9 WLA = (At)

 

or

 

WLA = (Ad)(T)

 

Where:

 

At = the final acute value developed for the toxic substance under R 323.1057 expressed as total or total recoverable.

Ad = final acute value for aquatic life expressed as dissolved metal under

R 323.1057. Values expressed as dissolved, but for which a translator (T) is not available, shall be expressed as total or total recoverable for purposes of this subdivision.

T= dissolved to total translator for aquatic life wasteload allocations. For the metals in table 2, T equals the given value or one derived from site-specific data. For the metals not listed in table 2, T is equal to a translator derived by the department when sufficient information is available or from site-specific data.

 

 

(4)    When establishing WLAs based on human health values for individual point source discharges, the potential interaction between multiple toxic substances in the effluent shall be addressed by the following provisions:

(a)    If an effluent contains carcinogens for which available scientific information supports a reasonable assumption that the toxic substances produce the same type of cancer through the same mechanism of action and for which WQBELs are required pursuant to R 323.1211 on an individual basis, then the total incremental risk created by the effluent in the surface waters of the state after mixing with the allowable receiving water body volume specified in R 323.1082 shall not exceed 1 X 10-5 for individual carcinogens and 1 X 10-4 for the total effluent.  This additivity provision shall be implemented on a

case-by-case basis and shall be evaluated at each facility independent of other carcinogens that may be present in the receiving water.

(b)    If an effluent contains 2 or more noncarcinogens for which available scientific information supports a reasonable assumption that the toxic substances produce the same adverse effects through the same mechanisms of action and for which WQBELs are required under R 323.1211 on an individual basis, then the noncarcinogenic effects of the chemicals may be assumed additive and considered by the department when calculating WLAs protective of human health. This subdivision shall be implemented on a case-by-case basis and shall be evaluated at each facility independent of other noncarcinogens that may be present in the receiving stream.

(c)    Notwithstanding the requirements in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this subrule, human health-based WLAs for the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs) listed in table 2 shall be calculated using the following procedures:

(i)     The human cancer value and human noncancer value for 2,3,7,8-TCDD shall be used consistent with the procedures in subrules (1) and (2) of this rule to calculate total 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence WLAs for effluents.

(ii)     The toxicity equivalency factors (TEFs) and bioaccumulation equivalency factors (BEFs) in table 2 3 shall be used to calculate a 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence concentration for an effluent when implementing the WLAs derived in paragraph (i) of this subdivision. The equation for calculating the 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence concentration in an effluent is as follows:

(TEC)TCDD = S(C)x(TEF)x(BEF)x

Where:

(TEC)TCDD = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence concentration in the discharge. (C)x = the concentration of congener x in the discharge.

(TEF)x = toxicity equivalency factor for congener x.

(BEF)x = bioaccumulation equivalency factor for congener x.

 

Table 2 3. Toxicity Eequivalency Ffactors and BEFs for CDDs and CDFs

Congener	TEF	BEF
2,3,7,8-TCDD	1.0	1.0
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD	0.5	0.9
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD	0.1	0.3
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD	0.1	0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD	0.1	0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD	0.01	0.05
OCDD	0.001	0.01
2,3,7,8-TCDF	0.1	0.8
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF	0.05	0.2
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF	0.5	1.6

 

 

1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF	0.1	0.08
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF	0.1	0.2
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF	0.1	0.7
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF	0.1	0.6
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF	0.01	0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF	0.01	0.4
OCDF	0.001	0.02

 

R 323.1211  Reasonable potential for chemical-specific water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs). Rule 1211. (1) Chemical-specific water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) shall be incorporated into a national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit where the department determines that a toxic substance is or may be discharged into the waters of the state at a level that has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above any water quality value. The determination shall be made by developing preliminary effluent limitations (PELs) and comparing the effluent limitations to the potential effluent quality (PEQ) of the discharge.

(2)    PELs shall be developed for each toxic substance that the permittee reports as known or believed to be present in its discharge using the wasteload allocation (WLA) provisions specified in R 323.1207 or R 323.1209. At a minimum, PELs are required and shall be developed for the protection of aquatic life and noncancer human health effects where aquatic life values, human noncancer values, or the minimum data to calculate the aquatic life or human noncancer values are available. If there are insufficient data to calculate aquatic life or human noncancer values, then the department shall follow the provisions in subrule (6) of this rule. PELs shall also be developed for the protection of wildlife and human health cancer effects where human cancer values, wildlife values, or the minimum data to calculate human cancer or wildlife values are available.

