United States Office of Water EPA-823-R-99-016
Environmental Protection (4305) December, 1999
Agency
vvEPA
SUMMARY OF PARTICIPANTS' COMMENTS
AT THE
EPA-WEF EXPERTS WORKSHOP ON
IMPLEMENTING THE WQ-BASED PROVISIONS
IN THE CSO CONTROL POLICY
HELD ON SEPTEMBER 24, 1999
-------
-------
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Conference Committee on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's FY 1999
Appropriations urged the Agency to develop guidance and provide financial and technical
assistance to States and Regional Offices to facilitate water quality and designated use reviews
for CSO-receiving waters. EPA held three listening sessions and numerous conference calls to
obtain the perspectives from a broad range of Federal, State, and local constituencies on
impediments to implementing the water quality-based provisions of the CSO Control Policy and
the actions EPA should take to overcome the impediments.
We prepared a Summary of the Listening Sessions — Observations & Recommendations For
Guidance And Technical Assistance To Facilitate Water Quality And Designated Use Reviews
For CSO-Receiving Waters and preliminary guidance materials to facilitate implementation of
the water quality-based provisions of the CSO Control Policy. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) co-sponsored an invited
experts workshop on September 24, 1999 to critically review these materials. Workshop
participants included a facilitator and 15 knowledgeable individuals with a variety of
backgrounds and experiences involving CSO control planning and implementation and water
quality standards (Attachment 1 includes the list of participants).
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 on CSO-receiving waters,
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. We
appreciated the participants' many valuable suggestions that the Agency will take into
consideration as the Agency prepares appropriate draft guidance for public review and comment
in April, 2000.
Participant comments are summarized below for your information. These comments are
those of Workshop participants; they do not necessarily represent the Agency's
perspective. In addition, EPA has not evaluated the merits or feasibility of proceeding with long-
term recommendations.
-------
-------
1. WHAT ARE THE IMPEDIMENTS TO IMPLEMENTING THE WATER QUALITY-
BASED PROVISIONS OF THE CSO CONTROL POLICY, INCLUDING STATE
REVIEW OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ON CSO-RECEIVING WATERS?
OBSTACLES IMPEDING STATES AND COMMUNITIES
• The Agency maintains an unrealistic presumption that even in urban areas, all waters can
meet the "fishable/swimmable" goals of the Clean Water Act and requires too rigorous
analyses to overcome that presumption.
• State resource shortfalls preclude water quality standards reviews for every CSO receiving
water.
• Many communities can not afford the high cost of CSO controls and are already burdened
with increased debt because of the close-out of the Agency's grant programs.
• CSO communities are not collecting adequate ambient water quality monitoring data to
support a State water quality standards review on CSO-receiving waters.
• CSO communities have insufficient resources to collect the monitoring data and conduct the
analyses on which to base use attainability analyses.
• States are paralyzed by the fear that any changes to water quality standards will be viewed
unfavorably by the public.
CONFLICTING EXPECTATIONS
• EPA sends "mixed messages" on whether revisions to uses for CSO-receiving waters are by
exception, or the norm, and if the norm, the level of demonstration required in a use
attainability analysis.
• CSO communities expect that water quality standards will be revised prior to implementing •
the long-term control plan. However, States do not necessarily believe that their water
quality goals should be revised without a demonstration that the CSO controls, when
implemented, alone or in combination with other controls, will continue to cause or
contribute to the impairment of water quality standards.
• A guiding principle of the CSO Control Policy is that States will review and revise their
water quality standards while communities are developing their long-term control plans.
This principle is perceived by some States as conflicting with the Clean Water Act objective
to restore water quality and with the water quality standards program regulatory requirements
to demonstrate that with the CSO controls, uses can not be attained.
• Some communities believe that no additional controls are necessary beyond the the
"presumptive approach" (4-6 overflows, 85% capture is presumed to meet water quality
standards), irrespective of the water quality standards for the CSO-receiving water.
IMPEDIMENTS INHERENT IN EPA'S POLICY/GUIDANCE
• The CSO Control Policy objective — "to achieve cost-effective CSO controls that ultimately
meet appropriate health and environmental objectives" - is vague and subject to different
interpretations.
• The CSO Control Policy fails to provide the regulatory certainty that communities need in
developing and financing their long-term control plans.
-------
• No Agency guidance clearly integrates the long-term control plan development and
implementation processes with water quality standards reviews, particularly the use of the
long-term control plan data and analyses as a basis of a use attainability analysis.
