National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program



### F A C T S H E E T

(Revised)

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

for Warren Water Pollution Control Facility

Public Notice N o.: 11

- 12

- 004 OEPA Permit No.: 3PE00008*ND

Public Notice Date: December 1, 2011 Application No.: OH0027987

Comment Period Ends: January 12, 2012

Name and Address of Facility Where

Name and Address of Applicant: Discharge Occurs:

C ity of Warren Warren Water Pollution Control Facility

2323 Main Street 2323 Main Street

Warren, Ohio 44481 Warren, Ohio

Receiving Water: Mahoning River Subsequent

Stream Network: Beaver River (PA), Ohio River

Introduction

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

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 prop osed by the Ohio Environmental Protection

Agency, 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 tha t 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 and Ohio Water Pollution Control Law (ORC 6111). Decisi ons to award variances to Water Quality

Standards or promulgated effluent guidelines for economic or technological reasons will also be justified in the

Fact Sheet where necessary.

Effluent limits based on available treatment technologies are required by Section 301(b) of the Clean Water Act.

Many of these have already been established by 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

public ly

- 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 (B PJ).

Ohio EPA reviews the need for water

- quality

- based limits on a pollutant

- by

- pollutant basis. Wasteload

allocations are used to develop these limits based on the pollutants that have been detected in the discharge, and

the receiving water’s assimilati ve 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 capaci ty 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).Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 2

- The need for water

- quality

- based limits is determined by comparing the wasteload allocation for a pollutant to a

measure of the effluent quality. The measure of effluent quality is called PEQ

- Projected Effluent Quality.

This is a statistical measure of the average and maximum effluent value s 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 efflu ent 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 p roposed for the following parameters are the same as in the

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

CBOD 5 , total suspended solids, ammonia

- nitrogen, total phosphorus, nitrite+nitrate

- nitrogen , total Kjeldahl

nitrogen, oil and grease, pH, cadmium, chromium, dissolved hexavalent chromium, copper, lead, mercury,

nickel, zinc , selenium, barium, total filterable solids (total dissolved solids)

, chloride and sulfate

.

A slightly lower limit is pro posed for total residual chlorine based on the wasteload allocation.

Final effluent limits are proposed for Escherichia coli

. New water quality standards for E. coli became effective

in March 2010. A compliance schedule is proposed for meeting these n ew final effluent limits. Based on best

engineering judgment, it is proposed that the plant comply with its current fecal coliform limits during the

interim period.

A nnual chronic toxicity monitoring with the determination of acute endpoints is propose d for the life of the

permit. This satisfies the minimum testing requirements of OAC 3754

- 33

- 07(B)(11) and will adequately

characterize toxicity in the plant’s effluent.

Current permit limits for free cyanide are being removed because effluent data sho ws that it no longer ha s the

reasonable potential to contribute to exceedances of water quality standards. Continued monitoring is proposed.

The c urrent monitoring requirement for strontium is being removed from the permit because effluent data show

th at it is present at levels that do not pose environmental concerns.

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

certification, minimum staffing and operator of record; whole effluent toxicity testing; tracking of group 4

parameters; outfall signage; disposal of brine wastewater; and pretreatment program requirements

.Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 3

- 

### Table of Contents

Page

Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 1

Summary of Permit Conditions

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

Table of Contents

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 3

Procedures for Partici pation in the Formulation of Final Determinations

................................ .................... 4

Location of Discharge/Receiving Water Use Classification

................................ ................................ ......... 5

Facility Description

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5

Disposal of Brine Wastewater

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 6

Description of Existing Discharge

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 6

Assessment of Impact on Receiving Waters

................................ ................................ ................................ . 6

Deve lopment of Water Quality Based Effluent Limits

................................ ................................ ................ 7

Reasonable Potential / Effluent Limits / Hazard Management Decisions

................................ .................. 12

Other Requirements

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14



### List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of Warren Water Pollution Control Facility

................................ ............................ 1 6

Figure 2. Large Ri ver Assessment Unit Summary.

................................ ................................ ................. 2 1

Figure 3

. Mahoning River Study Area.

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 2



### List of Tables

Table 1 . Effluent Characterization Using Ohio EPA and Pretreatment Data

................................ ....... 1 7

Table 2 . Effluent Characterization Using Self

- Monitoring Data

................................ ............................ 1 8

Table 3

. Projected Effluent Quality Values

................................ ................................ ............................ 1 9

Table 4 . Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Test Results

................................ ............................ 20

Table 5. Water Quality Criteria for Monte Carlo Modeling

................................ ................................ .. 2 6

Table 6. Inputs for Monte Carlo Modeling

................................ ................................ ............................ 2 7

Table 7. Water Quality C riteria for CONSWLA Modeling

................................ ................................ ... 2 9

Table 8. Inputs for CONSWLA Modeling

................................ ................................ ............................. 30



### Table of Contents (Continued)Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 4

- Table 9 . Summary of Effluent Limits to Maintain Applicable Water Quality Criteria

............................ 3 2

Table 10 . Parameter Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3 3

Table 11 . Final Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements

................................ ............................... 3 4

Procedures for Participation in the Formulation of Final Determinations

A public hearing on this NPDES permit renewal is scheduled for 6:00 PM, Thursday, January 12, 2012

, at the

Warren G. Harding High Sch ool , 860 Elm Avenue, Warren, Ohio 44483.

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 th e 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 addi tional

evidence. Statements concerning the issues raised by the party requesting the meeting are invited. Evi d ence

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

interested persons may p resent 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 late r than 30 days after the date of this Public Notice. Deliver or mail all

comments to:

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency

Attention: Division of Surface Water

Permits Processing Unit

P.O. Box 1049

Columbus, Ohio 43216

- 1049

The OEPA permit number and Pu blic 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. Appoin tments 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.

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

For additional information about this fact she et or the draft permit, contact Gary Stuhlfauth, (614) 644

- 2026,

Gary.Stuhl fauth@epa.ohio.gov

Location of Discharge/Receiving Water Use ClassificationFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 5

- The Warren wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges to the Mahoning River at River Mile (RM) 35.25

. Figure 1 shows t he approximate location of the f acility.

This segment of the Mahoning River is described by Ohio EPA River Code: 18

- 001 , U

. S

. EPA River Reach #:

0503010 3

- 0 50 , County : Trumbull

, Ecoregion: Erie Drift Plain

. The Mahoning River is designated for the

following uses under Ohio’s Water Quali ty Standards (OAC 3745

- 1

- 25 ): Warmwater Habitat (WWH)

, Agricultural Water Supply (AWS) , Industrial Water Supply (IWS) , and Class A 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 water quality standards 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 e xceptional communities of warmwater organisms. These uses all meet

the goals of the federal Clean Water Act. Ohio WQS also include aquatic life use designations for waterbodies

which can not meet the Clean Water Act goals because of human

- caused conditio ns that can not 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 ar e 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) and wading onl y (Secondary Contact

- 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 dr ink with standard treatment. Most

other waters are designated for agricultural and industrial water supply

.

Facility Description

The Warren Water Pollution Control Facility has an average daily design flow of 16 MGD (million gallons per

day). Wet strea m processes are screening and grit removal, primary settling, activated sludge aeration, final

clarification, chlorination, dechlorination and post aeration. Solid stream processes are thickening by dissolved

air floatation, dewatering using a belt filter press, lime stabilization, and disposal of stabilized sludge by land

application or by distribution and marketing of exceptional quality sludge.

The City of Warren completed separation of its combined sewer system in September 2006. I nfiltration and

i nflow continued, causing basement backups in the downtown business area during an intense rain storm. An

old CSO was reopened

- now the Hig h Street sanitary sewer overflow

- to stop the backups . T he current

NPDES permit for the Warren plant include d a co mpliance schedule to eliminate collection system overflows

and a headworks bypass (station 602) by January 31, 2012, the permit’s expiration date.

