Regulation #85 Workgroup

April 11, 2017

1

Meeting Details

● Conference call-in: 1-857-216-6700 conference code: 425132

● Adobe Connect: https://cdphe.adobeconnect.com/reg85mtg

● Wi-Fi○ Network: HealthyColorado○ User ID: guest○ Password: KnowHE&EJ

2

Agenda Review

3 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/WQ_Reg85_Mtg4-Agenda-04-11-17.pdf

Recap of stakeholder meetings #1-3

4

Scope of Regulation #85/#31.17 RulemakingHearing – Fall 2017

5

● Regulation #85 and Section 31.17 of Regulation #31 Phase 2 Effective Date

● 85.5 Specific Limitations for Dischargers of Nutrients● 85.6 Monitoring Requirements● Section 31.17 of Regulation #31● General Clean-up and Corrections

Colorado’s Nutrient Management Roadmap

6

DRAFT Criteria Roadmap

7

DRAFT Regulation #85 Roadmap – making progress

8

9

Cooling Towers Update

Cooling Towers - Small Group Recommendation

● Cooling tower facilities write (one time) report which addresses data gaps, calculates (or estimates) yearly load, and compares to WWTF loading to determine whether it is necessary to control such loadings through imposition of numeric effluent limits or implementation of best management practices.

● Collective report received March 28. ● Reconvened small group on April 5.

10 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/WQ_Reg85_CoolingTowerDataAnalysisReport-03-28-17.pdfhttps://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/WQ_Reg85_CoolingTowerAssessments-Att1.pdf

Cooling Towers - Report Conclusions

11

● Nutrient discharges from cooling towers represent a very small fraction of nutrient loading to waterbodies in Colorado.

12

Cooling Towers - Report Conclusions (Con’d)● Majority of cooling tower loading originates not in added chemicals but

in source water.

Cooling Towers - Report Conclusions (Con’d)

13

● Facilities generally utilize the minimum chemical addition necessary tomaintain cooling tower operations for economic reasons.

● Because of source water loading, and lack of treatment technologies, nearly half of facilities would not be able to meet technology-based effluent limits.

● Many of the facilities are downstream of WWTF, so they would not be able to benefit from water quality-based effluent limits that take advantage of assimilative instream capacity

Cooling Towers - Recommendation

14

● Retain cooling tower exception in Section 85.5(3)(b):

Where noncontact cooling water discharges contain nutrients (phosphorus or nitrogen) and nutrients in the discharge originate from the receiving water as intake water or through use of chemicals shown to be necessary for proper operation of the cooling tower.

● Strike cooling towers from the monitoring requirement in Section 85.6(2)(a). ● Develop Statement of Basis and Purpose language for new cooling tower

facilities or dischargers.

SIC-20s Regulation and SBP Language

15

Participants

16

Organization Name

Industry

Leprino Foods Adam Wylie

Leprino Foods Joe Herrud

JBS Mark Ritsema

Cargill Felimon (Feli) Castaneda

Consultants

Tetra Tech Mark Maxwell

Geosyntec Consultants Jason M. Kerstiens

Brown and Caldwell Andrew Neuhart

Organization Name

Regulators

CDPHE Andrew Ross

CDPHE Kristy Richardson

CDPHE Bret Icenogle

CDPHE Michael Emming

Standard Industrial ClassificationMajor Group 20: Food and Kindred Products

● Industry Group 201: Meat Products● Industry Group 202: Dairy Products● Industry Group 203: Canned, Frozen, and Preserved Fruits, Vegetables,

and Food Specialties● Industry Group 204: Grain Mill Products● Industry Group 205: Bakery Products● Industry Group 206: Sugar and Confectionery Products● Industry Group 207: Fats and Oils● Industry Group 208: Beverages● Industry Group 209: Miscellaneous Food Preparations and Kindred

17

Background

● Leprino Foods; JBS; Cargill Petitioned WQCC

● CDPHE○ Site Visits○ Investigation of Influent

Loadings ○ Modeling

18

Subgroup Goals

● Develop Technology Based Effluent Limits for SIC 20● Follow WQCC’s Original Intent (SB&P):

○ Encourage Biological Nutrient Treatment○ BNR for Existing Facilities○ eBNR for New Facilities

