Local Limit Challenges in the Real World

Transcription

1 9/26/2012 Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. Local Limit Challenges in the Real World MWEA Annual IPP Seminar September 19, 2012 Jerald O. Thaler, P.E. Previously Local Limit Essentials for the IPP Professional MWEA IPP Spring Training, May 2008 Basics of IPP Permitting MWEA IPP Summer Camp, September 2010 Presentations available under Industrial Pretreatment tab at 1

2 9/26/2012 General Review Regulations Federal (FIPP) Promulgated in early 1980s 40 CFR Part 403 For POTWs with design flow >5 mgd Michigan (MIPP) Promulgated in mid 1990s Part 23 Rules For POTWs with design flow <5 mgd 2

3 9/26/2012 Purpose of Local Limits Protect POTW from adverse effects due to industrial discharges Standard POCs Compatibles Biochemical Oxygen Demand* Total Suspended Solids* Ammonia Nitrogen* Total Phosphorus Fats, Oil & Grease *USEPA-designated National POC Toxics Arsenic* Cadmium* Chromium* Copper* Cyanide* Lead* Mercury* Molybdenum* Nickel* Selenium* Silver* Zinc* 3

4 9/26/2012 Maximum Allowable Headworks Loadings MAHL is not-to-exceed influent mass to protect wastewater treatment plant Criteria for compatibles: Pass-through Basis of design Criteria for toxics: Pass-through Sludge quality Biological inhibition City of Petoskey, MI Maximum Allowable Industrial Loadings MAIL is portion of MAHL pie available for allocation to industrial users, including septage MAHL Safety Factor MAIL Background 4

5 9/26/2012 MAIL Allocation Uniform method most common Equal concentration assigned to all SIUs, regardless of need Example: 10 mgd POTW 0.5 mgd SIUs MAHL = 4,000 lb/day Safety Factor 10% MAHL MAIL Background SIUs mg/l mg/l Collection System Limitations CSL is not-to-exceed discharge concentration to protect receiving sewer Criteria for compatibles: Corrosion Flow blockage Criteria for toxics: Fume toxicity Fire/Explosion City of Mount Clemens, MI Courier-Journal/Louisville, KY 5

6 9/26/2012 Regulation of SIUs Identify users to be permitted Characterize discharge Flows Pollutant concentrations Control via permit limits, self-monitoring, etc. Observe with surveillance inspections/sampling Enforce as necessary Permitting SIUs Identify applicable POCs early to focus efforts Use standardized procedure to ensure permits are rational, yet effective Recommend selection of permit conditions based on reasonable potential to: Cause pass-through or interference Exceed applicable limits 6

7 9/26/2012 Reasonable Potential Based on Michigan Rule Potential Effluent Quality (PEQ) Maximum representative sample multiplied by uncertainty factor Recommend inclusion in permit if: PEQ >50% applicable limit PEQ-based mass >5% MAIL Categorical pollutant Other concerns Uncertainty Factor If D<10: N= > > > > If D>10: N>1 1.0 Applications Local limits straightforward to apply, in theory Real world does not always cooperate Most common challenges based on experience: User-specific POCs More flexible local limits Inadequate monitoring data 7

8 9/26/2012 User-Specific POCs User-Specific POCs What if no local limit for a proposed pollutant discharge e.g., Short-term remediation projects Temporary discharges Still have responsibility to protect POTW Recommended procedure: Identify potential POCs Calculate Local Initiative Limits Evaluate PEQ based on reasonable potential 8

9 9/26/2012 Local Initiative Limits (LILs) Based on standard local limit methodology, with simplifying assumptions: Nondetectable effluent Zero removal Negligible background Use more conservative safety factor Obtain MDEQ concurrence User-specific; not codified into Sewer Use Ordinance Example MichCon Remediation Site/Ann Arbor Former coal gasification plant fronting Huron River Temporary discharge during excavation dewatering Flow up to 360,000 gal/day 9

10 9/26/2012 MichCon Remediation Site/Ann Arbor Variable cocktail of petroleum hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons No current local limits for organics City retained FTC&H as consultant to: Identify potential POCs Calculate LILs Evaluate PEQ Recommend permit conditions MichCon Remediation Site/Ann Arbor Potential POCs: 10

11 9/26/2012 MichCon Remediation Site/Ann Arbor Local Initiative Limits: MichCon Remediation Site/Ann Arbor Potential Effluent Quality: 11

12 9/26/2012 MichCon Remediation Site/Ann Arbor Permit Conditions: More Flexible Local Limits 12

