Exhibit F 6 summarizes projected effluent limits for the facility under different use classifications. Projected effluent limits for the current use ( A& I) only differ from current permit limits if data indicate that all applicable criteria are not reflected in the facility's permit. Only pollutants with reasonable potential and for which data indicate that a reduction in effluent concentrations is needed are shown. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 67 Exhibit F 6. Projected Effluent Limits, ACIPCO ( all values in µ g/ l unless otherwise noted)

Pollutant MEC1 Current Lim it Projected Effluent Limit2 A& I LWF F& W Total Copper3 654 1,330 8.8 8.8 8.8 Total Lead4 218 6,388 41 2.6 2.6 Total Zinc3 11,990 4,556 489 489 489 1Maximum effluent concentration. 2Projected A& I limit differs from current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current permit. 3The A& I, LWF, and F& W effluent limits are the same because they are all based on the acute criterion which has the limiting LTA. 4The A& I effluent limit is based on the acute criterion end of pipe because the receiving water concentration exceeds the acute criterion. The LWF and F& W effluent limits are based on the chronic criterion end of pipe because the receiving water concentration exceeds the chronic criterion. There is no human health criterion for lead.

Exhibit F 7. Required Effluent Reductions, ACIPCO ( pounds per year)

Pollutant Projected Pollutant Loading Reductions Current Permit1 A& I2 LWF F& W Total Copper 0 1,080 0 0 Total Lead 0 297 63.7 0 Total Zinc 12,450 6,810 0 0 1Reductions needed to meet current limit indicate noncompliance. 2Reductions needed to m eet A& I differ from reductions needed to meet current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current limit.

Controls Needed Copper: Existing copper discharges are in compliance with the current permit limit but are not in compliance with the projected A& I, LWF, or F& W limits. Chemical precipitation is needed to reduce copper to meet A& I limits. Removal efficiencies of up to 95% to 97% are reported for facilities using chemical precipitation to control copper ( RREL Treatability Database). Consequently, copper will be removed at levels that comply with the LWF and F& W limits.

Lead: Existing lead discharges are in compliance with the current permit limit but are not in compliance with the projected A& I, LWF, and F& W limits. Consequently, pollution controls need to be added to meet the projected limits. Chemical precipitation installed to remove copper will incidentally reduce lead to the required A& I, LWF, and F& W levels.

Zinc: The existing discharge is not in compliance with either current permit limits or projected A& I limits. Chemical precipitation is needed to reduce zinc to the A& I limits. Removal Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 68 efficiencies of up to 90% were reported for facilities using chemical precipitation to control zinc ( RREL Treatability Database). Consequently, zinc will be also removed at levels that comply with the LWF and F& W limits.

Stormwater: Village Creek exceeds the acute criterion for zinc. ACIPCO also has a reporting requirement for zinc in its stormwater discharge. Therefore, a stormwater BMP ( detention basin) is needed at this facility to meet the A& I criterion.

Exhibit F 8. Annual Cost of Required Effluent Reductions, ACIPCO ( Millions of Year 2001 dollars)

Control ( pollutant Total Capital Annualized Capital1 O& M Total Annual Cost Chemical Precipitation 1.1 0.104 0.14 0.24 Stormwater BMP 0.31 0.29   0.29 TOTAL 1.1 0.104 0.14 0.24 1Annualized at 7% over 20 years. "" indicates not applicable. One time capital cost annualized. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 69 Ashland Chemicals Description Ashland Chemical Company ( NPDES permit number AL0021695) is a wholesale distributor of chemicals and petrochemicals. Located in Birmingham, Alabama, Ashland Chemicals has three permitted outfalls to Village Creek. In the facility's 1999 permit, limits for outfall DSN002 ( facility storm water runoff), DSN002a ( storm water runoff from secondary containment area drainage), and DSN003 ( treated groundwater from groundwater remediation activities) are based on either the more stringent of human health or water quality criteria and on best professional judgment. Flows ( in cfs) in Village Creek are as follows: average: 47.07, harmonic mean: 21, 1Q10: 6.3, 7Q10: 7, 7Q2: 7.14.

Existing Treatment Processes Information from U. S. EPA Region 4 indicates that the facility has stormwater controls. Water is stored in dyked areas and then released. There is no end of pipe treatment.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 9 summarizes effluent monitoring data from January 2000 through April 2001 for outfall DSN002a for pollutants with existing limits ( outfall DSN002 does not have numeric limits for toxics).

Exhibit F 9. Compliance Summary, Ashland Chemicals Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( µ g/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean BETX 11 0     200 Yes 1,1,2 Trichloroethane 22 0     420 Yes 1,1,1 Trichloroethane 0 0     5,280   Dichloromethane 11 0     13 Yes 1Detected values only ( `   ` indicates not applicable).

There are no data indicating that a reduction in effluent concentrations is needed for this facility. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 70 Avondale Mills   Eva Jane Plant Description Avondale Mills, Inc. operates textile mills which produce cotton and synthetic yarns and fabrics throughout the southern United States. Avondale Mills Eva Jane Plant ( NPDES permit number AL0001627), located in Sylacauga, Alabama, is a 2.0 mgd yarn preparation, dyeing, and weaving facility that discharges to Shirtee Creek. The facility has 13 permitted outfalls. In the facility's 1991 permit, limits for outfalls DSN001 ( process wastewater and cooling tower blowdown) and DSN002 are based on limits from the facility's previous permit. The limits have been modified for some pollutants as requested by the permittee or where otherwise deemed appropriate. Limits for outfalls DSN009 and DSN011 ( intermittent discharges from steam traps) are based on water quality requirements and ADEM Administrative Code Division 6, Volume 1. Limits for outfalls DSN013   DSN021 ( storm water associated with the manufacture of textile products and storm water from the landfill) " have been demonstrated through experience by the Department to be best conventional technology." Flows ( in cfs) in Shirtee Creek are as follows: average: 42.3, harmonic mean: 18.9, 1Q10: 5.66, 7Q10: 6.29, 7Q2: 6.41.

Existing Treatment Processes There is no information on existing treatment processes at this plant.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 10 summarizes of effluent monitoring data collected from January 1998 through May 2001 for outfall DSN001 for pollutants with existing limits.

Exhibit F 10. Compliance Summary, Avondale Mills   Eva Jane Plant Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( µ g/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean Ammonia nitrogen ( mg/ l) 40 37 2.5 0.92     Phenols 3 3 240 155 444 Yes Total Recoverable Copper         87   Total Recoverable Lead         420   Total Recoverable Zinc         635   1Detected values only ( `   ` indicates no data or limit).

