Public and Interagency Participation [REVOKED]

(a) Initial promulgation of Plan. The initial promulgation of the Plan will receive public and interagency review and comment. This required element will be completed when the public participation period has been completed and a response to all comments received as a result of the public participation process has been appended to the Plan. (b) Revisions to Plan. As with initial promulgation, triennial reviews of and revisions to the Plan, as well as any intermediate revisions thereto, shall undergo public and interagency review, and the response to all comments received shall be appended to the Plan. 60 APPENDIX B. PRIORITY AND NONPRIORITY POLLUTANTS WITH NUMERICAL CRITERIA REQUIRING REASONABLE POTENTIAL SCREENING [REVOKED] The priority pollutants are listed in Table B-1. Those having state numerical criteria or federal numerical guidelines for the consumption of fish flesh (re: NRWQC), and which require reasonable potential screening if present in an effluent are marked with a diamond (). Pollutants with state numerical criteria are indicated according to type of criteria. Pollutants which have NRWQC human health/fish flesh guidelines are screened only if the Fish Consumption beneficial use applies to the discharge and there is no state criterion for the pollutant. Predicted exceedances of NRWQC guidelines will result in effluent and/or background monitoring. Nonpriority pollutants with state and federal criteria are listed in Table B-2. WET testing parameters and their STORET numbers are listed in Table B-3. Table B-1. Priority Pollutants with State Water Quality Criteria or National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Requiring Reasonable Potential Screening Pollutant CAS No. STORE T No. MQL (g/l) NRWQC Human Health1 State Criteria2 Aquatic Toxicity Human Health Raw Water Agriculture Metals, Cyanide and Total Phenols Antimony, total 7440360 01097 60  --- --- --- --- Arsenic, total 7440382 01002 0.5     --- Beryllium, total 7440417 01012 5 --- --- --- --- --- Cadmium, total 7440439 01027 1 ---    --- Chromium, total 7440473 01034 10 ---    --- Chromium (3+) 16065831 01033 10 Chromium (6+) 18540299 01032 10 Copper, total 7440508 01042 1   ---  --- Lead, total 7439921 01051 0.5 ---    --- Mercury, total 7439976 71900 0.05     --- Nickel, total 7440020 01067 10    --- --- Selenium, total 7782492 01147 5   ---  --- Silver, total 7440224 01077 0.5 ---    --- Thallium, total 7440280 01059 0.5    --- --- Zinc, total 7440666 01092 20   ---  --- Cyanide, total 57125 00720 10   ---  --- Phenols, total 108952 46000 10 --- ---  --- --- 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p Dioxin 1746016 34675 0.00001  ---  --- --- 1 From National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Pub. No. EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999 2 DEQ-adopted numerical water quality criteria, OAC 252:730, Subchapter 5 61 Table B-1 (continued). Priority Pollutants with State Water Quality Criteria or National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Requiring Reasonable Potential Screening Pollutant CAS No. STORE T No. MQL (g/l) NRWQC Human Health1 State Criteria2 Aquatic Toxicity Human Health Raw Water Agriculture Volatile Organics Acrolein 107028 34210 50  ---  --- --- Acrylonitrile 107131 34215 50    --- --- Benzene 71432 34030 10    --- --- Bromoform 75252 32104 10  --- --- --- --- Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 32102 10  ---  --- --- Chlorobenzene 108907 34301 10  --- --- --- --- Chlorodibromomethane 124481 32105 10  --- --- --- --- Chloroethane 75003 34311 50 --- --- --- --- --- 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether 110758 34576 10 --- --- --- --- --- Chloroform 67663 32106 10  ---  --- --- Dichlorobromomethane 75274 32101 10  ---  --- --- 1,1-Dichloroethane 75343 34496 10 --- --- --- --- --- 1,2-Dichloroethane 107062 34536 10  --- --- --- --- 1,1-Dichloroethylene 75354 34501 10  --- --- --- --- 1,2-Dichloropropane 78875 34541 10  --- --- --- --- 1,3-Dichloropropylene 542756 34561 10  --- --- --- --- Ethylbenzene 100414 34371 10  ---  --- --- Methyl bromide [Bromomethane] 74839 34413 50  --- --- --- --- Methyl chloride [Chloromethane] 74873 34418 50 --- --- --- --- --- Methylene chloride 75092 34423 20  --- --- --- --- 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79345 34516 10  --- --- --- --- Tetrachloroethylene 127184 34475 10    --- --- Toluene 108883 34010 10    --- --- 1,2-Trans-dichloroethylene 156605 34546 10  --- --- --- --- 1,1,1-Trichloroethane [1-1-1 TCE] 71556 34506 10 --- ---  --- --- 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 79005 34511 10  --- --- --- --- Trichloroethylene 79016 39180 10  --- --- --- --- Vinyl chloride 75014 39175 10  --- --- --- --- 1 From National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Publication No. EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999 2 DEQ-adopted numerical water quality criteria, OAC 252:730, Subchapter 5 62 Table B-1 (continued). Priority Pollutants with State Water Quality Criteria or National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Requiring Reasonable Potential Screening Pollutant CAS No. STORE T No. MQL (mg/l) NRWQC Human Health1 State Criteria2 Aquatic Toxicity Human Health Raw Water Agriculture Acid Organics 2-Chlorophenol 95578 34586 20  --- --- --- --- 2,4-Dichlorophenol 120832 34601 20  --- --- --- --- 2,4-Dimethylphenol 105679 34606 20  --- --- --- --- 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol [2-Methyl-4,6- dinitrophenol] 534521 34657 50  --- --- --- --- 2,4-Dinitrophenol 51285 34616 50  -- --- --- -- 2-Nitrophenol 88755 34591 20 --- --- --- --- --- 4-Nitrophenol 100027 34646 50 --- --- --- --- --- p-Chloro-m-cresol 59507 34452 20 --- --- --- --- -- Pentachlorophenol 87865 39032 50    --- --- Phenol 108952 34694 20  --- --- --- --- 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 88062 34621 20  --- --- --- --- Base / Neutral Organics Acenaphthene 83329 34205 20 --- --- --- --- Acenaphthylene 208968 34200 20 --- --- --- --- --- Anthracene 120127 34220 20  --- --- --- --- Benzidine 92875 39120 50  --- ---  --- Benzo(a)anthracene 56553 34526 20  --- --- --- --- Benzo(a)pyrene 50328 34247 20  --- --- --- --- Benzo(b)fluoranthene [3,4- Benzofluoranthene] 205992 34230 20  --- --- --- --- Benzo(ghi)perylene 191242 34521 20 --- --- --- --- --- Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207089 34242 20  --- --- --- --- Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane 111911 34278 20 --- --- --- --- --- Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether 111444 34273 20  --- --- --- --- Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether 39638329 34283 20  --- --- --- --- Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117817 39100 20  ---  --- --- 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether 101553 34636 20 --- --- --- --- --- Butylbenzyl phthalate 85687 34292 20  ---   --- 2-Chloronaphthalene 91587 34581 20  --- --- --- --- 4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether 7005723 34631 20 --- --- --- --- --- Chrysene 218019 34320 20  --- --- --- --- Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 53703 34556 20  --- --- --- --- 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 95501 34536 20  --- --- --- --- 1,3-Dichlorobenzene 541731 34566 20  --- --- --- --- 1 From National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Publication No. EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999 2 DEQ-adopted numerical water quality criteria, OAC 252:730, Subchapter 5 63 Table B-1 (continued). Priority Pollutants with State Water Quality Criteria or National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Requiring Reasonable Potential Screening Pollutant CAS No. STORE T No. MQL (g/l) NRWQC Human Health1 State Criteria2 Aquatic Toxicity Human Health Raw Water Agriculture Base / Neutral Organics 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106467 34571 20  --- --- --- --- 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 91941 34631 20  --- --- --- --- Diethyl phthalate 84662 34336 20  ---  --- --- Dimethyl phthalate 131113 34341 20  ---  --- --- Di-n-butyl phthalate 84742 39110 20  ---  --- --- 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 121142 34611 20  --- --- --- --- 2,6-Dinitrotoluene 606202 34626 20 --- --- --- --- --- Di-n-octyl phthalate 117840 34596 20 --- --- --- --- --- 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (as Azobenzene) 122667 34346 20  --- --- --- --- Fluoranthene 206440 34376 20  --- --- --- --- Fluorene 86737 34381 20  --- --- --- --- Hexachlorobenzene 118741 39700 10  ---  --- --- Hexachlorobutadiene 87683 34391 20  --- --- --- --- Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 77474 34386 20  --- --- --- --- Hexachloroethane 67721 34396 20  --- --- --- --- Ideno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene 193395 34403 20  --- --- --- --- Isophorone 78591 34408 20  --- --- --- --- Naphthalene 91203 34696 10 --- --- --- --- --- Nitrobenzene 98953 34447 20  --- --- --- --- n-Nitrosodimethylamine 62759 34438 50  --- --- --- --- n-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine 621647 34428 20  --- --- --- --- n-Nitrosodiphenylamine 86306 34433 20  --- --- --- --- Phenanthrene 85018 34461 20 --- --- --- --- --- Pyrene 129000 34469 20  --- --- --- --- 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 120821 34551 20  --- --- --- --- Pesticides Aldrin 309002 39330 0.05    --- --- alpha-BHC 319846 39337 0.05  --- --- --- --- beta-BHC 319857 39338 0.05  --- --- --- --- gamma-BHC [Lindane] 58899 34266 0.05     --- delta-BHC 319868 34259 