52
© 2015 HDR, all rights reserved. Emerging Regulatory Drivers and Potential Impacts to Municipal Utilities Trent Stober, PE - HDR June 8, 2016
© 2015 HDR, all rights reserved.
Emerging Regulatory Drivers and Potential Impacts to Municipal Utilities Trent Stober, PE - HDR
June 8, 2016
Beneficial Uses
oFishable/Swimmable
oUse Attainability Analyses
Water Quality Criteria
oNarrative
oNumeric
Antidegradation
oPrimarily Permitting Impacts
oAlternatives Analyses
oSocio-Economic Importance
Water Quality Standards
Framework Federal
Regulations
State Regulations
Impairments
TMDLs
Permits
Total Maximum Daily Loads
TMDL = WLA + LA + MOS
Why are Water Quality Standards Important?
Water Quality
Standards
Total Maximum
Daily Loads
Prevent Impairment &
Antidegradation
Impairment
Determination Water Quality &
Biologic
Monitoring
NPDES Permit
Requirements
Technology
Standards
Promulgated August 5, 2015
Administrator WQS
Determinations
Designated Uses - Highest
Attainable Uses
Triennial WQS Reviews
Antidegradation
Implementation
WQS Variances
Compliance Schedules
Federal Water Quality Standards Rule
Water Quality
Standards
Uses
Criteria
Antideg
General Policies
“Necessity” and “importance” must be demonstrated for all
new or expanded discharges
Tiered protections o Tier 1- Waters at or below standards (No further degradation allowed)
o Tier 2 – Waters with available assimilative capacity (i.e., better than standards)
o Tier 3 – Outstanding National Resource Waters (No further degradation allowed)
Necessity determined through Alternatives Analysis o Cost-effectiveness
o Practicability
o Water quality impacts
Importance o Social and economic
Federal Antidegradation Requirements
States must review water quality
standards every 3 years
Adopt national criteria
recommendations or explain decision
process
Consider latest science
Ensure public transparency
Triennial Review Requirements
National Ammonia Criteria to Protect
Freshwater Mussels
2013 National Ammonia Criteria
3/11/2016 Ammonia & Nutrient Master Plan
Criteria
• pH
• Temperature
• Mussels (present/absent)
WLA
• Criteria
• Design flow
• MZ flow
• ZID flow
• Background concentration
Limits
• WLA
• Coefficient of variation
Mixing
Temp
pH
Permitting Approach is Key to Implementing
New Ammonia Criteria
1986 Bacteria Criteria
oBased upon 1950’s studies
oEpidemiologic studies to
understand risk
2000 BEACH Act
oStates must adopt new criteria
oUSEPA to conduct studies and
develop new criteria
NRDC Lawsuit
o 2008 Consent Decree &
Settlement Agreement
Recreational
Criteria
Background
2012 Recreational Criteria
Establishes Short-Term and
Monthly Geomean Criteria
No Sample Size Restrictions
Adoption at Subsequent WQS
Triennial Review
Potential Impacts
Widespread Impairments
Additional or Reevaluated TMDLs
Altered Permit Limits
2012 National Recreational Criteria
Viruses Pose Most Risk to Swimmers
Bacteriophages Better Indicator than
Fecal Indicator Bacteria
Virus Criteria Benefits from USEPA
oImprove knowledge of WWTP risk
oMore accurate WWTP permit limits
oEmploy the most up-to-date science
Propose Criteria in 2017
Final Criteria in 2018-2020
Future Criteria for Virus and
Bacteriophages
Chloride Criteria
MO Hardness-Based Chloride & Sulfate Criteria Rejected by USEPA
USEPA Developing National Recommendations
Toxicity-Based Nitrate Criteria
Adoption with Revised Ammonia Criteria
oAcute Criteria (1-day) – 41 mg/L as NO3-N
Chronic Criteria (4-day)
o Cold Water – 3.1 mg/L as NO3-N
o Warm Water – 4.9 mg/L as NO3-N
Another Driver for Nitrogen Removal
Minnesota Nitrate Criteria
Developing
National and Iowa
Nutrient Drivers
2nd largest hypoxic zone in world
(EPA 2009), caused by excess
nutrients
Largely considered a nonpoint
source issue
2009 EPA report
o “…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 & Gulf of Mexico
EPA’s 2000 “Integrated Assessment” First
Comprehensive Report to Document Issue
Nutrient Reduction Task Force
o 2001 – Decrease zone to 5,000 km by 2015
o 2007 – Science Advisory Board
• Goal requires 45% reduction in N and P loading
• Achieving goal by 2015 unlikely
