APPENDICES
A.
COST
METHODOLOGY
FOR
TOXIC
POLLUTANTS
B.
COST
METHODOLOGY
FOR
CONVENTIONAL
POLLUTANTS
C.
FACILITY­
LEVEL
ANALYSES
 
NEW
CRITERIA
ONLY
D.
FACILITY­
LEVEL
ANALYSES
 
DESIGNATED
USE
CHANGE
E.
USE
ATTAINABILITY
F.
REVISIONS
TO
IOWA
WQS
December
2001
Appendix
A.
Methodology
for
Estimating
Costs
for
Toxic
Pollutants
A­
1
APPENDIX
A.
METHODOLOGY
FOR
ESTIMATING
COSTS
FOR
TOXIC
POLLUTANTS
To
estimate
potential
compliance
costs,
EPA
reviewed
the
existing
treatment
systems
or
other
controls
for
each
facility
and
made
estimates
regarding
the
need
to
add
new
treatment
systems
or
to
supplement
existing
treatment
systems
based
on
this
evaluation.
EPA
followed
a
decision
framework
to
ensure
consistency
in
estimating
the
types
of
controls
that
would
be
necessary
for
a
facility
to
comply
with
projected
WQBELs.
The
underlying
assumption
of
the
decision
framework
is
that
a
facility
would
examine
lower­
cost
alternatives
prior
to
incurring
the
expense
associated
with
adding
end­
of­
pipe
treatment
processes.
The
decision
framework
is
presented
in
Exhibit
A­
1
and
the
three
main
pollution
control
alternatives
are
described
below.
This
section
also
describes
how
the
costs
are
estimated
including
capital
costs
and
annual
costs
(
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
and
residuals
management).

A.
1
Treatment
Process
Optimization
Costs
EPA
did
not
identify
any
facilities
that
would
pursue
process
optimization
for
toxic
pollutants.
Therefore,
the
costs
of
pollution
control
alternative
are
not
discussed
here.

A.
2
Waste
Minimization/
Pollution
Prevention
Costs
EPA
did
not
identify
any
facilities
that
would
pursue
waste
minimization/
pollution
prevention
for
toxic
pollutants.
Therefore,
the
costs
of
this
pollution
control
alternative
are
not
discussed
here.
December
2001
Appendix
A.
Methodology
for
Estimating
Costs
for
Toxic
Pollutants
A­
2
Exhibit
A­
1.
Cost
Decision
Framework
I.
REASONABLE
POTENTIAL
1.
Does
the
pollutant
have
a
reasonable
potential
to
exceed
water
quality
criteria?
No

No
compliance
costs.


Yes
II.
MODIFY/
ADJUST
EXISTING
TREATMENT
1.
Is
the
WQBEL
for
the
pollutant
above
analytical
detection
levels?
2.
Does
the
existing
wastewater
treatment
system
have
the
capability
to
treat/
remove
the
pollutant?
3.
Is
the
WQBEL
for
the
pollutant
greater
than
documented
treatable
levels?
4.
Are
modifications/
adjustments
to
the
existing
wastewater
treatment
system
feasible
in
light
of
the
pollutant
reduction
necessary
to
achieve
the
WQBEL
(
i.
e.,
is
the
reduction
less
than
10
 
25%
of
the
current
discharge
levels)?
Yes

Facility
incurs
costs
to
modify/
adjust
existing
treatment
system.


No
III.
WASTE
MINIMIZATION/
POLLUTION
PREVENTION
1.
Is
the
production
process
or
source
generating
the
pollutant
amenable
to
waste
minimization/
pollution
prevention
techniques?

Yes

Facility
incurs
costs
to
implement
waste
minimization/
pollution
prevention.

Industrials
Only
2.
Is
the
WQBEL
for
the
pollutant
above
analytical
detection
levels?
 
If
no,
is
the
production
process
or
pollutant
source
amenable
to
control
techniques
expected
to
reduce
pollutant
to
below
analytical
detection
levels
(
e.
g.,
product
substitution)?
3.
Do
any
of
the
following
conditions
apply?:
 
Is
the
level
of
pollutant
reduction
required
to
meet
the
WQBEL
insignificant
(
i.
e.,
less
than
10
 
25%
of
current
discharge
levels)?
 
Is
the
pollutant
most
often
in
compliance
with
the
projected
effluent
limit?
(
i.
e.,
80%
or
more
of
the
observations).
 
Are
discharge
monitoring
data
inconclusive
to
assume
treatment
costs?
(
e.
g.,
no
data
exist,
are
limited
or
do
not
reflect
existing
discharge
conditions).
POTWs
Only
2.
Is
the
WQBEL
for
the
pollutant
above
analytical
detection
levels?
3.
Do
any
of
the
following
conditions
apply?:
 
Is
the
level
of
pollutant
reduction
required
to
meet
the
WQBEL
insignificant
(
i.
e.,
less
than
10
 
25%
of
current
discharge
levels)?
 
Is
the
pollutant
most
often
in
compliance
with
the
projected
effluent
limit?
(
i.
e.,
80%
or
more
of
the
observations).
 
Are
discharge
monitoring
data
inconclusive
to
assume
treatment
costs?
(
e.
g.,
no
data
exist,
are
limited,
old,
or
mostly
below
detection
level).
4.
Are
increased
industrial
user/
source
controls
feasible?


No
IV.
NEW/
ADDITIONAL
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
Facility
incurs
costs
to
install
additional
end­
of­
pipe
treatment
(
or
in­
plant
treatment).
1
Mike
Gutshall,
Kruger
Company,
(
919)
677­
8310.
October
5,
2001.

December
2001
Appendix
A.
Methodology
for
Estimating
Costs
for
Toxic
Pollutants
A­
3
A.
3
New/
Additional
Treatment
Systems
EPA
considered
the
costs
of
two
possible
treatment
technologies
for
toxic
pollutants:
(
1)
reverse
osmosis
(
RO),
and
(
2)
a
combination
of
aluminum
precipitation
using
sodium
hydroxide
(
NaOH),
followed
by
sand
filtration,
followed
by
granular
activated
carbon
(
GAC)
treatment.

To
estimate
the
costs
of
RO,
EPA
used
the
methodology
described
in
Design
and
Cost
Estimates
for
Advanced
Water
Treatment
Technologies
(
U.
S.
EPA,
2000).
While
this
document
was
specifically
designed
for
drinking
water
treatment
technologies,
the
methodologies
described
therein
also
are
applicable
to
the
same
technologies
when
used
in
wastewater
treatment
applications.
The
document
presents
the
most
up­
to­
date
costing
methodologies
for
the
technologies
it
covers.

To
estimate
the
costs
for
NaOH
precipitation
and
filtration,
EPA
considered
two
scenarios:
(
1)
a
facility
with
an
existing
sand
filter,
and
(
2)
a
facility
with
no
filtration
system
in
place.
For
a
facility
with
an
existing
sand
filter,
the
only
additional
costs
would
be
associated
with
installation
of
a
chemical
feed
system
and
consumption
of
NaOH.
EPA
estimated
these
additional
costs
using
the
methodology
described
in
U.
S.
EPA,
2000.
For
a
system
with
design
flow
of
1.2
MGD
and
average
flow
of
0.85
MGD,
the
estimated
capital
cost
for
the
NaOH
feed
system
is
$
35,000
and
the
estimated
annual
O&
M
cost
is
$
30,000.
For
a
facility
requiring
installation
of
both
precipitation
and
filtration
systems,
EPA
obtained
the
cost
of
a
modular
coagulation
and
filtration
system
of
the
appropriate
size
from
an
equipment
vendor.
1
The
quoted
costs
are
a
capital
cost
of
$
650,000
and
an
annual
O&
M
cost
of
$
160,000.

To
estimate
the
costs
for
GAC
treatment,
EPA
used
the
methodology
described
in
U.
S.
EPA,
2000.
EPA
estimated
an
empty
bed
contact
time
of
10
minutes
and
a
bed
depth
of
7.5
minutes.
For
a
system
with
design
flow
of
1.2
MGD
and
average
flow
of
0.85
MGD,
estimated
capital
costs
are
$
550,000
and
annual
O&
M
costs
are
$
194,000.
For
a
system
with
design
flow
of
1.158
MGD
and
average
flow
of
0.8
MGD,
estimated
capital
costs
are
$
540,000
and
annual
O&
M
costs
are
$
190,000.
December
2001
Appendix
B.
Methodology
for
Estimating
Costs
for
Conventional
Pollutants
B­
1
APPENDIX
B.
METHODOLOGY
FOR
ESTIMATING
COSTS
FOR
CONVENTIONAL
POLLUTANTS
EPA
identified
several
POTWs
that
would
be
required
to
reduce
fecal
coliform
and
a
single
POTW
that
would
be
required
to
reduce
ammonia.
For
these
facilities,
EPA
determined
the
type
and
potential
cost
of
treatment
using
the
same
methodology
developed
for
analysis
of
a
previous
water
quality
standards
rule
(
EPA,
2001).
This
methodology
is
described
below
for
each
pollutant.

B.
1
Fecal
Coliform
For
affected
facilities
operating
aerated
lagoons
or
activated
sludge
plants,
the
fecal
coliform
levels
observed
are
such
that
disinfection
would
be
required.
EPA
estimated
that
UV
disinfection
would
be
used
as
the
treatment
technology,
because
of
the
maintenance
costs
and
toxicity
considerations
(
i.
e.,
a
chlorination
process
may
require
dechlorination)
associated
with
other
technologies.
To
estimate
treatment
cost
for
this
technology,
EPA
examined
case
studies
of
UV
disinfection
technology
for
facilities
of
similar
size
to
the
affected
facilities
from
the
following
sources:


Ultraviolet
Light
Disinfection
Technology
in
Drinking
Water
Application
 
An
Overview.
U.
S.
EPA
Office
of
Water.
EPA
811­
R­
002.
1996.


Comparison
of
UV
Irradiation
to
Chlorination:
Guidance
for
Achieving
Optimal
UV
Performance
Disinfection.
Final
Report.
Water
Environment
Research
Foundation.
1995.

EPA
escalated
the
costs
from
these
sources
to
January
2001
dollars
and
used
a
power
fit
to
derive
the
following
equations
to
estimate
the
cost
of
UV
disinfection:

Capital
cost
(
in
thousands
of
2001
dollars):
163.27
×
[
flow
rate
in
MGD]
0.587
Operating
and
maintenance
cost
(
in
thousands
of
2001
dollars):
11.12
×
[
flow
rate
in
MGD]
0.627.

For
facilities
operating
conventional
waste
stabilization
lagoons,
EPA
identified
a
more
costeffective
option
for
treating
fecal
coliform
 
the
installation
of
40
days
of
additional
detention
time.
While
this
option
requires
a
higher
capital
cost
than
UV
disinfection,
it
entails
no
additional
O&
M
costs
and
does
not
require
operator
training
for
a
new
treatment
technology.
Thus,
it
results
in
lower
total
annualized
costs.

