Feed for /code/admin_code/nr/100/106 PDF
NR 106.09(2)(b)2. 2. 96 hours for aquatic vertebrate organisms (including fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas));
NR 106.09(2)(b)3. 3. Any other exposure period deemed appropriate by the department for a specific test organism.
NR 106.09(2)(c) (c) If a zone of initial dilution is determined appropriate in accordance with the provisions of s. NR 106.06 (3) (c), whole effluent acute toxicity limitations determined by this subsection shall be adjusted such that the effluent meets the following condition. The adjustment shall insure that after dilution of the effluent with the receiving water at a concentration equal to 3.3 times the percent dilution value calculated through application of the zone of initial dilution, the test solution of effluent and receiving water shall not produce a statistically valid LC50 less than 3.3 times the percent dilution value determined through application of the zone of initial dilution with the exposure periods as provided in par. (b).
NR 106.09(2)(d) (d) If, in the judgment of the department, the statistical interpretation methods used to test for LC50 are not appropriate for a specific data set, empirical interpretation methods may be used to determine the significance of an effect.
NR 106.09(2)(e) (e) Compliance with an acute whole effluent toxicity water quality based limitation shall be determined as follows:
NR 106.09(2)(e)1. 1. For dischargers without an approved zone of initial dilution, a TUa of 1.0 may not be exceeded.
NR 106.09(2)(e)2. 2. For dischargers with an approved zone of initial dilution determined according to s. NR 106.06 (3) (c), a TUa of X may not be exceeded.
Where: X = 100 ÷ (3.3 x Dilution Factor)
Dilution Factor = The Approved Zone of Initial Dilution Concentration
NR 106.09(3) (3)Chronic whole effluent toxicity.
NR 106.09(3)(a)(a) The department shall establish chronic whole effluent toxicity limitations to ensure that concentrations of substances are not discharged from a point source that alone or in combination with other materials present are toxic to fish or other aquatic life as required by s. NR 102.04 (4) (d).
NR 106.09(3)(b) (b) To assure compliance with par. (a), an effluent, after dilution with an appropriate allowable quantity of receiving water flow equivalent to that provided by receiving water flows specified in s. NR 106.06 (4) (c) or implied in s. NR 106.06 (4) (b) 2., may not cause a significant adverse effect, as determined by subds. 1. and 2., to a test organism population when compared to an appropriate control.
NR 106.09(3)(b)1. 1. Using statistical interpretation methods appropriate to the toxicity test protocol, an adverse effect will be determined to be significant if the statistically derived IC25, from the whole effluent toxicity test, is less than the calculated IWC.
NR 106.09(3)(b)2. 2. If, in the judgment of the department, the statistical interpretation methods used to test for significance are not appropriate for a specific data set, empirical interpretation methods may be used to determine the significance of an effect.
NR 106.09(3)(c) (c) Compliance with a chronic whole effluent toxicity water quality based limitation shall be determined as a calculated rTUc less than or equal to 1.0.
NR 106.09 History History: Cr. Register, February, 1989, No. 398, eff. 3-1-89; renum. (1) (a), (b), (c) (intro.) and 2. and (2) to be (2) (a) to (c) and (3) and am. (2) (b), (c), (3) (a), (b) (intro.) and 1., r. (1) (c) 1., cr. (1), Register, August, 1997, No. 500, eff. 9-1-96; CR 03-050: am. (2) (b) (intro.) Register February 2004 No. 578, eff. 3-1-04; CR 04-101: am. (1) Register May 2005 No. 593, eff. 6-1-05.
NR 106.10 NR 106.10 Exclusions.
