United States Office of Water EPA-823-R-99-015
Environmental Protection (4305) ' December, 1999
Agency
&EPA
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE WATER QUALITY-BASED PROVISIONS
IN THE CSO CONTROL POLICY
OUTLINE OF
DRAFT EPA GUIDANCE
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background 3
Why did the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepare this outline? 3
How did EPA gather information on what was needed to facilitate water quality and
designated use reviews for waters affected by CSOs? 3
Why is guidance needed? -. 4
What will the guidance do? 5
Outline - How do you coordinate the planning and implementation ofCSO
control programs with the re-evaluation of water quality standards? 8
Purpose 8
Audience .8
Introduction ,...; 9
Water quality-based requirements of the CSO Control Policy 9
Coordination among the permitting, enforcement and water
quality standards programs 9
Watershed-based water quality standards and permits 9
Suggested steps in coordinating the development and implementation of
CSO control programs with re-evaluating water quality standards 12
Coordination team 12
Permit requiring documentation of the nine minimum controls and development of the
long-term control plan .... , 12
Public participation/advisory group 12
Monitoring plan 12
Water quality standards 13
Define water quality impacts 14
Range of control alternatives 14
Requests for water quality standards reviews 14
Use attainability analyses 14
Permits requiring long-term control plan implementation while
water quality standards are re-evaluated 15
Guidance on phased implementation of the control plan, water
quality standards revisions, revisions to permits and plans 15
Small Communities 15
Figure 1: Suggested Steps in Coordinating The Development and Implementation OfCSO
Control Programs With Re-evaluating Water Quality Standards 10
-------
-------
Background
Why did the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepare this outline?
One of the principles in the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy is the "review
and revision, as appropriate, of water quality standards and their implementation procedures
when developing CSO control plans to reflect the site-specific wet weather impacts of CSOs."
The Agency is developing this guidance because there is a perception that impediments exist to
implementing the water quality-based provisions in the Policy. States indicated a need for
additional guidance on how to review and revise, as appropriate, their water quality standards for
waters affected by CSOs. Others indicated States' failure to conduct these reviews hinders
identification of appropriate CSO control goals and development and implementation of long-
term control plans that are consistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements.
Congess in House Report 105-769, accompanying the Agency's FY 1999 Appropriations,
urged EPA to:
• develop guidance, after public comment, to facilitate the conduct of water quality and
designated use reviews for CSO-receiving waters;
• provide technical and financial assistance to States and EPA Regions to conduct these
reviews;
• report progress to relevant authorizing and appropriations committees by December 1,
1999. .'-...
This outline fulfills the Agency's obligation to report progress on developing guidance on"
CSO Control Policy implementation. We are also providing two other documents: (1) Summary
of the Listening Sessions — Observations & Recommendations For Guidance And Technical
Assistance To Facilitate Water Quality And Designated Use Reviews For Waters Impacted By
Combined Sewer Overflows and (2) Summary Of Participants' Comments At The EPA-WEF
Experts Workshop On Implementing The Water Quality-Based Provisions Of The CSO Control
Policy
How did EPA gather information on what was needed to facilitate water quality and
designated use reviews for waters affected by CSOs?
The Agency held listening sessions in Philadelphia, PA (April 21,1999), Lowell, MA (May
5-6, 1999), and Chicago, IL (May 13-14, 1999), as well as conducted numerous conference calls
to obtain a broad range of perspectives from knowledgeable individuals. The focus of the
meetings and conference calls was to obtain participants' views on the:
• impediments to implementing the water quality-based provisions of the CSO Control
Policy;
• actions that the Agency should take to overcome any identified impediments.
-------
Approximately 156 individuals participated in the meetings and conference calls, including:
• 73 communities/consultants,
• 53 State staff (15 different States),
• 21 Regional Office/Headquarters personnel,
• 9 watershed/environmental representatives.
Following the listening sessions and conference calls, EPA prepared preliminary guidance
materials. To critically review these materials, EPA and the Water Environment Federation
(WEF) co-sponsored an invited experts workshop on September 24, 1999. Workshop
participants included a facilitator and 15 knowledgeable individuals with a variety of
backgrounds and experiences involving CSO control planning and implementation, and in the
water quality standards program.
In co-sponsoring the workshop, the Agency sought and received a wide range of diverse
perspectives on (1) the impediments to implementing the water quality-based provisions of the
CSO Control Policy, including State review of water quality standards for the waters receiving
CSOs, and (2) the actions EPA should take to overcome these impediments. The facilitator did
not ask participants to reach consensus on recommendations or provide advice as a group. The
Agency will consider all suggestions and recommendations as it prepares draft guidance for
public review and comment by April, 2000.
