Federal statutes and regulations direct states to establish and periodically review water quality standards. State adoption of water quality standards and revisions to standards require EPA approval pursuant to 40 CFR 131.20 and 131.21. — 33 USC s. 1313(c) (section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act) requires that states periodically review and modify or adopt, if necessary, water quality standards. This requirement applies to all surface waters in the state.
— 33 USC s. 1314(a) (section 304 of the Clean Water Act) requires that EPA develop and publish criteria for water quality for all waters for uses such as aquatic life, public health protection, and recreation.
— 40 CFR s. 130.3 defines water quality standards as setting water quality goals for a waterbody that will protect its designated uses (such as protection of fish, wildlife, recreation, and public health and welfare). Criteria will be set to protect those uses. — 40 CFR s. 131.4 specifies that states are responsible for reviewing, establishing and revising their own water quality standards. — 40 CFR ss. 131.10 and 11 require states to develop water quality standards including uses and criteria to protect the uses. 40 CFR s. 131.11 (b) states that the criteria must be based on federal guidance, federal guidance modified to reflect site-specific criteria, or other scientifically defensible methods. — 40 CFR s. 131.11 specifies that criteria must protect the designated uses and that criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use. Furthermore, states must review water quality data and information on discharges to identify specific water bodies where toxic pollutants may be adversely affecting water quality or the attainment of the designated use or where the levels of toxic pollutants are at a level to warrant concern, and must adopt criteria for such toxic pollutants applicable to the water body sufficient to protect the designated use. — 40 CFR 131.20 requires states to periodically review water quality standards. — 40 CFR 132 and Appendices contain requirements for developing water quality standards in the Great Lakes System as well as implementation procedures for the standards and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements for point source discharges to the Great Lakes System. — 40 CFR 123.25 lists the federal regulations in 40 CFR 122 and 124 that states must follow in the administration of the NPDES permit program. State rules must be at least as stringent as these federal requirements. EPA has neither promulgated specific water quality standards for PFOS or PFOA nor proposed criteria under section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act. EPA typically relies on states to take the initiative and develop water quality standards because states have varying types of fish and aquatic life species and varying types of waterbodies within, and adjacent to, their borders. Occasionally, EPA will specifically direct states to promulgate water quality standards or promulgate procedures for deriving criteria for pollutants in advance of state efforts, and then require that states adopt water quality standards for the pollutant that are at least as stringent as EPA’s procedure or standard. EPA has not expressly directed states to develop water quality standards for PFAS at this time, although states do not need EPA approval to begin developing water quality standards and have the discretion to develop water quality criteria for any pollutant. EPA has stated that it has plans to promulgate both aquatic life criteria and human health criteria for PFAS, but any such recommended criteria won’t be established for several years.
The method of calculating numeric criteria in ch. NR 105, Wis. Adm. Code, reflects procedures established by EPA for Great Lakes states. As part of this rulemaking effort, the department also conducted preliminary calculations of numeric criteria using the procedures outlined ch. NR 105, Wis. Adm. Code. At this time, however, the department selected a different methodology to develop public health based PFOS and PFOA criteria. Pursuant to s. NR 105.02 (2), Wis. Adm. Code, the department has authority to promulgate a criterion that is either more or less stringent than a criterion derived under the standard procedures in ch. NR 105, Wis. Adm. Code. The approach selected for deriving the PFOS standard is based on the department’s data analysis which shows that fish consumption is the dominant exposure route of concern for PFOS. The department selected a method that allowed correlation with fish consumption advisories, which would not be included in calculation under ch. NR 105, Wis. Adm. Code. Also, with regard to the calculation of PFOA criteria, the department’s calculated criteria are more protective of children that ingest or consume PFOA contaminated water compared to the procedures under ch. NR 105, Wis. Adm. Code. Finally, codifying a method for developing PFOS and PFOA minimization plans will reduce the administrative burden and permitting timelines that would have been associated with processing a large volume of variance requests expected as a result of the criteria developed using the procedures outlined ch. NR 105, Wis. Adm. Code. The department believes that public health-based criteria combined with PFOS and PFOA minimization plans will result in more timely reductions in levels of PFOS and PFOA. The department expects that the selected approach will be effective at reducing sources of PFOS and PFOA in areas of the state where PFOS or PFOA concentrations in wastewater are elevated.
