Meeting Summary and Key Outcomes Memo · Wine Institute, 8-2-17 4 Memo prepared by: C. Boschen and M. Gunter of the Region 2 Water Board, 8/4/2017 Memo reviewed by: A. Kotin of The

1

Memo prepared by: C. Boschen and M. Gunter of the Region 2 Water Board, 8/4/2017 Memo reviewed by: A. Kotin of The Wine Institute, 8/4/2017

Meeting Summary and Key Outcomes Memo Topic: Introduction to San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 2)

Working Draft Winery General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Participants: The Wine Institute, wine industry constituents, and Region 2 Water Board Date: August 2, 2017, 1:00 PM – 3:00 PM Location: William Hill Estate Winery Training Room, 1761 Atlas Peak Road, Napa, CA

Purpose of the meeting: The purpose of the meeting was for San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board (Water Board) staff to introduce the Wine Institute and constituents to the working draft of the Winery General Order and to set a collaborative tone for working together. No decisions were made at this meeting except to identify topics that need further discussion.

Attachments: A. Water Board’s PowerPoint Presentation Slides (which correspond to Agenda topics 4-9)

Summary: The meeting followed, for the most part, the course laid out in the agenda. Discussion and questions threaded throughout the meeting. Rather than capturing the conversation topics chronologically as they came up, they are summarized below under Key Outcomes.

Agenda: 1. Introductions 2. Wine Institute objectives 3. Questions and comments 4. Why we are drafting a general order for wineries that discharge to land 5. Layout of the Order 6. Effluent limitations and numeric action limits 7. Public engagement process, two upcoming introductory sessions and multiple focus meetings 8. Request for help with hosting focus meeting(s) 9. Assessing the user-friendly aspect of the Order and ways this can be improved based on the user

(winemakers, counties, winery wastewater professionals) 10. Questions, concerns, comments

Key Outcomes: Action item: please fill out the survey that will help us schedule breakout meetings (topic, location, date, time). Response requested by August 11. For those who completed the survey in paper form at the end of the meeting, thank you! Your input has been compiled.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/QBTL7MR

2 Region 2 Winery General Order Working Draft Meeting: Wine Institute, 8-2-17 2


Overarching objectives, provided by the Wine Institute, created a platform of common goals for the Order-writing collaborative process.

The Wine Institute provided this list of overarching objectives for the development of Region 2’s Winery General Order, with the caveat that this list is a draft and subject to input from The Wine Institute’s members:

1. The Order shall be developed in a way to ensure environmental protection and preserve

economic viability of the regulated entities.

2. All monitoring and reporting actions required under the WDR shall be directly related to

achieving the agreed-upon objectives of the WDR.

3. Agreed upon technical publications, peer reviewed publications, USEPA documents, other

scientific and technical guidance documents provided by the industry, and textbooks shall be

considered in developing/revising the effluent limitations, Numeric Action Levels (NALs),

and other thresholds, as well as the implementation schedule.

4. The WDR’s timelines for monitoring and BMP implementation shall consider both financial

and environmental impacts.

5. The WDR shall be designed in such a way that winery in-house capabilities, expertise, and

resources can be used to implement the requirements of the WDR.

6. The requirements of the WDR shall be based upon data that is generally accepted as

scientifically accurate and current; if such data is not available, those data gaps should be

filled prior to implementing new requirements.

7. Tier levels shall be based on environmental risk, which is not always directly related to case

volume. The WDR shall allow for the ability to move between tiers based on environmental

risk, site conditions, or other appropriate criteria.

Water Board staff indicated overall agreement with this list, adding that the Water Board sits in the middle of a “triangle” formed by legal constraints, customer service to the industry, and environmental protection. All participants indicated an interest that the basis for all positions stated be provided in all discourse related to the working draft. Water Board staff explained that their goal is to achieve agreement, in all areas possible, and in the areas where agreement is not possible, to thoroughly explain both sides of the issue in order to inform the Water Board, which will make the final decision on the contents of the Order. In discussing the drivers for writing this Order, Water Board staff explained that there are legal reasons and customer service reasons. Water Board staff emphasized that the focus on the wine industry is not coming from a concern that it is a “bad actor” industry.



Several topics arose that will be focal points for further discussion. This working list is the starting point for scheduling follow-up meetings. While this represents the topics explored during this meeting, all interested parties are invited to raise topics for further discussion. Detail-level meetings will be scheduled during the two-week period of August 21 through September 1, and Water Board staff is willing to meet earlier in order to maximize available discussion time. The Wine Institute’s members are encouraged to work through Adam Kotin to arrange meeting locations for these focused discussions, and also, they are welcome to contact Water Board staff, Christine Boschen and Melissa Gunter, directly.

1. Please clarify whether the State Water Board’s Winery General Order will supersede Region 2’s

Winery General Order. It is confusing to The Wine Institute, and wasteful of their members’ time,

to engage in both processes if only one Order will apply to their Region 2 members.

Region 2 Water Board staff apologized for this confusion and explained that discussion is ongoing between the State Water Board and the Regional Board, and that we will clarify as soon as possible. Region 2 Water Board staff reiterated that Region 2 management has directed Region 2 staff to move forward with a Region 2 General Order.