(3)     The PEQs shall be determined by either of the following procedures:

(a)     If at least 10 or more representative facility-specific effluent samples are available that are greater than the detection limit, then the maximum PEQ shall equal the upper ninetififth percentile of all the representative daily discharge concentrations and the average PEQ shall equal the upper ninetififth percentile of all the representative 30-day average discharge concentrations. The upper ninetififth percentile of the daily discharge concentrations and 30-day average discharge concentrations shall be calculated as follows:

P95 = exp (mudn + Zp sigmadn) Where:

P95 = upper ninetififth percentile of n-day average discharge concentrations.

d = ratio of the number of daily discharge concentrations less than the limit of detection to the total number of discharge concentrations.

n = number of discharge concentrations used to calculate an average over a specified monitoring period (n=1 for daily concentrations and 30 for 30-day averages).

exp = base e (or approximately 2.718) raised to the power shown between the parentheses in the P95 equation.

Zp = Z value corresponding to the upper pth percentile of the standard normal distribution. p = (0.95-dn)/(1-dn).

mu dn  = mu d

(sigma

) 2  - (sigma   ) 2

d                                        dn

 

2

+   ln

(l - d )  =

estimated log mean of n-day average discharge

concentrations greater than the limit of detection. (Note:  mudn = mud if n = 1).

 

 

æ

 

2

 

é               1 + æ  s ö               ö ù

ê             ç       ç    ÷                ÷ ú

(sigma

) 2   = lnê(1 - d n )ç

è mø

+    n - 1÷ ú =  estimated log variance of   n-day average discharge

dn                         ê

ê

ëê

ç  n(1 - d )

ç

è

n   ÷ ú

÷ ú

ø ûú

concentrations greater than the limit of detection.  (Note: (sigmadn)2 = (sigmad)2 if n = 1).

mud = 1n m - 0.5 (sigmad)2 = estimated log mean of discharge concentrations greater than the limit of detection.

(sigmad)2  = 1n [1 + (s/m)2] = estimated log from variance of discharge concentrations greater than the limit of detection.

ln = natural logarithm.

m = mean of discharge concentrations greater than the limit of detection.

s = standard deviation of discharge concentrations greater than the limit of detection.

Reasonable potential for the discharge of a toxic substance to cause or contribute to an excursion above any water quality value will be considered to exist if the average or maximum PEQ exceeds any of the chronic or acute PELs, respectively, developed in accordance with subrule (2) of this rule.

(b)    If sufficient data are not available to use the process described in subdivision (a) of this subrule, then the PEQ shall be determined by identifying the total number of representative effluent samples, both detectable and nondetectable, and multiplying the maximum effluent concentration by the appropriate factor from table 3 4 developed by assuming a 0.6 coefficient of variation. Reasonable potential for the discharge of a toxic substance to cause or contribute to an excursion above any water quality value will be considered to exist if the PEQ exceeds any of the PELs developed in accordance with subrule (2) of this rule.  For purposes of this subdivision, the department shall consider other scientifically defensible approaches on a case-by-case basis which are consistent with procedure 5.B.2 of Appendix F, 40 C.F.R. Part 132 (1995), which is adopted by reference in R 323.1221, for use in determining reasonable potential.  If requested by the permittee, one such approach that is acceptable to the department is the prediction level concept specified in Gibbons, 1994, Statistical Methods for Groundwater Monitoring - Wiley, New York where representative effluent data appropriate for use with this method is provided. If the prediction level approach is proposed for use with data sets containing values both above and below the detection level, then a process to address the less than detection values, that is acceptable to the department, shall be provided by the permittee.

