1. Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards 2017 Revisions
Peter Schaefer
Standards Implementation Team
The primary contact for the Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards is Mr. Peter Schaefer, Team Leader of the Standards Implementation Team.

2. What are “Implementation Procedures (IPs)”
Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (IPs) RG-194 A guidance document that explains how TCEQ applies the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards
The Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (IPs) are a regulatory guidance document explaining how the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards are implemented within Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits. They cover a broad range of water quality permitting topics such as antidegradation, dissolved oxygen modeling, how to translate water quality criteria into permit limitations, procedures for calculating site specific criteria including TDS, chloride and sulfate, and how to request a variance from a water quality standard…and more.

3. IP Revision process Triennial review process
2010 IPs approved at the June 30, 2010 TCEQ Commissioner’s Agenda
EPA approved most of the IPs on July 12, 2013
Next water quality standards revision: 2017
Next IPs revision also targeting 2017 completion date
The Implementation Procedures are typically revised on a triennial basis to maintain schedule with the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (Standards). Though there was not an IPs revision in parallel with the 2014 Standards revision, an IPs revision is being pursued along with the 2017 Standards revision. The current applicable version is the 2010 IPs
The 2010 version of the IPs were developed with Stakeholder input along with 2010 Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. Both were approved by the Commission at the June 30th, 2010 agenda.
Subsequent to their approval, the IPs were forwarded to EPA for their review and comment.
EPA approved most of the 2010 IPs, with the exception of sections concerning Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) Testing, and a lack of inclusion of dechlorination for facilities less than 1 MGD and clarification of variances.
A proposed 2012 IPs revision consisted of updates to the Whole Effluent Toxicity reasonable potential determinations and dechlorination sections, but was never finalized because of unresolved issues between TCEQ and EPA.
Further revision and letters resulted in the EPA clarification on July 12, 2013 of approved and disapproved portions of the 2010 IPs and the 2012 version was abandoned.
Picture: Man standing against question mark taken from insidesales.com

4. Unresolved EPA Objections to 2010 IPs:
Dechlorination
Variances
Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) and Reasonable Potential (RP)
EPA declared that the IPs would not be wholly approved in their current form. Specifically, Reasonable Potential (RP) for Whole Effluent Toxicity limits, variance procedures, and dechlorination requirements.
The TCEQ and EPA have come to an agreement regarding WET reasonable potential determinations
Picture: Three cartoon people holding a sign with an arrow fluctuating in a downward direction taken from Google imagery

5. Focus of 2017 IP Revisions Reasonable Potential for WET Testing
Dechlorination
Variances
Thermal Discharges
7Q2 and HM segment flow data
Ambient segment WQ data
316(b) rule implementation
Endangered species
MALs
pH screening procedures
Correcting errors/ommissions in current IPs
The following are topics proposed to be addressed in the 2017 IP Revision process. The revision process will involve stakeholder input and opportunity for public comment.
Procedures for Reasonable Potential Analysis for whole effluent toxicity testing will be revised in the IPs.
Updates to dechlorination requirements for minor municipal discharges.
Variance procedures
Thermal Evaluation Strategy for permits with temperature limits higher than segment criteria.
Updates to critical low-flow (7Q2) and harmonic mean (HM) flow data for classified segments.
Updates to classified segment ambient water quality values.
Supporting information for 316(b) rule implementation.
Updates to federally listed threatened and endangered species.
Updates to Minimum Analytical Levels (MALs).
pH screening procedures for certain entities that discharge directly to a classified segment.
Correcting errors/ommissions in current IPs.

6. Dechlorination 2010 IPs proposed dechlorination
requirements for new, and expanding domestic discharges with design flows > 0.5 MGD.
TCEQ has developed an approach in the 2017 IPsfor implementing de-chlorination for facilities that discharge less than 1 million gallons per day (MGD). Currently, facilities with flows > 1 MGD require dechlorination or alternative disinfection.
Dechlorination approach for 2017 IPs:
In order to prevent toxicity due to chlorine, domestic dischargers with permitted flow ≥ 1.0 MGD are currently required to dechlorinate their effluent or use another form of disinfection. The TCEQ will begin phasing in dechlorination requirements for facilities discharging ≥ 0.5 MGD based upon the schedule below. The TCEQ does not require facilities discharging directly to the Rio Grande to dechlorinate.
Phase Application Type Flow Implementation Date
I New/Amendment ≥0.5 MGD Applications received on or after EPA approval date of IPs
II Renewal ≥0.5 MGD Applications received one year following EPA approval date of IPs