7. If Held, Summary of Comments Received During Preliminary Comment Period and at Public Hearing on the Statement of Scope:
The department received written comments related to the scope statement for WY-23-19 from 49 entities during the scope statement comment period, and verbal comments from 5 speakers during the public hearing on the statement of scope. Of the comments received, 38 entities expressed support of the proposed rules, 8 expressed opposition to the proposed rules, and the opinions of the remaining 8 were mixed. Those expressing mixed opinions voiced general support for the rulemaking effort but noted concerns about the cost of implementation, the desire to regulate PFAS as a class rather than compound by compound, technical issues with the toxicity values developed by the Department of Health Services, and regulation of PFOS and PFOA at the source rather than at POTWs.
8. Comparison with Similar Rules in Adjacent States:
The administrative codes of adjacent states contain narrative criteria for the protection of surface waters, although none of the adjacent states’ narrative criteria are specific to PFOS or PFOA. The narrative criteria of Illinois, Iowa, and Michigan specifically prohibit concentrations of toxic substances in surface waters in amounts that will adversely affect human health or public health. Minnesota’s narrative criteria prohibits discharge of wastes in such quantities that will cause pollution as defined by law.
Code citations for these narrative criteria are as follows:
— Illinois: Ill. Admin. Code tit. 35, § 302.210: “Other Toxic Substances. Waters of the State shall be free from any substances or combination of substances in concentrations toxic or harmful to human health, or to animal, plant or aquatic life. Individual chemical substances or parameters for which numeric standards are specified in the Subpart are not subject to this Section.” — Iowa: IAC § 567.61.3(2)(d): “General water quality criteria. The following criteria are applicable to all surface waters including general use and designated use waters, at all places and at all times for the uses described in 61.3(1) ‘a.’ … ‘d.’ Such waters shall be free from substances attributable to wastewater discharges or agricultural practices in concentrations or combinations which are acutely toxic to human, animal, or plant life.”
— Michigan: R 323.1057, Mich. Admin. Code: “Rule 51. (1) Toxic substances shall not be present in the surface waters of the state at levels that are or may become injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare, plant and animal life, or the designated uses of the waters. As a minimum level of protection, toxic substances shall not exceed the water quality values specified in, or developed pursuant to, the provisions of subrules (2) to (4) of this rule or conditions set forth by the provisions of subrule (6) of this rule. A variance to these values may be granted consistent with the provisions of R 323.1103.”
— Minnesota: Minn. Stat. 7050.0210-13: “Pollution prohibited. No sewage, industrial waste, or other wastes shall be discharged from either a point or a nonpoint source into the waters of the state in such quantity or in such manner alone or in combination with other substances as to cause pollution as defined by law. In any case where the waters of the state into which sewage, industrial waste, or other waste effluents discharge are assigned different standards than the waters of the state into which the receiving waters flow, the standards applicable to the waters into which the sewage, industrial waste, or other wastes discharged shall be supplemented by the following: The quality of any waters of the state receiving sewage, industrial waste, or other waste effluents shall be such that no violation of the standards of any waters of the state in any other class shall occur by reason of the discharge of the sewage, industrial waste, or other waste effluents.”
Two adjacent states – Michigan and Minnesota – have released numeric water quality values for PFOS, or PFOS and PFOA. Both states developed their values according to the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 132, but each state used different inputs which resulted in different numeric values. Similarly, Wisconsin selected a different methodology and different inputs, as described in Section 9 below, and thus the proposed standards are different. Further, Minnesota released site-specific criteria (SSC) for PFOS rather than implementing the criteria statewide. Michigan has calculated statewide values as Wisconsin is proposing to do. Wisconsin chose not to pursue the development of SSC for this rulemaking effort. Over the past several years, the department has endeavored to collect data on the occurrence of PFAS across the state, and this data indicates the possibility of human exposure to PFOA and PFOS via surface waters or fish taken from surface waters in areas throughout the state. With statewide criteria the department seeks to provide protection for citizens’ use of all waters. Additionally, Minnesota’s code includes provisions for developing SSCs without rulemaking, but Wisconsin’s statutory framework require rulemaking for SSCs. Thus, there would be no administrative time saved or expedited human health protections gained by developing SSCs compared to statewide criteria. Wisconsin’s proposed standard of 8 ng/L for PFOS is slightly more stringent than Michigan’s value of 11 ng/L and, compared to Minnesota’s PFOS criterion in waters where it applies, less stringent than Minnesota’s criterion of 0.05 ng/L. Wisconsin’s proposed standards of 20 ng/L and 95 ng/L for PFOA in public drinking water supply waters and non-public drinking supply waters, respectively, are more stringent than Michigan’s values of 420 and 12,000 ng/L for PFOA in drinking and non-drinking waters, respectively. The primary reason for the significant difference between Michigan’s PFOA criteria and Wisconsin’s PFOA criteria is that the reference dose (maximum amount of toxic substance that can be consumed to avoid public health impacts) that Michigan used in its calculations (conducted in 2011) is higher and not based on the most recent science. Furthermore, the bioaccumulation factor (BAF) that Michigan used in its PFOA calculation was experimentally derived based on laboratory data while the department used actual field measured fish tissue and water sampling data from surface waters for its PFOA calculations. Federal regulations state that field measured data should be used if available. Finally, Michigan used adult-specific exposure factors (body weight and water ingestion rates) rather than the child-specific factors that the department used. This difference is discussed below in more detail as well as in the technical support document.
