Water Quality Standardsbased Effluent Limitations: Fate versus Selfdetermination

1
Water Quality Standards-based Effluent
LimitationsFate 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
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
Fate vs. Self-determination

• 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

5
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
Decreased Infrastructure Value/Life
No Effect (WQSBEL gtgt Effluent Conc.)
Require Capital Improvements
Stringent Pretreatment Local Limits
Increased Noncompliance Risk
WQSBELs
Sophisticated Compliance Systems
Reduced Operational Flexibility
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
  Nations 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
4.21
Greater than 11 return in WQSBEL
1.61
1.31
Minimum return is 11
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 (contd)

• Statewide WQS development, adoption, or
  modification (35 of resources)
• Objectives
• Ensure relevance of National criteria to
  statewide conditions
• Ensure adequacy of States 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 (contd)

• 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