Region 1 NPDES Program and Permit Quality
Review
Rhode Island
Final Report
Review Date: April/May 2020
Report Date: January 13, 2021
Environmental Protection Agency-Region 1
5 Post Office Square - Suite 100
Boston, MA 02109-3912
January 2021
Page 1 of41
-------
Contents
Executive Summary 3
I. PQR BACKGROUND 4
II. STATE PROGRAM BACKGROUND 6
A. Program Structure 6
B. Universe and Permit Issuance 7
C. State-Specific Challenges 7
D. Current State Initiatives 7
III. CORE REVIEW FINDINGS 8
A. Basic Facility Information and Permit Application 8
1. Facility Information 8
2. Permit Application Requirements 9
B. Developing Effluent Limitations 10
1. Technology-based Effluent Limitations 10
2. Reasonable Potential and Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations 11
3. Final Effluent Limitations and Documentation 15
C. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 17
D. Standard and Special Conditions 19
E. Administrative Process 20
F. Administrative Record and Fact Sheet 22
IV. NATIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS 23
A. Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters 23
B. Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor Contributions 28
C. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Requirements 34
V. REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS 35
VI. REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON ESSENTIAL ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR 36
Table 1. Essential Action Items Identified During 2014 PQR 36
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR 37
Table 2. Recommended Action Items Identified During 2014 PQR 37
VIII. ACTION ITEMS FROM FY 2018-2022 PQR CYCLE 38
Table 3. Essential Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle 39
Table 4. Recommended Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle 40
January 2021
Page 2 of41
-------
Executive Summary
EPA Region l's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Permit
Quality Review (PQR) for Rhode Island found that permits issued in the state were generally
well-developed and consistent with federal regulations. We appreciate the willingness of Rhode
Island to work with us on this PQR, as it was originally scheduled to involve an onsite visit;
however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the PQR shifted to a remote review. Rhode Island
was very accommodating in adjusting to a remote PQR, responsive to information and material
requests, and meeting schedule.
The PQR examined 17 permits for discharges in Rhode Island issued by the Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM). The PQR also focused on several national
priority areas including:
• Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Waters,
• Effectiveness of Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) NPDES Permits with Food
Processor Contributions, and
• Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Requirements.
Rhode Island permits 74 individual facilities. As of February 21, 2020, 63 percent of Rhode
Island's permits are current.
The PQR recognizes the many state and region-specific challenges faced by the state of Rhode
Island, including resource constraints and certain technical challenges (e.g., economic analyses
in support of Clean Water Act Section 316(b) permitting). RIDEM also continues to work on
several state priorities including: an update to its MS4 General Permit, outreach to auto
salvage yards as part of its Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) efforts, industrial pretreatment
program (IPP) guidance for brewery permitting, and compliance with the NPDES Electronic
Reporting Rule requirements.
Although the permits reviewed commonly conformed to national requirements, we identified
several concerns, including thorough documentation of effluent limitations. Since many of the
deficiencies seem to stem from documentation of effluent limitations, we believe they can be
best resolved if the RIDEM revises the fact sheet template to include specific discussions and
prompts for permit writers to provide detailed discussions of technical information upon which
effluent limitations are based. In addition to the items listed above, the report provides an
overview of the Rhode Island NPDES permitting program and identifies specific areas where
EPA and RIDEM can work together to continue to strengthen permit language and
documentation in state NPDES permits.
The state of Rhode Island reviewed and provided comments on the draft PQR report in
November 2020. The state agreed with many of the draft PQR's findings and recommendations
and committed to take action to address many of the proposed action items.
January 2021
Page 3 of41
-------
I. PQR BACKGROUND
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and 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, The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promotes national consistency and identifies successes
in implementation of the NPDES program as well as opportunities for improvement in the
development of NPDES permits. EPA conducted a PQR of the Rhode Island NPDES permitting
program on April 24-25, 2013. The PQR summary report is available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/pqr rhode island report.pdf. The evaluation team proposed various action
items to improve the Rhode Island NPDES permitting program. As part of the current PQR, EPA
requested updates from Rhode Island on the progress on those action items. Of the six action
items identified during the last PQR as being Essential1 tasks, four have been resolved and the
remainder represent actions that are longer-term activities which the Rhode Island Department
of Environmental Management (RIDEM) is still addressing. In addition, EPA identified
Recommended action items to improve Rhode Island's program; Rhode Island has chosen to
implement most of them and is in the process of implementing certain other Recommended
actions. Section VI of this report contains a detailed review of the progress on action items
identified during the last PQR.
During this review, the evaluation team proposed action items to improve the Rhode Island
NPDES permit program. The proposed action items are identified within sections III, IV, and V of
this report and are divided into two categories to identify the priority that should be placed on
each Item and facilitate discussions between regions and states.
• Essential Actions - Proposed "Essential" action items address noncompliance with
respect to a federal regulation. EPA has provided the citation for each Essential action
item. The permitting authority must address these action items in order to comply with
federal regulations.
• Recommended Actions - Proposed "Recommended" action items are recommendations
to increase the effectiveness of the state's or Region's NPDES permit program.
The Essential actions are used to augment the existing list of "follow up actions" currently
tracked by EPA Headquarters on an annual basis and are reviewed during subsequent PQRs.
EPA's review team, consisting of four Regional staff, one Headquarters staff, and one contractor
staff conducted a review of the Rhode Island NPDES permitting program. The PQR was
conducted remotely, meaning a review of materials was conducted off-site, with materials
RIDEM was able to provide electronically. Further, the remote PQR included interviews and
discussions conducted via several conference calls. An opening interview was held on April 16,
1 During the 2012-2017 PQR cycle, these action items were known as "Category 1" and address deficiencies or
noncompliance with respect to federal regulations. EPA is now referring to these action items going forward, as
Essential. In addition, previous PQR reports identified recommendations as either "Category 2" or "Category 3"
action items. EPA is now consolidating these categories of action items into a single category: Recommended.
January 2021
Page 4 of41
-------
2020, a discussion with RIDEM staff regarding specific permit questions on April 30, 2020, and a
closing meeting on May 7, 2020.
The Rhode Island PQR included reviews of core permit components and national and regional
topic areas, as well as discussions between the PQR review team and Rhode Island staff
addressing their program status and permit issuance process. The 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 and related administrative process. As a result of the PQR being conducted
remotely and the decision for doing so coming just before the PQR began, certain items from
the administrative record were not available for all permits reviewed. For example, applications
were not available for all permits reviewed. The PQR also included conversations between EPA
and the state on program status, the permitting process, responsibilities, organization, staffing,
and program challenges the state is experiencing.
A total of 17 permits were reviewed as part of the PQR. Ten of these permits were reviewed for
the core review, with four of the 10 permits reviewed for an assessment of the "permit controls
for nutrients in non-Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) waters national topic area. Seven
additional permits, and one core permit, were reviewed for an assessment of the "effectiveness
of publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) NPDES permits with food processor" national
review area. Permits were selected based on issuance date and the review categories that they
fulfilled.
Core Review
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 Program2 to evaluate the Rhode
Island NPDES program. Core topic area permit reviews are conducted to evaluate similar issues
or types of permits in all states.
Topic Area Reviews
The national topics reviewed in the Rhode Island NPDES program were: Permit Controls for
Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters, and Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor
Contributions. Ongoing updates to Rhode Island's Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) permit were also discussed in significant detail.
2 https://www.epa.gov/npdes/central-tenets-npdes-permitting-program
January 2021
Page 5 of41
-------
II. STATE PROGRAM BACKGROUND
A. Program Structure
RIDEM's Office of Water Resources (OWR) administers the Rhode Island Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (RIPDES) program. The RIPDES program was granted authority to administer
the NPDES program for Rhode Island on September 17,1984, including the development and
issuance of general and individual discharge permits. RIDEM's main office in Providence
includes all of the OWR programs.
RIDEM assigns staff permits based on permit type (e.g., drinking water treatment permits are
all assigned to the same permit writer) and staff workload. RIPDES program staff members are
responsible for all facets of permit development, including permit application review,
developing technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs), conducting reasonable potential
analyses (RPAs), and developing water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs). Further,
permit staff manage compliance monitoring, informal enforcement, and referral for formal
enforcement to RIDEM's Office of Compliance and Inspection. RIDEM employs five RIPDES
permit writers, who are supported by a pretreatment engineer and administrative staff
(administrative and data entry assistance). In addition, RIPDES staff routinely work with staff
from other OWR programs including staff supporting water quality criteria, TMDL, water quality
certifications, wastewater treatment facility design, and waste management. RIPDES staff also
work with RIDEM Office of Legal Services and Office of Compliance and Inspection staff.
Permit writers receive training through attendance at EPA's NPDES Permit Writers' Course,
Water Standards Academy, and through use of RIDEM internal permit development tools such
as standard work instruction sheets and template documents and spreadsheets. Additionally,
permit writers are encouraged to attend regional and national conferences, and all permit
writers receive ongoing mentoring from senior staff.
RIDEM has developed RIPDES permitting tools including permit and fact sheet development
checklists, standardized Word permit and fact sheet/statement of basis documents, and Excel
spreadsheets to conduct RPAs and develop WQBELs. RIDEM has developed individual
spreadsheets for each class of waterbody (i.e., freshwater non-class AA, freshwater class AA,
and saltwater). The Word templates address the various types of permits (i.e., individual major,
individual minor, and the various general permits) as well as fact sheets, statement of basis,
and development documents. All of these templates and forms are available on RIDEM's shared
computer network and are updated as necessary (e.g., in response to changes in water quality
criteria). Use of these standard documents facilitates consistency in permit development.
