HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 Ordinance No. 052ORDINANCE NO. 5:Z..
SERIES OF 199_0_
BY AUTHORITY
9 (f)
COUNCIL BILL NO. 56
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBl:.R HATHAWAY
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12-2-7 AMENDING THE LIMITATIONS OF
DISCHARGE IN ACCORDANCE TO EPA REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL
PRETREATMENT.
WHEREAS, the current Wastewater Utility Ordinance for
Englewood contains discharge limitations for numerous
compounds which were based on the 1984 Industrial Pretreatment
Program Report; and
WHEREAS, the new limitations are based on the equity for
industries, the ease of administration and the protection of
the most sensitive plant processes and is a more conservative
approach to protecting the environment; and
WHEREAS, the new limitations are in accordance to EPA
requirements for Industrial Pretreatment;
NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 7 is amended to read
as follows :
12-2-7: LIMITATIONS ON DISCHARGE: No person shall discharge
any pollutant in excess of tha following:
A*YM¼RYMT Se*Y&*e fae A 1+
AE&&RieT ieta* fae Ae+
BaEiYMT ietal fae Ba+
&eEY**¼YMT ietal fae Be+
Biehemieal 9KY!BR QemaRd fB99+
BeEeRT ietal fas Be+
GadMiYMT ietal fas Gd+
~qemieal 9Hy~eR 9eMaRd fG99+
GhleEiRate d HydFee~l!'&eRs iAe*Y&¼R!
&Yt Re• lim~ted •e PestieideeT
HeFeieides aRd Al~aeeidee
GAeEM¼YMT HeKava*eAt fae GE+'+
ieta* fas GE+
Gelel!'
GeR&YB\¼Y¼ty fYMR88+
GeepeET ~etal fae GY+
GyaRideT AMeRae *e \e Gh*&E¼Ra\ieR
M&K¼MYM GeReeR\l!'agi&RT M!f*
GEa&-Samp*e Gempeei\e-Sup*e
*TQ
QT;!i
:ITQ
QT4
:199
±TQ
QTQS
SQQ
fi'H8t :I .. Q Q,.8
hid fH 6Nt a .. , *"Q 0 i114d11 Q,.QQ:I Q,.QQQ8
., ....... 11y•• 5 .. Q *"Q
i'•Ye•i4ee fae i't :i, .. Q •G .. Q
•••11T ieia• fae i'e+ i+ .. i U .. G
-•••T ieia• f•• Pa+ Q,.U G .. :15
•·ll·All8 f•T:ITiT4TiTi-
heK••ll••••-•Y•••ll•K•11•
!aMA ¼881HFt Q,.QQi Q,.QQ:I
Ma11,a11•••T ll'eia• f•• MIit hQ G .. 4
M•••Y•YT ll'eia• faa H!t G .. 410 Q,.Q:li
MeilleKyeh••• f•T*T* -i•i•h•••••illa11et
:iT:i -.,. fp -M8illeKyplle11y•+ Q,.QU Q,.QQi
Niek••T iei•• +•• Nit .:i.., & .. Q
NiiE8!8RT A111111e11ia 88 N &Q ,..g :IQ,.Q
ll'KN fas N+ ;j,QQ .. O 4Q .. Q
Nh•a4'e fee w+ :15..Q .Q .. Q
Nhdie fae Nt :i .. , ... G
Qi• a114 6Eeaee fi'QS+ .n .. , +& .. Q
o•,a11ie Se;j,va11ia &Q .. Q ;i,:i .. ,
P611 ll'aia• Q,.QQQi Q,.QQQ:I
pHT Mi.llblllll & .. Q
MaKi.Jll•JII 9 .. Q
Plle11ai T ll'ak&,} 5 .. Q *"Q
Plleap~a&a7 ll'eia;i, fas P+ n .. 9 U .. Q
S•••11iY11T ll'aia• fee Se+ Q,.;i,a, Q .. Qi cl Si.•v••7 ll'aia• fee A!+ G .. U o .. :is
Se;j,id&7 9¼88&•V8a :nu ;i,;11;0
ll'e4'a• SY8pe11aa4 fll'SS+ aso
ll'&llp8EAiYF8 •; fsa.ai.Y8t ,s...