Based
on
the
literature,
the
addition
of
40
days
detention
time
will
reduce
fecal
coliform
to
below
200
colonies/
100
ml.
The
bacterial
die­
off
will
reduce
coliform
count
to
less
than
200
colonies/
100
ml.
The
kinetics
of
coliform
die­
off
rate
in
lagoons
is
of
the
first
order
and
the
40
days
detention
time
is
more
than
enough
to
reduce
the
coliform
population
to
densities
below
200
colonies/
100
ml
(
WEF
and
ASCE,
1991
and
Metcalf
&
Eddy,
1995).
The
most
costeffective
way
of
adding
40
days
of
detention
time
would
be
by
expanding
existing
cells
through
dredging.
EPA
assumed
this
expansion
would
be
accomplished
using
a
1.5
cubic
yard
hydraulic
excavator
at
a
rate
of
720
cubic
yards
per
day.
Assuming
a
two­
mile
round­
trip
haul
for
excavated
material,
EPA
estimated
the
cost
of
expansion
at
$
5.25
per
cubic
yard
(
January
2001
December
2001
Appendix
B.
Methodology
for
Estimating
Costs
for
Conventional
Pollutants
B­
2
dollars)
plus
$
500
per
day
for
mobilization
and
demobilization
of
crew
and
equipment.
Using
these
assumptions,
the
cost
of
expansion
for
a
given
facility
would
be:

$
5.25
×
[
volume
dredged]
+
$
500
×
[
number
of
days]

where:

volume
dredged
=
[
flow
rate
in
MGD]
×
40
days
×
4,951
cubic
yards/
million
gallons
and
number
of
days
=
[
volume
dredged]

720
cubic
yards/
day,
rounded
up
to
nearest
day.

B.
2.
Ammonia
EPA
identified
an
activated
sludge
plant
required
to
reduce
ammonia
discharges.
Based
on
the
technical
literature,
activated
sludge
plants
when
operated
properly
would
be
expected
to
produce
ammonia
levels
below
2
mg/
L
(
WEF
and
ASCE,
1991;
Metcalf
&
Eddy,
1995).
The
nitrification
and
aeration
process
provided
by
these
technologies
will
reduce
ammonia
concentrations.
Also,
some
ammonia
will
be
stripped
out
of
the
solution.
For
the
identified
facility,
operating
at
about
half
of
its
design
capacity,
this
would
be
more
than
sufficient
to
meet
the
projected
in­
stream
ammonia
criterion.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
the
required
ammonia
reductions
could
be
achieved
by
treatment
process
optimization.

Treatment
process
optimization
refers
to
control
measures
that
facilities
can
implement
to
modify
or
adjust
the
operating
efficiency
of
their
wastewater
treatment
process.
Such
measures
usually
involve
engineering
analysis
of
the
existing
treatment
process
to
identify
minor
adjustments
to
enhance
pollutant
removal,
followed
by
implementation
of
such
adjustments.
EPA
therefore
assumed
that
the
facilities
requiring
additional
ammonia
removal
would
conduct
two
optimization
steps:
a
process
analysis
study
and
process
modification.

A
process
analysis
study
is
a
key
factor
in
achieving
optimum
treatment
efficiency.
A
process
analysis
study
aims
to
identify
performance­
limiting
factors.
Performance­
limiting
factors
include
operator
training
and
response
to
changes
in
wastewater
quality,
individual
treatment
unit
design
limits,
maintenance
activities,
automation,
process
control
testing,
and
administrative
factors
such
as
adequate
staff
to
run
the
facility
at
all
times.
The
cost
of
a
process
analysis
study
includes
site
visits,
additional
monitoring
at
selected
locations,
data
collection,
data
analysis,
and
report
preparation.
The
process
analysis
study
also
includes
follow­
up
performance
evaluation
following
process
modification.

Process
modification
may
include
any
activity
short
of
adding
a
new
treatment
technology
unit
to
the
treatment
train.
Process
modification
may
include
one
or
more
of
the
following
process
modification
options:
hydraulic
regime
modification,
treatment
train
modification,
chemical
adjustment,
operator
training,
installation
of
additional
process
control
testing
equipment,
and
installation
of
automation
equipment.
In
the
particular
case
of
ammonia,
nitrification
in
a
wastewater
treatment
process
is
sensitive
to
many
factors
such
as
oxygen,
temperature,
pH,
BOD/
NH
4­
N
ratio,
recirculation
of
flow,
and
control
of
nitrifying
mass
predators
such
as
fly
larvae,
snails,
and
worms.
Thus,
process
modification
for
ammonia
could
involve
adjustment
of
any
of
these
factors.
December
2001
Appendix
B.
Methodology
for
Estimating
Costs
for
Conventional
Pollutants
B­
3
Based
on
the
literature
(
Truax,
1992;
U.
S,
EPA,
1990;
U.
S.
EPA,
1992),
process
analysis
studies
average
$
65,000
for
facilities
under
1
MGD.
Process
modification
costs
obviously
are
highly
variable
based
on
facility­
specific
conditions
and
the
modifications
required,
but
the
literature
reports
a
range
of
$
2,000
to
$
60,000
for
facilities
under
1
MGD.
For
this
analysis,
EPA
estimated
the
cost
of
process
optimization
for
ammonia
to
be
the
average
cost
of
a
process
analysis
study,
plus
the
mid­
point
of
the
range
of
costs
reported
for
process
modification,
resulting
in
the
following
cost
for
a
facility
of
less
than
1
MGD:

$
65,000
process
analysis
study
+
$
31,000
process
modification
=
$
96,000.
December
2001
Appendix
C.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
New
Criteria
Only
C­
1
APPENDIX
C.
FACILITY­
LEVEL
ANALYSES
 
NEW
CRITERIA
ONLY
Facility
Name:
Roquette
America,
Inc.
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0000256
Major/
Minor:
Major
Facility
Type:
Industrial
Design
Flow:
2.8
MGD
Average
Flow:
2.5
MGD
Receiving
Water:
Mississippi
River
Receiving
Water
Class:
B(
WW)
and
C
7Q10
Flow:
78.2
MGD
(
data
from
NPDES
permit)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
4/
05),
NPDES
permit
amendment,
PCS
monitoring
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
a
wet
corn
milling
plant.
The
facility's
treatment
system
consists
of
an
activated
sludge
wastewater
treatment
plant.

Reasonable
Potential
Analysis:

Of
the
pollutants
for
which
EPA
is
proposing
to
change
the
water
quality
criteria,
chloroform
is
the
only
one
with
effluent
monitoring
data
at
this
facility.
The
table
below
summarizes
the
available
data
for
chloroform
from
December
1997
through
December
2000.

Pollutant
Number
of
Observations
Effluent
Concentration
(

g/
L)
Existing
Effluent
Limit
(

g/
L)
Total
Detect
Nondetect
Maximum
Mean
Minimum
Chloroform
3
3
0
5
3.5
0.53
21
The
table
below
summarizes
the
reasonable
potential
analysis
for
chloroform.
Based
on
the
analysis,
this
facility
has
no
reasonable
potential
to
exceed
water
quality
criteria.

Pollutant
MEC
(
µ
g/
L)
(
CV,
N)
MF
PEQ
(
µ
g/
L)
RWC
(
µ
g/
L)
WQC
(
µ
g/
L)
Reasonable
Potential?

Chloroform
5
(
0.6,
3)
5.6
28
0.87
5.7
No
Analysis
of
Costs:

EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
costs
as
a
result
of
the
criteria
changes.
December
2001
Appendix
C.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
New
Criteria
Only
C­
2
Facility
Name:
Alcoa
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0003395
Major/
Minor:
Major
Facility
Type:
Industrial
Design
Flow:
Data
not
available
Average
Flow:
1
MGD
Receiving
Water:
Mississippi
River
Receiving
Water
Class:
B(
WW)
and
C
7Q10
Flow:
89.3
MGD
(
data
from
NPDES
permit)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
03/
03),
NPDES
permit
amendments:
(
6/
28/
99),
(
9/
28/
99),
(
1/
5/
00),
(
4/
12/
00),
NPDES
permit
rationale
(
10/
24/
97),
PCS
monitoring
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
an
aluminum
fabrication
plant
that
produces
aluminum
sheets,
foil,
and
plates.
The
facility
discharges
contact
and
non­
contact
process
water,
storm
water,
and
effluent
from
a
groundwater
treatment
system.
The
groundwater
treatment
system
utilized
hydrogen
peroxide
and
UV
light
to
destroy
tetrachloroethylene
contamination.

Reasonable
Potential
Analysis:

Of
the
pollutants
for
which
EPA
is
proposing
to
change
the
water
quality
criteria,
the
facility
has
effluent
monitoring
data
for
two:
aluminum
and
chloroform.
The
table
below
summarizes
the
available
data
for
aluminum
from
December
1997
through
December
2000.

Pollutant1
Number
of
Observations
Effluent
Concentration
(

g/
L)
Existing
Effluent
Limit
(

g/
L)
Total
Detect
Nondetect
Maximum
Mean
Minimum
Aluminum
36
36
0
4,1002
1212
30
2,990
1Chloroform
data
from
permit,
only
given
n=
44
and
MEC=
358.
Data
is
from
1995
permit
application.
2One
outlier
removed.

The
following
table
summarizes
the
reasonable
potential
analyses
for
aluminum
and
chloroform.

Pollutant
PEQ
(

g/
L)
RWC
(

g/
L)
WQC
(

g/
L)
Reasonable
Potential?

Aluminum
10,047
111
87
Yes
Chloroform1
358
4.0
5.7
No
1For
chloroform,
n=
44,
but
the
actual
data
set
was
not
available
(
only
n
and
MEC
were
available),
so
PEQ
was
assumed
to
be
equal
to
MEC.
December
2001
Appendix
C.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
New
Criteria
Only
C­
3
Estimation
of
Projected
Effluent
Limits:

The
facility
has
no
reasonable
potential
to
exceed
the
new
WQC
for
chloroform.
Therefore,
the
following
table
describes
the
calculation
of
projected
effluent
limits
for
aluminum
only.
EPA
has
proposed
to
change
both
the
chronic
and
acute
WQC
for
aluminum.
The
new
chronic
WQC
results
in
the
more
stringent
projected
effluent
limit,
so
the
calculation
based
on
that
criterion
is
shown
in
the
table.

