;
(b) The fact sheet must set forth the
basis for the limit;
(c) The permit must require monitoring
to show continued compliance with the
water quality standards; and
(d) The permit must contain a reopener
clause allowing for changes (as needed) to
achieve water quality standards
304(1) Changes to 4O CFR 122.44
SUBSECTION (d) • WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND STATE REQUIREMENTS
- WATER QUALITY-BASED PERMIT LIMITS
FOR SPECIFIC TOXICANTS
- WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITS
WHERE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE
STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
-9-
-------
SECTION 2
CONCEPTS OF BIOLOGICAL TESTING
-11-
-------
• 38 States require Industries to conduct toxlcrty testing.
• 27 States require municipalities to conduct toxlclty testing.
• Toxletty testing Is required In 1343 Industrial permits.
• Toxlclty testing Is required In 597 municipal permits.
• Biological toxlclty testing requirements are tew or non-existent In the mid-
western and western States.
• Effluent toxlclty limits are In Industrial permits In 14 States and are found
In 39 percent of the Industrial permits that require biological testing.
• Effluent toxlclty limits are In municipal permits In 10 States and are found
In 78 percent of the municipal permits that require biological testing.
• 16 States have a toxlclty testing requirement In Industrial permits only.
• 8 States do not require effluent biological testing.
• 19 States project that as new permits are Issued, or as existing permits
are reissued, all major and significant minor permits will contain bio-
logical testing requirements.
• 15 States require biological loxieity testing in SO percent or more of their
major industrial permits. California. Virginia, and West Virginia require
biological testing In all of (heir major industrial permits and in some
minor permits.
• 6 States require biological toxlcrty testing In SO percent or more of their
municipal permits. New Jersey requires biological testing in all of their
major municipal permits and In some minor permits.
• 10 States have TRE programs and 13 additional States are beginning
such programs.
• 5 States have (or will have within one year) biological laboratory
certification programs.
• 16 States operate mobile biological laboratories for flow-through or
chronic biological testing.
0 29 States have the capabilities tor conducting definitive acute or chronic
toxlclty tests.
• 33 States conduct receiving water macrolnvertebrate or fish assessments
related either to special study pollution Investigations or to provide trend
monitoring determinations.
-13-
-------
HDUlT*]iL
ALAIiKA
ARlAftSAI
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONklCTKUl
DlllRin 0« CO.
FLORIDA
IIORIJA
NAWAJ1
ILllROJI
INDIANA
IOIA
IAMAI
IIITUCIT
tOUIIIABA
•AIH
•ARTLAND
• AflACNt/IITTI
•ICHIIAk
NINUIDTA
•IIIOURI
•DNTARI
NIIRAStA
•IVADA
•l> JIR»I»
•I* NII1CO
•1C TORI
NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO
OILANONA
•HODI IILARO
IOUTN CAROLIIA
IOUTM OAIOTA
TIUI
UTAH
VIRNONT
VIMIIIA
•AIMINCTON
•III V1RCIN1A
• JICOMIN
•TONINI
TOTAL!
/ *'
ID
40
1
It*
4
1
11
100
11*
IB
It
10
1
10
It
It*
It
••
01
111
0
100
OT
TO
01*
0
104,
/;
•1
i
71
100
1
71
11
0
II
41
It
10
01
07
71
II
1
11
• i
11
1
It
11
0
• 1
• 0
01
01
01
100
01
100
00
*'
00
0
40
141
e
0
e
40
0
0
e
•
e
11
i
e
17
e
0
10
0
e
0
0
100
0
•1
•
•
i
T
• 0
0
f
010
It
$
i
1
4
e
i
i
i
0
0
e
i
t
t
t
t
t
i
0
i
t
i
t
•
•
0
1
4
t
t
r
0
0
e
171
0
0
1
1
40
1
1
1
1
0
0
e
4
0
1
10
It
0
•
0
0
0
•
1
1
171
14
70«
0
•
14
1
1
to
0
107
•/.
0
0
e
07
11
0
T
100
• 1
1
•
T
1
0
0
0
0
14
It
0
e
e
0
e
0
17
0
100
0
1
04
0
0
71
1
0
t
10
0
•1
0
1
10
y*
11
4
17
T
• 14
It
0
1
1
4
0
*
1
I
0
0
0
1
«
t
1
0
f
*>
4
1
t
0
t
•
t
•
0
4
4
4
f
0
1
r
ID
1
0
40
Oil
1
01
0
1
00
00
0
4
0
0
1
t
17
100
10
41
04
10
1
10
• 00
tl
111
11
It
0
to
to
1
00
101
11
0
100
07
TO
00
1
1040
/.*
01
1
e
01
100
0
41
14
100
01
14
11
• 1
14
• 0
11
0
1
14
0
0
t
0
01
14
07
tl
44
11
t
10
IT
tt
lit
41
74
14
t
to
4
00
0
1
0
1
07
10
t
Oil
1*
If
*
*
l«tt*r.
1 •••»•' •ltd »••>*•( ••! «••!•«• •»)•' ••« »li>»f
0 »*'«*iit»|« r»|»l*» (• •*J*r »•'••>*.
• *«*!(• MKUI* «•»<••«! H«1t».
4 •*•• ••• »f •iltltnf Mr*<>* •'• <••••* •'
« • 0«»l*|1*»l »»«t««l| ttlt<»t <• til
4 • T*ll««| r««n(r*»«*t* •
-------
TAILI t. 11*11 mot«»««
MBUIM TciitiiT •leucio* i»»iumo«
«L*l*a*
«H*II*
*«1IOI*
•ll«lf*l
CAilFORtti*
COLORADO
co«»icijcui
PII«»**I
Home*
HOICK
«U»MJ
IDtMC
ILLUDII
IIDUI*
Kit
Itkftl
III1UCIT
IOUIIUI1
•«I«I
•ARTlAlie
• illtCMUKTTI
me«i»»*
•i»mioT»
•IltlllI»Fl
•:tiou«i
•DltAll
• IIKK1
•IVtOA
•I* HtltlMIII
•It JIRIIT
•II MIXICO
•I* Teat
•omn t»«ou««
• Otlii 0*1011
tmo
OlltnO**
•*l*0k
»II»ITlVtll*
•NODI 111*10
•OUtX C««OLl**
•OUT* »*I01*
TIKtlttl
Tll«l
rt»«
VIIHOI1
vuimi*
•tINllllOk
•111 VIII1H1*
• IICOHl*
rronlMi
T01*H
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IB
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1»
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
IT
-15-
-------
TAIlt ».
Ttcii«c »to«ktii COIOUCTID IT
L A««U»ILT
AlAIARA
AlAltA
AtHOkA
AKAMAt
CAHPOM1A
COlO*AOD
COkllCTKUT
DIlACAM
om«:tT tt CO.
IIO«IIA
•AfAIJ
IDAHO
1UIB01I
IAIIAI
IMTVCIT
LOUII1AIA
• AIM
•AITIAID
•AIIACHUIITTI
•JCH1IAI
minium
• iiioun
•IIIAllA
•I»AOA
• (• MAIMM1M
•It 4IMIT
•(• •IIICO
•I* TOtl
•otTH CAHOI.IIA
OHIO
OIIAHOMA
OtllO"
• HODI HlAkD
tOUTH tAflOlIlA
IOUTM DAKOTA
TIMIIIII
THAI
UTAH
• AIM1MTO*
•IIT viailklA
fllCOIIII
rroitu
TOTAll
to
0
t
tl
0
0
• 0
IT
0
44
111
110
ID
• 0
100
to
It
t
110
I
100
Tl
HO
t
to
to
t
tt
It
t
14||
e
0
i
ID
0
e
0
t
0
0
0
in
to
It
11
11
11
to
100
10
111
t
*
10
10
It
I
lit
r
to
e
ti
10
0
to
1
1
to
11
e
40
It
1
II
to
0
0
400
to
t
t
t
11
40
10
to
t
to
t
MO
MO
t
11
100
•e
t
tt
100
410
t
ton
r
t
t
0
t
t
to
t
t
tl
t
1
1
tt
t
to
to
0
to
0
to
1
II
100
t
1
tl*
ito
t
1
14
100
It
to
to
to
to
1TI
4|
tt
t
1114
t
e
e
t
t
t
t
t
e
t
e
t
0
a
t
0
t
t
t
:
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
11
r
t
»f
••*•« •••»•• 4H*«ft*f|»t
••*r(1*t»rt»kr*l*
*r
»*ltt* t*
It
»'r «• •*rtl«*
k««|t|l**l
tt
•••ft*
-16-
-------
1. rmctKT*w or MAJOU MDUSTWUL PIMMTIWITH
TOXICITT TESTING MEQMMCMCNTS
t. pfuctMTAOc or MAJWI MUMC»*L MMMTT*
WITM TOXKTTY TESTING «OWMMCNTS
FIGURE 3. NUMBER OF PERMITS WITH TOXICITY LIMITS
1D.C.
-17-
-------
BASIS FOR USING
THE WHOLE EFFLUENT APPROACH
U.S. EPA POLICY LANGUAGE
'WHERE VIOLATIONS OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
ARE IDENTIFIED OR PROJECTED, THE STATE WILL
BE EXPECTED TO DEVELOP WATER QUALITY-BASED
EFFLUENT LIMITS FOR INCLUSION IN ANY ISSUED
PERMIT.... WHERE THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT LIKELIHOOD
OF TOXIC EFFECTS TO BIOTA IN THE RECEIVING WATER.
EPA AND THE STATES MAY IMPOSE PERMIT LIMITS ON
EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND MAY REQUIRE AN NPDES
PERMITTEE TO CONDUCT A TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATION.'
DETERMINING
EFFLUENT TOXICITY
COMPARE VYTTH HEALTH
AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL
CRITERIA
PROBABLY
NOT TOXIC
PROBABLY
TOXIC
DUPLICATE
BIOASSAY *
TOXIC
/
TOXICITY REDUCATION
EVALUATION
NOT TOXIC
ACUTE TESTS
ENDPOINT: MORTALITY
DURATION: 98 HOURS FOR FISH, 48 HOURS
FOR SOME INVERTEBRATES
SPECIES USED: FATHEAD MINNOWS, DAPHNIA ipp..
MYSIDS. TROUT, ETC.
CONCENTRATION SERIES: EITHER 100% ONLY OR.
e.g. 100%. 50%. 25%. 12.5%, AND 0% SERIES
ADVANTAGES: - ITANDAKDIZID raorocoi
•- luno AMD MI nff NIIVI
•- f HBtOMT It I AIT TO QUANTIFY
DISADVANTAGES:-- INDICATK ONLV FATAL COHCINTHATIOM
•- WOMI ONLY FCM FAIT ACTMO CXIMCAll
'•MAT NOT HI FLCCT MIAL-WOftlD tXPOHJfl
CHRONIC TESTS
• ENDPOINT: MORTALITY, GROWTH, REPRODUCTION, ETC.
• DURATION: WHOLE LIFE CYCLE OR CRITICAL PORTION
OF LIFE CYCLE
• SPECIES USED: FATHEAD MINNOWS, DAPHNIA *pp..
CERIODAPHNIA ipp, MYSIDS. TROUT, ETC.
• ADVANTAGES: -- MOAI innrrrvl THAN ACUTV TVITS
" AIHIICI PAMAMITtllt OTMn TMAN MATM
-MAT UmiCT IIAL-WOUO COHCncTMTIOM
- M0«l IINIITIVI TO lOW-llVtL CONTAMNAnON
-18-
-------
LC -THE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION AT WHICH SO PERCENT
50 OP THE TEST ORGANISMS ARE KILLED WITHIN A SPECIFIED
TIME
NOEC—THE HIGHEST EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION AT WHICH NO
OBSERVED EFFECT WILL OCCUR AT CONTINUOUS EXPOSURE
TO TEST ORGANISMS
VARIABILITY IN
TOXICITY TEST RESULTS
SPECIES USED
STRAIN OR SOURCE OF TEST ORGANISMS
CONDITION OR HEALTH OF THE ORGANISMS
TEST CONDITIONS
• TfM»f*ftTU«f
• 00
• POOO
• WftTf • OU1UTY
• ITC.
SPECIES MEAN ACUTE
VALUES FOR AMMONIA
FATMIU
CUDOCIKAM
MOTTtlO BCVLMM
PIATWMM
WMTf tUCKfl
BLUtCU.
OOlMNtMNfll
OAMMU •*«•**•
QMANGITMOAT OlBTf»
COiOCHTHOVT
CUTTMOAT THOUT
CO**0 SALMOM
• AHtOW TVOUT
MtttO
RELATIVE SENSITIVITY
SPECIES
FATHEAD
COHO
CHINOOK
RAINBOW
BLUEGILL
LARGEMOUTH
D. MAGNA
DDT
COPPER
23
11
10
5
8
12
15
N=35
34
28
27
22
18
3
9
N=42
20
7
4
5
36
37
1
N=42
SHverside (Menidia)
-19-
Anatomy of female Daptinu pulei (Oe Ce«r), I/O; », antenna; 6C,
brood charter; H. heart; INT, Tnteitme; 1. leqs; 0V. ovary; P.
ooitabdomen; PC. DOMaDdommal claw, (from Pennjk. 1978).
-------
Lateral and dorsal view of a typical mysid.
Fathead minnow: adult female (left) and breeding male
(right).
LC50
TEST PROCEDURES
• TYPE OF TEST
• ITAT1C. Htmwdi.. FLOW-Ttmu
• NUMBER OF CONCENTRATIONS
- 100. 10. it. i> s. t.iv o
• NUMBER OF SPECIES
- 1 M COMMNOID
• NUMBER OF ORGANISMS
- lOttlCOMMtNOIO
• DUPLICATIONS
• AGE OF ORGANISMS
• TEST CONDITIONS
-OUIIATIOM
• CUTt 14.41 M D
CMONIC I. 14. til
("ICt MtAIUMD
MMTltrrT. MTCMIM>. KmOBUCTION. OHOWn
B« ILFVOW'TMVU
O.l| 1L IUTC
- O,0. • 40% IATMUTIOM
LC50
DATA ANALYSIS
• DETERMINE TYPE OP ANALYSIS
• DEVELOP TABLE OF DATA
• DEVELOP GRAPH
• DETERMINE LCSO
• DCTERMME CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
-20-
-------
VOCABULARY
EMBRYQ.LARVAL-THE LIFE STAGE JUST AF- DAPHNMSPP-A SPECIES OF WATER FLEA
TER HATCHING
CERIODAPHNIA SPP-A SPECIES OF WATER FLEA
JUVENILE-THE LIFE STAGE WHERE THE OR-
GANISMS LOOK LIKE THE ADULT BUT ARE NOT CLADQCERAN-ANY MEMBER OF THE CLADO-
REPRODUCTIVELY MATURE CERA, AN ORDER OF BRANCHIOPOD CRUSTA-
CEANS THAT INCLUDE THE WATER FLEAS.
TERATOGENIC-CAPABLE OF CAUSING AB-
NORMAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BODY OR STATIC_TESI-TEST WATER IS NOT CIRCU-
BODY PARTS LATED OR EXCHANGED
MUTAGENIC-CAPABLE OF CAUSING OR IN- STATJC_RENEWAL TEST-TEST WATER IS
DUCING A GENETIC MUTATION EXCHANGED FOR NEW WATER AT SPECIFIC
INTERVALS
LETHALITY-PERTAINING TO DEATH
FLQWJLHRQUGHJEST-TEST WATER IS CON-
CHRONIC TEST-MEASURES LONG TERM EF- TINUOUSLY CIRCULATED IN AND OUT OF THE
FECTS (GROWTH, REPRODUCTION) TEST CHAMBER
ACUTE TEST-MEASURES SHORT TERM EF- NEQNAT.E--RECENTLY HATCHED CLADO-
FECTS (MORTALITY) CERAN
ALGAE-ANY NUMBER OF SIMPLE AQUATIC
PLANTS POSSESSING CHOROPHYLL AND
CAPABLE Or CARRYING ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS
CJEfflOJJAP_HNJA SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION
O SCOPE OF TEST-MEASURES THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF WHOLE
EFFLUENTS TO THE CLAOOCERAN, CERIODAPHNIA DUBIA, DURING
A 7-DAY, STATIC RENEWAL EXPOSURE.
0 SUMMARY OF METHOD-CERIODAPHNIA ARE EXPOSED IN A STATIC
RENEWAL SYSTEM FOR 7 DAYS TO DIFFERENT CONCENTRATIONS
OF EFFLUENT OR RECEIVING WATER. TEST RESULTS ARE BASED ON
SURVIVAL AND REPRODUCTION. IF THE TEST IS CONDUCTED
PROPERLY. THE CONTROL ORGANISMS SHOULD PRODUCE THREE
BROODS OF YOUNG (10-35 NEONATES/BROOD) DURING THE 7-DAY
PERIOD.
O END POINT-CEBlCiDAPjaNIA MORTALITY AND REPRODUCTION
0 TEST OBSERVATIONS-FIRST BROOD ON THIRD DAY IS 2-5 YOUNG.
THEREAFTER A BROOD OF 10-35 NEONATES IS RELEASED EVERY
36-48 HOURS.
-MORTALITY AND/OR NUMBER OF YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE ARE
RECORDED DAILY.
O NUMBER AND AGE OF ORGANISMS-60 NEONATES < 4-H OLD
AV«5rH!G!NNING °F ™E TEST (1° ORQANISMS/CONCENTRATION
+ CONTROL).
O TERMINATION OF TEST-ALL OBSERVATIONS MUST BE COMPLETED
IN 7 DAYS (± 2-H) AFTER INITIATION OF TEST.
° n^pu^cn5!^?1*1-.^"8" OF YOUNQ PER ADUl-T FEMALE IS
c«n I- ALCULATE MEAN NUMBER OF YOUNG PER ADULT FEMALE
FOR EACH CONCENTRATION TO PROVIDE A COMBINED MEASURE
OF THE TOX.CANTS EFFECT ON MORTAL.TY X!
CHRON'C METH°DS MANUAL FOR DETAILED
-21-
-------
TABU 1. Sumit! Of MCOWtilSEO HJT CON3IT10NS FOD CHlDDAHuilA
iunvKAi. AW) itmooucTioii IIST
I. Tilt typt:
2. TtHptrilurt (°C):
3. Llgnt guillty:
4. Llgnt Intimity:
S. rYiotoptnod:
6. Ttlt vtlltl tin:
7. Ttlt tolutlon voluni:
8. Rtnml of tilt conctntritlont:
9. Agt of ttlt orginum:
10. MuBOir of ttlt orginlwi
ptr cntffiir:
II. «u«0ir of rtpllcitl
cftmtrf ptr trtltnnt:
12. FtHlng rtglH:
13. (trttlon:
14. Dilution .«ttr:
IS. Dilution ftctor:
li. Tilt Ivritlon:
17. Cfftttt Miturtd:
Stltle rtntvtl
25 i !<>C
AjOBItnt ItbOritOry llgnt
10.20 ut/n2/!. or SO-100 't-c
(woltnt luoritory Itilll)
16 n light. 8 n dirt
30 «.
IS n.
Ollly
Itlt tnin 2> n; ind 111 rilnitd
•Itnln i 4-n ptrlod
F«td 0.1 n. food tulpmiton/lS 1.
dill,
Mono
nodtritily mrd Itlndird Mtir,
rtcilvlng «4ttr, othtr turftct
•oung productd blfort dllth.
Dolt: Ojyi I tnd 2 4rt not tncludtd btciun young MTO not products until
tnt Uilrd dly. Adult nrttllly »t not rKordtd for dlyt I tnd 2.
-22-
-------
FATHEAD MINNOW (PIMEPHALES
LARVAE
O SCOPE OF TEST-ESTIMATE THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF WHOLE
EFFLUENTS TO FATHEAD MINNOW LARVAE IN A 7-DAY, STATIC
RENEWAL TEST.
0 SUMMARY OF METHOD-LARVAE (PREFERABLY < 24-H OLD) ARE
EXPOSED IN A STATIC RENEWAL SYSTEM FOR 7 DAYS TO
DIFFERENT CONCENTRATIONS OF EFFLUENT TEST RESULTS ARE
BASED ON THE SURVIVAL AND GROWTH (INCREASE IN WEIGHT) OF
THE LARVAE.
0 END POINT-MORTALITY AND GROWTH (CHANGE IN WEIGHT) OF
THE LARVAE.
O NUMBER AND AGE OF ORGANISMS-150-300 PER TEST; THREE
SEPARATE SPAWNS: <24-H OLD.
O TERMINATION OF TEST-AFTER 7 DAYS THE LARVAE IN EACH
CHAMBER ARE PRESERVED AS A GROUP. LARVAE ARE RINSED,
OVEN DRIED (100°C FOR >2-H) AND WEIGHED (0.1MG).
O DATA ANALYSIS-MORTALITY AND MEAN WEIGHT OF LARVAE FOR
EACH CONCENTRATION ARE COMPARED TO CONTROLS AND
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT (P = 0.05) DIFFERENCES DETERMINED.
O CALCULATIONS-SEE CHRONIC METHOD MANUAL FOR DETAILED
DISCUSSION.
TABLE Z. SIMMY OF SURVIVAL AND GROWTH DATA Of FATHEAD HINNOU LARVAE EIPOSED FOR
SEVEN OATS 10 SODIUM PENTACHLOROPhf NATE
Test
Cone.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
NaPCP
Cone.
(ug/L)
Control
32
64
128
256
5,2
Proportion of
Survival In
Replicate Charters
A
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.4
8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.3
C
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.4
0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.2
Nean
Prop.
Surv.
0.95
0.85
0.975
0.90
0.775
0.325*
Ave Dry Ugt (-9) In
CVa Replicate Charters
ID
6
12
5
9
29
29
A
0.711
0.646
0.669
0.629
0.650
0.358
e
0.662
0.626
0.669
0.680
0.558
0.543
C
0.718
0.723
0.694
0.513
0.606
0.488
0
0.767
0.700
0.676
0.672
0.508
0.495
Nean
Dry Wyt
(•9)
0.714
0.674
0.677
0.624
0.560"
0.471°
CV
ID
6
7
2
12
II
17
•Coefficient of variation (slanoard deviation I I00/*ean).
^Significantly different froa control (P • O.Oi).
-23-
-------
ALGAL fSELENASTBUM CAPRICQRNUTtiy)
GROWTH TEST
O SCOPE OF TEST-MEASURES THE CHRONIC TOXICITY OF WHOLE
EFFLUENT TO THE FRESH WATER ALGA, SELENASTRUM
CAPRICORNUTUM. DURING A 4-DAY STATIC EXPOSURE.
O SUMMARY OF METHOD-A SELENASTRUM POPULATION IS EXPOSED
IN A STATIC SYSTEM TO A SERIES OF EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
FOR 96-H. THE RESPONSE OF THE POPULATION IS MEASURED IN
TERMS OF CHANGES IN CELL DENSITY (CELL COUNTS PER ML),
BIOMASS, CHLOROPHYLL CONTENT, OH ABSORBANCE. BY
EXTENDING THE TEST TO 14 DAYS, IT MAY BE USED TO MEASURE
THE ALGAL GROWTH POTENTIAL OF WASTEWATERS AND
SURFACE WATERS.
O WHAT IS THIS7-SELENASTRUM IS A UNICELLULAR COCCOID GREEN
ALGA.
O END POINT-CELL COUNTS OR CHLOROPHYLL CONTENT OR
TURBIDITY (LIGHT ADSORBANCE). REGARDLESS OF THE METHOD,
TEST SOLUTIONS SHOULD BE CHECKED UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
TO DETECT ABNORMALITIES IN THE CELL SIZE OR SHAPE.
O METHODS OF MEASURING THE END POINT
(1) COUNTING-AUTOMATIC PARTICLE COUNTER; COUNTS EACH
CELL PASSING THROUGH AN APERATURE BY MEASURING A
CHANGE IN VOLTAGE. CELLS MAY BE MANUALLY COUNTED.
MINIMUM OF 400 CELLS PER REPLICATE.
(2) CHLOROPHYLL CONTENT-CHLOROPHYLL MAY BE MEASURED
IN-VIVO FLUOROMETRICAU.Y OR SPECTROPHOTGMETfllCALLY.
