» Clean Water Current Archive

July 24, 2009

NACWA to Comment on EPA Guidance for Peak Flows; Seeks Meeting with New AA

EPA is circulating for comment its Draft Guidance on Preparing a Utility Analysis  (Draft Guidance), a 40-page document designed to assist utilities in preparing the ‘no feasible alternatives’ analysis EPA now requires before any peak flow blending scenario can be approved in a Clean Water Act permit. Other than the proposed, but never finalized, 2005 peak flows policy, the Draft Guidance provides the only written explanation of EPA’s current interpretation of the bypass regulations – that any diversion of wet weather flows around secondary treatment units whether directly discharged or recombined with secondary effluent, is considered a bypass. If a clean water agency can demonstrate through the utility analysis that there are no feasible alternatives to the bypass, then it can be approved as an anticipated bypass in the facility’s permit. EPA’s regional offices and state water program managers are now reviewing the Draft Guidance and NACWA is working to develop comments on behalf of its members. While the Draft Guidance encourages utilities to evaluate the use of technologies for treating peak flows, including parallel treatment like ballasted flocculation, EPA states in the guidance that it “strongly discourages reliance on peak wet-weather diversions around secondary treatment units as a long-term, wet-weather management approach.” EPA indicates that most diversions can be “completely phased out.” The Agency’s clear preference for eliminating diversions is continuing to cause major issues for several NACWA members who have installed parallel or in-line peak flow treatment and now appear to be required to evaluate other alternatives that could render these investments useless. NACWA will meet with Pete Silva, the newly confirmed EPA assistant administrator for water, as soon as possible to discuss a possible resolution and will be sending EPA comments on the Draft Guidance in the next few weeks.

Senate Poised to Consider $40 Billion SRF Bill Before August Recess

NACWA and other members of the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN) met with majority and minority staff of the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee this week to discuss the timing and strategy for floor consideration of the Water Infrastructure Financing Act (S. 1005). Momentum continues to build on clean water funding legislation in Congress, with the leadership of EPW committed to moving S.1005 to the Senate Floor before the August Recess, potentially as early as Monday. NACWA is reaching out to key Senators to encourage their support for the bill. The bill provides approximately $40 billion for the clean water and drinking water state revolving loan funds, as well as grant programs for sewer overflow control and Great Lakes funding. The bill also updates the allocation formula for distributing the funds to the states. Should the bill go to the Senate floor it would mark the most progress on Clean Water Act reauthorization legislation since 1987 when the loan program was created. If the Senate approves the bill, which appears likely to occur given the broad support for this legislation, it would then proceed to conference for reconciliation with the House-passed CWSRF funding bill. A remaining issue is whether Senate passage will force the Energy & Commerce Committee to introduce and pass a DWSRF funding bill quickly so that the legislation can proceed to the President for signature. In the unlikely event that the Energy & Commerce Committee chooses not to proceed, another alternative would be for the Senate and House to agree to simply separate out and send to the President the clean water portion of the bill for signature. NACWA will be sending an Alert out to its members on Monday regarding this important legislative effort and how its members can help get this bill over the finish line.

House to Vote on BEACH Act Bill Soon; EPA Updates Settlement Report

Legislation reauthorizing the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Costal Health Act (BEACH Act) was reported by the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee this week and placed on the calendar for a vote by the full House possibly next week. Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), chair of the House T&I Committee, gave a statement in support of the Clean Coastal Environment and Public Health Act of 2009 (H.R. 2093), which reauthorizes the BEACH Act and requires states to establish a monitoring and notification program for coastal recreational waters, including the Great Lakes. The bill passed by the committee revises state monitoring and notification requirements to include a six-hour rapid test method to detect pathogen levels; requirements for reporting water quality violations to public health officials within two hours of getting the results; measures to ensure closures or advisories are made within two hours of learning of the violation; and measures that inform the public of potential sources of the contamination. NACWA worked with the committee staff to increase the amount of time provided to complete the rapid test method and to include language in the committee report that clarifies that the testing requirements under this legislation apply only to monitoring programs authorized under this Act and not to testing methods required under the general NPDES permitting process. The Senate EPW Committee passed similar legislation earlier this year with a rapid test method requirement of four hours, although the full Senate has not yet approved a bill.

