Region 1 NPDES Permit Quality Review Vermont Final September, 23 2015


Region 1 NPDES Permit Quality Review

Vermont
Final

September, 23 2015

U.S. EPA Region 1
5 Post Office Square
Boston, MA 02109-3912

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Contents

I.	PQR BACKGROUND	4

II.	STATE PROGRAM BACKGROUND	7

A.	Program Structure	7

B.	Universe and Permit Issuance	8

C.	State-Specific Challenges	13

D.	Current State Initiatives	14

III.	CORE REVIEW FINDINGS	14

A.	Basic Facility Information and Permit Application	14

1.	Facility Information	14

2.	Permit Application Requirements	15

B.	Technology-based Effluent Limitations	16

1.	TBELs for POTWs	16

2.	TBELs for Non-POTW Dischargers	16

C.	Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations	17

D.	Monitoring and Reporting	19

E.	Standard and Special Conditions	19

F.	Administrative Process	20

G.	Administrative Record	21

1. Documentation of Effluent Limitations	22

H.	National Topic Areas	23

1.	Nutrients	23

2.	Pesticides	26

3.	Pretreatment	27

4.	Stormwater	30

IV.	REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS	36

A.	Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)	36

B.	Effluent Limit Guidelines (ELG)	41

C.	Whole Effluent Toxicity	42

V.	ACTION ITEMS	45

A.	Basic Facility Information and Permit Application	46

B.	Technology-based Effluent Limitations	46

C.	Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations	47

D.	Monitoring and Reporting	47

E.	Standard and Special Conditions	47

F.	Administrative Process (including public notice)	47

G.	Documentation (including fact sheet)	47

H.	National Topic Areas	48

1.	Nutrients	48

2.	Pesticides	49

3.	Pretreatment	49

September 2015	Page 2 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

4. Stormwater	49

I. Regional Topic Areas	52

1.	Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)	52

2.	Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs)	52

3.	Whole Effluent Toxicity	52

September 2015

Page 3 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

I. PQR BACKGROUND

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Quality Reviews (PQRs) are an
evaluation of a select set of NPDES permits to determine whether permits are developed in a
manner consistent with applicable requirements established in the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
NPDES regulations. Through this review mechanism, EPA promotes national consistency, and
identifies successes in implementation of the NPDES program and identifies opportunities for
improvement in the development of NPDES permits.

EPA's review team consisting of three EPA Regional staff and one contractor conducted a
review of the Vermont NPDES permitting program which included an on-site visit to the
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) office in Montpelier, Vermont
on November 5-6, 2014.

The Vermont PQR consisted of core permit reviews, national topic permit reviews and regional
topic area reviews. The core permit reviews focused on core permit quality and included a
review of the permit application, permit, fact sheet, and any correspondence, reports or
documents that provide the basis for the development of the permit conditions.

The core permit review involved the evaluation of selected permits and supporting materials
using basic NPDES program criteria. Reviewers completed the core review by examining
selected permits and supporting documentation, assessing these materials using standard PQR
tools, and talking with permit writers regarding the permit development process. The core
review focused on the Central Tenets of the NPDES Permitting Program to evaluate the
Vermont NPDES program. In addition, discussions between EPA and state staff addressed a
range of topics including program status, the permitting process, responsibilities, organization,
and staffing.

National topic area permit reviews are conducted to evaluate similar issues or types of permits
in all states. The national topics reviewed in the Vermont NPDES program were: nutrients,
pesticide general permit, pretreatment, and stormwater.

Regional topic area reviews target regionally-specific permit types or particular aspects of
permits. The regional topic areas selected by EPA Region 1 included: combined sewer overflows
(CSOs), effluent limitations and guidelines standards (ELGs), and whole effluent toxicity (WET).
These reviews provide important information to Vermont, EPA Region 1, EPA HQs and the
public on specific program areas.

A total of thirty two distinct permits were reviewed as part of the PQR. Ten permits were
reviewed for the core review - of these, nine permits were also reviewed for either national
(i.e., nutrients) and/or regional topic areas (i.e., CSO, WET, or ELG).

As a starting point in selecting the permits to be reviewed, the region obtained a list from EPA
HQ, specifically the Office of Wastewater Management, of all of Vermont's individual and
general NPDES permits. The list originated from a June 2014 data pull from the Integrated
Compliance Information System (ICIS). The inventory identified the permit number, facility

September 2015

Page 4 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

name, city, facility type (publicly owned treatment works [POTW] or non-POTW), facility size
(expressed as minor or major), date of last issuance and expiration, and limit/monitoring
requirement information. After analyzing and sorting the data, the list was forwarded to the
state of Vermont for verification. Additional information regarding the facility type for each
individual permit was also requested of the state. Necessary corrections to the list were made
and all individual permits issued by July 2014 were included in the Vermont universe of permits.
This totaled 184 permits, of which 32 were major facilities and 152 were minor facilities.

The permits were listed in order according to the latest issuance date, starting with most
recently issued permit. The region determined percentages of major and minor permits by type
(i.e., POTW and NON-POTW) for Vermont's entire individual permit universe and for all final
individual permits issued within the last four year period (i.e., October 2010 - October 2014).
This decreased the VT permit universe to 70 individual permits, consisting of 3 major and 67
minor facilities. This four year timeframe served as the basis for the core permit review, in
accordance with the NPDES Permit Quality Review Standard Operating Procedures (revised July
2013). This emphasis on recently issued permits, which was utilized for the permit selection of
national and regional topics, was also based on the assumption that more recently issued
permits would more accurately reflect Vermont's current permitting practices.

As a result of the demographics of the state, Vermont issued a significantly higher percentage
of permits to minor facilities than major facilities and to Non-POTWs than POTWs. For
example, 4% (i.e., 3 out of 70) of the permits issued during the past four years were to major
facilities while the remaining 96% (i.e., 67 out of 70) were issued to minor facilities. Also 11%
(i.e., 8 out of 70) of the individual permits issued by VT DEC over the past four years were to
POTWs while the remaining 89% (i.e., 62 out of 70)) were to non-POTWs. Therefore this
influenced the number of major and POTW facilities that could be selected for the PQR.

Table 1, below, lists the permits which were selected for review during the Vermont PQR.

TABLE 1: LIST OF PERMITS FOR 2014 Vermont PQR

Facility Type

Review Focus

NPDES ID

Facility Name

Indicator

CORE

VT0101010

HARTFORD - WRJ

POTW - Major

CORE

VT0100021

BENNINGTON

POTW - Major







NON-POTW -

CORE

VT0000248

FIBERMARK NORTH AMERICA INC

Major

CORE

VT0101109

WHITINGHAM

POTW - minor

CORE

VT0100978

HARTFORD -QUECHEE

POTW - minor

CORE

VT0100765

WOODSTOCK - TAFTSVILLE

POTW - minor







NON-POTW -

CORE

VT0022969

COLUMBIA FOREST PRODUCTS

minor







NON-POTW -

CORE

VT0001341

IRVING OIL CORP

minor







NON-POTW -

CORE

VT0120013

BARNET HYDRO

minor







NON-POTW -

CORE

VT0001198

EAGLE RIVER MINING

minor

September 2015

Page 5 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

NUTRIENTS
NUTRIENTS

NUTRIENTS
NUTRIENTS
NUTRIENTS
NUTRIENTS

PESTICIDES GP

PRETREATMENT

PRETREATMENT

PRETREATMENT

PRETREATMENT

PRETREATMENT

STORMWATER

STORMWATER

STORMWATER

CSO

CSO

CSO

CSO

ELG

ELG

ELG

ELG

ELG

ELG

ELG

ELG

ELG

ELG
WET
WET

WET
WET
WET

VT0101281
VTO100021

VT0000248
VT0101109

VT0100170
VT0100765

VTPGP
3-0303
3-1410
3-1485
3-1546
3-1475

GP-3-9020

VTR050001

VTR040000
VT0100790
VT0100323
VT0100196
VT0100153

VT0001198

VT0000442

VT0022951

VT0020711

VT0000051

VT0001163

VT0001112

VT0001121

VT0022969

VT0001341
VT0101010
VTO100021

VT0000248
VT0101109

VT0100978

POWNAL
BENNINGTON

FIBERMARK NORTH AMERICA INC

WHITINGHAM

MANCHESTER

WOODSTOCK - TAFTSVILLE

PESTICIDE APPLICATION - GENERAL PERMIT

Energizer Battery - Mini Alkaline

Otter Creek Brewing

Vishay Electronics -Bennington

VT Hard Cider - Exchange St

VT Hard Cider - Pond Rd

STORMWATER - CONSTRUCTION GENERAL
PERMIT

STORMWATER - INDUSTRIAL GENERAL
PERMIT

STORMWATER - MUNICIPAL SEPARATE

STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) - GENERAL

PERMIT

RICHFORD

ST ALBANS CITY

MONTPELIER

BURLINGTON MAIN

EAGLE RIVER MINING

ISOVOLTAINC

S D IRELAND - GREEN ACRES QUARRY
WHITE RIVER NAT'L FISH
ETHAN ALLEN

IMERYS TALC - RAINBOW MINE

PIKE INDUSTRIES (WILLIAMSTOWN QUARRY)

CHAMPLAIN BLACK MARBLE

COLUMBIA FOREST PRODUCTS

IRVING OIL CORP
HARTFORD - WRJ
BENNINGTON

FIBERMARK NORTH AMERICA INC

WHITINGHAM

HARTFORD -QUECHEE

POTW - minor
POTW - Major
NON-POTW -
Major

POTW - minor
POTW - minor
POTW - minor

PESTICIDE

NON-POTW

NON-POTW

NON-POTW

NON-POTW

NON-POTW

STORMWATER

STORMWATER

STORMWATER
POTW - minor
POTW - Major
POTW - Major
POTW - Major
NON-POTW -
minor

NON-POTW -
minor

NON-POTW -
minor

NON-POTW -
minor

NON-POTW -
minor

NON-POTW -
minor

NON-POTW -
minor

NON-POTW -
minor

NON-POTW -
minor

NON-POTW -
minor

POTW - Major
POTW - Major
NON-POTW -
Major

POTW - minor
POTW - minor

The information in Section II is based on the state's responses to PQR questions.

September 2015	Page 6 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

II. STATE PROGRAM BACKGROUND

A. ire

Within the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC), the Watershed
Management Division (WSMD) administers wastewater discharge permits and stormwater
permits. The Direct Discharge Permit Program administers permits for discharges directly to
surface waters as well as indirect dischargers (i.e., pretreatment). The stormwater permits are
administered by the Stormwater Program of the WSMD. The main office for VT DEC is located
in Montpelier. DEC has five regional offices throughout the state; Stormwater Program staff are
located in certain regional offices, however, NPDES Direct Discharge Program staff are not
located in regional offices. Vermont DEC is authorized to administer the core NPDES program,
as well as general permits and the pretreatment program. EPA Region I administers NPDES
permits for federal facilities. The Biosolids Section in WSMD administers the biosolids program
for Vermont pursuant to the Vermont Solid Waste Management Rules.

The Vermont NPDES program has 10 full-time permit writers; 8 are dedicated to stormwater
permits and 2 are dedicated to wastewater permits. Permit writers receive training as well as
internal mentoring to support their development. The Vermont NPDES program is also
supported by staff in the Monitoring, Assessment, and Planning Program (MAPP),
administrative services, wastewater treatment facilities operations and maintenance staff, and
two water quality and two TMDL modelers (one of which is dedicated to the Lake Champlain
TMDL). VT DEC expects to add two additional permit writers to the Direct Discharge Permit
Program in fiscal year 2016. A Program manager designates permit assignments for the direct
discharge and pretreatment permits; stormwater permits are distributed to permit writers
according to seven specific districts.

Vermont permit staff use electronic databases, models, spreadsheets, and document templates
during various phases of permit development. The Division maintains separate databases for
stormwater and wastewater permits. Permit information and data are uploaded to EPA's
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) and NOIs are tracked using a SQL database.
Permit writers currently use spreadsheet analyses for determining reasonable potential (RP)
and to conduct an independent evaluation of dilution calculations used during permit
development.

Permit writers use template documents for permit development, but templates are not used
for fact sheet development. Permit writers use the same type of fact sheet document as a
starting point and for similar types of facilities. Permit writers use several different boilerplate
language sections (e.g., standard conditions, special conditions, and whole effluent toxicity)
that can be added as appropriate for each facility, based on facility type (i.e., municipal or non-
municipal).

Permit writers use a spreadsheet to evaluate reasonable potential (RP). The RP spreadsheet
incorporates data for stream flow and specific pollutants. Division staff, within the MAPP, have
developed the Procedure for Development of WQBELs in NPDES Permits in 2010 - 2011, which
was signed by VT DEC's Commissioner on December 3, 2012. The document supports permit

September 2015

Page 7 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

writers in evaluating RP and developing water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs)
during permit development. In addition, permit writers consult guidance and procedural
documents addressing the Vermont wasteload allocation rule, water quality standards, anti-
degradation policy, CSO policy, waste management zone designation policy, and the water
pollution control regulations. Further, the Division uses the CORMIX, QUAL2, and a modified
Streeter-Phelps model to calculate mixing zones.

As part of the Division's quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) process, wastewater permit
staff review each other's permits as a first-level review, followed by the Program Manager's
review. The Program Manager in the Stormwater group reviews all stormwater permits.
Stormwater permits receive a higher level of review; whereas only high-profile wastewater
permits receive an additional level of review.

