Being heard above the storm: Small cities voice concern over Phase II regs

In the ongoing give-and-take over federal stormwater rules, local governments are working to ensure their concerns are heard above the storm of debate.

The bell for the latest round will sound in September, when the Phase II stormwater rule proposal for smaller communities is due from EPA.

The Urban Wet Weather Flows Advisory Committee (UWWFAC), chartered in 1995 by EPA for the purpose of “addressing issues associated with water quality impacts from urban wet weather flows and other stormwater discharges,” has been one forum for issues of local concern. The committee’s mission now encompasses a broad range of water quality issues, not the least of which is providing recommendations to EPA that weigh the costs of compliance with stormwater regulations against the magnitude of environmental damage.

The UWWFAC serves as the “umbrella committee” (appropriately enough) for the three federal advisory committees formed by EPA to address wet weather water quality issues. Sanitary sewer overflows are being addressedby the Sanitary Sewer Overflow FACA, and the Stormwater Phase II Advisory Subcommittee was created concurrently with the UWWFAC.Under Phase I, the Clean Water Ac t (CWA) included those cities with separate storm sewer systems with populations of 100,000 or more; storm sewer systems in one of the 47 unincorporated, urbanized and densely populated counties; and certain industries regardless of location. These systems were required to submit lengthy, two-part applications for NPDES storm sewer permits to EPA. Part 1 of the Phase I application required general information about the storm sewer system including:

* source identification;

* discharge characterization including estimates of monthly mean precipitation, as well as quantitative and qualitative data on stormwater discharges and screening for illegal dumping and illicit discharges to the storm sewer system;

* a plan for outfall sampling under Part 2 of the application;

* financial information for the completion of Part 2; and

* a description of management programs to control pollutants and identify illicit connections.

In Part 2 of the application process, Phase I systems had to:

* demonstrate their legal authority to control the access to the storm sewer system;

* conduct system inventories to identify sources, locate major outfalls, and compile information on any industrial activities discharging to the storm sewer;

* compile discharge characterization data that included quantitative data from an approved sampling plan, analytical data on conventional pollutants and heavy metals, and estimates of seasonal and representative storm event concentrations;

* develop a proposed management program (Best Management Practices) that described structural and source control measures to reduce pollutants in runoff, detection and removal of illicit discharges and control of pollutants in construction site runoff;

* make an estimate of the reduction in pollutant loadings as a result of the management program; and

* conduct a fiscal analysis of capital and O&M funding.

Phase II of EPA’s stormwater efforts has centered on promulgation of regulations that would apply to municipal separate storm sewer systems in urbanized areas that are not subject to the Phase I regulations, as well as to individual sources (industrial, commercial, institutional and retail services) also not covered in Phase I.

The timetable for the development of the Phase II regulations is driven by a consent decree entered in a suit by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) against EPA, by which EPA must propose a rule for a Phase II Stormwater program by September 1, 1997.

Since its first meeting in September 1995, the Stormwater Phase II Advisory Subcommittee has debated what would constitute an effective yet flexible approach to stormwater regulation. Many on the subcommittee approached Phase II with strong feelings that the first phase would have been too cumbersome to be effective for smaller communities and that the problems with Phase I should not be duplicated. There was also the anticipation that through the subcommittee and the UWWFAC, the problems and inequities in the Phase I program could be remedied.

Draft language

As the September deadline nears, EPA has been working to compile a rule proposal that reflects some of the discussions of the subcommittee.

The agency’s first draft preliminary concept paper for the Phase II rule was distributed to the subcommittee in November 1996, and the preamble to the rule was distributed a week later. The foundation of the draft rule is the idea that municipalities must commit to a list of BMPs and measurable goals that conform to six minimum measures:

1) public education and outreach;

2) public involvement and participation;

3) detection and elimination of illicit connections and discharges;

4) control of stormwater discharges from construction sites;

5) post-construction storm-water management in development/redevelopment; and

6) prevention of pollution and good housekeeping of municipal operations.

