Source Control Planning for Municipal Wastewater System Permit Compliance Water Quality Seminar Austin, TX. September 23, 2015 David James Santiago Velez-Garcia Water Quality Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Source Control Approach

Source Control Planning 1. Identify pollutant(s) of concern2. Find sources of pollutant(s)3. Determine control strategies4. Set realistic reduction goals5. Implement strategies6. Monitor progress7. Reassess and make adjustments8. Communicate results

1. Identify Pollutant(s) of Concern What is the concern? Prohibited discharges into publicly owned treatment works (POTW)? Excessive wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) loading?WWTP pass-through & interference?Texas Surface Water Quality Criteria? Whole Effluent Toxicity Failures Toxicity Identification and Reduction Evaluations Sludge limits TPDES permit limit violations?

Prohibited Discharges to POTWs [40 CFR §403.5(b)] Prohibited Discharges to POTWs [40 CFR §403.5(b)] Pollutants which create a Fire or Explosion Hazard Pollutants which will cause corrosive damage & not below pH 5.0 Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause flow obstructions Any pollutants discharged at a flow rate and/or concentration that will cause interference

Prohibited Discharges to POTWs [40 CFR §403.5(b)] Heat in amounts which will inhibit biological activities Oil, non-biodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts which will cause interference or pass through Pollutants that cause toxic gases, vapors or fumes within the POTW Any trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the POTW

1. Identify Pollutant(s) of Concern WWTP IndustrialCommercialDomestic Hauled Waste Other Sources? Pollutant Sources

1. Identify Pollutant(s) of Concern (cont.) Why might these pollutants and types of facilities be a concern? Fats, oil, & grease (FOG) MercuryPhosphorus Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Breweries Food Processors Metal Finishers Soap & Detergent Mfg.

1. Identify Pollutant(s) of Concern (cont.) “Look for diamonds in your backyard” Chemicals added to the collection system or WWTP Hauled waste accepted at the WWTP (grease or grit waste, septic, RCRA, CERCLA) Illegal dumping Water or wastewater sludge discharged into the collection system

2. Find Sources of Pollutant Identify sewer sub-basins in your collection system Sample at locations that capture each sub-basin Identify sub- basins with high pollutant contributions Sewer Collection System Sub-Basin Map City of Folsom, CA

2. Find Sources of Pollutant (cont.) Further subdivide identified sub-basins Identify areas or facilities that are potential contributors of the pollutant(s) Note types of business, industry, residential area, etc.

3. Determine Prevention and Control Strategies Public education to change behavior Voluntary reduction by sectors Implement a partial pretreatment program

3. Determine Prevention and Control Strategies (cont.) Public Education? Requires dedicated outreach Sensible to public perception Continuous effort to maintain desired behavior change Suitable for multiple sources difficult to control (domestic)

3. Determine Prevention and Control Strategies (cont.) Best Management Practices (BMPs) Requires meetings, education, and negotiations High start-up effort, verification BMPs implemented Suitable for sector-specific identified sources Voluntary Reduction?

3. Determine Prevention and Control Strategies (cont.) Requires legal authority (ordinance) and enforcement See Texas Water Code § High start-up efforts to develop and implement May include requirements: permits & effluent limits, BMPs, and fees Compliance monitoring & inspections Suitable for contributing industrial sources Implement a Partial Pretreatment Program?

3. Determine Prevention and Control Strategies (cont.) Gather flow and concentration data from identified areas and/or facilities Calculate loading contributions and rank them from highest to lowest DEFINE PRIORITIES! Calculate Pollutant Loading from Sources

3. Determine Prevention and Control Strategies (cont.) Calculate and rank contributions of total loading from identified sources

4. Set Reduction Goals Determine the WWTP removal efficiency for “conservative” pollutants Design removal efficiency Calculate actual (measured) removal efficiency

