Page 1
WQ Management DevelopmentsWQ Management Developments
Nutrients, BacteriaNutrients, Bacteria
Jim Davenport
Monitoring & Assessment Section
Water Quality Planning Division
Office of Water
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
[email protected] tel. 512/239-4585
February 22, 2011
Page 2
Nutrient Criteria: NationalNutrient Criteria: National
�EPA and numerical nutrient criteria:
- 1998 mandate: states to have criteria by 2004
- Allowed state development plans and schedules
- Established stringent national guidance criteria
○ Calculated from historical instream data
○ Separate for lakes, streams, reservoirs
○ Pooled for large, aggregate ecoregions
○ Criteria = 75th percentile of unimpacted sites
- Urged by EPA Inspector General, Aug 2009
- Lawsuits: Florida (Wisconsin, Kansas)
Page 3
EPA Nutrient Criteria: FloridaEPA Nutrient Criteria: Florida
� Lawsuit from Florida Wildlife Fed. & others in 2008
� EPA promulgated criteria for Florida lakes & streams in Dec 2010 – in effect Mar 2012
� EPA estuary criteria – propose in Nov 2011
� New countersuits – Florida cities, Ag Comm., etc.
� Lakes TP: 0.01-0.05 mg/L TN: 0.51-1.27 mg/L
� Streams TP: 0.06-0.49 mg/L TN: 0.67-1.87 mg/L
� Potential long term costs?
- Regulated groups: $3 - $8 billion per year
- EPA: $135 - $206 million per year
Page 4
Why Are Nutrient Criteria Difficult?Why Are Nutrient Criteria Difficult?
� Lack of clear “use-based” thresholds, for uses such as recreation & aesthetics, aquatic life propagation, drinking water sources
� Responses to nutrients are highly variable –e.g., effect of TN,TP on Chl a
� No consensus on how to derive criteria
� Independent criteria, or “weight-of evidence”?
� Insufficiencies in historical monitoring data
� Initial EPA guidance criteria were problematic
� High concern about regulatory impacts
Page 5
TCEQ Nutrient Criteria: DevelopmentTCEQ Nutrient Criteria: Development
�Submitted plans to EPA in 2001, 2006
�Reservoirs, then streams & estuaries
�Convened advisory workgroup
�Separate criteria for each reservoir
�Set on historical conditions
�Adopted for 75 reservoirs – 6/30/10
�Based on Chlorophyll a
(suspended algae)
�New permitting procedures for nutrients
Page 6
Nutrient Criteria: ExamplesNutrient Criteria: Examples
Reservoir Chl a (µg/L)
Stand-alone
TP (mg/L)
Not adopted
Transparency (meters)
Not adopted
Eagle Mtn 25.4 0.07 0.80
Cedar Creek 30.4 0.07 0.80
Livingston 23.0 0.16 0.67
Lewisville 18.5 0.06 0.60
[Houston –
not adopted]
[12.4] 0.18 0.28
Travis 3.7 0.03 3.13
Page 7
2010 Nutrient Implementation Procedures2010 Nutrient Implementation Procedures
� In 2010 Standards Implementation Procedures
� Applied to increases in domestic discharges
� Sets framework for nutrient (TP) effluent limits
� Reservoirs – predict effects on “main pool”
� Relate TP to reservoir chlorophyll a criteria
� Streams and reservoirs – assess local impacts:
- Apply site-specific screening factors
- Level of concern – low, moderate, or high
- Assess “weight-of-evidence”
Page 8
Nutrient Screening: Local Factors for StreamsNutrient Screening: Local Factors for Streams
- Size of discharge
- Instream dilution
- Sensitivity to attached vegetation – type of bottom
- Sensitivity to attached vegetation – depth
- Sensitivity to nutrient enrichment – clarity
- Sensitivity to aquatic vegetation – observations
- Sensitivity to aquatic vegetation – sunlight, tree shading
- Streamflow sustainability
- Impoundments and pools
- Consistency with other permits
- Listed as a nutrient concern in WQ inventory?
