Water Quality Standards | Aquatic Toxicology | NPDES Permit Limits: March 2009

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.

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.

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:

periods when the land application of certain types of fertilizer is prohibited;
the capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure;
the land application of fertilizer to steeply sloping ground;
the land application of fertilizer to water-saturated, flooded, frozen or snow-covered ground;
the conditions for land application of fertilizer near water courses;
procedures for the land application, including rate and uniformity of spreading, of both chemical fertilizer and livestock manure;
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
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Turbidity Effluent Limits For Industrial - MS4 Stormwater Permits

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

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:

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.

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

Oklahoma (ODEQ) Amendments to Biomonitoring - Whole Effluent Toxicity Test Requirements

The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has proposed certian modifications to State rules concerning biomonitoring (whole effluent toxicity, or WET) requirements for wastewater dischargers. Permittees with biomonitoring requirements must collect samples of their effluent periodically and conduct standardized laboratory toxicity tests to determine if the effluent exhibits any adverse responses to test organisms.

Under the proposed rules, a sublethal test failure (failure to demonstrate growth or reproduction) will be handled the same as a lethal test failure (death to the test organisms). This change is required based on changes in US EPA requirements and has already been promulgated into Oklahoma’s Water Quality Standards.

The proposed rule modifications also refine under what circumstances a facility may request a change biomonitoring organism from Daphnia pulex or Ceriodaphnia dubia to Daphnia magna.

One additional change is being proposed by ODEQ which is unrelated to biomonitoring. ODEQ has proposed rule modifications would require monthly monitoring for phosphorus and/or nitrogen if a facility is discharging to a nutrient limited watershed as designated by Oklahoma’s Water Quality Standards.

Stormwater Benchmark Values - Benchmarks for TSS

About one-third of US States include chemical monitoring in their general stormwater discharges permits. Over time, this percentage has been increasing as States revise their permits as they expire.

[Read about recent trends in industrial stormwater permit requirements across US]

For States that require chemical analysis of stormwater samples, “benchmark” concentrations or values are often included. Benchmark concentrations can be specified for a number of different chemical parameters, but the more common chemicals which are assigned benchmarks include total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), nutrients and heavy metals.

Benchmark values differ from permit limits. In a typical wastewater NPDES permit, limits may be specified for chemical parameters; if any of the limits are exceeded, it becomes a violation of the permit and may be subject to enforcement action.

Benchmark values are intended to provide a measurement of the effectiveness of the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Exceeding a benchmark does not directly result in a permit violation. However, permits typically require facilities to reevaluate their SWPPP and to take prompt corrective action after a benchmark value is exceeded. Failure to take prompt corrective action if a benchmark value is exceeded can be a permit violation and subject to enforcement action.

Benchmark values tend to be fairly stringent. For example, a common benchmark concentration for total suspended solids (TSS) is 100 mg/L. To put this concentration into perspective, it is roughly equivalent to 1 teaspoon of sediment added to 14.5 gallons of water.

As a sector example, US EPA tested the stormwater discharge at 185 transportation and warehousing facilities. The average TSS was reported as 466 mg/L and half the facilities sampled exceeded 159 mg/L (Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 189). Based on these data, over one-half of transportation and warehouse sites would not meet the 100 mg/L benchmark.

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

Saturday, March 7, 2009

Potential Review of EPA Vessel General Permit Requirements

In December, the EPA released a general permit for cargo vessels entering the Great Lakes or other US waters from overseas that includes rules for 26 types of discharges, such as ballast, oily bilge water and "gray water", deck runoff and engine cooling water. Beginning on February 6, 2009, vessels ranging from large cruise ships to barges, tankers and many recreational vessels have to obtain permit coverage meet certain requirements under the terms of the Vessel General Permit (VGP). These new requirements include best management practices and standards that differ depending on the type of discharge and the type of vessel. Recordkeeping requirements, self reporting, training and other obligations are also required for vessel owners and operators.

One of the key goals of the permit program is to control the spread of invasive species. Ballast water is a leading pathway for the spread of zebra mussels and other non-native aquatic species, which can displace native species and result in significant damage. The EPA permit requires vessels heading for US ports with full ballast tanks to exchange the water at least 200 miles from shore. Ships with empty tanks must rinse them with salt water to kill freshwater organisms remaining in residual puddles or sediment.

