United States Office of Water August 1984
Environmental Protection Program Operations (WH-546) 430/9-84-007
Agency Washington DC 20460
<&EPA Report on the Implementation
of Section 301(h)
-------
Report on the Implementation
of
Section 301(h)
August, 1984
Office of Water Program Operations
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
PREFACE
Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act, as amended, provides
for case-by-case modification of secondary treatment requirements
for discharges into marine waters by publicly owned treatment
works (POlWs) which demonstrate their compliance with the 301(h)
criteria.
Since the enactment of section 301(h), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has developed the essential regulations and documen-
tation for policy, program and technical guidance to implement
section 301(h) and has provided input to Congress on future
amendments to the Act based.upon our experience to date.
This Report on the Tmplementation of Sftction 301(h) summarizes
program activities--administrative, legal, technical, and
decisionmaking—conducted by EPA to fulfill the intent of Section
301(h), from 1978 to mid 1984.
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
I INTRODUCTION 1
(1) Origins of Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act . 1
(2) 1979 Regulations . . 3
(3) Implementation of 1979 Regulations 3
(4) Summary of Technical Findings .. . 9
II TECHNICAL FINDINGS ON THE MAJOR 1979 APPLICATIONS ... 13
(1) Introduction 13
(2) Oceanographic Conditions ..... 13
(3) Solids Accumulation in the Marine Environment ... 16
(4) Discharge Characteristics 18
(5) Water Quality Standards 23
(6) Additional Considerations: Improved Discharge,
Stressed Waters, Saline Estuaries • . 27
(7) Balanced Indigenous Population . . 31
(8) Other Relevant Statutes 55
(9) Recreation 56
(10) Monitoring Program 56
(11) Toxic Substances Control 60
(12) Discharge Volumes 63
(13) Public Water Supplies 64
III RESULTS OF THE MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CONSTRUCTION GRANT AMENDMENTS (1981) AND THE REVISED
301(h) REGULATIONS (1982) 65
(1) Changes to the Act and the 301(h) Regulations . . . 65
(2) Response to the Revised Regulations ........ 69
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
IV ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE 73
(1) Delegation 73
(2) Achievements in the 301(h) Program to Date —
Summary 73
V PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS 78
REFERENCES 79
iii
-------
FIGURES
Numhftr Page
1 Location of 1979 and 1982 301(h) applicants .... viii
2 301(h) decision status (June 1984) . . . ix
3 Review process leading to the tentative decisions
for the major 301(h) applications 6
4 Locations of the major 301(h) applicants 7
5 Plume characteristics 14
6 Simplified estuarine tidal circulation pattern ... 15
7 A simplified example of predicted steady-state
sediment accumulation around a marine discharge . . .17
8 Proposed percent removal efficiency for the 25
major 301(h) applications 19
9 Average annual mass emission rates for the
tentatively denied applications 22
10' Average annual mass emission rates for the
tentatively approved applications .......... 24
11 Entrainment of deeper water with low dissolved
oxygen concentrations 25
12 Major applicants proposing to discharge into a
saline estuary . 32
13 Potential biological effects of municipal
wastewater discharges 34
14 Benthic faunal changes associated with increasing
organic loading of marine and estuarine sediments . . 40.
15 Benthic response to organic enrichment: Areas of
"normal" and "changed" Infaunal Index values near
the Combined Sewer Discharges of Orange County,
as defined by Bascom et al., 1978 42
16 Relationships between mass emission rates of
suspended solids and the areas occupied by modified
macrobenthic assemblages 43
iv
-------
FIGURES (Continued)
Number Page
17 Geographical distribution of kelp beds and
nearshore coral reefs .... 50
18 Inputs to the 1982 301(h) regulations 66
19 Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act (showing
changes made by the 1981 amendments) 68
20 Highlights of the 1982 regulations implementing
section 301(h) 70
21 Locations of the 1982 301(h) applicants 72
22 301(h) process flowchart for new decisions and
revisions 74
23 301(h) decision status (June 1984) .76
24 Tentative decisions on applications for 301(h)
modified permits (June 1984) 77
v
-------
TABLES
Nnmher Eafl£
1 Review status for 30 major applicants xi
2 301(h) tentative decision matrix xiii
3 Review status for 30 major applicants 4
4 Range of proposed discharge characteristics of
the 25 major 301(h) applications 8
5 301(h) tentative decision matrix 10
6 Physical characteristics of approved and denied
(proposed) discharges 21
7 Observed and predicted effects on phytoplankton by
the 25 major discharges (existing and proposed) ... 37
8 Observed effects of 25 existing sewage discharges
on benthos 44
9 Types and prevalence of fish diseases and other
abnormalities found at 25 existing discharges .... 48
10 Priority pollutant concentrations in excess of EPA
saltwater quality criteria for 25 major discharges . . 53
11 Priority pollutants detected in over 20 percent of
sewage effluent samples for 25 major discharges
(existing) 61
vi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 required
all publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by July 1, 1977,
to achieve minimum ef£luent limits based upon capabilities of
secondary treatment. Secondary treatment has been defined by
EPA in terms of three conventional parameters: 1) biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD); 2) suspended solids (SS); and 3) acidity/
alkalinity (pH) [40 CFR Part 133] . Large municipalities discharging
municipal wastes to the ocean maintained that secondary treatment
was not necessary in deep oceanic waters where tidal movement
and/or swift currents provided high dilutions and rapid dispersion
of pollutants. Congress added section 301(h) to the Clean Water
Act (CWA) in 1977 (P.L. 95-217) to provide for case-by-case
modifications of the secondary treatment requirements for POTW's
discharging into marine waters.
The section 301(h) regulations were promulgated in June, 1979.
Seventy (70) final applications were filed under the regulatory
deadline. These applications consist of a wide range of discharge
characteristics, geographic and hydrographic locations, and
receiving water conditions. Thirty (30) of the largest discharges
accounted for 96 percent of the: total design flow and were chosen
as the first applications to be reviewed by EPA.
Congress amended section 301(h) in 1981 and, among other things,
extended the application deadline to December 29, 1982. In
response, the 301(h) regulations were amended in 1982, incorporating
Agency experience gained from review of the 1979 applications.
138 new applications were received under the 1982 deadline and
authority for 301(h) decisionmaking was delegated to the EPA
Regional Offices. Geographic locations of the 208 municipal
wastewater discharges which applied for 301(h) modified permits
are shown in FIGURE 1.
As of June 1984, EPA has made 94 tentative decisions (FIGURE 2).
Thus tentative decisions have been made on 45 percent of all
1979 and 1982 applications. These tentative decisions represent
approximately 72 percent of the total flow. Approximately half
of the applicants which have received tentative decisions thus
far have indicated their intent to use their one-time option
to submit revised applications. Eighty percent of these intents
to revise are from applicants issued tentative denials. For
the 94 tentative decisions, 23 final denials and 5 final 301(h)
modified permits have been issued.
vii
-------
KEY
Figure 1. Location of 1979 and 1982 301(h) applicants.
• TENTATIVE DECISION
o DECISION PENDING
-------
DECISIONS: NUMBERS OF APPLICATIONS
DECISIONS: FLOWS OF APPLICATIONS
TOTAL FLOW: APPROX. 5720 mgd
WITH-
DRAWN
8®8iS®l® 66iiK:w;iwK
TENTATIVE DECIStONS
t67%) |
{APPROX. 3870 mgd)
28 7^1
FINAL DECISION*
(5%) (APPROX. 260 mgd)
(12%)
(APPROX.
674 mgd)
106
PENDING
APPLICATIONS
(16%)
(APPROX.
916
mgd)
Figure 2. 301(h) Decision status (June 1984).
-------
Review of the 301(h) applications has increased the Agency's
technical expertise and improved the program's ability to analyze
and predict the effects of municipal wastewater discharges into
marine waters. The 301(h) program has made a major effort to
disseminate this technical knowledge both inside and outside
the Agency. Two documents issued to accompany the 1982 regulations
provided technical assistance and guidance to prospective 301(h)
applicants. In addition, the Technical Review Report and tentative
decision document for each of the tentative decisions provide
important technical information, evaluations, and summaries
on potential impacts on the marine environment of less-than-secondary
treatment. National meetings of the Regional Offices, the Office
of Research and Development, and the Office of Water Program
Operations (Office of Marine Discharge Evaluation) have also
proven valuable for dissemination of technical knowledge gained
from Task Force experience.
Of the 30 major applications, 25 tentative decisions (15 approvals,
1 partial approval, and 9 denials) and 1 final decision have
been issued to date (TABLE 1) . EPA has requested additional
information from 5 applicants in cases where the information
submitted has not been found by the 301(h) Task Force to be
complete enough for determination of compliance with the statutory
and regulatory requirements.
The 301(h) Task Force analyzed the site-specific biological,
ecological, oceano.graiphic, physical, and chemical factors for
each individual application. In general, variables which have
been found to lessen or eliminate adverse impacts on the marine
biota due to municipal wastewater discharges include:
o Receiving water variables
- Greater depth
Shorter residence times
- Greater flushing and circulation; greater mixing
- Greater currents
- Reduced stratification (generally)
- Better dispersion and lesser accumulation
- Naturally lower biological activity
- Higher dissolved oxygen
- Unstressed waters, fewer additional sources of pollutant
impacts
o Discharge variables
- Better designed outfall and diffuser
- Lower concentrations of toxic pollutants
- Lower mass emission rates of suspended solids and
biochemical oxygen demand
- Lesser effluent flow
x
-------
TABLE 1. REVIEW STHEDS FOR 30 MAJOR APPLICAN1S
TENTATIVE TENTATIVE INFORMATION
APFR0VAL DENIAL REQUEST
Lynn, MA
South Essex, MA
Goleta, CA
Los Angeles City (Hyperion), CA
Los Angeles County (JWPCP), CA
Monterey, CAa
Orange County, CA
Oxnard (Ventura), CA
San Diego, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Honolulu (Honouliuli), HI*3
Honolulu (Sand Island), HI
Anchorage, AK
Seattle (Richmond Beach), WA
Seattle (West Point), WA
Tacana (Western Slopes), WA
Boston (MDC), MA
New Bedford, MA
New York (Newtown Creek),
Westchester (Mamaroneck),
Hampton Roads
(Chesapeake-Elizabeth),
Hampton Roads
(Lamberts Point), VA
Seattle (Duwamish), WAC
Tacoma (Central), WA
Tacana (North End), WA
NY
NY
VA
Arecibo, PR
Bayamon, PR
Carolina, PR
Guayama, PR
San Francisco, CA
TOTAL: 16
TOTAL: 9
TOTAL: 5
a Application subsequently withdrawn,
b Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) only.
c Final decision (denial).
-------
- Greater treatment level
- Lesser nutrient load
- Greater initial dilution
The technical findings for each of the 25 tentative decisions
on the major applications are summarized in TABLE 2. This matrix
lists compliance determinations for the statutory and regulatory
requirements for each of the major proposed discharges.
Improvements to their existing discharges were proposed by all
25 applicants. The most common proposed improvements included:
o toxic control programs, proposed by 100 percent,
o improved treatment, proposed by 56 percent,
o diffuser additions, proposed by 56 percent,
o outfall extension/relocation, proposed by 40 percent, and
o cessation of sludge discharge proposed by 20 percent
Characteristics common to the nine proposed discharges receiving
tentative denials are:
o Vast majority propose to discharge into estuaries.
o. Important fisheries (commercial and/or recreational) are
located in the discharge areas.
o Receiving waters are characterized by poor mixingt insufficient
flushing and/or poor transport and dispersion.
o Vast majority propose to discharge into waters already
exhibiting widespread adverse environmental conditions,
such~as shellfish closures or diseased fish.
o Many propose to discharge into receiving waters with multiple
sources of pollutant impacts.
o Discharge areas suffer from low dissolved oxygen.
o Organisms in the discharge areas show bioaccumulation or
there is a high potential for adverse bioaccumulation or
Other problems related to toxic pollutants.
o Most propose increased loadings over current discharge
levels.
xii
-------
TABI£ 2. 301(b) TameriVB dbcisicnma3rix
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY CRITERIA
ESTABLISHMENT OF
MEET STATE NCN-INTEKFERENCE WITH PROGRAMS FOE
WATER QUALITY NO IMPACT
301(h)
APPLICANT
TENTATIVELY
GRANT
WAIVER
STANDARDS
D.O. S.S.I/
BALANCES
INDIGENOUS
POPULATION
RECREATIONAL
ACTIVITIES
PUBLIC
WATER
SUPPLIES
ON OTHER
SOURCES
PRETEEAIHENT
NCN-INDUSTRIAL'
SOURCE
MONITOR
IMPACT OF
DISCHARGE
Anchorage, AK
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
KR
NR
NR
Seattle
(West Point), HA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
¦Yes
NR
NR
Goleta, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
YeB
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Sand Island, HI
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Honouliuli, HI
Yes(PW)
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
San Diego, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Seattle
(Duwamieh), WA
No
No
No
No
No
YeB
No
Yes
NR
NR
Chesapeake-
Elizabeth, VA
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NR
NR
NR
L.A. County, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
L.A. City
(Hyperion), CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Orange County, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Oxnard, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
Richmond Beach, WA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
Tfccana (Central),
WA
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
NR
NR
NR
T&cana (North
Ehd), WA
No
2/
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Tacana (Western
Slopes), WA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
-------
TABUS 2. 301(b) TSramVE DECISION MKOUX (Continued)
STA3UTORYAND REGULATORY CRITERIA
301(h)
APPLICANT
TENTATIVELY
GRANT
WAIVER
MEET STATE
WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
D.O.
NGN-INTERFERENCE WITH
S.S.V
BALANCED
INDIGENOUS
POPULATION
RECREATIONAL
ACTIVITIES
PUBLIC
MATER
SUPPLIES
ESTABLISHMENT OP
PROGRAMS FOR
N3 IMPACT
on other
SOURCES
PRETREA3MENT
NCN-INDUSTRIAL
SOURCE
MONITOR
IMPACT OF
DISCHARGE
Lynn, MA Yes Yes Yes Yes
New Bedford, MA No No Yes No
South Essex, HA Yes Yes Yes Yes
Mamaroneck, NY No NoV 4/ No
Newtown Creek, NY No NoV 4/ No
Lamberts Point, No No No No
VA
Monterey, CA Yes Yes Yes Yes
Santa Cruz, CA Yes Yes Yes Yes
Boston, MA No No Yes No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Yes
NR
NR
Yes
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Yes = Criterion Satisfied
No = Criterion Not Satisfied
NR = Needs Revisions
IW = Partial Waiver for BCD
1/ None of the states in which the applicants are located has quantative standards for suspended solids in receiving waters. However,
turbidity is used as a surrogate and for California and Washington quantative limits exist.