 

Table 3 4.  Reasonable Ppotential Mmultiplying Ffactors: 95% Cconfidence Llevel and 95% Pprobability Bbasis

 

Number of Samples

 

1         2         3         4         5         6         7         8         9
Multiplying Factor	6.2	3.8	3.0	2.6	2.3	2.1	2.0	1.9	1.8
	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18       19
	1.7	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.4	1.4      1.4
20        30        40       50       60       70       80       90       100
1.4		1.2	1.1	1.0	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9

 

(4)    If the analysis in subrule (3) of this rule demonstrates that the toxic substance concentration has a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above any water quality value, then a

 

 

WQBEL or WQBELs shall be established in the permit. For the purpose of an NPDES permit, a chronic or acute WLA based on a water quality value shall be equal to a WQBEL and shall be expressed using the following permit averaging periods:

(a)     Chronic WLAs for the protection of aquatic life, human health, and wildlife shall be expressed as monthly average WQBELs.

(b)     Acute WLAs for the protection of aquatic life shall be expressed as daily maximum WQBELs. Monitoring frequency to evaluate compliance with WQBELs shall be established by the department on a case-by-case basis.

(5)     Monthly average WQBELs shall be expressed as both a concentration value and a corresponding mass load. The mass and concentration limits shall be calculated using the same facility design flows. Appropriate adjustments may be made to address facilities that receive wet-weather flows. Daily maximum WQBELs shall be expressed as both a concentration value and a corresponding mass load for those substances identified in R 323.1205(u)(ii) and other toxic substances as appropriate.

(6)     For each toxic substance which a permittee reports as known or believed to be present in its discharge, and for which data sufficient to calculate tier II values for noncancer human health and aquatic life do not exist, all of the following provisions apply:

(a)     The department shall use all available, relevant toxicity information to estimate ambient screening values for the toxic substance that will protect humans from noncancer health effects and aquatic life from acute and chronic effects.

(b)     Using the provisions specified in R 323.1209, the department shall develop PELs based on the estimated ambient screening value and compare the PELs with the PEQ. If the PEQ exceeds any of the PELs, then the department shall generate, or require the permittee to generate, the minimum data necessary to derive tier II values for noncancer human health and aquatic life.

(c)     The data generated in accordance with subdivision (b) of this subrule shall be used to calculate water quality values.  The values shall be used in calculating the PELs pursuant to subrule (2) of this rule for the purpose of determining whether a WQBEL must be included in the permit. If the department finds that the PEQ exceeds the PEL, then a WQBEL for the toxic substance shall be established in the permit consistent with R 323.1211.

(7)     All of the following conditions apply when considering intake toxic substances in establishing limitations in NPDES permits:

(a)     The department may determine that there is no reasonable potential for the discharge of an identified intake toxic substance to cause or contribute to an excursion above any water quality value if a discharger demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the department, or the department determines, all of the following:

(i)     The facility withdraws 100% of the intake water containing the toxic substance from the same body of water into which the discharge is made.

(ii)     The facility does not contribute a measurable increased mass of the identified intake toxic substance to its wastewater.

(iii)     The facility does not alter the identified intake toxic substance chemically or physically in a manner that would cause adverse water quality impacts to occur that would not occur if the toxic substances were left in-stream.

(iv)     The facility does not increase the identified intake toxic substance concentration, as defined by the department, at the edge of the mixing zone or if a mixing zone is not allowed at the point of discharge, as compared to the toxic substance concentration in the intake water, unless the increased concentration does not cause or contribute to an excursion above an applicable water quality standard.

(v)     The timing and location of the discharge would not cause adverse water quality impacts to occur that would not occur if the identified intake toxic substance were left in-stream.

 

 

(b)     If there is a finding under subdivision (a) of this subrule that a toxic substance in the discharge does not have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above a water quality value, then a WQBEL is unnecessary and the permit may require monitoring necessary to demonstrate that the conditions in subdivision (a) of this subrule are maintained during the permit term. Unique situations for commingled waste streams at facilities will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

(c)     Absent a finding under subdivision (a) of this subrule, the department shall use the procedures described in subrules (2) through (5) of this rule to determine whether a discharge has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above any water quality value.

