nutrient regulation progress a national perspective
Post on 23-Feb-2016
50 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Nutrient Regulation ProgressA National Perspective
Trent Stober, PEGeosyntec Consultants
Nutrient Reduction Specialty ConferenceAugust 9, 2011
Columbia, Missouri
Nutrient Issue Background
Nutrients are a leading cause of impairments
EPA’s 2004 National Water Quality Inventory 16% rivers impaired 19% lakes impaired
EPA National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria (1998) December 31, 2003
deadline
National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria (1998)
EPA recommended states adopt region-specific water quality criteria in 14 Level III Ecoregions
EPA’s National Nutrient StrategyBenjamin Grumbles’ Memo (May 25, 2007)
Key advantages to numeric nutrient standards: Easier and faster
development of TMDLs Quantitative targets to
support trading programs Easier to write protective
NPDES permits
State Progress in Last Decade
EPA’s National Nutrient StrategyNancy Stoner’s Memo (March 16, 2011)
1. Prioritize watersheds2. Watershed load reduction goals 3. Ensure effectiveness of point
source permits in targeted watersheds
4. Agricultural areas5. Stormwater and septic systems6. Accountability and verification
of measures7. Public reporting8. Develop work plan and
schedule for numeric criteria development*
*Flexible timetable provided the state is making meaningful near-term reductions (3-5 years)
Challenges to Developing Numeric Nutrient Criteria
Scientific Issues Nutrients are necessary for a healthy aquatic ecosystem No immediate impact – longer averaging periods Cause and effect relationships
Public Policy Issues Standards affect many (e.g., wastewater utilities, farmers,
stormwater managers, local governments) Should standards protect healthy fish stocks or promote
pristine waters?
National Nutrient Activities
NRDC Secondary Treatment Petition
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Mississippi River Basin
NRDC Petition Florida WQS Adoption New England Objections Wisconsin Nutrient Rule Missouri Progress
2007 NRDC Petition for Rulemaking Secondary Treatment Definition
Redefine “secondary treatment” to include nitrogen and phosphorus removal
Suggested limitations TP = 0.3 – 1.0 mg/L TN = 3.0 – 8.0
mg/L No formal response
from EPA
Chesapeake Bay TMDL
64,000 mi2 watershed Six states and D.C. >17 million residents
Historical Water Quality Impairments Hypoxic zone Dissolved oxygen, clarity, chlorophyll Nutrients and sediment from upstream
sources TMDL finalized December 2010 Largest TMDL conducted ≈ 25% reduction N & P
Image Source: WRI 2010, Chesapeake Bay Program
Watershed Implementation Plans
Provide ongoing accountability framework Phase I – November 2010
States divide nutrient and sediment loads in large geographic regions between point and non-point sources
Description of actions and control measures Phase II – November 2011
Further subdivision of loads Specific practices that will be implemented to meet interim
goals by 2017 Phase III - 2017
Refine practices and controls to meet WQS by 2025
Effluent Limits in the Chesapeake States - Virginia
2005, Based on Delivery factors Available tech. Size/number of
dischargers in basin All significant
discharges must meet additional load limits under general permit
Extensive nutrient trading framework
No increase in loading Approach similar to other
Chesapeake States
Mississippi River Basin
Gulf of Mexico 2nd largest hypoxic zone in
world (EPA 2009), caused by excess nutrients
Nonpoint source issue 2009 EPA report
“…rather than relying on upstream States to set standards that protect downstream waters, EPA could promulgate standards for waters of national value, such as the Gulf of Mexico or the Mississippi River.”
Mississippi River Basin
Missouri = 9.6%
Missouri = 12.1%
Source: USGS 2008
USEPA Response to MCEA, et. al Mississippi River Basin Petition
Set nutrient criteria for Gulf of Mexico and all waters within Mississippi River Basin
Develop nutrient TMDLs for Gulf of Mexico, Mississippi River and all impaired tributaries
July 29, 2011 - USEPA rejects Mississippi River Basin Petition Development of nutrient criteria for 31
states highly time and resource intensive Rely on March 2011 State Nutrient
Reduction Framework
Florida Rule
USEPA promulgates nutrient criteria November 14, 2011 (Effective March 6, 2012)
Reference approach (90th /75th percentile) “Restoration standard” provision rescinded Site-Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) Multiple lawsuits
Region TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L)Panhandle West 0.67 0.06
Panhandle East 1.03 0.18
North Central 1.87 0.30
West Central 1.65 0.49
Peninsula 1.54 0.12
EPA Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Streams
Source: 75 FR 75773; December 6, 2010
Note: Annual geometric mean; 1-in-3 year exceedance frequency
Science Advisory Board ReviewFlorida Nutrient Criteria
SAB asked to review draft nutrient criteria development approach
Review submitted to USEPA July 19, 2011 SAB outlined several concerns
Biological endpoints appropriate but link to nutrients should be better defined
Biological endpoints should be quantitative (vs. “balanced”) Direct measurement of biological endpoints should be used