RIDEM staff also directly enter permit status/facility information, monitoring and schedule
requirements (required by permits and enforcement actions), and compliance
status/enforcement data (e.g., inspection data and compliance actions) into EPA's Integrated
Compliance Information System (ICIS) database and compliance tracking system.
The RIPDES supervisor performs final reviews for quality assurance (OA) and quality control
(QC) for all individual RIPDES permits. Senior permit writers perform the QA/QC review for
January 2021
Page 6 of41
-------
general permits, with the supervisor's consultation for permits of significant interest. RIDEM
uses checklists during permit QA/QC reviews.
B. Universe and Permit Issuance
As of April 2020, RIDEM is responsible for administering permit coverage for approximately 74
individual permits, including 23 major permits (19 POTWs and 4 non-POTWs) and 51 non-major
individual permits. In addition, RIDEM administers six general permit categories (Non-Contact
Cooling Water [NCCW], Remediation [RGP], Pesticide [PGP], Construction General Permit [CGP],
Multi-Sector Industrial Stormwater General Permit [MSGP] and MS4 General Permit), covering
1,170 dischargers. Among the stormwater general permits, as of April 2020, 41 permittees were
covered under the MS4 General Permit, 178 under the MSGP, and 235 under the CGP.
According to responses that RIDEM provided, 28 individual permits are administratively
continued (8 major and 20 non-major), meaning that the RIPDES program is 37 percent
backlogged. In addition, the small MS4 general permit is also administratively extended; RIDEM
indicated their top priority is reissuing the small MS4 general permit. RIDEM continues its
efforts to reduce the permit backlog to no more than 10% (i.e., at least 90% current).
C. State-Specific Challenges
RIDEM is challenged by a lack of resources to reduce permit backlog. In addition, RIDEM noted
difficulty with attracting and retaining staff. Further, certain staff are reaching retirement age;
therefore, contributing to resource constraints. Recently, the pretreatment coordinator retired
and RIDEM is seeking to fill that position immediately. RIDEM expressed interest in receiving
assistance with economic analyses to support the reissuance of an individual permit that is
subject to Clean Water Act Section 316(b) requirements. RIDEM has previously reached out to
EPA to request this assistance and continues to seek this specific support. RIDEM also indicated
interest in support from EPA regarding the rollout of electronic reporting requirements related
to the small MS4 general permit reissuance. EPA has agreed to support RIDEM's
implementation of NeT for its MS4 permit and has been working with the state to implement
the NeT application when RIDEM reissues the MS4 permit in 2021.
D. Current State Initiatives
RIDEM has recently started including requirements for climate resiliency planning in major
POTW permits. As stated in RIDEM's 2017 report, Implications of Climate Change for Rhode
Island Wastewater Collection and Treatment Infrastructure, "RIDEM is working in collaboration
with the state's Division of Planning and other agencies to integrate climate change
considerations into wastewater system planning, as well as current operations." RIDEM has
reached out to the state attorney general's office to address unpermitted auto salvage yards,
subject to the MSGP, following an effort to identify unpermitted facilities and conduct initial
outreach to those facilities. In addition, in 2019, RIDEM staff identified businesses with
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that would be subject to the state's MSGP and
conducted outreach to verify applicability of the MSGP and coverage status. As a result of this
January 2021
Page 7 of41
-------
effort, RIDEM received more than 50 no-exposure certifications and applications for MSGP
coverage from a number of other industrial sites.
III. CORE REVIEW FINDINGS
A. Basic Facility Information and Permit Application
1. Facility Information
Background
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.
Program Strengths
The permits reviewed include appropriate issuance, expiration and effective dates, along with
specific authorization to discharge language on the cover page. Further, the permits' cover page
indicates that the "permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, five (5) years
from the effective date", but do not specify a specific expiration date. The permits and fact
sheets reviewed generally include a basic description of the facility and of the treatment
process. Fact sheets include a description of discharge location information relative to receiving
waters.
Areas for Improvement
While the specific location of the outfalls is specified in the respective permit applications
(latitude and longitude), this information is not included in the permit or fact sheet. Further,
fact sheets do not consistently include a location map identifying the discharge location.
Action Items
•The PQR team did not identify any essential action items for this PQR
component
•RIDEM should consider including clear identification of the physical
location of outfalls in permits.
January 2021
Page 8 of41
-------
2. Permit Application Requirements
Background and Process
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.21 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.
RIDEM historically interpreted the requirement to receive applications at least 180 days prior to
permit expiration as having received the initial application. During the previous PQR, RIDEM
realized the application must be both timely and complete. Based on this awareness, RIDEM
revised its procedures for obtaining timely and complete applications and now conducts
monthly ICIS pulls to identify upcoming permit expirations and sends a reapplication reminder
letter (hard copy via certified mail) to permittees 12 months ahead of permit expiration.
RIDEM's goal is to receive an application 9 months ahead of permit expiration and then work to
have a complete application in the remaining 3-month window to ensure a complete
application is received within the minimum timeframe of 180 days prior to permit expiration.
Following revision of their application procedures, RIDEM has seen improvement in obtaining
timely and complete applications withinl80 days of permit expiration.
RIDEM uses EPA's NPDES application forms and the RIPDES website includes a link to EPA's
application website. RIPDES permit writers are responsible for reviewing applications for
completeness; upon such a determination, RIDEM issues an Application Complete Letter to the
Responsible Official.
As discussed earlier, applications were not available for all permits reviewed; therefore,
observations represent a subset of core permits reviewed.
Program Strengths
RIDEM has made improvements to their process for obtaining timely and complete
applications; staff conduct outreach well in advance of the application due date and maintain
communication with the applicant to work towards submittal of a complete application.
Applications reviewed during this PQR are generally timely (e.g., one permit was received one
month prior to permit expiration). Further, applications are signed by the appropriate official
and contain required data.
Areas for Improvement
The PQR Team did not identify any specific essential or recommended actions.
Action Items
There were none identified for this PQR component.
January 2021
Page 9 of41
-------
B. Developing Effluent Limitations
1. Technology-based Effluent Limitations
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 TBELs represent
the minimum level of control that must be imposed in a permit.
TBELs for POTWs
Background and Process
POTWs must meet secondary or equivalent to secondary standards (including limits for BOD,
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 six POTW permits were reviewed as part of the PQR.
RIDEM establishes effluent limitations for POTW permits based on the secondary treatment
regulations at 40 CFR Part 133. In addition, RIDEM establishes maximum daily effluent
limitations for TSS based on Rule 17.04(b) of the RIPDES regulations. RIDEM establishes
appropriate minimum percent removal requirements, consistent with the federal secondary
treatment regulations.
Program Strengths
The permits reviewed for POTWs included discharge limits for parameters addressed under the
secondary treatment requirements and these limits were consistent with the secondary
treatment requirements. In addition, RIPDES permits establish appropriate minimum percent
removal requirements. Fact sheets provide a useful understanding of the POTW's treatment
process and applicable regulations and effluent limitations.
Areas for Improvement
The PQR review team did not identify any specific essential or recommended actions.
Action Items
There were none identified for this PQR component.
TBELs for Non-POTW Dischargers
Background and Process
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 limitations 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
January 2021
Page 10 of 41
-------
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).
Four non-POTW permits were reviewed as part of the PQR. Of the four permits reviewed, only
one permit was subject to ELGs; 40 CFR Part 408, Subpart X (Mechanized Clam Processing).
RIPDES permit writers review federal ELGs to determine applicability to non-municipal
discharges and apply standards as appropriate. RIPDES permit writers might also develop
effluent limitations on a case-by-case basis using BPJ and will document decisions for such
effluent limitations in the fact sheet. RIPDES permits include a discussion of facility operations
and treatment processes and identify ELGs or state performance standards applicable to the
discharge.
Program Strengths
Fact sheets provided an adequate description of facility processes and discussion of the
applicability of ELGs. In one permit that was subject to ELGs, RIDEM established BPJ-based
effluent limitations for fecal coliform based on state performance standards and included a
discussion in the accompanying permit fact sheet.
Areas for Improvement
The PQR review team did not identify any specific essential or recommended actions.
Action Items
There were none identified for this PQR component.
2. Reasonable Potential and Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations
Background
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) and particularly 122.44(d)(l)(vii)(A)(2) 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 WQBELs, the permitting authority must evaluate
whether any pollutants or pollutant parameters could cause, have the reasonable potential to
cause, or contribute to an excursion above any applicable water quality standard.
The PQR for RIDEM assessed the processes employed 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,
January 2021
Page 11 of 41
-------
• assessed any dilution considerations,
• determined whether limits were necessary for pollutants of concern and, where
necessary,
• 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 TMDLs.
Process for Assessing Reasonable Potential
RIPDES permit writers conduct the RPA and may at times consult with staff in the TMDL and
Water Quality programs to collect receiving water information and identify applicable TMDLs
and wasteload allocations (WLAs). RIPDES fact sheets clearly identify receiving streams,
designated uses, and applicable water quality criteria, including TMDLs. RIPDES permit writers
identify pollutants of concern through review of data provided in DMRs, applications, and
priority pollutant scans. RIDEM conducts an RPA for all pollutants for which water quality
criteria exist, using all available discharge monitoring data; permit writers typically review 5
years' worth of discharge monitoring data. Rhode Island's water quality standards are
contained within the Water Quality Regulations at 250-RICR-150-05-1.8.