(d)    If the background receiving water concentration of the intake toxic substance of concern exceeds the most stringent applicable water quality value for that toxic substance, then all of the following provisions apply:

(i)     If the facility meets the conditions in subdivision (a)(i) and (iii) to (v) of this subrule, then a no net addition limit may be established for the toxic substance of concern at a mass and concentration that are no greater than the mass and concentration of the toxic substance identified in the facility’s intake water. In determining whether there has been an addition, recognized statistical concepts shall be considered. For toxic substances contained in the intake water provided by a water system, the concentration of the intake toxic substance shall be determined at the point where the raw water is removed from the same body of water, except that it shall be the point where the water enters the water supplier’s distribution system where the water treatment system removes any of the identified toxic substances from the raw water supply.  Mass shall be determined by multiplying the concentration of the toxic substance by the volume of the facility’s intake flow received from the water system. Following establishment of a TMDL developed under R 323.1207 for the water body segment encompassing the facility, any use of  no net addition limits shall be consistent with the TMDL.

 

Note: The Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System, 40 C.F.R. Part 132 (1995), which is adopted by reference in R 323.1221, indicates that a permit may not authorize no net addition limits that are effective after March 23, 2007.  The preamble to 40 C.F.R. Part 132 indicates that the Eenvironmental Pprotection Aagency (EPA) will revisit this requirement by March 23, 2002, to consider possible extensions. After the redetermination by EPA, the department will consider modifying these rules to incorporate a phaseout date for no net addition limits, if still necessary.

 

(ii)     If the intake toxic substance in a facility’s discharge originates from a water that is not the same body of water as the receiving water, then WQBELs shall be established based upon the most stringent water quality value for that toxic substance.

(iii)     If a facility discharges an intake toxic substance that originates in part from the same body of water, and in part from a different body of water, then the department may apply the conditions of paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this subdivision to derive an effluent limitation reflecting the flow-weighted average of each source of the toxic substance.

 

 

R 323.1213  WQBELs less than quantification level.

Rule 1213. (1) If a water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL) for a toxic substance is calculated to be less than the quantification level, then all of the following provisions apply:

(a)     The department shall designate, in the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit, the WQBEL as calculated.

(b)     The permit shall state, for the purpose of compliance assessment, the analytical method to be used to monitor the amount of toxic substance in the effluent and the quantification level. The analytical method

 

 

specified shall be the most sensitive, applicable, analytical method specified in or approved under the pollutant testing regulations set forth in 40 C.F.R. §136 (1995 2000), which are adopted by reference in R 323.1221, or other appropriate method that provides confirmation and verification acceptable to the department if one is not available under 40 C.F.R. §136 (1995 2000). The permit shall also state that if an effluent sample is less than the quantification level, then the permittee shall be considered in compliance for the period that the sample represents if the pollutant minimization program (PMP) described in subdivision (d) of this subrule is being fully performed.

(c)     The quantification level shall be the minimum level (ML) specified in, or approved under, 40 C.F.R.

§136 (1995 2000), which are adopted by reference in R 323.1221, for the method for that toxic substance. If no such ML does not exists, or if the method is not specified or approved under 40 C.F.R.

§136 (1995 2000), then the quantification level shall be the lowest quantifiable level practicable as established by procedures approved by the department. When establishing a quantification level, the department shall consider the achievability of the value by competent commercial laboratories. The permittee shall be given the opportunity to demonstrate that a higher quantification level is appropriate because of sample matrix interference.

(d)    The permit shall contain a special condition requiring the permittee to develop and conduct a pollutant minimization program (PMP) for each toxic substance with a WQBEL below the quantification level, unless the permittee can demonstrate to the department that an alternate technique is available and will be used to assess compliance with the WQBEL.  The goal of the PMP shall be to maintain the effluent concentration of the toxic substance at or below the WQBEL. The department shall consider cost-effectiveness during the development and implementation of a PMP. The permit shall require the submittal of a PMP by the permittee that describes the control strategy designed to proceed toward achievement of the goal and shall include all of the following:

(i)     An annual review and periodic semiannual monitoring of potential sources of the toxic substance.

(ii)     Periodic Quarterly monitoring for the toxic substance in the influent to the wastewater treatment system.

(iii)     A commitment by the permittee that reasonable cost-effective control measures will be implemented when sources of the toxic substance are discovered. Factors to be considered shall include all of the following:

(A)    Significance of sources.

(B)    Economic considerations.

(C)    Technical and treatability considerations.

(iv)     An annual status report.  The report shall be sent to the department and shall include all of the following:

(A)    All minimization program monitoring results for the previous year.

