Current through all regulations passed and filed through December 16, 2024
[Comment: For dates of non-regulatory
government publications, publications of recognized organizations and
associations, federal rules and federal statutory provisions referenced in this
rule, see rule
3745-33-01 of the Administrative
Code.]
(A)
Establishing final permit conditions for parameters
other than whole effluent toxicity. Final effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements shall be established in an NPDES permit in accordance with this
rule. The director may impose additional terms and conditions as part of an
NPDES permit as are appropriate or necessary to ensure compliance with the
applicable laws and to ensure adequate protection of water quality.
(1)
Final effluent
limitations shall be required for pollutants that meet any of the following
conditions:
(a)
Pollutants assigned to group five of the pollutant
assessment under rule
3745-2-06 of the Administrative
Code, except as provided in paragraph (A)(5) of this rule.
(b)
Pollutants
determined to have reasonable potential during a treatment plant design
review.
(c)
Pollutants determined by the director to need limits
due to an antidegradation review.
(d)
Other pollutant
parameters determined by the director to have the reasonable potential to cause
or contribute to an excursion above water quality standards.
(e)
Pollutants that
have wasteload allocations (WLAs) more restrictive than effluent limitations
established under sections 301, 306 and 307 of the act.
(2)
Final
effluent monitoring shall be required for pollutants assigned to group four of
the pollutant assessment. In addition, the permit shall include a tracking
mechanism for all group four parameters with a projected effluent quality (PEQ)
equivalent to or exceeding seventy-five per cent of the PEL. The tracking
language shall contain all of the following:
(a)
Projected
effluent limit (PEL) values for applicable parameters.
(b)
Requirements for
the permittee to notify Ohio EPA in writing within thirty days of an effluent
concentration sample result greater than the PEL. Written notification shall
detail the reasons for the level being above the PEL and for expectation of
continued levels above the PEL.
(c)
Requirements for
the permittee to reduce discharge levels to below the PEL within six months if
either of the following conditions are met:
(i)
The maximum
detected concentration per month is greater than the maximum PEL for four or
more months during a consecutive six month period.
(ii)
The thirty-day
average for any pollutant is greater than the average PEL for two or more
months during a consecutive six month period.
(d)
If the permittee
cannot reduce discharge levels within six months to below the PEL, the
permittee may request to modify the permit to contain a compliance schedule.
This request shall contain a justification for the additional time necessary to
reduce discharge levels.
(3)
Pollutant
monitoring for pollutants in groups one, two or three of the pollutant
assessment may be specified by the director.
(4)
Final effluent
monitoring for dioxin shall be required for a minimum of twelve months when
detectable levels of pentachlorophenol are present in the
effluent.
(5)
The director may make exceptions to the effluent
limitations under paragraph (A)(1) of this rule if the data used to determine
the PEQ are invalid or unrepresentative. If the director determines that a PEQ
is unrepresentative due to a small data set, the pollutant shall be subject to
the group four conditions of this rule, unless paragraph (A)(6) of this rule
applies.
(6)
The director may make exceptions to the monitoring
requirements under paragraph (A)(2) of this rule after consideration of other
relevant factors including, but not limited to, the frequency of occurrences
and variability of the levels of pollutants.
(7)
The director may
establish water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) that represent the sum
of all wastestreams containing a pollutant in a discharge or group of
discharges under the same NPDES permit, using the WLA and total maximum daily
load (TMDL) methods in Chapter 3745-2 of the Administrative Code and the
reasonable potential procedures in this rule and rule
3745-2-06 of the Administrative
Code.
(8)
Additivity of pollutant effects.
(a)
When a point
source discharge is subject to a WQBEL for pollutants considered additive, the
permit for that discharge shall contain a limitation on the additivity of the
pollutants unless either of the following apply:
(i)
Effluent
limitations needed to meet other state or federal laws or regulations result in
limitations more stringent than limitations on the additivity of the
pollutants.
(ii)
There is no reasonable potential for the additive
effects of discharged pollutants to cause or contribute to a lifetime upper
bound incremental risk greater than one in one hundred thousand of developing
cancer for carcinogens or an appreciable risk of adverse human health effects
(e.g. acute, subchronic, or chronic toxicity, or increased reproductive or
developmental effects) during a lifetime of exposure for non-carcinogens.
Reasonable potential for additive effects is determined by dividing the PEQ
average for each pollutant by the human health wasteload allocation for that
pollutant and adding these values for all additive pollutants. If the sum is
equal to or greater than 1.0, the permit shall contain a limitation regulating
the additivity of these pollutants.
