Under the Clean Water Act, certain industrial dischargers have limits on Total Toxic Organics, or TTO. For example, TTO limitations have been promulgated for all process wastewater classified as Metal Finishing and Electroplating Categorical Discharges (40 CFR 433 and 40 CFR 413). The TTO limitation is defined as the summation of all toxic organics (which includes a list of over 100 parameters) present in concentrations greater than 0.01 mg/L.
The cost for TTO testing can be relatively high. In lieu of monitoring for all the TTOs in their waste water effluent, some industrial dischargers can elect to prepare and certify a TOTAL TOXIC ORGANIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, or TTOMP, to control the discharge of TTOs in their wastewater effluent.
Caltha LLP prepares TTOMP for industrial dischargers. 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 29, 2010
Total Toxic Organic Management Plans - TTOMP
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Florida Nutrient Criteria - Extension of Public Comment
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the comment period for the agency’s proposed Florida water quality standards. The comment period is being extended for 30 days and will now end on April 28. The agency will also hold three more public hearings in Florida to obtain additional input and comments on the proposed rulemaking.
In 2009, EPA entered into a consent decree, approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, with the Florida Wildlife Federation to propose limits for specific nutrients. The proposed action released for public comment would set a series of numeric limits for phosphorus and nitrogen.
The proposed action also introduces and seeks comment on a new adaptive management regulatory process for setting standards in a manner that drives water quality improvements in already impaired waters. The proposed new regulatory provision, called restoration standards, would be specific to nutrients in the State of Florida.
In 2009, EPA entered into a consent decree, approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, with the Florida Wildlife Federation to propose limits for specific nutrients. The proposed action released for public comment would set a series of numeric limits for phosphorus and nitrogen.
The proposed action also introduces and seeks comment on a new adaptive management regulatory process for setting standards in a manner that drives water quality improvements in already impaired waters. The proposed new regulatory provision, called restoration standards, would be specific to nutrients in the State of Florida.
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 5, 2010
CWA 316(a) - Variance from State Thermal Discharge Standards
The Vermont Supreme Court recently affirmed issuance of a variance allowing the electric generating facility to increase the temperature of its summer cooling water discharges. The State Supreme Court agreed that States may set thermal effluent standards stricter than the federal standards contained in Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(a), but upheld a variance issued by the State of Vermont from the stricter State thermal effluent requirements.
Under Section 316(a) of the CWA, thermal effluent, such as cooling water , is considered a pollutant, and facilities wishing to discharge thermal effluent into a water source must apply for a NPDES permit. CWA Section 316(a) allows a thermal discharger to obtain a thermal effluent variance by demonstrating that less stringent thermal effluent limitations would still protect aquatic life. To receive a Section 316(a) variance, a discharger must demonstrate to the appropriate regulatory agency that alternative thermal limits will not cause significant harm to the aquatic life in the receiving waters. The effort required to make this case varies greatly, depending on state requirements and the site-specific potential for impacts. In nearly all cases, however, the demonstration involves extensive evaluation of potential impacts and characterization of local aquatic populations. A regulatory agency can reject a demonstration or ask the discharger to study certain issues in more detail. A permit applicant may apply for a variance from otherwise applicable thermal discharge limitations.
It is this type of thermal variance request that was the subject of the permit amendment before the Vermont Supreme Court. The Court’s decision supports the view that State water quality standards apply even under a Section 316(a) thermal variance process. States may impose thermal effluent requirements stricter than would be required under the federal CWA Section 316(a) standard alone. However, the court also held that States may also waive those requirements, and held that Vermont had properly done so.
Under Section 316(a) of the CWA, thermal effluent, such as cooling water , is considered a pollutant, and facilities wishing to discharge thermal effluent into a water source must apply for a NPDES permit. CWA Section 316(a) allows a thermal discharger to obtain a thermal effluent variance by demonstrating that less stringent thermal effluent limitations would still protect aquatic life. To receive a Section 316(a) variance, a discharger must demonstrate to the appropriate regulatory agency that alternative thermal limits will not cause significant harm to the aquatic life in the receiving waters. The effort required to make this case varies greatly, depending on state requirements and the site-specific potential for impacts. In nearly all cases, however, the demonstration involves extensive evaluation of potential impacts and characterization of local aquatic populations. A regulatory agency can reject a demonstration or ask the discharger to study certain issues in more detail. A permit applicant may apply for a variance from otherwise applicable thermal discharge limitations.
It is this type of thermal variance request that was the subject of the permit amendment before the Vermont Supreme Court. The Court’s decision supports the view that State water quality standards apply even under a Section 316(a) thermal variance process. States may impose thermal effluent requirements stricter than would be required under the federal CWA Section 316(a) standard alone. However, the court also held that States may also waive those requirements, and held that Vermont had properly done so.
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 2, 2010
Iowa Terminates Nutrient Criteria Rulemaking
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will ask the Environmental Protection Commission to terminate the rule intended to establish nutrient water quality criteria for lakes to protect recreational uses. Public hearings and consultation with stakeholder groups indicated substantive changes needed to be made to the rule. DNR believes that the planned revisions will change the character of the rule enough to justify a new Notice of Intended Action. The changes will also require some additional research by the DNR making it impractical to amend the current notice. After conducting the research and consulting with stakeholder groups, the DNR will ask the commission to approve a new Notice of Intended Action.
The DNR has also cancelled the two remaining public hearings that were rescheduled for later in March.
The DNR has also cancelled the two remaining public hearings that were rescheduled for later in March.
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
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , in collaboration with 15 other federal agencies, have made restoring the Great Lakes a national priority and is proposing a budget of $475 million for a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (Initiative). The EPA Action Plan, recently released, describes how the Initiative will be executed from 2010 through 2014.
The Plan builds on the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (GLRC Strategy). The GLRC Strategy provides a framework for the Action Plan. The Action Plan has five major focus areas:
The Action Plan identifies goals, objectives, measurable ecological targets, and specific actions for each of the five focus areas identified above. The Action Plan will be used by federal agencies in the development of the federal budget for Great Lakes restoration in fiscal years 2011 and beyond. As such, it will serve as guidance for collaborative restoration work with participants to advance restoration. EPA believes that the Plan will also help advance the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada.
The Plan builds on the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (GLRC Strategy). The GLRC Strategy provides a framework for the Action Plan. The Action Plan has five major focus areas:
- Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern, including pollution prevention and cleanup of the most polluted areas in the Great Lakes
- Invasive Species, including efforts to institute a “zero tolerance policy” toward new invasions, including the establishment of self-sustaining populations of invasive species, such as Asian Carp
- Nearshore Health and Nonpoint Source Pollution, including a targeted geographic focus on high priority watersheds and reducing polluted runoff from urban, suburban and, agricultural sources
- Habitat and Wildlife Protection and Restoration, including bringing wetlands and other habitat back to life, and the first-ever comprehensive assessment of the entire 530,000 acres of Great Lakes coastal wetlands for the purpose of strategically targeting restoration and protection efforts in a science-based manner
- Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships, including the implementation of goal- and results-based accountability measures, learning initiatives, outreach and strategic partnerships
The Action Plan identifies goals, objectives, measurable ecological targets, and specific actions for each of the five focus areas identified above. The Action Plan will be used by federal agencies in the development of the federal budget for Great Lakes restoration in fiscal years 2011 and beyond. As such, it will serve as guidance for collaborative restoration work with participants to advance restoration. EPA believes that the Plan will also help advance the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)