National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System …Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility, 2018 Page 1 of 43 National Pollutant Discharge

Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility, 2018

Page 1 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 the Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility

Public Notice No.: 18-09-025 Ohio EPA Permit No.: 1PK00016*ND Public Notice Date: September 20, 2018 Application No.: OH0072087 Comment Period Ends: October 20, 2018 Name and Address of Facility Where Name and Address of Applicant: Discharge Occurs: Butler County Water and Sewer Department Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility 130 High Street 6055 Centre Park Drive Hamilton, OH 45011 West Chester, OH 45235 Butler County Receiving Water: East Fork Mill Creek Subsequent Stream Network: Mill Creek, 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 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). 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


Page 2 of 43

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/or monitoring requirements proposed for the following parameters are the same as in the current permit, although some monitoring frequencies may have changed: flow, temperature, dissolved oxygen, CBOD5, total suspended solids, ammonia-nitrogen, total phosphorus, nitrite+nitrate-nitrogen, oil and grease, pH, free cyanide, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, and total filterable residue. New effluent limits are proposed for hexavalent chromium and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate due to reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the water quality standards. New final effluent limits are proposed for Escherichia coli. New WQS for E. coli became effective in April 2016. No compliance schedule is proposed for meeting these new final effluent limits. Based on best technical judgment, it is expected the facility will be able to comply with the proposed limits when the permit becomes effective. New monitoring is proposed for selenium to acquire a larger data set for future reasonable potential calculations. In accordance with Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-33-07, Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility was placed in hazard category 2 with respect to whole effluent toxicity. Quarterly chronic tests with the determination of acute endpoints have been included for both Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas. A trigger to complete a toxicity reduction evaluation if certain conditions are met has also been included. Cyanide, nickel, zinc, cadmium, lead, chromium, copper, and hexavalent chromium are being removed from the downstream monitoring station 901. Cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel monitoring frequencies are being reduced from influent monitoring station 601 to coincide with reduced frequencies at monitoring station 001. A schedule of compliance has been included for implementing the 2005 Mill Creek TMDL. 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; pretreatment program requirements; and outfall signage. 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


Page 3 of 43

either ASTM D7237-10 or OIA-1677-09 both of which are approved methods for free cyanide listed in 40 CFR 136.


Page 4 of 43

Table of Contents Page INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1

SUMMARY OF PERMIT CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 2

PROCEDURES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE FORMULATION OF FINAL DETERMINATIONS .. 6

INFORMATION REGARDING CERTAIN WATER QUALITY BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS ............. 6

LOCATION OF DISCHARGE/RECEIVING WATER USE CLASSIFICATION ..................................... 8

FACILITY DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................... 8

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING DISCHARGE ........................................................................................... 9

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ON RECEIVING WATERS ...................................................................... 10

DEVELOPMENT OF WATER-QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITS ............................................. 11

REASONABLE POTENTIAL/EFFLUENT LIMITS/MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ............................ 13

OTHER REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 16

List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility .................................................................. 18

Figure 2. Diagram of Wastewater Treatment System ........................................................................................... 19

List of Tables

Table 1. Sewage Sludge Removal ......................................................................................................................... 20

Table 2. Effluent Violations for Outfall 001 ......................................................................................................... 20

Table 3. Average Annual Effluent Flow Rates ..................................................................................................... 20

Table 4. Sanitary Sewer Overflows Discharges .................................................................................................... 21

Table 5. Calculated Phosphorus Loadings ............................................................................................................ 21

Table 6. Effluent Characterization Using Pretreatment Data ................................................................................ 22

Table 7. Effluent Characterization Using Ohio EPA data ..................................................................................... 23

Table 8. Effluent Characterization Using Self-Monitoring Data .......................................................................... 24

Table 9. Projected Effluent Quality for Outfall 001 .............................................................................................. 28

Table 10. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Results ................................................................................ 29


Page 5 of 43

Table 11. Ohio EPA Toxicity Screening Results for Outfall 001 ......................................................................... 29

Table 12. Use Attainment Table ........................................................................................................................... 30

Table 13. Water Quality Criteria in the Study Area ............................................................................................. 31

Table 14. Instream Conditions and Discharger Flow ........................................................................................... 32

Table 15. Summary of Effluent Limits to Maintain Applicable Water Quality Criteria ...................................... 34

Table 16. Parameter Assessment ........................................................................................................................... 35

Table 17. Final Effluent Limits for Outfall 001 .................................................................................................... 36

List of Attachments

Attachment 1. Ohio River Basin WET RP Determination .................................................................................... 38

List of Addendums

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


Page 6 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:

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Attention: Division of Surface Water

Permits Processing Unit P.O. Box 1049

Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 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 Walter Ariss, 614-644-3075, [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


Page 7 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:

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Attention: Division of Surface Water

Permits Processing Unit P.O. Box 1049

Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 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.


Page 8 of 43

LOCATION OF DISCHARGE/RECEIVING WATER USE CLASSIFICATION Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility discharges to East Fork Mill Creek at River Mile 1.07. Figure 1 shows the approximate location of the facility. This segment of the East Fork Mill Creek is described by Ohio EPA River Code: 23-006, Hydrologic Unit Code: 05090203-01-01, County: Butler, Ecoregion: Eastern Corn Belt Plains. The East Fork Mill Creek is designated for the following uses under Ohio’s WQS (OAC 3745-1-30): Warmwater Habitat, Agricultural Water Supply, Industrial Water Supply, Primary Contact Recreation. 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 Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility was constructed in 1981 and last upgraded in 2005. The average design flow is 16.0 million gallons per day (MGD). Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility serves the City of Fairfield and Fairfield Twp., West Chester Twp., Liberty Twp., and various portions of Warren and Hamilton counties. Wet stream processes are influent pumping, screening and grit removal, secondary treatment using oxidation ditches, biological and chemical nutrient removal, final clarification, tertiary filtration, ultra violet disinfection, and post aeration. Treatment processes are shown on Figure 2. The Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility is served by a separate sanitary sewer system. The Butler County Water and Sewer Department implements an approved pretreatment program. Based on information in the NPDES permit renewal application, 25 categorical industrial users and 5 significant non-categorical industrial users discharge approximately 1.33 MGD to the plant. The Butler County Water and Sewer Department’s potable water comes from the City of Hamilton and the Greater Cincinnati Water Works who obtain source water from the Great Miami buried aquifer and the Ohio River.


Page 9 of 43

Normal solid stream processes are gravity thickening, aerobic digestion, polymer addition, dewatering by centrifugation or by belt filter press (back up). Sludge is disposed by transferring to another NPDES facility or disposal at a mixed solid waste landfill. Table 1 shows the last five years of sludge removed from Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility. Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility is covered under the following additional NPDES permit(s): industrial storm water general permit 1GR00624*DG. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING DISCHARGE Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility had 18 effluent violations which are shown on Table 2. These violations were not caused by a known process error or upset condition. These violations have been addressed and no prescribed remedy is needed within this renewal permit. The average annual effluent flow rate for Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility for the previous five years is presented on Table 3. Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility has an estimated infiltration/inflow (I/I) rate of 1.9 MGD that does not cause known problems in the collection system. Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility performs the following activities to minimize I/I: smoke/dye testing, regular sewer inspections, and regular sewer repairs. Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility reports SSOs at station 300. The number of SSOs and dates recorded is presented in Table 4. Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility must maintain a phosphorus limit as required by the existing NPDES permit. Compliance information on this requirement is presented in Table 5. 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 6 presents chemical specific data compiled from data reported in annual pretreatment reports. Table 7 presents chemical specific data collected by Ohio EPA. Table 8 presents a summary of unaltered Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). Data are presented for the period of July 2013 through July 2018, and current permit limits are provided for comparison. Table 9 summarizes the chemical specific data for outfall 001 by presenting the average and maximum PEQ values. Table 10 summarizes the results of acute and chronic WET tests of the final effluent. Table 11 summarizes the Ohio toxicity screening results for Outfall 001. Table 12 presents the use attainment status of East Fork Mill Creek. Table 13 summarizes the water quality criteria for East Fork Mill Creek. Table 14 summarizes the instream conditions and background values used in the WLA.


