Adrienne Nemura

1
Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring

• Adrienne Nemura
• LimnoTech
• National Perspectives, Developments, and Advanced
  Wet Weather Solutions Workshop
• April 22-24, 2009
• Chicago, IL

2
Take-away Messages

• Draft your Phase II permit language before you
  propose a post-construction monitoring program
• Agree on the minimum requirements for compliance
• Do not incorporate LTCP or the program by
  reference
• Do not accept conditions/limits that you cannot
  meet
• Remember each CSO situation is site-specific

3
Background (1)

• The CSO Policy applies to EPA and the NPDES
  program
• Regulatory agencies should put xyz in permits
• Language about the post-construction compliance
  monitoring/assessment is not specific
• Developed before EPAs guidance on ambient
  monitoring

4
Background (2)

• EPAs NPDES regulations require effluent
  monitoring reporting
• EPAs guidance on ambient monitoring for eligible
  dischargers
• Encourages permit writers to offer incentive of
  reduced effluent monitoring in exchange for
  discharger doing ambient monitoring
• Supports watershed approach
• Case-by-case consideration for intermittent
  discharges

5
CSO Policy LTCP Section

• 9. Post-Construction Compliance Monitoring
  Program
• The selected CSO controls should include a
  post-construction water quality monitoring
  program adequate to verify compliance with water
  quality standards and protection of designated
  uses as well as to ascertain the effectiveness of
  CSO controls. This water quality compliance
  monitoring program should include a plan to be
  approved by the NPDES authority that details the
  monitoring protocols to be followed, including
  the necessary effluent and ambient monitoring
  and, where appropriate, other monitoring
  protocols such as biological assessments, whole
  effluent toxicity testing, and sediment sampling.

59 Federal Register 18688. Emphasis added.
6
Monitoring to Develop a LTCP

• Monitor and model for system characterization
• CSO flow and effluent quality
• Receiving water flow and quality
• Characterization of other sources (sometimes)
• Model the effectiveness of CSO controls to decide
  which controls are appropriate
• Model to show (or presume) that CSO control will
  comply with water quality standards
• Use of continuous models preferred for assessing
  intermittent, highly variable discharges

7
Issues for Proposing a Post-Construction
Compliance Monitoring Program

• verify compliance with water quality standards
• Wasnt the monitoring modeling for the LTCP
  sufficient to do this?
• ascertain effectiveness of CSO controls
• Apply collection system model to evaluate
  performance of CSO controls or monitor the
  discharges
• plan to be approved by the NPDES authority
• Are effluent and ambient monitoring necessary?
• If biological assessments, WET testing, and
  sediment sampling werent needed to select
  controls

8
CSO Policy Phase II Permit Section

• 2. Phase II Permits--Requirements for
  Implementation of a Long-Term CSO Control Plan
• d. A requirement to implement, with an
  established schedule, the approved
  post-construction water quality assessment
  program including requirements to monitor and
  collect sufficient information to demonstrate
  compliance with WQS and protection of designated
  uses as well as to determine the effectiveness of
  CSO controls.

59 Federal Register 18688. Emphasis added.
9
Issues for a Phase II Permit (1)

• Similar language only different
• Is it an assessment program or a monitoring
  program?
• Are CSO controls working as designed?
• Are the remaining CSOs causing WQ standards
  violations?
• Policy includes a plan but does not discuss
  implementation of the plan
• Does not define how data are to be used for
  developing effluent limits

10
Issues for a Phase II Permit (2)

• demonstrate compliance with WQS
• Didnt we do that in the LTCP?
• Permits are supposed to contain WQBELs (not
  ambient monitoring)
• ascertain the effectiveness of CSO controls
• Metrics used to select CSO controls are typically
  related to frequency and volume of CSO discharged
• Permit writer has to define what is required to
  ascertain effectiveness of implementation of
  LTCP
• Discharger may need to take the lead on
  developing language that can be met

11
Recap CSO Phases of Permitting

• Phase 1 NMCs and Develop LTCP
• Phase 2 NMCs, Implement LTCP, comply with
  WQBELs (meaning, compliance with performance
  standards of the selected CSO controls to achieve
  WQ goals)
• Phase 3 Comply with WQBELs
• Difference between compliance monitoring
  program and compliance with permit limits

12
Take-away Messages

• Draft your Phase II permit language before you
  propose a post-construction monitoring program
• Agree on the minimum requirements for compliance
• Do not incorporate LTCP or the program by
  reference
• Do not accept conditions/limits that you cannot
  meet
• Remember each CSO situation is site-specific

13
Questions?

• Adrienne Nemura
• Vice President
• LimnoTech
• 501 Avis Drive
• Ann Arbor, MI 48105
• Tel. [phone]
• anemura_at_limno.com

14
References

• EPA (1996). U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers
  Manual. www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0243.pdf
  (pdfp. 156)
• EPA (1995). CSOs Guidance for Permit Writers.
  cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/guidedocs.cfm (p. 4-30
  5-2)
• EPA (1995). CSOs Guidance for Long-Term Control
  Plan. cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cso/guidedocs.cfm (p.
  4-15)
• EPA (1999). CSOs Guidance for Monitoring and
  Modeling. www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sewer.pdf (p.
  2-11)
• EPA (1996). Interim Guidance for
  Performance-Based Reductions of NPDES Permit
  Monitoring Frequencies. www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/per
  f-red.pdf