V Compliance with DO standards cannot be determined without State's interpretation.
3/ According to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the proposed Mamaroneck discharge would be in compliance. However,
the 301(h) Task Force and the Interstate Sanitary Caunission do not agree with this view.
4/ Ihe applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed discharge will canply with the New York standard for turbidity.
5/ According to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the proposed discharge would be in compliance. However, the 301(h)
Task Force does not agree with this view.
-------
Most significantly, the majority of the denials involve estuarine
receiving waters which currently exhibit adverse pollution effects.
Proposed discharges for applicants receiving tentative approval
are expected to comply with the 3 01(h) statutory and regulatory
criteria and to:
o comply with water quality standards,
o allow for a balanced indigenous population, and
o allow for recreational activities.
In many cases, significant improvements have been proposed by
applicants receiving tentative approvals, such as toxic control
programs, improved treatment, diffuser additions, outfall exten-
sions, and discharge relocation. In comparison to the existing
discharge loading, although the combined influent loadings of
all dischargers receiving tentative approvals are expected to
increase in the future, the proposed effluent discharges are
expected to decrease. Thus, the combined loadings of these
proposed discharges represent a significant decrease in mass
emission rates to the environment for both biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids, resulting from improvements proposed
by the applicants receiving tentative approvals. These treatment
improvements will result in benefits to the environment; for
example, in the case of four southern California discharges,
the total area of benthos1 altered is expected to decrease from
approximately 52 square miles (mi2) to 9 mi2.
Although 301(h) analysis is based upon environmental factors
rather than cost analysis, substantial dollar savings can result
for approved 301(h) applications. An estimated $842 million
savings in potential capital construction funding required to
achieve secondary treatment and $40 million savings in annual
operation and maintenance costs is expected to be realized for
these 16 applicants receiving tentative approvals.
Technical knowledge gained from review of the major applications
will be used in the technical review and decisionmaking for
the remaining 301(h) applications. Information derived from
the monitoring programs and from research will further enhance
the Agency's ability to assess and predict environmental impacts
of municipal wastewater discharges.
xv
^Organisms occurring on or in the bottom of a body of water.
-------
Therefore, the following approach is recommended for the future
301(h) program:
o Regions are to continue application review and decisionmaking.
Headquarters is to provide overview for consistency.
o 301(h) program emphasis is to shift to monitoring data analysis
and compliance determination as the number of 301(h) permits
increase.
o The program is to collaborate with local, state, and other
Federal agencies to better define environmental baseline conditions
in marine waters.
o Research is to be supported to bridge information gaps while
dealing with state-of-the-art issues.
- Development of quantitative cause-effect relationships
of causative agents associated with sewage discharges,
environmental factors, and biological responses.
Methodology for prediction of particulate distributions
near outfalls to determine the extent of sewage dispersion
and solids deposition.
Evaluation of processes (physical/chemical) affecting particle
settling characteristics for prediction of the initial
distribution of particulates near the outfalls.
o The 301(h) regulations are more stringent with regard to proposed
discharges into saline estuarine waters than for proposed
discharges to open ocean waters.
- EPA review of applications which propose discharge into
saiine estuaries is to continue to take into account the
major ecological significance of estuaries and the fragile
nature of the estuarine environment.
- Rigorous review of potential adverse impacts due to discharges
with less-than-secondary treatment on these valuable resources
will be conducted in accordance with the stringent 301(h)
regulatory criteria for saline estuaries.
- Review of these applications will also emphasize protection
of these valuable resources through assessment of the potential
of combined effects from other pollutant sources on the
estuarine environment.
-------
REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 301(h)
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
This report provides information on EPA's accomplishments in
implementing section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act and summarizes
the technical findings resulting from review of the 301(h) 1979
applications from the 25 largest dischargers. Background information
on section 301h) and recommendations for future program direction
are also provided. The report is organized chronologically
and discusses the activities which have taken place in the 301(h)
program as follows:
Chapter Is INTRODUCTION
Chapter II: TECHNICAL FINDINGS ON THE MAJOR 1979 APPLICATIONS
Chapter III: RESULTS OF THE MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CONSTRUCTION GRANT AMENDMENTS (1981) AND THE
REVISED 301(h) REGULATIONS (1982)
Chapter IV: ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE
Chapter V: PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) ORIGINS OF SECTION 301(h) OF THE CI.EAN WATER ACT
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 resulted
in a shift in environmental philosophy away from water quality
based standards toward a combination of water quality and technology
based effluent standards in order to lessen inconsistent require-
ments and to increase effective administration and regulation.
The Act required publicly owned treatment works (P03Ws) to achieve
the technology based standards of secondary treatment by July
1977.
Some large municipalities which discharged to the ocean objected
to the switch from water quality based discharge limits to uniform,
technology based effluent standards. They argued that the secondary
treatment limits were defined in terms of parameters which are
important to freshwater ecology but are not significant factors
in an ocean environment. In addition, these POTWs argued that
implementing secondary treatment was not the most cost-effective
means for controlling pollutants which have the potential to
cause adverse environment impacts in the ocean. They believed
i
1
-------
that where deep waters, tidal movement, or swift currents provided
high dilution and rapid dispersion of pollutants, secondary
treatment was not necessary. They urged that effluent limits
for POTW discharges to the ocean should be determined on a case-
by-case basis. In response to their arguments, when Congress
passed the Clean Water Act in 1977 (P.L. 95-217), section 301(h)
was included to provide for case-by-case modifications of the
secondary treatment requirements for POTW discharges into marine
waters. This allowed POTW's whose applications are approved
by EPA .under section 301(h) to meet increased effluent limits
for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS) and
pH (a measure of acidity/alkalinity).
Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 established eight
criteria which the POTW must demonstrate will be met in order
to obtain a 301(h) modified NPDES permit:
1) Existence of applicable water quality standard specific
to the pollutants for which the modification is sought^;
2) Attainment of water quality which protects public water
supplies, a balanced indigenous population of shellfish,
fish and wildlife, and allows recreational activities;
3) Establishment of a system to monitor impacts on biota,
to the extent practicable;
4) No increased treatment requirements on other point or nonpoint
sources will result;
5) Applicable pretreatment requirements will be enforced;
6) Establishment of a schedule of activities to eliminate
introduction of toxics from nonindustrial sources, to the
extent practicable;
7) No new or substantially increased discharge above volume
specified in the permit; and
8) Title II funds will be used to achieve compliance with
section 301(h) or section 301(b)(2)(B).
The statute limited the opportunity to apply to municipalities
with pre-existing discharges to marine waters and required appli-
cations by September 25, 1978.
2BOD and SS or their equivalents, and pH.
2
-------
(2) 1Q7Q REGULATIONS
EPA issued proposed regulations implementing section 301(h)
on April 25, 1978, and required preliminary applications to
be submitted by the statutory deadline of September 25, 1978.
Final regulations and the accompanying Technical Support Document
were issued by EPA on June 15, 1979. The Technical Support
Document provided further explanation and guidance on the technical
requirements and the rationale behind these requirements. Final
301(h) applications were required by EPA no later than September
13, 1979.
In brief, the 1979 regulations provided definitions for the
statutory criteria and delineated the procedures for determination
of compliance with each criterion for issuance of 301(h) modified
NPDES permits. A single application format was established
for use by all 301(h) applicants.
(3) IMPLEMENTATION QF 1979 REGULATIONS
Preliminary applications filed by the statutory deadline numbered-
two hundred twenty-seven (227). After examining these preliminary
applications, EPA published a policy in the Federal Register
that Native Alaskan villages and certain other types of remote
communities need not submit 301(h) applications and that discretion
would be used in determining their wastewater treatment needs
with emphasis placed upon immediate public health needs.' This
policy eliminated the need for final 301(h) applications from
50 percent of the preliminary applicants.
Seventy (70) final applications were filed under the 1979 regu-
lations. The applications included a wide range of discharge
characteristics, geographic and hydrographic locations, and
receiving water conditions. Thirty (30) of these 70 applications
accounted for 96 percent of the total design flow. To implement
the program in the most efficient and environmentally protective
manner, Agency resources were initially allocated to evaluate
these 30 applications. This group included the largest dischargers
which applied in 1979 and also included some smaller dischargers
selected for review due to their geographic proximity to the
large discharges. This grouping enabled the Agency to gain
experience in determining regional impacts as well as in determining
information needs for discharges of various sizes.
The Agency has issued tentative decisions on 25 of these major
301(h) applications; this report is based primarily oh the findings
of these 25 decisions. EPA has tentatively approved 16 of these
301(h) applications3 and tentatively denied 9 (TABLE 3). Of
3Including one partial approval for biochemical oxygen demand.
3
-------
TftBLE 3. RBUSH STATOS FOR 30 MAJOR APHoICANTS
TENTATIVE TENTATIVE INFORMATION
APPROVAL DENIAL REQUEST
Lynn, HA
South Essex, MA
Goleta, CA
Los Angeles City (Hyperion), CA
Los Angeles County (JWPCP), CA
Monterey, CAa
Orange County, CA
Oxnard (Ventura), CA
San Diego, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Honolulu (Honouliuli), HIb
Honolulu (Sand Island), HI
Anchorage, AK
Seattle (Richmond Beach), WA
Seattle (West Point), WA
Taccma (Western Slopes), WA
Boston (MDC), MA
New Bedford, MA
New York (Newtown Creek),
Westchester (Mamaroneck),
Hampton Roads
(Chesapeake-Elizabeth),
Hampton Roads
(Lamberts Point), VA
Seattle (Duwamish), WAC
Tacana (Central), WA
Taccma (North End), WA
NY
NY
VA
Arecibo, PR
Bayamon, PR
Carolina, PR
Guayama, PR
San Francisco, CA
TOTAL: 16
TOTAL: 9
TOTAL: 5
a Application subsequently withdrawn,
k Biochemical oxygen demand (BCD) only
c Final decision (denial).
-------
the 9 tentative denials, 1 has received a final denial. Additional
information was requested from 5 remaining applicants, as the
information submitted in the applications was not complete enough
to enable a determination of compliance with the statutory and
regulatory requirements.
The primary decisionmaking steps and products of the 301(h)
review process leading to the tentative decisions for the major
1979 applications are delineated in FIGURE 3. EPA awarded a
technical support contract in September 1979 to provide technical
assistance for the Agency review process. The technical support
contractor conducted a technical evaluation for each of the
applications and presented these findings in separate Technical
Evaluation Reports (TERs). The TERs and applications were then
extensively reviewed by the 301(h) Task Force, a national, multi-
disciplinary group of biologists, oceanographers, marine scientists,
engineers, and attorneys. The Task Force represented the Office
of Water, three laboratories of the Office of Research and Develop-
ment, the Office of General Counsel, and each of the five affected
Regional Offices4. Using an integrated approach for each tentative
decision, the Task Force applied regulatory/statutory criteria
and prepared a recommended tentative decision document addressing
the technical and legal issues, for the EPA Administrator's
tentative decision.
The major applications reviewed first are from diverse geograph-
ical and physical locations, as can be seen from the map in
FIGURE 4. They include applications filed from Alaska, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the continental East and West Coasts. The discharges
are located in estuaries, along open coastlines, and in coastal
embayments.
In addition to diverse geographic and physical locationsr discharge
characteristics of the 25 discharges for which tentative decisions
have been made are quite varied (TABLE 4) . For example, for
the proposed discharges:
o Average flows range from 2 million gallons per day (mgd)
to 515 mgd.
o Discharge depths range from 8 feet to 235 feet.
o Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) mass emission rates range
from 2,900 lb/day to 494,200 lb/day.
o Suspended solids mass emission rates range from 1,300 lb/day
to 369,600 lb/day.
4For 1979 applications, these are Regions I-Boston, II-New York,
Ill-Philadelphia, IX-San Fjrancisco, and X-Seattle.
5
-------
Figure 3. Review process leading to the tentative decisions for the major 301(h) applications.
-------
---J
• TENTATIVE APPROVAL
A TENTATIVE DENIAL
o INFORMATION REQUEST
CONNtCTlCUt
CHU/
¦ AllAMlCOOAM
AI LAN IIC
2 OCf AM ~
chisA/um
U*A«tTM
CAN IS It AM OCI AN
Figure 4. Locations of the major 301(h) applicants.
-------
TABLE 4. RANGE OF PROPOSED DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS
np THE 25 MAJOR 301(h) APPLICATIONS
RANGE OF CHARACTERISTICS
CHARACTERISTIC MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Average flow, mVsec 0.08 22.56
(MGD) (1.8) (515)
Discharge depth, m 2.4 71.6
(ft) (8) (235)
Minimum initial
dilution 2.3 176
Mass emission rate
limits, kg/day (lb/day)
BOD 1,317 224,367
(2,900) (494,200)
Suspended solids 590 167,800"
(1,300) (369,600)
8
-------
Thus, the 301(h) applications from the major cities for which
EPA has issued tentative decisions represent a wide variety
of physical conditions and characteristics. The diversity of
physical characteristics, both of the discharges and of the
receiving waters, dictates in turn a diversity of ecological
conditions. Environmental impacts of the proposed discharge
on the organisms in the receiving waters (and ultimately on
man) are pivotal in the determination of compliance with the
301(h) criteria. Task Force analysis utilized an ecological
approach, combining physical, chemical, and biological determinations
and predictions in case-by-case analysis of environmental con-
ditions. Consequently, analysis by the Task Force of a diversity
of discharge and receiving environment characteristics has led
to a more thorough technical understanding, of the impacts of
less-than-secondary treatment on the marine environment in a
variety of conditions. This increased technical knowledge not
only has relevance for the 301(h) program in processing the
remaining applications but also has relevance to other determina-
tions of similar pollutant impacts in the marine environment.
Approval or denial of an application for a 301(h) variance is
based upon the scientific, legal, and administrative findings
regarding compliance with the 301(h) criteria, and addresses
such issues as:
o Existence of and compliance with water quality standards
o Protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population
o Allowance of recreational activities
o Establishment of a monitoring program
o 'Satisfactory toxics control programs
o No additional treatment requirements on other sources
o Acceptable discharge volume and pollutant limits
o Protection of public water supplies
Evaluation of each of these objectives is discussed under its
appropriate heading in Chapter II; Technical Findings on the
Major 1979 AppIications.
(4) SriMMARY OF TECHNICAL FTNDTMflS
The technical findings for the 25 tentative decisions on the
major applications are summarized in TABLE 5. This matrix lists
compliance determinations for the statutory and regulatory require-
ments for each of the major proposed discharges.