Why is guidance needed?,
The CSO Control Policy is a national strategy to engage municipalities, permitting and
enforcement authorities, water quality standards authorities, and the public hi a comprehensive
and coordinated effort to achieve the level of control in a combined sewer system that would
contribute to the attainment of water quality standards in waters affected by CSOs. EPA
believed that States and communities, in conjunction with the public, would actively participate
in the planning, selection, design, and implementation of CSO long-term control plans. EPA
also expected that development of long-term plans would support an evaluation of the
attainability of water quality standards on CSO-impacted receiving waters, and that standards
would be revised, as appropriate. The anticipated level of coordination and cooperation has not
occurred everywhere.
Participants in the listening sessions and hi the EPA-WEF Experts Workshop identified a
number of impediments in coordinating the development and implementation of long-term CSO
control plans with the review of water quality standards. Implementation of the water quality-
based provisions in the CSO Control Policy involves complex and expensive activities, all of
which are not well understood by local and State officials and the public. EPA must support
local officials who develop, fund and implement CSO long-term control plans; State officials
who develop permits and review water quality standards; and the public who pays for CSO
control programs and evaluates any revisions to water quality standards for CSO-receiving
waters. We can accomplish this by reiterating EPA's support for the review and revision, as
appropriate, of water quality standards as an integral part of the CSO planning and
-------
implementation processes, and by providing technical guidance that clarifies expectations about
the relationship between long-term CSO control planning;and water quality standards.
What will the guidance do?
The guidance will provide the policy, programmatic and technical support to integrate the
processes for planning and implementing CSO controls with those for water quality standards.
The first component of the guidance will clearly and simply explain EPA's goals for improving
implementation of the water quality-based provisions in the CSO Control Policy — particularly
the need for improved coordination among participating entities. Our purpose is to help local
officials, State authorities, and the public understand that:
• A long-term CSO planning process is necessary to meet the CWA requirements, as well
as other local and watershed goals.
• The planning process involves a concerted dialogue and active participation among
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and water quality standards
authorities, permittees, municipal officials, ratepayers, and other members of the public,
and should be implemented in conjunction with the control of all sources of
contamination on a watershed basis.
• Identification of program goals for combined sewer systems requires a full understanding
of the causes of the overflows, the effects of the overflows on local water quality, and the
cost and effectiveness of different control options. It also involves understanding how
other pollutant sources in a watershed contribute to nonattainment and the extent to which
attainment will require control of sources other than CSOs. These activities are often
data-intensive, involving monitoring and modeling over an extended time period.
• The monitoring and modeling needed to evaluate different CSO control options should
also be designed to evaluate the attainability of existing water quality standards under the
control options during development and implementation of the long-term plan.
• Adjustments in water quality standards may be necessary, if well designed and operated
control programs can not eliminate all CSOs, including their discharges of bacteria,
nutrients, and toxicants and the costs of the controls would result and substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
The second component of the guidance - How do you coordinate the planning and
implementation of CSO control programs with the re-evaluation of water quality standards? -
will explain how to integrate the CSO control planning and implementation processes with the
water quality standards processes. We will involve State and local entities in developing this
component of the guidance document and use their experience in developing case studies and
examples. This component of the guidance will provide more detailed information to EPA and
State NPDES authorities, State water quality standards authorities, CSO communities and local
constituency groups.
-------
This second component will affimi EPA's expectation that the CSO long-term control plans
are to be developed to meet both the technology-based and the water quality-based requirements
of the CWA, and will clearly describe the iterative processes and the tools for doing so. We will
suggest a series of steps that will facilitate the integration of CSO control planning and
implementation with the re-evaluation of water quality standards. By clarifying the roles and
inter-relationship of local, State and Federal entities, the guidance will foster a more informed
dialogue on CSO control planning and implementation, and greater coordination and cooperation
in the water quality standards review processes.
The guidance will provide specific examples of how the review and, if appropriate, revision
processes would work in a CSO context, describing, for example, the options for refining
designated uses (e.g., subcategories allowing intermittent exceedances) to address bacteria during
storm events. We will include background information on existing State approaches for
reconciling their water quality standards with any remaining overflows, after the implementation
of well designed and operated long-term control programs. We will explore the possibility of
developing a "model use attainability analysis" that States could use in developing subclasses of
their designated uses and applying the subclasses to specific waters where a well designed and
operated CSO control program does not eliminate all overflows.
