wieberg, chris, sappington, amanda, mdnr, operating permits section update, at missouri water...

Celebrating 40 years of taking care of Missouri’s natural resources.

Chris Wieberg and Amanda Sappington

Operating Permits Section

Operating Permits Section Update


Master General PermitsIssuedMOGD – Non-POTWs discharging ≤50,000 gpd; Effective 07/01/2014MOG14 – Oil/Water Separators; Effective 07/01/2014MOG76 – Swimming pool discharges; Effective 08/01/2014MOR22A – Lumber and Wood (primary); 09/01/2014MOR203 – Fab. Metal, Light Industrial; 09/01/2014MOR80H – Solid Waste Transfer; 09/01/2014

ModifiedMOR22C – Lumber and Wood (secondary); 08/08/2014


Master General Permits

Pending ModificationMOG64 – WTP Settling Basins; 10/01/2014 Draft PhaseMOG84 – Clay PitsMOR22B – Wood TreatersMOR241 – Agrichemical FacilitiesMOR23A – Chemical Manufacturing


Average Process Days Permits Issued Application for New Permit

General Permit Covered Facility 48 Non-NPDES - Construction for Ag Chem Storage Facilities 1 Non-NPDES - Construction for Sewer Extension 85 Non-NPDES - Construction for Wastewater Treatment 55 Site Specific 17

206

Average Process Days Permits Issued Modification

General Permit Covered Facility 7 Site Specific 32

39

Average Process Days Permits Issued Ownership Transfer

Site Specific 25

25

Average Process Days Permits Issued Renewal

Site Specific 415

415

Average Process Days Permits Issued Termination

Site Specific 20

20


401 Certifications

39 Individual 401 Certifications for the Corps Nationwide and Individual permits since January 1, 2014


Permit Quality Review (PQR)

Review conducted in March 2014 by EPA Region 7 staff.


Findings• Priority Pollutant Scans

– 40 CFR 122.21 requires 3 for majors POTWs at renewal

Form B2 has been revised


Findings• Reasonable Potential

– EPA found that permit writers where not including data from the permit application in reasonable potential analysis.


Findings• Backsliding

– EPA found that permits renewed with less stringent requirements lack sufficient factsheet language providing justification as to why the backsliding requirement met the provisions of 40 CFR 122.44

• Permit Writers have been directed to provide detailed justification in factsheet regarding each requirement less stringent from the previous permit decision


Findings• EPA suggests that the Department review

the general permit for pesticide applicators as to it’s applicability in “Outstanding Natural Resource Waters” and impaired waters.

– The Department intends to review this upon the renewal of the MGP


Findings• EPA found several issues regarding how

pretreatment programs are addressed in permits.– Identified 7 POTWs that were missing

pretreatment implementation requirements in the permit.

– Identified the lack of requirements in permits that address the re-evaluation of local limits per 40 CFR 122.44


Pretreatment Findings Cont.• EPA suggests that the department should

insure factsheets for POTW permits without pretreatment programs should be explicit to the fact that a pretreatment program is not required in addition to listing any discharging industries that discharge to the POTW.


Pretreatment Findings Cont.• EPA suggest that the Department should

follow-up with categorical industrial users outside of the pretreatment program to ensure they are complying with reporting requirments.


Findings• EPA identified several concerns regarding

the Departments CAFO permitting program– EPA identified that Missouri definition of process

wastewater was less stringent than 40 CFR 122.23 in that the definition must include water “indirectly” used in the operation of a CAFO


CAFO Findings cont.• EPA pointed out that some site specific

CAFO permits did not adequately address how process wastewater and stormwater in contact with materials are disposed of.

– The department is currently reviewing this comment and will likely address in permits at the next renewal.


CAFO Findings cont.• EPA identified applications that they felt

were incomplete.

– The department is reviewing this comment


CAFO Findings cont• EPA identified concerns with the

departments Wet Weather Management Guide and it’s interaction with the CAFO permits.

– The department is currently reviewing the guide and will likely change some of the wording to clarify.


Improvements • WET

– EPA noted the WET program saw significant improvements such as movement toward toxic units

• Sludge– EPA noted the department provides good

examples regarding 503 in it’s reporting forms which has been helpful to permittees


Other EPA Comments• EPA urges the department to take a robust

approach to setting BPJ-based technology limits, and in the consideration of water quality based limits for WTP discharges.

• EPA points out that the department needs to build the capacity for assessing 316(a) variances and notes there are several facilities in MO where variances will be needed.


Form Changes• Form B and B2

– Process Flow Diagram or Schematic• Wet Weather Design Flow

– Priority Pollutant Scan– Downstream Landowner– Other small changes– Financial Questionnaire– Small Domestic General Permit = Form B not E– Always Print the new form from the web


AffordabilityChange is coming

• Comments from Stakeholders• Comments from Environmental

Improvement and Energy Resources Authority (EIERA)

• Legislative inquiries• Recent Legislation


Affordability• The Nature of Affordability (Cost

Analysis for Compliance) • Consistent with Section 644.145, RSMo (revised in 2012

and 2014) • Any new requirements within the permit • The cost analysis will influence derivation of the schedule

of compliance • The cost analysis does not determine whether or not an

upgrade will be required • The cost analysis does not take place of a Factor 6 UAA


Senate Bill NO. 642 (2014)• Department is working on changes to the

analysis. • New treatment options • Addition of a new criteria - Inclusion of ongoing

costs of operating and maintaining the existing wastewater collection and treatment system, including payments on outstanding debts for wastewater collection and treatment systems when calculating projected rates (also in SB 664)


New Treatment Options • Land Application – could be appropriate for

communities up to 150,000 gallons per day

• Has the potential to be a more affordable option

• The best option for THE BIG PICTURE!


