The Future of Alaska's Antidegradation Policy Or How Not to Foul Our Nest
Antidegradation Demonstration: Alternatives Analysis Analysis WHAT IS IN THIS PAPER- Distinguish...
-
Upload
jaquez-isaac -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of Antidegradation Demonstration: Alternatives Analysis Analysis WHAT IS IN THIS PAPER- Distinguish...
Antidegradation Demonstration: Alternatives Analysis Analysis
WHAT IS IN THIS PAPER-• Distinguish between need and necessity• Recognize three general types of alternatives• Compare state procedures and practices • Understand that alternatives affect the NPDES
permitting process• Consider suggestions about the process
Antidegradation Demonstration: Alternatives Analysis
Alternatives: One of two considerations when making a demonstration
• Need - important social and economic development in the area of the discharge
• Necessity – most technically reasonable and cost-effective alternative.
For the Alternatives AnalysisThe Applicant Must…
• Identify alternatives at time of permit application• Describe alternatives with sufficient detail to
make a demonstration of… – Why one alternative is preferred over another– How alternatives minimize load increases – Whether alternatives are technically feasible and
available – What the alternatives costs – to show it is reasonably
economical– (optional) Whether a combination of alternatives and
mitigation techniques would be best
The applicant does not need to research cutting edge, innovative technologies.
The alternatives analysis is seen as more of a practical exercise for the applicant (and permit writer) to apply what is “out there.”
For the Alternatives Analysis the Permit Writer
• Applies professional judgement to weigh alternatives or combination of alternatives
• Wrestles with difficult questions of reasonableness (of the selected alternative), technically feasibility and cost often w/o guidelines and w/o the benefit of knowing if other states or regions have done similar analysis
• Makes best use of time by relying on Agency resources, – Applicant’s information, similar permitting scenarios, and other
available information (Illinois) – Applicant must provide schematics, descriptions, analysis, and
cost estimates for the alternative (Wisconsin)
Alternative AnalysisEconomic Reasonableness
• Capital cost less than 110% of the cost of an alternative for achieving a water quality based effluent limit (WI only)
• Cost relative to the cost of treatment necessary to achieve the applicable treatment limitations
• No set amount of detail required from applicant
Types of AlternativesBased on an examination of rules and procedures in Region 5 states,
alternatives tend to fall into three categories:
1) Source reductionP2/creditsWater recycling, reuse
2) Enhanced treatmentimproved/enhanced techniques, additional control measures, operational changes
3) Reconfigured or relocated effluent dischargeeliminate discharge, discharge to POTW or centralized facility, discharge to another waterbody
Comparison of State Approaches
Our analysis addressed several things simultaneouly
Level of requirement
Unshaded = may
Shaded = must
Data Source
Conventional Pollutant
BCC or toxic pollutant
Type of pollutant is involved?
Issue paper (MN)
Rule and guidance
Key
Applies to BCCs and conventional pollutants
Applies to BCCs only
Applies to conventional pollutants only
from issue paper
Nonshaded = may identify alternative Shaded grey = must, shall identify alternative
Apply conservation techniques
Reduce levels through pollution prevention*
Apply trading or credits
Apply enhanced treatment techniques
Apply alternative treatment technologies
Make operational changes
Add control measures
Eliminate the discharge altogether
Discharge seasonally
Relocate the discharge to another waterbody or to groundwater
**
Discharge to a POTW, central facility or regional facility
IL IN MI MN OH WI
302.105 f)1) 302.521 a)2)
323.1098(4)(b); Procedure 14 guidance
7052.0320 s2 Issue paper
3745-1-05(B)(5) NR207.04(1)(d)
Mitigate at source or through other technique (9)
Optimize treatment technology (13)
Reconfigure effluent flow regime (10)
STATE
Applies to BCCs and conventional pollutants
Applies to BCCs only
Applies to conventional pollutants only
from issue paper
Nonshaded = may identify alternative Shaded grey = must, shall identify alternative
Table 1. Antidegradation: STATE COMPARISON
Observations from Table 1
• States apply all three categories to varying degree
• All states rely on alternative and enhanced treatment techniques and P2 as a mitigation technique
• States broadly identify types of alternatives but leave the
details to the applicant
• Some alternatives are not applicable to conventional pollutants
One Earth Energy
(5 options)
Optimized treatment
•Discharge to POTW•Land application•Zero discharge•Discharge to wetland•Different receiving stream•Advanced treatment (one alternative)
Marquis Energy (5 options)
Optimized treatment
•Discharge to POTW•Land application•Phosphorus removal•Zero discharge•Discharge to wetland•Advanced treatment (one alternative)
B.P. Amoco (3 options)
No change
•Biological removal of ammonia on-site•Biological removal of ammonia off-site•Retain current treatment configuration
Osseo WWTP
(4 options)
Optimized treatment
•Source reduction, including water conservation measures•Recycling•Operational change•WWTP upgrade (one alternative treatment technology)
Bustorf Dairy (2 optns)
Reconfigure flow
