General Permit For Small Dredging Operations Issued By EPA Region 10

US EPA Region 10 has issued a new federal water discharge permit operate small dredge operations in Idaho. Mining for gold using small suction dredges is a popular activity in Idaho with hundreds of dredges in use, especially during the summer. Small-scale suction dredge miners ( defined as using intake nozzles of five inches in diameter or less and engines rated at 15 horsepower or less) will need to apply for coverage under the new Clean Water Act general permit. Larger suction dredges are not covered by this general permit and need to be authorized under a separate individual permit.

To legally operate small suction dredges in Idaho, miners must apply to EPA to be covered by the EPA General Permit, as well as check with the Idaho Department of Water Resources or other state or federal authority for any additional permits that may be required.

The EPA General Permit also contains:

• Special conditions
• Required best practices for dredging equipment operations
• Areas that are open to small suction dredge mining
• Monitoring and reporting requirements

If an operator does not meet the eligibility requirements to be covered under the general permit, they can apply for an individual permit from EPA.

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

Antidegradation Requirements For Discharges To Wisconsin Impaired Waters

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has released its draft guidance document “TMDL Development and Implementation Guidance: Integrating the WPDES and Impaired Waters Programs” for a 21-day public comment period. In addition to providing a framework for developing and implementing permit limits for discharges to 303d listed impaired waters, the draft guidance also addresses the WDNR approach to antidegradation requirements.

Under the draft guidance, if the new TMDL-derived limit results in an increase in an effective existing limit in a permit, then an antidegradation evaluation is needed. The initial imposition of a water quality-based effluent limit, which include TMDL-derived limits, does not require an antidegradation evaluation as long as the pollutant of concern was previously present in the discharge and the permittee is not proposing an increased load to the receiving water . According to the WDNR, possible exceptions include the initial imposition of a TMDL-derived limit for a discharge to Exceptional and Outstanding Resource Waters, for a bioaccumulative chemical of concern such as mercury when an increased discharge is proposed, and when a change in discharge location is proposed.

With a few exceptions, Wisconsin chapter NR 207 requires an antidegradation evaluation when a new or increased discharge is proposed. Therefore, an antidegradation evaluation is necessary before a TMDL-derived limit, which has been incorporated into a WPDES permit and has become effective, is increased or the TMDL-derived limit replaces a less restrictive effective effluent limit.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients in Wisconsin and 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 Missouri NPDES Compliance Schedule Requirements

EPA Region 7 has approved Missouri's change to state water quality standards rules to provide greater flexibility in Missouri's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted rule changes to EPA on Dec. 11, 2012, for review and approval. State regulations previously allowed no more than three years for a permittee to come into compliance with its NPDES permit. Due to the limits of current technology for controlling some pollutants, full compliance is not always possible within a three-year period. Therefore Missouri proposed new regulations that allow for a longer compliance period, in accordance with federal regulations.

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

Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy Released

On November 19, 2012, the State of Iowa announced the release of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy for public comment. Interested parties were invited to submit comments during a 45 day comment period that will end on January 4, 2013.

The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy is a science and technology-based approach to assess and reduce nutrients delivered to Iowa waterways and the Gulf of Mexico. The strategy outlines voluntary efforts to reduce nutrients in surface water from both point sources and nonpoint sources. The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) worked with Iowa State University over a two-year period to develop the strategy.

The Iowa strategy has been developed in response to the 2008 Gulf Hypoxia Action Plan that calls for the 12 states along the Mississippi River to develop strategies to reduce nutrient loading to the Gulf of Mexico. The Iowa strategy follows the recommended framework provided by EPA in 2011. Iowa is the second state to complete a statewide nutrient reduction strategy.

To address point source discharges, such as POTW and industrial discharge, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources will be working with major facilities throughout the state to reduce nutrient discharges from point sources to Iowa's waters with a goal of reducing total phosphorus by 16% and total nitrogen by 4 %.

Summary of proposed permitting requirements for point source discharges under nutrient reduction plan


To address nutrient transport from nonpoint sources the strategy uses a scientific assessment of conservation practices and associated costs to reduce loading of nutrients to Iowa surface waters. The strategy identifies five key categories to focus the efforts in addressing nonpoint sources and identifies multiple action items within each category. The five categories are:

• Setting Priorities;
• Documenting Progress;
• Research and Technology;
• Strengthen Outreach,
• Education,
• Collaboration; and
• Funding.

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

Court Upholds State Water Quality Standard For Sulfate

A Ramsey County, Minnesota Judge has dismissed claims regarding the Minnesota State Water Quality Standard for sulfate, which alleged the state's sulfate standard, enacted based on 1940s research, was unfounded, based on poor science and overly restrictive, especially for the state's mining industry. The Minnesota state water quality standard was developed in 1973, primarily to protect areas where wild rice would grow. Data available to the State suggested wild rice was particularly sensitive to sulfate. The state set a standard of 10 milligrams per liter in order to protect naturally occurring stands of wild rice in northern lakes and streams permitted discharges. The Court ruled that the Wild Rice Rule does not violate due process and the law is not constitutionally vague.

