Wet Weather Issues

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Policy Framework

Background: EPA is continuing a SSO policy dialogue with stakeholders through federal advisory committee meetings. AMSA has been actively involved in the Subcommittee discussions, which are expected to eventually guide EPA in policy-making activities regarding a sanitary sewer overflow policy or regulatory framework by fall 1997.

Status: EPA is continuing its efforts to resolve internal headquarters and regional differences on proposed SSO policies developed by EPA's SSO Advisory Committee. AMSA and other municipal interests of EPA's SSO Federal Advisory Subcommittee submitted a letter to EPA program and enforcement officials on March 26 which emphasized support for timely completion of the national SSO dialogue, support for negotiated affirmative defense provisions for unavoidable SSOs, and a recommendation that EPA reconsider draft enforcement priorities which target cities with SSO problems over the next two years. In recent internal EPA discussions, regional EPA enforcement officials have expressed their reluctance to support an SSO policy which in their views, limit their enforcement discretion. An April 1 meeting between Assistant Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, and Region IV Regional Administrator, John Hankinson, Jr. was held to make progress on resolving these issues. AMSA asked its Region IV members to weigh-in on the discussions by sending a letter to the Regional Administrator supporting the Advisory Committee process and affirmative defense provisions. Also, EPA is working to complete a draft cost/benefit analysis for different scenarios of proposed policy and regulatory revisions, which should be available in late April. EPA's Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet once more when internal EPA differences have been resolved. No meeting date has been scheduled. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Kevin Weiss, EPA 202/260-9524.

EPA's Urban Wet Weather Flows Advisory Committee Activities
d

Background: The UWWFAC, chartered in May 1995, is responsible for "developing recommendations to address cross-cutting issues associated with the human health and environmental impacts of urban wet weather discharges (including storm water, combined sewer overflows, and sanitary sewer overflows) in an innovative and cost-effective manner." The UWWFAC is composed of EPA, state regulatory, environmental, municipal government, industrial, business development, and local wastewater agency interest groups. AMSA has been actively involved in the Committee, and its workgroups.

Status: The UWWF advisory committee held its latest meeting January 9-10, 1996. Below is a summary of current Committee activities. CONTACTS: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Will Hall, EPA 202/260-1458.

Watershed Policy: The committee is developing a document titled, "A Watershed Alternative for the Management of Wet Weather Flows (and FlowChart)." The draft document expresses EPA's support for a process of pursuing a watershed approach as an alternative to the traditional NPDES permitting approach for meeting water quality standards through control of individual wet weather point sources, and builds upon EPA's previous watershed-related efforts. A revised draft watershed policy document will be distributed for comment to AMSA's Wet Weather Issues Committee and Comprehensive Watershed Committee when made available by EPA.

Watershed Monitoring Recommendations: These recommendations will supplement the Watershed Alternative document by providing guidance on the development of watershed-based monitoring strategies. The latest draft of the committee's watershed monitoring recommendations is dated March 5, 1997.

Wet Weather Standards Recommendations: Some committee members are uncomfortable with applying national water quality criteria, derived from bioassays based on steady-state exposures, to wet weather conditions, which are characterized by discontinuous exposures. A number of other issues have been raised regarding objectives, the applicability of standards, and how standards should be implemented in wet weather NPDES permits. The Water Quality Standards workgroup of the Advisory Committee met on April 1-3 to discuss four issue areas: (1) designated uses, (2) chemical criteria, (3) habitat and biological criteria, and (4) implementation of standards. The workgroup came to some general agreement on the need to better refine chemical-specific water quality criteria to address wet weather situations. The workgroup also conceded that habitat and biological criteria were important indicators of receiving water health, and that they were an important assessment tool. EPA indicated that they were performing work in all these areas. The workgroup agreed to draft a letter to the Administrator recommending that the refinement of chemical-specific water quality criteria, and the development of habitat and biocriteria be a top priority for the Agency. The workgroup will develop and submit a draft letter to the full Committee for its consideration during the April 28-29 meeting. Disagreement remained however, on issues related to designated uses and implementation Municipal and state caucuses clearly support the concepts of refined uses, allowing partial uses, seasonal uses, or deleting unattainable uses, as discussed in the CSO policy. However, environmental groups are especially resistant to these concepts as they feel that any revision of the uses would be downgrades. EPA did indicate its resistance to allowing states to establish partial use designations without performing use attainability analyses. A sub-workgroup will bring back these issues in clearer form to the full Committee during the April 28-29 meeting.

No Exposure Incentive: The Committee has developed criteria for determining whether an industrial facility has "no exposure" to stormwater under the Phase I stormwater program. These facilities which are defined as having "no exposure" would reduce NPDES permit requirements to a one-time, or annual certification of "no exposure". EPA expects to propose a change to the Phase I regulations in September 1997.

Expanded General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI) Form: The Committee has developed an expanded industrial NOI form which allows the public to obtain more information on an industrial facility's potential impact on stormwater runoff. EPA expects to have expanded NOI form ready in September 1997, when existing general permits expire.