•Discharge manure to WWTP•Seasonal discharge (On-site storage lagoon and farm irrigation)
Ohio River Clean Fuels
(4 options)
Optimized treatment
•Discharge to POTW•Site relocation and discharge to another waterbody•Underground injection•Recycling and treatment (one alternative treatment technology)
Table 2. Options proposed by discharger (bold = selected alternative)
Apply conservation techniques
Osseo WWTP
Reduce levels through pollution prevention*
OH Riv Cln Fuel
Apply trading or credits
Apply enhanced treatment techniques Marquis Energy
Apply alternative treatment technologies1 Earth Enrgy, Marquis Energy BP Amoco Bustorf Dairy OH Riv Cln Fuel Osseo WWTP
Make operational changes
Add control measures
Eliminate the discharge altogether1 Earth Enrgy, Marquis Energy OH Riv Cln Fuel
Discharge seasonally1 Earth Enrgy, Marquis Energy
Relocate the discharge to another waterbodyMarquis Energy OH Riv Cln Fuel Osseo WWTP
Discharge to a POTW, central facility or regional facility
1 Earth Enrgy, Marquis Energy Bustorf Dairy OH Riv Cln Fuel
IL IN MI MN OH WI
1 Earth Enrgy (new) - TSS, Chloride, Fe, Bo, SO4 ; Marquis Energy (new) - chloride, Na, SO4, hardness
BP Amoco (increase) - TSS, NH4-N (discharge to OSRW)
Bustorf (new) - "CAFO pollutants"
none providedOH R. Clean Fuels (new)
Osseo (new/replacement) - BOD, TSS
Mitigate at source or through other technique (9)
Optimize treatment technology (13)
Reconfigure effluent flow regime (10)
STATE
Table 3. Examples of antidegradation actions provided by States
Apply conservation techniques
Osseo WWTP
Reduce levels through pollution prevention*
OH Riv Cln Fuel
Apply trading or credits
Apply enhanced treatment techniques Marquis Energy
Apply alternative treatment technologies1 Earth Enrgy, Marquis Energy BP Amoco Bustorf Dairy OH Riv Cln Fuel Osseo WWTP
Make operational changes
Add control measures
Eliminate the discharge altogether1 Earth Enrgy, Marquis Energy OH Riv Cln Fuel
Discharge seasonally1 Earth Enrgy, Marquis Energy
Relocate the discharge to another waterbodyMarquis Energy OH Riv Cln Fuel Osseo WWTP
Discharge to a POTW, central facility or regional facility
1 Earth Enrgy, Marquis Energy Bustorf Dairy OH Riv Cln Fuel
IL IN MI MN OH WI
1 Earth Enrgy (new) - TSS, Chloride, Fe, Bo, SO4 ; Marquis Energy (new) - chloride, Na, SO4, hardness
BP Amoco (increase) - TSS, NH4-N (discharge to OSRW)
Bustorf (new) - "CAFO pollutants"
none providedOH R. Clean Fuels (new)
Osseo (new/replacement) - BOD, TSS
Mitigate at source or through other technique (9)
Optimize treatment technology (13)
Reconfigure effluent flow regime (10)
STATE
Applies to BCCs and conventional pollutants
Applies to BCCs only
Applies to conventional pollutants only
from issue paper
Nonshaded = may identify alternative Shaded grey = must, shall identify alternative
Table 4. Examples of antidegradation actions with overlay
Observation from Table 4
• B.P. Amoco and Bustorf Dairy did not apply a less degrading “alternative” B.P because of no land; Bustorf because of impracticality
• With exception of One Earth Energy, each category is represented
• The number of alternatives and level of detail varies by facility
• Enhanced or alternative treatment technology is underutilized (common for only one treatment technology to be identified, the chosen technology)
When does the alternatives analysis take place?
• Alternatives are submitted as part of the application (MI can deny application if it is incomplete)
• MI, WI seem to evaluate social and economic (need) before evaluating alternatives (necessity)
• Other states may evaluate need and necessity are
evaluated on parallel tracks
Public Comment and Response to Comment Usually Occurs after the
Permit is Drafted
• Ohio issues a public notice early in process that an antidegradation demonstration has been received so that interested parties can get on mailing list
• Other states public notice the application (including antidegradation demonstration) with the draft permit
Concept Development
Check the application
Permit developmentPublic Participation Permit
Completion
Final Permit
PermitApplication
A
State Decision
B
Draft Permit & P.N
Proposed permit
Commnt on permit
Discharger
State
Public PN ResponseOH
Simplified Timeline of NPDES Permit Process showing parties involved
A = Complete app’n includes antidegradation demonstrationB = Decision on whether the application is administratively complete. MI – Inadequate application leads to notice of denial of application. OH – Antidegradation in application leads to public notice antidegradation demonstration. Initial public notice provides opportunity to be included on mailing list. C = OH. Response to public notice of application to show interest in being on mailing list
Observations from Timeline
• Public involvement in antidegradation decisions occur at the draft permit stage
• Ohio issues a public notice early on that antidegradation application is submitted, but no detail is provided
• Illinois is only state required to name alternatives in its draft permit public notice
Suggestions
• Technology transfer. Improved access to information about new technologies and costs associated with alternatives considered by applicants.
• Better definitions of alternatives and clarification that alternative = at least 2 options
• Standardize ratings and evaluation tools or prepare a guide to simplify alternative review process.
• Describe economic-based analysis methodologies • Clarify what is meant by area wide facility.• Address system life and O & M cost, and energy cost.
the end