However, the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency has indicated that the agency now plans to reconsider these rules. The agency believes that the VGP may do too little to prevent cargo ships from spreading invasive species. Similar measures have already had been required by Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard, and evidence suggests that they have been ineffective at control the spread of invasive species. Environmental groups also sued EPA in February 2009, saying the permit did not meet requirements of the Clean Water Act. They want shippers to install systems for sterilizing tanks to control invasive species.

The States of Minnesota and Michigan set up their own discharge permit programs before the EPA completed its VGP. The other Great Lakes states, except Wisconsin, added their own specifications to the EPA rules. Wisconsin state water officials adopted the VGP without amendments.

Friday, March 6, 2009

Addressing Impaired Waters in General NPDES Permit - TCEQ Example

NPDES permits issued for discharges to impaired water typically include specific requirements so that the new or expanded discharge does not "cause or contribute to" the impairment. General NPDES permits create a special situation in which a portion of permitted discharges may be to impaired waters and the nature of the impairments may be different.

General permits for stormwater discharges are particularly problematic in addressing impaired water and antidegradation requirements. As stormwater discharge permits are revised, States will attempt to address requirements for impaired waters in a manner that would apply to a wide range of discharges. How these requirements are expressed in the permit varies widely from State-to-State.

Some States have opted to incorporate requirements which promote pollution prevention measures. As one example, the State of Texas has detected levels of selected heavy metals in surface waters which are of concern, and has promulgated numeric discharge standards for “hazardous metals” into the industrial stormwater permit. However, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) approach is to allow facilities to do a self-assessment for sources of hazardous metals and implement pollution prevention measures to avoid the higher costs of hazardous metal sampling and testing. To be exempted, facilities must certify that:

Facility does not use a raw material, produce an intermediate product, or produce a final product that contains one of the listed hazardous metals, or
Any raw materials, intermediate products, or final products which contain a hazardous metal are never exposed to stormwater or runoff, or

Facility collects and analyses stormwater samples from the facility and the results indicate that hazardous metal(s) are not present in detectable levels.

Waivers may be obtained on a metal-by-metal basis, or on an outfall-by-outfall basis. A waiver from hazardous metals monitoring does not exempt the facility from other benchmark monitoring requirements which may apply.

[Read more about benchmark monitoring]

State NPDES Permit Requirements - NPDES Permitting

When the “modern” Clean Water Act was passed by Congress in 1972, it had to override a Presidential veto. One of the most controversial elements of the Act was a prohibition of all discharges to the Waters of United States, unless the discharge was specifically allowed by a National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Unlike many environmental Acts passed since, there is no “deminimis” discharge to surface waters allowed under the Clean Water Act.

Most States have been delegated to authority to issue NPDES permits (some States use a different acronym). The NPDES permit specific requirements that must be met. During the permit application process, the permitting agency can require the discharger perform studies or additional monitoring to assist the agency in developing appropriate permit conditions.

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Nutrient Water Quality Criteria

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has begun the formal process of setting nutrient water quality criteria for streams and rivers in the State, as required under section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act. This is the second phase of a process approved by US EPA in 2005 to set water quality standards for specific nutrients in waters of the State. This process was detailed in the document "Nutrient Criteria Plan".

Nutrient criteria for lakes and reservoirs have already been drafted and are scheduled for submission into the rulemaking process as a part of revision to Water Quality Standards.

MDNR began conducting public meetings in February 2009 to solicit input into the development of nutrient criteria for streams and rivers.

Tiered Aquatic Life Use - TALU - Proposed By Minnesota MPCA

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is currently working to revise the Minnesota Water Quality Standards to incorporate a tiered aquatic life use framework for rivers and streams in the state. The Tiered Aquatic Life Use (TALU) framework represents a significant revision to the Water Quality Standards of the State’s aquatic life use classification.

MPCA conducted several public meetings to discuss the approach in January 2009, and is currently following up with smaller focused stakeholder groups. Rulemaking to incorporate TALU into State Water Quality Standards would not occur until 2010-2011.