Parameter
Chronic
Aquatic
Criterion,
dissolved
(

g/
L)
Chronic
Aquatic
Criterion,
total1
(

g/
L)
Waste
Load
Allocation
(
WLA)
(

g/
L)
Long­
Term
Average
(
LTA)
(

g/
L)
Projected
Effluent
Limits
MDL2
AML3
(

g/
L)
(
lbs/
day)
(

g/
L)
(
lbs/
day
)

Aluminum
87
87
7,856
3,125
14,194
118
3,968
33.1
Except
for
the
AML
multiplier,
all
multipliers
are
based
on
the
99th
percentile.
The
AML
multiplier
is
based
on
the
95th
percentile
and
a
monitoring
frequency
of
four
samples
per
month.
1No
translator
was
available
to
convert
aluminum
from
dissolved
to
total.
Therefore,
EPA
used
an
assumed
translator
of
1.
2The
MDL
(

g/
L)
is
equal
to
the
product
of
the
LTA
and
the
MDL
multiplier.
The
mass
limit
(
lbs/
day)
is
obtained
by
multiplying
the
MDL
(

g/
L)
by
the
effluent
flow
and
a
conversion
factor
(
0.00834).
3The
AML
(

g/
L)
is
equal
to
the
product
of
the
LTA
and
the
AML
multiplier.
The
mass
limit
(
lbs/
day)
is
obtained
by
multiplying
the
AML
(

g/
L)
by
the
effluent
flow
and
a
conversion
factor
(
0.00834).

Analysis
of
Costs:

The
facility's
existing
effluent
limits
are
more
stringent
than
the
projected
effluent
limits
based
on
the
new
WQC,
as
shown
in
the
table
below.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
the
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost.

Aluminum
Existing
Effluent
Limits
Projected
Effluent
Limits
MDL
AML
MDL
AML

g/
L
5,990
2,990
14,194
3,968
lbs/
day
50
25
118
33.1
December
2001
Appendix
C.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
New
Criteria
Only
C­
4
Facility
Name:
Maytag
Appliances­
Newton
Laundry
Products­
Plant
2
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0000582
Major/
Minor:
Minor
Facility
Type:
Industrial
Design
Flow:
1.25
MGD
Average
Flow:
0.85
MGD
Receiving
Water:
Cherry
Creek
Receiving
Water
Class:
B(
LR)
7Q10
Flow:
0.065
MGD
(
data
provided
by
Iowa
DNR)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expires
06/
04)
and
rationale
(
4/
22/
99),
PCS
monitoring
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
produces
automatic
gas
and
electric
household
washing
machines
and
electric
dryers.
Process
waters
are
treated
prior
to
discharge
using
pH
adjustment,
magnesium
bisulfite
addition,
sodium
hypochlorite
addition,
clarification,
settling,
and
sand
filtration.
The
facility
also
discharges
water
from
life
cycle
testing
of
washing
machines,
storm
water,
water
from
drinking
fountains,
and
water
from
a
groundwater
treatment
system.

Reasonable
Potential
Analysis:

Of
the
pollutants
for
which
EPA
is
proposing
to
change
the
water
quality
criteria,
aluminum
is
the
only
one
with
effluent
monitoring
data
at
this
facility.
The
following
table
summarizes
aluminum
effluent
concentrations
from
January
1998
through
February
2001.

Pollutant
Number
of
Observations
Effluent
Concentration
(

g/
L)
Existing
Effluent
Limit
(

g/
L)
Total
Detect
Nondetect
Maximum
Mean
Minimum
Aluminum
23
23
0
200
85
20
1,955
The
following
table
summarizes
the
reasonable
potential
analysis
for
aluminum.

Pollutant
PEQ
(

g/
L)
RWC
(

g/
L)
WQC
(

g/
L)
Reasonable
Potential?

Aluminum
558
518
87
Yes
December
2001
Appendix
C.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
New
Criteria
Only
C­
5
Estimation
of
Projected
Effluent
Limits:

The
following
table
describes
the
calculation
of
projected
effluent
limits
for
aluminum.
EPA
has
proposed
to
change
both
the
chronic
and
acute
WQC
for
aluminum.
The
new
chronic
WQC
results
in
the
more
stringent
projected
effluent
limit,
so
the
evaluation
based
on
that
criterion
is
shown
in
the
table.

Parameter
Chronic
Aquatic
Criterion,
dissolved
(

g/
L)
Chronic
Aquatic
Criterion,
total
1
(

g/
L)
Waste
Load
Allocation
(
WLA)
(

g/
L)
Long­
Term
Average
(
LTA)
(

g/
L)
Projected
Effluent
Limits
MDL2
AML3
(

g/
L)
(
lbs/
day)
(

g/
L)
(
lbs/
day)

Aluminum
87
87
93.6
39.8
167
1.18
52.2
0.37
Except
for
the
AML
multiplier,
all
multipliers
are
based
on
the
99th
percentile.
The
AML
multiplier
is
based
on
the
95th
percentile
and
a
monitoring
frequency
of
four
samples
per
month.
1No
translator
was
available
to
convert
aluminum
from
dissolved
to
total.
Therefore,
EPA
used
an
assumed
translator
of
1.
2The
MDL
(
mg/
L)
is
equal
to
the
product
of
the
LTA
and
the
MDL
multiplier.
The
mass
limit
(
lbs/
day)
is
obtained
by
multiplying
the
MDL
(
mg/
L)
by
the
effluent
flow
and
a
conversion
factor
(
0.00834).
3The
AML
(
mg/
L)
is
equal
to
the
product
of
the
LTA
and
the
AML
multiplier.
The
mass
limit
(
lbs/
day)
is
obtained
by
multiplying
the
AML
(
mg/
L)
by
the
effluent
flow
and
a
conversion
factor
(
0.00834).

Analysis
of
Costs:

Six
of
the
twenty­
three
observations
are
200

g/
L.
To
achieve
the
projected
AML
of
52.2

g/
L,
a
74%
reduction
is
required
based
on
the
MEC
of
200

g/
L.
Given
the
reduction
required
and
the
decision
framework
in
Appendix
A,
additional
end­
of­
pipe
treatment
would
be
required
to
achieve
the
projected
AML.

EPA
identified
two
possible
treatment
technologies
that
would
allow
the
facility
to
achieve
the
projected
MDL.
The
first,
reverse
osmosis
(
RO),
is
well­
established
technology
for
the
removal
of
metals
from
various
types
of
waters.
EPA's
treatability
database
indicates
that
this
technology
is
capable
of
achieving
effluent
aluminum
concentrations
of
10

g/
L.
The
second
technology
is
a
combination
of
aluminum
precipitation
using
sodium
hydroxide
(
NaOH),
followed
by
sand
filtration,
and
then
granular
activated
carbon
(
GAC)
treatment.
EPA's
treatability
database
shows
that
this
treatment
train
can
reduce
influent
aluminum
concentrations
in
the
range
of
1,000

g/
L
to
10,000

g/
L
to
effluent
concentrations
between
2
and
140

g/
L.

EPA
estimates
that
the
second
technology
would
be
the
least
cost
option
for
this
facility,
particularly
given
that
it
could
make
use
of
the
existing
sand
filter
at
this
facility.
This
treatment
results
in
a
pollutant
loading
reduction
of
382
lbs.
of
aluminum
per
year
based
on
reducing
the
MEC
to
the
AML.
Estimated
costs
are
presented
below.

Control
Total
Capital
Cost
($
1,000s)
O&
M
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
Total
Annualized
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
1
NaOH
precipitation
and
GAC
treatment
(
uses
existing
sand
filter)
$
585.00
$
224.00
$
279.22
1
Capital
costs
annualized
at
7%
over
20
years,
plus
annual
O&
M
costs.
2
Data
were
not
available
on
the
facility's
design
and
average
flow.
EPA
assumed
discharge
at
the
facility's
existing
NPDES
permit
limit
for
effluent
flow
(
1.158
MGD)
in
analyzing
reasonable
potential
and
projecting
new
effluent
limits.
EPA
assumed
a
design
flow
of
1.158
MGD
and
an
average
flow
of
0.8
MGD
in
estimating
treatment
costs
and
pollutant
loading
reductions.

December
2001
Appendix
C.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
New
Criteria
Only
C­
6
Facility
Name:
Winnebago
Industries,
Inc.
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0067229
Major/
Minor:
Minor
Facility
Type:
Industrial
Design/
Average
Flow:
1.158
MGD/
0.8
MGD2
Receiving
Water:
Winnebago
River
Receiving
Water
Class:
B(
WW)
7Q10
Flow:
2.07
MGD
(
calculated
from
USGS
data)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
12/
02),
NPDES
permit
rationale
(
10/
7/
97),
PCS
monitoring
data,
USGS
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
manufactures
recreational
motor
vehicles.
The
facility's
treatment
system
consists
of
a
two­
cell
waste
stabilization
lagoon
system.

Reasonable
Potential
Analysis:

Of
the
pollutants
for
which
EPA
is
proposing
to
change
the
water
quality
criteria,
aluminum
is
the
only
one
with
effluent
monitoring
data
at
this
facility.
The
following
table
summarizes
aluminum
effluent
concentrations
from
January
1998
through
April
2001.

Pollutant
Number
of
Observations
Effluent
Concentration
(

g/
L)
Existing
Effluent
Limit
(

g/
L)
Total
Detect
Nondetect
Maximum
Mean
Minimum
Aluminum
5
5
0
240
160
100
28,000
The
following
table
summarizes
the
reasonable
potential
analysis
for
aluminum.

Pollutant
(
CV,
N)
MF
PEQ
(

g/
L)
RWC
(

g/
L)
WQC
(

g/
L)
Reasonable
Potential?

Aluminum
(
0.6,
5)
4.2
1,008
362
87
Yes
December
2001
Appendix
C.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
New
Criteria
Only
C­
7
Estimation
of
Projected
Effluent
Limits:

The
following
table
illustrates
the
calculation
of
projected
effluent
limits
for
aluminum.
EPA
has
proposed
to
change
both
the
chronic
and
acute
WQC
for
aluminum.
The
new
chronic
WQC
results
in
the
more
stringent
projected
effluent
limit,
so
the
calculation
based
on
that
criterion
is
shown
in
the
table.

Pollutant
Chronic
Aquatic
Criterion,
dissolved
(

g/
L)
Chronic
Aquatic
Criterion,
total1
(

g/
L)
Waste
Load
Allocation
(
WLA)
(

g/
L)
Long­
Term
Average
(
LTA)
(

g/
L)
Projected
Effluent
Limits
MDL2
AML3
(

g/
L)
(
lbs/
day)
(

g/
L)
(
lbs/
day)

Aluminum
87
87
243
128
398
3.84
190
1.83
1No
translator
was
available
to
convert
aluminum
from
dissolved
to
total.
Therefore,
EPA
used
an
assumed
translator
of
1.
2The
MDL
(
mg/
L)
is
equal
to
the
product
of
the
LTA
and
the
MDL
multiplier.
The
mass
limit
(
lbs/
day)
is
obtained
by
multiplying
the
MDL
(
mg/
L)
by
the
effluent
flow
and
a
conversion
factor
(
0.00834).
3The
AML
(
mg/
L)
is
equal
to
the
product
of
the
LTA
and
the
AML
multiplier.
The
mass
limit
(
lbs/
day)
is
obtained
by
multiplying
the
AML
(
mg/
L)
by
the
effluent
flow
and
a
conversion
factor
(
0.00834).

