Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Wisconsin Ballast Water Discharge Permit Environmental Assessment

The Wisconsin DNR (WDNR) has recently completed its environmental assessment for the proposed issuance of a general permit to regulate the discharge of ballast water from ships into the waters of the State. This assessment, completed to comply with the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act (WEPA) clears the way for WDNR to issue its final discharge permit.

On February 23, 2009, the WDNR public noticed a general permit for commercial vessels which includes effluent discharge standards for ballast water. This permit also included an aggressive compliance schedule for implementation. The permit specifies biological effluent discharge standards and biocide effluent limits that, based upon best professional judgment, represent the best practicable technology currently available pursuant to § NR 220.21, Wis. Adm. Code. WDNR believes a permit for regulating ballast water beyond what EPA has developed is necessary to prevent the release of additional aquatic invasive species (AIS) and protect water quality standards in Wisconsin. The 2010-11 biennial budget bill signed by Governor Doyle in July 2009 provided for statutory authority to establish a discharge performance standard for ballast water.

Wisconsin’s General Permit will require discharges of ballast water to meet numeric technology based effluent limits based upon the number of living organisms in the discharge by 2014 for all existing ocean-going ships. Vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2012 would have to meet these requirements prior to operation. The permit is intended to minimize the further release of aquatic invasive species. The general permit requires all ocean-going vessels to meet discharge standards set at 100 times more stringent than the IMO standards. This discharge standard is similar to that adopted by New York in its § 401 Water Quality Certification. Plans and specifications of the treatment systems would require approval by the Department, to confirm the treatment has been approved by the USCG or an equivalent approval process, is effective and would comply with the discharge standards.

There is an exemption in this permit when ballast water is pumped from a vessel off-ship for treatment on another vessel or to a ballast water treatment system on-shore. Additionally, the permit allows for an alternative discharge limit, if the technology is not available to meet the discharge standards by December 31, 2011.

The federal general permit (VGP), effective December 19, 2008, that applies to all discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel1 includes a technology based standard for all ocean-going vessels. This standard has been required by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for all vessels that enter the St. Lawrence Seaway since March 2008 and has proven ineffective as the introduction of aquatic invasive species has continued. On August 28, 2009, the USCG published in the federal register a new proposed ballast water discharge standard rule which requires a phased approach to ballast water discharge standards, with IMO being required in phase-one, and up to 1000 times IMO standards in phase-two. WDNR general permit contains technology based effluent limitations that represent the best practicable control technology currently available.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Monday, December 7, 2009

EPA OW - OPP Pesticide Assessment Methods Meetings

EPA Office of Water (OW) and Office of Pesticide Programs(OPP) have identified a need to harmonize methods used by the Offices to determine whether pesticides represent a concern for aquatic life. To address these concerns, the Agency has begun a process to explore how to build on the high quality science in both OW and OPP to develop additional tools and approaches to support a consistent and common set of effects characterization methods using best available information.

A number of regional public meetings are being planned between January 11 and 22, 2010 to solicit input on the Agency's initial thinking regarding methods, tools, and approaches that are being developed and evaluated by OPP and OW to assure that pesticide ecological effects are characterized consistently. The areas for consideration under this effort include:

  • Development and evaluation of predictive tools for use in development of community level benchmarks;
  • Development of aquatic life community level benchmarks with datasets that do not conform to the "1985 Guidelines'' used to derive water quality criteria;
  • Derivation of aquatic life screening values for aquatic plants

In selecting and/or developing appropriate methodogies, EPA OW and OPP expects to consider the following criteria:

  • Continue to be based upon sound science and utilize the available data,
  • Be legally defensible under their respective statutory mandates,
  • Be based upon methodologies that are as consistent and practical as possible,
  • Be implementable at the Federal and State level.
  • Be developed as quickly and efficiently as possible, and
  • Reflect stakeholder input and comments.


During these meetings, EPA will also solicit input from Regional stakeholders regarding 1)additional sources of pesticide data and relevant reports, 2)white paper topics, 3) availability of data, tools, approaches, and data sets on aquatic toxicity that may be useful for this effort, 4)types of values that are used by states and/or regions for protecting aquatic life in the absence of ambient water quality criteria, and 5) examples of situations in which differences between OW and OPP assessment approaches were an issue.

Following these meetings, the Agency plans to develop a set of white papers, describing potential new tools and analytical approaches that may be used by the Agency, state pesticide and water quality agencies, and other stakeholders.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website




Tuesday, November 17, 2009

EPA National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue

US EPA has recently release it report on bioaccumualtive chemicals in fish. The report "National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue" (or National Lake Fish Tissue Study) is one of the statistically-based surveys conducted by EPA since the late 1990s.

This study is a national screening-level survey of chemical residues in fish tissue from lakes and reservoirs in the lower 48 United States, excluding the Laurentian Great Lakes and Great Salt Lake. It is unique among national assessments of fish contamination in lakes because the sampling sites were selected according to a statistical (random) design. Study results allow EPA to estimate the percentage of lakes and reservoirs in the United States with chemical concentrations in fish tissue that are above levels of potential concern for humans or for wildlife that eat fish. This study also includes the largest set of chemicals ever studied in fish. Whole fish and fillets were analyzed for 268 persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, including mercury, arsenic, dioxins and furans, the full complement of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners, and a large number of pesticides and semivolatile organic compounds.

The data showed mercury concentrations in game fish exceeding EPA recommended levels at 49 percent of lakes and reservoirs nationwide, and PCBs in game fish at levels of potential concern at 17 percent of lakes and reservoirs. These findings are based on a comprehensive national study using more data on levels of contamination in fish tissue than any previous study.

EPA is currently conducting other statistically based national aquatic surveys that include assessment of fish contamination, such as the National Rivers and Streams Assessment and the National Coastal Assessment. Sampling for the National Rivers and Streams Assessment is underway, and results from this two-year study are expected to be available in 2011. Collection of fish samples for the National Coastal Assessment will begin in 2010.


Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Monday, November 2, 2009

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program - EDSP

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued the first test orders for pesticide chemicals to be screened for their potential effects on the endocrine system.