Page 10 of 43

Table 15 summarizes the effluent limits to maintain the water quality criteria. Table 16 includes the parameter assessment from the WLA. Table 17 lists the final effluent monitoring and limits for Outfall 001. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT ON RECEIVING WATERS The East Fork Mill Creek - Mill Creek watershed assessment unit, in the vicinity of Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility, is listed as impaired for aquatic life, recreation, and human health on Ohio’s 303(d) list. The full Integrated Report is available through the Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water website at: http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/OhioIntegratedReport.aspx A Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) report was approved for the Mill Creek watershed in April 2005. Table 2, “Phasing of TMDL in the Mill Creek watershed”, in the TMDL report recommends total phosphorus and dissolved nitrogen limits for the Upper Mill Creek plant. The current NPDES permit includes limits and a compliance schedule for meeting the TMDL recommendations by March 1, 2024. The 2005 TMDL is available at: http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/MillCreekOhio.aspx 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 1412) 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.


Page 11 of 43

The most recent data available for East Fork Mill Creek is from 2014 and included in the report Biological and Water Quality Study of Southwest Ohio River Tributaries, 2014. East Fork Mill Creek is impaired for aquatic life due to the following: Nutrient enrichment which is manifested in the biological indicators, as well as an unknown total toxic effect. The identified source for the causes is the municipal point source. This indicates that Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility is likely contributing to the impairments in East Fork Mill Creek by discharging a nutrient load and toxic influences as evident by sporadic toxicity of the effluent. More information on the most recent survey can be found at the link below; http://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/documents/SWORT%20TSD%202014.pdf 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 Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility 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) July 2013 through July 2018 Pretreatment data 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016 Ohio EPA compliance and bioassay sampling data 2014, 2015

Statistical Outliers and Other Non-representative Data The data were examined and one value for zinc from October 2, 2013, was removed from the evaluation due to it being eight times lower than the next closest value. This greatly improved the correlation of the effluent sampling results used to develop the PEQ. A copper result from April 4, 2018, was removed in order to correct a PEQ average value higher than the PEQ maximum value. A free cyanide result from June 8, 2015, was removed to correct a low R squared value in the PEQs. 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 9). 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 9). 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


Page 12 of 43

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

Aquatic life (Warmwater Habitat) 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

Allocations are developed using a percentage of stream design flow as specified in Table 16, and allocations cannot exceed the Inside Mixing Zone Maximum (IMZM) criteria. 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 Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility, the WLA values are 0.3 TUa and 1.02 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 This equation applies outside the mixing zone for warmwater, modified warmwater, exceptional warmwater, coldwater, and seasonal salmonid use designations.


Page 13 of 43

When the acute WLA is less than 1.0 TUa, it may be defined as: Dilution Ratio Allowable Effluent Toxicity (downstream flow to discharger flow) (percent effects in 100% effluent) up to 2 to 1 30 greater than 2 to 1 but less than 2.7 to 1 40 2.7 to 1 to 3.3 to 1 50 The acute WLA for Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility is 30 percent mortality in 100 percent effluent based on the dilution ratio of 1.0 to 1. 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 15. The average PEL (PELavg) is compared to the average PEQ (PEQavg) from Table 9, 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 16. The final effluent limits are determined by evaluating the groupings in conjunction with other applicable rules and regulations. Table 17 presents the final effluent limits and monitoring requirements proposed for Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility outfall 001 and the basis for their recommendation. Unless otherwise indicated, the monitoring frequencies proposed in the permit are continued from the existing permit. Dissolved Oxygen, CBOD5, Total Suspended Solids, and Ammonia Nitrogen The limits proposed for dissolved oxygen, CBOD5 (5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand), total suspended solids and ammonia-nitrogen are based on BADCT (Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology as defined in Table 5-1 of Rule 3745-1-05). Modeling for ammonia toxicity confirmed that the BADCT limits for ammonia are adequate to maintain the ammonia water quality standards during the summer and winter. These are all a continuation of existing permit limits. Oil and Grease, pH, 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 East Fork Mill Creek. New WQS for E. coli for receiving waters formerly designated as Class B or C Primary Contact Recreation waters became effective in April 2016. No compliance schedule is proposed for meeting these new final effluent limits. Based on best technical judgment, it is expected the facility will be able to comply when the permit becomes effective. Phosphorus and Nitrate-Nitrite Based on best professional judgment (BPJ), limits are recommended for Phosphorus and Nitrate-Nitrite. The 2005 Mill Creek TMDL lists the East Fork Mill Creek watershed as impaired for aquatic life. Nutrients and organic enrichment/dissolved oxygen are listed as “high magnitude” causes, and major municipal point sources are listed among the “high magnitude” sources in the TMDL report. Considering this information and the fact that municipal WWTPs discharge a nutrient load to the river, there is reasonable potential for nutrients to


Page 14 of 43

adversely affect the receiving stream. Therefore, a monthly and weekly average concentration limit, along with a monthly and weekly average loading limit for Phosphorus and Nitrate-Nitrite are proposed as a continuation of existing permit limits that became effective in January 2006. They are the first phase of meeting the point source wasteload allocations that are identified in the 2005 Mill Creek TMDL. The 2005 TMDL established a phased implementation approach that included an updated Ohio EPA watershed assessment which was completed in 2014. If attainment of biological criteria was not achieved, the 2005 TMDL recommends compliance with the wasteload allocations and further load reductions at Upper Mill Creek WRF. The Ohio EPA report, Biological and Water Quality Study of Southwest Ohio River Tributaries, 2014, indicated that the two sites evaluated downstream of the Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility were in partial attainment of the aquatic life standard. While nutrients were elevated downstream of the discharge and included as a contributing cause, a total toxics effect was included as well. This total toxic effect was attributed to elevated conductivity readings which is a reflection of TDS concentration. Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility is identified as a source of this high TDS. It is Ohio EPA’s approach within this permit cycle to address the toxicity in an effort to return the stream to full attainment. Further nutrient load reductions at this time will not likely result in improved IBI scores unless the toxicity source is addressed as well. It is important to continually improve the nutrient effluent quality in order to minimize potential adverse impacts and elevated in stream concentrations. Consistent with the adaptive implementation measures called for in the 2005 TMDL, we are proposing to revise the TMDL implementation schedule to allow for increased toxicity monitoring to take place. Sufficient evidence exists that demonstrates that the conductivity in the stream is adversely affecting the scoring. Once any possible toxicity reductions are completed, the stream should be reassessed to determine its attainment status. It is also appropriate to continue to allow for the maturation of the Wildermuth habitat restoration project as well as the Mill Creek confluence project. Key parts of the proposed compliance schedule for implementing the Mill Creek TMDL include: - Submitting periodic status reports on the capability of the existing treatment facilities to reduce the effluent loadings of total phosphorus and total nitrite+nitrate-N and a summary of other projects, initiatives or actions the County is taking to achieve the loading reductions necessary to meet the wasteload allocations. - A reopener that the permit may be modified or renewed to include new or revised effluent limits or other conditions necessary to comply with an approved TMDL. - Submittal of a general plan by March 1, 2020 to achieve the wasteload allocations for total phosphorus and total nitrite+nitrate-N. - Compliance with the wasteload allocations for total phosphorus and total nitrite+nitrate-N should future stream surveys reveal that the aquatic life use is still impaired. Ohio EPA will plan to reassess the East Fork of Mill Creek downstream of the Upper Mill Creek WRF before the next permit renewal in 2023 to determine if the stream is attaining the aquatic life use. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, Hexavalent Chromium, Total Filterable Residue The Ohio EPA risk assessment (Table 16) places bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, hexavalent chromium, total filterable residue in group 5. This placement, as well as the data in Table 9 and Table 15 indicates that the reasonable potential to exceed WQS exists and limits are necessary to protect water quality. For these parameters, the PEQ is greater than 100 percent of the WLA or the PEQ is between 75 and 100 percent of the WLA and certain conditions exist that increase the risk to the environment. Pollutants that meet this requirement must have permit limits under OAC 3745-33-07(A)(1). The thirty day average concentration limits