FLUOROMETRIC MEASUREMENTS ARE RECOMMENDED
BECAUSE OF SIMPLICITY AND SENSITIVITY.
ALGAL (SELENASTRUM CAPRICORNUTUM^
GROWTH TEST(Continued)
O METHODS OF MEASURING THE END POINT
(3) TURBIDITY(ABSORBANCE)- A SPECTROPHOTOMETER IS USED
TO DETERMINE THE TURBIDITY, OR ABSORBANCE, OF THE
CULTURES AT A WAVE LENGTH OF 750 NM. VOLUME, SIZE, AND
PIGMENTATION OF THE ALGAE CAN AFFECT THE RESULTS;
CALIBRATE TO ESTABLISH A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ABSORBANCE AND CELL DENSITY.
(4) BIOMASS-ALGAL GROWTH POTENTIAL RESULTS MAY BE
EXPRESSED AS A MG DRY WEIGHT ORGANIC MATTER/LITER.
BIOMASS CAN BE CALCULATED FROM CELL COUNTS AND
MEAN CELL VOLUMES, OR CAN BE MEASURED DIRECTLY BY
GRAVIMETRIC METHODS.
o NUMBER AND AGE OF CELLS-10,000 CELLS/ML/DILUTION AND
REPLICATE FROM 4 TO 7 DAY STOCK.
o CALCULATIONS-SEE CHRONIC METHODS MANUAL FOR DETAILED
DISCUSSION
-24-
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED TEST CONDITIONS FOR THE ALGAL GROWTH TEST
1. Ttst type:
2. Tenperature:
1. Light quality:
4. Light Intensity:
5. Photopertod:
6. Test flask site:
7. Test solution volume:
8. Agt of stock culture
used for Inoculum:
9. Initial cell density:
10. Number of replicates
per concentration:
11. Snaking rate:
12. Dilution niter:
13. Dilution factor:
14. Ttst duration:
IS. Effect Hasurid:
16. End polnt(s):
Static
24 «. 2°C
•Cool white* fluorescent lighting
86 i 8.6 ul/tf/l (400 «. 40 ft-c)
Continuous Illumination
12S tL or 250 M.
SO nL or 100 it
4 to 7 days
10.000 cells/ml.
3
100 cpm continuous, or twice dtily
by hano
Algal stock culture nedium without
EDTA, or surface Hater
Approximately 0.3 or O.S
96 h
Growth (cell counts, chlorophyll
fluorescence, aoiorotnce, Dionass)
EC1. NOEC. S(S)
TABLE 4. SAMPLE DATA FROM ALGAL TOX1CITY TEST HITH CADMIUM CHLORIDE
Toxicant
Concentration
(uo Cd/L)
0 (Control)
S
10
20
40
80
Growth
Response:
Cells/m
1000
1209
1180
1340
1212
1186
1204
826
628
816
493
416
413
127
147
147
49.3
40.0
44.0
Cells/ml
~T6W
(Logio)
3.082
3.072
3.127
3.084
3.074
3.081
2.917
2.798
2.912
2.693
2.619
2.616
2.104
2.167
2.167
1.693
1.602
1.643
Percent
Inhibition
of Growth
US)
0
3.4
39.1
64. S
88.7
96.4
-25-
-------
CONCEPTUAL APPROACH
iwc < NOCC
WHERE: IWC • INSTREAM (RECEIVING WATCH)
WASTE CONCENTRATION. EXPRESSED AS
PERCENT WASTE
NOEC • NO-OBSERVED-EFFECT LEVEL.
EXPRESSED AS PERCENT OF WASTE
TU.
LC OR NOEC
JO
7Q10
LOWEST AVERAGE DAILY FLOW OUFINO. ANY
CONSECUTIVE SEVEN DAYS IN ANY TEN-YEAR PERIOD
TOXICITY TESTING COSTS
TEST COST
ft ACUTt (STATIC)
ATMAD MBllOWl ACVT1 (ITATK)
14-MMM tTT tCMDMM TIST
I fTTO
7-OAV »JITI««eMMHOWCMIOMK •f.Set-1.101
M.t«»-T.00«
VARIABLE SPECIES COST
STATIC ACUTE
DAPHNIDS MINNOW
24-HR SCREENING 250 400
150 250
200 400
250 400
48-HR DEFINITIVE 500 1000
450 625
300 700
500 1000
-26-
-------
TEST CONDUCTED AT CENTRAL LABORATORY
COSTRANOeW NO. LABORATORIES CONDUCT*
STATIC TEST
24-HR.
SCREENING OEHNITIV
1-100 ? ,
101-200 ! .
201-300 ' ,
301-400 J ,
401-WO * 3
501-600 ' j
601-700 ' .
701-COO
TOTAL LABS M M
MEAN COST **• ***
COST RANGE
TEST CONDUCTED AT CENTRAL LABORATORY
NO. LABORATORIES CONDUCTING SHORT-TERM CHRONIC TES
COST RANGE (S) OAPMNIOS MINNOW MINNOW AOP
LARVAL EMBRYO
201-MO
501 -«00
•01-1100
1101-1400
1401-1700
1701-2000
2001-2300
2301-2600
TOTAL LABS
MEAN COST
COfT RANGE
4
2
2
7
2
.
1
•
11
1067
3004200
2
1
3
2
4
1
•
1
14
1220
4004900
1
2
4
1
-
4
•
1
13
160B
4004900
S
2
2
2
•
•
-
11
737
200-1400
PRECISION FOR INORGANIC ANALYSIS
AT LOW END OF MEASUREMENT RANGE
MEASUREMENT -LABS CV
Al 21 184
Cd 55 357
Cr 47 105
Cu 68 81
Fe 54 575
Pb 60 88
Mn 65 245
Hg 76 131
Ag 60 17.8
Zn 88 371
BOD 58 33
COO 58 34
TOC 21 80
REFERENCE EPA 600/4 - 79 - 020
TEN LABORATORY ROUNDROBIN PRECISION
TESTS FOR FATHEAD 7-DAY EFFLUENT TEST
(ALL VALUES AS % EFFLUENT)
301 401 801
LAB 12 12 12
A
B
C
0
e
F
a
H
1
J
.72
.92
—
.3
.68
.5
.47
1.1
—
1.8 1
.8
.76
—
.48
.64
.41
.6
.68
—
.5
Mf*n .759
STDDcv
CV
.387
48
36 47
43 32
41 61
39 43
23 29
- 28
32 48
30 39
50 81
73 80
42.8
13.7
32
.52 .9
3.3 2.7
5.6 6.1
.96 .82
_
.84 .83
3.0 2.5
2.7 1.8
3.5 4.2
1.6 -
2.4
1.57
66
-27-
-------
PRECISION OF EFFLUENT
TOXICITY TESTS
•LABS
SPECIES
TESTS
EFFECT
CV(%)
9
3
3
2
1
2
3
10
10
D. magna
D. magna
Fathead
Fathead
Cerlodaphnla
0. pulex
D. magna
Fathead
Fathead
18
18
3
4
7
2
3
60
60
LC50
LC50
LC50
LC50
Chronic
LC50
LC50
LC50
Growth
28.5
49
12
26
0
7
7
33
49
BIOMONITORING CONTRACT DATA
LAB
A
B
D
E
F
J
K
M
N
0
MEAN
C.V.
EFFLUENT LC50 (%)
5.1
8.7
8.6
6.5
1.8
3.8
6.9
6.4
8.2
0.04
5.6
52
37(MINUS LAB
REF. TOX. LC50 (%)
33
41
38
39
8.8
35
19
39
27
39
31.0
31.0
0) 33
COMPLEX EFFLUENT TOXICITY
TESTING PROGRAM
8 Streams - 84 Monitoring Locations
RESULTS:
• Ambient toxicity directly correlated to
stream population impact*
• Effluent toxieity from tingle source
directly correlated to stream impact
* Stream population also affected
by temperature. D.O.. pB. etc.
-28-
-------
NORTH CAROLINA STUDY
43 Point Source Discharge Sites
No fciiti-eoni Toiicrty Predict
impocl Noted
Inltreom Toi icily Predicted
Import Noted
DOT*
No tottreom Toiicrty Predicted
No Inpoct Noted •>-,-
SALT WATER STUDY
79 Ambient Stations and 4 Dischargers
PREDICTED »M8JENT TOXICITY
6J5 NO TOMCITY OeSEfVED,
NO MOEMT TOXICITY PBCDICTtD
TOXJCITY OBSERVED
PREDICTED MKBIENT TOXICITY
TOXICITY OBSERVED
14X
NO «M9EKT TDXIOTV PREDICTED
NO TOXICITY OBSERVED
-29-
-------
SECTION 3
PERMIT LIMIT DEVELOPMENT
-31-
-------
TOXICITY PERMIT
LIMIT
DEVELOPMENT
U.S. EPA POLICY LANGUAGE
"WHERE VIOLATIONS OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
ARE IDENTIFIED OR PROJECTED, THE STATE WILL
BE EXPECTED TO DEVELOP WATER QUALITY-BASED
EFFLUENT LIMITS FOR INCLUSION IN ANY ISSUED
PERMIT.... WHERE THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT LIKELIHOOD
OF TOXIC EFFECTS TO BIOTA IN THE RECEIVING WATER,
EPA AND THE STATES MAY IMPOSE PERMIT LIMITS ON
EFFLUENT TOXICITY AND MAY REQUIRE AN NPDES
PERMITTEE TO CONDUCT A TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATION."
SOURCE: 49 FEDERAL REGISTER 9017(6 MARCH 1984)
TOXICITY LIMITS
1. TESTING ONLY
- FREQUENCY: 1 /MONTH TO 4/YEAR
2. TESTING WITH LIMIT BUT
-EXCEEDANCE TRIGGERS MORE FREQUENT
TESTING
- EXCEEDANCE TRIGGERS TOXICITY
REDUCTION EVALUATION
3. ACUTE LC50LIMIT - MAXIMUM DAY
4. CHRONIC NOEC LIMIT - MAXIMUM DAY
5. TSD STATISTIC DERIVATION
-MAXIMUM DAY/AVERAGE DAY - LC50
- MAXIMUM DAY/AVERAGE DAY - NOEC
-33-
-------
GENERAL WATER QUALITY-
BASED APPROACH
FROM WATER QUALITY STANDARD
(never to be exceeded instream concentration)
1) Determine Wasteload Allocation (WLA)
(never to be exceeded effluent concentration)
Assume values for worst-case conditions
2) Determine Permit Limits such that the WLA
will not be exceeded as long as:
- Limits are met
- WLA assumptions are not violated
Must consider MONITORING FREQUENCY
and EFFLUENT VARIABILITY
PERMIT LIMITS ARE BASED ON
• A SPECIFIC PROBABILITY LEVEL THAT WILL
ALLOW DISTINGUISHING NON-COMPLYING
PLANTS USING IMPERFECT MONITORING
• AN ASSUMED NUMBER OF
OBSERVATIONS PER MONTH
WHAT A PERMIT WRITER NEEDS TO
WRITE A WATER QUALITY-BASED LIMIT:
1) PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
2) C.V. (FOR 2-NUMBER S.S. MODEL)
3) WLA CONSISTING OF:
- FLOWS (EFFLUENT & STREAM)
- MIXING ZONE
- CRITERIA
4) SENSITIVE SPECIES FOR TOXICITY LIMIT
-34-
-------
STATE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
NUMERIC - Use general approach
NARRATIVE - Must interpret standard
to use general approach
(e.g., "No toxics in toxic amounts")
TSD INTERPRETATION OF
NARRATIVE "NO TOXICS" WQS
NO CHRONIC TOXICITT (in stream for a
chronic exposure period)
NO ACUTE TOXICITY (in stream for an
acute exposure period)
-35-
-------
TRANSLATES TO:
NO CHRONIC TOXICITY AFTER MIXING
NO ACUTE TOXICITY WITHIN
MIXING ZONE* (end of pipe OR
after initial dilution)
Mixing Zone defined by the State
AT ANY TIME:
100% STREAM (after mixing) = NOEC
1OO% STREAM (in Mixing Zone) = LC l
-36-
-------
bi
z
o
o
DOSE RESPONSE CURVE
ACUTE
tCHT
PERCENT EFFLUENT
LC50 = 3.33 LC1 1/LC50 = 0.3 (1/LC1)
WLA:
EFFLUENT
\FLOWy
STREAM
FLOW
DURATION
MAGNITUDE \ FREQUENCY
I \ /
CMC = 0.3 TUA ^ 1hr/3 yrs
CCC =1.0 TUC @ 4 DAYS/3 yrs
STATE MIXING ZONE
WLA IS A QUANTIFICATION OF AN AMBIENT
TARGET. IT IS SEPARATE FROM A PERMIT LIMIT.
-37-
-------
WHY
TWO NUMBER CRITERIA
z
o
CONCENTRAT
AMBIENT
PMC
VslVlVx
r»r»f*
Vrlsl*
1 1 1
ZONES
LETHALITY
CHRONIC
EFFECT
NO
EFFECT
10 20 30
TIME (DAYS)
WHY
TWO NUMBER CRITERIA
z
o
I-
<
oc
I-
z
UJ
o
z
o
o
UJ
CO
5
+
+
ZONES
LETHALITY
CHRONIC
EFFECT
NO
EFFECT
1O
20 30
TIME (DAYS)
-38-
-------
WHY
TWO NUMBER CRITERIA
ZONES
z
o
:ENTRAT
Z
O
H
AMBIEN
—
-4—
i
1
ccc
1 1
LETHALITY
CHRONIC
EFFECT
NO
EFFECT
10 20 30
TIME (DAYS)
-39-
-------
SIMPLE DILUTION
CALCULATION METHOD
TOXICITY IS INVERSELY
PROPORTIONAL TO
WET TEST ENDPOINTS
(NOEC, LCSO)
TOXIC UNITS (TU)
XTV
LC OR NOEC
TUa = Toxic Units ACUTE
TUC = Toxic Units CHRONIC
-40-
-------
STEADY-STATE WLA DERIVATION
PROCEDURE
Effluent Toxicity WLA <_ Criterion X Dilution Factor
where: criterion = 0.3 TUa for acute toxicity
1.0 TU for chronic toxicity
c
Dilution factor (d.f.) = the factor by which the effluent is
diluted in the receiving water
(A) When plant's water source is receiving stream
d.f. = Q.
s
TT
e
(B) When plant's water source is not the receiving stream
d.f. = Q + Q
Qs = receiving stream design flow
Qe = effluent design flow
-41-
-------
TOXICITY PERMIT LIMIT DEVELOPMENT
FACILITY: CHEMICAL COMPANY
LOCATION: —
PERMIT:
CAL- RIVER: 7010* 27.3 CFS
1010*11.1 CFS
PLANT FLOW: S47.000 QPO (OUTFALL 001) • 0.31 CPS
INSTBEAM WASTE CONCENTRATION (IWC)
IWC FOR 7010 (CHRONIC) • .
IWC FOR 1010 (ACUTE)'
ASSUMPTIONS:
(1) COMPLETE MIXINO-
(MIXINO ZONE WOULD RESULT IN MORE STRINGENT LIMITS)
(2) NO TOXICITY FROM UPSTREAM SOURCES
(3) ACUTI TO CHRONIC RATIO • 10
(4) COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION (CV) • O.t
DETERMINE WLA
WLA tojdc|ty = Effluent toxicity never to be
exceeded
Determined at worst-case conditions:
Q (critical stream flow - low flow)
""
(design effluent flow)
-42-
-------
o
<
DC
III
O
O
O
K
Z
III
IL
IL
IU
WLA
A
Permit Limit
ITMMOMT IT| «r If • 1.0v«i IM* CV.
LTA
TIME
CV = 0.6
Figure 5-4. Relationship of fcrait Liaila. Uasteload AJlocal ions,
and Long Tem Average for a Given Coefficient of Variation
CHRONIC WLA
STEP 1:
Convert Criteria (100% Stream after mixing =NOEC)
to TUC (acts like mg/L)
If NOEC = 100% Stream
x TU
-A3-
-------
CHRONIC WLA (cont.)
STEP 2:
Back-calculate WLA
WLA = 1 TUC x
CL = CL = 7Q1O low flow for stream
06 ^ critical
Q = effluent design flow
(+ Q, ) is added if source of water thru
plant is NOT the stream
SIMPLE DILUTION CALCULATION
CHRONIC
WLA + 1.0 IWC = 1.0C ) = %
NOEC
EFFLUENT STATEMENT
THE NOEC OF THE EFFLUENT USING A
SEVEN(7) DAY CERIODAPHNIA spp. TEST
SHALL BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN %
AT ANY TIME. THE NOEC AS REPORTED IN
TOXIC UNITS SHALL NOT EXCEED TUc.
-44-
-------
ACUTE WLA
STEP 1:
Convert Criteria <100% stream •" Mlxlne
to TUa (acts like mg/L)
If LCt = 100% Stream
x Tl^ = k -ipjpr- in Mixing Zone
Jt = conversion factor for -77^- to -j-^ — = 0.3
x TUa= 0.3 = 0.3 TUa in M. Z.
AC(/ff IVM (confj
STEP 2:
Back-calculate WLA
WLA = 0.3 TIL X ^ * ^ After Initial Mix
^ 9e
ri = CL =1Q10 low flow for stream
^ ^critical ^
Q = effluent design flow
(+ Q ) Is added If source of water thru plant Is NOT the stream
WLA = 0.3 TUa NO Initial Mix
SIMPLE DILUTION CALCULATION
ACUTE
WLA
LCso °3
EFFLUENT STATEMENT
THE LC OF THE EFFLUENT USING
A 96 HOUR CERIODAPHNIA spp. TEST
SHALL BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN %
AT ANY TIME. THE LC AS REPORTED IN
50
TOXIC UNITS (TU) SHALL NOT EXCEED TUa
-45-
-------
SIMPLE DILUTION CALCULATION
ACU_IEJLQ.CHRONICJACR)
WLA =IWCXACR= X10= %
AC
EFFLUENLSTATEMENT
THE LC OF THE EFFLUENT USING A
50
96 HOUR CERIQDAPHNIAjspp. TEST SHALL
BE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN %
AT ANY TIME FOR CHRONIC PROTECTION.
THE LC^S REPORTED IN TOXIC UNITS
SHALL NOT EXCEED TUc.
SIMPLE DILUTION CALCULATION
ACUTE
wllAr
IWC
BO
0.3 0.3
ACUTE TO CHRONIC (ACR)
WLA = IWC X ACR = X 10 = %
AC
CHRONIC
WLA = 1.0 IWC = 1.0( )= %
NOEC
SIMPLE DILUTION SUMMARY
RATIO
'VLANT
^IVEH
IWC
wlAc
so
wlAc
«H
100%
o -o
RIVER
100
333
1000
100
50%
0 -Q
R P
50
167
500
50
33%
O > 1/30
P
33
100
330
33
10%
0 • 10% 0
J> F
10
33
100
10
1%
0 • 1%0
P R
1
3.3
10
1
0.1%
0 • 0.1%0
P f
0.1
0.3
1
0.1
-46-
-------
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(Industrial)
This facility Is a textile plant which has been discharging at this site tor more
than 50 years. Form 2C states that the plant process Includes dyeing of
synthetic (acrylic) fibers (SIC code 22), up to 22,000 Ibs/day. The waste stream
for the facility; Including process water, boiler feedwater, non-contact cooling
water and sanitary water (120 people); is permitted for 0.1 mgd. The single
outfall discharge Into Smith Creek is 33% domestic waste and 67% Industrial
waste.
The treatment system Is comprised of two vibrating fine screens, an equali-
zation tank, activated sludge tank, chemical feed, f locculatlon, clarification and
disinfection. Plant wastewater contains the following pollutants (quantity
unknown): color, ammonia, organic nitrogen, nitrate, nitrite, phosphorus,
chloride, calcium, fecal coliform, iron, potassium, sodium, zinc, phenols,
surfactant, and chlorine. The compliance history of the facility is good.
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(Industrial)
PF X 100
IWC (%) =
PF + 7Q10
WHERE PF = PERMITTED FLOW (cfs) OF FACILITY
7Q10 = 10 YEAR, 7 DAY LOW FLOW (cfs)
OF THE RECEIVING STREAM
PERMITTED FLOW = 0.1 mgd ( 0.155 cfs)
7O10 = 0.3 cfs
IWC =
IWC =
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(Industrial)
There must be no observable Inhibition of reproduction or mortality at a %
effluent concentration using a seven day Ceriodaphnia test. Testing shall be
quarterly using 24 hour composite samples and in accordance with the
methods outlined In the North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic effluent bioassay
procedure (revised February 1987). Sampling shall be done In the months
of March, June, September, and December.
-47-
-------
A. ( ). trruuiKT LiHiTeTioNs AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ru.«i
During tke period b*(Umla( on the effective data of
Peralttee U OTtkorlJMd to «U*ck*rc« liam o«t(all(a) aerial
•ad xmltorad by tW Permittee •» aped fled balov:
D«llT
the
peralt and laatln* until crplriiloo tbe
r(a) 001. Each dUch*jtu ahell be
38.
tl.
FloM
100. 5D«y. 20 D*|'*** C
Tot* I Suspended letldue
NN3 •• N
Dleiolved Orygcn (•laiauei)
Fecal Colllora ((eoaetrlc Been)
COO *J» 0
Sulflde 2.4
rbenolt 1.2
Tot el Chroaiu*
Cooductlvlty
Tot el Nltioicn (N02 + HOJ + TIM)
Tot el Pbosphoiut
Tollclly
Priority Pollutant*
Other DpJt. (Sp«lfT)
72.8
200.9
678.0
4.8
0.100 MOD
2.0 at/1
S.O ag/l
1000.0/100 al
3.0 ag/l
J.O ag/l
2000.0/100
0.137 •(/!
••qmiriaaati
Haaamraaaat
Frequency
Cont Inuoua
2/aontb
2/aootb
2/aontb
Weekly
2/aoolb
2/aonth
2/aontb
2/aontb
2/aontb
Weekly
Weakly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annually
I eagle *Si
Type Locj
Recording
Coapoalte
Coapoalte
Coeipoaita
Grab
Grab
Coapoalt*
Grab
Grab
Coapot 1 1 a
Grab
Grab
Coaposlta
Covpoilt*
Coapot 1 1 e
a»»U
itloa
or I
. U. 0
. U. D
U. D
! D
locetloM: C - EffltMat. I - Uflaent. U - Upetreaa at 23rd Street. D - Dowutree* at
01 U«fca»7 U7
••Chronic TomIcIty (C.rlodaphnla) P/P at 341 . March. June. Sept«b«r and Dec..ber. See Part III.
tban 9.0 ateadud unit* and aball
Tbere .ball b* «o dUckerfe ol floatlm, aolld. or *Ulble foe. In otber tban trace e-oonta.
Condition Mo. C.
•*• t«*> Pert III. O-dltloo No. I.
Tb« pi ahall «ot IM lee. tkjtt 6.0 etaodard unit, nor greater
•ooltored weakly at tba effluent by grab aaapla.
-48-
-------
Part III
Pe r«lt No . NCOOOO*1 7
F. Toxlclty Reopcner
Thle permit shell be nodlfled, or revoked end reissued to
Incorporate toxlelty limitations end monitoring requirements in the
event toxlcity teatlng or other etudlee conducted on the effluent or
receiving etream indicate chat detrimental effecta may be exptcttd
In the receiving stream aa a reault of thle dlecharge.
C. Chronic Toxlelty Teatlng Requirement
The effluent dleeharge ahall at no elite exhibit chronic teilclty
uilng teat proceduree outlined In:
1. The North Carolina C££^p_da_£]in_la chronic affluent bioataay
procedure (North Carolina Chronic lloaaaay Procedure - Revised
•February 1987) or aubaequent versions.
The effluent concentration at which there may bt no obttrvable
Inhibition of reproduction or elgnlflcaot mortality ia 341 (defined
aa treatment two ia the North Carolina procedure document). The
permit holder ahall perform quarttrly monitoring uelng thle
proeedura to aatabliah compliance with the permit condition. The
flrat caat will be performed after thirty daya from iaauanee of this
permit during the montha of March, June, September and December.
