United States
Environmental Protection
Office Of W^ter
EPA 830-B-94-002
.September 1994
Working Together.
For A Cleaner Environment

Selected Resources To Help
Improve EPA-Stakeholder

                        */^- Printed on Recycled Paper


                         WASHINGTON, D.C: 20460
      .      .      -  '    . . "            • .-. .   -.-•••       .  'OFFICE OF
   .   '           '•'-.-   ,   .           '                -  WATER"
 MEMORANDUM    '   . .,.  :....'..-   ..."   ".   ..   ./.   ...;;.    "'' '.';.".•  -.

 SUBJECT:  Products from- OWM's External Communications QAT'

 FROM:     Michael B.  Cook,  Directo
           Office of  Wastewater  Ma

 TO: , .     Robert Perciasepe,  Assistant Administrator
        , '•  Office of  Water             "   •     '-..  . '       .....'

      Late .last year,  OWM established an External Communications
'.Quality Action Team,  (QAT) at  the request of managers, who
 identified communications with  those outside the Office as- an
 area requiring improvement. •  '       •       ;     •''•'':       -   '

      In the past few  'months,  QAT members have worked on a .'
 particular facet of  external  communications:  Improvement of
 communication with outside  stakeholders,  and involvement  of those.
 stakeholders in OWM's ongoing activities. ,  '    •       •   '

      In late June,  I  issued .a policy memorandum, "Including
 External Stakeholders in OWM  Activities", in which I urged.staff
 to "include, stakeholders at the earliest  possible stages  of our •'
 initiatives,  including but  not  limited to"the development of
 policy,  rules,  and guidance."   r also  indicated that the  QAT
 would make available  pr.oducts to assist staff in working  with
 stakeholders. '          ' "'•       •     '-.              •  . .. • .     .

   . -"Our QAT's products are now ready "for distribution,  and are'
 being made -available  to interested  OW,  Headquarters,'and  Regional
 staff. -Besi'des the' policy memorandum,  products include:

   •  A resource guide to statutory  and other requirements for
      soliciting.public input, including information on ICRs,  '
      FACAj  and the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

   •  Case  studies explaining the negotiated process used  to  •
      develop.the CSO  Control Policy and the1Disinfectant  By-.   -•
      Products Rule.     .,                 .-''...-.   •'  . -    .  •  7

 ,  •  Information about other.OWM cooperative efforts,  .including
      ongoing  outreach for -storm water,  pretreatment, CSOs, and
      wet-weather monitor'ing.   •'-.•••    •         ..  '      '!-   .
                                                  Fn.nitd en Kecyclcd Papt-

                              '-2-  '               .     .•••./

     I have attached copies of these materials, which have been
incorporated into a document entitled Working Together... For a
Cleaner Environment, for your information.

     The QAT will also be announcing a schedule of brown4 bag
meetings featuring EPA and external speakers who will discuss
inclusion of the public in our work.  These meetings will be open
to any OW staff who would like to .participate.

     QAT members wh6 developed these-'materials include  Elaine
Brenner, Ross Brennan, Jim Horne, Joyce Hudson, Jack Lehman; Pam
Mazakas, and Kevin Rosseel.  We hope that staff around  the
Agency, as well as our stakeholders, will benefit from  the Team's

Attachments                     '      .         •

cc:  OW Office Directors '                                 '     .
     Water Management Division Directors

                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Introductory Memorandum                                 1     ; • '

 Table .of. Contents     /      .  .        '       •           iii   .

 Part I:   Copy of Policy Memorandum  from    • ' .    • ''•    Page -1
 Michael  B.  Cook, Director, Office. of    .      :
 Wastewater  Management, "Including External           .    .
 Stakeholders in OWM Activities1'  .                  ,

•'Part II:  .A resource guide to statutory   .'.'."       •   Page 5
 an_d  other requirements for soliciting   '      -'.''•
 public•input,  including information on           -  ' • ,,
.ICRs,  FACA, and the' Regulatory Flexibility  .  '   .
 Act         •. • .      .,./"•'..'       •'      .'     '•"'".'•'-'''
   '                 "            *•'             '            '
 Part III:  Case- studies explaining  the   •  .   _     -.   Page 15
Negotiated  process used' to develop  the   ..-.'•               • .
..CSO  Control Policy, and the     '        -       '•'•..,,
.Disinfectant By-Products Rule  .     -   ,    :      '      ' .       ;

.Part IV:   Information :about OWM's'   ;    -          ,  .   Page 29'
 cooperative.efforts,  including .ongoing
.outreach  for storm water, pretreatment,    ,           •
 CSOs,  and Wet-weather monitoring        '     "     , •

 Part V:   Schedule of brown bag meetings   .''  "   .      Page 37
 featuring EPA and external speakers who     ,    ;  ' '.
.v.'ill discuss inclusion of -the public'.  .    .•        '   ' -  ' .  =. ...
 i r,' our  work        .'.-.,.     . •  .   ' .  ,'.'•.   .          .  , '

 Part VI:   A bibliography, of Executive'.               .  /'Page '41
 Orders, .EPA mem'or'and:a ,• and other   • '      •                   ,-
 documents related' to customer'      '  '.      -...•.     .  '  .
 involvement,  available, -for staff     .  '.            .   -',''.
 members'  review '          :  :  ,.     ,  '.     .       ..'.•'


    Part I:

    Copy of Policy Memorandum from Michael
    B. Cook, Director, Office of Wastewater
    Management,  "Including External Stakeholders in
    OWM Activities"
Working-Together..'. For.a Cleaner'Environment

Uw/um; ToQC'ttiri   for ;i Cleaner Environment

                           WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
                                                         "'OFFICE OF
  SUBJECT:   including External Stakeholders in OWM Activities
'•FROM:    '  Michael B. Cook, Direct *'-.
            Office of Wastewater 'Management

 งTO: "..' '    .OWM Staff  .  .  '    -.  •           '        • ,   - -  '   ;,  ,. •

 .      Now that the. Off ice of Wastewater Management has officially
  been  announced,  I would .like to reiterate my commitment  to the
  inclusion  of our external stakeholders in the development of
  policy,  regulations, and guidance, and in other OWM activities.

      .This  Administration is 'taking measures to ensure that the
  public  is. included in Federal regulatory and policy-making
  efforts.   According to the President's Executive Order 12866
  Regulatory Planning and Review, "before issuing a notice 'of ' ;
  proposed rulemaking, each agency should. ., 'seek the involvement
  of those who are- intended to benefit from and those expected to
  be burdened by any regulation."           •

      The Administrator .has also encouraged EPA staff to solicit
  input from the regulated community,  environmentalists, and others
  when making important .decisions.,  The Administrator .has stated
  that "we must work, in complete, partnership with all  •
  stakeholders..,..   You. and I must look for ways to incorporate the
 public earlier in the, process. " ..-I agree  wholeheartedly,  ' :     '

:•••..'  B.y.. investing in working cooperatively,  we can assure the    •
 highest level  of  stakeholder satisfaction— and compliance— with
 ou,r initiatives  and .rules. .  Such cooperation may yield very large-
 savings in the time needed to implement programs,  and lead to
 mutually beneficial. personal relationships with customers.      '

    . . I expect  OWM staff  to include stakeholders at thซ ซซrliซซt
 possible stages  of  our  initiatives,  including hut  not limited to
 the development  of  policy,  rules,  and guidance.  More   -
 specifically,..!  urge you "to. keep  the  following  points in  mind:   '

   •  Make  stakeholder involvement an  integral part of work plans
      information  collection- activities, and  the  determination
      of program  issues and  priorities.
  . •  Show  how  stakeholders'  concerns  are  being  addressed  when
      briefing  me  and other- OW senior  management.   .   ••  .  •"'


  succesl S; "nf rlt^0''      "tor.  of

        that  i.  u.-iu                                          ฐf '
 summer  coconankerthS; ??o1Sd  to|?:h-r b^ -nag—nt last
 effectively with external s?ซvปh?S  ฐUr  Strate9ic Plan— working
    k, the LternafSS^ult of their 9
 several products, which I hope  Su?lJ InH          '" tO YฐU