4. Set Reduction Goals (cont.) Determine how much the WWTP can treat Determine effluent concentration goal (permit limit, water quality standard) Calculate allowable influent concentration based on effluent limit Where, [L] in = Allowable influent loading (mass) [L] in = Allowable influent loading (mass) [C] eff = Effluent limit concentration (mass/volume) [C] eff = Effluent limit concentration (mass/volume) Q = Wastewater flow Q = Wastewater flow (volume/time) (volume/time) RE = Removal efficiency RE = Removal efficiency (design or measured ) (design or measured )

4. Set Reduction Goals (cont.) Is the influent concentration causing inhibition? Values from literature or studies EPA Local Limits Development Guidance (July 2004), Appendix G Determine WWTP inhibition threshold concentration

4. Set Reduction Goals (cont.) Does the loading from the identified contributing sources exceed allowable influent (headworks) loading or inhibition limit? What reduction is needed at the headworks and from each source or group of sources? Set realistic reduction goal(s) Consider a safety factor Compare loading from sources to allowable influent loading to set reduction goal

5. Implement Strategy (cont.) Select the control strategies to be implemented Consider how progress will be measured How will you know if your actions are successful? Multiple strategies can be used (more than one for each type of source) Consider implementation period, resource needs, costs, and benefits

5. Implement Strategy (cont.) Budget Funding Buy-in Cost/benefits Planning and Implementing Education and outreach activities Meetings and negotiations Pretreatment program development Monitoring and evaluating Communicating results

6. Monitor Progress Continue sampling Collection system sub- basins WWTP influent and effluent Contributing facilities Track compliance or progress toward goal Graph data to visualize trends and evaluate and monitor progress

7. Reassess & Adjust Are the implemented strategies achieving the goal (consistently)? If not, why not? Look for additional sources that can be prevented or controlled Have new sources moved into town and not identified? Have facilities added new sources? Continuously update the list of potential sources

8. Communicate Results Management Public Facilities

Source Control Case Studies

Case Study: WCWD Vehicle Service Facility Pollution Prevention Program West County Wastewater District Established a voluntary pollution prevention (P2) program 46 vehicle service facilities 24 discharge wastewater (not permitted, but must comply with local limits in ordinance) 22 facilities are “zero” discharge

Case Study: WCWD Vehicle Service Facility P2 Program West County Wastewater District Each facility gets BMP information Required annual sampling of Cu, Hg, Pb, and Zn (at WCWD expense) Implement BMPs to get free annual sampling.....or..... Resampling done at customer expense when exceeding local limit if BMPs not implemented

Case Study: WCWD Vehicle Service Facility P2 Program Vehicle Service Monitoring Results for Zn, Pb, Cu, & Hg ( )

Case Study: 1994 City of Cleburne April 1994 – POTW failed first chronic WET tests 100% mortality at every dilution Water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) May 1994 – retest results also showed mortality Begin conducting a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE)

Case Study: 1994 City of Cleburne (cont.) POTW was operating great – why the WET test failures? Influent and effluent sampling Manholes Industries up the collection system Conducted extensive studies:

Case Study: 1994 City of Cleburne (cont.) TRE results traced the toxicity to a semiconductor manufacturer Tetra methyl ammonium chloride (TMACl) was identified as the toxicant WET effluent limit in TPDES permit?

Case Study: 1994 City of Cleburne (cont.) Determined that the POTW could receive 80 mg/L at the influent without failing biomonitoring Alternative was reached to include an influent limit for TMACl Additional safety factors were implemented Semiconductor also received an effluent limit The City did NOT want a WET limit in permit

Case Study: 2013 City of Cleburne Feb POTW failed sublethal WET tests (Water Flea - Ceriodaphnia dubia) Began investigating potential sources in the industrial park Sampled sewer system Found high selenium levels downstream from an industry, power plant, and the POTW, but no known sources ???