On Oct. 21, EPA made available the battery of scientific assays and test guidelines for conducting the assays, as well as a schedule for issuing test orders to manufacturers for 67 chemicals during the next four months. The data generated from the screens will provide scientific information to help EPA identify whether additional testing is necessary, or whether other steps are necessary to address potential endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Testing, conducted through the agency’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), will eventually expand to cover all pesticide chemicals. The EDSP is the most comprehensive mandated testing program for hormone effects in the U.S. The program is the result of a multi-year effort that includes validation of the science through a transparent scientific review process.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website




Monday, October 26, 2009

EPA Clean Water Act Enforcement Plan

EPA has announced that it is stepping up efforts on Clean Water Act enforcement. A plan "Clean Water Action Enforcement Plan" has been drafted as a first step in revamping the compliance and enforcement program. The plan outlines how EPA will strengthen the way it addresses modern water pollution challenges. These challenges include pollution caused by numerous, dispersed sources, such as concentrated animal feeding operations, sewer overflows, contaminated water that flows from industrial facilities, construction sites, and runoff from urban streets.

The agency intends to target enforcement toward the most significant pollution problems, improve transparency and accountability by providing the public with access to better data on the water quality in their communities, and strengthen enforcement performance at the state and federal levels. Elements of the plan include the following:

  • Develop more comprehensive approaches to ensure enforcement is targeted to the most serious violations and the most significant sources of pollution.
  • Work with states to ensure greater consistency throughout the country with respect to compliance and water quality.
  • Ensure that states are issuing protective permits and taking enforcement to achieve compliance and remove economic incentives to violate the law
  • Use modern information technology to collect, analyze, and use information in new, more efficient ways and to make that information readily accessible to the public.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Monday, October 12, 2009

Minnesota Statewide Mercury TMDL - Proposed MPCA Amendement

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has recently proposed adding a total of 126 lakes, streams and rivers to its list of mercury impaired water bodies. Excess mercury in fish from these additional water bodies will be addressed under the existing Statewide Mercury TMDL, or under a water body specific TMDL, depending on fish tissue concentrations.

The MPCA Mercury TMDL relies on a reduction goal for mercury atmospheric deposition. The TMDL contains the list of lakes and river segments covered by the TMDL. The Statewide Mercury TMDL also contains the list of NPDES permittees covered by the TMDL.

The 2008 Mercury TMDL listed 998 water bodies. Subsequently, three water bodies were split, resulting in a total of 1001 water bodies. An additional 95 waterbodies are being added in the 2010 cycle, resulting in a grand total of 1096 water bodies in the 2010 revision the EPA-approved Mercury TMDL.

The water bodies listed in the Statewide Mercury TMDL have fish tissue concentrations greater than 0.2 mg/kg [the Minnesota State water quality standard] and equal to or less than 0.572 mg/kg. Fish tissue concentrations that exceed 0.572 mg/kg are not eligible to be included in the Statewide Mercury TMDL. Those mercury impairments are subject to a future TMDL studies. In 2010, MPCA is proposing to add 28 water bodies to the list of mercury impaired waters not eligible to be addressed under the Statewide Mercury TMDL, bringing the total to 326.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Proposed Discharge Standards for Airports

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed regulations requiring airports to collect at least some of the deicing fluid after it is used on aircrafts with a goal of cutting chemical discharge by 22 percent. The regulations would require six of the 14 major U.S. airports that are the biggest users of deicing fluid to install deicing pads or other collection systems to capture 60 percent of fluid sprayed and to install deicing pads or other collection systems. The targeted airports include:

  • New York's John F. Kennedy and LaGuardia airports,
  • Chicago's O'Hare,
  • Boston Logan International,
  • Cleveland-Hopkins International, and
  • New Jersey's Newark Liberty International

Other targeted airports already have control systems, but would also need to meet performance standards. It would then be the airports' responsibility to ensure that the collected fluid was treated and handled in accordance with requirements. Some 200 smaller facilities around the US would have to collect and treat 20 percent of the fluid by using technologies such as a glycol recovery vehicle. Airports with fewer than 1,000 yearly jet departures would not be impacted.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Monday, September 21, 2009

New Wastewater Discharge Rules for Coal Fired Power Plants

The U.S. EPA has announced plans to revise the existing standards for water discharges from coal-fired power plants. Earlier this year, EPA completed a multi-year study of power plant wastewater discharges. This study concluded that current regulations, which were issued in 1982, have not kept pace with changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the last three decades. Air pollution controls installed to remove pollution from air emission sources. However, according to the EPA study, some of the equipment used to clean air emissions does so by “scrubbing” the boiler exhaust with water. Treatment technologies are available to remove these pollutants before they are discharged to waterways, but these systems have been installed at only a small number of the power plants.

As part of the multi-year study, EPA measured the pollutants present in the wastewater and reviewed treatment technologies, focusing mostly on coal-fired power plants. Many of the toxic pollutants discharged from these power plants come from coal ash ponds and the flue gas desulfurization systems used to scrub sulfur dioxide from air emissions.

Once the new rules for electric power plants is finalized, EPA and States would incorporate the new standards into wastewater discharge permits.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Thursday, August 6, 2009

Using Water Effect Ratio In Setting NPDES Permit Limits

The water effect ratio (WER) is defined as the ratio of the toxicity of a chemical in site water to the toxicity of the same chemical in standard laboratory water. Standard laboratory water would have been used to generate toxicity data used to calculate State or Federal Water Quality Criterion. Therefore a WER which is greater than or less than 1 would infer that the chemical would be more or less toxic in site water compared to laboratory water. Using the Water Effect Ratio, the ambient water quality standard might be adjusted to meet the same aquatic life protection goals. The water effect ratio is developed to compensate for site-specific biogeochemical factors such as hardness, alkalinity, organic carbon, etc. which can influence the bioavailability and toxicity of chemical.

In practice, WER are often used to generate site-specific water quality standards that are higher than State or Federal standards.

The process of generating and using WER in the NPDES permitting process requires close coordination with the permitting agency. Work to prepare acceptable WER may require water quality monitoring and laboratory toxicity tests. NPDES permits issued using a WER may also include additional receiving water monitoring requirements.


Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Friday, July 31, 2009

Iowa IDNR General Permit for Well Construction Wastewater Discharges

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is proposed amendments to Chapter 64 – Wastewater Construction and Operation Permits, including a proposal that would require the discharge of wastewater from water well construction and service activities to navigable waters to be covered under a general permit. The proposal would create a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit that would require permittees to:

1. Comply with the general water quality criteria,

2. Prepare a pollution prevention plan that includes best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented, and

3. Visually monitor wastewater effluent to determine sufficiency of the BMPs.

The IDNR will be conducting public hearings on the proposed rules at several locations from August 4 through 12.



Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Court Approves MPCA Vessel Discharge Permit Rules

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (PCA) new regulations to control ballast water discharges from ships on Lake Superior.

The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy had filed suit against the PCA saying the agency was moving too slowly and had standards too lax to regulate ballast water. The group wanted tougher standards on ships imposed sooner than 2012 for new ships and 2016 for existing ships the PCA has called for.

The court’s decision upholds the rules promulgated by the PCA last year for nearly all ships that discharge any ballast water or carry ballast water through Minnesota waters of Lake Superior.

[Read more about Vessel Discharge Permits]

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Monday, July 27, 2009

Mercury TMDL - MPCA Proposal To Control Hg Air Emissions

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is requesting comments on new air quality rules involving mercury air emissions reporting. The Rules are being drafted in accordance with a statewide mercury TMDL, which aims to reduce mercury in fish.

The impeding rulemaking falls into two general categories:

1) Mercury Emissions Reporting, and
2) Plans for Mercury Emissions Reductions at Certain Facilities

Rulemaking will require certain facilities holding an MPCA air emissions permit to develop their own Mercury Emissions Reducing Plan for incorporation into their State air emissions permit. Some facilities will also be expected to develop reduction plans to meet sector or source reduction targets and timeframes listed in the “Strategy Framework for the Implementation of Minnesota’s Statewide TMDL”, which outlines the State's strategy to address the many lakes & rivers in the State impaired due to high concentrations of mercury in fish.

The proposed new and amended rules will also establish the emission calculation methods for facilities to track their mercury emissions and submit an annual mercury emissions report to the MPCA. Although MPCA is considering having mercury emissions reporting take place concurrent with the annual air emissions inventory process, the proposed rulemaking does not include any major changes to the criteria pollutant emissions inventory.

The proposed rule will also establish the minimum requirements for Mercury Emissions Reduction Plans from each facility to address how they will reduce mercury emissions. The Plans will either be incorporated into their air emissions permit as enforceable requirements or will be made enforceable using other means available to the MPCA. Reduction targets are established for taconite processing facilities, utility boilers, commercial, institutional and industrial boilers, petroleum refineries, secondary metal smelters, sewage sludge incinerators.

As a separate element of the Statewide TMDL, MPCA is also proposing evaluations for mercury sources as a requirement under its Multi-sector Industrial Stormwater General permit. Facilities that identify mercury sources will need to develop a Mercury Minimization Plan relative to stormwater discharges.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Iowa Chloride, Sulfate and TDS Ambient Water Quality Standards

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) is currently proposing to amend Iowa ambient water quality standards for chloride, sulphate and total dissolved solids (TDS). In addition, they are proposing a change to the default hardness value used to calculate ambient water quality standards for many chemicals, especially metals.

The changes being proposed include the following:

  • Establish numerical water quality criteria for chloride for the protection of aquatic life uses.
  • Establish numerical water quality criteria for sulfate for the protection of aquatic life uses.
  • Remove TDS criteria and implementation approach
  • Revises default hardness level used for hardness dependent chemical criteria from 100 mg/l (as CaCO3) to 200 mg/L.

IDNR will be accepting comments on these proposed changes until August 14, 2009.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Thursday, June 25, 2009

Draft Clean Water Restoration Act Approved By Senate Committee

The US Senate Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has approved a bill, "the Clean Water Restoration Act", that will clarify the scope of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 ("Clean Water Act") definition of "waters of the United States". Under the draft bill, waters of the US would be defined as including:


(A) all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(B) all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
(C) all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds;
(D) all impoundments of waters of the United States;
(E) tributaries of the aforementioned waters;
(F) the territorial seas; and
(G) wetlands adjacent to the aforementioned waters;

The draft bill specifically excludes groundwaters from the definition of waters subject to the Clean Water Act. As always, States can decide to include additional types of waters to be included as "waters of the State". Some States already include groundwater under this definition.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Monday, May 11, 2009

Great Lakes Initiative GLI Human Health Based Criteria

What is a Human Health-based Water Quality Criterion?

The Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System, also known as the Great Lake Initiative or GLI (40 CFR 132), created a few new types of water quality standards intended to be applied to waters in the Great Lakes basin.

A Great Lakes Water Quality Human Health-based Criterion (HHC) is intended to protect humans from unacceptable exposure to toxicants via consumption of contaminated fish and drinking water and from ingesting water as a result of participation in water-oriented recreational activities. The criteria were developed to provide a level of protection likely to be "without appreciable risk" of carcinogenic and/or noncarcinogenic effects.

Chemical concentration levels protective of human health are derived based on either a Tier I (“Tier I Criterion”) or Tier II (“Tier II Value”) classification. The two Tiers are primarily distinguished by the amount of toxicity data available for deriving the concentration levels and the quantity and quality of data on bioaccumulation.

For known or suspected carcinogenic chemicals, the criterion are derived at a level corresponding to an incremental cancer risk of 1 in 100,000. Noncarcinogens are generally assumed to have a threshold dose or concentration below which no adverse effects should be observed. The Tier I criterion or Tier II value is the maximum water concentration of a substance at or below which a lifetime exposure from drinking the water, consuming fish caught in the water, and ingesting water as a result of participating in water-related recreation activities is likely to be without appreciable adverse effects.

Human-health based water quality criteria were derived for 17 compounds (see below); however, the GLI detailed the methodology to derive human health-based criteria for other compounds.

Benzene
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Cyanides
DDT
Dieldrin
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Lindane
Mercury/methylmercury
Methylene chloride
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Toluene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene


Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Arkansas ADEQ Proposed Stormwater Permit Benchmarks

Note: This article has been updated:

Final Arkansas ADEQ Industrial Storm Water Permit

**********************************************************

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has proposed a revised industrial stormwater permit. The permit is open for public comment until May 11, 2009.

