Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/20/2001 - FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 46, 2001, AMENDING AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 16 DATE: March 20, 2001 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL David Meyer STAFF: Gale McGaha Miller SUBJECT: First Reading of Ordinance No. 46, 2001, Amending Chapter 26 of the City Code Relating to Industrial Pretreatment Local Limits and Requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Water Board recommend adoption of the Ordinance on First Reading. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Industrial dischargers will not have to make any changes to comply with the new discharge limits. Waste management requirements needed to reduce mercury discharges from dental offices and other commercial dischargers could range from $0 to $150 dollars per month per discharger. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Ordinance modifies wastewater discharge limits applicable to industrial dischargers and sets new limits applicable to commercial dischargers. The development of the limits was based on current Region VIII Environmental Protection Agency guidance. BACKGROUND: The City's Industrial Pretreatment Program is required by the EPA to control the discharge of pollutants from industrial and commercial sources in order to prevent pass-through of pollutants and interference with water reclamation facility operations. Federal pretreatment regulations require the City to develop technically-based pollutant limitations that are protective of treatment facility operations and infrastructure, receiving water quality, biosolids quality, and worker health and safety. The limits must be periodically reviewed and evaluated using the current EPA Region VIII Strategy for Developing Technically-Based Local Limits. The City's Utility Services has developed these limits using the current EPA guidelines. When developing technically-based local limits, the amount of each pollutant that can be allowed to enter a water reclamation facility is determined using the most stringent applicable environmental standard and the fate of the pollutant though the treatment process. A known portion is contributed by domestic wastewater sources. Another known portion is used to DATE: March 20, 2001 2 ITEM NUMBER: 16 account for low-level background concentrations of pollutants in the receiving stream. Another portion is reserved as a safety and growth factor. The remaining portion is allocated to industrial and commercial sources based on the volumes of wastewater they discharge. Discharge limitations applicable to commercial discharges are a new EPA requirement. These are mass limitations expressed in pounds per day and can be implemented by imposing specific limitations or other requirements when needed to assure the City's Water Reclamation Facilities do not receive more of a pollutant than the facilities are able to treat. This assures compliance with state and federal standards. A definition for "commercial discharger" was added to address this new group of dischargers included in the EPA limit development policy. Changes in the EPA guidelines, stream standards, wastewater volumes and treatment facility operations have all contributed to changes to the City's local limits. Twelve limitations have been lowered. The industrial limit for mercury has been raised as a result of more accurate information obtained using new low-level analysis methods. The industrial limit for zinc has been raised to reflect changes in treatment operations. The higher limit for pH will benefit the treatment process by providing additional alkalinity. The limits for aluminum,fluoride, and total cyanide were eliminated because there are no biosolids standards, stream standards or other state or federal standards applicable to the stream segments to which the water reclamation facilities discharge. An addition to the types of hauled wastes that can be accepted, the City will allow waste haulers to bring wastes other than domestic septage to the City's Water Reclamation Facility. It will allow hauled wastes that are similar in nature to septage waste, and that will not harm the wastewater system, to be discharged to the Water Reclamation Facility. The current permit system used to control hauled wastes that can be accepted will be continued. These changes to the City Code must be reviewed and given formal approval by the Environmental Protection Agency before they can be published. I ORDINANCE NO. 46, 2001 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT LOCAL LIMITS AND REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, the City is required by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency to develop and periodically adjust local limits and other requirements to control the discharge of pollutants from industrial and commercial dischargers of wastewater; and WHEREAS, the City Council's last adjustment to the limits and requirements was done in 1993; and WHEREAS, the City has completed a new local limit review and development process; and WHEREAS, the review process has shown that the City's discharge limits and requirements must be changed to assure continued protection of the City's water reclamation system, and the environment. