Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0523-0080
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-02-28T05:00Z

NRDC/
NACWA
February
15,
2006
Meeting
Attendees:
Nancy
Stoner
(
NRDC),
Alex
Dunn
(
NACWA),
Ken
Kirk
(
NACWA),
Carolann
Sicillano
(
EPA/
OGC),
Stephen
Sweeney
(
EPA/
OGC),
Joe
Theis
(
EPA/
OECA),
Kevin
Bell
(
EPA/
OECA),
Don
Brady
(
EPA/
WPD),
Rachel
Herbert
(
EPA/
WPD),
Kevin
Weiss
(
EPA/
WPD)

Alex
Dunn
indicated
that
NRDC
and
NACWA
had
reviewed
the
public
comments
on
the
December
22,
2006
draft
policy.
They
suggested
that
commenters
could
be
put
into
two
groups,
those
that
generally
supported
the
approach,
but
had
constructive
comments
for
clarifying
or
otherwise
improving
the
draft,
and
those
commenters
that
generally
disagreed
with
the
approach
in
the
draft
policy.
They
wanted
to
provide
EPA
with
suggestions
on
how
to
address
constructive
comments
that
were
consistent
with
the
general
approach
of
the
draft
policy.
They
provided
a
mark­
up
of
the
December,
2005
draft
policy
with
their
suggestions.
Stephen
Sweeney
explained
that
EPA
would
consider
significant
new
information
and
data,
including
comments
and
materials
presented,
as
comments
submitted
after
the
comment
period
and
docketed
accordingly.
Alex
Dunn
and/
or
Nancy
Stoner
suggested
responses
to
relevant
comments
as
follows:

Introduction
Section
1.
Finding
­
In
order
to
respond
to
concerns
raised
in
several
environmental
groups'
comments,
make
the
finding
that
peak
flow
volumes
can
be
dramatically
reduced
stronger.

Applicability
Section
2.
Tertiary
treatment
 
Suggested
that
a
distinction
be
made
between
two
classes
of
units
called
tertiary
treatment
units
 
1)
biological
treatment
units
that
provide
treatment
that
goes
beyond
secondary
treatment
standards
and
2)
tertiary
treatment
units
that
follow
biological
units.
They
recommended
that
EPA
clarify
that
the
bypass
provision
applies
to
the
first
situation,
but
does
not
necessarily
apply
to
the
second
situation.
They
indicated
they
thought
this
could
be
done
by
limiting
the
applicability
of
the
policy.

3.
Physical/
Chemical
Treatment
 
Indicated
that
comments
had
been
raised
about
the
scenario
where
a
portion
of
the
wet
weather
flow
was
routed
around
both
traditional
primary
and
biological
units,
but
rather
sent
to
a
ballasted
flocculation
unit
(
or
other
advanced
physical/
chemical
treatment
unit).
They
indicated
that
they
believed
this
situation
was
a
bypass
of
primary
as
well
as
biological
treatment,
and
could
not
be
approved
under
the
draft
policy.
One
thought
discussed
was
that
the
limitation
in
the
applicability
section
(
that
the
policy
did
not
apply
to
diversions
around
primary
treatment)
could
be
removed
from
the
applicability
section,
with
the
statement
later
in
the
document
that
"
NPDES
authorities
.
.
.
need
to
ensure
that
all
flows
.
.
.
receive
a
minimum
of
primary
treatment."

4.
Secondary
Treatment
limitations
 
Suggested
language
to
clarify
that
wet
weather
treatment
processes
(
treatment
for
flows
diverted
around
biological
treatment)
had
to
meet
permit
limitations
based
on
the
secondary
treatment
limitations.
Limits
would
be
applied
before
recombination/
blending
of
flows.
Several
options
for
expressing
this
concept
were
provided.
Nancy
Stoner
indicated
that
she
thought
the
best
interpretation
of
the
regulations
was
to
apply
7­
day
averages
to
diverted,
treated
flows.
OECA
staff
indicated
that
they
thought
30­
day
averages
were
appropriate.
OGC
suggested
that
we
could
make
a
general
statement
that
permit
writers
needed
to
set
permit
limits
for
all
flows
under
all
configurations.
Different
locations
in
the
policy
were
suggested.
Alex
Dunn
indicated
that
she
didn't
think
ballasted
flocculation
met
secondary
treatment
requirements.

5.
`
Severe
Property
Damage'
 
Indicated
that
some
commenters
had
noted
that
the
`
severe
property
damage'
criteria
in
the
bypass
provision
had
not
been
discussed
in
the
draft
policy.
Suggested
language
to
clarify
that
this
criteria
applied,
and
language
to
explain
what
`
severe
property
damage'
meant.

6.
Implementation
Schedules
 
Indicated
that
some
commenters
suggested
that
additional
detail
be
provided
to
the
discussion
of
implementation
schedules.
The
markup
presented
suggested
detail
that
could
be
added.
Suggested
deleting
the
sentence
indicating
that
implementation
schedules
would
be
considered
permit
conditions
because
the
sentence
seemed
controversial
based
on
the
comments.
NRDC
thought
that
OECA
had
urged
that
this
language
be
put
into
the
draft
policy.

7.
Anti­
degradation
 
Suggested
adding
language
to
clarify
that
applicable
State
anti­
degradation
policies
applied
to
derivation
of
water
quality­
based
limitations.

8.
Notice
to
Water
Suppliers
 
Suggested
language
to
clarify
that
downstream
water
suppliers
should
be
notified
about
discharges
to
sensitive
waters.

9.
Ten­
day
notice
 
Suggested
that
they
didn't
interpret
the
10­
day
advanced
notice
requirement
in
the
bypass
regulation
as
causing
compliance
problems
where
the
permittee
did
not
know
of
the
need
to
divert
10­
days
in
advance.
They
suggested
that
EPA
should
issue
a
question
&
answer
on
this
to
clarify.

10.
Abnormally
High
Event
 
A
number
of
commenters
requested
that
EPA
define
`
rain
event'.
Recommended
language
that
would
indicate
that
approved
anticipated
bypasses
should
generally
be
limited
to
`
abnormally
high
precipitation
events
for
a
region.'
NRDC
and
NACWA
generally
agreed
with
commenters
that
suggested
that
EPA
should
issue
additional
technical
guidance
on
the
blending
issue.
They
indicated
that
they
were
working
on
questions
and
answers
that
they
would
recommend
EPA
adopt.