The pollutants for which effluent data exists comply with existing limits. The facility does not have an existing limit for ammonia but its discharge levels comply with the projected WLA ( see Appendix D). The facility's data do not contain effluent monitoring data for copper, lead or zinc discharges to Shirtee Creek. Based on this information, EPA estimate that no additional controls would be needed at this facility. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 71 Birmingham Steel Corporation Description Birmingham Steel ( NPDES permit number AL0003735) is the steel division of Birmingham Steel Corporation in Alabama. The facility manufactures reinforcing bars ( used in concrete construction), rounds ( used in bolt manufacturing and equipment production) and squares ( used in stair railings and railroad spikes). Birmingham Steel is a 0.72 mgd facility located in Birmingham, Alabama. The facility's 1997 permit names Village Creek as the receiving waters for the facility's two permitted outfalls. However, more recent information from U. S. EPA Region 4 indicates that Birmingham Steel has no discharge. Based on this information and the unavailability of discharge data, EPA did not conduct additional analysis for this facility. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 72 Earl Ham WWTP Description The J. Earl Ham Wastewater Treatment Plant ( NPDES permit number AL0020001), located in Sylacauga, Alabama, is a 2.4 mgd facility that discharges to Shirtee Creek. A July 20, 2001 ADEM State Affirmation of Environmental Findings indicates that the City of Sylacauga plans to increase the capacity of the Earl Ham facility. The facility currently has one permitted outfall. In the fact sheet for the facility's 1998 permit, limits for outfall 001 are based on the previous permit, Federal effluent guidelines [ 40 CFR 133.102( b)( 1) / 40 CFR 133.102( c)], and ADEM's Disinfection Toxicity Strategy. Flows ( in cfs) in Shirtee Creek are as follows: average: 42.26, harmonic mean: 18.87, 1Q10: 5.66, 7Q10: 6.29, 7Q2: 6.42.

Existing Treatment Processes Information from the fact sheet for the facility's 1998 permit indicates that Earl Ham WWTP's existing treatment processes include mechanical bar screen, aerated grit chamber, extended aeration basins, final clarifications, effluent disinfection ( chlorination) and dechlorination, post aeration, waste sludge thickening, sludge drying beds, sludge belt press, and land application of dewatered sludge.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 11 summarizes effluent monitoring from June 1998 through June 2000 for outfall 001 for toxic pollutants which have reasonable potential. The facility's permit does not contain numeric limits or monitoring requirements for toxics other than ammonia. However, 12 toxic pollutants are reported in DMR reports provided by U. S. EPA Region 4.

Exhibit F 11. Compliance Summary, Earl Ham WWTP Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( mg/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean Fecal Coliform             Ammonia 7 7 0.50 0.21 10.0 Yes 1Detected values only ( `   ` indicates no data or limit).

Controls Needed Fecal Coliform: There is no existing limit or effluent data available for fecal coliform at Lower and Upper Earl Hamm WWTP. However Shirtee Creek exceeds the F& W criterion for fecal coliform. Since the wastewater treatment plant is the only potential fecal coliform source, optimization of the plant's existing chlorination process will reduce the fecal coliform levels. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 73 Exhibit F 12. Annual Cost of Required Effluent Reductions, Earl Ham WWTP ( Millions of Year 2001dollars)

Control ( pollutant) Total Capital Annualized Capital1 O& M Total Annual Cost Chlorination Optimization 0.78 0.074   0.074 TOTAL 0.78 0.074   0.074 1Annualized at 7% over 20 years. `   ` indicates not applicable ( only a one time capital cost applies). Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 74 Five Mile Creek WWTP Description Jefferson County Five Mile Creek WWTP ( NPDES permit number AL0026913), located in Fultondale, Alabama, is a 20 mgd facility that discharges to Five Mile Creek. The facility has 5 permitted outfalls; DSN001 is the treated wastewater outfall and DSN002 005 are storm water outfalls with no effluent limits. In the fact sheet for the facility's 1999 draft permit, limits for outfall DSN001 are based on Federal effluent guidelines [ 40 CFR 133.102], a waste load allocation model, and ADEM's Disinfection Strategy Toxicity Strategy. Limits for outfalls DSN002 005 are based on best professional judgment. Flows ( in cfs) in Five Mile Creek are as follows: average: 31.9, harmonic mean: 14.25, 1Q10: 3.56, 7Q10: 4.75, 7Q2: 4.85.

Existing Treatment Processes Information from the Fact Sheet for the facility's 1999 draft permit indicates that the facility's treatment processes comprise bar screen, grit removal, grease removal, primary sedimentation, activated sludge, final clarification, chlorination, and dechlorination. Sludge is treated by an aerobic digester then pumped to a sludge lagoon or drying beds. Dried biosolids are land applied for reclamation purposes.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 13 summarizes the last 3 years ( approximately) of effluent monitoring for outfall DSN001 for pollutants with existing limits.

Exhibit F 13. Compliance Summary, Five Mile Creek WWTP Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( mg/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean Fecal Coliform             Ammonia nitrogen ( mg/ l) 39 39 .2 .1 2 Yes 1Detected values only ( `   ` indicates no dat or no limit).

Controls Needed Fecal Coliform: There is no existing limit or effluent data available for fecal coliform at Five Mile Creek WWTP. However Five Mile Creek exceeds the F& W criterion for fecal coliform. Since the wastewater treatment plant is the only potential fecal coliform source, optimization of the plant's existing chlorination process will reduce the fecal coliform levels. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 75 Mercury: The human health criterion for mercury is exceeded in Five Mile Creek. Although there are no discharge data indicating that this facility discharges mercury, mercury is a common pollutant in POTW effluents. Therefore, a waste minimization program for mercury should be implemented to meet the F& W criterion.

Exhibit F 14. Annual Cost of Required Effluent Reductions, Five Mile Creek WWTP ( Millions of Year 2001dollars)

Control ( pollutant) Total Capital Annualized Capital1 O& M Total Annual Cost Chlorination Optimization 0.25 0.02   0.02 Waste Minimization 0.49 0.05   0.05 TOTAL 0.74 0.07   0.07 1Annualized at 7% over 20 years. `   ` indicates not applicable ( only a one time capital cost applies). Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 76 Honeywell International Description Honeywell International, Inc., manufactures coal tar distillates. Honeywell ( NPDES permit number AL0002097), located in Birmingham, Alabama, is a 0.034 mgd facility that discharges to Village Creek. The facility has one permitted outfall. In the facility's 2000 permit, limits for outfall DSN001 ( treated process wastewater, steam condensate, boiler blowdown, treated storm water, contaminated remediation groundwater, and off site coal tar wastewaters) are based on the more stringent of Federal effluent guidelines [ 40 CFR 414.71 BPT / 40 CFR 414.73( b) / 40 CFR 414.91], human health criteria, or water quality criteria. Flows ( in cfs) in Five Mile Creek are as follows: average: 9.61, harmonic mean: 4.29, 1Q10: 2.29, 7Q10: 1.43, 7Q2: 1.46.

Existing Treatment Processes Information from U. S. EPA Region 4 indicates that the facility's treatment processes consist of activated sludge in a converted above ground tank with clarification and filter press for sludge and an activated carbon unit after clarification.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 15 summarizes effluent monitoring data from December 1996 through December 2000 for outfall DSN001. The facility's 2000 permit includes numeric limits and monitoring requirements for 63 pollutants at this discharge point. Only those with reasonable potential are shown in the following tables.