Page 9
Nutrient Screening: Example of Local FactorNutrient Screening: Example of Local Factor
� Factor: Instream dilution in streams
Concern level Percent effluent in dry weather
Low < 10 %
Moderate 10 to < 25 %
High > 25 %
Page 10
Nutrient Criteria: The Road AheadNutrient Criteria: The Road Ahead
� Reconvene nutrient advisory committee
� Review data and academic research; and
survey criteria development state-by-state
(joint project with U. of Houston Clear Lake)
� Continue special stream surveys (> 100 so far)
� Develop criteria options for streams & estuaries:
(1) Historical levels at reference sites
(2) Relate TP,TN to D.O., algae, biological indices
� Consider in part for next standards revisions
Page 11
Revised Recreational Standards (6/30/10)
< Previously: Almost all water bodies primary contact
< 303 water bodies not meeting bacteria criteria (2010)
< Expand recreational categories
< Implement new use-attainability analyses
< Require bacteria limits in discharge permits
- in addition to chlorination (11/4/09)
Page 12
Recreation Uses Indicator Bacteria
Geometric Mean Criteria (colonies/100 ml)
E. coli (FW) Enterococci (SW)
Previous Standards:
Contact recreation 126 35
Noncontact rec. 605 168
Adopted Standards:
(6/30/2010)
Primary contact 126 35
Secondary contact 1 630 175
Secondary contact 2 1030 --
Noncontact rec. 2060 350
Page 13
Recreational Use-Attainability
▸ Uses other than primary contact may be appropriate for some water bodies
▸ TCEQ has new recreational UAA procedures
▸ Surveys include physical & flow characteristics, + observed evidence of recreation
▸ Local input (interviews) important
▸ Initiated 124 recreational UAAs
▸ Involves major coordination effort
and public participation
Page 14
Effluent Bacteria: Houston TMDL Studies Effluent Bacteria: Houston TMDL Studies
Minor municipal facilities(114 data points)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
0 5 10 15 20
residual chlorine (mg/L)
E.
co
li (
log
of
#/1
00 m
l)
E. coli log
Single samplemaximum log (2.6)
Geometric mean log(2.1)
Page 15
SummarySummary
� National interest in nutrient criteria is increasing, partly in response to new EPA criteria for Florida.
� TCEQ adopted criteria (Chl a) for 75 reservoirs, but EPA has not yet approved them.
� TCEQ is developing draft criteria with multiple options for streams and rivers, and for estuaries.
� TCEQ has adopted expanded recreational categories and criteria
� Numerous UAA reviews of individual small streams
is continuing
� Questions?
Page 16
Bacteria Requirements
Bacteria Limits
in TPDES Domestic Permits
Page 17
Agreement with EPA
� Interim: bacteria limits in certain permits
� Bacteria limits in all permit actions issued after 1/1/10.
� Permits issued under interim agreement may see frequency adjustment in next permit
Page 18
Implementation
� Next permit action
� New
� Renewal
� Amendment
� No compliance schedule
� Recommend evaluating now
Page 19
Bacteria Limits� Standard
� E coli
� 126 avg
� 394 max
� Enterococci
� 35 avg
� 89 max
Page 20
Measurement FrequenciesFlow Chlorine Ultraviolet Natural
>10 5/wk Daily Daily
5—10 3/wk Daily 5/wk
1—5 1/wk Daily 3/wk
0.5—1.0 2/mo Daily 1/wk
0.1—0.5 1/mo 5/wk 2/mo
<0.1 1/qtr 5/wk 1/mo
Page 21
Continued Need for Chlorine Testing
� Retain
� 4.0 mg maximum
� 0.1 mg dechlor
� Regular check between bacteria samples
Page 22
Chlorine Contact Chambers
�Recommend evaluating now
� If undersized or short-circuiting, violating current regulations
Page 23
� 21-day retention time
� Recommend evaluating
� Capacities
� Sample Locations
� Wildlife impacts (birds, nutria, etc)
� Compliance schedule for new construction
Pond Systems
Page 24
Laboratory Issues
� In-house testing without NELAC
� Contract lab must be NELAC certified
� Proximity to plant
� Increased workload
Page 25
Sample Holding Times
� Standard Methods
� Holding time – 6 hours
� Set-up time – 2 hours
� Travel time issues
Page 26
Reporting Units
� Colony Forming Units
� CFU
� Most Probable Number
� MPN
� Both Acceptable!
Page 27
Nutrient Removal
Chapter 217:
Design Criteria for Wastewater Systems
Page 28
Current Regulations
� “A facility design that proposes advanced
nutrient removal is innovative and
nonconforming technology and is subject to
217.10(b)(2) of this title (relating to
Innovative and Nonconforming
Technology).” - 217.163
Page 29
Results
� Wide variety of removal processes yielding eco-regionally dependent results
� Problems-
� Variability of ego-regional conditions in Texas
� One treatment process with several different performance reports
Page 30
Design Criteria Changes
� Engineer’s report must include detailed design calculations correlating the proposed removal process with the anticipated effluent concentration.
