point & non point sources – what other permit challenges are coming? rick cantu – manchester...
TRANSCRIPT
Point & Non Point Sources – What Other Permit Challenges are Coming?
Rick Cantu – Manchester [email protected]
(603) 624-6526
June 13, 2013
What We’ll Cover Today
Co$t of regulations Point source challenges Permit renewals &
‘Reasonable Potential’ Use of sampling data Air Permits for WWTPs? MS4 Permits & focus Outside community
impacts on MS4s
Working through the 303(d) listing
How accurate are TMDLs?
Quality Control & Quality Assurance
Overview of UNH literature on treatment
$mall dollar$ upfront
Points to Ponder on Regulations
The cost of all regulations is $1.806 Trillion ! This is more than ½ the size of the US Budget It is 11.6% of GDP ~ Healthcare = 17.3 % Current legacy costs equates to $14,768 per
U.S. Household which is 23% of the average household income of $63,685
In 2012 there were 29x more regulations issued by agencies than laws passed by congress http://cei.org/10kc
Point Source Challenges (WWTPs)
No increased loadings (BOD/TSS) Increase in flow = decrease in mass loading Metals (Lead, Copper, Aluminum) Nutrient Compliance – Nitrogen on the
Seacoast and Phosphorus inland Permits are developed on ‘Reasonable
Potential’ and not WQ science Future - WWTP air emissions controls
(Hydrogen Sulfide) for plants >200,000 gpd
NPDES Permit Renewals
Existing mass loading for conventional pollutants
WWTPs with low 7Q10 usually have Cu/Pb limits
Aluminum will be in most permits except seacoast where there is no Al criteria for saltwater
Science vs. ‘Reasonable Potential’
Phase II of the Merrimack River Study – No phosphorus induced pollution (15 ug/l chlor-a)
Dams (impoundments) do not fit the pond/lake criteria, but conform with ‘Run of the River’ conditions
Permits ignore findings and calculate extreme ‘Reasonable Potential’ probabilities
Phase III Merrimack River Study
“Whenever possible, dry weather sampling events will be performed under streamflow conditions at or below the mean monthly flow, as defined by the historical flow records on the mainstem Merrimack River and those tributaries with available gage information;”
Table 3-2: Summary of Mean Monthly Streamflow for Active Gaging Stations on the Mainstem Merrimack River
Month Mean Monthly Streamflow (cfs) Merrimack River Goffs Falls, Merrimack River at Lowell, MAMay 8,730 (13.77) 11,800June 4,680 (7.38) 6,650July 2,630 (4,15) 3,640August 2,170 (3.42) 3,040September 2,240 (3.53) 3,160October 3,390 (5.35) 4,650November 5,010 (7.9) 7,010
Historic Mean (7Q10)
Manchester WWTP7Q10 = 634 cfs
NHDES Sampling Data
Date Downstream UpstreamJune 17, 2005 0.48 mg/l 0.433 mg/l
July 15, 2005 0.11 mg/l 0.099 mg/l
June 16, 2006 0.195 mg/l 0.177 mg/l July 14, 2006 0.334 mg/l 0.403 mg/l
Below is the data that was used in our 2007 Permit Renewal to justify an in-stream Aluminum of 87 ug/l
The key missing piece is river cfs data so it is difficult to determine the river volume.