Analysis
of
Costs:

A
21%
reduction
is
required
to
achieve
the
projected
AML
of
190

g/
L
based
on
the
facility's
MEC
of
240

g/
L.
Given
the
reduction
required
and
the
decision
framework
in
Appendix
A,
a
waste
minimization/
pollution
prevention
program
should
be
implemented.
However,
the
facility
most
likely
generates
the
aluminum
during
daily
plant
operations.
Therefore,
EPA
proposes
a
settling
basin
with
the
addition
of
alum
to
reduce
the
aluminum
effluent
concentrations
to
the
required
levels.
Estimated
costs
are
presented
below.

Control
Total
Capital
Cost
($
1,000s)
O&
M
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
Total
Annualized
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
1
Sedimentation
with
alum
addition
$
1,100.00
$
200.00
$
303.83
Source:
U.
S.
EPA,
1980
1
Capital
costs
annualized
at
7%
over
20
years,
plus
annual
O&
M
costs.

This
treatment
results
in
a
pollutant
loading
reduction
of
176
lbs
of
aluminum
per
year.
3
According
to
the
facility's
NPDES
permit
data,
the
7Q10
flow
of
the
Thompson
River
at
its
confluence
with
Marvel
Creek
has
been
estimated
to
be
less
than
1cfs
(
0.65
MGD).
However,
based
on
USGS
data,
the
7Q10
flow
in
the
downstream
segment
of
Thompson
River
receiving
the
new
classification
is
1.74
MGD.
This
latter
flow
is
used
in
this
analysis
since
the
impact
downstream
where
the
designated
use
changes
is
being
evaluated.

December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
1
APPENDIX
D.
FACILITY­
LEVEL
ANALYSES
 
DESIGNATED
USE
CHANGE
Facility
Name:
Greenfield,
City
of
STP
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0021369
Major/
Minor:
Major
Facility
Type:
POTW
Design
Flow:
1.92
MGD
Average
Flow:
0.311
MGD
(
dry
weather)/
1.08
MGD
(
wet
weather)

Receiving
Water:
Marvel
Creek,
tributary
to
Thompson
River
Receiving
Water
Class:
Newly
designated
class
A
7Q10
Flow:
1.74
MGD
(
calculated
from
USGS
data)
3
Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
08/
04),
NPDES
permit
draft,
NPDES
permit
rationale
(
6/
18/
99),
PCS
monitoring
data,
STORET
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
located
25
miles
upstream,
and
8
miles
up
Marvel
Creek,
from
the
segment
of
Thompson
River
receiving
the
new
classification.
The
facility's
treatment
system
consists
of
a
trickling
filter
system.

Toxic
Pollutants
Reclassification
to
Class
A
results
in
no
new
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost
associated
with
toxic
pollutants.

Conventional
Pollutants
This
facility
must
meet
the
criterion
for
fecal
coliform
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
A.
The
following
table
summarizes
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
fecal
coliform.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
2
Effluent
Concentration
(
colonies/
100
ml)
1
Concentration
At
Discharge
Point
(
colonies/
100
ml)
Concentration
At
Affected
Segment
(
colonies/
100
ml)
2
Background
Receiving
Water
Background
Receiving
Water
5,000
200
928
2
9
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
for
this
facility,
the
concentration
shown
is
95th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.
2
Based
on
fecal
coliform
decay
rate
calculated
as
,
where
FC
=
the
fecal
coliform
concentration
at
the
FC
FC
e
K
t
B
d
=
 
0
affected
stream
segment;
FC0
=
the
fecal
coliform
concentration
at
the
discharge
point;
td
=
travel
time
in
days
from
the
discharge
point
to
the
affected
stream
segment
;
and
KB
=
the
decay
rate
as
a
function
of
stream
temperature,
calculated
as
,
where
T
=
the
observed
stream
temperature,
and
(
KB)
20
=
the
fecal
coliform
decay
rate
at
(
)
(
)
(.
)
K
K
B
T
B
T
=
 
20
20
107
20

C
(
0.8).

The
facility's
discharge
does
not
result
in
a
concentration
in
the
affected
stream
segment
exceeding
the
criterion
of
200
colonies/
100
ml.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
the
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
costs.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
3
Facility
Name:
Cedar
Falls
Mobile
Home
Village
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0064033
Major/
Minor:
Minor
Facility
Type:
POTW
Design
Flow:
0.0189
MGD
Average
Flow:
0.0189
MGD
Receiving
Water:
Dry
Run
Creek
Receiving
Water
Class:
Newly
designated
class
A
7Q10
Flow:
0.65
MGD
(
data
provided
by
Iowa
DNR)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
04/
01),
NPDES
permit
rationale
(
design
sheet,
undated),
PCS
monitoring
data,
USGS
data,
STORET
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
located
1.4
miles
up
an
unnamed
tributary
from
the
newly
classified
stream
segment.
The
facility's
treatment
system
consists
of
a
three­
cell
waste
stabilization
lagoon
system
and
a
one­
cell
waste
stabilization
lagoon.

Toxic
Pollutants
Reclassification
to
Class
A
results
in
no
new
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost
associated
with
toxic
pollutants.

Conventional
Pollutants
This
facility
must
meet
the
criterion
for
fecal
coliform
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
A.
The
following
table
summarizes
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
fecal
coliform.

Effluent
Concentration
(
colonies/
100
ml)
1
Concentration
At
Discharge
Point
(
colonies/
100
ml)
2
Concentration
At
Affected
Segment
(
colonies/
100
ml)
3
Background
Receiving
Water
Background
Receiving
Water
5,000
0
141
0
129
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
95th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.
2
No
in
stream
data
were
available
for
this
facility,
so
background
concentration
is
assumed
to
be
zero.

3
Based
on
fecal
coliform
decay
rate
calculated
as
,
where
FC
=
the
fecal
coliform
concentration
at
the
FC
FC
e
K
t
B
d
=
 
0
affected
stream
segment;
FC0
=
the
fecal
coliform
concentration
at
the
discharge
point;
td
=
travel
time
in
days
from
the
discharge
point
to
the
affected
stream
segment
;
and
KB
=
the
decay
rate
as
a
function
of
stream
temperature,
calculated
as
,
where
T
=
the
observed
stream
temperature,
and
(
KB)
20
=
the
fecal
coliform
decay
rate
at
20

C
(
0.8).

The
facility's
discharge
doe
not
results
in
a
concentration
exceeding
the
criterion
of
200
colonies/
100
ml.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
the
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
costs.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
4
Facility
Name:
Grand
River,
City
of
STP
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0066346
Major/
Minor:
Minor
Facility
Type:
POTW
Design
Flow:
0.2
MGD
Average
Flow:
Data
not
available
Receiving
Water:
Grand
River
Receiving
Water
Class:
Newly
designated
class
A
7Q10
Flow:
1.74
MGD
(
calculated
from
USGS
data)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
02/
06),
NPDES
permit
rationale
(
1/
9/
01),
PCS
monitoring
data,
USGS
data,
STORET
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
located
directly
on
the
newly
classified
stream
segment.
The
facility's
treatment
system
consists
of
a
180
day,
three­
cell
waste
stabilization
lagoon.

Toxic
Pollutants
Reclassification
to
Class
A
results
in
no
new
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost
associated
with
toxic
pollutants.

Conventional
Pollutants
This
facility
must
meet
the
criterion
for
fecal
coliform
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
A
The
following
table
summarizes
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
fecal
coliform.

Effluent
Concentration
(
colonies/
100
ml)
1
Background
Concentration
(
colonies/
100
ml)
Receiving
Water
Concentration
(
colonies/
100
ml)

5,000
200
695
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
95th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.

The
facility's
discharge
results
in
a
concentration
exceeding
the
criterion
of
200
colonies/
100
ml.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
the
facility
will
expand
its
existing
waste
stabilization
cells
to
provide
additional
treatment
for
fecal
coliform,
resulting
in
a
loading
reduction
of
1.33
x
1013
colonies
per
year.
Estimated
costs
are
presented
below.

Control
Total
Capital
Cost
($
1,000s)
O&
M
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
Total
Annualized
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
1
Expand
existing
cells
$
235.94
$
0.00
$
22.27
1
Capital
costs
annualized
at
7%
over
20
years,
plus
annual
O&
M
costs.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
5
Facility
Name:
Roland,
City
of
STP
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0032425
Major/
Minor:
Minor
Facility
Type:
POTW
Design
Flow:
0.609
MGD
Average
Flow:
0.1665
MGD
(
dry
weather)/
0.5329
MGD
(
wet
weather)

Receiving
Water:
Bear
Creek
Receiving
Water
Class:
Newly
designated
class
A
7Q10
Flow:
0.32
MGD
(
data
provided
by
Iowa
DNR)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
04/
02),
NPDES
permit
rationale
(
3/
5/
97),
PCS
monitoring
data,
USGS
data,
STORET
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
located
5
miles
upstream
of
the
newly
classified
stream
segment.
The
facility's
treatment
system
consists
of
a
two­
cell
aerated
lagoon.

Toxic
Pollutants
Reclassification
to
Class
A
results
in
no
new
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost
associated
with
toxic
pollutants.

Conventional
Pollutants
This
facility
must
meet
the
criterion
for
fecal
coliform
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
A.
The
following
table
summarizes
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
fecal
coliform.

Effluent
Concentration
(
colonies/
100
ml)
1
Concentration
At
Discharge
Point
(
colonies/
100
ml)
2
Concentration
At
Affected
Segment
(
colonies/
100
ml)
3
Background
Receiving
Water
Background
Receiving
Water
5,000
0
1,711
0
1,479
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
95th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.
2
No
in
stream
data
were
available
for
this
facility,
so
background
concentration
is
assumed
to
be
zero.

3
Based
on
fecal
coliform
decay
rate
calculated
as
,
where
FC
=
the
fecal
coliform
concentration
at
the
FC
FC
e
K
t
B
d
=
 
0
affected
stream
segment;
FC0
=
the
fecal
coliform
concentration
at
the
discharge
point;
td
=
travel
time
in
days
from
the
discharge
point
to
the
affected
stream
segment
;
and
KB
=
the
decay
rate
as
a
function
of
stream
temperature,
calculated
as
,
where
T
=
the
observed
stream
temperature,
and
(
KB)
20
=
the
fecal
coliform
decay
rate
at
(
)
(
)
(.
)
K
K
B
T
B
T
=
 
20
20
107
20

C
(
0.8).
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
6
The
facility's
discharge
results
in
a
concentration
exceeding
the
criterion
of
200
colonies/
100
ml.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
the
facility
will
install
UV
light
disinfection
to
treat
its
discharge
under.
Estimated
costs
are
presented
below.