The City eliminated the headworks bypass. Due to project delays, in September 2011 the City requested th at

Ohio EPA allow until late spring/early summer 2012 for elimination of the High Street sanitary sewer overflow

. A compliance schedule in the renewal permit requires elimination by July 31, 2012.

The City implements an Ohio EPA

- approved industrial pre treatment program. Based on information in its

September 2011 NPDES renewal application, nine categorical industrial users and one significant

noncategorical industrial user discharge an average of 1.019 MGD to the Warren wastewater plant.Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 6

- Disposal of Brine Wastewater at the Warren Wastewater Treatment Plant

In June 2010, the City requested a modification of its NPDES permit to allow the plant to accept brine

wastewater generated by Marcellus Shale hydraulic fracturing operations. In September, the Ag ency issued a

permit modification that became effective on December 1, 2010. A provision in the permit’s compliance

schedule allowed the plant to accept a maximum of 100,000 gallons per day of wastewater with a maximum

total dissolved solids concentration of 50,000 mg/l from a regulated centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility

that is tributary to the City’s collection system. The permit required monitoring of several brine

- related

parameters as well as quarterly toxicity testing.

The City and the CW T appealed the permit modification to the Environmental Review Appeals Commission

because of the restrictions it placed on the wastewater plant’s ability to accept brine wastewater. On November

1, 2011, the Director of Ohio EPA filed a Determination of Un lawful Permit Issuance with the Commission and

requested that the permit be remanded back to the Agency for further action consistent with Ohio law.

The disposal of brine wastewater from oil or gas drilling, exploration or production through a wastewate r

treatment plant and discharge to waters of the state is not an authorized method of disposal under section

1509.22(C) of the Ohio Revised Code unless and until it is approved by the Chief of the Division of Oil and Gas

Resources Management for testing or implementing a new technology or method of disposal . The proposed

renewal of the NPDES permit for the Warren wastewater treatment plant is not an approval of a new technology

or method of disposal for brine wastewater from oil or gas drilling, exploratio n or production

.

Description of Existing Discharge

Table 1 presents chemical specific data compiled from annual pretreatment reports and data collected by Ohio

EPA

.

Table 2 presents a summary of unaltered Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data for o utfall 3PE00008001

. Data are presented for the period January 2006 through September 2011 , and current permit limits are provided

for comparison.

Table 3 summarizes the chemical specific data for outfall 001 by presenting the average and maximum

Projec ted Effluent Quality (PEQ) values.

Table 4 summarize s the results of acute and chronic whole effluent toxicity tests of the final effluent

.

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

ef fluent 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 effluent testing

conducted by the Agency.

Assessment of I mpact on Receiving Waters

Figure 2 presents the large river assessment unit results for the Mahoning River mainstem downstream from

Eagle Creek to the Pennsylvania border from the Ohio 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and

Assessment Report (March 8, 2010; Ohio EPA). The complete report is available at the following Ohio EPA

web site:

http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/2010IntReport/2010OhioIntegratedReport.aspx

.Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 7

- The next Ohio EPA survey of the Mahoning River is scheduled for 2013. A TMDL (total maximum daily

loads) study to address impairments identified during the survey is scheduled for 2016.

In September 2004, U.S. EPA Region 5 finalized the Mahoning River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for

Fecal Coliform Bacteria . The TMDL addresses segments of the Mahoning River where the Primary Contact

designated use was impaired by fecal coliform, including Eagle Creek, downstream to Mosquito Creek and Mill

Creek, an d further downstream to the Pennsylvania border. The report identified fecal coliform reductions

necessary to meet the Primary Contact recreational use. This report is available at the following Ohio EPA web

site:

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/MahoningRiverTMDL.aspx

.

The most recently published Ohio EPA survey of the Mahoning River basin is the Biological and Water Quality

Study of the Mahoning River Basin (Ohio EPA Technical Re port MAS/1995

- 12

- 14; May 1, 1996). This report

is available at the following Ohio EPA web site:

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/documents/mahon94.pdf

.

Dev elopment 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. In addition,

antidegradation and whole effluent toxicity issues must be addressed.

As in past modeling studies, all facilities discharging to the Mahoning River mainstem between the Leavittsburg

dam and the Ohio

- Pennsylvania boundary are considered interactive and are included in the wasteload allocation

(WLA). The WLA contains a total of 2 3 outfalls from six municipal wastewater treatment pla nts (WWTP) and

seven industrial facilities, as follows:

Warren Steel Holdings (CSC Industries) Thomas Steel Strip

RG Steel

- Warren ArcelorMittal

- Warren

Warren WWTP RMI

- Niles

GenOn Niles Power Niles WWTP

McDonald Steel Campbell WWTP

Youngst own WWTP Lowellville WWTP

Struthers WWTP

Four dischargers located on tributaries are allocated separately from the mainstem discharges: Meander Creek

WWTP (Meander Creek), Girard WWTP (Little Squaw Creek), Mosquito Creek WWTP (Mosquito Creek), and

B oardman WWTP (Mill Creek). Travel time to and distance from the Mahoning River are considered large

enough that, for modeling purposes, the effluents from the respective treatment plants are considered non

interactive with the direct dischargers to the Ma honing. Effluents from these four treatment plants were

allocated to meet water quality standards for the conditions, habitat, and use designation for their particular

receiving waters and separate Permit Support Documents were prepared for each facility. Monitoring was

conducted downstream of these dischargers or at the mouths of these tributaries, however, for inputs into the

Mahoning River mainstem model. Figure 3 is a schematic of the Mahoning River study area.

Parameter Selection Effluent dat a for the Warren wastewater plant were used to determine what parameters

should undergo wasteload allocation. The parameters discharged are identified by the data available to Ohio

EPA

- Monthly Operating Report (MOR) data submitted by the permittee, comp liance sampling data collected

by Ohio EPA, and any other data submitted by the permittee, such as priority pollutant scans required by theFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 8

- 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 January 200 6 through September 2011

Pretreatment data 2006

- 2010

OEPA compliance sampling data April and October 2010

The data were examined for outliers, and no values were elim inated from the data set.

This data is evaluated statistically, and Projected Effluent Quality (PEQ) values are calculated for each

pollutant. Average PEQ (PEQ

avg ) values represent the 95 th percentile of monthly average data, and maximum

PEQ (PEQ

max ) v alues represent the 95 th percentile of all data points. The average and maximum PEQ values are

presented in Table 3

.

The PEQ values are used according to Ohio rules to compare to applicable water quality standards (WQS) and

allowable wasteload allocatio n (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

wasteload allocation is done for that parameter. If either PEQ

avg or PEQ

max is greater than 25 percent of the

applicable WQS, a wasteload allocation is conducted to determine whether the parameter exhibits reasona ble

potential and needs to have a limit or if monitoring is required. See Table 1 0 for a summary of the screening

results.

For total dissolved solids, the PEQ va lues were calculated using data submitted by the permittee during

December 2010 and January 2 011. The 33 data points used in the calculation were from days when the

treatment plant was not receiving brine wastewater.

For barium and strontium , the PEQ values calculated using the Ohio EPA compliance data were used in the

reasonable potential evalu ation. These samples were collected prior to December 2010 when the plant would

not have been receiving brine wastewater.

Water Quality Standards Ohio water quality standards (WQS) were used for all parameters except for chronic

cadmium , chronic he xavalent chromium, chronic iron, chronic lead , chronic selenium and total dissolved solids

. The Mahoning River enters Pennsylvania at about river mile (RM) 11.43, and Pennsylvania WQS must be met

at that point. The Pennsylvania Aquatic Life criteria and Human Health criteria were met at the state line for all

other parameters (metals and organics).

Flows in the Mahoning River Flows in the Mahoning River are contributed by a series of reservoirs in the

headwaters and on Mosquito Creek, controlled and mostly owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Constructed several decades ago to provide adequate flow for the steel industry of the Mahoning River valley,

the reservoirs are operated on a schedule to maintain specific seasonal flows at Leavittsburg a nd Youngstown.