2. Please create an infographic that elucidates roles, responsibilities, and general orders between

State and Regional Water Boards.

Yes, Water Board staff will do this and seek input from the Wine Institute in order to make a useful tool that addresses relevant questions.

3. We need to understand how the Napa County [Tier 3, County Oversight] will work. We need to

clarify the details of this process, including the following elements:

a. Will all enrollment documents required of Tier 2 facilities also be required of Tier 3

facilities? To whom will they be submitted: the Water Board or the County?

b. What role does the County play?

c. Will monitoring requirements be the same for Tier 2 facilities and Tier 3 (Napa County)

facilities? To whom are reports submitted? Just to the county, or also to the Water Board?

d. What other counties may take on the Tier 3 County Administrator role?

e. Will there be a time lag with County enrollment?

Water Board staff requests that Wine Institute members come to the breakout meeting with a list of items that may be duplicative between submittals to County

4. Winery waste BOD composed of simple sugars, not recalcitrant organic chemicals, and that needs

to be taken into account in the regulation of wineries.

Water Board staff clarified that we are still required, per the OWTS Policy, to directly regulate winery wastewater, however, we can look at BMPS, soil structure, effluent limitations, and other pertinent requirement in the Order. Another element of the regulatory framework for why we



are issuing an Order is the CA Water Code Section 13260 (if discharging, must file a ROWD) and section 13263 (supports general WDRs).

5. We determined that we need a breakout discussion about Tier 1 (low volume, lower threat

discharges).

The following topics came up during the conversation:

a. Does the cutoff volume for Tier 1 (1,500 gallons per day wastewater) apply to only the

winery process wastewater or to the combined process/domestic wastewater flows?

The Wine Institute members pointed out that most small systems have combined wastewater flows, and that the domestic waste from a tasting room can easily exceed that 1,500 per day cutoff.

b. Elaborate on reasoning behind is 1,500 gallons per day.

Water Board staff can provide a more detailed explanation, but in sum, this number is consistent across several counties and also with Region 1, with whom Region 2 wineries share a border. Additionally, discharges of wastewater with the effluent limits prescribed in the Order at the 1,500 gpd can be assimilated by the soil column.

c. Why require monitoring for Tier 1 dischargers? Why require more constituents be

monitored than for which there are effluent limitations?

Good questions. We will discuss in more detail in breakout meetings.

d. Could we consider de-minimis level for exclusion from having to obtain coverage under

the Order, especially in relation to the characteristics of winery wastewater BOD?

Let’s discuss how this might work and what facilities would be appropriate to be excluded from the Order. For de-minimis discharges, perhaps we could have a pathway for monitoring for a year and, upon data showing no concerns, allow out of the permit.

6. We determined that we need a breakout discussion about ponds.

Here are a few of the specific concerns raised about the working draft requirements for ponds:

a. Dissolved Oxygen effluent limitation: 2.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen is twice as stringent as

the limit in the 1.0 mg/L that is in other winery WDRs. From an operational standpoint,

15% of winery wastewater treatment energy use goes to ponds, and 2.0 mg/L would

cause an increase in energy use. Where did 2.0 mg/L for dissolved oxygen come from?

Please provide an explanation in the Fact Sheet.

b. pH effluent limitation: pH naturally buffers in ponds, and it will also buffer when it hits

the soil. Neutralizing pond pH requires addition of chemicals that may degrade the

effluent water quality. pH levels impact the soil microbes activity related to the

nitrification-denitrification cycle and can influence the mobilization of metals.

c. It is not all about the odor control—there is a lot that goes into maintaining microbial

health in the pond.



7. We determined that we need a breakout discussion about effluent limitations.


a. See item 6 above for effluent limitation questions related to ponds.

b. Why does this permit have technology-based effluent limitations when the water quality

impact should be the driver? In other words, shouldn’t the point of regulation be where

the water hits the soil? Mass loading versus concentration: can we regulate by mass

loading?

i. For example, in consideration of an effluent limitation for BOD, most irrigation

systems use overhead sprinklers, and by the nature of that system, they cannot be

overloaded with BOD anyhow, so why is there a need for a concentration-based

effluent limitation?

ii. In support of loading versus concentration limitations, water conservation at a

winery can lead to an increase in the concentration of various constituents.

iii. Loading based effluent limitation is also requested for TSS.

Water Board staff will review legal basis for using a combination of technology based effluent limitations and water quality based effluent limitations and come back to the discussion with this information. It is either that we must write permits this way per the law or that we have a general practice of writing permits this way. It is likely that the Antidegradation Policy is a legal driver for this approach, but staff will check and come back to the conversation with this information.

8. We determined that there needs to be a breakout discussion on Numeric Action Levels (NALs)


a. Wine Institute members indicated that they have chemistry-related questions about the

NALs. They indicated that they think the numbers could be higher and still be protective.

b. The working draft gets into the details of treatment approaches. However, monitoring

may not be informative for a wine operator.

