I5. Resolution 6140 Local Limits JustificationKALISPELL
City of Kalispell
Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903
Telephone: (406) 758-7701 Fax: (406) 758-7758
MEMORANDUM
To: Doug Russell, City Manager
From: Susie Turner, P.E. Public Works Director
Meeting Date: 7/3/2023
Re: Resolution 6140 - Local Limits Justification
BACKGROUND: Kalispell's Wastewater Treatment Plant MPDES permit requires the
creation and implementation of a local pretreatment program. The local program must
administer and enforce all national pretreatment standards and requirements in accordance with
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pretreatment Program published in 40
CFR Part 403. In order to adhere to the requirements within the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) National Pretreatment Program (40 CFR Part 403), Kalispell is required to
establish a Pretreatment and Nondomestic Sewer Use Ordinance, along with adopting Local Limits
Justification and Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) Resolutions.
The proposed Local Limits Justification Resolution establishes the local limits for maximum
loading of pollutants that can be accepted by the treatment facility from Significant Industrial Users
(SIUs) and is referenced in Article 2 — General Sewer Use Requirements within the Pretreatment and
Nondomestic Sewer Use Ordinance 1911.
Staff presented an overview of the proposed Local Limit Justification and related pretreatment
documentation at the April 24, 2023 Work Session, in addition two public hearings were held on
May 15, 2023 and June 19, 2023. No public comment was received regarding the Local Limits
Justification.
Before Council tonight is the recommendation to adopt Resolution 6140, a resolution which
supports the Pretreatment and Nondomestic Sewer Use Ordinance 1911 and satisfies the
requirements of the National Pretreatment Program (40 CFR Part 403).
ACTION REQUESTED: Motion and vote to approve Resolution 6140 - Local Limits
Justification for Kalispell's pretreatment program.
ALTERNATIVE: As suggested by City Council.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 6140- Local Limits Justification with Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. 6140
A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT LOCAL LIMIT JUSTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL AND STATE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Kalispell is required to remain in compliance with 40 CFR (Code of
Federal Regulation) 403 for the Sewer Wastewater Effluent Discharge Associated
with Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit; and
WHEREAS, concurrently with this Resolution, Ordinance No. 1911 is being considered by the
City Council for the purpose of maintaining ongoing compliance with the above
described statutes and regulations and is scheduled to be approved on second
reading by the City Council on July 17, 2023; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to 40 CFR 403 the City is further required to develop and implement
wastewater pretreatment local limits to ensure compliance with State and Federal
Laws; and
WHEREAS, upon consideration of the recommendations made by the City Public Works
professional staff, and upon review of the proposed local limits and justification,
the City Council of the City of Kalispell finds that it is in the best interest of the
City to adopt the local limits and justification as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached
hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City of Kalispell Local Limit Justification, attached hereto as Exhibit
"A", shall be and is hereby approved and adopted and shall be implemented
by the City of Kalispell until hereafter amended or replaced. Exhibit "A"
shall be made available to the public upon request at the city offices of
Public Works.
SECTION 2. This Resolution shall become effective upon the effective date of Ordinance
No. 1911.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF
THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2023.
ATTEST:
Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC
City Clerk
Mark Johnson
Mayor
Resolution 6140, Exhibit A
CITY 0
KALISPELL
LOCAL LIMIT JUSTIFICATION
EPA Approval April 10, 2023
SECTION 1- INTRODUCTION
The City of Kalispell's ("City") August 1, 2015, MPDES Permit (MT0021938) required the City to
operate an Industrial Pretreatment Program pursuant to Section 402(b)(8) of the Clean Water
Act and the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403). The General Pretreatment
Regulations require publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) with a pretreatment program to
develop and enforce Local Limits. Local Limits establish the maximum loading of pollutants that
can be accepted by the treatment facility from Significant Industrial Users (SIUs). Assessment
of pollutant loading ensures adequate protection of the treatment process, biosolids, and
receiving stream from any adverse effects related to non -domestic discharges into the treatment
facility.
The General Pretreatment Regulations require the following:
• POTWs that are developing pretreatment programs must develop and enforce specific
limits on prohibited discharges or demonstrate that the limits are not necessary [40 CFR
403.9(f) (4)].
• POTWs that have approved pretreatment programs must continue to develop and revise
Local Limits as necessary [40 CFR 403.5(c) (1)].
To protect operations and ensure discharge complies with State and Federal requirements, the
Local Limits contained in this document are based on site -specific conditions and the most
current data available. The Local Limits contained in this document will be periodically reviewed
as necessary.
Upon approval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the City of Kalispell's City
Council, these Local Limits will be part of the Industrial Pretreatment Program's City Regulations
and be enforced by the City of Kalispell's Public Works Department.
4:yrnMM101 :1.100Mi_,1rn0IR
Ag
Silver
AWWTP
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
As
Arsenic
BNR
Bio-Nutrient Removal
Cd
Cadmium
Cr
Chromium
Cu
Copper
CWA
Clean Water Act
CIU
Categorical Industrial User
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
gpd
gallons per day
Hg
Mercury
MAHL
Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading
MAIL
Maximum Allowable Industrial Loading
Mo
Molybdenum
mg/kg
milligrams per kilogram
mg/L
milligrams per liter
mgd
million gallons per day
mgy
million gallons per year
MPDES
Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Ni
Nickel
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
POC
Pollutants of Concern
POTW
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Q
Flow
RL
Reporting Limit or minimum detection limit
Se
Selenium
SIU
Significant Industrial User
WET
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Zn
Zinc
SECTION 3 - EXPLANATION, JUSTIFICATION AND CALCULATION OF LOCAL LIMITS
In the following section, the data and information used for the technically based Local Limits
development is summarized in detail. Refer to the corresponding Tables for specific
information. All of the Local Limits are based on the "EPA 2004 Local Limits Development
Guidance-EPA-833-R-04-002A" Manual.
TABLE 1
GENERAL DATA ENTRY
POTW 10 YEAR MONTHLY AVG FLOW (MGD)
2.741
2008 - 2017
DOMESTIC FLOW (MGD)
1.694
61.8% OF TOTAL FLOW
COMMERCIAL FLOW (MGD)
0.917372
33.47% OF TOTAL FLOW
SIU (MGD)
*0.129628
4.73% BASED ON FLOW OF
FOUR SIU's
TRUCKED AND HAULED WASTE (MGD)
0
NOT ACCEPTED AT POTW
SLUDGE FLOW TO DISPOSAL (MGD)
2.055
% SOLIDS TO DISPOSAL
13.45
BIOSOLIDS TABLE BASED ON DISPOSAL OPTION
3
RECEIVING WATER FLOW (MGD)
4.5
FROM MPDES FACT SHEET
HARDNESS FOR METALS CALCULATIONS (MG/L) CaCO3
113
FROM MPDES FACT SHEET
IS RECEIVING WATER A DRINKING WATER SUPPLY (Y/N)
N
APPLICABLE STANDARDS (ACUTE, CHRONIC, BOTH)
B
A, C OR B
* Flow for (2) existing and (2) future SIU's: 79,456 gpd for Logan Health, 172 gpd for
Glacier Fur Dressing, 50,000 gpd for (2) future SIU's.
