Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
AEFA
Fact Sheet
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Proposes to Reissue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to Discharge
Pollutants Pursuant to the Provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to:
McCain Foods USA
Burley Factory
Public Comment Start Date: July 16, 2014
Public Comment Expiration Date: August 15, 2014
Technical Contact: John Drabek
206-553-8257
800-424-4372, ext.8257 (within Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington)
drabek.john@epa.gov
EPA Proposes To Reissue NPDES Permit
EPA proposes to reissue an NPDES permit to the facility referenced above. The draft permit
places conditions on the discharge of pollutants from the wastewater treatment plant to waters of
the United States. In order to ensure protection of water quality and human health, the permit
places limits on the types and amounts of pollutants that can be discharged from the facility.
This Fact Sheet includes:
¦ information on public comment, public hearing, and appeal procedures
¦ a listing of proposed effluent limitations and other conditions for the facility
¦ a map and description of the discharge location
¦ technical material supporting the conditions in the permit
401 Certification
EPA is requesting that the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality certify the NPDES
permit for this facility, under section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Comments regarding the
certification should be directed to:
Regional Administrator
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Twin Falls Regional Office
650 Addison Ave W #110
Twin Falls, ID 83301
1
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Public Comment
Persons wishing to comment on, or request a Public Hearing for the draft permit for this facility
may do so in writing by the expiration date of the Public Comment period. A request for a
Public Hearing must state the nature of the issues to be raised as well as the requester's name,
address and telephone number. All comments and requests for Public Hearings must be in
writing and should be submitted to EPA as described in the Public Comments Section of the
attached Public Notice
After the Public Notice expires, and all comments have been considered, the EPA's regional
Director for the Office of Water and Watersheds will make a final decision regarding permit
issuance. If no substantive comments are received, the tentative conditions in the draft permit
will become final, and the permit will become effective upon issuance. If substantive comments
are received, the EPA will address the comments and issue the permit. The permit will become
effective no less than 30 days after the issuance date, unless an appeal is submitted to the
Environmental Appeals Board within 30 days pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19.
Documents are Available for Review
The draft NPDES permit and related documents can be reviewed or obtained by visiting or
contacting EPA's Regional Office in Seattle between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday at the address below. The draft permits, fact sheet, and other information can also be
found by visiting the Region 10 NPDES website at "http://epa.gov/rlOearth/waterpermits.htm."
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, OW-130
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 553-6251 or
Toll Free 1-800-424-4372 (within Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington)
The fact sheet and draft permit is also available at:
EPA Idaho Operations Office
950 W Bannock
Suite 900
Boise, ID 83702
Phone: 208-378-5746
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Twin Falls Regional Office
650 Addison Ave W #110
Twin Falls, ID 83301
(208) 736-2190
2
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Acronyms 5
I. Applicant 7
A. General Information 7
B. Permit History 7
II. Facility Information 7
III. Receiving Water 9
A. Low Flow Conditions 9
B. Water Quality Standards 9
C. Water Quality Limited Waters 11
IV. Effluent Limitations 11
A. Basis for Effluent Limitations 11
B. Proposed Effluent Limitations 12
V. Monitoring Requirements 13
A. Basis for Effluent and Surface Water Monitoring 13
B. Effluent Monitoring 14
C. Electronic Submission of Discharge Monitoring Reports 18
VI. Sludge (Biosolids) Requirements 18
VII. Other Permit Conditions 18
A. Quality Assurance Plan 18
B. Best Management Practices Plan 18
C. Additional Permit Provisions 19
D. Environmental Justice 19
VIII. Other Legal Requirements 20
A. Endangered Species Act 20
B. Essential Fish Habitat 20
C. State/Tribal Certification 20
D. Permit Expiration 20
IX. References 20
Appendix A: Facility Information 22
Appendix B: Water Quality Criteria Summary 25
A. General Criteria (IDAPA 58.01.02.200) 25
B. Numeric Criteria for Toxics (IDAPA 58.01.02.210) 25
C. Surface Water Criteria To Protect Aquatic Life Uses (IDAPA 58.01.02.250) 26
Appendix C: Low Flow Conditions and Dilution 28
A. Low Flow Conditions 28
3
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
B. Mixing Zones and Dilution 29
Appendix D: Basis for Effluent Limits 31
A. Technology-Based Effluent Limits 31
B. Water Quality-based Effluent Limits 32
Appendix E: Reasonable Potential and Water Quality-Based Effluent Limit Calculations
38
A. Reasonable Potential Analysis 38
B. Anti-backsliding Provisions 51
Appendix F: IDEQ 401 Certification 53
4
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Acronyms
1Q10 1 day, 10 year low flow
7Q10 7 day, 10 year low flow
30B3 Biologically-based design flow intended to ensure an excursion frequency of less
than once every three years, for a 30-day average flow.
AML Average Monthly Limit
BMP Best Management Practices
BODs Biochemical oxygen demand, five-day
°C Degrees Celsius
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CV Coefficient of Variation
CWA Clean Water Act
DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
DO Dissolved oxygen
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
lbs/day Pounds per day
LTA Long Term Average
mg/L Milligrams per liter
ml milliliters
ML Minimum Level
:g/L Micrograms per liter
mgd Million gallons per day
MDL Maximum Daily Limit or Method Detection Limit
N Nitrogen
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OWW Office of Water and Watersheds
O&M Operations and maintenance
QAP Quality assurance plan
5
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
RP Reasonable Potential
RPM Reasonable Potential Multiplier
RWC Receiving Water Concentration
s.u. Standard Units
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TSD Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control
(EPA/505/2-90-001)
TSS Total suspended solids
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
WLA Wasteload allocation
WQBEL Water quality-based effluent limit
6
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
I. Applicant
A. General Information
This fact sheet provides information on the draft NPDES permit for the following entity:
McCain Foods USA
Burley Factory
NPDES Permit # ID0000612
Physical Address:
218 West Highway 30
Burley, ID 83318
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 10
Burley, ID 83318
Contact: Dusty Galliher, Environmental Supervisor
B. Permit History
The most recent NPDES permit for McCain Foods USA (McCain) was issued on June 9,
2006, became effective on July 1, 2006, and expired on June 30, 2011. An NPDES
application for permit issuance was submitted by the permittee on November 9, 2010 and
January 28, 2011. The EPA determined that the application was timely and complete.
Therefore, pursuant to 40 CFR 122.6., the permit has been administratively extended and
remains fully effective and enforceable.
II. Facility Information
McCain owns and operates a potato processing facility in Burley Idaho. The potato
processing facility consists of two potato processing plants on the site, Plant 1 and Plant
2. Internal to the factories are water recycle systems and fryer oil recovery in the fryer
areas. Process wastewater effluent from both plants is combined in a receiving pit where
additional fryer oil recovery occurs. From the receiving pit, the wastewater is pumped
over screens where waste potato material is removed. Following screening, the
wastewater is pumped to a covered anaerobic lagoon where organic matter is removed
via anaerobic digestion and the resultant biogas from anaerobic digestion is used in the
plant steam boilers or flared. From the covered anaerobic lagoon, the wastewater flows
by gravity to selector tank system where the wastewater can be routed to one of two
aerobic lagoons, which are operated in parallel and provide additional removal of organic
material and nutrients. From the aerobic lagoons, the treated effluent flows to a
secondary clarifier and disinfection system. After disinfection, the waste flows through a
Parshall flume for flow measurement and then discharged to the Snake River though
Outfall 001. The treatment system had been upgraded during the last permit cycle to
replace aging assets, install wastewater disinfection, and increase the capacity of the
aerobic wastewater treatment system. The wastewater treatment upgrades included
7
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
replacing the return activated sludge (RAS) and waste activated sludge (WAS) pumps,
installation of a more efficient fine bubble aeration system, installation of chemical
phosphorus removal, and installation of the wastewater disinfection system. The
wastewater system overall has excess capacity due to original design and the upgrades.
The other two active outfalls, 002 and 004, do not contain process water, only potable
water well pit overflow.
The discharge from outfall 001 will also include wastewater from a 0.040 mgd sequential
batch reactor treating domestic wastewater with a service population estimated to be 600
employees.
McCain's Burley facility currently has nine septic tank fields located throughout the plant
and one off site at Americold. Each septic tank field consists of one or more septic tanks
discharging to its own leach field or similar type of a system for percolating septic tank
drainage into the ground. McCain will stop sanitary wastes from discharging to ground
water and instead install a new sequential batch reactor treatment system that would
receive and treat all of the sanitary wastes. The nine septic tank fields will be combined
into four small grinder lift stations that will pump the sanitary waste to the sanitary
treatment system. The discharge will be combined with wastewater from Plants 1 and 2 at
Outfall 001 after disinfection by the existing chlorination system. Start up is estimated for
early 2015.
Effluent Characterization
In order to determine pollutants of concern for further analysis, EPA evaluated the
application form, additional discharge data, and the nature of the discharge. Pollutants
typical of a the frozen potato products category are five-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BODs), total suspended solids (TSS), E. coli bacteria, total residual chlorine (TRC), pH,
ammonia, temperature and phosphorus. Based on this analysis, pollutants of concern are
as follows:
• BODs
• TSS
• E. coli bacteria
• pH
• Temperature
• Ammonia
• Nitrogen
• Nitrate-Nitrite
• Phosphorus
The concentrations of pollutants in the discharge were reported in the NPDES application
and in DMRs and were used in determining reasonable potential for several parameters
(see Appendix E).
8
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Compliance History
The EPA reviewed the last five years of effluent monitoring data (2009 - 2013) from the
discharge monitoring report (DMR). McCain reported no violations.
III. Receiving Water
This facility discharges to the Snake River in the City of Burley, Idaho. The outfall is
located at river mile 648.8 between the Burley/Heyburn Bridge and the Milner Dam.
A. Low Flow Conditions
The Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (hereafter
referred to as the TSD) (EPA, 1991) and the Idaho Water Quality Standards (WQS)
recommend the flow conditions for use in calculating water quality-based effluent limits
(WQBELs) using steady-state modeling. The TSD and the Idaho WQS state that
WQBELs intended to protect aquatic life uses should be based on the lowest seven-day
average flow rate expected to occur once every ten years (7Q10) for chronic criteria and
the lowest one-day average flow rate expected to occur once every ten years (1Q10) for
acute criteria. However, because the chronic criterion for ammonia is a 30-day average
concentration not to be exceeded more than once every three years, EPA has used the
30B3 for the chronic ammonia criterion instead of the 7Q10. The 30B3 is a biologically-
based design flow intended to ensure an excursion frequency of once every three years
for a 30-day average flow rate.
The flow of the Snake River near the point of discharge is highly variable with the
season. Therefore, EPA has calculated the 1Q10, 7Q10 and 30B3 on a seasonal, as well
as a year-round, basis. The seasonal low flows are as follows:
Table 1: Seasonal Low Flows in the Snake River (at
USGS Station #13081500)
Season
1Q10 (CFS)
7Q10 (CFS)
30B3 (CFS)
Full year
279
344
428
November through April
279
344
428
May
1020
1340
1820
June through September
4200
4750
7330
October
2340
2720
4940
B. Water Quality Standards
Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA requires the development of limitations in permits
necessary to meet water quality standards by July 1, 1977. The federal regulation at 40
CFR 122.4(d) prohibits the issuance of an NPDES permit which does not ensure
compliance with the water quality standards of all affected States. A State's water
quality standards are composed of use classifications, numeric and/or narrative water
quality criteria, and an anti-degradation policy.
9
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
The use classification system designates the beneficial uses (such as warm or cold water
biota, contact recreation, etc.) that each water body is expected to achieve. The numeric
and/or narrative water quality criteria are the criteria deemed necessary by the State to
support the beneficial uses of each water body. The anti-degradation policy represents a
three-tiered approach to maintain and protect various levels of water quality and uses.
Designated Beneficial Uses
This facility discharges to the Snake River, Milner Pool, in the Lake Walcott Subbasin
(HUC 17040209), Water Body Unit S-l. At the point of discharge, the Snake River is
protected for the following designated uses (IDAPA 58.01.02.150.11):
• warm water aquatic life
• primary contact recreation
In addition, Water Quality Standards state that all waters of the State of Idaho are
protected for industrial and agricultural water supply, wildlife habitats and aesthetics
(IDAPA 58.01.02.100.03.b and c, 100.04 and 100.05).
Surface Water Quality Criteria
The criteria are found in the following sections of the Idaho Water Quality Standards:
• The narrative criteria applicable to all surface waters of the State are found at
IDAPA 58.01.02.200 (General Surface Water Quality Criteria).
