1 / 34

Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2013-0001 June 7, 2013

General Waste Discharge Requirements for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations within the Santa Ana Region. Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2013-0001 June 7, 2013. Where are we and how did we get here?. Permit Development. Participants .

xanthe
Download Presentation

Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2013-0001 June 7, 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. General Waste Discharge Requirements for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations within the Santa Ana Region Regional Water Quality Control Board Santa Ana Region Order No. R8-2013-0001 June 7, 2013

  2. Where are we and how did we get here? Permit Development Participants US EPA, Region IX Inland Empire Waterkeeper Western Riverside County Agricultural Coalition Western United Dairymen Milk Producers Council Roger Turner • Drafts • December 4, 2012 • March 12, 2013 • April 29, 2013 • Built on Order No. R8-2007-0001 • Integrated the IRDMP

  3. Agricultural Nitrate Pollution “Nitrate pollution in groundwater is a widespread water quality problem that can pose serious health risks to pregnant women and infants if consumed at concentrations above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 45 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (as NO3) set by the California Department of Public Health.” “Nitrates are the most frequently detected anthropogenic chemical above an MCL in drinking water sources. “ • SWRCBReporttoLegislature, 4

  4. Communities and Groundwater Contamination • California’s Ten Most Frequently Detected Principal Contaminants • Nitrate: 451 wells, 205 Community Water Systems • Top 15 Counties with the Greatest Number of Community Water Systems that Rely on Contaminated Groundwater for Drinking Water • San Bernardino: Ranks 3rd • Riverside: Ranks 5th

  5. Agricultural Nitrogen Cycle

  6. The Costs of Nitrate Pollution • Case Study: Minnesota • Ellsworth, Minn. • Community funded nitrate-removal system • Treatment = $5.71 per 1,000 gallons of water • Similar communities without nitrate removal = $0.05-.10 per 1,000 gallons of water Source: David Pitt, Iowa copes with nitrate surge in drinking water, AP (Jun. 5., 2013)

  7. Waterkeeper’s Concerns • Antidegradation • Antibacksliding • Public Participation • Enforcement

  8. Antidegradation

  9. Antidegradation Policy Protects existing uses and water quality necessary to support existing uses, or, for “high quality” waters, protects water quality better than necessary for “fishable/swimmable” uses. Water quality may only be lowered in certain limited circumstances. In no case may water quality be lowered to a level which would interfere with existing or designated uses. See, State Bd. Res. No. 68-16; 40 CFR § 131.12

  10. What does the Antidegradation Policy Require? • Three Tiered Approach • Tier I: Protect Existing Uses • Tier II: Maintain ‘high quality’ waters • Tier III: Protect ‘outstanding’ waters

  11. What does the Antidegradation Policy Require? • Three Tiered Approach • Tier I: Protect Existing Uses • Tier II: Maintain ‘high quality’ waters • Tier III: Protect ‘outstanding’ waters

  12. What are High Quality Waters? • “Existing high quality waters are waters with existing background quality unaffected by the discharge of waste and of better quality than that necessary to protect beneficial uses.” • “Where the waters contain levels of water quality constituents or characteristics that are better than the established WQO, such waters are high quality waters.” • “Waters can be of high quality for some constituents or beneficial uses, but not for others.” Source: Q’s and A’s Resolution No. 68-16

  13. What is the Reference Point? “High quality water is the best water quality achieved since the adoption of the antidegradation policy by the State Water Resources Control Board in 1968.” -Asociacion de GenteUnidapor el Agua v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Bd, (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1259

  14. Groundwater Degradation Source: San Jacinto Watershed Integrated Regional Dairy Management Plan. Table 2-7 Change in ambient concentration of nitrate-N and TDS between historical (1954-1973) and 2003 current (1984-2003) periods.

