Future Permitting Issues
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Future Permitting Issues Wastewater Utility Council May 18, 2005
Presentation Overview • Where do new issues come from? • What are some of these issues? • What can be done to prepare for them?
Where do issues come from? • Changes in water quality standards at the state or federal level • New EPA initiatives • Reinterpretation of regulations by the State or EPA • Unforeseen circumstances (example Vulnerability Assessments)
What are these future Issues? • Change from fecal coliform to e. coli • Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) • Watershed Based Permitting • Water Quality Trading • SSO/CMOM Permit Conditions • Endocrine Disruptors • Modifications to the Ammonia Criteria • Others
Change from Fecal Coliform to E. Coli • EPA pushing for change • WQCD adopted E. Coli standards in 2000 • No method is currently approved for E. Coli • Some WWTPs may see higher E. Coli than fecal coliform • Changes to the Basic Standards will eliminate fecal coliform • Permits will now be issued with only E. Coli limit
Where does the 303d list and TMDLs come from? • 1972 Clean Water Act • Mid 1990’s Environmental Groups file lawsuits - 38 states • Judgements against EPA • Slow Pace of TMDL Development • EPA Failure to take action when States did not • The adequacy of the list
What is the 303(d) list? • “303(d)” refers to a section of the Clean Water Act • List of stream segments not meeting water quality standards or threatened • Developed every two years, next list due April 2006 • TMDLs required for all segments listed
TMDL Development • TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOS • WLA (wasteload allocation) is for point sources • LA (load allocation) is for NPSs • MOS is margin of safety • MOS Accounts for Lack of Knowledge • Can Require Reduction in Point and Nonpoint Sources; the Key Issue is the Allocation between Point Sources and Non-Point Sources
TMDLs • Process used: • Determine sources of loading from background (naturally occurring), nonpoint (agriculture), and point sources (WWTPs, stormwater) • Determine amount that needs to be reduced. • Apply the reduction to the sources. • TMDL language dictates what and how the limit is put in NPDES permit • Permittees need to be involved in the development of TMDLs to ensure that requirements are attainable. • New dischargers may be required to meet standards directly, redo the TMDL at their expense, or trade for loading.
Water Quality Trading • New EPA Initiative – EPA has a policy in place • Ranges from one point source to another, to watershed wide trading programs • Could allow point sources to trade to meet specific permit limits • A few states have developed their own policy – Colorado, Pennsylvania, Idaho • May be of value as effluent limits get tighter or to comply with a TMDL
Watershed Based Permitting • New EPA Initiative • Permits issued on a watershed basis • Focused on multiple point sources • Targeted to achieve watershed goals • Benefits • Encourages coordination on items such as ambient monitoring • Uses similar data and processes for all discharges • Can be cost effective • Permittees need to look for opportunitiesMore information: www.epa.gov/npdes/wqbasedpermitting/wspermitting.cfm or contact me
SSO/CMOM • New EPA program • Concern with WWTP collection systems in the eastern US • Part of the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Regulations • Sanitary Sewer Overflow is a discharge from a sanitary sewer • Includes basement backups if the result of collection system
SSO/CMOM • CMOM = Capacity Management, Operation and Maintenance of the sanitary collection system • Provide adequate maintenance • Collection system map • Use of timely and relevant information • Routine preventive maintenance program • Identification of structural deficiencies and repair • Training • Equipment and replacement part inventories • Design and installation specs • Method of measuring the accuracy of the permit implementation
SSO/CMOM • Regulations are on hold • Eastern concerns - “Blending” • Some movement to propose • Would be included in all WWTP permits • Impacts Sanitation Districts that operate collection systems • States are being pushed by EPA to implement without regulations • Implementation in Colorado is unknown
Nutrient Criteria • “Nutrients” - nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate, organic), phosphorus • EPA proposed criteria in 2001 for nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and turbidity • EPA has required states to develop Nutrient Criteria Development Plans
Impact on WWTPs could be significant • Ecoregion 2 • Phosphorus = 0.010 mg/L • Nitrogen = 0.38 mg/L • Ecoregion 4 • Phosphorus = 0.023 mg/L • Nitrogen = 0.56 mg/L • Ecoregion 5 • Phosphorus = 0.067 mg/L • Nitrogen = 0.88 mg/L
Kansas Approach • Treatment objectives based percentage of loading to the Mississippi River • For Plants > 1 MGD • Total Nitrogen 8 mg/L • Total Phosphorus 1.5 mg/L
Impact on WWTPs could be significant • Standards to be adopted in 2010 Basic Standards • Site specific studies will be necessary • Suggested Actions • Monitoring for nutrients • Provide input into State proposals
Endocrine Disrupters Are Making News • Media reports • "Household supplies appear in water: Drugs, disinfectants worry state panel“ – Arizona Republic, 7/2004 • "Mutant fish prompt concern: Study focuses on sewage plants“ - Denver Post, 10/2004 • "Abnormal Fish Found Closer to Washington: Waste Suspected in Egg-Bearing Males“ – Washington Post, 12/2004
What are Endocrine Disrupters? • Compounds that interfere with the endocrine system, e.g.: • phthalates • organochlorine pesticides (atrazine) • alkyphenols (industrial/domestic detergents) • PCBs
Endocrine Disrupters • Potential Concerns • feminization of fish • other impacts on wildlife • may affect human reproduction and glands such as pituitary • No US water quality criteria have been established
Endocrine Disrupters • Wastewater Treatment • Construction = $0.40 to $20/gpd (recent article in WE&T) • Metro District in Denver has established a consortium to study endocrine disrupter effects on aquatic life • Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Product (PPCP) concerns are also emerging • http://www.epa.gov/esd/chemistry/pharma/index.htm
1999 EPA Ammonia Criteria • EPA developed criteria in 1999 • Colorado is one of the last states to adopt • State must include in 2005 Basic Standards changes or propose different criteria • EPA seeking input - issues with mussels
1999 Ammonia Criteria • CWWUC hired Chadwick to do a review EPA criteria • EPA Criteria found to be scientifically based • Permittees could see in permits shortly after June 2005
Modifications to Ammonia Criteria • July 8, 2004 EPA published “Notice of Intent To Re-Evaluate the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia” Federal Register • 1999 Criteria did not include studys on unionidaes (clam/mussel) • Clams found in warm water streams • Timing of EPA action is unknown • Could result in tighter limits
Selenium • Sources - shales, coal deposits, naturally occurring • EPA has proposed new selenium criteria based on fish tissue. • Often related to irrigation • State will need to address standard as part of TMDL development. • Treatment • Tertiary treatment - physical or biological
Other Challenges Metals • Possible problem parameters • Copper • Common problem for WWTPs • New criteria proposed • Cadmium • 2001 EPA criteria significantly more stringent than current • Mercury • Monitoring method results in tighter numbers • WWTPs have detected low levels • Several alternatives available to address metals • Translator • Water Effect Ratio
Other Challenges • Organics • Tighter standards adopted in September 2004 • WWUC studying possible affect on WWTPS • Reasonable Potential Analysis • New policy is currently more scientifically based • Likely will need to be tweaked after experience is gained • Aquatic Life Use classification • Development of biological criteria • Would be in addition to current numeric values • Could result in need for permittees to do aquatic studies on a regular basis