• The numeric criteria for toxic substances for the protection of aquatic life and
primary contact recreation are found at IDAPA 58.01.02.210 (Numeric Criteria
for Toxic Substances for Waters Designated for Aquatic Life, Recreation, or
Domestic Water Supply Use).
• Additional numeric criteria necessary for the protection of aquatic life can be
found at IDAPA 58.01.02.250 (Surface Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Life
Use Designations).
• Numeric criteria necessary for the protection of recreation uses can be found at
IDAPA 58.01.02.251 (Surface Water Quality Criteria for Recreation Use
Designations).
• Water quality criteria for agricultural water supply can be found in the EPA's
Water Quality Criteria 1972, also referred to as the "Blue Book" (EPA R3-73-
033) (See IDAPA 58.01.02.252.02)
The numeric and narrative water quality criteria applicable to Snake River at the point of
discharge are provided in Appendix B of this fact sheet.
Antidegradation
The IDEQ has completed an antidegradation review which is included in the draft 401
certification for this permit. See Appendix F for the State's draft 401 water quality
10
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
certification. The EPA has reviewed this antidegradation review and finds that it is
consistent with the State's 401 certification requirements and the State's anti degradation
implementation procedures. Comments on the 401 certification including the
anti degradation review should be submitted to the IDEQ as set forth above (see State
Certification).
C. Water Quality Limited Waters
Any waterbody for which the water quality does not, and/or is not expected to meet,
applicable water quality standards is defined as a "water quality limited segment."
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) management plan for water bodies determined to be water quality limited
segments. A TMDL is a detailed analysis of the water body to determine its assimilative
capacity. The assimilative capacity is the loading of a pollutant that a water body can
assimilate without causing or contributing to a violation of water quality standards. Once
the assimilative capacity of the water body has been determined, the TMDL will allocate
that capacity among point and non-point pollutant sources, taking into account natural
background levels and a margin of safety. Allocations for non-point sources are known
as "load allocations" (LAs). The allocations for point sources, known as "waste load
allocations" (WLAs), are implemented through effluent limitations in NPDES permits.
Effluent limitations for point sources must be consistent with applicable TMDL
allocations.
The State of Idaho's 2010 Integrated Report Category 5 (the 303(d) lists) lists the Milner
Pool segment of the Snake River to which the McCain facility discharges, from Minidoka
Dam to Milner Dam, as impaired for sedimentation and siltation.
In June 2000, EPA approved the IDEQ's Lake Walcott TMDL. Page 193 of the Lake
Walcott TMDL states the waste load allocation for McCain is 399 pounds per day of total
phosphorus as a monthly average. The draft permit contains an average monthly limit of
399 lb/day total phosphorus, consistent with this WLA. The maximum daily limit for
total phosphorus was calculated based on the WLA and the effluent variability, using the
procedures outlined in the TSD.
No approved TSS allocation is provided in the Lake Walcott TMDL. The EPA has
determined that the TSS effluent limits proposed in the draft permit will ensure
compliance with water quality standards for sediment.
IV. Effluent Limitations
A. Basis for Effluent Limitations
In general, the CWA requires that the effluent limits for a particular pollutant be the more
stringent of either technology-based limits or water quality-based limits. Technology-
based limits are set according to the level of treatment that is achievable using available
technology. A water quality-based effluent limit is designed to ensure that the water
quality standards of a waterbody are being met and may be more stringent than
11
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
technology-based effluent limits. The bases for the proposed effluent limits in the draft
permit are provided in Appendix D.
B. Proposed Effluent Limitations
The following summarizes the proposed effluent limits that are in the draft permit.
Narrative Limitations to Implement Idaho's Narrative Criteria for Floating, Suspended
or Submerged Matter
The permittee must not discharge, from any outfall, floating, suspended, or submerged
matter of any kind in concentrations causing nuisance or objectionable conditions or that
may impair designated beneficial uses of the receiving water.
Numeric Limitations
Tables 2 and 3 (below) present the proposed average monthly, maximum daily, and
instantaneous maximum effluent limits for Outfalls 001, 002, and 004. The proper flow
tier for effluent limits which are contingent upon river flow must be determined by the
average river flow for the monitoring month, as recorded by the USGS gauge at
Minidoka, Idaho. Only one flow tier can be effective for any calendar month.
The proper pH tier must be determined by the average river pH for the monitoring month,
as measured downstream of the discharge as required by the permit. Only one pH tier can
be effective for any calendar month.
Table 2: Effluent Limits for Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Proposed Effluent Limits
Average
Monthly Limit
Maximum Daily
Limit
Instantaneous
Limit
BODs River flow1 <500 CFS
lb/day
1500
3000
...
BODs 500 CFS < River Flow1 <1100 CFS
lb/day
2050
4100
...
BODs River flow1 > 1100 CFS
lb/day
4244
8488
...
TSS
lb/day
4244
8488
...
pH
s.u
6.5 to 9.0 at all times
...
Total Phosphorus as P
lb/day
399
772
—
Total Ammonia as N Oct. 1 - Oct. 31
lb/day
1600
2700
—
Total Ammonia as N Nov. 1 - April 30
River flow1 > 1100 CFS
mg/L
12.5
43.5
lb/day
497
1732
Total Ammonia as N Nov. 1 - April 30
River flow1 < 1100 CFS and pH < 8.50
mg/L
6.16
21.4
lb/day
245
853
Total Ammonia as N Nov. 1 - April 30
River flow1 < 1100 CFS and pH > 8.50
mg/L
3.44
12.0
lb/day
137
476
Temperature
°C
—
32
Total Residual Chlorine2
Hg/L
99
199.0
—
12
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Table 2: Effluent Limits for Outfall 001
lb/day
3.94
7.90
E. Coil
#/100
1263
406
1. For purposes of the flow-tiered BOD5 and ammonia effluent limits, "river flow" for any date means the
arithmetic mean of the flows recorded by the USGS gauge at Minidoka, Idaho (Station #13081500) during the
monitoring month. The permittee must record and report the average and minimum river flows.
2. Effluent limits for total residual chlorine for outfall 001 apply only if the permittee adds chlorine to the
effluent for total or partial disinfection.
3. The monthly geometric mean IT. coli concentration must not exceed 126 organisms/100 ml.
Table 3: Effluent Limits for Outfalls 002 and 004
Parameter
Units
Average
Monthly
Limit
Maximum
Daily
Limit
Total Residual Chlorine
(Outfall 002)
mg/L
0.130
0.393
lb/day
3.85
11.6
Total Residual Chlorine
(Outfall 004)
mg/L
0.148
0.419
lb/day
4.10
11.6
Notes:
Effluent limits for total residual chlorine for Outfalls 002 and 004
are effective at all times.
The following are changes from the existing permit to the proposed permit:
The pH effluent limitations is changed from 6.0 to 9.0 to 6.5 to 9.0.
Table 4 presents the proposed average monthly and weekly effluent limits for the Sewage
Treatment Plant.
Table 4: Effluent Limits for Sewage Treatment Plant
Parameter
30-day
average
7-day
average
BODs
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
10 lbs./day
15 lbs/day
TSS
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
10 lbs/day
15 lbs/day
Removal for BOD5 and TSS
(concentration)
85%
(minimum)
...
PH
within the limits of 6.0 - 9.0 s.u.
V. Monitoring Requirements
A. Basis for Effluent and Surface Water Monitoring
Section 308 of the CWA and federal regulation 40 CFR 122.44(i) require monitoring in
permits to determine compliance with effluent limitations. Monitoring may also be
required to gather effluent and surface water data to determine if additional effluent
limitations are necessary and/or to monitor effluent impacts on receiving water quality.
The permittee is responsible for conducting the monitoring and for reporting results on
13
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
B. Effluent Monitoring
Monitoring frequencies are based on the nature and effect of the pollutant, as well as a
determination of the minimum sampling necessary to adequately monitor the facility's
performance. Permittees have the option of taking more frequent samples than are
required under the permit. These samples can be used for averaging if they are conducted
using EPA approved test methods (generally found in 40 CFR 136) and if the Method
Detection Limits are less than the effluent limits.
Tables 5, 6 and 7, below, describe the effluent monitoring requirements for McCain in
the draft permit. The sampling location for Outfalls 002, 004 and 005 must be after the
last treatment unit and prior to discharge to the receiving water. The sampling location
for the Sewage Treatment Plant Internal Outfall 005 must be after the last treatment unit
for the sewage treatment plant and before comingling with discharges from the Frozen
Potato Food Products discharges. If no discharge occurs during the reporting period, "no
discharge" must be reported on the DMR.
Table 5: Effluent Monitoring Requirements for Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Sample
Frequency
Sample Type
Flow
mgd
continuous
recording
Stream Flow
CFS
daily
See Note 2
BODs
mg/L
1/week
24-hour composite
lbs/day
calculation1
TSS
mg/L
1/week
24-hour composite
lbs/day
calculation1
PH
s.u.
5/week
grab
Total Phosphorus as P
mg/L
2/week
24-hour composite
lb/day
Total Ammonia as N
(May 1 - October 31)
mg/L
1/month
24-hour composite
lb/day
Total Ammonia as N
(November 1 - April 30)
mg/L
1/week
24-hour composite
lb/day
Total Residual Chlorine1
Hg/L
1/week
grab
Oil and Grease
Visual
1/month
Visual
Oil and Grease
mg/L
1/quarter
grab
Floating, Suspended or Submerged Matter
Visual
1/month
Visual
Temperature
°C
continuous
recording
E. Coli Bacteria
#/100 ml
5/month
grab
Notes:
1. These monitoring requirements apply only when the permittee adds chlorine to the wastewater for total or
partial disinfection.
2. The permittee must report the daily minimum and monthly average stream flow rates as recorded by the USGS
Minidoka gauge (#13081500)
14
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Table 6: Effluent Monitoring Requirements for Outfalls 002 and 004
Parameter
Units
Sample Frequency
Sample Type
Total Residual Chlorine
mg/L
1/week
grab
Internal Outfall 005 for Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant
The EPA's NPDES Permit Writers Manual states:
"NPDES permit writers often find that a facility employs multiple processes each
with its own effluent guidelines requirement. In addition, sometimes effluent
guidelines from multiple categories and subcategories apply to wastewaters for a
single facility. When a facility is subject to effluent guidelines for two or more
processes in a subcategory or to effluent guidelines from two or more categories or
subcategories, the permit writer must apply each of the applicable effluent guidelines
to derive TBELs." Also: "If all wastewaters regulated by effluent guidelines are
treated separately but are combined before the discharge, the permit writer may
establish internal outfalls and separately apply the effluent guidelines at the respective
internal outfall as discussed in § 122.45(h)..."
40 CFR § 122.45(h) states :
"(h) Internal waste streams.
(1) When permit effluent limitations or standards imposed at the point of discharge
are impractical or infeasible, effluent limitations or standards for discharges of
pollutants may be imposed on internal waste streams before mixing with other waste
streams or cooling water streams. In those instances, the monitoring required by §
122.48 shall also be applied to the internal waste streams.
(2) Limits on internal waste streams will be imposed only when the fact sheet under §
124.56 sets forth the exceptional circumstances which make such limitations
necessary, such as when the final discharge point is inaccessible (for example, under
10 meters of water), the wastes at the point of discharge are so diluted as to make
monitoring impracticable (emphasis added), or the interferences among pollutants at
the point of discharge would make detection or analysis impracticable."
For McCain the multiple processes are the Frozen Potato Products Subcategory and the
Sewage Treatment Plant Secondary Treatment Effluent. The discharges from the sewage
treatment plant are less than one percent of the discharges from the frozen potato
products discharges. Therefore the sewage treatment plant discharges are so diluted by
the Frozen Potato Products discharges as to make monitoring impracticable at Outfall
001. To insure compliance with the technology based effluent standards an Internal
Outfall 005 is established receiving only wastewater from the sewage treatment plant
prior to mixing with the Frozen Potato Products Subcategory discharges at Outfall 001.
Similarly, compliance with the TBELs for the Frozen Potato Products discharges is
ensured by monitoring at Outfall 001 because the Sewage Treatment Plant discharges are
less than one percent of these discharges and will not be measurable.
15
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Table 7: Effluent Monitoring Requirements for Sewage Treatment Plant Internal Outfall
005
Parameter
Unit
Sample Location
Sainole
Freauencv
Sainole Tvoc
Flow
Mgd
Effluent
Continuous
Recording
BODs
mg/L
Influent and Effluent
1/week
Grab
lbs/day
Influent and Effluent
1/week
Calculation1
% Removal
—
1/month
Calculation2
TSS
mg/L
Influent and Effluent
1/week
Grab
lbs/day
Influent and Effluent
1/week
Calculation1
% Removal
...
1/month
Calculation2
pH
standard units
Effluent
5/month
Grab
Notes:
1. Loading is calculated by multiplying the concentration (in mg/L) by the flow (in mgd) on the day sampling
occurred and a conversion factor of 8.34.