ll'eKaplle11e f6;i,9H;i,96•g -ll'eel111i.ea*
allle•i11a4!ea eaH1plle11e 7 e+-e9\
ell•••illa+ Q .. QQ:15 G .. QQl,Q
ll'Y•••·••Y fJll'Y~8t ,o
ii11eT ie4'al faa iRt s .. o :i .. o
:IT 4-9 f:174 -9ielll.e•eplleR&Ky Nell Nei
AeaUe A8'4+ AUewed AUewe4
:l747S -ll'P Si;j,veK f:1117 47§ -
ll'EiellleEeplle11eKy Pl'epienie Ael.4+ Nei Ne\
A;j,l.ewe4 A;Hew r->4
POLLUTANT OR POLLUTANT PROPERTY
ARSENIC, TOTAL (AS As)
CADMIUM, TOTAL (AS Cd)
CHROMIUM (T), TOTAL (AS Cr)
COPPER , TOTAL (AS Cu)
LEAD, TOTAL (AS Pb)
MERCURY, TOTAL (AS Hg)
NICKEL, TOTAL (AS Ni)
ZINC, TOTAL (AS Zn)
SILVER, TOTAL (AS Ag)
CYANIDE, TOTAL (AS CN)
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION
DAILY AVERAGE MG/L
o.s
1.2
7.0
4.5
2.0
0.13
4.1
11.0
0.4
1.2
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on
the 5th day of November, 1990.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 8th day of
November, 1990.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 19th day
of November, 1990 .
Published by title as Ordinance No. 6,;1.., Ser i es of 1990,
on the 22nd day of November, 1990.
usan Van
I, Patricia H. Crow, City Clerk of the City of Englewood,
Colorado, hereby certify that the above ~nd foregoing is a
true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and
publis hed by t itle as Ord i nance No.~. Series of 1990 .
Q~~./..~
Patricia H. Crow
DATS
November S, 1990
INITIATED BY
STAPF IOURCI
IHIIZ/ACTION PROPOSED
COUIICIL CONIIUIIICATION
AOIIIDA ITIN
11 (kl
SUBJECT
Standard ■.
Bi-C ity Supervisory Commit tee
Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
Wastewater Utility
Ordinance Di1char91
The action propo1ed i s to amend Li ■itation1 on D iacha rg ■ a s listed in 12-2-7 of the
Waatewatar Utility Ordinance.
Pltl!VIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
Nona.
STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed amendment ■ to the Waatewater Ut i lity Ord i nance are in accordance to !PA
requirements for Industrial Pretreatment . Attachment l details the rationa le for
each parameter proposed for amendment . Page 9 presents the proposed local limit ■
and page 10 presents limits to be deleted.
The proposed local limits are for a much s horter list of parameters than currently
exist in the ordinance. Removal of existing local limits is based o n the e valuation
that there will be no adverse impact on plant operations or that other ordinance
sections give adequate control of the parameter. Specific parameters may be
reintroduced at a later time, if the need arises.
The bases for l oca l limits are :
1, Operational requirements of the Joint-Uae Plant which utilizes activated ■l udge
and anaerobic digestion.
2. Influent allowable maea loading s are based upon sludge disposal regt:.lationa,
potential treatment process inhibition and water quality criteria. The moat
stringent of the criteria is basis for determination .
J . Influent to effluent removal percentages were calculated for us e in defining
allowable influent mass loadi ngs .
4. Calculated non-achievable limit ■ were replaced by limit a baaed on. achievabl1
treatment technology.