The operation of the reservoir system is discussed at length in earlier USEPA Mahoning River studies

(Amendola et al., 1977; Schregardus and Amendola, 1984).

Modeling Approach and Wasteload Allocations Appropriate effluent concentratio ns for dischargers to the

Mahoning River were determined using two models: a Monte Carlo model for the six commonly allocated

metals (cadmium, total chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc) and the conventional Ohio EPA conservative

parameter model (CONSW LA) for all other parameters. The models and their applications are discussed in the

sections that follow and model inputs are presented.

Dissolved Metals Translators A dissolved metals translator (DMT) is the factor used to convert a dissolved

met al aquatic life criterion to an effective total recoverable aquatic life criterion with which a total recoverableFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 9

- aquatic life allocation can be calculated as required in the NPDES permit process. Currently, a DMT is based

on site

- or area

- specific field data; each field data sample consists of a total recoverable measurement paired

with a dissolved metal measurement. For the Mahoning River, there were 5 such paired samples available

applicable to copper, lead, and silver. To account for the limited quan tity of data, the DMT for each of these

metals was determined as the lower end of the 95% confidence interval (1

- tail) about the geometric mean of the

total recoverable

- to

- dissolved ratios of the sample pairs. A DMT for zinc, cadmium, chromium, and nickel

could not be determined due to shortcomings in the data. Each DMT is metal

- specific and is applied by

multiplying the dissolved criteria by the DMT, resulting in total effective recoverable criteria which can be used

in the wasteload allocation procedure s.

The Monte Carlo Model

The application of the Monte Carlo method was limited to the six commonly allocated metals (cadmium, total

chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc). Previous allocations using the conventional Ohio EPA conservative

parameter model resulted in stringent limits for these parameters that have been difficult for dischargers to

maintain. As a result, Ohio EPA was asked to consider other methods for determining effluent limits that would

adequately protect the river while allowing the dischargers some relief. The Monte Carlo method addresses

these concerns, but does not guarantee more favorable discharge limits. This is the fifth permit cycle where a

Monte Carlo method was used to determine the wasteload allocations for the six m etals listed above.

Conventional water quality modeling methods project the receiving water pollutant concentration which will

occur under critical low

- flow conditions. The Monte Carlo probabilistic method, as applied to water quality

modeling, projects the year

- round probability distribution for the pollutant. This allows a more accurate

determination of the frequency at which water quality criteria are violated or maintained. Conventional

modeling methods, when applied to systems with numerous dischar gers, may be overly conservative because

they model all dischargers at their maximum permitted concentration. (The conventional methods assume that

all facilities will simultaneously discharge at their permit limits during critical stream flow conditions, the

probability of which decreases significantly as the number of discharges increases.) The Monte Carlo method

accounts for the independent variability of discharges as well as other model inputs.

The Monte Carlo model for the Mahoning River was origin ally developed by Limno

- Tech, Inc., for their 1993

study to determine alternative copper limits for Thomas Strip Steel. The model combines the Monte Carlo

statistical method with a multi

- discharge mass

- balance model and allows upstream flow to be input fr om a

historical gaging station flow record to account for unusual flow fluctuations caused by the numerous upstream

dams and reservoirs. Ohio EPA approved the alternative limits developed using this model and received

permission to modify and apply the mo del in the future. The original model was written in 1992

- 1993 in

Borland Pascal. For this permit cycle, the model has been modified by the Ohio EPA and re

- written in the ‘C’

programming language.

River Hardness and Water Quality Criteria Water qual ity criteria for the six metals depends on instream

hardness. Thus, hardness is a key element in determining effluent limits. A detailed analysis of the available

hardness and flow data was conducted. This analysis revises and updates the Ohio EPA analy sis previously

performed in 2006. Stream hardness data was taken from the two main STORET stations on the Mahoning

River main stem, at Leavittsburg, Ohio (RM 45.51) and at Lowellville, Ohio (RM 12.42). The hardness data for

the two stations was analyzed for the period October 2000 to September 2010.

A linear correlation between the Leavittsburg USGS gaging station flow and instream hardness was determined

for both STORET stations. These correlations were then used to calculate hardness as a function of river mile at

129 cfs (Leavittsburg 1Q10 low flow) and 136 cfs (7Q10 low flow).

Acute Criteria, at 1Q10

river hardness (mg/L) = (

- 0.682)(river mile) + 185.82Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 10

- Chronic Criteria, at 7Q10

river hardness (mg/L) = (

- 0.681)(river mile) + 185.62

Discharger hard ness was calculated with these equations. This relationship established local river hardness for

calculating outside

- mixing

- zone, hardness

- dependent criteria in the Monte Carlo model. Inside

- mixing

- zone,

maximum criteria were determined with effluent hard ness data when available, or outside

- mixing

- zone hardness

when effluent data was unavailable.

Table 5 contains the water quality criteria for the six metals in the vicinity of the Warren wastewater plant.

This Monte Carlo method uses a seven

- day avera ging period with a ten

- year return period for meeting chronic

(average) water quality criteria. A one

- day averaging period with a ten

- year return period is used for meeting

the acute (maximum) water quality criteria. Since the chronic aquatic life criter ia are less than or approximate

to both the agriculture and human health criteria and since the return periods for both agriculture and human

health criteria would be longer than ten years, the allocations that meet the average aquatic life criteria will b e

protective of the agriculture and human health criteria as well.

Federal rules require that a downstream state’s water quality criteria be considered when calculating effluent

limits. The Pennsylvania state line is at RM 11.43. Pennsylvania’s standard s are the same as Ohio’s for copper,

total chromium, nickel, and zinc. However, Pennsylvania’s standards for cadmium and lead are more stringent

than Ohio’s and had to be considered. Since Pennsylvania uses, in effect, a one hundred

- day return period,

Oh io’s acute criteria for those two metals, in combination with a ten

- year return period, still meet

Pennsylvania’s water quality criteria. However, the same is not true for the chronic criteria.

Data Analysis for the Monte Carlo Model The Monte Carlo method accounts for individual system

component variability by generating probability distributions that predict a range of possible input conditions.

These distributions are derived from the mean and the coefficient of variation input by the user and bas ed on

field data for each of these components. Table 6 lists the calculated mean and coefficient of variation for such

system characteristics as background/ambient concentrations and discharger and tributary flows.

The Conservative Substance Wasteload Al location Model (CONSWLA)

The CONSWLA model was used to allocate all parameters not included in the Monte Carlo model. CONSWLA

is the model Ohio EPA typically uses in multiple discharger situations. Different from the Monte Carlo model

previously describ ed, 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).

Poll utants are allocated by a mass

- balance method. Wasteload allocations 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 t he discharge flow so that the allocations are expressed as

concentrations. This technique is appropriate when data bases are unavailable to generate statistical

distributions for inputs (like those used in the Monte Carlo method) and if the parameters mod eled are

conservative.

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 Water Quality Standards (OAC 3745

- 1).

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

follows:Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 11

- Aquatic life (WWH)

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

Maximum Annual 1Q1 0

Ammonia Average Summer 30Q10

Winter 30Q10

Agricultural Water Supply Harmonic mean flow

Human Health (nondrinking) Harmonic mean flow

Allocations are developed using a percentage of stream design flow as specified in Table 8

, and allocations

cannot exceed the Inside Mixing Zone Maximum criteria.

Ohio’s water quality standard implementation rules [OAC 3745

- 2

- 05(A)(2)(d)(iv)] required a phase out of

mixing zones for bioaccumulative chemicals of concern ( BCCs) as of November 15, 2010. This rule applied

statewide. Mercury is a BCC. The mixing zone phase

- out means that as of November 15, 2010 all dischargers

requiring mercury limits in their NPDES permit must meet water quality standards at the end

- of

- pip e , which are

12 ng/l (average) and 1700 ng/l (maximum) in the Ohio River basin.

