EJBD
ARCHIVE
EPA
330-
2-
78-
009
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
EPA-33O/2-78-OO9
Evaluation of the
City Wastewater Treatment Plant
Port St. Joe, Florida
(FEBRUARY 8-18, 1978
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO
MAY 1978
-------
>fy? »J_-M£N Environmental Protection Agency
//7COIflU/fcs>
Office of Enforcement
EPA- 330/2- 78- 009
EVALUATION OF THE CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PORT ST. JOE, FLORIDA
[February 8 - 18, 1978]
Repository Material
Permanent Collection
May 1978
National Enforcement Investigations Center
Denver, Colorado
-------
CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION 1
II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 4
III BACKGROUND 7
IV STUDY DESCRIPTION 14
STUDY SITE 14
SAMPLING AND ANALYSES 14
V NPDES COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND
EVALUATION OF SELF-MONITORING PROCEDURES 17
EVALUATION OF SELF-MONITORING PROCEDURES 18
LABORATORY EVALUATION 20
VI STUDY FINDINGS 27
BACTERIA GROWTH STUDIES 27
BACTERIA ASSAY 33
PLANT EVALUATION 34
REFERENCES 46
APPENDICES
A Study Request and City of Port St. Joe
NPDES Permit No. FL0020206
B Industrial Process Evaluation
C Bacteriological Methods
D Survey Methods
E Chain of Custody
F Chemical Methods
G Physical, Chemical, and Bacteriological Results
-------
TABLES
1 Port St. Joe and Bay County Treatment Facilities ... 9
2 Station Locations 15
3 Comparison of Chemical Data 25
4 Relationship of Escherichia coli Growth and
BOD in a Mixture of Industrial Waste and
Municipal Sewage 29
5 Relationship of Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Growth and BOD in a Mixture of Industrial
Waste and Municipal Sewage 32
6 Summary of Physical and Chemical Characteristics ... 35
7 Summary of Bacteriological Characteristics 37
8 Comparison of Blended vs Nonblended Primary
Treated Sewage at Various Disinfection Rates 40
FIGURES
1 Flow Diagram of Port St. Joe Wastewater
Treatment Plant 2
2 Port St. Joe Wastewater Treatment Plant
and Vicinity 11
3 Coliform growth in the Aeration Lagoon 44
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the pulp and paper industry has shown great in-
terest in using municipal sewage facilities for treating their in-
dustrial wastewaters. A 1977 study1 by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) showed that seventeen paper mills were discharging waste-
waters into publicly owned treatment systems and that several other
paper companies were considering similar treatment approaches. Among
these are two mills in the northwestern panhandle of Florida: the
St. Joseph Paper Company in Port St. Joe, and the International Paper
Company in Panama City.
Currently, the St. Joseph Paper Company discharges its industrial
wastewaters into an aerated lagoon at the Port St. Joe Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) for combined treatment with the city domestic
sewage [Figure 1]. International Paper Company in Panama City, Florida
has proposed similar treatment for its wastewaters in the Bay County,
Florida WWTP. Representatives for the Bay County facility have re-
quested a grant from the EPA, Region IV to construct additional facil-
ities for a combined wastewater treatment system.
However, these plans have been questioned by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the EPA concerning the impact the proposed
aerated lagoon discharge may have upon St. Andrew Bay. These agencies
recommended that a study be done to predict the bacteriological effect
of mixing domestic sewage with paper mill and other wastes prior to
its discharge to St. Andrew Bay. The Port St. Joe WWTP offers a par-
allel by which the proposed treatment could be evaluated.
-------
C ity of Port St Joe
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Aeration Lagoon
Figure I. Port St Joe Wasfewafer Treafmenf Plant and Vicinity
-------
The National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) was re-
quested by the EPA, Region IV Enforcement Division to evaluate the
Port St. Joe WWTP to determine:
1. The efficiency of the Port St. Joe Wastewater Treatment
Plant aerated lagoon in reducing solids, biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and coliform bacteria densities when treating
a mixture of domestic and paper mill wastes, and
2. Compliance of the Port St. Joe Wastewater Treatment Plant
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit No. FL0020206.
Results of this study will be used by the EPA to evaluate the
efficiency of the existing treatment system at Port St. Joe, Florida,
and the proposed construction of treatment facilities for combining
and treating International Paper Company wastewaters with municipal
sewage at the Bay County WWTP in Panama City, Florida. Moreover, it
is anticipated that results from this study will serve in evaluating
similar facility proposals on a national basis. To accomplish these
goals, it was necessary to evaluate plant efficiency and determine
compliance of the Port St. Joe WWTP with the NPDES Permit limitations
[Appendix A].
-------
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Port St. Joe WWTP was evaluated from February 8 to 18, 1978
to determine the effectiveness of the plant in treating combined
domestic and paper mill wastes, and to determine compliance with the
NPDES permit. Wastewater samples were collected from 8 locations
which included municipal and industrial inflows (Stations 1-4); pri-
mary clarifier discharges (Stations 5-6); aerated lagoon (Station 13)
and final plant effluent (Station 7). The samples were analyzed for
physical, chemical, and bacteriological characteristics. Measure-
ments were performed in situ (pH, temperature, and flow) or at EPA
mobile laboratories (BOD, TSS, chlorine residual, and bacteriology)
located at the Port St. Joe WWTP. Additionally, the EPA evaluated
the wastewater treatment practices, self-monitoring sampling proced-
ures, laboratory analytical techniques, and other practices associated
with compliance monitoring at the Port St. Joe WWTP.
The 11-day EPA survey showed that the treatment plant was in
compliance with the final effluent concentrations and load limits
for BOD and TSS prescribed in the NPDES permit. The pH of the plant
effluent remained within the allowable range of 6.0 to 8.5 units and
foam or floating solids were discharged only in trace amounts.
The treatment plant did not attain compliance with the NPDES
permit limit for bacteria. During the second calendar week
(February 12-17) of the study, the geometric mean for fecal coliform
(FC) bacteria was 660/100 ml in the chlorinated domestic wastewater
prior to mixing with the industrial wastewaters. This FC density
exceeded the State of Florida requirement of the NPDES permit,
which limits fecal coliforms to 400/100 ml, weekly average.
Self-monitoring data did not show any violations of the fecal
coliform bacteria limit. However, a review of the self-monitoring
sampling and analyses procedures practiced by the City of Port St. Joe
-------
WWTP staff revealed inconsistencies with certain recommended pro-
cedures. The WWTP personnel did not properly dechlorinate sewage
samples which were analyzed for bacteria. Furthermore, they did not
use the recommended MPN method for analyzing bacterial densities in
chlorinated sewage. The WWTP officials have been notified of these
deficiencies and they plan to modify their procedures accordingly.
However, past self-monitoring bacteriological data required by the
NPDES permit that have been analyzed at the Port St. Joe WWTP labora-
tory must be considered invalid. Other self-monitoring data for such
parameters as TSS and BOD appeared to be reliable as described in the
text of this report.
One purpose for the EPA to perform a full-scale study of the
Port St. Joe WWTP was to determine the fate of sewage bacteria in the
treatment system. The following paragraphs summarize the on-site
study findings.
Bacteria analysis of the individual industrial and municipal
wastewater entering the WWTP showed the major contributor of fecal
coliform (FC) bacteria was the City; this wastewater had a geometric
mean of 1.8 million FC/100 ml. The city sewage is chlorinated to
reduce FC bacteria before mixing with the industrial wastewaters and
undergoing primary and secondary treatment. The excessively high FC
density (3.5 million/100 ml) irregularly discharged with Sylvachem
wastewaters into the WWTP strongly indicates the need for pretreatment
disinfection of this specific industrial wastewater also. On the
average, Sylvachem contributed 61,000 FC/100 ml while the St. Joe
Paper Company added 140 FC/100 ml.
Chlorinated sewage from the Port St. Joe WWTP tested by using
the standard most-probable-number (MPN) method contained bacteria
densities averaging 57 FC/100 ml. These same samples were blended in
the laboratory and found to actually contain an average of 550 FC/100 ml.
Similar tests were performed with primary treated and chlorinated sewage
in a bench-scale laboratory experiment.
-------
Results indicated that substantial numbers (3,300 to 7,900 FC/100 ml)
of feca'l coliforms pass through the disinfection systems which had
chlorine residuals ranging from 1.7 to 2.4 mg/1 and a detention time
of 15 minutes. When the chlorine residuals were increased to greater
than 3 mg/1 and contact time extended to 20 minutes or more, the fecal
coliform densities were reduced to 310/100 ml or less.
Other bacteriological testing at the Port St. Joe WWTP revealed
that the FC bacteria that enter the aerated lagoon may multiply by
thousands. Laboratory incubation studies showed that bacterial growth
was greatest at summertime lagoon temperatures of 30 to 35°C, and
least during other seasonal temperatures of 15 to 25°C.
On-site studies in February when the lagoon temperature was 23°C
showed that a weekly average of 500 FC/100 ml entered the aeration
basin. These bacteria were comprised of equal numbers (50%) of
Escherichia coli type 1 and Klebsiella. During the 12.6-day detention
in the lagoon, the bacteria population underwent numerous changes: £_._
coli decreased to 17% while the Klebsiella increased to 74%. Although
the mixture of sewage, paper mill and tall oil wastes in the lagoon
favored Klebsiella, there was a substantial number of E_^ coli type 1
that were sustained for the 12.6-day lagoon detention. The final
effluent contained 500 FC/100 ml. Thus, the 12.6-day detention in
the lagoon did not decrease the number of fecal coliforms, but it did
favor growth of Klebsiella over E^_ coli.
In summary, the WWTP effluent contained BOD and TSS concentrations
of approximately 25 and 55 mg/1 respectively and a FC bacteria density
of 500/100 ml. This study showed that a well-operated wastewater
treatment plant that provides secondary treatment by an aerated lagoon
(12.6-day detention) for sewage, paper mill and tall oil wastes can
be expected to reduce loadings of BOD and TSS by about 87% and the FC
bacteria by approximately 97%.
-------
III. BACKGROUND
In March 1975, the NEIC conducted a field investigation of the
St. Andrew Bay estuarine system to determine if International Paper
Company (IPC) was contributing to violations of water quality stan-
dards for bacteria and the associated closure of shellfish harvesting
areas.2 Results of the EPA study concluded that the Bay County aerated
lagoon effluent was contributing to the bacterial degradation of the
St. Andrew Bay water quality by its discharge of combined paper mill
waste and sewage. The report further concluded that future plans to
discharge treated sewage to the Bay County aerated lagoon should be
reconsidered, since such a plan could increase pollution in the St.
Andrew Bay estuarine system.
Present plans to convert, upgrade and expand the Bay County
treatment facility initially call for mixing 6,800 mVday (1.8 mgd*)
of primary treated and chlorinated sewage in the Bay County aerated
lagoon prior to discharge into St. Andrew Bay. The system will even-
tually provide treatment for 22,680 mVday (6 mgd) of sewage.3
Because of the possible impact that the effluent could have on the
coliform densities and aquatic biota in the Bay system, the proposal
was questioned by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
the EPA. Meetings were held August 9, 10 and 11, 1977 with represen-
tatives from NEIC, EPA Region IV, the Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulations, NMFS, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and
several consulting firms. As a result of these meetings, it was con-
cluded that the Port St. Joe WWTP offers a parallel by which the pro-
posed Bay County facilities could be evaluated.
* Average daily flow; peak flow estimated to be 17,000 m3/day or
4.5 mgd.3
-------
To facilitate the comparison of these two treatment plants, a
selected list of design and Company self-monitoring characteristics
was obtained from WWTP officials.4'5'6 These data are presented in
Table 1 and the major similarities or differences are discussed below.
The Port St. Joe WWTP is designed to provide secondary treatment
for a mixture of domestic and industrial wastewaters. At the Port
St. Joe facility, domestic waste is comminuted and then chlorinated
before being combined with industrial wastewaters [Figure 2]. These
mixed wastewaters then undergo primary treatment prior to being dis-
charged into approximately a 28-ha (70-acre) aerated lagoon.5 At the
Bay County facility, it is proposed that domestic waste be comminuted
and then undergo primary treatment and chlorination before being com-
bined with primary-treated wastewaters from local industry. These
wastewaters would then be discharged into approximately a 28-ha
(70-acre) aerated lagoon for secondary treatment.
The industrial wastewaters treated at both locations are a mix-
ture of Kraft paper mill wastewater and tall oil processing wastewater.
The industrial processes used at these industries are very similar
[Appendix B]. At Port St. Joe, the papermill wastewater averages about
102,000 mVday (27 mgd*); at Bay County the mill wastewater average
about 89,000 mVday (23.5 mgd). The tall oil wastewaters are approxi-
mately 1,500 m3/day (0.4 mgd) at Port St. Joe and about 3,785 mVday
(1.0 mgd) at Bay County. The domestic wastewater flows treated at
Port St. Joe average 1,890 mVday (0.5 mgd). At the Bay County facility,
treatment of 6,800 to 22,680 mVday (1.8 to 6 mgd) of domestic waste-
waters is proposed.4'5'6
* Flow increases to approximately 131,000 m3/day or 34 mgd during
the 10-day period per month when the bleach plant is in operation.
-------
Table 1
WASTEUATER TREATMENT CHARACTERISTICS
PORT ST. JOE AND BAY COUNTY FACILITIES
Parameter
PLANT INFLUENT
Flow (Avg. Daily - mgd)
Paper Mill Uastewater
Tall Oil Wastewater
Municipal Wastewater
Total Flow
Peak Flow
Wastewater Characteristics
BOD
mg/1
kg/day
Ib/day
TSS
mg/1
kg/day
Ib/day
PRIMARY TREATMENT EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
BOD
mg/1
kg/day
Ib/day
TSS
mg/1
kg/day
Ib/day
SECONDARY TREATMENT EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
BOD
mg/1
kg/day
Ib/day
TSS
mg/1
kg/day
Ib/day
TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES (2)
Primary Treatment
BOD
TSS
Secondary Treatment
BOD
TSS
Overall Plant
BOD
TSS
Port St.
Design
33.87
0.38
0.50
34.75
41.50
260
34,100
75,200
440
58,100
128,100
208
27,300
60,200
88
11,600
25,600
26
3,410
7,520
44
5,810
12,810
20
80
87.5
50
90
90
Joe WHIP
Reported
34.5
0.43
0.64
35.57
279
37,950
83,660
407
55,357
122,040
240
32,643
71,965
153
20,808
45,875
24
3,300
7,200
60
8,160
17,990
14
63
90
61
91
85
Bay County WWTP
a
Design Reported
Industrial
26.00 23.59
1.00 1.01
6.00
33.00 30.60
310 272
37,600 26,337
83,000 58,063
274
27,224
60,017
231 230
27,900 26,100
61,600 57,600
95
10,800
23,800
31 29
3,800 3,280
8,300 7,240
64
7,225
15,929
10C (30)d 7.3
70 61.3
87 87.3
33
90 89.2
75.6
Municipal
6.00
192
4,353
9,607
130
2,962
6,529
30
60
-------
Table 1 (Continued)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT CHARACTERISTICS
PORT ST. JOE AND BAY COUNTY FACILITIES
10
Parameter
Port St. Joe HWTP
1 E
Design Reported
Bay County HHTP"
Design
Reportea
Industrial Municipal
SECONDARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT UNIT CHARACTERISTICS
Aeration Lagoon
Water Surface Area (acres) 70.2 70.2
Water Depth (ft) 20 20
Free Board (ft) 5 5
Water Volume (million gal) 437 437
Detention Time in days
(at avg daily flow) 12.6 12.6
Surface Aerators
69
12
3
256
8.9
69
12
3
256
8.9e
a
b
C
d
e
f
Number
Aerator HP (ea unit)
Total HP of aerators 1
Oxygen in lagoon (mg/1)
Based on information provided by George C. Cook,
Florida, municipal waste data are assumed.
Based on Discharge Monitoring Reports from Port
St. Joe Paper was in operation.
Industrial value.
Municipal value-
Assumed values.
Ten additional 75 HP aerators installed July 10,
12
150
,800
0.8
12
150
1,800
0.3-3.1
Superintendent Bay County
St. Joe WWTP for February
1977.
23
75
1,725
3.0
Water
8-18,
75
2,425
0.5-3.5
System, Panama City,
1978; bleach plant at
-------
St. Joe Paper
Sylvachem Corp.
Domestic
Comminution
Bar
Screens
Aerated
Grit
Chambers
Aerated
Lagoon
(12-150 HP
aerators)
Primary
Clarifiers
I
Dewatering and
Vacuum Filtration
\
Incineration
Liquid
Solids
Not to Scale
Figure 2. Flow Diagram of Port St. Joe Wastewater Treatment Plant
Port St. Joe, Florida
-------
12
Primary treatment of mixed industrial and domestic wastewaters
by the Port St. Joe and Bay County facilities is also similar. Both
plants provide primary clarification of industrial wastewaters. The
proposed or existing primary treatment facilities for domestic waste-
waters consist of: bar-screen, grit chamber and a clarifier. These
systems are designed to reduce 5-day BOD by 20 to 30% and TSS by 70
to~80%.4'5'6
Secondary treatment of mixed industrial and domestic wastewaters
is similar also.4'5'6 Both treatment plants use an aerated lagoon.
Water surface area in both systems is approximately 28 ha (70 acres).