Page 15 of 43

and the daily maximum concentration limits for these pollutants is based on protection of aquatic life. A compliance schedule to meet the new limits for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and hexavalent chromium was not included since the previous five years of effluent data show that the 95th percentile of the data are below the proposed limits (Table 8). Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene and Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene The Ohio EPA risk assessment (Table 16) places dibenz(a,h)anthracene and indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene in group 5, which recommends limits to protect water quality. Using the discretion allowed the Director under OAC 3745-33-07(A)(5), monitoring rather than limits is proposed for these parameters. The PEQ values calculated for these pollutants (Table 9) may not be representative of its actual levels in the plant effluent since they were based on a very small number of sample results. The purpose of the proposed monitoring is to collect additional data on the frequency of occurrence and variability of these pollutants in the plant’s effluent. Monitoring for dibenzo(a,h)anthracene and indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene will take place through the annual priority pollutant scans required under the industrial pretreatment program. Any detections of these parameters in the effluent will require notification to Ohio EPA. Selenium The Ohio EPA risk assessment (Table 16) places selenium in group 4. This placement, as well as the data in Table 9 and Table 15, 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 3745-33-07(A)(2). Cadmium, Copper, Chromium, Cyanide, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, Zinc The Ohio EPA risk assessment (Table 16) places cadmium, copper, chromium, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc in groups 2 and 3. This placement, as well as the data in Table 9 and Table 15, 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 at a reduced frequency for cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, and nickel is proposed to document that these pollutants continue to remain at low levels. Monitoring for mercury and zinc will remain at the current frequency. Sampling in this permit cycle for cyanide will require the recently approved low level method which will allow for more accurate quantification of this pollutant in the effluent. Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Butyl benzyl phthalate, Diethyl phthalate, Dimethyl phthalate, 2,6-Dinitrotoluene, Molybdenum, Phenol, Strontium The Ohio EPA risk assessment (Table 16) places antimony, arsenic, barium, butyl benzyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, 2,6-Dinitrotoluene, molybdenum, phenol, and strontium in groups 2 and 3. This placement, as well as the data in Table 9 and Table 15, support that these parameters do not have the reasonable potential to contribute to WQS exceedances, and limits are not necessary to protect water quality. No new monitoring is proposed. Flow and Temperature Monitoring for flow and temperature is proposed to continue in order to evaluate the performance of the treatment plant. Dissolved Orthophosphate Monitoring for dissolved orthophosphate (as P) is required by ORC 6111.03, which was signed by the Governor on April 2, 2015. Monitoring for orthophosphate will further develop nutrient datasets for dissolved reactive phosphorus that are used in stream and watershed assessments and studies. Because Ohio EPA monitoring, as well as other in-stream monitoring, is taken by grab sample, grab samples are proposed for orthophosphate to maintain consistent data. The grab samples must be filtered within 15 minutes of collection using a 0.45-micron filter. The filtered sample must be analyzed within 48 hours.


Page 16 of 43

Whole Effluent Toxicity Reasonable Potential Based on evaluating the WET data presented in Table 10 and Table 11 and other pertinent data under the provisions of OAC 3745-33-07(B), the Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility is placed in Category 2 with respect to WET (Attachment 1). Reasonable potential to cause toxicity is strongly suspected. The previous permit included a trigger for the permittee to conduct a TRE if two or more tests exceeded the acute or chronic WLA. Using the alternative to including limits for WET allowed under 3745-33-07(B)(3), quarterly monitoring for WET for both species is included for the entire length of this permit along with a trigger to complete a TRE. Additional Monitoring Requirements Cyanide, nickel, zinc, cadmium, lead, chromium, copper, and hexavalent chromium are being removed from the downstream monitoring station 901. Total filterable residue monitoring is being added to the 901 station. Cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel monitoring frequencies are being reduced from influent monitoring station 601 to coincide with reduced frequencies at monitoring station 001. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, total phosphorus, and selenium monitoring is being added to station 601. 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: removal to sanitary landfill or transfer to another facility with an NPDES permit. OTHER REQUIREMENTS Compliance Schedule Pretreatment Local Limits Review - A 6 month compliance schedule is proposed for the County 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 County must also submit a pretreatment program modification request. Details are in Part I.C of the permit. Mill Creek TMDL Implementation Schedule – A compliance schedule is included for implementing the Mill Creek TMDL. Total Filterable Residue Optimization – A schedule has been included for the County to complete an optimization of the existing facilities for the reduction of total filterable residue in the effluent. This schedule includes an evaluation of the existing treatment plant processes as well as an investigation of industrial users for potential source reduction measures. 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.


Page 17 of 43

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 Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility to have a Class IV 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. The permittee is also required 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 Upper Mill Creek WRF to use laboratory analytical methods with an appropriate MDL for analyzing samples for bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, hexavalent chromium, and selenium. Outfall Signage Part II of the permit includes requirements for the permittee to place and maintain a sign at each outfall to the East Fork Mill Creek providing information about the discharge. Signage at outfalls is required pursuant to OAC 3745-33-08(A). Part III Part III of the permit details standard conditions that include monitoring, reporting requirements, compliance responsibilities, and general requirements. Storm Water Compliance To comply with industrial storm water regulations, the permittee was granted coverage under the industrial storm water general permit. Permit 1GR00624*FG became effective on 06/21/2017.


