- a —
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
__ OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
I EPA-330/1-79-OO1
k . ,.
_s
:11111
Evaluation LJUt.rbES ermi
Compliance Monitoring Inspections
By The Government Of American Samoa
I
‘ I

-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement
EPA-330/1-79-001
EVALUATION OF NPDES PERMIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING INSPECTIONS
BY THE GOVERNMENT OF AMERICAN SAMOA
Barrett E. Benson
and
Mark J. Carter
January 1979
National Enforcement Investigations Center
Denver, Colorado

-------
CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION
II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION
CONCLUSIONS
2
2
III FIELD CAPABILITY .
NEIC INSPECTION
EVALUATION OF GAS WASTEWATER
MONITORING
4
4
6
IV LABORATORY CAPABILITY
NEIC INSPECTION
COMPARISON OF DATA
EVALUATION OF GAS ANALYTICAL
APPENDICES
8
8
10
CAPABILITIES 14
A - Compliance Monitoring Procedures for Tuna Canneries
B - BOD Procedures and Calculations for Tuna Cannery
Wastewater
C — NEIC Total Suspended Solids Procedure
1 Comparison of Split Sample BOO Data
2 Comparison of Split Sample TSS Data
3 Comparison of O/G Data, Samples Collected Simultaneously
TABLES
11
12
13

-------
I. INTRODUCTION
In June 1978, personnel from the National Enforcement Investiga-
tions Center (NEIC) evaluated the compliance monitoring inspection
capabilities of the Government of American Samoa (GAS). The Van Camp
Sea Food Company and Star-Kist Samoa, Inc. tuna canneries compose the
major industry of American Samoa. Both canneries, located on Pago Pago
Harbor, are required to discharge their industrial wastewater in compliance
with the effluent limitations of their NPDES* permits issued in 1974.
The NEIC personnel were in American Samoa at the request of Region IX
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Their purpose was to
inspect the tuna canneries** and subsequently prepare EPA’s position
in an adjudacatory hearing requested by Van Camp for changes in its
NPDES limits.
While in American Samoa, NEIC was also asked to assist the GAS
personnel in their annual wastewater inspection of the canneries, and
to evaluate GAS’s capabilities to conduct future compliance monitoring
as required by the NPDES permits. Both field work and laboratory
analysis were evaluated by NEIC personnel, who also provided classroom
and laboratory instruction to Mr. Pati Faiai, Special Assistant to
the Governor, and his staff, Mssrs. Ativalu Ativalu, Jr. , Isako Matautia,
and Toma Tise.
* NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Public
Law 92-500, Sec. 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as amended in 1972, and subsequently Sec. 402 of The Clean Water
Act as amended in 1977.
** Results of the cannery inspections are reported in separate NEIC
reports: “Compliance Monitoring and Wastewater Treatment Evaluation,
Van Camp Sea Food Company, Pago Pago, American Samoa” and “Compliance
Monitoring and Wastewater Treatment Evaluation, Star-Kist Samoa, Inc.,
Pago Pago, American Samoa.”

-------
II. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION
NEIC personnel evaluated the field and laboratory aspects of the
compliance monitoring capabilities of the Government of American Samoa
in June 1978. On June 27 to 30, the GAS had scheduled an NPDES com-
pliance monitoring inspecton of the wastewater effluents from the
Van Camp Sea Food Company and Star-Kist, Samoa, Inc. tuna canneries.
Before the inspection NEIC personnel instructed the GAS staff in
the field operations of measuring flow, calibrating equipment, collec-
ting samples, and keeping data records. NEIC personnel also reviewed
with the GAS staff the methodology and quality control procedures of
laboratory analysis performed on the wastewater samples, and directed
hands-on performance of various lab tests.
During the inspection, NEIC evaluated the GAS field capabilities.
After the inspection, the GAS sample data were compared to the split-sample
Company data, and NEIC evaluated the GAS laboratory analytical capabilities.
NEIC provided written procedures for wastewater monitoring to the GAS
staff as reference for future inspections.
CONC LUS IONS
The GAS technicians properly collected manual representative
samples of the wastewater effluents during the inspection, and they
should be able to do so for future compliance monitoring. The staff
understood the recommended method for collecting and preserving compos-
ite and discrete samples, demonstrating acceptable techniques over
the four-day monitoring period.

