CONTROL OF NITROGEN IN
WASTE WATER EFFLUENTS
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER DESIGN SEMINAR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
CINCINNATI, OHIO
-------
CONTROL OF NITROGEN
IN WASTE WATER EFFLUENTS
Prepared for the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Technology Transfer Design Seminar
E. Earth and J. Smith
Presented at
Shreveport, Louisiana
August 21-23, 1973
National Environmental Research Center
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, Ohio
-------
Designers of wastewater treatment facilities in the near future
will have to be capable of process design for nitrogen control.
Simply stated - in a great many areas we shall have to provide
a nitrified effluent — in a few selected cases, nitrogen removal will
be necessary. There is a great deal of capital and operatrng cost
difference between these two considerations and careful process selection
is a must.
The effluent requirements or stream standards of the state will
guide your process selection but, in general, many states are giving
careful thought to standards on nitrogen. Listed below are the states
that have adopted some form of nitrogen control criteria on selected
watersheds.
States that have adopted clearly States that have adopted
defined nitrogen control criteria nitrate control criteria
( ammonia, nitrate or total N) ( nitrate N )
California Oklahoma California
Hawaii Nevada Hawaii
Illinois New York Illinois
Iowa North Carolina Florida
Indiana Georgia Kentucky
Florida South Carolina Minnesota
Kentucky South Dakota Nevada
Maryland Vermont New York
Massachusetts West Virginia North Carolina
Michigan Virginia South Carolina
Minnesota Wisconsin South Dakota
Pennsylvania District of Columbia Vermont
Nebraska West Virginia
Virginia
Wisconsin
-------
—2—
Many of the remaining states include narrative statements
limiting the discharge of toxic or nutrient materials that can be
interpreted as some form of nitrog n control. A complete compilation
of presently adopted state water quality standards for nitrate is
included as “Appendix A” of this report.
As a policy requirement, babed on engineering evaluation, there
are three locations that require nitrogen removal as of this date. These
are the San Joaquin drainage water discharged to San Francisco Bay,
Tampa Bay, Florida, and the municipal Blue Plains plant in Washington,
D.C. In addition to these locatioi ts, the state of Virginia is requiring
nitrogen removal for the Chicahomitiy River and Occoquan watersheds, and
the state of Hawaii is requiring nitrogen removal for all class AA, A,
and B waters.
These cases are based on the role of nitrogen as a factor in
eutrophication. There are use requirements that would necessitate nitrogen
removal, such as water reuse applications, but these would be very specific
case by case decisions. Many of the states listed in column (I) either
directly or indirectly require in-plant nitrification, rather than nitrogen
removal. The indirect requests come in the form of a very low ultimate
BOD, while the direct requests li iit the concentration of ammonia in an
effluent. The criteria adopted b many states for nitrate control
(column 2) is quite liberal. The usual requirement is for less than
10 mg/I of N0 3 —N for streams used as water supplies.
-------
-3-
it appears, from laboratory and process experience, that I mg/i
is about the lowest concentration of ammonia we can expect from routine
operation. This is because routine analytical procedures are not
reliable much below 1 mg/i, recycle streams can cause spikes of ammonia
to appear in the effluent, and the vagary of daily operation cannot be
100 percent controlled. From an engineering standpoint, if you must
meet a 1 mg/i or less standard, you will design for 0 mg/i.
You might also want to provide for nitrification in view of the
more stringent effluent requirements being considered for disinfection.
Chioroamines are not as effective disinfectants as free chlorine.
Table I lists these various environmental considerations for
nitrogen.
In my discussion with various state agencies it is apparent that
the major action on nitrogen control, in the near future, will concern
the oxygen demand of ammonia nitrogen. Table II illustrates the reason
for this. You can see that if we provide for very efficient carbonaceous
removal of municipal wastewater, by either conventional biological or
chemical-physical processes, we can still discharge an effluent with
over 100 mg/i of oxygen demand.
Basically we can consider processes for control of nitrogen in
two broad categories - biological and chemical-physical. Because of the
importance of nitrogen we have supported a great deal of study on nitrogen
processes. Table III lists the approaches that have been studied. The
first entry on the Table represents the ammonia stripping process as
investigated at the South Tahoe Advanced Waste Treatment Plant. We
-------
-4-
all observed the progress of this high volume-low pressure air
stripping of ammonia from secondary effluent with interest. The con-
clusion at this point in time is that this approach could not be
reconunended for wide application in the United States, because of the
temperature limitations and scaling problems.
The use of natural ion-exchange materials such 88 clinoptilolite,
has shown favorable efficiencies for removal of ammonia from secondary
effluents during large pilot plant demonstrations. However, we still
have only limited data on the variatiott of exchange capacity of various
lots of the natural material, on the effects of trace materials such as
magnesium, on the attrition over long periods of time, and on the
general operating costs of the staged colun method of contacting. A
further disadvantage is the necessity of clarifying the effluent before
application to the columns. The biggest factor to be resolved in this
process is the disposal of the concentrated brine solution, with a high
ammonia content, that results from the regeneration of clinoptilolite.
Synthetic ion-exchange resins have been investigated for the
removal of nitrate ions from secondary effluents. Limited success has
been achieved because resins with a high selectivity have not been developed,
regeneration of selective resins is usually inefficient; and as in the
case of clinoptilolite, a concentrated, nitrogen-rich brine must be
disposed of.
Almost all soluble nitrogen compounds in wastewater are in ionic
form; and, therefore, theoretically 85-90 percent of these materials could
be removed by de-ionizing or de-salting processes such as reverse osmosis,
-------
-5-
electrodialysis, or distillation. None of these processes have a favor-
obale selectivity for either amrnonium or nitrate ion; and, therefore,
it would be necessary to remove about 85-90 percent of all the salts in
wastewater in order to remove 90 percent of the soluble nitrogen forms.
Distillation is very unfavorable, since ammonia would be transferred to
the distillate unless the feed is kept acidic; but even under these
conditions, nitrous acid can distill over. All these processes produce
a concentrated brine for disposal. These general salt removal processes
are of interest only for wastewater that is to be reused, and are too
expensive for consideration as treatment for wastewater to be discharged
to surface waters.
Another of these approaches we should evaluate is breakpoint chlor-
ination for nitrogen removal. Breakpoint chlorination has been applied
for many years for dtinking water supplies. Recent studies of this
approach as applied to secondary effluents have shown that essentially
all the ammonia can be oxidized to nitrogen gas. Side products such as
nitrate and nitrogen trichloride can be produced if the pH is uncontrolled,
but effective mixing and pH control can limit their concentration to
satisfactory levels. pH is controlled by lime or caustic additions.
This process significantly increases the total dissolved solids content
of an effluent. This may limit the appl±cation of this process for the
removal of the bulk of the ammonia, but consideration can be given to use
of breakpoint chlorination as a polishing operation.
One additional chemical approach has been an investigation of
chemical dertitrtficatiort using ferrous sulfate and a copper catalyst to
convert nitrate ion to nitrogen gas. The reaction kinetics are not
-------
-6-
completely understood, pH must be controlled, and common interferences
are phosphate and carbonate ions. A difficult to dewater ferrous-ferric
hydroxide sludge is the product of the reaction.
A very important observation is that all the nitrogen removal
processes listed depend upon the nitrogen to be in a specific ionic
form. For instance, if an acceptable ion-exchange process did become
available, we would have to insure the nitrogen was in the proper ionic
form for capture. Air stripping would be useless for nitrogen compounds
such as nitrilotriacetic acid or amino acids. Any physical-chemical
nitrogen removal scheme will no doubt have to depend upon a prior biological
process to convert the nitrogenous material into the correct forms
A critical differentiation exists between treatment and control
of nitrogen by the biological approach or the physical-chemical approach.
Biological systems can he used to either produce a nitrified
effluent or remove nitrogen by denitrification. All physical-chemical
processes operate as nitrogen removal processes.
If the solution to an environmental problem would be nitrification,
it would be economically undesirab [ e to institute treatment for nitrogen
removal.
It should be evident from the above review of physical-chemical
processes that current technology is at a stage where, in most instances,
a biological process must be selected if nitrogen removal is necessary,
or a nitrified effluent must be produced.
The last entry on Table III represents the staged biological
nitrification-denitrification process you will hear about today. A
key feature of this design is that the stage concept can allow initial
-------
-7-
construction to proceed through the first two stages for nitrification,
and the third stage for denitrificatiOn need not be added until a
nitrogen removal requirement is definitely established.
If nitrogen removal is necessary there are several alternate
designs that can be considered. Figure 1 shows these variations. As
of this date the suspended growth reactor would be favored in any large
installation. This is mainly due to our familiarity with the design of
the hydraulics in this type plant, our prior experience with these systems,
and our large-scale demonstration results employing this type reactor.
Columnar denitrification employing fine grain media in the range
of 2-4 mm is a viable alternate to suspended growth reactors as a means
of achieving efficient reliable nitrate reduction. Columnar systems
have been operated successfully at the 0.30 mgd scale and have consistently
produced effluents low in total nitrogen. These reactors are similar to
deep bed filters and may be designed as gravity systems with hydraulic
loadings ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 gptn/ft 2 or pressure systems with
hydraulic loadings ranging from 5.0 to 7.0 gpm/ft 2 . All offer the added
advantage of suspended solids removal in addition to denitrificatiOTt.
Large media, in the range of 0.5 to l.Q inches, has been evaluated
at Firebaugh, California over a one-year period. Plugging of this column
has occurred and re-design of the packing arrangement is necessary to
insure backwashing can reinstitute even hydraulic application. The flow
rate to this column was 0.5 gpmlft 2 . This large media is similar to a
trickling filter in that periodic sloughling of the growth occurs and a
filtration step would be necessary for high quality water.
-------
-8-
The stage approach to nitrification is being applied at a
variety of sites either as demonstrations under EPA sponsorship or
under active design by private consultants. Below are brief listings
of these:
Hatfield Township 1 Penn. (5 ingd ) - A solids contactor for
phosphorus and organic removal, by use of lime, followed by
a second stage suspended growth biological nitrificatlon and
multi-media filtration.
Stanford University. Calif. (Pilot-plant scale ) - Second stage
nitrification, using 1-inch media in flooded columns. Pure
oxygen is being used.
Hobbs. New Mexico (5 mpd ) - Nitrogen and phosphorus removal
employing the three-sludge suspended growth reactors.
0
Manassas. Va. (0.2 mgd ) - Nitrogen and phosphorus removal
employing the three-sludge suspended growth reactors.
Midland. Michigan (Demonstration scale ) - Second stage
nitrification using attached growths on plastic media at
1 gpm/ft , direct tn-media filtration of tower effluent.
Washington. D.C. (300 mgd ) - Nitrogen and phosphorus removal
employing the three-sludge suspended growth reactors.
Tampa 1 Fla. (50 mgd ) - Nitrogen and phosphorus removal
employing the three-sludge suspended growth reactors.
Salt Creek, ill. (50 mgd ) - Two-stage nitrification with
suspended growth reactors, third-stage denitnification on
fine grain media; if required.
