Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

MMSD Perspective - Susan Anthony


Published on

Presentation given at Sweet Water's Forum on Phosphorus held on May 27, 2010

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

MMSD Perspective - Susan Anthony

  1. 1. SWWT Phosphorus Forum Proposed NR 217 May 27, 2010 Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Perspective
  2. 2. Background <ul><li>DNR Advisory Committee Convened February 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>November 23, 2009: Seven Environmental Groups file Notice of Intent to sue US EPA Administrator for failure to promulgate numeric criteria for the State of Wisconsin </li></ul><ul><li>Clean Water Action Council of Northeastern Wisconsin; Environmental Law & Policy Center; Midwest Environmental Advocates; Milwaukee Riverkeeper; Prairie Rivers Network; River Alliance of Wisconsin; Sierra Club; Wisconsin Wildlife Federation </li></ul><ul><li>Similar action was taken in 2009 to compel US EPA to issue phosphorus Water Quality Standards in Florida </li></ul>
  3. 3. Background <ul><li>January 7, 2010 letter to DNR Secretary Matthew Frank and USEPA Administrator Lisa Jackson </li></ul><ul><li>From MMSD, Green Bay Met, Madison Met, and Municipal Environmental Group </li></ul><ul><li>Support of WDNR in its efforts to develop numeric nutrient criteria for Wisconsin </li></ul><ul><li>Including changes to NR 151 relating to non-point sources, particularly agricultural sources </li></ul>
  4. 4. Anticipated Rule Adoption Schedule <ul><li>April 2010 Public Hearings Held </li></ul><ul><li>June 2010 DNR Board Meeting: Approval of New Rules Expected </li></ul><ul><li>Submit to Legislature for Review before September 1, 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Otherwise, legislative review does not occur until 2011 under sec. 227.19(2) Wis. Stats. </li></ul>
  5. 5. Current DNR Proposed Rules <ul><li>NR 151 rules address agricultural, construction and urban runoff </li></ul><ul><li>NR 102 rules establish in-stream water quality numeric standards </li></ul><ul><li>NR 217 rules establish implementation methods for point sources; including adaptive implementation approach and variance procedures </li></ul>
  6. 6. What is MMSD’s current performance on phosphorus removal? <ul><li>Current phosphorus limit for both water reclamation plants is 1.0 mg/liter </li></ul><ul><li>Both plants consistently meet this limitation </li></ul><ul><li>Both plants achieve a high level of removal </li></ul><ul><li>On average, between 87% and 93 % reduction from influent loads </li></ul>
  7. 7. Jones Island Monthly P Loads
  8. 8. South Shore Monthly P Loads
  9. 9. Comparison of JI and SS effluent P
  10. 10. South Shore P Removal Efficiency
  11. 11. Jones Island P Removal Efficiency
  12. 12. What do the new rules mean to MMSD and watersheds? <ul><li>For South Shore Water Reclamation Facility: New numeric phosphorus water quality standard for Lake Michigan is 0.007 mg/liter (7 ug/L) </li></ul><ul><li>For Jones Island Water Reclamation Facility: New numeric water quality standard for the Outer Harbor is 0.1 mg/liter (100 ug/L) </li></ul>
  13. 13. Estimated Costs <ul><li>MMSD Estimate: Based on Costs developed in MMSD 2020 Facilities Plan </li></ul><ul><li>$500 million: Filtration Technology at both plants (capital cost only; O&M additional) </li></ul><ul><li>Does not include land acquisition costs </li></ul><ul><li>Statewide Estimate: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>municipal filtration systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ranges from $1.3 billion to $4.3 billion </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. How best to meet these new standards? <ul><li>Standards have not been subject of much debate </li></ul><ul><li>IMPLEMENTATION IS FOCUS </li></ul><ul><li>WATERSHED APPROACH IS KEY </li></ul><ul><li>First we need to look at where the phosphorus is coming from in our watersheds. </li></ul><ul><li>This will vary from watershed to watershed. </li></ul>
  15. 15. Where is the phosphorus coming from in our watersheds? <ul><li>In MMSD service area we are fortunate to have answers to this question </li></ul><ul><li>MMSD 2020 Facility Plan </li></ul><ul><li>SEWRPC 208 Plan Update </li></ul>
