Npdes) Permit to Discharge to Waters of the United States

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA NEW ENGLAND OFFICE OF ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION ONE CONGRESS STREET SUITE 1100 (MAIL CODE: CPE) BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-2023 FACT SHEET

DRAFT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

PUBLIC NOTICE START AND END DATES:

PUBLIC NOTICE NUMBER:

CONTENTS: Twenty-nine (29) pages including five (5) Attachments A through E.

NPDES PERMIT NO.: NH0101044

NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF APPLICANT:

Franklin Pierce College College Road P.O. Box 60 Rindge, New Hampshire 03461-0060

NAME AND ADDRESS OF FACILITY WHERE DISCHARGE OCCURS:

Facility Location

Franklin Pierce College Wastewater Treatment Plant College Road Rindge, New Hampshire

Mailing Address

Franklin Pierce College Wastewater Treatment Plant c/o Maintenance Supervisor P.O. Box 60 Rindge, New Hampshire 03461-0060

RECEIVING WATER: Unnamed Wetland Tributary to Pearly Pond (Hydrologic Basin Code: 01080202) -2- NH0101044

CLASSIFICATION: Class B I. Proposed Action, Type of Facility and Discharge Location.

The above named applicant has applied to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England Office (EPA-New England) for reissuance of its NPDES permit to discharge secondary treated wastewater with enhanced nutrient removal into the designated receiving water (Unnamed Wetland Tributary to Pearly Pond). In turn, Pearly Pond flows into Tarbell Brook, a tributary of the Millers River which itself is a tributary of the Connecticut River. The facility collects and treats domestic (sanitary) wastewater from Franklin Pierce College (“College”) and discharges that treated effluent into the receiving water.

The plant is designed as a 0.14 million gallon per day (MGD) advanced wastewater treatment facility that is composed of, in order that wastewater flow is processed, primary clarification, rotating biological contactors (RBC’s), secondary clarification, phosphorus removal with alum (flocculation tank/clarifier), sand filtration and ultraviolet disinfection.

The College's existing (“current”) permit was issued on February 16, 1996, and expired on March 15, 2001. That permit has been administratively extended until a new permit can be issued since the applicant filed a complete application for permit reissuance within the prescribed time period as per 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 122.6.

In the current permit, the Agency concluded, based on a Best Professional Judgement determination, that even though the College’s private sanitary wastewater treatment facilities is not covered by any published technology-based guidelines, it is identical to a POTW in both equipment and operation; therefore, technology requirements applicable to POTWs [See 40 CFR Section133.102(a) and (b)] apply. The Agency believes this determination still applies for this permit development.

The current permit authorizes discharge from Outfall 001 (Treatment Plant) year round and that same discharge period will be continued in the draft permit. The location of Franklin Pierce College, its wastewater treatment plant, Outfall 001, the receiving water, Pearly Pond and Tarbell Brook are shown in Attachment A. The location of Outfall 001 remains unchanged from the current permit.

II. Description of Discharge.

A quantitative description of significant effluent parameters based on discharge-monitoring data collected for Outfall 001 during the 24-month period January 2000 through December 2001 are shown in Attachment B. The current permit contains effluent limits for Five-day Biochemical

Oxygen Demand (BOD5), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Percent Removal of BOD5 and TSS, Total Phosphorus, pH, Total Residual Chlorine (TRC), Escherichia coli (E. Coli) bacteria, Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) and monitoring requirements for Flow. In addition, sampling for selected constituents (Ammonia, Hardness and Total Recoverable Aluminum, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel and Zinc) are also required as part of the WET test. In the draft permit, all the -3- NH0101044

limits and monitoring requirements in the current permit have been carried forward except for TRC and Total Toxic Organic Chemicals which were eliminated. In addition, other limits and monitoring- only requirements have been added to the draft permit as new (first-time) requirements. They include limits for average monthly concentration and mass of Total Recoverable Aluminum and of Total Ammonia and increased monitorings (above that required in WET test) for maximum daily concentrations of Total Recoverable Aluminum and of Total Ammonia, and for both average monthly and maximum daily concentrations of Total Recoverable Copper and Zinc.

III. Limitations and Conditions.

Effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and any implementation schedule (if required) are found in PART I of the draft NPDES permit. The basis for each limit and condition is discussed in Section IV of this Fact Sheet.

IV. Permit Basis and Explanation of Effluent Limitations Derivation.

A. Background

The Clean Water Act (ACT) prohibits the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit unless such a discharge is otherwise authorized by the ACT. The NPDES permit is the mechanism used to implement technology and water-quality based effluent limitations and other requirements including monitoring and reporting. The draft NPDES permit was developed in accordance with various statutory and regulatory requirements established pursuant to the ACT and any applicable State administrative rules. The regulations governing EPA's NPDES permit program are generally found in 40 CFR Parts 122, 124, 125 and 136. Many of these regulations consist primarily of management requirements common to all permits.

EPA is required to consider technology and water-quality based criteria in addition to the current permit conditions when developing permit limits. Technology-based treatment requirements represent the minimum level of control that must be imposed under Sections 301(b) and 402 of the ACT (See 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart A). Secondary Treatment Technology guidelines (effluent limitations) represent the minimum level of control required for Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTW) and those guidelines can be found in 40 CFR Part 133.

In the absence of published technology-based effluent guidelines, the permit engineer is authorized under Section 402(a)(1)(B) of the ACT to establish effluent limitations on a case-by-case basis using Best Professional Judgement (BPJ).

In general, all statutory deadlines for meeting various technology-based guidelines (effluent limitations) established pursuant to the ACT have expired. For instance, compliance with POTW technology-based effluent limitations is, effectively, from date of permit issuance (40 CFR §125.3(a)(1)). Compliance schedules and deadlines not in accordance with the statutory provisions -4- NH0101044

of the ACT can not be authorized by a NPDES permit.

Water-quality based limitations are required in NPDES permits when EPA and the State determine that effluent limits more stringent than technology-based limits are necessary to maintain or achieve state or federal water-quality standards. See Section 301(b) (1)(C) of the ACT. A water-quality standard consists of three elements: (1) beneficial designated use or uses for a water body or a segment of a water body; (2) a numeric or narrative water-quality criteria sufficient to protect the assigned designated use(s); and (3) an antidegradation requirement to ensure that once a use is attained it will not be eroded. Receiving water requirements are established according to numerical and narrative standards in the state’s water quality standards adopted under state law for each stream classification. When using chemical-specific numeric criteria to develop permit limits both the acute and chronic aquatic-life criteria, expressed in terms of maximum allowable in-stream pollutant concentration, are used. Acute aquatic-life criteria are considered applicable to daily time periods (maximum daily limit) and chronic aquatic-life criteria are considered applicable to monthly time periods (average monthly limit). Chemical-specific limits are allowed under 40 CFR 122.44 (d)(1) and are implemented under 40 CFR §122.45(d). In addition to the average weekly limit for POTWs under 40 CFR §122.45(d), the Region believes it’s necessary to establish a maximum daily limit since

the basis for the average weekly limit derives from the secondary treatment requirements for BOD5 and TSS and is not directly related to achieving chemical specific water-quality standards for toxic pollutants which are based on an acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) criteria. Given that, it would be impracticable to rely only on monthly or weekly average limits to ensure that Water Quality Standards for toxic pollutants are met. Therefore, the Region establishes maximum daily and average monthly limits for chemical specific toxic pollutants, such as Total Residual Chlorine. The POTW’s design flow is used when deriving constituent limits for daily and monthly time periods as well as weekly periods where appropriate. Also, the dilution provided by the receiving water is factored into this process. Furthermore, narrative criteria from the state’s water-quality standards are often used to limit toxicity in discharges where: (1) a specific pollutant can be identified as causing or contributing to the toxicity but the state has no numeric standard; or (2) toxicity cannot be traced to a specific pollutant.