The lagoon at Port St. Joe has a water depth of about 6 meters (20
feet) while the Bay County lagoon is nearly 4 meters (12 feet) deep.
The larger lagoon at Port St. Joe has a calculated detention time of
about 12.6 days while the Bay County lagoon has approximately 9 days
of detention. Aeration in each lagoon is provided by electrically
powered aerators that are mounted on floating pontoons. The Port St.
Joe facility uses twelve 150 HP aerators; the Bay County facility
uses thirty-three 75 HP aerators.*
Based upon information provided EPA by official; of both
plants,5'6 and by a private laboratory,8 the following physical and
chemical conditions typically occur in both of the treatment lagoons.
The water temperatures range from 15 to 38°C; differences are caused
by influent wastewater temperature fluctuations combined with seasonal
changes of weather conditions. The pH usually is circumneutral (6.5
to 8.0 units). The dissolved oxygen in the Port St. Joe aerated la-
goon is typically less than 1 mg/1. At Bay County, the oxygen level
* Before July 1977 the Bay County lagoon had twenty-three 75 HP
aerators in operation.6
-------
13
in the'lagoon is usually about 3 mg/1. The Port St. Joe lagoon
usually has approximately 2 mg/1 total nitrogen and 0.5 mg/1 phos-
phorus. Nutrient levels typically are higher (total N is 10 to 20
mg/1; P is 2 mg/1) at the Bay County facility because phosphoric acid
and ammonia are added to the paper mill wastewater prior to the lagoon
treatment.
Each lagoon is designed to reduce the 5-day BOD by about 87% and
the TSS by approximately 50%. Both plants are designed to meet the
State of Florida requirement for secondary treatment systems, which is:
"All discharge from municipal and privately owned domestic waste plants
will comply with the Water Quality Standards of the State of Florida
with 90% treatment (of BOD and TSS) or better...".9
-------
IV. STUDY DESCRIPTION
STUDY SITE
The Port St. Joe Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located
adjacent to St. Joseph Bay in southwestern Gulf County, Florida. St.
Joe Paper Company and Sylvachem Corporation occupy the strip of land
between the treatment plant and the Bay. The Gulf County Canal bounds
the treatment plant site on the north, while along the east the land
is mostly swamp. To the south lies the City of Port St. Joe [Figure 1].
Eight sampling stations were established within the facility
[Table 2] to obtain representative samples of municipal and indus-
trial inflow (Station 1-4), primary clarification discharges (Station
5-6), wastewater in the lagoon (Station 13) and final effluent from
the Port St. Joe Wastewater Treatment Plant (Station 7).
SAMPLING AND ANALYSES
During two presurvey visits (October 25-27, 1977 and January
17-18, 1978) wastewater samples were collected at the study site.
These samples were sent to the NEIC laboratories in Denver, Colorado
and used in bacteria growth studies and bacteria bioassays. Two
wastewater samples were collected from the aerated lagoon on February
11 and 17, 1978. These were sent to Denver for bacterial growth
studies also [Section VI and Appendix C].
During the 11-day survey (February 8 to 18, 1978) daily samples
for pH, temperature, chlorine residual and coliform bacteria analyses
were collected [Appendix D]. These grab samples were scheduled so as
-------
Table 2
STATION LOCATIONS
PORT ST. JOE WWTP - FLORIDA
February 8-18, 1978
Station Description
01 City of Port St. Joe Sanitary sewer,
influent to WWTP prior to chlorination
02 City of Port St. Joe sewage after
comminution and chlorination
03 St. Joe Paper Company wastewater,
influent of untreated mill waste
to WWTP
04 Sylvachem Company wastewater, influent
of raw untreated waste to WWTP
05 Discharge from the WWTP primary
Clarifier A (west tank)
06 Discharge from the WWTP primary
Clarifier B (east tank)
07 Final discharge of WWTP at the parshall
flume
13 Aerated lagoon, south shoreline near
Clarifier inflow boil
-------
16
to be collected one hour later each day. This staggered schedule was
designe'd to provide sampling of wastewaters over a 10-hr period during
the survey. At the treatment plant final effluent (Station 7), grab
samples for bacteria, pH and temperature measurements were collected
twice daily. Bacteriological samples for Salmonella analysis were
collected using the modified swab technique of Moore10 [Appendix C].
These samples were collected on February 9, 10 and 11, 1978.
Daily, flow-weighted composite samples (24-hour) were collected
from Stations 1 and 3 through 7. By prearrangement, these composite
samples were collected in duplicate to provide "split" samples for
the WWTP. Established chain-of-custody procedures were followed in
the collection of all samples and field data [Appendix E].
After collection, the wastewater samples were transported to the
NEIC mobile laboratory. The WWTP laboratory supervisor selected one
each of the duplicate samples. The identification tag was marked
"Company Split" and the transfer recorded by NEIC personnel. The
remaining duplicate samples were relinquished to the NEIC chemistry
and bacteriology mobile laboratories at the Port St. Joe WWTP. Time
between sample collection and initiating of laboratory analyses by
the NEIC was usually less than two hours.* Analytical methods and
quality control measurements for chemistry are described in Appendix F.
Residual chlorine analysis was performed 5 to 30 minutes after
collection.
-------
V. NPDES COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND EVALUATION
OF SELF-MONITORING AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
was issued for the City of Port St. Joe WWTP on July 1, 1977 [Appendix
A]. The permit limits the effluent BOD to a monthly average of 26
mg/1 or 3,415 kg (7,529 lb)/day and a weekly average of 39 mg/1 or
5,123 kg (11,294 lb)/day. Total suspended solids (TSS) are limited
to a monthly average of 44 mg/1 or 5,780 kg (12,810 lb)/day and a
weekly average of 66 mg/1 or 8,669 kg (19,000 lb)/day. The permit
also specifies that the effluent pH must be in the range of 6.0 to
8.5 standard units. Additionally, the permit restricts the discharge
of floating solids, foam or substances that cause a sheen on the re-
ceiving water.
The State of Florida Certification placed an additional condi-
tion in the NPDES permit related to bacteria. The fecal coliform
bacteria as determined in the domestic wastewater effluent prior to
mixing with the industrial flow is limited to a monthly average of
200 bacteria/100 ml and a weekly average of 400 bacteria/100 ml.
The 11-day EPA survey showed that the plant effluent met the
allowable concentrations and load limits for BOD and TSS. The pH re-
mained within the allowable range of 6.0 to 8.5 units and foam or
floating solids were discharged only in trace amounts.
The weekly fecal coliform bacteria limit of 400/100 ml was ex-
ceeded the calendar week of February 12, i978. Specific findings are
discussed in Section VI of this report.
-------
18
The self-monitoring data submitted by the City of Port St. Joe
WWTP officials for the period of July through November 1977 showed
that the plant effluent met BOD and TSS load limits, as well as the
fecal coliform limit. However, in November, the monthly average TSS
concentration of 52 mg/1 exceeded the allowable limit of 44 mg/1.
Also the average TSS concentration for the week of November 6-12,
1977 was 74 mg/1, which exceeded the allowable weekly limit of 66
mg/1.
As part of the EPA compliance monitoring evaluation, field sam-
pling specialists from NEIC accompanied WWTP staff to sampling sites
to observe sample collecting techniques being practiced. Addition-
ally, senior specialists from NEIC visited the WWTP laboratory to
interview the staff on analytical techniques. Results of these ob-
servations and interviews are presented below.
EVALUATION OF SELF-MONITORING PROCEDURES
Sampling and flow calibration procedures used by the Port St.
Joe WWTP staff were evaluated by NEIC. The procedures were con-
sidered adequate except as noted in the following paragraphs.
Plant personnel collect daily flow-weighted composite samples
from the three influents (i.e., chlorinated sewage, paper mill, and
tall oil processor) and the final effluent using automatic samplers.
Time composites are also collected daily before and after the primary
clarifiers. Although the automatic samplers are designed to refrig-
erate the composited samples, the refrigeration units were inoperable
-------
19
on the Company-installed automatic samplers located at Station 01, 03
and 04:*
The composite samples are transported to the WWTP laboratory for
BOD and TSS analyses. The samples are not placed in ice during trans-
port; EPA observers suggested that the procedure be modified to in-
clude preserving the transported samples with ice.
Daily, plant personnel collect grab samples of sewage from the
City of Port St. Joe for bacteria analysis. Samples are collected
after chlorination and before the sewage is mixed with industrial
wastewater (Station 02). Sample bottles appeared to be properly
cleaned and sealed, but did not contain a dechlorination agent; con-
sequently, the sewage was transported to the laboratory without being
dechlorinated. Additionally, the samples are not placed in ice dur-
ing transport to the WWTP laboratory.
A flow calibration problem occurs periodically at the Parshall
flume (Station 07). Although not observed by NEIC, it was reported
that wastewater inflow from St. Joe Paper Company occasionally ex-
ceeds the maximum flow capacity of 167,000 mVday (44 mgd) recommended
for the Parshall flume at the WWTP final effluent. When this occurs,
flow measurements and related flow-proportional samples collected by
Company-installed automatic samplers may be in error.
According to WWTP personnel, corrosive gases generated by incoming
waste streams caused leakage in the compressor lines, resulting in
inadequate refrigeration. The WWTP officials are considering either
relocating the samplers or 'shielding them from the gases to correct
this situation.
-------
20
LABORATORY EVALUATION
The laboratory facilities were visited for inspection during the
Port St. Joe WWTP evaluation. The WWTP Laboratory Supervisor and his
technical assistants were interviewed concerning bacteriological and
chemical laboratory procedures.
The Laboratory Supervisor holds a Bachelor of Science degree in
Biology and has approximately 5 years of analytical laboratory ex-
perience. His technical assistants have a variety of background
training in sewage treatment as well as 1 to 2 years experience in
analytical laboratory work.
The WWTP laboratory staff routinely use the membrane filter pro-
cedure for determining bacteria densities in raw chlorinated domestic
sewage. This procedure is not an approved method for monitoring
chlorinated sewage. Standard Methods11 states that the membrane fil-
ter technique should not be used for coliform analyses of raw or pri-
mary treated domestic wastes that have been chlorinated. The most-
probable-number (MPN) tube-dilution procedure is the recommended
method for testing these types of wastewater. Additionally, WWTP
personnel do not dechlorinate samples immediately upon collection.
Sample bottles should contain proper amounts of sodium thiosulfate
for dechlorination of sample at the time of collection. Therefore,
past self-monitoring bacteriological data required by the NPDES permit
that have been analyzed at the Port St. Joe WWTP laboratory must be
considered invalid.
During the NEIC evaluation, WWTP personnel were actively parti-
cipating in a self training exercise in use of the MPN procedure.
All indications are that the facility and personnel should have little
difficulty in converting to the MPN procedure. However, it is strongly
recommended-that laboratory analysts participate in an EPA- or State-
sponsored training course in Wastewater Microbiology.
-------
21
Several additional recommendations related to bacteriological
monitoring were presented to the Wastewater Treatment Plant manage-
ment. These included:
1. Procurement of the 14th edition of Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. The
laboratory is currently using the 13th edition for
reference purposes.
2. The use of the 5-tube MPN procedure for NPDES
self-monitoring testing.
3. Incorporation of the 5-tube MPN procedure will require
procurement of a larger and more efficient autoclave
that contains proper temperature controls.
4. The laboratory should obtain a water jacketed incu-
bator that will maintain proper temperature controls.
5. The laboratory should initiate a good ongoing
quality control program for bacteriology to include
bound records demonstrating such items as incubator,
waterbath and autoclave temperature controls.
Additional items should include thermometers cali-
brated with a National Bureau of Standards thermometer.
The balance used to weigh media and reagents should
be calibrated routinely. Records should be main-
tained on media pH checks. Dehydrated media that
has been opened should be stored in a desiccator
and unused portions discarded after 6 months storage.
Quality control procedures should include routine
toxic trace metal analyses on distilled water used
for media preparation. Records of media reagents and
supply inventories should be maintained.
-------
22
The Port St. Joe WWTP laboratory staff routinely performs BOD
and suspended solids analyses. The WWTP uses EPA-approved analytical
procedures for these tests. A laboratory technician performs the BOD
and suspended solids analyses during the week and plant operators
perform the analyses on weekends. The WWTP staff appear to have a
good understanding of the chemical procedures which are taken from
Standard Methods.
All BOD and suspended solids analyses are performed on the same
day the samples are collected. The BOD procedure consisted of the
multiple dilution technique with the dilutions being made in the bot-
tles. Two bottles per dilution are prepared, one each for initial
and final dissolved oxygen (DO) readings. The aerated lagoon efflu-
ent is used as bacterial "seed" for the paper and tall oil company
wastewaters. The DO meter is calibrated with air saturated water at
known temperature and barometric pressure. Results from all dilutions
with DO depletion between 40 and 70% for each sample are averaged and
the results are checked against past values.
The NEIC Laboratory Supervisor suggested that the WWTP laboratory
staff prepare only one bottle per dilution to obtain both the initial
and final DO values. The rationale for preparing two bottles, as
stated in Standard Methods, is that in the past, DO concentrations
were determined by the Winkler Method which destroyed the sample.
The rationale is no longer valid when using the DO meter and, there-
fore, it is appropriate to use the one-bottle method.
The NPDES permit requires an instantaneous pH measurement daily
on the final effluent. The practice at the Port St. Joe WWTP was to
transport a composite sample to the laboratory for pH analysis.
During the NEIC laboratory evaluation, the Laboratory Supervisor was
advised of this error by the EPA inspection team. The WWTP staff
plans to correct this procedure immediately.
-------
23
No formalized quality assurance program for chemistry was in
operation at the WWTP laboratory. To initiate such a program, the
following suggestions were made:
1. Glucose-glutamic acid standards should be analyzed daily
instead of periodically to verify the proper performance of
the BOD test. In addition, 10% of the samples should be
analyzed in duplicate to determine the precision of the
procedure. The thermometer used to monitor the BOD incu-
bator should be calibrated against a National Bureau of
Standards thermometer or by preparing distilled water baths
at 0 and 100°C.
2. The suspended solids procedure consisted of using the mem-
brane-type filter holder with Gelman * AE glass fiber fil-
ters. The maximum volume of water that could be passed
through the filter in about five minutes was used. The
thermometer used to verify the oven temperature should be
calibrated as stated above. A technique to calibrate the
analytical balance using a one-gram weight was demonstrated
by NEIC personnel. It was recommended that this procedure
be performed every day that the balance is used and the
results recorded in addition to the routinely scheduled
maintenance.
3. To determine the precision of the procedure, 10% of the
suspended solids samples should be analyzed in duplicate.
In addition, suspended solids reference samples should be
analyzed frequently, preferably every day.
References to product brand names in this document does not
imply endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
24
The NEIC personnel supplied the WWTP laboratory personnel with
standard reference samples for both BOD and total suspended solids
(TSS) analyses. They were asked to analyze the samples and submit
the results to EPA within two weeks.
The WWTP performed well on the reference samples. The results
they reported for BOD and TSS were 24 and 47 mg/1 (true value 24 and
51 mg/1), respectively.
Furthermore, NEIC and WWTP personnel split daily wastewater com-
posite samples from six locations in the treatment plant. Ten sam-
ples from each station were analyzed by NEIC and WWTP chemists for
BOD and TSS. The NEIC and WWTP data are compared in Table 3. Except
for BOD results on the Sylvachem effluent (Station 04), the NEIC and
WWTP compared well. The significant difference in BOD results for
the Silvachem wastewaters is believed to be related to the source of
BOD bacterial seed. As previously mentioned, the WWTP used the
aerated lagoon effluent as "seed" in BOD analysis of the tall oil
wastes. The NEIC used raw domestic sewage as "seed" for the BOD tests
[Appendix E]. It appears that the "sewage seed" selected by NEIC was
composed of bacteria that were not acclimated to the tall oil wastes
as were the bacteria from the lagoon effluent; consequently, the NEIC
results for BOD in the Sylvachem wastewater were substantially lower
than the WWTP results.
The overall effect of the difference in Sylvachem waste BOD re-
sults was minimal as demonstrated by the comparison of the WWTP and
NEIC findings for the final effluent (Station 07). The mean of the
ten results from BOD tests of the final discharge was 26 mg/1 by NEIC
analysts and 24 mg/1 by the WWTP.
Generally, the Port St. Joe WWTP laboratory was clean, spacious
and orderly. The laboratory bench sheets and summary results forms
-------
25
Table 3
COMPARISON OF CHEMICAL DATA3
PORT ST. JOE WWTP - FLORIDA
February 8-18, 1978
Station Description WWTPb NEICC
No> BODd TSSe BOD TSS
01 City of Port St. Joe
Sanitary Sewer, influent
to WWTP prior to chlori-
nation 134 191 102 206
03 St. Joe Paper Company
wastewater, influent
of untreated mill
waste to WWTP 231 383 176 402
04 Sylvachem Company
wastewater, influent
of raw untreated
waste to WWTP 2,680 899 1,827 870
05 Discharge from the
WWTP primary Clari- f f
fier A (west tank) 243T 169T 199 167
06 Discharge from the
WWTP primary Clari- f f
fier B (east tank) 237T 138T 204 119
07 Final discharge of
WWTP at the Parshall
flume 24 60 26 51
a Values expressed as mg/1; arithmetic mean of 10 tests unless
indicated otherwise.
b Wastewater Treatment Plant
c National Enforcement Investigations Center
d Biochemical oxygen demand
e Total suspended solids
f Arithmetic mean of 9 tests
-------
26
were adequate and filled out completely. Personnel were very
cooperative, conscientious and capable. The staff of the WWTP lab-
oratory were well trained in chemical procedures and used modern,
well-maintained equipment.