-------
-9-
El Lago, Texas (0.5 rngd ) - First-stage trickling filter,
second-stage suspended growth nitrification, third-stage
large media denitrification, effluent filtration, phosphorus
removal in the primary tank.
Waukegan, Ill. (30 mgd ) - Several plants totaling 30 mgd will
be designed for two-stage nitrification employing suspended
growth reactors.
Flint 1 Mich. (20 mgd ) - Phosphorus and organic removal in
primary tanks by metal salt and polymer. Nitrification in
existing activated sludge tanks.
Fairfax County, Va. (Demonstration scale ) - Phosphorus removal
in primary tank with metal salt and polymer, second-stage
suspended growth nitrification, third-stage denitrification
in colimni packed with plastic rings. Effluent filtration.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Walnut, California
( full scale 1.0 mgdj
Phosphorus removal by lime precipitation in the primary followed
by second-stage suspended growth nitrification and third-stage
suspended growth denitrification.
-------
TABLE I
IMPORTANCE OF NITROGEN
NH 3 IN EFFLUENTS CAN CAUSE DO SAG IN RECEIVING WATER
NH 3 IS CORROSIVE TO COPPER FITTINGS
1 NH 3 REQUIRES 1 PLUS C t 2 FOR BREAKPOINT
NO 2 CAUSES HIGH Cf 2 DEMAND
NH 3 INFLUENCES Ct 2 CONTACT TIME
NITROGEN COMPOUNDS ARE NUTRIENTS
NO 3 CAN BE HEALTH HAZARD
NH 3 CAN BE TOXIC TO FISH
-------
TABLE II
RELATIONSHIP OF CARBONACEOUS OXIDATION AND AMMONIA OXIDATION,
BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT TO IEMOYE 10% OF CARBONACEOUS
MATER IRL
ag/I
WASTE WATER
F INAL
EFFLUENT
ORGANIC MATTER
iSO
25
ORGANIC
OXYGEN DEMAND
31
NH 3
25
20
AMMONIA
OXYGEN DEMAND
112
90
TOTAL
OXYGEN DEMAND
481
121
PERCENT OF OXYGEN
DEMAND DUE TO NH3
22%
11%
-------
TABLE m
NITROGEN REMOVAL PROCESSES
NH (SOLUTION air - NH f (GAS)
NH CLINOPTILOLITE • NH 4
NO RESIN • NO 3
REVERSE OSMOSIS
ELECTRODIALYSIS
DISTILLATION
2NH 3 +3CI 2 + GHCI
NO + Fe ’” — Cu + Fe+
organic C
NO — -N 2 +C0 2
organisms
-------
MODIFICATIONS OF
THE DENITRIFICAJION PROCESS
I
I
I
I. OPEN TANK DENITRIFICATION
(ACTIVATED SLUDGE TYPE
II. COLUMN
DEN ITRIFICATIO N
(FINE MEDIA)
HIGH-RATE
ORGANIC SYNTHESIS
FIGURE 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N ITRIFICATION
I
SAND FILTER
OPTIONAL
III. COLUMN DENITRIFICATION
(COARSE MEDIM
-------
APPENDIX “A”
Water Quality Criteria
for
Nitrates
Office of Water Programs
Division of Water Quality Standards
Washington, DC
November 1971
-------
INTRO IXJCTION
This is a compilation of all nitrate criteria limitations within State_adopted
water quality standards.
The Federal water quality standards program is directed by the Environmental
Protection Agency, an independent regulatory agency which has responsibility
foi approving State-adopted standards, evaluating adherence to the standards,
and overseeing enforcement of standards compliance.
Stondards, the firs.t nationwide strategy f or water quality management, contain
four major el uents: the use (recreation, drinking water, fish and wildlife
propagation, industrial, or agricultural) to be made of the interstate water;
crateria to protect those uses; implementation plans (for needed industrial-
municipal waste treatment improvements) and enforcement plans; and art anti-
degradation statem t to protect existing high quality waters.
Minimum water quality criteria, or numerical specification of physical, chemi-
cal, temperature, arid biological levels, ore stated in the National Technical
Advisory Committee report to the Secretary of the Interior, Water Quality Criteria ,
doted April 1, 1968, and published by the Government Printing OHice, Washing-
ton, D. c. Unavailability of the NTAC report before June 30, 1967--the date
set by the Water Quality Act of 1965 for formal adoption of State stondards”
resulted in significant variations between the State-adopted and the NTAC
minimum criteria. Some standards were adopted and approved before the NTAC
report become available.
Nitrate standards are set to control the amount of nitrates discharges into
the water. Nitrates and phosphates in wastes contribute to excess amounts
of nutrients in our water. Artificially nutrient_enriched waters are over
fertilized, altering aquatic systems. Quite often algae blooms occur in
lakes and slow-moving streams. Certain algae can make public water supplies
arid fish flesh unpalatable. Aquatic growths stimulated by nutrients can trap
si]t and organic matter, provLding ideal breeding spots for bacteria, and can
choke up streams. Such growths can reduce the oxygen concentrations in the
water, killing fish and greatly reducing the stream’s ability to purify itself.
Organic enrichment is a primary factor in overciging or eutrophication, the
process causing the “death” of Lake Erie.
The National Technical Advisory Committee in Water Quality Crite did not
make specific fixed recommendations limiting nutrients. However, nitrates
were limited as follows: “The naturally occurring ratios and amounts of
nitrogen (particularly NO 3 and NH 4 ) to total phosphorus should not be radically
chcnged “by artificial means. They recommended that phosphate levels in
flowing streams should not exceed “100 ug/l or more than 50 ug/l where streams
enter lakes or reservoirs.”
The Water Quality Criteria report is presently being updated in light of new
scientific and technical information, with scheduled publication in June 1972.
These criteria compilations are issued to provide information to the public
on water quality standards. As further information becomes available, they
will be updated.
Water quality standards are subject to change when justified by newly avail-
able technical and scientific information . For the latest information refer
to the existing approved water quality standards which can be obtained from
the individual State water pollution control agency or EPA regional office.
Individual State-adopted standards follow.
-------
Alcthama There are no spec ific criteria or narrative statements
limiting nitrate or any other nutrient in the aquatic
environment.
Alaska There is no specific criteria and no narrative statement
directed at the limitation of such nutrients as nitrate.
Unless the toxic material standards or the taste and
odor standards could be applied to nitrate problems there
is only one other possibility. That is the following Policy
Statement of the State of Alaska: Alaska Statutes Title
46, Chapter 05, Section 46, 05, 010: “It is the public
policy of the state to maintain reasonable standards
of purity of the waters of the state consistent with public
health arid public enjoyment, the propagation and protection
of fish and wildlife, including birds, mammals and other
terrestrial and aquatic life, and the industrial develop-.
ment of the state, arid to require the use of all known
available and reasonable methods to prevent arid control the
pollution of the waters of the state.”
Arizona Policy statement: “Other methods and degrees of treatment
will be required, as appropriate, to remove nutrients, oily
constituents and other polluting materials from wastes
before discharge.”
“All waters of the State shall be free from materials
attributable to domestic or industrial woste or other
controllable sources in amounts sufficient to produce
taste or odor in the water or detectable off-flavor in the
flesh of fish, or in amounts sufficient to change the
existing color, turbidity or other conditions in the
receiving stream to such degree as to create a public
nuisance, or in amounts sufficient to interfere with any
beneficial use of the water.”
Arkansas No nitrate statement or criteria.
California They define Water Quality Control as the control of any
factor which adversely and unreasonably impairs the
quality of the waters of the State for beneficial use.
(California Water Control Act, Section 13005.) Pollution
control is an important part of water quality control.”
Goose Lake narrative statement regarding plankton indicates
that if nutrients including nitrates accumulated to the
degree that they cause plankton blooms they would be subject
to control. “The Total Plankton Population Shall be Main-
tained Below Bloom Level. This objective is designed to
1
-------
California protect fishlife and recreational use of the lake by
(Cont’d) limiting the concentration of plankton below the bloom
level which is defined as that plankton concentration
which causes significant nuisance conditiOnS, or signif i-
cantly affects desirable fish populations.”
SacramentOSan Juan Delta Nitrogen Criteria: “Total
Nitrogen Content of Delta Waters shall not exceed:
“A. 1.0 mg/l in the Central Delta.”
“B. 2.0 mg/i in the Western Delta.”
“C. 3.0 mg/i in the Eastern Delta.”
Nitrogen content, as used in this objective is considered
to be the sum of Nitrogen p esent in the w ter in all
forms including Nitrate (NO ), Nitrate (NO ), Mmonia (NH 3
or N H 4 ), organically combined nitrogen.
“ Materials Stimulating Algal Growth. ” “Materials stimulating
algal growth shall not be present in concentrations sufficient
to cause objectionable algal densities.” “Plankton B10QmS
are encouraged by the presence, in sufficient concentrations
of several nutrient materials. Among these are nitrogen,
phosphorus, silica, vitamins, iron and other metalS and
dissolved salts.”
Tidal Waters Inland From the Golden Gate Within The San
FranciscO Bay Region: “Total nitrogen concantrcitiOn s} ll
not exceed 2.0 mg/i as nitrogen at any point within the
Region easterly of CarquineZ Strait; in no case shall
nutrients be present in concentrations sufficient to cause
deleterious or abnormal biotic growths except when factors
which are not controllable cause greated concentrations
(Note A).”
West Fork Carson River: tNitrates A mean annual concen-
tration less than 2.0 mg/i, and a maximum concentration not
to exceed 3.0 mg/i at any time.”
Truckee River: “ Nitrates A mean annual concentration less
than 1.0 mg/i, and a maximum concentration not to exceed
2.5 mg/i at any time.”
2
-------
California East Fork Carson River: “ Nitrates : A mean annual
(Cont’d) concentration less than 1.5 mg/i, and a maximum concen-
tration not to exceed 2.0 mg/i at any time.”
West Walker River cir c1 Lake Topaz: “ Nitrates : A mean
annual concentration Less than 1.5 mg/i, and a maximum
concentration not to exceed 2.0 mg/i at any time.”
East Walker River: “ Nitrates : A mean annual concentra-
tion less than 3.0 mg/i, and a maximum concentration not
to exceed 4.5 mg/i at any time.”
New River : No narrative statement or specific criteria
concerning nitrates.
Colorado } iver in California : The only statement that
might be applicable to nitrate problems is: “The waters
shall be free from materials attzibutable to domestic
or industrial waste or other controllable sources, which
may produce taste or odor in the water or detectable
off-flavor in the flesh of fish, that may alter the water’s
existing color or turbidity, or that may adversely affect
other conditions in the river.” “Allowable limits of
annual average of analyses under the surveillance schedule
for Nitrate is 5.0 mg/l and for Ammonia (NH 3 ) 1.0 mg/i.”
Lake Tahoe: “ Total Soluble Nitrogen : A mean annual concen-
tration of the sum of soluble nitrate-N, nitrate-N, and
ammonia-N not greater than 24 micrograms N per liter at
any point in the lake.”