The NPDES permit must limit any pollutant or pollutant parameter (conventional, non-conventional, toxic and whole effluent toxicity) that is or may be discharged at a level that causes or has "reasonable potential" to cause or contribute to an excursion above any water-quality criterion. See CFR Section 122.44(d)(1). An excursion occurs if the projected or actual in-stream concentration exceeds the applicable criterion. In determining reasonable potential, EPA considers: (1) existing and planned controls on point and non-point sources of pollution; (2) pollutant concentration and variability in the effluent and receiving water as determined from permit's reissuance application, Monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), and State and Federal Water Quality Reports; (3) sensitivity of the species to toxicity testing; (4) statistical approach outlined in Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, March 1991, EPA/505/2-90-001 in Section 3; and, where appropriate, (5) dilution of the effluent in the receiving water. In accordance with New Hampshire statutes and administrative rules (50 R.S.A. §485-A:8, Env-Ws 1705.02), available dilution for discharges to freshwater receiving waters is based on a known or estimated value of the -5- NH0101044

annual seven (7) consecutive-day mean low flow at the 10-year recurrence interval (7Q10) for aquatic life or the long-term harmonic mean flow for human health (carcinogens only) in the receiving water at the point just upstream of the discharge. Furthermore, 10 % of the receiving water's assimilative capacity is held in reserve for future needs in accordance with New Hampshire’s Surface Water Quality Regulations Env-Ws 1705.01. The current set of these Regulations, newly revised, were adopted on December 3, 1999, and became effective on December 10, 1999. Hereinafter, these New Hampshire's Surface Water Quality Regulations are referred to as the NH Standards.

The permit may not be renewed, reissued or modified with less stringent limitations or conditions than those conditions in the previous permit unless in compliance with the antibacksliding requirement of the ACT [See Sections 402(o) and 303(d)(4) of the ACT and 40 CFR §122.44(l)(1 and 2)]. EPA's antibacksliding provisions found in 40 CFR §122.44(l) prohibit the relaxation of permit limits, standards, and conditions unless certain conditions are met. Therefore, unless those conditions are met the limits in the reissued permit must be at least as stringent as those in the previous permit.

The ACT requires that EPA obtain State Certification which states that all water-quality standards will be satisfied. The permit must conform to the conditions established pursuant to a State Certification under Section 401 of the ACT (40 CFR §124.53 and §124.55). EPA regulations pertaining to permit limits based upon water-quality standards and state requirements are contained in 40 CFR §122.44(d).

The conditions of the permit reflect the goal of the ACT and EPA to achieve and then to maintain water quality standards. To protect the existing quality of the State's receiving waters, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Water Division (NHDES-WD) adopted Antidegradation requirements (Env-Ws 1708) in their NH Standards.

B. Conventional Pollutants

Effluent limitations in the draft permit for BOD5 and TSS concentrations (average monthly, average weekly and maximum daily) and mass loadings (average monthly, average weekly and maximum daily) are based upon limits in the current permit in accordance with the antibacksliding requirements found in 40 CFR Section 122.44(1) for the permittee has been able to achieve consistent compliance with these limitations. In the current permit, average monthly and average weekly concentration- based limitations for BOD5 and TSS were based on a Best Professional Judgement determination that invoked requirements under Section 301(b)(1)(B) of the ACT as defined in 40 CFR Section133.102(a) and (b) for this facility. In that determination, the Agency concluded that even though private sanitary wastewater treatment facilities are not covered under any published technology-based guidelines, the College’s treatment works is essentially identical to a POTW; therefore, EPA-New England chose to apply the technology requirements applicable to POTWs [See 40 CFR Section133.102(a) and (b)] to the College. The Agency believes this determination still

applies. Furthermore, the average monthly and average weekly mass-based limits for BOD5 and TSS corresponding to the respective concentration-based limits in the draft permit are based on 40 CFR -6- NH0101044

Section 122.45(f) which requires the Agency to apply these concentration-based limits as mass-based limits.

Average Monthly, Average Weekly and Maximum Daily allowable mass-based (load) limitations

for BOD5 and TSS shown in the draft permit are based on the average daily design flow of the previous treatment works (0.11 MGD) and the appropriate constituent concentration for the respective time period being limited. In 1994, the College upgraded its treatment works increasing its design flow from 0.11 to 0.14 MGD and began discharging from that upgraded facility during the fall of 1994. However, mass-based (load) limits in the current permit (issued on February 16, 1996) and this draft permit are based on the design flow of the previous works (0.11 MGD) due to antidegradation requirements as presented in Section IV., F. on page 10 of the current permit’s Fact Sheet. In that section, EPA-New England concluded that since the treatment works effluent has a

zero dilution with the receiving water, holding the mass of BOD5 and TSS to the levels determined in the permit issued for the previous treatment works would not result in an “increased discharge of these pollutants” from the then current (upgraded) treatment works, and, therefore, was consistent with the terms of the NH Standards. In addition, there is an environmental need for these mass- based limits because their respective concentration limits, by themselves, are not sufficient to control the amount of mass discharged by this facility or to prevent this facility from discharging flows in excess of its design capacity.

See Attachment C for equation used to calculate each of these mass-based limits. As an example, the Average Monthly BOD5 load of 27 lbs/day is based on the average monthly BOD5 concentration of 30 milligrams per liter (mg/l), the facility’s average daily design flow of 0.11 MGD for the previous works, and a conversion factor of 8.345 to convert mg/l and MGD to lbs/day.

Percent removal of BOD5 and of TSS is based upon limits in the current permit in accordance with the antibacksliding requirements found in 40 CFR Section 122.44. In addition, percent removal of

BOD5 and TSS is also a requirement of 40 CFR Section 133.102 (a) (3) and (b)(3), respectively.

pH and Bacteria Limits Including Related Conditions

The limits (range) in pH are based upon limits in the current permit in accordance with the antibacksliding requirements found in 40 CFR §122.44(1) since the permittee has been able to achieve consistent compliance with these limits. Historically, the NHDES-WD has required pH limits to be satisfied at end-of-pipe with no allowance for dilution. Therefore, in addition to the antibacksliding requirement, these limitations are based on State Certification requirements for POTWs under section 401(d) of the ACT, 40 CFR §§124.53 and 124.55.

However, a change in the pH range in the draft permit due to in-stream dilution would be considered if the applicant can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of NHDES-WD, that the in-stream NH Standards for pH would be protected. Upon satisfactory completion of a demonstration study, the applicant or NHDES-WD may request in writing that the permit limits be modified by EPA-New England to incorporate the results of the demonstration. -7- NH0101044

Anticipating the situation where NHDES-WD grants a formal approval changing the pH limit(s) to outside the 6.5 to 8.0 Standard Units (S.U.), EPA-New England has added a provision to this draft permit (See SPECIAL CONDITIONS section). That provision will allow EPA-New England to modify the pH limit(s) using a certified letter approach. See STATE PERMIT CONDITIONS in the draft permit. However, the pH limit range cannot be less restrictive than 6.0 - 9.0 S.U. found in the applicable National Effluent Limitation Guideline (Secondary Treatment Regulations in 40 CFR Part 133) for the facility.

If the State approves results from a pH demonstration study, this permit's pH limit range can be relaxed in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(l)(2)(i)(B) because it will be based on new information not available at the time of this permit's issuance. This new information includes results from the pH demonstration study that justifies the application of a less stringent effluent limitation. EPA-New England anticipates that the limit determined from the demonstration study as approved by the NHDES-WD will satisfy all effluent requirements for this discharge category and will comply with NH Standards with regard to instream conditions.

Effluent limitations in the draft permit for E. Coli bacteria are based upon limitations in the current permit in accordance with the antibacksliding requirements found in 40 CFR §122.44(1) for the permittee has been able to achieve consistent compliance with all these limitations. There are two sets of E. Coli bacterial limits in the State’s Statutes (N.H. RSA 485-A:8); one for beach area, and one for non-designated beach area. For the current permit, since no designated beaches exist in the vicinity of the outfall, the non-designated beach area limit was implemented. Calculation for compliance with the Average Monthly limit for E. Coli shall be determined using the geometric mean. The original basis for these limitations is found in New Hampshire’s State statutes (N.H. RSA 485-A:8). Historically, the NHDES-WD has required bacteria like pH limits to be satisfied at end-of- pipe with no allowance for dilution. Therefore, in addition to the antibacksliding requirement, these limitations are based on State Certification requirements for POTW under section 401(d) of the ACT, 40 CFR §§124.53 and 124.55.

