KAFB NPDES NM0031216.pdf

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION 6

1201 ELM STREET, SUITE 500

DALLAS, TEXAS 75270-2102

SEP 30 2

CERTIFIED MAIL: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED (7015 1520 0003 4072 4991)

REPLY TO: 6WQ-NP

Colonel David S. Miller, USAF Commander 377th Air Base Wing 2000 Wyoming Blvd SE KirtlandAFBNM 87117

Re: NPDES Permit No. NMOO3 1216 — Kirtland Air Force Base

Dear Colonel Miller:

This package constitutes EPA’s final permit decision for the above referenced facility. Enclosed are the responses to comments received during the public comment period and the final permit. According to EPA regulations at 40 CFR 124.19, within 30 days after a final permit decision has been issued, any person who filed comments on the draft permit or participated in the public hearing may petition the Environmental Appeals Board to review any condition of the permit decision.

Should you have any questions regarding the final permit, please feel free to contact Quang Nguyen of the Permitting and Water Quality Branch at the above address or by telephone: (214) 665-7238, by fax:

(214) 665-2191, or by E-mail: Nguyen.quangepa.gov. Should you have any questions regarding compliance with the conditions of this permit, please contact the Water Enforcement Branch at the above address or by telephone: (214) 665 6468.

Enclosures cc w/enclosures:

Sarah Holcomb, NMED Pueblo of Isleta

Sincerely

Director Water Division

NPDES PERMIT NO. NM0031216

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

RECEIVED ON THE SUBJECT DRAFT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE

ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT TN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS

LISTED AT 40 CFR 124.17

APPLICANT: Kirtland Air Force Base 377th Air Base Wing 2000 Wyoming Blvd SE Kirtland AFB NM 87117

ISSUING OFFICE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75270

PREPARED BY: Quang Nguyen Environmental Engineer Permitting and Water Quality Branch Water Division

VOICE: 214665-7238

FAX: 214-665-2191

EMAIL :Nguyen. Quang@epa.gov

PERMIT ACTION: Final permit decision and response to comments received on the proposed NPDES permit publicly noticed on March 23, 2019.

DATE PREPARED: September 1, 2019

Unless otherwise stated, citations to 40 CFR refer to promulgated regulations listed at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, revised as of September 28, 2015.

DOCUMENT ABBREVIATIONS

In the document that follows, various abbreviations are used. They are as follows:

4Q3 Lowest four-day average flow rate expected to occur once every three years BAT Best available technology economically achievable BCT Best conventional pollutant control technology BPT Best practicable control technology currently available BMP Best management plan BOD Biochemical oxygen demand (five-day unless noted otherwise) BPJ Best professional judgment CBOD Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (five-day unless noted otherwise) CD Critical dilution CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cfs Cubic feet per second COD Chemical oxygen demand COE United States Corp of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act DMR Discharge monitoring report ELG Effluent limitations guidelines EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FCB Fecal coliform bacteria F&WS United States Fish and Wildlife Service mg/L Milligrams per liter

Micrograms per liter MGD million gallons per day NMAC New Mexico Administrative Code NMED New Mexico Environment Department NMIP New Mexico NPDES Permit Implementation Procedures NMWQS New Mexico State Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Surface Waters NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MQL Minimum quantification level O&G Oil and grease PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl POTW Public owned treatment works RP Reasonable potential SIC Standard industrial classification s.u. Standard units (for parameter pH) SWQB Surface Water Quality Bureau TDS Total dissolved solids TMDL Total maximum daily load TRC Total residual chlorine TSS Total suspended solids UAA Use attainability analysis USGS United States Geological Service WLA Wasteload allocation WET Whole effluent toxicity WQCC New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WWTP Wastewater treatment plant

In this document, references to State WQS and/or rules shall collectively mean either or both the State of New Mexico and/or the Pueblo of Taos.

SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES FROM DRAFT PERMIT

1. Removing reporting requirements for following pollutants: Zinc, PCBs, Nickel, Antimony, Selenium, Tetrachloroethylene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Hexachlorobenzene, 4,4’- DDT and derivatives, Toxaphene, Heptachior epoxide, 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin), Aidrin, Mercury, Arsenic, Thallium, Chiordane, and Dieldrin;

2. Adding Heptachlor reporting requirements;

3. Adding a permit modification/reopener clause on facility operation alteration, and;

4. Adding Best Management Practice conditions/requirements under Part II of the final permit.

STATE CERTIFICATION

In a letter from Ms. Shelly Lemon, Bureau Chief, SWQB, to Mr. David Gray, Acting Regional Administrator dated July 26, 2019, the NMED certified that the discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of Section 208(e), 301, 301, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act and with appropriate requirements of State law.

The NMED stated that in order to meet the requirements of State law, including water quality standards and appropriate basin plan as may be amended by the water quality management plan, each of the conditions cited in the draft permit and the State certification shall not be made less stringent.

