Missouri NPDES Comment Guide

This guide to writing effective comments on NPDES discharge permits in Missouri is divided into the following sections (click to go directly to them):

Finding Permits

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources posts a new set of draft NPDES permits that are open for comment on its public notices web page each Friday, under that day's date. That sets the 30-day public comment period for that set of draft permits in motion. Actually, the 30-day limit refers only to post-mark date of the comments. Faxed signed comments (followed by hard copy) or letters that arrive in the DNR offices by Wednesday of the following week are also accepted (providing an effectively 33-day comment period).

The draft permits for several previous weeks, including some that are no longer open for comment, are also listed. But those posted within a month (or 33 days if you fax) of the present day are available for comment still.

Clicking on the permit posting date will take you to a list of dischargers in alphabetical order, along with each discharger's permit number and county. Some of the common abbreviations associated with discharger names are WWTF or WWTP (wasterwater treatment facility or plant) and MHP (mobile home park). Clicking on the permit number will bring up the draft permit as a PDF file that is generally 5-8 pages in length (but that can be much longer for large facilities).

Reading Permits

This section presents some of the key items to pay attention to as you read through a draft permit. A sample permit is provided here, which will be referenced in the following discussion.

[For a more detailed and highly readable guide to analyzing permits, particularly in how to understand and evaluate pollution limits and conditions, please check out "Analyzing NPDES Permits" (a 5 MB PDF file), excerpted from "Permitting an End to Pollution" authored by Prairie Rivers Network, Clean Water Network, and River Network. You may also find the NPDES Permit Writers Guide put out be EPA helpful.]

The first two pages of the public notice, which prefaces each draft permit, provides standard information about how, when, and where to submit comments. Draft permits may be written and issued out of any of the regional offices or the central office in Jefferson City, and comments should be submitted to that office, at the address indicated.

The second of these two pages identifies the name and address of both the discharge and its owner, as well as the legal description of the stream directly receiving the discharge. The type of discharge may be domestic (sewage from any source) or industrial. The permit itself will be characterized as new, re-issue (of an existing but expired permit), or modification (meaning that an existing permit is being modified to respond to changes in the facility, the discharge, or the condition of the receiving stream).

Following these two introductory pages is the draft permit itself. The cover (first) page of the permit provides more locational detail, including the basin and watershed in which the stream or lake is situated. It also identifies the kind of stream or lake that is receiving the discharge (by the letter in parentheses following the name) and the first classified stream the discharge enters, if the receiving stream is not classified. [Missouri improperly has divided streams into classified and unclassified. Classified streams are generally smaller (or are smaller, upstream segments of classified streams) than classified streams, and they receive fewer protections from discharges.]

In addition, if the stream or lake is on the state's impaired waterbody list, it will be indicated by having "303(d)" following the name. It is important to check the list to determine what the pollutant and discharge (if a point source) are that is causing the impairment. If it is this discharger or a pollutant that is released by this discharge, this will likely be a focus of your comment.

Finally, at the bottom of the page (and possibly extending onto another page or two) are descriptions of each of the facility's discharges, also known as "outfalls". First, they will indicate the type of treatment and disposal that is provided for the wastewater and residual solids (sludge), in the case of domestic sewage. For some industrial discharges (such as cooling water) and stormwater, there may be no treatment at all. [For a good presentation on wastewater treatment, see http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/5161/wwtps.htm.] It will then state the number of people and size of the discharge (in gallons per day or millions of gallons per day) for which the facility is designed as well as the actual reported average discharge flow. In the event that the facility produces sludge, the design and actual amounts of dry sludge to be disposed of is given as well. All of this information can be used to get a good sense of how modern and efficient the facility is in processing wastewater and how much is being discharged into the receiving stream or lake. In many cases, the discharge flow will actually be much larger than the stream's flow, such that the discharge IS effectively the stream.

The next page is the heart of the permit. It sets out the limits being applied to the effluent (i.e., the wastewater being discharged) as well as any monitoring requirements for each outfall. The first column in the table indicates the parameter (characteristic of or pollutant in the effluent) to be monitored or limited. The second gives the units by which the parameter is to be measured. The middle set of columns indicates the maximum quantities or allowable ranges of the parameters (by day and/or by average levels in a week or month). Finally, the fourth column shows the frequency of the monitoring of that parameter and how it is to be done. Note that the monitoring is done by the permittees on what is essentially an honor system, not by the state. The permittee is to submit reports with their monitoring data, on the schedule shown at the bottom of the table. Again, to learn more about the particular parameters and the limits set for them, see "Analyzing NPDES Permits."