NR 106.10(1)(1) Noncontact cooling water. Except as provided in sub. (2), the department may not impose water quality based effluent limitations for toxic and organoleptic substances for discharges of uncontaminated stormwater runoff not defined as point sources by s. 283.01 (12), Stats., noncontact cooling waters which do not contain additives or combined discharges consisting solely of uncontaminated stormwater runoff and noncontact cooling water without additives. Only the additives to noncontact cooling waters shall be examined under this subsection for the establishment of water quality based effluent limitations. For purposes of this exclusion, the term "additives" are those compounds intentionally introduced by the discharger, but do not include the addition of compounds at a rate and quantity necessary to provide a safe drinking water supply, or the addition of substances in similar type and amount to those substances typically added to a public drinking water supply. The following may be used to establish water quality based effluent limitations for noncontact cooling waters:
NR 106.10 Note Note: On March 2, 2012, in Case No. 12-CV-0569, Midwest Environmental Defense Center Inc. v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, et. al., an action for declaratory judgment under s. 227.40, Stats., the Circuit Court for Dane County, Branch 2, entered an order pursuant to a stipulation of the parties providing in relevant part:
NR 106.10 Note 1. The part of the rule that reads, "but do not include the addition of compounds at a rate and quantity necessary to provide a safe drinking water supply, or the addition of substances in similar type and amount to those substances typically added to a public drinking water supply," does not comply with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 to 1387, and regulations adopted under that act and is therefore declared to be invalid, and the Department of Natural Resources shall continue not to rely on that part of the rule.
NR 106.10 Note 2. As required by Wis. Stat. § 227.40 (6), by copy of this Stipulation and Order, the legislative reference bureau is ordered to publish a notice of the Court's determination as to the invalidity of those portions of Wis. Admin. Code § NR 106.10(1) identified in this Stipulation and Order in the Wisconsin Administrative Register under Wis. Stat. § 35.93(4), and it shall insert an annotation of the Court's determination in the Wisconsin Administrative Code under Wis. Stat. § 13.92 (4) (a).
NR 106.10(1)(a) (a) If at least one 48-hour LC50 or EC50 value is available for Daphnia magna or Ceriodaphnia dubia and at least one 96-hour LC50 or EC50 value is available for either fathead minnow, rainbow trout or bluegill, the geometric mean LC50 or EC50 for each of these species shall be divided by 5 if rainbow trout are represented in the data base or divided by 10 if rainbow trout are not represented in the data base. The limitation for purposes of this section shall be equal to the lowest resultant value. A limitation can be calculated for an additive only if LC50 or EC50 data for at least one of the invertebrate species and at least one of the fish species listed above are available.
NR 106.10(1)(b) (b) Effluent limitations based on chronic toxicity to aquatic life shall be established using the procedures described in this paragraph for additives whenever chronic toxicity criteria are not available from s. NR 105.06. The calculation of limitations shall be in accordance with the requirements of s. NR 106.06 (4) (b). In this calculation, the water quality criterion concentration shall be equal to the final acute value for that additive as provided in s. NR 105.05, or the effluent limitation as determined in par. (a), divided by the geometric mean of all the vertebrate and invertebrate species mean acute-chronic ratios determined in accordance with s. NR 105.06 (5) for that additive. A water quality criterion concentration may be calculated for an additive only if a final acute value, as provided in s. NR 105.05 or an effluent limitation as determined in par. (a), and an acute-chronic ratio for a vertebrate species and an acute-chronic ratio for an invertebrate species are available.
NR 106.10(1)(c) (c) Groundwater which is withdrawn from a location because of noncompliance with the standards contained in ch. NR 140 and which is used as noncontact cooling water shall not be subject to this exclusion.
NR 106.10(1)(d) (d) Regardless of the results of the analysis conducted under this section, the department may, whenever determined necessary, require whole effluent toxicity testing for a point source discharge.
NR 106.10(2) (2)Intermittent discharges. Effluent limitations derived as specified in s. NR 106.06 (3) and (4) for substances which rapidly degrade and which are discharged for less than 24 hours per day shall be calculated as specified in those subsections, unless the discharger demonstrates to the department that, as a result of the duration and frequency of the discharge, adverse effects will not occur when limitations are increased.