-------
3
Although the technicians can perform the analyses for biochemical
oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and oil/grease, they do not
have enough experience in evaluating the analytical results to determine
if the data are reasonable. Until such experience is gained, caution
should be exercised in using their data for enforcement purposes. An
experienced analyst should be on—site to supervise the analytical
activities.

-------
III. FIELD CAPABILITY
NEIC INSPECTION
The GAS compliance monitoring inspection of the tuna canneries
was scheduled for June 27 to 30, 1978. Before the inspection, NEIC
personnel discussed field work with the GAS staff. NEIC then trained
and advised the staff in techniques of measuring flows, calibrating
equipment to measure temperature and pH, collecting effluent samples,
and keeping data records while in the field. Previous GAS methods
and NEIC instruction in these field operations are given below.
Flow Verification
The GAS technicians did not know how to verify that the Parshall
flumes at each cannery were indicating the correct flows. On the day
before sampling, the technicians were shown how to measure instantaneous
flows through the flume and to determine that the continuous recorders
were indicating correct flows. If the recorders were not indicating
the correct flows, the technicians were instructed to inform the cannery
personnel and request that the recorders be reset.
Equipment Calibration for Temperature and pH
Although the technicians knew how to verify that the pH and temp-
erature recorders were indicating correct values, they had not checked
the recorders on previous sampling inspections. They were instructed
by NEIC personnel to take a wastewater sample and measure the pH and
the temperature with a calibrated pH meter and thermometer and then check

-------
5
the continuous recorders’ instantaneous values. If the recorders
were not indicating correct values, the technicians were instructed
to notify cannery personnel to recalibrate the recorders.
Sampling
The NPDES tuna cannery permits require collection of composite
wastewater samples; a composite is defined as the:
“combination of not fewer than 8 individual samples obtained at
equal time intervals over the specified time period. The volume
of each individual sample collected shall be proportional to the
discharge flow rate at the time of sampling. The sampling period
shall be the period between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. for each day of
sampling.”
Formerly, the GAS technicians collected a sample aliquot in a
quart jar every hour between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. , and recorded the flow
after each aliquot was collected. Then, after taking the last aliquot,
they composited all 9 aliquots into one sample on a flow-weighted
basis.
Although this method is acceptable, an alternate method was recom-
mended by NEIC which would reduce the possibility of error. Instead
of collecting 9 aliquot samples and compositing after eight hours, the
technicians were instructed to collect one aliquot hourly and pour
the correct amount into the composite sample container immediately
after collection. This method eliminates extra sample containers and
possible mixups in identifying hourly aliquots with the correct flow.
Also, at the end of the 8-hour monitoring period, the sample is complete
and can immediately be split with the cannery personnel.

-------
6
Field Data Records
The GAS technicians were instructed to keep records in their
field logbooks including:
1. Dates of sampling
2. Names of samples
3. Calibration of company-owned equipment (pH, temperature,
and flow recorders) including the indicated readings before
and after calibration.
4. Instantaneous flow, pH, and temperature values, each time
aliquot samples are collected.
5. Amount of hourly aliquot sample poured into composite sample.
6. Physical appearance of the wastewaters (e.g., color, solids,
oil sheen).
7. Comments made by Company personnel concerning the wastewater
treatment facility including names or personnel, dates and
times.
Written Instructions
Written instructions of the compliance monitoring procedures
were provided for future reference [ Appendix A]. These instructions
were to be translated into Samoan by Pati Faiai.
EVALUATION OF GAS WASTEWATER MONITORING
Flow Measurement
The GAS technicians checked the flow recorders at Van Camp and
Star—Kist on June 26, the day prior to sampling. The recorders on
the 9” Parshall flumes at each cannery did not indicate the correct

-------
7
flows. The technicians observed the calibration of the recorders,
then verified that the flows indicated were correct. Flows were checked
periodically during the 4-day monitoring period. The technicians
understood the flow verification procedure and during future inspections
should be able to verify that flows are accurate.
Temperature and pH Calibration
The pH and temperature recorders checked on June 26 were indicating
correct values. Because the technicians do not have a portable pH
meter, they were instructed to calibrate Company-owned pH meters in
the canneries’ quality control laboratories to verify the wastewater
pH’s.
Sample Collection
The technicians collected hourly sample aliquots of the Star-Kist
wastewater and flow-composited the aliquots into one sample. At 4 p.m.
each day, the sample was split with Star-Kist personnel. Because
samples of the Van Camp effluent are collected with an automatic sampler
which collects an equal volume aliquot for each 15 m 3 (4,000 gal) of
flow, the GAS technicians were asked by NEIC personnel to collect a
sample aliquot each time the automatic sampler collected an aliquot
so that sampling methods could be compared. For future inspections,
the technicians were advised to collect one aliquot hourly and composite
on a flow-weighted basis as was done at Star—Kist.
During the monitoring period, representative samples were collected
and composited correctly by the technicians. They should be able to
collect representative samples on future inspections.