Management expressed sincere intentions of establishing a qual-
ity assurance program, improving laboratory capabilities and adherence
to established procedures, as well as procurement of additional equip-
ment, supplies and training needs.
-------
VI. STUDY FINDINGS
BACTERIAL GROWTH STUDIES
To determine bacterial growth patterns in the industrial and
domestic wastewater mixture being treated at the Port St. Joe plant,
wastewater from the primary clarifiers (Stations 05 and 06) was tested.
At the NEIC laboratory, the clarifier wastewaters collected 40 hours
earlier were combined and mixed thoroughly. An aliquot of the combined
sample was tested for BOD and coliform bacteria densities. The sample
was subsequently divided into three equal portions which were incu-
bated: one each at 15, 22.5 and 30°C respectively. The incubated
samples were mixed and aerated constantly by passing air through
sterile cotton.
Initial BOD was 260 mg/1. MPN analysis showed no lactose fer-
mentation indicating that no coliform bacteria were present in the
wastewater samples. However, the bacteria culture tubes exhibited
turbidity, indicating the presence of nonlactose fermenting bacteria.
Aliquots from each incubated container of wastewater were tested again
for BOD and coliform densities. The BOD results were erratic and the
repeated MPN test showed no coliform bacteria present.
After incubating and aerating the three containers of wastewater
for 5 days at 15, 22.5 and 30°C, a pure culture of Escherichia coli
(2,400 per ml*) was inoculated into each.
Because each sample was artificially inoculated, densities are more
appropriately expressed as E^ coli/ml rather than E^ coli/100 ml.
-------
28
A BOD of 230 mg/1 was measured in the inoculated sample incu-
bated at 30°C while the BOD was 360 mg/1 at 22.5°C and 390 mg/1 at
15°C. Subsequent BOD measurements of each incubated sample were per-
formed at two- or three-day intervals throughout the 17-day study.
The BOD values were compared with MPN values for each of the three
inoculated samples to determine the relationship between temperature,
BOD and bacterial growth [Table 4].
The inoculated sample incubated at 30°C demonstrated increased
growth of E._ coli to a maximum of 490,000/ml on the fourth day after
inoculation. Bacteria densities then declined rapidly to less than
500 E coli/ml at 9 days' incubation time. There was a concomitant
decline in the BOD (from 280 to 140 mg/1) during this 9-day incuba-
tion, also.
Between the 10th and 17th day of incubation the E^_ coli bacteria
densities fluctuated from 170 to 350/ml. The BOD showed a steady
decline during this same incubation period.
The sample incubated at 22.5°C had increased growth to 240,000
£._ coli/ml at three days. Bacteria densities remained relatively
stable through the sixth day of incubation and then declined very
slowly. Subsequent testing showed that at 17 days of incubation,
bacteria density was 54,000 E_^ coli per ml. The BOD showed a similar
pattern. It declined rapidly from 320 to 230 mg/1 between the second
and fifth day of incubation. Thereafter, the BOD continued to decline
more slowly, reaching 120 mg/1 on the sixteenth day.
The sample incubated at 15°C had an initial increase in bacterial
growth to 54,000/ml on the third day of incubation. Bacteria densities
gradually declined to 2,300/ml at 17 days of incubation. The BOD
declined steadily from 390 to 140 mg/1 during the 17 days of incubation.
-------
29
Table 4
RELATIONSHIP OF ESCHERICHIA COLIa GROWTH AND BOD IN A MIXTURE
OF INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER AND MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
PORT ST. JOE WWTP - FLORIDA
November 1977
Incubation Temperature
Day Days of
1
1
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
14
1
1
1
5
6
7
18
1
a
b
9
Incubation
b 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
30°C
MPN/ml '
2
92
130
240
490
35
22
7
,400
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,900
500
350
170
350
350
240
180
350
E. coli/ml (most-probable-number
Samples artificially
BOD
mg/1
280
250
220
170
140
80
80
60
, (MPN
22.5°C
MPN/ml BOD
15
MPN/ml
mg/1
2
54
130
240
110
160
240
49
92
54
24
92
54
34
54
54
,400
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
360
320
230
220
210
190
140
120
2,
9,
7,
54,
54,
35,
24,
24,
7,
7,
5,
5,
3,
3,
3,
2,
400
200
900
000
000
000
000
000
900
000
400
400
500
500
300
300
°C
BOD
mg/1
390
290
270
260
240
200
160
140
technique)
inoculated on incubation day
zero
(11/2/77)
-------
30
Interpretation of the results of this bacteria growth study re-
quire careful consideration of the several unusual observations de-
scribed above. First, the samples were held 40 hours before BOD and
MPN analyses were performed. Ideally, testing should be conducted
within six hours of collection. Although the holding time limitation
was exceeded, it was considered unusual that the wastewater sample
from the primary clarifiers did not contain coliform bacteria.
Possible reasons for this may include: a) components in the sample
had a bactericidal effect that was selective for coliforms; b) the
organisms may have experienced natural die-off during the 40-hr hold-
ing period; or c) the specific grab sample may not have contained
coliform bacteria.
This phase of the bacterial growth study indicated the following:
a mixture of industrial wastes (paper mill and tall oil) and sewage
supported growth of £._ coli; maximum bacteria growth occurred within
four days; highest bacteria growth occurred at 30°C incubation with
progressively less growth at 22.5 and 15°C; BOD levels exhibited a
steady decline during the seventeen-day study; percent BOD removal
declined as the incubation temperature was lowered.
Similar laboratory studies were conducted in February and March
1978. These studies were performed on the aerated lagoon at Station
13 rather than the clarifier discharges. This was done to eliminate
possible deleterious effects that the discharges from the other clari-
fiers might have on the bacteria.
Two large-volume samples were collected on February 11. These
were handled in a manner similar to those collected in October 1977.
However, coliform bacteria showed a rapid die-off after an initial
increase on the first day of incubation. The BOD results were erratic,
also. This precluded use or interpretation of these data.
-------
31
A third large-volume sample was collected February 17, 1978. At
the NEIC laboratory the sample was quick-frozen to -80°C and stored
at this low temperature until March 6, 1978. The sample was thawed
rapidly in a hot water bath before BOD and bacteriological analyses.
Once again, the sample was divided into equal portions and incubated
each at 35, 25 and 15°C.
Initial FC bacteria densities and BOD values were low (33 FC/100
ml, 29 mg/1, respectively) [Table 5]. Subsamples incubated at 35 and
25°C demonstrated a rapid increase of FC bacteria to 11,000 and
17,000/100 ml, respectively, after only one day of incubation.
Corresponding BOD values decreased slightly to 18 and 25 mg/1. The
35°C sample decreased to negligible numbers of bacteria after 4 days
of incubation, and remained low during the remainder of the 18-day
incubation period. The BOD values showed a decrease to 7 mg/1 after
4 days and continued to decrease during the remainder of the 18-day
incubation period.
The subsample incubated at 25°C decreased to the original FC
densities between day 11 and day 14. The BOD values were similar to
the 35°C sample.
The 15°C subsample showed a much lower bacterial growth and slower
die-off rate. Maximum FC densities were observed on days 3, 5 and 13
(3,300, 3,500 and 4,900 FC/100 ml, respectively). After 13 days of
incubation, FC densities rapidly decreased and were similar to initial
levels on day 17. The BOD values for the 15°C sample demonstrated a
slightly slower decline than the 25 and 35°C samples. The BOD values
were 4 mg after 18 days of incubation.
The FC bacteria densities demonstrated a more rapid initial in-
crease and subsequent decrease at the higher temperatures. Fecal
coliform bacteria densities demonstrated less growth and slowest at
-------
32
Table 5
RELATIONSHIP OF FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA GROWTH AND BOD
IN A MIXTURE OF INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER AND MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
PORT ST. JOE WWTP - FLORIDA
March 1978
Incubation Temperature
Day
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Days of
Incubation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
30°C
MPN/ml a
33
11,000
3,300
230
5
<2
<2
<2
2
13
8
2
5
<2
2
<2
<2
<2
<2
BOD
mg/1
29
18
12
12
7
6
2
3
3
3
3
22.5
MPN/ml
33
17,000
7,000
7,900
3,300
3,300
790
330
790
230
170
20
110
20
80
<2
130
<2
<2
°C
BOD
mg/1
29
25
12
10
7
6
5
4
4
4
3
3
1
MPN/ml
33
46
330
3,330
1,300
1,100
790
3,500
1,100
1,300
1,300
1,300
790
4,900
2,300
230
130
50
<2
5°C
BOD
mg/1
29
30
19
14
10
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
Fecal conforms per TOO ml natural sample as determined by most-
probable-number (MPN) technique
-------
33
15°C. No definitive, direct relationship between FC densities and
speciffc BOD levels could be determined during this limited study.
However, it was obvious that the lagoon waste supports growth of
coliforms, and that the temperature of the waste had a marked effect
on both BOD removal and fecal coliform bacteria growth and die-off.
BACTERIA BIOASSAY
One purpose for the EPA to perform a full-scale study of the
Port St. Joe WWTP was to determine the fate of sewage bacteria in the
treatment system. For reasons described below, the EPA conducted a
bacteria bioassay to determine if a mixture of sewage, paper mill and
tall oil wastewaters was toxic.
As part of a cooperative agreement between the EPA and the Uni-
versity of Colorado, the NEIC collected an effluent sample from the
Port St. Joe treatment lagoon during the presurvey visit on October
26, 1978. Subsequent analysis by scientists at the University of
Colorado* revealed that the lagoon wastewater sample contained:
chloroform (£l ug/1); dimethyl disulfide (10 to 20 M9/1); toluene
(<0.01 pg/1); tetrachloroethylene (<1 ug/1); camphor (10 to 20 ug/1);
fenchone (<1 ug/1); 3-caryophilline (1 ug/1), and dimethyl trisulfide
(<1 ug/1). None of these wastewater components appeared to be present
in amounts toxic to bacteria.
On January 17 and 18, 1978, the NEIC visited the Port St. Joe
facility, collected wastewater from industrial and municipal inflows
as well as from several locations in the treatment system. Addition-
ally, wastewater samples were collected from the two industrips that
The Environmental Trace Substances Research Program, University
of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
-------
34
discharge into the Bay County Wastewater Treatment Plant in Panama
City, Florida. These nine samples were tested for bacterial toxicity
at the Denver NEIC laboratories. Stations 01 through 07 were at Port
St. Joe WWTP. The two samples collected from the Bay County Treatment
system in Panama City were identified as Station 09, International
Paper Company primary clarifier effluent and Station 12, Arizona
Chemical Company (tall oil processor) untreated wastewater.
At the NEIC laboratory, three strains of bacteria commonly asso-
ciated with sewage and paper mill wastes were used for the bacteria
toxicity testing. These were Escherchia coli. Klebsiella pneumonia
and Salmonella enteriditis ser typihimurium. The techniques used for
toxicity testing involved agar diffusion and broth culturing which
are described in Appendix C. No inhibition zones were observed with
any of the nine wastewater samples when subjected to the agar diffu-
sion test. Furthermore, none of the nine samples showed any bacterial
growth reduction in the broth culture test. It was concluded that
none of the nine wastewater samples were toxic to E_._ coli, K^ pneumonia
and S. enteriditis ser typhimurium.
PLANT EVALUATION
Industrial wastewater accounts for approximately 98% of the waste-
water treated by the Port St. Joe Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
The largest inflow to the WWTP is from the Port St. Joe Paper Com-
pany. Based upon the 11-day study by NEIC, the WWTP received an average
wastewater flow of 131,000 mVday (34.5 mgd) and a peak flow at 140,000
m3/day (36.9 mgd) from the paper mill. The mill process wastewaters
were highly colored and had a strong odor. Measured parameters
[Table 6 and Appendix G] revealed the wastewater had a pH range of
5.8 to 11.4; temperature of 28 to 35°C; an average BOD of 179 mg/1
and an average TSS of 402 mg/1. Waste loading was calculated to
-------
Table 6
SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
PORT ST. JOE HMTP - FLORIDA
February 8-18, 1978
Flow pH Temp Cl, BOD TSS
m3 x 103 ~g
-------
36
average 23,400 kg (51,500 lb)/day of BOD and 52,200 kg (115,000
lb)/day of TSS.
Both total and fecal coliform bacteria densities in the St. Joe
Paper Company wastewater and at all other sampling stations used in
this study were measured daily [Appendix G]. The primary concern is
with fecal coliforms because the Port St. Joe WWTP permit and the re-
ceiving water quality criteria specifically limit these organisms.
The paper mill wastewaters contained an average (geometric mean)
of 140 fecal coliforms per 100 ml [Table 7]. Randomly, fecal coli-
form colonies were picked and subjected to coliform typing as de-
scribed in Appendix C. All of the colonies selected were E^ coli
type 1. Relatively few (16) colonies were identified. However, the
IMViC* testing showed that a substantial portion of coliforms con-
tributed by St. Joe Paper Company were of definite fecal origin.
The Sylvachem Company processes tall oil to produce rosin and
other fatty acids. During the study, the average wastewater flow
from this chemical industry measured 1,640 mVday (0.43 mgd) while
the peak flow was 1,980 mVday (0.52 mgd). The wastewater was charac-
terized by a pH range of 3.6 to 12.1; temperature of 29 to 40°C; an
average BOD of 1,827 mg/1 and an average TSS of 870 mg/1 [Table 6].
Average daily loads for BOD and TSS were calculated to be 3,120 kg
(6,860 Ib) and 1,480 kg (3,260 Ib), respectively. Although oil and
IMViC is used with plus and minus signs to express the difference
between the organisms in a "formula." "I" is the indole reaction,
"M" the red reaction, "V" the acetyl-methyl-carbinol test (origi-
nated by Voges-Proskauer), "i" is euphony, and "C", growth in
mineral solution containing citrate as a sole source of carbon.
Example "IMViC ++ — " would be E_^ coli type 1, since this gives
positive indole and methyl red reactions, but negative Voges-
Proskover and citrate reactions.
-------
Table 7
SUMMARY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
PORT ST. JOE HWTP - FLORIDA
February 8-18, 1978
Col i forms/100 ml
Station Description
01
02
02
03
04
05
and
06
13
07
Sewage before
chlonnation
Sewage after
chlonnation
Sewage after
chlorination
blended sample
St. Joe Paper
Company effluent
Sylvachem Co.
effluent
Discharge
from WWTP
primary
clarifiers
Aeration
Lagoon
Final effluent
from WWTP
Total
790,000-
1,600,000
<2 -
^240,000
<2 -
^240,000
23-
160,000
<2 -
9,200,000
5 -
>240,000
490 -
54,000
170 -
24,000
10-day
GMa
13,000,000
300
6,100
1,5000
260,000
5,400
6,600
2,900
Fecal
330,000-
22,000,000
<2 -
54,000
<2 -
54,0000
2 -
1,400
<2 -
3,500,000
<2 -
17,000
79 -
7,000
46 -
4,900
10-day
GM
1,800,000
57
550
140
61 ,000
500
1,000
500
Total E. Coli
Colonies Type ,a
--
63 95
16 100
63 57
36 50
73 33
139 17
Intermediate b
Coli form types
(%)
--
5
0
19
0
8
9
Klebsiellac
--
0
0
24
50
59
74
a Of definite fecal origin.
b Hay or may not be of definite fecal origin.
c Comprises 30 to 40% of col if onus found in human and animal feces.
d Geometric mean
oo
-------
38
grease measurements were not made by the EPA, daily observations of
the process wastewater indicated that an oily slick was common in the
Sylvachem wastewater.
High numbers of fecal coliform bacteria were introduced with the
Sylvachem Company wastewater influent [Station 04] to the City of
Port St. Joe WWTP. Fecal coliforms numbered as high as 3.5 million/
100 ml and had a geometric mean of 61,000 FC/100 ml.
Biochemical testing revealed these fecal coliform bacteria were
composed of 57% £_._ coli type 1, 24% Klebsiella and 19% intermediate
coliform types. These large numbers of fecal coliforms and the high
percentage of E_^ coli type 1 indicate that Sylvachem wastewaters are
contaminated with fecal material. Pretreatment disinfection of the
tall oil processing wastewater would preclude these high numbers.
The inflow (February 8 to 18, 1978) of domestic wastewater
averaged 2,430 m3/day (0.64 mgd). The peak flow of 3,140 mVday (0.81
mgd) was measured on February 17, 1978; this flow occurred following
local precipitation of 3.5 cm (1.5 inches) during the week. City
sewage was characterized by a pH range of 6.0 to 8.3; temperature of
13 to 18°C, and average BOD of 102 mg/1 and an average TSS of 196
mg/1. Daily average load for BOD was 250 kg (550 Ib) and for TSS was
523 kg (1,150 Ib) [Table 6].
To determine the disinfection efficiency the domestic wastewater
was analyzed for coliform bacteria both before and after chlorination.
Fecal coliform bacteria in the raw sewage (Station 01) averaged 1.8
million/100 ml. Chlorinated sewage samples (Station 02) contained an
average of 57 fecal coliforms/100 ml. Further study indicated that
these numbers and the apparent disinfection efficiency were somewhat
deceptive. Subsamples of the post-chlorinated sewage were blended at
approximately 15,000 rpm in a sterile Waring blender for 30 seconds.
