Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
6/15/2012
1
WEF Government Affairs Webcast
“Clean Water Act Integrated Planning Framework: Next Steps”
June 14, 2012
2
Carl Myers
Assistant Director
Government Affairs Water Environment Federation
WELCOMING REMARKS
6/15/2012
2
Revised Framework: EPA update and perspectives
A View from the States
An Integrated Water Quality Affordability Strategy
Local utility considerations: Lima, Ohio
Questions/Answers
4
Deborah Nagle
Director, Water Permits Division, Office of [email protected]
Mark Pollins
Director, Water EnforcementDivision, Office of Enforcement and Compliance [email protected]
US Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, DC
TODAY’S SPEAKERS
6/15/2012
3
Clean Water Act Integrated Planning Framework: Next StepsWEF WebinarJune 14, 2012
Under an integrated approach, EPA and States would use the flexibility of EPA’s existing regulations and policies and encourage municipalities to evaluate how best to meet all of their CWA requirements and within their financial capability to better allow—
sequencing wastewater and stormwater projects in a way that allows the highest priority environmental projects to come first, and
innovative solutions, such as green infrastructure
6
6/15/2012
4
Addresses most serious water quality problems sooner
More cost‐effective, may lower overall cost of compliance
Fosters innovative approaches, such as green infrastructure, that are more sustainable
7
Encourages Regions to work with States and communities on implementing comprehensive, integrated planning approaches CWA and implementing regulations and guidance provide necessary flexibility
Existing regulatory standards will be maintained EPA is developing integrated planning framework Will obtain feedback from States, local governments, utilities and environmental groups
Looking to identify municipal leaders to serve as models
8
6/15/2012
5
Atlanta, GA ‐ January 31, 2012
New York City, NY ‐ February 6
Seattle, WA ‐ February 13, 2012
Kansas City, KS ‐ February 15, 2012
Chicago, IL ‐ February 17, 2012
NACWA workshop –Washington, DC – December 17, 2011
Conference of Mayors workshop ‐Monrovia, CA –February 27, 2012
9
42 comments received
8 NPDES State Agencies
10 Municipal NGOs
11 Municipalities
4 Environmental NGOs
9 Consultants/ Attorneys
10
6/15/2012
6
Burdens on States Consistency between HQ and Regions Financial Capability Adaptability Use of Permits Detail SDWA
11
Transmits final Integrated Planning Framework to EPA Regions
Encourages Regions to work with States to identify opportunities to implement the integrated planning approach
12
6/15/2012
7
Background Principles
Overarching Principles
Guiding Principles
Elements of an Integrated Plan Implementation
Permits
Enforcement
13
Integrated planning will maintain existing regulatory standards that protect public health and water quality
Integrated planning will allow a municipality to balance various CWA requirements in a manner that addresses the most pressing public health and environmental protection issues first
The responsibility to develop an integrated plan rests with municipalities
14
6/15/2012
8
Integrated Plans should:
Reflect State requirements and planning efforts and incorporate State input on key issues
Provide for meeting water quality standards using existing flexibilities in the CWA and its implementing regulations
15
Maximize the effectiveness of infrastructure dollars through analysis of alternatives and the selection and sequencing of actions needed to address water quality challenges and non‐compliance
Incorporate effective innovative technologies, approaches and practices (including green infrastructure)
16
6/15/2012
9
Evaluate and address community impacts and consider disproportionate burdens resulting from a municipality’s implementation of its plan
Implementation of technology‐based and core requirements are not delayed
17
Financial strategy is in place, including appropriate fee structures
Opportunity for meaningful stakeholder input throughout the development of the plan
18
6/15/2012
10
Description of the water quality, human health and regulatory issues to be addressed in the plan, including
An assessment of existing CWA challenges ‐ current and projected future regulatory requirements
Identification and characterization of human health threats Identification and characterization of water quality
impairment and threats ‐TMDLs or an equivalent analysis Identification of sensitive areas and environmental justice
concerns Metrics for evaluating human health and water quality
objectives
19
Description of existing wastewater and stormwater systems under consideration and summary information describing systems performance, including:
Identification of municipalities and utilities that are participating in the planning effort
Characterization of wastewater and stormwater systems
Characterization of flows in the wastewater and stormwater systems under consideration
Identification of deficiencies associated with existing assets
20
6/15/2012
11
Process for involving relevant community stakeholders in the planning and selection process
Opportunities for meaningful input during development and selection of alternatives;
Making new information available during plan implementation and providing meaningful input into developing proposed modifications; and
Public involvement in evaluating the effectiveness of green infrastructure approaches
21
Process for evaluating and selecting alternatives and proposed implementation schedules
Use of sustainability planning elements to assist in providing information for prioritizing investments Includes asset management principles
A systematic approach to considering green infrastructure and other innovative measures
Identification of criteria to be used for comparing alternative projects Identification of alternatives, including cost estimates, projected
pollutant reductions and other benefits associated with each alternative Analysis of alternatives that documents the criteria used, the projects
selected, and why they were selected. Proposed implementation schedules For each entity participating in the plan, a financial strategy and
capability analysis
22
6/15/2012
12
Measuring success Proposed performance criteria and measures of success
Monitoring program to address the effectiveness of controls, compliance monitoring and ambient monitoring.