The TALU approach utilizes biological assessments of water bodies to identify “stressed” aquatic communities. This assessment would be separate from, and in addition to, traditional current chemical monitoring of lakes and streams to determine if they meet State Water Quality Standards. TALU also provides a mechanism to determine impairments of “modified or limited water resources”, which may include channelized streams and agricultural ditches.

The biological monitoring program in Minnesota relies establishes a reference condition to set expectations for water bodies. This approach identifies water bodies that are the least stressed and uses them to establish the “reference condition.” This reference condition can then be used to evaluate other water bodies. If the condition of the water body is lower than that of the reference condition, it would be considered impacted or stressed.

TALU presents a few issues related to integration into existing regulatory programs and requirements, including:

How will assessments made using TALU relate to determination of impairment, and the State list of Impaired Waters (“303d List”)?
If listed on 303d List, how would a TMDL be implemented?
How would permitted discharges be controlled if discharging to a “stressed” water body?
How would it be determined that a discharge “causes or contributes to” an impairment if discharging to a “stressed” water body?
How would TALU be used for “development and modification of water quality standards to produce improved standards”?

Thursday, March 5, 2009

State Antidegradation Policies - New or Expanded Discharges

Over recent years, much attention has been placed on State policies and procedures regarding impaired waters, 303d listing, and TMDLs. However, State Antidegradation Policies can be as significant, and in many cases can affect significantly larger number of dischargers.

In essence, the two regulatory programs address two subsets of "waters of the State" 1) those that currently do not meet their water quality standards, and 2) those that do currently meet standards. Impaired Waters Programs address waters that do not meet their respective water quality standards. Studies and implementation plans ("TMDLs) are required to move these impaired waters back into compliance.

In contrast, Antidegradation policies or programs address waters that current meet their respective standards. In this case, policies or rules are in place to assure that NEW or EXPANDED discharges to these waters do not result in an unacceptable degradation in water quality (even if still below water quality standards). Antidegradation policies will generally set thresholds for new or expanded discharges above which Antidegradation Reviews may need to be conducted before the discharge is permitted.

One of the complicating factors in antidegradation policies is the application to stormwater discharges which require an NPDES permit. Typically the antidegradation policy thresholds are not expressed in units that are easily applied to stormwater discharges. For example, an existing industrial facility which has a permit to discharge stormwater expands its truck parking area, which technically increases flow. Depending on the specific requirements of the State's antidegradation policy, this increase may require an antidegradation review.

Turbidity Effluent Limits for Stormwater Discharges

In December 2008, US EPA published proposed effluent limits for stormwater discharges from construction sites. The proposed rules included a numeric effluent limit of 90 NTU. NTUs are a standard measurement of turbidity in water and of suspended material in the water.

[Read more about proposed stormwater effluent standards]

Benchmark values and previous stormwater effluent limits have always been expressed as Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Turbidity is related to TSS, however the relationship between turbidity and TSS is not always direct, and will be affected by a number of different factors.

Stormwater benchmark concentrations for TSS usually range from 100 to 250 mg/L. Using a few typical conversions between NTU and TSS, it is predicted that an effluent limit of 90 NTU will be roughly equivalent to 45 to 65 mg/L expressed as TSS. Therefore, it is projected that the proposed stormwater effluent limit is about one-half the lowest current benchmark concentration for TSS.

[Read more about the use of stormwater benchmark values]

State Water Quality Standards - Site Specific NPDES Permit Limits

Setting water quality standards (also known as “ambient water quality criteria, or AWQC”) is one of three elements of a typical State water pollution control program under the Clean Water Act.

Designating uses of water bodies
Establishing water quality standards to meet designated uses
Waste discharge permit / NPDES permits

States will also have policies or rules that are used to assure that water bodies that do not meet their water quality standards (“impaired waters”) are brought back into compliance, and policies or rules to assure that water bodies currently meeting standards are not allowed to be significantly degraded (“antidegradation or nondegradation policy”).

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Stormwater Antidegradation Requirements for Tier 2, 2.5, 3 Waters

The US EPA Multi-sector General Permit promulgated in 2008 (“MSGP-2008”) includes antidegradation requirements that apply to new and/or expanded discharges of stormwater from regulated industrial sites.