2. The monthly average percent removal must be calculated from the arithmetic mean of the influent values and
the arithmetic mean of the effluent values for that month, i.e.:.
(average monthly influent - average monthly effluent) ^ average monthly influent.
Influent and effluent samples must be taken over approximately the same time period
Changes from Existing Permit
Outfall 001
Total Dissolved Solid (TPS)
The existing permit requires monitoring for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). IDEQ's water
quality standards do not include criteria for TDS. For that reason monitoring of TDS is
discontinued.
Kieldahl Nitrogen
The existing permit requires monitoring for total Kjeldahl nitrogen. Total phosphorus is
the primary limiting nutrient in the Snake River. Monitoring will be discontinued.
Nitrate + Nitrite
The existing permit requires monitoring for nitrate + nitrite. Nitrate + nitrite discharges
do not have a reasonable potential to violate the water quality standards in the Snake
River. Therefore monitoring is discontinued.
Temperature
To better insure compliance with the daily temperature limit the EPA is requiring
continuous monitoring that is more representative of the daily discharges. Monitoring is
increased from grab sampling to continuous monitoring within six months of the effective
date of the permit.
16
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Dissolved Oxygen
The Snake River in the vicinity of the discharge is not listed for dissolved oxygen (DO).
The principle method of maintaining sufficient DO levels is by control of BODs and
phosphorus. Therefore monitoring for DO is discontinued.
Alkalinity
The existing permit requires monitoring for alkalinity. Alkalinity is used in the pH
reasonable potential determination and effluent limitations. Reasonable potential
determination and effluent limitations have been determined for Outfall 001. For that
reason monitoring of alkalinity is discontinued.
Toxicity
McCain does not have a reasonable potential to violate Idaho's toxicity standard.
Therefore toxicity monitoring is discontinued.
Outfalls 002 and 004
pH -Discharges of pH do not have a reasonable potential to violate the water quality
standards for pH. For that reason monitoring of pH is discontinued.
TSS and BODs
Discharges from potable water well pit overflow are not a source of TSS and BODs.
Effluent data is low for both TSS and BODs. For these reasons monitoring of TSS and
BODs are discontinued.
Alkalinity
The existing permit requires monitoring for alkalinity. Alkalinity is used in the
development of pH reasonable determination and effluent limitations. Reasonable
potential determinations are completed for Outfalls 002 and 004. For that reason
monitoring of alkalinity is discontinued.
Temperature
Discharges do not have a reasonable potential to violate the water quality standards for
temperature. Therefore monitoring is discontinued.
Oil and Grease
Potable water supply is not a source of oil and grease. Of the 114 samples from Outfall
002 and the 12 samples from Outfall 004 none have been above the level of detection of
5.0 mg/L. Therefore monitoring of oil and grease is discontinued.
Surface Water Monitoring
All surface water monitoring is discontinued except for the pH and flow necessary to
determine the effluent limits for BODs and ammonia. Surface water monitoring results
must be submitted with the DMR. Downstream monitoring will be discontinued because
compliance with the effluent limitations is more accurately determined by effluent
monitoring to meet the derived end of pipe limits. Upstream monitoring for ammonia and
temperature were for calculation of the water quality standards. Those water quality
17
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
standards have now been established and monitoring is discontinued. The EPA will
consider additional surface water monitoring during the next permit cycle to determine if
conditions of the receiving water have changed.
C. Electronic Submission of Discharge Monitoring Reports
The draft permit requires that the permittee submit DMR data electronically using
NetDMR within six months of the effective date of the permit. NetDMR is a national
web-based tool that allows DMR data to be submitted electronically via a secure Internet
application. NetDMR allows participants to discontinue mailing in paper forms under 40
CFR 122.41 and 403.12. Under NetDMR, all reports required under the permit are
submitted to EPA as an electronic attachment to the DMR. Once a permittee begins
submitting reports using NetDMR, it is no longer required to submit paper copies of
DMRs or other reports to EPA.
The EPA currently conducts free training on the use of NetDMR. Further information
about NetDMR, including upcoming trainings and contacts, is provided on the following
website: http://www.epa.gov/netdmr. The permittee may use NetDMR after requesting
and receiving permission from EPA Region 10.
VI. Sludge (Biosolids) Requirements
The EPA Region 10 separates wastewater and sludge permitting. The EPA has authority
under the CWA to issue separate sludge-only permits for the purposes of regulating
biosolids. The EPA may issue a sludge-only permit to each facility at a later date, as
appropriate.
Until future issuance of a sludge-only permit, sludge management and disposal activities
at each facility continue to be subject to the national sewage sludge standards at 40 CFR
Part 503 and any requirements of the State's biosolids program. The Part 503 regulations
are self-implementing, which means that facilities must comply with them whether or not
a permit has been issued.
VII. Other Permit Conditions
A. Quality Assurance Plan
The federal regulation at 40 CFR 122.41(e) requires the permittee to develop procedures
to ensure that the monitoring data submitted is accurate and to explain data anomalies if
they occur. McCain is required to develop and implement a Quality Assurance Plan
within 90 days of the effective date of the final permit. The Quality Assurance Plan shall
consist of standard operating procedures the permittee must follow for collecting,
handling, storing and shipping samples, laboratory analysis, and data reporting.
B. Best Management Practices Plan
The permit requires McCain to properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of
treatment and control. Proper operation and maintenance is essential to meeting
discharge limits, monitoring requirements, and all other permit requirements at all times.
18
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
McCain is required to update its best management practices (BMP) plan for their facility
within 90 days of the effective date of the final permit. The plan shall be retained on site
and made available to EPA and IDEQ upon request.
C. Additional Permit Provisions
Sections III, IV, and V of the draft permit contain standard regulatory language that must
be included in all NPDES permits. Because they are regulations, they cannot be
challenged in the context of an NPDES permitting action. The standard regulatory
language covers requirements such as monitoring, recording, and reporting requirements,
compliance responsibilities, and other general requirements.
D. Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, directs each federal agency to "make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects
of its programs, policies, and activities." The EPA strives to enhance the ability of
overburdened communities to participate fully and meaningfully in the permitting process
for EPA-issued permits, including NPDES permits. "Overburdened" communities can
include minority, low-income, tribal, and indigenous populations or communities that
potentially experience disproportionate environmental harms and risks. As part of an
agency-wide effort, the EPA Region 10 will consider prioritizing enhanced public
involvement opportunities for EPA-issued permits that may involve activities with
significant public health or environmental impacts on already overburdened communities.
For more information, please visit http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ei/plan-ei/.
As part of the permit development process, the EPA Region 10 conducted a screening
analysis to determine whether this permit action could affect overburdened communities.
The EPA used a nationally consistent geospatial tool that contains demographic and
environmental data for the United States at the Census block group level. This tool is
used to identify permits for which enhanced outreach may be warranted.
McCain is not located within or near a Census block group that is potentially
overburdened. The draft permit does not include any additional conditions to address
environmental justice.
Regardless of whether a facility is located near a potentially overburdened community,
the EPA encourages permittees to review (and to consider adopting, where appropriate)
Promising Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-issued Permits: Ways To
Engage Neighboring Communities (see
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/05/09/2013-10945/epa-activities-to-
promote-environmental-iustice-in-the-permit-application-process#p-104). Examples of
promising practices include: thinking ahead about community's characteristics and the
effects of the permit on the community, engaging the right community leaders, providing
progress or status reports, inviting members of the community for tours of the facility,
providing informational materials translated into different languages, setting up a hotline
for community members to voice concerns or request information, follow up, etc.
19
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
VIII. Other Legal Requirements
A. Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) if their actions could beneficially or adversely affect any
threatened or endangered species.
The Idaho State Habitat Office of NOAA Fisheries stated that there are no endangered or
threatened species under NOAA Fisheries' jurisdiction in the Snake River upstream of
the Hells Canyon Dam, which is approximately 400 river miles downstream of these
discharges. Therefore, EPA has determined that the discharges will have no effect on any
such species.
USFWS stated that the Snake River physa snail may occur in the vicinity of the
discharges. USFWS and EPA believe that the discharges are well outside the range of
the Snake River physa snail. Therefore the discharges will have no effect on these
species.
B. Essential Fish Habitat
Essential fish habitat (EFH) is the waters and substrate (sediments, etc.) necessary for
fish to spawn, breed, feed, and grow to maturity. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (January 21, 1999) requires EPA to consult with
NOAA Fisheries when a proposed discharge has the potential to adversely affect (reduce
quality and/or quantity of) EFH. EPA has determined that the discharge from the
McCain facility will no effect on any EFH species in the vicinity of the discharge,
therefore EFH consultation is not required for this action.
C. State/Tribal Certification
The proposed issuance of an NPDES permit triggers the need to ensure that the
conditions in the permit ensure that Tier I, II, and III of the State's anti degradation policy
are met. An anti-degradation analysis was conducted by the IDEQ as part of the State's
CWA Section 401 certification (see Appendix F).
D. Permit Expiration
The permit will expire five years from the effective date.
IX. References
EPA. 1973. Water Quality Criteria 1972. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA-R3-73-033.
EPA. 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA/505/2-90-001.
IDAPA 58. 2004. Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality rules., Title 01, Chapter 02.
20
-------
Fact Sheet NPDES Permit #ID0000612
IDEQ. 1999. Lake Walcott Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load, The.
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality.
21
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Appendix A: Facility Information
General Information
NPDES ID Number:
Physical Address:
Mailing Address:
Facility Information
Type of Facility:
Treatment Train
(Outfall 001)
Sewage Treatment
Plant
(Outfall 005)
Flow:
ID0000612
218 West Highway 30
Burley, ID 83318
P.O. Box 10
Burley, ID 83318
Frozen potato products manufacturer
Privately Owned Sewage treatment plant
Grease separation, screening, anaerobic digestion, aerobic lagoon,
secondary clarification, chlorine desinfection
Primary, secondary activated sludge, chlorine disinfection
Outfall 001
Outfall 002
Outfall 004
Internal Outfall 005
Plant
4.16 mgd maximum, 3.12 mgd average
0.452 mgd maximum, 0.295 mgd average
0.974 mgd maximum, 0.216 mgd average
0.040 mgd design flow for Sewage Treatment
Outfall Location: Outfall 001
Outfall 002
Outfall 004
latitude 42E 32' 15" N; longitude 113E 50' 50" W
latitude 42E 32' 15" N; longitude 113E 50' 50" W
latitude 42E 32' 10" N; longitude 113E 50' 25" W
Receiving Water Information
Receiving Water: Snake River (Milner Pool)
Watershed: Lake Walcott (HUC 17040209)), Segment 3 Minidoka Dam to
Milner Dam
22
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Beneficial Uses
Warm water aquatic life
Primary contact recreation
Water supply for:
• Agricultural
• Industrial
• Primary contact recreation
• Wildlife Habitats
• Aesthetics
23
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
• -—- - ; \v, \M. m
I
t
\r-t 1.^31 f i II
f if ,\
i
aXmIV" •
- - ¦•-'• ' ¦¦ irv.-
>i- •'. , -v^vV^-
"' i n.M jj - if
-...«,. >y %. \ -¦S4 7i.t> + .A.. 7 7-::^W'
24
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Appendix B: Water Quality Criteria Summary
This appendix provides a summary of water quality criteria applicable to the Snake River
(Milner Pool).
Idaho water quality standards include criteria necessary to protect designated beneficial uses.
The standards are divided into three sections: General Water Quality Criteria, Surface Water
Quality Criteria for Use Classifications, and Site-Specific Surface Water Quality Criteria. The
EPA has determined that the criteria listed below are applicable to the Snake River at Milner
Pool. This determination was based on (1) the applicable beneficial uses of the river (i.e. warm
water aquatic life, primary contact recreation, salmonid spawning, agricultural water supply,
industreial water supply, industrial water supply wildlife habitats and aesthetics, (2) the type of
facility, (3) a review of the application materials submitted by the permittee, and (4) the quality
of the water in the Snake River.
A. General Criteria (IDAPA 58.01.02.200)
Surface waters of the state shall be free from:
• hazardous materials,
• toxic substances in concentrations that impair designated beneficial uses,
• deleterious materials,
• radioactive materials,
• floating, suspended, or submerged matter of any kind in concentrations causing nuisance
or objectionable conditions or that may impair designated beneficial uses,
• excess nutrients that can cause visible slime growths or other nuisance aquatic growths
impairing designated beneficial uses,
• oxygen demanding materials in concentrations that would result in an anaerobic water
condition
Surface water level shall not exceed allowable level for:
• radioactive materials, or
• sediments
B. Numeric Criteria for Toxics (IDAPA 58.01.02.210)
This section of the Idaho Water Quality Standards provides the numeric criteria for toxic
substances for waters designated for aquatic life, recreation, or domestic water supply use.
