Search

Wet Weather Issues


AMSA Developing Draft Wet Weather Legislation

Background: AMSA is aggressively gearing up for the upcoming 106th Congress by taking the lead role in the development of a targeted wet weather bill to amend the Clean Water Act. The draft bill, entitled Urban Wet Weather Watershed Act of 1999, proposes changes to the Clean Water Act to provide a unified mechanism for management of urban wet weather flows, clarifies combined sewer overflows (CSOs), sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), and municipal separate stormwater discharge requirements, and provides a total of $6 billion in funding for wet weather projects over three years. AMSA worked in cooperations with the following groups in the development of the wet weather bill: the American Public Works Association (APWA), CSO Partnership, National League of Cities (NLC), National Association of Counties (NACo), National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA), U.S. Conference of Mayors, CSO Partnership, Water Environment Federation (WEF), and Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA).

Status: AMSA has completed revisions to the bill, which is now entitled Urban Wet Weather Priorities Act of 1999. Lobbying efforts have begun with the objective of getting the bill introduced during this session of Congress and initiating hearings on the bill. When the appropriate time arises, the membership will be asked to write letters in support of the wet weather legislation. CONTACT: Greg Schaner, AMSA 202/296-9836.

Proposed Stormwater Phase II Regulations

Background: EPA's proposed stormwater phase II rule regulating stormwater discharges from small municipal separate sewer systems and small construction sites was published in the January 9, 1998 Federal Register. The proposed rule would require smaller municipalities within urbanized areas to apply for NPDES permit coverage by May 31, 2002 and implement a mix of best management practices to “reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable and protect water quality.”

Status: AMSA's April 9, 1998 comments to the Agency on the January 9, 1998 “Proposed Regulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm Water Discharges,” expressed the need to clarify in the rule whether regional wastewater authorities could participate in a Phase II stormwater permit as a co-applicant/co-permittee and implement stormwater program requirements for their respective service areas. On March 10, 1999, AMSA submitted further clarification to its original comments on this matter in the form of suggested regulatory language. AMSA suggests adding an additional section, ยง122.33(a)(4) to explicitly authorize regional authorities to participate as co-applicants/co-permittees with two or more adjacent or interconnected regulated municipal separate sewer systems, and allow EPA or the state to issue one system-wide permit for the entire service area. EPA and NRDC have negotiated an extension of time for finalizing the Phase II Stormwater Rule. The date for signature by the EPA Administrator has been extended from March 1, 1999 to October 29, 1999. The settlement agreement includes several commitments made by EPA to assuage NRDC concerns regarding implementation of the regulation. These commitments include the following within a year from the date of the final rule: 1) development of a model permit; 2) development of a menu of Best Management Practices (BMPs); and 3) development of guidance on measurable goals. CONTACT: George Utting, EPA 202/260-9530 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

EPA to Reconvene SSO Federal Advisory Committee

Background: EPA is crafting a national framework to guide the Agency in revising regulations and guidance to address SSO permitting and enforcement issues. A federal advisory committee, made up of municipal (including AMSA), environmental, EPA, and state interests met from November 1994 to December 1996 to discuss framework and implementation issues. The Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) is currently developing a draft Federal Register notice that will include: 1) An interim policy statement addressing NPDES permit requirements for municipal sanitary sewer collection systems (the policy will clarify how existing 'generic' standard NPDES permit conditions apply to municipal sanitary sewer collection systems); and 2) Proposed modifications to the NPDES regulations which would establish standard permit conditions specifically for municipal sanitary sewer collection systems. These standard permit conditions will address: reporting requirements for sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs); and a prohibition on discharges from municipal sanitary sewer collection systems.