      Seve1IpU?neScIoPCon?rS? P"?- negฐtiated Process used to
      Rul.. •andhteheCSG0reCaฐtntLฐLsPOiatCeyr S:!?^

                                                    *  >
please contac  OA  mb                 "  yฐU  have
Home,, Joyce Hudฐson.
cc:  Bob Perciasepe
     Elaine Stanley
     Bob Van Heuvelen
     OW Office Directors '      .  •'
     Water Management Division Directors

     Part 11:

     A resource guide to statutory and other
     requirements for soliciting public input, including
     information on ICRs, FACA, and the Regulatory
     Flexibility Act
Working--Together..'.' For a. Cleaner Envirotirnr,

Together... For 

           A number of statutory and  executive mandates impose
      requirements regarding the involvement of non-EPA parties in
,   .   rulemaking activities.  This  fact  sheet-, describes* several such
      mandates that regulation writers and  their team members need to
     ••consider:  the Federal Advisory Committe'e Act,  the regulatory  '  "
   .. •  negotiation process,-the Regulatory .Flexibility Act-, the       .• .•
.'  '  ' Paperwork Reduction Act, and. Executive Orders  12866 ("Regulatory ,'
, '.'.   Planning, and Review") and'  12875 ("Enhancing the .Intergovernmental
      Partnership") .   It alsp summarizes selected'''guidance materials
      and lists people to contact  for more  information.

      Paperwork Reduction Act                                            ,

          /The Paperwork. Reduction  Act requires,EPA to  obtain approval
      by.the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before it can impose
      certain recordkeeping or reporting!burdens  on the  public.   In
      general, EPA must, submit an Information Collection-Request (ICR),   '
      to OMB, ;descr,ibing the proposed Information collection activity •
      and the associated burden,.if the following conditions apply:

      •     The information collection is'.conducted or sponsored  by EPA;  -
                                         \       '    • ,-         ' '   •   '<  .,
  .    •  ,.  The information collection pertains  to ten'or more non-
           federal persons, or .the majority  of  a  group, or. industry; and

     • •     The information collection^requests  that respondents  provide
          • information or keep records -containing, this, information.

     ' ' ,    The -requirement to submit  an ICR,  'is  not affected  by whether
      the information .request is voluntary or  is  necessary to receive a
 -..  .grant or
•    A supporting statement, which  includes 'a  plain-English •
     abstract of the activity, description of  the  need for and
     authority for the collection,  description of  the use and
     users of the information, a detailed description of the
     information collected, and detailed analysis  of  the burden
     and costs associated with each aspect of  the  information
     collection;•and            •      •_            •           .'

•   : . The information -collection instrument '(e. gi ,  regulation,...
     form, or'questionnaire) itself.          . .     ,        .

     Depending on the nature of the" information collection,  OMB
review takes between 60 and 90 days.   During this  time,  the ICR
package is available for public review and comment.

     Once OMB approves an ICR, it sends-EPA an action notice
containing-an OMB control number and  expiration dat.e  that must be
displayed in the regulation, form,  or. questionnaire.   OMB
approval is valid for'three years;  collection  activities
continuing beyond that time period  (e.g., an ongoing  reporting
requirement) must be renewed every -three years.

     Recent activities to improve EPA compliance with the PRA
include the following:

     •    A biweekly ICR status report that identifies ICRs
          expiring in" the next year;        ,

     •    A PRA Quality Action Team,  with representatives from
          across the Agency, that will develop procedures for ICR
          development, review, and  approval; -and          -

     •    PRA briefings that are available from OPPE's
          Information Policy staff.    .

=  •   GUIDANCE AVAILABLE:                .           •  '

     ICR Handbook        .           ••'.'_

     Plain-English handbook on how  to prepare  an Information  .
    •Collection Request  (ICR) summary,  analyze uses  of the
     information collected, and calculate burden hours and dollar
     costs for the proposed information collection.

          Contact:  Matt Leopardj OPPE, 260-2468
\\orhmt; Toqcttif"  Fora Gleaner Environment  •       •    •   ,   .    .  •       / •  ;8

  Federal Advisory Committee Act  (FACA1

       The Federal Advisory Committee  Act (FACA), passed in 1972  as
  an  "openness-in-government" law,  designates as."Federal Advisory
,  Committees" certain types'of .committees that provide advice and
  recommendations to the Federal government and which,contain '  •
  members who are not •Federal employees... . A Federal Advisory
  Committee must:  ' •         ;  .  •.'•".."•".   '.   -.•.•...•••.,.-•.

   ". • •  •  , Maintain a' "balanced" membership.;      •'.-    '  '•  '. ',.••--,  '..'

    ,  •   Hold open meetings,  at which the public is allowed to "  •
            speak 'or submit written comments (unless a closed
            meeting is approved, by OGC) ;

       •   Announce al.l meetings in the, Federal •Register at least
  ••  .,     '15 days before the meeting .date;, and ;      .

       •   Appoint a .Designated Federal Official  to call,  attend,  '•
           ,and document meetings,  as"well  as  document, finances and
            membership. -  .         ,  .   -    . ,         •  • /

      •Under EPA' guidelines,  a committee  is  not  likely to be,
 subject  to FACA if it:     ,•..'-•.      .

       •   Does not function as  a unit with an  organized structure, '
 .    ...'••  fixed membership,  and specific purpose;     -..

       •   Consists solely jDf ;Federal officials or  employees,,  or
    ..       State,  tribal," or  local  officials/employees who' are not
            members of  lobbying, organizations  (like  ASIWP.CA)' and
         ,.  who;se role, is "primarily operational,!' pertaining to  '
            discuss-io'n  of shared government, programs;; ' " '  '  • -'

       *   Is  established  and operated by  a;private organization;
•  ''•'''  '  .     wi"Eh  ho close. ties  to EPA (i .'e. ,-...EPA does, not fund .the
  •   '.    •,organization-,  select its members, or set  its  agenda);

   .   ,• .  Seeks to  collect  or exchange  relevant-  information  and •.".,.
            facts,  but not  advice 'or' recommendations';  or      ,   .   '

      •  Seeks advice from individual  persons (e.g.,,-  through Round
           Table  discussions),  rather  than group advice.

      NOTE:  An  OMB/GSA  ceiling .currently exists on the formation
 of new discretionary committees.   For this reason, EPA'encourages
 the  Use  of alternatives to FACA committees wherever possible.    :
 War king Together... For a Cleaner Environment

     GUIDANCE AVAILABLE:    ,                              .

     How to Establish  a  Federal Advisory Committee .

     A pamphlet defining what a "Federal Advisory Committee"  is,
     exemptions from FACA coverage,  how to establish a FACA
     Committee, .and" FACA committee.requirements.  (March, 1989)

          Contact:  Mary Be'atty,  OARM',  260-5000         •  .     •

     The ' Federal Ad.visory Committee" Act  -

     An OGC memorandum providing a detailed description of FACA
     requirements and  exemptions.

          Contact:'  Hale Hawbecker/ OGC, 260-4555-

     Federal Advisory  Committee Act Worksheet (draft)

     A checklist to help determine whether a meeting is subject
     to FACA requirements.

          Contacts: Hale Hawbecker,  OGC, -260-4555
                    Mary .Beatty,. OARM,  260-5000        .
Workittp Together  For a Cleaner Environment      •    • •             '   "       '10

 Negotiated Rulemaking

      In a negotiated rulemaking, a federal agency  meets with
 representatives of various interest groups to negotiate-the .text
 of  a  proposed rule before publication in the Federal  Register.
 The group involved in the negotiation must be FACA-chartered (see
 above),  and it must| be we11-balanced, .representing the,regulated
 community,  public, interest' groups, and state and local  •      •••"'•
 governments.. ..  . .   .   "„•'..  •'.:'••           •     ., '.  ...   .'•'''.
                   /   , •     -           •           ~       _       ...
      Negotiated rulemaking has 'several-advantages;  because, the
 process 'requires  sensitivity to- the needs of .affected' parties,:.
 rules-drafted by  negotiation tend to be less controversial  during
 the,proposal stage and more easily implemented after
 finalization.   Because of the extraordinary>investment  of time
 and resources.that must be devoted to .negotiated rulemaking,
 however,  candidates, for reg neg must, meet the following criteria:

      •  There must be a clear need for .the rule, a  high  level of
           Agency  commitment to the rulemaking process,  and  clear
      '.     deadlines established.    ''.•'',.-     .               \.