(B)    A list of potential sources of the toxic substance.

(C)    A summary of all actions taken to reduce or eliminate the identified sources of the toxic substance. The requirements of paragraphs (i) to (iv) of this subdivision may be modified by the department on a case-by-case basis.

(e)     The permit may contain a special condition requiring fish tissue monitoring or other biouptake sampling, or both, or facility sludge monitoring to assess the progress of the PMP.

(f)    The permit shall contain a reopener clause indicating that any information generated as a result of the PMP described in subdivision (d) of this subrule may be used to support a request for subsequent permit modification, including revision or removal of the PMP requirement.

(g)     The quantification level specified in a NPDES permit pursuant to this rule shall remain in effect until the permit is modified or reissued. If the quantification level is reduced through a permit

 

 

modification or reissuance, then the permittee may be eligible for a compliance schedule under R 323.1217 and a variance under R 323.1103.

 

 

R 323.1217 Compliance schedules.

Rule 1217.  (1)  If a permit issued to a new discharger contains a water quality-based effluent limitation (WQBEL) for a toxic substance, then the permittee shall comply with the limitation upon commencement of the discharge. Compliance schedules may be granted for new or more stringent WQBELs contained in a modification to the permit or subsequently issued permits.

(2)     Any existing permit that is reissued or modified to contain a new or more restrictive WQBEL for a toxic substance or a lower quantification level established under R 323.1213 may allow a reasonable period of time, up to 5 years from the date of permit issuance or modification, for the permittee to comply with the new or more restrictive WQBEL or lower quantification level. A compliance schedule may go beyond the term of a permit when necessary and shall set forth interim requirements and dates for achievement of the requirements, as appropriate. When a compliance schedule goes beyond the term of a permit, an interim permit limit shall become effective on or before the permit expiration date.

(3)     If a permit establishes a schedule of compliance under subrule (2) of this rule that exceeds 1 year from the date of permit issuance or modification, then the schedule shall set forth interim requirements and dates for achievement of the requirements, as appropriate.

(4)     If a WQBEL for a toxic substance based upon a tier II value derived under R 323.1057 is included in a reissued or modified permit for an existing discharger, then the permit shall provide a reasonable period of time, up to 2 years, in which to provide additional data necessary to develop a tier I value or to modify the tier II value.  Information submitted to modify the tier II value may also include site-specific data and any such site-specific modifications shall be calculated according to the site-specific modification requirements of R 323.1057. The permit shall require compliance with the tier II limitation within a reasonable period of time, which shall not be more than 5 years after permit issuance or modification, and shall contain a reopener clause.

(5)     The reopener clause specified in subrule (4) of this rule shall authorize permit modifications if additional data have been provided by the permittee or a third party during the time allowed to provide the data and if the permittee or a third party demonstrates that a revised WQBEL for a toxic substance is appropriate. The revised WQBEL shall be incorporated through a permit modification and a reasonable time period, up to 5 years from the date of modification, shall be allowed for compliance. If incorporated before the compliance date of the original tier II limitation, any such revised WQBEL shall not be considered less stringent for purposes of the antibacksliding provisions of section 402(o) of the clean water act (CWA).

(6)     If the specified studies have been completed and do not demonstrate that a revised WQBEL is appropriate, then the department shall provide a reasonable additional period of time, not to exceed 5 years, to achieve compliance with the original WQBEL.

(7)     If future studies other than those conducted under subrule (4) of this rule result in a water quality value being changed to a less stringent value, after the effective date of a WQBEL for that substance, the existing WQBEL may be revised to be less stringent if 1 of the following provisions is met:

(a)     The less stringent WQBEL complies with sections 402(o)(2) and (3) of the clean water act.

(b)     The less stringent WQBEL complies with water quality standards or is consistent with a department-approved total maximum daily load in nonattainment waters.

(c)     The less stringent WQBEL complies with R 323.1098 in attained waters.

 

 

 

R 323.1219 Whole effluent toxicity.

Rule 1219. (1) For the purpose of evaluating the need for whole effluent toxicity (WET) limits or conditions in point source discharges, the narrative WET standard specified in

R 323.1057(6) shall be interpreted as follows:

(a)     An effluent shall not exceed 1.0 acute toxic unit (TUa), unless a higher level is acceptable consistent with R 323.1082(1).

