Local Water Quality Fa 08

Environmental Economics Fa 08 | DDT Fa 08 | Trade and the Environment Fa 08 | Local Water Quality Fa 08 | Agriculture in Cumberland Co Fa 08 | LEED, Efficiency Standards, and Risk Fa 08 | Fisheries Management Fa 08 | Food and Pesticides Fa 08

Page Heading

Overview During the fall of 2008, research was conducted on local water quality regulations for a final project of an environmental economics class at Dickinson College, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The primary objective of the project was to determine how economics plays a role in compliance or non-compliance under NPDES permits using four local facilities as examples. First, background information about water quality regulation in Pennsylvania was obtained. Four point source dischargers in our local area were then chosen for case studies to be highlighted in our report. Background information and NPDES permits were obtained for each of the four facilities. An analysis of the role of economics in compliance was then conducted by pairing background information and compliance history for each facility.

Introduction to Pennsylvania Water Quality Regulation In Pennsylvania, point source discharges, (operations that discharge a pollutant into waterways via a pipe or other known source) are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under the Clean Water Act of 1972 (US EPA 2008a). NPDES requires all point source discharges to obtain a permit before discharging into a body of water, which limits the amount of the pollutant or pollutants that can be emitted (US EPA 2007). In Pennsylvania, these dischargers are overseen by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and are subject to both state (DEP) and federal (EPA) inspections at any time to determine compliance status. However, the majority of the monitoring is accomplished by the dischargers themselves, through submission of required Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) to the DEP, which are then evaluated for violations (Elder 1999). Dischargers are also required to report all episodes of non-compliance within 24 hours (DEP 2004). If violations are detected, penalties include fines between $2,500 and $25,000 per day of violation for a first offense, and a maximum fine of $50,000 per day for a second offense. If the offender knowingly violates the regulations, a fine up to $250,000 may be issued for an individual, and up to $1,000,000 for an organization. Prison terms may also be issued as penalties. Despite these restrictions, violators are more quickly identified and prosecuted through public action. NPDES permits and DMRs are public information, and individuals can access them at the DEP, local state agency, or regional EPA (Elder 1999).

The Huntsdale State Fish Hatchery The Huntsdale State Fish Hatchery is located in Cumberland County, PA, approximately 14 miles southwest of Carlisle, PA, in the village of Huntsdale, PA (Figure 1). The hatchery is managed by the Fish and Boat Commission and raises approximately 500,000 fish per year, which are stocked in rivers and lakes throughout south-central and south-eastern Pennsylvania. Fish species include brook, brown, rainbow, and golden rainbow trout; striped bass; tiger muskellunge; and fathead minnows (for tiger muskellunge food). Fish rearing at the facility requires water to be pumped in from nearby limestone springs and run through concrete raceways containing the fish. The water is eventually discharged into the Yellow Breeches Creek, which flows through southern Cumberland County and into the Susquehanna River (Figure 2). Before water is discharged, it travels through two retention ponds, which filter out fish waste and any other solids. The discharge is monitored at the outfall by the hatchery under its NPDES permit for the parameters listed in Table 1(Smith 2007).

Parameter Limitation Min. Measurement Frequency Flow Monitor and Report Continuous pH Between 6.0 and 9.0 1/week Dissolved Oxygen Min. of 6.5 mg/L at all times 1/week 5-day Biological Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) Instantaneous max. of 7.5 mg/L 1/week Total Suspended Solids Instantaneous max. of 8.7 mg/L 1/week Particulate Organic Carbon Monitor and Report 2/month Ammonia Nitrogen Instantaneous max. of 3.5 mg/L 2/month Total Nitrogen (Nitrate and Nitrite) Monitor and Report 2/month Total Phosphorus Instantaneous max. of 5.0 mg/L 2/month Formaldehyde Instantaneous max. of 1.82 mg/L 2/month Total PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) Instantaneous max. of 5.0X10-7 mg/L N/A Table 1. Partial NPDES permit of the Huntsdale State Fish Hatchery, displaying all parameters, parameter limitations, and the minimum allowed measurement frequency (HFH NPDES Permit 2006).