The data used in the CONSWLA modeling are listed in Tables 7 and 8 . The wasteload allocation results to

maintain all applicable criteria are presented in Table 9 . This tab le includes results from both the Monte Carlo

and the CONSWLA modeling. The current ammonia limits have been evaluated using the wasteload allocation

procedures and are protective of water quality standards for ammonia toxicity

.

Whole Effluent Toxicity WLA Whole effluent toxicity (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 subtl e effects of the effluent.

Water q uality s tandards 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). Wasteload allocations can then be calculated using TUs as if they were water quality criteria.

The wasteload allocation calculations for WET are similar to those for aquatic life criteria

- using the chronic

toxicity unit (TU

c ) and 7Q10 flow for the avera ge and the acute toxicity unit (TU

a ) 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. An assessment of biological and hydraulic data in the vicini ty of the Warren wastewater

plant indicated that the effluent acute toxicity is interactive with ISG Mittal Steel and the Warren Consolidated

Industries discharges. For the Warren wastewater plant , the wasteload allocation values are 0.47 TU

a and 7.32

TU

c .

The chronic toxicity unit (TU

c ) is defined as 100 divided by the IC 25 :

TU

c = 100/I C 25

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

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

(Ceriodaphnia dubia only):

TU

c = 100/ geometric mean of NOEC and LOEC

The acute toxicity unit (TU

a ) is defined as 100 divided by the LC 50 for the most sensitive test species:

TU

a = 100/ LC 50Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 12

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

coldwater, and seasonal salmonid use designations.

Reasonable Potential/ Effluent Limits/Hazard Management Decisions

After a ppropriate effluent limit s are calculated, the reasonable potential of the discharger to violate the water

quality standards must be determined. Each parameter is examined and placed in a defined "group". Parameters

that do not have a water quality stand ard or do not require a wasteload allocation 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 wasteload allocations ar e selected from Table 9 . The average PEL

(PEL

avg ) is compared to the average PEQ (PEQ

avg ) from Table 3 , and the PEL

max is compared to the PEQ

max . Based on the calculated percentage of the allocated value [(PEQ

avg ÷ PEL

avg ) X 100, or (PEQ

max ÷ PEL

max ) X

1 00)], the parameters are assigned to group 3, 4, or 5. The groupings are listed in Table 10

.

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

and regulations. Table 11 presents the final e ffluent limits and monitoring requirements proposed for Warren

outfall 3PE00008001 and the basis for their recommendation.

Based on best engineering judgment, it is proposed that the existing limits for dissolved oxygen , total suspended

solids, ammonia

- nitrogen and 5

- day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD 5 ) be continued. The

current limits for ammonia

- N were reviewed as part of the current modeling and are protective of the water

quality standards for ammonia toxicity.

Limits proposed for oil and grease, pH, and Escherichia coli are based on Water Quality Standards (OAC 3745

-

1

- 07). Class A Primary Contact Recreation E. coli standards apply to the Mahoning River

.

Water quality standards for E. coli became effective in March 2010, and a compliance schedule is proposed for

meeting these new final effluent limits no later than May 1, 2013 . The schedule provides time during the

summer disinfection season for the plant to evaluate the ability of its existing disinfection system to achieve th e

new limits and to make operational changes or equipment upgrades if necessary. Based on best engineering

judgment, it is proposed that the plant comply with its current fecal coliform limits during the interim period.

The proposed limit for total res idual chlorine is based on the current wasteload allocation and is slightly lower

than the limit in the existing permit limit.

The 2010 O hio Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Ohio EPA) lists the Mahoning

Ri ver as impaired for aquatic life. Nutrients and organic enrichment/dissolved oxygen are listed as causes of

impairment , and major municipal point sources are listed among the sources. Considering this information and

the fact that municipal wastewater tr eatment plants discharge a nutrient load to the river, continued monitoring

for phosphorus, nitr i te+nitr a te and total Kjeldahl nitrogen is proposed based on best engineering judgment.

Monitoring for phosphorus and nitr i te+nitr a te at the upstream and down stream stations also is proposed. The

purpose of the monitoring is to maintain a nutrient data set for use in the future TMDL (total maximum daily

load s ) study.

Based on best engineering judgment, twice per week monitoring is proposed for total filtera ble residue (total

dissolved solids).

Ohio EPA evaluated instream total dissolved solids (TDS) data collected in the Mahoning River at Lowellville,

approximately one mile from the Ohio

- Pennsylvania border (n = 128, range = 164

– 650 mg/l, period of reco rd

= January 1999

– January 2012). The Agency calculated summer and winter concentrations to characterize

instream TDS levels. These concentrations are 95th percentiles of the monthly averages and daily values of theFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 13

- data. The calculated values are: mo nthly average

– 364 mg/l (S), 456 mg/l (W); maximum

– 423 mg/l (S), 587

mg/l (W).

These values are lower than the monthly average and maximum Pennsylvania TDS standards, 500 mg/l and 750

mg/l. This demonstrates that currently there is not reasonable po tential for the instream TDS concentration to

exceed the Pennsylvania standards at Lowellville, close to the state line. Based on this finding, water quality

based effluent limits for TDS are not currently necessary for Ohio wastewater facilities discharg ing at their

existing TDS loads.

Ohio EPA is pursuing a plan to begin regular TDS monitoring at a site in the lower part of the Mahoning River

in Ohio. This monitoring would provide additional baseline data o n ambient TDS concentrations with Ohio

faci lities discharging at their existing TDS loads. T he Agency will consider options for reducing the TDS load

to the Mahoning River i f an upward trend in the ambient concentration is observed

Ohio EPA will evaluate proposals for new or increased TDS loading s to the Mahoning River from Ohio NPDES

dischargers, which could be subject to provisions of Ohio’s antidegradation rule (OAC 3745

- 1

- 05).

Ohio EPA risk assessment (Table 10 ) places barium, free cyanide, cadmium, mercury and selenium in group 4.

This pl acement as well as the data in Tables 2 and 3 support that these parameters do not have the reasonable

potential to contribute to WQS exceedances, and limits are not necessary to protect water quality. Monitoring

for Group 4 pollutants (where PEQ exceeds 50 percent of the WLA) is required by OAC Rule 3745

- 33

- 07(A)(2).

In addition, the barium and selenium average PEQ values (Table 3) are greater than 75 percent of the wasteload

allocation (Table 9) . Under OAC 3745

- 33

- 07(A)(2), parameters in this range m ust have a tracking requirement

in the permit that specifies reductions in pollutant concentrations if effluent concentrations exceed the WLA.

The tracking/reduction requirements are included in Part II Item AA of the draft permit.

Ohio EPA risk assessme nt (Table 10 ) places total chromium, dissolved hexavalent chromium, copper, lead,

nickel and zinc in group s 2 and 3 . This placement as well as the data in Tables 2 and 3 support that these

parameters do not have the reasonable potential to contribute to W QS exceedances, and limits are not necessary

to protect water quality. Monitoring at a low frequency is proposed to document that these pollutants continue

to remain at low levels.

L imits 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.

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

perform ance and for designing plant improvements and conducting future stream studies.

Whole Effluent Toxicity Reasonable Potential

Annual chronic toxicity monitoring with the determination of acute endpoints is proposed for the life of the

permit. Evaluatin g the toxicity data presented in Table 4 and other pertinent data under the provisions of OAC

3745

- 33

- 07(B) placed the W arren wastewater plant in Category 4 with respect to whole effluent toxicity. While

this indicates that the plant's effluent does not cu rrently pose a toxicity problem, annual toxicity testing is

proposed consistent with the minimum monitoring requirements at OAC 3754

- 33

- 07(B)(11). The proposed

monitoring will adequately characterize toxicity in the plant's effluent.

Other RequirementsFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 14

- Compliance Schedule

A three month compliance schedule is proposed for the City to submit a n approvable technical justification for

either revising its local industrial user limits or retaining its existing local limits. If revisions to local limits are

r equired, the Cit y must also submit a pretreatment program modification request.

Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting

Provisions for reporting sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) are again proposed in this permit. These provisions

include: the reporting of th e 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.

Op erator Certification

Operator certification requirements have been included in Part II, Item A of the permit in accordance with rules

adopted in December 2006. These rules require the City of Warren to have a Class IV wastewater treatment

plant operator i n charge of the sewage treatment plant operations discharging through outfall 001

.

Operator of Record

In December 2006, Ohio Administrative Code rule revisions became effective that affect the requirements for

certified operators for sewage collection sys tems and treatment works regulated under NPDES permits. Part II,

Item A of this NPDES permit is included to implement rule 3745

- 7

- 02 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)

. It re quires the permittee to designate one or more operator of record to oversee t he technical operation of the

treatment works.

Disposal of Brine Wastewater

Part II, Item BB is a special condition regarding the disposal of brine wastewater from oil or gas drilling,

exploration or production at the Warren wastewater treatment plant.Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 15

- Storm Water Compliance

Parts IV, V, and VI have been included with the draft permit to ensure that any storm water flows from the

facility site are properly regulated and managed. As an alternative to complying with Parts IV, V, and VI, the

City of War ren may seek permit coverage under the general permit for industrial storm water (permit #

OHR000004) or submit a “No Exposure Certification.” Parts IV, V, and VI will be removed from the final

permit if: 1) Warren submits a Notice of Intent (NOI) for cov erage under the general permit for industrial storm

water or submits a No Exposure Certification, 2) Ohio EPA determines that the facility is eligible for coverage

under the general permit or meets the requirements for a No Exposure Certification, and 3) t he determination by

Ohio EPA can be made prior to the issuance of the final permit.

Outfall Signage

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

providing information about the dischar ge. Signage at outfalls is required pursuant to Ohio Administrative Code

3745

- 33

- 08(A).Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 16

- Figure 1. Location of Warren wastewater treatment plant.Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 17

- Table 1

. Effluent Characterization Using Ohio EPA and P retreatment Data

Summary of analytical results for Warren outfall 3PE00008 001. Units ug/l unless otherwise noted; OEPA = data from

analyses by Ohio EPA; P T

= data from pretreatment program reports; NA = not analyzed; ND = not detected (detection

limit).

OEPA OE PA PT P T PT PT PT

PARAMETER 10/26/10 04/20/10 11/17/10 11/18/09 11/19/08 11/15/07 11/14/06

Barium ND(15) 117 NA NA NA NA NA

Chloride (mg/l) 154 144 NA NA NA NA NA

Copper 6.4 6.3 ND(10) ND(10) ND(10) ND(10) ND(10)

Dis solved solids, total 576 592 NA NA NA NA NA

(mg/l)

Iron 253 149 NA NA NA NA NA

Mercury

- low level NA NA 4.31 NA 2.38 NA NA

(ng/l)

Nickel 26.2 11.1 13.2 ND(10) 14.9 12.5 ND(10)

Nitrite+Nitrate

- N 14.5 12.7 NA NA NA NA NA

(mg/l)

Phosphorus, T 1.93 0.977 NA NA NA NA NA

(mg/l)

Selenium 13.9 ND(2.0) ND(10) ND(10) ND(10) ND(10) ND(10)

Strontium 198 758 NA NA NA NA NA

Zinc ND(10) 29 25.4 11.6 19.4 12.1 14

Bromodichloromet hane 0.90 ND(0.50) ND(5) NND(5) ND(5) ND(5) ND(5)

Chloroform 1.85 2.03 ND(5) ND(5) ND(50) ND(5) ND(5.0)

Dibromochloromethane 0.63 ND(0.50) ND(5) ND(5) ND(5) ND(5) ND(5)Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 18

- Table 2. Effluent Characterization Using Self

- Monitoring D ata

Summary of current permit limits and unaltered discharge monitoring report data for Warren outfall 3PE00008001

(January 2006

– September 2011). All values are based on annual records unless otherwise indicated. * = For minimum

pH, 5th percentile sho wn in place of 50th percentile; ** = For dissolved oxygen, 5th percentile shown in place of 95th

percentile; a = weekly average.

Current Permit

Limits Percentiles

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

Water Temperatur e Annual C Monitor 2097 16 23 6

- 24

Dissolved Oxygen Summer mg/l 5.0 min 1056 9.1 6.41** 5.1

- 14.5

Dissolved Oxygen Winter mg/l 5.0 min 999 10.2 6.2** 5.1

- 14.9

Chemical Oxygen Demand) Annual mg/l Monitor 113 27 55.2 0

- 78

Total Suspended Solids Annual mg/l 20 30 a 1431 3 13.5 1

- 65

Oil and Grease, Total Annual mg/l 10 298 1.45 4.5 0

- 7.5

Nitrogen, Ammonia (NH3) Summer mg/l 3.0 4.5 a 745 0.02 1.8 0

- 5.5

Nitrogen, Ammonia (NH3) Winter mg/l 15 22 a 699 0.03 5.74 0

- 12

Nitrogen Kjeldahl, Total Annual mg/l Mo nitor 175 4.2 11.8 0

- 16.6

Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total Annual mg/l Monitor 175 10.4 15.7 0.91

- 31

Phosphorus, Total (P) Annual mg/l Monitor 296 1.07 1.9 0.3

- 2.2

Cyanide, Free Annual mg/l Monitor 160 0 0.0121 0

- 0.06

Chloride, Total Annual mg/l Monitor 10 174 339 82.2

- 364

Sulfate, (SO4) Annual mg/l Monitor 10 75.2 134 38.8

- 152

Selenium, Total Recoverable Annual ug/l Monitor 160 0 14 0

- 18.3

Barium, Total Recoverable Annual ug/l Monitor 10 252 719 18.4

- 930

Thallium, Total Annual ug/l

-- 70 0 0 0

- 10

Nickel, Total Recoverable Annual ug/l Monitor 110 11.5 25.3 0

- 40

Strontium, Total Recoverable Annual ug/l Monitor 10 778 4020 36.1

- 4860

Zinc, Total Recoverable Annual ug/l Monitor 110 18 29 0

- 36.9

Antimony, Total Annual ug/l

-- 30 0 18.8 0

- 21

Cadmium, Total Recoverable Annual ug/l Monitor 160 0 1.02 0

- 2.5

Lead, Total Recoverable Annual ug/l Monitor 109 0 0 0

- 13.1

Chromium, Total Recoverable Annual ug/l Monitor 110 0 0 0

- 0

Copper, Total Recoverable Annual ug/l Monitor 110 0 10.6 0

- 21

Chr omium, Dissolved Hexavalent Annual ug/l Monitor 68 0 2 0

- 2.7

Fecal Coliform Annual #/100 ml 1000 2000 a 510 90 931 1

- 2100

Flow Rate Summer MGD Monitor 1073 11.7 24.2 5.67

- 54.9

Flow Rate Winter MGD Monitor 1008 14.2 33.9 7.61

- 59.6

Flow Rate Annual MGD Monitor 2081 13.1 29.6 5.67

- 59.6

Chlorine, Total Residual Annual mg/l 0.028 741 0.02 0.03 0

- 0.03

Mercury, Total (Low Level) Annual ng/l Monitor 69 2.92 8.85 0

- 18.6

pH, Maximum Annual S.U. 9.0 2095 7.6 7.9 6.6

- 8.4

pH, Minimum Annual S.U. 6.5 2092 6.8* 7.8 6.5

- 8.2

Residue, Total Filterable Annual mg/l Monitor 210 744 1050 384

- 1250

CBOD 5 day Summer mg/l 12 18 a 742 2 6 1

- 10

CBOD 5 day Winter mg/l 12 18 a 697 3 6 1

- 10Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 19

- Table 3. Projected Effluent Quality Values

# of # > Average Maximum

Para meter Units Samples MDL PEQ PEQ

Self

- Monitoring (DMR) Data

Ammonia mg/L Summer 512 307 2.41 3.30

Ammonia mg/L Winter 343 200 6.13 8.40

Nitrate+Nitrite B mg/L 177 177 16.91 24.18

Phosphorus B mg/L 298 298 1.66 2.27

Cyanide, free μg /L 160 12 12.58 16.07

Selenium B μg/L 167 34 9.44 14.14

Nickel B μg/L 117 69 19.83 27.98

Zinc B μg/L 117 115 24.58 31.33

Cadmium μg/L 160 26 0.924 1.348

Lead μg/L 109 3 8.607 11.79

Chromium, tot. μg/L 110 0

-- --

Copper B μg/L 117 15 8.396 12.65

Chromium +6 , diss. μg/L 68 7 1.971 2.70

Chlorine, tot. res. μg/L 741 406 13.14 18.0

Mercury B ng/L 71 68 6.562 9.998

Chloride, total m g/L 10 10 346

. 556

.