C. Nonconventional and Toxic Pollutants

Water-quality based limits for specific toxic pollutants such as chlorine, ammonia, metals, etc. are determined from chemical specific numeric criteria derived from extensive scientific studies. The specific toxic pollutants and their associated toxicity criteria are popularly know as the “Gold Book Criteria” which EPA summarized and published in Quality Criteria for Water, 1986, EPA 440/5-86- 001 (as amended). The State of New Hampshire adopted these “Gold Book Criteria”, with certain exceptions, and included them as part of the State’s recently revised Surface Water Quality Regulations adopted on December 3, 1999. EPA-New England uses these pollutant specific criteria along with available dilution in the receiving water to determine a specific pollutant's draft permit limit, such as the fast acting toxicant chlorine or ammonia, metals, etc. -8- NH0101044

Total Toxic Organic Chemicals

Due to the potential for the disposal of organic and other chemicals used in the College’s chemistry and biology laboratories into laboratory sinks, which are hard piped to the treatment works, the current permit required monitoring of selected toxic organic chemicals. However, since the College prohibits the disposal of used laboratory chemicals down laboratory sinks, that monitoring requirement is no longer necessary and, therefore, has not been carried forward into the draft permit. The College stores used laboratory chemicals in containers for later off-site disposal once sufficient volume has been accumulated. The one exception to that approach is that common bases and acids are neutralized to pH 5-9 Standard Units prior to disposal in the laboratory sinks.

A review of recently submitted quarterly toxic monitoring reports for selected toxic organic chemicals do not show the presences of any of the sampled organic compounds at or above each particular chemical’s detection level. This verifies that the College is adhering to its policy of not disposing of these chemicals down laboratory sinks. To ensure that this process of proper chemical disposal continues, the permit has been conditioned to prevent the facility from receiving certain classes of unauthorized discharges. These series of prohibited practices are authorized under the Best Management Practices (BMPs) section of the ACT to control or abate the discharge of pollutants when numeric limitations are infeasible because the release of various pollutants could vary greatly over time [See 40 CFR Section 122.44(k)(3)] as is the situation here.

Available Dilution

Available dilution, or the dilution afforded the POTW’s effluent by the receiving water, in the current permit was determined to be zero because it discharges to a wetland and that value has been carried forward unchanged into the draft permit for the Agency believes it’s the best estimate currently available. In situations of no (zero) available dilution, a value of 1.0 is used for the dilution factor.

Total Residual Chlorine

The College’s Wastewater Treatment Plant has used ultraviolet light for disinfection in its wastewater treatment process for the last several years. Ultraviolet light is an alternative disinfection process to that of chlorination and one that does not utilize chlorine. Total residual chlorine (TRC) limits were retained in the current permit from those in the previous permit in case chlorination was required as a backup method of disinfection. However, since chlorination was never used as a backup method of disinfection during the life of the current permit, the Agency now believes that retaining TRC limits for backup purposes is no longer warranted. Accordingly, those limits have not been carried forward into the draft permit. This does not violate antibacksliding regulations for there is no discharge of chlorine.

However, any discharge of chlorine from the facility shall be considered a violation of the ACT. Should the need for chlorination arise during the effective life of this permit, EPA-New England and the NHDES-WD reserve the right to establish effluent limitations for TRC. Under 40 CFR Section -9- NH0101044

122.62(a)(2), EPA-New England has the ability to reopen and modify permits based on “New Information” not otherwise present at permit development in order to protect NH Standards.

Ammonia Nitrogen

Monitoring associated with Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests performed as part of the College’s current permit shows that ammonia in its effluent has a reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an instream excursion above the numeric water-quality criteria for ammonia in the NH Standards. (The State’s ammonia standard protects the water column for toxicity purposes which is not to be confused with an ammonia limit for dissolved-oxygen purposes.) Specifically, concentrations of ammonia as Nitrogen (N) of 11, 11.15, 14.00, 12.2 and 10.28 mg/l collected in November 1998, April 2000, October 2000, April 2001 and October 2001, respectively, (See Attachment D) would have exceeded the instream aquatic-life chronic criteria of 6.67 mg/l for ammonia as N in the NH Standards if those results represented the average ammonia concentration in the effluent discharged for the month sampled. For the reasons explained in the following paragraph, the Agency believes these values are sufficiently representative of the average monthly ammonia concentration in the College’s discharge to trigger the reasonable potential clause of 40 CFR Section 122.44(d)(1).

In some of these seven-day chronic WET tests, individual ammonia results were reported for Day 0, 2 and 4 with the average of those results exceeding the chronic criteria. In Attachment D, an averaged result followed by “(3)” notes that three ammonia results were used to compute that average. In the Agency’s opinion, the elevated levels of ammonia shown in the WET test analyses are representative of the monthly average because ammonia is always present in domestic wastewater (sole source of wastewater to this treatment works) at between 15 and 25 mg/l for secondary effluents, and the biological process of nitrification that converts ammonia and organic nitrogen into oxidized nitrogen, usually nitrate, is not easily or quickly activated. The Agency concedes that while these values may not represent the exact average monthly value, however, the existence of elevated concentrations for a single sample or for three samples over five days that are about twice the proposed limit indicates a high probability that the monthly ammonia concentration exceeds the NH Standards given that the College is not doing anything specific to remove ammonia. Furthermore, evaluation of data in Attachment D indicates that the RBC treatment system used at the College does not exert sufficient nitrification to protect the NH Standards when the carbonaceous

BOD5 load to the plant (influent) is above the 400 to 500 mg/l range. However, below that range, the carbonaceous load is sufficiently reduced so that the process of nitrification can proceed thus reducing ammonia to levels sufficiently protective of NH Standards. At lower levels of influent

BOD5, it appears that nitrifying bacteria on the RBC’s disks can effectively compete for available space with the carbonaceous bacteria that are also present. This is particularly true during the

summer months (May through August) when the College is not in session and the daily BOD5 loads to the treatment works are minimal (See Attachment D). However, at higher levels of BOD5 loads, the carbonaceous bacteria out-compete the nitrifying bacteria for available disk space on the RBC’s. In the future, the College’s enrollment is likely to increase along with increased pressure to conserve

water; therefore, the influent BOD5 will become increasingly more concentrated. Consequently, without some form of enhanced nitrification during the College’s academic year, the instream -10- NH0101044

aquatic-life chronic criteria of 6.67 mg/l for ammonia as N in the NH Standards will be exceeded on a consistent basis.

Accordingly, based on the ammonia’s chronic aquatic-life criteria for fish when early life stages are present as taken from EPA’s updated ammonia criteria of December 1999 which the NH-Standards allow for its use [Env-Ws 1704.01(c)] and no available dilution in the receiving water, an average monthly ammonia limit of 3.39 mg/l as N for the summer period (May through October) and 6.67 mg/l as N for the winter period (November through April) needs to be established. The aquatic-life chronic criteria for ammonia as N for the summer period (instream pH of 6.5 Standard Units and water temperature of 25 degrees Celsius) is 3.39 mg/l and for the winter period (instream pH of 6.5 Standard Units and water temperature of 10 degrees Celsius) is 6.67 mg/l to comply with NH Standards and seasonal mass loading limits of 3.96 and 7.79 lbs per day, for the summer and the winter periods, respectively, to comply with 40 CFR Section 122.45(f). (Mass loading limits are based on a design flow of 0.14 MGD for the treatment works.) Accordingly, seasonal ammonia as N limits have been established under the “average monthly” heading in the draft permit with a monitoring frequency of 2/Week. At this time, no seasonal maximum daily limits are anticipated as ammonia’s acute aquatic-life criteria concentration is 32.6 mg/l as N in the NH Standards and no discrete sample collected to date comes even close to that value (See Attachment D). However, since the permittee will be collecting monitoring data for reporting compliance with the “average monthly” heading, a monitoring requirement of “report” has been added under the “maximum daily” heading in order to report a component from that already collected data. The reader should understand that when there is no available dilution in the receiving water, the State’s aquatic-life criteria value is the limit which the discharge must meet. Specifically, the State’s acute aquatic-life criteria is protected by a “maximum daily limit” and the chronic aquatic-life criteria is protected by an “average monthly limit”.