-------
8
Field Data Records
Field notes including instantaneous and total flows, pH, temperature,
and amount of sample aliquots added to the composite sample were entered
into their logbooks. Entries were also made on preservation temperature,
times and dates of flow calibration, and remarks made by Company personnel.

-------
IV. LABORATORY CAPABILITY
NEIC INSTRUCTION
From June 25 to July 2, 1978, NEIC personnel reviewed the GAS
analytical procedures for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspen-
ded solds (ISS) and oil/grease (O/G). The first part of the training
consisted of classroom lectures. The methods for the above parameters
were discussed in detail, including topics such as choice of equipment
and supplies, detailed description of the test procedures, instrument
calibration procedures, and quality control techniques. The second
phase of review consisted of hands-on performance of the tests, by
the GAS staff at the LBJ Hospital laboratory.
Methodology
Mr. Ativalu had prepared written procedures for BOD and DIG from
methods given him during previous visits by NEIC and Region IX personnel.
The BOO method closely followed the procedure given in Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater . The method was reviewed
and specific sample dilution and data calculation instructions were well
provided [ Appendix B].
All samples for BOO analysis were pre-diluted in a graduated
cylinder. The first day all samples were pre-diluted 1/10; thereafter,
the irifluents were diluted 1/20 and the effluents 1/10. Then 5, 15
and 20 ml of each duluted sample were set up in duplicate. Several
BOO bottles were set up only with dilution water to check its quality
each day.

-------
9
Dissolved oxygen (DO) measurements were performed by the Winkler
procedure. The initial DO of all samples was taken to be the average
of the DOs of the duplicate dilutions of all samples. The mean de-
pletion of the blanks was 0.1 mg/l or less, except for one day. The
blank depletion was subtracted from the sample depletions in the calcu-
lations.
The O/G analytical procedure closely followed Standard Methods .
The samples were extracted in separatory funnels with freon, the emulsion
was drawn off into a beaker and dried with sodium sulfate. The dried
freon was filtered through Whatman #40 paper into a tared beaker.
The freon was evaporated on a water bath, and the beakers were desiccated
and weighed.
The GAS personnel did not have a written procedure for TSS. The
NEIC procedure was provided [ Appendix C], consisting of sample filtration
through Whatman GF/C glass fiber filters on a membrane filter holder.
Quality Control
A simple technique to calibrate the analytical balance was demonstrated,
and the balance was calibrated before each use. A mecury thermometer
was calibrated, and the temperature of the solids oven and BOD incubator
were measured.
The BOO dilution water quality was checked and met the criteria
in Standard Methods .
The cleanliness of the O/G glassware and the purity of the freon
was checked by analyzing blanks each day. Blank results were negligible.
All TSS samples were analyzed in duplicate. In addition, blank
samples were analyzed daily. The results were corrected for the blank
values.

-------
10
COMPARISON OF DATA
The effluent composite samples collected by the GAS technicians
and the Company-collected influent and effluent composite samples
were split to allow a comparison of results [ Tables 1 and 2]. Dis-
crete samples for O/G analyses were collected simultaneously by the
GAS and Company representative. Because the O/G samples were not
from the same aliquot, the results could be different and still be
representative of the wastewater [ Table 3].
The Star-Kist analyses of the composite samples for BOD and TSS
were approximately 40% greater than the GAS analyses and the Star-Kist
OIG analyses were about 30% greater than the GAS analyses, excluding
three O/G samples (GAS analyses appeared to be incorrect for the three
samples).
The Van Camp analyses for BOD averaged 60% greater than the GAS
analyses. However, the Van Camp data do not appear valid because of
the large DO depletions in the dilution water.* Eight of 12 samples
analyzed by Van Camp for TSS were less than the GAS results, but 4 of
the 8 were influent samples which contained very high solids and were
difficult to analyze. The O/G values reported by Van Camp averaged
25% of the GAS results. The Van Camp O/G data does not compare with
results previously reported in the Discharge Monitoring Reports; the
method used by Van Camp may be responsible for their low valuesJ ¼
* The large DO depletions were investigated by NEIC personnel and
the Company personnel were instructed on proper techniques. The
DO depletions were normal as of July 3, 1978.
** “Compliance Monitoring and Wastewater Treatment Evalution Van Camp
Sea Food Company, Pago Pago, American Samoa, Oct. 1978,” Appendix E
(EPA-330/2-78-016).