Control
Total
Capital
Cost
($
1,000s)
O&
M
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
Total
Annualized
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
1
UV
disinfection
$
122.03
$
8.15
$
19.67
1
Capital
costs
annualized
at
7%
over
20
years,
plus
annual
O&
M
costs.

This
treatment
results
in
a
fecal
coliform
loading
reduction
of
1.11
x
1013
colonies
per
year.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
7
Facility
Name:
Green
Valley
Chemical
Corporation
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0003964
Major/
Minor:
Minor
Facility
Type:
Industrial
Design
Flow:
0.3
MGD
Average
Flow:
0.2
MGD
Receiving
Water:
Twelve
Mile
Creek
Receiving
Water
Class:
Newly
designated
class
A
7Q10
Flow:
Not
determined
Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
07/
04),
NPDES
permit
rationale
(
4/
14/
99),
PCS
monitoring
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
produces
anhydrous
ammonia
and
is
located
25
miles
upstream,
and
0.5
miles
up
an
unnamed
tributary,
from
the
segment
of
Twelve
Mile
Creek
receiving
the
new
classification.
The
facility
discharges
its
wastewater
to
a
one­
cell,
seven­
day
retention
lagoon.

Toxic
Pollutants
Reclassification
to
Class
A
results
in
no
new
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost
associated
with
toxic
pollutants.

Conventional
Pollutants
This
facility
must
meet
the
criterion
for
fecal
coliform
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
A.
According
to
the
facility's
permit
application,
fecal
coliform
is
believed
absent
in
the
facility's
effluent.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
costs
associated
with
fecal
coliform.
4
Note
on
the
background
(
in
stream)
data
used
in
this
analysis:
STORET
data
were
available
for
this
facility's
receiving
waters
for
1940,
1965,
1973,
1976,
and
1977.
The
analysis
here
uses
only
the
data
from
the
1970s.

December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
8
Facility
Name:
Atalissa,
City
of
STP
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0070998
Major/
Minor:
Minor
Facility
Type:
POTW
Design
Flow:
0.06
MGD
Average
Flow:
0.031
MGD
(
dry
weather)/
0.04
(
wet
weather)

Receiving
Water:
Wiese
Slough
Receiving
Water
Class:
Newly
designated
class
A
and
B(
LW)
7Q10
Flow:
568.8
MGD
(
calculated
from
USGS
data)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
04/
06),
NPDES
permit
rationale
(
3/
5/
01),
PCS
monitoring
data,
USGS
data,
STORET
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
located
directly
on
the
newly
classified
stream
segment.
The
facility's
treatment
system
consists
of
an
activated
sludge
plant.

Toxic
Pollutants:

Reasonable
Potential
Analysis
There
are
no
effluent
data
or
permit
limits
for
this
facility
any
of
the
pollutants
for
which
water
quality
criteria
exist
for
Class
B(
LW)
waters.
Reclassification
to
Class
A
results
in
no
new
criteria
for
toxic
pollutants.
Consequently,
this
facility
has
no
reasonable
potential
to
exceed
water
quality
criteria.

Analysis
of
Costs
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
costs
for
toxic
pollutants
as
a
result
of
the
receiving
stream
reclassification.

Conventional
Pollutants:

This
facility
must
meet
the
criterion
for
fecal
coliform
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
A.
The
facility
also
must
meet
criteria
for
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
B(
LW).
4
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
9
Fecal
Coliform
The
following
table
summarizes
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
fecal
coliform.

Effluent
Concentration
(
colonies/
100
ml)
Background
Concentration
(
colonies/
100
ml)
1
Receiving
Water
Concentration
(
colonies/
100
ml)

5,000
200
200.3
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
95th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.

The
facility's
discharge
results
in
a
concentration
exceeding
the
criterion
of
200
colonies/
100
ml.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
the
facility
will
install
UV
light
disinfection
to
treat
its
discharge.
Estimated
costs
are
presented
below.

Control
Total
Capital
Cost
($
1,000s)
O&
M
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
Total
Annualized
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
1
UV
Disinfection
$
31.31
$
1.91
$
4.87
1Capital
costs
annualized
at
7%
over
20
years,
plus
annual
O&
M
costs.

This
treatment
results
in
a
fecal
coliform
loading
reduction
of
2.06
x
1012
colonies.

Ammonia
and
Dissolved
Oxygen
The
following
table
identifies
the
key
inputs
and
assumptions
used
in
modeling
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen.

Stream
Temperature
(
degrees
C)
Stream
pH
Stream
Width
(
feet)
1
Stream
Depth
(
feet)
1
Background
BOD
(
mg/
L)
Effluent
BOD
(
mg/
L)
2
24
9.0
217
3.25
11
40
1
Stream
dimensions
were
not
available
corresponding
to
7Q10
flow
conditions,
so
stream
dimensions
were
extrapolated
by
reducing
the
width
and
depth
observed
for
lowest
available
flow
rate
by
a
consistent
factor.
2
The
facility's
maximum
effluent
concentration
for
BOD
is
greater
than
its
permit
limit,
so
the
effluent
concentration
is
set
equal
to
the
permit
limit.

The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
dissolved
oxygen.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
Minimum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

4.11
5.9
5.9
5.0
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
5th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
10
The
facility's
discharge
does
not
result
in
a
dissolved
oxygen
concentration
less
than
the
criterion
of
5.0
mg/
L.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
the
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost
associated
with
dissolved
oxygen.

The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
ammonia.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
Maximum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

17.5
0.36
0.36
0.2
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
95th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.

The
facility's
discharge
results
in
a
concentration
exceeding
the
estimated
criterion
for
ammonia.
EPA
estimates
the
facility
will
conduct
treatment
process
optimization
to
reduce
ammonia
in
its
discharge.
Process
optimization
of
an
activated
sludge
unit
can
successfully
reduce
ammonia
effluent
levels
as
long
as
the
process
is
not
overloaded
(
i.
e.,
average
flow
greater
than
design
capacity).
Atalissa
operates
at
half
of
its
design
capacity
during
dry
weather
and
two
thirds
of
its
design
capacity
during
wet
weather.
Therefore,
EPA
believes
that
activated
sludge
process
optimization
will
reduce
ammonia
levels
in
the
effluent.
Estimated
costs
are
presented
below.

Control
Total
Capital
Cost
($
1,000s)
O&
M
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
Total
Annualized
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
1
Process
optimization
plus
$
96.00
$
0.00
$
9.06
1
Capital
costs
annualized
at
7%
over
20
years,
plus
annual
O&
M
costs.

This
treatment
results
in
a
pollutant
loading
reduction
of
915
lbs.
of
ammonia
per
year.

Total
Costs
Total
estimated
costs
for
this
facility
are
shown
below.

Control
Total
Capital
Cost
($
1,000s)
O&
M
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
Total
Annualized
Costs
($
1,000s/
yr)
1
UV
Disinfection
$
31.31
$
1.91
$
4.87
Process
optimization
$
96.00
$
0.00
$
9.06
Total
127.31
1.91
13.93
1
Capital
costs
annualized
at
7%
over
20
years,
plus
annual
O&
M
costs.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
11
Facility
Name:
New
Hampton,
City
of
STP
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0028525
Major/
Minor:
Major
Facility
Type:
POTW
Design
Flow:
3.0
MGD
Average
Flow:
1.32
MGD
(
dry
weather)/
2.2
MGD
(
wet
weather)

Receiving
Water:
Spring
Creek
Receiving
Water
Class:
Newly
designated
class
B(
WW)
7Q10
Flow:
1.29
MGD
(
data
from
NPDES
permit)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
02/
04),
NPDES
permit
rationale
(
11/
8/
99),
treatment
agreement
(
8/
7/
98),
PCS
monitoring
data,
STORET
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
located
6
miles
up
an
unnamed
tributary
from
the
newly
classified
stream
segment.
The
facility's
treatment
system
consists
of
a
trickling
filter
wastewater
treatment
system.

Toxic
Pollutants:

Reasonable
Potential
Analysis
There
are
no
effluent
data
for
this
facility
any
of
the
pollutants
for
which
water
quality
criteria
exist
for
class
B(
WW)
waters.
However,
the
facility
has
existing
permit
limits
for
cyanide,
cadmium,
chromium,
copper,
lead,
nickel,
silver,
and
zinc.
This
suggests
that
the
facility
may
discharge
these
pollutants
and
potentially
face
compliance
costs.
In
the
absence
of
monitoring
data,
EPA
assumed
that
the
facility
would
incur
costs
for
a
pollution
minimization
program
(
PMP)
and
metals
monitoring.

Analysis
of
Costs
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
incur
monitoring
and
PMP
costs
for
toxic
pollutants
as
a
result
of
the
receiving
stream
reclassification.
The
PMP
should
be
implemented
as
a
pretreatment
program
or
source
control
study.
The
following
table
summarizes
the
costs
for
the
facility.

Control
Frequency
Annual
Cost1
Monitoring
Monthly
$
3,600
PMP
 
$
46,100
Total
 
$
49,700
1
Monitoring
costs
are
for
one
year.
PMP
cost
is
annualized
at
7%
over
20
years.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
12
Conventional
Pollutants:

This
facility
must
meet
criteria
for
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
B(
WW).
The
following
table
identifies
the
key
inputs
and
assumptions
used
in
modeling
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen.

Stream
Temperature
(
degrees
C)
Stream
pH
Stream
Width
(
feet)
Stream
Depth
(
feet)
Background
BOD
(
mg/
L)
Effluent
BOD
(
mg/
L)
1
26
7.7
27
0.8
2.8
40
1
The
facility's
maximum
effluent
concentration
for
BOD
was
greater
than
its
permit
limit,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
equal
to
the
permit
limit.

The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
dissolved
oxygen.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
2
Minimum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

4.11
5.0
7.59
5.0
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
5th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.
1
No
in
stream
data
were
available
for
this
facility,
so
background
concentration
is
assumed
to
be
5.0.

The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
ammonia.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
Maximum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

6.5
0.09
0.15
2.7
1
The
facility's
maximum
effluent
concentration
for
ammonia
was
greater
than
its
permit
limit,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
equal
to
the
summertime
permit
limit.

The
facility's
discharge
does
not
result
in
a
dissolved
oxygen
concentration
less
than
the
criterion
of
5.0
mg/
L
or
an
ammonia
concentration
greater
than
the
estimated
criterion
for
ammonia.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
the
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost
associated
with
conventional
pollutants.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
13
Facility
Name:
Stockton,
City
of
STP
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0033464
Major/
Minor:
Minor
Facility
Type:
POTW
Design
Flow:
0.2
MGD
Average
Flow:
Data
not
available
Receiving
Water:
Mud
Creek
Receiving
Water
Class:
Newly
designated
class
B(
WW)
7Q10
Flow:
0.65
MGD
(
data
provided
by
Iowa
DNR)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
01/
06),
NPDES
permit
rationale
(
12/
12/
00),
PCS
monitoring
data,
USGS
data,
STORET
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
located
2.5
miles
upstream
of
the
newly
classified
stream
segment.
The
facility's
treatment
system
consists
of
a
two­
cell
waste
stabilization
lagoon.

