Revisions Proposed To Arizona Wastewater Rules

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is currently conducting its the Clean Water Act Triennial Review Rulemaking. The draft rule is make several changes to existing State rules. ADEQ proposes substantial changes to the following areas of the Rule:

• Definitions [A.A.C. R18-11-101]
• Mixing Zones [A.A.C. R18-11-114]
• Variances [A.A.C. R18-11-122]
• Numeric Water Quality Criteria [18 A.A.C. 11, Art. 1, Appendix A]
• E. Coli Numeric Water Quality Criteria [A.A.C. R18-11-109(A)]
• Site Specific Standard Criteria [A.A.C. R18-11-115]
• Enforcement [A.A.C. R18-11-120]
• Listed Site Specific Standards [18 A.A.C. 11, Art. 1, Appendix C]

ADEQ proposes minor technical corrections or clarifications to:

• Antidegradation [A.A.C. R18-11-107]
• Nutrient Criteria Language [A.A.C. R18-11-109(F)]
• Listed Surface Waters and Designated Uses [18 A.A.C. 11, Art. 1, Appendix B]

ADEQ is not proposing to make changes to the following areas of the RUle in this Triennial Review:

• Selenium Numeric Water Quality Criteria [18 A.A.C. 11, Art. 1, Appendix A]
• Outstanding Arizona Waters [A.A.C. R18-11-112]
• Surface Water Definition [A.A.C. R18-11-101]
• Effluent Dependent Water Definition or Applicability [A.A.C. R18-11-101 & A.A.C. R18-11-113]

Drinking Water Guidance Values To Be Reviewed In 2018

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) re-evaluates all human health risk guidance values developed since 2008 on a routine basis to keep existing health-based guidance values up to date with the most recent MDH risk assessment methodology and the available science. Incorporating new data and updating methodology can result in changes to existing guidance values or result in a recommendation for a more in-depth review.

Re-evaluations of seven contaminants with existing MDH guidance values are planned for the 2018 calendar year. The contaminants are:

•  Metolachlor ESA (already completed)
• Metoloachlor OXA
• Benzene
• Toluene
• Xylenes
• 1,1-Dichloroethylene
• Ethylbenzene

Caltha LLP

New Human Health Water Standard For Exposure To Metolachor

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has completed a reevaluation of the existing water risk guidance for the metolachor, a widely used as an herbicide. The review included re-evaluation of the available data for existing health-based guidance values for metolachlor (s-metolachlor). As a result of the re-evaluation, the guidance values for metolachlor (s-metolachlor) were updated. The revised health based water guidance concentration is 300 µg/L for short-term exposure; the previous guidance value was 400 µg/L.

MDH conducts re-evaluations to keep existing health-based guidance values up to date with the most recent MDH risk assessment methodology and the available science. Incorporating new data and updating methodology may result in changes to existing guidance values. A re-evaluation may also result in a recommendation for a more in-depth review. MDH re-evaluates all guidance developed since 2008 on a routine basis.

Do I Need Permit To Apply Pesticide To Dry Waterbody?

FAQ: Do I Need An NPDES Permit To Apply Pesticide That Is Not Approved For Water Application?

Possibly. According to US EPA, some pesticide labels refer to “water” and not “waters of the United States.” It is possible that some pesticide products that are not approved for use in “water” may result in discharges to waters of the United States.

For example, waters of the United States may be dry at the time of pesticide application, and there may be situations where pesticides are applied to temporarily dry waterbodies using pesticides labeled for terrestrial or seasonally-dry use. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements apply regardless of whether the waters of the United States are wet or dry at the time of the discharge.

 

Caltha LLP | Your Water Quality Standards 

and Permit Limits Partner

FAQ: What Is "Residual Designation Authority"?

FAQ: What is EPA's Residual Designation Authority?

EPA can use its "residual designation" authority under 40 CFR 122.26(a)(9)(i)(C) and (D) to require NPDES permits for stormwater discharges or other category of discharges on a case-by-case basis when it determines that:

• the discharges contribute to a violation of water quality standards,,
• are a significant contributor of pollutant to federally protected surface waters, or
• controls are needed for the discharge based on wasteload allocations that are part of "total maximum daily loads" (TMDLs) that address the pollutant(s) of concern.