In addition, the guidance will explain how communities and States can take advantage of the
flexibility in the CSO Control Policy and the Water Quality Standards Program to reflect site-
specific conditions. For example, development and implementation of a long-term CSO control
plan is an iterative process and can be phased to implement high priority projects, such as
eliminating, relocating or treating CSOs that flow into sensitive areas, and to monitor and
evaluate the effect of these initial controls on water quality. Monitoring the efficacy of initial,
high priority controls can generate useful information that can enable the permittee to better
tailor additional controls. Synchronizing the long-term CSO planning process with the standards
review process enables the two processes to inform each other.
There are alternatives to modifying or removing a use, which States need to consider in
fulfilling their obligation under the CWA to develop water quality standards that protect public
health and the environment. In many cases, sufficient information will not be available until
portions of the long-term control plan are implemented to fully evaluate the effectiveness of
these controls in precluding CSOs from interfering with the attainment of the water quality
standards. Once agreed-to portions of the plan are implemented, and the effect on water quality
evaluated, the State will be better able to determine whether the use can be attained with
additional controls, or whether a water quality standards action is warranted.
One alternative to permanent modification or removal of a use is issuance of a permit with a
variance. A variance provides a "bridge" to move from an impaired designated use and existing
water quality to the fully attained designated use and the water quality necessary to support that
use. With a variance, further environmental progress can be made by precluding additional
impairment of water quality, and requiring the implementation of high priority controls (e.g.,
directing overflows from sensitive areas) in the first phase, while conducting additional studies
and analyses to address complex questions related to the attainment of the use.
-------
We will clarify the processes and rigor of analyses required to obtain a variance and provide
additional guidance on conducting use attainability analyses, particularly for recreational uses.
One tool that may be useful is a series of "model" use attainability analyses that could be adapted
to the number and volume of overflows, the pollutant parameters involved (e.g., bacteria,
nutrients, toxicants) and the type, size and resource value of the receiving water.
If available, case studies for small communities will be included in the document. Small
communities may not have the infrastructure or resources to engage in, or pay for, the
development of expensive customized controls or comprehensive monitoring and modeling
programs. Model control plans would assist
Initially, this document will consolidate key elements in existing guidance to respond to the
questions raised in the listening sessions and EPA-WEF Experts Workshop. We will clarify
existing guidance where necessary. If the time frame for generating any of the guidance
identified in the outline extends beyond the Agency's commitment to propose the guidance for
public comment by April, 2000, the guidance will be identified in the April, 2000 proposal and
completed as soon as possible. In addition, the Agency received many recommendations for
future guidance by participants in the listening sessions and in the EPA-WEF Experts Workshop.
EPA has not evaluated the merits or feasibility of proceeding with these recommendations, but
the April, 2000 proposal will ask for comment on the merits and priority for future guidance.
The following outline identifies the topics that are likely to be addressed in the draft
guidance to be published in April, 2000.
7
-------
OUTLINE —How do you coordinate the planning and implementation ofCSO control
programs with the re-evaluation of water quality standards?
Purpose
With this guidance, how does EPA expect to accelerate the implementation of the water
quality-based provisions of the CSO Control Policy?
• Affirm EPA's expectation that CSO long-term control plans will be developed and
implemented to contribute to the attainment of water quality standards in waters affected by
CSOs.
• Affirm EPA's support for evaluating the attainability of water quality standards, including
those for urban streams that are adversely impacted by wet weather discharges.
• Clarify the roles and responsibilities of EPA, State authorities, and local communities and
their constituencies to improve coordination and cooperation.
• Use a schematic to suggest steps that integrate CSO control planning and implementation
with water quality standards re-evaluations.
• Re-affirm existing policies and programmatic and technical guidance, or develop additional
materials as necessary, to support improved coordination and cooperation in the development
and implementation of long-term CSO control plans and the re-evaluation of applicable
water quality standards.
Audience
Who should read this guidance?
• A broad spectrum of EPA and State staff who are involved with:
» development and issuance of NPDES permits for communities with CSOs and other wet
weather discharges;
• development and review of water quality standards on waters affected by CSOs and other
wet weather discharges;
* enforcement actions for communities with CSOs and other wet weather discharges.
• Municipal staff and their consultants who support the development and implementation of
CSO programs.
• Watershed and community-based organizations who are working to control CSOs and other
wet weather discharges, and to restore and protect the waters in their local watersheds.