A plankton count criteria related to nutrients including
nitrates i’ included: “ Plankton Count : A mean seasonal
concentration not greater than 100 per milliliter and a
maximum concentration not greQter than 500 per milliliter
at any point in the lake.”
Another plankton standard related to nutrients is: “ Plankton
Growth Potential : A mean annual growth potential at any
point in the lake not greater than twice the mean annual
growth potential at the limnetic reference station.”
They have stringent narrative statements on foreign materials
and taste and odor which would include nitrates and other
nutrients.
“1. Foreign Material : None which impairs the natural
beauty, clarity, or purity of the lake.”
“2. Taste and Odor Causing Substances : None which
imparts foreign taste or odor to the lake waters.”
3
-------
California Coastal Waters 1 Point Pedras Blancas to Pecadero Point :
(Cont’d) Nitrates and other nutrients are not covered by these
standards.
Coastal beaters, Rirtcon Point to Point ArguellO : Nitrates
and other nutrients are not covered by these standards.
Coastal Waters, Point Arguello to Point Piedros Blanccis :
Nitrates and other nutrients are not covered by these
standards.
Pacific Ocean Pescudero Point to Mouth of Tomales &iy
Bolinas Lagoon, Drakes Estero, Limatour, Estero, Portions
of Tomales Bay and tidal portions of coastal streams :
Nutrients which include nitrates and others are covered
by the following narrative statement: “None in concentra-
tions sufficient to cause deleterious or abnormal biotic
growths except when factors which are not controllable
cause greater concentrations.”
Humboldt-Del Norte Coastal Waters : The following narrative
statement on Toxiŕ or other t leterious substances applies
to nitrates, and other nutrients: “ Toxic or Other Delete-
ous Subs ‘ ances : There shall be no organic or inorganic
substances in concentrations...i....which cause deleterious
growths of algae or other plant life.”
Pacific Ocean Coastal Waters, Rincon Point to San Gabriel
River: The only standard that might be applicable is the
following narrative statement: “ Other Materials : Other
materials shall not be present in concentrations that
would be deleterious to fish, plant or aquatic wildlife.”
Mendocino Coast : The following narrative statement applies
to nitrates, and other nutrients: “ Toxic or Other Deleteri-
ouse Substances : There shall be no organic or inorganic
substances in concentrations which are toxic or detrimental
to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life, which impart
undesirable tastes or odors to species of c mercial or
sport importances, or which cause deleterious growths of
algae or other plant life.”
Pacific Ocean Son Gabriel River to Drainage Divide Between
Muddy Canyon and Moro Canyon : Under objective rationale
they state: “ Nutrients .The research to date has not
been able to develop satisfactory criteria for nutrient
levels in open sea water that dll not over-stimulate
4
-------
California plankton production. Thus, a standard for nutrients is
(Cont’d) omitted until a basis for such can be found.”
Humbolt Bciy : The following narrative statement covers oil
the nutri ntS including nitrates: “There shall be no
organic or inorganic substances in concentrations.... .4hi
cause deleterious growths of algae or other plant life.”
Sonoma - Mann Coast : The following narrative statement
covers all the nutrients including nitrates. “There shall
be no organic or inorganic substances in concentrations....
which cause deleterious growths of algae or other plant
life.”
San Diego Bay : The following narrative statement applies
to all nutrients including nitrates. “Nutrient levels
shall be limited to those levels necessary to minimize
phytoplankton blooms, thus preventing unsightliness,
turbidity, color, and oxygen depression.”
Harbors, Marinas arid Tidal Prisms in Los Angeles and Ventura
Countriç : The following narrative statement applies to
all nutrients including nitrates: “ Nutrients : Nutrients
of other than natural origin shall not be present in con-
centrations capable of causing proliferation of plankton
or other undesirable biotic growths.”
Klaxnath River in Coliforni : The following narrative
statement applies to all nutrients including nitrates:
“Concentrations of dissolved nutrients shall be maintain-
ed at levels below those which may cause undesirable algae
blooms, slime or bacterial growth, or other undersirable
biological growths.”
Tijuana River Basin in California : “Concentrations of
nitrates and phosphates of waste origin, by themselves or
in combination with naturally occurring nutrients, shall
be maintained at levels below those which stimulate algae
and emergent plant growth.”
Smith River : The following narrative statement covers
all nutrients including nitrates: “There shall be no
organic or inorganic substances in concentrations
which cause undesirable algae blooms, slime or bacterial
growth, or other undesirable biolofical growths.”
Mission flay Including Tidal Prism of San Diego River and
Agua Hedionda Lagoon: “Nutrients: Concentrations of
nitrates and phosphates of waste origin, by themselves
5
-------
California o i c ,uibir.otion with naturally occurring nurtirents,
(Cont’d) shall maintained at levels below those which stimulate
algae and emergent plant growth.’
n Gcbri I River T del Prism : “Nutrients, of other than
natural origin, shall not be present in concentrations
capable o causing proliferation of undesirable biotic
growths.”
Coastal Boys, Marinas and Sloughs Between the San Gabriel
River and the Drciinabe Divide Between Muddy Canyon and
Moro Canyon: “ Nutrients : Nutrients (nitrogen, silicate,
and phosphate shall not be preser t except from natural
conditions, in amounts that will cause deleterious or
abnormal growths to occur on the substrate or to foster
biotic growths that are harmful to beneficial uses.”
Colorado There are no specific criteria for any of the nutrients.
The narrative statement concerning toxic materials might
restrict nitrates at levels below where damage to aquatic
life occurred. This statement is as follows: “ Toxic
material : Free from biocides, toxic or other deleterious
substances attributable to municipal, domestic, or industrial
wastes, or other controllable sources in levels, concen-
trations or combinations sufficient to be harmful to
aquatic life.”
Connecticut The narrative statements concerning taste and odor and
chetniccil constituents are the only standards that could
apply to nitrates. “ Taste and Odor: ” For water supply:
“None in such concentrations that would impair any usages
specifically assigned to this Class nor cause taste and
odor in edible fish.” Class D : “None in such concentra-
tions that would impiir any usages specifically assigned
to this class.” For coastal and marine waters: Class A :
“None allowable.” Class SB, SC, SD : “None in such concen-
trations that wauld impair any usages ppecifically assign-
ed to this Class and none that would cause taste and odor
in edible fish or shellfish.”
Chemical Constitutents (freshwater): Class A, B, C, and D .
“Waters shall be free from chemical constituents in
concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to
human, animal, or aquatic life for the appropriate, most
sensitive and governing considerations and approved limits
have not been established, bioassay shall be performed as
required by the appropriate agencies. For public drinking
water supplies the raw water sources must be of such a
6
-------
“onnecticut quality that United States Public Health Service limits, or
‘ont’d) State limits if more stringent, for finished water can be
met after conventioncil water treatment.”
Chemical Consti tuent (coast l and marine): Class SA : “None
in concertrations or combinations which would be harmful to
human, animal, or aquatic life or which would make the waters
unsafe or unsuitable for fish or shellfish or their propagation,
impair the palatability of same, or impair the waters for any
other use.” “ Class SB, SC, and SD : None in concentrations
or combinations which would be harmful to human, animal, or
aquatic iLfe or which would make the waters unsafe or un-
suitable for fish or shellfish or their propagation, or impair
the water f or any other usage assigned to this Class.”
Delaware The following d řlaration of policy in 6301, Chapter 63,
Water Pollution, Title 7, Part VII, Delaware Lode is
“(a) It is declared to be the public policy of the State to
maintain within its jurisdiction a reasonable quality of
water consistent with public health and public enjoyment
thereof, the propagation and protection of fish and wildlife,
including birds, mammals, and other terrestrial and aquatic
life, and the industrial development of the State. (b) It
is the purpose of this chapter to scifegard the quality of
state waters against pollution by (1) preventing new pollu-
tion in such waters and (2) controlling any existing
pollution.”
The adopted standards approved by the Secretary with certain
exceptions and recommendations that could apply to nitrates
are those concerned with toxic substances arid taste, odor,
and color causing substances: “ Toxic Substances : None in
concentrations harmful (synergistically or otherwise) to humans,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, and aquatic life.
‘lorida There are no specific criteria for nutrients such as nitrates
and no narrative statement directly applicable to nutrients
such as nitrates. The only item in the water standards
of Florida, as approved, that might be used to protect that
States waters from excessive amounts of phosphates and there
accompanying problems would be the antidegradation statement.
Ceorgia There are no specific criteria for nutrients such as nitrates
nor is there a narrative statement directly concerned with
nitrates or other nutrients.
7
-------
“ Nutrient Materials All Waters : Applicable to:
Total nitrogen, not greater than Class AA
0.10 mg/i.
Total nitrogen, not greater than Class A
0.15 mg/i.
Total nitrogen, not greater tha Class B
0.20 mg/i.
The following revision of water quality standards regarding
nutrients was submitted in a letter dated December 26, 1967,
prior to approval by the Secretary from Walter B. Quisenberry,
M.D. to Mr. William B. Schroeder: “Insert the following
section immediately preceding the section titled “Wastes from
Vessels and Marinas:”
“ Control of Nutrients :
Nutrient discharges were pointed out in testimony as being
a potential problem in several water areas such as Kaneohe
Boy and Pearl Harbor. The Agency is cognizant of this
potential problem and nutrient limits have been included
in the water quality criteria. At present the Agency knows
of no practicable methods for the control of nutrients. The
Agency will devise and implement control measures when the
means to do so become available.”
Hawaii has never adopted and submitted f or approval an
antidegradation statement that also could be used for the
protection of its high quality waters from problems due to
excessive nutrients such as nitrates.
Idaho Under the section titled “ GENERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR INTERSTATE STREAMS ” is the narrative statement: “Inter-
state waters shall not contain Excess nutrients of other
than natural origin that cause visible slime growths or other
nuisance aquatic growths.”
There is no specific criteria for nutrients such as nitrates
and Idaho does have an approved antidegradation statement to
protect existing high quality waters from excessive amounts of
nutrients such as nitrates.
8
-------
The water quality standards for the Interstate Waters, Wabash
River and Tributary Streams Crossing into Indiana, Interstate
Waters Mississippi River Between Illinois and Missouri,
Inferstate Waters Ohio River and Saline River, and the
Interstate Waters Mis i sippi River Common Boundary fletween
Illinois ,nd lown do not Lnc md c .pt cif ic en t o or 0
no nra t t ye ; to tcme u t d , tee t I y COnC(’ ni ( c1 W L t h I ‘in I t h r
iti t ro tm. . und other nut ri cnt . Spec it i. cr i te tin I or nit tote
concentrations was inriuded in the woter quality standards
for the following interstate waters;
1. Interstate Waters Illinois River and Lower Section of
Des Plaines River.
a. Public Water Supply and Food Processing: “Not to
exceed 45 mg/l Nitrate (as N0 3 )...2.5 mg/i Ammonia
Nitroget N.
b. There are no specific criteria or narrative statement
concerning limits for nitrates and other nutrients
assigned sectors of these waters classified for Aquatic
Life, Recreation, and Industrial Water Supply.