0.05 --- --- --- --- --- Chlordane 57749 39350 0.2    --- --- 4,4'-DDT 50293 39300 0.05    --- --- 4,4'-DDE 72559 39320 0.05  --- --- --- 1 From National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Publication No. EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999 2 DEQ-adopted numerical water quality criteria, OAC 252:730, Subchapter 5 64 Table B-1 (continued). Priority Pollutants with State Water Quality Criteria or National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Requiring Reasonable Potential Screening Pollutant CAS No. STORE T No. MQL (g/l) NRWQC Human Health1 State Criteria2 Aquatic Toxicity Human Health Raw Water Agriculture Pesticides 4,4'-DDD 72548 39310 0.05  ---  --- --- Demeton 1 Diazinon 1 Dieldrin 60571 39380 0.05    --- --- alpha-Endosulfan 959988 34361 0.05   --- --- --- beta-Endosulfan 33213659 34356 0.05   --- --- --- Endosulfan sulfate 1031078 34351 0.05  --- --- --- --- Endrin 72208 39390 0.05     --- Endrin aldehyde 7421934 34366 0.05  --- --- --- --- Heptachlor 76448 39410 0.05    --- --- Heptachlor epoxide 1024573 39420 0.05  --- --- --- --- Toxaphene 8001352 39400 0.3   ---  --- PCBs PCB-1242 39496 0.25 --- --- --- --- --- PCB-1254 39504 0.25 --- --- --- --- --- PCB-1221 39488 0.25 --- --- --- --- --- PCB-1232 39492 0.25 --- --- --- --- --- PCB-1248 39500 0.25 --- --- --- --- --- PCB-1260 39508 0.25 --- --- --- --- --- PCB-1016 34671 0.25 --- --- --- --- --- PCBs, total 04166 0.25    --- --- 2,4,5 – TP (Silvex) 0.25 1 From National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Publication No. EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999 2 DEQ-adopted numerical water quality criteria, OAC 252:730, Subchapter 5 65 Table B-2. Nonpriority Pollutants with State Water Quality Criteria or National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Requiring Reasonable Potential Screening Pollutant CAS No. STORE T No. MQL (g/l) NRWQC Human Health1 State Criteria2 Aquatic Toxicity Human Health Raw Water Agriculture Nonpriority Pollutants Ammonia 7664417 00610 100 --- 3 --- --- --- Asbestos 1332214 948 ---  --- --- --- --- Barium 7440393 01007 10  --- ---  --- Bis-chloromethyl ether 542881 34268 20  --- --- --- --- Chloride 16887006 941 10000 --- --- --- ---  Chlorine 7782505 50060 100 --- 3 --- --- --- 2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy) propionic acid [2,4,5-TP Silvex] 93721 39760 0.5 ---  ---  --- 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid [2,4-D] 94757 39730 1 --- --- ---  --- Chloropyrifos [Dursban] 2921882 81403 0.05 ---  --- --- --- Demeton 8065483 39560 1 ---  --- --- --- Detergents, total 51582 100 --- --- ---  --- Diazinon 333415 10408 1 ---  --- --- --- Fluoride @ 90ﾟF 16984488 951 1000 --- --- ---  --- Guthion [Methyl azinphos] 86500 39580 1 ---  --- --- --- Hexachlorocyclohexane-Technical 319868 77835 5  --- --- --- --- Hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine [RDX] 121824 81364 140 ---  --- --- --- Iron 7439896 00980 200  --- --- --- --- Malathion 121755 39530 1 ---  --- --- --- Manganese 7439965 01055 50  --- --- --- --- Methoxychlor 72435 39480 0.05   ---  --- Methylene blue active substances 61734 47021 100 ---  ---  --- Mirex 2385855 39755 0.05 ---  --- --- --- Nitrate 14797558 00620 50  --- ---  --- Nitrosamines --- 50  --- --- --- --- n-Nitrosodibutylamine 924163 78207 50  --- --- --- --- 1From National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Publication No. EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999. 2DEQ-adopted numerical water quality criteria, OAC 252:730, Subchapter 5. 3Ammonia and chlorine criteria apply to implementation of narrative toxicity criterion under OAC 252:730 and 40 C.F.R. Part 122.44(d)(1)(vi). 66 Table B-2 (continued). Nonpriority Pollutants with State Water Quality Criteria or National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Requiring Reasonable Potential Screening Pollutant CAS No. STORE T No. MQ L (g/l) NRWQC Human Health1 State Criteria2 Aquatic Toxicity Human Health Raw Water Agriculture Nonpriority Pollutants n-Nitrosodiethylamine 55185 78200 50  --- --- --- --- n-Nitrosopyrrolidine 930552 78206 50  --- --- --- --- Nonylphenol 25154523 10395 100 ---  --- --- --- Parathion 56382 39540 1 ---  --- --- --- Pentachlorobenzene 608935 77793 50  --- --- --- --- Perchlorate 7601903 3215 5 ---   --- --- Phthalate esters (except butylbenzyl) 39117 --- --- --- ---  --- Sulfate 00946 10000 --- --- --- ---  Total Dissolved Solids [TDS] 70300 10000 --- --- --- ---  1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 95943 78028 50  --- --- --- --- 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 95954 81848 50  --- --- --- --- 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene 81360 --- ---  --- --- --- 1From National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Publication No. EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999. 