Effluent aampllng for thle teetlng shall be performed at the NPDtS
permitted flaal effluent discharge balov all treatment processes.
All toxlelty testing results required as pare of thle permit
condition vlll be tnterad on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form
(MR-l) for the month in which It vaa performed, using the
appropriate parameter code. Additionally, D'.M For* AT-1 (original)
is co be aeac Co Che following addreea:
Technical Servicea Branch
Kerch Carolina Division of tnvlrenmantal Managtatnt
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Test data nhall ba complete and accurate and Include all supporting
chemical/physical •eaauremeata performed in assoclsclon with the
toxlelty caeca, as veil ae ell doss/response data. Total residual
chlorine must bo measured end reported If chlorine It employed for
disinfection of Che waate scream.
Should eay ceat daCa from this monitoring requirement or tests
performed by the North Caroline Division of Environmental Msnegtmcnc
indicate potentlel impaece Co Che receiving scree*), this pernlc nay
be reopened and modified Co Include alternate monitoring
requirements or llmlcatlona.
-49-
-------
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(POTW)
This facility Is a POTW which currently discharges 0.825 MGD through a
single outfall into Hannah Creek. The application form states that secon-
dary treatment of wastewater occurs via dual oxidation ditch wastewater
treatment facility with grit removal, communltor, bar screens, dual clarifi-
ers, chemical feed (lime), tertiary filters, post chlorinalion, and post aera-
tion. There are plans to Increase the plant capacity to at least 1.0 MGD.
This facility has an approved prctreatment program.
The facility receives 76% domestic waste and 24% industrial.
About 200,000 gpd of wastewater are treated from textile plant which
makes cotton and synthetic fiber cloths and surgical gowns.
Occasional noncompliance with various permit parameters; however,
none were recurring or significant.
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(POTW)
PF X 100
PF X 7Q10
Where PF = Permitted flow (cfs) of facility
7Q10 = 10 year, 7 day low flow of the receiving stream
Permitted flow = 1.274 mgd (1.97 cfs)
7Q10 = 0 cfs (Dry weather stream, effluent dominated)
IWC =
IWC =
State requirements allow a maximum instream waste concentration
(IWC) of 99%
NORTH CAROLINA PERMIT EXAMPLE
(POTW)
There must be no observable Inhibition of reproduction or mortality at a
% effluent concentration using a seven day Ceriodaphnia lest. Testing
shall be quarterly using 24 hour composite samples and In accordance
with the methods outlined in the North Carolina Ceriodaphnia chronic ef-
fluent bloassay procedure (revised February 1987). Sampling shall be
done In the months of March, June, September, December.
-50-
-------
A. HTUrnrT LIRITKTICNS MO MONITOR IMC RErjUIRFMDtTS - Final SUmer: April 1 - October 31
During the period beginning on the effective date of the permit and lasting until expiration or expansion,
the permittee la authorized to discharge fiom out fall serial nmbei - 001.
Such discharge shall be United and nonitoted by the permittee an specified below:
Effluent CraracterAfltlca
Plow
BOD. 5 Day. "20 C"
Total susp
Wj 8B N
Dissolved
Fecal coll
ttenldual Chlorine
fe«tjerature
total Nitrogen (Mlj
total Phosphorus
Doilcity
•rlority Pollutants
Total Lead
Mai Copper
totaj line
MaJ Chromium
onduct ivity
Mutations
Kg/day (Iba./day)
Monthly Avu. Meekly
C"
1 Residue**
jn (mlnlnie)
(geometric mean )
ine
(Ntlj « M>j 4 TUN)
IS
ants
Other Units (Specify)
HVCL. Monthly Ava. Weekly Avq.
0.825 MCD
5.0 «q/l 7.5 mg/1
30.0 mq/1 15.0 xq/l
2.0 XMJ/I 3.0 *q/l
6.0 ng/1 6.0 nq/1
1000. 0/100 ml 2000.0/100 nl
*•* •••
•••• ••••
0.025 xq/1**"*
Measurement
. PieuuencY
Cont Inuoua
Daily
Daily
Dally
Dally
rviily
Daily
n.iily
Hunt hi y
Monthly
Ouaiterly
Annually
Weekly
Mmthly
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Saeple
Recording
Covfiosite
ConiioGlte
Coifxnite
Grab
Crati
Oral)
Crab
Conixnite
Coifxisitc
Conposite
Cotmsite
Coifiosite
Co^itir.ite
Coifositc
Oiali
•Sa>f>le
Location
1 01 f.
I,E
I,E
E
E. (1,
E, U,
F
E, U.
e
E
E
F.
E
E
E
E
11, D
D
D
n
he pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 stantiaids unitn and shall be monitoiml
illy at the effluent by giab sanple.
fif r.hiill !«• no .liMlimc|e of floating sol irtn or vi.sitilr (mm in otliri th,m ti.n-e amnini::.
Facihiy Nimc .
Pirrrui*.
CHRONIC TOXICFTY TESTING REQUIREMENT (MONTHLY)
The effluem djicharge »h»U 11 no rime exhibit chronic lowciry uiing if n procedurei ouUmtd IT.
1.) The Nonh r.mlmi pjpodirhnu chronic effluent bioasuy procedure (Nonh Cirohni Chror.::
Biotsuy Procedun - Reviud 'Februtry 1987) or tubtequent venions.
The effluem concennbon it which there may be no observable inhibibon of reproducaon or
rifnificam monaliry U % (defined u Dtaanent two in the Nonh Carebna procedure
document). The permit holder shall perform manihl\ monitonn| uiin| ihn procedure to establish
compliance with tht permit condition. The Tint test will be performed within thirty days from
usuance of this permit. Effluem sampling for this testing »hall be perforoed at the NPDES
permitted final effluent discharge below all treatment processes.
All toijciry testing resulu required as part of this permit condition will be entered on the Effluent
Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month in which it was performed,, using the parameter
re<> TGP3B Additionally. DEM Fora AT-1 (original) is to be sent to the following address:
Anenbon: Technical Services Branch
Nonh Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Boi 27687
Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Ten data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemical/physical measurement
perfomd in association with the toxiciry tesu. as well u all dote/response data. Total retiduil
chlorine of the effluent toxiciry sample own be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
dinnfecbon of the waste nream.
Should any test data from this monitoring requirement or tests performed by the Nonh Carolina
Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts 10 the receiving stream, this
permit may be re-opened and modified to include alternate monitoring requirements or luniu.
NOTE: Failure to achieve ten conditions as specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall consoniie an invalid test
and will require tmmodiate retesang(wiihin 30 days of iniaal monitoring event). Failure 0 submit
notable test results will censbtuie a failure of perron condioon.
7Q10
Permj ted Flow
IWC%.
.cfs
.MOD
Recommended by:
Basin & Sub-basin.
Receiving Stream _
County
Date
••Chronic Toxiciry (Ceriodaphnia) P/F at %. See Pan Condioon .
-51-
-------
Facility Name Permit t
ACUTE Toxionr TESTING REQUIREMENT
Fuhcad Minnow 48 hr • Monthly Moniioiinf
The perminet thill conduct acute toxiciry csu on t oaolblx basis usin| protocols defined in
E.P.A. Document 600/4-85/Q13 entitled The Acute Toxiciry of Effluents to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms". The rooniiprini shall be performed as a Fathead Minnow fl>itneph«le<
pfomel»O 48 hour static test, using effluent collected ts a 24 hour composite. Effluent samples for
self-monitoring purposes must be obtained during representative effluent discharge belo» all * is:e
treatment. The first test will be performed within thirty days from issuance of this permit.
The parameter code for this test is TAA6C. All toxiciry csting results required as pan of this
permit condition will be entered on the Effluent Discharge Monitoring Form (MR-1) for the month
in which it was performed, using the appropriate parameter code. Additionally, DEM Form AT-1
(original) is to be sent to the following address:
Attention: Technical Services Branch
North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Test data shall be complete and accurate and include all supporting chemicaVphyiical measurement
performed in association with the toxiciry tests, as well as all dose/response data. Total residual
chlorine of the effluent toxicity sample must be measured and reported if chlorine is employed for
disinfecbon of the want swum.
Should any test data from either these monitoring requirements or tests performed by (he North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management indicate potential impacts to the receiving mam.
this permit may be re-opened and modified to include alternate monitoring raquirenvjin or limits
NOTE: Failure to achieve ten conditions ts specified in the cited document, such as minimum
control organism survival and appropriate environmental controls, shall constitute an invalid test
and will require immediate retestngt within 30 days of initial monitoring event). Failure to submit
suitable test results will constitute a failure of permit condition.
7Q10 efs
Permitted Flow MOD Recommended by:
IWC%
Basin & Sub-Basin
Receiving Stream
County Date
••Acute ToxiciryCFathead Minnow 48hr) Monitoring. Sec Pan . Condition
-52-
-------
TOXICITY PERMIT
LIMIT DEVELOPMENT
BY
STATISTICAL METHOD
USING TU
RATIONALE FOR USING THE
STATISTICAL APPROACH
• PROVIDES MECHANISM FOR SETTING
PERMIT LIMITS WHICH WILL BE
TOXICOLOGICALLY PROTECTIVE
• ALLOWS COMPARISON OF TWO WLA's
TO DETERMINE WHICH IS MORE
LIMITING
• PROVIDES A MEANS TO ACCURATELY
DETERMINE THE AVERAGE MONTHLY
PERMIT LIMIT
NOTE: PROCEDURE IS APPLICABLE
FOR ANY WATER QUALITY-BASED
EFFLUENT PARAMETER
APPROACH
LIMITS
4 WLA REQUIREMENTS
ASSUMPTIONS:
ALLOWABLE WLA EXCEEDENCE RATE
PARAMETER VARIABILITY CV
REQUIRED TREATMENT
SELECT LIMITING
REQUIREMENT
CALCULATE LIMITS
SPECIFICATIONS:
eXCECOCNCE PROBABILITY BASIS
BASIS FOR MONTHLY LIMIT
4
-53-
-------
STEADY-STATE WLA DERIVATION
PROCEDURE
Effluent Toxiclty WLA <. Criterion X Dilution Factor
where: criterion = 0.3 TU, for acute toxicity
1.0 TUc for chronic toxicity
Dilution factor (d.f.) = the factor by which the effluent Is
diluted In the receiving water
(A) When plant's water source Is receiving stream
d.f. = Q.
s
(B) When plant's water source is not the receiving stream
d.f. = Q +Q9
_ O 3
(C) Q, = receiving stream design flow
Q, = effluent design flow
PERMIT LIMIT DERIVATION
STEP 1: Convert WLAa to chronic toxic units (TUc)
WLAa(TUa)XACR = WLA^ (TUc)
where:
ACR (Acute-Chronic Ratio) = 10
if data Is unavailable
-54-
-------
LOUISIANA • PACIFIC CORPORATION
SAMOA PULP MILL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
• THE SAMOA PULP MILL IS A MARKET BLEACHED KRAFT PULP MILL
LOCATED NEAR THE COMMUNITY OF SAMOA, CA, ON THE SAMOA
PENINSULA IN HUMBOLDT COUNTY.
• DISCHARGES INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN CONSIST OF:
- PROCESS WASTEWATER FROM KRAFT PULPING. PULP BLEACHING.
AND PULP DRYING
- SOLIDS FROM RAW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
- POWER BOILER EFFLUENT
• SAW Mia EFFLUENT
- TREATED SANPTARY SEWAGE
"- STORM WATER
• DISCHARGES INTO HUMBOLDT BAY CONSIST OF:
- NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER
• STORM WATER
• EFFLUENT IS DISCHARGED FROM A 3200 FOOT OUTFALL THROUGH A
498 FOOT MULT1PORT DIFFUSER AT AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 41.5 FEET.
• BENEFICIAL USES OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN AND HUMBOLDT BAY:
- INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY
• NAVIGATION
- WATER CONTACT RECREATION
. NON-CONTACT WATER RECREATION
- OCEAN COMMERCIAL AND SPORT FISHING
- MARINE HABITAT
• FISH MIGRATION
• FISH SPAWNING
- SHELLFISH HARVESTING
LOUISIANA - PACIFIC CORPORATION
SAMOA PULP MILL
CALCULATION OF EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITS
I) Penan Plan
where:
C. = Effluent concentration limit
C; = Background seawater concentration
(Table C; Ocean Plan)
C. = Concentration to be met at completion of
Initial dilution (Table B; Ocean Plan)
Dm » Minimal probable Initial dilution
(part •eawater/part wastewater)
= 0.05 •(• 69(0.05-0)
= 3.5TU.
II) Toxlelty Limits Based on WLA Calculations
a)JA£ule: WLA. = (0.3 TU.) Dm a 1 day average
b).CJiiQQic: WLA. « (1.0 TU.) Dm as 4-day average
« TU.
-55-
-------
STEP 2: Calculate the long term average (LTA) required to
meet WLAs.
A) 1-Day (Acute) LTA:
LTA = exp(yu + 0.502)
where: u = ln(acute WLA in TUC) - z
-------
1
CMfflctontolVuwion
Figure 5-7. AMng* UontMy MimA UfflRf n • Function at uw CoaMetom of VuWlon.
gtep 1: CPleulale
Variability
CV = 6/8
where:
n = 52
JT = 3.223
B = 1.282
CVo
Step 2: Derive Performance for 1-Day
WLA Reaulrement
1)
where:
Z B 2.326 (99% confidence Interval)
LTA
0.5(7')
-57-
-------
B) 4-Day (Chronic) LTA:
LTA = exp(^ + O-So2)
where: ,
H = /i4 - 0.5*2 + 0.5ln(1 + [(e° - 1/4J)
/*4 = ln(chronic WLA) - z Vln(1 + [(e* - 1/4J)
z, CV,
-------
o
DC
I-
UJ
o
z
o
o
»-
z
Ul
u.
u.
Ill
WLA
— A
WL/
LTA
7 B
TIME
(Day.)
9 10 11 12 13 14 18
LTA
ui
TIME
Figure 5-4. Belftllonstilp of fVrall Lulls, Uuleload Allootlora
«J Long Tei» Average for a Given Coefficient ol Variation
e 44.39 TUe
LTA. = 9.100 TU.
= 91.00TU£
assume 1 TU. = 10TUC
44.39 < 91.00
therefore, LTAC (44.39) Is more limiting
-59-
-------
STEP 4: Derive Daily Maximum Permit Limits:
Daily Max. - exp(/*+ z
-------
Step 5: Deriving Permit Limits
LTA. » 44.39 TU.
CV »0.4
a • 0.3853
a) M •ln(LTAt)-0.5
b) Pally Maximum o exp (i*+ Zo);
where:
ZB 1.645 (95% confidence
Interval)
c) Using 4 samples/month
a«n 4'
e) Monthly Avaraga a exp (^ 4 2OJ;
where:
Z • 1.645
III) Summary: Effluent Toxlclty Limits for Louisiana-
Pacific
6-Month Monthly Dally
Parameter Units Median Average Maximum
Toxlclty TU. 3.5
Concentration
(Acute)
Toxlclty TU. 60 78
Concentration
(Chronic)
-61-
-------
MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS
1) FREQUENCY
• » 1/MONTHCACCOUNT FOR BATCH PROCESSING)
2) SAMPLING
• ORAB*- ACUTE
• COMPOSITE - CHRONIC
3) TYPE OF TEST
• ACUTE OR CHRONIC TEST IS DETERMINED
•Y THE TOXICITY LIMIT ITSELF
4) NUMIER OF TEST SPECIES
• INITIALLY THREE SPECIES FOR
SENSITIVITY IDENTIFICATION
• MOST SENSITIVE SPECIE FOR MONITORING
• RESIDENT vt STANDARDIZED SPECIES
- FALSE NEGATIVE RESULTS
' IF WASTE NOT PONDED AND WELL-MIXED BEFORE DISCHARGE.
THEN NEED FOUR S-HOUR COMPOSITES PER MONTH.
Tabl* 3-1
UAtt
VMM
Q»
SUMmflow
Al
i: 1O10
Ctmrte 7O10
unfls
Condition*
Voh»
Q«
N«M
Unto
Condiuom
VMM
Acutt: 0«O«
d.t.
OiUtonlaeiBr
Nont
Acutt: 0«0«
1* not teuM of
OfnU0fll Wltttf
AOUM: (O»«Q«VQ»
Chrorte: (O»*Q»)/O«
Pwtwttf
N«M
CendWon*
WLA
TUa
AOM: OJ«dJ.
TUo
Chrartc i.O-dJ.
-62-
-------
SECTION 4
TOXICITY LIMITS
-63-
-------
III. TOXICITY LIMITS
A. Toxicity and the Water Quality
Act of 1987.
EPA has authority to impose toxicity-based permit limitations
to implement both technology-based and water quality-based
requirements. As we argued in our initial brief, under section
502(6) of the Act, EPA is free to define "pollutant" to include
toxicity. EPA Br. at 93-95, moreover, "effluent limitation" in
section 502(11) is defined very broadly to allow the Agency
considerable discretion in determining how to reduce the discharge of
pollutants. EPA Br. at 91-93. As a practical matter, EPA has often
established limitations on pollutant parameters similar to toxicity
in effluent limitations guidelines and standards as well as in most
individual permits (both technology-based and water quality-based)
ince the very earliest water permits were issued. For example,
limitations on biochemical oxygen demand ("BOD"), chemical oxygen
demand ("COD"), pH, total toxic organics and total suspended solids
are commonly established and the courts have upheld these
limitations. See e.g.. Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA. 760 F.2d 549 (4th
Cir. 1985) (total toxic organics); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle; 590
F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (BOD); C&H Sugar Co. v. EPA 553 F.2d 280
(2d Cir. 1977) (BOD, total suspended solids); FMC Corp. v. Train. 539
F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976) (COD). Like effluent toxicity, these
parameters combine various constituents that might not be identified
individually. This approach to the regulation of pollutants is an
efficient and effective method of implementing the purposes and
directives of the Act. Indeed, it is sometimes the only feasible way
,.0 do so. EPA Br. at 92.
-65-
-------
EPA has been using toxicity-based requirements in permits for
some time, to implement both technology-based and water quality-based
controls. In 1984, the Agency issued a policy for water quality-
based controls that recommended the use of such limitations where
necessary. 49 Fed. Reg. 9,016 (March 9, 1984). Since the issuance
of EPA's 1984 policy, use of toxicity-based limitations have become
widespread.
Contrary to Industry petitioners' contentions, when the
overall purpose and explicit language of section 308 of the WQA is
read along with the Agency's pre-existing authority and practice,
strong support exists for EPA's regulation authorizing the use of
toxicity-based limitations in NPDES permits. Section 308 explicitly
recognizes biomonitoring techniques and assessments as a means of
controlling the discharge of toxic pollutants and thus endorses EPA's
position that toxicity-based limitations are authorized by the CWA.
Section 308(c) and (d), WQA. In recognizing the use of toxicity-
based limitations, Congress also endorsed existing EPA efforts.
Section 308(d) states that "nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit or delay the use of effluent limitations or other
permit conditions based on or involving biological monitoring or
assessment methods or previously adopted numerical criteria." The
clear implication of this statement was to clarify that while EPA and
the States were implementing the additional requirements imposed by
Section 308, they should not slow existing efforts to control toxic
pollutants.
Section 308 was enacted because the toxics problem was so
pervasive that certain waters were not meeting water quality
standards and existing State and EPA efforts were not adequate or
-66-
-------
"ast enough. Section 308 sets out specific deadlines and
requirements for controlling toxic pollutant discharges to surface
waters where water quality is impaired even after the imposition of
BAT. 14/ Thus, states are required to list waters which do not meet
their designated uses and develop and submit individual control
strategies ("ICS") for achieving those standards to EPA for approval
by February 4, 1989. Section 308, WQA; Section 304(1), CWA. If a
state fails to timely submit a strategy or if EPA does not approve
the strategy, EPA must, after notice and public comment, develop an
ICS which assures attainment of the water quality standard. Section
308(a), WQA; Section 304(1) (2), CWA. These new provisions build on
existing authorities for protecting water quality with the intent of
accelerating the control of toxic pollutants.
Congress also required states to adopt numerical criteria for
toxic pollutants listed pursuant to section 307(a) (1) of the CWA
where the discharge of those pollutants could interfere with
attainment of the designated use. Where numerical criteria are not
available, states must adopt criteria based upon biological
monitoring or assessment methods. Section 308(d), WQA; Section
303(c)(2), CWA. As noted above, section 308(d) also states that it
is intended not to delay existing efforts. One of these existing
efforts was the use of toxicity-based requirements. While not
explicitly authorizing the use of toxicity-based limitations, section
308(d) reflects this intent and implicitly recognizes that permit
14/ As Senator Moynihan stated in floor debates, "EPA has already
identified 34 of these areas which may require more stringent
ontrols than the best available technology standards currently
J08(d) reflects this intent and implicitly mandated by the Act." 133
Cong. Rec. S759 (daily ed. Jan. 14, 1987).
-67-
-------
limitations based upon biological monitoring or assessment methods
(i.e., toxicity-based limitations) may be an appropriate means to
protect water quality.
The placement of this statement in a provision containing
requirements to develop additional water quality criteria for toxic
pollutants is not inconsistent with this interpretation, contrary to
Industry's argument. Ind. Br. at 32. Congress recognized that
toxicity-based requirements may be an appropriate way of meeting the
requirement to adopt water quality criteria for toxics. But reading
this to allow the imposition of limitations only after the criteria
are adopted would be inconsistent with the last sentence in section
308(d), since it would allow or possibly force delays in the existing
water quality-based controls of toxic pollutants. Industry's reading
would thus make the last sentence of that provision meaningless.
Industry petitioners advance three reasons why section 308 of
the WQA supports the position that EPA has no authority to establish
toxicity-based limits under 40 C.F.R. S 125.3(c)(4) (1986). First,
Industry argues that the 1987 WQA provides no support for EPA's
claims that toxicity may be a means to implement technology-based
requirements. Second, Industry argues that EPA's regulation would
usurp the role of the states in establishing water quality standards.
Finally, Industry argues that the WQA supports their earlier position
that biological monitoring methods have not been adequately developed
enough to justify EPA's position in the regulation. Ind. Br. at 30-
37. Industry is incorrect in each argument. Rather, the WQA lends
strong support for EPA's toxicity-based regulation.
B. The WQA Supports EPA's Regulation That
Toxicity May Be a Means To Implement
Technology-Based Requirements.
-68-
-------
Industry argues that because the only references to effluent
limitations based on biological monitoring or assessment methods are
found in subsections 308(c) and (d) of the WQA which relate to water
quality criteria for toxic pollutants, such methods were not intended
to apply to technology-based effluent limitations under sections 301,
304(b) and 306 of the Act. Ind. Br. at 32. In advancing this
argument, Industry takes an unnecessarily cramped interpretation of
the overriding goals of section 308 of the WQA.
Section 308 of the WQA deals with water quality-based permit
requirements. The section clarifies that EPA has the authority to
use toxicity as a measure for pollution control. As stated above,
section 308(d) implicitly recognizes that toxicity-based limitations,
in the form of biological monitoring or assessment methods, is a
proper approach to the control and protection of the quality of the
nation's waters. This provision also supports the Agency's position
that toxicity is an appropriate parameter for technology-based
permits. Congress, by accepting the concept of toxicity-based
limitations for water quality-based permits, cannot be assumed, as
Industry does, to have rejected the use of the same types of
limitations in technology-based permits.
Also, EPA's broad authority to write toxicity-based limits as
a means to implement technology-based requirements is not only
supported by the purpose and structure of the WQA but also this
Court's recent opinion addressing several issues in this litigation.
In its partial opinion this Court rejected Industry's attack on the
validity of EPA's regulation at 40 C.F.R. S 122.21(g)(9) allowing EPA
to gather data on "any toxic pollutant which the applicant currently
uses or manufactures . . ."In rejecting Industry's challenge, the
-69-
-------
Court stressed that "toxic pollution stands high in the hierarchy
of Congress* environmental concerns," citing the 1972 and 1977
Acts. NRDC v. EPA, supra. slip op. at 26. The Court then focused
on the purpose behind EPA's regulation, issued under section 308 of
the CWA, as critical to carrying out the objectives of the Act. In
so holding, the Court noted that Industry's "crabbed
interpretation" of the Act "would hamstring the agency by limiting
its data-gathering function to information on toxic pollutants
already identified." Id. at 29. Rather, EPA's "legitimate
regulatory purpose" would be better served by the broad disclosure
requirement in the Act. Id. Similarly, Congress* re-emphasis in
the 1987 WQA on the need to address the toxics problem along with
establishment of specific procedures for developing and approving
toxics control strategies supports the reasonableness of EPA's
regulation allowing technology-based limits to be expressed in
terms of effluent toxicity.
