Wisconsin Administrative Code › Department of Natural Resources › NR 200-299 - Environmental Protection - Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System › Chapter NR 200 - Application For Discharge Permits And Water Quality Standards Variances › Subchapter III - Application for Water Quality Standards Variances › Section NR 200.22 - Information to be included in an application for a variance

Current through June 24, 2024
(1) A permittee
				  applying for a variance shall supply the following information:
(a) Facility name, address and WPDES permit
				  number.
(b) The name, address and
				  telephone of a facility contact person.
(c) The date the permit was issued, reissued
				  or modified which gives rise to the request for a variance.
(d) Each water quality standard, pollutant
				  and corresponding effluent limitation for which a variance is being
				  requested.
(e) Results of
				  monitoring data for the pollutant for which the permittee is seeking a variance
				  which represents the past and current levels of effluent quality. Monitoring
				  shall conform with the following:
1. The
				  submittal shall specify sample location, sample type, sampling dates, analysis
				  dates and laboratory name and certification number.
2. Data quantity shall be sufficient to allow
				  appropriate statistical treatment to characterize effluent quality over
				  time.
3. Samples shall be collected
				  on days when contributions from industrial, commercial or other processes or
				  sources of wastewater are expected to be at normal levels.
4. Results of monitoring shall be summarized
				  in tabular or graphical format or both.
5. Any changes, such as changes in contract
				  lab or method of analysis or treatment or process changes that occurred which
				  may have affected results or could explain data trends shall be noted and an
				  explanation provided.
6. In
				  addition, for this data to be considered to be representative, the permittee
				  shall supply information to demonstrate that:
a. Sample results fall above the limit of
				  quantitation for the analytical method used or that the most sensitive approved
				  analytical method listed for the pollutant in ch. NR 219 was used with proper
				  technique to produce the results.
b.
				  Proper laboratory quality control procedures were used to generate the data. To
				  make this demonstration, the permittee shall supply, for several representative
				  analytical runs, the raw data for samples, instrument initial and continuing
				  calibrations, and all applicable quality control samples.
Note: Pursuant to s.
					 299.11(4)
					 (c), Stats., subd. 6. b. is shown as amended
					 eff. 6-29-21 by CR 17-046. Prior to 6-29-21 it reads:
b.
Proper laboratory quality control
				  procedures were used to generate the data. To make this demonstration, the
				  permittee shall supply, for several representative analytical runs, the raw
				  data for samples, calibrations, calibration verifications and quality control
				  steps. The raw data for quality control steps shall include results of
				  replicate samples, identity of samples used for replicate samples, matrix
				  spikes, matrix spike concentrations used, reagent blanks, method blanks and
				  quality control limits. Raw data, replicate sample, matrix spike and quality
				  control limit have the meanings specified in s.
				  NR
				  149.03.
Note: In the revisions to Ch. NR 149, replicate
					 samples are referred to and defined as "replicates".
c. Proper sampling
				  quality control procedures designed to minimize sample contamination were used.
				  This demonstration shall include a description of sampling procedures and
				  submittal of results of field blanks. A field blank is a volume of reagent
				  grade water which is handled in such a way so as to duplicate as closely as
				  possible the exposure of a water sample to potential sources of contamination
				  during sampling, preservation and transportation to the laboratory.
(f) Changes
				  which could be made to enhance treatment or source reduction of flows coming to
				  the treatment facility or which would reduce the level of toxicity or the
				  discharge of the pollutant for which the permittee is seeking a variance. This
				  information shall include the following:
1.
				  An estimate of capital and operating costs for the changes and a reasonable
				  schedule for planning and accomplishing the work.
2. If the source of the pollutant is believed
				  to be from dissolution of metals from water supply distribution piping
				  materials:
a. Information on past and current
				  water supply treatment practices which may increase or decrease the corrosive
				  nature of the water supply including what changes have been made and
				  when.
b. Data on the water supply
				  stability or corrosivity, using one of various methods of determination, for
				  the raw and treated water supply.
c. Other potential water sources or methods
				  of water supply treatment as an alternative.
(g) Information which establishes the
				  significance of industrial and commercial wastewater sources versus domestic
				  waste-water sources of the pollutant for which a variance is requested. This
				  may include an approximate mass-balance calculation of treatment system
				  loadings from all sources.
(h) For
				  facilities which monitor the treatment system sludge pursuant to requirements
				  in ch. NR 204 or 214 for the pollutant for which a variance is requested,
				  results of the most recent 3 years
(i) If a variance is being requested for
				  whole effluent toxicity in conjunction with a specific chemical pollutant or if
				  whole effluent toxicity failures have been experienced and they are believed to
				  have resulted from the pollutant for which the variance is being requested,
				  evidence which points to the pollutant as the cause of the whole effluent
				  toxicity failures.
(j) Effluent
				  limitations which the permittee believes it can currently achieve.
(k) Effluent limitations which the permittee
				  believes it can achieve at some later date during the term of the variance and
				  the corresponding schedule which would be followed to meet these limitations.
(l) Whether the permittee believes
				  it can meet the effluent limitations that give rise to the variance request at
				  any time during the term of the permit.
(m) A detailed discussion of evidence and
				  reasons why the permittee believes a variance is warranted based on one or more
				  of the grounds listed in s.
				  NR
				  200.20(2).
(n) Demonstration that the variance requested
				  conforms with antidegradation requirements specified in ch. NR 207.
(o) Characterization of the extent of any
				  increased risk to human health and the environment associated with granting the
				  variance so as to allow the department to decide if such increased risk is
				  consistent with protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
(p) For variance requests based on s.
				  NR 200.20(2)
				  (f), the permittee shall conduct a financial
				  impact analysis which shall include an estimate of the capital, operation and
				  maintenance and financing costs, translated into an annualized cost, of
				  potential changes identified in par. (g) compared with an analysis of financial
				  affordability. The analysis of financial affordability shall include:
1. For publicly owned systems, an estimate of
				  how much annual municipal revenue would need to increase, taking into account
				  any offsetting state shared revenues if the most cost-effective pollutant
				  control option was implemented and how this would affect user fees if user fees
				  were used to finance the costs. This analysis shall also compare projected user
				  fees with user fees in similar communities. If industrial or commercial
				  contributions comprise a significant source of the pollutant, information
				  requested in subd. 2. shall also be provided.
2. For privately owned systems or if the most
				  cost-effective pollutant control option for a publicly owned system involves
				  additional regulation of privately owned contributors as the impacted parties,
				  an estimate of how implementing the most cost-effective pollutant control
				  option would affect profitability and other financial health indicators of the
				  private entity.
3. An analysis of
				  the socioeconomic impacts to the community where the entity is located.
Note:
Permittees may find helpful a United
					 States Environmental Protection Agency publication titled Interim Economic
					 Guidance for Water Quality Standards - Workbook, EPA-823-B-95-002, March 1995.
					 Information on ordering EPA publications can be found on the World Wide Web at
http://www.epa.gov/
.