Future Permitting Issues

Wastewater Utility Council

May 18, 2005

Presentation Overview

• Where do new issues come from?

• What are some of these issues?

• What can be done to prepare for them?

Where do issues come from?

• Changes in water quality standards at the state or federal level

• New EPA initiatives

• Reinterpretation of regulations by the State or EPA

• Unforeseen circumstances (example Vulnerability Assessments)

What are these future Issues? • Change from fecal coliform to e. coli

• Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

• Watershed Based Permitting

• Water Quality Trading

• SSO/CMOM Permit Conditions

• Endocrine Disruptors

• Modifications to the Ammonia Criteria

• Others

Change from Fecal Coliform to E. Coli• EPA pushing for change• WQCD adopted E. Coli standards in 2000 • No method is currently approved for E.

Coli • Some WWTPs may see higher E. Coli

than fecal coliform• Changes to the Basic Standards will

eliminate fecal coliform • Permits will now be issued with only E.

Coli limit

Where does the 303d list and TMDLs come from?

• 1972 Clean Water Act

• Mid 1990’s Environmental Groups file lawsuits - 38 states

• Judgements against EPA– Slow Pace of TMDL Development

– EPA Failure to take action when States did not

– The adequacy of the list

What is the 303(d) list?

• “303(d)” refers to a section of the Clean Water Act

• List of stream segments not meeting water quality standards or threatened

• Developed every two years, next list due April 2006

• TMDLs required for all segments listed

Sources of Impairment by Source Category

43%

10%

47%

Nonpoint Sources Only

Point Sources Only

Combination of Point &Nonpoint Sources

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Percent of Stream

Pathogens

Metals

Nutrients

Sediment/Siltation

Organic Enrichment/Low DO

Fish Consumption Advisories

pH

Other Habitat Alterations

Thermal Modifications

Biological Criteria

Flow Alteration

Pesticides

Turbidity

Salinity/TDS/Chlorides

Suspended Solids

Source of Impairment on a Nationwide Basis

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

RES

OU

RCE

EX

TRA

CT

ION

SO

UR

CE U

NK

NO

WN

AG

RICU

LTU

RE

MU

NIC

IPA

L (U

RBA

NIZ

EDH

IGH

DEN

SIT

Y A

REA

)

MU

NIC

IPA

L PO

INT

SO

UR

CE D

ISC

HA

RGES

AB

AN

DO

NED

MIN

ING

AC

ID M

INE

DRA

INA

GE

SU

BSU

RFA

CE

MIN

ING

ERO

SIO

N A

ND

SE

DIM

EN

TA

TIO

N

HIG

HW

AYS

, RO

AD

S,

BRID

GES

,IN

FRA

ST

UR

CTU

RE (N

EWH

IGH

WA

Y/RO

AD

/BR

IDG

ERU

NO

FF (N

ON

-CO

NS

TRU

CTIO

N

SIL

VICU

LTU

RE

HY

DRO

MO

DIF

ICA

TIO

N

IND

US

TRI

AL

POIN

TS

OU

RCE

DIS

CH

ARG

E

Source of Impacts to Streams

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

CO

PPE

R

CA

DM

IU

M

ZIN

C

SE

LEN

IU

M

SU

LF

AT

ES

MET

ALS

SE

DIM

EN

TA

TIO

N/S

ILT

AT

IO

N

LE

AD

CA

US

E U

NK

NO

WN

PA

TH

OG

EN

S

PH

AM

MO

NIA

(U

NIO

NIZ

ED

) -

TO

XIN A

RS

EN

IC

PE

ST

ICID

ES

MER

CU

RY

Cause of Impairment to Streams

• TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOSWLA (wasteload allocation) is for point sourcesLA (load allocation) is for NPSsMOS is margin of safety

• MOS Accounts for Lack of Knowledge

• Can Require Reduction in Point and Nonpoint Sources; the Key Issue is the Allocation between Point Sources and Non-Point Sources

TMDL Development

TMDLs

• Process used:

– Determine sources of loading from background (naturally occurring), nonpoint (agriculture), and point sources (WWTPs, stormwater)

– Determine amount that needs to be reduced.

– Apply the reduction to the sources.

• TMDL language dictates what and how the limit is put in NPDES permit

• Permittees need to be involved in the development of TMDLs to ensure that requirements are attainable.

• New dischargers may be required to meet standards directly, redo the TMDL at their expense, or trade for loading.