RIDEM considers ambient receiving water data from RIDEM's Rotating Basin Sampling Program
(sampling occurs on a 5-year rotating basis), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data, or sometimes
"Watershed Watch" volunteer organization sampling data (however, these data are sometimes
of lower quality). RIPDES permit writers may also consider receiving water data available
through TMDL development efforts. RIDEM allows 90 percent of the water quality criterion
allocated. If background data are absent, RIDEM allocates only 80 percent of the water quality
criterion.
RIPDES permit writers compare data from the DMRs, application, and priority pollutant scans to
the potential WQBELs. RIDEM determines there is reasonable potential when the discharge
data are greater than or equal to 50 percent of the potential WQBEL. RIPDES fact sheets
generally discuss the analysis results, including which data were considered and parameters
that demonstrated reasonable potential. RIDEM documents reasonable potential calculations
and results in Fact Sheets as an attachment providing reasonable potential analysis, which
consists of the comparison of effluent data with potential WQBELs. Potential WQBELs are based
on applicable water quality criteria after accounting for dilution and mixing, or where mixing is
not allowed, criteria are applied at end of pipe. The review revealed that fact sheet
documentation consists of a series of data summary tables identifying discharge monitoring
data evaluated, applicable water quality criteria, potential WQBELs, and resulting reasonable
potential decision. The review revealed that RIPDES permits subsequently include limits for
parameters that demonstrate reasonable potential, consistent with the information presented
in the fact sheet.
January 2021
Page 12 of 41
-------
Process for Developing WQBELs
RIPDES permit writers are also responsible for developing WQBELs. Rhode Island's mixing zone
policy is provided in the Water Quality Standards at 250-RICR-150-05-1.10. Where dilution is
granted, RIDEM follows EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control (TSD)3 recommendations in its application of the dilution or mixing zone policy. RIDEM
does not allow dilution to impoundments, lakes, ponds, or wetlands. For estuaries, RIDEM uses
dye studies to evaluate mixing zones. If no dilution is allowed, RIDEM applies WQC at the end of
pipe. RIDEM assumes complete mixing in streams and rivers (unidirectional flow waters).
RIPDES permit writers document implementation of mixing zones in the fact sheets.
RIDEM uses Excel spreadsheets to conduct RPAs and develop WQBELs; individual spreadsheets
are used for each class of water. RIDEM obtains effluent data from ICIS and uses CORMIX
models when appropriate (CORMIX is used mostly for discharges to saltwater receiving waters).
RIDEM noted that CORMIX models (and 7Q10 flows) are not updated routinely (i.e., with each
permit renewal cycle), but would update if the facility design flow changes. RIDEM recently
updated their 7Q10 flows, using USGS data through 2018 (previous 7Q10 values were based on
USGS data through 1993). The 7Q10 updates are resulting in lower available dilution and more
stringent effluent limitations. As a result, RIDEM may look at using Metal Translators to achieve
compliance with newly calculated effluent limitations. RIDEM documents WQBEL calculations in
the fact sheets.
Program Strengths
Reasonable Potential
RIPDES permit fact sheets clearly identify the receiving stream, including segment,
designated uses, impairment status, and applicable TMDLs. In addition, fact sheets describe
the discharge data available and considered in the reasonable potential analysis. RIDEM
evaluates all discharge data that are available and applies a conservative approach when
evaluating whether a discharge demonstrates reasonable potential, in that RIDEM
determines a WQBEL is necessary when discharge data are greater than or equal to 50
percent of the potential WQBEL. Fact sheet attachments provide tables summarizing the
RPA, application of mixing zones, and resulting WQBELs.
WQBEL Development
RIDEM establishes WQBELs consistent with the summary provided in permit fact sheets and
accompanying attachments and in accordance with the state's water quality standards. Fact
sheet attachments include a general summary of WQBELs established in the permit.
3 U.S. EPA. (March 1991). Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA/505/2-90-
001). https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0264.pdf
January 2021
Page 13 of 41
-------
Areas for Improvement
Reasonable Potential
RIDEM should consider including additional narrative discussion in the fact sheet, or
accompanying attachments specific to the RPA, describing the process by which RIDEM
determines whether WQBELs are necessary. The summary tables provide useful
information; however, the lack of a narrative description of the analysis and results detracts
from a complete understanding of RIDEM's RPA.
WQBEL Development
RIDEM carries over certain effluent limitations from one permit term sometimes without
discussion of the original basis of the effluent limitation; RIDEM's fact sheets would be
strengthened with a discussion of the basis for all effluent limitations, including those that
are carried forward. Similarly, certain permit decisions based on special water quality
studies orTMDLs lack a clear explanation of rationale in fact sheets. RIDEM's fact sheets
should include a thorough discussion of the supporting analyses and studies upon which
WQBELs are based. While we acknowledge that Rhode Island has a new 7Q10 Policy (2019),
it is important that updating the 7Q10 flows upon which effluent limitations are based
occurs with every permit renewal cycle where there are known significant changes in the
receiving stream.
Action Items
'Reasonable Potential
•The PQR team did not identify any essential action items for this PQR
component
»W0BEL Development
•The PQR team did not identify any essential action items for this PQR
component
•Reasonable Potential
•RIDEM should include in fact sheets a narrative discussion of the RPA to
accompany the data summary tables contained in fact sheet attachments.
•WQBEL Development
•RIDEM should describe the original basis for effluent limitations that are
carried forward from the previous permit.
•RIDEM should include a thorough discussion of supporting water quality
studies and analyses upon which certain WQBELs are based.
•RIDEM should consider updating 7Q10 flows with every permit cycle.
January 2021
Page 14 of 41
-------
3. Final Effluent Limitations and Documentation
Background and Process
Permits must include all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including technology
and water quality standards, and must include effluent limitations that ensure that all
applicable CWA standards are met. The permitting authority must identify the most stringent
effluent limitations and establish them as the final effluent limitations in the permit. In
addition, for reissued permits, if any of the limitations are less stringent than limitations on the
same pollutant in the previous NPDES permit, the permit writer must conduct an anti-
backsliding analysis, and if necessary, revise the limitations accordingly. In addition, for new or
increased discharges, the permitting authority should conduct an antidegradation review, to
ensure the permit is written to maintain existing high quality of surface waters, or if
appropriate, allow for some degradation. The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 131.12 outline the
common elements of the antidegradation review process.
In addition, 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 WQBELs as well as the procedures explaining the basis for
establishing, or for not establishing, WQBELs 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. The permit writer should sufficiently document
determinations regarding anti-backsliding and antidegradation requirements.
RIDEM's fact sheets include a general description of facility operations and wastewater
treatment processes, expected waste streams and pollutants in the discharge, and
identification of applicable treatment standards. In addition, the fact sheets indicate the
applicable federal ELGs that are considered in the development of TBELs for the facility and
describe the applicability of ELGs. RIDEM's fact sheets for municipal facilities include a
discussion of the basis of TBELs. RIDEM's fact sheets clearly identify the receiving water body,
the designated uses, and the applicable water quality standards. Permit writers discuss the
impairment status of the receiving water body and identify whether TMDLs are applicable to
the discharge. Further, permit writers briefly discuss the pollutants of concern and data
evaluated in the reasonable potential analysis. Fact sheets include attachments that provide a
summary of the data considered in the RPA, mixing zone and dilution allowances, RPA, and the
subsequent WQBELs established in the permit.
RIPDES permit writers consider both TBELs and WQBELs when establishing final effluent
limitations. Fact sheets clearly discuss applicable standards and effluent limitations and identify
the most stringent effluent limitation which is then established in the permit.
RIDEM's antidegradation implementation procedures are contained in Appendix C (July 2006,
Amended May 2009) to the state's Water Quality Regulations. The policy itself is contained in
January 2021
Page 15 of 41
-------
Rule 18 of the State's Water Quality Regulations. The State's antidegradation regulations are
based on the federal regulations (40 CFR 131.12). RIDEM indicated that antidegradation applies
to all projects or activities subject to these regulations which will likely lower water quality or
affect existing or designated water uses, including but not limited to all Water Quality
Certification reviews and any new or modified RIPDES permits. RIDEM indicated that
antidegradation is considered if any WQBELs are calculated to be less stringent, or if flow
increased such that pollutant loading increased. If WQBELs are calculated to be well below
previous permit limitations, there would be no need to grant additional assimilative capacity-
RIDEM would hold them to the same discharge level. RIPDES permit fact sheets include
documentation of antidegradation reviews. RIDEM indicated they consider anti-backsliding
similar to how they deal with antidegradation, noting that one builds on another. RIPDES
permit writers will document anti-backsliding reviews in permit fact sheets.
Program Strengths
RIDEM develops TBELs and WQBELs appropriately and provides adequate documentation of
TBELs development, including discussion of applicable ELGs and secondary treatment standards
for POTWs. RIPDES permit writers identify the basis for each effluent limitation, whether it is
technology-based or water quality-based. Further, the fact sheets include discussion illustrating
the permit writer compared applicable TBELs and WQBELs and established the more stringent
effluent limitation in the permit.
Areas for Improvement
RIDEM's permit fact sheets would be strengthened with the addition of a discussion of the RPA
procedure, steps, and explicit results to accompany the summary tables currently presented in
fact sheet attachments. In addition, RIDEM's fact sheets and administrative records would be
improved with clear documentation of the supporting analyses and studies (including TMDLs)
upon which final effluent limitations are based. RIPDES fact sheets and administrative records
should clearly articulate how anti-backsliding and antidegradation provisions will be met when
any effluent limitations are either relaxed or discontinued. EPA acknowledges that Rhode Island
has developed a new Fact Sheet template that addresses some of these additional details. EPA
did not review permits that have utilized this template.