Phosphorus

Effluent limitations in the draft permit for Phosphorus concentrations (maximum daily) and mass loading (average monthly) are based upon limits in the current permit in accordance with the antibacksliding requirements found in 40 CFR Section 122.44(1) for the permittee has been able to achieve consistent compliance with these limitations. In the current permit, these limits were deemed necessary to comply with a NH Standards that requires phosphorus discharges from existing sources which encourage cultural eutrophication to be treated to remove phosphorus to ensure attainment and maintenance of those State standards. See Env-Ws 1703.14(c) in the present NH Standards for the current version of that requirement. According to NHDES-WD, Pearly Pond has documented eutrophic problems and these phosphorus limits are needed to protect it from further cultural eutrophication from phosphorus contributions in the College’s discharge.

The permittee should be aware that EPA is developing Section 304(a) water-quality criteria for nutrients, such as Total Phosphorus and Total Nitrogen, as well as other response parameters, such as turbidity and chlorophyll a, to control the excessive levels of nutrients in discharges to the nation’s surface waters. The expected criteria are being developed to cover four major types of waterbodies -- -11- NH0101044

lakes and reservoirs, rivers and streams, estuarine and coastal areas, and wetlands across fourteen (14) major ecoregions of the United States. EPA’s Section 304(a) criteria are intended to provide for the protection and propagation of aquatic life and recreation. As the reader can see, the College’s discharge will be impacted potentially by criteria from two (2) of these categories: wetlands, and lakes and reservoirs, for the present discharge is to an “Unnamed Wetland Tributary to Pearly Pond”. When these nutrient criteria are finalized by the Agency, the NHDES-WD has already indicated it intends to adopted them in its NH Standards beginning as early as the 2004/2005 time frame. Published results to date from the “Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations, Information Supporting the Development of State and Tribal Nutrient Criteria for Lakes and Reservoirs in Nutrient Ecoregion VIII”, EPA, Office of Water, EPA 822-B-00-010, December 2000, indicate that for subecoregion 58 (College’s ecoregion) criteria values around 0.007 mg/l for Total Phosphorus (dissolved plus particulate) as P and of 0.20 to 0.334 mg/l for Total Nitrogen (ammonia, organic, nitrate and nitrite) as N are reasonable estimates for the purposes of this discussion. If this phosphorus or a similar criteria is established in the NH Standards given no dilution of the College’s discharge with the receiving water, that newly established aquatic-life acute criteria for total phosphorus would become the permit limit and that would be significantly more stringent than the present phosphorus limit of 0.5 mg/l in the current and draft permits. Also, for nitrogen, only the ammonia fraction is currently limited, but the proposed criteria would also include the organic, nitrate and nitrite fractions.

In addition, EPA-New England recently received a copy of the State’s draft 303(d) list of impaired surface-water bodies in advance of its public noticing by the State. Presently, Pearly Pond does not appear on that draft list; however, public comment followed later by EPA’s approval could result in the Pond being listed. EPA-New England needs to follow-up with the State as to why the Pond was not listed given the level of impairment described in a 1995 Pearly Pond Subwatershed Study authored by NHDES and the follow-up samplings conducted yearly by the State’s volunteer lake program. Listing would initiate a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study that would likely result in nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) limits similar to the proposed nutrient criteria mentioned on the previous page.

Accordingly, EPA-New England has placed a nutrient Reopener Clause in the draft permit to place the College on notice that once nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) criteria are adopted by the State in its Surface Water Quality Regulations or a TMDL is approved by the Agency, whichever comes first, this permit will be reopened and the appropriate set of nutrient limits established.

Furthermore, the State’s Surface Water Quality Regulations contain provisions which prohibit new or increased discharges of phosphorus and nitrogen to tributaries of lakes or ponds that contribute to cultural eutrophication or growth of weeds or algae in such lakes and ponds [Env-Ws 1703.14(e)]. This standard, at a minimum, prevents any increase in the nitrogen and phosphorus discharges from the College’s treatment works above that currently permitted. Presently, there is more than sufficient evidence to conclude that Pearly Pond is a high-productive waterbody. Specifically, the 1995 Pearly Pond Subwatershed Study indicates that the Pond is a “phosphorus-rich eutrophic” environment that is continually being impacted by discharges from “a wetland over-saturated with phosphorus” caused over time by phosphorus discharges from the College’s treatment works which “along with -12- NH0101044

the internal marsh loading, continues to have a negative impact on the quality of Pearly Pond” Given that the current version of the State’s Surface Water Quality Regulations prohibit any increase in the discharge of nutrients coupled with the likely addition of more stringent nutrient criteria to those Regulations in the near future, the Agency and the State both recommend that the College investigate other disposal options such as seasonal holding with spray irrigation, ground-water infiltration (rapid infiltration or leach field), and/or various combinations of the above to eliminate its surface-water discharge. This is especially germane if the College foresees the need to treat additional wastewater that logically accompanies any growth in enrollment and/or dormitory capacity. Obviously, any form of ground-water infiltration will require a State ground-water permit.

Metals

EPA-New England has reviewed the College’s last seventeen (17) Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests (March 1998-June 2002) and has found that one (1) metal, Aluminum needs limiting and two (2) other metals, Copper and Zinc, need additional monitoring beyond that required by the WET tests. For ease of presentation, the appropriate limits for these metals are shown in Table 1 on the next page and a listing of all the metals concentrations from the 17 WET tests used in determining the need for additional monitoring and/or limits in the draft permit are shown in Attachment D. Current NH-Standards for metals are expressed in terms of dissolved metal; however, EPA is required by 40 CFR Section 122.45(c) to regulate the total recoverable (tr) form of the metal in NPDES permits. That limit is set such that the tr metal concentration in the effluent (that is the combined effect of both dissolved and particulate fractions) will not cause an exceedance of a particular dissolved metal's acute and/or chronic aquatic-life criterion in the NH Standards after mixing with the receiving water. Therefore, to convert the dissolved acute and chronic aquatic-life criteria for hardness dependent metals found in NH Standards Env-Ws 1703.21(b), Table 1703.1 to their total recoverable form for hardness(s) greater than 25 mg/l, the appropriate equation in Table 1703.3 was used. The reader should be aware that the freshwater aquatic criteria for hardness dependent metals in the NH Standards are expressed as a function of the total hardness at 25 mg/l. This is referred to as the default hardness. For this facility, because the available dilution at 7Q10 condition is considered zero, the hardness of the effluent (47 mg/l) is used as the stream is composed of 100 percent effluent. This approach is consistent with the recommendations contained in Section 1.5 of the Metals Translator Guidance cited at the end of this paragraph. If there is disagreement with the above assessment, the permittee has the option of performing additional sampling of the effluent, receiving waters and effluent/receiving water mixtures in order to develop site-specific partition coefficients for these metals using the procedures described in "The Metals Translator: Guidance for Calculating A Total Recoverable Permit Limit From A Dissolved Criterion," EPA, Office of Water, EPA 823-B-96-007, June 1996. For ease of presentation, the dissolved metal criteria in the NH Standards (default hardness of 25 mg/l) and the resultant tr metal criteria at the effluent hardness of 47 mg/l are shown in Table 1. The reader should understand that when there is no available dilution in the receiving water, the criteria value becomes the limit which the discharge must meet. Specifically, the acute criteria is protected by a “maximum daily limit” and the chronic criteria is protected by an “average monthly limit”. -13- NH0101044

Table 1. Concentrations at Which Exceedances Occur for Selected Metals.

