NEW JERSEY Arsenic Water Quality Standards Variance ... · NEW JERSEY Arsenic Water Quality Standards Variance Workgroup Meeting 09/28/2017 Department of Environmental Protection

NEW JERSEY

Arsenic Water Quality Standards

Variance Workgroup Meeting09/28/2017

Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Water Monitoring and Standards

Bureau of Environmental Analysis, Restoration and Standards

Agenda

➢ Why arsenic variance?

➢ What is water quality standards variance

(WQSV)?

➢ NJ’s proposed approach

➢ Workgroup

Goal – Streamlined variance approach

➢ Discussion

➢ Future meetings – Assignments,

schedules etc.

Arsenic – Why do we need variance?

Human Health Criterion = 0.017 µg/L (based on fish and drinking water consumption) in Fresh waters and 0.061 µg/L in Saline waters

• No approved technology for measuring to, or treat to the criteria

• Drinking water MCL = 5 µg/L (treatment and economics factored in)

Natural background levels higher than criteria

• e.g. 0.24 - 0.61 µg/L in Outer Coastal Plains based on geologic conditions

• Still lower than the TBELs in most places

All freshwaters are designated for water supply use (drinking water)

• Criterion applicable to all freshwaters regardless of existing use

Impaired 303(d) listed waters must meet criterion end-of-pipe

➢ NJ statutes and Clean Water Act does not alloweconomic/technology limitations for Human Health criteriadevelopment

➢ Modify WQBELs and not SWQS

➢ Short time frame (3 years)

➢ No relief when natural background concentrations,detection levels or technology based effluent limits >human health criteria

Why existing rules/policies cannot

address Arsenic?

Solutions – Finally ??!!

EPA’s Updated

WQS Rules in 2015

➢ Implementation issues when

attainment is economically or

technologically not feasible

➢ Legacy pollutants (e.g. PCBs),

mercury, nutrients, dissolved oxygen

➢ Stayed/Adjudicated permits

Arsenic

SWQS Variance

for Arsenic and

other

pollutants

Water Quality Standards Variance

(WQSV)(40 C.F.R. § 131.14)

Effective October 20, 2015

Definition: A time-limited designated use and criterion for

a specific pollutant(s) that reflect the highest attainable

condition (HAC) during the term of the WQS variance.

• Applicable for NPDES implementation – Underlying use/criterion remains

• Applies to identified

• Parameter/pollutant

• Water body / waterbody segment(s)

• Permittee(s)

• Term / Duration

• Assumption – Underlying designated use / criteria

achieved at the end of term

WQSV

Pollutant(s)

Water body

Term/Duration +

Reevaluation Schedule if

term > 5 years

Highest Attainable Condition

(HAC)

Supporting documents / justifications

Pollutant Minimization

Program (PMP)

Public participation

Legally binding / State

Attorney general

certification

Terminologies and

Abbreviations specific to WQSV

➢ Term - Duration

➢ Factors

➢ MDV – Multiple Discharge(s) Specific WQSV

➢ DSV – Single Discharge Specific WQSV

➢ Water body variance – WQSV applicable to water body

or waterbody segment(s)

➢ HAC – Highest Attainable Conditions

➢ PMP – Pollutant Minimization Program

Applicability of WQS Variance

➢ Time-limited designated use and/or

criterion

For Arsenic Variance, contemplating 15-20 years (3-4 permit cycles)

Justification:

• No EPA approved analytical method to measure as low as criteria

• No new technology in past 15 years for wastewater treatment

• EPA Drinking water MCL is 10 µg/L (WHO as well)

• NJ Drinking water MCL is 5 µg/L

• Multiple opportunities to evaluate and change

• Triennial Review

• Reevaluation – Synched with permit cycle (5 years)

Factors [40 C.F.R. § 131.10(g)]

1. Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations

2. Natural low/ephemeral/intermittent flow

3. Human caused conditions

4. Hydrologic modifications (Dams/diversions)

5. Natural features of water body (pools, riffles)

6. Substantial economic and social impacts

Highest Attainable Condition (HAC) Must be a quantifiable expression based on:

MDV / DSV

• Interim Criterion

• Interim Effluent Condition

reflecting greatest pollutant

reduction

• Interim criterion or effluent

condition based on optimization

of current treatment and a PMP if

additional controls are not

feasible

Water body Variance

• Interim Use and Criterion

• Interim use or criterion

based on optimization of current

treatment and a PMP if

additional controls are not

feasible

PMP – Pollutant Minimization Program

Definition: “a structured set of activities including an

implementation schedule to improve processes and

pollutant controls that will prevent and reduce pollutant

loadings.”

Guidance ??

Variance ProcessPermittee(s) Request or State Initiates

DEP Adopts WQSV through

Rule Making

EPA Approves

Stakeholder Input

Permittee(s) Input

NJPDES Implements

Public hearing, AG Certification

Duration > 5 years

Criteria met end of

duration

NO YES

Reevaluation at least every 5

years and submit to EPA +

Triennial Review

If permittee fails to submit reevaluation to DEP, original criteria applies

DEP Prepares Variance Package

WQS Variance for Arsenic

NJ SWQS Revision

• Update definitions

• New section to Include WQSV -applicability and requirements

• New section to list all variances

Arsenic Variance

• Multi-discharge(s) specific variance (MDV)

• Single discharge specific variance (DSV)

Anticipated

Process for

Arsenic Variance

* - PQL of 2 µg/L is tentative,

subject to confirmation from

Office of Quality Assurance, NJDEP

Wastewater Arsenic Treatability

Study – Prof. Meng

Workgroup Asks

• Consensus on arsenic variance process

• Term – 15/20 years??

• Identification of eligible permittees

• PQL as the threshold

• Should maximum reported concentration be

compared to PQL?

• Establishing background concentrations

• Data requirements and sufficiency

• Minimum number of data (10 ?)

• Minimum duration (2 years ?)

• Maximum duration (5 years ?)

• Acceptable frequency (Monthly, seasonal, annual

?? )

➢ Influent and effluent data – How much more?

➢ Anthropogenic sources – How much details?

➢ Legacy contamination – How to prove?

➢ Existing / Available technology – Is DSREH literature review

sufficient?

➢ Affordability for upgrade – When and how?

➢ Cost-effective and reasonable BMPs for nonpoint source – When is

this required?

➢ Documentation of HAC

Workgroup AskWQS Variance Data Requirements

FOR SUBSEQUENT

DISCUSSION

MDV – Multiple Discharge Specific Variance

Workgroup Asks (contd.)

• Identification of minimum concentrations by existing treatment

technologies

• Permittee specific – variable influent concentrations

• Requirements

• Information from Treatability study by Stevens

• What will be the data requirements to satisfy

supporting documentation

• Background/upstream ambient concentration ??

• Guidance document

• Data information requirements for future applicants

• Requirements for PMPs

• Requirements for economic impacts (if factor 6 is opted for)

DSV – Single Discharge Specific Variance

FOR SUBSEQUENT

DISCUSSION

Discussion - Next

Steps

• Communication mode – listserve? MS Office group?

• Scheduling

• Meeting frequency

• Should we create sub-workgroups?

Contact Information➢ Bruce Friedman, Director, Division of Water Monitoring & Standards

(DWM&S)

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 609-748-2001

➢ Kimberly Cenno, Chief, Bureau of Environmental Analysis Restoration

and Standards (BEARS), DWM&S

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 609-292-3075

➢ Biswarup (Roop) Guha, SWQS Lead/Rule Manager, BEARS, DWM&S

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 609-292-1592

➢ Gigi Mallepalle, SWQS Rule Team, BEARS, DWM&S

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 609-292-6015