Wet Weather Issues
EPA's Stormwater Phase II Advisory Subcommittee DiscussionsBackground: 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.
Status: On Oct. 6-7, EPA's Stormwater Phase II Federal Advisory Committee met to discuss EPA's soon to be published, proposed Stormwater Phase II rule. The proposal outlines a program to regulate all small municipal separate storm sewer systems located within any incorporated place, county, or place under jurisdiction of a governmental entity within a U.S. Census-designated "urbanized area," and small construction sites from one to five acres. The Committee discussed several remaining issues with the proposal. Municipalities, including AMSA, were especially concerned with the addition of language to the proposal requiring permittees to attain water quality standards, even if urban stormwater is not the sole source of impairment. EPA indicated to the committee that it may be willing to reword the proposal to state that permittees are only responsible for their contributions to water quality impairment. The committee also discussed EPA's draft cost/benefit analysis, which estimated a total annual national cost of the proposed rule from $111 to $436 million. Committee members blasted EPA for inaccurately modeling the cost of the phase II program, citing that the cost-model does not reflect the cost of complying with a Phase II permit as defined in the proposal, does not include monitoring costs, inaccurately applies per capita costs from Phase I cities, excludes capital cost of equipment, as well as applying several other inadequate assumptions. EPA plans to revise and solicit additional comments on the cost/benefit analysis when the rule is proposed. The proposed rule is currently being reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, and is expected to be signed by the Administrator on November 25, 1997. The rule is scheduled to be finalized March 1, 1999, with permit applications due for small municipalities no earlier than May 31, 2002. EPA plans to reevaluate the rule after two permit cycles in the year 2012. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106, or George Utting, EPA 202/260-9530.
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.
Status: Efforts at EPA are continuing to resolve internal headquarters and regional differences on proposed SSO policies developed by EPA's SSO Advisory Committee. EPA plans to release its "blueprint" for the national policy to the Regions and states within the next few weeks. The "blueprint" will include an outline for an interim permitting approach on SSOs and proposed regulatory changes. Subsequently, more detailed policy language will be issued to Regions, states, and stakeholder groups for review prior to the next meeting of EPA's Federal Advisory Committee, which is now expected to be held sometime in early 1998. CONTACT: Kevin Weiss, EPA 202/260-9524, or Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.
AMSA Region IV Members Discuss Enforcement Concerns
Background: Over forty participants, representing sixteen AMSA agencies met on Oct. 2 in Atlanta, Georgia to discuss common issues regarding EPA Region IV enforcement policies and activities. The meeting was convened due to concerns among several member agencies that EPA Region IV has been selectively targeting cities for CSO and SSO enforcement actions, and imposing unreasonable requirements in resulting enforcement orders. Several members informally shared their EPA Regional enforcement office and Department of Justice (DOJ) encounters with the group. Members discussed the events leading up to EPA and/or DOJ involvement, key EPA and DOJ enforcement officials, their strategies for negotiating, and pending or resulting enforcement orders or actions. Both ongoing and completed civil and criminal cases were highlighted. The Region's currently strict interpretation of Clean Water Act secondary treatment requirements, and its resistance to allow sanitary sewer overflows, whether avoidable or unavoidable, or bypasses during wet weather was identified by members as a primary common concern. Members also expressed frustration concerning the Region's reluctance to follow the provisions of national CSO policy, the lack of support for the SSO national policy dialogue, and the lack of focus on water quality benefits.
Status: A followup plan of action is being developed. Members hope to pursue these issues, including whether the Region can be persuaded to accept limited overflows during certain wet weather events, in follow up meetings with high-level regional EPA officials. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.
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 and potentially last plenary meeting on July 28-29, 1997. The Committee is expected to continue its work through small workgroups. 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
|
Watersheds: Watershed Policy Watersheds: Monitoring Recommendations Water Quality Standards: Wet Weather Standards Recommendations Stormwater: Phase I Reapplication Requirements Stormwater: Interim Policy on BMPs in Lieu of Numeric Standards Stormwater: No Exposure Incentive Stormwater: Expanded General Permit Notice of Intent Stormwater: Database on BMP Effectiveness Stormwater: Definition of Maximum Extent Practicable Stormwater: Phase I Enforcement Stormwater: Background Sources |
Policy (Fall 1997)
Guidance (Fall 1997) Proposed Rule on WQS Policy Issued (5/17/96) [RA96-15] Policy Issued (8/1/96) [RA96-18] Proposed Rule (Fall 1997) Proposed Rule (Fall 1997) Database Availability (1/31/98) Guidance to be Issued (1/31/98) Guidance or Policy (9/30/97) Guidance or Policy (9/30/97) |
· Watershed Policy: The Committee has been working for the past two years to develop a document titled, "A Watershed Alternative for the Management of Wet Weather Flows." The document is intended to express 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. Consensus on the watershed alternative was not reached as municipal groups urged EPA to adopt language supporting "proportionate share responsibility" within the document. A small workgroup meeting will be held on Oct. 27 in Washington, D.C. to pursue consensus on the document.
· Watershed Monitoring Recommendations: These recommendations will supplement the Watershed Alternative document by providing guidance on the development of watershed-based monitoring strategies.
· 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. At the July 28-29, 1997 meeting, the Committee discussed whether EPA should transmit a letter to Regions and States "reminding" them of the CSO policy implementation language that stipulates "development of the long-term plan should be coordinated with the review and appropriate revision of WQS...." EPA has agreed to develop a letter which discusses a broad suite of CSO implementation issues, including review and revision of water quality standards.
· Database of Best Management Practices (BMP) Effectiveness: The Committee is currently tracking progress of a cooperative EPA/ASCE project on the effectiveness of BMPs. Existing literature on stormwater BMPs and performance data are being compiled and compared. Also, software is being developed which will assist future BMP effectiveness research by defining the parameters which need to be assessed when evaluating BMP performance. A beta version of the software should be available in the late Fall 1997.
· 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 1997 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. Continued work on MEP is scheduled for Fall 1997.
CSO Permit Negotiation Workshop
Background: The AMSA CSO Permit Negotiation Workshop was held on September 25-26, 1996, at the Omni Netherland Hotel in Cincinnati, Ohio. The workshop was convened to allow AMSA members and others to share information and experiences regarding the CSO permitting process.
Status: More than 125 registrants attended the 1½ day workshop. Sessions on the status of national implementation, nine minimum controls, long-term compliance with water quality standards, negotiated permitted bypasses, and enforcement were highlighted throughout the conference. A final workshop summary report will be distributed to the attendees and other interested organizations in late October. Additional copies of workshop materials, and audio tapes of the sessions are available for a fee from the National Office. CONTACT: Mark Hoeke, AMSA 202/833-9106.
Return to Table of Contents