Page 18 of 43

Figure 1. Location of Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility


Page 19 of 43

Figure 2. Diagram of Wastewater Treatment System


Page 20 of 43

Table 1. Sewage Sludge Removal

1PK00016 between 6/1/2012 - 6/30/2017 Sum of Outfalls 581, 584, 586, 588

Year

Dry Tons Removed

Code 51129

Code 70316

2012 49.3 1690 2013 234 1810 2014 1110 2070 2015 2520 1900 2016 137 1710

Table 2. Effluent Violations for Outfall 001

Parameter 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Nitrite plus Nitrate 0 1 0 0 0 0 Ammonia, Nitrogen 0 0 0 0 1 0 Phosphorus, Total 14 0 0 1 0 0 Total Suspended Solids 1 0 0 0 0 0 E. coli 0 0 1 0 0 0

Total 15 1 1 1 1 0 Table 3. Average Annual Effluent Flow Rates

1PK00016 between 6/1/2012 - 6/30/2017 Annual Flow Rate (MGD)

Year 50th

Percentile 95th

Percentile Maximum 2012 6.905 9.592 12.63 2013 8.79 13.164 24.36 2014 8.2 11.67 24.03 2015 8.46 13.934 22.76 2016 8.495 12.005 20.67 2017 9.72 14.99 23.74

MGD = million gallons per day.


Page 21 of 43

Table 4. Sanitary Sewer Overflows Discharges

1PK00016 between 6/1/2012 - 6/30/2017

Year Number of SSOs

2012 1

2013 6

2014 0

2015 1

2016 3

2017 0 Table 5. Calculated Phosphorus Loadings

1PK00016 between 6/1/2012 - 6/30/2017

For Months May - October

Year

Median Phosphorus Concentration

(mg/L) Median Flow

(MGD) Median Loading

(lbs/day)

2012 1.3 6.8 34.3

2013 0.6 8.01 19.3

2014 0.45 7.875 13.2

2015 0.6 8.035 18.2

2016 0.7 8.21 21.7

2017 0.7 14.29 39.7


Page 22 of 43

Table 6. Effluent Characterization Using Pretreatment Data

PARAMETER 9/26/2012 8/28/2013 8/27/2014 8/26/2015 9/28/2016

Antimony 16.4 21.4 AA (5) AA (5) 15.6

2,6-Dinitrotoluene AA (10) AA (10) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5)

Arsenic AA (5) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5)

Beryllium AA (0.5) AA (0.5) AA (0.5) AA (0.5) AA (0.5)

Bis-2ethylhexylphthalate 23.8 8.41 14.9 22.8 22.8

Butylbenzylphthalate AA (10) AA (10) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5)

Chromium AA (5) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5)

Copper AA (5) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5)

Dibenzo (A,H) Anthracene AA (0.2) AA (0.2) AA (0.2) AA (0.2) 0.24

Diethylphthalate AA (10) AA (10) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5)

Dimethylphthalate AA (10) AA (10) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5)

Indeno (1,2,3-CD) Pyrene AA (0.22) AA (0.22) AA (0.22) AA (0.22) 0.26

Lead AA (5) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5)

Molybdenum NT NT 19.2 AA (10) AA (10)

Nickel AA (5) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5) AA (5)

Phenol AA (10) AA (10) AA (10) AA (5) AA (5)

Selenium AA (10) AA (10) AA (10) AA (10) AA (10)

Zinc 17.2 42.1 30.2 28.5 37.1


Page 23 of 43

Table 7. Effluent Characterization Using Ohio EPA data

PARAMETER 12/1/2014 6/8/2015

2,6-Dinitrotoluene AA (0.3) 0.4

Aluminum 106 93

Ammonia (mg/L) 0.036 0.1

Arsenic 1.1 1

Barium 22 24

bis-2ethylhexylphthalate 0.7 5.8

Butylbenzylphthalate AA (0.1) 0.2

Chloride (mg/L) 205 225

Chromium 0.4 1.1

Copper 3.1 4.9

Dibenzo (A,H) Anthracene AA (0.5) AA (0.5)

Diethylphthalate AA (0.8) 0.8

Dimethylphthalate AA (0.1) 0.1

Free Cyanide AA (4) 10

Indeno (1,2,3-CD) Pyrene AA (0.5) AA (0.5)

Lead AA (0.3) 0.1

Manganese 5 16

Nickel 3.2 4.4

Nitrate + Nitrite (mg/L) 5.02 4.56

Phenol 3.6 3.6

Phosphorus, total 0.745 0.504

Selenium 1.2 1

Strontium 312 323

TKN 1.32 2.63

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 934 1020

Zinc 33 42 * Units are in µg/L unless specified


Page 24 of 43

Table 8. Effluent Characterization Using Self-Monitoring Data

Effluent Monitoring Data for 1PK00016*OD between 7/1/2013 and 7/1/2018

Current Limits Percentiles

Outfall Parameter Unit 30 Day Daily # Obs 50th 95th Data Range

001

Water Temperature °C Monitoring Only 1826 19.6 24.6 6.83 - 30.4

Dissolved Oxygen mg/L -- 6.0m 1826 8.9 7.6* 6.2 - 12.6

Total Suspended Solids kg/day 727 1100w 1035 89.4 239 0 - 9790

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 12 18w 1035 3 7 0 - 78

Oil and Grease mg/L -- 10 254 < 2.78 < 2.78 0 - 3.6

Nitrogen, Ammonia - Summer kg/day 60.6 90.9w 644 3.03 11.5 0 - 196

Nitrogen, Ammonia - Summer mg/L 1.0 1.5w 644 .1 .4 0 - 7.5

Nitrogen, Ammonia - Winter kg/day 182 273w 611 2.83 26.6 0 - 392

Nitrogen, Ammonia - Winter mg/L 3.0 4.5w 611 .1 .8 0 - 6.8

Nitrogen Kjeldahl, Total mg/L Monitoring Only 13 1.08 1.86 0 - 2.33

Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total kg/day 303 455w 299 118 223 0 - 489

Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total mg/L 5.0 7.5w 299 3.7 5.9 0 - 9.1

Phosphorus, Total kg/day 60.6 90.9w 353 18.7 50 0 - 101

Phosphorus, Total mg/L 1.0 1.5w 353 .6 1.2 0 - 2.2

Orthophosphate, Dissolved mg/L Monitoring Only 19 .584 1.54 0 - 2.77

Cyanide, Free mg/L Monitoring Only 23 < .002 .00352 0 - .005

Arsenic, Total (As) µg/L Monitoring Only 5 -- -- < 5

Molybdenum (Mo) µg/L Monitoring Only 5 -- -- < 10

Nickel, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 < 5 < 5 0 - 5.57

Silver, Total (Ag) µg/L Monitoring Only 5 -- -- < 2

Zinc, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 29.5 43.3 2.6 - 57.1

Cadmium, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 -- -- < 2

Lead, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 -- -- < 5

Chromium, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 < 5 < 5 0 - 11.4


Page 25 of 43

Copper, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 < 5 5.37 0 - 30.7

Selenium, Total (Se) µg/L Monitoring Only 5 -- -- < 10

Chromium, Dissolved Hexavalent µg/L Monitoring Only 19 < 4 10.6 0 - 16

E. coli #/100 mL 161 362w 511 7.5 153 0 - 2420

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate µg/L Monitoring Only 25 < 5 .848 0 - 23.2