Database of Best Management Practices (BMP) Effectiveness: The Committee is currently tracking progress of a cooperative EPA/WERF project on the effectiveness of BMPs. Results of this effort will be presented a standard manual on BMPs which is intended as a source of guidance and performance information.

Definition of Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP): The Committee is developing a process by which the term "MEP" can be clarified or defined so that Phase I requirements for MS4s are clear and consistent. EPA expects that it can issue guidance on the definition in January 1998, and has indicated its desire to develop performance standards to quantify MEP in January 1999 (see discussion of performance standards in Phase II Stormwater Committee). During the January meeting, the Committee discussed several outcomes of the Committee's MEP workgroup. Significant areas of agreement were reached on several issues, including: (1) MEP is viewed as the technology standard (rather than a technology-based standard), (2) MEP should be viewed as a "process" and not so much as an endpoint (i.e., numeric effluent limitations), (3) MEP is one way to get to water quality attainment, which is the ultimate goal, (4) MEP is a minimum performance requirement for municipalities under CWA §402(p), (5) EPA should put out guidance along these lines, to help permit writers and permittees, and (6) the MEP process should be applicable to Phase II communities. The Committee's MEP working group expects to draft guidance which incorporates these agreement areas by the Committee's next meeting scheduled for April 28-29, 1997.

Phase I Enforcement: Environmental groups on the Committee are working with other interests to better define ongoing Phase I enforcement and the level of noncompliance. Based on the results of this effort, the Committee may decide to make recommendations to EPA on improving the level of compliance.

Background Sources: The Committee is discussing issues concerning background sources of pollution (i.e., air deposition and run-on) that may contribute to point source stormwater discharges and/or contribute to point source discharge violations. The Committee may eventually recommend a permitting policy to EPA.

Background: EPA is continuing a stormwater Phase II national policy dialogue with stakeholders through federal advisory committee meetings. AMSA has been actively involved in the Subcommittee which is expected to eventually guide EPA in proposed stormwater phase II rulemaking activities by September 1997.

Status: EPA canceled the April 17-18 meeting of the Advisory Committee due to internal EPA delays in proposed rule package finalization. The Advisory Committee had planned to discuss implementation issues during the April meeting. A proposed rule package is scheduled to be transmitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review in May for a 90-day review period. EPA is under court order to propose a Phase II rulemaking by September 1997. The next meeting of the Advisory Committee is scheduled for June 12-13. It is expected that the Advisory Committee will continue to meet after the rule proposal to assist EPA in finalizing the rulemaking CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106, or George Utting, EPA 202/260-9530.

EPA's August 1996 Interim Storm Water Permitting Policy Challenged in Arizona

Background: On August 1, 1996, the EPA Office of Water released a final policy titled, "Interim Permitting Approach for Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations in Storm Water Permits" (transmitted via Regulatory Alert RA-96-18). The policy addresses issues relating to the type of effluent limitations that are most appropriate for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System storm water permits to provide for the attainment of water quality standards. This policy supports an interim permitting approach using best management practices (BMPs) in first-round storm water permits (both municipal and industrial), and expanded or better-tailored BMPs in subsequent permits, where necessary, to provide for the attainment of water quality standards. The policy is not intended to affect permits which already include appropriately derived numeric water-quality based effluent limitations. The interim permitting approach was developed in response to concerns raised in EPA's Urban Wet Weather Flows Advisory Committee which cited lack of information and data on which to base numeric water quality-based effluent limitations. It is the intent of the policy to support incorporation of numeric effluent limitations into the permits only when sufficient information has been gathered which can be used to develop relationships between effluent and receiving water quality.

Status: In a letter dated March 19, 1997, the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (the Center) challenged EPA's interim permitting policy by requesting an evidentiary hearing regarding the issuance of five recently issued Arizona municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permits (Tuscon, Pima County, Phoenix, Mesa, and Tempe). In the letter, the Center contends that best management practices are not water quality standards within the meaning of the Act and EPA rules, and that there are no schedules in the permits for achieving compliance with the numeric or narrative standards for the relevant receiving waters. This was not the only legal issue raised in the letter, however, it is EPA's first legal challenge of its recently issued permitting policy.

EPA Issues Final Version of CSO Guidance on Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development

EPA recently finalized its "CSO Guidance on Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development" document. The document intends to be used as a planning tool for evaluating the financial resources a permittee has available to implement CSO controls using a variety of financial indicators. The document also is also designed to assist permittees, and EPA and State authorities in developing CSO control implementation schedules. Because of the potential use or reference of this guidance in EPA's developing SSO policy, the National Office distributed a copy of the final document to all AMSA members via Regulatory Alert RA 97-8. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Ross Brennan, EPA 202/260-6928.

YOU ARE CURRENTLY ON THE ARCHIVE SITE, which was last updated on July 31, 2007.
Please click here for the current NACWA website.

National Association of Clean Water Agencies | 1816 Jefferson Place, NW Washington D.C. 20036 | 202.833.2672 | Fax 202.833.4657 | info@nacwa.org