Monitoring of the effluent has shown that the following toxic pollutants have been present at
detectable levels in the effluent.
• Chlorine (Total Residual)
• temperature,
• E. coli bacteria,
25
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
• pH,
• ammonia
C. Surface Water Criteria To Protect Aquatic Life Uses (IDAPA 58.01.02.250)
1. pH: Within the range of 6.5 to 9.0
2. Temperature: Water temperatures of 33°C or less with a maximum daily average of no
greater than 29°C.
3. Ammonia:
Ammonia criteria are based on a formula which relies on the pH and temperature of the receiving
water, because the fraction of ammonia present as the toxic, un-ionized form increases with
increasing pH and temperature. Therefore, the criteria become more stringent as pH and
temperature increase. The table below details the equations used to determine water quality
criteria for ammonia.
McCain has collected pH and temperature data seasonally in the Snake River upstream from
McCain. These data were used to determine the appropriate pH and temperature values to
calculate the ammonia criteria.
As with any natural water body the pH and temperature of the water will vary over time.
Therefore, to protect water quality criteria it is important to develop the criteria based on pH and
temperature values that will be protective of aquatic life at all times. The EPA used seasonal pH
and temperature for the calculations.
Table B-l: Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia
Equations:
Acute Criterion1
Chronic Criterion
0.411 + 58.4
( 0.0577 2.487 V Mrw(° °5 1 15 - 1 0 0 028x(25~T))
J + JQ7.204-pH j +jqpH-7.204
[1 + 107.688-pH ' 1 + 10pH-7.688 J " M1N^.85,1.15 ,<10 )
Seasonal Results at 95th percentile pH(mg/L):
November -
April
1.86
0.661
May
0.586
June -
September
0.390
October
0.624
Seasonal Results at pH = 8.5 (mg/L):
November -
April
3.20
1.09
May
0.965
June -
September
0.642
October
1.03
Notes:
1. No seasonal variation was assumed for pH, therefore, there is no seasonal variation in the acute criterion
(which is a function of pH only).
26
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
D. Surface Water Quality Criteria For Recreational Use Designation (IDAPA
58.01.02.251)
a. Geometric Mean Criterion. Waters designated for primary or secondary contact recreation
are not to contain E. coli in concentrations exceeding a geometric mean of 126 E. coli
organisms per 100 ml based on a minimum of 5 samples taken every 3 to 7 days over a 30
day period.
b. Use of Single Sample Values: This section states that that a water sample that exceeds
certain "single sample maximum" values indicates a likely exceedance of the geometric
mean criterion, although it is not, in and of itself, a violation of water quality standards. For
waters designated for primary contact recreation, the "single sample maximum" value is 406
organisms per 100 ml (IDAPA 58.01.02.251.01 .b.ii.) for primary and contact recreation.
27
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Appendix C: Low Flow Conditions and Dilution
A. Low Flow Conditions
The low flow conditions of a water body are used to determine water quality-based effluent
limits. In general, Idaho's water quality standards require criteria be evaluated at the following
low flow receiving water conditions (See IDAPA 58.01.02.210.03) as defined below:
Acute aquatic life
1Q10 or 1B3
Chronic aquatic life
7Q10 or 4B3
Non-carcinogenic human health criteria
30Q5
Carcinogenic human health criteria
harmonic mean flow
Ammonia
30B3 or 30Q10
1. The 1Q10 represents the lowest one day flow with an average recurrence frequency of once in 10 years.
2. The 1B3 is biologically based and indicates an allowable exceedence of once every 3 years.
3. The 7Q10 represents lowest average 7 consecutive day flow with an average recurrence frequency of
once in 10 years.
4. The 4B3 is biologically based and indicates an allowable exceedance for 4 consecutive days once every
3 years.
5. The 30Q5 represents the lowest average 30 consecutive day flow with an average recurrence frequency
of once in 5 years.
6. The 30Q10 represents the lowest average 30 consecutive day flow with an average recurrence
frequency of once in 10 years.
7. The harmonic mean is a long-term mean flow value calculated by dividing the number of daily flow
measurements by the sum of the reciprocals of the flows.
Idaho's water quality standards do not specify a low flow to use for acute and chronic ammonia
criteria, however, the EPA's Water Quality Criteria; Notice of Availability; 1999 Update of
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia; Notice (64 FR 719769 December 22, 1999)
identifies the appropriate flows to be used.
The EPA determined seasonal critical low flows upstream of the discharge from the following
USGS Station: Minidoka, Idaho (station #13081500)
The estimated low flows for the station are presented in Table C-l Because the previous permit
contained ammonia effluent limits with two tiers based on the flow rate of the receiving water,
EPA has included two flow tiers for the season with the lowest receiving water flow rates
(November through April).
The flow of the Snake River near the point of discharge is highly variable with the season.
Therefore, EPA has calculated the 1Q10, 7Q10 and 30B3 on a seasonal, as well as a year-round,
basis. The seasonal low flows are as follows:
Table C-l: Seasonal Low Flows in the Snake River (at
USGS Station #13081500)
Season
1Q10 (CFS)
7Q10 (CFS)
30B3 (CFS)
Full year
279
344
428
November through April
279
344
428
May
1020
1340
1820
June through September
4200
4750
7330
October
2340
2720
4940
28
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
B. Mixing Zones and Dilution
In some cases a dilution allowance or mixing zone is permitted. A mixing zone is an area where
an effluent discharge undergoes initial dilution and is extended to cover the secondary mixing in
the ambient water body. A mixing zone is an allocated impact zone where the water quality
standards may be exceeded as long as acutely toxic conditions are prevented (the EPA, 1994).
The federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.13 states that "States may, at their discretion, include in
their State standards, policies generally affecting their application and implementation, such as
mixing zones, low flows and variances."
The Idaho Water Quality Standards at IDAPA 58.01.02.060 provides Idaho's mixing zone policy
for point source discharges. The policy allows the IDEQ to authorize a mixing zone for a point
source discharge after a biological, chemical, and physical appraisal of the receiving water and
the proposed discharge. The IDEQ considers the following principles in limiting the size of a
mixing zone in flowing receiving waters (IDAPA 58.01.02.060.01.e):
i. The cumulative width of adjacent mixing zones when measured across the receiving
water is not to exceed 50% of the total width of the receiving water at that point;
ii. The width of a mixing zone is not to exceed 25% of the stream width or 300 meters plus
the horizontal length of the diffuser as measured perpendicularly to the stream flow,
whichever is less;
iii. The mixing zone is to be no closer to the 10 year, 7 day low-flow shoreline than 15% of
the stream width;
iv. The mixing zone is not to include more than 25% of the volume of the stream flow.
In the State 401 Certification, the IDEQ proposes to authorize a mixing zone of 25% of the
stream flow volume for ammonia and chlorine.
The following formula is used to calculate a dilution factor based on the allowed mixing zone.
„ !\?K
Where:
D = Dilution Factor
Qe = Effluent flow rate (set equal to the design flow of the WWTP)
Qu = Receiving water low flow rate upstream of the discharge (1Q10,
7Q10, 30B3, etc)
§§MZ = Percent Mixing Zone
The EPA calculated dilution factors for year round and seasonal critical low flow conditions. The
dilution factors are listed in Table C-2 and C-3.
29
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Table C-2: Seasonal Dilution Factors in the Snake River
for Outfall 001
(based on flows at USGS Station #13081500)
Acute
Chronic
Chronic
Ammonia
Dilution
Factor
(30B3)
Season
Dilution
Dilution
Factor
Factor
(iQio)
(7Q10)
Full Year
10.5
12.7
—
November through April
(Critical Flows)
10.5
12.7
15.5
November through April
(River Flow > 1100 CFS)
38.3
38.3
38.3
May
35.6
46.4
62.7
June through September
143
162
249
October
80.3
93.1
168
Table C-3: Dilution Factors in the
Snake River for Outfalls 002 and 004
(based on flows at USGS Station #13081500)
Outfall
Acute Dilution
Factor
(iQio)
Chronic
Dilution Factor
(7Q10)
002
20.7
25.3
004
22.0
27.0
30
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Appendix D: Basis for Effluent Limits
The following discussion explains in more detail the statutory and regulatory basis for the
technology and water quality-based effluent limits in the draft permit. Part A discusses
technology-based effluent limits, Part B discusses water quality-based effluent limits in general,
and Part C discusses facility-specific water quality-based effluent limits.
A. Technology-Based Effluent Limits
Federal Effluent Limit Guidelines
EPA has promulgated effluent limit guidelines (ELGs) for process wastewater discharges from
this industry in 40 CFR Part 407. McCain is an existing frozen potato products facility, therefore
the effluent limit guidelines in 40 CFR 407.47, representing the level of effluent quality
attainable through application of the best conventional pollutant control technology, are the
applicable effluent limit guidelines.
These effluent limit guidelines are based on the level of production at the facility. The federal
regulation at 40 CFR 122.45(b)(2) requires that effluent limitations based on production or
another measure of operation must be based on "a reasonable measure of actual production of the
facility." McCain's average production level is unchanged at 3,031,580 pounds of raw material
per day. EPA has calculated technology-based effluent limits based on this production figure
and the effluent limit guidelines.
Table D-l: Technology-Based Effluent Limits
(40 CFR 407.47, Frozen Potato Products Subcategory)
Parameter
Average
Monthly Limit
(lb/1000 lb of
raw material)
Maximum
Daily Limit
(lb/1000 lb of
raw material)
Range
BODs
1.40
2.80
—
TSS
1.40
2.80
—
PH
—
—
6.0 - 9.0 s.u.
Limits Based On Expected Production Levels
BOD5 (lb/day)
4244
8488
—
4244
8488
...
Federal Secondary Treatment Effluent Limits for Sewage Treatment Plants
Using Best Professional Judgment pursuant to CWA section 301(b)(2) and section 402(a)(1)(B)
the EPA is applying the categorical requirements for Public Owned Treatment Plants (POTW) to
the Sewage Treatment Plant at McCain. The CWA requires POTWs to meet performance-based
requirements based on available wastewater treatment technology. Section 301 of the CWA
established a required performance level, referred to as "secondary treatment," which all POTWs
were required to meet by July 1, 1977. The EPA has developed and promulgated "secondary
treatment" effluent limitations, which are found in 40 CFR 133.102. These technology-based
effluent limits apply to all municipal wastewater treatment plants and identify the minimum level
31
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
of effluent quality attainable by application of secondary treatment in terms of BODs, TSS, and
pH. The federally promulgated secondary treatment effluent limits are listed in Table D-2.
Table D-2: Secondary Treatment Effluent Limits
(40 CFR 133.102)
Parameter
30-day
average
7-day
average
BODs
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
TSS
30 mg/L
45 mg/L
Removal for BOD5 and TSS
(concentration)
85%
(minimum)
...
PH
within the limits of 6.0 - 9.0 s.u.
Mass-Based Limits for Sewage Treatment Plant
The federal regulation at 40 CFR 122.45(f) requires that effluent limits be expressed in terms of
mass, if possible. The regulation at 40 CFR 122.45(b) requires that effluent limitations for
POTWs be calculated based on the design flow of the facility. The mass based limits are
expressed in pounds per day and are calculated as follows:
Mass based limit (lb/day) = concentration limit (mg/L) x design flow (mgd) x 8.34'
Since the design flow for this facility is 0.03 mgd, the technology based mass limits for BODs
and TSS are calculated as follows:
Average Monthly Limit = 30 mg/L x 0.04 mgd x 8.34 = 10.0 lbs/day
Average Weekly Limit = 45 mg/L x 0.04 mgd x 8.34 = 15.0 lbs/day
1 8.34 is a conversion factor with units (lb xL)/(mg x gallon* 106)
B. Water Quality-based Effluent Limits
Statutory and Regulatory Basis
Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA requires the development of limitations in permits necessary to
meet water quality standards by July 1, 1977. Discharges to State or Tribal waters must also
comply with limitations imposed by the State or Tribe as part of its certification of NPDES
permits under section 401 of the CWA. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.4(d) prohibit the
issuance of an NPDES permit that does not ensure compliance with the water quality standards
of all affected States.
The NPDES regulation (40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)) implementing Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA
requires that permits include limits for all pollutants or parameters which are or may be
discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an
excursion above any State or Tribal water quality standard, including narrative criteria for water
quality, and that the level of water quality to be achieved by limits on point sources is derived
from and complies with all applicable water quality standards.