13 9/26/2012 More Flexible Local Limits Is there a way to add more flexibility to permit limits e.g., Accommodate special needs of certain SIUs Optimize use of available capacity Several allocation alternatives: Uniform, Industrial Contribution, Mass Proportion, Tiered Each has advantages and disadvantages None are particularly flexible Other Options A POTW may select any allocation and implementation method that results in enforceable local limits to: Prevent pass-through and interference Comply with prohibitions in the Federal regulations 13

14 9/26/2012 Special Allocation Limits (SALs) Growing use of SALs in Michigan Wyoming Flint Genesee County Lansing Ann Arbor (Bay City) Not complicated; reduce to standard local limits Ultimate flexibility to accommodate special needs Particularly suitable to current times Lower flows; more available capacity for compatibles Opportunity to enhance surcharge revenues SAL Development Use uniform allocation with selected reserve Example: 10 mgd POTW 0.5 mgd SIUs MAHL = 4,000 lb/day Standard SIUs mg/l Safety Factor MAIL Background Reserve 400 lb/day (25% MAIL) 14

15 9/26/2012 SAL Development When assign SAL, deduct excess from reserve Example: 10 mgd POTW 0.5 mgd SIUs MAHL = 4,000 lb/day Standard SIUs mg/l SIU with SAL mg/l MAIL Safety Factor Background Reserve 250 lb/day (15% MAIL) SAL Implementation Same technical basis as traditional local limits (MAHL, MAIL, CSL, and uniform allocation) Somewhat more rigorous permitting process Need accurate self-monitoring by SIU with SAL Constraints: Total POTW mass cannot exceed MAHL Total allocated mass, including septage, cannot exceed MAIL Assigned limit cannot exceed CSL 15

16 9/26/2012 Mass Accounting Software METROPOLITAN WWTP "POLLUTANT A" Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading (MAHL) 4,000 lb./day - Safety 10% of MAHL 400 lb./day - Background µg/l 1,933 lb./day = Maximum Allowable Industrial Loading (MAIL) 1,667 lb./day - Septage 0 0 µg/l 0 lb./day - Allocated to SIUs 1,417 lb./day Reserve Balance 250 lb./day 15% of MAIL Significant Industrial User Allocated Flow Allocated Concentration Allocated Mass Acme Manufacturing mg/l 63 lb./day American Chemical mg/l 292 lb./day Smith Foods mg/l 688 lb./day XYZ Automotive mg/l 375 lb./day Allocated to SIUs 1,417 lb./day Inadequate Monitoring Data 16

17 9/26/2012 Inadequate Monitoring Data Can local limits be determined without a sufficient database e.g., Background quantification levels too high Lacking septage quality information Nondetectable influent and effluent Required to use site-specific data, if possible Back-up values available from USEPA Based on studies from Some outdated analytical methods No geographical correlation IPP Committee Database Conducted Michigan POTW survey during 1990s Led by Jack Keys Focused on limits, not monitoring data Update to survey update warranted in 2012 Focus on monitoring data, not limits Subcommittee: Jerry Thaler FTC&H John Mrozek Port Huron Water Reclamation Facility Technical assistance: Nicholas Thaler MSU Department of Chemical Engineering 17

18 9/26/ Survey Contributors POTWs Albion Allegan Alpena Ann Arbor Big Rapids Cadillac Charlotte Coldwater Delhi Township Delta Township Flint Genesee County/Argentine Genesee County/Linden Genesee County/Ragnone Grand Haven - Spring Lake Grand Rapids Holland Holly Ionia Ithaca Lansing Lapeer POTWs (cont'd) Marquette Midland Monroe Mount Clemens Muskegon County Otsego Owosso Paw Paw US Army Corps of Engineers Petoskey Port Huron Saline Southern Clinton County Municipal Utilities Authorty South Huron Valley Utility Authority Traverse City Walled Lake-Novi Wayne County Downriver Wyoming Ypsilanti Community Utility Authority Consultants Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber United Water Survey Conditions Differentiate among types of POTW systems Post-2000 data for standard POCs: Background concentrations Septage concentrations Overall removals Based on actual sampling (i.e., not assumed) Report when minimum of at least three POTWs Full availability to members and conference attendees 18

