Toxicity Compliance Data Monitoring- Past, Present and Future

1. Toxicity Compliance Data Monitoring- Past, Present and Future Bill Sheehan and Brett Goodrich MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Protecting Maine’s Air, Land and Water

2. 1987 CWA amended to require states to adopt numerical criteria 1988 EPA audits DEP and finds Maine deficient which leads to action plan 1990 Legislation adopts AWQC 1990 Natural Resources Council of Maine sues MDEP for failure to control toxics in Maine (International Paper Co permit) 1994 Consent Decree makes Maine adopt Chapter 584 Brief History of Toxics Program in Maine MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.maine.gov/dep

3. History continued • 1995 Chapter 584 amended to Chapter 530.5 • 2005 Chapter 530.5 repealed and replaced by: Chapter 530: Surface Waters Toxics Control Program Chapter 584:Surface Water quality criteria for Toxic Pollutants MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.maine.gov/dep

4. History- even more continued • 2012 updated reporting limits for 13 analytes • Jan 2013 Revised Water Quality Standards (Arsenic) sent to EPA for approval. • May 2013 EPA agreed with the revisions and approved them, but not within “Indian Territories” • Feb 2015 State of ME sued EPA for approval of WQS for all lands including “Indian Territories”

5. Whole Effluent and Chemical Specific Toxics Analyses • Required of about 25% of Maine’s dischargers • Expensive: Using contract labs • Large samples of effluent and receiving water need to be shipped for WET tests • Most Maine facilities perform eight or less WET tests per license term. • WET and toxics data is important and costly.

6. Toxics Control Program • Has three major approaches to evaluate and control toxicity: • Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests • Chemical-specific (Achem and PP) • Biological assessment (SWAT) • Each approach has advantages and disadvantages and compliment each other.

7. Facility operator data review responsibilities • Perform sampling and ship as required by permit (consult with lab and inspector) • Evaluate test results • Identify possible exceedances. • Submit results to DEP not later than the next DMR (but get at least 10 days to review).

8. WET review (basic) • Is the test done at the right time per permit? • Have the correct species been run? • Is there a violation? • Is it reported correctly on the DMR?

10. A Chem and PP Review (basic) • Is the test done at the right time per permit? • Have all the required parameters been run? • Are the flows correct for the day and month of the test? • Are there exceedances or high RL indicated? • Is the test properly indicated on the DMR? And are individual pollutants with limits properly indicated?

11. ToxSheet Top Section

12. ToxSheet example page

13. Effluent Mercury Spreadsheet has tabs for WET Fresh, WET Water, ToxSheet and 1600 series Mercury

14. How is the data used? • Compliance with permit • Licensing • Evaluation of receiving waters

15. Future of Regulations? • Update of ambient water criteria (the concentrations in the receiving water) due to lots of recent research. Chapter 584. • Hardness and pH effects (Al and Ammonia) • Emerging pollutants of concern • All are unknowns at this point.

16. Future of ToxSheet • DEP is in early stages of redesigning or replacing ToxSheet • Current Excel-based spreadsheet is difficult to update and prone to data entry errors • Must be manually uploaded

17. When will this happen? • Meetings to begin fall 2019 to explore options • Depending on the scope of changes the new system may be available in late 2020

18. What will the new system look like? • Several options will be considered • EDDs directly from contract labs? • Integration into EGAD? • Online portal where users can enter data or upload data files? • Suggestions are welcome…

19. Acute Mysid

20. Bill Sheehan- Bill.J.Sheehan@maine.govBrett Goodrich- Brett.A.Goodrich@maine.gov