23
A process for identifying, evaluating and selecting proposed new projects or modifications to ongoing or planned projects and implementation schedules based on changing circumstances; and
Where the municipality is seeking a modification, they must collect the appropriate information to support the modification.
24
6/15/2012
13
Incorporate all or part of an integrated plan into NPDES permit where legally permissible
Considerations for incorporating integrated plans into permits Compliance schedules for meeting WQBELs need to be consistent with the requirements in 40 CFR 122.47
Green infrastructure approaches and related innovative practices
Appropriate water quality trading
25
All or part of an integrated plan may be able to be incorporated into the remedy of an enforcement action
Considerations for incorporating integrated plans into enforcement actions All parties needed to effectuate a remedy are involved History of compliance Where extended time is necessary to achieve compliance Using permitting and enforcement action in conjunction Enforcement orders should allow for adaptive management Green infrastructure approaches and related innovative
practices Environmentally beneficial projects in plan that municipality is
not otherwise legally required to perform may be included consistent with Supplemental Environmental Protects Policy
26
6/15/2012
14
Work with interested municipalities Share information about lessons learned Management of Process
Ongoing discussions with Regions
27
Water Environment Federation
June 14, 2012
A View from the States:
Integrated Planning
Alexandra Dunn
Executive Director & General Counsel
Association of Clean Water Administrators
6/15/2012
15
ACWA 12/14/11 Hill Testimony
ACWA President Walt Baker (UT)
“Moving from the appealing concepts in the memorandum, to a Framework, to actual implementation will require commitment by all parties. Integrated planning is one thing – the implementation of this planning through the CWA’s rigorous permitting process may be quite another.”
6/15/2012
16
• “…the final framework needs to define the roles of the states and the Agency clearly and explicitly. Through the workshops, we learned that EPA contemplates a prominent role for state permitting authorities – which we appreciate. EPA intends for state permitting authorities to approve the integrated plans developed by municipalities.”
2/12 ACWA Comments on Draft Framework
“Given the interplay between permitting and enforcement, we are also concerned that a few years after a municipal plan is developed and underway in partnership with the state permitting authority, EPA could come back and order more stringent or different controls or approaches …
The role of EPA and the states needs to be clearly defined so that the integrated approach agreed upon can be relied on by all parties and stakeholders.”
2/12 ACWA Comments on Draft Framework
6/15/2012
17
6/12 Final Framework Answers Some Questions
• Prioritization (#4)
• Cost & affordability (#4)
• Balance between permitting and enforcement (IV)
• Measuring success (#5)
• Incorporating adaptive management (#6)
The Role of Innovation…“Innovations … are critical to our future success for maintaining and improving water quality. States need to be open and willing to look at things differently. But given state resource limitations and workload demands, it’s critical that entities do the homework to ensure that an innovation is well founded.”
