Water Quality Standards-based Effluent Limitations: Fate versus Self-determination

1. Water Quality Standards-based Effluent Limitations:Fate versus Self-determination Bill Van Derveer

2. Objectives • Describe water quality standards (WQS) development process • Characterize potential effects of water quality standards-based effluent limits (WQSBELs) on WWTFs, ratepayers, & industrial users • Describe how WQS can be refined to increase site-specificity and achieve statutory objectives • Demonstrate benefits of discharger participation in WQS adoption processes • Propose an approach for discharger involvement in WQS adoption processes

3. Provide Service at Minimal Cost & Impact Avoiding Environmental Protection Premise Ratepayers Ratepayers Convert a Societal Environmentalists Waste to a Resource Statutes/Regulations Industrial Users Regulators Ratepayer, Environmental, & Industrial Objectives Achieved Involvement in WQS process facilitates objectives achievement

4. Conventional Definitions Fate An inevitable and often adverse outcome Self-determination Determination of one's own fate or course of action WQS Context Definitions Fate WQS defined by regulators, environmental groups, and special interests, although WWTF may be most affected through WQSBELs Self-determination WWTF participation yields WQS that reflect site-specific conditions and assure environmental protection: Improving WQSBEL accuracy Controlling WWTF cost/risk Fate vs. Self-determination

5. Federal Clean Water Act State Water Quality Act National Water Quality Criteria State Water Quality Standards State Use Classifications Segment Water Quality Standards Segment Use Classifications TMDLs & Antidegradation Reasonable Potential Analysis WQSBELs Pathway to WQSBELs

6. Parameters Subject to WQSBELs • Ammonia • Metals/metalloids • Some anions (e.g., sulfate & chloride) • Nutrients (nitrogen & phosphorus) • Future • Organic compounds (e.g., consumer pesticides) • Pharmaceuticals & personal care products (e.g., antibiotics) • Endocrine distruptors WWTFs are not designed to treat most WQSBEL parameters

7. Potential Effects of WQSBELs on WWTFs No Effect (WQSBEL >> Effluent Conc.) Decreased Infrastructure Value/Life Require Capital Improvements Increased Noncompliance Risk Stringent Pretreatment Local Limits WQSBELs Reduced Operational Flexibility Sophisticated Compliance Systems

8. Anatomy of a WQSBEL Water Quality Standard Stream Low Flow Stream + Effluent Flow Stream Background Effluent Limit Effluent Design Flow

9. Regional Importance of WQSBELs • WQS is only parameter in WQSBEL equation that can be significantly modified • Effluent dominated/dependent waters common in arid/semi-arid West • WQS applied with little or no dilution

10. Why Refine WQS? • Clean Water Act: “Restore & maintain the physical, chemical, & biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” • Aquatic life WQS tend to be most stringent • Most WQS are one-size-fits-all • Intended to protect nearly all species in U.S. • Small toxicological data sets for most pollutants • Driven by most sensitive species • Data characteristics yield conservative estimates of “safe” concentrations • Limited site-specific adjustment • Hardness-based metals • pH- & temperature-based ammonia • National criteria may be a poor fit for some sites • Regulatory provisions for improving accuracy of WQS at the site level

11. Potential Differences Between National Database & Specific Site • Simple laboratory exposures vs. complex ecosystem • Different species composition & relative sensitivities • Constituents of natural waters effect bioavailability • Variation in pollutant form or species • Aquatic cycling processes & food web structure • Waterbody type: Streams vs. Lakes/Reservoirs • Habitat type: Erosional vs. depositional • Hydraulic residence time • Exposure routes, frequencies & duration • Bioaccumulation potential

12. WQS Refinement Opportunities for a Hypothetical Population of Sites WQS Refinement Candidates National Criterion

13. WQS Refinement Alternatives • EPA Recalculation Procedure • EPA Resident Species Procedure • EPA Indicator Species / Water Effect Ratio Procedure • Biotic ligand model • Other scientific basis • Ambient-based WQS • Natural or uncontrollable human-caused conditions • Seasonal implementation or modification (ELS) • Temporary modification • Uncertainty regarding appropriate WQS • Re-segmentation • To focus WQS refinement efforts • Change designated use

14. WQSBEL Sensitivity Analysis ~4.2:1 Greater than 1:1 return in WQSBEL ~1.6:1 ~1.3:1 Minimum return is 1:1 Assumes: Stream low flow = 5 cfs, Stream background = 2 ug/L

15. Recommended Approach & Resource Allocation Segment  Federal  State  Segment • Receiving water monitoring (15% of resources) Objective • Understand physical, chemical & biological characteristics • USGS partnership or watershed association • National criteria development, adoption, or modification (10% of resources) Objectives • Ensure adequacy of underlying data, analysis, & assumptions • Promote flexibility for subsequent refinement • Monitor Federal initiatives • Federal/trade publications, web sites, & email distributions • Influence Federal actions • Provide input to National/regional trade organizations & coalitions • Prepare independent comments

16. Recommended Approach (cont’d) • Statewide WQS development, adoption, or modification (35% of resources) Objectives • Ensure relevance of National criteria to statewide conditions • Ensure adequacy of State’s underlying data, analysis, & assumptions • Ensure flexibility for site-level refinement • Monitor Statewide initiatives • Review State publications and web sites • Participate in trade associations/councils • Attend informational hearings • Influence Statewide actions • Participate in stakeholder groups • Participate in trade associations/councils & coalitions • Submit independent comments and/or provide testimony

17. Recommended Approach (cont’d) • Segment WQS adoption or modification (40% of resources) Objectives • Ensure WQS are protective but not over-protective • Secure site-specific refinement if appropriate • Plan for upcoming hearings • Define potential issues • Identify stakeholders & their perspectives • Perform site-specific studies • Plan & execute in advance of hearings whenever possible • Promote stakeholder involvement • Participate in hearings • Seek regulatory agency acceptance in prehearing statement • Provide independent written & oral testimony

18. Return on Investment Analysis Relatively small cost avoidance = positive ROI

19. Potential Outcomes • Relevant National/statewide standards • Refinement is unnecessary • Site-specific WQS refinement • Less stringent: WWTF, ratepayer, & industrial impacts reduced • Refinement is effort unsuccessful • More stringent: greater environmental protection justified • Regardless of WQS refinement success • Improved positioning for permit renewal • More data for reasonable potential analysis, antidegradation reviews, & WQSBELs • Greater understanding of compliance risks/priorities • Information to refine capital improvement plans & budget • Data availability of other regulatory issues • 305B reporting, 303(d) list issues, & TMDL development

20. Conclusions • WQSBELs can have manifold impacts on WWTFs, ratepayers, & industrial users • Involvement in WQS process allows WWTFs to (partially) determine their regulatory fate • National or statewide WQS can be a poor fit to a given site • Site-specific WQS refinement can help manage WWTF impacts and achieve statutory objectives • Portfolio of WWTF efforts is recommended • Greatest emphasis on segment & statewide levels • Significant positive return on investment is likely • Yields peripheral benefits regardless of success at WQS refinement