The proposed permit includes stormwater quality benchmarks which apply to all permitted facilities, and additional benchmarks that apply to specific industrial sectors (see below).
[Read more about stormwater benchmarks]
[Read more about how benchmarks compare to typical stormwater discharge quality]

Benchmarks being proposed were derived from a wide range of sources, including:

EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria - Acute Values
EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria - Chronic Values
EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria - Lowest Observed Effect Levels (LOEL) Acute Values
EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria - Human Health Criteria for Consumption of Water and Organisms.
North Carolina State Benchmark Values
Colorado State Water Quality Standards
National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) median concentration
Median concentration of Stormwater Effluent Limitation Guideline (40 CFR Part 419)
Laboratory derived Minimum Level (ML) and Method Detection Level (MDL).


The benchmarks being proposed under the ADEQ NPDES permit are:

All permitted facilities:

pH 6.0 - 9.0 s.u.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 120
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 100
Oil & Grease 15

In addition to the above benchmarks, the following effluent characteristics must also be monitored for individual industrial sectors.

SECTOR A: TIMBER PRODUCTS
General Sawmills and Planing Mills (SIC 2421)
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L

Wood Preserving (SIC 2491)
Total Arsenic 0.16854 mg/L
Total Copper 0.0756 mg/L

SECTOR C: CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS
Agricultural Chemicals (SIC 2873-2879)

Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L
Phosphorus 2.0 mg/L
Total Lead 0.5188 mg/L
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L

Industrial Inorganic Chemicals (SIC 2812-2819)
Total Aluminum 0.75 mg/L
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L
Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L

Soaps, Detergents, Cosmetics, and Perfumes (SIC 2841-2844)

Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L
Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L

Plastics, Synthetics, and Resins (SIC 2821-2824)
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L

SECTOR E: GLASS, CLAY, CEMENT, CONCRETE, AND GYPSUM PRODUCTS
Clay Product Manufacturers (SIC 3251- 3259, 3261-3269)
Total Aluminum 0.75 mg/L

Concrete and Gypsum Product Manufacturers (SIC 3271-3275)

Total Iron 1.0 mg/L

SECTOR F: PRIMARY METALS

Steel Works, Blast Furnaces, and Rolling and Finishing Mills (SIC 3312-3317)
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L
Total Aluminum 0.75 mg/L

Iron and Steel Foundries (SIC 3321-3325)
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L
Total Aluminum 0.75 mg/L
Total Copper 0.0756 mg/L
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L

Rolling, Drawing, and Extruding of Nonferrous Metals (SIC 3351-3357)
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L
Total Copper 0.0756 mg/L

Nonferrous Foundries (SIC 3363-3369)
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L
Total Copper 0.0756 mg/L

SECTOR G: METAL MINING (ORE MINING AND DRESSING)
Active Copper Ore Mining and Dressing Facilities (SIC 1021)
Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L

Iron Ores; Copper Ores; Lead and Zinc Ores; Gold and Silver Ores; Ferroalloy Ores, Except Vanadium; and Miscellaneous Metal Ores (SIC Codes 1011, 1021, 1031, 1041, 1044, 1061,
1081, 1094, 1099)
Total Antimony 0.636 mg/L
Total Arsenic 0.16854 mg/ L
Total Beryllium 0.13 mg/L
Total Cadmium 0.0118 mg/L
Total Copper 0.0756 mg/L
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L
Total Lead 0.5188 mg/L
Total Mercury 0.0024 mg/L
Total Nickel 6.43 mg/L
Total Selenium 0.2385 mg/L
Total Silver 0.0107 mg/L
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L

SECTOR H: COAL MINES AND COAL MINING-RELATED FACILITIES
Coal Mines and Related Areas (SIC 1221-1241)
Total Aluminum 0.75 mg/L
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L

SECTOR J: MINERAL MINING AND DRESSING
Sand and Gravel Mining (SIC 1442, 1446)
Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L

SECTOR K: HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Ammonia 19 mg/L
Total Magnesium 0.0636 mg/L
Total Arsenic 0.15 mg/L
Total Cadmium 0.0118 mg/L
Total Cyanide 0.0636 mg/ L
Total Lead 0.5188 mg/L
Total Mercury 0.0024 mg/ L
Total Selenium 0.2385 mg/L
Total Silver 0.0107 mg/L

SECTOR L: LANDFILLS, LAND APPLICATION SITES, AND OPEN DUMPS
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L

SECTOR M: AUTOMOBILE SALVAGE YARDS
Automobile Salvage Yards (SIC 5015)
Total Aluminum 0.75 mg/L
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L
Total Lead 0.5188 mg/L

SECTOR N: SCRAP RECYCLING FACILITIES
Scrap Recycling and Waste Recycling Facilities (SIC 5093)
Total Aluminum 0.75 mg/L
Total Copper 0.0756 mg/L
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L
Total Lead 0.5188 mg/L
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L

SECTOR O: STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITIES
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L

SECTOR Q: WATER TRANSPORTATION
Water Transportation Facilities (SIC 4412-4499)
Total Aluminum 0.75 mg/L
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L
Total Lead 0.5188 mg/L
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L

SECTOR S: AIR TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
Airports (SIC 4512-4581).
Ammonia 19 mg/L

SECTOR U: FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS
Fats and Oils Products (SIC 2074-2079)
Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L

SECTOR Y: RUBBER, MISCELLANEOUS PLASTIC PRODUCTS, AND MISCELLANEOUS MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES
Rubber Products Manufacturing (SIC 3011, 3021, 3052, 3053, 3061, 3069)
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L


SECTOR AA: FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS
Fabricated Metal Products, except Coating (SIC 3411-3499; 3911-3915)
Total Aluminum 0.75 mg/L
Total Iron 1.0 mg/L
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L
Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L

Fabricated Metal Coating and Engraving (SIC 3479)
Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen 0.68 mg/L
Total Zinc 0.6840 mg/L

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, stormwater and wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Thursday, April 9, 2009

NPDES Permit Requirement For Pesticide Application - 2-Yr Stay Request

On April 9, 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) chose not to seek rehearing on an opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in National Cotton Council v. EPA. DOJ instead filed a motion to stay the issuance of the Court’s mandate for two years. This time was requested to provide EPA time to develop, propose and issue a final NPDES general permit for pesticide applications, for States to develop permits, and to provide outreach and education to the regulated community.