9. Other specific topics that arose for further discussion include the following:

a. Operator certification: the website for the operator certification program specifically

states that winery wastewater system operators do not need certification, but the

working draft order requires operator certification. This requirement would take years

to come up to compliance. Is it or is it not required?

Water Board staff will consult with State Board staff about the applicability of the

Operator Certification program to winery wastewater treatment systems.

b. Sustainability certification incentives: Water Board staff reported that it looks unlikely

that the fees can be reduced for these facilities because we cannot make the case that it is

less oversight work for Water Board staff. However, we can consider a reduction in

monitoring requirements. We need to compile a full list of the certification programs that



are in place in Region 2, for example, the Napa Green Winery program is not yet on the

list in the working draft.

c. There is a general interest to discuss proposed order requirements in the context of how

daily operations of the plant are affected, including a consideration of details of a

treatment plant and type of technology.

d. Monitoring requirements need to take into account that most discharges of concern from

a winery happen during crush. Requiring monitoring in every quarter could be adding an

unnecessary and fruitless burden to winery operations.

e. Water Board staff mentioned that there are various parameters in the draft Order

Monitoring and Reporting Program that are indicators of salinity, such as sodium,

chloride, fixed dissolved solids, and total dissolved solids. We are interested in input on

the right set of parameters that are most indicative of the salinity-related constituents

that pose a greater probability of impacting groundwater.

10. Organizational requests for the conversations to come included the following:

a. Please come prepared to walk everyone through the rationale behind the numbers put

forward. Please show references, thought process, etc.

b. Create a flow chart, like the one used in the Region 1 Winery General Order discussions,

to track the path to compliance and double check every change made during the

collaborative process. The Region 1 flowchart is in Attachment 2 of Region 1’s Response

to Comments for their Winery Order.

c. Wine Institute participants, please let Adam Kotin and/or Water Board staff know if you

are able to host future breakout meetings for more issue-focused detailed discussions.

d. In order to focus our discussions, the suggested order of discussion in regard to effluent

limitations and numeric action levels is

i. Are we looking at the right constituents?

ii. Are we requiring the right type of limit (mass loading versus concentration)?

iii. Are we requiring the right cut-off value?

iv. Are we requiring the right monitoring method and frequency?

8/02/2017

1

SF Regional Water BoardWorking Draft

Winery General Order

Christine Boschen & Melissa Gunter

August 2, 2017

o Introductions

o Questions & Comments (repeat at end)

o Why a Winery General Order

o Winery Order Layout

o Effluent Limitations & Numeric Action Levels

o Public Engagement Process

o Request for help with meetings

Topics of Discussion

o Legal Compliance

o Permit Streamlining & Customer Service

Why a Winery General Order

8/02/2017

2

Winery Order Layout

Winery Order Layout

o Tier 1

Low volume – 1,500 gpd

o Tier 2

Facilities over 1,500 gpd unless under County administration

o Tier 3

Under County administration

Winery Order Tiers

8/02/2017

3

Tier 1 (Low Volume Discharge)• Discharge Rate• BOD Loading Rate• pH

If discharging into a conventional septic system, limits apply prior to discharge into system

• BOD• TSS

If land surface irrigating crops with domestic wastewater• Total coliform

Effluent Limitations


Tier 2 & Tier 3 Discharging > 1,500 gpd• BOD Loading Rate

• pH

Based on TBEL for secondary treatment

• BOD

• TSS

If land surface irrigating crops with domestic wastewater

• Total coliform


8/02/2017

4



Tier 2 & Tier 3 Discharging > 1,500 gpd innitrate‐impacted groundwater area

• Nitrogen loading

• Nitrate

• Nitrogen Assessment Plan at time of application *


8/02/2017

5

Nitrate‐Impacted Groundwater

Tier 1• None

Tier 2 & Tier 3 Discharging > 1,500 gpd• Nitrate

• Chloride

• Sodium Adsorption Ratio & Electrical Conductivity (land surface application/irrigation)

Numeric Action Levels


8/02/2017

6


Pond Limitations

Supplemental Reports

8/02/2017

7

How Can We Recognize?

o Environmental Stewardship Recognition

We wanted a reduced fee; not an option

Alternative incentives?

Napa

August 8, 2017, Tuesday9:00 am to 12:00 pm

2751 Napa Valley Corporate Drive,South Campus Bldg. A, Conference Room Madrone

Napa, CA 94558

Oakland

August 11, 2017, Friday10:00 am to 12:00 pm

1515 Clay StreetSecond Floor, Room 1Oakland, CA 94612

Next Meetings

Breakout Focus Meetings

August 22 – September 1

Please fill out survey

Breakout Wrap‐up Discussions

September 5 – September 18

Next Meetings

8/02/2017

8

Melissa [email protected]

(510) 622‐2390

Christine [email protected]

(510) 622‐2346

Winery Order Websitehttp://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/

on_site_wastewater_treatment_systems.shtml

Contact Us

Documents

Meeting Summary and Key Outcomes Memo · Wine Institute, 8-2-17 4 Memo prepared by: C. Boschen and M. Gunter of the Region 2 Water Board, 8/4/2017 Memo reviewed by: A. Kotin of The