      *  The  rulemaking should  'involve a  limited number,of issues,
           preferably issues without controversial national  policy
           implications.' •                      ':'.••.•>••

      •  The  committee should.contain a balanced membership, be
      •     relatively few' in number,  be capable  of negotiating in
 '          good  faith,  and be  capable of  (and  likely to)' reach
     •  There must  be  flexibility  in the manner issues are ,   ' ,  •
  . •    •   .addressed  in  the  rulemaking.             " '          ' •  '

  , -  Once.the committee is .chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. *(FACA),  between  12 "and-.25 -pub-lie- and private- '•'  .
sector members -are  invited  to'participate, -'based on .their  .      '
identified interest'  in  the  issues  being addressed.  Meetings .are
announced in the Federa 1- .Register  and may be attended by the -
public.  A' neutral  facilitator  convenes the  committee and manages
meetings..  Decisions are- made  by consensus (which is itself
defined by the committee prior  to  negotiations); if consensus is
reached on the proposed rulemaking itself,  the co'ns,ehsus .is. used
as a basis for the proposed rule-and participants agree to
support the rule as proposed..
Working Together... for a C/cuncr Environment'

     GUIDANCE AVAILABLE:                  ;

     Pact  Sheet:  Consensus and Dispute Resolution Services
          Contract                   .   .

     Describes the contract period,  funding ceiling, and scope of
     work  for Resolve,  Inc.,-which provides support to the
     Consensus and Dispute Resolution Program at OPPE.

     Fact  Sheet:  Negotiated Rulemaking/Regulatory.Negotiation

     Plain-English description of what a negotiated rulemaking
     is, advantages of  negotiated rulefnaking, how the process
     works,  and screening criteria for reg  neg candidates.

     Case  Studies: Negotiated Rulemaking at the Environmental
          Protection Agency                                      ,

     Brie.f summaries of past reg neg rulemakings, including the
     following:  small  non-road engines emissions controls,
     revisions of the.hazardous waste manifest, disinfection
     by-products, recycling of lead acid batteries, underground
     injection,, and 11  others,

     Report:,  An Assessment of EPA's Negotiated Rulemaking
          Activities (OPPE, 1987)

     Presents findings  of a study by the'Program Evaluation
     Division of reg neg activities, based^on interviews and
     document reviews for the seven negotiations completed to.
     date  (1987).  Concludes-that,"negotiation is appropriate and
     potentially fruitful'in some of EPA's  rulemaking efforts."

     Paper:   Discussion on the Use of' Consultation and Consensus-
          Building Processes for Implementing the Clean Air Act
          of 1990

     Describes alternative approaches to consulting with external
     interests to 'resolve technical, procedural, and political
    .issues regarding implementation of the  1990 Clean Air Act
     Amendments and 'development of  legally defensible,
     implementable rules.     ,          . .  ,        .  ,

     Two-Part Article:   Regulatory Negotiation:  Experienced
          Practitioner Offers Guidance to Participants in
          Negotiated Rulemaking

     Reg neg pioneer Philip Harter  offers practical advice on
     choosing and participating in  the reg neg process.

          Contacts: Chris Kirtz, OPPE, 260-7565
                    Deborah Daltpn, OPPE, 260-5495    '

Working Together... for a-Cleaner Environment          • ., ,       .       . '   "   ' 12

 Regulatory  Flexibility Act (RFA)

      The-Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies  to
 establish a fit  between regulatory and information requirements
 .and the  size and capability of the parties; subject to  the
 regulation.   It  requires agencies to "solicit and consider
 flexible regulatory proposals1' and to explain the rationale  for
• their- actions to assure that'such proposals are given  serious
 consideration"—^in  short,  to ensure .that all .feasible  regulatory  .
 options  for-small entities have been considered. - '"'.:•'

      The RFA requires  an agency to perform an Initial  Regulatory
 Flexibility Analysis'(IRFA)  for any proposed rule,  and a Final.
 Regulatory  Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)' for any final 'rule, ;unless
 the agency  qertifies that the rule will not have a "significant
 economic impact  on  a substantial number of small,entities."' EPA
 policy dictates,  however,  that an IRFA and FRFA be_performed for
 a_ny. .rule that .will-have any economic 'impact on any small •„•'
 entities.   Such  analysis need'not be costly or time-consuming;
 considerable  flexibility is available  in, determining the level'of
 analysis appropriate to-a  particular-action.      '    .-    .   '• •

      Generally,  the  IRFA must accomplish the following:'  ,     ;  ,
      •  Explain  why  the Agency is taking the action;        ... '
    •• ••'.' Identify  the -, objectives of,  and legal bas.is for, the
           proposed  rule;      .       .   '     .  .                  "
     - •  Describes the  number  of type of small entities that will
           be  affected;  •'   '".'•                •  ' •'
      •  Projects  the reporting,  recordkeeping,  and  other     .
           requirements  of  the  proposed 'rule,  as  well as the
    ;  •   '  classes of entities  affected and the professional
           skills  necessary to  comply;
     ,••  Identifies other  Federal  rules that  may  overlap or
         .. conflict with  the proposed rule;  and               •'.. '
    . . •' . Describes alternatives  that  accomplish statutory ,
         . -ob-j-ectives while •minimising  economic impacts on small*
 . •    , . " 'entities .•  ,   "  •'•,"..'-.      '    .-'••'••.••

    .  .Correspondingly, the  FRFA  must:
   .   •  'State the .'need  for, and  objectives of, .the  rule;  '
      •  • Summarise issues raised  by public'' comments  on the IRFA,
        .  '.and changes  in -the  rule  resulting  from 'those ."comments; .
      •   Describe each .significant, alternative considered by  the
           Agency, and explain why  the 'Agency  rejected any
     '"    'alternative  it did  riot  adopt.
 Working Together.... For.a Cleaner Environment ...: .'..      ,••'.'  -.",-,            13


     EPA Guidelines  for  Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility

     Detailed guidance on  RFA applicability,  certification,
     performing  initial  and final analyses,  and gathering
     comments.        . '  • .
                                   'ป    .     . '           *     .. •
          Con'tact:   Terry  Sopher, -OPPE,  260-5494  '  ,      ,   .
Executive Orders  12866  and  12875

     Two executive•orders released in October, -1993,  charge
Federal Agencies  with' involving  State,  local, -and tribal
governments more  actively in  the  development of  regulations and

     Executive Order  12866  ("Regulatory Planning and Review")
requires that Federal  agencies  involve State,  local,  and tribal
officials, as well  as  other affected parties,  in rulemaking
activities.  Executive  Order  12875 ("Enhancing  Intergovernmental
Partnerships") requires Federal  agencies to .assess whether State,
local, and tribal governments .have the funds to  implement new
regulations and have  input  into  proposals for unfunded mandates.


     Fact sheet:  "New  EPA  Regulation and Policy Development
     Process	Involvement of  State/Local/Tribal  Governments"

     Describes the'  role 'played  by Executive Orders 12866 and.
" ,    12S75 in strengthening State,  local,  and tribal involvement
     in regulatory  and  policy" development.•       .

