NUTRIENT TRADING AND PERMITTING

Transcription

1 COLORADO WATER QUALITY FORUM NUTRIENT TRADING AND PERMITTING Dave Akers Barbara Biggs, Roxborough Water & Sanitation District David L. Clark, HDR Engineering, Inc. May 21, HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.

2 Colorado Trading History Need for Trading Perspectives on Successful Approaches Innovative Approaches Moving Forward

3 1 COLORADO TRADING HISTORY

4 Colorado s Robust Trading History Dates to 1984 Regulation to Protect Dillon Reservoir Recognized as an Important Element in the Regulatory Fiscal Analysis o Recognized Value of Trading to Lower the Cost of Treatment Plant Improvements Several Similar Reservoir Protection Regulations Followed Suit in the 80s Each Had Trading Programs Suited to the Particular Watershed

5 Trading History - Examples Innovative, Flexible, Approaches to Meet WQ Goals and the Needs of Dischargers Non-Point Trades Favored Where There Was a Large Load Allocation Component in the TMDL Increasing the Wasteload Allocation to Allow for Expansion Concentration-Based Point Source to Point Source Trading for Smaller Facilities to Meet Reg. Limit

6 Colorado Trading Policy Colorado Pollutant Trading Policy Adopted in 2004 Encouraged by EPA s Adoption of a Trading Policy in 2003 Purpose to Expand Trading to a Statewide Program Seemed Ripe Given the Emerging Emphasis on TMDLs and Anticipated Nutrient Standards Policy Adoption Didn t Jump-Start Trading as Hoped

7 Trading Policy Implementation Trading Under the Policy Never Took Off Yet, Trading Under Reservoir Regulations Continued as Before New Territory for the Majority of Colorado s Discharger Community More Complex System for the State to Implement in Permits Anticipated Drivers (e.g., Adoption of Nutrient Standards) Didn t Happen Quickly

8 2 NEED FOR TRADING

9 Need for Trading Giving Large Point Sources Flexibility to Meet Total Nitrogen and Other Standards Set at the Edge of Technology Trading May Be the Only Option for Many Small Dischargers to Meet Nutrient Standards Reducing Treatment Costs in an Increasingly Competitive Municipal Budget Atmosphere Making Progress to Reduce Non-Point Source Pollutant Loads Achieving the Colorado Goal of Meeting Standards in All Waters by 2050

10 Dissecting the Problem Trading is Outside of the Normal NPDES Control Pollutants at the Source Approach Although Done in A Stakeholder Process the Policy Wasn t Well Publicized to the Broader Community Trading as a Tool to Achieve Water Quality Standards Not Emphasized by the State No Communication With Watershed/Discharger Groups to Emphasize Environmental Benefit/Cost Savings

11 3 Perspectives on Successful Approaches

12 Model Nutrient Discharge Permits Features Focus on Water Quality Linkages o Predictive WQ Models o Probabilistic Analysis Effluent Variability and Reliability o Technology Performance Statistics Long Averaging Periods o Seasonal or Annual Preferred Mass Loadings o Supports Trading, Offsets, Reuse, etc. Include Compliance Schedule o Watershed Perspectives Adaptive Management Benefits Water Quality Improvements Successful Compliance Technically Achievable Adaptive Management Opportunities o Monitor Receiving Water Response o Adapt Treatment Process Over Time o Develop Trades and Offsets o Quantify and Manage Nonpoint Sources o Consider Sustainability

13 Las Vegas Wash/Lake Mead Phosphorus Limits Las Vegas, Clark County, Henderson, NV Constituent Total Phosphorus City of Las Vegas IWLA Clark County Sanitation District IWLA City of Henderson IWLA 123 lb/day 173 lb/day 38 lb/day Total Ammonia 358 lb/day 502 lb/day 110 lb/day IWLA = Individual Waste Load Allocation Sum of Waste Load Allocations ΣWLA 334 lb/day Note: This WLA only applies March 1 - October 31; no limit applies the rest of the year. Nonpoint source load is 100 lb/day. 970 lb/day Note: This WLA only applies April 1 - September 30; no limit applies the rest of the year. No non-point source load.

14 Clean Water Services (CWS), Oregon Tualatin River Phosphorus Monthly and Seasonal Medians Bubble Permits New Seasonal Discharge (Outfall F001A) for Forest Grove WWTF

15 Permit Structure Comparison Example: Future Effluent Limits Drop from 1 mg/l to 0.5 mg/l Concentration Only Limits: Plant Effluent 0.5 mg/l Mass Only Limits: Plant Effluent 1 mg/l + Offset/Trade/Reuse Regulatory Issues 40 CFR (d) requires that all permit limits be expressed as average monthly limits and average weekly limits for publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) and as both average monthly limits and maximum daily limits for all others, unless impracticable. Effluent Limits Technically Attainable Now Future Trading and Offsets Supports Creative Effluent Management and Watershed Solutions Reuse, Recharge, Restoration, etc (Load Diversions) Concentration Only Yes? No No Concentration and Mass Yes? No No Mass Only Yes Perhaps Yes Yes

16 Permit Flexibility for Trading, Offsets, Reuse, etc. Mass Based Effluent Limits Straightforward Trades o Simple and Clear Concentration Based Limits Requires Calculations