-------
39
The results from the blended samples revealed that high numbers of
coliform bacteria resided in sewage particles and were escaping dis-
infection. Blended samples of chlorinated sewage had ranges of
bacteria that were similar to unblended sewage [Table 7] but the geo-
metric mean density was increased to 550 fecal coliforms/100 ml.
Biochemical testing of selected isolates by the IMViC procedure
showed 95% £._ coli type 1 and 5% intermediate coliform types. None
of the colonies picked were identified as Klebsiella.
To determine if disinfection was more effective after primary
treatment, another series of bench-scale tests were performed in the
manner described previously. Raw sewage* used in the test contained
the same average density of fecal coliforms as found in the Port St.
Joe sewage—1.8 million/100 ml. After chlorination (15 minutes de-
tention with an average chlorine residual of 4.3 mg/1), the sewage
sample contained an average of 71 FC/100 ml. Analysis after blending
the sewage sample showed the average density of fecal coliforms in-
creased from 71 to 160/100 ml. Thus, tests revealed that coliform
bacteria resided in sewage even after primary treatment and chlori-
nation. Furthermore, analysis of the blended sample of chlorinated
sewage showed that, on the average, less than one-half of the fecal
coliforms were measured by conventional MPN analysis. Other labora-
tory tests with extended chlorine contact showed no appreciable change
from the trend described [Table 8].
Effluent from each clarifier was characterized to determine the
primary treatment efficiency. The pH ranged 6.9 to 10.8; temper-
ature ranged 22 to 34°C; BOD averaged 201 mg/1 and TSS averaged 143
mg/1. The primary treatment effluent had a daily average load for
Primary-treated sewage samples were collected from the Arvada,
Colorado WWTP randomly over a 15-day period.
-------
40
Table 8
COMPARISON OF BLENDED VS UNBLENDED
PRIMARY TREATED SEWAGE AT VARIOUS DISINFECTION RATES
PORT ST. JOE WWTP - FLORIDA
March 1978
Day
8
9
10
13
14
15
1
2
2
3
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
8
9
10
13
14
15
8
9
10
13
14
15
Chlorine
Residual
mg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Geometric
2.4
1.7
4.6
4.6
4.5
5.4
5.2
4.0
4.2
5.6
4.5
Geometric
5.4
5.2
3.6
3.6
5.4
4.2
Geometric
5.4
4.8
3.4
3.0
5.1
4.0
Geometric
Contact
Time
minutes
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Mean
20
20
20
20
20
20
Mean
30
30
30
30
30
30
Mean
Fecal
Col i forms
MPNa/100 ml
92,000
2,200,000
3,300,000
3,300,000
7,900,000
2,300,000
1,800,000
3,300
7,900
5
23
130
330
23
7
170
2
33
71
23
2
2
11
2
13
5
23
17
23
6
2
13
11
Fecal
Coli forms
MPN/100 ml
Blended
4,600
3,300
17
140
1,300
460
31
110
220
<2
110
160
170
2
46
13
2
2
9
310
11
230
<2
2
8
14
a Most probable number
-------
41
BOD of 27,100 kg (59,600 Ib) and TSS of 19,400 kg (42,700 Ib). This
represented about 3% reduction in BOD and 65% reduction in TSS.
Examination of samples collected from both clarifiers revealed
that fecal coliform bacteria were being introduced to the treatment
lagoon. The discharge from Clarifier A (Station 05) contained fecal
coliform densities ranging as high as 17,000/100 ml with a geometric
mean of 690/100 ml. The discharge from Clarifier B (Station 06) con-
tained fecal coliform bacteria densities as high as 13,000/100 ml
with a geometric mean of 380/100 ml. The proportional geometric mean
coliform densities of both clarifiers yielded a value of 500 FC/100 ml.
Further biochemical tests revealed the presence of the following
species of Enterobacteriacea: 50% E^_ coli type 1 and 50% Klebsiella.
Primary treated wastes were pumped from the clarifiers through a
distribution header into the 28-ha (70-acre) lagoon. Observation of
the inflow boils along the south edge of the lagoon indicated a non-
uniform inflow pattern. The engineering drawings and discussions
with plant-operating personnel revealed that the unequal discharge
was apparently a design problem and not a malfunction.
The lagoon has twelve 75 HP aerators that serve to mix and aerate
wastewaters. During the 11-day EPA study, ten aerators were operated
the first 2 days and eleven aerators were operated thereafter. The
aeration system was designed to provide a surplus of oxygen to waste-
waters in the lagoon; reportedly, dissolved oxygen levels ranged from
0.3 to 3.1 mg/1.13 The wastewater temperature and pH were measured
daily by the EPA. The temperature of the lagoon water ranged from 20
to 25°C and the pH ranged 6.3 to 7.9. Typically, a heavy layer of
foam (approximately 100 cm thick) covered much of the lagoon surface.
Daily water samples were collected from the lagoon and analyzed
for bacteria. Results were compared with bacterial densities measured
-------
42
in the primary treatment inflow to determine if coliform bacteria are
either sustained or multiply in the lagoon during the 12.6-day* deten-
tion period. Analyses of samples collected from the south shoreline
of the aerated lagoon (Station 13) revealed coliform bacteria densities
were higher than the combined average of the clarifier discharges.
Geometric mean densities were 6,600 total coliforms/ 100 ml and 1,000
fecal coliforms/100 ml, respectively. IMViC typing revealed that
percentages of E._ coli had decreased (33%), while Klebsiella bacteria
were increasing (59%). Intermediate coliform types were 8%.
The lagoon discharge caused discoloration in the receiving water,
Gulf County Canal. Tne discolored water generally hugged the near
shoreline (south bank) of the canal. Trace amounts of foam, similar
to that which covered the lagoon, were often observed in the Gulf
County Canal. The WWTP has attempted to alleviate the foam in the
final discharge by adding a defoaming agent, Houghton De-Ariex, at a
maximum rate of 20 gpd.5 Additionally, the WWTP uses a "rainbird"
type sprinkling system in the lagoon and a series of baffles to sup-
press foaming as well as prevent surface foam from being directly
discharged into the Gulf County Canal.
Other observations of the lagoon and at the final discharge point
revealed numerous areas of apparent seepage. The northeast dike of
the lagoon appeared to have the worst seepage problem, but seepage
was observed along the northern dike which is adjacent to the Gulf
County Canal and along the west dike area also. Reportedly, the lagoon
was constructed on native sand and not sealed.5 Daily records from
the WWTP analytical laboratory show the flow differential between the
effluent and the influent was as high as 16,100 mVday (4.25 mgd).
This flow loss was attributed to a combination of seepage and evaporation.3
Based upon engineering design.12
-------
43
The final effluent from the lagoon was monitored daily by the
EPA. During the study, the treated waste flow averaged 135,000 m3/day
(35.6 mgd). Water temperatures averaged 21°C, and the pH ranged from
6.5 to 7.6. Dissolved oxygen in the final effluent reportedly ranged
from 8.0 to 8.7 mg/1.15 Suspended solids averaged 51 mg/1 and the
BOD averaged 26 mg/1; average TSS and BOD loads were 6,930 kg (15,260
Ib/day) and 3,580 kg (7,890 lb)/day, respectively. This represented an
average overall reduction in solids and BOD of 87%.
The final discharge was monitored twice daily to determine den-
sities of coliform bacteria. Additionally, the effluent was moni-
tored for the percentages of Klebsiella and E^_ coli, as well as for
the presence of Salmonella. The final discharge contained 500 fecal
coliforms/100 ml; this is the same density of fecal coliforms found
entering the lagoon from the combined clarifier discharges (Stations
05 and 06). Although the number of fecal coliform bacteria entering
and discharged from the lagoon was the same, the bacteria types had
changed. Percentages of £^ coli decreased to 17% with an accompany-
ing increase in Klebsiella to 74%. Intermediate coliform varieties
made up the remaining 9%. Apparently, the lagoon wastewater favored
the growth and survival of Klebsiella over £._ coli [Figure 3].
Attempts to isolate pathogenic Salmonella from the final dis-
charge were unsuccessful. The failure to recover Salmonella from the
wastewaters does not necessarily mean that the organisms are absent,
but that the recovery technique used was unsuccessful [Appendix B].
The fecal coliform bacteria including £._ coli type 1 are sus-
tained in the aerated lagoon and discharged at an average of 500
bacteria/100 ml. Receiving waters have been designated by the State
of Florida for non-body-contact recreation (e.g., fishing, boating,
etc.) which limits fecal coliform bacteria to 500/100 ml. Although
-------
1OO%
75%
_— - "74%
5O%
25%
8% Intermediate Variety Colitorms
17%
9%
CLARIFIER
EFFLUENTS '
->- LAGOON
DISCHARGE
12.6 DAYS DETENTION
Figure 3. Co/iform Growfh in fhe Aeration Lagoon
-------
45
the fecal coll form limit in the receiving water is not exceeded, fur-
ther treatment at the WWTP would be necessary in order to upgrade or
protect the adjacent water quality for such uses as swimming or shell-
fish harvesting.
-------
46
REFERENCES
1. Bodien, 0. and W. Jordan, 1977. Compliance Status of the
Pulp and Paper Industry. Proceedings of the National
NPDES Permit and Enforcement Seminar, Quadna Mountain,
Minnesota (September 27-30).
2. National Enforcement Investigations Center, 1975. Water
Quality Study, St. Andrews Bay, Florida, Series
330/2-75-003; US Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. (June) 70 pp.
3. J.B. Converse and Co., Inc. 1976. Bay County, Florida.
Facilities Plan Section 201 PL92-500. EPA Project
No. C 120450010 (December draft document).
4. Mauriello, Carl G. 1978. Consulting Engineer, I.B. Converse
and Co., Inc., Panama City, Florida. Personal Communication
(interview) to Robert Schneider, National Enforcement
Investigations Center, EPA, Denver, Colorado (February 13).
5. Simon, Robert E. 1978. Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager,
City of Port St. Joe, Florida. Personal Communication
(engineering design data sheet) to Laurence Walz, National
Enforcement Investigations Center, EPA, Denver, Colorado
(January 17) 3 pp.
6. Cook, George C. 1978, Superintendent, Bay County Water
System, Panama City, Florida. Personal Communication
(interview) to Robert Schneider, National Enforcement
Investigations Center, EPA, Denver, Colorado (February 13).
7. Taylor, Lewis, 1978. Environmental Engineer; St. Joe
Paper Co. , Port St. Joe, Florida. Personal Communication
(interview) to Robert Schneider, National Enforcement
Investigations Center, EPA, Denver, Colorado (February 16).
8. Daugherty, Carol, 1978. Chemist; The Water Spigot,
Panama City, Florida. Personal Communication (interview)
to Robert Schneider, National Enforcement Investigations
Center, EPA, Denver, Colorado (February 13-17).
9. Department of Environmental Regulation, Pollution of Waters,
Chapter 17-3.04 General Water Quality and Waste Treatment
(1) Sewage. Tallahassee, Florida, p. 8.
-------
47
10.
11.
12.
13.
Moore, B. 1949. The Detection of Paratyphoid Carriers
in- Towns by Means of Sewage Examination. Bulletin of
Hygiene; 24, p. 187.
Rand, M. et al_, 1975.
Water and Wastewater.
Standard Methods for Examination of
14th Ed. APHA-AWWA-WPCF, 1193 pp.
Smith, David B. , Engineers, Inc., Register and Cummings,
Associate Engineers. 1970. Preliminary Engineering
Report on a Proposed Wastewater Treatment Program for
the City of Port St. Joe, Florida. Project No.
DBS 6927, RC 6977, Gainsville, Florida (May), 64 pp.
White, J.S. 1978. Laboratory Supervisor, Port St. Joe
WWTP, Florida. Personal Communication (unpublished
daily analytical data) to Robert Schneider, National
Enforcement Investigations Center, EPA, Denver, Colorado
(February).
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
-he me
UNITED STATES1. /IRONMErtTAL PROTECTION AGEHCY
, SEP 231977
SUBJECT: Effect of Proposed Bay Co. Treatment S
FROM. Paul J. Tralna, Director
Enforceaent Division
TO. Thoraas P. Gallagher,.Director
National Enforcement Investigation Center
SUfcMARY
In. order to predict the bacteriological effect of nixing domestic
sewage with papermill waste in the Bay Co. aerated lagoon prior to
discharge to St. Andrews Bay, it has been recommended that a pilot
study be made of a similarly treated effluent. The Port St. Joe
aerated lagoon offers such a parallel. This system mixes papermill
waste with chlorinated raw domestic sewage in a 70 acre aerated
lagoon prior to discharge to St. Joseph Bay.
ACTIOM
Request your staff perform a pilot study of the Port St. Joe effluent
sufficient to predict the coliform level to he expected from the
Bay County aerated lagoon. The study will need to be made as soon
as possible so as not to adversely affect funding of the Bay Co.
system.
BACKGROUND
The selected alternative in the Bay Co. 201 plan is to mix 6 KGD of
chlorinated primary treated domestic sewage in the existing Bay Co.
aerated lagoon prior to discharge to St. Andrews Bay. Several
questions were raised by National Harine Fisheries Service (KMFS)
personnel as to the effect this treatment scheme would have on the
coliform levels in the Bay systea. Meetings were held on August 9,
10, and 11, 1977, with various agency personnel participating,
including: NEIC Denver, EPA Region IV, the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, ^7HFS, Panama City, and several consulting
firms. It was concluded that a pilot study should be performed on
a similar system as soon as possible in order to-predict the level
of coliforra to be expected in the combined Bay Co. system. Eased
on the results of this study, ETA would rccoi^mend either to continue
with the selected 201 proposal or select another alternative.
EPA Fo,,.. |j;a t fBc«. 1 761
-------
5 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
343 COURTLAND STPCET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30300
4AEL:SST
CERTIFIED KAIL J(Jj\( O g
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED U
City of Port St. Joe
Post Office Drawer A .,
Port St. Joe, Florida 32456
Re: NPDES Permit No. FL0020206
Dear Sir:
Enclosed la the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syatezi permit
for the facility referenced above. This iVPDES permit conatitutes my
determination under Title 40, Code of Federal Regulationc, Section 125.35, .
aa arended (39 FR. 27080, July 24, 1974).
In accordance vrith 40 C7X 125.35, thia perait vill bsccns issued and
effective on the effective date specified in the peruit, provided that no
request for an adjudicatory hearing and/or Ic^al decioion is subsequently
filed with the Agency. In the event that ouch a request is filed, th<2 con-
teoted proviaiono of :he p^rtait vill be stayed and vill not becoae effective
until the adninistrative review proceso is coaplcted. All uncontcstad
provisiona of the pemit vill be considered i33ued acd effective on the
effective dutc act out in the perait and cr.uac ba complied with by the facility
If you winh to request an sdjudicatory hearing and/or legal decision, you
nu3t 3ubuit ouch request (aa orisin^l and tvo copiaa) to the Regional Henries
Cleric within ten (10) dayo frca tha rsccipt of this lattar. The 'request will
be tixely if oailcd by Certified Mill within ths ten (10) day tie« period.
For the requeat to be valid, it icust confora to the require^inCa of 40 CT3
125.36(b). Such requireaea-ts are specified In the attachment hereto.
If you have any questions about tha perait, please concact the coordinate:
for your stats at 404/881-3971. Information oa the request procedures snd ley;;
taattcrs nay be obtained by contacciaj Ms. Sara S. Turnipseed at 404/851 -3506.
Sincerely yours,
ct'JZ^ < • .^'o
Z. P^
Encloaureg Regional
cc: Mr. John Jackson
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
-------
11..mi 410.
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
(33 U.S.C. 1251 ot. seq; the "Act"),
City of Port St. Joe
Post Office Drawer A
Port St. Joe, Florida 32456
is authorized to discharge from a facility located at
Kenny Mill Road - St. Road 382
to receiving waters named
St. Joseph Bay via Gulf County Canal
in r.ccord.-.ncc with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth
in Parts I, II, and III hereof.
This permit shr.ll become effective on J \J L ^ 1977
This permit and the authorization to discharge shaJl expire at midnight, JUN 3U
s.,:iicd JUN 28 1Q77
d
r
-bT
Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
-------
j\ JL L
JL -- _LL
Pernlt No. : FL0020205'
JT FLUENT LIMITATIONS AJ«D MONITORING RZQUIRCITNTS - FINAL (SUBJECT TO REVISION AS REQUIRED BY FUTURE
.-•'.CIHTIES PLAJi APPROVED U*.iDER TITLE II, P.L. 92-500)
Tr.cec effluent limitations arc to be achieved by July I, 1977, and shall remain in effect until
j-'jr^it cxoiration for outf.-ill Serial Number 001.
Such discharges shall be United and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
PA7.AXITER
DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS
kg/day(lbs/d.iy)
Monthly Weekly
Avcrroco Average
Other Units (Specify)
Monthly Weekly
Average Average
clow, X3/day O'.GD)
''Biochemical Oxygen
Der^and (5 day)
Suspended Solids
Fecal Colifora
Bccceria, G-acnstric
3A15(7529) 5123(11294) 26
5780(12810) 8669(19000) 44
39 mg/1
66 ns/1
;.:i?.ir.ate Oxygen Denand 10,733 lb«;/day.
