Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Resolution 6140 - Wastewater Local Limit Justification
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. Mark Johnson ATTEST: Mayor Aim e Brunckhorst CMC PO City Clerk = `C'SEAL�' �. :m =V= 1892 •.0.. �: Resolution 6140, Exhibit A m.-7�lw. 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. SECTION 2 —ABBREVIATIONS 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. TABLES 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. 5 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 w J m H o U as i J C, 00 N M 0 N 0 I- 0 w y d O 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Q E 0 0 O O O 00 O O O O O O G 0 U J = Q O U d L J M O 1 (M M_ O It (M c- M O N O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU d 0 Q= 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O V U C O dce)Z i J 0 N M O O `- N 0 00 H r- IM O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LJJ (� a> £ 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 � Oco U C O Z w d L J M 00 0 0 0 004 0 0 qT L C O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U- > V E 0 0 0 0 o C) 0 o 0 0 o LL Q C O O w U O w d R w M 0 `- LO O M � 0 0 0 0 M m +L+ c IMoo 0 o000000o� Cl Eoo 0000000000 Q z O U J O O N M ce) LO O N N co J O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E O N 0 0 0 06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04 Irl J 0 0 � to O LO 0 0 J 0 0 � 0 0 0 0 0 � 0 0 � O O O O O O O O O O O O O E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O U oCL U?jJwQ �Z � D Jjo Y c w g a Z< V Z j Z �o00�}JUJ=_Ni a U U z c� a0 c U =~ O U U � LO 0 N N 0 O 0 N 0 w H U w J J 0 U) w J d a U) 2 w LL a Q w Z w U w Z w D J LL LL w z w J i Z k I`- CO) 0 :3 O CO) O m Iq w � m � c § © 0 � � ® ® S 0 2 q LO LO C ¥ D T > § E o U c ■ & m_ B ¥ - q 0) ®# Go � k ■ n ¥ c 0 Q � IM q n _ LOC) n_ - n_ q E *�Z, I n q m o LO I'- LO I'- o CD t 6 6 60 Cl 6 _ & LO LO®� 6 © 6 6 00 A � tm be nv: n LO o p LO� LO Q 0 10 a o 6- 6 6 6 6 6 6- � ci 6 CV) q 2 LOn E CO I� # p � q # to LO n coCD 0 10 6 6 6 6 6 6 R ° c 9 R R-i w p 2 R B p 3/ƒ _ 2 c j Q w E/ w - z § a O O O « y -j- N 2 Q ƒ ƒ e q 2 q n Q � M TABLE 5 REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES Pollutant of Concern (POC) Average WWTP Influent m /L Average WWTP Effluent m /L Mean Removal Efficiency Percentile Inf-E /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 Rpa, = Ir — Epos. t where Rp,,m = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to effluent Ir Ir = POTW influent POC concentration at headworks, mg/I Ep.t. 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. 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 25t' 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: Rpocw I� Where: Rpotw = Plant removal efficiency from headworks to effluent I, = POTW influent POC concentration at headworks, mg/l Epos, c = POTW effluent POC concentration, mg/I Example: Cadmium: Rp,, w (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 Ln LU U 0 z LU a a M M r- M M M O 0 M U) N V IT r- 0 0- O� M O 0 Il- F- O V M O N r,-� U) O f� r*'� Lq 4: 0 U) O v v O O et ao ao ao Mrn cp ti Q Q U N N N N N M N N N N N N N N LL LL Q z 0 z O LL O LO CO qT � co 00 d) �- M 00 C) N C)N NCO 00 � 0 CD� 0 PI- N _ N 0 00 C? 00 0 � 0 Ln qq: M cM ti U) e U N M M N N N N N N N N N CV I� N U) O N 00 M CO Lf) CO 00 Q' a m Q\z\ a w Q x .. x d .. N O M O U7 N� I, 00 qT O `7 00 O O N Cp r- N CM O � LO 0 N 00 w � M T- W, N N CO N N cM Cr) N N N N N CV Q N W Q N W W N Q CD } o O >- O rD O M N T- v O t'M O LO L~ M LO O LO 00 N M 00 M Li m � O) O O O O C0M (D 000 000 (y) T- T- N U) N N N N N N N N N CV N N N CV CV H N Q N LO O N V-- r- 'T 0 O r- N Il- O� N O N N O Cp O CA W M Q W O cM C? Cp 0 (p LQ O N N M M Lq J M O O N 00 00 I- N N LO N M w x LL 0) t-: 00 0 N 7 O (.pV: Cl? N N C) 0 � j N CN CV CO CO M v CO N N N N N CV