In February 2010, the EPA commented the MPCA environmental review of a proposed $600 million copper-nickel mine, citing its view that the state disregarded for its own sulfate standard. A second environmental review of the project is now underway that will include its potential impact on wild rice.

The Minnesota Legislature considered legislation in 2011 that would loosen the sulfate standard in advance of a planned scientific review. However, EPA sent the Legislature a sharp rebuke, reinforcing that the state had to follow the federal Clean Water Act, which requires scientifically valid standards. In lieu of setting a new standard by legislative action, the Legislature passed a law requiring that the MPCA form an advisory group to oversee a scientific study of sulfates and wild rice, which is now underway.

Caltha LLP provides expert consulting services to public and private sector clients in Minnesota and 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

New Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading Tool

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a new tool that provides the public with information about discharges into local waterways. The Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Pollutant Loading Tool brings together millions of records and allows for searching and mapping of water discharges by local area, watershed, company, industry sector, and pollutant.

Searches using the DMR Pollutant Loading Tool result in “top ten” lists to help users identify facilities and industries that are discharging the most pollutants and impacted waterbodies. When discharges are above permitted levels, users can view the violations and link to details about enforcement actions that EPA and states have taken to address these violations.

A link to the new tool can be found on EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) website, which provides information about inspections, facility compliance, and state and federal enforcement actions. EPA has also released several new ECHO features, including a search for criminal enforcement cases and web developer tools for ECHO reports and maps.

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

Draft Vessel Permits For Large & Small Commercial Vessels

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing two draft vessel general permits that would regulate discharges from commercial vessels, excluding military and recreational vessels. The proposed permits are intended to protect the nation’s waters from ship-borne pollutants and reduce the risk of introduction of invasive species from ballast water discharges.

The draft Vessel General Permit, which covers commercial vessels greater than 79 feet in length, would replace the current 2008 Vessel General Permit, when it expires in December 2013. The new draft Small Vessel General Permit would cover vessels smaller than 79 feet in length and would provide such vessels with the Clean Water Act permit coverage they will be required to have as of December 2013.

Both permits will be subject to a 75-day public comment period. EPA intends to issue the final permits in November 2012 to allow vessel owners and operators time to prepare for new permit requirements.

Summary of Draft Vessel General Permit:
The updated permit would reduce the administrative burden for vessel owners and operators, eliminating duplicative reporting requirements, clarifying that electronic recordkeeping may be used instead of paper records, and streamlining self-inspection requirements for vessels that are out of service for extended periods. The permit would continue to regulate the 26 specific discharge categories that were contained in the 2008 permit and, for the first time, manage the discharge of fish hold effluent.

A key new provision of the permit is a proposed numeric standard to control the release of non-indigenous invasive species in ballast water discharges. The new ballast water discharge standard addressing invasive species is based upon results from independent EPA Science Advisory Board and National Research Council National Academy of Sciences studies. These limits are generally consistent with those contained in the International Maritime Organization’s 2004 Ballast Water Convention. The new standard is expected to substantially reduce the risk of introduction and establishment of non-indigenous invasive species in U.S. waters.

The draft Vessel General Permit also contains updated conditions for mechanical systems that may leak lubricants into the water and exhaust gas scrubber washwater, which would reduce the amount of oil and other pollutants that enter U.S. waters. EPA will take comment on potentially more stringent requirements for bilgewater discharges.

Summary of Draft Small Vessel General Permit:
This permit would be the first under the Clean Water Act to address discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels less than 79 feet in length. Recognizing that small commercial vessels are substantially different in how they operate than their larger counterparts, the draft Small Vessel General Permit is shorter and simpler. The draft permit specifies best management practices for several broad discharge management categories including fuel management, engine and oil control, solid and liquid maintenance, graywater management, fish hold effluent management and ballast water management, which consists of common sense management measures to reduce the risk of spreading invasive species. The permit would go into effect at the conclusion of a current moratorium enacted by Congress that exempts all incidental discharges from such vessels, with the exception of ballast water, from having to obtain a permit until December 18, 2013.

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

Arizona General Permit For Minor WWTP Discharges

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has released a draft permit for minor wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) (MWGP2011-001) for public comment. The comment period ends December 26, 2011. This permit is applicable only to secondary treated effluent discharges from domestic wastewater treatment facilities with a design flow of less than 1 million gallons per day (1 mgd). It is estimated that approximately 30 – 50 facilities in Arizona will fall into this category. The new permit will be issued for a 5 year term.