          Contact:  Bob Klepp,  260-5805 „    '    ,    ...'..•
\\fotkitiff Tngrthpr • Fnr o Cleaner Environment  •       •    •      . >     ..   •    ' • 14

      Part III:
                    ' '       -     •     5   -     ' ' '

      Case studies explaining the negotiated process
      used to develop the CSO  Control Policy,  and the
      Disinfectant By-Products Rule
.. 'Working Together... For a Cleaner Environment

g. Together .  fora Claanar Environment  .       '     '                   ,     . '          ,16

                            CASE STUDY:
                    •   HISTORY OF DEVELOPMENT

      This summary includes information  about  development of the
 Agency's CSO Control Policy.  CSOs are  the  discharge of  raw
 sewage,  industrial wastes, and storm water  that  result when
 combined sewers flows exceed the'sewer  system's  capacity.'  Among
 the hazards posed, by CSOs 'are shellfish bed and  beach closures,'"
 water quality problems., • and the potential for'.human .health  "'•.
 disorders, .including' gastrointestinal •problems.   '  :   :''    -••••'

      Over 1100 municipalities have-CSOs, from' small'rural
 communities with one CSO point, to some of  the nation's  largest
 cities,  with hundreds of discharge points.  In all,  there are an'
 estimated 15,000 CSO discharge points nationwide, concentrated in
 the Northeast and Great Lakes areas.  [Innovative ways of doing
 business are indicated in bold throughout the chronology.]

 Late  ,.
 1980s .

 June• .
CSOs are  identified  as • a  major environmental problem.'
Problem is covered underwater quality legislation.

Construction grant funds  are  used to help alleviate
some CSO  outflows., but  States and Regions do not place
a high priority  on this problem.  .  ;.-

EPA issues formal CSO control policy.
CSO issue -persists: as. a .relatively  low-priority item
in the scheme of water pollution  control.
Cook asks Rich Kuhlman to  serve  as  matrix manager
development of an  invigorated  CSO control policy.
Policy .development 'is seen as,  a. less  complicated and
potenti-ally faster alternative to rulemaking process.

Kuhlman. establishes workgroup  to evaluate scope of new
policy. .  Workgroup includes sta.ff from  OW,  OGC,  and
other ' EPA 'of. flees , starts  to address  questions
including:  What are requirements for a CSO policy?
How are. CSOs already being controlled?   How 'do we
involve States, which are  co-regulators?   .  . ' !

OW AA LaJuana Wilcher reconvenes- Management Advisory
Group (MAG) ,  a 'Federal Advisory  Committee Act (FACA)
group,  to .discuss cross-cutting  water pollution issues.
Among members are several  participants  who are  •  -
particularly interested in CSO.s ;• among  these is NRDC's
Bob Adi er, who works with  Hill staff  to try to; add
language to CWA rea-uthorization  bills to control CSOs.
Working Together,.. For a Cleaner .Environment

          Adler suggests  that  EPA  try  to  develop a negotiated
          approach to a problem  estimated to cost as much as
          $250 billion to control.   Goal  is  to get a "jump on
          Congress in,terms  of "regulating"  CSOs.

March     EPA hires Resolve, Inc.  to assist  developing
1992      negotiation options, gives the  company list of possible
          participants.                  .         -        .

June  .    CSO workgroup begins to  work -together to .address- '•
1992      specifics for a policy.   Workgroup is now'sponsored by
          EPA's, MAG, allowing  members  to  meet with potential.
          stakeholders, including  environmentalists and
          municipal groups.

July      Because of fundamental differences in opinion about how
1992      to deal with CSOs, Resolve,  Inc. recommends not
         , proceeding -with a  negotiated process.   AA LaJuana
          Wilcher decides to press  ahead  with consensus approach
          anyway, to help expedite  the process.

July-     Eleven stakeholders, including  EPA,  meet three times in
Sept     • sessi.on to hammer  out  framework for a policy.   Three
1992      primary groups  or  factions include:

          APWA, NFSWMA, AMSA,
          CSO Partnership, etc.

          Want CSO control at a
          reasonable cost.

James River, etc.

Prefer elimination !of
CSOs, which would carry
a higher,price tag.

               .'       .  EPA'and ASIWPGA .

                         Want a solution to  the
                         •problem that  all  ca.n.^,,-'
                         ' 11 ve wi th.         .       .     ..,„,-

          Negotiating  sessions resulted .in agreement between
          municipals and environmentalists on  a  wide range of
          issues, but  also a deadlock  over some  major points.
          EPA adopted  a  "sit back and  let  them work  it out"
          approach, and  by November, NRDC's  Ken  Adler and
          AMSA's Ken Kirk  sat down  to  come up  with a final
          eight-page recommendation for what a policy should
          be, comprised of.  ,
   'in.o TopCttiar  For irClnnndf

 Dec        EPA staff issue a 50-page draft policy developed  from
 1992   (    materials submitted by the negotiators.  Objectives  of
            the policy.are:,

            •  Issue policy before Congress tries to legislate it
            •  Don't issue regulations — too costly, time-consuming
            •  Focus on solving the CSO problem                 '

  . '   -•  •-'.   Estimated costs for this draft policy's approach  to  '  '
            controlling  CSOs Is.' approximately $40 billion..  ,     .-•.- :

 -...'•   .  -Although formal OMB review does-not begin until
            December 1993,  EPA staff meet and communicate several
            times with OMB  staff to discuss the policy.  EPA
            provides public comments and other information in
   •         anticipation  of OMB's requests.

 Early      A  CSO Team is established to facilitate resolution of
 1993       issues  raised by OW,  OGC,  OPPE, and OE.  'Regions and
   .         States  are represented on 'the Team;,  which continues to
            work together in development of guidance documents,/ ah
          'outreach strategy,, and other materials  in support of •
            implementation  of  the policy.   Jeff Lape assumes role
          .as matrix  manag-er  for policy.        • '  - ."

 Jan    .  "   Notice-of-'Availability, for the  Draft CSO Control Policy
 1993 -.      appears  in the. Federal Register,  inviting comments'from'-
     .    •   stakeholders and other interested parties.  -Among the
 .  '  '  . '    comments  is a joint  letter of -support-from.stakeholders
           .urging  incorporation- of  the  policy  into  new CWA    '.    •
         .   legislation. , Thirteen individual  cities,  including' New
           .York, Boston,. Atlanta,  and San  .Francisco, also .send , .
            letters'-Qf support to  Leon. Panetta.     •  '      ••   .   '• ••

 Fal4  '',    Policy proceeds through. Agency  red-border review after
 199,3  _,  . .  being amended to incorporate comments and concerns of .
         . .  stakeholders. •,          _'.'.'      •  '    !

        , ,  EPA staff continue.'to  work towards  a goa'l of  getting'
           the policy incorporated  into CWA legislative  language..
  •.        CWA reauthorization hearings features statements  of
           'support for the policy from .key groups including  AMSA
          •ASIWPCA, 'NRDC, -and the .National 'League of Cities.

 Dec      .Formal  OMB review of CSO .policy begins.   EPA  considers
 1993     ,0MB a key partner in development of the policy, and
           work with OMB staff, to iron out difficulties  during
           review  process.    .•           ' -   "     '    '

 March      Senate .Bill 1114 for CWA reauthorization incorporates
,1994       the draft policy by reference, a'significant
           acknowledgement  of the importance of this initiative.

 Working Together .. Ear a Cleanar Erivirarimrnt     ''.-'•  ,   .        .      i' .  . .   n6

April     OMB  finalizes review of the'draft policy, which  is'
1994      signed  into  policy by Administrator Browner on April
          11.  Press conference features more than a dozen
          press releases from constituents, and statements by
          several participating stakeholders.

          At present,  the CSO Team continues to develop guidances
          and  other materials to support implementation of the
          policy.         ' .
      7o0ซv/ปiv  For ,•) Clfifinrr Environment

                     SURFACE WATER  TREATMENT RULE
     /              .,-..'-           _     _       _      .        f

       On June 13,  1994,  EPA proposed 'rules to protect drinking
  water supplies  from chemicals known .as "disinfection by-products"
  and to strengthen safeguards against disease-causing        "',;••
  microorganisms  such-as  Cryptosporidium,. the parasite behind
  Milwaukee's  water,crisis last spring. 'Disinfection'by-products
  are. chemicals that are  formed, when^disinfectants  (such as. '  • '. .
  chlorine, .-chlbramine, chlorine 'dioxide, and ozone) are used to..,
  purify drinking water.;   'Chronic exposure to disinfectant  and
  disinfection by-products may cause cancer, liver and kidney  '  '  •
  damage, heart and neurological effects, and may affect unborn
  children.         ,. -          •  . '  . '    '  .    •        ...