Interstate Waters Chicago River and Calumet River System and
Caluznet Harbor Basin :
a. Sectors 1-3: Not to exceed....2.5 mg/i Ammonium
Nitrogen (N).
b. Sectors 4-10: Anuuonium Nitrogen-mg/i .
Annual Average not more than 0.05.
Single daily value or average not more than 0.12.
Interstate Waters Lake Michigan and Little Calumet River,
Grand Calumet River and Wolf Lake :
Q. Lake Michigan Open Water:
Total Nitrogen (N )
Not more than 0.4 mg/i.
Ammonium Nitrogen (N )
Annual average 0.02 mg/i.
Single daily value or average 0.05 mg/i.
b. Lake Michigan Shore Water:
Ammonia Nitrogen (N) :
Annual average not more than 0.05 mg/i.
Single daily value or average not more than 0.12 mg/i.
c. Little Caiumet River :
Ainmonium Nitrogen - Single daily value or average not
more than 1.5 mg/i.
d. Wolf Lake :
Ammonia Nitrogen (N):
Annual average not more than 0.03 mg/i.
9
-------
Illinois Single daily value or average not more than 0.12 mg/i.
(Cont’d)
The follo’ing Nttrate Standards by State effluent criteria for
nitrates nd other nutrients has been adopted by the State as
part of tI eir standards.
Nitrate (F O 3 ): Not to exceed 45.0 mg/i.
Ammonia N trogen (p) : Not to exceed 2.5 mg/i.
The State has an approved antidegradation statement that
could be used to protect existing high quality waters from
excessive nitrate concentrations causing problems.
Indiana There are no specific criteria or narrative statement limiting
nitrates or other nutrient substances in the Indiana water
quality standards for any of the interstate basins other than
Lake Michigan drainages unless the ontidegradation statement
could be cppiied for existing high quality waters.
Nitrate criteria applicable to Lake Michigan Basins.
Lake Michigan Open Waters :
Total Nitrogen (N) mg/i 0.4
Lake Michigan Shore Waters:
Ammonia Nitrogen (N) - mg/i
Annual average not more than 0.05.
Single daily value or average not more than 0.12.
Indian Harbor Canal:
Ammonia Nitrogen (N) - mg/i
Annual average not more than 1.0.
Single daily value or average not more than 1.5.
Grand Caluinet River:
Ammonia Nitrogen (N) - mg/i
Single value not more than 5.0.
Little Columet River :
Single daily value or average not more than 1.5.
Wolf Lake:
Ammonia Nitrogen (N) - mg/i
Annual overage not more than 0.05.
Single daily value or average not more than 0.12.
10
-------
The followa.ng narrative statement could in my opinion be
used to limit the amount of nitrate8 and other nutrients
in the aqu tic environment.
1. Public Water Supp y
All substances detrimental to treatment processes shall be
limited to non detriment0l concentrations in the surface waters.
2. Aquatic Life
All substances detrimental to aquatic life shall be limited
to non_detrimental concentrations in the surface waters.
Specific criteria for interstate waters classified for Aquatic
Life:
1. Ammonia Nitrogen (N) mg/i not more than 2.0.
They have approved antidegradation statement that could be
used to protect existing high quality waters.
Kansas The only standards regarding the limiting of nitrates in the
aquatic environment ore as follows:
1. Antide;radation statement__Existing high quality waters
could be protected from damages resulting from discharge of
effluents containg high nitrate concentrations to the
aquatic environment.
2. The general criteria assigned to all Kansas Interstate
Basins- “Pollution substances will be maintained below maxi-
mum permissible concentrations which would be detrimental for
public water supplies, recreation requirements, and other
established beneficial uses.”
Xentti ky Interstate waters classified for livestock use :
Nitrates shall not exceed 45.0 mg/i.
Two of four freedoms narrative statements in Kentucky water
quality standards could be used to limit nitrates in inter-
state waters. They are:
“Free from materials attributable to municipal, industrial
or other discharges producing color, odor or other
conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance.”
“Free from substances attributable to municipal, industrial
or other dLscharges in concentration9 or combinations which
are toxic or harmful to human, animal, plant or aquatic
life.”
11
-------
L0uL S]atIa All interstate waters of Louisiana are assigned a general
criteria which could be used to protect such waters from
excessive concentrations of nitrates or other nutrients.
This statement with slight variations of use classification
is:
“Wastes after discharge...shal]. not create conditions which
adversely affect public health or use of the water for
the following purposes domestic or industrial water
supply, propagation of aquatic life, agricultural water,
recreation, and other legitimate uses.”
Maine The following narrative statements could be used to limit
nitrate discharges to the interstate waters of Maine:
Class A Waters : “There shall be no discharge of sewage
of other wastes into water of this classification and no
deposits of such material on the banks of such waters in
such a manner that transfer into the water is likely. .
Class B-i Waters : “There shall be no disposal of sewage,
industrial wastes or other wastes in such waters, except
those which have received treatment for the adequate
removal of waste constituents including, but not limited to,
solids, color, turbidity, taste, odor or toxic material,
such, that these treated wastes will not lower the standards
or alter the usages of this classification, nor shall such
disposal of sewage or waste be injurious to aquatic life
or render such dangerous for human consumption.
Class B-2 Waters : Same as Class B-i.
Class C Waters : Some as Class B-i.
Class SA Waters : “There shall be no toxic wastes, deleterious
substances, colored or other waste or heated liquids dis-
charged to waters of this classification either singly or in
combinations with other substances or wastes in such amounts
or at such temperatures as to be injurious to edible or
shellfish or to the culture or propagation thereof, or which
in any manner shall adversely affect the flavor, color, odor
or sanitary condition thereof; and otherwise none in sufficient
amounts to make the waters unsafe or unsuitable for bathing
or impair the waters for any other best usage as determined
for the specific waters assigned to this class...”
Class SB-i : Some as Class SA.
Class SB-2 : Same as Class SA.
12
-------
P’kii e Class SC : Essentially the same as Class SA.
(C &it ‘d)
The following nnrrative statement could be used to limit
ire excessive nitrates affecting the uses of the interstate
waters:
“Materials attributable to sewage, industrial waste, or
other waste which produce taste, odor, or change the
ç existing color or other physical and chemical conditions
in the receiving to such degree as to create a nuisance,
or that interfere directly or indirectly with water uses...”
The following narrative statement could be used to limit
)nt excessive nitrates affecting the uses of the interstate waters:
“Materials attributable to sewage, industrial waste, or other
waste which produce taste, odor, or change the existing color
or other physica l and chemical conditions in the receiving
to such degree as to create a nuisance, or that interfere
directly or indirectly with water uses;.....
tjcigsachussett s “Water quality parameters not specifically denoted shall
not exceed the recommended limits on the most sensitive and
governing water class use.”
Class A Waters : Chemical constituents: “None in concentra-
tions or combinations which would be harmful or offensive to
humans, or harmful to onimcil, oraquatic life.”
Class B Waters : “Ammonia as (N) not to exceed an average
of 0.5 mg/l ... during any monthly sampling period.”
Class C Waters : “Ammonia as (N) not to exceed 1.0 mg/l
....during any monthly sampling period.”
Class D Waters : “Chemical constituents: “None in concentra-
tions or combinations which would be harmful to human, animal,
or aquatic life for the designated water use.”
Class SA Waters (Coastal and Marinel : “Ammonia as (N) not to
exceed an average of 0.2 mg/l....during any monthly sampling
period.”
Class SB Waters : “Airanonio as (N) not to exceed an average of
0.2 mg/l. . . .during any monthly sampling period.”
Class SC Waters : “None in concentrations or combinations
which would be harmful to human, animal, or aquatic life or
which would make the waters unsafe or unsuitable f or fish or
shellfish or their propagation, impair the palatability of same,
or impair the water for any other usage.”
13
-------
Michigan Water Supply Domestic : “Nitrate (NO 3 ) should not exceed
45 mg/i at the intake. ”
Nutrients (Phosphorus, ammonia, nitrates and sugars)
“Nutrient. orcju atxnq tram industrial , municipai or dome:,t ic
animal .o irces ihal 1 be limited to the extent nece .ory to
prevent adverse effects on water treatment processes or the
stimualtion of growths of algae, weeds and slimes which ore
or may become injurious to the designated uses.”
Industrial Water Supply : Nutrients (Phorphorus, ammonia,
nitrates and sugars): “Nutrients orginoting from industrial,
municipal or domestic animal sources shall be limited to the
extent necessary to prevent the stimulation of growths of
algae, weeds and slimes which are or may become injurious to
the designated use.”
Recreation : Nutrients (Phosphorus, ammonia, nitrates and
sugars): “Nutrients orginating from industrial, municipal,
or domestic animal sources shall be limited to the extent
necessary to prevent the stimulation of growths of algae,
weeds and slimes which are or may become injurious to the
designated use.”
Fish Wildlife and Other Aquatic Life : Same as for Recreation.
Agriculture : “Nutrients (Phosphorus, ammonia, nitrates and
sugars): “Nutrients originating from industrial, municipal,
or domestic animal sources shall be limited to the extent
necessary to prevent the stimulation of growths of algae,
weeds and slimes which are or may become injurions to the
designated use. NO concentrations shall conform to USPHS
Drinking Water Ston ards.”
Commercial Water Use : Same as Industrial Water Supply
Minnesota Has approved antidegradation statement to protect existing high
quality wates.
The following narrative statement would limit damaging amounts
of nitrates: “It is the intention of the Agency to require
removal of nutrients from all sources to the fullest practicable
extent whenever sources of nutrients are considered to be
actually or potentially inimical to preservation of enhance-
ment of the designated water uses.”
Specific criteria limiting nitrates for certain class waters is
as follows:
14
-------
Minnesota mestic Consumption :
(Cont’d)
Class A (Public Water Supply): Nitrates (NO 3 ) 45 mg/l
None for Class B, C,& D.
Fisherie:. & Recreation :
Class A: Ammonia (N) Not to exceed a trace
Class B: Ammonia (N) Not more than 1 mg/l
Class C: Ammonia Not more than 2 mg/i
Industriai, Agriculture & Wildlife, and Navigation & Waste
Disposal Classifications : None
Mississippi The only direct reference to nutrients in the State’s water
quality standards is: “It is the plan of the Commission to
work with Soil and Wastes Conservation Districts to effect
control of nutrients... .poliution contributed by agricultrual
run of f increase where this is a problem.
t es not have an approved antidegradation statement.
One of the “Freedom” statements would limit nutrients “Free
from substances atributable to municipal, industrial, agricul-
tural or cther discharge producing color, odor, or other
conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance.”
Missouri This State’s water quality standards include no specific
criteria limiting nitrates.
Or of the “Freedom” statements could be used to limit
nitrates in problem areas. It is applicable to all Missouri
interstate waters and states: “Substances attributable
to municipal, industrial, agricultural, mining or other
effluents s) ll not have a harmful effect on human or animal
life.”
These are narrative statements included in early interstate
river basin standards that could be applicable in limiting
nitrates. They are by River:
White River Basin - Interstate Stream Table Rock Reservoir, Bull
Sholes Reservoir, Norfolk Reservoir, Clearwater Reservoir.
