1. Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
Peter Schaefer Standards Implementation Team
The primary contact for the Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards is Mr. Peter Schaefer, Team Leader of the Standards Implementation Team.

2. What are “Implementation Procedures (IPs)”
Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (IPs) RG-194 A guidance document that explains how TCEQ applies the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
The IPs are a regulatory guidance document explaining how the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards are implemented within Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits. They cover a broad range of water quality permitting topics such as antidegradation, dissolved oxygen modeling, how to translate water quality criteria into permit limitations, procedures for calculating site specific criteria including TDS, chloride and sulfate, and how to request a variance from a water quality standard…and more.

3. IP Revision process Triennial review process
2010 IPs approved at the June 30, 2010 TCEQ Commissioner’s Agenda
EPA approved most of the 2010 IPs on July 12, 2013
Next water quality standards revision: 2017
Next IPs revision also targeting 2017
The Implementation Procedures are typically revised on a triennial basis to maintain schedule with the Water Quality Standards. Though there wasn’t an IPs revision in parallel with the 2014 Water Quality Standards revision, an IPs revision is being pursued along with the 2017 standards revision.
The 2010 version of the IPs were developed with Stakeholder input along with 2010 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Both were approved by the Commission at the June 30th, 2010 agenda.
Subsequent to their approval, the IPs were forwarded to EPA for their review and comment.
EPA Region 6 and TCEQ have exchanged various letters regarding our differing positions on WET implementation. It was within one of these letters, dated October 2, 2010; in which EPA declared that the IPs would not be approved in their current form. Specifically, Reasonable potential for Whole Effluent Toxicity limits and dechlorination requirements.
A proposed 2012 IPs revision consisted of updates to the Whole Effluent Toxicity reasonable potential determinations section, but was never finalized because of unresolved issues between TCEQ and EPA.
Further revision and letters resulted in the EPA approval on July 12, 2013 of portions of the 2010 IPs and the 2012 version was abandoned.
Picture: Man standing against question mark taken from insidesales.com

4. Unresolved EPA Objections to 2010 IPs:
Dechlorination
Variances
Whole Effluent Toxicity
EPA declared that the IPs would not be approved in their current form. Specifically, Reasonable potential for Whole Effluent Toxicity limits, variance procedures, and dechlorination requirements.
Picture: Three cartoon people holding a sign with an arrow fluctuating in a downward direction taken from Google imagery

5. Focus of 2017 IP Revisions
Updates to dechlorination requirements for minor municipal discharges
Variances
Reasonable Potential for WET Testing
Temperature
Ambient WQ data updates
Industrial cooling water impoundments definitions
Updates to endangered species
316(b) rule implementation
Updates to MALs
Correcting errors/ommissions in current IPs
The following are topics to be addressed in the 2017 IP Revision process. The revision process will involve stakeholder input and opportunity for public comment.
Updates to dechlorination requirements for minor municipal discharges.
Variance procedures.
Procedures for Reasonable Potential Analysis for whole effluent toxicity testing.
Thermal Evaluation Strategy for permits with temperature limits higher than segment criteria.
Updates to classified segment ambient water quality values.
Supporting information for WQS definitions for industrial cooling water impoundment and industrial cooling water area.
Updates to endangered species.
Supporting information for 316(b) rule implementation.
Updates to MALs.
Correcting errors/ommissions in current IPs.

6. Dechlorination IPs propose dechlorination
requirements for renewing, new, and expanding domestic discharges with design flows between 0.5 and MGD
The 2010 revised IPs proposed de-chlorination for minor facilities 0.5 MGD and above, and determined the best approach for implementation was a phased approach. Once de-chlorination was implemented for new and expanding facilities, TCEQ would then require retrofitting for existing facilities with a potential compliance period. EPA has not approved this so the TCEQ is developing an approach for implementing de-chlorination.
Phase Application Type Flow Implementation Date
I New/Amendment ≥0.5 MGD Applications received on or after EPA approval date of IPs
II Renewal ≥0.5 MGD Applications received one year following EPA approval date of IPs
EPA Region 6 contends that the current proposal only addresses a relatively small portion of the minor domestic discharge universe. This minor portion that EPA notes makes up approx. 90% of the entire flow from municipal facilities.
We elected to propose the schedule above after consideration of factors specific to smaller domestic wastewater treatment plants including safety, operation, and environmental concerns. TCEQ considered a phased approach to implementation (ex. most significant environmental impacting facilities would be required to comply first etc.) to help control chlorine toxicity on a larger scale, and result in appropriate chlorine controls for a significantly greater number of minor POTWs in the near future

7. Variances IPs address site specific standards and variances.
EPA objection -specific date for compliance with final effluent limits
The IPs provide procedures for determining site specific standards for various water quality constituents based on local conditions and water quality.
A permittee may provide preliminary data indicating that a site-specific standard may be appropriate.
Based on this preliminary data, the applicant may request a temporary variance to allow time for a complete water quality study to be performed, results analyzed, and if appropriate- incorporated into the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. If the results indicate that a site-specific standard is not warranted, permit limits will take effect as previously indicated in the TPDES permit.
EPA objected to this portion of the IPs stating that they cannot approve permits that allow for compliance schedules or variances which do not include a specific date for compliance with final effluent limitations.