[What is an Antidegradation Policy?]

EPA’s approach to antidegradation requirements is based on three categories of “special” waters – Tier 2, Tier 2.5 and Tier 3.

[Read more about how Stormwater Antidegradation Tiers are defined]

Requirements:

Tier 2. For new or existing dischargers to Tier 2 waters, the discharger is required to notify US EPA prior to making changes at the site which “qualify the facility as a new source or that could significantly change the nature or significantly increase the quantity of pollutants discharged”. EPA may notify the facility that additional analyses, control measures, or other permit conditions are necessary to comply with the applicable antidegradation requirements, or notify the facility that an individual permit application is necessary.

Tier 2.5. Same requirements as Tier 2.

Tier 3. New or existing discharges to Tier 3 waters can not be permitted under the MSGP-2008.

Amendments to Rhode Island Water Quality Regulations

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) has recently proposing amendments to the Rhode Island Water Quality Regulations The proposed amendments are in accordance with Section 303 of the Clean Water Act, which requires that States review applicable water quality standards from time to time and hold public hearings for the purpose of modification and adoption of new standards (commonly known as “Triennial Review”).

DEM has proposed amendments to the Regulations include:

Adoption of coldwater and warmwater fishery definitions,
Provide the Department authority to issue a conditional approval for certain sewer system connections,
Change of water quality classification for Prince's Pond from freshwater (Class A) to saltwater (Class SA),
Amendment regulations to include site specific dissolved copper criteria for specific water bodies,
Correct a few specific typographical errors.

Water Quality Standards on Mississippi - EPA Requirements for MDNR

In December 2008, US EPA informed the Missouri Department Natural Resources (MDNR) that new or revised water quality standards are necessary to protect portions of the Mississippi River in Missouri.

MDNR designated many stream segments and all of its lakes for recreational uses. However, Missouri did not assign the highest level of recreational use to a 195.5-mile segment of the Mississippi River that flows from St. Louis to the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. This EPA action directs the State to address approximately 160 miles of the Mississippi River to ensure that swimming, water-skiing and other recreational uses are protected. This will require MDNR to assign more stringent water quality criteria, which may in turn result in tighter wastewater discharge permit limits.

This action could impact many municipal and industrial NPDES permitted discharges in this reach of the Mississippi River, whether or not existing water quality data indicate that the river does/ does not currently meet recreational use standards.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Proposed Antidegradation Policy - Extension of DNR Comment Period

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has extended the public comment period on the proposed antidegradation rules to March 4.

Antidegradation policy is one of the three components of Iowa water quality standards - 1) designated uses, 2) water quality criteria to protect those uses, and 3) antidegradation policy. The Iowa DNR is proposing a four-tiered approach, including creating a guidance document that establishes procedures for implementing the antidegradation policy.

The changes being proposed include the following:

Incorporate by reference the document entitled “Iowa Antidegradation Implementation Procedure,” which proposes an approach to be followed in assessing and minimizing degradation of Iowa’s surface waters

Update antidegradation policy language with four tier approach, and

Remove High Quality (Class HQ) and High Quality Resource (Class HQR) designated uses and add several waters to the newly proposed Outstanding Iowa Water (OIW) category.

MPCA Water Quality Standards - Revised Rule 7050 - 7052

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is requesting comments on its planned amendments (“Triennial Review”) to rules governing state water quality standards found in Minnesota Rules Chapters. 7050 and 7052.

- Chapter 7050 includes provisions to protect Minnesota’s waters from pollution.
- Chapter 7052 provides standards specific to surface waters of the state in the Lake Superior Basin.

