Wieberg, Chris, Sappington, Amanda, MDNR, Operating Permits Section Update, at Missouri Water Seminar, Sept.4-5, 2014, Columbia, MO

Celebrating 40 years of taking care of Missouri’s natural resources.
Operating Permits
Section Update
Chris Wieberg and Amanda
Sappington
Operating Permits Section

Master General Permits
Issued
MOGD – Non-POTWs discharging ≤50,000 gpd; Effective
07/01/2014
MOG14 – Oil/Water Separators; Effective 07/01/2014
MOG76 – Swimming pool discharges; Effective 08/01/2014
MOR22A – Lumber and Wood (primary); 09/01/2014
MOR203 – Fab. Metal, Light Industrial; 09/01/2014
MOR80H – Solid Waste Transfer; 09/01/2014
Modified
MOR22C – Lumber and Wood (secondary); 08/08/2014

Master General Permits
Pending Modification
MOG64 – WTP Settling Basins; 10/01/2014
Draft Phase
MOG84 – Clay Pits
MOR22B – Wood Treaters
MOR241 – Agrichemical Facilities
MOR23A – Chemical Manufacturing

in
2014 CO
Application for New Permit Permits Issued Average Process Days General Permit Covered Facility 48 83 Non-NPDES - Construction for Ag Chem Storage Facilities 1 17 Non-NPDES - Construction for Sewer Extension 85 29 Non-NPDES - Construction for Wastewater Treatment 55 57 Site Specific 17 200 206
Modification Permits Issued Average Process Days General Permit Covered Facility 7 31 Site Specific 32 200 39
Ownership Transfer Permits Issued Average Process Days Site Specific 25 68 25
Renewal Permits Issued Average Process Days Site Specific 415 329 415
Termination Permits Issued Average Process Days Site Specific 20 166 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

Affordability
Change 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

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

• "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

• 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…)

• Schedule of Compliance timelines:

• 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

• 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

• 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

Reporting
• 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

Wieberg, Chris, Sappington, Amanda, MDNR, Operating Permits Section Update, at Missouri Water Seminar, Sept.4-5, 2014, Columbia, MO

More Related Content

Wieberg, Chris, Sappington, Amanda, MDNR, Operating Permits Section Update, at Missouri Water Seminar, Sept.4-5, 2014, Columbia, MO