       This rulemaking:was EPA's 'first "negotiated regulation" '
  under the Safe  Drinking'Water Act.   Because of the complexity,
 ,controversy  surrounding -public health impacts,  and'potential cost
  of controlling  disinfection'by-products,  EPA formed a team of
 .State and local o'ffieials, water  industry  ,representative's,
  consumer groups,,  and members from the environmental'community to
 .negotiate consensus 'regulations.,  The proposed rule,  which"is
  open for public comment, Is  the 'result of  the negotiated
  rulemaking.      .••'...

      •Upon announcement of the'rulemaking,  Administrator Carol  . '
 .Browner remarked  that "ft-] he negotiating team exemplifies .the- new
  partnerships we must f.orm to; protect public health and  the
  environment..  Public health  protection is  the .clear winner when
•  we .work together -  toward  common;  goals „" ~   •       ,             '

-..-  .   The negotiating team supported  immediate:..steps to  reduce the
 'risks from disinfection  by-products.,  and . agreed''to a  long-term
  strategy .to  achieve further,  reductions.  As  part  of the
  negotiated- agreement, EPA. and drinking water suppliers,  in '•"''•
  collaboration with others, 'are. planning"-.to fund a  five-year,  .$50
 •million research program •' on  various  aspects  of  disinfection by-''
  products."     .   •• •    -,.'••    '  '•       ..     •            .•".'.

       The proposal, calls . for  a number  of actions.   First;  it would
  require  enhanced surface water, filtration  to control  •'.  '       - •
 Cryptosporidium..  'Second, the .drink ing water standard,  known  as
 the "maximum contaminant level  (MCL),  for  total trihalomethanes
 . ,(a class• .of - disinfection by-products)  is lowered from the  current
  level of  100 micrograms  per  liter to  80 micrograms  per  liter.
 Also, new  MCLs and maximum levels are  established  for six  other
 •chemicals  associated.with disinfection.                  .   .

       The attached  summary provides a closer  look at the process.'
 involved  in  negotiation' of the .rulemaking.   .For more  information,
 'call  the Safe'prinking Water Hotline, at 8.00  426-4791:    •   -;

.. Working Tacjrr/icr .  For a Cl.eaner Env/ronmanr     '. •     '.  :    . •    ''.'.'      -21

                 Overview of Regulatory Development:  '•
                     DISINFECTANT BY-PRODUCT RULE            ,

     ^  Purpose.   EPA was required to develop rules for additional
  contaminants- under the 1986 Amendments to the Safe  Drinking Water
  Act.   In order to solicit .public comment in developing a rule
  EPA released a strawman rule (preproposal draft) in October 1989
  A  str.awman was used 'because of the .complexity of the problem  the
  ™?ฎ *EฐUnt Sf info™ation,  and the ability to reorient the rule
  approach based on. public comment or new data.'  The. strawman .
  provided that. EPA- would set treatment technique: requirements or
  provide  guidance for  control  of the selected chemicals or
  compounds.                            '
                 +-        comments-   Several commentors expressed a' "
                 tฐ. look  at  coordination of requirements with those
 ปป„      re9"lations,  including  issues such as requirements for
 maintenance of  distribution  system disinfectant residuals and
 •system optimization  for multiple  contaminants.   Many commeritors'
 were concerned  about the lack  of  health data and the
 interpretation  of  existing data.   Many system operators were also
 concerned about the effects  of modifying their  treatment
 processes to meet  DBF MCLsv                                   .

      June 1991 Status Report on D/DBP  rule development

      Purpose and transition  from  Strawman Rule.   EPA published  a
 status report on the development  of D/DBPR in June  1991  that was
 designed to indicate the Agency's  thinking on .rule  criteria? ?Je
 status report indicated that EPA  was considering  extending
 coverage under the rule to all nontransient  systems  (instead of
 ™?oi    36 Servil?9 at least 10-000 people, as under  the  1979 TTHM
 rule)  and proposing a shorter list of compounds for  regulation
 than were included in the 1989 strawman.    .        Regulation
 r,*™>--    is^es'   In the status report, EPA identified -several
 maior  issues that needed to be considered- as the D/DBP rule was •
    e-'   hS  '         that ฐf trade-offs with microMal Tnd
                                   ฐf   terjiate disinfectants to
                          ucts.-  The Agency recognized that while
                        schemes-.(e.g., 'ozone and^hloraSnLr
    known   o        KP^d^ts  typical of chlorination,  little
     n0ฐr                         disinfectants and
    ^The third  issue was  integration  with  the  Surface Water
,ซa,,~™en]:-'Ru  '  Altnou9h the  rule  only  mandated  3-log removal or
inactivarion of Giardia and 4-log of  viruses,  EPA guidance
recommended higher levels for  poorer  quality sourd  iat2ซ   EPA
was concerned that systems would reduce  microbial projection ?o

Working TorjMhor  For a CiRariar Environment        .--.'•               -        ._^'

 .levels  nearer, to the regulatory requirements by reducing    '     •
 disinfection and possibly greatly increase microbial risks  in  an
 effort  to meet DBF MCLs.'  The Agency wanted to ensure adequate
 microbial protection while' reducing risk'from DBFs.
                               -        -  '      •     •    • • '  *
       The  last issue was best available technology.  The BAT
 defined would determine the levels at which MCLs were set.

       To' address these issues, EPA suggested two possible      • ''• "
 regulatory strategies. . • One was tp- define the' MCL(s). based  on
 ..what  was  possible to'achieve using the most .effective DBF
 ..precursor removal -strategy^ as BAT.:  While 'installing.such
 .precursor removal technology might-minimize health: concerns',, the
 costs would be substantial.'  Also, since systems are not required
 to  install'BAT to meet  MCLs,  EPA believed that many systems would
 attempt to meet the-MCLs  by lower-cost alternative disinfectants.
 Since health effects -for  alternative disinfectant byproducts are
 not adequately'characterized, risks  may not be reduced.
' ' '        , ,   . . \      .-       ,  '  . .  , I   • ,  •}         '   ;    ,
       The  second strategy,  was  a two-phase regulation, with the -
 first phase .designed to address risks using lower cost options
 during  concurrent efforts to  obtain"  more data on 'treatment
 alternatives and  health effects of compounds  'not currently    '  .
 adequately characterized.   This strategy would prevent major
•shifts'  into use of new  treatment technology until the ;full
 consequences of such- shifts  are better understood,.

       Summary of public  comments.   EPA received comments on the
 status  report  from numerous parties.   Many commentprs  agreed with
 EPA's concerns  with  -issues  such as alternative disinfectant ' DBFs
 and balancing  microbial and DBF risks...  Several commentors
.supported  the  two-phase regulatory approach,  but expressed
 concern about' timing.'  Others recommended that  DBF MCLs not be
 set so  low as  to  force  many systems  to install  expensive  '  '-• •  ' "'
 technology or  decrease  microbial protection.       •

 ,  .    Initiation of the  Regulatory  Negotiation P.rocess

       EPA  became  interested  in pursuing a  negotiated rulemaking
 process for  the development of, the'D/DBP, rule,  in large part,
 because no  clear  path .for addressing  all  the  major issues
 identified  in  the  June  1991 'Status Report on  D/DBP rule- was
 apparent.    EPA's  most significant  concern was developing .    '
 regulations  for DBFs'while-also  ensuring  that adequate  treatment
 be maintained  for  controlling microbiological, concerns.  A
 negotiated  rule process would help people understand the!
 complexities of the  risk-risk' tradeoff -issue'  and,  hopefully,
 reach a consensus'oh the most appropriate regulation to address'. ."
 concerns  from both DBFs and microorganisms-.,,  '."'..
 Working Together... For a Cleaner-Environment   -  .  •  ,  •            ,  '  • •  '  •   23

     It also appeared to EPA that the  criteria  for initiating a  •
negotiated rule under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 for
establishing a negotiated rulemaking could  be met.   These
     fl) there is a need for a rule,
     (2) there are a limited number of identifiable interests
     that' will be significantly  affected  by. the rule,      '
     (3) there is a reasonable likelihood that  a committee.can be
     convened with- a balanced representation of persons who- .
           (A) can "adequately -represent the' interests • identified  '.
          under paragraph  (2) ;.   and
           (B) are willing to' negotiate in good  faith to reaqh a
          consensus on the proposed rule,   '
     (4) there is a reasonable likelihood that  a'committee will
     reach a consensus on the proposed rule within a fixed period
     of time,
     (5) the negotiated rulemaking procedure will not
     unreasonably delay the notice of  proposed  rulemaking and the
     issuance of a final rule,    .       .                •  •
     (6) the Agency has adequate resources  and  is willing to
     commit such resources,  including  technical assistance,  to -
     the committee, and                                       •
     (7) the Agency, to the maximum extent  possible consistent
     with the legal obligations  of the Agency,  will use the
     consensus of the committee  with respect to the proposed rule
     as the basis for the rule .proposed by  the  Agency for notice
     a'nd comment.

