MIDWEST REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS DRIVING WATER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS

Transcription

1 MIDWEST REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS DRIVING WATER TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS COMMENTS OF STEPHEN N. HAUGHEY, ESQ. MEMBER, ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE GROUP FROST BROWN TODD LLC German-American Chamber of Commerce of the Midwest, Inc. GACC Midwest Water Technology Roundtable October 28,

2 I. INTRODUCTION. Regulatory Developments That Impact Water Technology Innovation In The Midwest Are Frequently Driven By The Presence Of An Abundance Of Water, Often Too Much Water, As Opposed To Other Areas Of The U.S. Where Scarcity Of Water Is Frequently The Driving Force. A. Flooding erosion/scouring of stream banks and substrates, leading to degradation of water quality. B. Excess water infiltrating/inflowing into storm and sanitary sewer systems, causing backups, overflows, premature failure of pipes and pump stations, additional treatment costs, etc. 2

3 3 Midwest Climate, Topography And Land Use Dominated By Hot, Humid Summers, Flat Terrain, Glacial Deposits, Large Agricultural Regions, And Concentrated Metropolitan Areas. A. Wide, shallow, slow-moving rivers, lacking in natural aeration features like steep gradients and cobblestone substrates, reducing assimilative capacity for pollutants, and promoting production of nuisance algae. Shallow lakes with same problems. B. Agricultural areas dominated by drainage tiles, with annual fertilizer application. C. Urban areas dramatically alter riparian corridor, adding low-head dams for flood control, removing canopy, straightening streams, diking banks, etc. D. Glacial deposits promote use of groundwater for potable systems.

4 II. WASTEWATER INNOVATIONS. 4 A. Nutrient (Phosphorus And Nitrogen) Limits. Ohio EPA developing a nutrient index that will guide numeric limits for all point source discharges of nutrients. Phosphorus limits likely to start at 0.5 mg/l, and as low as 0.1 mg/l. Traditional technologies of alum or ferric addition and filtration, and biological treatment, unable to consistently achieve limits below 1.0 mg/l, and create issues of TDS discharge. Membrane technology is the wave of the future, but still has limitations.

5 B. Aerobic Versus Anaerobic Biological Treatment Of Wastewater To Meet Tougher Limits For BOD, Stricter Biosolids Rules, Land Restrictions, And Higher Energy Costs. Aerobic treatment is the traditional method due to cheap power and abundance of land for equipment and application of biosolids, whereas anaerobic treatment is prevalent in Europe. Anaerobic treatment more common in the U.S. food industry, but still has limitations when treating municipal wastewater. Some anaerobic treatment of municipal biosolids to reduce volume and cost for stabilization, and reduce volatility and odors. Anaerobic treatment has major long term advantages less energy, fewer, more stable biosolids, smaller/less equipment, and useable biogas. 5

6 6 C. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). Ohio EPA s current TDS water quality standard is 1,500 mg/l, a limit that dates back to the 1970s. By comparison, Pennsylvania s limit is 500 mg/l. High TDS levels linked to depressed aquatic macroinvertebrate populations. Ohio EPA currently collecting data to support a revised, more stringent standard, rumored to be in the neighborhood of 750 mg/l. No timetable for rulemaking, but likely sometime mid to late next year. Typical treated municipal wastewater ranges from mg/l depending on industrial contribution, and whether chemical addition is part of the treatment process.

7 Fracking requires injection of large amounts of water. Over 1 trillion gallons of water will be needed to recover shale gas worldwide over the next 10 years. Flowback waters 15,000 mg/l or more for TDS. Conventional POTW treatment technology is not designed to remove substantial TDS. Availability of sufficient water also an issue. Ohio EPA and Ohio DNR currently prohibit treatment of fracking wastewaters in POTWs, and require underground injection or treatment and recycle of the wastewater. Injection creates ancillary problems and risks, including cost and potential seismic activity. Technology to recycle fracking wastewater is expensive, limited currently to chemical addition and filtration. RO on a small scale is currently too expensive. Potential for large scale centralized treatment facilities? 7

8 III. DRINKING WATER INNOVATIONS. A. Algal toxins (Microcystin). World Health Org. recommended health-based standard for microcystin (blue-green algae liver toxin) in drinking water is 1 ug/l. Raw intake water from Lake Erie tested at 17 ug/l in Ottawa County water treatment plant in summer Treated water tested at 3.56 ug/l. Algal toxin warnings posted for Grand Lake St. Mary s, Ohio s largest inland lake, each of the past four summers. June 2010, No Contact Advisory for the lake cost more than $77 million in lost tourism dollars. Sept Lake Erie algal bloom overwhelmed Toledo s treatment capacity.