The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to review their water quality standards every three years (“Triennial Review”) and to amend and update them if necessary. The MPCA initiated this triennial review by seeking comments in a Request for Comments published in the July 28, 2008, State Register. The key amendments being considered for the upcoming Triennial Review include:

Planned Amendments for Numeric Standards for Class 2 waters
Eutrophication standards for river systems.
Revised turbidity standards
New or revised contaminant standards for protection of aquatic life and human health from toxic effects related to:
1. Cadmium
2. Copper
3. Chloride
4. Diazinon
5. Nonylphenol
6. Nitrate
Updates in methods to human health-based chronic water quality standards
Amendments to Class 3 (Industrial Consumption) and Class 4 (Agriculture and Wildlife) standards.
Potential Water Use Classification Changes for Specific Water Bodies

Great Lakes Initiative Tier II Water Quality Criteria – Secondary Acute and Chronic Values

The Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System, also known as the Great Lake Initiative (40 CFR 132), promulgated ambient water quality criteria that applied to waters in the Great lakes basin. The methodologies used to calculate these water quality standards were essentially the same as those used by US EPA since 1994 to calculate National Water Quality Criterion, with the addition of several new types of standards, such as wildlife-based criteria.

[Read more about GLI Wildlife-based Water Quality Criteria]

A minimum data set is required to calculate water quality criteria for both National and GLI (“Tier I”) standards. However, the GLI did provide for methodology States could use to calculate standards for other chemicals which may not have enough data to fulfill these minimum requirements. The resulting standards are referred to as “Tier II” values, or “secondary” values.

Under the GLI, if all minimum data requirements for calculating Tier I are not met, a “safety factor” or “adjustment factor” is applied to the existing data to calculate a water quality standard. All the same requirements for test data acceptability apply equally to Tier I and Tier II standards.

Because the Tier II values use conservative adjustment factors and assumptions, and rely on a limited data set, standards derived using Tier II methodologies will typically result in much lower concentrations compared to Tier I standards.

Monday, March 2, 2009

EPA Antidegradation Requirements Under MSGP-2008

The US EPA Multi-sector General Permit promulgated in 2008 (“MSGP-2008”) includes antidegradation requirements that apply to new and/or expanded discharges of stormwater from regulated industrial sites.

[What is an Antidegradation Policy?]

Regulation of discharges is based on three categories of waters:

Tier 2 Waters – Tier 2 waters are characterized as having water quality that exceeds the levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water.
Tier 2.5 Waters – For antidegradation purposes, Tier 2.5 waters are those waters designated by States or Tribes as neither Tier 2 nor Tier 3. States have special requirements for these waters. These waters are given a level of protection equal to and above that given to Tier 2 waters, but less than that given Tier 3 waters.
Tier 3 Waters – For antidegradation purposes, Tier 3 waters are identified by states as having high quality waters constituting an Outstanding Natural Resource Water (ONRW), such as waters of National Parks and State Parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance.

Regardless of these general descriptions, the water bodies regulated under each tier must be LISTED by US EPA. The list of effected waters can change overtime. Currently, the States with listed waters include:

Tier 2 or 2.5: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, District of Columbia, Minnesota
Tier 3: New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico

Numeric Effluent Limits for Turbidity - Proposed New Source Performance Standard

On November 28, 2008, US EPA published its proposed revision to the federal requirements on stormwater discharges from construction sites. The key departure in the current proposal from existing requirements is the establishment of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and numeric effluent limit guidelines (ELG) that will apply to construction sites.

In June 2008, US EPA published its final general stormwater discharge permit for construction sites. US EPA’s intent is to issue a revised general permit once these new effluent limits are promulgated.

The current proposed rule addresses controls based on size of the construction site:

Less than 10 acres. Controls are similar to current approaches.
Greater than 10 acres. Sites greater than 10 acres will need to install temporary sediment basins meeting specific design criteria.
Greater than 30 acres. For large sites, discharges will need to monitor stormwater discharges and must meet a turbidity effluent limit of 13 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). The effluent limit of 13 NTU is based on the determination that the Best Available Technology (BAT) has been demonstrated to meet this limit. In this case, the BAT is active treatment on-site using injection of polymer into the stormwater to improve precipitation of smaller particles.

Does this mean that all large construction sites will need to install active stormwater treatment systems? Not necessarily. Large sites subject to the effluent limit of 13 NTU will need to meet that limit. Sediment basins alone may not be capable of meeting this limit, and if so active treatment, including enhanced precipitation using chemical addition, may be required.

Once the US EPA finalizes the effluent limits for large construction sites, State general permits will likely include these permit limits as they are reissued. US EPA is accepting comments on the proposed Rule through February 26, 2009.