TABLE 2 CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
State Acute
EPA Acute
State Chronic
EPA Chronic
State Human
Criteria : mg/L
WQ Standard
WQ Standard
WQ Standard
WQ Standard
Health Criteria
Arsenic
0.340
0.340
0.150
0.150
0.010
0.49
1.8
0.25
0.72
Cadmium
(25 hardness)
(100 hardness)
(25 hardness)
(100 hardness)
0.005
Total
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.100
Chromium
3.79
2.85
Copper
NA
NA
1.300
(25 hardness)
(25 hardness)
Cyanide
.022
.022
.0052
.0052
.004
13.98
65
0.545
2.5
Lead
(25 hardness)
(100 hardness)
(25 hardness)
(100 hardness)
.015
Mercury
0.0017
0.0014
0.00091
0.00077
0.00005
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Molybdenum
145
470
16.1
52
0.100
Nickel
(25 hardness)
(100 hardness)
(25 hardness)
(100 hardness)
0.020
NA
0.005
NA
0.050
Selenium
0.374
3.2
NA
NA
0.100
Silver
(25 hardness)
(100 hardness)
37
120
37
120
Zinc
7.400
(25 hardness)
(100 hardness)
(25 hardness)
(100 hardness)
TABLE 2 -A CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
Adjusted Receiving Stream Hardness -based Metals Standards' z
Calculations from Montana DEQ-7, April 2017
Pollutant
Acute WQS
(ug/L)
Chronic WQS
(ug/L)
Cadmium
2.14
0.871
Chromium (III)*
n/a
n/a
Copper
15.70
10.35
Lead
95.34
3.72
Nickel
520.09
57.82
Silver
5.01
NA
Zinc
132.85
132.85
' Sample location Ashley Creek at Airport Road Bridge
2Receiving water hardness 113 mg/L (as CaCO3) as reported on MT0021938 Fact Sheet
*Samples only tested for total chromium
Freshwater Aquatic Life Standards for these metals are expressed as a function of total
hardness (mg/L, CaCO3).
The values displayed in the chart correspond to a total hardness of 25 mg/L.
The Hardness relationships are:
40 CFR 503.13 TABLE 3 SLUDGE CRITERIA
POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATION MG/KG DRY WT.
ARSENIC
41
CADMIUM
39
CHROMIUM TOTAL
1200
COPPER
1500
LEAD
300
MERCURY
17
MOLYBDENUM
75*
NICKEL
420
SELENIUM
36
ZINC
2800
*Molybdenum value for 40 CFR 503.13 Table 3 has been removed. The 75 mg/kg reflects the 40 CFR 503.13
Table 1 value.
If sewage sludge is sold or given away in a bag or other container for application to the land, either:
(i) The concentration of each pollutant in the sewage sludge shall not exceed the concentration for the pollutant
in Table 3 of §503.13 or
(ii) The product of the concentration of each pollutant in the sewage sludge and the annual whole sludge
application rate for the sewage sludge shall not cause the annual pollutant loading rate for the pollutant in
Table 4 of §503.13 to be exceeded. The procedure used to determine the annual whole sludge application rate
is presented in Appendix A of 40 CFR 503.48.
0
2017 MONTANA DEQ - 7
Acute WQS =
exp{ma[In(hardness)] +ba)
Chronic WQS =
exp{mc[In(hardness)] +bc)
ma
ba
me
be
Cadmium
0.9789
-3.866
0.7977
-3.909
Copper
0.9422
-1.700
0.8545
-1.702
Chromium (III)
0.819
3.7256
0.819
0.6848
Lead
1.273
-1.46
1.273
-4.705
Nickel
0.846
2.255
0.846
0.0584
Silver
1.72
-6.52
NA
NA
Zinc
0.8473
0.884
0.8473
0.884
M
LU
J
00
Q
H
*
c
*
*
O
R
L
J
r
0
r
N
M
r
CCCD)
r
N
r
C
ti
W0)
rr
O
O
00
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
>
E
O
O
O
O
O
00
0
0
0
C
0
0
O
U
*
J
�
Q
O
i
M
L
J
r
00
r
r
00
M
M
r
O�
M
r
coU
O
N
WCD
O
CDO
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
>
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
Q
0
O
U
O_
Z *
i W
m
b
`
r
co
0
r
N
(M
D
c)
r
N
r
�
00
W~
ca
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
U Q
>
E
E
O
O
O
O
cD
O
O
O
O
c:)
O
Q
O
O
O
U
*
O
Z
W
a1
L
J
r
<o
0
r
M
LO
O
r
N
r
O
O
o
00
0
0
o
0
O
O
0
o
0
T
_0
LL
>
0
V
E
O
O
0
0
CCC
C
0
0
0
0
CC
C
0
LL
Q
C
O
O
w
v
C
O_
co
n
Z
W
c
M
L
J
r
N
I-
M
00
M
N
M
r
r
L
+r
0
O
0
O
Ln
O
O
O
n
C)
0
O
0
O
0
O
C)
M
r
J
Q
=
E
O
O
0
0
O
C)
O
00
0
0
0
O
C)
0
Z
z
O
O
U
ti
r
'
J
r
co
0
O
N
M
M
O
O
O
r
N
r
N
O
00
T
J
Im
0
O
0
O
r
O
O
0
O
0
C)
C)
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
E
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
c
O
N
O
O
N
r
r
r
J
r
0
O
r
Ln
r
0
Ln
O
r
r
0
J
—
0
0
r
O
O
O
O
O
r
O
O
r
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E
O
cD
O
0
0
0
c)
0
0
0
0
0
N
O
O
U
C a
U
J
LU
W
0
Z
J
Z
_
_ Q
W
0
�
LOU
W
W
to =
W
d
z
Q
U
Y
Z
j
Z
CO
0
0 0
J
jrLU
}
U
J
J
N
U
U
�E
F�1
cl
W
H
U �
W r
J O
J N
0U)
U z
U 0
d U
0
Q cJ
�
G Ln
O Q
LL 0
Q W
Q U
0 W
J
of J
1 O
Q U)
�j Lu
Z
Q
W U)
U �
wp
Of jr
LL
Z <
W Q
J 0
LL J
LL Q
w
U
H Of
Z W
w
0
LL 0
Z U
* *
ti
O
N
U)
Z
0
Q
U
0
M
0
Z
Q
N
r
O
O
N
U)
z
0
Q
U
0
J
ti
H
Q
W
H
U
W
J
J
0
U
U)
W
J
d
Q
U)
0
ir
LL
H
Q
0
U
H
U)
w
0
0
*
10.
J
O
N
0
m
It
w
J
m
Q
H
C
o
2:1
ti
cm
CDL
C
r
p
L~
LO
CEO
M
M
N
>
V
Q
E
O
U
C
O
R
O
LO
r
N
mco
CDd
CD%
dM
-le
al
~
N
Q
O
U
CD
,
N
M
M
�
M
N
N
J T-�
,
�+
M
"'
O
m
�
O
CD N
c�
CD"'
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
M
Lo
C)
0
0
~
0
0
N
E
J C-i>-%
,
M"t
CM
m
10
M
LO
7
m
CD
N
cm Ma
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E
M
CM
r
�
In
In
CO
0
N
CD
C)
C)
E
00
O
N
C)
0
N
O
O
C)
CD
CD
C)C)
E
I
Z
U
Q
a
0
w
w
Z
W
U
Z
3 0
a
(/�
Q
0
d
Q
W
m
U
W
J
aU
QU=�pUJ�OZLuU)
co
U
2i
m
TABLE 5 REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
Pollutant of
Concern (POC)
Average WWTP
Influent
mg/L
Average WWTP
Effluent
mg/L
Mean Removal
Efficiency Percentile
(Inf-Eff)/Inf
Arsenic
0.001
0.001
45*
Cadmium
0.00023
0.00003
87
Chromium — Total
0.001
0.001
82*
Copper
0.057
0.004
93
Cyanide
0.003
0.003
69*
Lead
0.0038
0.0006
84
Mercury
0.000037
0.000005
86
Molybdenum
0.002
0.001
50
Nickel
0.003
0.002
33
Nitrate
40.8
8.2
80
Selenium
0.001
0.001
50*
Silver
0.0004
0.0002
50
Zinc
0.131
0.044
66
Rpotw = Ir — EpotN,, t where Rpot, = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to effluent
Ir
Ir = POTW influent POC concentration at headworks, mg/I
Epptw, t = POTW effluent POC concentration, mg/I
*Source: Appendix R (pg. R-2), EPA 2004 Local Limits Development Guidance-EPA-833-R-
04-002A
TABLE EXPLANATIONS
Table 1 Explanations— General Data Entry
POTW 10 Year Monthly Average Flow (mgd): This value is based on the past ten years,
2008-2017, flow data (Appendix 1) and was 2.741 mgd.
Domestic and Commercial flow (mgd): Values are calculated based on data compiled by
The City of Kalispell's 2019 Collection System Sustainability Study performed by Advanced
Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc (Appendix 2).