Exhibit F 15. Compliance Summary, Honeywell International Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations ( µ g/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean Ammonia  mg/ L 36 36 21.3 4.5 46.9 Yes 1,1,2 Trichloroethane 4 3 35,000 11,700 21 No 1,2 Dichloropropane 3 2 4.6 4.0 150 Yes Acrylonitrile 3 2 32 22 96 Yes Benzo( a) anthracene 4 3 62 28 22 No Benzo( a) pyrene 3 2 13 10 23 Yes Benzo( k) fluoranthene 4 3 62 28 22 No Chrysene 4 3 57 26 22 No Copper, Total 4 3 60 49 Monitor   Cyanide, Total 3 2 36 34 420 Yes Lead, Total 3 2 5.3 4.4 None

Zinc, Total 4 3 179 133 None  Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 77 Naphthalene is also limited at outfall DSN001, but because there are no Alabama criteria for napthalene, there would be no change associated with a change in use.

Exhibit F 16 summarizes projected effluent limits for the facility under different use classifications. Projected effluent limits for the current use ( A& I) only differ from current permit limits if data indicate that all applicable criteria are not reflected in the facility's permit. Only pollutants for which a reduction in effluent concentrations is needed ( Exhibit F 17) are shown.

Exhibit F 16. Projected Effluent Limits, Honeywell International ( all values in µ g/ l unless otherwise noted)

Pollutant MEC1 Current Lim it Projected Effluent Limit2 A& I LWF F& W Benzo( a) anthracene 62 22 0.067 0.067 0.067 Benzo( a) pyrene 13 23 0.067 0.067 0.067 Benzo( k) fluoranthene 62 22 0.067 0.067 0.067 Chrysene 57 22 0.067 0.067 0.067 Copper, Total 60 None 243 205 205 Cyanide, Total 36 420 205 4.2 4.2 Lead, Total 5.3 None 1844 5.15 5.15 Zinc, Total 179 None 92 92 92 1Maximum effluent concentration. 2Projected A& I limit differs from current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current permit.

Exhibit F 17. Required Effluent Reductions, Honeywell International ( pounds per year)

Pollutant Projected Pollutant Loading Reductions Current Permit1 A& I2 LWF F& W Benzo( a) anthracene 4.2 2.27 0 0 Benzo( a) pyrene 0 1.33 0 0 Benzo( k) fluoranthene 4.2 2.27 0 0 Chrysene 3.61 2.27 0 0 Copper, Total   0 0 0 Cyanide, Total 0 0 3.32 0 Lead, Total   0 0.016 0 Zinc, Total  9.0 0 0 1Reductions needed to meed current limit indicate noncompliance. 2Reductions needed to m eet A& I differ from reductions needed to meet current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current limit. If no reduction is needed to meet current limit, reduction to meet estimated limit is from MEC. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 78 Exhibit F 17 shows that pollution controls need to be installed to control PAHs, copper, cyanide and lead. The existing data are limited in that no more than four observations exist for any pollutant. Information on the facility indicates that the existing treatment train, consisting of activated sludge, clarification and a GAC unit, should be able to remove the pollutants to A& I levels. Therefore, process optimization of the existing GAC unit is needed ( Exhibit F 18).

Cyanide concentrations meet the existing limit and the estimated A& I limit but would not comply with LWF and F& W limits. The optimization of the GAC unit will incidentally remove cyanide to required LWF and F& W levels. Consequently, the cost of compliance is associated with meeting projected A& I limits.

Zinc does not comply with the projected A& I, LWF, and F& W limits. The existing treatment train consists of activated sludge. EPA's RREL Treatability database indicates that activated sludge can achieve remove up to 90% of influent zinc. Therefore optimization of the activated sludge process is needed to comply with the A& I limits. The LWF and F& W limits will also be met since they are the same as the A& I limits.

Exhibit F 18. Annual Cost of Required Effluent Reductions, Honeywell International ( Millions of Year 2001dollars)

Control ( pollutant) Total Capital Annualized Capital1 O& M Total Annual Cost GAC Process Optimization2 0.06 0.0057   0.0057 Activated Sludge Process Optimization 0.13 0.012  0.012 TOTAL 0.19 0.018   0.018 1Annualized at 7% over 20 years. 2Costs attributed to compliance with current permit limit and not proposed rule. `   ` indicates not applicable ( only a one time capital cost applies). Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 79 Koppers Industries   Woodward Coke Plant Description Koppers Industries Woodward Coke Plant ( NPDES permit number AL0000680), a division of Koppers Industries, is involved in the carbonization of coal to produce coke and coal by products. Average daily production is 2,000 tons/ day. The facility has two permitted outfalls to Opossum Creek in Woodward, Alabama: outfall DSN001 ( 0.2 mgd) for treated process wastewater, cooling tower blowdown, and storm water, and outfall DSN002 ( 0.16 mgd) for noncontact cooling water, cooling tower blowdown, boiler blowdown, and storm water runoff. Receiving water flows are as follows: average: 118 cfs; harmonic mean: 52.5; 7Q2: 17.9; 7Q10: 17.5; 1Q10: 15.8.

Existing Treatment Processes The facility's 1994 permit application indicates that, for process wastewater discharged at outfall DSN001, it uses ammonia stripping, sand filtration, neutralization, activated sludge, and reuses and recycles as appropriate. Coal and coke are stored on the ground in piles, and all runoff is directed to a collection pond. The application indicates that the facility uses evaporation, sedimentation, neutralization, and reuse and recycle as appropriate for outfall DSN002.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 19 summarizes effluent monitoring data from 1996 through 1998 for outfall DSN001 for pollutants with existing limits.

Exhibit F 19. Compliance Summary, Koppers Ind.   Woodward Coke Plant Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( µ g/ l unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Limit? Total Detect Maximum Mean Ammonia   mg/ l 20 20 86 23.5 35 No Benzene 10 10 57 7.2 80 Yes Benzo( a) pyrene 10 10 83 18 23 No1 Cyanide 27 27 34,000 8,100 9,100 No Phenols 27 27 62,000 3,600 80 No 1Three observations were above limit   no reasonable potential.

Naphthalene is also limited at outfall 001, but because there are no Alabama criteria for napthalene, there would be no change associated with a change in use.

Exhibit F 20 summarizes the projected effluent limits for the facility. Projected effluent limits for the current use ( A& I) only differ from current permit limits if data indicate that all applicable Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 80 criteria are not reflected in the facility's permit. Only pollutants with reasonable potential and for which data indicate that a reduction in effluent concentrations is needed are shown.

Exhibit F 20. Projected Effluent Limits, Koppers Ind.   Woodward Coke Plant ( all values in µ g/ l unless otherwise noted)

Pollutant MEC1 Current Lim it Projected Effluent Limit2 A& I LWF F& W Ammonia  mg/ L 86 35 376 34.8 34.8 Total Cyanide 34,000 9,100 445 58 57 1Maximum effluent concentration. 2Projected A& I limit differs from current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current permit.

Exhibit F 21. Required Effluent Reductions, Koppers Ind.   Woodward Coke Plant ( pounds per)

Pollutant Projected Pollutant Loading Reductions Current Permit1 A& I LWF F& W Ammonia 36,600 0 144 0 Total Cyanide 16,000 5,500 250 0.6 1Reductions needed to meet current limit indicate noncompliance. 2Reductions needed to meet A& I differ from reductions needed to meet current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current limit.

Controls Needed Ammonia Nitrogen: Koppers Coke does not meet its existing limit and its LWF limit for ammonia. The required reduction is 30%. No additional reduction is required to meet an F& W standard. The addition of a chemical oxidation unit is sufficient to meet the existing limits and projected water quality based limits ( see Appendix C).