-------
Introduction
Water quality-based provisions of the CSO Control Policy
• What are the Presumption Approach and the Demonstration Approach?
• Does the Presumption Approach meet the water quality-based requirements of the CWA?
• What are examples of "performance based requirements" that are linked to States' water
quality standards?
• How should a community decide whether to use the Demonstration Approach or
Presumption Approach to develop a long-term CSO control program?
Coodination among permitting, enforcement and water quality standards programs
• How does the Agency coordinate the permitting, enforcement and water quality standards
programs where there is a planned or pending enforcement matter?
Watershed-based water quality standards and permits T
• How is CSO control planning affected by the presence of other dischargers in a watershed?
How are other sources of CSO-related pollutants, such as bacteria, nutrients, and toxicants,
considered in the decision to revise water quality standards?
• What are the advantages of participating hi a watershed planning effort?
• How are watershed-based water quality standards adopted, reviewed and evaluated and to
what extent is this done? How are site-specific water quality standards factored into
watershed-based standards?
• How are NPDES permits issued on a watershed basis and to what extent is this done?
• Should a community participate in a watershed planning effort if water quality standards are
not adopted or permits are not issued on a watershed basis?
• How can watershed considerations affect a community's long-term control plan and the re-
evaluation of water quality standards?
• How can watershed monitoring support a community's long-term control plan and a use
attainability analysis?
• How will a watershed plan or a total maximum daily load (TMDL) analysis affe*ct a
community's long-term control plan?
• How are "wet weather" sources controlled on a watershed basis? Will nonpoint sources also
be controlled?
• How can CSO control planning and implementation be developed and implemented on a
watershed basis when other watershed planning activities, including TMDL analyses, are
occurring on a different schedule? Should development and implementation of a long-term
control plan be delayed until the watershed plan or TMDL is completed?
• What would be different if a CSO permit is issued, along with other discharge permits, on a
watershed basis?
• How are activities handled if a watershed includes more than one State?
-------
FIGURE 1 - SUGGESTED STEPS IN COORDINATING THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF CSO CONTROL PROGRAMS WITH RE-EVALUATING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
NPDES AUTHORITY
PERMITTEE
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
AUTHORITY
1. FORM A COORDINATION TEAM
2. ISSUE PERMIT TO REQUIRE
• Documentation of the implementation
of the nine minimum controls;
• Development of the long-term control
plan.
3. INITIATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
LONG-TERM CONTROL PLAN
• Create a public advisory group with a
full spectrum of community and
environmental organizations, private
citizens, and downstream communities.
• Develop a monitoring plan that can be
used for the long-term control plan, use
attainability analysis, and compliance
evaluations of the effectiveness of the
controls.
4. IDENTIFY APPLICABLE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS &
IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
5. DEFINE WATER QUALITY
IMPACTS
• Characterize the combined sewer
system and evaluate the effects of CSOs
on designated uses and water quality.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the nine
minimum controls in reducing overflows.
• Develop priorities, e.g., direct CSOs
away from sensitive areas
• Involve the public.
6. DEVELOP A RANGE OF
ALTERNATIVES
• Evaluate water quality improvements.
• Develop costs and a phased
implementation schedule, as appropriate.
• Request, if appropriate, water quality
standards revision and provide
information supporting the request
7. EVALUATE REQUEST FOR
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
REVISION
• Consider options and alternatives, e.g.,
allow a mixing zone for bacteriological
criteria; refine the use classification
system to include a subclassification for
intermittent exceedance; segment the
water body to preserve the use in some
areas; determine if sufficient information
was provided to revise the use.
• If a use attainability analysis is
appropriate, but sufficient data were not
provided, involve EPA, NPDES Authority
and permittee in reaching agreement on
data and analyses and responsible entity.
8. GATHER INFORMATION FOR THE
USE ATTAINABnjTY ANALYSIS
• Use existing information, if available,
or gather additional information.
• Involve community-based organizations
in the effort.
10
-------
FIGURE 1 - continued
NPDES AUTHORITY
10. EVALUATE CONTROL PLAN
14. PROPOSE/ISSUE A PERMIT TO
IMPLEMENT THE PLAN
• Fact sheet for proposed permit
references any anticipated variance or
other water quality standards revision.
• Include phased implementation of plan,
if appropriate, operational plan, and
monitoring requirements.
18. REVISE PERMIT TO REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL CONTROLS OR REVISE
CONTROLS, AS APPROPRIATE
PERMITTEE
9. COMPLETE LONG-TERM
CONTROL PLAN
• Involve public advisory group in
explaining the plan to the public.