Permit files are maintained in paper and electronic formats and are filed at the main office in
Montpelier, as well as at a storage facility off-site. Permit writers maintain hard copy files of
permit development documentation during the permit development and review process,
followed by scanning and electronic storage only. Permit staff scan and electronically store all
correspondence as it is received. Permit staff retain discharger self-monitoring reports and
compliance records in hard copy in the compliance files, for the calendar year, and then in
January of each following year, scan and convert discharger self-monitoring reports and
compliance records to electronic storage. Further, the Enforcement Division maintains a
separate database to track all complaint and compliance enforcement issues. Other permit
documents, not specifically categorized, are scanned and stored electronically upon receipt.

tsc " lance

The WSMD currently administers individual permits for 34 major facilities (30 POTWs and 4
non-municipal) and 149 minor non-stormwater facilities (60 POTWs and 89 non-municipal). A
year earlier when EPA was preparing for the PQR, these numbers were slightly different. Based
on information obtained from VT DEC in July 2014 and conversations with VT DEC staff, WSMD
administered individual permits for 32 major facilities (28 POTWs and 4 non-municipal and 152
minor non-stormwater facilities (59 POTWs and 93 non-municipals.) In addition to these
individual permits, the Division administers 7 stormwater general permits that cover 15
municipal permittees (Phase II municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s)), 850
construction permittees, and 363 industrial permittees. The Division also has 3 non-stormwater
NPDES general permits that address discharges from categories of similar facilities to surface
waters, including discharges from petroleum remediation (state and NPDES permits) and
pesticide applications. In addition, under Vermont's Residual Designation Authority (RDA), in
2009, VT DEC issued General Permit 3-9030 for designated discharges to Bartlett, Centennial,
Englesby, Morehouse, and Potash Brook watersheds. VT DEC designated discharges to these
receiving waters if the discharge is not covered under the NPDES municipal separate storm
sewer system (MS4), another NPDES permit covering stormwater discharges, or has not been
issued a state stormwater discharge permit resulting in no net contribution to the receiving
water. VT DEC plans to designate similar dischargers in the remaining stormwater impaired
watersheds: Allen, Indian, Munroe, Rugg, Stevens, and Sunderland.

September 2015

Page 8 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Based on information obtained from VT DEC in July 2014, approximately 99 permits of the total
universe are backlogged (54% backlogged). Of municipal permits, approximately 87.5% are
backlogged and within the major permits category, approximately 91.2% are backlogged. Since
July 2014, the backlog has decreased. As of July 2015, VT DEC reported that 92 permits of the
total universe are backlogged (48% backlogged), approximately 77.8% of municipal permits are
backlogged and approximately 85.3% of permits in the major category are backlogged. Division
staff indicated permit backlog is due to concerns with implementing TMDLs, notably the Long
Island Sound TMDL and the upcoming Lake Champlain TMDL, and with staffing issues. VT DEC
indicated that with EPA's issuance of the final TMDL for Lake Champlain, the Division will begin
to eliminate this backlog as expeditiously as possible. It should be noted that the Division
employs two wastewater permit writers and as stated previously, plans to add two more to
their staff in FY 2016. It is expected that this will improve Vermont's ability to manage their
workload, issue more permits, and reduce their backlog.

Significant industries in Vermont include semiconductor manufacturing, paper products
production, agriculture, construction, and light manufacturing.

Upon receipt of the wastewater discharge application, administrative staff review it for
administrative completeness and then forward the application to one of the two permit writers
to review it for technical completeness. Permit writers review available data analyses or the
applicant's basis for final design (new facilities only). Administrative staff send a letter
indicating the application is administratively complete and their permit is administratively
extended and authorization to operate continues. Wastewater discharge permits are assigned
to the two wastewater discharge permit writers; if a POTW permit has industrial contributions,
that permit writer will also be responsible for the pretreatment aspect of permit development
and administration.

Notices of Intent (NOIs) to be covered under general permits are also reviewed for
administrative completeness. Inaccurate NOIs are returned to the applicant for correction.
Complete NOIs receive a permit number, logged into the database, and then public noticed for
10 days prior to being assigned to technical staff. Stormwater program staff also review
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) for completeness. Staff then send the
applicant a letter issuing authorization to discharge.

Generally, permits that are renewals without any changes are finalized approximately 100 days
from the date the application is received. For new permits, permit development is dependent
on the applicant and the applicant's consultant's support.

September 2015

Page 9 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

For permit renewals that do not have any changes, permit writers review effluent data and
inspection reports to verify the facility is practicing proper operation and maintenance. Permit
writers will develop calculations for effluent limitations for metals and nutrient parameters and
will seek consultation with MAPP staff for appropriate effluent limitations. Upon receipt of
MAPP's written summary of the data reviewed, conclusion with respect to compliance with
Vermont's WQS and the potential for the discharge to cause or contribute to a water quality
violation, the wastewater permit writer will finalize the permit and provide a 30-day public
notice period for the permit.

For permits to new facilities, permit writers collaborate with operations and maintenance staff
and engineers to review the applicant's basis for final design to ensure the facility can meet
required effluent limitations. Permit writers also work with the applicant to conduct an
antidegradation review for the discharge. Permit writers develop dilution calculations and
provide MAPP staff relevant discharge information (e.g., outfall location, previous permit and
fact sheet, proposed changes in effluent limitations, new incorporation of TMDL WLAs,
receiving stream flows, significant industrial users, sludge quality, summary of recent effluent
monitoring data, initial in-stream dilution calculations, summary of WET data, and results of any
dissolved oxygen modeling) for their evaluation of the need for WQBELs. Upon receipt of MAPP
staff's summary document, permit writers make a finding that water quality is protected and
antidegradation requirements have been met. Permit writers finalize the permit and provide a
30-day public notice period for the permit.

POTW permits contain technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs) based on secondary
treatment standards. TBELs for industrial facilities are based on applicable effluent limitation
guidelines (ELGs) and standards or effluent limitations based on best professional judgment
(BPJ) and examination of permits for similar facilities and discharges.

Fact sheets do not discuss how pollutants of concern are identified. Permit writers use data
from discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) to supplement application data in assessing
reasonable potential (RP). MAPP staff identify pollutants of concern from a water quality
protection aspect and permit writers identify pollutants of concern based on the activity the
applicant proposes (e.g., nutrient-based parameters are identified as pollutants of concern at
quarry operations). WSMD staff evaluate stream monitoring data to assess the receiving water
quality and effluent monitoring data, including compliance information, to identify and
evaluate pollutants of concern to propose effluent limitations. Permit writers collaborate with
MAPP staff to develop effluent limitations. MAPP staff maintain the Watershed Management
Data Portal, an extensive database of water quality monitoring data across the state. Multiple
water quality monitoring groups contribute data to the database. Further, a staff hydrologist
recalculates stream low-flows regularly, based on current monitoring data. WSMD staff use the
low median monthly flow value for nutrient-based parameters and the 7Q10 for other
parameters (e.g., toxics, metals, dissolved oxygen). For dam-controlled water bodies, WSMD
staff use the lowest flow value allowed by the permit. It should be noted that VT WQS do
specify the applicable flow conditions (i.e., low median monthly flow or 7Q10) for certain
criteria parameters.

September 2015

Page 10 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

WSMD developed the Procedure for Development of WQBELs in NPDES Permits in 2010 - 2011
and VT DEC's Commissioner signed the procedural document on December 3, 2012. The
document serves as a guide to WSMD permit writers for developing WQBELs in NPDES permits,
specifically for assessing the receiving waters upstream and downstream of permitted
discharges to determine if there is reasonable potential for the discharge to cause or contribute
to a water quality violation and if so, developing WQBELs for the discharge. The procedure
involves steps implemented independently by MAPP staff and permit writers. Permit writers
first compile relevant discharge information (e.g., outfall location, previous permit and fact
sheet, proposed changes in effluent limitations, new incorporation ofTMDL WLAs, receiving
stream flows, significant industrial users, sludge quality, summary of recent effluent monitoring
data, initial in-stream dilution calculations, summary of WET data, and results of any dissolved
oxygen modeling) for their evaluation of the need for WQBELs. Permit writers consult the
wastewater inventory database that houses all available facility data to provide a summary of
relevant information to MAPP staff. Permit writers develop effluent limitations based on DMR
effluent data, using design flows and absent of background data.

WSMD staff assert theirs is a conservative approach as they factor in a reserve for background
concentrations. MAPP staff first determine the assessment status of the upstream and
downstream waters by reviewing the water quality assessment database, applying best
professional judgment to evaluate downstream waters, and reviewing TMDLs and WLAs
applicable to the water body. Next, MAPP staff assemble biomonitoring and water quality data.
Water quality data are reviewed and summarized for nutrients, dissolved oxygen, pH, hardness,
and metals as available. At a minimum, MAPP staff will consult four databases: Water Quality
(maintained by MAPP staff), Biomonitoring (maintained by WSMD BASS staff), LaRosa
Partnership (maintained by MAPP staff), and the Stormwater Monitoring database. MAPP staff
will also consult other external databases if data quality are adequate (e.g., Fish and Wildlife
database, universities, and private organizations). MAPP staff will then evaluate the "expected,
mixed, in-stream concentrations" of specific pollutants: total phosphorus, total nitrogen,
ammonia, total chlorine residual, metals, and other toxics of specific concern for the discharge.
MAPP staff will provide permit writers a written summary of the data reviewed and provide a
statement regarding the status of the receiving water with respect to WQS and the potential for
the discharge to cause or contribute to a water quality violation. The written summary becomes
a part of the administrative record.

MS4 Stormwater permits contain TBELs based on the minimum control measures. Further,
stormwater permits contain language requiring the discharge to not cause or contribute to a
stream impairment. Applicants are required to indicate in the NOI if the discharge is to an
impaired water body. The construction general permit uses a risk factor assessment that drives
which BMPs are required to be implemented.

WSMD developed a monitoring protocol in 2007 - 2008 that describes the method by which
monitoring requirements are determined. Permit writers consider the facility's size, compliance
history, discharge location relative to a water quality-affected segment, and the facility's
disinfection practice. WSMD staff indicated that ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is more prevalent
than disinfection using chlorination. WSMD staff indicated that with newer application

September 2015

Page 11 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

requirements, all major facilities are required to conduct four WET tests and three priority
pollutant scans. In addition, WSMD staff noted that for WET monitoring, the application
requirements are the minimum requirements established. Permit writers may require more
frequent WET monitoring if the facility has demonstrated toxicity issues, or if there are
compliance issues. WSMD staff noted that few facilities have exhibited toxicity concerns.
Permits contain reporting requirements as well; generally, reports are submitted on a quarterly
basis. Permits may also specify specific monitoring studies as appropriate.

Permits include narrative conditions to implement narrative water quality standards (e.g., "free
from floating debris, oil, scum, and other floating materials...") within the effluent limitations
section of the permit. Further, narrative conditions in Vermont permits generally address
requirements related to pollution prevention, dry weather flows, influent monitoring, WET, and
sewer ordinance and contributing waste streams.

WSMD staff uses boilerplate language to generate the standard conditions for the permit.
Standard conditions are included in the General Conditions section of the permit and are based
on Federal regulation and Vermont regulation. Permits also contain standard definitions. Some
standard conditions are lacking from the permits and some are not verbatim to the 40 CFR
122.41 standard conditions.

Permit writers draft fact sheets for facilities that discharge more than 0.5 MGD and draft fact
sheets concurrent with permit development. Permit writers do not use a template for fact
sheets, but they use the same type of document as a starting point and use the same working
document for similar facility types. Permit writers indicate the presence of the previous fact
sheets only in the permit file inventory; typically fact sheets do not reference previous fact
sheets. WSMD staff noted archived documents are retained electronically as far back as 1971.

Section 401 Water Quality Certifications are conducted by staff in the MAPP, Wetlands or Lakes
Programs, within the Watershed Management Division.

WSMD staff are responsible for providing the public notice of the draft permit. The public
comment period lasts 30 days for general and individual permits and 10 days for NOIs and
comments received during that period are included in the administrative record. Notices are
distributed to the town clerk, permittee, and list of interested parties; the draft permit and
public notice are posted on VT DEC's website. WSMD's responses to comments received are
included as an attachment to the final permit. Changes made to a permit also result in changes
to the fact sheet; WSMD staff use italicized font to indicate where changes were made in
response to a comment. WSMD staff indicated that hearings are rare. WSMD staff indicated
that there have been no objections or appeals on Vermont NPDES permits since 2009.

September 2015

Page 12 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

reports are maintained in chronological order in the enforcement and compliance file as part of
the administrative record.

The state's Antidegradation Policy is contained in Section 1-03 of the Water Quality Standards.
DEC's commissioner signed the interim implementation policy ("Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, Interim Anti-degradation
Implementation Procedure") on October 12, 2010. WSMD staff indicated an anti-degradation
review is not conducted if there are no changes and no increase in discharge. Further, if an
applicant sought an expansion, WSMD would retain the limit from the previous permit and
require the facility to install treatment to comply with effluent limitations. Decisions arising
from antidegradation reviews are documented in the fact sheet.

WSMD staff indicated that anti-backsliding requirements are rarely triggered in permits;
typically, more stringent limitations from the previous permit are carried forward unless there
is justification for a less stringent effluent limitation. WSMD staff indicated the last occurrence
of anti-backsliding was during permit development in 2007 when new standards for E.coli were
instituted.

Permit writers and MAPP staff review the Integrated Report to identify impaired water bodies
and applicable TMDLs. WSMD staff noted they have delayed permit issuance for some facilities
awaiting approval of a TMDL for phosphorus; the permits were administratively continued at
the current discharge levels. For example, Vermont will reissue the Lake Champlain permits
once the TMDL is finalized. However, Vermont has already started reissuing the Long Island
Sound permits after the Long Island Sound Permitting Plan was approved. WSMD and MAPP
staff indicated they will still conduct a RP evaluation even where a TMDL is in effect, for
evaluation of effects further downstream.

Vermont water quality standards establish criteria for E. coli.

Permits require the use of analytical methods authorized in 40 CFR 136. Permits do not include
language specifically requiring the use of sufficiently sensitive analytical methods.

C. State-Specific Challenges

In August 2008 a petition was initiated for EPA to withdraw its approval for Vermont to
administer the NPDES program based on a number of allegations related to the implementation
and enforcement of the NPDES program. Permitting related issues raised in the petition
included the adequacy of water quality-based effluent limits in permits and anti-degradation.
Over the next five years EPA and VT DEC evaluated the various issues raised by this petition. A
subsequent productive dialog among EPA, DEC and the petitioners resulted in a 2013 Interim
Response and Corrective Action Plan. As of the date of the PQR visit, VT DEC has completed all
of the corrective actions agreed upon in the Interim Response and Corrective Action Plan with
one exception. The exception was a legislative constraint on regulating municipal discharges of
phosphorus where DEC has agreed to take interim measures that ensure its permits are
consistent with the Clean Water Act while the permanent legislative corrective action is
pursued. Since the PQR process started, this constraint was revoked by statute by the Vermont

September 2015

Page 13 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Legislature during the 2015 legislative session. The results of the various corrective actions
have resulted in a number of NPDES program improvements. Some of these improvements are
reflected in this PQR, particularly in the area of instituting general written procedures for
determining reasonable potential and, when appropriate, establishing water quality-based
effluent limits in permits.

