A Review of the CCME’s Canada-wide Strategy for the Management ofMunicipal Wastewater Effluent

and the Fisheries Act Regulations

Tony Van Rossum, City of London

Barry Kobryn, City of Calgary

Wastewater And Stormwater Committee, CWWA

WebinarMay 05, 2010

Who does the CCME Strategy Affect?

• Strategy signed off in February 2009– Environment Canada– Alberta– British Columbia– Manitoba– New Brunswick– Northwest Territories– Nova Scotia– Ontario– Prince Edward Island– Saskatchewan– Yukon

• CCME documents are guidance until adopted into law

Who will the Fisheries Act Regulations apply to?

• Everyone; i.e., federal legislation• Exceptions - Regulations do not apply in respect of:

– a wastewater system located in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and north of the 54th parallel in the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador.

– an on-site wastewater system for an industrial, commercial or institutional facility if 25% or less of the volume of its effluent is blackwater.

• …but, does seem to apply to private systems

Relationship between CCME Strategy and Fisheries Act Regulations

“Rest of Strategy” Fisheries Act Regulation

Based on2007

Draft Strategy

For Illustration

Only

Some FA Reg.

pathways and

relationships

different

Ammonia

Changes in FA RegsBased on 2007

Draft Strategy

For Illustration

Only

• NPS are:• CBOD: 25 mg/L• TSS: 25 mg/L• TRC: 0.02 mg/L

• FA Reg:• makes the substances

deleterious• Adds “NPS” for

ammonia• Authorizes discharges:

• Not acutely lethal• ≤ NPS values above

• Un-ionized NH3-N ≤ 1.25 mg/L at 15°C ± 1°C

Technical details for toxicity and NH3

• Test for toxicity allows use of modification for pH stabilization with the of 96-hour rainbow trout test for acute lethality

• The ammonia limit is more lenient than the previous criterion for ammonia

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5

Tota

l NH

3-N, m

g/L

pH

Formerly Proposed FA Reg Acute NH3-N Toxicity vs. New End-of-Pipe Limit vs. pH at 15 C

Orig Proposed Toxicity Curve: LC50 vs. pH

Total NH3-N vs. pH ≡ New 1.25 mg/L Un-ionized NH3-N at 15°C

Non-Toxic

Toxic

Compliant

Non-Compliant

Requirements Vary with Size

Collection of Samples (s7)

Regulations do not apply:• If design specifications are < 10 m3/day

Requirements Vary with Size, cont.

Acute Lethality Testing (s8)

4(2) The averages referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c) and the maximum referred to in paragraph (1)(d) must be determined on a quarterly or monthly basis, as follows:(a) quarterly, if the annual average daily volume of effluent deposited via the final discharge point during the previous year — namely, the year thatends at the beginning of the quarter — was less than or equal to 17 500 m3; and

Averaging Period for CBOD and SS and “compliance review”

Requirements Vary with Size, cont.

Schedule 3: System of Points – Final Discharge Point

There may be more… read carefully.

“Authorizations”

• Authorizations are used in the regulation to allow the discharge of wastewater effluents

• This is a good thing for the municipal wastewater sector vs. the uncertainty of dealing with “deleterious substance” [in any amount]

• However, the requirements for Applications and conditions when operating under a specified authorization are very comprehensive (exception is “general authorisation”)

s4(1): “General Authorization”

• Don’t need to apply• 4. (1) For the purpose of paragraph 36(4)(b) of the Act, the owner or

operator of a wastewater system may, during a given quarter or month referred to in subsection (2), deposit or permit the deposit of an effluent that contains any of the deleterious substances prescribed in section 3 via its final discharge point in any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act if the effluent is not acutely lethal as determined in accordance with section 8 and if, during the previous quarter or month, as the case may be, the effluent met the following conditions:

s4(1), cont.

– (a) the average carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand due to the quantity of biochemical oxygen demanding matter in the effluent did not exceed 25 mg/L;

– (b) the average concentration of suspended solids in the effluent did not exceed 25 mg/L;

– (c) the average concentration of total residual chlorine in the effluent did not exceed 0.02 mg/L; and

– (d) the maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia in the effluent was less than 1.25 mg/L, expressed as nitrogen (N), at 15°C ± 1°C.