Additional information on each adjacent state’s approach to developing their values is provided below:
— In 2020, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) released SSC for PFOS in surface waters and fish tissue for Lake Elmo and two connected waterbodies, Bde Maka Ska and Mississippi River Pool 2. These SSC are not promulgated standards but were developed according to the procedures outlined in 40 CFR 132 pursuant to Minnesota’s statutory provisions. Minnesota’s administrative code provides the flexibility to implement SSCs without going through rulemaking. The value for fish tissue is 0.37 ng PFOS/g and the value for water that supports the fish tissue criterion is 0.05 ng PFOS/L. MPCA’s SSC incorporated the Minnesota Department of Health’s toxicity value, which was derived using a model that focuses on the protection of infants and women of childbearing age (WCBA). Accordingly, MPCA’s SSC derivation also included WCBA-specific body weights and fish consumption and drinking water intake rates. When asked for input from Minnesota on implementation, Minnesota officials responded that they implement their SSC for PFOS in a handful of waterbodies in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area – both in the East Metro cleanup area and in other parts. For the most part, PFOS criteria were developed in order to provide appropriate cleanup values for the East Metro and for an area of Minneapolis that has been impacted by a chrome plater. Limitations based on the numeric PFOS SSC described above have not yet been applied in NPDES permits. In 2007, MPCA and STS Consultants, LTD., developed SSC for PFOA and PFOS for Bde Maka Ska and Mississippi River Pool 2. Minnesota has had limited permit implementation of the 2007 criteria; to date, there is only one wastewater plant that has PFAS limits based on these criteria. See: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/waste/water-quality-criteria-development-pfas for more information. — Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (now called the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy; EGLE) released statewide water quality values for PFOS in 2014 and PFOA in 2011. The process for calculating surface water quality values, outlined in 40 CFR 132, is promulgated in Michigan’s administrative code R. 323.1057. However, values resulting from this process are not promulgated and appear in “Rule 57 Water Quality Values Spreadsheets” available at https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3313_3681_3686_3728-11383--,00.html. Michigan’s PFOS and PFOA values apply to surface waters statewide. Concentrations of PFOS may not exceed 11 and 12 ng/L in drinking and non-drinking waters, respectively. Concentrations of PFOA may not exceed 420 and 12,000 ng/L in drinking and non-drinking waters, respectively. Michigan derived their water quality values for PFOA in 2011 (formally published in 2014) with the information that was available at the time. Their values incorporate data from studies where cynomolgus monkeys were exposed to PFOS or PFOA for 182 days (Butenhoff et al. 2002; Seacat et al. 2002). Their selected reference dose (RfD) is based on effects on liver weight and is higher than RfDs that have been subsequently developed based on developmental or immune effects which occur at lower doses. Michigan currently uses a lower RfD, developed by ATSDR, as the basis of their Health-Based Drinking Water Value for PFOA. Additionally, in derivation of their 2011 surface water values, Michigan incorporated a bioaccumulation factor (BAF) of 4 L/kg based on an experimentally derived bioconcentration factor (BCF). Calculating a BAF using at BCF is a method that is less preferred compared to the method of calculating a BAF using field-measured data from fish and water samples according to 40 CFR part 132. During the course of this rulemaking effort, as part of preliminary numeric criteria calculations, the department calculated BAFs for PFOS and PFOA based on field-measured data. As noted in Appendix E of the Technical Support Document for WY-23-19, the BAF calculated for PFOA was 40 L/kg, which is higher than the experimentally derived value used by Michigan in 2011. Michigan implements surface water values for PFOS and PFOA through various water quality programs. Michigan is carrying out an Industrial Pretreatment Program PFAS Initiative, a Municipal NPDES Permitting Strategy, and an Industrial Direct and Industrial Storm Water Discharge Compliance Strategy for monitoring and addressing PFOS and PFOA in regulated discharges. Under the Municipal NPDES Permitting Strategy, municipal permits issued/re-issued after October 1, 2021 will include effluent limits for PFOS/PFOA if applicable. In addition, after July 1, 2021, Michigan will require sampling of biosolids prior to land application as part of a biosolids Interim Strategy. Michigan supports these programs through ambient surface water and fish tissue monitoring.