Significant Industrial User Flow (mgd): Currently, the City has two (2) Significant Industrial
Users (SIU) as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(v). Two (2) additional SIUs were added to the Local
Limit calculations for a total value of 129,628 gpd (0.129628 mgd) to allow for future SIU use.
Trucked and Hauled Waste Flow (mgd): The City's AWWTP does not accept any trucked or
hauled waste.
9
Sludge flow to disposal (mgd): Value is based on the belt filter press flow meters, Dec 2016 —
Nov 2017, monthly average is 2.055 mgd (Appendix 3).
Percent (%) solids to disposal: Value is based on Flathead County solid waste disposal
records, Dec 2016 — Nov 2017, monthly average is 13.45% (Appendix 3).
Biosolids Table (1,2,3 or "0" Other) Based on Disposal Option: The City currently landfills
approximately 30% of its biosolids and delivers approximately 70% of its biosolids to Glacier
Gold Composting (Glacier Gold LLC, Olney MT) for composting. Projected disposal options for
biosolids will remain the same with a possible additional composting facility in the future. Based
upon these disposal options, Table 3 of 40 CFR § 503.13 was utilized in the determination of
Local Limits for sewage sludge: "§ 503.13 Pollutant limits (4) If sewage sludge is sold or given
away in a bag or other container for application to the land, either: (i) The concentration of each
pollutant in the sewage sludge shall not exceed the concentration for the pollutant in Table 3 of
§ 503.13 or (ii) The concentration of each pollutant in the sewage sludge and the annual whole
sludge application rate for the sewage sludge shall not cause the annual pollutant loading rate
for the pollutant in Table 4 of § 503.13 to be exceeded. The procedure used to determine the
annual whole sludge application rate is presented in § 503.13, Appendix A. Concentration
values for each of the pollutants of concern were obtained from EPA Regulatory Determination
and Pollutant Limits for Land Applied Sewage Sludge, Monthly average concentration
(milligrams per kilogram)"
Receiving water flow (mgd): A flow value of 4.5 mgd is used in all receiving water flow
calculations. This value is from the City of Kalispell WWTP MPDES MT0021938 Fact Sheet,
Jan 2015, Page 7: "The 1997 developed Fact Sheet established monthly seven-day, ten-year
low flow values (7Q10) for lower Ashley Creek. These values were primarily based on
information provided by Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks which maintains water
rights and contracted minimum flows on Lower Ashley Creek for fisheries management. The
minimum 7Q10 was 7 cfs (4.5 mgd). This value will be used for calculations requiring low flow
[ARM 17.30.635 (4)]".
Hardness for metals calculations (113 mg/L as CaCO3): Value based on the 251" percentile
of the available hardness data for Ashely Creek from the City of Kalispell WWTP MPDES
MT0021938 Fact Sheet, Jan 2015, Page 17. (Table 2)
Is your receiving water a drinking water supply (Y/N): The receiving stream is not a drinking
water supply.
Applicable Criteria and Standards (EPA and State WQS Acute or Chronic, Human Health,
Sludge Disposal): The most stringent limiting standards are utilized for loading
calculations. (Appendix 4)
Table 2 Explanations - Criteria and Standards
None of the Pollutants of Concern (POC) are regulated by the City's MPDES permit, so Acute
and Chronic Aquatic Life Standards and the State Human Health criteria from the Montana
Water Quality Standards Circular DEQ-7 (May 2017) were compared to the EPA Acute and
Chronic Water Quality Standards; Sludge disposal criteria were also calculated. As directed by
Circular DEQ-7, metals concentration standards that are listed at either 50 mg/L or 100 mg/L
10
total hardness were adjusted by applying the hardness value (113 mg/L) to the functional
equations listed in Note (12) of Circular DEQ-7. Following these adjustments, the most
stringent criteria from the comparisons of WQS (acute v. chronic, State v. EPA), State Human
Health, and sludge disposal was used for calculations of MAHL (Appendix 4).
Table 3 Explanations — Influent, Effluent, Receiving Water, Commercial and Domestic
POC Data
Raw influent, effluent and receiving water sample analysis data were averaged and entered into
Table 3. When a particular raw data value was below the Reporting Limit (RL), the RL was
assigned to it. All samples collected were analyzed by either Energy Laboratories in Billings,
MT, Montana Environmental Lab in Kalispell, MT, or the City of Kalispell WWTP Lab in Kalispell,
MT. The analytical methods used are listed in Appendix 8. The monthly average flow of 2.741
mgd from a ten-year period, 2008 — 2017 (Appendix 1) is used for loading calculations.
Table 4 Explanations — Biosolids POC Data
Biosolids samples were collected quarterly for POC from February 2008 through July 2012 and
(4) additional samples were collected in 2017. Analysis results were averaged. When a
particular raw data value was below the RL, the RL was assigned to it. All samples collected
were analyzed by Energy Laboratories in Billings, MT; the analytical methods used are listed in
Appendix 8.
Table 5 Explanations — Removal Efficiency Calculations
The Mean Removal Efficiency (MRE) Method was selected for computing actual removal
efficiencies when sampling data was found acceptable (above RL). The usefulness of sampling
data relates directly to the number of samples each pollutant had above the RL. When the
majority of samples are below detectable levels, assigning the value of RL to a sample has a
substantial impact on averaging calculations and reduces confidence in the computed removal
efficiencies (Appendix 6). When this occurred for As, Cr, Cn, and Se, the literature median
removal efficiency percentile found in Appendix R (pg. R-2, Activated Sludge Treatment) of EPA
Local Limits Development Guidance 833-R-04-002A July 2004 and shown in Appendix 7 of this
document, was used in lieu of the MRE method. The rational for this is as follows:
EPA 2004 Local Limits Development Guidance, 5.1.4, Applying Removal Efficiencies Reported
by Others:... "some POTWs still do not have adequate data to calculate removals after
conducting site -specific sampling and using analytical methods that achieve the lowest
detection levels possible. In these instances, POTWs may selectively use removal
efficiencies reported by other POTWs or by studies that have been published in
professional journals or by EPA. Appendix R provides a listing of removal efficiency
data for priority pollutants gathered from other POTWs ".
11
Removal Efficiency Calculation:
Rpotw = Ir — Epotw. t
Ir
Where : Rpotw = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to effluent
Ir = POTW influent POC concentration at headworks, mg/I
Epos, t = POTW effluent POC concentration, mg/I
Example:
Cadmium: Rpotw (Cd) = 0.00023 — 0.00003
0.00023
= 0.87 mg/L
SECTION 4 - LOCAL LIMITS
The following pollutant limits are established to protect against Pass Through and Interference
(40 CFR Part 403.5 (a)(1)). No Significant Industrial User (SIU) shall discharge Wastewater that
exceeds the following limits at any time for any length of time:
Pollutant
Limit (mg/L)
Arsenic, total recoverable
0.804
Cadmium, total recoverable
0.320
Chromium, total recoverable
2.566
Copper, total recoverable
4.679
Cyanide, total recoverable
0.186
Lead, total recoverable
0.751
Mercury, total recoverable
0.015
Molybdenum, total recoverable
2.758
Nickel, total recoverable
4.126
Selenium, total recoverable
0.387
Silver, total recoverable
0.479
Zinc, total recoverable
1.254
The above limits apply at the point where the Wastewater is discharged to the POTW. All
pollutants are to be analyzed as Total. The Director may impose mass limitations in addition to
the concentration -based limitations above.
12
NITRITE/NITRATE EXPLANATION:
Nitrite and Nitrate loadings in the POTW influent averaged 0.23 mg/L. The Biological Nutrient
Removal (BNR) process of nitrification converts ammonia to nitrite and nitrate. The
denitrification process does not remove all of the nitrite/nitrate resulting in a POTW effluent
nitrite/nitrate average of 7.03 mg/L. As a result, a Local Limit for nitrite/nitrate will not be
developed at this time. If needed, a Local Limit will be re-evaluated at a later time.
LOCAL LIMIT SUMMARY:
ARSENIC
Local Limit: 0.804 mg/L
Criteria: Human Health
Out of the 84 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving
water, 77 samples were below the reporting limit. The average influent and effluent
concentrations were the same, therefore the literature method of removal efficiency was used.