January 2021
Page 16 of 41
-------
Action Items
Essential
Recommended
•The PQR team did not identify any essential action items for this
PQR component
•RIDEM should include a clear discussion of the basis for effluent
limitations, including:
•Reasonable potential analysis procedures, steps, and explicit
results to accompany the summary tables currently presented in
fact sheet attachments, and
•Documentation of supporting studies and analyes (including
TMDLs) upon which WBELs are based.
•RIPDES fact sheets and administrative records should clearly
articulate how anti-backsliding and antidegradation provisions will
be met when any effluent limitations are either relaxed or
discontinued.
C. Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Background and Process
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 in a manner that is representative
of the permitted effluent discharge(s) 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
reporting of 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. 40 CFR Part 127 requires NPDES-regulated entities to submit certain data
electronically, including discharge monitoring reports and various program-specific reports, as
applicable.
NPDES permits should specify appropriate monitoring locations to ensure compliance with the
permit limitations and provide the necessary data to determine the effects of the effluent on
the receiving water. A complete fact sheet will include a description and justification for all
January 2021
Page 17 of 41
-------
monitoring locations required by the permit. States may have policy or guidance documents to
support determination of appropriate monitoring frequencies; documentation should include
an explicit discussion in the fact sheet providing the basis for establishing monitoring
frequencies, including identification of the specific state policy or internal guidance referenced.
Permits must also specify the sample collection method for all parameters required to be
monitored in the permit. The fact sheet should present the rationale for requiring grab or
composite samples and discuss the basis of a permit requirement mandating use of a
sufficiently sensitive 40 CFR Part 136 analytical test method.
RIDEM does not have any standardized tools or resources to develop monitoring requirements.
Permits establish monitoring locations as the final discharge point to the receiving water.
Monitoring types are based on 40 CFR Part 136 requirements (via reference to 40 CFR Part
136). RIDEM establishes monitoring frequencies on a standardized list for POTWs based on
facility size. Permit writer judgment is used to determine appropriate frequencies for non-
POTWs.
RIDEM requires monthly reporting for DMRs (majors and most minors). Permittees are required
to submit DMRs electronically and all individual facilities are submitting electronically now.
Major facilities submit quarterly bioassay reports. POTWs are required to submit infiltration
and inflow reports (frequency ranges from 6 months to every other year, based on historical
flows to identify whether infiltration and inflow is problematic). Permits for non-major facilities
that are perceived to have a low impact to water quality may include reduced reporting
frequencies.
Program Strengths
The permits reviewed include appropriate monitoring requirements based on the facility type,
type of discharge, and corresponding limit basis. Influent monitoring is appropriately required
for BOD and TSS for POTWs. The permits contained a general requirement that monitoring
must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR Part 136. Permits
reviewed consistently require permittees to use sufficiently sensitive 40 CFR Part 136 analytical
methods capable of quantifying pollutants at concentrations equal to or less than the effluent
limitations. All of the permits reviewed require monitoring for whole effluent toxicity. Permits
specify reporting requirements clearly.
Areas for Improvement
RIDEM should consider including a specific description of monitoring locations, including
latitude and longitude coordinates, to ensure clarity in monitoring requirements.
January 2021
Page 18 of 41
-------
Action Items
Essential
Recommended
•The PQR team did not identify any essential action items for this
PQR component.
•RIDEM should consider including a specific description of
monitoring locations, including latitude and longitude coordinates.
D. Standard and Special Conditions
Background and Process
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.41 require that all NPDES permits, including NPDES general
permits, contain certain "standard" permit conditions. Further, the regulations at 40 CFR 122.42
require that NPDES permits for certain categories of dischargers must contain 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 those in the federal regulations.
Permits may also contain additional requirements that are unique to a particular 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
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.
RIDEM uses boilerplate language, contained in Part II of permits, to identify standard permit
conditions. RIDEM updated the boilerplate language approximately 1.5 years prior to when the
PQR was conducted.
The permits reviewed include all of the NPDES standard conditions except for 40 CFR
122.41(l)(5), which addresses compliance schedules and requires that reports of compliance,
noncompliance or progress with final or interim requirements be submitted within 14 days of
the schedule date. RIDEM does not have authority to include compliance schedules in RIPDES
permits. Rather, permit provisions must be appealed and compliance schedules can be included
in an enforcement agreement. In addition, the RIPDES provision that appears to address 40 CFR
122.42(b) (i.e., introduction of new pollutants or substantial change in the volume or character
of pollutants introduced to POTW requires notice to Director) is similar to the federal provision
and might be sufficient, but it is unclear in some respects (e.g., it addresses facility expansions,
production increases or process modifications that result in new, different or increased
discharges of pollutants; requires notice to the Director if changes will not violate effluent
limits; and requires a new permit application if they will). And while we note that we
recommend that RIDEM ensure that its regulations related to the above-mentioned provisions
January 2021
Page 19 of 41
-------
are consistent with federal requirements, it was beyond the scope of this review to complete a
comprehensive review of all of Rhode Island's NPDES regulations.
Program Strengths
The special and standard conditions reviewed appeared to be consistent with applicable
requirements.
Areas for Improvement
RIDEM should ensure that the provision that appears to address 40 CFR 122.42(b) (i.e.,
introduction of new pollutants or substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants
introduced to POTW requires notice to Director) is consistent with the federal standard
provision. Further, RIDEM should ensure that penalty amounts and language are consistent
with federal standard conditions. Through this recommendation, EPA is merely reminding the
state to check its regulations to make sure they are consistent with federal provisions; these
issues can be addressed in upcoming discussions between EPA and RIDEM if that would be
useful.
Action Items
•The PQR team did not identify any essential action items for this
PQR component
•RIDEM should ensure that the standard condition that appears to
address 40 CFR 122.42(b) is consistent with the federal standard
condition.
•RIDEM should ensure that penalty amounts and language are
consistent with federal requirements.
E. Administrative Process
Background and 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
permit (if necessary) after issuance (40 CFR 124.5). EPA discussed each element of the
administrative process with Rhode Island and reviewed materials from the administrative
process as they related to the core permit review.
Following completion of an internal draft permit, the RIPDES supervisor provides a QA review
and then the draft permit is provided to the permittee for a 14-day review. RIDEM public
notices the draft permit issuance and, if one is requested, a public hearing concurrently. RIDEM
noted that the public comment period is sometimes 38 days long to allow for the Public Hearing
January 2021
Page 20 of 41
-------
(the hearing is held within 38-39 days and the close of the public comment period is the next
day after the public hearing). RIDEM accepts comments through the last day of the comment
period.
RIDEM provides written responses to public commenters and anyone who requested to review
a copy of the draft permit during the public notice period. RIDEM noted that during the 14-day
permittee review, the intent is to identify clerical errors and verify that overall general
information is correct. Further, the 14-day review is to notify the permittee of permit effluent
limitations that require a compliance schedule, so a consent agreement is initiated. RIDEM
would provide a written response to significant comments raised during the 14-day review. In
some cases, a revised 14-day draft permit may be provided to the permittee for their review.
The transactions occurring during the 14-day draft review are included in the public permit
record, but not the public notice record.
RIPDES permit appeals are routine because of the use of consent agreements in place of
compliance schedules. RIDEM issues the permit, then permittees have 30 days to appeal and
stay the permit conditions (which occur in two separate actions). Permit appeals go to the
Office of Administrative Adjudication. RIDEM will enter into a consent agreement to resolve the
appeal. If after it goes through the Office of Administrative Adjudication and the permittee is
not satisfied, the permittee can further the appeal into the court system.
Program Strengths
Permit records reviewed appeared to include complete documentation demonstrating that
public notice procedures are implemented appropriately. In addition, permit records reviewed
include comments received as well as RIDEM's response to comments.
Areas for Improvement
RIDEM should consider including documentation of transactions occurring during the 14-day
permittee review in the public notice record, to provide transparency in how RIDEM
determined appropriate permit conditions.
Action Items
•The PQR team did not identify any essential action items for this
PQR component.
•RIDEM should consider including documentation of transactions
occurring during the 14-day permittee review in the public notice
record.
Essential
Recommended
January 2021
Page 21 of 41
-------
F. Administrative Record and Fact Sheet
Background and Process
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;4 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.
RIPDES permit writers develop the fact sheet concurrent with the permit. Permit writers use
template documents to draft the fact sheet; templates are updated routinely, and permit
writers ensure the use of the most current template. Comments received during the public
comment period are retained electronically with the permit and fact sheet files. RIDEM's
administrative record is maintained in hard copy in an area devoted to permits.
Program Strengths
RIPDES permit fact sheets contain the required elements and are well organized. Rhode Island,
after this review, also indicated that it now has a Fact Sheet Template that it is using to address
remaining issues identified in this review.
Areas for Improvement
RIDEM has improved their fact sheets since the previous PQR; however, improvements in the
amount of detail have not been consistent. For example, fact sheets reviewed during this PQR
review often did not consistently discuss the basis for effluent limitations that are carried
forward from the previous permit. We noted during our review that fact sheets would be
4 Per 40 CFR 124.8(a), every EPA and state-issued permit must be accompanied by a fact sheet if the permit:
Incorporates a variance or requires an explanation under 124.56(b); is an NPDES general permit; is subject to
widespread public interest; is a Class I sludge management facility; or includes a sewage sludge land application
plan.