Case Study : 2013 City of Cleburne (cont.) Lab started using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) & helium collision cell Further investigation revealed false-positive results for selenium due to bromide interference Found industry started discharging a wastestream containing bromide 25% of POTW effluent reused at power plant so may also elevate bromide levels in influent

Case Study: 2013 City of Cleburne (cont.) Conducted study to demonstrate WET failures due to bromide TPDES permit and City required industry to not discharge wastestream containing bromide The City did NOT want a WET limit in permit

Food Processor Case Study WWTP 1 Design Flow: 0.46 MGD Design Flow: 0.46 MGD Average Flow: 0.30 MGD Average Flow: 0.30 MGD Industrial Flow: 0.05 MGD Industrial Flow: 0.05 MGD Hydraulic loading: 11 % Hydraulic loading: 11 % (% design flow) (% design flow) Hydraulic loading: 17 % Hydraulic loading: 17 % (% actual flow) (% actual flow) WWTP 2 Design Flow: MGD Design Flow: MGD Average Flow: 0.25 MGD Average Flow: 0.25 MGD Industrial Flow: 0.24 MGD Industrial Flow: 0.24 MGD Hydraulic loading: 48 % Hydraulic loading: 48 % (% design flow) (% design flow) Hydraulic loading: 94 % Hydraulic loading: 94 % (% actual flow) (% actual flow) Pretreatment review of the TPDES discharge permit renewal application for “City A” revealed some high loadings to both WWTPs

Food Processor Case Study (cont.) WWTP 1 Dairy Products Manufacturer Dairy Products Manufacturer Clarifier WWTP 2 Cheese and Salsa Manufacturer Cheese and Salsa Manufacturer Oil &Grease Separator Pet food Manufacturer Pet food Manufacturer Oil &Grease Separator Dairy Industry Dairy Industry Clarifier Obtained additional details regarding the industries and types of pretreatment units.

Food Processor Case Study (cont.) Summary of maximum and minimum concentrations of the industrial discharges (after pretreatment) to WWTP 2 Parameter Max Conc. (mg/L) Min Conc. (mg/L) Cheese and Salsa Manufacturer CBOD5 21, TSS 6, NH Pet foods Manufacturer CBOD5 1, TSS NH Dairy Industry CBOD TSS NH

WWTP 2 Organic (BOD5) Loading (lbs/day) MaxMinAverage Cheese and Salsa Manufacturer Pet food Manufacturer Dairy Industry Total998 Food Processor Case Study (cont.) Summary of Organic (BOD5) Loading from the Industries to WWTP 2 Organic loading (treatment) capacity: 832 lbs/day Organic loading (treatment) capacity: 832 lbs/day Total industrial organic loading: ~1,000 lbs/day Total industrial organic loading: ~1,000 lbs/day

Food Processor Case Study Summary of Findings No exceedances of TPDES permit limits at the WWTPs Discussed the situation with the City Cheese and Salsa Manufacturer and Pet Foods Manufacturer periodically contributed high organic loading to the WWTP (greater than the treatment capacity) Hydraulic loading from industrial contribution 94% at WWTP 2

Food Processor Case Study Outcome Issued TPDES permit that required implementation of a partial pretreatment program Conduct an industrial waste survey Update ordinance Develop and adopt technically- based local limits for conventional pollutants Develop enforcement response plan and procedures

Brewery Case Study City requested assistance from TCEQ’s Small Business and Local Government Assistance Program (SBLGA) Excessive TSS discharge from brewery was allegedly causing pass through and interference Recurring TSS violations and enforcement action City’s Industrial Waste Ordinance had a limit for BOD5 but not for TSS Brewery installed anaerobic biological treatment: BOD5 <300 mg/L TSS measured downstream of discharge ~ 2,000 mg/L

Brewery Case Study (cont.) WWTP Design Flow: 0.85 MGD Design Flow: 0.85 MGD Average Flow: 0.35 MGD Average Flow: 0.35 MGD Industrial Flow: MGD Industrial Flow: MGD Hydraulic loading: 30 % Hydraulic loading: 30 % (% design flow) (% design flow) Hydraulic loading: 70 % Hydraulic loading: 70 % (% actual flow) (% actual flow) TPDES permit was expiring and the renewal application was submitted Storm Water & Pretreatment Team worked with the City and SBLGA to address the situation.

