Loading...
ГлавнаяMy WebLinkО нас04-16-18 WRC AgendaPacket Inclusion through Diversity Tompkins County DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 TOMPKINS COUNTY WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL Monday, April 16, 2018 4:15 PM Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit (TCAT, Inc.), 737 Willow Avenue, Ithaca AGENDA 1. Call to Order – Darby Kiley, Chair 4:15 2. Privilege of the Floor 1 - Darby Kiley Chair 4:15 3. Agenda Review/Changes – Darby Kiley, Chair 4:20 4. Approval of Minutes – Darby Kiley, Chair 4:20 • March 19, 2018 5. Anatomy of the 2016 drought in New York State: 4:25 Implications for agriculture and water resources - Shannan Sweet, Cornell University, NatureNet Science Postdoctoral Fellow 6. Form ad hoc committee to review NYS DEC Proposed Permit for Discharges 5:05 of Winery, Brewery, and Hard Cidery Wastewater to Groundwater 7. Committee Reports 5:15 Water Withdrawals Water Quality Strategy Monitoring Partnership – Roxy Johnston Soil Health – Fay Benson Emerging Contaminants – George Fowler Grants – Jon Negley Education and Outreach – Lynn Leopold Workshop to Protect Water Resources – Sharon Anderson 8. Chair & Staff Reports 5:35 9. Announcements – Members 5:40 10. Adjournment 5:45 Upcoming Meeting Dates: May 21 and June 18 Members: If you cannot attend a meeting, please contact Kristin McCarthy at 607-274-5560. 1 Limit of 3 minutes per person for members of the public to address the board TOMPKINS COUNTY WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL Monday, March 19, 2018 TCAT Main Conference Room Draft Minutes Attendance Member Seat Member Seat Sharon Anderson A Cooperative Extension Jon Negley P Soil & Water Cons. District John Andersson P At-Large Frank Proto P At-Large Fay Benson P Agriculture Marjory Rinaldo- Lee P Environment Chris Bordlemay Padilla P Water Purveyor Linda Wagenet P At-Large Cynthia Brock P Recreation Liz Cameron P Co. Environmental Health Bill George P Associate Member Amanda Champion P County Government Roxy Johnston P Associate Member George Fowler A At-Large Jose Lozano P Associate Member Barry Goodrich P Watershed Organization Darren MacDougall A Associate Member Ed Gottlieb P At-Large John Mawdsley E Associate Member Michelle Henry P EMC Representative Todd Miller E Associate Member Kristen Hychka P Municipal Government Steve Penningroth A Associate Member Emelia “Mia” Jumbo P At-Large Elaine Quaroni P Associate Member Joan Jurkowich P Co. Planning Dept. Joanne Trutko P Associate Member Darby Kiley P Municipal Government Tom Vawter A Associate Member Lynn Leopold P Municipal Government Kristin McCarthy P County Staff A quorum was present. Guests: Brian Rahm, NYS Water Resources Institute (WRI); Alison Truhlar (WRI at Cornell); Julia Champagne, Osamu Tsuda, and another student involved with the Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Watershed Summit (IO); Dooley Kiefer; Dan Carey, Board of Directors for TCSWD; John Fleming, Tompkins County Ag and Farmland Protection Board, Call to Order – Chair Darby Kiley called the meeting to order at 4:20 pm. Darby welcomed the guests in attendance, all of whom are involved with Engaged Cornell. She also shared that the IO and its partners at Cornell had received the Engaged Cornell Opportunity Grant. Given the number of new faces in the room, everyone (guests, new legislative liaison Amanda Champion, and WRC members) introduced themselves. Privilege of the Floor – None Agenda Review/Changes – None Approval of February 2018 Minutes – A motion by Barry Goodrich, seconded by Lynn Leopold, to approve the February 26, 2018, minutes was passed by the members present with one minor editorial change. [“Floating Classroom” was deleted from line 81.] Report from Central NY Harmful Algal Blooms Summit – Roxy Johnston and Jon Negley • Darby, Roxy Johnston, and Jon Negley shared their experiences attending the Harmful Algal Bloom Summit at SUNY-ESF on March 5th and 6th. Roxy’s detailed notes from the Summit were included in the March agenda packet and are available upon request. Here are some highlights from the discussion. • Roxy explained that on the first day relevant agencies gave their mission statements, which funding and lack of staff thwart their efforts to fulfill. There was also a lot of talk about what is known for certain about HABs in New York State. On the second day, the group heard from the watershed coalitions about advanced monitoring and analysis, water treatment, etc. At the end of the day, attendees broke into smaller discussion groups for 40 minutes. Roxy felt that was a lost opportunity as more time spent in those smaller groups would have helped “get to the meat of things.” • Twelve lakes throughout New York State were chosen for study and HABs action plans; each offers a different case scenario and lessons learned that could be applied across the state to other lakes. However, Roxy said in the end they didn’t cover the 12 lakes and instead the national experts who were flown in pretty much focused on their personal experiences with lakes elsewhere, which unfortunately didn’t share many characteristics with those found in New York State. • A lot of experts criticized the sampling methods and talked about automated sampling systems. Monitoring and testing need to happen continuously. To do so requires funding and a long-term commitment. • Focusing on phosphorous is not ideal as it will take decades to remove from