NR 106.10 History History: Cr. Register, February, 1989, No. 398, eff. 3-1-89; am. (1) (a), (b) and (2), cr. (1) (d), August, 1997, No. 500, eff. 9-1-97; CR 03-050: am. (1) (intro.) Register February 2004 No. 578, eff. 3-1-04.
NR 106.11 NR 106.11 Multiple discharges. Whenever the department determines that more than one discharge may be affecting the water quality of the same receiving water for one or more substances, the provisions of this chapter shall be used to calculate the combined allowable load from the discharges necessary to meet the water quality criteria for the substances. The resultant combined allowable load shall be divided among the various discharges using an allocation method based on site-specific considerations. Whenever the department makes a determination under this section, the department shall notify all permittees who may be affecting the water quality of the same receiving water of the determination and any limitations developed under this section. Permittees shall be given the opportunity to comment to the department on any determination made under this section.
NR 106.11 History History: Cr. Register, February, 1989, No. 398, eff. 3-1-89; am. Register, August, 1997, No. 500, eff. 9-1-97.
NR 106.115 NR 106.115 Additivity of dioxins and furans. The 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence concentration in effluent shall be used when developing waste load allocations and for purposes of establishing water quality based effluent limits.
NR 106.115(1) (1) For the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) listed in Tables 8 and 9 in ch. NR 105, the potential adverse additive effects of all dioxin (CDD) and chlorinated dibenzofuran (CDF) congeners in effluents shall be accounted for as specified in this section.
NR 106.115(2) (2) The Toxicity Equivalency Factors (TEFs) in Table 1 and Bioaccumulation Equivalency Factors (BEFs) in Table 2 shall be used when calculating a 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence concentration in effluent to be used when implementing both human health noncancer and cancer criteria. The chemical concentration of each CDD and CDF in effluent shall be converted to a 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence concentration in effluent by using the following equation:
(TEC)tcdd = S (C)x (TEF)x (BEF)x
where:
(TEC)tcdd = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxicity equivalence
concentration in effluent
(C)x = concentration of total chemical x in effluent
(TEF)x = TCDD toxicity equivalency factor for x from table 1
(BEF)x = TCDD bioaccumulation equivalency factor for x from table 2
Table 1
Toxicity Equivalency Factors for CDDS and CDFs - See PDF for table PDF
Table 2
Bioaccumulation Equivalency Factors
for CDDs and CDFs - See PDF for table PDF
NR 106.115 History History: Cr. Register, August, 1997, No. 500, eff. 9-1-97; CR 03-050: renum. from NR 106.16 Register February 2004 No. 578, eff. 3-1-04; CR 09-123: am. (1) Register July 2010 No. 655, eff. 8-1-10.
NR 106.117 NR 106.117 Schedules for compliance.
NR 106.117(1) (1) Any point source which has not received a WPDES permit from the department prior to March 23, 1997 or which commenced construction after that date may not receive a schedule for compliance to meet an effluent limitation that is established under the provisions of this chapter. The department may allow a brief period, not to exceed 90 days from the beginning of discharge, for the discharger to correct pollution control equipment start-up problems.
NR 106.117(2) (2) A reissued or modified permit may include a schedule for compliance with new or more stringent effluent limitations that are established by this chapter. The schedule for compliance shall meet the following conditions:
NR 106.117(2)(a) (a) Be as short as reasonably possible;
NR 106.117(2)(b) (b) May not extend beyond 5 years from the date that the permit is reissued or modified to include the new or more stringent effluent limitation, except as provided in par. (c);
NR 106.117(2)(c) (c) If the effluent limitation is based on a secondary value, the compliance schedule may allow the permittee additional time to conduct studies, other than those for site-specific criteria developed under s. NR 105.02 (1), that are needed to propose a revision to the secondary value upon which the effluent limitation is based. In no case may the compliance schedule for an effluent limitation that is based on a secondary value extend beyond 7 years from the date that the permit is reissued or modified to include the effluent limitation;
NR 106.117(2)(d) (d) May not allow more than one year between interim compliance dates;
NR 106.117(2)(e) (e) May require the permittee to evaluate pollution and waste minimization measures as a means for complying with the effluent limitation; and
NR 106.117(2)(f) (f) May extend beyond the expiration date of the permit if an interim permit limit which is effective upon the permit's expiration date is included in the permit.