32
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
The regulations require the permitting authority to make this evaluation using procedures which
account for existing controls on point and nonpoint sources of pollution, the variability of the
pollutant in the effluent, species sensitivity (for toxicity), and where appropriate, dilution in the
receiving water. The limits must be stringent enough to ensure that water quality standards are
met, and must be consistent with any available wasteload allocation.
Reasonable Potential Analysis
When evaluating the effluent to determine if water quality-based effluent limits are needed based
on numeric criteria, EPA projects the receiving water concentration (downstream of where the
effluent enters the receiving water) for each pollutant of concern. EPA uses the concentration of
the pollutant in the effluent and receiving water and, if appropriate, the dilution available from
the receiving water, to project the receiving water concentration. If the projected concentration
of the pollutant in the receiving water exceeds the numeric criterion for that specific chemical,
then the discharge has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the
applicable water quality standard, and a water quality-based effluent limit is required.
Sometimes it is appropriate to allow a small area of the receiving water to provide dilution of the
effluent. These areas are called mixing zones. Mixing zone allowances will increase the mass
loadings of the pollutant to the water body, and decrease treatment requirements. Mixing zones
can be used only when there is adequate receiving water flow volume and the receiving water
meets the criteria necessary to protect the designated uses of the water body. Mixing zones must
be authorized by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality.
The reasonable potential analyses for McCain were based on a mixing zone of 25% based on
IDEQ's draft certification. If IDEQ revises the allowable mixing zone in its final certification of
this permit, reasonable potential analysis will be revised accordingly.
Procedure for Deriving Water Quality-based Effluent Limits
The first step in developing a water quality-based effluent limit is to develop a wasteload
allocation (WLA) for the pollutant. A wasteload allocation is the concentration or loading of a
pollutant that the permittee may discharge without causing or contributing to an exceedance of
water quality standards in the receiving water. Wasteload allocations are determined in one of
the following ways:
1. TMDL-Based Wasteload Allocation
Where the receiving water quality does not meet water quality standards, the wasteload
allocation is generally based on a TMDL developed by the State. A TMDL is a
determination of the amount of a pollutant from point, non-point, and natural background
sources that may be discharged to a water body without causing the water body to exceed
the criterion for that pollutant. Any loading above this capacity risks violating water
quality standards.
To ensure that these waters will come into compliance with water quality standards
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires States to develop TMDLs for those water bodies that
will not meet water quality standards even after the imposition of technology-based
effluent limitations. The first step in establishing a TMDL is to determine the assimilative
capacity (the loading of pollutant that a water body can assimilate without exceeding
33
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
water quality standards). The next step is to divide the assimilative capacity into
allocations for non-point sources (load allocations), point sources (wasteload allocations),
natural background loadings, and a margin of safety to account for any uncertainties.
Permit limitations are then developed for point sources that are consistent with the
wasteload allocation for the point source.
Total Phosphorus - Outfall 001
The Lake Walcott TMDL provides a wasteload allocation to the McCain facility of 399
lb/day. The proposed average monthly limit for total phosphorus is identical to the
wasteload allocation. Calculations for the maximum daily total phosphorus effluent limit
proposed in the draft permit are found in Appendix E.
2. Mixing zone based WLA
When the State authorizes a mixing zone for the discharge, the WLA is calculated by
using a simple mass balance equation. The equation takes into account the available
dilution provided by the mixing zone, and the background concentrations of the pollutant.
The WLAs for ammonia and chlorine were derived using a mixing zone.
3. Criterion as the Wasteload Allocation
In some cases a mixing zone cannot be authorized, either because the receiving water is
already at, or exceeds, the criterion, the receiving water flow is too low to provide
dilution, or the facility can achieve the effluent limit without a mixing zone. In such
cases, the criterion becomes the wasteload allocation. Establishing the criterion as the
wasteload allocation ensures that the effluent discharge will not contribute to an
exceedance of the criteria. The WLA for E. coli was derived using this method.
Once the wasteload allocation has been developed, the EPA applies the statistical permit limit
derivation approach described in Chapter 5 of the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-Based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001, March 1991, hereafter referred to as the
TSD) to obtain monthly average, and weekly average or daily maximum permit limits. This
approach takes into account effluent variability, sampling frequency, and water quality standards.
Summary - Water Quality-based Effluent Limits
The water quality based effluent limits in the draft permit are summarized below.
Ammonia - Outfall 001
A reasonable potential calculation demonstrated that the McCain discharge does not have a
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a violation of the water quality criteria for
ammonia. See Appendices D for reasonable potential and effluent limit calculations for
ammonia. However, the EPA has continued the previous permit's effluent limits for ammonia in
compliance with the anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Water Act and federal regulations.
The EPA has determined that the previous permit's ammonia limits are stringent enough to
ensure compliance with water quality standards.
34
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Nitrate + Nitrite
A reasonable potential calculation demonstrated that the McCain discharge does not have a
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a violation of the water quality standards for nitrate
+ nitrite. Therefore, the draft permit does not propose effluent limits for nitrate + nitrite, and
monitoring of nitrate + nitrite is discontinued.
pH
The Idaho water quality standards at IDAPA 58.01.02.250.01.a, require pH values of the river to
be within the range of 6.5 to 9.0. Mixing zones are generally not granted for pH, therefore the
most stringent water quality criterion must be met before the effluent is discharged to the
receiving water. Effluent pH data were collected at the facility from 2009 through 2013, a total
of 120 samples were collected. The data ranged from 7.15 - 8.83 standard units. The pH range
of the effluent is well within the State's water quality criterion of 6.5 - 9.0 standard units,
therefore no mixing zone is necessary for this discharge. Therefore the effluent limitation is
changed from 6.0 to 9.0 to 6.5 to 9.0.
Chlorine
A reasonable potential calculation showed that the McCain discharge does have a reasonable
potential to cause or contribute to a violation of the water quality criteria for chlorine. See
Appendix E for reasonable potential and effluent limit calculations for chlorine.
Total Phosphorus - Outfall 001
The Lake Walcott TMDL requires reductions in total phosphorus loading from point sources.
The wasteload allocation granted to the McCain facility in the Lake Walcott TMDL is 399
lb/day. EPA is required to include effluent limits which are consistent with available wasteload
allocations from approved TMDLs. Calculations for the total phosphorus effluent limits in the
draft permit are found in Appendix E.
Floating, Suspended and Submerged Matter — All Outfalls
The Idaho water quality standards require that surface waters of the State be free from floating,
suspended or submerged matter of any kind in concentrations impairing designated beneficial
uses. The draft permit contains a narrative limitation prohibiting the discharge of such materials.
Total Residual Chlorine — Outfall 001
EPA has determined that the discharge from Outfall 001 has the reasonable potential to cause or
contribute to water quality standards violations for total residual chlorine, if the permittee adds
chlorine to the wastewater for total or partial disinfection (i.e. in order to meet the effluent
limitations for E. coli bacteria). Therefore, EPA has calculated water quality-based effluent
limits for total residual chlorine. EPA has determined reasonable potential to exceed water
quality standards and calculated effluent limits on a year-round basis, rather than the seasonal
approach used for ammonia.
EPA has calculated water quality-based chlorine effluent limits in this manner because chlorine
is toxic to aquatic life at very low concentrations. The acute and chronic chlorine criteria are
below the analytical quantitation limit for EPA-approved methods, and the chronic chlorine
35
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
criterion has a much shorter averaging period (4 days) than does the chronic ammonia criterion
(30 days). In order to better protect the receiving water from the toxic effects of chlorine, given
the analytical uncertainty, the fact that chlorine is being discharged from multiple outfalls, and
the fact that the chlorine criteria have short averaging periods and are not to be exceeded more
than once every three years, EPA has used the more conservative approach of establishing
effluent limits on a year-round basis.
Temperature — Outfall 001
EPA has retained the 32°C maximum daily effluent temperature limitation from the previous
permit, in compliance with the anti-backsliding requirements of Section 402(o) of the Clean
Water Act. A reasonable potential analysis was conducted at the 95 percentile effluent
temperature. The reasonable potential calculation determined that McCain does not have a
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a violation of the water quality standards for
temperature.
E. coli Bacteria — Outfall 001
The Idaho water quality standards state that waters of the State of Idaho, that are designated for
recreation, are not to contain E. coli bacteria in concentrations exceeding 126 organisms per 100 ml
based on a minimum of five samples taken every three to seven days over a thirty day period.
Therefore, the draft permit contains a monthly geometric mean effluent limit fori?, coli of 126
organisms per 100 ml (IDAPA 58.01.02.251.01.a.).
The Idaho water quality standards also state that a water sample that exceeds certain "single sample
maximum" values indicates a likely exceedance of the geometric mean criterion, although it is not,
in and of itself, a violation of water quality standards. For waters designated for primary contact
recreation, the "single sample maximum" value is 406 organisms per 100 ml (IDAPA
58.01.02.251. Ol.b.ii.).
The goal of a water quality-based effluent limit is to ensure a low probability that water quality
standards will be exceeded in the receiving water as a result of a discharge, while considering the
variability of the pollutant in the effluent. Because a single sample value exceeding 406 organisms
per 100 ml indicates a likely exceedance of the geometric mean criterion, the EPA has imposed an
instantaneous (single grab sample) maximum effluent limit fori?, coli of 406 organisms per 100 ml,
in addition to a monthly geometric mean limit of 126 organisms per 100 ml, which directly
implements the water quality criterion for E. coli. This will ensure that the discharge will have a low
probability of exceeding water quality standards for E. coli.
Total Residual Chlorine — Outfalls 002 and 004
EPA has determined that the discharges from Outfalls 002 and 004 have the reasonable potential
to cause or contribute to water quality standards violations for total residual chlorine. Therefore,
EPA has calculated water quality-based effluent limits for total residual chlorine for these two
outfalls. EPA has determined reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards and
calculated effluent limits on a year-round basis, rather than the seasonal approach used for
ammonia in Outfall 001.
EPA has calculated water quality-based chlorine effluent limits in this manner because chlorine
is toxic to aquatic life at very low concentrations. The acute and chronic chlorine criteria are
36
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
below the analytical quantitation limit for EPA-approved methods, and the chronic chlorine
criterion has a much shorter averaging period (4 days) than does the chronic ammonia criterion
(30 days). In order to better protect the receiving water from the toxic effects of chlorine, given
the analytical uncertainty, the fact that chlorine is being discharged from multiple outfalls, and
the fact that the chlorine criteria have short averaging periods and are not to be exceeded more
than once every three years, EPA has used the more conservative approach of establishing
effluent limits on a year-round basis.
Discharges from Internal Outfall 005 for the Sewage Treatment Plant
Compliance with water quality standards for discharges from the Sewage Treatment Plant will be
at Outfall 001. The E Coli, pH, ammonia and chlorine effluent limitations at Outfall 001 meet the
water quality standards for the Snake River.
37
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Appendix E: Reasonable Potential and Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limit Calculations
Part A of this appendix explains the process the EPA has used to determine if the discharge
authorized in the draft permit has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a violation of
Idaho's federally approved water quality standards. Part B demonstrates how the water quality-
based effluent limits (WQBELs) in the draft permit were calculated.
A. Reasonable Potential Analysis
The EPA uses the process described in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control (EPA, 1991) to determine reasonable potential. To determine if there is
reasonable potential for the discharge to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality
criteria for a given pollutant, the EPA compares the maximum projected receiving water
concentration to the water quality criteria for that pollutant. If the projected receiving water
concentration exceeds the criteria, there is reasonable potential, and a water quality-based
effluent limit must be included in the permit. This following section discusses how the
maximum projected receiving water concentration is determined
Mass Balance
For discharges to flowing water bodies, the maximum projected receiving water concentration is
determined using the following mass balance equation:
CdQd = CeQe + CuQu (Equation 1)
where,
Cd = Receiving water concentration downstream of the effluent discharge (that is,
the concentration at the edge of the mixing zone)
Ce = Maximum projected effluent concentration
Cu = 95th percentile measured receiving water upstream concentration
Qd = Receiving water flow rate downstream of the effluent discharge = Qe + Qu
Qe = Effluent flow rate1
Qu = Receiving water low flow rate upstream of the discharge (i.e. 1Q10, 7Q10 or
30B3)
When the mass balance equation is solved for Cd, it becomes:
Cd = CeQe + CuQu (Equation 2)
Qe + Qu
The above form of the equation is based on the assumption that the discharge is rapidly and
completely mixed with the receiving stream. If the mixing zone is based on less than complete
mixing with the receiving water, the equation becomes:
Cd = CeQe + Cu(Qu x MZ) (Equation 3)
Qe + (Qu X MZ)
38
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Where MZ is the fraction of the receiving water flow available for dilution. In this case,
pursuant to Section 58.01.02.060 of the Idaho WQS, the mixing zone is not to exceed 25% of the
volume of the stream flow and MZ is equal to 25% (0.25).