Industrial Waste Discharge To Storm Sewer


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

Do Oil Sheens Need To Be Reported? What Is Sheen Rule?

Under the Clean Water Act, the "sheen rule" provides the framework for determining whether an oil spill should be reported to the federal government. Federal regulation requires the person in charge of a facility or vessel responsible for discharging oil that may be "harmful to the public health or welfare" to report the spill. The regulation establishes the criteria for determining whether an oil spill may be harmful to public health or welfare, thereby triggering the reporting requirements:

• · Discharges that cause a sheen or discoloration on the surface of a body of water;
• · Discharges that violate applicable water quality standards; and
• · Discharges that cause a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or on adjoining shorelines.

These reporting criteria are independent of local or State spill reporting requirements. Therefore, spills might be reportable even if State spill reporting thresholds are not exceeded.

 
Hazardous Chemical Spill to Sewer Outside Manufacturing Plant

Because the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which amended the Clean Water Act, broadly defines the term "oil," the sheen rule applies to both petroleum and non-petroleum oils and fats (e.g., vegetable oil, milk). The regulation also provides several exemptions from the notification requirements.

Need more information of federal, State or local spill reporting requirements? Contact Caltha at info@calthacompany.com

   

Caltha LLP | Your EH&S Compliance, 

Auditing and EMS/SMS Partner

Iowa Proposes Rules To Create New General Wastewater Permits

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has proposed two general discharge permits to cover two types of common and generally low risk discharges. DNR plans to issue two new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits known as General Permit #8 (GP8) and General Permit #9 (GP9). GP8 allows for discharges of hydrostatic test water (water used to test the integrity of a pipe or tank), underground storage tank ballast water (water used to weight a tank to facilitate underground installation), and water associated with installation, repair, and replacement of potable water lines. GP9 allows for discharges from dewatering associated with construction and small residential geothermal heating and cooling systems. IDNR is proposing to include eligibility criteria and Best Management Practices. These will ensure that discharges will comply with water quality standards. Most permittees will be automatically authorized to discharge. Only a few higher-risk dischargers will need to submit a Notice of Intent. There is no fee for either permit. DNR is seeking public comment on proposed rules that will create two new general permits. DNR will hold three public hearings across the state in March:

• Wednesday, Mar. 7, 4 p.m. at the Coralville, IA Public Library
• Thursday, Mar. 8, 4 p.m. at the Harlan, IA Public Library
• Wednesday, Mar. 14, 4 p.m. at the Urbandale, IA Public Library

Caltha LLP | Your Air Permit, Wastewater Permit, 

Storm Water Permit Partner

Groundwater Health Limits For Trimethylbenzene

The Health Risk Assessment Unit at the Minnesota Department of Health has started a full review of three trimethylbenzene (TMB) isomers (1,2,3-trimethylbenzene; 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene; and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene). TMB isomers are produced during petroleum refining and production of a component of gasoline. TMB isomers are also used in the production of solvents and are ingredients in paints, dyes, cleaning agents, and automotive fluids.

 The review will consider if the existing Health Risk Values (HRL) for the three trimethylbenzene compounds in groundwater are adequately protective. This review is particularly significant because trimethylbenzene compounds are commonly detected in soil and groundwater at petroleum release sites, such as leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites.

 MDH previously developed water guidance for 1,2,4- and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene. Re-evaluation of these contaminants in 2017 resulted in a recommendation for full review.



Caltha LLP | Your Environmental Site Assessment
and Remediation Partner

Waters of the United States Definition Addressed By Supreme Court

On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court unanimously decided a procedural issue determining the court in which challenges to the meaning of the term “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) may be brought. The choice of court is significant because it affects the resources needed to litigate the merits of challenges, sets the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits and helps determine whether actions can be challenged in subsequent civil or criminal proceedings.

Immediate Impact of Waters of US Decision

The decision requires that any challenge to the current meaning of WOTUS must be brought in the federal district court rather than in the federal court of appeals and allowed pending litigation in the district courts to continue. Lifting the stay puts the Obama-era WOTUS definition back into effect and forces any future litigation to occur throughout the United States wherever there is a challenge to the WOTUS definition, unless it is able to get a stay in the pending litigation.