17 Avoiding Barriers and Disincentives to Trading Over Specifying Effluent Limits o Concentration and Mass Limits o Monthly and Weekly Limits Excessive Trading Ratios Anti-Backsliding o Avoiding No Good Deed Goes Unpunished Bozeman and Kalispell, Montana» Performance Based Effluent Limits Reduced Under-loaded Facilities Less Than Design Flows and Loadings Early Results

18 TMDL Load Allocations and Qualifying Credits for NPS- PS Trades Because TMDL load allocations (LAs) are not part of DEQ s nonpoint source baseline, the proposed trading policy would allow for generation of trading credits before a nonpoint source LA has been met. While EPA understands and agrees with DEQ s position that any nutrient reduction benefits the environment, we differ on what constitutes an allowable trading credit. Generating trading credits before a nonpoint source LA has been met is problematic because of the relationship between TMDLs and the permitting process. Under its draft Trading Policy, DEQ could issue a permit that allows the permittee to buy credits from nonpoint sources to meet its permit limits, even though the nonpoint sources have not met their LAs under the TMDL. Region 8 EPA Letter to Montana DEQ, June 15, 2011

19 4 Innovative Approaches

20 Spokane County Service Area and Septic Elimination Program Spokane County Regional Water Reclamation Facility Sewer Service Area

21 Spokane County, WA Septic System Elimination Offset Existing Systems o Records of Sewer Service in o 3,415 recorded as existing structures o 2,770 recorded as new construction o 4,228 recorded as no type defined Future Systems o Eliminate ~800 per Year o Remainder by 2015 o Total 2006 to 2015 ~8,600 Total Eliminated from 2001 to 2015 ~15,800

22 Delta Offset Requirements for Spokane County Regional Water Reclamation Facility Original TMDL Total Phosphorus 8 ug/l (0.008 mg/l) o Combination of Treatment Technology, Plus o Reuse, Recharge, Wetlands Restoration, and Nonpoint Source Reductions Final TMDL Total Phosphorus mg/l CBOD 2 mg/l Ammonia-N 0.21 mg/l Limits of Treatment Technology Target Delta Elimination Phosphorus Concentration 50 µg/l P 8 µg/l P Loading at 8 mgd 3.34 lbs/day 0.53 lbs/day 2.8 lbs/day

23 Minneapolis Met Council (MCES) Mississippi River Bubble Discharge Permit for Phosphorus Total Phosphorus Limit 5 Facilities Facility Name Average Wet Weather Design Flow, mgd Treatment Process Description Eagles Point 11.9 Biological Phosphorus Removal Empire 28.6 Biological Phosphorus Removal Hastings 2.69 Conventional Activated Sludge Metropolitan 314 Biological Phosphorus Removal Hastings 38 Biological Phosphorus Removal Parameter Limit Limit Type Total Phosphorus Total Phosphorus 159,349 kg/yr 12 Month Moving Total kg/day Calendar Month Average Effective Period Jan - Dec Jan - Dec Sample Frequency 1X Month 1 X Month

24 San Francisco Bay Nutrient Watershed Permit Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA) 37 Dischargers Cumulative Permitted Discharge ~860 mgd Serving 6.5 Million People

25 San Francisco Bay Nutrient Watershed Permit 1. Evaluate the Potential Nutrient Discharge Reduction by Treatment Optimization and Side-Stream Treatment This evaluation focuses on options and costs for nutrient discharge reduction by optimization of current treatment works and side-stream treatment opportunities. 2. Evaluate the Potential Nutrient Discharge Reduction by Treatment Upgrades or Other Means This evaluation focuses on identification of options and costs for potential treatment upgrades for nutrient removal. 3. Support Monitoring, Modeling, and Embayment Studies This provision focuses on a science plan development and implementation, as well as monitoring nutrients in receiving waters.

26 City of Boise, ID Snake River-Hells Canyon TMDL o TP 0.70 mg/l 2012 West Boise Facility NPDES Permit o Phosphorus Load Offset for Dixie Drain 2015 Boise River Phosphorus TMDL o TP mg/l & mg/l 2018 IPDES Permit Renewal o Bubble Permit for 3 Facilities

27 Dixie Drain Ag Return Drainage Phosphorus Removal Offsets West Boise Facility Phosphorus Discharge o Incorporated Into NPDES o 1.5:1 Trading Ratio

28 Boise IPDES Permit Renewal & Compliance Flexibility 2018 IPDES Permit Renewal o Bubble Permit for 3 Facilities West Boise Facility Lander Street Facility Dixie Drain» Incorporate 1.5:1 TP Trading Ratio o Adaptive Management Optimization Opportunities» Treatment Technology» Operations» Economics

29 Example Wet Weather Diversion to Surface Water with Nonpoint Source Offset Diversion of High Quality Recycled Water Diversion Under Emergency Conditions Water Quality Analysis Demonstrates Algal Growth Potential is Limited During Diversion Permit Incorporates Nonpoint Source Nutrient Offset o Natural Treatment System for Urban Drainage o Trading Ratio 1.5:1 o Offset Accrual in Multi-Year Period

30 5 Moving Forward

31 Moving Forward Even With Familiarity/Support for Trading Trust Between Regulator and Regulated is Paramount Leadership at the State Show Internal and External Support for Trading Engage Watershed and Environmental Groups to Enlist Their Support Support Use of Demonstrated Successful Approaches

32