● Address Unique Challenges for All Varieties of SIC 20 (Influent Loading; FDA Chemical Disinfectants; C:N:P)

● Do Not Create a False Competitive Advantage through Regulation

19

Statewide SIC 20 Review

20

Nutrient Data Analysis Overview

● Focus on nutrient loading in areas with SIC-20 industrial facilities○ TIN and TP loads for industrial versus domestic

facilities○ TIN and TP load contribution to total by basin

● Six industrial facilities● Located in four subbasins

21

Map of areas with SIC-20 industrial facilities

22

COSPCL - 1

COSPCP - 1

COSPMS - 1

COSPLS -3

Summary of facilities (reporting data 2013-2015)

23

Subbasin # of domestic facilities

# of “other” industrial facilities

# of SIC-20 industrial facilities

SIC-20 facilities

Clear Creek 7 - 1 Miller Coors

Cache la Poudre 12 1 1 Leprino Greeley(Noosa)

Middle S Platte 18 - 1 Swift Lone Tree

Lower S Platte 12 - 3 Cargill Ft. Morgan Leprino Ft. MorganWestern Sugar Ft. Morgan

TIN loads from domestic and industrial facilities

24

Clear Creek Cache la Poudre Middle S Platte Lower S Platte

Contribution to TIN loads by basin

25

Clear Creek Cache la Poudre Middle S Platte Lower S Platte

TP loads from domestic and industrial facilities

26

Contribution to TP loads by basin

27

National SIC 20 Review

28

National SIC 20 Review - Western States

● 83 SIC 20 Dischargers among 6 states (CA, ID, MT, OR, UT, and WA)

● 4 states with No SIC 20 Dischargers (AZ, NM, NV, WY)● 15 SIC 20 Dischargers with a TP limit or TN limit below

the EPA ELGs established for the type of industry ● MT, nutrients limits based on stream standards● UT, technology based nutrient limits● Both MT and UT allow variances or deviations

29

Proposed SIC 20 TBELs

30

Nutrient Data Analysis Overview

31

PARAMETER PARAMETER LIMITATIONS

Annual Median (1) 95th Percentile (2)

(I) Total Phosphorus 10 mg/L 25 mg/L

(II) Total Inorganic Nitrogen as N (3) 20 mg/L 27 mg/L

1 Running Annual Median: The median of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months.2 The 95th percentile of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months.3 Determined as the sum of nitrate as N, nitrite as N, and ammonia as N.

Existing Non-Domestic Dischargers with SIC 20

Nutrient Data Analysis Overview

32

PARAMETER PARAMETER LIMITATIONS

Annual Median (1) 95th Percentile (2)

(I) Total Phosphorus 5 mg/L 13 mg/L

(II) Total Inorganic Nitrogen as N (3) 10 mg/L 20 mg/L

1 Running Annual Median: The median of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months.2 The 95th percentile of all samples taken in the most recent 12 calendar months.3 Determined as the sum of nitrate as N, nitrite as N, and ammonia as N.

New Non-Domestic Dischargers with SIC 20

Result of Applied Limitations

33

Result of Applied Limitations for Nitrogen

34

Type of Discharger

Average Influent Parameters Average Effluent Parameters Total Reduction

in TIN LoadFlow Total Kjeldahl

Nitrogen (TKN) Load Flow Total Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) Load (1)

TIN Load, subject to Reg 85 Limits

mgd mg/L lbs/day mgd mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day %

Dairy Products Non-Domestic 1.78 116 1717 1.73 9.4 135 9.2 134 92.2

Meat Packing Non-Domestic 2.75 313 (2) 7190 3.22 16.3 439 15.0 404 94.4

Domestic 7.99 52 (3) 3466 7.54 15.2 956 13.6 858 75.2

(1) Established from nutrient monitoring data reported for the 2015 calendar year.(2) Established from concentrations experienced after rotary screening but prior to dissolved air flotation.(3) Based on the default loadings from the CDM Cost Benefit Study.