-------
11
Table 1
COMPARISON OF SPLIT SAMPLE BOO DATA
VAN CAMP SEA FOOD COMPANY, AMERICAN SAMOA
June 27-30, 1978
Date
Sample Identification GASa Analysis Van Camp Anaiysisb
mg/i mg/i
VC/GAS
27
28
29
30
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
Effluent Composite
Effluent Composite
Effluent Composite
Effluent Composite
1,740
1,140
2,340
3,060
2,57O
2 ,75O
3,260
2,730
1.48
2.41
1.39
0.89
27
28
29
30
Van
Van
Van
Van
Camp Effluent Composite
Camp Effluent Composite
Camp Effluent Composite
Camp Effluent Composite
2,160
1,140
1,860
2,940
3,309
3,463
3,800
3,334
1.53
3.04
2.04
1.13
27
28
29
30
Van
Van
Van
Van
Camp Influent Composite
Camp Influent Composite
Camp Influent Composite
Camp Influent Composite
2,100
2,800
4,920
6,840
3,640
3,840
5,560
5,530
1.73
1.37
1.13
0.81
a GAS = Government of American Samoa
b Results of consultant
c Only one sample not depleted for GAS and Van Camp composite,
therefore same value reported for each sample

-------
12
Table 2
COMPARISON OF SPLIT SAMPLE TSS DATA
VAN CAMP SEA FOOD COMPANY, AMERICAN SAMOA
JUNE 27—30, 1978
Date
Sample Identification GASa Analysis Van Camp Analysisb
mg/i mg/i
VC/GAS
27
28
29
30
GAS
GAS
GAS
GAS
Effluent Composite
Effluent Composite
Effluent Composite
Effluent Composite
214
169
329
198
167
162
424
318
0.78
0.96
1.29
1.61
27
28
29
30
Van
Van
Van
Van
Camp Effluent Composite
Camp Effluent Composite
Camp Effluent Composite
Camp Effluent Composite
226
208
426
245
200
188
436
328
0.88
0.90
1.02
1.34
27
28
29
30
Van
Van
Van
Van
Camp Influent Composite
Camp Influent Compsoite
Camp Influent Composite
Camp Influent Composite
1,540
1,990
2,450
2,355
1,510
1,640
2,180
2,090
0.98
0.82
0.89
0.89
a GAS = Government of American Samoa
b Results of consultant

-------
13
Table 3
COMPARISON OF OIG DATA, SAMPLES COLLECTED SIMULTANEOUSLY
VAN CAMP SEA FOOD COMPANY, AMERICAN SAMOA
JUNE 27-30, 1978
Date
Sample
Identification
Time of
Collection
GA?
Analysis
mg/l
Van Cam 8
Analysis
rng/l
VC/GAS
27
Effluent
9:00
11:00
am
am
62
28
8.1
9.0
0.13
0.32
28
Effluent
9:00
11:00
am
am
57
23
10.6
9.3
0.19
0.40
29
Effluent
9:00
am
41
23.2
0.57
30
Effluent
11:00
9:00
11:00
am
am
am
70
278
269
18.3
19.2
12.7
0.26
0.07
0.05
27
Influent
9:00
am
264
34
0.13
28
Influent
9:00
am
413
25
0.06
29
Influent
9:00
am
231
57
0.25
30
Influent
9:00
am
231
99
0.43
a GAS = Government of American Samoa
b Results of consultant
c Data appears to be too high, possible analytical error