The State also stated that it reserves the right to amend or revoke this certification if such action is necessary to ensure compliance with the State’s water quality standards and water quality management plan.

Comments that are not Conditions of Certification

Comment No. 1:

The New Mexico Implementation Procedure (NMIP) considers the type of facility as well as the ephemeral nature of the watercourse when determining the frequency of WET testing. USAF submitted WET testing results during the comment period that indicated 95% survivability of invertebrate at 100% effluent. NMED has not yet received Reasonable Potential (RP) results from EPA, but if the WET testing monitoring results indicate RP, the 1/year monitoring requirement from the NMIP should apply.

Response No. 1:

The permittee submitted WET testing results for 2 samples collected on May 22, 2019 and June 5, 2019 during the comment period. The results indicate they have passed both tests, and no

Reasonable Potential exists. Therefore, no WET limits will be imposed in the permit. However, the WET testing which is required to comply with the New Mexico narrative Water Quality Standard will remain in the permit. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 2:

If monitoring submitted during the public comment period showed no RP for the required human health constituents, NMED supports removal of 3x week monitoring for those pollutants.

Otherwise, the permit does not include a specific restriction on how long of a time the facility may discharge as an intermittent discharge and therefore includes monitoring requirements from the NMIP for daily discharge. Testing is only required in the case that the discharge occurs to the watercourse. Groundwater requirements are not relevant to the proposed surface water discharge.

Response No. 2:

The EPA has re-evaluated submitted data (i.e., Zinc, PCBs, Nickel, Antimony, Selenium, Tetrachloroethylene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Hexachlorobenzene, 4,4’-DDT and derivatives, Toxaphene, Heptachlor epoxide, 2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin), Aldrin, Mercury, Arsenic, Thallium, Chlordane, and Dieldrin) for reasonable potential (RP) to cause or contribute to WQS exceedances. The results of the RP reevaluation analysis indicate no RPs exist for mentioned pollutants (see Appendix I). For final permit, EPA will remove report requirements for Zinc, PCB s, Nickel, Antimony, Selenium, Tetrachloroethylene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Hexachlorobenzene, 4,4’-DDT and derivatives, Toxaphene, Heptachior epoxide, 2,3 ,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin), Aldrin, Mercury, Arsenic, Thallium, Chlordane, and Dieldrin constituents.

Comment No. 3:

NMED requests that EPA retain the monitoring requirement for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in the permit. Sources of PFAS such as Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) were present at KAFB in the past. Though the USAF states PFAS is not present in the effluent, they did not submit any documentation that the influent or treated discharge has been sampled for PFAS and that those potential contaminants are not present. Inclusion of a monitoring requirement will provide information about whether these contaminants are present. Due to the characteristics of these contaminants (persistence in the environment and the human body, and evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse human health effects), NMED advocates taking a proactive approach to assuring the health and safety of the Tijeras Arroyo and the Rio Grande. If a limitation is needed based on monitoring data, NMED will work with EPA according to regulations provided in 20.6.4 NMAC and the New Mexico Implementation Plan (NMIP) to develop an appropriate and protective limitation for inclusion in the permit.

Response No. 3: Comment is noted. The PFAS reporting requirement will be remained in the final permit. No changes made in the final permit.

COMMENTS RECEIVED AT PUBLIC HEARING

Comments #4 through #10 were provided by participants at the public hearing held at New Mexico’s Veterans Memorial located at 1100 Louisiana Blvd SE., Albuquerque, NM 87108 on June 26, 2019.

Comment No. 4:

Our concerns about the NPDES permit are that there’s no detailed environmental, economic, and programmatic justification for the project.

Response No. 4: Comments related to this theme generally state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft permit. Note that no justification for having a discharge is required from applicants for a NPDES permit (see 40 CFR 122.21). Accordingly, no changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 5:

There’s currently no coordination with the Resource Conservation Recovery Facility Act.

There’s been no facility investigation for the — both field spill and coordination with this project.

Response No. 5: This comment is presumed to be referring to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Comments regarding coordination with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act are outside the scope of this NPDES permitting action. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 6:

Kirtland AFB has an unused permit for five undeveloped underground injection wells, and they have only put in place one underground well. When do they intend to put in these other injection wells, and how much are they going to cost, and how much is this pipeline going to cost? There is no economic discussion of— of any of that.

Response No. 6: Comments regarding injection well cost and development are outside the scope of the NPDES permitting action, as is projected cost of the proposed NPDES permitted project. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 7:

It’s supposed to be for episodic use only, but there’s no real definition of ‘episodic.”