Reversing EPA’s November 2006 Aquatics Pesticides rule, the 6th Circuit held that Clean Water Act permits are required for all biological pesticide applications and chemical pesticide applications that leave a residue in water when such applications are made in or over, including near, waters of the U.S. EPA estimates that the ruling will affect approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators that perform 5.6 million pesticide applications annually.

EPA has stated that it intends to work closely with states and the environmental and regulated communities in developing a general permit that is protective of the environment and public health.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website


Friday, April 3, 2009

CT Stormwater Benchmarks for Copper, Lead, Zinc and Other

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) has proposed to revise and renew its General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity. The previous General Permit was adopted in 2002, modified in 2003, and expired on March 31, 2008.

Recent proposals by DEP have significantly lowered numeric "benchmarks" associated with industrial stormwater discharges.

The 2002 permit required annual monitoring of stormwater discharges from qualifying storm events for an expansive list of chemical and physical parameters, including whole effluent toxicity, and a set of Target Values for the parameters based on the 80th percentile of the monitoring data collected in previous years.

In 2008, DEP announced that it would be revising the permit. It proposed to update its 80th percentile Target Values to reflect the monitoring data acquired since the prior permit was adopted in 2002. DER also proposed Action Levels at the 95th percentile of prior monitoring results which would require follow-up action by registrants to investigate the source of the exceedances and modify their BMPs and SWPPP.

On February 4, 2009, DEP issued a new proposed draft which adopts ten sectors modeled on the EPA “MSGP-2008” Multisector permit, with semi-annual monitoring. The previously proposed “Action Levels” have become “Benchmarks” to track the federal language. DEP’s proposal retains the broad spectrum of parameters to be included in the monitoring program, including toxicity, but makes some sector specific adjustments. The toxicity monitoring requirement carries with it no Benchmark. The draft also adds annual monitoring for parameters for which receiving waters have been designated impaired or subject to Total Maximum Daily Load restrictions.

The Benchmark values for copper, lead and zinc are based on Connecticut’s State Water Quality Standards. The Benchmarks for remaining parameters (pH, O&G, COD, TSS, TP, TKN, and NO3), are based on the 50th percentile of the previously acquired monitoring data.

DEP expects to go to notice on a new proposal in April 2009. In the meantime, the DEP has published notice that it intends to extend the 2002 General Permit once again until September 30, 2010.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Tuesday, March 31, 2009

EPA Strategic Plan to Evaluate Toxicity of Chemicals

The US EPA has recently released its Strategic Plan for Evaluating the Toxicity of Chemicals. This Strategic Plan is centered on three interrelated components: (1) the use of toxicity pathways identification and use of this information in screening and prioritization of chemicals for further testing; (2) the use of toxicity pathways information in risk assessment; and (3) the institutional transition necessary to implement such practices across EPA.

As background, in 2006 EPA commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies to develop a long-range vision for toxicity testing and risk assessment. Their 2007 report, "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: a Vision and a Strategy", recommended a transformation that focused on identifying and evaluating "toxicity pathways," i.e., cellular response pathways responsible for adverse health effects when sufficiently perturbed by environmental agents under realistic exposure conditions.

To build the NRC report, EPA established a cross-Agency workgroup. This workgroup produced current Strategic Plan.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Monday, March 30, 2009

Mercury Limits On Industrial Wastewater Discharge

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) restrictions on mercury discharges to municipal sewer systems go into effect on May 1, 2009. These rules, promulgated under the Massachusetts Mercury Management Act (314 CMR 7.05) limit the maximum concentration of mercury in sanitary sewer discharges from industrial users to less than 1 ug/L (1 ppb). By July of 2007 all dischargers were to have determined possible sources of mercury in their discharges and have taken reasonable steps to eliminate them.

[What is 1 ug/L (parts per billion) mercury equivalent to?]

This restriction is one element of the Massachusetts Mercury Management Act, passed in 2006. In addition to placing numeric limits on the mercury concentration in industrial discharges, the Act required:

  • Specific mercury-containing devises cannot be sold in Massachusetts beginning May 1, 2008
  • Labeling of mercury-containing products required by May 1, 2008
  • Schools are prohibited from purchasing mercury-containing products for classroom use beginning on Oct. 1, 2008
  • Manufacturers must disclose mercury content in allowable mercury-containing devises sold to healthcare facilities
  • Prohibition on the disposal of mercury or mercury-containing devices in trash or wastewater

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide with specialized expertise in assessment of mercury impacts, mercury pollution prevention plans and compliance with mercury limits and standards.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



What is 1 ug/L of mercury discharge limit equivalent to?

A water concentration of 1 ug/L (or parts per billion) of mercury is roughly equivalent to the mercury contained in a small thermometer diluted in 0.5 million gallons of water. This small amount of mercury left in a sink trap could contaminate the wastewater discharged from a large facility for many months.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Friday, March 27, 2009

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Expanded in UK - EU Nitrates Directive

As of January 1, 2009, the areas designated as Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZs) increased to approximately 70% of England. This includes the 55% originally designated in 2002. Farmers who wished to appeal the designation of their land within a NVZ had until March 10, 2009 to submit evidence. Appeals could be made on the grounds, that 1) the land does not drain into water that has been identified as polluted; or 2) the land drains into water that should not have been identified as polluted.

As background, the European Union (EU) Nitrates Directive, passed in 1991, requires Member States to identify waters which are or could become polluted by nitrates and to designate as NVZs all land draining to those waters and contributing to the pollution.

The following criteria are used in identifying polluted waters:

  • Surface freshwaters which contain or could contain, if preventative action is not taken, nitrate concentrations greater than 50 mg/L.
  • Groundwaters which contain or could contain, if preventative action is not taken, nitrate concentrations greater than 50 mg/L.
  • Natural freshwater lakes, or other freshwater bodies, estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters which are eutrophic or may become so in the near future if protective action is not taken.