-------
14
EVALUATION OF GAS ANALYTICAL CAPABILITY
The GAS technicians have very limited experience in analyzing
tuna cannery wastewaters. The sampling inspection survey conducted
once per year does not provide the staff sufficient opportunity to
practice their laboratory techniques or gain experience in evaluating
data.
The GAS technicians performed all of the laboratory work during
the June 27-30 survey with the exception of the preparation and weighing
of some of the TSS filters. Several problems in analytical technique,
such as weighing procedure, preparation of standard solutions, volume
measurements and sample aliquoting procedure, were evident. Most of
the problems were corrected but this does not mean that the errors
will not be repeated.
A mixup in sample bottles occurred on June 27; fortunately the
mixup did not affect the monitoring results. Six composite samples
were to be analyzed daily for BOO and TSS; one influent and two effluent
samples (Company-collected influent and effluent composite samples,
and GAS-collected effluent composite sample) from each cannery. On
June 27, the personnel at Star-Kist did not collect an influent sample
due to a communication error, however the GAS technicians provided
BOD and TSS data for the missing sample. When questioned about the
analysis, they did not know what sample container they used for the
analysis. The data provided for a non-existent sample shows that
experienced supervision is necessary.
The technicians have not had enough experience in analyzing waste-
water samples and evaluating the data to know when the results are
reasonable. Generally they could not determine when the results should
be re-checked. It is apparent that while the GAS technicians can
analyze for BOD, TSS and GIG, mixups and errors might occur. Because

-------
15
of the present state of GAS training, the data would be questionable
and unsuitable for enforcement action. The problems could be corrected
by having an experienced analyst supervise laboratory operations.
The GAS should either hire an experienced analyst familiar with
wastewaters from the canneries and municipal wastewater treatment
plants or send one of the technicians to an EPA laboratory for an
extended period of training. Short-term training will not be adequate

-------
APPENDIX A
COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROCEDURES FOR TUNA CANNERIES

-------
A-i
COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROCEDURES FOR TUNA CANNERIES
Day Prior to Sample Collection
A. Calibrate the Company’s pH meter (either step 1 or 2)
1. With Government of American Samoa meter
Calibrate GAS meter with pH buffers 4, 7 and 9, then deter-
mine pH of the effluent. If Company meter and GAS meter pH
values differ, recalibrate GAS meter and recheck pH of effluent.
If pH values still differ, have Company recalibrate their pH
meter. Record all pH readings and calibrations in field log
book.
2. With Known Buffers
Calibrate the Company meter with pH buffers 4, 7 and 9, or
have the Company calibrate their meter with the buffers.
Either furnish the buffer solution yourself or observe the
Company making up the solutions. Record all pH readings in
field log book.
B. Calibrate the Company’s temperature recorder (either step 1 or
2)

-------
A-2
1. With GAS thermometer
Determine effluent temperature with GAS thermometer that is
known to be accurate. If temperatures do not agree, have
Company recalibrate their recorder. Record all temperature
readings in field log book.
2. With Company thermometer
Determine effluent temperature with Company thermometer that
is known to be accurate. Follow procedure in step 1 above.
C. Calibrate the Company’s flow recorder at the Parshall flume
1. Have Company measure depth of flow in flume at the 2/3 C
location (see attached diagram). The depth of flow will be in
tenths of feet, not inches. If depth is given in inches, 4
inches for example, this must be converted to tenths of feet.
4 inches divided by 12 inches/foot = 0.33 feet. Observe the
Company’s measuring rule and confirm the depth reading. You
may also make the reading with your own rule.
2. Record instantaneous flow from recorder indicator in field
note book. Also record the depth measured in step 1 above.
3. The instantaneous flow at Star-Kist is given in units of
gallons per minute. Using the depth of 0.33 feet in step 1

-------
7 Data Book — Part 5
The dg3wlngs and dlmenslon following sic reproduced with permLulon from
Desija and Calibration o Submerged Open Channel Flow Measurement SUuc .
lures—pail 2—ParshaU Flume,. Utah Slat. University
Throat
Section
Diverging
Outlet
Section
I Converging Inl et
Section
“I ___
rhim.
H,
FIg. 30 Seeuoaai view of s Psrsba l meccunng flume.
K
D
J
0
C ____
T
-Jin
A-3
FIg. 29 PIca view of e ParaMU m ,ut4ng flame.
P
0
T
Fig. 3 Plan view of a large Parshall mes urlng flume.