9
-------
TABUS 5. 301(h) TQOHnVE DECISION MKHUX
STATUTORY AND REGUIATORY CRITERIA
ESTABLISHMENT OF
MEET STATE NCN-INTERFERENCE WITH PROGRAMS FOR
WATER QUALITY NO IMPACT
301(h)
APPLICANT
TTNTATIVHiY
GRANT
WAIVER
STANDARDS
D.O. S.S.V
BALANCED
INDIGENOUS
POPULATION
RECREATIONAL
ACTIVITIES
PUBLIC
WATER
SUPPLIES
CM OTHER
SOURCES
PRE1REKIMQJT
NON-INDUSTRIAL
SOURCE
MONITOR
IMPACT CP
DISCHARGE
Anchorage, AK
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Seattle
(West Point), WA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
Goleta, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Sand Island/ HI
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Honouliuli, HI
Yes(IW)
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
San Diego, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Seattle
(Duwamish) , HA
No
No
NO
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
NR
NR
Chesapeake-,
Elizabeth, VA
No
No
NO
No
No
No
No
NR
NR
NR
L.A. County, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
L.A. City
(Hyperion), CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes'
NR
NR
NR
Orange County, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Qxnard, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
Richmond Beach, HA Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
Tacana (Central),
WA
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
NR
NR
NR
Tacana (North
End), HA
No
2/
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Tacana (Western
Slopes), HA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
-------
TABUS 5. 301(h) HM13VIXVE DBCXSICN MKDtlX (Continued)
MEET STATE
STA3UTORY AND REGULATORY CRITERIA
NON-INTERFERENCE WITH
ESTABLISHMENT OF
PROGRAMS FOR
301(h)
APPLICANT
TENTATIVELY
GRANT
WAIVER
STANDARDS
D.O. s.s.V
BALANCES
INDIGENOUS'
POPULATION
RECREATIONAL
ACTIVITIES
PUBLIC
WATER
SUPPLIES
ON OTHER
SOURCES
PREMBEAIMENT
NCN-INDUSTRIAL
SOURCE
MONITOR
IMPACT OF
DISCHARGE
Lynn, MA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
New Bedford, MA
NO
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
South Essex, MA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Mamaroneck, NY
No
No3/
.4/
No
No
Yes
No
NR
NR
NR
Newtown Creek, NY
No
No5/
4/
No
'No
Yes
No
NR
NR
NR
Lamberts Point,
VA
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
NR
NR
Monterey, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Santa Cruz, CA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
NR
Boston, MA
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
NR
NR
Yes «= Criterion Satisfied
No ° Criterion Not Satisfied
NR = Needs Revisions
IW » Partial Waiver for BCD
V None of the states in which the applicants are located has qualitative standards for suspended solids in receiving waters. However,
turbidity is used as a surrogate and for California and Washington quantative limits exist.
2/ Compliance with DO standards cannot be determined without State's interpretation.
3/ According to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the proposed Mamaroneck discharge would be in compliance. However,
the 301(h) Task Force and the Interstate Sanitary Ccnmission do not agree with this view.
4/ Hie applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed discharge will comply with the New York standard for turbidity.
5/ According to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the proposed discharge would be in compliance. However, the 301(h)
Task Force does not agree with this view.
-------
Proposed discharges for applicants receiving tentative approval
are expected to comply with the 301(h) statutory and regulatory
criteria and to:
o comply with water quality standards,
o allow for a balanced indigenous population, and
o allow for recreational activities.
Proposed discharges for applicants receiving tentative denials
will generally not comply with the above. Additional characteristics
common to the nine proposed discharges receiving tentative denials
are:
o Vast majority propose to discharge into estuaries.
o Important fisheries (commercial and/or recreational) are
located in the discharge areas.
o Receiving waters are characterized by poor mixing, insufficient
flushing and/or poor transport and dispersion.
o Vast majority propose to discharge into waters already
exhibiting widespread adverse environmental conditions,
such as shellfish closures or diseased fish.
o Many propose.to discharge into receiving waters with multiple
sources of pollutant impacts.
o Discharge areas suffer from low dissolved oxygen.
o Organisms in the discharge areas show bioaccumulation or
there is a high potential for adverse bioaccumulation or
other problems related to toxic pollutants.
o Most propose increased loadings over current discharge
levels.
Most significantly, the majority of the denials involve estuarine
receiving waters which currently exhibit adverse pollution effects.
Task Force analyses of the physical and chemical discharge charac-
teristics, marine biological communities, and receiving ocean
and estuarine environments are presented in Chapter II; Technical
Findings on the Major 1979 Applications.
12
-------
CHAPTER II. TECHNICAL FINDINGS ON THE MAJOR 1979 APPLICATIONS
(1) INTRODUCTION
Preparation of the tentative decision for each major application
required complex technical and legal analyses in evaluating
compliance with the 301(h) criteria. Certain basic trends related
to the impacts of sewage discharges on the marine environment
became apparent during this review. A discussion of the technical
findings for the 25 tentative decisions is presented below.
(2) OCEANOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS
Dilution/ transport, and dispersion of wastewater in marine
waters is an important consideration in evaluating the potential
for environmental impacts. Wastewater effluent discharged through
a submerged marine outfall rises toward the surface in a buoyant
plume (FIGURE 5). Initial dilution, which occurs within minutes
of discharge, rapidly mixes the effluent with surrounding seawater
until neutral buoyancy is obtained or the plume reaches the
surface. When the plume ceases to rise, the mixture disperses
horizontally at a.much slower rate.
After initial dilution, the fate of" effluent through transport
and dispersion depends primarily upon currents and circulation
patterns, which may differ for open ocean receiving waters or
for estuaries. The shoreline configuration in open coastal
receiving waters (typical of the major southern West Coast appli-
cants) usually enhances dispersion of pollutants, although there
may be a potential for-onshore winds to drive effluent shoreward.
Seasonal variations in prevailing currents and climatic conditions
are important; for example, sediments can build up during seasons
of stationary conditions. Physical and mathematical models
are used to predict the distribution or fate of pollutants and
the areas of sediment deposition for demonstration of compliance
with 301(h) criteria.
Significant features which affect potential impacts on an estuary
are the degree of vertical mixing, circulation within side embayments
and channels, depth, seasonal current variations, and tidal
current speed. Mixing is caused by wind, tidal currents, and
the amount of freshwater inflow. A simplified example of tidal
currents and circulation patterns in an estuarine environment
is shown in FIGURE 6. The variability of estuarine features
makes it more difficult to model, predict, or generalize pollutant
assimilation capacity; detailed investigation is needed for
each individual situation in order to estimate effluent effects.
13
-------
TRAPPING
LEVEL
14
-------
Figure 6. Simplified estuarine tidal circulation
pattern.
15
-------
In general, receiving water conditions which have been found
to lessen or eliminate the potential for adverse impacts on
the marine biota due to less-than-secondary treated discharges
include:
- Greater depth
- Shorter residence times
- Greater flushing and circulation; greater mixing
- Greater currents
- Reduced stratification (generally)
- Better dispersion and lesser accumulation
Naturally lower biological activity
Higher dissolved oxygen
Unstressed waters, fewer additional sources of pollutant
impacts
(3) SOLIDS ACCDMULATIQN IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
The evaluation of potential bottom accumulation of organic matter
is important for determination of compliance with 301(h) criteria.
The accumulated material may result in direct impacts on bottom-
dwelling prganisms, including alterations in diversity or abundance
of benthos or fishes. Additionally, accumulation of toxic pollutants
and pesticides along with the sediment may result in an increased
potential for adverse bioaccumulation or other chronic or acute
impacts on marine biota.
The heavier particulates in municipal wastewater are more dense
than seawater and tend to settle to the sea floor upon discharge
from an ocean outfall. In the receiving water these particles
migrate downward at a settling rate related to their individual
density, size, and shape. Some of the smaller and lighter particles
combine to form heavier particulates whose size and settling
velocities may be much greater than that of individual particles.
Due to the rapid settling of heavier particulates, a significant
fraction of the discharged material may reach the sea floor
in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. A simplified example
of predicted steady-state sediment accumulation around a marine
discharge is presented in FIGURE 7. Smaller, lighter particles
tend to be carried further by water currents, usually away from
the discharge location in areas of good circulation.
16
-------
0 1 2
Figure 7. A simplified example of predicted steady-state
sediment accumulation around a marine discharge.
17
-------
The probability of a particle reaching the sea floor and the
settling location are dependent on a number of parameters, such
as:
o density, size, and shape of the particulate,
o elevation above the sea floor when the settling begins,
o location and occurrence of pycnocline and/or thermocline
and density of the receiving water,
o velocity of the discharge, and
o currents and tidal movement.
After deposition, resuspension and transport may also be induced
by currents.
(4) DISCHARGE CHARACTERISTICS
The 25 discharges are an important source of mass emissions
of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids. Total
influent loading into the plants for all 25 proposed discharges
will be approximately 2,200 tons per day of BOD and 2,500 tons
per day of suspended solids. After treatment, the total effluent
mass emission rate of the proposed discharges will be less than
1,200 tons per day of BOD and &50 tons per day of suspended
solids. This treatment represents a reduction in total annual
loading of 46 percent for BOD and 66 percent for suspended solids.
The removal efficiencies for each of the proposed 25 discharges
are variable. However, the majority of the applicants proposed
to remove 60-80 percent of the suspended solids and 20-60 percent
of the BOD before discharging into the marine environment (FIGURE 8) .
Physical characteristics of the 25 major existing and proposed
discharges cover a wide range of values, for example:
o The effluent suspended solids concentrations range from
25 to 200 mg/1 for existing and from 30 to 125 mg/1 for
proposed discharges, and
o Effluent BOD concentrations range from 16 to 200 mg/1 for
existing and from 40 to 234 mg/1 for proposed discharges.
Some of the key characteristics of the 25 proposed discharges
are listed in TABLE 4. For example:
o Proposed mass emission rates for BOD range from 2,900 lb/day
to 494,200 lb/day.
18
-------
CO
a.
a.
-------
o Proposed mass emission rates for suspended solids range
from 1,300 lb/day to 369,600 lb/day.
Comparison of the nine tentatively denied discharges to the.
tentatively approved discharges (TABLE 6) show these tentatively
denied discharges to have, on average:
o lower critical initial dilution,
o shallower discharge depth, and
o closer distance to shore.
Even though most of the applicants proposed improvements in
treatment processes or outfall design and location, the Task
Force concluded that for dischargers receiving tentative denials
the proposed improvements were not sufficient to alleviate the
observed or predicted ecological impacts to the point of compliance
with the 301(h) criteria.
In comparison to the existing discharge loading, both the combined
total influent loading and the combined total effluent loading
of dischargers receiving tentative denials would be expected
to increase in the future (FIGURE 9). Thus, the combined loadings
for all the proposed discharges receiving tentative denials
would represent an increase to the environment for both biochemical
oxygen demand and suspended solids, even after proposed improvements.
Discharge characteristics which have been found to lessen or
eliminate adverse impacts on the marine environment include:
- Better designed outfall and diffuser
- Lower concentrations of toxic pollutants
- Lower mass emission rates of suspended solids and biochemical
oxygen demand
- Lesser effluent flow
- Greater treatment level
- Lesser nutrient load
- Greater initial dilution
Although the combined influent loadings of all dischargers receiving
tentative approvals are expected to increase in the future,
the proposed effluent loadings are expected to decrease in comparison
to the existing discharge loading. Thus, the combined loadings
for the proposed discharges receiving tentative approvals represent
a significant decrease in mass emission rates to the environment
20
-------
TABLE 6. HE5ICAL CSfiRACTSUSTICS CP APERCWH) AN) VBSOXD (EBQF0SH3) DISCHARGES
TENTATIVE TEtTEATIVE
PARAMETER APPKCVALS DENIALS
Median suspended solids removal, %
75
60
Range of suspended solids removal, %
45-84
50-70
Median critical initial dilution
98
28
Range of critical initial dilution
41-176
2.3-133
Average discharge depth, ft.
139
80
Range of average discharge depth, ft.
50-235
8-200
Average outfall length from shore, ft.
11,480
9 ,°190
Range of outfall length from shore, ft.
1,640-26,250
460-24,610
21
-------
1,500-1
EXISTING PROPOSED
INFLUENT
B0D5
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
EXISTING PROPOSED
EFFLUENT
- 585
- 540
»«-s
- 495
>-
<
a
- 450
¦V.
13
- 405
ro
o
- 360
«—i
-315
Ul
I—
2
- 270
- 225
o
•—«
to
-180
CO
s
- 135
11 J
to
- $0
CO
- 45
0
Figure 9. Average annual mass emission rates for tentatively denied applications.
-------
for both biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids, resulting
from improvements proposed by the applicants receiving tentative
approvals (FIGURE 10) . These treatment improvements will result
in benefits to the environment; for example, in the case of
four southern California discharges, the area of benthos5 altered
will decrease from 52 square miles (mi2) to 9 mi2.
(5) WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Applicants must demonstrate that their proposed discharge will
meet the applicable water quality standards for:
o biological oxygen demand (BOD), or dissolved oxygen (DO);
o suspended solids (SS) or surrogates; and
o pH.
Dissolved Oxygen fDO^
Compliance with State DO standards may be determined by:
1) DO depletion immediately after initial mixing of the waste
plume (nearfield)
2) depletion due to BOD exertion in the water column as the
wastefield is dispersed (farfield), and
3) sediment demand:
- depletion in the bottom waters due to the steady demand
of effluent related sediments (bottom)
- depletion due to the abrupt resuspension of effluent
related sediments.
Results are then compared to DO concentrations or depressions
as specified by the State water quality standards.
Natural upwelling occurring at. coastal discharge locations makes
DO analysis more difficult. In the natural upwelling process,
deeper water which is lower in DO moves upward to replace upper
surface waters moved away by the winds. The plume rising from
a wastewater discharge will also entrain water with lower DO,
resulting in lower DO in the plume (FIGURE 11) . Where relevant
^Organisms occurring on or in the bottom of a body of water.
23
-------
4-1
tr 180
>-
<
Q
9 3-
lO
O
2-
co
CO
HH
£
CO
1-
B0D5
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
EXISTING PROPOSED
INFLUENT
EXISTING PROPOSED
EFFLUENT
>-
<
Q
135 2
•=r
o
-90 qE
CO
CO
-45
5
CO
CO
Figure 10. Average annual mass emission rates for tentatively approved applications.
-------
HIGHER DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
LOWER
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
Figure 11. Entrainment of deeper water with low dissolved oxygen concentrations.
25
-------
to determination of compliance with the State DO standard, this
phenomenon was taken into account by the Task Force.