7. Variances IPs address site specific standards and variances.
EPA objection -specific date for compliance with final effluent limits
EPA objected to this portion of the 2010 IPs stating that they cannot approve permits that allow for compliance schedules or variances which do not include a specific date for compliance with final effluent limitations. Although this is not specifically included in the IPs, TPDES permits include this date and final permit limit that would take effect if the water quality study did not result in a change to the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (either by changing segment criterion or a site-specific standard).
What is a variance?
The IPs provide procedures for determining site specific standards for various water quality constituents based on local conditions and water quality. A permittee may provide preliminary data indicating that a site-specific standard may be appropriate.
Based on this preliminary data, the applicant may request a temporary variance to allow time for a complete water quality study to be performed, results analyzed, and if appropriate- study results incorporated into the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards. If the results indicate that a site-specific standard is not warranted, permit limits will take effect as previously indicated in the TPDES permit based on the existing standard.

8. Thermal Discharges
Temperature screening stakeholder group started in August 2014
TCEQ has received comments and is working on detailed procedures for inclusion in the IPs
Draft procedures to be presented to stakeholders in summer 2017
The procedures for determining the need for temperature limits may not be completed by the anticipated 2017 IP revision completion date.
Applicants are now required to perform a study to characterize the thermal plume in the receiving water during their new permit cycle. The study results will be submitted with the following permit renewal/amendment for review and consideration.
The Texas Surface Water Quality Standards assign temperature criteria to the classified segments, and the TCEQ staff implement the assigned criteria within the TPDES permits. The majority of segment criteria are between 85 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and 95 degrees F
There are some permits with temperature limits that average above segment criteria. EPA objected to these permits. The TCEQ is working with stakeholders and EPA to establish protocol to address EPA concerns.
Applicable permits now include the following language:
“The permittee shall develop and submit to the TCEQ, within one year of the permit effective date, a plan to characterize the thermal plume in the receiving water through either the use of a model, mass balance equation, or via collected or existing in-stream temperature data. The permittee would then be required to implement the plan following its approval by the TCEQ”.
Picture: Animated thermometer taken from dreamstime.com

9. Critical low-flow (7Q2) and Harmonic Mean Flow Data
Data from available USGS gages
Analyzed based on 29 year period of
record- where available
Gage data provisional until verified by USGS
Flow data from available USGS gaging stations are analyzed based on the latest 29 years of data. Both critical low flow data, also called 7Q2 flow, and harmonic mean flow data are calculated for Classified Segments.
The 7Q2 is defined in the Standards as “the lowest average stream flow for seven consecutive days with a recurrence interval of two years, as statistically determined from historical data.” Effluent limits in TPDES wastewater discharge permits are designed to maintain the applicable numerical water quality standards for the protection of aquatic life when instream flows are at or above the 7Q2.
Harmonic mean (HM) flow is defined in the Standards as “a measure of mean flow in a water course that is calculated by summing the reciprocals of the individual flow measurements, dividing this sum by the number of measurements, and then calculating the reciprocal of the resulting number.”
USGS gage data is provisional until data is verified and final data is released.

10. Appendix D Ambient Water Quality Data
Routine water quality data is analyzed to derive segment-specific values
TSS, pH, hardness, TDS, chloride, sulfate
Appendix D – Ambient Water Quality Data in IPs.
Water quality data is gathered on a routine basis following strict quality control/quality assurance protocols. This data is stored in TCEQ’s Surface Water Quality Monitoring Information Systems (SWQMIS) database. This data is analyzed and entered into tables in Appendix D of the IPs. This data includes TSS, pH, total hardness (CaCO3), TDS, chloride, and sulfate. This revision may also include alkalinity data- where available.