Iowa and Illinois have not promulgated water quality criteria for any PFAS compounds.
9. Summary of Factual Data and Analytical Methodologies Used and How Any Related Findings Support the Regulatory Approach Chosen:
A detailed description of the procedures used to calculate these definitions of public health significance under the narrative criteria can be found in the Technical Support Document for this rule.
PFOA: Water ingestion is the exposure pathway of most concern for PFOA (i.e., it doesn’t bioaccumulate to high concentrations in fish). Thus, public health significance was based on the likelihood that, and degree to which, surface waters could be ingested.
— To determine which pathway or pathways by which people might be exposed to PFOA, the department reviewed several datasets of samples analyzed for PFAS, including: 1) paired surface water and fish tissue samples collected throughout Wisconsin and Minnesota between 2006 and 2020; 2) fish tissue samples collected as part of Wisconsin’s fish contaminant monitoring program between 2006 and 2020; and 3) surface water samples collected as part of long term trends (LTT) monitoring in Wisconsin in 2020.
— In the paired fish and water dataset, PFOA was detected in surface water samples from over 80% of the waterways, but was detected in only 2% of fish tissue samples. Those fish samples that contained PFOA came from 8 waterways and there were no PFOA detects in samples of fish taken from waterways where PFOA was undetected in the water itself. The pattern of PFOA being detected in most water samples, but few fish tissue samples, was mirrored in the fish contaminants and LTT datasets. Less than 4% of the fish contaminant samples contained detectable levels of PFOA (in contrast, over 85% of these fish samples contained detectable levels of PFOS). In the LTT dataset, PFOA was detected in over 80% of waterways. These data demonstrate that PFOA is unlikely to bioaccumulate in fish tissue and suggest that while there is widespread risk of exposure to PFOA via ingestion of surface waters, exposure via consumption of fish tissue is unlikely to provide a substantive contribution to overall body burdens of PFOA.
— Therefore, for those waters currently used as public water supplies, the level of public health significance was defined as the level already defined by the Departments of Health Services and Natural Resources for the purposes of drinking water protection. Details about the data and methods used to develop this level can be found in the Scientific Support Document for PFOA Groundwater Standards at: dnr.wi.gov/topic/Contaminants/documents/pfas/PFOAScientificSupport.pdf. — For waters not currently used as public water supplies, the department adjusted the formula used to develop the PFOA drinking water protection value to reflect the incidental water consumption rate that occurs during recreation. To determine this incidental ingestion rate, the department followed an approach used in EPA’s 2019 Recommended Human Health Recreational Ambient Water Quality Criteria or Swimming Advisories for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin. Briefly, this approach calculated the amount of water that people ingested during swimming activities and combined that with the number of hours that people spend recreating each day in order to generate a daily incidental ingestion rate. In order to assess the risk of PFOA exposure to children during recreation in surface waters and as per EPA’s 2000 Human Health Methodology, the department used the 90th percentile of exposure for the 6 to 10 years old age group to derive the level of public health significance for PFOA in non-public water supply waters. The department selected children as the exposure group for incidental ingestion because children tend to ingest more water while swimming and recreating in waters compared to adults.