2DEQ-adopted numerical water quality criteria, OAC 252:730, Subchapter 5. 67 Table B-3. WET Testing and WET Limit Parameters Pollutant STORE T No. NRWQC Human Health1 State Criteria2 Aquatic Toxicity Human Health Raw Water Agriculture 48-hour Acute LC50, Static Renewal, Freshwater Daphnia magna P/F survival TIM3C ---  --- --- --- LC50 effluent concentration TAM3C ---  --- --- --- % mortality in 100% effluent TJM3C ---  --- --- --- Daphnia pulex P/F survival TIM3D ---  --- --- --- LC50 effluent concentration TAM3D ---  --- --- --- % mortality in 100% effluent TJM3D ---  --- --- --- Pimephales promelas P/F survival TIM6C ---  --- --- --- LC50 effluent concentration TAM6C ---  --- --- --- % mortality in 100% effluent TJM6C ---  --- --- --- WET Limit LC50 > 100% 22414 ---  --- --- --- 7-day Chronic NOEC, Static Renewal, Freshwater Ceriodaphnia dubia P/F survival TLP3B ---  --- --- --- NOECL (lethality) TOP3B ---  --- --- --- % mortality in critical dilution TJP3B ---  --- --- --- P/F reproduction TGP3B ---  --- --- --- NOECS (reproduction) TPP3B ---  --- --- --- % CV TQP3B ---  --- --- --- Pimephales promelas P/F survival TLP6C ---  --- --- --- NOECL (lethality) TOP6C ---  --- --- --- % mortality in critical dilution TJP6C ---  --- --- --- P/F growth TGP6C ---  --- --- --- NOECS (growth) TPP6C ---  --- --- --- % CV TQP6C ---  --- --- --- WET Limit NOECL ≥ critical dilution 22414 ---  --- --- --- 1 From National Recommended Water Quality Criteria, Publication No. EPA 822-Z-99-001, April 1999. 2 DEQ-adopted numerical water quality criteria, OAC 252:730, Subchapter 5. 68 APPENDIX C. METHODOLOGY AND EQUATIONS FOR CHARACTERIZING EFFLUENT AND BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS IN DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE POTENTIAL TO EXCEED NUMERICAL CRITERIA [REVOKED] I. EFFLUENT A. Measures of central tendency. CE(mean) represents the mean of an effluent distribution. CE(mean) is a geometric mean, unless the geometric mean is not determinable in which case an arithmetic mean is used. Where one or the other form of the mean must be used in an equation, that form is explicitly stated. (1) CE(avg). CE(avg) is calculated as follows: [C-1] (2) CE(geomean). CE(geomean) is calculated according to either of the following two forms, which are equivalent. [C-2] B. Effluent variability. An effluent data set's standard deviation is the primary measure of its variability. Generally, as the mean of an effluent distribution increases, its standard deviation also tends to increase. The coefficient of variation is a measure of a data set's variability relative to its arithmetic mean. (1) Standard deviation of untransformed effluent data set (sx). The standard deviation of an untransformed effluent data set is calculated as follows: , [C-3] where N is the number of data points in the effluent data set. (2) Standard deviation of log-transformed effluent data set (sln(x)). The standard deviation of a log-transformed effluent data set is calculated as follows: N x C N 1 i i E(avg)       =  = N N 1 i i N 1 i i E(geomean) x N ) (x ln EXP C   = = =                   = ( ) ( ) 1 - N N x - x N s N 1 i 2 N 1 i i 2 i x   = =         = 69 , [C-4] where N is the number of data points in the effluent data set. The standard deviation of a log-transformed data set applies only to the transformed data set and cannot be translated back into an equivalent untransformed data set standard deviation, for example: (3) CV. The CV of an untransformed data set is calculated as follows, when using at least ten (10) data points (if less than ten (10) data points are available, a value of 0.6 is assumed): , [C-5] where CE(avg) and sx are determined according to Equations C-1 and C-3, respectively. C. C95 and C95(M). The use of both C95 and C95(M) assumes a log-normal effluent distribution. For the purpose of determining whether effluent limitations are required, C95 represents the 95th percentile effluent concentration. For the purpose of determining whether further effluent monitoring is required, if C95 does not exhibit reasonable potential then C95(M) is used. (1) C95. The method by which C95 is determined is dependent on whether there are 10or more data points available. (a) Less than 10 data points available. The mean effluent concentration (CE(mean)) is multiplied by a reasonable potential factor (RPF95), which represents the 95th percentile maximum likelihood estimator for a log-normal distribution, according to Equation C- 6. If only one data point is available, it is assumed to represent the effluent mean. RPF95 is calculated according to Equation C-7, assuming a CV of 0.6. [C-6] [C-7] Since a CV of 0.6 is assumed, RPF95 = 2.135 and Equation C-6 reduces to C95 = CE(mean)  2.135. Where determinable, the geometric