9 9

10 U.S. EPA announced in early October its intent to study WHO recommended standards, and develop water quality criteria for algal toxins, which would have to be implemented in all states. Treatment is difficult because algal blooms are difficult to predict, and occur with little advance warning. See Ohio EPA s White Paper on Treatment of Algal Toxins. ( AB/AlgalToxinTreatmentWhitePaper.pdf) B. Groundwater-Source Public Water Systems. Conventional softening of hard water with lime addition, coagulation, and settling/filtration creates issues.

11 11 o Sludge and backwash/filtrate water are extremely high in TDS, and cannot be processed with conventional POTW technology. o Ohio EPA considering new, tougher standards/criteria for siting/operating treatment plant lagoons/storage ponds for disposal of sludge/backwash waters. Emergence of membrane filtration technology to reduce chemical and disposal costs. Typically smaller treatment systems, but new developments to improve/automate backwashing of filters and prolong filter life will bring this technology to larger systems.

12 Presence of arsenic in Midwest soils increases treatment costs due to stringent new drinking water standards for arsenic, particularly for small public water systems. See Ohio EPA Guidelines for Arsenic Removal Treatment for Small Public Drinking Water Systems, February ( ArsenicManual.pdf) Water age/water wasting issues. o Stringent standards to maintain residual disinfectant, yet minimize risk of creating halogenated organic disinfection byproducts, force public water systems to waste unused water after spending money to pump, treat and deliver it.

13 o Ohio EPA presently requires permits for the discharge of chlorinated water to streams from industrial non-contact cooling processes. Those permits set stringent limits on the level of chlorine that may be discharged. The Agency has reportedly been discussing whether to require that public water systems obtain permits and/or meet chlorine limits for discharge of aged water. 13

14 IV. STORMWATER INNOVATIONS. A. Development-caused degradation of water quality. Without strict controls over post-development runoff, both in terms of water quality and quantity, degradation of stream attributes and destruction of riparian habitat is the most significant cause of water quality impairments in the Midwest. This: Turns this: Into this: 14

15 Conventional overflow devices for stormwater detention basins are antiquated and do not control surge flows sufficiently to avoid downstream erosion. Sizing also too small and not based on collective downstream impacts. In 2012 Ohio EPA issued general stormwater permit for development in Big Darby watershed, an Ohio s national/state scenic watershed, designed to ensure that development does not reduce groundwater recharge rates, nor increases surface runoff compared to pre-development rates. In June 2014 Ohio EPA issued a similar general permit for development in the Olentangy River watershed, designed to curb further degradation of the impaired watershed under a TMDL developed 15 by the Agency.

16 16 V. OTHER REGULATORY DRIVERS IN THE MIDWEST FOR WATER INNOVATION. A. Replacing and repairing aging wastewater infrastructure to address excessive I/I and overflows. Innovations in slip lining, pipe bursting, grouting/repair of old sewers, etc., improved modeling/software for predicting wet weather flows, and innovations in stormwater-based green infrastructure. B. Unsustainably high water usage and depletion of aquifer sources. C. Reducing agricultural fertilizer application and encouraging best management practices by farmers. D. Greater need for reclaimed water. E. Reducing energy costs for treatment of water and wastewater. Innovations in pump design to reduce cost. F. Water conservation in new developments.

17 RECOMMENDED READING Water Markets of the United States and the World: A Strategic Analysis for the Milwaukee Water Council University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Sponsored by the U.S. Economic Development Administration Final Report, November 1, 2010 Available at 17

18 Stephen N. Haughey, Esq. FROST BROWN TODD LLC 3300 Great American Tower 301 E. Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH (513)