8. Biomonitoring Review Focused on “WET”-Whole Effluent Toxicity
Exposure of invertebrate and vertebrate species to predict impacts to aquatic life (lethal and sublethal)
Uses the most recent 5 years of testing, determines reasonable potential
Formulates language, and “Toxicity limits”
The EPA contends that TCEQ ‘s RP determination should be improved
The TCEQ is working diligently with EPA to develop reasonable potential determination procedures.
For more information please contact Mr. Michael Pfeil
Picture: NELAC laboratory symbol taken from testinc.com

9. EPA Objection to 2010 IPs
EPA wants Reasonable Potential determination process for WET limits within IPs
Ongoing discussions with EPA to come to agreement
The problem with performing a RP determination on WET is that it is not the same thing as chemical-specific limits. If one detects a metal in the effluent screenings during the permit renewal process that merits a limit, one can look at a means of reducing that metal entering the plant or look at a treatment process to meet the permit limit. But with a WET limit, all one knows is that one has toxicity, and there is no way to try to meet the limit until one knows what the toxicant is. The fact that there are over 65 permits with WET limits means there have been over 65 unsuccessful TREs. And this was for the lethal endpoint. With sublethal endpoints soon to be subject to WET limits, especially after an RP determination, we can expect many WET limits for unknown sources of toxicity.

10. Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
TREs are now voluntary. Although no longer
mandatory, they are strongly encouraged.
A successful TRE is dependent upon a defining
reasonable potential to assure that sublethal toxicity is
persistent and significant.
TREs are no longer mandatory within the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. TCEQ has long supported the use of TREs to determine the causative agent of toxicity.
TCEQ’s use of TREs and TRE triggers were in accordance with EPA’s earlier policies and TCEQ’s 2003 EPA approved IPs. WET testing was intended as a monitoring process that required TREs when persistent significant lethality was demonstrated (i.e., a failure followed by one of two retest failures). The permittee was allowed 28 months to pursue the TRE before submitting a TRE final report, at which time a toxicity control measure would be proposed for the permit. However, EPA began withholding approval of TPDES permits for permittees going through the TRE process based on a Technical support document TSD-based finding of RP.
TRE triggers give the regulated community the false impression that if they are not required to perform a TRE, then they will not be subject to a WET limit. Failures that would not trigger a TRE may still result in a finding of RP, and thus a WET limit. By making it clear in the IPs what will lead to RP, the permittee has the option to pursue a TRE on their own. TCEQ feels that having TRE requirements based on triggers in the permit is not acting in good faith when the permittee is not allowed the allotted time to perform the TRE and that permittees may receive WET limits based on RP without ever having triggered the TRE requirements.
It is important to note that without persistent and significant test failures, both a TRE and a meaningful RP determination are unlikely to be valuable in addressing toxicity. TCEQ’s preferred RP approach allows consideration of both persistence and magnitude of test failures.

11. Temperature
Temperature screening stakeholder group started in August 2014
TCEQ is taking initial comments and working on detailed procedures for inclusion in the IPs
Draft procedures to be presented to stakeholders in summer 2016
Temperature has become an topic of concern with EPA in regard to issuing permits
Studies have shown that increased temperatures in aquatic environments can depress dissolved oxygen, affect biodiversity, biological productivity and the cycling of contaminants through an ecosystem.
The TSWQS assign temperature criteria to the classified segments, and the Implementation Team implements the assigned criteria within the permits. Majority of the segment criteria is between 85 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and 95 degrees F
There are some permits who have temperature limits that average above segment criteria that EPA objects to so the TCEQ has formed an internal work group to establish protocol to address EPA issues.
Applicable permits now include the following language:
“The permittee shall develop and submit to the TCEQ, within one year of the permit effective date, a plan to characterize the thermal plume in the receiving water through either the use of a model, mass balance, or via collected or existing in-stream temperature data. The permittee would then be required to implement the plan following its approval by the TCEQ”.
Picture: Animated thermometer taken from dreamstime.com