• Urged EPA to look at all sources
o 2008 – Goal remains reasonable in an
adaptive management context, but may not
be attained by 2015
Mississippi River Basin & Gulf of Mexico
EPA’s National Nutrient Strategy
Nancy Stoner’s Memo (March 16, 2011)
1. Prioritize watersheds
2. Watershed load reduction goals
3. Ensure effectiveness of point source
permits in targeted watersheds
4. Agricultural areas
5. Stormwater and septic systems
6. Accountability and verification of
measures
7. Public reporting
8. Develop work plan and schedule for
numeric criteria development
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
oDevelopment of nutrient criteria for 31 states
highly time and resource intensive
oRely on March 2011 State Nutrient Reduction
Framework
MCEA et al. Mississippi River
Basin Petition
Gulf Restoration Network et al. v. EPA Lawsuit
Suit for EPA to make a determination
whether nutrient criteria are necessary
Louisiana Eastern District Court rules
that EPA must make determination but
can account for many factors
5th Circuit Court of Appeals – April 7,
2015 Decision
oEPA has significant discretion on
responding to petition request
oRemanded EPA’s response back to
District Court
Reported Nutrient Loading Could Bring
Focus to Iowa
Source: USGS SPARROW Decision Support Tool (http://cida.usgs.gov/sparrow/)
Reported Nutrient Loading Could Bring
Focus to Iowa
Source: USGS SPARROW Decision Support Tool (http://cida.usgs.gov/sparrow/)
Major POTWs & Industries – Biological Nutrient
Removal (1 mg/L TP, 10 mg/L TN)
o 102 Municipals, 46 Industries
o 2 year evaluation period
oNegotiated schedule of compliance
Minor POTWs
oEvaluation at expansion
Annual limits based upon operational performance
with 1/10 floor
10-year regulatory certainty period
Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy
Point Source Controls
Claims
Targets Drainage Districts not Farmers
Drainage Ditches are Point Sources of Nitrate
Contaminated Groundwater
Unfunded, Voluntary Actions of Nutrient
Reduction Strategy are Insufficient
Requested Relief
Award Costs of Nitrate Removal
Take All Reasonable Steps Necessary to
Reduce Nitrate below 10 mg/L
Referred to IA Supreme Court – Jan 2016
Federal District Court Trial in June 2017
Des Moines Water Works v. 13 Drainage
Districts
Largest US Estuary
o64,000 mi2 watershed
oSix states and D.C.
o >17 million residents
Historical Water Quality Impairments
oHypoxic zone
oDissolved oxygen, clarity, chlorophyll
oNutrients and sediment from upstream sources
TMDL finalized December 2010
o≈ 25% reduction N & P
Largest TMDL conducted and
considered template for Gulf of Mexico
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Background
Image Source: WRI 2010, Chesapeake Bay Program
Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Watershed Improvement Plans
Provide ongoing accountability framework
Phase I – November 2010
oStates divide nutrient and sediment loads in large
geographic regions between point and nonpoint
sources
oDescription of actions and control measures
Phase II – March 2012
oFurther subdivision of loads
oSpecific practices that will be implemented to meet
interim goals by 2017
Phase III - 2017
oRefine practices and controls to meet WQS by 2025
Chesapeake Bay TMDL Lawsuit
American Farm Bureau et al. v. USEPA
o9 Agriculture Organizations
oNational Home Builders Association
11 Environmental Advocates & Municipal Organizations
Interveners
Numerous Amicus Appellants
o21 Non-Bordering States
oBordering States and DC
oCities, Counties, NGOs
Latest Decision – 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, July 6, 2015
Chesapeake TMDL Decision Points
Can EPA allocate TMDL loads to point and nonpoint sources?
Can EPA include TMDL implementation timeframes?
Can EPA require demonstration of reasonable assurance that the
TMDL will be met?
Does the EPA Chesapeake Bay TMDL intrude on land use and
overreach into state programs and policies?
Can EPA allocate TMDL loads to point and nonpoint sources?
oTMDL = WLA + LA + MOS Upheld
Can EPA include TMDL implementation timeframes?
oDeadlines and Target Dates are consistent with CWA.