According to hatchery officials, facility has been in compliance with all of its NPDES requirements (Smith 2007). The hatchery has been able to remain in compliance over the years as a result of several factors. First, the receiving body of water for the discharge from the hatchery is the Yellow Breeches Creek, which is not a particularly large stream, but it is of a decent size. In actuality, the first receiving body of water is a spring, which then flows into the Yellow Breeches Creek. Therefore, the discharge is diluted by both the spring and the Yellow Breeches Creek, probably enabling the hatchery to achieve compliance more easily. Second, the hatchery is funded by public fishing license sales, implying that the hatchery is most likely concerned about its public image. If the hatchery was polluting the Yellow Breeches Creek to the point of impairment, this would cause unfavorable attention, which would probably affect the operation of the hatchery. Therefore, in order to avoid negative public attention, it makes sense for the hatchery to aim for continual compliance. Aside from the above factors, compliance for the hatchery should be even easier in the future as a result of several upgrades. The hatchery plans to install a new settling pond, a new microscreen filtration system, and a newly lined retention pond in order to further improve the quality of their discharge before it enters the Yellow Breeches Creek (Smith 2007).

Land O’ Lakes, Inc. Land O’ Lakes, Inc. is a producer of dairy products, with a facility located approximately seven miles south of Carlisle, PA, in the small town of Mount Holly Springs, PA (Figure 3). Land O’ Lakes discharges into a small branch of Mountain Creek, which then flows into the Yellow Breeches Creek (Figure 4). The parameters of the NPDES permit for Land O’ Lakes are shown in Table 2, with the majority of their discharge consisting of nitrate compounds (US EPA 2008e), and sometimes a noticeable milky-colored substance. The NPDES permit also requires that Land O’ Lakes cannot “change the temperature of the receiving stream by more than 2 °F during any one hour period” and that “all discharges of floating materials, oils, grease, scum, sheen, and substances which produce odors, turbidity, or settle to form deposits shall be controlled to levels which will not be inimical or harmful to the water uses to be protected or to human, animal, plant, or aquatic life” (Wilderman 2008, p. 7).

Parameter Limitation Min. Measurement Frequency Flow Monitor and Report Continuous pH Between 6.0 and 9.0 1/day Dissolved Oxygen Min. of 5.0 mg/L at all times 1/day 5-day Biological Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) Instantaneous max. of 33 mg/L 1/week Total Suspended Solids Instantaneous max. of 42 mg/L 1/week Ammonia Nitrogen (5/1-10/31) Instantaneous max. of 3.75 mg/L 1/week Ammonia Nitrogen (11/1-4/30) Instantaneous max. of 11 mg/L 1/week Total Phosphorus Instantaneous max. of 5 mg/L 1/week Temperature (7/1-7/31) Daily max. of 82 °F 1/day Temperature (8/1-6/30) Monitor and Report 1/day Table 2. Partial NPDES permit of the Land O’ Lakes facility located in Mount Holly Springs, displaying all parameters, parameter limitations, and the minimum allowed measurement frequency (Wilderman 2008).

In general, Land O’ Lakes is reported to be in compliance with their NPDES permit from fall to early summer, but not so much in late summer when the weather gets particularly hot and dry. The Land O’ Lakes treatment plant does not function properly in warmer weather due to the growth of filamentous bacteria and blue-green algae in the aeration units, causing more solids to be discharged into Mountain Creek. This is further compounded by a low or nonexistent flow in the branch of Mountain Creek that receives the discharge during the late summer. Consequently, the only flow in the creek typically consists of the discharge from Land O’ Lakes during the hot, dry summer season. This has been a continuous problem for a number of years. Additionally, in July of 2008, the clarifier of the treatment plant overflowed into the creek when a valve was left open elsewhere in the treatment plant, causing a massive fish kill and killing what was left of the aquatic benthic community (Schott 2008). From an economic standpoint, it may not seem reasonable for Land O’ Lakes to spend a lot of money to upgrade for only a few months of noncompliance out of the year. It may seem even more unreasonable to upgrade when the lack of flow in the creek is considered, where upgrading to achieve water of a certain quality may seem impossible. Therefore, it seems that Land O’ Lakes has little economic incentive to upgrade since they most likely do not receive penalties for their violations. Based on these factors, it is probably most economically efficient for Land O’ Lakes not to upgrade and to continue to be in violation for several months of the year. However, non-compliance for several months has a serious impact on Mountain Creek, necessitating some type of improvement. A more appropriate solution for Land O’ Lakes is on the horizon, which involves two main steps. The first step is to move their discharge to the main branch of Mountain Creek, which always flows and will be better able to accept the discharge than the existing branch, which sometimes dries up. Eventually, the second step is to have their discharge pre-treated by the South Middleton Township Sewage Treatment Plant, so their discharge will be of a better quality and also released into the larger Yellow Breeches Creek instead of Mountain Creek. With this overall plan, Land O’ Lakes should be able to achieve compliance all year round, and the discharge should also have a lesser impact on stream life (Schott 2008).