The majority of the applications which were denied would not
meet State water quality standards for DO (see Tentative Decision
Matrix, TABLE 5). These discharges generally have high organic
sediment accumulation. Combinations of physical factors resulted
in potential DO violations, the most prominent being low initial
dilution and low ambient DO concentrations. Violation of the
DO standard is probable for five of the discharges6 located
in waters which currently exhibit low DO concentrations, despite
proposed improvements.
To determine compliance with water quality DO standards, the
Task Force considered DO demand (and DO depression) in the three
different portions of the receiving water described above:
nearfield, farfield, and sediment demand. Of the 25 proposed
discharges, the Task Force determined that:
o four discharges would violate DO standards in the nearfield^,
o five would violate DO standards in the farfield^, and
o six would violate DO standards due to sediment DO demand^.
Compliance with DO standards was questionable for two additional
applicants and adequate information was lacking for specific
determinations.10
Suspended Sol ids
Water quality standards relating to suspended solids may be
expressed as a general prohibition against turbidity or bottom
deposits, as a quantitative suspended solids concentration or
6Tacoma (Central), WA; Hampton Roads (Lamberts Point), VA; Hampton
Roads (Chesapeake-Elizabeth) , VA; New York (Newtown Creek),
NY; and Westchester County (Mamaroneck), NY.
^Tacoma (Central), WA; Hampton Roads (Lamberts Point) , VA; New
York (Newtown Creek), NY; and Westchester County (Mamaroneck),
NY.
8The same four applicants as Footnote 6, plus Boston (Deer and
Nut Islands), MA.
9The same five applicants as Footnote 7, plus New Bedford, MA.
10Seattle (Duwamish), WA; and Tacoma (North End), WA.
26
-------
as a surrogate parameter such as percentage of light transmittance,
turbidity, Secchi disc depth readings, or extinction coefficient.
Compliance with suspended solid standards is usually based on
a determination of the suspended solids concentration following
initial dilution for comparison to background levels. Of the
nine tentative denials, six applicants did not demonstrate that
the water quality standards for suspended solids would be met
(TABLE 5).
BZ
To. determine compliance with pH standards, the pH following
initial dilution is estimated (TABLE 5) . None of the 25 major
discharges applied for 301(h) modifications of the pH standard.
(6) ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Three important concepts may affect the overall 301(h) evaluation
and require additional consideration during the analysis and
decisionmaking process. They are: 1) improved discharges, 2)
stressed waters, and 3) saline estuarine waters.
Improved Discharge
"Improved discharge" means the volume, composition/ and location
of an applicant's discharge following:
1) Construction of planned outfall improvements, including
outfall relocation, outfall, repair, or diffuser modifi-
cation; or
2) Construction of planned treatment system improvement's to
treatment levels or discharge characteristics; or
3) Implementation of a planned program to improve operation
and maintenance of an existing treatment system or to eliminate
or control the introduction of pollutants into the applicant's
treatment works.
All 25 major applicants intended to implement industrial pretreatment
and nonindustrial source control programs. Twenty-three (23)
of these 25 applications provided for other improvements for
the proposed discharges, ranging from outfall relocation to
improved removal rates.
The most common proposed improvements included:
o toxic control programs, proposed by 100 percent,
27
-------
o improved treatment, proposed by 56 percent,
o diffuser additions, proposed by 56 percent,
o outfall extension/relocation, proposed by 40 percent, and
o cessation of sludge discharge proposed by 20 percent.
Proposed changes in diffuser and outfall configurations and
relocations would generally result in discharge to deeper, less
impacted waters, and increased initial dilutions.
Adverse environmental impacts were not detected in the vicinity
of six of the existing discharges. The improvements proposed
at each of these discharges should further reduce any impact
potential. At all of the remaining existing discharges, there
were ecological impacts of varying severity. Some of the more
severe impacts included interference with the maintenance of
the biota, occurrence of diseased organisms, bioaccumulation
of toxic pollutants, and interference with species of commercial
or recreational importance. Improved receiving water quality
due to improvements proposed by the applicants was predicted
to result in substantial reduction in these ecological impacts
for nine of the proposed improved discharges and to allow for
a balanced indigenous population, as well as for recreational
activities. The improvements expected to occur in the receiving
water quality included reduced coliform bacteria concentrations
in the discharge vicinity and the nearshore area, reduced shoreward
transport of pollutants, and decreased concentrations of toxic
pollutants and suspended solids. Taken as a whole, in comparison
to the existing discharge loading, although the combined influent
loadings of all dischargers receiving tentative approvals are
expected to increase in the future, the proposed effluent loadings
are expected to decrease (FIGURE 10). Thus, the combined loadings
for the proposed discharges receiving tentative approvals represent
a significant decrease in mass emission rates to the environment
for both biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids, resulting
from improvements proposed by the applicants receiving tentative
approvals.
Continued or increased degradation of the receiving water was
predicted at the nine proposed discharge locations of applications
which were tentatively denied, despite proposed improvements.
Proposed improvements in these cases were not sufficient to
allow for compliance with the 301(h) criteria, including maintenance
of the balanced indigenous population, recreational activities,
and/or State water quality standards.
28
-------
Stressed Waters
The second significant concept, "stressed waters," generally
refers to waters which receive multiple pollutant loadings and
which exhibit signs of adverse environmental impacts.
If the applicant claims that it will discharge into stressed
waters, the applicant must demonstrate that the modified discharge
will not:
o contribute to, increase, or perpetuate stressed conditions,
o contribute to further degradation if perturbations from
other sources increase, or
o retard recovery if perturbations from other sources decrease.
This demonstration requires difficult predictions of water quality
conditions and biological trends which are considerably more
complex than predictions required for discharges into unstressed
waters.
o In order to document differences between the stressed biological
communities and those communities that would occur in the
absence of pollutant stress, biological conditions in the
polluted receiving water body are compared to biological
conditions at unstressed control stations (or in some cases,
to historical data on. biological conditions predating the
pollutant stresses).
o The additional contribution of the applicant's discharge
to existing pollutant stresses is then evaluated by comparing
biological communities near the discharge with those at
other stressed sites within the receiving water body, further
from the discharge.
o Determination of the effect of the discharge on the receiving
environment if the perturbations from other sources change
(increase or decrease) involves complex predictive-analysis
of biological response to future trends in water quality
conditions.
Among the 25 major applicants, four proposed modified discharges^-
to stressed receiving waters.
Los Angeles County (JWPCP), CA, and Los Angeles City (Hyperion),
CA, were tentatively approved. In Santa Monica Bay, biological
^Los Angeles County (JWPCP) , CA; Los Angeles City (Hyperion) ,
CA; New York (Newtown Creek), NY; and Westchester County (Mamaro-
neck), NY.
29
-------
communities were stressed by pollutant inputs from Los Angeles
City's (Hyperion) five-mile effluent outfall and seven-mile
sludge outfall, as well as by advected pollutants from Los Angeles
County's (JWPCP) outfalls on the nearby Palos Verdes shelf.
Both Hyperion and JWPCP have demonstrated that with significant
improvement of their proposed discharge, the reduced pollutant
loading will alleviate the existing stress and lead toward recovery
of the balanced indigenous population.
Westchester County (Mamaroneck), NY, and New York (Newtown Creek),
NY, applications were tentatively denied. In western Long Island
Sound although the major source of pollutant stress is the input
from the polluted East River, the Mamaroneck discharge has also
contributed to the stressed conditions. As the Newtown Creek
treatment plant is one of the major contributors to the stress
in the East River, sources of pollutant stresses to these stressed
waters are varied and complex.
Saline Estuaries
The third significant consideration is for "saline estuarine"
waters. Saline estuaries are defined in the 301(h) regulations
as semi-enclosed coastal waters which have a free connection
to the territorial sea, undergo net seaward exchange with ocean
waters, and have salinities comparable to those of the ocean.
Generally, these waters are near the mouth of estuaries and
have cross-sectional annual mean salinities greater than twenty-five
parts per thousand. Two examples of large saline estuaries
are Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound.
Saline estuaries are a unique biological and economic resource.
They are extremely productive ecosystems for the feeding, protection,
and nursery grounds of many species of fish and shellfish.
However, the physical and biological characteristics that make
estuaries so valuable also act to make them ecologically vulnerable.
Their tendency for retention and rapid recycling of nutrients
makes estuaries susceptible to pollution effects, as toxic pollutants
can become trapped along with useful nutrients. Also, additional
biochemical oxygen demand introduced into the estuarine system
can result in lower levels in an area already prone to low dissolved
oxygen and can result in adverse impacts on aquatic biota requiring
this oxygen.
In addition to meeting the other 301(h) criteria, applicants
proposing to discharge into saline estuaries must also demonstrate
that within the zone of initial dilution (ZID) immediately surround-
ing the discharge:
o benthic populations will not differ substantially from
the balanced indigenous benthic populations immediately
beyond the ZID,
30
-------
o the discharge will not interfere with estuarine migratory
pathways, and
o the discharge will not result in the accumulation of toxic
pollutants or pesticides at levels which exert adverse
effects on the biota.
Twelve of the major 25 applicants proposed to discharge into
saline estuaries (FIGURE 12) . Eight of these applications were
tentatively denied. The estuarine nature of the receiving water
bodies was a contributing factor in each of these denials.
The relatively shallow discharge depth limited the initial dilution
of the wastes in the water (predicted critical initial dilutions
for these eight applicants ranged from 2.3:1 to 59:1) and contributed
to their inability to meet various State water quality standards
(e.g.f dissolved oxygenr turbidity, and suspended solids).
Other contributing factors included poor mixing, insufficient
flushing, and lack of adequate dilution water. Most of the
receiving waters for these applicants were also influenced by
pollutants from numerous sources in addition to the applicants'
discharges.
The proposed estuarine discharges whose applications were denied
shared a number of predicted ecological impacts including:
o substantial alterations in benthic communities within and
beyond the zone of initial dilution (often leading to dominance
by pollution-tolerant taxa),
o high prevalences of diseases among fishes and invertebrates,
o adverse bioaccumulation of toxic pollutants,
o fish kills associated with low dissolved oxygen conditions,
and
o adverse impacts on species of commercial and recreational
importance.
Proposed improvements in treatment processes or outfall configuration
were determined to be insufficient to alleviate these impacts.
(7) BALANCED THDIGEMOIIS POPIIT.ATION (BIP^
Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act provides that applicants
are to demonstrate that the "modified requirements will not
interfere with the attainment or maintenance of that water quality
which assures the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous
population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife." A balanced indigenous
31
-------
CO
rv>
Figure 12. Major applicants proposing to discharge into a saline estuary.
-------
population (BIP) is defined in the 301(h) regulations as "an
ecological community which:
(1) Exhibits characteristics similar to those of nearby,
healthy communities existing under comparable but unpolluted
environmental conditions; or
(2) May reasonably be expected to become re-established in
the polluted water body segment from adjacent waters
if sources of pollution were removed."
Task Force analysis of the BIP included the evaluation of the
effect of alterations of a particular community (e.g., the benthos)
to impacts on other forms of marine life (e.g., fishes). For
example, biological effects on a particular marine community
that result in substantial secondary effects on another community,
or that result in a potential for adverse effects in humans
(e.g., bioaccumulation of toxic substances in fish or shellfish
at levels injurious to humans), are likely to interfere with
the BIP. Receiving water conditions and discharge characteristics
influence the extent and significance of any biological impacts
related to the discharge of municipal wastewater. The 301(h)
Task Force analyzed the site-specific oceanographic, hydrographic,
physical, chemical, and biological factors for each individual
application.
Important biological variables incorporated into the BIP analysis
include:
o Community structure:
Species number, diversity, evenness, dominance
Individual abundance
Biomass
Infaunal Index
o Pollution-tolerant and pollution-sensitive indicator species
o Abundance and importance of species or major groups
o Community interactions
o Bioaccumulation and concentrations of toxic substances
o Disease prevalence
Potential effects of municipal wastewater discharges on the
biological communities are illustrated in FIGURE 13, The potential
for impacts on the biological communities may occur away from
the discharge (farfield) as well as immediately near the discharge
(nearfield) . Additionally, impacts on biological communities
may result from substances and alterations within the receiving.
33
-------
Figure 13. Potential biological effects of municipal wastewater discharges.
-------
water and/or the bottom sediments. Many observed biological
impact-s are connected with sedimentation and accumulation of
discharged particulate matter as shown in this Figure.
As the impacts of sediment enrichment (by organic particles)
and of sediment contamination (by toxic pollutants) are closely
linked, they are generally manifested in the sdme biotic groups.
An important example of this interrelationship is the potential
for impact on bottom-dwelling marine organisms (e.g., benthic
macroinvertebrates such as shellfish and bottom-feeding fishes
such as sole and flounder) . As these organisms live in or on
the sediments and also feed there, bottom-dwelling animals are
susceptible to sediment composition changes, trophic modifica-
tions resulting in food changes, and uptake or contact with
toxic pollutants in the sediments and water.
Impacts due to discharged solids may be compounded because many
of the toxic pollutants in municipal effluents are associated
with solids. Consequently, it is especially important to understand
the physical/oceanographic factors which govern the transport,
sedimentation, and accumulation of suspended solids in the vicinity
of an outfall (discussed above under Oceanographic Conditions
and under Solids Accumulation in the Marine Environmentl.
The natural biological productivity of the receiving waters,
unperturbed by pollution sources, is another important factor
to be considered in the BIP analysis. As an example, receiving
waters with very low natural .biological activity occur in the
waters of Knik Arm at Anchorage, Alaska, Natural turbidity
of the waters is so high that the euphotic zone is limited to
the uppermost inches of the water column; consequently, natural
phytoplankton production is extremely low. Zooplankton. (which
consume phytoplankton) are also low in abundance and of low
diversity. Intertidal communities are sparsely populated and
the subtidal fauna is almost nonexistent, due to strong currents
and lack of suitable substrate. Anadromous fish transit the
area on their migrations but other fish populations are sparse.
This low biological productivity is the natural condition of
these waters not affected by pollutant sources.
On the other end of the spectrum, Chesapeake Bay is widely recognized
as an extremely productive estuarine environment. For example,
the area on the south side of the mouth of the Bay near the
Hampton Roads (Chesapeake-Elizabeth), VA, outfall is an important
spawning and overwintering ground for the commercially and recrea-
tionally important blue crab. Nearly one-half billion pounds
of fish and shellfish are harvested annually from Chesapeake
Bay. Large numbers of commercially and recreationally valuable
fishes including spot, croaker, and weakfish occur in the summer.
The Bay is also a major spawning area for striped bass. However,
the decline of striped bass is a matter of growing national
and local concern. The effects of pollution input are widespread
35
-------
in the Chesapeake Bay, and Congress recently reauthorized the
Chesapeake Bay study to further address this problem. Anchorage,
AK, received a tentative approval, and Chesapeake-Elizabeth
received a tentative denial.