This general permit is applicable for discharges from facilities that meet the following conditions:
1) Domestic wastewater treatment plants with a design capacity of less than 1 million gallons per day ; and
2) Discharge treated wastewater to WUSs that have the designated uses of Partial-body contact (PBC) and Aquatic and wildlife effluent-dependent water (A&Wedw); or PBC and Aquatic and wildlife ephemeral (A&We) as per A.A.C. R18-11-104.D, Appendix B; the designated uses of Agricultural irrigation (AgI) and/or Agricultural livestock watering (AgL) may be included; and
3) The facility does not accept wastewater from significant industrial wastewater; and
4) The permit is applicable within the State of Arizona, except for Indian Country.

The permit includes technology-based limitations, requirements to comply with Numeric Water Quality Standards, Effluent Characterization (EC) Testing, and Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing.

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

Draft General Permit for Infrequent Discharges in Arizona

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has released its proposed General Permit for Infrequent Discharges (AZGP2011-001). This general permit can be used by a limited type of wastewater dischargers. The permit is applicable only to secondary treated effluent discharges from domestic wastewater treatment facilities with a design flow of less than 20 million gallons per day (mgd). Infrequent discharges are routine discharges that occur no more frequently than twice per calendar year with a duration of no more than 14 consecutive days and at least 30 days between discharges. Emergency discharges at these facilities would occur no more than three times per permit term with a duration of no more than 14 consecutive days per discharge event. It is estimated that only 20 to 40 facilities in Arizona will meet the definition of an infrequent discharger.

The draft permit includes technology-based effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, including whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing, and reporting requirements similar to other AZPDES permits.

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

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website

Court Ruling Limits Requirement For CAFO To Apply For NPDES Permit

In a case involving the requirement for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an opinion that there is no “duty to apply” for a NPDES permit in the Clean Water Act. Only CAFOs that have to obtain permits are those that are actually discharging pollutants to waters of the United States.

EPA revised the CAFO Rules in 2003, and required all CAFOs with the “potential to discharge” to obtain a NPDES permit. The industry challenged that requirement and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed that the Clean Water Act did not authorize EPA to regulate facilities that do not actually discharge. In 2008, EPA issued a revised rule, which required all CAFOs that discharge or “propose to discharge” to obtain a NPDES permit. The current ruling relates the 2008 revised CAFO rules.

The 2008 CAFO, a facility operator failing to apply and obtain a permit could be liable for the actual discharge and also for its failure to apply for a permit. The court determined that this provision beyond the scope of EPA’s authority, because the Clean Water Act lists specific violations a facility can be liable for, which does not include failure to apply for a NPDES permit. The Court rejected a challenge to the 2008 CAFO Rule concerning the inclusion of Nutrient Management Plans as an enforceable provision and regulation of land application areas in a CAFO NPDES permit.

The Court ruling applies to EPA CAFO rules only; individual States may have additional requirements which could require applications from CAFOs.

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

Oregon DEQ General Permit For Pesticide Application

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has released and has requested public comments on its proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) pesticide general permit. The proposed permit is in response to the January 2009 Sixth Circuit Court ruling that NPDES permits are required for all biological and chemical pesticide applications that leave a residue or excess pesticide in water when the applications are made in, over or near water. The court required permits to be effective no later than April 9, 2011.

DEQ has proposed to issue the general permit for the following pesticide applications:

1. Mosquito and other flying insect pest control
2. Weed and Algae Control for invasive or other nuisance weeds, algae and pathogens in water and at the water’s edge.
3. Nuisance Animal Control for the control of invasive or other nuisance animals and pathogens in water and at the water’s edge.
4. Forest Canopy Pest Control for the control of pest species by using aerial application of a pesticide over a forest environment or from the ground.
5. Area-Wide Pest Control for the control of pest species by using aerial pesticide application to cover a large area to avoid substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
   

The permit, once finalized, may affect both public and private entities that use pesticides for the types of pesticide applications listed above.

Operators who conduct pesticide applications above an annual threshold will need to register with DEQ. The Annual Treatment Area Thresholds proposed are:

Mosquitoes and Other Flying Insect Pests - 6,400 acres of treatment surface area
Weed and Algae Control (Excludes irrigation districts formed under ORS 545)
In Water - 20 acres of surface treatment area
In Water and at Water’s Edge: - 50 linear miles of treatment area.
Nuisance Animal Control:
In Water - 20 acres of treatment surface area
In Water and at Water’s Edge - 50 linear miles of treatment surface area.
Forest Canopy Pest Control - 6,400 acres of treatment surface area
Area Wide Pest Control - 6,400 acres of treatment surface area.

