Water Q&A

***Q. Could you please define the terms
· Best practical technology
· Best available technology
· Best conventional technologya bit more.
What are the significant differences?
A. BCT. Best Conventional pollutant control Technology. Used for 5 conventional pollutants, BOD, SS, etc. i.e., from existing wastewater plants. BCT depends heavily on benefit-cost analysis.
BAT. Best Available Technology economically achievable. Used for both toxic (i.e., on the list of toxic pollutants) and non-conventional, which is anything else, including chemicals not on list, biologicals, and miscellaneous things, such as thermal. Cost of upgrade for existing plants is not as closely tied as in BCT. Cost is still a factor, but not as important.
For new sources, the approach is different than for BCT and BAT. The new plants must be designed and built to meet the applicable standards.

***Q. The question about this module is how do the groundwater contamination is monitored? I know I always ask questions about ground water but this topic is very interesting.
A. Groundwater is an interesting topic. There is a lot of consulting work in groundwater contamination. Groundwater is used for drinking water in 50-some percent of households. Tap water is measured for contamination and the utilities must tell the customers what they are drinking. Private wells are not so regulated, but if the water smells unusual, the parties will get it sampled. Bigger issue is a known source of groundwater contamination that is moving and diluting, as it leaves its source and heads for town. Will the contamination get to the drinking water? Usual method involves monitoring wells coupled with modeling. Those wells in the future and additional wells are used to "truth" the model. All this takes many years. It is a good livelihood for the consultant, if the polluter has lots of money. Also good for lawyers.

**Q. I'm not sure I understand the following quiz question: The health and safety of POTW workers is a concern on OSHA, but not the CWA. I answered true because I thought OSHA dealt primarily with worker safety and health and that the CWA dealt with pollutants entering the waters of the U.S., not at all with the safety of workers. So why would the health and safety of the workers be a concern under the Clean Water Act?
A. Because that's about the only requirement of the industrial dischargers, relative to the POTW. Besides worker safety, the only concern is that the POTW meets the terms of its NPDES permit.

**Q. In our book there was a discussion of aquatic life water quality standards. How and when are these standards applied?
A. It's one of the criteria. If you want an NPDES permit, the local agency or the EPA will want you to demonstrate that your discharge will meet the criteria. For a complicated permit or a new chemical, you might be asked to do toxicity testing. Or you might try to show that such discharges are done else where with no bad effects. The burden of proof is on the applicant.

** Q. I was a little unclear as to what a Class V well was used for in industry. I did a little searching on the EPA website and discovered that a Class V well is similar to a septic tank. It sounds as though the Class V designation is a generic label that was used to label any well that did not fit under the Class I thru IV types. Anyway, I was curious as to why Class IV and V wells are being phased out? Is it a safety issue or is it simply a streamlining of the process for EPA?
A. Class IV are mostly historic wells that may inject hazardous waste and are too close to water supplies – there are few of these and they are being phased out. I suspect those that are in operation have a history of safe operation. The class V include drywells that might have lots of bad stuff in them, but presumably are not too close to groundwater. Again, these need to be done away with.

**Q. One question on the quiz dealt with the health and safety of POTW workers. According to the slide show, the health and safety of POTW workers is dealt with under the Clean Water Act. Isn't that somewhat redundant since OSHA is also concerned with the health and safety of these workers? I guess you can never be too protected.
A. That is one of the few requirements that the EPA puts on dischargers to the sewers, the greatest burden falls on the POTW that holds the NPDES permits. OSHA only applies to employers, so the owner of the POTW comes under OSHA for his employees, but the discharges come under CWA.

Q. ** I wonder what kind of regulations the ADEC has for mixing zones? Is it typically a site-specific sort of thing or does ADEC have a generic regulation for one size fits all. Also where would you find those regulations?
A. Most states and federal, the applicant for the NPDES permit can make a case for a relevant mixing zone. The Alaska regulations are found in 18 AAC 70.240-270, although EPA still has primacy for NPDES permits in Alaska. Here's a link to a convenient access to the regulations. http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/AAC/Title18/Chapter070.htm

**Q. In the slide show for Water Quality one of the first slides states "*Hazardous waste winds up in the water *If it can be legally discharged to water it may not be hazardous". This brings up questions that I have had for a long time concerning the term hazardous. If a waste can be legally discharged does it lose its "hazardous" classification? Or do you mean no hazardous waste can be discharged to water, therefore if it is legally discharged to water it is not hazardous.
A. I know you understand what you think I said, but you may not understand that I did not mean what I thought I said. Hazardous means a fact or situation for which there is some threat of ill effects in the future. Waste is discarded or unneeded material. But the term "hazardous waste" has a special meaning, and a legal meaning if the HW comes under RCRA. But there are lots of hazardous wastes and stuff that do not come under RCRA. Sewage sludge is one example. The wash water from the floor of my garage that goes down the floor drain is another example. These come under different laws, often the CWA. If it is allowed in the NPDES pemit, it is legal.
Let's suppose I own a fleet of busses and trucks. Each night I wash the engines with solvent and GUNK. Being conscientious, I put a rubber sheet over the floor drains, squeegee up the goop and put it in barrels. In the barrels I then have a hazardous waste (probably) that comes under RCRA. But let's say that instead I also wash my fleet of trucks and busses with soapy water. I don't cover the floor drains, and so I just flush engine gung and all down the floor drain. This is not RCRA, it is a CWA, NPDES issue. The gunk in the same in both cases.