January 2021
Page 22 of 41
-------
strengthened with a detailed discussion of the reasonable potential analysis process, steps for
determining reasonable potential, and clear identification of results. RIDEM now utilizes a Fact
Sheet Template to standardize this type of review, which it asserts will address these issues.
Action Items
•The PQR team did not identify any essential action items for this
PQR component
•The PQR team did not identify any recommended action items for
this PQR component due to changes now implemented by RIDEM
regarding its use of a Fact Sheet Template.
IV. NATIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS
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: Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters,
Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor Contributions, and Small Municipal
Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit Requirements.
A. Permit Controls for Nutrients in Non-TMDL Waters
Background
Nutrient pollution is an ongoing environmental challenge, however, nationally, permits often
lack nutrient limits. It is vital that permitting authorities actively consider nutrient pollution in
their permitting decisions. Of the permits that do have limits, many are derived from wasteload
allocations in TMDLs, since state criteria are often challenging to interpret. For this section,
waters that are not protected by a TMDL are considered. These waters may already be
impaired by nutrient pollution or may be vulnerable to nutrient pollution due to their hydrology
and environmental conditions. For the purposes of this program area, ammonia is considered
as a toxic pollutant, not a nutrient.
Federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(l)(i) require permit limits to be developed for any
pollutant with the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion of the state's
water quality standards, whether those standards are narrative or numeric.
To assess how nutrients are addressed in the Rhode Island NPDES program, EPA Region 1
reviewed four permits.
Rhode Island Nutrient Criteria
January 2021
Page 23 of 41
-------
The State of Rhode Island Water Quality Regulations (see:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/riwqs.pdf) include a
combination of numeric response and numerical causal and narrative criteria for nutrients.
Specifically:
Section 1.10.B.4: Nutrients - Nutrients shall not exceed the limitations specified in §§ 1.10(D)(1)
and 1.10(E)(1) of this Part and/or more stringent site-specific limits necessary to prevent or
minimize accelerated or cultural eutrophication."
FRESHWATER (Section 1.10.D.1 of R! WQ Regulations)
Parameter
Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen
Cold Water Fish Habitat - Dissolved oxygen content of not less than 75%
saturation, based on a daily average, and an instantaneous minimum
dissolved oxygen concentration of at least 5 mg/L, except as naturally occurs.
For the period from October 1st to May 14th, where in areas identified by the
Rl Division of Fish and Wildlife as cold water fish spawning areas the
following criteria apply: For species whose early life stages are not directly
exposed to the water column (ie, early life stages are intergravel), the 7 day
mean water column dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than
9.5 mg/L and the instantaneous minimum dissolved oxygen concentration
shall not be less than 8 mg/L. For species that have early life stages exposed
directly to the water column, the 7 day mean water column dissolved oxygen
concentration shall not be less than 6.5 mg/L and the instantaneous
minimum dissolved oxygen concentration shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L.
(See § 1.25 of this Part for cold water designated waters)
Warm Water Fish Habitat - Dissolved oxygen content of not less than 60%
saturation, based on a daily average, and an instantaneous minimum
dissolved oxygen concentration of at least 5.0 mg/L, except as naturally
occurs. The 7 day mean water column dissolved oxygen concentration shall
not be less than 6 mg/L. (See § 1.25 of this Part for warmwater designated
waters)
Nutrients
Average Total Phosphorus shall not exceed 0.025 mg/L in any lake, pond,
kettlehole or reservoir, and average Total P in tributaries at the point where
they enter such bodies of water shall not cause exceedance of this
phosphorus criteria, except as naturally occurs, unless the Director
determines, on a site-specific basis, that a different value for phosphorus is
necessary to prevent cultural eutrophication.
None in such concentration that would impair any usages specifically
assigned to said Class, or cause undesirable or nuisance aquatic species
associated with cultural eutrophication, nor cause exceedance of the
criterion above in a downstream lake, pond, or reservoir. New discharges of
January 2021
Page 24 of 41
-------
wastes containing phosphates will not be permitted into or immediately
upstream of lakes or ponds. Phosphates shall be removed from existing
discharges to the extent that such removal is or may become technically and
reasonably feasible.
SEA WATERS (Section 1.10.E.1 of R! WQSWQ Regulations)
Parameter
Criteria
Dissolved Oxygen
See § 1.10(F) of this Part
Nutrients
None in such concentration that would impair any usages specifically
assigned to said Class, or cause undesirable or nuisance aquatic species
associated with cultural eutrophication. Shall not exceed site-specific limits if
deemed necessary by the Director to prevent or minimize accelerated or
cultural eutrophication. Total Phosphorus, nitrates and ammonia may be
assigned site-specific permit limits based on reasonable Best Available
Technologies. Where waters have low tidal flushing rates, applicable
treatment to prevent or minimize accelerated or cultural eutrophication may
be required for regulated nonpoint source activities.
Warwick Wastewater Treatment Facility (RI0100234)
The 2019 Permit for the Warwick WWTF includes a minimum dissolved oxygen (DO) limit of 6.0
mg/L for the period from June 1st through October 31st which is based on a previous WLA that
is not cited in the fact sheet, a total phosphorus limit of 0.1 mg/L for the period from April 1st
through October 31st and a total phosphorus limit of 1.0 mg/L for the period from November
1st through March 31st, a monitoring requirement for orthophosphorus for the period from
November 1st through March 31st, a total nitrogen limit of 8.0 mg/L for the period from May
1st through October 31st, and a requirement to optimize total nitrogen removal for the period
from November 1st through March 31st.
The Fact Sheet states that the Providence and Seekonk Rivers are impacted by low DO levels
and high phytoplankton concentrations that are related to excessive nitrogen loads and that
these rivers suffer from hypoxic and anoxic conditions and violate water quality standards. The
fact sheet, however, does not describe the relationship between the receiving water, the
Pawtuxet River, to the Providence and Seekonk Rivers. There should be a short discussion of
the relationship between the water bodies. The nitrogen limit of 8.0 mg/L (May-October) is
based on an evaluation by RIDEM that took into consideration implementation costs,
performance of available technology, and estimates of instream improvements. There should
be further discussion in the fact sheet as to why 8.0 mg/L is more appropriate than 5.0 mg/L or
3.0 mg/L. The evaluation that these limits are based on, The Evaluation of Nitrogen Targets and
WWTF Load Reductions for the Providence and Seekonk Rivers, ("Evaluation") is now 16 years
old and represented a phased approach to attaining water quality standards. These limits are
the same as in the previous permit. There is no discussion of improvements in water quality
January 2021
Page 25 of 41
-------
since the issuance of the previous permit and the segment remains on the Impaired Water List.
Ambient sampling may be helpful for future permitting.
The total phosphorus limit is based on Rhode Island's determination that total phosphorus
concentration of 0.1 mg/L is both technically and reasonably achievable using existing
treatment technologies. RIDEM also evaluated the limit for being protective of water quality.
The calculations for this evaluation should be included in the fact sheet.
The permit also includes ammonia limits based on the WLA (established in the late 80s/early
90s timeframe and not based on a TMDL) for DO.
East Greenwich Wastewater Treatment Plant (RI0100030)
The 2018 Permit for the East Greenwich WWTP includes a total nitrogen limit of 5.0 mg/L for
the period from May through October and monitoring requirements for total nitrogen for the
period November through April 30, and year-round monitoring requirements for total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, total nitrite, total nitrate. The receiving water for this discharge, Greenwich Cove, is
impaired for total nitrogen, DO, and fecal coliform.
The Fact Sheet does not discuss much of the background for nitrogen limits and simply notes
that the limits have been maintained from the 2011 Permit. There should be further discussion
of the history of these requirements and an evaluation of the current conditions. Ambient
sampling would be helpful for future permitting.
Cranston Water Pollution Control Facility (RI0100013)
The 2019 Permit for the Cranston WPCF includes a dissolved oxygen limit of 6.0 mg/L for the
period from June to October based on the WLA, (see "Evaluation" document cited in Warwick
permit, above) a total phosphorus limit of 0.1 mg/L for the period from April through October
and a limit of 1.0 mg/L for the period from November through March, a monitoring
requirement for orthophosphorus for the period from November through March, a total
nitrogen limit of 8.0 mg/L for the period May through October and monitoring requirement for
the period from November through April. The permit also includes ammonia nitrogen limits and
monitoring for total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrate and total nitrite. The receiving water,
Pawtuxet River is impaired for total phosphorus.
The Fact Sheet states that the Providence and Seekonk Rivers are impacted by low DO levels
and high phytoplankton concentrations that are related to excessive nitrogen loads and that
these rivers suffer from hypoxic and anoxic conditions and violate water quality standards. The
fact sheet, however, does not describe the relationship between the receiving water, the
Pawtuxet River, to the Providence and Seekonk Rivers. It appears that the Seekonk is upstream
from the confluence of the Pawtuxet River with the Providence River. The nitrogen limit of 8.0
mg/L (May-October) is based on an evaluation by RIDEM that took into consideration
implementation costs, performance of available technology, and estimates of instream
improvements. This evaluation, cited above in the Warwick permit, is now 16 years old and
represented a phased approach to attaining water quality standards. These limits are the same
as in the previous permit. There is no discussion of improvements in water quality since the
January 2021
Page 26 of 41
-------
issuance of the previous permit and the segment remains on the Impaired Water List. Ambient
sampling would be helpful for future permitting.
