Water Quality Criteria Update

Transcription

1 Water Quality Standards Program Water Quality Criteria Update Presentation for December 10, 2014 FSA DEP Day Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

2 Summary of Presentation DEP s Numeric Nutrient Criteria Status Implementation Human Health-based Criteria Overview and Status of DEP s Proposal DEP s Comments on EPA s Recommended Criteria DEP s Bacteria Initiative Rulemaking for New/revised Elements Existing Process for Some Elements

3 Current Status of DEP NNC Rules NNC previously in effect Estuaries from Clearwater through the Keys to Biscayne Bay (2012) Panhandle Estuaries (2013) NNC in effect as of October 27, 2014 Streams, lakes, spring vents and miscellaneous estuaries on the east coast and Big Bend Effective date of EPA s withdrawal of federally promulgated NNC NNC adopted by ERC on Nov. 19 (in effect in early 2015) Estuaries addressed in the August 2013 Report to the Governor, including portions of the Big Bend from Alligator Harbor to the Suwannee Sound, Cedar Key, St. Mary s River estuary, Southern Indian River Lagoon, Mosquito Lagoon, several portions of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW) Some waters still covered by the narrative only South Florida canals, tidally affected streams in coastal areas, non-perennial streams, wetlands, man-made or altered water conveyance ditches 3

4 Implementation Document To assist EPA s understanding of Florida s rules during the EPA review process, DEP wrote a document titled, Implementation of Florida s Numeric Nutrient Standards Describes how provisions for nutrients in Chapters , , and SCI Primer work in conjunction Provides details about implementation in 303(d) assessment process and NPDES wastewater permitting Adopted by reference into Chapter , including floral evidentiary thresholds for stream nutrient standards attainment

5 Permitting Process DEP does not plan to re-open permits to implement NNC, and instead will implement at time of permit renewal Permittees are required, at the time of permit issuance, to provide reasonable assurance that their effluent does not cause or contribute to nutrient impairments in: the receiving waterbody and downstream waterbodies

6 MS4 Permitting Implementation document doesn t directly address MS4 permitting and NNC will be implemented in MS4 permits via current process If receiving waters identified as impaired and a TMDL developed, MS4 will be required to implement requirements of an adopted Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP), or develop implementation plan Implementation document does provide important details about exclusions in the definitions of stream, which could impact MS4s 6

7 Exceptions to Streams Definition Streams definition excludes several waterbody types Non-perennial water segments, wetlands, lakelike waters, tidally-influenced segments that fluctuate between fresh and marine, and Channelized or physically altered ditches, and canals and other conveyances used primarily for water management purposes (flood protection, stormwater management, irrigation, or water supply) and with limited habitat Definition does not make any changes that impact whether a waterbody is a water of the State

8 Exceptions to Streams Definition (continued) Flowing waters are presumed to be streams until documented to meet one of the exclusions in the streams definition Stream NNC apply until demonstration Required demonstration is addressed in NNC Implementation Document (pp 49-55) Interested Parties (permit applicants) are responsible for providing information needed DEP responsible for providing public notice on determination

9 Maintained Conveyance

10 Information Needed for Conveyances For ditches, canals, and other artificial conveyances, need information that the conveyance is primarily used for water management purposes Flood protection, stormwater management, irrigation or water supply Need documentation that indicates how conveyance is operated/maintained and verifies waterbody functions in manner consistent with primary purpose Photos, funding authorizations, SOPs, local agreements, permits, and MOUs Exclusion does not apply if commonly used for navigation, boat access, or recreational activities

11 Marginal or Poor Habitat Must also demonstrate waterbody has marginal or poor habitat To demonstrate habitat limitation, need a Habitat Assessment (HA) (DEP SOP FT 3000, see Habitat limited if Degree of Artificial Channelization and Substrate Diversity /Availability score in Poor category, and overall score is Poor or Marginal

12 Deriving Human Health Water Quality Criteria Pollutant toxicity Exposure Human Sensitivity CWA Other (RSC) Bioaccumulation: through food web Bioconcentration: through gills

