Bay Program Policy and Implementation Update PMAA Conference

1
Bay Program Policy and Implementation
UpdatePMAA Conference

• Paul Calamita
• September 12, 2006

2
Overview

• Background
• Virginia Highlights
• Maryland highlights
• Key Issues for all Bay POTWs

3
Background
4
Watershed-wide Pollution Reductions Needed
The pollutants causing water quality impairments
drain into to the Bayand its rivers fromthe
entire watershed.
New York
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Delaware
West Virginia
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Boundary
District of Columbia
Virginia
5
Chesapeake Bay suffers from too Many Nutrients
(eutrophication)
6
Sources of nutrients to the Bay
Point Sources ( WW Plants)
Fertilizer
Lawns
Septic
Manure
7
(No Transcript)
8
Bay Water Quality Criteria

• Water Clarity light for underwater Bay grasses
• Chlorophyll a base of the Bay food chain
• Dissolved Oxygen for fish, crabs and oysters

Together, these three criteria define the
conditions necessary to protect the wide variety
of the Bays living resources and their habitats.
9
Refined Uses for Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal
Tributaries
A. Cross Section of Chesapeake Bay or Tidal
Tributary
Shallow-Water Bay Grass Use
Open-Water Fish and Shellfish Use
Deep-Water Seasonal Fish and Shellfish Use
Deep-Channel Seasonal Refuge Use
B. Oblique View of the Chesapeake Bay and its
Tidal Tributaries
Migratory Fish Spawning and Nursery Use
Open-Water Habitat
Shallow-Water Bay Grass Use
Deep-Channel Seasonal Refuge Use
Deep-Water Seasonal Fish and Shellfish Use
10
Cap Load Allocations by State
11
What does this mean to YOU?

• Every community in the Bay watershed now has a
  nitrogen and phosphorous loading for
• POTW discharges
• Urban storm water
• CSO discharges, if applicable
• Bay communities join FL, Long Island Sound (NY,
  NJ, CT) with allocations

12
Virginia Bay Restoration Highlights
13
Virginia is the Schedule Driver

• EPA settled VA TMDL litigation by committing,
  inter alia to
• Bay TMDL by 2010 developed by VA
• Or EPA will prepare backstop TMDL by 2011
• 2010 then drove the nutrient reallocation deal
  among the Bay states
• Virginia has since adopted revised WQS to
  implement the allocations to achieve the revised
  Bay WQS

14
Virginia Permit

• VAMWA pushed general permit bill through 2006
  legislature in response to displeasure with DEQ
  approach
• General permit will cover all POTWs
• SWCB Adopted GP 9/7/2006
• Effective for all VA POTWs on 1/1/2007

15
General Permit Schedule

• Interim compliance schedule for all 127 major
  VA POTWs of 1/1/2011
• Compliance plans due to DEQ July 2007
• After plans submitted, final decision on schedule
  will be made late next summer
• VA schedule will go beyond 2010

16
General Permit Framework

• Permit-by-rule for all POTWs
• Everyone is covered
• Significant facilities can select their level of
  nutrient control
• State grant funding percentage increases the
  lower the TN/TP technology that a POTW will
  install

17
General Permit Framework

• Annual average mass limits (not rolling average)
  based upon Tributary POTW requirement
• Concentration requirements based upon level of
  nutrient removal funded by State grant program

18
VA Statute Establishes Small Source Allocations

• Statutory allocations for non-significant
  dischargers
• Full design flow
• 18.7 mg/l TN and 2.5 mg/l TP

19
VA Grant Funding

• VA committed to 50 state grant funding for BNR
  pursuant to 1983 commitment.
• 220 million funded toward 300 million state
  share
• 2006 Legislature commits another 500 million
  over 10 years for ENR
• FY 2007 budget includes 250 million for WQIF
  Grants!

20
Nutrient Trading UpdateThe Exchanges Summer
Progress

• VA developing trading program
• VA has established a nutrient credit exchange
• Exchange is developing trading policies and
  pricing for nutrient credits
• Over 120 VA communities belong to the trading
  exchange
• Trading exchange will provide key input into
  overall VA ENR schedule

21
Virginia Summary

• Substantial state grant funding (25-90 for each
  facility)
• Mass and concentration limits
• Concentration limits selected by POTW based upon
  percent of grant funding they request
• Trading network so that only certain POTWs have
  to upgrade to meet statewide POTW load
• Future upgrades over time to maintain the load

22

• Maryland Highlights

23
(No Transcript)
24
Size Distribution of Maryland Wastewater
Treatment Plants
71 WWTPs with Capacity of 0.5 MGD or Greater
25
Downsides
Costs and Cost-Effectiveness
Final PS Load
IncrementalReduction
Incremental Cost
Cost per Pound
Number of Upgrades
Pounds of Reduction
9
6.5
9.0
6.5
513
79
32
8.1
7.4
1.6
161
101
67
8.3
7.2
0.2
69
345
26
Biological Nutrient Removal