(b)
If a WLA for an
additive pollutant is less than the quantification level for that pollutant,
the director may remove that pollutant from the consideration of
additivity.
(9)
Reasonable potential for noncontact cooling water. For
the purposes of this paragraph, "once-through noncontact cooling water" means
water used for cooling that does not come into direct contact with any raw
material, intermediate product, final product or waste product, not including
additives, and makes one or two passes for the purpose of removing waste heat.
This paragraph shall not apply to temperature and pH.
(a)
The director
shall not impose WQBELs for a discharge consisting solely of once-through
noncontact cooling water drawn from the same body of water that the effluent is
discharged to as determined under paragraph (C) of rule
3745-2-06 of the Administrative
Code, except in the following situations:
(i)
The director
shall require a WQBEL for a pollutant or a whole effluent toxicity (WET) limit
when information is available indicating that such a limit is necessary to
protect existing or designated uses, unless the discharger is able to
demonstrate that the presence of the pollutant or WET is due solely to its
presence in the intake water as determined under paragraph (C) of rule
3745-2-06 of the Administrative
Code.
(ii)
The director shall require a WQBEL for a pollutant when
the pollutant concentration in the discharge exhibits reasonable potential, is
higher than ambient concentrations in the receiving water due to recirculation
of the cooling water in the receiving water body, and available information
indicates that a limit is necessary to protect existing or designated
uses.
(iii)
The director shall establish a WQBEL or other
requirement in the permit for the noncontact cooling water wastestream if
biological index measurements or WET measurements indicate that the noncontact
cooling water discharge contributes to an impairment of an existing or
designated use of the receiving waters.
(iv)
If a pollutant
is present at elevated levels in the noncontact cooling water wastestream due
to pollutants entering the cooling system, paragraph (A)(9) of this rule shall
not apply to the discharge of pollutants present at elevated
levels.
(v)
If the permittee uses or proposes to use additives in
the noncontact cooling water wastestream, the director shall evaluate the
additives to determine whether there is a reasonable potential for the additive
to cause or contribute to an excursion of the water quality standards contained
in Chapter 3745-1 of the Administrative Code. The director shall establish
permit conditions or other requirements for the additives or their ingredients
that ensure that Ohio water quality standards are attained.
(vi)
If the source of
the noncontact cooling water wastestream is contaminated groundwater, paragraph
(A)(9) of this rule does not apply to the discharge of pollutants in the
groundwater that exhibit reasonable potential.
(vii)
If the
noncontact cooling water is combined with other wastestreams prior to final
discharge, the provisions of paragraph (A)(9) of this rule are restricted to
the noncontact cooling water wastestream, and WQBELs shall be established on a
reasonable potential analysis for the sum of the other wastestreams conducted
according to this rule and rule
3745-2-06 of the Administrative
Code. If other individual wastestreams cannot be practically monitored, the
director shall require WQBELs at the final discharge point.
(viii)
The director
shall require monitoring of the intake and any other locations necessary to
verify and confirm the conclusions about reasonable potential under paragraph
(A)(9)(a) of this rule.
(10)
Ohio NPDES
permits shall require that discharges of treatment additives meet Ohio water
quality standards. To determine whether treatment additive discharges meet
water quality standards, the director shall use the procedures from rule
3745-1-40 and Chapter 3745-2 of
the Administrative Code, or alternatively, using the procedures from paragraph
(D) of rule
3745-1-04 of the Administrative
Code if toxicity data are available for the limiting endpoint, acute or
chronic, for at least one freshwater fish species and one freshwater
invertebrate species. In determining the limiting endpoint the director may
consider the duration and frequency of discharge of the
additive.
(11)
A discharge shall be deemed to be in compliance with an
effluent limitation based upon the 0.012 ug/l thirty-day average water quality
criterion for total recoverable mercury specified in Chapter 3745-1 of the
Administrative Code if either of the following occur:
(a)
The discharge
does not exceed the effluent limitation established in the NPDES permit based
upon the 0.012 ug/l thirty-day average criterion.
