Determining the Probable Cause of an Impaired Benthic Community in the Naugatuck River Chris...
-
Upload
ferdinand-chambers -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
4
Transcript of Determining the Probable Cause of an Impaired Benthic Community in the Naugatuck River Chris...
Determining the Probable Cause of an Impaired Benthic Community in
the Naugatuck River
Chris Bellucci and Lee DunbarConnecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water ManagementPlanning & Standards Division
79 Elm StreetHartford, CT 06106-5127
TMDL ProgramChris BellucciKelly Streich
Monitoring & AssessmentErnie PizzutoGuy HoffmanMike Beauchene
Watershed CoordinatorSusan Peterson
Water Toxics LaboratoryTracy LizotteAl Iacobucci
Aquatic ToxicityThom HazeRose Gatter-Evarts
Municipal FacilitiesRowland Denny
InspectionEd Finger
Watershed PermittingMelissa BlaisSteve EdwardsKevin Barrett
EPAMike Marsh – Region 1Susan Cormier – ORD
NAUGATUCK TMDL TEAM
Monitor and Assess ConditionsList and Prioritize Impaired Waters for TMDLs
Identify Cause(s) of ImpairmentStressor ID Analysis
Develop TMDL for pollutant causing impairment Point and non-point load allocations, margin of safety.
Adopt TMDLPublic ParticipationState establishes TMDL with revisions as warrantedEPA reviews and approves TMDL
Implement TMDLRe-issue NPDES permits
TMDL PROGRAM OVERVIEW
TMDL Study Area
• Listed on CT 2002 Impaired Waters List for not meeting aquatic life use goals – Cause Unknown
• Part of a larger effort to restore the Naugatuck River Watershed. Other projects include TMDLs on tributaries, dam removal projects, POTW upgrades
• NPDES permit re-issuance – 3 industrial expire 9/04 1 municipal expired 3/03
Why Focus on the Upper Naugatuck?
What is the Goal ?
E
P
T
Study Area:Naugatuck River near Thomaston
• ~ 5-mile stretch of Naugatuck River
• 3 Metals Finishing Discharges, 1 POTW
• Two large dredge holes excavated in early 1970’s changed the river from wadable to 1-mile long lacustrine segment withmaximum depths of 30 ft
Dam
Metal Finishing Discharge
POTW
Nibbling Bk
Jericho Bk
Northfield Bk
Branch Bk
Rock Bk
Leadmine BkNaugatuck R
Route 6
Reynolds Bridge
Frost Bridge
Q
W
S
USGS Discharge
USGS Monitoring
Cause Unknown Investigation
• Review of Existing Data
• Additional Samples from River and Effluents
• Stressor ID Analysis
3. Complex
Mixture
2. Ammonia1. Metals
Chronic toxicity
Death or reproductive
failure
Acute toxicity
Loss of Sensitive invertebrate taxa
Point Source
Discharges
Non-Point Sources
4. Episodic
Events
3. Complex
Mixture
2. Ammonia1. Metals
Chronic toxicity
Death or reproductive
failure
Acute toxicity
Loss of Sensitive invertebrate taxa
Point Source
Discharges
Non-Point Sources
4. Episodic
Events
Conceptual Model Diagram
Review of Existing Data
• DMRs and ATMRs
• ArcView coverages
• Biological monitoring
• Physical/chemical monitoring (CTDEP and USGS)
• Hydrology (USGS Gage)
Additional Sampling
• 10 Rounds of Ambient Sampling at 4 sites during 2002 Sampling Season
• 7 Acute Toxicity Tests in 2002 on eachpoint source discharge
• Jan 2003 Chronic Toxicity Test w/ EPA
• 2002 and 2003 Macroinvertebrate Sampling
What Did the Data Tell Us?
• Hydrology is Important
• The abundance of sensitive invertebrates declines downstream of each point discharge
• Low D.O. may be an issue
• Effluents toxic and extremely variable (job shops)
Allocated ZOI Exceeds 7Q10
Zone Of Influence Allocations
QRD = 11.4 cfs
Whyco = 18 cfs
Summit = 18 cfs
Thomaston POTW = 6.8 cfs
Total = 54.2 cfs
Route 6
7Q10 = 12.6 cfs
Frost Bridge7Q10 - 17.2 cfs
QRD
THOMASTON POTW
WHYCO
SUMMIT
?