• 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement 40 reduction of
  TN and TP
• State implemented the Biological Nutrient Removal
  (BNR) Program.
• POTWs 0.5 MGD or larger
• upgrade to achieve 8 mg/l TN
• 50 State grant funding
• 600 million cost State has already paid 210
  million of its share

27
BNR Accomplishments

• The majority of the 66 targeted POTWs have been
  upgraded with the BNR technology.
• TN loads from POTWs have been reduced from 1985
  level by 17.5 million pounds per year (60)
• Phosphorus load from point sources has been
  reduced from 1985 level by 1.9 mlb/yr (70)
• NB POTWs leading the way in MD Alas, no
  measurable improvement in WQ.

28
Nitrogen Loading from MD Sources
29
Maryland Adopts New Bay Criteria

• Like VA, MD adopts new criteria for the Bay based
  upon the 175 million pounds TN and 12.8 million
  pounds TP allocation
• That triggers legal requirements for PA sources
• How does MD fund its needed reductions?

30
Cap Load Allocations by State
31
Bay Restoration Act

• 2004 The Bay Restoration Act
• Creates Bay Restoration Fund to fund Marylands
  reductions under the Bay Program
• Upgrade POTWs to Enhanced Nutrient Removal
• Defined as 3 mg/L TN and 0.3 mg/L TP
• Annual average (not rolling)
• MDE can specify higher levels if impracticable
• upgrading septic systems in the Critical Area,
  and
• implementing cover crops on agricultural land.

32
ENR Priorities

• 66 major plants will implement ENR to reduce POTW
  TN loading to the Bay by 7.5 million pounds per
  year
• These plants represent over 95 of Marylands
  wastewater flow into the Bay
• It is most cost-effective to upgrade the larger
  plants
• Upgrading these plants alone will meet MDs
  wastewater nutrient reduction goals for the Bay
• Other facilities may be upgraded later, based on
  consideration of
• Cost effectiveness, water quality benefit,
  readiness to proceed, and nitrogen and phosphorus
  loading

33
Funding

• Flush/Throne fee of 2.50 per month per household
  
• Nonresidential users pay 2.50 per month per
  equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) based on
  wastewater flow
• 30 annual fee for users of septic systems,
  holding tanks or other onsite sewage disposal
  systems (OSDS)

34
Revenue and Financing

• Estimated to generate 60 million annually from
  sewage treatment plant users
• Will be used to back over 750 million in revenue
  bonds to fund the upgrade of 66 major sewage
  treatment plants. Maryland will continue to seek
  federal funding to cover funding gaps.
• Estimated to generate 12.6 million from septic
  system users
• 60 to be used for septic system upgrades, 40
  for cover crop activities

35
Timing

• Throne fee initiated on 1/1/05
• Collected by the water or sewer authority
• Septic fee began 10/1/05.
• Collected by county governments
• MD Implementation schedule will go beyond 2011
• 66 majors should be done by 2015

36
Eligible Uses of the WWTP Fund

• Up to 100 of the costs of planning, design, and
  construction of ENR upgrades for flows up to the
  design capacity
• Up to 5 million per year for CSO grants (Fiscal
  Year 2005-2009)
• After Fiscal Year 2009, up to 10 for ENR
  operation and maintenance costs

37
Full Speed Ahead

• Two facilities have already been upgraded with
  ENR using state and federal grants.
• Six (6) facilities are under construction to be
  upgraded to BNR/ENR.
• Ten (10) facilities are under design to be
  upgraded to BNR/ENR.
• Twenty-nine (29) facilities have initiated the
  planning for ENR.

38
Septic System Upgrades

• There are over 420,000 septic systems in Maryland
• We will never convert these to nitrogen removing
  septic systems at 30/household/year.

39
Marylands Nutrient Implementation Strategy

• Annual load cap for major plants to be based
  on
• Design flow included in the County water and
  sewer plan as of April 30, 2003
• 4 mg/l nitrogen and 0.3 mg/l phosphorous
• Allows growth on existing state-of-the-art
  infrastructure
• Permits to require optimization of ENR facility

40
Marylands Nutrient Implementation Strategy

• Minor WWTPs (lt 0.5 MGD)
• Annual loading cap calculated based on
• 2020 projected flow or design, whichever is lower
• 18 mg/l nitrogen and 3 mg/l phosphorous 

41
2006 Legislation Maryland House Bill 1411

• By October, 2009 local governments (municipal and
  county) that exercise zoning and planning
  authority must develop
• Water Resources Plan (reviewed by MDE)
• Municipal Growth Plan for all municipalities
• Sensitive Areas Plan (reviewed by DNR)

42
HB 1411 Water Resources Plan

• Must show the relationship between planned growth
  and water and wastewater capacity
• Must identify the source water supply for
  existing and proposed development
• Must identify wastewater and storm water capacity
  for new and planned development

43
HB 1411 MDEs View

• Local zoning must reflect carrying capacity of
  land and water resources
• This will reveal constraints to all potential
  investors
• Identify limiting environmental issues earlier in
  the process
• Development shown in previous plans may not be
  sustainable!
• Land values may shift.