Response No. 7

Kirtland AFB has two approved discharge locations (i.e., Golf Course Main Pond (GCMP) and Injection well KAFB-7) for its treated effluent. An occasional discharge of process effluent to Tij eras Arroyo may occur when infrastructure fails at underground Injection well KAFB-7 and GCMP and is necessary to ensure the uninterrupted operations of the Interim Measure. The Kirtland final permit is a non-continuous discharge permit, which has been referred to as an “episodic” discharge permit. Since it will be on an “as needed” rather than a normal batch discharge basis, EPA will not include any specific restriction on the frequency and/or how long of a time the facility may discharge its treated effluent to Tij eras Arroyo in the permit. The effluent limitations, conditions and monitoring requirements currently in Kirtland AFB permit were conservatively designed as if the facility discharges daily. In addition, EPA requires the permittee to notify EPA and NMED as soon as it knows or plans to change to continuous from its current non-continuous discharge mode. The permit could be reopened and modified accordingly based upon the notification.

Furthermore, EPA has included the following Best Management Practice conditions/requirements under Part II of the final permit to ensure that Kirtland AFB will maximize the usage of their primary disposal sites to minimize and/or prevent discharges, if feasible, to Tijeras Arroyo:

Permittee shall develop and implement Best Management Practice plans that incorporate all reasonable steps to minimize infrastructurefailures at the Injection well KAFB-7 and GCMP. Through implementation ofthe managment plans, the Permittee must prevent and/or minimize the number ofdischarge events to TUeras Arroyo.

Permittee shall conduct monthly inspection with periodic cleaning and repair, as needed on the conveyance effluent line running between the GWTS and GCMP and Injection well KAFB- 7 to prevent biofoulings, irons and calcareous materials build-up.

Proper operation and maintenance to ensure steady operation and to extend the lfe of equzment shall include but are not limited to: Transducers, jlowmeters, control valves, alarm systems, pump, stadia roa’ etc.

Ifsystem shut down at the one ofthe disposal sites is neededfor routine maintenance, non-routine maintenance, or any other nonemergency reason, the permittee will maximize the usage ofthe other sites for disposing treated effluent prior to discharging treated effluent to Tjjeras Arroyo. Volume discharge to disposal sites and TUeras Arroyo shall be logged and recorded.

The permittee shall have the burden ofproofthat the discharge oftreated effluent to TUeras Arroyo is necessary. This includes logs that document and record all routine, non-routine maintenance activities and all volumes discharged to disposal sites (i.e., GCMP and Injection well KAFB-7) and Tjeras Arroyo.

The Permittee shall, as soon as possible, but no later than thirty (30) days prior to discharging to TUeras Arroyo, provide written notice to EPA and NMED ofany planned physical shut down at both the Injection well KAFB- 7 and GCMP discharge locations which is believed to last more than] week. Such notice shall include: (i) Description of andjustfication for the needfor the anticipated discharge; (ii) the period ofdischarge, including anticipated dates and times; (iii) an estimate ofdischarge volume.

The Permittee shall, within 24 hours from the time ofthe discharge to TUeras Arroyo due to infrastructure failures at both the Injection well KAFB-7 and GCMP discharge locations, notfy EPA and NMEDfollowed by a written report in five days.

The Permittee, ifdischarging to TUeras Arroyo, shall limit the discharge rate so it will not cause erosion of TUeras Arroyo or structural damage to culverts and their entrances or exits.

Comment No. 8:

Kirtland intends not to construct the underground injection wells, and simply use the pipeline for disposal. There’s no engineering design for the public to review for this pipeline. The location for the disposal is not clearly identified for the public. There’s no pictures for the intended disposal area. There’s no tour of the disposal area available to the public. There’s no safety plan.

Response No. 8:

Comments regarding the permittee’s intent to construct injection wells state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft permit. Accordingly, no changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments. The outfall location is identified in the application and permit as (Latitude 35° 1’ 28.86” North, and Longitude 106° 32’ 55.32 West). Outfall structures are regulated under the Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 7 - Outfall Structures and Associated Intake Structures and are outside the scope of the NPDES permitting action.

Comments regarding providing public tour of the disposal area and having a safety plan are outside the scope of the NPDES permitting action. The permittee submitted the operations and maintenance plan for the groundwater treatment system as a part of the NPDES permit application. This plan includes a health and safety plan. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 9:

I’d like to see a copy of the fish and wildlife letter.

Response No. 9:

Comment noted. EPA attached a copy of the MEMORANDUM FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REQUIREMENTS in Appendix 2.

Comment No. 10:

The classification of Tij eras Arroyo as an ephemeral stream is okay. But you do have periods of time when it can handle a large snow melt, and it is going to go all the way to the Rio Grande, including the stormwater runoff, and what other contaminants in there. I haven’t seen any discussion of what the relationship of this is to the Gultin [phonetic] facility that contaminated Tij eras arroyo with TCE. It may be that there’s too narrow a scope for the contaminants that are being measured in relation to all the contaminants that were spilled in the jet fuel spill. For example, I don’t see any reference to 1,2 DCA, which is clearly a contaminant that was present.