12. Temperature RP analysis
Heat balance equation
Numerical model calculations (ex. Cormix)
Highly site-specific technical analysis
A flowchart has been developed to help determine how a permittee shall address temperature issues. This ranges from a relatively simple heat-balance calculation to a site-specific highly technical analysis.
Does wastewater exhibit elevated temperatures and discharge into a water body with temperature criteria?
Evaluate compliance with temperature criteria1,2 using a heat balance calculation3 incorporating existing, routine methods for developing critical conditions at the edge of the default mixing zone (MZ)5
Do proposed/existing/accepted temperature limits meet Water Quality (WQ) criteria at edge of default MZ5?
Evaluate compliance with temperature criteria using conservative, uncalibrated, simplified numerical modeling (ex. CORMIX) coupled with a default MZ5
Do proposed/existing/accepted temperature limits meet WQ criteria?
Perform a highly site-specific technical analysis. 4
Consider performing a 316(a) analysis and/or seek a variance to the WQ Standards if justified
1 Only rise over ambient temperature criteria apply to unclassified waters.
2 Intermittent water bodies with a minimal aquatic life use assigned are not subject to temperature criteria. However, downstream waters with higher aquatic life uses may need to be screened for potential thermal impacts.
 3 WLAt = [Tcrit-Tamb(1-Ef)]/Ef
WLAt = effluent temp that will not cause temp criterion to be exceeded at the edge of the MZ
Ef = effluent fraction at the edge of the mixing zone
Tcrit = temperature criterion
Tamb = ambient temperature
4 These analyses may include, but are not limited to, any combination of the following considerations:
Site-specific temperature mixing zone or specification of an industrial cooling area in combination with numerical modeling.
Installation and analysis of a high rate effluent diffuser.
Collection of site-specific temperature data for use in numerical model calibration.
 5 The thermal mixing zone may be different from the mixing zone used for toxics
Picture: Animated thermometer taken from dreamstime.com

13. Ambient Water Quality Data
Routine water quality data is analyzed to derive segment- specific values
TSS, pH, hardness, TDS, chloride, sulfate
Water quality data is gathered on a routine basis following strict quality control/quality assurance protocols. This data is analyzed and entered into an appendix in the IPs. This data includes TSS, pH, total hardness (CaCO3), TDS, chloride, and sulfate

14. 316(b)-Intake Structures
EPA’s final rule for existing facilities became effective October 14, 2014
TCEQ working with EPA and permittees on application/information requirements and implementation issues
Court challenges still pending
316 (b) is a federal guideline for the regulation of cooling water intake structures
Phase I – pertains to new facilities which was released in 2001
Phase II – pertains to existing facilities, released in 2004
Phase III – pertains to new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities but also mentions all other existing facilities such as power plants greater than 50 MGD and manufacturing facilities
Phase II and III were remanded back to EPA in 2008 when the rule was challenged in the Supreme Court
EPA noticed proposed changes in April 2011 and allowed for comments, then proposed a final rule date which was June 27, 2013.
In June, EPA proposed a final rule date of November In November, EPA promised a date of January 2014, but it was pushed back to April 17, Now rule is final. Implementation being worked out.

15. Endangered Species New listings De-listings
Updates regarding federally listed engangered species will be incorporated into the 2017 IPs

16. Changes to Minimum Analytical Levels (MALs) - now in effect
The TCEQ previously proposed a one year compliance schedule based on either the Commission adoption date, or the EPA approval date whichever came first.
EPA approved the 2010 IPs on July 12, 2013, therefore the TCEQ began implementing the updated MALs on July 14, 2014.
MALs will be updated in the 2017 IPs

17. Nutrients 2010 IPs Lakes – numeric and narrative
Streams and Rivers- narrative
Lakes – numeric and narrative
local effects in reservoirs
main body
Bays and Estuaries
Nutrient limits to protect various waterbodies are addressed in the 2010 IP’s. No revisions planned at the present time.
Streams and rivers are based on narrative criteria.

18. Nutrient Screening Phytoplankton in open water
Attached algae; floating algae
Rooted vegetation
Aesthetic effects on recreation
Water supplies: THM, taste & odor
Aquatic-life: fisheries ↑↓ habitat ↑↓
DO at night↓ diversity↓
The control of elevated nutrients within wastewater is necessary to preclude excessive growth of aquatic vegetation, including: phytoplankton algae in open water, attached algae, floating algae, and other rooted vegetation. Excessive vegetation can impact recreational use. It also affects drinking water uses due to potential increases in trihalomethanes , a water disinfection by product; and impact taste and odor.
Excessive vegetation also impacts aquatic life by causing fluctuations in available habitat, decreases dissolved oxygen at night, decreases species diversity, and fisheries. 18