CADMIUM
Local Limit: 0.320 mg/L
Criteria: WQS — Aquatic Life Standard, Chronic
Out of the 84 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving
water, 21 of the samples were below the reporting limit. The MRE method of removal efficiency
was used.
CHROMIUM
Local Limit: 2.566 mg/L
Criteria: Human Health
Out of the 84 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving
water, 69 samples were below the reporting limit. The average influent and effluent
concentrations were the same, therefore the literature method of removal efficiency was used.
A 90% growth/reserve factor was used to accommodate for potential future SIU loading.
13
COPPER
Local Limit: 4.679 mg/L
Criteria: WQS — Aquatic Life Standard, Chronic
Out of the 84 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving
water, 13 samples were below the reporting limit. The MRE method of removal efficiency was
used.
CYANIDE
Local Limit:
Criteria
0.186 mg/L
Human Health
Out of 57 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving water,
51 were below the reporting limit. The average influent and effluent concentrations were the
same, therefore the literature method of removal efficiency was used.
LEAD
Local Limit: 0.751 mg/L
Criteria: WQS — Aquatic Life Standard, Chronic
Out of the 84 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving
water, 17 samples were below the reporting limit. The influent/ effluent method of removal
efficiency was used.
MERCURY
Local Limit:
Criteria
0.015 mg/L
Human Health
Out of the 84 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving
water, 41 samples were below the reporting limit. The MRE method of removal efficiency was
used.
14
MOLYBDENUM
Local Limit: 2.758 mg/L
Criteria: Biosolids
The average concentration of molybdenum in the City's disposed biosolids is 13.0 mg/kg-dry,
and the allowable monthly average according to 40 CFR 503.13, Table 1 is 75 mg/kg. Out of the
72 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving water, 53
samples were below the reporting limit. The MRE method of removal efficiency was used.
NICKEL
Local Limit: 4.126 mg/L
Criteria: WQS — Aquatic Life Standard, Chronic
Out of the 84 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving
water, 62 were below the reporting limit. The MRE method of removal efficiency was used.
SELENIUM
Local Limit: 0.387 mg/L
Criteria: WQS — Aquatic Life Standard, Acute
Out of the 84 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving
water, 80 were below the reporting limit. The average influent and effluent concentrations were
the same, therefore the literature method of removal efficiency was used.
SILVER
Local Limit: 0.479 mg/L
Criteria: WQS — Aquatic Life Standard, Acute
Out of the 84 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving
water, 69 samples were below the reporting limit. The MRE method of removal efficiency was
used.
ZINC
Local Limit: 1.254 mg/L
Criteria: WQS — Aquatic Life Standard, Chronic
Out of the 84 samples collected from influent, effluent, domestic, commercial and receiving
water, 28 samples were below the reporting limit. The MRE method of removal efficiency was
used. A 90% growth/reserve factor was used to accommodate for potential future SIU loading.
15
SECTION 5 - LEGAL CITATIONS
1. 40 CFR 403.2: Objectives of the General Pretreatment Regulation are to prevent Pass
Through, Interference, and improve opportunities to recycle and reclaim wastewater and
sludges.
2. 40 CFR 403.5(c): Each POTW shall continue to develop Local Limits as necessary and
effectively enforce these limits.
3. 40 CFR 403.5(d): Local Limits shall be Pretreatment Standards for the purposes of the
clean Water Act (CWA).
4. 40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(iii)E: Permits must contain effluent limits based on applicable
categorical standards, Local Limits and State and local law.
5. 40 CFR 503.13 Table 3 : Sewage Sludge Pollutant Concentrations — Monthly Average
SECTION 6 - REFERENCES
1. EPA Local Limits Development Guidance EPA 833-R-04-002A July 2004
2. MPDES permit MT0021938 Fact Sheet, 2015
3. Circular 7 April 2017, Montana Department of Environmental Quality
4. EPA- Region 8 Technically- Based Local Limits Development Strategy, April 11, 2003
5. The City of Kalispell 2019 Collection System Sustainability Study performed by Advanced
Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
6. Region 8 POTWs and U.S. EPA's Guidance Manual on the Development and
Implementation of Local Discharger Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program, December
1987, p. 3-56
7. EPA Guidance Manual for Preventing Interferences at POTWs, September 1987, Table 2-1
pg. 20
16
ff
X
rAw
Z
w
a
a -
I
zo
~
M
I-
M
M
M
O
(O
M
Ln
N
T
�
ti
M
CO
O'tT
r
M
O
(O
I-
Il-
O
IRT
M
C7
N
r-
Ln
C7
r-
r-
Ln
(O
Ln
O
O
O
�
Lp
M
CD
M
00
M�
O
O
O
�
T
00
m
00
CD
I�
Il_
00
O
Ln
00
r
Il_
r
rl-
d7
m
r
m
r
m
CO
CD
f�
f,-
U
Q
U
Q
U
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
LL
LL
Q
Z
Z
W
O
LO
'IT
(D
0')
cM
O
O
N
OD
Ln
0')
1-
O_
O_
Z
r
O
r
CO
M
OR
M
M
M
r
CD
W
I-
N
(O
N
Ln
CD
r
M
O
M
r
N
1�
cn
cn
C/)
N
N
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Z c
Q C
Z
Q\
Z o
X M
X w
Q
ti
r
r
N
LO
O
N
00
M
M
LO
M
00
d �
M
0')
N
I-
�
�
O
N
r-
N
0')
LO
N
W
W
X
04
p
M
Ln
I-
OR
a7
00
O
CO
M
CO
00
r
r
W
N
N
N
M
N
N
M
CO
N
N
N
N
N
N
O
Q N
O
Q N
O
N
W
}
W
}
Q
O
N
r
0
M
O
LO
M
O
CO
M
CO
r
O
O
} O
r
M
M
'IT
CD
00
00
m
m
m
N
M
M
o
N
LO N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Q
N
r
r
Ln
M
N
r
I-
T
(O
O
r
N
I-
O
N
r
O
T
N
N
O
CO
O
M
0
M
Q
W
M
M
CD
(O
CO
Ln
O
N
r
N
M
M
Ln
0
N
M
O
CO
M
r-
O
O
M
M
r
r
M
r
r
M
M
O
N
00
00
r-
N
N
LO
N
M
O
X
LL
:-:
C
C 7
r-
M
CD
N
r
O
1p
M
N
N
O
a
H
r
ti
N
N
N
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
Z
LULU
Z
ti
C j
p
N
O
Ln
r
r
ti
M
M
r
0
0
N
M
f�
d
LL
cor
p
CD
M
(O
ti:T
Ln
r
ti
O
Ln
O
d7
O
CD
r
Un
N
M
Il-
M
CO
Ln
O
Cp
Q
LL
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
N
...
d
p
0
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
M
r
r
M
(O
N
M
(O
CO
N
IRt
f-
p
J
O
Ln
Ln
M
r
ti
ti
ti
(O
��":�
Ln
Lp
N
LL
N
N
N
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
0
0
Q
C
M
CD
M
r
00
Ln
N
M
CO
O
Ln
O
N
M
N
M
00
r
N
CO
M
00
�
LO
to
LL
w
O
(O
00
00
0o
O
I"
M
N
N
ti
N
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
W;
Q
�
�
LU
2
�
Q
Z
J LU
2
2
H
Z W
f--
O
CD
ti
M
Lo
to
Co
M
Lo
O
CD
00
00
1�
(fl
00
O
LO
M
I
LO
r
It
Z
cn
O>
�
r--N
O
O
N
co
Lo
d
M
��
ti
0
W
2 Q
N
N
M
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
2_
O
O
L
W
M
i
pIM
Z
O
7
d
0
-
0)
0
CD
r
LLU N
>- Lo
R
LL
CL
Q
to
-�
Q
cn
0
O
O
Z
00
0
}
O
E
L O
O p
a) LL
E LL
O W
o
LL
Z
— C
E O
L
O
U
00 m
O O
O O
00
ca ca
00
LL LL
N
APPENDIX 2
2008 - 2017 City of Kalispell Yearly POTW Flow
Month/Year
POTW Flow
mgy
** Commercial 38.2% of
Total*
Domestic 61.8%
of Total*
3/08 - 2/09
841,618,000
321,498,076
520,119,924
3/09 - 2/10
820,181,000
313,309,142
506,871,858
3/10 - 2/11
1,019,636,000
389,500,952
630,135,048
3/11 - 2/12
1,102,166,000
421,027,412
681,138,588
3/12 - 2/13
1,003,833,000
383,464,206
620,368,794
3/13 - 2/14
907,025,000
346,483,550
560,541,450
3/14 - 2/15
1,037,059,000
396,156,538
640,902,462
3/15 - 2/16
924,165,000
353,031,030
571,133,970
3/16 - 2/17
964,875,000
368,582,250
596,292,750
3/17 - 2/18
1,092,053,000
417,164,246
674,888,754
*Calculated using percentages determined by The City of Kalispell 2019 Collection System
Sustainability Study performed by Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc
** SIU flow is not separated from Commercial flow in this data set.
W.