Status: EPA Headquarters, Regions, and selected States met on April 28-29 with the purpose of achieving agreement within the regulatory community on a proposed national approach to SSO control. The goal of the meeting was to agree on fairly detailed proposed regulatory language in five separate issue papers including: 1) requirements for adequate sewer system management, operations, and maintenance; 2) reporting and public notification; 3) a general prohibition on SSOs (with a description of circumstances where EPA will not take enforcement action); 4) excess flow treatment facilities; and, 5) approaches to controlling satellite collection systems. During the April 28-29 meeting, the EPA/States group reached agreement on 4 of the 5 issue papers. Outstanding issues on excess flow treatment facilities remain unresolved, and will be elevated to upper EPA management review. EPA expects to be able to distribute the four “approved” issue papers for review in time for AMSA's May meeting in Washington. The Federal Advisory Committee is still scheduled to receive materials at the end of May, and meet at the end of July to discuss EPA's draft regulatory language and policy.

In its discussions, EPA has grappled with the issue of how to define adequate collection system operation and maintenance. One of EPA's objectives for the national SSO program is to “clarify long-term capacity and operation and maintenance objectives.” In an October 22, 1998 discussion paper, EPA indicated that numeric preventative maintenance standards for municipal sanitary sewer systems are not practical because of very little correlation of existing preventative maintenance data to system performance. However, EPA may be rethinking this position as the enclosed American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) report concludes that “data received support the hypothesis that performance and reinvestment are related and that system performance and maintenance can be quantitatively evaluated to optimize the system reinvestment for selected levels of system performance.” The report develops “yard sticks” for maintenance and performance based on the data provided by 42 municipalities.

EPA has asked AMSA to comment on the methodology developed in the report, and the feasibility of implementing such a measurement approach in national policy. EPA's program office has concerns over the additional information collection requirements that may be imposed as part of such an approach. EPA is also soliciting suggestions from AMSA on alternatives to streamline this process. EPA is also interested in expanding the database of agencies used to develop maintenance and performance “yardsticks” contained in the ASCE report, as data may be skewed towards municipalities with better performance, and would like to explore opportunities for AMSA's assistance in this effort.

AMSA plans to discuss the ASCE report, alternatives to this approach, and expansion of the database used to develop maintenance and performance “yardsticks” with EPA at the May 22 AMSA Wet Weather Issues meeting in Washington, DC. Soon thereafter, AMSA plans to submit formal comments on the ASCE report to EPA. CONTACT: Kevin Weiss, EPA 202/260-9524, or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

Water Quality Guidance for CSO Receiving Waters

Background: Under the 1994 CSO policy, EPA urged states to coordinate the development of local long-term CSO planning with the review and appropriate revision of water quality standards and implementation procedures to ensure that the long-term controls will be sufficient to meet water quality standards. However, after almost five years since the agreement, and with half the CSO communities currently in the long-term planning process, only two states (Maine and Massachusetts) have conducted coordinated water quality standards reviews with long-term CSO planning. In report language accompanying the 1999 VA, HUD, & Independent Agencies spending bill, congressional appropriators urged EPA to “(1) develop, after a period for public comment, a guidance document to facilitate the conduct of water quality and designated use reviews for CSO-receiving waters; (2) provide technical and financial assistance to states and EPA regions to conduct these reviews; and (3) submit a report to the relevant authorizing and appropriations committees of the House and Senate by December 1, 1999 on the progress of meeting the requirements set forth above.”

Status: EPA is in the process of developing a guidance document to facilitate the conduct of water quality and designated use reviews for CSO receiving waters. EPA has hosted three meetings in the month of May with stakeholder groups, including municipalities. An EPA staff document titled “Question/Issues on the Impediments/Solutions to the Implementation of the WQ-Based Provisions of the CSO Policy” was the basis for the discussions (see AMSA Regulatory Alert RA 99-5). Separate meetings for municipalities, regional and state permitting authorities, and environmentalists, were held at each location. During the meetings, municipalities stressed the lack of cost/benefit analysis for water quality in developing CSO long-term control plans, as most municipalities have been compelled by EPA and States to develop plans based upon financial capability, i.e. 2 percent median income. Municipalities also highlighted state and local resource issues, political impediments, and the lack of EPA guidance in the water quality standards review process, as it relates to wet weather, as major obstacles for developing reasonable CSO water quality goals. EPA will now develop a draft guidance document that will be reviewed by an invited stakeholder group in July of 1999. AMSA is preparing detailed comments for EPA consideration, based on discussions at the meetings. CONTACT: Ross Brennan, EPA 202/260-6928 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