If a mixing zone is not allowed, dilution is not considered when projecting the receiving water
concentration and,
Cd = Ce (Equation 4)
Equation D-2 can be simplified by introducing a "dilution factor,"
D = Qe + 0.25Qu (Equation 5)
Qe
After simplification, Equation D-2 becomes:
Cd = Ce - Cu + Cu (Equation 6)
D
Equation D-6 is the form of the mass balance equation that was used to determine reasonable
potential and calculate wasteload allocations.
Maximum Projected Effluent Concentration
When determining the projected receiving water concentration downstream of the effluent
discharge, the EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Controls
(TSD, 1991) recommends using the maximum projected effluent concentration (Ce) in the mass
balance calculation (see equation 3, page C-5). To determine the maximum projected effluent
concentration (Ce) the EPA has developed a statistical approach to better characterize the effects
of effluent variability. The approach combines knowledge of effluent variability as estimated by
a coefficient of variation (CV) with the uncertainty due to a limited number of data to project an
estimated maximum concentration for the effluent. Once the CV for each pollutant parameter
has been calculated, the reasonable potential multiplier (RPM) used to derive the maximum
projected effluent concentration (Ce) can be calculated using the following equations:
First, the percentile represented by the highest reported concentration is calculated.
pn = (1 - confidence level)1/n (Equation 7)
where,
pn = the percentile represented by the highest reported concentration
n = the number of samples
confidence level = 99% = 0.99
EPA has obtained effluent data from the facility containing 59 samples for ammonia:
pn = (1-0.99)1/59
pn = 0.925
This means that we can say, with 99% confidence, that the maximum reported effluent
concentration is greater than the 93rd percentile.
39
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
The reasonable potential multiplier (RPM) is the ratio of the 99th percentile concentration (at the
99% confidence level) to the maximum reported effluent concentration. This is calculated as
follows:
RPM = C99/CP (Equation 8)
Where,
C = exp(z g - 0.5 o2) (Equation 9)
where,
o2 = ln(C V2 +1) (Equation 10)
c = 4^
CV = coefficient of variation = (standard deviation) (mean)
z = the inverse of the normal cumulative distribution function at a given percentile
The maximum projected effluent concentration is determined by simply multiplying the
maximum reported effluent concentration by the RPM:
as (KPM)CMRC) (Equation 11)
where MRC = Maximum Reported Concentration
Maximum Projected Effluent Concentration at the Edge of the Mixing Zone
Once the maximum projected effluent concentration is calculated, the maximum projected
effluent concentration at the edge of the acute and chronic mixing zones is calculated using the
mass balance equations presented previously.
Reasonable Potential
The discharge has reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality
criteria if the maximum projected concentration of the pollutant at the edge of the mixing zone
exceeds the most stringent criterion for that pollutant.
Ammonia and nitrite/nitrate do not have a reasonable potential for any season to violate the
warm water quality standards for the Snake River. The EPA demonstrated this by using the most
stringent water quality criteria from Table B-l: Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia. That is, the
ammonia criteria developed from the 95th percentile pH.
40
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) and Water Quality Effluent Limit (WQBEL) Calculations
Facility Name
Design Flow (MGD)
Waterbody Type
McCain Foods
Freshwater
Dilution Factors
(iOAPA 58.01.02 03. b)
Nov-April
May
June-April
October
Annual
Aquatic Life - Acute Criteria - Criterion Max. Concentration (CMC)
1Q10
10.5
35.6
143.0
80.3
10.5
Aquatic Life - Chronic Criteria - Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC)
7Q10or 4B3
12.7
Ammonia
30B3/30Q10 (seasonal)
15.5
62.7
249.0
163
Human Health - Non-Carcinogen
30Q5
--
--
--
Human Health - carcinogen
Harmonic Mean Flow
--
--
--
Receiving Water Data
Hardness, as mg/L CaC03
Temperature, °C
pH, S.U.
' Enter Hardness on WQ Criteria tab ***
Temperature, °C
pH, s.u!"
Notes:
5th % at critical flows
95th percentile
95th percentile
Pollutants of Concern
AMMONIA, AMMONIA, AMMONIA, AMMONIA Nitrite-
warm water, warm water, warm water, warm water, Nitrate
fish early life fish early life fish early life f js^ early life
stages present stages present stages present stages
present
Effluent Data
Number of Samples in Data Set (n)
Coefficient of Variation (CV) = Std. Dev./Mean (default CV = 0.6)
Effluent Concentration, ng/L (Max. or 95th Percentile) - (Ce)
Calculated 50th % Effluent Cone, (when n>10), Human Health Only
59 59 59 59 20
1.82 1.82 1.82 1.82 2.34
530 530 530 530 156
Dilution Factors
Aquatic Life - Acute 1Q10
Aquatic Life - Chronic 7Q10 or 4B3
Ammonia 30B3 or 30Q10
Human Health - Non-Carcinogen 30Q5
Human Health - carcinoqen Harmonic Mean
10.5 35.6 143.0 80.3 10.5
15.5 62.7 249.0 163.0 12.7
r r
in'' pif
Receiving Water Data
90th Percentile Cone., \iglL - (Cu)
Geometric Mean, ng/L, Human Health Criteria Only
120 120 120 120 730
Applicable
Water Quality Criteria
Acute
Aquatic Life Criteria, |ig/L Chronic
Human Health Water and Organism, ng/L
Human Health, Organism Only, ng/L
1,860 1,860 1,860 1,860 100,000
661 586 390 624 100,000
Metals Criteria Translator, decimal (or default use Acute
Conversion Factor) Chronic
-
1 arcinoqen (Y/N), Human Health Criteria Only
..
Aquatic Life Reasonable Potential Analysis
o o2=ln(CV2+1)
1.209
1.209
1.209
1.209
1.367
pn =(1-confidence level)1/n where confidence level =
99%
0.925
0.925
0.925
0.925
0.794
Multiplier (TSD p. 57) =exp(2.326a-0.5a2)/exp[invnorm(PN)O-0.5a2], prob. =
99%
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9
7.8
Statistically projected critical discharge concentration (Cd)
1549.52
1549.52
1549.52
1549.52
1219.97
Predicted max. conc.(ug/L) at Edge-of-Mixing Zone
Acute
256.14
160.15
130.00
137.80
776.66
(note: for metals, concentration as dissolved using conversion factor as translator)
Chronic
212.23
142.80
125.74
128.77
768.58
Reasonable Potential to exceed Aquatic Life Criteria
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Reasonable Potential for pH - Outfall 001
A model of pH mixing was used to determine the effluent pH values that would result in meeting
the criteria at the edge of the mixing zone. Mixing zone boundary pH is a function of effluent
and ambient pH, flow, alkalinity (buffering capacity), and temperature. The worst-case scenario
is a warm, highly buffered effluent being discharged into a warm, poorly buffered stream.
41
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Outfall 001
procedure in EPA's DESCON program (EPA. 1988. Technical
Guidance on Supplementary Stream Design Conditions lor Steady
State Modeling. USEPA Office of Water. Washington D.C.)
Based on Lotus File PHMIX2.WK1 Revised 19-Oct-93
I MM T
1. DILUTION FACTOR AT MIXING ZONE BOUNDARY 12.700
2. UPSTREAM/BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS
Temperature (deg C): 21.90
pH: 7.60
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L): 172.00
3. EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Temperature (deg C): 28.60
pH: 5.75
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L): 426.00
Ol TIM I
1. IONIZATION CONSTANTS
Upstream/Background pKa: 6.37
Effluent pKa: 6.33
2. IONIZATION FRACTIONS
Upstream/Background Ionization Fraction: 0.94
Effluent Ionization Fraction: 0.21
3. TOTAL INORGANIC CARBON
Upstream/Background Total Inorganic Carbon (mg CaC03/L): 182.11
Effluent Total Inorganic Carbon (mg CaC03/L): 2048.13
4. CONDITIONS AT MIXING ZONE BOUNDARY
Temperature (deg C): 22.43
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L): 192.00
Total Inorganic Carbon (mg CaC03/L): 329.04
pKa: 6.37
pH at Mixing Zone Boundary: 6.51
The effluent temperature used in the model is the 95th percentile of DMR temperature data from
2009 through 2014. The effluent alkalinity value represents the 95th percentile from 2009
through 2014. The upstream temperature, alkalinity and pH is from upstream monitoring during
the existing permit cycle. The upstream pH was the 10th and 90th percentiles. The upstream
alkalinity was the 10th percentile. The upstream temperature used was the 90th percentile.
42
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
The model demonstrates the surface water standards for pH of 6.5 can be achieved with a
discharge of a pH of 5.75. However the lowest pH discharged is 7.1. Even without a mixing zone
the surface water standard of 6.5 to 9.0 can be achieved by McCain. Therefore the pH limit is
changed from 6.0 to 9.0 to 6.5 to 9.0.
Reasonable Potential for Temperature
For Outfall 001 a model of temperature mixing was used to determine the effluent temperature
values that would result in meeting the criteria at the edge of the mixing zone. EPA has used the
95th percentile effluent temperature.
Warm Water
Criteria
INPUT
Chronic Dilution Factor at Mixing Zone Boundary
Ambient Temperature (T) (Upstream Background)
12.7
21.9 °C
High River Flow
95th Percentile based on permittee or USGS
data
Effluent Temperature
26.0 °C
95th Percentile of monthly daily max
effluent based on daily max per DMR data
Aquatic Life Temperature WQ Criterion in Fresh Water
29.0 °C
Lowest daily max criteria
OUTPUT
Temperature at Chronic Mixing Zone Boundary:
22.4 °C
Mass balance
For Outfall 001 the model demonstrates discharges do not have a reasonable potential to violate
the water quality standards at the edge of the mixing zone. The existing effluent limits are
retained under the anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Reasonable Potential for pH - Outfalls 002 and 004
For Outfall 002 the model demonstrates discharges at the point of discharge would have to be
5.35 to cause a violation of the 6.5 pH standard at the edge of the mixing zone.
43
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
procedure in EPA's DESCON program (EPA, 1988. Technical
Guidance on Supplementary Stream Design Conditions for Steady
State Modeling. USEPA Office of Water. Washington D.C.)
Based on Lotus File PHMIX2.WK1 Revised 19-Oct-93
I MM T
1. DILUTION FACTOR AT MIXING ZONE BOUNDARY 25.300
2. UPSTREAM/BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS
Temperature (deg C): 21.90
pH: 7.60
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L): 172.00
3. EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Temperature (deg C): 16.70
pH: 5.35
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L): 247.00
(>l TIM I
1. IONIZATION CONSTANTS
Upstream/Background pKa: 6.37
Effluent pKa: 6.41
2. IONIZATION FRACTIONS
Upstream/Background Ionization Fraction: 0.94
Effluent Ionization Fraction: 0.08
3. TOTAL INORGANIC CARBON
Upstream/Background Total Inorganic Carbon (mg CaC03/L): 182.11
Effluent Total Inorganic Carbon (mg CaC03/L): 3059.57
4. CONDITIONS AT MIXING ZONE BOUNDARY
Temperature (deg C): 21.69
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L): 174.96
Total Inorganic Carbon (mg CaC03/L): 295.84
pKa: 6.37
pH at Mixing Zone Boundary: 6.53
For Outfall 004 the model demonstrates discharges at the point of discharge have to be 5.09 to
cause a violation of the 6.5 pH standard at the edge of the mixing zone.
44
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Outfall 004
procedure in EPA's DESCON program (EPA. 1988. Technical
Guidance on Supplementary Stream Design Conditions lor Steady
State Modeling. USEPA Office of Water. Washington D.C.)
Based on Lotus File PHMIX2.WK1 Revised 19-Oct-93
I MM T
1. DILUTION FACTOR AT MIXING ZONE BOUNDARY 27.000
2. UPSTREAM/BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS
Temperature (deg C): 21.90
pH: 7.60
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L): 172.00
3. EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Temperature (deg C): 25.60
pH: 5.09
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L): 171.00
(>l TIM I
1. IONIZATION CONSTANTS
Upstream/Background pKa: 6.37
Effluent pKa: 6.35
2. IONIZATION FRACTIONS
Upstream/Background Ionization Fraction: 0.94
Effluent Ionization Fraction: 0.05
3. TOTAL INORGANIC CARBON
Upstream/Background Total Inorganic Carbon (mg CaC03/L): 182.11
Effluent Total Inorganic Carbon (mg CaC03/L): 3258.16
4. CONDITIONS AT MIXING ZONE BOUNDARY
Temperature (deg C): 22.04
Alkalinity (mg CaC03/L): 171.96
Total Inorganic Carbon (mg CaC03/L): 296.04
pKa: 6.37
pH at Mixing Zone Boundary: 6.51
45
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
The measured minimum and maximum pH measured at the point of discharge is compared to the
pH that will result in a violation at the edge of the mixing zone is shown below.