5, Propo ■■d limits take into account the 1:,1ustry allowable loadings, current
limit ■, Federal Categorical Standard ■, grO\ott.h potential and data variability,
6. Limit ■ are propo ■ed for "maximum daily i11 v,ot"age" aa defined by EPA for all
■ample ■ collected during a 24 hour period,
7, Parame ter ■ are propo ■ed to be removed from the local limit list, becau ■e there
ii no evidenc e that thee• limit ■ had technical rationale for adoption and no
evidence exist• that they have impact on the treatment plant. In addition, they are
covered i n the general and specific prohibitions found in sections 12-2-2-8 and
12-2-1-c.
aACKOROUIW
EPA has mandated that all industrial pretreatment programs have local limitation ■
with basis for rationale, At a minimum the existing limits must be reviewed every
three year ■, On a continuing basis, the need for development of limit.a tor
parameters which do not presently have limitations, must be made . Rr,aeons for thi ■
are to avoid pass through, sludge contamination, worker illness ana treatment plant
process upset.
With the exception of the heavy metal, nickel, each of the parameters listed will
have limits higher than the e x i s ting limit and will s t il l protect plant operations.
Thea• limits will allow industries (which are federally regulated) less etringent
discharge limitations and should result in a redu c ed regulatory and financial burden
to local industries .
The EPA has reviewed the proposed local limits and, although they ha ve not formally c
approved the limits, have indicated the limits are acceptable and that inc luding
them in the Was tewater Utility Ordinance is acceptable also. (see letL'1 ' to EPA
date Oc t c ber 3, 1990, Attachment 2).
The same local limits are being presented to the Littleton City Council to have
consistent local limits with i n the Bi -City WWTP ~ervice area .
~
There will be no direct financial impact on the City by adopting the amended local
limits ,
n VI. LOCAL LIMITS
The current 181f&r uoe ortlinoncea for Littleton and Englewood contain
di ■charse ll111itatlon1 for numeroua comr,ouml ■• Tho ■e limit ■ were evaluated
in the 1984 Induotriol Pretreatment Program Roport booed on 1983 d1t1 .
Theee limit ■ are reevaluated heroin to determine the appropri1tene11 of
the editing limits 0b1oed on more current data.
Hetal1 o•f lntereat for purpo1e1 of thi ■ evaluation were limited to
thoae in the current limits which are 1ddre11ed in the oludge dhpo11l
criteria, water ~uallty criteria, and proce11 lnhll.iltlon criteria.
Tho Cltle1 of Littleton oml Englewood hove cha,en to enact and enforce
one set of locel llmita which wlll 01111ly to all induotriea in both cl tho.
Thie dochlon la bouod on o number of (ncture1 1) equity for lndu1trio1,
2) ease of adminlatration end l) 11rotectlon of tho moat oen ■itive plant
11roce11oa.
The Di-City WWTP com11lex la compi:-l ■ed of two treatment plant ■, the
Joint-Uae Plant and the Englewood Plant. All City of Littleton flow and a
portion of the City of Englewood flow r,t..•oa to tho Joint-010 l'hnt. The
rem■lnder of the City of Englewood flow goea to the Englewood Plant.
Sludge from both plant, is processed at the Joint-Uoe Plant,
Locol ' limit~ have been dovoloped bosod on the oporatlono ·and
requiremente of the Joint-Uae Plant whlch utllbea the actlvated oludge
■nd anaerobic dige ■tion 11rnc'oa1en, Tho Englftwootl Plant ueoa a trickling
fllter -aolido contact treatment, which it a more atable and efficient
proco1 ■ than the Joint-Uae rlant, thorofore, uao of Joint-UH Plant data h
the ,nor ■ con1ervative approach ,
\IP0U188
REP 70
In addition, the Ennlewood Treatment
'i!-1
Plant 11 to be pha1ed out of aarvlco over the next two to three year, ••
JOOdificlition and expan ■ion is completed at the Joint -U ■e 111/TP, D1t1 frOM
the Jolnt-U1a WWTP for 1906 wore evaluated and lnfluont allowable loading,
vere allocated to domeatic, commerciai, and known industrial dhcharsu,
A, HETIIODOLOGY
Develo(lfflent of a dhcharge limit for an incompatible pollutant ent1U1
two 1peclfli;: 1tep1. The first ls to detel'mine the ma11 loading in pound,
par day (ppd) allowable in tho troatment plant influent which will allow
the plant to meet the limiting criteria for 1ludne dlapoaal, proce11
inhibit i on, and receiving water protection. The 1econd involve, the
allocation of thh acceptable maao loadin& to tho inJu1trial dhchar1111
throuah 1111 lnduatrlnl dlechargo limit. An appropriate growth and
variability factor ahould be applied during the calculation of thh
discharge llinlt. Each metal must bo evaluated lmllvldaally.
