NR 106.09(2)(e)(e) Acute whole effluent toxicity limits shall be expressed as 1.0 TUa unless an AMZ is approved in which case these limits shall be expressed as a value that is 100 divided by the AMZ. Compliance with an acute whole effluent toxicity water quality-based limitation shall be determined by comparing the TUa endpoint from each toxicity test to the limitation. Pursuant to s. NR 106.08 (6) (d) a calculated LC50 that exceeds 100% is set equal to zero. NR 106.09 NoteNote: A toxicity reduction evaluation study is not always required in the event an acute WET limit is imposed in a permit.
NR 106.09(2)(f)(f) Whole effluent acute toxicity limitations shall be expressed in permits as daily maximum limitations. 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 (3) (c) or implied in s. NR 106.06 (3) (b) 2., may not cause a significant adverse effect to a test organism population when compared to an appropriate control, as determined by applying all of the following: 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 or IC50, as specified for each species in the whole effluent toxicity test methods required in s. NR 219.04, Table A, 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) Chronic whole effluent toxicity limits shall be expressed as a value that is 100 divided by the IWC. Compliance with a chronic whole effluent toxicity water quality-based limitation shall be determined by comparing the monthly average calculated TUc from all toxicity tests conducted during that month to the limitation. Pursuant to s. NR 106.08 (6) (d), a calculated IC25 or IC50 that exceeds 100% is set equal to zero. NR 106.09 NoteNote: A toxicity reduction evaluation study is not always required in the event a chronic WET limit is imposed in a permit.
NR 106.09(3)(d)(d) Whole effluent chronic toxicity limitations shall be expressed in permits as monthly average limitations. NR 106.09 HistoryHistory: 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; CR 15-085: r. and recr. (2) (e), cr. (2) (f), am. (3) (b) (intro.), 1., r. and recr. (3) (c), cr. (3) (d) Register August 2016 No. 728, eff. 9-1-16. NR 106.10NR 106.10 Noncontact cooling water additives. The department shall establish water quality based effluent limitations for toxic and organoleptic substances in noncontact cooling water discharges as follows: NR 106.10(1)(1) For toxic and organoleptic substances commonly added by suppliers of drinking water systems and present in the noncontact cooling water, a water quality based effluent limitation calculated under s. NR 106.06 that is based on the applicable water quality criterion or secondary value shall be included in the permit unless the permittee demonstrates at least one of the following: NR 106.10(1)(a)(a) The concentration of the substance in the intake water is dissipated within the system that supplies the intake water to the permittee and is consistently less than the water quality based effluent limitation. NR 106.10(1)(b)(b) An effluent limitation is not necessary as determined using the reasonable potential procedures in s. NR 106.05. NR 106.10(1)(c)(c) Prior to reaching the receiving water, the substance dissipates or is removed to a level that is below the water quality based effluent limitation. NR 106.10(2)(2) For other toxic and organoleptic substances intentionally added to noncontact cooling water by the permittee, the department shall follow the procedures specified in ss. NR 106.05 and 106.06 to calculate a water quality based effluent limitation and determine whether the limitation is necessary in the permit. If there is no water quality criterion for an additive and there are potential water quality impacts from the additive, the department shall establish a secondary value for the additive in accordance with ch. NR 105 and calculate a limitation based on that value. All of the following requirements apply to the use and discharge of additives: NR 106.10(2)(a)(a) A permittee shall obtain written approval from the department prior to use of the additive. NR 106.10(2)(b)(b) A permittee shall provide the department with dosage information and safety data sheets and toxicological data, as requested by the department to meet minimum data requirements specified in ss. NR 105.05 (4) and 105.06 (6) for each additive for which approval is sought. NR 106.10(2)(c)(c) Prior to increasing the usage of an additive in amounts greater than authorized by the department, a permittee shall get written approval from the department for the increased usage. NR 106.10(2)(d)(d) After reissuance, if a permittee wants to use a new additive not previously approved by the department, the permittee shall get written approval from the department prior to use of the additive. NR 106.10(2)(e)(e) A permittee may only use additives in accordance with the conditions of the department approval and any applicable permit terms. If the department does not approve use of the additive, the additive may not be discharged. NR 106.10 HistoryHistory: 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; CR 15-084: r. and recr. Register August 2016 No. 728, eff. 9-1-16; correction in (2) (intro.) made under s. 35.17, Stats., Register August 2016 No. 728. NR 106.11NR 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 NoteNote: The method of allocating the combined allowable load in s. NR 106.11 is not required to be based on the effluent flow rates specified in s. NR 106.06 (4) (d). NR 106.115NR 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 Factor (TEF) in Table 1 and Bioaccumulation Equivalency Factor (BEF) 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 Factor for
CDDS and CDFs
Table 2 — Bioaccumulation Equivalency Factor
for CDDs and CDFs
NR 106.115 HistoryHistory: 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; CR 15-085: am. Table 1 (title), Table 2 (title) Register August 2016 No. 728, eff. 9-1-16. NR 106.117(1)(a)3.3. “Recommencing discharger” means a permitted source that recommences discharge after terminating its operations. NR 106.117(1)(b)(b) The first permit issued by the department to a new source or a new discharger shall contain a schedule of compliance only when necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to attain compliance with state or federal limitations promulgated after commencement of construction but less than 3 years before commencement of the discharge. NR 106.117 NoteNote: The department recognizes pollution control equipment start-up problems may arise at the commencement of a new discharge. Enforcement discretion may be used in the 90 days following commencement of discharge, in such cases.