Outfall
Measured
Minimum pH at
Point of
Discharge
Measured
Maximum pH
at Point of
Discharge
pH Necessary at
the Point of
Discharge to
Cause a
Violation at the
Edge of the
Mixing Zone
Water Quality
Standard
002
7.1
8.6
5.35
6.5-9.0
004
6.9
7.9
5.09
6.5-9.0
Since the measured pH is well within pH standards at the point of discharge and at the edge of
the allowable mixing zone and potable water supply is not a source of pH violations the EPA
concludes discharges from Outfall 002 and 004 do not have a reasonable potential to violate the
water quality standards for pH. Therefore monitoring is discontinued for pH. Monitoring of
alkalinity, used in the calculation of pH reasonable potential, is also discontinued.
Reasonable Potential for Temperature - Outfall 002 and Outfall 004
Outfall
Maximum Measured
Temperature
Water Quality Standard
maximum daily average
002
21.9
29
004
20.2
29
Even without a mixing zone Outfalls 002 and 004 do not have a reasonable potential to violate
the water quality standard for temperature. For this reason temperature monitoring is
discontinued for these outfalls.
46
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Reasonable Potential for Chlorine
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) and Water Quality Effluent Limit (WQBEL) Calculations
Facility Name
McCain CL
Design Flow (MGD)
Waterbody Type
Freshwater
Dilution Factors
(iOAPA 58.01.02 03. b)
Ouf 001
Out 002
Out 004
Aquatic Life - Acute Criteria - Criterion Max. Concentration (CMC)
1Q10
10.5
20.7
22.0
Aquatic Life - Chronic Criteria -
Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC)
7Q10 or 4B3
12.7
25.3
27.0
Ammonia
30B3/30Q10 (seasonal)
--
--
Human Health - Non-Carcinogen
30Q5
--
--
--
Human Health - carcinogen
Harmonic Mean Flow
--
--
--
Receiving Water Data
Hardness, as mg/L CaC03
*** Enter Hardness on WQ Criteria tab ***
Notes:
5th % at critical flows
Annual
Temperature, °C
Temperature,
°C
95th percentile
pH, S.U.
pH, S.U.
95th percentile
Pollutants of Concern
CHLORINE
(Total
Residual)
CHLORINE
(Total
Residual)
CHLORINE
(Total
Residual)
Effluent Data
Number of Samples in Data Set (n)
Coefficient of Variation (CV) = Std. Dev./Mean (default CV = 0.6)
Effluent Concentration, |ig/L (Max. or 95th Percentile) - (Ce)
Calculated 50th % Effluent Cone, (when n>10), Human Health Only
59
0.66
77
60
1.08
80
9
0.87
156
Dilution Factors
aquatic Life - Acute
aquatic Life - Chronic
nonia
lan Health - Non-Carcinogen
lan Health - carcinogen
1Q10
7Q10 or 4B3
30B3 or 30Q10
30Q5
Harmonic Mean
10.5
12.7
0.0
20.7
25.3
22.0
27.0
r
Receiving Water Data
90lh Percentile Cone., ug/L - (Cu)
Geometric Mean, |ig/L, Human Health Criteria Only
0
0
0
Acute
19
19
19
aquatic Life Criteria, jig/L
Chronic
11
11
11
Applicable
Water Quality Criteria
i luman Health Water and Organism, |ig/L
i luman Health, Organism Only, |ig/L
--
Metals Criteria Translator, decimal (or default use
Acute
..
! Conversion Factor)
Chronic
..
Carcinogen (Y/N), Human Health Criteria Only
N
N
N
Aquatic Life Reasonable Potential Analysis
a
Pn
Multiplier (TSD p. 57)
a2=ln(CV2+1)
=(1-confidence level)1/n where confidence level =
=exp(2.326o-0.5o2)/©
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
The average monthly limit for Outfall 002 is calculated as 151 |ig/L and the monthly average
limit is calculated as 176 |ig/L. However EPA has retained the 130 |ig/L and 148 |ig/L monthly
limitations for Outfalls 002 and 004 respectively from the previous permit, in compliance with
the anti-backsliding requirements of Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act.
Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Requirements
Whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests are laboratory tests that measure the total toxic effect of an
effluent on living organisms. Whole effluent toxicity tests use small vertebrate and invertebrate
species and/or plants to measure the aggregate toxicity of an effluent. There are two different
types of toxicity test: acute and chronic. An acute toxicity test is a test to determine the
concentration of effluent or ambient waters that causes an adverse effect (usually death) on a
group of test organisms during a short-term exposure (e.g., 24, 48, or 96 hours). A chronic
toxicity test is a short-term test, usually 96 hours or longer in duration, in which sublethal effects
(e.g., significantly reduced growth or reproduction) are usually measured in addition to lethality.
Both acute and chronic toxicity are measured using statistical procedures such as hypothesis
testing (i.e., no observable effect concentration, NOEC and lowest observable effect
concentration, LOEC) or point estimate techniques (i.e., lethal concentration to 50 percent of
organisms, LCso; and inhibition concentration in a biological measurement to 25 percent of
organisms, IC25).
Federal regulations at 40 CFR § 122.44(d) (1) require that NPDES permits contain limits on
whole effluent toxicity when a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or
contributes to an excursion above a State's numeric or narrative water quality criteria for
toxicity. In Idaho, the relevant water quality standards for toxicity states that surface waters of
the State shall be free from toxic substances in concentrations that impair designated beneficial
uses. Since Idaho does not have numeric water quality criteria for toxicity, the EPA Region 10
uses the Toxic Units (TU) approach for acute (0.3 TUa) and chronic criteria (1 TUc). The use of
TU as a mechanism for quantifying instream toxicity when a State lacks numeric criteria is
described in Sections 2 and 3 of the 1991 Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-001) (TSD).
The proposed permit does not contain effluent limitations or monitoring because the EPA has
determined that the discharge does not have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an
excursion above Idaho's narrative criteria for toxicity. As a result, the EPA is not including an
effluent limitation for WET or monitoring for WET in this permit reissuance. The rationale for
the EPA's reasonable potential determination are provided below.
Rationale for Reasonable Potential Determination:
When determining whether or not a discharge causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or
contribute to an excursion of a numeric or narrative water quality criteria for toxicity, the
permitting authority can use a variety of factors and information. Some of these factors include,
but are not limited to, the amount of available dilution, type of industry, existing data, type of
receiving water and designated uses and history of compliance.
Results
Survival and reproduction Ceriodaphnia Dubia toxicity tests conducted in 2010 found no
statistical difference in response between effluent dilutions and controls. None of the dilutions
experienced any abnormalities regarding survival even in 100 percent effluent. For reproduction,
48
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
none of the dilutions failed to produce the minimum number of organisms required during the
seven-day test. Statistical analyses of reproduction also indicate that none of the dilutions are
significantly different from controls.
NOEC LOEC
Ceriodaphnia Dubia Survival 100% 100%
Reproduction 100% 100%
None of the dilutions experienced any abnormalities regarding survival or growth of larval
Fathead Minnow except in 100 percent effluent. That is survival of larval Fathead Minnow
toxicity tests found no statistical difference for survival between effluent dilutions and controls
except in 100 percent effluent.
NOEC LOEC
Fathead Minnow Survival 54% 100%
Growth 54% 100%
The toxicity report stated "Chronic toxicity was not found in either toxicity test at a dilution of
less than or equal to 100.0 percent effluent."
Toxicity is determined at the edge of the mixing zone. The percent dilution of the effluent at the
edge of the chronic mixing zone provided by IDEQ is 7.9 percent. At 7.9 percent dilution
survival and growth of Fathead Minnow are not statistically different then controls. The NOEC
for survival and growth is much higher at 54 percent dilution.
The EPA has determined that McCain does not have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute
to an excursion above Idaho's water quality standard for toxics for the following reasons.
1. Toxicity monitoring is not required for the Frozen Potato Products source category.
2. Toxics are not generally characterized for the food process industry.
3. Categorical standards for this category apply for pH, TSS and BODs. TSS, BODs and pH
are the pollutants that characterize these source categories. The treatment system at
McCain is designed to treat these pollutants.
4. The WET test results: No toxicity to Ceriodaphnia Dubia in 100 percent of the effluent in
survival or reproduction. No Fathead Minnow toxicity at the edge of the chronic mixing
zone and no toxicity for at any dilution less than 100 percent effluent and the high
NOEC.
5. The existing data that indicates that the effluent does not contain individual toxics,
6. A record of no violations.
WQBEL Calculations
The following calculations demonstrate how the water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs)
in the draft permit were calculated, when those limits are intended to protect aquatic life criteria.
WQBELs for total phosphorus are calculated differently. The following discussion presents the
general equations used to calculate the water quality-based effluent limits.
49
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Calculate the Wasteload Allocations (WLAs)
Wasteload allocations (WLAs) are calculated using the same mass balance equations used to
calculate the concentration of the pollutant at the edge of the mixing zone in the reasonable
potential analysis. To calculate the wasteload allocations, Cd is set equal to the acute or chronic
criterion and the equation is solved for Ce. The calculated Ce is the acute or chronic WLA.
Equation is rearranged to solve for the WLA, becoming:
CB — WLA — B M (Cji — Cm) + C,, Equation 12
The next step is to compute the "long term average" concentrations which will be protective of
the WLAs. This is done using the following equations from the EPA's Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD):
11 Equation 13
Equation 14
where,
g2 = IntCV2 +1)
Z99 = 2.326 (z-score for the 99th percentile probability basis)
CV = coefficient of variation (standard deviation mean)
or = ln(CV2/4 +1)
For ammonia, because the chronic criterion is based on a 30-day averaging period, the Chronic
Long Term Average (LTAc) is calculated as follows:
¦"to*1 Equation 15
where,
c302 = ln(CV2/30 +1)
The LTAs are compared and the more stringent is used to develop the daily maximum and
monthly average permit limits as shown below.
Derive the maximum daily and average monthly effluent limits
Using the TSD equations, the MDL and AML effluent limits are calculated as follows:
ME - VIA M Equation 16
AML ¦ Lf AM Equation 17
where o, and o2 are defined as they are for the LTA equations above, and,
on2 = ln(CV2/n + 1
za = 1.645 (z-score for the 95th percentile probability basis)
50
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
zm = 2.326 (z-score for the 99th percentile probability basis)
n = number of sampling events required per month. With the exception of ammonia, if the
AML is based on the LTAC, i.e., LTAmimmUm = LTAC), the value of' 'n'' should is set at
a minimum of 4. For ammonia, In the case of ammonia, if the AML is based on the
LTAC, i.e., LTAmmimum = LTAC), the value of "n" should is set at a minimum of 30.
B. Anti-backsliding Provisions
Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act and federal regulations at 40 CFR §122.44 (1) generally
prohibit the renewal, reissuance or modification of an existing NPDES permit that contains
effluent limits, permit conditions or standards that are less stringent than those established in the
previous permit (i.e., anti-backsliding) but provides limited exceptions. Section 402(o)(l) of the
CWA states that a permit may not be reissued with less-stringent limits established based on
Sections 301(b)(1)(C), 303(d) or 303(e) (i.e. water quality-based limits or limits established in
accordance with State treatment standards) except in compliance with Section 303(d)(4).
Section 402(o)(l) also prohibits backsliding on technology-based effluent limits established
using best professional judgment (i.e. based on Section 402(a)(1)(B)), but in this case, the
effluent limits being revised are water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs).
Section 303(d)(4) of the CWA states that, for water bodies where the water quality meets or
exceeds the level necessary to support the water body's designated uses, WQBELs may be
revised as long as the revision is consistent with the State's antidegradation policy. Additionally,
Section 402(o)(2) contains exceptions to the general prohibition on backsliding in 402(o)(l).
According to the EPA NPDES Permit Writers' Manual (EPA-833-K-10-001) the 402(o)(2)
exceptions are applicable to WQBELs (except for 402(o)(2)(B)(ii) and 402(o)(2)(D)) and are
independent of the requirements of 303(d)(4). Therefore, WQBELs may be relaxed as long as
either the 402(o)(2) exceptions or the requirements of 303(d)(4) are satisfied.
Even if the requirements of Sections 303(d)(4) or 402(o)(2) are satisfied, Section 402(o)(3)
prohibits backsliding which would result in violations of water quality standards or effluent limit
guidelines.
An anti-backsliding analysis was done for ammonia at Outfall 001. None of the exceptions apply
to the ammonia effluent limitations.