mean, CE(geomean), shall be used as CE(mean) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 1 - N N x ln - x ln N s N 1 i 2 N 1 i i 2 i (x) ln   = =         = ( ) x (x) ln s s EXP  E(avg) x C s CV = 95 E(mean) 95 RPF C C  = ( ) ( ) ( ) 2 2 95 CV 1 ln 0.5 CV 1 ln 1.645 EXP RPF + − + = 70 in Equation C-6. The arithmetic mean, CE(avg), may be used if the geometric mean is unknown or undeterminable. (b) Ten or more data points available. C95 is obtained directly from the data set as the inverse of the cumulative log-normal distribution function at a 95% probability using Equation C-8. [C-8] where ln(x)avg is the arithmetic mean of the log-transformed effluent data set and s ln(x) is the standard deviation of the log-transformed effluent data set. (2) C95(M). The smaller the size of an effluent data set, the greater the uncertainty of its distribution. The extreme case occurs where only one data point is available. Where less than 10 data points are available to determine C95, further effluent monitoring may be warranted for the purpose of future reevaluation of reasonable potential. The method used, referred to as the TSD method, is described in Section 3.3.2 of Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control, EPA Publication No. EPA/505/2-90- 001, March 1991. A log-normal distribution and a CV of 0.6 are assumed. C95(M) is calculated according to Equation C-9. [C-9] CE(max) is the highest concentration of a toxicant in its effluent data set. If only one data point is available, it is considered to be CE(max). RPF95(M) is determined at a 95% confidence level and a 95% probability basis, according to Equation C-10. [C-10] where zN is the upper kth percentile of the normal distribution, k = (1-confidence level)1/N = (0.05)1/N for the 95% confidence level, and CV=0.6. ( ) (x) ln avg 95 s 1.645 (x) ln EXP C  + = 95(M) E(max) 95(M) RPF C C  = ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2 2 N 2 2 95(M) CV 1 ln 0.5 CV 1 ln z EXP CV 1 ln 0.5 CV 1 ln 1.645 EXP RPF + − + + − + = 71 Table C-1 lists RPF95(M) values for vales of N from 1 to 9, where CV is assumed to be 0.6. Table C-1. RPF 95(M) and zN Values for N<10 N zN RPF95(M) 1 -1.645 6.199 2 -0.760 3.795 3 -0.336 3.000 4 -0.068 2.585 5 0.124 2.324 6 0.272 2.141 7 0.390 2.006 8 0.489 1.898 9 0.574 1.811 (II) BACKGROUND (CB). (A) Numerical criteria for toxic substances: As described in OAC 252:690-3-11 and 14, CB is the background concentration representative of low stream flow (7Q2) conditions. (B) Human health and raw water criteria. As described in OAC 252:690-3-11 and 15, CB is the long term background concentration representative of average stream flow conditions, and is expressed as a geometric mean. (C) Agriculture criteria. As described in OAC 252:690-3-11 and 16, if site-specific mineral constituent background data is used (as opposed to the historical YMS and SS criteria in Appendix F of OAC 252:730), CB is calculated as the arithmetic average of the site-specific background data distribution. If historical YMS and SS data from Appendix F of OAC 252:730 are used, CB is calculated according to Equation C-11. [C-11] (SS) B (YMS) B B C C 2 C −  = 72 APPENDIX D. WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) TESTING CRITICAL DILUTIONS AND DILUTION SERIES [REVOKED] The narrative toxicity criterion is implemented according to procedures in OAC 252:740 and OAC 252:690-3-17 through 3-43. Critical dilutions are expressed in terms of percent effluent. Both types of WET testing require that test organisms be subjected to a series of effluent dilutions based on the critical dilution. Tables D-1 and D-2 reflect the 0.75 dilution series to be used for each percent critical dilution. For WET testing purposes, Qe is the design flow for a municipal POTW or the highest monthly average flow over the most recent two year period of record for an industrial facility. Qu is the higher of the 7Q2 or 1cfs. Q* = Qe/Qu. (1) Acute WET testing critical dilution. The ACD is 100%. (2) Chronic WET testing critical dilution for streams. Equations for calculating the CCD are as follows: , where Q*  0.1823. [D-1] , where 0.1823 < Q* < 0.3333. [D-2] , where Q*  0.3333. [D-3] Q*) (1 * Q 1.94 100 CCD +  = *) 51 . 15 17 .6 ( 1 100 CCD Q −  = 100 CCD = 73 Table D-1. 0.75 Dilution Series for Critical Dilutions from 10% through 75% Percent Effluent Dilution 1 Dilution 2 Dilution 3 Dilution 4 (Critical Dil) Dilution 5 Dilution 6 4.2 5.6 7.5 10 13 --- 4.6 6.2 8.3 11 15 --- 5.1 6.8 9.0 12 16 --- 5.6 7.5 10 13 17 --- 5.9 7.9 11 14 19 --- 6.3 8.4 11 15 20 --- 6.8 9.0 12 16 21 --- 7.2 9.6 13 17 23 --- 7.6 10 14 18 24 --- 8.0 11 14 19 25 --- 8.4 11 15 20 27 --- 9.0 12 16 21 28 --- 9.3 12 17 22 29 --- 9.7 13 17 23 31 --- 10 14 18 24 32 --- 11 14 19 25 33 --- 11 15 20 26 35 --- 11 15 20 27 36 --- 12 16 21 28 37 --- 12 16 22 29 39 --- 13 17 23 30 40 --- 13 17 23 31 41 --- 14 18 24 32 43 --- 14 19 25 33 44 --- 14 19 26 34 45 --- 15 20 26 35 47 --- 15 20 27 36 48 --- 16 21 28 37 49 --- 16 21 29 38 51 --- 16 22 29 39 52 --- 17 23 30 40 53 --- 17 23 31 41 55 --- 18 24 32 42 56 --- 18 24 32 43 57 --- 19 25 33 44 59 --- 19 25 34 45 60 --- 19 26 35 46 61 --- 20 26 35 47 63 --- 20 27 36 48 64 --- 74 Table D-1 (continued). 