     In 1992 EPA hired a contractor, RESOLVE, which added a
subcontractor, ENDISPUTE, to assess the feasibility and
usefulness of convening a negotiated rulemaking.   RESOLVE and
EKDISPUTE conducted more than forty interviews  during the summer
of 1992 with representatives of  State  and local health and
regulatory agencies, water suppliers, 'manufacturers of equipment
and supplies used in drinking water treatment,  and consumer and
environmental organizations.  These interviews  revealed that:

     (1.)  The entities interested . in or affected by the
     rulemaking were readily identifiable and relatively few in
     .number.,      .      •  .    •     .  -            •  <	
     (2)  The rulemaking 'required, resolution of a limited number
     of interdependent issues, about which  there appeared to be a
     sufficiently well-developed factual.base to permit
     meaningful discussion.  Further,  there appeared to be
     several ways to resolve these  issues,  providing a potential
     basis for productive  joint  problem-solving.
     (3)  The parties expressed  some common goals, along with an.
     unusually strong degree of  good faith  interest in resolving
     the issue through negotiation.
     4}  The.Agency had adequate staff and  technical resources
     and was willing to commit such resources to the negotiated
     rulemaking,.                 .     .-•••••

•\\'tttkuip T.ogcttwr  For a •Clr;ni(fr Environment           •• •        •    •    •   "  ' 24

   RESOLVE and ENDISPUTE  recommended to EPA that the negotiated   "
   rulemaking proceed.  EPA  concurred with this recommendation.
               ..'...    '                't. "'        .".           .       -
        However,  it was also noted  that reaching consensus on.the
   proposed rule  would be a  challenge.   The interviews revealed that
   parties differed in their perceptions about the nature and
   magnitude of the risks associated with DBFs,  and many'expressed
   strong doubts  about the adequacy of available scientific and
.  .technical information.    ,              .       :'.             •   •' •

        EPA published:a notice of intent -to proceed with a     "   ;
   negotiated rulemaking  on  September 15,  199.2  (57 ,FRN '42533) r
   proposing 17 parties to be Negotiating' Committee members,  'in
   general, comments indicated very positive support for the
   negotiated rulemaking.                •

        As part of the convening process,  ah organizational meeting
   was held September 29-30,  1993.   Participants  discussed   ".''-.
   Negotiating .Committee  composition  and  organizational  protocols.
   Between comments expressed at'the  meeting and  submitted in
   writing, eleven additional parties—including  water suppliers  hot
   substantially represented by the Committee's original proposed
   membership,  and chemical  and equipment  suppliers—asked to be
   added to the Committee.   In addition, participants  discussed the  .
   need to develop accurate  scientific and  technical  information.  '

        On November 13,  199,2, EPA published  a 'notice  of
   establishment for the Negotiating  Committee  (57  FRN 53866),  and
.   an 18th member was added td the Negotiating Committee.

        Based on comments received at the -organizational meeting,  a
   Technical  Workshop was organized and conducted  on November 4-5,
.,  1992.   .Composed of .presentations and panel discussion by 23  of'  •
   the nation's  leading" experts son drinking wafer  treatment, the
   workshop provided participants  with opportunities to  familiarize
.   themselves with the technical  elements in this.rulemaking and  to
•   explore' the  range 'of  scientific opinions. ,    •           •    - '   .
 .'  .        •       •    V         . .     .       ''••.'          -     ' .
        Additional presentations  were given throughout the  '
   rulemaking. process,  as  new information became available and more
  -questions  were  raised  by' participants.  ',       ''  -      ,

        At the  first  formal negotiating session, on November 23-24,
   1992, participants  formed  a technologies working group ,(TWG)  to
   develop reliable  and  consistent information about the cost and
   efficacy of drinking water.treatment technologies. -This approach
   provided a  forum  for participants to a'rriye at a shared
   understanding of  complex issues in the rulemaking-,. setting a
   cooperative tone  for the rest of  their discussions.  The working
   group,  which -continued  to  meet  throughout,the rulemaking, also
   provided a formal  opportunity for input from the chemical and
 •  equipment  suppliers who had not been named to the Committee.
   Working Together... For.a Cleaner Environment

     In addition, three experts were hired'through EPA's contract
with RESOLVE to provide ongoing scientific  advice  and technical
support to participants in the Committee  and  on  the technologies
working group, principally for members without access to similar
resources within their own organizations.

     Based on scientific data presented and discussed through the
November 23-2.4 meeting, participants' agreed that some type of DBF
Rule was warranted.        .  '   •

     The Committee developed and reached.agreement'on criteria
for a "good".DBF Rule at the September 29-30  and November 23-24
meetings.  A good rule is one which would be  flexible and
affordable and would protect public health  from  chemical and
microbial risks.  It was noted that limiting  some  DBFs could
encourage changes in treatment that might increase the formation
of other DBFs, or compromise protection against  microbial

     Next', Committee members and other participants were invited
to present regulatory options as a starting point  for further
discussion.  Sixteen options -were introduced  at  the December 17-
18 meeting, and discussed at the meeting  on January 13-14,  1993.
These were merged into three consolidated options  at the January
13-14 meeting, arid discussion-continued at  the meeting on
February 9-10.  .At this point, areas of disagreement included: "

      (1)  Whether to regulate DBFs through  Maximum Contaminant
     Levels  (MCLs) or through .a'treatment technique.
      (2)  Whether to minimize formation .of  the DBFs about which
     relatively little is known by establishing  a  regulatory
     limit for their naturally occurring  organic precursors in
     the water prior to the point of disinfection.
      (3). Whether to provide greater protection  against microbial
     contaminants in drinking water, in conjunction with new DBF
     limits, by' developing an enhanced Surface Water Treatment
     RQle  (ESWTR).      '     '•   •              .     "         .
      (4)  Whether to"-develop a second rounti of DBF controls along
     with the first  (assuring broad improvements in drinking
     water quality) , or to wa,it until better  scientific
     information becomes available.                         .

Concurrently, the TWG modelled systems' potential  compliance;_
choices  under several regulatory scenarios, and  presented revised
household and national compliance cost estimates at several
meetings.                        .                •     .

     Using a "strawman" developed from the  consolidated options
by EPA staff as the starting point for negotiation,  the Committee
worked out an "agreement in  principle" on the first round of DBF
controls at  its February 24-25 meeting.   The  "Stage 1" agreement
set MCLs for trihalbmethanes and naloacetic acids—two principal

Working Together... For 3 Cleaner Environment         •           •               26

.classes  of  chlorination by-products—at levels the Committee
deemed protective of public health,'based on current information:
80 and 60 micrograms per liter,  respectively.            '

     A drafting group was, named  at the February 24-25 meeting.
Assisted by the TWG,  these members drafted an "agreement in
principle"  for  presentation and  discussion at the March 18-19"
meeting.  Using "straw".provisions from the facilitators, the
Committee devised'- a  regulatory "backstop" at this meeting to
assure participants:  favoring further DBF controls that other
members  would return fpr the "Stage  2" negotiation.  The
Committee also  agreed to' recommend th.at EPA propose 'several. ESWTR
options  for comment,  developed a collaborative process to guide  •
the health  effects research program,  and agreed to formulate  '
short-term  water quality and technical data collection provisions
within an Information Collection Rule.