(b)     An effluent shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of 1.0 chronic toxic unit (TUc) in the surface waters of the state outside of any department-approved mixing zone.

(2)     If the department determines under subrule (4) of this rule that the whole effluent toxicity (WET) of an effluent is or may be discharged at a level that will cause or contribute to an excursion above the narrative WET standard specified in R 323.1057(6), then the department shall implement all of the following provisions:

(a)     Establish a WET limitation or limitations consistent with subrule (5) of this rule, except as provided in subdivision (d) of this subrule, to assure both of the following:

(i)     Attainment of the acute WET provisions of subrule (1)(a) of this rule.

(ii)     Attainment of the chronic WET provisions of subrule (1)(b) of this rule.

(b)     Specify, in the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit for existing dischargers, on a case-by-case basis, a requirement to perform a toxicity reduction evaluation if representative toxicity data indicate persistent exceedance of the WET limitation.

(c)     Allow, with respect to any WET limitation established under subdivision (a) of this subrule, an appropriate schedule of compliance consistent with R 323.1217.

(d)    Decide, on a case-by-case basis, if a WET limitation is not necessary if the department determines that chemical-specific effluent limits are sufficient to ensure compliance with any of the conditions specified in subrule (1) of this rule.

(3)     If the department has insufficient information to determine, under subrule (4) of this rule, whether the WET of an effluent will be discharged at a level that will cause or contribute to an excursion above the narrative WET standard specified in R 323.1057(6), then both of the following may be included in the permit:

(a)     WET testing requirements to generate the data needed to adequately characterize the toxicity of the effluent to aquatic life and any toxicity reduction requirements needed to meet the requirement of subrule (1) of this rule.

(b)     A permit reopener clause to establish WET limits if any toxicity testing data required under subdivision (a) of this subrule indicate that the WET of an effluent is discharged at levels that will cause or contribute to an excursion above any of the conditions specified in subrule (1) of this rule.

(4)     The department shall take into account the factors described in the permit condition regulations set forth in 40 C.F.R. §122.44(d)(1)(ii), which are adopted by reference in

R 323.1221, and use representative data to evaluate the WET of an effluent. All of the following provisions for evaluating the reasonable potential of an effluent to exceed the requirements of R 323.1057(6) shall be applied:

(a)     The toxicity of the effluent shall be characterized consistent with all of the following provisions:

(i)     The results of Aacute toxicity values tests collected within the same day for each species shall be averaged to represent 1 daily value.  The average maximum of all representative daily values for the most sensitive species tested shall be used for acute reasonable potential determinations.

(ii)     The results of Cchronic toxicity values tests collected within the same calendar month for each species shall be averaged to represent 1 monthly value.  The average maximum of all representative

 

 

monthly values for the most sensitive species tested shall be used for chronic reasonable potential determinations.

(iii)     If data exist for either acute WET or chronic WET, but not for both endpoints, then toxicity values for missing endpoints may be estimated using a default acute-chronic ratio (ACR) of 10.

(iv)     For purposes of averaging deriving the daily acute and monthly chronic values in paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this subdivision, the department may assign TUa and TUc values less than 1.0 to toxicity tests that do not yield LC50, MATC, or IC25 values quantifiable results (e.g. > = 1.0 TUA or TUC) shall be assigned a value of zero.

(b)     The WET of an effluent is or may be discharged at a level that will cause or contribute to an excursion above the acute narrative standard specified in R 323.1057(6) when: the average measured acute toxicity of the effluent from subdivision (a)(i) of this subrule exceeds the preliminary acute WET limitation derived for the facility under subrule (5)(c) of this rule.

(TUA effluent)(MF) > acute PEL Where:

"TUA effluent" is the maximum of the daily values determined pursuant to subdivision (a)(i) of this subrule.