M
x
5
Z
LLI
a
a
Q
u
H p o
"T
(D
CO
rl-
M
M
CM
O
(D
M
LO
N
�
ItT
r-
LO
(D
O
r
NT
OD
O
(D
ti
1�
11*
O J 0
(D
�T
d)
N
�
LO
07
�
rl-
LO
NT
(D
O
d LL 2
N
N
N
Ln
M
(yi
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
0
fA J
Q
C/)
J
0)
r
O
O
M
(D
0')
LO
O
0')
LO
CO
Q a
M
00
07
r--
M
r—
0'
r
ti
r
OD
I-
IRT
cn
('M
N
r
O
O
a7
Ln
ql�
O
ti
ti
M
Ln
o
M
co
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
M
LLI
Q W
O H
M
M
O
r
M
00
N
M
(D
00
(D
M
I-
M
N
W
M
I-
M
(D
M
0
0
O J J Q C7
r-
00
C7
(D
0o
Ln
0o
N
(q
qt:�
N
M
O
cn LL
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
J (7
LO
r-
(D
'IT
CO
�
r
LO
M
r
N
ti
qtT
LO
M
N
M
r
M
O
r
(D
O
M
W
Q W *
LO
M
0)
07
00
ti
M
LO
LO
I-
O
LO
N
O J J Q a
fA LL (7
r-
r
w
r
m
r
(D
r
oo
r
m
r
w
r
N
N
(D
N
N
N
N
M
N
O
N
J
Q
O
O
O
O
O
ti_
O
O
O
O
CD
CD
H
LO
M
M
O CO
�
CO
0000
r---ti
'tT
(D
(D
M
H J
Lo
�
o0
07
N
00
4
r--
O
07
07
r--
ti
07
o0
r--
4
00
Lo
I--
N
r--
M
r--
r
o0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
N Cn
O
LO
Cn
Q m
�
co
N
N
a)
It
N
(D
0
�
CD000
M
(D
0)
M
r--
4
Lo
O
O
07
07
m
J
I-
d7
r-
r-
00
I-
d7
F-
M
r--
co
CO
F-
LU
O V!
CO W
O
O
O
O
O
r—
O
O
O
O
O
O
w
ti (�j
m
O
�
N
N
N
LO
N
(O
CO
N
(D
00
1-
�� J
r
N
N
N
(D
N
M
N
r
N
"t
N
00
N
O
CO
N
IT
O
M
r-
N
(D
M
M
N
LLI
W
(D
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
LLI
o
LL
Q
Q
0
Z
Q
ti
r
I
(D
N
O
E>
O
U)
U)
^a)
LL
y-+
LL
O
m
N
O
Q
U)
.Fu
Y
0
U
ti
r
co
N
N
0
U
O
L
O
Q
T)
0
O
N
A
C
D
O
U
c�
m
LL
APPENDIX 4
Criteria used in MAHL Calculations
POC
MOST
STRINGENT
WQS' mg/L
STATE HUMAN
HEALTH mg/L
Sludge
Criteria mg/kg
ARSENIC
0.150
*0.010
41
CADMIUM
*0.000871
0.005
39
CHROMIUM - all forms
n/a
*0.100
1200
COPPER
*0.01035
1.300
1500
CYANIDE
0.0052
*0.004
n/a
LEAD
*0.00372
0.015
300
MERCURY
0.00077
*0.00005
17
MOLYBDENUM
n/a
n/a
*75**
NICKEL
*0.05782
0.100
420
SELENIUM
*0.0050
0.050
36
SILVER
*0.00501
0.100
n/a
ZINC
*0.13285
7.400
2800
*Values used for MAHL calculations
Note': No WQS established for Total Chromium or Molybdenum
Note 2: No 40 CFR 503.13 Table 3 Sludge Criteria established for Cyanide, Silver
or Molybdenum. **Value used for Molybdenum from 40 CFR 503.13 Table 1
MAHL Values Used in MAIL Calculations
POC MAHL
WQS Ibs/day
STATE HUMAN
HEALTH Ibs/day
SLUDGE QUALITY
Ibs/day
ARSENIC
16.402
*1.030
1.735
CADMIUM
*0.396
2.314
0.930
CHROMIUM -all
forms
n/a
*31.465
32.323
COPPER
*7.857
1120.455
33.452
CYANIDE
0.650
*0.416
n/a
LEAD
*1.334
4.958
7.407
MERCURY
0.331
*0.020
0.409
MOLYBDENUM
n/a
n/a
*3.457
NICKEL
*5.100
8.901
26.397
SELENIUM
*0.529
5.964
1.555
SILVER
*0.590
11.928
n/a
ZINC
*22.713
1313.486
87.988
20
APPENDIX 5
CALCULATIONS
** CRITERIA USED FOR FINAL LOCAL LIMITS CALCULATIONS
v1AHL- SLUDGE CRITERIA CALCULATIONS:
LIN = (8.34) (CSLCRIT)(PS/100)(QSLDG)
RPOTw
where: LIN = allowable headworks loading, Ibs/day
CSLCRIT = Sludge use disposal criterion, mg/kg dry
PS = % solids sludge to disposal
QSLDG = Sludge flow to disposal, mgd
RPOTw = Removal efficiency across WWTP
Arsenic: LIN(As) _ (8.34)(41 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mqd)
45
MAHL, AS = 2.100 Ibs/day
Cadmium: Lw(Cd) _ (8.34)(39 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mqd)
87
MAHL, Cd = 1.033 Ibs/day
Chromium: LIN(Cr) _ (8.34)(1200 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mqd)
RVA
MAHL, Cr = 33.724 Ibs/day
Copper: LIN(Cu) _ (8.34)(1500 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mqd)
93
MAHL, Cu = 37.169 Ibs/day
21
Lead: L,N(Pb) _ (8.34)(300 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mgd)
MAHL, Pb = 8.230 Ibs/day
Mercury: L,N(Hg) = (8.34)(17 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mgd)
:.
MAHL, Hg = 0.455 Ibs/day
**Molybdenum: L,N(MO) = (8.34)(75 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mgd)
50
MAHL, Mo = 3.457 Ibs/day
Nickel : L,N(Ni) = (8.34)(420 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mgd)
33
MAHL, Ni = 29.330 Ibs/day
Selenium : L,N(Se) = (8.34)(36 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mgd)
50
MAHL, Se = 1.659 Ibs/day
Zinc: L,N(Zn) _ (8.34)(2800 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mgd)
..
MAHL, Zn = 97.765 Ibs/day
22
MAHL— HUMAN HEALTH CALCULATIONS:
AHLHH = 8.34fCHH (QStr + Qpptw)-(Cstr * %01
1 — Rp.
where: AHLHH=Allowable headworks loading based on State Human Health toxicity
standard, Ibs/day
CHH= Human Health toxicity standard, mg/L
Qst, = Receiving Stream flow, MGD
Qp,t,,, = Monthly Average POTW flow, MGD
CSt,= Background Receiving Stream POC, mg/L.