Cyanide: There are 27 cyanide observations for the discharge. Nine of these 27 observations do not comply with the existing limit and range from 9,900 µ g/ l to 34,000 µ g/ l. The facility is not in compliance with limits based on A& I. A chemical oxidation unit would allow the facility to comply with A& I limits ( as well as LWF and F& W limits). Consequently, the cost associated with the chemical oxidation unit is attributable to complying with projected A& I limits.

Exhibit F 22. Annual Cost of Required Effluent Reductions, Koppers Ind.   Woodward Coke Plant ( Millions of Year 2001 Dollars)

Control ( pollutant) Total Capital Annualized Capital1 O& M Total Annual Cost Chemical Oxidation2 2.9 0.26 2.2 2.46 TOTAL 2.9 0.26 2.2 2.46 1Annualized at 7% over 20 years. 2Costs are attributed to compliance with current permit and not to proposed rule. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 81 Koppers Industries, Woodward Tar Plant Description The Woodward Tar Plant, part of Koppers Industries Carbon Materials and Chemicals Division, specializes in carbon pitch, coal tar distillates, industrial wood preservatives, and refined tars. Woodward Tar Plant ( NPDES permit number AL0003221), located in Dolomite, Alabama, is a 0.044 mgd facility that discharges to Opossum Creek. The facility has two permitted outfalls. In the facility's 1996 permit, limits for outfall DSN001 ( uncontaminated storm water and DSN001A) are based on a 1992 ADEM Waste Load Allocation Study. Limits for outfall DSN001A ( treated process and sanitary wastewater and storm water) are based on OCPSF guidelines [ 40 CFR 414.71/ 40 CFR 414.91]. Flows ( in cfs) in Opossum Creek are as follows: average: 117.02, harmonic mean: 52.2, 1Q10: 15.66, 7Q10: 17.4, 7Q2: 17.8.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 23 summarizes effluent monitoring data from January 1996 through February 2001. The limits and effluent concentrations shown reflect end of pipe limits and calculated effluent concentrations for the external outfall based on limits and data from both the internal and external outfalls. The facility's 1996 permit includes numeric limits for 63 pollutants. Only pollutants with reasonable potential are shown in the following tables.

Exhibit F 23. Compliance Summary, Koppers Ind.   Woodward Tar Plant Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( µ g/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean Ammonia  mg/ L 27 23 12.6 1.9 20 Yes Benzo( k) fluoranthene 5 4 152 4.9 4.6 Yes Total Lead 3 2 8.2 5.3 None   Total Cyanide 62 60 1503 49 172 Yes 1Detected values only ( `   ` indicates not applicable). 2Outlier; rest of observations below limt. 3One outlier removed Exhibit F 24 summarizes projected effluent limits for the facility under different use classifications. Projected effluent limits for the current use ( A& I) only differ from current permit limits if data indicate that all applicable criteria are not reflected in the facility's permit.

The facility complies with existing limits and projected limits are all less stringent than existing limits. Consequently, there are no additional pollution controls needed. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 82 Exhibit F 24. Projected Effluent Limits, Koppers Ind.   Woodward Tar Plant ( all values in µ g/ l unless otherwise noted)

Pollutant MEC1 Current Limit Projected Effluent Limit A& I LWF F& W Benzo( k) fluoranthene 15 4.6 116 116 116 Total Lead 2.5 None 4808 2.6 2.6 Total Cyanide 150 172 2072 260 255 1Maximum effluent concentration. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 83 Miller Steam Description The James H. Miller, Jr. Electric Generating plant is a coal fueled power plant owned by Alabama Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company. Miller Steam has four generating units that provide a total generating capacity of 2,640,000 KW. Miller Steam ( NPDES permit number AL0027146), located in Quinton, Alabama, is a 11.42 mgd facility that discharges to Village Creek and the Locust Fork of the Black Warrior River. The two permitted discharges to Village Creek, outfalls DSN008 and DSN009 are discharges from stormwater retention ponds. There are no numeric limits or monitoring requirements associated with these discharges. The facility's DMR data do not contain effluent monitoring data for either of the discharges to Village Creek. Based on this information, EPA did not conduct additional analysis for this facility. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 84 Sloss Industries Description Information from an EPA/ ADEM joint Performance Audit Inspection indicates that Sloss Industries Coke Division ( NPDES permit number AL0003247, 2000 Draft Permit) produces coke for both blast furnaces and foundries, sulphonic acid, and slag wool. The 3.22 mgd facility is located in Birmingham, Alabama, and discharges process wastewater and storm water to Five Mile Creek. The facility has two additional storm water outfalls ( one to Five Mile Creek and one to Village Creek).

Information in the facility's permit fact sheet indicates that limits for outfall DSN001 ( treated process wastewater and sanitary wastewaters, non contact cooling water, boiler blowdown and storm water runoff) are based on effluent guidelines and water quality. This outfall includes effluent from internal outfalls DSN001A ( treated wastewater from metal molding and casting operations) and DSN001B ( treated wastewater from coke plant, chemical plant and pilot plant, and Arachem wastewater). The fact sheet indicates that limits for outfall DSN001A are based on effluent guidelines for the metal molding casting industry [ 40 CFR 464]. Limits for outfall DSN001B are based on the more stringent of Federal effluent guidelines [ 40 CFR 420.13( b) / 40 CFR 440.414] or water quality requirements. Flows ( in cfs) in Five Mile Creek at the location of these outfalls are as follows: average: 43.71, harmonic mean: 19.5, 1Q10: 5.85, 7Q10: 6.5, 7Q2: 6.63.

Existing Treatment Processes According to the Performance Audit Inspection, which was performed on August 29, 2000, Sloss Industries' process wastewater is treated in a 1.1 mgd activated sludge treatment plant consisting of two equalization tanks, three neutralization tanks, one primary clarifier, two aeration basins, one secondary clarifier, and one settling lagoon.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 25 summarizes of effluent monitoring from June 1998 through June 2001 for toxics at outfall DSN001. The facility's 2000 draft permit includes numeric limits for 76 pollutants for outfall DSN001 and its associated internal outfalls. Only those pollutants with reasonable potential are shown in Exhibit F 25. The limits reported for outfall DSN001 include actual permit limits where they exist for DSN001 and calculated limits based on permit limits for internal outfalls DSN001A and DSN001B.

Exhibit F 26 summarizes projected effluent limits for the facility under different use classifications. Projected effluent limits for the current use ( A& I) only differ from current permit limits if data indicate that all applicable criteria are not reflected in the facility's permit. Only pollutants for which data indicate that a reduction in effluent concentrations is needed are shown in Exhibit F 27. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 85 Exhibit F 25. Compliance Summary, Sloss Industries Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( µ g/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean Ammonia  mg/ L 28 28 10.9 1.54 1.86 No Benzo( A) Anthracene 1 1 9.5   1.2* No Benzo( A) Pyrene 1 1 13   1.3* No Benzo( B) Fluoranthene 1 1 13   1.3* No Benzo( K) Fluoranthene 1 1 5.3   1.2* No Chrysene 1 1 10   1.2* No Total Copper 10 10 24 10 82* Yes Total Cyanide 4 4 191 152 454* Yes Total Lead 34 34 25 6.2 23* No Total Zinc 35 35 421 66 65* No 1Detected values only ("   " indicates not applicable). 2About 15% of the maximum reported concentrations exceed the maximum daily limit for ammonia. * Calculated based on internal BAT limits.

