Nutrient Regulations: Whats Next? July 8 | 2015 Nutrient - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nutrient Regulations: What’s Next?

RMWEA Industrial Wastewater/Pretreatment Committee

July 8 | 2015

Nutrient Regulations: Cliff Notes

RMWEA Industrial Wastewater/Pretreatment Committee

• REG. 85 & REG. 31

3

Nutrients Phase I and II

TECHNOLOGY-BASED approach MANDATED FOR THE 44 LARGEST POTWS “DELAYED IMPLEMENTATION” for POTWs 2.0 MGD and most industry No effluent limits for POTWs 1 MGD and most industry WATER QUALITY STANDARDS upstream of POTWs (TP and Chl-a now, TN 5/31/17) WQS downstream starting 5/31/22 (Phase II)

8 5 8 58 5 8 5 3 1 3 1

Reg 85 Limits

Brown and Caldwell

4

Notes:

• 1. Median of all samples taken in most recent 12 calendar months.
• 2. The 95th Percentile of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months.
• 3. Delayed until 5/31/2022 for dischargers subject to existing control regulations 71-74, have design capacity ≤ 2 MGD, or who

discharge in low priority hydrologic units code watersheds (Purgatoire, Upper Arkansas-John Martin Reservoir, Upper San Juan, Upper Arkansas-Lake Meredith, Upper White, San Luis, Chico, Kiowa, Middle South Platte –Sterling, San Miguel, Alamosa- Trinchera, McElmo, Lower Gunnison, Arkansas Headwaters, Upper Yampa, Upper Gunnison, and Uncompahgre).

• 4. Dischargers who submit a complete request for preliminary effluent limits to the Division on or after May 31, 2012.

5

• Existing Discharges (prior to 5/31/13)
• Delayed implementation for the low priority 8-

digit hydrologic codes

• Except for effluent concentrations TN > 53 mg/L

and TP > 6 mg/L

• Reg 85 Limits apply to
• Industry in SIC Code 20
• Others that the WQCD determines may discharge

more than the applicable Reg 85 limits

• Based on when discharge began or PEL requested

Reg 85 - Industrial Dischargers

6

• Exceptions
• Where there is no “RP” for Reg 31 Limits
• Noncontact cooling water where nutrients
• riginate in source water or from chemicals shown

to be necessary for proper operation

• Groundwater from construction dewatering sites
• r building sumps where no P or N is added
• Reg 31 values could be added in place of Reg 85, if

the limitations would be higher (less stringent) based on dilution potential

Reg 85 - Industrial Dischargers

7

• Other Options
• Variance
• If there is no reasonable relationship to

economic, environmental or energy impacts

• Propose alternate limits that represent the

highest degree of nutrient removal

• Nutrient trading
• Where it will result in equal or better WQ
• Point to non-point – minimum 2:1 ratio
• Point to point on 1:1 ratio

Reg 85 - Industrial Dischargers

8

Cooling towers

Monitoring Requirements

Flow, TN, TP, and TIN at outfall and intake (11/12 – 10/14) Flow, TN, TP, and TIN at outfall, upstream, and downstream Minor’s – every 2 months Major’s - monthly

Others with required limits

Reg 31 Interim Limits

Brown and Caldwell

9

Notes:

• 1. Annual median; 1-in-5 year exceedence frequency. For protection of aquatic life use.
• 2. July 1 – Sept 30 average in mixed layer (median of multiple depths); 1-in-5 year exceedence frequency. For lakes and reservoirs >25

acres.

• 3. July 1 – Sept 30 maximum attached algae, not to exceed. For protection of recreational use.
• 4. March 1 – Nov 30 average chlorophyll in the mixed layer (median of multiple depths); 1-in-5 year exceedence frequency.

10

11

Nutrient Regulations: What’s Next?

13

• To evaluate the effectiveness
• To determine sources and loads
• To implement appropriate and

necessary source controls

?

Purposes

• f Reg. 85

Monitoring (§ 85.6(1))

What about non-point sources of nutrients?

14

• EPA approval or disapproval
• New ammonia criteria for

mussels/clams

• TMDLs

?