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as follows: • Section 1. That Section 26-206 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended by adding the following definition: r omiarctat ;f r _ =dQ. wastewater tEiat rs not c "Stft a tt%grlicat�it is ` Section 2. That Section 26-306 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec.26-306. Wastewater discharge permit required. It is unlawful for any person to discharge to the wastewater utility without first obtaining a sewer connection permit as provided in §26-236 et seq., of this Article and an industrial discharge permit if required by this Article. It is unlawful for any person to discharge septage waste or vtFfiste,A r to the wastewater utility without first obtaining a liquid waste hauler permit as provided in §26-324 of this Article. Section 3. That paragraph (a) of Section 26-324 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-324. Liquid waste hauler permits. (a) Liquid waste hauler Permits may be issued by the utility to any person desiring to haul septage waste or .for the purpose of discharge to the utility. Section 4. That subsection (10) of Section 26-337 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26-337. Prohibitive discharge standards. (10) Any wastewater having a pH less than 5.0 or more than 96 or wastewater having any other corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard to structures,equipment and/or personnel of the utility; Section 5. That paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 26-343 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins are hereby amended to read as follows: Sec.26-343. Discharge limitations. Oa Ula�H�A�0 V. Wastewater or Maximum Parameter Concentration (me/I) Sample Type Arsenic, total 669-; 6 composite Boron, total 3 z composite Cadmium, total composite Chromium, hexavalent 63# ._: grab Chromium, total 3 4 '" + composite Copper, total i$' composite Cyanide, amenable 9-)61 ._ grab Iron, total ,;;�., composite Lead, total 635 • composite Manganese, total 3 3 _ composite Mercury,total }k . composite Molybdenum, total 638,i, composite Oil and grease 187 grab pH, minimum 5.0 grab pH, maximum 99 ,-i 1:Q grab Nickel, total e�r6, composite Selenium, total 6.,05 bk5 composite 2 Silver, total 0.10 composite Temperature (degrees C.) 65.0 grab Zinc, total composite (b) ,x Y' tpp / rorIte 4 'y"t t"tTT.• W. I 4 >Y� 3t i : 1 V}• p. ���©�$I6,��?'_. .. ....r�eF�f"� � .' ���� �. .. k;�,t d�hw&Sk�d♦�'ixi{{.f-.$4 t.��� L... .. ,_ Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published this 20th day of March, A.D. 2001, and to be presented for final passage on the April 17th day of April, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk • 3 Passed and adopted on final reading this 17th day of April, A.D. 2001. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 4 Excerpt from Water Board Minutes February 22, 2002 Page 1 MODIFICATIONS TO LOCAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS According to the background information included in Water Board packets, the Utilities' Industrial Pretreatment Program is required by the EPA to control the discharge of pollutants from industrial and commercial sources in order to prevent pass-through of pollutants and interference with water reclamation facility operations. Federal pretreatment regulations require the City to develop technically based pollutant limitations that are protective of treatment facility operations and infrastructure,receiving water quality,biosolids quality, and worker safety. The limits must be periodically reviewed and evaluated using the current EPA Region VIII Strategy for Developing Technically Based Local Limits. The City Utilities have developed these limits using the current EPA guidelines. When developing technically based local limits, the amount of each pollutant that can be allowed to enter the water reclamation facility is determined using the most stringent applicable environmental standard and the fate of the pollutant through the treatment process. That amount is known as the Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading or MARL. A known portion of the MAHL is contributed by domestic wastewater sources. Another known portion is used to account for low-level background concentrations of pollutants in the receiving stream. Another portion is reserved as a safety and growth factor. The remaining portion of the MAHL is allocated to industrial and commercial sources based on the volumes of wastewater they discharge. The limits applied to significant industrial users are typically concentration-based limitations. Development of limitations applicable to commercial businesses is a new EPA requirement. They are mass limitation expressed in pounds per day. These limitations, applicable to commercial dischargers, can be implemented by imposing specific limitations or other requirements on commercial dischargers when needed to assure the City's Water Reclamation Facilities do not receive more of a pollutant than the facilities are able to treat. This assures compliance