NACWA - Member Pipeline - Regulatory Updates

Home

NPDES Permit Issues

NPDES Permit Application Requirements for POTWs, Form 2A and 2S - Proposed Rule

Background: EPA published in the December 6, 1995 Federal Register, a proposed rule which will amend NPDES permit application requirements and application forms for POTWs. The proposed regulations and Form 2A would replace existing Standard Form A and Short Form A to account for changes in the NPDES program since the forms were issued in 1973. The proposal consolidates POTW application requirements, including information regarding toxics monitoring, whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing, pretreatment facility and hazardous waste contributions, and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The most significant proposed revisions according to EPA, would require toxic and WET monitoring by major and pretreatment POTWs. EPA states that it believes that this information is necessary in order for permitting authorities to issue permits that will adequately protect the Nation's water resources. The proposed rule allows waivers where information is already available to the permitting authority. Refer to the Biosolids Management Issues section for a description of the requirements of the sewage sludge Form 2S.

Status: The proposed regulations and application forms were distributed to the membership via Regulatory Alert RA 96-4 on January 30, 1996. AMSA comments were synthesized and reviewed by AMSA's Biosolids Committee prior to submittal to EPA on March 28, 1996. EPA expects to publish a final rule in August 1997. CONTACTS: Sam Hadeed, AMSA (202) 833-4655, or Ruby Cooper Ford, EPA(202) 260-6051.

Calculation of the Economic Benefit of Noncompliance in EPA's Civil Penalty Enforcement Cases

Background: In the October 9, 1996, Federal Register, EPA published a request for comment on how it calculates the economic benefit obtained by regulated entities as a result of violating environmental requirements. The Agency is seeking comment on three categories of issues: The most effective mechanism for recapturing economic benefit; the methodology and assumptions incorporated in the economic benefit ("BEN") computer model used by the Agency to calculate that benefit; and, the model's precision and user-friendliness. After the comment period closes, the Agency plans to review all the comments and revise its benefit recapture approach as appropriate.

Status: EPA is requesting comments by March 3, 1997. CONTACT: Jonathon Libber, EPA Office of Regulatory Enforcement/Multimedia Enforcement Division, at (202)564-6011.

EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Holds Public Meeting on the National Performance Measure Strategy for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Background: In the January 13th Federal Register, EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) announced a public meeting in Alexandria, VA, on February 3 to discuss innovative approaches to measuring enforcement and compliance assurance program performance. This meeting is part of an overall National Performance Measures Strategy designed to seek alternative approaches to traditional EPA bean-counting activities by taking steps to identify and improve performance measures for enforcement and compliance activities. EPA hopes to establish a dialogue with regulatory partners and stakeholders through a series of meetings culminating with a report by mid-October 1997. The Federal Register notice announcing the meeting was distributed to the membership via Regulatory Alert RA 97-1.

Status: The public meeting, held February 3, focused on ways to supplement current enforcement and compliance assistance performance measures. A panel of industry groups said that instead of traditional EPA methods which focus on failures to comply with environmental standards, compliance rates should measure success. The industry panel also suggested that EPA's performance measures should take into account industry compliance rates and the degree of complexity of the regulations involved with that compliance. They stated that EPA should "give itself more credit" for enforcement actions against violations that pose the most actual or serious potential harm, and less credit for routine, or voluntarily reported minor violations by companies. While the environmental panel agreed that success rates should also be used to measure success, they strongly disagree with the idea of weighted compliance and differentiation among violations. The environmental justice panel believes EPA should adopt a number of environmental justice-related enforcement and compliance measures. The panel suggested that the Agency should assess the disparity in its performance in poor or minority communities compared with more affluent neighborhoods and should determine whether the benefits also extend to minorities and poor people. Both the environmental panel and the environmental-justice panel strongly felt that the best way to monitor enforcement and compliance is through citizen oversight. They emphasized that citizen groups should be allowed to review compliance data and make complaints to EPA or file citizen suits. EPA's next steps in developing their National Performance Strategy for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is to meet with sets of stakeholders and regulatory agencies throughout the Spring and then hold a "capstone" conference with stakeholders by mid-September. A final report and implementation schedule should be available by October 1997. CONTACT: Sam Hadeed, AMSA (202)833-4655 or James McDonald, EPA (202)564-4043.