MONITORING PJElOUTSEHilNTS
Mcasureoent
Frequency
Sample
Tvne
Sar-.pling
Point
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Influent or
Instantaneous Efflucn£
Composite Effluent
Conposite
Grab
Effluent
Domestic
Effluer.c be
Mixins with
Industrial
2. UOD shall_not exceed 10,733 Ibs/day based on: 10,733 Ibs/day = 34.75 MGD X 8.34 _/l. 43 X BOD (ns/1) + 4.57 X
" ' assuned to equal zero.
TrLN"
3.
4.
The pH of the effluent shall r.cc be less then 6.0 standard units nor greater than S.5 standard units and
shall be nonitored daily by gra'-.- sample.
There shall b* nc discharge cf floating solids or visible foam in other than trace anounts.
T:iC effluent shall not cm:sc a vi-jihjo shncn en the rcceivir.j; water.
-------
Part I
Page 3 of 15
Permit No. KL0020206
B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1. The permittee shall achieve compliance with the effluent limitations
specified for discharges in accordance with the following schcdvile:
Permittee shall coir.ply with Final Effluent Limitations on
effective date of permit.
• 2. Permittee shall at all times provide the operation and maintenance
necessary to operate the existing facilities at ontir.um efficiency.
- 3. Permittee shall verifv effluent limitations. Effluent limitations
are established in the Choc tauha tehee River Basin Water Qunlitv
Management Plan. See Table 32.3BA-7. The wasteload allocation
for the City of Port St. Joe is 10,733 Ibs/day b'OD. The
limitation is 22.5 mg/1 and is based on the formula.
UOD(lbs/day) = Design Capacity
(MOD) X 8.34 X A. 43 X BOD5 (mg/1) +
4.57 X TKN
The factor 1.43 is that used for domestic waste and may not be
applicable to the conbined uasca fror.i Port St. Joe. The permittee
shall submit a p]an of study for determining the proper factor
to be applied to the PorL St. Joe effluent. The plan shall be
submitted not later than 12 \.-peks following the effective date of
Lhc pcrr.iit and shall include a schedule calling for completion of
(.he study not Liter than 18 rionths from the effective date of the
pcmit. Permittee shall subinit the results of tlic study within
14 days of ,i.ori|>lction. A bacteriological study shall be doiu1 to
dcLerr.dnc wlictlicr disinfection of the final effluent is necessary
prior Lo disclurpe. Effluent lirjits shall be determined for a
possible Bay dii.c-
No later than 14 calendar days following a date Identified in
Lhr .ibovc schcilulc of cou.pl i.uicc , the permittee shall subi.iit
cJthov a rcpoi t of pior.rcsr. or, in HIP cmc of srn-cific actions
brinj1. required by identified dates, a written notice of
conpllanc-e or mMiconpli.inci1. In the l.iilrr cnsc, the notice
Hh.ill include iho cause of noncomnl i.incc, anv remedial action-,
taken, and the probability of rocctinj*, the next scheduled require-
ments.
-------
_ of :
Penalt No.; 1-1.0020206
KOJtTKRU.'C MID REPORTIlfG
1. Representative Sampling
Siinplcs nnd Beaaurcrccnts. taken aa required herein sholl be repreoentatlvt
of the volume and nature of the nonitored discharge.
2. Reporting
Monitoring results obtained during the previous 3 months shall be
ouET-srized for each month and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report
Fora (EPA No. 3320-1 or T-AO) postmarked no later than the 2Sth day of the
month following the completed reporting period. The first report is due
on SEP 3 0 1377 Duplicate signed copies of these, and all other
reports required herein, shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator
nnd the State at the following addresses:
Water Enforcement Breach
Environmental Protection Agency Florida. Department of Environmental
Region IV Seg-alation
3/i5 Courcland Street z^i Executive Center Circle Eact
Atlanta, Georgia 3030S Tallahassee, Florida 32501
3. Definitions
a. The r,onLhly average, other than for fecal colifora bacteria, Is
the arithmetic nean of all the cor.posice sa:cples collected in a
cnc-aonth period. The r.onthly averr.ge for fecal colifora bacteria
ID the geometric nenn of samples collected in a one-cioath period.
b. The weekly averasei other than for fecal colifon-j bacteria, is the
arithmetic Eean of all the cosposit scnples collected during a
cr.o--.:eek. period. The weekly average for fecal colifron bacteria is
the gcorjccric ce/in 3f oauvplca collected in a one-week period.
c. Flov, K3/day
-------
Page Ji_ of JJ>
rcmlCNo': K1.002Q206
c. Ceonctric ?lcnn: The geometric mccn of any set of valuco ic the
Kill root of- the produce of the individual values where N la
cqua] Co the nunbcr of individual values. The geometric mean Is
equivalent to the anttloj of the erlth-ttlc mean of the loyirithms
of the individual values. For purposes of calculating the geometric
nccn, values of zero CO) shall be considered to be one (1).
f. Composite Sample: A "composite sample" is any of the following:
(1) Mot less than four influent or effluent portions collected
at regular intervals over a period of 8 hours and composited
in proportion to, flow.
(2) Hot less than four equal voluae influent or effluent portions
collected over a period of 8 hours at intervals proportional
to the flow.
(3) An influent or effluent portion collected continuously over
a period of 24 hours at a rate proportional to the flow.
g. Grab Sample: A "grab sample" is a single influent or effluent
portion which is not a composite sample. The sample(s) shall be
collected at Che period(s) most representative of the total discharge.
A. Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutr.r.ts shall conforn l_o
rcc'Jlations published pursuant to Section 3C^(g) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, As Ar.cndcd. (1'cdcral Register, October 16, 1973;
Title 40, Chapter I, Sub-copter D, Part 135 "Guidelines Establishing
Test Procedures for rhe Analysis of Pollutants".)
5. Recording of Results
For each measurement or sample taken pursuar.: to the requirements of this
pf.Tir.it, tlic permittee shall record tlie follc^inc information:
a. The exact place, date, and time of nan
b. The diilca the analyses were perforncd;
c. Vnc pcrr.on(o) who performed, the analyses.
il. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
c. The vrr.uKs of all required nnniyncs
-------
PART I
_ of JL.5
Permit N'o.: FL0020206
6. Additional Monitoring by Permittee
If the permittee monitors any pollutant nt the locntion(s) designated
herein norc frequently than required by thin permit, using approved
analytical r.c thuds as spccrflccl .ibovc, the results of such nonitoring
shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the values required
in the Discharge Monitoring I'.jpcrt Fora (EPA No. 3320-1 or T-40) . Such
increased frequency shall also be indicated.
Records Retention
All records and Information resulting from the nonitoring activities
required by this pernit including all records of analyses performed and
calibration and ir.ainier.ance of instrumentation and recordinss frcr.
continuous monitoring instru-.entation shall be retailed for a mini~.u^i of
three (3) years, or longer if requested by the Regional Administrator or
the State water p.i.ution control agency.
-------
PART II
Page j_ of L £
Permit Ko.: FL002020C)
MAIIACCICNT REQUIREMENTS
1. Change In Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms
and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant, identified
in this permit core frequently than or at a level in excess of that-
authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit. Any anticipated
facility expansions, production increases, or process modifications which
will result in new, different, or increased discharges of pollutants must
be reported by submission of a new NPDiLS application or, if such changes vill
not violate the effluentr limitations specified in this permit, by notice to
the permit issuing authority of such changas. Following such notice, the
permit nay be modified to specify and limit any pollutants not previously
United.
2. Non compliance Notification
If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be unable
to conply with any effluent limitation specified in this pernit, the
permittee shall provide the Regional Administrator and the StJtc with
the following information, in writing, within five (5) days o£ becoming
aware of such condition:
a. A description of the discharge and cause of noncor.pliance; and
b. The period of nonconpliance, including exact dates and times; or,
if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliancc is expected
to continue, and steps being taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent
recurrence of the nonconplying discharge,
3. Facilities Operation
The permittee shall at &11 tines mointain in good working order and
operate as efficiently as possible all treccment or control facilities
or systems installed or used by the pernit:ee to achieve compliance with
the. terms and conditions of this permit.
A. Adverse Impact
The permit tec shnll take all reasonable steps to nlninlzo any advcvsc
inpr.^L to n.i viable waters resulting fiom r.oncorplianco wHh nny cffluonc
linic.icioiiD specified in thia permit, including such accelerated or addi-
tional r.onitorltiE aj> ncccooary tq determine the nature and inpnct of iho
discharge.
5. Bypassing
Any diversion fron or bypass of fnciHrics r.ecccs.iry to nniucain
willi tho tern.-, VmJ condiiionj; of this permit ia prohibited, except (i) where
-------
PART II
fnce JL of 1_1
Permit No.: FL0020206
unavoidable Lo prevent loss of life or severe property damage, or
(ii) where excessive storm drainage or runoff would damage any facilities
necessary for compliance with the effluent limitations and prohibitions
of this pernit. All permittees who have such sewer bypasses or overflows
of this discharge shall .submit, not later than six months from the date
of issue of this pernit, detailed data or engineering estimates which
identify:
a. The location of each sewer system bypass or overflow;
b. The frequency, duration and quantity of flow fron each sewer
eystern bypass or overflow.
This requirement is vaivcd where infiltration/inflow analyses are
scheduled to be performed as part of an Environmental Protection Agency
facilities planpin? project.
6. Rcnoved Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants rer.oved in the
course of treatment or control of wastevaters shall be disposed of in
a nnnner sucli as to prevent any pollutant fron such materials frcn
entering navigable waters.
7. Power Failures
The permittee is responsible for maintaining adequate safeguards to pre-
vent t'.i2 discharge of untreated or inadequately treated wastes during
electrical no'.vr failures cither by means of alternate power sources,
slrip.dby ccnordtors or retention of inadequately titMtcd effluent. Should
t:liu lrc3t~cnr works not include the above capabilities at tine of pernit
iy^uance, Liu11 pcrnittec uusL furnish within si:; r.onfhs to the perr.uttir.c
ant hority , for approval., jm inpicnent.ition schedule for their installing',
or docur.enl.U ion dcnonsLiMtinr, tliat sucii r.cpsurcii arc not necessary to
prevent dir-cliarf,e of inarcaLcd or inadequately treated, wastes. Such docu-
mentation slu'.ll include frequency and Jurntion of power failures and an
of rotontion capacity of untrc-Jtcd effluent.
Onsliore or Offshore Coiu-truction
This pomlt doc1^ not authorize or approve the construction of any onsliorc
or offshore p!iyj,icnl utnicturos or facilities or the undertaking of any
work in any navi^uble waters.
-------
PART II
Page _9 of
Permit No.: rL002020G
RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Right of Entry
The permittee shall allow, the head of the State water pollution control
agency, the Regional Administrator, and/or their authorized representa-
tives, upon the presentations of credentials:
a. The enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source is
located or in which any records are required to be kept under the
terns and conditions of this permit; and
b. At reasonable tines to have access to and copy any records required
to be kept under the terns and conditions of this permit; to inspect
any monitoring equipment or monitoring cethod required in this permit;
and to saaple any discharge of pollutants.
2. Transfer of Ownership or Control
In the event of any change in control or ownership or facilities from
which the authorized discharges emanate, the permittee shall notify the
Euccccding owner or controller of the existence of this pernit by letter,
a copy of which chall be forvr.rdsd to the Regional Administrator and the
State water pollution control agency.
3. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 303 of the Act,
all reports prepared in accordance with the rerns shall be available for
public inspection ai the offices of the State water pollution control
agency and the Regional Administrator. As required by che Act, effluent
data chall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making any false
stctc^ent on any such report nay result in the imposition of criminal
penalties as provided foa in Section 309 of the Act.
t. Pcrnit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit nay be modified,
ouspcr.Jcd, or ri.vcl'.r.d in whole or in part during its tern for cause in-
cluding, but not liuttcd to, the following:
Q. Violation of nny terns or conditions of this "permit;
b. Obtaining this pcrait by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
fully all relevant fncts; or
c. A chnr.j-.c in nny condition that requires cither n temporary or
pcrn.-.iient reduction or elimination of the authorised discharge.
-------
PART II
LQ of J-5
Permit Ko.: FL0020206
5. Toxic Pollutants
Notwithstanding Part II, B-4 above, if a toxic effluent standard or
prohibition (including a'v/ schedule of compliance specified in such
effluent standard or prohibition) is established under Section 307(a)
of the Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge and
such standard or prohibition is nore stringent than any limitation for
such pollutant in this pernit, this permit shall be revised or modified
in accordance with the toxic effluent standard or prohibition and the
permittee so notified.
6. Civil and Crininal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part II, A-5)
and "Pover Failures" (Part II, A-7), nothing in this permit shall be
construed to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties
for nonconipllance.
7. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution
of any legal action or relieve the permittee fro.n any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is or nay be subject
under Section 311 of the Act.
8. State Laws
Nothing in this pcmit shall be construed to preclude the institution
of any le^nl action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable State
law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Act.
9. Property Rights
The issuance of this permt does not convey any property rights in either
real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor docs it author-
ize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor
any infringement of Federal, State, or local laws or regulations.
10. Scverjbility
The provisions of this permit arc scvcrable, and if any provision of this
p^r.-i:, or the .vplic.it.ion of any provision of thto permit to any circum-
stance, is held invalid, the application of sucli provision to other cir-
cupaunccs, and the remainder of this pcrr.it sh.ili not be affected thereby.
-------
PART II
Page JJ of ]_1
Permit No.: TL0020206
11. Cxptration of Permit
Permittee io not authorized to discharge after the expiration date.
In order to receive authorization to discharge beyond the expiration
date, the permittee shall submit such information, forms, and fees
as are required by the agency authorized to issue permits no later
than 180 days prior to the expiration date.
12. Industrial Pretreatment Standards
Permittee shall require any industrial dischargers into the permitted
systen to raeet Federal Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR, Part 128)
promulgated in response to Section 307(b) of the Act. The pcrriittee
shall provide yearly reports to the permitting agency regarding
the pretrcatnent requirements which have been imposed on each major
contributing industry and the results achieved therefrom. Other
information may be needed regarding new industrial discharges and
this will be requested from the permittee after the permitting agency
has received notice of the new industrial discharge.
A major contributing industry is one that: (1) has a flow of 50,000
gallons or nore per average work day; (b) has a flow greater than five
percent: of the flou carried by (.he municipal systo-n receiving the waste;
(c) has in its waste a toxic pollutant in toxic amounts as defined in
standards issued under Section 307 (a) of the Act; (d) has significant
impact either singly or in combination with other contributing industries,
on the treatment works or the quality of its effluent.
Any ch.inpc in the definition of a mnjor contributing industry as a result
of promulgations in response to Section 307 of the Act shall become a
part of this permit.
3. Cor.irol of User Discharges to the System:
(a) tlrv.lor no circumstances shall the permittee allow introduction of the
following wastes into the waste treatment system:
Wastes which create a fire or explosion hazard in the treatment works.
Waster, which will cause corrosive structural damage to treatment works,
Solids or viscous substances In amounts which cause obstructions to
the flow in severs or interference with the proper operation of the
treatment works.
W.jsteuatevn nt o f.low rate and/or pollutant, discharge rate which is
cxcrsiUvo over rd.itivcly short ti:ne periods so as to cause a loss
of trcMtr.-.cnt efficiency.
-------
TAUT II
Pnee O2 of Jtf
Por=.Jt l,'o.: n.Q020?06
(b) Tnc permittee shall notify Che permitting fluency of any of the
following changes in user discharge to the system no later than
180 days prior to chengc of diucharge:
(!) New introductions into such works of pollutants from any
/• source which would he a new source as defined in Section
306 of the Act if such source were discharging pollutants.
(2) New introductions of pollutants into such works from a
^ source which would he subject to Section 301 of the Act
if it were discharging such pollutants.
(3) A substantial change in volioe or character of pollutants
i being Introduced into such works by a source already dis-
charging pollutants into such works at the tirae the pcrr.it
is issued.
This notice will include information on the quantity and quality of the
wastevater introduced by the new source into the publicly owned trealr.ent
works, and on any anticipated impact on the effluent discharged from
such works.
-------
PAX rin
n of 15
1 N"-:FL002Q206
PART III - OTiO urOUIRrMESTS
Rcgul rc~cntii for Effluent Limitations on Pollutants AtLribuUibl c- Lo TntlnsirJ.il
Users
1. Effluent. limitations froni Lhis discharger are listed In PaiL I of this
permit.. It is apparent that other pollutants attributable tn lupins from
major contributing industries using the municipal uystcm arc also present
in Lhc permittee's discharge. At such time as sufficient information
becomes available to establish limitations for such pollutani.n, this
permit nay be revised to specify effluent limitations for .my or ail of
such other pollutants in accordance with best practicable technology or
water quality standards.
With regard to the effluent requirements listed in Part I of this p
it r-iy be necessary for the permittee to supplcnpnt the requirements of
the Federal Pretrcacnent Standards (40 CFil, Part 128) to ens'irc crnip] i.i-u-i-
by the permittee with all applicable effluent lii.iittKions . Ji;rh action.:
by the permittee may be necessary regarding sor.a or all of t!ic raj or con-
tributing industries discharging to the municipal system.