Response No. 10:

To be protective, Reasonable Potential analysis is done at the critical low flow where there is less dilution available in the receiving water, in this case 100% effluent. The 1,2 DCA and TCE constituents, as indicated in the application, were reported non-detect in the treated effluent and was determined to not have Reasonable Potential to exceed the water quality standards. The submitted WET testing results for 2 samples collected on May 22, 2019, and June 5, 2019 during the comment period also indicate Reasonable Potential to cause toxicity does not exist. In addition, the final permit requires the facility to conduct WET tests, which measure treated effluent’s effects on specific test organisms’ ability to survive, grow and reproduce, to ensure no discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amount. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT PERMIT

Comment #11 provided in the Commissioner Charlene E. Pyskoty, District 5 in Bernalillo County, New Mexico letter to Ms. Evelyn Rosborough on July 9, 2019.

Comment #11 provided in the Commissioner Steven Michael Quezada, District 2, in Bernalillo County, New Mexico letter to Ms. Evelyn Rosborough on July 10, 2019.

Comments #12 through #22 provided in the email from Eric Nuttal, Ph.D., Emeritus to Ms.

Evelyn Rosborough and Quang Nguyen on June 20, 2019.

Comments #23 through #39 and #46 provided in the email from David McCoy to Ms. Evelyn Rosborough on April 3, 2019.

Comments #40 through #45 provided in the Colonel David S. Miller, Department of the Air Force, 377th Air Base Wing (the permittee) letter to Ms. Evelyn Rosborough on June 26, 2019 and July 12, 2019.

Comment No. 11:

The Commissioners request that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define “episodic” with stated limitations before issuing the permit. Also, the EPA and the applicant must ensure that they are using the highest standards and best practices for any water the Kirtland Air Force Base releases into the Tij eras Arroyo that may negatively affect Bernalillo County and its residents.

Response No. 11:

Please see response to comments No.7 and 28.

Comment No. 12:

Discharging the large quantities of water (800 gpm) to the Tijeras Arroyo is a lost water benefit.

This concept is pump and waste which is counter to New Mexico State Law for beneficial water use. Beneficial uses of water for domestic and municipal uses can include: industrial uses;

irrigation; mining; hydroelectric power; navigation; recreation; public parks; wildlife, and; game preserves. None of these examples of practicable alternatives for beneficial uses are considered or met by the proposed discharge that could reach over one million gallons per day on a continual basis. The Permit Application gives no indication of the duration for discharge. There is no analysis for why the Underground Injection Control Wells (DP-l839, April28, 2017) that could receive 1,440,000 gallons per day would not meet the needs of interim measures. Hence the duration of the release period should be minimized!

Response No. 12:

The permit only addresses the discharge of the processed water into the receiving stream and resulting impacts on the designated uses of those waters. The permit does not convey any other rights other than the authorization to discharge into waters of the United States. Beneficial use requirements under New Mexico state law are outside the scope of review for this NPDES permit application, so issues of water rights are outside the scope of the NPDES permitting action. See response No. 7 regarding restricting use of the surface water discharge to times when the primary and secondary disposal options are not available.

Comment No. 13:

There is no guarantee that the treated effluent from four up to eight groundwater extraction wells will not travel off Kirtland AFB from Tij eras Arroyo that is a tributary of the Rio Grande River, a navigable body of water Discharge of over one million gallons per day is a substantial quantity of water and coupled with potential storm events including microbursts, snow melt, and urban runoff has not been analyzed for perennial transport to the Rio Grande River. No Tracer Dye Study has been conducted to examine the hydrological connection between the Tij eras Arroyo and Rio Grande for the effect of over one million gallons per day disposal of effluent.

Response No. 13:

Comments related to this theme generally state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft permit. The authorized discharge is to Tijeras Arroyo, which is a tributary to the Rio Grande. It is likely that discharges to the Tij eras Arroyo will leave Kirtland Air Force Base Property under certain weather conditions, as noted in the comment, but the permit was written to be protective of water quality standards applicable to the receiving waters (both Tijeras Arroyo and the Rio Grande) and received a Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification from the New Mexico Environment Department. In addition, the Tij eras Arroyo is an ephemeral stream from which water does not always reach the Rio Grande. If all 800 GPM actually reached the Rio Grande, for those days of discharge the Critical Dilution would be 1% or less depending on other flows in the Arroyo and losses along the route. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 14:

There is need for an environmental impact statement. Tij eras Arroyo is described as a nutrient impaired waterway subject to an anti-degradation policy of New Mexico. https://www. env.

nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/20 16/03/EPA Approved-TIJERAS-ARROYO- TMDL 101217. pdf An ElS is needed to fully assess the potential impact of an accidental EDB release and increased flow of contaminants. Tijeras Arroyo is an area of biological concern having habitat that is critical for threatened or endangered species and/or has a significant nexus that can significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Rio Grande. Habitat for environmentally sensitive species are present such as, Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) and Burrowing Owl (Athene cuculria). Tijeras Arroyo also contains habitat for several species including migratory birds. The Albuquerque International Sunport Airport and U.S. Air Force Kirtland Air Force Base is located on the north boundary of the review area, which contributes pollutants from fuels, lubricants, and other chemicals from airport/air force base operations to the Tijeras Arroyo watershed. The capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters by additional flow to the Rio Grande River is not analyzed for those contaminants such as ammonia, phosphorus, nitrates, nitrites, and orthophosphates, pesticide organics such as 1 ,4-dichlorobenzene, diazinon, atrazine, and thiabendazole; and radio chemicals such as uranium.