Why is Waters of the US Definition Important?

WOTUS is a key term impacting the scope of Clean Water Act. The EPA and Corps of Engineers issued the definition in May 2015. The rule was widely criticized, with many, such as farmers, home builders, and developers, claiming that the rule impermissibly allowed EPA to regulate private land. Others felt the rule narrowed federal jurisdiction. In the Supreme Court, the current Administration argued that any challenges to the meaning of WOTUS must be brought in a court of appeals; this argument was rejected in the court decision. Under the Clean Water Act, the uncertainty as to the scope of the WOTUS rule affects whether a Federal discharge permit (NPDES permit) is required and the scope of permits needed to discharge wastewater and storm water. It also impacts whether real estate contains federally-regulated wetlands.

Changes To Minnesota Water Based Health Risk Limits

The Minnesota Department (MDH) is proposing amendments to the Health Risk Limits (HRLs) Rules and to adopt new and updated human health-based water guidance values into rule. The chemicals proposed for amendment include herbicides and other pesticides, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Below is a listing of chemicals MDH is considering in its rule revision:

Chemical Name	Previously adopted values in HRL Rule?
Acenaphthene	Yes
Acetochlor	Yes
Acetochlor ESA	Yes
Acetochlor OXA	Yes
Alachlor	Yes
Chloroform	Yes
Clothianidin	No
Cyanazine	Yes
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene	Yes
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)	Yes
Dieldrin	Yes
Dinoseb	No
S-Ethyl-N,N-dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC)	Yes
Fluoranthene	Yes
Perfluorobutyrate (PFBA)	Yes
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Salts	Yes
Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) and Salts	Yes
Pyrene	Yes
Tetrahydrofuran	No
Thiamethoxam	No
1,1,1-Trichloroethane	Yes
Vinyl Chloride	Yes

MDH will accept written comments on the proposed rules amendments through Wednesday, February 21, 2018.

Benzo[a]pyrene, BaP Water Health Risk Review

The Minnesota Department of Health-Health Risk Assessment Unit has started a full review of benzo[a]pyrene or BaP. BaP is a chemical formed from combustion, and is one of a larger class of chemicals known as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Sources of BaP can include industrial processes, cigarette smoke, grilled or broiled foods, wood fires, motor vehicle emission, and many other activities that involve combustion of organic material. BaP is classified as carcinogenic to humans by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Minnesota Department of Health previously developed water guidance for BaP in 2012 and the current review will update that guidance if deemed necessary.

Revisions To Narrative Water Quality Standards Proposed By EPD

The Georgia Environmental Protection Division has proposed revisions to existing rules in the Rules for Water Quality Control at 391-3-6-.03(5)(b) and (c). These proposed changes are intended to clarify certain narrative water quality standards that could apply to all Waters of the State.

The current rules state, in relevant part:
 (b) All waters shall be free from oil, scum and floating debris associated with municipal or domestic sewage, industrial waste or other discharges in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or to interfere with legitimate water uses.
(c) All waters shall be free from material related to municipal, industrial or other discharges which produce turbidity, color, odor or other objectionable conditions which interfere with legitimate water uses.

The proposed revisions would modify these sections (as noted in red) as follows:
 (b) All waters shall be free from oil, scum and floating debris associated with municipal or domestic sewage, industrial waste or other discharges in amounts sufficient to be unsightly or to unreasonably interfere with the designated use of the water body.
(c) All waters shall be free from material related to municipal, industrial or other discharges which produce turbidity, color, odor or other objectionable conditions which unreasonably interfere with the designated use of the water body.

 Comments on the proposed revision are due by January 31, 2018.

  Click here for other regulatory updates for Georgia.

Ohio Proposes Changes To Permit To Install Rule

Ohio EPA has proposed rule changes in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-42. Chapter 3745-42 covers the requirements for wastewater permits to install (PTIs).The rules are being amended as part of the five-year rule review requirements in Ohio Revised Code section 106.


The Agency has reviewed these rules and has identified necessary changes. New exemptions are being considered, with qualifiers, for:
•building sewers, sanitary sewer replacement projects, in situ sanitary sewer repairs,
•repair or replacement of a treatment works component, media or equipment, modifications within existing treatment works infrastructure,
•disposal systems designed to be a best management practice under a storm water National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit,
•treatment works pilot study, •installation of on line monitoring or process control equipment, •installation of odor control equipment,
•remodel or replacement of buildings or laboratories located at a treatment works, and
•filtration systems, ion exchange systems and oil skimmers on process tanks that serve manufacturing equipment.