Other Factors

How can I be certain? Will the numbers go lower?

15

?

And what about chlorophyll a?

• Protect the recreational use

(not aquatic life or water supply protection)

• Value is 150 mg chl a

(to measure abundance of attached algae)

• This is a “nuisance” threshold

(based on public perception)

• Implemented as a

summertime maximum

(with allowable exceedance of once in 5 yrs.)

Issues to consider for both Regulations

16

• REG. 85 & REG. 31
• Reg. 85 monitoring does not take

into account non-point source nutrient loads & MS4 data submittal is retrospective only, based on existing data TP recovery likely will be needed Currently, there is no consideration

• f biological endpoints, e.g., TP

and TN are independently applicable What is “background” for TN, e.g., atmospheric deposition

• f NOx

What’s Next – Hearing Schedule

Brown and Caldwell

17

2014/19/24 Colorado 2015/20/25 South Platte 2016/21/26 Basic Standards 2017/22 San Juan Gunnision 2018/23 Arkansas Rio Grande

Additionally: Reg 85 reviews scheduled for 2015, 2018 and 2021. WQCC will determine if any changes are needed moving forward. 2015 is planned to be solely an informative hearing with no proposed changes from the WQCD

18

2016 303(d) Listing hearing will not include listing against the narrative nutrient standards

Challenges

However, EPA has discretion to object to permit limits that are not protective of existing narrative standards A segment does not have to be included on the 303(d) List for wasteload allocations to be developed

• Reg. 85 data collection

may have unintended consequences

19

If non-point source loads can be determined,

state regulatory controls could be included in Reg. 85

Opportunities

This is not an

• ption under

the federal Act Need to characterize nutrient “near field” and “far field” effects within each watershed

Modeling will be needed for nitrogen

Nutrient Regulations: What Can We Do?

What’s Next – What Can We Do?

Brown and Caldwell

21

2014/19/24 Colorado 2015/20/25 South Platte 2016/21/26 Basic Standards 2017/22 San Juan Gunnision 2018/23 Arkansas Rio Grande

Participate in the WQCC hearings Collect and share information Build partnerships Obtain site-specific information Modeling of specific stream reaches

What Can We Do?

Brown and Caldwell

22

The Colorado Monitoring Framework (CMF) is a statewide nonprofit

• rganization formed with the
• bjective of creating a

collaborative process to comply with water quality regulations adopted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission.

CMF Specifics

• Kickoff Fall 2012
• Organized Under

SP CURE

• Steering Committee w/ Co-Chairs
• DSN as Data Repository

24 2 4

CMF Specifics

• Kickoff Fall 2012
• Organized Under

SP CURE

• Steering Committee w/

Co-Chairs

• DSN as Data Repository

Membership

• Utilities
• Industries
• Watershed Groups
• Agriculture
• Individuals

25 2 5

CMF Members

• AF CURE
• Battlement Mesa Metro

District

• Brighton
• Boulder
• Centennial W&S
• Co Ag Producers
• Fort Collins
• FRICO
• Greeley
• Lafayette
• L/E WWTP
• Longmont
• Louisville
• Metro WRD
• NFRWQPA
• MillerCoors
• South Adams County W&S
• Suncor
• Wastewater Utility Council
• UCCWA

26

CMF Specifics

• Kickoff Fall 2012
• Organized Under

SP CURE

• Steering

Committee w/ Co- Chairs

• DSN as Data

Repository

Membership

• Utilities
• Industries
• Watershed

Groups

• Agriculture
• Individuals

Task Forces

• Ag
• DSV
• Nutrients
• Temperature

27 2 7

What Can We Do?

Brown and Caldwell

28

What Can We Do?

Brown and Caldwell

29

WERF Pilot Study

• Process to develop site-

specific standards

• Approvable models
• ID/resolve issues
• Address questions to make

viable

• Holistic view of watershed
• ID periphyton sampling

procedures

30

Challenges

31

Regulations are becoming more complex, creating unintended consequences There are limited resources and competing priorities Changes need to be sustainable We have one water

Questions/Discussion