Flow Rate MGD Monitoring Only 1826 8.5 13.4 3.08 - 33.2

Mercury, Total ng/L Monitoring Only 60 .7 2.1 0 - 57.3 Acute Toxicity,

Ceriodaphnia dubia TUa Monitoring Only 20 -- -- 0 - 0

Chronic Toxicity, Ceriodaphnia dubia TUc Monitoring Only 20 0 1.6 0 - 5.17

Acute Toxicity, Pimephales promelas TUa Monitoring Only 7 -- -- 0 - 0

Chronic Toxicity, Pimephales promelas TUc Monitoring Only 7 0 2.32 0 - 3.32

pH, Maximum S.U. -- 9.0 1826 7.8 8.2 7.2 - 8.7

pH, Minimum S.U. -- 6.5m 1826 7.5 7.2* 6.7 - 9.1 Residue, Total

Filterable kg/day 92300 -- 137 32300 42600 12700 - 51700

Residue, Total Filterable mg/L 1524 -- 137 962 1270 438 - 1390

CBOD 5 day kg/day 606 909w 1025 < 54.7 97.5 0 - 753

CBOD 5 day mg/L 10 15w 1025 < 2 3 0 - 14

300 Overflow Occurrence No./Month Monitoring Only 6 1 2.5 1 - 3

586 Sludge Fee Weight dry tons Monitoring Only 5 234 2240 0 - 2520

588 Sludge Weight Dry Tons Monitoring Only 5 1900 2040 1710 - 2070

601

Total Suspended Solids mg/L Monitoring Only 1033 300 705 24 - 3140 Nitrogen Kjeldahl,

Total mg/L Monitoring Only 14 35.9 43.6 0 - 44.2

Cyanide, Free mg/L Monitoring Only 5 .00451 .00582 0 - .0061

Cyanide, Total mg/L Monitoring Only 19 -- -- < .01

Arsenic, Total (As) µg/L Monitoring Only 5 -- -- < 5

Molybdenum (Mo) µg/L Monitoring Only 5 < 10 25 0 - 31.3

Nickel, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 7.08 20.5 0 - 32.7

Silver, Total (Ag) µg/L Monitoring Only 5 -- -- < 2

Zinc, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 90 101 227 7.7 - 512

001


Page 26 of 43

Cadmium, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 82 < 2 .1 0 - .1

Lead, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 78 < 5 2 0 - 5.65

Chromium, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 78 7.55 67.1 0 - 126

Copper, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 63 34.6 127 0 - 376

Selenium, Total (Se) µg/L Monitoring Only 5 -- -- < 10 Chromium, Dissolved

Hexavalent µg/L Monitoring Only 20 < 4 39.8 0 - 54

Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate µg/L Monitoring Only 6 < 5 4.8 0 - 6.4

Mercury, Total ng/L Monitoring Only 61 16.8 162 0 - 749

pH, Maximum S.U. Monitoring Only 1824 7.6 8.3 7 - 10.5

pH, Minimum S.U. Monitoring Only 1824 7 6.7* 4.9 - 7.8 Residue, Total

Filterable mg/L Monitoring Only 194 976 1280 360 - 1580

CBOD 5 day mg/L Monitoring Only 991 149 248 26.7 - 613

801

Water Temperature °C Monitoring Only 60 14.3 22.8 .3 - 24.9

Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Monitoring Only 60 8.27 4.67* 3.76 - 18.9

pH S.U. Monitoring Only 60 7.76 8.26 6.79 - 9.21

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L Monitoring Only 60 .02 .0905 0 - .26 Nitrogen Kjeldahl,

Total mg/L Monitoring Only 59 < .5 1.01 0 - 2.17 Nitrite Plus Nitrate,

Total mg/L Monitoring Only 60 .244 1.22 0 - 3.99

Phosphorus, Total mg/L Monitoring Only 60 < .1 .264 0 - .42

E. coli #/100 mL Monitoring Only 29 461 2420 33.6 - 2420

48-Hr. Acute Toxicity Ceriodaphnia dubia

% Affected Monitoring Only 20 -- -- 0 - 0

96-Hr. Acute Toxicity Pimephales promela

% Affected Monitoring Only 7 0 16 0 - 22

7-Day Chronic Toxicity Ceriodaphnia

dubia %

Affected Monitoring Only 20 -- -- 0 - 0 7-Day Chronic

Toxicity Pimephales promelas

% Affected Monitoring Only 7 5 23.5 0 - 25

901

Water Temperature °C Monitoring Only 60 18 24 7 - 25.1

Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Monitoring Only 60 7.62 5.61* 4.76 - 17.5

pH S.U. Monitoring Only 60 7.78 8.16 6.21 - 9.8

Nitrogen, Ammonia mg/L Monitoring Only 60 .05 .339 0 - 3.68

601


Page 27 of 43

Nitrogen Kjeldahl, Total mg/L Monitoring Only 59 1.01 1.76 0 - 4.83

Nitrite Plus Nitrate, Total mg/L Monitoring Only 60 2.39 5.5 .23 - 7.48

Phosphorus, Total mg/L Monitoring Only 59 .538 1.23 0 - 1.52

Cyanide, Total mg/L Monitoring Only 20 -- -- < .01 Hardness, Total

(CaCO3) mg/L Monitoring Only 60 243 320 160 - 348

Nickel, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 < 5 .25 0 - 7.83

Zinc, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 29.8 42.4 0 - 67

Cadmium, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 -- -- < 2

Lead, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 < 5 < 5 0 - 13.8

Chromium, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 < 5 < 5 0 - 8.07

Copper, TR µg/L Monitoring Only 60 < 5 .297 0 - 6.57

Chromium, Dissolved Hexavalent µg/L Monitoring Only 20 < 10 12.6 0 - 23

E. coli #/100 mL Monitoring Only 30 476 2420 95.9 - 2420

901


Page 28 of 43

Table 9. Projected Effluent Quality for Outfall 001

Parameter Units

Number of

Samples Number > MDL

PEQ Average

PEQ Maximum

Aluminum µg/L 2 2 294.044 402.8

Ammonia-S mg/L 449 358 0.19155 0.42033

Ammonia-W mg/L 304 191 0.62429 1.1444

Antimony µg/L 5 3 35.9306 49.22

Arsenic - TR µg/L 2 2 3.0514 4.18

Barium µg/L 2 2 66.576 91.2

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate µg/L 33 9 20.85 28.56

Butyl benzyl phthalate µg/L 2 1 0.5548 0.76

Cadmium - TR µg/L 61 0 -- --

Chlorides mg/L 2 2 624.15 855

Chromium - TR µg/L 68 3 8.322 11.4

Chromium VI - Diss µg/L 19 3 16.352 22.4

Copper - TR µg/L 67 5 3.5602 5.5448

Cyanide - free (wwh,ewh,mwh) mg/L 24 9 0.003364 0.004978

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L 5 1 0.40296 0.552

Diethyl phthalate µg/L 2 1 2.2192 3.04

Dimethyl phthalate µg/L 2 1 0.2774 0.38

2,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/L 2 1 1.1096 1.52

Dissolved solids (ave) mg/L 140 140 1163.3 1364.5

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene µg/L 5 1 0.43654 0.598

Lead - TR µg/L 61 0 -- --

Manganese - TR µg/L 2 2 44.384 60.8

Mercury - TR (BCC) ng/L 61 45 2.6923 4.2662

Molybdenum µg/L 5 0 -- --

Nickel - TR µg/L 68 4 4.0661 5.57

Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N mg/L 303 301 5.6938 8.4663