PFOS: Fish ingestion is the exposure pathway of most concern for PFOS (i.e., it can build up to high levels in fish even when there is a small amount in the water column). For this reason, there are established PFOS thresholds corresponding to recommended fish consumption frequencies, which are designed to reduce risks from exposure to PFOS while still receiving the benefits of fish consumption. Thus, public health significance was defined as the maximum PFOS concentration in a surface water that is expected to avoid issuance of a 1 meal per month PFOS-based fish consumption advisory for any species taken from that surface water. In other words, the proposed definition of public health significance aims to ensure that levels of PFOS in fish will be such that people can consume fish at a frequency of up to one meal per week (32 grams/day) without exceeding EPA’s non-cancer toxicity RfD of 2 x 10-5 mg/kg-day.
—To determine which pathway or pathways by which people might be exposed to PFOS, the department reviewed several datasets of samples analyzed for PFAS, including: 1) paired surface water and fish tissue samples collected from 95 waterways throughout Wisconsin and Minnesota between 2006 and 2020; 2) fish tissue samples collected from 35 waterways as part of Wisconsin’s fish contaminant monitoring program between 2006 and 2020; and 3) surface water samples collected from 42 major rivers as part of long term trends (LTT) monitoring in Wisconsin in 2020.
— In the paired fish and water dataset, PFOS was detected in over 90% of fish tissue samples, even when PFOS was not detected in the water column. In the fish contaminants data, more than 85% of fish samples contained detectable levels of PFOS. In the LTT dataset, PFOS was detected in over 62% of waterways. These data demonstrate that PFOS is a highly bioaccumulative compound (in contrast with PFOA, which is rarely detected in fish tissue samples but widely detected in the water) and suggests that exposure to PFOS via fish consumption is likely to provide a substantive contribution to overall body burdens of PFOS.
— PFOS was detected in both fish tissue and water samples from 49 waterways (WI: 25, MN: 24) in the paired fish tissue and water dataset and there is a clear log-linear relationship between levels of PFOS in the water and those in fish tissue (R2 = 0.69, p<0.001). In other words, the level of PFOS in the water is a good predictor of the level of PFOS that will be in fish taken from that water. The department then evaluated several statistical models in order to determine the water PFOS level that best delineates fish tissue levels that are over or under the 1 meal per month threshold of 50 ng PFOS/g and ultimately selected a method called the Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curve. Using metrics calculated as part of the ROC method, the department determined that 8 ng PFOS/L is the water level that best delineates fish PFOS levels above or below the 1 meal per month threshold.
As part of this rulemaking effort, the department also conducted preliminary calculations of numeric criteria using the procedures outlined under ch. NR 105, Wis. Adm. Code. At this time, however, the department selected the approach outlined above because the methods used by the department are sufficiently protective of the public health and welfare use. This approach was selected because PFOS public health significance levels are more closely correlated with the issuance of fish consumption advisories than the methods under ch. NR 105, Wis. Adm. Code. Wisconsin’s calculations for PFOA are also more protective of children that recreate in Wisconsin’s waters. Section NR 105.02(2), Wis. Adm. Code, recognizes that other methods for calculating toxic criteria may be used. Also, the department believes that promulgation of the PFOS and PFOA criteria combined with implementation of PFOS and PFOA minimization plans will result in more timely reductions in levels of PFOS and PFOA. The department expects that the selected approach will be effective at reducing sources of PFOS and PFOA in areas of the state where PFOS or PFOA concentrations in wastewater are elevated. 10. Analysis and Supporting Documents Used to Determine the Effect on Small Business or in Preparation of an Economic Impact Report:
To assess the economic impact of this rule, the department sourced cost information for three categories: sampling costs, PFOS and PFOA minimization plan development and implementation costs, and treatment costs. The department reviewed the costs of PFAS wastewater samples at various private and public labs to determine sampling costs. The department referenced existing cost information obtained by facilities currently implementing mercury pollutant minimization plans to compare with the calculated costs associated with the implementation and development of PFOS and PFOA minimization plans based on staff time devoted to the plan. Last, the department solicited cost information from several facilities in Wisconsin that have installed PFAS treatment systems in order to estimate treatment costs.