Lake Tanecamo, North Fosk River and Spring River, Eleven Point
River, Current River, & Black River (From the Headquarters to
Cleat -water Reservoir), Black River (Clearwciter Reservoir to
Mo. - Ark. State Line)
15
-------
Missouri ‘Substance; toxic to humans, fish and wildlife detrimental
((ont’d) to agricultural, mining, industrial, recreational or other
legitmate uses shall be limited to nontoxic or nondetrimental
concentrations in the Stream.”
Grand and Choriton River Basin - Interstate Streams
Grand and Chariton Rivers
“d. Substances Potentially Toxic or detrimental Substances
toxic to humans, fish and wildlife or detrimental to
agricultural, mining, industrial, recreational or other
legitimate uses shall be limited to non-toxic or non-
detrimental concentrations in the stream.”
East Fork Grand, Thompson, Little and Weldon Rivers
“d. Substances Potentially Toxic or detrimental Substances
toxic to humans, fish and wildlife or detrimental to
agricultural, mining, industrial, recreational or other
legitimate uses shall be limited to non-toxic or non-
detrimental concentrations in the stream.”
Mississippi - Des Moines River Basin Interstate Streams
“d. Substances Potentially Toxic or Detrimental Substances
toxic to humans, fish and wildlife or detrimentel to
agricultural, mining, industrial, recreational or other
legitimate uses shall be limited to non-toxic or non-
detrimental concentrations in the stream.”
Osage River Basin - Interstate Streams
Osage - Marais des Cygnes River and Marmoton River
“Substances toxic to humans, fish and wildlife or detrimental
to agricultural, mining, industrial, recreational or other
legitimate uses shall be limited to non-toxic or non-
detrimental concentrations in the lake.”
Lower Missouri River Basin - Interstate Streams
Nishnabotno River
“d. Substances Potentially Toxic or Detrimental Substances
toxic to fish or detrimental to industrial or other
legitimate uses shall be limited to non-toxic or non-
detrimental concentrations in the stream.”
Tarkio River, West Tarkio River, Nodaway River, Platte River
and One Hundered and Two River
“d. Substances toxic to humans, fish and wildlife or
detrimental to agricultural, mining, industrial, recrea-
tional or other legitimate uses shall be limited to non-
16
-------
toxic or uon-detrtmc,ihd concent rations in the stream.”
Lower Mis issippi River Basin - Interstate StreQms
St. Francis River (Excluding Wappapello Reservoir),
Woppapello Reservoir, Little River, Buffalo Ditch
(St. Francis River Basin)
“d. Substances Potentially Toxic or Detrimental Substances
toxic to humans, fish and wildlife or detrimental to
agricultural, mining, industrial, recreational or other
legitimate uses shall be limited to non-toxic or non-
detrimental concentrations in the stream.”
Mississippi River
Mississippi River (Zone 1 - Des Moines River to Alton Lock
and Dim, and Mississippi River (Zone 2 - Alton Lock and Dam
to the Mibsouri-ArkansaS State Line)
“Substances Potentially Toxic or Detrimental
d. Substances toxic to humans, fish and wildlife or detrimen-
tal o agricultural, mining, industrial, recreational,
navigational, or other legitimate uses shall be limited to non-
toxic or non-detrimental concentrations in the stream.”
Missouri River
“Substances Toxic or Detrimental
d. Substances toxic to humans, fish and wildlife or detrimen-
tal to agricultural, mining, industrial, recreational,
navigational, or other legitimate uses shall be limited to non-
toxic or non-detrimental concentratiofls in the stream.”
Grand (Neosho) River Basin
Spring River, Shoal Creek, Turkey Creek, Buffalo Creek, Lost
Creek
“Substances Toxic or Detrimental
d. Substances toxic to humans, fish arid wildlife or detrimen-
tal to agricultural, mining, industrial, recreational,
navigational, or other legitimate uses shall be limited to
non-toxic or non-detrimental concentrations in the stream.”
17
-------
Mi .souri. Missouri has an approved antidegrodation statement which
cou d e used to protect existing high quality waters
rom amaqlng amounts of nitrates.
The requirements for Class B, C, D, Dl, D2, and D3
are:
.No excess nutrients which cause nuisance
aquatic growths
Montana Class A (closed) “None allowed in addition to concentrations
naturally present.”
Class A (open) “Concentrations of chemical constituents shall
conform with the 1062 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking
Water Standards. Induced variations within these standards
shall be limited to an increase of not more than 10% of
the concentration present in the receiving water.”
Class8 “Concentrations of chemical constituents shall con-
orut with the 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water
Standards after treatment. No floating suspended dissolved
or settable matter, creating nuisance conditior.S, not attribu -
table to natural cause. No excess nutrients which cause
nuisance aquatic growths..
Class c “Concentrations of chemical constituents shall be main-
tained below levels known to be (or demonstrated to be) of
Public Health Significance.” “.... No excess nutrients which
cause nuisance aquatic growth....”
Class Dl “Maximum allowable concentrations shall be less than
acute or chronic problem levels as revealed by bio-cssay or
other appropriate methods. No excess nutrients which cause
nuisance aquatic growths...”
Class D2 Same as Dl
ClassD3 Same as Dl
Class E “Concentrations shall be less than those demonstrated
to be deleterious to livestock or plants or their subsequent-
consumption by humans.”
Nebraska The following narrative statement protects waters from
excessive nutrients including nitrates:
“ ....These waters shall be free of substances attributable to
18
-------
Nebraska discharge or wastes having . substances and conditions
(Cont’d) or combinations thereof in concentrations which produce
undesirable aquatic 1 fe.”
There is ;pecific criteria for Class C waters. It is:
“Same as Water Supply -4- Plus ammonia nitrogen concentra-
tions shall not exceed 1.4 mg/i in trout streams nor exceed
3.5 mg/i in warm water streams where the pH in these streams
does not exceed a pH value of 8.3. If the pH of the
streams exceeds 8.3, the undiasociated cunnioniuxa hudroxide
as nitrogen shall not exceed one-tenth mg/i in trout streams
nor exceed 0.25 mg/i in warm water streams II
Nevada
(By Interstate
Waters) West Fork Carson River
Total Nitrates (N03) - mg/i
Single value-not more than 3.0.
Leviathan Creek
No criteria or statement.
East Fork Carson River
Total Nitrates (N03)-mg/
Single value-not more than 2.0.
Carson River (At Muller Lane)
Total Nitrates (N03 )
Single value-not more than 2.0.
Carson River (Highway 395, So. of Carson)
Total Nitrates (N03)-mg/l (Tentative )
Single value-not more thon 2.0.
Carson River (Near New En ire
Total Nit rates(N0 ) -mg/l (Tentative )
Single value-not more than 2.0.
Carson River (At Week
19
-------
Total Nitrates (N0 ) -m9/1
Single value-not more than 0.50.
Lake Lahonton
Total Nitrates(N03).mg/l
Single value-not more than 4.0.
West Walker River (Above diversion to Topoz Lakel
Total Nitrates (N0 ) -mg/l
Single value-not more than 2.0.
Topaz Lake
Total Nitrates (N0 1 )-mg/l
Single value-not more than 2.0.
West Walker River (Near WeUington)
Total Nitrates (N03) -mg/l
Single value-not more than 2.0.
West Walker River (Above confluent with East Walker River1
Total Nitrates (N03)-mg/l
Single value-not more than 1.0.
Sweetwcrter Creek
Has approved antidegradation statement. Not to exceed PHS
Drinking Water Standards 1962. *
East Walker River (At State Line)
Total Nitrates (N0 )-mg/1
Single value-not more than 4.5.
East Walker River (South of Yerinqton and above confluent
with W. ilker River. )
20
-------
Nevada Total Nitr t (N03) -mg/l
Ccint ‘a)
Single vclue-not more than 3.0:
Walker River (At J.J. RaricM
Total Nitrates (N03)-m /l
Not to exceed PHS Drinking Water Standards 1962.*
Desert Creek
Ant. degradation statement approved. Not to exceed Pi-IS
Drinking Watč - Standards 1962.*
Ch±atovich Creek
Total Nitrates (NOfl -mg/1
Single value-not mote than 1.0.
Indian Creek
Total Nitrates (N03)-.mg/l
Antidegradation statement. Not to exceed 1962 FHS
*
D*inking Water Standards.
Leidy Creek (Above Hydoelectric Plant)
Total Nitrates (N03)-mg/l
Single value-not more than 1.0.
Virgin River
Total Nitrates (N03)-mg/1
Single value-not more than 1.0.
Beaver Dam Wish (Above Schroeder Reservoir)
Total Nitrates (N03)-mg/1
Single value-not more than 1.0.
Snake Creekt ove Fish Hatchery)
Total Nitrates (N03) -mg/1
Single value-not more than 1.0.
21
-------
Nevada Big Goose Creek (At Ranch )
(Con t’ d)
Total NitrcLtes (N03) _ mg/1
Single value-not more than 1.0.
Salmon Falls Creek (Highway 93, South of Jackpot
Total Nitrates (N03)-mg/l
Single value-not more than 1.0
ShosDhone Creek
Approved antidegradation statement. Not to exceed PHS
Drinking Water Standards 1962. *
East Frok, Jarbidge River
Approved antIdegradation statement. Not to exceed 1962
PHS Drinkinq Water Standards.
Jarbidge River (Upstream from Jarbidge
Total Nitrates (N03)-mg/1
Single value-not more than 1.0.
Jarbidge R i vet (Downstream of Jarbidge)
Total Nitrates (N03) -mg/1
Single value-not more than 1.0.
West Fort Bruneau (Diamond “E” Road)
Total Nitrates (N03)-rng/1
Single value-not more than 1.0.
East Fork Owyhee River (Above Mill Creek )
Approved antidegradat ion statement. Not to exceed the
1962 P145 Drinking ter Standards • *
22
-------
Nevada East Fork tijyhee River (South of Owyheej
(Cont ‘d)
Total NItr ite (N0 )-m!j/l
Single vclue-not more than 1.0.
East Fork Owyhee River (State Line)
Total Nitrates (N03)-mg/1
Single value-not more than 1.0.
South Fork Owyhee River
Totc l Nitrates (N0 3 )-mg/l
Single value-not n re than 3.0.
Smoke Creek (Approx. 30 mi. East of Susanville, California )
Total Nitrates (N03)-mg/1
Single value-not more than 5.0.
Bronco Creek (At Hirschdale Road )
Approved antidegradation statement. Not to exceed 1962
*
PHS Drinking Water Standards.
Gray Creek (At Mirschdcile Creek )
Approved antidegradation statement. Not to exceed 1962
PHS Drinid.nq Water Standards. *
Truckee River (At Farad, California)
Total Nitrates (N03)-mg/l
Single value-not more than 2.5.Annua]. average not more
than 1.0.
Truckee River (At Idlewild )
Total Nitrates (N03) -mg/1
Single value-not more than 2.0.