C)LO r T 0) LO O O NCO ti z IJZ W a ti N C:,yj N CD cM (p � r- q,� V UA r*-: C) U? C)O O Cp - Uf CV cM r- CM 0 Lq O tp LL Q LL N N N N N N N M N N N N N N N W N ... d 00 3: p 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 C)c) M Cp N O CD 0 N tl- C _j C LO LO CO ti I- f- (D IT V q' U) t0 N LL N N N M M N N N N N N N N CV W 0 00 CM 0 CF) V--Ln 00 N M t7 Cp O LO O N cM NOD cM - N CD LA 00 qq LC) (0 0 00 00 00 C) IV, ITfl- Nr CM N N 1- W; � N N N N N M CM cM N N N N N CV Q QZ Jw >' O = 2 f- 1-- U) Z W O> ti CD V CD ti 1` v N W) t0 M 00 co) 0) LA (0 N O 00 00 tp co Ln ti to V O M M in C*) 'tql� -e LA � IV t` z 0 = Q N N C-i N CV tM N CV CV CV " = d O L, ad � IL = L °' .0W 0) .Q > Q M Z 3 L V- d y 3 �, p E d d Z >- Lo LL Q Q v) O z G> E N t° E LL LL W O E O l w C E O � 2 U )DO) v N O O ccu ca 0 0 iE 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. 18 cM _X G z W a IL Q m F�0 0 Il- M O M N IRT In O IT O I- v 0JC9 0� m N ti Lo m � I- w It w O (L LL N N N L6 cM cM N N N N N N of 0 U) J GN J O O p, CA co , Oo O O qq � O M 00 I` CO CA O) - Lo I- O � CA 00 LO 1- CO qT CM N r O O O) U� � O r*-� ti OR 'l� o CM cM cM qT qt M m m m M N N M J (' Q G W 'IT M O M N 0 W I- N M M 't W H ClF— G q;T 0 - M O M M M M 1` 0 W w r- 00 0) CO 00 Lo 00 NCO � N Cl) CD O U) LL N N N N N N W qq I,- qT qIT Lo I- LO N O W M J (, Q W* LO Lo CO M M 0 m M 00 N ti qT m O Lo M Lo 0 Il- � O O to M N O H G � M O) N N Lo CO CO T N Cr) co LO O -L J q d 000 N w O00 0 00 N CMO � N M O H U) LL ¢ 0 T- � � � T N N N N N N G J O O O O O ti O O O O O O CO O N W q;r V � d' N 00 qt O C4 00 O m qqt 00 LO 00 cM r- I` Ln q'T qfT CO CO - C) H J Lo 00 CA N 00 f I` O C) CA r- ti O) 00 I` 00 LO I` N ti M I` � co cl- O O O Cl O O O O O O O O w 04 CD C14 CD MN c LO M N N W qT N (D00 00 � O 0 q m Cl) O 0 N 00 P- d' LO O O O) O) O r- O) I` I` 0o I'- O) t- Oo 1'- CO CO ti C W co W 0 O O 0 O � O O Cl O 0 O r- ti O � N N N LO N co CO N co 00 � m —InG J N N N W N LO N N qt N CO N O M N Nr O Lo I` N CO co CA N W W CO ti ti Q (D M o W > LL Q M I fn o z Q A ME i CO N_ rn N E 3 O w v7 rn d N ii N m to N Q cn Y 0 2 5 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 lbs/day STATE HUMAN HEALTH Ibs/da SLUDGE QUALITY Ibs/da 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 1 1313.486 187.988 20 APPENDIX 5 CALCULATIONS ** CRITERIA USED FOR FINAL LOCAL LIMITS CALCULATIONS MAHL- 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: LIN(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) 82 MAHL, Cr = 33.724 Ibs/day Copper: LIN(Cu) = (8.34)(1500 mQ/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mqd) 93 MAHL, Cu = 37.169 Ibs/day 21 Lead: LIN(Pb) = (8.34)(300 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mqd) 84 MAHL, Pb = 8.230 Ibs/day Mercury: L,N(Hg) = (8.34)(17 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mqd) :. MAHL, Hg = 0.455 Ibs/day **Molybdenum: L,N(MO) = (8.34)(75 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mqd) FA MAHL, Mo = 3.457 Ibs/day Nickel : LIN(Ni) = (8.34)(420 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mqd) 33 MAHL, Ni = 29.330 Ibs/day Selenium: L,N(Se) = (8.34)(36 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mqd) 50 MAHL, Se = 1.659 Ibs/day Zinc: L,N(Zn) = (8.34)(2800 mg/kg)(0.13446)(2.055 mqd) .. MAHL, Zn = 97.765 Ibs/day 22 MAHL— HUMAN HEALTH CALCULATIONS: AHLHH = 8.34fCHH (Qstr + Qootw)-(Cstr * Qstr)1 1 — Rpot,, where: AHLHH= Allowable headworks loading based on State Human Health toxicity standard, Ibs/day CHH = Human Health toxicity standard, mg/L Qstr = Receiving Stream flow, MGD Qpotw = Monthly Average POTW flow, MGD Cstr= Background Receiving Stream POC, mg/L Rp,tw = Removal Efficiency **Arsenic: AHLHH(As) = 8.34f(0.010 mg/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) = 8.34f(0.005 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.00003 *4.5 mgd)1 1 — 0.87 MAHL, Cd = 2.314 Ibs/day **Chromium: AHLHH (Cr) = 8.34f(0.10 mg/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) = 8.341(1.30 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.002 *4.5 mgd)1 MAHL, Cu = 1120.455 Ibs/day 23 1 — 0.93 **Cyanide: AHLHH (Cn) = 8.34f(0.004 mq/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 mg/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 mg/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 mqd)] 1 — 0.50 MAHL, Se = 5.964 Ibs/day Silver: AHLHH (Ag) = 8.34f(0.100 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 m-qd) — (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 MAHL, Zn = 1313.486 Ibs/day 24 1 — 0.66 MAHL—WQS CALCULATIONS: AHLwq = 8.34f CWQ(Qstr + Qootw)-(Cstr * Qstr)1 1 — Rp.w where: AHLwo = Allowable headworks loading based on WQS toxicity standard, Ibs/day CHH = WQS toxicity standard, mg/L Qstr = Receiving Stream flow, MGD Qpot,,,, = Monthly Average POTW flow, MGD Cstr = Background Receiving Stream POC, mg/L Rpotw = 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) = 8.34((0.000871 mg/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) = 8.341(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) = 8.34f(0.0052 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.003 *4.5 mgd)l 1 — 0.69 MAHL, Cn = 0.650 Ibs/day 25 **Lead: AHLWq (Pb) = 8.34f(0.00372 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.003 *4.5 mgd)1 1 — 0.84 MAHL, Pb = 1.334 Ibs/day Mercury: AHLWq (Hg) = 8.34f(0.00077 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.000005 *4.5 mgd)1 1 — 0.86 MAHL, Hg = 0.331 Ibs/day **Nickel: AHLWq (Ni) = 8.34f(0.05782 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.002 *4.5 mgd)1 1 — 0.33 MAHL, Ni = 5.100 Ibs/day **Selenium: AHLWq (Se) = 8.34f(0.005 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.001 *4.5 mgd)1 1 — 0.48 MAHL, Se = 0.529 Ibs/day **Silver: AHLWq (Ag) = 8.34f(0.00501 mq/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.002 *4.5 mgd)1 1 — 0.50 MAHL, Ag = 0.590 Ibs/day **Zinc: AHLWq (Zn) = 8.34f(0.13285 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.008 *4.5 mgd)1 1 — 0.66 MAHL, Zn = 22.713 Ibs/day al UNCONTROLLED LOADING —CALCULATIONS: LUNC = (CUNC)(QUNC)(8.34) where: Lu„c = Uncontrolled loading, lb/day C.nc = Uncontrolled pollutant concentration, mg/L Qu„c = Uncontrolled flow rate, 1.694 MGD Arsenic: Lunc = (0.004 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34) Lu„c, As = 0.057 Ibs/day Cadmium: Lunc= (0.00068 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34) Lunc, Cd = 0.00961 Ibs/day Chromium: Lunc= (0.04 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34) Lunc, Cr = 0.565 Ibs/day Copper: Lunc= (0.138 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34) Lunc, Cu = 1.950 Ibs/day Cyanide: Lunc= (0.012 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34) Lunc, Cn = 0.170 Ibs/day Lead: Lunc= (0.0270 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34) Lunc, Pb = 0.3815 Ibs/day Mercury: Lunc= (0.000166 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34) Lunc, Hg = 0.002345 Ibs/day 27 Molybdenum: Lunc= (0.009 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34) Lon,-, Mo = 0.127 Ibs/day Nickel: Lunc= (0.009 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34) Lon,-, Ni = 0.127 Ibs/day Selenium: Lunc= (0.004 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34) Lonc, Se = 0.057 Ibs/day Silver: Lunc= (0.0009 mg/L)(1.694 mgd)(8.34) Lunc, Ag = 0.0127 Ibs/day Zinc: Lunc= (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 Lunc = Uncontrolled loadings HW = Hauled Waste loadings (not used) GA = Growth Allowance (2% of Lu.) 