The Directive requires Member States to establish a mandatory Action Program of measures for the purposes of reducing nitrate loss from agriculture. The Action Program could be applied either within NVZs or throughout the whole country. Action Programs must contain rules relating to:

  1. periods when the land application of certain types of fertilizer is prohibited;
  2. the capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure;
  3. the land application of fertilizer to steeply sloping ground;
    the land application of fertilizer to water-saturated, flooded, frozen or snow-covered ground;
  4. the conditions for land application of fertilizer near water courses;
  5. procedures for the land application, including rate and uniformity of spreading, of both chemical fertilizer and livestock manure;
  6. limitation of the land application of fertilizers based on a balance between the foreseeable nitrogen requirements of the crops, and the nitrogen supply to the crops from the soil and from fertilization; and
  7. the amount of livestock manure applied to the land each year, including by the animals themselves, shall not exceed 170 kg N per hectare.

There is an obligation for Member States to review the effectiveness of their Action Program measures at least every four years.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Sunday, March 15, 2009

Use of Aquatic Life Standards As Stormwater Benchmark Values

On July 6, 2009, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) released the draft of its proposed multi-sector industrial stormwater discharge general permit. This permit, once promulgated, will replace the existing industrial stormwater permit, which expired in October of 2002.

The MPCA draft permit is of interest outside of Minnesota because of the numerous unique requirements that MPCA has included. Many of these go well beyond other current State general permits, and even the most recent US EPA general permit (“MSGP-2008”). Unique features of the MPCA permit include special stormwater antidegradation requirements, design and performance requirements for stormwater infiltration, requirements for mercury minimization, and others.

One unique feature of the draft MPCA general permit is the use of Aquatic Life Standards as Stormwater Benchmarks. Stormwater benchmarks are used to evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP). MPCA is currently proposing to use some Final Acute Values (FAV) and “Great Lakes” derived water quality standards as stormwater benchmarks. For other proposed benchmarks, “Best Professional Judgment” is the basis for the values.

MPCA is proposing to use FAV that apply to cold water fisheries or “trout streams” (Class 2A) for a number of benchmark chemicals, including:

Aluminum
Ammonia
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Nitrogen
Phenol
Selenium
Silver
Zinc

For some of these chemicals, MPCA is apparently considering water quality-based adjustments, based on parameters such as hardness, pH, temperature, etc.

These water quality-based benchmarks, as proposed, would not apply to all industrial categories. The industry sectors that would be subject to one or more water quality derived benchmarks include:

Sector A - Timber Products
Sector C - Chemical and Allied Products Manufacturing
Sector E - Glass, Clay, Cement, Concrete, and Gypsum Products
Sector I - Oil and Gas Extraction and Refining
Sector K - Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facilities
Sector L - Landfills, Land Application Sites, and Open Dumps
Sector M - Automobile Salvage Yards
Sector N - Scrap Recycling and Waste Recycling Facilities
Sector Q - Water Transportation
Sector U - Food and Kindred Products
Sector X - Printing and Publishing
Sector Y - Rubber, Miscellaneous Plastic Products, and Miscellaneous Manufacturing
Industries
Sector Z - Leather Tanning and Finishing
Sector AA - Fabricated Metal Products
Sector AC - Electronic and Electrical Equipment and Components

Looking for other sector information? Click here for information on proposed stormwater requirements for a specific sector.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website


Saturday, March 14, 2009

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons PAH in Stormwater Discharges

Collaborative studies by the City of Austin, TX, and the U. S. Geological Survey have identified coal-tar based sealcoat as a major and previously unrecognized source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) contamination. Several PAHs are suspected human carcinogens and are toxic to aquatic life.

Studies in Austin, Texas, showed that particles in runoff from coal-tar based sealcoated parking lots have concentrations of PAHs that are about 65 times higher than concentrations in particles washed off parking lots that have not been sealcoated. Biological studies, conducted by the City of Austin in the field and in the laboratory, indicate that PAH levels in sediment contaminated with abraded sealcoat are toxic to aquatic life and are degrading aquatic communities.

Laboratory studies included toxicity tests conducted with waters collected downstream of areas which received seal-coating, and representative control areas. These studies led the researchers to estimate that about 13% of Greater Austin area streams had PAH concentrations high enough to be toxic to benthic invertebrates.

This research has led the City of Austin to ban the use of coal-tar sealants for roads, parking lots, driveways, and other paved areas.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website




Friday, March 13, 2009

Chloride - Sulphate - TDS Water Quality Standards in Iowa

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is moving forward on revising Iowa’s water quality standards. Water Quality Standards are the regulatory standards that apply to streams, rivers and lakes. Water Quality Standards consist of three components:

  • Designate the use or uses of the waterbody
  • Set the water quality criteria for protecting those uses
  • Protect and maintain existing water quality

Recently, the DNR began to compile all research related to toxicity of total dissolved solids (TDS), chloride and sulfate in order to update and develop criteria for these parameters. Certain data gaps were identified in the existing data sets which resulted in IDNR conducting some new toxicity tests.

With the availability of new toxicity data, IDNR believes that the minimum data requirements are now met to propose numeric criteria for chloride and sulfate. IDNR plans to also reevaluate the current interim approach for total dissolved solids criteria. The Department is planning on discussing this approach as Information item at the April Environmental Protection Commission meeting.


Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website


Thursday, March 12, 2009

New - Expanded Air Emissions Under MPCA Statewide Mercury TMDL

In Minnesota, the vast majority of impaired water bodies reported to EPA by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) are based on mercury impairments. The State water quality criterion for mercury, which is the basis for determining if a water body is impaired, is the mercury concentration in representative fish from the water body. This criterion is in contrast to most water quality criteria, which are based on concentrations in water.

To address mercury impaired waters statewide, MPCA will be controlling air emissions of mercury. The MPCA Statewide Mercury TMDL established a need for a 93% reduction in State emissions compared to a 1990 baseline.

Because current air emissions of mercury need to be reduced, the issue of permitting new sources or expanding existing sources of mercury becomes a critical issue. On February 25, 2009, MPCA released a working draft of its proposed guidelines for issuing air permits for new or expanded sources, under the constraints of the the Mercury TMDL.