Response No. 14:

The environmental impact reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act do not apply to the Kirtland AFB NPDES permit since it is not subject to New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR 122.29(c)). The receiving water segment Tij eras Arroyo (Rio Grande to Four Hills Bridge) is not on the EPA approved 2016-2018 State of New Mexico 303(d) list for Assessed Stream and River Reaches, and there are no applicable approved TMDLs. NMED, as part of the Antidegradation Review, requires the facility to comply with Tier I antidegradation requirements. The facility must meet or exceed water quality standards at the “end of pipe” discharge point and use best available technology as required by permit conditions. The permit authorizes discharges subject to the limitations and conditions contained therein. The permit requirements and the limits are protective of the assimilative capacity of the receiving water, which is protective of the designated uses of that water, NMAC Section 20.6.4.8.A.2. Note that any pollutants already in Tij eras Arroyo are also subject to movement due to natural storm and snow melt events and would fall under the Non-point Source Load Allocation and not the Point Source Wasteload Allocation components of a TMDL, if developed in the future.

Comment No. 15:

The City of Albuquerque Draft “Tijeras Arroyo Biological Zone (Bio-Zone) Open Space Resource Management Plan” (Plan), dated 2007 and prepared by Marron and Associates, Inc., describes Tij eras Arroyo as the main waterway for most of the snow melt and rain flows from Tij eras Canyon and portions of the East Mountains to the Rio Grande and that it is one of the largest arroyos in the Albuquerque area. The Plan describes Tij eras Arroyo hydrology as a significant source of local aquifer recharge due to the soils well drained and excessively drained qualities and that hydrologic issues primarily concern flash flooding, surface water runoff from surrounding developments and storm drains, and contamination from pollutants. The Plan states that Albuquerque’s storm water management system in areas adjacent to Tij eras Arroyo is designed to convey storm water runoff directly to the Tij eras Arroyo and then on to the Rio Grande. The Plan further states that water from municipal storm water management systems contain high levels of automotive pollutants and debris, and agricultural contaminates.

Response No. 15:

Comments regarding municipal storm water discharges are outside the scope of this NPDES permitting action. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 16:

There needs to be daily monitoring of the EDB effluent concentrations to minimize the potential impact of an accidental EDB effluent release.

Response No. 16:

For consistency with the NMIP, the EDB monitoring frequency of 3 times per week will be retained in the final permit. The commenter did not provide, nor is EPA aware of, evidence that there is an elevated risk of releases of EDB above the non-detect levels provided in the permit application and considered in development of the permit. No reasonable potential to cause an exceedance of water quality standards was found for EDB. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to this comment.

Comment No. 17:

Ideally the effluent water should be held in tanks/ponds and EDB concentrations measured prior to water discharge to the Tij eras Arroyo. Consideration for seasonal variation in watershed conditions and pollutant loading must be made. 40 CFR § 130.7(c)(l).

Response No. 17:

As indicated in the application, the facility is equipped with a tank having 6000-gallon capacity for treated water storage prior to disposal. The final permit requires, when discharging occurs, monitoring frequency for EDB of three times per week after the last treatment unit prior to discharge. The EDB monitoring requirement is included in the final permit to gather information for future permitting decisions consistent with 40 CFR 122.4 1(h). The 40 CFR § 130.7(c)(l) refers to the development of TMDLs and individual water quality based effluent limitations. The receiving water segment Tijeras Arroyo (Rio Grande to Four Hills Bridge) is currently not on the State of New Mexico 3 03(d) list. No TMDL has been developed for EDB for this water segment. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 18:

All underground piping should be double lined to detect piping leaks. Major accidents and costly, severe impacts to human health and the environment have occurred because piping lacked double liners with leak detection. The KAFB multi-million gallon jet fuel/aviation gas spill is a prime example. The Kinder Morgan 200,000 gallon gasoline spill near Berino, New Mexico contaminated the Elephant Butte Irrigation District, requiring evacuation of families, and purchase of their properties. (See attached news article). Blowout at natural gas well due to corroded piping in Aliso Canyo, California sickened thousands of residents for nearly four months who moved out of their homes. (See attached news article).

Response No. 18: This comment contains opinions and does not reference specific sections of the draft permit. Comments about potential releases from underground piping or past releases from pipelines carrying fuels and hydrocarbons are outside the scope of this NPDES permitting action. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 19:

There are no guarantees that accidental release of EDB will not occur and no analysis for such potential accidents and possible consequences is in place. Accidents happen as is obvious from the Bulk Fuels Facility release that totals millions of gallons of fuel contaminating the Albuquerque aquifer.