6/15/2012
18
• “Talk to your regulators early in the process – not after spending a lot of time and money”
• “Be upfront … ‘I don't know’ is an acceptable answer especially in the early part of the discussions”
• “Be willing to make minor changes to the project to get most of what you want”
• “When there is a problem or concern ‐ pick up the phone”
6/15/2012
19
37
Brandon C. Vatter, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Hatch Mott MacDonald
Cincinnati, Ohio
TODAY’S SPEAKERS
The Need for An Integrated Water Quality Affordability Strategy
Brandon Vatter, PERobert A. Weimar, PE, BCEE
New York Water Environment AssociationJune 14, 2012
6/15/2012
20
Affordability: Historically Disconnected from Water Quality Improvement!
Affordability: Historically Disconnected from Water Quality Improvement!
Current: Affordability = Infrastructure That Public Can Afford To Build To Reduce CSO/SSO
Current: Affordability = Infrastructure That Public Can Afford To Build To Reduce CSO/SSO
Alternative: Affordability =
The optimum public investment to Improve
Water QualityThe Integrated Water Quality Affordability Program
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
Full Attainment0
Estimated Construction Cost ($M)
Water Quality Standards Compliance
Solutions to address CSOs & SSOs only
Solutions to address overflows & storm water
Integrated Solutions to address overflows, storm water, & other pollution sources (Ag, septics, illicits, dry weather sources, etc.)
Cost increases
Water quality gets better
For the same $500M investment, greater WQ improvement can be achieved with the integrated approach
Integrated Water Quality Affordability ProgramCost‐Benefit Measured by Cost per Day of Increased
Compliance with Water Quality Standards
Multiple pollutants are addressed; Bacteria, Nutrients, TSS, etc. – the pollutants impairing the stream
6/15/2012
21
0
1%
2%
3%
Full Attainment0
% of Median Household In
come (%
MHI)
Water Quality Standards Compliance
Solutions to address CSOs & SSOs only
Solutions to address overflows & storm water
Integrated Solutions to address overflows, storm water, & other pollution sources (Ag, septics, illicits, dry weather sources, etc.)
% MHI increases
Water quality gets better
Defines the “knee of the curve” for MHI & optimum spending rate for maximum WQ improvement for the dollar spent
Integrated Water Quality Affordability ProgramCost‐Benefit Measured by Increase in % of MHI per Day of Increased
Compliance with Water Quality Standards
EPA Guidance Supports the Integrated WQ Affordability Approach
EPA Guidance Supports the Integrated WQ Affordability Approach
EPA regulatory guidance - Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook April 27, 1995 If substantial and widespread economic and social impacts
have been demonstrated, then the discharger will not have to meet the water quality standards.
The discharger will, however, be expected to undertake some additional pollution control.
Criteria outlined in Guidance - used to determine the most protective pollution control technique that would not impose a substantial impact on the entity.
Evaluate how the Integrated Controls Program will affect the socioeconomic well-being of the community.
EPA regulatory guidance - Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook April 27, 1995 If substantial and widespread economic and social impacts
have been demonstrated, then the discharger will not have to meet the water quality standards.
The discharger will, however, be expected to undertake some additional pollution control.
Criteria outlined in Guidance - used to determine the most protective pollution control technique that would not impose a substantial impact on the entity.
Evaluate how the Integrated Controls Program will affect the socioeconomic well-being of the community.
H1
Slide 42
H1 This was how SD1 selected their CSO LOC. If you cite them as the example you are ok. If you want to use the ideas then I suggest rewording the slide some.HMM, 4/30/2012
6/15/2012
22
EPA Guidance Supports the Integrated WQ Affordability Approach
EPA Guidance Supports the Integrated WQ Affordability Approach
Substantial & Widespread Impacts include changes to the socioeconomic indicators listed below: Median Household Income; Community Unemployment Rate; Losses to the local economy; Percent of Households Below Poverty Line; Increases in unemployment, Impact on Community Development Potential; Impact on Property Values. Decreases in tax revenues,
Substantial & Widespread Impacts include changes to the socioeconomic indicators listed below: Median Household Income; Community Unemployment Rate; Losses to the local economy; Percent of Households Below Poverty Line; Increases in unemployment, Impact on Community Development Potential; Impact on Property Values. Decreases in tax revenues,
H2
EPA Guidance Supports the Integrated WQ Affordability Approach
EPA Guidance Supports the Integrated WQ Affordability Approach
Additional socioeconomic indicators cont’d: Potential for the loss of future jobs and personal
income if businesses choose not to locate in affected community,
Depressed economic activity resulting from loss of purchasing power by persons losing their jobs due to increased user fees.