13 Human Health-based Criteria DEP proposed revisions to Human Health-based criteria last year Most changes driven by revised fish consumption estimates, but DEP also revised methodology to use a probabilistic approach, which uses distributions for key input parameters rather than single values Also proposed new criteria to cover all priority pollutants Prepared Technical Support Document

14 Florida s Proposed Approach Exposure pathways include: Fish consumption Drinking water consumption Dermal exposure while swimming (four parameters) Distributions used for many, but not all, parameters that determine potential exposure and risk Body weight, fish consumption rate, % lipid, and drinking water consumption Probabilistic Risk Based (Monte Carlo) used to characterize risk distributions

15 Criteria Derivation Monte Carlo Analysis 100,000 iterations All parameters run simultaneously for both Class I (potable waters) and Class III (fishable/swimmable) waters Surface water criterion concentration iteratively adjusted (reduced) to achieve: Hazard Quotient of 1.0 at the 90 th percentile for noncarcinogens Mean risk of 10-6 carcinogens Risk below 10-5 at the 90 th percentile Risk for carcinogens are all below 10-4 for subsistence fishers (142.4 g/day)

16 Human Health-based Criteria At April, 2013 Adoption Hearing, ERC continued the hearing and directed DEP to Obtain regional fish consumption data Evaluate Relative Source Contribution (RSC) values for noncarcinogens Evaluate duration component of criteria DEP completed additional analyses and submitted revised criteria, with TSD, to EPA last February 14 Included RSC values for additional parameters Used National Cancer Institute method to estimate fish consumption Supported annual expression of criteria for non-carcinogens

17 Current Status FDEP rulemaking on hold because we want EPA comments before proposing revised approach and criteria Region 4 waiting for comments from Headquarters, but Headquarters currently reviewing comments on their national human health criteria recommendations Noticed in Federal Register on May 12, 2014

18 DEP s Comments on EPA s Recommended HHC DEP submitted extensive comments on EPA s Updated National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, published on May 13, 2014 Comments included general concern about applicability of the criteria to Florida waters, and many specific comments Use of Deterministic Approach combined with 90 th percentile fish consumption rates overestimates risk to human health Use of EPA Method to estimate fish consumption, given that model not adequately validated and EPA had not addressed peer review comments We recommended using National Cancer Institute method 18

19 DEP s Comments on EPA s Recommended HHC (continued) EPA s habitat apportionment methodology was ambiguous and lacked justification for the regional distributions selected Did not define key terms (estuarine, marine, and near coastal ) Seemed to be based on single fisheries biologist EPA s use of EPI Suite (Arnot-Gobas) BCFBAF model to derive bioaccumulation factors EPA switched from bioconcentration to bioaccumulation Model is a screening level tool, and should not be used for regulatory purposes Only calibrated for Great Lakes, and model documentation clearly states that model should not be used in sub-tropical conditions Not calibrated for estuarine species, including species most frequently consumed by humans 19

20 DEP s Comments on EPA s Recommended HHC (continued) EPA s use of default relative source contribution (RSC) values to derive criteria for non-carcinogens EPA used very conservative default value of 0.20, which assumes 80% of exposure due to sources other than drinking water or fish consumption Literature is available to support parameter-specific RSC values, and we recommended EPA conduct literature review DEP recommended EPA conduct an additional peer review 20

21 Purpose of Bacteria Initiative Initiative designed to expedite restoration of waters identified as impaired due to bacteria Address concerns about current bacteria indicator (fecal coliforms) so that we focus efforts on waters that are truly impaired and pose risk to human health EPA no longer supports fecal coliforms as indicator Reduce administrative elements Adoption of site-specific TMDLs administratively time-consuming, with little gain 12/8/

22 Initiative includes: Bacteria Initiative (continued) Revise fecal coliform criteria to E. coli in freshwater and Enterococci in marine waters Change Impaired Waters Rule (Chapter ,FAC) to address new criteria and revise so that waters verified as impaired for bacteria are not placed on Verified List, and instead are covered under Statewide TMDL Revise TMDL Rule (Chapter ) to provide Statewide TMDL for bacteriological criteria Dropped plan to include Statewide Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP), and instead will develop waterbody specific BMAPs/Implementation Plans 12/8/

