The presentation discusses strategies to mitigate stringent phosphorus limits set by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources as a result of a federal Clean Water Act lawsuit. It outlines various compliance methods, including treatment technologies, adaptive management, and alternative discharge locations, while emphasizing the importance of regional collaboration and the identification of feasible solutions. Additionally, the document highlights the potential for variances and site-specific criteria adjustments to aid municipalities in meeting these regulatory challenges.

1. AVOIDANCE TACTICS TO
CONSIDER DURING COMPLIANCE
ALTERNATIVES PLANNING
Greg Gunderson, P.E.
MSA Professional Services, Inc.
Wisconsin Rural Water Association
26th Annual Technical Conference
Green Bay, WI
March 27, 2014
PHOSPHORUS LIMITS

2. Presentation Overview
• What are we trying to “avoid”?
– Stringent Phosphorus Limits
– Compliance Schedules
– Treatment, Adaptive Management, Trading
• How can I avoid them?
– Find a way to have a different limit!
– Evaluate all options
• Summary/Questions

3. Phosphorus Rule
• Rule passed in December 2010
• Settlement of federal Clean Water Act lawsuit
– CWA set the basis for numeric nutrient criteria (NNC)
– 2007 EPA memo reaffirmed need for NNC
– Criteria developed by DNR w/ EPA guidance/approval
• Rule developed statewide numeric nutrient criteria for
water bodies
– Streams 75 mg/L
– Rivers – NR102 100 mg/L
– Lakes/Reservoirs 15-40 mg/L
– Great Lakes 5-7 mg/L
– Ephemeral streams, <5 acre lakes, and wetlands are
excluded

4. Phosphorus Rule Overview

5. Phosphorus Rule
• Criteria used by DNR to set WQBELs
• Limits must also protect downstream waters
• Permit reissuance with WQBELs began in Fall 2011
• Internal and external pressure to DNR is speeding up the
reissuance process
• Permits reissued
– ~70% municipal with stringent limit
– ~50% industrial with stringent limit

6. Compliance Schedules
• Length of compliance schedules vary (3 – 15 years)
• Typical Schedule (First Permit Term)
– Year 0 Permit Term Begins
– Year 1 OER Due, Initiate CAP
– Year 2 CAP Status Update (including OER implementation)
– Year 3 Preliminary CAP Due
– Year 4 Final CAP
– Year 5 Start of Permit 2nd Permit Term
– Future schedule depends on direction for compliance

7. Treatment Technology
• Requires tertiary treatment
– Ballasted Clarification, MBR, Reactive Sand Filter, etc.
– Capital & Operational Costs
• 1 MGD plant
• Capital $6-8M
• 20-Year Present Value $10-12M
– Significant cost and what benefit?
• Most watersheds are non-point source dominated for
phosphorus

8. Adaptive Management & Trading
• Still complying with the stringent limit by relocating
responsibility to the watershed
• Watershed is dynamic environment
• If AM doesn’t work, then required to meet limit anyway
• Each municipality required to create and manage a new
compliance program
– Finding willing partners
– Barriers for land owners (privacy, trust, data)
– Coordinate multiple entities (land owners, County, etc.)
– Staff limitations
– Political will and fortitude
• Difficulty in quantifying barriers and risk

9. Avoidance Tactics
• Regionalization
• Alternative Discharge Location
• Total Maximum Daily Load Studies (TMDLs)
• Site Specific Criteria (SSC)
• Variances
– Economic
– Lagoon
– New Multi-Discharger Option

10. Regionalization
• Pump wastewater to another WWTF owned by a
different entity
• Fostered by DNR
• Potential pitfalls in user fee negotiation process
• Takes you out of the treatment plant business – Is that
good or bad?
• cost/risk threshold has changed – possibly cost-effective
• Examples
– 0.83 MGD 0.20 MGD
– 4.8 mi. forcemain 4.2 mi. forcemain
– $12,000,000 ($14/gal) $4,000,000 ($20/gal)

11. Alt. Discharge Locations
• Groundwater Discharge
– Direct discharge to groundwater
– Groundwater Standards NR140
• Total Nitrogen 10 mg/L
• Chloride 250 mg/L
– Competitive treatment costs, 10 mg/L TN vs. 0.1 mg/L TP
– Discharge Units – Seepage Cells, Drain Fields
– Land availability
– Treatment type and soil characterization/analysis
necessary to determine sizing and loading requirements
– Examples
• Drain Field Seepage Cells
• 0.068 MGD 0.312 MGD
• 2 acres 16 acres

14. Alt. Discharge Locations
• Wetland
– Discharge to a delineated wetland
• DNR Surface Water Viewer
• Different than constructed wetlands (discharge, not treatment)
– Wetlands specifically excluded water body from new
phosphorus rule
– HOWEVER – must consider downstream sources
– Effluent Limits calculation by DNR needed