Under the first draft rule, municipalities and counties were required to regulate construction sites as small as 0.5 acres. The second draft proposed that all construction sites would be covered by a NPDES permit, except sites under one acre that were not part of a larger development plan.

When the second draft of the proposed rule and preamble were presented, EPA asked that the subcommittee’s comments be limited to those of significant concern in anticipation of the opportunity for full public comment once the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued in September. In keeping with this request, an informal group of local government representatives known as the municipal caucus has identified seven critical issues that it considers unsuitable for Phase II stormwater regulation.

The caucus – which includes members from the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the American Public Works Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the National League of Cities and the Water Environment Federation – has highlighted the following issues:

Numeric effluent limits. Water quality standards based to a great extent on assumptions of extended exposure have not been scientifically proven to be applicable given the episodic nature of stormwater discharges. Municipalities have recommended changes to the draft regulation recognizing that data from Phase I monitoring and stormwater characterization efforts have produced no conclusive information, and that no comprehensive effort has been made to evaluate the effectiveness of Phase I stormwater programs.

As Phase I has been an expensive undertaking for large cities, the municipal representatives to the subcommittee contend that research and stormwater management programs should be evaluated before stormwater rules are revised. Two EPA documents are cited in the municipal objection to numeric effluent limits.

First is the policy on “Interim Permitting Approach for Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations in Storm Water Permits” published in August 1996. This policy recognizes that an interim permitting approach is needed for regulating because of the episodic nature of stormwater discharges and the lack of scientific data necessary for effluent limitations based on numeric water quality.

The second document is EPA’s November 1996 “Risk Management Research Plan for Wet Weather Flows,” which outlines wet weather research for the coming five years and identifies the need for further characterization of wet weather flows and the associated effects on the receiving bodies of water.

The municipal caucus suggests that the August 1996 policy should be included in EPA’s development of its guidelines to permit-writers for the stormwater programs. Furthermore, it suggests that the policy remain in effect pending completion of the evaluation of the Stormwater Phase II, as called for in the draft rule.

Citizen suits and ‘anti-backsliding.’ Before the issuance of stormwater permits in Phase I, permits under the NPDES program were for point sources, typically wastewater treatment plants that provided ‘end-of-pipe’ treatment. NPDES permits were recognized in Phase I as creating difficulty in applying end-of-pipe regulations and technologies to storm sewers. In spite of the difficulties associated with issuing NPDES permits for storm sewer outfalls, the NPDES structure exists for Phase I and is proposed for Phase II.

Resolving citizen disputes outside the courts is viewed as crucial to the success of a program that relies on local governments implementing BMPs under the terms of the storm-water permit. Developing an effective set of BMPs is an iterative process that will vary according to such factors as topography, climate, economics and public acceptance.

However, local governments could find themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea under the proposed Phase II regulation. Instead of encouraging dispute resolution and administrative remedies, a Phase II rule incorporated under the NPDES structure would expose communities to citizenlawsuits and the anti-backsliding provisions of the CWA. Should BMPs fail to pro duce the anticipated results in improving stormwater quality, a local government could be accused of violating the CWA.

But, at the same time, a local government would risk violating the anti-backsliding provisions if it attempted to substitute BMPs more effective than those included in its permit.

The municipal caucus has recommended changes to the draft rule that would reduce the exposure of local governments to frivolous litigation and emphasize alternative dispute resolutions. For example, the caucus recommends that the draft rule define “maximum extent practicable” (MEP) in a manner that would provide a common understanding for local governments, permit writers and citizen groups of the process for selecting and implementing BMPs that comply with this definition and the CWA.

The second recommendation is the creation of administrative remedies directing parties that might be predisposed to litigation to first try dispute resolution processes. Finally, the caucus has recommended that the Phase II rule provide both regulatory authority and protection allowing permit holders to replace ineffective and burdensome BMPs with those expected to provide improved results.