Potential impacts on specific components of the BIP and results
of the biological analyses of the first 25 major applications
are presented below.
Phyt°planktonl2
Summaries of some of the major results of the 301(h) analysis
by the Task Force for phytoplankton are presented in TABLE 7.
Observed effects of sewage discharges on phytoplankton included:
1) increased abundances of pollution-tolerant or nuisance species;
2) toxic inhibition; and 3) localized increases in production
or biomass.
Stimulation of phytoplankton nuisance species was observed exclu-
sively at Atlantic estuarine sites. The receiving waters where
stimulation of a nuisance species was observed receive a variety
of municipal and industrial pollutants. Additionally, these
estuarine receiving waters displayed relatively poor flushing
and dispersion characteristics. The occurrence of small phyto-
plankton cells was indicative of organic pollutant stress.
Herbivores (e.g., zooplankton or clams) are not effective in
filtering these small cells, and this species shift can thus
interfere with trophic pathways.
Toxic inhibition was recorded at the existing Los Angeles County
(JWPCP) discharge. In addition, Task Force analysis predicted
that Tacoma's Central and North End proposed discharges are
also likely to cause nearfield toxic inhibition of phytoplankton.
Tacoma's Central plant, in particular, is characterized by a
relatively high industrial contribution to the total flow (34
percent of the existing discharge).
Implementation of proposed improvements is not likely to alleviate
the potential for adverse impacts on phytoplankton for eight
of the applicants (TABLE 7)!3. Most of these discharges are
located in saline estuarine environments with poor flushing
characteristics, and five show evidence of severe impacts on
phytoplankton. These applications have been tentatively denied.
^phytoplankton are minute plants which passively float in a body
of water.
l^insufficient data was provided for predictions on phytoplankton
for one discharge.
36
-------
TABLE 7. OBSERVED AND PREDICTED EFFECTS ON PHYTOPLANKTON
BY THE 25 MAJOR DISCHARGES (EXISTING AND PROPOSED)
EXISTING PROPOSED
DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
!&
•H
si 3a I
Boston (Deer and Nut Island), MA A - - - X -
Lynn, MA X - - - X
New Bedford, MA - X - X X -
South Essex, MA X - - X
Westchester County (Mamarorteck), NY X X -
New York (Newtown Creek), NY X X
Hampton Roads (Chesapeake-Elizabeth), VA - - - X X
Hampton Roads (Lamberts Point), VA X X
Goleta, CA X - - - - X
Los Angeles City (Hyperion), CA XX-- - X
Los Angeles County (JWFCP), CA -XX- - X
Monterey, CA X X - - - X
Orange County, CA X - - - - X
Oxnard (Ventura), CA X X - - - X
San Diego, CA X X - - - X
Santa Cruz, CA X - - - - X
Honolulu (Honouliuli), HI A - - - A A
Honolulu (Sand Island), HI X X - - - X
Anchorage, AK X - - - - X
Seattle (Duwamish), WA A - - - A A
Seattle (Richmond Beach), WA X - - - - X
Seattle (West ftsint), WA X - - - - X
Tacona (Central), WA A - - - X -
Tacana (North End), WA A - - - X -
Tacona (Western Slopes), WA X - - - - X
* Increased production or bianass is not necessarily considered an adverse
effect.
** Already lew impact potential will be minimized or adverse effects will be
eliminated.
A Insufficient data provided.
37
-------
Adverse impacts on phytoplankton are not anticipated at fifteen
of the proposed discharges^* (TABLE 7). These fifteen discharges,
which were tentatively approved, include some of the largest
applicants and are located in estuarine and in oceanic receiving
waters. Flushing characteristics rapidly disperse diluted effluent
from the vicinity of the outfalls. Fourteen of these reported
no adverse effects at the existing discharge area; the fifteenth
had a low impact potential on phytoplankton which would be expected
to be minimized after proposed improvements. Although localized
stimulation of phytoplankton was detected at seven of these
discharges, this did not result in changes in phytoplankton
community structure and therefore is not classified as an adverse
impact. This localized stimulation of phytoplankton production
or biomass was detected primarily near large discharges in the
open ocean along the Pacific Coast but was also found near a
smaller discharge located in a less dispersive area on the Atlantic
Coast (TABLE 7). Discharge improvements in . the form of outfall
relocation or increased treatment level are expected to alleviate
this localized phytoplankton stimulation.
ZoopT anktonl5
Site-specific information on zooplankton was presented by only
a few of the 25 major applicants. As zooplankton are generally
transient in the discharge vicinity, remaining in the area only
for a short part of their life cycle, impacts on zooplankton
are not as common as on phytoplankton.
Review of available information on zooplankton led the Task
Force to conclude that significant impacts were currently present
only in the general vicinity of the largest discharge, Boston
(MDC) , MA. Although a "reasonably normal assemblage" of zooplankton
species was found in Boston Harbor, abundance and diversity
were apparently depressed. This effect was attributed to the
heavy discharge of pollutants to the Harbor from multiple sources,
of which the Deer Island and Nut Island (MDC) discharges represent
the major point sources.
Although there were suggestions of impacts on zooplankton at
a few of the other discharges, the information was inadequate
for a conclusive demonstration of causes and effects, due either
to the highly variable nature of the zooplankton data or to
the limited sampling program. The transient nature of zooplankton
14Insufficient data was provided for predictions on phytoplankton
for one discharge.
15zooplankton are minute animals which passively float or weakly
swim in a body of water.
38
-------
communities and their limited residence in areas influenced
by the discharges generally results in a low likelihood of signi-
ficant impacts on the zooplankton community.
Benthos16
Macrobenthic17 communities are especially significant in the
analysis of the balanced indigenous population. This is because
benthic animals tend to be relatively long-lived, permanent
residents of an area. They are sensitive to both sediments
and bottom water quality and reflect the integrated effects
of long-term environmental conditions. Benthic communities
adjacent to pollution sources can generally provide useful infor-
mation on the spatial extent and magnitude of the impact, as
many benthic organisms are sedentary or relatively immobile
and therefore may be continually exposed to the pollution.
Benthic organisms are an essential component of the marine eco-
system. Higher organisms, including some important commercial
and recreational fish, depend on these bottom-dwelling organisms
for food.
Changes in the benthos associated with increasing organic loading
(from sewage discharges or other sources) onto marine and estuarine
sediments are presented in FIGURE 14. As shown in this Figure,
as organic sediment deposition increases, the species which
are sensitive to pollution are replaced by an increase in pollutant-
responsive Species (both the numbers and types of these species
may increase in this "transition zone"). If the amount of organic
sedimentation increases even more these species are in turn
replaced by a small number of pollution-tolerant species, resulting
in a sparse benthic population and a decreased food supply for
fish. If enough organic sediments are added, all benthic macrofauna
will eventually disappear, leaving the area denuded. The stage
of the benthic community may be determined by the occurrence
and abundance of certain benthic species, known as "indicator
species"; some of these "indicator" genera are also listed in
FIGURE 14.
A quantitative extension of this concept has been developed
for southern California and is under development for Puget Sound
in the northwest United States. The Infaunal Index is an indicator
of change in the marine environment through a characterization
of the benthic community. The index has been shown (Word and
^Organisms occurring on or in the bottom of a body of water.
l^Macrobenthic organisms are benthic organisms collected by grab
sampling which are greater than 0.5 to 1.0 mm in size.
39
-------
o
REFERENCE: Pearson and Rosenberg 1978
Figure 14. Benthic faunal changes associated with increasing organic loading
of marine and estuarine sediments.
TYPICAL
MACRO-
FAUNA
DOMI
NANTS
Nuculo
Amphiura
Terebellidej
Rhodine
Echinocardium
Nephropi
TRANSITORY
Labidoplax
Corbulo
Gonioda
Thyasiro
Pholoe
Choetozone
Anailides
Peclinaria
Myriochele
Optiiodromus
POLLUTED
Capilelio
Scolelepis
No MACROFAUNA
Surface covered by
Fiber blunkel
NORMAL
GROSSLY POLLUTED
ZONE
-------
Mearns, 1979) to be sensitive to shifts in the relative abundance
of species groups defined by feeding strategy. The numerical
value of the Infaunal Index is negatively correlated with the
effects of sediment organic levels. In the southern California
Bight/ areas unaffected by sewage discharges typically have
Infaunal Index values of 69 to 100. Infaunal Index values less
than 30 indicate that benthic communities are highly modified
by accumulation of organic solids. As an example, the application
of the Infaunal Index to a large southern California discharge
is shown in FIGURE 15 (Orange County, California, prior to proposed
improvements). In general, as the deposition of suspended solids
increases the area of impact of the benthos also increases.
This relationship is shown graphically for certain southern
California areas in FIGURE 16.
Characteristics of benthic communities which can be correlated
with organic enrichment such as that due to sewage discharges
include changes in biomass, total abundance, species number,
prey availability, and percent of pollution-tolerant species.
Effects observed at the major discharges are listed in TABLE 8.
In summary, the following impacts were found near the existing
discharges:
o Decreased numbers of species (six discharges).
o Increased numbers of species (one. discharge).
o Increased abundances of organisms (six discharges).
o Decreased abundances of organisms (seven discharges).,
o Decreased diversity (six discharges).
o Enhanced abundances of pollution-tolerant species (eleven
discharges).
o Decreased Infaunal Index (four discharges).
o Increased Infaunal Index (one discharge).
o Increased biomass (three discharges).
For seven of the discharges whose applications were tentatively
denied, proposed improvements were not expected to alleviate
predicted or observed adverse impacts on the benthos. In fact,
although adverse impacts on the benthos were not reported at
the existing discharge for one of these tentative denials18,
proposed improvements in hydraulic capacity, solids handling,
l®Hampton Roads (Chesapeake Elizabeth), VA.
41
-------
-p»
ro
Figure 15. Benthic response to organic enrichment: Areas of "normal and "changed"
Infaunal Index values near the Combined Sewer Discharges of Orange
County, as defined by Bascom, et al., 1978.
-------
10'
CO
O
X
UJ
m
o
UJ
u.
Q
O
2
CM
E
*
10J
10'
10c
10"
SANTA fO PALOS
MONICA BAY 5 VERGES
ORANGE CO
PT. LOMA
PALOS
VERGES
SANTA
MONICA BAY
ORANGE CO.
PT. LOMA
10s
103 104 10*
SUSPENDED SOLIDS MER, MT/VR
10"
O AREA DOMINATED BY SUBSURFACE DEPOSIT FEEDING ORGANISMS (I I < 30)
• AREA DOMINATED BY SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DEPOSIT FEEDING
ORGANISMS (I I <60)
REFERENCE: Mearns and Word 1982
Figure 16. Relationships between mass emission rates of
suspended solids and the areas occupied by
modified macrobenthic assemblages.
43
-------
TABLE 8. OBSERVED EFFECTS OF 25 EXISTING SEWAGE DISCHARGES ON BENTHOS
01
0)
o a
01 _ W >4-1
0 8 £ 8-p 0
U] C -W 0 C 01 (fl
oi c 3 oi 4
•H jj O H -H3 H j3 O
Q n H H CQ ^
a) a} «i Q -u ^ „
" P s g g-g g g a
£12 D IS} S i
I
-------
and solids removal would actually increase mass emission rates
for suspended solids in the e££luentf and would likely result
in the degradation of biological communities near the proposed
discharge. Insufficient evidence was available to make precise
predictions on benthic impacts for three of the ten discharges
whose applications for modified suspended solids limits were
tentatively denied^.
Adverse impacts on the benthos resulting from municipal sewage
discharges were not observed at seven of the 25 major existing
discharges. For six of these applicants, proposed improvements
are expected to further minimize the potential for any future
alterations of benthic communities by the proposed discharge.20
For the nine other discharges whose applications were approved,
benthic alterations were observed near the existing discharge
but proposed improvements by the discharges are also expected
to decrease or eliminate the potential for adverse impacts on
the benthos. For example, following implementation of improvements
proposed by four major southern California applicants21, the
total area of altered benthos (<60 Infaunal Index) is expected
to shrink from 52 mi2 to 9 mi2. Improvements proposed by applicants
receiving tentative approvals which would result in reduced
potential for benthic impacts include improved treatment, outfall
relocation to receiving waters with increased transport and
dispersion characteristics, improved control of toxic substances,
and reduced mass emissions of suspended solids.
Shellfish
The 301(h) Task Force investigated a variety of information
regarding potential impacts on shellfish due to marine sewage
discharge. In the northeastern United States, soft-shell clams,
hard-shell clams, scallops, blue crabs, and lobsters are of
particular importance. In the Chesapeake Bay, major shellfish
include blue crabs, oysters, and clams. Puget Sound shellfish
of major importance include Dungeness crab, shrimp, oysters,
and several species of clams. Major shellfishery resources
along the southern California coast include clams, abalone,
and spiny lobster.
19Seattle (Duwamish) , WA; New York (Newtown Creek) , NY; and Honolulu
(Honouliuli), HI (tentatively denied for suspended solids only).
20The seventh discharge is discussed in the previous paragraph.
21Los Angeles City (Hyperion) , CA; Los Angeles County (JWPCP) ,
CA; San Diego, CA; and Orange County, CA.
45
-------
In most cases information provided by the applicants on shellfish
was limited. Supplemental information was provided by EPA Regional
technical staff and by the technical support contractor and
was obtained through the literature and personal communication
with scientific researchers and with experts in various State
agencies.
Shellfish resources may be affected by oceanic and estuarine
sewage discharges primarily by:
o fecal coliform bacteria (and other associated pathogens),
o settleable solids, and
o toxic pollutants.
The first (pathogen effects), may result in disease or illness
in people consuming contaminated shellfish. The second (impacts
due to settleable solids) , may affect shellfish populations
through shellfish attraction due to increased food supply or
through shellfish aversion and avoidance of the area. Settleable
solids may cause a habitat change and a resultant alteration
in community composition. The third (toxic pollutants' effects),
may result in disease or mortality in shellfish and/or may cause
illness in people consuming the shellfish if these toxic, pollutants
occur in adverse concentrations.
The 301(h) Task Force concluded that of the 25 .major proposed
discharges, six would potentially result in adverse impacts
on shellfisheries. All of these proposed discharges are located
in saline estuaries, critical habitats for many important shellfish
species. Four are located on the East Coast22 and two are located
on the West Coast.23
Fishes
Observed impacts on fish related to certain sewage discharges
include:
o increased prevalence of fish diseases,
o mass mortalities,
o fish tissue contamination
22Mamaroneck, NY; Hampton Roads (Lamberts Point), VA; Hampton
Roads (Chesapeake-Elizabeth), VA; and New Bedford, MA.