B, ALLOW/IDLE TREATMENT PLANT HASS LOADING
Ae •. general (lroceduro, influent 11.llowa.hle 1011.dinn• are calculated
baaed on aluds• diopoaal, treatntent procesa inhibition, and water quality
criteria, The moat stringent of theoo is the bash for deten1ination of
I
the influent loading,
' 1, Criteria
The Colorado De11artment uf llealt.h haa iuuod criteria for 1ludge being
uuble on asricultural land (Claaa 11) which are applicable to th•
Joint-Uae WWTP, · Theae criteria a.ro ■hown on Tal>le VI-1. Water quality
criteria to be evaluated f.or the Di-City WWTP complex dhchars• ere
WPOlllDD
I\EP 70 VI-Z
C
C
conta.lnod in Rotionole for the Bi-City WVTP Coaplex CWDP8 Pinol Por■it
C0-0032999, Auguot 31, 1983 end ore oho ohown on Table YI-1. The 1t1to'1
recently adopted voter quollty 1tondord1, 'Th• Balle Stendardt and
Hothodologiet for surface Wotor 3.1.0 ,,ccR 1002-8)' Auauat 17, 1989, have
not 7et been applied to the South Pl ■tto. River into which the Bi-Clt7 WVTP
dltcharg~•. Theo• 1t1ndard1 ware evaluated for incluolon in thlt locol
ll■lto davalor-nt, but due to the uncertainty in hov end when they vlll be
incorporated into the Bl-City WVTP CWDPS par■it, the voter quellty criteria
und for locol U1olt1 development lo thet contained in the current CWDPS
permit, Proce11 inhibition critarle for ectlvetad ■ludsa ware taken froa
th• IPA •Guidance Hanua , f'n~· ron, Pretnatn1ent Program Developnent•, 19113.
Th••• criteria are al10 1hown on Table VI-1.
WP011188
REP 70
TNll.E VI-I
0ISCIIMliE ll"ITATIOIIS Cllll£RlA
Sludao W•l~r ~•)lti l~•lb!t(on
Dh22ul Cllll'S rroca11PI IIIY!!!lcr
(111/k9) (111/I) (111/l) (og/1)
Arsenic 0 ,05 0.1 1.6
C1dalua 70 0,001 1,0 20
Chroah11 0.025(1) 1.0(1) 110(1)
10 ,0(4) ll0(5)
c_,. 1,650 0.025 1.0 40
Lead 2,500 0.025 0.1 340
Nlckel 650 0.1 1.0 10
Zinc 3,315 0,11 1,0 400
Ntrcur)' 0.00005 0.1
Sliver 0.0001 0,25 ll(l)
Cyonlde 0,005 0,1
(I)
(Z) llox1V1l1nt
(3) lttn strlnvent ol W1111 water Dlolll -Otn111lc Crlterlo or Orlrtlnv Water Crlterlo
(4) Solttblt
(5) :;::!, •• ,
YI-3
Joint-UH WTP analytical data for influent, effluent, and aludge
I
during 1986 were evaluated to deteraina tho ·r...,val 1fficl1nc7 of the
tr ■atMnt proc eu for each Mt ■l. Influent to effluent r ■aoval percanta111
ware calculated to obtain a rapruentative percent reOKJval Ior u11 in
d ■fining the allowable influent uu loading, CadMlllffl ■nalytic■l data for
both the influent end effluent conteined numerouo concentr1tion1 reported
a ■ below the detection li11it, The detection liMlt al ■o ranged froa 0.001
.to o.007 11111/L When the (lercent re..,vol calculation vu car ried out with
the ■e data, a negative removal rat~ re1ultad. Tha1a data were therefore
con ■idared ·unreliable and the ErA • t)'pical roTW removal rete wa ■ uud. All
other data ware relatively con1i1tent and were u,ed, The calculated
Joint-Ut e WT P removal percentage ■ ant.! the EPA typical POTW remov a l rate,,
u given in •Guidance Hanual on the DevelO(Mftent of Local Dhcharge
Limitation, Under the Pr~treatment Program•, EPA, 1987 are 1hown on Table
Vl-1 for comparl ■on purpo■oe .