Exhibit F 26. Projected Effluent Limits, Sloss Industries ( all values in µ g/ l unless otherwise noted)

Pollutant MEC1 Current Lim it Projected Effluent Limit2 A& I LWF F& W Ammonia  mg/ L 10.9 1.86 17.6 1.89 1.89 Benzo( a) Anthracene 9.5 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 Benzo( a) Pyrene 13 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 Benzo( b) Fluoranthene 13 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 Benzo( k) Fluoranthene 5.3 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 Chrysene 10 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 Total Copper 24 82 8.84 8.84 8.84 Total Cyanide 191 454 12 4.2 4.2 Total Lead 25 23 23 2.6 2.3 1Maximum effluent concentration. 2Projected A& I limit differs from current limit if data indicate all applicable criterion are not reflected in current permit. 3These pollutants are polyaromatic hydrocarbons ( PAHs) and are grouped together for compliance and cost analysis. 4The copper limit for Sloss is based on the Acute criteria, so it is the same for all cases. Although the chronic criterion is lower than the acute criterion, once you calculate a WLA and a LTA, the acute LTA is the lowest. There is no HH criteria for copper. The 7Q2 vs 7Q 10 flow does not affect the limit since the chronic criterion is not the basis of the limit. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 86 Exhibit F 27. Required Effluent Reductions, Sloss Industries ( pounds per year)

Pollutant Reduction to Meet Current Permit1 Projected Pollutant Loading Reductions A& I2 LWF F& W Ammonia 88,6003 0 0 0 Benzo( a) Anthracene 81.3 5.28 0 0 Benzo( a) Pyrene 111 5.80 0 0 Benzo( b) Fluoranthene 111 5.80 0 0 Benzo( k) Fluoranthene 40.4 5.28 0 0 Chrysene 89.4 5.28 0 0 Total Copper 0 147 0 0 Total Cyanide 0 1,753 77.1 0 Total Lead 25.1 0 197.3 0 1Reductions needed to meet current limit indicate noncompliance. 2Reductions needed to m eet A& I differ from reductions needed to meet current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current limit. 3The current permit limit is more stringent than the projected A& I, LWF, and F& W limits.

Controls Needed Ammonia Nitrogen: Sloss does not meet its existing limit for ammonia. However, the MEC is in compliance with the projected A& I limit. A reduction of 47% is to meet LWF or F& W use. The addition of a chemical oxidation unit is sufficient to meet the projected LWF and F& W limits ( see below for PAHs). Chemical oxidation will also enable the facility to achieve their existing permit limit.

PAHs: All observed values for PAHs exceed the existing limit of 0.8 µ g/ l. The A& I, LWF, and F& W limits are the same and estimated at 0.5 µ g/ l. Consequently, a chemical oxidation unit for the reduction of PAHs is needed. The required removal varies from 80% to 99% depending on the limit. The cost associated with removal of PAHs is attributable to the A& I standard. Since the A& I, LWF, and F& W limits are the same, there are no costs associated with LWF and F& W uses.

Cyanide: The facility is not in compliance with estimated A& I limits. A reduction of 90% is required to meet the A& I limit of 11.7 µ g/ l. The LWF and F& W limits are the same and estimated at 4.2 µ g/ l. Consequently, compliance with the A& I limit will allow compliance with the LWF and F& W limits. Chemical oxidation is needed to treat the internal discharge 001a and 001b with a flow of 0.46 MGD.

Copper: Sloss Industries is in compliance with the current limit. However, it is not in compliance with the A& I limit. The estimated reduction for copper is about 60%. Chemical precipitation will reduce copper to A& I levels as well as the LWF and F& W limits. The chemical precipitation will treat the internal discharge 001a and 001b with a flow of 0.46 MGD. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 87 Lead: Based on the observed discharge data, the facility is in compliance with existing limits ( 1 out of the 34 observations exceed the existing limit) and with the A& I limit. However, it is not in compliance with the LWF and F& W limits for lead. Chemical precipitation is required to remove copper to meet A& I limits; it will also remove the excess lead. Consequently, the cost of removing lead to the LWF and F& W limits is associated with the A& I limits.

Stormwater: Village Creek exceeds the acute criterion for zinc. ACIPCO also has a reporting requirement for zinc in its stormwater discharge. Therefore, a stormwater BMP ( detention basin) is needed at this facility to meet the A& I criterion.

Exhibit F 28. Annual Cost of Required Effluent Reductions, Sloss Industries ( Millions of Year 2001 Dollars)

Control ( pollutant) Total Capital Annualized Capital1 O& M Total Annual Cost Chemical Oxidation 6.0 0.54 1.8 2.34 Chemical Precipitation 0.7 0.063 0.16 0.223 Stormwater BMP ( zinc) 0.31 0.029   0.029 TOTAL 7.01 0.63 2.96 2.59 1 Annualized at 7% over 20 years. `   ` indicates not applicable ( only a one time capital cost applies).

Note that the permit writer based his/ her BAT limit calculations on internal flows that do not agree with reported flow in PCS. The PCS flows are on the average between two and three times higher. EPA based its analysis on the average flow from PCS that agrees with the process flow diagram presented in the application ( 1998 permit renewal Fact Sheet). Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 88 SMI Steel Description SMI Steel is a division of CMC Steel Group, which manufactures angles, flats, channels, and beams. SMI Steel, Inc. ( NPDES permit number AL0001554), located in Birmingham, Alabama is a 7.3 MGD, Iron and Steel category facility with continuous casting and hot forming operations. The facility discharges to Village Creek and has two permitted outfalls. According to the ADEM Permit Rationale for the facility's 1993 permit, limits for outfall DSN001 ( treated process wastewater) and DSN002 ( non contact cooling water) are based on Federal effluent guidelines [ 40 CFR 420.62/ 420.63/ 420.72]. Additional mass discharge allowances were determined based on the development document for the Hot Forming subcategory ( P. B. 82 240458, Table X 1). Flows ( in cfs) in Village Creek are as follows: average: 47.04, harmonic mean: 21, 1Q10: 6.3, 7Q10: 7, 7Q2: 7.14.

Existing Treatment Processes Information from U. S. EPA Region 4 indicates that the facility has an oil and water separator and final settling tanks.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 29 summarizes effluent monitoring data from May 2000 through March 2001 for outfall DSN001 for pollutants with existing limits.

Exhibit F 29. Compliance Summary, SMI Steel Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( µ g/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean Total Lead2 23 7 2.13 1.9 5.1 Yes Total Zinc 23 12 18 5 19 Yes 1Detected values only. 2Only one of eight detected values ( out of 30 observations) exceeded the limit. 3One outlier removed.

