national pollutant discharge elimination system (npdes) permit...

Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Coshocton Wastewater Treatment Plant, 2017

of 43

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program

FACT SHEET

Regarding an NPDES Permit To Discharge to Waters of the State of Ohio

For Coshocton Wastewater Treatment Plant

Public Notice No.: 17-12-037 Ohio EPA Permit No.: 0PD00004*LD

Public Notice Date: December 22, 2017 Application No.: OH0024775

Comment Period Ends: January 22, 2018

Name and Address of Facility Where

Name and Address of Applicant: Discharge Occurs:

City of Coshocton Coshocton Wastewater Treatment Plant

760 Chestnut Street 2742 County Road 271

Coshocton, Ohio 43812 Coshocton, Ohio

Coshocton County

Receiving Water: Muskingum River

Subsequent Stream Network: Ohio River

INTRODUCTION

Development of a Fact Sheet for NPDES permits is mandated by Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR), Section 124.8 and 124.56. This document fulfills the requirements established in those regulations by

providing the information necessary to inform the public of actions proposed by the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), as well as the methods by which the public can participate in the process of

finalizing those actions.

This Fact Sheet is prepared in order to document the technical basis and risk management decisions that are

considered in the determination of water quality based NPDES Permit effluent limitations. The technical basis

for the Fact Sheet may consist of evaluations of promulgated effluent guidelines, existing effluent quality,

instream biological, chemical and physical conditions, and the relative risk of alternative effluent limitations.

This Fact Sheet details the discretionary decision-making process empowered to the Director by the Clean

Water Act (CWA) and Ohio Water Pollution Control Law (Ohio Revised Code [ORC] 6111). Decisions to

award variances to Water Quality Standards (WQS) or promulgated effluent guidelines for economic or

technological reasons will also be justified in the Fact Sheet where necessary.

No antidegradation review was necessary.

Effluent limits based on available treatment technologies are required by Section 301(b) of the CWA. Many of

these have already been established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in the

effluent guideline regulations (a.k.a. categorical regulations) for industry categories in 40 CFR Parts 405-499.

Technology-based regulations for publicly-owned treatment works are listed in the Secondary Treatment

Regulations (40 CFR Part 133). If regulations have not been established for a category of dischargers, the

director may establish technology-based limits based on best professional judgment (BPJ).


of 43

Ohio EPA reviews the need for water-quality-based limits on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Wasteload

allocations (WLAs) are used to develop these limits based on the pollutants that have been detected in the

discharge, and the receiving water’s assimilative capacity. The assimilative capacity depends on the flow in the

water receiving the discharge, and the concentration of the pollutant upstream. The greater the upstream flow,

and the lower the upstream concentration, the greater the assimilative capacity is. Assimilative capacity may

represent dilution (as in allocations for metals), or it may also incorporate the break-down of pollutants in the

receiving water (as in allocations for oxygen-demanding materials).

The need for water-quality-based limits is determined by comparing the WLA for a pollutant to a measure of the

effluent quality. The measure of effluent quality is called Projected Effluent Quality (PEQ). This is a statistical

measure of the average and maximum effluent values for a pollutant. As with any statistical method, the more

data that exists for a given pollutant, the more likely that PEQ will match the actual observed data. If there is a

small data set for a given pollutant, the highest measured value is multiplied by a statistical factor to obtain a

PEQ; for example, if only one sample exists, the factor is 6.2, for two samples - 3.8, for three samples - 3.0. The

factors continue to decline as samples sizes increase. These factors are intended to account for effluent

variability, but if the pollutant concentrations are fairly constant, these factors may make PEQ appear larger than

it would be shown to be if more sample results existed.

SUMMARY OF PERMIT CONDITIONS

The effluent limits and monitoring requirements proposed for the following parameters are the same as in the

previous permit, although some monitoring frequencies have changed: flow, temperature, dissolved oxygen,

total suspended solids, oil and grease, ammonia, nitrite plus nitrate, total phosphorus, free cyanide, nickel, silver,

zinc, cadmium, lead, chromium, copper, dissolved hexavalent chromium, E. coli, total residual chlorine, total

low level mercury, acute toxicity, pH, total filterable residue, and CBOD.

New monitoring is proposed for dissolved orthophosphate. This monitoring is required by Ohio Senate Bill 1,

which was signed by the Governor on April 2, 2015. Monitoring for orthophosphate is proposed for further

develop nutrient datasets for dissolved reactive phosphorus and to assist stream and watershed assessments and

studies.

New monitoring requirements are proposed for arsenic and selenium at outfall 001 and 601. Additional data is

needed to evaluate its status in the Coshocton effluent.

Annual acute toxicity monitoring is proposed for the life of the permit. This satisfies the minimum testing

requirements of Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3754-33-07(B)(11) and will adequately characterize toxicity

in the plant’s effluent.

This permit no longer authorizes the use of method 4500 CN-I from Standard Methods for free cyanide testing.

As soon as possible, the permittee must begin using either ASTM D7237-10 or OIA-1677-09 both of which are

approved methods for free cyanide listed in 40 CFR 136.

To ensure that data is obtained that allows Ohio EPA to make water quality-related decisions regarding,

cadmium, selenium, silver, and lead; a special condition is proposed in Part II of the permit that provides

guidance on the analytical method detection limits (MDLs) the permittee should use in analyzing for these

contaminants.

In Part II of the permit, special conditions are included that address sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) reporting;

operator certification, minimum staffing and operator of record; whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing; storm

water compliance; and outfall signage.


of 43

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Summary of Permit Conditions ............................................................................................................................... 2

Procedures for Participation in the Formulation of Final Determinations .............................................................. 5

Information Regarding Certain Water Quality Based Effluent Limits ................................................................... 5

Location of Discharge/Receiving Water Use Classification ................................................................................... 7

Facility Description ................................................................................................................................................ 7

Description of Existing Discharge .......................................................................................................................... 8

Assessment of Impact on Receiving Waters ........................................................................................................... 8

Developments of Water-Quality-Based Effluent Limits ......................................................................................... 9

Reasonable Potential/Effluent Limits/Hazard Management Decisions ................................................................ 12

Other Requirements .............................................................................................................................................. 14

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of Coshocton WWTP .............................................................................................................. 17

Figure 2. Diagram of Wastewater Treatment System ........................................................................................... 18

Figure 3. Sewage Sludge Treatment Diagram ...................................................................................................... 19

Figure 4. Muskingum River Study Area ............................................................................................................... 20

List of Tables

Table 1. Sewage Sludge Removal ......................................................................................................................... 21

Table 2. Effluent Violations for Outfall 001 ....................................................................................................... 211

Table 3. Average Annual Effluent Flow Rates ................................................................................................... 210

Table 4. Sanitary Sewer Overflows Discharges .................................................................................................. 211

Table 5. Effluent Characterization Using Pretreatment Data ................................................................................ 22

Table 6. Effluent Characterization Using Ohio EPA data ..................................................................................... 23

Table 7. Effluent Characterization Using Self-Monitoring Data .......................................................................... 24

Table 8. Projected Effluent Quality for Outfall 001 .............................................................................................. 26

Table 9. Summary of Acute Toxicity Results ....................................................................................................... 28

Table 10. Ohio EPA Toxicity Screening Results for Outfall 001 ......................................................................... 28

Table 11. Use Attainment Table ........................................................................................................................... 29

Table 12. Water Quality Criteria in the Study Area .............................................................................................. 30

Table 13. Instream Conditions and Discharger Flow ............................................................................................ 32

Table 14. Summary of Effluent Limits to Maintain Applicable Water Quality Criteria ....................................... 35

Table 15. Parameter Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 37


of 43

Table 16. Final Effluent Limits for Outfall 001 .................................................................................................... 39

List of Attachments

Attachment 1. Mercury Data from Pollutant Minimization Program ................................................................... 41

List of Addendums

Addendum 1. Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... 43


of 43

PROCEDURES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMULATION OF FINAL DETERMINATIONS

The draft action shall be issued as a final action unless the Director revises the draft after consideration of the

record of a public meeting or written comments, or upon disapproval by the Administrator of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

Within thirty days of the date of the Public Notice, any person may request or petition for a public meeting for

presentation of evidence, statements or opinions. The purpose of the public meeting is to obtain additional

evidence. Statements concerning the issues raised by the party requesting the meeting are invited. Evidence

may be presented by the applicant, the state, and other parties, and following presentation of such evidence other

interested persons may present testimony of facts or statements of opinion.

Requests for public meetings shall be in writing and shall state the action of the Director objected to, the

questions to be considered, and the reasons the action is contested. Such requests should be addressed to:

Legal Records Section

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

P.O. Box 1049

Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments upon the discharge permit. Comments should be

submitted in person or by mail no later than 30 days after the date of this Public Notice. Deliver or mail all

comments to:


Attention: Division of Surface Water

Permits Processing Unit

P.O. Box 1049


The Ohio EPA permit number and Public Notice numbers should appear on each page of any submitted

comments. All comments received no later than 30 days after the date of the Public Notice will be considered.