Nickel and zinc, whilo not clo ■e t o the EPA median, are clo ■a to the
17 1>lant averane a ■ reported hy ErA in lte •1ntC\rlm Report on the Fate of
Priority Pollutant ■ in rorw•, 1900 .
TAOL E VI-2
BI-CITY SVSTEH DATA
1906 Di-Cit]; IIWTP Influent-F.ffluent Doto su .... ry lmg/l >
1906 Remvel
Influent Effluent Rate
l!!B Ava l:l lfUY!Dt
Chroalu• (T) 0.025 o.ooe 3S
Copper 0.090 0 .016 18
Lead 0.025 0 .010 40
Nickel 0 .037 0.015 40
Zinc 0.144 0 .020 11
WP011188
HP ,70 III -~
G
0 llnoY■l llatH
(I to Slud10 )'
Joint-UH WTP !PA (1)
.ll!lUtll
Aroonic
Cod•iu.
Chraiu■ (T)
Copper
LHd
Nickol
Zinc
Harcur7
811Yer
Cyanide, total
(l) Activated oludgo
naUablo,
67 oz
60
60
H
0
6ft
55
61
55
Z9
67,
50
. 66
59
plant• • trickling filter plant data not
tz
'1
90
74
60
86
54
83
71
(Z) Activated olud1e data bue . uead -trickUng filter data bated on
only throo plonto.
3, Influent Allovableo
· li .. city WTP C011plex d1t1 Cor 1986 vere tahul■t ■d and evaluated to
,'\ defin ■ an average flov rate of Zl,6 •llllon u1llon1 per day. Dlaa ■t.ar
influent lo 70,000 gallono per da7 and oludaa production avaraaH 8.5 dr7
ton1/d1y.• fho ■e fl1ure1 wot·o then u ■ed to dater,dna t.he allowable influent
loadina for Heh 11atol baud on the U11itationo crihrlo. The ten 7Hr,
cvHt 7-de7 nerane otrea■ fiov for the s. rhtta River lo 7,95 1111d, Thh
inforution h in the l1-C1t7 WTP C01111lex NrDES per•lt. Table ·v1.3 ohovo
the calculation• for theoe influent allovoble loading, for all . criteria,
Table v1 .. 4 ,u ... rlze1 the ■e lo1ding1.
4. Induotrial U■ita
Calculation of tha induotrhl dhcharge U ■it vu carried out b7
dater■ln ina tha non-controllable or fixed (do•Htic and c-rchl)
co■ponent of the influent loading and allocating tho r-ining allowable
*dry tone/day • vet tona/day x total oollda concentration · 1n dectul. 111'011188
UP 70 VI-5
TABLE VI-3
IHPLUEHT ALLOWABLE LOADINGS
Slud19 Dlppoul !Clan II Sludgol
. Equation, Influent Allowable //Doy Criteria llomovol to Sludgo
Q[UecAa Remova l lnUuent l!U!!!!•~l!