  15. NPDES Program Review – Region 9 Anti-Degradation • “Antidegradation implementation procedures (including procedures for determining waterbody tiers) for California need to be developed to ensure that antidegradation is properly and consistently addressed by the permit writers, and the antidegradation reviews need to be clearly documented in the fact sheets

  16. Anti-Backsliding

  17. Anti-Backsliding “when a permit is renewed or reissued, interim effluent limitations, standards, or conditions must be at least as stringent as the final effluent limitations, standards, or conditions in the previous permit.” 40 C.F.R. 122.44(l)(1)

  18. “Backsliding is prohibited in NPDES permits. . . . Allowing additional time to complete a task that was required by the previous permit constitutes a less stringent condition and violates the prohibition against anti-backsliding.”

  19. R8-2007-0001 Compliance Schedule “Compliance with the Effluent Limitations and Discharge Specifications V.B. of this order shall be achieved by dischargers in the [SJR] Basin, in accordance with the following time schedule:” • “Fully implement the final Work Plan or cease the discharge of process wastewater and land application of manure within the [SJR] Basin.” • Compliance Date: September 6, 2012 R8-2007-0001 Sec. VII.C.4.a

  20. NPDES Program Review – Region 9 Compliance Schedules: “Rationale/assessment needs to be clearly documented in the fact sheets; justification for the compliance schedule should be provided before permit issuance.” • “All California Regional Boards whose permits were reviewed by HQ need to develop more consistent, quantifiable rationale/assessment for when to include a compliance schedule and more clear criteria for determining the length of the schedule and milestones.”

  21. US EPA Compliance Schedule Opinion • “Any compliance schedule contained in an NPDES permit must include an enforceable final effluent limitation and a date for its achievement that is within the timeframe allowed by the applicable state or federal law provision authorizing compliance schedules as required by CWA….” Memo – James A. Hanlon May 10, 2007

  22. US EPA Compliance Schedule Opinion • “Any compliance schedule contained in an NPDES permit must be an ‘enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with a [WQBEL]’ as required by the definition of ‘schedule of compliance’ in section 502(17) of the CWA.”

  23. Compliance Schedules • R8-2013-0001, Sec. III.F.1-4 • 18 Months - SJR Basin Dischargers must collect and submit to the Regional Board all groundwater monitoring data from wells within CAFOs as well as wells within 5 miles of CAFOs. Historic data shall also be collected to determine any statistically significant change in TDS and nitrate quality originating from area dairies. • 24 Months – If hotspot or impacts identified, dischargers must develop and submit to Regional Board additional control measures. Control measures must be implemented within 6 months of EO approval.

  24. State Board Recommendations • The State Board focused on four key areas in making recommendations: • Providing Safe Drinking Water • Monitoring, Assessment, and Notification • Nitrogen Tracking and Reporting • Protecting Groundwater

  25. Providing Safe Drinking Water • Regional Board Jurisdiction “The State Board and Regional Boards will use their authority under Porter-Cologne to order parties responsible for nitrate contamination to provide replacement water to impacted communities, as appropriate.”

  26. Monitoring, Assessment, and Notification “Water Boards will define and identify nitrate high-risk areas in order to prioritize regulatory oversight and assistance efforts in these areas.”

  27. Nitrogen Tracking and Reporting • Dischargers in the SJR Basin must continue to track waste management through the Manure Manifest System developed either through the San Jacinto Basin Resource Conservation District or Form 4, provided in the Permit. See R8-2013-0001, Sec. III.F.1.c

  28. Protecting Groundwater • “The [Regional] Boards will evaluate all existing WDRs to determine whether existing regulatory permitting is sufficiently protective of groundwater quality at these sites. The [Regional] Boards will use the findings to improve permitting activities related to nitrate.”

  29. Enforcement

  30. Permit Enforcement “There is a point, however, at which [the] cooperative approach should make way for a more forceful approach.” “Without a strong enforcement program to back up the cooperative approach, the entire regulatory framework would be in jeopardy.” -SWQCB Water Quality Enforcement Policy

  31. Questions? North Fork San Jacinto River, north of Idyllwild to Pine Cone

More Related