Citizens may conduct file reviews regarding specific companies or sites. Appointments are necessary to conduct

file reviews, because requests to review files have increased dramatically in recent years. The first 250 pages

copied are free. For requests to copy more than 250 pages, there is a five-cent charge for each page copied.

Payment is required by check or money order, made payable to Treasurer State of Ohio.

For additional information about this fact sheet or the draft permit, contact Emily Poling, (740) 380 – 5425,

[email protected].

INFORMATION REGARDING CERTAIN WATER QUALITY BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS

This draft permit may contain proposed water-quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) for parameters that are

not priority pollutants. (See the following link for a list of the priority pollutants:

http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/pretreatment/Pretreatment_Program_Priority_Pollutant_Detection_Limits.pdf .)

In accordance with ORC 6111.03(J)(3), the Director established these WQBELs after considering, to the extent

consistent with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, evidence relating to the technical feasibility and

economic reasonableness of removing the polluting properties from those wastes and to evidence relating to

conditions calculated to result from that action and their relation to benefits to the people of the state and to

accomplishment of the purposes of this chapter. This determination was made based on data and information

http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/pretreatment/Pretreatment_Program_Priority_Pollutant_Detection_Limits.pdf


of 43

available at the time the permit was drafted, which included the contents of the timely submitted NPDES permit

renewal application, along with any and all pertinent information available to the Director.

This public notice allows the permittee to provide to the Director for consideration during this public comment

period additional site-specific pertinent and factual information with respect to the technical feasibility and

economic reasonableness for achieving compliance with the proposed final effluent limitations for these

parameters. The permittee shall deliver or mail this information to:


Attention: Division of Surface Water

Permits Processing Unit

P.O. Box 1049


Should the applicant need additional time to review, obtain or develop site-specific pertinent and factual

information with respect to the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of achieving compliance with

these limitations, written notification for any additional time shall be sent to the above address no later than 30

days after the Public Notice Date on Page 1.

Should the applicant determine that compliance with the proposed WQBELs for parameters other than the

priority pollutants is technically and/or economically unattainable, the permittee may submit an application for a

variance to the applicable WQS used to develop the proposed effluent limitation in accordance with the terms

and conditions set forth in OAC 3745-33-07(D). The permittee shall submit this application to the above

address no later than 30 days after the Public Notice Date.

Alternately, the applicant may propose the development of site-specific WQS pursuant to OAC 3745-1-39. The

permittee shall submit written notification regarding their intent to develop site specific WQS for parameters

that are not priority pollutants to the above address no later than 30 days after the Public Notice Date.


of 43

LOCATION OF DISCHARGE/RECEIVING WATER USE CLASSIFICATION

The Coshocton WWTP discharges to the Muskingum River at River Mile 108.56, downstream from the

confluence of the Tuscarawas and Walhondling River. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the facility.

The Muskingum River ultimately flows into the Ohio River.

This segment of the Muskingum River is described by Ohio EPA River Code: 17-001, Hydrologic Unit Code:

05040004-071, County: Coshocton, Ecoregion: West Allegheny Plateau. The Muskingum River is designated

for the following uses under Ohio’s WQS (OAC 3745-1-07): Warmwater Habitat (WWH), Agricultural Water

Supply (AWS), Industrial Water Supply (IWS), and Primary Contact Recreation (PCR).

Use designations define the goals and expectations of a waterbody. These goals are set for aquatic life

protection, recreation use and water supply use, and are defined in the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-1-07). The use

designations for individual waterbodies are listed in rules -08 through -32 of the Ohio WQS. Once the goals are

set, numeric WQS are developed to protect these uses. Different uses have different water quality criteria.

Use designations for aquatic life protection include habitats for coldwater fish and macroinvertebrates,

warmwater aquatic life and waters with exceptional communities of warmwater organisms. These uses all meet

the goals of the federal CWA. Ohio WQS also include aquatic life use designations for waterbodies which

cannot meet the CWA goals because of human-caused conditions that cannot be remedied without causing

fundamental changes to land use and widespread economic impact. The dredging and clearing of some small

streams to support agricultural or urban drainage is the most common of these conditions. These streams are

given Modified Warmwater or Limited Resource Water designations.

Recreation uses are defined by the depth of the waterbody and the potential for wading or swimming. Uses are

defined for bathing waters, swimming/canoeing (Primary Contact Recreation) and wading only (Secondary

Contact which are generally waters too shallow for swimming or canoeing).

Water supply uses are defined by the actual or potential use of the waterbody. Public Water Supply

designations apply near existing water intakes so that waters are safe to drink with standard treatment. Most

other waters are designated for agricultural water supply and industrial water supply.

FACILITY DESCRIPTION

The Coshocton WWTP was constructed in 1954 and last upgraded in 2016. The average design flow is 4.4

million gallons per day (MGD) and the peak hydraulic capacity is 10.6 MGD. The Coshocton WWTP serves

the City of Coshocton. The Coshocton WWTP has the following treatment processes which are shown on

Figure 2:

• Influent pumping

• Bar screening

• Grit removal

• Scum removal

• Primary sedimentation or clarification (three settling tanks)

• Trickling filter

• Secondary clarification (three final settling tanks)

• Chlorination

• Dechlorination

The City of Coshocton has 100% separated sewers in the collection system.

The City of Coshocton does have an approved pretreatment program. Based on information from their 2017

NPDES renewal application, the City of Coshocton has 8 industrial users including 1 categorical facility and 7


of 43

significant non-categorical facilities that collectively discharge approximately 0.210 MGD to the Coshocton

WWTP.

The City of Coshocton’s potable water comes from ground water.

The Coshocton WWTP utilizes the following sewage sludge treatment processes (Figure 3):

• Anaerobic Digestion

• Mechanical dewatering-filter press

• Digester gas utilization

Treated sludge is land applied. Table 1 shows the last five years of sludge removed from the Coshocton

WWTP.

The City of Coshocton is covered under the following additional NPDES permit(s): MS4 storm water general

permit 0GQ00013*BG.

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING DISCHARGE

The Coshocton WWTP had several effluent violations which are shown on Table 2.

The City of Coshocton has an estimated infiltration/inflow (I/I) rate of 1.6 MGD. The average annual effluent

flow rate for the Coshocton WWTP for the previous five years is presented on Table 3

The City of Coshocton reports SSOs at station 300. The number of SSOs and dates recorded is presented on

Table 4.

Under the provisions of 40 CFR 122.21(j), the Director has waived the requirement for submittal of expanded

effluent testing data as part of the NPDES renewal application. Ohio EPA has access to substantially identical

information through the submission of annual pretreatment program reports and/or from Ohio EPA effluent

testing conducted.

Table 5 presents chemical specific data compiled from data reported in annual pretreatment reports.

Table 6 presents chemical specific data compiled from data collected by Ohio EPA.

Table 7 presents a summary of unaltered Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). Data are presented for the

period of January 2012 to April 2017, and current permit limits are provided for comparison.

Table 8 summarizes the chemical specific data for outfall 001 by presenting the average and maximum PEQ

values.

Table 9 summarizes the results of acute WET tests of the final effluent.

Table 10 summarizes the screening results of Ohio EPA bioassay sampling of the final effluent.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ON RECEIVING WATERS

The Muskingum River watershed assessment unit, which includes the Muskingum River, Tuscarawas River, and

Walhonding River in the vicinity of City of Coshocton, is not listed as impaired on Ohio’s 303(d) list.


of 43

The attainment status of the Muskingum river Watershed is reported as Full Attainment of the WWH use

designation both upstream and downstream of the Coshocton WWTP in the Final Ohio 2016 Integrated Water

Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. An assessment of the impact of a permitted point source on the

immediate receiving waters includes an evaluation of the available chemical/physical, biological, and habitat

data which have been collected by Ohio EPA pursuant to the Five-Year Basin Approach for Monitoring and

NPDES Reissuance. Other data may be used provided it was collected in accordance with Ohio EPA methods

and protocols as specified by the Ohio WQS and Ohio EPA guidance documents. Other information which may

be evaluated includes, but is not limited to: NPDES permittee self-monitoring data; effluent and mixing zone

bioassays conducted by Ohio EPA, the permittee, or U.S. EPA.

In evaluating this data, Ohio EPA attempts to link environmental stresses and measured pollutant exposure to

the health and diversity of biological communities. Stresses can include pollutant discharges (permitted and

unpermitted), land use effects, and habitat modifications. Indicators of exposure to these stresses include whole

effluent toxicity tests, fish tissue chemical data, and fish health biomarkers (for example, fish blood tests).

Use attainment is a term which describes the degree to which environmental indicators are either above or below

criteria specified by the Ohio WQS (OAC 3745-1). Assessing use attainment status for aquatic life uses

primarily relies on the Ohio EPA biological criteria (OAC 3745-1-07; Table 7-1). These criteria apply to rivers

and streams outside of mixing zones. Numerical biological criteria are based on measuring several

characteristics of the fish and macroinvertebrate communities; these characteristics are combined into

multimetric biological indices including the Index of Biotic Integrity and modified Index of Well-Being, which

indicate the response of the fish community, and the Invertebrate Community Index, which indicates the

response of the macroinvertebrate community. Numerical criteria are broken down by ecoregion, use

designation, and stream or river size. Ohio has five ecoregions defined by common topography, land use,

potential vegetation and soil type.