Cad11iwa
Cop11er
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
(111&/Kg)
70
1,650
2,500
650
3,325
(I /day)
1. 19
20,05
42 ,50
11.05
56.53
.tt2.1:111 Inhibition <Activntod SludC,o)
( 1,oluble Mtoll)
(Z to Sludge)
60
82
60
60 ·
06
'" ti I ti t Allowable -//Doy Criteria ..,.ui on I n uen z Re11oval to Proce11
CrAterA• Removal
(11g/l) (I /day) (Z to Proce11)
Aroenlc 0.1 10 100
Cadmium 1.0 180 100
Chr011lu111 (+6) 1.0 100 100
ChrOfflium (T) 10 ,0 1801 100
Coppe r 1,0 180 100
Leod 0, l 18 100
Mercury 0 ,1 18 100
Hickel 1.0 180 100
Zinc 0 ,08 180 100
Cyanide 0 .1 10 100
Silver 0 ,25 45 100
Picoat 0 r InhlJlition
Equation, Influent Allowablt.. • ~/~::tu~~~tt~1~lgeater
Ar ■enlc
Cadmium
Chro"'11111 (+6)
Chroalwa (+3)
Copper
LHd
Hickel
Zinc
Silver (Soluble)
Cyonlda
WP0lll88
UP 70
(T)
(mg/1)
1.6
zo
110
130
40
340
10
400
13
·4
Cdtodn Removal
(I /doy) (Z ~o Digeo tor)
0.9 45
11.7 68
64 ,2 68
7S .9 68
23 ,4 82
198 60
5 ,9 60
233 86
7 .6 66
2 , 3 59
VI -6
(I /doy)
1. 15
34 ,2
70,B
18,4
65. 7
Influent f!Uowabl!
( I/day)
18
180 ·
100
1801
180
18
18
180
180
18
45
InUuent l!U211ablo
(1/doy)
Z,l
17 ,2
94 ,4
111 ;6
28,5
330 .8
9 . 7
271.5
11 ,5
4 , 1
,----.
\.....,,
)later Quality (C)IDPS Criteria)
lquation, Influent Allowable •
Ar ■enic
Cad•iua
Chromium
Copper
L11d
Nickel
Zinc
Hercur7
Silver
i!,3'1(Crlterh(7010 + OPOT)lll • (lbackuoyndl (7010)))
I Raaoovol tu Effluent
~ 80!!mYfl1 lnflHnt AU!!!!!h&•
(,og/1) (I to lffluont) (I /day)
0.05 55 21.43
0.001 32 0.67
(+6) 0,025 33 18.67
0,025 10 32,16
0,025 40 15.32
0,1 40 52, 32
·0.11 l~ 187, 95
0,00005(1) 50 0 ,18
0,0001 34 0,05
Cyanide (free) 0,005 u 3,0
(1) Water '1U•lit7 criteria leaa t han cur;-ent concentration in S, Platte
River, liackgrollnd concentrat.i.on of 0.0005 mg/1 u ■ed 11 criteria.
IIP011188
HP 70
lollll[ Vl-4
N.lOIIAlllE LIWII NGS IINWY
(1/doy)
Cllil'S
Sllldge Procm (I) 0l1111tlon V.tor llaltlng
lUu!2l!.l .lmill!.l2!l .lm!!!lllM ~ !!:.l.l!r.!!
(Soluble) (Total)
Araenlc 18 Z,I Zl ,4 Z,I
Cldol,_ 1,15 100 11 ,l 0,61 0,61
Chiool,_ (t6) 100 94,4 10,/ 16,1 a,,...,,. (•3) 111.G 111,6
tlor•l,.(T) 1001 1001
Copper l-1,Z 100 20 ,5 JZ., 20,5
letd 10.0 ID JJO.0 15 .J 15 ,J
tt".i rcury 10 0,18 O,IB
ilchl 10 ,4 100 9,1· 51 ,J 9,1
Zlr.c: 65 ,1 100 m .5 100,0 65,1
Sllffl' 45 ' 11.5 0,05 0,18 (I)
Cy,nlde, l 18 4.1 4,1
C,anlde (Z)
(lree) J .0 3,0
(l) Nost 1lrtnoont waler qu11tty ■IIOlif■ble 11 1111 Uwin do•stlc ·
contribution blsed on both Ioctl dlt1 1nd El'A typlul dell, lhenfort,
lhell criteria are comldered not achlovllllo lhrough lndullrlal
llallailons, Allhooovh not currenlly reflected In CllJIIS porolt
dlschlrve 1111th , scauooz .n standa rd Is usod since IL Is not n
llrlnger.t II the OO'S 1llnd1rd .