(b)
The permittee
demonstrates to the director's satisfaction that the geometric mean
concentration of methylmercury in the edible portion of a consumed species or
weighted average of the geometric means of various species based upon local
consumption exposed to the discharge does not exceed 0.3 mg/kg. Any discharger
seeking to make a demonstration pursuant to this paragraph shall include a
notification of intent to perform such a study in the monthly operating report
that reports any exceedance of a mercury effluent limit based on the 0.012 ug/l
thirty-day average water quality criterion for total recoverable mercury. Such
demonstration shall be based upon results of a fish tissue study, conducted in
accordance with a methodology approved by the director. The results of the fish
tissue study shall be submitted to the director for review and approval within
one hundred and twenty days of the discharge, or such additional period of time
as specified by the director. Provided that the study is submitted within the
time allowed, the determination of whether or not the discharger is in
compliance with the applicable effluent limitation will be made when the
director approves or disapproves the demonstration. If the geometric mean of
all representative samples of any species or weighted average of the geometric
means of various locally consumed species exceeds 0.3 mg/kg methylmercury, the
director shall disapprove the demonstration and the discharger shall implement
a strategy to reduce sources of mercury. This rule does not apply to any
mercury effluent limitation other than the thirty-day average effluent
limitation based upon the 0.012 ug/l thirty-day average water quality criterion
for total recoverable mercury specified in Chapter 3745-1 of the Administrative
Code.
(B)
Establishing
final limitations for whole effluent toxicity.
[Comment: In the lake Erie watershed,
federal regulations in 40 C.F.R. 132 overwrite paragraph (B) of this
rule.]
(1)
The director shall evaluate whole effluent toxicity for
a discharge using a weight- of-evidence evaluation of available data on the
factors listed in paragraphs (B) (1)(a) to (B)(1)(d) of this rule and the
evaluation matrix in table 1 of this rule to determine whether the discharge
has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to violations of water
quality standards contained in Chapter 3745-1 of the Administrative Code. The
director shall classify the toxicity hazard of the discharge in one of the four
categories listed in table 1 of this rule.
(a)
The magnitude,
frequency and variability of toxicity discharged.
(b)
The degree and
type of near-field and far-field effects in the receiving water as measured by
physical, chemical, toxicity or biological index measurements.
(c)
The quality and
quantity of each type of data available.
(d)
Other relevant
factors.
(2)
When the director determines that the discharge has the
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the water
quality standards contained in paragraph (D) of rule
3745-1-04 of the Administrative
Code, the discharger shall be classified in hazard category 1 of table 1 of
this rule, and the permit shall contain a discharge limitation for toxicity as
determined using the procedures in rule
3745-2-09 of the Administrative
Code, and any applicable procedures in paragraphs (B)(5) to (B)(10) of this
rule.
(3)
For dischargers classified in hazard category 2, the
director shall require monitoring with a permit limit for WET that is triggered
by events specified in the permit. As an alternative to limits, the director
may require the permittee to conduct a plant performance evaluation (PPE). A
PPE contains an evaluation of processes, inputs and treatment including but not
limited to toxicity pass-through at the treatment plant, chemicals used in the
treatment process, and the effect of plant processes or industrial users on WET
discharged by the treatment plant.
(4)
When the
evaluation from paragraph (B)(1) of this rule using factors in paragraphs
(B)(1)(a) to (B)(1)(d) of this rule indicates the discharger is classified in
hazard category 3 of table 1 of this rule, the permit shall contain a
monitoring requirement.
(5)
Limits for acute toxicity of 1.0 TUa that are based on
protecting the inside- mixing-zone water quality standard in paragraph (D) of
rule 3745-1-04 of the Administrative
Code may be modified if the discharger demonstrates attainment of this water
quality standard using any one of the following methods:
(a)
An AIM study
approved under rule
3745-1-06 of the Administrative
Code.
(b)
A correlation of effluent and near-field toxicity data
for the discharge that indicates that the narrative water quality standard is
being attained.
(c)
Biological index measurements taken within the area
defined in rule
3745-1-06 of the Administrative
Code that indicate the absence of toxic conditions.
(d)
Other studies
that indicate that the area where acute toxicity is expected to be present is
too small to be habitable by aquatic life. Such studies must demonstrate that
this zone is not rapidly lethal to floating or passing
organisms.
(6)
Demonstrations conducted under paragraph (B)(5)(b) to
(B)(5)(d) of this rule shall meet the requirements of rule
3745-1-06 of the Administrative
Code. In addition, the director may modify maximum limitations that are
approved under paragraph (B)(5)(b) or (B)(5)(c) of this rule using the results
of an AIM computer modeling or field study performed in accordance with rule
3745-1-06 of the Administrative
Code.
(7)
The director shall review demonstrations under
paragraphs (B)(5) and (B)(6) of this rule using the factors in paragraphs
(B)(1)(a) to (B)(1)(d) of this rule to ensure that uses are not impaired by
toxicity before approving modified limitations for whole effluent
toxicity.