Vermont NPDES staff identified that an additional current state priority is the completion of the
upcoming revised Lake Champlain TMDL. The TMDL was the subject of litigation, and EPA
acknowledges that in this particular atypical situation, there have been delays in permitting in
this watershed. Establishing waste load allocations as part of the Lake Champlain TMDL
process will facilitate permit development for a number of wastewater NPDES permits that
have been administratively continued in the Lake Champlain watershed.

Staffing in the face of new work demands also was identified by VT DEC as a current challenge.
For example, WSMD currently employs two wastewater permit writers who are also
responsible for the pretreatment program. Their pretreatment workload has increased greatly
due to the recent influx of breweries and additional dairies into the state of Vermont.

Therefore, staff resources present a challenge as it directly relates to permit backlog rates.

D. Current State Initiatives

Vermont NPDES staff have taken initiative in converting hard copy permit and enforcement files
to electronic files through an extensive file scanning effort. The NPDES program is the leader
within DEC to convert hard copy files for electronic storage. Further, DEC completed a Lean
Government event that resulted in streamlining the public notice process using a web-based
system. In addition, WSMD staff noted they plan to hire two additional wastewater permit
writers during FY 2016. According to VT DEC, funding of these two positions was secured by
legislative action in the 2015 session through increases in application and annual operating
fees.

III. CORE REVIEW FINDINGS

A. Basic Facility Information ami Permit Application
1. Facility Information

Basic facility information is necessary to properly establish permit conditions. For example,
information regarding facility type, location, processes and other factors is required by NPDES
permit application regulations (40 CFR 122.21). This information is essential for developing
technically sound, complete, clear and enforceable permits. Similarly, fact sheets must include
a description of the type of facility or activity subject to a draft permit.

The ten Vermont NPDES permits and fact sheets reviewed during the core review include
permit issuance, effective, and expiration dates, authorized signatures, and specific
authorization to discharge information. The fact sheets reviewed include a basic description of
the facility, including general location, and the treatment process; the level of detail varied

September 2015

Page 14 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

among the fact sheets reviewed. Fact sheets for the municipal permits reviewed contain
detailed descriptions of the wastewater treatment process. Facility descriptions in fact sheets
for the non-municipal permits reviewed provide a general description of plant operations and
wastewater treatment processes. Permits and fact sheets identify the receiving waterbody by
name and surface water classification. Fact sheets lack specific location of the outfall using
latitude and longitude information; however, this information is included in the applications for
the permits reviewed. Further, generally fact sheets lack a clear description of the location
within the receiving waterbody, or name of the stream segment, where the discharge occurs.

In general, the permits and fact sheets reviewed lack process flow diagrams. VT DEC stated
that flow diagrams are presented in a facility's original application and are not recreated in
each subsequent fact sheet unless there is a change in the process. Although it is a regulation
that flow diagrams are included in a permit application, VT should consider including a flow
diagram in the fact sheet or permit for additional clarity. Most of the fact sheets reviewed
include aerial photographs, using Google Earth View, to depict facility locations. All permits list
the name of the facility and address on the permit cover page.

2. Permit Application Requirements

Federal regulations at 40 CFR122.21 and 122.22 specify application requirements for
permittees seeking NPDES permits. Although federal forms are available, authorized states are
also permitted to use their own forms provided they include all information required by the
federal regulations. This portion of the review assesses whether appropriate, complete, and
timely application information was received by the state and used in permit development.

WSMD administrative staff send out renewal reminder letters approximately six to eight weeks
prior to the application due date. Vermont DEC uses state application forms, some of which
were updated as recently as September 2012. Permit application form WR-82 10 V.S.A. Chapter
47 is required for all applicants and was revised in September 2012. Schedule A (WR-82A) is
required for applicants for municipal treatment plants and Schedule B (WR-82B) is required for
applicants for industrial/commercial/institutional facilities. Federal regulations established at
40 CFR 122.21(j)(3)(i) require applicants to provide outfall locations, including
latitude/longitude information. Vermont's form WR-82 indicates latitude/longitude information
is optional and Schedule A does not require submittal of latitude and longitude information. In
addition, 40 CFR 122.21(g)(4)(ii) requires every applicant provide analytical results for certain
parameters (BOD, fecal coliform, design flow rate, pH, temperature, and TSS). For facilities with
a design capacity greater than or equal to 0.1 million gallons per day (MGD), 40 CFR
122.21(j)(4)(iii) requires results for specific parameters (ammonia, chlorine, dissolved oxygen,
nitrate-nitrite, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, oil and grease, phosphorus, and total dissolved solids).
Further, 40 CFR 122.21(j)(5)(i) and (ii) require submittal of WET results and for facilities with a
design capacity greater than or equal to 1 MGD priority pollutants, respectively. However,
Schedule A does not require submittal of analytical data for any parameters. For industrial
applicants, federal regulations established at 40 CFR 122.21(g)(1) require applicants to provide
outfall locations, including latitude/longitude information. Schedule B does not require
submittal of latitude and longitude information. In addition, 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(iii) requires

September 2015

Page 15 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

every applicant provide analytical results for certain parameters (BOD, COD, TOC, TSS,
ammonia, temperature, and pH); 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7)(v) requires data for primary industry
categories; and 40 CFR 122.21(g)(ll) requires indication of WET tests conducted within the last
three years. Schedule B, section B-14, instructs applicants to provide data for certain
parameters only for those parameters which the applicant knows or has reason to believe are
present. As such, most of the applications reviewed lacked effluent data required by 40 CFR
122.21. Vermont plans to revise applicable forms to ensure they conform to federal
requirements.

All applications reviewed in the permit file contained appropriate signatures. Eight of the
applications reviewed were received at least 180 days prior to permit expiration.

¦ :hnology-based Efflue

NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 125.3(a) require that permitting authorities develop technology-
based requirements where applicable. Permits, fact sheets and other supporting
documentation for POTWs and non-POTWs were reviewed to assess whether technology based
effluent limitations (TBELs) represent the minimum level of control that must be imposed in a
permit.

1. TBELs for POTWs

POTWs must meet secondary or equivalent to secondary standards (including limits for BODs,
TSS, pH, and percent pollutant removal), and must contain numeric limits for all of these
parameters (or authorized alternatives) in accordance with the secondary treatment
regulations at 40 CFR Part 133. A total of five POTW permits were reviewed as part of the VT
PQR core review.

Vermont permits contain effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS in appropriate units and forms.
POTW permits contain technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs) based on secondary
treatment standards.

40 CFR 133.102(a) and (b) require the 30-day average percent removal shall not be less than
85% for BOD5 and TSS. Permits for municipal facilities establish minimum percent removal
requirements consistent with secondary treatment standards. All of the municipal permits
reviewed establish influent monitoring requirements for BOD5 and TSS.

2, TBELs for Non-POTW Dischargers

Permits issued to non-POTWs must require compliance with a level of treatment performance
equivalent to Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) or Best Conventional
Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for existing sources, and consistent with New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for new sources. Where federal effluent limitation guidelines
(ELGs) have been developed for a category of dischargers, the TBELs in a permit must be based
on the application of these guidelines. If ELGs are not available, a permit must include
requirements at least as stringent as BAT/BCT developed on a case-by-case using best
professional judgment (BPJ) in accordance with the criteria outlined at 40 CFR 125.3(d).

September 2015

Page 16 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Five non-POTW permits were reviewed during the core review, two of which were subject to
ELGs. ELGs were applied in the development of effluent limitations in the permit for the paper
making facility and the seasonal log spraying facility; effluent limitations based on the ELGs are
in the correct units and form.

Fact sheets for these facilities include a general description of facility operations, waste streams
produced and wastewater treatment processes. Both fact sheets reviewed lack discussion of
expected pollutants in the discharge. The fact sheets for both non-POTW permits reviewed for
which ELGs applied (VT0000248 and VT0022969) lack discussion of facility categorization and
specific reference to whether effluent limitations are based on BCT, BPT, or BAT.

The fact sheet for the paper making facility (VT0000248) presents calculated values both for
subcategory limits and final limits; however, the final limit results are unclear. The fact sheet
would benefit from more information and explanation of the calculations of TBELs.

The fact sheet for the seasonal log spraying facility (VT0022969) briefly mentions categorization
and further, states the facility manufactures veneer; however, the fact sheet lacks discussion of
why 40 CFR 429 Subpart B does not apply to the discharge from the facility. Although the
facility in this case did not discharge wastewater from the manufacturing of veneer, a sentence
stating this fact would provide clarity about the process.

C. Water Quality-Based iff!

The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) require permits to include any requirements in
addition to or more stringent than technology-based requirements where necessary to achieve
state water quality standards, including narrative criteria for water quality. To establish such
"water quality-based effluent limits" (WQBEL), the permitting authority must evaluate the
proposed discharge and determine whether technology-based requirements are sufficiently
stringent, and whether any pollutants or pollutant parameters could cause or contribute to an
excursion above any applicable water quality standard.

The PQR for VT DEC assessed the processes employed by permit writers and water quality
modelers to implement these requirements. Specifically, the PQR reviewed permits, fact
sheets, and other documents in the administrative record to evaluate how permit writers and
water quality modelers:

•	determined the appropriate water quality standards applicable to receiving waters,

•	evaluated and characterized the effluent and receiving water including identifying
pollutants of concern,

•	determined critical conditions,

•	incorporated information on ambient pollutant concentrations,

•	assessed any dilution considerations,

•	determined whether limits were necessary for pollutants of concern and, where
necessary,

September 2015

Page 17 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

• calculated such limits or other permit conditions.

For impaired waters, the PQR also assessed whether and how permit writers consulted and
developed limits consistent with the assumptions of applicable EPA-approved total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs).

The cover page of the permits and the fact sheets reviewed identify the receiving stream,
applicable classification, and designated uses of the receiving streams. Two of the ten fact
sheets reviewed discuss the impairment status of a stream, and of those that discharge to an
impaired stream, there were no TMDLs that had been developed.

Fact sheets consistently address each parameter that is either limited or monitored; however,
they do not discuss pollutants of concern thoroughly and do not describe why the limited
parameters are appropriate to limit for the facility.

As stated previously, WSMD developed the Procedure for Development of WQBELs in NPDES
Permits in 2010 - 2011. The document serves as a guide to WSMD permit writers for
developing WQBELs in NPDES permits, specifically, assessing if there is reasonable potential for
the discharge to cause or contribute to a water quality violation and if so, developing WQBELs
for the discharge. The procedure involves steps implemented independently by MAPP staff and
permit writers. MAPP staff provide permit writers a written summary of the data reviewed and
provide a statement regarding the status of the receiving water with respect to WQS and the
potential for the discharge to cause or contribute to a water quality violation. The written
summary becomes a part of the administrative record. The MAPP memo provides general
procedures rather than a detailed description of the methodology and assumptions for the RP
assessment, and often these are absent from the Fact Sheets as well. It is a regulatory
requirement to perform a reasonable potential analysis and include "any calculations or other
necessary explanation of the derivation of specific effluent limitations" in the fact sheet (40 CFR
124.56). Although VT would be meeting the basic regulatory requirement by including
calculations, the fact sheets would be greatly enhanced if they included a brief, but clear
explanation of the RP methodology.

The 2010-2011 Procedure involves use of best professional judgment for some aspects of the
water quality investigation such as how far downstream to investigate. In addition, the
Procedure is non-prescriptive in how to weigh various factors in making WQ-related permit
determinations and the amount of documentation regarding the determination of a WQBEL to
include in the memo that summarizes the data and provides conclusions. As an outcome,
permit files generally lack sufficient evidence of how the effluent limitation was developed. The
MAPP memo provides summary information; however, the permit files lack detailed
information regarding effluent limitation development. In addition, WQBELs established in the
permits reviewed are established as maximum values only (e.g., daily maximum or
instantaneous maximum); there are no long-term average WQBELs established in the permits
reviewed. According to Section 6.3.2.4 of EPA's Permit Writers' Manual, permit writers need
to document the details of the reasonable potential analysis in the NPDES permit fact sheet.
The permit writer should clearly identify the information and procedures used to determine the

September 2015

Page 18 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

need for WQBELs. The goal of that documentation is to provide the NPDES permit applicant and
the public a transparent, reproducible, and defensible description of how each pollutant was
evaluated, including the basis (i.e., reasonable potential analysis) for including or not including
a WQBEL for any pollutant of concern.

A formal antidegradation analysis is conducted for new and increased discharges. This
additional analysis was documented for the Hartford-Quechee permit (VT0100978), which had
an increase in the discharge due to an upgrade of the facility, and Barnet Hydro Company
(VT0120013), which represented a new discharge.

D. Monitoring and Reporting

NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.41(j) require permittees to periodically evaluate compliance
with the effluent limitations established in their permits and provide the results to the
permitting authority. Monitoring and reporting conditions require the permittee to conduct
routine or episodic self-monitoring of permitted discharges and where applicable, internal
processes, and report the analytical results to the permitting authority with information
necessary to evaluate discharge characteristics and compliance status.

Specifically, 40 CFR 122.44(i) requires NPDES permits to establish, at minimum, annual
monitoring for all limited parameters sufficient to assure compliance with permit limitations,
including specific requirements for the types of information to be provided and the methods for
the collection and analysis of such samples. In addition, 40 CFR 122.48 requires that permits
specify the type, intervals, and frequency of monitoring sufficient to yield data which are
representative of the monitored activity. The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i) also require
reporting of monitoring results with a frequency dependent on the nature and effect of the
discharge.

The core permits reviewed establish at least annual monitoring for all limited parameters and at
frequencies appropriate to determine compliance with effluent limitations. All of the core
permits indicate monitoring shall be conducted at the outfall location (e.g., "outfall serial No.
001"). Six of the ten core permits reviewed require WET monitoring; three of the six permits
reviewed require acute and chronic WET monitoring.

All core permits indicate sample collection and analysis shall be in compliance with procedures
pursuant to 40 CFR 136. Permits reviewed did not appear to consistently specify that
sufficiently-sensitive analytical methods be used. VT DEC plans to address this issue. All core
permits required results of all monitoring of permitted discharges conducted using approved
methods to be submitted to VT WSMD on a regular basis, generally monthly; six of the ten core
permits reviewed required monthly reporting.