The permittee sh.ill require each major contributing, industry subject to
prctre.- tmcnl standards or any other applicable requirement.? promulr.-'i ril
purnu.nnt to Section 307 of the Act to submit to the permittee periodic
notices regarding specific actions taken to achieve full compliance with
the requirements of Section 307. Starting on __ DEC 3 1 <377 __
tlie permittee shall subrait annually to the permit issuing authority a
repoit surjr.ari.tinp, the progrcsu of all kno-.-n major contributing: inuus-
trios Gubjcct to tho requirements of Section 307 until full conplinm*ij it,
flclilevo:d. Subr.iission would be required again only if a major concuibiiLin,;
ind-sscry rcvern to violation of Section 307. Such report shall include
at le.n-it the following info LEU l.ion:
(a) A narrative summary of actions taken by the permittee to cnsuic
that all m.ijor contributing industries comply with the require-
ment 3 of Section 307.
(bl Tim nuichcr of major contributing industries using the
works, diviilod into SIC group categories.
treninent
(c) The nunbcr of major contributing InJustrJcs in full compl J.ince
witl» the n-quircircntG of Section 307, or not r.uMcct ro these
vcquircincntfi (e.g., discharge only compatible pollut .n«in).
(d) A lir.t idcnr Ifylnj; by nni.ic those uijor contribui i up, lihliist rirs
prc:;cnrly in vlol.itlun of the rccjniivnipnta of Section 307.
-------
PART Til
.14 "I 15
Permit No..: FL002020G
Not later than 180 clays following the effective ilnte of this permit, the
pcrnittcc shall have promulgated an enforceable Industrial waste ordinance
subject to the review of the permitting ap.cncy. This ordinance ahuuld
allow the permittee to enforce all p re treatment require" --.its ncccs.s.iry to
ensure compliance with t'he terms and conditions of this permit, as well
as to ensure compliance by all major contributing industries with the
pretrcatrr.cnt standards and any other applicable requirements
pursuant to Section 307 of the Act. The following provisions shall be
included, as a ninir.uzn:
Disposal RoquirfTpnts
(a) The ordinance should indicate that disposal Into the sewer system
of any pollutant by any person is unlawful except in compliance
with Federal standards promulgated pursuant to the Federal Wat»jr
Pollution Control Act Anendrzents of 1972 (B.TCAA) , and any more
stringent State and local standards.
(b) Require authorisation for disposal of industrial wastes in the
system.
(c) Require, as a condition for this authorization, that industries
provide information describing waste-water constituents and
chaiMCtcriDtics, and type of activity involved.
(d) Describe other requirements and procedures for obtaining the
authorization, the duration of the authorization, and the method
of renewal.
Proh Lbl Led Dl 3 charger.
Prohibit wastes as defined in /iO CTR 128.131 of the Fi-dcra] R
nnd include any additional prohibitions necessitated by local conditions.
Prol i ("il *"onr St.iiui.ivd.-;
(a) Provide duLiiority to ensure conpliancc of major contribut Jng indun-
tilco (an di:fjuod in 40 Criv 12S.12'( of tlic 1 Vilpr.il Ki'ri_sj_c_r) with
I'cilcr.nl proti c.iti.;enr. r.tdiiil.irds and any otlicr applicable roquirc-
ncntii proiVulf,:iLcd by H?A in accordance with Section 307 of FVPCAA.
(b) Uctjuirc co:.-pll.-incc with any r.orc ctringcnt pri'trcntiacnc ctand.irds
lu'cc-aoitatod by local conditionu.
Ins/' (.- r l 1 on aiul llnrry
(a) St. .to that .ij-cnt:; of the treatment woiks .-nul/or F.l'A will bo pormlt ici
to i-ntcr all proju-rt lc:i of tl^o contril'ut Jnj*. indu-irry for tho purpo'ic
of ii\-;pcc(,inn, obnorvationj rvanurcincut , onr.iplint and tcutinj;.
-------
PART ITT
Pace ).5_of 15
Permit No.: FL0020206
(b) Require that wan town tern be accessible, through such me.ins as a
contr.ol nunhole, for purponeo of inspection, observation, meas-
urement, campling and testing.
Reporting-and Self-monitoring
(a) Roqui-rc major contributing industries, and other industries as
deemed necessary, to file a periodic report on the constituents
and characteristics of their wastewatcrB.
(b). State requirements for maintaining records, using and maintaining
.monitoring equipment, and sampling. (The analytical methodu
described in 40 CFR 136.3 may be referenced).
Enforcement
(a) State that civil and criminal penalties and fi.ies for violations
will be levied in accordance with judicial procedures.
(b) Indicate that violation of the ordinance may result -in termination
of the disposal authorization.
Charges (optional unless facility has received a Federal Construction Gr.jnt)
(a) Provide a- classification system for determining charges to defray
the cost of construction and operation and maintenance of the
treatment .facility. Classifications can be based on wastcwater
constituents and characteristics, and other parameters that would
enaurc an equitable distribution of costs.
(b) Provide for additional charges such as monitoring fees and disposal
authorisation fcea an deemed appropriate.
lii.;:u'Jijtely upon issuance of this permit, the permittee shall establish mid
ir.iplcn.jnt n procedure to obtain from .ill major contributing industries
specific inforrjtion on the quality and quantity of effluents introduced
by such 'iii'lustrial users. The following information shni] be reported to
the perr.it ting uguicy on a yearly basis beginning Q.LQ..iLL 12ZZ '
reports re liceling no change from the previous year may simply relate this,
fact, witliout submit ting repetitive data.
(n) Section IV, Standard Form A shall be completed and submitted for
ouch major contributing industry.
(b) Information on the municipal facility'as n whole is to be reported
on the monthly NPDCS Discharge Monitoring Report Form (Form 3320-1).
Once the, specific ruturc of industrial contribution:] ban been
lilc.ni.J f if/I, data collection and reporting. J cquirciiiunt y isuy be
levied' Jcr other pat\nne.Cern in addition to hone included
Form 33:-0-l.
-------
CONDITIONS OF STATE CLRTIFICATION
The State of I'lorida Department of Environmental Regulation has
certified the discharsc(s) covered by this permit with conditions
(Attached)- Section A01 of tlie Act requires that conditions of certi-
fication shall become a condition of the permit. The monitorinp, and
sampling shall be as indicated fo.r those parameters included in the
certification. In the event of any conflict between the conditions of
this permit and in the certification attached, the more restrictive
shall rule.
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
r liPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
2562 EXECUTIVE CENTER CIRCLE. EAST
MONTGOMERY BUILDING
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301
REUBIN O'D ASKEW . _ JOSEPH W. LANDERS. JR
GOVERNOR June *U» iy// SECRETARY
Paul J. Traina
Director, Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. Traina:
Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 USC 1251, 1341), the State of Florida hereby issues certification
for:
City of Port St. Joe FL0020206
an applicant for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit.
The applicant must meet all applicable sections in Chapter 403 Florida
Statutes and Chapter 17-3 Florida Administrative Code.
The fecal coliform as determined on domestic waste effluent prior to
mixing with industrial flow shall be limited to 200/400 per 100 ml.
on monthly and weekly averages.
The State of Florida certifies that if the applicant meets the
conditions developed for Llioa NPDES permit, in addition to the
specific requirements stated herein, its discharge will comply with
the provisions of Sections 301 and 302 of the Act.
Insofar as we can determine, there arc no further limitations under
Sections 306 and 307 applicable to this case.
Sincerely,
Joseph W. Landers, Jr.
Secretary
JWL:btp
Pi mini on 10Gni. Hitvi'li'il P.ipcr
-------
60 CFTl 12S.36(b)(2)
Requests for an adjudicatory hearing shall:
(1) State the name and address of the person making such
request;
(ii) Identify the interest of the requestor which is atfected
by the proposed Issuance, denial or modification of the permit con-
tained in the determination of the Regional Administrator pursuant
to 8125.35(a);
(iii) Identify any persons whom the request represents;
(iv) Include an agreement: by the requestor to be subject to
examination and cross-examination and to make any employee or
consultant of auch requestor or other person represented by the
requestor available for examination and crooe-exanination at the
ej:pcnoa of such requestor or such other person upon the request of
the Presidios Officer, on his own motion, or on the notion of any
party.
(v) State with particularity the reasons for the request;
(vi) State with particularity the iosuea proposed 10 be con-
sidered at the hearing; «nd
(vii) Include proposed terroo and conditions which, in the
JudcBcont of the requootor, would be required to carry out the
intend=2nt of the Act.
-------
APPENDIX B
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS EVALUATION
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227. DEN/ER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER. COLORADO 80225
TO : Assistant Director for Technical Programs DATE February 13, 1978
FRO/A .- p. Early, Proc
SUBJECT. Project 202, Comparability of the Industrial Sources Discharging to the
Port St." Joe WTF vis-a-vis those Discharging to the Bay County Treatment
Lagoon, >
&
The two pulp mills and the two by-product refineries are of approximately
the same size and produce in general similar products by essentially the
same methods. Any differences which have been identified are felt to be
of comparatively little significance in terms of their effect on the waste
waters being discharged from the respective facilities.
At the end of the discussion part of this memo is a tabulation of the major
process operations which might have an impact on the nature and amounts of
pollutants found in effluents from the four plants inspected for this study.
The decision that there is no difference, with respect to the planned
biologic study between the effluents from the Port St. Joe Paper Company
(PSJ) with Sylvachem Corporation (SC) and those from the International
Paper Company (IPC) and Arizona Chemical Company (AZC) at Panama City»
Florida is based on my judgement that the process differences found during
the inspections would not have a significant effect on the nature of the,1
pollutants in the effluents. Inspection of the four facilities found
eleven differences which needed evaluation to determine whether they might
have an effect on the effluents from the plants as they entered the respec-
tive treatment facilities.
Seven differences were found between the pulp mills which might affect their
effluent; a discussion of these follows.
Hardwood pulp is made practically all the time at IPC, but, from the data made
available, the rate seems to be limited to the range of 20 to 35% of
the total pulp production. Since all the wood is dry debarked there is no
chance of significant amounts of hardwood bark extractives entering the
effluent stream. Any differences between the lignaccous components of the hard-
woods versus the softwood would be totally masked by the agressive action
of the chemicals used in the kraft pulping process; the ligm'n degradation
products which escape from the recovery process would not be very much
different from each other. The fact that softwoods are always being pro-
cessed at IPC means that the residual resinous material from the alkaline
pulping of pine will always be present in both the waste streams at about the
same concentration. Therefore the hardwood pulping at IPC would not signifi-
cantly alter the nature of the effluents vis-a-vis PSJ.
-------
- 2 -
The two differences in the pulping process, i.e., sulfidity and continuous
digestion each appear superficially to be important differences between
•the two miVl(s. The forty percent difference in the sulfidity of the
pulping white liquor results in a smaller difference in the proportions of
the components in the mi.ll effluent and in no effect on the nature of these
components. The effect of continuous digestion is practically nil because
it is simply a different mechanical method of carrying out the same chemical
process. Thus one pulping process difference, sulphidity, has only a slight
effect on component balance, the other pulping difference has virtually no
effect.
The bleaching processes on examination turns out to be different methods
of achieving a very similar result and have much more effect on the
qualities of the finished pulp than on the nature and concentration of
pollutants in the respective process effluents. The differences in
the pulp are very sophisticated, effecting strength, viscosity and
brightness over a very narrow span; the differences in the materials removed
and the reaction products of the processes used is quite insignificant.
On the other hand the fact that the bleach plant at PSJ is run only 10 days
per month is of such magnitude that it can only be overcome by carrying out
the study during the period when bleaching is being done in the mill.
The fact that the pulp washing at the I PC is being done on both two and
three stage washing lines is a difference which results in a small increase
in the concentration of ligin degradation products in the effluent but no
difference in the nature of these materials. I decided that the overall
effect in this case was also of no significance when compared to the PSJ
effluent.
The difference between making bleached market pulp and bleached linerboard
is, as with the bleaching, one in which die differences in the finished
products are important and technically sophisticated; but when examined
with respect to the effect on the effluent flowing from the pipe the
differences are very-.minor. Removal of another 1% of lignin from
the pulp has a drastic effect on its chemical and physical properties
but adds less than 2% to the pollutants entering the pulp wash-
ing system and the same percentage to those entering the effluent
stream.
The four remaining process differences were found at the byproducts
processing plants of AZC and SC. These differences impact flows which
are in either case less than 3% of the total flow to the treatment systems.
This fact has the effect of reducing any effects on the effluents.
First, the vegetable oil fatty acids (VOFA) being processed at SC
is very similar in nature to the fatty acids (TOFA) resulting from the
processing of tall oil from the papermill. The processing of both crude
VOFA and TOFA is essentially the same. The fractions which find their
way into the waste waters are also similar since they result from the same
process applied to materials of very similar chemical and physical properties,
-------
- 3 -
I concluded that there was no significant difference to be found here.
The processing of turpentine at AZC appears superficially to be a
significant difference until one considers that the source in each case
is the pulp mill (both mills discard turpentine decanter underflow to
the treatment system. Moreover no water is used in the processing of
the liquid turpentine at AZC. The only water which contacts any fraction
of the turpentine is the barometric condensor water which is used to maintain
vacuum. This water which may include a light fraction of turpentine is later
treated in the skimming basin.
The ploymerization process in use at AZC produces a material unlike any
made at SC but the reaction is carried out in the absence of water and the
treatment vessel is cleaned when necessary with solvent, which is reclaimed.
The reaction product is washed with dilute acid (.05% HC1) which is sewered.
This wash water has a very low organic content. The only other water from
this process is from the barometric condensor which is used to control pro-
cessing vacuum. I judged that the contribution of possibly significant new
pollutants to the effluent stream from this source is nil.
At AZC the esterification of rosin and fatty acids to make special products
is carried out in closed vessels without the use of any water. Thus no new
pollutants are added to the effluent stream from this source.
In the final analysis I concluded that none of the differences that I had
been able to find between these two very similar operations would have any
significant effect on the nature of the effluents flowing into the two
treatment systems.
-------
- 4 -
Table 1
Process Differences Between the Two Industrial Complexes
Pulping of Hardwood at IP
Sulfidity: 28% vs 20%
Batch vs continuous digestion
Bleach 6-vs 4-stages
cont. vs 10 day/1 mo operation
Washing 2- & 3-vs 3-stage
Bleached market pulp vs bleached linerboard
Turpentine distilled at AZCml
Resin forming polymerization at AZCml
Esterification of rosin and soap at AZCml
Crude vegetable oil fatty acids processed at Sylvachem
-------
- 5 -
Table 2
Comparable Process Elements of the Two Industrial Complexes
International Paper Co.
Raw Materials
Woods
Pines
Longleaf
Loblolly
Slash
Hardwoods
Sweet Gum
Hickory
Elm
Beech
Pecan (v. little)
Oaks
Water
Red
White
Live
Purchase chips, some
Fuels
Oil 2 6
Bark
Tall oil waste from AZCml
and Silvachem
Black liquor
Dry debark wood without log washing
Conventional kraft process
Sulfidity maintained at 28%
Strong Black Liquor oxidation
20 Batch digesters
Hot stock refining
3 2- & 3 3- stage washing lines
Screening
Bleaching: 6-stages
CDEHDEO
Sometimes bleach all HW
Solvay ClOg - process
Port St. Joe Paper Co.
Raw Materials
Woods
Pines
Slash
Longleaf
Loblolly
Hardwoods
Trace
Purchased chips, some
80% from chip and saw operations
balance includes some whole tree
chips
Jl
TT
Fuels
Oil
Bark
Black liquor
Dry debark wet logs from fluir.e
flume dredged, water recycled
Conventional kraft process
Sulfidity maintained at 20:1
No Black Liquor oxidation
10 Batch digesters
2 down for rebuild
1 Kamyr continuous digester
1 stage of high-Jie^t washing
Hot stock refining
4 3-stage washing lines
Screening
Bleaching: 4-stage
CEDH
Operate 10 days/month
Flash dried bleached pulp made
for sale - warehouse full
-------
- 6 -
Table 2 (cont.)
Recovery
1 Evaporator, 6-body, 6-effect
Surface Condenser, normally
operating
1 Evaporator, 6-body, 5-effect
barometric condensers
recirculate from cooling tower
1 Evaporator, 9-bodys 6-effect
Barometric condenser to
cooling tower for recycle
5% Slowdown
Normally operate as alternate
to above
Sour condensate to BSU
Recovery
3 Evaporators, 6-body, 6-effect
old evaporators used as
surface condensers, sour
condensate to liquor dilution
Two new low-odor recovery boilers
Cascade evaporators
Cascade evaporator
ESP two chamber, four field
Wet bottom
One Lime Kiln
Venturi scrubber
mud washing recycled, excess
to settling pond, decantant
to waste treatment
Papermi11
One PM used as a pulp "drier
One Linerboard PM
Chemicals:
Alum
Modified rosin" size
Capacity: 700 T/D Linerboard
800 T/D Pulp
Byproducts to Arizona Chemical Co:
Tall oil soap
Sulphate crude turpentine
Pulps Produced for:
Primary K Mo.34
Secondary K No.26-27
Bleaching
K Mo.11-13 HW
K No.21-22 Sw
New low-odor recovery boiler
Two old recovery boilers,
cold standby
Cascade evaporators
ESP two chamber, four field
Wet bottom
Lime kilns, three
Venturi scrubbers
mud washing recycled
Papermi11
100 T/day recycled corrugating
cuttings processed into primary
sheet
Two Linerboard PM
Chemicals:
Alum
Modified rosin size
Capacity: 1400 T/D Linerboard
Byproduct to Sylvachem Co:
Tall oil soap
Byproducts to other locations:
Crude sulphate turpentine
Pulps Produced for:
Primary sheet
Secondary sheet
Bleaching
-------
. 7 _
Table 2 (cont.)