Three attainment status results are possible at each sampling location -full, partial, or non-attainment. Full

attainment means that all of the applicable indices meet the biocriteria. Partial attainment means that one or

more of the applicable indices fails meet the biocriteria. Nonattainment means that either none of the applicable

indices meet the biocriteria or one of the organism groups indicates poor or very poor performance. An aquatic

life use attainment table (see Table 11) is constructed based on the sampling results and is arranged from

upstream to downstream and includes the sampling locations indicated by river mile, the applicable biological

indices, the use attainment status (i.e., full, partial, or non), the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index, and

comments and observations for each sampling location.

DEVELOPMENT OF WATER-QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS

Determining appropriate effluent concentrations is a multiple-step process in which parameters are identified as

likely to be discharged by a facility, evaluated with respect to Ohio water quality criteria, and examined to

determine the likelihood that the existing effluent could violate the calculated limits.

Parameter Selection

Effluent data for the Coshocton WWTP were used to determine what parameters should undergo WLA. The

parameters discharged are identified by the data available to Ohio EPA, DMR data submitted by the permittee,

compliance sampling data collected by Ohio EPA, and any other data submitted by the permittee, such as

priority pollutant scans required by the NPDES application or by pretreatment, or other special conditions in the

NPDES permit. The sources of effluent data used in this evaluation are as follows:

Self-monitoring data (DMR) February 2012 through February 2017

Pretreatment data 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016

Ohio EPA compliance sampling data 2015

Ohio EPA bioassay sampling data 2015


of 43

Statistical Outliers and Other Non-representative Data

The data were examined and the following values were removed from the evaluation as non-representative data:

Total filterable residue – 6.34 mg/L on 7/7/15, the reason for this exclusion was the value being 3 orders of

magnitude less than other reported data and a possible error; Mercury – 51.1 ng/L on 4/6/2015, 1.1 ng/L on

6/2/2015, 48.1 ng/L on 6/8/16, 95.2 ng/L on 7/6/16, and 45.9 ng/L on 9/7/16, the reason for these exclusions

were WWTP staff not following proper sample procedures prior to December 2016 and the values in questions

are well outside the range of other detections.

This data is evaluated statistically, and PEQ values are calculated for each pollutant. Average PEQ (PEQavg)

values represent the 95th percentile of monthly average data, and maximum PEQ (PEQmax) values represent the

95th percentile of all data points (see Table 8).

The PEQ values are used according to Ohio rules to compare to applicable WQS and allowable WLA values for

each pollutant evaluated. Initially, PEQ values are compared to the applicable average and maximum WQS. If

both PEQ values are less than 25 percent of the applicable WQS, the pollutant does not have the reasonable

potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of WQS, and no WLA is done for that parameter. If either

PEQavg or PEQmax is greater than 25 percent of the applicable WQS, a WLA is conducted to determine whether

the parameter exhibits reasonable potential and needs to have a limit or if monitoring is required (see Table 12).

Wasteload Allocation

For those parameters that require a WLA, the results are based on the uses assigned to the receiving waterbody

in OAC 3745-1. Dischargers are allocated pollutant loadings/concentrations based on the Ohio WQS (OAC

3745-1). Most pollutants are allocated by a mass-balance method because they do not break down in the

receiving water. For free flowing streams, WLAs using this method are done using the following general

equation: Discharger WLA = (downstream flow x WQS) - (upstream flow x background concentration).

Discharger WLAs are divided by the discharge flow so that the allocations are expressed as concentrations.

The following dischargers to the Muskingum River were considered interactive (see Figure 4):

• WestRock CP Outfalls 002, 003, 004

• Coshocton WWTP

• AK Steel – Coshocton Works

• AEP Conesville Plant

The WestRock CP, Coshocton WWTP, AK Steel – Coshocton Works, and AEP Conesville Plant outfalls were

allocated together for most parameters due to the size of the plant discharges, the flows of the Muskingum

River, and the relatively close proximity of the discharge points. The exception was the wasteload allocations

(WLAs) for ammonia-N toxicity, which were done separately for each facility because ammonia-N is

considered a non-conservative parameter.

The available assimilative capacity was distributed among them using the conservative substance wasteload

allocation (CONSWLA) water quality model for conservative parameters. CONSWLA is the model Ohio EPA

typically uses in multiple discharger situations. CONSWLA model inputs for flow are fixed at their critical low

levels and inputs for effluent flow are fixed at their design or 50th percentile levels. Background concentrations

are fixed at a representative value (generally a 50th percentile). A mass balancing method is then used to

allocate effluent concentrations that maintain WQS under these conditions. This technique is appropriate when

data bases are unavailable to generate statistical distributions for inputs and if the parameters modeled are

conservative.

The applicable waterbody uses for this facility’s discharge and the associated stream design flows are as

follows:

Aquatic life (Warmwater Habitat)


of 43

Toxics (metals, organics, etc.) Average Annual 7Q10

Maximum Annual 1Q10

Ammonia Average Summer 30Q10

Winter 30Q10

Wildlife Annual 90Q10

Agricultural Water Supply Harmonic mean flow

Human Health (nondrinking) Harmonic mean flow

The applicable waterbody uses for this facility’s discharge to the Ohio River and the associated stream design

flows are as follows:

Aquatic life (Warmwater Habitat)

Toxics (metals, organics, etc.) Average 10% of annual 7Q10

Maximum 1% of annual 1Q10

Agricultural Water Supply 10% of harmonic mean flow

Human Health (carcinogens) 10% of harmonic mean flow

Human Health (non-carcinogens) 100% of 7Q10

Allocations are developed using a percentage of stream design flow as specified in Table 13, and allocations

cannot exceed the Inside Mixing Zone Maximum (IMZM) criteria.

The data used in the WLA are listed in Table 12 and Table 13. The WLA results to maintain all applicable

criteria are presented in Table 14.

Whole Effluent Toxicity Wasteload Allocation

WET is the total toxic effect of an effluent on aquatic life measured directly with a toxicity test. Acute WET

measures short term effects of the effluent while chronic WET measures longer term and potentially more subtle

effects of the effluent.

WQS for WET are expressed in Ohio’s narrative “free from” WQS rule [OAC 3745-1-04(D)]. These “free

froms” are translated into toxicity units (TUs) by the associated WQS Implementation Rule (OAC 3745-2-09).

WLAs can then be calculated using TUs as if they were water quality criteria.

The WLA calculations for WET are similar to those for aquatic life criteria - using the chronic toxicity unit

(TUc) and 7Q10 flow for the average and the acute toxicity unit (TUa) and 1Q10 flow for the maximum. These

values are the levels of effluent toxicity that should not cause instream toxicity during critical low-flow

conditions. For the Coshocton WWTP, the WLA values are 1.0 TUa and 77.91 TUc.

The chronic toxicity unit (TUc) is defined as 100 divided by the estimate of the effluent concentration which

causes a 25% reduction in growth or reproduction of test organisms (IC25):

TUc = 100/IC25

This equation applies outside the mixing zone for warmwater, modified warmwater, exceptional warmwater,

coldwater, and seasonal salmonid use designations except when the following equation is more restrictive

(Ceriodaphnia dubia only):

TUc = 100/geometric mean of No Observed Effect Concentration and Lowest Observed Effect Concentration

The acute toxicity unit (TUa) is defined as 100 divided by the concentration in water having 50% chance of

causing death to aquatic life (LC50) for the most sensitive test species:

TUa = 100/LC50


of 43

This equation applies outside the mixing zone for warmwater, modified warmwater, exceptional warmwater,

coldwater, and seasonal salmonid use designations.

REASONABLE POTENTIAL/EFFLUENT LIMITS/MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

After appropriate effluent limits are calculated, the reasonable potential of the discharger to violate the WQS

must be determined. Each parameter is examined and placed in a defined "group". Parameters that do not have

a WQS or do not require a WLA based on the initial screening are assigned to either group 1 or 2. For the

allocated parameters, the preliminary effluent limits (PEL) based on the most restrictive average and maximum

WLAs are selected from Table 14. The average PEL (PELavg) is compared to the average PEQ (PEQavg) from

, and the PELmax is compared to the PEQmax. Based on the calculated percentage of the allocated value [(PEQavg

÷ PELavg) X 100, or (PEQmax ÷ PELmax) X 100)], the parameters are assigned to group 3, 4, or 5. The groupings

are listed in Table 15.

The final effluent limits are determined by evaluating the groupings in conjunction with other applicable rules

and regulations. Table 16 presents the final effluent limits and monitoring requirements proposed for the

Coshocton WWTP outfall 001 and the basis for their recommendation. Unless otherwise indicated, the

monitoring frequencies proposed in the permit are continued from the existing permit.

Water Temperature and Flow Rate

Monitoring for these parameters is proposed to continue in order to evaluate the performance of the treatment

plant.