“Applicants should feel free to consider additional measures not mentioned here if they judge them to be relevant.”
Additional socioeconomic indicators cont’d: Potential for the loss of future jobs and personal
income if businesses choose not to locate in affected community,
Depressed economic activity resulting from loss of purchasing power by persons losing their jobs due to increased user fees.
“Applicants should feel free to consider additional measures not mentioned here if they judge them to be relevant.”
• Combined Water & Sewer Rates Impacts
• Total Costs - Costs of Doing Business in addition to Controls Program
H3
Slide 43
H2 This was how SD1 selected their CSO LOC. If you cite them as the example you are ok. If you want to use the ideas then I suggest rewording the slide some.HMM, 4/30/2012
Slide 44
H3 This was how SD1 selected their CSO LOC. If you cite them as the example you are ok. If you want to use the ideas then I suggest rewording the slide some.HMM, 4/30/2012
6/15/2012
23
Once Substantial & Widespread Economic & Social Impacts Demonstrated
Once Substantial & Widespread Economic & Social Impacts Demonstrated
Guidance - Utility can modify its Program Costs to fall within the “” boxes listed in the Financial Capability Matrix table.
“EPA will interpret a " " rating to mean that the community is not expected to incur substantial impacts as a result of the pollution control project.”
Guidance - Utility can modify its Program Costs to fall within the “” boxes listed in the Financial Capability Matrix table.
“EPA will interpret a " " rating to mean that the community is not expected to incur substantial impacts as a result of the pollution control project.”
Secondary Score
Municipal Preliminary Screener
(Cost Per Household as a % of MHI)1
(Socioeconomic, Debt and Financial Indicators)1
Less than 1% Between 1.0 and
2.0% Greater than 2.0%
Less than 1.5 ? X X
Between 1.5 and 2.5 ? X
Greater than 2.5 ?
H4
$0
$10
$50
$100
Full Attainment0
Project Estim
ated Construction Cost ($M)
Water Quality Standards Compliance by Project
Projects that make up the Integrated Controls Program “purple” curve
Cost increases
Construct the Projects that provide the Greatest WQ Improvement for the
$ Spent
Water quality gets better
Integrated Water Quality Affordability Program
Slide 45
H4 This was how SD1 selected their CSO LOC. If you cite them as the example you are ok. If you want to use the ideas then I suggest rewording the slide some.HMM, 4/30/2012
6/15/2012
24
0
1%
2%
3%
Full Attainment0
% of Median Household In
come (%
MHI)
Water Quality Standards Compliance
Solutions to address CSOs & SSOs only
Solutions to address overflows & storm water
Integrated Solutions to address overflows, storm water, & other pollution sources (Ag, septics, illicits, dry weather sources, etc.)
% MHI increases
Water quality gets better
Defines the “knee of the curve” for MHI & optimum spending rate for maximum WQ improvement for the dollar spent
Integrated Water Quality Affordability ProgramCost‐Benefit Measured by Increase in % of MHI per Day of Increased
Compliance with Water Quality Standards
The MHI spending rate from MatrixTable compared to the “knee of thecurve”.If Yes, Utility proceeds with MHIspending rate as shown in the “knee ofthe curve”.If No, Utility adjusts their IntegratedControls Program to match the rangedetermined from the Matrix Table.
Result: An Integrated Controls Program that is Affordable and maximizes WQ Improvement – Meets WQS
Pollutants impairing the stream addressed; Bacteria, Nutrients, TSS, temperature, etc.