Sulfate* m g/L 10 10 136. 204.

TDS * * mg/L 33 33 743 1018

Strontium* μg/L 10 10 6031. 8262.

Barium* μg/L 9 9 607

. 832

.

Ohio EPA and Pretreatment Data

Chloride, total mg/L 2 2 427.2 585.2

TDS mg/ L 2 2 1642. 2250.

Strontium ** * μg/L 2 2 896.1 1228.

Barium** * μg/L 2 1 324. 6 444.6

Iron μg/L 2 2 701.8 961.4

Bromodichloromethane A μg/L 7 1 2.497 3.42

Chloroform A μg/L 7 2 5.631 7.714

Dibromochloromethane A μg/L 7 6 1.748 2.394

A Carcinogen

B OEPA and Pretreatment data were combined with the DMR data

* Per iod of record December 2010

– September 2011

** Period of record December 2010

– January 2011

** * PEQs used in reasonable potential evaluationFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 20

- Table 4. Summary of toxicity test results.

Test Date(a) Ceriodaphni

a dubia 48

hours Fathead

Minnows 96

hours Ceriodaphnia

dubia 7 days Fathead

Minnows 7

days

TUa b TUa b TUc b TUc b

07/15/11(E) BD BD 1.19 BD

04/10/11(E) BD BD 3.54 BD

01/14/11(E) BD BD 3.91 BD

05/10/10(E) BD BD BD BD

05/11/09(E) BD BD BD BD

05/16/08(E) BD BD BD BD

05/ 14/07(E) BD BD BD BD

10/26, 27/10(O)* BD BD NT NT

04/20, 21/10(O)* BD BD NT NT

a O = EPA test; E = entity test

b TUa = acute toxicity units, TUc = chronic toxicity units

* = 48 hour screening test

NT = not testedFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 21

- Division of Surface Wa ter Large River Assessment Unit Summary

Overview Information

Waterbody: Mahoning River

Segment: Eagle Creek to Pennsylvania border

Length: 37.00 miles

Priority Points: 6

Monitoring Scheduled: 2013

TMDL Schedu led: 2016 Aquatic Life Use Assessment

Reporting Category: 5x

Aquatic Life Uses: WWH

Sampling Years: 1997, 2002, 2003, 2006

Sites Monitored: 14

Total Miles Monitored: 16.00

Assessment Unit Score: 47.5

Miles in Full Attainment: 7.60 (47.50%)

Miles in Partial Attainment: 3.40 (21.30%)

Miles in Non Attainment: 5.00 (31.20%)

Most Recent Data

Year Station Name River Drainage Aquatic Attainment

Assessed Mile Area Life Use Status

2 006 MAHONING R. AT WARREN @ 3RD ISLAND DST. SUMMIT ST. 39.08 594 WWH Full

2006 MAHONING R. AT WARREN @ WEST MARKET ST. 38.26 594 WWH Full

2006 MAHONING R. NEAR YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE, CAMPBELL 17 1018 WWH Non

2006 MAHONING R. AT LTV STEEL CAMPBELL @ PO LAND AVE. 16.46 1022 WWH Non

2006 MAHONING R. DST. LTV 039, UPST. 041 16.1 1022 WWH Non

River Drainage Aquatic Attainment

Causes of Impairment

cause unknown

chlorine

direct habitat alterations

metals

nutrients

o il and grease

organic enrichment/DO

priority organics

thermal modifications Sources of Impairment

combined sewer overflows

contaminated sediments

dam construction

- development

flow regulation/modificat ion

- development

hazardous wastes

major municipal point source

minor industrial point source

source unknown

spills

urban runoff/storm sewers (NPS)

Comments: The WWH aquatic life use for the Mahoning River mainstem was listed as impaired based on

historical data in the 2006 Integrated Report. For the 2008 report, aquatic life data from several small surveys

conducted between 1997 and 2006 were included to update the mainstem assessment. Mainstem coverage was

somewhat li mited in that only 16 of 37 mainstem miles were considered assessed based on these small surveys.

Aquatic life use status of the remaining 21 miles remains unknown. Identified causes and sources based on the

intensive survey conducted in 1994 were carried over to this Integrated Report.

Recreation Use Assessment

Reporting Category: 3i

Assessment Unit Score: Not calculated Public Drinking Water Supply Assessment

Reporting Category: 0

Cause of Impairment: None

Nitra te Watch List: No Fish Tissue Assessment

Reporting Category: 5

Causes of Impairment: PCBs

PCB Concentration: 531 ppb



### Figure 2. Large River Assessment Unit Summary from the Ohio 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring

and Ass essment Report.Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 22

- Figure 3. Mahoning River Study AreaFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 23

- Figure 3. Mahoning River Study Area (Continued)Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 24

- Figure 3. Mahoning River Study Area (Continued)Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 25

- Figure 3. Mahoning River Study Area (Continued)Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 26

- Table 5. Water Quality Criteria for Monte Carl o Model Parameters (Warren WWTP)

Outside Mixing Zone Criteria Inside

Average Maximum Mixing

Human Agri

- Aquatic Aquatic Zone

Parameter (μg/L) Health culture A Life B Life B Maximum C

Cadmium

- 50. 0.41 E 7.8 19.

Chromium, total

- 100. 130. 2700. 6100.

Copper 1300. 500. 15. D 23. D 51.

Lead

- 100. 6.1 D,E 230. D 550.

Nickel 610. E 200. 78. 710. 1600.

Z inc 69000. 25000. 180. 180. 410.

A There is some uncertainty regarding the return period used to develop the Agricultural Water Supply

(AWS) criteria. Therefore, the AWS criteria for the Monte Carlo model are presented for information

p urposes only.

B Based on river hardness of 162 mg/L.

C Based on effluent hardness of 189 mg/L.

D Effective Criteria Based on Application of Dissolved Metal Translator.

E Pennsylvania WQC at the state line.Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 27

- Table 6. Monte Carlo Model Inputs

Coeffi cient of Variation

Parameter Mean Acute Chronic Source

Mahoning River at Leavittsburg

Flow (MGD) A

-- -- -- USGS

Cadmium (μg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 STORET

Chromium, total (μg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 STORET

Copper (μg/L) 2.1 0.31 0.12 STORET

Lead (μg/L) 0.83 1.59 0.60 S TORET

Nickel (μg/L) 2.8 0.18 0.07 STORET

Zinc (μg/L) 7.01 0.36 0.14 STORET

Mosquito Creek at mouth

Flow (MGD) 80.9 1.49 0.56 USGS/SWIMS

Cadmium (μg/L) 0.25 2.7 1.0 STORET

Chromium, total (μg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 STORET

Copper (μg/L) 2.4 0.7 0.27 STORET

Lead (μg /L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 STORET

Nickel (μg/L) 0.94 0.65 0.25 STORET

Zinc (μg/L) 11.3 1.3 0.47 STORET

Meander Creek at mouth

Flow (MGD) 3.67 0.29 0.11 SWIMS

Cadmium (μg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 STORET

Chromium, total (μg/L) 1.3 0.97 0.37 STORET

Copper (μg/L) 6.0 0.92 0.35 S TORET

Lead (μg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 STORET

Nickel (μg/L) 8.1 1.4 0.53 STORET

Zinc (μg/L) 40. 1.3 0.48 STORET

Little Squaw Creek at mouth

Flow (MGD) 3.6 0.44 0.17 SWIMS

Cadmium (μg/L) 0.15 2.7 1.0 SWIMS

Chromium, total (μg/L) 3.2 0.35 0.13 SWIMS

Copper (μg/L) 12

. 0.60 0.23 SWIMS

Lead (μg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 SWIMS

Nickel (μg/L) 9.8 0.87 0.33 SWIMS

Zinc (μg/L) 64. 0.80 0.30 SWIMSFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 28