Local discretion. The municipal caucus contends that the success of a Phase II program will depend in large part on the degree to which EPA and NPDES authorities abandon the command and control philosophy that has been common in many past environmental regulations.

The caucus has asked EPA to recognize that the implementation of stormwater management programs is based solely on local funds. Local governments oppose provisions in the draft rule that would allow permit writers discretion to add or modify BMPs and measurable goals.

Most of the smaller units of local government that will come under Phase II will likely lack the resources to dedicate or hire personnel solely to manage stormwater programs. Thus, the ability of local governments to select and manage BMPs and measurable goals appropriate for specific local conditions depends on the quality of training programs that would be offered by EPA and the states.

Stormwater volume and rate of flow. While acknowledging that the CWA “requires controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants,” the local government representatives of the Phase II subcommittee strongly oppose federal regulation of stormwater volume and rate of flow. They insist these aspects of stormwater management are outside the purview of EPA and that the draft rule and preamble represent a federal intrusion into state and local government matters without a clear and direct mandate from Congress.

Many local governments across the nation have enacted ordinances that were designed to mitigate the effects of urbanization by reducing peak rates of runoff through stormwater detention. Just as these ordinances can reduce the costs of capital improvements but will not eliminate the need for storm sewers, peak runoff rates cannot be completely eliminated.

Local government representatives have challenged inclusion of stormwater flow as an element of the draft rule and the preamble as an attempt to supersede local authority over land use planning. Local control of land use is a major social and economic issue to the nation’s communities that reflects the diversity of the country. While some states have elected to strictly control land uses, others have left such decisions largely up to individual communities.

Additional requirements beyond minimum measures. The difficulties and costs inherent to the job of managing stormwater impacts on water quality have been central to many discussions within the subcommittee and the UWWFAC. The variability in pollutant levels in wet weather flows, the episodic nature of stormwater runoff, and the unlikelihood of controlling such pollution sources as airborne dust and flaking from automotive brake linings tend to make stormwater programs expensive, with a high probability that the anticipated results will not be achieved.

The uncertainties of success and the certainties of high costs led the local government representatives to recommend that mandatory changes in communities’ BMPs not be prescribed by a permitting authority until EPA has completed a comprehensive evaluation of both the Phase I and Phase II programs.

They recommended further that no additional requirements beyond the six categories of minimum control measures be imposed prior to completion of basic research on receiving water effects from stormwater and on the effectiveness of BMPs.

Application of MEP. As stated in the CWA, the purpose of the stormwater program is to “reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” The term MEP is used in the draft Phase II rule to describe the requirements of an NPDES permit.

However, the definition of MEP in the draft rule does not correspond with that developed by the UWWFAC work group. As a result, the local government representatives point to four significant issues that are not answered by the draft rule.

First, the draft rule does not ensure that municipalities are in compliance with MEP or the CWA even when BMPs from the six categories of control measures are implemented. Second, the rule implies that MEP is something accomplished in addition to protecting water quality, instead of a process of applying management practices with a purpose of protecting or enhancing water quality.

The third issue is the uncertainty over what levels of performance are acceptable, which results from the lack of an existing definition for MEP. And finally, the wording of the CWA supports the opinion that congressional intent was for MEP to be a type of performance objective unique to stormwater. By applying customary NPDES treatment to stormwater permitting, the draft rule and preamble fail to acknowledge the unique characteristics of stormwater systems and discharges.

Performance assessment/monitoring. Local government representatives have continuously stated their objection to shifting the responsibility and cost of monitoring and assessment BMPs and the stormwater program from the states and EPA to local governments. Municipal representatives recognize the need for local governments to articulate goals for their stormwater programs, and they also acknowledge the need for flexibility in determining how communities would accomplish goals and how those goals would be reported.