PARAMETER Aquatic-Life Criteria Instream Exceedance Concentration from NH Standards (Total Recoverable Metal) (Dissolved Metal) Acute Chronic Acute Criteria Chronic Criteria Criteria Criteria and and Maximum Daily Average Monthly Limit Limit Aluminum (ug/l) 750 87 750 87 Copper (ug/l) 3.61 2.71 6.92 4.92 Zinc (ug/l) 36.21 36.51 63.22 63.22

1. Criteria values displayed in NH Standards, Table 1703.1, correspond to a total hardness of 25 mg/l. 2. Based on a hardness of 47 mg/l as determined from seven of the most recent WET tests (October 2001 through April 2002) and appropriate equation in NH Standards Table 1703.3. Monitoring associated with the Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) tests shows that both copper and zinc “may” have the potential to exceed both their respective fresh water acute and chronic aquatic- life criteria concentrations in the NH-Standards. However, the data profile produced by a sampling frequency of once every three (3) months is insufficient for the Agency to determine whether or not these constituents are being discharged at levels that cause, or have reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an instream excursion above their respective numeric water-quality criteria. Specifically, at the level of the metal concentrations shown in Attachment D as compared to the limits in Table 1, the frequency of monitoring in the WET testing program is too infrequent to properly determine their effluent variability in the discharge as to: (1) within month variability; (2) month to month variability; and (3) monthly averages all of which are used when deciding whether or not a discharge will likely exceed the State’s respective acute and/or chronic aquatic-life criteria. However, sampling data of both constituents (See Attachment D), particularly ones of January and April 2002, show that if these recent metal concentrations repeat and/or increase slightly in the future this discharge will have the potential to “cause, or have reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an instream excursion above the numeric water-quality criteria for that metal in the NH Standards” thus a permit limit would be needed. Consequently, a monitoring requirement of “report” has been added under the “maximum daily” and “average monthly” headings for tr copper and zinc in the draft permit with a monitoring frequency of 2/Month. In addition, the draft permit has been conditioned to collect the copper and zinc samples from the same parcel of effluent.

Alum (aluminum sulfate) is added to the wastewater as a coagulating agent during the treatment process to enhance phosphorus removal. Unless its dosage is carefully controlled and monitored, aluminum could be discharged in concentrations that can cause, or contribute to an instream -14- NH0101044

excursion above the numeric water quality criteria for aluminum in the State’s water quality standards, particularly when the available dilution is zero as is the case with this treatment works. In this situation, the Agency is more concerned about the discharge exceeding the State’s chronic aquatic-life criteria for aluminum as it’s far more stringent than the State’s acute aquatic-life criteria. For aluminum, the fresh-water chronic aquatic-life criteria is 0.087 mg/l or 87 micrograms per liter (ug/l); whereas, the acute aquatic-life criteria is 0.750 mg/l or 750 ug/l.

Aluminum concentrations in this effluent do show variability (58.5 to 366.8 ug/l) with the lower end anchored in the vicinity of State’s chronic aquatic-life criteria for aluminum. For example, of the 17 values (See Attachment D) only three (3) are just below the chronic criteria of 87 ug/l. They are 60, 84, and 58.5 ug/l collected in January 2000, July 2000, and July 2001, respectively. While these discrete values are only collected at a frequency of once every three months, the Agency believes that averaging all 17 values represents the long-term average concentration of aluminum in the effluent thus is the appropriate value for determining whether or not aluminum exceeds its chronic criteria, which is designed to protect the average situation. Because that average value of 186 ug/l is over two times NH’s chronic criteria for aluminum of 87 ug/l, the Agency believes reasonable potential to exceed that criteria has been established; therefore, it has conditioned the draft permit with an average monthly concentration limit for aluminum of 87 ug/l to comply with NH Standards and a mass loading limit of 0.10 lbs per day (based on a design flow of 0.14 MGD for the treatment works) to comply with 40 CFR Section 122.45(f). Because none of the 17 values come close to exceeding NH’s aquatic-life fresh-water acute criteria for aluminum of 750 ug/l, no maximum daily limit is contemplated at this time. However, since the permittee will be collecting data to show compliance with the newly established average monthly limit, a monitoring requirement of “report” has been added under the maximum daily heading for aluminum in the draft permit in order to report a component from the already collected data. Additionally, the draft permit has been conditioned to collect the phosphorus and aluminum samples from the same parcel of effluent.

The 40 CFR § 122.45(f) requires that all pollutants limited in permits shall have limits, standards, or prohibitions expressed in terms of mass unless the pollutant cannot be appropriately expressed as a mass limit or standards require that the limit be expressed otherwise, neither of which is the case here. Also, in accordance with the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPA/505/2-90-001, March 1991, the application of both mass-based and concentration- based limits is necessary to assure attainment of water-quality standards, especially in waters with low available dilution. Because this is a low dilution receiving water, mass limits are required for conservative pollutants such as metals in order to protect the NH Standards.

EPA-New England recommends using Clean Techniques for sampling as found in EPA Method 1669 as a first approach if the permittee believes their sampling methods contaminate. In addition, the permittee may chose to use some form of Clean Analytical Techniques may be required such as a Class 10, 100 or 1000 Hood and/or Bench for sample preparation in the laboratory or even a laboratory clean room. -15- NH0101044

Results from this new “monitoring-only” requirement will be considered “New Information” and the permit may be modified as provided in 40 CFR §122.62(a)(2) to incorporate a limit for total recoverable metal(s) should that prove necessary. The permit has been conditioned such that the lowest reportable concentration for each metal is set equivalent to the ML (“minimum quantification level”). Each metal’s ML is defined as the concentration in a sample equivalent to the concentration of the lowest calibration standard analyzed by a specific analytical procedure assuming that all the method-specific sample weights, volumes and processing steps have been followed. EPA-New England has established a ML for copper and zinc of 2.5 ug/l, respectively, using aqueous samples for Furnace AA analysis concentrated by a factor of up to two (2), if necessary.

D. Whole Effluent Toxicity

EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPA/505/2-90- 001, March 1991, recommends using an "integrated strategy" containing both pollutant (chemical) specific approaches and whole effluent (biological) toxicity approaches to control toxic pollutants in effluent discharges from entering the nation's waterways. EPA-New England adopted this "integrated strategy" on July 1, 1991, for use in permit development and issuance. These approaches are designed to protect aquatic life and human health. Pollutant specific approaches such as those in the Gold Book and State regulations address individual chemicals, whereas, Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) approaches evaluate interactions between pollutants, thus rendering an "overall" or "aggregate" toxicity assessment of the effluent. Furthermore, WET measures the "Additivity" and/or "Antagonistic" effects of individual chemical pollutants which pollutant specific approaches do not, thus the need for both approaches. In addition, the presence of an unknown toxic pollutant can be discovered and addressed through this process.

New Hampshire law states that, "all surface waters shall be free from toxic substances or chemical constituents in concentrations or combination that injure or are inimical to plants, animals, humans, or aquatic life;...." (N.H. RSA 485-A:8, VI and the N.H. Code of Administrative Rules, PART Env- Ws 1730.21(a)(1)). The federal NPDES regulations at 40 CFR §122.44(d)(1)(v) require whole effluent toxicity limits in a permit when a discharge has a "reasonable potential" to cause or contribute to an excursion above the State's narrative criterion for toxicity. Furthermore, the zero dilution available in the receiving water that the College’s treatment facility discharges results in a “reasonable potential” to cause or contribute to an excursion of the “no toxics provision” in the NH Standards. In addition, results of these toxicity tests will demonstrate compliance of the POTW’s discharge with that “no toxics provision” in the NH Standards.

Accordingly, to fully implement the “integrated strategy” and to protect the “no toxic provision of the NH Standards”, EPA-New England requires toxicity testing in all municipal permits with the type of toxicity test(s) (acute and/or chronic) and effluent limitation(s) (LC50 and/or C-NOEC) based on the available dilution as shown in Attachment E. That policy (Attachment E) is for major permittees, however, the applicable toxicity policy for minor POTWs (less than 1.0 MGD design flow) is identical to that shown in Attachment E except that the monitoring frequency is reduced to annual testing for available dilutions above 20:1. Even though the College is considered a minor POTW, its -16- NH0101044

dilution factor of 0.0:1 is considerably significantly less than 20:1; therefore, its monitoring frequency for WET testing is set at 1/Quarter. This policy (Attachment E) is the basis for the WET limits in the College’s previous permit and in this draft permit. In addition, the effluent limitations in the draft permit for LC50 and C-NOEC are based upon those in the current permit in accordance with the antibacksliding requirements found in 40 CFR Section 122.44(1) for the permittee has been able to achieve consistent compliance with these limitations. Specifically, the draft permit is conditioned to require the permittee to continuing performing annually, four (4) chronic and modified acute toxicity tests using two (2) species per test during calendar quarters ending March 31st, June 30th, September 30th, and December 31st each year and for the test results to meet an acute LC50 limit of 100 percent effluent concentration and a chronic C-NOEC limit of equal to or greater than 100 % effluent concentration. The two (2) species used in these toxicity tests are Daphnid (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas).