**Q Storm water permits- I'm trying to understand this…you get a permit to say it can rain on your land? For example, Ft. Knox gold mine, according to the regulation they must get a storm water discharge permit? Or does it only apply if they will discharge into POTWs?
A. The Stormwater discharges almost never go to the POTW's. They go to the river. If they go through a storm drain system, but also if they go through a ditch or just the relief somehow channels them, they are point sources. Construction needs a special construction permit. The danger with answering such a specific question is I might be wrong. But here goes. Ft. Knox is a point source. Even though the construction is spread over many acres, it is legally a point source. They would need a Stormwater permit. I'll bet the Valdez terminal has one too. That is, it needs NPDES permits for the ballast water, etc., that comes from pipes, but also for the storm drains. Ft. Knox discharges to its own lake, so they might just have a permit for the overflow from the lake that is possible too. Major projects have complicated permits that often have overlapping stipulations.

**Q. I am also a little confused about point source vs non point source. For
example: The Mississippi River flows through many states but begins in MN. Is
MN responsible for discharging only a certain amount of contaminant into the
river or is Louisiana responsible for all the waste that ends up in the river
and discharges into the ocean?
A. "Point source" refers to the actual discharge. Often a pipe into the river, but it could be a ditch, or perhaps even more broadly defined, such as a 5-acre construction site. Such point sources require an NPDES permit. Whether or not the permit is issued, and its stipulations, depend on many things, including the condition of the receiving body of water and its use. That could change with location. For example some parts of the Mississippi might be classified "recreation," and have stringent requirements for discharges, while other portions might be classified "industrial" and have less stringent stipulations. A difficult issue is if upstream industries pollute a river, but it is still relativity clean when it leaves the state, but the downstream state are presented filthy water and are not allowed to discharge anything. Historical issues are often considered. Good source of income for national environmental lawyers.

**Q. Finally, Class V UIC wells are regulated and defined as:
"A well is any bored, drilled, driven shaft, or dug hole that is deeper than wide at its widest surface dimension; an improved sinkhole; or a subsurface fluid distribution system. Typically, Class V injection wells are shallow wells, such as septic systems and drywells, used to place nonhazardous fluids directly below the land surface. However, Class V injection wells can be deep, highly sophisticated wells."
However, as stated, hazardous fluids can not be discharged via class V wells.
Info on the regulation of class V wells can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/classv.html.
A. Got me there. The site says the EPA did not have information on these unitl 1999 and in 2001 updated the regulations. I need to update the slides.

** Q. Can you tell a little bit more about class II injection wells (oil and gas) -
any specific regulations?
A. These were set by the political process and the oil and gas companies have powerful lobbies. There is logic to the law, however; these wells are just putting back in the ground (geologic formation) what they took out of it. Drilling fluids ("muds") are not too toxic in themselves, but sometimes have toxic additives or contaminants. Again, the muds have just been in the hole, why not just put them back. I do not see any severer environmental risk from reinjecting muds and other gunk back into the hole from whence it came.
** Q. In the slide show you said "Municipalities must prevent non-storm water discharges into storm sewers. I was curious about car washes, because we (the Drinking Water division of ADEC) don't regulate them, and I could be wrong but I don't think the division of Water Quality regulates car washes. Who regulates the car washes in Fairbanks?
**A. That, and floor drains in gas stations, are industrial discharges into the sewer and are regulated by the POTW and their NPDES permit.

**Q. The EPA sets MCLG as an 'acceptable level of risk' for a contaminant. It also sets MCL as an enforceable regulation based on practicality & feasibility of the present technology available.
Sometimes the MCLG & the MCL of non carcinogenic compounds are similar. I understand the reason for having a set of levels as goals and another as achievable goals. But isn't it a bit confusing?
A. Yes. They also have a law that requires the public water sources to tell their customers what levels they are drinking. Presumably the people will ask for the levels to be reduced to the MCLG, if they are willing to pay the money