The permit also includes ammonia limits based on the WLA and the corresponding Evaluation
document cited in the Warwick permit, above.
Woonsocket Regional Wastewater Commission (RI0100111)
The 2017 Permit for the Woonsocket Regional Wastewater Commission includes a total
phosphorus limit of 0.1 mg/L for the period from April through October and a limit of 1.0 mg/L
for the period from November through March. The permit also requires monitoring for
orthophosphorus year-round. Total nitrogen limits are 10 mg/L for the month of April and then
3.0 mg/L for the period from May through October and then monitoring for the period from
November through March. The facility is also required to optimize the removal of total nitrogen
for the period from November through March "to the maximum extent possible using all
available treatment equipment in place at the facility." The permit also has monitoring
requirements for total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total nitrate and total nitrite.
Program Strengths
Rhode Island has done quite well with their nutrient controls. Their biggest issue faced by the
permitting program is nitrogen and RIDEM has required nitrogen limits for all, or most, of the
large entities in the state (partly due to a legislative mandate as a result of a massive fish kill to
cut nitrogen by 50%). Rhode Island has taken an adaptive management approach since there is
no TMDL and that has been effective. Rhode Island has done a good job addressing the DO
issue. Rhode Island is farther ahead than most other states with respect to the management of
nutrients.
Areas for Improvement
Rhode Island could do a better job with providing more information in their fact sheets with
respect to nutrient limits. Often, the fact sheets refer to WLAs as the sources of a limit and
then refers to the previous permit. The WLAs should be cited specifically with the
documentation included in the current permit files and described in the fact sheet.
Furthermore, the reasonable potential calculations should be included in the fact sheet. For
some permits, a discussion of recent assessments related to the Providence River, Seekonk
River and Upper Narraganset Bay should be discussed. Significant efforts are ongoing and even
if the limits from the previous permit are maintained, those limits should be evaluated with
respect to more current ambient data and reports.
In addition, Rhode Island interprets a total phosphorus concentration of 0.1 mg/L as both
technically and reasonably achievable and additional documentation supporting this
interpretation should be supplied.
January 2021
Page 27 of 41
-------
Action Items
Essential
•The PQR team did not identify any essential action items for this
PQR component
Recommended
•RIDEM should include all relevant information in the fact sheets
related to nutrient limit development including WLAs and
reasonable potential calculations, even if such calculations were
conducted for the prior permit.
•RIDEM should provide documentation that the total phosphorus
concentration of 0.1 mg/L is both technically and reasonablly
achieveable.
B. Effectiveness of POTW NPDES Permits with Food Processor
Contributions
The general pretreatment regulations (40 CFR Part 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.
Background
Indirect discharges of food processors can be a significant contributor to noncompliance at
recipient POTWs. Food processing discharges contribute to nutrient pollution (e.g., nitrogen,
phosphorus, ammonia) to the nation's waterways. Focusing specifically on the Food Processing
Industrial Sector will synchronize PQRs with the Office of Enforcement Compliance and
Assurance (OECA)'s Significant Non-compliance (SNC)/National Compliance Initiative (NCI).
The goal of the PQR was to identify successful and unique practices with respect to the control
of food processor discharges by evaluating whether appropriate controls are included in the
receiving POTW NPDES Permit and documented in the associated Fact Sheet or Statement of
Basis; as well as by compiling information to develop or improve permit writers' tools to be
used to improve both POTW and industrial user compliance.
The PQR also assessed the status of the pretreatment program in Rhode Island as well as
specific language in POTW NPDES permits. With respect to NPDES permits, 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);
January 2021
Page 28 of 41
-------
• 40 CFR 403.8 (Pretreatment Program Requirements: Development and Implementation
by POTW), including the requirement to permit all SlUs;
• 40 CFR 403.9 (POTW Pretreatment Program and/or Authorization to revise
Pretreatment Standards: Submission for Approval);
. 40 CFR 403.12(i) (Annual POTW Reports); and
• 40 CFR 403.18 (Modification of POTW Pretreatment Program).
Rhode Island is a NPDES authorized state with an approved state pretreatment program and
therefore acts as the approval authority. RIDEM received approval of its Pretreatment Program
in 1981. The pretreatment universe in Rhode Island includes 15 state approved local industrial
pretreatment programs, which regulates approximately 160 significant industrial users (SlUs)
and over 55 categorical industrial users (ClUs).
RIDEM coordinates with the pretreatment authority to determine the appropriate
pretreatment conditions for a POTW permit. RIDEM pretreatment staff reviews the POTW
application, POTW permit and POTW fact sheet. Pretreatment regulations are incorporated by
both reference and are written out in the permit. RIDEM pretreatment staff also determine
which and when a POTW needs to develop a pretreatment program. There are only four
POTWs in the state that do not have an approved pretreatment program. The state provides
direct oversight of any industrial users in these four POTWs.
RIDEM currently does not have any SlUs or ClUs that they oversee directly as the Control
Authority. They identify SlUs in non-approved pretreatment programs through the regular
RIPDES Permit re-issuance process (Fact Sheets, discussions with the POTW, etc.) and in the
past, via periodic EPA industrial waste surveys and multi-media inspections.
The RIPDES pretreatment section reviews all POTW annual reports, periodic local limits
evaluations, IPP modification requests (e.g., amended sewer use ordinances [SUOs],
enforcement response plans, interjurisdictional agreements, etc.), as may be required by the
POTW's RIPDES Permit. The Rhode Island pretreatment coordinator took leave after the EPA
PQR took place and has since retired. RIDEM has reassigned a permit writer to assume the
state's pretreatment coordinator's tasks. EPA wants to emphasis the important of the
pretreatment coordinator position. RIDEM has implemented a thorough pretreatment program
for many years because of the oversight of the pretreatment coordinator. The coordinator
position has been a full-time position and should continue to be a full-time position.
For this PQR, four POTW permits were reviewed, two with approved pretreatment programs
and two without a pretreatment program. Four industrial user permits that discharge to the
chosen POTWs were also reviewed. This PQR also included SUOs, industry fact sheets, and the
most recent pretreatment compliance audit report (PCA) or pretreatment compliant inspection
(PCI) conducted by RIDEM.
The following POTWs were selected for review after discussion with the RIDEM pretreatment
staff and their knowledge of which POTWs currently have food processors that discharge to the
plant.
January 2021
Page 29 of 41
-------
Permittee
Permit No.
Approved
Pretreatment
Program?
Design Flow
Average
(MGD)
No.
of
Sills1
No. of
Food
Processors1
Controls on Conventional
Pollutants or Nutrients in
SUO?
The Narragansett
Bay Commission
(NBC) Field's Point
WWTF
RI0100315
Yes
18.2
65
1
BOD and TSS surcharge
Burrillville Sewer
Commission
RI0100455
No
1.5
0
l2
BOD5, TSS, Ammonia,
Total Nitrogen and Total
Phosphorus surcharge
Town of
Narragansett
RI0100188
No
1.4
1
1
BOD and TSS surcharge
Quonset
Development
Corporation
RI0100404
Yes
1.78
6
03
BOD and TSS surcharge
'Based on the information provided in the permit application.
2 Based on information provided by DEM pretreatment staff and discussion with POTW.
3 Permit application state one industry (Greencore USA, Inc.) that produces ready to eat fresh products (i.e.
sandwiches, pasta, salads), but EPA decided that this did not fall under the category of a food processing.
Four food processing industrial user permits were also reviewed as part of the PQR; they are
identified in the table below.
Facility Name
Permit
Receiving
Type of
Classification
Average
Monitored Pollutants
Number
POTW
Food
Processor
by POTW
Process
Wastewater
Discharge
[gallons per
day [gpd])
Providence
P3404-006-
NBC Field's
Cheese
SIU
26,831'
Flow, pH, TTO, BOD, TSS,
Specialty
1023
Point
Manufacturing
Total Oil and Grease, Oil and
Products, LLC
Wastewater
Treatment
Facility
Operations
Grease (mineral origin), Oil
and Grease
(animal/vegetable origin),
Cd, Cr, Cu, CN, Pb, Hg, Ni, Ag
and Zn
Daniele
N/A2
Burrillville
Meat
SIU
85,0003
Flow, pH, BOD, TSS, Total N
International,
Sewer
Processing
(TKN + Nitrite + Nitrate),
LLC
Commission
(Cured Italian
Meats)
TKN, Nitrite (as N), Nitrate
(as N), Ammonia (as N),
Total P, O&G
(Petroleum/Mineral Origin),
O&G (Animal/Vegetable
Origin) and Total O&G
The Town Dock
TD 2019-
2020
Town of
Narragansett
Seafood
Processor
Category 1 III
1,6004
Flow, BOD, TSS
Seafreeze
2018-001
Town of
Seafood
Category 4 III
254
N/A
Shoreside Ltd.
Narragansett
Processor
January 2021
Page 30 of 41
-------
1 Based on information included in the industrial user's fact sheet.
2 Permit provided by POTW had the permit number section left blank.
3 Based on discussion with POTW and average rate is a combination of both plants discharge.
4 Based on discussion with POTW
Program Strengths
The RIDEM pretreatment staff has been conducting outreach and voluntary programs regarding
microbreweries and distilleries. They have created and distributed a fact sheet with information
on how discharges from breweries affect POTWs. RIDEM pretreatment staff have completed
several outreach, training and workshop events throughout the state aimed at those industries.