the watershed system; nitrogen will give faster results. No great way to remove toxins; you can remove organisms with filtration. • Cynthia Brock inquired about the number of cyanobacteria species (Darby’s answer: hundreds) and about difference between contamination effects on human health via skin contact versus drinking water. Chris Bordlemay said the Environmental Protection Agency will be doing UCMR-4 (Fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule) tests for drinking water contaminants and HABs will be included. • In New York State, HABs are showing up year-round. Extreme weather is a perfect scenario for HABs. Frank Proto asked if anyone is studying relationship between HABs and the drought our area experienced last summer. • A lot of energy at conference was focused on the impact of agriculture. Group also talked about the effects of lawn and golf course maintenance, highway ditching, and road salt. • Jon Negley then went into more detail about what the Ag community is doing to help with HABs. He collaborates with County farmers through the voluntary-based NYS Agricultural Environmental Management program. Jon brought a sample Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan for people to look at. To be certified, these plans need to be written by a certified nutrient planner; however, there are only 30-40 of these planners throughout New York State versus 27,000 farms. He also brought a copy of the Agriculture Management Standards farmers need to follow. • Goals might not be reached until decades down the road, so Jon thinks it is important to remember all the gains that have been met in regards to more environmentally-friendly farming. The equipment, for instance, has improved dramatically. Lifelong dairy farmer Dan Carey echoed Jon’s comment, saying that huge strides have been made in the last 25-30 years through the work of the Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District (TCSWD) and Cornell. He thinks now the issue is finding ways to incentivize small farms to make these kinds of environmentally-friendly changes. • Winter spreading is a big concern because farmers lack sufficient manure storage and contamination can occur when transferring the manure to other locations. • Marjory Rinaldo-Lee asked if tiling came up in regards to agriculture during the ESF discussions. This topic led to John and Dan talking about buffers to help with sheet erosion. Roxy said this kind of cross- sharing of information and different experiences from farmers and other stakeholders didn’t take place at the conference and would’ve been valuable. • Darby relayed that an action plan is scheduled for release in May, followed by a public comment period. Tony Prestigiacomo from NYSDEC is considering how the WRC can be involved, and Darby plans to pass along feedback from the WRC to counterparts working on Owasco and Skaneateles Lakes and elsewhere. Committee Reports None of the chairs had anything pressing to relay so reports were skipped due to time constraints. However, Roxy did ask members to pass along any suggestions for the HABs post-conference action plan at their earliest convenience. Chair Report – Darby Kiley Committee chairs should send their annual reports to Kristin as soon as possible. Darby also reminded the group about the April 19th Cayuga Lake Intermunicipal Watershed Summit, which is geared toward municipal officials and highway superintendents. The TMDL has gone out for internal review within NYSDEC. Staff Report – Joan Jurkowich No report Member Announcements ● Frank asked Darby if she planned to invite individuals from TCAD to address the WRC, per his email suggestion. She said yes, though she has speakers scheduled for the next two meetings. ● Joan is participating in the St. Baldrick’s fund-raiser for childhood cancer. To encourage generosity, she is matching funds dollar for dollar. Members are welcome to contact her if they are interested in donating. (She will also be shaving her head!) Adjournment Chair Darby Kiley adjourned the meeting at 5:50 pm. These draft minutes will be formally considered by the WRC at its next monthly meeting, and corrections or notations will be incorporated at that time. Prepared by Kristin McCarthy, Tompkins County Planning and Sustainability Department. Approved by Water Resources Council: DRAFT 1 3/15/18 ADVANCED NOTICE For Proposed SPDES General Permit For Discharges of Winery, Brewery, and Hard Cidery Process Wastewater to Groundwater Introduction Through this Advanced Notice of Proposed Permit (ANPP), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“the Department”) is soliciting stakeholder input regarding the potential issuance of a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) general permit that would provide coverage for wastewater discharges to groundwater from licensed Wineries, Breweries, and Hard Cideries in New York State. The Department is specifically seeking input on the questions listed at the end of this ANPP. However, additional information that may be relevant to the ANPP may also be provided to the Department. Instructions on how to provide input are provided on the final page of this ANPP. Public input will help the Department determine what conditions are appropriate for a draft general permit, considering protection of the environment as well as achievability by the industry. The Environmental Conservation Law (§17-0505) requires a SPDES permit to make or