"MF" is the multiplying factor determined using the acute toxicity test results for the most sensitive species as specified in subdivision (a)(i) of this subrule. If none of the acute toxicity tests yield quantifiable results, then the MF shall be 1. Where there is at least 1 but fewer than 10 acute toxicity tests with quantifiable results, the multiplying factor taken from table 5 shall be based on a coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.6. Where there are 10 or more acute toxicity tests with quantifiable results, the multiplying factor taken from table 5 shall be based on a CV calculated as the standard deviation of the acute toxicity test results divided by the arithmetic mean of those test results. For the purpose of selecting a MF from table 5, “n” shall equal the total number of quantifiable and nonquantifiable acute toxicity test results. For the purpose of developing a calculated CV, acute toxicity tests that do not yield quantifiable results shall equal 1.0 TUa.  If the calculated CV is <0.05, then the MF shall be 1.

"Acute PEL" is the preliminary acute wet limitation derived for the facility under subrule (5)(c) of this rule.

(c)     The WET of an effluent is or may be discharged at a level that will cause or contribute to an excursion above the chronic narrative standard specified in R 323.1057(6)(b) when: the average measured chronic toxicity of the effluent from subdivision (a)(ii) of this subrule exceeds the preliminary chronic WET limitations derived for the facility under subrule (5)(a) or (b) of this rule.

(TUC effluent)(MF) > chronic PEL Where:

"TUC effluent" is the maximum of the monthly values determined pursuant to subdivision (a)(ii) of this subrule.

"MF" is the multiplying factor determined using the chronic toxicity test results for the most sensitive species as specified in subdivision (a)(ii) of this subrule. If none of the chronic toxicity tests yield quantifiable results, then the MF shall be 1. Where there is at least 1 but fewer than 10 chronic toxicity tests with quantifiable results, the multiplying factor taken from table 5 shall be based on a coefficient of variation (CV) of 0.6. Where there are 10 or more chronic toxicity tests with quantifiable results, the multiplying factor taken from table 5 shall be based on a CV calculated as the standard deviation of the chronic toxicity test results divided by the arithmetic mean of those test results. For the purpose of selecting a MF from table 5, “n” shall equal the total number of quantifiable and nonquantifiable chronic toxicity test results.  For the purpose of

 

 

developing a calculated CV, chronic toxicity tests that do not yield quantifiable results shall equal

1.0 TUc.  If the calculated CV is <0.05, then the MF shall be 1.

"Chronic PEL" is the preliminary chronic wet limitation derived for the facility under subrule (5)(a) or (b) of this rule.

(d)    The WET of a new discharge shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis considering all information available on the potential toxicity of the proposed discharge.

(5)     WET limitations shall be developed using all of the following provisions:

(a)     Chronic WET limitations for discharges to lotic waters shall be developed as follows:

 

WET limit = W (Qe + Qr) Qe

Where:

W = the condition specified in subrule (1)(b) of this rule.

Qe = effluent design flow, which is the annual average design flow for municipalities and maximum authorized flow for other facilities, unless it can be demonstrated to the department that an alternate design flow is appropriate.

Qr = flow of the receiving water allocated for mixing under R 323.1082. If a discharger has an intake upstream of the point of discharge, then Qr shall reflect the reduction in design flow attributable to the intake.

(b)     Chronic WET limitations for discharges to the Great Lakes and inland lakes shall be developed as follows:

WET limit = (W)(Q + 1)

Where:

W = the condition specified in subrule (1)(b) of this rule.

Q = the number of parts receiving water allowed for mixing under R 323.1082(5).

(c)     Acute WET limitations shall not exceed the condition specified in subrule (1)(a) of this rule.

(d)    WET limitations for facilities with overlapping mixing zones shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

(e)     For purposes of an NPDES permit, WET limitations shall be expressed as follows:

(i)     An acute WET limitation shall be applied as a daily maximum and expressed in TUa.

(ii)     A chronic WET limitation shall be applied as a monthly average and expressed in TUc.

(6)     Monitoring frequency to evaluate compliance with WET limitations shall be established by the department on a case-by-case basis. Concerns with the effects of temperature and pH on ammonia toxicity under laboratory conditions during cold weather months will be considered in establishing monitoring frequency.

(7)     All WET tests performed to implement or ascertain compliance with this rule shall be consistent with methods established in 40 C.F.R. Part 136 (1995 2000), which are adopted by reference in R 323.1221. Methods approved by the department shall be used when appropriate WET methods are not specified in 40 C.F.R. Part 136 (1995 2000).