Rpptw = Removal Efficiency
**Arsenic: AHLHH(As) = 8.34r(0.010 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.001 *4.5 mgd)1
1 — 0.45
MAHL, As = 1.030 Ibs/day
Cadmium: AHLHH (Cd) = 8.34r(0.005 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.00003 *4.5 me
1 — 0.87
MAHL, Cd = 2.314 Ibs/day
**Chromium: AHLHH (Cr) = 8.34[(0.10 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.010 *4.5 mgd)1
1 — 0.82
MAHL, Cr = 31.465 Ibs/day
Copper: AHLHH (Cu) = 8.34f(1.30 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.002 *4.5 mgd)l
MAHL, Cu = 1120.455 Ibs/day
1 — 0.93
23
**Cyanide: AHLHH (Cn) = 8.34f(0.004 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.003 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.69
MAHL, Cn = 0.416 Ibs/day
Lead: AHLHH (Pb) = 8.34f(0.015 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.003 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.84
MAHL, Pb = 4.958 Ibs/day
**Mercury: AHLHH (Hg) = 8.34f(0.00005 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.000005 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.86
MAHL, Hg = 0.020 Ibs/day
Nickel: AHLHH (Ni) = 8.34f (0.10 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.002 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.33
MAHL, Ni = 8.901 Ibs/day
Selenium: AHLHH (Se) = 8.34f(0.050 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.001 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.50
MAHL, Se = 5.964 Ibs/day
Silver: AHLHH (Ag) = 8.34f(0.100 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.002 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.50
MAHL, Ag = 11.928 Ibs/day
Zinc: AHLHH (Zn) = 8.34f(7.40 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.008 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.66
MAHL, Zn = 1313.486 Ibs/day
24
MAHL— WQS CALCULATIONS:
AHLwq= 8.34f Cwa(Qst, + Qpptw)-(Cst, * Qs01
1 — Rp,t,
where: AHLwQ = Allowable headworks loading based on WQS toxicity standard, Ibs/day
CHH = WQS toxicity standard, mg/L.
Qst, = Receiving Stream flow, MGD
Qp,tw = Monthly Average POTW flow, MGD
Cstr = Background Receiving Stream POC, mg/L.
Rpptw = Removal Efficiency
Arsenic: AHLWq(As) = 8.34f(0.150 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.001 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.45
MAHL, As = 16.402 Ibs/day
**Cadmium: AHLWq (Cd) = 8.34r(0.000871 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.00003 *4.5
mgd)l
1 — 0.87
MAHL, Cd = 0.404 Ibs/day
**Copper: AHLWq (Cu) = 8.34f(0.01035 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.002 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.93
MAHL, Cu = 7.857 Ibs/day
Cyanide: AHLWq (Cn) = 8.34r(0.0052 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.003 *4.5 mgd)1
MAHL, Cn = 0.650 Ibs/day
1 — 0.69
25
**Lead: AHL,q (Pb) = 8.34f(0.00372 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.003 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.84
MAHL, Pb = 1.334 Ibs/day
Mercury: AHL,q (Hg) = 8.34f(0.00077 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.000005 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.86
MAHL, Hg = 0.331 Ibs/day
**Nickel: AHL,q (Ni) = 8.34f(0.05782 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.002 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.33
MAHL, Ni = 5.100 Ibs/day
**Selenium: AHL,,,q (Se) = 8.34f(0.005 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.001 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.48
MAHL, Se = 0.529 Ibs/day
**Silver: AHL,q (Ag) = 8.34f(0.00501 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.002 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.50
MAHL, Ag = 0.590 Ibs/day
**Zinc: AHL,,,q (Zn) = 8.34f(0.13285 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.008 *4.5 mgd)l
1 — 0.66
MAHL, Zn = 22.713 Ibs/day
26
111IR��7,04I S 111:117 <<7I�L II s«ih1> _�r[�7►�
LUNC = (CUNC)(QUNC)(8.34)
where: Lunc = Uncontrolled loading, lb/day
C,,,,c = Uncontrolled pollutant concentration, mg/L
Qunc = Uncontrolled flow rate, 1.694 MGD
Arsenic: Lu.. = (0.004 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34)
Lunc,As = 0.057 Ibs/day
Cadmium: LU.c= (0.00068 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34)
Lunc, Cd = 0.00961 Ibs/day
Chromium: LU,,c= (0.04 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34)
Lunc, Cr = 0.565 Ibs/day
Copper: L... = (0.138 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34)
Lunc, Cu = 1.950 Ibs/day
Cyanide: L... = (0.012 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34)
Lunc, Cn = 0.170 Ibs/day
Lead: L... = (0.0270 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34)
Lunc, Pb = 0.3815 Ibs/day
Mercury: L... = (0.000166 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34)
Lunc, Hg = 0.002345 Ibs/day
27
Molybdenum: L... = (0.009 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34)
Lunc, MO = 0.127 Ibs/day
Nickel: L... = (0.009 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34)
Lunc, Ni = 0.127 Ibs/day
Selenium: L... = (0.004 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34)
Lunc, Se = 0.057 Ibs/day
Silver: Lu,c= (0.0009 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34)
Lunc,Ag = 0.0127 Ibs/day
Zinc: L... = (0.478mg/L)(1.694mgd)(8.34)
Lunc, Zn = 6.753 Ibs/day
28
MAIL— CALCULATIONS:
MAIL= MAHL (1-SF) — (LUNC + HW + GA)
Where: MAIL = Maximum allowable industrial loading, lb/day
MAHL = Maximum allowable headworks loading, lb/day
SF = Safety Factor, 10% or 0.1
Lum = Uncontrolled loadings
HW = Hauled Waste loadings (not used)
GA = Growth Allowance (2% of L,,,,,)
Arsenic: MAIL(As) = 1.030 Ibs/day (1-0.1) — (0.057 Ibs/day + 0.001)
= 0.927 - 0.058
MAIL, As = 0.869 Ibs/day
Cadmium: MAIL (Cd) = 0.396 Ibs/day (1-0.1) — (0.00961 Ibs/day + 0.00019)
= 0.356 - 0.00980
MAIL, Cd = 0.346 Ibs/day
Chromium: MAIL (Cr) = 31.465 Ibs/day (1-0.1) — (0.565 Ibs/day + 0.011)
= 28.319 — 0.576
MAIL, Cr = 27.743 Ibs/day
Copper: MAIL (Cu) = 7.857 Ibs/day (1-0.1) — (1.950 Ibs/day + 0.0631)
= 7.071 — 2.013
MAIL, Cu = 5.058 Ibs/day
Cyanide: MAIL (Cn) = 0.416 Ibs/day (1-0.1) — (0.170 Ibs/day + 0.003)
= 0.374 - 0.173
MAIL, Cn = 0.201 Ibs/day
29
Lead: MAIL (Pb) = 1.334 Ibs/day (1- 0.1) — ( 0.3815 Ibs/day + 0.0076)
= 1.201 - 0.3891
MAIL, Pb = 0.812 Ibs/day
Mercury: MAIL (Hg) = 0.020 Ibs/day (1- 0.1) — ( 0.002345 Ibs/day + 0.000047)
= 0.018 — 0.002392
MAIL, Hg = 0.016 Ibs/day
Molybdenum: MAIL (Mo) = 3.457 Ibs/day(1-0.1) — (0.127 Ibs/day + 0.003)
= 3.111 — 0.130
MAIL, Mo = 2.981 Ibs/day
