Designing De Minimis

1
Designing De Minimis

• Indiana Antidegradation Workshop
• April 29, 2008
• Brad Klein -- Environmental Law Policy Center

2
Scope of de minimis doctrine

• Not mentioned in federal antidegradation
  regulation but under common law courts allow that
  a limited exception for insignificant cases be
  implied into a regulation.
• EPA will review state rules on a case-by-case
  basis to ensure that exemption does not allow
  significant degradation either individually or
  cumulatively.

3
IC 13-18-3 (a/k/a SEA 431)

• Requires a de minimis threshold for Outstanding
  State Resource Waters
• Does not limit IDEM to any specific approach for
  defining what qualifies as de minimis

4
Limits on De minimis Exceptions

• An allowable de minimis test will only exempt
  trifling matters from detailed study, but avoid
  unnecessary pollution and trigger full
  antidegradation review for all significant new or
  expanded discharges.

5
U.S. EPAs interpretation

• Cant allow significant degradation
• States should consider the extent of the loading
  capacity (USEPA calls this assimilative
  capacity) used by the increase as part of the
  test
• Incorporate a cumulative cap
• Also consider overall pollutant loading
• E. King memo (2005)

6
De Minimis Draft Rule Sec. 6

• IDEM draft uses three concepts
• DTBELs
• end of pipe WQBELs
• 10 unused loading capacity

7
Concerns with DTBELs

• Focus exclusively on treatment technology, rather
  than pollution avoidance or minimization.
• May be difficult and/or controversial to identify
  and keep current.
• Will be inappropriate in many situations (e.g.
  little assimilative capacity, discharge to
  sensitive or important waters)

8
DTBEL solutions

• Must consider pollution avoidance or minimization
  alternatives before applying DTBEL.
• Ensure limits reflect best treatment technology
  possible.
• Consider restricting DTBELs in sensitive waters
  and where little dilution available.

9
Loading or Assimilative capacity

• The difference between the applicable water
  quality criterion for a pollutant parameter and
  the ambient water quality for that pollutant
  parameter where it is better than the criterion
• E. King memo (2005)

10
Loading capacity example
Water quality criterion 100 mg/L
100 mg/L
Loading or assimilative capacity
The available assimilative capacity of a
waterbody is a valuable natural resource. (U.S.
EPA, 2005)
Ambient concentration 20 mg/L
20 mg/L
Pollutant X
0 mg/L
11
Loading capacity example 5 de minimis first
bite
Water quality criterion 100 mg/L
100 mg/L
5 percent of loading capacity (100 mg/L
20 mg/L) x (5) 4 mg/L
24 mg/L
de minimis if new conc. baseline concentration 20 mg/L
20 mg/L
Pollutant X
0 mg/L
12
5 de minimis second bite
Water quality criterion 100 mg/L
100 mg/L
5 percent of remaining loading capacity
(100 mg/L 24 mg/L) x (5) 3.8 mg/L
de minimis if new conc. 27.8 mg/L
24 mg/L
ambient concentration 24 mg/L
Pollutant X
baseline concentration 20 mg/L
0 mg/L
13
Flaws in Loading Capacity Approach

• Allows incremental creeping degradation
• Allows huge unnecessary new pollution in large
  volume waters
• Cannot apply of loading capacity for pollutants
  lacking numeric criteria
• Cannot apply to General Permits

14
Problem 1

• How do we prevent incremental degradation over
  time from consuming majority of loading capacity
  without a single antidegradation review?

15
Potential Solutions

• Use a cumulative cap
• Strongly recommended by U.S. EPA
• Required by law
• Cap 20 would likely be disapproved under Ohio
  Valley Environmental Coalition.

16
Loading capacity 20 cumulative cap
Water quality criterion 100 mg/L
100 mg/L
20 percent of baseline loading capacity
(100 mg/L 20 mg/L) x (20) 16 mg/L
CAP
Total de minimis bites capped at 36 mg/L
36 mg/L
27.8 mg/L
Baseline concentration 20 mg/L
20 mg/L
Pollutant X
0 mg/L
17
Problem 2

• How do we identify significant new or expanded
  loadings in large waters like Lake Michigan or
  the Ohio River?

18
Solution

• Indiana must place overall limit on volume of de
  minimis new/expanded loading.
• For example, expansions of more than .5 MGD
  cannot be considered de minimis.

19
Problem 3

• What should be done with pollutants that lack
  numeric criteria?

20
Possible Solutions

• First consider options for minimizing or
  redirecting the discharge.
• Apply narrative criteria translator if
  practicable
• For common pollutants (e.g. nitrogen and
  phosphorus) use DTBELs.
• Restrict or eliminate de minimis for certain
  pollutants (e.g. bioaccumulative pollutants,
  potential carcinogenic or hormone disrupting
  pollutants).

21
Problem 4

• How do we ensure that the use of general permits
  does not undermine the antidegradation policy?
• the EPA has not explained how the type of
  review called for in 131.12(a)(2), which is
  location-specific and requires public
  participation, can be done on a statewide or
  nationwide basis
• Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, 279 F. Supp
  2d at 762.

22
Solution

• Design general permits so that they allow only de
  minimis degradation in all cases.
• Do not allow use of general permits in sensitive
  waters.
• Ensure that there is a loading cap on general
  permit sources.
• Build in public notice of general permit usage.
• Preserve authority of IDEM to require individual
  permits where general permit would allow more
  than trivial degradation.

23
Revised draft should

• Refine DTBEL concept to ensure use of best
  technology.
• Consider opportunities to minimize or redirect
  discharges for all permits for new or increased
  loadings.
• Incorporate reasonable cumulative cap (i.e. no
  more than 20) on consumption of loading
  capacity.
• Make clear that substantial new or increased
  discharges to large waters like Lake Michigan and
  the Ohio River are not considered de minimis.
• Make clear that pollutants are covered that lack
  numeric criteria.
• Ensure that general permits allow only de minimis
  pollution.