44
Key Issues with ENR Language

• Two operative limitsproposed and now in permits
• Water Quality-Based TN TP limits
• For most will come from Bay WQS (Trib
  Strategy-based) load limits
• For a few from local, more restrictive TMDLs
• Annual concentration-based floating load cap
• Whichever is more stringent

45
Maryland Summary

• 100 state grant funding for ENR supported by
  flush fee
• Designed to meet 3 TN and 0.3 TP annually
• However, POTW allocation based upon 4 mg/L TN
• State sets POTW allocation
• State Authorizes ENR facility design
• State funds ENR facility
• State issues discharge permit
• POTWs must optimize operation

46
Maryland Summary

• If a plant does not perform
• MD can relax performance level
• POTW can Trade to offset overage in loads
• Inadequate design is both the POTW and MDEs
  problem (they need to send more money)

47

• Key Issues

48
10 Key Issues

• 1. Land use impacts from Bay nutrient caps
• 2. 2007 Bay Program Reevaluation
• 3. 2010/11 Bay TMDL
• 4. Potential Bay Chlorophyll a criteria/sediment
  load refinements
• 5. What if assumed Clear Skies TN reductions
  dont materialize?
• 6. PA orphan loads may come home at some
  point.

49
10 Key Issues

• 7. Will Daily nutrient loadings affect annual
  average approach?
• 8.Will POTWs be asked to do more to offset lack
  of progress by other sources?
• Urban storm water
• Make up for NPS?
• EPA Inspector General?
• 9. Trading/oyster banking
• 10. Will PA enact Bay legislation with
  meaningful grant funding?

50
1. Potential Land Use Impacts

• POTWs that want to expand but cant find offsets
• Developers without any TN, TP allocation
• NIMBYs have a new arrow in their quivers

51
2. 2007 Bay Program Reevaluation

• Lots of congressional and public pressure over
  lack of progress
• Thus, political pressure to announce MORE
  reductions
• POTW goal Stay the Course
• Do not reevaluate 175 million pound goal with an
  eye toward going lower
• Do not review sediment allocations in 2007
• Do review N/P tradeoff possibility

52
3. 2010/11 TMDL Inevitable for Bay

• VA TMDL consent decree sets 2011 deadline
• Will likely start in 2007-8 time frame
• Could lock in point source loads
• OR could trigger reallocation of the 175 million
  pound split
• States need to make reasonable progress against
  that allocation to make it stick

53
3. Bay TMDL (cont)

• Could complicate state-based annual average
  approach
• daily load issue must be resolved
• Just margin of safety could be 1-5 million pounds
  of Nitrogen!!!
• Allowance for future growth could raise issues of
  who owns point source freeboard

54
3. Bay TMDL (cont)

• Did I mention that VA has to prepare this by
  2010?
• If VA does not, EPA will by 2011

55
4. Potential New Bay Criteria

• Current watershed reductions based on DO levels
  in Bay
• EPA pushing hard for states to adopt a
  chlorophyll a criteria
• Could further reduce allowable nutrient loadings
• Same for sediment especially for PA

56
5. What if the Skies are not clearing?
57
6. Do Orphans ever come home?

• What if PA orphan loads are returned home by
• Reevaluation
• TMDL analysis

58
7. Daily TMDLs and Loads

• Will daily loads litigation affect annual
  average approach for POTWs?

59
8. Will POTWs Have to do More?

• Will POTWs be asked/required to do more to make
  up for lack of progress in other sectors?
• Urban runoff
• Septics
• Air
• Agriculture
• Would this be interim or long-term?

60
9. Trading

• Will Bay program benefit from comprehensive,
  robust and streamlined trading opportunities?
• Can we have a payment-in-lieu of program to
  ensure efficient trading opportunities and
  minimize and POTW noncompliance?

61
10. Will PA Adopt Bay Legislation

• Will the PA Legislature and Administration step
  up to the plate on this STATE commitment/responsib
  ility?
• Will they provide meaningful grant funding
  assistance and flexibility to mitigate local
  impacts?

62
Any Bright Ideas?