Wet Weather Issues
Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Policy FrameworkBackground: 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 has postponed the April meeting of the Subcommittee indefinitely until headquarters and regional EPA management can resolve internal staff differences regarding the SSO policy discussions and proposed policy. At the last EPA SSO Advisory Subcommittee meeting on December 16-17, officials from EPA Headquarters discussed the negative feedback it received from four of the six EPA Regions which commented (Regions I, III, IV, V, VI, and , VII) on EPA's, "Draft Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) and Sanitary Sewer Operation, Maintenance and Management Framework" (distributed via RA 96-25). AMSA and other operator interests on the Subcommittee submitted comments on the framework in early December, and submitted additional comments, based upon AMSA member input, on March 5th. 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 March. AMSA and other municipal interests of EPA's SSO Federal Advisory Subcommittee are also poised to submit a letter to EPA program and enforcement officials this week which emphasizes support for timely completion of the national SSO dialogue, support for negotiated affirmative defense provisions for unavoidable SSOs, and recommends 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. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Kevin Weiss, EPA 202/260-9524.
EPA's Urban Wet Weather Flows Advisory Committee Activities
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.
Table 2 - UWWFAC Activities
| Committee Activities | EPA Action Taken or Expected |
| Watersheds: Watershed Policy | Policy (Spring/Summer 1997) |
| Watersheds: Monitoring Recommendations | Guidance (Spring/Summer 1997) |
| Water Quality Standards: Wet Weather Standards Recommendations | Proposed Rule on WQS |
| Stormwater: Phase I Reapplication Requirements | Policy Issued (5/17/96) [RA96-15] |
| Stormwater: Interim Policy on BMPs in Lieu of Numeric Standards | Policy Issued (8/1/96) [RA96-18] |
| Stormwater: No Exposure Incentive | Proposed Rule (9/1/97) |
| Stormwater: Expanded General Permit Notice of Intent | Proposed Rule (9/1/97) |
| Stormwater: Database on BMP Effectiveness | Database Availability (1/31/98) |
| Stormwater: Definition of Maximum Extent Practicable | Guidance to be Issued (1/31/98) |
| Stormwater: Phase I Enforcement | Guidance or Policy (9/30/97) |
| Stormwater: Background Sources | Guidance or Policy (9/30/97) |
| Stormwater: Phase I/Phase II Integration | Prop. Rule on Phase II (9/1/97) |
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 Committee
is soliciting input from the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) in answering some key questions regarding this issue and
hopes to address policy questions in future discussions. The
water quality standards workgroup of the Advisory Committee has
tentatively planned to meet April 1-3, 1997 to define what questions
need to be addressed by the ASCE panel, and how the Committee
should proceed on the issue.
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 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.
Phase I/Phase II Integration: During the November meeting,
participants reviewed EPA's draft Phase II rule outline and discussed
Phase I/Phase II integration issues. AMSA and other municipal
representatives of the committee support a general permitting
approach to the proposed Phase II program, and emphasized the
importance of a "seamless" Phase I/Phase II stormwater
program that would ensure consistency between the two programs.
EPA's Stormwater Phase II Advisory Subcommittee Discussions
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: On March 6, municipal and operator interests participating on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Stormwater Phase II federal advisory subcommittee met with EPA Office of Wastewater Management Director Michael Cook and the Office of General Counsel to discuss the caucus' major concerns with the agency's most recent draft of the proposed stormwater phase II rule and preamble (see February 1997 AMSA Regulatory Update). The March 6 meeting was viewed as a success in that many of the suggested revisions were carefully considered and negotiated to compromise language agreeable to both the caucus and to EPA. During the meeting EPA acknowledged that narrative effluent limitations in the form of best management practices (BMPs) are the most appropriate tool for satisfying the technology and water quality-based requirements of the Act. However, EPA referred to its August 1996 interim stormwater permitting approach policy in stating that it will not preclude the use of numeric effluent limitations in cases where adequate information exists. On another issue, EPA agreed to develop proposed regulatory language which would clearly state EPA's intent to allow a regulated municipality to amend its chosen mix of stormwater BMPs without being subject to anti-backsliding provisions, when such modifications are consistent with technology-based, maximum extent practicable (MEP) criteria. EPA also re-emphasized that it is not proposing specific monitoring requirements for municipalities in the rule. However, Cook did state that the rule does not preclude monitoring requirements in permits if appropriate to assess water quality problems associated with urban stormwater activities. Also, state regulatory representatives on the Subcommittee have recently requested a meeting with Office of Water Assistant Administrator, Bob Perciasepe, to discuss an alternative program which would allow states to apply non-permit based approaches to controlling Phase II stormwater discharges. The next meeting of EPA's stormwater phase II advisory subcommittee is scheduled for April 17-18. EPA is under court order to propose a Phase II rulemaking by September 1997. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106, or George Utting, EPA 202/260-9530.
EPA Draft CSO Guidance on Monitoring and Modeling
Background: EPA recently transmitted a draft document titled, "CSO Guidance on Monitoring and Modeling," to several interest groups, including AMSA, for comment. The document presents information on the development of monitoring and modeling plans and various levels of monitoring and modeling for both the combined sewer system and the receiving water body.
Status: The National Office distributed the document to AMSA CSO communities for comment on January 2. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106 or Ross Brennan, EPA 202/260-6928.