Water Quality Trading

• New EPA Initiative – EPA has a policy in place

• Ranges from one point source to another, to watershed wide trading programs

• Could allow point sources to trade to meet specific permit limits

• A few states have developed their own policy – Colorado, Pennsylvania, Idaho

• May be of value as effluent limits get tighter or to comply with a TMDL

Watershed Based Permitting

• New EPA Initiative• Permits issued on a watershed basis • Focused on multiple point sources • Targeted to achieve watershed goals

• Benefits• Encourages coordination on items such as ambient

monitoring • Uses similar data and processes for all discharges• Can be cost effective

• Permittees need to look for opportunities

More information: www.epa.gov/npdes/wqbasedpermitting/wspermitting.cfm or contact me

SSO/CMOM

• New EPA program– Concern with WWTP collection

systems in the eastern US– Part of the Sanitary Sewer Overflow

Regulations

• Sanitary Sewer Overflow is a discharge from a sanitary sewer

• Includes basement backups if the result of collection system

SSO/CMOM• CMOM = Capacity Management, Operation

and Maintenance of the sanitary collection system

• Provide adequate maintenance • Collection system map• Use of timely and relevant information• Routine preventive maintenance program• Identification of structural deficiencies and repair• Training• Equipment and replacement part inventories• Design and installation specs• Method of measuring the accuracy of the permit

implementation

SSO/CMOM

• Regulations are on hold• Eastern concerns - “Blending”• Some movement to propose

• Would be included in all WWTP permits• Impacts Sanitation Districts that operate

collection systems• States are being pushed by EPA to

implement without regulations• Implementation in Colorado is unknown

Nutrient Criteria

• “Nutrients” - nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate, organic), phosphorus

• EPA proposed criteria in 2001 for nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and turbidity

• EPA has required states to develop Nutrient Criteria Development Plans

EPA Criteria are based on Ecoregions

Impact on WWTPs could be significant

• Ecoregion 2– Phosphorus = 0.010 mg/L– Nitrogen = 0.38 mg/L

• Ecoregion 4 – Phosphorus = 0.023 mg/L– Nitrogen = 0.56 mg/L

• Ecoregion 5– Phosphorus = 0.067 mg/L– Nitrogen = 0.88 mg/L

Kansas Approach

• Treatment objectives based percentage of loading to the Mississippi River

• For Plants > 1 MGD– Total Nitrogen 8 mg/L

– Total Phosphorus 1.5 mg/L

Impact on WWTPs could be significant

• Standards to be adopted in 2010 Basic Standards

• Site specific studies will be necessary

• Suggested Actions– Monitoring for nutrients

– Provide input into State proposals

Endocrine Disrupters Are Making News

• Media reports – "Household supplies appear in water:

Drugs, disinfectants worry state panel“ – Arizona Republic, 7/2004

– "Mutant fish prompt concern: Study focuses on sewage plants“ - Denver Post, 10/2004

– "Abnormal Fish Found Closer to Washington: Waste Suspected in Egg-Bearing Males“ – Washington Post, 12/2004

What are Endocrine Disrupters?• Compounds that interfere with

the endocrine system, e.g.:– phthalates

– organochlorine pesticides (atrazine)

– alkyphenols (industrial/domestic detergents)

– PCBs

Endocrine Disrupters

• Potential Concerns– feminization of fish

– other impacts on wildlife

– may affect human reproduction and glands such as pituitary

• No US water quality criteria have been established

Endocrine Disrupters

• Wastewater Treatment– Construction = $0.40 to $20/gpd (recent

article in WE&T)• Metro District in Denver has established a

consortium to study endocrine disrupter effects on aquatic life

• Pharmaceutical and Personal Care Product (PPCP) concerns are also emerging

• http://www.epa.gov/esd/chemistry/pharma/index.htm

1999 EPA Ammonia Criteria

• EPA developed criteria in 1999

• Colorado is one of the last states to adopt

• State must include in 2005 Basic Standards changes or propose different criteria

• EPA seeking input - issues with mussels

1999 Ammonia Criteria

• CWWUC hired Chadwick to do a review EPA criteria

• EPA Criteria found to be scientifically based

• Permittees could see in permits shortly after June 2005

Modifications to Ammonia Criteria• July 8, 2004 EPA published “Notice

of Intent To Re-Evaluate the Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia” Federal Register

• 1999 Criteria did not include studys on unionidaes (clam/mussel)

• Clams found in warm water streams• Timing of EPA action is unknown• Could result in tighter limits

Effect of Ammonia Criteria on Cold Water Streams

Effect of Ammonia Criteria on Warm Water Streams

Possible Effect of Ammonia Criteria Revision with Unionidae

Selenium

• Sources - shales, coal deposits, naturally occurring

• EPA has proposed new selenium criteria based on fish tissue.

• Often related to irrigation• State will need to address standard

as part of TMDL development. • Treatment

– Tertiary treatment - physical or biological

Other Challenges

Metals– Possible problem parameters

• Copper – Common problem for WWTPs– New criteria proposed

• Cadmium – 2001 EPA criteria significantly more stringent than

current

• Mercury– Monitoring method results in tighter numbers– WWTPs have detected low levels

– Several alternatives available to address metals• Translator• Water Effect Ratio

Other Challenges

• Organics– Tighter standards adopted in September 2004– WWUC studying possible affect on WWTPS

• Reasonable Potential Analysis– New policy is currently more scientifically based– Likely will need to be tweaked after experience is

gained

• Aquatic Life Use classification– Development of biological criteria– Would be in addition to current numeric values– Could result in need for permittees to do aquatic

studies on a regular basis

Questions?