Meanwhile, EPA reported on a series of epidemiological studies that have been carried out at beaches across the nation in an effort to develop new recreational water quality criteria. The report updates the agency’s activities under the BEACH Act and is required under a settlement agreement, which was entered in August 2008 with NACWA’s involvement and resolved litigation over EPA’s implementation of the law. These studies have taken place at beaches in a variety of locations, including in Rhode Island, Alabama, California, and Puerto Rico. The Agency has also begun the process to develop a new testing method for use in conjunction with revised recreational water quality criteria. Additionally, EPA is planning to hold a stakeholder workshop in September or October of this year, which NACWA will attend, to share the results of their completed studies and provide stakeholders with a chance to comment on, and provide input to, the development process. For a copy of the status reports and for more information regarding the BEACH Act litigation, please visit NACWA’s Litigation Tracking webpage. The next status report from EPA on settlement implementation is expected in January 2010. NACWA will continue to report on any developments.

NACWA Meets With House Environment Panel to Discuss Wastewater Security Bill

NACWA met this week with majority staff of the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee to discuss plans to move the Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2009  (H.R. 2883) establishing a wastewater security program at EPA. H.R. 2883 was introduced by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), chair of the T&I Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, in response to legislation making its way through the House Homeland Security Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee that would divide federal oversight of security issues at drinking water and wastewater facilities between two different federal agencies – the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the EPA. The Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act of 2009  (H.R. 2868), which was approved by the House Homeland Security Committee in June, would direct that security of wastewater treatment facilities fall under DHS, while the Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009  (H.R. 3258), H.R. 3258 would place the protection of drinking water facilities within the jurisdiction of EPA.

NACWA worked closely with T&I staff as they developed and introduced H.R. 2883, arguing that dividing oversight for security issues at drinking water and wastewater facilities between these two federal agencies is untenable and that wastewater utilities should be under the jurisdiction of EPA, just as drinking water facilities are. The Association is now working through its Security & Emergency Preparedness and Legislative Policy Committees to provide comments to staff as they work to further modify H.R. 2883 in a way that incorporates many if the concepts found in the drinking water security bill (H.R. 3258). This will make certain that that drinking water and wastewater utilities are not subject to two different systems of regulation by EPA.

The T&I Committee had planned to mark up an amended version of H.R. 2883 as early as next week; however, upon learning that the Energy and Commerce Committee had pushed back consideration of its security bills until after lawmakers return from the August recess, the timetable for consideration of the T&I wastewater security bill also shifted to the fall. This has provided some additional time for NACWA to work with the key House committees to straighten out this complicated jurisdictional situation and ensure a common-sense approach to protecting the nation’s vital water infrastructure. NACWA will inform its members of any further developments as they happen.

NACWA Sets Record Straight on Aspen Report, AWWA Trust Fund Testimony

In follow-up to last week’s Current story regarding NACWA’s testimony at a House hearing on the Clean Water Trust Fund and the introduction of trust fund legislation — the Water Protection and Reinvestment Act of 2009  (H.R. 3202) — the Association sent a letter  this week to Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chair of the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, to set the record straight on testimony provided at the Subcommittee’s hearing by the American Water Works Association (AWWA). In its testimony, AWWA referenced a recently released Aspen Institute report titled Sustainable Water Systems: Step One - Redefining the Nation's Infrastructure Challenge, recommending “the Aspen report to the Committee as a thorough and thoughtful treatise on the subject at hand. I also note that, after much discussion and analysis the Aspen project did not recommend the creation of a trust fund to address water infrastructure challenges.”

NACWA’s letter points directly to the Aspen report’s Forward, which states that the report “did not reach consensus on issues regarding which funding mechanisms are appropriate to finance a modern view of water infrastructure, including the utility of a federal trust fund. Undoubtedly, more discussion beyond this report is warranted.” Later in the report (page 23) it is noted that “At this juncture, Dialogue participants did not agree on the merit of a federal trust fund for water infrastructure and this report does not contemplate (or prejudice) the investment utility or political actuality of such a fund.”

NACWA will continue to work with key committees on Capitol Hill in support of trust fund legislation and to ensure that issues surrounding the bill are discussed in an accurate and fair manner. Since last week’s update, seven additional Representatives have sponsored the legislation (for a total of twelve cosponsors, including four Republicans).