Transitional Authorizations

• If your annual average exceeds limits for CBOD and/or TSS → “BOD and SS transitional authorization”

• If your annual average exceeds limits for un-ionized ammonia-N and your annual average exceeds limits for CBOD and/or TSS → “NH3, BOD and SS transitional authorization”

• The 10-, 20- and 30-year timelines to meet the limits are in Transitional Authorizations

• Application must include plan and timeline to meet the limits • The application for a transitional authorization must be made within

18 months after the day on which the Regulations are registered.

Temporary Authorization for Ammonia

• If:

– any acute lethality of the effluent is due only to the presence of the un-ionized ammonia in the effluent;

– the maximum concentration of un-ionized ammonia-N in two successive months/quarters exceeds limit, and

– Concentration of un-ionized ammonia meets the Canadian instream surface water quality guideline 100m from the point of discharge

→ Temporary Authorization to Deposit Un-ionized Ammonia

• The application must be made within 18 months of the Regulations being registered

• Maximum duration is 3 years

– Seems you can keep reapplying

– Must continue to verify meeting instream guideline

Temporary Bypass Authorization

• For maintenance

Total Residual Chlorine

• No authorization for TRC– Presumably because this was the subject to a Notice under

CEPA 1999 which had a risk management objective of meeting the same standard by December 15, 2009

SSOs and CSOs• The limits do not apply to SSOs and CSOs • It is unclear exactly what the requirements are for SSOs are

– Only mention is that information is required in an “identification report” which all facilities must submit

• The 10-, 20- and 30- year timelines re: transitional authorizations are based on a point system, analogous to the “risk points” from the 2007 proposed regulatory framework, which might/could/should [this unclear] include points from a separate schedule for CSOs

• if CSO points (risk) exceed those for WWT, can extend timeline to 30 years.

SSOs and CSOs, cont.• If/when included in authorization, must submit plan for “elimination”

– different from CCME Strategy (which gov’t of Canada signed)

“The national standards for combined sewer overflows are:• no increase in combined sewer overflow frequency due to development or redevelopment, unless it occurs as part of an approved combined sewer overflow management plan;• no combined sewer overflow discharge during dry weather, except during spring thaw and emergencies; and• removal of floatable materials where feasible

The national standards for sanitary sewer overflows are:• sanitary sewer overflow frequencies will not increase due to development or redevelopment; and• sanitary sewer overflows will not occur during dry weather, except during spring thaw and emergencies.”

Environmental Effects Monitoring• “…if the [surface] water at any point that is 100 m from the point of entry

for the final discharge point is comprised of 10% or more of that effluent.” (i.e., you need to know your mixing characteristics)

• Includes:– water quality monitoring, including some endocrine disrupters

• twice per year beginning in 2014, and– biological monitoring studies start with benthic invertebrates and

adding fish if benthic invertebrates showing any “effect of concern”• benthic study design submitted by December 31, 2014• first [benthic] study must begin by June 30, report by December

31, 2016– Report on “second or subsequent biological monitoring studies” 36

months after first report [max. time: December 31, 2019].– “subsequent” studies to continue if “effect of concern on the benthic

invertebrate community”

Response Plan

“42. (1) The owner or operator of a wastewater system must prepare a response plan that describes the measures to be taken to prevent any deposit out of the normal course of events of effluent that contains a deleterious substance from the wastewater system into any water or place referred to in subsection 36(3) of the Act, and to mitigate or remedy the effects of any such deposit that may occur.”

“ (5) The response plan must be updated and tested at least once each year.”

Other

• Identification report• Monitoring• Record keeping• Data reporting• Notification of a deposit out of the normal course of events

• Not significantly different than what you may already be used to, except more whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing required.

• Also, reporting will have to be made to Environment Canada unless your province/territory establishes an agreement with the federal government

REGULATORY IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT

Where are you on the map?

• The FA Regs represent a minimum standard of secondary treatment (plus toxicity and ammonia)

• This is based on 2006 data collected by CCME

• The economic analysis remains the same, but the “Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement” for the FA Regs in Canada Gazette, Part I provides more detail

REGULATORY IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT

REGULATORY IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT

• "Cost-benefit statement: A cost-benefit analysis reveals that the proposed Regulations would likely result in significant net benefits nationally, even with only a partial quantification of benefits. While the estimated costs of the proposal are significant (in the order of $5.9 billion in discounted 2010 dollars), the overall quantified benefits are almost three times this amount, totaling $17.6 billion. This results in a benefit to cost ratio of almost 3:1 for the country as a whole."