Memorandum Clarifying Tech-Based Requirements and Enforcement Issues for CSOs

Background: To address internal Agency differences regarding whether the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) policy's nine minimum controls meet technology-based standards of the Act, EPA is poised to issue a memorandum clarifying appropriate technology-based standards as applied to CSOs, as well as clarifying enforcement issues related to water quality standards. The 1994 CSO Control Policy requires that permittee's “immediately implement BAT/BCT, which at minimum includes the nine minimum controls, as determined on a BPJ basis by the permitting authority.” While the policy acknowledges that nine minimum controls are a minimum standards, the memorandum reportedly clarifies that EPA and states, should evaluate options beyond the nine minimum controls when deciding appropriate BAT/BCT requirements. The memorandum also reportedly acknowledges that, in general, water quality-based controls based upon long-term control plans developed by municipalities, will likely be more stringent than any additional controls (beyond the nine minimum controls) required to meet technology-based standards. The memorandum also discusses the relationship between CSO permitting and enforcement issues. The memorandum reportedly emphasizes that enforcement remedies need to be consistent with permit requirements, and that they must also be consistent with water quality standards. If water quality standards are to be imminently revised so that standards will be less stringent, the memorandum states that enforcement remedies based upon revised standards should be acceptable, in lieu of designing compliance solutions based upon existing standards.

Status: The memorandum was reportedly signed by both the Office of Water and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, in late January, however, the Department of Justice is currently reviewing the memorandum prior to its final release. CONTACT: Ross Brennan, EPA 202/260-6928 or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.

Focus is on Wet Weather Flow Technology Improvements at EPA-NSF International Meeting

Background: On March 23, NSF International and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hosted the second meeting of the Stakeholder Advisory Group for the Wet Weather Flow Technologies Pilot. Established as one of 12 voluntary pilot programs under the EPA's Environmental Technology Verification Program (ETV), the Wet Weather Flow Technologies Pilot (WWF) is designed to verify the performance of commercial-ready technologies for stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows. The Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) is comprised of technology vendors, users and specifiers (e.g., municipalities, consulting engineers), as well as members of regulatory agencies and national and regional associations.

Status: Discussions at the meeting centered on two main areas: general processes and procedures for pilot operation, and the development of technically sound verification protocols in the following categories: high-rate separation and clarification technologies; high-rate disinfection technologies; flow monitoring/sampling equipment; wet weather models; and stormwater source control technologies. A Technology Panel for each category was convened during breakout sessions to define critical elements of verification protocols for the respective technologies. An element common to all categories was the need to report results that allow technology users/specifiers to make purchasing decisions at the local level. The committee also acknowledged that no single approach toward protocol development or verification testing can suit all technologies.

SAG members stressed the need for a rigorous generic protocol review and the ability to modify protocols if early tests reveal flaws. To ensure timely verifications, the group agreed that the pilot should be flexible and allow for collaboration with organizations that plan to conduct testing or have suitable testing facilities in place. The advisory group also highlighted the importance of balancing comprehensive evaluations that generate high-quality data with reasonable testing costs. Action items for each Technology Panel were identified, as were prospective contractors for protocol development and testing. Technology Panels will meet before drafting test protocols. NSF expects that verifications in two or more technology areas may be completed this year. The next meeting of the Stakeholder Advisory Group will be held in November 1999 at a location to be determined. Information about the WWF Pilot and the ETV Program is available on line at http://www.epa.gov/etv.

Related Items of Interest