19. IPs – Nutrient Narrative Criteria
30 TAC Chapter 307.4(e):
“Nutrients … shall not cause excessive growth of aquatic vegetation which impair an existing, attainable, or designated use.”
As stated within the Texas Surface Water Quality regulations at Title 30, Chapter 307.4(e); Nutrients shall not cause excessive growth of aquatic vegetation which impair an existing, attainable, or designated use.
The current implementation procedures (2010) include new nutrient screening procedures to assess attainment with the existing narrative criteria stated above and new numeric criteria for reservoirs within the recently adopted Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. 19

20. Nutrients – Typical TP Limits
Permitted Flow (MGD) TP Limit (mg/L)
<
0.5 – – 0.5
>
Proposed Standards Implementation Procedures:
Permitted Flow (MGD) TP Limit (mg/L)
<
0.5 – – 0.5
>
Site specific mg/L TP limits 20

21. Nutrients – Nitrogen Limitations
TN limitations to prevent potential impact to sea grass communities.
Consideration of site specific conditions influencing dispersion and discharge volume in relation to the proximity of sea grasses to outfall.
In the absence of numeric criteria, nitrogen limit recommendations are based on Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) and available site specific data.
Site specific conditions that influence hydrologic mixing, such as: alignment of water body with prevailing winds, tidal flushing, depth, freshwater inflows.
Evaluation of discharge volume in relation to the proximity of seagrasses to outfall: Typically, a small discharge volume that is far from seagrass beds may not pose a problem, whereas a large discharge volume near seagrass beds may pose a problem that requires nitrogen limits or relocation of the outfall.  There are no standard criteria for determining when the volume of discharge vs. distance of the outfall may cause problems to a seagrass community. Consideration of the factors listed above could result in a recommendation for controls on a relatively small volume discharge if the discharge is into a waterbody with little tidal flushing and freshwater inflow.
Additionally consideration may be given to the presence of other dischargers/cumulative pollutant loading to the same waterbody; and (if available) historic and background concentrations of nutrients, total suspended solids, and turbidity measurements.
In the absence of numeric criteria for nutrients, nitrogen limit recommendations are based on Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) considering technologically achievable treatment levels, the above mentioned factors, previous permitting experience, and any available site specific data. This process is consistent with our approach for controlling nutrients (total phosphorus) within freshwater systems and protection of narrative nutrient criteria. 21

22. Reservoir Criteria Criteria were proposed for 75 reservoirs
EPA approved about half of the criteria proposed
How does that affect me??
EPA recently began challenging states to develop numerical nutrient criteria.
Our Standards Development Team was able to develop criteria for approx. 75 reservoir within the state. EPA approved 39 of the proposed criteria (Criteria can be found in the 2010 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards in Appendix F)
The Standards Implementation Team now uses the approved criteria when performing reservoir nutrient screenings, as outlined in the IPs, for determining potential nutrient limits for individual permits.
Picture:Caddo Lake – taken from National Geographic Website. Picture is credited to Grisel Cambiasso

23. pH Screening Procedures
Screening procedure established with EPA concurrence for certain direct discharges to classified segments
pH Sceening conducted:
for major municipal facilities (≥1 MGD flow)
for industrial discharges
Permits that allow for 1 MGD or more discharge of effluent directly to a classified segment, where the pH criteria exceeds the standard 6.5su to 9.0su.
The TCEQ developed procedures to determine whether the pH range proposed in the permit is protective of the segment criteria at the edge of the mixing zone by conducting a pH screening calculations.
Facilities must provide effluent alkalinity data, and cannot be located with a quarter mile of another discharger.
Picture: pH chart taken from phionbalance.com

24. IP Revisions Update Segment ambient WQ data
Temperature – cooling water
WET -RP analysis
Decholorination
pH Objections
Variances
Endangered species
MALs
316(b) rule implementation
General updates
Path Forward
The following are topics to be addressed in the 2017 IP Revision process. The revision process will involve stakeholder input and opportunity for public comment.
Updates to dechlorination requirements for minor municipal discharges.
Variance procedures.
Procedures for Reasonable Potential Analysis for whole effluent toxicity testing.
Thermal Evaluation Strategy for permits with temperature limits higher than segment criteria.
Updates to classified segment ambient water quality values.
Supporting information for WQS definitions for industrial cooling water impoundment and industrial cooling water area.
Updates to endangered species.
Supporting information for 316(b) rule implementation.
Updates to MALs.
Correcting errors/ommissions in current IPs.
Picture – mountain climbers taken from empowernetwork.com

25. Any
Questions
???
Contact Information
Peter Schaefer