Toxic
Pollutants:

Reasonable
Potential
Analysis
There
are
no
effluent
data
for
this
facility
any
of
the
pollutants
for
which
water
quality
criteria
exist
for
class
B(
WW)
waters.
Consequently,
this
facility
has
no
reasonable
potential
to
exceed
water
quality
criteria.

Analysis
of
Costs
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
costs
for
toxic
pollutants
as
a
result
of
the
receiving
stream
reclassification.

Conventional
Pollutants
This
facility
must
meet
criteria
for
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
B(
WW).
The
following
table
identifies
the
key
inputs
and
assumptions
used
in
modeling
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen.

Stream
Temperature
(
degrees
C)
Stream
pH
Stream
Width
(
feet)
1
Stream
Depth
(
feet)
1
Background
BOD
(
mg/
L)
Effluent
BOD
(
mg/
L)
2
14.5
7.8
175
2.74
6
40
1
Stream
dimensions
were
not
available
corresponding
to
7Q10
flow
conditions,
so
stream
dimensions
were
extrapolated
by
reducing
the
width
and
depth
observed
for
lowest
available
flow
rate
by
a
consistent
factor.
2
The
facility's
maximum
effluent
concentration
for
BOD
was
greater
than
its
permit
limit,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
equal
to
the
permit
limit.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
14
The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
dissolved
oxygen.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
Minimum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

4.11
7.7
5.258
5.0
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
5th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.

The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
ammonia.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
2
Maximum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

17.5
0
<
0.0001
2.8
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
95th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.
2
No
in
stream
data
were
available
for
this
facility,
so
background
concentration
is
assumed
to
be
zero.

The
facility's
discharge
does
not
result
in
a
dissolved
oxygen
concentration
less
than
the
criterion
of
5.0
mg/
L
or
an
ammonia
concentration
greater
than
the
estimated
criterion
for
ammonia.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
the
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost
associated
with
conventional
pollutants.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
15
Facility
Name:
Thompson,
City
of
STP
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0068683
Major/
Minor:
Minor
Facility
Type:
POTW
Design
Flow:
0.743
MGD
Average
Flow:
Data
not
available
Receiving
Water:
Winnebago
River
Receiving
Water
Class:
Newly
designated
class
B(
WW)
7Q10
Flow:
21.5
MGD
(
calculated
from
USGS
data)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
09/
01),
NPDES
permit
rationale
(
design
sheet,
undated),
PCS
monitoring
data,
STORET
data,
USGS
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
located
6
miles
upstream
of
the
newly
classified
stream
segment.
The
facility's
treatment
system
consists
of
a
three­
cell
waste
stabilization
lagoon.

Toxic
Pollutants:

Reasonable
Potential
Analysis
There
are
no
effluent
data
for
this
facility
any
of
the
pollutants
for
which
water
quality
criteria
exist
for
class
B(
WW)
waters.
Consequently,
this
facility
has
no
reasonable
potential
to
exceed
water
quality
criteria.

Analysis
of
Costs
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
costs
for
toxic
pollutants
as
a
result
of
the
receiving
stream
reclassification.

Conventional
Pollutants
This
facility
must
meet
criteria
for
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
B(
WW).
The
following
table
identifies
the
key
inputs
and
assumptions
used
in
modeling
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen.

Stream
Temperature
(
degrees
C)
Stream
pH
Stream
Width
(
feet)
1
Stream
Depth
(
feet)
1
Background
BOD
(
mg/
L)
2
Effluent
BOD
(
mg/
L)
3
22
7.4
97
0.8
0
40
1
Stream
dimensions
were
not
available
corresponding
to
7Q10
flow
conditions,
so
stream
dimensions
were
extrapolated
by
reducing
the
width
and
depth
observed
for
lowest
available
flow
rate
by
a
consistent
factor.
2
No
in
stream
data
were
available
for
this
facility,
so
background
concentration
is
assumed
to
be
zero.
3
The
facility's
maximum
effluent
concentration
for
BOD
was
greater
than
its
permit
limit,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
equal
to
the
permit
limit.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
16
The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
dissolved
oxygen.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
Minimum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

4.11
6.3
7.9
5.0
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
5th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.

The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
ammonia.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
2
Maximum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

17.5
0
0.27
4.7
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
95th
percentile
observed
for
similar­
sized
Iowa
treatment
plants.
2
No
in
stream
data
were
available
for
this
facility,
so
background
concentration
is
assumed
to
be
zero.

The
facility's
discharge
does
not
result
in
a
dissolved
oxygen
concentration
less
than
the
criterion
of
5.0
mg/
L
or
an
ammonia
concentration
greater
than
the
estimated
criterion
for
ammonia.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
the
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost
associated
with
conventional
pollutants.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
17
Facility
Name:
Van
Diest
Supply
Co.
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0070033
Major/
Minor:
Minor
Facility
Type:
Industrial
Design
Flow:
0.0037
MGD
Average
Flow:
0.0029
MGD
Receiving
Water:
Boone
River
Receiving
Water
Class:
Newly
designated
class
B(
WW)
7Q10
Flow:
1.29
MGD
(
data
provided
by
Iowa
DNR)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
03/
03),
permit
file
sampling
results
(
5/
19/
94),
PCS
monitoring
data,
STORET
data,
USGS
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
located
2
miles
up
an
unnamed
tributary,
and
1
mile
up
Brewers
Creek,
from
the
segment
of
Boone
River
receiving
the
new
classification.
The
facility
formulates
agricultural
pesticides
from
active
ingredients
purchased
from
manufacturers.
The
facility
does
not
discharge
process
wastewater,
but
does
treat
domestic
wastewater
from
employees
in
a
three
cell
aerated
lagoon
system.

Toxic
Pollutants:

Reasonable
Potential
Analysis
There
are
no
effluent
data
for
this
facility
any
of
the
pollutants
for
which
water
quality
criteria
exist
for
class
B(
WW)
waters.
Consequently,
this
facility
has
no
reasonable
potential
to
exceed
water
quality
criteria.

Analysis
of
Costs
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
costs
for
toxic
pollutants
as
a
result
of
the
receiving
stream
reclassification.

Conventional
Pollutants
This
facility
must
meet
criteria
for
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
B(
WW).
The
following
table
identifies
the
key
inputs
and
assumptions
used
in
modeling
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen.
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
18
Stream
Temperature
(
degrees
C)
Stream
pH
Stream
Width
(
feet)
Stream
Depth
(
feet)
Background
BOD
(
mg/
L)
Effluent
BOD
(
mg/
L)
1
27
8.2
155
0.4
12
40
1
The
facility's
maximum
effluent
concentration
for
BOD
was
greater
than
its
permit
limit,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
equal
to
the
permit
limit.

The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
dissolved
oxygen.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
Minimum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

4.11
7.0
7.96
5.0
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
5th
percentile
observed
for
similar
Iowa
facilities.
Although
this
facility
is
industrial,
based
on
the
type
of
wastewater
discharged
and
the
treatment
process
used,
data
for
small
Iowa
treatment
plants
are
assumed
to
be
the
most
representative
of
this
facility's
effluent.

The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
ammonia.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
Maximum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

17.5
0.25
<
0.0001
1.3
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
95th
percentile
observed
for
similar
Iowa
facilities.
Although
this
facility
is
industrial,
based
on
the
type
of
wastewater
discharged
and
the
treatment
process
used,
data
for
small
Iowa
treatment
plants
are
assumed
to
be
the
most
representative
of
this
facility's
effluent.

The
facility's
discharge
does
not
result
in
a
dissolved
oxygen
concentration
less
than
the
criterion
of
5.0
mg/
L
or
an
ammonia
concentration
greater
than
the
estimated
criterion
for
ammonia.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
the
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost
associated
with
conventional
pollutants.
5
Data
were
not
available
on
the
facility's
design
and
average
flow.
The
flow
rates
used
in
this
analysis
are
the
facility's
existing
NPDES
permit
limits
for
daily
maximum
and
monthly
average
flow.

December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
19
Facility
Name:
North
Star
Steel
Iowa
NPDES
Permit
Number:
IA0061972
Major/
Minor:
Minor
Facility
Type:
Industrial
Design
Flow:
0.5
MGD5
Average
Flow:
0.28
MGD5
Receiving
Water:
Mud
Creek
Receiving
Water
Class:
Newly
designated
class
B(
WW)
7Q10
Flow:
1.88
MGD
(
data
provided
by
Iowa
DNR)

Data
Sources:
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permit
(
expiration
date
07/
04),
PCS
monitoring,
STORET,
and
USGS
data
Facility/
Treatment
Process
Description:

This
facility
is
located
directly
on
the
newly
classified
stream
segment.
The
facility
melts
scrap
steel
in
an
electric
arc
furnace,
casts
the
molten
metal
into
billets,
and
reheats
the
billets
to
produce
hot
rolled
steel
bar
products.
The
facility's
treatment
system
consists
of
a
process
and
cooling
water
recirculation
basin
from
which
overflow
is
discharged.

Toxic
Pollutants:

Reasonable
Potential
Analysis
Of
the
pollutants
for
which
water
quality
criteria
exist
for
class
B(
WW)
waters,
the
facility
has
effluent
monitoring
data
and
permit
limits
for
two:
lead
and
zinc.
The
following
table
summarizes
the
lead
and
zinc
effluent
concentrations
from
January
1998
through
April
2001.

Pollutant
Number
of
Observations
Effluent
Concentration
(

g/
L)
Effluent
Limit
(

g/
L)
Total
Detect
Nondetect
Maximum
Mean
Minimum
Lead
39
39
0
40
5.77
4.0
35
Zinc
40
40
0
151
25
4.0
48
The
table
below
summarizes
the
reasonable
potential
analysis
for
these
pollutants.
Based
on
the
analysis,
this
facility
has
no
reasonable
potential
to
exceed
water
quality
criteria.

Pollutant
PEQ1
(

g/
L)
RWC
(

g/
L)
WQC
(

g/
L)
Reasonable
Potential?

Lead
110
14.2
30
No
Zinc
358
46.4
450
No
December
2001
Appendix
D.
Facility­
Level
Analyses
 
Designated
Use
Change
D­
20
1
For
both
pollutants,
n>
140,
so
PEQ
was
assumed
to
be
the
99th
percentile
value
of
the
effluent
data
set.

Analysis
of
Costs
EPA
estimates
that
this
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
costs
for
toxic
pollutants
as
a
result
of
the
receiving
stream
reclassification.