use a disposal system or point source for the discharge of industrial waste, sanitary or other wastes which may cause or might reasonably be expected to cause pollution to waters of the State (including groundwater). Process wastewater generated through the manufacture and production of wine, beer, and hard cider is considered an industrial waste that can have significant ranges in pH and contain high levels of oxygen demanding organic material and solids. The number of licensed winery, brewery and hard cideries is rapidly growing in NYS and there is a need for standardized wastewater management to reduce the potential for water quality impacts. A SPDES permit would provide the requisite coverage for facilities discharging process wastewater, with or without the admixture of sanitary wastewater, to groundwaters. Due to the similar nature of operations, pollutant content, associated control measures and effluent limits applicable to the manufacture of wine, beer and hard cider, the Department believes that a general permit is appropriate. A general permit would provide coverage to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Environmental Conservation Law, with uniform standards for management of process and sanitary wastewater, while providing a manageable application fee to help foster the growth of New York’s wine, beer and hard cider industries. A general permit would also streamline the SPDES permitting process for these industries 2 3/15/18 reducing the costs and administrative burden to both the Department and the regulated entities. The Department seeks to develop a general permit that protects water quality, supports a strong economy and meets the needs of the industry. It is anticipated that the general permit will provide for coverage for many of the facilities in this industry. This ANPP provides a summary of conditions that the Department is considering for a general permit, including eligibility, treatment systems, and reporting. Please consider the following proposed conditions that the Department is evaluating for potential inclusion in a draft general permit. Eligibility The contemplated general permit would apply statewide to existing and new licensed wineries, breweries, and hard cideries in NYS that discharge process wastewater, with or without the admixture of sanitary wastewater, to groundwater from onsite wastewater treatment systems that have a design peak flow of less than 10,000 gallons per day (GPD). Obtaining Coverage Existing Facilities The Department recognizes that there may be existing facilities, especially small producers, that currently discharge wastewater to onsite residential septic systems. These systems were designed to treat domestic sewage and although the waste associated with these industries has similar characteristics, it may have higher volumes and/or strengths that may not be effectively treated by a typical residential system. Rather than excluding existing facilities from coverage under a general permit, the Department is considering including separate requirements for existing dischargers that were in operation prior to the effective date of the general permit. Under the contemplated general permit, existing dischargers would be allowed to continue to operate their current system unless/until a modification is needed for an expansion that cannot be properly managed by the existing system or if the system is in need of replacement/modification due to failure. In order to obtain coverage under the contemplated general permit, existing dischargers would be required to retain a Professional Engineer (PE) licensed to practice in NYS to assess1 their current system(s) and certify that the system is operating correctly and is being properly maintained. This certification would include the approximate age of the existing system, as well as a brief description of the system, including a description of the soil profile for the absorption area and operation/maintenance needs to ensure continued, long term performance. The owner/operator would then submit a Notice of 1 The Department expects the PE assessment to include: a visual inspection of the subsurface treatment area to determine if any spongy ground and/or ponding is evident; evaluation of the septic tank (or equivalent) to verify the solids level is not within a quarter (1/4) of the operating capacity; and an evaluation of all screens (influent and/or effluent) to ensure there are no holes/bypass and no blockage/debris build -up. 3 3/15/18 Intent to receive general permit coverage, as well as the PE certification to the Department’s Central Office (Albany, NY) for review. New Facilities Under the contemplated general permit, facilities constructed after the effective date of the general permit (“New Facilities”) would have their systems designed by a PE licensed to practice in NYS. The concept for new facilities is to provide flexibility in design of the treatment process prior to the subsurface system. By employing wastewater stabilization, screening/ filtering, septic (aerobic/ anoxic) tank(s) or other proven process that meets specified design criteria, the discharge to the subsurface drainage field would be treated to concentrations typical of septic tank effluent loadings. As part of the application process for obtaining coverage under the contemplated general permit the Department is considering that a PE certify that the proposed wastewater treatment system