1 / 32

Nutrient Regulation Progress A National Perspective

Nutrient Regulation Progress A National Perspective. Trent Stober, PE Geosyntec Consultants. Nutrient Reduction Specialty Conference August 9, 2011 Columbia, Missouri. Nutrient Issue Background. Nutrients are a leading cause of impairments EPA’s 2004 National Water Quality Inventory

andie
Download Presentation

Nutrient Regulation Progress A National Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Nutrient Regulation ProgressA National Perspective Trent Stober, PE Geosyntec Consultants Nutrient Reduction Specialty Conference August 9, 2011 Columbia, Missouri

  2. 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

  3. National Strategy for the Development of Regional Nutrient Criteria (1998) • EPA recommended states adopt region-specific water quality criteria in 14 Level III Ecoregions

  4. 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

  5. State Progress in Last Decade

  6. EPA’s National Nutrient StrategyNancy Stoner’s Memo (March 16, 2011) • Prioritize watersheds • Watershed load reduction goals • Ensure effectiveness of point source permits in targeted watersheds • Agricultural areas • Stormwater and septic systems • Accountability and verification of measures • Public reporting • Develop work plan and schedule for numeric criteria development* *Flexible timetable provided the state is making meaningful near-term reductions (3-5 years)

  7. 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?

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Chesapeake Bay TMDL Image Source: WRI 2010, Chesapeake Bay Program • 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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.”

  14. Mississippi River Basin Missouri = 9.6% Missouri = 12.1% Source: USGS 2008

  15. 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

  16. 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 EPA Nutrient Criteria for Florida’s Streams Source: 75 FR 75773; December 6, 2010 Note: Annual geometric mean; 1-in-3 year exceedance frequency

  17. 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

  18. 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, …”

  19. 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

  20. 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)

  21. TMDL Wasteload Allocations

  22. Missouri Lake Nutrient Criteria • Total Phosphorus 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

  23. 2010 303(d) Lakes/Reservoirs Listed for Nutrients and/or Algae TMDLs May Affect All NPDES Permits In Watershed 36 Lakes Impaired By Nutrients

  24. 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

  25. 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)

  26. Treatment Costs • Secondary treatment • Biological nutrient removal (BNR) • Enhanced nutrient removal (ENR) • Limits of technology (LOT) • Reverse osmosis (RO) Adapted from Jiang et al. 2005 Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., Nutrients Discharge Permitting and Wastewater Treatment Workshop (Apr 29, 2010)

  27. Innovative Solutions Needed • Multiple Drivers Force Innovative Solutions • Economic Considerations • Sustainability Considerations • Energy Use • Chemical Use • Greenhouse Gases • Establish Priorities with Limited Resources

  28. 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)

  29. 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

  30. 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

  31. 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!

  32. Thanks for the Opportunity! For further information: Trent Stober, PE Geosyntec Consultants 1123 Wilkes Blvd., Suite 400 Columbia, Missouri 65201 Phone: 573.443.4100 Email: tstober@geosyntec.com

More Related