Truckee River (At Boynton Lane )
23
-------
Nevada Total Nitrates (N0 )-mg/l
(Cnt d)
Single va]ue-riot more than 2.0.
Truckee Rivr (Lago2ncin 3lne Bridget
Total Nitrates (N0 )-mg/1
Single value-not more than 5.0.
Truckee River (At Cenrsola Ranch
Total Nitrates (N03) -mg/l
Single value-not more than 5.0
Lake Tahoe (All point
Total soluable inorganic Nitrogen ugh.
Annual average-not more than 25.0.
Colorado River
No specific criteria.
* “.....lO mg nitrate nitrogen (or 45 mg nitrate) per
liter of water is a limit which shciuld not be exceeded.”
Nw Hampshire No specific criteria. No applicable narrative statement.
Have approved antidegradation statement.
Nw Jersey The narrative statement limiting toxic or Deleterious
Substances states the following:
“ Toxic or Deleterious Substances Including But NtLiniited
ToMirieral Acids, Caustic Alkali, Cycanides, Heavy Metals,
Carbon Dioxide, Ammonia or Ammonium Compounds, Chlorinç
Phenols, Pesticides, Etc.: None, either alone or in
combination with other substances, in such concentrations
as to affect humans or be detrimental to the natural aquatic
biota or which would render the waters unsuitable for the
designated uses. None which would cause the Potable Water
Standards of the Department for drinking water to be exceede
after appropriate treatment.”
24
-------
New Mexico The following narrative statement under the heading of
“General Standards” seems to offer a vehicle to use in
limiting nitrates and other nutrients:
“ Toxic Substances
Toxic subbtclnces such as, but not limited to, pesticides,
herbicides, heavy metals, and orgonics, shall not be present
in receiving waters in concentrations which will change
the ecology of receiving waters to an extent detrimental
to existing forms of life or which are toxic to human,
plant, fish and animal life. Toxcities of substances
in receiving waters will be determined by appropriate bio-
1 assay techniques, or other acceptable means, for the
particular form of aquatic life which is to be preserved
with the concentrations of the toxic materials not to
exceed 10 percent of the 48-hour median tolerance limit.”
New York New York does not have specific criteria limiting the
amount of nitrates in interstate waters. It does have
a toxic substance statement f or each class of waters which
is the some or similar to the following example: Class AA
(Public Water Supply): “None alone or in combination
with other substances or wastes in sufficient amounts or
at such temperatures as to be injurious to fish life,
make the waters unsafe or unsuitable as a source of water
supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes
or impair the waters for any other best usua é as deter-
mined for the specific waters which are assigned to this
class.”
North Carolina North Carolina does not have specific numerical criteria to
protect its interstate waters from nitrates. It does have
an approved antidegradation statement that could be used
to limit nitrates in existing high quality waters.
Section II (Rules Applicable To Classes and Standards)
contains several narrative statements that could be used
to limit nitrates where damage is occuring as a result of
their discharge to interstate waters. These are:
1. “The quality of any waters receiving sewage, industrial
waste or other waste discharges shall be such that no
impairment of the best usuage of waters in any other class
shall occur by reason of such sewage, industrial waste or
other waste discharges.”
2. “The maximum limits for toxic and other deleteriouS
substqnces in receiving waters shall not exceed the values
25
-------
North Carolina recommended in the most recent edition of the “Report
(Cont’d) of the Nutional Technical Advisory Committee on Water
Quality Critera” where stated and in cases where such
values ar not included in the report, bio-assays will
be conducted according to the standard techniques recom-
mended th?rejrl to determine safe levels for such substances
on the ba;is of the discharge and characteristics of the
waters under consideration.”
There are narrative statements for each class of water use
that could possibly be used to limit harmful amounts of
nitrates. These are:
Class A-i : In determining the safety or suitability of
waters in this class for use as a source of water supply
for drinking, culinary or food-processing purposes after
approved disinfection, the Board will be guided by the
physical, chemical and bacteriological standards specified
in the 1962 edition of the ‘Public Health Service Drinking
Water Stoi dards” and t1’ requirements of the State Board of
Health as set forth in Section 5, “Protection of Unfiltered
Public Wc ter Supplies”, of the Rules and Regulations Pro-
viding for the Protection of Public Water Supplies, as
adopted October 6, 1960, and amended May 9, 1962, August 26,
1965, and October 12, 1967.” The 1962 “Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards” recommend that nitrates shall not
exceed 45 mg/i.
Class A-Il : “Only such amounts, whether alone or in combin-
ation with other substances or wastes as will not render the
waters unsafe or unsuitable as a source of water supply f or
drinking, culinary or food processing purposes, injurious to
fish and wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of
same, or impair the waters for any other best usuage estab-
lished for this class.”
Class B : “Only such amounts, whether’ alone or in combination
with other substances or wastes as will not render the waters
unsafe or unsuitable for bathing, injurious to fish and
wildlife or adversely affect the palatability of same or
impair the waters for any other best usuage established for
this class.”
Class C : “Only such amounts, whether alone or in combination
with other substances or wastes as will not render the waters
injurious to fish and wildlife or adversely affect the
palatability or same, or impair the waters for any other
best usage established for this class.”
Class D : “Only such amounts attributable to sewage, industrial
wastes or other wastes as will not render the waters unsuitable
for agriculture, industrial cooling purposes, navigation, or
fish survival, or cause offensive conditions.”
Class SA Waters : Only such amounts, whether alone or in
26
-------
combination with other substances or wastes as will not
maJ e the waters unsafe or unsuitable for fish and shell-
fish or their propagation, impair the palatability of same,
or impair the waters for any other best usage established for
this cbs : ;.
Class SB : “Only such amounts, whether alone or in combination
with othex substances or wastes as will not make ihe waters
unsafe or unsuitable for bathing, injurious to I i h or shell-
fish, or adversely affect the palatability of same, or impair
the waters for any other best usage established for this
class.”
Class SC : “Only such amounts, whether alone or in combination
with other substances or wastes as will not render the waters
injurious to fish and shellfish, adversely affect the palata-
bility of same, or inipair the waters for any other best usage
established for this class.”
North Dakota No specific criterici. Section II, C promises such criteria
as follows:
“C. The maximum practical reduction of nutrients, including
nitrogen, phosphorus and sugars, in sewage, industrial, and
other wastes shall be accomplished as soon as a practical
method is developed.”
North Dakota has an approved ontidegradation statement that
should provide protection to existing high quality inter-
state waters from harmful amounts of nitrates.
be used on nutrient problems
“None in concentrations or
with, or prove hazardous to,
This applies to all interstate
Ohio Ohio has two narrative statements in their standards that
could be applicable in l aiting nitrates to less than harm-
ful or nuisance amounts. These are:
“1. Free from substances attributable to municipal,
industrial or other discharges in concentrations or combin-
ations which ore toxic or harmful to h nan, animal or
aquatic life.”
“2. Free from materials attributable to mi.inicipal, industriul
or other discharges producing color, odor or other conditions
North Carolina
(Cont’d)
A narrative statement could
including nitrates. It is:
combinations that interfere
the intended water usage.”
waters.
27
-------
Ohio in such degree as to create a nuisance;” Ohio has approved
(Cont’d) antidegradation statement that could be used to protect
high quality waters.
Okiuhomo No specific criteria limiting nitrogen compounds. Have an
approved ontidegradation statement which could be used to
limit harmful amounts of nitrogen compounds being discharged
to interstate waters. The standards for each of the inter-
state streams in Oklahoma contain four narrotive statements
that could be used to limit harmful amounts of nitrogen
compounds being discharged into interstate waters. These
are:
“All tributary streams and all waste effluents shall be in
such condition that when discharged to the stream reaches
as defined, and Interstate Tributaries, they shall not create
conditions which will adversely affect public health, or use
of the water for beneficial purposes.”
“Taste an Odor Producing Substances - Taste and odor pro-
ducing substances shall be limited to concentrations that
will not interfere with the production of potable water by
modern treatment methods or impart off color or unpalatable
flavor to flesh of fish, or result in offensive odors in the
vicinity of the water, or otherwise interfere with beneficial
uses.”
“Toxic Substances - Toxic substances shall not be present in
such quantities as to cause the waters to be toxic to human,
animal, plant, or aquatic life. For aquatic life, using
bioassay techniques, the toxic limit shall not exceed one-
tenth of the 48-hour median tolerance limit, except that other
limiting concentrations may be used in specific cases when
justified on the basis of available evidence and approved by :ne
regulatory authority.”
“Other Substances - The control of other substances not hereto-
f ore mentioned will be guided by the U.S. Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards of 1962, or latest revision
thereof, and accumulated scientific data on limits above
which injury to use occurs. Pollutioncil substances will
be maintained below maximum permissible concentrations f or
public water supplies, recreation requirements, agricultural
needs and other beneficial uses.(c)*hi
Oregon Oregon has no specific criteria limiting nitrates. They do
have an approved antidegradation statement to protect existinJ
high quality interstate waters from damaging amounts of
28
-------
Oregon nitrates. They have included two narrative statements in
tCont’d) their general standards for interstate waters that could
be used to limit the amount of nitrates in such waters
should problems arise. These are:
“No wastes shall be discharged and no activities shall be
conducted which either alone or in combination with other
wastes or activities will cause in any waters of the State:
(4) The development of fungi or other growths having a
deleterious effect on stream bottoms, fish or other
aquatic life or which are injurious to health, recrea-
tion or industry.
(5) The creation of tastes or odors or toxic or other
conditions that are deleterious to fish or other
aquatic life óě affect the potability of drinking
water or the palatability of fish or shellfish.’ 1
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania water quality standards do not contain specific
criteria for nitrates. Nor does this State have an approved
ontidegrodation statement to protect existing high quality water
from harmful amounts of nitrates. The narrative statement
contained under Section 4, General Criteria could be used
to limit nitrates in interstate waters where problems from
such nutrients occur. The statement is:
“The water shall not contain substances attributable to
municipal, industrial or other waste discharges in concentra-
tion or amounts sufficient to be inimical or harmful to the
water uses to be protected or to human, animal, plant or
aquatic life. Specific substances to be controlled include,
but are not limited to, floating debris, oil, scum and other
floating materials; toxic substances; substances that pro-
duce color, tastes, odors or settle to form sludge deposits.”
Rhode Island No specific criteria to limit nitrates. Approved antidegra-
dation statement that could be used to protect existing high
quality waters from harmful amounts of nitrates. The water
quality standards assigned the freshwater classification of
Class A, B, C, and D each include the following narrative
statement that could be used in limiting the amount of nitrates
being discharged into interstate waters having nutrient
problems: “Waters shall be free from chemical constituents
in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to
human, animal, or aquatic life for the appropriate, most
sensitive and governing water class use. In areas where fisher-
ies are the governing considerations and approved limits have not
been established, bio-assays shall be performed as required
by the appropriate agencies. For public drinking water
29
-------
Rhode Island supplies the Jim ts prescribed by the United States Public
(Cont’d) Health S. rvice may be used where not superseded by more
stringent signatory State requirements.”