E. Stand eel

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41 require that all NPDES permits, including NPDES general
permits, contain an enumerated list of "standard" permit conditions. Further, the regulations at
40 CFR 122.42 require that NPDES permits for certain categories of dischargers must contain

September 2015

Page 19 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

additional standard conditions. Permitting authorities must include these conditions in NPDES
permits and may not alter or omit any standard condition, unless such alteration or omission
results in a requirement more stringent than required by the federal regulations.

In addition to standard permit conditions, permits may also contain additional requirements
that are unique to a particular permittee or discharger. These case-specific requirements are
generally referred to as "special conditions." Special conditions might include requirements
such as: additional monitoring or special studies such as pollutant management plan or a
mercury minimization plan; best management practices [see 40 CFR 122.44(k)], or permit
compliance schedules [see 40 CFR 122.47], Where a permit contains special conditions, such
conditions must be consistent with applicable regulations.

Common special conditions in the core permits reviewed generally address requirements
related to pollution prevention, dry weather flows, influent monitoring, WET, and sewer
ordinance and contributing waste streams.

WSMD staff uses boilerplate language to generate the standard conditions for the permit.
Standard conditions are included in the General Conditions section of the permit and are based
on Federal and Vermont regulations. Permits also contain standard definitions. Some standard
conditions are lacking from the permits and some are not verbatim to the 40 CFR 122.41
standard conditions. Vermont permits lack the following standard conditions required by: 40
CFR 122.41(c) (need to halt or reduce activity not a defense); 122.41(l)(8) (other information);
122.41(m)(l)(i)-(ii) (bypass definitions); 122.41(m)(2) (bypass not exceeding limitations);
122.41(n)(l) (upset definition); 122.41(n)(2) (effect of an upset); 122.41(n)(3) (conditions
necessary for a demonstration of upset); 122.41(n)(4) (burden of proof); and 122.42(b)(l)-(3)
(additional reporting for POTWs). No condition was identified that provides a general duty to
provide information (122.41.(h)), although the permits include reporting requirements (I.E.2),
and notice requirements for modifications, changes (II.A.l), and transfers (II.B.2). No condition
was identified that specified the schedule for compliance schedule reporting was identified
(122.41(l)(5)). Standard condition language that differs than Federal regulation includes duty to
comply in that it does not list penalty amounts; duty to mitigate uses more general language;
proper operation and maintenance lacks QA procedures required by Federal regulation.

Further, language addressing inspection and entry, planned changes, and twenty-four hour
reporting differs from Federal regulation.

All of the municipal permits include the additional standard condition regarding notification of
new introduction of pollutants and industrial users (40 CFR 122.42(b)); however, three of the
five non-municipal permits contained the additional standard condition regarding notification
levels (40 CFR 122.42(a)).

F. Administrative Process

The administrative process includes documenting the basis of all permit decisions (40 CFR 124.5
and 40 CFR 124.6); coordinating EPA and state review of the draft (or proposed) permit (40 CFR
123.44); providing public notice (40 CFR 124.10); conducting hearings if appropriate (40 CFR
124.11 and 40 CFR 124.12); responding to public comments (40 CFR 124.17); and, modifying a

September 2015

Page 20 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

permit (if necessary) after issuance (40 124.5). EPA discussed each element of the
administrative process with VT DEC, and reviewed materials from the administrative process as
they related to the core permit review.

The permit records reviewed were well-organized. The permit records for the core permits
contain appropriate public notice documents that indicate public notice procedures were
implemented accordingly. In general, the cover letter for each permit indicated whether or not
comments were received. However, a few cover letters (e.g., Bennington, Barnet Hydro,
Burlington, and Richford) did not indicate the presence or absence of comments. VT DEC
should ensure that this information is included in all cover letters.

G, :ord

The administrative record is the foundation that supports the NPDES permit. If EPA issues the
permit, 40 CFR 124.9 identifies the required content of the administrative record for a draft
permit and 40 CFR 124.18 identifies the requirements for a final permit. Authorized state
programs should have equivalent documentation. The record should contain the necessary
documentation to justify permit conditions. At a minimum, the administrative record for a
permit should contain the permit application and supporting data; draft permit; fact sheet or
statement of basis; all items cited in the statement of basis or fact sheet including calculations
used to derive the permit limitations; meeting reports; correspondence between the applicant
and regulatory personnel; all other items supporting the file; final response to comments; and,
for new sources where EPA issues the permit, any environmental assessment, environmental
impact statement, or finding of no significant impact.

Current regulations require that fact sheets include information regarding the type of facility or
activity permitted, the type and quantity of pollutants discharged, the technical, statutory, and
regulatory basis for permit conditions, the basis and calculations for effluent limits and
conditions, the reasons for application of certain specific limits, rationales for variances or
alternatives, contact information, and procedures for issuing the final permit. Generally, the
administrative record includes the permit application, the draft permit, any fact sheet or
statement of basis, documents cited in the fact sheet or statement of basis, and other
documents contained in the supporting file for the permit.

Fact sheets for the core permits reviewed are of good quality and include a general discussion
explaining the basis for the requirements in permits. However, it should be noted that two of
the ten core permits reviewed did not have fact sheets. Both of these permits (VT0001341 and
VT0120013) were for minor facilities. While a fact sheet or a statement of basis is not a
regulatory requirement of all state-issued minor permits, such documentation is highly
recommended for public transparency, documentation for future reference, and to make
permits defensible in the event of a challenge. The fact sheets reviewed for major facilities
address each parameter for which effluent limitations or monitoring requirements are
established but they do not provide explanation for why they are considered pollutants of
concern. Fact sheets lack a thorough discussion of RP evaluations and WQBELs development.
The administrative record for most permits reviewed included a MAPP memo summarizing the

September 2015

Page 21 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

RP evaluation; however, the memo lacks description of the RP methodology. Further, fact
sheets do not comment on antidegradation or anti-backsliding requirements even in general
terms. Overall, fact sheets did not provide sufficient information to fully understand the basis of
specific effluent limitations. For example, a fact sheet for a non-municipal facility (VT0000248)
does not describe the process by which final effluent limitations are selected.

WSMD's administrative record is kept in hard-copy and electronic format and is comprised of
two basic components: the permit development file and enforcement and compliance file. The
permit development file contained the permit, fact sheet, application, correspondence, public
notice documents, comments received during the public comment period, and other
documents supporting the development of the draft permit conditions. DMRs and inspection
reports were also reviewed as part of a separate file within the administrative record. Permit
files do not contain extensive documentation regarding RP evaluation and effluent limitation
development.

1. Documentation of Effluent Limitations

Permit records for POTWs and industrial facilities should contain comprehensive
documentation of the development of all effluent limitations. Technology-based effluent limits
should include assessment of applicable standards, data used in developing effluent limitations,
and actual calculations used to develop effluent limitations. The procedures implemented for
determining the need for water quality-based effluent limitations as well as the procedures
explaining the basis for establishing, or for not establishing, water quality-based effluent
limitations should be clear and straight forward. The permit writer should adequately
document changes from the previous permit, ensure draft and final limitations match (unless
the basis for a change is documented), and include all supporting documentation in the permit
file.

Overall, permit records lack details regarding the basis for effluent limitations and calculations.
Permit records would be improved with a discussion of the basis of the original effluent
limitation. Further, it was not evident that permit writers perform a comparison of TBELs and
WQBELs, and that the most stringent effluent limitation was selected.

For the core permits reviewed, documentation of the basis for TBELs generally lacks detail. The
fact sheets for the non-municipal permits reviewed do not include a detailed description of
facility operations, expected waste streams, and wastewater treatment processes. The fact
sheet for a paper making facility (VT0000248) includes calculations of effluent limitations based
on ELGs but does not identify if the limitations are based on BPT, BCT, or BAT. Further, the fact
sheet does not clearly identify how the final TBELs were determined. For the second non-
municipal permit reviewed, the seasonal log spraying facility (VT0022969), the fact sheet briefly
mentions categorization and states the facility manufactures veneer; however, the fact sheet
lacks discussion of why 40 CFR 429 Subpart B does not apply to the discharge from the facility.
As stated in Section III.B.2, although the facility in this case did not discharge wastewater from
the manufacturing of veneer, a sentence stating this fact would provide clarity about the
process.

September 2015

Page 22 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

With regard to the documentation of WQBELs, the core permit fact sheets reviewed identify
the receiving stream, classification, and designated uses of the water body. While fact sheets
consistently include discussion of all limited parameters, they do not specifically identify why
they are considered pollutants of concern. The MAPP memo provides summary information;
however, the permit files lack detailed information regarding effluent limitation development.
The basis for effluent limitations in the fact sheets reviewed is generally a continuation of
effluent limitations from the previous permit. Even if the majority of permits reviewed were
renewals with no requested changes from current permit, the explanation from the previous
permit's fact sheets should be provided or summarized in the new permit's fact sheet.

The fact sheets generally lack discussion of antidegradation and anti-backsliding requirements.
A general discussion of these two topics is recommended, with a more specific explanation
needed for permits when either antidegradation or anti-backsliding requirements are triggered.

H. ]

National topic areas are aspects of the NPDES permit program that warrant review based on
the specific requirements applicable to the selected topic areas. These topic areas have been
determined to be important on a national scale. National topic areas are reviewed for all state
PQRs. The national topics areas are: nutrients, pesticides, pretreatment and stormwater.

I. Nutrients

For more than a decade, both nitrogen and phosphorus pollution has consistently ranked as
one of the top causes of degradation of surface waters in the U.S. Since 1998, EPA has worked
at reducing the levels and impacts of nutrient pollution and, as a key part in this effort, has
provided support to States to encourage the development, adoption and implementation of
numeric nutrient criteria as part of their water quality standards (see the EPA's National
Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria). In a 2011 memo to the EPA regions
titled Working in Partnerships with States to Address Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution
through use of a Framework for State Nutrient Reductions, the Agency announced a framework
for managing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution that, in part, relies on the use of NPDES
permits to reduce nutrient loading in targeted or priority watersheds.

Background

When the permits were reviewed for the PQR process, Vermont had a combination of numeric
and/or narrative nutrient water quality standards for fresh waters.

Phosphorus

• TP shall not exceed 0.01 mg/l at low median monthly flow for streams above
2500 ft. elevation.

• Discharges to lakes, ponds, and reservoirs with drainage areas less than 40
square miles, and their tributaries, shall not increase instream total phosphorus
by more than 0.001 mg/l at low median monthly flow.

September 2015

Page 23 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

•	TP criteria for Lake Champlain range from 0.01 mg/l - 0.054 mg/l.

•	TP loadings shall not contribute to the acceleration of eutrophication or the
stimulation of aquatic biota growth that prevents full support of uses.

Nitrogen

•	Nitrates shall not exceed 5.0 mg/l in lakes, ponds, or reservoirs.

•	Nitrates shall not exceed 5.0 mg/l at low median monthly flow in class B waters
and shall not exceed 2.0 mg/l at low median monthly flow in class A1 and A2
waters.

•	In all waters nitrates shall be limited so that they will not contribute to the
acceleration of eutrophication, or the stimulation of the growth of aquatic biota,
in a manner that prevents the full support of uses.

To assess how nutrients are addressed in the VT NPDES permitting program, EPA Region I
reviewed six permits (five POTWs and one non-POTW) as part of the PQR National Topic area
nutrient review. These permits are as follows:

Review





Facility Type

Focus

NPDES ID

Facility Name

Indicator

NUTRIENTS

VT0101281

POWNAL

POTW - minor

NUTRIENTS

VT0100021

BENNINGTON

POTW - Major





FIBERMARK NORTH AMERICA

NON-POTW -

NUTRIENTS

VT0000248

INC

Major

NUTRIENTS

VT0101109

WHITINGHAM

POTW - minor

NUTRIENTS

VT0100170

MANCHESTER

POTW - minor

NUTRIENTS

VT0100765

WOODSTOCK - TAFTSVILLE

POTW - minor

Program Strengths

Vermont has a very capable technical staff who have recently developed combined numeric
criteria for total phosphorus and corresponding biologic response indicators for lakes and
ponds (other than Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog) as well as medium and high
gradient streams. These combined criteria have been adopted by Vermont and were submitted
to EPA for review and approval in 2014. Vermont had previously adopted (and EPA had
approved) numeric phosphorus criteria for Lake Champlain and Lake

Memphremagog. Additionally, Vermont has just recently developed procedures for conducting
reasonable potential analyses for nutrients and the same capable technical staff that is
developing the criteria also conduct the reasonable potential analyses.

September 2015

Page 24 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Critical Findings

Of the concerns EPA found in reviewing these permits, most related to the adequacy of the
reasonable potential analyses and the incompleteness of the documentation in the Fact Sheets.
While a significant tool for enhancing permit documentation and quality, VT's written
procedures for conducting and documenting the reasonable potential analyses could be more
prescriptive in how to handle situations such as those described below. Alternatively, the
administrative record for a particular permit could provide a more complete analysis and
explanation.

• While Vermont has recently been conducting reasonable potential analyses for
nutrients in permits, the Manchester and Whitingham permits do not contain a
reasonable potential analysis. A reasonable potential analysis would be expected based
on the NPDES regulations and Vermont's procedures.

o It should be noted that the Manchester facility was the first facility to go through
the reasonable potential analysis process, prior to its signature, and during the
initial run of the procedure. According to VT DEC, a memo was never developed
at that time, however additional monitoring requirements were imposed in the
permit by the permit analysts as a result of the RP process that was being
developed. For Whitingham, VT DEC stated that it was a unique facility that
discharges approximately .0123 MGD to the forebay of a very large reservoir (of
approximately 69,000 acre-feet.) Since the IWC for the Whitingham WWTF
discharge was 0.00000045 mg/L and MAPP does not have the biomonitoring
procedures in place for this type of system, no reasonable potential analysis was
submitted.

• The reasonable potential analyses conducted include an evaluation of available
upstream ambient data but do not indicate if the data is representative of low flow
conditions. Identifying the flow conditions in the RP Memo is consistent with the MAPP
Procedures, so flow conditions should be documented. Additionally, the reasonable
potential analyses generally do not include a description of effluent pollutant levels.