23seattle (Duwamish), WA; and Tacoma (Central), WA.
46
-------
o alterations in community composition, and
o effects on commercial or recreational fisheries.
Various pathological conditions have been found among fishes
collected in the vicinity of municipal sewage outfalls (TABLE 9).
Of these only fin erosion, hepatic lesions, and certain other
liver abnormalities seem to be directly related to chemical
contamination of the environment. Fin erosion has been found
in demersal fish species (bottom-living fish such as flounder
and sole) inhabiting chemically contaminated environments, such
as those in the vicinity of certain municipal sewage discharges.
As fin erosion has been found in bottom-dwelling fish, the disease
appears to be linked to sediment impacts. Chemically contaminated
environments where there is a higher than normal incidence of
fish disease include both environments subject to multiple pollutant
inputs^ and areas where the major sources of pollutants are
the existing discharges.25 Field data lead to the conclusion
that eight of the existing discharges had contributed to the
chemical contamination of the benthic environment believed to
be responsible for the increased prevalence of fish diseases
in the vicinity impacted by the discharges. The Task Force
concluded that for five discharges, proposed improvements would
not significantly reduce the prevalence of fish disease.26
These applications received tentative denials. For the remaining
three applicants where there was an increased prevalence of
fish disease near the existing discharge, the Task Force concluded
that proposed system improvements would bring about substantial
reductions in the prevalence of fish disease.
Bioaccumulation of potentially toxic substances is occurring
in the vicinity of a number of existing discharges, but only
in the vicinity of one discharge27 is the problem so severe
that fin fisheries have actually been prohibited (due to PCB
contamination).
24uoston Harbor, New York's East River, western Long Island
Sound, and Washington's Commencement Bay.
25The vicinity of the Los Angeles County (JWPCP) , Los Angeles
City (Hyperion), and Orange County discharges in California.
2®Boston (Deer Island and Nut Island) , MA; New York (Newtown Creek) ,
NY; Westchester County (Mamaroneck) , NY; Tacoma (Central), WA;
and Tacoma (North End), WA.
2^New Bedford, MA.
47
-------
TABLE 9. TYPES AND PREVALENCE OF FISH DISEASES AND OTHER
ABNORMALITIES FOUND AT 25 EXISTING DISCHARGES
Boston (Deer and Nut Island), MA
Lynn, MA
New Bedford, MA
South Essex, MA
Westchester County (Mamaroneck), NY
New York (Newtown Creek), NY
.Hampton Roads (Chesapeake-Elizabeth), VA
Hampton Roads (Lamberts Point), VA
Goleta, CA
Los Angeles City (Hyperion), CA
Los Angeles County (JWFCP), CA
Monterey, CA
Orange County, CA
Oxnard (Ventura), CA
San Diego, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
Honolulu (Honouliuli), HI
Honolulu (Sand Island), HI
Anchorage, AK
Seattle (Duwamish), WA
Seattle (Richmond Beach), WA
Seattle (West Point), WA
Tacana (Central), WA
Taccma (North End), WA
Tacana (Western Slopes), WA
c
o
¦H
m
o
u
u
c
•H
M
H
u
a>
5
o ®
0)
T3 -H
C 4J
ra -H .
pH
0) <3
§ a
•H O
w c
sa
u u
a> o
> >
•H -H
J J
ND Q
M
L
ND
L
ND —
ND —
— H
— M
cu
flj
Cb
04
•H
J
0
s
u
0
rH
o
u
0
a
u
(Q
3
4J
U
3
•P
0)
a>
J
>i
0)
c
•o
1)
J
u
0)
'O
(0
O
-C
J
£
4J
§•
K
U
ND ND ND —
ND — — L
Q
L
L
L
L
L L
L L
L L
-- C
L — — —
L — — L
L — — L
— — L
-- H
— ~ M
— — H
— — M
— MM
— Q Q
c
o
•H
m
0)
J
><
u
o
a
c
4)
CO
— Q
V
0)
¦H
O
4)
(0
aj
o*
c
£
U
V
OJ
0)
W
Oi
— — — x
ND U
Key: H = High prevalence ( 15 percent)
M = Moderate prevalence (5 to 15 percent)
L = Low prevalence ( 5 percent)
0 = Qualitative only, prevalence not stated
ND = Not detected
u
D
I
U
NP
MP
NP
D
D
U
D
U
D
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
I
X
D .
X - Increased prevalence
U = Unchanged prevalence
D = Decreased prevalence
NP = No prediction made
— = Not discussed or not examined
48
-------
In two locations^8, municipal sewage discharges may have contributed
•to conditions responsible for fish kills in their vicinity (e.g.,
low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, high concentrations
of toxic metals).
Alterations in fish community composition (such as changes in
species distribution) have also been noted near some existing
discharges, although they are not always considered adverse.
The best evidence for such alterations comes from large West
Coast applicants which have conducted extensive fish sampling
programs. For these discharges, planned improvements which
would reduce the degree of solids accumulation (and consequent
alterations in benthic infaunal communities) are expected to
also reduce the alteration of local fish communities.
Distinctivp Habitats of Limited Distribution
Distinctive habitats of limited distribution include those segments
of the marine environment whose protection is of special concern
because of their ecological significance or their direct value
to man. These habitats include, but are not limited to, coral
reefs, kelp beds, seagrass meadows, spawning or nursery areas
for commercial species, sites of aesthetic appeal to man, and
rocky intertidal habitats (where they are uncommon) . The scientific
literature indicates that many of these distinctive habitats
may be particularly sensitive to municipal discharges. Ten
of the 25 major' discharges ar6 located near distinctive habitats
of limited distribution.
Coral
Three major components of potential coral reef impacts from
municipal sewage discharges are: 1) eutrophication associated
with high nutrient concentrations in discharged wastewater,
2) sedimentation of suspended solids, and 3) toxic pollutant
impacts (R. Pastorak and G. Bilyard, 1983). Coral reef locations
include the coasts of southern Florida, the Hawaiian Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands (FIGURE 17). Of the 25
major discharges, coral reefs only occur inshore of the two
proposed discharges at Honolulu, Hawaii. At Sand Island (Honolulu,
HI) , cessation of sludge discharge through the outfall will
reduce shoreward transport of particulates and associated toxicants,
resulting in expected improvements in the condition of inshore
coral reefs. In the case of Honouliuli (Honolulu, HI), although
adverse impacts are not expected to result from the proposed
discharge of BOD, transport of effluent solids to inshore coral
28New Bedford, MA; and Hampton Roads (Lamberts Point), VA.
49
-------
Figure 17. Geographical distribution of kelp beds and nearshore coral reefs.
-------
reef habitats and subsequent increases in sedimentation rates
may degrade coral communities inshore of this outfall. A tentative
approval for BOD, but not for suspended solids was granted in
this case.
Kelp Beds
Kelp occurs on the New England coast and along the West Coast,
from Southern California to Alaska (FIGURE 17). Potential impacts
of sewage discharge on kelp are varied and are still under scientific
study. Of the 25 major discharges, kelp habitat occurs in the
vicinity of eight discharges.
Ecological impacts of sewage effluents on distinctive kelp habitats
have been documented at four of the existing discharge sites2^.
Observed impacts include: changes in the structure and function
of kelp bed communities, degradation of the kelp beds (possibly
caused by high levels of copper and zinc in the effluent), attenu-
ation of light due to discharged suspended solids, and sediment
accumulation due to both the effluent discharge and the outfall
terminus structure. Proposed improvements in outfall design,
location, and/or sewage treatment (including toxic control measures)
are expected to alleviate any existing impacts on distinctive
kelp habitats near the proposed discharges.
At the other four discharges located near kelp- habitat^O, no
effects on kelp due to the discharge of sewage effluent were
reported, and none is expected for the proposed discharge.
Bioaccumulati on
The potential for bioaccumulation of toxic pollutants from the
discharge is an important consideration in the demonstration
of the existence of a BlP of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.
Toxic pollutants and pesticides can exert a number of adverse
effects on marine organisms, including disease, reduced repro-
duction rates, avoidance of the impacted area, and death. Adverse
impacts may result when marine organisms accumulate toxic pollutants
to high levels from the water, sediment, and/or food, or are
directly exposed to toxic pollutants.
29los Angeles (JWPCP), CA; San Diego (Point Loma), CA; Monterey,
CA; and Seattle (West Point), WA.
30Santa Cruz, CA; Goleta, CA; Tacoma (Western Slopes), WA; and
Lynn, MA.
51
-------
Important factors in evaluating the bioaccumulation potential
of a proposed discharge include:
o Effluent concentrations of toxic pollutants
o Characteristics of toxic substances
o Initial dilution and dispersion in the receiving water
o Solids accumulation and sediment concentration in the discharge
area
o Contamination from other sources
o Type, sensitivity, importance, and location of potentially
impacted organisms
o Potential for human health effects
Adverse bioaccumulation of toxic pollutants in marine and estuarine
organisms in the receiving waters is difficult to assess due
to variations in receiving waters, currents, sediments, organisms
(feeding habits, movement, habitat, susceptibility, etc.), multiple
pollutant sources, and complicated chemical, physical, and biological
interactions.
The range of quality and quantity of information submitted by
the applicants on bioaccumulation was considerable. Task Force
analysis of bioaccumulation 'potential involved review of field
studies submitted by the applicant including, in various cases,
effluent, water column, sediment, and biotic surveys. Additionally,
EPA-recommended water quality criteria (WQC) provide a useful
guide for evaluating whether toxic priority pollutants are present
in sea water in concentrations that adversely affect biota and
human health (45 Fed. Reg. 79318 November 28, 1980, and Fed. Reg.
4551, February 7, 1984) . WQC are based on the available scientific
data on the effects of pollutants on public health and welfare,
aquatic life, and recreation. They establish numerical values
which indicate the concentrations of pollutants in water which
will generally ensure water quality adequate to support the
pertinent water use.
The sixteen priority pollutants in concentrations in excess
of EPA saltwater quality criteria after (proposed) initial dilution
are shown in TABLE 10. The total number of toxic pollutants
exceeding EPA criteria after initial dilution in any one discharge
ranged from 0 to 12 compounds. These priority pollutants include
metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and
zinc), pesticides (chlordane, DDT, endosulfan, endrin, heptachlor,
and lindane) and other compounds (PCBs and cyanide). Metals
are more likely to be concentrated in the tissues of certain
invertebrates (e.g., clams, mussels, oysters), while PCBs and
52
-------
TABLE 10. PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN EXCESS OF EPA
SALTWATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR 25 MAJOR DISCHARGES
Number of
Discharges
Exceeding
Criteria
Cadmium
2
Chlordane
1
Chromium
2
Copper
8
Cyanide
6
DDT
3
Endosulfan
1
Endrin
1
Heptachlor
2
Lead
2
Lindane
1
Mercury
7
Nickel
3
PCBs
2
Silver
1
Zinc
3
* Following proposed initial dilution.
53
-------
pesticides are generally accumulated in fishes and other animals
high in the food chain.
Of the nine tentatively denied applications, eight exceeded
EPA criteria for one or more priority pollutants; the ninth
submitted insufficient information for compliance determination.
Seven of these applicants requested increased effluent limits
and/or mass emission rates for suspended solids^1. In addition,
seven of the nine tentative denials reported relatively low
initial dilution for both the existing and proposed outfalls.
All nine proposed discharges which received tentative denials
were found to have a significant potential for adverse bioaccumu-
lation of toxic pollutants. Factors considered to be indicative
of a high potential for adverse bioaccumulation include:
o exceedence of the chronic saltwater quality criteria as
determined through measurement of the concentrations of
toxic pollutants in the effluent or receiving water,
o elevated concentrations of toxic pollutants in samples
of sediments and/or resident biota collected in the vicinity
of existing discharge, and
o the significant occurrence of toxic pollutants, as well
as low critical initial dilution of the proposed discharge
and poor flushing characteristics 'of the receiving water
body.
Among the nine proposed discharges predicted to have a significant
potential for adverse bioaccumulation, eight are to estuarine
environments and have relatively low predicted critical initial
dilutions (less than 60:1). Every one of these eight proposed
estuarine discharges is expected to affect areas already impacted
by toxic pollutants.
Certain fisheries have been prohibited due to high tissue concen-
trations of toxic chemical pollutants in the vicinity of two
of the 25 major existing discharges. 301(h) applications for
both of these discharges have been tentatively denied, in part
because of the present and predicted contribution to the adverse
bioaccumulation occurring in the area. In one case, the harvesting
of fish, shellfish, and lobster had been prohibited in New Bedford
Harbor due to tissue contamination by PCBs. In the other situation,
oyster harvesting was prohibited in the Elizabeth River due
to high coliform bacteria levels, trace metals, PCBs, and pesticides.
^Seattle (Duwamish) , WA, did not have an existing discharge to
the ocean, and information provided is not sufficient for inclusion
in these calculations.
54
-------
Seven of the 16 discharges receiving tentative approvals32 were
predicted to have only a low potential for adverse bioaccumulation
due to low concentrations of toxic pollutants in the effluent,
high initial dilutions, and good receiving water flushing charac-
teristics. The other nine existing discharges currently have
the potential or occurrence of adverse bioaccumulation3^, but
the Task Force concluded that proposed improvements would signif-
icantly mitigate this potential so as to protect the BIP. Reduced
potential for adverse bioaccumulation is expected from improvements
of increased solids removal associated with improved treatment
processes, toxic substance control programs designed to reduce
input of toxic pollutants to the sewage system, and increased
initial dilution associated with outfall modifications (such
as relocation or diffuser construction).
(8) OTHER RET.EVANT STATUTES
A 301(h) modified discharge must be consistent with other applicable
State and Federal laws including: 1) the Endangered Species
Act, and 2) the Coastal Zone Management Act, and 3) Title III
of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Applicants
are to contact the appropriate Agencies to determine consistency
with these statutes. EPA has coordinated efforts with the National
Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
and the Office of Coastal Zone. Management at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration to determine consistency.
As ah example of EPA coordination with Federal agencies. Region
IX has recently completed formal consultation with the USFWS
on consistency with the Endangered Species Act for three large
southern California discharges34. At issue was the impact on
thinning of the brown pelican egg shells due to the presence
of DDT. This formal consultation resulted in a Biological Opinion
on October 7, 1983, indicating that "permit actions are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the California
brown pelican." In the Biological Opinion, USFWS delineated
six recommendations for the conservation of the California brown
^Honolulu (Sand Island), HI; Honolulu (Honouliuli) , HI; Ventura/
Oxnard, CA; Santa Cruz, CA; Seattle (Richmond Beach), WA; Tacoma
(Western Slopes), WA; Anchorage, AK.