The example provided here of a draft permit portrays the not uncommon situation in which there are two tables of effluent limitations, which are applied in sequence. In this case, the heading in the first table indicates that those limits would be in effect until December 31, 2008. These limits would be superceded by those in the second table at that time, which would carry through the remainder of the five-year permit. As is generally the case, the later limits are more stringent, either reflecting upgrading of the facility (enabling it to meet tougher standards) or requiring such upgrading, in order to cope with water quality problems. In this case, the state has apparently discovered that the receiving waterbody is a losing stream, which would have tighter pollutant limits by state standards, given that much of the water is "lost" to groundwater--which can turn up in springs and wells. In this case, and nearly all other similar cases, the permittee is granted a period of time in which to complete upgrades to the facility in order to meet the new pollutant limits. If you believe that the state is granting too much time to make such upgrades--and allowing too much pollution to enter the stream in the interim--you could voice your objection in a comment letter.

Following the effluent limitation table(s) are a series of footnotes providing more information or setting conditions on particular items in the tables. The next section ("C) consists of a number of "Special Conditions"--for the most part, a set of general requirements and standards. While these tend to be applied with few changes to all permits, it is worthwhile checking to see if any specific requirements are being set for the permit in question. Finally, there may be a schedule of compliance if modifications to the facility are being mandated. The schedule will specify a timetable for meeting specific provisions of the upgrade.

For larger facilities (those with effluent flows of more than one million gallons per day), there should be a Water Quality Review Sheet (WQRS) appended to the draft permit. The WQRS will provide more information about the facility, its performance record (particularly past violations of effluent limits), any modifications being done, and the size and condition of the receiving stream. It may also show the calculations used to derive the effluent limitations and the name of the state permit writer who determined those limits. All of this is valuable information--and it should be required for ALL facilities, not just the largest. It's important to check the calculations and the water quality standards on which they are based--it's easy to select the wrong line in a table or to make an arithmetic error. But the narrative information in the WQRS is useful as well in giving you a better feel for the discharge situation and a sense of what issues there may be or information to pursue.

Getting Information

To comment effectively, you'll need access to certain kinds of information. First among these are the laws and regulations that specify water quality standards and NPDES requirements. These include the Clean Water Act, the Code of Federal Regulations (see 40CFR122 – 40CFR136 for regulations governing water quality and NPDES), Missouri's effluent regulations and water quality standards. The NPDES permits are written to the state regulations, so it's best to make sure first that the draft permit is consistent with these (they often are not). And since those regulations are supposed to be based on the federal CWA and EPA's water protection regulations, you can also draw on and cite the latter in your comments.

The draft permits, even those that are accompanied by a WQRS, are very limited in the amount of information they convey. If the permit in question is a reissuance, one source of additional information is the existing permit. You can at least see if the state is making changes to the permit (and inquire why), but you may also be able to tell if the permittee has been in compliance with its previous permits, both in terms of meeting effluent limits and filing the required monitoring reports. The state started putting approved permits online in 2002, so there is access to recent permits there. EPA also maintains a searchable database that includes locational maps for facilities, inspection dates, and records of effluent violations and discharge monitoring reports (if the state has provided them).

The best source of information in reviewing draft permits is the facility files, which are maintained at DNR's regional offices. These will have not only the previous permits, but all reports, inspections, design plans, and correspondence. They are available to the public for review and copying.

Finally, you can also call the permit writer at the appropriate DNR regional office. If you have specific questions and concerns, this may well be the most direct way to get them answered.

Writing Comments

Submitting comments on draft permits can be done for various reasons: to provide the state with information about the facility or receiving waterbody, to correct factual or calculation errors, to point out the applicability of particular regulations, and to offer opinion. The last by itself is generally not very effective--except to let DNR know that there is someone out there who cares and is watching--but the others certainly can be. In general, the more factual the information or the more knowledgeable about the law, the more effective the comment will be.

There is no necessary format for comments: they can be brief or long, formal or informal. We do suggest that they be written with a respectful but appropriately forceful tone. We offer three examples of comments here not as something to emulate but as different possibilities, written for various purposes:

The first points out a factual error, which led to the draft permit being re-written.

The second draws attention to a persistent issue, in which DNR has consistently allowed higher limits for wastewater lagoon systems than are allowed by state effluent regulations.

The third is a little longer and raises several issues, in which some new information was contributed and arguments about consistency with state and federal regulations were made.

We hope you find this guide helpful in constructing your comments. Please contact us at dsherburne@moenviron.org or 314-727-0600 if you have any questions about commenting or suggestions for this guide.