• Reasonable potential conclusions are not based on appropriate worst case discharge
and receiving water conditions but are based on a comparison of upstream and
downstream ambient data. Potential downstream reaches that might be more sensitive
to nutrient loads than the immediate receiving water are not discussed.

• Where there is reasonable potential to exceed criteria, bioassessment data from a single
downstream site has been used to conclude that there is no reasonable potential (see
Bennington). In such cases where limited bioassessment data is available, VT should
consider requiring further biomonitoring assessment as a permit condition, as has been
done in the Bennington permit.

September 2015

Page 25 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

• The reasonable potential analyses are not included in Fact Sheets. The lack of available
information on receiving water and effluent discharge quality, as well as reasonable
potential analysis conclusions, make it difficult to have meaningful public input.

2. Pesticides

On October 31, 2011, the EPA issued a final NPDES Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for
Discharges from the Application of Pesticides. This action was in response to a 2009 decision by
the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (National Cotton Council of America v. EPA. 553 F.3d 927
(6th Circuit 2009)) in which the court vacated EPA's 2006 Final Rule on Aquatic Pesticides
(71 Fed. Reg. 68483, November 27, 2006) and found that point source discharges of biological
pesticides and chemical pesticides that leave a residue, into waters of the U.S. were pollutants
under the CWA. The federal PGP applies where the EPA is the permitting authority. All
delegated state NPDES authorities, including Vermont, have issued state pesticide general
permits.

Background

On January 7, 2009, the Sixth Circuit vacated the EPA's 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule under a
plain language reading of the CWA. National Cotton Council of America v. EPA. 553 F.3d 927
(6th Circuit 2009). The Court held that the CWA unambiguously includes "biological pesticides"
and "chemical pesticides that leave a residue" within its definition of "pollutant." In response to
this decision, on April 9, 2009, EPA requested a two-year stay of the mandate to provide the
Agency time to develop general permits, to assist NPDES-authorized states to develop their
NPDES permits, and to provide outreach and education to the regulated community. On June 8,
2009, the Sixth Circuit granted EPA the two-year stay of the mandate. On March 28, 2011, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted EPA's request for an extension to allow more
time for pesticide operators to obtain permits for pesticide discharges into U.S. waters. The
court's decision extended the deadline for when permits would be required from April 9, 2011
to October 31, 2011.

As a result of the Court's decision to vacate the 2006 NPDES Pesticides Rule, NPDES permits are
required for discharges of biological pesticides and of chemical pesticides that leave a residue,
to waters of the United States. EPA proposed a draft pesticide general permit on June 4, 2010
to cover certain discharges resulting from pesticide applications. The EPA Regional offices and
state NPDES authorities may issue additional general permits or individual permits if needed.

On November 9, 2011, the VT DEC issued its own NPDES Pesticides General Permit. The general
permit is effective from October 31, 2011 to October 31, 2016. Eligibility criteria are contained
within Part 1.1 of the General Permit.

For the 2014 Vermont PQR, the EPA reviewed the VT DEC PGP with a focus on verifying its
consistency with NPDES program requirements.

September 2015

Page 26 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Program Strengths

Although issued slightly beyond the court ordered date of October 31, 2011, Vermont's PGP is
consistent with the requirements of EPA's PGP. Vermont has existing aquatic nuisance control
(ANC) and pesticides licensing programs which cover the majority of use patterns in EPA's PGP
and these licenses are still required. VTDEC has indicated that the State has the staff and the
knowledge to administer this new permit effectively and the State has conducted initial
outreach regarding the new permit for commercial applicators and held informational meetings
with other interested parties.

Only larger applications of pesticides require submittal of an NOI and preparation of annual
reports, so the State should be able to track the compliance of these large applicators with the
permit's NOI requirements. All other applicants are covered automatically, similar to EPA's PGP.
As of December 1, 2014, only three pesticide applications were above the threshold requiring
the filing of an NOI, one of which was classified as a large entity by the PGP. Among the ANC
and pesticide licensing programs, there are only a handful of each which are expected to result
in applications that would be subject to the PGP.

In 2012, a United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) office in Vermont had applied for and
received authorization under the Vermont PGP to apply larvacides for sea lamprey control for a
portion of Lake Champlain and adjacent waterbodies. EPA's PGP noted that applications
associated with "Federal facilities" in Vermont and other states could be authorized by EPA's
PGP. Since the applicant was a Federal Agency, the Vermont PGP petitioned the USEPA to
cover these applications under its PGP, arguing that these discharges could be considered to be
associated with as a "Federal facility". EPA agreed with this classification and these discharges
were authorized by EPA's PGP in July of 2013.

For the most part, the existing recordkeeping conducted by pesticide applicators is consistent
with the recordkeeping requirements of the PGP. Vermont does not have an electronic
submission system for its NOIs, but does require NOIs to be mailed for technical review and
approval.

The State does not expect that it will need to issue individual permits for pesticide applications.
However, this is a possibility if an applicant proposes to apply pesticides to an impaired water
or outstanding national resource water (ONRW). It is expected that the Vermont PGP would be
used as a template for such an individual permit.

Critical Findings

No critical findings were identified for the PGP.

3. Pretreatment

The General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403) establish responsibilities of federal, state,
and local government, industry and the public to implement pretreatment standards to control
pollutants from industrial users which may cause pass through or interfere with POTW
treatment processes or which may contaminate sewage sludge.

September 2015

Page 27 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Background

The goal of this pretreatment program review was to assess the status of the State of
Vermont's (State) Industrial Pretreatment Program. The Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation (VTDEC) has assumed authority of the Pretreatment Program
pursuant to 40 CFR 403.10(e) and therefore implements the Control Authority responsibilities
under 40 CFR 403. There are no approved Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
pretreatment programs and Vermont is not required to perform Pretreatment Compliance
Inspections (PCI) or Pretreatment Audits (Audits) of its POTWs. Vermont issues permits directly
to its Significant Industrial Users (Sills), and among many other things, is responsible for
conducting inspections and monitoring of all its SI Us on an annual basis. With respect to SIU
permits reviewed, focus was placed on the following regulatory requirements for pretreatment
activities and pretreatment programs:

•	40 CFR 122.42(b) (POTW requirements to notify Director of new pollutants or change in
discharge);

•	40 CFR 122.44(j) (Pretreatment Programs for POTWs);

•	40 CFR 403.8 (Pretreatment Program Requirements: Development and Implementation
by POTW);

•	40 CFR 403.10 (Development and submission of NPDES State pretreatment programs);

•	40 CFR 403.12 (Reporting requirement for POTWs and industrial users); and

•	40 CFR 403.18 (Modification of POTW Pretreatment Program).

The pretreatment universe in Vermont includes 30 SlUs, 11 of which are considered Categorical
Industrial Users (ClUs). Vermont also issues permits to an additional 13 Industrial Users which
are not considered SlUs.

As part of the review, four SIU permits were evaluated to determine whether they contained
control mechanism components required at 40 CFR 403.8(f)(l)(iii)(B) and those facilities are as
follows:

•	Energizer Battery

•	Vishay Electronics

•	Otter Creek Brewing

•	Vermont Hard Cider

To aid in the review, a Pretreatment Checklist was used to summarize some of the following
information: number of significant industrial users (SlUs) both inspected and sampled; number
of expired permits; submission of annual reports; and the status of streamlining rule
implementation.

September 2015

Page 28 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Program Strengths

Overall, the review found that the State of Vermont has effectively carried out most of the
responsibilities as a delegated 40 CFR 403.10(e) State program. Over the past several years,
there have been resources added to the industrial pretreatment program in an effort to achieve
full compliance with all applicable pretreatment requirements.

• Mercury Dental Amalgam Program

Vermont requires all dentists to collect amalgam waste before it goes down the drain, using
amalgam separators. The Dental Best Management Practices (BMPs) required all dental
practices to self-certify for compliance with the requirements by January 31, 2007. The State
has achieved 100% compliance with installation of separators to date.

• Local Limits

It appears many POTWs (with VT approval) have developed technically based local limits for
conventional pollutants (i.e. BOD & TSS). The State should be commended on requiring local
limit development by POTWs.

• Permitting and Inspections

Vermont has issued permits to 13 Industrial Users (Ills) beyond its SIU universe. Although not
required to do so, each of these Ills are inspected annually by the State and they should be
commended on this activity.

• Monitoring Requirements

Many of the SIU permits require weekly, if not daily, monitoring for conventional pollutants.
This is a very stringent monitoring frequency and the State should be commended on this
activity.

These programs were identified during the review since they not only go beyond the regulatory
requirements, but some are voluntary. They may not have any national pretreatment
regulatory requirement associated with them, however, they are mentioned here for
informational purposes.

Critical Findings

Based on our review, EPA presents the following findings that were identified from the PQR
Checklist:

• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Language
The NPDES permits reviewed did not contain the following:

o Notification requirements for 40 CFR 122.42(b)(3) quantity and quality of

effluent to POTW and anticipated impact of the change in effluent to the POTW
o Requirements at 40 CFR 122.44(j)(l) to identify SlUs (i.e., industrial waste
survey)

September 2015

Page 29 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

•	Publication of Significant Non-Compliance (SNC)

In accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii), the State must annually publish all SI Us which, at
any time during the previous twelve months, were in SNC with applicable Pretreatment
requirements. As of the time of the review, the State had never initiated a SNC publication.
However, the State has calculated SNC for 2014 and will be performing its first publication, if
applicable, in early 2015.

•	State Pretreatment Regulations

On October 14, 2005, EPA published in the Federal Register final changes to the General
Pretreatment Regulations. The final "Pretreatment Streamlining Rule" required the State to
submit to EPA all required modifications of the Streamlining Rule in order to be consistent with
the provisions of the newly promulgated Rule. To the extent that the State's legal authority is
not consistent with the required changes, they must be revised and submitted to EPA for
review. The State has not submitted its modification to EPA and has not updated its
regulations.

4, Stormwater

Background

The Clean Water Act requires stormwater discharges from certain municipal separate storm
sewer systems (MS4s), industrial activities, and construction sites to be authorized by an NPDES
Permit. Generally, the EPA and NPDES-authorized states issue individual permits for medium
and large MS4s and general permits for smaller MS4s, industrial activities, and construction
activities. VTDEC issues its stormwater general permits pursuant to the Department's federally-
delegated NPDES program.

As part of this PQR, EPA reviewed the following three general permits, which are associated
with the regulation of stormwater discharges and administered by VTDEC:

•	General Permit - For Stormwater Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems: 3-9014 (2012); NPDES #: VTR040000

•	Multi-Sector General Permit - For Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity: MSGP 3-9003 (2011); NPDES #: VTR050001

•	General Permit - For Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites: GP3-9020 (2006); As
Amended February 2008;

Findings are presented separately for the municipal, industrial, and construction stormwater
permits.

September 2015

Page 30 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

In addition to the permits that fall under the NPDES program, Vermont also issues both
individual and general State Stormwater Permits under State law. These permits address
stormwater discharges in many of Vermont's municipalities since the majority of the State is
not located within the designated urbanized areas for small MS4 general permit eligibility.
These state-issued permits were not reviewed as part of the official PQR process, but are being
summarized to provide a complete overview of the state's robust stormwater permitting
program.

The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) has been regulating stormwater discharges to
surface waters since the 1980s, and the issuance of these permits still absorbs a significant
amount of the staff's resources. Chapter 18 of Vermont ANR's Environmental Protection Rules
provides the authority to issue state stormwater discharge permits to waters that are not
stormwater-impaired. These include stormwater discharges from new development and
redevelopment, as well as previously permitted stormwater discharges. Chapter 22 of Vermont
ANR's Environmental Protection Rules provides the authority to issue state stormwater
discharge permits to waters that are principally impaired and the authority to require Individual
Offset permits for projects built in stormwater-impaired watersheds without adequate existing
offset capacity.

It should be noted that during the VT PQR review, in some cases involving individual permits,
the description of effluent included with the letter from VT DEC that accompanied some
permits did not match the description of effluent authorized to be discharged in the permit.
One particular example was an individual industrial (non-POTW) permit whose factsheet also
referenced stormwater runoff. Part I.A.I of NPDES Permit VT0022951 (S.D. Ireland Brothers
Corporation) authorizes the discharge of "treated quarry process wastewater and dewatering
water." However the letter from the VT DEC states that the permit authorizes "the discharge of
treated quarry dewatering water, process wastewater, and stormwater runoff." According to
the fact sheet, stormwater and groundwater seepage is removed to allow for the removal of
rock, and stormwater runoff generated from haul roads, storage piles, and buildings, is
conveyed back into the quarry and discharged. In the future, VT DEC should ensure that the
description of effluent in the letter accompanying the permit is consistent with the effluent as
described in Part I of the permit.

Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)

Background

The Vermont MS4 General Permit that was reviewed was issued in 2012. The effective date and
expiration date were not included in the permit document. This permit replaced the previous
MS4 permit issued in 2003, amended in February, 2004 and subsequently modified by the
Vermont Water Resources Board in July 2005.

September 2015

Page 31 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Program Strengths

The permit is more prescriptive than the corresponding regulations at 40 CFR 122.34 and
expands the regulated universe of MS4s beyond the scope to the federal program. Expanded
universe includes municipalities that meet the following criteria:

A small MS4 discharging to a state water that the Secretary determines is significantly
impaired by discharges of stormwater runoff and is listed as being impaired due to
stormwater runoff on the EPA-approved State of Vermont 303(d) List of Waters
prepared pursuant to 33 U.S.C. Section 1313(d).

The permit includes a provision requiring that discharges do not cause or contribute to
exceedances of water quality standards and includes specific requirements for those MS4s
discharging to waterbodies with an applicable TMDL WLA. In particular, the permit requires
that each MS4 permittee submit a comprehensive Flow Restoration Plan (FRP) for stormwater
impaired waterbodies with an applicable flow restoration WLA. As part of the process, the
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation reviews and
approves each FRP which will result in meaningful plans developed and implemented by
permittees for the next 20 years, significantly improving the quantity and health of VT waters.
The FRP plans approved by the Agency will also provide permittees with certainty that BMPs
implemented during the permit term will meet the requirements of the permit and the TMDL
WLAs.