New Treatment Options

• Extended Aeration Package Plants – Facilities up to 50,000 gallons per day

• More Practical Treatment Option for smaller communities

• May still result in a high burden for very small communities


Addition of a new criteria

• Drafting a “Financial Questionnaire Form” • Will be available on the website with the

applications • An application without the supplemental

form will be deemed as incomplete


Financial Questionnaire Form


Financial Questionnaire Form • Includes the how, when and where to find

information to complete the form • Affordability Assessment Tool for Federal

Water Mandates was used as the reference Prepared for: the US Conference of Mayors, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation

• By: Stratus Consulting


Senate Bill NO. 642 (2014) Annual Report – Total number of findings of affordability meeting

the definition of affordable

– Not meeting the definition of affordable – Those implemented as a Federal Mandate – Average increase in projected sewer rates in

various forms and percentages

• Also in SB 664


Senate Bill NO. 664 (2014) • "Affordability", with respect to payment of a

utility bill, a measure of whether an individual customer or household with an income equal to the lower of the median household income for their community or the state of Missouri can pay the bill without undue hardship or unreasonable sacrifice in the essential lifestyle or spending patterns of the individual or household…


State MHI• $47,333 as stated in the 2012 ACS median

household income (dollars) • Inflation factor updated once per month • Using the state MHI helps to mitigate some

of the burden on distressed populations that can exist in a municipality with a high MHI.


What the changes mean….

• No more range of estimated costs associated with mechanical treatment

• The addition of socioeconomic indicators into the Financial Capability Table – % Households in Poverty – % Households relying on Food Stamps


No more ranges

• Most practical treatment option • Most appropriate technology for design flow • So we can get the most accurate depiction

of what the financial situation could look like


What the changes mean….• Schedules of Compliance will look different

Longer schedules to include education, assistance, integrated planning?

• Department Community Services Initiative • Integrated Planning is Important Other

environmental obligations and requirements (Drinking water, MS4, I&I, etc…)


What the changes mean….• Schedule of Compliance timelines:


What the changes mean….


What the changes mean….• Schedule of Compliance timelines: All years

include Inflow and Infiltration maintenance

1.Seek Community Assistance from MDNR

2.Complete Education Assistance Program

3.Hire an Engineer

4.Evaluation of Rate Structure and Treatment Plant

5.Raise user costs to appropriate level, MDNR will reassess analysis at renewal


What the changes mean….• Schedule of Compliance timelines: All years

include Inflow and Infiltration maintenance 6. Evaluate Flow and Treatment Options

7. Evaluate Flow and Treatment Options

8. Public meetings and hearings

9. Bond Election, Apply for permit renewal

10. Permit Renewal, Apply for SRF Funding, Submit Facility Plan and Antidegradation Review, MDNR will reassess analysis at renewal

11. Apply for Construction and Operating Permit Modification

12. Construction

13. Construction

14. Complete Construction


What the changes mean…. • Community Services Initiative Hannah

Humphrey • Communities serving 500 to 5,000 people

– Regional Office Staff – NERO – Denise Haberl – KCRO – Stephen Krabbe – SLRO – Tracy Haag – SERO – Travis Abernathy – SWRO – Not yet named


Integrated Planning • Communities facing multiple environmental requirements

with conflicting deadlines and limited resources should request approval of an integrated plan.

• The plan does not have legal authority to change compliance deadlines, additional actions must be taken.

• MDNR would like an integrated plan, to consider all environmental requirements (example: solid waste or air pollution)


New Regulations• 10 CSR 20-7.015(9)(L)4.C.• A Toxic Unit (TU) Water Quality Based

Effluent Limit shall be established in the permit where the department finds reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion from the narrative water quality criteria

• WET is now a numeric limit like all other parameters, violations treated accordingly


Permit Language• Monitoring only until reasonable potential is

established – Identify a problem and address it before it becomes a violation– Reopener clause included

• When reviewing monitoring data, look for exceedances of TUa = 1 and TUc = 1.6

• Trigger language only included when a facility gets limits

• Permit manual updates are on Web


What hasn’t changed• Test methods• Test applicability

– except the use of chronic for major POTWs• Method for calculating AEC

– Acute AEC% = ((design flow + ZID7Q10) / design flow)-1] x 100 = ##%

– AEC is no longer the compliance point


Permit Manual• http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/manual/5_0.htm

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/manual/5_0.htm

http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/manual/5_0.htm


• Can be done by eDMR – Upload all related documents

• New Forms sent out with permit– Please be sure everything is complete

• New Forms should be sent to appropriate Regional Office with DMR

• Old Forms still come to Jefferson City

Reporting

wieberg, chris, sappington, amanda, mdnr, operating permits section update, at missouri water...

Environment

new permit permits

permit writers

findings epa

termination permits

modification permits

renewal permits

previous permit decision

nonnpdes construction