     Based  on the discussion to  this: point,  one member withdrew
from the Committee•at the March  18-19 meeting.                 '

     The drafting group presented regulatory language for the DBF
Rule, ESWTR, and ICR  at each of  the  Committee/s. last two
meetings, held  May 12-13  and June 22-23,  1993.   These texts
provided a  framework  for  further discussion and. resolution of
remaining issues,  including:   limits: for residual disinfectants
and'individual  by-products;   public  notification and
affordability provisions;   and timing,  applicability,  and
conditions  under which systems might  qualify for exceptions -from
various requirements.  • Committee member's agreed to reserve their
rights to comment  on  the  draft preambles. •   ••'.'       ;

     The drafting  group continued working  through the.summer  of
1993, and revisions to each  of the rules and their preambles  were
mailed to the,Committee for  comment  on July  8,  1993,  September 8,
1993, February  8,'1994, and  May  12,  1994.   Each member had signed
the agreement by  June  7,- :1994. ..
Working Together...-For a Cleaner Environment    .-.:-'-.•        -  '     -27

         'Working Together,,. For a Cleaner Environment          ...                                    2,8
•  *        .                 *                      -

     Part IV:

     Information about OWM cooperative efforts.
     Including ongoing outreach for storm water,
     pretreatment, CSOs, and wet-weather monitoring
Working Together...'For a Cleaner Environment

Working Together... Fora Cleaner Environment

                    Examples of Stakeholder Input In
      Development  of  Environmental Indicators and Other Measures
                           of Program Success

    <-  T>  OWM^has,funded several projects that will help  program
. .'stakeholders determine how to measure,the success  of the storm
.  water,  combined  sewer overflow . (CSQ). control,, a'nd  pretreatment.
  programs.   Information about various efforts sponsored  bv the
.  Office-are  attached.      ;  '       '.-.-..-    .   ,      •  '

   ' , -!P?e  studY on performance-measures of pretreatment  program
  effectiveness  has been completed.  Plans are being made by
- J^^ฐJde^Sv to  disciuss next steps, and EPA ds reviewing the
  report  to determine how we can use the results to help  POTWs
  improve and  measure the success of their pretreatment programs
       OWM is also working with  stakeholders  to help quantify water
  quality improvements and aquatic :  life  benefits with larS
  programmatic efforts.  .OWM convened , a  workshop 'of stakeholders
  a"d experts in the 'field of wet weather yflowsand watefqu^Sy
  assessment to discuss monitoring .and other  water quality impacts.
 Working Together... For'a-.Cleaner Environment       .'       .    ,'    .  '         .'
      .   .       "   '              .       '.•••".                 31


     Concerns about existing pretreatment  program performance
measures led to a proposal by AMSA, that was  funded by a $150,000
cooperative agreement on July 22,  1993.  .   •

    .The purpose of the study was  to develbp. criteria  that can be.
used to measure POTW pretreatment -program  effectiveness by:

o .   Identification of measures acceptable to stakeholders;
o    Testing validity of measures  through  site visits  to POTWs.;
o    Suggesting changes to the pretreatment program based on
     measure^.                                    ,         .   .

     A working group was established to oversee  the study and
included representatives from Publicly-Owned  Treatment Works
(POTWs), -industry, environmental groups, EPA,  States,  and
academia..  The group met to start  the project and had  additional
meetings after each step of the process.-

     In addition to the working group, separate  constituency
focus group meetings were held to  generate measures.   These
meetings occurred as follows:  EPA/States  - 11/3/93, POTWs -
11/5/93, environmental organizations - 12/6/93,  and industries -
12/7/93.                    ..'••'.    ....-•

     The working group merged and  edited the  focus  group measures
and sent them for field validation through site  visits to 14
POTWs and 1 State-run pretreatment program.  -After ,the site
visits, the working group narrowed the group  of  preferred
measures to 18 from the 31 types suggested by the focus groups.
The working group also addressed opportunities for  enhancing the
pretreatment program.•

     The Final Report dated July 11? 1994,' grouped: the measures
into three categories:   measures of trends;in pollutant loadings
and concentrations, measures .of compliance with  requirements,
such as NPDES limits, and procedural or programmatic measures, •
such as number of inspections.  The report program
recommendations deal with areas such as annual reports,  audits,
and technical assistance.
Working Together.., For a Cleaner Environment         • •         .       .      ,' • 32

          .  •  .  ,    • "   -     ,'••'."•'     • ..      '  .  .*      i    '•" • •
      AMSA has  applied for a cooperative agreement to conduct an
 assessment to  identify a series of performance measures for the
 national CSO control  program,  test the validity of the measures
 in .various cities,  and identify key issues related to   .    '  •
 implementation of the new measures.                    •

    ,  -A multidiscipl.inary working group will oversee the study.'s
 technical progress and delivera'bles and'will meet at. appropriate
 milestone periods, to  discuss status.   The working group will
 contain 15-17  members from the following,..groups:

 o    POTWs with  existing CSO control programs (emphasizing small
    •  and medium-sized communities)
 o    Environmental groups
 o  .  Federal  (ERA) 'and State agencies             ..          .  .
 o    Professional consulting engineers familiar with CSO control
      programs  and data that could support performance measurement
               '    '          ' •     •    '       ,    s -       :     *
      After the initial meeting of the working group,. AMSA will
 convene, three  focus group meetings to develop a list of potential
• measures for CSO program performance. .Each focus group will be
 opened to POTWs,  environmental groups,  and EPA/State approval
 authorities.                          '

      The list  of performance measures will be validated in a
 series of POTW ,site visits and telephone  conversations. 'The
'field validation will evaluate practicality using criteria such
 as:  .current availability of data,  ,cost to collect data,
 reliability under different conditions,  bias,  and regional
 relevance.                 •    ' -    _'•,       '   •

      A final report will be prepared  on the project findings...
 Working'Together... 'Fora Cleaner Environment    •     ..--.'.      -      ' -33

                      NPDES STORM WATER PROGRAM

       Cooperative agreements with several groups, including the
  Center for Watershed Protection and the Rensselaerville
  Institute,  are being prepared to fund projects to support the
  selection and implementation of storm water environmental
  indicators.    These indicators can be used by municipalities and
  other storm water dischargers to assess the effectiveness of
  their storm water control efforts and to provide data for a
  national  storm water indicators tracking system to monitor
  progress.                          "      .              .

  **   First,  information  will be compiled describing recent
  efforts to  develop and implement storm water environmental
  indicators.   Techniques  for  assessing municipal storm water
 management program effectiveness and - industrial storm water'
 controls will  also be summarized.  The advantages  and
 ™?f Vf "??gSS  ฐf  ?hese- indicators, the' applicability and  the
 costs will be  analyzed.   All  of  this  information will be   '
 presented for  background  at  stakeholder  meetings.

