EPA NPDES DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO MASS DEP. April 19, 2012 Tom Tilas, VP AECOM Tom Walsh Ret d Executive Director, UBPAD

Transcription

1 EPA NPDES DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO MASS DEP April 19, 2012 Tom Tilas, VP AECOM Tom Walsh Ret d Executive Director, UBPAD

2 Where are we today? MASS DEP primary/delegated authority over SDWA 46 States have delegated authority over NPDES (MA, NH, Region 1 authority) Alaska is most recent (3 years to get up and running) CLF challenged Vermont but lost in court

3 It is not EPA vs. DEP It is effective use of Federal & State resources to help cities, towns, districts Local Control - Consistent/quicker decisions Sound localized science Task forces / advisory groups direct link to process Public Officials- Utility Mgrs better seat at table Less onerous lengthy legal battles Not at the expense of water quality Ken Kimmel, DEP Commissioner Law requires that regulations/standards are no less stringent than the National CWA set standards

4 Annual cost At what price? Cadmus Report $7m Reality $4/5m It s time to beef up DEP staff Paying for better science-local outcomes

5 How do WE pay for it? NPDES permit fees to State Section 70 (formula on water side) assessments to NPDES permit holders MWRA pays $600-$700k for water primacy? State has to upfront some money to get ball rolling $3 per household???

6 Show me the benefit MWRA filtration case DEP primacy over EPA SDWA $200m plant avoided $3.5m annual operations cost avoided It took a court battle but DEP primacy saved the day Impending Stormwater Program DEP more sympathetic to local concerns re: Budgets / Compliance / Timetables/Science

7 The Debate Proponents Municipalities Commonwealth of Massachusetts WIFC MCWRS EPA? Massachusetts Municipal Association Cape Cod? Opponents CLF? NWF? NRDC?

8 Who is listening? Secretary of Environmental Affairs Mayors Legislators DEP Commissioner Congressional Delegation Environmental Organizations ( NGO s)

9 Examples of EPA/DEP Working Complementing Effort Together Region 1 working with DEP SRF (ARRA funding) to reduce energy costs provide training (energy mgmt planning, renewables, energy efficiency) Duplicate Effort Region 1 water team / DEP enforcement staff split towns along Mystic River. EPA/DEP divide penalties depending on share of work performed by agency on a specific case.

10 3 years to complete process MOU is solid - Collaborative

11 Duplication / Inconsistency US EPA Setting nutrient discharge standards and wet weather permitting requirements MA DEP Nutrient criteria development US EPA Sets effluent standards for WWTP and stormwater...in some cases without concurrence of MA DEP US EPA & MA DEP Permit applications submitted to both Performance Reports Violation Reports DEP/EPA sometimes disagree over enforcement activity US EPA aluminum requirements in Mass and NH only!

12 A permit program run by DEP would be more efficient and more attuned to the needs of the Commonwealth. Accepting Primacy would Allow DEP to be the single point of contact for the Federal and State NPDES programs Reduce the burden imposed on the regulated community by separate, and sometimes redundant, federal and state permitting programs Improve efficiency of both agencies Allow state to manage all water quality permitting programs and integrate those functions Independently interpret and apply state water quality standards in issuing permits Set state permitting schedules and priorities Directly integrate NPDES permitting decisions into the local water management framework

13 Assure that the Commonwealth could determine appropriate science and local needs Rather than Washington HQ making local decisions Occasional disconnects with Region 1 and DC HQ Allow environmental appeals to be heard in Massachusetts, and not in Washington State may lack flexibility in setting permit limits necessary to meet water quality standards. However, real flexibility could be achieved in timelines to meet permit limits.

14 Under this model, the NPDES program would still be a partnership between Massachusetts and EPA. While the state would take the lead in administering the program in Massachusetts, EPA would remain responsible for ensuring that the state carries out its responsibilities and would retain independent authority to enforce its requirements. In practice, DEP would need to continue to work with EPA.

15 If the state is to adopt responsibility, the following should be demonstrated: The state must demonstrate that it can afford to administer the program. The state must demonstrate that it can deliver equal or greater benefits to the environment. The state program would use sound scientific information to determine permitting decisions. There must be sufficient authority for the state to assure flexibility to allow cost benefit analysis and to search for the best solutions using limited dollars. The role of the EPA would need to be fully defined.

16 THANK YOU!