-------
A-4
above, the instantaneous flow for a 9-inch flume equals 0.36
mgd (million gallons per day).* Convert this value to gallons
per minute by dividing by 1,440 minutes/day.
0.36 mgd = 360,000 gallons/day Gallons per minute = = 250
If the recorder’s instantaneous flow indicated 250 gpm, the
flow recorder is correct. If another value is indicated,
have Company reset their flow recorder and repeat steps
1, 2 and 3 again.
4. The 9-inch flume recorder at Van Camp indicates an instantan-
eous flow in tenths of a million gallons per day. If the
depth is equal to 0.33 ft, the flow equals 0.36 mgd.* This
value should be indicated on the flow recorder. If another
value is indicated, have Company reset their flow recorder
and repeat steps 1, 2 and 4.
5. The 2-inch flume recorder at Van Camp indicates an instantan-
eous flow in million gallons per day. This reading must be
multiplied by 0.001 to obtain the actual value. If the
depth of flow is measured to be 0.12 feet, the actual flow
from the tables will be 0.016 mgd. The instantaneous flow
should be indicating 16 mgd. If another value is indicated,
have Company reset their flow recorder and repeat steps 1,
2 and 5.
6. Record all calibration values in field log book.

-------
A- 5
II. SAMPLE COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION
A. Star-Kist
1. Read flow recorder totalizer at 8:00 am. Value is given
directly in gallons.
2. Collect one sample per hour from flume between 8:00 am and
4:00 pm, a total of 9 samples. Rinse sampler bottle prior to
each sample collection.
3. Record pH, temperature, flow, and collection time in field
log book.
4. Pour aliquot of hourly collected sample into one-gallon con-
tainer. Pour 1/2 ml of sample per gpm of flow. Example: If
flow is 300 gpm, pour in 150 ml of sample. Remember to shake
sample bottle before pouring into gallon container. Record
the amount of sample poured into gallon container each time.
5. Collect one grab sample for oil/grease analyses, preserve with
2 ml of sulfuric acid, and tie tag on bottle for identification.
Place in ice chest. Record, time, temperature, pH and flow
when sample collected.
6. At 4 p.m., read flow totalizer and record in field log book.
7. Split composite sample with Company. Remember to shake well.
Tag the composite sample for identification.

-------
A- 6
8. Read flow recorder totalizer at 8:00 am the next morning
for total flow.
B. Van-Camp
1. Read flow recorder totalizer at 8:00 am for the 9-inch and
2-inch flume. The totalizer value for the 9 inch flume must
be multiplied by 400 to obtain gallons. The totalizer for the
2-inch flume must be multiplied by 20 to obtain gallons.
2. Collect one sample per hour from the outfall sump between
8:00 am and 4:00 pm, a total of 9 samples. Rinse sampler
bottle prior to each sample collection.
3. Record pH, temperature, and collection time in field log book.
4. Record the instantaneous flows from the 9-inch and 2-inch
recorders each time a sample is collected and add flows
together. Remember the instantaneous flow on the 2-inch
recorder must be multiplied by 0.001 and the 9-inch instan-
taneous flow is given in tenths of million gallons. For
example, if the 9—inch recorder indicates 0.28 mgd and the 2-
inch recorder indicates 12 mgd, the total flow equals 0.28 mgd
+ (12 mgd x 0.001) = 0.28 + 0.012 = 0.292 mgd.
5. Pour aliquot of hourly collected sample into one-gallon con-
tainer. Pour 100 ml of sample per 0.1 mgd of flow. Example,
if flow is 0.29 mgd, pour in 290 ml of sample. Remember to
shake bottle before pouring. Record the amount of sample
poured into gallon container each time.
6. Collect one grab sample for oil/grease analyses, preserve with
2 ml of sulfuric acid, and tie tag on bottle for identification.

-------
A- 7
Place in ice chest. Record time, pH, temperature and flow
when sample collected.
7. At 4 p.m. read flow totalizers on both recorders and record
in field log book.
8. Split composite sample with Company. Remember to shake well.
Tag composite sample for identification.
9. Read flow recorder totalizers at 8:00 am the next morning
for total flow.
C. Too Much Sample
1. If the composite sample will overflow the gallon container
before all 9 samples are collected, place the remaining
samples in another gallon container.
2. At 4:00 pm, shake containers well, and pour contents into a
clean, rinsed bucket. Completely stir the bucket contents
with a graduated cylinder and pour mixed sample into one of
the gallon containers. Then split sample with Company.
0. Preservation
1. Keep composite sample container packed in ice inside an
insulated ice chest. This maintains the temperature at 4°C.