Response No. 19: Comments related to this theme generally state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft permit. Comments about accidental releases from bulk storage tanks or Kirtland AFB in general are outside the scope of this NPDES permitting action.

No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 20:

There is a need for a comprehensive health and safety plan for workers and the public.

Response No. 20:

Comments related to this theme generally state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft permit. Worker and public health and safety plans are outside the scope of this NPDES permitting action. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to this comment.

Comment No. 21:

There is a need for a comprehensive accident response plan.

Response No. 21:

Comments related to this theme generally state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft permit. Comprehensive accident response plans for Kirtland AFB are outside the scope of this NPDES permitting action. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to this comment.

Comment No. 22:

There is the need for an engineering design for the point of disposal.

Response No. 22:

The requirement for an engineering design for the point of disposal is outside the scope of the NPDES permitting action. Construction of outfall structures may be regulated under CWA Section 404. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Albuquerque District is the agency responsible for reviewing and issuing CWA Section 404 permits in New Mexico. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to this comment.

Comment No. 23:

CANM requests a public hearing for the NPDES Permit No NMOO3 1216 prior to its approval.

Also an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) and probably an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) should be performed prior to approval of the NPDES Permit.

Response No. 23:

EPA held a public hearing at New Mexico’s Veterans Memorial located at 1100 Louisiana Blvd SE., Albuquerque, NM 87108 on June 26, 2019. The environmental impact reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act do not apply to the Kirtland AFB NPDES permit since it is not subject to New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR 122.29(c)).

Comment No. 24:

The occurrence of the KAFB jet fuel/aviation gasoline spill spreading Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) and petroleum hydrocarbons throughout Albuquerque’s sole source drinking water aquifer is prima facie evidence of the incompetence of the U.S. Air Force to protect the environment from serious accidents in its management of hazardous chemicals.

Response No. 25:

Comments related to this theme generally state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft permit. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 25:

How does the NPDES Permit function in conjunction with RCRA requirements? KAFB has not completed a RCRA Facility Investigation (“RFI”) that is competent to set a path forward for long-term remediation of the aquifer. Only interim measures have been introduced. There is no apparent co-ordination between the RCRA aspects of the NPDES draft permit or strategic plans, the need for an RFI between interim measures or what would be effective long-term remedies if an RFI were approved. There is no mention of implementing an NPDES discharge in the NMED 2019 Strategy Plan.

Response No. 25:

This comment includes opinions and does not reference specific sections of the draft permit.

Requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and any associated Strategy Plans developed by the New Mexico Environment Department are outside the scope of this NPDES permitting action. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 26:

Citizen Action has repeatedly requested Strategy Plans and the RFI to contain the following items that still are missing to develop a Conceptual Site Model for the RFI:

I .Total estimated mass of EDB in each zone, i.e. vadose, LNAPL, and leading EDB GW plumes.

2.Total volume of fuel spilled (estimate) for aviation gas and jet fuel.

3.Flow direction and velocity at leading edge of the EDB plume.

4.Present effect on plume movement cause by pumping well/wells.

5.A summary of the various EDB remediation technologies.

6.The capital and annual operating cost for the remediation of the EDB.

7.Discuss the likelihood of EDB reaching the Ridge Crest or other municipal wells.

8. Discuss the comprehensive total cleanup plan for the Kirtland BFF spill (vadose, NAPL, EDB).

Response No. 26:

Comments related to requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and any associated Strategy Plans developed by the New Mexico Environment Department are outside the scope of this NPDES permitting action. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 27:

The NPDES Permit would allow 800 gallons per minute to be released into the Tijeras Arroyo that enters the Rio Grande River. On a daily basis that would be 1,152,000 gpd and 420,000,000 gpy. The permit would allow that amount of release for what could be decades into the future.

Response No. 27: The permitted discharge is expected to occur only when the both golf course and injection well disposal options are not available at the same time. A daily discharge for an entire year is not anticipated. The permit only addresses the discharge of pollutants in the processed water into the receiving stream and resulting impacts on the designated uses of those waters. The permit does not convey any rights other than the authorization, subject to permit limitations and conditions, to discharge into waters of the United States. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments. (see also Response No. 7)

Comment No. 28:

What is the Safety Plan? There is no consideration of accidents and the risks that could result for direct exposure to the human environment and aquatic environment (fish, animal, plant life) downstream from the discharge location that might occur from, e.g., accidental release of water contaminated with EDB that might bypass a plugged filter. A comprehensive risk analysis should be performed giving how comprehensive monitoring will be achieved for potential causes for accidental discharges, consequences and how there will be prevention and cleanup. Further contamination of the above ground water resource is simply unacceptable. Extracted groundwater should be placed in barrels to prevent constant flow into a treatment system that may be compromised.