19 9/26/2012 Survey Summary Background USEPA* Average Michigan POTWs** Average mg/l mg/l Compatibles: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (N = 34 ; D= 34) Total Suspended Solids (N = 34 ; D= 34) Ammonia Nitrogen (N = 30 ; D= 30) Total Phosphorus (N = 34 ; D= 34) Fats, Oil & Grease (N = 25 ; D= 25) µg/l µg/l Toxics: Arsenic (N = 35 ; D= 26) Cadmium (N = 35 ; D= 16) Chromium (N = 33 ; D= 22) Copper (N = 38 ; D= 38) Cyanides (N = 31 ; D= 15) Lead (N = 37 ; D= 32) Mercury (N = 29 ; D= 25) Molybdenum (N = 24 ; D= 18) Nickel (N = 32 ; D= 25) Selenium (N = 27 ; D= 17) Silver (N = 37 ; D= 27) Zinc (N = 38 ; D= 38) * Local Limits Development Guidance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004 **Average is median if D>10; mean if D<10 Survey Summary Septage USEPA* Average Michigan POTWs** Average mg/l mg/l Compatibles: Biochemical Oxygen Demand 6,480 3,200 (N = 9 ; D= 9) Total Suspended Solids 12,862 11,300 (N = 9 ; D= 9) Ammonia Nitrogen (N = 7 ; D= 7) Total Phosphorus (N = 8 ; D= 8) Fats, Oil & Grease 5, (N = 6 ; D= 6) ug/l ug/l Toxics: Arsenic (N = 8 ; D= 8) Cadmium (N = 8 ; D= 8) Chromium (N = 8 ; D= 8) Copper 4,840 8,300 (N = 8 ; D= 8) Cyanides (N = 8 ; D= 8) Lead 1, (N = 8 ; D= 8) Mercury (N = 6 ; D= 6) Molybdenum (N = 7 ; D= 7) Nickel (N = 8 ; D= 8) Selenium (N = 7 ; D= 6) Silver (N = 8 ; D= 7) Zinc 9,970 15,300 (N = 8 ; D= 8) The Pretreatment Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,1991 * Supplemental Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under **Average is median if D>10; mean if D<10 19

20 Probability of Less Than Indicated Value Probability of Less Than Indicated Value Probability of Less Than Indicated Value Probability of Less Than Indicated Value Probability of Less Than Indicated Value 9/26/2012 Removal Curves - Compatibles e.g., Biochemical Oxygen Demand Suspended Growth Systems 1.0 Mich POTWs (>5 mgd) 0.9 Mich POTWs (<5 mgd) Removal Efficiency, % Fixed-Film Systems 1.0 Mich POTWs Removal Efficiency, % Facultative Lagoon Systems Mich POTWs Removal Efficiency, % Removal Curves - Toxics e.g., Arsenic Suspended Growth Systems USEPA Mich POTWs Removal Efficiency, % Fixed-Film Systems Mich POTWs Removal Efficiency, % 20

21 9/26/2012 Survey Summary Removals USEPA* Michigan POTWs** Suspended Growth Fixed-Film Suspended Growth Fixed-Film Facultative Lagoon Median Median Average Average Average % % % % % CompatiblesBiochemical Oxygen Demand (N = 16) 98 (N = 7) 96 (N = 4) Total Suspended Solids (N = 16) 96 (N = 7) 90 (N = 4) Ammonia Nitrogen (N = 11) 96 (N = 4) 98 (N = 4) Total Phosphorus (N = 15) 92 (N = 6) 90 (N = 4) Fats, Oil & Grease (N = 13) 94 (N = 3) -- (N = 2) % % % % % Toxics: Arsenic (N = 17) 70 (N = 3) -- (N = 2) Cadmium (N = 14) 67 (N = 3) -- (N = 2) Chromium (N = 19) 43 (N = 3) -- (N = 2) Copper (N = 25) 87 (N = 7) 90 (N = 3) Cyanides (N = 12) -- (N = 2) -- (N = 1) Lead (N = 22) 83 (N = 6) -- (N = 2) Mercury (N = 21) -- (N = 2) -- (N = 1) Molybdenum (N = 15) 20 (N = 4) -- (N = 2) Nickel (N = 20) 34 (N = 4) -- (N = 2) Selenium (N = 11) 31 (N = 4) -- (N = 0) Silver (N = 22) 68 (N = 6) -- (N = 2) Zinc (N = 24) 85 (N = 7) 88 (N = 3) * Local Limits Development Guidance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2004 **Average is median if D>10; mean if D<10 Perspective To help address local limit challenges in the real world: Know the basics (MAHLs, MAILs, CSLs, etc.) Apply a standardized permitting procedure Consider SALs if have special needs Use 2012 MWEA survey data for back-up Get help if needed 21

22 9/26/2012 Questions and Discussion For further information, contact: Jerald O. Thaler, P.E. Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. Lansing, Michigan / jothaler@ftch.com Key Nomenclature Allocation Distribution of MAIL among SIUs CSL Collection System Limitation MAHL Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading MAIL Maximum Allowable Industrial Loading POC Pollutant of Concern POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works SALs Special Allocation Limits SIU Significant Industrial User 22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48