Total Recoverable Aluminum (Clean Sampling Techniques)
08MER
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Flow
08
ME
R T
RA
08MER
.480 - 6/05
.11 – 7/05
.195 – 6/06
.334 – 7/06
08MER
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Flow
08 M
ER
AS
A
08MER
Acid Soluble Aluminum (ASA)
Al River Study Key Data SetsDate flow 10MER 08MER
9/21/2009 2,160 0.0526 0.0374
9/22/2009 1,640 0.0312 0.0273
9/23/2009 1,580 0.0288 0.023
9/24/2009 1,550 0.0255 0.0242
10/19/2009 3,050 0.0662 0.0496
10/20/2009 2,690 0.0609 0.0613
10/21/2009 2,850 0.0586 0.0604
10/22/2009 2,370 0.0671 0.0487
4/26/2010 7,100 0.0894 0.0965
4/27/2010 6,600 0.0947 0.0885
4/28/2010 6,250 0.0835 0.086
4/29/2010 6,190 0.0844 0.0891
Date flow 10MER 08MER
6/15/09 11,300 0.2576 0.2052
6/16/09 10,100 0.1816 0.1688
6/17/09 8,890 0.1655 0.1597
6/18/09 7,340 0.135 0.1271
7/13/09 6,830 0.083 0.0768
7/14/09 6,420 0.0941 0.0864
7/15/09 5,460 0.0808 0.0808
7/16/09 4,810 0.0585 0.0601
8/24/09 6,670 0.0955 0.0711
8/25/09 6,700 0.094 0.0876
8/26/09 5,490 0.1068 0.0924
8/27/09 4,360 0.1253 0.1115
NH Air Resources Division and WWTP Ambient Air
NHARD performed fugitive emissions for hydrogen sulfide at several WWTPs
Plants under 200,000 gpd will be exempt from rule Franklin WWTP had high H2S at the property
perimeter line (1.5 ppb H2S is the standard) Manchester is working on an exemption for covered
aeration for secondary upgrade Grit, primary clarifiers, and aeration covers may be
in all larger plants future
Point Source Challenges and Topics for Discussion
Phase II Merrimack Study illustrated that dams should be considered ‘run of river’ and not as lakes
If the regulatory agencies base models on mean flows then NPDES dilutions should be calculated at mean flows and not 7Q10 flows
Clean sampling techniques reduce metals concentration > 50%
Acid soluble metals are the more toxic and should be used as the metal parameter rather than total metal concentration (DES is considering this)
Non-Point MS4 Permits
Draft MS4 is out for review and comments are to be submitted by August 15, 2013
Located either fully or partially within an urbanized area as determined by the 2010 Decennial Census by the Bureau of Census;
Located in a geographic area designated by EPA as requiring a permit.
Many cities/towns contribute, but are exempt from MS4 regulations.
Outside-Community Impacts on MS4s
Stream/rivers start in other towns NHDOT interstate or major roads run through your
community, currently the community must bear the cost to remove pollutants
Air deposition, why do communities need to pay to remove that portion
EPA exempts agriculture, yet communities are responsible for that portion of pollution
Need clear definition of when/if safety trumps environmental concerns
Currently, outside impacts not required to participate
MS4 Current Focus
Nutrients (Nitrogen, Phosphorus) Chlorophyll-a (Algal Growth) Dissolved Oxygen (>5 mg/l all grabs) Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (>75%) Bacteria Secchi Disk Transparancey pH Chloride
303(d) List Requiring a TMDL Chlorophyll-a Dissolved Oxygen Nitrogen pH Enteroccoccus Dioxin Fecal Coliform Mercury 2-Methylanapthalene Acenaphthene Flourene Napathalene Dibenz(a,h) anthracene
Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(a)pyrene (PAH) Benzo(a) anthracene Benzo[g,h,i]perylene Biphenyl Chrysene DDD, DDE, DDT Dieldrin Fluoranthene Pyrene Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene Phenanthrene
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_state.control?p_state=NH&p_cycle=&p_report_type=T#wqs_attainment
Cause of Impairment Group Name Number of Causes Reported
pH/Acidity/Caustic Conditions 939 (1st)
Pathogens 454 (2nd)
Organic Enrichment/O-Depletion 409 (3rd)
Metals (other than Mercury) 164 (4th)
Algal Growth 113 (5th)
Nutrients 112 (6th)
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota 107
Mercury 99
Dioxins 95
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 95
Biotoxins 77
Toxic Organics 59
Salinity/TDS/Chlorides/Sulfates 36
Pesticides 33
Turbidity 30
Sediment 4
Radiation 2
Other Cause 2
Taste, Color and Odor 1
Ammonia 1
TMDL Map
Taste & Odor Source Location
Waterbody
Name
Map Location
Little Cohas Brook, CWS Waterbody Map
010700060804, LITTLE COHAS BROOK, COLD
WATER FISHERY
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_impaired_waters.control?p_cause_name=TASTE AND ODOR&p_state=NH&p_cycle=2010&p_report_type=T
Taste & Odor TMDL
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_impaired_waters.control?p_cause_name=TASTE AND ODOR&p_state=NH&p_cycle=2010&p_report_type=T
Cause of Impairment Number of Causes of Impairment
Taste and Odor 1
Cause of Impairment Cause of Impairment Group TMDL Status
Benthic Macroinvertebrates Bioassessments
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota TMDL needed
ChlorideSalinity/Total Dissolved Solids/Chlorides/Sulfates
TMDL needed
Dissolved Oxygen Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion TMDL needed
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion TMDL needed
Foam/Flocs/Scum/Oil Slicks Other Cause TMDL needed
Iron Metals (other than Mercury) TMDL needed
Mercury MercuryTMDL completed
Taste and Odor Taste, Color and Odor TMDL needed
pH pH/Acidity/Caustic Conditions TMDL needed
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_waterbody.control?p_list_id=NHRIV700060804-05&p_cycle=2010&p_report_type=T
How Accurate are the TMDLs?
