Point

1
Point Non Point Sources What Other Permit
Challenges are Coming?
Rick Cantu Manchester EPD rcantu_at_manchesternh.go
v [phone] June 13, 2013
2
What Well Cover Today

• Cot 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

3
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

4
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 gt200,000 gpd

5
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

6
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

7
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
8
Historic Mean (7Q10)
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, MA May 8,730 (13.77) 11,800 June
4,680 (7.38) 6,650 July 2,630
(4,15) 3,640 August 2,170 (3.42) 3,040 Sep
tember 2,240 (3.53) 3,160 October 3,390
(5.35) 4,650 November 5,010 (7.9) 7,010
Manchester WWTP 7Q10 634 cfs
9
NHDES Sampling Data
Below is the data that was used in our 2007
Permit Renewal to justify an in-stream Aluminum
of 87 ug/l
Date Downstream
Upstream June 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
The key missing piece is river cfs data so it is
difficult to determine the river volume.
10
Total Recoverable Aluminum (Clean Sampling
Techniques)
.480 - 6/05
.334 7/06
.195 6/06
.11 7/05
11
Acid Soluble Aluminum (ASA)
12
Al River Study Key Data Sets
Date 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
13
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

14
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 gt 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)

15
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.

16
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

17
MS4 Current Focus

• Nutrients (Nitrogen, Phosphorus)
• Chlorophyll-a (Algal Growth)
• Dissolved Oxygen (gt5 mg/l all grabs)
• Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (gt75)
• Bacteria
• Secchi Disk Transparancey
• pH
• Chloride

18
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
• Benzog,h,iperylene
• Biphenyl
• Chrysene
• DDD, DDE, DDT
• Dieldrin
• Fluoranthene
• Pyrene
• Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
• Phenanthrene

19
http//iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_state.control?p_stateNHp_cyclep_report_typeTwqs_attainment http//iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_state.control?p_stateNHp_cyclep_report_typeTwqs_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
20
Taste Odor Source Location
http//iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_impaired_waters
.control?p_cause_nameTASTE AND
ODORp_stateNHp_cycle2010p_report_typeT
Waterbody Name Map Location
Little Cohas Brook, CWS Waterbody Map 010700060804, LITTLE COHAS BROOK, COLD WATER FISHERY
21
Taste Odor TMDL
http//iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_impaired_waters.control?p_cause_nameTASTE AND ODORp_stateNHp_cycle2010p_report_typeT http//iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_impaired_waters.control?p_cause_nameTASTE AND ODORp_stateNHp_cycle2010p_report_typeT
Cause of Impairment Number of Causes of Impairment
Taste and Odor 1
22
http//iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/attains_waterbody.contr
ol?p_list_idNHRIV700060804-05p_cycle2010p_repo
rt_typeT
Cause of Impairment Cause of Impairment Group TMDL Status
Benthic Macroinvertebrates Bioassessments Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota TMDL needed
Chloride Salinity/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 Mercury TMDL completed
Taste and Odor Taste, Color and Odor TMDL needed
pH pH/Acidity/Caustic Conditions TMDL needed
23
How Accurate are the TMDLs?
AECOM 2011 12 ug/l target Current
Reduction Atmospheric 3.96 lb/yr
3.96 lb/yr 0 Internal
0 lb/yr 8.14
lb/yr 100 Waterfowl
2.2 lb/yr 2.2 lb/yr
0 Tannery Brook 26 lb/yr
91 lb/yr 71 Watershed Drainage
37.2 lb/yr 125.6 lb/yr
70 Total 69.36 lb/yr
230.9 lb/yr 70
161.54 lb/yr
CEI 2009 15 ug/l target Current
Reduction Atmospheric 15.62
lb/yr Internal 20.9
lb/yr East Inlet 68.05
lb/yr South Inlet 22.13
lb/yr West Inlet
13.02 lb/yr South Inlet 22.13
lb/yr Total 86.32 lb/yr
161.32 lb/yr 47
24
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
25
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.

26
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.

27
Premise of TMDL - Nutrients

• Remember Dovers List of Impairments?
• What you dont know will definitely COT 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)

28
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!

29
What You Need to Do!

• 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!

30
The Beginning Any ?