NR 106.117 Note Note: An interim permit limit is not necessarily a numerical effluent limitation.
NR 106.117 History History: Cr. Register, August, 1997, No. 500, eff. 9-1-97; CR 03-050: renum. from NR 106.17 Register February 2004 No. 578, eff. 3-1-04.
NR 106.13 NR 106.13 Leachate in publicly owned treatment works. Publicly owned treatment works subject to ch. NR 210 may demonstrate to the department that leachate from a licensed solid waste facility materially affects the quality of effluent from that treatment works and affects the capability of the treatment works to meet the effluent limitations established under this chapter. If the department determines that a proper demonstration has been made, the department shall, within its capabilities, provide reasonable assistance to the owner of the treatment works and establish an appropriate schedule of compliance.
NR 106.13 History History: Cr. Register, February, 1989, No. 398, eff. 3-1-89.
NR 106.14 NR 106.14 Analytical methods and laboratory requirements.
NR 106.14(1)(1) Methods used for analysis of samples shall be those specified in ch. NR 219 unless alternative methods are specified in the WPDES discharge permits. Where more than one approved analytical method for a pollutant exists, the department may specify in the permit which method shall be used.
NR 106.14(2) (2) The permittee shall submit, with all monitoring results, appropriate quality control information, as specified by the department.
NR 106.14(3) (3) The permittee shall report numerical values for all monitoring results greater than the limit of detection, as determined by a method specified by the department, unless analyte-specific instructions in the WPDES permit specify otherwise. The permittee shall appropriately identify all results greater than the limit of detection but less than the limit of quantitation.
NR 106.14 History History: Cr. Register, February, 1989, No. 398, eff. 3-1-89; renum. NR 106.14 to be (1), cr. (2) and (3), Register, August, 1997, No. 500, eff. 9-1-97.
subch. III of ch. NR 106 Subchapter III — Effluent Limitations for Mercury Discharges
NR 106.145 NR 106.145 Mercury regulation. This section provides an alternative means of regulating mercury in WPDES permits through the establishment of alternative mercury effluent limitations and other requirements and is intended as a supplement to the authority and procedures contained in other sections of this chapter. For purposes of this section, an alternative mercury effluent limitation represents a variance to water quality standards specified in chs. NR 102 to 105.
NR 106.145(1) (1)Findings. On November 1, 2002, the department finds all of the following:
NR 106.145(1)(a) (a) Requiring all dischargers of mercury to remove mercury using wastewater treatment technology to achieve discharge concentrations necessary to meet water quality standards would result in substantial and widespread adverse social and economic impacts.
NR 106.145(1)(b) (b) Representative data on the relatively low concentrations of mercury in wastewater are rare and methods for collecting that data have only recently been developed.
NR 106.145(1)(c) (c) Appropriate mercury source reduction activities are environmentally preferable to wastewater treatment technology in many cases because wastewater treatment for mercury produces a sludge or other resultant wastewater stream that can be as much or more of an environmental liability than the untreated effluent.
NR 106.145(2) (2)Determining the necessity of mercury effluent limitations.
NR 106.145(2)(a)(a) The department shall determine whether a mercury effluent limitation is necessary using the procedures in s. NR 106.05.
NR 106.145(2)(b) (b) For the determination under par. (a), the department shall use representative data that comply with all of the following:
NR 106.145(2)(b)1. 1. Data shall meet the sampling and analysis requirements of subs. (9) and (10).
NR 106.145(2)(b)2. 2. Data shall consist of at least 12 monitoring results spaced out over a period of at least 2 years.
NR 106.145(3) (3)Data generation.