• When conducting the widespread economic and social impact analyses to revise a use, the
Agency's economic guidance for the water quality standards is perceived to preclude
consideration of a cost-benefit analysis. If a community can "afford" additional controls,
these controls must be applied, even if the incremental costs of the additional controls may
far exceed any tangible environmental benefits of the controls.
• Variances would enable a valid permit to be issued requiring implementation of some
controls. However, this mechanism is not used because of the high procedural hurdles, e.g.,
a use attainability analysis.
• Guidance is not available on adopting water quality standards and issuing permits on a
watershed basis.
• Without further guidance on the use of the watershed approach, the Agency will continue to
impede its use because of the perception that communities will use a watershed approach or
a future TMDL to delay any implementation of CSO controls.
• Different time frames and requirements in NPDES program regulations and policies inhibit
the coordination of wet weather permits on a watershed basis and the analysis and equitable
allocation of load reductions among all sources of contamination.
• Permit limits continue to be developed based on "dry weather" flows rather than on flows
reflective of wet weather flows, e.g., continuous simulation, dynamic or episodic event
modeling.
• EPA has failed to provide the leadership and guidance necessary to ensure States revise their
standards on CSO-receiving waters.
• EPA has not developed a mechanism to track State reviews of water quality standards on
CSO-receiving waters and hold States accountable for the reviews.
INSUFFICIENT PUBLIC SUPPORT
• Use of "buzz words," such as the "water quality-based provisions" of the CSO Control
Policy, are not universally understood to mean water quality standards and lead to
misinterpretation and confusion by public officials and the public.
• Local communities and the public do not understand the complexities of the water quality
standards program processes.
• The public does not support clean water infrastructure funding to the same extent as they
support highway funding.
• The Agency has not fully described the benefits of CSO controls, including the benefits to
downstream communities when overflows are stopped.
• Community organizations have not been effectively used as a public liaison mechanism
during the development of CSO long-term control plans and review of water quality
standards.
-------
2. WHAT ACTIONS SHOULD EPA TAKE TO SUPPORT STATES IN THEIR
REVIEW OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ON CSO-RECEIVING WATERS?
DEVELOP A STATEMENT OF EPA'S EXPECTATION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE WATER QUALITY-BASED PROVISIONS OF THE CSO CONTROL POLICY
• Develop an advocacy statement for use with local governmental officials and the public on
EPA's expectations for the implementation of the water quality-base provisions of the CSO
Control Policy, stressing the benefits of CSO controls.
• Prepare an "Expectations Statement" focusing on why communities need to develop CSO
long-term control plans that meet the requirements of the CWA.
• Clearly state the costs of CSO controls and the benefits of controlling CSOs.
• Strongly recommend that States review water quality standards on CSO receiving waters.
• Support States who have revised their water quality standards use classification systems to
account for uncontrollable overflows beyond the capacity of a well designed and operated
"systems to control e.g., Massachusetts and Maine.
• Hold States accountable for the review their standards on CSO-receiving waters, recognizing
that standards need to be "corrected" so that they can be attained.
• Develop a problem statement addressing the impracticality for many communities to attain
water quality goals.
IMPROVE THE COORDINATION AND COOPERATION AMONG ALL PARTIES IN THE
CSQ CONTROL DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES
• Clarify responsibilities and expectations for State NPDES and water quality standards
authorities, communities, community constituencies and EPA in ensuring the appropriate
individuals participate in the CSO and water quality standards processes.
• Assure all State and EPA programs (permits, water quality standards, enforcement) are
involved with communities in the development and implementation of CSO long-term
control plans.
• Target EPA intervention in CSO long-term control plan development and implementation to
working with States on an overall approach and process, and on inter-state and inter-
jurisdictional issues.
• Unless there is a pre-existing enforcement action, keep the CSO coordination under the
purview of the permitting authority, making sure Federal and State water quality standards
and permitting personnel participate, as needed.
« Approach communities as valued clients, trusting their judgment and providing timely
reviews of their drafts and responses to their questions.
• Advocate a greater level of coordination between State and Regional Offices. Offer to
provide technical support if States or communities need EPA's support before State
legislative committees.
• Promote greater involvement of technically capable watershed organizations in the
coordination of CSO long-term control plan development and implementation processes.
• Actively advocate reducing the litigious atmosphere by involving third parties in the CSO
long-term control plan development and implementation processes.
-------
• Develop a forum for bringing States together to share approaches for addressing water
quality standards during wet weather events.
EXPAND EPA'S GUIDANCE
Watershed Approach
• Provide guidance, with case examples, on developing water quality standards, CSO long-
term control plans and permits on a watershed basis.