Click here to review examples of Caltha projects related to permitting. Click here for examples of project Caltha has conducted for clients located in Ohio.

Minnesota Issues Update To Drinking Water Guidance For Glyphosate

The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has issued its final health-based guidance on glyphosate. Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide that controls broadleaf weeds, grasses, and aquatic plants. Glyphosate is sold under several different trade names, including products sold for home use. It is applied in agriculture, forestry, lawn care, and gardening.


The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) regularly monitors groundwater and surface water for glyphosate. It is frequently detected at low levels in both urban and rural surface waters. In 2016, the highest level detected in surface water was 42.8 micrograms per liter (μg/L. MDA’s groundwater monitoring efforts have not yet detected glyphosate in groundwater. Since 1993, glyphosate has only been detected four times in Minnesota public drinking water systems, at levels that range from 1.1 to 39 μg/L


Glyphosate has been under review by MDH. Based on available information, MDH developed a guidance value of 500 ppb for glyphosate in drinking water. Glyphosate is a primary drinking water contaminant of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and has a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of 700 ppb.

Minnesota Antidegradation Rules Revised By MPCA

The MPCA has completed rulemaking to replace the existing nondegradation rules found in Minn. R. ch. 7050 with new antidegradation rules. The new rules became effective on November 21, 2016. One of the notable revisions was MPCA changing terms from nondegradation to antidegradation to be consistent with federal regulations, EPA guidance and other states’ rules and implementation procedures.


Some of the key changes to the antidegradation rules are:

• Aligning rules with federal antidegradation regulatory policy and EPA guidance.
• Incorporating two sets of antidegradation standards addressing the differences between individual and general permits.
• Developing procedures specific to the various activities the MPCA regulates.
• Providing clarity regarding the information needed of applicants and sequence of actions taken by the MPCA in making antidegradation determinations.
• Identifing the factors the MPCA considers in conducting reviews.
• Establishing a process for determining the water quality baseline.
• Providing limited exemptions from antidegradation procedures.
• Providing for compensatory mitigation for the loss of existing uses resulting from physical alterations.

Click here for more information on Caltha's Water Quality and Discharge Permitting services.

Transportation Company Needed Technical Support To Address Enforcement Action

Caltha LLP Project Summary

Project: Response To MPCA NOV For Industrial Stormwater Discharges and Non-Storm Water Discharge
Client: Transportation Sector
Location(s): Minnesota


Key Elements:  Compliance with No Exposure Certification, Compliance with prohibition of unauthorized non storm water discharge


Overview:  In a routine compliance inspection of industrial sites which had submitted no exposure certifications (NEC) being conducted by the State, this facility was found to be in non-compliance with both the conditions of the NEC and was also found to be discharging wash water without a permit. The facility was placed in enforcement action to resolve these issues.

Caltha LLP was retained by the facility to assist them in evaluating requirements to meet the NEC and to identify options for addressing unpermitted discharge. Working with facility management, it was determined that costs for necessary corrective actions to comply with the NEC were too high compared to costs to obtain and comply with an industrial stormwater discharge permit. The facility terminated its NEC and applied for permit coverage. Caltha assisted the facility in preparing a facility SWPPP using our Minnesota SWPPP template and a permit compliance plan. Alternate off-site facilities were found to eliminate the discharge of unauthorized wastewater releases from the facility.


For more information on Caltha LLP services, go to the Caltha Contact Page.

New York Sewage Pollution Right to Know Act

The Sewage Pollution Right to Know Act ("SPRTK"), which took effect on May 1, 2013, requires owners and operators of publicly owned treatment works ("POTWs") and publicly owned sewer systems ("POSSs") to report untreated and partially treated sewage discharges to DEC and health authorities immediately, but in no case later than two hours from discovery of the discharge. Partially treated sewage discharged directly from a POTW that is in compliance with a DEC approved plan or permit does not need to be reported. The rule also requires owners and operators of POTWs and POSSs to continue reporting for each day after the initial report is made until the discharge terminates. The rule defines a "POSS" as a municipally-owned system that discharges to a POTW owned by another municipality. A POSS is not required to obtain a SPDES permit.