The LC50 is defined as the percentage of effluent that would be lethal to 50 % of the test organisms during an exposure of 48 hours. Therefore, a 100 % limit means that a sample of 100 % effluent shall have no greater than a 50 % mortality rate in that effluent sample. Whereas, C-NOEC (Chronic-No Observed Effect Concentration) is defined as the highest concentration to which aquatic test organisms are exposed in a life cycle or partial life cycle test, which causes no adverse effect on growth, survival or reproduction at a specific time of observation as determined from hypothesis testing where the tests results (growth, survival and/or reproduction) exhibit a linear dose-response relationship. However, where the test results do not exhibit a linear dose-response relationship, the draft permit requires the permittee to report the lowest concentration where there is no observable effect. See the draft permit’s ATTACHMENT A (VII. TOXICITY TEST DATA ANALYSIS) on page A-9 for additional clarification in selecting appropriate C-NOEC value. The modified acute toxicity test required in the draft permit is measured 48 hours into the chronic test. Toxicity test results are to be submitted by the 15th day of the month following the end of the quarter sampled. For example, test results of the third calendar quarter (July-September) are to be submitted with the DMR for September due to EPA-New England and NHDES-WD by October 15th.

The existing permit allows for the use of a synthetic reconstituted water as diluent in lieu of receiving water when performing the required Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests. Authorization to use synthetic diluent was given by letter dated May 10, 1999, after a request by the College showed the receiving water to be unreliable. EPA-New England's primary objective in using Whole Effluent Toxicity tests is to prevent a discharge from exhibiting toxic effects in a receiving water based on an effluent's acute and/or chronic toxic effects on a representative sample of that receiving water. However, when the receiving water proves to be unreliable, the Agency allows a synthetic reconstituted dilution water to be substituted. Review of the site (receiving) water data in the College’s recent WET tests indicates the receiving water continues to be unreliable for use as a serial dilution water. Therefore, the draft permit has been conditioned to continue the May 10, 1999, authorization to use synthetic reconstituted diluent in lieu of the receiving water amended to include a requirement that the permittee use an alternative dilution water that is categorized no harder than “SOFT WATER” (Ca and Mg Hardness range between 40 to 48 mg equivalent CaCO3/L). -17- NH0101044

This draft permit, as in the current permit, requires the permittee to continue reporting selected parameters from the chemical analysis of the WET tests 100 percent effluent sample. Specifically, total ammonia nitrogen as nitrogen, and total recoverable aluminum, cadmium, copper, chromium, lead, nickel and zinc are to be reported on the appropriate DMR for entry into EPA's Permit Compliance System's Data Base. EPA-New England does not consider these reporting requirements an unnecessary burden as reporting these constituents is already required with the submission of each toxicity testing report.

The WET limits in the draft permit have been conditioned to allow EPA-New England to modify, or alternatively, revoke and reissue to incorporate additional toxicity testing requirements, including chemical specific limits, if the results of the toxicity tests indicate the discharge causes an exceedance of any State water quality criterion. Results from these toxicity tests are considered “New Information” and the permit may be modified as provided in 40 CFR §122.62(a)(2). Alternately, if a permittee has consistently demonstrated on a maximum daily basis that its discharge, based on data for the most recent one-year period, or four sampling events, whichever yields the greater time period, causes no acute and chronic toxicity at the permitted limits will be considered eligible for a reduced frequency of toxicity testing. This reduction in testing frequency is evaluated on a case-by- case basis.

Accordingly, a special condition has been carried forward from the current permit into the draft permit that allows for a reduced frequency of WET testing using a certified letter from EPA-New England. This permit provision anticipates the time when the permittee requests a reduction in WET testing that is approveable by both EPA-New England and the NHDES-WD. As previously stated, EPA-New England’s current policy is that after completion of a minimum of four consecutive WET tests all of which must be valid tests and must demonstrate compliance with the permit limits for whole effluent toxicity, the permittee may submit a written request to EPA-New England seeking a review of the toxicity test results. EPA-New England’s policy is to reduce the frequency of toxicity testing to no less than one (one-species) test per year. The permittee is required to continue testing at the frequency specified in the permit until the permit is either formally modified or until the permittee receives a certified letter from the EPA-New England indicating a change in the permit condition. This special condition does not negate the permittee’s right to request a permit modification at any time prior to the permit expiration.

E. Sludge Section 405(d) of the ACT requires that EPA develop technical standards regulating the use and disposal of sewage sludge. These regulations were signed on November 25, 1992, published in the Federal Register on February 19, 1993, and became effective on March 22, 1993. Domestic sludges which are land applied, disposed of in a surface disposal unit, or fired in a sewage sludge incinerator are subject to Part 503 technical and to State Env-Ws 800 standards. Part 503 regulations have a self- implementing provision, however, the ACT requires implementation through permits. Domestic sludges which are disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills are in compliance with Part 503 regulations provided the sludge meets the quality criteria of the landfill and the landfill meets the requirements of 40 CFR Part 258. -18- NH0101044

The draft permit has been conditioned to ensure that sewage sludge use and disposal practices meet the ACT’s Section 405(d) Technical Standards. In addition, EPA-New England has included with the draft permit a 72-page document entitled “EPA Region I NPDES Permit Sludge Compliance Guidance” for use by the permittee in determining their appropriate sludge conditions for their chosen method of sewage sludge use or disposal practices.

The permittee is also required to submit an annual report to EPA-New England and NHDES-WD, by February 19th each year, containing the information specified in the Sludge Compliance Guidance document for their chosen method of sewage sludge use or disposal practices.

Presently, all sludge produced by the College’s treatment works is pumped to on-site sludge holding tanks for later transport by septage haulers for ultimate disposal at one of two area treatment works. One works is designated as their primary site while the other is considered their alternative site in case the primary works is unavailable. In 1999, the College discontinued using their sludge drying beds for they were unable to secure a disposal site for their Class B biosolids.

F. Industrial Users

The current permit does not contain EPA-New England’s standard pretreatment program language for those facilities not required to administer an EPA approved pretreatment program based on the authority granted under 40 CFR §122.44(j), 40 CFR §403 and Section 307 of the Act. During the current permit, this facility did not accept any industrial discharge due to its unique situation, that of a College. Therefore, given that fact and the fact that this permit is for a straight sanitary wastewater treatment works, the Agency has decided to continue the practice of not including the standard pretreatment program language in the draft permit. Furthermore, the draft permit has been conditioned to prevent this facility from accepting discharges from any industrial user.

G. Antidegradation

This draft permit is being reissued with allowable wasteloads and parameter coverages identical to or more stringent than those in the current permit with no change in outfall location. The State of New Hampshire has indicated that there is no lowering of water quality and no loss of existing water uses and that no additional antidegradation review is warranted at this time.

H. Additional Requirements and Conditions

The effluent monitoring requirements in the draft permit and shown in Table 2 on the next page have been established to yield data representative of the discharge under the authority of Section 308(a) of the ACT in accordance with 40 CFR §§§ 122.41(j), 122.44(i) and 122.48. In the draft permit, compliance monitoring frequency and sample type for Flow, BOD5, TSS, pH, Escherichia coli bacteria, nutrients (phosphorus and ammonia) and metals (aluminum, copper and zinc) have been established in accordance with the latest version of EPA/NHDES-WD’s Effluent Monitoring Guidance (EMG) mutually agreed upon and first implemented in March 1993 and last revised on July -19- NH0101044

19, 1999. In addition, the WET test monitoring requirements have been set according to EPA-New England’s Municipal Toxicity Policy. See Table 2 for a comparison of sampling frequencies and sample types in the current versus draft permits. Also, as a companion to Table 2 and as an aid to the reader, Table 3 has been included to show a comparison of effluent limitations and/or monitoring requirements in the current versus draft permits.