  16. 18. IMPLEMENTATION GOAL: Nonpoint and urban storm water should be addressed first <ul><li>2020 Facility Plan and SEWRPC 208 report clearly demonstrate that nonpoint and urban storm water contribution are significant sources of phosphorus </li></ul><ul><li>Nonpoint and stormwater can be more cost effectively controlled than end of pipe treatment, i.e., filtration </li></ul><ul><li>Cost per pound of non-point P reduction estimated to be on order of 10% of filtration costs </li></ul>
  17. 19. IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH <ul><li>Support DNR revised runoff control requirements in NR 151 </li></ul><ul><li>Support DNR revisions to P water quality standards </li></ul><ul><li>Support new concept in NR 217 which incorporates the watershed approach </li></ul><ul><li>Called Adaptive Management Option </li></ul>
  18. 20. NEW CONCEPT: Adaptive Management Option <ul><li>During the Advisory Committee process, MMSD and other municipal treatment plants urged DNR to consider an adaptive implementation approach </li></ul><ul><li>DNR has incorporated this concept into the proposed Rule at NR 217.17(4) </li></ul>
  19. 21. What is Adaptive Management Option? <ul><li>Stepped process under which point sources agree to achieve lower P limit, monitor in stream water quality, develop restoration plan and facilitate implementation of BMP’s for upstream sources </li></ul><ul><li>Up to three permit terms are allowed to achieve in stream P water quality standard </li></ul>
  20. 22. Purposes of Adaptive Management Option <ul><li>To create incentives for treatment plants (and other point sources) to implement most effective P controls by allowing them to search the watershed for the best options; probably Best Management Practices for upstream nonpoint and urban storm water sources </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul>
  21. 23. Purposes of Adaptive Management Option <ul><li>To require in stream water quality monitoring to measure impacts of those controls </li></ul><ul><li>To allow time for P reduction actions to occur: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Phosphate detergent ban </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Phosphorus fertilizer ban </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Municipal storm water controls </li></ul></ul>
  22. 24. Example of how Adaptive Management Option can work <ul><li>Municipal treatment plant “opts in” to the Adaptive Management Option in its permit reissuance application </li></ul><ul><li>Accepts interim limitation of 0.6 mg/l as required by rule (note: this is lower than current applicable limit of 1.0 mg/l) </li></ul><ul><li>During 5 year permit term, treatment plant agrees to monitor in stream water quality; locates P sources upstream and negotiates (and contributes to cost) BMP’s aimed at P reductions. </li></ul>
  23. 25. How Adaptive Management Option Can Work <ul><li>At end of 5 year permit term, if P water quality standard has not been met, POTW must accept permit limitation of 0.5 mg/l for next 5 year term of permit; </li></ul><ul><li>POTW must monitor in stream water quality and continue to seek in stream P reductions </li></ul><ul><li>At end of second 5 year term in stream water quality is evaluated; if met, POTW has succeeded in implementing a watershed solution and faces no further reduction in P discharge limitations </li></ul><ul><li>If in stream water quality standard not met, POTW faces limits calculated under NR 217.13, possibly leading to filtration technology requirements </li></ul>
  24. 26. Adaptive Management Concept
  25. 27. Why we support Adaptive Management Option <ul><li>Best use of financial resources </li></ul><ul><li>Watershed based approach to solving the P problem </li></ul><ul><li>Creates incentives for POTW’s to fund phosphorus reductions through agricultural or stormwater best management practices </li></ul>
  26. 28. Why we support Adaptive Management Option <ul><li>Under current law, agricultural sources are not required to comply with NR 151 unless state funding is available </li></ul><ul><li>Science has defined what should work, i.e., agricultural “no till” zones or buffers, other BMP’s; Option affords POTW’s ability to purchase these BMP’s to avoid higher costs. </li></ul>
  27. 29. Why we support Adaptive Management Option <ul><li>Process based on in stream water quality data </li></ul><ul><li>Water quality improvement should be demonstrated </li></ul>
  28. 30. MMSD Perspective on NR 217 <ul><li>Questions or Comments? </li></ul>