C. The WQA Does Not Limit Toxicity to Establish-
ment of state Water Quality Standards.
Industry argues that 40 C.F.R. S 125.3(c)(4) would usurp the
role of the states in the water quality standard development
process as more precisely described in the WQA. Ind. Br. at 33.
Again, Industry reads the WQA's effect on this regulation much too
narrowly.
Under section 308 of the WQA, if a state does not submit a
timely plan or EPA finds a state plan inadequate, EPA is to develop
and promulgate an individual control strategy for the identified
area or areas within the state. Thus, Congress intended for EPA to
assume the state's responsibilities for developing ICSs to address
serious toxics problems if the state did not meet its
-70-
-------
esponsibilities. It simply would make no sense for the states to
have authority to use biological assessment methods in reviewing or
revising their water quality standards if numerical criteria are
not available, while at the same time prohibiting EPA from doing
the same thing in developing ICSs to cure a state's failure to
develop a timely or adequate plan. Indeed, the practical effect of
Industry's interpretation is that the Agency would be unable to
develop plans for states using overall toxicity limits where
individual numerical limits for highly toxic pollutants could not
be ascertained. The result would be that many complex toxic waste
streams which caused or contributed to a violation of state water
quality standards at certain "toxic hotspots" could not be
effectively regulated.
Moreover, section 301(b)(l)(C) of the CWA requires the
Administrator to make independent judgments with respect to the
limitations necessary to achieve state water quality standards.
Nothing in the WQA which allows states to use biological monitoring
or assessment methods in establishing water quality standards
directly or indirectly affects or limits this broad EPA authority.
D. The WQA Provides Support for EPA to Use
Biological Monitoring and Assessment
Techniques.
Finally, Industry argues that under section 308 of the WQA,
Congress recognized that biological monitoring methods had not been
adequately developed and that EPA may not utilize such methods
until it gathers information, consults with appropriate state
agencies and publishes information for establishing and measuring
vater quality criteria. Ind. Br. at 35-37. This is clearly not
the case.
-71-
-------
As we argued in our initial brief, EPA may employ toxicity
limits prior to the establishment of generally applicable test
methods. EPA Br. at 90. The WQA does not change this authority.
Section 308 merely requires EPA to publish guidelines and
information for the states on methods for measuring effluent
toxicity. Congress was recognizing that EPA, as the federal agency
with responsibility and expertise in water pollution, is the
appropriate agency to conduct this task as a way of assisting
states in developing individual toxics control strategies.
However, it does not translate into a requirement that nationally
applicable test methods must be in place prior to their actual use
by individual permittees. This is consistent with EPA's historic
position on section 304(h) of the CWA which authorizes EPA to
develop test procedure guidelines. If nationally applicable test
methods have not been adopted, individual test methods imposed in a
permit can be challenged on a case-by-case basis, but that does not
preclude their use in advance of completion of the national
rulemaking. Given primary responsibility of the states in
developing ICSs under section 308, it makes perfect sense for
Congress to require EPA to continue its development of toxicity
evaluation methods to assist states in the establishment and
revision of their water quality standards.
In short, the congressional directive to EPA to develop
assessment methods, including biological monitoring and evaluation
for toxic pollutants, in no way precludes EPA from using such
methods as envisioned in 40 C.F.R S 125.3(c)(4) on an individual
permit basis.
-72-
-------
IV. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTY AUTHORITY
FOR STATE PROGRAMS
The Water Quality Act of 1987 increases both the civil and
criminal penalty authority of the CWA. Section 313(b) of the WQA
raises the maximum civil penalty to $25,000 per day of each
violation, increased from the previous maximum of $10,000 per day.
Section 309(d), CWA; 33 U.S.C. S 1319(d). Section 312 of the WQA
raises the general penalty for knowing violations of certain Clean
Water Act provisions to a minimum of $5,000 per day/per violation
to a maximum of $50,000 per day/per violation. Section 309(c),
CWA; 33 U.S.C. S 1319(c). The former maximum criminal penalty was
$25,000 per day. 157
NRDC had challenged EPA's state program enforcement
-,aidelines for not requiring state programs to contain authority to
assess the maximum penalty amounts allowed under section 309 of the
CWA. At the time of the argument of this issue, the Clean Water
Act did not expressly or impliedly specify the extent of the
penalty authority which was to be included in state enforcement
programs. See EPA Br. at 256-260.
A. EPA is Not Required to Mandate Maximum
Civil Penalties for State Permit Programs.
With regard to civil penalties, the Water Quality Act
clearly provides that EPA is not required to mandate maximum civil
15/ Section 312 also expands the authority to assess criminal
penalties for negligent violations of certain CWA sections. New
subsection 309(c)(3) of the CWA establishes a $250,000 penalty for
knowing violation that places another person in imminent danger
death or serious bodily injury. Section 312 also raises prison
terms to felony levels, i.e.. in excess of one year.
-73-
-------
SECTION 5
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
-75-
-------
COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
NFORCEMENT
With Emphasis on Whole Effluent Toxlclty
E
QUESTION i1:
WHY DO WE NEED WHOLE-EFFLUENT TOXtCITY AS A
MEASURE OF EFFLUENT QUALITY? AREN'T CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
LIMITS ENOUGH?
LIMITATIONS OF
CHEMICAL SPECIFIC APPROACH
All waattwattr loilcanta may not b* known and. tnarafora, not
control IM.
Maaturtmantt of many Individual loilctntt cm bt aipcnalv* (e.g..
organic chamlealt).
Tna btoavallablllty of tht toilunt* ii not •«••«••().
Ttw Inttnctlon* b*tw**n toiletntt (t.g., xJdlllvlty) in not mMtunxl.
QUESTION K:
IF WHOLE-EFFLUENT TOXtCITY IS SO WONDERFUL. WHY
THE "INTEGRATED APPROACH"? WHY NOT REQUIRE WET
LIMITS IN LIEU OF CHEMICAL SPECIFIC LIMITS?
LIMITATIONS OF
WHOLE EFFLUENT APPROACH
PreptrtlM of tpKlflc chtmicf It «r» not t»i«t»»d, ».fl.
btoMCumulitlon.
EtRutnt toilelty trMtiolllly dtu an lacking; tnginacr* ar* mor*
fmlllar with dtalgnlng aytttma to tnMt apaci c cnamteala.
DOM not •eeount tor ehang*a In toslclty downatnam dut to
ehwnleal/priralcal oandltlona (t.g., pH change*, aallnlty cnangta.
photolrala. tic.)
QUESTION «.
LttiiT EFFLUEMTS BAS£D
-77-
-------
STATUTORY AMD REGULATORY CITES
Statute:
Section 101(a)
"The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters."
Section 101(a)(3)
Declaration of Goals and Policy - "it is the national policy
that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be
prohibited;"
Section 301(a)
"Except as in compliance with this section and sections
302,306,307, 318, 402, and 404 of this Act, the discharge of
any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful." - see
Section 502
Section 301(b)(1)(C)
'In order to carry out the objective of this Act there shall
be achieved not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent
limitation, including those necessary to meet water quality
standards...'
Section 302(a)
provides the authority to establish water quality-based
effluent limitations on discharges that interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of that water quality which shall
assure protection of public health, putlie water supplies,
and the protection and propogation of a balanced population
of shellfish, fish and wildlife.
Section 303(c)(2)(B)
authorizes the adoption of numeric water quality criteria
that are based upon biological monitoring or assessment
methods and the use of effluent limitations or other permit
conditions based on or involving biological monitoring or
assessment methods or previously adopted numeric criteria.
•Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or
delay th« us* of effluent limitations or other permit
conditions based on or involving biological monitoring or
assessment methods..."
Section 304(a)(8)
requires EPA to develop and publish information on methods
for establishing and measuring water quality criteria for
toxic pollutants including biological monitoring and
assessment methods.
Section 308(a)
authorizes the installation, use and maintenance of
biological monitoring methods by point sources, where
appropriate, for the development of effluent limitations or
the determination of compliance with such limitations,
prohibitions, or effluent standards.
Section 402
authorizes issuance of a permit for the discharge of any
pollutant, or combinations of pollutants (See Section 502),
upon the condition that the discharge meet all applicable
requirements and provisions of the CWA.
Section 502
"effluent limitation" is defined as 'any restriction...on
quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical,
biological, and other constituents which are discharged..."
"pollutant" is defined as '...industrial, municipal, and
agricultural waste discharged into water.'
"toxic pollutant" is defined as "those pollutants, or
combinations of pollutants, including disease-causing
agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion,
inhalation or assimilation into any organism, either
directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion
through food chains, will... cause death, disease,
behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations,
physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions in
reproduction) or physical deformations, in such organisms or
their offspring.'
"biological monitoring" is defined as 'the determination of
the effects on aquatic life, including accumulation of
pollutants in tissue, in receiving waters due to the
discharge of pollutants (A) by techniques and procedures,
including sampling of organisms representative of
appropriate levels of th« food chain appropriate to the
volume and the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the effluent, and (B) at appropriate
frequencies and locations."
-78-
-------
Regulation - 40 CFR
Section 122.2
'Whole effluent toxicity means the aggregate toxic effect of
an effluent measured directly by a toxicity test.
Section 122.44(d)
'In addition...each NPDES permit shall include conditions
meeting the following requirements when applicable...Water
quality standards and State requirements: any requirements
in addition to or more stringent than promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines or standards...necessary to:
(1) achieve water quality standards established under
section 303 of the CWA, including State narrative criteria
for water quality
(i) Limitations must control all pollutants or
pollutant parameters...which...may be discharged at a
level which will cause, have the reasonable potential
to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State
water quality standard, including State narrative
criteria for water quality...
(iv) (Numeric criterion for whole effluent toxicity)
(v) '...has the reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes to an in-stream excursion above a narrative
criterion..., the permit must contain effluent limits
for whole effluent toxicity...[except] where chemical-
specific limits for the effluent are sufficient to
attain and maintain applicable numeric and narrative
State water quality standards.'
QUESTION #7:
HOW ARE WET LIMITS ENFORCED?
The same principles apply to whole-effluent toxicity enforcement as
enforcement of chemical-specific limits.
PERMITTEES are responsible for:
Attaining,
Monitoring, and
Maintaining COMPLIANCE with their permits
(and for data quality)
REGULATORS are responsible for.
TRACKING COMPLIANCE with and
ENFORCING against violations of
permit requirements
These principles and the Integration of whole-effluent toxicity control Into the
compliance monitoring and enforcement process are embodied In the
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY FOR TOXICS
CONTROL
-79-
-------
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
PROCESS
1. Determining permit requirements;
2. Tracking compliance and determining violations;
3. Reporting and placing the violations in priority order; and
4. Determining appropriate response.
1. Determining permit requirements (or even enforcement order
requirements) may sound easy, but it isn't always. Permits may
be soundly written from a water-quality perspective, but difficult to
track (e.g., based on stream-flow, effluent flow, or even the Spring
thaw!). Others may just be poorly written:
CONSENT DECREE : WORDING IS
IMPORTANT
A POORLY WORDED EXAMPLE:
Beginning on the day that follows by two weeks the
last day of the next month following the date of entry
of this decree, and continuing thereafter on the
corresponding day of each subsequent month until
the termination of the decree shall
prepare and transmit a monthly report for the second
previous month.
-80-
-------
HOW DO WE DETERMINE COMPLIANCE?
SELF-MONITORING
DMR/QA PROGRAM
INSPECTIONS
CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
QA is an important aspect of whole-effluent toxicity control. Many
Regions and States are requiring complete reports on whole-
effluent toxicity tests as specified in the protocols. These reports
are then compared to QA checklists to make sure that the tests
fall within the parameters of the protocol. Any deviation from
these bounds (temperature, D.O., etc.) provide the basis for
requiring re-tests, or require more technical review (i.e., ESD
review) to determine whether or not the test was valid.
DMR/QA
Reference Toxicant Pilot Project
• New Jersey
• North Carolina
-81-
-------
PERMITTEE NAME/ADDRESS I/nr/n./r
r'm-iltr\ \.IMI,- l..,tin.-n if tliljrrrnt)
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (.
DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT
Farm Appnvtd.
OMB No. 2O4O-OOO4
NAME
(J-/6I
(17-19)
ADDRESS
FACILITY
LOCATION
FROM
PARAMETER
(32-37)
NOEL STATRE 7DAY CHR
CERIODAPHNIA
TBP3B 1 C 0
EFFLUENT GROSS VALUE
NOEL STATRE 7DAY CHR
CERIODAPHNIA
TBP3B 000
SEE COMMENTS BELOW
NOEL STATRE 7DAY CHR
PIMEPHALES
TBP6C 1 0 0
FFFT I1FNT flRCKC; VAT IIP
NOEL STATRE 7 DAY CHR
PIMEPHALES
TBP6C 000
SEE COMMENTS BELOW
CO
t*3
\
X
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
SAMPLE
MEASUREMENT
PEW
REQUIRI
NAME/TITLE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
TYPED OR PRINTED
g«T_._
LUU4T
(3 Card Only) QUANTITY OR
AVERAGE
******
******
******
DELMON
MONTH Mfi
******
******
******
DELMON
MONTH M>
'•
MONITORING PERIOD
YEAR
MO DAY YEAR
TO
(20-21) (22-23) (24-25) (2627)
LOADING
MAXIMUM
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
1 CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF LAW THAT
AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE INFORMATION
ON MV INQUIRY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS
OSTAINMG THE INFORMATION 1 BELIEVE
IS TRUE ACCURATE AND COMPLETE 1 AM
MFICANT PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING '
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINE AND IMPRISONMI
33 USC * 1319 iPrnallirm latdrr thrir ila/uf
and nr maximum impnwmmrri/ ttl rirtu+rtt 4 nt'in
UNITS
****
****
****
****
I HAVE PERSONALLY
SUBMITTED HEREIN AX
MMEOATELY RESPONS
THE SUBMITTED INF<
AWARE THAT THERE
ALSE INFORMATION It
[NT SEE 18 USC l<
rm ntav inrfarf* finr* up
th* and t \rrnr* i
(4 Card Only)
(38-43)
MO DAY
(28-29) (30-31)
QUALITY OR
(46-3 })
MINIMUM
9.6
MONTH AV
4.3
WKLY MN
9.6
MONTH AV
4.8
WKT Y MN
EXAMINED
ID BASED
8LE FOR
}RMATION
ARE SIC
*r\ ^/o<^f<; _ ...
"*»-^»«< rnxfirwrn 9-JU-ag
NOTE: Read Instructions before compiling this form.
CONCENTRATION
(34-61)
AVERAGE
******
******
******
DELMON
MONTH MN
******
******
******
DELMON
MONTH MN
^fi/i*"0. SIGNATURE OF PRINCIPAL
OFFICER OR AUTHORIZE
COMMENT AND EXPLANATION OF ANY VIOLATIONS (Rtfrnnce all ultuchmrnll lltrt)
MAXIMUM
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
******
UNITS
PERCEN1
PERCENT
PERCENT
PERCENT
NO.
ex
[62-63)
TELEPHONE
EXECUTIVE
D AGENT *»|*
NUMBER
FREQUENCY
OF
ANALYSIS
(64-64)
MNTHLY
MNTHLY
MNTHLY
MNTHLY
SAMPLE
TYPE
(69-10)
24 /COW
24 /COM!
24/COMI
24 /COM!
DATE
YEAR
MO DAY
TOXICITY TE?TING REPORTS SHALL BE ATTACHED TO AND SUBMITTED
THE DISCHARGE MONITORING REPORT. ALL SAMPLES SHAT T BE
TAKEN AFTEI E LAST TREATMENT UNIT PRIOR TO DISCHARGE INTO TI IVER. NOEL SHALL BE REPORTED AS PERCENT EFFLUEI
X Form 3320-1 (Rev. 10-79) PREVIOUS EDITION TO BE USED
EPA rauM T.ao WHICH MAY NOT BE uneo. >
PAGE
-------
• OOHLITT COMTtOL FXCT SHItT rg» 8tLT-B10MONlTORI»S
A^UTE/CHRONlt TOXICITY VEST DATfc
Parnit No. ftKOOPOOO1
Facility Haaa ftSCOflP.
Facility Location
Laboratory/Invaatlqator
Parnlt Raqulraaantai
^_^
feuttMk VJBt fU* tt6IM«0-
Saipllno; Location tHMt UWlT Typ« of 3a»pla 14 ifcOB OHP.
Llilt
Typa of Taat .
C55t VfWlt-H&e
Taat Raaultai fttm Oom.0)
LCSO/ECiO/^Otj)
Quality Control Suaaaryi
Data of Sacplai
T«it Duration 1 V*
CUftA, T..t Organiac 14* 7;t» >«.
951 Confldanca '.ntarval
Control Hortalltyi £. *2D t
Taaparatura aalntalnad within
Dataa of Taati uJTOMII T2<«ip«ratur«?
Dl*«olv«d otygcn L«v*l« «l.w«y« gr«*c«r than 40% ••turation?
Y" - "° -
5i »f »3 •"' ' " M*
Loadln9 factor for all aipoaura chaabara laaa than or aqual to
naiiiui allomd tor tha tait typa and ta«paratura? Yaa I
Do tha taat raaulta Indicata a dlract ralatlonahip batvaan attluant
concantration and raaponaa of tha taat or9anl«a (i.a.r aora daatha
occur at tha hlqhaat affluant concantratlonil? Vaa So
COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS
Inspections are conducted to:
• Verity permittee compliance
• Develop enforcement Information
• Respond to citizen complaints
• Support permit development
• Maintain a regulatory presence
• FOCUS ON OA
• REGIONS/STATES MUST HAVE CAPABILITY OF ASSESSING SAMPLE
COMPLIANCE
• RESERVE SAMPLING INSPECTIONS FOR PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT
PRIORITIES
-83-
-------
HOW 00 WE TRACK COMPLIANCE?
The PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEM
PCS FUNCTIONS
Tracks permit Issuance, relssuance, and appeal activities
Screens compliance data for effluent, schedu: •, and reporting
violations
Tracks enforcement responses
Automates QNCR preparation
Automates strategic planning and management systems reporting
Provides facility Information
Facilitates Inspection scheduling
PERMIT FACILITY DATA
-84-
-------
020 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
EVENT CODES
f TABLE-CD
001 CT Submit Toxlclty Evaluation Scop*
001 PA Submit Toxic Reduction Evaluation
002 CT Begin Toxlclty Evaluation Program
003 CT Proposed Toxic Reduction Treat Mod.
013 99 Submit Proposed Toxic Reduction Evaluation
019 99 Completion ot Toxic Reduction Evaluation
021 99 Toxic* Reduction Evaluation Plan
022 99 Toxlca Reduction Evaluation
101 08 1 st Bloassay Result
WET PARAMETER CODES
Rve digits, first one always a "T
Second digit reflects analytical end point /P/F*
J = % Mortality at % effluent
* Pass/Fail Conditions
Type of Test (circle appropriate):
A =• Static 48 hour ACUTE
B = Static 96 hour ACUTE
C = Static 4 day CHRONIC
D = Static 7 day CHRONIC
Static 24 hour ACUTE
M - Static Renewal 48 hour ACUTE
N - Static Renewal 96 hour ACUTE
0 = Static Renewal • lay CHRONIC
P = Static Renewal '. day CHRONIC
W - Flow-thru 48 hou: ACUTE
X - Flow-thru 96 hou: ACUTE
Y - Flow-thru 4 day CHRONIC
Z - Flow-thru 7 day CHRONIC
Test Species (circle appropriate):
1A " Selenastrum capricornuturo
IB - L minor
1C » Champia
3A - Arbacia
3B - Ceriodaphnia
3C ™ Daohnia maann
3D - Daohnia pulex
3E - Mvsidopsia bahia
3F " Oyster embryo
3G » Daphia species
6A = Cvprinodon varieaa
6B - Menidia
6C • Pimephales promelas
6D » Salmo pair
6E "» Lepomia macrochirus
-85-
-------
In PCS, effluent limits and measurements are tied to a pipe
schedule which specifies the pipe, reporting frequency (e.g.,
monthly DMRs), and limit effective dates. Whole-effluent toxicity
limits that are required on a different reporting frequency, or that
have different limit effective dates, or that change reporting
frequency or limit within the life of the permit require the
establishment of new pipe designators (act like separate pipes).
This can be confusing and time-consuming.
MORAL: Keep differences in reporting frequency and limit
effective dates to a minimum or be prepared for an increase in
mental illness (followed by sore throats (from screaming), a loss of
hair (from pulling it out), and increased head and stomach aches)
among the PCS community!
PCS coordinators
Region I
veronica Harrington
Ed Kim
CT
ME
Gail Suprin-Peplau
John Moulton
Region II
Ari Harris
George Nossa
NJ Terry Beym
NJ George Caporale
Region III
Edna Jones
PA
wv
Kenneth Okorn
Pravin Sangani
Region IV
Mike Donehoo
GA Billy Wayne Sykes
MS Warren Foster
SC Jerry Brown
TN Donald Ey
Region V
Arnie Leder
IL Ken Rogers
IN Jim Hayes
IN Gary Starka
MI Frank Baldwin
MN Dana Counts
OH Sandra Kemper
WI Mary Jane Ziegler
FTS/835-3525
(617/565-3525)
FTS/835-3720
(617/565-3720)
203/566-2719
207/289-7196
FTS/264-4707
(212/264-4707)
FTS/264-9850
(212/264-9850)
609/633-1199
609/984-4428
FTS/597-0441
(215/597- 1441)
717/787-U84
304/348 086
FTS/257-3973
(404/347-3973)
404/656-4708
601/961-5152
803/734-4600
615/741-7883
FTS/886-6702
(312/886-6702)
217/782-
317/232
317/232
517/373
612/296
614/644
608/266
•9720
•3591
•8694
•4624
-8709
-2837
-7775
-86-
-------
Region VI
Ruth Gibson
AR Joslyn Burleson
Region VII
Maryano Tremaine
IA Charles Furrey
KS Mike Tate
HO Dann East
HE Dennis Burling
Region VIII
Bill Murray
NEIC Regina King
KT Mike Pasichnyk
SO Dennis Rounds
UT Fred Pehrson
UT Bob Shipman
Region IX
Carey Houk
HI Charles Oumi
NV Joe Livak
Region z
Nancy Brown Brincefield
PCS Hotline
Sheila Frace
FTS/255-6450
(214/655-6450)
501/562-7444 X611
FTS/757-2817 X429
(913/236-2817) X429
515/281-4067
913/862-9360
314/751-7023
402/471-4230
FTS/564-1655
(303/293-1655)
FTS/776-2382
406/444-2406
605/773-3351
801/533-6146
801/533- 146
FTS/454-^271
(415/974-8271)
808/548-6355
702/885-4670
FTS/399-1389
(206/442-1389)
FTS/475-8529
(202/475-8529)
FTS/475-9456
(202/475-9456)
-87-
-------
REPORTING WHOLE-EFFLUENT TOXICITY VIOLATIONS
QUARTERLY
NONCOMPLIANCE REPORT (QNCR)
• Effluent limitations—with potential to impact water quality
• Compliance schedule milestones—90 days late
• Reports—30 days late or incomplete
SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE
• Effluent violations—with potential to impact water quality
• Compliance schedule milestones—90 days late*
o Submit TRE plan/schedule
<- Initiate TRE
•» Submit final TRE test results/Implementation plan
•» Start construction
^ End construction
4- Attain final compliance
• Reports—30 days late*
«• DMR
4- Final TRE report of progress (indicate permit compliance)
* All milestones and reports required by judicial actions
ENFORCEMENT OF WHOLE-EFFLUENT TOXICITY REQUIREMENTS
Initial review of self-monitoring reports leading to the review of
violations by someone responsible for enforcement:
VIOLATION REVIEW
ACTION CRITERIA = 1
Any violation of a Whole Effluent Toxicity Limit must be evaluated
Any monitoring results In response to "monitor only" requirements
must be evaluated
-88-
-------
HOW DO YOU REVIEW TOXICITY VIOLATIONS?
