BEFORE AFTER. New Effluent Limitation Guidelines On November 28th, 2008, the EPA issued a proposed regulation which strengthened the existing National.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Watershed Planning: A Key to Integrated Planning FHWA Environmental Conference Ann Campbell Wetlands Division.
Advertisements

What are TMDLs? and What Might They Mean to MS4 Permittees?
When It Rains, It Drains An Overview of Our Community’s New Storm Water Management Program.
Final Construction Stormwater General Permit Issued November 16, 2005 Jeff Killelea Department of Ecology.
WYOMING WATER & ENERGY LAW NPDES Permitting Issues Kara Brighton Hageman & Brighton, P.C. Cheyenne, WY.
Case S-5_L-Reactor1 Case Study 5: L-Reactor Thermal Effluent.
EPA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES Tim Ryan, P.E. Water Resources Engineer Water Resources Engineer Wisconsin Department of.
Proposed Effluent Guidelines For the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category by Janet Goodwin.
1 Effluent Guidelines for Construction Greg Davis USEPA
Legislative Changes Affecting Water Quality at a Local Level October 2011 Robert Kollinger, P.E. Water Resources Manager Polk County Parks and Natural.
Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) Utah Sewer Management Program (USMP)
When It Rains, It Drains An Overview of Pennsylvania’s New Storm Water Management Program.
Upper Providence Township Stormwater Management MS4 Program.
When It Rains, It Drains An Overview of Our Community’s New Storm Water Management Program.
District of Columbia Stormwater Fees October 27, 2008 Apartment and Office Building Association of Metropolitan Washington Brendan Shane DDOE Office of.
Environmental Harm Urban stormwater frequently contains litter, oil, chemicals, toxic metals, bacteria, and excess nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorous.
When It Rains, It Drains An Overview of the Hempfield Township’s New Storm Water Management Program.
Upper Merion Township’s New Storm Water Management Program
When It Rains, It Drains An Overview: The Lower Providence Township Storm Water Management Program.
NPDES Phase II Storm Water Regulations: WHAT MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS NEED TO KNOW.
BULGARIAN COMPETENT AUTHORITIES IN THE FIELD OF IPPC Kalin Iliev Ministry of Environment and Water Bulgaria.
Expedited Projects + Innovative Teamwork = Measurable Improvements to the Health of Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries.
1 State Water Quality Assessments Under the Clean Water Act Charles Spooner Assessment and Watershed Protection Division Monitoring Branch National Water.
Draft Phase II Small MS4 General Permit Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment Jonathan Bishop Chief Deputy Director Director State Water Resources Control.
Trends in Stormwater Permitting Joyce Brenner, P.E. Chief of Stormwater Policy, Planning, and Permitting Division of Environmental Analysis Caltrans Headquarters.
CAFO Rule Update and Region 4 CAFO NPDES Program Implementation by Wayne J. Aronson Chief, PGTA Branch Ag Meeting December 06, 2005.
NPDES Compliance. NPDES Water Quality Issues for the Precast Concrete Industry.
Tom Singleton Associate VP, Director, Integrated Water Resources an Atkins company Linking TMDLs & Environmental Restoration.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Permit.
Impaired and TMDL Waterbody Listings Impacts on DoD Facilities Bill Melville, Regional TMDL Coordinator
Lake Erie HABs Workshop Bill Fischbein Supervising Attorney Water Programs March 16, 2012 – Toledo March 30, Columbus.
 Why are we here?  Without regulations, rivers used to catch fire. Rules and Regulation.