0.75 Dilution Series for Critical Dilutions from 10% through 75% Percent Effluent Dilution 1 Dilution 2 Dilution 3 Dilution 4 (Critical Dil) Dilution 5 Dilution 6 21 28 37 49 65 --- 21 28 38 50 67 --- 22 29 38 51 68 --- 22 29 39 52 69 --- 22 30 40 53 71 --- 23 30 41 54 72 --- 23 31 41 55 73 --- 24 32 42 56 75 --- 24 32 43 57 76 --- 24 33 44 58 77 --- 25 33 44 59 79 --- 25 34 45 60 80 --- 26 34 46 61 81 --- 26 35 47 62 83 --- 27 35 47 63 84 --- 27 36 48 64 85 --- 27 37 49 65 87 --- 28 37 50 66 88 --- 28 38 50 67 89 --- 29 38 51 68 91 --- 29 39 52 69 92 --- 30 39 53 70 93 --- 30 40 53 71 95 --- 30 41 54 72 96 --- 31 41 55 73 97 --- 31 42 56 74 99 --- 32 42 56 75 100 --- 75 Table D-2. 0.75 Dilution Series for Critical Dilutions Above 75% Percent Effluent Dilution 1 Dilution 2 Dilution 3 Dilution 4 Dilution 5 (Critical Dil) Dilution 6 24 32 43 57 76 100 24 32 43 58 77 100 25 33 44 59 78 100 25 33 44 59 79 100 25 34 45 60 80 100 26 34 46 61 81 100 26 35 46 62 82 100 26 35 47 62 83 100 27 35 47 63 84 100 27 36 48 64 85 100 27 36 48 65 86 100 28 37 49 65 87 100 28 37 50 66 88 100 28 38 50 67 89 100 28 38 51 68 90 100 29 38 51 68 91 100 29 39 52 69 92 100 29 39 52 70 93 100 30 40 53 71 94 100 30 40 53 71 95 100 30 41 54 72 96 --- 31 41 55 73 97 --- 31 41 55 74 98 --- 31 42 56 74 99 --- 32 42 56 75 100 --- 76 APPENDIX E. EQUATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF TEMPERATURE CRITERIA TO PROTECT THE FISH AND WILDLIFE PROPAGATION BENEFICIAL USE [REVOKED] (1) General. The temperature criterion is implemented according to procedures in OAC 252:740 and OAC 252:690-3-44 through 3-50. Wasteload allocation, criterion long term average and permit limit development equations are described in this appendix. (2) Reasonable potential. See OAC 252:740. (3) WLAT. Trout fisheries by definition require a WLAT of 20 oC (see OAC 252:690-3-53). Other than for trout fisheries, if Tmax > 2.8 oC, a WLA is required. (A) Streams. , where Q*  0.1823. [E-1] , where 0.1823 < Q* < 0.3333. [E-2] , where Q*  0.3333. [E-3] (B) Lakes. , where the discharge is by pipe. [E-4] , where the discharge is by canal. [E-5] (4) LTAT (50% probability basis). [E-6] * Q Q*) 1( 1.44 T WLA a T + + = * Q 43.428 17.276 T WLA a T − + = 2.8 T WLA a T + = D 56.42 T WLA a T + = W 11.76 T WLA a T + =                 +  = 7 CV 1 ln 0.5 EXP WLA LTA 2 T T 77 Figure E-1. Temperature LTA Factor vs. Effluent Coefficient of Variation (5) Permit limitations. (A) MALT (95% probability basis). [E-7] If calculated MALT exceeds 52 oC, it is capped at 52 oC for antidegradation purposes. (B) WALT (95% probability basis). [E-8]                 + −         +  = m 2 m 2 T T N CV 1 ln 0.5 N CV 1 ln 1.645 EXP LTA MAL                 + −         +  = w 2 w 2 T T N CV 1 ln 0.5 N CV 1 ln 1.645 EXP LTA WAL LTAT Factor (50% Probability Basis) LTAT = WLAT x LTAT Factor 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Effluent Temperature Coefficient of Variation (CV) LTAT Factor 78 If calculated WALT exceeds 52 oC, it is capped at 52 oC for antidegradation purposes. (C) DMLT If a daily maximum limit is required for thermal antidegradation purposes, then DMLT = 52 oC. Figure E-2. Temperature MAL and WAL Permit Limit Factors vs. Per Week Monitoring Frequency Nw MALT and WALT Factors MALT = LTAT x MALT Factor (95% Probability Basis) WALT = LTAT x WALT Factor (95% Probability Basis) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Per Week Monitoring Frequency Nw (measurements/week) Permit Limit Factor MAL: CV=0.2 MAL: CV=0.6 MAL: CV=1.0 WAL: CV=0.2 WAL: CV=0.6 WAL: CV=1.0 79 APPENDIX F. EQUATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES TO PROTECT THE FISH AND WILDLIFE PROPAGATION BENEFICIAL USE [REVOKED] (1) General. Acute and chronic toxicity numerical criteria are implemented according to OAC 252:740 and OAC 252:690-3-51 through 3-57. WLA, criterion LTA and permit limit development equations are described in this appendix. (2) Reasonable potential for discharges to streams. See OAC 252:740. (3) Reasonable potential for discharge to lakes. See OAC 252:740. (4) WLAA and WLAC for discharges to streams. (A) Acute criteria WLA. , where Qe is expressed in cfs. [F-1] , where Qe is expressed in mgd. [F-2] (B) Chronic criteria WLA. , where Q*  0.1823. [F-3] , where 0.1823 < Q* < 0.3333. [F-4] , where Q*  0.3333. [F-5] (5) WLAA and WLAC for discharges to lakes. The chronic WLA is calculated if a chronic criterion applies. An acute WLA is used only in the absence of a chronic