To determine the number of facilities that may incur the costs mentioned above, the department first used effluent data obtained through statewide sampling of various publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) and industries. Based on the number of sampled facilities that were discharging at estimated 30-day P99 concentrations above the proposed public health based criteria for PFOA or PFOS, the department applied those percentages of affected facilities sampled to the total number of facilities throughout the state. The department used data obtained through the “Identified Industrial Sources of PFOS to Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants” document, dated August 2020, and developed by Michigan’s Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and the Environment (EGLE). This document provided information on sources of PFOS to POTWs throughout Michigan. Because PFOS is expected to be the parameter that triggers additional actions and costs for businesses in Wisconsin (like it was in Michigan), the department focused on those industrial categories outlined in this document. The cumulative peak annual cost to small businesses is expected to be $2,080,670 annually. See the EIA and supporting narrative for more information on the analysis conducted to derive this cost.
11. Effect on Small Business (initial regulatory flexibility analysis):
The department has determined that there may be an impact on small businesses in Wisconsin. A breakdown of the statewide economic impact on small businesses is provided in the two tables below. The number of affected small businesses was determined based on the number of affected industries discussed in the narrative attached to the EIA (Attachment B). The facilities are all expected to either have reasonable potential to exceed the criteria or be discharging to a POTW that has reasonable potential to exceed the criteria. Consequently, these facilities will, at a minimum, incur costs associated with sampling and development and implementation of a PFOS and PFOA minimization plan or just source reduction activities. See Attachment B to the EIA for further discussion and explanation of the expected treatment costs.
Estimated Number of Affected Small Businesses
Industry Type | Percentages of Small Businesses by Industry Type | Number of Affected Industries | Number of Affected Small Businesses |
Chemical Manufacturers | 72% | 10 | 7 |
Commercial Laundries | 70% | 8 | 6 |
Estimated Statewide Impact on Small Businesses
Cost Type | Number of Small Businesses | Annual Costs |
PFOS and PFOA Minimization Plan/ Source Reduction Measures | 48 | $658,944 |
In order to comply with this rule, affected small businesses will need to develop and implement a PFOS and PFOA minimization plan to reduce PFOA and PFOS concentrations from their effluents. In order to develop this plan, small businesses will need to research known sources of PFOA and PFOS as they apply to their specific processes and make efforts to eliminate or minimize those sources. This will require the affected small businesses to have knowledge of how to use the internet, communication skills to solicit information from other affected entities, and documentation skills to show what actions have been taken.
All affected small businesses will also need to learn how to obtain a representative sample from their discharge, whether it is a direct discharge to surface waters or an indirect discharge to a POTW. Although permitted small businesses are familiar with effluent sample collection, because of the high potential for cross-contamination when sampling for PFAS, these procedures may be different than how facilities currently sample their effluent. For small businesses that have a direct discharge, their sample results are submitted on monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMR). Small businesses with WPDES permits are familiar with DMR reports. For small businesses that discharge to a POTW, the small business can submit the PFOS or PFOA results directly to the POTW consistent with existing standard reporting procedures.
The department estimates that there will potentially be one small business that may need to install treatment. This will require the small business’s current treatment system operators to research the requirements to properly operate a granular activated-carbon treatment system. A compliance schedule may be granted to install treatment.
Although not expected, in the event a small business with a WPDES permit (direct discharger) had to install treatment to comply with the PFOS or PFOA standard, the small business could apply for an economic variance pursuant to s. 283.15, Wis. Stats., if treatment costs would result in widespread adverse social and economic impacts. Without specific financial and employment information for a small business variance applicant, it is impossible for the department to determine at this time whether any applicant would qualify for a variance. The department has considered the methods outlined in s. 227.114(2)(a) to (e), Wis. Stats., and has concluded that, based on existing state and federal regulations, the department cannot exempt small businesses from sampling and reporting requirements or provide a relaxed schedule simply based on the size of a business. The department also cannot exempt small businesses from compliance with the water quality standard. Wisconsin’s WPDES permit program is based on the requirements in ch. 283, Wis. Stats., and the state’s permitting program must be consistent with federal NPDES permit requirements established in the Clean Water Act and applicable federal regulations. Federal regulations do not allow less stringent limitations or compliance schedules categorically for small businesses. Although not specific to small businesses, the proposed rule does allow for less-frequent sampling for permittees on a case-by-case basis, and if a small business is not expected to discharge PFOA or PFOS into surface waters, the business doesn’t have to sample for these pollutants and would not be subject to the requirements of this proposed rule. 13. Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission:
A public hearing was held on December 10, 2021. Comments were accepted through December 15, 2021.