No more silos of regulations
Integrated WQ Affordability Program Benefits
Integrated WQ Affordability Program Benefits
Integrates management of WW, SW, & other source pollution abatement directly with nominally affordable spending plans -optimize in-stream WQ improvement & WQS compliance
Ultimate water quality goals expected by CWA would be met, but at a rate which recognizes the nominal short term values & costs to the local community
Affordability discussions focused on optimum spending rate of MHI based on overall receiving WQ benefits
Integrates management of WW, SW, & other source pollution abatement directly with nominally affordable spending plans -optimize in-stream WQ improvement & WQS compliance
Ultimate water quality goals expected by CWA would be met, but at a rate which recognizes the nominal short term values & costs to the local community
Affordability discussions focused on optimum spending rate of MHI based on overall receiving WQ benefits
6/15/2012
25
Integrated WQ Affordability Program Benefits
Integrated WQ Affordability Program Benefits
Prioritize investment on the net benefits to overall in-stream WQ improvement on a watershed by watershed basis
Rate of expenditures and the ultimate value to the community thru direct value of WQ improvements easily understood
Readily evaluate and compare the rates of water quality improvements. Example - First $10 million spent yields five additional days of WQS
compliance, Will take an additional $100 million to achieve the next five additional
days of WQS compliance. Or, $100 million dollars spent achieves zero additional days of WQS
compliance.
Prioritize investment on the net benefits to overall in-stream WQ improvement on a watershed by watershed basis
Rate of expenditures and the ultimate value to the community thru direct value of WQ improvements easily understood
Readily evaluate and compare the rates of water quality improvements. Example - First $10 million spent yields five additional days of WQS
compliance, Will take an additional $100 million to achieve the next five additional
days of WQS compliance. Or, $100 million dollars spent achieves zero additional days of WQS
compliance.
Integrated WQ Affordability Program Benefits
Integrated WQ Affordability Program Benefits
No more Regulatory Silos, No Need for a SW Rule - All in-stream WQ regulatory goals assessed as one metric, not individual, often overlapping requirements
Non-urban WQ sources considered - ensure that urban strategies offer a cost-effective basis for WQ improvement, -not an undue burden on urban ratepayers without a commensurate benefit
All decisions based upon long term receiving WQ benefits, & rate achieved, rather than the rate of infrastructure expenditures
No more Regulatory Silos, No Need for a SW Rule - All in-stream WQ regulatory goals assessed as one metric, not individual, often overlapping requirements
Non-urban WQ sources considered - ensure that urban strategies offer a cost-effective basis for WQ improvement, -not an undue burden on urban ratepayers without a commensurate benefit
All decisions based upon long term receiving WQ benefits, & rate achieved, rather than the rate of infrastructure expenditures
6/15/2012
26
Integrated WQ Affordability Program Summary
Integrated WQ Affordability Program Summary
Integrated Water Quality Affordability Program founded on: Primary goal of continuous WQ improvement at an affordable
rate to protect public health & achieve the water body uses and functions
Time is now to bring these historically separate concepts together under one program
Move away from the traditional approach of “Spend money and the WQ may get better”
Integrated Water Quality Affordability Program founded on: Primary goal of continuous WQ improvement at an affordable
rate to protect public health & achieve the water body uses and functions
Time is now to bring these historically separate concepts together under one program
Move away from the traditional approach of “Spend money and the WQ may get better”
We know what we need to spend at an affordable rate in order to Maximize Improvements to in-stream Water Quality.
52
Gary A. Sheely
Director of Utilities
Lima, Ohio
TODAY’S SPEAKERS
6/15/2012
27
“Integrated planning will assist municipalities on their critical paths to achieving the human health and water quality objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA) by identifying efficiencies in implementing the sometimes overlapping and competing requirements that arise from distinct wastewater and stormwater programs, including how best to make capital investments.”
“balance the CWA requirements in a manner that addresses most pressing public health and environmental protection issues first”
“…recognizes flexibilities in the CWA for the appropriate sequencing of work.”
“Maximize the effectiveness of funds through analysis of alternatives and the selection and sequencing of actions needed to address human health and water quality related challenges and non-compliance”
6/15/2012
28
“Clean Water Act Integrated Planning Framework: Next Steps”
Q & A Session