Nickel: MAIL (Ni) = 5.100 Ibs/day (1- 0.1 ) — ( 0.127 Ibs/day + 0.003)
= 4.590 — 0.130
MAIL, Ni = 4.460 Ibs/day
Selenium: MAIL (Se) = 0.529 Ibs/day (1- 0.1 ) — (0.057 Ibs/day + 0.001)
= 0.476 — 0.058
MAIL, Se = 0.418 Ibs/day
Silver: MAIL (Ag) = 0.590 Ibs/day (1- 0.1)—( 0.0127 Ibs/day + 0.0003)
= 0.531 — 0.013
MAIL, Ag = 0.518 Ibs/day
Zinc: MAIL (Zn) = 22.713 Ibs/day (1- 0.1) — (6.753 Ibs/day + 0.135)
= 20.442 — 6.888
MAIL, Zn = 13.554 Ibs/day
30
LOCAL LIMITS CALCULATIONS:
Local Limit (mg/L) = MAIL/ (8.34 X 0.129628 mgd)
Note: Currently, the City has two (2) SIU's, which has a flow rate of 0.079628 mgd. A
value of 0.050 mgd was used for two future SIU contributors. Total SIU flow used in
calculations = 0.129628 mgd
Arsenic: LL (As) = 0.869 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 0.869 / 1.081
LL (AS) = 0.804 mg/L
Cadmium: LL (Cd) = 0.346 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 0.346 / 1.081
LL (CD) = 0.320 mg/L
*Chromium: LL (Cr) = 27.743 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 27.743 / 1.081
= 25.664 mg/L
Utilizing a 90% growth/reserve factor: 25.664 (0.90) = 23.098 mg/L
= 25.664 — 23.098 = 2.566
LL (Cr) = 2.566 mg/L
Copper: LL (Cu) = 5.058 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 5.058 / 1.081
LL (Cu) = 4.679 mg/L
Cyanide: LL (Cn) = 0.201 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 0.201 / 1.081
LL (Cn) = 0.186 mg/L
31
Lead: LL (Pb) = 0.812 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 0.812 / 1.081
LL (Pb) = 0.751 mg/L
Mercury: LL (Hg) = 0.016 Ibs/day / (8.34 x O.129628 mgd)
= 0.016 / 1.081
LL (Hg) = 0.015 mg/L
Molybdenum: LL (Mo) = 2.981 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 2.981 / 1.081
LL (Mo) = 2.758 mg/L
Nickel: LL (Ni) = 4.460 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 4.460 / 1.081
LL (Ni) = 4.126 mg/L
Selenium: LL (Se) = 0.418 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 0.418 / 1.081
LL (Se) = 0.387 mg/L
Silver: LL (Ag) = 0.518 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 0.518 / 1.081
LL (Ag) = 0.479 mg/L
32
*Zinc: LL (Zn) = 13.554 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 13.554 / 1.081
= 12.538 mg/L
Utilizing a 90% growth/reserve factor: 12.538 (0.90) = 11.284 mg/L
= 12.538 — 11.284 = 1.254
ILL (Zn) = 1.254 mg/L
* The City of Kalispell is anticipating strong growth in the near future and is allocating a growth /
reserve factor of 90% for Chromium and Zinc. Initial Local Limit calculations for Chromium and
Zinc were both high enough to warrant this correction.
33
cH
G
J
0
z
CO ~
X O
o a
z w
Lu
a �
a O
Q J
LU
m
H
O
LL J
LL W J
Lc-)
'IT
O
M
r
M
M
LO
LO
Lu m
r
00
r
r
r
O
r
r
r
r
r
r
N
LU
J J
LL
OQa _
LL ~
W
U
O Q
cn
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
O
Lo
Lo
r
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
O
0
—
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
O
V
0
O
O
E
J
LL LU J
Z
Lo
r
LO
0)
0)
N
m
r
O
m
O
O
CO
M
r
r
LO
Ocu
Q
cn
U)
LU
(n
_
J J
LL Q d
c6
0
cn
0)
z H
L
S
O Q
(n
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
O
Lo
Lo
r
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
-�
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
U
Q O
0')
LO
r
LU J
O
O
M
N
r
M
M
r
M
M
m�
r
r
r
r
ti
r
r
Oi
r
r
r
r
cn
LU
Q J J
a
O Q
M
M
co
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
* cn
r
r
r
r
ti
r
r
Oi
r
r
r
r
O
N
r
cn J
O
W LU J
m
r
N
M
LO
r
O
r
r
CO
r—
I`
r
00
r
O
r
r
N
O
N
0')O
ti
r
LU
ON
O
N
~
cnJJ
LUQ d
O
O
U
r
O
OQ
a
in
r
N
r
N
r
N
r
N
r
r
r
N
r
N
r
N
r
N
r
N
r
N
r
N
—
0
LO
r
O
O
Q
OWJ
CO
00
m
M
O
LO
�
m
O
r
O
r
O
O
r
M
N
r
O
(n
W
E
O
J J
O
�
)
V O Q
1� cn
O
0
0
0
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
o
x
N
N
N
N
r
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Q
U
L
U
3
U
C
U
a
a1
m
E
z
0)
cn
0)
Q
C
N
M
APPENDIX 7
APPENDIX R - 2004 EPA LOCAL LIMITS GUIDANCE - PRIORITY POLLUTANT REMOVAL
EFFICIENCIES (%)
Sludge Through Activated Treatment*
Priority Pollutant
Range
Second
ilecile
Median
I
Eight
I Decile
Number of POTWS
with Removal Data
METAL&NONMETAL INDRGANICS"
Arsenic
11 78
31
45
53
5 of 26
Cadmium
25-99
33
67
91
19 of 26
Chromium
25-97
5B
82
91
25 of 26
Copper
2-99
67
86
95
26 of 26
Cyanide
3-99
4'
69
84
25 of 26
Lead
1-92
39
61
76
23 of 26
Mercury
1-95
50
60
79
20 of 26
Nickel
2-99
25
42
62
23 of 26
Selenium
25-89
33
50
FvT
4 of 26
Silver
17-95
50
75
L� _
24 of 26
Zinc
23-99
64
79
8b
26 of 26
ORGANICS"
Anthracene
29-99
44
67
91
5 of 26
Benzene
25-99
50
80
96
18 of 26
Chloroform
17-99
50
67
83
24 of 26
1,2-trans-Dichloroeth Iene
17-99
50
67
91
17 of 26
Eth (benzene
25-99
67
86
97
25 of 26
Methylene chloride
2-99
36
62
77
26 of 26
Naphthalene
25-98
40
78
90
16 of 26
Phenanthrene
29-99
37
68
86
6 of 26
Phenol
3-99
75
90
98
19 of 26
Bas 2-eth (hex Iphthalate
17-99
47
72
87
25 of 26
Butyl bent I phthalate
25-99
50
67
92
16 of 26
Di-n-bur I phthalate
11-97
39
64
87
19 of 26
Diethyl phthalate
17-98
39
62
90
15 of 26
FIvrene
73-95
76
86
95
2 of 26
Tetrachloroeth Iene
15-99
50
80
93
26 of 26
Toluene
25-99
80
93
98
26 of 26
1,1,1-Trich lcroethane
18-99
75
85
94
23 of 26
Trichioroeth Iene
20-99
75
69
98
25 of 26
Pollutant removals between POTW influent and secondary effluent (including secondary clarification).
Based on a computer analysis of POTW removal efficiency data (derived from actual POTW influent and
effluent sampling data) provided in U.S- EPA's Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly. Owned 7'reaiment
Works. Volume H (EPA 440/1-821303), September 1982-
"" For the purpose of deriving removal efficiencies, effluent. levels reported as below detection were set equal
to the reported detection limits- All secondary activated sludge treatment plants sampled as part of the
study were considered.
Source: U-S- EPA's CiuidanceHanuaton the Devefopmeni and implementation [gfL.oeal DisehargerLimha ions
Under the Pretreatment Program, December 1987, p. 3-56-
35
APPENDIX 8
ANALYTICAL METHODS
POC
Influent, Effluent,
Domestic, Commercial
and Receiving Water
Samples
Biosolid Samples
Arsenic
E200.8
SW6020
Cadmium
E200.7/E200.8
SW6020
Chromium -Total
E200.7/E200.8
SW6020/SW6010B
Copper
E200.8
SW6020/SW6010B
Cyanide
E335.4/Kelada-01
SW9012
Lead
E200.8
SW6020
Mercury
E245.1 /E245.7
SW7471 A/SW7471 B
Molybdenum
E200.8
SW6020
Nickel
E200.7/E200.8
SW6020/SW6010B
Selenium
E200.8
SW6020
Silver
E200.8
SW6020
Zinc
E200.7/E200.8
SW6010B
36
APPENDIX 9
INHIBITION CRITERIA
Concentrations for POCs that inhibit nitrification during biological processes
POC
WWTP INFLUENT CONC.