criterion. , where the discharge is by pipe. [F-6] , where the discharge is by canal. [F-7] e B A B A Q ) C - (C 100 C WLA + = e B A B A Q ) C - (C 64.63 C WLA + = Q*) 94 . (1 ) C - (C Q*) (1 C WLA B C B C + + = ) C (C Q*) 15.51 (6.17 C WLA B C B C − − + = C C C WLA = D ) C - (C 20.15 C WLA B A C, B A C, + = W ) C (C 4.2 C WLA B A C, B A C, − + = 80 (6) LTAA and LTAC (99% probability basis). Whether the receiving water is a stream or lake, criterion LTAs are calculated in the same fashion. LTATOX is the more stringent of the two toxicity LTAs. [F-8] [F-9] Figure F-1. Aquatic Toxicity LTA Factors vs. Effluent Coefficient of Variation (7) Permit limitations. ( ) ( )     + − +  = 2 2 A A CV 1 ln 2.326 CV 1 ln 0.5 EXP WLA LTA                 + −         +  = 4 CV 1 ln 2.326 4 CV 1 ln 0.5 EXP WLA LTA 2 2 C C LTAA and LTAC Factors (99% Probability Basis) LTAA = WLAA x LTAA Factor LTAC = WLAC x LTAC Factor 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Effluent Concentration Coefficient of Variation (CV) LTA Factor Acute Criterion LTA Chronic Criterion LTA 81 (A) MALTOX (95% probability basis). [F-10] (B) DMLTOX (99% probability basis). [F-11] Figure F-2. Toxicity-Based MAL and DML Permit Limit Factors vs. Per Month Monitoring Frequency Nm                 + −         +  = m 2 m 2 TOX TOX N CV 1 ln 0.5 N CV 1 ln 1.645 EXP LTA MAL ( ) ( )    + − +  = 2 2 TOX TOX CV 1 ln 0.5 CV 1 ln 2.326 EXP LTA DML MALTOX and DMLTOX Factors MALTOX = LTATOX x MALTOX Factor (95% Probability Basis) DMLTOX = LTATOX x DMLTOX Factor (99% Probability Basis) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Per Month Monitoring Frequency N (samples/month) Permit Limit Factor MAL: CV=0.2 MAL: CV=0.6 MAL: CV=1.0 DML: CV=0.2 DML: CV=0.6 DML: CV=1.0 82 APPENDIX G. EQUATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF NUMERICAL HUMAN HEALTH AND RAW WATER CRITERIA TO PROTECT THE FISH CONSUMPTION AND PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY BENEFICIAL USES [REVOKED] (1) General. Human health numerical criteria (for consumption of fish flesh and consumption of fish flesh and water) and raw water column criteria are implemented according to OAC 252:740 and OAC 252:690-3-64 through 3-77. Wasteload allocation, criterion long term average and permit limit development equations are described in this appendix. (2) Reasonable potential. See OAC 252:740. (3) WLAFF, WLAFFW and WLARAW. [G-1] [G-2] [G-3] (4) LTAFF, LTAFFW and LTARAW. [G-4] [G-5] [G-6] (5) Permit Limitations. MALs and DMLs are calculated for the human health/fish flesh, human health/fish flesh and water, and raw water column criteria according to the following equations, where "HH" is used as the common descriptor for all three criteria. (A) MALHH. [G-7] * Q ) C (C C WLA B FF FF FF − + = * Q ) C (C C WLA B FFW FFW FFW − + = * Q ) C (C C WLA B RAW RAW RAW − + = FF FF WLA LTA = FFW FFW WLA LTA = RAW RAW WLA LTA = HH HH LTA MAL = 83 (B) DMLHH (99% probability basis). [G-8] Figure G-1. Human Health-Based MAL and DML Permit Limit Factors vs. Per Month Monitoring Frequency Nm                         + −         + + − +  = m 2 m 2 2 2 HH HH N CV 1 ln 0.5 N CV 1 ln 1.645 ) CV (1 ln 0.5 ) CV (1 ln 2.326 EXP LTA DML MALHH and DMLHH Factors MALHH = LTAHH = WLAHH DMLHH = LTAHH x DMLHH Factor (99% Probability Basis) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Per Month Monitoring Frequency Nm (samples/month) Permit Limit Factor MAL: CV=0.2 MAL: CV=0.6 MAL: CV=1.0 DML: CV=0.2 DML: CV=0.6 DML: CV=1.0 84 APPENDIX H. EQUATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF NUMERICAL CRITERIA TO PROTECT THE AGRICULTURE BENEFICIAL USE [REVOKED] (1) General. Agriculture use YMS and SS numerical criteria are implemented according to OAC 252:740 and OAC 252:690-3-79 through 3-85. Wasteload allocation, criterion long term average and permit limit development equations are described in this appendix. (2) Reasonable potential. See OAC 252:740. (3) WLAYMS and WLASS. [H-1] [H-2] (4) LTAYMS and LTASS for mineral constituents [H-3] [H-4] (5) LTACL, LTASO4, and LTATDS. for chlorides. [H-5] for sulfates. [H-6] for total dissolved solids. [H-7] * Q ) C (C C WLA B YMS YMS YMS − + = * Q ) C (C C WLA B SS SS SS − + = YMS YMS WLA LTA =                 + −         +  = 4 CV 1 ln 2.326 4 CV 1 ln 0.5 EXP WLA LTA 2 2 SS SS ( ) SS YMS CL LTA , LTA MIN LTA = ( ) SS YMS SO4 LTA , LTA MIN LTA = ( ) SS YMS TDS LTA , LTA MIN LTA = 85 Figure H-1. Agriculture Criteria LTA Factors vs. Effluent Coefficient of Variation (6) Permit Limitations. The more stringent of the YMS and SS LTAs for each mineral constituent is used to develop water quality-based permit limitations for that substance. OAC 252:730 requires that the long term average mineral constituent concentrations used to develop permit limitations be not less than 700 mg/l for TDS and not less than 250 mg/l for