Pulpmill capacity:
1100-1400 T/D
Bleach plant capacity:
500 T/D
Effluent:
Primary treated
25-26 MGD
was 32 (exceeds design cap of
Bay City WTF)
Process water treatment
Flocculate-clarify-filter
sludge to settling basin
supernatant to sewer
Deionize (salt split) for boilers
waste- to equalization
and then to sewer
Arizona Chemical Company
Raw Material:
Crude tall oil soap
Crude tall oil
Crude sulphate turpentine
C102 waste acid
Sulphuric acid
Sodium Hydroxide
Processes:
Desaponification
decanting, waste to pulpmill
wash
decant
Flash dry
Strip volatile fatty acid from
rosin and nonvolatile residue
Rosin - modified and/or sold
Modification-may be disproportionate
or esterification
Pulpmill capacity:
1200 T/D optimum
Bleach plant capacity:
500 T/D
Effluent:
Untreated
32 MGD
Range 28-40,(40 too high, exceeds
capacity of Gulf Cty UTF and of
the companys flow measuring
nozzles
Process Water treatment
Flocculate-clarify-sludge to lane
treatment along treatment canal
Deionize (salt split) for boilers
waste to process scrubbers and
to waste treatment
Sylvachem Corporation
Crude tall oil soap
Crude tall oil
C102 waste acid
Sulphuric acid
Sodium Hydroxide
Crude Vegetable oil fatty acid
(mixed soya-cotton-peanut-
palm, desaponified waste
from food processing plants)
Desaponification
decanting, waste to pulp mill
wash
decant
Flash dry
Strip volatile fatty acid from
rosin and nonvolatile residue
Rosin - sold as is or nidified
Disproportionate may be done on
rosin
-------
- 8 -
Table 2 (cont.)
Volatile fatty acid
bleach (dry)
distill
Turpentine processing
consist of distillation
with acid-oxidation
steps for cleanup
Capacity:
Crude tall oil soap 150 tons/day
Crude tall oil 300 tons/day
Crude sulphate turpentine
30 tons/day
Volatile fatty acid
bleach (dry)
distill
Vegetable oil
received as crude, processing
similar to that of
fatty acids from tall oil
distillation.
Crude tall oil soap 150 tons/day
Crude tall oil 300 tons/day
Crude vegetable oil fatty acids
150 tons/day
Process heat: Dowtherm A
Process heat: Dowtherm A
-------
APPENDIX C
BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS
-------
BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS
Bacteriological analyses of total and fecal coliform bacteria
were performed according to standard procedures using the Most Probable
Number technique. Using aseptic techniques, all samples were collected
in sterile bottles prepared by the accepted procedure. Replicate sam-
pling was performed for quality control purposes; these data are avail-
able in the NEIC laboratory files.
Toxicity testing methodology involved agar diffusion and broth
culture techniques.
The agar diffusion test consisted of seeding nutrient agar
plates with 0.1 ml of an overnight nutrient broth culture of the test
organism. The bacteria were added to 2 ml of molten agar (45°C) and
overlayed on the nutrient agar plates. The wastewater samples, which
were filter sterilized through a 0.22 micron (average pore size)
membrane filter, were spotted on sterile, dry, filter paper discs.
The impregnated discs were then placed on the seeded nutrient agar
plates and incubated for 24 to 48 hours at 35°C. The plates were
observed for a clear zone of growth inhibition around the sample
disc. A disinfectant was used as a positive control. Negative,
-------
sterile distilled water controls and seeded plates containing no
discs showed good lawns of bacterial growth without inhibition.
Broth culture techniques involved innoculating sterile 0.5 ml
volumes of nutrient broth of each of the test organisms and adding
a soaked sample disc to each tube. Positive and negative con-
trols similar to the agar diffusion test were used.
Salmonella sampling involved placement of sterile pads at
the sampling site for 1 to 3 day periods. The pads were retrieved
aseptically, placed in sterile containers, chilled, and trans-
ported to the laboratory within one hour for analyses. There is
no standard procedure for detection of Salmonella in wastewaters.
The method employed by NEIC is the elevated temperature technique of
o
Spino , with modifications. Selective enrichment media consisted
of dulcitol-selenite broth. Incubation temperature was 41.5 C
(107°F). On each of four successive days, growth in each of the
enrichment media was streaked onto selective plating media that
consisted of xylose-lysine-deoxycholate agar. After 24 hours
incubation at 35°C-0.2°C, colonies with characteristics typical
of Salmonella were picked from the plates and subjected to bio-
chemical and serological testing. Biochemical testing was per-
formed using a commercial multitest system.
-------
Differentiation of the coliform group of organisms was performed
according to standard procedures with modifications. Single,
well isolated colonies were randomly picked from membrane filter
plates containing M-FC medium incubated ar 44.5°C-Q.2°C. The
cultures were streaked for purification to an eosin-methylene-blue
agar plate. A single well isolated colony was picked to an agar
slant and incubated at 35°C-0.5°C for 24 hours. The cultures were
subjected to a commercial differential test system containing
biochemical tests for hydrogen sulfide, ornithine decarboxylase,
motility, citrate (HOMoC series), indole, lysine decarboxylase,
glucose, lactose, and rhamnose. Bacteria not identified as
Klebsiella were subjected to IMViC testing for identification
of E. coli. The IMViC tests were performed according to
standard procedures .
-------
REFERENCES
1. Rand, M. et al.? 1975. Standard Methods for Examination
of Water and Wastewater. 14th Ed., Amer. Public Health
Assn.', New York, N.Y.
2. Spino, D.F., July, 1966. Elevated Temperature Technique
for tte Isolation of Salmonella from Streams. Applied
Microbiology, 14, 4; American Society for Microbiology.
-------
APPENDIX D
SURVEY METHODS
-------
SURVEY METHODS
Sampling and In-Situ Measurements
All influent and wastewater discharges were monitored February
8-18, 1978. Established chain-of-custody procedures were followed
in the collection of all samples (Appendix F). The sampling locations
and the NEIC monitoring procedures used during the survey are dis-
cussed below.
Station 01
Domestic waste samples from the City of Port St. Joe, prior
to chlorination, were collected by means of a Tru-Test Automatic
Sampler manufactured by the Chicago Pump Division of the FMC
Corporation. This type of sampler collects a sample proportional
to flow and is equipped with a refrigerator to reduce the sample
temperature to below 4°C. The flow is measured by means of a
30.5 cm (12 in.) Kennison nozzle and continuously recorded and
totalized. This device was calibrated, prior to installation,
against a standard traceable to the National Bureau of Standards
(NBS) by Alden Research Laboratories and certified to an accuracy
of -0.25%. Prior to the monitoring period, this device was
calibrated by WWTP personnel in the presence of NEIC personnel.
An additional calibration was performed on the last monitoring
day (February 18, 1978) to assure that the device provided accurate
measurements during the monitoring period.
-------
The automatic sampler was cleaned just prior to the start of
sampling and sealed to insure detection of access by other than
NEIC personnel. Because the refrigeration system was inoperative
during the EPA survey, the sample container was packed in ice
for temperature reduction of the sample to A.Q°C. Composite
samples for BOD and TSS were removed from the sampler at
approximately 0700 each day and transported for analysis to an
NEIC mobile laboratory located at the Port St. Joe HWTP. The
sampler was cleaned, a pre-cleaned sample container installed,
and re-sealed after each 24-hour composite period.
Field (in situ) measurements for pH and temperature were made
by the NEIC field team periodically during the monitoring period.
Daily, the team also collected samples for coliform analysis; the
bacteriological analyses were performed in another NEIC mobile
laboratory temporarily located at the Port St. Joe WWTP. Flows
were determined from daily readings of the flow totalizer.
Station 02
Wastes from the City of Port St. Joe, after chlorination,
were sampled at the discharge from the chlorine contact tank and
analyzed for chlorine residual and coliform densities.* The pH
and temperature were determined on site. The chlorine and coliform
samples were transported within a few minutes to the nearby NEIC
mobile laboratories for analysis.
*As this waste stream had essentially the same characteristics as
Station 01, with the exception of chlorine addition, composite
samples for BOD and TSS analysis were not collected.
-------
Station 03
Th.e wastes from the St. Joe Paper Company (SJPC) v/ere
discharged into the Port St. Joe WWTP system and monitored by
means of a Tru-Test automatic sampler, as described previously,
and two 91.4 cm (36 in.) Kennison flow nozzles. The sampler is
flow proportional and the nozzles were calibrated in the same
manner as described for Station 01.
The sampler was sealed and samples handled in an identical
manner as Station 01. The refrigeration system was not working
on the sampler, and the samples were iced to provide the necessary
temperature reduction.
Flows were determined by daily totalizer readings from the
WWTP flow meter. The Kennison nozzles have a total rated capacity
o 3
of 151 m /day X 10 (40 mgd). The bleach plant was in operation
during the NE1C survey and the maximum daily flow recorded was
146 m3/day X 103 (38.7 mgd); the WWTP has, in the past, reported
flow in excess of this rated capacity when the paper company is
operating the bleach plant.
Measurements for pH and temperature were analyzed on site (in situ)
periodically. Samples for coliform densities were collected daily
and analyzed at the NEIC mobile laboratory located at the WWTP.
-------
Station 04
Wastewater from the Silvachem tall oil process enters the
WWTP through sampling location 04 and is continuously monitored
by means of a 90° V notch-weir and Tru-Test flow proportional
automatic sampler as described previously. Prior to and near
the conclusion of the EPA survey, these devices were inspected
by NEIC personnel and found to be monitoring properly. The weir
was constructed and installed according to specifications found
in the Water Measurement Manual . Prior to the survey, the
refrigeration unit on the sampler was found to be inadequate and
the sample container was packed in ice to provide the required
temperature reduction.
Before the start of the monitoring period, the sample unit
was cleaned and the sample container replaced with a pre-cleaned
container. The sampler was sealed during the monitoring to detect
any access to the sampler by other than NEIC personnel and the
sampler and sample container cleaned daily when each composite
sample for BOD arid TSS analysis was removed.
Field (in situ) measurements for pH and temperature were deter-
mined periodically. Samples for coliform densities were collected
Water measurement Manual, U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Second Edition, Revised Reprint, 1974.
-------
Stations 05 and 06
The effluents from clarifier A (west side) and clarifier B
(east s>de) Stations 05 and 06, respectively, were sampled for
BOD and TSS with SERCO automatic samplers and flow proportioned,
on the basis of the effluent flow metering system, at the end of
each 24-hour collection interval (0800-0800). Temperature and
pH were determined on site (in situ) and grab samples for coliform
densities were collected each day.
Station 07
The City measured flow from the discharge of the aerated
lagoon by means of a 1.2 m (4 ft.) Parshall flume and continuous
flow recorder and totalizer. A Tru-Test automatic sampler is
located approximately 1.8 m (6 ft.) upstream of the converging
section of the flume. Prior to the survey, the flume and sampler
were inspected by NEIC personnel; the flume was found to have
considerable turbulence in the measuring section. At the suggestion
of NEIC personnel, WWTP staff installed a stainless steel baffle
in the flow channel upstream of the flume to reduce this turbulence.
Subsequent measurement by the NEIC sampling team showed the device'
to be measuring and recording properly. All other dimensions met
the recommendations of the Water Measurement Manual.
-------
Daily composite samples were collected from the City sampler
(0700-0700). The sampler and sampling container were cleaned just
prior to the survey and each day when the composite sample was
removed. The sampler was sealed to insure no undetected access to
the sample.
Temperature and pH measurements were made on-site periodically
each day and grab samples for coliform densities were collected
twice daily. Cotton swabs were suspended in the lagoon overflow
structure and were removed at the end of one, two and three day
exposures for isolation of Salmonella.
Station 13
Daily grab samples for fecal coliform analysis and pH and
temperature measurements were taken from the south side of the
lagoon adjacent to the influent-flow boil. In addition, twice
during the study, 38.7 liters (10 gallon) samples were collected
and shipped to the NEIC laboratory, Denver, Colorado, for
bacteriological bioassay studies.
-------
APPENDIX E
CHEMICAL METHODS
-------
Analytical Methodology and Quality Control for the Port St. Joe Study
The following methods v/ere used to analyze the samples from the Port St.
Joe Study.
Parameter
BOD
TSS
Method
Full bottle dilution
technique with settled
raw sewage used as seed
Reference
Standard Methods, 14th Ed.,
p. 543
Gravimetric, millipore Standard Methods, 14th Ed.,
filter-Whatman GFC p. 94
Chlorine (Residual) lodometric II
Standard Methods, 14th Ed.,
p. 318
Analytical quality control practices used during the survey included the
analysis of distilled water blanks, duplicates, and QC check samples.
At least one duplicate was analyzed every ten samples. The quality con-
trol results for the reference samples are summarized below.
Acceptable
Parameter NEIC Value True Value Sample Source Range
BOD 16 (mean of 6 results)
COD 40 (mean of 4 results)
TSS 48 (mean of 4 results)
Chlorine
Residual 1.25(mean of 4 results)
19
58
51
1.4
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
15 - 24
46 - 70
48 - 54
1.2 - 1.6
The BOD results on the reference samples are slightly low, with one result
being just within the acceptable range and the other just outside. A pos-
sible explanation for these results is that the volume of raw sev/age used
as a seed did not provide an adequate population of acclimated microbes to
effectively digest the samples. The NEIC BOD results were slightly but
consistently lower than the l-MTP results. The plant used the pond effluent
as the source of seed which was acclimated to the wastes coming into the
plant. This probably is the reason why the NEIC results were generally
slightly lower than the WWTP results.
However, the NEIC and WWTP BOD results on the tall oil waste were substan-
tially different. The NEIC BOD method includes thn use of cleaned air to
mix the samples. The air mixing step could have sparged volatile organic
compounds from the samples. This along with the different seed could have
caused the NEIC results to be low.
-------
The NEIC results on the suspended solids reference samples were within the
acu';>table range. In addition, the NEIC end WWTP TSS results also agreed
very well.. The NEIC results on the residual chlorine reference sample
were within the acceptable range.
The precision of analysis results are suiroarized below. The range of de-
viation corresponds to the percent difference in duplicate analysis of a
sample.
Concentration Range of Average
Parameter Range, mg/1 % Deviation % Deviation
BOD 12 - 1660 0 - 20.8 5.2
TSS 50 - 408 1.0 - 29.8 10.2
Chlorine (Residual) 3-26 0 - 28.6 4.4
-------
APPENDIX F
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY PROCEDURES
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROCEDURES
February 9, 1978
GENERAL
Evidence gathering surveys should be characterized by the minimum
number of samples required to give a fair representation of the
media from which taken. To the extent possible, the quantity of
samples and sample locations will be determined prior to the survey.
Chain of Custody procedures must be followed to maintain the docu-
mentation necessary to trace sample possession from the time taken
until the evidence is introduced in an appropriate proceeding. A
sample is under custody if:
1. It is in your actual physical possession, or
2. It is in your view, after being in your physical
possession, or
3. It was in your physical possession and then you
locked it up in a manner so that no one could
tamper with it, or
4. It is in a designated "secure" area.
All survey participants will receive a copy of the survey study plan
and will be knowledgeable of its contents prior to the survey. A
pre-survey briefing will be held to re-appraise all participants of
the survey objectives, sample locations and appropriate procedures.
After all samples are collected, a de-briefing will be held in the
field to determine adherence to procedures and whether additional
evidence type samples are required.
SAMPLE COLLECTION
1. To the maximum extent achievable, as few people as possible
should handle samples.
2. All samples shall be obtained, using recognized standard
field sampling techniques. The field sampler is responsible
for the care and custody of the samples collected until
properly dispatched to the receiving laboratory or trans-
ferred to another custodian.
-------
3. Sample identification cards or sample tags as appropriate,
shall be completed for each sample. (See sample Fig. 1).
In-situ measurements, i.e. samples collected, analyzed and
documented by the same person onsite may be recorded directly
in field data record sheets and books. Examples of in-situ
measurements are pH, temperature, conductivity flow measure-
ments, etc. In-situ measurement recordings and sample iden-
tification must be legibly filled out in ballpoint (waterproof
ink).
4. Bound Field Data Record logbooks shall be maintained to
record in-situ measurements and other pertinent information
necessary to refresh the sampler's memory in the event
he later takes the stand to testify regarding his actions
during the evidence gathering activity. A separate set
of field notebooks shall be maintained for each survey
and stored where they can be protected and accounted for
at all times. Logbook entries shall be signed and dated
by the author.
5. Colored slides or photographs taken which visually shov/
the effluent or emission source and/or any monitoring
locations should contain written documentation on the
back of the photo which includes the signature of the
photographer, time, date and site location. Photographs
of this nature, which may be used as evidence, shall be
handled recognizing Chain of Custody procedures to prevent
alteration.
TRANSFER OF CUSTODY AiiD SHIPMENT
1. Samples will be accompanied by a Chain of Custody Record
(Fig. II). When turning over the possession of samples,
the transferor and transferee will sign, date and time
the sheet. This record sheet allows transfer of custody
of a group of samples in the field, to the mobile labora-
tory or to the IlEJC-Dcnver laboratory.