CONSERVATIVELY!
Remember assumptions made in permit limit derivation
. Variability of Effluent
• Monitoring Frequency
• Acute to Chronic Ratio
Consider importance of a prompt response
- Time needed to determine cause/eliminate toxicity
- Is stream near (or soon may be) low flow conditions?
Do you have definitive data, or just a pass/fail result?
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
INFORMAL
Telephone Call
Warning Letter
S308 Letter
FORMAL
Administrative
Order (AO)
Judicial Order
Civil/Criminal
WHAT SHOULD WE REQUIRE IN AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION?
Same first step as with any violation:
GET INFORMATION ON THE VIOLATION
Require More Monitoring if necessary
Remind permittee of violation reporting
requirements
40 CFR Section 122.41 (1)(6&7)
Reporting Requirements. The permittee shall report any noncompliance which
may endanger health or the environment Any information shall be provided
orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the
time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission
shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its clause: the period of
noncompliance, including exact dates and limes, and if u*e noncompliance has not
been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue: and steps taken or
planned to reduce, eliminate and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance."
-89-
-------
HOW DO PERMITTEES IDENTIFY THE SOURCE OF THE TOXICITY -
AND ITS TREATABILITY?
GENERALIZED TRE FLOWCHART
Information and Data
Acquisition
Facility Operation and
Maintenance Evaluation
Toxlclty Identification
Evaluation
Toxlclty Treatabillty Evaluation | | Source Invattlgatlon |
Control Method Selection
and Implementation
Follow-Up and Confirmation
TRE GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
To assist permittees in conducting TREs and achieving compliance with
whole effluent toxicity limits, US-EPA has developed a series of five guidance
documents:
o Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations
Phase I Toxicity Characterization Procedures
(EPA/600/3-88/034)
Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures
(EPA/600/3-88/035)
Phase ID Toxicity Confirmation Procedures
(EPA/600/3-88/036)
o Generalized Methodology for Conducting Industrial Toxicity Reduction
Evaluations
(EPA/600/2-88/070)
o Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Protocol for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants
(EPA/600/2-88/062)
-90-
-------
WHAT MECHANISMS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REQUIRING A TRE?
PERMIT - can require monitoring, establish effluent limitations, and require any
and all phases of a TRE, Including construction.
SECTION 308 LETTER • can require monitoring and the first phases of a TRE
(toxlclty source and treatabillty studies, not construction).
SECTION 309 ORDERS, JUDICIAL DEGREES - can require monitoring and any
and all phases of a TRE, Including construction, BUT ONLY IN RESPONSE
TO A PERMIT VIOLATION!
NOTE: Only permits may require a compliance schedule for construction
or other corrective measures in advance of the effective date of a whole-
effluent limit In the permit.
HOW DO YOU REQUIRE A TRE? (language)
- Easier If you have some Information In advance (require as much as
possible Informally)
• Make sure you have a FINAL COMPLIANCE DATE
(It may be your last strong-hold)
- Remember It lathe PERMITTEE'S responsibility to solve their problem
(EPA Is providing the protocols and some assistance thru NETAC, BUT we do
not have Infinite Don Mounts, Fred Bishops, BUI Peltiers, Corney Webbers, etc.,
etc.)
HELP!
MODEL LITIGATION
GUIDANCE
• Anticipated defense* with responses
• Statutory end regulatory cites
• Model complaint alleging wet monitoring and limit violations
• Model consent decree requiring TRE
-91-
-------
ENFORCEMENT CASES
NRDC v. EEA., 859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1988)
The court upheld EPA regulations which authorize the use of
effluent limits framed in terms of toxicity.
Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA. 760 F.2d 549 (4th Cir. 1985);
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle. 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C. Cir. 1978);
C&H Sugar Co. v. EPA. 553 F.2d 280 (2nd Cir. 1977);
FMC Corp. v. Train. 539 F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976); and
BASF Wvandotte v. Costle. 598 F.2d 651 (1st Cir. 1979)
The courts upheld other water characteristics (BOD, TTO,
TSS, COD) as permit limits.
Champion International Corp. v. EPA. 648 F. Supp. 1398 (W.D.N.C.
1987)
The court upheld EPAs authority to object to permits which
do not contain conditions adequate to achieve approved state
water quality standards.
Trustees for Alaska v. EPA. 749 F.2d 549, 557 (4th Cir. 1984)
The court found that EPA as permit writer is required to
establish whatever permit limits are necessary to achieve water
quality standards.
API v. EPA. 787 F.2d 978 (5th Cir. 1986)
The court upheld EPAs use of a 96-hour i :.„ as the most
widely accepted benchmark for toxicity evaluations by EPA and
sustained EPAs choice of the test for limiting effluent "mud"
(drilling fluid) toxicity.
BASF Wvandotte v. Costle. 598 F.2d 647-50, 655 (1st Cir. 1979);
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe. 401 U.S. 402, 416,
91 S.Ct. 814, 824, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971);
Permian Basin Area Rate Cases. 390 U.S. 747, 810-11, 88 S.Ct.
1344, 1382-83, 20 L.Ed.2d 312 (1968); and
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council. 462 U.S. 87, 103 (1983)
The courts deferred to the Agency's judgement in the
settlement of technical issues.
Given the on-going nature of enforcement of water quality-
based permit requirements, it is recommended that updated
information be researched by the reader through available means
such as the use of LEXIS.
-92-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
! WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
^~^/ January 25, 1989
OFFICE OF
WATER
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT : Jfhole Effluent Toxicity Basic Permitting Principles and
f oiforceraent Strategy
-_
FROM: Rebecca W. Hanmer, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
TO: Regional Administrators
Since the issuance of the "Policy for the Development of
Water Quality-based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants" in
March of 1984, the Agency has been moving forward to provide
technical documentation to support the integrated approach of
using both chemical and biological methods to ensure the
protection of water quality. The Technical Support Document for
ter Quality-based Toxics Control (September, 1965) and the
,
-------
Water Enforcement and Permits. This expanded guidance will
include sample permit language and permitting/enforcement
scenarios.
Concurrent with this issuance of the Basic Permitting
Principles, I am issuing the Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Strategy for Toxics Control (Attachment 2). This
Strategy was developed by a workgroup of Regional and State
enforcement representatives and has undergone an extensive
comment period. The Strategy presents the Agency's position on
the integration of toxicity control into the existing National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance and
enforcement program. It delineates the responsibilities of the
permitted community and the regulatory authority. The Strategy
describes our current efforts in compliance tracking and quality
assurance of self-monitoring data from the permittees. It
defines criteria for review and reporting of toxicity violations
and describes the types of enforcement options available for the
resolution of permit violations.
In order to assist you in the management of whole effluent
toxicity permitting, the items discussed above will join the 1984
Policy as Appendices to the revised Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-based Toxics Control.To summarize,these
materials are the Basic Permitting Principles, sample permit
language, the concepts illustrated through the permitting and
enforcement scenarios, and the Enforcement Strategy. I hope
these additions will provide the needed framework to integrate
the control of toxicity into the overall NPDES permitting
program.
I encourage you and your staff to discuss these documents
and the 1984 Policy with your States to further their efforts in
the implementation of EPA's toxics control initiative.
If you have any questions on the attached materials, please
contact James Elder, Director of the Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits, at (FTS/202) 475-8488.
Attachments
cc: ASWIPCA
Water Management Division Directors
-94-
-------
BASIC PERMITTING PRINCIPLES FOR WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
1. Permits must be protective of water quality.
a. At a minimum, all major permits and minors of
concern must be evaluated for potential or known
toxicity (chronic or acute if more limiting).
b. Final whole effluent toxicity limits must be
included in permits where necessary to ensure
that State Water Quality standards are met.
These limits must properly account for effluent
variability, available dilution, and species
sensitivity.
2. Permits must be written to avoid ambiguity and ensure
enforceability.
a. Whole effluent toxicity limits must appear in Part I
of the permit with other effluent limitations.
b. Permits contain generic re-opener clauses which
are sufficient to provide permitting authorities
the means to re-open, modify, or reissue the
permit where necessary. Re-opener clauses covering
effluent toxicity will not be included in the
Special Conditions section of the permit where
they imply that limit revision will occur based
on permittee inability to meet the limit. Only
schedules or other special requirements will be
added to the permit.
c. If the permit includes provisions to increase
monitoring frequency subsequent to a violation, it
must be clear that the additional tests only deter-
mine the continued compliance status with the limit;
they are not to verify the original test results.
d. Toxicity testing species and protocols will be
accurately referenced/cited in the permit.
3. Where not in compliance with a whole effluent toxicity
limit, permittees must be compelled to come into compliance
with the limit as soon as possible.
a. Compliance dates must be specified.
b. Permits can contain requirements for corrective
actions, such as Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
(TREs), but corrective actions cannot be delayed
pending EPA/State approval of a plan for the
corrective actions, unless State regulations
require prior approval. Automatic corrective
actions subsequent to the effective date of a final
whole-effluent toxicity limit will not be included
in the permit.
-95-
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Explanation of the Basic Permitting Principles
The Basic Permitting Principles present the minimum
acceptable requirements for whole-effluent toxicity permitting.
They begin with a statement of the goal of whole-effluent
toxicity limitations and requirements: the protection of water
quality as established through State numeric and narrative Water
Quality Standards. The first principle builds on the Technical
Support Document procedures and the draft Section 304(1) rule
requirements for determining potential to violate Water Quality
Standards. It requires the same factors be considered in setting
whole-effluent toxicity based permits limits as are used to
determine potential Water Quality Standards violations. It
defines the universe of permittees that should be evaluated for
potential violation of Water Quality Standards, and therefore
possible whole-effluent limits, as all majors and minors of
concern.
The second permitting principle provides basic guidelines
for avoiding ambiguities that may surface in permits. Whole-
effluent toxicity limits should be listed in Part I of the permit
and should be derived and expressed in the same manner as any
other water quality-based limitations (i.e., Maximum Daily and
Average Monthly limits as required by Section 122.45(d)).
In addition, special re-opener clauses are generally not
necessary, and may mistakenly imply that permits may be re-opened
to revise whole-effluent limits that are violated. This is not
to imply that special re-opener clauses are never appropriate.
They may be appropriate in permits issued to facilities that
currently have no known potential to violate a Water Quality
Standard; in these cases, the permitting authority may wish to
stress its authority to re-open the permit to add a whole-
effluent limit in the event monitoring detects toxicity.
Several permittees have mistakenly proposed to conduct
additional monitoring subsequent to a violation to "verify" their
results. It is not possible to verify results with a subsequent
test whether a new sample or a split-sample which has been stored
(and therefore contains fewer volatiles) is used. For this
reason, any additional monitoring required in response to a
violation must be clearly identified as establishing continuing
compliance status, not verification of the original violation.
-96-
-------
The second principle also deals with the specification of
"test species and protocol. Clearly setting out the requirements
for toxicity testing and analysis is best done by accurately
referencing EPA's most recent test methods and approved
equivalent State methods. In this way, requirements which have
been published can be required in full, and further advances in
technology and science may be incorporated without lengthy permit
revisions.
The third and final permitting principle reinforces the
responsibility of the permittee to seek timely compliance with
the requirements of its NPDES permit. Once corrective actions
have been identified in a TRE, permittees cannot be allowed to
delay corrective actions necessary to comply with water quality-
based whole effluent toxicity limitations pending Agency review
and approval of voluminous reports or plans. Any delay on the
part of the permittee or its contractors/agents is the
responsibility of the permittee.
The final principle was written in recognition of the fact
that a full-blown TRE may not be necessary to return a permittee
to compliance in all cases, particularly subsequent to an initial
TRE. As a permittee gains experience and knowledge of the
operational influences on toxicity, TREs will become less
important in the day to day control of toxicity and will only be
required when necessary on a case-specific basis.
-97-
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
Background to the Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Strategy for Toxics Control
The Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Strategy for
Toxics Control sets forth the Agency's strategy for tracking
compllance with and enforcing whole-effluent toxicity monitoring
requirements, limitations, schedules and reporting requirements.
The Strategy delineates the respective responsibilities of
permittees and permitting authorities to protect water quality
through the control of whole-effluent toxicity. It establishes
criteria for the review of compliance data and the quarterly
reporting of violations to Headquarters and the public. The
Strategy discusses the integration of whole-effluent toxicity
control into our existing inspection and quality assurance
efforts. It provides guidelines on the enforcement of whole-
effluent toxicity requirements.
The Strategy also addresses the concern many permittees
share as they face the prospect of new requirements in their
permit - the fear of indiscriminate penalty assessment for
violations that they are unable to control. The Strategy
recognizes enforcement discretion as a means of dealing fairly
with permittees that are doing everything feasible to protect
water quality. As indicated in the Strategy, this discretion
deals solely with the assessment of civil penalties, however, and
is not an alternative to existing procedures for establishing
relief from State Water Quality Standards. The Strategy focuses
on the responsibility of the Agency and authorized States to
require compliance with Hater Quality Standards and thereby
ensure protection of existing water resources.
-98-
-------
01/19/89
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
FOR TOXICS CONTROL
I. Background
Issuance of NPDES permits now emphasizes the control of toxic
pollutants, by integrating technology and water quality-based
permit limitations, best management practices for toxic discharges,
sludge requirements, and revisions to the pretreatment implementa-
tion requirements. These requirements affect all major permittees
and those minor permittees whose discharges may contribute to
Impairment of the designated use for the receiving stream. The
goal of permitting is to eliminate toxicity in receiving waters
that results from industrial and municipal discharges.
Major industrial and municipal permits will routinely contain
water quality-based limits for toxic pollutants and in many cases
whole effluent toxicity derived from numerical and narrative
water quality standards. The quality standards to establish NPDES
permit limits are discussed in the "Policy for the Development of
Water Quality-based Permit Limits for Toxic Pollutants," 49FR 9016,
4arch 9, 1984. The Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
rased Toxics Control, EPA 1440/44-85032, September, 1985 and the
P«
Pollutants, Office of Water, May, 1987, provide guidance for inter-
*crmit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-based Permitting for Toxic
£
preting numerical and narrative standards and developing permit
limits.
The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987 (PL 100-4, February 4,
1987) further directs EPA and the States to identify waters that
require controls for toxic pollutants and develop individual
control strategies including permit limits to achieve control of
toxics. The WQA established deadlines, for individual control
strategies (February 4, 1989) and for compliance with the toxic
control permit requirements (February 4, 1992). This Strategy
will support the additional compliance monitoring, tracking, evalu-
ation, and enforcement of the whole effluent toxicity controls
that will be needed to meet the requirements of the WQA and EPA'a
policy for water quality-based permitting.
It is the goal of the Strategy to assure compliance with
permit toxicity limits and conditions through compliance inspec-
tions, compliance reviews, and enforcement. Water quality-based
limits may include both chemical specific and whole effluent toxi-
city limits. Previous enforcement guidance (e.g., Enforcement
Management System for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, September, 1986; National Guidance for Oversight of NPDES
rograms, May, 1987; Guidance for Preparation of Quarterly and
ami-Annual Noncompliance Reports, March, 1986) has dealt with
-99-
-------
chemical-specific water quality-based limits. This Strategy will
focus on whole effluent toxicity limits. Such toxicity limits may
appear in permits, administrative orders, or judicial orders.
II. Strategy Principles
This strategy is based on four principles!
1) Permittees are responsible for attaining, monitoring,
and maintaining permit compliance and for the quality
of their data.
2) Regulators will evaluate self-monitoring data quality
to ensure program integrity.
3) Regulators will assess compliance through inspections,
audits, discharger data reviews, and other independent
monitoring or review activities.
4) Regulators will enforce effluent limits and compliance
schedules to eliminate toxicity.
III. Primary Implementation Activities
In order to implement this Strategy fully, the following
activities are being initiated}
A. Immediate development
1. The NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual was
revised in May 1988 to include procedures for
performing chronic toxicity tests and evaluating
toxicity reduction evaluations. An inspector
training module was also developed in August
1988 to support inspections for whole effluent
toxicity.
2. The Permit Compliance System (the national NPDES
data base) was modified to allow inclusion
of toxicity limitations and compliance schedules
associated with toxicity reduction evaluations.
The PCS Steering Committee will review standard
data elements and determine if further modifi-
cations are necessary.
3. Compliance review factors (e.g., Technical
Review Criteria and significant noncompliance
definitions) are being proposed to evaluate
violations and appropriate response.
4. A Quality Assurance Fact Sheet has been developed
(Attached) to review the quality of toxicity test
results submitted by permittees.
-100-
-------
5. The Enforcenent Response Guide in the Enforcement
Management System will be revised to cover the use
of administrative penalties and other responses to
violations of toxicity controls in permits. At
least four types of permit conditions are being
examinedi (1) whole-effluent tozicity monitoring
(sampling and analysis). (2) whole effluent
toxicity-based permit limits, (3) schedules to
conduct a TRE and achieve compliance with water
quality-based limits* and (4) reporting requirments.
B. Begin development in Spring 1989
With the assistance of the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Monitoring (OECM), special remedies and model forms
will be developed to address violations of tozicity permit
limits (i.e., model consent decrees, model complaints, revised
penalty policy, model litigation reports, etc.)
IV. Scope and Implementation of Strategy
A. Compliance Tracking and Review
1. Compliance Tracking
The Permits Compliance System (PCS) will be
used as the primary system for tracking limits and
monitoring compliance with the conditions in NPDES
permits. Many new codes for toxicity testing have
already been entered into PCS. During FY 89, head-
quarters will provide additional guidance to Regions
and States on PCS coding to update existing documenta-
tion. The Water Enforcement Data Base (WENDB)
requirements as described in the PCS Policy Statement
already require States and Regions to begin
incorporating toxicity limits and monitoring information
into PCS.
In addition to guidance on the use of PCS,
Headquarters has prepared guidance in the form
of Basic Permitting Principles for Regions and
States that will provide greater uniformity
nationally on approaches to toxicity permitting.
One of the major problems in the tracking and
enforcement of toxicity limits is that they differ
greatly from State-to-State and Region-to-Region.
The Permits Division and Enforcement Division in
cooperation with the PCS Steering Committee will
establish standard codes for permit limits and
procedures for reporting toxicity results based on
this guidance.
-101-
-------
Whole effluent toxicity self-monitoring data
•hould undergo an appropriate quality review. (See
attached checklist for suggested toxieity review
factors.) All violations of permit limits for
toxics control should be reviewed by a professional
qualified to assess the noncompliance. Regions and
States should designate appropriate staff.
2. Compliance Review
Any violation of a whole effluent toxieity
limit is of concern to the regulatory agency and
should receive an immediate professional review.
In terms of the Enforcement Management System (EMS),
any whole effluent violation will have a violation
review action criterion (VRAC) of 1.0. However, the
appropriate initial enforcement response may be to
require additional monitoring and then rapidly
escalate the response to formal enforcement if the
noncompliance persists. Where whole effluent
toxieity is based on a pass-fail permit limitation,
any failure should be immediately targeted for
compliance inspection. In some instances, assessment
of the compliance status will be required through
issuance of Section 308 letters and 309(a) orders to
require further toxieity testing.
Monitoring data which is submitted to fulfill
a toxieity monitoring requirement in permits that do
not contain an independently enforceable whole-effluent
toxieity limitation should alao receive immediate
professional review.
The burden for testing and biomonitoring is on
the permittee; however, in some instances, Regions and
States may choose to respond to violations through
sampling or performance audit inspections. When an
inspection conducted in response to a violation identi-
fies noncompliance, the Region or State should
initiate a formal enforcement action with a compliance
schedule, unless remedial action is already required
in the permit.
B. Inspections
EPA/State compliance inspections of all major permittees
on an annual basis will be maintained. For all facilities
with water quality-based toxic limits, such inspections should
include an appropriate toxic component (numerical and/or
whole effluent review). Overall the NPDES inspection and
data quality activities for toxics control should receive
greater emphasis than in the present inspection strategy.
-102-
-------
1. Regional/State Capability
The EPA'* 'Policy for the Developnent of Water
Quality-baaed Permit Limits for Toxic Pollutants"
(March 9, 1984 Federal Register) states that EPA
Regional Administrators will assure that each
Region has the full capability to conduct water
quality assessments using both biological and chemi-
cal methods and provide technical assistance to the
States. Such capability should also be maintained
for compliance biomonitoring inspections and toxics
sampling inspections. This capability should include
both inspection and laboratory capability.
2. Use of Nonsampling Inspections
Nonaampling inspections as either compliance
evaluations (CEIs) or performance audits (PAIs) can
be used to assess permittee self-monitoring data
involving whole effluent toxicity limits, TREs, and
for prioritization of sampling inspections.* As
resources permit, PAIs should be used to verify
biomonitoring capabilities of permittees and
contractors that provide toxicity testing self-
monitoring data.
3. Quality Assurance
All States are encouraged to develop the
capability for acute and chronic toxicity tests
with at least one fish and one invertebrate species
for freshwater and saltwater if appropriate. NPDES
States should develop the full capability to assess
compliance with the permit conditions they establish.
EPA and NPDES States will assess permittee
data quality and require that permittees develop
quality assurance plans. Quality assurance plans
must be available for examination. The plan should
include methods and procedures for toxicity testing
and chemical analysis; collection, culture, mainte-
nance, and disease control procedures for test
organisms; and quality assurance practices. The
Due to resource considerations, it is expected that sampling
inspections will be limited to Regional/State priorities in
enforcement and permitting. Routine use of CEIs and PAIs should
provide the required coverage.
-103-
-------
permittee should also have available quality control
charts, calibration records, raw test data, and
culture records.
In conjunction with the QA plans, EPA will
evaluate permittee laboratory performance on EPA
and/or State approved methods. This evaluation is
an essential part of the laboratory audit process.
EPA will rely on inspections and other quality
assurance measures to maintain data quality. However,
States may prefer to implement a laboratory certifi-
cation program consistent with their regulatory
authorities. Predetermined limits of data accepta-
bility will need to be established for each test
condition (acute/chronic), species-by-species.
C. Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREs)
TREs are systematic investigations required of permittees
which combine whole effluent and/or chemical specific testing
for tozicity identification and characterization in a planned
sequence to expeditiously locate the source(s) of tozicity and
evaluate the effectiveness of pollution control actions and/or
inplant modifications toward attaining compliance with a permit
limit. The requirement for a TRE is usually based on a
finding of whole effluent toxicity as defined in the permit.
A plan with an implementation schedule is then developed to
achieve compliance. Investigative approaches include
causative agent identification and toxicity treatability.
1. Requiring TRE Plans
TRE's can be triggered: 1) whenever there is a
violation of a toxicity limit that prompts enforcement
action or 2) from a permit condition that calls for a
toxicity elimination plan within a specified time
whenever toxicity is found. The enforcement action
such as a 309(a) administrative order or State
equivalent, or judicial action then directs the
permittee to take prescribed steps according to a
compliance schedule to eliminate the toxicity. This
schedule should be incorporated into the permit, an
administrative order, or judicial order and compliance
with the schedule should be tracked through PCS.
2. Compliance Determination Pollowup
Compliance status must be assessed following the
accomplishment of a TRE plan using the most effi-
cient and effective methods available. These methods
include site visits, self-monitoring, and inspections.
-104-
-------
Careful attention to quality assurance will assist in
minimising the regulatory burden. The method of
compliance assessment should be determined on a
case-by-case basis.
D. Enforcing Toxic Control Permit Conditions
Enforcement of toxic controls in permits depends upon a
clear requirement and the process to resolve the noncompli-
ance. In addition to directly enforceable whole effluent
limits (acute and chronic, including absolute pass-fail
limits), permits have contained several other types of
toxic control conditions! 1) "free from" provisions,
2) schedules to initiate corrective actions (such as TREs)
when toxicity is present, and/or 3) schedules to achieve
compliance where a limit is not currently attained.