DEC and NYSDOH will use sewage reports to evaluate and respond to incidents based on the severity of the potential environmental and public health impact. Reporting of sewage discharges may be used to assist DEC in making decisions on the closing of shellfish lands pursuant to 6 NYCRR section 41.4 and prohibiting shellfish activities pursuant to 6 NYCRR sections 42.17 and 47.4. DEC will also use sewage reports to direct wastewater utilities to take short term corrective action and to determine wastewater utility liability. DEC may take formal or informal enforcement action against wastewater utilities, including assessment of penalties and the institution of permanent corrective measures.


Reported sewage discharge information may also be used by NYSDOH and local health departments to assess the potential impact on public water supplies pursuant to 10 NYCRR Subpart 5-1 and to take corrective measures, if needed. NYSDOH and local health departments may use this information to provide guidance and assistance to private water supplies when contamination events occur and to make decisions on the regulation of bathing beaches pursuant to Public Health Law section 225 and 10 NYCRR Subpart 6-2.


The proposed rule would require owners and operators of POTWs and POSSs to notify the municipality where the discharge occurred and adjoining municipalities of untreated and partially treated sewage discharges within four hours of discovery. The rule would also obligate these entities to notify the general public of any such discharges to surface water within the same four hour time frame as these discharges may present a threat to 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

Revision To Arizona Rules on Management of Reclaimed Water

ADEQ is considering changes to all the reclaimed water rules and expects to publish proposed rule changes, likely in the fall of 2016,


Reclaimed water is highly treated wastewater from a wastewater treatment plant. A.R.S. § 49-201(32). Reclaimed water has uses such as for irrigation. Using reclaimed water offsets and conserves potable water for human consumption and domestic purposes.


The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) seeks to amend R18-9-704 in order to allow incidental runoff of reclaimed water under certain conditions. This rulemaking would be limited to amending only R18-9-704, as ADEQ is working with stakeholders to consider other changes to the reclaimed water rules.



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

Indiana Revision To Rules On POTW Interference By Industrial Discharges

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) has proposed a revision to State rules related to industrial pretreatment of wastewater. The pretreatment rules apply to industrial wastes being discharged to a Publically Owned Treatment Works, or POTW. The existing definition of "interference" in State rules is more stringent than the federal definition. IDEM is proposing to amend 327 IAC 5-17-11 to be consistent with 40 CFR 403.3(k).


Existing state rule at 327 IAC 5-17-11 defines "interference" as occurring if one of three listed conditions occurs at the POTW due to a discharge or discharges from other sources. The listed conditions include a discharge or discharges that:

• inhibit or disrupt the POTW,
• cause a violation of any of the POTW's NPDES permit requirements, and
• prevent the use of the POTW's sewage sludge or its sludge disposal method.

The federal definition of "interference" ties the conditions and causing a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit together so that all have to occur before interference has occurred


The rule change was preliminarily adopted on 08/10/2016, however an effective date is yet to be determined.




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

Revised EPA Methods For Pesticides,and Organics

EPA has finalized specific changes to analytical test procedures that are used by industries and municipalities to analyze the chemical, physical, and biological components of wastewater and other environmental samples that are required by Clean Water Act regulations and their NPDES permit. The changes include revised EPA methods and revised methods published by voluntary consensus standard bodies, such as ASTM International and the Standard Methods Committee. EPA added certain methods reviewed under the Alternate Test Procedures (ATP) program to Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40 Part 136 and clarifying the procedures for EPA approval of nationwide and limited use ATPs.
New EPA Methods finalized include 608.3, 611, 624.1 and 625.1

• EPA Method 608.3, Organochlorine Pesticides and PCBs
• EPA Method 611, Haloethers.
• EPA Method 624.1, Purgeables by GC/MS.
• EPA Method 625.1, Base/Neutrals and Acids by GC/MS.

EPA revised existing Methods 1600, 1603, 1680, and 1682. This rule implements changes for EPA microbiological methods 1600, 1603, 1680, and 1682 that correct typographical or other errors that EPA identified in the methods after publication.