� Process
� TP/TN Influent Characteristics
� TP/TN Effluent Characteristics
Page 31
Desired Ranges
� Total Nitrogen < 8 mg/L
� Total Phosphorous
� Chemical Addition: 0.1 - 0.5 mg/L
� Membrane Filtration: 0.1 - 0.5 mg/L
� BNR: 0.2 - 0.3 mg/L
Page 32
� Specific effluent standards are still considered on case-by-case basis in each permit
Page 33
Contact Info
� Louis C. Herrin, III, P.E.
� [email protected]
� 512.239.4552
Page 34
Compiled Surveys from Vendors of Membranes
� Huber, Koch, Kruger, Kubota, Siemens, Zenon
Results of Survey, Literature and Other State Regulations
Concerns
� Prevention of Fouling
� Adequate aeration at high MLSS concentrations
� Achievable rate of flow through membranes
� Adequate pretreatment i.e. fine screening
� Hydraulics
� Ensure Integrity
� Foam Control
� Warranty
� Nutrient Removal
Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)
Page 35
Applicability
� Submerged
� Low-pressure, vacuum or gravity
� Ultrafiltration or microfiltration
� 217.8(b)(2) Approval of Nonconforming and Innovative Technologies
� May require pilot study and/or 2 year performance bond
Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)
Page 36
� CBOD5 5 mg/l� TSS 1 mg/l� Ammonia 1 mg/l� Total Nitrogen (w/pre-anoxic zone) 10 mg/l� Total Nitrogen (w/pre-anoxic and
� post-anoxic zone) 3 mg/l� Total Phosphorus (with chemical addition) 0.2 mg/l � Total Phosphorus (with Bio-P removal) 0.5 mg/l� Turbidity 0.2 NTU� Bacteria up to 6 log removal (99.9999%)� Viruses up to 3 log removal (99.9999%)
If proposed design is for higher quality effluent,
Pilot Study or Data from Similar Facility
Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)Expected Performance
Page 37
Membranes
Hollow fiber or Flat plate
Nominal Pore Size
Microfiltration 0.10 – 0.40 microns
Ultrafiltration 0.02 to 0.10 microns
Common Membrane materials
Pretreatment
Fine Screen - perforated plate or drum
Hollow fiber 1.0 - 2.0 mm
Flat plate 2.0 - 3.0 mm
No Bypass
Primary clarifier Evaluated for > 1 MGD
Grit Removal excessive I/I
Oil and Grease Removal 50 mg/l
Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)
Page 38
Operation
Average Daily Net flux rate @ 20 C 12 to 20 gfd
Peak Daily Net flux rate @ 20 C 20 gfd
Two Hour Peak Daily Net flux rate @ 20 C 24 gfd
Operational Range for TMP
Maximum Operational TMP
Hollow Fiber 2.0 – 10.0 psi Max 12.0 psi
Flat Plate 0.3 - 1.5 psi Max 3.0 psi
Operational Range of MLSS Concentration
Bio Reactor 4,000 - 10,000 mg/l
Membrane Tank 4,000 – 12,000 mg/l
Operational control parameters
SRT 10 – 25 days
Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)
Page 39
Operation
Amount of air used per square foot of membrane
0.01 – 0.04 SCFM / SF
Method of Integrity Testing : In-line Turbidity <=1.0 NTU
Hollow Fiber Pressure Decay Testing
Surface Wasting to Foam Control
Run in full manual mode or backup PLC
Aeration
alpha value of 0.5 or lower
anoxic 0.5 mg/l DO
aerobic 1.5 – 3.0 mg/l DO
membrane 2.0 - 8.0 mg/l DO
Nutrient Removal
deoxygenate recycle
recycle 300 – 600 percent
Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)
Page 40
Redundancy
N+1, trains, units or storage. Show calculations
Peak Flow
Peak Ratio of 2.5 requires Equalization, off-line storage or reserve membrane capacity
RAS rate
200 – 400 percent of influent
Warranty
5 year on Membranes
May require a 2 year performance bond
Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)
Page 41
� Engineering Report Required
� Common range of values
� Justification for using parameters outside the common range
� May be required to provide 2 year performance bond
217.157 Membrane Bioreactors
Treatment Systems (MBR)