The proposed guidelines for any existing mercury-emitting facility with an MPCA air permit planning to expand and any new facility expected to emit mercury would require implementation of the measures listed below to address the increases. An expanding source that demonstrates no net increase from their proposed project would not be subject to these requirements.

1. Employ the best mercury control available. The MPCA expects facilities to explore all pollution prevention opportunities and utilize the best control technically feasible considering environmental, energy and economic impacts. If best controls reduce emissions by less than 90%, the new source will be subject to periodic review for opportunities for improved control efficiency;

2. Complete environmental review as applicable, including evaluation of local and cumulative impacts per MPCA guidelines;

3. During permitting, the facility will provide an assessment of whether its added emissions will impede progress toward attaining the sector's pound/year air emission goal The MPCA may periodically request that this assessment be updated as the sector's goal approaches.

4. For new or expanding facilities emitting more than 3 pounds per year (after applying best controls) the facility will demonstrate equivalent reductions from existing sources. The facility will demonstrate that the reductions will be ongoing and will exceed reductions already included in stakeholder recommendations or called for by any other policy or requirement. Equivalent reductions can also be created by reducing emissions ahead of schedule.

5. If equivalent mercury reductions from another facility in Minnesota can not be identified, a new facility emitting between 3 pounds and 9 pounds per year may propose alternative mitigation strategies in lieu of an equivalent in-state air emission reduction. Alternative mitigation strategies will demonstrate an environmental benefit related to mercury and will be consistent with the objectives of the TMDL.

6. During permitting, submit a plan to the MPCA describing the facility's specific plan for reductions described in 1 - 5 above. "

MPCA will issue permits with enforceable conditions for new or expanded sources based on the facility's Mercury Reduction Plan. MPCA plans to strictly enforce sector targets. Increases in a sector's emissions will not be allowed to impact the sector's ability to reach its interim and final annual air emission goals.


Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Wastewater Permit Limits Compared To Water Quality Standards

The “standards” that can be applied to wastewater discharges, or any discharge regulated under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit in a number of different ways, and can be applied differently to different types of discharges. Three common types of standards which are often confusing to permittees are 1) water quality standards, 2) effluent limits, and 3) permit limits. Here we provide a brief description to highlight some of the differences between these three types of standards and how they might interact.

Water Quality Standards
Water quality standards (also known as ambient water quality criteria) are specific standards set by States and apply to the quality of surface waters – lakes, rivers, streams, etc. Ideally, these standards reflect the highest concentration of a chemical that can be present in a given water body that will still allow it to meet its designated uses. These water quality standards usually apply to designated uses which are assigned to each water body.

Effluent Limits
Effluent limits (sometimes called categorical standards, or categorical effluent limits) are standards that apply to the quality of wastewater discharges from a specific “category” of industry-type. These limits apply to all dischargers within that category, no matter where they discharge to. These limits will typically apply to "end-of-pipe". Effluent limits can apply to wastewater discharges going to a sanitary sewer as well as to surface waters.

Permit Limits
Permit limits are specific standards that apply to a given permittee and show up in their NPDES permit. They can reflect Effluent Limits that might apply to that permittee, if they are a categorical discharger. The permit limits will also reflect limits on specific chemicals that are needed to meet the water quality standards associated with the receiving water(sometimes refered to as "water quality-based effluent limits" or WQBEL). This does not mean that the discharger will be allowed a discharge that will begin the receiving water up to its Water Quality Standard. State Antidegradation Policies may require limits on specific chemicals that are well below their Water Quality Standards in the receiving water.

[Read more about Antidegradation Policies]


Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website




Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Water Effect Ratio - Using WER in NPDES Permits

The water effect ratio (WER) is defined as the ratio of the toxicity of a chemical in site water to the toxicity of the same chemical in standard laboratory water. Because standard laboratory water would have been used to generate toxicity data used to calculate State or Federal Water Quality Criterion, a WER which is greater than or less than 1 would infer that the chemical would be more or less toxic in site water. Therefore, the ambient water quality standard might be adjusted to meet the same aquatic life protection goals. The water effect ratio is developed to compensate for site-specific biogeochemical factors such as hardness, alkalinity, organic carbon, etc. which can influence the bioavailability and toxicity of chemical.

In practice, WER are often used to generate site-specific water quality standards that are higher than State or Federal standards.

The process of generating and using WER in the NPDES permitting process requires close coordination with the permitting agency. Work to prepare acceptable WER may require water quality monitoring and laboratory toxicity tests. NPDES permits issued using a WER may also include additional receiving water monitoring requirements.



Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website




KDHE Fish Consumption Advisories - 2009 Update

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) recently issued revised fish consumption advisories for 2009. The advisories identify species of fish that should be eaten in limited quantities or, in some cases, avoided altogether because of contamination found in tested fish.

The advisories include guidelines for

  • mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish,
  • perchlorate in fish and other aquatic life, and
  • lead and cadmium in shellfish.

According to KDHE, data from most Kansas long-term monitoring sites show a decrease in PCB levels and no trend in mercury concentrations.

The two agencies recommend not eating specified fish or aquatic life from a number of specific lakes and rivers. Kansas counties with current fish consumption advisories include Cherokee, Douglas, Johnson, Leavenworth, Reno, Sedgwick, and Sumner.

Average mercury concentrations in Kansas fishes are lower than nationwide averages. KDHE protocol uses the average tissue mercury level when conducting water body specific risk assessments. However, when considering the condition of the water bodies as a whole, the median concentration may be a better indicator of central tendency and is somewhat lower than the average.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Monday, March 9, 2009

Section 404 Wetlands Program - EPA Review of MDEQ

In 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a report on its informal review of Michigan’s EPA-approved Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 wetlands program. Michigan is one of only two States to have received approval to administer the Section 404 program. Michigan’s Section 404 program is implemented by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

In its report, EPA identified a number of deficiencies in Michigan’s program. MDEQ has agreed to address the deficiencies , including seeking legislative amendments to Michigan’s wetlands statute, Part 303 (Wetlands Protection) of the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). EPA took issue with a number of activities that Part 303 exempts from the requirement to obtain a wetlands permit, that are not exempted from Federal requirements, including exemptions for:


  • agricultural activities;
  • drain creation and improvement; and

  • iron and copper mining tailings basins.