SMI Steel is in compliance for lead and zinc for all current and projected limits. Of 23 lead observations, 16 are below the detection level. The MEC, 7.97 µ g/ l, can be considered an outlier since all other detected values range from 0.28 to 2.07 µ g/ l. Consequently, there are no additional pollution controls needed at this facility. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 89 Exhibit F 30. Schematic Diagram of Process Wastewater and Storm Water Outfalls, USX   Fairfield Works U. S. Steel   Fairfield Works Description A subsidiary of U. S. Steel ( USX), Fairfield Works manufactures high quality hot roll, cold roll, GALVALUME ® and galvanized coils. USX   Fairfield Works ( NPDES permit number AL0003646) is located in Fairfield, Alabama and discharges process wastewater to Opossum Creek. Some storm water is discharged to Little Creek, a tributary of Opossum Creek, but the permit does not specify which storm water outfalls discharge to which stream. The facility's design flow, as reported in the 1996 fact sheet, is 11 MGD. Actual measured flow at the external outfall for process wastewater, as reported in the facility's DMRs, is 19.62 MGD. Calculated endof pipe limits and pollutant concentrations are based on observed flows from the facility's DMRs.

The facility has 13 permitted outfalls ( Exhibit E 30). Outfalls DSN017, DSN018, DSN022, DSN024, and DSN025 are storm water and noncontact cooling water outfalls to Opossum Creek and Little Creek. Outfall DSN026 ( process wastewater and storm water) is an external process wastewater and storm water outfall to Opossum Creek. Outfall DSN026 includes internal outfalls DSN013 ( Dolomite System outfall) and DSN023. Outfall DSN013 includes four internal outfalls: DSN011A, DSN012A, DSN014A, and DSN016A. Outfall DSN023 includes storm water and outfall DSN010A. In the 1996 ADEM Permit Rationale for the facility's 1996 permit modification, limits for outfall DSN026 are based on the 1996 Seasonal Waste Load Allocation for the USX WWTP Discharge to Opossum Creek Near Fairfield. Flows ( in cfs) in Opossum Creek are as follows: average: 2.42, harmonic mean: 1.08, 1Q10: 0.32, 7Q10: 0.36, 7Q2: 0.37.

Existing Treatment Processes Information from U. S. EPA Region 4 indicates that USX   Fairfield Works is currently operating a biological treatment process. Most process wastewater is treated by several internal plant processes using oil/ water separators with alkaline precipitation for metals followed by acid pH adjustment. Water is recycled from the Dolomite pond, which receives treated wastewater from various plant processes. This results in a significant reduction of water consumption. In anticipation of the change in use classification for Opossum Creek, the facility is preparing to upgrade its treatment processes. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 90 Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 31 summarizes effluent monitoring for outfall DSN026 from January 1996 through March 2001 for pollutants with calculated limits.

Exhibit F 31. Compliance Summary, USX   Fairfield Works Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( µ g/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean BOD   mg/ l 18 18 6.5 3.75 8.0 Yes Ammonia   mg/ l 39 39 1.4 0.24 1.0 Yes Chromium ( Hexavalent) 63 63 1.7 0.17 0.55 No Total Cyanide 55 55 2.512 0.68 72 Yes Total Lead 63 63 20 3.4 35 Yes Phenols 58 58 4.1 0.61 2.4 No Tetrachloroethylene 62 62 20 0.91 2.8 No Total Zinc 63 63 408 30 49 No 1Detected values only. 2One outlier removed.

Naphthalene is also limited at outfall DSN026, but because there are no Alabama criteria for napthalene, there would be no change associated with a change in use.

Exhibit F 32 summarizes projected effluent limits for the facility under different use classifications. Projected effluent limits for the current use ( A& I) only differ from current permit limits if data indicate that all applicable criteria are not reflected in the facility's permit. Only pollutants with reasonable potential for which data indicate that a reduction in effluent concentrations is needed ( Exhibit F 33) are shown.

Exhibit F 32. Projected Effluent Limits, USX   Fairfield Works ( all values in µ g/ l unless otherwise noted)

Pollutant MEC1 Current Lim it Projected Effluent Limit2 A& I LWF F& W Total Lead 20 35 41 2.6 2.6 1Maximum effluent concentration. 2Projected A& I limit differs from current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current permit. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 91 Exhibit F 33. Required Effluent Reductions, USX   Fairfield Works ( pounds per year)

Pollutant Projected Pollutant Loading Reductions Current Permit1 A& I2 LWF F& W Total Lead 0 0 1,013 0 1Reductions needed to meet current limit indicate noncompliance. 2Reductions needed to m eet A& I differ from reductions needed to meet current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current limit.

Controls Needed Lead: USX is in compliance with the current permit limit for lead and the projected A& I limit. They are not in compliance with the LWF limit. Consequently, pollution controls need to be installed to meet the LWF limit. Since the LWF and F& W limits are the same, the cost for removing lead is attributable to the LWF use. Chemical precipitation is needed to reduce lead to meet LWF limits. Removal efficiencies of up to 95% to 97% are reported for facilities using chemical precipitation to control lead.

BOD: A reduction in BOD discharge of 40% to 50% from USX is needed to meet the F& W standard in Opossum Creek. The addition of activated sludge treatment should reduce BOD sufficiently to attain 5 mg/ l DO at all times of the year.

Exhibit F 34. Annual Cost of Required Effluent Reductions, USX   Fairfield Works ( Millions of Year 2001 dollars)

Control ( pollutant) Total Capital Annualized Capital1 O& M Total Annual Cost Chemical Precipitation 0.8 0.076 0.18 0.26 Activated Sludge 0.39 0.037 0.09 0.13 TOTAL 1.2 0.11 0.27 0.39 1Annualized at 7% over 20 years. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 92 Valley Creek WWTP Description Valley Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant ( NPDES permit number AL0023655) is located in Bessemer, Alabama. The fact sheet for the facility's 2001 permit indicates that, as of January 2001, the facility's design capacity was 65 MGD with a planned addition of a two stage biological treatment plant that would increase the design capacity to 85 MGD. In addition, a new peak flow wastewater treatment facility with a design capacity of 350 MGD is proposed for completion by 2005. All of the limits and load reductions shown in this summary are based on a design flow of 65 MGD since the monitoring data used in the model were collected for those flows. Valley Creek WWTP has five permitted outfalls on Valley Creek. In the facility's 2000 permit, limits for outfall 001 ( treated wastewater) are based on the more stringent of Federal guidelines [ 40 CFR 133.102], ADEM Disinfection Strategy Toxicity Strategy, or water quality requirements. There are no numeric limits for outfalls 002   005 ( storm water). Flows ( in cfs) in Valley Creek are as follows: average: 20.0, harmonic mean: 8.94, 1Q10: 2.2, 7Q10: 2.98, 7Q2: 3.04.

Existing Treatment Processes Information from the fact sheet for the 2001 permit indicates that the facility's existing treatment consists of bar screen, grinding, grit removal, preaeration, primary clarification, a two stage biological treatment system, chlorination/ dechlorination ( which would be replaced by UV disinfection with the proposed 20 MGD addition), anaerobic digesters, filter belt press, drying beds, lime stabilization, and final disposal of the biosolids to the Jefferson County beneficial land use site.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 35 summarizes effluent monitoring data from January 1998 through April 2001 for outfall 001. The facility's 2001 permit does not include numeric limits or monitoring requirements for toxic pollutants. However, monitoring data for some toxic pollutants are included in the facility's discharge monitoring reports. These are shown in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit F 35. Compliance Summary, Valley Creek WWTP Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( µ g/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean Ammonia 42 42 0.54 0.15 3.0 Yes Fecal Coliform             Hexavalent Chromium 4 4 30 15     Total Cyanide 1 1 10,800       1Detected values only (`   ` indicates not applicable). Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 93 Exhibit F 36 summarizes projected effluent limits for the facility under different use classifications. Projected effluent limits for the current use ( A& I) only differ from current permit limits if data indicate that all applicable criteria are not reflected in the facility's permit. Only pollutants with reasonable potential for which data indicate that a reduction in effluent concentrations is needed ( Exhibit F 37) are shown.