It’s the intent of EPA and NHDES-WD to establish minimum monitoring frequencies in all NPDES permits at permit modification and/or reissuances in accordance with this Effluent Monitoring Guidance that make sense from both an environmental and human health perspective.

Continued on next page... -20- NH0101044

Table 2. Sampling Frequencies and Sample Types in the Current and Draft Permits. (Changes to current permit are highlighted under Draft Permit.)

PARAMETER CURRENT PERMIT DRAFT PERMIT

Sampling Frequency Sample Type Sampling Frequency Sample Type Flow Continuous Recorder Continuous Recorder

BOD5 2/Week 24-Hr. Composite 2/Week 24-Hr. Composite

TSS 2/Week 24-Hr. Composite 2/Week 24-Hr. Composite

Percent Removal of 1/Week 24-Hr. Composite 2/Month 24-Hr. Composite

BOD5 and of TSS for influent and for influent and effluent effluent pH 1/Day Grab 1/Day Grab

TRC 1/Day Grab (When in Eliminated Eliminated Use) Escherichia coli 3/Week Grab 3/Week Grab

Total Phosphorus 2/Week 24-Hr. Composite 2/Week 24-Hr. Composite Total Ammonia Not Required Not Required 2/Week 24-Hr. Composite

(NH3-N) TR Aluminum Not Required Not Required 2/Week 24-Hr. Composite TR Copper Not Required Not Required 2/Month 24-Hr. Composite

TR Zinc Not Required Not Required 2/Month 24-Hr. Composite Total Toxic 1/Quarter 24-Hr. Composite Eliminated Eliminated Organics

WET Test: Toxicity All Parameters at 24-Hr. Composite Report All These 24-Hr. Composite LC50 1/Quarter Parameters Which C-NOEC Are Part of WET Hardness Test Separately, Total Ammonia Except Total Tr Aluminum Ammonia as N and Tr Cadmium Tr Aluminum, Tr Chromium Copper and Zinc Tr Copper Tr Lead Tr Nickel Tr Zinc -21- NH0101044

Table 3. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements in the Current and Draft Permits. (Changes to page 2 of current permit are highlighted under Draft Permit.)

PARAMETER CURRENT PERMIT DRAFT PERMIT

Average Maximum Daily Average Maximum Daily Monthly/Weekly Monthly/Weekly Flow Report Report Report Report

BOD5 30/45 mg/l 50 mg/l 30/45 mg/l 50 mg/l 27/41 lbs/day 46 lbs/day 27/41 lbs/day 46 lbs/day

TSS 30/45 mg/l 50 mg/l 30/45 mg/l 50mg/l 27/41 lbs/day 46 lbs/day 27/41 lbs/day 46 lbs/day

Percent Removal of 85/-- % Not Required 85/-- % Not Required

BOD5 and of TSS pH Range: 6.5 to 8.0 S.U. Range: 6.5 to 8.0 S.U.

TRC 0.011/-- mg/l 0.019 mg/l Eliminated Eliminated Escherichia coli 126/-- Col./100 ml 406 Col./100 ml 126/-- Col./100 ml 406 Col./100 ml

Total Phosphorus 0.29/-- lbs/day 0.5 mg/l 0.29/-- lbs/day 0.5 mg/l (P) Total Summer Not Required Not Required 3.96/-- lbs/day 3.39 mg/l

Ammonia (NH3-N) (Except for WET) Total Winter Not Required Not Required 7.79/-- lbs/day 6.67 mg/l

Ammonia (NH3-N) (Except for WET) TR Aluminum Not Required Not Required 0.10/-- lbs/day 0.087 mg/l (Except for WET)

TR Copper Not Required Not Required Monitor Only Monitor Only (Except for WET) TR Zinc Not Required Not Required Monitor Only Monitor Only (Except for WET)

Total Toxic Not Required Required Not Required Changed Approach Organics (No monitoring) WET Test: Toxicity LC50 Not Required 100 % Not Required 100 % C-NOEC Not Required 100 % Not Required 100 % Chemical Analysis Not Required Required Not Required Required

The effluent monitoring requirements in the draft permit have been established to yield data -22- NH0101044

representative of the discharge under the authority of Section 308(a) of the ACT in accordance with 40 CFR §122.41(j), §122.44(i) and §122.48.

The remaining conditions of the permit are based on the NPDES regulations 40 CFR, Parts 122 through 125, and consist primarily of management requirements common to all permits.

V. Essential Fish Habitat.

Under the 1996 Amendments (PL 104-267) to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq.(1998)), EPA is required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) if EPA’s action or proposed actions that it funds, permits, or undertakes, “may adversely impact any essential fish habitat.” 16 U.S.C. § 1855(b). The Amendments broadly define “essential fish habitat” (EFH) as: “waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. 16 U.S.C. § 1802(10). Adversely impact means any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. 50 CFR § 600.910(a). Adverse effects may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey, reduction in species' fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. Id.

EFH is only designated for fish species for which federal Fisheries Management Plans exist. 16 U.S.C. § 1855(b)(1)(A). EFH designations for New England were approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce on March 3, 1999.

EFH Species

Not designated for any of the EFH species. According to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHF&GD) there is no stocking of trout nor salmon in Pearly Pond. It appears that the habitat is not suitable for stocking of either species either in the Pond or in the small tributaries that drain into the Pond. The tributaries are either wetlands or very small brooks which likely contain very little or no flow during the summer months. In addition, the NHDES considers Pearly Pond highly eutrophic with a mean water depth of 6.9 feet and a water temperature in August in the low seventies degree Fahrenheit range. This makes the Pond suitable to warm water species and not trout or salmon which are cold water species.

EPA-New England’s Opinion of Probable Impacts

Because of the facility’s location in a wetlands which is a headwaters tributary to Pearly Pond, which is designated as a warm water fishery, EPA-New England considers the discharge of the College’s treated effluent outside of EFH consideration. Therefore, no further discussion is warranted. -23- NH0101044

VI. State Certification Requirements.

EPA may not issue a permit unless the State Water Pollution Control Agency with jurisdiction over the receiving water(s) either certifies that the effluent limitations and/or conditions contained in the permit are stringent enough to assure, among other things, that the discharge will not cause the receiving water to violate the State’s Surface Water Quality Regulations or waives its right to certify as set forth in 40 CFR §124.53.

Upon public noticing of the draft permit, EPA-New England is formally requesting that the State’s certifying authority make a written determination concerning certification. The State will be deemed to have waived its right to certify unless certification is received within 60 days of receipt of this request.

The NHDES-WD is the certifying authority. EPA-New England has discussed this draft permit with the staff of the Water Division and expects that the draft permit will be certified. Regulations governing State Certification are set forth in 40 CFR §§124.53 and 124.55.

The State’s certification should include the specific conditions necessary to assure compliance with applicable provisions of the ACT, Sections 208(e), 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 and with appropriate requirements of State law. In addition, the State should provide a statement of the extent to which each condition of the draft permit can be made less stringent without violating the requirements of State law. Since certification is provided prior to permit issuance, failure to provide this statement for any condition waives the right to certify or object to any less stringent condition which may be established by EPA-New England during the permit issuance process following public noticing as a result of information received during that noticing. If the State believes that any conditions more stringent than those contained in the draft permit are necessary to meet the requirements of either the ACT or State law, the State should include such conditions and, in each case, cite the ACT or State law reference upon which that condition is based. Failure to provide such a citation waives the right to certify as to that condition. The sludge conditions implementing section 405(d) of the ACT are not subject to the 401 certification requirements.

Reviews and appeals of limitations and conditions attributable to State Certification shall be made through the applicable procedures of the State and may not be made through the applicable procedures of 40 CFR Part 124.

VII. Comment Period, Hearing Requests, and Procedures for Final Decisions.

All persons, including applicants, who believe any condition of the draft permit is inappropriate must raise all issues and submit all available arguments and all supporting material for their arguments in full by the close of the public comment period to: Mr. Roger A. Janson, Associate Director Surface Water Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (Mail Code: CWQ), Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023. Any person, prior to such date, may submit a request in writing for a public hearing to consider the draft permit to EPA-New England and the State -24- NH0101044

Agency. Such requests shall state the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the hearing. A public hearing may be held after at least thirty (30) days public notice whenever the Regional Administrator finds that response to this notice indicates significant public interest. In reaching a final decision on the draft permit, the Regional Administrator will respond to all significant comments and make these responses available to the public at EPA-New England's Boston office.