Response No. 28:

This comment poses questions and states opinions beyond the scope of this permit action and does not reference specific sections of the draft permit. The permit does not authorize accidental releases or releases that are not in compliance with the permit. Part III.A.2 of the final permit imposes a duty to comply with the limitations and conditions of the permit. Part III.B.3 of the final permit requires proper operation maintenance operation and maintenance of all facilities and treatment and controls (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by permittee as efficiently as possible and in a manner which will minimize upsets and discharges of excessive pollutants and will achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by a permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Part III.B.4 of the final permit prohibits bypass of any treatment unit. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 29:

Environmental justice issues have not been considered in the event of accident scenarios especially involving EDB. The South Valley of Albuquerque that has a minority, low income population and could be exposed to accidental spills of EDB contaminated discharges is already the location of Superfund sites for TCE. The Isleta Pueblo water supply is downstream from the Tij eras Arroyo.

Response No. 29:

EPA disagrees. All members of the public were invited to provide comments on the proposed permit and attend the Public Hearing held at New Mexico’s Veterans Memorial located at 1100 Louisiana Blvd SE., Albuquerque, NM 87108 on June 26, 2019. Kirtland AFB provided a list of approximately 46 interested parties that was also notified directly by e-mail about the permit notice, public meeting and public hearing. A Spanish version of the Public Notices was also provided. When developing the permit limits for this permit, EPA ensured that both the New Mexico and Isleta Pueblo WQS and/or designated uses of its receiving are protected, and those water quality standards are protective of all citizens. In February 2019, EPA also offered Pueblo of Isleta an opportunity to engage in government-to-government consultation on the Kirtland AFB permit issuance action. The commenter did not identify the source of the accidental EDB releases making it impossible to determine if they would even be within the scope of the NPDES permitting action. The final permit requires monitoring for EDB, but at this time no reasonable potential to require a limit was found. See also response No. 28.

Comment No. 30:

There needs to be consideration for contamination already present in the Tij eras Arroyo and whether that current or future contamination can be spread further by the discharge under the NPDES Permit. For example: former Gulton Manufacturing is a former computer chip manufacturing company that has contaminated the relatively shallow groundwater in the Tij eras Canyon area with chlorinated solvents such as TCE. Tij eras Arroyo Groundwater at Sandia National Laboratories Technical Area V is contaminated with TCE and Nitrates. What is the potential for that contamination to be spread by the NPDES Permit?

Response No. 30:

Comments related to this theme generally pose questions, state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft permit. The receiving water segment Tijeras Arroyo (Rio Grande to Four Hills Bridge) is not an impaired stream for chlorinated solvents (i.e., TCE) nor on the EPA approved 2016-2018 State of New Mexico 303(d) list for Assessed Stream and River Reaches.

There are no applicable approved TMDLs for the receiving water segment. The NMAC, Section

20.6.4.8 “Antidegradation Policy and Implementation Plan” sets forth the requirements to protect designated uses through implementation of the State water quality standards. The limitations and monitoring requirements set forth in the proposed permit are developed from the State water quality standards. They are protective of the assimilative capacity of the receiving water, which is protective of the designated uses of that water, NMAC Section 20.6.4.8.A.2. Pollutants in streambed sediments are legacy pollutants past the point of regulation for the NPDES permit and usually fall under Non-point Source or RCRAICERCLA authority. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments. (See also Response No. 14)

Comment No. 31:

The fact is that accidental unauthorized discharge can and has occurred at KAFB. (See, Corrective Action Report for Unauthorized Discharge at the Bulk Fuel Facility Temporary Groundwater Treatment Facility, Kirtland Air Force Base, NM,) https ://hwbdocuments.env.nm. gov/Kirtland%2OAFB/KAFB43 41 .pdf

Response No. 31:

Comments related to this theme generally state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft pelmit. See also responses no. 28. and 29. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to this comment.

Comment No. 32:

The justification for the NPDES Permit is lacking. There is already discharge to the KAFB Golf Course Pond for Golf Course irrigation use. There is a KAFB #7 injection well near to the Tijeras Arroyo. Other locations for injection wells have been proposed or were under consideration for discharge. Why should they not be used?

Response No. 32:

Kirtland AFB has two approved discharge locations (i.e., Golf Course Main Pond (GCMP) and Injection well KAFB-7) for its treated effluent. The facility has and will maximize usage of their primary disposal locations. According to the application, the only time that facility will discharge its process effluent to Tij eras Arroyo (TA) is when infrastructure failures occur at underground Injection well KAFB-7 and GCMP and is necessary to ensure the uninterrupted operations of the Interim Measure (i.e., pump and treatment of contaminated groundwater). The NPDES permit is designed to ensure the facility will continue to use their primary disposal sites to the extent as feasible. See also response No.7.

Comment No. 33:

Justification is not presented for simply shutting down the pump and treat system until the underground injection problem is fixed. Currently the P & T system is operated under interim measures! There is no requirement to keep the system running and no reason provided for why “It is imperative to ... ensure the uninterrupted operation of this Interim Measure.”