with state and federal standards. Changes in the EPA guidelines, stream standards, wastewater volumes and treatment facility operations have all contributed to changes to the City's local limits. Some limitations have been made more stringent, some have been made less stringent, and some limitations have been eliminated. Staff has worked closely with, and received approval from, EPA Region VIII during the local limit development process. Attachment 1 in the packet, was a table that compared the existing local limits and the proposed limits applicable to significant industrial users. Attachment 2 listed the proposed local limits applicable to significant industrial users as they will appear in the City Code. The bottom half of Attachment 2 listed the new pollutant loading limits applicable to commercial dischargers. Excerpt from Water Board Minutes February 22, 2001 Page 2 David Meyer,Pollution Control Services Manager,began be saying that in his summary in the packet,he tried to give the Board a general idea of what the Industrial Pretreatment Program is about and how local limits are developed and why. In some of the additional material, Dave was focusing a little more directly on the process of developing local limits. He then took the Board through the main points. As stated above,the Industrial Pretreatment Program is required to follow guidelines that are published by the EPA. The first step in the process is to identify all of the environmental regulations that are applicable for each of the different pollutants. He referred to the flow chart, using lead as an example. There are three standards that apply: a Chronic Water Quality standard; (0.0109 mg/L)Acute Water Quality Standard (0.28 mg/L); Biosolids Standard(840 mg/kg). In the local limit development process,we then use a variety of formulas to calculate the Allowable Headworks Loading. The Allowable Headworks Loading is the amount of the pollutant we can allow to enter the wastewater treatment plant and still meet the environmental standards. Dropping down in the flow chart from the Chronic Water Quality Standard, we end up with an Allowable Headworks Loading for lead based on that standard, of (14.6 lbs/day). For the Acute Water Quality Standard, we end up with(366 lbs/day), and(10.2 lbs/day)based on the Biosolids Standard. The next step is to look at those numbers and pick the lowest one (the most restrictive standard), and that is known as the Maximum Allowable Headworks Loading(MARL). From there he referred to the pie chart (MARL Allocations)included with the packets. This parallels the next set of boxes in the flow chart. It illustrates how the MAHL is allocated. "We are required by the EPA to factor in an amount for a safety margin and for growth. The last time we did the local limits study was in 1992-93. At that time we used a 25% factor for safety and growth, which is what we did again this year,"he explained. A known amount of the Allowable Headworks Loading is used by domestic sources. "We have measured the concentration of lead in domestic only discharges. We multiply that concentration by the volume that is discharged from domestic sources,to determine the amount to allocate to domestic sources. He went on to say that for some pollutants there is a low background level in the receiving water. For lead,that piece of the pie is 0. What we are left with after subtracting the safety factor, domestic background, and receiving water background from the MARL, is an amount that we can allocate to industrial and commercial sources. We divide that amount between industrial and commercial sources based on the ratio of flows received from industrial and commercial sources. Using that ratio of flow and the remaining amount of MARL,we calculate a local limit that applies to significant industrial users,which are generally the larger industries to which we issue permits. The local limits for industry are concentration-based limits, in mg/L. Excerpt from Water Board Minutes February 22, 2001 Page 3 Commercial sources are more complicated. This is a new requirement that the EPA has developed as a part of the local limit development process. "It's a good one. In the past we never really knew how to handle commercial sources,"he acknowledged. It was ignored or lumped into the industrial sector. There are ways now to look at commercial separate from the industrial sources. "The way we do that is to publish a maximum load limit from commercial sources, and that would be in lbs/day. We can impose restrictions on commercial dischargers as we need to in instances where we find the amount of a pollutant entering the wastewater treatment plant is beginning to approach or exceed the MARL. In cases like that we could then impose concentration based limitations on specific sectors of commercial dischargers—those that actually discharge that pollutant. The reason we impose limitations only on specific sectors is, if we were to set a local limit that applied to all commercial dischargers, the large discharge volume would result in a limit that was so small that those who actually discharge that pollutant,would not be able to meet the regulation. Dave asked if there