Additional requirements or schedules may be developed
through 308 letters, but the specific milestones should be
incorporated into the permit, administrative order or
State equivalent mechanism, or judicial order to ensure
they are enforceable.
1. The Quarterly Noncompliance Report (QNCR)
Violations of permit conditions are tracked and
reported as follows:
a. Effluent Violations
Each exceedance of a directly enforceable whole
effluent toxicity limit is of concern to the
regulatory agency and, therefore, qualifies
as meeting the VRAC requiring professional
review (see section IV.A.2.).
These violations must be reported on the QNCR
if the violation is determined through profes-
sional review to have the potential to have
caused a water quality impact.
All QNCR-reportable permit effluent violations
are considered significant noncompliance (SNC).
b. Schedule Violations
Compliance schedules to meet new toxic controls
should be expeditious. Milestones should be
established to evaluate progress routinely and
minimize delays. These milestones should be
tracked and any slippage of 90 days or more
must be reported on the QNCR.
-105-
-------
The following milestones are considered SNC when
90 days or more overdue: submit plan/schedule
to conduct TRE, initiate TRE, submit test results,
submit implementation plan/schedule (if appro-
priate), start construction, end construction,
and attain compliance with permit.
c. Reporting/Other Violations
Violation of other toxic control requirements
(including reports) will be reported using
criteria that are applied to comparable NPDES
permit conditions. For example, failure to
submit a report within 30 days after the due
date or submittal of an inaccurate or inadequate
report will be reportable noncompliance (on
the QNCR).
Only failure to submit toxicity limit self-
monitoring reports or final TRE progress reports
indicating compliance will be SNC when 30 days
or more overdue.
Resolution (bringing into compliance) of all three
types of permit violations (effluent, schedule.
and reporting/other) will be through timely and
appropriate enforcement that is consistent with
EPA Oversight Guidance. Administering agencies
are expected to bring violators back into compliance
or take formal enforcement action against facilities
that appear on the QNCR and are in SNC; otherwise,
after two or more quarters the facility must be
listed on the Exceptions List.
2. Approaches to Enforcement of Effluent Limitations
In the case of noncompliance with whole effluent
toxicity limitations, any formal enforcement action
will be tailored to the specific violation and remedial
actions required. In some instances, a Toxicity
Reduction Evaluation (TRE) may be appropriate. However,
where directly enforceable toxicity-based limits are
used, the TRE it not an acceptable enforcement response
to toxicity noncompliance if it requires only additional
monitoring without a requirement to determine appropriate
remedial actions and ultimately compliance with the
limit.
If the Regions or States use administrative
enforcement for violations of toxic requirements,
such actions should require compliance by a date
certain, according to a set schedule, and an
-106-
-------
administrative penalty should be considered.1
Failure to comply with an Administrative Order
schedule within 90 days indicates a schedule delay
that may affect the final compliance date and a
judicial referral is the normal response. In instances
where toxicity has been measured in areas with potential
impacts on human health (e.g., public water supplies,
fish/shellfish areas, etc.), regions and states
should presume in favor of judicial action and seek
immediate injunctive relief (such as temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction).
In a few highly unusual cases where the permit-
tee has implemented an exhaustive TRE plan2, applied
appropriate influent and effluent controls3, maintained
continued compliance with all other effluent limits,
compliance schedules, monitoring, and other permit
requirements, but is still unable to attain or maintain
compliance with the toxicity-based limits, special
technical evaluation may be warranted and civil penalty
relief granted. Solutions in these cases could be
pursued jointly with expertise from EPA and/or the
States as well as the permittee.
Some permittees may be required to perform a
second TRE subsequent to implementation of remedial
action. An example of the appropriate use of a
subsequent TRE is for the correction of new violations
of whole effluent limitations following a period of
^Federal Administrative penalty orders must be linked to violations
of underlying permit requirements and schedules.
^See Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations,
Phase I, Toxicity Characterization Procedures, EPA-600/3-88/035,
Table 1.An exhaustive TRE plan covers three areas: causative
agent identification/toxicity treatability; influent/effluent
control; and attainment of continued compliance. A listing of
EPA protocols for TREs can be found in Section V (pages 11 and
12).
3For industrial permittees, the facility must be well-operated
to achieve all water quality-based, chemical specific, or BAT
limits, exhibit proper 0 fc M and effective BMPs, and control
toxics through appropriate chemical substitution and treatment.
For POTW permittees, the facility must be well-operated to
achieve all water quality-based, chemical specific, or secondary
limits as appropriate, adequately implement its approved pretreat-
nent program, develop local limits to control toxicity, and
implement additional treatment.
-107-
-------
sustained conpliance (6 months or greater in duration)
indicating a different problem from that addressed
in the initial TRE.
3. Enforcement of Compliance Schedule and Reporting
Requirements
In a number of instances, the primary
requirements in the permits to address toxicity
will be schedules for adoption and implementation
of biomonitoring plans, or submission of reports
verifying TREs or other similar reporting require-
ments. Regions and States should consider any
failure (1) to conduct self-monitoring according
to EPA and State requirements, (2) to meet TRE
schedules within 90 days, or (3) to submit reports
within 30 days of the specified deadline as SHC.
Such violations should receive equivalent enforce-
ment follow-up as outlined above.
4. Use of Administrative Orders With Penalties
In addition to the formal enforcement actions
to require remedial actions, Regions and States
should presume that penalty AO's or State equiva-
lents can be issued for underlying permit violations
in which a formal enforcement action is appropriate.
Headquarters will also provide Regions and States
with guidance and examples as to how the current
CWA penalty policy can be adjusted.
5. Enforcement Models and Special Remedies
OWEP and OECM will develop standard pleadings
and language for remedial activities and compliance
milestones to assist Regions and States in addres-
sing violations of toxicity or water quality-based
permit limits. Products will include model litiga-
tion reports, model complaints and consent decrees,
and revised penalty policy or penalty algorithm
and should be completed in early FY 1989.
-108-
-------
V. Summary of Principal Activities and Product!
A. Compliance Tracking and Review guidance
1. PCS Coding Guidance - May, 1987; revision
2nd Quarter 1989
2. Review Criteria for Self-monitoring Data (draft
attached)
B. Inspections and Quality Assurance
1. Revised NPDES Compliance Inspection Manual -
May 1988.
2. Quality Assurance Guidance - 3rd Quarter FY 1989.
3. Biomonitoring Inspection Training Module -
August 1988.
4. Additions of a reference toxicant to DMRQA program
(to be determined)
C. Toxics Enforcement
1. Administrative and Civil Penalty Guidance - 4th
Quarter FY 1989
2. Model Pleadings and Complaints - 2nd Quarter 1989
3. EMS Revision - 2nd Quarter FY 1989
D. Permitting Consistency
1. Basic Permitting Principles - 2nd Quarter FY 1989
E. Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
1. Generalited Methology for Conducting Industrial
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations - 2na Quarter
FY 1989
2. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Protocol for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants - 2nd Quarter
FY 1989
-109-
-------
Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Indentification
Evaluation*
Phase I.
b. Phase II
Toxicity Character!tation
Procedures, EPA-600/3-88/034-
September 1988
Toxicity Identification
Procedures, EPA-600/3-88/035-
2nd Quarter 1989
Phase III. Toxicity Confirmation Procedures*
EPA-600/3-88/036 - 2nd Quarter
FY 1989
-110-
-------
Attachment
QUALITY CONTROL FACT SHEET FOR SELF-BIOMONITORING
ACUTE/CHRONIC TOXICITY TEST DATA
Pernit No.
Facility Name
Facility Location
Laboratory/Investigator
Permit Requirements;
Sampling Location Type of Sample^
Limit Test Duration
Type of Test Test Organism Age
Test Results:
LC50/EC50/NOEL 95% Confidence Interval
Quality Control Summary:
Date of Sample: Dates of Test:
Control Mortality: % Control Mean Dry Weight
Temperature maintained within +2-C of test temperature? Yes No_
Dissolved oxygen levels always greater than 40% saturation?
Yes No
Loading factor for all exposure chambers less than or equal to
maximum allowed for the test type and temperature? Yes No_
Do the test results indicate a direct relationship between effluent
concentration and response of the test organism (i.e., more deaths
occur at the highest effluent concentrations)? Yes No
-111-
-------
SECTION 6
BASIC PERMITTING PRINCIPLES/INTRODUCTION TO TREs
INTRODUCTION TO TREs
TREs IN THE PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
TRE AVAILABLE GUIDANCE
-113-
-------
PERMITTING PRINCIPLES AND
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR TREs
BASIC PERMITTING PRINCIPLES
AND
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR
WET and TREs
PRINCIPLE NUMBER ONE
PERMITS MUST BE
PROTECTIVE OF WATER
QUALITY
-115-
-------
AT A MINIMUM, ALL MAJOR PERMITS AND
MINORS OF CONCERN SHOULD BE
EVALUATED FOR POTENTIAL OR KNOWN
TOXICITY
FINAL WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY LOOTS
MUST BE INCLUDED IN PERMITS WHERE
NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT STATE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ARE MET
PRINCIPLE NUMBER TWO
PERMITS MUST BE
WRITTEN TO AVOW
AMBIGUITY AND ENSURE
ENFORCEABILITY
I
PERMIT CONDITION NUMBER
ONE
PERMIT LIMITS IN PART ONE
OF PERMIT EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
OR AT A SPECIFIED DELAYED
DATE
-116-
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR EFFLUENT TOXICITY LIMITS
Pan 1A. Final Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
During the period beginning on the effective date
of this permit and lasting until the expiration date.
the permittee is authorized to discharge in
accordance with the following limitations and
monitoring requirements from the following
outfall(s): .
Effluent Characteristic
Reporting
code/units
"arameter
Discharge Limitation
Daily
Maximunr
Monthly
Average
MonitOhng Frequency
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
61426/TUc Toioty 5.9
1.2
x/month
composite
PERMIT CONDITION NUMBER
TWO
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO INCREASE
MONITORING IN THE EVENT OF EFFLUENT
VIOLATION, AND LEADING EITHER TO
AN ENFORCEMENT ACTION. TRE OR
RETURN TO NORMAL MONITORING
DOES NOT VERIFY THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION
-117-
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Part 16. Reporting Requirements
1. Toxicity Limitations
Where any one monitoring event shows a violation of the limits
in Part 1A ol this permit, the permittee shall be considered in
violation ol this permit and shall increase the frequency of
toxicity testing to once per week and submit the data within
x days to the permitting authority. The permitting authority
will determine whether enforcement action will be initiated, or
whether the permittee must implement the requirements of
Part IIIA of this permit or return to the monitoring requirements
in Parti A.
The permittee shall use the testing and data assessment procedure
described in Part 1MB of this permit.
PERMIT CONDITION NUMBER
THREE
TOXICnT TESTDVG SPECIES AND
PROTOCOLS SHOULD BE ACCURATELY
REFERENCED/CITED IN THE PERMIT
-118-
-------
PRINCIPLE NUMBER
THREE
WHERE NOT IN COMPLIANCE
WITH A WET LIMIT,
PERMITTEES MUST BE
COMPELLED TO COME INTO
COMPLIANCE WITH THE
LIMIT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
ALL COMPLIANCE DATES SHOULD BE
SPECIFIED
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS (TREs) CANNOT
BE DELAYED PENDING EPA OR STATE
APPROVAL OF THE PLAN, UNLESS
STATE REGULATIONS REQUIRE
PRIOR APPROVAL
TRE PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE
SET IN PERMIT WHERE TOX7CJTY IS
KNOWN, OR BY RE-OPENING THE
PERMIT OR ISSUING AND ENFORCEMENT
ORDER (SECTION 308 OR 309J WHERE
TOXICJTY IS FOUND SUBSEQUENT
TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
-119-
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR TRE SCHEDULES
Part IMA. Special Conditions: Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
The Discharger shall demonstrate that effluent toxicity-based permit
limits described in Pan IA of this permit are being attained and
maintained through the application of all reasonable treatment and/or
source control measures. Upon identifying noncompliance with those
limits following the conditions of Part IC1, the Discharger shall initiate
a TRE according to the following schedule:
Task Deadline
1. Take all reasonable measures necessary
to Immediately reduce toxicify, where
source is known Within 24 hours
2. Where source of toxicity is known, submit
a plan and schedule to attained continued
compliance with effluent toxicity-based permit
limitations in Part IA. if immediate compliance
Is not attained
Within 30 days
3. Where source of toxicity is unknown and
toxicity cannot be immediately controlled
through operational changes, submit a TRE
study plan detailing the toxicity reduction
procedures to be employed. EPA's Toxicity
Reduction Evaluation Procedures; Phases 1,2 and
3 (EPA 600/3-88-034,035 and 036) and TRE
Protocol for POTWs (EPA600/8-88-00)
shall be the basis for this plan.
4. Initiate TRE plan
5. Comply with approved TRE schedule
6. Submit results of TRE; include a summary of
findings, corrective actions required, and data generated
7. Implement TRE controls as described In final report
8. Complete TRE Implementation to meet
permit limits and conditions
Within 45 days
Within 45 days
Immediately upon
approval
Per approved schedule
On due date of final report
per approved schedule
Per approved schedule,
but In no case later than
later than x months from
initial nonoompliance
-120-
-------
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION
(TRE)
A SITE-SPECIFIC STUDY CONDUCTED IN
A STEP-WISE PROCESS TO
NARROW THE SEARCH FOR
EFFECTIVE CONTROL MEASURES
FOR EFFLUENT TOXICITY
Figure l - Generalized TRE Flowchart
Information and Data
Acquisition
Facility Operation and
Maintenance evaluation
Toxicity Identification
Evaluation
Toxicity Treatability
Evaluation
_L
Source Investigation!
Control Method Selection
and Inplenentation
Follow-up and Confirmation
-121-
-------
WHAT PROMPTS A
TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATION?
:
TRE
SCENARIOS
SCENARIO #1
TOXICITY FOUND PRIOR
TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
-122-
-------
SCENARIO #1
• TRE REQUIREMENT IN PERMIT
• SOME DATA. SO SPECIFIC SCHEDULE
• LIMIT IN PERMIT PRIOR TO REQUIRING
CONSTRUCTION OR SOURCE CONTROL
EHRMPLE PERMIT LRN6URGE
FOR TRE SCHEDULES
Part MIR. Special Conditions: Toxlcity Reduction Eueluetlon
The Discharger shall Initiate a TRE according to the following schedule
Task
1. Submit TRE study plan
detailing the toMciry reduction
evaluation procedures to be
employed. EPA s Toxiclty Reduction
Evaluation Procedures: Phases 1. 2
and 3 (EPA 600/3-86-034.035 and
0361 and TRE Protocol for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants (EPA
600/8-88-621 shall be the basis for
this plan.
2. Inmate TRE
3. Submit TRE progress reports
4. Submit results of TRE
5. Implement TRE controls as
described in final report
6. Complete toxaciry control
implementation and meet
permit limits and conditions
Deadline
Within 45 days of
permit issuance
Within 45 days of
permit issuance
By the 15th day of each
calendar quarter
Within 10 months of
permit issuance
Within 16 months of
permit issuance
Within 2 years of
permit Issuance
-123-
-------
SCENARIO #2A
TOXICITY TESTING WITH A
TRE TRIGGER
SCENARIO #2A
• TRE TRIGGER IN PERMIT
NO SPECIFIC DATA. SO GENERAL TRE
SCHEDULE
• MUST REOPEN PERMIT TO SET LIMIT
AND REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION.
SOURCE CONTROL. OR OTHER
TOXICITY CONTROL OPTIONS
-124-
-------
EXAMPLE PERMIT LANGUAGE
FOR TRE SCHEDULES
Part MIA. Special Conditions Toncity Reduction Evaluation
The Discharger thill demonstrate inn effluent toiidty-based permit
Bmitl described in Part IA ol this permit trt being attained and
maintained through tht applcation ol all reasonable treatment and/or
source control measures. Upon identifying noncomphanca with tnose
limm following in* oondltioni ol Pan 1C), tht Discharger shall initiate
a TRE according to the tallowing schedule:
t . Take all reasonable measures necessary
to immediately reduce loudly. wheie
source is (mown Within 24 hours
2. Where source ol toilbty Is known, submit
e plan and schedule to attained continued
compliance wtm eniuent Miicity-based permit
bmhations m Pan IA. N Immediate compliance
It not attained Wrmm 30 days
3. Where source ol loieily Is unknown and
toiicity cannot be Immediately controlled
through operational change t, submit a TRE
study plan detailing the toiidty reduction
procedures to be employed EPA t Toioty
Reduction Evaluation Procedures: Pnases 1.2 and
3 (EPA •00/3-M-034.035 and 036) and TRE
Protocol tor POTWs (EPA800/8-88-OOI
thai be tte basis tor (hit plan. Within 45 days
4. initiate TRE plan Wrtfin 4$ days
S. Comply wflh approved TRE schedule Immediately upon
approval
6. Submit results Ol TRE: include a summary ol
findings, corrective actions required, and data generated Per approved schedule
7. implement TRE control! as described in final repon On due date ol (mat repor
per approved schedule
I. Complete TRE implementation ID meet Per approved schedule.
permit KmHs and conditions but in no case later than
•Her than i month* from
Initial nonoompiianc*
SCENARIO #2B
TOXICITY TESTING WITH
NO TRE TRIGGER
OR
PERMITTING AUTHORITY
FINDS TOXICITY
-125-
-------
SCENARIO #2B
1. ISSUE SECTION 308 LETTER TO
REQUIRE ACCELERATED TESTING
2. IF ADDITIONAL DATA SHOWS TOXICITY,
ISSUE SECTION 308 LETTER TO REQUIRE
TRE
OR
REOPEN PERMIT TO ADD LIMIT AND/OR
REQUIRE TRE
SCENARIO #2B
• SOME DATA. SO SPECIFIC SCHEDULE
MUST REOPEN PERMIT TO SET LIMIT
AND REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION OR
SOURCE CONTROL. OR OTHER
TOXICITY CONTROL OPTIONS
SCENARIO #3A
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
LIMIT WITH A TRE TRIGGER
-126-
-------
SCENARIO #3A
• NO SPECIFIC DATA, SO GENERAL THE
SCHEDULE
• MAT WANT TO ISSUE SECTION 308
LETTER TO REQUIRE ACCELERATED
TESTING
• DO NOT NEED TO REOPEN PERMIT TO
SET LOOT/REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION,
SOURCE CONTROL, OR OTHER
TOXIC1TY CONTROL OPTIONS
• MAT WANT TO REOPEN PERMIT TO
MODIFY SCHEDULE
SCENARIO #3B
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
LIMIT WITH NO THE TRIGGER
SCENARIO #3B
• ISSUE SECTION 308 LETTER REQUIRING
ACCELERATED MONITORING
OR
• ISSUE SECTION 300 ORDER REQUIRING
ADDITIONAL MONITORING AND/OR TRE
• SOME DATA. SO SPECIFIC TRE SCHEDULE
DO JVOT NEED TO REOPEN PERMIT TO
SET LIMIT/REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION.
SOURCE CONTROL. OR OTHER
TOXTCJTY CONTROL OPTIONS
-127-
-------
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
A SUCCESSFUL TRE SHOULD RESULT IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERMIT
TOXICITY MAY BE ELIMINATED THROUGH
SIMPLE OfltM OR HOUSEKEEPING
IMPROVEMENTS
TOXICITY MAT MYSTERIOUSLY DISAPPEAR
BUT THE TRE IS NOT OVER YET
•EXISTING DATA EVALUATION
-CONTINUED FOLLOW-UP
MONITORING
IN SUMMARY . . .
TREs
ARE TRIGGERED BT "UNACCEPTABLE
TOXICITT"
CAN BE REQUIRED BY
PERMIT
SECTION 308 LETTER
SECTION 309 ORDER (OR
JUDICIAL DECREES)
-128-
-------
AVAILABLE GUIDANCE
METHODS FOR AQUATIC TOXICITY
IDENTIFICATION EVALUATIONS
- PHASE I—TOXICITY CHARACTERIZATION
PROCEDURES, EPA 600/3-88/034
- PHASE II—TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION
PROCEDURES, EPA 600/3-88/035
- PHASE III—TOXICITY CONFIRMATION
PROCEDURES, EPA 600/3-88/036
GENERALIZED METHODOLOGY FOR CONDUCTING
INDUSTRIAL TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATIONS,
EPA 600/2-88/070
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION PROTOCOL
FOR MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANTS, EPA 600/2-88/062
-129-
-------
TRE Objective - Definition
• Cot li
• Triggers
Effluent and Influent
Monitoring Data
Information tnd
Plant and
Proccu Description
Data Acquisition
Evaluation of Chemical Us*
Evaluation of
Facility Housekeeping
Evaluation of
Treatment System
Did
Treatment System
Corrections Reduce
Toxicity ?
Did
Housekeeping
Improvements Reduce
Toxicilv
Did Chemical
Replacemenu Reduce
Toiicity ?
Toncitv Identification Evaluation (TIE)
Tier I
Tier II
TCIICI'.* Tre«ubilil> Approacn
Causative Agent Approach
Source
Identification Evaluation
Evaluation of
Treating Final Effluent
Toiicity Reduction
Method Evaluation
Evaluation of Source Control/
Treating Process Streams
Selection and Method Implementation
Follow-up and Confirmation
Tier III
Tier IV
Tier V
Tier VI
Figure 1 ? Toncrry R*duClion Eviulsnon (TRE) flow Chan.
-130-
-------
NPDES TM Parmrt Condition*
Aaquiramanta/Nacornmandationi
Information and Data Aoquurton
PrvtrMtmcnt Program Rev«w, POTW
POTW Partormanca
Evaluation (Figura 3-'
Tencitv Identification
Evaluation
4-1)
Ya«
ToiiCily Sourct Eviluaiion-
Ti«r I (F^jure 5-1)
Yt*
Sourca Evaluation—Tiar II:
Sourca Rankmg/Pratraatmani
Evaluation (Fqum 6-1)
Y»t
Vlt
No
No
POTWIn-Plam
Control Evaluation
7-1)
Tomieity Control
Saiacnon
Initial Phata i
Toiiciry Charaeiantanon
Conventional Pollutant
Traatabiiitv Tasti
Toiicity
Pau-Through
Or Traatmant
Inhibition
No
Toneity Control
Implamantation and
Follow-up Monitoring
FIgur* 1-1. TM flow diagram for munklpal waitawatar traatmant plant.
-131-
-------
SECTION 7
TRE INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL PROTOCOLS
-133-
-------
MUNICIPAL PROTOCOL
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION
PROTOCOL FOR MUNICIPAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
TRE REQUIREMENT
• Triggered by evidence of unacceptable
effluent toxicity
• Usually a TRE plan and schedule must be
submitted
• Continues until acceptable effluent toxicity
is achieved
TOXICITY REDUCTION EVALUATION
• Identify the constituents causing effluent
toxicity
• Locate the sources of effluent toxicants/toxicity
• Evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of
toxicity control options
-135-
-------
MUNICIPAL TRE PROTOCOL
• Development and review of a TRE plan
• Selection of appropriate steps in a TRE
• Evaluation and interpretation of the data
• Selection and implementation of control
options
LIMITATIONS OF THE PROTOCOL
• Addresses Methods for Reduction in Whole
Effluent Toxicity
• Limited Case Studies
COMPONENTS OF THE MUNICIPAL TRE PROTOCOL
Information and Data Acquisition
POTW Performance Evaluation
Toxicity Identification Evaluation
Toxicity Source Evaluations (Tiers I and II)
POTW In-Plant Control Evaluation
Toxicity Control Selection and Imolementation
POTW OPERATIONS AND PERFORMANCE DATA
NPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports
POTW Design Criteria
Process Control Data
Treatment Interferences
Process Sidestream Discharges
Wastewater Bypasses
-136-
-------
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM INFORMATION
POTW Effluent and Influent Toxlclty/Toxlcs Data
POTW Sludge Toxics Data
Industrial Waste Survey Information
Annual Pretreatment Program Reports
Local Limits Compliance Reports
POTW PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
• Evaluate major unit treatment processes
(CCP Approach)
• Identify deficiencies that may contribute to
effluent toxicity
• Determine in-plant sources of effluent toxicants
(e.g., chlorination, bypasses)
POTW PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
A limited TIE Phase I can be conducted to:
• Indicate in-plant toxicants such as chlorine
and suspended solids
• Provide information to set up treatability tests
CONVENTIONAL TREATABILITY TESTS
Recommended for Improvements in Conventional
Pollutant Treatment
Can Identify Modifications in Conventional
Treatment That Also Reduce Toxicity
-137-
-------
CONSIDERATIONS IN TIE TESTING AT POTWS
Characterize effluent toxicant variability over time
Utilize pretreatment program data to support TIE
Can initiate treatability tests based on Phase I
results
RESULTS OF TIE
• Specific toxicants are identified
• One fraction is consistently toxic
• Variable fraction toxicity
PURPOSE OF TOXICITY SOURCE EVALUATION (TSE)
Determine Sources of Effluent Toxicants/Toxicity
Determine Feasibility of Pretreatment Control
TIER I TSE - SAMPLING DECISIONS
Sewer Line Sampling:
• TIE and pretreatment program data
are limited
• POTW has a large number of (Us
Point Discharge Sampling:
• TIE and pretreatment program data
attribute toxicants to (Us
• Number of (Us is manageable
-138-
-------
TSE TIER I APPROACHES
Chemical-Specific Tracking
Refractory Toxicity Assessment
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC TSE REQUIREMENTS
Pretreatment Program Data to Indicate Sources
Knowledge of Sewer Discharge Characteristics
Accurate Analytical And Flow Data
TSE - REFRACTORY TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
A simulation of the POTW treatment system
which utilizes toxicity tests to estimate the
amount of refractory toxicity in sewer
wastewaters.