15. Alt. Discharge Locations
• Spray Irrigation
– Irrigating crops
• e.g. grasses, corn, soybeans, hybrid poplars
– Only allowed during growing season – could require up to
nine months of storage
– Hydraulic & nutrient loading limitations
• Hydraulic – soils, groundwater, BOD
• Nutrient – nitrogen update based on cover crop. No current
regulations for phosphorus loading
– Monitoring wells
– Example
• 0.24 MGD
• Hybrid Poplars/Willows, 150-160 days/year
• Irrigation area = 31 acres
• Advantages - Existing lagoons, City-own property
• $1,300,000

18. Alt. Discharge Locations
• Indirect Discharge to Surface Water
– Subsurface discharge (e.g. seepage cell, drain field)
– Defined as a subsurface discharge that affects a nearby
surface water
– Surface Water Limits - likely no nitrogen limits
• May or may not have phosphorus limits
• limits effective at point of discharge to surface water
• Phosphorus removal due to soil interaction - filtration, adsorption,
biological update, etc.
– Site Characterization Study is necessary to determine
feasibility
• Proximity to surface water (wetland, stream, etc.)
• Horizontal & vertical flow gradients
• Soil analysis – type, conductivity, etc.
• Monitoring wells – pollutant fate and transport
• Depth to groundwater/bedrock

19. Alt. Discharge Locations
• Alternative Surface Water Discharge Location
– Proximity to larger stream/river section nearby
• Potentially more assimilative capacity available
• “Dilution is the solution to pollution!”
– Two Types
• New location on same water body
• Completely new water body – considered a “New Discharger”
– “New Discharger” only allowed to impaired water bodies in
certain cases (e.g. TMDL reserve allocation)
– Effluent limits request to DNR to determine applicability
• Identify multiple locations to be evaluated
• Beneficial to request monthly low flow statistics from USGS
• Requires significant time for DNR to determine limits at all locations

20. TMDLs
• What is it?
– Provision of the CWA – Section 303(d)
– Determines maximum pollutant load to meet water quality
standards
– Pollutant loadings given to each discharger
• Municipal/industrial wastewater
• Urban stormwater (MS4’s
• Runoff (Rural/agricultural and smaller municipalities)
• Reserve capacity
– Typically completed by state agency (DNR) or private
consultant. Must be approved by EPA.
– TMDLs in Wisconsin
• Major – Lake St. Croix, Rock River, Lower Fox
• In development – Milwaukee River, Wisconsin River

21. TMDLs
• How is this related to avoidance tactics?
– Key Points
• May “override” statewide NR102/217 criteria
• Allocation process typically leads to TMDLs relaxing the limits
• Each TMDL is different which leads to varying limits
– TMDL may help you avoid a stringent limit
• Reissued permit with TMDL in development
– Example – Wisconsin River
• Not expected to be complete until 2017
• Many dischargers in basin have new permits with stringent limits
– Compliance Schedule with annual planning milestones
– “Tiered” approach to planning
– TMDL limit is target for multi-discharger variance option

22. Site Specific Criteria
• Criteria of a specific waterbody may be changed based on
site specific study.
• Goal is to prove that the water body is healthy at a higher
criterion than specified in the rules.
• What would you study? Examples:
– Fish health/speciation
– Algae concentration
– Macroinvertebrate health/speciation
– D.O. levels and diurnal swings
– Turbidity
– Natural background phosphorus

23. Site Specific Criteria
• DNR Rules/Guidance
– NR102.06(7)
• “A criterion contained within this section may be modified by
rule for a specific surface water segment or waterbody. A site-
specific criterion may be adopted in place of the generally
applicable criteria in this section where site-specific data and
analysis using scientifically defensible methods and sound
scientific rationale demonstrate a different criterion is
protective of the designated use of the specific surface water
segment or waterbody.”
– DNR has recognized need to develop more detailed rules
– Vagueness leads to inconsistency, scrutiny, and challenges
in how it’s applied and what is acceptable

24. Site Specific Criteria
• DNR Rules/Guidance
– Current rules note that SSC are likely to be appropriate for
lakes/reservoirs
– Currently requires DNR is create a new rule for each
specific case
– DNR working to write new rule (NR119) and guidance
• Provides methodology, procedures, definition, and structure to
process
• Won’t require new rule for each case
• Likely will be a few years before in place
• Warning – SSC could make limit more stringent!
• Subject to EPA approval

25. Variances
• Variances are not “get out of jail free” cards
• Subject to EPA approval
• Variance not in perpetuity
• Variance to a less stringent/interim limit
• Types of Variances
– St. 283.15 – Economic Variance
– NR217.19 – Lagoon Variance
– St. 283.16 – Multi-Discharger Variance (proposed)

