1. EPA Region IV and ADEM NPDES Permit Coordination
CMAA Annual Meeting
May 28, 2015
Orange Beach, Alabama
Glenda Dean
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
adem.alabama.gov

2. Presentation Overview
Discussion of the EPA and State NPDES permit coordination process and recent issues that in the future have the potential to significantly impact regulated entities

3. 2008 ADEM / EPA Memorandum of Agreement
ADEM / EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Primary Sections are:
Review of New or Revised Rules, Regulations or Statutes
State and EPA Responsibilities
Permit Review and Issuances*
Compliance Monitoring and Evaluation Program
Enforcement
Pretreatment
Program Review
* Permit Review Section based on Applicable Federal Regulations established at 40 CFR Parts 122 and 123

4. Permit Review and Issuances
EPA “Draft” Permit Review
30 Day Review Timeframe (General Permits 90 Days)
EPA may Extend Review to Full 90 Days
EPA may Provide Written Comments, Recommendations or Objection
If Interim Objection, EPA has 90 Days to provide Specific Grounds for Objection
If General Objection, EPA has Remainder of 90 Days to provide Specific Grounds for Objection

5. 2008 ADEM / EPA Memorandum of Agreement
EPA “Proposed” Permit Review
EPA Review Waived Unless:
State proposes to issue a Permit Significantly Different from Draft Permit;
EPA has provided Objections to Draft Permit;
Significant Comments were Received During Public Hearing and/or Public Notice; or
Significant Issues were raised by a State which may be affected by the Discharge.
If any of the above, then EPA has 15 Days to Review the Proposed Permit, including Comments and Response to Comments, unless EPA Extends Review to Full 90 Days

6. 2008 ADEM / EPA Memorandum of Agreement
General Objections to a “Draft” or “Proposed” Permit
Specific Grounds shall Include:
Reasons for Objection, Including Sections of CWA or Regulations; and
Actions that must be taken to Eliminate the Objection.
If State Fails to Either Request a Hearing on the EPA Objection or Resubmit a Revised Permit within 90 Days of Receipt of the Objection, then Exclusive Authority to Issue the Permit Passes to EPA for One Permit Term.

7. Recent EPA Comments: Coal Mine Permits
Prior to Jan 2015, 90 Day Extension for Review of most Draft Coal Permits
EPA Comments/Recommendations focused primarily on:
Application Data
Effluent and/or In-Stream Sampling – Representative and Proximity to Drinking Water Intake(s)
Permit Conditions
Effluent and/or In-Stream Monitoring
Wet Limits (Acute vs. Chronic)
Adaptive Management Plans (AMPs)
In-Stream Biological-Based Limits
Specific Conductance (SC) / Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Requirements

8. Adaptive Management Plan (AMP)
Incorporates Best Management Practices (BMP)-Based Thresholds
Triggers for SC, WET, and In-Stream Biological-Based Limits Failures; and Corrective Action when Triggers are reached.
WET and In-Stream Biological-Based Limits would be Independent and Enforceable Conditions of the Permit Separate from the AMP

9. EPA Rationale
EPA Interpretation/Protection of State Narrative Water Quality Standards
Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Narrative Standards
In-Stream Data for SC, TDS and Macroinvertebrate Data
WET Effluent Data

10. Discussion Outcome Discussions with EPA Resulted in:
AMP and Biological-Based Limits would not be required
Continue Current Effluent TDS and WET Monitoring Requirements
Continue RPA based on Application Data, Available In-Stream Water Quality Data
Add Sulfates to ADEM Trend Stations

11. In Closing
On-going issue with Interpretation of State Narrative Quality Standards
In future will not be surprised if EPA revisits AMP and Biological-Based Limits
Appears EPA still considers SC a “Pollutant”

12. Contact Information
Glenda Dean
Chief, Water Division
Jeff Kitchens
Chief, SW Management Branch
Catherine McNeil
Chief, Mining and Natural Resource Section