The consensus of the subcommittee is that EPA’s role in the Phase II program should be to provide guidance on developing BMPs, while local governments should identify the BMPs to be performed and the measurable goals to be attained for each of the six categories of control measures.

Faced with a number of significant concerns expressed by the subcommittee after its February meeting, EPA canceled both the April and June meetings and has been working to resolve key issues of conflict in the rule and preamble. The version of the draft to be presented for public comment in September should be that which the agency delivered to the OMB in April.

The public comment period for the proposed Stormwater Phase II rule will begin with its issuance by EPA this September. In the best-case scenario, regulations will emerge from the process that help to protect the nation’s water quality while recognizing the concerns of the local government agencies who are charged with managing stormwater.

Stephen Jenkins is director of environment and engineering for San Marcos, Texas. Jenkins also represents the Alexandria, Va.-based Water Environment Federation on the Stormwater Phase II Federal Advisory Subcommittee.

Port Orford is one of the oldest communities on the South Coast of Oregon. It sits by Garrison Lake, near the rocky coastline and dune formations along the Pacific Ocean. Because the area lacks a sizable creek to which effluent from the aging wastewater treatment plant and lagoons could be piped, treated wastewater was discharged directly into Garrison Lake. At the same time, many of the area’s 1,000 residents used the lake for fishing and occasionally as a source of water.

Eventually, the nutrient load in the lake rose so high it was contributing to algae and weed growth. This led to a state mandate in the late 1980s ordering the town to stop the flow of effluent to the lake and to update its wastewater treatment and effluent facilities.

Numerous studies identified several options for the city: constructing several miles of pressure main to the nearest river, building an ocean outfall, or developing a municipal drainfield in a formation of dunes between Garrison Lake and the ocean.

The drainfield option was ultimately chosen because its cost was $260,000, compared with an estimated $1 million to $2 million for the other options. However, this approach was complicated by the proximity of the ocean, the difficulty of getting heavy machinery over the coarse sand dunes and the potential for rapidly changing weather. It was thus necessary to find a solution using lightweight materials easy to transport and install quickly.

With these factors in mind, project engineer HGE, Coos Bay, Ore., decided to use a chamber system manufactured by Infiltrator, Old Saybrook, Conn. The system is a series of chambers with sidewalls that allow effluent to pass laterally into the soil. The chamber bottom is completely open and also promotes effluent infiltration into the soil. The chambers are molded of a proprietary HDPE blend that is impervious to wastewater and stabilized to resist ultraviolet rays.

The installation was scheduled and completed within six weeks during the non-storm season of 1994. A bed, 550-feet long by 60-feet wide, was excavated and 1,240 high-capacity chamber units, measuring a total length of 7,800 feet, were installed in eight separate drainfields. To transport chambers to the site, a lumber-and-foam raft was towed by boat across Garrison Lake.

The effluent flow was split to feed two drainfields at a time, using a vault with alternating siphons. The siphons eliminated the need for electrically operated valves and telemetry, which would have been a major maintenance problem in the salty environment. Because of the sandy conditions, filter fabric over the chambers was used for added protection.

The site was then covered with soil, and each drainfield was tapped with eight view ports. Low-pressure distribution piping was installed at the top of the chambers so that effluent would be distributed evenly.

The chamber system is now the last stage in an entire wastewater treatment program with a peak system design flow of 0.5 mgd. The program also includes contact stabilization treatment followed by an automatic backwash sand filter.

The effluent then travels to a pump station and through a pressure main under the lake. Groundwater is tested to be sure the gradient continues to slope away from the lake and toward the ocean.

The new wastewater system, 65 percent funded by federal grants, will handle system demands for the next 20 years based on estimated population growth, and the potential for future expansion is built into the system.

Eastern Drive in Middletown, Conn., a steeply pitched street that includes residential, commercial and institutional development, is heavily sanded during the winter to provide motorists with better traction as they climb and descend the hills. Because of this, large quantities of sand and other sediment wash toward the base of the street’s hills.