As a follow-up to these events, RIDEM plans to produce an informational video geared towards
breweries and distilleries, and to develop BMPs on how breweries can decrease their BOD
loading to POTWs. RIDEM also recently received a Pollution Prevention (P2) Grant to provide
facility level technical assistance, checklists, videos, and training for breweries on how they can
reduce their environmental impacts.
There is currently no energy co-generation technology in the state, but Orbit Energy in
Johnston, Rhode Island is trying to construct a food to energy digester. The industry is currently
having issues with facility design.
Each POTW with an approved pretreatment program within the State of Rhode Island has
established both local discharge limitations and grease trap requirements in its Sewer Use
Ordinance regulations. Additional (more stringent) FOG-related requirements have also been
developed and implemented on a case-by-case basis as necessary by the individual
pretreatment programs, some of which (e.g., NBC and Warwick) have been the subject of
regional noteworthiness and presentation at the annual EPA-Region 1 Pretreatment
Conference.
Approved Pretreatment Programs
The NBC Field's Point and Quonset Development Corp. RIPDES permits included requirements
to identify Significant Industrial Users per 40 CFR 122.44(j)(l). Each permit includes an
"Industrial Pretreatment Program" section of their permit which includes subsections that
detail requirements related to local limits, enforcement response plans, ClUs, annual reports,
interjurisdictional agreements, sewer use regulations and general pretreatment conditions. The
general pretreatment conditions include sampling and analysis, permitting, noncompliance,
pretreatment program modification, and Significant Noncompliance (SNC) requirements. Both
POTWs permit applications also included information about the character and volume of
pollutants from the SlUs and ClUs.
The Providence Specialty Products' permit and fact sheet were well organized and included all
federally required control mechanism items. The SIU permit included sampling requirements
and limitations for BOD, TSS, and O&G to be taken quarterly from two identified sampling
locations.
January 2021
Page 31 of 41
-------
The most recent PCA, conducted in December 2018 by the DEM, was also reviewed as part of
the PQR process. RIDEM pretreatment staff conduct very thorough audits, and part of the audit
included the review of 5 industries that discharge to NBC Field's Point Wastewater Treatment
Facility, including Providence Specialty Products. The audit included a detailed write-up and
recommendation of the POTW to escalate their enforcement against the SIU because of
repeated O&G and pH violations and instances of SNC. Correspondence back and forth then
took place between RIDEM and NBC regarding how NBC was working with Providence Specialty
Products to get the industry back in compliance and what enforcement actions they have
already taken against the industry.
RIDEM has consistently and diligently met its EPA Workplan commitments for conducting PCIs
and PCAs. Rhode Island has fifteen approved IPPs and quarterly PCIs or PCAs have been
conducted without exception over the past 22 years. All 15 IPPS have had a PCI or PCA
performed over the last four calendar years, and for the 2018 and 2019 calendar years, 9
annual events were performed.
Non- Approved Pretreatment Programs
The Burrillville Sewer Commission and the Town of Narragansett's permits were also reviewed.
The permit application for Narragansett included Section F, which was completed and listed
information about Narragansett's one industrial user, The Town Dock. Narragansett does not
define any industry as a SIU in their sewer regulations but instead permits industries that fall
into one of four categories. These 4 industrial user categories are:
• Category 1: Commercial/industrial users discharging or having the potential of
discharging conventional (BOD5 and TSS) pollutant concentrations in excess of 250 mg/L.
• Category 2; Commercial/industrial users discharging production processing wastewater
or using solvents, toxic chemicals, and/or hazardous chemicals that could potentially be
discharged into the sewers.
• Category 3: Commercial/industrial users discharging or having the potential to discharge
concentrations of O&G and other solids which may cause interference with the collection
system or at the treatment facility.
• Category 4: Commercial/industrial users with only sanitary wastes and/or nontoxic
discharges.
The Town Dock is the only industry that falls under the Category 1 and Seafreeze is a Category 4
IU (no sampling or limits). RIDEM pretreatment staff indicated that Narragansett has local
limits, but they are not actually technically based and are using the nearby South Kingstown
Wastewater Treatment Plant's local limits. The reason that Narragansett does not have an
approved pretreatment program is that in 1981, when most POTWs were establishing
programs, the Town did not want to be overseen by the State and instead had entered into a
consent decree with EPA to establish local limits (although if Rhode Island wanted to pursue the
development and/or updating of local limitations, there is nothing stopping them from doing so
given they are the approval authority).
January 2021
Page 32 of 41
-------
The one permitted industry by Burrville is Daniele International. This was previously an industry
that was permitted and reported directly to RIDEM as the control authority. The industry had
not had any non-compliance issues in several years and it was decided that the Town could
permit and oversee the industry. The industrial user permit is reissued every year. The permit
includes continuous Flow and pH sampling; weekly Nitrite (as N), Nitrate (as N), Ammonia (as
N), TKN, Total N and Total P sampling; and twice per week BOD, TSS, O&G (Petroleum/Mineral
Origin), O&G (Animal/Vegetable Origin) and Total O&G sampling.
Areas for Improvement
Approved Pretreatment Programs
Both the Field's Point and Quonset permits were very well organized and included a significant
amount of information with regard to the approved pretreatment program requirements. EPA
offers certain recommendations that would improve these permits further. Although there is
reference in both permits to abide by all of the requirements stated in 40 CFR Section 403.5,
revising the POTW permits to specify the general and specific prohibitions found at 40 CFR
Section 403.5(a)(1) and (b), rather than incorporating by reference, will strengthen the permit
effectiveness. Permit writers should also specify whether the POTW accepts hauled waste and
identify and characterize contributing industrial dischargers in the permit fact sheet to clarify
the basis for inclusion of language regarding the control of industrial discharges. The Quonset
permit application mentions that the POTW accepts hauled waste, but the Fact Sheet does not
identify if hauled waste is accepted. Additionally, the POTW fact sheet should clearly state
whether the POTW is required to develop or implement a pretreatment program. Neither the
Field's Point nor the Quonset permit fact referred to the pretreatment program.
Permit writers should specify a submission date for the required development and enforcement
of local limits in all permits with industrial pretreatment programs. Although there is specific
language requiring the POTW to evaluate local limitations, there is no clear date indicated for
the submission of the development of local limitations in the Quonset Development Corp.
permit. The permit states, "at the time of renewal of this permit and in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(j)(2), the Permittee shall submit to the DEM with its permit renewal applications a
written technical evaluation of the need to revise local limitations."
There was one pretreatment related action item from the 2013 PQR which appears to continue
to be unaddressed in the findings for this PQR: that being that permit writers should specify the
program approval or modification dates in fact sheets to ensure that the program includes up-
to-date federal regulations.
Non-Approved Pretreatment Programs
While both the Burrillville and Narragansett POTWs are not required to operate an approved
pretreatment program, the RIPDES permit must still include all 40 CFR 122.42 notification
requirements. Neither the Burrillville nor the Narragansett permits included this language.
January 2021
Page 33 of 41
-------
Also, Daniele International, LLC was not included as an industry in the Burrville Sewer
Commission permit application. Permit writers shall ensure that the RIPDES permit application
includes all industrial users or potential SlUs, including any associated applicable categorical
standards/classifications [40 CFR 122.21(J)(6)].
Action Items
Essential
•Permit writers shall ensure that the NPDES permit includes all 40 CFR
122.42(b) notification requirements.
•Permit writers shall ensure that the NPDES permit application includes
all industrial users or potential SIUs and identifies any applicable
categorical classifications [40 CFR 122.21(J)(6)].
•Revise POTW permits to specify the general and specific prohibitions
found at 40 CFR Section 403.5(a)(1) and (b), rather than
incorporating by reference, in order to strengthen the permit
effectiveness.
•Permit writers should specify the program approval or modification
dates in fact sheets to ensure that the program includes up-to-date
federal regulations.
•Permit writers should specify whether the POTW accepts hauled
waste and identify and characterize contributing industrial
dischargers in the permit fact sheet to clarify the basis for inclusion of
language regarding the control of industrial discharges.
•Permit writers should specify a submission date for the required
development and enforcement of local limits in all permits with
industrial pretreatment programs.
•The POTW fact sheet should clearly state whether the POTW is
required to develop or implement a pretreatment program.
C. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit
Requirements
Background
As part of this PQR, EPA discussed with RIDEM the status of its MS4 general permit which has
not been reissued since 2003 and the fact that recommendations made from the 2014 PQR
regarding the updating of this permit were not addressed. Rhode Island indicated that it has
had ongoing challenges with getting its MS4 general permit completed due to resource
constraints, but that it is currently in the process of finalizing a draft of its MS4 general permit
for EPA review by no later than June 30, 2021. EPA indicated to RIDEM during the PQR review
that it will be looking for consistency with EPA's recent updates to its small MS4 Phase II
stormwater permitting regulations that clarify: (1) the procedures to be used when coverage is
January 2021
Page 34 of 41
-------
by general permits see 40 CFR 122.28(d)); (2) the requirement that the permit establish the
terms and conditions necessary to meet the MS4 permit standard (i.e., "to reduce the discharge
of pollutants from the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), to protect water quality,
and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act"), including
conditions to address the minimum control measures, reporting, and, as appropriate, water
quality requirements (see 40 CFR 122.34(a) and (b)); and (3) the requirement that permit terms
must be established in a "clear, specific, and measurable" manner (see 40 CFR 122.34(a)).