were questions. "If you measure at the wastewater treatment plant to determine the commercial load limit, how can you determine what commercial locations are responsible for going over that limit?"David Lauer asked. "Generally it's a matter of knowledge about the business that they do,"Dave replied. "For example, for mercury, we know that dentists' offices are the main contributor in the commercial sector. For silver, we know that it's dentists' offices,photo labs and medical facilities that do x-rays. For lead,we know that it's the radiator shops." Rami Naddy asked if there aren't certain limits that they already can't exceed, for example, RCRA hazardous waste regulations for mercury. Dave explained that what requlations apply can be a complicated question"The hazardous waste regulations apply to the federal definition of a solid waste, and that doesn't include sanitary waste. What the federal government did to fill that gap in the regulations was create the Industrial Pretreatment Program. It's our responsibility to set those limits for discharges to our sanitary sewer system." It appeared to Tom Sanders that staff was only loosening three or four of the local limits: Chromium total, mercury, zinc and pH. "You are doing this primarily because you see there is no effect on the workings of the wastewater treatment plant and its operations, is that correct?"he asked. "Yes, it's a matter of how the math works out. The first critical step is calculating that Allowable Headworks Loading,"Dave responded. "Then everything else kind of falls in place based on that number,"he added. There are multiple reasons for these numbers changing from year to year. One of the biggest ones is the removal efficiency at the wastewater treatment plant. Most of these limits are for metals. The removal efficiency refers to the amount of metal that . ends up in the biosolids compared to the amount that ends up in the wastewater effluent. That Excerpt from Water Board Minutes February 22, 2001 Page 4 factor changes with changes in the flows received at the treatment facility, and with changes in the proportion of industrial flows and domestic flows. "Are you concerned,primarily,with the effluent quality going into the River rather than sludge quality?"Tom S. asked. "No, we put equal weight on all of those things,"Dave replied. "and we enforce the limitations as based on the standard that is the most stringent."Gale McGaha Miller added that in the example using lead,it was the biosolids standards that drove the local limit. "You can't just look at the concentration of the environmental standard. Whether one is more stringent than the other, not only is determined by the actual numbers,but also by the removal efficiency. If you have a very low biosolids standard,but it's for a metal that doesn't end up in the biosolids, in a large proportion,then that standard probably isn't going to be what drives the local limit,"Dave explained. "Is there any industry or entity in Fort Collins that is not going to have to treat as much because of the changes in the standards?"Tom S. asked. "No, generally what you find is in industry that is regulated, they have to treat their wastewater. In the treatment process, you are either successful or you're not. Generally you don't find an industry that would discharge near a limit. They have to be well below it. Precise control is too difficult,"Dave emphasized. "We aren't raising any limits to the extent that it's going to have that kind of an impact on any industry. Conversely, there aren't any industries out there, at this time,that are going to have to improve their treatment to meet the new limits,"he added. However, the margin for error will be smaller in come cases. Copper is being reduced from 1 mg/L to 0.5, and that certainly affects metal finishers, such as Woodward Governor. "The only thing that is significant is mercury,which is three times higher as far as concentration is concerned,"Tom S. commented. "Mercury is an interesting one,"Dave acknowledged, "in part because we are talking about such tiny quantities. The only permitted significant industrial user that we see any mercury from, is the hospital. Most mercury is discharged by the commercial sector: dentists, laboratories, and in fact for the hospital it's their laboratory that is a source of mercury as well."Mercury discharges will have to be addressed on the commercial side, using the new commercial load limit. Joe Bergquist asked how the smaller businesses are tested. "For the local limits study, we identified interceptors that receive wastewater from a variety of different businesses. We don't go out and sample and test discharges from commercial businesses in general. It's a matter of identifying those that potentially are causing problems, like mercury discharges from dentists," Dave concluded. Rami Naddy asked if the limits are based on the most restrictive standard. "Yes,"Dave answered. "These limits are based on biosolids concentrations?"Rami continued. "In some cases,"Dave said. "hi other cases they would be based on a chronic water quality standard, or an acute water quality standard,"Dave replied. Excerpt from Water Board Minutes February 