Can EPA require demonstration of reasonable assurance that the
TMDL will be met?
oEPA’s seeking of reasonable assurance that Watershed
Improvement Plans will meet goals is consistent with CWA.
Does the EPA Chesapeake Bay TMDL intrude on land use and
overreach into state programs and policies?
oChesapeake Bay water quality is a “Large Event” and needs large
solution.
Chesapeake TMDL Decision Points
Nutrient Criteria Nationally
About 25 with N or
P Criteria for at
Least One
Waterbody Type
Only Federal Lands
and Hawaii have
both for All
Waterbody Types
MPCA 2016 Draft River Eutrophication Status
History of Phosphorus Regulation in
Minnesota
1971
Lake Superior Phosphorus
Rule
1973
Rule Revision: Discharges
Directly Upstream of a Lake
2000 Phosphorus Strategy and Phosphorus
Decision Tree
2008
Numeric Lake Eutrophication
Standards
2010
Revised Guidance
Phosphorus Decision Tree
2015
River Eutrophication
Standards
Proposed River Eutrophication Standards
Region
Cause Response
TP (ug/L) BOD5
(mg/L) Chl-a (ug/L)
DO flux
(mg/L)
North ≤50 ≤1.5 ≤7 ≤3.0
Central ≤100 ≤2.0 ≤18 ≤3.5
South ≤150 ≤3.0 ≤35 ≤4.5
Example of RES Calculations
Cedar River
High
Flows Moist
Conditions
Mid-Range
Conditions
Dry
Conditions Low
Flows
Target
Flows
75%
Red.
Clean Water Act
Flexibilities Lead
to Reasonable
Local Outcomes
Reasonable Local
Outcomes
Integrated Planning
Variances
Sound TMDLs
TMDL Alternatives
Adaptive Strategies
Regulatory Challenges Facing Today’s Utilities
History and Issues
U.S. Conference of Mayors
NACWA
EPA Memo: “Achieving Water
Quality Through Municipal
Stormwater and Wastewater
Plans” Oct 27, 2011
o Facilitate use sustainable and
comprehensive solutions, including
green infrastructure to improve water
quality
EPA’s Integrated Planning Framework
EPA Final Framework June 5, 2012
“The integrated planning approach does not remove
obligations to comply with the CWA, nor does it lower
existing regulatory and permitting standards, but
rather recognizes the flexibilities in the CWA for the
appropriate sequencing and scheduling of work.”
- USEPA Integrated Planning Framework: June, 2012
Integrated Planning Approach Framework
U.S. EPA Integrated Planning Overarching Principles
USEPA Integrated Planning Elements
Columbia, MO Faces Wastewater Treatment Plant Challenges
Hydraulic Bottlenecks
Ammonia
Nutrient Removal
Outfall Relocation
Balancing Aging Infrastructure and Regulatory Drivers
Opportunity to Set Water Quality Priorities
Columbia’s 6 Step Integrated Management Plan Framework to Sustainable Clean Water Act Compliance
Balanced
Prioritized
Affordable
Implementable
Columbia Integrated
Management Plan
Build the Vision
Evaluate Existing System
Performance
Develop a Community Outreach Program
Evaluate Alternative Solutions
Develop Solutions & Schedule
Implement and Measure
Success
Unique Local Circumstances
Review of Impairments
oMultiple Point and Nonpoint Sources
oSources Contributing Multiple
Pollutants and Pollution
oRestoration Mechanisms
Stakeholder & Public Support
Watershed Management Plans as TMDL Alternatives
Columbia’s IMP will Provide the City with a Strategic Roadmap for Long-Term Infrastructure Investments and Clean Water Act Compliance.
Columbia
IMP
• Provide 5 to 10 Year Certainty
• Address Aging Infrastructure
• Define Affordability
• Programmatic Opportunities
to Define Long-Term Plan
LONG
TERM
PLAN
Integrated Planning through a Phased Programmatic Approach
© 2015 HDR, all rights reserved.
Emerging Regulatory Drivers and Potential Impacts to Municipal Utilities Trent Stober, PE - HDR
June 8, 2016
Trent Stober, PE 3610 Buttonwood Drive
Suite 200
Columbia, MO 65201
573-489-5961