• Consider public comments, making
appropriate changes.
15. IMPLEMENT THE PLAN
• As phases are implemented, monitor to
determine reductions in overflows and
pollutant loadings, and project additional
reductions likely, based on
implementation of next phases.
19. REVISE PLAN, IF APPROPRIATE
AND IMPLEMENT REVISIONS
• Involve public advisory group.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
AUTHORITY
11. EVALUATE INFORMATION FOR
THE USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
• Discuss options with EPA, NPDES
Authority and Permittee
12. PROPOSE AN OPTION
• Options may include: variance,
refinements in the use classification
system, applying criteria at point of
contact, revising a use, etc.
• Propose change for public comment
13. SUBMIT WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS REVISION TO EPA
• EPA reviews, approves or disapproves.
16. DETERMINE THAT WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS ARE
APPROPRIATE OR REVISE OR
PROPOSE OTHER WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS REVISIONS
• Evaluate monitoring data.
« Meet with EPA, NPDES Authority on
appropriate action.
17. IF APPROPRIATE, SUBMIT
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
REVISIONS TO EPA
• EPA reviews, approves, or disapproves.
11
-------
Suggested steps in coordinating the development and implementation .of CSO control programs
with re-evaluating water quality standards
[The outline follows the schematic hi Figure 1. Not all activities are necessarily sequential; many
will occur simultaneously. Additional detail will be included in the guidance.]
Coordination team
• How is a coordination team formed? Who is responsible for its formation?
• Who should participate?
• How can a coordination team facilitate the development and implementation of long-term
control plans consistent with the applicable water quality standards or facilitate their
reconciliation?
• When should EPA be involved (e.g., inter-state issues on a common body of water), if the
State issues the NPDES permits?
• How can a permittee, downstream community affected by CSOs, members of the interested
public contact the coordination team to find out the State's or EPA's views on an issue?
Permit requiring documentation of the nine minimum controls and development of the long-
term control plan
• How can a community use the evaluation of the effectiveness of the nine minimum controls in
informing the long-term planning process?
• How can the efficacy of the nine minimum controls be assessed? Are there examples where
implementation of the nine minimum controls have reduced overflows sufficiently to meet the
water quality-based requirements of the CWA?
Public participation/advisory group
• How can community-based organizations assist in the long-term control planning and
implementation?
• What materials are available to assist States and communities in explaining the CSO control
and water quality standards programs to the public? What are some examples of translating
costs and benefits to a community (e.g., how much a water utility bill will increase-for each
added day the public would be able to swim, or how much of the water quality problem is
attributable to other sources)?
Monitoring plan
• What are the purposes of a monitoring plan, e.g., characterize the combined sewer system,
evaluate the efficacy of the nine minimum controls, characterize CSO water quality impacts,
determine water quality benefits of CSO control alternatives, and confirm attainment of water
quality standards through compliance monitoring?
• How can communities use the monitoring data and analyses collected in conjunction with the
long-term control plan development and implementation to support State use attainability
analyses decisions?
• How can communities ensure that citizen monitoring data will be accepted? What guidance is
available?
Water quality standards
12
-------
How are water quality standards linked to the objective, goals and requirements in the CWA?
What are the States' authorities under the CWA for the development, review and
implementation of water quality standards? What are EPA's authorities?
How are water quality standards adopted, reviewed, and approved or disapproved by EPA?
On what bases will EPA disapprove States' water quality standards revisions and promulgate
Federal standards?
What flexibility do States have in designating uses?
• What role does a State's use classification system play hi providing greater flexibility in
regulating discharges? What are some examples of this flexibility?
• How does a State revise its use classification system and what role does EPA play hi the
revision?
• What might an acceptable urban aquatic life or recreation use look like? What data and
analyses would be necessary to develop such a use?
• How have States developed subcategories of uses, consistent with the CWA and
implementing regulations, to account for overflows during wet weather events which a
well designed and operated system can not eliminate? What other approaches have States
used to reconcile their water quality standards with the overflows remaining after
implementation of long-term control programs.
• Are there acceptable "urban" aquatic life or recreation uses?
• If a State refines its use classification system, does the State have to have a use
attainability analysis to revise the uses for a specific water body?
• If a State revises its use classification system, does that mean a community can anticipate
a revision of the uses on CSO-receiving waters?
• How do costs factor into States' decisions on designating uses and State flexibility on use
designations?
Must all waters be designated with the "fishable/swimmable" goal uses?
• What are the factors that States should consider in designating waters for aquatic life in
urban areas? Recreation?