Oil & grease mg/L 258 2 1.8396 2.52

Phenol (wwh,ewh,mwh) µg/L 4 2 9.49 13

Phosphorus mg/L 359 357 0.99242 1.5403

Selenium - TR µg/L 2 2 3.3288 4.56

Strontium µg/L 2 2 896.002 1227.4

TKN mg/L 14 13 2.2513 3.5162

Zinc - TR µg/L 67 67 39.239 47.958


Page 29 of 43

Table 10. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Results

Ceriodaphnia Dubia Pimephales promelas

Date TUa TUc TUa TUc

3/25/2013 AA AA -- --

6/1/2013 AA AA -- --

6/24/2013 -- -- AA AA

8/19/2013 AA AA -- --

12/16/2013 AA AA -- --

3/26/2014 AA AA -- --

6/16/2014 AA AA AA AA

8/3/2014 AA 5.17 -- --

10/17/2014 AA AA -- --

12/5/2014 AA AA -- --

3/6/2015 AA AA -- --

6/12/2015 AA 1.41 AA AA

6/12/2016 AA AA AA AA

6/13/2017 0.2 AA AA 3.32 AA = non-detection; analytical method detection limit of 0.2 TUa, 1.0 TUc TUa = acute toxicity unit TUc = chronic toxicity unit Table 11. Ohio EPA Toxicity Screening Results for Outfall 001

Pimephales promelas Ceriodaphnia dubia %M %M

Date 24 hours 48 hours 24 hours 48 hours

12/01/2014 0 0 0 0 12/02/2014 0 0 0 0 12/01/14-12/02/14a 0 0 5 10 06/08/2015 0 0 0 0 06/09/2015 0 0 0 0 06/08/15-06/09/15a 0 0 0 0

a = 24-hour composite sample %M = percent mortality in 100% effluent


Page 30 of 43

Table 12. Use Attainment Table Based on data collected June-October 2014. IBI = Index of Biotic Integrity MIwb = Modified Index of well-being ICI = Invertebrate Community Index QHEI = Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index a – River Mile (RM) represents the Point of Record (POR) for the station and may not be the actual sampling RM. b – Miwb is not applicable to headwater streams with drainage areas ≤ 20 mi2. c – A narrative evaluation of the qualitative sample based on attributes such as EPT taxa richness, number of sensitive taxa, and community composition was used when quantitative data was not available or considered unreliable. VP = Very Poor, P = Poor, LF = Low Fair, F = Fair, MG = Marginally Good, G = Good, VG = Very Good, E = Exceptional ns – Nonsignificant departure from biocriteria (≤ 4 IBI or ICI units, or ≤ 0.5 MIwb units). NA – Not applicable * - Indicates significant departure from applicable biocriteria (> IBI or ICI units, or >0.5 MIwb units). Biological Criteria for the Eastern Corn Belt Plains Ecoregion

IBI MIwb ICI Warmwater Habitat Headwaters (drainage area < 20 mi2)

40 NA 36

Biological and Water Quality Study of the Southwest Ohio River Tributaries (2016), Ohio Environmental Protection Agency; Table 2. < http://epa.ohio.gov/Portals/35/documents/SWORT%20TSD%202014.pdf >


Page 31 of 43

Table 13. 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 µg/L -- -- -- -- --

Ammonia-S mg/L -- -- 1.1 -- --

Ammonia-W mg/L -- -- 3.6 -- --

Antimony µg/L 4300 -- 190 900 1800

Arsenic - TR µg/L -- 100 150 340 680

Barium µg/L -- -- 220 2000 4000

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate µg/L 59c -- 8.4 1100 2100

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

Cadmium - TR µg/L -- 50 5 12 25

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

Chromium - TR µg/L -- 100 180 3800 7500

Chromium VI - Diss µg/L -- -- 11 16 31

Copper - TR µg/L 1300 500 20 33 65 Cyanide - free (wwh,ewh,mwh) mg/L 220 -- 0.012 0.046 0.092

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L 0.49c -- -- -- --

Diethyl phthalate µg/L 120000 -- 220 980 2000

Dimethyl phthalate µg/L 2900000 -- 1100 3200 6400

2,6-Dinitrotoluene µg/L -- -- 81 730 1500

Dissolved solids (ave) mg/L -- -- 1500 -- --

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene µg/L 0.49c -- -- -- --

Lead - TR µg/L -- 100 20 380 770

Manganese - TR µg/L -- -- -- -- --

Mercury - TR (BCC) ng/L 12 10000 910 1700 3400

Molybdenum µg/L -- -- 20000 190000 370000

Nickel - TR µg/L 4600 200 110 1000 2000

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

Oil & grease mg/L -- -- -- 10 --

Phenol (wwh,ewh,mwh) µg/L 4600000 -- 400 4700 9400

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

Selenium - TR µg/L 11000 50 5 -- --

Strontium µg/L -- -- 21000 40000 81000

TKN mg/L -- -- -- -- --

Zinc µg/L 69000 25000 260 260 510 C = carcinogen BCC = bioaccumulative chemical of concern


Page 32 of 43

Table 14. Instream Conditions and Discharger Flow

Parameter Units Season Value Basis Stream Flows 1Q10 cfs annual 0.3 USGS gauge 03255500 7Q10 cfs annual 0.54 USGS gauge 03255500 summer 0 winter 0 30Q10 cfs summer 0.94 USGS gauge 03255500 winter 1.05 USGS gauge 03255500 90Q10 cfs annual 0 Harmonic Mean cfs annual 0.715 USGS gauge 03255500 Mixing Assumption % average 100 maximum 100 Hardness, OMZ mg/L annual 245 901 Station 50th percentile 6/12-6/17 Hardness, IMZ mg/L annual 245 901 Station 50th percentile 6/12-6/17 pH S.U. summer 8 901 Station 75th percentile 6/12-6/17 winter 7.83 901 Station 75th percentile 6/12-6/17 Temperature ºC summer 22.8 901 Station 75th percentile 6/12-6/17 winter 13 901 Station 75th percentile 6/12-6/17 Upper Mill Creek WWTP flow cfs annual 24.756 Plant Design/ NPDES app

Background Water Quality Aluminum μg/L 287 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 2<MDL; Ammonia (Summer) mg/L 0.06 Outfall 901; ; n=21; 1<MDL; Ammonia (Winter) mg/L 0.02 Outfall 901; ; n=15; 6<MDL; Antimony μg/L 0 No representative data available. Arsenic - TR μg/L 0 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 3<MDL; Barium μg/L 45 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 0<MDL; Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate μg/L 0 No representative data available. Butyl benzyl phthalate μg/L 0 No representative data available. Cadmium - TR μg/L 0 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 3<MDL; Chlorides mg/L 104.75 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=6; 0<MDL; Chromium - TR μg/L 0 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 3<MDL; Hexavalent Chromium μg/L 0 No representative data available. Copper - TR μg/L 2 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 1<MDL; Cyanide, Free mg/L 0 No representative data available. Dibenz(a,h)anthracene μg/L 0 No representative data available. Diethyl phthalate μg/L 0 No representative data available. Dimethyl phthalate μg/L 0 No representative data available. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene μg/L 0 No representative data available. Dissolved Solids mg/L 446 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=6; 0<MDL; Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene μg/L 0 No representative data available. Lead - TR μg/L 0 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 3<MDL;