Brewery Case Study Outcome Issued TPDES permit that required implementation of a partial pretreatment program Conduct industrial waste survey Update ordinance Develop and adopt technically- based local limits for conventional pollutants and metals Develop enforcement response plan and procedures

SOME SECTOR-SPECIFIC RESOURCES FOR: Food Processing Food Processing Mercury Mercury Breweries Breweries Phosphorus Phosphorus

Food Processing Source Control Resources  EPA Multimedia Environmental Compliance Guided for Food Processors (EPA 305-B ) nce/resources/publications/ assistance/sectors/multifoo d.pdf nce/resources/publications/ assistance/sectors/multifoo d.pdf nce/resources/publications/ assistance/sectors/multifoo d.pdf nce/resources/publications/ assistance/sectors/multifoo d.pdf  Minnesota Technical Assistance Program wastewater.htm wastewater.htm wastewater.htm wastewater.htm

Food Processing Source Control Resources  Waste Reduction in Food Processing  Wastewater Reduction and Recycling in Food Processing Operations  Meat, Food, and Dairy Processing Industry- Waste Streams & PollutionPrevention sues/programs/pretreatment/docs/rev_food_processo rs.pdf sues/programs/pretreatment/docs/rev_food_processo rs.pdf sues/programs/pretreatment/docs/rev_food_processo rs.pdf sues/programs/pretreatment/docs/rev_food_processo rs.pdf

Mercury Reduction Resources  Mercury-Added Products Found at Drinking Water & Wastewater Treatment Facilities The Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA) The Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA) ojects/WWT/Mercury- AddedProductsatWWTPlants.pdf ojects/WWT/Mercury- AddedProductsatWWTPlants.pdf ojects/WWT/Mercury- AddedProductsatWWTPlants.pdf ojects/WWT/Mercury- AddedProductsatWWTPlants.pdf  EPA Dental Amalgam

Mercury Source Control Resources  Blueprint for Mercury Reduction Guidance for WWTPs Western Lake Superior Sanitation District Western Lake Superior Sanitation District WLSSD_Blueprint_Me rcury_Reduction.pdf WLSSD_Blueprint_Me rcury_Reduction.pdf WLSSD_Blueprint_Me rcury_Reduction.pdf WLSSD_Blueprint_Me rcury_Reduction.pdf

Mercury Source Control Resources  EPA Recommended Management and Disposal Options for Mercury-Containing Products Consumer products: home items Consumer products: home items Medical pharmaceutical products Medical pharmaceutical products Consumer products: automotive parts Consumer products: automotive parts Commercial products Commercial products Alternatives to Mercury-Containing Products Alternatives to Mercury-Containing Products ml#commercial ml#commercial ml#commercial ml#commercial

Brewery Source Control Resources  Examples of EPA Brewery Inspections nt/files/firestone-brewery-ins.pdf nt/files/firestone-brewery-ins.pdf nt/files/firestone-brewery-ins.pdf nt/files/firestone-brewery-ins.pdf ent/files/sierra_nevada_brewery_ _inspection.pdf ent/files/sierra_nevada_brewery_ _inspection.pdf ent/files/sierra_nevada_brewery_ _inspection.pdf ent/files/sierra_nevada_brewery_ _inspection.pdf

Phosphorus Source Control Resources  Phosphorus Management Plan Guide (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2006)  Six Municipalities, One Watershed: A Collaborative Approach to Remove Phosphorus in the Assabet River Watershed (EPA 820-R , 2015)

Summary Identify known and potential sources of pollutants of concern Know your service area and contributors Influent, effluent, and sludge limits for current and draft permits Look for trends (anticipate limits) Be familiar with your TPDES permit requirements Look for trends If not making progress, ask “why not?” Set goals, monitor and evaluate progress, and reassess strategies

Summary Acknowledge past and current efforts Justify future efforts Keep management, public, & facility sources informed of activities and progress What was done and how Dealing with barriers Lessons learned Share your knowledge

Questions?