Developing Final Phase II WIPs and Milestones Katherine Antos Chesapeake Bay Program Office Jenny Molloy Water Protection Division DC Draft Phase II WIP.
Steve Harrison, Environmental Manager Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control -Mosquito Control Section.
City of Puyallup Planning Commission Presentation February 8, 2012.
1 IDEM Overview of March 14, 2008 Draft Antidegradation Rule Presented at the April 29, 2008 Antidegradation Stakeholder Meeting.
1 “ Understanding the Local Role of Improving Water Quality” Virginia Association of Counties November 14, 2011 Virginia Association of Counties November.
Introduction to Storm Water Phase II Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
EPA’s Stormwater Rulemaking: How Potential Changes in the NPDES Stormwater Regulations Could Impact the Design of Stormwater Controls Rachel Herbert USEPA/OW/OWM/WPD.
The Clean Water Act © Dr. B. C. Paul (Jan. 2000).
Overview of Montana’s Stormwater Regulatory Program.
IMLA New England Regional Land Use Seminar June 21, 2012 Work Session 2. Storm Water Management James N. Katsiaficas, Esq. P.O. BOX 426 PORTLAND, MAINE.
Orange County Board of County Commissioners Update on USEPA Rulemaking for Numeric Nutrient Criteria Utilities Department January 26, 2010 Utilities Department.
Report of the NPDES Subcommittee. Conference Call Meetings July 8 and August 19 Mercury Discharges – Utility Request to Address Permit Requirements for.
 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)  All dischargers over 1-acre must develop a SWPPP  6 major portions of every SWPPP Site Evaluation and.
Clark County’s Municipal Stormwater Permit Stormwater Manual and Code Update National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System & State Waste Discharge General.
MWCOG Water Resource Workshop “Preparing for Regulatory Change” February 20, 2004 Track 2: Panel #4 - Storm Water MS4 Regulation Paula Estornell, USEPA,
New Stormwater NPDES Construction General Permit Effective August 3, 2011 New Stormwater NPDES Construction General Permit Effective August 3, 2011 Samir.
Comments and Suggested Changes to the Construction Stormwater General Permit June 4 th 2008 Presented by the Active Treatment Systems Workgroup.
An Overview of our Community’s Stormwater Management Program
Public Workshop: RIPDES Draft Phase II Storm Water Regulations RI Department of Environmental Management RIPDES Storm Water Program July 25, 2001 Contacts:
Stormwater Management William Taylor New Hampshire Wastewater Control Association June 13, 2013.
76. The central U.S. law regulating water quality is the Clean Water Act (CWA), adopted in The Act initially focused on point sources, which it.
Storm Water Permit Program Authority to regulate storm water discharges derives from 40 CFR Illinois EPA is delegated authority to administer this.
The Clean Water Act (1977, 1981, 1987) By: Jonas Szajowitz.
CLEAN WATER ACT AND MUNICIPAL STORMWATER CALIFORNIA STORMWATER WORKSHOP David W. Smith, Manager NPDES Permits Section EPA/Region 9.
1. Wolfeboro’s Tool Kit Implemented tools for water quality protection Municipal Watershed District Ground Water Protection Overlay District Steep Slope.
Pollution Control: For Field Office Construction Sites.
City of Clarksville Storm Water Management Manual Revisions 2014.
Integrated Watershed Management
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Compliance
It’s The Final Countdown To The Mid-point Assessment:
Lake Erie HABs Workshop
John Tinger U.S. EPA Region IX
Tackling Stormwater Runoff in Puget Sound
More Agencies and Regulations
Water & Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association March 22, 2017
Overview of US EPA & State Manure Management Regulations
Wastewater Permitting Updates
Stormwater Construction General Pemit (CGP) TXR150000
Presentation transcript:

BEFORE AFTER

New Effluent Limitation Guidelines On November 28th, 2008, the EPA issued a proposed regulation which strengthened the existing National Pollutant Discharge Eliminations System (NPDES) permit program that currently regulates stormwater discharges from construction and development (C&D) sites. The new ELG has been successfully challenged but the national builders association as flawed. As it turns out, the number the EPA derived were erroneous via the method used. However, the EPA is reformatting their procedure to come back with the same resultant under new testing. So eventually, the ELG will be back to very low limits.

Almost Half of Rivers/Streams Affected in US According to EPA’s draft ELG, “45% of assessed river and stream miles, 47% of assessed lake acres and 32% of assessed square miles of estuaries show impairments from a wide range of pollutant sources”. The EPA has identified sediment-laden stormwater runoff from construction sites as one of the major remaining water quality problems throughout the United States.

Sediment is a primary pollutant of concern because it can have tremendous impact to downstream aquatic resources, such as fish, because it can smother spawned eggs, it reduces visibility which decreases feeding capability, and can even raise water temperature due to the absorption of UV radiation. In addition, other pollutants such as metals, nutrients and petroleum products are preferentially adhered to suspended sediment or turbidity and carried to receiving waters in construction stormwater runoff. Like sediment, these pollutants can cause an array of physical chemical and biological impacts on aquatic systems. According to the EPA proposed ELG, turbidity and suspended solids impair almost 700,000 miles of streams and almost 380,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs nation-wide.

EPA based their technical and economic analysis on BAT on the performance of ATS, specifically CESF technology. Although other ATS technologies such as electro-coagulation, batch treatment (first proposed by Ron Devitt of Washington State DOE), and other methods are utilized for construction stormwater clarification, CESF is the leading technology utilized in the C&D industry to achieve stormwater discharge limits of less than 10 NTU EPA has evaluated more than 6,000 data points and cost information from many projects which have utilized ATS and has determined that “Option 2 is technologically available, economically achievable and has acceptable non- water quality environmental impacts”. This means that construction projects over 30 acres in size will need to consider ATS and in most cases will have to implement these systems to achieve the proposed 13 NTU numeric effluent limit.

CESF Only Requires 6 Components Stormwater retention basin CESF system pump Chitosan delivery system Water quality monitoring system Industrial sand filtration unit Interconnection pipes and hoses

Conclusion EPA’s proposed ELGs were published in the Federal Register in November, 2008 and will be finalized no later than December 1, (this has been placed on hold for the foreseable future however it will be replaced after a new study is completed) The proposed ELGs are a shift from a non-numeric or narrative approach to regulating construction stormwater to a water quality based numeric effluent limit. If implemented as they are currently proposed, the ELGs would have some impact on all municipal and construction NPDES permit holders. The requirements will depend on project size and may include improved use of BMPs, installation of engineered sediment basins, routine stormwater discharge monitoring and the implementation of ATS.

Cont’d Once the ELGs are finalized, they will be incorporated into new NPDES construction permits. These permits are issued by EPA regional offices or NPDES authorized stated and tribal agencies. The primary pathway for implementation of the new ELGs will be through state- wide NPDES construction general permits, since EPA only has Catalogue Government Publications (CGP) authority in five states (AK, ID, MS, NH, and NM), the District of Columbia, most U.S. Territories and most Native-American lands. NPDES authorized states may choose to adopt the new ELGs immediately into their CGP or wait until the permit renewal date.

Monthly Cost Example Monthly rates for renting: Sand Filter system: $3,465 Generator for the system: $2,100 4 pod sand filter: $2, HP pump: $1,100 Metering Pump: $ 100 Float Dock for 35 HP pump:$ 66 Enclosed Container: $ Container of Chitosan: $3,000 - Used 1/4 of it during the first month. Approximate highest renting monthly cost = $12,031

Cont’d The implications of the ELGs will therefore differ from state to state depending on the existing regulations with the specific state’s CGP. For instance, states such as Washington, Oregon and California have relatively stringent construction stormwater requirements which means that small ( 10 acres and <30 acres) may not see a tremendous difference in requirements. Projects greater than 30 acres in these areas would likely see significant impacts associated with meeting the 13 NTU numeric effluent limitations. Other states such as Alaska and Idaho, which fall under EPA NPDES authority, typically have less stringent requirements and will likely see more significant impacts for sizes of sites.