11. 316(b)-Intake Structures
EPA’s final rule for existing facilities became effective October 14, 2014
TCEQ working with EPA and permittees on application/information requirements and implementation issues
316 (b) is a federal guideline for the regulation of cooling water intake structures
Permittees that withdraw water from waters of the U.S. at a rate > 2 MGD are subject to certain requirements.
Facilities that withdraw > 125 MGD are required to perform an entrainment study to determine if their Cooling Water Intake Structure is having a significant impact on aquatic community from which the water is withdrawn.
The following exceptions may exempt facilities from Rule requirements on a case-by-case basis:
The facility draws water from an “man-made” waterbody that support balanced fish populations. This is called a stocked and managed fishery in the 316b rule, though stocking may not be necessary if the fish population maintains balance in the absence of stocking.
Less than 25% of the water withdrawn from a water source is used for cooling water.
The cooling water comes from an “independent supplier”.
Water is withdrawn from a closed-cycle recirculating system. This includes off-channel impoundments.
316(b) history:
Phase I – pertains to new facilities which was released in 2001
Phase II – pertains to existing facilities, released in 2004
Phase III – pertains to new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities but also mentions all other existing facilities such as power plants greater than 50 MGD and manufacturing facilities
Phase II and III were remanded back to EPA in 2008 when the rule was challenged in the Supreme Court
EPA released proposed changes in April 2011 and received comments, then proposed a final rule date which was June 27, 2013.
In June 2013, EPA proposed a final rule date of November In November 2013, EPA promised a date of January 2014, but again, it was pushed back to April 17, Now rule is final.
Procedures are being developed, but may not be complete by the anticipated 2017 IP revision completion date.
Or, it may be determined that additional data is not needed in the IPs at this time.

12. Endangered Species New listings De-listings
Updates regarding federally listed endangered species will be incorporated into the 2017 IPs
Concho water snake has been de-listed.
Sharpnose shiner and smalleye shiner listed.
Georgetown salamander
Salado salamander
Several mussel species are currently candidate species and may be added to the list.

13. Minimum Analytical Levels (MALs)
Appendix E. Minimum Analytical Levels and Suggested Analytical Methods (MALs) -updated as needed
MALs are updated based on 40 CFR Part 136, and accepted industry-specific chemical analysis methods for laboratories found in Parts 401 – 503.
The analytical methods promulgated under Clean Water Act section 304(h) are sometimes referred to as the "304(h)" or "Part 136" methods. The methods measure chemical and biological pollutants in media, such as wastewater, ambient water, sediment, and biosolids (sewage sludge). These various CWA methods are tested in a variety of labs and matrices.

14. pH Screening Procedures
Screening procedure established with EPA concurrence for certain direct discharges to classified segments
pH Sceening conducted:
major municipal facilities (≥1 MGD flow)
industrial discharges with process wastewater
Screening procedures apply to domestic facilities with permitted flows >1 MGD, and all major industrial facilities with process wastewater that discharge directly to a classified segment, where the pH limit in the permit is outside the range given in the standard (Typically 6.5su to 9.0su) for the Segment to which the facility discharges.
The TCEQ developed procedures to determine whether the pH range proposed in the permit is protective of the segment criteria at the edge of the mixing zone using pH screening calculations. EPA approved this approach.
Picture: pH chart taken from phionbalance.com

15. IP Revisions WET -RP analysis Dechlorination Variances
Temperature – cooling water
Updates to Segment flow data
Update Segment ambient WQ data
316(b) rule implementation
Endangered species
MALs
pH Screening procedures
General updates and corrections
The following are topics proposed to be considered in the 2017 IP Revision process. The revision process will involve stakeholder input and opportunity for public comment.
Procedures for Reasonable Potential Analysis for whole effluent toxicity testing will be revised in the IPs.
Updates to dechlorination requirements for minor municipal discharges.
Variance procedures- EPA wants the TPDES permit to state what the final effluent limit would be if the site-specific variance request were not approved. This is already done in practice, but not spelled out in the IPs.
Thermal Evaluation Strategy for permits with temperature limits higher than segment criteria.
Updates to critical low-flow (7Q2) and harmonic mean (HM) flow data for classified segments.
Updates to classified segment ambient water quality values.
Supporting information for 316(b) rule implementation. This may take longer than the expected 2017 date for this IP revision.
Updates to endangered species.
Updates to MALs.
pH screening procedures for certain entities that discharge directly to a classified segment.
Correcting errors/ommissions in current IPs.
Picture – mountain climbers taken from empowernetwork.com

16. Any
Questions
???
Contact Information
Peter Schaefer
Picture – Bullhide Creek in McClennan County taken during an RWA performed in June 2007.