AECOM 2011 12 ug/l target Current %ReductionAtmospheric 3.96 lb/yr 3.96 lb/yr 0Internal 0 lb/yr 8.14 lb/yr 100Waterfowl 2.2 lb/yr 2.2 lb/yr 0 Tannery Brook 26 lb/yr 91 lb/yr 71Watershed Drainage 37.2 lb/yr 125.6 lb/yr 70Total 69.36 lb/yr Total 69.36 lb/yr 230.9 lb/yr230.9 lb/yr 70% 70%
CEI 2009 15 ug/l target Current %ReductionAtmospheric 15.62 lb/yrInternal 20.9 lb/yrEast Inlet 68.05 lb/yrSouth Inlet 22.13 lb/yrWest Inlet 13.02 lb/yrSouth Inlet 22.13 lb/yrTotal 86.32 lb/yr Total 86.32 lb/yr 161.32 lb/yr161.32 lb/yr 47% 47%
161.54 lb/yr
QAPP Key Cog in Data Set
Quality Assurance Project Plan only as good as the sampling techniques (e.g. 15 ug/l for Chlorophyll-a)
Typical field samples 30% difference range for duplicates (15 ug/l ~ 10.5 ug/l to 19.5 ug/l)
Laboratory sample preparation range 20% for duplicates (15 ug/l ~ 12 ug/l to 18 ug/l)
Instrument duplicate range 10% (15 ug/l ~ 13.5 ug/l to 16.5 ug/l)
Potential error range 4.5 + 3 + 1.5 = 9 ug/l (or an acceptable reading of 24 ug/l when 15 ug/l is limit).
Merrimack Clor-a Graph
Differences in Findings http://acwi.gov/monitoring/conference/98proceedings/Papers/24-KAMM.html
USGS National WQ Lab (NWQL), USGS Iowa District sediment laboratory, and Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (WSLH)
Concentrations of total phosphorus and dissolved chloride did not differ significantly
Concentrations of dissolved orthophosphate were significantly different among methods, which was not expected,
Suspended sediment and total suspended solids also differed significantly between sampling methods.
Differences in Findings (cont.)
Chlorophyll-a concentrations were significantly different between samplers.
The effect of point of filtration on chlorophyll-a, however, was highly significant.
Lab-filtered samples analyzed at WSLH gave higher concentrations of chlorophyll-a than field-filtered samples at all times.
Premise of TMDL - Nutrients
Remember Dover’s List of Impairments? What you don’t know will definitely CO$T you
down the road if not addressed early! Agree on WQ violation parameters with
NHDES before taking the first step in planning
Few LID practices work for most parameters http://www.unh.edu/unhsc/sites/unh.edu.unhsc/files/docs/UNHSC.2012Report.10.10.12.pdf (Sheet reference)
Motto – ‘Small Dollars Upfront’ Train staff in proper
“Clean Sampling Techniques”
Clean equipment thoroughly
Use spiked blanks Scout sample sites,
determine all potential impacts to WQ results
Sample bottle storage matters!
Split samples with different labs as checks against each other
Review laboratory QA/QC reports on all samples
If sample is ‘out of range’ discount it
Thoroughly document field observations, conditions at sample collection, Water Q – cfs!
What You Need to Do!
LEARN CLEAN SAMPLING TECHNIQUES!LEARN CLEAN SAMPLING TECHNIQUES! Review, Study and Coordinate NHDES data, methods,
conclusions Develop a plan to study your impaired waters Present plan to NHDES for approval Do your own WQ sampling using Clean Techniques Document, document, DOCUMENT - field observations,
conditions, area usage, weather, construction, traffic, birds and animals, and especially FLOW!
The Beginning ~ Any ?