Critical Findings

The following items are critical elements, discovered during permit review, that need
clarification or attention:

1. The Town of Jericho was issued a waiver from permit conditions on December 5, 2012.
One of the assumptions made is that Urbanized Area does not serve a population of
greater than 1,000 people. However, the 2010 US Census information indicates that
over 2,000 people reside in the regulated area. The waiver criteria for MS4s with
populations greater than 1,000 people in the Urbanized Area but less than 10,000
people in the Urbanized Area are found at 40 CFR 123.35(d)(2). Consequently,

Jericho's waiver should be revisited to ensure VT DEC used the correct criteria to
waive Jericho from permit conditions.

2. Authorization dates and effective date - The effective date of the permit is not clear
and should be clearly stated in the body of the permit.

3. Any flow restoration plans approved by VT DEC need to ensure restoration targets are
met within 20 years. In approving each flow restoration plan VT DEC should ensure
that the interim dates and reporting requirements of 40 CFR 122.47 are met regarding
compliance schedules.

September 2015

Page 32 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

4. Future permits that include compliance schedules should include a discussion and
documentation of how the schedule represents "as soon as possible" as required by
40CFR 122.47.

5. The permit contains no milestones for system inspection, outfall screening or illicit
removal in the IDDE minimum control measure. Future permits should contain clear
milestones for complete system inspection and requirements for illicit connection
removal. In addition, VT DEC should consider requiring a set of monitoring parameters
tied to IDDE, see

http://www.epa.gov/regionl/npdes/stormwater/ma/2014Appendixl.pdf

6. The construction site stormwater runoff control minimum control measure needs to
include a requirement that the permittee develop an ordinance or other mechanism
imposing sanctions or enforcement policies to ensure compliance in future permits.

7. VT DEC should consider adding tracking and inventory of existing and new BMPs
installed as part of the post construction stormwater management minimum control
measure to ensure compliance with 40 CFR 122.34(b)(5) in future permits.

8. Future permits should contain a requirement to train employees on stormwater
management under the pollution prevention minimum control measure as required
by 40 CFR 122.34(b)(6).

9. VT DEC should consider adding minimum street sweeping and catch basin cleaning
requirements to the pollution prevention minimum control measure in future permits.

Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial
Activity

Background

The substantive provisions of the Vermont Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity MSGP 3-9003 are nearly identical to EPA's MSGP
2008, and it is available to discharges associated with industrial activities defined at 40 CFR
122.26(b)(14)(i)-(ix). Vermont's general permit was issued on August 4, 2011.

Program Strengths

There are a number of positive or progressive aspects of the permit, including the following:

September 2015

Page 33 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

• Allowable non-stormwater discharges are expressly subject to the Secretary's discretion
to require an individual permit, (n.b. typographic error in Part 1.2.3: "Part 1.6.1" should
read "Part 1.7.1")

• Operators must certify that no interior building floor drains exist which are connected to
any storm drainage system or which may otherwise direct interior floor drainage to
exterior surfaces, unless approved or permitted by VTDEC.

• Operators required to provide a complete copy of the NOI to the local municipal clerk
concurrent with submission to VTDEC.

• New operators are required to submit their SWPPP with their NOI to VTDEC.

• As a condition of maintaining a no exposure exclusion, operators must notify VTDEC
within 30 days of a change of ownership or operation of the facility.

• Operators are required to provide, upon written request, a copy of its SWPPP to a
member of public in a timely manner.

Critical Findings

Antidegradation Provisions for New and Increased Discharges

• Provisions only consider Tier 3 waters (not other High Quality Waters) and do not
expressly consider increased discharges with respect to compliance with Vermont's
Antidegradation Policy. DEC has begun and will continue to consider the
antidegradation requirement in the issuance of their stormwater

permits. Antidegradation is expected to be addressed in subsequent permit issuances.

Conditional Exclusion for No Exposure

• Though the permit properly permits that the demonstration of a condition of no
exposure be made on a facility-wide basis and not for individual outfalls, Part 1.6.4.1
provides that permit requirements may be adjusted for individual discharges that would
otherwise satisfy no exposure criteria. The permit already limits requirements such as
TBELs, inspections, and pollutant inventories only to those areas/activities exposed to
stormwater. However, this is not true for monitoring save for the exceptions available
for benchmark and impaired waters monitoring for inactive/unstaffed sites without
exposure. Though VT could adjust the individual permit requirements (e.g., monitoring)
for those outfalls that would be considered "no exposure" discharges, the scope and
implementation mechanism for such a provision is not clear.

• From a reading of Part I of the permit fact sheet, any operator with an active No
Exposure Exclusion presumably must reapply under the issuance of the permit,
regardless of where the operator stands in the 5-year term of its exclusion. Though not
required per NPDES regulations, this more conservative provision could prove timelier in

September 2015

Page 34 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

authorizing operators under a permit that may no longer be able to certify to a
condition of no exposure.

General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity
Background

The general permit, issued on September 13, 2006, and amended on February 5, 2008, was
reviewed during the 2014 PQR review. This permit expired on February 5, 2013. This permit was
issued before the promulgation of the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Construction and Development Point Source Category (the C&D rule). The effective date of the
regulations was February 1, 2010. When the permit is reissued, it must include the ELGs for the
construction and development point source category (see 40 CFR Part 450). As of December,
2014, VTDEC is preparing a new draft general permit for construction site stormwater
discharges.

Program Strengths

• The permit includes an innovative process to characterize the risk level of a construction
project in order to focus the efforts and resources of VTDEC and the regulated
community on construction projects that have a more significant impact on water
quality around the state. In addition, permittees are required to reevaluate their risk
status when a major change is made to the construction project, ensuring that the
permittee is maintaining adequate erosion prevention and sediment control strategies
on-site.

• The tiered ranking of construction sites in the permit allows for flexibility in the permit
requirements: sites deemed to be low-risk avoid unnecessarily detailed planning efforts.
Low-risk sites do not need to develop a site-specific Erosion Prevention and Sediment
Control (EPSC) Plan but only need to certify compliance with the Low Risk Site Handbook
for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control. EPA believes that projects which truly
meet the requirements for low-risk sites will be adequately regulated by the low-risk
site requirements, and that this is an efficient way to streamline the permitting process
for sites that are not likely to significantly impact water quality.

• Inspection requirements for moderate-risk sites are detailed and provide for different
scenarios found during an inspection. The permit requires outfall sampling and
reevaluation of best management practices (BMPs) and reporting of discolored
stormwater, when necessary. There are specific time frames established in the permit
for completing the above tasks. While not required, the permit requires turbidity
sampling of outfalls with discolored stormwater during rain events after additional
BMPs are enacted. EPA believes the rigorous inspection and sampling requirements for

September 2015

Page 35 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

moderate-risk sites provides a good framework for construction site operators to work
to eliminate sources of sediment pollution to receiving waters.

•	Along with requirements for permit applications, transfers of coverage, and permit
termination, the general permit also includes practical procedures for several other less
common situations unique to construction activities, such as terminating portions of a
larger residential development project when ownership is transferred to the
homeowners.

Critical Findings

•	Vermont's construction stormwater general permit has been expired for two years.

•	The permit does not contain technology-based effluent limitations (including
requirements for BMPs) within the body of the permit. BMP requirements, as well as
inspection requirements for low-risk sites, are included in two supporting documents,
the Low Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control (for low-risk
sites) and the Vermont Standards & Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Prevention
and Control. These documents contain detailed information on the EPSC plan, as well as
useful information about sizing, installation, and maintenance of BMPs suited for
construction sites to prevent erosion and sediment discharge. While the permit
references the documents and requires compliance with requirements in the
documents, they are not part of the permit document, and could be changed without
appropriate procedures and public notice that would normally accompany a change in
permit conditions.

•	The general permit allows the discharge of pollutants associated with construction
support activities, but does not include any requirements to prevent spills and leaks or
to minimize exposure of likely sources of pollution to precipitation and stormwater.

•	The fact sheet provided with the general permit detailed the amendments to the permit
in 2008, but did not provide information on the statutory or regulatory basis for the
permit requirements.

IV. REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS
A. Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)

Background

Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) present environmental and health problems because they
discharge untreated or undertreated wastewater that contain microbial pathogens, nutrients,
suspended solids, toxic chemicals, trash and other pollutants into waterways. CSO discharges

September 2015

Page 36 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

are subject to CWA section 402(q)(l), which requires that any permit, enforcement order or
decree for discharges from combined sewer systems shall conform to the EPA's 1994 CSO
Control Policy (59 Fed. Reg. 18688, April 19,1994, 33 U.S.C. 1342(q)).

The CSO Control Policy identifies permit requirements for the development and
implementation of CSO controls using a two-phase approach. Initial Phase I permits must
include requirements for demonstration of implementation of nine minimum controls (NMC)
and development of a Long-Term CSO Control Plan (LTCP). Phase II permits must contain
requirements for continuing implementation of NMCs and implementation of the LTCP.

The following are the major elements of Phase I and II permits to implement the 1994 CSO
Control Policy and ensure protection of water quality.

1.	Phase I Permits -

Requirements for Demonstration of Implementation of Nine Minimum Controls and
Development of the Long-term CSO Control Plan. In the Phase I permit issued/modified to
reflect the CSO Policy, the NPDES authority should at least require permittees to:

•	Immediately implement BAT(Best Available Technology Economically Achievable)/BCT
(Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology), which at a minimum includes the
nine minimum controls, as determined on a BPJ(Best Professional Judgment) basis by
the permitting authority;

•	Develop and submit a report documenting the implementation of the nine minimum
controls within two years of permit issuance/modification;

•	Comply with applicable WQS, no later than the date allowed under the State's WQS
expressed in the form of a narrative limitation;

•	Develop and submit, consistent with the CSO Policy and based on a schedule in an
appropriate enforceable mechanism, a long-term CSO control plan as soon as
practicable, but generally within two years after the effective date of the permit
issuance/modification.

2.	Phase II Permits -

Phase II Permits require the implementation of a Long-Term CSO Control Plan (LTCP).

The Phase II permit should contain:

•	Requirements to implement the technology-based controls including the nine minimum
controls determined on a BPJ basis;

•	Narrative requirements which insure that the selected CSO controls are implemented,
operated and maintained as described in the long-term CSO control plan;

September 2015

Page 37 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

•	Water quality-based effluent limits under 40CFR 122.44(d)(1) and 122.44(k), requiring,
at a minimum compliance with, no later than the date allowed under the State's WQS,
the numeric performance standards for the selected CSO controls, based on average
design conditions specifying at least one of the following:

1.	A maximum number of overflow events per year for specified design conditions
consistent with II.C.4.a.i of CSO Policy; or

2.	A minimum percentage capture of combined sewage by volume for treatment
under specified design conditions consistent with II.C.4.a.ii of CSO policy; or

3.	A minimum removal of the mass of pollutants discharged for specified design
conditions consistent with II.C.4.a.iii of CSO Policy; or

4.	Performance standards and requirements that are consistent with II.C.4.b of the
CSO Policy.

•	A requirement to implement, with an established schedule, the approved post-
construction water quality assessment program including requirements to monitor and
collect sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with WQS and protection of
designated uses as well as to determine the effectiveness of CSO controls.

•	A requirement to reassess overflows to sensitive areas in those cases where elimination
or relocation of the overflow is not physically possible and economically achievable

•	Conditions establishing requirements for maximizing the treatment of wet weather
flows at the POTW treatment plant, as appropriate, consistent with Section II.C.7. of this
Policy;

•	A reopener clause authorizing the NPDES authority to reopen and modify the permit
upon determination that the CSO controls fail to meet WQS or protect designated uses.
Upon such determination, the NPDES authority should promptly notify the permittee
and proceed to modify or reissue the permit.

•	The permittee should be required to develop, submit and implement, as soon as
practicable, a revised CSO control plan which contains additional controls to meet WQS
and designated uses

•	If the initial CSO control plan was approved under the demonstration provision the
revised plan, at a minimum, should provide for controls that satisfy one of presumption
approach criteria unless the permittee demonstrate that the revised plan is clearly
adequate to meet WQS at a lower cost and it is shown that the additional controls
resulting from the criteria in presumption approach will not result in a greater overall
improvement in WQ

•	Unless the permittee can comply with all of the requirements of the Phase II permit, the
NPDES authority should include, in an enforceable mechanism, compliance dates on the
fastest practicable schedule for those activities directly related to meeting the
requirements of the CWA. For major permittee, the compliance schedule should be
placed in a judicial order

•	Proper compliance with the schedule for implementing the controls recommended in
the long-term CSO control plan constitutes compliance with the elements of the CSO
Policy concerning planning and implementation of a long term CSO remedy

September 2015

Page 38 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Vermont began in earnest to address CSO discharges within Vermont by issuing its own CSO
Control Policy in 1990. The development of this policy included an assessment of the CSO
universe within Vermont at that time, as well as a status of existing work underway to address
CSOs. The Policy established levels of control for CSO abatement, which includes elimination as
the corrective measure of choice and for approved CSO discharges that would continue to be
active (due to consideration of economic and technical factors), the policy specifies either no
discharge or that disinfection and control of floatables/solids is provided for all events up to the
24 hour 2.5 inch depth design storm event (~ 1 year event).

During the past 20+ years, Vermont and its CSO communities have made considerable progress
on CSO abatement primarily through sewer separation to eliminate active CSOs or to reduce
their discharge frequency such that CSOs do not discharge for any rain event events less than
the 2.5 inch design storm. According to VT DEC, since the CSO Policy was adopted, Vermont
municipalities have physically eliminated 111 of the 170 CSO outfalls that existed in 1990.
Currently, there is one CSO treatment system with disinfection and floatable/solids control in
Burlington that is permitted and considered to be in compliance with the Policy. CSO
discharges that do not achieve the control levels specified in the Policy are considered in non-
compliance and are currently under permit requirements and/or enforcement orders to bring
the remaining non-compliant CSO discharges into compliance with VT's Policy.

Vermont is currently re-evaluating the Policy in recognition that the 2.5 inch design storm
specified in the 1990 Policy may not be as protective as it was previously thought to be or fully
consistent with the EPA CSO Control Policy. This is due to notable changes in precipitation
patterns during the last ten years, especially related to the more frequent occurrence of high
intensity larger rainfall events.