• Provide guidance and case examples of using the watershed approach in the planning and
implementation of CSO long-term control plan, along with SSO, storm water and nonpoint
source controls.
• Provide examples of mechanisms for community-based organizations to use in
communicating/cooperating on CSO activities on interstate watersheds rather than having to
deal with States, individually.
• Recommend approaches for addressing upstream nonpoint source loadings that are not
controlled through a permit.
• Coordinate the CSO and TMDL processes by making CSO impacted waters a high TMDL
priority.
• Explain how episodic wet weather events can be translated into a daily load as part of a
TMDL and how a wet weather TMDL can be applied to a permit without wet weather water
quality standards.
State Accountability For Water Quality Standards Review
• Develop a tracking mechanism for State review of water quality standards on CSO-receiving
waters.
• Provide clear processes to carry out water quality standards reviews with the expectation that
if the processes are followed, EPA will approve the revisions.
• Provide processes, guidance and oversight to "correct" water quality standards for wet
weather events.
Use Designations
• Provide guidance and case examples of State water quality standards classification systems
that address limited/intermittent exceedances beyond the capacity of well designed and
operated systems to control.
Use Attainability Analyses
• Eliminate the need for use attainability analyses or allow less rigorous analyses when issuing
variances, in conjunction with the phased implementation of obvious CSO projects.
• Develop a pre-packaged/simplified use attainability analysis framework for revising uses,
based on seasonal and event specific events.
• Provide guidance on the type of use attainability analysis needed to apply a revised use
classification system on a water body-specific basis.
• Identify the appropriate factors to examine when conducting a use attainability analysis for
recreation.
-------
• Provide examples of "tiered use attainability analyses," depending on steam size, number of
overflows, population, etc.
• Provide clear processes that States may follow in revising uses and allowing limited
exceedances of water quality standards.
• Expand the economic guidance to discuss use revisions when there are no tangible
environmental benefits of a community spending to the limit of what has been determined to
be the level that a community can afford.
• Define widespread social impact in the analysis of substantial and widespread social and
economic impact.
Long-Term Control Plan Development and Implementation and Water Quality Standards Review
Processes
• Provide a clear, "plain English" description of the process linking the CSO control
development and implementation processes with the water quality standards review
processes.
• Provide case examples of using the data collected and the analyses conducted during the
CSO control development process for a use attainability analysis.
CSO
• Provide a status report on CSO community long-term control plan development and
implementation, showing how any remaining overflows are handled in the water quality
standards, permitting, or enforcement processes.
• Clearly state the circumstances under which the "presumptive approach" may be used as the
end point for CSO controls.
• Advocate phasing early implementation of CSO long-term control plan priority projects,
along with monitoring during each phase to evaluate progress made.
• Evaluate the efficacy of CSO control technologies for bacteria, nutrients, and toxic
pollutants.
• Develop guidance and case examples for use by small communities in developing their long-
term control plans, consistent with water quality standards.
• Provide examples of innovative, less expensive structural controls.
• Provide examples of which CSO controls do not work, as well as those which do work.
• Provide guidance for third party citizen participation in data collection on CSO-receiving
waters.
• Provide guidance on developing water quality-based effluent limits, based on a CSO long-
term control plan.
-------
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
EPA-WEF INVITED EXPERTS WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
PAUL FREEDMAN, President
Limno-Tech, Inc.
Facilitator
SALLY BETHEA
Upper Chattahoochee River Keeper
THOMAS BRUECKNER
The Narragansett Bay Commission
TIM HENRY, Associate Director
Water Division
U.S. EPA, Region V
RALPH GOODNO,
Merrimack River Watershed Council
GLENN HAAS, Director
Division of Watershed Management
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
VYTOKAUNELIS
Chief Deputy Director
Wayne County Department of the Environment
PAUL MOLINARI
Senior Water Policy Advisor
U.S. EPA, Region II
JOHN MURPHY
. Assistant City Engineer
Bangor, ME
LINDA MURPHY, Director
Office of Ecosystem Protection
U.S. EPA, Region I
LARRY SILVERMAN
Environmental Consultant
-------
Tacoma Park, MD
TIMOTHY P. STRANKO
General Counsel
Morgantown Utility Board
CLAUDIO TERNIEDEN
Chief, Water Policy Section
Office of Water Management
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
ALAN H. VICORY, JR., P.E., DEE,
Executive Director
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
EDWARD WAGNER
CH2M Hill
CLYDE WILBER
Greeley and Hansen
-------
-------
------- |