Response No. 33:

Decisions on how the GWTS should be operated are outside the scope of the NPDES permitting action. While the need to halt or reduce an activity is not a defense for violation of permit limits or conditions (40 CFR 122.4 1(c)), there is no requirement under the NPDES program to halt an activity when the discharge is in compliance with the permit. Decisions regarding the need to continuously operate the groundwater capture wells is outside the scope of the NPDES permitting action. An occasional discharge of treated effluent to Tij eras Arroyo may occur when infrastructure fails at underground Injection well KAFB-7 and GCMP and is necessary to ensure the uninterrupted operations of the Interim Measure. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 34:

There is no information given for the costs of the various segmented actions taking place at KAFB. The Pump and Treat remedy is extremely expensive and is questionable when extraction of over 3,000,000 gallons of water is required for removal of one gram of EDB. NMED and KAFB have not addressed the earlier studies by both EPA and the National Academies of Science regarding the lack of effectiveness and high cost of Pump and Treat.

Response No. 34:

of the draft permit. Decisions on the installation of the GWTS at the Kirtland AFB as an interim measure to collapse and contain the ethylene dibromide groundwater plume from the BFF site, in order to protect Albuquerque, Kirtland Air Force Base, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center drinking water supply wells, are outside the scope of the NPDES permitting action. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 35:

Current maximum extraction rate of water for treatment at KAFB is 400 gpm. Allowing an NPDES Permit for twice that volume does not make sense unless there are plans for more extraction wells that have not been ordered or revealed to the public.

Response No. 35:

NPDES permits are written based on the application, which anticipates a discharge of up to 800 gpm. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 36:

Since KAFB refuses to provide the mass balance of EDB in the aquifer, it is unknown if the extraction well is having any effect on the EDB plume. Shallow groundwater monitoring wells have been submerged so that an accurate assessment cannot be made for the spread and volume of EDB contamination remaining in relation to the need for the NPDES Permit.

Response No. 36:

Comments related to this theme generally state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft permit. See also response No.1. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 37:

The NPDES Permit gives KAFB authority to squander more of Albuquerque’s precious drinking water source after the fact that KAFB has already contaminated the aquifer -- and not only at the Bulk Fuels Facility. The NPDES Permit will allow the non-economic waste of potable treated water that costs the taxpayer for electricity, treatment, pipelines, etc. without any consideration for entities that may be willing to either pay for the treated water or accept it on a voluntary basis. There should be public noticed solicitation of those entities that could use treated water.

The discharge costs and waste can be multiplied by decades.

Response No. 37:

of the draft permit. The facility is using treated effluent for golf course irrigation during warmer months or recharging the regional aquifer under a Class V Underground Injection Control permit as the current facility’s deposition methods for the treated water. An occasional discharge of treated effluent to Tij eras Arroyo may occur when infrastructure fails at underground Injection well KAFB-7 and when infrastructure failures or weather conditions prevent use of the GCMP and is necessary to ensure the uninterrupted operations of the Interim Measure. See also response No. 12. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 38:

There is no consideration of “green alternatives” to provide the energy for the pumping and treatment of the water. Just how big is the Pump & Treat operation going to become at KAFB?

Still no RFI to guide the remediation projects.

Response No. 38:

Comments related to this theme generally state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft permit. See also response No. 34. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 39:

By and large the planning for remediation of the KAFB fuel spill have been haphazard, uncoordinated and the issuance of the NPDES Permit would be a continuation of lack of comprehensive planning that is sorely in need of independent oversight.

Response No. 39:

Comments related to this theme generally state an opinion and do not reference specific sections of the draft permit. See also response No. 34. No changes were made to the draft permit in response to these comments.

Comment No. 40:

Pursuant to EPA and USAF discussions during the public hearing held on June 26, 2019, the USAF respectfully requests that the sample be collected at the Ground Water Treatment System (GWTS) facility effluent discharge point. The proposed location will have the same characteristics for sampling at the end of the discharge pipe.

Response No. 40:

The selected sampling points must provide a representative sample of the effluent, where the monitoring point should be in order to be representative of the effluent after the last treatment unit and are safely accessible to staff. Water flows from the GWTS facility to Tij eras Arroyo via a pipe. The characteristics of the effluents sampled at the GWTS facility effluent discharge point after the last treatment unit are expected to be representative of results at the discharge point to Tij eras Arroyo. Sample collection at the Ground Water Treatment System facility effluent discharge point location is acceptable. No change to the Permit was made as a result of this comment.

Comment No. 41:

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing (48 Hour Acute no-observed-effect concentration (NOEC) Freshwater). The Tij eras Arroyo is a dry watercourse that is ephemeral in nature and only sees flow during heavy precipitation events. The Tijeras Arroyo does eventually flow into the Rio Grande River, although it is approximately 5-6 miles from the proposed discharge point in this NPDES permit.

The USAF does not believe WET testing is warranted in this particular instance and respectfully requests that this requirement be removed prior to issuing the final NPDES permit.