As part of a CSO abatement plan, which incorporates partial separation and stormwater treatment, the city installed a 5,000-gallon sediment chamber at Eastern Drive’s lowest drainage point in October 1994.

The city inspected the chamber, manufactured by Portland, Maine-based Vortechnics, in the spring and fall of 1995 and found normal levels of contaminant accumulation, according to Bob Dobmeier, assistant chief engineer in Middletown’s public works department. The city scheduled a cleanout of the system for the spring of 1996.

However, city engineers could not have predicted at the time that the winter of ’96 would bring record snowfalls totalling over 100 inches in the are a, necessitating even more frequent and heavy road sandings. When environmental planners and engineers came to the Eastern Drive site in the spring for an inspection and sample collection, they found a sediment pile over six feet high.

One week prior to the inspection, a 10-year storm had occurred that might have washed out a more conventional water quality inlet. The good news for Middletown was that the chamber held, due in part to a design city engineers and the manufacturer worked together to create.

Rather than install the chamber directly inline with the main, 18-inch drainage pipe, the city offset it by 10 feet, thus allowing stormwater to bypass the chamber if the volume of flow nears its design capacity.

“As an engineer, I still have to worry about the flows in our drainage system,” Dobmeier says.

“I didn’t want to just throw the tank in and see how it worked. I didn’t want to jeopardize any of our drainage system.”

Dobmeier says that although the public works department is still in a trial phase with the chamber, it has been satisfied so far. In fact, in a joint project with the local wetlands and soil conservation agencies, the department plans to install a 7,000-gallon version of the chamber near an environmentally sensitive pond.

“[Those agencies] are always looking at ways to reduce the amount of sediment getting into waterways in this area,” Dobmeier says. In the struggle to manage stormwater effectively, willingness to try different measures has been vital in Middletown’s efforts.

Computer-aided design (CAD) is changing the way some landscape architectural firms design stormwater systems for public parks. Mundane aspects such as surveying, graphics and site engineering can be automated by the technology, allowing design firms to develop new, state-of-the-art approaches in the management of stormwater. The use of CAD software can also lead to more freedom for exploring multiple and innovative concepts and adding technical information to plans.

Stormwater management in Bunten Park, a new 45-acre community park in Duluth, Ga., outside Atlanta, is an example. The park, now in the second phase of construction, was designed by the Atlanta-based landscape architectural firm Cerulea.

Using the suite of Softdesk AEC CAD software from Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif., to develop hydrological models for site planning, the firm preserved more natural terrain, provided irrigation ponds and created an open-channel natural landscape to handle stormwater runoff.

The software allowed color-graphic layering that was used to generate multiple versions of the master plan for different phases and alternative concepts. The various approaches were then printed side-by-side for presentation and consideration by city officials and citizens during public hearings on the park.

Duluth Director of Parks and Recreation Kathy Marelle says the new park, with its trails, ballfields and community building is a much-needed addition to the single, 38-acre public park that previously served the Duluth area’s population of around 20,000 people, 14,000 of whom live within the city limits.

“In Duluth and Gwinnett County, the population far exceeds the available park space,” Marelle says.

Automation by CAD of mundane aspects of the Bunten project meant more time and money for applying innovation to stormwater management. The result was a network of aesthetic, small detention ponds, instead of the few large holding ponds more commonly used in this kind of park site.

Stormwater is routed through a series of up to three ponds per drainage course, with smaller ponds situated into natural depressions in the woodland terrain. It courses along a 1.5-mile, paved trail, enhancing the scenery that park visitors will enjoy. In addition, more than two acres of valuable parkland were retained in their natural, forested condition because no land was lost to larger, single-use detention ponds.