22, 2001 Page 5 Rami asked about a pH of 11. "Coming from a biological perspective, doesn't that raise a red flag?"he wondered. "We have had numerous requests from industries to raise the upper end of our pH. In the past we've always said no. The EPA sets the lower limit for pH,which is 5.0. They don't address the upper limits. Quite a few cities along the front range have raised their upper limit, in fact some of them have done away with it entirely. What we did was calculate the maximum percent of industrial flow that we receive from industries that might discharge high pH wastewater, and, in this town,that's mostly the breweries. We took samples of their brewery effluent, raised the pH to 11,mixed it with the total influent at the appropriate percentage, and observed the change in pH. It raised the pH of the mixture to about 9.0. The wastewater manager said that was going to be okay. It will actually be a benefit because it will add a little alkalinity, which we currently have to spend money for chemicals to do that anyway,"Dave explained. ACTION: Motion Joe Bergquist moved that the Water Board recommend to the Council that they accept staff s recommendation for the modifications to local wastewater discharge limitations. Paul Clopper seconded the motion. David Lauer asked about the limitation for fluoride as far as treating water. There was no number listed. "Is that in concert with our other discussion about fluoride?""The change in the fluoride limit wasn't made in connection with the other issues related to fluoride. The decision to drop the limit was pretty much dictated by the fact that there are no state or federal standards that apply to our discharge, and therefore,there is no way to calculate a local limit; there isn't any applicable limit,"Dave responded. Rami had another question about the mercury level. From his experience, mercury problems tend to be a food chain effect. Mercury bio-accumulates in the food chain. "Raising the standard seems like the wrong thing to do.""We are raising the industrial discharge limit from 300 to 900 parts per trillion, so we are raising from almost nothing to a little more than almost nothing," Dave explained. "The quantity of mercury that we see coming into the wastewater treatment plant each day, is about 13 grams of mercury in 15 million gallons of wastewater. The biggest source of that appears to be domestic sewage and discharges from dentists' offices. The local limitation that we are raising from 300 to 900 parts per trillion, doesn't affect either one of those sectors. There is no legal way for us to control discharges from households; the domestic wastewater. The new limitation of 900 parts per trillion,will apply only to the large significant industrial users. We currently don't have any that discharge mercury with the exception of the hospital. The other dischargers of mercury are all in the commercial sector, and that is being controlled by the new part of the local limits package that allows us to develop the programs we need to control mercury. We are anticipating that we will be implementing some mercury control programs that will affect the commercial sector, similar to what we did with silver about 10 years ago,"Dave concluded. • Excerpt from Water Board Minutes February 22, 2001 Page 6 A Board member asked if we should address mercury in a different way than we do other metals. The development of these limits is essentially a mathematical process and the part that is definitely set is the quantity that we have that we can allocate to the industrial and commercial sector. We get to decide how much of that we give to industry and how much we give to commercial. We considered what we needed to do there. We started with the ratio of flows of industry versus commercial. That ratio is roughly 25%industry and 75%commercial. If we set the limits based on these ratios,the addition of one new large industrial discharger could have a very significant effect on the pollutant loading, and we would have to immediately lower the limit. "What we decided to do was give industry another 25%of portion of the pie, so a significant industry was allocated a little less than 50%and commercial a little more, about 53%. We used this rationale uniformly for all the different metals. Dave was uncomfortable to have to defend a change only for mercury. An industry might say, that's not how you do it for lead;why are you doing it that way for mercury? It would be much harder to defend,"Dave explained. "Will you be able to say, this is the decision we have made for all metals?"Joe Bergquist asked. "Yes, the EPA has been working on developing this new process for the last year or two. We have been closely involved in that. I expect they are not going to have any problems with our decisions. They are already aware of the approach we are using," Joe also asked why there are no limits for fluoride. Dave reiterated that there are no environmental standards that apply to the receiving waters or to the biosolids. "If they come up with one,will it be added?"Joe continued. "Yes,"Dave replied. ACTION: Vote Chair Sanders called for the question. The Board voted unanimously for the motion.