-------
A-8
AFTER SURVEY
A. Request photo copies of the temperature, pH, and flow charts for
period of survey. Also request daily production tonnage which is
confidential.
B. If survey two or more days in duration, recalibrate the flow
recorders.
IV Other
A. You may request that the Company split half of their sample
with you for data comparison.
B. Record all information Company personnel tell you about the treat-
ment system in your field log book.
C. Keep observations of the effluent quality (color, solids, etc.)
in field log book.
D. Always sign your name next to entries in field log book.
E. Keep field log book, data, strip charts, and other information
together in one file.

-------
A- 9
Conversion of mg/i or ppm into lb/day and kg/day
“Parts per million” or “milligrams per liter” is simply a more
convenient way of expressing concentration, either dissolved or Un—
dissolved material. As used in the environmental field, mg/i represents
the number of pounds of dry solids contained in one million pounds of
water, including solids. One mg/i may be expressed as 8.345 pounds of
dry solids to one million U.S. gallon of water.
Therefore, to convert mg/l with a known flow to lbs, the following
formula is used.
lbs. = concentrations in mg/i x flow in million gallons x
8.345
• Example 1: How many lbs of solids are in 30,000
gallons of water if the concentration is 250 mg/i?
Answer: lbs = 250 mg/i x 0.030 million gallons x 8.345 = 62.69 lbs
• Example 2: What is the daily load of solids discharged from
an effluent pipe if the flow is 640,000 gallons/day with a
concentration of 440 mg/i?
Answer: lbs/day = 440 mg/l x 0.640 million gallons/day x
8.345 = 2,350 lb/day
How many kilograms (kg) are discharged per day?
Answer: 1 pound = 0.454 kg, therefore 2,350 lb/day x 0.454
kg/lb = 1,066 kg/day
• Example 3: What is the unit load discharge in example 2, if
daily production is 153 tons/day. The unit load is expressed
as lb/l,000 lb or kg/i ,000 kg.

-------
Example 3: What is the unit load discharge in example 2,
if daily production is 153 tons/day. The unit load expressed
as lb/i ,000 lb or kg/i ,000 kg.
Answer: 2,350 lb/day x 1,000 lb = 7.68 kg/1,000 kg
153 tons/day x 907.18 kg/ton x 1,000 kg
1,006 kg/day x 1 000 kg
in kg/kkg (kg/i ,000 kg) = 153 tons/day x 907.18 kg ton x 1,000 kg
= 7.68 kg/kkg
A-b

-------
APPENDIX B
BOO PROCEDURES AND CALCULATIONS FOR
TUNA CANNERY WASTEWATERS

-------
B—i
BOD PROCEDURES AND CALCULATIONS FOR
TUNA CANNERY WASTEWATERS
Procedures
Shake the samples well before withdrawing an aliquot. Dilute the
effluent 1/10 by measuring 25 ml of sample and diluting to 250 ml with
dilution water.
Dilute the influent 1/20 by measuring 25 ml of sample and diluting
to 500 ml with dilution water.
Shake the graduated cylinder well and pipet 5, 15 and 20 ml of each
sample into BOO bottles and fill with dilution water. Prepare duplicate
bottles for the 20 ml sample size.
Titrate the 0.0. on the two blanks and the 20 ml sample size
bottles. Use the mean D.O. as the initial 0.0. for all samples.
Calculations
BOO = SAMPLE 0.0.. - SAMPLE D.O.fi - BLANK DEPLETION
DECIMAL % DILUTION
Example:
For 20 ml effluent, DECIMAL % DILUTION = 1/10 x 20 ml/300 ml
= 0.00667
For 15 ml influent, DECIMAL % DILUTION = 1/20 x 15 ml/300 ml
= 0.002

-------
APPENDIX C
NEIC TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS PROCEDURE