(Zj free c,a•lde 11 c,anhll -111111 lo chlorl111llon ,
VI-7
loading to induatry on a concentration bub, A growth and vadabl.Uty
factor w•• •rplied to account fot· future lndu ■trlal growth and influent
fluctuetlon1 ■lnce all calculation ■ were baaed on 1ver ■g11 for 1986, An
lndu1trlal flow of 365,000 giKI wa ■ uaod hand on current Authod l y llata and
an application of a 2,5 variability factor, An avenge donutJ.c flow of
21,2 111&d vu alao uaed, EPA • typical do11e1tic concentration, were •,a Uzed
in determining the Jomeatic 11ortion of tho influent ollowablu, Table VI-5
·,how, the induatry mui10Um allowable concentration, calculated baud on the
limiting criteria,
TAIILE Vl-5
IIIJUSTRV N.lllllAIILE COIICENIRAIIONS
Industry Ooaesllc IOOustry Industry -Industry
/\llowoble (-) l.2!!!__(-) A,lowebJo (·) lli!!I (-8.34•) AIJowoblo
(1/dly) (1/dly) (1/dly) (l',l'l) (tQ/1)
Arsenic 2,1 0,5] 1.57 0.365 0,51
Codolia 0,67 0,5] 0,14 0,365 0,05 a,,.., ..
(•6)(1) 18.7 4.42 (J) 14,J 0,J65 4,70
Copp1r 28,5 10 .0 17.7 o.m 6.82
lead 15.J 8.fifi fi.M 0.365 2.18
ftercury 0.10 0,05 0.165 0,365 0.04
Nlchl 9.7 3.71 6.02 0,J65 2.0
line 6S .7 30.!J 34.0 0.J65 11 ,4
Sliver 0,IQ (4) 0,09 (5) O,O!J 0.J65 0,0J (2)
Cyonlde
(lroe)(I) l.O J.0 0.365 0.90
(I) ttost stringent 1l10W1ble ror 111 -.tiles or COlflOUnd c1rrlod through
calcul ■tlons.
(2) Soluble.
(3) lot1I chl'Olllm only dah 1val11ble, assmod •••-or 50 percinl CA • 6.
(4) SCCRIOOl..a crlleri, used tlnco cka,sllc exceeds Cll>PS criteria.
(5) Tolal :tlvor only dah1 avallablo, 111t-,d 10 i,ercent 1olublo,
.C
The C0Jniiu11, Chro1dua, Mercury, Nickel anJ Silver cnlculoted Industry Allowable
limits ore c01~eidered non-ochlevohlc, therefore, li,dte baaed on achievable
tre11t..,.nt t c:chnology will be op1,lied,
VPOlllBB
REP 70 VI-8
Table Vl-6 oh.,,;• Propoood lnduotd ■l Limlto and ■ co■1p■rioon of the■
with other U■it•. Theoa propoHd l iloito take into account th,
induotry ■Uow■bla, current 'Umiu, c•t•iorical otilnd1rd1, and srowth
potent ~al and d ■t■ Y■ri ■bilit r,
fl.II ( 1-li
PIIOl'OSED IIIIUSTRIM. llNITATIDIS
No,I_ DIiiy Aver19■ (11111/ll
(To\11 ltelall
-I Electropl1tl111J l'ropostd
..l!!.lL C1tegorlc11 _!.!!!!... J ~,t lli:~ ·-
Arsenic 0,25 0,5 Olgr.Ut~r ilfl l~h!C---11
Cadol• 0.05 1,2 1.2,r [qully o,! Cl ~."i,.ll"lcal
Chrool• (Tl 2,0 1,0 7.0 Equity., categorlcal
'-' 1,0 4.5 4.5 Econoalc equity (2l
Luci 0.25 0.6 2.0 Water Quallly (CIIJl'Sl
Mercury 0,025 0,1) Equity ., dr•Ul
c1tegorlca I
Nlctol 5.0 4,1 4,1 . Equity W/Clleao,lcol
Zinc 2,0 4,2(4l 11.0 Sludge dlgestlDft
511..,. 0.25 o.4c4l 0,4 Equity w/cateao,lctl
Cyanide, (Tl 1.0 1.2 1.2 Digester Inhibition
(I) Categorlnl used since soluble chr0111h11 Is appro•l•tely I IQ/I or less
II pll 6-9 ( Conln,I •nd lre11-,nt ror lho Hetal finishing Industry,
S..lfldo rretlpllatlon, UIEPA , 1900l .