• Can States designate different uses for different segments of the same water body, as long
as downstream uses are protected? Can a State use a mixing zone, rather than apply the
bacteriological criteria at the end of the pipe?
When can a State revise the "fishable/swimmable" goal uses?
• Will a State upgrade the uses for a water body as CSOs are controlled? Can the public
petition a State to upgrade the use for a particular waterbody to further water quality
improvements? Would a use attainability analysis be necessary?
• How can the public participate in decisions on, whether to retain or revise the uses for a
water body?
« What factors are examined when demonstrating that a use is not attainable and selecting
another use for the water body?
13
-------
Define water quality impacts
• How will characterizing a combined sewer system assist in defining the water quality impacts
ofCSOs?
• How are the water quality impacts of CSOs to be characterized? What and how much
physical, chemical, and biological data are expected?
• How does the community relate the reductions in CSOs to water quality?
• How should implementation priorities be selected?
• How can the public be involved in determining the priorities?
Range of control alternatives
• What type of water quality impact analyses should communities conduct as they evaluate a
range of control alternatives?
• How does a community select a control option, if implementation depends on revisions to
water quality standards? How does a community phase a long-term control plan? What are
examples of phased implementation along with water quality standards reviews?
Requests for water quality standards reviews
• How can a community's water quality standards issues be addressed on a more timely basis
than the State's triennial water quality standards review cycle?
• What are available alternatives to revising or removing a use?
• If none of the community's control options appears sufficient to meet water quality standards,
after an evaluation of the cost and effectiveness of a range of control options, how should a
community request a re-evaluation of water quality standards?
• What information will a State need to review, re-evaluate and, if appropriate, revise the water
quality standard?
Use attainability analyses
• What is a use attainability analysis?
• When is a use attainability analysis needed? When is a use attainability analysis not
needed?
• What guidance is available on conducting a use attainability analysis (include references to
EPA's Technical Support Manuals, Interim Economic Guidance and Water Environment
Research Foundation's A Suggested Framework For Conducting UAAs and Interpreting
Results and A Comprehensive UAA Technical Reference)1?
• Who conducts a use attainability analysis?
• How is a use attainability analysis initiated? Who is involved in determining how much
data to collect, the methods to use, the analyses to conduct, and the weight of evidence to
support conclusions?
• How can a community use the data collected for the long-term control plan as the basis of
a use attainability analysis? What parts?
» What are the steps in a use attainability analysis? Do all the steps need to be done? Are
there simplifying assumptions that small communities can use?
• Are there "model use attainability analyses" for different types, sizes and resource values
of water bodies that could be adapted, depending on the number and volume of CSOs?
14
-------
• If similar conditions are shared among several water bodies, is a separate use attainability
analysis needed for each water body?
• ' What are the appropriate factors to be examined when conducting a use attainability
analysis for aquatic life and recreation in urban areas?
• What factors are evaluated in determining whether controls impose a substantial and
widespread social and economic impact on a community? Is the determination solely
based on the community's ability to afford the long-term control plan? How do water
quality and other types of benefits, as compared to the costs, factor into the analysis? If
the incremental costs of additional controls exceed the benefits, must a community
implement those controls, if they can afford to do so?
" Why does the Agency use a 2% indicator as the basis of the community's ability to afford
controls beyond the technology-based requirements of the CWA? How are a community's
other obligations taken into consideration, such as providing safe drinking water?
Permits requiring long-term control plan implementation while water quality standards are re-
evaluated
• How will a control plan be evaluated and approved, if the implementation will be phased
with potential re-adjustments after each phase prior to implementing the following phase?
• What if the sizing and costs of controls could change depending on completion of TMDL
analyses, a watershed plan, or revisions in water quality standards?
• Who approves a long-term control plan? What is the process?
• How are enforceable permit conditions developed if a State has not revised its water quality
standards or has insufficient information on which to revise a water quality standard?
• How can variances be used in the permitting process?
• If implementation of the plan is to be phased, how should the plan be phased? Are there
criteria for setting priorities? How is the public involved in setting the priorities?
• What monitoring requirements will be included in the permit to assure adequate data are
collected for evaluating the attainability of a use?
• Once the agreed to portions of the plan are implemented, and the effect on water quality
evaluated, will the water quality standard be revised or will additional controls be required?
Guidance on phased implementation of the control plan, water quality standards revisions,
revision to permits and plans included in the above guidance.
Small Communities
• Are there special considerations for small communities?
15
-------
-------
-------
------- |