meets the following criteria: (1) The wastewater generated is fully characterized including the variability in strength and volume expected; (2) The treatment process prior to discharge to the subsurface treatment system will provide an effluent that meets the following design criteria2: a. BOD5 – 150 mg/L b. TSS – 100 mg/L c. TDS – 500 mg/L d. pH - 6 - 9 e. TP – 15 mg/L f. TN – 50 mg/L (3) Flow monitoring and equalization to address the expected variability in hourly, daily and seasonal wastewater generation. A flow monitoring3 device capable of monitoring the peak rates and volume of process wastewater entering the treatment system must be installed and maintained. (4) Adequate controls to ensure the system does not receive process wastewater that exceeds the system’s design flow or has a strength or characteristic beyond the design capability of the system. (5) A subsurface treatment system is designed in accordance with the 2014 New York State Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems (NYS Design Standards) or the 2015 New York State Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works in the Lake George Basin for those facilities located in the Lake George Basin. Specifically, the Department is considering: a. A subsurface treatment system based on the peak daily flow expected after flow equalization in order to avoid hydraulic overloading. Additionally, the Department is considering requiring pressurized or dosed distribution 2 EPA Onsite Wastewater Treatment Syst ems Manual (2002) – these criteria represent the level of pollutants that are typical of septic tank effluent and if exceeded could cause premature failure of the subsurface treatment system. Exceedance of these values require some action to protect the subsurface treatment system. 3 Flow monitoring is a necessary requirement because of the high flow variations expected during times of production vs. off production. The information collected will be necessary to inform future iterations of this permit. 4 3/15/18 systems to provide for uniform distribution to the subsurface treatment area; and b. A subsurface treatment system that includes either: i. a minimum of 3 absorption areas, each sized to 50% of the peak daily design flow to allow for resting during high flow periods. The third area would be alternated into service on a semi-annual basis and extend the useful life of the subsurface treatment system; or ii. a full field (100% peak design) plus a 100% replacement area. Operation and Maintenance (applicable to Existing & New facilities) Proper maintenance of the wastewater treatment system will protect the subsurface treatment system and extend its useful life preventing shutdowns, costly replacements or compliance problems. The Department is considering requiring an Operation and Maintenance plan to ensure long term performance of the treatment system that includes the following minimum components: • Flow Monitoring: Average, peak, and total flow must be monitored and recorded daily to ensure permit conditions are not exceeded as well as to inform future permit iterations. • Periodic Inspection of the treatment components to ensure continuous and effective operation of each treatment component including: a. Inspection of the subsurface treatment system at least once per quarter plus at least once during peak flow period(s) for ponding or wetness at or around the absorption field, or other signs of failure. If signs of failure are discovered, the owner/operator must act to prevent a discharge to surface waters and follow procedures outlined below for Notification for a failure. b. Septic tank inspections performed by a PE, a National Association of Wastewater Technician (NAWT)-certified inspector, or a NY Onsite Wastewater Treatment Training Network (OTN)-registered inspector for scum and sludge accumulation at least once per year. The owner/operator must remove and properly dispose of scum and sludge accumulations before they exceed one-fourth of the liquid depth. Date of annual inspection must be recorded and reported in the annual report. Receipts from pumping services must be kept onsite. The septic tank must be pumped, at a minimum, once every three years. Monitoring The contemplated general permit would include provisions for monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the terms and conditions of the general permit. This would include monitoring throughout the term of the general permit that would be summarized and reported to the Department with an annual report (see Reporting & Recordkeeping Section). The Department 5 3/15/18 will use the information gathered on existing systems to better inform future general permit requirements. Existing Facilities The Department is considering requiring quarterly grab samples collected from the inlet to the subsurface treatment system to be analyzed for the following parameters: BOD5, Total Suspended Solids, Total Dissolved Solids, pH, Total phosphorus, Total Nitrogen. This would be a monitor only requirement. New Facilities The Department is considering requiring quarterly grab samples collected from the inlet to the subsurface treatment system to be analyzed for the following parameters: BOD5, Total Suspended Solids, Total Dissolved Solids, pH, Total Phosphorus, and Total Nitrogen. For new facilities, though, the Department is considering including benchmark concentrations4 for each of the parameters. If benchmark