Following the close of the comment period, and after a public hearing, if such hearing is held, the Regional Administrator will issue a final permit decision and forward a copy of the final decision to the applicant and each person who has submitted written comments or requested notice.

VIII. EPA/State Contacts.

Additional information concerning the draft permit may be obtained between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. (8:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. for the state), Monday through Friday, excluding holidays from:

Mr. Frederick B. Gay, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Ecosystem Protection NPDES Permits Unit One Congress Street Suite 1100, Mail Code: CPE Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023 Telephone No.: (617) 918-1297 FAX No.: (617) 918-0297

DATED Linda M. Murphy, Director Office of Ecosystem Protection US Environmental Protection Agency

Attachments: A - Map, not available electronically B - Outfall 001 - Selected Effluent Characteristics C - Maximum Allowable Loads D - Selected WET Test Data - not available electronically E - NH Municipal Toxicity Strategy -25- NH0101044

ATTACHMENT A

This attachment is for the overview map of the area–that is the USGS Topographic Map - Not available electronically

OVERVIEW MAP ATTACHED BY STAPLE TO BACK OF THIS PAGE -26- NH0101044

ATTACHMENT B

CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS AT OUTFALL 001

The following selected effluent characteristics were derived from analysis of discharge-monitoring data collected for Outfall 001 during the 24-month period January 2000 through December 2001. These values were extracted from monthly Discharge Monitoring Reports (calendar month reporting period) submitted by Franklin Pierce College’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. They represent an effluent composed of treated domestic (sanitary) wastewater discharged from this facility and gives an indication of this treatment works ability to meet its current permit limits. To fully understand the statistics presented in the table below, the reader should be thoroughly familiar with the definitions of average monthly, average weekly and maximum daily in Part II, General Conditions and Definitions, on pages 13, 14 and 18, respectively. In the table, some range values were rounded for ease of presentation.

Average Range Average Range Average Range Effluent Characteristic of of of of of of Average Average Average Average Maximum Maximum Monthly1 Monthly Weekly1 Weekly Daily1 Daily Flow (MGD) 0.0436 0.017-0.073 -- -- 0.0731 0.029-0.170

BOD5 (lbs/day) 1.65 0.2-6.7 3.35 0.2-18.7 3.73 0.2-19.7

BOD5 (mg/l) 3.68 0.7-12.4 7.52 0.9-33.6 8.64 1.5-35.8

BOD5 (Percent Removal) 99.4 96-100 ------TSS (lbs/day) 1.60 0.1-5.6 2.86 0.2-13.2 3.35 0.3-14.4 TSS (mg/l) 3.73 0.7-10.5 6.74 0.8-22.9 7.57 1.0-24.4 TSS (Percent Removal) 97.7 90-100 ------pH (Standard Units) ------6.5-7.9 E. coli bacteria 1.54 0-6 -- -- 47.3 0-535 (Organisms/100 ml) Total Residual Chlorine No No -- -- No No (mg/l) Discharge Discharge Discharge Discharge of of of of Chlorine Chlorine Chlorine Chlorine

Total Phosphorus as P (lbs/day) 0.0567 0.01-0.17 ------Total Phosphorus as P (mg/l) ------0.262 0.04-0.48 -27- NH0101044

Total Ammonia as N (mg/l) ------7.54 <0.10-16.3

Average Range Average Range Average Range Effluent Characteristic of of of of of of Average Average Average Average Maximum Maximum Monthly1 Monthly1 Weekly1 Weekly Daily1 Daily Total Recoverable Aluminum ------186 58.5-367 (ug/l)

Total Recoverable Cadmium ------0.56 <1-<2 (ug/l) Total Recoverable Chromium ------1.0 <2-<2 (ug/l)

Total Recoverable Copper (ug/l) ------1.99 <1.6-3.4 Total Recoverable Lead (ug/l) ------1.9 <2.6-<5

Total Recoverable Nickel (µg/l) ------2.3 2-4 Total Recoverable Zinc (ug/l) ------16 <2.1-47

Whole Effluent Toxicity (LC50 in % Effluent)

Ceriodaphnia dubia ------100 100-100 Pimephales promelas ------100 100-100

Whole Effluent Toxicity (C- NOEC in % Effluent)

Ceriodaphnia dubia ------42.6 <6.25-100

Pimephales promelas ------87.5 50-100 1. Any value qualified with a less than sign was halved prior to computing average value. -28- NH0101044

ATTACHMENT C

Maximum Allowable Loads

Equation used to calculate mass limits for BOD5, TSS, Total Ammonia and Total Recoverable Aluminum where:

L = C * QPDF * 8.345

L = Maximum allowable load, in lbs/day. C = Maximum allowable effluent concentration for reporting period, in mg/l. Reporting periods are average monthly, average weekly and maximum daily.

QPDF = Treatment plant’s design flow, in MGD. For BOD5 and TSS limits a design flow of 0.11 MGD was used, where as for Total Ammonia and Total Recoverable Aluminum limits a design flow of 0.14 MGD was used. 8.345 = Factor to convert effluent concentration, in mg/l, and plant’s design flow, in MGD to lbs/day.

Aquatic-Life Criteria Limits from NH Standards

Equations used to calculate “Average Monthly” and “Maximum Daily” limits for Total Ammonia and various metals. Acute aquatic-life criterion is used for computing a "Maximum Daily" limit (MDL) and chronic aquatic-life criterion is used for computing a "Average Monthly" limit (AML). Criteria values are expressed either as ug/l or mg/l with 1,000 ug/l equal to 1.0 mg/l. In situations of no (zero) available dilution, a value of 1.0 is used for the Dilution Factor.

MDL = Dilution Factor * Acute Aquatic-Life Water-Quality Criteria

AML = Dilution Factor * Chronic Aquatic-Life Water-Quality Criteria

C-NOEC Toxicity Limit

Equation used to calculate WET's C-NOEC limit which is set equal to or greater than the Receiving Water Concentration. See Attachment E.

1 RCW = x100 DF where: RCW = Receiving Water Concentration, in percent. DF = Dilution Factor. In situations of no (zero) available dilution, a value of 1.0 is used for the Dilution Factor. -29- NH0101044

100 = Factor to convert reciprocal to a percent. ATTACHMENT D

Not available electronically -30- NH0101044

ATTACHMENT E Toxicity Strategy for Municipal Permits HIGH RISK MED-HIGH RISK MED-LOW RISK LOW RISK

DILUTION FACTOR <10:1 10.1-20:1 20.1-100:1

SAMPLING EVENTS 4(1/3 MONTHS) 4(1/3 MONTHS) 4(1/3 MONTHS) PER YEAR

TOXICITY TESTS: FRESH WATER CHRONIC1 CHRONIC1 ACUTE ACUTE MARINE WATER CHRONIC & ACUTE CHRONIC & ACUTE ACUTE ACUTE

NUMBER OF SPECIES: FRESH WATER 2 2 2 MARINE WATER 3 3 2

PERMIT LIMITS LC50=100% LC50=100% LC50=100% C-NOEC2>=RWC3

TEST SPECIES:

FRESH WATER DAPHNID1 (Ceriodaphnia dubia or DAPHNID (Ceriodaphnia Daphnia pulex) Daphnia pulex FATHEAD MINNOW1 (Pimephales FATHEAD MINNOW (Pimephales promelas) promelas

MARINE WATER INLAND SILVERSIDE1 (Menidia INLAND SILVERSIDE ( beryllina) MYSID SHRIMP (Mysidopsis bahia) MYSID SHRIMP (Mysidopsis SEA URCHIN (Arbacia punctulata)

1 7-DAY CHRONIC/MODIFIED ACUTE. 2 C-NOEC IS CHRONIC NO OBSERVED EFFECT CONCENTRATION. 3 RWC IS RECEIVING WATER CONCENTRATION, IN PERCENT, AS DETERMINED FROM DIVIDING ONE BY THE DILUTION FACTOR ALL TIMES 100. -31- NH0101044