 

 

Table  4  5.      Reasonable  Ppotential  Mmultiplying  Ffactors:  95%  Cconfidence  Llevel  and  95% Pprobability Bbasis

n	Coefficient of Variation
	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.9	1.0	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.9	2.0
1	-	-	-	-	-	6.2	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2	-	-	-	-	-	3.8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
3	-	-	-	-	-	3.0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
4	-	-	-	-	-	2.6	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
5	-	-	-	-	-	2.3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
6	-	-	-	-	-	2.1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
7	-	-	-	-	-	2.0	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
8	-	-	-	-	-	1.9	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
9	-	-	-	-	-	1.8	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
10	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.5	1.6	1.7	1.9	2.0	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.6	2.7	2.8	3.0	3.1	3.2	3.3	3.4	3.6
11	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.9	2.1	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.5	2.7	2.8	2.9	3.0	3.1	3.2	3.3
12	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.6	1.7	1.9	2.0	2.1	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.5	2.6	2.7	2.8	2.9	3.0	3.0
13	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.9	2.0	2.1	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.5	2.5	2.6	2.7	2.8	2.9
14	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.9	2.0	2.1	2.2	2.3	2.3	2.4	2.5	2.6	2.6	2.7
15	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.8	1.9	2.0	2.1	2.2	2.2	2.3	2.4	2.4	2.5	2.5
16	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.6	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.9	1.9	2.0	2.1	2.1	2.2	2.3	2.3	2.4	2.4
17	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.6	1.7	1.7	1.8	1.9	1.9	2.0	2.0	2.1	2.2	2.2	2.3	2.3
18	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.6	1.6	1.7	1.7	1.8	1.9	1.9	2.0	2.0	2.1	2.1	2.2	2.2
19	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.5	1.6	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.8	1.9	1.9	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.1	2.1
20	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.5	1.6	1.6	1.7	1.7	1.8	1.8	1.9	1.9	2.0	2.0	2.0
30	1.0	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.4	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5
40	1.0	1.0	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.3	1.3
50	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.1
60	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
70	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9
80	1.0	1.0	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8
90	1.0	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8
100	1.0	1.0	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.7	0.7

 

 

R 323.1221 Adoption of standards by reference.

Rule 1221. All of the following standards are adopted by reference in these rules, are available for inspection at the Lansing Office of the Department of Environmental Quality, and may be obtained as indicated:

(a)   “EPA Priority Pollutants and Hazardous Substances,” 40 C.F.R. §122.21, Appendix D (1995 2000). Copies may be obtained from the Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 30273 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7773 48933, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of 5 cents per page and a labor rate of $17.07 $20.18 per hour, or from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of $41.00 $43.00, or via the internet at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

(b)   “Table 6. Pollutants of Initial Focus in the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative,” 40 C.F.R. §132 (1995). Copies may be obtained from the Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 30273 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7773 48933, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of 5 cents per page and a labor rate of $17.07 $20.18 per hour, or from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of $41.00 $43.00, or via the internet at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

(c)    “Total maximum daily loads (TMDL) and individual water quality-based effluent limitations,” 40

C.F.R §130.7 (1995 2000). Copies may be obtained from the Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 30273 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7773 48933, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of 5 cents per page and a labor rate of $17.07 $19.78 per hour, or from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of $41.00 $43.00, or via the internet at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

(d)    “Appendix F to Part 132 - Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Implementation Procedures, Procedure 5.B.2,” 40 C.F.R. §132 (1995). Copies may be obtained from the Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 30273 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7773 48933, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of 5 cents per page and a labor rate of $17.07

$20.18 per hour, or from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of $41.00 $43.00, or via the internet at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

(e)   “Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants,” 40 C.F.R. §136 et seq. (1995 2000). Copies may be obtained from the Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 30273 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7773 48933, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of 5 cents per page and a labor rate of $17.07 $20.18 per hour, or from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of $41.00 $61.00, or via the internet at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

(f)   “Establishing limitations, standards, and other permit conditions,” 40 C.F.R §122.44(d)(1)(ii) (1995 2000). Copies may be obtained from the Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 30273 525 West Allegan Street, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7773 48933, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of 5 cents per page and a labor rate of $17.07 $20.18 per hour, or from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, at a cost as of the time of adoption of these rules of $41.00 $43.00, or via the internet at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.