REGULATORY IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT

• the estimated costs of the proposal are significant (in the order of $5.9 billion in discounted 2010 dollars)

• Discounting—A method for adjusting the value of future costs and benefits to an equivalent value today to account for time preference and opportunity cost, that is, a dollar today is worth more than a dollar a year from now (even if inflation is not considered).

• Discount rate—A rate used in determining a present value equivalent of a future stream of dollars. The lower the discount rate, the higher the present value of a future stream of dollars.

REGULATORY IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT

• Government used 8% discount rate. Why? Why not the rate of inflation of 2% used in the CCME financial document? The interest rate for savings is 2% at most.

• Time frame used for benefits is to 2065. The CCME strategy is for 30 years. Why did they go to 55 years in the benefits side?

• The largest benefit is estimated property value increase.– Increase in BC of $5.6 Billion and in Quebec $7.2 billion– No net benefit in Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick,

Newfoundland and Labrador

REGULATORY IMPACTANALYSIS STATEMENT

• London has performed much better than the new Canada Wide Standards for more than 10 years but will be required to do environmental monitoring at $50,000 per site (5 sites expected) for at least two years or $500,000.

Problems? (The bigger ones)

• Costs– No dedicated funding– No sign of cost sharing among three levels of government as

indicated in Tech. Supp. 1 of CCME Strategy– Allow consideration of higher risk public health issues in timelines

granted under transitional authorizations • Lack of administrative and technical clarity• Extra vulnerability to prosecution in early stages?

– BOD, SS, TRC, and NH3 are specified as deleterious substances [in any amount, immediately], but you will not be able to obtain an authorization to discharge them for varying periods

– While this is the situation we’re in right now, the regulations will bring additional attention to these parameters.

Problems, cont.

• Missing Authorizations?– None for TRC– Some chance you’ll meet limits and see toxicity due to some

other reason– What if ammonia peaks out over limit and you don’t meet the

chronic guideline 100 m from the outfall?• Expect anyone with effluent over 1.25 mg/l un-ionized NH3-N

will not meet chronic guidelines at 100 m, except that this hinges on individual test results, which could fluctuate

• Can’t get temporary authorization• Apply for Transitional Authorization?

– Supposed to be based on annual average > limits– Requires plan to fix it

Problems, cont.• CSOs and SSOs

– If CSOs considered in timeline for transitional authorization, must submit plan for elimination

– Otherwise, uncertain, how the regs apply

– Want regulatory certainty

• Toxicity

– Effluent must not be acutely lethal as well as meeting standards above

– There is a basic assumption that effluent toxicity will be due exclusively to ammonia. This may not be true. We don’t really know – not enough info.

– So, what do you do if you have lethality but it is not “due only to the presence of the un-ionized ammonia”? No authorization for this

• Et cetera

Solutions?

• Make regulation easier to understand administratively and more consistent technically

• Should be immediate temporary authorizations for any facility meeting other initial requirements: e.g., monitoring, reporting, applying, etc. [cf. 4(4)] – i.e., recognise key role wastewater collection and treatment facilities play w.r.t. public health

• Provide regulatory certainty for SSOs and CSOs• Make sure there is an authorisation available for any circumstance

– May just require clarification• Remove effluent lethality from conditions re: authorizations

– This still in realm of research– (keep monitoring requirements to collect information to better

evaluate regulatory needs – add TIE back in - review in 5 years)

Concerns of Small Communities

• Availability of accredited labs for water quality testing in general• Availability of accredited labs for toxicity testing (a concern for us all)

– Shipping of large volumes of wastewater effluent for testing – dangerous goods?

• Is the sampling and testing you’ll have to do under s7 a lot more than what you have to do right now?

Comments?

• Comment on your own

• CWWA Submission– CWWA has collected input from its members and will be

submitting a consolidated submission. – Deadline for comments is May 19.– Do you see more problems? Send them to Kara Parisien.– Send a letter endorsing CWWA position statement

________________________________________________________• CWWA WW&SW Committee: we do support minimum national

standards, but...

Additional Contributors

• Ed Von Euw, Metro Vancouver

• Carl Yates, Halifax Regional Water Commission (HWRC)

• Tony Blouin, HRWC

• Peter Hagar, City of Regina

Questions

?

www.cwwa.ca