| Summary The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) promulgated a national Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Policy in 1994. One
element of the CSO Policy allows for state water quality standards and water uses to be
modified where attainment of standards is precluded because of wet weather CSOs. The
intention was to reduce CSOs to a point where maximum benefits are achieved and then to
modify uses and standards to bring water bodies into compliance with standards. This
element of the policy has not been widely addressed by either the EPA or state agencies.
In 1998, the U.S. Congress required EPA to issue guidance on how this element of the
policy should be applied. Congress required EPA to develop guidance to facilitate water
quality standards reviews, to provide financial support for such reviews, to provide
Congress with a progress report on its actions by December of 1999, and to have final
guidance available by April 2000. In August 1999, EPA developed a partially-completed
draft guidance document after holding listening sessions in three cities. In total, 73
communities, 15 states and numerous EPA regions were represented at these stakeholder
meetings.
On September 24, 1999, EPA, assisted by the Water Environment Federation, held an Experts
Review workshop in Arlington, Virginia to receive comments on the draft guidance document.
Experts present represented municipal communities, consulting engineers, states and EPA
regions. Although the Experts felt that the guidance document was a good start, many
comments were made and extensive discussions followed. By far, the most controversial
comment dealt with the ability of EPA to require a review of water quality standards. Many
people from the regulated community believed that EPA Headquarters should take an active
role in requiring EPA regions to encourage states to revisit water quality standards and
water uses to consider wet weather impacts. They felt this should be discussed in the
guidance document and that without EPA taking a clear leadership role, no states would
undertake a review of the standards. EPA personnel indicated that they are unable to take
that type of active role since state governments are responsible for setting and revising
water quality standards.
Presentations were made showing how the states of Ohio, Maine and Massachusetts have
developed water quality standards and water body use classifications, which consider wet
weather events. In all instances, EPA approved the standards and revisions; although, in
some cases a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) is required before the standards can be
applied to specific water bodies. There was also a significant amount of discussion about
the need for a UAA and the process of doing a UAA. There was a general feeling that simple
straightforward guidance should be available for conducting UAAs and that there should be
the ability to have simplified UAA procedures for small communities that can not afford to
collect the extensive amount of data required to conduct a full scale UAA.
The Experts also expressed a concern about conflicting requirements and requested that the
guidance document summarize how Long Term CSO Control Planning (LTCP) should be integrated
with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process. They indicated that clear priorities and
procedures should be developed documenting in a flow-chart fashion the interrelationship
and the proper sequencing of the TMDL, the LTCP, and standards review processes.
The need for water quality standards reviews as allowed in the CSO Policy and the
practicality of employing them in development of a CSO LTCP was clearly an area of
concern. The ability to conduct such reviews and to modify standards can be done as
demonstrated by the modifications done in three states. The process, however, relies
totally on the willingness of the state to participate in the review process and to
promulgate such changes. |