RTA SAMPLE COLLECTION, CHARACTERIZATION
AND PREPARATION
24-Hour Fiow Composites
Analyze for COD, TKN, TP, TDS and pH
Adjust BOD5:N:P Ratio to 100:5:1
Adjust pH
-139-
-------
EXAMPLE RESULTS FOR TIER I RTA
Source
A
B
C
TIER
Sample/
Synthetic
Wastewater
35
22
21
LC50(%
Sample/
Primary
Effluent
38
77
12
Effluent)
Primary
Effluent
70
72
85
Potential
Toxicity
Source
YES
NO
YES
II - TOXICITY SOURCE EVALUATION
Confirm Sources of Refractory Toxicity
Identified In Tier I
Determine Potential for Biological Treatment
Inhibition (optional)
Characterize Refractory Toxicity Using TIE
Phase I Tests (optional)
EXAMPLE RESULTS FOR TIER II RTA
Sample Dilution
(Times Percent Flow in POTW Influent)
Batch Effluent LC 50
Batch Effluent Toxic
Units (TU)
Sum of TUs = 15.3
10x
10
10
5x
30
3.3
2x
50
2
-140-
-------
RELATIVE TOXICITY LOADING CALCULATION
Relative Score =
Sum of TUs x Sewer Discharge Flow Rate
Where Sum of TUs = 15.3
Flow Rate = 1 mgd
Relative Score = 15.3 TU x 1 mgd = 15.3
TSE TIER II - PRETREATMENT CONTROL EVALUATION
Approaches to Local Limits Development
• Allowable headworks loading
• Industrial User management
• Case by case permitting
Equitable Cost Recovery
SELECTION OF OPTIONS FOR EVALUATION
Review PPE data to determine:
• Space and equipment
• Operational control
Review TIE data to determine:
• Types of toxicants amenable to
treatment
• Treatability test design
-141-
-------
TOXICITY TREATABILITY TESTS
Activated Sludge
Coagulation and Precipitation
Sedimentation
Granular Media Filtration
Activated Carbon
EVALUATION OF TOXICITY CONTROL OPTIONS
Selection based on results of:
• PPE
• TIE
• TSE Tier I - Chemical Specific Testing
• TSE Tiers I and II - Refractory
Toxicity Assessment
• POTW Treatability Testing
POTW TECHNOLOGIES FOR CATEGORIES OF POLLUTANTS
Biodegradable
Organic Non-Biodegradable
Compounds and Organic
Ammonia Compounds
Biological Process Coagulation/
Control Precipitation
Nutrient Filtration
Addition
Activated
Carbon
-142-
-------
POTW TECHNOLOGIES FOR CATEGORIES OF POLLUTANTS
Volatile Heavy Metals
Organic and Cationic
Compounds Compounds
Biological Process pH Adjustment
Control
Aeration Coagulation/
Precipitation
Filtration
COMPARISON OF SELECTION CRITERIA FOR
TOXICITY CONTROL OPTIONS
Alternative
Selection Criteria ABC
Ability to achieve effluent toxicity limits
Ability to comply with other permits
Capital and O&M Costs
Ease of Implementation
Reliability
Environmental Impact
TOXICITY CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION
Toxics Control Implementation Plan
Follow-up Monitoring
-143-
-------
TRE INDUSTRIAL PROTOCOL
TRE INDUSTRIAL
PROTOCOL - AN OVERVIEW
Policy Language
To control pollutants beyond Clean Water Act
technology-based requirements, the EPA will use
an integrated strategy consisting of both
biological and chemical methods to address
toxic and non-conventional pollutants from
industrial and municipal sources
Where ambient toxicity is identified as a
problem, TREs may be required to identify
sources of the toxicity and to determine
how the toxicity can be reduced to
acceptable levels
Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
(TRE)
An investigation conducted within a plant
or municipal system to isolate the sources
of effluent toxicity and/or determine the
effectiveness of pollution control options
in reducing the effluent toxicity.
-144-
-------
A TRE is a step-wise process
consisting of:
• Evaluation of existing site-specific information
• Toxicity characterization/identification evaluation
• Confirmation
• Source Evaluation
• Toxicity reduction method evaluation
• Method selection and implementation
• Follow-up monitoring
TRE Flowchart
TRE Objectives
Information and Data
Acquisition
Evaluate Facility
Housekeeping
Evaluate Chemical Use
Evaluate Treatment System
J
Toxicity Identification
Evaluation
1
Identification of the Source(s)
of Final Effluent Toxlclly
Evaluation of Treating
Final Effluent
Evaluation of Treating
Process Systems
J
Selection and Method
Implementation
_L
follow-Up and Confirmation
-145-
-------
Evaluation of
Existing Site-Specific
Information
Information Acquisition
Plant and process descriptions
Influent and effluent physical/
chemical data
Effluent toxicity data
Instream biological data
Housekeeping
• Materials handling
• Spill control
• Facility cleanliness
• Waste handling, storage
and disposal
• Environmental awareness
Treatment System
Design characteristics
Operating efficiency
Influent characteristics
Effluent characteristics
-146-
-------
Chemical Use
• Process chemicals
• Biocides
• Cleaning operations
• MSDS review
Products Manufactured
• Raw materials
• By-products
Episodic Events
i
• Intentional or unintentional releases of
toxics to the wastewater treatment
system
• Accidental spills of toxics
-147-
-------
Toxicity Identification Evaluation
Objective: Identify cause(s) of
final effluent toxicity
Ideally: Identify specific chemical(s)
If Not: Characterize the toxicants and
identify group(s) or fraction(s)
of chemicals
Flow Chart of Suggested
Effluent Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
Effluent Samples
Causative Toxicant Characterization Tests
I
- Variability Associated With Causative Toxicant(s)
- Physical/Chemical Nature of Causative Toxicant(s)
I
I
Option 1
Bench Scale and
Pilot Plan;
Effluent Toxicity
Treatability Study
Implementation
of Treatment
Option 2
I
Chemical Analysis Methoc
I
Toxicant Identification
I
Source Investigation
I
Source Control
- Spill Control
- Process Modification
- Substitution of
Raw Materials
- Pretreatment
I
Post-Control Monitoring
- Chemical
- Bioiogicai
-148-
-------
Specific Toxicant Identification
Identify toxicants so that they can
be eliminated or reduced at the source,
either by substitution or pretreatment.
TIE STRATEGY
Evaluation of Variability
Performance of Toxicity
Fractionation / Characterization
Identification of Specific Toxicants
Confirmation of Identifications
TIE Strategy Flow Chart
Perform FrsctiQnflion
If vtral Ticnf|
No
NO
Pff'O'm So»('li<
Chffnic*) Anilym
-149-
-------
100
Effluent Variability
• Volume
• Constituents
Effluent Variability
0 70 40 6U 80 100 <70 140 180 180 700 220 240 7*0 780 300
Test Dale. Days
-150-
-------
Effluent Variability
100
An Effluent Toxicity Test
Cannot Be Repeated to Verify
or Validate Results
Effluent Characterization
Baseline
Toxicity Tests
Toxic Effluent Sample
Degradation
Tests
Reducing
Agent Test
Chelalion
Test
Air Stripping
Test
Filtration
Test
C18 Solid Phase
Extraction Test
Acid Base Neutral
Acid Base Neutral
-151-
-------
Toxicity Reduction
Method Evaluation
Eliminate at the source
Treatment of final effluent
Treatment of Final Effluent
• Identify possible treatment methods
• Modify or add to present system
• Design and construct new
treatment system
TOXICITY PERSISTENCE
Can be useful in sourcing toxicants and
in identifying treatment options
Follow-Up Monitoring
Optimize toxicity reduction
method
Confirm toxicity reduction
Assess acceptability of
toxicity variability
-152-
-------
Source Elimination
• Chemical substitition
• Process modification
• Treatment of process streams
(pretreatment)
• Eliminate the process
Toxicity Treatment
Characterize whole effluent toxicity
and then develop treatment procedures
to reduce the toxicity to acceptable
levels.
-153-
-------
Factors to Consider
Before Initiating a TRE
DILUTION WATER OPTIONS
• Receiving Water
• Laboratory Water
• Reconstituted Water
Proper Sample Collection,
Shipment and Storage is Critical
to Maintain Realistic Effluent
Characteristics
EFFLUENT COLLECTION
SHIPPING AND STORAGE
• Grab Sample vs. Composite
• Shipped on Ice in the Dark
• Overnight Courier
• Stored Until Use at About 4° C
-ISA-
-------
Species Sensitivity
Temporal variability
Very important in establishing and
attaining the goals of the TI/RE
The Development of a Sufficient
Database Is the Only Way to Ensure
That Inappropriate Treatment
Costs Are Avoided
On-Site Cooperation Is Essential
• With an industry it is virtually impossible
to identify the source of the problem(s)
without their cooperation.
• Frequently an on-site person assigned
to the TI/RE full-time will be very
valuable.
Work Cooperatively With the
Regulatory Authority
• Agree upon a reasonable goal.
• Work together to accomplish the goal.
• Assure that the goal does not change
In the process of conducting the TRE
• Rexibility in the schedule is the key.
• Maintaining a good faith effort is important
• ft is always easier to be successful if a good
relationship is maintained between permittee,
contractor, and regulatory authority.
-155-
-------
Increased Level of Environmental
Awareness/Consciousness
A requirement If long-term and widespread success if to
be achieved.
Summary
• A defined THE target Is essential
• Generalized methodologies should
be developed and applied
• flexibility In design, Implementation
and schedule
• TREs should be facility-specific
• Effluent variability Influences
design of THE
• Confirmation of causes of toxlclty
Important
• Cooperation among all participants
critical
Chlorine Toxicity
Pass-through cooling water
toxicity
POTW disinfection toxicity
Unionized Ammonia Is Primarily
Responsible for Ammonia Toxicity,
and Both Temperature and pH
Control Percent Unionized Ammonia
-156-
-------
Ammonia Toxicity is Difficult to
Interpret in Shipped Effluent
Samples Collected in Cold Weather
Heating the Municipal Effluent From
(5 - 10° C) up to 25° C Increases
the Percent Unionized Ammonia
Substantially, as Does an
Increase in pH From 7.0 to 8.0
The Result Is a More Toxic Effluent
Adjusting Test Temperatures and pH for
Fish Bioassays Is Possible and
Can Provide for More Environmental
Realism in Toxicity Tests
Toxicity Resulting From Polar
Organics Presents Difficult
Problems in TREs
Fractionation/Characterization Procedures
Do Not Necessarily Produce Absolute
Separation of Classes of Toxicants
-157-
-------
Effluent Matrix Variability
Can Also Affect the
TRE Process
In TRE Work the Results of Chemical
Analyses Need to Be Carefully Interpreted
Sample Preparation Procedures
Deserve Special Scrutiny
-158-
-------
SECTION 8
TIE OVERVIEW
-159-
-------
TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION
EVALUATION OVERVIEW
PRIORITY POLLUTANT ANALYSES
Do not represent all toxic
chemicals
Two Approaches to Toxicity Reduction Evaluations:
Toxicity Investigation Evaluation
(Causative Agent Approach)
Effluent Toxicity Treatability
Both the Treatability & Identification
Approaches Utilize Physical-Chemical
Characteristics of Toxicants.
TIE BASED ON TWO PRINCIPLES
Concentrate
Separate
-161-
-------
8
THREE MAJOR PARTS OF THE TIE
Characterization
Identification
Confirmation
Identify General Nature of Toxicant(s)
-- Solubility
- Volatility
•• Decomposabllity
- Complexability
•• Filterabillty
•• Sorbability
-162-
-------
»TOXICITY CHARACTERIZATION
MANIPULATION TYPE CHARACTERIZATION
pH adjustment Toxic form altered
Filtration and pH Suspended solids
adjustment Solubility changes
Purging and pH Volatiles
adjustment
C-18 SPE and pH Non-polar compounds
adjustment
Thiosulfate and Oxidants and metals
EDTA
Following Characterization,
the choice of
Treatability or Identification
is best made.
II. TOXICITY IDENTIFICATION
GROUP APPROACH
Non-polar organics SPE, HPLC, GC/MS
Metals AA, Ion exchange,
chelatlon
Ammonia pH manipulation,
zeolite
Surfactants Bubble removal
Polar organics
Volatiles
-163-
-------
FINAL CONFIRMATION
1. Toxicity vs. Concentration
Correlation
2. Symptoms
3. Spiking Effluent
4. Toxicity Mass Balance
5. Other Species
6. Spiking Fractions
7. Misc.
pH
Hardness
Tissue Uptake
-164-
-------
Ill
UJ
ui
O
u.
O
to
1 1
O
X
O
r2»0.73
SLOPE-O.B2*0.14
Y-INTERCEPT-0.4etQ.22
TOXIC UNITS OF SUSPECT TOXICANTS
Toxic Components of a POTW Effluent
M
t 3
Z
Whota EffliMnt
WE
Total
EFFLUENT SAMPLE
Presence of toxic concentrations
does not prove
the cause of toxiclty.
-165-
-------
Amount of industrial
contributions not
related to toxicity.
A GOOD TIE PLAN CONSISTS OF
SEVERAL ASPECTS:
• Use of broad "Characterization" steps.
• Effluent variability considered
• Toxicity tracked with analyses.
• Analytical capability Is broad.
• Reliance on the QC/MS Is realistic
• Choice of test species logical.
• Toxicity tests are streamlined.
• Supply of test organisms is not limiting.
• Team work approach Is built In.
Choice of Test
Species for TIE?
-166-
-------
Does Objective of TIE
Include Resident Species?
TRIGGERS
FOR
TRE's
CHRONIC
TIE METHODS
LIMITED
EPA ACUTE
METHODS
NOT APPLICABLE
CHRONIC TRE
TREATABILITY METHODS
COMPLETE
-167-
-------
CHOOSING
A
CONTRACT FIRM
TOXICANT PATTERNS
ARE
EMERGING
-168-
-------
LEGEND
D « 1.0UQ/I
D 0.10-0.25
• >0 25
~ Not (tetenrihsd
Figure 2. Frequency of dazinon occurrence in POTW
effluents from around the United States.
-------
64 Sites Evaluated
6 Lacked Acute Toxicity
58 TIE'S
Summary of NETAC TIE'S
Total Samples Evaluated 58
Successful Phase I 39 of 40
Successfully Determined
if Toxicant is X
(e.g., ammonia)? 18 of 18
Successful for Phase II
and/or III 16 of 18
Phase I Findings:
pH dependent 3
Inorganics 15
Oxldants 9
Non-polars 25
Volatlles 1
-170-
-------
Some Toxicants Identified
thru February 1989
Discharge Type
Industrial
Compoundfsl
• zinc, non-polar organics
salinity (IDS)
• ammonia
• nickel
Municipal
zinc, non-polar organics
ammonia, diazinon, malathion
nickel
diazinon, chlorfenvlnphos
diazinon, dichlorovos
ammonia, non-polar organics
diazinon, non-polar organics
diazinon
detergents
Other:
Ambient
Ambient
Elutriates
Elutriates
carbofuran, methyl parathion
diazinon
ammonia
manganese
One to three toxicants
have usually been
most of the problem.
-171-
-------
Toxlcity often occurs
at
ug/L concentrations.
In a 35 mgd plant
1 ug/L = 0.3 Ibs/day.
With 90% removal
1 ug/L = loading of about 3 Ibs/day.
TOXICANTS AT ug/L CONCENTRATIONS:
• Can't be found by examination
of loadings
• Can't be related to conventional
pollutants
- Are not likely to be related to
flow
CONCLUSIONS:
1. TIE/TRE's are enjoying good success.
2. Many contractors are able to do TIE'S.
3. Phase I, characterization, is rapidly
becoming routine.
4. Trends are emerging.
5. Solutions are being found.
6. Causes of toxicity are often few.
7. The cause of toxicity is often not
industrial.
-172-
-------
COMMON LABORATORY
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
COMMON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
TIES
• TEST ORGANISMS
• DISPOSABLE 1-OUNCE TEST CHAMBERS
• LIGHT BOX AND/OR MICROSCOPE
• pH METER AND PROBE
• 7 ml SCINTILLATION & AUTO SAMPLER WITH CAPS
• STIR PLATE
• MAGNETIC STIRRERS/BARS (PERFLOUROCARBON)
• C 18 SOLID PHASE EXTRACTION COLUMNS
• AERATION DEVICE OR COMPRESSED AIR SYSTEM WITH MOLECULAR
SIEVE
• AIR STONES
• FLUID METERING PUMP WITH RESERVOIR
COMMON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
TIEs(Continued)
• PERFLOUROCARBON TUBING
• RING STANDS
• CLAMPS
• PARAFILM
• WIRE MESH TEST CHAMBERS
• GLASS-FIBER FILTERS (1.0/Jm)
• IN-LINE FILTER HOUSING
• STAINLESS STEEL TWEEZERS
• GLASS WOOL
• NITROGEN
-173-
-------
COMMON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
TIEs(Continued)
• GLASSWARE
• 10ml AUTOMATIC PIPETTES
• 1 ml GLASS PIPETTES
• DISPOSABLE PIPETTES TIPS
• EYE DROPPER OR WIDE BORE PIPETTE
• BEAKERS-30, 50, 250, 500, ft 600 ml
• TITRATIONBURRETTES
• GLASS STIRRING RODS
• GRADUATED CYLINDERS-25 & 50 ml WIDE MOUTH, AND 250 ft 500
ml
• ERLENMEYER FLASKS--20.40. & 80 ml
• 100 ml VOLUMETRIC FLASKS
COMMON LABORATORY EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR
TIEs(Continued)
• SOLUTIONS,CHEMICALS
• DILUTION/CONTROL WATER • CaC03 ft MgC03
• HCL • CLEANING SOLVENTS
• NaOH SOLUTIONS • Na2S2O3 SOLUTIONS
• pH BUFFERS • EDTA SOLUTIONS
• HPLC GRADE METHANOL • ACS GRADE NH4CI
• HIGH PURITY WATER • HEXANE
• ZEOLITE
-174-
-------
COMPLEX LABORATORY EQUIPMENT
REQUIREMENTS FOR TIEs
> HIGH PRESSURE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPH (HPLC)
i GAS CHROMATOGRAPH/MASS
SPECTROPHOTOMETER(GC/MS)
ATOMIC ABSORPTION SPECTROPHOTOMETER (AA)
INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-ATOMIC EMISSION
SPECTROMETER (ICP)
-175-
-------
FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND
LABORATORY REQUIREMENTS
FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT AND LABORATORY REQUIREMENTS
Laboratories roust demonstrate competency in performing the
chemical and biological tests required as part of the TRE and
should be equipped with all the basic and complex laboratory
equipment required to conduct TREs. Laboratory personnel should
be skilled and experienced in the required methods in order to
meet quality assurance/quality control goals.
The facilities, equipment and reagents needed to perform a
TRE will be different for each element of the TRE. The general
laboratory equipment and requirements for each particular type cf
analysis are briefly described in this section.
The facilities and equipment needs in the initial steps of
the TRE are generally standard. However, in the later steps of
the TRI the facility and equipment needs will be site-specific
and will depend both on the physical/chemical characteristics cf
the causative toxicants and on the choice of toxicity evaluation
and control approaches. The apparatus and reagents needed to
conduct a Phase I evaluation are relatively set (not site-
specific) and are typically found in laboratories that can
perform acute toxicity tests with aquatic organisms. The
additional needed equipment (fluid metering pump, C1BSPE columns,
etc.) are simple to operate and relatively inexpensive.
Laboratory apparatus and reagents needed for Phase II are a
function of the two choices of Phase II options: l)toxicity
treatability or 2)toxicant identification/source control. The
Phase I tests must be completed before the Phase II requirements
can be determined. The requirements are very site-specific,
however, laboratories equipped to perform priority pollutant
analysis should have the more sophisticated equipment needed.
Analytical equipment that may be needed will include gas
-176-
-------
chromatographs, mass spectrometers, high pressure liquid
chromatographs, atomic absorption spectrophotometers and/or
inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometers. The
exception of equipment availability may be a HPLC which is
commercially available but not typically used in water pollution
monitoring. Other nontypical equipment (eg. zeolite,
chromatography columns, etc.) can be easily obtained and is not a
major investment. Some costs of sophisticated equipment are
GC/MS, S60-300K; AA, $35-85K (w/autosampler); and HPLC, $25-40K.
The instruments needed for treatability studies may be
available at larger POTWs or environmental engineering consulting
firms.
It is best for a laboratory to have both toxicity testing
and cher.ical analysis (for Phase II toxicant identification
option) and/or treatability equipment (for Phase II toxicity
treatability option) in the sane location. Shipping sanples
between two different labs is not recorr.nended. This is due to:
sar.ple toxicity degradation; the lack of communication between
chenists, biologists, engineers and others involved; and the most
crucial requirement of a TRE may be the comr.unication between the
different disciplines.
The specific requirements needed for each of the key
analytical procedures required in a TRE are summarized below.
1. Characterization Tests - Laboratories should be
equipped with pH adjustment, filtration, air stripping,
reducing agent, chelating agent and C1B solid phase
extraction columns; fractionation capabilities to
perform characterization tests (3) (see Phase I
Laboratory Equipment Needs).
-177-
-------
2. Toxicity Tests - Standard toxicity test equipment,
standard reference toxicants and an organism culturing
facility are required for the toxicity testing.
3. Batch Toxicity Treatability Tests - Laboratories should
be equipped with respirometer (optional), TSS, VSS, ATP
and COD analysis capabilities to conduct treatability
studies.
4. Specific Cher.ical Identification - More complex pieces
of equipment are required for the specific
identification of chemicals depending upon the type of
analysis needed. Equipment that may be required
includes: mass spectrometer (MS), gas chromatograph
(GC), high pressure liquid chromatograph (HPLC) with
IR, UY detectors, ator.ic absorption (AA)
spectrophotoneter, coupled plasma atonic emission (1C?)
spectrometers, and ion chromatograph.
5. Sampling Equipment - Laboratories need to be equipped
with all the standard sar.pling equipment including
timed and sequential composite samplers, and flow
proportional cor.posite samplers.
6. General Analytical Laboratory Equipment and Reagents -
General laboratory equipment such as refrigerators,
microscopes, a water purification system, and commonly
used reagents are also required. It is important to
emphasize that copper, galvanized material, lead, and
brass should not be used in collecting or storing
effluent samples or control water. Use of inert
materials such as perfluorocarbon plastics are
particulary important in the latter steps of the THE.
-178-
-------
LAB EQUIPMENT NEEDS
FOR
PHASE I
Baseline Toxicity Test
Apparatus:
Eighteen to 20 disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic
pipette (10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper cr
wide bore pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional
depending on test species used).
