Wisconsin Administrative Code
Department of Natural Resources
NR 200-299 - Environmental Protection - Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Chapter NR 208 - Compliance maintenance
Section NR 208.05 - CMAR point and grading system
Current through August 26, 2024
(1) APPLICABLE SECTIONS. The department shall determine which CMAR sections under s. NR 208.04(5) apply to each treatment works and shall make the sections available electronically to the treatment works owner no later than April 30 of each year.
(2) SECTION SCORES AND GRADES. A point score shall be calculated by the department for only the CMAR sections that apply to a specific wastewater treatment works. The score and grade for each CMAR section shall be based on information and data collected and provided by the owner of the treatment works for the prior calendar year. The point score for each CMAR section shall be calculated by subtracting any points generated in each CMAR section from 100. The point score from each section shall be used to determine the applicable grade and response action shown in table 1 for that CMAR section.
Table 1
Section Scores, Grades, and Response Ranges
SCORE |
GRADE |
GRADE POINTS |
GRADE MEANING |
RESPONSE RANGE |
91-100 |
A |
4 |
Good |
Voluntary |
81-90 |
B |
3 |
Satisfactory |
Voluntary |
71-80 |
C |
2 |
Marginal |
Recommendation |
61-70 |
D |
1 |
Poor |
Action |
<61 |
F |
0 |
Fail |
Action |
(3) CMAR SECTIONS AND POINT ASSIGNMENTS. CMAR sections shall be assigned points based on treatment works monitoring data and other information from the previous calendar year as shown in this subsection. The department may require other section specific information that may be included within each CMAR section. Supplemental questions and information may not include points and may not affect the section's grade.
Monthly Exceedance Criteria |
Points Per Monthly Exceedance |
Over 90% of maximum month design flow1 |
2 |
Over maximum month design flow1 |
1 |
Over 90% of design BOD loading |
3 |
Over design BOD loading |
2 |
1 "Maximum month design flow" means the largest volume of flow anticipated to occur during a continuous 30-day period, expressed as a daily average, for which the treatment works is designed to receive and provide treatment.
Monthly Exceedance Criteria (>10mg/l BOD/CBOD limits) |
Points Per Monthly Exceedance |
Over 90% of permit limit |
3 |
Over permit limit |
7 |
Monthly Exceedance Criteria (< or = 10 mg/l BOD/CBOD limits) |
Points Per Monthly Exceedance |
Over permit limit |
10 |
Example: For a wastewater facility discharging only 6 months of the year, the multiplication factor is 12 /6 = 2.0
Monthly Exceedance Criteria (>10mg/l TSS limits) |
Points Per Monthly Exceedance |
Over 90% of permit limit |
3 |
Over permit limit |
7 |
Monthly Exceedance Criteria (< or = 10 mg/l TSS limits) |
Points Per Monthly Exceedance |
Over permit limit |
10 |
Example: For a wastewater facility discharging only 6 months of the year, the multiplication factor is 12 /6 = 2.0
Monthly Exceedance Criteria |
Points Per Monthly Exceedance |
Over permit limit |
10 |
Weekly Exceedance Criteria |
Points Per Weekly Exceedance |
Over permit limit |
2 1/2 |
Monthly Exceedance Criteria |
Points Per Monthly Exceedance |
Over permit limit |
10 |
Example: For a wastewater facility discharging only 6 months of the year, the multiplication factor is 12 /6 = 2.0
Monthly Exceedance Criteria |
Points Per Monthly Exceedance |
Over permit limit |
10 |
Example: For a wastewater facility discharging only 6 months of the year, the multiplication factor is 12 /6 = 2.0
Exceedance Criteria |
Exceedance Points |
Enforcement Standard (ES) or Alternative Concentration Limit (ES-ACL) in any downgradient monitoring well of the discharge location |
20 |
Enforcement Standard (ES) or Alternative Concentration Limit (ES-ACL) at any point of standards application monitoring well |
10 |
Note: "Enforcement Standard" or "ES", Alternative concentration limit or "ACL", and "Standards application" has the meaning in ch. NR 140 - Groundwater Quality
Criteria |
Points |
No influent flow measurements |
40 |
No effluent flow measurements |
40 |
CMAR Estimated or Field Test Calculated Leakage Rates |
|
0-1000 gallons/acre/day |
0 |
1001-2000 gallons/acre/day |
10 |
2001-4000 gallons /acre /day |
20 |
4001-7000 gallons/acre/day |
30 |
>7000 gallons/acre /day |
40 |
Note: Pond and lagoon leakage rates may be estimated using total influent and effluent flows or calculated by actual field water balance testing if approved by the department. The change in storage volume (+/-) for fill and draw pond systems, storage lagoons, and other similar type systems may be used in the leakage rate estimation if the method for determining the change in storage volume(s) is approved by the department.