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 / 1.08' 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 0.129628 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 I— J Z co x O o a Z W W a IL O Q J W m H Q G O LL J LL W O U-)r- W � co O W a c O LL a LL w O Q 0 0 Lo 0 o 0 0 Lo w 0 Lo c c O o — tu rn O 0 U O O Q- Z m-J U-) LOC CMcmE O N U) O Q M Q U E N W J J N LL ° L zH� a� 704 Lo 0 0 Lo O 0 0 Lo 0 w L E HN cn E c Of U Q 0 O LO W J Q J J IL O Q M c) c) m M M co c) c) c) * H N O O N J O W W J m N M LO � O O N O N 1 O J J O N 04 r- U) Q a (D U O N H U) N N N N N N N N N (N N — O U-)U N U) N Q- Q J C) m O O O O LO N O CO o U) 0 W �►!J gQa oFZ;Z M ca .. co O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N) 4 '0 0 L .7 i 0 .0 a Oi x C 2 Z d 0 tm 4 C N M. APPENDIX 7 APPENDIX R - 2004 EPA LOCAL LIMITS GUIDANCE - PRIORITY POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES (%) Sludge Through Activated Treatment* Priority Pollutant Range Second Docile Median I Eight Docile Number of POTNIfs with Removal Data. METALS/NONMETAL INORGANICS" Arsenic 11 78 31 45 53 5 of 26 Cadmium 25-99 33 67 91 19 of 26 Chromium 25-97 68 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 67, 76 23 of 26 Mercury 1.95 50 60 79 20 of 26 Nicke 2-99 25 42 62 23 of 26 Selenium 2"9 33 50 67 4 of 26 Silver 17-95 1 50 75 88 24 of 26 Zinc 23-99 1 64 79 88 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-Dlchloroeth a 17.99 50 67 91 17 of 26 Ethylbenzene 25-99 67 86 97 25 of 26 Methylene chloride 2-99 36 62 77 26 of 26 Naphthalene 2"8 40 78 90 16 of 26 Phenanthrene 29-99 37 68 86 6 of 26 Phenol M9 75 90 98 19 of 26 Bis 2-e Ihex hihalate 17-99 47 72 87 25 of 26 BuM benzV1 phthalate 25-99 So 67 92 16 of 26 Di-n-buryl phthalate 11.97 39 64 87 19 of 26 Diethyl hth"te 17-98 39 62 90 15 of 26 Pyrene 73-95 76 86 95 2 of 26 Teirachtoroeth ene 15-99 50 80 93 26 of 26 Toluene 25-99 80 93 98 26 of 26 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 18-99 75 85 94 23 of 26 Tnehloroeth lene 20-99 75 89 98 25 of 26 Pollutant remo%als between POTW influent and xtondary effluent (including secondary, clarificationl. Based on a computer analysis of POTW removal efficiency data (derived from actual PO'N influent and elfl uent sampling data) provided in U S EPA's Fate of Priority Pollutants to Publich (Ai ned Treatment Works, d'ohume 11 (EPA 440 1-82303), September 1982 * For the purpose ofdenving 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. US EPA'sGtadanceklanualonthe Developmentand Implementation oJLocal DrschargerLrmitarrons 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 APPENDICES EXPLANATIONS 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 (MARL) 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 = 8.34FCwQ(QSTR + QPOTW) — (CSTR * QSTR 1 — RPoTw 38 Where: AHLwo = Allowable headworks loading based on WQS toxicity standard, Ibs/day Cwo = WQS toxicity standard, Ibs/day QSTR = Receiving Stream flow, mgd QPoTw = Monthly average POTW flow, mgd CSTR = Background Receiving Stream POC, mg/L RPoTw = Removal Efficiency Cadmium: AHL,,q(Cd) = 8.341(0.000871 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mqd) — (0.00003 *4.5 mgd)1 1 — 0.87 MAHL, Cd = 0.404 Ibs/day MAHL Calculation: State Human Health Criteria, Cd AHLHH = 8.34rCHH(QSTR+ QPOTW) - (CSTR * QSTR I 1 — RPoTw 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 QPoTw = Monthly average POTW flow, mgd CSTR = Background Receiving Stream POC, mg/L RPoTw = Removal Efficiency Cadmium: AHLHH(Cd) = 8.34f(0.005 mg/L)(4.5 mqd + 2.741 mgd) — (0.00003 *4.5 mgd)l 1 — 0.87 MAHL, Cd = 2.314 Ibs/day 39 MAHL Calculation: Sludge Disposal Criteria, Cd LIN = (8.34) (CSLCRIT)(PS/100)(QSLDc) RroTw 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 mqd) 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: L,nc = Uncontrolled loading, lb/day Cun, = Uncontrolled pollutant concentration, mg/L Q,nc = Uncontrolled flow rate, MGD 40 EXAMPLE: Cadmium: L,,„c, _ (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 L,n,) 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