Conventional
Pollutants
This
facility
must
meet
criteria
for
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen
as
a
result
of
reclassification
to
Class
B(
WW).
The
following
table
identifies
the
key
inputs
and
assumptions
used
in
modeling
ammonia
and
dissolved
oxygen.

Stream
Temperature
(
degrees
C)
Stream
pH
Stream
Width
(
feet)
Stream
Depth
(
feet)
Background
BOD
(
mg/
L)
Effluent
BOD
(
mg/
L)
1
14.5
8.3
30
0.66
2
40
1
The
facility's
maximum
effluent
concentration
for
BOD
was
greater
than
its
permit
limit,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
equal
to
the
permit
limit.

The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
dissolved
oxygen.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
Minimum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

5.07
7.6
7.27
5.0
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
5th
percentile
observed
for
other
Iowa
industrial
facilities.
(
No
DO
data
were
available
for
Iowa
facilities
in
the
same
industry,
so
data
from
all
Iowa
industrial
facilities
were
used
as
a
best
approximation.)

The
following
table
shows
the
results
of
the
analysis
for
ammonia.

Effluent
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
1
Background
Concentration
(
mg/
L)
Maximum
Projected
Concentration
in
Newly
Classified
Stream
Segment
(
mg/
L)
Criterion
(
mg/
L)

1.366
0
0.177
0.8
1
No
effluent
data
were
available
this
facility,
so
effluent
concentration
is
assumed
to
equal
the
95th
percentile
observed
for
other
Iowa
facilities
in
the
same
industry
(
2­
digit
SIC
code).

The
facility's
discharge
does
not
result
in
a
dissolved
oxygen
concentration
less
than
the
criterion
of
5.0
mg/
L
or
an
ammonia
concentration
greater
than
the
estimated
criterion
for
ammonia.
Therefore,
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
that
the
facility
will
not
incur
any
compliance
cost
associated
with
conventional
pollutants.
December
2001
Appendix
E.
Use
Attainability
E­
1
APPENDIX
E.
USE
ATTAINABILITY
This
appendix
describes
EPA's
attempt
to
evaluate
use
attainability
for
the
stream
segments
for
which
the
proposed
rule
would
result
in
a
change
in
designated
use.

E.
1
Method
EPA
used
the
STORET
Legacy
Database
and
identified
all
monitoring
stations
located
within
a
15­
mile
radius
of
the
dischargers
in
the
sample
that
would
be
affected
by
changes
in
designated
uses.
EPA
then
downloaded
and
evaluated
data
from
these
stations
for
parameters
relevant
to
the
provisions
of
the
rule.
Because
no
stations
yielded
data
relevant
to
the
revised
criteria,
EPA
then
looked
at
stations
within
a
15­
mile
radius
of
all
the
dischargers
it
evaluated
for
the
economic
analysis.
No
data
pertaining
to
use
attainability
was
available
for
these
locations
either.
Therefore,
EPA
determined
that
data
are
not
available
to
evaluate
use
attainability
for
the
affected
stream
segments
and
requests
comment
on
this
issue.

E.
2
Results
Exhibit
E­
1
summarizes
the
location
of
stations
within
a
15­
mile
radius
of
the
dischargers
in
the
economic
analysis
for
which
data
are
available.
(
Data
were
not
available
for
stations
near
facilities
IA0001503,
IA0028525,
IA0033464,
IA0041815,
IA0061972,
IA0066346,
IA0067229.)
However,
although
data
for
relevant
parameters
(
e.
g.,
ammonia,
fecal
coliform,
aluminum)
are
available,
the
stations
are
either
far
away
from
the
dischargers
or
located
on
different
tributaries.
Therefore,
EPA
could
not
use
the
data
to
evaluate
use
attainability.

Exhibit
E­
1.
Evaluation
of
Monitoring
Station
Data
Facility
NPDES
Number
STORET
Station
ID
Evaluation
Code1
IA0003361
320350
D
320540
D
320897
A
IA0003395
5681
D
5682
D
100531
D
140690
D
IA0003964
120542
B
120543
B
120544
B
IA0004308
6688
C
6689
C
100533
A
500550
A
IA0021369
120542
D
120543
D
120544
D
Facility
NPDES
Number
STORET
Station
ID
Evaluation
Code1
December
2001
Appendix
E.
Use
Attainability
E­
2
IA0027723
700102
B
IA0031704
390533
B
390553
B
390566
B
784043
B
860062
D
860063
D
IA0032425
390553
D
390566
D
443705
B
784043
B
860062
B
860063
B
IA0042609
8016
B
48468
A
100595
A
5474500
A
IA0057169
8087
B
8088
B
8089
A
8091
B
8092
B
8093
A
8094
A
383110
B
410102
A
410103
A
IA0064033
325109
B
325860
B
IA0070333
438056
D
IA0070998
323015
D
1.
Evaluation
codes:
A
=
The
station
is
several
miles
upstream
of
the
facility.
Many
tributaries
(
and
potentially
several
discharges)
enter
the
stream
between
the
station
and
the
facility.
Therefore,
the
relevance
of
the
data
for
determining
background
concentrations
is
questionable.
B
=
The
facility
is
located
on
a
tributary
to
a
stream
and
the
station
is
located
on
a
separate
tributary
to
the
stream,
or
the
station
is
in
a
different
watershed
from
the
stream
in
question.
There
is
no
relationship
between
water
quality
at
the
station
to
use
attainability
for
the
stream
in
question.
C=
The
station
is
located
on
a
tributary
to
the
stream
on
which
the
facility
is
located
and
does
not
represent
the
water
quality
in
the
stream
to
which
the
facility
discharges.
D
=
The
station
is
downstream
of
the
facility
and
is
affected
by
discharges;
it
does
not
represent
background
conditions.
December
2001
Appendix
E.
Use
Attainability
E­
3
December
2001
Appendix
F.
Revision
to
Iowa
WQS
F­
1
APPENDIX
F.
REVISIONS
TO
IOWA
WQS
(
a)
What
criteria
apply
to
the
aquatic
life
uses
("
Class
B")
in
Iowa?

In
addition
to
the
criteria
specified
at
Iowa
Admin.
Code
r.
567­
61.3(
3),
the
following
criteria
apply
to
Iowa
Class
B
surface
waters;
i.
e.,
Class
B
 
Cold
water
aquatic
life
(
CW),
Class
B
 
Significant
resource
warm
water
(
WW),
Class
B
 
Limited
resource
warm
water
(
LR),
or
Class
B
 
Lakes
and
wetlands
(
LW)
in
Iowa
Admin.
Code
r.
567­
61.3(
5).

Pollutant
CAS
#
Class
B
(
Aquatic
Life)
Use
Criteria
(

g/
L)

Cold
water
aquatic
life
(
CW)
Significant
resource
warm
water
(
WW)
Limited
resource
warm
water
(
LR)
Lakes
and
wetlands
(
LW)

Aluminum
acute
(
CMC)
chronic
(
CCC)
7429905
750
­­
750
87
750
87
 
 
4,4'­
DDT
chronic
(
CCC)
50293
 
 
0.001
 
Dieldrin
acute
(
CMC)
chronic
(
CCC)
60571
0.24
 
0.24
 
0.24
0.056
0.24
 
alpha­
Endosulfan
human
health
 
organism
only
959988
240
240
 
240
beta­
Endosulfan
human
health
 
organism
only
33213659
240
240
 
240
Endosulfan
Sulfate
human
health
 
organism
only
1031078
240
240
 
240
Endrin
chronic
(
CCC)
human
health
 
organism
only
72208
 
0.81
 
0.81
0.036
 
­
­
0.81
Heptachlor
chronic
(
CCC)
76448
 
­
­
0.0038
 
Lindane
acute
(
CMC)
58899
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
Pentachlorophenol
*
acute
(
CMC)
chronic
(
CCC)
87865
19
15
19
 
19
15
19
 
Toxaphene
acute
(
CMC)
chronic
(
CCC)
8001352
0.73
 
 
 
0.73
0.0002
 
 
*
Values
for
Pentachlorophenol
are
based
on
a
pH
of
7.8
December
2001
Appendix
F.
Revision
to
Iowa
WQS
F­
2
(
b)
What
criteria
apply
to
the
potable
water
supply
use
("
Class
C")
in
Iowa?

In
addition
to
the
criteria
specified
at
Iowa
Admin.
Code
r.
567­
61.3(
3),
the
following
criteria
apply
to
Iowa
surface
waters
designated
as
Class
C
in
Iowa
Admin.
Code
r.
567­
61.3(
5).
These
criteria
are
designed
to
protect
human
health
for
consumption
of
water
plus
organism.

Pollutant
CAS
#
Iowa
Class
C
Criterion
(

g/
L)

2,3,7,8­
TCCD
(
Dioxin)
1746016
1.3x10­
8
alpha­
Endosulfan
959988
110
beta­
Endosulfan
33213659
110
Endosulfan
Sulfate
1031078
110
Bromoform
75252
4.3
Chlorodibromomethane
124481
0.41
Chloroform
67663
5.7
Dichlorobromomethane
75274
0.56
(
c)
What
activities
or
waters
are
subject
to
Iowa's
antidegradation
policy
of
Iowa
Admin.
Code
r.
567­
61.2(
2)?

The
provisions
of
Iowa's
water
quality
standards,
including
the
antidegradation
policy,
shall
be
applicable
to
within
the
State
of
Iowa.
Therefore,
all
waters
of
the
U.
S.
in
Iowa
are
subject
to
the
state's
antidegradation
policy.

(
d)
What
designated
uses
are
assigned
to
Iowa
surface
waters?

In
addition
to
the
designated
uses
specified
at
Iowa
Admin.
Code
r.
567­
61.3(
5),
the
following
designated
uses
apply
to
Iowa
surface
waters.
December
2001
Appendix
F.
Revision
to
Iowa
WQS
F­
3
Iowa
Water
Quality
Standards
Uses
Designations1
River
Basin
and
Segment
Class
A
Class
B
(
WW)
Class
B
(
LW)
Class
C
Skunk
River
Basin
Big
Creek
Mouth
(
Henry
Co.)
to
confluence
with
Brandywine
Creek
(
Henry
Co.)
XX
 
 
 
South
Skunk
River
Ames
Waterworks
Dam
(
S36,
T84N,
R24W,
Story
Co.)
to
Story­
Hamilton
Co.
line
XX
 
 
 
Devils
Creek
(
aka
Big
Devil
Creek)
Mouth
in
Lee
County
to
confluence
with
Sugar
Creek
 
XX
 
 
Lost
Creek
Mouth
(
Lee
Co.)
to
Lee
Co.
Rd.
J42
(
S31,
T69N,
R4W,
Lee
County)
 
XX
 
 
Cedar
Creek
Mouth
(
Des
Moines
Co.)
to
Geode
Lake
(
S36,
T70N,
R5W,
Henry
Co.)
 