Total Suspended Solids and 5-day Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand

The limits proposed for total suspended solids, and 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand are all

based on plant design criteria. The limits recommended for total suspended solids, ammonia, and 5-day

carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand are technology-based treatment standards included in 40 CFR Part

133, Secondary Treatment Regulation. Secondary treatment is defined by the Best Practicable Waste Treatment

Technology criteria, which are minimum standards required of all publicly owned treatment works. These limits

are protective of WQS. For a facility required to meet secondary treatment standards, monitoring of ammonia-N

and dissolved oxygen is appropriate and is proposed.

Dissolved Oxygen and Ammonia

Monitoring for dissolved oxygen and ammonia is proposed to continue in order to evaluate the performance of

the treatment plant.

Oil and Grease, pH, Phosphorus and Escherichia coli

Limits proposed for oil and grease, pH, and Escherichia coli are based on WQS (OAC 3745-1-35 and 37).

Primary contact recreation E. coli standards apply to the Muskingum River.

Total Residual Chlorine

It is proposed that the existing permit limit, which is based on WLA (Table 15), for total residual chlorine be

continued. These limits are protective of WQS.

Low level Mercury

The Ohio EPA risk assessment (Table 15) places mercury in group 5. This placement as well as data in Tables

1, 2, and 5 indicate that the reasonable potential to exceed WQS exists and limits are necessary to protect water

quality.

Mercury Variance

To comply with mercury limits, the Coshocton WWTP has applied for coverage under the individual mercury

variance, OAC 3745-33-07(D)(10). Based on the results of low-level mercury monitoring, the permittee has


of 43

determined that its facility cannot meet the 30-day average WQBEL of 12 ng/l. The permittee believes that the

plant will not be able to achieve an annual average mercury effluent concentration of 12 ng/L without plant

upgrades. The incomplete variance application did not demonstrate to the satisfaction of Ohio EPA that there is

no readily apparent means of complying with the WQBEL without constructing prohibitively expensive end-of-

pipe controls for mercury. Based on these factors, the permittee is not eligible for coverage under the individual

mercury variance.

Ohio EPA has reviewed the mercury variance application and has determined that it does not meet all the

requirements of the OAC 3745-33-07 (D). The following requirements were not met:

• A requirement that the permittee make reasonable progress to meet the WQBEL for mercury by

implementing the plan of study, which has been developed as part of the Pollutant Minimization

Program (PMP); Influent outfall 601 data submission does not reflect reasonable progress in mercury

reduction implementation for removing mercury from the sewerage system.

• Low level mercury sampling methods were found invalid due to improper sampling techniques. The

requirement to use an approved USEPA analytical method that is capable of quantifying the applicable

water quality standard was not followed.

Ohio EPA has reviewed the mercury variance application and has incorporated the following requirements into

the permit:

- Coshocton WWTP make reasonable progress to meet the water-quality-based effluent limit for mercury by

implementing the plan of study which has been developed as part of the pollutant minimization program; This

PMP shall continue to evaluate sources and implement source control strategies.

- Coshocton WWTP implement the Dental Amalgam Rule 40 CFR 441.

The City may apply for a variance by submitting a completed mercury variance application per 3745-33-

07 (D) of the Ohio Administrative Code. Ohio EPA would then review the completed application, and if

approved, would proceed to modify the permit to incorporate variance-based mercury limits and

conditions associated with the mercury variance. Coshocton WWTP is required to submit a mercury

variance application (if needed) no later than 24 months after the effective date of the permit. If the

Coshocton WWTP does not apply for a mercury variance and the permit is not modified, WQBELs for

mercury will become effective 24 months from the effective date of the permit.

In 2017, Coshocton WWTP began following proper QA/QC sampling techniques for low level mercury at

outfall 001. Prior to 2017, low level mercury sampling data was collected using incorrect sampling

techniques causing outliers to be introduced into mercury data sets used to evaluate WQBEL compliance.

A 24 month compliance schedule is proposed to provide additional monthly mercury data collection and

evaluation to determine compliance with the WQBEL. Collecting and analyzing the samples for mercury

must be performed using U.S. EPA Method 1631 or 245.7.

Nitrate+Nitrite-N, Total Phosphorus

Based on best technical judgment (BTJ), monitoring is proposed to continue for the following nutrient-related

parameters: nitrate-nitrite-N, and total phosphorus. The purpose of the monitoring is to maintain a data set on a

point source nutrient load discharged to the receiving water.

Monitoring for phosphorus and nitrate+nitrite at the upstream and downstream stations is proposed to continue.

The purpose of the monitoring is to maintain a nutrient data set for use in future water quality studies.

Dissolved Orthophosphate

New monthly monitoring is proposed for dissolved orthophosphate (as P). This monitoring is required by Ohio

Senate Bill 1, which was signed by the Governor on April 2, 2015. Monitoring for orthophosphate is proposed

to further develop nutrient datasets for dissolved reactive phosphorus and to assist stream and watershed


of 43

assessments and studies. Since Ohio EPA monitoring, as well as other in-stream monitoring, is taken via grab

sample, orthophosphate is proposed to be collected by grab sample to maintain consistent date to support

watershed and stream surveys. Monitoring will be done by grab sample, which must be filtered within 15

minutes of collection using a 0.45-micron filter. The filtered sample must be analyzed within 48 hours.

Arsenic, Cadmium, Chloroform, Chromium, Dichloromethane, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Silver and

Strontium

The Ohio EPA risk assessment (Table 15) places these parameters in group 2. This placement supports that

these parameters do not have the reasonable potential to contribute to WQS exceedances, and limits are not

necessary to protect water quality. Monitoring at low frequency is proposed for arsenic, cadmium, chromium,

nickel, nitrate+nitrite, selenium, and silver to document that these pollutants continue to remain at low levels.

No new monitoring is proposed for chloroform, dichloromethane, molybdenum, and strontium.

Barium, Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, Hexavalent Chromium, Copper, Free Cyanide, Iron, Lead, Total

filterable Residue, and Zinc.

The Ohio EPA risk assessment (Table 15) places these parameters in group 3. This placement supports that

these parameters do not have the reasonable potential to contribute to WQS exceedances, and limits are not

necessary to protect water quality. Monitoring at low frequency is proposed for copper, lead, and zinc.

Monitoring at a frequency of 1/month is proposed for free cyanide, hexavalent chromium, and total filterable

residue to document that these pollutants continue to remain at low levels. No new monitoring is proposed for

barium, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, and iron.

Whole Effluent Toxicity Reasonable Potential

Based on evaluating the WET data presented in TTable 8 and other pertinent data under the provisions of OAC

3745-33-07(B), the Coshocton WWTP is placed in Category 4 with respect to WET. While this indicated that

the plant’s effluent does not currently pose a toxicity problem, annual testing is proposed consistent with the

minimum monitoring requirements at OAC 3745-33-07 (B)(11). Annual acute toxicity testing for Ceriodaphnia

dubia and Pimephales promelas is proposed for the duration of the permit. The proposed monitoring will

adequately characterize toxicity in the plant’s effluent.

Additional Monitoring Requirements

New monitoring for arsenic, molybdenum, and selenium is being proposed at the influent monitoring station 601

because Coshocton implements an approved pretreatment program, and these parameters the city must evaluate

as part of the local limit technical justification. Quarterly monitoring is proposed. Monitoring for dissolved

oxygen, total suspended solids, total cyanide, nickel, silver, zinc, cadmium, lead, chromium, copper, hexavalent

chromium, mercury, pH(max. and min.), and cBOD at station 601 is proposed to continue.

Monitoring for temperature, total suspended solids, ammonia, flow rate, pH(max. and min.), and cBOD at

stations 602 is proposed to continue. The purpose of the monitoring is to evaluate the bioethane pretreatment

plant effluent.

Additional monitoring requirements proposed at the final effluent, influent and upstream/downstream stations

are included for all facilities in Ohio and vary according to the type and size of the discharge. In addition to

permit compliance, this data is used to assist in the evaluation of effluent quality and treatment plant

performance and for designing plant improvements and conducting future stream studies.

Sludge

Limits and monitoring requirements proposed for the disposal of sewage sludge by the following management

practices are based on OAC 3745-40: land application, removal to sanitary landfill or transfer to another facility

with an NPDES permit.


of 43

OTHER REQUIREMENTS

Compliance Schedule – Part I, C.

Pretreatment Local Limits Review

A 6 month compliance schedule is proposed for the City to submit a technical justification for either revising its

local industrial user limits or retaining its existing local limits. If revisions to local limits are required, the City

must also submit a pretreatment program modification request. Details are in Part I.C of the permit.

Mercury Variance Evaluation

The permittee may evaluate the need for a mercury variance if determined that proper mercury sampling, data

evaluation, and compliance meet the requirements set forth in 3745-33-07 (D) of the Ohio Administrative Code.

The City shall demonstrate significant progress in identifying and implementing source reduction of mercury at

the WWTP. A 6 month compliance schedule is proposed for the city to demonstrate an effective plan for

implementation of the Dental Amalgam Rule 40 CFR 441. In 2017, the city sampled septic truck wastewater for

low level mercury. These results indicated that hauler sources introduce significant amounts of low level

mercury at the wastewater treatment plant. The city has also continued to sample the collection system to

identify the location of mercury sources for reduction.

Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting

Provisions for reporting SSOs are again proposed in this permit. These provisions include: the reporting of the

system-wide number of SSO occurrences on monthly operating reports; telephone notification of Ohio EPA and

the local health department, and 5-day follow up written reports for certain high risk SSOs; and preparation of

an annual report that is submitted to Ohio EPA and made available to the public. Many of these provisions were

already required under the “Noncompliance Notification”, “Records Retention”, and “Facility Operation and

Quality Control” general conditions in Part III of Ohio NPDES permits.

Operator Certification and Operator of Record

Operator certification requirements have been included in Part II of the permit in accordance with rules adopted

in December 2006 (OAC 3745-7-02). These rules require the Coshocton WWTP to have a Class III wastewater

treatment plant operator in charge of the sewage treatment plant operations discharging through outfall 001.

These rules also require the permittee to designate one or more operator of record to oversee the technical

operation of the treatment works and sewerage system.

Low-Level Free Cyanide Testing

Currently there are two approved methods for free cyanide listed in 40 CFR 136.3 that have quantification levels

lower than any water quality-based effluent limits:

- ASTM D7237-10 and OIA-1677-09 - Flow injection followed by gas diffusion amperometry

These methods will allow Ohio EPA to make more reliable water quality-related decisions regarding free

cyanide. Because the quantification levels are lower than any water quality-based effluent limits, it will also be

possible to directly evaluate compliance with free cyanide limits.

New NPDES permits no longer authorize the use of method 4500 CN-I from Standard Methods for free cyanide

testing. The new permits require permittees to begin using one of these approved methods as soon as possible.

If a permittee must use method 4500 CN-I during the transition to an approved method, they are instructed to

report the results on their DMR and enter “Method 4500 CN-I” in the remarks section.

Method Detection Limit

Part II of the permit includes a condition requiring the Coshocton WWTP to use laboratory analytical methods

with an appropriate MDL.

Outfall Signage


of 43

Part II of the permit includes requirements for the permittee to place and maintain a sign at each outfall to the

Muskingum River providing information about the discharge. Signage at outfalls is required pursuant to OAC

3745-33-08(A).

Storm Water Compliance

To comply with industrial storm water regulations, the permittee submitted a form for "No Exposure

Certification" which was signed on August 23, 2017. The certification number is 0GRN00333*AG. Compliance

with the industrial storm water regulations must be re-affirmed every five years. No later than August 23, 2022,

the permittee must submit a new form for "No Exposure Certification" or make other provisions to comply with

the industrial storm water regulations.

Part III

Part III of the permit details standard conditions that include monitoring, reporting requirements, compliance

responsibilities, and general requirements.


of 43

Figure 1. Location of Coshocton WWTP


of 43

Figure 2. Diagram of Wastewater Treatment System


of 43

Figure 3. Sewage Sludge Treatment Diagram


of 43

Figure 4. Muskingum River Study Area

Direction of Flow

RM = River mile

milemile2.75 WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

Muskingum River

Outfall 001

Intake 801 AEP Conesville

AK Steel- Coshocton RM 105.88

Coshocton WWTP RM 108.56

RM 102.89

003

002

004

WestRock CP

Tuscarawas River Walhonding River

RM 0.40

RM 1.04

RM 1.17


of 43

Table 1. Sewage Sludge Removal

Year Dry Tons Removed

2012 173.65

2013 178.89

2014 195.02

2015 146.93

2016 273.19

Table 2. Effluent Violations for Outfall 001

Parameter 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Chlorine 3 5 21 1 2

Mercury, Low level 0 0 0 1 3

E. coli 0 0 2 2 0

pH (minimum) 0 0 1 0 0

cBOD 0 0 0 1 0

Total 3 5 24 5 5

Table 3. Average Annual Effluent Flow Rates

Year

Annual Flow in MGD

50th

Percentile

95th

Percentile Maximum

2012 1.50 2.20 5.20

2013 1.70 2.90 5.40

2014 1.70 3.30 5.40

2015 1.70 3.10 5.70

2016 1.60 2.40 4.40

MGD = million gallons per day.

Table 4. Sanitary Sewer Overflows Discharges

Year Number

2012 0

2013 3

2014 0

2015 1

2016 4


of 43

Table 5. Effluent Characterization Using Pretreatment Data

Parameter (µg/l) 7/16/2012 7/9/2013 7/8/2014 6/30/2015 7/12/2016

Antimony AA (6.0) AA (4.0) AA (3.0) AA (3.0) AA (3.0)

Arsenic AA (4.0) AA (4.0) AA (6.0) AA (3.0) AA (3.0)

Beryllium AA (1) AA (1) AA (1) AA (1) AA (1)

Cadmium AA (1) AA (1) AA (1) AA (1) AA (1)

Chromium AA (10) AA (10) AA (10) AA (10) AA (10)

Copper AA (10) 10 AA (10) AA (10) AA (10)

Lead AA (2) AA (2) AA (2) AA (2) AA (2)

Mercury AA (0.2) AA (0.2) AA (0.2) AA (0.2) AA (0.2)

Nickel AA (20) AA (20) AA (20) AA (20) AA (20)

Selenium AA (40) AA (40) AA (40) AA (40) AA (40)

Silver AA (2) AA (2) AA (2) AA (2) AA (2)

Thallium AA (1.5) AA (3.0) AA (1.5) AA (1.5) AA (1.5)

Zinc 67 41 99 53 81

Total Cyanide AA (0.2) 0.021 0.063 0.041 AA (0.02)

Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate 5.4 AA (10.0) 6 AA (10.0) AA (5.0)

AA = not-detected (analytical method detection limit)


of 43

Table 6. Effluent Characterization Using Ohio EPA data from Outfall 001

Parameter Units 11/2-3/2015

Alkalinity mg/l 128

Aluminum µg/l AA (200)

Ammonia mg/l 1.95

Arsenic µg/l 2.2

Barium µg/l 15

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate µg/l 11.1

Cadmium µg/l AA (0.2)

Calcium mg/l 37.6

Carbonaceous Biochemical

Oxygen Demand (5 day) mg/l 14

Chloride mg/l 228

Chloroform µg/l 0.50

Chloromethane µg/l 0.71

Chromium µg/l AA (2.0)

Conductivity mg/l 1150

Copper µg/l 15.7

Cyanide, Free µg/l 25

Cyanide, Total µg/l AA (10.0)

Hardness, Total mg/l 161

Hexavalent Chromium µg/l 10

Iron µg/l 446

Lead µg/l AA (2.0)

Magnesium mg/l 16.2

Methylene Chloride µg/l 0.50

Nickel µg/l 2.9

Nitrate+Nitrite mg/l 10.4

Oil & Grease mg/l 2.1

Orthophosphate, dissolved mg/l 13.1

Phenolics µg/l 10

Potassium mg/l 16.2

Silver µg/l AA (2.0)

Sodium mg/l 171

Strontium µg/l 116

Total Filterable Residue mg/l 702

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/l 5.2

Total Suspended Solids mg/l 17

Zinc µg/l 65

AA = not detected (analytical method detection limit)


of 43

Table 7. Effluent Characterization Using Self-Monitoring Data

Current Permit Limits # Percentiles

Parameter Season Units 30 day Daily Obs. 50th 95th Data Range

Outfall 001

Water Temperature Annual °C - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 1827 15 22 2-25

Dissolved Oxygen Summer mg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 920 5.2 7.2 3.2-18

Dissolved Oxygen Winter mg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 907 7.3 9.7 2.9-11.6

Total Suspended Solids Annual mg/l 30 45a 720 13 29 2-39

kg/day 500 750a -- -- -- --

Oil and Grease Annual mg/l Maximum: 10 124 0.0 5.85 0-9

Total Dissolved Residue Annual mg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 16 565 694 268-722

Ammonia (Summer) Summer mg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 360 1.99 6.71 0.036-17

Ammonia (Winter) Winter mg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 360 4.02 17.8 0.52-36.6

Nitrate + Nitrite Annual mg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 60 8.15 16.4 0-17.2

Phosphorus, Total Annual mg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 60 12.2 21.3 0.872-25.1

Orthophosphate,

Dissolved Annual mg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 1 15.3 15.3 15.3-15.3

Cyanide, Free Annual mg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 60 0 0 0-0

Nickel, TR Annual µg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 20 0 20.3 0-25

Silver, TR Annual µg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 31 0 0 0-0

Zinc, TR Annual µg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 20 58 115 31-126

Cadmium, TR Annual µg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 20 0 0 0-0

Lead, TR Annual µg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 20 0 5.55 0-54

Selenium, TR Annual µg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 16 0 0 0-0

Chromium, TR Annual µg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 20 0 0 0-0

Copper, TR Annual µg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 60 11.5 23.3 0-37

Hexavalent Chromium

(Dissolved) Annual µg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 60 0 0 0-0