The Harrisburg Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility The Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (HAWTF), in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (Figure 5), is owned by the Harrisburg Authority and operated under lease by the Harrisburg Department of Public Works. The facility discharges into the Susquehanna River and the Paxton Creek. Currently, the facility receives sewage from six suburban communities in addition to Harrisburg, which amounts to approximately 143,000 people who are supported by the system. At this point in time, the facility’s capacity for average daily flow is 37.7 million gallons (Harrisburg, PA.gov 2002-2004). The HAWTF operates on a combined sewer overflow system (CSO), with 60 outfalls. These systems combine sewage, rainwater, and industrial wastewater in the same pipes, which take the mixture of wastewater to a sewage treatment plant. The problem with CSOs is that when there is a large amount of rainfall or snowmelt, the system is often overwhelmed, and untreated wastewater is released into the receiving body of water, in this case, the Susquehanna River and Paxton Creek (US EPA 2008b). As Harrisburg and the surrounding suburban areas grow, the CSO is becoming increasingly stressed. Consequently, the HAWTF sometimes experiences trouble staying in compliance with its NPDES permits (US EPA, 2008c). The HAWTF has an NPDES permit as a Major discharger. Most Major dischargers, unlike Minor dischargers, must be monitored federally (US EPA, 2008c). The parameters and limitations of the NPDES permit are shown in Table 3. The permit designates that the outfalls are only permitted to discharge when stormwater overwhelms the system and exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the sewers and treatment plant, and not under any other circumstances (DEP 2004). Additionally, the permit requires that the facility implement a water quality-based long term control plan, which includes careful monitoring of the CSO (DEP 2004). The HAWTF has been inspected16 times within the last five years. During the last 12 quarters, the HAWTF was considered either in violation or in non-compliance for seven of those quarters. However, the facility has not received any penalties during this time (US EPA 2008c).

Parameter Limitation Min. Measurement Frequency pH Between 6.0 and 9.0 1/day Dissolved Oxygen Min. of 5.0 mg/L at all times 1/day 5-day Biological Oxygen Demand (CBOD5) Instantaneous max. of 50 mg/L 1/day Total Suspended Solids Instantaneous max. of 60 mg/L 1/day Ammonia Nitrogen Instantaneous max. of 34 mg/L 1/day Total Nitrogen Monitor and Report 1/quarter Total Phosphorus Instantaneous max. of 4.0 mg/L 1/day Total Residual Chlorine Instantaneous max. of 1.63 mg/L 1/shift Total Zinc Instantaneous max. of 0.2 mg/L 1/year Table 3. Partial NPDES permit of the Harrisburg Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility, displaying all parameters, parameter limitations, and the minimum allowed measurement frequency (PA DEP 2004).

Since the HAWTF has not always been able of remaining in compliance under its NPDES permits, the facility is currently in the process of upgrading their operations to meet stricter regulations and reduce their amount of pollution entering the Susquehanna River, and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay (Luciew 2008). However, recent changes have slowed this process. Last spring, $1.6 million had been put into the upgrade process, which was estimated to cost $50 million. Midway through the project, after a 2007 court battle, a team of City Council-appointed Harrisburg Authority board members switched firms for the upgrade of the HAWTF. Authority officials claim that the change was necessary, as the design plan that the new firm, Herbert, Rowland & Grubic Inc. (HRG), will create is a better approach for meeting lower pollution regulations. Officials of the new firm plan to implement a trading system by buying “nutrient credits” from other plants. This plan will allow the HAWTF to continue to discharge its current amounts of emissions into the Susquehanna River, and consequently, will significantly cut down on the previous projected price of upgrades (Luciew 2008). In this plan, the money paid by the HAWTF to buy nutrient credits would be used to help other sources of nutrient pollution in the watershed lower their levels of phosphorus and nitrogen entering the Susquehanna River. However, not all pollutants discharged by the plant, such as ammonia, can be included in the trading system, so upgrades to the plant will still be needed. If the plan is accepted, HRG estimates costs of between $15 million and $25 million for upgrades and an annual cost of approximately $2.5 million for the purchase of nutrient credits. This plan would be much more cost efficient for the HAWTF than the old plan, which was estimated to cost the plant approximately $53.5 million to build and design and an additional $5 million annually to maintain (Luciew 2008). The Harrisburg Authority will receive a bond to pay for these costs. In cases were bonds are issued, the Harrisburg Authority holds little liability, because it sets up transactions between the ultimate borrower and the ultimate lender (Maher Duessel 2006).