Streamflows less than 7Q10 are Common
Duration of Low Flow (<=13 cfs)Naugatuck River at Thomaston
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
1990
1991
1992
19931994
1995
1996
19971998
1999
2000
2001
Yea
r
Number of Days
Longest Span (days)
The abundance of sensitive macroinvertebrates declines downstream of each point discharge
Fall 1991
0102030405060708090
100
Reynolds Br Railroad Br Frost Br
% o
f R
efe
ren
ce
Sit
e
Meets Water Quality Criteria
QR
D
SU
M
TH
MW
HY
Fall 2001
0102030405060708090
100
Reynolds Br Railroad Br Frost Br
% o
f R
efe
ren
ce
Sit
e
Meets Water Quality Criteria
QR
D
SU
M
TH
MW
HY
Fall 2002
0102030405060708090
100
Reynolds Br Railroad Br Frost Br
% o
f R
efe
ren
ce
Sit
e
Meets Water Quality Criteria
QR
D
SU
M
TH
MW
HY
SI Procedure
DEP’s analysis was performed consistent with EPA Guidance and has been reviewed by the principal authors of the Guidance
Transport of water from hypolimnion
Death or reproductive
failure
Increased nutrients
Increased algal
growth
Decomposition leading to oxygen
depletion
Surface run-off Dredge Holes
Low DO in hypolimnion
Loss of Sensitive invertebrate taxa
Conceptual Model of Low DO Sources
Impairment
Causal Pathway
Nutrient data from USGS Station at Frost Bridge and CTDEP standard site at Frost Bridge are at background levels
X
X
DO exceeded criteria at USGS Station and CTDEP station at Frost Bridge
3. Complex
Mixture
2. Ammonia1. Metals
Chronic toxicity
Death or reproductive
failure
Acute toxicity
Loss of Sensitive invertebrate taxa
Point Source
Discharges
Non-Point Sources
4. Episodic
Events
Conceptual Model of Toxic Contamination
Sources
Impairment
Causal Pathway
3. Complex
Mixture
2. Ammonia1. Metals
Chronic toxicity
Death or reproductive
failure
Acute toxicity
Loss of Sensitive invertebrate taxa
Point Source
Discharges
Non-Point Sources
4. Episodic
Events
Pathway 1: Metals
No individual metal correlated with measured effluent toxicity
Metals data from USGS Station at Frost Bridge and CTDEP standard site at Frost Bridge did not exceed criteria
X
Conceptual Model of Toxic Contamination
Sources
Impairment
Causal Pathway
Monte Carlo analysis shows low probability of individual metal parameters to cause toxic conditions instream
3. Complex
Mixture
2. Ammonia1. Metals
Chronic toxicity
Death or reproductive
failure
Acute toxicity
Loss of Sensitive invertebrate taxa
Point Source
Discharges
Non-Point Sources
4. Episodic
Events
Pathway 2: Ammonia
X Ammonia data from USGS Station at Frost Bridge and CTDEP standard site are at background levels
High ammonia concentrations in effluent not observed concurrent with measured toxicity
Conceptual Model of Toxic Contamination
Sources
Impairment
Causal Pathway
3. Complex
Mixture
2. Ammonia1. Metals
Chronic toxicity
Death or reproductive
failure
Acute toxicity
Loss of Sensitive invertebrate taxa
Point Source
Discharges
Non-Point Sources
4. Episodic
Events
Pathway 3: Complex Mixture
Effluents show acute and chronic toxicity in laboratory tests
Biological monitoring links impact with outfall locations
Inconsistent, complex array of chemicals in effluent samples measured with toxicity
Monte Carlo analysis identified WET as the pollutant with highest probability to cause toxic impact
Conceptual Model of Toxic Contamination
Sources
Impairment
Causal Pathway
Route 6
Background
US Flow US Concentration
QRD
EF Flow
Model Output 1EF Concentration
US Flow US Concentration
ThomastonPOTW
EF Flow
Model Output 2EF Concentration
US Flow US Concentration
Branch Bk
EF Flow
Model Output 3EF Concentration
US Flow US Concentration
Whyco
EF Flow
Model Output 4EF Concentration
US Flow US Concentration
Summit
EF Flow
Model Output 5EF Concentration
Frost Bridge
DSconc = ((USflow x USconc) + (EFflow
x EFconc)) / (USflow + EFflow)
Flow Data
•USGS Gauge
•Industrial Toxicity Database
•LIS Nutrient Database
Concentration Data
•USGS Monitoring Station
•Industrial Toxicity Database
• DEP Ambient Monitoring database
Monte Carlo Analysis
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Chronic Toxic Units
Cum
ulat
ive
Fre
quen
cyZinc
Nickel
Lead
Copper
Toxicity
% of Values Exceeding 1.0 CTUZinc = < 0.01%Nickel = < 0.01%Lead = 0.7%Copper = 4.5 %Toxicity = 13.3 %
Relative Probability (%) of Toxic Impact
Location Toxicity Copper Lead Nickel Zinc
Rte. 6 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01downstream QRD 1.80 0.20 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01downstream POTW 1.80 0.50 0.03 0.04 < 0.01downstream Branch Bk. < 0.01 0.50 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01
downstream Whyco 3.80 1.30 0.30 0.10 < 0.01downstream Summit 13.30 4.50 0.70 < 0.01 < 0.01
Monte Carlo Analysis
3. Complex
Mixture
2. Ammonia1. Metals
Chronic toxicity
Death or reproductive
failure
Acute toxicity
Loss of Sensitive invertebrate taxa
Point Source
Discharges
Non-Point Sources
4. Episodic
Events
Pathway 4: Episodic Events
Unknown episodic event (e.g. treatment upset, illicit discharge) could contribute to impairment
Non point contributions not well characterized but not likely to cause observed impacts.