The water quality standards assigned to saltwater classifi-
cations SA, SB, SC, and SD have the following narrative state-
ment that could be used to limit where problems arise: “None
in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to
human, animal, or aquatic life or which would make the waters
unsafe or unsuitable for fish or shellfish or their propaga-
tion, impair the palatability of some, or impair the waters
for any other uses.”
South Carolina No specific criteria limiting the nitrate content of inter-
state waters. They have an approved antidegrcidation statement
that could be used to protect existing high quality waters
from harmful amounts of nitrate. They also have the following
narrative statements that could be applicable in limiting
nitrates in problem areas:
“ Source of water supply for drinking, culinary or food pro-
cessing purposes shall mean any source, either public or private
the waters from which are used for domestic consumption, or
used in connection with the processing of milk, beverages,
food or f or other purposes which require finished water meeting
U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.”
“The waters of the State shall be free from: Materials
attrIbutable to sewage, industrial waste, or other waste
which produce taste, odor, or change the existing color or
other physical and chemical conditions in the receiving stream
to such degree as to create a nuisance, or that interfere
directly or indirectly with water uses; and high-temperature,
toxic, corrosive or other deleterious substances attributable
to sewage, industrial waste, or other waste in concentrations
or combinations which interfere directly or indirectly with
water uses, or which are harmful to human, animal, plant or
aquatic ljfe.”
Class SA water quality standards contains the following
narrative statement that could be used to )imit nitrates
where problems exist: “Toxic wastes, deleterious substances,
colored or other wastes. None alone or in combination with
other substances or wastes in sufficient amounts as to be
injurious to edible fish or shellfish or the culture or propa-
gation thereof, or which in any manner shall adversely affect
the flavor, color, odor, or sanitary condition thereof or
30
-------
South Carolina or impair the waters tor any other best usage as determined
(Cont’d) for the specific waters which are assigned to this class.”
South Dakota The following narrative statement could be uBed to limit
nitrates tar all c sses of water other than DomeBtic Water
Supply and Recreation which have specific criteria:
“Toicic Mot”rials. No materials shall be discharged to any
surface water or watercourse’ in the State which produce Con-
centrations of chemicals toxic to humans, animals or the most
sensitive stage or form of aquatic life greater than 0.1 times
the 96-hour median tolerance limit for short residual compounds
or 0.01 times the median tolerance limit for accumulative
substances or substances exhibiting a residual life exceeding
30 days in the receiving waters.”
“Median tolerance ncentrQtions shall be based on the results
of the most recent research results Lot the material being
studied or, in case of disagreement, by bioaesc4y tests simu-
lating actual stream conditions run in accordance with
procedures outlined in latest edition of’Stondárd Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater’ published by the
American Public Health Assôciation and using test animals or
organisms specified by the Committee.”
“Concentrations specified for toxic materials shall be based on
daily averages, but the concentrations shall not exceed 125%
of the value specified at any time or in any section of the
receiving water.”
Waters classed for Domestic Water Supply and Recreation have
the following specific criteria limiting nitrates
Domestic Water Supply
Nitrates not more than 10 mg/1(as N) or 45 mg/i OS (NO 3 )
Recreation
Nitrates as (NO 3 ) not more than 50 mg/i
Have approved antidegradation statement that could be used
to limit nitrates causing prob1e s in existing high quality
waters.
Tennessee Does not have an antidegradation statement to protect existing
high quality waters from harmful amounts of nitrates. There
are no specific criteria limiting the amount of nitrates in
interstate waters.
The following narrative etatements under use cla sifjC0ti0flS
could be used to restrict nitrates in problem areas:
“ Domestic Raw Water Supply
K. Other Pollutants - other pollutants shall not be added
3].
-------
Tenne’see to the waler tn quant tries that moy be detrimental to pubhc
(Cont’d) health or iinpatrs th uietulness of the water as a source
at domesi tc water supply.”
“ Industrial Supply
Other Pollutants - Other pollutants shall not be added to the
waters in quantities that may adversely affect the water for
industrial, processing.”
“ Fish and Aquatic Life
H. Other Pollutants - other pollutants shall not be added to
the waters that will be detrimental to fish or aquatic life.”
“ Recreation
I. Other Pollutants - other pollutants shall not be added to
the ater in quantities which may have a detrimental effect on
recreation.”
Texas No specific criteria. A narrative statement that could be
used to protect waters from excessive nitrate concentrations is.
“Taste and odor producing substances shall be limited to con-
centrations in the waters of the state that will not interfere
with the production of potable water by reasonable water
treatment methods, or impair unpotable flavor to food fish,
including shellfish, or result in offensive odors rising fran
the waters or otherwise interfere with the reasonable use of
the waters.”
Approved oritidegradation statement.
Utah No specific criteria. Narrative statements:
Class A
“It shall be unlawful to discharge or place any wastes or
other substances in such a way as to interfe with the stated
Class “A” Water uses,. .
Class B
“It shall be unlawful to discharge or place any wastes or
other substances in such c i way as to interfere with the
stated Class “B” water uses, . .
Class C
“It shall be unlawful to discharge or place any wastes or
other substances in such a way as to interfere with the
stated Class water uses, ...‘
Have approved antidegradation statement.
32
-------
Vermont Have an approved aritidegradation statement to protect
existing high quality water from harmful amounts of nitrates.
Rules 8 and 9 or the Vermont water quality standards concern-
ing discharge requirements for Class A and B waters limit the
discharge of nutrients including nitrates as follows:
“ RULE 8: Discharges Prohibited - Class A Waters
In accordance with the antidegradation provisions of Rule 2
there shall be no discharge of wastes into Class A waters that
does not meet or exceed the technical and other requirements
for such waters nor shall there be any new discharges of
wastes containing any form of nutrients which would encourage
eutrophication or rowth of weeds or algae from the date of the
adoption of this rule.
RULE 9: Discharges Restricted - Class B Lakes and Ponds
In accordance with the anti-degradation provisions of Rule
2 there shall be no new di’scharge of wastes into any lake,
pond or reservoir, natural or artificial, lying wholly
within the state’s boundaries, or into the tributaries thereto
which does not meet the technical and other requirements for
Class B waters nor shall there be any new discharge of wastes
containing any form of nutrients which would encourage
eutrophication or growth of weeds and algae from the date of
adoption of this rule. Any existing waste discharge contain-
ing soluble or other nutrients, which would encourage eutro-
phication or growth of weed and algae, shall be treated so as
to remove such nutrients to the extent that such removal is or
may become technically and reasonably feasible.”
The narrative statement, Rule 1.2 of the Vermont water quality
standards, should be applicable to limit nitrates doing
damage to interstate waters, according to the interpretation
made in Martin L. Johnson’s letter of July 27, 1971,
to Mr. Klashman, Acting Regional Director of Region 1.
Mr. Johnson is Commissioner of Water Resources for the
State of Vermont. The statement and interpretation are as
follows:
“ RULE 12: Chemical, Radiological Constituents
Wastes shall be free of chemical and radiological constituents
which would be harmful to the governing water class use. In
areas where fisheries are the governing consideration and
33
-------
Tenne .see to the wol r in quont itic titot moy be detrimental to pubi c
(Cont’d) henith or irnpn ,rs th. %i ietu1 ,%eSS of the water as a iourco
ot dome i tc wctt r su}p’Iy. 1
“ Industrial Supply
Other Pollutants - Other pollutants shall not be added to the
waters in quantities that may adversely affect the water for
industrial, processing.”
“ Fish and Aquatic Life
H. Other Pollutants - other pollutants shall not be added to
the waters that will be detrimental to fish or aquatic life.”
“ Recreation
I. Other Pollutants - other pollutants shall not be added to
the ater in quantities which may have a detrimental effect on
recreation.”
Texas No specific criteria. A narrative statement that could be
used to protect waters from excessive nitrate concentrations
“Taste and odor producing substances shall be limited to con-
centrations in the waters of the state that will not interfere
with the production of potable water by reasonable water
treatment methods, or impair unpotcible flavor to food fish,
including shellfish, or result in offensive odors rising fran
the waters or otherwise interfere with the reasonable use of
the waters.”
Approved a ntidegradation statement.
Utah No specific criteria. Narrative statements:
Class A
“It shall be unlawful to discharge or place any wastes or
other substances in such a way as to interfe with the stated
Class “A” Water uses,. . .“
Class B
“It shall be unlawful to discharge or place any wastes or
other substances in such a way as to interfere with the
stated Class “B” water uses, ...“
Class C
“It shall be unlawful to discharge or place any wastes or
other substances in such a way as to interfere with the
stated Class “C” water uses, ...“
Have approved antidegradotion statement.
32
-------
Vermont Hove an approved ontidegrodation statement to protect
existing high quality water from harmful amounts of nitrates.
Rules 8 and 9 ot the Vermont water quality standards concern-
ing dischcirge requirements for Class A and B waters iunit the
discharge of nutrients including nitrates as follows:
“ RULE 8: Discharges Prohibited - Class A Waters
In accordance with the antidegradation provisions of Rule 2
there shall be no discharge of wastes into Class A waters that
does not meet or exceed the technical and other requirements
for such waters nor shall there be any new discharges of
wastes containing any form of nutrients which would encourage
eutrophication or growth of weeds or algae from the date of the
adoption of this rule.
RULE 9: Discharges Restricted - Class B Lakes and Ponds
In accordance with the anti-degradation provisions of Rule
2 there shall be no new discharge of wastes into any lake,
pond or reservoir, natural or artificial, lying wholly
within the state’s boundaries, or into the tributaries thereto
which does not meet the technical and other requirements for
Class B waters nor shall there be any new discharge of wastes
containing any form of nutrients which would encourage
eutrophication or growth of weeds and algae from the date of
adoption of this rule. Any existing waste discharge contain-
ing soluble or other nutrients, which would encourage eutro-
phication or growth of weed and algae, shall be treated so as
to remove such nutrients to the extent that such removal is or
may become technically and reasonably feasible.”
The narrative statement, Rule 12 of the Vermont water quality
standards, should be applicable to limit nitrates doing
damage to interstate waters, according to the interpretation
made in Martin L. Johnson’s letter of July 27, 1971,
to Mr. Klashman, Acting Regional Director of Region 1.
Mr. Johnson is Commissioner of Water Resources for the
State of Vermont. The statement and interpretation are as
follows:
“ RULE 12: Chemical, Radiological Constituents
Wastes shall be free of chemical and radiological constituents
which would be harmful to the governing water class use. In
areas where fisheries are the governing consideration arid
33
-------
Vrmont approved imits have not been established, bio-assays shall
“ont’d) be performtd as required by the appropriate state agencies.
“The new reiulations ore very strict with regard to the dis-.
charge of ehemical or radiological constituents. In inter-
preting th narrative criteria, we will not permit the
concentrations of these constituents due to effluent dis-
charges to exceed those numerical limits set forth in the
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standard.”
Public Heajth Drinking Water Standards limit nitrates to
less than 45 mg/i.