P.H. Glatfelter Company P.H. Glatfelter Company is a paper and pulp mill located in Spring Grove, PA, approximately 11 miles southwest of York, PA (Figure 6). Glatfelter discharges a dark brown and smelly substance into the Codorus Creek (Figure 7). The dark color is primarily due to tannin, a byproduct from producing paper, and the odor is primarily due to sulfur in the pulp. As a result of the discharge, which often make up a significant portion of the creek flow, the Codorus Creek has been given the local nickname, “the Inky Stinky” (Watson 2007a). The NPDES permit for Glatfelter was not obtained for this project; however the permit most likely contains limits for flow, pH, dissolved oxygen, 5-day biological oxygen demand, total suspended solids, ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, chlorine, zinc, color, and temperature. Furthermore, Glatfelter is known to release a variety of additional chemicals into the air and/or surface water, listed in Table 4, as reported under the EPA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) (US EPA 2008d).

Acetaldehyde Ammonia Barium Compounds Catechol Chlorine Chlorine Dioxide Formaldehyde Hydrochloric Acid Hydogen Fluoride Lead Compounds Manganese Compounds Mercury Compounds Methanol Phenol Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds Sulfuric Acid Vanadium Compounds Zinc Compounds Table 4. Compounds released to the air and/or surface water from P.H. Glatfelter Company, located in Spring Grove, PA, as reported under TRI (US EPA 2008d).

For the majority of its operation, Glatfelter has been in violation of its NPDES permit. The Codorus Monitoring Network (CMN), a volunteer group formed in 1990 to begin monitoring the water quality of Codorus Creek, were the first to discover that Glatfelter was in violation of their NPDES permit and had failed to conduct and submit their DMRs to DEP for years. CMN approached DEP at several public hearings about the violations and also presented their monitoring data, which showed that the creek was impaired due to the levels of color and temperature from the discharge. However, CMN was unsuccessful in convincing DEP, and nothing was changed. Then in 1999, after CMN was contacted by the National Environmental Law Center, CMN helped to stand as plaintiffs against the plant, and the court ruled in their favor in August 2001. As a result of the ruling, Glatfelter was required to spend $30 million in plant upgrades, which were to be implemented by April 2004. They were also required to “establish a $2 million Codorus Creek Watershed Endowment to support environmental research, restoration, protection, and education” (Andrews 2002, p. 11). From an economic standpoint, it is easy to see why Glatfelter never bothered to improve their operation and their discharge when they never received any penalties from DEP for their violations. However after the lawsuit, Glatfelter may be regretting the fact that they did not voluntarily choose to upgrade earlier. It most likely would have been more cost-effective for Glatfelter to upgrade over a longer period of time when they had legal slack, than being legally forced to spend $30 million on upgrades in just a three year period. Also, considering the extra $2 million endowment and any legal fees incurred during the lawsuit, voluntarily upgrading earlier may have been even more cost-effective.

Conclusion The above four case studies shown some of the different ways in which economics influences compliance under NPDES regulations. The Huntsdale State Fish Hatchery is generally in compliance due to favorable local conditions lowering costs, and a desire to maintain a positive public image. Land O’ Lakes is typically out of compliance during the late summer months, however due to a lack of penalties for violations and the low flow in the creek, Land O’ Lakes has not upgraded its treatment facility. As a solution to their non-compliance issue, Land O’ Lakes is planning to relocate to a larger creek and have a local sewage treatment plant treat their waste before discharge. The Harrisburg Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility generally reaches non-compliance during heavy rainfall or snowmelt events and is under increasing stress due to population growth. In response, the facility is in the process of upgrading and investigating a “nutrient credits” trading system with other facilities. Lastly, the P.H. Glatfelter Company was out of compliance for years due to little economic incentive as a result of a lack of penalties from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. However, due to the unrelenting efforts of the Codorus Monitoring Network and others, Glatfelter has finally been forced to upgrade towards the desired result of achieving compliance. Overall, despite the fact that many of these facilities have had compliance issues in the past, all of the above facilities are on a path towards improving their operations and therefore improving the water quality of the corresponding streams.