Exhibit F 36. Projected Effluent Limits, Valley Creek WWTP ( all values in µ g/ l unless otherwise noted)

Pollutant MEC1 Current Lim it Projected Effluent Limit2 A& I LWF F& W Hexavalent Chromium 30   8.1 8.1 8.1 Total Cyanide 10,800   11 4.4 4.4 1Maximum effluent concentration. 2Projected A& I limit differs from current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current permit. `   ` indicates no limit Exhibit F 37. Required Effluent Reductions, Valley Creek WWTP ( pounds per year)

Pollutant Projected Pollutant Loading Reductions Current Permit1 A& I2 LWF F& W Hexavalent Chromium   4,330 0 0 Total Cyanide   2,130,000 1,350 0 1Reductions needed to meet current limit indicate noncompliance. 2Reductions needed to m eet A& I differ from reductions needed to meet current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current limit. `   ` indicates not applicable.

Controls Needed Cyanide: There is only one observation recorded at Valley Creek WTTP ( 10,800 µ g/ l). Although this observation is a few orders of magnitude higher than the projected limits, there is insufficient information to conclude that additional controls are needed for cyanide.

Hexavalent chromium: Four ( 4) observations were recorded at the discharge ( 30, 10, 10, and 10 µ g/ l). The projected limits are estimated at 8.2 µ g/ l for A& I, LWF, and F& W. Based on these data, a 20% reduction is needed. A waste minimization study should be implemented to control hexavalent chromium at Valley Creek WTTP.

Fecal Coliform: The F& W fecal coliform geometric mean criterion is marginally exceeded in Valley Creek. Process optimization of chlorination should allow the criterion to be met. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 94 Mercury: The human health criterion for mercury is exceeded in Valley Creek. Although there are no discharge data indicating that this facility discharges mercury, mercury is a common pollutant in POTW effluents. Therefore a waste minimization program for mercury should be implemented to meet the F& W citerion.

Exhibit F 38. Annual Cost of Required Effluent Reductions, Valley Creek WWTP ( Millions of Year 2001 Dollars)

Control ( pollutant) Total Capital Annualized Capital1 O& M Total Annual Cost Waste Minimization ( hexavalent chromium, mercury) 0.98 0.09   0.09 Chlorination Optimization 0.53 0.05   0.05 TOTAL 1.51 0.14   0.14 1Annualized at 7% over 20 years. `   ` indicates not applicable ( only a one time capital cost applies). Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 95 Village Creek WWTP Description Jefferson County Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant ( NPDES permit number AL0023647), located in Birmingham, Alabama, is a 60 mgd facility that discharges to Village Creek. The facility currently has one permitted outfall. In the fact sheet for the facility's 2001 permit, limits for outfall DSN001 are based on the facility's previous permit, Federal effluent guidelines [ 40 CFR 133.102], a waste load allocation model, ADEM's Disinfection Strategy Toxicity Strategy, and best professional judgment. The facility's 2001 permit also includes limits for outfall DSN002 for a new peak flow wastewater treatment facility capable of handling flows up to 340 MGD. This facility is slated for completion by 2003. There is no discussion of the basis for limits at outfall DSN002. Flows ( in cfs) in Village Creek are as follows: average: 87.36, harmonic mean: 39, 1Q10: 9.75, 7Q10: 13, 7Q2: 13.26.

Existing Treatment Processes According to the fact sheet for the facility's 2001 permit, existing treatment at Village Creek WWTP includes bar screen, grinding, grit removal, preaeration, primary clarification, a two stage biological treatment system, chlorination/ dechlorination, thickener, anaerobic digesters, mechanical dewatering facility, drying beds, and final disposal of the biosolids to the Jefferson County beneficial land use site.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 39 summarizes effluent monitoring data from February 1997 through November 2000 for outfall DSN001.

Exhibit F 39. Compliance Summary, Village Creek WWTP Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( µ g/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean Ammonia   mg/ l 37 37 0.4 0.21 2.0 Yes Chromium, Hexavalent 10 9 20 11.11     Cyanide, Total 5 4 8,500 5,752     1Detected values only ( `   ` indicates not applicable).

Exhibit F 40 summarizes projected effluent limits for the facility under different use classifications. Only pollutants for which data indicate that a reduction in effluent concentrations is needed are shown. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 96 Exhibit F 40. Projected Effluent Limits, Village Creek WWTP ( all values in µ g/ l unless otherwise noted)

Pollutant MEC1 Current Lim it Projected Effluent Limit2 A& I LWF F& W Chromium, Hexavalent 20 None 8.8 8.8 8.8 Cyanide, Total 8,500 None 11.8 4.25 4.25 1Maximum effluent concentration. 2Projected A& I limit differs from current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current permit.

Exhibit F 41. Required Effluent Reductions, Village Creek WWTP ( pounds per year)

Pollutant Projected Pollutant Loading Reductions Reduction Needed to Meet Current Permit1 A& I2 LWF F& W Chromium, Hexavalent NA 2,046 0 0 Cyanide, Total NA 1,550,000 1,380 0 1Reductions needed to meed current limit indicate noncompliance. 2Reductions needed to m eet A& I differ from reductions needed to meet current limit if data indicate all applicable criteria are not reflected in current limit.

Controls Needed Hexavalent Chromium: The projected limits are estimated at 8.8 µ g/ l for A& I, LWF, and F& W. Based on the data, a 20% reduction is needed. A waste minimization study should be implemented for controlling hexavalent chromium at Valley Creek WWTP.

Cyanide: Village Creek does not have an existing limit for cyanide. The discharge is not in compliance with the projected A& I limits. End of pipe treatment is not economically feasible due to the large reductions required to meet the projected A& I, LWF, and F& W limits. The cyanide is most likely not being generated at the facility, but is entering the plant through the influent from an industrial discharger. Therefore, a waste minimization study should be implemented to reduce the cyanide concentrations to sufficient levels.

