Delaware River Basin Commission Updating TMDLs for PCBs for the - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Updating TMDLs for PCBs for the Delaware Estuary

Thomas J. Fikslin, Ph.D. Namsoo S. Suk, Ph.D.

Delaware River Basin Commission

Delaware Estuary Science & Environmental Summit January 24, 2017

Outline

2

Background

• History of PCB TMDLs in the Delaware Estuary
• Need for Update of Stage 1 TMDLs

Comparison of Loadings: Stage 1 vs Stage 2 Stage 2 Principles Proposed Schedule

TMDL History

The estuary consists of 5

water quality management units called Zones.

EPA Regions II & III establish

Stage 1 PCB TMDLs for Zones 2 – 5 in December 2003.

• Each Zone is assigned a TMDL.

EPA Regions II & III establish

Stage 1 PCB TMDL for Zone 6 (Delaware Bay) in December 2006.

These TMDLs were complicated for several reasons:

1) Legal deadlines. 2) The current human health criteria of both the states and the

DRBC at that time needed updating.

3) Point and non‐point sources were not well characterized. 4) A PCB water quality model was needed to develop the TMDLs. 5) An equitable wasteload allocation procedure was needed. 6) An implementation strategy was needed to address the

concerns of stakeholders.

7) Consensus decision for a staged approach for TMDLs.

TMDL History (cont.)

 Stage 2 TMDLs are needed to:

 Update the TMDLs to the revised WQ criterion,  Refine loadings using consistent, high quality data,  Utilize a new, more equitable wasteload allocation procedure agreed upon by stakeholders,  Implement a new procedure for developing the TMDLs for each Zone, and  Include a revised implementation strategy for point and non‐point sources as an Appendix to the Stage 2 TMDL report.  Provide certainty to this long‐term process.

Stage 2 TMDLs

 The conceptual approach for developing the Stage 2 TMDLs involved:

1) The use of a uniform Total PCB criterion of 16 pg/L. 2) The use of a representative hydrological year (February 2002 – January 31, 2003) for long‐term model simulations. 3) The use of an allocation procedure called Equal Effluent Concentration (EEC). 4) Use of an explicit Margin of Safety of 5% (same as in Stage 1 TMDLs). 5) Comparisons of Stage 1 PCB loadings from each source category to the current loadings from each category.

Stage 2 TMDLs

 Stage 2 TMDLs for each of the Zones 2 – 6 consist of wasteload allocations (WLAs) for point sources including CSOs and MS4s, and load allocations (LA) for non‐point sources including:

• Contaminated sites,
• Tributaries,
• Two upstream boundaries (Delaware River at Trenton and the

Schuylkill River), and

• the remaining non‐point sources (direct runoffs and

atmospheric deposition).  Allocations were calculated by multiplying the daily average flows during the cycling year by a water quality target of 15.2 pg/L.

Stage 2 TMDLs By Zone

Point Sources

96 NPDES Permittees 137 Outfalls

0.51 1.00 0.83 0.53 0.001 0.17 0.20 0.34 0.09 0.008 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Penta‐PCB load (kg/year)

Comparison of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Annual Penta‐PCB loads ‐ Point Sources

Stage 1 Load Stage 2 Load

Contaminated Sites

0.001 0.859 0.316 0.121 0.002 1.37 0.50 4.25 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Penta‐PCB load (kg/year)

Comparison of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Annual Penta‐PCB loads ‐ Contaminated Sites

Stage 1 Load Stage 2 Load"

97 Sites: NJ – 8 PA – 20 DE – 69

Tributaries

0.58 0.51 0.55 0.31 0.00 0.29 0.36 0.48 0.53 0.28 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 penta‐PCB load (kg/year)

Comparison of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Annual Penta‐PCB loads ‐ Tributaries

Stage 1 Load Stage 2 Load

37 Tributaries NJ – 13 PA – 6 DE ‐ 18

Major Upstream Boundaries

3.65 2.63 2.13 2.57 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 Delaware River at Trenton Schuylkill River Penta‐PCB Load (kg/year) Upstream Boundary

Comparison of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Annual Penta‐PCB loads ‐ Delaware River at Trenton and Schbuylkill River

Stage 1 Loads Stage 2 Loads

1.3 2.6 3.6 1.7 2.9 1.7 1.8 7.9 6.1 2.6 2.1 1.9 0.8 0.5 3.2 1.0 CONTAMINATED SITES SCHUYLKILL RIVER DELAWARE RIVER AT TRENTON OTHER TRIBUTARIES POINT SOURCES CSOS MS4S REMAINING NPS

Annual penta‐PCB Load (kg/year) Source Category

Comparison of Annual Penta‐PCB Loads from each Source Category

Stage 1 Penta‐PCB Load Stage 2 Penta‐PCB Load

 Significant reductions (over 70%) in loading from point sources

• ccurred following establishment of Stage 1 TMDLs through the

implementation of Pollutant Minimization Plans through NPDES permits, and monitoring to track progress.  The additional Stage 2 implementation requirement of Action Levels will serve to maintain loading reductions achieved.  Focused effort is needed in Stage 2, however, to: 1.Further identify and reduce loadings from contaminated sites. 2.Develop and implement TMDLs in tributaries with a priority on those with the largest PCB loading.  Are the loadings reductions reflected in the media???

Current Status

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2000-01 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010 2012 2015

Nanograms per gram (ppb) - wet weight Years

PCBs in Fish Tissue Delaware River Estuary 2000 to 2015

White Perch Channel Catfish

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2000-01 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010 2012 2015

Nanograms per gram (ppb) ‐ wet weight Years

Historical Trend in PCBs in Fish Tissue Crosswicks Creek - Delaware Estuary

Channel Catfish White Perch CC – 123 ppb WP – 79 ppb

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2000-01 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010 2012 2015

Nanograms per gram (ppb) - wet weight Years

Historical Trend in Total PCBs in Fish Tissue Tacony-Palmyra Bridge - Delaware Estuary

Channel Catfish White Perch

 The adaptive management approach utilized for the PCB TMDLs for the Delaware River Estuary is working, but this approach requires periodic assessment of progress and adjustment.  The Stage 2 TMDLs reflect this approach through the measurement of progress, the updating of the TMDLs, and the implementation strategy that will continue progress to achieving the TMDLs.  While some progress is evident, the focus of load reductions in Stage 2 needs to shift to contaminated sites and tributaries while load reductions at point sources continue under the PMPs.

Summary

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the following members of the Science & Water Quality Management Branch who contributed to the development of the Stage 2 PCB TMDLs: John Yagecic, P.E. Gregory Cavallo, P.G. Elaine Panuccio