Page 33 of 43

Parameter Units Season Value Basis Manganese - TR μg/L 60 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 0<MDL; Mercury ng/L 0 No representative data available. Molybdenum μg/L 0 No representative data available. Nickel - TR μg/L 1.76 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 1<MDL; Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N mg/L 0.2 Outfall 901; ; n=; <MDL; Oil & grease mg/L 0 No representative data available. Phenol (wwh,ewh,mwh) μg/L 0 No representative data available. Phosphorus mg/L 0.05 Outfall 901; ; n=; <MDL; Selenium - TR μg/L 0 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 3<MDL; Strontium μg/L 275 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 0<MDL; TKN mg/L 0.388 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=6; 0<MDL; Zinc - TR μg/L 0 EA3 Station ID 301418; 6/2014 - 9/2014; n=3; 3<MDL;

MDL = analytical method detection limit n = number of samples NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Ohio EPA = Ohio Environmental Protection Agency WWTP = wastewater treatment plant EA3 = Ecological Assessment and Analysis Application


Page 34 of 43

Table 15. Summary of Effluent Limits to Maintain Applicable Water Quality Criteria

Outside Mixing Zone Criteria Inside Average Maximum Mixing Human Agri- Aquatic Aquatic Zone Parameter Units Health culture Life Life Maximum Aluminum μg/L -- -- -- -- -- Ammonia (Summer) mg/L -- -- 1.14 -- -- Ammonia (Winter) mg/L -- -- 3.75 -- -- Antimony μg/L 4423 -- 194 911 1800 Arsenic - TR μg/L -- 103 153 344 680 Barium μg/L -- -- 224 2024 4000 Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate μg/L 61 -- 8.6 1113 2100 Butyl benzyl phthalate μg/L 5349 -- 24 132 260 Cadmium - TR μg/L -- 51 5.1 12 25 Chlorides mg/L -- -- -- -- -- Chromium - TR μg/L -- 103 184 3846 7500 Hexavalent Chromium (Dissolved) μg/L -- -- 11 16 31 Copper - TR μg/L 1337 514 20 33 65 Cyanide, Free mg/L 226 -- 0.012 0.047 0.092 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene μg/L 0.5 -- -- -- -- Diethyl phthalate μg/L 123442 -- 225 992 2000 Dimethyl phthalate μg/L 2983172 -- 1124 3239 6400 2,6-Dinitrotoluene μg/L -- -- 83 739 1500 Dissolved Solids mg/L -- -- 1523 -- -- Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene μg/L 0.5 -- -- -- -- Lead - TR μg/L -- 103 20 385 770 Manganese - TR μg/L -- -- -- -- -- Mercury ng/L 12 10000 910 1700 3400 Molybdenum μg/L -- -- 20436 192302 370000 Nickel - TR μg/L 4732 206 112 1012 2000 Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N mg/L -- 103 -- -- -- Oil & grease mg/L -- -- -- 10 -- Phenol (wwh,ewh,mwh) μg/L 4731928 -- 409 4757 9400 Phosphorus mg/L -- -- -- -- -- Selenium - TR μg/L 11315 51 5.1 -- -- Strontium μg/L -- -- 21452 40481 81000 TKN mg/L -- -- -- -- -- Zinc - TR μg/L 70979 25717 266 263 510


Page 35 of 43

Table 16. Parameter Assessment Group 1: Due to a lack of criteria, the following parameters could not be evaluated at this time. Aluminum Chlorides Manganese - TR TKN Group 2: PEQ < 25 percent of WQS or all data below minimum detection limit. WLA not required. No limit recommended; monitoring optional. Antimony Arsenic - TR Butyl benzyl phthalate Chromium - TR Diethyl phthalate Dimethyl phthalate 2,6-Dinitrotoluene Lead - TR Mercury Molybdenum Nickel - TR Nitrate-N + Nitrite-N Phenol (wwh,ewh,mwh) Strontium Zinc - TR Ammonia (summer and winter) Cadium - TR Copper - TR Group 3: PEQmax < 50 percent of maximum PEL and PEQavg < 50 percent of average PEL. No limit recommended; monitoring optional. Barium Cyanide, free 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. Selenium - TR 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 Average Maximum Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate μg/L 8.6 1113 Hexavalent Chromium μg/L 11 16 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene μg/L 0.53 -- Dissolved Solids mg/L 1523 -- Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene μg/L 0.53 -- PEL = preliminary effluent limit PEQ = projected effluent quality WLA = wasteload allocation WQS = water quality standard


Page 36 of 43

Table 17. Final Effluent Limits for Outfall 001

Concentration Loading (kg/day)a

30 Day Daily 30 Day Daily

Parameter Units Average Maximum Average Maximum Basisb

Water Temperature °C - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - M

Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 6.0 Minimum -- -- BADCT

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 12 18c 727 1100c BADCT

Oil and Grease mg/L 10 Maximum -- -- WQS

Ammonia

Summer mg/L 1.0 1.5c 60.6 90.9c BADCT

Winter mg/L 3.0 4.5c 182 273c BADCT

Nitrite + Nitrate mg/L 5.0 7.5c 303 455c BPJ

Phosphorus mg/L 1.0 1.5c 60.6 90.9c BPJ

Cyanide, Free µg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Nickel µg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Zinc µg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Cadmium µg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Lead µg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Chromium µg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Copper µg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - RP Hexavalent Chromium (Dissolved) µg/L 11.0 16.0 0.667 0.969 WLA

E. coli (Summer) #/100 mL 126 284c WQS

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate µg/L 8.6 1113 0.521 67.5 WLA

Flow Rate MGD - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - M

Mercury ng/L -- -- RP

Acute Toxicity

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

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

Chronic Toxicity

Ceriodaphnia dubia TUc - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - WET

Pimephales promelas TUc - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - WET

pH S.U. 9.0 - 6.5 -- -- WQS

Total Filterable Residue mg/L 1523 92300 WLA Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 day)

Summer mg/L 12.0 17.0c 1590 2255c BADCT

Winter mg/L 25.0 40.0c 3316 5306c BADCT

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene µg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene µg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - RP

Orthophosphate, dissolved mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - SB1


Page 37 of 43

Concentration Loading (kg/day)a

30 Day Daily 30 Day Daily

Parameter Units Average Maximum Average Maximum Basisb

Selenium mg/L - - - - - - - - - - - - - Monitor - - - - - - - - - - - - - RP a Effluent loadings based on average design discharge flow of 16.0 MGD. b Definitions: BADCT = Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology, 40 CFR Part 122.29, and OAC 3745-1-05 BPJ = Best Professional Judgment M = Division of Surface Water NPDES Permit Guidance 1: Monitoring frequency requirements for Sanitary

Discharges OAC = Ohio Administrative Code 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 = Reasonable potential for requiring water quality-based effluent limits and monitoring requirements for

whole effluent toxicity in NPDES permits [OAC 3745-33-07(B)] WLA = Wasteload Allocation procedures (OAC 3745-2) WQS = Ohio Water Quality Standards (OAC 3745-1) c weekly average limit


Page 38 of 43

Attachment 1.