Mercury: The human health criterion for mercury is exceeded in Village Creek. Although there are no discharge data indicating that this facility discharges mercury, mercury is a common pollutant in POTW effluents. Therefore a waste minimization program for mercury should be implemented to meet the F& W criterion. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 97 Exhibit F 42. Annual Cost of Required Effluent Reductions, Village Creek WWTP ( Millions of Year 2001 Dollars)

Control ( pollutant) Total Capital Annualized Capital1 O& M Total Annual Cost Waste Minimization ( hexavalent chromium, cyanide, mercury) 1.5 0.14   0.14 TOTAL 1.5 0.14   0.14 1Annualized at 7% over 20 years. `   ` indicates not applicable ( only a one time capital cost applies). Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 98 Westpoint Stevens   Opelika Finishing Plant Description Westpoint Stevens is a supplier of bed and bath fashions. The Opelika Finishing Plant is responsible for dying and finishing sheets. Opelika Finishing Plant ( NPDES permit number AL0002968), located in Opelika, Alabama, is a 2.75 mgd facility that discharges to the Pepperell Branch of Soughahatchee Creek. The facility has three permitted outfalls. In ADEM's permit rationale for the facilty's 1999 draft permit, limits for outfall DSN001 ( process wastewater, boiler blowdown, and noncontact cooling water) are based on the more stringent of Federal effluent guidelines or water quality requirements and ADEM Administrative Code R. 335 6 10. 09. Limits for outfalls DSN002 and DSN003 ( storm water associated with the manufacture of textile products) are based on previous permit limits and best professional judgment and are considered equivalent to BAT/ BCT. The permit also requires a best management practices plan to minimize the potential for pollutants coming in contact with storm water runoff. Flows ( in cfs) in Pepperell Branch are as follows: average: 3.44, harmonic mean: 1.53, 1Q10: 0.46, 7Q10: 0.51, 7Q2: 0.52.

Existing Treatment Processes Information from U. S. EPA Region 4 indicates that Opelika Finishing Plant has two process streams. For one stream, the facility utilizes BAF and polymer addition for color removal. Beginning in summer 2001, this stream will be piped to a municipal treatment plant. The other waste stream is treated in a three cell lagoon system. Treatment in the lagoon system includes aeration with solids recycling, and chlorination at the end of the treatment train. In addition, Opelika Finishing Plant is currently constructing a brackish constructed wetland for additional effluent polishing.

Summary of Effluent Data and Limits Exhibit F 43 summarizes effluent monitoring data from January 1996 through February 2001 for outfall DSN001 for toxic pollutants with existing limits. The facility's permit includes seasonal limits for this outfall.

Total recoverable copper, total recoverable lead, and total recoverable zinc are also limited at outfall DSN001, but because there are no Alabama criteria for these pollutants, there would be no change associated with a change in use, and they are not considered further.

Ammonia and total chromium comply with the existing limits. Only one observation ( 49 µ g/ l) does not comply with the current limit. Therefore there are no costs associated with Westpoint Stevens Opelika Finishing Plant. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 99 Exhibit F 43. Compliance Summary, Westwood Stevens   Opelika Finishing Plant Pollutant Number of Observations Effluent Concentrations1 ( µ g/ L unless noted) Existing Limit Comply with Existing Lim it? Total Detect Maximum Mean BOD   mg/ l 20 20 15.9 11.2 37.5 Yes May   November Ammonia   mg/ l 21 21 1.07 0.25 2.75 Yes Total Phenols 21 19 180 26 930 Yes Total Chromium2 18 9 31 20 930 Yes December   April Ammonia   mg/ l 17 17 1.92 0.41 2.75 Yes Total Phenols 24 21 493 15 43 Yes Total Chromium2 18 11 38 20 43 Yes 1Detected values only. 2There is no Alabama criterion for total chromium. As a conservative estimate, we assumed all chromium in the waste stream to be trivalent chromium. 3Outlier; all other observations below limit. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 100 Appendix G. Nonpoint Source Control Costs Exhibits G 1, G 2, and G 3 provide land use and costs of nonpoint source controls for the three creeks for which there are instream exceedances of pollutants. EPA determined that urban sources likely deliver the pollutants of concern.

Exhibit G 1. Cost of Nonpoint Source Controls, Five Mile Creek Land Use Acres1 Cost per Acre Total Cost ( millions)

Cropland 922 $ 0 $ 0 Forest 50,595 $ 0 $ 0 High Density Commercial/ Industrial/ Transportation 2,150 $ 10,6002 $ 22.8 High Density Residential 1,285 $ 10,6002 $ 13.6 Low Density Residential 6,669 $ 4,0002 $ 26.7 Pasture 1,354 $ 0 $ 0 Transitional 223 $ 0 $ 0 Water 135 $ 0 $ 0 Total 63,333 $ 63.1 1Source: U. S. EPA Region IV. 2Source: Analysis of data provided in Livingston ( 1999) for urban storm water retrofit projects.

Exhibit G 2. Cost of Nonpoint Source Controls, Valley Creek Land Use Percent of Area1 Acres2 Cost per Acre Total Cost Open water 1.35 1,666 $ 0 $ 0 Low Intensity Industrial/ Residential 7.32 9,032 $ 4,0003 $ 36.1 High Intensity Residential 2.43 2,998 $ 10,6003 $ 31.8 Commercial/ Industrial/ Transport 3.57 4,405 $ 10,6003 $ 46.7 Quarry/ StripMine/ GravelPits 0.9 1,110 $ 0 $ 0 Transitional Barren 0.7 864 $ 0 $ 0 Deciduous Forest 32.46 40,051 $ 0 $ 0 Evergreen Forest 18.4 22,703 $ 0 $ 0 Mixed Forest 26.09 32,192 $ 0 $ 0 Pasture/ Hay 3.1 3,825 $ 0 $ 0 Row Crops 1.7 2,098 $ 0 $ 0 Other Grasses 1.98 2,443 $ 0 $ 0 Emergent Wetland 0.01 12 $ 0 $ 0 Total 100.01 123,387 $ 114.6 1Source: U. S. EPA Region IV. 2 Estimated as percent of area times total watershed area ( based on USG S data). 3Source: Analysis of data provided in Livingston ( 1999) for urban storm water retrofit projects. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Water Quality Standards Rule for the State of Alabama 101 Exhibit G 3. Cost of Nonpoint Source Controls, Village Creek Land Use Acres1 Cost per Acre Total Cost Cropland 1,106 $ 0 $ 0 Forest 42,056 $ 0 $ 0 High Density Commercial/ Industrial/ Transportation 5,892 $ 10,6002 $ 62.5 High Density Residential 3,269 $ 10,6002 $ 34.6 Low Density Residential 9,768 $ 4,0002 $ 39.1 Pasture 1,005 $ 0 $ 0 Transitional 223 $ 0 $ 0 Water 291 $ 0 $ 0 Total 63,610 $ 136.2 1Source: U. S. EPA Region IV. 2Source: Analysis of data provided in Livingston ( 1999) for urban storm water retrofit projects.


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 150 (Friday, August 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 48017]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16814]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL OP-OFA-028]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed July 25, 2022 10 a.m. EST Through August 1, 2022 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20220109, Final, FERC, PA, Regional Energy Access Expansion
Project, Review Period Ends: 09/06/2022, Contact: Office of External
Affairs<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20220110, Final, NRC, SC, License Renewal of the Columbia Fuel
Fabrication Facility in Richland County, South Carolina, Review Period
Ends: 09/06/2022, Contact: Stacey Imboden<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notice

EIS No. 20220084, Draft, BOEM, NJ, Ocean Wind 1 Offshore Wind Farm,
Comment Period Ends: 08/23/2022, Contact: Michelle Morin<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Revision to FR Notice Published 06/24/2022; Extending the Comment
Period from 08/08/2022 to 08/23/2022.

    Dated: August 1, 2022.
Cindy S. Barger,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2022-16814 Filed 8-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P