-------
c-i
TOTAL SUSPE IDED SOLIDS
STORET NO. 00530
1. Scope and Application
1.1 The method is applicable to drinking, surface and saline waters,
and to domestic and industrial wastes.
1.2 The detection limit of the method is 1 mg/i.
2. Summary of Method
2.1 A homogenized sample is filtered through a pre—washed glass fiber
filter. The residue retained on the filter S washed and then dried
to constant weight at 105°C and weighed to the nearest 0.1 milligram.
The TSS is calculated from the amount of residue per unit volume of
sample.
2.2 The filtrate from this method may be used to determine the total
dissolved solids.
3. Sample Handling and Preservation
3.1 Samples should be stored at 4°C and analyzed as soon as possible,
but no later than 7 days after collection.
4. Apparatus
4.1 Whatman OF/C glass fiber filter discs, 43 mn.
4.2 Millipore membrane filtering apparatus with reservoir and a coarse
fritted disc as a filter supDort.
4.3 Aluminum drying pans, 50 mm and metal tray.
4.4 Tekmar SOT Tissuemizer.
4.5 Drying oven, 103°-105°C.
4.6 Desiccator, with Drierite indicating desiccant.
4.7 Analytical balance, 160 g capacity or larger, sensitive to 0.1 mg
and one weight equivalent to the opticaF rancie of the balance.
4.8 Graduate cylinder and wide bore pipets.
5. Balance Calibration
5.1 Using a balance with an optical ranqe of 1.0 q, place a 1.0 ci (15%)
weight on the balance pan, set the weight control knob to 1.0 q,
release the balance and set the zero point with the optical zero
knob. With the balance released, slowly turn the weight control
knob back to zero. The optical scale should come to rest exactly
at 1.0 q. If the reading is more or less than 1.0 ci, arrest the
balance, remove the top housinq cover and adjust the sensitivity
weight. Repeat the calibration check.
6. Procedure
6.1 Preparation of glass fiber filter disc: Place the glass fiber fil-
ter on the membrane filter apparatus with wrinkled surface up.
While vacuum is applied, wash the disc with 100 ml of distilled
water. Remove all traces of water by continuing to apnly vacuum
after water has passed through. Remove filter from membrane filter
apparatus, place in aluminum pan, and dry in an oven at 103—105°C
for one hour. Remove to desiccator and store until needed. Weiqh
immediately before use. After weighinq, handle the filter with
forceps only.

-------
—2—
C— 2
6.2 Homogenize all non-uniform samples with blender and shake the
bottles before withdrawing an aliquot to assure taking a represen-
tative sample.
6.3 Choose a maximum sample volume that will filter in 5 minutes or less.
Measure volumes smaller than 15 ml with wide bore pipets and larger
volumes with graduate cylinders. Discard any samole which does not
filter in 5 minutes and filter smaller sample volume.
6.4 Wash the graduated cylinder or pipet and with the suction on, wash
the filter funnel wall, filter and residue with two twenty—five ml
portions of distilled water allowing complete drainage between
washings. Remove all traces of water by continuing to apply vacuum
after water has passed through.
6.5 Carefully remove the filter from the filter supoort. Place in an
aluminum pan and dry at least one hour at 103-105°C. Cool and weigh
immediately or place in a desiccator for later weiahinq. Re-dry and
re-weigh 10% or at least one filter per set of samples. If the in-
cremental weight loss is less than 0.5 mg, calculate the results
based on the original weights. If the weight loss exceeds 0.5 mq,
re-dry and re-weigh all of the filters and re-check 10% of the filters.
6.6 Analyze two blanks per set of samples by filtering 100 nil of distilled
water through two prepared filters. The amount of additional weight
loss after the filters have been prepared is nearly independent of
the volume of water filtered. Therefore, add the mean blank weight
loss to the residue weight for each sample.
6.7 Analyze 10% or at least one sample per set in duplicate.
6.8 Analyze a standard sample with each sample set.
6.9 Calculate the results as follows:
TSS (W - WT) + B
= (ross weight of filter and residue, mg
WT = Tare weight of filter, mg
B = The mean of the two blank results, mg
Where B = B 1 + B 2
2
= BT - 8 G
BT = Tare weight of filter, mg
= Gross weight of filtering
= Volume of sample filtered, 1

-------
Anal yst
ISS DA A/CALCULAT1ON SHEET, REV. 6/9/78
Study
Date/Time Filters in Oven
Date/Time Out
Balance Calibration
Sample Vol. ,
Re—check ‘It.
1
mq
iross mc i
Tare ‘it. , my
Residue ‘ft. • mq
Blank Corr. ,mQ
Corr. Res.
TSS, mci/i
l.)t.
mg
Sample No.
Sample Vol
Re-check ‘It.
(ross Wt. mci
mg
Tare Wt. , my
Residue Wt. , mq
Blank
Corr.
Corr. ,nig
Res. ‘4t. mg
TSS, mq/l
Samole No.
Sample No.
Sample Vol. , 1
Re—check Wt. , mg
ross It. , my
Tare Wt. • mg
Residue Wt. , my
Blank Corr. • my
Corr. Res. Wt. , my
TSS, mg/i
[
Reading on 100 my weight, mg
Tare
Cross
[ Re - check
C.)

-------