33Los Angeles County (JWPCP), CA; Los Angeles City (Hyperion), CA;
Orange County, CA; San Diego (Point Loma), CA; Monterey, CA;
Goleta, CA; Seattle (West Point), WA; South Essex, MA; Lynn, MA.
34los Angeles City (Hyperion) , CA; Los Angeles County, CA; and
Orange County, CA.
55
-------
pelican. Formal consultation with USFWS is anticipated by EPA
Region IX on other large California applications as well.
(9) RECREATION
Section 301(h)(2) states in part that the proposed discharge
must allow for "recreational activities in and on the water."
All of the approved proposed discharges are expected to allow
for recreational activities.
The proposed discharges of all nine of the denied applications
were expected to interfere with recreational activities, such
as fishing, shellf ishing, and/or body-contact activities such
as surfing, swimming, wading, and SCUBA diving. Coliform bacteria
levels, dissolved oxygen levels, toxic pollutant concentrations,
and proximity to recreational areas were generally of primary
concern in evaluation of recreational impacts in these predominantly
estuarine environments.
(10) MONITORING PROGRAM
Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act requires waiver recipients
to monitor the impact of the discharge on a representative sample
of aquatic biota, to the extent practicable.
Municipalities receiving a 301(h) variance must develop and
implement appropriate effluent, receiving water, and biological
monitoring programs. In addition to documenting the short and
long-term effects of the modified discharge on receiving water
quality, sediments, and marine biota, the programs are also
to measure influences on beneficial uses of the receiving water,
compliance with NPDES permit terms and conditions, and the effective-
ness of toxic substance control programs.
Coastal dischargers are currently required by their NPDES permits
to implement monitoring programs for meeting their technology
based effluent limits. These programs are supplemented or modified
to address the 301(h) water quality based requirements. Through
the application evaluation process, proposed monitoring programs
are evaluated, resulting in identification of additions or deletions
necessary to ensure monitoring programs are adequate to assess
discharge impacts without unnecessary complexity and cost.
Even though cost is not a decision factor in waiver evaluations,
the cost of environmental monitoring is significantly less than
the cost to meet secondary treatment requirements. Special
consideration is given to small applicants in recognition of
the typically reduced environmental impacts associated with
such discharges and the limited resources available for long-term
monitoring programs. Monitoring requirements are discussed
56
-------
in the tentative decision document for each approval. Often,
additional meetings are arranged with the applicants and EPA
scientists and managers to work out monitoring program specifics.
Specific guidance is available in the 301(h) Monitoring Program
Document and the Revised 301(h) Technical Support Document to
assist applicants in designing and conducting the monitoring
programs.
Effluent Monitoring
Routine monitoring of an applicant's effluent for various water
quality parameters (e.g., pH, BOD, settleable solids, total
suspended solids, total coliform bacteria, etc.) is generally
required under the conditions of the NPDES permit. In addition,
monitoring of priority pollutants has been included in the 301(h)
effluent monitoring program to emphasize toxic pollutant detection
and the need to determine the effectiveness of the toxics control
programs.
Effluent monitoring objectives include the evaluation of:
o Treatment plant performance
o Toxic substance and pesticide presence and levels and toxic
control program effectiveness
o Effluent limitation compliance
o Information for other assessments
Water quality impacts
Sedimentation
Biological impacts
Water Quality Monitoring
Water quality monitoring is required to determine compliance
with applicable State and Federal water quality standards and
301(h) criteria. Sediment sampling is to be conducted to support
the water quality and biological surveys and to measure the
accumulation of toxic pollutants. This is to be accomplished
near the zone of initial dilution (ZID) and at areas beyond
this zone where discharge impacts might reasonably be expected,
especially during critical environmental periods. Monitoring
is also to be conducted at control or reference stations for
evaluation of discharge-related impacts.
57
-------
Water quality and sediment monitoring include evaluations of:
o Compliance with State standards
o Continued attainment or maintenance of water quality which
assures protection of the biological indigenous population
o Allowance of recreational activities
o Identification of, and monitoring during, critical environ-
mental periods
o Improvements or impacts on environmental quality
o Estuarine discharge requirements (below)
o Stressed water analyses by waiver recipients discharging
to stressed water
Rioloqiral MnrHfrnHnq
Biological monitoring is necessary to evaluate the overall impact
of the permittee's modified discharge on the BIP. Data collected
are. to provide evidence of environmental conditions conducive
to the maintenance of the balanced indigenous population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife beyond the zone of initial dilution
. (ZID) boundary, and to show that within-ZID conditions do not
contribute to extreme biological impacts.
Biological monitoring objectives are:
o Protection and propagation of the BIP near the ZID boundary
and beyond
o Within. ZID conditions which do not contribute to extreme
biological impacts
o Protection of distinctive habitats of limited distribution
o Assessments of commercial and recreational fisheries poten-
tially impacted by the discharge
o Estuarine discharge requirements (below)
o Stressed water analyses by waiver recipients discharging
to stressed water
58
-------
For estuarine discharges, the monitoring program must also be
designed to show that:
o within-ZID benthic populations are not substantially different
from those immediately beyond the ZID boundary,
o the discharge does not interfere with migratory pathways
within the ZID, and
o toxic pollutant or pesticide accumulations do not accumulate
at levels which exert adverse effects on the environment.
Utilization of Monitoring Results
301(h) modifications take the form of a modified NPDES permit
and like all NPDES permits may not exceed a period of five years.
301(h) modifications may be renewed, and the monitoring results
will be used in evaluating the application for permit renewal.
In the tentative decision document, monitoring program weaknesses
are identified and specific program changes are recommended
to ensure documentation of modified discharge impacts. Prior
to permit issuance, these changes are typically discussed with
an applicant, and a program is developed mutually, focusing
on critical measurements while recognizing the extent of resources
available for program implementation. As a result of the uniform
review; and development of monitoring programs, the information
collected will not only identify the presence or absence of
site-specific problems but will also allow a synthesis of findings
applicable to larger regional and coastal areas. In turn, this
will permit consistent revision of current monitoring requirements,
and provide a comprehensive data base upon which to define up-to-date
monitoring requirements. Appropriate new monitoring programs
would be developed on the basis of a proposed effluent's charac-
teristics and known long-term responses to such discharges in
similar biogeographical regions.
To effectively utilize the data soon to be submitted as a result
of 301(h) monitoring, the Agency is in the process of developing
an ocean data evaluation system (ODES) to be managed by Office
of Marine Discharge Evaluation in consultation with the Office
of Information Resources Management. This system will enable
effective storage, retrieval, and analysis of 301(h) monitoring
program data, in conjunction with relevant data available in
existing EPA and other Federal, State, or local governmental
agencies and will permit synthesis of information rapidly to
ensure early detection of unacceptable changes. This procedure
will allow the Agency to modify permit requirements, thereby
avoiding severe changes in the receiving environment and its
biota. The investment now in an effective ocean data evaluation
system to handle information from over 200 potential discharges
59
-------
is critical to the evaluation of potential impacts and trends
in the marine environment and to report to Congress on the impact
on marine waters of the issuance of 301(h) modified permits.
(11) TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL
Introduction
The toxics control program is designed to identify and assure
control of toxic pollutants and pesticides discharged into the
POTW. Large applicants are to submit with their applications
an analysis of treatment plant effluent under wet-weather and
dry-weather conditions. The analyses must include all 126 priority
pollutants which include toxic organic compounds, metals, asbestos,
and six additional pesticides.
Toxics control programs are required for both industrial and
nonindustrial sources discharging to the POTW. The 301 (h) industrial
source control requirements are consistent with the 40. CFR Part
403 pretreatment program regulations.
Small applicants with no industrial discharges to the POTW are
exempt from the requirements of effluent analysis and industrial
pretreatment in the application. However, upon approval of
the proposed modification they are required, to the extent prac-
ticable, to analyze for priority pollutants and pesticides.
At a minimum, small applicants must implement a public information
program designed to reduce nonindustrial contributions of priority
pollutants to the POTW.
Effluent Characteristics
Analysis of the toxic pollutant concentrations for the existing
25 major discharges, showed 34 toxic pollutants occurring in
over 20 percent of all the sewage effluent samples.35 A list
of these toxic pollutants and their concentrations is given
in TABLE 11, along with a list of the percentage of occurrence
in the samples. The most frequently detected substances were
metals, of which chromium, copper, zinc, cadmium, arsenic, and
lead were detected in greater than 90 percent of the samples.
35The data base represents 22 separate analyses of wet-weather
and dry-weather conditions plus one analysis for dry weather
only and two analyses for which antecedent rainfall conditions
were not provided.
60
-------
TABLE 11. PRIORITY POLLUTANTS DETECTED IN OVER 20 PERCENT OF
SEWAGE EFFLUENT SAMPLES FOR 25 MAJOR DISCHARGES (EXISTING)
Percent of Concentration (uq/1)
Pollutant
Total Samples
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Chromium
100
226
0.3
6,600
Copper
100
176
10
2,800
Zinc
98
239
3
1,290
Cadmium
98
15
0.1
150
Arsenic
96
23
2
250
Lead
94
44
0.4
250
Mercury
89
1.8
<0.1
12
Antimony
81
83
0.3
730
Nickel
81
92
4
420
Silver
81
12
<0.1
48
Beryllium
79
10
<0.1
85
Thallium
77
48
0.1
800
Selenium
77
13
0.5
100
Cyanide
70
41
<0.1
250
Toluene
68
124
0.4
1,300
Phenol
66
105
0.8
814
Chloroform
64
29
2
180
Tetrachloroethane
60
56
0.4
273
1,1,1-Tri chloroethane
57
188
1
1,377
Trichloroethylene
53
40
3
170
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
49
30
0.9
140
Benzene
47
44
0.4
540
Ethyl benzene
45
63
0.3
640
Di-N-Butyl Phthalate
40
51
1
806
Dichloromethane
38
134
0.6
1,600
Pentachlorophenol
36
117
1
1,700
Napthalene
34
17
<0.1
87
Diethyl Phthalate
32
16
1
62
1,2-Di chlorobenzene
28
17
3
67
1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene
23
28
1
120
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
23
12
0.4
40
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
21
4
<0.1
10
Anthracene
21
6
0.3
10
Phenanthrene
21
6
1
10
61
-------
The highest mean and maximum concentrations were observed for
chromium, copper, and zinc. The range of the total number of
toxic pollutants detected in any given discharge varies from
18 to 92 compounds overall.
To determine compliance of the proposed discharges with EPA
receiving water criteria, priority pollutant concentrations
in the receiving environment are calculated using concentra-
tion data obtained from laboratory analyses of existing effluent
divided by the proposed initial dilution. These figures represent
the concentration of the pollutant in the receiving water immediately
following critical initial dilution. These figures are used
for comparison to EPA water quality criteria. Priority pollutant
concentrations in excess of EPA saltwater criteria following
critical initial dilution for the major discharges are shown
in TABLE 10. Metals were the most common priority pollutant
group exceeding EPA criteria. The total number of toxic pollutants
exceeding EPA criteria after initial dilution in any one discharge
ranged from 0 to 12 compounds.
Of the nine tentatively denied applications, eight exceeded
EPA criteria for one or more priority pollutants; the ninth
submitted insufficient information for compliance determination.
Seven of these applicants requested increased effluent limits
and/or mass emission rates for suspended solids^®. In addition,
seven of the nine tentative denials reported relatively low
initial dilution for both the existing and proposed outfalls.
Analyses of the .majority, of the tentatively denied applications
showed these proposed discharges to have significant potential
for adverse toxic pollutant impacts, even after proposed improve-
ments.
Industrial Pretreatment
Section 301(h)(5) states that "all applicable pretreatment require-
ments for sources introducing waste into such treatment works
will be enforced." The 301(h) regulations provide in 40 CFR
125.64(c) that applicants with known or suspected industrial
sources of toxic pollutants shall have or develop an approved
pretreatment program in accordance with the Agency's general
pretreatment regulations (40 CFR Part 403). The applicant's
proposed program is subject to revision by the Agency prior
to the issuance of a 301(h) modification and during the term
of the 301(h) modification.
36seattle (Duwamish) , WA, did not have an existing discharge to
the ocean, and information provided is not sufficient for inclusion
in these calculations.
62
-------
As part of the 301(h) review process the Agency considers the
status of the applicant's program and also identifies¦toxic
pollutants at levels which raise concerns about potential impacts
to the receiving water quality or ecosystem. Where appropriate,
the approval of a 301(h) modification may be conditioned on
additional steps above and beyond categorical pretreatment require-
ments to control these toxics in order to avoid the potential
for adverse impacts.
Nonindustrial Source Control
Section 301(h)(6) states that "to the extent practicable, the
applicant has established a schedule of activities designed
to eliminate the entrance of toxic pollutants from nonindustrial
sources into such treatment works". The.301(h) regulations
provide in 40 CFR 125.64 (d) that all applicants shall develop
a public education program for nonindustrial source control.
Large applicants (average dry-weather flow greater than 5 mgd)
are to undertake additional steps for nonindustrial source control
designed to minimize the introduction of toxic pollutants from
these sources, to the extent practicable. The applicant1s. non-
industrial source control program is subject to revision as
required by the Agency prior to the issuance of a 301(h) modification
and during the term of the 301(h) modification.
As described in the preceding section on pretreatment, if the
Agency's 301
-------
(13) PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES
Section 301(h)(2) states in part that "such modified requirements
will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of that
water quality which assures protection of public water supplies."
None of the 25 major proposed discharges would impact public
water supplies.
64
-------
CHAPTER III. RESULTS OP THE MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CONSTRUCTION GRANT AMENDMENTS (1981) AND
REVISED 301(h) REGULATIONS (1982)
(1) CHANGES TO THE ACT AND THE 301fh) REMULATIONS
The 301(h) regulations were revised by EPA in 1982 following
five significant actions (FIGURE 18):
o lawsuit results
o Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) Rulemaking petition^
o GAO Report on 301(h)
o statutory changes
o program experience from review of existing applicants
The 1979 regulations were challenged by the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) alleging that the 301(h) regulations
were too lax. The regulations were also challenged by.Pacific
Legal Foundation (PLF) , several municipalities, and Anchorage,
Alaska, alleging that the regulations were too restrictive.
The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals decision fNRDC
v. EPA. 656 F.2d 768 (D.C. Cir.,1981)] upheld the 301 (h) regulations
of 1979, with three exceptions. The Court struck down regulatory
prohibitions against:
o waivers for less-than-primary treated sewage
o sewage sludge
o municipalities achieving secondary treatment
The Court assumed EPA would be flexible on data and monitoring
requirements and enforce its toxics control requirements "with
flexibility and discretion."