The draft permit requires all operators to minimize pesticide discharges by:

• using the optimal amount of pesticide
• preventing leaks and spills
• calibrating equipment
• use integrated pest management
• minimize the discharge of pesticides
• meet water quality standards
• maintain certain records
• report adverse incidents

Operator are also required to notify private and domestic drinking water users prior to the use of pesticides that have potable water use restrictions. All operators are required to conduct site monitoring and visual monitoring to ensure that pesticide use is minimized.

The permit sets a threshold that requires the largest pesticide users under each type of pest control to:

• submit an application for registration and pay fees
• implement integrated pest management
• develop a pesticide discharge management plan
• submit annual reports

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

Denial of Permit Waiver Application For City WWTP

EPA is proposing a draft decision to deny the extension of a waiver of Clean Water Act requirements that has allowed the City of Gloucester to discharge wastewater receiving only primary treatment from its wastewater treatment facility into Massachusetts Bay. The reason for the waiver denial is a failure to meet the current permit limits, including whole effluent toxicity (WET), oil and grease, and fecal coliform bacteria. EPA is releasing for public review and comment the draft intention to deny this waiver request and issue a permit with secondary treatment-based limits, and will accept comments on Dec. 4, 2010.

Gloucester has applied to EPA for reissuance of a waiver of Clean Water Act secondary treatment requirements, which would authorize continued discharge or primary effluent from the Gloucester Water Pollution Control Facility to Massachusetts Bay. Gloucester is the only major discharger in Massachusetts that currently holds such a waiver. The Gloucester discharge is to Massachusetts Bay, within the North Shore Ocean Sanctuary, as established by the Massachusetts Ocean Sanctuaries Act. The Commonwealth has designated the water as “Class SA,” the highest of the three marine water quality classifications.

The current permit has been in effect since 2001. The upgrade from primary to secondary treatment at the Gloucester Water Pollution Control Facility will require extensive planning and design, and will also require the commitment of significant financial resources. EPA and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) are moving forward with the new draft permit recognizing that it will need to establish a reasonable compliance schedule for the treatment plant upgrade.

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

Suspended Solids Limits Proposed For Chesapeake Bay TMDL

EPA has announced plans to issue draft sediment limits as the next step in establishing the Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) for the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The six watershed states and the District of Columbia are expected to use sediment limits, along with those previously issued for nitrogen and phosphorus, as the basis for completing WIPs detailing how they will further divide these limits among pollution sources, and what practices will be implemented to meet water quality standards.

An EPA analysis indicates the likelihood that measures to control and reduce nutrient pollution as outlined in these WIPs will also significantly reduce sediment runoff, achieving the annual sediment limits.

The first drafts of the WIPs are due to EPA by September 1. On September 24, EPA plans to issue a draft TMDL and open a 45-day public comment period, including 18 public meetings. The final WIPs are due November 29, and EPA will establish the final Bay TMDL by December 31.

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

Comparison Between NPDES Benchmarks and Effluent Limits

How are "benchmark values" in my NPDES permit different than my "effluent limits"?

Benchmark values differ from effluent 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, in the context of stormwater NPDES permits, 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. Multiple exceedances of a benchmark could result in a State requiring that the facility apply for an individual stormwater discharge permit. In this case, legally enforceable stormwater discharge limits may be written into the permit.

Click here for more information on stormwater benchmarks

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

Court Decision On NPDES Permit Challenges After Public Comment Period

According to a decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) must consider all challenges to newly issued wastewater discharge permits, even after public comment period has closed and the final permit drafted. Opponents of a permitted project can challenge the validity of any final permit term or condition, even if no related objection or question was raised during the public review and comment period.
On April 13, 2010, the Court of Appeals released its decision in the case in which five citizens and two environmental groups challenged WDNR handling of their petition for review of a specific WPDES wastewater discharge permit.

WDNR argued that to preserve the right to challenge the final permit’s mercury sampling requirements, the challengers needed to have raised that issue during the public review and comment period. Since the draft permit’s mercury sampling requirements were not challenged during the public process, WDNR believed it did not need to reconsider those requirements and address them, if necessary, prior to the issuance of the final permit. The Appeals Court rejected the WDNR argument, believing that it would penalize members of the public for their failure to participate earlier in the public review process and be inconsistent with the state’s goal of encouraging public involvement.

The Appeals Court found it was not enough that WDNR review WPDES applications against State regulations and other state water pollution laws; WDNR must also address every permit challenge that is based on specific elements of federal regulations, as well.

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

Total Toxic Organic Management Plans - TTOMP

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

Wisconsin Ballast Water Discharge Permit Environmental Assessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website

Proposed Discharge Standards for Airports

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

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

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

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

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website

Using Water Effect Ratio In Setting NPDES Permit Limits

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

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

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


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

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website

CT Stormwater Benchmarks for Copper, Lead, Zinc and Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caltha LLP Aquatic Toxicology / WQ Standards Services Website