chlorides and sulfates. The following permit limit development equations account for this minimum LTA requirement. (A) MALCL, MALSO4, and MALTDS (95% probability basis). [H-8] Agriculture YMS and SS Criterion LTA Factors LTAYMS = WLAYMS LTASS = WLASS x LTASS Factor (99% Probability Basis) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Effluent Mineral Concentration Coefficient of Variation (CV) LTA Factor YMS Criterion LTA Factor SS Criterion LTA Factor                 + −         +  = m 2 m 2 CL CL N CV 1 ln 0.5 N CV 1 ln 1.645 EXP ) LTA (250, MAX MAL 86 [H-9] [H-10] (B) DMLCL, DMLSO4, and DMLTDS (95% probability basis). [H-11] [H-12] [H-13] Figure H-2. Agriculture MAL and DML Permit Limit Factors vs. Per Month Monitoring Frequency Nm                 + −         +  = m 2 m 2 SO4 SO4 N CV 1 ln 0.5 N CV 1 ln 1.645 EXP ) LTA (250, MAX MAL              + −      +  = m 2 m 2 TDS TDS N CV 1 ln 0.5 N CV 1 ln 1.645 EXP ) LTA (700, MAX MAL ( ) ( )    + − +  = 2 2 CL CL CV 1 ln 0.5 CV 1 ln 1.645 EXP ) LTA (250, MAX DML ( ) ( )    + − +  = 2 2 SO4 SO4 CV 1 ln 0.5 CV 1 ln 1.645 EXP ) LTA (250, MAX DML ( ) ( )    + − +  = 2 2 TDS TDS CV 1 ln 0.5 CV 1 ln 1.645 EXP ) LTA (700, MAX DML MALAG and DMLAG Factors MALAG = LTAAG x MALAG Factor (95% Probability Basis) DMLAG = LTAAG x DMLAG Factor (95% Probability Basis) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Per Month Monitoring Frequency Nm (samples/month) Permit Limit Factor MAL: CV=0.2 MAL: CV=0.6 MAL: CV=1.0 DML: CV=0.2 DML: CV=0.6 DML: CV=1.0 87 APPENDIX I. PERFORMANCE-BASED EFFLUENT MONITORING FREQUENCY REDUCTIONS AND INCREASES [REVOKED] If a permit contains a monthly average mass loading limit, but not a monthly average concentration limit, the equivalent monthly average concentration limit may be derived from the monthly average mass loading limit and the flow basis (the high 30-day average flow during the previous permit cycle for industrial facilities and the design flow for municipal facilities). Table I-1. Performance Based Monitoring Frequency Reductions (No Permit Violations During The Previous Permit Cycle)* Baseline Monitoring Frequency (previous permit cycle) Ratio (Percent) of Long-term Average Effluent Concentration for The Previous Permit Cycle to Monthly Average Concentration Limit a < 25% 25% and <50% 50% and <65% 65% and <75% 75% 7/week (daily) 2/week 3/week 4/week 5/week 6/week 6/week 2/week 3/week 3/week 4/week 5/week 5/week 1/week 2/week 3/week 4/week 4/week 4/week 1/week 2/week 2/week 3/week NR 3/week 1/week 2/week 2/week NR NR 2/week 2/month 1/week 1/week NR NR 1/week 1/month 2/month NR NR NR 2/month 1/month NR NR NR NR 1/month NR NR NR NR NR 1/2 months NR NR NR NR NR a NR means "no reduction." * The frequency reductions stated in Table I-2 do not affect the need to conduct control tests and do not affect the number of control tests to be conducted. See OAC 252:690-3-91. 88 Table I-2. Monitoring Frequency Increases Baseline Monitoring Frequency (previous permit cycle) Increased Monitoring Frequency for parameters demonstrating a violation during the previous permit cycle a 7/week (daily) NI 6/week 7/week 5/week 7/week 4/week 6/week 3/week 5/week 2/week 4/week 1/week 3/week 2/month 2/week 1/month 1/week 1/2 months (every other month) 2/month 1/3 months (once per quarter) 1/month 1/6 months (semi-annually) 1/month 1/year 1/month a NI means "no increase" 89 APPENDIX J. BACKGROUND MONITORING [REVOKED] Background monitoring is unnecessary if a BT/C ratio is < 1.0. The maximum BT/C ratio for which background monitoring is required, which decreases as the value of the associated criterion increases, is expressed by Equations P-1, P-2 and P-3. BT/Cmax = 1.0, where the criterion is ≤ 1.0 µg/L [P-1] BT/Cmax = , where the criterion > 1.0 µg/L and ≤ 1000µg/L [P-2] BT/Cmax = 0.125, where the criterion is > 1000 µg/L [P-3] (i) Acute Toxicity Criteria BT/CAcute = , where Qe(30) < 64.63 MGD [P-4] BT/CAcute = is not defined for values of Qe(30) ≥ 64.63 MGD (ii) Chronic Toxicity Criteria For discharges to streams, the following equations are used for values of Q* < 0.3333: BT/CChronic = , where Q* ≤ 0.1823 [P-5] BT/CChronic = , where 0.1823 < Q* < 0.3333 [P-6] BT/CChronic is not defined for Q* ≥ 0.3333 (i.e., for effluent-dominated discharge situations), since CB drops out as a component of the chronic toxicity reasonable potential equation at that point. (iii)Human Health/Fish Flesh Criteria ( ) 6 17 1551 517 1551 95 . . * . . * − − −       Q C C Q C C C ( ) 1 1 94 1 0 94 95 + − −       Q C Q C Q C C C * . * . * 64 63 64 63 30 95 30 . . ( ) ( ) C Q C Q C A e e A − −     1 2 log( ) criterion 90 BT/CFF = [P-7] (iv) Raw Water Column Criteria BTC/CRaw = [P-8] (v) Human Health/Fish Flesh and Water Criteria BT/CFFW = [P-9] ( ) 1 95 + − Q C Q C C FFW FFW * * ( ) 1 95 + − Q C Q C C RAW RAW * * ( ) 1 95 + − Q C Q C C FF FF * *