concentration(s) are exceeded for any one quarter, the owner/operator would be expected to document corrective actions taken and provide that information in the annual report. Recordkeeping & Reporting (applicable to Existing & New facilities) As with typical SPDES permits, the contemplated general permit would include provisions for recordkeeping and reporting information to the Department. The Department is considering the following provisions for recordkeeping and reporting for both new and existing facilities: • Annual Reporting of information gathered on the treatment system performance. The annual report would be submitted to the Department by March 31st each year on forms provided by the Department reflecting the operations from Jan-Dec of the previous year. The annual report would include the maximum peak daily flow recorded for every month, quarterly sampling results, inspection information and corrective actions taken for exceedance of benchmark concentrations (new facilities). • Maintenance of records on site. Flow monitoring and inspection records would not need to be submitted to the Department unless requested. All records would be kept on site for a minimum of 5 years. • Verbal and written reporting requirements when a failure (ponding or other factors that could lead to a potential discharge to surface waters) is identified. The owner/operator would be required to immediately cease the discharge and give 24 hour and 5-day notification to the Department; 4 Benchmark concentrations are a pollutant level that is intended to provide a guideline for the owner/operator to determine the overall effectiveness of their treatment system. The benchmark concentrations do not constitute direct effluent limitations and therefore exceedances are not considered a permit violation. Rather, a benchmark concentration exceedance is an indication that the treatment system is receiving a higher concentration than the design criteria and prompts the owner/operator to look furt her into the cause of the exceedance and employ whatever measures are necessary to correct. 6 3/15/18 o Within 24 hours, the owner/operator must verbally inform the Regional Office of the failure; and o Within 5 days, submit a written incident report to the Regional Office including interim measures and long-term corrective actions, with associated timelines; Additional considerations Estimated costs to the regulated community: Costs associated with contemplated sampling – $50-60 per round Costs associated with certified inspector septic tank inspections – Owner could get certified or expect to pay ~$200 Cost of general permit fee- $110 per year (this fee is set in statute) Cost associated with PE evaluation of existing system – expected between $500-1500 Instructions for Submitting Input/Answering Questions A. In responding to this solicitation for input, please provide suggestions for the Department to consider by identifying the appropriate section above or question below, and providing your reason for the support or objection, any supporting data/research/examples if available, and any suggested alternative language. Information can be submitted anonymously. B. Specific questions the Department is interested in and would like to specifically request answers from individuals in these industries are listed below: 1. If known, please provide a brief description or diagram of your treatment system. 2. How many barrels or cases of product do you produce a year? 3. Do you combine the wastewater generated from your beverage production (tank/process wash water, etc.) with your sanitary wastewater? 4. When you started your business; a. did you build a new treatment system for the wastewater? b. did you modify the current system to accommodate the new process wastewater? c. did you just start using the existing system that was there prior to conversion to the winery, brewery, or hard cidery? d. was a PE involved at any point in construction/conversion/use of your treatment system? 5. Have you experienced any system failures (ie. backing up of your sanitary lines, bubbling on the surface of your leach field, etc.) that you’re aware of with your current 7 3/15/18 system? If so, what was the cause of the failure and what were the corrective actions taken? 6. What chemicals or cleaning products are used to clean the equipment used in the production process at your facility? 7. Do you use preservatives in your products? If so, when are they added to the process? Would you reasonably expect to see them in your wastewater? 8. Would quarterly sampling of your septic tank (or equivalent) effluent hinder your operation in anyway? If so, please explain. 9. Do you feel quarterly sampling would sufficiently characterize your wastewater discharge? If not, please provide a suggested term and justification. 10. Do you have a trained individual (PE/Certified Operator) inspect your treatment system periodically? 11. When did you last have your septic tank pumped out? 12. Do you utilize water softeners in your production process? 13. Do you currently have a written Inspection, Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the treatment system? 14. Would your facility meet the eligibility requirements? If not, why? 15. What impact do you think the above requirements would have on the financial well-being of your operation? Both initially and long-term? 16. Do you land apply any of your waste (either directly or through a farmer)?