(8)
The director may modify limitations for acute or
chronic toxicity that are based on protecting the water quality standard in
paragraph (D) of rule
3745-1-04 of the Administrative
Code if the discharger reduces effluent toxicity by a substantial amount after
the issuance of the effluent limit, and if subsequent biological index
measurements indicate the absence of toxic conditions downstream of the
discharge or mixing zone, as appropriate.
(9)
The director may
modify limitations for acute toxicity for discharges to water bodies designated
limited resource water under Chapter 3745-1 of the Administrative Code if the
discharger demonstrates that severe habitat degradation prevents the presence
of biological communities typically associated with this water body
use.
(10)
For the purposes of establishing whole effluent
toxicity limitations, the values of 1.0 TUa and 1.0 TUc shall be the most
restrictive limitations applied in permits. If the ratio of stream design flow
to effluent flow is less than 3.3 to 1.0, the director may require special
measures to investigate and remediate acute toxicity when an effluent
consistently exhibits thirty per cent to fifty per cent mortality in one
hundred per cent effluent.
(11)
Minimum
monitoring requirements for whole effluent toxicity. The following requirements
satisfy the application toxicity test requirements in
40
C.F.R. 122.21(j)(5), however
do not apply to discharges from facilities that treat only combined sewer
overflows:
(a)
The following testing requirements apply to permits for
both:
(i)
Any
publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) with design flow rates greater than or
equal to one million gallons per day.
(ii)
Any POTWs with
approved pretreatment programs or POTWs required to develop a pretreatment
program.
(b)
Permits shall contain testing requirements at least
four times per permit cycle for at least two species, one fish species and one
macroinvertebrate species.
(c)
Permits shall
contain chronic toxicity testing requirements if the ratio of the downstream or
mixing zone dilution is less than twenty to one, according to the procedures in
rule 3745-2-09 of the Administrative
Code.
(d)
Permits shall contain acute toxicity testing
requirements if the ratio of the downstream or mixing zone dilution is twenty
to one or greater, according to the procedures in rule
3745-2-09 of the Administrative
Code.
(e)
Where the POTW has two or more outfalls with
substantially identical effluent discharging to the same receiving water
segment, the director may allow applicants to submit whole effluent toxicity
data for only one outfall on a case-by-case basis. The director may also allow
applicants to composite samples from one or more outfalls that discharge into
the same mixing zone.
(C)
WQBELs below
quantification levels. The following shall apply when a water quality based
effluent limit for a pollutant is calculated to be less than the quantification
level:
(1)
The
director shall designate as the limit in the NPDES permit the WQBEL exactly as
calculated.
(2)
Analytical methods, quantification, and compliance
levels.
(a)
The
permittee shall use the most sensitive analytical procedure currently approved
under 40 C.F.R. 136 for each individual pollutant.
(b)
If the most
sensitive analytical procedure in paragraph (C)(2)(a) of this rule changes,
resulting in a more sensitive quantification level, the director may issue a
compliance schedule to allow the permittee to implement the new quantification
level and demonstrate compliance using the revised quantification level or
WQBEL, whichever is higher.
(c)
For the purpose
of assessing compliance with an NPDES permit, any value reported below the
quantification level shall be considered in compliance with the effluent limit.
For the purpose of calculating compliance with average limitations contained in
an NPDES permit, compliance shall be determined by taking the arithmetic mean
of reported values for a given reporting period and comparing that mean to the
appropriate average permit limitation, using zero for any values detected at
concentrations less than the quantification level. Arithmetic mean values that
are less than or equal to the permit limitation shall be considered in
compliance with the effluent limit.
(d)
The
quantification level is defined as the practical quantification level (PQL)
except, for discharges to the lake Erie drainage basin, the quantification
level shall be the minimum level for analytical procedures that have minimum
levels specified in, or approved under, 40 C.F.R. 136.
(e)
The director may
establish PQLs for a pollutant with a listed method in 40 C.F.R. 136 or, if no
analytical method for the pollutant has been promulgated under 40 C.F.R. 136,
the director may establish a PQL for the pollutant using an appropriate
consensus standard or other generally accepted standard for the analytical
method; if no such standard exists, the director may establish a PQL in the
permit based on MDLs determined using the procedures in 40 C.F.R. 136, appendix
B.
(f)
Discharge-specific quantification levels. Permittees
may apply for discharge-specific quantification levels. Discharge-specific
quantification levels shall be calculated using the procedures provided in 40
C.F.R. 136, appendix B.