E. coli Annual

#/100

ml 126 284a 302 44.5 998 1-6100


of 43

Current Permit Limits # Percentiles

Parameter Season Units 30 day Daily Obs. 50th 95th Data Range

Flow Rate Annual MGD - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 1827 1.6 2.8 1-5.7

Chlorine, Total Residual Annual mg/l Maximum: 0.038 916 0.02 0.04 0.01-0.83

Mercury, Low level

Annual- Initial

Table ng/l 37 60 13.4 43.2 1.1-95.2

Annual – Final

Table ng/l 12 -- -- -- --

Initial Table kg/day 0.000616 0.028 -- -- -- --

Final Table kg/day 0.0002 0.0284

ng/l Maximum: 1700

Acute Toxicity,

Ceriodaphnia dubia Annual TUa - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 5 0 0 0-0

Acute Toxicity,

Pimephales promelas Annual TUa - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 5 0 0.16 0-0.2

pH, Maximum Annual S.U. Maximum: 9.0 1827 7.5 7.9 6.8-8.6

pH, Minimum Annual S.U. Minimum: 6.0 1827 7.3 7.7 6-7.9

Residue, Total Filterable Annual mg/l - - - - - Monitor - - - - - 44 653 846 6.34-942

Carbonaceous

Biochemical Oxygen

Demand (5 day) Summer mg/l 25 40a 360 9 18 1-33

Initial Table kg/day 417 667a -- -- -- --

Final Table kg/day 416 666a -- -- -- --

Carbonaceous

Biochemical Oxygen

Demand (5 day) - Initial

001 Table Winter mg/l 25 40a 360 13 26.1 1-114

Initial Table kg/day 417 667a -- -- -- --

Final Table kg/day 416 666a -- -- -- -- * = For minimum pH, 5th percentile shown in place of 50th percentile.

** = For dissolved oxygen, 5th percentile shown in place of 95th percentile. a = weekly average.


of 43

Table 8. Projected Effluent Quality for Outfall 001

Number

of Number > PEQ PEQ

Parameter Units Samples MDL Average Maximum

Self-Monitoring (DMR) Data

Ammonia-N (Summer) mg/L 240 240 3.761 7.426

Ammonia-N (Winter) mg/L 204 204 13.03 17.85

Cadmium A μg/L 27 0 -- --

Chlorine, Total Residual mg/L 916 916 0.0294 0.0591

Chromium A μg/L 27 0 -- --

Hexavalent Chromium

(Dissolved) A μg/L 65 1 7.3 10

Copper A μg/L 70 38 21.62 32.34

Cyanide, Free A mg/L 65 1 0.0183 0.025

Lead A μg/L 27 3 47.30 64.8

Mercury ng/L 60 60 20.67 29.44

Nickel A μg/L 27 3 21.9 30

Nitrate + Nitrite A mg/L 65 64 12.53 17.16

Orthophosphate, Dissolved (as

P) A mg/L 6 6 25.91 35.49

Phosphorus A mg/L 65 65 18.32 25.1

Selenium A μg/L 22 0 -- --

Silver A μg/L 38 0 -- --

Total Filterable Residue A mg/L 64 64 773.9 926.2

Zinc A μg/L 27 27 92.63 126.5

Combined Other Data B

Arsenic μg/L 6 1 6.57 9

Barium μg/L 1 1 67.89 93

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate μg/L 6 3 17.02 23.31

Calcium mg/L 1 1 170.2 233.1

Chlorides mg/L 1 1 1032 1414

Chloroform μg/L 6 2 10.44 14.30

Chloromethane (Methyl

chloride) μg/L 1 1 3.213 4.402

Cyanide, total μg/L 6 6 0.120 0.164

Iron μg/L 1 1 2019 2765

Magnesium mg/L 1 1 73.32 100.4 A = DMR data combined with Ohio EPA and/or Pretreatment Program data B = Combined other data sources include Pretreatment data and Ohio EPA data

DMR = Discharge Monitoring Report

MDL = analytical laboratory method detection limit

PEQ = projected effluent quality


of 43

Table 8. Projected Effluent Quality for Outfall 001 (continued)

Number

of Number > PEQ PEQ

Parameter Units Samples MDL Average Maximum

Combined Other Data B

Methylene chloride

(Dichloromethane) μg/L 6 1 2.263 3.1

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L 1 1 23.54 32.24

Potassium mg/L 1 1 73.32 100.4

Phenolics μg/L 1 1 45.26 62

Sodium mg/L 1 1 773.9 1060

Strontium μg/L 1 1 525.0 719.2 B = Combined other data sources include Pretreatment data and Ohio EPA data

DMR = Discharge Monitoring Report

MDL = analytical laboratory method detection limit



of 43

Table 9. Summary of Acute Toxicity Results

Ceriodaphnia Dubia Pimephales promelas

Date TUa TUa

8/08/2012 AA AA

8/01/2013 AA AA

8/01/2014 AA AA

8/26/2015 AA AA

8/11/2016 AA AA

AA = non-detection; analytical method detection limit of 0.2 TUa

TUa = acute toxicity unit

Table 10. Ohio EPA Toxicity Screening Results for Outfall 001

Pimephales promelas Ceriodaphnia dubia

%M %M

Date 24 hours 48 hours 24 hours 48 hours

11/02/2015 0 0 0 5

11/03/2015 0 0 0 0

11/02/15-11/03/15a 0 0 0 0

a = 24-hour composite sample

%M = percent mortality in 100% effluent


of 43

Table 11. Use Attainment Table Location Year(s) River

Mile

AL Use

Designation

Attainment

Status

Causes of

Impairment

Sources of

Impairment

Tuscarawas R. SW

of Canal

Lewisville

2005 3.0 EWH FULL N/A N/A

Tuscarawas R. at

Coshocton @ Kia

Bridge

2005 0.3 EWH FULL N/A N/A

Muskingum R.

Dst. Walhonding

R./Tuscarawas R.

2006 110.7 WWH FULL N/A N/A

Muskingum R. 1.0

Mi. Dst.

Coshocton WWTP


Muskingum R. 1.5

Mi. NE of

Conesville @ Twp.

Rd. 1182


Muskingum R. 1.5

Mi. Upst. Wills

Creek


WWH = Warmwater Habitat

Upst.= Upstream

Dst = Downstream

WWTP = Wastewater Treatment Plant


of 43

Table 12. Water Quality Criteria in the Study Area

Outside Mixing Zone Criteria Inside

Average Maximum Mixing

Human Agri- Aquatic Aquatic Zone

Parameter Units Health culture Life Life Maximum

Aluminum D μg/L -- -- -- -- --

Ammonia-N (Summer) mg/L -- -- 0.4 -- --

Ammonia-N (Winter) mg/L -- -- 5.6 -- --

Antimony D μg/L 4300 -- 190 900 1800

Arsenic μg/L -- 100 150 340 680

Barium μg/L -- -- 220 2000 4000

Benzo(a)anthracene D μg/L 0.49 C -- -- -- --

Beryllium D μg/L 280 100 52 440 890

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate μg/L 59 C -- 8.4 1100 2100

Boron D μg/L -- -- 3900 33000 65000

Bromomethane D μg/L 4000 -- 16 38 75

2-Butanone (Methyl ethyl

ketone) D mg/L -- -- 22000 200000 400000

Butyl benzyl phthalate D μg/L 5200 -- 23 130 260

Cadmium μg/L -- 50 5.3 14 27

Calcium mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Chlorides mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Chlorine, Total Residual mg/L -- -- 0.011 0.019 0.038

Chloroform μg/L 4700 C -- 140 1300 2600


chloride) μg/L -- -- -- -- --

Chromium μg/L -- 100 190 4000 8000

Hexavalent Chromium

(Dissolved) μg/L -- -- 11 16 31

Chrysene D μg/L 0.49 C -- -- -- --

Cobalt D μg/L -- -- 24 220 440

Copper μg/L 1300 500 21 35 70

Cyanide, Free mg/L 220 -- 0.012 0.046 0.092

Cyanide, Total mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Diethyl phthalate D μg/L 120000 -- 220 980 2000

Fluoranthene D μg/L 370 -- 0.8 3.7 7.4

Fluoride D mg/L -- 2 -- -- --

Iron μg/L -- 5000 -- -- --

Lead μg/L -- 100 22 420 840 C = Carcinogen D = This parameter was found in the effluent of another discharger in this interactive segment.


of 43

Table 12. Water Quality Criteria in the Study Area (continued)





Magnesium mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Manganese D μg/L -- -- -- -- --

Mercury B ng/L 12 10000 910 1700 3400

Methylene chloride

(Dichloromethane) μg/L 16000 C -- 1900 11000 22000

Molybdenum D μg/L -- -- 20000 190000 370000

Napthalene D μg/L -- -- 21 170 340

Nickel μg/L 4600 200 120 1100 2100

Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L -- 100 -- -- --

Nitrite mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl mg/L -- -- -- -- --

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine

D μg/L 160 C -- -- -- --

Orthophosphate,

Dissolved (as P) mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Pentachlorophenol D μg/L 82 C -- -- -- --

