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

-------

-------

-------

-------