To address these deficiencies, MDEQ has agreed to seek legislative amendments that would limit the agricultural exemptions, delete the agricultural drainage exemptions, delete the exemption for iron and copper mining tailings basins; and to delete the exemption for utility maintenance activities.

MDEQ committed to beginning the legislative corrective actions in early 2009 and to completing them within 36 months. EPA will review the status of MDEQ’s corrective actions within 36 months after the Notice to determine whether Michigan’s Clean Water Act Section 404 wetlands program approval should be revoked.


Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website


EPA Pesticide Aquatic Life Benchmarks - Water Quality Criteria Comparison

Two Offices within US EPA derive “standards” for pesticides to protect aquatic life. However, the methods used to derive these “standards” are quite different, as are the intended uses for the information.

Aquatic life benchmarks are derived by Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) to assist in performing its responsibilities to regulate pesticides used in the US. OPP aquatic life benchmarks are determined based on toxicity data reviewed by the Agency during its most recent risk assessment as part of the pesticide registration process. OPP relies on studies required under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as well as laboratory and field studies available in the public scientific literature to assess environmental risk. Aquatic life benchmarks represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoint for a given aquatic organism using all scientifically acceptable toxicity data available to EPA. OPP then uses these aquatic benchmarks in risk assessments developed for pesticides. The benchmarks can be helpful in interpreting monitoring data, and to identify and prioritize sites and pesticides that may require further investigation.

[Read more about other types of "benchmarks" used by EPA and States in NPDES permits]

The US EPA Office of Water (OW) has the responsibility for evaluating aquatic toxicity data to assess the ecological effects of chemicals in surface water. The OW uses aquatic toxicity data to develop national ambient water quality criteria that can then be adopted by States and tribes to establish water quality standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA). These standards are used to determine if individual water bodies meet their intended uses, and in setting NPDES permit discharge limits. Ambient Water Quality Criteria are derived for a wide range of chemicals, which include certain chemicals which are registered by OPP under FIFRA.

In contrast to OPP benchmarks, ambient water quality criteria derived by OW are based on a statistical evaluation of the available toxicity data. This approach derives a concentration to protect the integrity of the aquatic community rather than selecting a concentration that is protective of the single most sensitive organism.

OPP and OW are currently working together to harmonize the scientific approaches that now underlie both programs. A harmonized approach is expected to result in consistent tools and approaches to use in ensuring the protection of aquatic ecosystems.



Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website




NDEQ NPDES Permit By Rule For Pesticide Application

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) is proposing a Permit-By-Rule related to the application of pesticides in and near waters of the State.

As background, the Permit-by-Rule is being proposed to address a gap in permit coverage left after a decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on January 7, 2009, which vacated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s pesticide rule. The EPA rule had exempted certain pesticides applied to waters in accordance with Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) labeled instructions from requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Vacating the EPA rule means a NPDES permit under the CWA is required for each application of pesticides to water to control pests and noxious plants.

The NDEQ rule establishes a Permit-by-Rule for the application of pesticides to, over, or near, waters of the state provided that the pesticide applicator:

(1) complies with FIFRA requirements relating to water quality, including compliance with all label application directions, such as application rates, active ingredient concentrations and dilution requirements, buffer zones, application locations, intended targets, protecting threatened or endangered species, times of day, temperature or other application requirements, and proper disposal of pesticide residues; and
(2) retains certain information relating to name of the pesticide, targeted pests or weeds, and a copy of the FIFRA labeling instructions, pesticide label, and date, time, and location of the application, application rate and the total amount of material applied.

The Permit-by-Rule applies to chemical pesticides only; no biological pesticides are allowed under the Permit-by-Rule. NDEQ also requires the applicator to report any adverse impacts to non-targeted species or the environment to the Department within 24 hours.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Sunday, March 8, 2009

Alaska DEC Clean Water Act Delegation From EPA

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently delegated to the State of Alaska its authority under the Clean Water Act. EPA will transfer its wastewater discharge permitting authority and enforcement in Alaska to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

Alaska joins 45 other States that oversee their own National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Delegated States can write their own standards, but they can not be any less strict than federal standards. EPA maintains an oversight role for Clean Water Act programs in these States.

In November 2008, DEC took control over wastewater discharge permits for timber harvesting, seafood processing and municipal dischargers. Existing permits issued by the EPA will be converted into State permits. Over the next three years, in phases, Alaska DEC will take over permitting of federal facilities in Alaska, stormwater, mining, and finally oil and gas permits, cooling water and other minor permitting programs.


Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website



Turbidity Effluent Limits For Industrial - MS4 Stormwater Permits

US EPA has recently proposed effluent limits on turbidity for stormwater discharges from larger construction sites.

[Read more about Construction Stormwater Discharge Effluent Limits].

This has prompted many industrial and municipal stormwater permitees to speculate on whether or not similar effluent limits will be proposed under Multi-sector General Permits (MSGP) or Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System ("MS4") permits.

The simple answer is that almost anything is possible.

However, the establishment of construction site effluent limits has some important differences that may not be easily transferred to effluent limits for industrial or MS4 permits. Some of these differences include:


  1. Effluent limits proposed for larger construction sites are based on a specific stormwater treatment method that is added to the stormwater treatment pond already required for smaller sites. Without the requirement to install a pond, the additional treatment may not be economically-feasible. Unless specific structural BMPs, like ponds, are required for industrial or MS4 dischargers, it would be difficult to translate the construction site effluent limits. Because of the nature of industrial and MS4 discharges, requiring treatment ponds would be difficult.


  2. In general, the types of activities and stormwater handling practices associated with industrial and MS4 discharges will be significantly broader compared to construction sites. Therefore, again, translating the proposed effluent limits to industrial and MS4 dischargers would be difficult.

Given these factors, it may be difficult to demonstrate that similar Best Available Technology used to calculate effluent limits for construction site discharges could be equally applied to other types of discharges.


Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients nationwide to address water quality standards, wastewater permitting and assessing potential impacts of chemicals in the aquatic environment.

For more information on Stormwater Permitting & Compliance Services, go to:
Caltha LLP SWPPP - Stormwater Services Website