As part of the 2014/15 PQR, the Region reviewed four permits with special focus on the CSO
requirements and whether the permits met the conditions of the EPA's 1994 CSO Control
Policy. These four permits are: (1) Town of Richford (VT 3-1147); (2) City of St. Albans (VT 3-
1279); City of Montpelier (VT 3-1207); and (4) City of Burlington-Main Wastewater Treatment
Facility (VT 3-1331).

Program Strengths

• Generally, VTDEC has made progress on implementing the intent of EPA's 1994 CSO
Control Policy primarily through a combination of permit requirements and
enforcement actions.

• Each of the permits and/or associated enforcement orders reviewed largely address all
of the nine minimum controls as identified in the 1994 CSO Policy with the exception of
the control related to the pretreatment program. This is not included in the permits
because VT DEC administers the pretreatment programs directly.

• The permits explicitly state that the CSOs discharge shall comply with VT's WQS.

September 2015

Page 39 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

• VTDEC is developing a revised web-based reporting and notification system that is
expected to be available shortly. Operators will be required to self-report on a standard
web form and any CSO event will be immediately posted at the following website:
https://anrweb.vt.gov/DEC/WWInventory/SewageOverflows.aspx. The system will also
be expanded to include geo-location maps as well as a public subscription service to
receive automatic notice whenever an event is posted. It's anticipated this effort will
demonstrate an increase in transparency to the public.

Critical Findings

• EPA understands that the VTDEC is in the process of revising its CSO Control Policy dated
June, 1990. This presents an opportunity for the VTDEC to make changes to its policy to
bring it in conformance with EPA's CSO Policy. To that end, it is recommended that
VTDEC coordinate closely with EPA on the changes it is making to the State's CSO Policy.

• CSOs of any significance interfere with VT water quality standard designated uses,
including the recreational use of surface waters. For waters to be free of pollutants that
impair designated uses, CSOs must be virtually eliminated. EPA's 1994 CSO policy was
intended to guide municipalities with CSO discharges toward programs to achieve water
quality standards on schedules determined by local conditions, including financial
capacity. It is not entirely consistent with the EPA CSO policy for the State CSO Policy to
establish control of the 24 hour, 2.5 inch storm as a goal for all long-term control plans
("LTCPs") that do not specify complete elimination.

• To conform to the EPA CSO policy, municipalities with CSO dischargers should evaluate
elimination of overflows during development of LTCPs and establish schedules for
achieving the highest level of control achievable within the resources of each CSO
community. The policy should also be clear that the technology based CSO limits must
be determined on a case-by-case basis using best professional judgment, and at a
minimum include the nine federal MCMs. In other words, the state may decide that
more stringent or detailed technology based requirements are appropriate for a
particular facility.

• VTDEC needs to ensure that all CSO permits have language which reflect the federal
requirements. In particular, all CSO related permits should provide that all the
applicable minimum control measures are required including regular inspection of CSOs
and possible continuous monitoring of CSO outfalls. With respect to inspection and
monitoring, the permits reviewed require operation and maintenance of the CSOs but
do not specifically require regular inspections of CSOs, which EPA has found to be an
essential element of a successful O&M program capable of detecting and eliminating
dry weather overflows (DWOs). Additionally, EPA has found that continuous monitoring
of CSOs has identified previously-unidentified dry weather overflows and has revealed
substantial variation between modeled overflows and actual overflows. Vermont

September 2015

Page 40 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

should consider at least a year of electronic monitoring of all outfalls and permanent
meters where feasible.

luent	;(FLG)

Background

Effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) are national, technology-based limitations and standards
to control industrial wastewater discharges. EPA is required to promulgate technology-based
limitations and standards that reflect pollutant reductions that can be achieved by categories,
or subcategories, of industrial point sources using specific technologies (including process
changes) that EPA identifies as meeting the statutorily prescribed level of control under the
authority of CWA sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 (33 United States Code [U.S.C.]
1311,1314,1316,1318,1342, and 1361). These regulations protect human health and enhance
water quality. Discharge permits issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) incorporate limits on specific pollutants set in effluent guidelines, and facilities
must meet those limits to comply with Clean Water Act requirements.

EPA's goal in establishing ELGs is to ensure that industrial facilities with similar characteristics
will meet similar effluent limitations representing the best pollution control technologies or
pollution prevention practices regardless of their location or the nature of the receiving water
into which the discharge is made. ELGs reflect the pollutant reductions that can be achieved by
existing facilities in categories or subcategories of industrial point sources using specific control
technologies. EPA establishes national ELGs for a specific industrial sector by regulation after
considering an in-depth engineering and economic analysis of the industrial sector. The ELGs
are promulgated for various industrial categories in 40 CFR, Chapter I, Subchapter N - Effluent
Guidelines and Standards - Parts 400-471. For the 2014 Vermont PQR, EPA reviewed the
following industrial permits with focus on consistency with ELGs:

•	VT0000442 (Isovolta, Inc.)

•	VT0020711 (White River National Fish Hatchery)

•	VT0001198 (Eagle River Mining)

•	VT0001163 (Imery's Talc Vermont, Inc)

•	VT0022951 (S.D. Ireland Brothers Corporation)

•	VT0000051 (Ethan Allen Operations, Inc.)

•	VT0001112 (Pike Industries, Inc.)

•	VT0001121 (Champlain Black Marble, LLC)

Program Strengths

The industrial permits listed above appeared to have appropriate water quality-based numeric
effluent limitations that were as stringent as, or more stringent than, the applicable technology-
based effluent limitations from the national ELGs. Under NDPES regulations at 40 C.F.R. §
125.3(a), technology-based treatment requirements under Clean Water Act section 301(b)

September 2015

Page 41 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

represent the minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit. The permit may
include additional or more stringent effluent limitations and conditions, including those
necessary to protect water quality. It was not clear from this review if the Administrative
Record for the listed permits included information on the development of technology-based
effluent limitations in addition to the water quality-based limitations included in the permit.

Critical Findings

Despite regulating a number of facilities covered by national ELGs, the industrial permits that
were reviewed did not consistently identify or reference ELGs. The fact sheets generally
neglected to include a discussion of technology-based effluent limitations. For the reviewed
permits that did discuss ELGs, only two (S.D. Ireland Brothers Corporation, Isovolta, Inc.)
correctly identified the applicable subpart for the specific industry or incorporated narrative
requirements of the ELGs. In the future, fact sheets should provide a discussion of applicable
ELGs, including as a basis for technology-based effluent limitations using best professional
judgment where there is no applicable ELG (e.g., Eagle River Mining, Imery's Talc Vermont,
Inc.). It is also recommended that permit limitations and conditions mirror the language of the
ELGs, particularly as it applies to narrative requirements (e.g., White River National Fish
Hatchery).

C. Whole Effluent Toxicity

Background

Section 101(a)(3) of the CWA prohibits the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
Sections 402(a)(2) and 308(a) of the CWA authorize EPA to establish toxicity testing
requirements and toxicity-based permit limits in NPDES permits. Section 308 specifically states
that biological monitoring methods may be required when needed to carry out the objectives
of the Act. Under certain narrative State water quality standards and Sections 301, 303, and
402 of the Clean Water Act, EPA and the States may establish toxicity-based limits to
implement the narrative no toxics in toxic amounts criterion.

EPA's Surface toxics control regulation, 54 FR 23868, June 2,1989, established specific
requirements for using an "integrated approach" to water quality-based toxics control. EPA
subsequently published the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control, EPA/505/2-90-001, March 1991, which recommends using an "integrated strategy"
containing both pollutant (chemical) specific approaches and whole effluent (biological) toxicity
approaches to control toxic pollutants in effluent discharges from entering the nation's
waterways. Pollutant- specific approaches to control toxics address individual chemicals,
whereas, a whole effluent toxicity (WET) approach to toxics control evaluates interactions
between pollutants, thus rendering an "overall" or "aggregate" toxicity assessment of the
effluent. Furthermore, WET measures the "additivity" and/or "antagonistic" effects of
individual chemical pollutants while pollutant specific derived permit limits do not, thus the
need for both approaches. In addition, the presence of an unknown toxic pollutant can be

September 2015

Page 42 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

discovered and addressed through the process of WET testing. EPA-Region 1 adopted this
"integrated strategy" on July 1,1991, for use in permit development and issuance.

Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) require NPDES permits to include limitations and
conditions in addition to or more stringent than promulgated effluent limitations guidelines or
standards under sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 318 and 405 of CWA necessary to: achieve water
quality standards established under Section 303 of CWA including State narrative criteria.
Water quality criteria for toxic substances are set forth in Section 3-01, B.10.(a) of the Vermont
Water Quality Standards (WQS). Numeric human health and aquatic biota-based criteria for
toxic pollutants are set forth in Appendix C of the State WQS. Section 3-10, B.10.(d) of the VT
WQS contains the following narrative criteria designed to protect the State's waters from toxic
discharges "Where numeric criteria for a toxic substance have not been established, such
criteria may be established consistent with general policy in subsection 10(a.) above, based on
the procedures set forth in the Vermont Toxic Discharge Control Strategy (1994)".

As part of the 2014 PQR, EPA reviewed four municipal (POTW) permits and one non-municipal
(industrial) permit with special focus on the WET requirements in order to verify overall
consistency with NPDES Regulations, including whether an adequate basis or rationale for
permit decisions are provided, whether permit requirements are protective of State WQS and
whether permits contain citations to current WET test methods.

The permits reviewed included the following:

VT0101010

Town of Hartford-White River Junction

POTW-Major

VT0101109

Town of Whitingham

POTW-Minor

VT0100021

Town of Bennington

POTW-Major

VT0100978

Town of Hartford - Quechee

POTW-Minor

VT0000248

FiberMark North America

Non-POTW-Major

Program Strengths

Each of the permits reviewed contain WET testing requirements, specifying the type(s) of
test(s) to be conducted (acute, chronic), the test species to be used, sample type (24-hour
composite) as well as the months in which testing shall be conducted. The permits also contain
a condition whereby they may be amended to require additional WET testing or a Toxicity
Reduction Evaluation (TRE) based upon the results of the WET tests or any other tests
conducted on the discharge.

All of the permits include a general reference to the use of analytical methods that conform to
those established at 40 C.F.R. Part 136.

September 2015

Page 43 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Critical Findings

The concerns noted by EPA in its evaluation of the WET provisions in the reviewed permits
were primarily related to insufficient documentation of the basis for permit requirements, as
described in the following paragraphs.

The administrative records for four out of the five permits that were reviewed (Hartford White
River Junction WWTP, Bennington WWTP, Quechee WWTP and FiberMark WWTP) contained
memos titled "Monitoring, Assessment and Planning Program (MAPP) evaluation of the
Reasonable Potential Determination", which contained language regarding WET reasonable
potential determinations that was similar to what was found in the Fact Sheets. The
administrative records of all of the reviewed permits lacked sufficient information which would
support the findings that the discharges do not present potential to cause toxic instream
impacts, such as: the procedure(s) followed in conducting reasonable potential determinations,
the rationale for selecting the data that was evaluated (i.e., sample size large enough to be
representative of the discharge); the data (or a summary of the data) that was reviewed; and
any calculations and/or analyses that were performed. All information relative to reasonable
potential determinations, including the methodology applied, data and calculations and/or
analyses that were performed, should be well documented and clearly presented. Additionally,
it is recommended that information regarding reasonable potential determinations that are
documented in Monitoring, Assessment and Planning Program (MAPP) evaluations; Fact Sheets
and/or file notes, be consolidated into a single document.

The numeric and narrative criteria for toxic substances contained in the State WQS are not
adequately addressed in the administrative records of any of the reviewed permits. A
description of how numeric and narrative criteria were factored into WET reasonable potential
determinations as well as how permit conditions will ensure protection of WQS should be
provided in the administrative record.

The basis for the selection of the WET monitoring requirements contained in the permits, such
as the type(s) of tests to be conducted (i.e., acute, chronic), test species, monitoring
frequencies and the months in which sampling and analysis shall occur, is not substantiated in
the administrative records for any of the permits that were reviewed. Further, the frequency of
required WET testing is concerning, as it is unclear how such minimal testing would provide
data that is representative of the discharge (one permit requires three tests, three permits
require two tests, and one permit requires one test to be conducted over the terms of the
permits). It is recommended that the rationale for the selection of monitoring requirements
contained in permits, including how minimum monitoring frequencies are determined, be
documented in administrative records.

WET test methods cited in the permits include "the most recent versions of the following test
methods: Peltier, W and Weber, CI, Methods for Measuring Acute Toxicity of Effluents to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms and Lewis, PA, DJ Klemm, JM Lazorchak, TJ Norberg-King,
WH Peltier, MA Heber, Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms". Based on the aforementioned reference, the

September 2015

Page 44 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

chronic WET tests does include sub-lethal endpoints. However, this was not clearly indicated in
Vermont's documentation. It is recommended that the general reference to the "most recent
versions" of the aforementioned test methods be replaced with citations to EPA's 2002 WET
test methods as shown below:

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington,
DC. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002c. Methods for Measuring the
Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms.
5th ed. EPA/821/R-02-012. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. Short-Term Methods for
Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater
Organisms. 4th edition. EPA/821/R-02-013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.

The Fact Sheets for two of the reviewed permits (Hartford White River Junction WWTP and
Bennington WWTP) describe the regulatory basis for requiring WET monitoring and toxicity
scans in the permits as to "ensure compliance with 40 C.F.R Part 122.21,122.44(d)(1), and the
Vermont Toxic Discharge Control Strategy", which suggests that the WET monitoring
requirements are driven in part by NPDES permit application requirements. While the results
of WET tests required by a permit may be used to fulfill the application requirements of 40
C.F.R. §122.21, WET requirements are included in permits to ensure protection of aquatic life
and attainment of instream water quality criteria, in accordance with the requirements of 40
C.F.R. § 122.44(d). Therefore, it is recommended that references to the application
requirements as a basis for permit requirements be removed from the Fact Sheets.

V. ACTION ITEMS

This section provides a summary of the main findings of the review and provides proposed
action items to improve Vermont's NPDES permit programs. This list of proposed action items
will serve as the basis for ongoing discussions between Region 1 and Vermont as well as
between Region 1 and EPA HQ. These discussions should focus on eliminating program
deficiencies to improve performance by enabling good quality, defensible permits issued in a
timely fashion.