X
Conceptual Model of Toxic Contamination
Sources
Impairment
Causal Pathway
Recommendations
• Develop TMDL for Whole Effluent Toxicity
• Implement TMDL through NPDES Permits to Industries
• Reassess metals limits for each facility
• Monitor to measure compliance with TMDL
• Reassess the need to iterate the SI Process
1. All 3 Metal Finishing Discharges Exhibit Acute Toxicity
2. Biological Monitoring Links Impact with Outfall Locations
3. No Excursions Above Numeric WQ Criteria Measured In-Stream
4. Current Allocations to ZOI Exceed 7Q10 Flow
5. No Individual Chemical Parameter Correlated with Toxicity in Discharge Monitoring
5 Reasons to Target Toxicity for TMDL
TMDL – How Big is the Pie?
Acute TMDL = 93 gps * 0.33 ATU Acute Toxic Units
Chronic TMDL = 93 gps * 1 CTU Chronic Toxic Units
7Q10 = 12.6 cfs = 93 gpsATU = 100/LC 50
Acute TMDL = 30.7 gATU/sec
Acute Protection Chronic Protection
Chronic TMDL = 93 gCTU/sec
0.33 ATU is the maximum allowable amount of toxicity
1 CTU is the maximum allowable amount of toxicity
Acute TMDL
QRD
WHY
SUM
Chronic TMDL
QRD
WHY
SUM
14.9 gCTU/sec
49.4 gCTU/sec 28.9
gCTU/sec
Flow Proportions
QRD
WHY
SUM
100,000 gpd
195,000 gpd
330,000gpd
4.9 gATU/sec
9.5gATU/sec
16.3gATU/sec
Facility ADF
(gpd)
Flow
Proportion
Acute
TMDL
(gATU/sec)
Chronic
TMDL
(gCTU/sec)
QRD 100,800 0.16 4.9 14.9
WHY 195,000 0.31 9.5 28.9
SUM 330,000 0.53 16.3 49.4
Total 625,800 1.00 30.7 93.2
TMDL – How to Split Up the Pie
@ Rte 6 12.60 93.24 0.00 0 93.24
Location Streamflow TMDL WLA LA MOS
@ QRD 12.76 94.42 15.02 0 79.40@ NF Bk. 12.87 95.24 15.02 0 80.22@ POTW 14.97 110.78 15.02 0 95.76@ Branch Bk. 15.75 116.55 15.02 0 101.53@ Whyco 16.05 118.77 44.07 0 74.70@ Nibb. Bk. 16.12 120.00 44.07 0 75.93@ Summit 16.63 123.06 93.24 0 29.82@ Frost Br. 17.17 127.06 93.24 0 33.82
Streamflow in cfs, TMDL in gCTU/sec.
Naugatuck River Toxicity TMDL
Chronic TMDL
0102030405060708090
100110120130
Ro
ute
6
QR
D
N.F
. Bk
PO
TW
Bra
nch
Bk
Wh
yco
Nib
b. B
k
Su
mm
it
Fro
st B
r
gC
TU
/ s
MOS
WLA
Naugatuck River Toxicity TMDL
• Initiate Public Participation and formal comment period – Public Notice
• Review comments from dischargers, other stakeholders and EPA, revise TMDL as warranted.
• Establish TMDL and submit to EPA for review and approval.
• Upon EPA approval, implement TMDL through revisions to NPDES permits.
Establishing The TMDL
• NPDES permits expire for QRD, Whyco, and Summit in September 2004
• NPDES permit expired for Thomaston POTW in March 2003
• Significant reductions in Whole Effluent Toxicity will be required to achieve compliance with permit limits
• Redirecting industrial discharges to the POTW is not a viable option
Implementation