(mg/L)
EPA GUIDE
(mg/L)*
CHROMIUM - TOTAL
0.01
0.25 - 1
COPPER
0.057
0.05 — 0.5
CYANIDE
0.003
0.3 - 20
LEAD
0.0038
0.5 — 1.7
MERCURY
0.000037
2 — 12.5
NICKEL
0.003
0.25 - 5
SILVER
0.0004
0.25
ZINC
0.131
0.01 - 1
Concentrations for POCs that inhibit anaerobic digestion during biological
processes
POC
WWTP INFLUENT CONC.
(mg/L)
EPA GUIDE (mg/L)*
ARSENIC
0.001
0.1 - 1
CADMIUM
0.00023
0.02 - 1
CHROMIUM - TOTAL
0.01
1.5 - 50
COPPER
0.057
0.5 - 100
CYANIDE
0.003
0.10 - 4
LEAD
0.0038
50 - 250
MERCURY
0.000037
1400
NICKEL
0.003
2 - 200
ZINC
0.131
1 - 10
*Guidance Manual for Preventing Interferences at POTWs, Table 2-1, pg. 20, EPA 1987
37
I_1JJ:101i67L0:14:04MdOU'll017LIM
Appendix 1 Explanation
POTW 10 Year Monthly Average Flow (mgd): This value is based on the past ten years,
2008-2017, flow data (Appendix 1) and was 2.741 mgd.
Appendix 2 Explanation
Domestic and Commercial flow (mgd): Values are calculated based on data compiled by
The City of Kalispell 2019 Collection System Sustainability Study performed by Advanced
Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc (Appendix 2).
Appendix 3 Explanation
Sludge flow to disposal (mgd): Value is based on the belt filter press flow meters, Dec 2016 —
Nov 2017, monthly average is 2.055 mgd (Appendix 3).
Percent (%) solids to disposal: Value is based on Flathead County solid waste disposal
records, Dec 2016 — Nov 2017, monthly average is 13.45% (Appendix 3).
Appendix 4 Explanation
Most Stringent Maximum Allowable Headwork Loading Calculations
The Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading (MAHL) is the estimated maximum loading of a
POC that a POTW's headworks can receive and not cause the POTW to violate a particular
treatment plant or environmental criterion. The most stringent criteria from WQS (acute v
chronic, state v. EPA) was compared to both State Human Health and sludge disposal criteria
for each POC (Appendix 4). The City's current MPDES permit does not have limits for any
POC. Inhibition criteria was not calculated due to the fact that the City has had no past or
present inhibition problems affecting the processes (Appendix 9). The removal efficiency
corresponding to each POC was applied to determine the amount of POC removal between the
influent and effluent.
For example:
MAHL Calculation: WQS (most stringent) Criteria, Cd
AHLwo = 8.34(Cwo(QsrR + QPorw) — (CsrR * Qsr )1
1 — RPorw
m
Where: AHLwQ = Allowable headworks loading based on WQS toxicity
standard, Ibs/day
CwQ = WQS toxicity standard, Ibs/day
QSTR = Receiving Stream flow, mgd
QPQTw = Monthly average POTW flow, mgd
CSTR = Background Receiving Stream POC, mg/L
RPorw = Removal Efficiency
Cadmium: AHLWq(Cd) = 8.34[(0.000871 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.00003 *4.5 mgd)
1 — 0.87
MARL, Cd = 0.404 Ibs/day
MAHL Calculation: State Human Health Criteria, Cd
AHLHH = 8.34fCHH(QSTR+ QPOTw) - (CSTR * QST )1
1 — RPorw
Where: AHLHH = Allowable headworks loading based on State Human Health toxicity
standard, Ibs/day
CHH = Human Health toxicity standard, Ibs/day
QSTR = Receiving Stream flow, mgd
QPQTw = Monthly average POTW flow, mgd
CSTR = Background Receiving Stream POC, mg/L
RPorw = Removal Efficiency
Cadmium: AHLHH(Cd) = 8.34f(0.005 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.00003 *4.5 mgd)1
1 — 0.87
MAHL, Cd = 2.314 Ibs/day
39
MAHL Calculation: Sludge Disposal Criteria, Cd
LIN = (8.34) (CSLCRIT)(PS/100)(QSLDG)
RPOTw
Where: LIN = allowable headworks loading, Ibs/day
CSLCRIT = Sludge use disposal criterion, mg/kg dry
PS = % solids sludge to disposal
QSLDG = Sludge flow to disposal, mgd
RPOTw = Removal efficiency across WWTP
Cadmium: LIN(Cd) _ (8.34)(39 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mgd)
87
MAHL, Cd = 1.033 Ibs/day
Maximum Allowable Industrial Loading Calculations
The Maximum Allowable Industrial Loading (MAIL) is the loading allocated to all controlled
(permitted) Users. The MAIL is calculated by deducting uncontrolled loading contributions plus a
2% growth allowance from the MAHL.
Uncontrolled Loading — Calculation:
LUNC = (CUNC)(QUNC)(8.34)
Where: Lunc = Uncontrolled loading, lb/day
CUn, = Uncontrolled pollutant concentration, mg/L
Qunc = Uncontrolled flow rate, MGD
.N
EXAMPLE:
Cadmium: LUn. _ (0.00068mg/L)(2.741 mgd)(8.34)
LuNc, Cd = 0.0155 Ibs/day
MAIL Calculation:
MAIL = MAHL(1-SF) — (LuNc + HW + GA)
Where: MAIL = Maximum allowable industrial loading, lb/day
MAHL = Maximum allowable headworks loading, lb/day
SF =
Safety Factor (10%)
Lunc =
Uncontrolled loadings
HW =
Hauled Waste loadings (not used)
GA =
Growth Allowance (2% of Lunc)
EXAMPLE:
Cadmium: MAIL(Cd) = 0.396 Ibs/day (1 — 0.1) — (0.00961 Ibs/day + 0.00019)
MAIL, Cd = 0.346 Ibs/day
Local Limits Calculations
The SIU Local Limit is calculated by dividing the MAIL of each POC (MAIL — EF) by the existing
SIU flow and converting to mg/L. Currently, the City has (2) Users that qualify as SIU's as
defined by 40 CFR 403.3(v)(i). This SIU's discharge an average of 79,628 gpd (0.079628 mgd).
An additional value of 50,000 gpd (0.050 mgd) is assigned to the SIU discharge flow to allow for
future industrial growth. This value is equivalent to two SIUs based on the EPA definition in 40
CFR 403.3 (v). The total value assigned to SIU's for the Local Limits calculation is 0.129628
mgd.
41
Local Limit Calculation:
Local Limit, (mg/L) = MAIL / (8.34 X 0.129628 mgd)
EXAMPLE:
Cadmium: LL (Cd) = 0.346 Ibs/day / (8.34 x 0.129628 mgd)
= 0.346 / 1.081 mg/L
= 0.320 mg/L
Appendix 5 Explanation
Complete list of all calculations performed for determination of Local Limits (Appendix 5).
Appendix 6 Explanation
Data Below Reporting Limit: Used to determine method for computing Removal
Efficiencies. The Mean Removal Efficiency (MRE) Method was selected for computing actual
removal efficiencies when sampling data was found acceptable (above RL).
When the majority of samples are below detectable levels, the Literature removal efficiency
percentile reported in Appendix R, pg. R-2 EPA Local Limits Development Guidance 833-R-04-
002A July 2004. Also shown in Appendix 6 of this document.
Appendix 7 Explanation
Literature Removal Efficiency percentile used for computing removal efficiencies when the
majority of samples for a POC are below detectable levels (Appendix 7 of this document)
Appendix 8 Explanation
Analytical methods used for the testing of each POC. All samples collected were analyzed by
either Energy Laboratories in Billings, MT, Montana Environmental Laboratory in Kalispell, MT,
or the City of Kalispell WWTP Laboratory in Kalispell, MT (Appendix 8 of this document)
Appendix 9 Explanation
Inhibition criteria was not calculated due to the fact that the City has had no past or present
inhibition problems affecting the processes (Appendix 9 of this document).
42