** Message to the instructor:
I found a few things that I thought were incomplete. Since I work with water quality permitting everyday and am pretty familiar with it I found a few areas where I didn't necessarily agree with the course material.
· NPDES permits are written for facilities that discharge to salt water. One of the biggies I work on is the discharge from the Valdez Marine Terminal and we have quite a few POTWs in AK that discharge to marine water and have NPDES permits. 40 CFR 122.2 defines Waters of the United States as:
(a) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be
susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters
which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(b) All interstate waters, including interstate "wetlands;"
(c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including
intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, "wetlands," sloughs, prairie
potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation,
or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign
commerce including any such waters:
(1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for
recreational or other purposes;
(2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in
interstate or foreign commerce; or
(3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries
in interstate commerce;
(d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United
States under this definition;
(e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of
this definition;
(f) The territorial sea; and
(g) "Wetlands" adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves
wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this definition.
I'm guessing that the coastal marine waters fit in there somewhere either under (a) or (f).
A. Very good. NPDES permits are indeed written for salt water. I believe, however, these come under the "ebb and flow of tide." I might change what I wrote to say "Ocean Dumping" rather than "salt water."

* Q. Also, the new NPDES stormwater GP's now require coverage for construction sites with more than 1 acre of disturbance.
A. I believe that is an Alaska ADEC regulation, or interpretation, on the federal law. The ADEC could protest the general permit, and perhaps that is what happened. The General Permits do change, from time to time.

*Q. Why is the POTW made responsible for enforcing pretreatment? It seems like this could be a significant burden, and that they might not be able to accurately trace where incorrectly treated discharges came from, and might have trouble enforcing pretreatment.
A. Because the legislation that drives the regulations is limited to discharges to navigable waters, and the NPDES permit system. The POTW gets the permit and they are responsible.

* Q. Concerning the Class I injection wells, why 1/4 mi as a buffering radius? Is this a fixed number or is there variance in accordance with HW type? Also, groundwater follows a pressure gradient, which is not always congruent with the gravitational gradient... so injecting HW below a drinking water source really doesn't preclude potential mixing. Is their more to this Class I injection well in SDWA reg's?
A. That ¼ mile is the statute definition. Also, some substances are not permitted down a Class I well. I don't believe there is any magic to the distance; contaminants certainly travel much further than that. It would be hard to get a new permit for a Class I well today.

*Q. One thing that is interesting from this week's module is the sediment criteria section of the textbook. I have not heard of that before. I wonder what the major elements of sediment "health" are. I see from the bibliography at the end of the chapter that two of the references to sediment criteria were published in 1993, so we are ten years past that information. I can imagine that this could be a contentious area for regulation, especially as sediments might represent a reservoir of contamination that has occurred in the past. Have you heard much about this issue?
A. Yes, many contaminants cling to sediment and stay there for many years. There are several toxicity tests that use sediment and "benthic" (bottom dwelling) test species. These tests find their application to dredge spoil, which is always sediment.

*Q. A couple of other subjects that seem problematic to me are the whole effluent toxicity test and the mechanics of quantifying fugitive emissions. The WET test has a gut level appeal, in that you can just sort of look to see if things are alive and well or not. If they are, hey, everything is fine. If not, we have a problem. But there are so many subtleties to this test that I wonder what the real meaning of it is. One thing I have wondered about is the species that are used for the test. Have these species changed as a result of using them for testing? It seems similar to the potential problems with test mammals like rats. Over time do the animals respond to the test environment to the point that they are no longer representing what you want them to?
A. The WET test is an alternate to just testing the contaminant and pure diluent water. It enables the interactions, beneficial and hazardous, of the contaminant with "all the other stuff" in the water. The issues with animals and species, though, are the same if you use pure diluent or WET.

*Q. If a company uses a RCRA HW in their fracturing fluids and those fluids get into a USDW in sufficient quantities to make the water undrinkable, who is responsible for making the company clean the USDW?
A. The PRP (polluter.) Sometimes, and by now you have looked at the New York DEC site, if the PRP is insolvent, the environmental agency will try the clean up themselves. Also, even if the PRP is solvent, the environmental agency will approve the permit and process. Both use consultants. The consultants and environmental agency will try to keep the PRP responsible by using defensive permit and contract language. Good for lawyers.

*Q. When looking at the example of the shop owner with the solvent waste and all the ways that he/she could dispose of the hazardous waste and all the different regulations from different agencies that could potentially been broken, it was hard to see how they could get caught doing it. So the purpose of the regulations are probably to first of all deter people from committing the act because they know that it is against the law, and second of all, to be able to punish people if they are caught. I didn't really think about these sort of things before.
A. Sure. But remember the TRI we started with. There are mega-tons of contamination released quite legally into the biosphere. The laws do a pretty good job of corralling the biggest polluters. It would be hard to catch all the small ones, but, on a national scale, the small ones do not contribute that much. On a local scale, it might be quite different.