- Table 6. Monte Carlo Model Inputs ( C ontinued)

Coefficient of Variation

Parameter Mean Acute Chronic Source

Mill Creek at mou th

Flow (MGD) 44.5 2.2 0.84 USGS

Cadmium (μg/L) 0.12 0.48 0.18 STORET

Chromium, total (μg/L) 0.0 0.0 0.0 STORET

Copper (μg/L) 2.4 0.70 0.26 STORET

Lead (μg/L) 4.1 1.9 0.74 STORET

Nickel (μg/L) 28.1 0.30 0.11 STORET

Zinc (μg/L) 13.5 1.87 0.71 STORET

Disc harger flows (MGD)

Warren Steel Holdings (CSC) 0.76 0.94 0.35 SWIMS

Thomas Steel Strip 0.62 0.45 0.17 SWIMS

RG Steel

003 0.086 0.98 0.37 SWIMS

006 0.013 1.56 0.59 SWIMS

007 2.48 C 0.31 0.12 SWIMS

008 6.91 0.17 0.07 SWIMS

Intake B

--

. -- --

. -- --

. -- -- -

013 34.3 0.11 0.04 SWIMS

010 0.24 0.72 0.27 SWIMS

011 1.47 0.60 0.23 SWIMS

012 0.14 0.47 0.18 SWIMS

Mittal 014 2.58 0.44 0.17 SWIMS

Warren WWTP 14.9 0.49 0.19 SWIMS

Reactive Metals Inc. 0.35 0.51 0.19 SWIMS

GenOn

002 2.7 0.43 0.16 SWIMS

008 0.001 0.0 0.0 SWIMS

009 1.0 0.0 0.0

Niles WWTP 4.99 0.52 0.20 SWIMS

McDonald Steel 0.91 0.97 0.37 SWIMS

Youngstown WWTP 34.6 0.39 0.15 SWIMS

Campbell WWTP 2.1 0.55 0.21 SWIMS

Struthers WWTP 4.7 0.31 0.12 SWIMS

Lowellville WWTP 0.43 0.72 0.27 SWIMS

A Each iteration of the model sequentially selects an upstream flow from the historical flow record at this

gage.

B Intake flow was set equal to the sum of the WCI effluent flows plus the Mittal flow, multiplied by

0.871. (12.9% of the WCI / Mittal flo w comes from sources other than the intake.)

C Recommended by Erm Gomes; outfall is submerged and no recent flows are availableFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 29

- Table 7. Water Quality Criteria for CONSWLA Modeling

Outside Mixing Zone Criteria

Inside

Average Maximum Mixing

Human Agri

- Aquatic Aquatic Zone

Parameter Units Health culture Life Life Maximum

Arsenic μg/L

– 100. 150. 340. 680.

Barium μg/L

– - 220. 2000. 4000.

Bromodichloromethane μg/L 4 60.

– – – –

Chlorine, tot. res. μg/L

– – 11. 19. 38.

Chloroform μg/L 5.7 C

– 140. 1300. 2600.

Chromium +6 , diss. μg/L

– – 10. C 16. 31.

Cyanide, free μg/L 140. C

– 5.2 C 22. C 92.

Dibromochloromethane μg/L 340.

– – – –

Iron μg/L

– 5000. 1500. C

– – Mercury A ng/L 12. 10000. 910. 1700. 3400.

Molybdenum μg/L

– – 20000. 190000. 370000.

Nitrate+Nitrite mg/L

– 100.

– – –

Selenium μg/L 11000. 50. 4.6 C

– – Silver (Seg. 4) μg/L

– – 1.3 21. E F 42. E F

Strontium μg/L

– – 21000. 40000. 81000.

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L

– – 500. C

– –

A Bioaccumulative Chemical of Concern (BCC)

C Pennsylvania Water Quality Criteria.

E Local river hardness at critical low design flow was used to determine the water qu ality criteria.

Segment 1 is at the Ohio Pennsylania state line (RM 11.43), Segment 2 is from the GenOn Power

Intake to the Ohio Pennsylania state line (RM 29.7

- RM11.43), Segment 3 is the RG Steel Intake to

the GenOn Power Intake (RM 36.5 to Rm 29.7), and Segment 4 is from Leavittsburg to the RG Steel

Intake (RM 45.5 to RM 36.5).

F Effective Criteria Based on Application of Dissolved Metal Translator.Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 30

- Table 8. Instream Conditions and Discharger Flows for the CONSWLA Model

Parameter Units/Outfall Value Basis

Mahoning River Upstream

7Q10 cfs annual 136. USGS gage #03094000, 1969

- 2010 data

1Q10 cfs annual 129. USGS gage #03094000, 1969

- 2010 data

30Q10 cfs summer 186. USGS gage #03094000, 1969

- 2010 data

cfs winter 192. USGS gage #03094000, 1969

- 2010 data

HMQ cfs annual 383. USGS gage #03094000, 1969

- 2010 data

Meander Creek at mouth

7Q10 cfs annual 6.19 USGS gage #03097500, 1929

- 51 data

1Q10 cfs annual 6.19 USGS gage #03097500, 1929

- 51 data

30Q10 cfs summer 6.19 USGS gage #03097500, 1929

- 51 data

cfs winter 6.19 USGS gage #03097500, 1929

- 51 data

HMQ cfs annual 6.19 USGS gage #03097500, 1929

- 51 data

Mosquito Creek at mouth

7Q10 cfs annual 10.6 USGS gage #03095500, 1954

- 91 data

1Q10 cfs annual 9.47 USGS gage #03095500, 1954

- 91 data

30Q10 cfs summer 14.0 USGS gage #03095500, 1954

- 91 data

cfs winter 12.6 USGS gage #03095500, 1954

- 91 data

HMQ cfs annual 28.0 USGS gage #03095500, 1954

- 91 data

Mill Creek at mouth

7Q10 cfs annual 9.99 USGS gage #03098500, 1952

- 71 data

1Q10 cfs annual 9.87 U SGS gage #03098500, 1952

- 71 data

30Q10 cfs summer 10.7 USGS gage #03098500, 1952

- 71 data

cfs winter 15.7 USGS gage #03098500, 1952

- 71 data

HMQ cfs annual 14.3 USGS gage #03098500, 1952

- 71 data

Discharger Flow (cfs)

Warren Steel Holdings 005 2.01 DSW Permits Staff

Thomas Steel Strip 001 1.83 DSW Permits Staff

RG Steel Warren 003 0.34 DSW Permits Staff

006 0.08 DSW Permits Staff

007 3.84 DSW Permits Staff

008 13.4 DSW Permits Staff

010 0.77 DSW Permits Staff

011 4.56 DSW Permits Staff

012 0.38 DSW Permits Staff

013 57.6 DSW Permits Staff

ArcelorMittal Warren 014 6.50 DSW Permits Staff

Warren WWTP 001 24.8 DSW Permits Staff

RMI

- Niles 001 0.743 DSW Permits Staff

Niles WWTP 001 9.59 DSW Permits Staff

McDonald Steel 001 2.82 D SW Permits StaffFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 31

- Table 8. Instream Conditions and Discharger Flows for the CONSWLA Model (Continued)