37The PLF Rulemaking Petition (September 1981) questioned the
need for regulations to implement section 301(h) and urged
elimination of all major provisions in the regulations and
implementation of program based solely on statutory criteria.
65
-------
Ch
CT»
Figure 18. Inputs to the 1982 301(h) regulations.
-------
Congress subsequently passed the Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grant Amendments of 1981 to amend the Clean Water
Act, changing section 301(h) among other items. Congressional
amendment of section 301(h) was prompted in part by the above
court ruling and by the General Accounting Office (GAO) report
on section 301(h) which urged Congress to provide for an expanded
301(h) program.3®
The statutory amendments expanded the opportunity to apply for
301(h) waivers:
o the application deadline was extended to December 29, 1982,
o the requirement for a pre-existing discharge to marine
water was removed, and
o communities already achieving secondary treatment were
allowed to apply.
In addition, section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act as amended
in 1981 (FIGURE 19) included:
o a statutory provision which prohibited 301(h) waivers autho-
rizing the discharge of sewage sludge was addedf and
o section 301(h)(8) (which dealt with use of Title II construc-
tion grant funds) was deleted, but
o the other seven criteria enumerated in section 301(h) were
not changed.
The 1982 regulatory amendments were issued in two parts—final
amendments and proposed amendments:
o The June 1982 final and immediately effective amendments
responded to mandatory changes resulting from the lawsuit
and statutory changes.
30The General Accounting Office Report on the 301(h) Program
(May 27, 1981) asserted that: (1) the regulations were too
complex for small communities, and suggested that a stratified
approach should be adopted which focused on applicants with
greatest potential harm; and that (2) EPA unfairly limited
eligible communties by allowing only 90 days to submit final
applications, the cost of application was too high, and communities
presently at secondary treatment were unfairly excluded. GAO
estimated there were 800 potential applicants with potential
cost savings of $10 billion capital costs.
67
-------
(h) The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State/
nay issue a permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements
of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section with respect to the
discharge of any pollutant In an owieting discharge from a publicly
owned treatment works into marine waters, if the applicant demon-
strates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that—
(1) there is an applicable water quality standard
specific to the pollutant for which the modification is
requested, which has been identified under section 304(a)(6)
of this Act;
(2) such modified requirements will not interfere
with the attainment or maintenance of that water quality
which.assures protection of public water supplies and the
protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population
of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allows recreational
activities, in and on the water;
(3) the applicant has established a system for monitoring
the impact of such discharge on a representative sample
of aquatic biota, to the extent practicable;
(4) such modified requirements will not result in
any additional requirements on any other point or nonpoint
source;
(5) all applicable pretreatment requirements for
sources introducing waste into such treatment works will
be enforced;
(6) to the extent practicable, the applicant has
established a schedule of activities designed to eliminate
the entrance of toxic pollutants from nonindustrial sources
into such treatment works;
(7) there will be no new or substantially increased
discharges from the point spurce of the pollutant to which
the modification applies above that volume of discharge
specified in the permit.
-4&)—any fundc availablo to the owner of cuoh treatment
workc undot title II of thic Act will bo uccd to aohiovo
the degree ofi effluent rcduotion required by ooction 301(b)
and (g)(3)(A) or to oarry out the requirements—©-£—thic
For the purposes of this subsection the phrase "the discharge
of any pollutant into marine waters" refers to a discharge into
deep waters of the territorial sea or the waters of the contiguous
zone, or into saline estuarine waters where there is strong
tidal movement and other hydrological and geological characteristics
which the Administrator determines necessary to allow compliance
with paragraph (2) of this subsection, and section 101(a)(2)
of this Act. A municipality which applies secondary treatment
shall be eligible to receive a permit pursuant to this subsection
which modifies the requirements of subsection (b) (1) (B) of this
Bection with respect to the discharge of any pollutant from
any treatment works owned by such municipality into marine waters.
Ho permit issued under this subsection shall authorize the discharge
of sewage sludge into marine waters.
Boldface indicates 1981 additions.
Strikeouts indicate 1981 deletions.
Figure 19. Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act (showing
changes made by the 1981 amendments).
68
-------
o The June 1982 proposed amendments were based on program
experience. Many groups which had previously opposed the
1979 regulations indicated general agreement with proposed
amendments. The proposed amendments to the 301(h) regulations
were issued in final, form on November 26, 1982, and wiere
not challenged in courts.
The amendments to the 301(h) regulations were drafted to reflect
the Agency's experience in implementing section 301(h) and are
intended to simplify and provide added flexibility in the application
and regulatory requirements, especially for small dischargers
(flows less than 5 mgd). Changes made by the amended regulations
are highlighted in FIGURE 20.
Important regulatory changes to the 301(h) process include:
o Early involvement by the States in areas related to water
quality compliance and impacts on other sources.
o Applicants were provided with a one-time opportunity to
revise their application after EPA's tentative decision.
The environmental impact criteria were largely unchanged since
experience indicated that such regulatory criteria were sound.
Concurrent with the regulatory amendments, revisions were made
to the 301(h) Technical Support Document, and a technical guidance
document on designing 301(h) monitoring programs was prepared:
o The Revised 301(h) Technical Support Document explains
the technical basis for the regulatory changes and provides
detailed technical guidance on how to complete an appli-
cation. Particular attention was given to assist the needs
of small applicants and step-by-step instructions and simplified
calculation methods were provided for their use.
o The Design of Monitoring Programs provides detailed documen-
tation and guidance for assistance in developing the 301(h)
monitoring programs for modified discharges.
(2) RESPONSE TO THE REVISED REGULATIONS
The 1982 regulations were generally received favorably by reviewing
parties and were not challenged in court.
69
-------
o Application deadline of December 29, 1982:
- Eliminated requirement that applications "on their-face" show
compliance, substituting Increased opportunity to collect and submit
necessary data following application submission.
o Applications may be based on current discharge, Improvements to current
discharge, or reduced treatment from current discharge ("altered"
discharge):
- Removed the requirement for minimum of primary treatment;
- Allowed communities already achieving secondary to apply;
- Retained prohibition against discharge of sewage sludge.
o Provided opportunity for applicants to submit one-time revision to
proposed treatment levels following EPA's tentative decision.
o Simplified data requirements, especially for small applicants (less, than
5 MGD and less than 50,000 population), which were provided with
simplified application format.
o Added flexibility 1n monitoring and toxics control requirement,
especially for small applicants.
o Requirement added for favorable State determination on compliance with
State law and impacts on other sources prior to commencement of EPA
review.
o Regulatory provisions to Implement each of statutory criteria regarding
environmental impacts were left largely unchanged from 1979 regulations.
o Revised Technical Support Document and the Design of Monitoring Programs,
containing advisory guidance on how to assess compliance with 301(h)
criteria, with simplified methods for small applicants.
Figure 20. Highlights of the 1982 regulations implementing
section 301(h).
70
-------
As a result of the reopening of the application period, EPA
received 138 new applications; The geographic locations of
the 1982 applicants are shown in FIGURE 21. By Region:
o 32 new applications were received for Region I - Boston
o 31 new application were received for Region II - New York
o 4 for Region ill - Philadelphia
o 8 for Region IV - Atlanta
o 47 for Region IX - San Francisco
o 16 for Region X - Seattle
EPA has received a total of 208 applications for 301(h) modified
permits, including both 1979 and 1982 applications.
71
-------
¦^1
ro
MARIANAS
1 TRUST TERRITORY OF
| PACIFIC ISLANDS
GUAM
Figure 21. Locations of the 1982 301(h) applicants.
PUERTO RICO
PR 1
VI 1
VIRGIN ISLANDS
WA 13
CA 25
„ Qsmoa
V
v PACIFIC ISLANDS 15
/
FL 7
-------
CHAPTER IV. ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE
(1) DELEGATION
The decisionmaking authority of the Administrator was delegated
to the Regional Administrators in order to distribute the Agency's
workload on such a significantly expanded program. All six
Regions accepted delegation by June, 1983. To provide for program
consistency, Headquarters will provide concurrence on Regional
decisions for the 30 major applications for which tentative
decisions were made by the Administrator. The methodology and
procedure developed by the Task Force in the tentative decisions
for the major applications are to be used in the remaining decisions
by the Regions.
The Delegation Handbook issued in March, 1984, provided guidance
on decision document preparation, application review, and development
of monitoring programs for small applicants, to the Regions
implementing the 301(h) program. The Handbook also provided
response to specific Regional questions on the technical and
administrative aspects of delegated program.
Regional delegation training workshops were conducted in February
and March, 1982. The workshops provided an overview of the
301(h) regulatory criteria and the. review process,* and provided
response to technical questions from the Regions.
National coordination workshops for the Regions have been held
at least twice a year, as of May 1983. At these meetings, technical
information for application review and development of monitoring
programs is disseminated. Resource allocation and review schedules
are also developed involving the Office of Research and Development
and the Regions, as well as the technical support contractor.
The 301(h) Process Flowchart (FIGURE 22) describes the current
process for 301(h) decisions.
(2) ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE IN THE 301(h) PROGRAM — SUMMARY
301(h) regulations were originally promulgated in June 1979
along with the Technical Support Document, which provided technical
guidance to 301(h) applicants on demonstration of compliance
with the regulatory criteria. A technical support contract
was awarded to provide technical assistance for the 301(h) program.
The technical support contractor completed Technical Evaluation
Reports (TERs) and summary document reports on the 70 final
applications.
73
-------
~ APPEALS FROM UNFAVORABLE STATE DETERMINATIONS GO TO STATE. NOT TO EM
•* OFFICE Of RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONTRACTOR
PROVIDE SUPPORT. AS NEEDED
Figure 22. 301(h) process flowchart for new decisions
and revisions.
74
-------
Tentative decisions have been issued on 25 of the largest 1979
applications representing the major municipal wastewater dischargers.
Review of these applications has resulted in a substantial increase
in technical knowledge of potential effects of less-than-secondary
treatment P01W discharges on the marine environment. Technical
knowledge gained during these reviews will be used\ in documents
and future reviews by the 301(h) program.
Revised 301(h) regulations were finalized in November 1982.
The new 301(h) regulations were responsive to changes in the
Clean Water Act and incorporated experience gained by the program.
The regulations were favorably received by commenters and were
not challenged in court. Accompanying the 1982 regulations
were two major guidance documents/ the Revised Section 301(h)
Technical Support Document and the Design of 3 01(h) Monitoring
Programs document.
EPA received 138 applications for 301(h) modified permits following
the 1982 regulations; therefore, a total of 208 applications
have been received.
As of June 1984, EPA has made 94 tentative decisions on 45 percent
of the remaining 301(h) applications (FIGURES 23 and 24). These
94 tentative decisions represent approximately 72 percent of
the total flow of all the 301(h) applications.
Approximately half of those applicants receiving tentative decisions
have indicated their intent to use their one-time revision option.
Eighty percent of these intents to revise are from applicants
issued tentative denials. Twenty-three (23) applicants have
received final denials and will be required to meet secondary
treatment requirements. Five (5) final 301(h) modified permits
have been issued by EPA as of June 1984^9.
Technical knowledge gained from review of the major applications
will be used in the technical review and decisionmaking for
the remaining 301(h) applications. Information derived from
the monitoring programs and from Agency research will further
enhance the Agency's ability to assess and predict environmental
impacts of municipal wastewater discharges.
39Rye, NH; Sitka, AK; Skagway, AK; Whittier, AK? and Wrangell,
AK.
75
-------
WITH-
DRAWN
¦¦ 66
TENTATIVE DECISIONS
SliSftt67%)i
(APPROX. 3870 mgd)
28 7^1
FINAL DECISION*
(5%) (APPROX. 260 mgd)
(12%)
(APPROX.
674 mgd)
106
PENDING
APPLICATIONS
(16%)
(APPROX.
916
mgd)
Figure 23. 301(h) Decision status (June 1984).
DECISIONS: NUMBERS OF APPLICATIONS
8 WITHDRAWN
(4%)
DECISIONS: FLOWS OF APPLICATIONS
TOTAL FLOW: APPROX. 5720 mgd
*301 (h) PERMIT
OR FINAL DENIAL
7
-------
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
KEY:
I I APPLICATIONS
TENTATIVE DECISIONS
REGIONS
m TASK FORCE
FOOTNOTES:
• ORIGINALLY 208 APPLICATIONS.
.8 APPLICANTS SUBSEQUENTLY
WITHDREW.
•• ONE APPLICANT (MONTEREY. CA) OF THE
MAJOR 25 WITHDREW SUBSEQUENT TO
TASK FORCE TENTATIVE DECISION.
200
T=94
REGION
I
REGION
II
REGION
III
REGION
IV
REGION
IX
REGION
X
ATIONAL
TOTAL
Figure 24. Tentative decisions on applications for 301(h) modified permits (June 1984).
-------
CHAPTER V. PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
The following approach is recommended for the future 301(h)
program:
o Regions are to continue application review and decisionmaking.
Headquarters is to provide overview for consistency.
o 301(h) program emphasis is to shift to monitoring data analysis
and compliance determination as the number of 301(h) permits
increase.
o Program is to collaborate with local, state, and other Federal
agencies to better define environmental baseline conditions
in marine waters.
o Research is to be supported to bridge information gaps while
dealing with state-of-the-art issues.
- Development of quantitative cause-effect relationships
of causative agents associated with sewage discharges,
environmental factors, and biological responses.
- Methodology for prediction of particulate distributions
near outfalls to determine the extent of sewage dispersion
and solids deposition.
Evaluation of processes (physical/chemical) affecting particle
settling characteristics for prediction of the initial
distribution of particulates near the outfalls.
o The 301(h) regulations are more stringent with regard to proposed
discharges into saline estuarine waters than for proposed
discharges to open ocean waters.
EPA review of applications which propose discharge into
saline estuaries is to continue to take into account the
major ecological significance of estuaries and the fragile
nature of the estuarine environment.
- Rigorous review of potential adverse impacts due to discharges
with less-than-secondary treatment on these valuable resources
will be conducted in accordance with the stringent 301(h)
regulatory criteria for saline estuaries.
- Review of these applications will also emphasize protection
of these valuable resources through assessment of the potential
of combined effects from other pollutant sources on the
estuarine environment.
78
-------
REFERENCES
Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Discharges
into Marine Waters; Final Rule. 47 Fed. Reg. 53666 November
26, 1982.
Pastorok, Robert A. and Gordon R. Bilyard. 1983. Ecological
Impacts of Sewage Discharges on Coral Reef Communities. Prepared
for USEPA by Tetra Tech, Inc.
USEPA. 1982. Design of 301(h) Monitoring Programs for Municipal
Wastewater Discharges to Marine Waters. 430/9-82-010.
USEPA. 1982. Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document.
430/9-82-011.
79
------- |