Ohio River Basin Whole Effluent Toxicity Reasonable Potential for Ohio EPA NPDES Permits

Reviewer: Walter Ariss Date: 3/7/2018

Facility Name: Upper Mill Creek WRF Permit Number: 1PK00016 Date Range Searched March 2013 to June 2017

Outfall # Water flea (Ceriodaphnia

dubia) Fathead minnow (Pimephales

promelas) Acute Chronic Acute Chronic

WLA 0.3 1.02 0.3 1.02 # of tests 13 13 5 5

Maximum value 0.2 5.17 0 3.32

Per cent of tests greater than WLA 0 15.38 0 20

Geometric mean 0.2 1.16 0 1.27 Average Exceedance (Geomean * Per cent of tests greater than WLA)

0 0.1784 0 0.254

Average Exceedance / WLA 0 0.1713 0 0.249 Factors to consider [OAC 3745-33-07(B)(1)]

(a) The magnitude, frequency and variability of toxicity discharged.

Included in Table 1.

(b) The degree and type of near-field and far-field effects in the receiving water as measured by physical, chemical, toxicity or biological index measurements


(c) The quality and quantity of each type of data available.


(d) Other relevant factors.

See Table 1 below Optional information if available Impacts Table 1(A)(4) and (A)(5)

Is there near-field data available? Complete Table 1(B) Is there far-field data available? Complete Table 1(C)

Results – Hazard Categorization

Water flea Fathead minnow

Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Effluent Toxicity 4 2 4 2 Near-Field Impact 4 4 Far-field Impact 2 2

Overall Categorization 2 2


Page 39 of 43

Attribute Evaluated Minnows

Hazard Category 1

Hazard Category 2

Hazard Category 3

Hazard Category 4

Degree of toxicity problem Adequately Documented

Strongly Suspected

Possible None

(A) Effluent toxicity ......(1) Minimum number of tests (Actual number__5_)

3 1 0 or 1 0 or 1

......(2) Per cent of tests greater than WLA (Actual per cent _20 chronic, 0 acute)

30 20 to 30 Chronic

10 to 20 10 Acute

......(3) Effluent geometric mean TU TUa (_0_) TUc (_1.27)

......(4) Average exceedance1 (Geometric Mean TUx * Per cent of tests greater than WLA)

...........(a) Without paragraph (B) and (C) of this table available

................(i) Acute2 0.3 ≥ 0.3 ≥ 0.2 0.2

................(ii) Chronic 0.3 x WLA ≥ 0.3 x WLA ≥ 0.2 x WLA < 0.2 x WLA

..........(b) With paragraph (B) or (C) of this table available

...............(i) Acute2 0.5 ≥ 0.3 ≥ 0.3 0.3

...............(ii) Chronic 0.67 x WLA ≥ 0.5 x WLA ≥ 0.5 x WLA 0.5 x WLA

......(5) Maximum TU value TUa (_0.2) TUc (_3.32)


≥ 3 x WLA ≥ 1 x WLA ≥ 1 x WLA 1 x WLA

...........(b) With paragraph (B) or (C) of this table available and confirming toxic impact

1 x WLA Chronic

≥ 1 x WLA ≥ 0.5 x WLA 0.5 x WLA Acute

(B) Near-field impact ......(1) Mortality within mixing zone3

≥ 20% ≤ 20% ≤ 20% 20%

.......(2) Stream community impact within mixing zone

............(a) Implied chemically4 ≥ 3 x IMZM ≥ 1.5 x IMZM

≥ IMZM ≤ 0.5 x IMZM

............(b) Implied toxicologically4

≥ 1.0 TUa ≥ 1.0 TUa ≥ 1.0 TUa < 1.0 TUa

............(c) Measured biologically Toxic or severe unknown signature

Fair/poor community

Slight impact or unknown

None or non-toxic signature


Page 40 of 43

Attribute Evaluated Minnows

Hazard Category 1

Hazard Category 2

Hazard Category 3

Hazard Category 4


Strongly Suspected

Possible None

impact signature

(C) Far-field impact ......(1) Aquatic life use impairment (Ohio EPA biological criteria)

Yes5 Yes or partial5

Partial None or non-toxic signature

......(2) Stream community impact

...........(a) Implied toxicologically3

Significant effect

Significant effect

Unknown or slight effect

None

.......(3) Other indicators Stress indicated Stress indicated

Stress indicated

No stress


Page 41 of 43

Attribute Evaluated Water Flea

Hazard Category 1

Hazard Category 2

Hazard Category 3

Hazard Category 4


Strongly Suspected

Possible None

(A) Effluent toxicity ......(1) Minimum number of tests (Actual number__13_)

3 1 0 or 1 0 or 1

......(2) Per cent of tests greater than WLA (Actual per cent _15.38 chronic, 0 acute)

30 20 to 30

10 to 20 chronic

10 Acute

......(3) Effluent geometric mean TU TUa (_0.2) TUc (_1.16)

......(4) Average exceedance1 (Geometric Mean TUx * Per cent of tests greater than WLA)


................(i) Acute2 0.3 ≥ 0.3 ≥ 0.2 0.2

................(ii) Chronic 0.3 x WLA ≥ 0.3 x WLA ≥ 0.2 x WLA < 0.2 x WLA

..........(b) With paragraph (B) or (C) of this table available

...............(i) Acute2 0.5 ≥ 0.3 ≥ 0.3 0.3

...............(ii) Chronic 0.67 x WLA ≥ 0.5 x WLA ≥ 0.5 x WLA 0.5 x WLA

......(5) Maximum TU value TUa (_0.2) TUc (_5.17)


≥ 3 x WLA ≥ 1 x WLA ≥ 1 x WLA 1 x WLA

...........(b) With paragraph (B) or (C) of this table available and confirming toxic impact

1 x WLA Chronic

≥ 1 x WLA ≥ 0.5 x WLA Acute

0.5 x WLA

(B) Near-field impact ......(1) Mortality within mixing zone3

≥ 20% ≤ 20% ≤ 20% 20%

.......(2) Stream community impact within mixing zone

............(a) Implied chemically4 ≥ 3 x IMZM ≥ 1.5 x IMZM

≥ IMZM ≤ 0.5 x IMZM

............(b) Implied toxicologically4

≥ 1.0 TUa ≥ 1.0 TUa ≥ 1.0 TUa < 1.0 TUa

............(c) Measured biologically Toxic or severe unknown signature

Fair/poor community

Slight impact or unknown

None or non-toxic signature


Page 42 of 43

Attribute Evaluated Water Flea

Hazard Category 1

Hazard Category 2

Hazard Category 3

Hazard Category 4


Strongly Suspected

Possible None

impact signature

(C) Far-field impact ......(1) Aquatic life use impairment (Ohio EPA biological criteria)

Yes5 Yes or partial5

Partial None or non-toxic signature

......(2) Stream community impact

...........(a) Implied toxicologically3

Significant effect

Significant effect

Unknown or slight effect

None

.......(3) Other indicators Stress indicated Stress indicated

Stress indicated

No stress

1 Compare (per cent exceedances x geometric mean TU) to table factor. 2 Use 0.3 x WLA for situations where AIM exists. 3 Results of ambient toxicity test are not binding or required for classification as to category but, if available, will be interpreted under the weight of evidence principle giving due consideration as to sampling location and conditions. 4 Based on effluent data. May not be appropriate for situations where AIM exists. 5 Lack of attainment due to toxic, complex or unidentifiable type of impact.


Page 43 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

Documents

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System …Fact Sheet for NPDES Permit Renewal, Upper Mill Creek Water Reclamation Facility, 2018 Page 1 of 43 National Pollutant Discharge