Phenanthrene D μg/L -- -- 2.3 31 61

Phenol D μg/L 4600000 -- 400 4700 9400

Phenolics μg/L -- -- -- -- --

Phosphorus mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Potassium mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Pyrene D μg/L 11000 -- 4.6 42 83

Selenium μg/L 11000 50 5 -- --

Silver μg/L -- -- 1.3 8.5 17

Sodium mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Strontium μg/L -- -- 21000 40000 81000

Sulfates D mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Tetrachloroethylene D μg/L 89 C -- 53 430 850

Thallium D μg/L -- -- 17 79 160

Tin D μg/L -- -- 180 1600 3200

Titanium D μg/L -- -- -- -- --

Total Filterable Residue mg/L -- -- 1500 -- --

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol D μg/L 65 C -- 4.9 39 79

Zinc μg/L 69000 25000 270 270 550 B = Bioaccumulative Chemical of Concern (BCC) C = Carcinogen D = This parameter was found in the effluent of another discharger in this interactive segment.


of 43

Table 13. Instream Conditions and Discharger Flow

Parameter Units Value Basis

Upstream Flows

Tuscarawas River

7Q10 cfs annual 279 USGS gage #03129000, 1921-2003 data


30Q10 cfs summer 320. USGS gage #03129000, 1921-2003 data

winter 566 USGS gage #03129000, 1921-2003 data

Harmonic Mean Flow cfs annual 1116 USGS gage #03129000, 1921-2015 data

Mixing Assumption % average 97.6 Stream-to-discharge ratio

% max 97.6 Stream-to-discharge ratio

Walhonding River



30Q10 cfs summer 288 USGS gage #03138500, 1921-1991 data

winter 430. USGS gage #03138500, 1921-1991 data

Harmonic Mean Flow cfs annual 821 USGS gage #03138500, 1921-1991 data

Mixing Assumption % average 97.6 Stream-to-discharge ratio

% max 97.6 Stream-to-discharge ratio

Instream Hardness

Tusc. Below WestRock CP mg/L annual 255 STORET, 2003-05, n=12

Muskingum comb. stations mg/L annual 264 STORET, 2015-16, n=13

Instream pH S.U. summer 8.34

Survey Dst Coshocton WWTP, 2016,

n=95

winter 7.7 Coshocton WWTP 901, 2007-08, n=5

Instream Temperature ºC summer 26.7

Survey Dst Coshocton WWTP, 2016,

n=95

winter 8.0 Coshocton WWTP 901, 2007-08, n=5

USGS = United States Geological Survey

WWTP = Wastewater treatment plant


of 43

Table 13. Instream Conditions and Discharger Flow (Continued)


Discharge Flows

Coshocton WWTP 001 cfs(MGD) design 6.81 (4.4) NPDES Permit Application

AK Steel 001 cfs(MGD) 95th % 4.18 (2.7) DSW Permits Staff

AEP Conesville 001 cfs(MGD) 95th % 33.4 (21.6) DSW Permits Staff

AEP Conesville 801 (Intake) cfs(MGD) avg. 64.2 (41.5) NPDES Permit Application

WestRock CP 002 cfs(MGD) 95th % 13.8 (8.9) DSW Permits Staff



Background Water Quality

All Segments

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate µg/L annual 0 No representative data available.

Chlorine, Total Residual mg/L annual 0 No representative data available.

Hexavalent Chromium

(dissolved) µg/L annual 0 No representative data available.

Cyanide, Free µg/L annual 0 No representative data available.

Molybdenum µg/L annual 0 No representative data available.

Silver µg/L annual 0 No representative data available.

DSW = Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water

MGD = million gallons per day

NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System


of 43

Table 13. Instream Conditions and Discharger Flow (Continued)


Background Water Quality

Muskingum River

Ammonia-N mg/L summer 0.075 Coshocton WWTP 801, 2007-08, n=3

Ammonia-N mg/L winter 0.103 Coshocton WWTP 801, 2007-08, n=5

Tuscarawas River

Arsenic µg/L annual 2 STORET; 8 values, 3<MDL, 2003-04

Barium µg/L annual 57 STORET; 8 values, 0<MDL, 2003-04

Cadmium µg/L annual 0 STORET; 8 values, 8<MDL, 2003-04

Chromium µg/L annual 0 STORET; 8 values, 8<MDL, 2003-04

Copper µg/L annual 0 STORET; 8 values, 8<MDL, 2003-04

Iron µg/L annual 2175 STORET; 8 values, 0<MDL, 2003-04

Lead µg/L annual 2.2 STORET; 8 values, 5<MDL, 2003-04

Mercury µg/L annual 0 STORET; 8 values, 8<MDL, 2003-04

Nickel µg/L annual 0 STORET; 8 values, 8<MDL, 2003-04

Selenium µg/L annual 0 STORET; 8 values, 8<MDL, 2003-04

Total Filterable Residue mg/L annual 396 STORET; 8 values, 0<MDL, 2003-04

Zinc µg/L annual 16.3 STORET; 8 values, 3<MDL, 2003-04

Walhonding River

Arsenic µg/L annual 2.53 STORET; 3 values, 3<MDL, 2016

Barium µg/L annual 64.3 STORET; 3 values, 0<MDL, 2016

Cadmium µg/L annual 0 STORET; 3 values, 3<MDL, 2016

Chromium µg/L annual 0 STORET; 3 values, 3<MDL, 2016

Copper µg/L annual 0 STORET; 3 values, 3<MDL, 2016

Iron µg/L annual 379 STORET; 3 values, 0<MDL, 2016

Lead µg/L annual 0 STORET; 3 values, 3<MDL, 2016

Mercury µg/L annual 0 No representative data available.

Nickel µg/L annual 2 STORET; 3 values, 2<MDL, 2016

Selenium µg/L annual 0 STORET; 3 values, 3<MDL, 2016

Total Filterable Residue mg/L annual 323 STORET; 3 values, 0<MDL, 2016

Zinc µg/L annual 0 STORET; 3 values, 3<MDL, 2016

MDL = method detection limit

STORET = United States Environmental Protection Agency Storage and Retrieval Data Wareh


of 43

Table 14. Summary of Effluent Limits to Maintain Applicable Water Quality Criteria





Ammonia-N (Summer) mg/L -- -- 18.2 -- --

Ammonia-N (Winter) mg/L -- -- 497.1 -- --

Arsenic B μg/L -- 4267 A 1912 A 3192 A 680

Barium μg/L -- -- 1526 13081 A 4000

Bis(2-

ethylhexyl)phthalate μg/L 7278 A -- 294 27528 A 2100

Calcium D mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Chlorides D mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Cadmium B μg/L -- 8413 A 252 A 474 A 27

Chlorine, Total Residual mg/L -- -- 108.2 A 136.5 A 0.038

Chloroform D μg/L -- -- -- -- --


chloride) D μg/L -- -- -- -- --

Chromium B μg/L -- 12336 A 6658 100130 A 8000

Hexavalent Chromium

(dissolved) μg/L -- -- 546 A 567 A 31

Copper μg/L 40284 A 15494 A 193 A 235 A 70

Cyanide, free mg/L 38450 A -- 0.596 A 1.631 A 0.092

Cyanide, total D mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Iron μg/L -- 157407 -- -- --

Lead μg/L -- 12182 A 733 10480 A 840

Magnesium D mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Mercury C ng/L 12 10000 A 910 1700 3400

Methylene chloride

(Dichloromethane) D μg/L -- -- -- -- --

Molybdenum B μg/L -- -- 1590000 A 10750000 A 370000

Nickel B μg/L 567331 A 24568 A 4174 A 27544 A 2100

Nitrate + Nitrite B mg/L -- 17223 -- -- --

Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl

D mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Orthophosphate,

Dissolved (as P) D mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Phenolics D μg/L -- -- -- -- --

A Allocation must not exceed the Inside Mixing Zone Maximum B Parameter would not require a WLA based on reasonable potential procedures, but allocation requested by Permits Group. C Bioaccumulative Chemical of Concern (BCC), WQS must be met at end-of-pipe, unless the requirements for an exclusion are met as

listed in 3745-2-08 (L). D No WLA required for this parameter (or no applicable criteria).


of 43

Table 14. Summary of Effluent Limits to Maintain Applicable Water Quality Criteria (continued)





Phosphorus D mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Potassium D mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Selenium B μg/L 438756 1994 59 -- --

Silver B μg/L -- -- 103 A 481 A 17

Sodium D mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Strontium D μg/L -- -- -- -- --

Total Filterable Residue mg/L -- -- 10815 -- --

Zinc μg/L 2138000 A 774401 A 2412 A 1747 A 550 A Allocation must not exceed the Inside Mixing Zone Maximum B Parameter would not require a WLA based on reasonable potential procedures, but allocation requested by Permits Group. D No WLA required for this parameter (or no applicable criteria).


of 43

Table 15. Parameter Assessment

Group 1: Due to a lack of numeric criteria, the following parameters were not evaluated at this time.

