Future Permitting Issues

1
Future Permitting Issues

• Wastewater Utility Council
• May 18, 2005

2
Presentation Overview

• Where do new issues come from?
• What are some of these issues?
• What can be done to prepare for them?

3
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)

4
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

5
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

6
Where does the 303d list and TMDLs come from?

• 1972 Clean Water Act
• Mid 1990s 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

7
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

8
Sources of Impairment by Source Category
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
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

13
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.

14
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

15
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

16
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

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
EPA Criteria are based on Ecoregions
21
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

22
Kansas Approach

• Treatment objectives based percentage of loading
  to the Mississippi River
• For Plants gt 1 MGD
• Total Nitrogen 8 mg/L
• Total Phosphorus 1.5 mg/L

23
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

24
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

25
What are Endocrine Disrupters?

• Compounds that interfere with the endocrine
  system, e.g.
• phthalates
• organochlorine pesticides (atrazine)
• alkyphenols (industrial/domestic detergents)
• PCBs

26
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

27
Endocrine Disrupters

• Wastewater Treatment
• Construction 0.40 to 20/gpd (recent article
  in WET)
• 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

28
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

29
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

30
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

31
Effect of Ammonia Criteria on Cold Water Streams
32
Effect of Ammonia Criteria on Warm Water Streams
33
Possible Effect of Ammonia Criteria Revision with
Unionidae
34
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

35
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

36
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

37
Questions?