Working Together for a Cleaner Environment: Selected Resources to Help Improve EPA-Stakeholder Relations


United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of W^ter
(4201)
EPA 830-B-94-002
.September 1994
Working Together.
For A Cleaner Environment

Selected Resources To Help
Improve EPA-Stakeholder
Relations

                        */^- Printed on Recycled Paper

-------

-------
              UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         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
efforts.

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 '          :  :  ,.     ,  '.     .       ..'.•'
                                 11,1

-------

-------
    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
                                                      1

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

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

§TO: "..' ' .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 th« ««rli««t
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. . •• . •"'

-------
                                                         -king

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

        that  i.  u.-iu                                          °f '
 summer  coconankerthS; ??o1Sd  to|?:h-r b^ -nag—nt last
 effectively with external s?«v»h?S  °Ur  Strate9ic Plan— working
    k, the LternafSS^ult of their 9
 several products, which I hope  Su?lJ InH          '" tO Y°U
      FACA.

      Seve1IpU?neScIoPCon?rS? P"?- neg°tiated Process used to
      Rul.. •andhteheCSG0reCa°tntL°LsPOiatCeyr S:!?^

                                                    *  >
please contac  OA  mb                 "  y°U  have
Home,, Joyce Hud°son.
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,
                        'in

-------
Together... For
-------
GUIDANCE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON
, .ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS IN RULEMAKING •"•'-.

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
consensus.
• 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; .
and
• 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
-------
GUIDANCE AVAILABLE:

EPA Guidelines for Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility
Act

Detailed guidance on RFA applicability, certification,
performing initial and final analyses, and gathering
comments. . ' • .
'» . . ' * .. •
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
policies.

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.

GUIDANCE AVAILABLE:

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:
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW (CSO) CONTROL POLICY
• 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.]
1972-
1970s-
1980s
August
,1989

Late ,.
1980s .

June• .
1991
Late
1991
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
17.
-------
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:
Municipals

APWA, NFSWMA, AMSA,
CSO Partnership, etc.

Want CSO control at a
reasonable cost.
.Environmentalists

EOF, NRDC, CMC, Lower
James River, etc.

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

.' . 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
IB
-------
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. ' .
7o0«v/»iv For ,•) Clfifinrr Environment
20
-------
REGULATORY NEGOTIATION CASE STUDY:
OGWDW'S DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS/ENHANCED
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
™?® *E°Unt 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' "
t°. look at coordination of requirements with those
»»„ 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 °f trade-offs with microMal Tnd
°f terjiate disinfectants to
ucts.- The Agency recognized that while
schemes-.(e.g., 'ozone and^hloraSnLr
known o KP^d^ts typical of chlorination, little
n0°r disinfectants and
^The third issue was integration with the Surface Water
,«a,,~™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 iat2« 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
include:-
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
25
-------
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
contaminants.

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
30
-------
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^^°Jde^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.
contact
Working Together... For'a-.Cleaner Environment .' . ,' . ' .'
. . " ' . '.•••". 31
-------
STUDY ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES
OF PRETREATMENT PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS

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
-------
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW PROGRAM
PERFORMANCE MEASURES PROJECT
. • . , • " - ,'••'."•' • .. ' . .* 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
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS PROJECTS

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 °f ?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
-------
WET WEATHER MONITORING PROTOCOL
STAKEHOLDERS AND EXPERT WORKSHOP
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^ha£g^ t0 —^ Water and co'mbined sewer overflows
iSfS?iv2 r ^° 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, stor» .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 „
.
P°lntS °f 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 °f 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? £he use
of the primary base monitoring.indicators.-would provide •

Working Together.,. For a Cleaner Environment . : .. ' - '.
35
-------
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
36
-------
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
37
-------
Working Together... For a Cleaner Environment
38
-------
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT BROWN BAGS
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
40
-------
Part VI:
i „ -•••••' "\ ' ' '
A bibliography of Executive Orders, EPA
memoranda, and other documents related to
customer involvement, available for staff members'
review
• Working Tggerher... For a Cleaner Environment . •• - •• ; .••'." •'• • ','41
-------
Working Together... For a Cleaner Environment '
42
-------
"STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT" BIBLIOGRAPHY

', 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
44
-------