Parameter Units/Outfall Value Basis

Discharger Flow cfs

Mosquito Creek WWTP 001 6.50 DSW Permits Staff

Meander Creek WWTP 001 6.19 DSW Pe rmits Staff

Boardman WWTP 001 7.74 DSW Permits Staff

GenOn Niles Power 001 264.6 DSW Permits Staff

002 6.92 DSW Permits Staff

008 0.002 DSW Permits Staff

009 3.09 DSW Permits Staff

Girard WWTP 001 7.74 DSW Permits Staff

Youngstown WWTP 001 54.2 DSW Permits Staff

Campbell WWTP 001 2.94 DSW Permits Staff

Struthers WWTP 001 9.28 DSW Permits Staff

Lowellville WWTP 001 0.792 DSW Permits Staff

Mixing Assumption % average 100 Stream

- to

- discharge ratio

% maximum 100 Stream

- to

- discharge ratio

Backg round Water Quality

Arsenic μg/L annual 2.0 STORET C ; 38 values, 17<MDL, 2006

- 2011

Cadmium μg/L annual 0. STORET C ; 38 values, 38<MDL, 2006

- 2011

Chlorine, total res μg/L annual 0. No representative data available

Chromium, tot. μg/L annual 1. STORET C ; 12 values, 11<MDL, 2006

- 2011

Chromium +6 , diss μg/L annual 0. No representative data available

Chloroform μg/L annual 0. No representative data available

Copper μg/L annual 5. STORET C ; 38 values, 30<MDL, 2006

- 2011

Cyanide free μg/L annual 0. No representativ e data available

Iron μg/L annual 719. STORET; 38 values, 0<MDL, 2006

- 2011

Lead μg/L annual 1. STORET C ; 38 values, 35<MDL, 2006

- 2011

Mercury μg/L annual 0. STORET C ; 38 values, 0<MDL, 2006

- 2011

Molybdenum μg/L annual 0. No representative data available

N ickel μg/L annual 2.75 STORET C ; 12 values, 0<MDL, 2006

- 2011

Selenium μg/L annual 0. STORET; 38 values, 38<MDL, 2006

- 2011

Silver μg/L annual 0. No representative data available

Strontium μg/L annual 127. STORET; 38 values, 0<MDL, 2006

- 2011

TDS mg/L annu al 252. STORET C ; 38 values, 0<MDL, 2006

- 2011

Zinc μg/L annual 5 STORET C ; 38 values, 33<MDL, 2006

- 2011

C STORET station # 602280 Mahoning River @ Leavittsburg

- Leavitt Rd. RM 45.51Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 32

- Table 9. Summary of Effluent Limits to Maintain Applicable Water Qu ality Criteria

Average Maximum Inside

Human Agri Aquatic Aquatic Mixing Zone

Parameter Units Health Supply Life Life Maximum

Arsenic B μg/L

– 425. 343. 761. A 680.

Barium μg/L

- - 340. 3180. 4000.

Cadmium μg/L

– – 2.1 E 19. A 19.

Chlorine, total res

summer μg/L

– – 14. 24. 38.

Chromium, tot. B μg/L

– – 633. 6100. A 6100.

Chromium +6 , dissolved B μg/L

– – 25. E 39. A 31.

Copper μg/L

– – 38. D 51. A D 51.

Cyanide free μg/L 682400. A

– 20. 73. 92.

Lead μg/L

– – 23. D, E 550. A D 550.

Mercury C ng/L 12. 10000. A 910. 1700. 3400.

Molybdenum B μg/L

– – 54110. 501000. A 370000.

Nickel μg/L

– – 376. 1600. A 1600.

Selenium μg/L 52220. 237. 11. E

– –

Silver B μg/L

– – 3.0 19. D 42. D

Total Dissolved Soli ds mg/L

– – 622. E

– –

Zinc B μg/L

-- -- 410. A 410. A 410.

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

for use in pretreatment pr ogram.

C Bioaccumulative Chemical of Concern (BCC); no mixing zone allowed after 11/15/2010, WQS

must be met at end

- of

- pipe unless the requirements for an exception are met as listed in 3745

- 2

- 08.

D WLA based on applicable dissolved metal tr anslator.

E Pennsylvania water quality criteria was appliedFact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 33

- Table 10. Parameter Assessment

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

Chloride Phosphorus Sulfate

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

limit recommended, monitoring optional.

Arsenic Bromodichloromethane Chloroform

Chromium +6 , diss. Chromium, tot. Dibromochloromethane

Iron Molybdenum Nitrate+Nitrite

Silver Strontium Zinc

Group 3 : PEQ

max < 50% of maximum PEL and PEQ

avg < 50% of average PEL. No limit

recommended, monitoring optional.

Copper Lead Nickel

Group 4 : PEQ

max > 50% but <100% of the maximum PEL or PEQ

avg > 50% but < 100% of the

average PEL. Monitoring is app ropriate.

Barium (>75%) Cadmium Chlorine, total res.(>75%)

Cyanide, free Mercury Selenium (>75%)

Group 5 : Maximum PEQ > 100% of the maximum PEL or average PEQ > 100% of the average

PEL

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

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

recommended.

Limits to Protect Numeric Water Quality Criteria

Applicable Recommended Effluent Limits

Parameter Units Period Average Maximum

Total Dissolved Solids mg/L annual 622.

--Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Warren Water Pollution Control Facility, 2011

- 2012

- 34

- Table 11. F inal Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements

Effluent Limitations

Concentration Loading (kg/day) a

Monthly Daily Monthly Daily

P arameter Units Average Maximum Average Maximum Basis b

Temperature o C

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M M

Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 5.0 minimum

-- -- BEJ, EP

Suspended Solids mg/l 20 30 c 1211 1817 BEJ, EP

Oil and Grease mg /l

-- 10

-- -- WQS, EP

Ammonia

- N mg/l

Summer 3.0 4.5 c 182 273 c BEJ, EP

Winter 15 22 c 909 1332 c BEJ, EP

Total Kjeldahl

- N mg/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M, EP

Nitrite(N) +

Nitrate(N) mg/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monit or

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M, EP

Phosphorus, Total mg/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M, EP

Cyanide, Free mg/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Chloride, T. mg/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M, EP

Sulfate mg/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M, EP

Selenium, T. R. g/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Barium, T. R. ug/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Nickel, T. R. g/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M

Zinc, T. R. g/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M

Cadmium, T. R. g/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Lead, T. R. g/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M

Chromium, T. R. g/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Moni tor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M

Copper, T. R. g/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M

Hex. Chromium

(Dissolved) g/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M

Fecal Coliform

Summer Only (Interim) #/100ml 1000 2000 c

-- -- BEJ, EP

E. coli

Summer Only (Final) #/100ml 126 284 c

-- -- WQS WQS

Flow MGD

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - M

Chlorine, Total Residual

Summer mg/l

-- 0.024

-- -- WLA

Mercury, T. ng/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Mo nitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Whole Effluent Toxicity

Acute TUa

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - WET

Chronic TUc

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - WET

pH S.U.

- - - - - - - - - - - 6.5 to 9.0

- - - - - - - - - - - WQS, EP

Total Filterable Residue

(Dissolved Solids) mg/l

- - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - BEJ, EP

CBOD 5 mg/l 12 18 c 727 1090 c BEJ, EP

a Effluent loadings based on average design discharge flow of 16 MGD.

b Definitions: BEJ = Best Engineering Judgment; EP = Existing Permit; M = BEJ of Permit Guidance 1:

Monitoring Frequency Requirements for Sanitary Discharges; RP = Reasonabl e Potential

for requiring water quality

- based effluent limits and monitoring requirements in NPDES

permits [OAC 3745

- 33

- 07(A)]; WET = Minimum testing requirements for whole effluent

toxicity [OAC 3745

- 33

- 07(B)(11)]; WLA = Wasteload Allocation procedures (O AC 3745

- 2); WQS = Ohio Water Quality Standards (OAC 3745

- 1

- 07).

c Weekly average limit.