Program Strengths
EPA has not yet reviewed the most recent draft of Rhode Island's MS4 general permit.
Areas for Improvement
EPA expects that Rhode Island will meet its deadline of having a draft for EPA review by June
30, 2021.
Action Items
RIDEM will have a final draft of its MS4 stormwater general permit available for EPA review by
no later than June 3, 2021 and such draft will be consistent with federal updates as set forth in
40 CFR Part 122.
Essential
•RIDEM will have a final draft of its MS4 stormwater general permit
available for EPA review by no later than June 30, 2021 and such
draft will be consistent with federal updates as set forth in 40 CFR
Part 122.
Recommended
•The PQR Tearn did not identify any recommended actions for this
topic area.
V. REGIONAL TOPIC AREA FINDINGS
Region 1 has elected not to include the optional Regional Topics in this review.
January 2021
Page 35 of 41
-------
VI. REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON ESSENTIAL ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR
This section provides a summary of the main findings from the last PQR and provides a review of the status of the state's efforts in
addressing the action items identified during the last PQR, conducted in 2014. As discussed previously, during the 2012-2017 PQR
cycle, EPA referred to action items that address deficiencies or noncompliance with respect to federal regulations as "Category 1".
EPA is now referring to these action items going forward, as Essential. In addition, previous PQR reports identified recommendations
to strengthen the state's program as either "Category 2" or "Category 3" action items. EPA is consolidating these two categories of
action items into a single category: Recommended.
Table 1. Essential Action Items Identified During 2014 PQR
Program Area Action Item Title Status Update
Basic Facility
Information
Permit Applications
( Resolved ) Ensure that permit applications are complete. Per 1/31/19 email to
Damien Houlihan, this has been completed.
Permit Applications
( Resolved ) Ensure that permit applications are submitted at least 180 days
before the permit expiration. Per 1/31/19 email to Damien Houlihan, this has been
completed.
Stormwater
Municipal Stormwater
(In progress ) Re-issue the Small MS4 General Permit, which expired on 12/19/03.
Annual EPA-State Performance Partnership Agreements should address the time
frames for re-issuance. Response: this has not been completed and RIDEM is
currently drafting the permit with the goal of having a draft for EPA review by
6/30/21.
Industrial Stormwater
( Resolved ) Include the new airfield deicing ELG (40 CFR Part 449) if it makes
eligible discharges subject to the ELG. Response: This was included in Part VIII.8 of
Rhode Island's MSGP that became effective on 5/3/19.
Industrial Stormwater
( Resolved ) Add a five-year renewal and resubmission requirement for the No
Exposure Certification pursuant to 40 CFR 122.26(g)(l)(iii) and consistent with its
RIPDES rules and certification form. Response: Included in Part I.E of Rhode
Island's MSGP that became effective 5/3/19.
CSO
Wet-Weather
( Not started ) The permitting of the wet-weather bypass at the Field's Point
treatment facility needs to be consistent with the requirements at 40 CFR
122.4(m). Response: Not completed. The Permit was reissued on 9/29/17. RIDEM
will work with EPA to address this issue when the permit is next reissued.
January 2021
Page 36 of 41
-------
VII. RECOMMENDED ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST PQR
This section provides a summary of the recommendations from the last PQR, conducted in 2014 and notes any state efforts to act on
those recommendations. As discussed previously, during the 2012-2017 PQR cycle, EPA referred to action items that are
recommendations to strengthen the state's program as either "Category 2" action items.
Technology-Based
Effluent Limitations
Water Quality-
Based Effluent
Limitations
Permit
Documentation
Nutrients
Municipal
Stormwater
Industrial
Stormwater
Include an industry categorization in industrial permit fact sheets to indicate which ELGs
apply
Where technology-based limits are imposed and are not based on ELGs indicate that such
Limits are based on BPJ and document the basis.
Include a discussion of the 303(d) and TMDL status of the receiving water in the fact
sheets for all facilities.
When a permit limit is removed or made less stringent, explain the basis in the fact sheet.
Explain whether anti-back sliding requirements apply.
When a limit is carried forward from the prior permit, document the basis of the limit
Including the validity of the limit in the new permit.
Include in fact sheets a discussion of the receiving water quality above and below the
discharges.
Include in fact sheets a discussion of reasonable potential and explanation of basis.
The MS4 permit needs to be re-issued with many improvements.
Affirm that permit covers discharges only from primary and co-located industrial activities
as defined in Appendix A.
Resolved )
Resolved )
Resolved )
Resolved )
Resolved )
Resolved )
Resolved )
In progress)
Not pursuing )
January 2021
Page 37 of 41
-------
Increase eligibility for MSGP
( Not pursuing )
Add a waiting period between NOI and authorization for existing discharges that are ( Not pursuing )
presently authorized under the 2006 permit.
Expand requirements for additional actions/control measures taken. ( Not pursuing )
Post on web NOIs submitted ( Resolved )
Clarify that operators should identify secondary SIC codes for co-located facilities. ( Not pursuing )
Incorporate modifications similar to those made to EPA's 2013 MSGP once finalized. ( Resolved )
VIII. ACTION ITEMS FROM FY 2018-2022 PQR CYCLE
This section provides a summary of the main findings of the PQR and provides proposed action items to improve Rhode Island's
NPDES permit programs, as discussed throughout sections III, IV, and V of this report.
The proposed action items are divided into two categories to identify the priority that should be placed on each Item and facilitate
discussions between Regions and states.
• Essential Actions - Proposed "Essential" action items address noncompliance with respect to a federal regulation. EPA has
provided the citation for each Essential action item. The permitting authority is expected to address these action items in
order to comply with federal regulations. As discussed earlier in the report, prior PQR reports identified these action items as
Category 1. Essential actions are listed in Table 3 below.
• Recommended Actions - Proposed "Recommended" action items are recommendations to increase the effectiveness of the
state's or Region's NPDES permit program. Prior reports identified these action items as Category 2 and 3. Recommended
actions are listed in Table 4 below.
January 2021
Page 38 of 41
-------
The following tables summarize only those action items that were identified in Sections III, IV, and V of the report.
Table 3. Essential Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle
Pretreatment: Food Processing Sector
Permit writers shall ensure that the NPDES permit includes all 40 CFR 122.42(b)
notification requirements.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)
• Permit writers shall ensure that the NPDES permit application includes all industrial
users or potential SlUs and identifies any applicable categorical classifications (40
CFR 122.21 (j)(6)).
RIDEM will have a final draft of its MS4 stormwater general permit available for EPA
review by no later than June 30, 2021 and such draft will be consistent with federal
updates as set forth in 40 CFR Part 122.
January 2021
Page 39 of 41
-------
Table 4. Recommended Action Items from FY 2018-2022 PQR Cycle
Facility Information
TBELs for POTWs
TBELs for Non-POTW Dischargers
Reasonable Potential
WQBELs Development
Final Effluent Limitations and Documentation of
Effluent Limitations Development
Establishing Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
Standard and Special Conditions
Administrative Process
Nutrients
RIDEM should consider including clear identification of the physical location of outfalls
in permits.
The PQR team did not identify any recommended action items for this PQR component.
The PQR team did not identify any recommended action items for this PQR component.
RIDEM should include in fact sheets a narrative discussion of the reasonable potential
analysis to accompany the data summary tables contained in fact sheet attachments.
• RIDEM should describe the original basis for effluent limitations that are carried
forward from the previous permit.
• RIDEM should include a thorough discussion of supporting water quality studies and
analyses upon which certain WQBELs are based.
• RIDEM should consider updating 7Q10 flows with every permit cycle.
• RIDEM should consistently include a clear discussion of the basis for effluent
limitations, including:
RPA procedures, steps, and explicit results to accompany the summary tables
currently presented in fact sheet attachments, and
Documentation of supporting studies and analyses (including TMDLs) upon which
WBELs are based.
• RIPDES fact sheets and administrative records should clearly articulate how anti-
backsliding and antidegradation provisions will be met when any effluent limitations
are either relaxed or discontinued.
RIDEM should consider including a specific description of monitoring locations, including
latitude and longitude coordinates.
• RIDEM should ensure that the standard condition that appears to address 40 CFR
122.42(b) is consistent with the federal standard condition.
• RIDEM should ensure that penalty amounts and language are consistent with federal
requirements.
RIDEM should consider including documentation of transactions occurring during the 14-
day permittee review in the public notice record.
• RIDEM should include all relevant information in the fact sheets related to nutrient
limit development including WLAs and reasonable potential calculations, even if such
calculations were conducted for the prior permit.
January 2021
Page 40 of 41
-------
Pretreatment: Food Processing Sector
RIDEM should provide documentation that the total phosphorus concentration of 0.1
mg/L is both technically and reasonably achievable.
Revise POTW permits to specify the general and specific prohibitions found at 40 CFR
Section 403.5(a)(1) and (b), rather than incorporating by reference, in order to
strengthen the permit effectiveness.
Permit writers should specify the program approval or modification dates in fact
sheets to ensure that the program includes up-to-date federal regulations.
Permit writers should specify whether the POTW accepts hauled waste and identify
and characterize contributing industrial dischargers in the permit fact sheet to clarify
the basis for inclusion of language regarding the control of industrial discharges.
Permit writers should specify a submission date for the required development and
enforcement of local limits in all permits with industrial pretreatment programs.
The POTW fact sheet should clearly state whether the POTW is required to develop or
implement a pretreatment program.
January 2021
Page 41 of 41
------- |