NR 106.117(1)(c)(c) For recommencing dischargers, a schedule of compliance shall be included in the permit only when necessary to allow a reasonable opportunity to attain compliance with limitations promulgated less than 3 years before recommencement of the discharge. NR 106.117(2)(2) Schedules for reissued or modified permits. A reissued or modified permit may, when appropriate, include a schedule for compliance with new or more stringent effluent limitations that are established by this chapter. NR 106.117(3)(3) Schedule requirements. A schedule of compliance included in a permit shall meet all of the following conditions: NR 106.117(3)(a)(a) Time for compliance. Any schedule of compliance under this section shall require compliance as soon as possible but may not extend beyond any applicable federal or state statutory deadlines. The schedule also 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. (b) or as provided in other chapters. NR 106.117(3)(b)(b) Great Lakes dischargers. For an existing discharger to the Great Lakes system with a permit that was originally issued before March 23, 1997, if the effluent limitation is based on a secondary value under s. NR 105.03 (25), the permit shall require compliance with the secondary value based limitation within a reasonable period of time, no later than 5 years after permit reissuance or modification to include the limitation. The compliance schedule may allow the permittee additional time to conduct studies for the purpose of revising the secondary value or to develop a criterion if requested by the permittee in accordance with s. NR 106.07 (8). The time period allowed for such studies may not exceed 2 years. In cases where the permittee wishes to conduct a study on the secondary value, the permit also shall contain a reopener clause, requiring a permit modification if the department determines the specified studies demonstrate that a revised limitation is appropriate. Any revised limitation shall be incorporated through a permit modification and a reasonable time period, up to 5 years, may be allowed for compliance, but in no case may the compliance schedule for the revised limitation extend beyond 7 years from the date the secondary value based limitation was initially included in the permit. NR 106.117(3)(c)(c) Interim dates. If a permit establishes a schedule of compliance that exceeds one year from the date of permit reissuance or modification, the schedule shall set forth interim requirements and the dates for their achievement as follows: NR 106.117(3)(c)1.1. The time between dates for the achievement of interim requirements may not exceed one year, except in the case of a schedule for compliance with standards for sewage sludge use and disposal, the time between dates for the achievement of interim requirements shall not exceed 6 months. NR 106.117(3)(c)2.2. If the time necessary for completion of any interim requirement is more than one year and is not readily divisible into stages for completion, the permit shall specify dates for the submission of reports of progress toward completion of the interim requirements and indicate a projected completion date. NR 106.117(3)(d)(d) Pollution and waste minimization measures. The schedule of compliance may require the permittee to evaluate pollution and waste minimization measures as a means for complying with the effluent limitation. NR 106.117(3)(e)(e) Extension beyond permit expiration. If a permit is modified to include a limitation, the schedule of compliance may extend beyond the expiration date of the permit if an interim permit limit that is effective upon the permit’s expiration date is included in the permit. In such cases, the department shall also specify in the permit the final water quality based effluent limit and its effective date. NR 106.117(3)(f)(f) Reporting. No later than 14 days following each interim date and the final date of compliance, the permittee shall notify the department in writing of its compliance or noncompliance with the interim or final requirements or, if par. (c) 2. is applicable, submit progress reports. NR 106.117 NoteNote: An interim permit requirement is not necessarily a numerical effluent limitation.
NR 106.117 NoteNote: Compliance schedule provisions for TMDL-based limits, technology-based limits, and phosphorus limits may differ from the requirements of this section. These provisions may be found in ss. NR 212.75 (5), 205.14, and 217.17, respectively NR 106.117 HistoryHistory: 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; CR 17-002: r. and recr. Register April 2018 No. 748, eff. 5-1-18. NR 106.14NR 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 HistoryHistory: 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. NR 106.145NR 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 difficult to obtain due to specialized sample collection methods required and the precision and sensitivity of laboratory analyses. 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 for 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)(bm)(bm) For the determination under par. (a), the department shall use representative data that meet the sampling and analysis requirements of subs. (9) and (10). 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 NoteNote: 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.