Aside from the aesthetics, the park’s stormwater system has allowed drainage pipes to be reduced in size or eliminated entirely, for an estimated savings of $175,000. Along with two wells, storage ponds capturing runoff in two of the basins will provide water for all of the park’s irrigation needs. This feature will translate into annual savings of around 271,000 gallons in municipal potable water costing $16,560 per year, according to Marelle.

“Every time that the taxpayers hear about a savings, they feel that much better about a project,” she says. “This [project] is just a perfect example of how we are using our resources efficiently.”

When the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) decided in 1985 to build a new pumping station to replace the old Charlestown station, it knew the 100-year-old facility would be a hard act to follow. The new station had to solve a number of old problems, while at the same time meeting many new expectations.

One of the problems for sewage management in Boston is that storm runoff drains into the sewer system, forcing the pump station to accommodate dramatic increases in flow. Motors and pumps need to handle wide load variations while operating efficiently. Storm drainage also makes treatment difficult because it can dilute the biological mix in the treatment process.

In designing the 1985 system upgrade, engineers knew the new Charlestown station would have to operate continuously. In addition, it would be responsible for bringing all the wastewater and sewage from the western metro area to a new treatment plant. In the past, overflow raw sewage was often dumped into Boston Harbor during storm conditions.

The new $24 million pumping station began operation in May 1993. The station now consists of three pumps driven by 250-hp motors through right-angle gearsets, and capable of handling 45 mgd each. At any given time, one or two pumps are operating while the third serves as a standby.

Tom Benn, senior electrical project engineer for the MWRA, wanted to be sure the station would run efficiently with little maintenance for years to come. This desire was reinforced by state law requiring lifecycle cost estimates for selecting major equipment.

Benn solicited lifecycle estimates for a similar pumping station in Detroit that compared the cost of controlling pump motors using load commutated inverters, eddy current drives and pulse-width modulated (PWM), variable frequency drives. The estimates showed that over 20 years, the PWM drives could operate for $1 million less than load commutated inverters, and nearly $3 million less than with eddy current drives.

The findings were consistent with Benn’s experience with drives. “We used older drives in another pumping station and ended up with nasty harmonics problems,” Benn says. “We had to try to filter out the harmonics to avoid damage to the rest of the system. These drives also required more space than we allotted and extra cooling equipment.”

The new Charlestown station uses AC drives, manufactured by Milwaukee-based Allen-Bradley, to control the speeds of pump motors. These PWM drives do not create most of the harmonics problems found with current-source inverters and they maximize motor efficiency by regulating the pump speed.

A programmable controller manages pump operation and most other station operations. Under normal conditions, the wet well is kept at a constant level of 93 feet to optimize energy use and motor performance.

The Charlestown station is at the end of a massive sewage collection system. Minimum flow to the station is fairly significant, requiring one pump to operate at least 50 percent of its speed capacity, according to Benn. During dry spells, the pump is speed-controlled to avoid frequent starting and stopping as the wet well gets too low, and operators rotate the pump operation throughout the day.

If the wet well level dips below 91.6 feet, the programmable controller shuts off the pumps until the well reaches a higher level. Under this configuration, the station has thecapacity to pump up to 93 mgd with two pumps running at their full capacity.

On an average clear day, the station moves 23 mgd, while it may process up to 55 mgd during peak flow. The programmable controller uses preset wet well, voltage and vibration alarm conditions to alert operators of any problems.

The Charlestown station is one of 11 local lift stations being updated or rebuilt in the Boston area as part of a massive, 10-year retrofit and upgrade of the area’s water and sewage systems. The largest part of the project is the construction of a new primary and secondary wastewater treatment facility on Deer Island in Boston Harbor, intended to collect and treat all of the Boston area’s sewage. Cleaning up Boston Harbor has been a major goal of the system upgrade.

The use of automation equipment will enable the entire system, covering 43 communities, to be monitored and controlled from the Deer Island facility. Initial installation of programmable controllers and adjustable speed drives has prepared the Charlestown station for its vital part in the new, larger sewer system.