23 Revise Bacteria Criteria For recreation use support, changing to E. coli in freshwater and enterocococci in marine waters Based on EPA recommended values EPA s epidemiological bathing beach studies indicate E. coli and enterococci correlate better with recreational bather illness than fecal coliforms Keeping fecal coliforms for Class II (shellfish) waters

24 Revise Bacteria Criteria (continued) New criteria will include a monthly geometric mean (MGM) and upper value not to be exceeded in 10% or more of the samples during any 30-day period For E.coli, MGM is 126 and upper value is 410 For Enterococci, MGM is 35 and upper value is 135 MGM based on a minimum of either 5 samples (Class I) or 10 samples (Class III) taken over a 30-day period

25 Revisions to Impaired Waters Rule Address new indicators and new expressions of criteria For new MGM criteria, list on Planning and/or Verified List if one or more exceedances over assessment period 10 years for Planning List and 7.5 years for Verified List Recall that need 10 samples within a month for most waters (5 samples for Class I waters) For new criteria expressed as not to be exceeded in 10% or more of samples, assess using binomial method, which sets number of exceedances needed to list for given sample size based on required confidence level Same method as used for fecal coliforms

26 Revisions to Impaired Waters Rule (continued) Add new text to place waters on Study List when verified as exceeding the criteria but additional study is needed to confirm exceedances are due, at least in part, to anthropogenic sources For cases where there is predominance of natural land uses or information is submitted to DEP indicating exceedances are due to natural sources Study List is considered part of federally approved 303(d) list Waters verified as impaired will not be placed on the Verified List because they will be covered under Statewide TMDL

27 Adopt Statewide Bacteria TMDL Applies statewide, but waters covered under the TMDL will be specifically identified Rule provides Wasteload Allocation (WLA) and LA WLAs for wastewater sources are limits established by their NPDES permit to attain applicable criterion WLAs for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) and LA for nonpoint sources are to address anthropogenic sources such that waterbody meets applicable criterion Margin of Safety is implicit Percent reduction not part of rule language TMDL not intended to abate natural conditions (only responsible for what you are responsible for )

28 Identify Waters Covered under TMDL As part of watershed management cycle, the Department will identify waters that do not meet revised bacteria criteria and will provide public notice of verified waters at public meetings for the Draft and Revised Verified Lists The Final Order adopting the Verified List will specifically identify these waters as being covered under the Statewide Bacteria TMDL May also adopt list of waters covered by TMDL by reference into Rule , F.A.C

29 Prioritization of Waterbodies Once verified as impaired, DEP will prioritize based on highest risk to human health Data review, taking into account magnitude (> 5,000 cfu), frequency/persistence, and spatial extent Land use, with high priority for waters with highly urbanized areas, swimming beaches, and areas with Sanitary Sewer Systems under an Administrative Order DEP will then inform stakeholders with jurisdiction over areas with high priority and ask them for input on their priorities and current efforts to address bacteria Could prioritize for BMAP development or further study (bacteria source identification work or new indicators)

30 Walk the WBID Key initial element of overall process is a comprehensive field exploration, called Walk the WBID (WTW), which is designed to identify sources Would be coordinated by the Department unless a local entity volunteers Major source categories to be addressed in the WTW report include sanitary sewer systems, stormwater systems, septic systems, and agriculture operations

31 Source Identification Department plans to use variety of source identification tools in different steps in process Molecular Markers Bacteroidales HF183 Chemical Markers Sucralose (Splenda) and acetaminophen (Tylenol ) As resources allow, will use during Strategic Monitoring to evaluate potentially impaired waters and waters on Study List, and as part of WTW Will also work with stakeholders as part of implementation monitoring strategy

32 Bacteriological Rulemaking DEP formed Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) last year Comprised of experts in the field Held 4 meetings Most discussion on restoration actions, but agreed with proposed criteria Plan to move to formal rulemaking next year 12/8/

33 For More Information Daryll Joyner, Water Quality Standards Program Administrator Phone: (850)