Virginia “1.05 In c ddition to other standards established for the
protection of public or municipal water supplies, the following
standards ‘.iill apply at the raw water intake point:
Nitrates plus Nitrites 10 ing/l”
Has an app oved antidegradation statement to protect existing
high quality waters from harmful amounts of nitrates.
Have specic.l standards applicable to specific waterstate waters
and or as c ssigned that limit the amount of nutrients in
effluents, including nitrates.
Have specitil standards limiting nutrients, including nitrates
in specific interstate waters as assigned. They are:
‘h. Objective for Nutrients - The cumulative total of nitrogen
as N from all sources in the effluent shall not be greater
than 0.5 mg/i at any time; phosphorus as P from all sources
in the effluent shall not be greater than 1.0 mg/l+ at any
time.
i. The State Water Control Board has directed and/or ordered
the followt.ng:
1. That oil existing discharges in accordance with h above
shall substantially remove the nutrients in their effluents on
or before 3uch time as central facilities (The Hampton Roads
Sanitation District Commission Chesapeake-Elizabeth System)
become available or connect to central facilities, (i.e. The
Chesapeake-Elizabeth System).
2. That it will consider approving small discharges to this
watershed to facilitate the elimination of potential public
health hazards provided central facilities (Chesapeake-
34
-------
Virginia Elizabeth System) are not available, and
(Cont’d)
3. That it will not cillow additional significant new
discharqes to this watershed, which do not provide for
nutrient removol facilities in accordance with h above.
j. The following, from Minute 73 of the proceedings of t}e
Board at its meeting on July 11-12, 1966, will also apply:
For discharge to the Chickahomifly River and its tributaries
below Bottoms Bridge, effluent quality obtainable with
conventional secondary sewage treatment plants with approved
plans is acceptable, except that the following specifications
shall be met:
Constituent Analysis Schedule Concentration
2 Inorganic Once/week on a cam- Nitrate (as N) nol
Nutrients posite sample to exceed .5 ppm.
Total phosphate
(as P0 4 ) not to
exceed 1.5 ppm
In lieu of the above requirements, conventional secondary
se ge treatment plants may ordinarily be used anywhere in
the Chickahominy River Basin, provided holding ponds, capable
of retaining the entire plant effluent during low flow criti-
cal conditions, are constructed. “Low flow” is construed to
mean less thail5 cubic feet per second in the main stem of
the Chickohominy River itself at the (1) point of waste
discharge to the main stem, or (2) confluence of a tributary
below the point of waste discharge to the tributary. Below
Bottoms Bridge, holding ponds with at least 60-day retention
capacity (Augi.ist 14 to October 13) may be required, if in the
opinion of the Board’s staff it is deemed necessary.
k. The following from Minute 73 of t} proceedings of t)
Board at its meeting on July 11-12, 1966, will also apply:
Constituent Analysis Schedule Concentration
5 Ammonia Same as bio-cherniccil Not to exceed 2.0
oxygen demand on ppm as N
specially preserved
samples
Inorganic Once/week on a Nitrate (as N) not
Nutrients composite sample to exceed .3 ppm,
total phosphate
(as P0 4 ) not to
exceed .6 ppm (mean
values in the
Chickahomifly)
35
-------
Virginia In lieu of the above requirements, conventional secondary
(Cortt’d) sewage trecitment plants may ordinarily be used anywhere in
the Chickahominy River Basin, provided holding ponds,
capable of retaining the entir ’ plant effluent during low
flow criti.a1 conditiocis, ore (-onstructud. “Low flow”
is construed to mean less than 15 cubic feet per second in
the main stem of the Chickohomi-ny River itself at the (1)
point of waste discharge to the main stem, or (2) confluence
of a tributary below the point of waste discharge to the
tributary. Above Bottoms Bridge the holding ponds are to
retain the entire plant effluent for at least 90 days
(July 15 to October 13).
r. The following will also apply to the Occoquan Creek Water-
shed:
(1) It was willing to permit the discharge of treated sewage
effluent from an additional 25,000 persons with the stipulation
that:
(a) nutrient removal facilities be constructed in each case.
s. The following, from Minute 20 of the proceedings of the
Board at its meeting on January 16, 1969, will also apply to
the Powhatc’n Creek Watershed:
1. All proposals f or treated waste discharges to the Powhatan
Creek Watershed will in the future be approved only after:
(a) Engineering data has been sulxiitted indicating the
capability of the proposed treatment facilities to remove
all phosphorus and nitrogen compounds.
(b) Owners with facilities existing at the time of this
action will, in a period not to exceed 60 days, submit to the
Board, engineering reports and pollution abatement schedules
indicating the maximum concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen
compounds which they can remove from waste waters prior to
discharge. No schedule providing a time period exceeding three
years will be approved. Modification or replacement of exist-
ing treatment facilities may be necessary.
2. It will entertain from owners in the area a proposal for
development of:
36
-------
Virginia (a) A central aciliiy to treat all wastes at a point
(Cont’d) outside the Watershed, where phosphorus and nitrogen
removal will probably not be necessary, or
(b) Treatment facilities inside the Watershed which
include complete retncval of oil phosphorus and nitrogen
compounds.”
Washington Have ar approved antidegradation statement that could be used
to limit nitrates in existing high quality waters.
The Toxic, Radioactive or Deleterious Material Concentra-
tions and the Aesthetic Values statements for each water use
classification could possibly be used to limit the amount of
nitrates in interstate waters. They are:
“ Class AA
Toxic, Radioactive or Deleterious Material Concentrations
shall be less than those which may affect public health, the
natural aquatic environment, or the desirability of the
water for any usage.
Aesthetic Values shall not be impaired by the presence of
materials or their effects, excluding those of natural origin,
which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch or taste.”
“ Class A
“ Toxic 1 Radioactive or Deleterious Material Concentrations
shall be below those of public health significance, or which may
cause acute or chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic biota, or
which may adversely affect any water use.
Aesthetic Values shall not be impaired by the presence of
materials or their effects, excluding those of natural origin,
which offend the senses of sight, smell, touch or taste.”
“ Class B
“ Toxic, Radioactive or Deleterious Material Concentrations
shall be below those which adversely affect public health
during the exercise of characteristic usages, or which may
cause acute or chronic toxic conditions to the aquatic biota,
or which may adversely affect characteristic water uses.
Aesthetic Values shall not be reduced by dissolved, suspended,
floating or submerged matter, not attributable to natural
causes, so as to affect water usage or paint the flesh of
edible species.”
“ Class C
37
-------
I c’ , v ’ I • i i M : t i— I . n t r t i ‘
]ow }ttch cid’ r’ elv affect public heulth
cxer u;e o -i arac’ ,’r1st1c usages, or which
acute or c i ronic t ‘i.c .onditions to the c quati
9hlch may ouversely ctfxect characteri tJ-c
Acsthet c Vu1 ae . ;hu1 I not be uitertered w th by the
pre encc t,t obno’cious wastes, ;lilncb, or aquatic growths
r by materials that will taint the flesh of edible species.”
All of the interstate waters of west Virginia are assigned
criteria wiich limits nitrates to (NO 3 ) to less t} an 45 mg/i.
Have approved antidegradation statement that could be used
to limit nLtrates causing trouble in existing high quality
waters.
I-!qve an approved antidegradati-on statement that could be used
to limit nLtrateS causing problems in existing high quality
waters.
These are .everol narrative statements that could be used to
limit probems causing nitrates. These ore:
1. “Minimum Standards. i egcirdless of the water quality stand-
ards and wuter use, untreated or inadequately treated wastes
may not im;)air a designated use nor may standards be inter-
preted to permit a lower quality within a water sector than
that exist ng or required by outstanding orders..
2. “Substuraces in concentrqtions or combinations which are
toxic or hurmful to humans sha i not be present in amounts
found to b. of public health s:gnificonce, nor shall sub-
stances be present in amounts, which by bio-assay and other
oppropriat tests, indicate acute or chronic )evels harmful to
animal, plcnt or aquatic life.”
The only specific criteria is provided by a statement applying tc
interstate waters used for public water supplies.. That is:
“(d) The intake water supply kill he such that by appropriate
treatment *:nd adequate safeguaids it will meet the Public
Health Service Drinking Water .tqndards, 1962. .
Public Hea]th Service Drinking Water Standards tatc t}uit
nitrate as (N03) should not ex(eed 45 mg/i.
sha]I bc I
duririj th
may Crnist
biotci, or
water u c
West Virginia
Wiscons in
38
-------
Wyoming Have no sp cific criteria limi.ting nitrates in interstate
waters.
Have no approved antidegradat LOfl statement that could be u ied
to limit ni trates causing prohiemb in exibting high quality
waters.
No narrative statement that could be used to limit nitrates
in interstute waters where such substances are causing
problems.
District of Have no approved antidegradcition statement that could be used
Columbia to limit nitrates causing problems in existing high quality
waters.
They ha eno specific criteria limiting nitrates in interstate
wciters.
The following narrative statement from the -District of Columbia
water quality standards could be used to limit nitrates where
problems attributable to them exist in the interstate waters:
“Materials attributable to sewage, industrial waste, or other
waste which produce taste, odor or appreciably change the
existing .color or other physical and chemical conditions in the
receiving .treazns to such degree as to create a nuisance, or
that interfere directly or indirectly with water uses...”
Guam Have on approved antidegradation statement that could be
used to limit nitrates causing problems in existing high
quality waters.
The two following freedom statements could be used to limit
nitrates causing problems in interstate waters:
“Free fro m substances and conditions or combinations
thereof attributable to sewage, industrial wastes, or other
wastes that will induce undesirable aquatic life.
Free from substances and conditions thereof attributable to
sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes toxic or irritant
to humans, animals, plants, and aquatic life.”
Waters classed as Domestic , Water Supply have both 8pecific
criteria and a narrative statement. They are:
“Treated surface waters used for public or domestic water
supply shall meet the recommendations of the Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards.”
They recommend not more than 45 mg/i as (NO 3 ).
39
-------
Guam “MinoniCt nitrogen shall be les; than .01 mg/i s N.”
(Cont’d) Waters c1a 3sed for the Propagation of Fish and Other Aquatic
Life limit nutrients such as nitrates as follows:
“The naturally occurring rotio and concentrations of nitro-
gen and phosphorus will be maintained in near shore waters and
fresh waters.”
Puerto Rico The water quality standards of Puerto Rico have rio specific
criteria limiting nitrates in Lnterstate waters.
Have an approved aritidegradation statement that could be
used to restrict the amount of nitrates causing problems in
existing high quality waters.
Contains a narrative statemeit that could be used to limit ni-
trates in interstate waters where problems arising from them
exist. It is:
“1. Class SA
Existing natural conditions shall not be altered.”
“2. Class SB
e. Toxic wates or deleterious substances alone or in
combination with other substances or wastes in
sufficient amounts •.... which in any way obviouslY
affect the flavor, color, odor, or sanitarY
conditions of the waters....”
Virgin Islands Have no specific criteria to limit nitrates in interstate
water.
Have no narrative statement that could be used to limit nitrates
in problem areas.
Have an approved antidegradation statement that could be used
to limit nitreates causing problems f or existing high quality
waters.
40
------- |