Calcium Chlorides Chloromethane

Cyanide, total Magnesium

Orthophosphate, Dissolved

(as P)

Potassium Phenolics Phosphorus

Sodium Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

Group 2: PEQ < 25 percent of WQS or all data below minimum detection limit. WLA not required. No

limit recommended; monitoring optional.

Arsenic Cadmium Chloroform

Chromium Methylene chloride (Dichloromethane) Molybdenum

Nickel Nitrate + Nitrite Selenium

Silver Strontium

Group 3: PEQmax < 50 percent of maximum PEL and PEQavg < 50 percent of average PEL. No limit

recommended; monitoring optional.

Ammonia-N (S&W) Barium Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

Hexavalent Chromium

(dissolved) Copper Cyanide, Free

Iron Lead Total Filterable Residue

Zinc

Group 4: PEQmax ≥ 50 percent, but < 100 percent of the maximum PEL or PEQavg ≥ 50 percent, but < 100

percent of the average PEL. Monitoring is appropriate.

No parameters meet the criteria of this group.

PEL = preliminary effluent limit


WLA = wasteload allocation

WQS = water quality standard


of 43

Table 15. Parameter Assessment (continued)

Group 5: Maximum PEQ ≥ 100 percent of the maximum PEL or average PEQ ≥ 100 percent of the average

PEL, or either the average or maximum PEQ is between 75 and 100 percent of the PEL and

certain conditions that increase the risk to the environment are present. Limit recommended.

Limits to Protect Numeric Water Quality Criteria

Recommended Effluent Limits

Parameter Units Period Average Maximum

Chlorine, Total

Residual mg/L Summer -- 0.038

Mercury ng/L Annual 12 1700

PEL = preliminary effluent limit



of 43

Table 16. Final Effluent Limits for Outfall 001

Concentration Loading (kg/day)a

30 Day Daily 30 Day Daily

Parameter Units Average Maximum Average Maximum Basisb

Temperature °C - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, Mc

Dissolved Oxygen mg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, Mc

Total Suspended Solids mg/l 30 45d 432 647d EP, BPT

Oil & Grease mg/l -- 10 -- -- EP, WQS

Ammonia mg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, Mc

Nitrate+Nitrite mg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, Mc

Phosphorus mg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, Mc

Orthophosphate, Dissolved

(as P) mg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - -

SB1

Free Cyanide mg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, Mc

Arsenic µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - -

BTJ, Mc

Iron µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - BTJ, Mc

Selenium µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - BTJ, Mc

Barium µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - BTJ, Mc

Nickel µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, BTJ, Mc

Silver µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, BTJ, Mc

Strontium µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, BTJ, Mc

Zinc µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - BTJ, Mc

Cadmium µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, BTJ, Mc

Lead µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - BTJ, Mc

Chromium µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, BTJ, Mc

Copper µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, BTJ, Mc

Hexavalent Chromium

(Dissolved) µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - -

EP, M, BTJ

E. coli #/100 ml 126 284d -- -- WQS

Chloroform µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - Mc

Methylene chloride µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - Mc

Bis(2-ethylhexly)Phthalate µg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - Mc

Flow Rate MGD - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - EP, Mc

Chlorine, Total Residual mg/l -- 0.038 -- --

WLA/IMZM,

RP

Mercury, Low Level ng/l 12 1700e 0.0002 0.0284 WQS, RP

Acute Toxicity

Ceriodaphnia dubia TUa - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - WET

Pimephales promelas TUa - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - WET

pH, Maximum SU 9.0e WQS

pH, Minimum SU 6.5f WQS


of 43

Total Filterable Residue mg/l - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - BTJ

Carbonaceous Biochemical

Oxygen Demand (5 day) mg/l 25 40d 416 666d EP/BPT

a Effluent loadings based on average design discharge flow of 4.4 MGD.

b Definitions

BPT = Best Practicable Waste Treatment Technology, 40 CFR Part 133, Secondary Treatment Regulation

BTJ = Best Technical Judgment

EP = Existing Permit

M = Division of Surface Water NPDES Permit Guidance 1: Monitoring frequency requirements for Sanitary

Discharges

RP = Reasonable Potential for requiring water quality-based effluent limits and monitoring requirements in

permits (OAC 3745-33-07(A))

SB1 = Implementation of Senate Bill 1 (ORC 6111.03

WET = Minimum testing requirements for whole effluent toxicity [OAC 3745-33-07(B)(11)] OR Reasonable

potential for requiring water quality-based effluent limits and monitoring requirements for whole effluent

toxicity in NPDES permits [OAC 3745-33-07(B)] OR FOR LAKE ERIE BASIN Requiring water quality-

based effluent limits and monitoring requirements for whole effluent toxicity in NPDES permits [40 CFR Part

132, Appendix F, Procedure 6 and OAC 3745-33-07(B)]

WLA = Wasteload Allocation procedures (OAC 3745-2)

WLA/IMZM = Wasteload Allocation limited by Inside Mixing Zone Maximum

WQS = Ohio Water Quality Standards (OAC 3745-1)

c Monitoring of flow and other indicator parameters is specified to assist in the evaluation of effluent quality and treatment plant

performance.

d 7 day average limit. e Maximum concentration. f Minimum concentration.


of 43

Attachment 1. Mercury Data from Pollutant Minimization Program

Date Influent (ng/l) Effluent (ng/l) Reduction

Jan-12 40.8 15.5 62%

Feb-12 21.5 14.3 33%

Mar-12 13.9 8.9 34%

April-12 31.2 4.4 86%

May-12 17.3 20.6 19%

June-12 31.4 13 59%

July-12 93.5 20.6 78%

Aug-12 13.2 9.1 31%

Sept-12 16.8 3.8 77%

Oct-12 17.4 9.4 46%

Nov-12 26.6 26.3 1.1%

Dec-12 22.8 11.1 51%

Jan-13 193 9.5 95%

Feb-13 39.7 6.5 84%

Mar-13 24.2 6 75%

April-13 53 13.9 74%

May-13 11.5 12.2 6.1%

June-13 36.7 13.3 64%

July-13 13.8 16.6 20%

Aug-13 22.2 15 32%

Sept-13 31.8 12.5 61%

Oct-13 23.7 16.3 31%

Nov-13 159 30.9 81%

Dec-13 63.1 12.9 80%

Jan-14 17.1 13.8 19%

Feb-14 14 7.7 45%

Mar-14 59.5 11.3 81%

April-14 14.2 7.3 49%

May-14 32.9 13.5 59%

June-14 31.1 22.7 27%

July-14 25.2 15.1 40%

Aug-14 57 14.1 75%

Sept-14 51.4 15 71%

Oct-14 16.3 13.6 17%

Nov-14 17.2 9.4 45%

Dec-14 98.5 11.6 88%

Jan-15 15 12.2 19%

Feb-15 54.3 6.3 88%

Mar-15 63.9 20.3 68%


of 43

Date Influent (ng/l) Effluent (ng/l) Reduction

April-15 95.3 51.1 46%

May-15 82.3 24.5 70%

June-15 55.9 1.1 98%

July-15 9.23 19.5 0%

Aug-15 9.67 8.99 7.0%

Sept-15 236 6.8 97%

Oct-15 55.6 10.2 82%

Nov-15 90.9 26.9 70%

Dec-15 28.3 10.8 62%

Jan-16 29.3 14.6 50%

Feb-16 70.6 21.6 69%

Mar-16 69.3 11.6 83%

April-16 35 16.6 53%

May-16 76.1 16.1 79%

June-16 392 48.1 88%

July-16 193 95.2 51%

Aug-16 190 19.7 90%

Sept-16 59.4 42.9 28%

Oct. 16 65.7 10.9 83%

Nov-16 47.2 7.99 83%

Dec-16 8.16 11.8 45%

Jan-17 6.96 13 87%

Feb-17 25.5 6.7 74%

Mar-17 13.8 5.1 63%

April-17 52.8 4.5 91%

Attachment 2. Mercury Data from Pollutant Minimization Program (continued)


of 43

Addendum 1. Acronyms

ABS Anti-backsliding

BPJ Best professional judgment

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMOM Capacity Management, Operation, and Maintenance

CONSWLA Conservative substance wasteload allocation

CSO Combined sewer overflow

CWA Clean Water Act

DMR Discharge Monitoring Report

DMT Dissolved metal translator

IMZM Inside mixing zone maximum

LTCP Long-term Control Plan

MDL Analytical method detection limit

MGD Million gallons per day

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OAC Ohio Administrative Code

Ohio EPA Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

ORC Ohio Revised Code

ORSANCO Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission

PEL Preliminary effluent limit

PEQ Projected effluent quality

PMP Pollution Minimization Program

PPE Plant performance evaluation

SSO Sanitary sewer overflow

TMDL Total Daily Maximum Load

TRE Toxicity reduction evaluation

TU Toxicity unit

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WET Whole effluent toxicity

WLA Wasteload allocation

WPCF Water Pollution Control Facility

WQBEL Water-quality-based effluent limit

WQS Water Quality Standards

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

national pollutant discharge elimination system (npdes) permit...

Documents