Result of Applied Limitations for Phosphorus

35

Type of Discharger

Average Influent Parameters Average Effluent ParametersTotal

Reduction in TP LoadFlow Total Phosphorus

(TP) Load Flow TP Load (1)TP Load, subject to Reg 85 Limits

mgd mg/L lbs/day mgd mg/L lbs/day mg/L lbs/day %

Dairy Products Non-Domestic 1.78 66.1 982 1.73 21.9 317 10.0 144 85.3

Meat Packing Non-Domestic 2.75 36.0 (2) 827 3.22 29.0 778 10.0 269 67.5

Domestic 7.99 6.0 (3) 400 7.54 4.2 264 1.0 63 84.3

(1) Established from nutrient monitoring data reported for the 2015 calendar year.(2) Data not available for facility. Based on typical concentration experienced by meat packing plants after

primary treatment (i.e. rotary screening and dissolved air flotation).(3) Based on the default loadings from the CDM Cost Benefit Study.

Total Reduction in Nutrient Load

36

Questions/discussion

37

Incentive Program

38

Voluntary Incentive Program to Encourage Early Nutrient Reduction

39

● Reminder: This program is VOLUNTARY● Available to any facility - whether currently subject to Reg 85

effluent limits or not● Phase 2 Subgroup discussed: What’s the carrot? What does the

facility have to do? How will this work?● Phase 2 Subgroup spawned a grandchild - “Matrix Grandchild

Group”

Report: Matrix Grandchild Group

40

● Group of interested parties has already met three times to start working through details ---but remains open to other participants.

Mechanics of Incentive Program (not final)● Performance based incentive approach: extra years to comply with WQBELs

after 2027 in exchange for reductions below Reg. 85 levels before 2027○ Matrix point system: greater reductions→ more years.

● Consensus on carrot: Reg. 85 should offer permittees an extended compliance schedule to comply with WQBELs after 2027. ○ “As soon as possible” language has been discussed.

● Consensus on regulatory mechanics: Program will be based on minimal language in Reg 85, with bulk of program outlined in WQCC Policy.

Which Facilities to Apply Regulation 85 to Beyond Those > 2 MGD?

41

Potential contributions

42

● Calculate load using recent median TN or TP concentration and discharge flow at design capacity

● Calculate upstream load using recent average upstream TN or TP and chronic low flow

● Calculate downstream load using mass balance

Effluent TN loading contribution to downstream load

43

Includes >1 MGD domestics facilities, excludes those disadvantaged or those subject to control regs

Effluent TP loading contribution to downstream

44

Includes >1 MGD domestics facilities, excludes those disadvantaged or those subject to control regs

Actual contributions

45

● Effluent loads calculated from TIN or TP concentration paired with reported discharge flow (2013-2015)

● Evaluate median load for each domestic facility

46

47

48

49

50

51

Prioritization of Standard Implementation in Lakes

52

Phased adoption of TN and TP standards in lakes and reservoirs

53

● 2022: Adopt standards based on prioritized uses○ Direct use water supply lakes and reservoirs○ Lakes and reservoirs with natural swimming areas

● 2027: Adopt standards in remaining lakes and reservoirs

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/WQ_Reg85_DUWS-Lakes-Reservoirs.pdfhttps://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/WQ_Reg85_Swim-Beach-Lakes-Reservoirs.pdf

Monitoring Requirements

54

Current monitoring requirements (> 1 MGD)

55

TNTP TN

TPFlow

TINTNTPFlow

WWTF

Proposed Regulation 85 changes

56

85.6(2)(b)(ii)(B) - Parameters: At a minimum, samples shall be analyzed for total inorganic nitrogen, total nitrogen (total Kjeldahl nitrogen plus nitrate-nitrite, or the components to calculate total nitrogen) and total phosphorus (or the components to calculate total phosphorus).

85.6(2)(b)(iv) - Timing: Entities shall commence data collection no later than March 1, 2013. Data collection will continue through December 31, 2027.

Sunset draft language and statement of basis language?

57 https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/WQ_Reg85_Markup-04-04-17.pdfhttps://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/WQ_Reg85_31-Markup-04-04-17.pdf

Check in on RMH Scheduling

58

Next Meetings

59

● April 20 - Phase 2 subgroup meeting○ 1:00 - 4:00 pm○ C1E (CDPHE main campus)

● May 3 - Large workgroup meeting #5○ 1:00 - 4:00 pm○ Rosiland Franklin Room (CDPHE Lab)

● May 8 - Briefing to Water Quality Control Commission○ 11:30 am○ Sabin-Cleere (CDPHE main campus)

60

Feedback

61