Update on Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Stormwater Program Videoconference April 23, 2013 Bill Cole, Water Quality Standards Unit.
Advertisements

Whole Effluent Toxicity Sublethal Limitations Workgroup January 19, 2010 (please sign in and include an address)
What's New for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Bill Dimond MDEQ Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory.
Whole Effluent Toxicity NPDES Program
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing Water Quality Standards Workgroup Meeting June 26, 2007.
Clean Water Act Section 402 Issues Facing Kentucky Kentucky Professional Engineers in Mining Seminar September 6, 2013 Lloyd Cress, Kentucky Coal Association.
1 Mixing Zones, Reasonable Potential Analysis, and Permit Limits A Quick Overview Steve Schnurbusch Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
©Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C. Presented by: LAUREN KALISEK (512) Congress Avenue Suite 1900 Austin, Texas.
Water Quality Standards Program Status of Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration.
Water Quality Standards and MS4 Storm Water Permitting.
Harris County Pollution Control Services Department Enforcement of Bacteria Requirements in Wastewater.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting and Pesticides Jeff Fischer Permits Section Water Resources Division
Upper Blackfoot Mining Complex
Implementation of Antidegradation Policies for Indiana Waters.
Status of the WET Program William Telliard Director, Analytical Methods USEPA Office of Science & Technology Office of Water.
Total Maximum Daily Loads in MS4 Storm Water Programs.
Overview of WQ Standards Rule & WQ Assessment 303(d) LIst 1 Susan Braley Water Quality Program
Compliance Assurance and Title V Monitoring A Summary of the Rules and Applications Peter Westlin, EPA, OAQPS.
1 IDEM Overview of March 14, 2008 Draft Antidegradation Rule Presented at the April 29, 2008 Antidegradation Stakeholder Meeting.
Implementation Procedures (IPs) Brittany Lee Standards Implementation Team
Region 2000 Local Government Council 828 Main Street, 12th Floor Lynchburg, VA March 4, :30 – 8:30 p.m.
Implementation Procedures Comment Period: 1/19/10 - 3/17/10 Draft IPs available at: Electronic comments may be.
How to get Tribal Permitting Authority: Options and Procedures Nancy Mayer U.S. EPA OAQPS.
CAA Program Reporting Clarification Regarding Federally-Reportable Violations for Clean Air Act Stationary Sources (March 2010) (FRV Clarification Memo)
WET Permitting and Limits Phillip Jennings (6WQ-PO) Whole Effluent Toxicity Coordinator US EPA Region Ross Ave. Dallas, TX P F
Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
Bacteria Rulemaking Inclusion of Bacteria Limits in TPDES Permits.
Changes to § Application of Standards and §307.9-Determination of Standards Attainment Gregg Easley Water Quality Standards Team Texas Commission.
1 Update on Efforts to Reduce Emissions and Risks at High Risk Railyards February 25, 2010 BNSF San Bernardino California Environmental Protection Agency.
REVISIONS TO THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RULE JILL CSEKITZ, TECHNICAL SPECIALIST TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
 40 CFR § (d)(1)(v) “(W)hen the permitting authority determines, using the procedures in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, toxicity testing.
 40 CFR § (d)(1)(v) “(W)hen the permitting authority determines, using the procedures in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, toxicity testing.
October 9, 2014 Watershed Management Program for Santa Monica Bay Jurisdictional Group 7 within the City of Los Angeles.
PUBLIC HEARING September 15, Draft NPDES Permits for ArcelorMittal Facilities Indiana Harbor West, Central Wastewater Treatment Plant, Indiana.
Connie Brower NC DENR Division of Water Resources.
WQBELs Karen Holligan September 23, WQBELs – A Four-Piece Puzzle Numerical criteria (toxic pollutants) Water body quality Effluent fraction Bioavailable.
Revisions to: The Procedures to Implement the Surface Water Quality Standards Mrs. Brittany M. Lee Standards Implementation Team Phone:
 40 CFR § (d)(1)(v) “(W)hen the permitting authority determines, using the procedures in paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section, toxicity testing.
Slide 1 California Implementation Water Board Policies.
Modifying Alert Levels Adam Walker. Appropriate alert Why? Trend Monitoring EU GMP Chapter 6: 6.9 Some kinds of data (e.g. tests results, yields, environmental.
Update for the Citizens Advisory Committee February 22, 2017
Integrated Watershed Management
Selenium: The Curse of the West
Framework for CSO Control Planning
Update on PI Modeling and Nitrogen Removal at Blue Plains
Waste Discharge Permit: Paradise Irrigation District
New Source Review (NSR) Program Basics
Updated ERO Enterprise Guide for Internal Controls
NH MS4 Stormwater Permit -- Guidance for NHDES related provisions
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) CAFO Rule and the Proposed Idaho NPDES CAFO General.
Unresolved Reg 2 Issues and Triennial Review Preview Raymond E
RPA and the DEQ Drive for Lower Detection Limits
Single Event Violations
OSHA 29CFR 1910 Compliance Audit Demonstration
John Tinger U.S. EPA Region IX
Department of Environmental Quality
Spencer Bohaboy Policy Development Specialist Water Quality Policy
How to get Tribal Permitting Authority
Mercury TMDL Review & Permitting Strategy Update
EPA Region IV and ADEM NPDES Permit Coordination
Session Law Water Quality Permitting for Composters
Westcas position paper
Peter Schaefer Standards Implementation Team
Best Available Control Technology for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources
Peter Schaefer Standards Implementation Team
TCEQ Environmental Trade Fair Water Quality Division
Update on Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)
Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
EPA/OAQPS Pollutant Emissions Measurement Update 2019
Presentation transcript:

Update on Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)

Reasonable Potential 40 CFR § 122.44(d)(1)(v) “(W)hen the permitting authority determines. . . that a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause . . . an in-stream excursion above a narrative criterion within an applicable State water quality standard, the permit must contain limits for whole effluent toxicity.”

RP for WQBELs A single sample approaching or in excess of the calculated limit does not automatically require a limit Samples may be averaged Different than federal methodology

Reasonable Potential Originally, RP was not determined for WET during the application process WET was a monitoring requirement A TRE was required for persistent significant lethality At the end of a TRE a WET limit could be included in the permit

Sublethal Toxicity In 2007 EPA began to objecting to permits being issued with no additional requirements for permittees that had a history of sublethal failures Added a “trigger” for a sublethal TRE Eventually lead to SL WET limits

Reasonable Potential How many failures are a reasonable prediction for instream toxicity? Zero? One or two? Three or more?

AGREEMENT On December 28, 2015, EPA and TCEQ concurrently signed letters agreeing to a new procedure for making RP determinations. This agreement will allow the avoidance of the interim objection letters for draft permits that didn’t include WET limits after one or two failures.

RP for WET Zero failures, standard 5 year permit One or two failures, 3 year permit, monthly testing after a failure Three or more failures, 5 year permit with a WET limit, optional compliance period

IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES With an agreement on RP in place, TCEQ is now drafting a new WET section of the IPs. The WET section of the 2010 IPs were never approved by the EPA, so they never went into effect.

IPs Some of the other WET issues we are looking to address in the revised WET section of the IPs are: Eliminating formal Toxicity Reduction Evaluations (TREs) Switching to IC25 statistical methodology for test results Other miscellaneous items

IPs We value the input of our Stakeholders. Now is the time to start thinking about any changes you would like to see.

SUMMARY An RP agreement is now in place with EPA. Next is drafting new WET IPs. As always, Stakeholders will be allowed input during this development process. Michael Pfeil (512) 239-4592