NR 106.145(3)(a)(a) In this paragraph, "major municipal discharge" and "minor municipal discharge" have the meanings specified in s. NR 200.02 (7) and (8). If an applicant in any of the categories specified in this subsection does not have sufficient discharge data that meet the criteria of sub. (2) at the time of application for permit reissuance, the reissued permit shall require the permittee to monitor and report mercury at the following frequency and location:
NR 106.145(3)(a)1. 1. Monthly influent and effluent for a major municipal discharge with an average flow rate greater than or equal to 5 million gallons per day.
NR 106.145(3)(a)2. 2. Once every 3 months influent and effluent for a major municipal discharge with an average flow rate greater than or equal to one million gallons per day but less than 5 million gallons per day.
NR 106.145(3)(a)3. 3. Once every 3 months influent and effluent for a minor municipal discharge if there are 2 or more exceedances in the last 5 years of the high quality sludge mercury concentration of 17 mg/kg specified in s. NR 204.07 (5).
NR 106.145(3)(a)4. 4. Monthly effluent for an industrial discharge that the department determines is likely to contribute net discharges of mercury to the environment or if sludge or biosolids mercury concentrations indicate a source of mercury.
NR 106.145(3)(a)5. 5. Once every 3 months effluent for an industrial discharge with an average flow rate, excluding noncontact cooling water as defined in s. NR 205.03 (21), of more than 100,000 gallons per day and the department has no information on mercury concentrations in similar discharges. The department may exempt discharges in this category if the department determines that there is little risk that the effluent will contain mercury.
NR 106.145 Note Note: Any permittee who believes that a significant portion of the mercury in its effluent originates from its intake of surface water is encouraged to provide results of intake monitoring.
NR 106.145(3)(a)6. 6. The department may reduce monitoring frequency from monthly to once every 3 months for discharges described in subds. 1. and 4. after at least 12 representative results have been generated.
NR 106.145(3)(b) (b) The department may require mercury monitoring for other discharges not included in one of the categories specified in par. (a) if the department has a reasonable expectation that the discharge includes significant quantities of mercury.
NR 106.145(3)(c) (c) Permittees shall collect and analyze samples according to the requirements in subs. (9) and (10).
NR 106.145(4) (4)Alternative mercury effluent limitation eligibility.
NR 106.145(4)(a)(a) When the department makes a determination of the necessity for a water quality based effluent limitation for mercury under sub. (2), the department shall determine if an alternative mercury effluent limitation is justified based on information submitted by the permittee in an alternative mercury effluent limitation application.
NR 106.145(4)(b) (b) The department may not establish an alternative mercury effluent limitation for a new discharge to waters in the Great Lakes system, as defined in s. NR 102.12 (1), unless the proposed discharge is necessary to alleviate an imminent and substantial danger to the public health or welfare. For the purposes of this section, a new discharger is any building, structure, facility or installation from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, as defined in s. NR 200.02 (4), the construction of which commenced after November 1, 2002. An existing discharger that relocates its outfall after November 1, 2002 may not be considered a new discharger for purposes of this paragraph. Relocation includes the diversion of a discharge from a land treatment system or systems to a surface water.
NR 106.145(4)(c) (c) The term of an alternative mercury effluent limitation may not extend beyond the term of the permit.
NR 106.145(4)(d) (d) An alternative mercury effluent limitation may be renewed using the procedures and requirements in subs. (5) to (8). An alternative mercury effluent limitation may not be renewed if the permittee did not substantially comply with all of the mercury-regulation conditions of the previous permit.
NR 106.145(5) (5)Calculation of an alternative mercury effluent limitation.
NR 106.145(5)(a)(a) An alternative mercury effluent limitation shall equal the upper 99th percentile of representative daily discharge concentrations as calculated under s. NR 106.05 (4) (a), except as provided in par. (c).
Loading...
Loading...
The Wisconsin Administrative Code on this web site is updated on the 1st day of each month, current as of that date. See also Are the Codes on this Website Official?