References

Andrews, Margo. 2002. The Case of the “Inky Stinky.” The Volunteer Monitor, Vol. 14 (2). Summer 2002. 10-11.

Elder, Don; Gayle Killam; Paul Koberstein. 1999. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The Clean Water Act: An Owner’s Manual. Portland, OR: River Network. 29-48.

Huntsdale Fish Hatchery (HFH) NPDES Permit No. PA 0037141. 2006. Courtesy of Robert J. Schott, Department of Environmental Protection. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. March 3, 2006.

Luciew, John. 2008. “Engineering firm faults plant plans.” Central PA News with The Patriot News. 18 Nov. 2008. Accessed 2 Dec. 2008. <http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1226967903227540.xml&coll=1>

Maher Duessel: Certified Public Accountants. 2006. The Harrisburg Authority: Financial Statements and Supplementary Information.

Mapquest, Inc. 2008. Maps accessed November 2008. <www.mapquest.com>

Pennsylvania. Dept. of Environmental Protection (PA DEP). 2004. NPDES Permit No. PA 0027197. Harrisburg, PA. Accessed 2 Dec. 2008. <http://www.epa-otis.gov/cgi-bin/npdespdf.cgi?filetype=P&npdes=PA0027197>

Pennsylvania. HarrisburgPA.gov. 2002-2004. Accessed: 2 Dec. 2008. <http://www.harrisburgpa.gov/econProfile/infrastructure.html>

Schott, Robert J. 2008. Department of Environmental Protection. Information about Land O’ Lakes provided via e-mail communication. November 13, 2008.

Smith, John. 2007. Pseudonym for an individual with knowledge of fish hatchery who did not wish to have his/her name used. Interviewed on October 10, 2007.

United States, Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2007. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Accessed: 2 Dec. 2008. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/index.cfm>

United States, Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008a. Water Pollution. Accessed: 2 Dec. 2008. <http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/watewaterpollution.html>

United States, Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008b. Combined Sewer Overflows. Accessed: 2 Dec. 2008. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=5>

United States, Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008c. Enforcement and Compliance History Online: PA 0027197. Accessed: 2 Dec. 2008. <http://www.epa-echo.gov/cgi-bin/get1cReport.cgi?tool=echo&IDNumber=PA0027197>

United States, Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008d. TRI Explorer. Facility results for P.H. Glatfelter Company – Spring Grove Mill, for 2006. Accessed November 2008. <http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/facility.htm >

United States, Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008e. TRI Explorer. Facility results for Land O’ Lakes – Carlisle, for 2006. Accessed November 2008. <http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/facility.htm>

Watson, Maunette. 2007a. Class notes taken during a visit to P.H. Glatfelter Company. Environmental Studies Department course, Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA 17013.

Watson, Maunette. 2007b. Picture of Huntsdale State Fish Hatchery Discharge.

Watson, Maunette. 2008. Picture of Land O’ Lakes Discharge. Taken December 2008.

Wilderman, Candie; Matthew Freedman; Kim Ogren; Abby Snyder. 2008. Excerpt from A Preliminary Assessment of Mountain Creek, Pennsylvania, with a Focus on Headwater Acidification and the Impact of Point Dischargers. Environmental Studies Department, Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA 17013. Accessed November 2008.

Pictures:

Figure 1. Location of Huntsdale State Fish Hatchery (195 Lebo Road, Carlisle, PA 17015) (Mapquest 2008).

Figure 3. Location of Land O’ Lakes Facility (405 Park Drive, Carlisle, PA 17015). Red triangle is location of discharge (Mapquest 2008).

Figure 5. Location of Harrisburg Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (1662 S Cameron St Harrisburg, PA 17104) (Mapquest 2008).

Figure 6. Location of P.H. Glatfelter Company (228 South Main Street, Spring Grove, PA 17362) (Mapquest 2008).

Figure 2. Discharge from the Huntsdale State Fish Hatchery (Watson 2007b).

Figure 4. Discharge from the Land O’ Lakes Facility into a branch of Mountain Creek (Watson 2008).

Figure 7. Discharge from P.H. Glatfelter Company into Codorus Creek (An