*Q. I don't understand the logic behind not making old industries (before the laws were passed) get new permits or make them change their ways of discharging the hazardous wastes. If new companies need to stay up to the current regulations because they would be polluting the environment, then I think that the old industries could have to upgrade their system. But I guess I could see that if the regulations are constantly changing then the industries would have to constantly keep updated, which from an environmental point of view wouldn't be a bad thing, but from an economically point of view, might be an impossibility.
A. Yes, also for an existing major industrial source, such as a power plant, it might be impossible to upgrade it.

Q. In mixing zones is it necessary to follow the water quality standards?
A. The law, sometimes, more often the permit stipulations, will say where the samples must be taken. This may make an enormous difference. The Municipality of Anchorage discharges into Cook Inlet, which has "bore tides" and a 15 or 20-foot tidal range. Their wastewater is diluted enormously. So 100 feet from the end of the pipe, the concentrations of contaminant might be 100 or 1000 times less.

Q. How would it be determined for a mixture of wastes?
A. This would be specified in the permit. Different wastes might have very different limits, allowable concentrations. The limits of the mixing zone are usually the same for all contaminants, unless there are some important effects near the discharge.

Q.What does the storm water permit say or allow? This whole topic has me a little confused. Are they required to submit a storm water prevention plan to receive a storm water permit?
A. The "General Permit" is a neat concept. It says, you indeed need a permit to do something, but it is so common that we (EPA or whoever) grant a permit for this activity in this area with little or no paperwork. Stormwater from construction was under a "general permit" that required all jobs over 5 acres to submit a Stormwater runoff plan to the EPA (or have one and keep it on the job), but the contactor did not have to get approval of the plan. This changed recently and I am not up to speed on the very latest. There was also a difference between the Alaska rules and EPA, and Anchorage was requiring a special permit review and fee by the municipally. It's a moving target. These may help.
http://www.northwestagc.net/OnlineNewsletter/AugustNewsletter/EPA_article.htm
http://www.cicacenter.com/pdf/epacgpfs.pdf

Q. What is a "de minimis exception"? (water quality slides) This may have been in the reading but I didn't catch it.
A. If it casues harm of the specified type, it does not matter how little it causes. At least that is my take on it. In our law class we may get into that.

2) A "pretreater" does not have to get an NPDES permit, but some other type of "pretreatment" permit. Later on in the slide presentation it states this is administered by the POTW? Does this mean the POTW decides how to interpret EPA's regs on pretreatment, or is this worked out during the EPA (or state's?) issuance of the NPDES permit to the POTW? Seems like a lot of work for a POTW. Yes that is correct. Remember the law, it only applies to point sources that discharge into a body of water, which the sanitary sewers are not. So only the POTW is directly liable under the CWA and they have to sweat the permit. Of course EPA has set standards for the industries, so the POTW does not have to work it out de novo. However, if the industries meet the pre-treatment standards, but there are so many industries the POTW would violate the POTW's NPDES permit, the POTW is responsible and will have to require higher pretreatment standards or disconnection.

3) "existing uses will not be degraded" (re NPDES) and in the next slide, it includes recreation as one use, but later in the slide presentation it says "causes human injury of physiological responses". Does this mean the criteria do not include decreased recreation opportunities, but only those that cause injury or p. responses? E.g., the complaint that the water plant's water discharges elevates temperatures for such a long period of time that Chena doesn't freeze near University Avenue as much anymore and the recreation snowmachiners have problems with this. Yes but they would only have to go to lower standard, BPT, Best Practical Technology, which is heavily depend on cost, because they were existing when the law was passed. They were existing before there were snow machines too.

Q. Storm water permits for industrial activities seem to be much more liberal than point source permits. What is the dividing line between qualifying for the stormwater vs. the point source permit? Seems like it is an advantage not to channelize your water and let it uniformly disperse over a wide area.
A. Good question. The stormwater permits are a current regulatory issue. I suspect they were put on the backburner because most are innocuous and are owned by municipalities. While the point sources were owned by industry.

A couple of years ago, I was working in what they call the Utilidor at Eielson AFB. We were running conduit and stringing electrical wire through the underground utility system. After much rain, we spent an entire week working in the utility corridor as electricians. We were literally wading through human waste and other trash. I was very upset as were many other guys, but we stuck it out because the General Contractor on the job said it was safe. Now I'm no rocket scientist, but I don't think it's ever safe to work in such conditions. It would be very easy to contract hepatitis or some other disease. In a case like this, what would be the proper action to take? And am I wrong to assume that working in those conditions is unsafe?
A. Filthy, sure. You would need sanitary protection. Hepatitis is indeed spread by fecal matter, but POTW workers do not need immunization because infection by wastewater is uncommon. Human and animal waste can have high levels of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia for which there is a PEL. There may also be low oxygen levels. Most union laborer contracts provide extra pay for working with human waste.