2. The field custodian or field sampler, if a custodian has
not been assigned, will have the responsibility of properly
packaging and dispatching samples to the proper laboratory
for analysis. Shipping containers will be padlocked for
shipment to the receiving laboratory. The "Dispatch"
portion of the "Chain of Custody Record" shall be properly
filled out, dated, and signed.
3. All packages will be accompanied by the Chain of Custody
Record showing identification of the contents. The original
will accon-'pany the shipment, arid a copy will be retained
by th<: survey coordinator.
-------
-3-
If sent by mail, register the package with return receipt
requested. If sent by common carrier, a Government Bill
of Lading should be obtained. Receipts from post offices,
and bills of lading will be retained as part of the perma-
nent documentation.
LABORATORY CUSTODY PROCEDURES
1. The laboratory shall designate a "sample custodian" with
an alternate designated in his absence. The laboratory
shall set aside a "sample storage area". Samples should
be handled by the minimum possible number of persons.
2. All incoming samples shall be received only by the custodian,
who will indicate receipt by signing the Chain of Custody
Sheet accompanying the samples and retaining the sheet as
permanent records. Couriers picking up samples at the air-.
port, post office, etc. shall sign jointly with the labora-
tory custodian. Samples will be stored in the sample storage
area and will be distributed by the custodian to individual
analysts. Laboratory personnel are responsible for the care
and custody of the sample once it is handed over to them
until it is returned to the custodian.
3. The analyst will record in his laboratory notebook or
analytical worksheet, identifying information describing
the sample, the procedures performed and the results of
the testing. The notes shall be dated and signed. The
notes shall be retained as a permanent record in the lab-
oratory and should note any abnormalities which occurred
during the testing procedure. In the event that the
person who performed the tests is not available as a
witness at time of trial, notes iray be used as evidence.
4. Standard methods of laboratory analyses shall be used as
described in the "Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures
for Analysis of Pollutants," 3S F.R. 28758, October 16,
1973, as amended. If laboratory personnel deviate from
standard procedures, justification and rationale should
be documented.
5. Once the sample testing is completed, the unused portion
of the sample, together with all identifying tags and
laboratory records, should be returned to the custodian.
Returned samples may be disposed only upon the order of
the Enforcement Specialist and Ass't. Director, Technical
Programs.
-------
EXHIQIT I
X
1
e
\
EPA, NATIONAL ENFORCEWEN'
Station No. Dalo
Station Location
BOD' Mefafs
' Solids r - - , Oil anil Greats
COD n.0.
Nutrient .. Rarf.
Oiliar
Samplers-.
1 INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Timo Sequence No.
Grafi
c
*
Remarks/Praservative:
Front
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
BUILDING 53, BOX 25227, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER,
DENVER, COLORADO S0225
f «o~~rv<
tssz
\^
Back
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office Of Enforcement
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Building 53, Box 25227, Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD
SURVEY
STATION
NUMBER
SIA1ION LOCATION
DATE
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Relinquished by: (Signature)
Relinquished by: is^noiu e;
Relinquished by: (s-gnoiu/ej
Dispafched by: (s,gr,oiut,)
Date,
TIME
SAMPLERS: fs,sna,u«)
SAMPLE FYPE
Water
Comp
Crab
Air
SEO
NO
NO OF
CONTAINERS
ANALYSIS
RbOUIRED
Received by: (s,gnoiure)
Received by: £,9n0iu,ei
Received by: (Signature)
Received by Mobile Laborolory for field
analysis: \s,3roiu,e)
^Time
Received for Laboratory by:
Method of Shipment:
Date/Time
Dale/Time
Date/Time
Date/Time
Date/Time
202120
Distribution: Or:g.— Accompany Shipment
I Ojyiy—Survey Coordinr'o' Fifll
CPO (II • 4«4
-------
APPENDIX G
PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
-------
DAILY PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
CITY OF PORT ST. JOE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EVALUATION
February 8-18, 1978
Station Station
Description
01 City of Port St. Joe
Sanitary Sewer
Influent to WWTP to
Chlorination
02 City of Port St. Joe
Sewage After Comminu-
tion and Chlorination
03 St. Joe Paper Company
Wastewater Influent
of Raw Untreated
Date*
TJibT
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Flow
m3x!03
3.05
2.77
3.07
1.99
1.77
1.83
1.87
2.03
2.92
3.03
3.09
2.77
3.07
1.99
1.77
1.83
1.87
2.03
2.92
3.03
133
131
127
140
139
136
137
137
119
106
mgd
0.805
0.733
0.810
0.526
0.467
0.484
0.495
0.537
0.771
0.801
0.805
0.733
0.810
0.526
0.467
0.484
0.495
0.537
0.771
0.801
35.2
34.7
33.6
36.9
36.7
35.8
36.2
36.3
31.5
27.9
PH
Range
8.3 6.2
7.2 6.1
7.2 6.3
7.1 6.9
6.4 6.3
7.1 6.6
6.9 6.6
6.8 6.5
7.3 6.3
6.0
7.4 6.3
7.1 6.2
7.1 6.3
7.0 6.9
6.4 6.2
6.8 6.3
6.6 6.4
6.6 6.1
6.8 6.6
6.0
11.4 9.8
10.0 6.9
9.2 6.8
10.5 6.6
9.8 6.4
10.6 5.8
10.8 6.7
10.0 8.9
10.5 9.6
10.7
Temperature
C°
max mi n
14
14-13
15-14
15-14
17-15
18-15
15
15-14
15-14
14
15-14
15-14
15
16-15
17-16
17-15
15
15
16-15
15
32-30
32-29
31-28
31-28
33
34-32
32-30
35-32
33-30
33
mg/l
9.8
12
8.8
16
13
6.0
4.0
6.4
3.2
5.0
mg/l
70
88
82
100
86
120
100
92
80
200
220
160
120
220
170
170
160
190
190
190
BOD
kg/day
213
244
252
199
152
220
188
187
233
608
29,300
21 ,000
15,300
30,700
23,700
23,100
21,900
26,100
22,700
20,100
Ib/day
470
538
554
439
335
484
413
412
514
1,340
64,600
46,300
33,600
67,700
52,200
50.800
48,300
57.500
49,900
44,200
mg/l
79
86
81
130
120
140
100
100
120
1,000
250
380
340
340
500
430
410
450
360
560
TSS
kg/day
241
239
248
259
212
257,
188
203
350
3,030
33,300
49.900
43,300
47,700
69,500
58,100
56,300
61,700
42,900
59,000
Ib/day
530
526
547
570
467
565
413
448
772
6,680
73,400
110,000
95,300
105,000
153,000
128,000
124,000
136,000
94,600
130,000
-------
DAILY PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS (Continued)
CITY OF PORT ST. JOE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EVALUATION
February 8-18, 1978
Station Station 1
Description "
04 Sylva Chemical Company
llastewater Influent of
Raw Untreated Waste
to WWTP
05 Discharge from the WWTP
Primary Clarifier "A"
(West Tank)
(Flow = 1/2 Daily
Eff. Flow)
06 Discharge from the
WUTP Primary Clarifier
"B" (East Tank)
(Flow = 1/2 Daily
Eff Flow)
)ate*
Feb)
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Fl(
my 1(1
A 1 U
.44
.70
.78
.52
.32
.48
.66
.74
1.76
1.98
60.9
65.9
64.0
68.5
71.2
70.4
70.8
73.4
69.3
58.3
60.9
65.9
64.0
68.5
71.2
70.4
70.8
73.4
69.3
58.3
)W
mfiH
myu
0.380
0.450
0.469
0.401
0.348
0.392
0.438
0.460
0.465
0.524
16.1
17.4
16.9
18.1
18.8
18.6
18.7
19.4
18.3
15.4
16.1
17.4
16.9
18.1
18.8
18.6
18.7
19.4
18.3
15.4
PH
Range
6.6 3.6
7.9 5.5
8.2 6.5
9.2 7.1
8.4 7.9
6.9 6.2
12.1 6.5
9.6 6.7
9.1 6.4
6.0
10.2 8.6
9.2 8.1
9.2 8.4
9.7 7.4
8.8 7.6
8.7 7.0
9.5 8.4
9.9 7.7
9.8 9.7
10-.4 10.0
10.4 8.8
9.5 8.2
9.5 9.2
10.0 7.3
8.8 7.7
8.5 6.9
9.8 8.4
10.2 7.8
10.0 9.7
10.8 10.2
Temperature
C°
max mm
34-30
40-30
33-29
35-32
35-34
32-29
35-34
32-29
36-30
31
31-26
29
28-27
31-29
30-29
31
34-32
32-30
32-30
35-32
32-27
29-28
28
31-22
30-29
32-30
32-31
32-30
32-31
34-32
Cl
S57T mg/1
my/ I
1,000
750
690
1,600
630
2,000
1,400
3,400
3,200
3,600
230
200
140
180
170
180
160
240
240
250
220
180
150
220
160
170
170
250
240
280
BOD
kg/day
1,440
1,280
1,230
2,430
831
2,970
2,320
5,920
5,630
7,130
14,000
13,200
8,940
12,300
12,100
12,700
11,400
17,600
16,600
14,600
13,400
12,100
9,580
15,100
11,400
12,000
12,000
18,300
16,600
16,600
Ib/day
3,170
2,810
2,700
5,350
1,830
6,540
5,110
13,040
12,410
15,700
30,900
29,000
19,700
27,200
26,700
27,900
25,000
38,800
36,600
32,100
29,500
26,700
21,100
33,200
25,100
26,400
26,500
40,400
36,600
36,600
mg/1
370
700
650
960
300
880
1,100
1,200
840
1,700
160
150
150
180
210
210
180
170
140
120
120
98
92
130
140
130
88
130
140
120
TSS
kg/ day
531
,190
,150
,460
395
,310
,830
2,090
T,480
3,370
9,760
9,900
9,580
12,300
14,900
14,800
12,800
12,500
9,720
6,990
7,310
6,450
5,900
8,900
10,000
9,170
6,220
9,530
9,720
7,000
Ib/day
1,170
2,630
2,540
3,210
810
2,880
4,020
4,600
3,260
7,430
21,500
21,800
21,100
27,200
32,900
32,600
28,100
27,500
21,400
15,400
16,100
14,200
13,000
19,600
22,000
20,200
13,700
21 ,000
21,400
15,400
-------
DAILY PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS (Continued)
CITY OF PORT ST. JOE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EVALUATION
February 8-18, 1978
Station Station Date*
Description 7/Feb)
13 Lagoon 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
07 Final Discharge of 9
WUTP at the Parshall 10
Flume 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Flow
m3x!03
121
132
128
137
142
141
142
147
139
117
mgd
32.1
34.8
33.8
36.3
37.6
37.3
37.4
38.9
36.6
30.8
PH
Range
7.9 7.2
7.6 6.9
7.9 7.6
7.6 7.1
7.2 6.3
6.7
7.4 7.1
7.4 7.1
7.7 7.5
7.6 7.5
7.6 6.5
7.4
7.6 7.4
7.5 7.1
7.4 6.6
7.3 6.6
7.5 7.2
7.4 7.2
7.3 7.1
7.5 7.2
Temperature C"i0
Co c.
-nyi
max min "S'1
22-21
21-20
21-20
24-20
24
25-24
25-24
24
25-24
25
21-15
20-19
20-19
22-18
24-22
24-21
23-22
24-22
23-22
24-22
mg/1
24
24
26
28
33
31
25
24
26
24
BOD
kg/day
2,920
3,160
3,330
3,850
4,680
4,380
3,540
3,540
3,600
2,800
Ib/day
6,430
6,970
7,330
8,480
10,300
9,640
7,800
7,800
7,940
6,160
mg/1
52
60
40
52
78
52
36
64
94
32
TSS
kg/day
6,310
7,900
5,130
7,130
11,100
7,350
5,080
9,440
6,080
3,720
1 b/day
13,900
17.400
11.300
15.700
24,500
16,200
11,200
20,800
13,400
8,200
Data represents date composite sample period ends, i.e. approximately 0700-0700 each day
-------
SUMMARY OF BACTERIOLOGICAL DENSITIES
CITY OF PORT ST. JOE. FLORIDA
WASTEUATER TREATMENT PLANT EVALUATION
FEBRUARY 8-18, 1978
Total Conforms
Fecal Coliforms
Number
Station
Number
01
02
02
Blended
03
04
05
06
13
07
Description
City of Port St. Joe
sanitary sewer, influ-
ent to IftJTP prior to
chlorination
City of Port St. Joe
seuage after conmun-
ution and chlorination
St. Joe Paper Company
Wastewater, influent
of untreated mill waste
to W1JTP
Sylvachem Company
Wastcwater, influent
of raw untreated
waste to WWTP
Discharge from the WWTP
Primary Clarifier A
(nest tank)
Discharge from the WUTP
Primary Clarifier B
(east tank)
Aerated lagoon, south
shoreline near clari-
fier inflow boil
Final discharge of WWTP
at the Parshall flume
of
Samples
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
Maximum
160,000,000
^240,000
^240,000
160,000
9,200,000
160,000
124 0,000
54,000
24,000
MPN/100 ml
Minimum Log Mean
790,000
<2
<2
23
<2
5
5
490
170
13,000,000
300
6,100
1,500
260,000
5,100
5,400
6,600
2,900
Median
13,000,000
190
55,000
2,000.
1 ,000,000
12,000
14,000
6,300
2,800
Maximum
22.000.000
54,000
54,000
1.400
3.500,000
17,000
13,000
7L000
4,900
MPN/100 ml
Minimum Log Mean
330,000 1 ,800,000
<2 57
<2 550
2 140
<2 61 ,000
<2 690
<2 380
79 1,000
46 500
Median
1.700,000
11
1,400
200
100,000
1.500
700
1,200
490
-------
DAILY BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA (MPN)
CITY OF PORT ST. JOE WWTP EVALUATION
February 8-18, 1978
Station No. Description
01 City of Port St. Joe
sanitary sewer influent
to WWTP prior to
chlorination
02 City of Port St. Joe
sewage after
communution and
chlorination
Data
Collected
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
Col i forms/1
Total
13,000,000
13,000,000
4,600,000
7,900,000
13,000,000
790,000
35,000,000
160,000,000
35,000,000
11,000,000
<2
7
49
<2
5
330
> 240,000
17,000
92,000
240,000
00ml
Fecal
4,900,000
1,100,000
330,000
1,700,000
490,000
330,000
1,700,000
22,000,000
13,000,000
1,700,000
<2
4
2
<2
<2
17
54,000
790
35,000
3,300
-------
03
DAILY BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA (MPN)
CITY OF PORT ST. JOE WWTP EVALUATION
February 8-18, 1978
(CONT'D.)
Station No.
02
(Blended)
Description
City of Port St. Joe
sewage after
communution and
chlorination
(blended sample)
Data
Collected
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
Col i forms/ 100ml
Total
220
17,000
330
<2
790
92,000
>240,000
130,000
160,000
160,000
Fecal
4
1,500
23
<2
12
1,300
54,000
7,900
54,000
54,000
St. Joe Paper
Company wastewater
influent of
untreated mill
waste to WWTP
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
310
3,300
2,200
1,700
1.60,000
23
1,300
31
7,000
17,000
170
79
,300
130
,400
8
280
2
230
630
-------
DAILY BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA (MPN)
CITY OF PORT ST. JOE WWTP EVALUATION
February 8-18, 1978
(CONT'D.)
Station No. Description
04 Sylvachem Company
wastewater influent
of raw untreated
waste to WWTP
05 Discharge from
the WWTP Primary
Clarifier A
(west tank)
Data
Collected
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
Col i forms/1
Total
<2
230,000
660,000
1,200,000
790,000
1,400,000
>2, 400, 000
130,000
2,400,000
9,200,000
1,100
92,000
17,000
1,700
35,000
160,000
7,900
35,000
490
5
00ml
Fecal
<2
130,000
22,000
330,000
70,000
79,000
>2, 400, 000
79,000
220,000
3,500,000
79
140
7,000
700
2,300
4,900
4,900
17,000
490
<2
-------
DAILY BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA (MPN)
CITY OF PORT ST. JOE WWTP EVALUATION
February 8-18, 1978
(CONT'D.)
Station No. Description
06 Discharge from the
WWTP Primary
Clarifier B
(east tank)
13 Aerated lagoon,
south shoreline
near clarifier
inflow boil
Data
Collected
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
Col i forms/1 00ml
Total
350
92,000
24,000
790
54,000
> 240,000
4,900
33,000
3,300
5
490
7,900
2,200
1,300
• 4,600
54,000
24,000
54,000
24,000
1,700
Fecal
no
1,200
1,400
330
1,700
13,000
700
85
700
<2
79
140
1,100
1,300
490
1,700
3,500
7,000
4,300
1,100
-------
DAILY BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA (MPN)
CITY OF PORT ST. JOE WWTP EVALUATION
February 8-18, 1978
(CONT'D.)
Data
Station No. Description Collected
07 Final discharge of 2/8/78
WWTP at the
Parshall Flume 2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
Coliforms/1
Total
170
330
1,300
790
1,300
1,100
3,300
1,700
1,400
7,000
24,000
13,000
17,000
13,000
14,000
7,900
4,900
.4,900
1,100
2,300
00ml
Fecal
46
330
330
130
140
130
1,700
490
230
no
490
490
3,300
4,900
630
1,700
1,400
4,900
110
1,300
------- |