(not DO as a surrogate) Should use combination of approaches (reference
conditions, modeling, predictive relationships) Others
New England Objections
Maine and Vermont proposing nutrient criteria based on decision framework of causal and response variables
USEPA not supportive - independent applicability USEPA Region 1 - “indeterminate” status New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission (January 3, 2011 letter to USEPA) “… biological responses that are reflective of a range of nutrient
conditions are the most appropriate way to apply criteria.” “…, the Northeast states believe that EPA has failed to produce
sufficient scientific evidence or a viable legal or policy basis for the imposition of independent applicability of numeric nutrient criteria, …”
Wisconsin Nutrient RulePoint Source Regs
December 2010 – Nutrient (TP) rules in effect Ephemeral and Limited Aquatic Life Streams Exempt
More stringent of WQ or TBEL (1.0 mg/L AML) Unless “not practically achievable”
Schedule of compliance (7-9 years) Adaptive management
2 permit cycles before WQBELs enforced Interim limits assigned 0.6/1.0 and 0.5/1.0
Phosphorus trading option Implementation Guidance being Developed
Waterbody P CriteriaWadeable Streams 75 ug/L
Non-wadeable Streams 100 ug/L
Lakes and Reservoirs 15 – 30 ug/L
Nearshore Great Lakes < 7 ug/L
Missouri Nutrient Drivers
TMDL wasteload allocations Lakes and reservoirs nutrient criteria
awaiting EPA decision Streams and rivers nutrient criteria
under development 2015 triennial review (earliest)
TMDL Wasteload Allocations
Permittee StreamCBOD5 TSS NH3N TN TP(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Kennett Buffalo Ditch 5 31 <0.7 0.76 0.12
Nevada Marmaton R. 3 4 -17 0.085 0.80 0.09
Salem Spring Br. 3 5 <0.29 0.29 0.007
Butler Mound Br. 3 10 0.045 0.80 0.090
Fulton Stinson Cr. 4 5 0.010 0.88 0.092
Kirksville Bear Cr. 5 30 0.86 0.86 0.092
Bolivar Piper Cr. 4 27 1.4 0.29 0.007
Marshfield WF Niangua R. 6 5 .264 0.29 0.007
Simmons Foods Cave Springs Br. --- --- --- 0.29 0.007
Missouri Lake Nutrient Criteria
Total Nitrogen Criteria – 20 x TP Chlorophyll Criteria
Plains Chl:TP = 0.44 Ozark Border and Ozark Highland
Chl:TP = 0.42 LIKELY USEPA REJECTION
Total Phosphorus Criteria
2010 303(d) Lakes/Reservoirs Listed for Nutrients and/or Algae
36 Lakes Impaired By Nutrients
TMDLs May Affect All NPDES Permits In
Watershed
Preliminary Draft Stream and River Criteria (Note: Revisions are anticipated)
Based on a variety of approaches including Percentile of reference data RTAG value Change in algal community
Criteria not tied to beneficial use
Stream Nutrient Criteria Zone Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L)I 0.90 0.075II 0.70 0.035
III 0.50 0.031IV 0.43 0.010V 0.50 0.075
Treatment Levels
Note: Treatment levels ignore considerations of variability in treatment performance
Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., Nutrients and Water Quality: A Region 8 Collaborative Workshop (Feb 16, 2011)
Parameter TP, mg/L TN, mg/LRaw Wastewater 4 – 8 25 – 35Secondary Effluent 4 – 6 20 – 30BNR 1.0 10ENR 0.25 – 0.50 4 – 6LOT 0.05 – 0.07 3 - 4
Treatment Costs
Secondary treatment Biological nutrient
removal (BNR) Enhanced nutrient
removal (ENR) Limits of technology
(LOT) Reverse osmosis (RO)
Secondary BNR ENR LOT RO
Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., Nutrients Discharge Permitting and Wastewater Treatment Workshop (Apr 29,
2010)
Adapted from Jiang et al. 2005
Innovative Solutions Needed
Multiple Drivers Force Innovative Solutions Economic Considerations Sustainability Considerations
Energy Use Chemical Use Greenhouse Gases
Establish Priorities with Limited Resources
Potential Innovative Solutions
Tiered assessment (e.g., Vermont and Maine) Site-specific criteria Longer implementation (10-20 years?) Adaptive management Flexible permit limit expression Watershed-based permitting approach Water quality trading Alternative approaches for expressing criteria (e.g.,
mass)
Flexible Permit Limit Expression
Longer averaging period 40 CFR 122.45(d) – MDL or AWL EPA 2004 memo: “…permit limits expressed as an annual
limit are appropriate …” Nutrient assimilation zone Seasonal variability Dynamic limit tied to conditions Mass-based limits Bioavailable nutrient limitations
Watershed-Based Permitting
Permits developed for multiple point sources within watershed
Address multiple pollutants or stressors Multiple benefits
Cooperation between dischargers Potential shared mass loading limits Implementation of multiple programs and requirements Adaptive management approaches Leverage resources of permittees Water quality trading
Summary
Nutrient issues are not going away EPA expanding reach, requiring numeric criteria National efforts will affect MO and Mississippi River states Simple solutions ignore complexities Technology and economic issues
High incremental costs Diminishing water quality benefits Sustainability
Innovative solutions are needed Watershed permitting and trading will be important components Flexibility is key
Active stakeholder participation is needed!
Thanks for the Opportunity!
For further information:
Trent Stober, PEGeosyntec Consultants1123 Wilkes Blvd., Suite 400Columbia, Missouri 65201Phone: 573.443.4100Email: tstober@geosyntec.com
top related