Criteria |
Points |
Over-application of nitrogen on approved sites |
30 |
Lack of 4-year soil tests on active sites |
10 |
Metals exceeded the high quality limits or 80% of the limit for molybdenum, |
|
nickel or selenium |
10 |
1-2 times |
15 |
>2 times |
|
Did not cumulatively track metals loading at each land application site if high quality limits were exceeded |
10 |
Metals exceeded the ceiling limits |
|
1 time |
10 |
>1 time |
15 |
Land applied biosolids that exceeded the ceiling limit |
20 |
Pathogen Control Class B limit |
|
exceeded or did not meet process criteria at time of land application |
40 |
Vector Attraction Reduction limit or cri- |
|
teria exceeded at the time of land application |
40 |
Biosolids Storage Time |
|
150-179 days |
10 |
120-149 days |
20 |
90-119 days |
30 |
<90 days |
40 |
Note: The definitions of "High quality limit", "Ceiling limit", "Pathogen control limit", and "Vector attraction reduction limit" may be found in ch. NR 204 - Domestic Sewage Sludge Management.
Criteria |
Points |
Did not have a documented and implemented preventative maintenance plan for major equipment items |
40 |
Preventative maintenance plan did not depict maintenance frequency and tasks for equipment |
10 |
Preventative maintenance tasks and major equipment repairs were not recorded and filed |
10 |
Criteria |
Points |
Did not have a designated operator-in-charge of the treatment works where required under ch. NR 114 |
20 |
The designated operator-in-charge was not certified at the appropriate level to operate the treatment works |
20 |
Did not have a contingency plan option(s) for having a certified operator operate the treatment works in the event of the loss of the designated operator-in-charge. |
20 |
Note: The definition of "Operator-In-Charge" may be found in ch. NR 114 - Certification Requirements For Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators.
Criteria |
Points |
User charges or other revenues were not sufficient to cover treatment works' O&M expenses |
40 |
User charge system or other revenue sources was last reviewed and/or revised 3 or more years ago |
20 |
Did not have a special account or financial resources available for repairing or replacing equipment for the treatment works |
40 |
Equipment Replacement Fund was last reviewed and/or revised 3 or more years ago (public municipal facilities only) |
20 |
Note: The definitions of "User Charge" and "Replacement" may be found in ch. NR 162 - Clean Water Fund.
Criteria |
Points |
After the effective date specified in s. NR 210.23(2), did not have a CMOM program that meets the requirements of s. NR 210.23. OR Prior to the effective date specified in s. NR 210.23(2), did not have a documented operation and maintenance or CMOM program. |
30 |
Note: Sanitary sewer overflow occurrences and sewage treatment facility overflow occurrences are reported under s. NR 210.21(4). Additional reporting requirements under this chapter are required under s. NR 208.06(1) (b). The department may initiate enforcement action under s. 283.89, Stats., for any sanitary sewer overflow or sewage treatment facility overflow.
(4) CALCULATION OF CMAR GRADE POINT AVERAGE (GPA). A grade point average shall be determined for each wastewater treatment works required to submit a CMAR. The grade point average shall be calculated as follows: multiply the CMAR section grade points associated with the letter grades for each section as shown in table 1 by the corresponding section weighting factor provided in table 2; add the resulting values determined for all the sections; divide the value determined by the sum of all the weighting factors used in calculating the individual section values.
G.P.A. = Sum (section grade points x section weighting factor) / Sum of the applicable section weighting factors
Table 2
CMAR Section Weighting Factors
CMAR SECTION |
WEIGHTING FACTOR |
Influent Flow and Loading |
3.0 |
Effluent Quality and Plant Performance (BOD5/CBOD5) |
10.0 |
Effluent Quality and Plant Performance (Total Suspended Solids) |
5.0 |
Effluent Quality and Plant Performance (Ammonia) |
5.0 |
Effluent Quality and Plant Performance (Phosphorus) |
3.0 |
Effluent Quality and Plant Performance (Total Nitrogen) |
7.0 |
Groundwater Quality |
7.0 |
Ponds and Lagoon Leakage |
7.0 |
Biosolids Quality and Management |
5.0 |
Staffing and Preventative Maintenance |
1.0 |
Operator Certification and Education |
1.0 |
Financial Management |
1.0 |
Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems |
3.0 |