The proposed action items are divided into three categories to identify the priority that should
be placed on each Item and facilitate discussions between Regions and states.

• Critical Findings (Category One) - Most Significant: Proposed action items will address a
current deficiency or noncompliance with respect to a federal regulation.

• Recommended Actions (Category Two) - Recommended: Proposed action items will
address a current deficiency with respect to EPA guidance or policy.

September 2015

Page 45 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

• Suggested Practices (Category Three) - Suggested: Proposed action items are listed as
recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the state's or Region's NPDES permit
program.

The critical findings and recommended actions proposed should be used to augment the
existing list of "follow up actions" currently established as an indicator performance measure
and tracked under EPA's Strategic Plan Water Quality Goals or may serve as a roadmap for
modifications to the Region's program management.

A. Basic Facility Information ami Permit Application

The fact sheets for the core municipal permits reviewed generally provide a thorough
description of the wastewater treatment process; however, fact sheets for non-municipal
permits lack details regarding plant operations and expected waste streams. VT DEC uses state
application forms that contain fewer data and submittal requirements than Federal
requirements (e.g., requests for data as required in 40 CFR 122.21(g) and (j)). Proposed action
items to help VT DEC strengthen its NPDES permit program include the following:

• VT DEC should review Schedule A and B application forms to ensure applicants are
required to submit additional information, including data analyses and outfall location
information, to comply with NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.21. (Category 1)

• VT DEC should ensure applications, including a copy of all submitted data, are submitted
on-time (i.e. - at least 180 days prior to permit expiration) and are included in the
administrative record. (Category 1).

• VT DEC should include greater detail regarding facility operations and treatment
processes, in particular for non-municipal facilities. Greater detail enables
straightforward facility categorization and identification of applicable ELGs. (Category 2)

:hnology-based Effluent Limitations

For the core permits reviewed, the concentration-based TBELs for municipal facilities are
consistent with or more stringent than secondary treatment standards. Fact sheets for non-
municipal facilities include a general description of waste streams produced and wastewater
treatment processes; however, they lack discussion of facility operations and historical
production rates. Therefore, it was difficult to evaluate facility categorization and effluent
limitation development with regard to ELGs. Fact sheets reviewed for non-municipal facilities
lack a thorough discussion of applicable ELGs and the basis for final effluent limitations.
Proposed action items to help VT DEC strengthen its NPDES permit program include the
following:

September 2015

Page 46 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

• VT DEC should ensure the permit record demonstrates the permit writer considered
applicable ELGs. Additionally, VT DEC should consider developing standard language for
fact sheets to address the applicability of ELGs to industrial facilities. (Category 3)

C. Water Quality-Based iff!

Fact sheets do not provide a detailed description of the RP evaluation, even though MAPP
memos provide a summary of RP evaluation. Proposed action items to help VT DEC strengthen
its NPDES permit program include the following:

• VT DEC should describe how pollutants of concern are identified and how RP is
evaluated to clarify the evaluation is being conducted for each permit renewal.
(Category 2)

D. Monitoring and Reporting

The monitoring and reporting provisions reviewed in the core permits appear to be consistent
with federal requirements. Permits lack clear identification of monitoring locations. Proposed
action items to help VT DEC strengthen its NPDES permit program include the following:

• VT DEC should identify the location for effluent and influent monitoring in permits.
(Category 2)

E. Stand eel

Some of the standard conditions appear to include language that creates a less stringent
requirement. Core permits reviewed lacked some standard conditions and some are not word-
for-word the 40 CFR 122.41 standard conditions. Proposed action items to help VT DEC
strengthen its NPDES permit program include the following:

• VT DEC should ensure that permits contain all federal standard conditions and that
standard conditions reflect the correct requirements. (Category 1)

F. Administrative Process pin

The permit records for the core permits contain appropriate public notice documents that
indicate public notice procedures were implemented accordingly. The permit cover letter
indicates whether or not comments were received. If comments were received, VT DEC
provides a Response Summary, as required by 40 CFR 124.17. No action items fall under this
category.

cumentation (including fact sheet}

Overall, fact sheets did not provide sufficient information to fully understand the basis of
specific effluent limitations. For the core permits reviewed, documentation of the basis for
TBELs generally lacks detail (e.g., ELG applicability and final ELG-based TBEL determination).
Further, permit files do not contain adequate documentation regarding RP evaluation and
effluent limitation development. In addition, it was not evident that permit writers perform a
comparison of TBELs and WQBELs, and that the most stringent effluent limitation was selected.

September 2015

Page 47 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

Proposed action items to help VT DEC strengthen its NPDES permit program include the
following:

• VT DEC should ensure that permit documentation clearly indicates the basis and/or
rationale for all TBELs and WQBELs. Further, the fact sheet should describe the permit
writer's consideration and evaluation that WQBELs are more appropriate than TBELs for
a specific discharge. (Category 2)

• VT DEC should ensure permit files include complete documentation of RP analyses and
effluent limitation calculations. (Category 2)

• EPA strongly encourages the development of a fact sheet (or statement of basis) for all
permits. (Category 2)

• VT DEC should ensure the permit record, including the fact sheet, includes
documentation regarding development of ELF based effluent limitations. Information
that would strengthen the fact sheet and permit record could include a detailed facility
description, categorization as it relates to the ELG, identification and illustration of any
factors that are involved in calculating production based effluent limitations, and an
illustration of the calculation of final ELG based effluent limitations. (Category 3)

Proposed actions items for core topic areas are provided below.

I. Nutrients

Proposed Action Items to improve the Vermont permitting program and to bring it into
compliance with federal permitting requirements include the following:

• Vermont needs to conduct Reasonable Potential Analyses for nutrients in all municipal
permits and in industrial permits that discharge a significant level of nutrients. This has
been done for most permits since the adoption of the MAPP memo. (Category 1)

• Reasonable Potential Analyses need to be based on worst case permitted/discharge
levels of nutrients and upstream levels of nutrients that are representative of the flow
condition under which criteria are being evaluated. (Category 1)

• Overriding a finding of Reasonable Potential based on projected downstream
concentrations of nutrients needs to be based on a more comprehensive assessment of
downstream biological responses than just bioassessment data from a single
downstream site. Vermont also needs to consider downstream reaches that might be
more sensitive to nutrient loads. (Category 1)

September 2015

Page 48 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

•	The Reasonable Potential Analyses, including assumptions, calculations, and conclusions
should be documented in Fact Sheets in order to facilitate meaningful public input.
(Category 2)

2.	Pesticides

The Pesticides General Permit appears to be consistent with program requirements. No action
items are proposed based on this PQR.

3.	Pretreatment

Based on the review of Vermont's Industrial Pretreatment Program, EPA requires the following
action items be addressed by the State of Vermont:

•	In accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(J)(1), permits issued to POTWs need to contain a
pretreatment requirement to identify significant industrial users (i.e. the industrial
waste survey) (Category 1)

•	Vermont needs to perform annual monitoring of each of its Significant Industrial Users.
(Category 1)

•	Vermont needs to annually publish all SlUs that meet the federal definition of Significant
Non Compliance in the newspaper of general circulation that provides meaningful public
notice within the jurisdiction served by the POTW. (Category 1)

•	Vermont needs to update their regulations in accordance with the 2005 Federal
Streamlining Rule. (Category 1)

4.	Stormwater

Proposed action items to help Vermont strengthen its NPDES permit program are provided
below:

•	If the discharge from an individual permit includes stormwater, VT DEC should ensure
that all sources of effluent are listed in the permit as an authorized discharge from the
outfall. (Category 3)

In addition, action items are presented separately for municipal, industrial and construction
stormwater general permits.

Municipal Stormwater Action Items

After a review of Vermont's Small MS4 general permit, the following action items are proposed:

September 2015

Page 49 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

•	Future MS4 permits should contain clear milestones for complete system inspection and
requirements and milestones for illicit connection removal. (Category 1)

•	The construction site stormwater runoff control minimum control measure needs to
include a requirement that the permittee develop an ordinance or other mechanism
imposing sanctions or enforcement policies to ensure compliance. (Category 1)

•	Future MS4 permits should contain a requirement to train employees on stormwater
management under the pollution prevention minimum control measure as required by
40 CFR 122.34(b)(6). (Category 1)

•	The Town of Jericho's 2012 waiver from permit conditions should be revisited to ensure
VT DEC used the correct criteria to waive Jericho from permit conditions. (Category 2)

•	The effective date of the MS4 permit should be clearly stated in the body of the permit.
(Category 2)

•	Flow restoration plans required by the MS4 permit need to include interim dates and
reporting requirements and need to ensure restoration targets are met within 20 years
in accordance with 40 CFR 122.47. (Category 2)

•	The Fact Sheet for future MS4 permits should contain a discussion of how any
compliance schedule represents "as soon as possible" as required by 40 CFR 122.47.
(Category 3)

•	Future MS4 permits VT DEC should consider requiring a set of monitoring parameters
tied to IDDE. (Category 3)

•	In future MS4 permits VT DEC should consider adding tracking and inventory of existing
and new BMPs installed as part of the post construction stormwater management
minimum control measure to ensure compliance with 40 CFR 122.34(b)(5). (Category 3)

•	VT DEC should consider adding minimum street sweeping and catch basin cleaning
requirements to the pollution prevention minimum control measure in future permits.
(Category 3)

Industrial Stormwater Action Items

The substantive provisions of the Vermont Multi-Sector General Permits for Stormwater
Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity MSGP 3-9003 are nearly identical to EPA's MSGP
2008, and it is available to discharges associated with industrial activities defined at 40 CFR

September 2015

Page 50 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

122.26(b)(14)(i)-(ix). There are a few areas where the permit could be improved when reissued
as noted in the action items below.

•	Part 1.6.4.1 of the permit should be clarified as to the scope and implementation of
potential modifications to permit requirements for individual facility discharges that
would otherwise be "no exposure" discharges. Any adjustment to permit requirements
applicable to qualifying operators should already be included in the permit to avoid the
need for a formal permit modification. (Category 2)

•	If, as provided in the fact sheet, it is the intent of VTDEC to require an operator with an
active No Exposure Exclusion to reapply upon the reissuance of the permit, the permit
should indicate this in the eligibility section. (Category 2)

Construction Stormwater Action Items

The proposed action items to help strengthen Vermont's construction stormwater general
permit are provided below:

•	Since the general permit expired in 2013, it needs to be reissued. The reissued permit
should include limits from the C&D (Construction and Development) rule which became
effective on February 1, 2010. These new enhanced environmental protections are
applicable to construction stormwater discharges. (Category 1)

•	The general permit should include requirements to prevent spills and leaks (consistent
with 40 CFR § 450.21(d)(3)) and to minimize exposure of likely sources of pollution to
precipitation and stormwater (consistent with 40 CFR § 450.21(d)(1)). (Category 1)

•	The accompanying fact sheet should be consistent with 40 CFR §§ 124.8 and 124.56,
which, among other information, requires fact sheets to include an explanation of the
permit's effluent limitations as well as the regulatory basis for certain permit conditions.
(Category 2)

•	EPA recommends incorporating the BMP, inspection, and EPSC plan requirements in the
Low Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control and the Vermont
Standards & Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Prevention and Control into the
general permit language. The additional guidance provided by both documents on
specific BMP installation and maintenance may be more appropriate as an appendix or
handbook. (Category 2)

•	In the reissuance of the general permit, VTDEC should consider including specific
requirements related to discharges to impaired waterbodies rather than general
requirements related to these discharges. (Category 3)

September 2015

Page 51 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

•	VTDEC should consider adding more effluent limitations (BMP requirements) to the
permit to specifically target the pollution risks from permitted projects that are
currently required to obtain an individual permit based on the tiered criteria. (Category
3)

I,	as

Proposed action items for special focus areas are provided below.

1.	Combined Sewer Overflow sJ

The following action items are proposed to help Vermont strengthen its NPDES permit
program:

•	Ensure that the State's updated approach to abating CSOs is consistent with EPA's Policy
based on CSO-specific assessments of economic and technical factors in determining the
appropriate levels of control. (Category 1)

•	Include requirements for all applicable minimum controls in CSO permits that are
consistent with federal requirements including a specific requirement for regular
inspections of all active CSO outfalls. (Category 2)

•	Require metering and regularly scheduled inspection of CSOs as part of
permits/enforcement orders to help reduce the likelihood of dry weather overflows
from occurring and assess the accuracy of models. (Category 3)

2.	Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs)

The reviewed permits and fact sheets lacked a consistent and complete evaluation of effluent
limitations guidelines. Proposed action items to help strengthen Vermont's NPDES permit
program include the following:

•	Include the basis for technology-based permit requirements in fact sheets or the
administrative record, including discussion of applicable, industry-specific ELG (and
subpart) or, in the absence of an ELG, the basis for limitations based on best
professional judgment. (Category 1)

•	Ensure that technology-based permit limits and conditions accurately reflect the
referenced ELG, particularly for narrative requirements. (Category 2)

3.	Whole Effluent Toxicity

The administrative records of the permits that were reviewed generally lack sufficient rationale
supporting permitting decisions regarding WET. Proposed action items to help VT DEC
strengthen its NPDES permit program include the following:

September 2015

Page 52 of 53

-------
Region 1 [Vermont)

NPDES Permit Quality Review

•	References to specific WET test methods should be the current 2002 EPA WET test
methods. (Category 1)

•	Provide appropriate citations to NPDES permit requirements (40 C.F.R. § 122.44) rather
than to NPDES application requirements, when describing the regulatory basis for the
inclusion of permit limits or conditions. (Category 2)

•	Document in the Fact Sheet or the administrative record the rationale for reasonable
potential determinations such as an explanation of the approach taken or procedure(s)
followed, inclusion of the data (or a summary of the data) that was evaluated, any
calculations and/or analyses performed in making findings regarding reasonable
potential, and an explanation of how such findings are consistent with WQS. (Category
2)

•	Describe in the Fact Sheet or the administrative record the rationale for selecting
monitoring requirements in permits, such the type(s) of test(s), test species, test
frequency and months in which sampling shall be conducted, as well as an explanation
of how these requirements will ensure adequate protection of WQS. (Category 2)

•	Consider consolidating information relevant to reasonable potential determinations that
are included in MAPP evaluations, Fact Sheets, file memos, etc. into Fact Sheets.
(Category 3)

September 2015

Page 53 of 53

-------