(2) Since uh:ul1lad ll■lt wn loss strlnucnl than c1teoortc1I, tho r,roposed
llalt was lowered by approxlN loly 20 perccmt to Nlntaln econoalc
, "'lulty, thererore point or c11111ll1nco ,..,Ins ond or pipe.
(Jl S..llldo and flltor !ethnology, EPA 0.0111 Cotegorlcal R1tlonal1,
(4) Hetal flnlshlfllJ C1lCljorlc1I
All U,oito ■re propoood for the m■xirnum dolly average ■■ defined by !Pl
tha average of all 11mplo1 collectol.l during a 2"-hour period. Point .
c0111plhnca for Umit.o oat for. equity with categorical ot ■nd ■rdo will be
the IHKI location •• required by ·the ct1toaorical 1tandard. The point
VP011188
IIP 70 Vl-9
a .. plianco c ■n bo 1dju1t1d b7 application of tho 1pproprlot1 dilution
f ■ctor to 1dju1t the lillit to ba mat. A nu1nbar of c'01npound1 ■rt propo1ol
to be re110ved frot■ the Hot of 11,dtell 1ub1tence ■, The rational 'rc,r
deleting the11e compound ■ 11, 1) Thero h no evidance th ■t thou li alt ■
' were t1chnicall7 ju ■tified at the ti .. of their adoption, 2) There h r.n
evldonca that they currently ilnpact the traattnent plant or it ■ dudge or
ucelvlng water ■, and 3) any •ilver ■a affect ■ the ■e compound ■ 11lght have
on the tre1t11ont plant or it ■ ■ludge or receiving voter ■ will be covered in
the gene.nl and apeclfic prohibltion1 ■action ■ of the · Sawer u,a 0rdin1nc11
for Engl•vcod and Littleton , . Oil , greaae, pll, ond temperature ara
11,eciflcally covered in the gonerol nnd ■11eclflc prohihitlon1. 'l'heae
1ub1tanca1 aro 11 follow :,,,
Al111dn11111
Dadwa
Berylliua
Bioche11ical Oxygen Demand
Boron
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Chlorinated llydrocarbona
Chromium (+6)
Color
Conductivity
Cyanide . Amenable to Chlorination
Endrln
Ponnaldehyde
Fluoride ■
Iron ,
Linda1ie
Hangane ■e
Hethoxychlor
Nitrogen, Nitrate
, Nitrite
, KJoldohl
Oil , Grea1B
OrRanic Solvent,
PCB
pll
Phenol
Solenium
Solidi, Di11olved
, Tt'tll
Temperature
Toxaphena
Turbidity
2, 4-D
2, ~, 5-TPO
C
,.4-ITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD
r NASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Clly ol llllleton Clly ol Eng~WO<HI
2900 S. Plollt ni,ef ll<M> (30:l)712-2IIOO
Enoio-, C®fldo IIOl 10
'----"
October J, 1990
Ms. Dana B. Allen
u.s. Environaental Protection Agency
Region VIII, Water Management Division
One Denver Place, Suite 500
999 18th street
Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
Re: Local Limitations for Discharge
Dear Ms. Allen:
The final revJsion of local l imits and ths rationale was
submitted to your department for approval February, 1990. The 60
day EPA review period has passed . We have not received a written
approval from your department. llowever, in a telephone
conversation with Charles Caudill, August, 1990, you indicated
the submittal looked good and, at our discretion, we could
proceed with implementation.
we will proceed to have the limits approved by councils and
entered into the wastewater utility Ordinances.
Thank you for your help. If you have any questions concerning
this matter, please call me.
Sincerely,
' \ .·-) \J., ....... LU ,.;~:u s,..:.
Dennis w. Stowe
Manager
MEG/dl
cc: Rick DeWitt
Charlie Blosten
Larry Berkowitz