      Initial stakeholder  meetings of municipal  separate storm
 sewer system  (MS4) representatives, State program      e. storm
 ^Jjr^r5' and other 
       In  the  past the Office of Water (OW)- has found it difficult
  on  a  national  level,  to directly quantify water quality         '
  improvements and aquatic life benefits with large- programmatic
  efforts.  With focus rapidly shifting away from conventional' '
  TcloIT   nw *i^haฃg^ t0 —^ Water and co'mbined sewer overflows
  iSfS?iv2  r     ^ฐ  have in Place a monitoring program that will'
  enable the Agency to demonstrate water quality improvement-   '
  associated with  implementation of the storm water and CSO control
  programs:    :.  -   "•         •• • •     .,    ; . •.  . " - .-  ..'.'."   •
      Faced with this need, OWM. convened  a  workshop of
 stakeholders and experts  in the field  of wet  weather flows and
 water quality assessment  to determine  what would  be required to
 implement a. monitoring program .that would  track and ultimately
 determine the program accountability and the  effectiveness of the
 storm water and' CSO control efforts.   The  group was charged with
 providing EPA with specific recommendations on monitoring and
 other activities -that should 'be  considered in developing  a     V
 comprehensive monitoring protocol with nationwide  applicability,

 1-K   IrV fleeting ^e stakeholders and experts to  participate In
,the workshop,  the main intent was to invite, a. diverse group of
 individuals with particular expertise  in the areas  of wet  weather
 Coring  biomonitor ing, storป .water- impacts, CSO  L^cts anS
 water quality assessment.   Beyond this, effort was made to
 achieve balance  by selecting individuals representing -different
 regions of the  country, land to get a mix of federal? stite
 interstate,  and  local  government perspectives.  In addition
                                       -ctpr. were included  to    „
           PฐlntS  ฐf  yiew-   As  a  result of- the workshop, tS2 group
         consensus on a 'number  of basic requirements for a -bale
mon^toring^protocol.- One 'of the key areas of consensus was the
      ^           llt ฐf Rrimary base monitoring. indicators.  The
                        We" ^  divid,d into following five
        Water Quality -Indicators
        Physical Indicators
        Biological^Environment/Health  Indicators    "  -
       • Loading Indicators          '  .   .       ../.-•''
        Indirect Indicators         •                          .

     The workshop participants;agreed  that, although  there  were
some definite drawbacks to the base monitoring program?  ฃhe use
of the primary base monitoring.indicators.-would provide          •

Working Together.,. For a Cleaner Environment           . :   ..          ' -  '.

 sufficient  information for a National Assessment,  if implemented,
 within a  consistent framework.  In addition,  the group agreed
 that the  information gathered would probably  be useful for
 management  purposes and for prioritizing water quality and use
 attainment  problems.
Working Together... For a Cleaner Environment

    Part  V:
               '.(-'..   •   •    ,     ''      ~            * •
    Brown bag meetings featuring EPA and external
    speakers who will discuss inclusion of the public in
    our work
Working Together... For.a Cleaner Environment

Working Together... For a Cleaner Environment

                                 TENTATIVE SCHEDULE
            '   -      '    '         '          '          ^        "    .

   ;   .     ,   In order to highlight the  importance of effective      '  '•
         communication with •stakeholders and  provide perspectives from a:
         wide variety of these stakeholders,  OWM's External Communications
'* '_       Quality Action Team will sponsor brown bag meetings on the  •; .
  •  '     following-topics.  Speakers'will be  named,  and.specific times arid
•   .  •    locations of -events advertised,  before each brown bag.     .  .    :
T .    •   . -     *       •• .     .      ,   . '        .••.."•    • .  '.       '     -.•••-_
           •   Enhancing the State/Federal Partnership through Effective ,
              Communications, early October 1994                    ••-'•;'.

           •   Key Considerations when Choosing  the Appropriate Vehicle
              (Grant, Cooperative Agreement/  or Contract)  fpr Stakeholder
   / '         Communication-,  mid-October        ;•          •  :

     ;.'      •   FACA,;What It Is, and How  to Use  It,  late  October/early
              'November    . •     ..._'.     .       .'-,'•'•••   '        . :  '

           •   Perspectives from Environmental Groups, about How to
       -    .   Communicate with Them,-early December  •  .             ,  .

           •   Perspectives from Municipalities  on  Effective External
              Communications, TEA      ".       .                   '    •'•;,.

         -.•'.•   Working Effectively with Other .Federal Agencies,.  mid-January
     ':   .    .  '19-95.      '  "   .          ..  ,       • ' •' '
         Working Together... Fora Cleaner Environment     •       •--..'        "        '39

Working Together..  For a Cleaner Environment

     Part VI:
               i   „       -•••••' "\  '             '  '
     A bibliography of Executive Orders, EPA
     memoranda, and other documents related to
     customer involvement, available for staff members'
• Working Tggerher... For a Cleaner Environment    .     •• - ••   ;    .••'." •'• •  ','41

Working Together... For a Cleaner Environment '


       ', The  following is a bibliography of selected  Executive..
   Orders, EPA  memoranda,  and other documents related  to customer
   involvement.   For further information about these items,,  or to .
   'look at a file containing these materials-, please contact Kevin  t
   Rosseel,  Office -of Wastewater Management, at 260-3715' or  via   '.
 '. .'• All-in-One at  ROSSEEL.KEVIN.'           •  •             "'..•'.

   .  ." 'Bureau  of National Affairs, two-part article,  "Regulatory
        Negotiation:   Experienced Practitioner' Offers  Guidance to
        Participants in Negotiated Rulemaking",'1988

     •  . Code of Federal Regulations, 41 CFR Ch. 101-6,10,  "Federal  .
        Advisory  Committee Management"1

        EPA  Case  Studies,  "Negotiated Rulemaking at  the
     , ';  Environmental Protection'Agency",  May 21, 1994

        EPA  Fact  Sheet,  "The Federal Advisory Committee Act",  no
 -  '    ' date'  .       •     ,.,.'.--     /•....'.•-'•''   -. '   '   .',   '

        EPA  Fact  Sheet,  "Federal Advisory Committee  Act Worksheet ''
        (draft)",  no' date    •       -.•....'•'"•

       • EPA  Fact,Sheet,  "Consensus and Dispute Resolution  Service's
       , Contract", no date   •".  '             •     •      .  •  .       , ..

       • EPA  Fact  Sheet,  "New EPA .Regulation--and Policy Development •
        Process-—Involvement of State/Loca'l/Tribal Governments",  no
. •- '    '• .• date    • •   '  " .     .'  . .      • .  "  '  . '  '     "  . .   •' ,    .  '   . -  - •  •
             '* •             •         "    '   .  '   '      •  •    i''.....-.'
        EPA  Fact .Sheet,  "Negotiated Rulemaking/Regulatory
 . -      Negotiation", /no date       /           .    .     ,  • '•        '

 . \.- ,"'' EPA-  Guidance,  "Guidelines  fojr implementing the Regulatory
        Flexibility  Act",  Office of Policy,  Planning, and
      . .Evaluation,  revised  April  1992 .

     , .  EPA,  Guidance  "ICR  Handbook"-,  Off ice, of Policy,  Planning,  and
        Evaluation,  June 1992            .-..'- ,  :           :

        EPA Memorandum  from  David  Gardiner,  Assistant Administrator
        for Office of Policy,.Planning and Evaluation,  "Regulatory
        Negotiation  and  Consensus-Building' Support",  dated June  22,
  .1 :    1994             '        ,•..,'        •    ,  '  " ... '     , .
   Working Together.,. Forra-'Cleaner Environment     .  .       . .  '•     •            - 43

     EPA Memorandum  from E.  Donald Elliott,  Assistant
     Administrator and  General  Counsel,  "Federal Advisory
     Committee Act and  S.  444,  Proposed  Amendment to the Act",
     dated July  16,  1990

     EPA Notice,  "Environmental Justice  Achievements",  Office of
     Environmental "Justice,  dated April  1994      •          .

     EPA Order 5700.1,  "Policy  for -Distinguishing Between '    ..
     Assistance  and  Acquisition",  dated  March 22, 1994

     EPA Pamphlet, "How to Establish a Federal Advisory
     Committee",  Management  and Organization Division,  March L989

     EPA Paper,  "Discussion  on  the Use of  Consultation  and .
     Consensus-Building Processes for Implementing the  Clean Air
     Act of 1990",' Office  of Air and Radiation,  March 4,  1992-

     EPA -Report,  "An Assessment of EPA's Negotiated Rulemaking
     Activities", Office of  Policy,  Planning,  and Evaluation,
     December 1987 •               • •

     Executive Order of the  President 12866,  "Regulatory Planning
     and Review",' dated October 4,  1993     ,

     Executive Order of the  President 12875,  "Enhancing
     Intergovernmental  Partnerships", October 26, 1993
Working Together... Fora Cleaner Environment