(3)
Permit reopener
clause. Ohio NPDES permits shall contain a reopener clause authorizing
modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit if new information
generated as a result of special conditions included in the permit indicates
the presence of the pollutant in the discharge at levels above the WQBEL.
Special conditions that may be included in the permit include, but are not
limited to, fish tissue sampling, whole effluent toxicity tests, monitoring
requirements on internal waste streams, and monitoring for surrogate
parameters. Data generated as a result of special conditions can be used to
reopen the permit to establish more stringent effluent limits or conditions, if
necessary.
(4)
Pollutant minimization program. For discharges to the
lake Erie drainage basin, the director shall include a condition in the permit
requiring the permittee to develop and conduct a pollutant minimization program
in accordance with rule
3745-33-09 of the Administrative
Code for each pollutant with a WQBEL below the quantification level.
Table C-1. Criteria for determining reasonable potential for
effluent toxicity
Attribute
Evaluated
|
Hazard Category 1
|
Hazard Category 2
|
Hazard Category 3
|
Hazard Category 4
|
Degree of toxicity
problem
|
Adequately
Documented
|
Strongly Suspected
|
Possible
|
None
|
(A) Effluent
toxicity
|
(1) Minimum number of tests
(Actual number___)
|
3
|
1
|
0 or 1
|
0 or 1
|
(2) Per cent of tests greater
than WLA (Actual per cent ___)
|
> 30
|
20 to 30
|
10 to 20
|
< 10
|
(3) Effluent geometric mean TU
TUa (___) TUc (___)
|
(4) Average
exceedance1
|
(a) Without paragraph (B) and
(C) of this table available
|
(i)
Acute2
|
> 0.3
|
> or = 0.3
|
> or = 0.2
|
< 0.2
|
(ii) Chronic
|
> 0.3 x WLA
|
> or = 0.3 x
WLA
|
> or = 0.2 x
WLA
|
< 0.2 x WLA
|
(b) With paragraph (B) or (C)
of this table available
|
(i)
Acute2
|
> 0.5
|
> or = 0.3
|
> or = 0.3
|
< 0.3
|
(ii) Chronic
|
> 0.67 x WLA
|
> or = 0.5 x
WLA
|
> or = 0.5 x
WLA
|
< 0.5 x WLA
|
(5) Maximum TU
value
|
(a) Without paragraph (B) and
(C) of this table available
|
> or = 3 x WLA
|
> or = 1 x WLA
|
> or = 1 x WLA
|
< 1 x WLA
|
(b) With paragraph (B) or (C)
of this table available and confirming toxic impact
|
> 1 x WLA
|
> or = 1 x WLA
|
> or = 0.5 x
WLA
|
< 0.5 x WLA
|
(B) Near-field
impact
|
(1) Mortality within mixing
zone3
|
> or = 20%
|
> or = 20%
|
< or = 20%
|
< 20%
|
(2) Stream community impact
within mixing zone
|
(a) Implied
chemically4
|
> or = 3 x IMZM or
>
LC506
|
> or = 1.5 x IMZM or
>
LC506
|
> or = IMZM or
>
0.75
xLC506
|
< or = 0.5 x IMZM or < or
= to 0.75 xLC506
|
(b) Implied
toxicologically4
|
> or = 1.0 TUa
|
> or = 1.0 TUa
|
> or = 1.0 TUa
|
< 1.0 TUa
|
(c) Measured
biologically
|
Toxic or severe unknown
signature
|
Fair/poor
community
|
Slight impact or unknown impact
signature
|
None or non-toxic
signature
|
(C) Far-field
impact
|
(1) Aquatic life use impairment
(Ohio EPA biological criteria)
|
Yes5
|
Yes or
partial5
|
Partial
|
None or non-toxic
signature
|
(2) Stream community
impact
|
(a) Implied
toxicologically3
|
Significant effect
|
Significant effect
|
Unknown or slight
effect
|
None
|
(3) Other
indicators
|
Stress indicated
|
Stress indicated
|
Stress indicated
|
No stress
|
1 Compare
(per cent exceedances x geometric mean TU) to table factor.
2 Use 0.3 x
WLA for situations where AIM exists.
3 Results of
ambient toxicity test are not binding or required for classification as to
category but, if available, will be interpreted under the weight of evidence
principle giving due consideration as to sampling location and
conditions.
4 Based on
effluent data. May not be appropriate for situations where AIM
exists.
5 Lack of
attainment due to toxic, complex or unidentifiable type of impact.
6 The
LC50-based criteria are used only for pollutant parameters that do not have
numeric criteria.
Replaces: 3745-33-07