26. Economic Variance
• WI St. 283.15(4)(a)(1)(f)
– “Substantial and widespread adverse social and economic impacts”
– Impact adverse at 2% of MHI (1995 EPA Guidance Document)
– Applied for during permit application process
– Must reapply each permit term
• Analysis must consider all options (including AM/WQT)
• Variance to a limit that is affordable (likely TBL, 1 mg/L)

27. Economic Variance
• How much is 2%?
• WI average MHI = $52,374 (2010 census)
– 2% = $1,047/year or $87/month
• 2013 MSA Sewer User Charge Survey
– State average at 1% of MHI ($44/month)
– <5% over 2% MHI
– <20% over 1.5% MHI

28. Economic Variance
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
Population
Percent of 2012 MHI Spent on Sewer Costs by Population
% MHI
Average

29. Lagoon Variance
• NR217.19
– Assumes treatment is too costly
– Simplified application procedure (DNR form)
– Equation used to calculate cost
– Not applicable to new dischargers
• Key Points to Consider
– Variance limit (p99, but likely TBL)
– Need to evaluate affordability of AM/WQT
– Complete source reduction and optimization
– EPA Approval
– Must be reapplied for each permit term
– Advisable to complete treatment evaluation anyway

30. Multi-Discharger Variance
• SB547 “Clean Waters, Healthy Economy Act”
– NR283.16 – Multi-Discharger Variance
– NR283.13 – AM compliance schedule increased to 20 years
• Multi-Discharger Variance
– DOA/DNR determines statewide economic feasibility
– Permitees can apply for variance from WQBEL if “major facility
upgrade” economically infeasible.
– Variance applicable for 20 years from effective date of bill

31. Multi-Discharger Variance
• Multi-Discharger Variance
– Interim limits that become progressively more stringent
– Permitee responsible for further phosphorus reductions to offset
difference in interim and a target limit
– Permitee responsible for meeting WQBEL at the end of 20 years
– Modeled after other EPA-Approved Rules
• Montana (Phosphorus) and Wisconsin (Chlorides)

32. Multi-Discharger Variance
• Statewide Economic Feasibility Determination
– Completed by DOA with technical support from DNR
– Prelim. determination due 240 days (8 mo.) after effect date of bill
– DOA/DNR will revisit determination again in 2024 and subsequently
every three years during Water Quality Standards review
• Determine if new affordable technology is available to meet criteria and/or
• A more stringent limit is needed than the current interim limit
• May determine certain categories of point sources can meet limit

33. Multi-Discharger Variance
• Interim Limits
– First Term – no change in current limit
– Second Term – 0.8 mg/L
– Third Term – 0.6 mg/L
– Fourth Term – 0.5 mg/L
• Interim limits subject to change based on DOA/DNR review
• Limits could be higher if major facility upgrade needed
– Can’t be higher than “best available demonstrated control
technology” per st. 283.11
– Likely have to meet TBL of 1.0 mg/L and install chemical feed

34. Multi-Discharger Variance
• Further Phosphorus Reductions
– Responsible for total pounds down to a target limit
– Target Limit is 0.2 mg/L or TMDL-based limit
• Two Options
– Trading Scenario
• Develop plan and construct non-point BMP’s
• Completed by Permittee or contracted entity
• Trades are 1:1
• Improvements must be to accepted standards
• Annual reporting required to DNR
– “Fee-in-Lieu” Scenario
• Permittee pays $50/lb to County to implement projects
• Fee cap of $640,000/year

35. Multi-Discharger Variance
• “Fee-in-Lieu” Scenario
– Fee starts and $50/lb and tied to Consumer Price Index
– Fees distributed to counties within Permittee’s HUC-8
– County payments used to implement BMP’s (model & construct)
– >65% towards cost share to implement non-point BMP’s
– County must submit annual report to DNR, DTCAP, and Permitee
– Report subject to review and approval by DNR

36. Multi-Discharger Variance
– 0.83 MGD Facility, 20 Year Present Worth
• Tertiary Filtration with Pump Station
– Capital Cost $3,840,000
– Annual O&M $140,000
– 20-Year Present Value $5,400,000
• Delay Upgrade, Pay Fee
– Annual Fee $55,000
– Capital Cost (delayed 20 years) $1,630,000
– 20-Year PV $2,300,000

37. Multi-Discharger Variance

38. Multi-Discharger Variance
– Current State of Bill
• On Governor’s Desk (scheduled 4/23 signing)
• EPA Approval Pending
• EPA/DNR negotiation with companion legislation
• Probably a year away from implementation

39. Summary

40. QUESTIONS??
Contact Info:
Greg Gunderson, P.E
ggunderson@msa-ps.com
608-355-8883