Reagents:
90 to 100 test organisms of the same age and species,
dilution/control water.
Initial Toxicity Test
Apparatus:
Twelve disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette
(10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide
bore pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional depending or,
test species used).
Reagents:
Sixty test organisms of the same age and species,
dilution/control water. -179-
-------
pH Adjustment Test
Apparatus:
Burettes for acid and base titrations, pH meter and probe
(solid state), 2-500 ml beakers, 2-500 ml graduated cylinders,
12-30 ml beakers, stir plate, and stir bars (perfluorocarbon).
Eight disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette (10
ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide bore
pipette, light box and/or nicroscope (optional depending on test
species used).
Reagents:
1.0, 0.1 and 0.01 N NaOH, 1.2, 0.12 and 0.012 N HC1 (ACS
grade in high purity water), buffers for pH meter, 40 test
organises of the sane age and species, dilution/control water.
Aeration Test
Apparatus:
Aeration device or compressed air system with a molecular
sieve, six air stones or diffusers, six-50 ml wide mouth
graduated cylinders, burettes for acid and base titrations, pH
meter and probe, stir plate(s), and perfluorocarbon stir bars.
Fifteen disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette (1C
ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide bore
pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional depending on test
species used).
Reagents:
0.01 N NaOH, 0.012 N HC1 (ACS grade in high purity water),
buffers for pH meter calibration, 75 test organisms of the sare
age and species, dilution/control water.
-180-
-------
C,8 SPE Test
Apparatus:
Six-250 ml graduated cylinders, eight-25 ml graduated
cylinders, burettes for acid and base titrations, pH meter and
probe (solid state), stir plate, perfluorocarbon stir bars, fluid
metering pump (stainless steel piston with carbon cylinder) with
sample reservoir, perfluorocarbon tubing, ring stands, clamps,
and 3-3 ml C18 SPE columns (200 mg sorbent). Twenty-seven
disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette (10 ml),
disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide bore
pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional depending on test
species used).
Reagents:
HPLC grade methanol, high purity water, 0.01 N NaOH, 0.012 }.'
HC1 (ACS grade in high purity water), buffers for pH meter
calibration, 135 test organisms of the same age and species,
dilution/control water, solvents for cleaning pump and reservoir.
Oxidant Reduction Test
Apparatus:
Glass stirring rods, 1 ml glass pipette, eight to ten
disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette (10 ml),
disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide bore
pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional depending on test
species used).
Reagents:
Two Na2S^03 (nolarity depending on total residual chlorine
concentration as measured by the iodometric method and the
species used as test organise), 40 test organisms of the sane age
and species, dilution/control water.
-181-
-------
EDTA Chelation Test
Apparatus:
Glass stirring rods, burettes for EDTA addition, 8 to 10
disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic pipette (10 ml),
disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or wide bore
pipette, light box and/or microscope (optional depending on test
species used) .
Reagents:
EDTA solutions (concentration dependent on the hardness and
salinity of the effluent and the species used as test organism),
40 test organisms of the sar.e age and species, dilution/control
water.
Graduated pH Test
Apparatus:
Burettes for acid and base addition, magnetic stirrers, and
perfluorocarbon stir bars.
3-50 ml beakers, 3 one ounce disposable transparent test
chambers, Parafilm" or 3-600 ml beakers, wire mesh test chambers.
Reagents:
1.0 and 0.1 N NaOH or 0.1 N and 0.01 N NaOH, 1.2 N and 0.12
N HC1 or 0.12 N and 0.012 N HCl, 15 test organisms of the same
age and species, dilution/control water.
-182-
-------
Filtration Test
Apparatus:
Six-250 ml graduated cylinders, 6-250 ml beakers, fluid
metering pump (stainless steel piston with carbon cylinder) with
sample reservoir, teflon tubing, in-line filter housing, ring
stands, clamps, [alternatively; vacuum flask (500 ml capacity),
filter stand, clamp, vacuum tubing, water aspirator or vacuum
pun-.p], glass-fiber filters; nominal size 1.0 urn (without organic
binder), stainless steel tweezers, burettes for acid and base
titrations, pH meter and probe, stir plate, and perfluorocarbon
stir bars, fifteen disposable one ounce test chambers, automatic
pipette (10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye dropper or
vide bore pipette, light box and/or r.icroscope (optional
spending on test species used).
Reagents:
Solvents and high purity water for cleaning pump reservoir
and filter, 0.1 N and 0.01 N NaOH, 0.12 N and 0.012 N HC1 (ACS
grade in high purity water), buffers for pH meter calibration, 75
test organises of the same age and species, dilution/control
water.
-183-
-------
EQUIPMENT NEEDS
FOR
PHASE II
Nonpolar Organic Toxicants
Apparatus:
6, 3 and/or 1 ml C,8 SPE columns, fluid metering pump
(stainless steel piston with carbon cylinder), with glass
reservoir, vacuum manifolds, drying manifold, adapters and luer-
lok needles to fit C,8 SPE columns, 1.0 urn glass fiber filters,
in-line filter housing, 7 ml scintillation and autosampler vial
with perfluorocarbon lined caps, .20, 40 and 80 ml Erlenmeyer
flasks, 100 ml volumetric flasks, 100 ml graduated cylinders, 25C
ul syringes, GS-MS equipped with capillary column, data syster,
with mass spectral library, HPLC equipped with solvent delivery
system (capable of producing a solvent gradient), C18 column, UV
detector, fraction collector, one ounce disposable plastic test
chambers, automatic pipette (10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10
ml), and stirring rods, eye dropper or wide bore pipette, light
box and/or microscope (optional depending on test species used).
Reagents:
HPLC grade methanol (25, 50, 75, 80, 85, 90 and 95% methanol
in high purity water), nitrogen, high purity water, test
organisms of the appropriate age and species, dilution water.
-184-
-------
Ammonia (Equitoxic Soln Test)
Apparatus:
Six 600 ml beakers, 6-250 ml graduated cylinders, 6 wire
mesh test chambers, 6 perfluorocarbon stir bars, magnetic
stirrers, apparatus for ammonia analysis (see EPA-600/4-79-20;
Method 350.1, 350.2 or 350.3), burettes for acid and base
titration, 6 one ounce disposable plastic test chambers,
automatic pipette (10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml), eye
dropper or wide bore pipette, light box and/or microscope
(optional depending on test species used).
Reagents:
1.0 N and 0.1 N NaOH, 1.2 N and 0.12 N HC1, reagents for
amnonia analysis (see above reference) ACS grade NHfcCi , dilution
water, test organisms of the appropriate age and species.
Ammonia (Zeolite Test)
Apparatus:
Chromatographic column with reservoir (approximately 19 mn
i.d. x 41 cm), glass wool, apparatus for ammonia analysis (see
EPA-600/4-79-020, Method 350.1, 350.2 or 350.3), 3-500 ml
beakers, 500 ml graduated cylinder, 10 one ounce disposable
plastic test chambers, automatic pipette (10 ml), disposable
pipette tips (10 ml), eye droppers or wide bore pipette, light
box and/or microscope (optional depending on test spe~ies used)
Reagents:
30g zeolite, reagents for ammonia analysis (see EPA 600/4-
79-020, Method 350.1, 350.2, or 350.3), high purity water,
dilution water, test organisms of the appropriate age and
species, ACS grade NH^Cl (optional).
-185-
-------
Cationic Metals
Apparatus:
Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometer or
atomic absorption spectrophotometer with graphite furnace,
associated hardware and glassware specified in EPA-600/4-79-020
(selected method(s) from the 200 series), 500 ml separatory
funnel (optional), one ounce disposable plastic test chambers,
automatic pipette (10 ml), disposable pipette tips (10 ml),,eye
dropper or wide bore pipette, light box and/or microscope
(optional depending on test species used).
Reagents:
Reagents as specified in EPA-600/4-79-020 for netal analysis
method(s) chosen, hexane (optional), CaC03 and MgC03 (optional),
dilution water, test organisms of the appropriate age and
species.
-186-
-------
SECTION 9
GUIDELINES AND REVIEW CRITERIA FOR TRE PLANS
-187-
-------
GUIDELINES AND REVIEW
CRITERIA FOR
TRE PLANS
GUIDELINES
FOR
TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATION PLANS
A DISCHARGER WILL BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A
TRE PLAN TO THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE:
• A DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY PLAN
• A SCHEDULE FOR CONDUCTING SPECIFIC TASKS
AND REPORTING THE RESULTS
• RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE
FACILITY
• WHO WILL BE CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION
THE TRE PLAN SHOULD CLEARLY ESTABLISH: |
• SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES (TARGET) OF THE STUDY
• MONITORING TEST CONFIRMATION OF REDUCTION
• THE SCHEDULED COMPLETION DATE AND MILESTONES
-189-
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRE PLAN IS SOLELY THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DISCHARGER
• 1 TO 3 MONTHS WILL BE SUFFICIENT FOR PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
COMMUNICATION AND COOPERATION IN TRE PLAN
DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW WILL HELP ENSURE A
AND GOOD FArTH EFFORT TO ACHIEVE
THE TRE OBJECTIVE
U.S EPA DOES NOT RECOMMEND
TRE PLANS BE FORMALLY APPROVED
UNLESS REQUIRED BY STATE REGULATIONS
FLEXIBILITY IN DESIGNING AND CONDUCTING A TRE
WILL BE NECESSARY
• SOME DECISIONS ON THE MOST APPROPRIATE
APPROACH MUST BE BASED ON THE RESULTS
OF THE INITIAL STEPS OR TIERS OF THE TRE
• BE WARY OF TRES THAT MAY BECOME RESEARCH
PROJECTS INVESTIGATING NEW AND UNPROVEN
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
• USE THE EPA GUIDANCE AS BASIS FOR REVIEW
• REQUEST REASONS AND DOCUMENTATION FOR ANY
MODIFICATIONS OR ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
THINGS TO AVOID)
• RELIANCE ON PRIORITY POLLUTANT SCANS
• RESEARCH ON SURROGATE PARAMETERS TO
CORRELATE WTTH AQUATIC ORGANISM TOXICFTY
TESTS
• LACK OF PERIODIC PROGRESS REPORTS
• CONFIRMATION STEP NOT CARRIED OUT FOR
IDENTIFICATION OR TREATABIUTY STUDIES
• PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR TRE IS ARRIVED AT BY
ADDING TOGETHER TIMES FOR TRE STEPS THAT ARE
USUALLY ALTERNATIVES OR ELSE CONDUCTED
CONCURRENTLY
• INCLUSION OF STUDIES NOT DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO
CONDUCTING THE TRE AND ACHIEVING THE TRE
OBJECTIVE
-190-
-------
THINGS TO ENCOURAGED
• INTERIM REPORTS WITH SUMMARY DATA AND NEXT
STEPS TO BE CONDUCTED
• SPECIFICATION OF THE NUMBER, TIMING OF SAMPLES,
AND THE SAMPLING POINTS
• THE SPECIFIC PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE
VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE EVALUATION
• PRELIMINARY OR MINIMUM ESTIMATES OF HOW MANY
OF EACH ANALYSIS WILL BE CONDUCTED
• INDICATION THAT INVESTIGATORS HAVE
INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPERTISE
• THOROUGH OA/OC PRACTICES INCORPORATED IN ALL
CONFIRMATION STEPS
EVALUATION CRITERIA]
• ARE THE OBJECTIVES OR TARGETS OF THE TRE
CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY STATED?
• ARE THE SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES FOR
ACCOMPLISHING THE TASKS DESCRIBED IN THE STUDY
PLAN?
• ARE THE FINAL REPORT, PROGRESS REPORTS AND
MEETINGS WTTH THE REGULATORY AUTHORFTY
INCLUDED AS PART OF THE SCHEDULE?
• ARE THE APPROACHES OR METHODS TO BE UTILIZED
DESCRIBED TO THE EXTENT THAT IS POSSIBLE PRIOR
TO REACHING DECISION POINTS AND WITHOUT THE
RESULTS AND DATA THAT WILL BE COLLECTED IN THE
INITIAL STEPS OR TIERS OF THE TRE?
• HAS THE AVAILABLE GUIDANCE BEEN UTIUZED IN THE
DESIGN OF THE TRE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
TRE PLAN?
• DOES THE TRE PLAN ALLOW A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF
TIME AND APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF EFFORT FOR EACH
OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE STUDY PLAN?
• DOES THE TRE PLAN SPECIFY WHAT RESULTS AND
DATA ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INTERIM AND FINAL
REPORTS?
• DOES THE TRE PLAN PROVIDE FOR ARRANGEMENTS
FOR ANY INSPECTIONS OR VISfTS TO THE FACILITY OR
LABORATORY WHICH ARE DETERMINED BY THE
REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO BE NEEDED?
• ARE THE TOXICFTY TEST METHODS AND ENDPOINTS TO
BE UTUZED SPECIFIED OR REFERENCED?
-191-
-------
• ARE OPTIMIZATION OF EXISTING PLANTfTREATMENT
OPERATIONS AND SPILL CONTROL PROGRAMS PART
OF THE INITIAL STEPS OF THE TRE?
• DOES THE TRE PLAN INCLUDE A TIMELINE
(HORIZONTAL BAR GRAPH) WHICH CLEARLY
ILLUSTRATES THE T1MEFRAME FOR CONDUCTING THE
SPECIFIC COMPONENTS OF THE TRE (AS DESCRIBED
IN THE GUIDANCE) AND ANY OVERLAP OF THESE
COMPONENTS?
• DO THE SUBSEQUENT TESTS AND EVALUATIONS BUILD
ON THE PREVIOUS RESULTS AND PROCEED BY
NARROWING DOWN THE POSSIBILITIES IN A LOGICAL
PROGRESSION?
• ARE ALL TEST RESULTS ANALYZED AND USED TO
FOCUS ON THE MOST EFFECTIVE APPROACH FOR
SUBSEQUENT SOURCE INVESTIGATIONS, TREATABILTTY
STUDIES, AND CONTROL METHOD EVALUATIONS?
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR TIES
• ARE THERE BROAD CHARACTERIZATION STEPS?
• IS EFFLUENT VARIABILITY CONSIDERED?
• is Toxicmr TRACKED WITH ANALYSES?
• IS THE ANALYTICAL CAPABILITY BROAD?
• IS RELIANCE ON GC/MS REALISTIC?
• IS CHOICE OF TEST SPECIES LOGICAL?
• is Toxicmr TESTING STREAMLINED?
• IS SUPPLY OF TEST ORGANISMS ADEQUATE?
• IS TEAM APPROACH BUILT IN?
• IS CONFIRMATION INCLUDED?
- MASS BALANCE - OTHER SPECIES INCLUDED
- CORRELATION - SPIKING
- SAMPLING OVER TIME - BIOAVAILABIUTY
-192-
-------
SECTION 10
TRE ABSTRACTS AND CASE STUDIES
-193-
-------
TOXICITY REDUCTION
EVALUATION ABSTRACTS
AND CASE STUDIES
TRE ABSTRACTS
and
CASE STUDIES
TRE CASE STUDIES
-195-
-------
MARTINEZ MANUFACTURING COMPLEX
SHELL OIL COMPANY
MAKTIJVEZ,CALIFORNIA
TOXrCJTY RESEARCH 1976-1985
REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTION FACILITY
PRODUCES GASOLINE, DIESEL FUEL, LUBE OILS
AND GREASE
TREATMENT PROCESSES
•OIL/WATER SEPARATION
• BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION
• SECONDARY CLARIFICATION
• TERTIARY FILTRATION
EARLY STUDIES
INITIAL FRACTIONATION/CHARACTERIZATION
SHOWED OIL AND GREASE AND AMMONIA
TO BE PARTIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR
TOXICITY
PRIOR TO CONFIRMATION, ACUTE
TOXICITY DISAPPEARED
-196-
-------
SUBSEQUENT METHOD
• EFFLUENT OCCASIONALLY
ACUTELY TOXIC
• CORRELATE OBSERVED EFFLUENT
TOXICITY TO MANUFACTURING
PROCESSES
• RELATE CHANGES IN PROCESSES TO
PERIODS OF TOXICITY/ NO TOXICITY
• NARROW SCOPE OF WORK TO
FOCUS ON PROCESSES WHICH
CORRELATE WITH EFFLUENT
TOXICITY
SUSPECTED TOXICANTS:
AMMONIA
OIL AND GREASE
-NAPHTHCNIC ACIDS
DIALLYLAMINE PROCESSES
AMINf COMPOUNDS
POLYETHYLENEIMINE
•FLOCCULATING AGfNT
-197-
-------
AMINES
CAUSE OF TOXICITY?
-CONVERTED TO AMMONIA DURING
HOTREATMENT?
•PASS-THROUGH AT HIGH
CONCENTRATIONS?
•INHIBIT NITRIFICATION OF AMMONIA?
CONTROL METHOD (1976-9):
-BYPASS WATER SCRUBBER:
INCINERATE ETHYLENEDIAMINE
DIRECTLY
•INSTALL ION ELECTRODE MONITOR:
MONITOR AMINC/AMMONIA
CONCENTRATIONS. AT HIGH
CONCENTRATIONS. RERUN
TREATMENT
AMMONIA
SUSTAIN NITRIFICATION
BMPs
•CONTROL OF SLUDGE AGE
-CONTROL PH
-AVOID INHIBITORY ADDITIVES (SUCH AS PEI)
•GREATER EMPHASIS ON SPILL CONTROL
-198-
-------
POLYETHYLEJVEIMIJVE
(PEI)
CAUSE OF TOXICITY:
•nee PCI roxic ro FISH
•INHIBITS DEGRADATION OF
OIL AND GREASE
-INHIBITS NITRIFICATION (RESULTING
IN HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF
NAPHTHENIC ACIDS AND AMMONIA)
CONTROL METHOD:
•REPLACE PCI WITH A DIFFERENT.
LISS TOXIC FLOCCULATING
AGENT
OIL AND GREASE
(NAPHTHENIC ACIDS)
SOURCE:
-CRUDE OIL DESALTER (NAPHTHENIC
ACIDS PARTITION INTO WATCH PHASE)
CONTROL METHOD:
•BRINE DCOILING UNIT ADDED TO
REDUCE CONCENTRATION OF
NAPHTHENIC ACIDS PARTITIONING
INTO WATER PHASE
•PACT ADDITION TO ACTIVATED
SLUDGE FOLLOWING SPILLS OR
UPSETS
-199-
-------
OLEff IUVEM
GLEJV RAVEN MILLS
ALTAMAHAW, NORTH CAROLINA
FEBRUARY 1985- MARCH 1986
REQUIRED TO MEET 48 HOUR ACUTE
STATIC LC50 OF >90% ON
DAPHNIA PULtX
OLEW HAVEN
PROCESS;
DYES PANTYHOSE WITH ACID
AND DISPERSE DYES
CHEMICALS 17SED:
DYESTUFFS
SURFACTANTS
CHELATING AGENTS
FABRIC SOFTENERS
GLEN HAVZH
TREATMENT PROCESSES:
EQUILIZATION
ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT
CLARIFICATION
CHLORINATION
-200-
-------
OIXN KAVEJV
TIER 1: CHEMICAL
COMPOUND
OPTIMIZATION
ELIMINATE/MINIMIZE CHEMICALS
WITH KNOWN TOXICITY AND
MINIMAL BIODEGRADABILITY
ALKYL PHENYL ETHOXYIATES (APE)
BIOCIDES
QUATERNARY AMMONIUM COMPOUNDS
ORGANIC SOLVENTS
ENHANCE ACCURACY OF
COMPOUND MEASUREMENT/USE
-------
GLOI KAVCH
TIER 3: EFFLUENT
CHARACTERIZATION
TOXIC CONCENTRATIONS FOUND:
COPPER
NICKEL
ZINC
NONBIODEGRADED NONIONIC
SURFACTANTS
LINEAR ALCOHOL ETHOXYLATES
OLEK JUVTW
METAL REDUCTION
EXPERIMENT:
CATIONIC EXCHANGE RESIN
SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION OF COPPER
AND ZINC
MINIMAL REDUCTION OF IRON
SOME REDUCTION OF CADMIUM,
CHROMIUM, LEAD AND NICKEL
EFFLUENT LC50
71.9% UNTREATED
60.7% TREATED
METALS NOT LIKELY SOURCE OF
TOXICITY
HIGH CONCENTRATIONS PROBABLY
CHELATED
-202-
-------
OLEN JMVTJV
EXTENDED BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT EXPERIMENT
TREATMENT
FULLY DEGRADE AND TREAT
SURFACTANTS
ACTIVATED SLUDGE RENEWAL
(20V. EVERY FIVE DAYS)
EXTENDED TREATMENT
EFFLUENT LC50
71.9% UNTREATED
>90% TREATED
OJLEH juvriv
COJVCL17SIOJVS:
EFFLUENT IS NONTOXIC IF ADEQUATE
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT IS RECEIVED
ADDITIONAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT:
BIODEGRADfS SUfFACTANTS
AND ORGANIC*
BEDUCtS COD LOADING
MAXIMUM FLOW OF WASTEWATER
SHOULD BE NO GREATER THAN 20% OF
TREATMENT FACILITY CAPACITY OR
EFFLUENT SHOULD RECEIVE 20% MORE
SLUDGE CONTACT TIME
CONCENTRATIONS OF TOTAL
RECOVERABLE METALS EXCEED ACUTELY
TOXIC CONCENTRATIONS BUT DO NOT
APPEAR TO BE CONTRIBUTING
SIGNIFICANTLY TO TOXICITY
(DUE TO CHELATION?)
-203-
-------
TRE SUMMARY
INFORMATION
STBTIS WITH TRE PROGRAMS
•R
UIIERE TIEf IRiE 1EEN IONE
-204-
-------
• THE STUDY LOOKED AT 34 TREs - ALL CONDUCTED PRIOR
TO PUBLICATION OF EPA PROTOCOLS
TYPES OF FACILITIES REPRESENTED:
4 OIL REFINERIES
A METAL INDUSTRIES
4 TEXTILES FACILITIES
8 CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES
9 POTWs
6 MISCELLANEOUS
• TREs RANGED FROM 3 MONTHS TO 2 YEARS DEPENDING
ON THE COMPLEXITY OF THE WASTESTREAM AND
VARIABILITY OF TOXICITY
TOXICANT IDENTIFICATION
• TOXICANTS WERE IDENTIFIED AT 23 FACILITIES (68%)
• 9 FACILITIES DID NOT ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY
TOXICANTS
•7 CHARACTERIZED THE WASTfWATIR TO IDENTIFY
SUSPECTS. THEN WENT TO TREATMENT
•2 DID NOT CHARACTERIZE EFFLUENT
•1 ELIMINATED OUTFALL
•1 IS NOT MEETING LIMIT CURRENTLY
• 2 FACILITIES ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON
IDENTIFICATION
TOXICANTS
TOXICANTS WERE IDENTIFIED AT 23 FACILITIES
-PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES AT 7 FACILITIES
•OTHER ORGANICS AT 12 FACILITIES
•AMMONIA AT 8 FACILITIES
-METALS AT 5 FACILITIES
-205-
-------
TREATMENT
13 FACILITIES HAVE SELECTED AND
IMPLEMENTED TREATMENT
6 FACILITIES HAVE SELECTED BUT NOT
IMPLEMENTED TREATMENT
13 FACILITIES HAVE NOT SELECTED TREATMENT
2 FACILITIES HAVE CLOSED THE OUTFALL
- I DIVERTED TO A POTW
•1 STOPPED PROCESS CAUSING TOXICITY
TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS:
• Of THE 13 FACILITIES WHICH IMPLEMENTED
TREATMENT:
-B HAVE MET PERMIT LIMITS
-2 HAVE REMOVED ACUTE TOXICITY BUT STILL HAVE
CHRONIC TOXICITY
• 1 IS NOT MEETING PERMIT LIMITS
•2 ARE UNKNOWN (TREATMENT RECENTLY INSTALLED)
• PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION. PACT AND SYSTEM
UPGRADES MOST COMMON TREATMENTS
SELECTED
-206-
------- |