XX
 
 
Little
Cedar
Creek
Mouth
(
Henry
Co.)
to
Lee­
Van
Buren
Co.
line
 
XX
 
 
Honey
Creek
Mouth
(
S8,
T74N,
R9W,
Washington
Co)
to
Lake
Darling
(
Washington
Co.)
 
XX
 
 
Keigley
Branch
Mouth
(
Story
Co.)
to
confluence
with
Hamilton­
Story
Co.
D.
D.
1
(
S36,
T85N,
R24W,
Story
Co.)
 
XX
 
 
Southern
Iowa
River
Basins
Des
Moines
River
Basin
Prairie
Creek
Mouth
(
S35,
T88N,
R28W,
Webster
Co.)
to
road
crossing
center
of
Section
28,
T88N,
R28W,
Webster
Co.
XX
 
 
 
Des
Moines
River
Humboldt
impoundment
(
aka
Lake
Nakomis)
Dam
to
Iowa­
Minnesota
State
Line
XX
 
 
 
Iowa
Water
Quality
Standards
Uses
Designations1
River
Basin
and
Segment
Class
A
Class
B
(
WW)
Class
B
(
LW)
Class
C
December
2001
Appendix
F.
Revision
to
Iowa
WQS
F­
4
Brushy
Creek
Mouth
in
Guthrie
County
to
the
Guthrie­
Audubon
Counties
line
 
XX
 
 
Big
Indian
Creek
(
aka
Indian
Creek)
Mouth
in
Van
Buren
County
to
Hwy.
2
(
S24,
T68N,
R10W,
Van
Buren
Co.)
 
XX
 
 
North
Chequest
Creek
Mouth
(
Davis
Co.)
to
Confluence
of
Middle
Chequest
Creek
(
S25,
T70N,
R13W,
Davis
Co.)

Muchakinock
Creek
Mouth
(
Monroe
Co.)
to
Mahaska
Co.
Rd.
G39
(
N.
Line
of
S2,
T75N,
R17W,
Mahaska
Co.)

Coal
Creek
Mouth
(
Mahaska
Co.)
to
Marion­
Monroe
Co.
line.

Squaw
Creek
Mouth
(
Warren
Co.)
to
the
Warren­
Clarke
Co.
line.

Brewers
Creek
Mouth
(
Hamilton
Co.)
to
Hwy.
20
(
N
line
of
S4,
T88N,
R26W,
Hamilton
Co.)

Four
Mile
Creek
Mouth
(
Kossuth
Co.)
to
Hwy.
18
(
N
line
of
S5,
T95N,
R29W,
Kossuth
Co.)

Northeastern
Iowa
River
Basins
Farm
Creek
Mouth
(
Jones
Co.)
to
Highway
136
(
S20,
T86N,
R1W,
Jones
Co.)

West
Kitty
Creek
Mouth
(
S27,
T86N,
R3W,
Jones
Co.)
to
S
line
of
S35,
T86N,
R3W,

Lindsey
Creek
(
aka
Little
York
Branch)
Mouth
(
S3,
T89N,
R5W,
Delaware
Co.)
to
N
line
of
Section
16,
T90N,
R5W
in
Delaware
Co.)
Iowa
Water
Quality
Standards
Uses
Designations1
River
Basin
and
Segment
Class
A
Class
B
(
WW)
Class
B
(
LW)
Class
C
December
2001
Appendix
F.
Revision
to
Iowa
WQS
F­
5
Howard
Creek
Mouth
(
S25,
T94N,
R5W,
Clayton
Co.)
to
N
line
of
Section
13,
T94N,
R5W,
Clayton
Co.

Iowa­
Cedar
River
Basins
Dry
Run
Mouth
(
S18,
T89N,
R13W,
Black
Hawk
Co.)
to
W
line
of
Section
27,
T89N,
R14W
Black
Hawk
Co.
XX
 
 
 
Yellow
Spring
Creek
Mouth
(
Des
Moines
Co.)
to
North
Line
of
S16,
T71N,
R2W
Des
Moines
Co.

Hawkeye
Creek
Mouth
(
Des
Moines
Co.)
to
West
line
of
S16,
T72N,
R2W
Des
Moines
Co.

Cedar
Creek
Mouth
(
S21,
T87N,
R19W,
Hardin
Co.)
to
Hwy
175
(
N.
Line
of
S14,
T87N,
R19W,
Hardin
Co.)

Pine
Creek
Upper
Pine
Lake
to
Hardin­
Grundy
Co.
line
Galls
Creek
Mouth
(
S12,
T95N,
R24W,
Hancock
Co.)
to
Drainage
Ditch
120
(
S13,
T95N,
R23W,
Hancock
Co.

Pike
Creek
Mouth
S19,
T76N,
R4W,
Muscatine
Co.)
to
Cone
Lake
Mud
Creek
Mouth
Muscatine
Co.)
to
Muscatine
Co.
Rd.
Y26
(
E
line
of
Section
1,
T78N,
R1W,
Muscatine
Co.)

Hinkle
Creek
Mouth
(
Benton
Co.)
to
S
line
of
Section
23,
T85N,
R11W
Benton
Co.

Bear
Creek
Mouth
(
Benton
Co.)
to
N
line
of
Section
17,
T87N,
R9W
,
Buchanan
Co.

Rock
Creek
Mouth
(
Black
Hawk
Co.)
to
Benton­
Tama
Co.
Line
Indian
Creek
Mouth
(
Black
Hawk
Co.)
to
N
line
of
Section
19,
T88N,
R11W,
in
Black
Hawk
Co.
Iowa
Water
Quality
Standards
Uses
Designations1
River
Basin
and
Segment
Class
A
Class
B
(
WW)
Class
B
(
LW)
Class
C
December
2001
Appendix
F.
Revision
to
Iowa
WQS
F­
6
Poyner
Creek
Mouth
(
Black
Hawk
Co.)
to
Hwy.
20
(
S2,
T88N,
R12W,
Black
Hawk
Co.

Johnson
Creek
Mouth
(
Butler
Co.)
to
Butler
Co.
Rd.
T25
(
W
line
of
Section
32,
T91N,
R17W,
Butler
Co.)

Two
Mile
Creek
(
aka
Horton
Creek
or
Dry
Run)
Mouth
(
Bremer
Co.)
to
Hwy.
88
(
N
line
of
Section
27,
T93N,
R14W,
Bremer
Co.)

Clear
Creek
Mouth
(
Cerro
Gordo
Co.)
to
Clear
Lake
Outlet
Pike
Run
Mouth
(
Winnebago
Co.)
to
Lateral
2
(
S16,
T99N,
R24W,
Winnebago
Co.)

Western
Iowa
River
Basins
Allen
Creek
Mouth
(
Pottawattamie
Co.)
to
Pottawattamie/
Harrison
Counties
line.
 
XX
 
 
Southern
Iowa
River
Basins
Kemp
Creek
Mouth
(
Adams
Co.)
to
Lake
Icaria
Dam
(
S10,
T72N,
R34W,
Adams
Co.).
 
XX
 
 
Lakes
Appanoose
County
Mystic
Reservoir
XX
 
XX
XX
Muscatine
County
Wiese
Slough
XX
 
XX
 
Obrien
County
Mill
Creek
Lake
XX
 
 
 
December
2001
Appendix
F.
Revision
to
Iowa
WQS
F­
7
Iowa
Water
Quality
Standards
Uses
Designations1
1Notes:

Surface
water
classification.
All
waters
of
the
state
are
classified
for
protection
of
beneficial
uses.
These
classified
waters
include
general
use
segments
and
designated
use
segments.
Iowa
Admin.
Code
r.
567­
61.3(
1).

General
Use
Segments.
These
are
intermittent
watercourses
and
those
watercourses
which
typically
flow
only
for
short
periods
of
time
following
precipitation
in
the
immediate
locality
or
as
a
result
of
discharges
from
wastewater
treatment
facilities,
and
whose
channels
are
normally
above
the
water
table.
These
waters
do
not
support
a
viable
aquatic
community
of
significance
during
low
flow,
and
do
not
maintain
pooled
conditions
during
periods
of
no
flow.

However,
during
periods
when
sufficient
flow
exists
in
the
intermittent
watercourses
to
support
various
uses,
the
general
use
segments
are
to
be
protected
for
livestock
and
wildlife
watering,
noncontact
recreation,
crop
irrigation,
and
industrial,
agricultural,
domestic
and
other
incidental
water
withdrawal
uses.
The
aquatic
life
existing
within
these
watercourses
during
elevated
flows
will
be
protected
from
acutely
toxic
conditions.
Iowa
Admin.
Code
r.
567­
61.3(
1)
a.

Designated
use
segments.
These
are
water
bodies
which
maintain
flow
throughout
the
year,
or
contain
sufficient
pooled
areas
during
intermittent
flow
periods
to
maintain
a
viable
aquatic
community
of
significance.

Designated
use
waters
are
to
be
protected
for
all
uses
of
general
use
segments
in
addition
to
the
specific
uses
assigned.
Designated
use
segments
include:

Primary
contact
recreation
(
Class
"
A").
Waters
in
which
recreational
or
other
uses
may
result
in
prolonged
and
direct
contact
with
the
water,
involving
considerable
risk
of
ingesting
water
in
quantities
sufficient
to
pose
a
health
hazard.
Such
activities
would
include,
but
not
be
limited
to,
swimming,
diving,
water
skiing,
and
water
contact
recreational
canoeing.

Cold
water
aquatic
life
(
Class
"
B(
CW)").
Waters
in
which
the
temperature,
flow,
and
other
habitat
characteristics
are
suitable
for
the
maintenance
of
a
wide
variety
of
cold
water
species,
including
nonreproducing
populations
of
trout
and
associated
aquatic
communities.

Significant
resource
warm
water
(
Class
"
B(
WW)").
Waters
in
which
temperature,
flow
and
other
habitat
characteristics
are
suitable
for
the
maintenance
of
a
wide
variety
of
reproducing
populations
of
warm
water
fish
and
associated
aquatic
communities,
including
sensitive
species.

Limited
resource
warm
water
(
Class
"
B(
LR)").
Waters
in
which
flow
or
other
physical
characteristics
limit
the
ability
of
the
water
body
to
maintain
a
balanced
warm
water
community.
Such
waters
support
only
populations
composed
of
species
able
to
survive
and
reproduce
in
a
wide
range
of
physical
and
chemical
conditions,
and
are
not
generally
harvested
for
human
consumption.

Lakes
and
wetlands
(
Class
"
B(
LW)").
These
are
artificial
and
natural
impoundments
with
hydraulic
retention
times
and
other
physical
and
chemical
characteristics
suitable
to
maintain
a
balanced
community
normally
associated
with
lake­
like
conditions.

Drinking
water
supply
(
Class
"
C").
Waters
which
are
used
as
a
raw
water
source
of
potable
water
supply.
Iowa
Admin.
Code
r.
567­
61.3(
1)
b.
