Point & Non Point Sources – What Other Permit Challenges are Coming?

Rick Cantu – Manchester EPDrcantu@manchesternh.gov

(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 ?