An anti-backsliding analysis was done for chlorine at Outfall 002 and Outfall 004. None of the
exceptions apply to chlorine limitations. Therefore the McCain effluent limitations for chlorine
at Outfalls 002 and Outfall 004 are being retained in the proposed permit.
An anti-backsliding analysis was done for temperature for Outfall 001. None of the exceptions
apply to the temperature limitations. Therefore the McCain effluent limitations for temperature is
being retained in the proposed permit.
51
-------
Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Total Phosphorus
The effects of total phosphorus on a watershed are a function of the average loading. In contrast,
the effects of pollutants such as ammonia and chlorine, which have toxic effects on aquatic life,
are based on short term exposure (generally 1 hour for acute effects and 4 days for chronic
effects). Therefore, it is not appropriate to calculate effluent limits for total phosphorus using the
procedures shown above, which are used for the protection of aquatic life criteria.
When the deleterious effects of a pollutant are based on long term average loading or
concentration (as with human health criteria or nutrients), the TSD recommends setting the
average monthly limit equal to the WLA. NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.45(d)(1) require
that effluent limitations for continuous discharges from dischargers other than POTWs be
expressed as average monthly and maximum daily limits, unless impracticable. Therefore, the
TSD recommends calculating a maximum daily limit based on effluent variability from the
following equation:
MDL _ exp(zmcr-0.5cr2)
AML exp(zflcr„-0.5cr„2)
Where:
• CV = Coefficient of variation = 0.451
• o2 = ln(CV2 + 1) = 0.185
• o=^ = 0.430
• o„2 = ln(CV2/n + 1) = 0.0495
• On = ,/cr 2 = 0.223
V n
• n = number of sampling events per month = 8
(a minimum of 4 samples is assumed if actual sample frequency is less than 4 per month)
• zm = 2.326 for 99th percentile probability basis
• za = 1.645 for 95th percentile probability basis
This yields an MDL to AML ratio of 1.93:1. Page 193 of the Lake Walcott TMDL states the
waste load allocation for McCain is 399 pounds per day of TP as a monthly average. Therefore,
the average monthly limit is 399 lb/day and the maximum daily limit is 772 lb/day (399 lb/day x
1.93 = 772 lb/day).
52
-------
Fact Sheet NPDES Permit #ID0000612
Appendix F: IDEQ 401 Certification
53
-------
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
Draft §401 Water Quality Certification
July 9,2014
NPDES Permit Number(s): ID0000612, McCain Foods USA - Burley Factory
Receiving Water Body: Sriake River
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 401(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(Clean Water Act), as amended; 33 U.S.C. Section 1341(a)(1); and Idaho Code §§ 39-101 et seq.
and 39-3601 et seq., the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has authority to
review National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and issue water
quality certification decisions.
Based upon its review of the above-referenced permit and associated fact sheet, DEQ certi fies
that if the permittee complies with the terms and conditions imposed by the permit along with the
conditions set forth in this water quality certification, then there is reasonable assurance the
discharge will comply with the applicable requirements of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307
of the Clean Water Act, the Idaho Water Quality Standards (WQS) (IDAPA 58.01.02), and other
appropriate water quality requirements of state law.
This certification does not constitute authorization of the permitted activities by any other state
or federal agency or private person or entity. This certification does not excuse the permit holder
from the obligation to obtain any other necessary approvals, authorizations, or permits.
Antidegradation Review
The WQS contain an antidegradation policy providing three levels of protection to water bodies
in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.02.051).
• Tier 1 Protection. The first level of protection applies to all water bodies subject to Clean
Water Act jurisdiction and ensures that existing uses of a water body and the level of
water quality necessary to protect those existing uses will be maintained and protected
(IDAPA 58.01.02.051.01; 58.01.02.052.01). Additionally, a Tier 1 review is performed
for all new or reissued permits or licenses (IDAPA 58.01.02.052.07).
• Tier 2 Protection. The second level of protection applies to those water bodies considered
high quality and ensures that no lowering of water quality will be allowed unless deemed
necessary to accommodate important economic or social development (IDAPA
58.01.02.051.02; 58.01.02.052.08).
• Tier 3 Protection. The third level of protection applies to water bodies that have been
designated outstanding resource waters and requires that activities not cause a lowering
of water quality (IDAPA 58.01.02.051.03; 58.01.02.052.09).
ID0000612, McCain Foods USA - Burley Factory
1
-------
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
§401 Water Quality Certification
DEQ is employing a water body by water body approach to implementing Idaho's
antidegradation policy. This approach means that any water body fully supporting its beneficial
uses will be considered high quality (IDAPA 58.01.02.052.05.a). Any water body not fully
supporting its beneficial uses will be provided Tier 1 protection for that use, unless specific
circumstances warranting Tier 2 protection are met (IDAPA 58.01.02.052.05.c). The most recent
federally approved Integrated Report and supporting data are used to determine support status
and the tier of protection (IDAPA 58.01.02.052.05).
Pollutants of Concern
The McCain Foods USA facility discharges the following pollutants of concern: BOD5, TSS, pH,
total phosphorus (TP), total ammonia as nitrogen, total residual chlorine (TRC), Escherichia coli
(E. coli), temperature, and oil & grease. Effluent limits have been developed for BODs, TSS, pH,
TP, total ammonia as nitrogen, TRC, temperature and E. coli.
Receiving Water Body Level of Protection
The McCain Foods USA facility discharges to the Snake River (Heybum/Burley Bridge to
Milner Dam) within the Lake Walcott Subbasin assessment unit (AU) ID 17040209SK001_07
(2010 Integrated Report). This AU has the following designated beneficial uses: warm water
aquatic life and primary contact recreation. Although not designated as such, DEQ presumes that
cold water aquatic life is also a beneficial use in this AU. In addition to these uses, all waters of
the state are protected for agricultural and industrial water supply, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics
(IDAPA 58.01.02.100).
According to DEQ's 2010 Integrated Report, this AU is not fully supporting one or more of its
assessed uses. The warm and cold water aquatic life uses are not fully supported. Causes of
impairment include nutrient eutrophication and sedimentation/siltation. As such, DEQ will
provide Tier 1 protection (IDAPA 58.01.02.051.01) for the aquatic life uses. The contact
recreation beneficial use is unassessed. DEQ must provide an appropriate level of protection for
the contact recreation use using information available at this time (IDAPA 58.01.02.052.05.c).
DEQ reviewed the water quality data for E. coli (2007-2011) and determined that E. coli is
meeting the primary contact recreation standard. Therefore, DEQ will provide Tier 2 protection
for this use (IDAPA 58.01.02.051.02).
Protection and Maintenance of Existing Uses (Tier 1 Protection)
As noted above, a Tier 1 review is performed for all new or reissued permits or licenses, applies
to all waters subject to the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, and requires demonstration that
existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect existing uses shall be maintained
and protected. In order to protect and maintain designated and existing beneficial uses, a
permitted discharge must comply with narrative and numeric criteria of the Idaho WQS, as well
as other provisions of the WQS such as Section 055, which addresses water quality limited
waters. The numeric and narrative criteria in the WQS are set at levels that ensure protection of
designated beneficial uses. The effluent limitations and associated requirements contained in the
McCain Foods USA facility permit are set at levels that ensure compliance with the narrative and
numeric criteria in the WQS.
ID0000612, McCain Foods USA - Burley Factory
2
-------
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
§401 Water Quality Certification
Water bodies not supporting existing or designated beneficial uses must be identified as water
quality limited, and a total maximum daily load (TMDL) must be prepared for those pollutants
causing impairment. A central purpose of TMDLs is to establish wasteload allocations for point
source discharges, which are set at levels designed to help restore the water body to a condition
that supports existing and designated beneficial uses. Discharge permits must contain limitations
that are consistent with wasteload allocations in the approved TMDL.
Prior to the development of the TMDL, the WQS require the application of the antidegradation
policy and implementation provisions to maintain and protect uses (IDAPA 58.01.02.055.04).
The EPA-approved Lake Walcott TMDL (2000) establishes wasteload allocations for TP and
TSS. These wasteload allocations are designed to ensure the Snake River (I leybum/Burley
Bridge to Milner Dam) will achieve the water quality necessary to support its existing and
designated aquatic life beneficial uses and comply with the applicable numeric and narrative
criteria. The effluent limitations and associated requirements contained in the McCain Foods
USA facility permit are set at levels that comply with these wasteload allocations.
In sum, the effluent limitations and associated requirements contained in the McCain Foods USA
facility permit are set at levels that ensure compliance with the narrative and numeric criteria in
the WQS and the wasteload allocations established in the Lake Walcott TMDL. Therefore, DEQ
has determined the permit will protect and maintain existing and designated beneficial uses in the
Snake River (I leybum/Burley Bridge to Milner Dam) in compliance with the Tier 1 provisions
of Idaho's WQS (IDAPA 58.01.02.051.01 and 58.01.02.052.07).
High-Quality Waters (Tier 2 Protection)
The Snake River (I Ieyburn/Burley Bridge to Milner Dam) is considered high quality for primary
contact recreation. As such, the water quality relevant to primary contact recreation uses of the
Snake River (I leybum/Burley Bridge to Milner Dam) must be maintained and protected, unless a
lowering of water quality is deemed necessary to accommodate important social or economic
development.
To determine whether degradation will occur, DEQ must evaluate how the permit issuance will
affect water quality for each pollutant that is relevant to primary contact recreation uses of the
Snake River (I leybum/Burley Bridge to Milner Dam) (IDAPA 58.01.02.052.05). These include
the following: bacteria as E. coll Effluent limits are set in the proposed and existing permit for
this pollutant.
For a reissued permit or license, the effect on water quality is determined by looking at the
difference in water quality that would result from the activity or discharge as authorized in the
current permit and the water quality that would result from the activity or discharge as proposed
in the reissued permit or license (IDAPA 58.01.02.052.06.a). For a new permit or license, the
effect on water quality is determined by reviewing the difference between the existing receiving
water quality and the water quality that would result from the activity or discharge as proposed in
the new permit or license (IDAPA 58.01.02.052.06.a).
ID0000612, McCain Foods USA - Burley Factory
3
-------
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
§401 Water Quality Certification
Pollutants with Limits in the Current and Proposed Permit
For pollutants that are currently limited and will have limits under the reissued permit, the
current discharge quality is based on the limits in the current permit or license (IDAPA
58.01.02.052.06.a.i), and the future discharge quality is based on the proposed permit limits
(IDAPA 58.01.02.052.06.a.ii). For the McCain Foods USA facility permit, this means
determining the permit's effect on water quality based upon the limits for E. coli in the current
and proposed permits. Table 1 provides a summary of the current permit limits and the proposed
or reissued permit limits.
Table 1. Comparison of current and proposed permit limits for pollutants of concern relevant to
uses receiving Tier 2 protection.
Current Permit
Proposed Permit
Pollutant
Units
Average
Monthly
Limit
Average
Weekly
Limit
Max.
Daily
Limit
Average
Monthly
Limit
Average
Weekly
Limit
Max.
Daily
Limit
Change®
Pollutants with limits in both the current and proposed permit
E, coli
no /100 mL
126
—
406 1 126
-
406
NC
NC = no change.
In sum, DEQ concludes that this discharge permit complies with the Tier 2 provisions of Idaho's
WQS (IDAPA 58.01.02.051.02 and IDAPA 58.01.02.052.06).
Conditions Necessary to Ensure Compliance with Water
Quality Standards or Other Appropriate Water Quality
Requirements of State Law
Mixing Zones
Pursuant to IDAPA 58.01.02.060, DEQ authorizes a mixing zone that utilizes 25% of the critical
flow volumes of Snake River (Heyburn/Burley Bridge to Milner Dam) for ammonia and
chlorine.
Other Conditions
This certification is conditioned upon the requirement that any material modification of the
permit or the permitted activities—including without limitation, any modifications of the permit
to reflect new or modified TMDLs, wasteload allocations, site-specific criteria, variances, or
other new information—shall first be provided to DEQ for review to determine compliance with
Idaho WQS and to provide additional certification pursuant to Section 401.
Right to Appeal Final Certification
The final Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be appealed by submitting a petition to
initiate a contested case, pursuant to Idaho Code § 39-107(5) and the "Rules of Administrative
ID0000612, McCain Foods USA - Burley Factory
4
-------
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
§401 Water Quality Certification
Procedure before the Board of Environmental Quality" (IDAPA 58.01.23), within 35 days of the
date of the final certification.
Questions or comments regarding the actions taken in this certification should be directed to Dr.
Balthasar Buhidar, Twin Falls Regional Office, (208) 736-2190,
DRAFT
Bill Allred
Regional Administrator
Twin Falls Regional Office
ID0000612, McCain Foods USA - Burley Factory
5
------- |